Produced by Douglas L. Alley, III, Colin Bell and the
Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
(This file was produced from images generously made
available by The Internet Archive)









                                  The

                           Expositor's Bible


                               Edited by
                    W. Robertson Nicoll, D.D., LL.D.









[Illustration]




                         THE EXPOSITORS' BIBLE

              _Edited by_ W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, D.D., LL.D.

         _New and Cheaper Edition. Printed from original plates
          Complete in every detail. Uniform with this volume_

      Price 50 cents per volume. (If by mail add 10 cents postage)


                         OLD TESTAMENT VOLUMES

  GENESIS. By Rev. Prof. Marcus Dods, D.D.

  EXODUS. By Very Rev. G. A. Chadwick, D.D., Dean of Armagh.

  LEVITICUS. By Rev. S. H. Kellogg, D.D.

  NUMBERS. By Rev. R. A. Watson, D.D.

  DEUTERONOMY. By Rev. Prof. Andrew Harper, B.D.

  JOSHUA. By Rev. Prof. W. G. Blaikie, D.D., LL.D.

  JUDGES AND RUTH. By Rev. R. A. Watson, D.D.

  FIRST SAMUEL. By Rev. Prof. W. G. Blaikie, D.D., LL.D.

  SECOND SAMUEL. By same author.

  FIRST KINGS. By F. W. Farrar, D.D., Dean of Canterbury.

  SECOND KINGS. By same author.

  FIRST AND SECOND CHRONICLES. By Rev. Prof. W. H. Bennett.

  EZRA, NEHEMIAH, AND ESTHER. By Rev. Prof. W. F. Adeney.

  JOB. By Rev. R. A. Watson, D.D.

  PSALMS. In 3 vols. Vol. I., Chapters I.-XXXVIII.; Vol. II., Chapters
  XXXIX.-LXXXIX.; Vol. III., Chapters XC.-CL. By Rev.
  Alexander Maclaren, D.D.

  PROVERBS. By Rev. R. F. Horton, D.D.

  ECCLESIASTES. By Rev. Samuel Cox, D.D.

  SONG OF SOLOMON and LAMENTATIONS. By Rev. Prof. W. F. Adeney.

  ISAIAH. In 2 vols. Vol. I., Chapters I.-XXXIX.; Vol. II.,
  Chapters XL.-LXVI. By Prof. George Adam Smith, D.D., LL.D.

  JEREMIAH. Chapters I.-XX. With a Sketch of his Life and Times. By
  Rev. C. J. Ball.

  JEREMIAH. Chapters XXI.-LII. By Rev. Prof. W. H. Bennett.

  EZEKIEL. By Rev. Prof. John Skinner.

  DANIEL. By F. W. FARRAR, D.D., Dean of Canterbury.

  THE TWELVE (Minor) PROPHETS. In 2 vols. By Rev. George Adam Smith,
  D.D., LL.D.


                           NEW TESTAMENT VOLUMES

  ST. MATTHEW. By Rev. J. Monro Gibson, D.D.

  ST. MARK. By Very Rev. G. A. Chadwick, D.D., Dean of Armagh.

  ST. LUKE. By Rev. Henry Burton.

  GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. In 2 vols. Vol. I., Chapters I.-XI.; Vol. II.,
  Chapters XII.-XXI. By Rev. Prof. Marcus Dods, D.D.

  THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. In 2 vols. By Rev. Prof. G. T. Stokes, D.D.

  ROMANS. By Rev. Handley C. G. Moule, D.D.

  FIRST CORINTHIANS. By Rev. Prof. Marcus Dods, D.D.

  SECOND CORINTHIANS. By Rev. James Denney, D.D.

  GALATIANS. By Rev. Prof. G. G. Findlay, D.D.

  EPHESIANS. By same author.

  PHILIPPIANS. By Rev. Principal Robert Rainy, D.D.

  COLOSSIANS and PHILEMON. By Rev. Alexander Maclaren, D.D.

  THESSALONIANS. By Rev. James Denney, D.D.

  PASTORAL EPISTLES. By Rev. A. Plummer, D.D.

  HEBREWS. By Rev. Principal T. C. Edwards, D.D.

  ST. JAMES and ST. JUDE. By Rev. A. Plummer, D.D.

  ST. PETER. By Rev. Prof. J. Rawson Lumby, D.D.

  EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN. By Rt. Rev. W. Alexander, Lord Bishop of Derry.

  REVELATION. By Prof. W. Milligan, D.D.

  INDEX VOLUME TO ENTIRE SERIES.

              _New York_: HODDER & STOUGHTON, _Publishers_




                                  THE
                          SECOND BOOK OF KINGS





                                   BY
                       F. W. Farrar, D.D., F.R.S.

        LATE FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE; ARCHDEACON OF
                              WESTMINSTER







                           HODDER & STOUGHTON
                                NEW YORK
                        GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY




                                CONTENTS



                               CHAPTER I

                                                                PAGE

  AHAZIAH BEN-AHAB OF ISRAEL (B.C. 855-854)                        3

    A weak, shadowy, and faithless king--1. Relations between Judah and
    Israel--2. Alliance with Jehoshaphat--3. Revolt of Moab--Mesha and
    the Moabite Stone--4. The fall from the lattice--Baal-Zebub--Elijah
    calling down fire from heaven--How are we to judge respecting the
    Elijah-spirit?--Variations of moral standard.

                               CHAPTER II

  THE ASCENSION OF ELIJAH                                         19

    Uncertain date--The journey to Gilgal; to Bethel; to Jericho; to
    the Jordan--The double portion--Chariot and horses of fire--Elisha
    recrosses the Jordan--The young prophets and their
    search--Grandeur of Elijah.

                              CHAPTER III

  ELISHA                                                          25

    Cycle of supernatural stories--Elisha and Elijah--The cure of the
    unwholesome fountain--"Go up, thou bald-head"--The children and
    the bears.

                               CHAPTER IV

  THE INVASION OF MOAB                                            29

    Death of Ahaziah--Jehoram Ben-Ahab of Israel--Good
    beginnings--Attempts to recover Moab--Alliance with Judah and
    Edom--The invasion--An army perishing of
    thirst--Elisha--Music--Trenches in the wâdy--Error of the
    Moabites--Their disastrous rout--Devastation of the
    country--Mesha propitiates Chemosh--"Great wrath against
    Israel"--The invading army retreats.

                               CHAPTER V

  ELISHA'S MIRACLES                                               40

    Their chronological vagueness--Difference between Elisha and
    Elijah--Contrasts and resemblances--Social life in Israel--1. The
    widow and the oil--2. The lady of Shunem--Her hospitality--Her
    reward--3. The boy's death--Her distress--The resuscitation--4.
    Death in the pot--5. The multiplied first-fruits.

                               CHAPTER VI

  THE STORY OF NAAMAN                                             50

    The little maid--The leper--Letter of Benhadad to Jehoram--His
    indignation--Elisha's message--Naaman's disappointment and
    anger--His servants--His healing--His gratitude--Bowing in the
    house of Rimmon--Mean cupidity of Gehazi--Stricken with
    leprosy--The axe-head.

                              CHAPTER VII

  ELISHA AND THE SYRIANS                                          66

    Syrian marauders--They are baffled--Anger of Benhadad--The vision
    at Dothan--Meaning of the promises--How fulfilled to God's saints
    on earth--Some are delivered, some are not--Elisha misleads the
    Syrians--His generosity to them--Its effects--A fresh Syrian
    invasion.

                              CHAPTER VIII

  THE FAMINE AND THE SIEGE                                        76

    Horrible straits of the besieged Samaritans--Stress of famine--The
    King of Israel--The miserable women--Sackcloth under the
    purple--The king's fury and despair--He threatens Elisha--The
    messenger--The king upbraids him--Prophecy of sudden plenty--The
    disbelieving lord--The extramural lepers--The Syrian camp--The
    king's misgivings--The lord killed in the rush of the people.

                               CHAPTER IX

  THE SHUNAMMITE AND HAZAEL                                       87

    The lady of Shunem leaves her estate--Her return--Gehazi talks with
    the king--Entrance of the Shunammite--Her estates restored--Elisha
    visits Damascus--A royal present--Benhadad's illness--Hazael--The
    dark prophecy--Unexplained death of Benhadad--Hazael's
    usurpation--Real meaning of Elisha's words to Hazael.

                               CHAPTER X

  TWO SONS OF JEHOSHAPHAT                                         99

    Jehoram (B.C. 851-843)--Ahaziah (B.C. 843-842)--Jehoram
    ben-Jehoshaphat of Judah--Perplexing uncertainty of minute
    chronological details--The blight of the Jezebel-alliance--The
    husband of Athaliah--His apostasies--Revolt of Edom--Narrow escape
    of Jehoram--Revolt of Libnah--Jehoram's murder by his
    brethren--Philistine invasion--Incurable disease--Ahaziah
    ben-Jehoram--Joins his uncle (Jehoram ben-Ahab) in the campaign
    against Ramoth-Gilead--Visits him at Jezreel--Shot down by Jehu.

                               CHAPTER XI

  THE REVOLT OF JEHU (B.C. 842)                                  106

    Misery of Jehoram's reign--Thwarted invasion of Moab--Aggression
    of Benhadad--At Ramoth-Gilead--The young prophet--The two kings
    absent from the camp--The dangerous commission--The assembled
    captains--Jehu secretly anointed--His accession enthusiastically
    welcomed by the army--His sudden enthronement--His swift
    resolution--The watchman at Jezreel--The two horsemen--The two
    kings--Their murder--Ferocity of Jehu--Elijah's
    prophecy--Jezebel--She is hurled down--Jehu drives over her
    body--The curse fulfilled.

                              CHAPTER XII

  JEHU ESTABLISHED ON THE THRONE (B.C. 842-814)                  125

    His politic subtlety--The murder of the seventy princes--The
    ghastly heaps--Hypocritic ferocity.

                              CHAPTER XIII

  FRESH MURDERS--THE EXTIRPATION OF BAAL-WORSHIP (B.C. 842)      131

    Wading through blood to a throne--The ride to Samaria--The brethren
    of Ahaziah of Judah--The corpse-choked tank of the shepherds--The
    Bedawy ascetic--The scene of slaughter in the temple of Baal--Did
    Elisha approve of these atrocities?--Prophetic judgment on
    Jehu--Ravages of Hazael--Jehu's anguish--He pays tribute to Assyria.

                              CHAPTER XIV

  ATHALIAH (B.C. 842-836)--JOASH OF JUDAH (B.C. 836-796)         146

    The murderess-daughter of Jezebel--Fierce ambition--Jehosheba--The
    rescued child--Reared in the Temple--The high priest's plot--The
    coronation of the boy-king--Athaliah enters the Temple--Her
    murder--The fate of Baal's high priest--Proposed restoration of
    the Temple--Joash calls to task the defaulting priests--Death of
    Jehoiada--Defection of Joash--Murder of Zechariah--Bad record of
    the line of Jewish priests--Hazael attacks Judah--Defeat of Joash
    and plunder of Jerusalem--Murder of Joash--Names of the murderers.

                               CHAPTER XV

  AMAZIAH OF JUDAH (B.C. 796-783[?])                             167

    The House of David--Amaziah brings to justice the murderers of his
    father, but spares their children--Grounds for this--Different
    views taken of him by the historian and the chronicler--Splendid
    victory of Amaziah in the Valley of Salt--Expansion of the story
    in the Chronicles--His defiance of Joash--His defeat and murder.

                              CHAPTER XVI

  THE DYNASTY OF JEHU--JEHOAHAZ (B.C. 814-797)--JOASH
  (B.C. 797-781)                                                 175

    Israel at its nadir--Calf-worship--Oppression of
    Hazael--Disappearance of Elisha--Repentance of Jehoahaz--Joash of
    Israel visits the death-bed of Elisha--"The arrow of the Lord's
    deliverance"--Three victories over the Syrians--Death of Elisha,
    and posthumous marvels--Joash and Amaziah--Contemptuous answer to
    the King of Judah--Crushing defeat of Judah.

                              CHAPTER XVII

  THE DYNASTY OF JEHU (CONTINUED)--JEROBOAM II. (B.C. 781-740)   187

    Jeroboam II. the greatest of the kings of Israel--His conquests
    and wide dominion--A dying gleam of prosperity--Cause of his
    success--Relations with Assyria--Dawn of written prophecy--Jonah.

                             CHAPTER XVIII

  AMOS AND HOSEA--ZACHARIAH BEN-JEROBOAM (B.C. 740)              193

    Amos describes the condition of Israel--Growth of usury and
    vice--Humble origin of Amos--His burdens--Degenerations of the
    "calf-worship"--Uncompromising denunciation--Collision of Amos
    with Amaziah the high priest at Bethel--His expulsion from
    Bethel--The curse denounced--His justification of his
    mission--Hosea the saddest of the prophets--His pictures of
    Ephraim--Jeroboam II.--His death--His son Zachariah--His
    desertion and shameful end.

                              CHAPTER XIX

  UZZIAH OF JUDAH (B.C. 783[?]-737)--JOTHAM (B.C. 737-735)       209

    Wane of Assyria--Uzziah a wise and good king--His other name
    Azariah--Expansion of the story of his conquests in the
    Chronicles--Training of his army--Defeated by the Assyrians
    (?)--Stricken with leprosy--The story--Jotham acts as his public
    representative--Diminished power of Judah under Jotham--Beginning
    of Isaiah's prophecies--Death of Jotham.

                               CHAPTER XX

  THE AGONY OF THE NORTHERN KINGDOM--SHALLUM, MENAHEM, PEKAHIAH,
  PEKAH (B.C. 740-734)                                           217

    Shallum, an usurping murderer--Rapid disappearance of
    kings--Distracted epoch--The prophet Zechariah and the three
    shepherds--Zechariah's prophecies--The cruel shepherd,
    Menahem--His savage deeds--Portentous appearance of the Assyrians
    in Israel--Menahem pays tribute--Tiglath-Pileser--Fulfilment of
    Hosea's prophecy--Pekahiah--His murder--Pekah--His alliance with
    Rezin against Judah--Ahaz appeals to Assyria--Defeat and death of
    Rezin--Fulfilment of prophecy of Amos--Beginning of the captivity
    of the Ten Tribes--Tiglath-Pileser's successors--Murder of Pekah
    by Hoshea--Horrible state of Israel as described by Isaiah.

                              CHAPTER XXI

  KING HOSHEA AND THE FALL OF THE NORTHERN KINGDOM (B.C.
  734-725)                                                       235

    The name Hoshea--The king and the prophet--Occasional gleams of hope
    and promise--A humiliating reign--Death of Tiglath-Pileser--Hoshea
    revolts to Sabaco of Egypt--Seized by Shalmaneser--Samaria
    besieged--Terrible state of the city--Sabaco renders no
    help--Usurpation of Sargon--Capture of the city--Greatness of
    Sargon--Fall of the Northern Kingdom--Blighted destiny--God's
    mercy--"God, and not man"--Despoliation of the tribes--Moral of the
    story--Assyria and Egypt--The strength and weakness of a
    nation--Machiavelli--Mixture of alien emigrants--Their worship--The
    lions--Strange syncretism--The Jews and the Samaritans.

                              CHAPTER XXII

  THE REIGN OF AHAZ (B.C. 735-715)                               260

    The chronology--A distracted kingdom--Dark pictures from
    Isaiah--No sign of repentance--Grapes and wild grapes.

                             CHAPTER XXIII

  ISAIAH AND AHAZ                                                265

    Isaiah--Rezin and Pekah--Ahaz meets Isaiah--He receives a promise of
    deliverance--He refuses a sign--The sign given him--Immanuel--Birth
    of Messianic prophecy--Maher-shalal-hash-baz--The promised
    Deliverer.

                              CHAPTER XXIV

  THE APOSTASIES OF AHAZ                                         273

    Moloch-worship--Sacrifice of children--Ahaz appeals to Assyria for
    help--Ruin of Damascus and death of Rezin--Ahaz does homage to
    Tiglath-Pileser at Damascus--Records of Tiglath-Pileser--The new
    altar--Complaisance of the priest Urijah--Unpopularity of
    Ahaz--Further misgivings--His death.

                              CHAPTER XXV

  HEZEKIAH (B.C. 715-686)                                        287

    Dates--Importance of the reign--Hezekiah's age--His character--His
    reformation--Partial suppression of the _bamoth_--Removal of the
    _matstseboth_ and _Asherim_--Destruction of the brazen
    serpent--Trust in Jehovah--Psalm xlvi.--Chastisement of the
    Philistines--Three parties in Jerusalem--1. The Assyrian party--2.
    The Egyptian party--3. The national party--Its attitude to the
    others--Micah--Mockery of Egypt--Anger and insults of the priests
    against Isaiah--Confidence of Isaiah--Waverings of Hezekiah.

                              CHAPTER XXVI

  HEZEKIAH'S SICKNESS--THE BABYLONIAN EMBASSY                    305

    The story of Hezekiah's illness misplaced--At the point of
    death--Isaiah's message--The king's agony of mind--The prayer--The
    reprieve--The sun-dial of Ahaz--The king's gratitude and
    thanksgiving--Merodach-Baladan--Rising power of Babylon--Object of
    the embassy--The king's action--The prophet's reproof--The king's
    humble submission.

                             CHAPTER XXVII

  HEZEKIAH AND ASSYRIA (B.C. 701)                                319

    Greatness of Sargon--His campaigns--Defeat of Egypt at the battle
    of Raphia--Ashdod--Defeat of Merodach-Baladan--Grandeur of
    Sennacherib--His invasion of Judæa--Earlier collisions--His
    campaigns--1. Against Babylon--2. Against Elam--3. Against the
    Hittites and Philistines--Defeat of the Ethiopian Tirhakah at
    Altaqu--Heavy mulct imposed on Hezekiah--Siege of
    Lachish--Sennacherib breaks his compact--Distress of Jerusalem.

                             CHAPTER XXVIII

  THE GREAT DELIVERANCE (B.C. 701)                               331

    Embassy of the Turtan, the Rabsaris, and the Rabshakeh--Misery and
    licence in the city--The conference--Oration of the Rabshakeh--Its
    effect on the king's ministers and on the people--Taunting insults
    of the Rabshakeh--Faithfulness and self-control of the
    people--Heroic faith of Isaiah--Failure of the
    embassy--Sennacherib's threatening letter--Hezekiah's
    prayer--Isaiah promises deliverance in the name of Jehovah--The
    sign--The angel of death--Scene of the catastrophe--The Egyptian
    tradition of Sethos and the mice--Death and burial of
    Hezekiah--The campaign as recorded on the Assyrian monuments--The
    triumph of indomitable faith--Grandeur of Isaiah--Wane of
    Assyria--Beautiful tolerance of Isaiah.

                              CHAPTER XXIX

  MANASSEH (B.C. 686-641)                                        351

    The name Manasseh--His tender age--Influence of evil
    counsellors--Heathenising party--Their dislike of Hezekiah's
    reformation and of the exclusive worship of Jehovah--Tendency to
    trust in sacrifices and asceticism--Sanctification of
    licence--Arguments of the heathenisers--Disparagement of the work
    of Isaiah--Doubts and disbelief--Influence of the
    _bamoth_-priests--Reliance on Assyria--The immoral and idolatrous
    reaction--1. Restoration of the _bamoth_, and arguments in their
    favour--2. Adoption of Phœnician nature-worship--3. Assyrian
    Sabaism and star-worship--Connivance of the priests--4. Canaanite
    Moloch-worship--5. Mesopotamian Shamanism--6. The
    _Asherah_--Denunciation of the prophets--Persecution and the
    shedding of innocent blood--Asserted captivity, repentance, and
    reforming energy of Manasseh--Difficulties of the story--Reign of
    Amon (B.C. 641-639)--Wretchedness of his reign--Zephaniah and
    Jeremiah--Murder of Amon.

                              CHAPTER XXX

  JOSIAH (B.C. 639-608)                                          374

    Three vast movements--Jeremiah's earlier prophecies--The state of
    society--The Scythians--Prophecies of Ezekiel--Herodotus--The fate
    of Nineveh--Rise of the Chaldæans--Habakkuk.

                              CHAPTER XXXI

  JOSIAH'S REFORMATION                                           385

    Growth of Josiah's character--Repairs of the Temple--Hilkiah finds
    the Book of the Law--Intense effect produced on mind of the
    king--His message to the prophetess Huldah--Great
    assembly--Renewal of a solemn league and covenant with
    Jehovah--The _bamoth_-priests degraded--Defiling of Tophet--He
    carries the reformation into Samaria--Its stringency and
    severity--The Passover--Suppression of heathen
    corruptions--Jeremiah's share in the reformation--Its dangers and
    disappointing results--Jeremiah's warnings against all trust in
    externals--The prophecy of a new covenant--NOTE TO CHAPTER XXXI.:
    The Book found in the Temple.

                             CHAPTER XXXII

  THE DEATH OF JOSIAH (B.C. 608)                                402

    Prosperity and happiness of Josiah--Accession of the great Pharaoh
    Necho II.--His excursion against Carchemish--Josiah determines to
    bar his path--Warnings of Pharaoh Necho--Disaster at Megiddo and
    death of Josiah--Mistaken hopes--God's dealings with men and
    nations--Distress among Josiah's subjects--The king's
    burial--Misgivings respecting the future--Sorrow of
    Jeremiah--Ultimate fulfilments.

                             CHAPTER XXXIII

  JEHOAHAZ (B.C. 608)                                            411

    Four sons of Josiah--Shallum chosen by the people of the land--Elegy
    of Ezekiel--Change of name from Shallum to Jehoahaz--Conquests of
    Pharaoh Necho II.--Jehoahaz summoned to Riblah--Carried captive by
    Pharaoh to Egypt--Tribute imposed on Judæa.

                             CHAPTER XXXIV

  JEHOIAKIM (B.C. 608-597)                                       416

    Eliakim--His change of name--Ignored by Ezekiel--Evil
    influences--Æsthetic selfishness and oppressive
    greed--Denunciation by Habakkuk--Denunciation by Jeremiah--Murder
    of Urijah--Threatened murder of Jeremiah averted by Ahikam--Fall
    of Nineveh--Utterances of the prophets--Rise of the
    Chaldæans--Nabopolassar--Defeat of Pharaoh Necho by
    Nebuchadrezzar--His return to Babylon--His invasion of
    Judæa--Beginning of the Babylonian captivity--Jehoiakim revolts to
    Egypt in spite of Jeremiah's warnings--Imprisonment of
    Jeremiah--Baruch--The menacing roll--Alarm of the princes--Rage of
    the king--He cuts the scroll to pieces and burns it--Wretchedness
    of the times--A great drought--Captives of Jerusalem--Miserable
    death of Jehoiakim--"That which was found in him."

                              CHAPTER XXXV

  JEHOIACHIN (B.C. 597)                                          431

    Bad influence over him--His brief reign--Allusions to him by
    Jeremiah at Jerusalem--Second captivity--Regret felt for
    Jehoiachin--Did he die childless?

                             CHAPTER XXXVI

  ZEDEKIAH, THE LAST KING OF JUDAH (B.C. 597-586)                437

    His oath to the King of Assyria--Ezekiel's prophecies--The exiles
    and the remnant--Weakness of Zedekiah--Continuance of idolatry as
    described by Ezekiel--The king breaks his oath with
    Assyria--Indignation and warnings of Jeremiah--The false prophet
    Hananiah--The wooden and iron yokes--Death of Hananiah--False
    prophets--The broken covenant--Advance of
    Nebuchadrezzar--Belomancy and Babylonian divinations--Siege of
    Jerusalem--Gloom of Jeremiah's prophecies.

                             CHAPTER XXXVII

  JEREMIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES                                    449

    Pathos of Jeremiah's lot--The sad epoch in which he
    lived--Religious changes--Arrest of Jeremiah--Progress of the
    siege--Zedekiah sends for the prophet--His hardships
    alleviated--Horrors of famine--Wicked defiance--A sudden
    death--Anger of the priests and nobles against Jeremiah--He is
    thrust into a miry pit--Compassion of Ebed-Melech--Purchase of a
    field at Anathoth--Secret interview with Zedekiah--It becomes
    known--Distress of Zedekiah.

                            CHAPTER XXXVIII

  THE FALL OF JERUSALEM (B.C. 586)                               457

    Nebuzaradan and the Babylonians--The final captivity--Dreadful
    fate of Zedekiah--Prophecies of Ezekiel and Jeremiah--Sack of the
    city--Massacre of the chief inhabitants--Burning of the city and
    Temple--Desolation--Respect shown by the Babylonian general to
    Jeremiah--He decides to remain with the remnant in Judæa.

                             CHAPTER XXXIX

  GEDALIAH (B.C. 586)                                            465

    Sad parting from the exiles--The wail at Ramah--Gedaliah's
    appointment as satrap perhaps due to Jeremiah--Desolation of
    Jerusalem--The seat of government removed to Mizpah--A respite and
    a gleam of hope--Guerilla bands--Johanan warns Gedaliah against
    Ishmael--Unsuspecting generosity of the governor--He receives
    Ishmael and his confederates with hospitality--He is brutally
    murdered--Massacre of the pilgrims from Shiloh--The horrible
    well--Johanan pursues Ishmael--His escape--Proposal to migrate to
    Egypt--Jeremiah consulted--His advice refused--Prophecy of
    Jeremiah at the khan of Chimham--Kindness shown by Evil-Merodach
    to Jehoiachin.

  EPILOGUE                                                       477

    The interest of the preceding history and the great moral lessons
    which it involves--The central conceptions of Hebrew prophecy--The
    end of the whole matter.

                               APPENDIX I

  THE KINGS OF ASSYRIA, AND SOME OF THEIR INSCRIPTIONS           487

                              APPENDIX II

  INSCRIPTION IN THE TUNNEL OF THE POOL OF SILOAM                493

                              APPENDIX III

  WAS THERE A GOLDEN CALF AT DAN?                                494

                              APPENDIX IV

  DATES OF THE KINGS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH, AS GIVEN BY KITTEL AND
  OTHER MODERN CRITICS                                           495




                        THE SECOND BOOK OF KINGS




"Theories of inspiration which impaginate the Everlasting Spirit, and
make each verse a cluster of objectless and mechanical miracles, are
not seriously believed by any one: the Bible itself abides in its
endless power and unexhausted truth. All that is not of asbestos is
being burned away by the restless fires of thought and criticism. That
which remains is enough, and it is indestructible."--BISHOP OF DERRY.




                               CHAPTER I

                      _AHAZIAH BEN-AHAB OF ISRAEL_

                              B.C. 855-854

                            2 KINGS i. 1-18

    "Ye know not of what spirit are ye."--LUKE ix. 55.

    "He is the mediator of a better covenant, which hath been enacted
    upon better promises."--HEB. viii. 6.


Ahaziah, the eldest son and successor of Ahab, has been called "the most
shadowy of the Israelitish kings."[1] He seems to have been in all
respects one of the most weak, faithless, and deplorably miserable. He
did but reign two years--perhaps in reality little more than one; but
this brief space was crowded with intolerable disasters. Everything that
he touched seemed to be marked out for ruin or failure, and in character
he showed himself a true son of Jezebel and Ahab.

What results followed the defeat of Ahab and Jehoshaphat at
Ramoth-Gilead we are not told. The war must have ended in terms of
peace of some kind--perhaps in the cession of Ramoth-Gilead; for
Ahaziah does not seem to have been disturbed during his brief reign by
any Syrian invasion. Nor were there any troubles on the side of Judah.
Ahaziah's sister was the wife of Jehoshaphat's heir, and the good
understanding between the two kingdoms was so closely cemented, that
in both royal houses there was an identity of names--two Ahaziahs and
two Jehorams.

But even the Judæan alliance was marked with misfortune. Jehoshaphat's
prosperity and ambition, together with his firm dominance over
Edom--in which country he had appointed a vassal, who was sometimes
allowed the courtesy title of king[2]--led him to emulate Solomon by
an attempt to revive the old maritime enterprise which had astonished
Jerusalem with ivory, and apes, and peacocks imported from India. He
therefore built "ships of Tarshish" at Ezion-Geber to sail to Ophir.
They were called "Tarshish-ships," because they were of the same build
as those which sailed to Tartessus, in Spain, from Joppa. Ahaziah was
to some extent associated with him in the enterprise. But it turned
out even more disastrously than it had done in former times. So
unskilled was the seamanship of those days among all nations except
the Phœnicians, that the whole fleet was wrecked and shattered to
pieces in the very harbour of Ezion-Geber before it had set sail.

Ahaziah, whose affinity with the King of Tyre and possession of some
of the western ports had given his subjects more knowledge of ships
and voyages, then proposed to Jehoshaphat that the vessels should be
manned with sailors from Israel as well as Judah. But Jehoshaphat was
tired of a futile and expensive effort. He refused a partnership which
might easily lead to complications, and on which the prophets of
Jehovah frowned. It was the last attempt made by the Israelites to
become merchants by sea as well as by land.

Ahaziah's brief reign was marked by one immense humiliation. David, who
extended the dominion of the Hebrews in all directions, had smitten the
Moabites, and inflicted on them one of the horrible atrocities against
which the ill-instructed conscience of men in those days of ignorance
did not revolt.[3] He had made the male warriors lie on the ground, and
then, measuring them by lines, he put every two lines to death and kept
one alive. After this the Moabites had continued to be tributaries. They
had fallen to the share of the Northern Kingdom, and yearly acknowledged
the suzerainty of Israel by paying a heavy tribute of the fleeces of a
hundred thousand lambs and a hundred thousand rams. But now that the
warrior Ahab was dead, and Israel had been crushed by the catastrophe at
Ramoth-Gilead, Mesha, the energetic viceroy of Moab, seized his
opportunity to revolt and to break from the neck of his people the
odious yoke. The revolt was entirely successful. The sacred historian
gives us no details, but one of the most priceless of modern
archæological discoveries has confirmed the Scriptural reference by
securing and translating a fragment of Mesha's own account of the
annals of his reign. We have, in what is called "The Moabite Stone," the
memorial written in glorification of himself and of his god Chemosh,
"the abomination of the children of Ammon," by a contemporary of Ahab
and Jehoshaphat.[4] It is the oldest specimen which we possess of Hebrew
writing; perhaps the only specimen, except the Siloam inscription, which
has come down to us from before the date of the Exile. It was discovered
in 1878 by the German missionary Klein, amid the ruins of the royal city
of Daibon (Dibon, Num. xxi. 30), and was purchased for the Berlin Museum
in 1879. Owing to all kinds of errors and intrigues, it did not remain
in the hands of its purchaser, but was broken into fragments by the
nomad tribe of Beni Hamide, from whom it was in some way obtained by M.
Clermont-Ganneau. There is no ground for questioning its perfect
genuineness, though the discovery of its value led to the forgery of a
number of spurious and often indecent inscriptions. There can be no
reasonable doubt that when we look at it we see before us the identical
memorial of triumph which the Moabite emîr erected in the days of
Ahaziah on the _bamah_ of Chemosh at Dibon, one of his chief towns.

This document is supremely interesting, not only for its historical
allusions, but also as an illustration of customs and modes of thought
which have left their traces in the records of the people of Jehovah,
as well as in those of the people of Chemosh.[5] Mesha tells us that
his father reigned in Dibon for thirty years, and that he succeeded.
He reared this stone to Chemosh in the town of Karcha, as a memorial
of gratitude for the assistance which had resulted in the overthrow of
all his enemies. Omri, King of Israel, had oppressed Moab many days,
because Chemosh was wroth with his people. Ahaziah wished to oppress
Moab as his father had done. But Chemosh enabled Mesha to recover
Medeba, and afterwards Baal-Meon, Kirjatan, Ataroth, Nebo, and Jahaz,
which he reoccupied and rebuilt. Perhaps they had been practically
abandoned by all effective Israelite garrisons. In some of these towns
he put the inhabitants under a ban, and sacrificed them to Moloch in a
great slaughter. In Nebo alone he slew seven thousand men. Having
turned many towns into fortresses, he was enabled to defy Israel
altogether, to refuse the old burdensome tribute, and to re-establish
a strong Moabite kingdom east of the Dead Sea; for Israel was wholly
unable to meet his forces in the open field. Month after month of the
reign of the miserable son of Ahab must have been marked by tidings of
shame, defeat, and massacre.

Added to these public calamities, there came to Ahaziah a terrible
personal misfortune. As he was coming down from the roof of his
palace, he seems to have stopped to lean against the lattice of some
window or balcony in his upper chamber in Samaria.[6] It gave way
under his weight, and he was hurled down into the courtyard or street
below. He was so seriously hurt that he spent the rest of his reign on
a sick-bed in pain and weakness, and ultimately died of the injuries
he had received.

A succession of woes so grievous might well have awakened the wretched
king to serious thought. But he had been trained under the idolatrous
influences of his mother. As though it were not enough for him to walk
in the steps of Ahab, of Jezebel, and of Jeroboam, he had the fatuity to
go out of his way to patronise another and yet more odious superstition.
Ekron was the nearest town to him of the Philistine Pentapolis, and at
Ekron was established the local cult of a particular Baal known as
Baal-Zebub ("the lord of flies").[7] Flies, which in temperate countries
are sometimes an intense annoyance, become in tropical climates an
intolerable plague. Even the Greeks had their Zeus Apomuios ("Zeus the
averter of flies"), and some Greek tribes worshipped Zeus Ipuktonos
("Zeus the slayer of vermin"), and Zeus Muiagros and Apomuios, and
Apollo Smintheus ("the destroyer of mice").[8] The Romans, too, among
the numberless quaint heroes of their Pantheon, had a certain Myiagrus
and Myiodes, whose function it was to keep flies at a distance.[9] This
fly-god, Baal-Zebub of Ekron, had an oracle, to whose lying responses
the young and superstitious prince attached implicit credence. That a
king of Israel professing any sort of allegiance to Jehovah, and having
hundreds of prophets in his own kingdom, should send an embassy to the
shrine of an abominable local divinity in a town of the
Philistines--whose chief object of worship was

          "That twice-battered god of Palestine,
           Who mourned in earnest when the captive ark
           Maimed his brute image on the grunsel edge
           Where he fell flat, and shamed his worshippers"--

was, it must be admitted, an act of apostasy more outrageously
insulting than had ever yet been perpetrated by any Hebrew king.
Nothing can more clearly illustrate the callous indifference shown by
the race of Jezebel to the lessons which God had so decisively taught
them by Elijah and by Micaiah.

But

          _Quem vult Deus perire, dementat prius_;

and in this "dementation preceding doom" Ahaziah sent to ask the
fly-god's oracle whether he should recover of his injury. His
infatuated perversity became known to Elijah, who was bidden by "the
angel," or messenger, "of the Lord"--which may only be the recognised
phrase in the prophetic schools, putting in a concrete and vivid form
the voice of inward inspiration--to go up, apparently on the road
towards Samaria, and meet the messengers of Ahaziah on their way to
Ekron. Where Elijah was at the time we do not know. Ten years had
elapsed since the calling of Elisha, and four since Elijah had
confronted Ahab at the door of Naboth's vineyard. In the interval he
has not once been mentioned, nor can we conjecture with the least
certainty whether he had been living in congenial solitude or had
been helping to train the Sons of the Prophets in the high duties of
their calling. Why he had not appeared to support Micaiah we cannot
tell. Now, at any rate, the son of Ahab was drawing upon himself an
ancient curse by going a-whoring after wizards and familiar spirits,
and it was high time for Elijah to interfere.[10]

The messengers had not proceeded far on their way when the prophet met
them, and sternly bade them go back to their king, with the
denunciation, "Is it because there is no God in Israel that ye go to
inquire of Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron? Now, therefore, thus saith
Jehovah, 'Thou shalt not descend from that bed on which thou art gone
up, but dying thou shalt die.'"

He spoke, and after his manner vanished with no less suddenness.

The messengers, overawed by that startling apparition, did not dream
of daring to disobey. They at once went back to the king, who,
astonished at their reappearance before they could possibly have
reached the oracle, asked them why they had returned.

They told him of the apparition by which they had been confronted.
That it was a prophet who had spoken to them they knew; but the
appearances of Elijah had been so few, and at such long intervals,
that they knew not who he was.

"What sort of man was he that spoke to you?" asked the king.

"He was," they answered, "a lord of hair,[11] and girded about his
loins with a girdle of skin."[12]

Too well did Ahaziah recognise from this description the enemy of his
guilty race! If he had not been present on Carmel, or at Jezreel, on
the occasions when that swart and shaggy figure of the awful Wanderer
had confronted his father, he must have often heard descriptions of
this strange Bedawy ascetic who "feared man so little because he
feared God so much."

"It is Elijah the Tishbite!" he exclaimed, with a bitterness which was
succeeded by fierce wrath; and with something of his mother's
indomitable rage he sent a captain with fifty soldiers to arrest him.

The captain found Elijah sitting at the top of "the hill," perhaps of
Carmel; and what followed is thus described:--

"Thou man of God," he cried, "the king hath said, Come down."

There was something strangely incongruous in this rude address. The
title "man of God" seems first to have been currently given to Elijah,
and it recognises his inspired mission as well as the supernatural
power which he was believed to wield. How preposterous, then, was it
to bid a man of God to obey a king's order and to give himself up to
imprisonment or death!

"If I be a man of God," said Elijah, "then let fire come down from
heaven, to consume thee and thy fifty."[13]

The fire fell and reduced them all to ashes.[14]

Undeterred by so tremendous a consummation, the king sent another
captain with his fifty, who repeated the order in terms yet more
imperative.[15]

Again Elijah called down the fire from heaven, and the second captain
with his fifty soldiers was reduced to ashes.

For the third time the obstinate king, whose infatuation must indeed
have been transcendent, despatched a captain with his fifty. But he,
warned by the fate of his predecessors, went up to Elijah and fell on
his knees, and implored him to spare the life of himself and his fifty
innocent soldiers.

Then "the angel of the Lord" bade Elijah go down to the king with him
and not be afraid.

What are we to think of this narrative?

Of course, if we are to judge it on such moral grounds as we learn from
the spirit of the Gospel, Christ Himself has taught us to condemn it.
There have been men who so hideously misunderstood the true lessons of
revelation as to applaud such deeds, and hold them up for modern
imitation. The dark persecutors of the Spanish Inquisition, nay, even
men like Calvin and Beza, argued from this scene that "fire is the
proper instrument for the punishment of heretics." To all who have been
thus misled by a false and superstitious theory of inspiration, Christ
Himself says, with unmistakable plainness, as He said to the Sons of
Thunder at Engannim, "Ye know not what spirit ye are of. I am not come
to destroy men's lives, but to save."[16] In the abstract, and judged by
Christian standards, the calling down of lightning to consume more than
a hundred soldiers, who were but obeying the orders of a king--the
protection of personal safety by the miraculous destruction of a king's
messengers--could only be regarded as a deed of horror. "There are few
tracks of Elijah that are ordinary and fit for common feet," says Bishop
Hall; and he adds, "Not in his own defence would the prophet have been
the death of so many, if God had not, by a peculiar instinct, made him
an instrument of His just vengeance."[17]

For myself, I more than doubt whether we have any right to appeal to
these "peculiar instincts" and unrecorded inspirations; and it is so
important that we should not form utterly false views of what
Scripture does and does not teach, that we must once more deal with
this narrative quite plainly, and not beat about the bush with the
untenable devices and effeminate euphemisms of commentators, who give
us the "to-and-fro-conflicting" apologies of _a priori_ theory instead
of the clear judgments of inflexible morality.

"It is impossible not to feel," says Professor Milligan,[18] "that the
events thus presented to us are of a very startling kind, and that it
is not easy to reconcile them either with the conception that we form
of an honoured servant of God, or with our ideas of eternal justice.
Elijah rather appears to us at first sight as a proud, arrogant, and
merciless wielder of the power committed to him: we wonder that an
answer should have been given to his prayer; we are shocked at the
destruction of so many men, who listened only to the command of their
captain and their king; and we cannot help contrasting Elijah's
conduct, as a whole, with the beneficent and loving tenderness of the
New Testament dispensation."

Professor Milligan proceeds rightly to set aside the attempts which
have been made to represent the first two captains and their fifties
as especially guilty--which is a most flimsy hypothesis, and would not
in any case touch the heart of the matter. He says that the event
stands on exactly the same footing as the slaughter of the 450
prophets of Baal at Kishon, and of the 3000 idolaters by order of
Moses at Sinai; the swallowing up of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram; the
ban of total extirpation on Jericho and on Canaan; the sweeping
massacre of the Amalekites by Saul; and many similar instances of
recorded savagery. But the reference to analogous acts furnishes no
justification for those acts. What, then, is their justification, if
any can be found?

Some would defend them on the grounds that the potter may do what he
likes with the clay. That analogy, though perfectly admissible when
used for the purpose to which it is applied by St. Paul, is grossly
inapplicable to such cases as this. St. Paul uses it simply to prove
that we cannot judge or understand the purposes of God, in which, as
he shows, mercy often lies behind apparent severity. But, when urged
to maintain the rectitude of sweeping judgments in which a man arms
his own feebleness with the omnipotence of Heaven, they amount to no
more than the tyrant's plea that "might makes right." "Man is a reed,"
said Pascal, "but he is a _thinking_ reed." He may not therefore be
indiscriminately crushed. He was made by God in His image, after His
likeness, and therefore his rights have a Divine and indefeasible
sanction.

All that can be said is that these deeds of wholesale severity were
not in disaccord with the conscience even of many of the best Old
Testament saints. They did not feel the least compunction in
inflicting judgments on whole populations in a way which would argue
in us an infamous callousness. Nay, their consciences approved of
those deeds; they were but acting up to the standard of their times,
and they regarded themselves as righteous instruments of divinely
directed vengeance.[19] Take, for instance, the frightful Eastern law
which among the Jews no less than among Babylonians and Persians
thought nothing of overwhelming the innocent with the guilty in the
same catastrophe; which required the stoning, not only of Achan, but
of all Achan's innocent family, as an expiation for his theft; and the
stoning, not only of Naboth, but also of Naboth's sons, in requital
for his asserted blasphemy. Two reasons may be assigned for the chasm
between their moral sense and ours on such subjects--one was their
amazing indifference to the sacredness of human life, and the other
their invariable habit of regarding men in their corporate relations
rather than in their individual capacity. Our conscience teaches us
that to slay the innocent with the guilty is an action of monstrous
injustice;[20] but they, regarding each person as indissolubly mixed
up with all his family and tribe, magnified the conception of
_corporate responsibility_, and merged the individual in the mass.

It is clear that, if we take the narrative literally, Elijah would not
have felt the least remorse in calling fire from heaven to consume these
scores of soldiers, because the prophetic narrator who recorded the
story, perhaps two centuries later, must have understood the spirit of
those days, and certainly felt no shame for the prophet's act of
vengeance. On the contrary, he relates it with entire approval for the
glorification of his hero. We cannot blame him for not rising above the
moral standard of his age. He held that the natural manifestation of an
angry Jehovah was, literally or metaphorically, in consuming fire.
Considering the slow education of mankind in the most elementary
principles of mercy and righteousness, we must not judge the views of
prophets who lived so many ages before Christ by those of religious
teachers who enjoy the inherited experience of two millenniums of
Christianity. Thus much is plainly taught us by Christ Himself, and
there perhaps we might be content to leave the question. But we are
compelled to ask, Do we not too much form all our judgments of the
Scripture narratives on _a priori_ traditions and unreasoned prejudices?
Can we with adequate knowledge and honest conviction declare our
certainty that this scene of destruction ever occurred as a literal
fact? If we turn to any of the great students and critics of Germany, to
whom we are indebted for the floods of light which their researches have
thrown on the sacred page, they with almost consentient voice regard
these details of this story as legendary. There is indeed every reason
to believe the account of Ahaziah's accident, of his sending to consult
the oracle of Baal-Zebub, of the turning back of his messengers by
Elijah, and of the menace which he heard from the prophet's lips. But
the calling down of lightning to consume his captains and soldiers to
ashes belongs to the cycle of Elijah-traditions preserved in the schools
of the prophets; and in the case of miracles so startling and to our
moral sense so repellent--miracles which assume the most insensate folly
on the part of the king, and the most callous ruthlessness on the part
of the prophet--the question may be fairly asked, Is there any proof, is
there anything beyond dogmatic assertion to convince us, that we were
intended to accept them _au pied de la lettre_? May they not be the
formal vehicle chosen for the illustration of the undoubted powers and
righteous mission of Elijah as the upholder of the worship of Jehovah?
In a literature which abounds, as all Eastern literature abounds, in
vivid and concrete methods of indicating abstract truths, have we any
cogent proof that the supernatural details, of which some may have been
introduced into these narratives by the scribes in the schools of the
prophets, were not, in some instances, _meant_ to be regarded as
imaginative apologues? The most orthodox divines, both Jewish and
Christian, have not hesitated to treat the Book of Jonah as an instance
of the use of fiction for purposes of moral and spiritual edification.
Were any critic to maintain that the story of the destruction of
Ahaziah's emissaries belongs to the same class of narratives, I do not
know how he could be refuted, however much he might be denounced by
stereotyped prejudice and ignorance. I do not, however, myself regard
the story as a mere parable composed to show how awful was the power of
the prophets, and how fearfully it might be exercised. I look upon it
rather as possibly the narrative of some event which has been
imaginatively embellished, and intermingled with details which we call
supernatural.[21] Circumstances which we consider natural would be
regarded as directly miraculous by an Eastern enthusiast, who saw in
every event the immediate act of Jehovah to the exclusion of all
secondary causes, and who attributed every occurrence of life to the
intervention of those "millions of spiritual creatures," who

                              "walk the earth
          Unseen both when we wake and when we sleep."

If such a supposition be correct and admissible--and assuredly it is
based on all that we increasingly learn of the methods of Eastern
literature, and of the forms in which religious ideas were inculcated
in early ages--then all difficulties are removed. We are not dealing
with the mercilessness of a prophet, or the wielding of Divine powers
in a manner which higher revelation condemns, but only with the
well-known fact that the Elijah-spirit was not the Christ-spirit, and
that the scribes of Ramah or Gilgal, and "the men of the tradition"
and the "men of letters" who lived at Jabez, when they used the
methods of Targum and Haggadah in handing down the stories of the
prophets, had not received that full measure of enlightenment which
came only when the Light of the World had shone.[22]

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Rawlinson, _Kings of Israel and Judah_, p. 86. "The name of
Ahaziah ('the Lord taketh hold'), like that of all Ahab's sons,
testifies to the fact that the husband of Jezebel still worshipped
Jehovah. Among the names of the judges and kings before Ahab in
Israel, and Asa in Judah, scarcely a single instance occurs of names
compounded with Jehovah; thenceforward they became the rule"
(Wellhausen, _Israel and Judah_, Es. 1, p. 66).

[2] 1 Kings xxii. 47; 2 Kings iii. 9: comp. viii. 20.

[3] 2 Sam. viii. 2. On the ethics of these wars of extermination, such
as are commanded in the Pentateuch, and were practised by Joshua,
Samuel, Saul, David, and others, see Josh. vi. 17; 1 Sam. xv. 3, 33; 2
Sam. viii. 2, etc., and Mozley's _Lectures on the Old Testament_, pp.
83-103.

[4] See Stade, i. 86. He gives a photograph and translation of it at
p. 534.

[5] See _Records of the Past_, xi. 166, 167.

[6] 2 Kings i. 2; Heb., _be'ad hass'bakāh_; LXX., διὰ τοῦ δικτυωτοῦ;
Vulg., _per cancellos_ (comp. 1 Kings vii. 18; 2 Chron. iv. 12).

[7] LXX., Βάαλ μυῖαν θεὸν Ἀκκαρών. So, too, Jos., _Antt._, IX. ii. 1.
It is possible that the god was represented holding a fly as the type
of pestilence, just as the statue of Pthah held in its hands a mouse
(Herod., ii. 141). Flies convey all kinds of contagion (Plin., _H.
N._, x. 28).

[8] Pausan., v. 14, § 2.

[9] The name, or a derisive modification of it, was given by the Jews
in the days of Christ to the prince of the devils. In Matt. xii. 24
the true reading is Βεελζεβούλ, which perhaps means (in contempt) "the
lord of dung"; but might mean "the lord of the [celestial] habitation"
(οἰκοδεσπότην). Comp. Matt. x. 25; Eph. ii. 2; "Baal Shamaim," the
Belsamen of Augustine (Gesen., _Monum. Phœnic._, 387; Movers,
_Phönizier_, i. 176). For "opprobrious puns" applied to idols, see
Lightfoot, _Exercitationes ad Matt._, xii. 24. The common word for
idols, _gilloolim_, is perhaps connected with _galal_, "dung." Hitzig
thinks that the god was represented under the symbol of the _Scarabæus
pillularius_, or dung-beetle.

[10] Lev. xx. 6.

[11] שֵׂצַר בַּאַל (LXX., δασύς), whether in reference to his long
shaggy locks, or his sheepskin _addereth_, μηλωτή (Zech. xiii. 4; Heb.
xii. 37).

[12] ζώνη δερματίνη (Matt iii. 4).

[13] There is perhaps an intentional play of words between "man (אישׁ)
of God" and "fire (אשׁ) of God" (Klostermann).

[14] Hebrew.

[15] "Come down _quickly_" (2 Kings i. 9).

[16] Luke ix. 51-56. This is a more than sufficient answer to the
censure of Theodoret, that "they who condemn the prophet are wagging
their tongues against God." The remark is based on utter
misapprehension; and if we are to form no judgment on the morality of
Scripture examples, they would be of no help for us. Compare the
striking remark of the minister to Balfour of Burleigh in Scott's _Old
Mortality_.

[17] Quoted by Rev. Professor Lumby, _ad loc._

[18] _Elijah_, p. 146.

[19] This is practically the sum-total of the answer given again and
again by Canon Mozley in his _Lectures on the Old Testament_, 2nd
edition, 1878. For instance, he says that "the Jewish idea of justice
gives us the reason why the Divine commands (of exterminating wars,
etc.) were then adapted to man as the agent for executing them, and
are not adapted now" (p. 102).

[20] Comp. Ezek. xviii. 2-30.

[21] For the _idea_ involved see Num. xi. 1; Deut. iv. 24; Psalm xxi.
9; Isa. xxvi. 11; Heb. x. 27, etc.

[22] 1 Chron. ii. 55, where "Shimeathites" means "men of the
tradition," and "scribes," "men of letters."




                               CHAPTER II

                       _THE ASCENSION OF ELIJAH_

                            2 KINGS ii. 1-18

    Ἠλίας ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἠφανίσθη, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἔγνω μεχρὶς τῆς σήμερον
    αὐτοῦ τὴν τελεύτην.--JOS., _Antt._, IX. ii. 2.

    Γεγόνασιν ἀφανεῖς, θάνατον δὲ αὐτῶν οὐδεὶς οἶδεν.--ST. EPHRÆM
    SYRUS.


The date of the assumption of Elijah is wholly uncertain, and it
becomes still more so because of the confusion of chronological order
which results from the composite character of the records here
collected. It appears from various scattered notices that Elijah lived
on till the reign of Jehoram of Judah, whereas the narrative in this
chapter is placed before the death of Jehoshaphat.

When the time came that "Jehovah would take up Elijah by a whirlwind
into heaven," the prophet had a prevision of his approaching end, and
determined for the last time to visit the hills of his native Gilead.
The story of his end, though not written in rhythm, is told in a style
of the loftiest poetry, resembling other ancient poems in its simple
and solemn repetitions. On his way to Gilead, Elijah desires to visit
ancient sanctuaries where schools of the prophets were now
established, and accompanied by Elisha, whose faithful ministrations
he had enjoyed for ten almost silent years, he went to Gilgal. This
was not the Gilgal in the Jordan valley so famous in the days of
Joshua,[23] but _Jiljilia_ in the hills of Ephraim,[24] where many
young prophets were in course of training.[25]

Knowing that he was on his way to death, Elijah felt the imperious
instinct which leads the soul to seek solitude at the supreme crises
of life. He would have preferred that even Elisha should leave him,
and he bade him stop at Gilgal, because the Lord had sent him as far
as Bethel. But Elisha was determined to see the end, and exclaimed
with strong asseveration, "As Jehovah liveth, and as thy soul liveth,
I will not leave thee."

So they went on to Bethel, where there was another school of prophets,
under the immediate shadow of Jeroboam's golden calf, though we are
not told whether they continued the protest of the old nameless seer
from Judah, or not.[26] Here the youths of the college came
respectfully to Elisha--for they were prevented by a sense of awe from
addressing Elijah--and asked him "whether he knew that that day God
would take away his master." "Yes, I know it," he answers; but--for
this is no subject for idle talk--"hold ye your peace."

Once more Elijah tries to shake off the attendance of his friend and
disciple. He bids him stay at Bethel, since Jehovah has sent him on to
Jericho. Once more Elisha repeats his oath that he will not leave
him, and once more the sons of the prophets at Jericho, who warn him
of what is coming, are told to say no more.

But little of the journey now remains. In vain Elijah urges Elisha to
stay at Jericho; they proceed to Jordan. Conscious that some great
event is impending, and that Elijah is leaving these scenes for ever,
fifty of the sons of the prophets watch the two as they descend the
valley to the river. Here they saw Elijah take off his mantle of hair,
roll it up, and smite the waters with it. The waters part asunder, and
the prophets pass over dry-shod.[27] As they crossed over Elijah asks
Elisha what he should do for him, and Elisha entreats that a double
portion of Elijah's spirit may rest upon him. By this he does not mean
to ask for twice Elijah's power and inspiration, but only for an elder
son's portion, which was twice what was inherited by the younger
sons.[28] "Thou hast asked a hard thing," said Elijah; "but if thou
seest me when I am taken hence, it shall be so."

The sequel can be only told in the words of the text: "And it came to
pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared
a chariot of fire, and horses of fire,[29] and parted them both
asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. And Elisha saw
it, and he cried, 'My father, my father, the chariots of Israel, and
the horsemen thereof!'[30] And he saw him no more."

Respecting the manner in which Elijah ended his earthly career, we
know nothing beyond what is conveyed by this splendid narrative. His
death, like that of Moses, was surrounded by mystery and miracles, and
we can say nothing further about it. The question must still remain
unanswered for many minds whether it was intended by the prophetic
annalists for literal history, for spiritual allegory, or for actual
events bathed in the colourings of an imagination to which the
providential assumed the aspect of the supernatural.[31] We are twice
told that "Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven,"[32] and in that
storm--which would have seemed a fit scene for the close of a career
of storm--God, in the high poetry of the Psalmist, may have made the
winds His angels, and the flames of fire His ministers. For us it must
suffice to say of Elijah, as the Book of Genesis says of Enoch, that
"he was not, for God took him."

Elisha signalised the removal of his master by a burst of natural
grief. He seized his garments and rent them in twain. Elijah had
dropped his mantle of skin, and his grieving disciple took it with him
as a priceless relic.[33] The legendary St. Antony bequeathed to St.
Athanasius the only thing which he had, his sheepskin mantle; and in
the mantle of Elijah his successor inherited his most characteristic
and almost his sole possession. He returned to Jordan, and with this
mantle he smote the waters as Elijah had done. At first they did not
divide;[34] but when he exclaimed, "Where is the Lord, the God of
Elijah, even He?" they parted hither and thither. Seeing the portent,
the sons of the prophets came with humble prostrations, and
acknowledged him as their new leader.

They were not, however, satisfied with what they had seen, or had
heard from Elisha, of the departure of the great prophet, and begged
leave to send fifty strong men to search whether the wind of the Lord
had not swept him away to some mountain or valley. Elisha at first
refused, but afterwards yielded to their persistent importunity. They
searched for three days among the hills of Gilead, but found him not,
either living or dead, as Elisha had warned them would be the case.

From that time forward Elijah has taken his place in all Jewish and
Mohammedan legends as the mysterious and deathless wanderer. Malachi
spoke of him as destined to appear again to herald the coming of the
Messiah,[35] and Christ taught His disciples that John the Baptist had
come in the spirit and power of Elijah. In Jewish legend he often
appears and disappears. A chair is set for him at the circumcision of
every Jewish child. At the Paschal feast the door is set open for him
to enter. All doubtful questions are left for decision until he comes
again. To the Mohammedans he is known as the wonder-working and awful
El Khudr.[36]

Elisha is mentioned but once in all the later books of Scripture; but
Elijah is mentioned many times, and the son of Sirach sums up his
greatness when he says: "Then stood up Elias as fire, and his word
burned like a torch. O Elias, how wast thou honoured in thy wondrous
deeds! and who may glory like unto thee--who anointed kings to take
revenge, and prophets to succeed after him--who wast ordained for
reproof in their times, to pacify the wrath of the Lord's judgment
before it broke forth into fury, and to turn the heart of the father
unto the son, and to restore the tribes of Jacob! Blessed are they
that saw thee and slept in love; for we shall surely live!"

FOOTNOTES:

[23] Josh. iv. 19; v. 9, 10.

[24] Deut. xi. 30. It is on a hill south-west of Shiloh (_Seilun_),
near the road to Jericho (Hos. iv. 15; Amos iv. 4). The name means "a
circle," and there may have been an ancient circle of sacred stones
there.

[25] 2 Kings iv. 38.

[26] 1 Kings xiii.

[27] As there are fords at Jericho, the object of this miracle, as of
the one subsequently ascribed to Elisha, is not self-evident. Nothing
is more certain than that there is a Divine economy in the exercise of
supernatural powers. The pomp and prodigality of superfluous portents
belong, not to Scripture, but to the _Acta sanctorum_, and the
saint-stories of Arabia and India.

[28] Deut. xxi. 17. The Hebrew is פִּי־שְׁנַיִם, "a mouthful, or
ration of two." Comp. Gen. xliii. 34. Even Ewald's "_Nur Zweidrittel
und auch diese kaum_" is too strong (_Gesch._, iii. 517). In no sense
was Elisha greater than Elijah: he wrought more wonders, but he left
little of his teaching, and produced on the mind of his nation a far
less strong impression.

[29] In 2 Kings vi. 17 the stormblast (_sā'ārāh_) and chariots and
horses of fire are part of a vision of the Divine protection. Comp.
Isa. lxvi. 15; Job xxxviii, 1; Nah. i. 3; Psalms xviii. 6-15, civ. 3.

[30] That is, the protection and defence of Israel by thy prayers.

[31] Even the Church-father St. Ephræm Syrus evidently felt some
misgivings. He says: "Suddenly there came from the height a storm of
fire, and in the midst of the flame the form of a chariot and horses,
and parted them both asunder; the one of them it left on the earth, the
other it carried to the height; but whether the wind carried him, or in
what place it left him, the Scripture has not informed us, but it says
that after some years, a terrifying letter from him full of menaces, was
delivered to King Jehoram of Judah" (quoted by Keil _ad loc._). See 2
Chron. xxi. 12. The letter is called "a writing" (_miktâb_).

[32] 2 Kings ii. 11; Ecclus. xlviii. 12. The LXX. curiously says ἐν
συσσεισμῷ ὡς εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν. So too the Rabbis, _Sucah_, f. 5.

[33] The circumstance has left its trace in the proverbs of nations,
and in the German word _Mantelkind_ for a spiritual successor.

[34] 2 Kings ii. 14. LXX., καὶ οὐ διῃρέθη; Vulg., _Percussit aquas, et
non sunt divisæ_.

[35] Mal. iv. 4-6.

[36] _Bava-Metzia_, f. 37, 2, etc. His name is used for incantations in
the Kabbala. _Kitsur Sh'lh_, f. 71, 1 (Hershon, _Talmudic Miscellany_,
p. 340). The chair set for him is called "the throne of Elijah." For
many Rabbinic legends see Hershon, _Treasures of the Talmud_, pp.
172-178. The Persians regard him as the teacher of Zoroaster.




                              CHAPTER III

                                _ELISHA_

                            2 KINGS ii. 1-25

    "He did wonders in his life, and at death even his works were
    marvellous. For all this the people repented not."--ECCLUS.
    xlviii. 14, 15.


At this point we enter into the cycle of supernatural stories, which
gathered round the name of Elisha in the prophetic communities. Some of
them are full of charm and tenderness; but in some cases it is difficult
to point out their intrinsic superiority over the ecclesiastical
miracles with which monkish historians have embellished the lives of the
saints. We can but narrate them as they stand, for we possess none of
the means for critical or historical analysis which might enable us to
discriminate between essential facts and accidental elements.

We see at once that the figure of Elisha[37] is far less impressive
than that of Elijah. He inspires less of awe and terror. He lives far
more in cities and amid the ordinary surroundings of civilised life.
The honour with which he was treated was the honour of respect and
admiration for his kindliness. He plays his part in no stupendous
scenes like those at Carmel and at Horeb, and nearly all his miracles
were miracles of mercy. Other remarkable differences are observable
in the records of Elijah and Elisha. In the case of the former his
main work was the opposition to Baal-worship; but although
Baal-worship still prevailed (2 Kings x. 18-27) we read of no protests
raised by Elisha against it. "With him"--perhaps it should be more
accurately said, in the narrative which tells us of him--"the miracles
are everything, the prophetic work nothing." The conception of a
prophet's mission in these stories of him differs widely from that
which dominates the splendid _midrash_ of Elijah.

His separate career began with an act of beneficence. He had stopped for
a time at Jericho. The curse of the rebuilding of the town upon a site
which Joshua had devoted to the ban had expended itself on Hiel, its
builder. It was now a flourishing city, and the home of a large school
of prophets. But though the situation was pleasant as "a garden of the
Lord,"[38] the water was bad, and the land "miscarried." In other words,
the deleterious spring caused diseases among the inhabitants, and caused
the trees to cast their fruit. So the men of the city came to Elisha,
and humbly addressing him as "my lord," implored his help. He told them
to bring him a new cruse full of salt, and going with it to the fountain
cast it into the springs, proclaiming in Jehovah's name that they were
healed, and that there should be no more death or miscarrying land. The
gushing waters of the Ain-es-Sultân, fed by the spring of Quarantania,
are to this day pointed out as the Fountains of Elisha, as they have
been since the days of Josephus.[39]

The anecdote of this beautiful interposition to help a troubled city is
followed by one of the stories which naturally repel us more than any
other in the Old Testament. Elisha, on leaving Jericho, returned to
Bethel, and as he climbed through the forest up the ascent leading to
the town through what is now called the Wady Suweinît, a number of young
lads--with the rudeness which in boys is often a venial characteristic
of their gay spirits or want of proper training, and which to this day
is common among boys in the East--laughed at him, and mocked him with
the cry "Go up, round-head! go up, round-head!"[40] What struck these
ill-bred and irreverent youngsters was the contrast between the rough
hair-skin garb and unkempt shaggy locks of Elijah, "the lord of hair,"
and the smooth civilised aspect and shorter hair of his disciple. If the
word _quereach_ means "bald"[41] we see an additional reason for their
ill-mannered jeers, since baldness was a cause of reproach and suspicion
in the East, where it is comparatively rare. No doubt, too, the conduct
of these young scoffers was the more offensive, and even the more
wicked, because of the deeper reverence for age which prevails in
Eastern countries, and above all because Elisha was known as a prophet.
Perhaps, too, if some other reading lies behind the ἐλίθαζον of one MS.
of the Septuagint, they pelted him with stones.[42] That Elisha should
have rebuked them, and that seriously--that he should even have
inflicted some punishment upon them to reform their manners--would have
been natural; but we cannot repress the shudder with which we read the
verse, "And he turned back and looked on them, and cursed them in the
name of the Lord. And there came forth two she-bears out of the wood,
and tare forty-and-two children of them." Surely the punishment was
disproportionate to the offence! Who could doom so much as a single rude
boy, not to speak of forty-two, to a horrible and agonising death for
shouting after any one? It is the chief exception to the general course
of Elisha's compassionate interpositions. Here, too, we must leave the
narrative where it is; but we hold it quite admissible to conjecture
that the incident, in some form or other, really occurred--that the boys
were insolent, and that some of them may have been killed by the wild
beasts which at that time abounded in Palestine--and yet that the
_nuances_ of the story which cause deepest offence to us may have
suffered from some corruption of the tradition in the original records,
and may admit of being represented in a slightly different form.

After this Elisha went for a time to the ancient haunts of his master
on Mount Carmel, and thence returned to Samaria, the capital of his
country, which he seems to have chosen for his most permanent
dwelling-place.

FOOTNOTES:

[37] The name Elisha means "My God is salvation."

[38] Gen. xiii. 10. "The city of palms" (Deut. xxxiv. 3).

[39] Jos., _B. J._, IV. viii. 3; Robinson, _Bibl. Researches_, i. 554.

[40] Abarbanel's notion that they meant "Ascend to heaven as Elijah
did" is absurd.

[41] קֵרֵהַ. This means bald at the back of the head, as נִבֵּהַ
(_gibbeach_), means "forehead-bald" (Ewald, iii. 512). Elisha could
not have been bald from old age, since he lived on for nearly sixty
years, and must have been a young man. Baldness involved a suspicion
of leprosy, and was disliked by Easterns (Lev. xxi. 5, xiii. 43; Isa.
iii. 17, 24, xv. 2), as much as by the Romans (Suet., _Jul. Cæs._, 45;
_Domit._, 18). Elisha's prophetic activity lasted through the reigns
of Joram, Jehu, Jehoahaz, and Joash (_i.e._, 12 + 28 + 17 + 2 years).

[42] The κατέπαιζον of the Vat. LXX. implies persistent and vehement
insult. The Post-Mishnic Rabbis, however, say that Elisha was punished
with sickness for this deed (_Bava-Metzia_, f. 87, 1).




                               CHAPTER IV

                         _THE INVASION OF MOAB_

                           2 KINGS iii. 4-27

               "What reinforcement we may gain from hope,
                If not, what resolution from despair."
                                   MILTON, _Paradise Lost_, i. 190.


Ahaziah, as Elijah had warned him, never recovered from the injuries
received in his fall through the lattice, and after his brief and
luckless reign died without a child. He was succeeded by his brother
Jehoram ("Jehovah is exalted"), who reigned for twelve years.[43]

Jehoram began well. Though it is said that he did "that which was evil
in the sight of the Lord," we are told that he was not so guilty as his
father or his mother. He did not, of course, abolish the worship of
Jehovah under the cherubic symbol of the calves; no king of Israel
thought of doing that, and so far as we know neither Elijah, nor Elisha,
nor Jonah, nor Micaiah, nor any genuine prophet of Israel before Hosea,
ever protested against that worship, which was chiefly disparaged by
prophets of Judah like Amos and the nameless seer.[44] But Jehoram at
least removed the _Matstsebah_ or stone obelisk which had been reared in
Baal's honour in front of his temple by Ahab, or by Jezebel in his
name.[45] In this direction, however, his reformation must have been
exceedingly partial, for until the sweeping measures taken by Jehu the
temple and images of Baal still continued to exist in Samaria under his
very eyes, and must have been connived at if not approved.

The first great measure which occupied the thoughts of Jehoram was to
subdue the kingdom of Moab, which had been restored to independence by
the bravery of the great pastoral-king Mesha;[46] or at any rate to
avenge the series of humiliating defeats which Mesha had inflicted on
his brother Ahaziah. A war of forty years' duration[47] had ended in the
complete success of Moab. The loss of a tribute of the fleeces of one
hundred thousand lambs and one hundred thousand rams was too serious to
be lightly faced.[48] Jehoram laid his plans well. First he ordered a
muster of all the men of war throughout his kingdom, and then appealed
for the co-operation of Jehoshaphat and his vassal-king of Edom. Both
kings consented to join him. Jehoshaphat had already been the victim of
a powerful and wanton aggression on the part of King Mesha,[49] from
which he had been delivered by the panic of his foes in the Valley of
Salt. Though the king of Edom had, on that occasion, been an ally of
Mesha, the forces of Edom had fallen the first victims of that
internecine panic. Both Judah and Edom, therefore, had grave wrongs to
avenge, and eagerly seized the opportunity to humble the growing pride
of the people of Chemosh. The attack was wisely arranged. It was
determined to advance against Moab from the south, through the territory
of Edom, by a rough and mountainous track, and, as far as possible, to
take the nation by surprise. The combined host took a seven days'
circuit round the south of the Dead Sea, hoping to find an abundant
supply of water in the stream which flows through the Wady-el-Ahsa,
which separates Edom from Moab.[50] But owing to recent droughts the
Wady was waterless, and the armies, with their horses, suffered all the
agonies of thirst. Jehoram gave way to despair, bewailing that Jehovah
should have brought together these three kings to deliver them a
helpless prey into the hands of Moab. But the pious Jehoshaphat at once
thinks of "inquiring of the Lord" by some true prophet, and one of
Jehoram's courtiers informs him that no less a person than Elisha, the
son of Shaphat, who had been the attendant of Elijah, is with the
host.[51] We are surprised to find that his presence in the camp had
excited so little attention as to be unknown to the king;[52] but
Jehoshaphat, on hearing his name, instantly acknowledged his prophetic
inspiration. So urgent was the need, and so deep the sense of Elisha's
greatness, that the three kings in person went on an embassy "to the
servant of him who ran before the chariot of Ahab." Their humble appeal
to him produced so little elation in his mind that, addressing Jehoram,
who was the most powerful, he exclaimed, with rough indignation: "What
have I to do with thee? Get thee to the prophets of thy
father,"--nominal prophets of Jehovah, who will say to thee smooth
things and prophesy deceits, as four hundred of them did to Ahab--"and
to the Baal-prophets of thy mother." Instead of resenting this scant
respect Jehoram, in utmost distress, deprecated the prophet's anger, and
appealed to his pity for the peril of the three armies. But Elisha is
not mollified. He tells Jehoram that but for the presence of Jehoshaphat
he would not so much as look at him: so completely was the destiny of
the people mixed up with the character of their kings! Out of respect
for Jehoshaphat Elisha will do what he can. But all his soul is in a
tumult of emotion. For the moment he can do nothing. He needs to be
calmed from his agitation by the spell of music, and bids them send a
minstrel to him. The harper came, and as Elisha listened his soul was
composed, and "the hand of the Lord came upon him" to illuminate and
inspire his thoughts.[53] The result was that he bade them dig trenches
in the dry wady, and promised that, though they should see neither wind
nor rain, the valley should be filled with water to quench the thirst of
the fainting armies, their horses and their cattle. After this God would
also deliver the Moabites into their hand; and they were bidden to smite
the cities, fell the trees, stop the wells, and mar the smiling
pasture-lands, which constituted the wealth of Moab, with stones. That
the hosts of Judah and Israel and jealous Edom should be prone to
afflict this awfully devastating vengeance on a power by which they had
been so severely defeated on past occasions, and on which they had so
many wrongs and blood-feuds to avenge, was natural; but it is surprising
to find a prophet of the Lord giving the commission to ruin the gifts of
God and spoil the innocent labours of man, and thus to inflict misery on
generations yet unborn. The behest is directly contrary to rules of
international war which have prevailed even between non-Christian
nations, among whom the stopping or poisoning of wells and the cutting
down of fruit trees has been expressly forbidden. It is also against the
rules of war laid down in Deuteronomy.[54] Such, however, was the
command attributed to Elisha; and, as we shall see, it was fulfilled,
and seems to have led to disastrous consequences.

Cheered by the promise of Divine aid which the prophet had given them,
the host retired to rest. The next morning at day-dawn, when the
_minchah_ of fine flour, oil, and frankincense was offered,[55] water,
which, according to the tradition of Josephus, had fallen at three
days' distance on the hills of Edom, came flowing from the south and
filled the wady with its refreshing streams.

The incident itself is highly instructive. It throws light both upon
the general accuracy of the ancient narrative, and on the fact that
events to which a directly supernatural colouring is given are, in
many instances, not so much supernatural as providential. The
deliverance of Israel was due, not to a portent wrought by Elisha, but
to the pure wisdom which he derived from the inspiration of God. When
the counsels of princes were of none effect, and for lack of the
spirit of counsel the people were perishing, his mind alone,
illuminated by a wisdom from on high, saw what was the right step to
take. He bade the soldiers dig trenches in the dry torrent bed,--which
was the very step most likely to ensure their deliverance from the
torment of thirst, and which would be done under similar circumstances
to this day. They saw neither wind nor rain; but there had been a
storm among the farther hills, and the swollen watercourses discharged
their overflow into the trenches of the wady which were ready prepared
for them, and offered the path of least resistance.

Moab, meanwhile, had heard of the advance of the three kings through the
territories of Edom. The whole military population had mustered in arms,
and stood on the frontier, on the other side of the dry wady, to oppose
the invasion. For they knew this would be a struggle of life and death,
and that if defeated they would have no mercy to expect. When the sun
rose, and its first rays burned on the wady, which had been dry on the
previous evening, the water which, unknown to the Moabites, had filled
the trenches in the night, looked red as blood. Doubtless it may have
been stained, as Ewald says, by the red soil which gave its name to the
red land of the "red king, Edom"; but as it gleamed under the dawn the
Moabites thought that those seemingly crimson pools had been filled with
the blood of their enemies, who had fallen by each other's swords. Their
own recent experience when Jehoshaphat met them in the Valley of Salt
showed them how easy it was for temporary allies to be seized by panic,
and to fight among themselves.[56]

The army of their invaders was composed of heterogeneous and mutually
conflicting elements. Between Israel and Judah there had been nearly a
century of war,[57] and only a brief reunion; and Edom, recently the
willing and natural ally of Moab, was not likely to fight very
zealously for Judah, which had reduced her to vassalage. So the
Moabites said to one another, as they pointed to the unexpected
apparition of those red pools: "This is blood. The kings are surely
destroyed, and they have smitten each man his fellow. Moab to the
spoil!" They rushed down tumultuously on the camp of Israel, and found
the soldiers of Jehoram ready to receive them. Taken by surprise, for
they had expected no resistance, they were hurled back in utter
confusion and with immense slaughter. The three kings pushed their
advantage to the utmost. They went forward into the land, driving and
smiting the Moabites before them, and ruthlessly carrying out the
command attributed to Elisha. They beat down the cities--most of which
in a land of flocks and herds were little more than pastoral villages;
they rendered the green fields useless with stones; they filled up all
the wells with earth; they felled every fruit-bearing tree of any
value. At last only one stronghold, Kir-haraseth, the chief fenced
town of Moab, held out against them.[58] Even this fortress was sore
bested. The slingers, for which Israel, and specially the tribe of
Benjamin, was so famous, advanced to drive its defenders from the
battlements. King Mesha fought with undaunted heroism. He decided to
take the seven hundred warriors who were left to him, and cut his way
through the besieging host to the king of Edom. He thought that even
now he might persuade the Edomites to abandon this new and unnatural
alliance, and turn the battle against their common enemies. But the
numbers against him were too strong, and he found the plan impossible.
Then he formed a dreadful resolution, dictated to him by the extremity
of his despair. His inscription at Karcha shows that he was a profound
and even fanatical believer in Chemosh, his god. Chemosh could still
deliver him. If Chemosh was, as Mesha says in his inscription, "angry
with his land"--if, even for a time, he allowed his faithful people
and his devoted king to be afflicted--it could not be for any lack of
power on his part, but only because they had in some way offended him,
so that he was wroth, or because he had gone on a journey, or was
asleep, or deaf.[59] How could he be appeased? Only by the offering of
the most precious of all the king's possessions; only by the
self-devotion of the crown-prince, on whom were centred all the
nation's hopes. Mesha would force Chemosh to help him for very shame.
He would offer to Chemosh a human sacrifice, the sacrifice of his
eldest son that should have reigned in his stead. Doubtless the young
prince gave himself up as a willing offering, for that was essential
to the holocaust being valid and acceptable.[60]

So upon the wall of Kir-haraseth, in the sight of all the Moabites,
and of the three invading armies, the brave and desperate hero of a
hundred fights, who had inflicted so many reverses upon these enemies,
and received so many at their hands, but who, having liberated his
country, now saw all the efforts of his life ruined at one blow--took
his eldest son, kindled the sacrificial fire, and then and there
solemnly offered that horrible burnt-offering.[61]

And it proved effectual, though far otherwise than Mesha had expected.
He was delivered; and, doubtless, if ever he reared, at Kirharaseth or
elsewhere, another memorial stone, he would have attributed his
deliverance to his national god. But here, in the annals of Elisha,
the result is hurried over, and a veil is, so to speak, dropped upon
the dreadful scene with the one ambiguous expression, "And there was
great wrath against Israel: and they departed from him, and returned
to their own land."

The phrase awakens but does not satisfy our curiosity. We are not
certain of the translation, or of the meaning. It may be, as in the
margin of the Revised Version, "there came great wrath upon
Israel."[62] But wrath from whom? and on what account? The word
"wrath" all but invariably denotes divine wrath; but we cannot imagine
(as some critics do) that any Israelite of the schools of the prophets
would sanction the notion that the chosen people were allowed to
suffer from the kindled wrath of Chemosh. Can we then suppose that the
desperate act of King Mesha was a proof that Israel, who was no doubt
the most interested and the most remorseless of the invaders, had
pressed the Moabites too hard, and carried his vengeance much too far?
That is by no means impossible. The prophet Amos denounces upon Moab
in after years the doom that fire should devour the palaces of
Kirioth, and that Moab should perish with shoutings, and all his royal
line be cut off, for the far less offence of having burned into lime
the bones of the king of Edom.[63] The command of Elisha did not
exempt the Israelites from their share of moral responsibility. Jehu
was commissioned to be an executioner of vengeance upon the house of
Ahab. Yet Jehu is expressly condemned by the prophet Hosea for the
tiger-like ferocity and horrible thoroughness with which he had
carried out his destined work.[64] Only one other explanation is
possible. If "wrath" here has the unusual sense of human indignation,
the clause can only imply that the armies of Judah and Edom were
roused to anger by the unpitying spirit which Israel had displayed.
The horrible tragedy enacted upon the wall of Kirharaseth awoke their
consciences to the sense of human compassion. These, after all, were
fellow-men--fellow-men of kindred blood to their own--whom they had
driven to straits so frightful as to cause a king to burn his own heir
alive as a mute appeal to his god in the hour of overwhelming ruin.
They had done enough:

          "Sunt lacrimæ rerum et mentem mortalia tangunt."

They hastily broke up the league, dissolved the alliance, returned
horror-stricken to their own land. They left Moab indeed in possession
of his last fortress, but they had reduced his territory to a
wilderness before they retired and called it peace.

FOOTNOTES:

[43] There are great difficulties in the statement (2 Kings iii. 1)
that he began to reign in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat. I have
not entered, nor shall I enter, into the minute and precarious
conjectures necessitated by the uncertainties and contradictions of
this synchronism introduced into the narrative by some editor. Suffice
it that with the aid of the Assyrian records we have certain _points
de repère_; from which we can, with the assistance of the historian,
conjecturally restore the main data. In the dates given at the head of
the chapters I follow Kittel, as a careful inquirer. Some of the
approximately fixed dates are (see Appendix I.):--

  854. Battle of Karkar (Ahab and Benhadad against Shalmaneser II.)
  738. Tribute of Menahem to Tiglath-Pileser II.
  732. Fall of Damascus.
  722. Capture of Samaria by Sargon.
  720. Defeat of Sabaco by Sargon in battle of Raphia.
  705. Accession of Sennacherib.
  701. Campaign against Hezekiah.
  608. Death of Josiah.


[44] But neither the man of God from Judah nor Amos directly denounce
the calf-worship, so much as its concomitant sins and irregularities.

[45] Perhaps the true reading is "pillars" (LXX., Vulg., Arab.).

[46] He is called "a sheep-master," _noked_; LXX., νωκήδ. Elsewhere
the word occurs only in Amos i. 1. The Alex. LXX. has ἦν φέρων φόρον.

[47] According to the Moabite Stone.

[48] It is not clear whether the lambs and rams were sent with the
fleeces. The A.V. says "lambs and rams with their wool," in accordance
with Josephus--μυριάδας εἴκοσι προβάτων σὺν τοῖς πόκοις. The LXX. has
the vague ἐπὶ πόκων, and implies that this was a special fine after a
defeat in the revolt (ἐν τῇ ἐπαναστάσει): but comp. Isa. xvi. 1.

[49] 2 Chron. xx. 1-30.

[50] Robinson (_Bibl. Res._, ii. 157) identifies it with the brook
_Zered_. Deut. ii. 13; Num. xxi. 12. The name means "valley of
water-pits." W. R. Smith quotes Doughty, _Travels_, i. 26.

[51] Comp. 1 Kings xxii. 7. The phrase "who poured water on the hands
of Elijah" is a touch of Oriental custom which the traveller in remote
parts of Palestine may still often see. Once, when driven by a storm
into the house of the Sheykh of a tribe which had a rather bad
reputation for brigandage, I was most hospitably entertained; and the
old white-haired Sheykh, his son, and ourselves were waited on by the
grandson, a magnificent youth, who immediately after the meal brought
out an old richly chased ewer and basin, and poured water over our
hands, soiled by eating out of the common dish, of course without
spoons or forks.

[52] This seems to have struck Josephus (_Antt._, IX. iii. 1), who
says that "he _chanced_ to be in a tent (ἔτυχε κατεσκηνωκώς) outside
the host."

[53] Comp. 1 Sam. x. 5; 1 Chron. xxv. 1; Ezek. i. 3, xxxiii. 22.
_Menaggēn_ is one who plays on a stringed instrument, _n'gînāh_. The
Pythagoreans used music in the same way (Cic., _Tusc. Disp._, iv. 2).

[54] Deut. xx. 19, 20.

[55] Lev. ii. 1. Comp. 1 Kings xviii. 36.

[56] This dreadful result crippled the revolt of Vindex against Nero.

[57] Jeroboam I., B.C. 937; Joram, 854.

[58] Isa. xv. 1, Kir of Moab; Jer. xlviii. 31, Kir-heres. It is built
on a steep calcareous rock, surrounded by a deep, narrow glen, which
thence descends westward to the Dead Sea, under the name of the Wady
Kerak. We know that the armies of Nineveh habitually practised these
brutal modes of devastation in the districts which they conquered. See
Layard, _passim_; Rawlinson, _Ancient Monarchies_ ii. 84.

[59] 1 Kings xviii. 27. Comp. Psalm xxxv. 23, xliv. 23, lxxxiii. 1, etc.

[60] Comp. Micah vi. 7. This is an entirely different incident from
that alluded to in Amos ii. 1.

[61] Eusebius (_Præp. Evang._, iv. 16) quotes from Philo's Phœnician
history a reference to human sacrifices (τοῖς τιμωροῖς δαίμοσιν) at
moments of desperation.

[62] The rendering is doubtful. LXX., καὶ ἐγένετο μετάμελος μέγας ἐπὶ
Ἰσράηλ; Vulg., indignatio _in_ Israel; Luther, _Da ward Israel sehr
zornig_.

[63] Amos ii. 1-3.

[64] Hos. i. 4: "I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of
Jehu."




                               CHAPTER V

                          _ELISHA'S MIRACLES_

                            2 KINGS iv. 1-44


We are now in the full tide of Elisha's miracles, and as regards many
of them we can do little more than illustrate the text as it stands.
The record of them clearly comes from some account prevalent in the
schools of the prophets, which is however only fragmentary, and has
been unchronologically pieced into the annals of the kings of Israel.

The story of Elisha abounds far more in the supernatural than that of
Elijah, and is believed by most critics to be of earlier date. Yet the
scenes and portents of his life are almost wholly lacking in the
element of grandeur which belong to those of the elder seer. His
personality, if on the whole softer and more beneficent, inspires less
of awe, and the whole tone of the biography which recorded these
isolated incidents is lacking in the poetic and impassioned elevation
which marks the episodes of Elijah's history. We see in the records of
Elisha, as in the biographies--so rich in prodigies--of fourth-century
hermits and mediæval saints, how little impressive in itself is the
exercise of abnormal powers; how it derives its sole grandeur from the
accompaniment of great moral lessons and spiritual revelations. John
the Baptist "did no miracle," yet our Lord placed him not only far
above Elisha, but even above Moses and Samuel and Elijah, when He said
of him, "Verily I say unto you, of them that have been born of women
there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist."

It is impossible not to be struck with the singular parallelism
between the powers exercised by Elisha and those which are attributed
to his predecessor. "How true an heir is Elisha of his master," says
Bishop Hall, "not in his graces only, but in his actions! Both of them
divided the waters of Jordan, the one as his last act, the other as
his first. Elijah's curse was the death of the captains and their
troops; Elisha's curse was the death of the children. Elijah rebuked
Ahab to his face; Elisha, Jehoram. Elijah supplied the drought of
Israel by rain from heaven; Elisha supplied the drought of the three
kings by waters gushing out of the earth; Elijah increased the oil of
the Sareptan, Elisha increased the oil of the prophet's widow; Elijah
raised from death the Sareptan's son, Elisha the Shunammite's; both of
them had one mantle, one spirit; both of them climbed up one Carmel,
one heaven." The resemblance, however, is not at all in character, but
only in external and miraculous circumstances. In all other respects
Elisha furnishes a contrast to Elijah which startles us quite as much
as any superficial resemblances. Elijah was a free, wild Bedawy
prophet, hating and shunning as his ordinary residence the abodes of
men, making his home in the rocky wady or in the mountain glades,
appearing and disappearing suddenly as the wind. He asserted his power
most often in ministries of retribution. Clad in the sheepskin of a
Gadite shepherd or mountaineer, he was not one of those who wear soft
clothing or are found in kings' houses. He usually met monarchs as
their enemy and their reprover, but for the most part avoided them. He
never intervened for years together even in national events of the
utmost importance, whether military or religious, unless he received
the direct call of God, or there appeared to him to be a "_dignus
Vindice nodus_." Elisha, on the other hand, makes his home in cities,
and chiefly in Samaria. He is familiar with kings and moves about with
armies, and has no long retirements into unknown solitudes; and though
he could speak roughly to Jehoram, he is often on the friendliest
terms with him and with other sovereigns.

The stories of Elisha give us many interesting glimpses into the
social life of Israel in his day. As to their literal historic
accuracy, those must make positive affirmation who feel that they can
do so in accordance alike with adequate authority and with the
sacredness of truth. Many will be unable to escape the opinion that
they bear some resemblance to other Jewish haggadoth, written for
edification, with every innocent intention, in the schools of the
Prophets, but no more intended for perfectly literal acceptance in all
their details than the Life of St. Paul the Hermit, by St. Jerome; or
that of St. Antony, attributed erroneously to St. Athanasius; or that
of St. Francis in the Fioretti; or the lives of humble saints of the
people called _Kisar-el-anbiah_, which are so popular among poor
Mohammedans. Into that question there is no need to enter further.
_Abundet quisque in sensu suo._

I. On one occasion a widow of one of the Sons of the Prophets--for
these communities, though cœnobitic, were not celibate--came to him in
deep distress. Her husband--the Jews, with their usual guesswork,
most improbably identify him with Obadiah, the chamberlain of
Ahab[65]--had died insolvent. As she had nothing to pay, her creditor
under the grim provision of the law was about to exercise his right of
selling her two sons into slavery to recoup himself for the debt.[66]
Would Elisha help her?

Prophets were never men of wealth, so that he could not pay her debt.
He asked her what she possessed to satisfy the demand. "Nothing," she
said, "but a pot of the common oil, used for anointing the body after
a bath."

Elisha bade her go and borrow from her neighbours all the empty
vessels she could, then to return home, shut the door, and pour the
oil into the vessels.

She did so. They were all filled, and she asked her son to bring yet
another. But there was not another to be had, so she went out and told
the Man of God. He bade her sell the miraculously multiplied oil to
pay the debt, and live with her sons on the proceeds of what was over.

II. We next find Elisha at Shunem, famous as the abode of the fair
maiden--probably Abishag, the nurse of David's decrepitude--who is the
heroine of the Song of Songs. It is a village, now called Solam, on the
slopes of Little Hermon (Jebel-el-Duhy), three miles north of Jezreel.
At this place there lived a lady of wealth and influence, whose husband
owned the surrounding land. There were but few khans in Palestine, and
even where they now exist the traveller has in most cases to supply his
own food. Elisha, in his journeys to and fro among the schools of the
Prophets, had often enjoyed the welcome hospitality eagerly pressed
upon him by the lady of Shunem. Struck with his sacred character, she
persuaded her husband to take a step unusual even to the boundless
hospitality of the East. She begged him to do honour to this holy Man of
God by building for him a little chamber (_alîyah_) on the flat roof of
the house, to which he might have easy and private access by the outside
staircase.[67] The chamber was built, and furnished, like any other
simple Eastern room, with a bed, a divan to sit on, a table, and a lamp;
and there the weary prophet on his journeys often found a peaceful,
simple, and delightful resting-place.

Grateful for the reverence with which she treated him, and the kind
care with which she had supplied his needs, Elisha was anxious to
recompense her in whatever way might be possible. The thought of money
payment was of course out of the question: merely to hint at it would
have been a breach of manners. But perhaps he might be of use to her
in some other way. At this time, and for years afterwards during his
long ministry of perhaps fifty-six years, he was attended by a servant
named Gehazi, who stood to him in the same sort of relation which he
had held to Elijah. He told Gehazi to summon the Shunammite lady. In
the deep humility of Eastern womanhood she came and stood in his
presence. Even then he did not address her. So downtrodden was the
position of women in the East that any dignified person, much more a
great prophet, could not converse with a woman without compromising
his dignity. The more scrupulous Pharisees in the days of Christ
always carefully gathered up their garments in the streets, lest they
should so much as touch a woman with their skirts in passing by, as
the modern Chakams in Jerusalem do to this day.[68] The disciples
themselves, sophisticated by familiarity with such teachers, were
astonished that Jesus at the well of Shechem should talk with a
woman.[69] So, though the lady stood there, Elisha, instead of
speaking to her directly, told Gehazi to thank her for all the devout
respect and care, all 'the modesty of fearful duty,'[70] which she had
displayed towards them, and to ask her if he should say a good word
for her to the King or the Captain of the Host. This is just the sort
of favour which an Eastern would be likely to value most.[71] The
Shunammite, however, was well provided for; she had nothing to
complain of, and nothing to request. She thanked Elisha for his kindly
proposal, but declined it, and went away.

"Is there, then, nothing which we can do for her?" asked Elisha of
Gehazi.[72]

There was. Gehazi had learnt that the sorrow of her life--a sorrow and
a source of reproach to any Eastern household, but most of all to that
of a wealthy householder--was her childlessness.

"Call her," he said.

She came back, and stood reverently in the doorway. "When the time
comes round," he said to her, "you shall embrace a son."

The promise raised in her heart a thrill of joy. It was too precious
to be believed. "Nay," she said "my lord, thou Man of God, do not lie
unto thine handmaid."

But the promise was fulfilled, and the lady of Shunem became the happy
mother of a son.

III. The charming episode then passes over some years. The child had
grown into a little boy, old enough now to go out alone to see his
father in the harvest fields and to run about among the reapers. But as
he played about in the heat he had a sunstroke, and cried to his father,
"O my head, my head!" Not knowing how serious the matter was, his father
simply ordered one of his lads to carry the child home to his mother.
The fond mother nursed him tenderly upon her knees, but at noon he died.

Then the lady of Shunem showed all the faith and strength and wisdom of
her character. "The good Shunammite," says Bishop Hall, "had lost her
son; her faith she lost not." Overwhelming as was this calamity--the
loss of an only child--she suppressed all her emotions, and, instead of
bursting into the wild helpless wail of Eastern mourners, or rushing to
her husband with the agonising news, she took the little boy's body in
her arms, carried it up to the chamber which had been built for Elisha,
and laid it upon his bed. Then, shutting the door, she called to her
husband to send to her one of his reapers and one of the asses, for she
was going quickly to the Man of God and would return in the cool of the
evening. "Why should you go to-day particularly?" he asked. "It is
neither new moon, nor sabbath." "It is all right," she said;[73] and
with perfect confidence in the rectitude of all her purposes, he sent
her the she-ass, and a servant to drive it and to run beside it for her
protection on the journey of sixteen miles.

"Drive on the ass," she said. "Slacken me not the riding unless I tell
you." So with all possible speed she made her way--a journey of
several hours--from Shunem to Mount Carmel.

Elisha, from his retreat on the hill, marked her coming from a
distance, and it rendered him anxious. "Here comes the Shunammite," he
said to Gehazi. "Run to meet her, and ask Is it well with thee? is it
well with thy husband? is it well with the child?"

"All well," she answered, for her message was not to Gehazi, and she
could not trust her voice to speak; but pressing on up-hillwards, she
flung herself before Elisha and grasped his feet. Displeased at the
familiarity which dared thus to clasp the feet of his master, Gehazi ran
up to thrust her away by force, but Elisha interfered. "Let her alone,"
he cried; "she is in deep affliction, and Jehovah has not revealed to me
the cause." Then her long pent-up emotion burst forth. "Did I desire a
son of my lord?" she cried. "Did I not say do not deceive me?"

It was enough--though she seemed unable to bring out the dreadful
words that her boy was dead. Catching her meaning, Elisha said to
Gehazi, "Gird up thy loins, take my staff, and without so much as
stopping to salute any one, or to return a salutation,[74] lay my
staff on the dead child's face." But the broken-hearted mother
refused to leave Elisha. She imagined that the servant, the staff,
might be severed from Elisha; but she knew that wherever the prophet
was, there was power. So Elisha arose and followed her, and on the way
Gehazi met them with the news that the child lay still and dead, with
the fruitless staff upon his face.

Then Elisha in deep anguish went up to the chamber and shut the door,
and saw the boy's body lying pale upon his bed. After earnest prayer
he outstretched himself over the little corpse, as Elijah had done at
Zarephath. Soon it began to grow warm with returning life, and Elisha,
after pacing up and down the room, once more stretched himself over
him. Then the child opened his eyes and sneezed seven times, and
Elisha called to Gehazi to summon the mother.

"Take up thy son," he said. She prostrated herself at his feet in
speechless gratitude, and took up her recovered child, and went.

IV. We next find Elisha at Gilgal, in the time of the famine of which
we read his prediction in a later chapter.[75] The sons of the
prophets were seated round him, listening to his instructions; the
hour came for their simple meal, and he ordered the great pot to be
put on the fire for the vegetable soup, on which, with bread, they
chiefly lived. One of them went out for herbs, and carelessly brought
his outer garment (the _abeyah_)[76] full of wild poisonous
coloquinths,[77] which, by ignorance or inadvertence, were shred into
the pottage. But when it was cooked and poured out they perceived the
poisonous taste, and cried out, "O Man of God, death in the pot!"

"Bring meal," he said, for he seems always to have been a man of the
fewest words.

They cast in some meal, and were all able to eat of the now harmless
pottage. It has been noticed that in this, as in other incidents of
the story, there is no invocation of the name of Jehovah.

V. Not far from Gilgal was the little village of Baalshalisha,[78] at
which lived a farmer who wished to bring an offering of firstfruits
and _karmel_ (bruised grain) in his wallet to Elisha as a Man of
God.[79] It was a poor gift enough--only twenty of the coarse barley
loaves which were eaten by the common people, and a sack[80] full of
fresh ears of corn.[81] Elisha told his servitor[82]--perhaps
Gehazi--to set them before the people present. "What?" he asked, "this
trifle of food before a hundred men!" But Elisha told him in the
Lord's name that it should more than suffice; and so it did.

FOOTNOTES:

[65] Jos., _Antt._, IX. iv. 2. This perhaps is only suggested by the
reminiscences of 1 Kings xviii. 2, 3, 12.

[66] Lev. xxv. 39-41; Matt. xviii. 25.

[67] 2 Kings iv. 10. Not "a little chamber on the wall" (A.V.), but
"an _alîyah_ with walls" (margin, R.V.).

[68] Frankl., _Jews in the East_.

[69] John iv. 27: "Then came His disciples, and marvelled that He was
_talking_ (μετὰ γυναικὸς) _with a woman_."

[70] 2 Kings iv. 13: "Behold, thou hast been careful for us with all
this care" (LXX., πᾶσαν τὴν ἔκστασιν ταύτην).

[71] The Sheykh with whom I stayed at Bint es Jebeil could think of no
return which I could offer for his hospitality so acceptable as if I
would say a good word for him to the authorities at Beyrout.

[72] Gehazi is usually called the _na'ar_ or "lad" of Elisha--a term
implying lower service than Elisha's "ministry" to Elijah.

[73] 2 Kings iv. 23. Hebrew "Peace"; A.V., "It shall be well."

[74] Salutations occupy some time in the formally courteous East.
Comp. Luke x. 4.

[75] 2 Kings viii. 1.

[76] Not "lap," as in A. V. (Heb., _beged_); LXX. συνέλιξε πλῆρες τὸ
ἱμάτιον αὐτοῦ; Vulg., _implevit vestem suam_ (both correctly).

[77] Heb., _paquoth_; LXX., τολύπην ἀγρίαν; Vulg; _colocynthidas
agri_. Hence the name _cucumis prophetarum_.

[78] Lord of the Chain and "Three lands." Three wadies meet at this
spot, a little west of Bethel.

[79] 2 Kings iv. 42. Karmel, Lev. ii. 14. Perhaps a sort of frumenty.

[80] The word for "wallet" (_tsiqlon_; Vulg., _pera_) occurs here
only. Peshito, "garment." The Vatican LXX. omits it. The Greek version
has ἐν κωρύκῳ αὐτοῦ.

[81] See Lev. ii. 14, xxiii. 14.

[82] 2 Kings iv. 43. The word for "his servitor" (_m'chartho_) is used
also of Joshua. It does not mean a mere ordinary attendant. LXX.,
λειτουργός; Vulg., _minister_.




                               CHAPTER VI

                         _THE STORY OF NAAMAN_

                            2 KINGS v. 1-27

                    MATT. viii. 3: Θέλω, καθαρίσθητι


After these shorter anecdotes we have the longer episode of
Naaman.[83]

A part of the misery inflicted by the Syrians on Israel was caused by
the forays in which their light-armed bands, very much like the
borderers on the marches of Wales or Scotland, descended upon the
country and carried off plunder and captives before they could be
pursued.

In one of these raids they had seized a little Israelitish girl and
sold her to be a slave. She had been purchased for the household of
Naaman, the captain of the Syrian host, who had helped his king and
nation to win important victories either against Israel or against
Assyria. Ancient Jewish tradition identified him with the man who had
"drawn his bow at a venture" and slain King Ahab. But all Naaman's
valour and rank and fame, and the honour felt for him by his king,
were valueless to him, for he was suffering from the horrible
affliction of leprosy. Lepers do not seem to have been segregated in
other countries so strictly as they were in Israel, or at any rate
Naaman's leprosy was not of so severe a form as to incapacitate him
from his public functions.

But it was evident that he was a man who had won the affection of all
who knew him; and the little slave girl who waited on his wife
breathed to her a passionate wish that Naaman could visit the Man of
God in Samaria, for he would recover him from his leprosy. The saying
was repeated, and one of Naaman's friends mentioned it to the king of
Syria. Benhadad was so much struck by it that he instantly determined
to send a letter, with a truly royal gift to the king of Israel, who
could, he supposed, as a matter of course, command the services of the
prophet. The letter came to Jehoram with a stupendous present of
ingots of silver to the value of ten talents, and six thousand pieces
of gold, and ten changes of raiment.[84] After the ordinary
salutations, and a mention of the gifts, the letter continued "And
now, when this letter is come to thee, behold I have sent Naaman my
servant, that thou mayest recover him of his leprosy."

Jehoram lived in perpetual terror of his powerful and encroaching
neighbour. Nothing was said in the letter about the Man of God; and
the king rent his clothes, exclaiming that he was not God to kill and
to make alive, and that this must be a base pretext for a quarrel. It
never so much as occurred to him, as it certainly would have done to
Jehoshaphat, that the prophet, who was so widely known and honoured,
and whose mission had been so clearly attested in the invasion of
Moab, might at least help him to face this problem. Otherwise the
difficulty might indeed seem insuperable, for leprosy was universally
regarded as an incurable disease.

But Elisha was not afraid: he boldly told Jehoram to send the Syrian
captain to him. Naaman, with his horses and his chariots, in all the
splendour of a royal ambassador, drove up to the humble house of the
prophet. Being so great a man, he expected a deferential reception,
and looked for the performance of his cure in some striking and
dramatic manner. "The prophet," so he said to himself, "will come out,
and solemnly invoke the name of his God Jehovah, and wave his hand
over the leprous limbs, and so work the miracle."[85]

But the servant of the King of kings was not exultantly impressed, as
false prophets so often are, by earthly greatness. Elisha did not even
pay him the compliment of coming out of the house to meet him. He
wished to efface himself completely, and to fix the leper's thoughts
on the one truth that if healing was granted to him, it was due to the
gift of God, not to the thaumaturgy or arts of man. He simply sent out
his servant to the Syrian commander-in-chief with the brief message,
"Go and wash in Jordan seven times, and be thou clean."

Naaman, accustomed to the extreme deference of many dependants, was not
only offended, but enraged, by what he regarded as the scant courtesy
and procrastinated boon of the prophet. Why was he not received as a man
of the highest distinction? What necessity could there be for sending
him all the way to the Jordan? And why was he bidden to wash in that
wretched, useless, tortuous stream, rather than in the pure and flowing
waters of his own native Abanah and Pharpar?[86] How was he to tell that
this "Man of God" did not design to mock him by sending him on a fool's
errand, so that he would come back as a laughing-stock both to the
Israelites and to his own people? Perhaps he had not felt any great
faith in the prophet, to begin with; but whatever he once felt had now
vanished. He turned and went away in a rage.

But in this crisis the affection of his friends and servants stood him
in good stead. Addressing him, in their love and pity, by the unusual
term of honour "my father," they urged upon him that, as he certainly
would not have refused some _great_ test, there was no reason why he
should refuse this simple and humble one.

He was won over by their reasonings, and descending the hot steep valley
of the Jordan, bathed himself in the river seven times. God healed him,
and, as Elisha had promised, "his flesh," corroded by leprosy, "came
again like the flesh of a little child, and he was clean."

This healing of Naaman is alluded to by our Lord to illustrate the truth
that the love of God extended farther than the limits of the chosen
race; that His Fatherhood is co-extensive with the whole family of man.

It is difficult to conceive the transport of a man cured of this most
loathsome and humiliating of all earthly afflictions. Naaman, who seems
to have possessed "a mind naturally Christian," was filled with
gratitude. Unlike the thankless Jewish lepers whom Christ cured as He
left Engannim, this alien returned to give glory to God. Once more the
whole imposing cavalcade rode through the streets of Samaria, and
stopped at Elisha's door. This time Naaman was admitted into his
presence. He saw, and no doubt Elisha had strongly impressed on him the
truth, that his healing was the work not of man but of God; and as he
had found no help in the deities of Syria, he confessed that the God of
Israel was the only true God among those of the nations. In token of his
thankfulness he presses Elisha, as God's instrument in the unspeakable
mercy which has been granted to him, to accept "a blessing" (_i.e._, a
present) from him--"from thy servant," as he humbly styled himself.

Elisha was no greedy Balaam. It was essential that Naaman and the
Syrians should not look on him as on some vulgar sorcerer who wrought
wonders for "the rewards of divination." His wants were so simple that
he stood above temptation. His desires and treasures were not on
earth. To put an end to all importunity, he appealed to Jehovah with
his usual solemn formula--"As the Lord liveth before whom I stand, I
will receive no present."[87]

Still more deeply impressed by the prophet's incorruptible superiority
to so much as a suspicion of low motives, Naaman asked that he might
receive two mules' burden of earth wherewith to build an altar to the
God of Israel of His own sacred soil.[88] The very soil ruled by such
a God must, he thought, be holier than other soil; and he wished to
take it back to Syria, just as the people of Pisa rejoiced to fill
their Campo Santo with mould from the Holy Land, and just as mothers
like to baptize their children in water brought home from the Jordan.
Henceforth, said Naaman, I will offer burnt-offering and sacrifice to
no God but unto Jehovah. Yet there was one difficulty in the way. When
the King of Syria went to worship in the temple of his god Rimmon it
was the duty of Naaman to accompany him.[89] The king leaned on his
hand, and when he bowed before the idol it was Naaman's duty to bow
also. He begged that for this concession God would pardon him.

Elisha's answer was perhaps different from what Elijah might have given.
He practically allowed Naaman to give this sign of outward compliance
with idolatry, by saying to him, "Go in peace." It is from this
circumstance that the phrase "to bow in the house of Rimmon" has become
proverbial to indicate a dangerous and dishonest compromise. But
Elisha's permission must not be misunderstood. He did but hand over this
semi-heathen convert to the grace of God. It must be remembered that he
lived in days long preceding the conviction that proselytism is a part
of true religion; in days when the thought of missions to heathen lands
was utterly unknown. The position of Naaman was wholly different from
that of any Israelite. He was only the convert, or the half-convert of
a day, and though he acknowledged the supremacy of Jehovah as alone
worthy of his worship, he probably shared in the belief--common even in
Israel--that there were other gods, local gods, gods of the nations, to
whom Jehovah might have divided the limits of their power.[90] To demand
of one who, like Naaman, had been an idolater all his days, the sudden
abandonment of every custom and tradition of his life, would have been
to demand from him an unreasonable, and, in his circumstances, useless
and all but impossible self-sacrifice. The best way was to let him feel
and see for himself the futility of Rimmon-worship. If he were not
frightened back from his sudden faith in Jehovah, the scruple of
conscience which he already felt in making his request might naturally
grow within him and lead him to all that was best and highest. The
temporary condonation of an imperfection might be a wise step towards
the ultimate realisation of a truth. We cannot at all blame Elisha, if,
with such knowledge as he then possessed, he took a mercifully tolerant
view of the exigencies of Naaman's position. The bowing in the house of
Rimmon under such conditions probably seemed to him no more than an act
of outward respect to the king and to the national religion in a case
where no evil results could follow from Naaman's example.[91]

But the general principle that _we_ must _not_ bow in the house of
Rimmon remains unchanged. The light and knowledge vouchsafed to us far
transcend those which existed in times when men had not seen the days of
the Son of Man. The only rule which sincere Christians can follow is to
have no truce with Canaan, no halting between two opinions, no
tampering, no compliance, no connivance, no complicity with evil,--even
no tolerance of evil as far as their own conduct is concerned. No good
man, in the light of the Gospel dispensation, could condone himself in
seeming to sanction--still less in doing--anything which in his opinion
ought not to be done, or in saying anything which implied his own
acquiescence in things which he knows to be evil. "Sir," said a
parishioner to one of the non-juring clergy: "there is many a man who
has made a great gash in his conscience; cannot you make a little nick
in yours?" No! a _little_ nick is, in one sense, as fatal as a great
gash. It is an abandonment of _the principle_; it is a violation of the
Law. The wrong of it consists in this--that all evil begins, not in the
commission of great crimes, but in the slight divergence from right
rules. The angle made by two lines may be infinitesimally small, but
produce the lines and it may require infinitude to span the separation
between the lines which inclose so tiny an angle. The wise man gave the
only true rule about wrong-doing, when he said, "Enter not into the path
of the wicked and go not in the way of evil men. Avoid it, pass not by
it, turn from it and pass away."[92] And the reason for his rule is
that the beginning of sin--like the beginning of strife--"is as when one
letteth out water."[93]

The proper answer to all abuses of any supposed concession to the
lawfulness of bowing in the house of Rimmon--if that be interpreted to
mean the doing of anything which our consciences cannot wholly
approve--is _Obsta principiis_--avoid the beginnings of evil.

          "We are not worst at once; the course of evil
           Begins so slowly, and from such slight source,
           An infant's hand might stem the breach with clay;
           But let the stream grow wider, and philosophy,
           Age, and religion too, may strive in vain
           To stem the headstrong current."

The mean cupidity of Gehazi, the servant of Elisha, gives a deplorable
sequel to the story of the prophet's magnanimity. This man's wretched
greed did its utmost to nullify the good influence of his master's
example. There may be more wicked acts recorded in Scripture than that
of Gehazi, but there is scarcely one which shows so paltry a
disposition.

He had heard the conversation between his master and the Syrian
marshal, and his cunning heart despised as a futile sentimentality the
magnanimity which had refused an eagerly proffered reward. Naaman was
rich: he had received a priceless boon; it would be rather a pleasure
to him than otherwise to return for it some acknowledgment which he
would not miss. Had he not even seemed a little hurt by Elisha's
refusal to receive it? What possible harm could there be in taking
what he was anxious to give? And how useful those magnificent presents
would be, and to what excellent uses could they be put! He could not
approve of the fantastic and unpractical scrupulosity which had led
Elisha to refuse the "blessing" which he had so richly earned. Such
attitudes of unworldliness seemed entirely foolish to Gehazi.

So pleaded the Judas-spirit within the man. By such specious delusions
he inflamed his own covetousness, and fostered the evil temptation
which had taken sudden and powerful hold upon his heart, until it took
shape in a wicked resolve.

The mischief of Elisha's quixotic refusal was done, but it could be
speedily undone, and no one would be the worse. The evil spirit was
whispering to Gehazi:--

          "Be mine and Sin's for one short hour; and then
           Be all thy life the happiest man of men."

"Behold," he said, with some contempt both for Elisha and for Naaman,
"my master hath let off this Naaman the Syrian; but as the Lord liveth
I will run after him, and take somewhat of him."

"As the Lord liveth!" It had been a favourite appeal of Elijah and
Elisha, and the use of it by Gehazi shows how utterly meaningless and
how very dangerous such solemn words become when they are degraded
into formulæ.[94] It is thus that the habit of swearing begins. The
light use of holy words very soon leads to their utter degradation.
How keen is the satire in Cowper's little story:--

          "A Persian, humble servant of the sun,
           Who, though devout, yet bigotry had none,
           Hearing a lawyer, grave in his address,
           With adjurations every word impress,--
           Supposed the man a bishop, or, at least,
           God's Name so often on his lips--a priest.
           Bowed at the close with all his gracious airs,
           And begged an interest in his frequent prayers!"


Had Gehazi felt their true meaning--had he realised that on Elisha's
lips they meant something infinitely more real than on his own, he
would not have forgotten that in Elisha's answer to Naaman they had
all the validity of an oath, and that he was inflicting on his master
a shameful wrong, when he led Naaman to believe that, after so sacred
an adjuration, the prophet had frivolously changed his mind.

Gehazi had not very far to run,[95] for in a country full of hills,
and of which the roads are rough, horses and chariots advance but
slowly. Naaman, chancing to glance backwards, saw the prophet's
attendant running after him. Anticipating that he must be the bearer
of some message from Elisha, he not only halted the cavalcade, but
sprang down from his chariot,[96] and went to meet him with the
anxious question, "Is all well?"

"Well," answered Gehazi; and then had ready his cunning lie. "Two
youths," he said, "of the prophetic schools had just unexpectedly come
to his master from the hill country of Ephraim; and though he would
accept nothing for himself, Elisha would be glad if Naaman would spare
him two changes of garments, and one talent of silver for these poor
members of a sacred calling."[97]

Naaman must have been a little more or a little less than human if he
did not feel a touch of disappointment on hearing this message. The gift
was nothing to him. It was a delight to him to give it, if only to
lighten a little the burden of gratitude which he felt towards his
benefactor. But if he had felt elevated by the magnanimous example of
Elisha's disinterestedness, he must have thought that this hasty request
pointed to a little regret on the prophet's part for his noble
self-denial. After all, then, even prophets were but men, and gold after
all was gold! The change of mind about the gift brought Elisha a little
nearer the ordinary level of humanity, and, so far, it acted as a sort
of disenchantment from the high ideal exhibited by his former refusal.
And so Naaman said, with alacrity, "Be content: take two talents."

The fact that Gehazi's conduct thus inevitably compromised his master,
and undid the effects of his example, is part of the measure of the
man's apostacy. It showed how false and hypocritical was his position,
how unworthy he was to be the ministering servant of a prophet. Elisha
was evidently deceived in the man altogether. The heinousness of his
guilt lies in the words _Corruptio optimi pessima_. When religion is
used for a cloak of covetousness, of usurping ambition, of secret
immorality, it becomes deadlier than infidelity. Men raze the
sanctuary, and build their idol temples on the hallowed ground. They
cover their base encroachments and impure designs with the "cloke of
profession, doubly lined with the fox-fur of hypocrisy," and hide the
leprosy which is breaking out upon their foreheads with the golden
_petalon_ on which is inscribed the title of "holiness to the Lord."

At first Gehazi did not like to take so large a sum as two talents;
but the crime was already committed, and there was not much more harm
done in taking two talents than in taking one. Naaman urged him, and
it is very improbable that, unless the chances of detection weighed
with him, he needed much urging. So the Syrian weighed out silver
ingots to the amount of two talents, and putting them in two satchels
laid them on two of his servants and told them to carry the money
before Gehazi to Elisha's house. But Gehazi had to keep a look-out
lest his nefarious dealings should be observed, and when they came to
Ophel--the word means the foot of the hill of Samaria, or some part of
the fortifications[98]--he took the bags from the two Syrians,
dismissed them, and carried the money to some place where he could
conceal it in the house. Then, as though nothing had happened, with
his usual smooth face of sanctimonious integrity, the pious Jesuit
went and stood before his master.

He had not been unnoticed! His heart must have sunk within him when
there smote upon his ear Elisha's question,--

"Whence comest thou, Gehazi?"

But one lie is as easy as another, and Gehazi was doubtless an adept
at lying.

"Thy servant went no whither," he replied, with an air of innocent
surprise.

"_Went not_ my beloved one?"[99] said Elisha--and he must have said it
with a groan, as he thought how utterly unworthy the youth, whom he
thus called "my loving heart" or "my dear friend,"--"when the man
turned from his chariot to meet thee?" It may be that from the hill
of Samaria Elisha had seen it all, or that he had been told by one who
had seen it. If not, he had been rightly led to read the secret of his
servant's guilt. "Is it a time," he asked, "to act thus?" Did not my
example show thee that there was a high object in refusing this
Syrian's gifts, and in leading him to feel that the servants of
Jehovah do His bidding with no afterthought of sordid considerations?
Are there not enough troubles about us actual and impending, to show
that this is no time for the accumulation of earthly treasures? Is it
a time to receive money--and all that money will procure? to receive
garments, and olive-yards and vineyards, and oxen, and men-servants
and maid-servants? Has a prophet no higher aim than the accumulation
of earthly goods, and are his needs such as earthly goods can supply?
And hast thou, the daily friend and attendant of a prophet, learnt so
little from his precepts and his example?

Then followed the tremendous penalty for so grievous a
transgression--a transgression made up of meanness, irreverence,
greed, cheating, treachery, and lies.

"The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto thy
seed for ever!" "Oh heavy talents of Gehazi!" exclaims Bishop Hall:
"Oh the horror of the one unchangeable suit! How much better had been
a light purse and a homely coat, with a sound body and a clean soul!"

"And he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow."[100]

It is the characteristic of the leprous taint in the system to be thus
suddenly developed, and apparently in crises of sudden and
overpowering emotion it might affect the whole blood. And one of the
many morals which lie in Gehazi's story is again that moral to which
the world's whole experience sets its seal--that though the guilty
soul may sell itself for a desired price, the sum-total of that price
is nought. It is Achan's ingots buried under the sod on which stood
his tent. It is Naboth's vineyard made abhorrent to Ahab on the day he
entered it. It is the thirty pieces of silver which Judas dashed with
a shriek upon the Temple floor. It is Gehazi's leprosy for which no
silver talents or changes of raiment could atone.

The story of Gehazi--of the son of the prophets who would naturally
have succeeded Elisha as Elisha had succeeded Elijah--must have had a
tremendous significance to warn the members of the prophetic schools
from the peril of covetousness. That peril, as all history proves to
us, is one from which popes and priests, monks, and even nominally
ascetic and nominally pauper communities, have never been exempt;--to
which, it may even be said, that they have been peculiarly liable.
Mercenariness and falsity, displayed under the pretence of religion,
were never more overwhelmingly rebuked. Yet, as the Rabbis said, it
would have been better if Elisha, in repelling with the left hand, had
also drawn with the right.[101]

       *       *       *       *       *

The fine story of Elisha and Naaman, and the fall and punishment of
Gehazi, is followed by one of the anecdotes of the prophet's life
which appears to our unsophisticated, perhaps to our imperfectly
enlightened judgment, to rise but little above the ecclesiastical
portents related in mediæval hagiologies.

At some unnamed place--perhaps Jericho--the house of the Sons of the
Prophets had become too small for their numbers and requirements, and
they asked Elisha's leave to go down to the Jordan and cut beams to make
a new residence. Elisha gave them leave, and at their request consented
to go with them. While they were hewing, the axe-head of one of them
fell into the water, and he cried out, "Alas! master, it was borrowed!"
Elisha ascertained where it had fallen. He then cut down a stick,[102]
and cast it on the spot, and the iron swam and the man recovered it.

The story is perhaps an imaginative reproduction of some unwonted
incident. At any rate, we have no sufficient evidence to prove that it
may not be so. It is wholly unlike the economy invariably shown in the
Scripture narratives which tell us of the exercise of supernatural
power. All the eternal laws of nature are here superseded at a word, as
though it were an every-day matter, without even any recorded invocation
of Jehovah, to restore an axe-head, which could obviously have been
recovered or resupplied in some much less stupendous way than by making
iron swim on the surface of a swift-flowing river. It is easy to invent
conventional and _à priori_ apologies to show that religion demands the
unquestioning acceptance of this prodigy, and that a man must be
shockingly wicked who does not feel certain that it happened exactly in
the literal sense; but whether the doubt or the defence be morally
worthier, is a thing which God alone can judge.[103]

FOOTNOTES:

[83] It is curiously omitted by Josephus, though he mentions him
(Ἄμανος) as the slayer of Ahab (_Antt._, VIII. xv. 5). The name is an
old Hebrew name (Num. xxvi. 40).

[84] The word _l'boosh_ means a gala dress. Comp. v. 5; Gen. xlv. 22.
χιτῶνες ἐπημοιβοί (Hom., _Od._, xiv. 514). Comp. viii. 249.

[85] Elisha would not be likely to _touch_ the place.

[86] Now the _Burâda_ ("cold") and the Nahr-el-Awâj.

[87] Compare the answer of Abraham to the King of Sodom (Gen. xiv. 23).

[88] The feeling which influenced Naaman is the same which led the
Jews to build Nahardea in Persia of stones from Jerusalem. Altars were
to be of earth (Exod. xx. 24), but no altar is mentioned in 2 Kings v.
17, and the LXX. does not even specify _earth_ (γόμος ζεῦγος ἡμιόνων).

[89] This is the only place in Scripture where Rimmon is mentioned,
though we have the name Tab-Rimmon ("Rimmon is good"), 1 Kings xv. 18,
and Hadad-Rimmon (Zech. xii. 11). He was the god of the thunder. The
word means "pomegranate," and some have fancied that this was one of
his symbols. But the resemblance may be accidental, and the name was
properly _Ramman_.

[90] See Deut. xxxii. 8, where the LXX. has κατὰ ἀριθμὸν ἀγγέλων.

[91] The moral difficulty must have been early felt, for the
Alexandrian LXX. reads καὶ προσκυνήσω ἄμα αὐτῷ ἐγὼ Κυρίῳ τῷ Θεῷ μου.
But he would still be bowing in the House of Rimmon, though he might
in his heart worship God. "Elisha, like Elijah" (says Dean Stanley),
"made no effort to set right what had gone so wrong. Their mission was
to make the best of what they found; not to bring back a rule of
religion which had passed away, but to dwell on the Moral Law which
could be fulfilled everywhere, not on the Ceremonial Law which
circumstances seemed to have put out of their reach: 'not sending the
Shunammite to Jerusalem' (says Cardinal Newman), 'not eager for a
proselyte in Naaman, yet making the heathen fear the Name of God, and
proving to them that there was a prophet in Israel'" (Stanley,
_Lectures_, ii. 377; Newman, _Sermons_, viii. 415).

[92] Prov. iv. 14, 15.

[93] Prov. xvii. 14.

[94] On Gehazi's lips it meant no more than the incessant _Wallah_,
"by God," of Mohammedans.

[95] 2 Kings v. 19. Heb., _kib'rath aretz_, "a little way"--literally,
"a space of country." (The Vatican LXX. follows another reading, εἰς
Δεβραθὰ τῆς γῆς; Vulg., _electo terræ tempore_[?].)

[96] LXX., κατεπήδησεν.

[97] A talent of silver was worth about £400--an enormous sum for two
half-naked youths.

[98] 2 Kings v. 24. The LXX. (εἰς τὸ σκοτεινὸν) seems to have read
אֹפֵל (_ophel_); "darkness," a treasury or secret place, for צַֹפֶל,
and so the Vulgate _jam vesperi_.

[99] 2 Kings v. 26. The verse is so interpreted by some critics,
especially Ewald, followed by Stanley. Margin, R.V.: "Mine heart went
not from me, when" etc.

[100] Exod. iv. 6; Num. xii. 10.

[101] The later Rabbis thought that Elisha was too severe with Gehazi,
and was punished with sickness because "he repelled him with both his
hands" (_Bava-Metsia_, f. 87, 1, and _Yalkut Jeremiah_).

[102] The Hebrew word for "cut off" (_qatsab_) is very rare. LXX.,
ἀπέκνισε ξύλον; Vulg., _præcidit lignum_.

[103] It must be further borne in mind that "the iron did swim" (A.V.)
is less accurate than "made the iron to swim" (R.V.). The LXX. has
ἐπεπόλασε, "brought to the surface." Von Gerlach says, "He thrust the
stick into the water, and raised the iron to the surface."




                              CHAPTER VII

                        _ELISHA AND THE SYRIANS_

                            2 KINGS vi. 1-23

    "Now there was found in the city a poor wise man, and he by his
    wisdom delivered the city."--ECCLES. ix. 15.


Elisha, unlike his master Elijah, was, during a great part of his long
career, intimately mixed up with the political and military fortunes
of his country. The king of Israel who occurs in the following
narratives is left nameless--always the sign of later and more vague
tradition; but he has usually been identified with Jehoram ben-Ahab,
and, though not without some misgivings, we shall assume that the
identification is correct. His dealings with Elisha never seem to have
been very cordial, though on one occasion he calls him "my father."
The relations between them at times became strained and even stormy.

His reign was rendered miserable by the incessant infestation of Syrian
marauders. In these difficulties he was greatly helped by Elisha. The
prophet repeatedly frustrated the designs of the Syrian king by
revealing to Jehoram the places of Benhadad's ambuscades, so that
Jehoram could change the destination of his hunting parties or other
movements, and escape the plots laid to seize his person. Benhadad,
finding himself thus frustrated, and suspecting that it was due to
treachery, called his servants together in grief and indignation, and
asked who was the traitor among them. His officers assured him that they
were all faithful, but that the secrets whispered in his bed-chamber
were revealed to Jehoram by Elisha the prophet in Israel, whose fame had
spread into Syria, perhaps because of the cure of Naaman. The king,
unable to take any step while his counsels were thus published to his
enemies, thought--not very consistently--that he could surprise and
seize Elisha himself, and sent to find out where he was. At that time he
was living in Dothan, about twelve miles north-east of Samaria,[104] and
Benhadad sent a contingent with horses and chariots by night to surround
the city, and prevent any escape from its gates. That he could thus
besiege a town so near the capital shows the helplessness to which
Israel had been now reduced.

When Elisha's servitor rose in the morning he was terrified to see the
Syrians encamped round the city, and cried to Elisha, "Alas! my
master, what shall we do?"

"Fear not," said the prophet: "they that be with us are more than they
that be with them." He prayed God to grant the youth the same open eyes,
the same spiritual vision which he himself enjoyed; and the youth saw
the mountain full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

This incident has been full of comfort to millions, as a beautiful
illustration of the truth that--

          "The hosts of God encamp around
             The dwellings of the just;
           Deliverance He affords to all
             Who on His promise trust.

          "Oh, make but trial of His love,
             Experience will decide,
           How blest are they, and only they,
             Who in His truth confide."

The youth's affectionate alarm had not been shared by his master. He
knew that to every true servant of God the promise will be fulfilled,
"He shall defend thee under His wings; thou shalt be safe under His
feathers; His righteousness and truth shall be thy shield and
buckler."[105]

Were our eyes similarly opened, we too should see the reality of the
Divine protection and providence, whether under the visible form of
angelic ministrants or not. Scripture in general, and the Psalms in
particular, are full of the serenity inspired by this conviction. The
story of Elisha is a picture-commentary on the Psalmist's words: "The
angel of the Lord encampeth round them that fear Him, and delivereth
them."[106] "He shall give His angels charge over thee, to keep thee
in all thy ways."[107] "And I will encamp about Mine house because of
the army, because of him that passeth by, and because of him that
returneth: and no oppressor shall pass through them any more: for now
have I seen with Mine eyes."[108] "The angel of His presence saved
them: in His love and in His pity He redeemed them; and He bare them,
and carried them all the days of old."[109]

But what is the exact meaning of all these lovely promises? They do not
mean that God's children and saints will always be shielded from anguish
or defeat, from the triumph of their enemies, or even from apparently
hopeless and final failure, or miserable death. The lesson is not that
their persons shall be inviolable, or that the enemies who advance
against them to eat up their flesh shall always stumble and fall. The
experiences of tens of thousands of troubled lives and martyred ends
instantly prove the futility of any such reading of these assurances.
The saints of God, the prophets of God, have died in exile and in
prison, have been tortured on the rack and broken on the wheel, and
burnt to ashes at innumerable stakes; they have been destitute,
afflicted, tormented, in their lives--stoned, beheaded, sawn asunder, in
every form of hideous death; they have rotted in miry dungeons, have
starved on desolate shores, have sighed out their souls into the
agonising flame. The Cross of Christ stands as the emblem and the
explanation of their lives, which fools count to be madness, and their
end without honour. On earth they have, far more often than not, been
crushed by the hatred and been delivered over to the will of their
enemies. Where, then, have been those horses and chariots of fire?

They have been there no less than around Elisha at Dothan. The eyes
spiritually opened have seen them, even when the sword flashed, or the
flames wrapped them in indescribable torment. The sense of God's
protection has least deserted His saints when to the world's eyes they
seemed to have been most utterly abandoned. There has been a joy in
prisons and at stakes, it has been said, far exceeding the joy of
harvest. "Pray for me," said a poor boy of fifteen, who was being
burned at Smithfield in the fierce days of Mary Tudor. "I would as
soon pray for a dog as for a heretic like thee," answered one of the
spectators. "Then, Son of God, shine Thou upon me!" cried the
boy-martyr; and instantly, upon a dull and cloudy day, the sun shone
out, and bathed his young face in glory; whereat, says the
martyrologist, men greatly marvelled. But is there one death-bed of a
saint on which that glory has not shone?

The presence of those horses and chariots of fire, unseen by the
carnal eye--the promises which, if they be taken literally, all
experience seems to frustrate--mean two things, which they who are the
heirs of such promises, and who would without them be of all men most
miserable, have clearly understood.

They mean, first, that as long as a child of God is on the path of
duty, and until that duty has been fulfilled, he is inviolable and
invulnerable. He shall tread upon the lion and the adder; the young
lion and the dragon shall he trample under his feet. He shall take up
the serpent in his hands; and if he drink any deadly thing, it shall
not hurt him. He shall not be afraid of the terror by night, nor of
the arrow that flieth by day; of the pestilence that walketh in
darkness, nor of the demon that destroyeth in the noonday. A thousand
shall fall at his right hand, and ten thousand beside him; but it
shall not come nigh him. The histories and the legends of numberless
marvellous deliverances all confirm the truth that, when a man fears
the Lord, He will keep him in all his ways, and give His angels charge
over him, lest at any time he dash his foot against a stone. God will
not permit any mortal force, or any combination of forces, to hinder
the accomplishment of the task entrusted to His servant. It is the
sense of this truth which, under circumstances however menacing,
should enable us to

                                  "bate no jot
          Of heart or hope, but still bear up, and steer
          Uphillward"

It is this conviction which has nerved men to face insuperable
difficulties, and achieve impossible and unhoped-for ends. It works in
the spirit of the cry, "Who art thou, O great mountain? Before
Zerubbabel be thou changed into a plain!" It inspires the faith as a
grain of mustard seed which is able to say to this mountain, "Be thou
removed, and be thou cast into the sea,"--and it shall obey. It stands
unmoved upon the pinnacle of the Temple whereon it has been placed,
while the enemy and the tempter, smitten by amazement, falls. In the
hour of difficulty it can cry,--

          "Rescue me, O Lord, in this mine evil hour,
           As of old so many by Thy mighty power,--
           Enoch and Elias from the common doom;
           Noe from the waters in a saving home;
           Abraham from the abounding guilt of heathenesse;
           Job from all his multiform and fell distress;
           Isaac when his faither's knife was raised to slay;
           Lot from burning Sodom on the judgment day;
           Moses from the land of bondage and despair;
           Daniel from the hungry lions in their lair;
           And the children three amid the furnace flame;
           Chaste Susanna from the slander and the shame;
           David from Golia, and the wrath of Saul;
           And the two Apostles from their prison-thrall."

The strangeness, the unexpectedness, the apparently inadequate source
of the deliverance, have deepened the trust that it has not been due
to accident. Once, when Felix of Nola was flying from his enemies, he
took refuge in a cave, and he had scarcely entered it before a spider
began to spin its web over the fissure. The pursuer, passing by, saw
the spider's web, and did not look into the cave; and the saint, as he
came out into safety, remarked: "_Ubi Deus est, ibi aranea murus, ubi
non est ibi murus aranea_" ("Where God is, a spider's web is as a
wall; where He is not, a wall is but as a spider's web").

This is one lesson conveyed in the words of Christ when the Pharisees
told Him that Herod desired to kill Him. He knew that Herod could not
kill Him till He had done His Father's will and finished His work. "Go
ye," He said, "and tell this fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do
cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.
Nevertheless, I must walk to-day, and to-morrow, and the day following."

But had all this been otherwise--had Felix been seized by his pursuers
and perished, as has been the common lot of God's prophets and
heroes--he would not therefore have felt himself mocked by these
exceeding great and precious promises. The chariots and horses of fire
are still there, and are there to work a deliverance yet greater and
more eternal. Their office is not to deliver the perishing body, but
to carry into God's glory the immortal soul. This is indicated in the
death-scene of Elijah. This was the vision of the dying Stephen. This
was what Christian legend meant when it embellished with beautiful
incidents such scenes as the death of Polycarp. This was what led
Bunyan to write, when he describes the death of Christian, that "all
the trumpets sounded for him on the other side." When poor Captain
Allan Gardiner lay starving to death in that Antarctic isle with his
wretched companions, he yet painted on the entrance of the cave which
had sheltered them, and near to which his remains were found, a hand
pointing downward at the words, "Though He slay me, yet will I put my
trust in Him."

There was a touch of almost joyful humour in the way in which Elisha
proceeded to use, in the present emergency, the power of Divine
deliverance. He seems to have gone out of the town and down the hill
to the Syrian captains,[110] and prayed God to send them illusion
(ἀβλεψία), so that they might be misled.[111] Then he boldly said to
them, "You are being deceived: you have come the wrong way, and to the
wrong city. I will take you to the man whom ye seek." The incident
reminds us of the story of Athanasius, who, when he was being pursued
on the Nile, took the opportunity of a bend of the river boldly to
turn back his boat towards Alexandria. "Do you know where Athanasius
is?" shouted the pursuers. "He is not far off!" answered the disguised
Archbishop; and the emissaries of Constantius went on in the opposite
direction from that in which he made his escape.

Elisha led the Syrians in their delusion straight into the city of
Samaria, where they suddenly found themselves at the mercy of the king
and his troops. Delighted at so great a chance of vengeance, Jehoram
eagerly exclaimed, "My father, shall I smite, shall I smite?"

Certainly the request cannot be regarded as unnatural, when we remember
that in the Book of Deuteronomy, which did not come to light till after
this period, we read the rule that, when the Israelites had taken a
besieged city, "thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the
sword";[112] and that when Israel defeated the Midianites[113] they slew
all the males, and Moses was wroth with the officers of the host
because they had not also slain all the women. He then (as we are told)
ordered them to slay all except the virgins, and also--horrible to
relate--"_every male among the little ones_." The spirit of Elisha on
this occasion was larger and more merciful. It almost rose to the spirit
of Him who said, "It was said to them of old time, Thou shalt love thy
neighbour and hate thine enemy; but I say unto you, Love your enemies;
forgive them that hate you; do good unto them that despitefully use you
and persecute you." He asked Jehoram reproachfully whether he would even
have smitten those whom he had taken captive with sword and bow.[114] He
not only bade the king to spare them, but to set food before them, and
send them home. Jehoram did so at great expense, and the narrative ends
by telling us that the example of such merciful generosity produced so
favourable an impression that "the bands of Syria came no more into the
land of Israel."

It is difficult, however, to see where this statement can be
chronologically fitted in. The very next chapter--so loosely is the
compilation put together, so completely is the sequence of events here
neglected--begins with telling us that Benhadad with all his host went
up and besieged Samaria. Any peace or respite gained by Elisha's
compassionate magnanimity must, in any case, have been exceedingly
short-lived. Josephus tries to get over the difficulty by drawing a
sufficiently futile distinction between marauding bands and a direct
invasion,[115] and he says that King Benhadad gave up his frays through
_fear_ of Elisha. But, in the first place, the encompassing of Dothan
had been carried out by "_a great host_ with horses and chariots," which
is hardly consistent with the notion of a foray, though it creates new
difficulties as to the numbers whom Elisha led to Samaria; secondly, the
substitution of a direct invasion for predatory incursions would have
been no gain to Israel, but a more deadly peril; and, thirdly, if it was
fear of Elisha which stopped the king's raids, it is strange that it had
no effect in preventing his invasions. We have, however, no data for any
final solution of these problems, and it is useless to meet them with a
network of idle conjectures. Such difficulties naturally occur in
narratives so vague and unchronological as those presented to us in the
documents from the story of Elisha which the compiler wove into his
history of Israel and Judah.[116]

FOOTNOTES:

[104] Gen. xxxvii. 17, _Dothain_, "two wells" (?).

[105] Psalm xci. 4.

[106] Psalm xxxiv. 7.

[107] Psalm xci. 11.

[108] Zech. ix. 8.

[109] Isa. lxiii. 9.

[110] Adopting the reading of the Syriac version: "And when they
[Elisha and his servant] came down to them [the Syrians]." The
ordinary reading is "to _him_," which makes the narrative less clear.

[111] 2 Kings vi. 19. מַנְוֵרִים, ἀορασία, only found in Gen. xix. 11.

[112] Deut. xx. 13.

[113] Num. xxxi. 7.

[114] Vulg., _Non percuties; neque enim cepisti eos ... ut percutias._

[115] Jos., _Antt._, IX. iv. 4, Κρύφα μὲν οὐκέτι ... φανερῶς δέ.

[116] Kittel, following Kuenen, surmises that this story has got
misplaced; that it does not belong to the days of Jehoram ben-Ahab and
Benhadad II., but to the days of Jehoahaz ben-Jehu and Benhadad III.,
the son of Hazael (_Gesch. der Hebr._, 249). In a very uncertain
question I have followed the conclusion arrived at by the majority of
scholars, ancient and modern.




                              CHAPTER VIII

                       _THE FAMINE AND THE SIEGE_

                         2 KINGS vi. 24-vii. 20

               "'Tis truly no good plan when princes play
                The vulture among carrion; but when
                They play the carrion among vultures--that
                Is ten times worse."
                          LESSING, _Nathan the Wise_, Act I., Sc. 3.


If the Benhadad, King of Syria, who reduced Samaria to the horrible
straits recorded in this chapter, (2 Kings vi.) was the same Benhadad
whom Ahab had treated with such impolitic confidence, his hatred
against Israel must indeed have burned hotly. Besides the affair at
Dothan, he had already been twice routed with enormous slaughter, and
against those disasters he could only set the death of Ahab at
Ramoth-Gilead. It is obvious from the preceding narrative that he
could advance at any time at his will and pleasure into the heart of
his enemy's country, and shut him up in his capital almost without
resistance. The siege-trains of ancient days were very inefficient,
and any strong fortress could hold out for years, if only it was well
provisioned. Such was not the case with Samaria, and it was reduced to
a condition of sore famine. Food so loathsome as an ass's head, which
at other times the poorest would have spurned, was now sold for eighty
shekels' weight of silver (about £8); and the fourth part of a
_xestes_ or _kab_--which was itself the smallest dry-measure, the
sixth part of a _seah_--of the coarse, common pulse, or roasted
chick-peas, vulgarly known as "dove's dung," fetched five shekels
(about 12_s._ 6_d._).[117]

While things were at this awful pass, "the King of Israel," as he is
vaguely called throughout this story, went his rounds upon the wall to
visit the sentries and encourage the soldiers in their defence. As he
passed, a woman cried, "Help, my lord, O king!" In Eastern monarchies
the king is a judge of the humblest; a suppliant, however mean, may
cry to him. Jehoram thought that this was but one of the appeals which
sprang from the clamorous mendicity of famine with which he had grown
so painfully familiar. "The Lord curse you!" he exclaimed
impatiently.[118] "How can I help you? Every barn-floor is bare, every
wine-press drained." And he passed on.

But the woman continued her wild clamour, and turning round at her
importunity, he asked, "What aileth thee?"

He heard in reply a narrative as appalling as ever smote the ear of a
king in a besieged city. Among the curses denounced upon apostate Israel
in the Pentateuch, we read, "Ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and
the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat";[119] or, as it is expressed
more fully in the Book of Deuteronomy, "He shall besiege thee in all
thy gates throughout all thy land.... And thou shalt eat the fruit of
thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and thy daughters, which the Lord
thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness wherewith
thine enemies shall distress thee: so that the man that is tender among
you, and very delicate, his eye shall be evil towards his brother, and
towards the wife of his bosom, and towards the remnant of his children
which he shall leave; so that he shall not give to any of them of the
flesh of his children whom he shall eat, because he hath nothing left
him in the siege.... The tender and delicate woman, which would not
adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness
and tenderness, her eye shall be evil towards the husband of her bosom,
and towards her son, and towards her daughter, and towards her children:
for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and
the straitness, if thou wilt not observe to do all the words of the law,
... that thou mayest fear the glorious and fearful name, _The Lord thy
God_."[120] We find almost the same words in the prophet Jeremiah;[121]
and in Lamentations we read: "The hands of the pitiful women have sodden
their own children: they were their meat in the destruction of the
daughter of My people."[122]

Isaiah asks, "Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not
have compassion on the son of her womb?" Alas! it has always been so in
those awful scenes of famine, whether after shipwreck or in beleaguered
cities, when man becomes degraded to an animal, with all an animal's
primitive instincts, and when the wild beast appears under the thin
veneer of civilisation. So it was at the siege of Jerusalem, and at the
siege of Magdeburg, and at the wreck of the _Medusa_, and on many
another occasion when the pangs of hunger have corroded away every
vestige of the tender affections and of the moral sense.

And this had occurred at Samaria: her women had become cannibals and
devoured their own little ones.

"This woman," screamed the suppliant, pointing her lean finger at a
wretch like herself--"this woman said unto me, 'Give thy son, that we
may eat him to-day, and we will afterwards eat my son.' I yielded to
her suggestion. We killed my little son, and ate his flesh when we had
sodden it. Next day I said to her, 'Now give thy son, that we may eat
him'; and she hath hid her son!"

How could the king answer such a horrible appeal? Injustice had been
done; but was he to order and to sanction by way of redress fresh
cannibalism, and the murder by its mother of another babe? In that
foul obliteration of every natural instinct, what could he do, what
could any man do? Can there be equity among raging wild beasts, when
they roar for their prey and are unfed?

All that the miserable king could do was to rend his clothes in horror
and to pass on, and as his starving subjects passed by him on the wall
they saw that he wore sackcloth beneath his purple, in sign, if not of
repentance, yet of anguish, if not of prayer, yet of uttermost
humiliation.[123]

But if indeed he had, in his misery, donned that sackcloth in order
that at least the semblance of self-mortification might move Jehovah
to pity, as it had done in the case of his father Ahab, the external
sign of his humility had done nothing to change his heart. The
gruesome appeal to which he had just been forced to listen only
kindled him to a burst of fury[124].The man who had warned, who had
prophesied, who so far during this siege had not raised his finger to
help--the man who was believed to be able to wield the powers of
heaven, and had wrought no deliverance for his people, but suffered
them to sink unaided into these depths of abjectness--should he be
permitted to live? If Jehovah would not help, of what use was Elisha?
"God do so to me, and more also," exclaimed Jehoram--using his
mother's oath to Elijah[125]--"if the head of Elisha, the son of
Shaphat, shall stand on him this day."

Was this the king who had come to Elisha with such humble entreaty,
when three armies were perishing of thirst before the eyes of Moab?
Was this the king who had called Elisha "my father," when the prophet
had led the deluded host of Syrians into Samaria, and bidden Jehoram
to set large provision before them? It was the same king, but now
transported with fury and reduced to despair. His threat against God's
prophet was in reality a defiance of God, as when our unhappy
Plantagenet, Henry II., maddened by the loss of Le Mans, exclaimed
that, since God had robbed him of the town he loved, he would pay God
out by robbing Him of that which He most loved in him--his soul.

Jehoram's threat was meant in grim earnest, and he sent an executioner
to carry it out. Elisha was sitting in his house with the elders of
the city, who had come to him for counsel at this hour of supreme
need. He knew what was intended for him, and it had also been revealed
to him that the king would follow his messenger to cancel his
sanguinary threat. "See ye," he said to the elders, "how this son of a
murderer"--for again he indicates his contempt and indignation for the
son of Ahab and Jezebel--"hath sent to behead me! When he comes, shut
the door, and hold it fast against him. His master is following hard
at his heels."

The messenger came, and was refused admittance. The king followed
him,[126] and entering the room where the prophet and elders sat, he
gave up his wicked design of slaying Elisha with the sword, but he
overwhelmed him with reproaches, and in despair renounced all further
trust in Jehovah. Elisha, as the king's words imply, must have refused
all permission to capitulate: he must have held out from the first a
promise that God would send deliverance. But no deliverance had come.
The people were starving. Women were devouring their babes. Nothing
worse could happen if they flung open their gates to the Syrian host.
"Behold," the king said, "this evil is Jehovah's doing. You have
deceived us. Jehovah does not intend to deliver us. Why should I wait
for Him any longer?" Perhaps the king meant to imply that his mother's
Baal was better worth serving, and would never have left his votaries
to sink into these straits.

And now man's extremity had come, and it was God's opportunity. Elisha
at last was permitted to announce that the worst was over, that the
next day plenty should smile on the besieged city. "Thus saith the
Lord," he exclaimed to the exhausted and despondent king, "To-morrow
about this time, instead of an ass's head being sold for eighty
shekels, and a thimbleful of pulse for five shekels, a peck of fine
flour shall be sold for a shekel, and two pecks of barley for a
shekel, in the gate of Samaria."

The king was leaning on the hand of his chief officer, and to this
soldier the promise seemed not only incredible, but silly: for at the
best he could only suppose that the Syrian host would raise the siege;
and though to hope for that looked an absurdity, yet even that would
not in the least fulfil the immense prediction. He answered,
therefore, in utter scorn: "Yes! Jehovah is making windows in heaven!
But even thus could this be?" It is much as if he should have answered
some solemn pledge with a derisive proverb such as, "Yes! if the sky
should fall, we should catch larks!"

Such contemptuous repudiation of a Divine promise was a blasphemy; and
answering scorn with scorn, and riddle with riddling, Elisha answers
the mocker, "Yes! and _you_ shall see this, but shall not enjoy it."

The word of the Lord was the word of a true prophet, and the miracle
was wrought. Not only was the siege raised, but the wholly unforeseen
spoil of the entire Syrian camp, with all its accumulated rapine,
brought about the predicted plenty.

There were four lepers[127] outside the gate of Samaria, like the
leprous mendicants who gather there to this day. They were cut off
from all human society, except their own. Leprosy was treated as
contagious, and if "houses of the unfortunate" (_Biut-el-Masákin_)
were provided for them, as seems to have been the case at Jerusalem,
they were built outside the city walls.[128] They could only live by
beggary, and this was an aggravation of their miserable condition. And
how could any one fling food to these beggars over the walls, when
food of any kind was barely to be had within them?

So taking counsel of their despair, they decided that they would
desert to the Syrians: among them they would at least find food, if
their lives were spared; and if not, death would be a happy release
from their present misery.

So in the evening twilight, when they could not be seen or shot at
from the city wall as deserters, they stole down to the Syrian camp.

When they reached its outermost circle, to their amazement all was
silence. They crept into one of the tents in fear and astonishment.
There was food and drink there, and they satisfied the cravings of
their hunger. It was also stored with booty from the plundered cities
and villages of Israel. To this they helped themselves, and took it
away and hid it. Having spoiled this tent, they entered a second. It
was likewise deserted, and they carried a fresh store of treasures to
their hiding-place. And then they began to feel uneasy at not
divulging to their starving fellow-citizens the strange and golden
tidings of a deserted camp. The night was wearing on; day would reveal
the secret. If they carried the good news, they would doubtless earn a
rich guerdon. If they waited till morning, they might be put to death
for their selfish reticence and theft. It was safest to return to the
city, and rouse the warder, and send a message to the palace. So the
lepers hurried back through the night, and shouted to the sentinel at
the gate, "We went to the Syrian camp, and it was deserted! Not a man
was there, not a sound was to be heard. The horses were tethered
there, and the asses, and the tents were left just as they were."

The sentinel called the other watchmen to hear the wonderful news, and
instantly ran with it to the palace. The slumbering house was roused;
and though it was still night, the king himself arose. But he could not
shake off his despondency, and made no reference to Elisha's prediction.
News sometimes sounds too good to be true. "It is only a decoy," he
said. "They can only have left their camp to lure us into an ambuscade,
that they may return, and slaughter us, and capture our city."

"Send to see," answered one of his courtiers. "Send five horsemen to
test the truth, and to look out. If they perish, their fate is but the
fate of us all."

So two chariots with horses were despatched, with instructions not
only to visit the camp, but track the movements of the host.

They went, and found that it was as the lepers had said. The camp was
deserted, and lay there as an immense booty; and for some reason the
Syrians had fled towards the Jordan to make good their escape to
Damascus by the eastern bank. The whole road was strewn with the traces
of their headlong flight; it was full of scattered garments and vessels.

Probably, too, the messengers came across some disabled fugitive, and
learnt the secret of this amazing stampede. It was the result of one of
those sudden unaccountable panics to which the huge, unwieldy,
heterogeneous Eastern armies, which have no organised system of
sentries, and no trained discipline, are constantly liable. We have
already met with several instances in the history of Israel. Such was
the panic which seized the Midianites when Gideon's three hundred blew
their trumpets; and the panic of the Syrians before Ahab's pages of the
provinces; and of the combined armies in the Valley of Salt; and of the
Moabites at Wady-el-Ahsy; and afterwards of the Assyrians before the
walls of Jerusalem. Fear is physically contagious, and, when once it has
set in, it swells with such unaccountable violence, that the Greeks
called these terrors "panic," because they believed them to be directly
inspired by the god Pan. Well-disciplined as was the army of the Ten
Thousand Greeks in their famous retreat, they nearly fell victims to a
sudden panic, had not Clearchus, with prompt resource, published by the
herald the proclamation of a reward for the arrest of the man who had
let the ass loose. Such an unaccountable terror--caused by a noise as of
chariots and of horses which reverberated among the hills--had seized
the Syrian host. They thought that Jehoram had secretly hired an army of
the princes of the Khetas[129] and of the Egyptians to march suddenly
upon them. In wild confusion, not stopping to reason or to inquire, they
took to flight, increasing their panic by the noise and rush of their
own precipitance.

No sooner had the messengers delivered their glad tidings, than the
people of Samaria began to pour tumultuously out of the gates, to
fling themselves on the food and on the spoil. It was like the rush of
the dirty, starving, emaciated wretches which horrified the keepers
of the reserved stores at Smolensk in Napoleon's retreat from Moscow,
and forced them to shut the gates, and fling food and grain to the
struggling soldiers out of the windows of the granaries. To secure
order and prevent disaster, the king appointed his attendant lord to
keep the gate. But the torrent of people flung him down, and they
trampled on his body in their eagerness for relief. He died after
having seen that the promise of Elisha was fulfilled, and that the
cheapness and abundance had been granted, the prophecy of which he
thought only fit for his sceptical derision.

"The sudden panic which delivered the city," says Dean Stanley, "is
the one marked intervention on behalf of the northern capital. No
other incident could be found in the sacred annals so appropriately to
express, in the Church of Gouda, the pious gratitude of the citizens
of Leyden, for their deliverance from the Spanish army, as the
miraculous raising of the siege of Samaria."[130]

FOOTNOTES:

[117] So _asafœtida_ is called "devil's dung" in Germany; and the _Herba
alcali_, "sparrow's dung" by Arabs. The _Q'ri_, however, supports the
_literal_ meaning; and compare 2 Kings xviii. 27; Jos., _B. J._, V.
xiii. 7. Analogies for these prices are quoted from classic authors.
Plutarch (_Artax._, xxiv.) mentions a siege in which an ass's head could
hardly be got for sixty drachmas (£2 10_s._), though usually the whole
animal only cost £1. Pliny (_H. N._, viii. 57) says that during
Hannibal's siege of Casilinum a mouse sold for £6 5_s._

[118] So Clericus. Comp. Jos. ἐπηράσατο αὐτῇ.

[119] Lev. xxvi. 29.

[120] Deut. xxviii. 52-58.

[121] Jer. xix. 9.

[122] Lam. iv. 10: comp. ii. 20; Ezek. v. 10; Jos., _B. J._, VI. iii. 4.

[123] 1 Kings xxi. 27; Isa. xx. 2, 3.

[124] Compare the wrath of Pashur the priest in consequence of the
denunciation of Jeremiah (Jer. xx. 2).

[125] 1 Kings xix. 2.

[126] In 2 Kings vi. 33 we should read _melek_ (king) for _maleak_
(messenger). Jehoram repented of his hasty order.

[127] The Jews say Gehazi, and his three sons (Jarchi).

[128] Lev. xiii. 46; Num. v. 2, 3.

[129] The capitals of the ancient Hittites--a nation whose fame had
been almost entirely obliterated till a few years ago--were
Karchemish, Kadesh, Hamath, and Helbon (Aleppo).

[130] _Lectures_, ii. 345.




                               CHAPTER IX

                      _THE SHUNAMMITE AND HAZAEL_

               2 KINGS viii. 1-6, 7-15. (Circ. B.C. 886.)

             "Our acts still follow with us from afar,
              And what we have been makes us what we are."
                                         GEORGE ELIOT.


The next anecdote of Elisha brings us once more into contact with the
Lady of Shunem. Famines, or dearths, were unhappily of very frequent
occurrence in a country which is so wholly dependent, as Palestine is,
upon the early and latter rain. On some former occasion Elisha had
foreseen that "Jehovah had called for a famine"; for the sword, the
famine, and the pestilence are represented as ministers who wait His
bidding.[131] He had also foreseen that it would be of long duration,
and in kindness to the Shunammite had warned her that she had better
remove for a time into a land in which there was greater plenty. It
was under similar circumstances that Elimelech and Naomi, ancestors of
David's line, had taken their sons Mahlon and Chilion, and gone to
live in the land of Moab; and, indeed, the famine which decided the
migration of Jacob and his children into Egypt had been a
turning-point in the history of the Chosen People.

The Lady of Shunem had learnt by experience the weight of Elisha's
words. Her husband is not mentioned, and was probably dead; so she
arose with her household, and went for seven years to live in the
plain of Philistia. At the end of that time the dearth had ceased, and
she returned to Shunem, but only to find that during her absence her
house and land were in possession of other owners, and had probably
escheated to the Crown. The king was the ultimate, and to a great
extent the only, source of justice in his little kingdom, and she went
to lay her claim before him and demand the restitution of her
property. By a providential circumstance she came exactly at the most
favourable moment. The king--it must have been Jehoram--was at the
very time talking to Gehazi about the great works of Elisha. As it is
unlikely that he would converse long with a leper, and as Gehazi is
still called "the servant of the man of God," the incident may here be
narrated out of order. It is pleasant to find Jehoram taking so deep
an interest in the prophet's story. Already on many occasions during
his wars with Moab and Syria, as well as on the occasion of Naaman's
visit, if that had already occurred, he had received the completest
proof of the reality of Elisha's mission, but he might be naturally
unaware of the many private incidents in which he had exhibited a
supernatural power. Among other stories Gehazi was telling him that of
the Shunammite, and how Elisha had given life to her dead son. At that
juncture she came before the king, and Gehazi said, "My lord, O king,
this is the very woman, and this is her son whom Elisha recalled to
life." In answer to Jehoram's questions she confirmed the story, and
he was so much impressed by the narrative that he not only ordered
the immediate restitution of her land, but also of the value of its
products during the seven years of her exile.

We now come to the fulfilment of the second of the commands which
Elijah had received so long before at Horeb. To complete the
retribution which was yet to fall on Israel, he had been bidden to
anoint Hazael to be king of Syria in the room of Benhadad. Hitherto
the mandate had remained unfulfilled, because no opportunity had
occurred; but the appointed time had now arrived. Elisha, for some
purpose, and during an interval of peace, visited Damascus, where the
visit of Naaman and the events of the Syrian wars had made his name
very famous. Benhadad II., grandson or great-grandson of Rezin, after
a stormy reign of some thirty years, marked by some successes, but
also by the terrible reverses already recorded, lay dangerously ill.
Hearing the news that the wonder-working prophet of Israel was in his
capital, he sent to ask of him the question, "Shall I recover?" It had
been the custom from the earliest days to propitiate the favour of
prophets by presents, without which even the humblest suppliant hardly
ventured to approach them.[132] The gift sent by Benhadad was truly
royal, for he thought perhaps that he could purchase the intercession
or the miraculous intervention of this mighty thaumaturge. He sent
Hazael with a selection "of every good thing of Damascus," and, like
an Eastern, he endeavoured to make his offering seem more
magnificent[133] by distributing it on the backs of forty camels.

At the head of this imposing procession of camels walked Hazael, the
commander of the forces, and stood in Elisha's presence with the
humble appeal, "Thy son Benhadad, King of Syria, hath sent me to thee,
saying, Shall I recover of this disease?"

About the king's munificence we are told no more, but we cannot doubt
that it was refused. If Naaman's still costlier blessing had been
rejected, though he was about to receive through Elisha's ministration
an inestimable boon, it is unlikely that Elisha would accept a gift
for which he could offer no return, and which, in fact, directly or
indirectly, involved the death of the sender. But the historian does
not think it necessary to pause and tell us that Elisha sent back the
forty camels unladen of their treasures. It was not worth while to
narrate what was a matter of course. If it had been no time, a few
years earlier, to receive money and garments, and olive-yards and
vineyards, and men-servants and maid-servants, still less was it a
time to do so now. The days were darker now than they had been, and
Elisha himself stood near the Great White Throne. The protection of
these fearless prophets lay in their utter simplicity of soul. They
rose above human fears because they stood above human desires. What
Elisha possessed was more than sufficient for the needs of the plain
and humble life of one whose communing was with God. It was not
wonderful that prophets should rise to an elevation whence they could
look down with indifference upon the superfluities of the lust of the
eyes and the pride of life, when even sages of the heathen have
attained to a similar independence of earthly luxuries. One who can
climb such mountain-heights can look with silent contempt on gold.

But there is a serious difficulty about Elisha's answer to the
embassage. "Go, say unto him"--so it is rendered in our Authorised
Version--"Thou mayest certainly recover: howbeit the Lord hath showed
me that he shall surely die."

It is evident that the translators of 1611 meant the emphasis to be
laid on the "_mayest_," and understood the answer of Elisha to mean,
"Thy recovery is quite possible; and yet"--he adds to Hazael, and not
as part of his answer to the king--"Jehovah has shown me that dying he
shall die,"--not indeed of this disease, but by other means before he
has recovered from it.

Unfortunately, however, the Hebrew will not bear this meaning. Elisha
bids Hazael to go back with the distinct message, "Thou shalt surely
recover," as it is rightly rendered in the Revised Version.

This, however, is the rendering, not of the _written_ text as it stands,
but of the margin. Every one knows that in the Masoretic original the
text itself is called the K'thîb, or "what is written," whereas the
margin is called _Q'rî_, "read." Now, our translators, both those of
1611 and those of the Revision Committee, all but invariably follow the
Kethîb as the most authentic reading. In this instance, however, they
abandon the rule and translate the marginal reading.

What, then, is the written text?

It is the reverse of the marginal reading, for it has: "Go, say, Thou
shalt _not_ recover."

The reader may naturally ask the cause of this startling discrepancy.

It seems to be twofold.

(I.) Both the Hebrew word _lo_, "not" (לֹא), and the word _lo_, "to
him" (לוֹ), have precisely the same pronunciation. Hence this text
might mean either "Go, say _to him_, Thou shalt certainly recover," or
"Go, say, Thou shalt _not_ recover." The same identity of the
negative and the dative of the preposition has made nonsense of
another passage of the Authorised Version, where "Thou hast multiplied
the nation, and _not_ increased the joy: they joy before Thee
according to the joy of harvest," should be "Thou hast multiplied the
nation, and increased _its_ joy." So, too, the verse "It is He that
hath made us, and _not_ we ourselves," may mean "It is He that hath
made us, and _to Him_ we belong." In the present case the adoption of
the negative (which would have conveyed to Benhadad the exact truth)
is not possible; for it makes the next clause and its introduction by
the word "Howbeit" entirely meaningless.

But (II.) this confusion in the text might not have arisen in the
present instance but for the difficulty of Elisha's appearing to send
a deliberately false message to Benhadad, and a message which he tells
Hazael at the time is false.

Can this be deemed impossible?

With the views prevalent in "those times of ignorance," I think not.
Abraham and Isaac, saints and patriarchs as they were, both told
practical falsehoods about their wives. They, indeed, were reproved
for this, though not severely; but, on the other hand, Jael is not
reproved for her treachery to Sisera; and Samuel, under the semblance
of a Divine permission, used a diplomatic ruse when he visited the
household of Jesse; and in the apologue of Micaiah a lying spirit is
represented as sent forth to do service to Jehovah; and Elisha himself
tells a deliberate falsehood to the Syrians at Dothan. The
sensitiveness to the duty of always speaking the exact truth is not
felt in the East with anything like the intensity that it is in
Christian lands; and reluctant as we should be to find in the message
of Elisha another instance of that _falsitas dispensativa_ which has
been so fatally patronised by some of the Fathers and by many Romish
theologians, the love of truth itself would compel us to accept this
view of the case, if there were no other possible interpretation.

I think, however, that another view is possible. I think that Elisha
may have said to Hazael, "Go, say unto him, Thou shalt surely
recover," with the same accent of irony in which Micaiah said at first
to the two kings, "Go up to Ramoth-Gilead, and prosper; for the Lord
shall deliver it into the hand of the king." I think that his whole
manner and the tone of his voice may have shown to Hazael, and may
have been meant to show him, that this was not Elisha's real message
to Benhadad. Or, to adopt the same line of explanation with an
unimportant difference, Elisha may have meant to imply, "Go, follow
the bent which I know you _will_ follow; go, carry back to your master
the lying message that I said he would recover. But that is not _my_
message. My message, whether it suits your courtier instincts or not,
is that Jehovah has warned me that he shall surely die."

That some such meaning as this attaches to the verse seems to be shown
by the context. For not only was some reproof involved in Elisha's
words, but he showed his grief still more by his manner. It was as
though he had said, "Take back what message you choose, but Benhadad
will certainly die"; and then he fastened his steady gaze on the
soldier's countenance, till Hazael blushed and became uneasy. Only
when he noted that Hazael's conscience was troubled by the glittering
eyes which seemed to read the inmost secrets of his heart did Elisha
drop his glance, and burst into tears. "Why weepeth, my lord?" asked
Hazael, in still deeper uneasiness. Whereupon Elisha revealed to him
the future. "I weep," he said, "because I see in thee the curse and
the avenger of the sins of my native land. Thou wilt become to them a
sword of God; thou wilt set their fortresses on fire; thou wilt
slaughter their youths; thou wilt dash their little ones to pieces
against the stones; thou wilt rip up their women with child." That he
actually inflicted these savageries of warfare on the miserable
Israelites we are not told, but we are told that he smote them in all
their coasts; that Jehovah delivered them into his hands; that he
oppressed Israel all the days of Jehoahaz.[134] That being so, there
can be no question that he carried out the same laws of atrocious
warfare which belonged to those times and continued long afterwards.
Such atrocities were not only inflicted on the Israelites again and
again by the Assyrians and others,[135] but they themselves had often
inflicted them, and inflicted them with what they believed to be
Divine approval, on their own enemies.[136] Centuries after, one of
their own poets accounted it a beatitude to him who should dash the
children of the Babylonians against the stones.[137]

As the answer of Hazael is usually read and interpreted, we are taught
to regard it as an indignant declaration that he could never be guilty
of such vile deeds. It is regarded as though it were "an abhorrent
repudiation of his future self." The lesson often drawn from it in
sermons is that a man may live to do, and to delight in, crimes which
he once hated and deemed it impossible that he should ever commit.

The lesson is a most true one, and is capable of a thousand
illustrations. It conveys the deeply needed warning that those who,
even in thought, dabble with wrong courses, which they only regard as
venial peccadilloes, may live to commit, without any sense of horror,
the most enormous offences. It is the explanation of the terrible fact
that youths who once seemed innocent and holy-minded may grow up, step
by step, into colossal criminals. "Men," says Scherer, "advance
unconsciously from errors to faults, and from faults to crimes, till
sensibility is destroyed by the habitual spectacle of guilt, and the
most savage atrocities come to be dignified by the name of State
policy."

          "Lui-même à son portrait forcé de rendre hommage,
           Il frémira d'horreur devant sa propre image."

But true and needful as these lessons are, they are entirely beside the
mark as deduced from the story of Hazael. What he said was not, as in
our Authorised Version, "But what, is thy servant a dog, that he should
do this great thing?" nor by "great thing" does he mean "so deadly a
crime." His words, more accurately rendered in our Revision, are, "But
what is thy servant, which is but a dog, that he should do this great
thing?" or, "But what is the dog, thy servant?" It was a hypocritic
deprecation of the future importance and eminence which Elisha had
prophesied for him. There is not the least sense of horror either in his
words or in his thoughts. He merely means "A mere dog, such as I am, can
never accomplish such great designs." A dog in the East is utterly
despised;[138] and Hazael, with Oriental irony, calls himself a dog,
though he was the Syrian Commander-in-chief--just as a Chinaman, in
speaking of himself, adopts the periphrasis "this little thief."

Elisha did not notice his sham humility, but told him, "The Lord hath
showed me that thou shalt be King over Syria." The date of the event
was B.C. 886.

The scene has sometimes been misrepresented to Elisha's discredit, as
though he suggested to the general the crimes of murder and rebellion.
The accusation is entirely untenable. Elisha was, indeed, in one
sense, commissioned to anoint Hazael King of Syria, because the cruel
soldier had been predestined by God to that position; but, in another
sense, he had no power whatever to give to Hazael the mighty kingdom
of Aram, nor to wrest it from the dynasty which had now held it for
many generations. All this was brought about by the Divine purpose, in
a course of events entirely out of the sphere of the humble man of
God. In the transferring of this crown he was in no sense the agent or
the suggester. The thought of usurpation must, without doubt, have
been already in Hazael's mind. Benhadad, as far as we know, was
childless. At any rate he had no natural heirs, and seems to have been
a drunken king, whose reckless undertakings and immense failures had
so completely alienated the affections of his subjects from himself
and his dynasty, that he died undesired and unlamented, and no hand
was uplifted to strike a blow in his defence. It hardly needed a
prophet to foresee that the sceptre would be snatched by so strong a
hand as that of Hazael from a grasp so feeble as that of Benhadad II.
The utmost that Elisha had done was, under Divine guidance, to read
his character and his designs, and to tell him that the accomplishment
of these designs was near at hand.

So Hazael went back to Benhadad, and in answer to the eager inquiry,
"What said Elisha to thee?" he gave the answer which Elisha had
foreseen that he meant to give, and which was in any case a falsehood,
for it suppressed half of what Elisha had really said. "He told me,"
said Hazael, "that thou shouldest surely recover."

Was the sequel of the interview the murder of Benhadad by Hazael?

The story has usually been so read, but Elisha had neither prophesied
this nor suggested it. The sequel is thus described. "And it came to
pass on the morrow, that _he_ took the coverlet,[139] and dipped it in
water, and spread it on his face, so that he died: and Hazael reigned
in his stead." The repetition of the name Hazael in the last clause is
superfluous if he was the subject of the previous clause, and it has
been consequently conjectured that "he took" is merely the impersonal
idiom "one took." Some suppose that, as Benhadad was in the bath, his
servant took the bath-cloth, wetted it, and laid its thick folds over
the mouth of the helpless king; others, that he soaked the thick
quilt, which the king was too weak to lift away.[140] In either case
it is hardly likely that a great officer like Hazael would have been
in the bath-room or the bed-room of the dying king. Yet we must
remember that the Prætorian Præfect Macro is said to have suffocated
Tiberius with his bed-clothes. Josephus says that Hazael strangled his
master with a net; and, indeed, he has generally been held guilty of
the perpetration of the murder. But it is fair to give him the benefit
of the doubt. Be that as it may, he seems to have reigned for some
forty-six years (B.C. 886-840), and to have bequeathed the sceptre to
a son on whom he had bestowed the old dynastic name of Benhadad.

FOOTNOTES:

[131] Jer. xxv. 29; Ezek. xxxviii. 21.

[132] See the cases of Samuel (1 Sam. ix. 7), of Ahijah (1 Kings xiv.
3), and of Elisha himself (2 Kings iv. 42).

[133] As Jacob did in sending forward his present to Esau. Comp.
Chardin, _Voyages_, iii. 217.

[134] 2 Kings x. 32, xiii. 3, 22.

[135] Isa. xiii. 15, 16; Hos. x. 14, xiii. 16; Nah. iii. 10.

[136] See Josh. vi. 17, 21; 1 Sam. xv. 3; Lev. xxvii. 28, 29.

[137] Psalm cxxxvii. 9.

[138] 1 Sam. xxiv. 14; 2 Sam. ix. 8.

[139] מַכְבֵּר Jos., _Antt._, IX. iv. 6, δίκτυον διάβροχον. Aquila,
Symmachus, τὸ στρῶμα. Michaelis supposed it to be the mosquito-net
(κωνωπεῖον). Comp. 1 Sam. xix. 13. Ewald suggested "bath-mattress"
(iii. 523). Sir G. Grove (_s.v._ "Elisha," _Bibl. Dict._, ii. 923)
mentions that Abbas Pasha is said to have been murdered in the same
manner. Some, however, think that the measure was taken by way of cure
(Bruce, _Travels_, iii. 33. Klostermann, _ad loc._, alters the text at
his pleasure).

[140] 2 Kings viii. 15; LXX., τὸ μαχβάρ; Vulg., _stragulum_; lit.,
"woven cloth."




                               CHAPTER X

                 (1) _JEHORAM BEN-JEHOSHAPHAT OF JUDAH_

                              B.C. 851-843

                   (2) _AHAZIAH BEN-JEHORAM OF JUDAH_

                              B.C. 843-842

                       2 KINGS viii. 16-24, 25-29

        "Bear like the Turk, no brother near the throne."--POPE.


The narrative now reverts to the kingdom of Judah, of which the
historian, mainly occupied with the great deeds of the prophet in
Israel, takes at this period but little notice.

He tells us that in the fifth year of Jehoram of Israel, son of Ahab,
his namesake and brother-in-law, Jehoram of Judah, began to reign in
Judah, though his father, Jehoshaphat, was then king.[141]

The statement is full of difficulties, especially as we have been
already told (i. 17) that Jehoram ben-Ahab of Israel began to reign in
the _second_ year of Jehoram ben-Jehoshaphat of Judah, and (iii. 1)
in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat. It is hardly worth while to
pause here to disentangle these complexities in a writer who, like
most Eastern historians, is content with loose chronological
references. By the current mode of reckoning, the twenty-five years of
Jehoshaphat's reign may merely mean twenty-three and a month or two of
two other years; and some suppose that, when Jehoram of Judah was
about sixteen, his father went on the expedition against Moab, and
associated his son with him in the throne. This is only conjecture.
Jehoshaphat, of all kings, least needed a coadjutor, particularly so
weak and worthless a one as his son; and though the association of
colleagues with themselves has been common in some realms, there is
not a single instance of it in the history of Israel and Judah--the
case of Uzziah, who was a leper, not being to the point.[142]

The kings both of Israel and of Judah at this period, with the single
exception of the brave and good Jehoshaphat, were unworthy and
miserable. The blight of the Jezebel-marriage and the curse of
Baal-worship lay upon both kingdoms. It is scarcely possible to find
such wretched monarchs as the two sons of Jezebel--Ahaziah and Jehoram
in Israel, and the son-in-law and grandson of Jezebel, Jehoram and
Ahaziah, in Judah. Their respective reigns are annals of shameful
apostasy, and almost unbroken disaster.

Jehoram ben-Jehoshaphat of Judah was thirty-two years old when he
began his independent reign, and reigned for eight deplorable years.
The fact that his mother's name is (exceptionally) omitted seems to
imply that his father Jehoshaphat set the good example of
monogamy.[143] Jehoram was wholly under the influence of Athaliah, his
wife, and of Jezebel, his mother-in-law, and he introduced into Judah
their alien abominations. He "walked in their way, and did evil in the
sight of the Lord." The Chronicler fills up the general remark by
saying that he did his utmost to foster idolatry by erecting _bamoth_
in the mountains of Judah, and compelled his people to worship there,
in order to decentralise the religious services of the kingdom, and so
to diminish the glory of the Temple. He introduced Baal-worship into
Judah, and either he or his son was the guilty builder of a temple to
Baalim, not only on the "opprobrious mount" on which stood the
idolatrous chapels of Solomon, but on the Hill of the House itself.
This temple had its own high priest, and was actually adorned with
treasures torn from the Temple of Jehovah.[144] So bad was Jehoram's
conduct that the historian can only attribute his non-destruction to
the "covenant of salt" which God had made with David, "to give him a
lamp for his children always."

But if actual destruction did not come upon him and his race, he came
very near such a fate, and he certainly experienced that "the path of
transgressors is hard." There is nothing to record about him but crime
and catastrophe. First Edom revolted. Jehoshaphat had subdued the
Edomites, and only allowed them to be governed by a vassal; now they
threw off the yoke. The Jewish King advanced against them to "Zair"--by
which must be meant apparently either Zoar (through which the road to
Edom lay), or their capital, Mount Seir.[145] There he was surrounded by
the Edomite hosts; and though by a desperate act of valour he cut his
way through them at night in spite of their reserve of chariots, yet his
army left him in the lurch.[146] Edom succeeded in establishing its
final independence, to which we see an allusion in the one hope held out
to Esau by Isaac in that "blessing" which was practically a curse.

The loss of so powerful a subject-territory, which now constituted a
source of danger on the eastern frontier of Judah, was succeeded by
another disaster on the south-west, in the Shephelah or lowland plain.
Here Libnah revolted,[147] and by gaining its autonomy contracted yet
farther the narrow limits of the southern kingdom.

The Book of Kings tells us no more about the Jewish Jehoram, only
adding that he died and was buried with his fathers, and was succeeded
by his son Ahaziah. But the Book of Chronicles, which adds far darker
touches to his character, also heightens to an extraordinary degree
the intensity of his punishment. It tells us that he began his reign
by the atrocious murder of his six younger brothers, for whom,
following the old precedent of Rehoboam, Jehoshaphat had provided by
establishing them as governors of various cities. As his throne was
secure, we cannot imagine any motive for this brutal massacre except
the greed of gain, and we can only suppose that, as Jehoram
ben-Jehoshaphat became little more than a friendly vassal of his
kinsmen in Israel, so he fell under the deadly influence of his wife
Athaliah, as completely as his father-in-law had done under the spell
of her mother Jezebel. With his brothers he also swept away a number
of the chief nobles, who perhaps embraced the cause of his murdered
kinsmen. Such conduct breathes the known spirit of Jezebel and of
Athaliah. To rebuke him for this wickedness, he received the menace of
a tremendous judgment upon his home and people in a writing from
_Elijah_, whom we should certainly have assumed to be dead long before
that time. The judgment itself followed. The Philistines and Arabians
invaded Judah, captured Jerusalem, and murdered all Jehoram's own
children, except Ahaziah, who was the youngest. Then Jehoram, at the
age of thirty-eight, was smitten with an incurable disease of the
bowels, of which he died two years later, and not only died
unlamented, but was refused burial in the sepulchres of the kings. In
any case his reign and that of his son and successor were the most
miserable in the annals of Judah, as the reigns of their namesakes and
kinsmen, Ahaziah ben-Ahab and Jehoram ben-Ahab, were also the most
miserable in the annals of Israel.

Jehoram was succeeded on the throne of Judah by his son Ahaziah. If
the chronology and the facts be correct, Ahaziah ben-Jehoram of Judah
must have been born when his father was only eighteen, though he was
the youngest of the king's sons, and so escaped from being massacred
in the Philistine invasion. He succeeded at the age of twenty-two,
and only reigned a single year. During this year his mother, the
Gebîrah Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, and granddaughter
of the Tyrian Ethbaal, was all-supreme. She bent the weak nature of
her son to still further apostasies. She was "his counsellor to do
wickedly," and her Baal-priest Mattan was more important than the
Aaronic high priest of the despised and desecrated Temple. Never did
Judah sink to so low a level, and it was well that the days of Ahaziah
of Judah were cut short.

The only event in his reign was the share he took with his uncle
Jehoram of Israel in his campaign to protect Ramoth-Gilead from
Hazael. The expedition seems to have been successful in its main
purpose. Ramoth-Gilead, the key to the districts of Argob and Bashan,
was of immense importance for commanding the country beyond Jordan. It
seems to be the same as Ramath-Mizpeh (Josh. xiii. 26); and if so, it
was the spot where Jacob made his covenant with Laban. Ahab, or his
successors, in spite of the disastrous end of the expedition to Ahab
personally, had evidently recovered the frontier fortress from the
Syrian king.[148] Its position upon a hill made its possession vital
to the interests of Gilead; for the master of Ramah was the master of
that Trans-Jordanic district. But Hazael had succeeded his murdered
master, and was already beginning to fulfil the ruthless mission which
Elisha had foreseen with tears. Jehoram ben-Ahab seems to have held
his own against Hazael for a time; but in the course of the campaign
at Ramoth he was so severely wounded that he was compelled to leave
his army under the command of Jehu, and to return to Jezreel, to be
healed of his wounds. Thither his nephew Ahaziah of Judah went to
visit him; and there, as we shall hear, he too met his doom. That
fate, the Chronicler tells us, was the penalty of his iniquities. "The
destruction of Ahaziah was of God by coming to Joram."

We have no ground for accusing either king of any want of courage; yet
it was obviously impolitic of Jehoram to linger unnecessarily in his
luxurious capital, while the army of Israel was engaged in service on
a dangerous frontier. The wounds inflicted by the Syrian archers may
have been originally severe. Their arrows at this time played as
momentous a part in history as the cloth-yard shafts of our English
bowmen which "sewed the French ranks together" at Poictiers, Creçy,
and Azincour. But Jehoram had at any rate so far recovered that he
could ride in his chariot; and if he had been wise and bravely
vigorous, he would not have left his army under a subordinate at so
perilous an epoch, and menaced by so resolute a foe. Or if he were
indeed compelled to consult the better physicians at Jezreel, he
should have persuaded his nephew Ahaziah of Judah--who seems to have
been more or less of a vassal as well as a kinsman--to keep an eye on
the beleaguered fort. Both kings, however, deserted their
post,--Jehoram to recover perfect health; and Ahaziah, who had been
his comrade--as their father and grandfather had gone together to the
same war--to pay a state visit of condolence to the royal invalid. The
army was left under a popular, resolute, and wholly unscrupulous
commander, and the results powerfully affected the immediate and the
ultimate destiny of both kingdoms.

FOOTNOTES:

[141] The following genealogy may help to elucidate the troublesome
identity of names:--

              OMRI
           ____|____
           |       |                  JEHOSHAPHAT
         Ahab = Jezebel                    |
       _______|__________________          |
       |            |           |          |
    Ahaziah      Jehoram      Athaliah = Jehoram
  (of Israel).  (of Israel).           | (of Judah).
                                       |
                                    Ahaziah
                                   (of Judah).


[142] Jotham ben-Uzziah was not the colleague of his father, but his
public representative.

[143] The only other king of Judah whose mother's name is not mentioned
(perhaps because his father Jotham had but one wife) is Ahaz.

[144] 2 Kings xi. 18; 2 Chron. xxi. 11, xxiv. 7.

[145] Vulg., _Seira_; Arab., _Sa'ir_ (but the historian never uses the
name Mount Seir); LXX., Σιώρ. There is perhaps some corruption in the
text, and the reading of the Chronicler "with his princes" shows that
it may have once been צַמ־שָׂרָיו.

[146] 2 Kings viii. 21. "The people" (_i.e._, the army of Judah) "fled
to their tents." Apparently this means that they slunk away home. The
word "tents" is a reminiscence of their nomad days, like the
treasonable cry, "To your tents, O Israel."

[147] Josh. x. 29-39.

[148] Jos., _Antt._, IX. vi. 1.




                               CHAPTER XI

                          _THE REVOLT OF JEHU_

                                B.C. 842

                            2 KINGS ix. 1-37

                   "Te semper anteit sæva Necessitas
                    Clavos trabales et cuneos manu,
                    Gestans ahenâ."
                                 HORAT., _Od._, I. xxxv. 17.


A long period had elapsed since Elijah had received the triple
commission which was to mark the close of his career. Two of those
Divine behests had now been accomplished. He had anointed Elisha, son
of Shaphat, of Abel-Meholah, to be prophet in his room;[149] and
Elisha had anointed Hazael to be king over Syria;[150] the third and
more dangerous commission, involving nothing less than the overthrow
of the mighty dynasty of Omri, remained still unaccomplished.

If the name of Jehu ("Jehovah is He")[151] had been actually mentioned
to Elijah, the dreadful secret must have remained buried in the breast
of the prophet and in that of his successor for many years. Further,
Jehu was yet a very young man, and to have marked him out as the
founder of a dynasty would have been to doom him to certain
destruction. An Eastern king, whose family has once securely seated
itself on the throne, is hedged round with an awful divinity, and
demands an unquestioning obedience. Elijah had been removed from earth
before this task had been fulfilled, and Elisha had to wait for his
opportunity. But the doom was passed, though the judgment was belated.
The sons of Ahab were left a space to repent, or to fill to the brim
the cup of their father's iniquities.

          "The sword of Heaven is not in haste to smite,
           Nor yet doth linger."

Ahaziah, Ahab's eldest son, after a reign of one year, marked only by
crimes and misfortunes, had ended in overwhelming disaster his
deplorable career. His brother Jehoram had succeeded him, and had now
been on the throne for at least twelve years, which had been chiefly
signalised by that unsuccessful attempt to recover the territory of
revolted Moab, to which we owe the celebrated Stone of Mesha. We have
already narrated the result of the campaign which had so many
vicissitudes. The combined armies of Israel, Judah, and Edom had been
delivered by the interposition of Elisha from perishing of thirst
beside the scorched-up bed of the Wady-el-Ahsy; and availing
themselves of the rash assault of the Moabites, had swept everything
before them. But Moab stood at bay at Kir-Haraseth (Kerak), his
strongest fortress, six miles from Ar or Rabbah, and ten miles east of
the southern end of the Dead Sea. It stood three thousand feet above
the level of the sea, and is defended by a network of steep valleys.
Nevertheless, Israel would have subdued it, but for the act of
horrible despair to which the King of Moab resorted in his extremity,
by offering up his eldest son as a burnt-offering to Chemosh upon the
wall of the city. Horror-stricken by the catastrophe, and terrified
with the dread that the vengeance of Chemosh could not but be aroused
by so tremendous a sacrifice, the besieging host had retired. From
that moment Moab had not only been free, but assumed the _rôle_ of an
aggressor, and sent her marauding bands to harry and carry the farms
and homesteads of her former conqueror.[152]

Then followed the aggressions of Benhadad which had been frustrated by
the insight of Elisha, and which owed their temporary cessation to his
generosity.[153] The reappearance of the Syrians in the field had
reduced Samaria to the lowest depths of ghastly famine. But the day of
the guilty city had not yet come, and a sudden panic, caused among the
invaders by a rumoured assault of Hittites and Egyptians, had saved
her from destruction.[154] Taking advantage of the respite caused by
the change of the Syrian dynasty, and pressing on his advantage,
Jehoram, with the aid of his Judæan nephew, had once more got
possession of Ramoth-Gilead before Hazael was secure on the throne
which he had usurped.

This then was the situation:--The allied and kindred kings of Israel
and Judah were idling in the pomp of hospitality at Jezreel; their
armies were encamped about Ramoth-Gilead; and at the head of the host
of Israel was the crafty and vehement grandson of Nimshi.

Elisha saw and seized his opportunity. The day of vengeance from the
Lord had dawned. Things had not materially altered since the days of
Ahab. If Jehovah was nominally worshipped, if the very names of the
kings of Israel bore witness to His supremacy,[155] Baal was
worshipped too. The curse which Elijah had pronounced against Ahab and
his house remained unfulfilled. The credit of prophecy was at stake.
The blood of Naboth and his slaughtered sons cried to the Lord from
the ground; and hitherto it seemed to have cried in vain. If the
_Nebiîm_ (the prophetic class) were to have their due weight in
Israel, the hour had come, and the man was ready.

The light which falls on Elisha is dim and intermittent. His name is
surrounded by a halo of nebulous wonders, of which many are of a
private and personal character. But he was a known enemy of Ahab and
his house. He had, indeed, more than once interposed to snatch them
from ruin, as in the expedition against Moab, and in the awful straits
of the siege of Samaria by the Syrians. But his person had none the
less been hateful to the sons of Jezebel, and his life had been
endangered by their bursts of sudden fury. He could hardly again have
a chance so favourable as that which now offered itself, when the
armed host was at one place and the king at another. Perhaps, too, he
may have been made aware that the soldiers were not well pleased to
find at their head a king who was so far a _fainéant_ as to leave them
exposed to a powerful enemy, and show no eagerness to return. His
"urgent private affairs" were not so urgent as to entitle him to take
his ease at luxurious Jezreel.

Where Elisha was at the time we do not know--perhaps at Dothan,
perhaps at Samaria. Suddenly he called to him a youth--one of the Sons
of the Prophets, on whose speed and courage he could rely--placed in
his hands a vial of the consecrated anointing oil,[156] told him to
gird up his loins,[157] and to speed across the Jordan to
Ramoth-Gilead. When he arrived, he was to bid Jehu rise up from the
company of his fellow-captains to hurry him into "a chamber within a
chamber,"[158] to shut the door for secrecy, to pour the consecrating
oil upon his head, to anoint him King of Israel in the name of
Jehovah, and then to fly without a moment's delay.[159]

The messenger--the Rabbis guess that he was Jonah, the son of
Amittai[160]--knew well that his was a service of immense peril, in
which his life might easily pay the forfeit of his temerity. How was
he to guess that at once, without striking a blow, the host of Israel
would fling to the winds its sworn allegiance to the son of the
warrior Ahab, the fourth monarch of the powerful dynasty of Omri?
Might not any one of a thousand possible accidents thwart a conspiracy
of which the success depended on the unflinching courage and
promptitude of his single hand?

He was but a youth, but he was the trained pupil of a master who had,
again and again, stood before kings, and not been afraid. He sprang
from a community which inherited the splendid traditions of the
Prophet of Flame.

He did not hesitate a moment. He tightened the camel's hide round his
naked limbs, flung back the long dark locks of the Nazarite, and sped
upon his way. A true son of the schools of Jehovah's prophets has, and
can have, no fear of man. The armies of Israel and Judah saw the wild,
flying figure of a young man, with his hairy garment and streaming
locks, rush through the camp. Whatever might be their surmisings, he
brooked no questions. Availing himself of the awe with which the
shadow of Elijah had covered the sacrosanct person of a prophetic
messenger, he made his way straight to the war-council of the
captains; and brushing aside every attempt to impede his progress with
the plea that he was the bearer of Jehovah's message, he burst into
the council of the astonished warriors, who were assembled in the
private courtyard of a house in the fortress-town.[161]

He knew the fame of Jehu, but did not know his person, and dared not
waste time. "I have an errand to thee, O captain," he said to the
assembly generally. The message had been addressed to no one in
particular, and Jehu naturally asked, "Unto which of all of us?" With
the same swift intuition which has often enabled men in similar
circumstances to recognise a leader--as Josephus recognised Vespasian,
and St. Severinus recognised Odoacer, and Joan of Arc recognised
Charles VI. of France--he at once replied, "To thee, O captain." Jehu
did not hesitate a moment. Prophets had shown, many a time, that their
messages might not be neglected or despised. He rose, and followed the
youth, who led him into the most secret recess of the house, and
there, emptying on his head the fragrant oil of consecration, said,
"Thus saith Jehovah, God of Israel, I have anointed thee king over
the people of Jehovah, even over Israel."[162] He was to smite the
house of his master Ahab in vengeance for the blood of Jehovah's
prophets and servants whom Jezebel had murdered. Ahab's house, every
male of it, young and old, bond and free,[163] is doomed to perish, as
the houses of Jeroboam and of Baasha had perished before them, by a
bloody end. Further, the dogs should eat Jezebel by the rampart of
Jezreel,[164] and there should be none to bury her.

One moment sufficed for his daring deed, for his burning message; the
next he had flung open the door and fled. The soldiers of the camp must
have whispered still more anxiously together as they saw the same
agitated youth rushing through their lines with the same impetuosity
which had marked his entrance. In those dark days the sudden appearance
of a prophet was usually the herald of some terrific storm.[165]

Jehu was utterly taken by surprise; but according to the reading
preserved by Ephraem Syrus in 2 Kings ix. 26, he had on the previous
night seen in a dream the blood of Naboth and his sons. If the thought
of revolt had ever passed for a moment through his mind, it had never
assumed a definite shape. True, he had been a warrior from his youth.
True, he had been one of Ahab's bodyguard, and had ridden before him
in a chariot at least twenty years earlier, and had now risen by
valour and capacity to the high station of captain of the host. True,
also, that he had heard the great curse which Elijah had pronounced on
Ahab at the door of Naboth's vineyard; but he heard it while he was
yet an obscure youth, and he had little dreamed that his was the hand
which should carry it into execution. Who was he? And had not the
house of Omri been, in some sense, sanctioned by Heaven? And were not
the words of the prophet "wild and wandering cries," of which the
issues might be averted by such a repentance as that of Ahab?

And he felt another misgiving. Might not this scene be the plot of
some secret enemy? Might it not at any rate be a reckless jest palmed
upon him by his comrades? If any jealous member of the confederacy of
captains betrayed the fact that Jehu had tampered with their
allegiance, would his head be safe for a single hour? He would act
warily. He came back to his fellow-captains and said nothing.

But they were burning with curiosity. Something must be impending.
Prophets did not rush in thus tumultuously for no purpose. Must not
the youth's mantle of hair be some standard of war?

"Is all right?" they shouted. "Why did this frantic fellow come to
thee?"[166]

"You know all about it," answered Jehu, with wary coolness. "You know
more about it than I do. You know the man, and what his talk was."

"Lies!" bluntly answered the rough soldiers.[167] "Tell us now."

Then Jehu's eye took measure of them and their feelings. A judge of
men and of men's countenances, he saw conspiracy flashing in their
faces. He saw that they suspected the true state of things, and were
on fire to carry it out. Perhaps they had caught sight of the vial of
oil under the youth's scant dress. Could any quickened observation at
least fail to notice that the soldier's dark locks were shining and
fragrant, as they had not been a moment ago, with consecrated oil?

Then Jehu frankly told them the perilous secret. Thus and thus had the
young prophet spoken, and had said, "Thus saith Jehovah, I have
anointed thee king over Israel."

The message was met with a shout of answering approbation. That shout
was the death-knell of the house of Omri. It showed that the reigning
dynasty had utterly forfeited its popularity. No luck had followed the
sons of Naboth's murderer. Israel was weary of their mother Jezebel.
Why was this king Jehoram, this king of evil auspices, who had been
repudiated by Moab and harried by Syria--why, in the first gleam of
possible prosperity, was he being detained at Jezreel by wounds which
rumour said were already sufficiently healed to allow him to return to
his post? Down with the seed of the murderer and the sorceress! Let
brave Jehu be king, as Jehovah has said!

So the captains sprang to their feet, and then and there seized Jehu,
and carried him in triumph to the top of the stairs which ran round
the inside of the courtyard, and stripped off their mantles to
extemporise for him the semblance of a cushioned throne.[168] Then in
the presence of such soldiers as they could trust they blew a sudden
blast of the ram's horn, and shouted, "Jehu is king!"

Jehu was not the man to let the grass grow under his feet. Nothing
tries a man's vigour and nerve so surely as a sudden crisis. It is
this swift resolution which has raised many a man to the throne, as it
raised Otho, and Napoleon I. and Napoleon III. The history of Israel
is specially full of _coups d'état_, but no one of them is half so
decisive or overwhelming as this. Jehu instantly accepted the office
of Jehovah's avenger on the house of Ahab.[169] Everything, as Jehu
saw, depended on the suddenness and fury with which the blow was
delivered. "If you want me to be your king,"[170] he said, "keep the
lines secure, and guard the fortress walls. I will be my own messenger
to Jehoram. Let no deserter go forth to give him warning."[171]

It was agreed; and Jehu, only taking with him Bidkar, his
fellow-officer, and a small band of followers, set forth at full speed
from Ramoth-Gilead.

The fortress of Ramoth, now the important town of Es-Salt, a place
which must always have been the key of Gilead, was built on the
summit of a rocky headland, fortified by nature as well as by art. It
is south of the river Jabbok, and lies at the head of the only easy
road which runs down westward to the Jordan and eastward to the rich
plateau of the interior.[172] Crossing the fords of the Jordan, Jehu
would soon be able to join the main road, which, passing Tirzah,
Zaretan, and Beth-shean, and sweeping eastward of Mount Gilboa, gives
ready access to Jezreel.

The watchman on the lofty watchtower of the summer palace caught sight
of a storm of dust careering along from the eastward up the valley
towards the city.[173] The times were wild and troublous. What could
it be? He shouted his alarm, "I see a troop!" The tidings were
startling, and the king was instantly informed that chariots and
horsemen were approaching the royal city. "Send a horseman to meet
them," he said, "with the message, 'Is all well?'"

Forth flew the rider, and cried to the rushing escort, "The king asks,
'Is all well? Is it peace?'" For probably the anxious city hoped that
there might have been some victory of the army against Hazael, which
would fill them with joy.

"What hast thou to do with peace? Turn thee behind me," answered Jehu;
and perforce the horseman, whatever may have been his conjectures, had
to follow in the rear.

"He reached them," cried the sentry on the watchtower, "but he does
not return."

The news was enigmatical and alarming; and the troubled king sent
another horseman. Again the same colloquy occurred, and again the
watchman gave the ominous message, adding to it the yet more
perplexing news that, in the mad and headlong driving[174] of the
charioteer, he recognises the driving of Jehu, the son of Nimshi.[175]

What had happened to his army? Why should the captain of the host be
driving thus furiously to Jezreel?

Matters were evidently very critical, whatever the swift approach of
chariots and horsemen might portend. "Yoke my chariot," said Jehoram;
and his nephew Ahaziah, who had shared his campaign, and was no less
consumed with anxiety to learn tidings which could not but be
pressing, rode by him in another chariot to meet Jehu. They took with
them no escort worth mentioning. The rebellion was not only sudden,
but wholly unexpected.

The two kings met Jehu in a spot of the darkest omen. It was the plot
of ground which had once been the vineyard of Naboth, at the door of
which Ahab had heard from Elijah the awful message of his doom. As the
New Forest was ominous to our early Norman kings as the witness of
their cruelties and encroachments, so was this spot to the house of
Omri, though it was adjacent to their ivory palace, and had been
transformed from a vineyard into a garden or pleasance.

"Is it peace, Jehu?" shouted the agitated king; by which probably he
only meant to ask, "Is all going well in the army at Ramoth?"

The fierce answer which burst from the lips of his general fatally
undeceived him. "What peace," brutally answered the rebel, "so long as
the whoredoms of thy mother Jezebel and her witchcrafts are so many?"
She, after all, was the _fons et origo mali_ to the house of Jehoram.
Hers was the dark spirit of murder and idolatry which had walked in that
house. She was the instigator and the executer of the crime against
Naboth. She had been the foundress of Baal- and Asherah-worship; she was
the murderess of the prophets; she had been specially marked out for
vengeance in the doom pronounced both by Elijah and Elisha.

The answer was unmistakable. This was a revolt, a revolution.
"Treachery, Ahaziah!" shouted the terrified king, and instantly wheeled
round his chariot to flee.[176] But not so swiftly as to escape the
Nemesis which had been stealing upon him with leaden feet, but now smote
him irretrievably with iron hand. Without an instant's hesitation, Jehu
snatched his bow from his attendant charioteer, "filled his hands with
it," and from its full stretch and resonant string sped the arrow, which
smote Jehoram in the back with fatal force, and passed through his
heart.[177] Without a word the unhappy king sank down upon his
knees[178] in his chariot, and fell face forward, dead.

"Take him up," cried Jehu to Bidkar,[179] "and fling him down where he
is,--here in this portion of the field of Naboth the Jezreelite. Here,
years ago, you and I, as we rode behind Ahab,[180] heard Elijah utter
his oracle on this man's father, that vengeance should meet him here.
Where the dogs licked the blood of Naboth and his sons, let dogs lick
the blood of the son of Ahab."[181]

But Jehu was not the man to let the king's murder stay his
chariot-wheels when more work had yet to be done. Ahaziah of Judah,
too, belonged to Ahab's house, for he was Ahab's grandson, and
Jehoram's nephew and ally. Without stopping to mourn or avenge the
tragedy of his uncle's murder, Ahaziah fled towards Bethgan or
Engannim,[182] the fountain of gardens, south of Jezreel, on the road
to Samaria and Jerusalem. Jehu gave the laconic order, "Smite him
also";[183] but fright added wings to the speed of the hapless King of
Judah. His chariot-steeds were royal steeds, and were fresh; those of
Jehu were spent with the long, fierce drive from Ramoth. He got as far
as the ascent of Gur before he was overtaken.[184] There, not far from
Ibleam, the rocky hill impeded his flight, and he was wounded by the
pursuers. But he managed to struggle onwards to Megiddo, on the south
of the plain of Jezreel, and there he hid himself.[185] He was
discovered, dragged out, and slain. Even Jehu's fierce emissaries did
not make war on dead bodies, any more than Hannibal did, or Charles V.
They left such meanness to Jehu himself, and to our Charles II. They
did not interfere with the dead king's remains. His servants carried
them to Jerusalem, and there he was buried with his fathers in the
sepulchre of the kings, in the city of David. As there was nothing
more to tell about him, the historian omits the usual formula about
the rest of the acts of Ahaziah, and all that he did. His death
illustrates the proverb _Mitgegangen mitgefangen_: he was the comrade
of evil men, and he perished with them.

Jehu speedily reached Jezreel, but the interposition of Jehoram and
the orders for the pursuit of Ahaziah had caused a brief delay, and
Jezebel had already been made aware that her doom was imminent.

Not even the sudden and dreadful death of her son, and the nearness of
her own fate, daunted the steely heart of the Tyrian sorceress. If she
was to die, she would meet death like a queen. As though for some
Court banquet, she painted her eyelashes and eyebrows with antimony,
to make her eyes look large and lustrous,[186] and put on her jewelled
head-dress.[187] Then she mounted the palace tower, and, looking down
through the lattice above the city gate, watched the thundering
advance of Jehu's chariot, and hailed the triumphant usurper with the
bitterest insult she could devise. She knew that Omri, her husband's
father, had taken swift vengeance on the guilt of the usurper Zimri,
who had been forced to burn himself in the harem at Tirzah after one
month's troubled reign. Her shrill voice was heard above the roar of
the chariot-wheels in the ominous taunt,--

"Is it peace, thou Zimri, thou murderer of thy master?"[188]

No!--She meant, "There is no peace for thee nor thine, any more than for
me or mine! Thou mayest murder us; but thee too, thy doom awaiteth!"

Stung by the ill-omened words, Jehu looked up at her and shouted,--

"Who is on my side? Who?"

The palace was apparently rife with traitors. Ahab had been the first
polygamist among the kings of Israel, and therefore the first also to
introduce the odious atrocity of eunuchs. Those hapless wretches, the
portents of Eastern seraglios, the disgrace of humanity, are almost
always the retributive enemies of the societies of which they are the
helpless victims. Fidelity or gratitude are rarely to be looked for
from natures warped into malignity by the ruthless misdoing of men.
Nor was the nature of Jezebel one to inspire affection. One or two
eunuchs[189] immediately thrust out of the windows their bloated and
beardless faces. "Fling her down!" Jehu shouted. Down they flung the
wretched queen (has any queen ever died a death so shamelessly
ignominious?), and her blood spirted upon the wall, and on the horses.
Jehu, who had only stopped for an instant in his headlong rush, drove
his horses over her corpse,[190] and entered the gate of her capital
with his wheels crimson with her blood. History records scarcely
another instance of such a scene, except when Tullia, a century later,
drove her chariot over the dead body of her father Servius Tullius in
the _Vicus Sceleratus_ of ancient Rome.[191]

But what cared Jehu? Many a conqueror ere now has sat down to the
dinner prepared for his enemy; and the obsequious household of the
dead tyrants, ready to do the bidding of their new lord, ushered the
hungry man to the banquet provided for the kings whom he had slain. No
man dreamt of uttering a wail; no man thought of raising a finger for
dead Jehoram or for dead Jezebel, though they had all been under _her_
sway for at least five-and-thirty years. "The wicked perish, and no
man regardeth." "When the wicked perish, there is shouting."[192]

We may be startled at a revolution so sudden and so complete; yet it
is true to history. A tyrant or a cabal may oppress a nation for long
years. Their word may be thought absolute, their power irresistible.
Tyranny seems to paralyse the courage of resistance, like the fabled
head of Medusa. Remove its fascination of corruption, and men become
men, and not machines, once more. Jehu's daring woke Israel from the
lethargy which had made her tolerate the murders and enchantments of
this Baal-worshipping alien. In the same way in one week Robespierre
seemed to be an invincible autocrat; the next week his power had
crumbled into dust and ashes at a touch.

It was not until Jehu had sated his thirst and hunger after that wild
drive, which had ended in the murder of two kings and a queen and in
his sudden elevation to a throne, that it even occurred to this new
tiger-king to ask what had become of Jezebel. But when he had eaten
and drunk, he said, "Go, see now to this cursed woman, and bury her:
for she is a king's daughter." That she had been first Princess, then
Queen, then Gebîrah in Israel for nearly a full lifetime was nothing:
it was nothing to Jehu that she was a wife, and mother, and
grandmother of kings and queens both of Israel and Judah;--but she was
also the daughter of Ethbaal, the priest-king of Tyre and Sidon, and
therefore any shameful treatment of her remains might kindle trouble
from the region of Phœnicia.[193]

But no one had taken the trouble so much as to look after the corpse
of Jezebel. The populace of Jezreel were occupied with their new king.
Where Jezebel fell, there she had been suffered to lie; and no one,
apparently, cared even to despoil her of the royal robes, now
saturated with bloodshed. Flung from the palace-tower, her body had
fallen in the open space just outside the walls--what is called "the
mounds" of an Eastern city. In the strange carelessness of sanitation
which describes as "fate" even the visitation of an avoidable
pestilence, all sorts of offal are shot into this vacant space to
fester in the tropic heat. I myself have seen the pariah dogs and the
vultures feeding on a ghastly dead horse in a ruined space within the
street of Beit-Dejun; and the dogs and the vultures--"those national
undertakers"--had done their work unbidden on the corpse of the Tyrian
queen. When men went to bury her, they only found a few dog-mumbled
bones--the skull, and the feet, and the palms of the hands.[194] They
brought the news to Jehu as he rested after his feast. It did not by
any means discompose him. He at once recognised that another
levin-bolt had fallen from the thunder-crash of Elijah's prophecy, and
he troubled himself about the matter no further. Her carcase, as the
man of God had prophesied, had become as dung upon the face of the
field, so that none could say, "This is Jezebel."[195]

FOOTNOTES:

[149] 1 Kings xix. 15, 16.

[150] 2 Kings viii. 12, 13.

[151] The name was not uncommon, 1 Chron. ii. 38, iv. 35, xii. 3.

[152] 2 Kings xiii. 20, xxiv. 2; Jer. xlviii.

[153] 2 Kings vi. 8-23.

[154] 2 Kings vii. 6.

[155] Jehoram = Jehovah is exalted. Ahaziah = Jehovah holds.

[156] Vial (_pak_) only here and in 1 Sam. x. 1. "_The_ oil" (LXX.,
τὸν φακὸν τοῦ ἐλαίου).

[157] "His habit fit for speed _succinct_" (Milton).

[158] Inner chamber, 1 Kings xx. 30.

[159] Perhaps, if Elisha had gone in person, suspicion might have been
aroused. He was not more than fifty at this time, and lived
forty-three years more.

[160] _Seder Olam_, c. 18.

[161] It seems as though they were _inside_ the town to defend it, not
a beleaguring host outside.

[162] The expression is remarkable, as showing how completely the
prerogative of the Chosen People was supposed to rest with the Ten
Tribes, as the most important representatives of the seed of Abraham.

[163] "Him that is shut up, and him that is left at large in Israel"
(2 Kings ix. 8; 1 Kings xiv. 10, xvi. 3, 4).

[164] The A.V. has, less accurately, "in the _portion_ of Jezreel."
See 1 Kings xxi. 23. Heb., חֵלֶק. The חֵיל of an Eastern town is the
ditch and empty space--a sort of external _pomœrium_ around it. It is
the place of offal, and the haunt of vultures and pariah dogs.

[165] 1 Sam. xvi. 4: "Comest thou peaceably?"

[166] 2 Kings ix. 11, הַמְּשֻׁנָּצ LXX., ὁ ἑπίληπτος. Comp. ver. 20,
"he driveth _furiously_" (בְשִׁנָּצון).

[167] Ver. 12, a lie! (שֶׁקֶר).

[168] What is meant by the _gerem_ of the staircase is uncertain. The
word means "a bone" (Aquila, ὀστῶδες), and is, in this connection, an
ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. The Targum explains it as the top vane of a
stair-dial. The margin of the R.V. renders it "on the bare steps." The
Vulgate renders it _in similitudinem tribunalis_, as though _gerem_
meant _tselem_. The LXX. conceal their perplexity by simply
translating the word ἐπὶ τὸ γαρέμ. Grotius and Clericus, _in fastigio
graduum_. Symmachus, ἐπὶ μίαν τῶν ἀναβαθμίδων.

[169] 2 Kings ix. 14: "So Jehu _conspired_ against Joram." The same
word is used in 2 Chron. xxiv. 25, 26.

[170] 2 Kings ix. 15, R.V.: "If this be your mind."

[171] So far as we know, he never returned to Ramoth-Gilead, of which
indeed we hear no more.

[172] Tristram, _Land of Moab_.

[173] Heb., _Shiph'hath_, "a dust-storm" (LXX., κονιορτόν, αἰ. ὄχλον;
Vulg., _globum_), not as in A.V. and R.V., "a company." Comp. Isa. lx.
6; Ezek. xxvi. 10.

[174] Clearly the rendering "he driveth furiously" is right. The word
"furiously" is _beshigga'ôn_ (Vulg., _præceps_), and is connected with
"mad," ver. 11. LXX., ἐν παραλλαγῇ. Arab. Chald., "quietly." Josephus,
"leisurely, and in good order." Such an approach would not, however,
have been at all in accordance with the perilous urgency of his intent.

[175] Jehu, the son of Jehoshaphat, is named from his grandfather
Nimshi, who seems to have been the founder of the greatness of his
house.

[176] 2 Kings ix. 23: "Turned his hands." Comp. 1 Kings xxii. 34.

[177] Ver. 24. Vulg., _inter scapulas_.

[178] LXX., reading בּרְכָּיו צַל.

[179] Bidkar, perhaps Bar-dekar, "Son of stabbing." Comp. 1 Kings iv. 9.

[180] Heb., _ts'madim_, "in pairs"; LXX., ἐπιβεβηκότες ἐπὶ ζεύγη. It
is uncertain whether Jehu and Bidkar were in the same chariot as Ahab,
as Josephus says (καθεζομένους ὄπισθεν τοῦ ἅρματος), or in a separate
chariot.

[181] 2 Kings ix. 26: "Saith the Lord." Ephraem Syrus omits these
words. He says that the night before Jehu had seen the blood of Naboth
and his sons in a dream. Comp. Hom., _Od._, iii. 258: Τῷ κε οἱ οὐδὲ
θανόντι χυτὴν ἐπὶ γαῖαν ἔχευαν 'Αλλ' ἄρα τονγε κύνες τε καὶ οἰωνοὶ
κατέδαψαν Κείμενον ἐν πεδίῳ.

[182] A.V., "By the way of the garden-house." LXX., Βαιθγάν.

[183] The text is a little uncertain.

[184] Thenius supposes "Gur" to mean "a caravanserai." Comp. 2 Chron.
xxvi. 7, _Gur-Baal_; Vulg., _Hospitium Baalis_.

[185] The account of the Chronicler (2 Chron. xxii. 9) differs from
that of the earlier historian. It may, however, be (uncertainly)
reconciled with it as in the text, if we suppose the words "he was hid
in Samaria" to mean in Megiddo, in the territory of Samaria.
Obviously, however, the traditions varied. There are difficulties
about the story, for Ibleam is on the west towards Megiddo, and not
between Jezreel and Samaria.

[186] פּוּךְ, "Lead-glance." A mixture of pulverised antimony
(_stibium_) and zinc is still used by women in the East for this
purpose. _In calliblepharis dilatat oculos_ (Plin., _H. N._, xxxiii.).
Keren-Happuk, the name given by Job to one of his daughters, means
"horn of stibium." The object could hardly have been to _attract_ Jehu
(as Ephraem Syrus thinks), for Jezebel had already a _grandson_
twenty-three years old (viii. 26).

[187] A.V., "_Tired_ her head." Comp. _tiara_. Lit., "made good";
LXX., ἠγάθυνε.

[188] Josephus gives the sense very well: Καλὸς δοῦλος ὁ ἀποκτείνας
τὸν δεσπότην (_Antt._, IX. vi. 4). The same question might have been
addressed to Baasha, Shallum, Menahem, Pekah, and Hoshea; but at least
Jehu might plead a prophet's call.

[189] "Two or three." Lit., "two three," like the old English "two
three" for "several."

[190] Ver. 33. Heb., "He trod her underfoot." LXX., Συνεπάτησαν αὐτήν;
Vulg., _Conculcaverunt eam_.

[191] Liv., i. 46-48.

[192] Prov. xi. 10. Compare the remark of Voltaire, who saw "le peuple
ivré de vin et de joie de la mort de Louis XIV."

[193] 1 Kings xvi. 31. At this time Ethbaal was dead. He reigned
probably from B.C. 940-908, and died at the age of sixty-eight (Jos.,
_Antt._, VIII. xiii. 1, IX. vi. 6; _c. Ap._, i. 18).

[194] 1 Kings xxi. 23.

[195] Comp. Psalm lxxxiii. 10. Her name remained a by-word till the
latest days (Rev. ii. 20), and the Spanish Jews called their
persecutress Isabella the Catholic "Jezebel."




                              CHAPTER XII

                    _JEHU ESTABLISHED ON THE THRONE_

                              B.C. 842-814

                            2 KINGS x. 1-17

            "The devil can quote Scripture for his purpose."
                                                     SHAKESPEARE.


But the work of Jehu was not yet over. He was established at Jezreel;
he was lord of the palace and seraglio of his master; the army of
Israel was with him. But who could be sure that no civil war would
arise, as between the partisans of Zimri and Omri, as between Omri and
Tibni? Ahab, first of the kings of Israel, had left many sons. There
were no less than seventy of these princes at Samaria. Might there not
be among them some youth of greater courage and capacity than the
murdered Jehoram? And could it be anticipated that the late dynasty
was so utterly unfortunate and execrated as to have none left to do
them reverence, or to strike one blow on their behalf, after more than
half a century of undisputed sway?[196] Jehu's _coup de main_ had been
brilliantly successful. In one day he had leapt into the throne. But
Samaria was strong upon its watch-tower hill. It was full of Ahab's
sons, and had not yet declared on Jehu's side. It might be expected
to feel some gratitude to the dynasty which Jehu had supplanted,
seeing that it owed to the grandfather of the king whom he had just
slain its very existence as the capital of Israel.

He would put a bold face on his usurpation, and strike while the iron
was hot. He would not rouse opposition by seeming to assume that
Samaria would accept his rebellion. He therefore wrote a letter to the
rulers of Samaria[197]--which was but a journey of nine hours'
distance from Jezreel--and to the guardians of the young princes,
reminding them that they were masters in a strong city, protected with
its own contingent of chariots and horses, and well supplied with
armour. He suggested that they should select the most promising of
Ahab's sons, make him king, and begin a civil war on his behalf.

The event showed how prudent was this line of conduct. As yet Jehu had
not transferred the army from Ramoth-Gilead. He had doubtless taken
good care to prevent intelligence of his plans from reaching the
adherents of Jehoram in Samaria. To them the unknown was the terrible.
All they knew was that "Behold, two kings stood not before him!" The
army must have sanctioned his revolt: what chance had they? As for
loyalty and affection, if ever they had existed towards this hapless
dynasty, they had vanished like a dream. The people of Samaria and
Jezreel had once been obedient as sheep to the iron dominance of
Jezebel. They had tolerated her idol-abominations, and the insolence
of her army of dark-browed priests. They had not risen to defend the
prophets of Jehovah, and had suffered even Elijah, twice over, to be
forced to flee for his life. They had borne, hitherto without a
murmur, the tragedies, the sieges, the famines, the humiliations, with
which during these reigns they had been familiar. And was not Jehovah
against the waning fortunes of the Beni-Omri? Elijah had undoubtedly
cursed them, and now the curse was falling. Jehu must doubtless have
let it be known that he was only carrying out the behest of their own
citizen the great Elisha, who had sent to him the anointing oil. They
could find abundant excuses to justify their defection from the old
house, and they sent to the terrible man a message of almost abject
submission:--Let him do as he would; they would make no king: they
were his servants, and would do his bidding.

Jehu was not likely to be content with verbal or even written
promises. He determined, with cynical subtlety, to make them put a
very bloody sign-manual to their treaty, by implicating them
irrevocably in his rebellion. He wrote them a second mandate.

"If," he said, "ye accept my rule, prove it by your obedience. Cut off
the heads of your master's sons, and see that they are brought to me
here to-morrow by yourselves before the evening."

The ruthless order was fulfilled to the letter by the terrified
traitors. The king's sons were with their tutors, the lords of the city.
On the very morning that Jehu's second missive arrived, every one of
these poor guiltless youths was unceremoniously beheaded. The hideous,
bleeding trophies were packed in fig-baskets and sent to Jezreel.[198]

When Jehu was informed of this revolting present it was evening, and he
was sitting at a meal with his friends.[199] He did not trouble himself
to rise from his feast or to look at "death made proud by pure and
princely beauty." He knew that those seventy heads could only be the
heads of the royal youths. He issued a cool and brutal order that they
should be piled in two heaps[200] until the morning on either side the
entrance of the city gates. Were they watched? or were the dogs and
vultures and hyænas again left to do their work upon them? We do not
know. In any case it was a scene of brutal barbarism such as might have
been witnessed in living memory in Khiva or Bokhara;[201] nor must we
forget that even in the last century the heads of the brave and the
noble rotted on Westminster Hall and Temple Bar, and over the Gate of
York, and over the Tolbooth at Edinburgh, and on Wexford Bridge.

The day dawned, and all the people were gathered at the gate, which
was the scene of justice. With the calmest air imaginable the warrior
came out to them, and stood between the mangled heads of those who but
yesterday had been the pampered minions of fortune and luxury. His
speech was short and politic in its brutality. "Be yourselves the
judges," he said. "Ye are righteous. Jezebel called me a Zimri. Yes! I
conspired against my master and slew him: but"--and here he casually
pointed to the horrible, bleeding heaps--"who smote all these?" The
people of Jezreel and the lords of Samaria were not only passive
witnesses of his rebellion; they were active sharers in it. They had
dabbled their hands in the same blood. Now they could not choose but
accept his dynasty: for who was there besides himself? And then,
changing his tone, he does not offer "the tyrant's devilish plea,
necessity," to cloak his atrocities, but--like a Romish inquisitor of
Seville or Granada--claims Divine sanction for his sanguinary
violence. This was not _his_ doing. He was but an instrument in the
hands of fate. Jehovah is alone responsible. He is doing what He spake
by His servant Elijah. Yes! and there was yet more to do; for no word
of Jehovah's shall fall to the ground.

With the same cynical ruthlessness, and cold indifference to smearing
his robes in the blood of the slain, he carried out to the bitter end
his task of policy which he gilded with the name of Divine justice.
Not content with slaying Ahab's sons, he set himself to extirpate his
race, and slew all who remained to him in Jezreel, not only his kith
and kin, but every lord and every Baal-priest who favoured his house,
until he left him none remaining.

But what a frightful picture do these scenes furnish us of the state
of religion and even of civilisation in Jezreel! There was this
man-eating tiger of a king wallowing in the blood of princes, and
enacting scenes which remind us of Dahomey and Ashantee, or of some
Tartary khanate where human hands are told out in the market-place
after some avenging raid. And amid all this savagery, squalor, and
Turkish atrocity, the man pleads the sanction of Jehovah, and claims,
unrebuked, that he is only carrying out the behests of Jehovah's
prophets! It is not until long afterwards that the voice of a prophet
is heard repudiating his plea and denouncing his bloodthirstiness.

          "An evil soul producing holy witness
           Is like a villain with a smiling cheek--
           A goodly apple rotten at the core."


FOOTNOTES:

[196] Omri, 12 years; Ahab, 22; Ahaziah, 18; Jehoram, 12.

[197] The reading of 2 Kings x. 1, "Unto the rulers of _Jezreel_," is
clearly wrong. The LXX. reads, "Unto the rulers of Samaria." Unless
"Jezreel" be a clerical error for Israel, we must read, "He sent
letters from Jezreel unto the rulers of Samaria."

[198] Fig-baskets, Jer. xxiv. 2. The word _dudim_ is rendered "pots"
in 1 Sam. ii. 14. LXX., ἐν καρτάλλοις; Vulg., _in cophinis_. In Psalm
lxxxi. 6 the LXX. has ἐν τῷ κοφίνῳ.

[199] Jos., _Antt._, IX. vi. 5.

[200] Heb., _Tsibourîm_; LXX., βουνούς.

[201] Comp. 1 Sam. xvii. 54; 2 Macc. xv. 30.

[202] Hos. i. 4.




                              CHAPTER XIII

            _FRESH MURDERS--THE EXTIRPATION OF BAAL-WORSHIP_
                               (B.C. 842)

                            2 KINGS x. 12-28

        "Jéhu, sur les hauts lieux, enfin osant offrir
         Un téméraire encens que Dieu ne peut souffrir,
         N'a pour servir sa cause et venger ses injures
         Ni le cœur assez droit, ni les mains assez pures."
                                                      RACINE.


After such abject subservience had been shown him by the lords of
Samaria and Jezreel, Jehu evidently had no further shadow of
apprehension. He seems to have loved blood for its own sake--to have
been seized by a vertigo of blood-poisoning. Having waded through
slaughter to a throne, he loved to wash his footsteps in the blood of
the slain, and to stretch to the very uttermost--to stretch until it
cracked all its ravelled threads--the Divine sanction claimed by his
fanaticism or his hypocrisy.

When he had finished his massacres at Jezreel, he went to Samaria. It
was only a journey of a few hours. On the high road he met a company
of travellers, whose escort and rich apparel showed that they were
persons of importance. They were about to halt, perhaps for
refreshment, at the shearing-house of the shepherds--the place in
which the sheep were gathered before they were shorn.[203]

"Who are ye?" he asked.

They answered that they were princes of the house of Judah, the brethren
of Ahaziah,[204] on their way to see the two kings at Jezreel, and to
salute their cousins, the children of Jehoram, and their kinsfolk the
children of Jezebel the Gebîrah.[205] The answer sealed their fate. Jehu
ordered his followers to take them alive. At first he had not decided
what he would do with them. But half measures had now become impossible.
This cavalcade of princes little knew that they were on their way to
greet the dead children of a dead king and a dead queen. Jehu felt that
the possibilities of an endless _vendetta_ must be quenched in blood. He
gave orders to slay them, and there in one hour forty-two more scions of
the royal houses of Judah and Israel were done to death.[206] With the
usual reckless insouciance of the East, where any tank or well is made
the natural receptacle for corpses regardless of ultimate consequences,
their bodies were flung into the cistern of the shearing-house, in which
the sheep were washed before shearing, just as the bodies of Gedaliah's
followers were flung by Ishmael into the well at Mizpah, and the bodies
of our own murdered countrymen were flung into the well of Cawnpore. He
did not leave one of them alive.

Thus Jehu "murdered two kings, and one hundred and twelve princes, and
gave Queen Jezebel to dogs to eat; and if priests had but noticed how
even Hosea condemns and denounces his savagery, they would have
abstained from some of their glorifications of assassins and butchers,
nor would they have appealed to this man's hideous example, as they
have done, to excuse some of their own revolting atrocities."[207] But

                          "Crime was ne'er so black
          As ghostly cheer and pious thanks to lack.
          Satan is modest. At heaven's door he lays
          His evil offspring, and in Scriptural phrase
          And saintly posture gives to God the praise
          And honour of his monstrous progeny."[208]

One cruel deed more or less was nothing to Jehu. Leaving this tank
choked with death and incarnadined with royal blood, he went on his way
as if nothing particular had happened. He had not proceeded far when he
saw a man well known to him, and of a spirit kindred to his own. It was
the Arab ascetic and Nazarite Jehonadab, the son of Rechab (or "The
Rider"), the chief of the tribe of Kenites who had flung in their lot
with the children of Israel since the days of Moses.[209] It was the
tribe which had produced a Jael; and Jehonadab had something of the
fierce, fanatical spirit of the ancient chieftainess, who, in her own
tent, had dashed out with the tent-peg the brains of Sisera. His very
name, "The Lord is noble," indicated that he was a worshipper of
Jehovah, and his fierce zeal showed him to be a genuine Kenite.
Disgusted with the wickedness of cities, disgusted above all with the
loathly vice of drunkenness, which, as we see from the contemporary
prophets, had begun in this age to acquire fresh prominence in luxurious
and wealthy communities, he exacted of his sons a solemn oath that
neither they nor their successors would drink wine nor strong drink, and
that, shunning the squalor and corruption of cities, they would live in
tents, as their nomad ancestors had done in the days when Jethro and
Hobab were princes of pastoral Midian. We learn from Jeremiah, nearly
two and a half centuries later, how faithfully that oath had been
observed; and how, in spite of all temptation, the vow of abstinence was
maintained, even when the strain of foreign invasion had driven the
Rechabites into Jerusalem from their desolated pastures.[210]

Jehu knew that the stern fanaticism of the Kenite Emîr would rejoice
in his exterminating zeal, and he recognised that the friendship and
countenance of this "good man and just," as Josephus calls him, would
add strength to his cause, and enable him to carry out his dark
design. He therefore blessed him.[211]

"Is thine heart right with my heart, as my heart is with thy heart?"
he asked, after he had returned the greeting of Jehonadab.

"It is, it is!" answered the vehement Rechabite.[212]

"Then give me thy hand," he said; and grasping the Arab by the
hand,[213] he pulled him up into his chariot--the highest distinction
he could bestow upon him--and bade him come and witness his zeal for
Jehovah.

His first task on arriving at Samaria was to tear up the last fibres of
Ahab's kith and destroy all his partisans. This was indeed to push to a
self-interested extreme the denunciation which had been pronounced upon
Ahab; but the crime helped to secure his fiercely founded throne.

One deep-seated plot was yet unaccomplished. It was the total
extermination of Baal-worship. To drive out for ever this orgiastic,
corrupt, and alien idolatry was right; but there is nothing to show
that Jehu would have been unable to effect this purpose by one stern
decree, together with the destruction of Baal's images and temple. A
method so simply righteous did not suit this Nero-Torquemada, who
seemed to be never happy unless he united Jesuitical cunning with the
pouring out of rivers of massacre.

He summoned the people together; and as though he now threw off all
pretence of zeal for orthodoxy, he proclaimed that Ahab had served
Baal a little, but Jehu would serve him much. The Samaritans must have
been endowed with infinite gullibility if they could suppose that the
king who had ridden into the city side by side with such a man as
Jehonadab--"the warrior in his coat of mail, the ascetic in his shirt
of hair"--who had already exhibited an unfathomable cunning, and had
swept away the Baal-priests of Jezreel, was indeed sincere in this new
conversion.[214] Perhaps they felt it dangerous to question the
sincerity of kings. The Baal-worshippers of former days were known,
and Jehu proclaimed that if any one of them was missing at the great
sacrifice which he intended to offer to Baal he should be put to
death. A solemn assembly to Baal was proclaimed, and every apostate
from God to nature-worship from all Israel was present, till the
idol's temple was thronged from end to end.[215] To add splendour to
the solemnity, Jehu bade the wardrobe-keeper to bring out all the rich
vestments of Tyrian dye and Sidonian broidery, and clothe the
worshippers.[216] Solemnly advancing to the altar with the Rechabite
by his side, he warned the assembly to see that their gathering was
not polluted by the presence of a single known worshipper of Jehovah.
Then, apparently, he still further disarmed suspicion by taking a
personal part in offering the burnt-offering. Meanwhile, he had
surrounded the temple and blocked every exit with eighty armed
warriors, and had threatened that any one of them should be put to
death if he let a single Baal-worshipper escape. When he had finished
the offering,[217] he went forth, and bade his soldiers enter, and
slay, and slay, and slay till none were left. Then flinging the
corpses in a heap, they made their way to the fortress of the Temple,
where some of the priests may have taken refuge. They dragged out and
burnt the _matstseboth_ of Baal,[218] broke down the great central
idol, and utterly dismantled the whole building. To complete the
pollution of the dishallowed shrine, he made it a common midden for
Samaria, which it continued to be for centuries afterwards.[219] It
was his last voluntary massacre. The House of Ahab was no more.
Baal-worship in Israel never survived that exterminating blow.

Happily for the human race, such atrocities committed in the name of
religion have not been common. In Pagan history we have but few
instances, except the slaughter of the Magians at the beginning of the
reign of Darius, son of Hystaspes. Alas that other parallels should be
furnished by the abominable tyranny of a false Christianity, blessed
and incited by popes and priests! The persecutions and massacres of
the Albigenses, preached by Arnold of Citeaux, and instigated by Pope
Innocent III.; the expulsion of the Jews from Spain; the deadly work
of Torquemada; the murderous furies of Alva among the hapless
Netherlanders, urged and approved by Pope Pius V.; the massacre of
St. Bartholomew, for which Pope Gregory and his cardinals sang their
horrible Te Deum in their desecrated shrines,--these are the parallels
to the deeds of Jehu. He has found his chief imitators among the
votaries of a blood-stained and usurping sacerdotalism, which has
committed so many crimes and inflicted so many horrors on mankind.

And did God approve all this detestable mixture of zealous enthusiasm
with lying deceit and the insatiate thirst of blood?

If right be right, and wrong be wrong, the answer must not be an
elaborate subterfuge, but an uncompromising "No!" We need be under no
doubt on that subject. Christ Himself reproved His Apostles for savage
zealotry, and taught them that the Elijah-spirit was not the
Christ-spirit. Nor is the Elisha-spirit the Christian spirit any the
more if these deeds of hypocrisy and blood were in any sense approved
by him who is sometimes regarded as the mild and gentle Elisha. Where
was he? Why was he silent? Could he possibly approve of this
murderer's fury? We do not, indeed, know how far Elisha lent his
sanction to anything more than the general end. Ahab's house had been
doomed to vengeance by the voice which gave utterance to the verdict
of the national conscience. The doom was just; Jehu was ordained to be
the executioner. In no other way could the judgment be carried out.
The times were not sentimental. The murder of Jehoram was not regarded
as an act of tyrannicide, but of divinely commissioned justice. Elisha
_may_ have shrunk from the unreined furies of the man whom he had sent
his emissary to anoint. On the other hand, we have not the least proof
that he did so. He partook, probably, of the wild spirit of the
times, when such deeds were regarded with feelings very different from
the abhorrence with which we, better taught by the spirit of love, and
more enlightened by the widening dawn of history, now justly regard
them. No remonstrance of _contemporary_ prophecy, however faint, is
recorded as having been uttered against the doings of Jehu. The fact
that, several centuries later, they could be recorded by the historian
without a syllable of reprobation shows that the education of nations
in the lessons of righteousness is slow, and that we are still amid
the annals of the deep night of moral imperfection. But the nation was
on the eve of purer teaching, and in the prophets Amos and Hosea we
read the clear condemnation of deeds of cruelty in general, and
specially of the king who felt no pity. Amos condemns even the
idolatrous King of Edom, "because he did pursue his brother with the
sword, and did cast off all pity, and his anger did tear perpetually,
and he kept his wrath for ever."[220] He condemns no less severely the
Chemosh-worshipping King of Moab even for an insult done to the dead:
"Because he burned the bones of the King of Edom into lime."[221] Jehu
had warred pitilessly upon the living, and had shamelessly insulted
the dead. He had flung the heads of seventy princes in two bleeding
heaps on the common road for all eyes to stare upon, and he had
polluted the cistern of Beth-equed-haroim with the dead bodies of
forty-two youths of the royal house of Judah. He might plead that he
was but carrying out to the full the commission of Jehovah, imposed
upon him by Elisha; but Hosea, a century later, gives God's message
against his house: "Yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood
of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom
of the house of Israel."[222]

Nay, more! If, as is possible, the ghastly story of the siege of
Samaria, narrated in the memoirs of Elisha, is displaced, and if it
really belongs to the reign of Jehoahaz ben-Jehu, then Elisha himself
brands the cruelty of the rushing thunderbolt of vengeance which his
own hand had launched. For he calls the unnamed "King of Israel" "the
son of a murderer."

Men who are swords of God, and human executioners of Divine justice,
may easily deceive themselves. God works the ends of His own
providence, and He uses their ministry. "The fierceness of man shall
turn to Thy praise, and the fierceness of them shalt Thou
refrain."[223] But they can never make their plea of prophetic
sanction a cloak of maliciousness. Cromwell had stern work to do.
Rightly or wrongly, he deemed it inevitable, and did not shrink from
it. But he hated it. Over and over again, he tells us, he had prayed
to God that He would not put him to this work. To the best of his
power he avoided, he minimised, every act of vengeance, even when the
sternness of his Puritan sense of righteousness made him look on it as
duty. Far different was the case of Jehu. He loved murder and cunning
for their own sakes, and, like Joab, he dyed the garments of peace
with the blood of war.

How little was his gain! It had been happier for him if he had never
mounted higher than the captaincy of the host, or even so high. He
reigned for twenty-eight years (842-814)--longer than any king except
his great-grandson Jeroboam II.; and in recognition of any element of
righteousness which had actuated his revolt, his children, even to the
fourth generation, were suffered to sit upon the throne. His dynasty
lasted for one hundred and thirteen years.[224] But his own reign was
only memorable for defeat, trouble, and irreparable disaster.

For Hazael, who had seized the throne of his murdered lord Benhadad,
was a fierce and able warrior. He held his own against the overweening
might of his northern neighbour Assyria; and whenever he obtained a
respite from this desperate warfare, he indemnified himself for all
losses by enlarging his dominion out of the territories of the Ten
Tribes. "In those days the Lord began to cut Israel short, and Hazael
smote them in all the borders of Israel." Jehu had the mortification
of seeing the fairest and most fruitful regions of his dominion, those
which had belonged to Israel from the most ancient times, wrenched out
of his grasp. From this time forwards Israel lost half the fair
Promised Land which God had given to their fathers. It was the
beginning of the end. Henceforth the tribal inheritance of Reuben,
Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh was an oppressed dependency of
Aram. Hazael overran and annexed the land of Bashan from the spurs of
Mount Hermon to the Lake of Gennezareth; Gaulan, and volcanic Argob,
and Hauran the entire ancient kingdom of Og, King of Bashan, with all
the herds and pasture-lands. Southward of this he seized the whole
forest-clad plateau of Gilead, with its lovely ravines, north of the
Jabbok, the territory of Gad; and pushing still southward,
established his sway over the district, of the Ammonites and the tribe
of Reuben, as far as the city of Aroer, on the other side of the great
chasm of Arnon (Wady Mojib). All the fatness of Bashan and Rabbah with
her watery plain of the Beni-Ammon, and the grass-covered uplands
which fed the enormous flocks of Mesha, the great Emîr and
sheep-master of Moab, passed from Israel to Syria, never to be
recovered. What made the humiliation more terrible was that the
invasion and conquest were accompanied with acts of unwonted cruelty.
Elisha had wept to think what evil Hazael would do the children of
Israel[225]--how he would set their strongholds on fire, and slay
their young men with the sword, and dash in pieces their little ones,
and rip up their women with child. These atrocities were in those
horrible days the ordinary incidents of warfare;[226] but Hazael seems
to have been pre-eminent in brutal fierceness. It was this which
called down on him and his people the "burdens" of Amos. "Thus saith
the Lord; For three transgressions of Damascus, and for four, I will
not turn away the punishment thereof; because they have threshed
Gilead with threshing instruments of iron: but I will send a fire into
the house of Hazael, which shall devour the palaces of Benhadad."[227]

We can imagine rather than describe the anguish of Jehu when he was
compelled to look impotently on, while his powerful Syrian neighbour
laid waste his dominion with fire and sword, and the cry of his
despoiled and slaughtered subjects was uplifted to him in vain. Nor
was this all. Emboldened by these reverses, a host of other enemies,
once subjugated and despised, began to wreak their revenge and
insolence on humbled Israel. The Philistines eagerly undertook the
sale of the wretched captives who were brought to them in gangs from
the burnt Trans-Jordanic towns.[228] The old "brotherly covenant" with
the Tyrian, which had once been formed by Solomon, and had been
cemented by the marriage of Jezebel with Ahab, was cancelled by Jehu's
insults, and the Tyrians emulously outbad the Philistines in the
purchase of Israelitish slaves. The Edomites and the Ammonites also
helped Hazael in his marauding raids, and enlarged their own domains
at the expense of Samaria. Such insults and humiliations might well go
far to break the heart of an impetuous and warrior-king.

Of Jehu the Books of Kings and Chronicles have no more to tell us, but
we gain fresh insight into his degradation from the Black Obelisk of
Shalmaneser II. (860-824), now in the British Museum. From the
inscription we find that, in 842, Jehu--"the son of Omri," as he is
erroneously called--was one of the vassal kings who subjected
themselves to the Assyrian conqueror,[229] and sent him tribute, which
may have euphemistically passed under the name of presents. The
despot of Nineveh twice speaks of it as a tribute. On this obelisk we
see a picture of Jehu's ambassadors--perhaps of Jehu himself. On the
left stands the Assyrian King with the winged circle over his head. He
holds a beaker of wine in his hand, and two eunuchs stand behind him,
one of whom covers him with a sunshade. Before him kneels and grovels
in adoration the Jewish King, with his beard sweeping the ground. In
long array behind him come his servants--first two eunuchs, then a
number of bearded figures, who carry the tribute. They are dressed in
long richly fringed robes, exactly resembling those of the Assyrians
themselves, and they wear shoes which turn up at the toes. They are
carrying figures of gold and silver, goblets, golden vessels, ingots
of precious metals, spear-shafts, a kingly sceptre, baskets, bags, and
trays of treasure, the contribution of which must have fallen with
crushing weight on the impoverished kingdom.[230]

This tribute must have been sent in 842, the eighteenth year of
Shalmaneser II.'s reign. Doubtless Jehu thought he might be delivered
from his furious neighbour Hazael by propitiating the Northern tyrant,
who at the same time received the submission of the Tyrians and
Sidonians. But if so, Jehu's hopes were dashed to the ground.
Shalmaneser was the enemy of Hazael (Ha-sa-ilu), who had gone out to
meet him at Antilibanus, and there had fought a desperate battle. The
Syrian King was routed, and driven back, and Shalmaneser had besieged
Damascus. But he had failed to take it, and indeed had not troubled
Syria again till 832, when he made an excursion of minor importance.
His troubles on the north and east of Assyria had diverted his
attention from Damascus; and this, together with the inferiority of
his son Samsiniras (_d._ 811), had given Hazael a free hand to avenge
himself on Israel as the ally of Assyria. Of Jehu we hear no more.
After his long reign of twenty-eight years he slept with his fathers,
and was buried in Samaria, and Jehoahaz his son reigned in his stead.
Savage as had been his measures, his victory over alien idolatries was
by no means complete. What Micah calls "the statutes of Omri, and the
works of the House of Ahab,"[231] were still kept; and men, both in
Israel and Judah, walked in their old sins. Even in the reign of
Jehu's own son Jehoahaz there still remained in Samaria the Asherah,
or tree consecrated to the nature-goddess, which Jehu seems to have
put away, but not to have destroyed.[232] As he grovelled in the dust
before Shalmaneser, did no memory of his own ferocities darken his
humiliated soul? Must not he, like our Henry II., have been inclined
to utter the wailing cry, "Shame, shame on a conquered king!"

FOOTNOTES:

[203] 2 Kings x. 12. The shepherds House of Meeting
(_Beth-equed-haroim_). LXX., ἐν Βαιθακάθ; Vulg., _ad cameram
pastorum_; Aquila, οἶκος κάμψεως. It has been conjectured by
Klostermann that it belonged to the Rechabites, that they had been
persecuted by Jezebel, and that they were glad to help in taking
vengeance on her descendants.

[204] The Chronicler (2 Chron. xxii. 8) says "_sons_ of the brethren
of Ahaziah."

[205] LXX., ἡ δυναστεύουσα.

[206] 2 Kings x. 14, A.V., "at the pit." Lit., "in" or "into the
cistern."

[207] See Martin, _Hist. de France_, ix. 114.

[208] Whittier.

[209] Jer. xxxv. 1-19. Josephus (_Antt._, IX. vi. 6) calls him "a good
man and a just, who had long been a friend of Jehu." "He was," says
Ewald (_Gesch._, iii. 543), "of a society of those who despaired of
being able to observe true religion undisturbedly in the midst of the
nation with the stringency with which they understood it, and
therefore withdrew into the desert."

[210] Jer. xxxv. (written about B.C. 604). Communities of Nazarites
seem to have sprung up at this epoch, perhaps as a protest against the
prevailing luxury (Amos ii. 11).

[211] In Josephus it is Jehonadab who blesses the king.

[212] Heb., וָיֵשׁ יֵש.

[213] Striking hands was a sign of good faith (Job xvii. 3; Prov.
xxii. 26).

[214] He did it "in subtilty" (בְצָקְבָה). This substantive occurs
nowhere else, but is connected with the name Jacob. LXX., ἐν πτερνισμῷ,
"in taking by the heel," with reference to the name Jacob, "supplanter."

[215] Lit., "mouth to mouth." LXX., στόμα εἰς στόμα.

[216] Ver. 22, מֶלְחָּהַה, _Vestiarum_, occurs here only. The LXX.
omits it or puts it in Greek letters. Targum, κάμπτραι, "chests" Sil.
Italicus (iii. 23) describes the robes of the priests of the
Gaditanian Hercules,--

                              "_Nec discolor ulli,
          Ante aras cultus; velantur corpora lino
          Et Pelusiaco præfulget stamine vertex._"
                                          KEIL, _ad loc._

It was a mixture of "the rich dye of Tyre and the rich web of Nile."

[217] The phrase may be impersonal, "when one [_i.e._, they] had
finished the sacrifice"; but the narrative seems to imply that Jehu
offered it himself (LXX., ὡς συνετέλεσαν ποιοῦντες τὴν ὁλοκαύτωσιν
Vulg., _cum completum esset holocaustum_).

[218] A.V., images; R.V., pillars.

[219] Comp. Ezra vi. 11; Dan. ii. 5.

[220] Amos i. 11.

[221] Amos ii. 1.

[222] Hos. i. 4.

[223] Psalm lxxvi. 10.

[224]

  Jehu              842-814.
  Jehoahaz          814-797.
  Joash             797-781.
  Jeroboam II.      781-740.
  Zechariah         740.

[225] 2 Kings viii. 12.

[226] Isa. xiii. 11-16; Hos. x. 14, xiii. 16; Nah. iii. 10.

[227] Amos i. 3, 4.

[228] Amos i. 6-15.

[229] See Appendix I., Schrader, _Keilinschriften u. das Alte Test._,
208 ff.; Sayce, _Records of the Past_, v. 41; Layard, _Nineveh_, p.
613; Rawlinson, _Herodotus_, i. 469. He is twice mentioned in
inscriptions of Shalmaneser II. (861-825). He is called Ja-hu-a, son
of Omri. The name of Omri was familiar in Nineveh; for Ahab had fought
as a vassal of Assyria at the battle of Karkar, and Samaria was called
Beth-Khumri. Shalmaneser would not trouble himself with the fact that
Jehu had extirpated the old dynasty. His black stêlè was found by
Layard, and is figured in _Monuments of Nineveh_, i., pl. 53. The name
of Jehu was first deciphered by Dr. Hincks in 1851.

[230] Schrader (E. T.), ii. 199.

[231] Mic. vi. 16.

[232] 2 Kings xiii. 6.




                              CHAPTER XIV

            _ATHALIAH_ (B.C. 842-836)--_JOASH BEN-AHAZIAH OF
                         JUDAH_ (B.C. 836-796)

                         2 KINGS xi. 1-xii. 21

          "Par cette fin terrible, et due à ses forfaits,
           Apprenez, Roi des Juifs, et n'oubliez jamais,
           Que les rois dans le ciel ont un juge sevère,
           L'innocence un vengeur, et les orphelins un père!"
                                                RACINE, _Athalie_.

          "Regardless of the sweeping whirlwind's sway,
           That, hushed in grim repose, expects its evening prey."
                                                             GRAY.


Before we follow the destinies of the House of Jehu we must revert to
Judah, and watch the final consequences of ruin which came in the
train of Ahab's Tyrian marriage, and brought murder and idolatry into
Judah, as well as into Israel.

Athaliah, who, as queen-mother, was more powerful than the queen-consort
(_malekkah_), was the true daughter of Jezebel. She exhibits the same
undaunted fierceness, the same idolatrous fanaticism, the same swift
resolution, the same cruel and unscrupulous wickedness.

It might have been supposed that the miserable disease of her husband
Jehoram, followed so speedily by the murder, after one year's reign,
of her son Ahaziah, might have exercised over her character the
softening influence of misfortune. On the contrary, she only saw in
these events a short path to the consummation of her ambition.

Under Jehoram she had been queen: under Ahaziah she had exercised
still more powerful influence as Gebîrah, and had asserted her sway
alike over her husband and over her son, whose counsellor she was to
do wickedly. It was far from her intention tamely to sink from her
commanding position into the abject nullity of an aged and despised
dowager in a dull provincial seraglio. She even thought that

          "To reign is worth ambition, though in hell;
           Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven."

The royal family of the House of David, numerous and flourishing as it
once was, had recently been decimated by cruel catastrophes. Jehoram,
instigated probably by his heathen wife, had killed his six younger
brothers.[233] Later on, the Arabs and Philistines, in their insulting
invasion, had not only plundered his palace, but had carried away his
sons; so that, according to the Chronicler, "there was never a son
left him, save Jehoahaz [_i.e._, Ahaziah], the youngest of his
sons."[234] He may have had other sons after that invasion; and
Ahaziah had left children, who must all, however, have been very
young, since he was only twenty-two or twenty-three when Jehu's
servants murdered him. Athaliah might naturally have hoped for the
regency; but this did not content her. When she saw that her son
Ahaziah was dead, "she arose and destroyed all the seed royal." In
those days the life of a child was but little thought of; and it
weighed less than nothing with Athaliah that these innocents were her
grandchildren. She killed all of whose existence she was aware, and
boldly seized the crown. No queen had ever reigned alone either in
Israel or in Judah. Judah must have sunk very low, and the talents of
Athaliah must have been commanding, or she could never have
established a precedent hitherto undreamed of, by imposing on the
people of David for six years the yoke of a woman, and that woman a
half-Phœnician idolatress. Yet so it was! Athaliah, like her cousin
Dido, felt herself strong enough to rule.

But a woman's ruthlessness was outwitted by a woman's cunning. Ahaziah
had a half-sister on the father's side,[235] the princess Jehosheba,
or Jehoshabeath, who was then or afterwards (we are told) married to
Jehoiada, the high priest.[236] The secrets of harems are hidden deep,
and Athaliah may have been purposely kept in ignorance of the birth to
Ahaziah of a little babe whose mother was Zibiah of Beersheba, and who
had received the name of Joash. If she knew of his existence, some
ruse must have been palmed off upon her, and she must have been led to
believe that he too had been killed. But he had not been killed.
Jehosheba "stole him from among the king's sons that were slain," and,
with the connivance of his nurse, hid him from the murderers sent by
Athaliah in the palace store-room in which beds and couches were
kept.[237] Thence, at the first favourable moment, she transferred the
child and nurse to one of the chambers in the three storeys of
chambers which ran round the Temple, and were variously used as
wardrobes or as dwelling-rooms.

The hiding-place was safe; for under Athaliah the Temple of Jehovah
fell into neglect and disrepute, and its resident ministers would not
be numerous. It would not have been difficult, in the seclusion of
Eastern life, for Jehosheba to pass off the babe as her own child to
all but the handful who knew the secret.

Six years passed away, and the iron hand of Athaliah still kept the
people in subjection. She had boldly set up in Judah her mother's
Baal-worship. Baal had his temple not far from that of Jehovah; and
though Athaliah did not imitate Jezebel in persecuting the worshippers
of Jehovah, she made her own high priest, Mattan, a much more
important person than Jehoiada for all who desired to propitiate the
favours of the Court.

Joash had now reached his seventh year, and a Jewish prince in his
seventh year is regarded as something more than a mere child. Jehoiada
thought that it was time to strike a blow in his favour, and to
deliver him from the dreadful confinement which made it impossible for
him to leave the Temple precincts.

He began secretly to tamper with the guards both of the Temple and of
the palace. Upon the Levitic guards, indignant at the intrusion of
Baal-worship, he might securely count, and the Carites and queen's
runners were not likely to be very much devoted to the rule of the
manlike and idolatrous alien-queen. Taking an oath of them in secrecy,
he bound them to allegiance to the little boy whom he produced from the
Temple chamber as their lawful lord, and the son of their late king.

The plot was well laid. There were five captains of the five hundred
royal body-guards, and the priest secretly enlisted them all in the
service.[238] The Chronicler says that he also sent round to all the
chief Levites, and collected them in Jerusalem for the emergency. The
arrangements of the Sabbath gave special facility to his plans; for on
that day only one of the five divisions of guards mounted watch at the
palace, and the others were set free for the service of the Temple.[239]
It had evidently been announced that some great ceremony would be held
in the shrine of Jehovah; for all the people, we are told, were
assembled in the courts of the house of the Lord. Jehoiada ordered one
of the companies to guard the palace; another to be at the "gate Sur,"
or the gate "of the Foundation";[240] another at the gate behind the
barracks(?) of the palace-runners, to be a barrier[241] against any
incursion from the palace. Two more were to ensure the safety of the
little king by watching the precincts of the Temple. The Levitic
officers were to protect the king's person with serried ranks. Jehoiada
armed them with spears and shields, which David had placed as trophies
in the porch; and if any one tried to force his way within their lines
he was to be slain. The only danger to be apprehended was from any
Carite mercenaries, or palace-servants of the queen: among all others
Jehoiada found a widespread defection. The people, the Levites, even the
soldiers, all hated the Baal-worshipping usurper.[242]

At the fateful moment the guards were arranged in two dense lines,
beginning from either side of the porch, till their ranks met beyond the
altar, so as to form a hedge round the royal boy. Into this triangular
space the young prince was led by the high priest, and placed beside the
_Matstsebah_--some prominent pillar in the Temple court, either one of
Solomon's pillars Jachin and Boaz, or some special erection of later
days.[243] Round him stood the princes of Judah, and there, in the midst
of them, Jehoiada placed the crown upon his head, and in significant
symbol also laid lightly upon it for a moment "The Testimony"--perhaps
the Ten Commandments and the Book of the Covenant--the most ancient
fragment of the Pentateuch[244]--which was treasured up with the pot of
manna inside or in front of the Ark. Then he poured on the child's head
the consecrated oil, and said, "Let the king live!"

The completion of the ceremony was marked by the blare of the rams'
horns, the softer blast of the silver trumpets, and the answering shouts
of the soldiers and the people. The tumult, or the news of it, reached
the ears of Athaliah in the neighbouring palace, and, with all the
undaunted courage of her mother, she instantly summoned her escort, and
went into the Temple to see for herself what was taking place.[245] She
probably mounted the ascent which Solomon had made from the palace to
the Temple court, though it had long been robbed of its precious metals
and scented woods. She led the way, and thought to overawe by her
personal ascendency any irregularity which might be going on; for in the
deathful hush to which she had reduced her subjects she does not seem to
have dreamt of rebellion. No sooner had she entered than the guards
closed behind her, excluding and menacing her escort.[246]

A glance was sufficient to reveal to her the significance of the whole
scene. There, in royal robes, and crowned with the royal crown, stood
her little unknown grandson beside the _Matstsebah_,[247] while round
him were the leaders of the people and the trumpeters, and the
multitudes were still rolling their tumult of acclamation from the court
below. In that sight she read her doom. Rending her clothes, she turned
to fly, shrieking, "Treason! treason!" Then the commands of the priest
rang out: "Keep her between the ranks,[248] till you have got her
outside the area of the Temple; and if any of her guards follow or try
to rescue her, kill him with the sword. But let not the sacred courts be
polluted with her blood." So they made way for her,[249] and as she
could not escape she passed between the rows of Levites and soldiers
till she had reached the private chariot-road by which the kings drove
to the precincts.[250] There the sword of vengeance fell. Athaliah
disappears from history, and with her the dark race of Jezebel. But her
story lives in the music of Handel and the verse of Racine.

This is the only recorded revolution in the history of Judah. In two
later cases a king of Judah was murdered, but in both instances "the
people of the land" restored the Davidic heir. Life in Judah was less
dramatic and exciting than in Israel, but far more stable;[251] and
this, together with comparative immunity from foreign invasions,
constituted an immense advantage.

Jehoiada, of course, became regent for the young king, and continued
to be his guide for many years, so that even the king's two wives were
selected by his advice. As the nation had been distracted with
idolatries, he made the covenant between the king and the people that
they should be loyal to each other, and between Jehoiada and the king
and the people that they should be Jehovah's people. Such covenants
were not infrequent in Jewish history. Such a covenant had been made
by Asa[252] after Abijam's apostasy, as it was afterwards made by
Hezekiah[253] and by Josiah.[254] The new covenant, and the sense of
awakenment from the dream of guilty apostasy, evoked an outburst of
spontaneous enthusiasm in the hearts of the populace. Of their own
impulse they rushed to the temple of Baal which Athaliah had reared,
dismantled it, and smashed to pieces his altars and images. The riot
was only stained by a single murder. They slew Mattan, Athaliah's
Baal-priest, before the altars of his god.[255]

With Jehoiada begins the title of "high priest." Hitherto no higher
name than "the priest" had been given even to Aaron, or Eli, or Zadok;
but thenceforth the title of "chief priest" is given to his
successors, among whom he inaugurated a new epoch.[256]

It was now Jehoiada's object to restore such splendour and solemnity
as he could to the neglected worship of the Temple, which had suffered
in every way from Baal's encroachments. He did this before the king's
second solemn inauguration. Even the porters had been done away with,
so that the Temple could at any time be polluted by the presence of
the unclean, and the whole service of priests and Levites had fallen
into desuetude.

Then he took the captains, and the Carians, and the princes, and
conducted the boy-king, amid throngs of his shouting and rejoicing
people, from the Temple to his own palace. There he seated him on the
lion-throne of Solomon his father, in the great hall of justice, and
the city was quiet and the land had rest. According to the historian,
"Joash did right _all his days_, because Jehoiada the priest
instructed him."[257] The stock addition that "howbeit the _bamoth_
were not removed, and the people still sacrificed and offered incense
there," is no derogation from the merits of Joash, and perhaps not
even of Jehoiada, since if the law against the _bamoth_ then existed,
it had become absolutely unknown, and these local sanctuaries were
held to be conducive to true religion.[258]

It was natural that the child of the Temple should have at heart the
interests of the Temple in which he had spent his early days, and to
the shelter of which he owed his life and throne. The sacred house had
been insulted and plundered by persons whom the Chronicler calls "the
sons of Athaliah, that wicked woman,"[259] meaning, probably, her
adherents. Not only had its treasures been robbed to enrich the house
of Baal, but it had been suffered to fall into complete disrepair.
Breaches gaped in the outer walls, and the very foundations were
insecure. The necessity for restoring it occurred, not, as we should
have expected, to the priests who lived at its altar, but to the
boy-king. He issued an order to the priests that they should take
charge of all the money presented to the Temple for the hallowed
things, all the money paid in current coin, and all the assessments
for various fines and vows,[260] together with every freewill
contribution. They were to have this revenue entirely at their
disposal, and to make themselves responsible for the necessary
repairs. According to the Chronicler, they were further to raise a
subscription throughout the country from all their personal friends.

The king's command had been urgent. Money had at first come in, but
nothing was done. Joash had reached the twenty-third year of his
reign, and was thirty years old; but the Temple remained in its old
sordid condition. The matter is passed over by the king as lightly,
courteously, and considerately as he could; but if he does not charge
the priests with downright embezzlement, he does reproach them for
most reprehensible neglect. They were the appointed guardians of the
house: why did they suffer its dilapidations to remain untouched year
after year, while they continued to receive the golden stream which
poured--but now, owing to the disgust of the people, in diminished
volume--into their coffers? "Take no more money, therefore," he said,
"from your acquaintances, but deliver it for the breaches of the
house." For what they had already received he does not call them to
account, but henceforth takes the whole matter into his own hands. The
neglectful priests were to receive no more contributions, and not to
be responsible for the repairs. Joash, however, ordered Jehoiada to
take a chest and put it beside the altar on the right.[261] All
contributions were to be dropped into this chest. When it was full, it
was carried by the Levites unopened into the palace,[262] and there
the king's chancellor and the high priest had the ingots weighed and
the money counted; its value was added up, and it was handed over
immediately to the architects, who paid it to the carpenters and
masons. The priests were left in possession of the money for the
guilt-offerings[263] and for the sin-offerings, but with the rest of
the funds they had nothing to do. In this way was restored the
confidence which the management of the hierarchy had evidently
forfeited, and with renewed confidence in the administration fresh
gifts poured in. Even in the cautious narrative of the Chronicler it
is clear that the priests hardly came out of these transactions with
flying colours. If their honesty is not formally impugned, at least
their torpor is obvious, as is the fact that they had wholly failed to
inspire the zeal of the people till the young king took the affair
into his own hands.[264]

The long reign of Joash ended in eclipse and murder. If the later
tradition be correct, it was also darkened with atrocious ingratitude
and crime.

For, according to the Chronicler, Jehoiada died at the advanced age of
one hundred and thirty, and was buried, as an unwonted honour, in the
sepulchres of the kings.[265] When he was dead, the princes of Judah
came to Joash, who had now been king for many years, and with a
strange suddenness tempted the zealous repairer of the Temple of
Jehovah into idolatrous apostasy. With soft speech they seduced him
into the worship of Asherim. It was marvellous indeed if the child of
the Temple became its foe, and he who had made a covenant with Jehovah
fell away to Baalim. But worse followed. Prophets reproved him, and he
paid them no heed, in spite of "the greatness of the burdens"--_i.e._,
the multitude of the menaces--laid upon him.[266] The stern,
denunciative harangues were despised. At last Zechariah, the son of
his benefactor Jehoiada, rebuked king and people. He cried aloud from
some eminence in the court of the Temple, that "since they had
transgressed the commandments of Jehovah they could not prosper: they
had forsaken Him, and He would forsake them." Infuriated by this
prophecy of woe, the guilty people, at the command of their guiltier
king, stoned him to death.[267] As he lay dying, he exclaimed, "The
Lord look upon it, and require it!"[268]

The entire silence of the elder and better authority might lead us to
hope that there may be room for doubt as to the accuracy of the much
later tradition. Yet there certainly was a persistent belief that
Zechariah had been thus martyred. A wild legend, related in the
Talmud,[269] tells us that when Nebuzaradan conquered Jerusalem and
entered the Temple he saw blood bubbling up from the floor of the
court, and slaughtered ninety-four myriads, so that the blood flowed
till it touched the blood of Zechariah, that it might be fulfilled
which is said (Hos. iv. 2), "Blood toucheth blood." When he saw the
blood of Zechariah, and noticed that it was boiling and agitated, he
asked, "What is this?" and was told that it was the spilled blood of
the sacrifices. Finding this to be false, he threatened to comb the
flesh of the priests with iron curry-combs if they did not tell the
truth. Then they confessed that it was the blood of the murdered
Zechariah. "Well," he said, "I will pacify him." First he slaughtered
the greater and lesser Sanhedrin: but the blood did not rest. Then he
sacrificed young men and maidens: but the blood still bubbled. At
last he cried, "Zechariah, Zechariah, must I then slay them all?" Then
the blood was still, and Nebuzaradan, thinking how much blood he had
shed, fled, repented, and became a Jewish proselyte!

Perhaps the worst feature of the story against Joash might have been
susceptible of a less shocking colouring. He had naturally all his life
been under the influence of priestly domination. The ascendency which
Jehoiada had acquired as priest-regent had been maintained till long
after the young king had arrived at full manhood. At last, however, he
had come into collision with the priestly body. He was in the right;
they were transparently in the wrong. The Chronicler, and even the older
historian, soften the story against the priests as much as they can; but
in both their narratives it is plain that Jehoiada and the whole
hierarchy had been more careful of their own interests than of those of
the Temple, of which they were the appointed guardians. Even if they can
be acquitted of potential malfeasance, they had been guilty of
reprehensible carelessness. It is clear that in this matter they did not
command the confidence of the people; for so long as they had the
management of affairs the sources of munificence were either dried up or
only flowed in scanty streams, whereas they were poured forth with glad
abundance when the administration of the funds was placed mainly in the
hands of laymen under the king's chancellor. It is probable that when
Jehoiada was dead Joash thought it right to assert his royal authority
in greater independence of the priestly party; and that party was headed
by Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada. The Chronicler says that he
prophesied: that, however, would not necessarily constitute him a
prophet, any more than it constituted Caiaphas. If he was a prophet, and
was yet at the head of the priests, he furnishes an all-but solitary
instance of such a position. The position of a prophet, occupied in the
great work of moral reformation, was so essentially antithetic to that
of priests, absorbed in ritual ceremonies, that there is no body of men
in Scripture of whom, as a whole, we have a more pitiful record than of
the Jewish priests. From Aaron, who made the golden calf, to Urijah, who
sanctioned the idolatrous altar of Ahaz, and so down to Annas and
Caiaphas, who crucified the Lord of glory, they rendered few signal
services to true religion. They opposed Uzziah when he invaded their
functions, but they acquiesced in all the idolatries and abominations of
Rehoboam, Abijah, Ahaziah, Ahaz, and many other kings, without a
syllable of recorded protest. When a prophet did spring from their
ranks, they set their faces with one consent, and were confederate
against him. They mocked and ridiculed Isaiah. When Jeremiah rose among
them, the priest Pashur smote him on the cheek, and the whole body
persecuted him to death, leaving him to be protected only by the pity of
eunuchs and courtiers. Ezekiel was the priestliest of the prophets, and
yet he was forced to denounce the apostasies which they permitted in the
very Temple. The pages of the prophets ring with denunciations of their
priestly contemporaries.[270]

We do not know enough of Zechariah to say much about his character;
but priests in every age have shown themselves the most unscrupulous
and the most implacable of enemies. Joash probably stood to him in
the same relation that Henry II. stood to Thomas à Becket. The
priest's murder may have been due to an outburst of passion on the
part of the king's friends, or of the king himself--gentle as his
character seems to have been--without being the act of black
ingratitude which late traditions represented it to be. The legend
about Zechariah's blood represents the priest's spirit as so
ruthlessly unforgiving as to awaken the astonishment and even the
rebukes of the Babylonian idolater. Such a legend could hardly have
arisen in the case of a man who was other than a most formidable
opponent. The murder of Joash may have been, in its turn, a final
outcome of the revenge of the priestly party. The details of the story
must be left to inference and conjecture, especially as they are not
even mentioned in the earlier and more impartial annalists.

It is at least singular that while Joash, the king, is blamed for
continuing the worship at the _bamoth_, Jehoiada, the high priest, is
_not_ blamed, though they continued throughout his long and powerful
regency. Further, we have an instance of the priest-regent's autocracy
which can hardly be regarded as redounding to his credit. It is
preserved in an accidental allusion on the page of Jeremiah. In Jer.
xxix. 26 we read his reproof and doom of the lying prophecy of the
priest Shemaiah the Nehelamite, because as a priest he had sent a
letter to the chief priest Zephaniah and all the priests, urging them
as the successors of Jehoiada to follow the ruling of Jehoiada, which
was to put Jeremiah in a collar. For Jehoiada, he said, "had ordered
the priests, as officers [_pakidim_] in the house of Jehovah, to put
in the stocks every one that is mad and maketh himself a
prophet."[271] If, then, the Jehoiada referred to is the
priest-regent, as seems undoubtedly to be the case, we see that he
hated all interference of Jehovah's prophets with his rule. That the
prophets were usually regarded by the world and by priests as "mad,"
we see from the fact that the title is given by Jehu's captains to
Elisha's emissary;[272] and that this continued to be the case we see
from the fact that the priests and Pharisees of Jerusalem said of John
the Baptist that he had a devil, and of Christ that He was a
Samaritan, and that He, too, had a devil. If Joash was in opposition
to the priestly party, he was in the same position as all God's
greatest saints and reformers have ever been from the days of Moses to
the days of John Wesley. The dominance of priestcraft is the
invariable and inevitable death of true, as apart from functional,
religion. Priests are always apt to concentrate their attention upon
their temples, altars, religious practices and rites--in a word, upon
the externals of religion. If they gain a complete ascendency over
their fellow-believers, the faithful become their absolute slaves,
religion degenerates into formalism, "and the life of the soul is
choked by the observance of the ceremonial law." It was a misfortune
for the Chosen People that, except among the prophets and the wise
men, the external worship was thought much more of than the moral law.
"To the ordinary man," says Wellhausen, "it was not moral but
liturgical acts which seemed to be religious." This accounts for the
monotonous iteration of judgments on the character of kings, based
primarily, not upon their essential character, but on their relation
to the _bamoth_ and the calves.

Although the historian of the Kings gives no hint of this dark story of
Zechariah's murder, or of the apostasy of Joash, and indeed narrates no
other event of the long reign of forty years, he tells us of the
deplorable close. Hazael's ambition had been fatal to Israel; and now,
in the cessation of Assyrian inroads upon Aram, he extended his arms
towards Judah. He went up against Gath and took it, and cherished
designs against Jerusalem. Apparently he did not head the expedition in
person, and the historian implies that Joash bought off the attack of
his "general." But the Chronicler makes things far worse. He says that
the Syrian host marched to Jerusalem, destroyed all the princes of the
people, plundered the city, and sent the spoil to Hazael, who was at
Damascus. Judah, he says, had assembled a vast army to resist the small
force of the Syrian raid; but Joash was ignominiously defeated, and was
driven to pay blackmail to the invader. As to this defeat in battle the
historian is silent; but he mentions what the Chronicler omits--namely,
that the only way in which Joash could raise the requisite bribe was by
once more stripping the Temple and the palace, and sending to Damascus
all the treasures which his three predecessors had consecrated,--though
we are surprised to learn that after so many strippings and plunderings
any of them could still be left.

The anguish and mortification of mind caused by these disasters, and
perhaps the wounds he had received in the defeat of his army, threw
Joash into "great diseases." But he was not suffered to die of
these.[273] His servants--perhaps, if that story be authentic, to
avenge the slain son of Jehoiada, but doubtless also in disgust at
the national humiliation--rose in conspiracy against him, and smote
him at Beth-Millo,[274] where he was lying sick. The Septuagint, in 2
Chron. xxiv. 27, adds the dark fact that _all his sons_ joined in the
conspiracy.[275] This cannot be true of Amaziah, who put the murderer
to death. Such, however, was the deplorable end of the king who had
stood by the Temple pillar in his fair childhood, amid the shouts and
trumpet-blasts of a rejoicing people. At that time all things seemed
full of promise and of hope. Who could have anticipated that the boy
whose head had been touched with the sacred oil and over-shadowed with
the Testimony--the young king who had made a covenant with Jehovah,
and had initiated the task of restoring the ruined Temple to its
pristine beauty--would end his reign in earthquake and eclipse? If
indeed he had been guilty of the black ingratitude and murderous
apostasy which tradition laid to his charge, we see in his end the
Nemesis of his ill-doing; yet we cannot but pity one who, after so
long a reign, perished amid the spoliation of his people, and was not
even allowed to end his days by the sore sickness into which he had
fallen, but was hurried into the next world by the assassin's knife.

It is impossible not to hope that his deeds were less black than the
Chronicler painted. He had made the priests feel his power and
resentment, and their Levitic recorder was not likely to take a
lenient view of his offences. He says that though Joash was buried in
the City of David, he was not buried in the sepulchres of his fathers.
The historian of the Kings, however, expressly says that "they buried
him with his fathers in the City of David," and he was peaceably
succeeded by Amaziah his son.

There is a curious, though it may be an accidental, circumstance about
the name of the two conspirators who slew him. They are called
"Jozacar, the son of Shimeath, and Jehozabad, the son of Shomer, his
servants." The names mean "Jehovah remembers," the son of "Hearer,"
and "Jehovah awards," the son of "Watcher"; and this strangely recalls
the last words attributed in the Book of Chronicles to the martyred
Zechariah. "Jehovah look upon it, and require it!" The Chronicler
turns the names into "Zabad, the son of Shimeath, an Ammonitess, and
Jehozabad, the son of Shimrith, a Moabitess." Does he record this to
account for their murderous deed by the blood of hated nations which
ran in their veins?

FOOTNOTES:

[233] 2 Chron. xxi. 2-4.

[234] 2 Chron. xxi. 17.

[235] ὁμοπάτριος ἀδελφή (Jos.).

[236] 2 Chron. xxii. 11. There are undoubted difficulties about the
statement (see _infra_). There is no other instance of the marriage of
a princess with a priest.

[237] Jos., _Antt._, IX. vii. 1: τὸ ταμιεῖον τῶν κλινῶν. The chamber
of beds was a sort of unoccupied wardrobe-room.

[238] 2 Kings xi. 4: "The centurions of the Carians and of the runners."

[239] This is the second time that the word "Sabbath" occurs, or that
the institution is alluded to, in the history of either monarchy.

[240] Nothing is known of סוּר, Sur, or יְסוֹד _y'sôd_, the Foundation
(2 Chron. xxiii. 5). They are not mentioned elsewhere. LXX., εν τῇ
πύλῃ τῶν ὁδῶν, and (in Chronicles) ἐν τῇ πύλῃ τῇ μέσῃ.

[241] Not as in A.V., "that it be not broken down."

[242] In reading side by side the narratives in the Books of Kings and
Chronicles (2 Chron. xxiii.), it is difficult to avoid the conclusion
that the main anxiety of the Chronicler is to leave the impression
that the work in the Temple was chiefly done by the Levites, and that
the sacred precincts were not polluted by the presence of alien
troops. He evidently stumbled at the notion, conveyed by the older
narrative, that Carians and suchlike semi-heathen mercenaries should
have stood by the altar at a high priest's command; so he substitutes
Levites for guardsmen, and the profane laymen are relegated outside.
In details the two accounts are only reconcilable by a special
pleading which would reconcile _any_ discrepancy.

[243] 1 Kings vii. 21. Comp., however, 2 Kings xxiii. 3.

[244] See Exod. xxv. 16, 21, xvi. 34. הָצֵדוּת (see 2 Chron. xxiii.
11). Kimchi takes it to mean "a royal robe," and other Rabbis a
phylactery on the coronet (Deut. vi. 8). In the Targum to Chronicles
it is explained to mean the costly jewel (2 Sam. xii. 30), of which
none but a descendant of David could bear the weight. For _ha'edôth_
Klostermann therefore suggests _hats'adôth_, "the royal bracelets."

[245] So says Josephus (μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας στρατίας), and it is certain
that she would hardly go unattended.

[246] Jos., _Antt._, IX. vii. 3: Τὸυς δὲ ἑπομένους ὁπλίτας εἶρξαν
εἰσελθεῖν.

[247] The meaning of _al-ha'amôd_ is uncertain (A.V., "by a pillar";
Vulg., "on the tribunal"). Comp. 2 Kings xxiii. 3; 2 Chron. xxiii. 13;
1 Kings viii. 22; 2 Chron. vi. 13.

[248] 2 Kings xi. 15. Not as in A.V., "without the ranges." Heb.,
_lash'dêrôth_; LXX., ἔσωθεν τῶν σαδηρώθ.

[249] A.V., "And they laid hands on her"; LXX., ἐπέβαλον αὐτῃ χεῖρας;
Vulg., _imposuerunt ci manus_. But R.V. as in the text, following the
Targum, and the Jewish commentators, "They made for her two sides."

[250] This is usually understood to be the "horse gate" of the city
(Neh. iii. 28), and so Josephus seems to have taken it, for he says
that Athaliah was killed in "the Kedron Valley." Canon Rawlinson says
that it was more probably in the Tyropœon Valley. But there could have
been no object in dragging the wretched queen all this way. Jehoiada
was only anxious that she should not stain the Temple with her blood,
and "the way by which the horses came into the king's house" seems to
be some private palace-gate. We are expressly told (ver. 16) that
Athaliah was slain "at the king's house," probably in "the king's
garden" (2 Kings xxv. 4).

[251] Wellhausen, _Isr. and Jud._, p. 96.

[252] 2 Chron. xv. 9-15.

[253] 2 Chron. xxix. 10.

[254] 2 Chron. xxxiv. 31.

[255] The name is perhaps an abbreviation from Mattan-Baal, "gift of
Baal." Comp. "Methumballes" (Plaut.). The names of Tyrian kings,
Mitinna, Mattun, occur in inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser II. See
Herod., vii. 98 (Bahr, _ad loc._). "Methumbaal of Arvad" is mentioned
on a monument of Tiglath-Pileser II. (Schrader, ii. 249).

[256] 2 Kings xii. 10; Jer. xxix. 26; 2 Chron. xxiv. 6. Stanley,
_Lectures_, ii. 399.

[257] 2 Kings xii. 2. After "all his days," the R.V. and A.V. add
"_wherein_ Jehoiada instructed him." This, however, is not accurate.
There is a stop at days, and "wherein" should be "_because_." There
seems, however, from the LXX., to be some variation in the text, and
according to the Chronicler Joash became an apostate. LXX., Πάσας τὰς
ἡμέρας ἅς ἐφώτιζεν αὐτὸν ὁ ἱερεύς; Vulg., _Cunctis diebus quibus
docuit eum Jojadas sacerdos_.

[258] The Chronicler (2 Chron. xxiv. 1, 2) _more suo_ copies 2 Kings
xii. 1, 2, but omits 3, because he dislikes the fact that not even his
hero Jehoiada had anything to say against the _bamoth_. But it appears
from 2 Kings xxiii. 9 that the _bamoth_ had regular priests of their
own, who "eat the priestly portions" (according to an old MS.) among
their brethren.

[259] 2 Chron. xxiv. 7.

[260] 2 Kings xii. 4: "The money that every man is set at." Lit.,
"Each the money of the souls of his valuation." Comp. Numb. xviii. 16;
Lev. xxvii. 2.

[261] The Chronicler says "at the gate."

[262] 2 Chron. xxiv. 11.

[263] Lev. v. 1-6, xiv. 13. "Trespass-money" is here first mentioned.

[264] 2 Chron. xxiv. 8-10. There is a difference between the historian
and the Chronicler respecting the vessels of the house.

[265] 2 Chron. xxiv. 15, 16. The statement of the Chronicler is (as so
often) surrounded by difficulties and improbabilities. If Jehoiada was
one hundred and thirty years old when he died, he must have been
ninety when Ahaziah was murdered, at the age of twenty-three. But as
Ahaziah was (apparently) born when his father Jehoram was eighteen,
Jehosheba must have been under eighteen, and must have been married to
a man seventy years older than herself! See Lord Arthur Hervey, _On
the Genealogies_, p. 113.

[266] 2 Chron. xxiv. 27.

[267] Stanley charitably thinks that Joash may have only burst into
hasty words like those of Henry II. against Becket.

[268] The Chronicler says that "the _sons_ of Jehoiada" had helped to
crown him, and that he put "the _sons_ of Jehoiada" to death (2 Chron.
xxiii. 11, xxiv. 25).

[269] Gittin, f. 57, 2; Sanhedrin, f. 96, 2; Hershon, _Treasures of
the Talmud_, p. 276; Lightfoot on Matt. xxiii. 35. There can be little
doubt that the reading "Berechiah" is a later correction of some one
who remembered the murder narrated in Jos., _B. J._, IV. v. 4, and
that the true reading is "son of Jehoiada." This is the last murder of
a prophet mentioned in the Old Testament, and we learn from the Gospel
the fact that he was slain "between the Temple and the altar."

[270] Isa. xxiv. 2; Jer. v. 31, xxiii. 11; Ezek. vii. 26, xxii. 26;
Hos. iv. 9; Mic. iii. 11, etc.

[271] Jer. xxix. 24-32.

[272] 2 Kings ix. 11.

[273] But from the Book of Kings we should not infer that there had
been any fighting at all. The Syrian commander had been bribed to
retire.

[274] We cannot understand the addition "on the way that goeth down to
Silla." Silla is nowhere else referred to.

[275] LXX., 2 Chron. xxiv. 27, καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ πάντες.




                               CHAPTER XV

                           _AMAZIAH OF JUDAH_

                            B.C. 796-783 (?)

                           2 KINGS xiv. 1-22

    "All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."--MATT.
    xxvi. 52.


The fate of Amaziah ("Jehovah is strong"), son of Joash of Judah,
resembles in some respects that of his father. Both began to reign
prosperously: the happiness of both ended in disaster. Amaziah at his
accession was twenty-five years old. He was the son of a lady of
Jerusalem named Jehoaddin. He reigned twenty-nine years, of which the
later ones were passed in misery, peril, and degradation, and, like
the unhappy Joash, and at about the same age, he fell the victim of
domestic conspiracy.

The hereditary principle was too strongly established to enable the
murderers of Joash to set it aside, but Amaziah was not at first
strong enough to make any head against them. In time he became
established in his kingdom, and then his earliest act was to bring the
head conspirators, Jozacar and Jehozabad, to justice. It was noted as
a most remarkable circumstance that he did not put to death their
children, and extirpate their houses. In acting thus, if he were
influenced by a spirit of mercy, he showed himself before his time;
but such mercy was completely contrary to the universal custom, and
was also regarded as most impolitic. Even the comparatively merciful
Greeks had the proverb, "Fool, who has murdered the sire, and left his
sons to avenge him!"[276]

In epochs of the wild justice of revenge, when blood-feuds are an
established and approved institution, the policy of letting vengeance
only fall on the actual offender was regarded as fatal. Perhaps Amaziah
felt it beyond his power to do more than bring the actual murderers to
justice, and it is possible that their children may have been among the
conspirators who, in his hour of shame, intimately destroyed him.

The historian, it is true, attributes his conduct to magnanimity, or
rather to his obedience to the law, "The fathers shall not be put to
death for the children, nor the children for the fathers; but every
man shall die for his own sin." This is a reference to Deut. xxiv. 16,
and is probably the independent comment of the writer who recorded the
event two centuries later. In the gradual growth of a milder
civilisation, and the more common dominance of legal justice, such a
law may have come into force, as expressive of that voice of
conscience which is to sincere nations the voice of God. That the book
of Deuteronomy, as a book, was not in existence in its present form
till four reigns later we shall hereafter see strong reasons to
believe. But even if any part of that book was in existence, it is not
easy to understand how Amaziah would have been able to decide that the
law which forbade the punishment of the children with the offending
parents was the law which he was bound to follow, when Moses and
Joshua and other heroes of his race had acted on the olden principle.
The innocent families of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram were represented as
having been swallowed up with the ambitious heads of their houses.
Joshua and all Israel had not only stoned Achan, but with him all his
unoffending house. What, too, was the meaning of the law which
established the five Cities of Refuge as the best way to protect the
accidental homicide from the recognised and unrebuked actions of the
Goel--the avenger of blood? The vengeance of a Goel was regarded, as
it is in the East and South to this day, not as an implacable
fierceness, but as a sacred duty, the neglect of which would cover him
with infamy. Judging of our documents by the impartial light of honest
criticism, it seems impossible to deny that the law of Deuteronomy was
the law of an advancing civilisation, which became more mild as
justice became firmer and more available. If Deuteronomy represents
the legislation of Moses, we can only say that in this respect Amaziah
was the first person who paid the slightest attention to it. Such
exceptional obedience may well excite the notice of the historian, in
whose pages we see that prophets like Ahijah, Elijah, and Elisha had,
again and again, in accordance with the spirit of their times,
contemplated the total excision, not only of erring kings, but even of
their little children and their most distant kinsfolk.

Further:--We are told that Amaziah "did that which was right in the
sight of Jehovah: he did according to all things _as Joash his father
did_." The Chronicler also bestows his eulogy on Amaziah; but having
told such dark stories of the apostasy of Joash to Asherah-worship
and his murder of the prophets, he could hardly add "as Joash his
father did"; so he omits those words. The reservation that Amaziah did
right, "yet not like David his father" (2 Kings xiv. 3), "but not with
a perfect heart" (2 Chron. xxv. 2), is followed by the stock abatement
about the _bamoth_, and the sacrifices and incense burnt in them. This
was a crime in the eyes of writers in B.C. 540, but certainly not in
the eyes of any king before the discovery of the "Book of the Law" in
the reign of Josiah, B.C. 621. We are compelled, therefore, by simple
truth, to ask, How came it that Amaziah should be so scrupulous as to
observe the Deuteronomic law by not slaying the sons of his father's
murderers, while he does not seem to be aware, any more than the best
of his predecessors, that while he obeyed one precept he was violating
the essence and spirit of the entire code in which the precept occurs?
The one main object, the constantly repeated law of Deuteronomy, is
the centralisation of all worship, and the rigid prohibition of every
local place of sacrifice. Strange that Amaziah should have selected
for attention a single precept, while he is profoundly unconscious of,
or indifferent to, the fact that he is setting aside the regulation
with which the law, as Deuteronomy represents it, begins and ends, and
on which it incessantly insists!

Joash had been something of a weakling, as though the gloom of his
early concealment in the Temple and the shadow of priestly dominance
had paralysed his independence. Amaziah, on the other hand, born in
the purple, was vigorous and restless. When he was secure upon the
throne, and had done his duty to his father's memory, he bent his
efforts to recover Edom. The Edomites had revolted in the days of his
great-grandfather Jehoram,[277] and since then "did tear
perpetually,"[278] harassing with incessant raids the miserable
fellahîn of Southern Judah. They reaped the crops of the settled
inhabitants, cut down their fruit-trees, burnt their farmsteads, and
carried their children into cruel and hopeless slavery. One verse
tells us all that the historian knew, or cared to relate, of Amaziah's
campaign. He only says that it was eminently successful. Amaziah
confronted the Edomites in the Valley of Salt,[279] on the border of
Edom, to the south of the Dead Sea, and inflicted upon them a signal
defeat. He not only slaughtered ten thousand of them, but, advancing
southwards, he stormed and captured Selah or Petra, their rocky
capital, two days' journey north of Ezion-Geber, on the gulf of
Akabah.[280] Considering the natural strength of Petra, amid its
mountain-fastnesses, this was a victory of which he might well be
proud, and he marked his prowess by changing the name of the city to
Joktheel, "subdued by God." The historian, copying the ancient record
before him, says that Selah continued to be so called "to this
day."[281] This is a curious instance of close transcription, for it
is certain that Selah can only have retained the name of Joktheel for
a very short period, and had lost it long before the days of the
Exile. Even in the reign of Ahaz (B.C. 735-715) the Edomites had so
completely recovered lost ground that they were able to make
predatory excursions into Judah, and to threaten Hebron, which would
have been obviously impossible if they were not masters of their own
chief capital.[282] The district which Amaziah seems to have conquered
was mainly west of the Arabah. He wished to restore Elath, and perhaps
to carry out the old commerce with the Red Sea which Solomon began,
and which had fired the ambition of Jehoshaphat. The conquest of Selah
secured the road for his commercial caravans.

So far the older and better authorities. The Chronicler expands the
story in his usual fashion, in which historical and critical verity is
so often compelled, if not to suspect the disease of exaggeration and
the bias of Levitism, at least to feel uncertainty as to the details.
He says that Amaziah collected an army of three hundred thousand men
of Judah, trained them to a high state of discipline, and armed them
with spear and shield. He hired in addition one hundred thousand
Israelitish mercenaries, mighty men of valour, at the heavy cost of
one hundred talents of silver. He was rebuked by a prophet for
employing Israelites, "because the Lord was not with them," so that if
he used their aid he would certainly be defeated. Amaziah asked what
he was to do for the hundred talents, and the prophet told him that
Jehovah could give him much more than this.[283] So he dismissed his
Ephraimites who, returning home in great fury, "fell upon the cities
of Judah," from Samaria even unto Beth-horon, killed three thousand of
their inhabitants, and took much spoil. Amaziah, however, defeated the
Edomites without their aid, and not only slew ten thousand, but took
captive ten thousand more, all of whom he dashed to pieces by hurling
them from the top of the rock of Petra.[284]

Then, by an apostasy much more astounding than even that of his father
Joash, he took home with him the idols of Mount Seir, worshipped them,
and burnt incense before them. Jehovah sends a prophet to rebuke him
for his senseless infatuation in worshipping the gods of the Edomites
whom he had just so utterly defeated; but Amaziah returns him the
insolent answer, "Who made thee of the king's council? Be silent, or I
will put thee to death." The prophet met his ironical sneer with words
of deeper meaning: "If I am not on _your_ council, I am on God's.
Because thou hast not hearkened to my counsel, I know that God has
counselled to destroy thee."

The later writer thus accounts for the folly and overthrow of this
valorous and hitherto eminently pious king. Certain it is, as we shall
narrate in the next chapter, that, in spite of warning, he had the
temerity to challenge to battle the warlike Joash ben-Jehoahaz of
Israel, grandson of Jehu. The kings met at Beth-Shemesh, and Amaziah
was utterly routed, with consequences so shameful to himself and to
Jerusalem that he was never able to hold up his head again. He could
but eat away his own heart in despair, a ruined man. After this he
"lived" rather than reigned fifteen years longer.[285] The wall of
Jerusalem, broken down near the Damascus Gate, on the side towards
Israel, for a space of four hundred cubits, was a standing witness of
the king's infatuated folly. His people were ashamed of him, and weary
of him; and at last, seeing that nothing more could be expected of one
whose spirit had evidently been broken from impetuosity into
abjectness, they formed a conspiracy against him. To save his life he
fled to the strong fort of Lachish, a royal Canaanite city, in the
hills to the south-west of Judah.[286] But they pursued him thither,
and even Lachish would not protect him. He was murdered. They threw
the corpse upon a chariot, conveyed it to Jerusalem, and buried it in
the sepulchres of his fathers. The people quietly elevated to the
throne his son Azariah, then sixteen years old, who had been born the
year before his father's crowning disgrace. What became of the
conspirators we do not know. They were probably too strong to be
brought to justice, and we are not told that Azariah even attempted to
visit their crime upon their heads.

FOOTNOTES:

[276] Νήπιος ὃς πατέρα κτείνας υἱοὺς καταλείπει. Comp. Q. Curtius, vi.
11: "Lege cautum erat ut propinqui eorum qui regi insidiati cum ipsis
necarentur." Cic., _Ad Brut._, 15.

[277] 2 Kings viii. 20-22.

[278] Amos i. 11.

[279] The Valley (_Gê_) of Salt is "the plain of the Sabkah," about
two miles broad, between the southern end of the Dead Sea and the
hills which separate the Ghôr from the Arabah (Seetzen, _Reisen_, ii.
356; Robinson, _Researches_, ii. 450, 488). David had won a great
victory there (2 Sam. viii. 13; Psalm lx., _title_).

[280] Selah, "a rock" (Πέτρα). Eusebius calls it Rekem.

[281] It is the name also of a city of Judah (Josh. xv. 38).

[282] 2 Chron. xxviii. 17; Jos., _Antt._, XII. viii. 6.

[283] 2 Chron. xxv. 5-10, 13.

[284] Κατακρημνισμός. This mode of execution prevailed till quite
recent times in the little republic of Andorra.

[285] 2 Kings xiv. 17. The phrase that "he _lived_ fifteen years" is
unusual, and seems to imply that the historian saw,--

          "In more of life true life no more."


[286] Josh. x. 6, 31, xv. 39; 2 Kings xviii. 17; 2 Chron. xi. 9.




                              CHAPTER XVI

                         _THE DYNASTY OF JEHU_

                              B.C.
             Jehoahaz       814-797      2 Kings xiii. 1-9
             Joash          797-781          "   xiii. 10-21, xiv. 8-16
             Jeroboam II.   781-740          "   xiv. 23-29
             Zechariah      740              "    xv. 8-12

    "Them that honour Me I will honour, and they that despise Me shall
    be lightly esteemed."--1 SAM. ii. 30.


Israel had scarcely ever sunk to so low a nadir of degradation as she
did in the reign of the son of Jehu. We have already mentioned that
some assign to his reign the ghastly story which we have narrated in
our sketch of the work of Elisha. It is told in the sixth chapter of
the Second Book of Kings, and seems to belong to the reign of Jehoram
ben-Ahab; but it may have got displaced from this epoch of yet deeper
wretchedness. The accounts of Jehoahaz in 2 Kings xiii. are evidently
fragmentary and abrupt.

Jehoahaz reigned seventeen years.[287] Naturally, he did not disturb
the calf-worship, which, like all his predecessors and successors, he
regarded as a perfectly innocent symbolic adoration of Jehovah, whose
name he bore and whose service he professed. Why should he do so? It
had been established now for more than two centuries. His father, in
spite of his passionate and ruthless zeal for Jehovah, had never
attempted to disturb it. No prophet--not even Elijah nor Elisha, the
practical establishers of his dynasty--had said one word to condemn
it. It in no way rested on his conscience as an offence; and the
formal condemnation of it by the historian only reflects the more
enlightened judgment of the Southern Kingdom and of a later age. But
according to the parenthesis which breaks the thread of this king's
story (2 Kings xiii. 5, 6), he was guilty of a far more culpable
defection from orthodox worship; for in his reign, the Asherah--the
tree or pillar of the Tyrian nature-goddess--still remained in
Samaria, and therefore must have had its worshippers. How it came
there we cannot tell. Jezebel had set it up (1 Kings xvi. 33), with
the connivance of Ahab. Jehu apparently had "put it away" with the
great stêlê of Baal (2 Kings iii. 2), but, for some reason or other,
he had not destroyed it. It now apparently occupied some public place,
a symbol of decadence, and provocative of the wrath of Heaven.

Jehoahaz sank very low. Hazael's savage sword, not content with the
devastation of Bashan and Gilead, wasted the west of Israel also in
all its borders. The king became a mere vassal of his brutal neighbour
at Damascus. So little of the barest semblance of power was left him,
that whereas, in the reign of David, Israel could muster an army of
eight hundred thousand, and in the reign of Joash, the son and
successor of Jehoahaz, Amaziah could hire from Israel one hundred
thousand mighty men of valour as mercenaries, Jehoahaz was only
allowed to maintain an army of ten chariots, fifty horsemen, and ten
thousand infantry! In the picturesque phrase of the historian, "the
King of Syria had threshed down Israel to the dust," in spite of all
that Jehoahaz did, or tried to do, and "all his might." How completely
helpless the Israelites were is shown by the fact that their armies
could offer no opposition to the free passage of the Syrian troops
through their land. Hazael did not regard them as threatening his
rear; for, in the reign of Jehoahaz, he marched southwards, took the
Philistine city of Gath, and threatened Jerusalem. Joash of Judah
could only buy them off with the bribe of all his treasures, and
according to the Chronicler they "destroyed all the princes of the
people," and took great spoil to Damascus.[288]

Where was Elisha? After the anointing of Jehu he vanishes from the
scene. Unless the narrative of the siege of Samaria has been displaced,
we do not so much as once hear of him for nearly half a century.

The fearful depth of humiliation to which the king was reduced drove
him to repentance. Wearied to death of the Syrian oppression of which
he was the daily witness, and of the utter misery caused by prowling
bands of Ammonites and Moabites--jackals who waited on the Syrian
lion--Jehoahaz "besought the Lord,[289] and the Lord hearkened unto
him, and gave Israel a saviour, so that they went out from under the
hand of the Syrians: and the children of Israel dwelt in their tents,
as beforetime." If this indeed refers to events which come out of
place in the memoirs of Elisha; and if Jehoahaz ben-Jehu, not Jehoram
ben-Ahab, was the king in whose reign the siege of Samaria was so
marvellously raised, then Elisha may possibly be the temporary
deliverer who is here alluded to.[290] On this supposition we may see
a sign of the repentance of Jehoahaz in the shirt of sackcloth which
he wore under his robes, as it became visible to his starving people
when he rent his clothes on hearing the cannibal instincts which had
driven mothers to devour their own children. But the respite must have
been brief, since Hazael (ver. 22) oppressed Israel all the days of
Jehoahaz. If this rearrangement of events be untenable, we must
suppose that the repentance of Jehoahaz was only so far accepted, and
his prayer so far heard, that the deliverance, which did not come in
his own days, came in those of his son and of his grandson.

Of him and of his wretched reign we hear no more; but a very different
epoch dawned with the accession of his son Joash, named after the
contemporary King of Judah, Joash ben-Ahaziah.

In the Books of Kings and Chronicles Joash of Israel is condemned with
the usual refrains about the sins of Jeroboam. No other sin is laid to
his charge; and breaking the monotony of reprobation which tells us of
every king of Israel without exception that "he did that which was
evil in the sight of the Lord," Josephus boldly ventures to call him
"a good man, and the antithesis to his father."

He reigned sixteen years. At the beginning of his reign he found his
country the despised prey, not only of Syria, but of the paltry
neighbouring bandit-sheykhs who infested the east of the Jordan; he
left it comparatively strong, prosperous, and independent.

In his reign we hear again of Elisha, now a very old man of past eighty
years. Nearly half a century had elapsed since the grandfather of Joash
had destroyed the house of Ahab at the prophet's command. News came to
the king that Elisha was sick of a mortal sickness, and he naturally
went to visit the death-bed of one who had called his dynasty to the
throne, and had in earlier years played so memorable a part in the
history of his country. He found the old man dying, and he wept over
him, crying, "My father, my father! the chariot of Israel, and the
horsemen thereof."[291] The address strikes us with some surprise.
Elisha had indeed delivered Samaria more than once when the city had
been reduced to direst extremity; but in spite of his prayers and of his
presence, the sins of Israel and her kings had rendered this chariot of
Israel of very small avail. The names of Ahab, Jehu, Jehoahaz, call up
memories of a series of miseries and humiliations which had reduced
Israel to the very verge of extinction. For sixty-three years Elisha had
been the prophet of Israel; and though his public interpositions had
been signal on several occasions, they had not been availing to prevent
Ahab from becoming the vassal of Assyria, nor Israel from becoming the
appanage of the dominion of that Hazael whom Elisha himself had anointed
King of Syria, and who had become of all the enemies of his country the
most persistent and the most implacable.

The narrative which follows is very singular. We must give it as it
occurs, with but little apprehension of its exact significance.

Elisha, though Joash "did that which was evil in the sight of the
Lord," seems to have regarded him with affection. He bade the youth
take his bow,[292] and laid his feeble, trembling hands on the strong
hands of the king. Then he ordered an attendant to fling open the
lattice, and told the king to shoot eastward towards Gilead, the
region whence the bands of Syria made their way over the Jordan. The
king shot, and the fire came back into the old prophet's eye as he
heard the arrow whistle eastward. He cried, "The arrow of Jehovah's
deliverance, even the arrow of victory over Syria: for thou shalt
smite the Syrians in Aphek, till thou have consumed them."[293] Then
he bade the young king to take the sheaf of arrows, and smite towards
the ground, as if he was striking down an enemy. Not understanding the
significance of the act, the king made the sign of thrice striking the
arrows downwards, and then naturally stopped.[294] But Elisha was
angry--or at any rate grieved.[295] "You should have smitten five or
six times," he said, "and then you would have smitten Syria to
destruction. Now you shall only smite Syria thrice." The king's fault
seems to have been lack of energy and faith.

There are in this story some peculiar elements which it is impossible
to explain, but it has one beautiful and striking feature. It tells
us of the death-bed of a prophet. Most of God's greatest prophets have
perished amid the hatred of priests and worldlings. The progress of
the truth they taught has been "from scaffold to scaffold, and from
stake to stake."

          "Careless seems the Great Avenger. History's pages but record
           One death-grapple in the darkness 'twixt old systems and the
                 Word--
           Truth for ever on the scaffold, wrong for ever on the throne;
           Yet that scaffold sways the Future, and behind the dim
                 unknown
           Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above His own!"

Now and then, however, as an exception, a great prophetic teacher or
reformer escapes the hatred of the priests and of the world, and dies in
peace. Savonarola is burnt, Huss is burnt, but Wiclif dies in his bed at
Lutterworth, and Luther died in peace at Eisleben. Elijah passed away in
storm, and was seen no more. A king comes to weep by the death-bed of
the aged Elisha. "For us," it has been said, "the scene at his bedside
contains a lesson of comfort and even encouragement. Let us try to
realise it. A man with no material power is dying in the capital of
Israel. He is not rich: he holds no office which gives him any immediate
control over the actions of men; he has but one weapon--the power of his
word. Yet Israel's king stands weeping at his bedside--weeping because
this inspired messenger of Jehovah is to be taken from him. In him both
king and people will lose a mighty support, for this man is a greater
strength to Israel than chariots and horsemen are. Joash does well to
mourn for him, for he has had courage to wake the nation's conscience;
the might of his personality has sufficed to turn them in the true
direction, and rouse their moral and religious life. Such men as Elisha
everywhere and always give a strength to their people above the strength
of armies, for the true blessings of a nation are reared on the
foundations of its moral force."

The annals are here interrupted to introduce a posthumous
miracle--unlike any other in the whole Bible--wrought by the bones of
Elisha. He died, and they buried him, "giving him," as Josephus says,
"a magnificent burial." As usual, the spring brought with it the
marauding bands of Moabites. Some Israelites who were burying a man
caught sight of them, and, anxious to escape, thrust the man into the
sepulchre of Elisha, which happened to be nearest at hand. But when he
was placed in the rocky tomb, and touched the bones of Elisha, he
revived, and stood up on his feet. Doubtless the story rests on some
real circumstance. There is, however, something singular in the turn
of the original, which says (literally) that the man _went and
touched_ the bones of Elisha;[296] and there is proof that the story
was told in varying forms, for Josephus says that it was the Moabite
plunderers who had killed the man, and that he was thrown by them into
Elisha's tomb.[297] It is easy to invent moral and spiritual lessons
out of this incident, but not so easy to see what lesson is intended
by it. Certainly there is not throughout Scripture any other passage
which even _seems_ to sanction any suspicions of magic potency in the
relics of the dead.[298]

But Elisha's symbolic prophecy of deliverance from Syria was amply
fulfilled. About this time Hazael had died, and had left his power in
the feebler hands of his son Benhadad III. Jehoahaz had not been able
to make any way against him (2 Kings xiii. 3), but Joash his son
thrice met and thrice defeated him at Aphek. As a consequence of these
victories, he won back all the cities which Hazael had taken from his
father on the west of Jordan. The east of Jordan was never recovered.
It fell under the shadow of Assyria, and was practically lost for ever
to the tribes of Israel.

Whether Assyria lent her help to Joash under certain conditions we do
not know. Certain it is that from this time the terror of Syria
vanishes. The Assyrian king Rammânirâri III. about this time
subjugated all Syria and its king, whom the tablets call Mari, perhaps
the same as Benhadad III. In the next reign Damascus itself fell into
the power of Jeroboam II., the son of Joash.

One more event, to which we have already alluded, is narrated in the
reign of this prosperous and valiant king.

Amity had reigned for a century between Judah and Israel, the result
of the politic-impolitic alliance which Jehoshaphat had sanctioned
between his son Jehoram and the daughter of Jezebel. It was obviously
most desirable that the two small kingdoms should be united as closely
as possible by an offensive and defensive alliance. But the bond
between them was broken by the overweening vanity of Amaziah ben-Joash
of Judah. His victory over the Edomites, and his conquest of Petra,
had puffed him up with the mistaken notion that he was a very great
man and an invincible warrior. He had the wicked infatuation to kindle
an unprovoked war against the Northern Tribes. It was the most wanton
of the many instances in which, if Ephraim did not envy Judah, at
least Judah vexed Ephraim, Amaziah challenged Joash to come out to
battle, that they might look one another in the face. He had not
recognised the difference between fighting with and without the
sanction of the God of battles.

Joash had on his hands enough of necessary and internecine war to make
him more than indifferent to that bloody game. Moreover, as the superior
of Amaziah in every way, he saw through his inflated emptiness. He knew
that it was the worst possible policy for Judah and Israel to weaken
each other in fratricidal war, while Syria threatened their northern and
eastern frontiers, and while the tread of the mighty march of Assyria
was echoing ominously in the ears of the nations from afar. Better and
kinder feelings may have mingled with these wise convictions. He had no
wish to destroy the poor fool who so vaingloriously provoked his
superior might. His answer was one of the most crushingly contemptuous
pieces of irony which history records, and yet it was eminently kindly
and good-humoured. It was meant to save the King of Judah from advancing
any further on the path of certain ruin.

"The thistle that was in Lebanon" (such was the apologue which he
addressed to his would-be rival) "sent to the cedar that was in
Lebanon, saying: Give thy daughter to my son to wife.[299] The cedar
took no sort of notice of the thistle's ludicrous presumption, but a
wild beast that was in Lebanon passed by, and trod down the thistle."

It was the answer of a giant to a dwarf;[300] and to make it quite
clear to the humblest comprehension, Joash good-naturedly added: "You
are puffed up with your victory over Edom: glory in this, and stay at
home. Why by your vain meddling should you ruin yourself and Judah with
you? Keep quiet: I have something else to do than to attend to you."

Happy had it been for Amaziah if he had taken warning! But vanity is a
bad counsellor, and folly and self-deception--ill-matched pair--were
whirling him to his doom. Seeing that he was bent on his own
perdition, Joash took the initiative and marched to Beth-Shemesh, in
the territory of Judah.[301] There the kings met, and there Amaziah
was hopelessly defeated. His troops fled to their scattered homes, and
he fell into the hands of his conqueror. Joash did not care to take
any sanguinary revenge; but much as he despised his enemy, he thought
it necessary to teach him and Judah the permanent lesson of not again
meddling to their own hurt. He took the captive king with him to
Jerusalem, which opened its gates without a blow.[302] We do not know
whether, like a Roman conqueror, he entered it through the breach of
four hundred cubits which he ordered them to make in the walls,[303]
but otherwise he contented himself with spoil which would swell his
treasure, and amply compensate for the expenses of the expedition
which had been forced upon him. He ransacked Jerusalem for silver and
gold; he made Obed-Edom, the treasurer, give up to him all the sacred
vessels of the Temple, and all that was worth taking from the palace.
He also took hostages--probably from among the number of the king's
sons--to secure immunity from further intrusions. It is the first time
in Scripture that hostages are mentioned. It is to his credit that he
shed no blood, and was even content to leave his defeated challenger
with the disgraced phantom of his kingly power, till, fifteen years
later, he followed his father to the grave through the red path of
murder at the hand of his own subjects.[304]

After this we hear no further records of this vigorous and able king,
in whom the characteristics of his grandfather Jehu are reflected in
softer outline. He left his son Jeroboam II. to continue his career of
prosperity, and to advance Israel to a pitch of greatness which she
had never yet attained, in which she rivalled the grandeur of the
united kingdom in the earlier days of Solomon's dominion.

FOOTNOTES:

[287] I have not thought it worth while to unravel by a series of
uncertain conjectures the careless, and often self-contradictory,
synchronism of the reigns of the kings in the two kingdoms. The compiler
of these books evidently attached little or no importance to accurate
chronology. For instance, the data of 2 Kings xiii. 1, 10, do not
coincide; and instead of entering into tedious, doubtful, and confusing
guesses, I have contented myself throughout with giving for the reigns
of the kings such dates, or approximate dates, as seem to result from
the several notices compared with the contemporary annals of Assyria.

[288] 2 Chron. xxiv. 23.

[289] 2 Kings xiii. 4; "besought," literally "_stroked the face of_"
(1 Sam. xiii. 12; 1 Kings xiii. 6).

[290] The reference is usually explained of Jeroboam II.

[291] Comp. 2 Kings ii. 12.

[292] Lit., "Make thine hand to ride upon thy bow." There is not the
slightest taint of belomancy in the story (comp. Ezek. xxi. 21), nor
does it allude to shooting an arrow into an enemy's country as a
declaration of war (Virg., _Æn._, ix. 57).

[293] Aphek, a name of good omen (1 Kings xx. 26-30).

[294] Thrice. Comp. Num. xxii. 28; Exod. xxiii. 17, etc.

[295] LXX., ἐλυπήθη.

[296] See R.V., margin.

[297] _Antt._, IX. viii. 6.

[298] See Ecclus. xlviii. 13: "When he was dead, he prophesied in the
tomb." (But the clause may be spurious.)

[299] Possibly some matrimonial proposal may have lain behind the
interchange of messages.

[300] Stade. For similar parables see Judg. ix. 8; Herod., i. 141;
Rawlinson, _Anc. Mon._, iii. 226.

[301] Beth-Shemesh, "the house of the sun." It is mentioned in 1 Sam.
vi. 9, 12, and was a priestly city, and one of Solomon's store-cities
(1 Kings iv. 9). It ultimately fell into the hands of the Philistines
(2 Chron. xxviii. 18). It is not the Beth-Shemesh of Josh. xix. 22.

[302] Josephus says that this was the fault of Amaziah, whom Joash of
Israel threatened with death if Jerusalem resisted.

[303] This implies that at least half the northern wall was
dismantled--the wall towards Ephraim.

[304] Some have conjectured that Amaziah of Judah became more or less
the vassal of Joash of Israel, and that the vassalage continued till
after the death of Jeroboam II. (1) For Jeroboam II. held Elath till
his death, when Uzziah recovered it (2 Kings xiv. 22), and he
certainly could not have held this southern Judæan port if Judah was
entirely independent; and (2) we read that Uzziah did not become king
at all till the _twenty-seventh_ year of Jeroboam II. But if Amaziah
only survived Joash of Israel fifteen years (2 Kings xiv. 17), Uzziah
must have succeeded in the _fifteenth_ year of Jeroboam. Is the
explanation to be found in the fact that up to that time--for twelve
years--Jeroboam did not allow the Judæans to elect a king? or are
these among the hopeless confusion of synchronism which cannot be
reconciled at all with our present data?




                              CHAPTER XVII

             _THE DYNASTY OF JEHU (continued)--JEROBOAM II_

                              B.C. 781-740

                           2 KINGS xiv. 23-29


If we had only the history of the kings to depend upon, we should
scarcely form an adequate conception either of the greatness of
Jeroboam II. or of the condition of society which prevailed in Israel
during his long and most prosperous reign of forty-one years (B.C.
781-740). In the Books of Chronicles he is merely mentioned
accidentally in a genealogy. The Second Book of Kings only devotes one
verse to him (xiv. 25) beyond the stock formulæ of connection so often
repeated. That verse, however, gives us at least a glimpse of his
great importance, for it tells us that "he restored the coast of
Israel from the entering of Hamath unto the sea of the plain." Those
two lines sufficiently prove to us that he was by far the greatest and
most powerful of all the kings of Israel, as he was also the
longest-lived and had the longest reign. His victories flung a broad
gleam of sunset over the afflicted kingdom, and, for a time, they
might have beguiled the Israelites into lofty hopes for the future;
but with the death of Jeroboam the light instantly faded away, and
there was no after-glow.

And this sudden brightness, if it deceived others, did not deceive the
prophets of the Lord. It happened in accordance with the promise of
Jehovah given by Jonah, the son of Amittai, of Gath-Hepher;[305] but
Amos and Hosea saw that the glory of the reign was hollow and
delusive, and that the outward prosperity did but "skin and film the
ulcerous place" below.

In truth, the possibility of this sudden outburst of success was due to
the very enemy who, within a few years, was to grind Israel to powder.
God pitied the deplorable overthrow of His chosen people: He saw that
there was neither slave nor freeman--"neither any shut up, nor any left
at large, nor any helper for Israel"; and in Jeroboam He gave them the
saviour who had been granted to the penitence of Jehoahaz.[306] It was,
so to speak, a last pledge to them of the love and mercy of Jehovah,
which gave them a respite, and would fain have saved them altogether, if
they had turned with their whole heart to Him. And, personally, Jeroboam
II. seems to have been one of the better kings. Not a single crime is
laid to his charge; for under the circumstances of its deep-rooted
continuance through the reigns of all his predecessors, it cannot be
deemed a heinous crime that he did not put down the symbolic cult of
Jehovah by the cherubic emblems at Dan and Bethel. The fact that he had
been named after the founder of the kingdom of Israel shows that the
kingdom was proud of the valiant and Heaven-commissioned rebel who had
thrown off the yoke of the house of Solomon. The house of Jehu admired
his policy and his institutions. The son of Nebat did not by any means
appear in the eyes of his people as only worthy of the monotonous
epitaph, "who made Israel to sin." It is true that now the voice of
prophecy in Israel itself began to denounce the concomitants of the
"calf-worship"; but the voices of the Jewish herdsman of Tekoa and of
the Israelite Hosea probably raised but faint murmurs in the ears of the
warrior-king, with whom they do not seem to have come into personal
contact. In no case would he rank them as equal in importance with the
fiery Elijah or the king-making Elisha, who had been for four
generations the counsellor of his race. Neither of those great prophets
had insisted on the Deuteronomic law of a centralised worship, nor had
they denounced the revered local sanctuaries with which Israel had been
so long familiar. Jonah, indeed--who, if legend be correct, had been the
boy of Zarephath, and the personal attendant of Elijah--had predicted
the king's unbroken success, and had neither made it conditional on a
religious revolution, nor, so far as we know, had in any way censured
the existing institutions.

What rendered Jeroboam's glory possible was the immediate paralysis
and imminent ruin of the power of Syria. The Israelitish king was
probably on good terms with Assyria, and, during this epoch, three
Assyrian monarchs had struck blow after blow against the house of
Hazael. Damascus and its dependencies had received shattering defeats
at the hands of Rammânirâri III., Shalmaneser III. (782-772), and
Assurdan III. (772-754). Rammânirâri had made expeditions against
Damascus (773) and Hazael (772), and Assurdan had invaded the Syrian
domains in 767, 755, and 754. Syria had more than enough to do to hold
her own in a struggle for life and death against her atrocious
neighbour. With Uzziah in Judah, Jeroboam II. seems to have been on
the friendliest terms; and probably Uzziah acted as a half-independent
vassal, united with him by common interests. The day for Assyria to
threaten Israel had not yet come. Syria lay in the path; and Assurdan
III. had been succeeded by Assurnirari, who gave the world the unusual
spectacle of a peaceful Assyrian king.

Jeroboam II., therefore, was free to enlarge his domains; and unless
there be a little patriotic exaggeration in the extent and reality of
his prowess, he exercised at least a nominal suzerainty over a realm
nearly as extensive as that of David. He first advanced against
Damascus, and so far "recovered" it as to make it acknowledge his
rule.[307] His father Joash had won back all the Israelite cities
which Benhadad III. had taken from Jehoahaz; and Jeroboam, if he did
not absolutely reconquer the district east of Jordan, yet kept it in
check and repressed the predatory incursions of the Emîrs of Moab and
Ammon.[308] He thus extended the border of Israel to the sea of the
Arabah and "the brook of willows" which divides Edom from Moab.[309]
But this was not all. He pushed his conquests two hundred miles
northwards of Samaria, and became lord of Hamath the Great. Ascending
the gorge of the Litâny between the chains of Libanus and Antilibanus,
which formed the northern limit of Israel, and following the river to
its source near Baalbek, he then descended the Valley of the Orontes,
which constitutes the "pass" or "entering in" of Hamath. Hamath was a
town of the Hittites, the most powerful race of ancient Canaan. They
were not of Semitic origin, but spoke a separate language. They were
the last great branch of the once famous and dominant Khetas, whose
former importance has only recently been revealed by their deciphered
inscriptions. A century and a half earlier the Hamathites had thrown
off the yoke of Solomon, and they governed nearly a hundred dependent
cities. In alliance with the Phœnicians and Syrians, they had been
valuable members of a league, which, though defeated, had long formed
a barrier against the southward movement of the Assyrians. How
striking was the conquest of this city by Jeroboam is shown by the
title of "Hamath the Great," bestowed upon it by the contemporary
prophets,[310] with whom literary prophecy begins.

The result of these conquests was unwonted peace. Agriculture once
more became possible, when the farmers of Israel were secure that
their crops would not be reaped by plundering Bedouîn. Intercourse
with neighbouring nations was revived, as in the golden days of
Solomon, though it was regarded with suspicion.[311] Civilisation
softened something of the old brutality. Prophecy assumed a different
type, and literature began to dawn.

But to this state of things there was, as we learn from the
contemporary prophets Amos and Hosea, a darker side. Of Jonah we know
nothing more; for it is impossible to see in the Book of Jonah much
more than a beautiful and edifying story, which may or may not rest on
some surviving legends. It differs from every other prophetic book by
beginning with the word "And," and its late origin and legendary
character cannot any longer be reasonably disputed.[312] We may hope,
therefore, that the Northern prophet, whose home was not far from
Nazareth, was not quite the morose and ruthless grumbler so strikingly
portrayed in the book which bears his name. Of any historical
intervention of his in the affairs of Jeroboam we know nothing further
than the recorded promise of the king's prosperity.

FOOTNOTES:

[305] 2 Kings xiv. 25-27. There are other allusions to the historic
events in 2 Kings x. 32, 33, xiii. 3-7, 22-25. Hitzig conjectures that
Isa. xv., xvi., are "a burden of Moab" quoted from Jonah.

[306] 2 Kings xiii. 5, "The Lord gave Israel a saviour"; xiv. 27, "And
He saved them by the hand of Jeroboam, the son of Joash." Some suppose
the saviour to be the Assyrian King.

[307] It had owned the feudal supremacy of David (2 Sam. viii. 6), and
Ahab had extorted the privilege of having bazaars there (1 Kings xx.
34). Considering how immense had been the resources of Damascus (2
Kings vi. 14), which had once been able to send to battle twelve
thousand war-chariots (_Eponym Canon_, p. 108) under Benhadad, we see
how fearfully the Syrian capital must have been weakened.

[308] If Isa. xv. 1, 2, refers to this invasion of Jeroboam II., as
Hitzig first conjectured, we infer that he had taken both Ar of Moab
(Rabbath) and Kir of Moab, a strong fortress on a hill, by night
assaults; and that he had also captured Dibon, Nebo, and Medeba, and
inflicted on them summary chastisement. It appears that the Moabites
had advanced northwards from the Arnon, while Hazael occupied
Ramoth-Gilead, and had seized part of the tribe of Reuben. Jeroboam
II. first expelled them, and then invaded their own proper country.
Hitzig conjectures that Isa. xv., xvi., are really an old
prophecy--perhaps by Jonah, son of Amittai--which Isaiah quotes, and
to which he adds two verses (Isa. xvi. 12, 13). In such overthrow Moab
must have learnt to be ashamed of Chemosh (Jer. xlviii. 13).

[309] Isa. xv. 7; Amos vi. 14.

[310] Amos vi. 2.

[311] Merchandise had hitherto been considered discreditable for a
pure Jew, so that a trader is called a Canaanite (Hos. xii. 7, 8).

[312] See the writer's _Minor Prophets_ ("Men of the Bible" Series),
pp. 231-243.




                             CHAPTER XVIII

                _AMOS, HOSEA, AND THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL_

                      2 KINGS xiv. 23-29; xv. 8-12

             "In them is plainest taught and easiest learnt
              What makes a nation happy and keeps it so,
              What ruins kingdoms and lays cities flat."
                                    MILTON, _Paradise Regained_.

     "We see dimly in the Present what is small and what is great,
      Slow of faith how weak an arm may turn the iron helm of Fate:
      But the soul is still oracular: amid the market's din
      List the ominous stern whisper from the Delphic cave within,
      'They enslave their children's children who make compromise with
            sin.'"
                                                         LOWELL.


Amos and Hosea are the two earliest prophets whose "burdens" have come
down to us. From them we gain a near insight into the internal
condition of Israel in this day of her prosperity.

We see, first, that the prosperity was not unbroken. Though peace
reigned, the people were not left to lapse unwarned into sloth and
godlessness. The land had suffered from the horrible scourge of locusts,
until every _carmel_--every garden of God on hill and plain--withered
before them.[313] There had been widespread conflagrations;[314] there
had been a visitation of pestilence; and, finally, there had been an
earthquake so violent that it constituted an epoch from which dates
were reckoned.[315] There were also two eclipses of the sun, which
darkened with fear the minds of the superstitious.[316]

Nor was this the worst. Civilisation and commerce had brought luxury in
their train, and all the bonds of morality had been relaxed. The country
began to be comparatively depleted, and the innocent regularity of
agricultural pursuits palled upon the young, who were seduced by the
glittering excitement of the growing towns. All zeal for religion was
looked on as archaic, and the splendour of formal services was regarded
as a sufficient recognition of such gods as there were. As a natural
consequence, the nobles and the wealthy classes were more and more
infected with a gross materialism, which displayed itself in
ostentatious furniture, and sumptuous palaces of precious marbles inlaid
with ivory. The desire for such vanities increased the thirst for gold,
and avarice replenished its exhausted coffers by grinding the faces of
the poor, by defrauding the hireling of his wages, by selling the
righteous for silver, the needy for handfuls of barley, and the poor for
a pair of shoes. The degrading vice of intoxication acquired fresh
vogue, and the gorgeous gluttonies of the rich were further disgraced by
the shameful spectacle of drunkards, who lolled for hours over the
revelries which were inflamed by voluptuous music. Worst of all, the
purity of family life was invaded and broken down. Throwing aside the
old veiled seclusion of women in Oriental life, the ladies of Israel
showed themselves in the streets in all "the bravery of their tinkling
ornaments of gold," and sank into the adulterous courses stimulated by
their pampered effrontery.

Such is the picture which we draw from the burning denunciations of the
peasant-prophet of Tekoa. He was no prophet nor prophet's son, but a
humble gatherer of sycomore-fruit, a toil which only fell to the
humblest of the people.[317] Who is not afraid, he asks, when a lion
roars? and how can a prophet be silent when the Lord God has spoken?
Indignation had transformed and dilated him from a labourer into a seer,
and had summoned him from the pastoral shades of his native
village--whether in Judah or in Israel is uncertain--to denounce the
more flagrant iniquities of the Northern capital.[318] First he
proclaims the vengeance of Jehovah upon the transgressions of the
Philistines, of Tyre, of Edom, of Ammon, of Moab, and even of Judah; and
then he turns with a crash upon apostatising Israel.[319] He speaks with
unsparing plainness of their pitiless greed, their shameless debauchery,
their exacting usury, their attempts to pervert even the abstinent
Nazarites into intemperance, and to silence the prophets by opposition
and obloquy. Jehovah was crushed under their violence.[320] And did they
think to go unscathed after such black ingratitude? Nay! their mightiest
should flee away naked in the day of defeat. Robbery was in their houses
of ivory, and the few of them who should escape the spoiler should only
be as when a shepherd tears out of the mouth of a lion two legs and a
piece of an ear?[321] As for Bethel, their shrine--which he calls
Bethaven, "House of Vanity," not Bethel, "House of God"--the horns of
its altars should be cut off. Should oppression and licentiousness
flourish? Jehovah would take them with hooks, and their children with
fish-hooks, and their sacrifices at Bethel and Gilgal should be utterly
unavailing. Drought, and blasting, and mildew, and wasting plague, and
earth-convulsions like those which had swallowed Sodom and Gomorrha,
from which they should only be plucked as a "firebrand out of the
burning," should warn them that they must prepare to meet their
God.[322] It was lamentable; but lamentation was vain, unless they would
return to Jehovah, Lord of hosts,[323] and abandon the false worship of
Bethel, Beersheba, and Gilgal, and listen to the voice of the righteous,
whom they now abhorred for his rebukes. They talked hypocritically about
"the day of the Lord," but to them it should be blackness. They relied
on feast days, and services, and sacrifices; but since they would not
give the sacrifice of judgment and righteousness, for which alone God
cared, they should be carried into captivity beyond Damascus: yes! even
to that terrible Assyria with whose king they now were on friendly
terms. They lay at ease on their carved couches at their delicate
feasts, draining the wine-bowls, and glistering with fragrant oils,
heedless of the impending doom which would smite the great house with
breaches and the little house with clefts, and which should bring upon
them an avenger who should afflict them from their conquered Hamath
southwards even to the wady of the wilderness.[324] The threatened
judgments of locusts and fire had been mitigated at the prophet's
prayer, but nothing could avert the plumb-line of destruction which
Jehovah held over them, and He would rise against the House of Jeroboam
with His sword.[325] We infer from all that Amos and Hosea say that the
calf-worship at Bethel (for Dan is not mentioned in this connexion[326])
had degenerated into an idolatry far more abject than it originally
was. The familiarity of such multitudes of the people with Baal-worship
and Asherah-worship had tended to obliterate the sense that the "calves"
were cherubic emblems of Jehovah; and were it not for some confusions of
this kind, it is inconceivable that Jehoram ben-Jehu should have
restored the Asherah which his father had removed. Be that as it may,
Bethel and Gilgal seem to have become centres of corruption. Dan is
scarcely once alluded to as a scene of the calf-worship.

Others, then, might be deceived by the surface-glitter of extended
empire in the days of Jeroboam II. Not so the true prophets. It has
often happened--as to Persia, when, in B.C. 388, she dictated the
Peace of Antalcidas, and to Papal Rome in the days of the Jubilee of
1300, and to Philip II. of Spain in the year of the Armada, and to
Louis XIV. in 1667--that a nation has seemed to be at its zenith of
pomp and power on the very eve of some tremendous catastrophe. Amos
and Hosea saw that such a catastrophe was at hand for Israel, because
they knew that Divine punishment inevitably dogs the heels of
insolence and crime. The loftiness of Israel's privilege involved the
utterness of her ruin. "You only have I known of all the families of
the earth: therefore I will visit upon you all your iniquities."[327]

Such prophecies, so eloquent, so uncompromising, so varied, and so
constantly disseminated among the people, first by public harangues,
then in writing, could no longer be neglected. Amos, with his natural
culture, his rhythmic utterances, and his inextinguishable fire, was far
different from the wild fanatics, with their hairy garments, and sudden
movements, and long locks, and cries, and self-inflicted wounds, with
whom Israel had been familiar since the days of Elijah whom they all
imitated. So long as this inspired peasant confined himself to moral
denunciations the aristocracy and priesthood of Samaria could afford
comfortably to despise him. What were moral denunciations to them? What
harm was there in ivory palaces and refined feasts? This man was a mere
red socialist who tried to undermine the customs of society. The hold of
the upper classes on the people, whom their exactions had burdened with
hopeless debt, and whom they could with impunity crush into slavery, was
too strong to be shaken by the "hysteric gush" of a philanthropic
faddist and temperance fanatic like this. But when he had the enormous
presumption to mention publicly the name of their victorious king, and
to say that Jehovah would rise against him with the sword, it was time
for the clergy to interfere, and to send the intruder back to his native
obscurity.

So Amaziah, the priest of Bethel,[328] invoked the king's authority.
"Amos," he said to the king, "hath conspired against thee in the midst
of the house of Israel." The charge was grossly false, but it did well
enough to serve the priest's purpose. "The land is not able to bear
all his words."

That was true; for when nations have chosen to abide by their own
vicious courses, and refuse to listen to the voice of warning, they
are impatient of rebuke. They refuse to hear when God calls to them.

          "For when we in our viciousness grow hard,
           Oh misery on it! the wise gods seal our eyes;
           In our own filth drop our clear judgments; make us
           Adore our errors; laugh at us while we strut
           To our confusion."

The priest tried further to inflame the king's anger by telling him
two more of Amos's supposed predictions. He had prophesied (which was
a false inference) that Israel should be led away captive out of their
own land,[329] and had also prophesied (which was a perversion of the
fact) "that Jeroboam _should die_ by the sword."

At the first prophecy Jeroboam probably smiled. It might indeed come
true in the long-run. If he was a man of prescience as well as of
prowess, he probably foresaw that the elements of ruin lurked in his
transient success, and that though, for the present, Assyria was
occupied in other directions, it was unlikely that the weaker Israel
would escape the fate of the far more powerful Syria. As for the
personal prophecy, he was strong, and was honoured, and had his army
and his guards. He would take his chance. Nor does it seem to have
troubled any one that Amos looked for the ultimate union of Israel
with Judah. Since the time of Joash the inheritance of David had been
but as "a ruined booth" (ix. 11); but Amos prophesied its restoration.
This touch may have been added later, when he wrote and published his
"burdens"; but he did not hesitate to speak as if the two kingdoms
were really and properly one.[330]

We are not told that Jeroboam II. interfered with the prophet in any
way.[331] Had he done so, he would have been rebuked and denounced for
it. He probably went no further than to allow the priest and the
prophet to settle the matter between themselves. Perhaps he gave a
contemptuous permission that, if Amaziah thought it worth while to
send the prophet back into Judah, he might do so.

Armed with this nonchalant mandate, Amaziah, with more mildness and
good-humour than might have been expected from one of his class, said
to Amos, "O Seer,[332] go home, and eat thy bread, and prophesy to thy
heart's content at home; but do not prophesy any more at Bethel, for
it is the king's sanctuary and the king's court."

Amos obeyed perforce, but stopped to say that he had not prophesied
out of his own mouth, but by Jehovah's bidding. He then hurled at the
priest a message of doom as frightful as that which Jeremiah
pronounced upon Pashur, when that priest smote him on the face. His
wife should be a harlot in the city; his sons and daughters should be
slain; his inheritance should be divided; he should die in a polluted
land; and Israel should go into captivity. And as for his mission, he
justified it by the fact that he was not one of an hereditary or a
professional community; he was no prophet or prophet's son. Such men
might--like Zedekiah, the son of Chenaanah, and his four hundred
abettors--be led into mere function and professionalism, into
manufactured enthusiasm and simulated inspiration. From such
communities freshness, unconventionality, courage, were hardly to be
expected. They would philippise at times; they would get to love their
order and their privileges better than their message, and themselves
best of all. It is the tendency of organised bodies to be tempted into
conventionality, and to sink into banded unions chiefly concerned in
the protection of their own prestige. Not such was Amos. He was a
peasant herdsman in whose heart had burned the inspiration of Jehovah
and the wrath against moral misdoing till they had burst into flame.
It was indignation against iniquity which had called Amos from the
flocks and the sycomores to launch against an apostatising people the
menace of doom. In that grief and indignation he heard the voice and
received the mandate of the Lord of hosts. He heads the long line of
literary prophets whose priceless utterances are preserved in the Old
Testament. The inestimable value of their teaching lies most of all in
the fact that they were--like Moses--preachers of the moral law; and
that, like the Book of the Covenant, which is the most ancient and the
most valuable part of the Laws of the Pentateuch, they count external
service as no better than the small dust of the balance in comparison
with righteousness and true holiness.

The rest of the predictions of Amos were added at a later date. They
dwelt on the certainty and the awful details of the coming overthrow;
the doom of the idolaters of Gilgal and Beersheba; the inevitable
swiftness of the catastrophe in which Samaria should be sifted like
corn in a sieve in spite of her incorrigible security.[333] Yet the
ruin should not be absolute. "Thus saith Jehovah: As the shepherd
teareth out of the mouth of the lion two legs and the piece of an ear,
so shall the children of Israel be rescued, that sit in Samaria on the
corner of a couch, and on the damask of a bed."

The Hebrew Prophets almost invariably weave together the triple strands
of warning, exhortation, and hope. Hitherto Amos has not had a word of
hope to utter. At last, however, he lets a glimpse of the rainbow
irradiate the gloom. The overthrow of Israel should be accompanied by
the restoration of the fallen booth of David, and, under the rule of a
scion of that house, Israel should return from captivity to enjoy days
of peaceful happiness, and to be rooted up no more.[334]

       *       *       *       *       *

Hosea, the son of Beeri, was of a somewhat later date than Amos. He,
too, "became electric," to flash into meaner and corrupted minds the
conviction that formalism is nothing, and that moral sincerity is all
in all. That which God requires is not ritual service, but truth in
the inward parts. He is one of the saddest of the prophets; but
though he mingles prophecies of mercy with his menaces of wrath, the
general tenor of his oracles is the same. He pictures the crimes of
Ephraim by the image of domestic unfaithfulness, and bids Judah to
take warning from the curse involved in her apostasy.[335] Many of his
allusions touch upon the days of that deluge of anarchy which followed
the death of Jeroboam II. (iv.-vi. 3). That he was a Northerner
appears from the fact that he speaks of the King of Israel as "our
king" (vii. 5). Yet he seems to blame the revolt of Jeroboam I. (i.
11, viii. 4), although a prophet had originated it, and he openly
aspires after the reunion of the Twelve Tribes under a king of the
House of David (iii. 5). He points more distinctly to Assyria, which
he frequently names as the scourge of the Divine vengeance, and
indicates how vain is the hope of the party which relied on the
alliance of Egypt.[336] He speaks with far more distinct contempt of
the cherub at Bethel and the shrine at Gilgal, and says scornfully,
"Thy calf, O Samaria, has cast thee off."[337] Shalmaneser had taken
Beth-Arbel, and dashed to pieces mother and children. Such would be
the fate of the cities of Israel.[338] Yet Hosea, like Amos, cannot
conclude with words of wrath and woe, and he ends with a lovely song
of the days when Ephraim should be restored, after her true
repentance, by the loving tenderness of God.

Jeroboam II. must have been aware of some at least of these prophecies.
Those of Hosea must have impressed him all the more because Hosea was a
prophet of his own kingdom, and all of his allusions were to such
ancient and famous shrines of Ephraim as Mizpeh, Tabor, Bethel, Gilgal,
Shechem,[339] Jezreel, and Lebanon. He was the Jeremiah of the North,
and a passionate patriotism breathes through his melancholy strains. Yet
in the powerful rule of Jeroboam II. he can only see a godless
militarism founded upon massacre (i. 4), and he felt himself to be the
prophet of decadence. Page after page rings with wailing, and with
denunciations of drunkenness, robbery, and whoredom--"swearing, lying,
killing, stealing, and adultery" (iv. 2).

If Jeroboam was as wise and great as he seemed to have been, he must
have seen with his own eyes the ominous clouds on the far horizon, and
the deep-seated corruption which was eating like a cancer into the
heart of his people. Probably, like many another great sovereign--like
Marcus Aurelius when he noted the worthlessness of his son Commodus,
like Charlemagne when he burst into tears at the sight of the ships of
the Vikings--his thoughts were like those of the ancient and modern
proverbs--"When I am dead, let earth be mixed with fire." We have no
trace that Jeroboam treated Hosea as did those guilty priests to whom
he was a rebuke, and who called him "a fool" and "mad" (ix. 7, 8, iv.
6-8, v. 2). Yet the aged king--he must have reached the unusual age
of seventy-three at least, before he ended the longest and most
successful reign in the annals of Israel--could hardly have
anticipated that within half a year of his death his secure throne
would be shaken to its foundation, his dynasty be hurled into
oblivion, and that Israel, to whom, as long as he lived, mighty
kingdoms had curtsied, should,

          "Like a forlorn and desperate castaway,
           Do shameful execution on herself."

Yet so it was. Jeroboam II. was succeeded by no less than six other
kings, but he was the last who died a natural death. Every one of his
successors fell a victim to the assassin or the conqueror. His son
Zachariah ("Remembered by Jehovah") succeeded him (B.C. 740), the
fourth in descent from Jehu. Considering the long reign of his father,
he must have ascended the throne at a mature age. But he was the child
of evil times. That he should not interrupt the "calf"-worship was a
matter of course; but if he be the king of whom we catch a glimpse in
Hos. vii. 2-7, we see that he partook deeply of the depravity of his
day. We are there presented with a deplorable picture. There was
thievishness at home, and bands of marauding bandits began to appear
from abroad. The king was surrounded by a desperate knot of wicked
counsellors, who fooled him to the top of his bent, and corrupted him
to the utmost of his capacity. They were all scorners and adulterers,
whose furious passions the prophet compares to the glowing heat of an
oven heated by the baker. They made the king glad with their
wickedness, and the princes with lying flatteries. On the royal
birthday, apparently at some public feast, this band of infamous
revellers, who were the boon companions of Zachariah, first made him
sick with bottles of wine, and then having set an ambush in waiting,
murdered the effeminate and self-indulgent debauchee before all the
people.[340] The scene reads like the assassination of a Commodus or
an Elagabalus. No one was likely to raise a hand in his favour. Like
our Edward II., he was a weakling who followed a great and warlike
father. It was evident that troublous times were near at hand, and
nothing but the worst disasters could ensue if there was no one better
than such a drunkard as Zachariah to stand at the helm of state.

So did the dynasty of the mighty Jehu expire like a torch blown out in
stench and smoke.

Its close is memorable most of all because it evoked the magnificent
moral and spiritual teaching of Hebrew prophecy. The ideal prophet and
the ordinary priest are as necessarily opposed to each other as the
saint and the formalist. The glory of prophecy lies in its recognition
that right is always right, and wrong always wrong, apart from all
expediency and all casuistry, apart from "all prejudices, private
interests, and partial affections." "What Jehovah demands," they
taught, "is righteousness--neither more nor less; what He hates is
injustice. Sin or offence to the Deity is a thing of purely moral
character. Morality is that for the sake of which all other things
exist; it is the most essential element of all sincere religion. It is
no postulate, no idea, but a necessity and a fact; the most intensely
living of human powers--Jehovah, the God of hosts. In wrath, in ruin,
this holy reality makes its existence known; it annihilates all that
is hollow and false."[341]

FOOTNOTES:

[313] Amos vii. 1. Famine (iv. 6); drought (iv. 7, 8); yellow blight
and locusts (iv. 9); pestilence (iv. 10); earthquake and burning (iv.
11).

[314] Amos vii. 4.

[315] Amos i. 1, iii. 14, iv. 11, viii 8; Zech. xiv. 5: "Ye shall flee
like as ye fled before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah." Josephus
says that in an earthquake a little before the birth of Christ ten
thousand were buried under the ruined houses (_Antt._, XV. v. 2), and
he has many Rabbinic haggadoth to tell us about the earthquake, which,
he says, happened at the moment when Uzziah burnt incense in the
Temple (_Antt._, IX. x. 4).

[316] According to Hind, they took place on June 15th, B.C. 763, and
February 9th, B.C. 784. Amos alludes to the capture of Gath by Uzziah,
of Calneh (_Ktesiphon_), and of Hamath (vi. 2; 2 Chron. xxvi. 6). Gath
henceforth disappears from the Philistian Pentapolis (Amos i. 7, 8;
Zeph. ii. 4; Zech. ix. 5).

[317] Or "dresser of sycomore-trees" (R.V.). LXX., κνίζων συκάμινα;
Vulg., _vellicans sycomoros_. The sycomore-fruit (fruit of the _Ficus
sycomorus_, or wild fig) is ripened by puncturing it (Theoph., _H.
Plant._, iv. 2; Pliny, _H. N._, xiii. 14).

[318] The well-known town of Tekoa had been Solomon's horse-fair, and
had been fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chron. xi. 6). It lay in a wild
country six miles south of Bethlehem (2 Chron. xx. 20; 1 Macc. ix. 33;
Robinson, _Bibl. Res._, i. 486). For a fuller account of these
prophets, I must refer to my book on _The Minor Prophets_ in the "Men
of the Bible" Series. It has always been assumed that Amos belonged to
the well-known Tekoa, and was therefore a subject of the Southern
Kingdom. In recent days this has become uncertain. No sycomores grow
or can grow on the bleak uplands of Tekoa (Tristram, _Nat. Hist. of
the Bible_, p. 397); so that Jerome, in his preface to Amos, thinks
that "brambles" are intended. Even Kimchi conjectured that Tekoa was
an unknown town in the tribe of Asher. Amos's allusions to scenery are
all applicable to the Northern landscape.

[319] Amos i. 1-ii. 5.

[320] Amos ii. 6-13.

[321] Amos iii. 9-15.

[322] Amos iv. 1-13.

[323] This title, "Jehovah-Tsebaoth," now begins to occur. It is not
found in the Hexateuch. It probably means "Lord of the _starry hosts_."
Contact with Assyria first made the Israelites acquainted with
star-worship. Amos alludes to the Pleiades and Orion (v. 8: comp. Job
ix. 9, xxxviii. 31). Star-worship is forbidden in Deuteronomy. In Amos
v. 26 the true meaning is that the Israelites _would take with them, on
their road to exile_, Sakkuth (Moloch?) and Kewan (the god-star Saturn).

[324] Amos vi. 1-14.

[325] Amos vii. 1-9.

[326] Strange as it may seem, the early authority for the existence of
any calf at Dan is very slight, and the extreme uncertainty of the
reading and interpretation in one main passage (1 Kings xii. 32) makes
it at least possible that there were _two calves at Bethel_, and that
at Dan there was no calf, but only the old idolatrous ephod of Micah,
still served by the servant of Moses. See additional note at the end
of the volume.

[327] Amos iii. 2.

[328] That the chief priest of Bethel bore the name "Jehovah is
strong" shows once more that "calf-worship" was in no sense a
_substitute_ for the worship of Jehovah.

[329] This was not quite accurate; he had rather prophesied the
devastation of the high places (vii. 9). In fact, his words had often
been very vague. "_Thus_ will I do unto thee" (iv. 12).

[330] Amos ix. 11-15. Comp. Hos. iii. 5.

[331] The exaggerated haggadoth of later days say that Amaziah had
Amos beaten with leaded thongs, and that he was carried home in a
dying state (Epiphan., _Opp._, ii. 145), to which there is a supposed
allusion in Heb. xi. 35: ἄλλοι δὲ ἐτυμπανίσθησαν.

[332] We cannot be sure that the term "Seer" was meant to be
contemptuous, although from 1 Sam. ix. 9 we should infer that the
title had become somewhat obsolete. Further, we must bear in mind that
it may not have been always easy for worldlings to distinguish between
true prophets and the unprincipled pretenders who, about this time,
succeeded in making the name and aspect of a prophet so complete a
disgrace that men had carefully to disclaim it (Zech. xiii. 2-6). It
is true that the heading of Amos (i. 1), which may not, however, be by
the prophet himself, tells us of "the words which he _saw_" (_i.e._,
spoke as a seer), and he also disclaims the name of prophet (vii. 14).

[333] Amos viii. 1-ix. 9, 10.

[334] Amos ix. 11-15.

[335] Hos. iv. 15-19.

[336] Hos. v. 13, vii. 11, viii. 9, ix. 3-6, xi. 5, xii. 1, xiv. 3. It
must be borne in mind that the cuneiform inscriptions prove that
Assyria had burst into sight like a lurid comet on the horizon far
earlier than we had supposed. Jehu had paid tribute to Shalmaneser as
far back as B.C. 842, more than a century before Menahem's tribute in
738. The destruction which Hosea prophesied took place within
thirty-one years of his prophecies--probably in B.C. 722, when Sargon
finished the siege of Samaria begun by Shalmaneser. The king Hoshea
was perhaps taken captive before the siege.

[337] Hos. viii. 5, ix. 15.

[338] Hos. x. 13, 14.

[339] Hos. vi. 9: for "by consent" read "towards Shechem."

[340] Hos. vii. 3-7. The allusions are vague, but we see a drunken
king among his drunken princes, surrounded by wicked plotters who have
flattered his vices. He is ignorant of his peril. The subjects aid the
rulers in these abominations. All are blazing, like an oven, with
passion and infamy, and only rest (as the baker does) to acquire new
strength for inflaming their burning desires. At the dawn their
treachery blazes into the crime of murder, and in the wine-sick
fever-heat of the banquet the king is murdered by his corrupt
intimates (see my _Minor Prophets_, p. 78).

[341] Wellhausen, _Isr. and Jud._, 85.




                              CHAPTER XIX

                   _AZARIAH-UZZIAH_ (B.C. 783(?)-737)

                        _JOTHAM_ (B.C. 737-735)

                         2 KINGS xv. 1-7, 32-38

    "This is vanity, and it is a sore sickness."--ECCLES. vi. 2.


Before we watch the last "glimmerings and decays" of the Northern
Kingdom, we must once more revert to the fortunes of the House of David.
Judah partook of the better fortunes of Israel. She, too, enjoyed the
respite caused by the crippling of the power of Syria, and the cessation
from aggression of the Assyrian kings, who, for a century, were either
unambitious monarchs like Assurdan, or were engaged in fighting on their
own northern and eastern frontiers. Judah, too, like Israel, was happy
in the long and wise governance of a faithful king.

This king was Azariah ("My strength is Jehovah"), the son of Amaziah. He
is called Uzziah by the Chronicler, and in some verses of the brief
references to his long reign in the Book of Kings. It is not certain
that he was the eldest son of Amaziah;[342] but he was so distinctly the
ablest, that, at the age of sixteen, he was chosen king by "all the
people." His official title to the world must have been Azariah, for in
that form his name occurs in the Assyrian records. Uzziah seems to have
been the more familiar title which he bore among his people.[343] There
seems to be an allusion to both names--Jehovah-his-helper, and
Jehovah-his-strength--in the Chronicles: "God _helped him_, and made him
to prosper; and his name spread far abroad, and he was marvellously
helped, _till he was strong_."

The Book of Kings only devotes a few verses to him; but from the
Chronicler we learn much more about his prosperous activity. His first
achievement was to recover and fortify the port of Elath, on the Red
Sea,[344] and to reduce the Edomites to the position they had held in
the earlier days of his father's reign. This gave security to his
commerce, and at once "his name spread far abroad, even to the
entering in of Egypt."

He next subdued the Philistines; took Gath, Jabneh, and Ashdod;
dismantled their fortifications, filled them with Hebrew colonists,
and "smote all Palestine with a rod."[345]

He then chastised the roving Arabs of the Negeb or south country in
Gur-Baal and Maon, and suppressed their plundering incursions.

His next achievement was to reduce the Ammonite Emîrs to the position
of tributaries, and to enforce from them rights of pasturage for his
large flocks, not only in the low country (_shephelah_), but in the
southern wilderness (_midbar_), and in the _carmels_ or fertile
grounds among the Trans-Jordanic hills.

Having thus subdued his enemies on all sides, he turned his attention
to home affairs--built towers, strengthened the walls of Jerusalem at
its most assailable points, provided catapults and other instruments
of war, and rendered a permanent benefit to Jerusalem by irrigation
and the storing of rain-water in tanks.

All these improvements so greatly increased his wealth and importance
that he was able to renew David's old force of heroes (Gibborim), and to
increase their number from six hundred to two thousand six hundred, whom
he carefully enrolled, equipped with armour, and trained in the use of
engines of war. And he not only extended his boundaries southwards and
eastwards, but appears to have been strong enough, after the death of
Jeroboam II., to make an expedition northwards, and to have headed a
Syrian coalition against Tiglath-Pileser III., in B.C. 738. He is
mentioned in two notable fragments of the annals of the eighth year of
this Assyrian king. He is there called Azrijahu, and both his forces and
those of Hamath seem to have suffered a defeat.[346]

It is distressing to find that a king so good and so great ended his
days in overwhelming and irretrievable misfortune. The glorious reign
had a ghastly conclusion. All that the historian tells us is that "the
Lord smote the king, so that he was a leper, and dwelt in a several
[_i.e._, a separate] house." The word rendered "a several house" may
perhaps mean (as in the margin of the A.V.) "a lazar house," like the
_Beit el Massakîn_ or "house of the unfortunate," the hospital or
abode of lepers, outside the walls of Jerusalem.[347] The rendering is
uncertain, but it is by no means impossible that the prevalence of the
affliction had, even in those early days, created a retreat for those
thus smitten, especially as they formed a numerous class. Obviously
the king could no more fulfil his royal duties. A leper becomes a
horrible object, and no one would have been more anxious than the
unhappy Azariah himself to conceal his aspect from the eyes of his
people.[348] His son Jotham was set over the household; and though he
is not called a regent or joint-king--for this institution does not
seem to have existed among the ancient Hebrews--he acted as judge over
the people of the land.

We are told that Isaiah wrote the annals of this king's reign, but we
do not know whether it was from Isaiah's biography that the Chronicler
took the story of the manner in which Uzziah was smitten with leprosy.
The Chronicler says that his heart was puffed up with his successes
and his prosperity, and that he was consequently led to thrust himself
into the priest's office by burning incense in the Temple.[349]
Solomon appears to have done the same without the least question of
opposition; but now the times were changed, and Azariah, the high
priest,[350] and eighty of his colleagues went in a body to prevent
Uzziah, to rebuke him, and to order him out of the Holy Place.[351]
The opposition kindled him into the fiercest anger, and at this moment
of hot altercation the red spot of leprosy suddenly rose and burned
upon his forehead. The priests looked with horror on the fatal sign;
and the stricken king, himself horrified at this awful visitation of
God, ceased to resist the priests, and rushed forth to relieve the
Temple of his unclean presence, and to linger out the sad remnant of
his days in the living death of that most dishonouring disease. Surely
no man was ever smitten down from the summits of splendour to a lower
abyss of unspeakable calamity! We can but trust that the misery only
laid waste the few last years of his reign; for Jotham was twenty-five
when he began to reign, and he must have been more than a mere boy
when he was set to perform his father's duties.

So the glory of Uzziah faded into dust and darkness. At the age of
sixty-eight death came as the welcome release from his miseries, and
"they buried him with his fathers in the City of David." The
Levitically scrupulous Chronicler adds that he was not laid in the
actual sepulchre of his fathers, but in a field of burial which
belonged to them--"for they said, He is a leper." The general outline
of his reign resembled that of his father's. It began well; it fell by
pride; it closed in misery.

The annals of his son Jotham were not eventful, and he died at the age
of forty-one or earlier. He is said to have reigned sixteen years, but
there are insuperable difficulties about the chronology of his reign,
which can only be solved by hazardous conjectures.[352] He was a good
king, "howbeit the high places were not removed." The Chronicler
speaks of him chiefly as a builder. He built or restored the northern
gate of the Temple, and defended Judah with fortresses and towns. But
the glory and strength of his father's reign faded away under his
rule. He did indeed suppress a revolt of the Ammonites, and exacted
from them a heavy indemnity; but shortly afterwards the inaction of
Assyria led to an alliance between Pekah, King of Israel, and Rezin,
King of Damascus; and these kings harassed Jotham--perhaps because he
refused to become a member of their coalition. The good king must also
have been pained by the signs of moral degeneracy all around him in
the customs of his own people. It was "in the year that King Uzziah
died" that Isaiah saw his first vision, and he gives us a deplorable
picture of contemporary laxity. Whatever the king may have been, the
princes were no better than "rulers of Sodom," and the people were
"people of Gomorrha." There was abundance of lip-worship, but little
sincerity; plentiful religionism, but no godliness. Superstition went
hand in hand with formalism, and the scrupulosity of outward service
was made a substitute for righteousness and true holiness. This was
the deadliest characteristic of this epoch, as we find it portrayed in
the first chapter of Isaiah. The faithful city had become a
harlot--but not in outward semblance. She "reflected heaven on her
surface, and hid Gomorrha in her heart." Righteousness had dwelt in
her--but now murderers; but the murderers wore phylacteries, and for a
pretence made long prayers. It was this deep-seated hypocrisy, this
pretence of religion without the reality, which called forth the
loudest crashes of Isaiah's thunder. There is more hope for a country
avowedly guilty and irreligious than for one which makes its
scrupulous ceremonialism a cloak of maliciousness. And thus there lay
at the heart of Isaiah's message that protest for bare morality, as
constituting the end and the essence of religion, which we find in all
the earliest and greatest prophets:--

  "Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom;
   Give ear unto the Law of our God, ye people of Gomorrha!
   To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith
         the Lord.
   I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts;
   And I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of
         he-goats.
   When ye come to see My face, who hath required this at your hands, to
         trample My courts?
   Bring no more vain oblations!
   Incense is an abomination unto Me:
   New moon and sabbath, the calling of assemblies--
   I cannot away with iniquity and the solemn meeting...
   Wash you! make you clean!"[353]

Of Jotham we hear nothing more. He died a natural death at an early
age. If the years of his reign are counted from the time when his
father's affliction devolved on him the responsibilities of office, it
is probable that he did not long survive the illustrious leper, but
was buried soon after him in the City of David his father.

FOOTNOTES:

[342] Hence, perhaps, the expression that the people "took him." If
Amaziah died at fifty-nine, he probably had other sons.

[343] Compare the interchange of the names Azariel and Uzziel (Exod.
vi. 18) in 1 Chron. vi. 2, 18. Azariah means "Jehovah hath helped,"
and Uzziah "Strength of Jehovah." It is just possible that his name
was changed at his accession, as the chief priest also was named
Azariah, and confusion might otherwise have arisen.

[344] 2 Chron. xxvi. 2-15.

[345] Isa. xiv. 29. A mixed language arose in this district in
consequence (Neh. xiii. 24; Zech. ix. 6). The word Palestine only
applies strictly to the district of Philistia. Milton uses it, with
his usual accuracy, in the description of Dagon as

          "That twice-battered god of Palestine."

[346] Uzziah's opposition to Assyria--of which there seems to be no
doubt, for he must be the Azrijahu of the _Eponym Canon_--took place
about 738, and was a coalition movement. But it gives rise to great
chronological and other difficulties. As the solution of these is at
present only conjectural, I refer to Schrader (E. Tr.), ii. 211-219.
He is called Azrijahu Jahudai.

[347] 2 Kings xv. 5 (2 Chron. xxvi. 21, "a house of sickness"). LXX., ἐν
οἴκῳ ἀφφουσώθ; Vulg., _in domo libera seorsim_. Comp Lev. xiii. 46.
Theodoret understands it that he was shut up privately in his own
palace: ἔνδον ἐν θαλάμῳ ὑπ' οὐδένος ὁρώμενος. Symmachus, ἐγκεκλεισμένος.

[348] His misfortune must have made a deep impression, and is possibly
alluded to in Hos. iv. 4: "For thy people are as they that strive with
the priest."

[349] The Chronicler attributes the good part of his reign to the
influence of an unknown Zechariah, "who had understanding in the
visions of God"; and says that when Zechariah died Uzziah altered for
the worse.

[350] This high priest, Azariah, is only mentioned elsewhere in 2
Chron. xxvi. 17, 20.

[351] Josephus says that he had put on a priestly robe, and that a
great feast was going on, and that the earthquake (Amos i. 1; Zech.
xiv. 5) happened at the moment, which broke the Temple roof, so that a
sunbeam smote his head and produced the leprosy. We here see the
growth of the Haggadah.

[352] For instance, two verses earlier (2 Kings xv. 30) we read of the
twentieth year of Jotham.

[353] Isa. i. 10-17.




                              CHAPTER XX.

                  _THE AGONY OF THE NORTHERN KINGDOM._

                                         B.C.
                         Shallum       740
                         Menahem       740-737
                         Pekahiah      737-735
                         Pekah         735-734

                            2 KINGS xv. 8-31

    "Blood toucheth blood."--HOS. iv. 2.

    "The revolters are profuse in murders."--HOS. v. 2.

    "They have set up kings, but not by Me: they have made princes,
    and I knew it not."--HOS. viii. 4.

    "Non tam reges fuere quam fures, latrones, et tyranni."--WITSIUS,
    _Decaph._, 326.


With the death of Zachariah begins the acute agony of Israel's
dissolution. Four kings were murdered in forty years. Indeed, within
two centuries, at least nine kings--Nadab, Elah, Zimri, Tibni,
Jehoram, Zachariah, Shallum, Pekahiah, Pekah--had made the steps of
the throne slippery with blood. Except in the house of Omri, all the
kings of Israel either left no sons or left them to be slain. Amos, by
his vision of the basket of summer fruit, had intimated that the sins
of Israel were ripe for punishment, and the lesson had been emphasised
by the paronomasia of _quîts_, "summer," and _queets_, "end."[354] The
prophet had singled four out of many crimes as the cause of her ruin.
They were (1) greedy oppression of the poor; (2) land-grabbing; (3)
licentious and idolatrous revelries; (4) cruelty to poor debtors, and
rioting on the proceeds of unjust gains. In their drunkenness they
even tempted God's Nazarites to break their vows. "Behold," saith
Jehovah, "I am pressed under you, as a cart is pressed that is full of
sheaves." Even women shared in the common intoxication, and showed
themselves utterly shameless, so that Amos contemptuously calls them
"fat cows of Bashan upon the mountain of Samaria," whom in punishment
the brutal conqueror should drag by the hair out of their ivory
palaces, as a fisherman drags his prey out of the water by hooks.[355]

Shallum, son of Jabesh, the unknown murderer of Zachariah and the
usurper of his throne, suffered the fate of Zimri, and only reigned for
one month. If his conspiracy was marked by the odious circumstances of
treachery and corruption, which we infer from the allusions of Hosea,
Shallum richly deserved the swift retribution which fell upon him. He
seems to have destroyed Zachariah by means of his best affections--under
the guise of friendship, in the midst of boon companionship. But the
slayer of his master had no peace, and from the moment of his fruitless
crime the unhappy country seems to have been plunged in the horrors of
civil war. Some dim glimpses of the evils of the day are gained from the
earlier Zechariah,[356] just as some dim glimpses of the horrors of Rome
in the days of the later Cæsars may be seen in the Apocalypse. The
prophet speaks of three shepherds cut off in one month, who abhorred
God, and His soul was impatient at them.[357]

Just as Galba, Otho, and Vitellius flit across the stage of the Empire
amid war and assassinations, so Zachariah and Shallum are swept away by
"dagger-thrusts through the purple." Was there a third? Ewald and others
think that they detect a shadowy outline of him and of his name in 2
Kings xv. 10. If so, his name was Kobolam, but we know no more of him
beyond the fact that "he was, and is not." For the sacred annals are but
little concerned with this bloody phantasmagoria of feeble kings, who
ruled amid usurpation, anarchy, hostile attacks from without, and civil
war within. "Israel," said Hosea, "hath cast off the thing that is good:
the enemy shall pursue him. They have set up kings, but not by Me: they
have made princes, and I knew it not." "They are all as hot as an oven,
and have devoured their judges; all their kings have fallen; there is
none among them that calleth upon Me."[358]

It was perhaps during this distracted epoch that for one moment there
was an attempt to place the ruling authority of the nation in the
hands of the prophet himself. So it would appear from Zech. xi. 7-14.
Of course these chapters may be allegorical throughout, as, in any
case, they are in great part. But if so, it becomes more difficult to
understand the meaning. What the prophet says is as follows:--

First, as though he saw the terrible conflagration of the Assyrian
tyranny rolling southwards, and felt it to be irresistible, he bids
Lebanon open her doors, that the fire may devour her cedars. There is
perhaps an allusion to the death of Jeroboam II. in the words, "Howl
fir tree, for the cedar is fallen." He sees in vision the forces of
devastation raging among the oaks of Bashan, the forest and the
vintage, while the shepherds cry, and the ousted lions roar in vain.
Then Jehovah bids him feed "the flock of the slaughter"--the flock
sold remorselessly by its rich possessors, and slain, and left
unpitied, as the people were despoiled by its nobles and its kings.
The prophet undertakes the charge of the miserable flock, and takes
two staves, one of which he calls "Prosperity," and the other "Union."
While he was thus engaged three shepherds were cut off in one
month,[359] whom he loathed, and who abhorred him. But he finds his
task hopeless, and flings it up; and in sign that his covenant with
the people is broken, he breaks his staff "Prosperity." The nation
refused to pay him anything for his services, except a paltry sum of
thirty pieces of silver, and these he disdainfully flung into the
sacred treasury.[360] Then seeing that all hope of union between
Israel and Judah was at an end, he broke his staff "Union." Lastly,
Jehovah says He will raise up a foolish, neglectful, cruel shepherd
who would care for nothing but to eat the flesh of the fat and break
the hoofs of the flock. And as for this worthless shepherd, the sword
should be upon his arm and in his right eye; his arm shall be dried
up, and his right eye utterly darkened.

By this cruel and self-seeking shepherd is probably meant Menahem. He
had been, according to Josephus, the captain of the guard, and was
living at Tirzah, the old beautiful capital of the land. From Tirzah,
where he occupied the position of the captain of the chariots, he
marched on the ill-supported Shallum. Samaria apparently offered no
protection to the usurper. Menahem defeated him and put him to death.
Then he proceeded to enforce the allegiance of the rest of the
country. An otherwise unknown town of the name of Tiphsach[361]
ventured to resist him. Menahem conquered it, and perhaps thinking, as
Machiavelli thought, that princes had better exhibit their utmost
cruelty at first, to deter any further opposition, he let loose his
ferocity on the town in a way which created a shuddering remembrance.
As though he had been one of the ferocious heathen, who had never been
restrained by the knowledge of God, he exhibited the extreme of
callous brutality by ripping up all the women that were with
child.[362] In this he followed the remorseless example of Hazael.
Hosea had prophesied that this should be the fate of Samaria;[363]
Amos had denounced the Ammonites for acting thus in the cities of
Gilead;[364] Shalmaneser III. had, in B.C. 732, thus avenged himself
on the resistance of Beth-Arbel,[365] and Assyria was ultimately to
meet an analogous retribution,[366] as also was Babylon.[367] But that
a king of Ephraim, of God's chosen people, should act thus to his own
brethren was a horrible portent, ominous of swift destruction.

And the vengeance came. Menahem reigned, at least in name, for ten
years; for the sword which had slain mothers with their unborn infants
reduced the stricken people to terrified silence. But at this epoch
Assyria woke once more from her lethargy, and became the scourge of God
to the guilty people and their guiltier kings. For a whole century the
Assyrians had either been governed by kings who had abjured the lust of
blood and conquest, or had been too seriously occupied on their own
eastern and northern frontiers to intermeddle with the southern
kingdoms, or break down the barriers erected by the confederacy of
Hamath and Damascus between Nineveh and the weaker principalities of
Palestine. But now (B.C. 745) there came to the throne a king who, in
Chaldæa, was known by the name of Pul, and in Assyria by the name of
Tiglath-Pileser;[368] and being too formidable for any power to stay his
path, he marched against Menahem. Already he was lord of the world from
the Caspian to the Gulf of Persia; already he had subdued Babylonia,
Elam, Media, Armenia, eastward--Mesopotamia and Syria westward. Who was
Menahem, the petty usurper of a tenth-rate kingdom, that he should
withstand his power or even retard his advance?

The cruel usurper was in no condition to resist him. The brand of Cain
was on him and his kingdom. How could the weak, impoverished, harassed
troops of Israel stand up in battle against those numberless serried
ranks, or withstand their tremendous discipline? If the very name of
Persia once struck terror into the brave Greeks before the spell of
Persian ascendency was broken at Marathon, Thermopylæ, and Salamis,
much more did the name of Assyria make the hearts of the wretched
Israelites melt like water. They now for the first time saw those
bearded warriors with their broad swords, their tremendous bows, their
fierce, sensual faces, their thickset figures. In the language of the
prophets we still hear the echo of the fears which they excited by
their swift, unfaltering marches, their sleepless vigilance, their
girded loins, stout sandals, and barbed arrows.[369]

"Their horses' hoofs," says Isaiah, "shall be like flint, and their
wheels like a whirlwind: their roaring shall be like a lion, they
shall roar like young lions; yea, they shall roar, and lay hold of the
prey, and carry it away safe, and there shall be none to deliver. And
they shall roar against them in that day like the roaring of the sea;
and if one look unto the land, behold darkness and distress, and the
light is darkened in the clouds thereof."

Ancient Assyria lay beneath the Snowy Mountains of Kurdistan; and its
capital, Nineveh--near Mosul, Kouyunjik, and Neby-Junus--lay six
hundred miles from the Gulf of Persia. The people spoke, as their
descendants still speak, a dialect of Syriac, akin both grammatically
and structurally to Hebrew. Assyria was constantly at war with
Babylonia; but for the most part the kings of Assyria held Babylon in
subjection, and Tiglath-Pileser was a king of the Chaldæans under the
name Pul, as well as a king of Nineveh.

Menahem was warrior enough to know how hopeless it was to struggle
against these trained forces. He was not even secure on his own
throne. He thought it best to offer himself without resistance as a
feudatory, if the Assyrian King would confirm his sovereignty.
Tiglath-Pileser did not think Menahem worth more trouble, and was
graciously pleased to accept by way of bribe a tribute of a thousand
talents of silver, or about £125,000. This, however, as we learn from
the _Eponym Canon_, was not all. Menahem had to pay a further tribute
year by year. Later on, in 738, Shalmaneser mentions Minik-himmi
(Menahem), as well as Rasunnu (Rezin), among his tributaries.

The Assyrian withdrew, and Menahem had to exact this vast sum of money
from his miserable subjects. To tax the poor was hopeless. He found that
there were some sixty thousand persons who might be reckoned among the
wealthier farmers and proprietors,[370] and from them he at once exacted
fifty shekels of silver (more than £3) apiece. Probably they thought
that to pay the sum demanded was not too heavy a price for the
retirement of these frightful Assyrians, whose forces Tiglath-Pileser
did not withdraw until he had the money in hand. The event took place in
738, and Tiglath-Pileser continued to reign till 727. How bitterly the
burden of foreign tribute was felt appears from Hos. viii. 9, 10, which
should perhaps be rendered, "They are gone up to Assyria like a wild ass
alone by himself. Ephraim hath hired lovers. And they begin to be
minished by reason of the burden of the king of princes." "The king of
princes" was the haughty title usurped by Tiglath-Pileser, who said,
"Are not my princes all of them kings?" (Isa. x. 8).

All this was a fulfilment of what Hosea had foreseen:--

"Ephraim is oppressed, he is crushed in judgment, because he was content
to walk after vanity. Therefore am I unto Ephraim as a moth, and to the
house of Judah as rottenness. When Ephraim saw his sickness, and the
house of Judah his wound, then went Ephraim to Assyria, and sent unto an
avenging king:[371] yet could he not heal you, nor cure you of your
wound. For I will be unto Ephraim as a lion, and as a young lion to the
House of Judah: I, even I, will tear and go away; I will take away, and
none shall rescue him." The Assyrian was irresistible, because he was
the destined instrument of the wrath of God. The "mixing with the
heathens" was a sin, and Israel in cooing to Assyria was like a foolish
dove; but the day sometimes comes to doomed nations when no course can
save them from the fate which they have provoked.[372]

Not long afterwards Menahem died, and he had sufficiently established
his rule to be succeeded as a matter of course by his son Pekahiah. But

          "Revenge and wrong bring forth their kind;
           The foul cubs like their parents are."

Samaria had fearful object-lessons in the apparently immediate success
of murder and rebellion. The prize looked near and splendid: the
vengeance might be belated or might not come. Of Pekahiah we are told
absolutely nothing but that he reigned two years, with this
stereotyped addition, that "he did that which was evil in the sight of
Jehovah" by continuing the calf-worship.[373] After this brief and
uneventful reign, his captain Pekah got together fifty fierce
Gileadites, and with the aid of two otherwise unknown friends, Argob
and Arieh, murdered Pekahiah in his own harem.[374] Argob was probably
so named from the district in Bashan, and Arieh was a fit name for a
lion-faced Gadite (1 Chron. xii. 8).

The sacred historian troubles himself but little about these kings.
His annals of them are brief to extreme meagreness. Like the prophet,
he viewed them as God-abandoned phantoms of guilty royalty.

          "They that cry unto me, My God, we, Israel, know thee.
           Israel hath cast off that which is good:
           The enemy shall pursue him.
           They have set up kings, but not by Me;
           They have removed them, and I knew it not:
           Of their silver and their gold have they made them idols,
           That they may be cut off.
           He hath cast on thy calf, O Samaria."

Probably Pekahiah was, as so often happens, the weak son of a
vigorous father. The times could not tolerate incapable sovereigns;
and the fact that Pekah not only maintained himself on the throne for
twenty years,[375] but was able to take active steps of aggression
against Jerusalem, seems to show that he was a man of some
administrative capacity. If he had not achieved political and military
importance, it would hardly have been worth while for a fierce and
powerful king like Rezin, the last king of Syria, to form so close an
alliance with him. Probably Rezin saw that his throne and his very
existence were in danger, and Pekah wished with Rezin's aid to resist
to the uttermost the encroachments of Assyria, and escape the
burdensome tribute which Menahem had paid. Indeed, it may well be that
Pekahiah's passive continuance of this tribute may have been
distasteful to the people of the land, and that they condoned or even
tacitly aided Pekah's rebellion in order to get rid of it, and to find
protection in an abler monarch. It was the last, perhaps the only,
chance for the kings of Syria and of Israel. As we hear no more of
Hamath as a member of the alliance, we must suppose that it had now
been reduced to impotence and vassalage by the all-powerful Assyrian.
If, however, there was to be any overbalance to the colossal menace
of Nineveh, it could only be by a large confederacy; and it may have
been the refusal of Jotham to join that confederacy, on the death of
his father Uzziah, which caused the joint invasion of Rezin and Pekah
to force him to accept their alliance or to suppress him altogether.
In that case they might have formed a close alliance with Egypt, and
the forces of the united South might, they fancied, prove to be a
match for the forces of the North.[376]

Whatever designs they may have formed against Jotham, or to whatever
extent they may have annoyed him, it was not till the reign of his son
Ahaz that they became formidable and ruinous. Of this we shall say
more in recounting the reign of Ahaz. All that we need now remark is
that their bold aggression on Judah became the cause of utter
destruction to them both. They advanced against Ahaz, and overran his
helpless country. It was their object to depose the descendant of
David, and to crown in his place a certain unnamed "son of _Tabeal_,"
whom Ewald supposed to have been a Syrian, but whose name may possibly
furnish a specimen of the later Jewish device of Gematria.[377]

It is not impossible that behind these events we may find the efforts
and yearnings of a party which cared more for Israel's unity than for
David's throne. Such a party may easily have sprung up during the
splendid, prosperous reign of Jeroboam II. It has been conjectured by
some that the election of Uzziah by the people--delayed, according to
one reckoning, for twelve years--was in reality the triumph of the party
which felt an unquenchable allegiance to David's house. In Deut.
xxxiii. Reuben is put before Judah; Jeshurun (_i.e._, Israel) is
magnified far more than Judah; and some Northern shrine in Zebulon, as
well as the Temple, is celebrated as a sanctuary.[378] That there were
men in Jerusalem who preferred Rezin and Pekahiah to their own king is
clearly stated in Isaiah. He compares them to those who prefer a turbid
torrent to a soft, sweet stream. "Because," he says, "this people
despise the waters of Shiloah that flow softly, and take delight in
Rezin and Remaliah's son; now, therefore, the Lord bringeth upon them
the waters of the river, strong and many, even the King of Assyria, and
all his glory."[379] Isaiah seems to have had a contempt for the whole
attack. He told Ahaz not to fear for the stumps of those two smoking
firebrands Rezin, King of Syria, and the Israelitish usurper, whom he
only condescends to call "Remaliah's son." He promises the trembling
Ahaz that, since he had faithlessly _refused_ a sign, God would give him
a sign. The sign was that the young woman who accompanied
Isaiah--perhaps his youthful wife--should bear a son, whose name should
be called Immanuel; and that before the child Immanuel--whose
designation, "God with us," was an omen of the loftiest hope--should be
of an age to distinguish evil from good, the Northern land, which Ahaz
abhorred, should be forsaken of both her kings.

The prophecy came true in every particular. Rezin and Pekah swept all
before them, and besieged Jerusalem; but they wasted their time in
vain before the fortifications which Jotham had strengthened and
repaired. Obliged to raise the siege, Rezin carried his army
southward, and indemnified himself by seizing Elath, by driving out
the Judæan garrison, and replacing them with Syrians.[380] It was the
last gleam of Syrian success, before the final overthrow of Damascus
which prophecy had often and emphatically foretold.

Pekah also withdrew his forces--no doubt compelled to do so by the
step which Ahaz took in his desperation. For now the King of Judah
invoked the protection and invited the active interference of
Tiglath-Pileser against his enemies--"to save him out of the hand of
the King of Syria, and out of the hand of the King of Israel, who were
risen up against him."

Rezin and Damascus first felt the might of the Assyrian's conquering
arm. The account of his decisive conquest is preserved in the _Eponym
Canon_, and the passages which refer to the defeat of the Syrians will
be found in the First Appendix at the end of the volume. It appears
from the monuments that Rezin (Rasannu) lost not only his kingdom, but
his life.

It is the death-knell of Aramæan greatness, as Amos had foretold.

  "Thus saith Jehovah:
   For three transgressions of Damascus, and for four,
   I will not turn away the punishment thereof;
   Because they have threshed Gilead with threshing instruments of iron:
   But I will send a fire into the house of Hazael,
   Which shall devour the palaces of Benhadad.
   And I will break the bar of Damascus,[381]
   And cut off him that sitteth [on the throne] in the Valley of
         Aven,[382]
   And him that holdeth the sceptre from Beth-Eden:[383]
   And the people of Syria shall go into captivity unto Kir,[384]
   Saith Jehovah."

Rezin was slain--how we know not; very probably by one of the horrible
methods of torture--by being flayed alive, or decapitated, or having
his lips and nose cut off--which were practised by these demon-kings
of Nineveh.

Nor did Pekah escape. Tiglath-Pileser advanced against the northern part
of his dominions, and afflicted the land of Zebulon and Naphtali. Ijon;
Abel-beth-Maachah, the city of Elisha; Zanoah, the ancient sanctuary of
Kedesh-Naphtali, the home of the hero Barak; Hazor, the former capital
of the Canaanitish king Jabin; Gilead; Galilee,--all submitted to him,
apparently without striking a serious blow. He dealt with the miserable
inhabitants in the way familiar to kings of Assyria. He deported them
_en masse_ into a strange country of which they did not understand the
language, and in which they were reduced to hopeless subjection, while
he supplied their places by aliens from various parts of his own
dominions. There could be no securer method of reducing to paralysis all
their national aspirations. Strangers in a strange land, they forgot
their nationality, forgot their religion, forgot their language, forgot
their traditions. Their sole resource was to plunge into material
pursuits, and to melt away into indistinguishable obliteration among
the neighbouring heathen. It was the beginning of the Northern
Captivity--of the loss of the Ten Tribes.

As Tiglath-Pileser thus permanently subdued and depopulated the land
of the Northern Tribes, it is a Jewish tradition that at this time he
carried away the golden "calf" from Dan among his spoils.[385]
Scripture does not record the fact, though in Hosea (viii. 5) there
may be an allusion to the fate of that at Bethel, whether the right
version be "He hath cast off thy calf, O Samaria," or "Thy calf, O
Samaria, hath cast thee off."[386] "The workman made it," he
continues; "therefore it is not God: for the calf of Samaria shall be
broken in pieces." And again (x. 5): "The people of Samaria shall fear
because of the heifer of the House of Vanity: for the people thereof
shall mourn over it, and the _chemarim_ [_i.e._, the black-robed false
priests thereof] shall tremble for it, for the glory thereof, because
it is departed. It [the idol] shall also be carried to Assyria for a
present to King Combat."

For a time Pekah escaped; but unsuccess is fatal to a murderous usurper,
weakened by the loss and plunder of dominions which he is unable to
defend. Instead of wasting time in the siege of a strong city like
Samaria, Tiglath-Pileser in all probability stirred up Hoshea, the son
of Elah, to rise in conspiracy against his master and slay him. For
Pekah and Israel seem to have made light of the Northern raid. They said
in their pride and stoutness of heart, "The bricks are fallen down, but
we will build with new stones: the sycomores are cut down, but we will
change them into cedars." Such pretence of security was ill-timed and
senseless, and Isaiah denounced it. "Therefore," he said, "Jehovah hath
set up against Israel the adversaries of Rezin [_i.e._, the Assyrians],
and hath stirred up his enemies; the Syrians on the east, and the
Philistines on the west; and they have devoured Israel with open mouth.
For all this His anger is not turned away, but His hand is stretched out
still. Yet the people have not turned unto Him that smote them, neither
have they sought the Lord of hosts. Therefore Jehovah hath cut off from
Israel palm-branch and rush in one day. The elder and the honourable
man, he is the head; and the prophet that speaketh lies, he is the tail.
For they that lead this people cause them to err, and they that are led
of them are swallowed up."[387]

The following verses furnish one of the numerous pictures of the anarchy
and abounding misery of these evil days. "For wickedness burneth as the
fire: it devoureth the briers and thorns; yea, it kindleth in the
thickets of the forest, and they roll upwards in thick clouds of smoke.
Through the wrath of the Lord of hosts is the land burnt up; the people
also are the fuel of fire: _no man spareth his brother_. And one shall
snatch on the right, and be hungry; and he shall eat on the left hand,
and they shall not be satisfied: they shall _eat every man the flesh of
his own arm_: Manasseh, Ephraim; and Ephraim, Manasseh: and they
together shall be against Judah. For all this His anger is not turned
away, but His hand is stretched out still."

We are told in the Book of Kings that Pekah reigned for twenty years;
but some of these later reigns must be shortened to suit the
exigencies of known chronological data. It seems probable that he
occupied the throne for a much shorter time.[388]

Such was the weakened, harassed, vassal kingdom--the gaunt spectre of
itself--to the throne of which, after a period of anarchy and chaos,
Hoshea, by conspiracy and murder, succeeded as the miserable feudatory
of Assyria.

FOOTNOTES:

[354] Amos viii. 2.

[355] Amos iv. 1-3.

[356] It is probable that our present Book of Zechariah is composed of
the works of three prophets of different dates, each of whom may have
borne that name. See my _Minor Prophets_ ("Men of the Bible" Series).

[357] Zech. xi. 8. In 2 Kings xv. 10 the LXX. read καὶ επάταξεν αὐτὸν
ἐν κεβλαάμ; and Ewald thinks that "before the people" (קָבָל־צָם) is
really a proper name of the third king in one month--"and _Kobolam_
slew him." There is insufficient ground for this; though a similar
name is found in Assyrian records.

[358] Hos. viii. 3, vii. 7.

[359] Zachariah, Shallum, Kobolam (?).

[360] Zech. xi. 1-17 (Heb. 13).

[361] That this was Thapsacus on the Euphrates (1 Kings iv. 24), and
that Menahem was in a position to march northward three hundred miles,
and offer so deadly and wanton an insult to the might of Assyria, is
out of the question. The name means "a ford," and might apply to any
town on a river. Thenius thinks the name is a clerical error for
_Tappuach_, between Ephraim and Manasseh (Josh. xvii. 7, 8).

[362] Josephus says, ὠμότητος ὑπερβολὴν οὐ καταλιπὼν οὐδὲ ἀγριότητος.
It is said that the same crime was committed in 1861 by a Mexican
bandit. Machiavelli says, "He who violently and without just right
usurps a crown must use cruelty, if cruelty becomes necessary, once
for all" (_De princ._, 8).

[363] 2 Kings viii. 12; Hos. xiii. 16.

[364] Amos i. 13.

[365] Hos. x. 14. This allusion is, however, uncertain. Shalmaneser III.
is not elsewhere found abbreviated into Shalman. Some suppose him to be
a Moabitish king, Salamannu, who was a vassal of Tiglath-Pileser. The
LXX., Vulg., etc., identify him with the Zalmunna of Judg. viii. 18.
Psalm lxxxiii. 11 renders the word _ex domo ejus qui judicavit Baal_
(_i.e._, Gideon). Beth-Arbel is either Arbela in Galilee, or Irbid,
north-east of Pella.

[366] Nah. iii. 10.

[367] Isa. xiii. 16.

[368] The two predecessors of Tiglath-Pileser (_Tuklat-abal-isarra_)
were Assurdayan and Assurnirari.

[369] Isa. v. 26-29.

[370] Comp. Job xx. 15; Ruth ii. 1.

[371] Hos. v. 11-13. Comp. x. 6: "It [Samaria] shall be carried to
Assyria for a present unto King Jareb." Sayce (_Bab. and Orient.
Records_, December 1887) thinks that Jareb may have been the original
name of Sargon, and so too Neubauer, _Zeitschr. für Assyr._, 1886. The
Vulg. renders King Jareb _ad regem ultorem_, and so too Symmachus.
Aquila and Theodotion have δικαζόμενον. It may be the name of an
unknown king of Assyria, or of Pul, or of Sargon--R.V., margin, "a
king that should contend."

[372] Hos. vii. 8-12.

[373] Josephus says, τῇ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀκολουθήσας ὠμότητι.

[374] 2 Kings xv. 25, A.V., "in the palace of the king's house"
(_armon_), rather "fortress." For the character of the Gileadites see
1 Chron. xii. 8, xxvi. 31.

[375] The length of Pekah's reign is most doubtful. If the periods
assigned to the reigns in the Northern and Southern Kingdoms be added
together up to the Fall of Samaria in the sixth year of Hezekiah (2
Kings xviii. 9, 10), it will be found that the Southern chronology is
twenty years longer than the Northern. G. Smith would alter the text,
and make Jeroboam II. reign fifty-one years and Pekah thirty years;
others invent an interregnum of eleven years between Jeroboam II. and
Zachariah, and an anarchy of nine years before Hoshea's accession;
others shorten Pekah's reign to _one_ year.

[376] 2 Kings xv. 37.

[377] Vide _infra_.

[378] Deut. xxxiii. 19: "They [Zebulon] shall call the peoples unto
the mountain: there shall they offer the sacrifices of righteousness."

[379] Isa. viii. 6, 7.

[380] Perhaps we should read Edomites (2 Kings xvi. 6).

[381] The bar of its city gate.

[382] Bikath-Aven--"The cleft of Aven"--Cœle Syria, or Hollow Syria,
still called by the Arabs El-Bukāa. Comp. Josh. xi. 17, xii. 7. Aven--or
"Vanity"--is perhaps Heliopolis or Baalbek. Comp. Ezek. xxx. 17.

[383] Perhaps Beit el Jame, "House of Paradise"--about eight hours
from Damascus (Porter, _Five Years in Syria_, i. 313).

[384] Kir, in Armenia--the land of their origin (Amos ix. 7).

[385] But, after all, was there a golden calf at Dan? It is scarcely
ever alluded to, and the notion that there was one may have arisen (1)
from a corruption or mistaken rendering of the text in 1 Kings xii.
29, and (2) from the existence there of the idolatrous ephod. See
Klostermann, _ad loc._; Isa. ix. 8-17.

[386] LXX., Ἀποτρίψαι τὸν μόσχον σοῦ, Σαμάρεια; Vulg., _Projectus est
vitulus tuus, Samaria_. Orelli renders it, "Abscheulich ist dein Kalb,
O Samaria." In Jer. xlvi. 15 we read (of Egypt), "Why is thy strong
one swept away?" where the true reading may be, "Hath Khaph [_i.e._,
Apis], thy chosen one, fled?" LXX., Ἆπις ὁ μόσχος σοῦ, ὁ ἐκλεκτός. So
Amos had prophesied that the "god of Dan" and the "way of Beersheba"
should fall for evermore (Amos viii. 14).

[387] Isa. ix. 11-16. With this passage comp. 2 Kings xxiii. 5; Zeph.
i. 4; Hos. vii. 9, 10.

[388] Tiglath-Pileser says: "Pakaha, their king, I killed: Ausi
[Hoshea] I placed over them. The distant land of Bit-Khumri [the
"house of Omri"]--_the whole of its inhabitants_, with their goods--I
carried away to Asshur" (B.C. 734). In this year he mentions Ahaz
among his tributaries.




                              CHAPTER XXI

             _HOSHEA, AND THE FALL OF THE NORTHERN KINGDOM_

                              B.C. 734-725

                           2 KINGS xvii. 1-41

    "As for Samaria, her king is cut off as the foam upon the
    water."--HOS. x. 7.


As a matter of convenience, we follow our English Bible in calling the
prophet by the name Ho_sea_, and the nineteenth, last, and best king
of Israel Ho_shea_. The names, however, are identical (הֹושֵׁצַ), and
mean "Salvation"--the name borne by Joshua also in his earlier days.
In the irony of history the name of the last king of Ephraim was thus
identical with that of her earliest and greatest hero, just as the
last of Roman emperors bore the double name of the Founder of Rome and
the Founder of the Empire--Romulus Augustulus. By a yet deeper irony
of events the king in whose reign came the final precipitation of ruin
wore the name which signified deliverance from it.

And more and more, as time went on, the prophet Hosea felt that he had
no word of present hope or comfort for the king his namesake. It was
the more brilliant lot of Isaiah, in the Southern Kingdom, to kindle
the ardour of a generous courage. Like Tyrtæus, who roused the
Spartans to feel their own greatness--like Demosthenes, who hurled
the might of Athens against Philip of Macedon--like Chatham, "bidding
England be of good cheer, and hurl defiance at her foes"--like Pitt,
pouring forth, in the days of the Napoleonic terror, "the indomitable
language of courage and of hope,"--Isaiah was missioned to encourage
Judah to despise first the mighty Syrian, and then the mightier
Assyrian. Far different was the lot of Hosea, who could only be the
denouncer of an inevitable doom. His sad function was like that of
Phocion after Chæroneia, of Hannibal after Zama, of Thiers after
Sedan: he had to utter the Cassandra-voices of prophecy, which his
besotted and demented contemporaries--among whom the priests were the
worst of all[389]--despised and flouted until the time for repentance
had gone by for ever.

True it is that Hosea could not be content--what true heart could?--to
breathe nothing but the language of reprobation and despair. Israel
had been "yoked to his two transgressions,"[390] but Jehovah could not
give up His love for His chosen people:--

               "How shall I give thee up, Ephraim?
                How shall I surrender thee, Israel?
                How shall I make thee as Admah?
                How shall I treat thee as Zeboim?
                Mine heart is turned within Me;
                I am wholly filled with compassion!
                I will not execute the fierceness of Mine anger;
                I will not again destroy Ephraim:
                For I am God, and not man.
                The Holy One in the midst of thee!
                I will not come to exterminate!
          They shall come after Jehovah as after a lion that roars!
          For he shall roar, and his sons shall come hurrying from the
                west,
          They shall come hurrying as a bird out of Egypt,
          And as a dove out of the land of Assyria;
          And I will cause them to dwell in their houses, Saith
                Jehovah."[391]

Alas! the gleam of alleviation was imaginary rather than actual. The
prophet's wish was father to his thought. He had prophesied that
Israel should be scattered in all lands (ix. 3, 12, 17, xiii. 3-16).
This was true; and it did not prove true, except in some higher ideal
sense, that "Israel shall again dwell in his own land" (xiv. 4-7) in
prosperity and joy.

The date of Hoshea's accession is uncertain, and we cannot tell in
what sense we are to understand his reign as having lasted "nine
years."[392] We have no grounds for accepting the statement of
Josephus (_Antt._, IX. xiii. 1), that Hoshea had been a friend of
Pekah and plotted against him. Tiglath-Pileser expressly says that he
himself slew Pekah and appointed Hoshea.[393] His must have been, at
the best, a pitiful and humiliating reign. He owed his purely vassal
sovereignty to Assyrian patronage. He probably did as well for Israel
as was in his power. Singular to relate, he is the only one of all the
kings of Israel of whom the historian has a word of commendation; for
while we are told that "he did that which was evil in the sight of
the Lord," it is added that it was "not as the kings of Israel that
were before him." But we do not know wherein either his evil-doing or
his superiority consisted. The Rabbis guess that he did not replace
the golden calf at Dan which Tiglath-Pileser had taken away (Hos. x.
6); or that he did not prevent his subjects from going to Hezekiah's
passover.[394] "It seems like a harsh jest," says Ewald, "that this
Hoshea, who was better than all his predecessors, was to be the last
king." But so it has often been in history. The vengeance of the
French Revolution smote the innocent and harmless Louis XVI. and Marie
Antoinette--not Louis XIV., or Louis XV. and Madame du Pompadour.

His patron Tiglath-Pileser ended his magnificent reign of conquest in
727, soon after he had seated Hoshea on the throne. The removal of his
strong grasp on the helm caused immediate revolt. Phœnicia especially
asserted her independence against Shalmaneser IV. He seems to have
spent five years in an unavailing attempt to capture Island-Tyre.
Meanwhile, the internal troubles which had harassed and weakened Egypt
ceased, and a strong Ethiopian king named Sabaco established his rule
over the whole country.[395] It was perhaps the hope that Phœnicia
might hold out against the Assyrian, and that the Egyptian might
protect Samaria, which kindled in the mind of Hoshea the delusive plan
of freeing himself and his impoverished land from the grinding tribute
imposed by Nineveh. While Shalmaneser[396] was trying to quell Tyre,
Hoshea, having received promises of assistance from Sabaco, withheld
the "presents"--the _minchah_, as the tribute is euphemistically
called--which he had hitherto paid. Seeing the danger of a powerful
coalition, Shalmaneser swept down on Samaria in 724. Possibly he
defeated the army of Israel in the plain of Jezreel (Hos. i. 5), and
got hold of the person of Hoshea. Josephus says that he "besieged
him"; but the sacred historian only tells us that "he shut him up, and
bound him in prison." Whether Hoshea was taken in battle, or betrayed
by the Assyrian party in Samaria, or whether he went in person to see
if he could pacify the ruthless conqueror, he henceforth disappears
from history "like foam"--or like a chip or a bubble--"upon the
water." We do not know whether he was put to death, but we infer from
an allusion in Micah that he was subjected to the cruel indignities in
which the Assyrians delighted; for the prophet says, "They shall smite
the Judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek."[397] Perhaps in the
title "Judge" (Shophet, _suffes_) we may see a sign that Hoshea's
royalty was little more than the shadow of a name.

Having thus got rid of the king, Shalmaneser proceeded to invest the
capital. But Samaria was strongly fortified upon its hill, and the
Jewish race has again and again shown--as it showed so conspicuously
in the final crisis of its destiny, when Jerusalem defied the terrible
armies of Rome--that with walls to protect them they could pluck up a
terrible courage and endurance from despair. Strong as Assyria was,
the capital of Ephraim for three years resisted her beleaguering host
and her crashing battering-rams. About all the anguish which prevailed
within the city, and the wild vicissitudes of orgy and starvation,
history is silent. But prophecy tells us that the sorrows of a
travailing woman came upon the now kingless city. They drank to the
dregs the cup of fury.[398] The saddest Northern prophet, "the
Jeremiah of Israel," sings the dirge of Israel's saddest king.[399]

                "I am become to them as a lion;
                 As a leopard will I watch by the way;
                 I will meet them as a bear bereaved of her whelps,
                 And rend the caul of their heart,
                 And there will I devour them like a lioness:
                 The beast of the field shall tear them....
          Where now is thy king, that he may save thee in all thy cities
          And thy judges, of whom thou saidst, 'Give me a king and
                       prince'?
                 I give thee a king in Mine anger,
                 And take him away in My wrath."

For three years Samaria held out. During the siege Shalmaneser died,
and was succeeded by Sargon, who--though he vaguely talks of "the
kings his ancestors," and says that he had been preceded by three
hundred and thirty Assyrian dynasts--never names his father, and seems
to have been a usurping general.[400]

Sabaco remained inactive, and basely deserted the miserable people
which had relied on his protection. In this conduct Egypt was true to
its historic character of untrustworthiness and inertness. Both in
Israel and in Judah there were two political parties. One relied on
the strength of Egypt; the other counselled submission to Assyria,
or--in the hour when it became necessary to defy Assyria--confidence
in God. Egypt was as frail a support as one of her own paper-reeds,
which bent under the weight, and broke and ran into the hand of every
one who leaned on it.

Sargon did not raze the city, and we see from the _Eponym Canon_ that
its inhabitants were still strong enough some years later to take part
in a futile revolt. But we have one dreadful glimpse of the horrors
which he inflicted upon it. They were the inevitable punishment of
every conquered city which had dared to resist the Assyrian arm.

          "Samaria shall bear her guilt,
           For she hath rebelled against her God.
           They shall fall by the sword:
           Their infants shall be dashed in pieces,
           And their women in child shall be ripped up."[401]

Sargon's own record of the matter on the tablets at Khorsabad is: "I
besieged, took, and occupied the city of Samaria, and carried into
captivity twenty-seven thousand two hundred and eighty of its
inhabitants. I changed the former government of this country, and
placed over it lieutenants of my own. And Sebeh, Sultan of Egypt, came
to Raphia to fight against me. They met me, and I routed them. Sebeh
fled."[402] The Assyrians were occupied in the unsuccessful siege of
Tyre between 720-715, during which years Sargon put down Yahubid of
Hamath, whose revolt had been aided by Damascus and Samaria. In 710 he
marched against Ashdod (Isa. xx. 1). In 709 he defeated
Merodach-Baladan at Dur-Yakin, and reconquered Chaldæa, deporting some
of the population into Samaria. In 704, in the fifteenth year of his
reign, he was assassinated, after a career of victory. He inscribes on
his palace at Khorsabad a prayer to his god Assur, that, after his
toils and conquests, "I may be preserved for the long years of a long
life, for the happiness of my body, for the satisfaction of my heart.
May I accumulate in this palace immense treasures, the booties of all
countries, the products of mountains and valleys." Assur and the gods
of Chaldæa were invoked in vain; the prayer was scattered to the
winds, and the murderer's dagger was the comment on Sargon's happy
anticipations of peace and splendour.

Israel fell unpitied by her southern neighbour, for Judah was still
smarting under memories of the old contempt and injury of Joash
ben-Jehoahaz, and the more recent wrongs inflicted by Pekah and Rezin.
Isaiah exults over the fate of Samaria, while he points the moral of her
fall to the drunken priests and prophets of Jerusalem. "Woe," he says,
"to the crown of pride of the drunkards of Ephraim, and to the fading
flower of his glorious beauty, which is on the head of the fat valley of
them that are smitten down with wine! Behold, the Lord hath a mighty and
strong one [_i.e._, the Assyrian]; as a tempest of hail, a destroying
storm, as a tempest of mighty water overflowing, shall he cast down to
the earth with violence. The crown of pride, the drunkards of Ephraim,
shall be trodden underfoot: and the fading flower of his glorious
beauty, which is on the head of the fat valley, shall be as the first
ripe fig before the summer; which when he that looketh upon it seeth,
while it is yet in his hand he eateth it up."[403] Israel had begun in
hostility to Judah, and perished by it at last.

Such, then, was the end of the once brilliant kingdom of Israel--the
kingdom which, even so late as the reign of Jeroboam II., seemed to
have a great future before it. No one could have foreseen beforehand
that, when, with the prophetic encouragement of Ahijah, Jeroboam I.
established his sovereignty over the greater, richer, and more
flourishing part of the land assigned to the sons of Jacob, the new
kingdom should fall into utter ruin and destruction after only two and
a half centuries of existence, and its tribes melt away amid the
surrounding nations, and sink into a mixed and semi-heathen race
without any further nationality or distinctive history. It seemed far
less probable that the mere fragment of the Southern Kingdom, after
retaining its separate existence for more than one hundred and sixty
years longer than its more powerful brother, should continue to endure
as a nation till the end of time. Such was the design of God's
providence, and we know no more. The Northern Kingdom had, up to this
time, produced the greatest and most numerous prophets--Ahijah,
Elijah, Elisha, Micaiah, Jonah, Amos, Hosea, Nahum, and many
more.[404] It had also produced the loveliest and most enduring poetry
in the Song of Songs, the Song of Deborah, and other contributions to
the Books of Jashar, and of the Wars of Jehovah. It had also brought
into vigour the earliest and best historic literature, the narratives
of the Elohist and the Jehovist. These immortal legacies of the
religious spirit of the Northern Kingdom were incomparably superior in
moral and enduring value to the Levitic jejuneness of the Priestly
Code, with its hierarchic interests and ineffectual rules, which, in
the exaggerated supremacy attached to rites, proved to be the final
blight of an unspiritual Judaism. Israel had also been superior in
prowess and in deeds of war, and in the days of Joash ben-Jehoahaz
ben-Jehu had barely conceded to Judah a right to separate existence.
More than all this, the apostasies of Judah, from the days of Solomon
downwards, were quite as heinous as Jezebel's Baal-worship, and far
more deadly than the irregular but not at first idolatrous cultus of
Bethel. The prophets are careful to teach Judah that if she was
spared it was not because of any good deservings.[405] Yet now the
cedar was scathed and smitten down, and its boughs were rent and
scattered; and the thistle had escaped the wild beast's tread!

In the former volume we glanced at some of the causes of this, and the
blessings which resulted from it. The central and chiefest blessing
was, first, the preservation of a purer form of monotheism, and a
loftier ideal of religion--though only realised by a few in
Judah--than had ever prevailed in the Northern Tribes; secondly, and
above all, the development of that inspiring Messianic prophecy which
was to be fulfilled seven centuries later, when He who was David's Son
and David's Lord came to our lost race from the bosom of the Father,
and brought life and immortality to light.

And it was the work purely of "God's unseen providence, by men nicknamed
'Chance,'" which, dealing with nations as the potter with his clay,
chooses some to honour and some to dishonour. For, as all the prophets
are anxious to remind the Judæan Kingdom, their success, the
procrastination of their downfall, their restoration from captivity,
were not due to any merits of their own. The Jews were and ever had been
a stiff-necked nation; and though some of their kings had been faithful
servants of Jehovah, yet many of them--like Rehoboam, and Ahaz, and
Manasseh--exceeded in wickedness and inexcusable apostasy the least
faithful of the worshippers at Gilgal and Bethel. They were plainly
reminded of their nothingness: "And thou shalt speak and say before the
Lord thy God, A Syrian ready to perish was my father, and he went down
into Egypt, and sojourned there with a few, and became there a
nation."[406] "Fear not, thou worm Jacob: I will help thee."[407]

But this was the end of the Ten Tribes. Nor must we say that Hosea's
prediction of mercy was laughed to scorn by the irony of events, when
he had given it as God's promise that--

          "I will not execute the fierceness of Mine anger,
           I will not again destroy Israel;
           For I am God, and not man."[408]

The words mean that mercy is God's chiefest and most essential
attribute; and, after all, a nation is composed of families and
individuals, and in political extinction there may have been many
families and individuals in Israel, like that of Tobias, and like that
of Anna, the prophetess of the tribe of Asher, who found, either in
their far exile, or among the scattered Jews who still peopled the old
territories, a peace which was impossible during the distracted
anarchy and deepening corruption of the whole period which had elapsed
since the founding of the house of Omri. In any case God knows and
loves His own. The words,

          "I will not execute the fierceness of Mine anger;
           For I am God, and not man,"

might stand for an epitome of much that is most precious in Holy Writ.
God's orthodoxy is the truth; and the truth remaineth, though man's
orthodoxy exercises all its fury and all its baseness to overwhelm it.
What hope has any man, even a St. Paul--what hope had even the Lord
Himself--before the harsh, self-interested tribunals of human
judgment, or of that purely external religionism which has always
shown itself more brutal and more blundering than secular cruelty?
What chance has there been, humanly speaking, for God's best saints,
prophets, and reformers, when priests, popes, or inquisitors have been
their judges? If God resembled those generations of unresisted
ecclesiastics, whose chief resort has been the syllogism of violence,
and whose main arguments have been the torture-chamber and the stake,
what hope could there possibly be for the vast majority of mankind but
those endless torments by the terrors of which corrupt Churches have
forced their tyranny upon the crushed liberties and the paralysed
conscience of mankind? The Indian sage was right who said that "God
can only be truly described by the words No! No!"--that is, by
repudiating multitudes of the ignoble and cruel basenesses which
religious teachers have imagined or invented respecting Him. Because
God is God, and not man--God, not a tyrant or an inquisitor--God, with
the great compassionate heart of unfathomable tenderness,--therefore,
in all who truly love Him, perfect love casteth out fear, because fear
hath torment. Sin means ruin; yet God is love.[409]

       *       *       *       *       *

The historian of the Kings here digresses, in a manner unusual to the
Old Testament, to give us a most interesting glimpse of the fate of
the conquered people, and the origin of the race which was known to
after-ages by the name "Samaritan."

Sargon, when he had sacked the capital, carried out the policy of
deportation which had now been established by the Assyrian kings. He
achieved the double purpose of populating the capital and province of
Nineveh, while he reduced subject nations to inanition, by sweeping
away all the chief of the inhabitants from conquered states, and
settling them in his own more immediate dominions. There they would be
reduced to impotence, and mingle with the races among whom their lot
would henceforth be cast. He therefore "carried Israel away" into
Assyria, and placed them in Halah, north of Thapsacus, on the
Euphrates, and in Habor, the river of Gozan[410]--_i.e._, on the river
in Northern Assyria which still bears the name of Khabour, and flows
into the Euphrates--and in the cities of the Medes.[411] He replaced
the old population by Dinaites, Tarplites, Apharsathchites,
Susanchites, Elamites, Dehavites, and Babylonians, after carrying away
the great bulk of the better-class population.[412]

After this the historian pauses to sum up and emphasise once more the
main lesson of his narrative. It is that "righteousness exalteth a
nation, and sin is the reproach of any people." God had called His son
Israel out of Egypt, delivered His chosen from Pharaoh, given them a
pleasant land; but "Israel had sinned against Jehovah their God, and
had feared other gods, and walked in the statutes of the heathen."
They had failed therefore in fulfilling the very purpose for which
they had been set apart. They had been intended "to uplift among the
nations the banner of righteousness" and the banner of the One True
God. Instead of this, they were seduced by the heathen ritual of

          "Gay religions full of pomp and gold."

They decked out alien institutions,[413] and alike in frequented and
populous places--"from the tower of the watchmen to the fenced
city"--set up _matstseboth_ (A.V., "pillars") and _Asherim_ on every
high hill. The green trees became _obumbratrices scelerum_, the secret
bowers of their iniquities. They burnt incense on the _bamoth_, and
served idols, and wrought wickedness. Useless had been the voices of
all the prophets and the seers. They went after vain things, and
became vain. Beginning with the two "calves," they proceeded to lewd
and orgiastic idolatries. Ahab and Jezebel seduced them into Tyrian
Baal-worship. From the Assyrians they learnt and practised the
adoration of the host of heaven.[414] From Moab and Ammon they
borrowed the abominable rites of Moloch, and used divination and
enchantments by means of belomancy (Ezek. xxi. 21, 22) and necromancy,
and sold themselves to do wickedness.

Nor was this all. These idolatries, with their guilty ritualism, were
not confined to Israel, but also

          "Infected Zion's daughters with like heat,
           Whose wanton passions in the sacred porch
           Ezekiel saw, when, by the vision led,
           His eye surveyed the dark idolatries
           Of alienated Judah."

And thus, when Jehovah afflicted the seed of Israel and cast them out
of His sight, Judah also had to feel the stroke of retribution.[415]

And it is idle to object that even if Israel had been faithful she must
have inevitably perished before the superior might of Damascus, or
Nineveh, or Babylon. How can we tell? It is not possible for us thus to
write unwritten history, and there is absolutely nothing to show that
the surmise is correct. In the days of David, of Uzziah, of Jeroboam
II., Judah and Israel had shown what they could achieve. Had they been
strong in faithfulness to Jehovah, and in the righteousness which that
faith required, they would have shown an invincible strength amid the
moral enervation of the surrounding people. They might have held their
own by welding into one strong kingdom the whole of Palestine, including
Philistia, Phœnicia, the Negeb, and the Trans-Jordanic region. They
might have consolidated the sway which they at various times attained
southwards, as far as the Red Sea port of Elath; northwards over Aram
and Damascus, as far as the Hamath on the Orontes; eastwards to
Thapsacus on the Euphrates; westward to the Isles of the Gentiles.
There is nothing improbable, still less impossible, in the view that, if
the Israelites had truly served Jehovah and obeyed His laws, they might
then have permanently established the monarchy which was ideally
regarded as their inheritance, and which for brief and fitful periods
they partially maintained. And such a monarchy, held together by warrior
statesmen, strong and righteous, and above all secure in the blessing of
God, would have been a thoroughly adequate counterpoise, not only to
dilatory and distracted Egypt, which had long ceased to be aggressive,
but even to brutal Assyria, which prevailed in no small measure because
of the isolation and mutual dissension of these southern principalities.

But, as it was, "Assyria and Egypt--the two world-powers in the dawn
of history, the two chief sources of ancient civilisation, the twin
giant-empires which bounded the Israelite people on the right hand and
on the left--were cruel neighbours, between whom the ill-fated nation
was tossed to and fro in wanton sport like a shuttlecock. They were
cruel friends before whom it must cringe in turns, praying sometimes
for help, suing sometimes for very life--alternate scourges in the
hand of the Divine wrath. Now it is the fly of Egypt, and now it is
the bee of Assyria, whose ruthless swarms issue forth at the word of
Jehovah, settling in the holes of the rocks, and upon all thorns, and
upon all bushes, with deadly sting, fatal to man and beast,
devastating the land far and wide. Holding the poor Israelite in their
relentless embrace, they threatened ever and again to crush him by
their grip. Like the fabled rocks which frowned over the narrow
straits of the Bosporus, they would crash together and annihilate the
helpless craft which the storms of destiny had placed at their mercy.
Israel reeled under their successive blows. As was the beginning, so
was the end. As the captivity of Egypt had been the cradle of the
nation, so was the captivity of Assyria to be its tomb."[416]

In any case the principle of the historian remains unshaken. Sin is
weakness; idolatry is folly and rebellion; uncleanness is decrepitude.
St. Paul was not thinking of this ancient Philosophy of History when
he wrote his Epistle to the Romans; yet the intense and masterly
sketch which he gives of that moral corruption which brought about the
long, slow, agonising dissolution of the beauty that was Greece, and
the grandeur that was Rome, is one of its strongest justifications.
His view only differs from the summary before us in the power of its
eloquence and the profoundness of its psychologic insight. He says the
same thing as the historian of the Kings, only in words of greater
power and wider reach, when he writes: "For the wrath of God is
revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of
men, who hold down the truth in unrighteousness. Knowing God, they
glorified Him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in
their reasonings" (ἐματαιώθησαν, the very word used in the LXX. in 2
Kings xvii. 15), "and their senseless heart was darkened. Professing
themselves to be wise, they became fools" (words which might describe
the expediency-policy of Jeroboam I., and its fatal consequences),
"and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an
image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and
creeping things. For this cause God gave them up to passions of
dishonour, and unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are
not fitting, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness,
covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit,
malignity,"--and so on, through a long catalogue of iniquities which
are identical with those which we find so burningly denounced on the
pages of the prophets of Israel and Judah.

Even a Machiavelli, cool and cynical and audacious as was his
scepticism, could see and admit that faithfulness to religion is the
secret of the happiness and prosperity of states.[417] An irreligious
society tends inevitably and always to be a dissolute society; and a
"dissolute society is the most tragic spectacle which history has ever
to present--a nest of disease, of jealousy, of dissensions, of ruin,
and despair, whose last hope is to be washed off the world and
disappear. Such societies must die sooner or later of their own
gangrene, of their own corruption, because the infection of evil,
spreading into unbounded selfishness, ever intensifying and
reproducing passions which defeat their own aim, can never end in
anything but moral dissolution." We need not look further than the
collapse of France after the battle of Sedan, and the cause to which
that collapse was attributed, not only by Christians, but by her own
most worldly and sceptical writers, to see that the same causes ever
issue and will issue in the same ruinous effects.

       *       *       *       *       *

In order to complete the history of the Northern Kingdom, the
historian here anticipates the order of time by telling us what
happened to the mongrel population whom Sargon transplanted into
central Ephraim in place of the old inhabitants.

The king, we are told, brought them from Babylon--which was at this
time under the rule of Assyria; from Cuthah--by which seems to be
meant some part of Mesopotamia near Babylon;[418] from Avva, or
Ivah--probably the same as Ahavah or Hit, on the Euphrates, north-west
of Babylon; from Sepharvaim, or Sippara, also on the Euphrates;[419]
and from Hamath, on the Orontes, which had not long remained under
Jeroboam II.[420] It must not be supposed that the whole population of
Ephraim was deported; that was a physical impossibility. Although we
are told in Assyrian annals that Sargon carried away with him so vast
a number of captives, it is, of course, clear that the lowest and
poorest part of the population was left.[421] We can imagine the wild
confusion which arose when they found themselves compelled to share
the dismantled palaces and abandoned estates of the wealthy with the
horde of new colonists, whose language, in all probability, they but
imperfectly understood. There must have been many a tumult, many a
scene of horror, such as took place in the long antagonism of Normans
and Saxons in England, before the immigrants and the relics of the
former populace settled down to amalgamation and mutual tolerance.

Sargon is said to have carried away with him the golden calf or calves
of Bethel, as Tiglath-Pileser is said by the Rabbis to have carried away
that of Dan.[422] He also took away with him all the educated classes,
and all the teachers of religion.[423] No one was left to instruct the
ignorant inhabitants; and, as Hosea had prophesied, there was neither a
sacrifice, nor a pillar, nor an ephod, and not even teraphim to which
they could resort.[424] Naturally enough, the disunited dregs of an old
and of a new population had no clear knowledge of religion. They "feared
not Jehovah." The sparseness of inhabitants, with its consequent neglect
of agriculture, caused the increase of wild beasts among them. There had
always been lions and bears in "the swellings of Jordan,"[425] and in
all the lonelier parts of the land; and to this day there are leopards
in the woods of Carmel, and hyænas and jackals in many regions.
Conscious of their miserable and godless condition, and afflicted by the
lions, which they regarded as a sign of Jehovah's anger, the Ephraimites
sent a message to the King of Assyria. They only claimed Jehovah as
their local god, and complained that the new colonists had provoked the
wrath of "the God of the land" by not knowing His "manner"--that is,
the way in which He should be worshipped. The consequence was that they
were in danger of being exterminated by lions. The kings of Assyria were
devoted worshippers of Assur and Merodach, but they held the common
belief of ancient polytheists that each country had its own potent
divinities. Sargon, therefore, gave orders that one of the priests of
his captivity should be sent back to Samaria, "to teach them the manner
of the god of the land." The priest selected for the purpose returned,
took up his residence at the old shrine of Bethel, and "taught them how
they should fear Jehovah." His success was, however, extremely limited,
except among the former followers of Jeroboam's dishonoured cult. The
old religious shrines still continued, and the immigrants used them for
the glorification of their former deities. Samaria, therefore, witnessed
the establishment of a singularly hybrid form of religionism. The
Babylonians worshipped Succoth-Benoth,[426] perhaps Zirbanit, wife of
Merodach or Bel; the Cuthites worshipped Nergal, the Assyrian war-god,
the lion-god;[427] the Hittites, from Hamath, worshipped Ashima or
Esmûn, the god of air and thunder, under the form of a goat;[428] the
Avites preferred Nibhaz and Tartak, perhaps Saturn--unless these names
be Jewish jeers, implying that one of these deities had the head of a
dog, and the other of an ass.[429] More dreadful, if less ridiculous,
was the worship of the Sepharvites, who adored Adrammelech and
Anammelech, the sun-god under male and female forms, to whom, as to
Moloch, they burnt their children in the fire. As for ministers, "they
made unto them priests from among themselves,[430] who offered
sacrifices for them in the shrines of the bamoth." Thus the whole
mongrel population "feared the Lord, and served their own gods," as they
continued to do in the days of the annalist whose record the historian
quotes. He ends his interesting sketch with the words, that, in spite of
the Divine teaching, "these nations"--so he calls them, and so
completely does he refuse to them the dignity of being Israel's
children--feared the Lord, and served their graven images, their
children likewise, and their children's children,--"as did their
fathers, so do they unto this day."[431]

The "unto this day" refers, no doubt, to the document from which the
historian of the Kings was quoting--perhaps about B.C. 560, in the third
generation after the fall of Samaria. A very brief glance will suffice
to indicate the future history of the Samaritans. We hear but little of
them between the present reference and the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. By
that time they had purged themselves of these grosser idolatries, and
held themselves fit in all respects to co-operate with the returned
exiles in the work of building the Temple. Such was not the opinion of
the Jews. Ezra regarded them as "the adversaries of Judah and
Israel."[432] The exiles rejected their overtures. In B.C. 409 Manasseh,
a grandson of the high priest expelled by Nehemiah for an unlawful
marriage with a daughter of Sanballat, of the Samaritan city of
Beth-horon, built the schismatic temple on Mount Gerizim.[433] The
relations of the Samaritans to the Jews became thenceforth deadly. In
B.C. 175 they seconded the profane attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes to
paganise the Jews, and in B.C. 130 John Hyrcanus, the Maccabee,
destroyed their temple. They were accused of waylaying Jews on their way
to the Feasts, and of polluting the Temple with dead bones.[434] They
claimed Jewish descent (John iv. 12), but our Lord called them "aliens"
(ἀλλογενής, Luke xvii. 18), and Josephus describes them as "residents
from other nations" (μέτοικοι, ἀλλοεθνεῖς). They are now a rapidly
dwindling community of fewer than a hundred souls--"the oldest and
smallest sect in the world"--equally despised by Jews and Mohammedans.
The Jews, as in the days of Christ, have no dealings with them. When Dr.
Frankl, on his philanthropic visit to the Jews of the East, went to see
their celebrated Pentateuch, and mentioned the fact to a Jewish
lady--"What!" she exclaimed: "have you been among the worshippers of the
pigeon? Take a purifying bath!" Regarding Gerizim as the place which
God had chosen (John iv. 20), they alone can keep up the old tradition
of the _sacrificial_ passover. For long centuries, since the Fall of
Jerusalem, it is only on Gerizim that the Paschal lambs and kids have
been actually slain and eaten, as they are to this day, and will be,
till, not long hence, the whole tribe disappears.

FOOTNOTES:

[389] Hos. iv. 4; v. 1, "Hear ye this, O priests ... ye have been a
snare on Mizpah," etc.; vi. 9, "The company of the priests murder by
the way to Shechem."

[390] Hos. x. 10 (so R.V., and in the main the versions after the Hebrew
margin). LXX., ἐν τῷ παιδεύεσθαι αὐτοὺς ἐν ταῖς δύσιν ἀδικίαις αὐτῶν;
Vulg., "_cum corripientur propter duas iniquitates suas_"; A.V., "When
they shall bind themselves in their two furrows." I believe that the
"_two_ iniquities" may mean _two_ cherubs at Bethel. See x. 15: "So
shall Bethel do unto you because of the evil of your evil."

[391] Hos. xi. 8-11.

[392] 2 Kings xvii. 1 is inconsistent with xv. 30, 33, and it is
wholly useless for our purpose to enter into complicated chronological
hypotheses, every one of which may be erroneous.

[393] Schrader, _K. A. T._, p. 255.

[394] _Seder Olam_, xxii. 2; 2 Chron. xxx. 6-11.

[395] See Herod., ii. 137; called So (Heb., Sô or Seve) in 2 Kings xvii.
4. Perhaps Shebek, the founder of the twenty-fifth dynasty. LXX., Σηγώρ;
Vulg., _Sua_; Manetho, _Sabachon_. In the _Eponym Canon_ he is called an
Egyptian general, _Sibakhi_, who helped Gaza against Assyria, and was
defeated. The _ka_ appended at the end of his name (Egyptian Shaba-ka)
is thought by some to be the Cushite article. The race of the priest
Hirhor died out with Piankhi, and the Ethiopians elected a noble named
Kashta. Shabak was his son. He conquered Sais, and burnt his rival
Bek-en-raut alive (B.C. 724). His dynasty ruled for fifty years; he was
succeeded by Sevechus (Shabatok), and he by Tehrak (Tirhakah).

[396] His name means "Salmân, pardon." We have no monuments or
inscriptions of this king; only an imperial weight.

[397] Mic. v. 1.

[398] Hos. xiii. 13.

[399] Hos. xiii. 7-11. The prophecy is rhythmic, though not written in
actual poetry.

[400] Till the discovery of the Assyrian records, Sargon (Sharru-kênu,
'the faithful king') was but a name. The Jews knew but little of him. He
is but once mentioned in Scripture (Isa. xx. 1), and was probably
confused by some Jews with other kings. Yet he reigned sixteen years
(722-705), and his records give the annals of fifteen campaigns. In 720
he crushed a confederacy headed by Yahubid of Hamath, and reduced that
city to a "heap of ruins." He then advanced against Hanno, King of Gaza,
who was in alliance with Sabaco, and defeated the combined forces of the
Philistines and Egyptians at Raphia, half-way between Gaza and the
Wady-el-Arîsh, "the torrent [_nachal_] of Egypt." Sargon was at the time
too much occupied with other enemies to pursue his advantage over Egypt;
for Armenia, Media, and other countries needed his attention. This
encouraged Ashdod to rebel, and its king, Azuri, refused his tribute
(see Isa. xx. 1). Sargon deposed him, and put his brother Ahimit in his
place. Relying on Egyptian promises, Philistia joined Judah, Edom, and
Moab in defying Assyria. They deposed Ahimit as an Assyrian nominee, and
put Yaman in his place. Egypt, as usual, failed to help, and in 711 the
Assyrian Turtan, or Commander-in-chief, took Ashdod after three years'
resistance, and carried its people into captivity. The punishment of
Egypt was reserved for the subsequent reigns of Esarhaddon (681-668) and
Assurbanipal. See Driver's _Isaiah xlv._ (Isa. xx.). Isa. xiv. 29-32 is
an ode of triumph for the Fall of Philistia.

[401] Hos. xiii. 16.

[402] See De Hincks in _Journ. of Sacr. Lit._, October 1858; Layard,
_Nin. and Bab._, i. 148.

[403] Isa. xxviii. 1-4.

[404] 2 Kings xvii. 13, "by all the prophets, and all the _seers_,"
(_chôseh_). Hāvernick thinks that the _nebi'îm_ were such _officially_.

[405] See Amos ii. 4, 5; Isa. xxviii. 15; Jer. xvi. 19, 20; Ezek. xx.
13-30, etc.

[406] Deut. xxvi. 5.

[407] Isa. xli. 14.

[408] Hos. xi. 9.

[409] See my _Minor Prophets_, 6-97.

[410] Not as in A.V., "Habor, _by_ the river of Gozan."

[411] 2 Kings xvii. 6. The LXX. has "rivers" and "mountains": ἐν Ἀλαὲ
καὶ ἐν Ἀβὼρ ποταμοῖς Γωζὰν καὶ ὅρη Μήδων. The river is not Ezekiel's
Chebar. These deportations _en masse_ of a whole population, with
their women and children, their waggons and flocks, are depicted on
Sargon's series of tablets in his splendid palace at Khorsabad.

[412] Ezra iv. 10. "The great and noble Asnapper" of the passage is
either some Assyrian general, or a confusion of the name Assurbanipal.

[413] 2 Kings xvii. 9. Heb., "covered"; A.V. and R.V., "did secretly,"
rather "perfidiously"; LXX., ἠμφιέσαντο λόγους ἀδίκους κατὰ κύριον;
Vulg., _Et offenderunt verbis non rectis dominum suum_.

[414] Star-worship is not mentioned in the Book of the Covenant (Exod.
xx.-xxiii.) or the oldest sections of the Mosaic Law. It is first
forbidden in Deut. iv. 19, xvii. 3, when contact with Syrians and
Assyrians made it known (comp. Job xxxi. 26-28; Jer. viii. 2, xix. 13;
Zeph. i. 5). The language of 2 Kings vii.-xxiii. frequently reflects
the prohibitions of Deuteronomy (see Deut. xii. 2, 30, 31, iv. 19, v.
7, 8, xvi. 21, xviii. 10, xxxi. 16, etc.)

[415] In 2 Kings xvii. 11, for "they did wicked things," the LXX. has
κοινωνοὺς (_i.e._, _qedeshîm_) ἐχάραξαν καὶ ἑταιρίδας (_qedeshôth_);
_i.e._, they had depraved _hieroduli_ of both sexes. Comp. Hos. iv.
14; Gen. xxxviii. 21 (where the allusion is to one of the votaries of
Asherah).

[416] Bishop Lightfoot, _Sermons_, p. 267.

[417] "La quale Religione se ne Principi della Republica Christiana si
fusse mantenuta, secondo che dal dottore d'essa ne fu ordinato,
sarebbero gli State e le Republiche Christiane più unite e più felici
assai ch' elle non sono" (_Discorsi_, i. 12).

[418] 2 Kings xvii. 24. Comp. xviii. 34. Hence the later Jews
comprehensively called the Samaritans Cuthites. Comp. 2 Kings xix. 13;
Isa. xxxvii. 13.

[419] Heliopolis, Ptolemy, v. 18, § 7; Isa. xxxvi. 19. Here, according
to the Chaldæan legends, Xisuthrus buried his tablets about the
Creation, etc.

[420] From Ezra iv. 2 some infer that the main immigrants were
introduced by Esarhaddon, who did not succeed till B.C. 681. He claims
to have colonised Syria.

[421] So we see from 2 Kings xix. 13, which applies to the reign of
Hezekiah.

[422] See Appendix, "The Golden Calves."

[423] He uses the agency of "the great and noble Asnapper" (Ezra iv.
10) for the deportation (see Botta, 145; Layard, _Nin. and Bab._, i.
148; Dr. Hincks, _Jour. of Sacr. Lit._, October 1858), unless Asnapper
be a confusion for Assurbanipal (Sardanapalus).

[424] Hos. iii. 4.

[425] See Jer. xlix. 19, l. 44; Prov. xxii. 13, etc.

[426] Lit., "Daughter-huts" (Selden, _De Dis Syr._, ii. 7), but probably
a transliteration. Zarpanit--"She who gives seed"--was Aphrodite
Pandemos (Mylitta--Herod., i. 199). The Rabbis--who only guess--say she
represented "the Clucking Hen"--_i.e._, the Pleiades. There does not
seem to be any connection between Succoth and "Sakkuth," the various
reading in Amos v. 26, which seems to be the Assyrian Moloch.

[427] Said to be worshipped under the form of a cock.

[428] LXX., Ἐβλαζέρ. Jarchi says these deities were worshipped under
base animal forms--but it is more than doubtful.

[429] The Rabbis, from Exod. xxiii. 13; Josh. xxiii. 7, thought they
were bound to give scornful nicknames to heathen deities. Hence such
changes as Kir-Heres for Kir-Cheres, Beelzebub for Beelzebul, Bethaven
for Bethel, Bosheth for Baal, etc.

[430] Not as in A.V., "of the lowest of them," but "of all classes."
Comp. 1 Kings xii. 31.

[431] In 2 Kings xvii. 31-38 we again find repeated references to
Deuteronomy (iv. 23, v. 32, x. 20, etc.).

[432] Ezra iv. 1. The actual word "Samaritans" occurs only once in the
Old Testament, in 2 Kings xvii. 29.

[433] See Neh. xiii. 4-9, 28, 29; Jos., _Antt._, XI. vii. 2. Josephus
makes Manasseh a brother of the high priest Jaddua (B.C. 333).

[434] Jos., _Antt._, IX. xiv. 3, XII. v. 5, XIII. ix. 1, XX. vi.,
XVIII. ii. 2. The bitterly hostile relations between Jews and
Samaritans in the time of Christ are illustrated by Luke ix. 52-54.




                              CHAPTER XXII

                          _THE REIGN OF AHAZ_

                              B.C. 735-715

                           2 KINGS xvi. 1-20

                    "Rimmon, whose delightful seat
               Was fair Damascus, on the fertile banks
               Of Abbana and Pharphar, lucid streams.
               He also against the House of God was bold:
               A leper once he lost, and gained a king--
               Ahaz, his sottish conqueror, whom he drew
               God's altar to disparage and displace
               For one of Syrian mode, whereon to burn
               His odious offerings, and adore the gods
               Whom he had vanquished."
                                      _Paradise Lost_, i. 467-476.


According to our authorities, Ahaz ("Possessor")[435] began his reign
of sixteen years at the age of twenty. Of the exactitude of these
references we cannot be certain, because they also state (2 Kings
xviii. 2) that Hezekiah was twenty-five years old when he began to
reign, and this reduces us to the absurdity of supposing that Hezekiah
was born when his father was only eleven years old.[436] We might
infer from Isa. iii. 4 that Ahaz was not so old as twenty when he
succeeded Jotham; for there--in a terrible prophecy which can only
refer to the beginning of this reign--we read, "And I will give
children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them"; or, as
it should be perhaps rendered, "And with childishness, or wilfulness,
shall they rule over them."

Whatever may have been the king's age, surely never king succeeded to
a more distracted kingdom, or reigned over a more terrified people! If
he could have had any choice in the matter, he might well have
declined the fearful burden. Describing the state of things, the great
prophet Isaiah, who now began his career, exclaims,--

"For, behold, the Lord, the Lord of hosts, doth take away from Jerusalem
and from Judah stay and staff, the whole stay of bread, and the whole
stay of water; the mighty man, and the man of war, the judge, and the
prophet, and the diviner, and the elder; the captain of fifty, and the
honourable man, and the counsellor, and the cunning charmer, and the
skilful enchanter. And the people shall be oppressed every one by
another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself
proudly against the elder, and the base against the honourable. Then a
man shall take hold of his brother in the house of his father, saying,
'Thou hast clothing, be _thou our judge, and let this ruin be under thy
hand_': in that day shall he lift his voice, saying, 'I will not be a
builder-up; for in my house is neither bread nor clothing: ye shall not
make me a ruler of the people.' For Jerusalem is ruined and Judah is
fallen. The show of their countenance is against them; and they declare
their sin as Sodom, and hide it not. As for My people, children are
their oppressors, and women rule over them."[437]

This is a frightful picture of famine--the dearth of intellect, the
dearth of statesmen, of all genius, of all insight. It describes the
prevalence of oppression and of ghastly destitution, accompanied by
such utter despair that no one cared to exert himself for the arrest
of the ruin which seemed imminent over that which was already no
better than itself a ruin.

The Book of Isaiah is arranged in a most confused and unchronological
manner, and it is probable that the first five chapters should be
placed after the sixth, which describes the prophet's call in the year
that King Uzziah died. They paint a picture of moral collapse. His
first chapter is called by Ewald "the great arraignment," and by its
references describes the awful period of alarm during the war of Syria
and Ephraim against Judah. It might seem as if the combined host was
even then in the country, or had only just retired from it; for we
read,--

"Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land,
strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown
by strangers. And the daughter of Zion is left as a booth in a
wilderness, as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city."

But even in the midst of this afflictive dispensation there were no
signs of repentance. The children of Israel were rebels who despised
the Holy One of Israel,--"Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with
iniquity, a seed of evil-doers, children that deal corruptly!" (i.
7-9). They had all the externals of religion: they offered vain
sacrifices, and kept a multitude of idle feasts, and offered many
formal prayers; but all this was but a cumbrance to Him who desired
clean hands and a pure heart as conditions of forgiveness (10-20).
What hope could there be for a city of murderers, who loved bribes
and perverted judgment (21-24)? The land was full of pride, full of
idols, full of the luxury of the rich amid the starvation of the poor
(ii. 1-22).[438] Women partook of the general corruption. They walked
mincingly with stretched-forth necks and wanton eyes,[439] thinking of
nothing but their anklets, and crescents, and bracelets, and mufflers,
ear-drops, head-tires, perfumes, mirrors, armlets, and nose-jewels:
therefore they should have sackcloth for stomachers, ropes for
girdles, and burning instead of beauty, and only a remnant should
escape (iii. 16-iv. 1). Judah was like a vineyard,--rich in
advantages, blessed with fondest care; but when God looked for grapes,
it only brought forth wild grapes--a semblance, but only a poisoned
semblance, of the true vintage: therefore it should be left neglected
and rainless. Woe to the greedy land-grabbing, and drunkenness, and
revelry of the rich! Woe to their mockery of God and their devotion to
vanity! Woe to their insane pride and wanton injustice! Could they
escape vengeance? No! Jehovah had looked for judgment (_mishpat_), but
behold oppression (_mishpach_); for righteousness (_tse'dakah_), but
behold a cry (_tse'akah_) (v. 1-24).[440] They might escape--they
would escape--the Syrian and the Ephraimite; but behind these lay a
more terrible and a more portentous foe, even the Assyrian, the
scourge of God's wrath (25-30).

"It was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with
Ephraim." Is it strange that in such a condition of things the heart
of Ahaz and of his people "was moved as the trees of the wood are
moved with the wind"?

Such was the terrible crisis at which Isaiah began his ministry. He
was the son of Amoz,[441] who has been (much too precariously)
identified with a brother of Amaziah. It is probable that he was a man
of distinguished, if not princely, birth, and he exercised a more
powerful influence over the politics of his country than any other
prophet--not even excepting Jeremiah.

FOOTNOTES:

[435] Probably a shortened form for Jehoahaz ("The Lord taketh hold").
He is called Jahuhazi in Tiglath-Pileser's inscription (Schrader,
_Keilinschr._, p. 163).

[436] For twenty-five it is not improbable that we should read fifteen.

[437] Isa. iii. 1-12.

[438] In Isa. ii. 2-4 we find, as so often in the prophetic books in
their present too-often-haphazard arrangement, a glowing promise of
universal peace placed before unsparing denunciations. The verses are
also found in Micah (iv. 1, 2), and it has been conjectured that in
both prophets they are a quotation from some older source--perhaps
from Jonah, son of Amittai.

[439] Heb., "deceiving with their eyes."

[440] Isa. v. 7. The paronomasia of the original is striking. Van Oort
renders it, "He looked for _reason_, but behold _treason_; and for
_right_, but behold _affright_."

[441] His name means "Jehovah saves," and is perhaps alluded to in Isa.
viii. 18. Amos ("One who bears a burden"), needless to say, is a totally
different name from that of Amoz ("Vigorous"), the father of Isaiah.




                             CHAPTER XXIII

                           _ISAIAH AND AHAZ_

                              2 KINGS xvi

          "Expediency is man's wisdom; doing right is God's."
                                                  GEORGE MEREDITH.


Isaiah was one of those men whom God provides for the need of
kingdoms. He was not only a prophet, but a statesman, a reformer, a
poet, a man of invincible faith and unequalled insight. If Ahaz had
accepted his counsels and followed his moral guidance, the whole
history of Judah might have been different.

But the position of things was indeed disastrous. Judah was attacked
from every side. On the south-east the Edomites renewed their
devastating raids, and swept off multitudes of captives, who were sold
as slaves in the Western slave-markets. On the south-west the
Philistines once more rose in revolt, and acquired permanent
repossession of many parts of the Shephelah, mastering Beth-Shemesh,
Ajalon, Gederoth, Shocho, Timnath, Gimzo, and all the adjacent
districts. But this was nothing compared with the humiliation and
destruction inflicted by Rezin and Pekah. They shut up Ahaz in
Jerusalem; and though they could not storm its almost impregnable
defences, which had recently been fortified by Uzziah and Jotham, they
were undisputed masters of the rest of the land, so that Judah was
"brought low and made naked."[442] Rezin, indeed, weary of a tedious
siege, swept southwards to Elath, on the gulf of Akabah, seized it, and
peopled it with an Edomite garrison, thereby destroying the commerce in
which Solomon and Jehoshaphat had taken pride, and which Uzziah had
recently re-established. Having thus left an effectual annoyance to
Judah in his rear, he gave up the design of dethroning Ahaz and
substituting in his place "_the son of Tabeal_," who would have been a
tool in the hands of the confederate kings. He seized, however, a
multitude of captives, and with them and with much booty he returned to
Damascus. "The son of Tabeal"--a name which occurs nowhere else--has
been found very puzzling.[443] I believe it to be simply an instance of
the Rabbinic process of transposition, called _Themourah_. Some identify
it with Itibi'alu of an inscription of Tiglath-Pileser. Others suppose
that he was a Syrian, and that Tabeal stands for Tabrimnon. But by the
application of Themourah (called the _Albam_) Tabeal simply gives us
"Remaliah," and is either a scornful variation of the name of Pekah's
father, or has arisen from the watchword of a secret conspiracy. Since
in the text of Jeremiah (li. 41, xxv. 26) (by _Atbash_, another form of
the secret transposition of letters of which the generic name was
_Gematria_) we read _Sheshach_ for Babel, the name Tabeal may have been
dealt with in a similar method.[444] Pekah, according to the Chronicler,
inflicted far deadlier injuries than Rezin. In one day he slew one
hundred and twenty thousand "sons of valour," because they had forsaken
Jehovah, God of their fathers. His general Zichri, a mighty Ephraimite,
slew Maaseiah, the king's son;[445] and Azrikam, the chancellor; and
Elkanah, "the second to the king." The army carried away two hundred
thousand captives and much spoil to Samaria. But on their arrival, a
prophet named Oded[446] reproved the Israelites for having massacred the
Judæans "in a rage that reacheth to heaven." Aided by various princes,
he succeeded in inducing the people to refuse to harbour the captives,
and clothed, fed, and sent them back unharmed to Jericho, mounting the
feeble on horses and asses. The story bears on the face of it the signs
of enormous exaggeration.

In the crisis of their miseries, but just before the siege, Ahaz had
gone outside the city walls "at the end of the conduit of the upper
pool, in the causeway of the fuller's field," probably to look after
the water-supply, which had always been a difficulty for Jerusalem,
and on which depended her capacity to withstand a siege. Here he was
met by the prophet Isaiah, who was leading by the hand the little son
to whom he had given the name of "Shear-jashub" ("A remnant shall
return"),[447] as a witness to the truth of the prophecy which he had
heard on the occasion of his call,--

"And if there should yet be a tenth in it, this shall be again consumed;
yet as the terebinth and the oak, though cut down, have their stock
remaining, even so a sacred seed shall be the stock thereof."[448]

The object of the prophet was to cheer up the fainting heart of the
king, and to say to him first,--

"Take heed, and be quiet."

This mandate probably refers to rumours--which Isaiah must have
heard--of the king's intention to follow the counsels of the party which
urged him to seek foreign assistance. One of these parties advised him
to throw himself into the arms of Egypt, and rely on her protection; the
other gave the more perilous counsel of invoking the aid of Assyria.
Isaiah's mandate to the king and to the nation was to take neither step,
but to trust in the Lord, and to repent of individual and national
misdoing. He summed up his message in the rule,--

"In returning and rest shall ye be saved; in quietness and confidence
shall be your strength."

The advice was emphasised by a promise of the most decisive and
encouraging kind. When all looked so helpless, the prophet was bidden
to say,--

"Fear not, neither be faint-hearted, for these two stumps of smoking
torches, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of Remaliah's
son. They have taken evil counsel against thee. But thus saith the
Lord God, 'It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass. For the
head of Syria is only Rezin, and the head of Samaria is a mere
Remaliah's son.'"[449]

And then, to confirm the lesson of confidence in God, the brief
assurance,--

          "If ye will not confide,
           Surely ye shall not abide."

Convinced of the certainty of this immediate deliverance, Isaiah bade
the king to ask for a sign from Jehovah, either in the height above,
or in the depth beneath.

But the timid and hypocritical king was not so to be influenced. He
had on his side "the scornful men, who ruled Judah"; the mocking
priests, who sneered and jeered at Isaiah's teaching as repetitive and
commonplace, and only fit for children; and the princes and nobles,
who formed the Court party, headed by Shebna the scribe. He probably
looked on Isaiah as a mere unpractical faddist, an excited
fanatic--all very well as a prophet, but not a man who ought to thrust
himself into the plans of politicians. Ahaz had his own plans, and he
had not the smallest intention of altering them in consequence of
anything which Isaiah might say. He was far too timid and unfaithful
to rely on anything so vague as Divine assurance. He was convinced
that his only chance lay in the horses of Egypt or the fierce infantry
of Assyria. So he said with sham piety, merely intended to put the
prophet off, "I will not ask, neither will I tempt Jehovah."

That moment marks what may be called the birth-throe of Messianic
prophecy in its most specific character. For then the prophet, after
reproving the king for wearying Jehovah as well as His servants, adds,
in words of far wider and deeper significance than their immediate
bearing, that Jehovah Himself should give a sign; for the maiden
should conceive and bear a Son, and call His name Immanuel ("God with
us"). The child should grow up in a time of scarcity; for owing to the
devastation of the land, he would only be able to be nurtured on
curdled milk and honey. But before he had reached years of
discretion--before he had arrived at the power of moral choice--the
land whose two kings Ahaz abhorred should be a desert. Yet let not
Ahaz exult too much in the immediate deliverance! Days of unexampled
misery were at hand. Jehovah should hiss for the fly from the farthest
canals of Egypt, and for the bee of Assyria, and they should settle in
swarms in the valleys and pastures. Ahaz--he had not alluded to the
design, but Isaiah knew it well--was about to hire a razor from beyond
the Euphrates, but that razor should sweep away the hair and beard of
Judah. Agriculture should languish, and the people should only be able
to live in privation on whey and honey; and the vineyards should be
full of briers and thorns, and should be mere places for hunting.[450]

This event, therefore, as Caspari says, stands at the turning-point of
Old Testament History. It marks the beginning of that second period of
the History of the Chosen People in which their hopes were granted as
a counterpoise to their anguish and their humiliation. "It stood,
therefore, at the point where a prospect offered itself to the eye of
the prophet which reached out over the whole development of the people
of God."

To all such prophecies Ahaz was utterly deaf: they did not for a
moment induce him to swerve from his purpose. But to call still
further attention to his promise as the Syrian Ephraimitish host
pressed forward, Isaiah took a great piece of vellum, and inscribed on
it, in the ordinary characters,--

          "SPEED-PLUNDER-HASTE-SPOIL."

He put it up in some conspicuous place, before his own house or in the
Temple, and took the priest Urijah and Zechariah, the son of
Jeberechiah, into his confidence as faithful witnesses. He told them the
explanation of his sign, and they would satisfy the curiosity of the
people on the subject. It meant that in nine months' time his wife
should bear a son, and that he and his wife, the prophetess, would call
the boy's name "Speed-plunder-haste-spoil," as a sign that before the
child was able to say "Father" or "Mother" Rezin and Pekah should be
extinguished. For the Assyrian should speed to the plunder and haste to
the spoil, and the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria should be
carried away by the King of Assyria. Since Judah despised "the soft
flowing waters of Shiloah,"[451] and preferred Rezin and Pekah,[452]
they should be deluged by the Euphrates of Assyria, and Assyria's
outspread wings should overshadow thy land, O Immanuel (viii. 1-8). How
vain, then, of the people to try and meet the confederacy of Syria and
Ephraim by new confederacy of Judah with Assyria! This, after all, is
Immanuel's land. God is with us. We have but to fear God, we have but to
be faithful to duty, and Jehovah shall be our sanctuary, though He be a
stumbling-block to many in Israel, and a snare to many in
Jerusalem.[453] This is God's teaching and God's testimony, and Isaiah
and his children are signs of it. For does not Isaiah mean "Salvation of
Jehovah"; and Shear-jashub, "A remnant shall return"; and
Maher-shalal-hash-baz, "Swift-spoil-speedy-prey"; and Immanuel, "God is
with us"? What need, then, to seek wizards and necromancers? Seek God;
confide, abide![454] Trouble and darkness there should be; but all was
not utterly hopeless. Northern Israel had been bedimmed and afflicted;
but soon they should be exalted, and see light, and their yoke be broken
as in the day of Midian, and the trampling boot and blood-stained mantle
of the warrior shall be burned in the fire: for a Child is born, a Son
is given unto us of David's line, who shall be a Mighty Deliverer, a
Prince of Peace,--and Israel shall perish.

FOOTNOTES:

[442] 2 Chron. xxviii. 19.

[443] It may mean "God is good" (Tabeel).

[444] For further explanations I must refer to my paper on Rabbinic
Exegesis (_Expositor_, First Series, v. 373).

[445] 2 Chron. xxviii. 7.

[446] Of Oded nothing else is known.

[447] Some, however, interpret the name "A remnant repents" (LXX., ὁ
καταλειφθεὶς Ἰασούβ; Vulg., _Qui derelictus est Jaseb_).

[448] Isa. vi. 13.

[449] The words "And within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be
broken, that it be not a people" (Isa. vii. 8), are almost certainly
an interpolation: for (1) the overthrow came within far less than
sixty years; (2) the clause awkwardly breaks the context; (3) the
"sixty years" is inconsistent with the promise (vii. 16) that it
should be within very few years.

[450] Isa. vii. 1-25.

[451] Not improbably the water which afterwards flowed through
Hezekiah's new tunnel between the Virgin's Tomb and the Pool of
Siloam. It is referred to in 2 Chron. xxxii. 3, 30 (Isa. xxii. 9-11).
See Appendix II.

[452] This, if it be correct, can only mean that the son of Tabeal had
a party in Jerusalem; but Hitzig renders it "_dreadeth_," not
"rejoiceth in."

[453] The meaning is by no means clear.

[454] See Driver, _Isaiah_, p. 34.




                              CHAPTER XXIV

                        _THE APOSTASIES OF AHAZ_

                           2 KINGS xvi. 1-18

          "For when we in our wickedness grow hard,
           Oh misery on't! the wise gods seal our eyes;
           In our own filth drop our clear judgments; make us
           Adore our errors; laugh at us while we strut
           To our confusion."


Ahaz was indifferent to these prophecies because his heart was
otherwhere. It is clear from our authorities that this king had excited
an unusually deep antipathy in the hearts of those later writers who
judged religion not only from the earlier standpoint, but from the stern
and inexorable requirements of the Deuteronomic and the Priestly Codes.
The historian, adopting an unusual phrase, says that "he did not that
which was right in the sight of the Lord, but he walked in the ways of
the kings of Israel." He not only continued the high places, as the best
of his predecessors had done, but he increased their popularity and
importance by personally offering sacrifices and burning incense "on the
hills and under every green tree." It is probable, too, that he
introduced into Judah horses and chariots dedicated to the sun.[455] "He
made molten images for the Baalim," says the Chronicler, "and burnt
incense in the valley of the son of Himmon."

This last was his crowning atrocity: he actually sanctioned the
revolting worship of the abomination of the children of Ammon, which
Solomon had tolerated on the mount of offence. "He made his son to
pass through the fire." The Chronicler expresses it still more
dreadfully by saying that "he _burnt his children_ in the fire."[456]

In the Valley of Ben-Hinnom, or of the Benî-Hinnom, of which the name
is perpetuated in Gehenna, the place of torture for lost souls, there
stood a frightful image of the king--Moloch, Melek, Malcham. It
represented the sun-god, worshipped, not only as Baal under the
emblems of prolific nature, but, like the Egyptian Typhon, as the
emblem of the sun's scorching and blighting force. It was perhaps a
human figure with the head of an ox. The arms of the brazen image
sloped downwards over a cistern, which was filled with fuel; and when
a human sacrifice was to be offered to him, the child was probably
first killed, and then placed on these brazen arms as a gift to the
idol. It rolled down into the flaming tank, and was consumed amid the
strains of music. Recourse was only had to the most frightful form of
human sacrifice--the burning of grown-up victims--in extremities of
disaster, as when Mesha of Moab offered up his eldest son to Chemosh
on the wall of Kir-Hareseth in the sight of his people and of the
three invading armies. But the sacrifice of children was public, and
perhaps annual. Hence Milton, following the learned researches of
Selden in his Syntagma _De Dis Syriis_, writes:--

          "First, Moloch, horrid king, besmeared with blood
           Of human sacrifice, and parents' tears;
           Though, for the noise of drums and timbrels loud,
           Their children's cries unheard that pass'd through fire
           To his grim idol. Him the Ammonite
           Worshipp'd in Rabba and her watery plain,
           In Argob and in Basan, to the stream
           Of utmost Arnon. Nor content with such
           Audacious neighbourhood, the wisest heart
           Of Solomon he led by fraud to build
           His temple right against the Temple of God
           On that opprobrious hill, and made his grove
           The pleasant Valley of Hinnom, Tophet thence
           And black Gehenna call'd, the type of hell."[457]

But it may be doubted whether Ahaz, in spite of his frightful
position, or, in later days, the less excusable Manasseh, really
destroyed the lives of their young sons.[458] The ancients had a
notion that they could easily cheat their devil-deities. If a white ox
of Clitumnus became unfitted for a victim to Jupiter of the Capitol by
having on its body a few black spots, it was quite sufficient to make
it pass with the _Dî faciles_ by chalking the black spots over
it.[459] If human victims had to be thrown into the Tiber to Hercules,
Numa taught the people that little wickerwork images (_scirpea_) would
suit the purpose just as well.[460] Figures of dough were sometimes
offered instead of human beings on the altar of Artemis of Tauris.
Thus it became the custom, it is believed, merely to throw or to pass
children through or over the flames, and conventionally to _regard
them_ as having been sacrificed, though they might escape the ordeal
with little or no hurt. This was called _februatio_, or "lustration by
fire."[461] We may hope that this device was adopted by the two Judæan
kings, and, if so, they did not add to their horrible apostasy the
crime of infanticide. If, however, Ahaz was even to the smallest
extent implicated in such foul idolatries, it is not surprising that
he was in no mood to listen to Isaiah. What is profoundly surprising,
and is indeed a circumstance for which we cannot account, is that no
word of fierce indignation was addressed to him on this account by
Urijah, the high priest, whom Isaiah seems to describe as faithful, or
by Zechariah, the son of Jeberechiah, or by Micah, or by Isaiah, who
feared man so little and God so much.

The Assyrian party at the Court of Ahaz prevailed over the Egyptian.
Until the accession of the Ethiopian Sabaco[462] in 725, Egypt was
indeed in so weak, harassed, and divided a condition under feeble
native Pharaohs, that her help was obviously unavailable. The King of
Judah, seeing no extrication from his calamities except in the way of
worldly expediency, appealed to Tiglath-Pileser. In this he followed
the precedent of his ancestor Asa, who had diverted the attack of
Baasha by invoking the assistance of Syria. Ahaz sent to the Assyrian
potentate the humble message, "I am thy servant and thy son: come up
and save me from the Kings of Syria and Israel." If he had not faith
to accept Isaiah's promises, what else could he do, when Syria,
Israel, the Philistines, Edom, and Moab were all arrayed against him?
The ambassadors probably made their way, not without peril, along the
east of Jordan, or else by sea from Joppa, and so inland. Whether they
took with them the enormous bribe without which the appeal of the
helpless king might have been in vain, or whether this was sent
subsequently under Assyrian escort, we do not know. It was
euphemistically described as "a present" or "a blessing," but must be
regarded either as a tribute or a bribe.

Tiglath-Pileser II. saw his opportunity, and at once invaded Damascus.
In B.C. 733 he failed, but the next year he entirely subjugated the
kingdom, and put an end to the dynasty. Rezin was probably put to death
with the horrible barbarities which were normal among the brutal
Ninevites; and as the Assyrians had no conception of colonisation or the
wise government of dependencies, the Syrian population was deported _en
masse_ to Elam and an unknown Kir.[463] For a time Damascus was made "a
ruinous heap," and the cities of Aroer were the desolated lairs of
pasturing flocks. Israel, as we have seen, was next overwhelmed by the
same irremediable catastrophe, none of her people being left except such
as might be compared to the mere gleanings of a vintage, and the few
berries on the topmost boughs of the olive tree.[464]

Tiglath-Pileser meant to make Ahaz feel his yoke. He summoned him to
do homage at Damascus, and there Ahaz once more displayed his
cosmopolitan æstheticism at the expense of every pure tradition of the
religion of his fathers.

His visit to Damascus was no doubt compulsory. His worldly policy,
which looked so expedient, and which--apart from the defiance which it
involved to the voice of God by His prophets--seemed to be so
pardonable, had for the time succeeded. Isaiah's promises had been
fulfilled to the letter. There was nothing more to fear either from
Rezin or from Remaliah's son. Their kingdoms were a desolation. In his
own annals Tiglath-Pileser[465] does not exaggerate his
achievements.[466] He wrote as follows:--

  "Rezin's warriors I captured, and with the sword I destroyed.
   Of his charioteers and [his horsemen] the arms I broke:
   Their bow-bearing warriors, [their footmen] armed with spear and
         shield,
   With my hand I captured them, and those that fought in their
         battle-line.
   He to save his life fled away alone;
   Like a deer [he ran], and entered into the great gate of his city.
   His generals, whom I had taken alive, on crosses I hung;
   His country I subdued;
   Damascus, his city, I subdued, and like a caged bird I shut him in.
   I cut down the unnumbered trees of his forest; I left not one.
   Hadara, the palace of the father of Rezin of Syria, [I burnt].
   The city of Samaria I besieged, I captured; eight hundred of its
         people and children I took;
   Their oxen and their sheep I carried away.
   I took five hundred and ninety-one cities;
   Over sixteen districts of Syria like a flood I swept."

But the more complete destruction of Israel was due to Shalmaneser
IV., who says,--

  "The city of Samaria I besieged, I took,
   I carried away twenty-seven thousand two hundred of its inhabitants;
   I seized fifty of their chariots.
   I gave up to plunder the rest of their possessions.
   I appointed officers over them;
   I laid on them the tribute of the former king.
   In their place I settled the men of conquered countries."

The immediate service to Judah looked immense. The Assyrian might safely
claim, and Ahaz might truthfully confess, that the intervention of
Tiglath-Pileser had rescued him from the apparent imminence of
destruction. But the Assyrian kings served no one for nothing. The price
which had to be paid for Tiglath-Pileser's intervention was vassalage
and tribute. Ahaz, or, as the Assyrians call him, Jehoahaz,[467] had
styled himself Tiglath-Pileser's "servant and his son," and the Assyrian
chose to have substantial proof of this parental suzerainty. The great
king therefore summoned the poor subject-potentate to Damascus, where he
was holding his victorious court.

So far Ahaz had no reason to complain of his "dreadful patron"; and if
he had returned when he paid his homage, no immediate harm would have
happened. But during his visit he saw "the altar" (_Heb._) at the
conquered city. Was it the altar of the defeated Syrian god Rimmon? or
did the Assyrian persuade his willing vassal to sacrifice at the
portable altar of his god Assur? We may, perhaps, infer the former
from 2 Chron. xxviii. 23, where Ahaz says: "Because the gods of the
kings of Syria help them, therefore will I sacrifice to them, that
they may help me." There is room to suspect some error here, because
Rezin had fallen, and Damascus was in ruins, and Rimmon had
conspicuously failed to help or to avenge his votaries.[468] Ahaz
admired the altar, to whatever god it had been erected; and unmindful,
or perhaps unconscious, that the altar of the Temple of Jerusalem was
declared in the Pentateuch to have been divinely ordained--a fact to
which the historian does not himself refer--he sent to the head priest
Urijah a pattern of the altar which had struck his fancy at Damascus.
The subservient priest, without a murmur or a remonstrance, undertook
to have a similar altar ready for Ahaz in the Temple by the time of
his return--a crime, if crime it were, which the Chronicler conceals.
"Never any prince was so foully idolatrous," says Bishop Hall, "as
that he wanted a priest to second him. A Urijah is fit to humour an
Ahaz.[469] Greatness could never command anything which some servile
wits were not ready both to applaud and justify." Certainly we should
have hoped for more fidelity to ancient tradition from a man who
earned the approving word of Isaiah; but it is only fair and just to
admit that Urijah, in the universal ignorance which prevailed about
the codes which were afterwards collected and published as the total
legislation of the wilderness, may have viewed his obedience to the
king's commands with very different eyes from those by which it was
regarded in the sixth and fifth centuries before Christ. He may have
been frankly unaware that he was guilty of an act which would
afterwards be denounced as an apostatising enormity.[470]

When Ahaz returned, he was so much pleased with his new plaything that
he at once acted as priest at his own new altar. Without the least
opposition from the priests--who had so sternly resisted Uzziah--he
offered burnt-offerings and meat-offerings and drink-offerings, and
sprinkled the blood of peace-offerings on his altar.[471] Not content
with this, he did not hesitate to order the removal of the huge brazen
altar from the position, in front of the Temple porch, which it had
held since the days of Solomon. He did this in order that his own
favourite altar might be in the line of vision from the court, and not
be overshadowed by the old one, which he shifted from the place of
honour to the north side. He proceeded to call his own altar "the
great altar," and ordered that the morning burnt-offering, and the
evening _minchah_, and all the principal sacrifices should henceforth
be offered upon it.[472] He did not wholly supersede the old brazen
altar, which, he said, "shall be for me to inquire by," or, as the
Hebrew may perhaps mean, "it should await"--_i.e._, "I will hereafter
consider what to do with it."

Ahaz is charged with the additional crime of removing the ornamental
festoons of bronze pomegranates from the lavers, and the brazen oxen
from under the molten sea, which henceforth lay dishonoured, without its
proper and splendid supports, on the pavement of the court.[473] He
also took away the balustrade of the royal "ascent" from the palace to
the Temple, and made a new entrance of a less gorgeous character than
that which, in the days of Solomon, the Queen of Sheba had admired.[474]

No doubt these proceedings helped to heighten the unpopularity of
Ahaz. But what could he do? He could, indeed, if he had had sufficient
faith, have "trusted in Jehovah," as Isaiah bade him do. But he was
under the terrific pressure of hostile circumstances, and, being a
weak and timid man, felt himself unable to resist the influence of the
haughty politicians and worldly priests by whom he was surrounded--men
who openly made Isaiah their scoff. When he invited the interposition
of Tiglath-Pileser,[475] all the other consequences of humiliation
would naturally follow. He probably disliked as much as any one to see
the great molten laver taken off the backs of the oxen which showed
the skill of the ancient Hiram, and did not admire the despoiled
aspect of the shrine of his capital. But if the King of Assyria or his
emissaries had (as the historian implies) cast greedy eyes on these
splendid objects of antiquity, the poor vassal could not refuse them.
Better, he may have thought, that these material ornaments should go
to Nineveh than that he should be forced to exact yet heavier burdens
from an impoverished people. His expedient is mentioned among his
crimes, yet no one blamed the pious Hezekiah when, under similar
circumstances, he acted in precisely the same manner.[476]

The Chronicler gives a darker aspect to his misdoings by saying that
he cut to pieces the vessels of the house of God, and made him altars
in every corner of Jerusalem, and _bamoth_ to burn incense unto other
gods in every several city of Judah. He says, further, that he closed
the great gates of the Temple; put an end to the kindling of the
lamps, the burning of incense, and the daily offerings; and left the
whole Temple to fall into ruin and neglect.[477] We know no more of
him. He lived through an epoch marked by the final crisis in the
existence of the kingdom of Israel. Dark omens of every kind were
around him, and he seems to have been too frivolous to see them. If he
plumed himself on the removal of the two relentless invaders Rezin and
Pekah, he must have lived to feel that the terror of Assyria had come
appreciably nearer. Tiglath-Pileser had only helped Judah in
furtherance of his own designs, and his exactions came like a chronic
distress after the acuter crisis. Nor was there any improvement when
he died in 727. He was succeeded by Shalmaneser IV., and Shalmaneser
IV. by Sargon in 722, the year of the fall of Samaria. We know no more
of Ahaz. The historian says that he was buried with his fathers, and
the Chronicler adds, as in the case of Uzziah and other kings, that
he was not permitted to rest in the sepulchres of the kings.[478] He
had sown the wind; his son Hezekiah had to reap the whirlwind.[479]

FOOTNOTES:

[455] See 2 Kings xxiii. 11, which shows that this was not an innovation
of Manasseh's. They were common in Persia. See Q. Curtius, iii. 3.

[456] 2 Kings xvii. 31; Ezek. xvi. 21, xxiii. 37, xxxiii. 6; Deut.
xii. 31; Jer. xix. 5. See 2 Chron. xxviii. 3; for "his son," בְּנוֹ,
it uses בָּנָיו "his sons," but perhaps generically. Moloch-worship
may have been stimulated by accounts of the Assyrian fire-god
Adrammelech (Movers, _Phöniz._, ii. 101). On this sacrifice of
children to Moloch, which the Phœnicians referred back to the god El
or Il, once King of Byblos, who in a crisis of danger sacrificed his
eldest son Icond, see Plut., _De Superst._, § 13; Diod. Sic., xx.
12-14; 2 Kings iii. 27, xvi. 3, xxi. 6; Mic. vi. 7; Döllinger,
_Judenthum u. Heidenthum_ (E. T.), i. 427-429.

[457] This worship was to be punished by stoning (Lev. xviii. 21, xx.
2-5; Deut. xviii. 10). On the whole subject see Movers, _Phöniz._, 64;
Jarchi _on Jer. vii._ 31; Euseb., _Præp. Ev._, iv. 16.

[458] Josephus says that Ahaz made "a whole burnt-offering" of his
son; but his authority is very small (καὶ ἴδιον ὡλοκαύτωσεν παῖδα).
Comp. Psalm cvi. 37.

[459] Ignorant Romanists have often cherished the same notions about
the saints. For centuries in Spain the people bought the old gowns and
cowls of the monks, and buried their dead in them, to deceive St.
Peter into the notion that they were Dominicans or Franciscans!

[460] See Ovid, _Fasti_, v. 659: "Scripea pro domino Tiberi jactatur
imago." They were also called _Argei_, _id._ 621; Varro, _L. L._, vi. 3.

[461] Varro, _L. L._, v. 3.

[462] Herod., ii. 137. Egypt., _Sebek_; Heb., _So_ (2 Kings xvii. 4),
or perhaps _Seve_; Arab., _Shab'i_. Rawlinson, _Hist. of Anct. Egypt_,
ii. 433-450.

[463] Kir (see Amos ix. 7) is omitted in the LXX. Elam is added in Isa.
xxii. 6. Tiglath-Pileser calls the king Rasunnu Sarimirisu--_i.e._, of
Aram. See Smith, _Assyr. Discoveries_, p. 274; _Eponym Canon_, 68;
Schrader, _K. A. T._, 152 ff.

[464] Isa. xvii. 1-11.

[465] The name seems to be Tuklat-abal-isarra,--according to Oppert
worshipper of the son of the Zodiac--_i.e._, of Nin or Hercules.
According to Polyhistor, he was a usurper who had been a vine-dresser
in the royal gardens. He never mentions his ancestry. But see
Schrader, _K. A. T._, 217 ff., 240 ff., and in Riehm.

[466] _Eponym Canon_, p. 121, lines 1-15. On this fall of Damascus and
Samaria, see Isa. xvii.

[467] Jahuhazi (Schrader, _Keilinschr._, p. 263). He probably bore
both names; but, as in the case of Jeconiah, who is called Coniah, the
omission of the element "Jehovah" from his name may have been intended
as a mark of reprobation.

[468] The remark may refer to some earlier period in the reign of
Ahaz, before the capture of Damascus. It is more probable that the
altar was used for some Assyrian deity, and the adoption of it may
have flattered Tiglath-Pileser.

[469] 2 Kings xvi. 11, which records the zealous subservience of Urijah,
is wanting in some MSS. of the LXX. But that the altar was made, and
without his opposition, is clear from the narrative. Asa (2 Chron. xv.
8) had repaired Solomon's great altar; Hezekiah subsequently cleansed it
(_id._ xxix. 18); Manasseh rebuilt it (_Q'ri_). The brass of it
ultimately went to Babylon (Jer. lii. 17-20).

[470] Bähr says: "It seems that Urijah, like his companion, was only
anxious for his revenues. At any rate, his conduct is a sign of the
character and standing of the priests of that time. They were 'dumb
dogs who could not bark.' They all followed their own ways, every one
for his own gain" (Isa. lvi. 10, 11). "We have in this high priest,"
says the _Würtemberg Summary_, "a specimen of those hypocrites and
belly-servants who say, 'Whose bread I eat, his song I sing'; who veer
about with the wind, and seek to be pleasant to all men; who wish to
hurt no one's feelings, but teach just what any one wants to hear."

[471] 1 Kings viii. 64; 2 Chron. iv. 1. In this and similar instances
commentators, biassed by _a priori_ considerations, have imagined that
Ahaz did not in person offer sacrifices. But this is what the text says,
and it was the custom of kings to regard themselves as invested with
Divine attributes. Ahaz may have had this lesson impressed on his mind
by his visit to Tiglath-Pileser. See Grätz, _Gesch. der Juden._, ii.
150. Layard, _Nin. and Bab._, 472 ff., gives us pictures of Assyrian
kings ministering at their altars, which are of various shapes.

[472] 2 Kings xvi. 15. Vulg., _paratum erit ad voluntatem meam_. The
LXX. followed another reading: ἔσται μοὶ εἰς τὸ πρωί. Grätz (ii. 150),
for לכקר, "to inquire," reads לקרב "to draw near to."

[473] 1 Kings vii. 23-39.

[474] 2 Kings xvi. 18. The allusions are obscure. R.V., "the covered
way"; A.V., "the covert for the Sabbath." See 2 Chron. ix. 4. Here the
Hebr. _Q'ri_ has _Mûsak_, and the Vulg. _Musach Sabbati_. The LXX.
evidently did not understand it (καὶ τὸν θεμέλιον τῆς καθέδρας
ᾠκοδόμησεν). For "covert for the Sabbath," Geiger suggests "molten
images for the Shame" (Bosheth-Baal, by transposition of _Shabbath_).
Comp. 2 Chron. xxviii. 2.

[475] 2 Chron. xxviii. 20: "Tiglath-Pileser came unto him, and
distressed him, but helped him not."

[476] 2 Kings xviii. 15, 16.

[477] In justice to Ahaz, we should observe that (1) in every instance
the later account multiplies and magnifies and gives a darker
colouring to his offences; (2) that neither Isaiah, Micah, nor any
other prophet has a word of reproach for such enormities in Ahaz.

[478] It is a Jewish tradition that Hezekiah would not bury his father
Ahaz in a sarcophagus, but on a bier (_Pesachin_, f. 56, 1;
_Sanhedrin_, f. 47, 1; Grätz, _Gesch. d. Juden._, ii, 224).

[479] His name, _Chizquîyyah_, is shortened from _Yechizquîyyahoo_
(Isa. i. 1; 2 Kings xx. 10; Hos. i. 1). It means "Jehovah's strength"
(_Gesen._), or "Yah is might" (_Fûrst_).




                            PROBABLE DATES.


    B.C.

    745. Accession of Tiglath-Pileser.

    746. Death of Uzziah. Accession of Jotham. First vision of Isaiah
    (Isa. vi.).

    735. Accession of Ahaz. Syro-Ephraimitish war.

    734-732. Siege and capture of Damascus, and ravage of Northern
    Israel by Tiglath-Pileser. Visit of Ahaz to Damascus.

    727. Accession of Shalmaneser IV.

    722. Accession of Sargon. Capture of Samaria, and captivity of the
    Ten Tribes.

    720. Defeat of Sabaco by Sargon at Raphia.

    715(?). Accession of Hezekiah.

    711. Sargon captures Ashdod.

    707. Sargon defeats Merodach-Baladan, and captures Babylon.

    705. Murder of Sargon. Accession of Sennacherib.

    701. Sennacherib besieges Ekron. Defeats Egypt at Altaqu. Invades
    Judah, and spares Hezekiah. Invades Egypt, and sends the Rabshakeh
    to Jerusalem. Disaster of Assyrians at Pelusium, and disappearance
    from before Jerusalem.

    697. Death of Hezekiah. Accession of Manasseh.

    681. Death of Sennacherib.

    608. Battle of Megiddo. Death of Josiah.

    607. Fall of Nineveh and Assyria. Triumph of Babylon.

    605. Battle of Carchemish. Defeat of Pharaoh Necho by
    Nebuchadrezzar.

    599. First deportation of Jews to Babylon by Nebuchadrezzar.

    588. Destruction of Jerusalem. Second deportation.

    538. Cyrus captures Babylon.

    536. Decree of Cyrus. Return of Zerubbabel and the first Jewish
    exiles.

    458. Return of Ezra.




                              CHAPTER XXV

                               _HEZEKIAH_

                            B.C. 715-686[480]

                             2 KINGS xviii

    "For Ezekias had done the thing that pleased the Lord, and was
    strong in the ways of David his father, as Esay the prophet, who
    was great and faithful in his vision, had commanded him,"--ECCLUS.
    xlviii. 22.


The reign of Hezekiah was epoch-making in many respects, but especially
for its religious reformation, and the relations of Judah with Assyria
and with Babylon. It is also most closely interwoven with the annals of
Hebrew prophecy, and acquires unwonted lustre from the magnificent
activity and impassioned eloquence of the great prophet Isaiah, who
merits in many ways the title of "the Evangelical Prophet," and who was
the greatest of the prophets of the Old Dispensation.

According to the notice in 2 Kings xviii. 2, Hezekiah was twenty-five
years old when he began to reign in the third year of Hoshea of
Israel. This, however, is practically impossible consistently with the
dates that Ahaz reigned sixteen years and became king at the age of
twenty, for it would then follow that Hezekiah was born when his
father was a mere boy--and this, although Hezekiah does not seem to
have been the eldest son; for Ahaz had burnt "his son," and, according
to the Chronicler, more than one son, to propitiate Moloch. Probably
Hezekiah was a boy of fifteen when he began to reign. The chronology
of his reign of twenty-nine years is, unhappily, much confused.

The historian of the Kings agrees with the Chronicler, and the son of
Sirach, in pronouncing upon him a high eulogy, and making him equal
even to David in faithfulness. There is, however, much difference in
the method of their descriptions of his doings. The historian devotes
but one verse to his reformation--which probably began early in his
reign, though it occupied many years. The Chronicler, on the other
hand, in his three chapters manages to overlook, if not to suppress,
the one incident of the reformation which is of the deepest interest.
It is exactly one of those suppressions which help to create the deep
misgiving as to the historic exactness of this biassed and late
historian. It must be regarded as doubtful whether many of the Levitic
details in which he revels are or are not intended to be literally
historic. Imaginative additions to literal history became common among
the Jews after the Exile, and leaders of that day instinctively drew
the line between moral homiletics and literal history. It may be
perfectly historical that, as the Chronicler says, Hezekiah opened and
repaired the Temple; gathered the priests and the Levites together,
and made them cleanse themselves; offered a solemn sacrifice;
reappointed the musical services; and--though this can hardly have
been till after the Fall of Samaria in 722--invited all the Israelites
to a solemn, but in some respects irregular, passover of fourteen
days. It may be true also that he broke up the idolatrous altars in
Jerusalem, and tossed their _débris_ into the Kidron; and (again after
the deportation of Israel) destroyed some of the _bamoth_ in Israel as
well as in Judah. If he reinstituted the courses of the priests, the
collection of tithes, and all else that he is said to have done,[481]
he accomplished quite as much as was effected in the reign of his
great-grandson Josiah. But while the Chronicler dwells on all this at
such length, what induces him to omit the most significant fact of
all--the destruction of the brazen serpent?

The historian tells us that Hezekiah "removed the _bamoth_"--the
chapels on the high places, with their ephods and teraphim--whether
dedicated to the worship of Jehovah or profaned by alien idolatry.
That he did, or attempted, something of this kind seems certain; for
the Rabshakeh, if we regard his speech as historical in its details,
actually taunted him with impiety, and threatened him with the wrath
of Jehovah on this very account. Yet here we are at once met with the
many difficulties with which the history of Israel abounds, and which
remind us at every turn that we know much less about the inner life
and religious conditions of the Hebrews than we might infer from a
superficial study of the historians who wrote so many centuries after
the events which they describe. Over and over again their incidental
notices reveal a condition of society and worship which violently
collides with what seems to be their general estimate. Who, for
instance, would not infer from this notice that in Judah, at any rate,
the king's suppression of the "high places," and above all of those
which were idolatrous, had been tolerably thorough? How much, then,
are we amazed to find that Hezekiah had not effectually desecrated
even the old shrines which Solomon had erected to Ashtoreth, Chemosh,
and Milcom[482] "at the right hand of the mount of corruption"--in
other words, on one of the peaks of the Mount of Olives, in full view
of the walls of Jerusalem and of the Temple Hill!

"And he brake the images," or, as the R.V. more correctly renders it,
"the pillars," the _matstseboth_. Originally--that is, before the
appearance of the Deuteronomic and the Priestly Codes--no objection
seems to have been felt to the erection of a _matstsebah_. Jacob erected
one of these _baitulia_ or anointed stones at Bethel, with every sign of
Divine approval.[483] Moses erected twelve round his altar at
Sinai.[484] Joshua erected them in Shechem and on Mount Ebal. Hosea, in
one passage (iii. 4), seems to mention pillars, ephods, and teraphim as
legitimate objects of desire. Whether they have any relation to
obelisks, and what is their exact significance, is uncertain; but they
had become objects of just suspicion in the universal tendency to
idolatry, and in the deepening conviction that the second commandment
required a far more rigid adherence than it had hitherto received.

"And cut down the groves"--or rather the Asherim, the wooden, and
probably in some instances phallic, emblems of the nature-goddess
Asherah, the goddess of fertility.[485] She is sometimes identified with
Astarte, the goddess of the moon and of love; but there is no
sufficient ground for the identification. Some, indeed, doubt whether
Asherah is the name of a goddess at all. They suppose that the word only
means a consecrated pole or pillar, emblematic of the sacred tree.[486]

Then comes the startling addition, "And brake in pieces the brazen
serpent that Moses had made: _for unto those days the children of
Israel did burn incense to it_." This addition is all the more
singular because the Hebrew tense implies habitual worship. The story
of the brazen serpent of the wilderness is told in Num. xxi. 9; but
not an allusion to it occurs anywhere, till now--some eight centuries
later--we are told that up to this time the children of Israel had
been in the habit of burning incense to it! Comparing Num. xxi. 4,
with xxxiii. 42, we find that the scene of the serpent-plague of the
Exodus was either Zalmonah ("the place of the image") or Punon, which
Bochart connects with Phainoi, a place mentioned as famous for
copper-mines.[487] Moses, for unknown reasons, chose it as an innocent
and potent symbol; but obviously in later days it subserved, or was
mingled with, the tendency to ophiolatry, which has been fatally
common in all ages in many heathen lands. It is indeed most difficult
to understand a state of things in which the children of Israel
habitually _burned incense_ to this venerable relic, nor can we
imagine that this was done without the cognisance and connivance of
the priests. Ewald makes the conjecture that the brazen _Saraph_ had
been left at Zalmonah, and was an occasional object of Israelite
adoration in pilgrimage for the purpose. There is, however, nothing
more extraordinary in the prevalence of serpent-worship among the Jews
than in the fact that, "in the cities of Judah and the streets of
Jerusalem, we" (the Jews), "and our fathers, our kings, and our
princes, burnt incense unto the Queen of Heaven."[488] If this were
the case, the serpent may have been brought to Jerusalem in the
idolatrous reign of Ahaz. It shows an intensity of reforming zeal, and
an inspired insight into the reality of things, that Hezekiah should
not have hesitated to smash to pieces so interesting a relic of the
oldest history of his people, rather than see it abused to idolatrous
purposes.[489] Certainly, in conduct so heroic, and hatred of idolatry
so strong, the Puritans might well find sufficient authority for
removing from Westminster Abbey the images of the Virgin, which, in
their opinion, had been worshipped, and before which lamps had been
perpetually burned. If we can imagine an English king breaking to
pieces the shrine of the Confessor in the Abbey, or a French king
destroying the sacred ampulla of Rheims or the _goupillon_ of St.
Eligius, on the ground that many regarded them with superstitious
reverence, we may measure the effect produced by this startling act of
Puritan zeal on the part of Hezekiah.

"And he called it _Nehushtan_." If this rendering--in which our A.V. and
R.V. follow the LXX. and the Vulgate--be correct, Hezekiah justified the
iconoclasm by a brilliant play of words.[490] The Hebrew words for "a
serpent" (_nachash_) and for brass (_nechosheth_) are closely akin to
each other; and the king showed his just estimate of the relic which had
been so shamefully abused by contemptuously designating it--as it was in
itself and apart from its sacred historic associations--"nehushtan," a
thing of brass. The rendering, however, is uncertain, for the phrase may
be impersonal--"one" or "they" called it Nehushtan[491]--in which case
the assonance had lost any ironic connotation.[492]

For this act of purity of worship, and for other reasons, the
historian calls Hezekiah the best of all the kings of Judah, superior
alike to all his predecessors and all his successors. He regarded him
as coming up to the Deuteronomic ideal, and says that therefore "the
Lord was with him, and he prospered whithersoever he went forth."

The date of this great reformation is rendered uncertain by the
impossibility of ascertaining the exact order of Isaiah's prophecies.
The most probable view is that it was gradual, and some of the king's
most effective measures may not have been carried out till after the
deliverance from Assyria. It is clear, however, that the wisdom of
Hezekiah and his counsellors began from the first to uplift Judah from
the degradation and decrepitude to which it had sunk under the reign of
Ahaz. The boy-king found a wretched state of affairs at his accession.
His father had bequeathed to him "an empty treasury, a ruined peasantry,
an unprotected frontier, and a shattered army";[493] but although he was
still the vassal of Assyria, he reverted to the ideas of his
great-grandfather Uzziah. He strengthened the city, and enabled it to
stand a siege by improving the water-supply. Of these labours we have,
in all probability, a most interesting confirmation in the inscription
by Hezekiah's engineers, discovered in 1880, on the rocky walls of the
subterranean tunnel (_siloh_) between the spring of Gihon and the Pool
of Siloam.[494] He encouraged agriculture, the storage of produce, and
the proper tendance of flocks and herds, so that he acquired wealth
which dimly reminded men of the days of Solomon.

There is little doubt that he early meditated revolt from Assyria; for
renewed faithfulness to Jehovah had elevated the moral tone, and
therefore the courage and hopefulness, of the whole people. The
Forty-Sixth Psalm, whatever may be its date, expresses the invincible
spirit of a nation which in its penitence and self-purification began
to feel itself irresistible, and could sing:--

          "God is our hope and strength,
           A very present help in trouble.
           Therefore will we not fear, though the earth be moved,
           Though the hills be carried into the midst of the sea.
           There is a river, the streams whereof make glad the city of
                 God,
           The Holy City where dwells the Most High.
           God is in the midst of her; therefore shall she not be
                 shaken:
           God shall help her, and that right early.
           Heathens raged and kingdoms trembled:
           He lifted His voice--the earth melted away.
           Jehovah of Hosts is with us;
           Elohim of Jacob is our refuge."[495]

It was no doubt the spirit of renewed confidence which led Hezekiah to
undertake his one military enterprise--the chastisement of the
long-troublesome Philistines. He was entirely successful. He not only
won back the cities which his father had lost,[496] but he also
dispossessed them of their own cities, even unto Gaza, which was their
southernmost possession--"from the tower of the watchman to the fenced
city."[497] There can be no doubt that this act involved an almost open
defiance of the Assyrian King; but if Hezekiah dreamed of independence,
it was essential for him to be free from the raids and the menace of a
neighbour so dangerous as Philistia, and so inveterately hostile. It is
not improbable that he may have devoted to this war the money which
would otherwise have gone to pay the tribute to Shalmaneser or Sargon,
which had been continued since the date of the appeal of Ahaz to
Tiglath-Pileser II. When Sargon applied for the tribute Hezekiah refused
it, and even omitted to send the customary present.

It is clear that in this line of conduct the king was following the
exhortations of Isaiah. It showed no small firmness of character that
he was able to choose a decided course amid the chaos of contending
counsels. Nothing but a most heroic courage could have enabled him, at
any period of his reign, to defy that dark cloud of Assyrian war which
ever loomed on the horizon, and from which but little sufficed to
elicit the destructive lightning-flash.

There were three permanent parties in the Court of Hezekiah, each
incessantly trying to sway the king to its own counsels, and each
representing those counsels as indispensable to the happiness, and
even to the existence, of the State.

I. There was the Assyrian party, urging with natural vehemence that
the fierce northern king was as irresistible in power as he was
terrible in vengeance. The fearful cruelties which had been committed
at Beth-Arbel, the devastation and misery of the Trans-Jordanic
tribes, the obliteration and deportation of the heavily afflicted
districts of Zebulon, Naphtali, and the way of the sea in Galilee of
the nations, the already inevitable and imminent destruction of
Samaria and her king and the whole Northern Kingdom, together with
that certain deportation of its inhabitants of which the fatal policy
had been established by Tiglath-Pileser, would constitute weighty
arguments against resistance. Such considerations would appeal
powerfully to the panic of the despondent section of the community,
which was only actuated, as most men are, by considerations of
ordinary political expediency. The foul apparition of the Ninevites,
which for five centuries afflicted the nations, is now only visible to
us in the bas-reliefs and inscriptions unearthed from their burnt
palaces. There they live before us in their own sculptures, with their
"thickset, sensual figures," and the expression of calm and settled
ferocity on their faces, exhibiting a frightful nonchalance as they
look on at the infliction of diabolical atrocities upon their
vanquished enemies. But in the eighth century before Christ they were
visible to all the eastern world in the exuberance of the most brutal
parts of the nature of man. Men had heard how, a century earlier,
Assurnazipal boasted that he had "dyed the mountains of the Nairi with
blood like wool"; how he had flayed captive kings alive, and dressed
pillars with their skins; how he had walled up others alive, or
impaled them on stakes; how he had burnt boys and girls alive, put out
eyes, cut off hands, feet, ears, and noses, pulled out the tongues of
his enemies, and "at the command of Assur his god" had flung their
limbs to vultures and eagles, to dogs and bears. The Jews, too, must
have realised with a vividness which is to us impossible the cruel
nature of the usurper Sargon. He is represented on his monuments as
putting out with his own hands the eyes of his miserable captives;
while, to prevent them from flinching when the spear which he holds in
his hand is plunged into their eye-sockets, a hook is inserted
through their nose and lips and held fast with a bridle. Can we not
imagine the pathos with which this party would depict such horrors to
the tremblers of Judah? Would they not bewail the fanaticism which led
the prophets to seduce their king into the suicidal policy of defying
such a power? To these men the sole path of national safety lay in
continuing to be quiet vassals and faithful tributaries of these
destroyers of cities and treaders-down of foes.

II. Then there was the Egyptian party, headed probably by the powerful
Shebna, the chancellor.[498] His foreign name, the fact that his
father is not mentioned, and the question of Isaiah--"What hast thou
here? and whom hast thou here, that thou hast hewed thee out a
sepulchre here?"--seem to indicate that he was by birth a foreigner,
perhaps a Syrian.[499] The prophet, indignant at his powerful
interference with domestic politics, threatens him, in words of
tremendous energy, with exile and degradation.[500] He lost his place
of chancellor, and we next find him in the inferior, though still
honourable, office of secretary (_sopher_, 2 Kings xviii. 18), while
Eliakim had been promoted to his vacant place (Isa. xxii. 21). Perhaps
he may have afterwards repented, and the doom have been
lightened.[501] Circumstances at any rate reduced him from the
scornful spirit which seems to have marked his earlier opposition to
the prophetic counsels, and perhaps the powerful warning and menace of
Isaiah may have exercised an influence on his mind.

III. The third party, if it could even be called a party, was that of
Isaiah and a few of the faithful, aided no doubt by the influence of
the prophecies of Micah. Their attitude to both the other parties was
antagonistic.

i. As regards the Assyrian, they did not attempt to minimise the
danger. They represented the peril from the kingdom of Nineveh as
God's appointed scourge for the transgressions of Judah, as it had
been for the transgressions of Israel.

Thus Micah sees in imagination the terrible march of the invader by
Gath, Akko, Beth-le-Aphrah, Maroth, Lachish, and Adullam. He plays with
bitter anguish on the name of each town as an omen of humiliation and
ruin, and calls on Zion to make herself bald for the children of her
delight, and to enlarge her baldness as the vultures, because they are
gone into captivity.[502] He turns fiercely on the greedy grandees, the
false prophets, the blood-stained princes, the hireling priests, the
bribe-taking soothsayers, who were responsible for the guilt which
should draw down the vengeance. He ends with the fearful prophecy--which
struck a chill into men's hearts a century later, and had an important
influence on Jewish history--"Therefore, because of you shall Zion be
ploughed as a field, and Jerusalem become ruins, and the hill of the
Temple as heights in the wood";--though there should be an ultimate
deliverance from Migdal-Eder, and a remnant should be saved.[503]

Similar to Micah's, and possibly not uninfluenced by it, is Isaiah's
imaginary picture of the march of Assyria, which must have been full
of terror to the poor inhabitants of Jerusalem.[504]

                "He is come to Aiath!
                 He is passed through Migron!
                 At Michmash he layeth up his baggage:
                 They are gone over the pass:
                 'Geba,' they cry, 'is our lodging.'
                 Ramah trembleth:
                 Gibeah of Saul is fled!
                 Raise thy shrill cries, O daughter of Gallim!
                 Hearken, O Laishah! Answer her, O Anathoth!
                 Madmenah is in wild flight (?).
                 The inhabitants of Gebim gather their stuff to flee.
                 This very day shall he halt at Nob.
          He shaketh his hand at the mount of the daughter of Zion,
                 The hill of Jerusalem."

Yet Isaiah, and the little band of prophets, in spite of their perils,
did _not_ share the views of the Assyrian party or counsel submission.
On the contrary, even as they contemplate in imagination this terrific
march of Sargon, they threaten Assyria. The Assyrian might smite Judah,
but God should smite the Assyrians. He boasts that he will rifle the
riches of the people as one robs the eggs of a trembling bird, which
does not dare to cheep or move the wing.[505] But Isaiah tells him that
he is but the axe boasting against the hewer, and the wooden staff
lifting itself up against its wielder. Burning should be scattered over
his glory. The Lord of hosts should lop his boughs with terror, and a
mighty one should hew down the crashing forest of his haughty Lebanon.

ii. Still more indignant were the true prophets against those who
trusted in an alliance with Egypt. From first to last Isaiah warned
Ahaz, and warned Hezekiah, that no reliance was to be placed on
Egyptian promises--that Egypt was but like the reed of his own Nile.
He mocked the hopes placed on Egyptian intervention as being no less
sure of disannulment than a covenant with death and an agreement with
Sheol. This rebellious reliance on the shadow of Egypt was but the
weaving of an unrighteous web, and the adding of sin to sin. It should
lead to nothing but shame and confusion, and the Jewish ambassadors to
Zoan and Egypt should only have to blush for a people that could
neither help nor profit. And then branding Egypt with the old
insulting name of Rahab, or "Blusterer," he says,--

          "Egypt helpeth in vain, and to no purpose.
           Therefore have I called her 'Rahab, that sitteth still.'"

Indolent braggart--that was the only designation which she deserved!
Intrigue and braggadocio--smoke and lukewarm water,--this was all
which could be expected from _her_![506]

Such teaching was eminently distasteful to the worldly politicians,
who regarded faith in Jehovah's intervention as no better than
ridiculous fanaticism, and forgot God's wisdom in the inflated
self-satisfaction of their own. The priests--luxurious, drunken,
scornful--were naturally with them. Men were fine and stylish, and in
their religious criticisms could not express too lofty a contempt for
any one who, like Isaiah, was too sincere to care for the mere
polishing of phrases, and too much in earnest to shrink from
reiteration. In their self-indulgent banquets these sleek, smug
euphemists made themselves very merry over Isaiah's simplicity,
reiteration, and directness of expression. With hiccoughing insolence
they asked whether they were to be treated like weaned babes; and then
wagging their heads, as their successors did at Christ upon the cross,
they indulged themselves in a mimicry, which they regarded as witty,
of Isaiah's style and manner. With him they said it is all,--

          "Tsav-la-tsav, tsav-la-tsav,
           Quav-la-quav, quav-la-quav,
           Z'eir sham, Z'eir sham!"--

which may be imitated thus:--With him it is always "Bit and bit, bid
and bid, for-bid and for-bid, for_bid_ and for_bid_, a lit-tle bit
here, a lit-tle bit there."[507] Monosyllable is heaped on
monosyllable; and no doubt the speakers tipsily adopted the tones of
fond mothers addressing their babes and weanlings. Using the Hebrew
words, one of these shameless roysterers would say, "_Tsav-la-tsav,
tsav-la-tsav, quav-la-quav, quav-la-quav, Z'eir sham, Z'eir
sham_,--that is how that simpleton Isaiah speaks." And then doubtless
a drunken laugh would go round the table, and half a dozen of them
would be saying thus, "_Tsav-la-tsav, tsav-la-tsav_," at once. They
derided Isaiah just as the philosophers of Athens derided St. Paul--as
a mere _spermologos_, "a seed-pecker!"[508] or "picker-up of
learning's crumbs." Is all this petty monosyllabism fit teaching for
persons like us? Are we to be taught by copybooks? Do we need the
censorship of this Old Morality?

On whom, full of the fire of God, Isaiah turned, and told these
scornful tipsters, who lorded it over God's heritage in Jerusalem,
that, since they disdained his stammerings, God would teach them by
men of strange lips and alien tongue. They might mimic the style of
the Assyrians also if they liked; but they should fall backward, and
be broken, and snared, and taken.[509]

It must not be forgotten that the struggle of the prophets against these
parties was far more severe than we might suppose. The politicians of
expediency had supporters among the leading princes. The priests--whom
the prophets so constantly and sternly denounce--adhered to them; and,
as usual, the women were all of the priestly party (comp. Isa. xxxii.
9-20). The king, indeed, was inclined to side with his prophet, but the
king was terribly overshadowed by a powerful and worldly aristocracy, of
which the influence was almost always on the side of luxury, idolatry,
and oppression.

iii. But what had Isaiah to offer in the place of the policy of these
worldly and sacerdotal advisers of the king? It was the simple command
"Trust in the Lord." It was the threefold message "God is high; God
is near; God is Love."[510] Had he not told Ahaz not to fear the
"stumps of two smouldering torches," when Rezin and Pekah seemed
awfully dangerous to Judah? So he tells them now that, though their
sins had necessitated the rushing stroke of Assyrian judgment, Zion
should not be utterly destroyed. In Isaiah "the calmness requisite for
sagacity rose from faith." Mr. Bagehot might have appealed to Isaiah's
whole policy in illustration of what he has so well described as the
military and political benefits of religion. Monotheism is of
advantage to men not only "by reason of the high concentration of
steady feeling which it produces, but also for the mental calmness and
sagacity which surely springs from a pure and vivid conviction that
the Lord reigneth."[511] Isaiah's whole conviction might have been
summed up in the name of the king himself: "Jehovah maketh strong."

King Hezekiah, apparently not a man of much personal force, though of
sincere piety, was naturally distracted by the counsels of these three
parties: and who can judge him severely if, beset with such terrific
dangers, he occasionally wavered, now to one side, now to the other?
On the whole, it is clear that he was wise and faithful, and deserves
the high eulogy that his faith failed not. Naturally he had not within
his soul that burning light of inspiration which made Isaiah so sure
that, even though clouds and darkness might lower on every side, God
was an eternal Sun, which flamed for ever in the zenith, even when not
visible to any eye save that of Faith.

FOOTNOTES:

[480] The first of these dates is highly uncertain, as is the entire
chronology of this reign. I follow Kittel.

[481] 2 Chron. xxxi. 2-21.

[482] Josiah did this many years later (2 Kings xxiii. 13).

[483] Gen. xxxv. 14. See Spencer, _De legg. Hebr._, i. 444; Bochart,
_Canaan_, ii. 2.

[484] Exod. xxiv. 4. Comp. Deut. vii. 5, xii. 3, xvi. 22; Lev. xxvi.
1; 2 Chron. xiv. 3, xxxi. 1; Jer. xliii. 13; Hos. x. 2; Mic. v. 13
(where the A.V. often has "statue" or "image"). Comp. Clem. Alex.,
_Strom._, i. 24; Arnob., _c. Gent._, i. 39.

[485] The rendering "grove" in the A.V. is borrowed from the ἄλσος of
the LXX., and the _lucus_ of the Vulgate. On the connection of the
Asherah with the sacred tree of the Assyrian, see my article on
"Grove" in Smith's _Dict. of the Bible_; and Fergusson, _Nineveh and
Persepolis Restored_, 299-304. On the worship of Asherah, see 1 Kings
xv. 13; 2 Kings xxi. 3-7, xxiii. 4; 2 Chron. xv. 16; Judg. iii. 5-7,
vi. 25, xviii. 18. Baudissin in _Herzog Realencykl._, _s.v._ We may
well be startled by the prevalence of idolatry in Jerusalem revealed
in Isa. x. 11, xxvii. 9, xxix. 11, xxx. 9, 22, etc.

[486] See Wellhausen, _Hist._, 235; Stade, _Gesch. d. V. I._, 460; W.
R. Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, 171; Cheyne, _Isaiah_, ii. 303;
Renan, _Hist. du Peuple d'Israel_, i. 230 (Prof. Driver, _Bibl.
Dict._, i. 258, 2nd edition).

[487] _Hierozoicon_, ii. 3, § 13.

[488] Jer. xliv. 17. In the collection of antiquities of Baron
Ustinoff at Jaffa are five or six dragon-headed serpents, with ears of
copper and hollow inside. They are ancient, and were perhaps used as
talismanic copies of Nehushtan.

[489] If this was a genuine relic, it must have been nearly eight
hundred years old. It is never mentioned elsewhere.

[490] נְחֻשׁתָּן, "a brazen thing." The king certainly showed a horror
of sacerdotal imposture and religious materialism. Yet Renan argues,
from Isa. x. 11, xxvii. 9, xxx. 9, 22, that he must have had a certain
amount of tolerance. See _Hist. du Peuple d'Israel_, iii. 30.

[491] 2 Kings xviii. 4. _Vayyikra_ is like the English indefinite
plural. The impersonal rendering (as in other passages) is adopted in
the Targum of Jonathan, the Peshito, etc., and by Luther, Bunsen,
Ewald, and most moderns.

[492] This relic is still shown in the Church of St. Ambrose at Milan.
It used to be the popular notion that it would hiss at the end of the
world. The history of the Milan "relic" is that a Milanese envoy to
the court of the Emperor John Zimisces at Constantinople chose it from
the imperial treasures, being assured that it was made of the same
metal that Hezekiah had broken up (Sigonius, _Hist. Regn. Ital._,
vii.). It is probably a symbol used by some ophite sect. See Dean
Plumptre, _Dict. of Bibl._, _s.v._ "Serpent."

[493] 2 Kings xvi. 8; Driver, _Isaiah_, 68.

[494] The diverting of the water-courses enabled him to bring the water
into the city by a subterranean tunnel. The Saracens took a similar
precaution (Gul. Tyr., viii. 7). See Appendix II., where the inscription
is given; and compare 2 Chron. xxxii. 30. Apparently it carried the
water of Gihon to the south-east gate, where were the king's gardens.
Ecclus. xlviii. 17: "Ezekias fortified his city, and brought in water
into the midst thereof: he digged the hard rock with iron, and made
wells for water." For "water" the MSS. read "Gog," a corruption probably
for ἀγωγὸν, "a conduit" (Geiger) or "Gihon" (Fritzsche).

[495] Psalm xlvi. 1-11.

[496] 2 Chron. xxviii. 18.

[497] 2 Kings xviii. 8: comp. xvii. 9. Josephus says that he failed to
take Gath (_Antt._, IX. xiii. 3).

[498] A.V., "treasurer" (_soken_; lit., "deputy" or "associate": Isa.
xxii. 15). He was "over the household." The Egyptian alliance had for
Judah, as Renan points out, some of the fascination that a Russian
alliance has often had for troubled spirits in France (_Hist. du
Peuple d'Israel_, iii. 12).

[499] Renan says that he may have been a Sebennyite, and his name
Sebent.

[500] Isa. xxii. 17, 18: "Behold, the Lord shall sling and sling, and
pack and pack, and toss and toss thee away like a ball into a distant
land; and there thou shalt die" (Stanley). The versions vary
considerably.

[501] Isa. xxxvii. 2. There can be little doubt that there were not
_two_ Shebnas.

[502] Mic. i. 10-16. See the writer's _Minor Prophets_ ("Men of the
Bible" Series), pp. 130-133, for an explanation of this enigmatic
prophecy.

[503] Jer. xxvi. 8-24. He tells us that the prophecy was delivered in
the reign of Hezekiah. See my _Minor Prophets_, pp. 123-140.

[504] Isa. x. 28-32. It would involve a cross-country route over
several deep ravines--_e.g._, the Wady Suweinit, near Michmash. In 1
Sam. xiv. 2, Thenius, for "Migron," reads "the Precipice." Some take
Aiath for Ai, three miles south of Bethel. Renan says (_Hist. du
Peuple d'Israel_, iii.): "Nom d'Anathoth, arrangé symboliquement."

[505] Isa. x. 14. The metaphor of a bird's nest occurs more than once
in the boastful Assyrian records.

[506] Isa. xxx. 1-7. Rahab means "fierceness," "insolence." For the
various uses of the word, see Job xxvi. 12; Isa. li. 9, 10, 15; Psalm
lxxxix. 9, 10, lxxxvii. 4, 5.

[507] See Dr. S. Cox (_Expositor_, i. 98-104) on Isa. xxviii. 7-13.

[508] Acts xvii. 18.

[509] Isa. xxviii. 7-22.

[510] Professor Smith, _Isaiah_, i. 12.

[511] Bagehot, _Physics and Politics_, p. 73; Smith, _Isaiah_, 109.




                              CHAPTER XXVI

               _HEZEKIAH'S SICKNESS, AND THE EMBASSY FROM
                                BABYLON_

                            2 KINGS xx. 1-19

    "Thou hast loved me out of the pit of nothingness."--ISA. xxxviii.
    17 (A.V., margin).

          "See the shadow of the dial
          In the lot of every one
          Marks the passing of the trial,
          Proves the presence of the Sun."
                                    E. B. BROWNING.


In the chaos of uncertainties which surrounds the chronology of King
Hezekiah's reign, it is impossible to fix a precise date to the
sickness which almost brought him to the grave. It has, however, been
conjectured by some Assyriologists that the story of this episode has
been displaced, because it seemed to break the continuity of the
narrative of the Assyrian invasion; and that, though it is placed in
the Book of Kings after the deliverance from Sennacherib, it really
followed the earlier incursion of Sargon. This is rendered more
probable by Isaiah's promise (2 Kings xx. 6), "I will deliver thee and
this city out of the hand of the King of Assyria," and by the fact
that Hezekiah still possessed such numerous and splendid treasures to
display to the ambassadors of Merodach-Baladan. This could hardly have
been the case after he had been forced to pay a fine to the King of
Assyria of all the silver that was found in the house of the Lord, and
in the treasures of the king's house, to cut off the gold from the
doors and pillars of the Temple, and even to send as captives to
Nineveh some of his wives, and of the eunuchs of his palace.[512] The
date "in those days" (2 Kings xx. 1) is vague and elastic, and may
apply to any time before or after the great invasion.

He was sick unto death. The only indication which we have of the
nature of his illness is that it took the form of a carbuncle or
imposthume,[513] which could be locally treated, but which, in days of
very imperfect therapeutic knowledge, might easily end in death,
especially if it were on the back of the neck. The conjecture of
Witsius and others that it was a form of the plague which they suppose
to have caused the disaster to the Assyrian army has nothing whatever
to recommend it.

Seeing the fatal character of his illness, Isaiah came to the king
with the dark message, "Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die,
and not live."

The message is interesting as furnishing yet another proof that even
the most positive announcements of the prophets were, and were always
meant to be, to some extent hypothetical and dependent on unexpressed
conditions. This was the case with the famous prophecy of Micah that
Zion should be ploughed down into a heap of ruins. It was never
fulfilled; yet the prophet lost none of his authority, for it was well
understood that the doom which would otherwise have been carried out
had been averted by timely penitence.

But the message of Isaiah fell with terrible anguish on the heart of
the suffering king. He had hoped for a better fate. He had begun a
great religious reformation. He had uplifted his people, at least in
part, out of the moral slough into which they had fallen in the days
of his predecessor. He had inspired into his threatened capital
something of his own faith and courage. Surely he, if any man, might
claim the old promises which Jehovah in His loving-kindness and truth
had sworn to his father David and his father Abraham, that he being
delivered out of the hand of his enemies should serve God without
fear, walking in holiness and righteousness before Him all the days of
his life. He was but a young man still--perhaps not yet thirty years
old; further, not only would he leave behind him an unfinished work,
but he was childless,[514] and therefore it seemed as if with him
would end the direct line of the house of David, heir to so many
precious promises. He has left us--it is preserved in the Book of
Isaiah--the poem which he wrote on his recovery, but which enshrines
the emotion of his agonising anticipations[515]:--

  "I said, In the noontide of my days I shall go into the gates of
         Sheol.
   I am deprived of the residue of my years.
   I said, I shall not see Yah, Yah, in the land of the living,
   I shall behold no man more, when I am among them that cease to be.
   Mine habitation is removed, and is carried away from me like a
         shepherd's tent.
   Like a weaver I have rolled up my life; he will cut me from the
         thrum.

         *       *       *       *       *

   Like a swallow or a crane, so did I chatter;
   I did mourn as a dove; mine eyes fail with looking upward.
   O Lord, I am oppressed; be Thou my surety."

We must remember, as we contemplate his utter prostration of soul,
that he was not blessed, as we are, with the sure and certain hope of
the resurrection to eternal life. All was dim and dark, to him in the
shadowy world of _eidola_ beyond the grave, and many a century was to
elapse before Christ brought life and immortality to light. To enter
Sheol meant to Hezekiah to pass beyond the cheerful sunshine of earth
and the felt presence of God. No more worship, no more gladness there!

  "For Sheol cannot praise Thee, Death cannot celebrate Thee;
   They that go down into the pit cannot hope for Thy truth."

On every ground, therefore, the feelings of Hezekiah, had he not been a
worshipper of God, might have been like those of Mycerinus, and, like
that legendary Egyptian king, he might have cursed God before he died.

          "My father loved injustice, and lived long;
           I loved the good he scorned and hated wrong--
           The gods declare my recompense to-day.
           I looked for life more lasting, rule more high;
           And when six years are measured, lo, I die!
           Yet surely, O my people, did I ween
           Man's justice from the all-just gods was given,
           A light that from some upper point did beam,
           Some better archetype whose seat was heaven:
           A light that, shining from the blest abodes,
           Did shadow somewhat of the life of gods."

The indignation of Mycerinus often finds an echo on Pagan tombstones,
as in the famous epitaph on the grave of the girl Procope:--

          "I, Procope, lift up my hands against the gods,
           Who took me hence undeserving,
           Aged nineteen years."

It was far otherwise with Hezekiah. There was anguish in his heart,
but no rebellion or defiance. He wept sore; he turned his face to the
wall and wept;[516] but as he wept he also prayed, and said,--

"O Lord, remember now how I have walked before Thee in truth, and with
a perfect heart, and have done that which is good in Thy sight."

Isaiah, after delivering his dark message, and doubtless adding to it
such words of human consolation as were possible--if under such
circumstances any were possible--had left the king's chamber. On every
ground his feelings must have been almost as overwhelmed with sorrow as
those of the king. Hezekiah was personally his friend, and the hope of
his nation. Doubtless the prophet's prayers rose as fervently and as
effectually as those of Luther, which snatched his friend Melanchthon
back from the very gates of death. By the time that he had reached the
middle of the court,[517] he felt borne in upon him, by that Divine
intuition which constituted his prophetic call, the certainty that God
would withdraw the immediate doom which he had been commissioned to
announce. It has been conjectured by some that the conviction was
deepened in his mind by observing on the steps of Ahaz one of those
remarkable but rare effects of refraction--or, as some have conjectured,
of a solar eclipse, involving an obscuration of the upper limb of the
sun--which had seemed to take the advancing shadow ten steps backwards;
and that this was to him a sign from heaven of the promise of God and
the prolongation of the king's life. Awestruck and glad, he hastened
back into the presence of the dying king with the life-giving message
that God had heard his prayer, and seen his tears, and would add fifteen
years to his life, and would defend him, and deliver him and Jerusalem
out of the hand of the King of Assyria. And this should be the sign to
him from Jehovah--Jehovah would bring again the shadow ten steps up the
stairs of Ahaz. To this sign--if it was visible from the
chamber-window--he called the attention of the astonished king.[518]

We here naturally follow the narrative of Isaiah himself, as more
authoritative than that of the historian of the Kings as to details in
which they differ.[519] Not only is it quite in accordance with all
that we know of history that slight variations should occur in the
traditions of long-past times, but the text of the Book of Kings
suggests some difficulty. There we read that Hezekiah asked Isaiah
what should be the sign of the promise--not mentioned in Isaiah--that
he should go up to the House of the Lord the third day. Isaiah then
asked him whether the sign should be that the shadow should advance
ten steps, or recede ten steps. But there is no interrogation in the
Hebrew, which rather means, "The shadow hath advanced ten steps ... if
it shall recede ten steps?" or if we insert the interrogation in the
first clause, "Hath the shadow advanced ten steps?"[520] The king's
natural answer to so strange an alternative would be that for the
shadow to advance ten steps was nothing; whereas its retrogression
would be a sign indeed. Then Isaiah cried unto Jehovah, and the shadow
went backward. In the obvious divergence of details we naturally
follow Isaiah himself; and if it be a true and understood rule of all
theology, "_Miracula non sunt multiplicanda præter necessitatem_," the
miracle in this case--in the opportuneness of its occurrence, and the
issues which it inspired--was none the less a miracle because it was
carried out in direct accordance with God's unseen, perpetual,
miraculous Providence, which none but unbelievers will nickname
Chance. That we are here dealing with an historic incident is certain;
and they who see and acknowledge God in all history find no difficulty
at all in seeing His dealings with men in striking interpositions. But
these, by the analogy of His whole Divine economy, would naturally be
out in accordance with natural laws.

The words rendered "the sun-dial of Ahaz" mean no more than "the steps
[_ma'aloth_] of Ahaz." Ahaz evidently was a king of æsthetic tastes,
who was fond of introducing foreign novelties and curiosities into
Jerusalem.[521] Steps, with a staff on the top of them as a gnomon, to
serve as sun-dials had been invented at Babylon, and Ahaz may probably
have become acquainted with their form and use when he paid his visit to
Tiglath-Pileser at Damascus. No one could blame him--it was indeed a
meritorious act--to introduce to his people so useful an invention. The
word "hour" first occurs in Dan. iii. 6, and it was doubtless from
Babylon that the Hebrews borrowed the division of days into hours. This
is the earliest instance in the Bible of the mention of any instrument
to measure time. That the recession of the shadow could be caused by
refraction is certain, for it has been observed in modern days. Thus, as
is mentioned by Rosenmüller, on March 27th, 1703, Père Romauld, prior of
the monastery at Metz, noticed that the shadow on his dial deviated an
hour and a half, owing to refraction in the higher regions of the
atmosphere.[522] Or again, according to Mr. Bosanquet, the same effect
might have been produced by the darkening shadow of an eclipse. But
while he appealed to Divine indications the great prophet did not
neglect natural remedies. He ordered that a cake of figs should be laid
on the imposthume. It was a recognised and an efficient remedy, still
recommended, centuries later, by Dioscorides, by Pliny, and by St.
Jerome. By God's blessing on man's therapeutic care, the king was
speedily rescued from the gates of death. Constantly in Scripture what
we call the miraculous and what we call the providential are mingled
together. To those who regard the providential as a constant miracle,
the question of the miraculous becomes subordinate.[523]

With intense joy and gratitude the king hailed the respite which God
had granted him. In fifteen years much might be done, much might be
hoped for. All this he acknowledged with deep feeling in the song
which he wrote on his recovery.

  "I shall go as in solemn procession[524] all my years because of the
         bitterness of my soul.
   O Lord, by these things men live,
   And wholly therein is the life of my spirit.
   Behold, it was for my peace that I had great bitterness;
   But Thou hast loved my soul from the pit of nothingness:
   For Thou hast cast all my sins behind Thy back.

         *       *       *       *       *

   The Lord is ready to save me;
   Therefore will we sing my songs to the stringed instruments
   All the days of our life in the house of the Lord."[525]

"The wonder done in the land" was, according to the Chronicler, one of
the grounds for the embassy which, after his recovery, Hezekiah
received from Merodach-Baladan, the patriot prince of Babylon. The
other ostensible object of the embassy was to send letters and a
present in congratulation for the king's restoration to health. But
the real object lay deeper, out of sight. It was to secure a southern
alliance for Babylon against the incessant tyranny of Nineveh.

Merodach-Baladan is mentioned in the inscriptions of Sargon.[526] He
is described as "Merodach-Baladan, son of Baladan, King of Sumîr and
Accad, king of the four countries, and conqueror of all his enemies."
There had been long struggles, lasting indeed for centuries, between
the city on the Euphrates and the city on the Tigris. Sometimes one,
sometimes the other, had been victorious. Babylon--on the monuments
Kur-Dunyash--had its original Accadian name of Ca-dinirra, which, like
its Semitic equivalent Bal-el, means "Gate of God." Kalah (Larissa and
Birs Nimroud) had been built by Shalmaneser I. before B.C. 1300. His
son conquered Babylon, but not permanently; for in some later raid the
Babylonians got possession of his signet-ring, with its proud
inscription, "Conqueror of Kur-Dunyash," and it was not recovered by
the Assyrians till six centuries later, when it fell into the hands of
Sennacherib. About 1150 Nebuchadrezzar I. of Babylon thrice invaded
Assyria, but there was again peace and alliance in 1100.
Merodach-Baladan I. reigned before 900. The king who now sought the
friendship of Hezekiah was the second of the name. He seized or
recovered the throne of Babylon in 721, after the death of
Shalmaneser, perhaps because Sargon was a usurper of dubious descent.
He helped the Elamites against Assyria. Sargon was compelled to
retreat to Assyria, but returned in 712, and drove Merodach-Baladan to
flight. He was captured and taken to Assyria. But on the murder of
Sargon in 705, he again managed to seize the throne of Babylon, killed
the viceroy who had been set up, and became king for six months. After
this, Sennacherib invaded his country, defeated him, and drove him
once more to flight. He was perhaps killed by his successor.

Whether his overtures to Hezekiah took place before his defeat by
Sargon, or after his escape, is uncertain. In either case he doubtless
sent a splendid embassy, for Babylon was far-famed for its golden
magnificence as "the glory of kingdoms" and "the beauty of the
Chaldees' excellency."[527] At that time the Jews knew but little of
the far-off city which was destined to be so closely interwoven with
their future fortunes, as it was mingled with their oldest and dimmest
traditions.[528] Apart from the magnificence of the presents brought
to him, it was not unnatural that Hezekiah should regard this embassy
with intense satisfaction. It was flattering to the power of his
little kingdom that its alliance should be sought by the far-off and
powerful capital on the great river;[529] it was still more
encouraging to know that the frightful Nineveh had a strong enemy not
far from her own frontier. Merodach-Baladan's ambassadors would be
sure to inform Hezekiah that their lord had flung off the authority of
Sargon, had kept him at bay for many years, and was still the
undisputed king of the dominions snatched from the common enemy. It
might have seemed reasonable that Hezekiah, for his part, should
desire to leave the most favourable impression of his wealth and power
on the mind of his distant and magnificent ally. He "hearkened unto"
the ambassadors, or, more properly, "he was glad of them" (R.V.),[530]
and "showed them all the house of his spicery and other treasures, his
precious unguents, his armoury, his bullion, plate, and the whole
resources of his kingdom." The Chronicler regards this as ingratitude
to God. He says that "Hezekiah rendered not again according unto the
benefits done unto him; for his heart was lifted up: therefore there
was wrath upon him, and upon Judah and Jerusalem." It is a severe
judgment of later times, and the historian of the Kings pronounces no
such censure. Nevertheless, he records the stern sentence pronounced
by Isaiah. The prophet had seen through the secret diplomacy of the
Babylonian ambassadors, and knew that the real object of their mission
was to induce his king to revolt against Assyria in reliance on an arm
of flesh. He came to ask Hezekiah whose these men were, whence they
came, and what they had said. The king told him who they were, and how
he had received them; but he did not think it wise to reveal their
secret proposals. If Isaiah had so vehemently reproved all
negotiations with Egypt, there was little probability that he would
sanction the overtures of Babylon. He saw in Hezekiah's conduct a vein
of ostentatious elation, a swerving from theocratic faith; and with
remarkable prophetic insight convinced the king of the error and
impolicy of his proceedings, by announcing that the final and, in
fact, irrevocable captivity of Judah would ultimately come, not from
Nineveh, the fierce enemy, whose cloud of war was lurid on the
horizon, but from Babylon, the apparently weaker friend, who was now
making overtures of amity. With what heartrending grief must the king
have heard the doom that the display of his treasures would prove to
be in the future an incentive to the cupidity of the kings of Babylon,
and that they would sweep away all those precious things to the banks
of the Euphrates with such final overthrow that even the descendants
of David should be sunk to the infinite degradation of being eunuchs
in the palace of the King of Babylon.[531] The doom seems to have been
fulfilled in part in the reign of Hezekiah's son, and more fearfully
in the days of his great-grandchildren.[532]

The king's pride was humbled to the dust. In the spirit of Job--"The
Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the
Lord"[533]--he resigned himself without a murmur to the will of
Heaven, and exclaimed that all which God did must be well done. At
least God granted him a respite. Peace and truth would be in his own
days; for that let him be thankful. They were words of humble
resignation, uttered by one who had learnt to believe that whatever
God decreed was just and right.

It would be unjust to measure the feelings of those far centuries by
those of our own day, and there was none of the gross selfishness in
the words of Hezekiah which led Nero to quote the line--

          "When I am dead, let earth be mixed with fire";

or which led Louis XIV. to say--

          "Après moi le déluge."

We may perhaps trace in his exclamation something of the fatalism
which gives a touch of apathy to the submissiveness of the Oriental.
Some, too, have imagined that his distress was tinged by a gleam of
happiness at the implicit promise that he should have a son. His
wife's name was Hephzibah ("My delight is in her"), and within two
years she brought forth the firstborn son, whose career, indeed, was
dark and evil, but who became in due time an ancestor of the promised
Messiah. The name "Manasseh" given him by his parents recalled the
child born to Joseph in the land of his exile who had caused him to
forget his sorrows.[534] Hezekiah had the spirit which says,--

          "That which Thou blessest is most good,
               And unblest good is ill;
           And all is right which seems most wrong,
               So it be Thy sweet will."


FOOTNOTES:

[512] One of the first to point out the _necessary_ rearrangement of
the events of Hezekiah's reign was Dr. Hincks, in his paper on "A
Rectification of Chronology which the newly discovered Apis-stêlês
render necessary" (_Journ. of Sacred Lit._, October 1858). See my
article on Hezekiah, Smith, _Dict. of the Bible_, 2nd ed., ii. 1251.

[513] Heb., _sh'chîn_; LXX., ἕλκος; Vulg., _ulcus_.

[514] The Rabbis even make his sickness the punishment for his having
neglected to secure an heir. He pleads that he foresaw the wickedness
of his son. Isaiah tells him not to try to forestall God (_Berachoth_,
f. 10, 1).

[515] Isa. xxxviii. 10-20.

[516] Comp. 1 Kings xxi. 4 (Ahab).

[517] 2 Kings xx. 4. The _Q'rî_ or "read" text is, as here rendered,
_chatsee_ (comp. 1 Kings vii. 8), and is followed by the LXX. ( ἐν τῇ
αὐλῇ τῇ μέσῃ), by the Vulgate (_mediam partem atrii_), and by the A.V.
The R.V., which adopts the Kethîb or written text, _ha'îr_, renders it
"the middle part of the city." If this be the true reading, it would
mean that Isaiah had gone some distance from the palace, and was now
perhaps in the Valley between the Upper and the Lower City. But it
seems not improbable that (1) "the steps of Ahaz" would be in the
royal court, and (2) the answer of God, like the mercy of Christ to
the suffering, may have come promptly as an echo to the appealing cry.

[518] The LXX. calls "the stairs" ἀναβαθμοὺς τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ πατρός σου,
and so, too, Josephus (_Antt._, X. ii. 1). The Targum calls them "an
hour-stone." Symmachus has, στρέψω τὴν σκίαν τῶν γραμμῶν ἥ κατέβη ἐν
ὡρολογίῳ Ἀχάζ.

[519] It should, however, be observed that on the question of priority
critics are divided. Grotius, Vitringa, Paulus, Drechsler, etc.,
thought that the account in the Book of Isaiah is the original; De
Wette, Maurer, Koster, Winer, Driver, etc., regard that account as a
later abbreviation, perhaps from a common source.

[520] See Professor Lumby, _ad loc._

[521] There is an exactly similar sun-dial not far from Delhi.

[522] _Journ. of Asiatic Soc._, xv. 286-293.

[523] Figs have a recognised use for imposthumes. See Dioscorides and
Pliny quoted in Celsius, _Hierobot._, ii. 373. In the passage of
_Berachoth_ quoted above, Hezekiah in his sickness asks Isaiah to give
him his daughter in marriage, that he may have an heir. Isaiah replies
that the decree of his death is irrevocable. The king bids Isaiah
depart, and says (quoting Job xiii. 15) that a man must not despair,
even if a sword is laid on his neck.

[524] Comp. Psalm xlii. 4.

[525] Isa. xxxviii. 10-20.

[526] The Babylonian form of his name is Marduk-habal-iddi-na--_i.e._,
"Merodach gave a son." He is the Mardokempados of the _Ptolemaic
Canon_, and the second fragment of his reign (six months) is mentioned
by Polyhistor (_ap._ Euseb.). Josephus calls him Baladan (_Antt._, X.
ii. 2). He was originally the prince of the Chaldæan _Bit Yakîm_.
Sargon calls him "Merodach-Baladan, the foe, the perverse, who,
contrary to the will of the great gods, ruled as king at Babylon." He
displaced him for a time by "Belibus, the son of a wise man, whom one
had reared like a little dog" (as we might say "like a tame cat") "in
my palace" (Schrader, ii. 32). In the Assyrian records he is often
called (by mistake?) "the son of Yakim." For the adventures of the
Babylonian hero, see Schrader, _K. A. T._, 213 ff., 224 ff., 227, and
in Riehm, _Handwörterbuch_, ii. 982.

[527] Isa. xiv. 4, xiii. 19.

[528] Gen. x. 10, 11, xi. 1-9.

[529] Jos., _Antt._, X. ii. 2: Σύμμαχόν τε αὐτὸν εἶναι παρεκάλει καὶ
φίλον.

[530] 2 Kings xx. 13. LXX., ἐχάρη.

[531] See Dan. i. 6.

[532] 2 Chron. xxxiii. 11.

[533] Job i. 21.

[534] Manasseh seems to mean "one who forgets." See Gen. xli. 51. It
was the name of the husband of Judith (Judith viii. 2), and is found
in Ezra x. 30, 33.




                             CHAPTER XXVII

                         _HEZEKIAH AND ASSYRIA_

                                B.C. 701

                      2 KINGS xviii. 13--xix. 37.

    Ἀλλ' ὁ σοφώτατος βασιλεὺς οὐχ ὅπλα ταῖς ἐκείνων βλασφημίαις, ἀλλὰ
    προσευχὴν καὶ δάκρυα καὶ σάκκον ἀντέταξεν.--THEODORET.

          "When, sudden--how think ye the end?
           Did I say 'without friend'?
           Say rather from marge to blue marge
           The whole sky grew his targe,
           With the sun's self for visible boss,
           While an Arm ran across
           Which the earth heaved beneath like a breast,
           Where the wretch was safe pressed."
                                             BROWNING.


Although during a few memorable scenes the relations of Judah with
Assyria in the reign of Hezekiah leap into fierce light, many previous
details are unfortunately left in the deepest obscurity--an obscurity
all the more impenetrable from the lack of certain dates. It will
perhaps help to simplify our conceptions if we first sketch what is
known of Assyria from the cuneiform inscriptions, and then fill up the
sketch of those scenes which are more minutely delineated in the Book
of Kings and in the prophecies of Isaiah.

Sargon--perhaps a successful general of royal blood, though he never
calls himself the son of any one[535]--seems to have usurped the
throne on the death of Shalmaneser IV., during the siege of Samaria in
B.C. 722. He took Samaria, deported its inhabitants, and repeopled it
from the Assyrian dominions. "In their place," he says, in his tablets
in the halls of his palace at Khorsabad, "I settled the men of
countries conquered [by my hand]."[536] In 720 he suppressed a futile
attempt at revolt, headed by a pretender named Yahubid, in Hamath,
which he reduced to "a heap of ruins." For some years after this he
was occupied mainly on his northern frontiers, but he tells us that
until 711 tribute continued to come in from Judah and Philistia.
Meanwhile, these terrified and oppressed feudatories, writhing under
the remorseless dominion of Nineveh, naturally began to listen to the
intrigues of Egypt, whose interest it was to create a bulwark between
herself and the invasion of the armies which were the abhorrence of
the world. Under the influence of Sabaco, which gave new strength and
unity to Egypt, she succeeded in seducing Ashdod from its allegiance
to Sargon. Sargon at once deposed Azuri, King of Ashdod, and put his
brother Ahimit in his place. The Ashdodites soon after deposed Ahimit,
and elected in his place Jaman, who was in alliance with Sabaco.[537]
This revolt was evidently favoured by Judah, Edom, and Moab; for
Sargon says that they, as well as the people of Philistia, "were
speaking treason." The rebellion was crushed by Sargon's
promptitude.[538] He tells his own tale thus:--

"In the wrath of my heart I did not divide my army, and I did not
diminish the ranks, but I marched against Ashdod with my warriors,
who did not separate themselves from the traces of my sandals. I
besieged, I took Ashdod and Gunt-Asdodim. I then re-established these
towns. I placed [in them] the people whom my arms had conquered, I put
over them my lieutenant as governor. I regarded them as Assyrians, and
they practised obedience."[539]

Sargon does not, however, seem to have conducted this campaign in
person; for we read in Isa. xx. 1 that he sent his Turtan--_i.e._, his
commander-in-chief,[540] whose name seems to have been Zir-bâni--to
Ashdod, who fought against it and took it. The wretched Philistines
had put their trust in Sabaco. "The people," says Sargon, "and their
evil chiefs sent their presents to Pharaoh, King of Egypt, a prince
who could not save them, and besought his alliance." Isaiah had for
three years been indicating how vain this policy was by one of those
acted parables which so powerfully affect the Eastern mind. He had, by
the word of the Lord, stripped the shoes from on his feet and the
upper robe of sackcloth from his loins, and walked, "naked and
barefoot, for a sign and portent against Egypt and Ethiopia," to
indicate that even thus should the people of Egypt and Ethiopia be
carried away as captives, naked and barefoot, by the kings of Assyria.
Egypt was the boast of one party at Jerusalem, and Ethiopia, which had
now become master of Egypt under Sabaco, was their expectation; but
Isaiah's public self-humiliation showed how utterly their hopes
should come to nought.[541] Before the outbreak at Ashdod, Sargon had
suppressed a revolt of Hanun, or Hanno, King of Gaza, and Egypt and
Assyria first met face to face at Raphia (about B.C. 720), where
Sabaco fought in person with an Egyptian contingent, at a spot
half-way between Gaza and the "river of Egypt."[542] Sabaco, whom
Sargon calls "the Sultan of Egypt" (Siltannu Muzri), had been
defeated, and fled precipitately, but Sargon was not then sufficiently
free from other complications to advance to the Nile. The hoarded
vengeance of Assyria was inflicted upon Egypt nearly a century later
by Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal.

In the two suppressions of revolt at Ashdod, Sargon or his Turtan must
have come perilously near Jerusalem, and perhaps he may have inflicted
sufficient damage to admit of the boast that he had "conquered" Judæa.
If so, his military vanity made him guilty of an exaggeration.

Far more serious to Sargon was the revolt of Merodach-Baladan, King of
Chaldæa. Babylon had always been a rival of Nineveh in the competition
for world-wide dominion, and for twelve years, as Sargon says,
Merodach-Baladan had been "sending ambassadors"[543]--to Hezekiah among
others--in the patient effort to consolidate a formidable league. Elam
and Media were with him; and at a solemn banquet, for which they had
"spread the carpets,"[544] and eaten and drank, the cry had risen,
"Arise, ye princes! anoint the shield." Standing in ideal vision on his
watch-tower, Isaiah saw the sweeping rush of the Assyrian troops on
their horses and camels on their way to Babylon. What should come of it?
The answer is in the words, "Fallen, fallen is Babylon, and all the
images of her gods he [Sargon] hath broken to the ground." Alas! there
is no hope from Babylon or its embassy! Would that Isaiah could have
held out a hope! But no, "O my threshed one, son of my threshing-floor,
that which I have heard from the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, that
have I declared unto you."[545] And so it came to pass. The brave
Babylonian was defeated. In 709 Sargon occupied his palace, took
Dur-yakin, to which he had fled for refuge, and made himself Lord
Paramount as far as the Persian Gulf. It was his last great enterprise.
He built and adorned his palaces, and looked forward to long years of
peace and splendour; but in 705 the dagger-thrust of an assassin--a
malcontent of the town of Kullum--found its way to his heart; and
Sennacherib reigned in his stead.

Sennacherib--Sin-ahi-irba ("Sin, the moon-god, has multiplied
brothers")[546]--was one of the haughtiest, most splendid, and most
powerful of all the kings of Assyria, though the petty state of Judah,
relying on her God, defied and flouted him. The son of a mighty
conqueror, at the head of a magnificent army, he regarded himself as
the undisputed lord of the world.[547] Born in the purple, and bred up
as crown prince, his primary characteristic was an overweening pride
and arrogance, which shows itself in all his inscriptions. He calls
himself "the Great King, the Powerful King, the King of the Assyrians,
of the nations of the four regions, the diligent ruler, the favourite
of the Great Gods, the observer of sworn faith, the guardian of law,
the establisher of monuments, the noble hero, the strong warrior, the
first of kings, the punisher of unbelievers, the destroyer of wicked
men."[548] He was mighty both in war and peace. His warlike glories
are attested by Herodotus, by Polyhistor, by Abydenus, by Demetrius,
and by his own annals. His peaceful triumphs are attested by the great
palace which he erected at Nineveh, and the magnificent series of
sculptured slabs with which he adorned it; by his canals and
aqueducts, his gateways and embankments, his Bavian sculpture, and his
_stêlê_ at the Nahr-el-Kelb. He was a worthy successor of his father
Sargon, and of the second Tiglath-Pileser--active in his military
enterprises, indefatigable, persevering, full of resource.[549]

On one of his bas-reliefs we see this magnificent potentate seated on
his throne, holding two arrows in his right hand, while his left
grasps the bow. A rich bracelet clasps each of his brawny arms. On his
head is the jewelled pyramidal crown of Assyria, with its embroidered
lappets. His dark locks stream down over his shoulders, and the long,
curled beard flows over his breast. His strongly marked, sensual
features wear an aspect of unearthly haughtiness. He is clad in
superbly broidered robes, and his throne is covered with rich
tapestries, and bas-reliefs of Assyrians or captives, who, like the
Greek caryatides, uphold its divisions with their heads and arms.

Yet all this glory faded into darkness, and all this colossal pride
crumbled into dust. Sennacherib not only died, like his father, by
murder, but by the murderous hands of his own sons, and after the
shattering of all his immense pretensions--a defeated and dishonoured
man.

One of his invasions of Judæa occupies a large part of the Scripture
narrative.[550] It was the fourth time of that terrible contact
between the great world-power which symbolised all that was tyrannic
and idolatrous, and the insignificant tribe which God had chosen for
His own inheritance.

In the reign of Ahaz, about B.C. 732, Judah had come into collision
with Tiglath-Pileser II.

Under Shalmaneser IV. and Sargon, the Northern Kingdom had ceased to
exist in 722.

Under Sargon, Judah had been harassed and humbled, and had witnessed
the suppression of the Philistian revolt, and of the defeat of the
powerful Sabaco at Raphia about 720.

Now came the fourth and most overwhelming calamity. If the patriots of
Jerusalem had placed any hopes in the disappearance of the ferocious
Sargon, they must speedily have recognised that he had left behind him
a no less terrible successor.

Sennacherib reigned apparently twenty-four years (B.C. 705-681). On
his accession he placed a brother, whose name is unknown, on the
vice-regal throne of Babylon, and contented himself with the title of
King of the Assyrians. This brother was speedily dethroned by a
usurper named Hagisa, who only reigned thirty days, and was then slain
by the indefatigable Merodach-Baladan, who held the throne for six
months. He was driven out by Belibus, who had been trained "like a
little dog" in the palace of Nineveh,[551] but was now made King of
Sumîr and Accad--_i.e._, of Babylonia. Sennacherib entered the palace
of Babylon and carried off the wife of Merodach and endless spoil in
triumph, while Merodach fled into the land of Guzumman, and (like the
Duke of Monmouth) hid himself "among the marshes and reeds," where the
Assyrians searched for him for five days, but found no trace of him.
After three years (702-699) Belibus proved faithless, and Sennacherib
made his son Assur-nadin-sum viceroy of Babylon.

His second campaign was against the Medes in Northern Elam.

His third (701) was against the Khatti (the Hittites)--_i.e._, against
Phœnicia and Palestine.[552] He drove King Luli from Sidon "by the mere
terror of the splendour of my sovereignty," and placed Tubalu (_i.e._,
Ithbaal) in his place, and subdued into tributary districts Arpad,
Byblos, Ashdod, Ammon, Moab, and Edom, suppressing at the same time a
very abortive rising in Samaria. "All these brought rich presents and
kissed my feet." He also subdued Zidka, King of Askelon, from whom he
took Beth-Dagon, Joppa, and other towns. Padî, the King of Ekron, was a
faithful vassal of Assyria; he was therefore deposed by the revolting
Ekronites, and sent in chains into the safe custody of Hezekiah, who
"imprisoned him in darkness." The rebel states all relied on the
Egyptians and Ethiopians. Sennacherib fought against Egyptians and
Ethiopians, "in reliance upon Assur my God," at Altaqu (B.C. 701), and
claims to have defeated them, and carried off the sons and charioteers
of the King of Egypt, and the charioteers of the kings of Ethiopia.[553]
He then tells us that he punished Altaqu and Timnath.[554] He impaled
the rebels of Ekron on stakes all round the city. He restored Padî, and
made him a vassal. "Hezekiah [Chazaqiahu] of Judah, who had not
submitted to my yoke, the terror of the splendour of my sovereignty
overwhelmed. Himself as a bird in a cage, in the midst of Jerusalem, his
royal city, I shut up. The Arabians and his dependants, whom he had
introduced for the defence of Jerusalem, his royal city, together with
thirty talents of gold, eight hundred of silver, bullion, precious
stones, ivory couches and thrones, an abundant treasure, with his
daughters, his harem, and his attendants, I caused to be brought after
me to Nineveh. He sent his envoy to pay tribute and render homage." At
the same time, he overran Judæa, took forty-six fenced cities and many
smaller towns, "with laying down of walls, hewing about, and trampling
down," and carried off more than two hundred thousand captives with
their spoil. Part of Hezekiah's domains was divided among three
Philistine vassals who had remained faithful to Assyria.

It was in the midst of this terrible crisis that Hezekiah had sent to
Sennacherib at Lachish his offer of submission, saying, "I have
offended; return from me; that which thou puttest upon me I will
bear."[555] The spoiling of the palace and Temple was rendered necessary
to raise the vast mulct which the Assyrian King required.[556]

It is at Lachish--now Um-Lakis, a fortified hill in the Shephelah,
south of Jerusalem, between Gaza and Eleutheropolis--that we catch
another personal glimpse of the mighty oppressor. We see him depicted,
on his triumphal tablets, in the palace-chambers of Kouyunjik,
engaged in the siege; for the town offered a determined
resistance,[557] and required all the energies and all the trained
heroism of his forces. We see him next, carefully painted, seated on
his royal throne in magnificent apparel, with his tiara and bracelets,
receiving the spoils and captives of the city. The inscription says:
"Sennacherib, the mighty king, the king of the country of Assyria,
sitting on the throne of judgment at the entrance of the city of
Lakisha. I give permission for its slaughter." He certainly implied
that he took the city, but a doubt is thrown on this by 2 Chron.
xxxii. 1, which only says that "he _thought_ to win these cities"; and
the historian says (2 Kings xix. 8) that he "departed from Lachish."
Lachish was evidently a very strong city, and it is so depicted in the
palace-tablets at Kouyunjik. It had been fortified by Rehoboam, and
had furnished a refuge to the wretched Amaziah.[558]

If Judah and Jerusalem had listened to the messages of Isaiah,[559]
they might have been saved the humiliating affliction which seemed to
have plunged the brief sun of their prosperity into seas of blood. He
had warned them incessantly and in vain. He had foretold their
present desolation, in which Zion should be like a woman seated on the
ground, wailing in her despair. He had taught them that formalism was
no religion, and that external rites did not win Jehovah's approval.
He had told them how foolish it was to put trust in the shadow of
Egypt, and had not shrunk from revealing the fearful consequences
which should follow the setting up of their own false wisdom against
the wisdom of Jehovah. Yet, intermingled with pictures of suffering,
and threats of a harvestless year, designed to punish the vanity and
display of their women, and the intimation--never actually
fulfilled--that even the palace and Temple should become "the joy of
wild asses, a pasture of flocks," he constantly implies that the
disaster would be followed by a mysterious, divine, complete
deliverance, and ultimately by a Messianic reign of joy and peace.
Night is at hand, he said, and darkness; but after the darkness will
come a brighter dawn.

FOOTNOTES:

[535] One legend of his birth resembles the finding of Moses in the
bulrushes.

[536] Schrader, _K. A. T._, pp. 272-274; _Records of the Past_, vii. 28.

[537] Smith, _Eponym Canon_, p. 130.

[538] See Prof. Smith, _Isaiah_, p. 198.

[539] _Records of the Past_, vii. 40. Sargon's words are, "The people
of Philistia, Judah, Edom, and Moab were speaking treason. The people
and their evil chiefs, to fight against me, unto _Pharaoh, the King of
Egypt, a monarch who could not save them_, their presents carried, and
besought his alliance" (G. Smith, _Assyrian Discoveries_, 290).

[540] On the monuments called _Turtanu_, "Holder of power." See
Schrader in Riehm, _s.v._

[541] Raphia, or Ropeh, is on the borders of the desert. Asia beat
Africa in every encounter--at Raphia, at Altaqu, at Carchemish. The
impression of the seal of Shabak, attached to his capitulations with
Sargon, was found at Nineveh by Sir A. H. Layard, and is now in the
British Museum. Shabak died in 712. His son Shabatoh succeeded him in
Egypt, and his nephew(?) Tirhakah in Ethiopia. Sabaco's name assumes
many forms (LXX., Σηγώρ; Herod., ii. 137; Σαβακώς; Vulg., _Sua_). The
Egyptians called him Shaba(ka).

[542] Isa. xx. 1-6.

[543] Lenormant, _Les Premières Civilisations_, ii. 203; _Records of
the Past_, vii. 41-46.

[544] Isa. xxi. 6, A.V., "Watch in the watch-tower." Hitzig, Cheyne,
"They spread the carpets." Much in this short oracle (xxi. 1-10) is
obscure. Isaiah seems, in denouncing the fate of Babylon, to mourn for
the ruin of the smaller states of which it was the prelude (G. Smith,
_Soc. of Bibl. Arch._, ii. 320 Kleinert, _Stud. u. Krit._, 1877 W. R.
Smith in _Enc. Brit._, _s.v._ "Isaiah").

[545] Isa. xxi. 10--_i.e._, "My people threshed and trodden"; LXX., ὁ
καταλελειμμένος καὶ οἱ ὀδυνώμενοι _Records of the Past_, vii. 47.

[546] Herod., Σαναχάριβος; Jos., Σεναχήριβος. See Appendix I. Sin was
the moon-god; Merodach, the planet Jupiter; Adar, Saturn; Ishtai,
Venus; Nebo, Mercury; Nergal, Mars (Schrader, ii. 117).

[547] Sargon seems to have been murdered in the palace of unparalleled
splendour which he built at Dur-Sharrukin ("The City of Sargon"). It
took him five years to build it with armies of workmen. Its halls,
opened by Botta, were the first Assyrian halls ever entered by a
modern's foot. It is strange that this greatest of Assyrian kings is
only mentioned once in the Bible (Isa. xx. 1). We owe to Assyriology
his restoration to his proper place in the annals of mankind. See
Ragozin, _Assyria_, 247-254.

[548] Rawlinson, _Ancient Monarchies_, ii. 178.

[549] Canon Rawlinson, _Kings of Israel and Judah_, 187.

[550] On his own monuments this campaign, except its final catastrophe,
is narrated in four sections: (1) The subjugation of Phœnicia, and of
Philistine towns; (2) the conquest of King Zidka of Askelon; (3) the
defeat of Ekron, the restoration of their vassal king Padî to his
throne, and the defeat of Egypt at Altaqu; (4) the expedition against
Jerusalem (Schrader, E. Tr., i. 298). See Appendix I.

[551] This allusion is said to be the only instance of humour--"_grim_
humour, or it would not be Assyrian"--which occurs in the Assyrian
annals.

[552] Schrader, pp. 234-279. The account of the memorable campaign is
narrated in duplicate on the Taylor Cylinder in the British Museum,
and on the Bull Inscription at Kouyunjik.

[553] Sennacherib calls Tirhakah's army "a host that no man could
number"; but it was defeated by the better discipline, the heavier
armour, and the superior physical strength of the Assyrians.

[554] See Josh. xix. 43.

[555] This very phrase "I imposed on them" is found on Sennacherib's
monument (Schrader, ii. 1). The references, when not otherwise
specified, are to Whitehouse's English translation.

[556] In 2 Kings xviii. 16 the word "pillars" or "doorposts" is
uncertain. LXX., ἐστηριγμένα; Vulg., _laminas auri_.

[557] 2 Chron. xxxii. 9. He had to besiege it "with all his power." He
seems to have thought it even more important than Jerusalem, for he
superintended the siege in person (Layard, _Nineveh and Babylon_, 150;
_Monuments of Nineveh_, 2nd series, pl. 21). The ruined Tel of
Umm-el-Lakîs lies between the Wady Simsim and the Wady-el-Ahsy (Riehm).

[558] See 2 Chron. xi. 9, xxv. 27; Jer. xxxiv. 7. The allusion to this
city in Micah (i. 13) is obscure: "O thou inhabitant of Lachish [swift
steed], bind the chariot to the swift steed: she is the beginning of
sin to the daughter of Zion: for the transgressions of Israel were
found in thee." This seems to imply that some form of idolatry had
come from Israel to Lachish, and from Lachish to Jerusalem. In
Sennacherib's picture of the city, foreign worship is represented as
going on in it (Layard, _Monuments of Nineveh_, Pls. 21 and 24;
Rawlinson, _Herodotus_, i. 477).

[559] Isa. xxix., xxx., xxxi.




                             CHAPTER XXVIII

                        _THE GREAT DELIVERANCE_

                                B.C. 701

                          2 _Kings_ xix. 1-37

    "There brake He the lightnings of the bow, the shield, the sword,
    and the battle."--PSALM lxxvi. 3.

                     "ᾠδὴ πρὸς τὸν Ασσύριον."--LXX.

          "And the might of the Gentile, unsmote by the sword,
           Hath melted like snow at the glance of the Lord."
                                                          BYRON.

               "Vuolsi cosi colà dove si puote
                Cio che si vuole: e più non dimandare."
                                                          DANTE.

    "Through love, through hope, through faith's transcendent dower,
     We feel that we are greater than we know."
                                                     WORDSWORTH.

    "God shall help her, and that when the morning dawns."--PSALM
    xlvi. 5.


In spite of the humble submission of Hezekiah, it is a surprise to learn
from Isaiah that Sennacherib--after he had accepted the huge fine and
fixed the tribute, and departed to subdue Lachish--broke his
covenant.[560] He sent his three chief officers--the Turtan, or
commander-in-chief, whose name seems to have been Belemurani;[561] the
Rabsaris, or chief eunuch;[562] and the Rabshakeh, or chief
captain[563]--from Lachish to Hezekiah, with a command of absolute,
unconditional surrender, to be followed by deportation. By this conduct
Sennacherib violated his own boast that he was "a keeper of treaties."
Yet it is not difficult to conjecture the reason for his change of plan.
He had found it no easy matter to subdue even the very minor fortress of
Lachish; how unwise, then, would it be for him to leave in his rear an
uncaptured city so well fortified as Jerusalem! He was advancing towards
Egypt. It was obviously a strategic error to spare on his route a
hostile and almost impregnable stronghold as a nucleus for the plans of
his enemies. Moreover, he had heard rumours that Tirhakah, the third and
last Ethiopian king of Egypt, was advancing against him, and it was most
important to prevent any junction between his forces and those of
Hezekiah.[564] He could not come in person to Jerusalem, for the siege
of Lachish was on his hands; but he detached from his army a large
contingent under his Turtan, to win the Jews by seductive promises, or
to subdue Jerusalem by force. Once more, therefore, the Holy City saw
beneath her often-captured walls the vast beleaguering host, and
"governors and rulers clothed most gorgeously, horsemen riding upon
horses, all of them desirable young men." Isaiah describes to us how the
people crowded to the house-tops, half dead with fear, weeping and
despairing, and crying to the hills to cover them, and bereft of their
rulers, who had been bound by the archers of the enemy in their attempt
to escape. They gazed on the quiver-bearing warriors of Elam in their
chariots, and the serried ranks of the shields of Kir, and the cavalry
round the gates. And he tells us how, as so often occurs at moments of
mad hopelessness, many who ought to have been crying to God in sackcloth
and ashes, gave themselves up, on the contrary, to riot and revelry,
eating flesh, and drinking wine, and saying: "Let us eat and drink; for
to-morrow we die."[565] The king alone had shown patience, calmness, and
active foresight; and he alone, by his energy and faith, had restored
some confidence to the spirits of his fainting people.

Although the city had been refortified by the king, and supplied with
water, the hearts of the inhabitants must have sunk within them when
they saw the Assyrian army investing the walls, and when the three
commissioners--taking their station "by the conduit of the upper pool
which is in the highway of the fuller's field"--summoned the king to
hear the ultimatum of Sennacherib.

The king did not in person obey the summons; but he, too, sent out his
three chief officers. They were Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, who, as
the chamberlain (_al-hab-baîth_), was a great prince (_nagîd_);
Shebna, who had been degraded, perhaps at the instance of Isaiah, from
the higher post, and was now secretary (_sopher_); and Joah, son of
Asaph, the chronicler (_mazkîr_), to whom we probably owe the minute
report of the memorable scene. No doubt they went forth in the pomp of
office--Eliakim with his robe, and girdle, and key.[566] The
Rabshakeh proved himself, indeed, "an affluent orator," and evinced
such familiarity with the religious politics of Judah and Jerusalem,
that this, in conjunction with his perfect mastery of Hebrew, gives
colour to the belief that he was an apostate Jew. He began by
challenging the idle confidence of Hezekiah, and his vain words[567]
that he had counsel and strength for the war. Upon what did he rely?
On the broken and dangerous bulrush of Egypt?[568] It would but pierce
his hand! On Jehovah? But Hezekiah had forfeited his protection by
sweeping away His _bamoth_ and His altars! Why, let Hezekiah make a
wager;[569] and if Sennacherib furnished him with two thousand horses,
he would be unable to find riders for them! How, then, could he drive
back even the lowest of the Assyrian captains? And was not Jehovah on
their side? It was He who had bidden them destroy Jerusalem!

That last bold assertion, appealing as it did to all that was
erroneous and abject in the minds of the superstitious, and backed, as
it was, by the undeniable force of the envoy's argument, smote so
bitterly on the ear of Hezekiah's courtiers, that they feared it would
render negotiation impossible. They humbly entreated the orator to
speak to "his servants" in the Aramaic language of Assyria, which they
understood,[570] and not in Hebrew, which was the language of all the
Jews who stood in crowds on the walls. Surely this was a diplomatic
embassy to their king, not an incitement to popular sedition?

The answer of the Rabshakeh was truly Assyrian in its utterly brutal
and ruthless coarseness. Taking up his position directly in front of
the wall,[571] and ostentatiously addressing the multitude, he ignored
the representatives of Hezekiah. Who were they? asked he. His master
had not sent him to speak to them, or to their poor little puppet of a
king, but to the people on the wall, the foul garbage of whose
sufferings of thirst and famine they should share.[572] And to all the
multitude the great king's[573] message was:--Do not be deceived.
Hezekiah cannot save you. Jehovah will not save you. Come to terms
with me, and give me hostages and pledges and a present, and then live
in happy peace and plenty until I come and deport you to a land as
fair and fruitful as this. How should Jehovah deliver them? Had any of
the gods of the nations delivered them out of the hands of the King of
Assyria? "Where are the gods of Hamath, and of Arpad? Where are the
gods of Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivvah? Have the gods of Samaria
delivered Samaria out of my hand, that Jehovah should deliver
Jerusalem out of my hand?"[574]

It was a very powerful oration, but the orator must have been a little
disconcerted to find that it was listened to in absolute silence. He
had disgracefully violated the comity of international intercourse by
appealing to subjects against their lawful king; yet from the starving
people there came not a murmur of reply. Faithful to the behest of
their king in the midst of their misery and terror, they answered not
a word. Agamemnon is silent before the coarse jeers of Thersites. "The
sulphurous flash dies in its own smoke, only leaving a hateful stench
behind it!" And in this attitude of the people there was something
very sublime and very instructive. Dumb, stricken, starving, the
wretched Jews did not answer the envoy's taunts or menaces, because
they would not. They were not even in those extremities to be seduced
from their allegiance to the king whom they honoured, though the
speaker had contemptuously ignored his existence. And though the
Rabshakeh had cut them to the heart with his specious appeals and
braggart vaunts, yet "this clever, self-confident, persuasive
personage, with two languages on his tongue, and an army at his back,"
could not shake the confidence in God, which, however unreasonable it
might seem, had been elevated into a conviction by their king and
their prophet. The Rabsak had tried to seduce the people into
rebellion, but he had failed.[575] They were ready to die for Hezekiah
with the fidelity of despair. The mirage of sensual comfort in exiled
servitude should not tempt them from the scorched wilderness from
which they could still cry out for the living God.

Yet the Assyrian's words had struck home into the hearts of his
greatest hearers, and therefore how much more into those of the
ignorant multitudes! Eliakim and Shebna and Joah came to Hezekiah
with their clothes rent, and told him the words of the Rabshakeh. And
when the king heard it, when he found that even his submission had
been utterly in vain, he too rent his clothes, and put on
sackcloth,[576] and went into the only place where he could hope to
find comfort, even into the house of the Lord, which he had cleansed
and restored to beauty, although afterwards he had been driven to
despoil it. Needing an earthly counsellor, he sent Eliakim and Shebna
and the elders of the priests to Isaiah. They were to tell him the
outcome of this day of trouble, rebuke, and contumely; and since the
Rabshakeh had insulted and despised Jehovah, they were to urge the
prophet to make his appeal to Him, and to pray for the remnant which
the Assyrians had left.[577]

The answer of Isaiah was a dauntless defiance. If others were in
despair, he was not in the least dismayed. "Be not afraid"--such was
his message--"of the mere words with which the boastful boys of the
King of Assyria have blasphemed Me.[578] Behold, I will put a spirit
in him, and he shall hear a rumour,[579] and shall return to his own
land; and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land."

Much crestfallen at the total and unexpected failure of the embassy, and
of his own heart-shaking appeals, the Rabshakeh returned. But meanwhile
Sennacherib had taken Lachish, and marched to Libnah (Tel-es-Safîa),
which he was now besieging.[580] There it was that he heard the "rumour"
of which Isaiah had spoken--the report, namely, that Tirhakah, the third
king of the Ethiopian dynasty of Pharaohs,[581] was advancing in person
to meet him. This was B.C. 701, and it is perhaps only by anticipation
that Tirhakah is called "King" of Ethiopia. He was only the general and
representative of his father Shabatok, if (as some think) he did not
succeed to the throne till 698.

It was impossible for Sennacherib under these circumstances to return
northwards to Jerusalem, of which the siege would inevitably occupy
some time. But he sent a menacing letter,[582] reminding Hezekiah that
neither king nor god had ever yet saved any city from the hands of the
Assyrian destroyers. Where were the kings, he asked again, of Hamath,
Arpad, Sepharvaim, Hena, Ivvah? What had the gods of Gozan, Haran,
Rezeph, and the children of Eden in Telassar done to save their
countries from Sennacherib's ancestors, when they had laid them under
the ban?[583]

Again the pious king found comfort in God's Temple. Taking with him the
scornful and blasphemous letter, he spread it out before Jehovah in the
Temple with childlike simplicity, that Jehovah might read its insults
and be moved by this dumb appeal.[584] Then both he and Isaiah cried
mightily to God, "who sitteth above the cherubim," admitting the truth
of what Sennacherib had said, and that the kings of Assyria had
destroyed the nations, and burnt their vain gods in the fire. But of
what significance was that? Those were but gods of wood and stone, the
works of men's hands.[585] But Jehovah was the One, the True, the Living
God. Would He not manifest among the nations His eternal supremacy?

And as the king prayed the word of Jehovah came to Isaiah, and he sent
to Hezekiah this glorious message about Sennacherib:--

"The virgin, the daughter of Zion, hath despised thee, and laughed thee
to scorn. The daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee."[586]

The blasphemies, the vaunts, the menacing self-confidence of
Sennacherib, were his surest condemnation. Did he count God a cypher?
It was to God alone that he owed the fearful power which had made the
nations like grass upon the housetops, like blasted corn, before him.
And because God knew his rage and tumult, God would treat him as
Sargon his father had treated conquered kings:--

"I will put My hook in thy nose, and My bridle in thy lips.[587] And I
will turn thee back by the way by which thou camest." He had thought
to conquer Egypt:[588] instead of that he should be driven back in
confusion to Assyria.

It was but a plainer enunciation of the truths which Isaiah had again
and again intimated in enigma and parable. It was the fearless
security of Judah's lion; the safety of the rock amid the deluge; the
safety of the poor brood under the wings of the Divine protection from
"the great Birds'-nester of the world"; the crashing downfall of the
lopped Lebanonian cedar, while the green shoot and tender branch out
of the withered stump of Jesse should take root downward and bear
fruit upward.[589]

And the sign was given to Hezekiah that this should be so.[590] This
year there should be no harvest, except such as was spontaneous; for
in the stress of Assyrian invasion sowing and reaping had been
impossible. The next year the harvest should only be from this
accidental produce. But in the third year, secure at last, they should
sow and reap, and plant vineyards and eat the fruit thereof.[591] And
though but a remnant of the people was left out of the recent
captivity, they should grow and flourish, and Jerusalem should see the
besieging host of Assyria no more for ever; for Jehovah would defend
the city for His own sake, and for His servant David's sake.

Thereafter occurred the great deliverance.[592] In some way--we know
not and never shall know how--by a blast of the simoom, or sudden
outburst of plague, or furious panic, or sudden assault, or by some
other calamity,[593] the host of Assyria was smitten in the camp, and
one hundred and eighty-five thousand, including their chief leaders,
perished. The historian, in a manner habitual to pious Semitic
writers, attributes the devastation to the direct action of the "angel
of the Lord";[594] but as Dr. Johnson said long ago, "We are certainly
not to suppose that the angel went about with a sword in his hand,
striking them one by one, but that some powerful natural agent was
employed."[595]

The Forty-Sixth Psalm is generally regarded as the _Te Deum_ sung in
the Temple over this deliverance, and its opening words, "God is our
refuge and strength," are inscribed over the cathedral of St. Sophia
at Constantinople.

It is usually supposed that this overwhelming disaster happened to the
host of Assyria _before Jerusalem_. This, however, is not stated; and
as the capture of Lachish was an urgent necessity, it is probable that
the Turtan led back the forces which had accompanied him, and took
them afterwards to Libnah.[596] Yet, since Libnah was but ten miles
from Jerusalem, the Jews could not feel safe for a day until the
mighty news came that the

          "Angel of God spread his wings on the blast,
           And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed,
           And the eyes of the sleepers waxed heavy and chill,
           And their breasts but once heaved, and for ever grew still."

When the catastrophe which had happened to the main army and the flight
of Sennacherib became known, the scattered forces would melt away.

All the Assyrians who escaped were now hurrying back[597] to Nineveh
with their foiled king. Sennacherib seems to have occupied himself in
the north, except so far as he was forced to fight fiercely against
his own rebel subjects. He never recovered this complete humiliation.
He never again came southwards. He survived the catastrophe for
seventeen or twenty years,[598] and fought five or six campaigns; but
at the end of that period, while he was worshipping in the house of
Nisroch or Assarac (Assur), his god,[599] he was murdered by his two
sons Adrammelech (Adar-malik--"Adar is king") and Sharezer
(Nergal-sarussar--"Nergal protect the king"),[600] who envied him his
throne. They escaped into the land of Ararat, but were defeated and
killed by their younger brother Esarhaddon (Assur-âkh-iddin--"Assur
bestowed a 'brother'") at the battle of Hani-Rabbat, on the Upper
Euphrates. He succeeded Sennacherib, and ultimately avenged on Egypt
his father's overwhelming disaster. He is perhaps the "cruel lord" of
Isa. xix. 4, and it is not unnatural that he should have prevailed
against his parricidal brothers, for we are told that in a previous
battle at Melitene he had shown such prowess that the troops then and
there proclaimed him King of Assyria with shouts of "This is our
king."[601] He reigned from B.C. 681-668, and in his reign Assyria
culminated before her last decline.[602] He was the builder of the
temple at Nimrûd, and erected thirty other temples. Babylon and
Nineveh were both his capitals,[603] and he had previously been
viceroy of the former.

The glorious deliverance in which the faith and courage of the King of
Judah had had their share naturally increased the prosperity and
prestige of Hezekiah, and lifted the authority of Isaiah to an
unprecedented height. Hezekiah probably did not long survive the
uplifting of this dark cloud, but during the remainder of his life "he
was magnified in the sight of all nations."[604] When he died, all
Judah and Jerusalem did him honour, and gave him a splendid burial.
Apparently the old tombs of the kings--the catacomb constructed by
David and Solomon--had in the course of two and a half centuries
become full, so that he had to be buried "in the ascent of the
sepulchres," perhaps some niche higher than the other graves of the
catacomb, which was henceforth disused for the burial of the kings of
Judah. We have had occasion to observe the many particulars in which
his reign was memorable, and to his other services must be added the
literary activity to which we owe the collection and editing, by his
scribes, of the Proverbs of Solomon. His reign had practically
witnessed the institution of the faithful Jewish Church under the
influence of his great prophetic guide.[605]

The question whether the portent of the destruction of the Assyrian
was identical with that related by Herodotus has never been finally
answered. Herodotus places the scene of the disaster at Pelusium,[606]
and tells this story:--Sennacherib, King of the Arabs and Assyrians,
invaded Egypt. Its king, Sethos, of the Tanite dynasty, in despair
entered the temple of his god Pthah (or Vulcan), and wept.[607] The
god appeared to him with promises of deliverance, and Sethos marched
to meet Sennacherib with an army of poor artisans, since he was a
priest, and the caste of warriors was ill-affected to him. In the
night the god Pthah sent hosts of field-mice, which gnawed the
quivers, bow-strings, and shield-straps of the Assyrians, who
consequently fled, and were massacred. An image of the priest-king
with a mouse in his hand stood in the temple of Pthah, and on its
pedestal the inscription, which might also point the moral of the
Biblical narrative, Ἐς ἐμέ τις ὁρεῶν εὐσεβὴς ἔστω ("Let him who looks
on me be pious"). Josephus seems so far to accept this version that he
refers to Herodotus, and says that Sennacherib's failure was the
result of a frustration in Egypt.[608] The _mouse_ in the hand of the
statue probably originated the details of the legend; but according to
Horapollion it was the hieroglyphic sign of destruction by
plague.[609] Bähr says that it was also the symbol of Mars. Readers of
Homer will remember the title Apollo _Smintheus_ ("the destroyer of
mice"), and the story that mice were worshipped in the Troas because
they gnawed the bow-strings of the enemy.

But whatever may have been the mode of the retribution, or the scene in
which it took place, it is certainly historical. The outlines of the
narrative in the sacred historian are identical with those in the
Assyrian records. The annals of Sennacherib tell us the four initial
stages of the great campaign in the conquest of Phœnicia, of Askelon,
and of Ekron, the defeat of the Egyptians at Altaqu, and the earlier
hostilities against Hezekiah. The Book of Kings concentrates our
attention on the details of the close of the invasion. On this point,
whether from accident, or because Sennacherib did not choose to register
his own calamity, and the frustration of the gods of whose protection he
boasted, the Assyrian records are silent. Baffled conquerors rarely
dwell on their own disasters. It is not in the despatches of Napoleon
that we shall find the true story of his abandonment of Syria, of the
defeats of his forces in Spain, or of his retreat from Moscow.[610]

The great lesson of the whole story is the reward and the triumph of
indomitable faith. Faith may still burn with a steady flame when the
difficulties around it seem insuperable, when all refutation of the
attacks of its enemies seems to be impossible, when Hope itself has
sunk into white ashes in which scarcely a gleam of heat remains.
Isaiah had nothing to rely upon; he had no argument wherewith to
furnish Hezekiah beyond the bare and apparently unmeaning promise,
"Jehovah is our Judge; Jehovah is our Lawgiver; Jehovah is our King.
He will save us." It was a magnificent vindication of his inspired
conviction, when all turned out--not indeed in minute details, but in
every essential fact--exactly as he had prophesied from the first.
Even in B.C. 740 he had declared that the sins of Judah deserved and
would receive condign punishment, though a remnant should be
saved.[611] That the retribution would come from some foreign
enemy--Assyria or Egypt, or both--he felt sure. Jehovah would hiss for
the fly in the uttermost canals of Egypt, and for the bee that is in
the land of Assyria, and both should swarm in the crevices of the
rocks, and over the pastures.[612] Later on in 732, in the reign of
Ahaz, he pointed to Assyria,[613] as the destined scourge, and he
realised this still more clearly in 725 and 721, when Shalmaneser and
Sargon were tearing Samaria to pieces.[614] Contrary, indeed, to his
expectation, the Assyrians did not then destroy Jerusalem, or even
formally besiege it. The revolt from Assyria, the reliance on Egypt,
did not for a moment blind his judgment or alter his conviction; and
in 701 it came true when Sennacherib was on the march for
Palestine.[615] Yet he never wavered in the apparently impossible
conclusion, that, in spite of all, in spite even of his own darker
prophecies (xxxii. 14), Jerusalem shall in some Divine manner be
saved.[616] The deliverance would be, as he declared from first to
last, the work of Jehovah, not the work of man,[617] and because of it
Sennacherib would return to his own land and perish there.[618] The
details might be dim and wavering; the result was certain. Isaiah was
no thaumaturge, no peeping wizard, no muttering necromancer, no
monthly prognosticator.[619] He was a prophet--that is, an inspired
moral and spiritual teacher who was able to foresee and to foretell,
not in their details, but in their broad outlines, the events yet
future, because he was enabled to read them by the eye of faith ere
they had yet occurred. His faith convinced him that predictions
founded on eternal principles have all the certainty of a law, and
that God's dealings with men and nations in the future can be seen in
the light of experience derived from the history of the past. Courage,
zeal, unquenchable hope, indomitable resolution, spring from that
perfect confidence in God which is the natural reward of innocence and
faithfulness. Isaiah trusted in God, and he knew that they who put
their trust in Him can never be confounded.

No event produced a deeper impression on the minds of the Jews, though
that impression was soon afterwards, for a time, obliterated.
Naturally, it elevated the authority of Isaiah into unquestioned
pre-eminence during the reign of Hezekiah. It has left its echo, not
only in his own triumphant pæans, but also in the Forty-Sixth Psalm,
which the Septuagint calls "An ode to the Assyrian," and perhaps also
in the Seventy-Fifth and Seventy-Sixth Psalms. In the minds of all
faithful Israelites it established for ever the conviction that God
had chosen Judah for Himself, and Israel for His own possession; that
God was in the midst of Zion, and she should not be confounded: "God
shall help her, and that right early." And it contains a noble and
inspiring lesson for all time. "It is not without reason," says Dean
Stanley, "that in the Churches of Moscow the exultation over the fall
of Sennacherib is still read on the anniversary of the retreat of the
French from Russia, or that Arnold, in his lectures on Modern History,
in the impressive passage in which he dwells on that great
catastrophe, declared that for the memorable night of the frost in
which twenty thousand horses perished, and the strength of the French
army was utterly broken, he knew of no language so well fitted to
describe it as the words in which Isaiah described the advance and
destruction of the hosts of Sennacherib."[620]

They had been brought face to face, the two kings--Sennacherib and
Hezekiah. One was the impious boaster who relied on his own strength,
and on the mighty host which dried up rivers with their trampling
march--the worldling who thought to lord it over the affrighted globe;
the other was the poor kinglet of the Chosen People, with his one city
and his enfeebled people, and his dominion not so large as one of the
smallest English counties. But "one with God is irresistible," "one
with God is always in a majority." The poor, weak prince triumphs over
the terrific conqueror, because he trusts in Him to whom
world-desolating tyrants are but as the small dust of the balance,
and who "taketh up the isles as a very little thing."[621]

As Assyria now vanishes almost entirely from the history of the Chosen
People, we may here recall with delight one large and loving prophecy,
to show that the Hebrews were sometimes uplifted by the power of
inspiration above the narrowness of a bigoted and exclusive spirit.
Desperately as Israel had suffered, both from Egypt and Assyria, Isaiah
could still utter the glowing Messianic Prophecy which included the
Gentiles in the privileges of the Golden Age to come. He foretold that--

"In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and Assyria, as a
blessing in the midst of the land: whom the Lord of hosts shall bless,
saying, Blessed be Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands,
and Israel Mine inheritance."[622]

          "That strain I heard was of a higher mood!"

       *       *       *       *       *

King Hezekiah can have no finer panegyric than that of the son of
Sirach: "Even the kings of Judah failed, for they forsook the law of
the Most High: all except David, and Ezekias, and Josias failed."[623]

FOOTNOTES:

[560] Isa. xxxiii. 8.

[561] Isa. xx. 1.

[562] Jer. xxxix. 3. The meaning of the name is not certain. _Sarîs_,
in Hebrew, is "eunuch"; but the word is not known in Assyrian records,
and we should expect _Rabsarîsîm_, as in Dan. i. 3.

[563] Rabsak perhaps means _chief officer_ or vizier, and is Hebraised
into Rabshakeh. Prof. G. A. Smith (_Isaiah_, p. 345) calls him
"Sennacherib's Bismarck." Rabshakeh, usually rendered "chief cupbearer,"
is an Aramaised form of Rabsak (great chief); but we know of no chief
cupbearer at the Assyrian court (Schrader, _K. A. T._, 199 f.).

[564] From an Apis-stêlê he seems to have reigned twenty-six years
(B.C. 694-668?).

[565] Isa. xxii. 1-13.

[566] Eliakim. See Isa. xxii. 21, 22.

[567] "Vain words"; lit., "a word of the lips." LXX., λόγοι χειλέων.

[568] Comp. Isa. xxx. 1-7; Ezek. xxix. 6. It seems to be an
over-refinement to suppose that Sennacherib refers to the divisions
between Egypt and Ethiopia.

[569] 2 Kings xviii. 23, A.V.: "Let Hezekiah give pledges."

[570] Heb., _Arâmîth_.

[571] 2 Kings xviii. 28, where _stood_ should be rendered _came
forward_.

[572] The coarse expression is softened down by the Chronicler (2
Chron. xxxii. 18).

[573] The kings of Assyria usually called themselves "great king,
mighty king, king of the multitude, king of the land Assur."

[574] Every one must notice the glaring inconsistency between this
_defiance_ of Jehovah and the previous claim to the possession of His
sanction. On Hamath, Arpad, etc., see Schrader, ii. 7-10.

[575] Isa. xxxiii. 8: "He hath broken the covenant, he hath despised
the cities, he regardeth no man."

[576] 1 Kings xx. 32; 2 Kings vi. 30.

[577] Sennacherib had already carried off vast numbers. See Isa. xxiv.
1-12; Demetrius _ap._ Clem. Alex., _Strom._, i. 403.

[578] Isaiah's phrase, _na'arî melek_, "lads of the king," is
contemptuous. LXX., παιδάρια.

[579] Heb., _ruach_; LXX., δίδωμι ἐν αὐτῷ πνεῦμα. Theodoret calls this
"spirit" _cowardice_ (τὴν δειλίαν οἶμαι δηλοῦν).

[580] Libnah means "whiteness." Dean Stanley (_S. and P._, 207, 258)
identifies it with a white-faced hill, the Blanchegarde of the
Crusaders.

[581] The dates usually given are Sabaco, B.C. 725-712; Shabatok,
712-698; Tirhakah, 698-672. Manetho, Τάραχος; Strabo, Τεράκων, ὁ
Αἰθιώψ. He was third king of the twenty-fifth dynasty, and the
greatest of the Egyptian sovereigns who came from Ethiopia. He reigned
gloriously for many years. We see his figure at Medinet Abou, smiting
ten captive princes with an iron mace; but he was finally defeated by
Esarhaddon, and in 668 by Assurbanipal at Karbanit (Canopus). He is
called by his conqueror "Tar-ku-u, King of Egypt and Cush" (Schrader,
_K. A. T._, 336 ff.).

[582] Heb., _Sepharîm_; Vulg., _litteræ_; 2 Chron. xxxii. 17. The more
ordinary term for a letter is _iggereth_.

[583] 2 Kings xix. 12 (Heb.); Ezek. xxvii. 23. On these places see
Schrader, ii. 11, 12. It had been indeed Sennacherib's work "to reduce
fenced cities to ruinous heaps." He boasts on the Bellino Cylinder,
"Their smaller towns without number I overthrew, and reduced them to
heaps of rubbish" (_Records of the Past_, i. 27).

[584] "It is a prayer without words, a prayer in action, which then
passes into a spoken prayer" (Delitzsch).

[585] The Assyrians are sometimes represented in their monuments as
hewing idols to pieces in honour of their god Assur (Botta, _Monum._,
pl. 140).

[586] LXX., κινεῖν τὴν κεφαλήν, "a gesture of scorn" (Psalm xxii. 7,
cix. 25; Lam. ii. 15). With the vaunts of Sennacherib compare
Claudian, _De bell. Geth._, 526-532.

                              "Cum cesserit omnis
          Obsequiis natura meis? Subsidere nostris
          Sub pedibus montes, _arescere vidimus amnes_ ...
          Fregi Alpes, _galeis Padum victricibus hausi_."
                                                KEIL, _ad loc._


[587] Comp. 2 Chron. xxxiii. 11 (Heb.); Psalm xxxix. 1; Isa. xxx. 28;
Ezek. xxxviii. 4, xxix. 4. The Assyrians drove a ring through the
lower lip, the Babylonians through the nose. See Rawlinson, _Ancient
Monarchies_, ii. 314, iii. 436.

[588] 2 Kings xix. 33. "The river of Egypt" (_Nachal-ha-Mizraim_) is
the Wady-el-Arish.

[589] Isa. x. 33, 34, xi. 1, xiv. 8; Stanley, _Lectures_, ii. 410.

[590] אוֹת. A sign "is a thing, an event, or an action intended as a
pledge of the Divine certainty of another. Sometimes it is a miracle
(Gen. iv. 15, Heb.), or a permanent symbol (Isa. viii. 18, xx. 3,
xxxvii. 30; Jer. xliv. 29)" (Delitzsch).

[591] The first year they should eat _saphîach_ (LXX., αὐτόματα;
Vulg., _quæ repereris_); the second year, _sachîsh_ (LXX., τὰ
ἀνατέλλοντα; Vulg., _quæ sponte nascuntur_).

[592] 2 Kings xix. 35: "It came to pass that night." Isaiah only has
"then"; Josephus, κατὰ τὴν πρώτην τῆς πολιορκίας νύκτα. Menochius
understands it "_in celebri illa nocte_." The LXX. omits "that," and
simply says "in the night" (νυκτός). Comp. Psalm xlvi. 5 (Heb.); Isa.
xvii. 14.

[593] Josephus, followed by many moderns, and even by Keil, suggests a
plague. The malaria of the Pelusiotic marshes easily breeds pestilence.
The "_maleak Jehovah_" is "the destroyer" (_mashchith_) (Exod. xii. 23;
2 Sam. xxiv. 16.) Comp. Justin., xix. 11; Diod. Sic., xix. 434.

[594] Comp. 2 Sam. xxiv. 15, 16.

[595] The Babyl. Talmud and some Targums, followed by Vitringa, etc.,
attribute to it storms of lightning; Prideaux, Heine, and Faber, to
the simoom; R. José, Ussher, etc., to a nocturnal attack of Tirhakah.

[596] It is, however, perfectly possible that a contingent was left on
guard. "Where is the [past] terror? Where is he that rated the
tribute? Where is he that received it?" (Isa. xxxiii. 18). "At the
noise of the tumult the people flee" (Isa. xxxiii. 3); "At Thy rebuke,
O God of Jacob, both chariot and horse are cast into a dead sleep"
(Psalm lxxvi. 6). Comp. Psalm xlviii. 4-6.

[597] This is the meaning of "he departed, and went, and returned."

[598] Not, only fifty-five days, as we read in Tobit i. 21.

[599] Jos., _Antt._, X. i. 5: "In his own temple to Araskê"; LXX.,
Ἀσαράχ; Isa. xxxvii. 38. One guess connects the word with Nesher, "the
eagle-god," often seen on the Assyrian bas-reliefs. Lenormant calls
him "the god of human destiny."

[600] Alex. Polyhistor _ap._ Euseb., i. 27; Kimchi _ad_ 2 Kings xix.
37. Buxtorf (_Bibl. Rabbinic._) says that Sennacherib entered the
temple to ask his counsellors why Jehovah favoured Israel. Being told
that it was because of Abraham's willingness to offer Isaac, he said,
"Then I will offer my two sons." Rashi adds that they slew him to save
their own lives. (See Schenkel and Riehm, _s.v._ "Sanherib"--both
articles by Schrader).

[601] See Schrader in Riehm's _Handwörterbuch_, _s.vv._ "Sanherib,"
"Asarhaddon." Esarhaddon, judging from what is called "Sennacherib's
will," in which the king leaves him splendid presents, seems to have
been a favourite of his father (_Records of the Past_, i. 136). He
says that on hearing of his father's murder, "I was wrathful as a
lion, and my soul raged within me, and I lifted my hands to the great
gods to assume the sovereignty of my father's house." See Appendix I.

[602] The Book of Tobit (i. 21) calls him Sarchedonas.

[603] 2 Chron. xxxiii. 11.

[604] 2 Chron. xxxii. 23.

[605] Wellhausen, p. 116.

[606] Herod., ii. 14. "Sin" (Tanis?), Ezek. xxx. 15. It lay in the
midst of morasses, and some attribute the catastrophe to the malaria.

[607] The deliverance is really connected with Tirhakah, whose deeds
are recorded in a temple at Medinet Habou, but the jealousy of the
Memphites attributed it to the piety of Sethos. See G. W. Wilkinson,
_Ancient Egyptians_, i. 141; Rawlinson, _Herodotus_, i. 394.

[608] _Antt._, X. i. 1-5.

[609] Comp. 1 Sam. v., vi., where, after a plague, the Philistines
sent an expiation of five golden mice.

[610] We may add that even the Chronicler drops a veil over
Sennacherib's actual capture of fortresses in Judah ("he _thought_ to
win them for himself," 2 Chron. xxxii. 1: comp. 2 Kings xviii. 13;
Isa. xxxvi. 1).

[611] Isa. vi. 11-13.

[612] Isa. v. 26-30.

[613] Isa. vii. 18.

[614] Isa. viii., xxviii. 1-15, x. 28-34.

[615] Isa. xiv. 29-32, xxix., xxx.

[616] Isa. i. 19, 20.

[617] Isa. x. 33, xxix. 5-8, xxx. 20-26, 30-33.

[618] Isa. xxxviii. 6. See for this paragraph an admirable chapter in
Prof. Smith's _Isaiah_, pp. 368-374.

[619] Isa. xlvii. 13.

[620] Stanley, _Lectures_, ii. 531.

[621] Isa. xl. 15.

[622] Isa. xix. 24, 25.

[623] Ecclus. xlix. 4.




                              CHAPTER XXIX

                               _MANASSEH_

                              B.C. 686-641

                           2 KINGS xxi. 1-16

  "Shall the throne of wickedness have fellowship with Thee,
   That frameth mischief by statute?
   They gather themselves in troops against the soul of the righteous,
   And condemn the innocent blood."--PSALM xciv. 20, 21.

          "Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind
                 exceeding small;
           Though with patience long He waiteth, with exactness grinds
                 He all."


Manasseh was born after Hezekiah's recovery from his terrible illness.
He was but twelve years old when he began to reign. Of his mother
Hephzibah we know nothing, nor of the Zechariah who was her father;
but perhaps Isaiah in one passage (lxii. 4) may refer to her name, "My
delight is in her."[624] The son of Hezekiah and Hephzibah was the
worst of all the kings of Judah, and had the longest reign.

The tender age of Manasseh when he came to the throne may perhaps
account for the fact that the "forgetfulness" which his name
implied[625] was not a forgetting of other sorrows, but of all that
was noble and righteous in the attempted reformation which had been
the main religious work of his father's life. In Judah, as in England,
a king was not supposed to be of age until he was eighteen.[626] For
six years Manasseh must have been to a great extent under the
influence of his regents and counsellors.

There always existed in Jerusalem, even in the best times, a
heathenising party, and it was, unfortunately, composed of princes and
aristocrats who could bring strong influence to bear upon the
king.[627] They did not deny Jehovah, but they did not recognise Him
as the sole or the supreme God of heaven and earth. To them He was the
local deity of Israel and Judah. But there were other gods, the gods
of the nations, and their aim always was to recognise the existence of
these deities and to pay homage to their power. If their favour could
not be purchased except by their immediate votaries, at least their
anger might be averted. These politicians advocated a fatal and
incongruous syncretism, or at least an unlimited tolerance for heathen
idols, for which they could, unhappily, quote the precepts and example
of the Wise King, Solomon. If any one questioned their views as a
dangerous idolatry, and an insult to

          "Jehovah thundering out of Zion, throned
           Between the cherubim,"

they had but to point from the walls of Jerusalem to the confronting
summit of Olivet, where still remained the shrines which the son of
David had erected three centuries earlier to Chemosh, and Milcom, and
Ashtoreth, who, since his day, had always found, even in Jerusalem,
some worshippers, open or secret, to acknowledge their divinity.

And these worldlings, in their tolerance for the intolerable, could
always appeal to two powerful instincts of man's fallen
nature--sensuality and fear--"lust hard by hate." There was something
in the worship of Baal-Peor and of Moloch which appealed to the
undying ape and tiger in the unregenerate human heart.

The true worship of Jehovah is exactly that form of religion which man
finds it least easy to render to Him--the religion of pure morality.
Services, rites, functions, look like religious diligence, and readily
secure a reverent outward devotion. Even self-maceration, fasts, and
flagellation are a cheap way of escaping the "endless torments" which
always loom so hugely in terrifying superstition.

Such superstitions are children of the fear and faithlessness which hath
torment. They are the corruptions with which every form of false
religion, and with which also a corrupt and perverted Christianity, are
always tainted. And they demand the easy expiation of physical ritual.
But all the best and most spiritual teachers of Scripture--alike the
Hebrew Prophets and the Christian Apostles--are at one with the Lord
Christ in perpetual insistence on the truth that "mercy is better than
sacrifice," and that true religion consists in that good mind and good
life which are the sole proof of genuine sincerity.

If Jehovah would but be contented with gifts, men would gladly offer
Him thousands of rams and tens of thousands of rivers of oil. But the
prophets taught that He was above all mean bribes, and that such
offerings never could be anything to One whose were all the beasts of
the forests and the cattle upon a thousand hills. It was not easy,
then, to bribe such a God, or to make Him a respecter of persons.

How easy, again, would it be, if He would even accept human
sacrifices! A child was but a child. How easy to kill a child, and
place it in the brazen arms which sloped over the fiery cistern!
Moloch and Chemosh were supremely to be won by such holocausts; and
surely Moloch and Chemosh must be lords of power! But here again the
prophets of Jehovah stepped in, and said that it was of no avail with
the High, the Holy, the Merciful, to give even our firstborn for our
transgressions, or the fruit of the body for the sin of the soul.

Asceticism, then--occasional fasting, severe self-deprivations--surely
the gods would accept these? And they were as nothing compared to the
burden of sin and the agony of conscience! Baal and Asherah could
command agonised devotees, and could approve of them. By Jehovah and
His prophets such bodily service is discouraged and forbidden.

Pleasure, then?--the consecration of the natural impulses, the
devotion in religious cultus of the passions and appetites of the
flesh--why should that be so abhorrent to Jehovah? Other deities
exulted in licentiousness. Was not the temple of Astarte full of her
women-worshippers and of her eunuchs? Was there no fascination in the
voluptuous allurements, the orgiastic dances, the stolen waters, the
bread eaten in secret, when not only was the conscience lulled by the
removal therefrom of all sense of guilt and degradation, but such
orgies were even crowned with merit, as part of an acceptable worship?
After all, there was "a fascination of corruption" in these idols of
gold and jewels, of lust and blood!

How stern, how cold, how bare, by comparison, was the moral law which
only said, "Thou shalt not," and emphasised its prohibition with the
unalterable sanctions, "This do, and thou shalt live"; "Do it not, and
thou shalt die"! What could they make of a religion which was so
eloquently silent as to the meritoriousness of ritual?

And how chill and simple and dreary was that which--according to
Micah--Jehovah had shown to be good, and which He required of every
man,--which was nothing more than to do justly, and to love mercy, and
to walk humbly with God!

And what right had the prophets--so asked these apostates--to lord it
over God's heritage in this way? Solomon was the greatest king of
Israel and Judah; and Solomon had never been so exclusive in his
religionism, though he had built the Temple of the Lord; nor Rehoboam;
nor the great Phœnician Queen Athaliah; nor the cultivated and
æsthetic Ahaz; nor, in the kingdom of Israel, the lordly warrior Ahab;
nor the splendid and long-lived victor Jeroboam II. Had not Manasseh
plenty of examples of religious syncretism, to which he might appeal
in the joy of his youthful age?

Not impossibly there lay in the background another reason why the
young king might be inclined to listen to these evil counsellors.
Micah may still have been living; but of Isaiah we hear no more.
Probably he was dead. It is not recorded that he delivered any
prophecy during the reign of Manasseh, nor is it certain that he
outlived the former king. Tradition, indeed, in later days, asserted
that he had confronted Manasseh, and been doomed to death; that he had
taken refuge in a cedar tree, and in that cedar had been sawn asunder;
but the tradition is wholly without a vestige of authority. One of
Micah's sternest oracles was perhaps uttered in the days of
Manasseh.[628] But Micah was only a provincial prophet of
Moresheth-Gath. He never moved in the midst of princes as Isaiah had
done, or possessed a tithe of the authority which had rested for so
many years on the shoulders of his mighty contemporary.

Moreover--so the heathen party might suggest--had not Isaiah's
prophecies been falsified by the result? Had he not distinctly
promised and pledged his credit to two things? and had not both turned
out to be unworthy of reliance?

i. Surely he had prophesied the utter downfall of the Assyrians. And it
was true that after his disaster on the confines of Egypt, Sennacherib
had fled in haste to Nineveh, and his occupations with rebels on his own
frontiers had left Judah unmolested, and he had been murdered by his
sons. But, on the other hand, in no sense of the word had Assyria
fallen. On the contrary, she had never been more powerful. Not one of
his predecessors had seemed more irresistible than Esarhaddon. He was
undisputed king of Babylon and of Nineveh. There would be no more
embassies from Merodach-Baladan, or any revolted viceroy! And rumour
would early begin to narrate that Esarhaddon had not forgotten the
catastrophe at Pelusium, but intended to avenge it, and to teach Egypt
the forgotten lessons of Raphia (B.C. 720) and Altaqu (B.C. 701).

ii. And as for Judah, where was the golden Messianic age which Isaiah
had promised? Where did they see the Divine Prince whom he had
foretold, or the lion lying down with the lamb, and the child laying
his hand on the cockatrice's den?

All this, they would argue, had greatly shaken Isaiah's prophetic
authority. Judah was a mere vassal--safe only in so far as she
remained a vassal, and did not join Tyre or any other rebellious
power, but abode safe under the shadow of Assyria's mighty wings.

Was it not, then, as well to look facts in the face? to accept things
as they were? And--so they would argue, with false plausibility--since
the triumph, after all, had remained with the gods of the nations,
might it not be as well to dethrone Jehovah from His exclusive
dominion, and at least to propitiate the potent and less-exacting
deities, the charming _Dî faciles_ who smiled at lewd aberrations, and
even flung over them the glamour of devotion?

With these bolder renegades would be the whole body of the priests of
the _bamoth_. Those old sanctuaries had been repressed by Hezekiah
without any compensation; for in those days life-interests were
little, or not at all, regarded. Multitudes of priests and Levites
must have been flung out of employment and reduced to poverty by the
recent religious revolution. It is not likely that they bore without a
murmur the obliteration of forms of worship sanctioned by immemorial
custom, or that they made no efforts to procure the re-establishment
of what the people loved.

Thus a vast weight of evil influence was brought to bear upon the
boy-king; and it was also the more powerful because repeated
indications exist that, while the king was nominally a despot, and was
surrounded with external observance, the real control of affairs was,
to a large extent, in the hands of an aristocracy of priests and
princes, except when the king was a man of great personal force.

Manasseh went over to these retrogressionists heart and soul, and he
contentedly remained a tributary of Assyria. Even when Esarhaddon's
forces marched to the chastisement of Egypt, he felt secure in his
allegiance to the dominant tyrant of Babylon and Nineveh, whose
interest it would be not to disturb a faithful subject.

There followed a reaction, an absolute rebound from the old
monotheistic strictness and righteousness. The nation emancipated
itself from the moral law as with a shout of relief, and plunged into
superstition and licentiousness. The reign of Manasseh resembled at
once the recrudescence of Popery in the reign of Mary Tudor, with its
rekindling of the fires of Smithfield, and the foul orgies of
debauchery at the Restoration of 1660, when human nature, loving
degraded licence better than strenuous liberty, flung away the noble
freedom of Puritanism for the loathly mysteries of Cotytto. The age of
Manasseh resembled that of Charles II., in the famous description of
Lord Macaulay. "Then came days never to be recalled without a blush,
the days of servitude without loyalty, and sensuality without love, of
dwarfish talents and gigantic vices, the paradise of cold hearts and
narrow minds, the golden age of the coward, the bigot, and the slave.
In every high place worship was paid to Belial and Moloch, and England
propitiated these obscene and cruel idols with the blood of her best
and bravest children." Sensuous intoxication is in all cases closely
connected with fiendish cruelty, and the introducer of voluptuous
idolatries naturally became the first persecutor of the true religion.

1. The first step of the king, and probably the one which the people
welcomed most, was the restoration of the chapelries under the trees
and on the hills, which, more strenuously than any of his
predecessors, Hezekiah had at least attempted to put down. For this
step Manasseh might have pleaded the sanction of ages to which the
Book of Deuteronomy had either been wholly unknown, or during which
its laws had become as utterly forgotten as though they had never
existed. To many worshippers these old shrines had become extremely
precious. They felt it to be either an actual impossibility, or at the
best intolerably burdensome, to make their way by long, dreary, and
difficult journeys to Jerusalem, when they desired to pay the most
ordinary rites of worship. They knew no reason, and had never known of
any reason, why Jehovah should be worshipped in one Temple only. All
their religious instincts led them the other way. They could point to
the example of all the highly honoured saints who had worshipped God
at Gilgal, Shechem, Bethel, Hebron, Beersheba, Kedesh, Gibeah, and
many another shrine; and of all the saintly kings who had not dreamt
of interfering with such free worship. Why should Jerusalem monopolise
all sanctity? It might be a politic view for kings to maintain, and
highly profitable for priests to establish; but none of their great
prophets, not even the princely Isaiah, had said one syllable against
the innocent high places of Jehovah. In those days there were no
synagogues. The extinction of the high places doubtless seemed to many
of the people an extinction of religion in daily life, and they were
more than half disposed to agree with the Rabshakeh that Jehovah was
offended by what they regarded as a burdensome, unwise, and sweeping
innovation.--If it be necessary to answer arguments which might have
seemed natural, against a custom which might have seemed innocent, it
must suffice to say that it was the chief mission of Israel to keep
alive among the nations of the world the knowledge of the One True
God, and that, amid the constant temptations to accept the gods of the
heathen as they were adored in groves and on high places, the faith of
Israel could no longer be kept pure except by the Deuteronomic
institution of one central and exclusive shrine.

2. But Manasseh did far worse than rehabilitate the worship at the high
places which his father had discouraged. "He reared up altars for
Baal,[629] and made an Asherah, as did Ahab, King of Israel." This was
the first bad element of the new cosmopolitan eclecticism. It involved
the acceptance of the Phœnician nature-worship with its manifold
abominations. The people had grown familiar with it under Athaliah (2
Kings xi. 18), and under Ahaz (2 Chron. xxviii. 2); but Manasseh, as we
infer from the account given of Josiah's reformation, had gone further
than either. He had actually ventured to introduce the image of Baal
into the Temple, and to set up the Asherah-pillar in front of it (2
Kings xxiii. 4). Worse even than this, he had erected in the very
Temple (_id._ 7) houses devoted to the execrable _Qedeshim_ (Vulg.,
_effeminati_), in which also the women wove broidered hangings to adorn
the shrines of the idol image, as in the worship of the Assyrian
Mylitta.[630] He, at the same time, displaced the altar and removed the
Ark. To the latter circumstances is perhaps due the Rabbinic legend that
Hezekiah hid the Ark till the coming of the Messiah.

3. To this Phœnician worship he added Sabaism, the worship of the
stars, "all the host of heaven, whom he served." This was an entirely
new phase of idolatry, unknown to the Hebrews till they came in
contact with Assyria.[631] It came rapidly into vogue, and exercised
over their imaginations the spell of a seductive novelty, as we see
from the strong testimony of the prophet Jeremiah.[632] This is why it
is so emphatically forbidden in the Book of Deuteronomy.[633] The king
built altars to the stars of the Zodiac (_Mazzaroth_), both in the
outer court of the Temple, and in the court of the priests, and on
these altars incense or victims were continually burned. He also
introduced or encouraged the introduction into the Temple precincts of
the horses and chariots dedicated to the sun.[634]

When we read of the actual invasion of the Temple-precincts in this as
in preceding and subsequent reigns, we cannot but ask, Were these
atrocities committed with the sanction or with the connivance of the
priests? We are not told. Yet how can it have been otherwise? If the
high priest Azariah could muster eighty priests to oppose King Uzziah,
when he merely wished to burn incense in the Temple, as Solomon had
done before him, and as Ahaz did after him--if Jehoiada could,
according to the Chronicler, muster a perfect army of priests and
Levites to dethrone Athaliah, and could so stir up the people that
they rose _en masse_ to tear down the temple of Baal, and slay Mattan,
his high priest,--how was it possible for Manasseh to perpetrate these
flagrant acts of idolatrous apostasy, if the priests were all ranged
in opposition to his power? Was their authority suddenly paralysed?
Did their influence with the people shrivel into nothing when Hezekiah
had been carried to his tomb? Or did these priests follow the easy and
profitable course which they seem to have followed throughout the
whole history of the kings without an exception?--did they simply
answer the kings according to their idols?

4. Another, and the most hideous, element of the new mixture of cults
was the reintroduction of the ancient Canaanite worship of Moloch with
its human sacrifices. Manasseh, like Ahaz, made his son or, according
to the Chronicler and the Septuagint, "his sons"--pass through the
fire to this grim Ammonite idol in Tophet of the Valley of Hinnom, so
as to leave no chance untried. And herein he was far more inexcusable
than his grandfather; for Ahaz had at least been driven by desperate
extremity to this last expedient, but Manasseh was living, if not in
prosperity, at least in unbroken peace. Moreover, he not only did this
himself, but did his utmost to make a popular institution of
children-sacrifice, so that many practised it in the dreadful valley
and amid the rocks outside Jerusalem.[635]

5. Even this did not suffice him. To these Assyrian, Phœnician, and
Canaanite elements of idolatry he added Babylonian novelties. He
practised augury, and used enchantments, and he dealt with familiar
spirits and wizards, as though without Egyptian necromancy and
Mesopotamian shamanism his eclectic worship would be incomplete.[636]

6. Thus "he wrought much wickedness in the sight of the Lord to
provoke Him to anger." He placed a graven image of his Asherah inside
the Temple, and utterly profaned the sacred house, and seduced his
people "to do more evil than did the nations whom the Lord destroyed
before the children of Israel."

Whatever was the conduct of the priests, the prophets were not silent.
They denounced Manasseh for having done worse than even the ancient
Amorites, and declared that, in consequence of his crimes, God would
bring upon Jerusalem such evil as would cause both the ears of him
that heard it to tingle;[637] that he would stretch over Jerusalem for
ruin the line and the level of Ahab;[638] that He would cast off even
the remnant, and deliver them to their enemies; that He would wipe out
Jerusalem "as a man wipeth a dish, wiping and turning it upside
down."[639]

The finest oracles of Micah (vi. 1-vii. 7) were probably uttered in the
reign of Manasseh, and give the simplest and purest expression to the
supremacy of morality as the one true end and test of religion. Micah is
as indifferent as the Decalogue to all claims of rites, ceremonies, and
outward worship. "Jehovah demands nothing for Himself; all that He asks
is for man: this is the fundamental law of the theocracy."

The apostasies of the king and the denunciation of the prophets thus
came into fierce collision, and led naturally to persecution and
bloodshed. Perhaps in Mic. vii. 1-7 we catch the echoes of the Reign
of Terror. The king resorted to violence, using, no doubt, the
tyrant's devilish plea of necessity. He made blood run like water in
the streets of Jerusalem from end to end,[640] and in the exaggerated
phrase of Josephus, was _daily_ slaying the prophets.[641] It was
during this persecution, according to Rabbinic tradition, that Isaiah
received the martyr's crown.[642]

And no miracles were wrought to save the martyrs. Elijah and Elisha
had been surrounded with a blaze of miracles, but in Judah no prophet
arose who could so wield the power of Heaven.

At this point the narrative of the historian about Manasseh ends. If
he shared the current opinion of his day, which connected individual
and national prosperity with well-doing, and regarded length of days
as a sign of the favour of Heaven, while, on the other hand,
misfortune and misery invariably resulted from the wrath of Jehovah,
he could not have been otherwise than surprised, and perhaps even
pained, to have to relate that Manasseh reigned fifty-five years. Not
only was his reign longer than that of any other king of Israel or
Judah; not only did he attain a greater age than any of them; but,
further, no calamity seems to have marked his rule. A contented and
protected vassal of Esarhaddon, secure from his attacks, and also
unmolested by the weakened and subjugated nations around him, he would
seem, in the story of the Kings, to have enjoyed an enviable external
lot, and to have presided over a people who were happy, in that,
during his rule, they had no history. But whatever the writer may have
felt, he tells us no more, and lets us see Manasseh sink peacefully
into his grave "in the garden of his own house, in the garden of
Uzza," and leave to his son Amon a peaceful realm and an undisputed
crown. Such a career would undoubtedly perplex and confound all the
preconceived opinions of Jewish orthodoxy. The prosperity of Manasseh
would have presented as great a problem to them as the miseries of
Job. They looked to temporal prosperity as the reward of
righteousness, and to acute misery as the retribution of apostasy and
sin. They had little or no conception of a future which should redress
the balance of apparent earthly inequalities. Alike the sight of
Manasseh's long reign and Josiah's undeserved death in battle would
give a powerful shock to their fixed convictions.

Far different is the end of the story in the Book of Chronicles. The
records of Esarhaddon tell us that in 680 he made an expedition into
Palestine to restore the shaken influence of his father,[643] and
about 647 he mentions among his submissive tributaries the kings of
Tyre, Edom, Moab, Gaza, Ekron, Askelon, Gebal, Ammon, Ashdod, and
Manasseh, King of Judah ("Minasi-sar-Yahudi"), as well as ten princes
of Cyprus. Whether the King of Judah rebelled later on, and intrigued
with Tirhakah, we do not know; but in 2 Chron. xxxiii. 11 we read that
Esarhaddon sent his generals to Jerusalem, took Manasseh by stratagem,
drove rings through his lips, bound him in chains, and brought him to
Babylon, where Esarhaddon was holding his court.[644] We find from the
_Eponym Canon_ that Tyre revolted from Assyria in the tenth year of
Esarhaddon, and Manasseh may have been drawn away to join in the
revolt; or he may have joined Shamash-shum-ukîn, the Viceroy of
Babylon, in his revolt against his brother Assurbanipal. As a rule,
the lot of a conquered vassal at the Assyrian Court was horrible, and
in his utter misery Manasseh repented, humbled himself, and
prayed.[645] His prayer was heard. The despots of Nineveh were
capricious alike in their insults and in their favours, and
Esarhaddon not only pardoned Manasseh, but sent him back to
Jerusalem,[646] thinking that he would be more useful to him there
than in a Babylonian dungeon. After this reprieve he lived like a
penitent and a patriot. Esarhaddon was preparing for his expedition
against Tirhakah, and would not attack a king who was now bound to him
by gratitude as well as fear. But the times were very troublous.
Manasseh prepared for eventualities by building an outer wall on the
west of the city of David, unto Gihon in the Valley, by surrounding
Ophel with a high wall, and by garrisoning the fenced cities.[647] All
this was necessary and patriotic work, considering that Judah might be
attacked by other enemies as well as the Assyrians. She was like a
grain of corn amid the grinding mills of the nations. Media and Lydia
were rising into strong kingdoms. Babylon was becoming daily more
formidable. Dim rumours reached the East of movements among vast hosts
of Cimmerian and Scythian barbarians. Jerusalem had no human strength
for war. She could only rely upon her battlements, on the natural
strength of her position, and on the protection of her God. Almost in
the last year of Manasseh, the powerful Psammetichus I., king of a now
united Egypt, made an assault on Ashdod; but he did not venture on the
difficult task of besieging Jerusalem.

The religious reformation of Manasseh attested the sincerity of his
amendment. He flung out the Asherah from the Temple, put away the
strange gods, destroyed the altars, burnt sacrifices to God, and used
all his power to restore the worship of Jehovah. He did not, however,
destroy the high places. For this story the Chronicler refers to "the
words of Chozai,"[648] according to the present text, which some
suppose to have meant "the story of the Seers." He also refers to a
prayer of Manasseh, which cannot of course be the Greek forgery of the
second or third century which goes by that name in the Apocrypha.[649]
His repentance doubtless secured his own salvation. "Whoso saith
'Manasseh hath no part in the world to come,'" said Rabbi Johanan,
"discourageth the penitent";--but the partial reformation was too late
to save his land.

Is this a literal history, or an edifying Haggadah? The non-historical
character of the story is maintained by De Wette, Graf, Nöldeke, and
many others. Both views have been taken. This we can, at any rate,
assert--that there seems to be nothing in the story which is
inconsistent with probability. The Chronicler may have derived it from
genuine documents or traditions, though it is difficult to account for
the silence of the elder and more trustworthy historian. Nor is it
only his silence for which we have to account; it is the continuance
of his positive statements. It would be, in any case, a strange
conception of history which, after narrating a man's crimes, omitted
alike the retribution which befell him on account of them, the
heartfelt penitence for the sake of which they were forgiven, and the
seriously earnest endeavour to undo at least something of the evil
which he had done. Not only does the historian make these omissions,
but in no subsequent allusion to Manasseh does he so much as indicate
that he is aware of his amendment.[650] He says that Amon "did evil in
the sight of the Lord, as his father Manasseh did."[651] He speaks of
the altars to the hosts of heaven which Manasseh had made in the two
courts of the Temple as still standing in the reign of Josiah, though
the Chronicler tells us that Manasseh had cast them all out of the
city.[652] He says that, notwithstanding all that Josiah did, "the
Lord turned not from the fierceness of His great wrath, because of all
the provocations that Manasseh had provoked Him withal,"[653] and that
on this account God cast off Jerusalem. Never, even by the most
distant allusions, does he refer to Manasseh's captivity, his prayer,
his penitence, or his counter-efforts. Had he been aware of these, his
silence would have been neither generous nor just. Nay, he even leaves
apparent facts at conflict with the Chronicler's story, for he makes
Josiah do all that the Chronicler tells us that Manasseh himself had
done in the removal of his worst abominations.

Even now we have not exhausted the historic difficulties which
surround the repentance of Manasseh. During his reign Jeremiah
received his call, and while still a young boy began his work. Neither
he, nor Zephaniah, nor Habakkuk drop the slightest hint that the
wicked, idolatrous king had ever turned over a new leaf. Jeremiah's
silence is specially difficult to account for. He, too, records
Jehovah's final and irrevocable decree, that He would give up Judah to
death, to exile, and to famine, to the sword to slay, to the dogs to
tear, to the fowls of the heaven and the beasts of the earth to devour
and to destroy.[654] And the cause of the pitiless doom pronounced by
a Judge weary of repenting is "because of Manasseh, the son of
Hezekiah, King of Judah, for that which he did in Jerusalem."[655]

The judgment was not long delayed.

It was the vast movement of the Scythians in Media and Western Asia,
and the rumours of it, which gave to Manasseh and Amon such respite as
they had; and even this respite was full of misery and fear.[656]

FOOTNOTES:

[624] One legend says that Hephzibah was a daughter of Isaiah. Not so
Josephus (_Antt._, X. iii. 1).

[625] See Gen. xli. 51. His name may have referred to the new union
between the Northern and Southern Kingdoms. Comp. 2 Chron. xxx. 6,
xxxi. 1.

[626] Chron. xxxiv. 1-3.

[627] See Zeph. i. 8. Comp. 2 Chron. xxiv. 17; Isa. xxviii. 14; Jer.
v. 5, etc.

[628] Mic. vii. 1-20.

[629] LXX., τῇ Βαά̈λ. The feminine, however, does not imply that Baal
was here worshipped as a female deity, but is probably due to the fact
that later Jews always avoided using the _names_ of idols (from a
misapprehension or too literal view of Exod. xxiii. 13), and therefore
called Baal _Bosheth_ ("shame"), which is feminine. Hence the names
Mephibosheth, Jerubbesheth, Ishbosheth. In Suidas (_s.v._ Μανασσῆς) he
is charged with having set up in the Temple "a four-faced image of
Zeus."

[630] For בָּתִּים, in 2 Kings xxiii. 7, the LXX. read χεττίμ (?).
Grätz, (_Gesch. d. Juden._, ii. 277) suggests בְּנָדִים, "broidered
robes." Ezek. xvi. 16. See Herod., i. 199; Strabo, xvi. 1058; Luc.,
_De Deâ. Syr._, § 6; Libanius, _Opp._, xi. 456, 557; _Ep. of Jeremy_,
43; Döllinger, _Judenthum u. Heidenthum_, i. 431; Rawlinson,
_Phœnicia_, 431.

[631] Chron. xxxiii. 3; 2 Kings xxiii. 5. Movers, _Rel. d. Phöniz._,
i. 65 "In all the books of the Old Testament written before the
Assyrian period no trace of star-worship is to be to found." 2 Kings
xvii. 16.

[632] Jer. vii. 18, viii. 2, xix. 13; Zeph. i, 5.

[633] See Deut. iv. 19, xvii. 3.

[634] 2 Kings xxiii. 11, 12.

[635] See Jer. vii, 31, 32, xix. 2-6, xxxii. 35; Psalm cvi. 37, 38.

[636] Ewald infers from Isa. lvii. 5-9; Jer. ii. 5-13, that he actually
_sought_ for all foreign kinds of worship, in order to introduce them.

[637] 1 Sam. iii. 11; Jer. xix. 3.

[638] Comp. Isa. xxxiv. 11; Lam. ii. 8.

[639] 2 Kings xxi. 13. LXX., ἀλάβαστρος, _al._ πυξίον. The Vulgate
also takes it to mean the obliteration of writing on a tablet: "Delebo
Jerusalem sicut deleri solent tabulæ; et ducam crebrius stylum super
faciem ejus."

[640] 2 Kings xxi. 16; Heb., "from mouth to mouth"; LXX., στόμα εἰς
στόμα; Vulg., _donec impleret Jerusalem usque ad os_. Comp. 2 Kings x.
21.

[641] _Antt._, X. iii, 1: "He butchered alike all the just among the
Hebrews." To this reign of terror some refer Psalm xii. 1; Isa. lvii.
1-4.

[642] This (as I have said) cannot be regarded as certain. Isaiah
began to prophesy in the year that King Uzziah died, sixty years
before Manasseh. It is a Jewish Haggadah. See Gesen on Isa. i., p. 9,
and the Apocryphal "Ascension of Isaiah."

[643] Esarhaddon reigned only eight years, till 668, and then resigned
in favour of his son Assurbanipal. In his reign Psammetichus recovered
Egypt, and put an end to the Dodecarchy. In the reign of his
successor, Assuredililani, Assyria began to decline (647-625).

[644] Comp. Isa. xxxix. 6; Jos., _Antt._, X. iii. 2. The phrase "among
the thorns" means "_with rings_" (comp. Isa. xxx. 28, xxxvii. 29;
Ezek. xxxviii. 4; Amos iv. 2). Assurbanipal says similarly that he
seized Necho, "bound him with bonds and iron chains, hands and feet,"
but afterwards allowed him to return to Egypt (Schrader, ii. 59).

[645] Late and worthless Haggadoth, echoed by still later writers
(Suidas and Syncellus), say he was kept in a brazen cage, fed on bran
bread dipped in vinegar, etc. See _Apost. Constt._, ii. 22: "And the
Lord hearkened to his voice, and there became about him a flame of
fire, and all the irons about him melted." John Damasc., _Parall._,
ii. 15, quotes from Julius Africanus, that while Manasseh was saying a
psalm his iron bonds burst, and he escaped. See _Speakers Commentary_,
on Apocrypha, ii. 363.

[646] Such pardon from a king of Assyria was rare, but not
unparalleled. Pharaoh Necho I. was taken in chains to Nineveh, and
afterwards set free (Schrader, _K. A. T._, p. 371).

[647] See 2 Chron. xxvii. 3. The "fish gate" was, perhaps, a weak
point (Zeph. i. 10).

[648] 2 Chron. xxxiii. 19. Heb., _dibhrî Chozai_; A.V., "the story of
the Seers"; R.V., "in the history of Hozai"; LXX., ἐπὶ τῶν λόγων τῶν
οὐρανιῶν; Vulg., _in sermonibus Hozai_. The elements of doubt
suggested by the name "Babylon," and by the liberation of Manasseh,
have been removed by further knowledge. See Budge, _Hist. of
Esarhaddon_, p. 78; Schrader, _K. A. T._, 369 ff.

[649] Since the Council of Trent this prayer has been relegated to the
end of the Vulgate with 3, 4, Esdras. Verse 8 (the supposed sinlessness
of the Patriarchs) at once shows it to be a mere composition.

[650] 2 Kings xxiii. 12.

[651] 2 Kings xxi. 20.

[652] 2 Chron. xxxiii. 15.

[653] 2 Kings xxiii. 26.

[654] Jer. xv. 1-9.

[655] The later Jews certainly took no account of his repentance. His
name was execrated (see the substitution of Manasseh for Moses in
Judg. xviii. 30), and he was denied all part in the world to come. The
Apocryphal "Prayer of Manasses" has no authority, though it is
interesting (Butler, _Analogy_, pt. ii., ch. v.).

[656] In estimating the Chronicler's story, we cannot wholly forget the
fact that a number of Haggadic legends clustered thickly round the name
of Manasseh in the literature of the later Jews. He is charged with
incest, with the murder of Isaiah, the distortion of Scripture, etc.,
and is represented as having got to heaven, not by real repentance, but
by challenging God on His superiority to idols. The Targum, after 2
Chron. xxxiii. 11, adds, "And the Chaldees made a copper mule, and
pierced it all over with little holes, and put him therein. And when he
was in straits, he cried in vain to all his idols. Then he prayed to
Jehovah and humbled himself; but the angels shut every window and
lattice of heaven, that his prayer might not enter. But forthwith the
pity of the Lord of the world rolled forth, and He made an aperture in
heaven, and the mule burst asunder, and the Spirit breathed on him, and
he forsook all his idols." "No books," says Dr. Neubauer, "are more
subject to additions and various adaptations than popular histories."
See Mr. Ball's commentary (_Speaker's Commentary_, ii. 309, and
_Sanhedrin_, f. 99, 2; 101, 1; 103, 2).




                               _AMON_[657]

                              B.C. 641-639

                           2 KINGS xxi. 19-26

The brief reign of Amon is only a sort of unimportant and miserable
annex to that of his father. As he was twenty-two years old when he
began to reign, he must have witnessed the repentance and reforming zeal
of his father, if, in spite of all difficulties, we assume that
narrative to be historical. In that case, however, the young man was
wholly untouched by the latter phase of Manasseh's life, and flung
himself headlong into the career of the king's earlier idolatries. "He
walked in all the way that his father walked in, and served the idols
that his father served, and worshipped them"--which was the more
extraordinary if Manasseh's last acts had been to dethrone and destroy
these strange gods. He even "multiplied trespass," so that in his son's
reign we find every form of abomination as triumphant as though Manasseh
had never attempted to check the tide of evil. We know nothing more of
Amon. Apparently he only reigned two years.[658] He is the only Jewish
king who bears the name of a foreign--an Egyptian--deity.

For pictures of the state of things in this reign we may look to the
prophets Zephaniah and Jeremiah, and they are forced to use the
darkest colours.

This is Zephaniah's picture:--

  "Woe to her that is rebellious and polluted, to the oppressing city!
   She obeyed not the voice; she received not instruction;
   She trusted not in the Lord; she drew not near to her God.
   Her princes in the midst of her are roaring lions;
   Her judges are evening wolves; they gnaw not the bones on the morrow.
   Her prophets are light and treacherous persons:
   Her priests have profaned the sanctuary, they have done violence to
         the law."[659]

He tells us that Baal and his black-robed _chemarim_[660] are still
prevalent--that men worshipped on their house-tops the host of heaven,
and swore by "Moloch their king." Therefore would God search Jerusalem
with candles, and would visit the men who had sunk, like thick wine on
the lees, and who said in their infidel hearts, "Jehovah will not do
good, neither will He do evil." He is an Epicurean God, a cypher, a
_fainéant_. "Men make all kinds of fine calculations," says Luther,
"but the Lord God says to them, 'For whom, then, do you hold Me? For a
cypher? Do I sit here in vain, and to no purpose? You shall know that
I will turn their accounts about finely, and make them all false
reckonings.'"

Not less dark is the view of Jeremiah.[661] Like Diogenes in Athens,
Jeremiah in vain searches Jerusalem for a faithful man. Among the poor
he finds brutish obstinacy, among the rich insolent defiance. They
were like fed horses in the morning--lecherous and unruly. They are
slanderers, adulterers, corrupters, murderers. They worship Baal and
strange gods. "They set a trap, they catch men. As a cage is full of
birds, so are their houses full of deceit. They are waxen fat, they
shine; yea, they overpass in deeds of wickedness."[662] "An
astonishment and horror is done in the land; the prophets prophesy
falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and My people love
to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?"[663]

"From the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is
given to covetousness; and from the prophet even unto the priest every
one dealeth falsely. They have treated also the hurt of My people
lightly, saying, 'Peace, peace,' when there is no peace. Were they
ashamed when they had committed abominations? Nay, they were not at
all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore shall they fall among
them that fall."[664]

The wretched reign ended wretchedly. Amon met the fate of Amaziah and
of Joash. He was murdered by conspirators--by some of his own
courtiers--in his own palace. He was not the victim of any general
rebellion. The people of the land were apparently content with the
existent idolatry, which left them free for lives of lust and luxury,
of greed and gain. They resented the disorder introduced by an
intrigue of eunuchs or court officials. They rose and slew the whole
band of conspirators. Amon was buried with his father in the new
burial-place of the Kings in the garden of Uzza, and the people placed
his son Josiah--a child of eight years old--upon the throne.

FOOTNOTES:

[657] The name Amon is unusual. Some identify it with the name of the
Egyptian sun-god (Nah. iii. 8). If so, we see yet another element of
Manasseh's syncretism, and (as some fancy) an attempt to open
relations with Psammetichus of Egypt. But perhaps the name may be
Hebrew for "Architect" (1 Kings xxii. 26; Neh. vii. 59).

[658] 2 Kings xxi. 19. The LXX. reads "twelve years," but not so
Josephus (_Antt._, X. iv. 1), or 2 Chron. xxxiii. 21.

[659] Zeph. iii. 1-11. Comp. i. 4.

[660] _Chemarim_, 2 Kings xxiii. 5; Hos. x. 5. The root in Syriac
means "to be sad," but Kimchi derives it from a root "to be black."
The Vulgate renders it _æditui_ and _aruspices_.

[661] We are told in the titles of their books that both these
prophets prophesied in the days of Josiah; but such pictures can only
apply to the earliest years of his reign.

[662] See Jer. v., vi., vii., _passim_.

[663] Jer. vi. 13-15.

[664] Jer. v. 30, 31.




                              CHAPTER XXX

                                _JOSIAH_

                            B.C. 639-608[665]

                          2 KINGS xii., xxiii

    "Τὴν δὲ φύσιν αὐτὸς ἄριστος ὑπῆρχε καὶ πρὸς ἀρετὴν εὗ
    γεγονώς."--Jos., _Antt._, iv. 1.

                "In outline dim and vast
                 Their fearful shadows cast
          The giant forms of Empires, on their way
                 To ruin: one by one
                 They tower, and they are gone."
                                             KEBLE.


If we are to understand the reign of Josiah as a whole, we must preface
it by some allusion to the great epoch-marking circumstances of his age,
which explain the references of contemporary prophets, and which, in
great measure, determined the foreign policy of the pious king.

The three memorable events of this brief epoch were, (I.) the movement
of the Scythians, (II.) the rise of Babylon, and (III.) the
humiliation of Nineveh, followed by her total destruction.

I. Many of Jeremiah's earlier prophecies belong to this period, and we
see that both he and Zephaniah--who was probably a great-great-grandson
of King Hezekiah himself,[666] and prophesied in this reign[667]--are
greatly occupied with a danger from the North which seems to threaten
universal ruin.

So overwhelming is the peril that Zephaniah begins with the
tremendously sweeping menace, "_I will utterly consume all things off
the earth_, saith the Lord."

Then the curse rushes down specifically upon Judah and Jerusalem; and
the state of things which the prophet describes shows that, if Josiah
began himself to seek the Lord at eight years old, he did not
take--and was, perhaps, unable to take--any active steps towards the
extinction of idolatry till he was old enough to hold in his own hand
the reins of power.

For Zephaniah denounces the wrath of Jehovah on three classes of
idolaters--viz., (1) the remnant of Baal-worshippers with their
_chemarim_, or unlawful priests, and the syncretising priests
(_kohanim_) of Jehovah, who combine His worship with that of the stars,
to whom they burn incense upon the housetops; (2) the waverers, who
swear at once by Jehovah and by Malcham, their king; and (3) the open
despisers and apostates. For all these the day of Jehovah is near; He
has prepared them for sacrifice, and the sacrificers are at hand.[668]
Gaza, Ashdod, Askelon, Ekron, the Cherethites, Canaan, Philistia, are
all threatened by the same impending ruin, as well as Moab and Ammon,
who shall lose their lands. Ethiopia, too, and Assyria shall be smitten,
and Nineveh shall become so complete a desolation that "pelicans and
hedgehogs shall bivouac upon her chapiters, the owl shall hoot in her
windows, and the crow croak upon the threshold, 'Crushed! desolated!'
and all that pass by shall hiss and wag their hands."[669]

The pictures of the state of society drawn by Jeremiah do not, as we
have seen, differ from those drawn by his contemporary.[670] Jeremiah,
too, writing perhaps before Josiah's reformation, complains that God's
people have forsaken the fountains of living water, to hew out for
themselves broken cisterns. He complains of empty formalism in the place
of true righteousness, and even goes so far as to say that backsliding
Israel has shown herself more righteous than treacherous Judah (iii.
1-11). He, too, prophesies speedy and terrific chastisement. Let Judah
gather herself into fenced cities, and save her goods by flight, for God
is bringing evil from the North, and a great destruction.[671]

"The lion is come up from his thicket, and the destroyer of the
nations is on his way; he is gone forth from his place to make thy
land desolate; and thy cities shall be laid waste, without an
inhabitant. Behold, he cometh as clouds, and his chariots shall be as
the whirlwind." Besiegers come from a far country, and give out their
voice against the cities of Judah. The heart of the kings shall
perish, and the heart of the princes; and the priests shall be
astonished, and the prophets shall wonder.

"For thus hath the Lord said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet
will I not make a full end"--and, "O Jerusalem, wash thine heart from
wickedness, that thou mayest be saved!"[672]

"I will bring a nation upon you from far, O House of Israel, saith the
Lord: it is a mighty nation, it is an ancient nation, a nation whose
language"--unlike that of the Assyrians--"thou knowest not, neither
understandest what they say. Their quiver is an open sepulchre, they
are all mighty men. They shall batter thy fenced cities, in which thou
trustest with weapons of war."[673]

"O ye children of Benjamin, save your goods by flight: for evil is
imminent from the North, and a great destruction. Behold, a people
cometh from the North Country, and a great nation shall be raised from
the farthest part of the earth. They lay hold on bow and spear; they are
cruel, and have no mercy; their voice roareth like the sea; and they
ride upon horses, set in array as men for war against thee, O daughter
of Zion. We have heard the fame thereof: our hands wax feeble."[674]

And the judgment is close at hand. The early blossoming bud of the
almond tree is the type of its imminence. The seething caldron, with
its front turned from the North, typifies an invasion which shall soon
boil over and flood the land.[675]

What was the fierce people thus vaguely indicated as coming from the
North? The foes indicated in these passages are not the long-familiar
Assyrians, but the Scythians and Cimmerians.[676]

As yet the Hebrews had only heard of them by dim and distant rumour.
When Ezekiel prophesied they were still an object of terror, but he
foresees their defeat and annihilation. They should be gathered into
the confines of Israel, but only for their destruction.[677] The
prophet is bidden to set his face towards Gog, of the land of Magog,
the Prince of Rosh,[678] Meshech, and Tubal, and prophesy against him
that God would turn him about, and put hooks in his jaws, and drive
forth all his army of bucklered and sworded horsemen, the hordes of
the uttermost part of the North. They should come like a storm upon
the mountains of Israel, and spoil the defenceless villages; but they
should come simply for their own destruction by blood and by
pestilence. God should smite their bows out of their left hands, and
their arrows out of the right, and the ravenous birds of Israel should
feed upon the carcases of their warriors. There should be endless
bonfires of all the instruments of war, and the place of their burial
should be called "the valley of the multitude of Gog."

Much of this is doubtless an ideal picture, and Ezekiel may be
thinking of the fall of the Chaldæans. But the terms he uses remind us
of the dim Northern nomads, and the names Rosh and Meshech in
juxtaposition involuntarily recall those of Russia and Moscow.[679]

Our chief historical authority respecting this influx of Northern
barbarians is Herodotus.[680] He tells us that the nomad Scythians,
apparently a Turanian race, who may have been subjected to the pressure
of population, swarmed over the Caucasus, dispossessed the Cimmerians
(Gomer), and settled themselves in Saccasene, a province of Northern
Armenia. From this province the Scythians gained the name of the Saquî.
The name of Gog seems to be taken from Gugu, a Scythian prince, who was
taken captive by Assurbanipal from the land of the Saquî.[681] Magog is
perhaps Mat-gugu, "land of Gog." These rude, coarse warriors, like the
hordes of Attila, or Zenghis Khan, or Tamerlane--who were descended from
them--magnetised the imagination of civilised people, as the Huns did in
the fourth century.[682] They overthrew the kingdom of Urartis
(Armenia), and drove the all-but exterminated remnant of the Moschi and
Tabali to the mountain-fortresses by the Black Sea, turning them, as it
were, into a nation of ghosts in Sheol.[683] Then they burst like a
thunder-cloud on Mesopotamia, desolating the villages with their
arrow-flights, but too unskilled to take fenced towns. They swept down
the Shephelah of Palestine, and plundered the rich temple of Aphrodite
(Astarte Ourania) at Askelon, thereby incurring the curse of the goddess
in the form of a strange disease. But on the borders of Egypt they were
diplomatically met by Psammetichus (_d._ 611) with gifts and prayers.
Judah seems only to have suffered indirectly from this invasion. The
main army of Scyths poured down the maritime plain, and there was no
sufficient booty to tempt any but their straggling bands to the barren
hills of Judah.[684] It was the report of this over-flooding from the
North which probably evoked the alarming prophecies of Zephaniah and
Jeremiah, though they found their clearer fulfilment in the invasion of
the Chaldees.

II. This rush of wild nomads averted for a time the fate of Nineveh.

The Medes, an Aryan people, had settled south of the Caspian, B.C.
790; and in the same century one of these tribes--the Persians--had
settled south-east of Elam the northern coast of the Persian Gulf.
Cyaxares founded the Median Empire, and attacked Nineveh. The Scythian
invasion forced him to abandon the siege, and the Scythians burnt the
Assyrian palace and plundered the ruins. But Cyaxares succeeded in
intoxicating and murdering the Scythian leaders at a banquet, and
bribed the army to withdraw. Then Cyaxares, with the aid of the
Babylonians under Nabopolassar their rebel viceroy, besieged and took
Nineveh--probably about B.C. 608--while its last king and his captains
were revelling at a banquet.[685]

The fall of Nineveh was not astonishing. The empire had long been
"slowly bleeding to death" in consequence of its incessant wars. The
city deemed itself impregnable behind walls a hundred feet high, on
which three chariots could drive abreast, and mantled with twelve
hundred towers; but she perished, and all the nations--whom she had
known how to crush, but had with "her stupid and cruel tyranny" never
known how to govern--shouted for joy. That joy finds its triumphant
expression in more than one of the prophets, but specially in the
vivid pæan of Nahum. His date is approximately fixed at about B.C.
660, by his reference to the atrocities inflicted by Assurbanipal on
the Egyptian city of No-Amon. "Art thou [Nineveh] better," he asks,
"than No-Amon, that was situate among the canals, that had the water
round about her, whose rampart was the Nile, and her wall was the
waters? Yet she went into captivity! Her young children were dashed to
pieces at the head of all the streets: they cast lots for her
honourable men, and all her great men were bound in chains. Thou also
shalt be drunken: thou shalt faint away, thou shalt seek a stronghold
because of the enemy."[686]

All the details of her fall are dim; but Nineveh was, in the language
of the prophets, swept with the besom of destruction. Her ruins became
stones of emptiness, and the line of confusion was stretched over her.
Nahum ends with the cry,--

          "There is no assuaging of thy hurt; thy wound is grievous:
           All that hear the bruit of this, clap the hands over thee:
           For upon whom hath thy wickedness not passed continually?"

In truth, Assyria, the ferocious foe of Israel, of Judah, and all the
world, vanished suddenly, like a dream when one awaketh;[687] and those
who passed over its ruins, like Xenophon and his Ten Thousand in B.C.
401, knew not what they were.[688] Her very name had become forgotten in
two centuries. "_Etiam periere ruinæ!_" The burnt relics and cracked
tablets of her former splendour began to be revealed to the world once
more in 1842, and it is only during the last quarter of a century that
the fragments of her history have been laboriously deciphered.

III. Such were the events witnessed in their germs or in their
completion by the contemporaries of Josiah and the prophets who
adorned his reign. It was during this period, also, that the power to
whom the ultimate ruin and captivity of Jerusalem was due sprang into
formidable proportions. The ultimate scourge of God to the guilty
people and the guilty city was not to be the Assyrian, nor the
Scythian, nor the Egyptian, nor any of the old Canaanite or Semitic
foes of Israel, nor the Phœnician, nor the Philistine. With all these
she had long contended, and held her own. It was before the Chaldee
that she was doomed to fall, and the Chaldee was a new phenomenon of
which the existence had hardly been recognised as a danger till the
warning prophecy of Isaiah to Hezekiah after the embassy of the rebel
viceroy Merodach-Baladan.[689]

It is to Habakkuk, in prophecies written very shortly after the death
of Josiah, that we must look for the impression of terror caused by
the Chaldees.

Nabopolassar,[690] sent by the successor of Assurbanipal to quell a
Chaldæan revolt, seized the viceroyalty of Babylon, and joined Cyaxares
in the overthrow of Nineveh. From that time Babylon became greater and
more terrible than Nineveh, whose power it inherited. Habakkuk (ii.
1-19) paints the rapacity, the selfishness, the inflated ambition, the
cruelty, the drunkenness, the idolatry of the Chaldæans. He calls them
(i. 5-11) a rough and restless nation, frightful and terrible, whose
horsemen were swifter than leopards, fiercer than evening wolves, flying
to gorge on prey like the vultures, mocking at kings and princes, and
flinging dust over strongholds. Nor has he the least comfort in looking
on their resistless fury, except the deeply significant oracle--an
oracle which contains the secret of their ultimate doom--

          "Behold, his soul is puffed up; it is not upright in him:
           But the righteous man shall live by his fidelity."

The prophet places absolute reliance on the general principle that
"pride and violence dig their own grave."[691]

FOOTNOTES:

[665] Kamphausen (_Die Chronologie der hebräischer Könige_) makes
Josiah succeed to the throne in 638.

[666] Otherwise his genealogy would not be mentioned for four
generations (Hitzig).

[667] Zeph. i. 1. Jeremiah also was highly connected. He was a priest
and his father Hilkiah may be the high priest who found the book; "for
his uncle Shallum, father of his cousin Hanameel, was the husband of
Huldah the prophetess" (2 Kings xxii. 14; Jer. xxxii. 7). The fact
that Jeremiah's property was at Anathoth, where lived the descendants
of Ithamar (1 Kings ii. 26), whereas Hilkiah was of the family of
Eleazar (1 Chron. vi. 4-13), does not seem fatal to the view that his
father was the high priest.

[668] Zeph. ii. 4-7.

[669] Zeph. ii. 12-15.

[670] Jer. ii. 1-35. Considering the very great part played by
Jeremiah for nearly half a century of the last history of Judah, the
non-mention of his name in the Book of Kings is a circumstance far
from easy to explain.

[671] Jer. iv. 6, A. V., "retire, stay not." Comp. Isa. x. 24-31.

[672] Jer. iv. 7-27.

[673] Jer. v. 15-17.

[674] Jer. vi. 1, 22, 23, 24.

[675] The almond tree (_shâqâd_) "seems to be awake (_shâqâd_),
whatsoever trees are still sleeping in the torpor of winter" (Tristram
_Nat. Hist. of the Bible_, 332; Jer. i. 11-14).

[676] The name Kimmerii (on the Assyrian inscriptions Gimirrai) is
connected with Gomer. The Persians call them Sakai or Scyths. The
nomad Scyths had driven the Kimmerii from the Dniester while
Psammetichus was King of Egypt. For allusions to this see Jer. vi. 22
_seq._, viii. 16, ix. 10. The first notice of them is in an
inscription of Esarhaddon, B.C. 677, who says that he defeated
"Tiushpa, _the Gimirrai, a roving warrior_, whose own country was
remote." Zephaniah and Jeremiah were certainly thinking of the
Scythians (Eichhorn, Hitzig, Ewald; and more recently Kuenen,
_Onderzoek_, ii. 123; Wellhausen, _Skizzen_, 150). In B.C. 626 they
could not have consciously had the Chaldæans in view, though,
twenty-three years later, Jeremiah may have had.

[677] See Ezek. xxxviii., xxxix.

[678] Ezek. xxxviii. 2. So Gesenius, Hävernick, etc., and R.V.

[679] The form in the Vulgate and the Alexandrian MS. of the LXX. is
Mosech; in the Assyrian inscription, Muski. As far back as 1120
Tiglath-Pileser I. had overrun Tubal (the Tublai, Tabareni) and
Moschi, between the Black Sea and the Taurus. They were neither Aryans
nor Semites. In Gen. x. 2; 1 Chron. i. 5, Gog, Magog, Meshech, and
Gomer are sons of Japheth. They are referred to in Rev. xx. 8.

[680] Herod., i. 74, 103-106, iv. 1-22, vii. 64; Pliny, _H. N._, v.
16; Jos., _Antt._, I. vi. 1; Syncellus, _Chronogl._, i. 405.

[681] Sayce, _Ethnology of the Bible; Records of the Past_, ix. 40;
Schrader, _K. A. T._, 159. Some identify Gog with Gyges, King of
Lydia, who was killed in battle _against_ the Scythians, but whose
name stood for a geographical symbol of Asia Minor, sometimes called
Lud. It is said that in 665 Gyges (Gugu) sent two Scythian chiefs as a
present to Nineveh.

[682] Hence, in 2 Macc. iv. 47, 3 Macc. vii. 5, Scythian is used with
the modern connotation of "Barbarian."

[683] Ezek. xxxii. 26, 27; Cheyne, _Jeremiah_ ("Men of the Bible") p.
31.

[684] _Expositor_, 2nd series, iv. 263; Cheyne, _Jeremiah_, 31. Hitzig
and Ewald (erroneously?) refer Psalms lv., lix., to these events, and
it seems also to be an error to suppose that the later name of
Bethshan--Scythopolis--has anything to do with this incursion. Like
the names of Pella, Philadelphia, etc., it is later than the age of
Alexander the Great. See 2 Macc. xii. 30; Jos., _B. J._, II. xviii.,
_Vit._ vi. Perhaps Scythopolis is a corruption of Sikytopolis, the
city of Sikkuth; or Scythian may merely stand for "Barbarian," as in 3
Macc. vii. 5; Col. iii. 11 (Cheyne, _l.c._).

[685] Nah. i. 10, ii. 5, iii. 12; Diod. Sic., ii. 26.

[686] Nah. iii. 8-11.

[687] Strabo, xvi. 1, 3: ἠφανίσθη παοαχρῆμα.

[688] Xen., _Anab._, III. iv. 7.

[689] Chaldees, Kardim, Kasdim, Kurds.

[690] Nabu-pal-ussur, "Nebo protect the son" B.C. 625-7. Jos., _Antt._
X. xi. 1: comp. _Ap._, i. 19.

[691] Newman, _Hebrew Monarchy_, p. 315.




                              CHAPTER XXXI

                         _JOSIAH'S REFORMATION_

                    2 KINGS xxii. 8-20, xxiii. 1-25

    "And the works of Josias were upright before his Lord with a heart
    full of godliness."--1 ESDRAS i. 23.

    "From Zion shall go forth the Law, and the Word of the Lord from
    Jerusalem."--ISA. ii. 3.


It is from the Prophets--Zephaniah, Jeremiah, Nahum, Habakkuk,
Ezekiel--that we catch almost our sole glimpses of the vast
world-movements of the nations which must have loomed large on the
minds of the King of Judah and of all earnest politicians in that day.
As they did not directly affect the destiny of Judah till the end of
the reign, they do not interest the historian of the Kings or the
later Chronicler. The things which rendered the reign memorable in
their eyes were chiefly two--the finding of "the Book of the Law" in
the House of the Lord, and the consequent religious reformation.

It is with the first of these two events that we must deal in the
present chapter.

Josiah began to reign as a child of eight, and it may be that the
emphatic and honourable mention of his mother--Jedidah ("Beloved"),
daughter of Adaiah of Boscath--may be due to the fact that he owed to
her training that early proclivity to faithfulness which earns for him
the unique testimony, that he not only "walked in the way of David his
father," but that "he turned not aside to the right hand or to the
left."

At first, of course, as a mere child, he could take no very active
steps. The Chronicler says that at sixteen he began to show his
devotion, and at twenty set himself the task of purging Judah and
Jerusalem from the taint of idols. Things were in a bad condition, as we
see from the bitter complaints and denunciations of Zephaniah and
Jeremiah. Idolatry of the worst description was still openly tolerated.
But Josiah was supported by a band of able and faithful advisers.
Shaphan, grandfather of the unhappy Gedaliah--afterwards the Chaldæan
viceroy over conquered Judah--was scribe; Hilkiah, the son of Shallum
and the ancestor of Ezra, was the high priest.[692] By them the king was
assisted, fist in the obliteration of the prevalent emblems of idolatry,
and then in the purification of the Temple. Two centuries and a half had
elapsed since it had been last repaired by Joash, and it must have
needed serious restoration during long years of neglect in the reigns of
Ahaz, of Manasseh, and of Amon. Subscriptions were collected from the
people by "the keepers of the door," and were freely entrusted to the
workmen and their overseers, who employed them faithfully in the objects
for which they were designed.[693]

The repairs led to an event of momentous influence on all future time.
During the cleansing of the Temple Hilkiah came to Shaphan, and said, "I
have found the Book of the Law in the House of the Lord." Perhaps the
copy of the book had been placed by some priest's hand beside the Ark,
and had been discovered during the removal of the rubbish which neglect
had there accumulated. Shaphan read the book; and when next he had to
see the king to tell him about the progress of the repairs, he said to
him, "Hilkiah the priest hath handed me a book." Josiah bade him read
some of it aloud. It is evident that he read the curses contained in
Deut. xxviii. They horrified the pious monarch; for all that they
contained, and the laws to which they were appended, were wholly new to
him. He might well be amazed that a code so solemn, and purporting to
have emanated from Moses, should, in spite of maledictions so fearful,
have become an absolute dead letter. In deep alarm he sent the priest,
the scribe Shaphan, with his son Ahikam, and Abdon, the son of Micaiah,
and Asahiah, a court official, to inquire of Jehovah, whose great anger
could not but be kindled against king and people by the obliteration and
nullity of His law. They consulted Huldah, the only prophetess mentioned
in the Old Testament, except Miriam and Deborah.[694] She was the wife
of Shallum and keeper of the priests' robes,[695] and she lived in the
suburbs of the city.[696] Her answer was an uncompromising menace. All
the curses which the king had heard against the place and people should
be pitilessly fulfilled,--only, as the king had showed a tender heart,
and had humbled himself before Jehovah, he should go to his own grave in
peace.[697]

Thereupon the king summoned to the Temple a great assembly of priests,
prophets, and all the people, and, standing by the pillar (or "on the
platform")[698] in the entrance of the inner court, read "all the
words of the Book of the Covenant which had been found in the House of
the Lord" in their ears, and joined with them in "the covenant" to
obey the hitherto unknown or totally forgotten laws which were
inculcated in the newly discovered volume.

Immediate action followed. The priests were ordered to bring out of the
Temple all the vessels made for Baal, for the Asherah, and for the host
of heaven; they were burnt outside Jerusalem in the Valley of Kedron,
and their ashes taken to Bethel.[699] The _chemarim_ of the high places
were suppressed, as well as all other idolatrous priests who burnt
incense to the signs of the Zodiac, the Hyades, and the heavenly
bodies.[700] The Asherah itself was taken out of the Temple, and it is
truly amazing that we should find it there so late in Josiah's reign. He
burnt it in the Kedron, stamped it to powder, and scattered the powder
"on the graves of the common people." The Chronicler says "on the graves
of them that had sacrificed" to the idols[701];--but this is an
inexplicable statement, since it is (as Professor Lumby says) very
improbable that idolaters had a separate burial-place. It is equally
shocking, and to us incomprehensible, to read that the houses of the
degraded _Qedeshim_ still stood, not "by the Temple" (A.V.), but "_in_
the Temple,"[702] and that in these houses, or chambers, the women still
"wove embroideries[703] for the Asherah." What was Hilkiah doing? If the
priests of the _high places_ were so guilty from Geba to Beersheba, did
no responsibility attach to the high priest and other priests of the
Temple who permitted the existence of these enormities, not only in the
_bamoth_ at the city gates,[704] but in the very courts of the mountain
of the Lord's House? If the priests of the immemorial shrines were
degraded from their prerogatives, and were not allowed to come up to the
altar of Jehovah in Jerusalem, by what law of justice were they to be
regarded as so immeasurably inferior to the highest members of their own
order, who, for years together, had permitted the worship of a wooden
phallic emblem, and the existence of the worst heathen abominations
within the very Temple of the Lord? Every honest reader must admit that
there are inexplicable difficulties and uncertainties in these ancient
histories, and that our knowledge of the exact circumstances--especially
in all that regards the priests and Levites, who, in the Chronicles, are
their own ecclesiastical historians--must remain extremely imperfect.

And what can be meant by the clause that the degraded priests of the
old high places, though they were not allowed to serve at the great
altar, yet "did eat of the _unleavened bread_ among their brethren"?
Unleavened bread was only eaten at the Passover; and when there _was_
a Passover, was eaten by all alike. Perhaps the reading for
"unleavened bread" should be (priestly) "portions"--a reading found by
Geiger in an old manuscript.

Continuing his work, Josiah defiled Tophet;[705] took away the horses
given by the kings of Judah to the sun, which were stabled beside the
chamber of the eunuch Nathan-Melech in the precincts;[706] and burnt
the sun-chariots in the fire. He removed the altars to the stars on
the roof of the upper chamber of Ahaz,[707] and ground them to powder.
He also destroyed those of his grandfather Manasseh in the two Temple
courts--which we supposed to have been removed by Manasseh in his
repentance--and threw the dust into the Kedron. He defiled the
idolatrous shrines reared by Solomon to the deities of Sidon, Ammon,
and Moloch, broke the pillars, cut down the Asherim, and filled their
places with dead men's bones.[708] Travelling northwards, he burnt,
destroyed, and stamped to powder the altars and the Asherim at Bethel,
and burnt upon the altars the remains found in the sepulchres,[709]
only leaving undisturbed the remains of the old prophet from Judah,
and of the prophet of Samaria.[710] He then destroyed the other
Samaritan shrines, exercising an undisputed authority over the
Northern Kingdom. The mixed inhabitants did not interfere with his
proceedings; and in the declining fortunes of Nineveh, the Assyrian
viceroy--if there was one--did not dispute his authority. Lastly, in
accordance with the fierce injunction of Deut. xvii. 2-5, "he slew all
the priests of the high places" on their own altars, burnt men's bones
upon them, and returned to Jerusalem.

It is very difficult, with the milder notions which we have learnt
from the spirit of the Gospel, to look with approval on the
recrudescence of the Elijah-spirit displayed by the last proceeding.
But many centuries were to elapse, even under the Gospel Dispensation,
before men learnt the sacred principle of the early Christians that
"violence is hateful to God." Josiah must be judged by a more lenient
judgment, and he was obeying a mandate found in the new Book of the
Law. But the question arises whether the fierce commands of
Deuteronomy were ever intended to be taken _au pied de la lettre_. May
not Deut. xiii. 6-18 have been intended to express in a concrete but
ideal form the spirit of execration to be entertained towards
idolatry? Perhaps in thinking so we are only guilty of an anachronism,
and are applying to the seventh century before Christ the feelings of
the nineteenth century after Christ.

After this Josiah ordered the people to keep a Deuteronomic Passover,
such as we are told--and as all the circumstances prove--had not been
kept from the days of the Judges. The Chronicler revels in the details
of this Passover, and tells us that Josiah gave the people thirty
thousand lambs and kids, and three thousand bullocks; and his priests
gave two thousand six hundred small cattle, and three hundred oxen;
and the chief of the Levites gave the Levites five thousand small
cattle, and five hundred oxen. He goes on to describe the slaying,
sprinkling of blood, flaying, roasting, boiling in pots, pans, and
caldrons, and attention paid to the burnt-offerings and the fat;[711]
but neither the historians nor the chroniclers, either here or
anywhere else, say one word about the Day of Atonement, or seem aware
of its existence. It belongs to the Post-Exilic Priestly Code, and is
not alluded to in the Book of Deuteronomy.

Continuing his task, he put away them that had familiar spirits
(_oboth_), and the wizards, and the _teraphim_, with a zeal shown by
no king before or after him; but Jehovah "turned not from the
fierceness of His anger, because of all the provocations which
Manasseh had provoked Him withal." Evil, alas! is more diffusive, and
in some senses more permanent, than good, because of the perverted
bias of human nature. Judah and Jerusalem had been radically corrupted
by the apostate son of Hezekiah, and it may be that the sudden and
high-handed reformation enforced by his grandson depended too
exclusively on the external impulse given to it by the king to produce
deep effects in the hearts of the people. Certain it is that even
Jeremiah--though he was closely connected with the finders of the
book, had perhaps been present when the solemn league and covenant was
taken in the Temple, and lived through the reformation in which he
probably took a considerable part--was profoundly dissatisfied with
the results. It is sad and singular that such should have been the
case; for in the first flush of the new enthusiasm he had written,
"Cursed be the man that heareth not the words of this covenant, which
I commanded your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of
the land of Egypt, saying, 'Obey My voice.'"[712] Nay, it has been
inferred that he was even an itinerant preacher of the newly found
law; for he writes: "And the Lord said unto me, 'Proclaim all these
words in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem, saying,
Hear ye the words of this covenant, and do them.'"[713]

The style of Deuteronomy, as is well known, shows remarkable
affinities with the style of Jeremiah. Yet it is clear that after the
death of Josiah the prophet became utterly disillusioned with the
outcome of the whole movement. It proved itself to be at once
evanescent and unreal. The people would not give up their beloved
local shrines.[714] The law, as Habakkuk says (i. 4), became torpid;
judgment went not forth to victory; the wicked compassed about the
righteous, and judgment was perverted. It was easy to obey the
external regulations of Deuteronomy; it was far more difficult to be
true to its noble moral precepts. The reformation of Josiah, so
violent and radical, proved to be only skin-deep; and Jeremiah, with
bitter disappointment, found it to be so. External decency might be
improved, but rites and forms are nothing to Him who searcheth the
heart.[715] There was, in fact, an inherent danger in the place
assumed by the newly discovered book. "Since it was regarded as a
State authority, there early arose a kind of book-science, with its
pedantic pride and erroneous learned endeavours to interpret and apply
the Scriptures. At the same time there arose also a new kind of
hypocrisy and idolatry of the letter, through the new protection which
the State gave to the religion of the book acknowledged by the law.
Thus scholastic wisdom came into conflict with genuine prophecy."[716]

How entirely the improvement of outward worship failed to improve men's
hearts the prophet testifies.[717] "The sin of Judah," he says, "is
written with a pen of iron, and with the point of a diamond: it is
graven upon the tablets of their hearts, and upon the horns of their
altars, and their Asherim by the green trees[718] upon the high hills. O
My mountain in the field, I will cause thee to serve thine enemies in
the land thou knowest not: for ye have kindled a fire in Mine eyes,
which shall burn for ever." While Josiah lived this apostasy was secret;
but as soon as he died the people "turned again to folly,"[719] and
committed all the old idolatries except the worship of Moloch. There
arose a danger lest even the moderate ritualism of Deuteronomy should be
perverted and exaggerated into mere formality. In the energy of his
indignation against this abuse, Jeremiah has to uplift his voice against
any trust even in the most decided injunctions of this newly discovered
law. He was "a second Amos upon a higher platform." The Deuteronomic Law
did not as yet exhibit the concentrated sacerdotalism and ritualism
which mark the Priestly Code, to which it is far superior in every way.
It is still prophetic in its tone. It places social interests above
rubrics of worship. It expresses the fundamental religious thought "that
Jehovah is in no sense inaccessible; that He can be approached
immediately by all, and without sacerdotal intervention; that He asks
nothing for Himself, but asks it as a religious duty that man should
render unto man what is right; that His Will lies not in any known
height, but in the moral sphere which is known and understood by
all."[720] The book ordained certain sacrifices; yet Jeremiah says with
startling emphasis, "To what purpose cometh there to Me frankincense
from Sheba, and the sweet calamus from a far country? Your
burnt-offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices pleasant unto
Me."[721] Therefore He bids them, "Put your burnt-offerings to your
sacrifices, and eat them as flesh"--_i.e._, "Throw all your offerings
into a mass, and eat them at your pleasure (regardless of sacerdotal
rules): they have neither any inherent sanctity nor any secondary
importance from the characters of the offerers."[722] And in a still
more remarkable passage, "_For I spake not unto your fathers, nor
commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt,
concerning burnt-offerings and sacrifices_: but this thing I commanded
them, saying, 'Obey My voice.'"[723]

Nay, in the most emphatic ordinances of Deuteronomy he found that the
people had created a new peril. They were putting a particularistic
trust in Jehovah, as though He were a respecter of persons, and they
His favourites. They fancied, as in the days of Micah, that it was
enough for them to claim His name, and bribe Him with sacrifices.[724]
Above all, they boasted of and relied upon the possession of His
Temple, and placed their trust on the punctual observance of external
ceremonies. All these sources of vain confidence it was the duty of
Jeremiah rudely to shatter to pieces. Standing at the gates of the
Lord's House, he cried: "Trust ye not in lying words, saying, 'The
Temple of the Lord! the Temple of the Lord! the Temple of the Lord,
are these!' Behold, ye trust in lying words, that cannot profit. Will
ye steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, burn incense unto
Baal, and walk after other gods; and come and stand before Me in this
house, whereupon My name is called, and say, 'We are delivered,' that
ye may do all these abominations? Is this house become a den of
robbers in your eyes? But go ye now to My place which was in Shiloh,
where I caused My name to dwell at the first, and see what I did to it
for the wickedness of My people. I will do unto this house as I have
done to Shiloh; and I will cast you out of My sight, as I have cast
out the whole house of Ephraim."[725]--Yet all hope was not
extinguished for ever. The Scythian might disappear; the Babylonian
might come in his place; but one day there should be a new covenant of
pardon and restitution; and as had been promised in Deuteronomy,
"_all_ should know Jehovah, from the least to the greatest."

At last he even prophesies the entire future annulment of the solemn
covenant made on the basis of Deuteronomy, and says that Jehovah will
make a new covenant with His people, not according to the covenant
which He made with their fathers.[726] And in his final estimate of
King Josiah after his death, he does not so much as mention his
reformation, his iconoclasm, his sweeping zeal, or his enforcement of
the Deuteronomic Law, but only says to Jehoiakim:--

"'Did not thy father eat and drink, and do judgment and justice?--then
it was well with him. He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then
it was well. _Was not this to know Me?' saith the Lord_."[727]

Whether because its methods were too violent, or because it only
affected the surface of men's lives, or because the people were not
really ripe for it, or because no reformation can ever succeed which
is enforced by autocracy, not spread by persuasion and conviction, it
is certain that the first glamour of Josiah's movement ended in
disillusionment. A religion violently imposed from without as a
state-religion naturally tends to hypocrisy and externalism. What
Jehovah required was, not a changed method of worship, but a changed
heart; and this the reformation of Josiah did not produce. It has
often been so in human history. Failure seems to be written on many of
the most laudable human efforts. Nevertheless, truth ultimately
prevails. Isaiah was murdered, and Urijah, and Jeremiah. Savonarola
was burnt, and Huss, and many a martyr more; but the might of
priestcraft was at last crippled, to be revived, we hope, no more,
either by open violence or secret apostasy.

          "Then to side with Truth is noble, when we share her wretched
                 crust,
           Ere her cause bring fame and profit, and 'tis prosperous to
                 be just;
           Then it is the brave man chooses, while the coward stands
                 aside,
           Doubting in his abject spirit till his Lord is crucified,
           And the multitude make virtue of the faith they have denied."

FOOTNOTES:

[692] 2 Kings xxiii. 4. We have here the first mention of "the second
priest" (if, with Grätz, we read _Cohen mishneh_, as in 2 Kings xxv.
18; Jer. lii. 24). In later days he was called "the Sagan." At this
time he probably acted as "Captain of the Temple" (Grätz, ii. 319).

[693] Comp. 2 Kings xii. 15, where we find the same remark.

[694] Exod. xv. 20; Judg. iv. 4; Isa. viii. 3. "The prophetess" seems
to mean "prophet's wife." Noadiah was a false prophetess.

[695] Exod. xxviii. 2, etc.

[696] 2 Kings xxii. 14. Heb., _mishneh_, lit. "second"; A.V., "the
college"; R.V., "the second quarter." Perhaps it means "the lower
city" (Neh. xi. 9; Zeph. i. 10). It puzzled the LXX.: ἐν τῇ μασενᾷ.
Vulg., _in secunda_. Jerome says, "_Haud dubium quin urbis partem
significet quæ interiori muro vallabatur_." Comp. Zeph. i. 10, "an
howling from the _second_" (_i.e._, quarter of the city); Neh. xi. 9,
where, for "_second over the city_" (A. and R.V.), read "over the
second part of the city."

[697] Another reading is "in Jerusalem," which gets over an historic
difficulty.

[698] Comp. 2 Kings xi. 14; LXX., ἐπὶ τοῦ στύλου; Heb., _al-ha-ammud_;
Vulg., _super gradum_.

[699] 2 Kings xxiii. 4; for "in the fields of Kedron" one version has
ἐν τῷ ἐμπυρισμῷ τοῦ χειμάῤῥου, "in the burning-place of the
wady,"--perhaps reading _bemisrephoth_ for _bishedamoth_, and alluding
to lime-kilns in the wady. It is surprising that they should carry the
ashes "to Bethel." Thenius suggests the reading בֵּית־אַל, "place of
execution" (lit., "house of nothingness").

[700] Hos. x. 5; Zeph. i. 4 (the only other places where the word
occurs). The _delevit_ of the Vulgate (2 Kings xxiii. 5) only means that
he put them down, and the κατέκαυσε of the LXX. should be κατέπαυσε.

[701] Comp. Jer. ii. 23, where the LXX. has ἐν τῷ πολυανδρίῳ. In 2
Chron. xxxiv. 4, perhaps the true reading is, not _Benî-ha-'âm_, but
_Benî-hinnom_--which would mean that he scattered the dust in the
gehenna of Jerusalem. Comp. 1 Kings xv. 13.

[702] For these Galli, see Seneca, _De Vit. Beat._, 27; Pliny, _H.
N._, xi. 49.

[703] Heb., _bathîm_, lit. "tents" or "houses"; Vulg., _quasi
domunculas_.

[704] In 2 Kings xxiii. 8, Geiger would read "the high places of the
_satyrs_" (שׂצירים).

[705] Usually derived (as by Selden and Milton) from _toph_, "drum,"
but perhaps from _tuph_ (to _spit_ in sign of abhorrence).

[706] _Parvar_--perhaps "open portico." Renan connects the word with
the Greek περίβολος. On horses dedicated to the sun, see Xen.
_Cyrop._, viii. 3, 5, 12; _Anab._, iv. 5.

[707] See Zeph. i. 5; Jer. xix. 13, xxxii. 29.

[708] 2 Kings xxiii. 13: "The Mount of Corruption"; Vulg., _Mons
offensionis_; LXX., τοῦ ὄρους τοῦ Μοσθάθ. Some conjecture that
_Maschith_ may be a derisive change for some word which meant
"anointing" (from being the _Oil_ Mountain, _Har ham-mischchah_).

[709] In burning the bones of the dead, he violated all Jewish feeling.
Amos (ii. 1) had severely rebuked this form of revenge and insult even
in the case of the heathen King of Moab. Bones defiled the touch (Num.
xix. 16; Herod., iv. 73). Josiah's question at Bethel was, "What
_pillar_ is that?" (_tsiyun_). LXX., σκόπελον. Comp. Gen. xxxv. 20.

[710] 1 Kings xiii. 29-31.

[711] 2 Chron. xxxv. 1-19.

[712] Jer. xi. 3, 4. Since, in this part of my subject, I make
frequent reference to the prophecies of Jeremiah which are
indispensable to the right understanding of the history, I may here
say that modern critics (Cheyne and others) arrange them as follows:--

In the reign of _Josiah_, Jer. ii. 1-iii. 5, iii. 6-vi. 30, vii. 1-ix.
25, xi. 1-17.

In the reign of _Jehoiakim_, xxvi. 2-6, xlvi. 2-12, xxv., xxxv., and
possibly xvi. 1, xviii. 19-27, xiv., xv., xviii., xi. 18-xii. 17.

In the reign of _Jehoiachin_, x. 17-23, xiii.

In the reign of _Zedekiah_, xxii.-xxiv., xxvii.-xxix. 1-11 (?), lii.

In the _Exile_, xxxix.-xliv.

[713] See Cheyne, _Jeremiah_, p. 56, _id._ 6.

[714] Canon Cheyne shows that even Mohammed could not persuade the
Qurashites wholly to give up their black stone at the Kaaba, and their
dolmens and sacred trees (_id._ 103). He left the _auçab_, or
sacrificial stones (_matstseboth_), though he warns his followers
against them (_Quran_, v. 92).

[715] Jer. xvii. 9-11.

[716] Ewald, _The Prophets_, iii. 63, 64.

[717] Jer. xvii. 1-4.

[718] The Qurashites and other heathen Arabs accounted holy a large
green tree, and every year had a sacrifice in its honour. "On the way to
Hunain we called to God's Messenger (Mohammed) that he should appoint
for us such trees. But he was terrified, and said, 'Lord God, Lord God!
Ye speak even as the Israelites ... ye are still in ignorance,--thus are
heathen enslaved'" (Vakïdi, _Book of the Campaigns of God's Messenger_,
quoted by Cheyne, _Jeremiah_, p. 103, from Wellhausen).

[719] Psalm lxxxv. 8.

[720] Deut. xxx. 11-14. See Wellhausen, p. 165.

[721] Jer. vi. 20. The passages of Jeremiah which seem of a different
spirit may have been added by later hands--_e.g._, xxxiii. 18, which
is not in the LXX.

[722] Jer. vii. 21; Ewald; and Cheyne, _l.c._ 120. So the Jews seem to
have understood it, for they appoint this passage to be read on the
_Haphtara_ after the _Parashah_ about sacrifices from Leviticus.

[723] Jer, vii. 22, 23. This alone would show that Jeremiah did not
(as earlier critics thought) _write_ "Deuteronomy," in spite of the
numerous close resemblances in phraseology. Thus, Jeremiah often
denounces the priests (i. 18, ii. 8-26, iv. 9, v. 31, viii. 1, xiii.
13, xxxii. 32). Cheyne, p. 82.

[724] Mic. iii. 11.

[725] Jer. vii. 4, 8-15.

[726] Jer. xxxi. 31, 32.

[727] Jer. xxii. 15, 16.




                         NOTE TO CHAPTER XXXI.

              "Jehovah is our Lawgiver."--ISA. xxxiii. 22.


What was the Book of the Law which Hilkiah found in the Temple?

The great majority of eminent modern critics have now come to the
conclusion that it was the kernel of the Book of Deuteronomy. Nor is
this in any sense a mere modern notion. It occurs as far back as St.
Jerome (_Adv. Jovin._, i. 5) and St. Chrysostom (_Hom. in Matt._, ix.,
p. 135, B. See W. Rob. Smith, p. 258).

It is no part of my immediate duty to argue this question, but I may
state that the arguments for this conclusion are partly historical,
partly literary, and partly depend on internal evidence.

I. As regards the _literary_ argument, it is maintained that--

1. The full, rounded, rhetorical style of Deuteronomy, so widely
different from the extreme dryness of other parts of the Torah, could
not have been as yet developed in the days of Moses, and required the
slow training of centuries for its perfection. It is a new phenomenon,
and differs widely from earlier prophetic writings, such as those of
Amos and Hosea.

2. The style and language of the Deuteronomist are so marked, that
they can scarcely escape an intelligent reader of the English Version.
Riehm enumerates sixty-four characteristic words or phrases. Their
significance lies in the fact that they express obvious ideas, and are
not names for special objects, which force a writer to use peculiar
words. The style closely resembles in many phrases and particulars the
style of Jeremiah, and of him alone among the prophets. "Even
supposing that no historic text," it has been said, "taught us that
the articles of Smalkald were the work of Luther, we should still have
the right to affirm that these articles closely resemble the ideas of
Luther, and could hardly have been published without his cognisance."

II. As regards _historical_ evidence, we observe that--

1. No author earlier than Josiah shows any acquaintance with
Deuteronomy: after that date, proofs of such knowledge abound.

2. The Book of Deuteronomy insisted with reiterated emphasis on the
centralisation of worship. All its ordinances are framed with a view
to promote this end. But we have seen that there is not a trace of any
belief that local shrines were prohibited earlier than the reign of
Hezekiah, who certainly would have defended his boldness by appeal to
a written law if he had known of such as existing.

III. As regards _internal_ evidence, we see that--

1. Many passages and injunctions of the Book of Deuteronomy differ
entirely from those found in the old Book of the Covenant which forms
the most ancient nucleus of Exodus (Exod. xx. 22-xxiii. 33).

2. Even the most conservative English critics--even those who, with any
pretence to competent knowledge, argue against the more advanced
conclusions of the Higher Criticism--cannot help admitting that at least
three codes, which in many, and in some fundamental, respects differ
widely from each other, and which make no reference to each other, are
found in our present Pentateuch--viz., that of the Book of the Covenant,
that of the Deuteronomist (D.), and that of the Priestly writer (P.).
All three may contain elements as old as the days of Moses; but most
critics (with scarcely an exception in Germany) now believe that the
Deuteronomic Code, in its present form, is not earlier than the date of
Josiah's reformation (_circ._ B.C. 621); and the Priestly Codex
(whatever older documents may exist in it) not older, in its present
form, than about the time of Ezra (B.C. 444). Dillmann, Kittel, and in
his later days Delitzsch, have been of necessity compelled to give up
the views that, in their present form, D. and P. are as ancient as the
days of Moses. The last German critic who held that Moses wrote our
present Pentateuch was Keil (_d._ 1888). Canon Cheyne argues for the
late date of this misnamed "Deuteronomy," on the grounds that the
authors (1) used documents manifestly later than Moses; (2) alluded to
events which only occurred long after Moses; and (3) expressed ideas
which, in the age of Moses, are not psychologically possible.

The Book of Deuteronomy consists mainly of an historical introduction,
probably added later (i. 1-5); Moses' _first_ discourse (i. 6-iv. 40);
Moses' _second_ discourse (iv. 44-xxvi.); a section marked specially
by blessings and curses (xxvii.-xxix.); a _third_ discourse of Moses
(xxix. 2-xxx. 20); his farewell (xxxi. 1-13); his song (xxxi.
14-xxxii. 47); conclusion, narrating his blessing and death (xxxii.
48-xxxiv. 12).

I have no space here to enter fully into the arguments which seem
decisive as to the date of the main part of Deuteronomy. Those who
desire to see them must study Colenso, _The Pentateuch_, pt. iii.;
Reuss, _Hist. Sainte et la Loi_, i. 154-211; W. Robertson Smith, _Old
Test. in the Jewish Church_, lect. xvi.; Kuenen, _The Hexateuch_, E.
T., 1886; Kittel, _Gesch. d. Hebräer_, pp. 43-59; Cheyne, _Jeremiah_,
pp. 48-86; S. R. Driver, _s.v._ "Deuteronomy" (Smith's _Dict. of the
Bible_, new ed.); W. Aldis Wright, _The Documents of the Hexateuch_,
pp. lvii.-lxxix. The name "Deuteronomy" (or "second law") arises from
the mistaken rendering of the LXX. and Vulgate in Deut. xvii. 18.




                             CHAPTER XXXII

                         _THE DEATH OF JOSIAH_

                                B.C. 608

                         2 KINGS xxiii. 29, 30

    "Howl, O fir tree; for the cedar is fallen."--ZECH. xi. 2.


Josiah survived by thirteen years the reformation and covenant which
are the chief events of his reign. He lived in prosperity and peace.
He did justice and judgment; the poor and needy flourished under his
royal protection; and it was well with him. It seemed as if the
Deuteronomic blessings on faithfulness to its law were about to be
abundantly fulfilled, when "the azure calm of heaven" was suddenly
shattered, and "down came the thunderbolt." The great and victorious
Assurbanipal of Assyria had died, and left his power to weaker
successors. Meanwhile, Egypt was growing in power and splendour under
Pharaoh Necho II. (B.C. 612-596), the sixth king of the twenty-fifth
or Saitic dynasty. He nearly anticipated M. de Lesseps in making the
Suez Canal,[728] and perhaps actually anticipated Vasco de Gama in
rounding the Cabo Tormentoso, or Cape of Good Hope, in a three years'
voyage. He was fired by the ambitious dream of succeeding the
Assyrians as the chief power in the world, or at any rate of seizing
part of the dominions which they had conquered.[729] Accordingly, in
B.C. 608, he went up against the King of Assyria to the river
Euphrates. The Chronicler says that his destination was Carchemish, on
the Euphrates, and some have conjectured that the vague phrase
"against the King of Assyria" is incorrect, and that, as Josephus
states, he was really marching against the Medes and Babylonians after
the fall of Nineveh.[730]

With this expedition Josiah was not greatly concerned. He may have
begun his reign as the vassal of Assurbanipal; but if so, it is
probable that he had long since ceased to pay tribute to a power which
was tottering to its fall under the attacks of Scythians and
Babylonians. He had availed himself of the disorganisation of the
Assyrian power to re-establish some, at least, of the old authority of
the House of David over the Northern Kingdom, and perhaps he only
undertook the desperate expedient of withstanding the northward march
of the Egyptian host under the notion that either on the march or on
his return the Pharaoh intended to subjugate Palestine to Egypt.

Pharaoh Necho II., among his other achievements, had created a
powerful fleet,[731] and it is nearly certain that he did not advance
along the coast of Palestine, but made his way by sea to Acco or
Dor.[732] Here he received the news that Josiah meant to block his
path at Megiddo, on the plain of Jezreel. That plain has been the
great and only possible battle-field of Palestine, from the revolt in
which Barak destroyed the host of Jabin,[733] to that in which Tryphon
met Jonathan the Maccabee,[734] and Kleber in 1799 defeated
twenty-five thousand Turks with three thousand French.

The Chronicler here adds a very remarkable incident.[735] Necho, like
Joash of Israel in former days, did not care to fight with the poor
little King of Judah--or at any rate did not wish to do so at present,
when he was on his way to the greater encounter. He therefore sent an
embassy to Josiah, saying, "What have I to do with thee, King of
Judah? I come not against thee this day, but against the house
wherewith I have war.[736] For God [Elohim] commanded me [in a dream]
to make haste.[737] Forbear, then, from meddling with God, who is with
me, that He destroy thee not."

The conjecture "in a dream" is not unlikely, nor is it in disaccord
with other events in the annals of the Pharaohs and the Sargonidæ of
Assyria.[738] We may indeed be surprised that an Egyptian Pharaoh
should profess to deliver to a Jewish king the messages of Elohim,
though we have seen something like this in the case of the
Rabshakeh.[739] The variation in 1 Esdras i. 26-28 is curious and
interesting. We are there told that the message was sent to Josiah,
not only by Pharaoh Necho, who had sent to say "The Lord is with me
hastening me forward: depart from me, and be not against the Lord,"
but also by "the prophet Jeremy." Josephus frankly ascribes the error
of Josiah to destiny, as though he had been infatuated by the
dementation which the Greeks attributed to Atè.[740]

This, however, is not likely; for it is clear that Jeremiah, though
not mentioned in the Book of Kings, must have had a strong influence
over the mind of Josiah, whom he loved, whose views he shared, in
whose religious revolution he had taken part. Further, we do not read
of any warning recorded by the prophet himself; and had he uttered
one, it would certainly have been mentioned, when he committed his
prophecies to writing twenty-three years after their commencement. A
warning of which the neglect had led to fatal issues would have been
so decisive a confirmation of Jeremiah's prophetic insight that it
could not have been passed over in silence.

Indeed, Jeremiah may have shared the conviction which, founded on
imperfect generalisation, perhaps dazzled the unfortunate king to his
ruin. Josiah had accepted the Book of Deuteronomy with the whole
strength of his belief, and the Book of Deuteronomy had proclaimed to
Israel as the reward of faithfulness this promise: "And it shall come
to pass that Jehovah, thy God, shall set thee on high above all the
nations of the earth.... Jehovah shall cause thine enemies which rise
up against thee to be smitten before thy face: they shall come out
against thee one way, and flee before thee seven ways."[741] In the
strength of that promise, Josiah was perhaps saying to himself, in the
language of the Psalms, that Jehovah could not fail to save His
anointed, and dash His enemies to pieces under His feet;[742] in the
language, perhaps, of later days, that the sound of a shaken leaf
should chase them, and they should flee when none pursued.[743]

Alas! such passages do not apply invariably to our worldly fortunes!
God's promises are general. The individual must be considered apart
from the universal in the region of spiritual and eternal blessings.
In the affairs of earth the wicked often seem to be in prosperity,
while the righteous are overwhelmed by all God's waves and storms.
Further, Josiah evidently received a warning--a warning which
professed to come, and really came, from God[744]--whether uttered by
Pharaoh or by Jeremiah. And in this instance Josiah had sought war; he
had not been forced into it. It was not for him to go out of his way
to champion the cause either of cruel Assyria or vaunting Babylon.

The result was entire disenchantment. No more disheartening and
disastrous calamity could have happened to the kingdom, which had just
begun to struggle out of the slough of idolatry and humiliation.

Heedless of the message he had received, strong in mistaken hopes,
Josiah opposed his poor, weak forces to the powerful host of renovated
Egypt. The result was instantaneous ruin.[745] Judah was defeated and
scattered without a blow,--Necho came, saw, conquered. Josiah,
according to the present record of the Chronicles, like Ahab,
"disguised himself"[746] and went into the battle; and as he drove
from rank to rank an Egyptian archer drew a bow at a venture, and
smote him while he was putting his forces in array. The arrow-point
brought conviction too late. Josiah saw his error; he knew that his
own death involved the rout of his army. He sounded a retreat, and
said to his servants, "Bear me away to my travelling chariot, for I am
sore wounded."[747] He died at Megiddo, where his ancestor Ahaziah had
died before him from the arrow-wounds of Jehu's pursuers. His servants
carried him in a chariot dead from Megiddo. The famous plain of
Esdraelon had already witnessed two great victories--that of Barak
over Sisera, and that of Gideon over the Midianites; and one
deplorable defeat--that of Saul by the Philistines. It was now
darkened by a catastrophe even more sad.[748]

When that chariot, accompanied by its wailing escort, entered the
gates of Jerusalem, with the routed army of Judah behind it, the
feeling of the people must have resembled that of the Athenians when
the news reached them that Lysander had destroyed their whole fleet at
Ægospotami, and the long wail went thrilling up through that sleepless
night from the Peiræus all along the Makra Teichè to the Parthenon and
the Acropolis. And there followed such a mourning as the land had
never known before. It had begun at Megiddo and Hadadrimmon, leaving
the sad memory of its hopeless intensity. It was renewed at Jerusalem
when they buried the king in his own sepulchre. "The land mourned,
every family apart; the family of the House of David apart, and their
wives apart; the family of the House of Nathan apart, and their wives
apart; the family of the House of Levi apart, and their wives apart;
the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart; all the families
that remained, every family apart, and their wives apart."[749] "And
all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah. And Jeremiah lamented for
Josiah: and all the singing men and the singing women spake of Josiah
in their lamentations unto this day, and they were made an institution
in Israel: and, behold, they are written in the Lamentations."[750]
Not even for heroic David, or royal Solomon, or pious Asa, or
prosperous Jehoshaphat had there been so loud a dirge.

But, alas! there was cause for far deeper sorrow than the loss of a
prince, however able, however beloved. The dead was dead. Natural sorrow
for the bereavement of the people would soon be healed by time, but
behind the passing affliction lay a great fear and a great reaction.

A great fear,--for now a southern foe was added to the northern.
Jeremiah and other prophets had warned Israel of the peril from the
North. When the Scythian wave "rolled shoreward, struck and was
dissipated," when the source of Assyrian terror seemed to be drying up,
worldlings may have felt inclined to laugh at Jeremiah. But now it was
evident that, sooner or later, the Chaldæans would be as formidable as
their predecessors, and out of the serpent's egg was breaking forth a
cockatrice. The uncalled-for attempt of Josiah to bar the path of the
new and mighty Pharaoh had also added Egypt to the list of formidable
enemies. For the present the Pharaoh had passed on to the Euphrates; but
whether he returned victorious or defeated, his troops could not but be
a source of danger to the little kingdom, which would henceforth be
helpless between the overwhelming forces of its foes.

If such were the fears of the timid and the pessimistic, still deeper
was the disheartenment of the faithful. Josiah had been the most
obedient, the most religious, of all the kings of Judah from childhood
upwards. Where, then, were Jehovah's old loving-kindnesses which He
sware unto David in His truth? Had God forgotten to be gracious? Had
He hidden away His mercy in displeasure? Where were the blessings of
the newly discovered Book of the Law, if the curse fell on its most
earnest votary? Where was Huldah's promise that he should be gathered
to his fathers in peace, if he was carried back dead from the field of
fruitless battle? There can be little doubt that the apparent blight
which had fallen on unavailing righteousness hastened the reaction of
the subsequent reigns. Many might be inclined to cry out with even
Jeremiah in his moments of overwhelming despondency, "Ah, Lord God!
surely Thou hast greatly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying,
'Ye shall have peace'; whereas the sword reacheth unto the soul."[751]
"O Lord, Thou has deceived me, and I was deceived: Thou art stronger
than I, and hast prevailed: I am a derision daily, every one mocketh
me. Whenever I speak, I must shout, I must cry violence and spoil; for
the word of the Lord is made a reproach unto me, and a derision,
daily."[752]

But man judges partially and judges amiss. God's ways are not as man's
ways. God sees the whole; He sees the future; He sees things as they
are. Through defeat, through captivity, through multiform affliction,
lay the path to the final deliverance of the nation from the grosser
forms of idolatry. When they wept as they remembered Zion, when they
took down their harps from the willows by the water-courses of Babylon
to sing the Lord's song in a strange land, they turned again--and at
last with their whole heart--to God their Saviour, who had done so
great things for them;--until the grey secret lingering in the East
was brightened by the Morning Star, and there was revealed to the
world a True Israel, and a New Jerusalem, wherein the Lord should be
King for evermore.

FOOTNOTES:

[728] He was forced to desist by a fearful mortality among the
labourers.

[729] _Circ._ B.C. 611-605. Herod., ii. 158, 159, iv. 42. Psamatik,
the father of Necho, was perhaps a Lybian. He established his sway
over all Egypt displacing the Assyrians.

[730] _Antt._, X. v. 1.

[731] Herod., ii. 158. His father Psamatik had left him an adequate
army of natives and mercenaries.

[732] Herodotus says of his ships: Ἁι μὲν ἐπὶ τῇ βορηίῃ θαλάσσῃ
ἐποιήθησαν.

[733] Judg. iv. 23; 1 Sam. xxix. 1-11; 1 Kings xx. 26; 2 Kings xxiii.
29; 2 Chron. xxxv. 22; Rev. xvi. 16 (Armageddon). Herodotus confuses
it with Migdol (Μάγδολον).

[734] 1 Macc. xii. 49; Jos., _Antt._, XIII. vi. 2.

[735] 2 Chron. xxxv. 20-22.

[736] According to 1 Esdras i. 25-32, "for upon Euphrates is my war."

[737] Klostermann, in 2 Chron. xxxv. 21, reads _bachalôm_, "in a
dream," instead of "to make haste."

[738] Gen. xli. 1; Herod., ii. 188; _Records of the Past_, ix. 52.

[739] 2 Kings xviii. 25.

[740] _Antt._, X. v. 1: Τῆς πεπρωμένης οἶμαι εἰς τοῦτ' αὐτόν
παρορμησάσης.

[741] Deut. xxviii. 1-8.

[742] Psalm xx. 6, xviii. 29-50.

[743] Lev. xxvi. 36.

[744] 2 Chron. xxxv. 22: "hearkened not _to the words of Necho from
the mouth of God_."

[745] "When he had _seen_ him." Comp. 2 Kings xiv. 8.

[746] 1 Esdras i. 25; and LXX., "firmly resolved," "strengthened
himself," as in 2 Chron. xxv. 11.

[747] Jos., _Antt._, X. v. 1; and 2 Chron. xxxv. 23; 1 Esdras i. 30.

[748] The fortunes of the Jews again prevailed in this plain in the
days of Holofernes (Judith vii. 3); but they were defeated there by
Placidus (Jos., _B. J._, IV. i. 8).

[749] Zech. xii. 11-13 (comp. Jer. xxii. 10, 18). No such place as
Hadadrimmon is known, though there is a Rummâne not far from Megiddo.
Jerome (_Comm. in Zach._) identifies it with a place which he calls
Maximianopolis. Wellhausen (_Skizzen_, 192) thinks that the mourning
is compared to some wail over the god Hadadrimmon, like the wailing
for Tammuz. Jonathan and Jarchi say that Hadadrimmon was the son of
Tabrimmon, who opposed Ahab at Ramoth-Gilead.

[750] 2 Chron. xxxv. 24, 25. Jeremiah's elegy has probably perished.
It would have been most interesting had it been preserved. Lam. iv. is
too vague to have been this lost poem.

[751] Jer. iv. 10.

[752] Jer. xx. 7, 8.




                             CHAPTER XXXIII

                               _JEHOAHAZ_

                                B.C. 608

                          2 KINGS xxiii. 31-33

    "I went by, and, lo! he was gone: I sought him, but his place
    could nowhere be found."--PSALM xxxvii. 36.

It was under the disastrous circumstances which attended his father's
death at Megiddo that Jehoahaz began to reign. There is some confusion
about the four sons of Josiah, whom the Chronicler calls Johanan,
Jehoiakim, Zedekiah, and Shallum.[753] From Jer. xxii. 11, it appears
that Jehoahaz was the royal name taken on his anointing by Shallum, the
third son.[754] If so, he cannot be identified with Johanan, the
firstborn, as in the margin of our version. Further, it appears from our
historians that Jehoahaz was twenty-three at his succession, and was
therefore younger than Jehoiakim who (three months later) succeeded him
at the age of twenty-five. Jehoahaz was the own brother of Zedekiah,
Jehoiakim being his half-brother by another mother (Zebudah).

We do not know for what reason he was preferred by "the people of the
land" to his elder brother Eliakim or Jehoiakim. It was probably
because they regarded him as a prince of eminent courage and ability.
The high hopes which the nation conceived of him may be seen in the
pathetic elegy of Ezek. xix.:--

  "Moreover take thou up a lamentation for the princes of Israel, and
         say,--
   What was thy mother? A lioness!
   Amidst lions she couched,
   In the midst of the young lions she nourished her whelps.
   She brought up one of her whelps: he became a young lion;
   He learned to catch the prey; he devoured men.
   The nations heard of him;
   In their pit was he taken,[755]
   And they brought him with hooks into the land of Egypt."[756]

We see, too, that he was to an eminent degree the darling of the
nation in the still more plaintive wail of Jeremiah which will be
quoted later.

The fact that Shallum solemnly changed his name to Jehoahaz ("Jehovah
taketh hold"),[757] and that the people of the land not only "made him
king in his father's stead," but also "anointed him," points to a
disputed succession.[758] High hopes were conceived of him; but he
hardly had a chance of fulfilling them, for he was only permitted to
reign three months. What were the events of those months we do not
know. Jehoahaz must have disappointed any hopes which may have been
formed of him by the religious party; for dear as he was to them, the
historians record of him that "he did that which was evil in the sight
of the Lord, according to all that his fathers had done," although
they specify no particular offence. The same sad verdict is passed on
all his four successors; but Josephus says even more emphatically of
Jehoahaz that he was impious and impure.[759]

He must have shown some activity in other respects, or else Ezekiel
would hardly have said that "the nations heard of him," and that "he
learned to catch the prey; he devoured men." Over all his deeds,
whatever they may have been, "the iniquity of oblivion has blindly
scattered her poppy," and he fell a victim to the great
world-movements of those troublous times.

For Pharaoh, after his defeat of Josiah at Megiddo, proceeded to make
himself master of Syria and Palestine. He took Cadytis, which
Herodotus calls "a large city of Syria,"[760] and which--since it
cannot here mean Gaza, as in Herod., iii. 5--has been identified by
some with Kadesh. Thence he marched to Carchemish, on the right bank
of the Euphrates,[761] none venturing to check him, till "once more,
after the lapse of nine centuries, Egyptian garrisons looked down on
that historic stream."[762] On his return he stopped at Riblah, on the
Orontes,[763] to consolidate his Syrian conquests; and there he learnt
that, without consulting him, the people of Jerusalem had made
Jehoahaz their king. Perhaps he heard enough of the warlike prowess of
Jehoahaz to make him resent this act of independence. After his three
months' campaign he sent for Jehoahaz to Riblah, and the unhappy
prince had no choice but to obey. Possibly the Egyptian party in
Jerusalem, headed by his disappointed elder brother Eliakim, may have
intrigued against him with Pharaoh Necho. When he reached Riblah, he
was unceremoniously deposed; and though we may hope that the
expression of Ezekiel, that "they brought him with _hooks_ into the
land of Egypt," belongs to the metaphor of the captured lion's whelp,
it is certain that he was taken to the banks of the Nile as a fettered
captive, never to return. How long his miserable life was protracted,
or how he was treated in Egypt, we do not know. The sun of the young
prince went down in darkness while it was yet day. No king of Judah
before him had died in prison and in exile, and the calamity smote
heavily the heart of his people. Egypt was not to escape--shortly
thereafter--the doom of violence and pride; but whether the young
Jewish king had died meanwhile of a broken heart, or whether he
dragged on to hoar hairs his maimed life, or whether he was murdered
in his dungeon, no man knew. One thing only was clear to the sad
prophet--that he would never return.

"Weep ye not for the dead, neither bemoan him: but weep ye sore for
him that is gone away: for he shall return no more, nor see his native
country. For thus saith Jehovah concerning Shallum, the son of Josiah,
King of Judah, which reigned instead of Josiah his father, which went
forth out of this place: 'He shall not return thither any more: but in
the place whither they have led him captive there shall he die, and he
shall see this land no more.'"[764]

To show his absolute power over Judah and Jerusalem, Pharaoh Necho not
only deposed and fettered their king, but put the whole land under a
yearly tribute of one hundred talents of silver (about £40,000) and a
talent of gold (about £4,000).[765]

Even this comparatively small sum was a heavy burden for so greatly
afflicted and impoverished a country, and Pharaoh further imposed on
them a vassal to see that it was duly extorted. This was Eliakim, the
eldest living son of Josiah. There was nothing left to plunder in the
Temple or the palace, and therefore the exaction had to be borne by
the taxed and suffering people.

FOOTNOTES:

[753] Chron. iii. 15.

[754] He is named "fourth," but he was older than his brothers
Jehoiakim and Zedekiah (2 Kings xxiii. 31, xxiv. 18). The genealogy is
as follows:--

             Zebudah  =  JOSIAH  =  Hamutal.
                      |          |
                 -----           |-------------------
                |                |                   |
  Nehushta = ELIAKIM          ZEDEKIAH            JEHOAHAZ
           | or Jehoiakim.    or Mattaniah.      or Shallum.
           |
       JEHOIACHIN.


[755] An allusion to the Syrian mode of hunting the lion by driving it
with cries into a concealed pit (Tristram, _Nat. Hist. of the Bible_,
118; Cheyne, 140).

[756] Ezek. xix. 1-4.

[757] The name Shallum means "recompense." It may have been regarded
as ill-omened, since the King of Israel who bore this rare name had
only reigned a month.

[758] The Talmud says that kings were only anointed in special cases
(_Keritoth_, f. 5, 2; Grätz, ii. 328).

[759] Jos., _Antt._, X. v. 2: Ἀσεβὴς καὶ μιαρὸς τὸν τρόπον.

[760] Herod., ii. 159.

[761] Mr. G. Smith identifies Carchemish with Jerablûs.

[762] Cheyne, _Jeremiah_, p. 127.

[763] Comp. 2 Kings xxv. 20, 21. The old Hittite capital of Riblah was
a convenient halting-place on the road between Babylon and Jerusalem.
It was on the northernmost boundary of Palestine towards Damascus
(Amos vi. 14).

[764] Jer. xxii. 10-12.

[765] 2 Chron. xxxvi. 3; 1 Esdras i. 36. The smallness of the tribute
proves the impoverishment of the land. Sennacherib demanded from
Hezekiah three hundred talents of silver, and thirty of gold; and
Menahem paid one thousand talents of silver to Tiglath-Pileser.




                             CHAPTER XXXIV

                              _JEHOIAKIM_

                              B.C. 608-597

                       2 KINGS xxiii. 36-xxiv. 7

    "But those things that are recorded of him, and of his uncleanness
    and impiety, are written in the Chronicles of the Kings."--1
    ESDRAS i. 42.

    "When Jehoiakim succeeded to the throne, he said, 'My predecessors
    knew not how to provoke God.'"--_Sanhedrin_, f. 103, 2.

          "There is no strange handwriting on the wall,
           Through all the midnight hum no threatening call,
           Nor on the marble floor the stealthy fall
           Of fatal footsteps. All is safe.--Thou fool,
           The avenging deities are shod with wool!"
                                         W. ALLEN BUTLER.


Eliakim succeeded to the throne at the age of twenty-five under very
unenviable circumstances--as a nominal king, a helpless nominee and
tributary of the Pharaoh. He seems to have been thoroughly distasteful
to the people; and if we may judge from the fact that Ezekiel frankly
ignores him and passes from Jehoahaz to Jehoachin, he was regarded as
a tax-gathering usurper nominated by an alien tyrant. For after
speaking of Jehoahaz, Ezekiel says,--

  "Now when she [Judah] saw that she had waited [for the restoration of
         Jehoahaz], and her hope was lost,
   Then she took another of her whelps;[766]
   A young lion she made him.
   He went up and down among the lions;
   He became a young lion."[767]

The historian says that Necho turned the name of Eliakim ("God will
establish") to Jehoiakim ("Jehovah will establish"); but by this can
hardly be meant more than that he sanctioned the change of El into
Jehovah on Eliakim's installation upon the throne.

Jehoiakim is condemned in the same terms as all the other sons of
Josiah. His misdoings are far more definitely recorded in the
Prophets, who furnish us with details which are passed over by the
historians. Some of his sins may have been due to the influence of his
wife Nehushta, who was a daughter of Elnathan of Achbor, one of the
princes of the heathen party. It was this Elnathan whom the king chose
as a fitting ambassador to demand the extradition of the prophet
Urijah from Egypt. One of the crimes with which Jehoiakim is charged
is the building for himself of a sumptuous palace, and thus vainly
trying to emulate the splendours of Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian
kings. In itself the act would not have been more wicked than it was
in Solomon, whose architectural parade is dwelt upon with enthusiasm.
But the circumstances were now wholly different. Solomon was at that
time in all his glory, the possessor of boundless wealth, the ruler of
an immense and united territory, the head of a powerful and prosperous
people, the successor of an unconquered hero who had gone to his grave
in peace; Jehoiakim, on the other hand, had succeeded a father who had
died in defeat on the field of battle, and a brother who was
hopelessly pining in an Egyptian prison. The Tribes had been carried
into captivity by Assyria; the nation was beaten, oppressed, and poor;
the king himself possessed but a shadow of royalty. In such a
condition of things it would have been his glory to maintain a
watchful and strenuous activity, and to devote himself in simplicity
and self-denial to the good of his people. It showed a perverted and
sensuous mind to insult the misery of his subjects at such a time by
feeble attempts to rival heathen potentates in costly æstheticism. But
this was not all; he carried out his ignoble selfishness at the cost
of oppression and wrong.[768]

It is possible that the prophet Habakkuk alludes to him in the words:--

"Woe to him that getteth an evil gain for his house, that he may set
his nest on high, that he may be delivered from the hand of evil![769]
Thou hast consulted shame to thy house by cutting off many peoples,
and hast sinned against thy soul. For the stone shall cry out of the
wall, and the beam out of the timber shall answer it."[770]

The thought of the Jewish king's selfish expensiveness may have crossed
the mind of Habakkuk, though the taunt is addressed directly to the
Chaldæans, and especially to Nebuchadrezzar, who was at that time
revelling in the beautifying of Babylon, and especially of his own royal
palace. On the other hand, the rebuke, or rather the denunciation,
uttered by Jeremiah against the king for this line of conduct, and for
the forced labour which it required, is terribly direct.

  "'Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness,
   And his chambers by wrong;
   That useth his neighbour's service without wages,
   And giveth him not his hire;
   That saith, "I will build me a wide house and spacious chambers,"
   And cutteth out windows;
   And it is ceiled with cedar, and painted with vermilion.
   Shalt thou reign because thou viest with the cedar?[771]
   Did not thy father eat and drink, and do judgment and justice?
   Then it was well with him!
   Was not this to know Me?' saith the Lord.
   'But thine heart is not but for thy dishonest gain,
   And for to shed innocent blood,
   And for oppression and for violence to do it.'"[772]

Then follows the stern message of doom which we shall quote hereafter.
The king's bad example stimulated or perhaps emulated similar folly
and want of patriotism on the part of his nobles. They were shepherds
who destroyed and scattered the sheep of Jehovah's pastures. But vain
was their imagined security, and their ostentation. The judgment was
imminent.[773]

"O inhabitress of Lebanon, that makest thy nest in the cedars,"
exclaims the prophet in bitter mockery, "how greatly wilt thou groan
when pangs come upon thee, the pain as of a woman in travail!"[774]

But Jehoiakim's offences were deadlier than this. The Chronicler
speaks of "the abominations which he did"; and some have therefore
supposed that the evil state of things described by Jeremiah (xix.)
refers to this reign. If so, he plunged into the idolatry which caused
Judah to be shivered like a potter's vessel. Certainly he sinned
grievously against God in the person of His prophets.

Jeremiah was not the only prophet who disdained the easy and
traitorous popularity which was to be won by prophesying "peace,
peace," when there was no peace. He had for his contemporary another
messenger of God, no less boldly explicit than himself--Urijah, the
son of Shemaiah of Kirjath-Jearim. Jeremiah had as yet only prophesied
in his humble native village of Anathoth; he had not been called upon
to face "the swellings" or "the pride of Jordan."[775] Urijah had been
in the fuller glare of publicity in the capital, and his bold
declaration that Jerusalem should fall before Nebuchadrezzar and the
Chaldæans had excited such a fury of indignation that he escaped into
Egypt for his life. Surely this should have appeased the rulers, even
if they chose to pay no attention to the Divine menace. For the
prophets were recognised deliverers of the messages of Jehovah; and
with scarcely an exception, even in the most wicked reigns, their
persons had been regarded as sacrosanct. But Jehoiakim would not let
Urijah escape. He sent an embassy to Necho, headed by his
father-in-law Elnathan, son of Achbor, requesting his extradition.
Urijah had been dragged back from Egypt, and, to the horror of the
people, the king had slain him with the sword, and flung his body into
the graves of the common people.[776] What made this conduct more
monstrous was the precedent of Micah the Morasthite. He, in the days
of Hezekiah, had prophesied,--

  "Zion shall be ploughed as a field,
   And Jerusalem shall become heaps,
   And the Mountain of the House as the wooded heights."[777]

Yet so far from putting him to death, or even stirring a finger
against him, the pious king had only been moved to repentance by the
Divine threatenings. Thus the blood of the first martyr-prophet, if we
except the case of Zechariah, had been shed by the son of Judah's most
pious king. Jeremiah himself only narrowly escaped martyrdom. The
precedent of Micah helped to save him, though it had not saved Urijah.
He was far more powerfully protected by the patronage of the princes
and the people. Standing in the Temple court, he had declared that,
unless the nation repented, that house should be like Shiloh, and the
city a curse to all the nations of the earth. Maddened by such words
of bold rebuke, the priests and the prophets and the people had
threatened him with death. But the princes took his part, and some of
the people came over to them. His most powerful protector was Ahikam,
the son of Shaphan, a member of a family of the utmost distinction.

Meanwhile, we must follow for a time the outward fortunes of the king
and of the world.

Necho, after his successful advance, had retired to Egypt, and
Jehoiakim continued to be for three years his obsequious servant. An
event of tremendous importance for the world changed the entire
fortunes of Egypt and of Judah. Nineveh fell with a crash which
terrified the nations. We might apply to her the language which Isaiah
applies to her successor, Babylon:--

"Sheol from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it
stirreth up the shades for thee, even the Rephaim of the earth; it
hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. All
they shall answer and say unto thee, 'Art thou also become weak as we?
art thou become like unto us?' ... All the kings of the nations, all
of them, sleep in glory, every one in his own house. But thou art cast
forth away from thy sepulchre like an abominable branch, as the
raiment of those that are slain, that are thrust through with the
sword, that go down to the stones of the pit.... They that see thee
shall narrowly look upon thee ... and say, 'Is this the man that made
the earth to tremble? that did shake kingdoms? that made the world as
a wilderness, and overthrew the cities thereof? that let not loose his
prisoners to their home?'"[778]

Yes, Assyria had fallen like some mighty cedar in Libanus, and the
nations gazed without pity and with exultation on his torn and
scattered branches.

And coincident with the fate of Nineveh had been the rise of the
Chaldæan power.

Nabupalussur[779] had been a general of one of the last Assyrian kings,
and had been sent by him with an army to quell a Babylonian revolt.
Instead of this, he seized the city and made himself king. When the
final overthrow and obliteration of Nineveh had secured his power, he
sent his brave and brilliant son Nebuchadrezzar[780] (B.C. 605) to
secure the provinces which he had wrested from Assyria, and especially
to regain possession of Carchemish, which commanded the river.

Necho marched to protect his conquests, and at Carchemish the hostile
forces encountered each other in a tremendous battle,--immemorial
Egypt under the representative of its age-long Pharaohs; Babylon, with
her independence of yesterday, under a prince hitherto unknown, whose
name was to become one of the most famous in the world. The result is
described by Jeremiah (xlvi. 1-12). Egypt was hopelessly defeated. Her
splendidly arrayed warriors were panic-stricken and routed; her chief
heroes were dashed to pieces by the heavy maces of the Babylonians, or
fled without so much as looking back. The scene was one of
"Magor-missabib"--terror on every side.[781] Pharaoh's host came up
like the Nile in flood with its Ethiopian hoplites and Asiatic
archers; but they were driven back. The daughter of Egypt received a
wound which no balm of Gilead could cure. The nations heard of her
shame, and the prophet pronounced her further chastisement by the
hands of Nebuchadrezzar.

Then, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, the young Babylonian conqueror
swept down upon Syria and Palestine like a bounding leopard, like an
avenging eagle (Hab. i. 7, 8). Jehoiakim had no choice but to change
his vassalhood to Necho for a vassalage to Nebuchadrezzar.[782] He
might have suffered severe consequences, but tidings came to the young
Chaldæan that his father had ended his reign of twenty-one years and
was dead. For fear lest disturbances might arise in his capital, he at
once dashed home across the desert with some light troops by way of
Tadmor, while he told his general to follow him home through Syria by
the longer route. He seems, however, to have carried away with him
some captives, among whom were Daniel, Ananias, Azarias, and
Misael,[783] destined hereafter for such memorable fortunes. Jehoiakim
himself was thrown into fetters to be carried into Babylon; but the
conqueror changed his mind, and probably thought that it would be
safer for the present to accept his pledges and assurances, and leave
him as his viceroy. "He took an oath of him," says Ezekiel (xvii. 13);
"he took also the mighty of the land."[784]

For three years this frivolous egotist who occupied the throne of
Judah remained faithful to his covenant with the King of Babylon, but
at the end of that time he rebelled. In this rebellion he was again
deluded by the glamour of Egypt, and reliance on the empty promise of
"horses and much people." Ezekiel openly disapproved of this
policy,[785] and reproached the king for his faithlessness to his
oath. Jeremiah went further, and declared in the plainest language
that "Nebuchadrezzar would certainly come up and destroy this land,
and cause to cease from thence both man and beast."[786]

Nearer and nearer the danger came. At first the King of Babylon was too
busy to do more than send against the Jewish rebel marauding bands of
Chaldæans, who acted in concert with the hereditary depredators of
Judah--Syrians, Moabites, and Ammonites. But the prophet knew that the
danger would not end there, believing that God would yet "remove Judah
out of His sight" for the unforgiven sins of Manasseh and the innocent
blood with which he had filled Jerusalem.[787] At last Nebuchadrezzar
had time to turn closer attention to the affairs of Judah, and this
became necessary because of the revolt of Tyre under its King Ithobalus.
In the stress of the peril Jehoiakim proclaimed a fast and a day of
humiliation in the Temple. Jeremiah was at this time "shut up"--either
in hiding, or in some sort of custody. As he could not go and preach in
person, he dictated his prophecy to Baruch, who wrote it on a scroll,
and went in the prophet's place to read it in the Lord's House to the
people there assembled from Jerusalem and all Judah in the chamber of
Gemariah, the son of Shaphan, in the inner court, by the new gate.[788]
Gemariah was the brother of Ahikam, the protector of the prophet.

No one was more painfully alarmed by Jeremiah's prophecy than Micaiah,
the son of Gemariah, and he thought it his duty to go and tell his
father and the other princes what he had heard. They were assembled in
the scribe's chamber, and sent a courtier of Ethiopian race--Jehudi,
the son of Cushi--bidding him to bring the scroll with him, and to
come to them.[789]

Baruch was a person of distinction. He was the brother of Seraiah, who
is called in our A.V. "a quiet prince," and in the margin "prince of
Menucha" or "chief chamberlain," literally "master of the
resting-place"; and he was the grandson of Maaseiah, "the governor" of
the city.[790] The office imposed on him by Jeremiah was so perilous
and painful that it nearly broke his heart. He exclaimed to Jeremiah,
"Woe is me now! the Lord hath added grief to my sorrow. I am weary
with my sighing, and I find no rest." The answer which the prophet was
commissioned to give him was very remarkable. It confirmed the
terrible doom on his native land, but added, "'And seekest thou great
things for thyself? Seek them not. For, behold, I will bring evil upon
all flesh,' saith the Lord: 'but thy life will I give unto thee for a
prey in all places whither thou goest.'"[791]

Baruch obeyed the summons of the princes, and at their request sat
down with them and read the scroll in their ears. When they had heard
the portentous prophecy, they turned shuddering to one another, and
said, "We must tell the king of all these words." They asked Baruch
how he had written them, and he said he had taken them down at the
prophet's dictation. Then, knowing the storm which would burst over
the bold offenders, they said, "Go, hide thee, thou and Jeremiah, and
let no man know where ye be."

Not daring to imperil the awful document, they laid it up in the
chamber of Elishama, the scribe, but went to the king and told him its
contents. He sent Jehudi to fetch it, and to read it in their hearing.
Jehoiakim and the illustrious company were seated in the
winter-chamber; for it was October, and a fire was burning in the
brazier, where Jehoiakim sat warming himself in the chilly weather.

As he listened, he was filled not only with fury, but with contempt.
Such a message might well have caused him and his worst counsellors to
rend their clothes; but instead of this they adopted a tone of defiance.
By the time that Jehudi had read three or four columns, Jehoiakim
snatched the scribe's knife which hung at his girdle, and began to cut
up the scroll, with the intention of burning it. Seeing his purpose,
Gemariah, Elnathan, and Seraiah entreated him not to destroy it. But he
would not listen. He flung the fragments into the brazier, and they were
consumed. He ordered his son Jerahmeel,[792] with Seraiah and Shelemiah,
to seize both Baruch and Jeremiah, and bring them before him for
punishment. Doubtless they would have suffered the fate of Urijah, but
"the Lord hid them." There were enough persons of power on their side to
render their hiding-place secure.

But the king's impious indifference, so far from making any difference
in the things that were, only brought down upon his guilt a fearful
doom. Truth cannot be cut to pieces, or burnt, or mechanically
suppressed.

          "Truth, crushed to earth, shall rise again;
             The eternal years of God are hers:
           But error, vanquished, writhes in pain,
             And dies amid her worshippers."

All the former denunciations, and new ones added to them, were
rewritten by Jeremiah and his faithful friend in their hiding-place,
and among them these words[793]:--

"Thus saith the Lord of Jehoiakim, King of Judah, 'He shall have none
to sit upon the throne of David; and his dead body shall be cast out
in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost.'"

A frightful drought added to the misery of this reign, but failed to
bring the wretched king to his senses. Jeremiah describes it[794]:--

"Judah mourneth, and the gates thereof languish; they bow down
mourning unto the ground; and the cry of Jerusalem is gone up. And the
nobles send their menials to the waters: they come to the pits, and
find no water; they return with their vessels empty; they are ashamed
and confounded, and cover their heads, because of the ground which is
chapped, for that no rain hath been in the land.... Yea, the hind also
in the field calveth, and forsaketh her young, because there is no
grass. And the wild asses stand on the bare heights, they pant for air
like jackals; their eyes fail, because there is no herbage."

Even this affliction, so vividly and pathetically described, failed to
waken any repentance. And then the doom fell. Nebuchadrezzar advanced
in person against Jerusalem.[795] Even the hardy nomad Rechabites had
to fly before the Chaldæans, and to take refuge in the cities which
they hated. The sacred historian tells us nothing as to the manner of
the death of Jehoiakim, only saying that he "slept with his fathers":
his narrative of this period is exceedingly meagre. Josephus says that
Nebuchadrezzar slew him and the flower of the citizens, and sent three
thousand captives to Babylon.[796] Some imagine that he was killed by
the Babylonians in a raid outside the walls of Jerusalem, or "murdered
by his own people, and his body thrown for a time outside the walls."
If so, the Babylonians did not war with the dead. His remains, after
this "burial of an ass,"[797] may have been finally suffered to rest
in a tomb. The Septuagint says (2 Chron. xxxvi. 8) that he was buried
"in Ganosan," by which may be meant the sepulchre of Manasseh in the
garden of Uzza.[798] Not for him was the wailing cry "_Hoî, adon! Hoî,
hodo!_" ("Ah, Lord! Ah, his glory!").

"The memory of the wicked shall rot." Certainly this was the case with
Jehoiakim. The Chronicler mysteriously alludes to "his abominations
which he did, _and that which was found in him_."[799] The Rabbis,
interpreting this after their manner, say that "the thing found" was
the name of the demon Codonazor, to whom he had sold himself, which
after his death was discovered legibly written in Hebrew letters on
his skin. "Rabbi Johanan and Rabbi Eleazar debated what was meant by
'that which was found on him.' One said that he tattooed the name of
an idol upon his body (אמתו), and the other said that he had tattooed
the name of the god Recreon."[800]

FOOTNOTES:

[766] Not Jehoiakim, but Jehoiachin, as the sequel shows.

[767] Ezek. xix. 5-9. The allusions to Jehoiakim by Jeremiah are
numerous, and all unfavourable (xxii. 13-19, xxvi. 20-23, xxxvi.
20-31, etc.)

[768] Josephus (_Antt._, X. v. 2) is very severe on this king. He says
that "he was unjust in disposition, an evil-doer, neither pious
towards God nor just towards men."

[769] Perhaps an allusion to a sort of fortified palace on Ophel.

[770] Hab. ii. 9-11.

[771] The text is perhaps corrupt. Two MSS. of the LXX. read "because
thou viest _with Ahab_," and the Vatican MSS. has "_with Ahaz_."
Cheyne adopts the former reading.

[772] Jer. xxii. 13-17.

[773] Jer. xxiii. 1.

[774] Jer. xxii. 23.

[775] Jer. xii. 5.

[776] Jer. xxvi. 20-23. So far as I am aware, Bunsen stands alone in
identifying Urijah with the "Zechariah" who wrote Zech. xii.-xiv.
Others refer Zech. xii. 10 to the murder of Urijah.

[777] Jer. xxvi. 18.

[778] Isa. xiv., _passim_.

[779] Nabu-pal-ussur, "Nebo protect the son."

[780] Nabu-kudur-ussur, "Nebo protect the crown" (Schrader, ii. 48), or
"the youth" (Oppert). The portrait of Nebuchadrezzar--this is the proper
spelling, as generally in Jeremiah--is preserved for us on a black cameo
which he presented to the god Merodach. It is now in the Berlin Museum,
and shows strong but not cruel or ignoble characteristics. It is copied
in Riehm's _Handwörterbuch_, ii. 1067. The Jews, as they were fond of
doing to their enemies, made insulting puns on his name. Thus in the
_Vayyikra Rabba_ (Wünsche, _Bibl. Rabb._) the Three Children are
represented as saying to him, "You are Neboo-cad-netser: bark [_nabach_]
like a dog; swell like a water-jar [_kad_], and chirp like a cricket
[_tsertser_],"--in allusion to his madness.

[781] Jer. xlvi. 5 (vi. 25).

[782] Jos., _Antt._, X. xi.; Berosus, p. 11. The Chronicler and
Josephus show some confusion, caused by the similarity of the names
Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin.

[783] Dan. i. 6.

[784] We might infer from Ezek. xvii. 12 that Nebuchadrezzar actually
took Jehoiakim with him to Babylon.

[785] Ezek. xvii. 15.

[786] Jer. xxxvi. 29, xxv. 9, xxvi. 6.

[787] 2 Kings xxiv. 2-4.

[788] Grätz thinks that Jeremiah's roll was substantially Jer. xxv.

[789] Jos., _Antt._, IX. ix. 1.

[790] Jer. li. 59. Ewald, Hitzig, and others take the title to mean
"quartermaster" (2 Chron. xxxiv. 8).

[791] Jer. xlv. 1-5.

[792] Zeph. i. 8; 1 Kings xxii. 26; Jer. xxxvi. 26, A.V., "The son of
Hammelech." Comp. xxxviii. 6. _Hammelech_ may be a proper name, or a
prince of the blood-royal may be intended.

[793] "The 'Book,' now as afterwards, was to be the death-blow of the
old regal, aristocratic, sacerdotal exclusiveness. The 'Scribe,' now
first rising into importance in the person of Baruch to supply the
defects of the living Prophet, was, as the printing-press in later
ages, handing on the words of truth, which else might have
irretrievably perished" (Stanley).

[794] Cheyne, _Jeremiah_, p. 149; Jer. xiv. 1-xv. 9.

[795] Nebuchadrezzar occupies a larger space in the Bible than any
heathen king, being spoken of in 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, Ezra,
Nehemiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel.

[796] For further details of Jehoiakim see 1 Esdras i. 38: "He bound
Joakim and the nobles; _but Zaraces_ his brother he apprehended, and
brought him out of Egypt." The allusion is entirely obscure, and
probably arises from some corruption of the text. The literal
rendering is: "And _Joakim_ bound the nobles; but Zaraces his brother
he apprehended, and brought him out of Egypt." Zaraces might be a
corruption for Zedekiah, who was Jehoiakim's half-brother. Some think
that Zaraces is a corruption for Urijah, and "his brother" a clerical
error.

[797] Jer. xxxvi. 30, xxii. 19.

[798] LXX., καὶ ἐκοιμήθη Ἰωακεὶμ ἐν Γανοζὰν μετὰ τῶν πατέρων ἑαυτοῦ.

[799] 2 Chron. xxxvi. 8.

[800] _Sanhedrin_, f. 104, 2. For another allusion see _id._ 49, 1;
Hershon, _Treasures of the Talmud_, p. 232.




                              CHAPTER XXXV

                              _JEHOIACHIN_

                                B.C. 597

                           2 KINGS xxiv. 8-16

    "There are times when ancient truths become modern falsehoods,
    when the signs of God's dispensations are made so clear by the
    course of natural events as to supersede the revelations of even
    their most sacred past."--STANLEY, _Lectures_, ii. 521.


Jehoiachin--"Jehovah maketh steadfast"--who is also called Jeconiah,
and--perhaps with intentional slight--Coniah, succeeded, at the age of
eighteen, to the miserable and distracted heritage of the throne of
Judah. The "eight years old" of the Chronicler must be a clerical
error, for he had a harem. He only reigned for three months; and the
historian pronounces over him, as over all the four kings of the House
of Josiah, the stereotyped condemnation of evil-doing. Was there
anything in the manner in which Josiah had trained his family which
could account for their unsatisfactoriness? In Jehoiachin's case we do
not know what his transgressions were, but perhaps his mother's
influence rendered him as little favourable to the prophetic party as
his brother Jehoiakim had been. For the _Gebîrah_ was Nehushta, the
daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. Her name means apparently "Brass,"
and nothing can be deduced from it; but her father Elnathan was (as we
have seen) the envoy who, by order of Jehoiakim, had dragged back from
Egypt the martyr-prophet Urijah.[801]

Brief as was his reign of three months and ten days[802]--a hundred
days, like that of his unhappy uncle Jehoahaz--he is largely alluded
to by the contemporary prophets.

Indignant at the sins and apostasies of Judah, and convinced that her
retribution was nigh at hand, Jeremiah took with him an earthen pot to
the Valley of Hinnom, and there shivered it to pieces at Tophet in the
presence of certain elders of the people and of the priests,
explaining that his symbolic action indicated the destruction of
Jerusalem. On hearing the tenor of these prophecies, the priest
Pashur, who was officer of the Temple, smote Jeremiah in the face, and
put him in the stocks in a prominent place by the Temple gate.[803]
Jeremiah in return prophesied that Pashur and all his family should be
carried into captivity, so that his name should be changed from Pashur
to Magor-Missabib, "Terror on every side."

Against the king himself he pronounced the doom: "'As I live,' saith the
Lord, 'though Coniah, the son of Jehoiakim, King of Judah, were the
signet on My right hand, yet will I pluck thee thence; and I will give
thee into the hands of them that seek thy life, ... even into the hand
of Nebuchadrezzar.... And I will hurl thee, and thy mother that bare
thee, into another country;[804] ... and there shall ye die.' ... Is
this man Coniah a despised broken piece of work? is he a vessel wherein
is no pleasure? wherefore are they hurled, he and his seed, and cast
into a land which they know not? O land, land, land! hear the word of
the Lord. Thus saith the Lord, 'Write ye this man childless, a man that
shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper,
sitting upon the throne of David, or ruling any more in Judah.'"

Yet there must have been something in Jeconiah which impressed
favourably the minds of men. Brief as was his reign, his memory was
never forgotten. We learn from the _Mishna_ that one of the gates of
Jerusalem--probably that by which he left the city--for ever bore his
name.[805] Josephus says that his captivity was annually commemorated.
Jeremiah writes in the Lamentations:--

"Our pursuers are swifter than the eagles of heaven: they have pursued
us upon the mountains, they have laid wait for us in the wilderness. The
breath of our nostrils, the anointed of the Lord, was taken in their
pits, of whom we said, 'Under his shadow we shall live among the
heathen.'"

Ezekiel compares him to a young lion:--

"He went up and down among the lions, he became a young lion, and
learned to catch the prey. And he knew their palaces, and laid waste
their cities; and the land was desolate, and the fulness thereof, by
the noise of his roaring. Then the nations set against him on every
side from the provinces, and spread their net over him: he was taken
in their pit. And they put him in ward in hooks, and brought him to
the King of Babylon: they brought him into holds, that his voice
should no more be heard upon the mountains of Israel."[806]

A prince of whom a contemporary prophet could thus write was obviously
no _fainéant_. Indeed, the energetic measures which Nebuchadrezzar
adopted against him may have been due to the fact that he had
endeavoured to rouse his discouraged people. But what could he do
against such a power as that of the Chaldæans? Nebuchadrezzar sent his
generals against Jerusalem; and when it was ripe for capture, advanced
in person to take possession of it. Resistance had become hopeless;
there lay no chance in anything but that complete submission which
might possibly avert the worst effects of the destruction of the city.
Accordingly, Jeconiah, accompanied by his mother, his court, his
princes, and his officers, went out in procession, and threw
themselves on the mercy of the King of Babylon. Nebuchadrezzar was far
less brutal than the Sargons and Assurbanipals of Assyria; but Judah
had twice revolted, and the defection of Tyre showed him that the
affairs of Palestine could no longer be neglected. He thoroughly
despoiled the Temple and the palace, and carried the spoils to
Babylon, as Isaiah had forewarned Hezekiah should be the case.[807]
That he might further weaken and humiliate the city, he stripped it of
its king, its royal house, its court, its nobles, its soldiers, even
its craftsmen and smiths, and carried ten thousand eight hundred and
thirty-two captives to Babylon (Jos., _Antt._, X. vii. 1), among whom
was the prophet Ezekiel. He naturally spared Jeremiah, who regarded
him as "the sword of Jehovah" (Jer. xlvii. 6), and as "Jehovah's
servant, to do His pleasure" (Jer. xxv. 9, xxvii. 6, xliii. 10). On
the whole, Nebuchadrezzar is not treated with abhorrence by the Jews.
There was something in his character which inspired respect; and the
Jews deal with him leniently, both in their records and generally in
their traditions. "Nebuchadnezzar," we read in the Talmud (_Taanith_
f. 18, 2), "was a worthy king, and deserved that a miracle should be
performed through him."

From the allusion of Ezekiel we might infer that Jehoiachin was
violent and self-willed; but Josephus speaks of his kindness and
gentleness.[808] Was he, as Jeremiah had prophesied, literally
"childless"?[809] It is true that in 1 Chron. iii. 17, 18, eight sons
are ascribed to him, and among them Shealtiel, in whom the royal line
was continued. But it is far from certain that these sons were not the
sons of his brother Neri, of the House of Nathan,[810] and it seems
that they were only adopted by the unhappy captive. The Book of Baruch
describes him weeping by the Euphrates.[811] But if we may trust the
story of Susannah, his outward fortunes were peaceful, and he was
allowed to live in his own house and gardens in peace, and in a
certain degree of splendour.[812]

FOOTNOTES:

[801] Jer. xxvi. 22.

[802] 2 Chron. xxxvi. 9.

[803] Jer. xx. 2. There seem to have been special "stocks" and "collars"
in the Temple, reserved, by order of the priest Jehoiada, for those whom
the priests regarded as unruly prophets (Jer. xxix. 26).

[804] Jer. xxii. 24-30. The captivity of the queen-mother struck men's
imaginations (Jer. xxix. 2).

[805] _Middoth_, ii. 6, quoted by Cheyne, p. 163; Jos., _B. J._, VI.
ii. 1. Comp. Ezek. i. 2.

[806] Ezek. xix. 6-9. The special allusions are no longer certain.

[807] 2 Kings xx. 17. The expression "_he cut to pieces_ all the
vessels of gold which Solomon had made" is hardly consistent with Ezra
i. 7-11, unless we understand the word in a loose sense.

[808] He says that he nobly gave himself up to save the city (_Antt._,
X. vii. 1). His captivity was made an era from which to date Ezek. i.
2, viii. 1, xxiv. 1, xxvi. 1, etc. Comp. Susannah 1-4.

[809] Jer. xxii. 30, '_arîrî_. His "son" Assir (1 Chron. iii. 17) may
have been made an eunuch (Isa. xxxix. 7).

[810] Luke iii. 27, 31; Matt. i. 12.

[811] Baruch i. 3, 4.

[812] The favourable notice of Nebuchadrezzar in _Taanith_ (quoted
above) is not found in _Berachoth_, f. 57, 2, where he is called "the
wicked." There are many wild legends about him. In _Nedarim_ (f. 65,
2), R. Yitzchak says: "May melted gold be poured into the mouth of the
wicked Nebuchadrezzar! Had not an angel struck him on the mouth, he
would have outshone all David's songs and praises." With reference to
Isa. xxii. 1, 2, the Rabbis say that Jeconiah went to the Temple roof,
and flung up the keys into the air, when Nebuchadrezzar required them:
"a hand took them, and they were seen no more" (_Shekalim_, vi. 5). In
_Nedarim_ (f. 65, 2) we are told that Zedekiah's rebellion consisted
in divulging, contrary to his oath, that he had seen Nebuchadrezzar
eating a live hare (Hershon, _Treasures of the Talmud_).




                             CHAPTER XXXVI

                   _ZEDEKIAH, THE LAST KING OF JUDAH_

                              B.C. 597-586

                        2 KINGS xxiv. 18-xxv. 7

    "Quand ce grand Dieu a choisi quelqu'un pour être l'instrument de
    ses desseins rien n'arrête le cours, où il enchaine, où il
    aveugle, où il dompte tout ce qui est capable de résistance."
                        BOSSUET, _Oraison funèbre de Henriette Marie_.


When Jehoiachin was carried captive to Babylon, never to return, his
uncle Mattaniah ("Jehovah's gift"), the third son of Josiah, was put
by Nebuchadrezzar in his place. In solemn ratification of the new
king's authority, the Babylonian conqueror sanctioned the change of
his name to Zedekiah ("Jehovah's righteousness").[813] He was
twenty-one at his accession, and he reigned eleven years.

"Behold," writes Ezekiel, "the King of Babylon came to Jerusalem, and
took the king thereof, and the princes thereof, and brought them to
him to Babylon; and he took of the seed royal" (_i.e._, Zedekiah),
"_and made a covenant with him; he also brought him under an oath: and
took away the mighty of the land, that the kingdom might be base, that
it might not lift itself up, but that by keeping of his covenant it
might stand_."[814]

Perhaps by this covenant Zechariah meant to emphasise the meaning of
his name, and to show that he would reign in righteousness.

The prophet at the beginning of the chapter describes Nebuchadrezzar
and Jehoiachin in "a riddle."

"A great eagle," he says, "with great wings and long pinions, full of
feathers, which had divers colours, came unto Lebanon, and took the
top of the cedar" (Jehoiachin): "he cropped off the topmost of the
young twigs thereof, and carried it into a land of traffic; he set it
in a city of merchants. He took also of the seed of the land"
(Zedekiah), "and planted it in a fruitful soil; he placed it beside
great waters, he set it as a willow tree. And it grew, and became a
spreading vine of low stature, whose branches turned towards him, and
the roots thereof were under him: so it became a vine, and brought
forth branches, and shot forth sprigs."[815]

The words refer to the first three years of Zedekiah's reign, and they
imply, consistently with the views of the prophets, that, if the weak
king had been content with the lowly eminence to which God had called
him, and if he had kept his oath and covenant with Babylon, all might
yet have been well with him and his land. At first it seemed likely to
be so; for Zedekiah wished to be faithful to Jehovah. He made a
covenant with all the people to set free their Hebrew slaves. Alas! it
was very shortlived. Self-sacrifice cost something, and the princes
soon took back the discarded bondservants.[816] What made this conduct
the more shocking was that their covenant to obey the law had been
made in the most solemn manner by "cutting a calf in twain, and
passing between the severed halves."[817] But the weak king was
perfectly powerless in the hands of his tyrannous aristocracy.[818]

The exiles in Babylon were now the best and most important section of
the nation. Jeremiah compares them to good figs; while the remnant at
Jerusalem were bad and withered. He and Ezekiel raised their voices,
as in strophe and antistrophe, for the teaching alike of the exiles
and of the remnant left at Jerusalem, for whom the exiles were bidden
to entreat God in prayer. Zedekiah himself made at least one journey
northward, either voluntarily or under summons, to renew his oath and
reassure Nebuchadrezzar of his fidelity.[819] He was accompanied by
Seraiah, the brother of Baruch, who was privately entrusted by
Jeremiah with a prophecy of the fall of Babylon, which he was to fling
into the midst of the Euphrates.[820]

The last King of Judah seems to have been weak rather than wicked. He
was a reed shaken by the wind. He yielded to the influence of the last
person who argued with him; and he seems to have dreaded above all
things the personal ridicule, danger, and opposition which it was his
duty to have defied. Yet we cannot withhold from him our deep
sympathy; for he was born in terrible times--to witness the
death-throes of his country's agony, and to share in them. It was no
longer a question of independence, but only of the choice of
servitudes. Judah was like a silly and trembling sheep between two
huge beasts of prey.[821]

Only thus can we account for the strange apostasies--"the abominations
of the heathen"--with which he permitted the Temple to be polluted;
and for the ill-treatment which he allowed to be inflicted on Jeremiah
and other prophets, to whom in his heart he felt inclined to listen.

What these abominations were we read with amazement in the eighth
chapter of Ezekiel. The prophet is carried in vision to Jerusalem, and
there he sees the Asherah--"the image which provoketh to
jealousy"--which had so often been erected and destroyed and re-erected.
Then through a secret door he sees creeping things, and abominable
beasts, and the idol-blocks of the House of Israel portrayed upon the
wall, while several elders of Israel stood before them and adored, with
censers in their hands--among whom he must specially have grieved to see
Jaazaneiah, the son of Shaphan,[822] flattering himself, as did his
followers, that in that dark chamber Jehovah saw them not. Next at the
northern gate he sees Zion's daughters weeping for Tammuz, or Adonis.
Once more, in the inner court of the Temple, between the porch and the
altar, he sees about twenty-five men with their backs to the altar, and
their faces to the east; and they worshipped the sun towards the east;
and, lo! they put the vine branch to their nose.[823] Were not these
crimes sufficient to evoke the wrath of Jehovah, and to alienate His ear
from prayers offered by such polluted worshippers? Egypt, Assyria,
Syria, Chaldæa, all contributed their idolatrous elements to the
detestable syncretism; and the king and the priests ignored, permitted,
or connived at it.[824] This must surely be answered for. How could it
have been otherwise? The king and the priests were the official
guardians of the Temple, and these aberrations could not have gone on
without their cognisance. There was another party of sheer formalists,
headed by men like the priest Pashur, who thought to make talismans of
rites and shibboleths, but had no sincerity of heart-religion.[825] To
these, too, Jeremiah was utterly opposed. In his opinion Josiah's
reformation had failed. Neither Ark, nor Temple, nor sacrifice were
anything in the world to him in comparison with true religion. All the
prophets with scarcely one exception are anti-ritualists; but none more
decidedly so than the prophet-priest. His name is associated in
tradition with the hiding of the Ark, and a belief in its ultimate
restoration; yet to Jeremiah, apart from the moral and spiritual truths
of which it was the material symbol, the Ark was no better than a wooden
chest. His message from Jehovah is, "I will give you pastors according
to My heart, ... and they shall say no more, 'The Ark of the Covenant of
the Lord': neither shall it come to mind; neither shall they remember
it; neither shall they miss it; neither shall it be made any more."[826]

Doom followed the guilt and folly of king, priests, and people. If
political wisdom were insufficient to show Zedekiah that the necessities
of the case were an indication of God's will, he had the warnings of the
prophets constantly ringing in his ears, and the assurance that he must
remain faithful to Nebuchadrezzar. But he was in fear of his own princes
and courtiers. A combined embassy reached him from the kings of Edom,
Ammon, Moab, Tyre and Sidon, urging him to join in a league against
Babylon.[827] This embassy was supported by a powerful party in
Jerusalem. Their solicitations were rendered more plausible by the
recent accession (B.C. 590) of the young and vigorous Pharaoh
Hophrah--the Apries of Herodotus[828]--to the throne of Egypt, and by
the recrudescence of that incurable disease of Hebrew politics, a
confidence in the idle promises of Egypt to supply the confederacy with
men and horses.[829] In vain did Jeremiah and Ezekiel uplift their
warning voices. The blind confidence of the king and of the nobles was
sustained by the flattering visions and promises of false prophets,
prominent among whom was a certain Hananiah, the son of Azur, of Gibeon,
"the prophet."[830] To indicate the futility of the contemplated
rebellion, Jeremiah had made "throngs and poles" with yokes, and had
sent them to the kings, whose embassy had reached Jerusalem, with a
message of the most emphatic distinctness, that Nebuchadrezzar was God's
appointed servant, and that they must serve him till God's own appointed
time. If they obeyed this intimation, they would be left undisturbed in
their own lands; if they disobeyed it, they would be scourged into
absolute submission by the sword, the famine, and the pestilence.
Jeremiah delivered the same oracle to his own king.[831]

The warning was rendered unavailing by the conduct of Hananiah. He
prophesied that within two full years God would break the yoke of the
King of Babylon; and that the captive Jeconiah, and the nobles, and
the vessels of the House of the Lord would be brought back. Jeremiah,
by way of an acted parable, had worn round his neck one of his own
yokes. Hananiah, in the Temple, snatched it off, broke it to pieces,
and said, "So will I break the yoke of Nebuchadrezzar from the neck of
all nations within the space of two full years."[832]

We can imagine the delight, the applause, the enthusiasm with which
the assembled people listened to these bold predictions. Hananiah
argued with them, to speak, in shorthand, for he appealed to their
desires and to their prejudices. It is always the tendency of nations
to say to their prophets, "Say not unto us hard things: speak smooth
things; prophesy deceits."

Against Hananiah personally there seems to have been no charge, except
that in listening to the lying spirit of his own desires he could not
hear the true message of God. But he did not stand alone.[833] Among
the children of the captivity, his promises were echoed by two
downright false prophets, Ahab and Zedekiah, the son of Maaseiah, who
prophesied lies in God's name. They were men of evil life, and a
fearful fate overtook them. Their words against Babylon came to the
ears of Nebuchadrezzar, and they were "roasted in the fire," so that
the horror of their end passed into a proverb and a curse.[834] Truly
God fed these false prophets with wormwood, and gave them poisonous
water to drink.[835]

After the action of Hananiah, Jeremiah went home stricken and ashamed:
apparently he never again uttered a public discourse in the Temple. It
took him by surprise; and he was for the moment, perhaps, daunted by
the plausive echo of the multitude to the lying prophet. But when he
got home the answer of Jehovah came: "Go and tell Hananiah, Thou hast
broken the yokes of wood; but thou hast made for them yokes of iron. I
have put a yoke of iron on the necks of all these nations, that they
may serve Nebuchadrezzar. Hear now, Hananiah, The Lord hath not sent
thee: thou makest this people to trust in a lie. Behold, this year
thou shalt die, because thou hast spoken revolt against the Lord. What
hath the chaff to do with the wheat? saith the Lord."[836]

Two months after Hananiah lay dead, and men's minds were filled with
fear. They saw that God's word was indeed as a fire to burn, and as a
hammer to dash in pieces.[837] But meanwhile Zedekiah had been
over-persuaded to take the course which the true prophets had
forbidden. Misled by the false prophets and mincing prophetesses whom
Ezekiel denounced,[838] who daubed men's walls with whitened plaster,
he had sent an embassy to Pharaoh Hophrah, asking for an army of
infantry and cavalry to support his rebellion from Assyria.[839] In
the eyes of Jeremiah and Ezekiel the crime did not only consist in
defying the exhortations of those whom Zedekiah knew to be Jehovah's
accredited messengers. In mitigation of this offence he might have
pleaded the extreme difficulty of discriminating the truth amid the
ceaseless babble of false pretenders.[840] But, on the other hand, he
had broken the solemn oath which he had taken to Nebuchadrezzar in the
name of God, and the sacred covenant which he seems to have twice
ratified with him.[841] This it was which raised the indignation of
the faithful, and led Ezekiel to prophesy:--

  "Shall he prosper?
   Shall he escape that doeth such things?
   Or shall he break the covenant and be believed?
   'As I live,' saith the Lord God, 'surely in the place where the king
         dwelleth that made him king,
   Whose oath he despised and whose covenant he broke,
   Even with him in the midst of Babylon, shall he die.'"[842]

Sad close for a dynasty which had now lasted for nearly five centuries!

As for Pharaoh, he too was an eagle, as Nebuchadrezzar was--a great
eagle with great wings and many feathers, but not so great. The
trailing vine of Judah bent her roots towards him, but it should
wither in the furrows when the east wind touched it.[843]

The result of Zedekiah's alliance with Egypt was the intermission of
his yearly tribute to Assyria; and at last, in the ninth year of
Zedekiah, Nebuchadrezzar was aroused to put down this Palestinian
revolt, supported as it was by the vague magnificence of Egypt.
Jeremiah had said, "Pharaoh, the King of Egypt, is but a noise [or
desolation]: he hath passed the time appointed."[844]

This was about the year 589. In 598 Nebuchadrezzar had carried
Jehoachin into captivity, and ever since then some of his forces had
been engaged in the vain effort to capture Tyre, which still, after a
ten years' siege, drew its supplies from the sea, and remained
impregnable on her island rock. He did not choose to raise this
long-continued siege by diverting the troops to beleaguer so strong a
fortress as Jerusalem, and therefore he came in person from Babylon.

In Ezek. xxi. 20-24 we have a singular and vivid glimpse of his march.
On his way he came to a spot where two roads branched off before him.
One led to Rabbath, the capital of Ammon, on the east of Jordan; the
other to Jerusalem, on the west. Which road should he take? Personally,
it was a matter of indifference; so he threw the burden of
responsibility upon his gods by leaving the decision to the result of
belomancy.[845] Taking in his hand a sheaf of brightened arrows, he held
them upright, and decided to take the route indicated by the fall of the
greater number of arrows. He confirmed his uncertainty by consulting
teraphim, and by hepatoscopy--_i.e._, by examining the liver of slain
victims. Rabbath and the Ammonites were not to be spared, but it was
upon the covenant-breaking king and city that the first vengeance was to
fall.[846] And this is what the prophet has to say to Zedekiah:--

"And thou, O deadly-wounded wicked one, the prince of Israel, whose
day is come in the time of the iniquity of the end; thus saith the
Lord God, 'Remove the mitre, and take off the crown. This shall be not
thus. Exalt the low, and abase that which is high. An overthrow,
overthrow, overthrow, will I make it: this also shall be no more,
until He come whose right it is: and I will give it Him."[847]

So (B.C. 587) Jerusalem was delivered over to siege, even as Ezekiel
had sketched upon a tile.[848] It was to be assailed in the old
Assyrian manner--as we see it represented in the British Museum
bas-relief, where Sennacherib is portrayed in the act of besieging
Lachish--with forts, mounds, and battering-rams; and Ezekiel had also
been bidden to put up an iron plate between him and his pictured city,
to represent the mantelet from behind which the archers shot.

In this dread crisis Zedekiah sent Zephaniah, the son of Maaseiah, the
priest, and Jehucal, to Jeremiah, entreating his prayers for the
city,[849] for he had not yet been put in prison. Doubtless he prayed,
and at first it looked as if deliverance would come. Pharaoh Hophrah
put in motion the Egyptian army with its Carian mercenaries and
Soudanese negroes, and Nebuchadrezzar was sufficiently alarmed to
raise the siege and go to meet the Egyptians. The hopes of the people
probably rose high, though multitudes seized the opportunity to fly to
the mountains.[850] The circumstances closely resembled those under
which Sennacherib had raised the siege of Jerusalem to go to meet
Tirhakah the Ethiopian; and perhaps there were some, and the king
among them, who looked that such a wonder might be vouchsafed to him
through the prayers of Jeremiah as had been vouchsafed to Hezekiah
through the prayers of Isaiah. Not for a moment did Jeremiah encourage
these vain hopes. To Zephaniah, as to an earlier deputation from the
king, when he sent Pashur with him to inquire of the prophet, Jeremiah
returned a remorseless answer. It is too late. Pharaoh shall be
defeated; even if the Chaldæan army were smitten, its wounded soldiers
would suffice to besiege and burn Jerusalem, and take into captivity
the miserable inhabitants after they had suffered the worst horrors of
a besieged city.[851]

FOOTNOTES:

[813] Comp. Jer. xxiii. 6: Jehovah-Tsidkenu.

[814] Ezek. xvii. 12-14.

[815] Ezek. xvii. 1-6.

[816] Jer. xxxiv. 8-11.

[817] Jer. xxxiv. 19. Comp. Gen. xv. 17.

[818] This is strikingly shown by his piteous remark to them in Jer.
xxxviii. 5.

[819] He first sent two of Jeremiah's friends, Elasah and Gemariah,
the son of Shaphan.

[820] Some critics have doubted the authenticity of Jer. li., lii.

[821] 2 Chron. xxxvi. 14-21; Stanley, ii. 528; Milman, i. 394.

[822] Shaphan's other sons, Gemariah, Ahikam, Elasah, and his grandson
Gedaliah, were friends of Jeremiah.

[823] Ezek. viii. 17. The allusion seems to be to a custom like that
of the Parsees, who hold a branch of tamarisk or pomegranate twigs
(called _barsom_) before their mouths when they adore the sacred fire.
Strabo, xv. 732; Spiegel, _Zendavesta_, ii., p. lxviii; _Eran.
Alterthumsk._, iii. 571 (Orelli, _ad loc._). Lightfoot explains it,
"add fuel to their wrath."

[824] Ezek. xvi. 15-34.

[825] Jer. vii. 4, 21-28, viii. 8, xxiii. 31-33, xxxi. 33, 34.

[826] Jer. iii. 15, 16.

[827] Jer. xxvii. 3.

[828] Herod., ii. 161.

[829] Psammis, the son of Necho, only reigned six years; Hophrah (B.C.
594) was his son.

[830] The LXX. calls him "the false prophet."

[831] Jer. xxvii. 1-8, 12-18. On vv. 16-22 see the LXX.

[832] Here (Jer. xxviii. 11, and in xxxiv. 1, xxxix. 5) the name is
written "Nebuchadnezzar"; everywhere else in Jeremiah it is
"Nebuchadrezzar."

[833] Part of his dispute with Jeremiah turned on the recovery or
non-recovery of the Temple vessels. Zedekiah is said to have given a
set of silver vessels to replace the old ones (Baruch i. 8).

[834] Jer. xxix. 21-23.

[835] Jer. xxiii. 9-32.

[836] Jer. xxviii. 13-16, xxiii. 28.

[837] Jer. xxiii. 29.

[838] Ezek. xiii. 1-23.

[839] Ezek. xvii. 25.

[840] Josephus rightly attributes the unfortunate career of Zedekiah
to the weakness with which he listened to evil counsellors, and to the
insolent multitude.

[841] 2 Chron. xxxvi. 13; Jer. lii. 3.

[842] Ezek. xvii. 15, 16, 18, 19.

[843] Ezek. xvii. 7-10.

[844] Jer. xlvi. 17.

[845] Another form of belomancy is still commonly practised among the
Arabs. Three arrows are placed in a vessel: on one of them is written,
"My God permits me"; on another, "My God forbids me"; the third is
blank. They are then shaken, and the decision is guided by the one
which falls out first. Comp. Homer, _Iliad_, iii. 316; _Speaker's
Commentary_, _ad loc._

[846] Ezek. xxi. 28-32.

[847] An allusion to the restoration of Jeconiah or his descendants,
and to the far-off Messiah, meek and lowly.

[848] Ezek. iv. 1-3.

[849] Jer. xxxvii. 3.

[850] Ezek. vii. 16.

[851] Jer. xxi. 1-10, xxxvii. 1-17. Josephus says that Pharaoh was
defeated (_Antt._, X. vii. 3). Jeremiah merely says that he and his
army returned to their own land.




                             CHAPTER XXXVII

                     _JEREMIAH AND HIS PROPHECIES_

                            JER. i. 1-v. 31

          "Count me o'er earth's chosen heroes--they were souls that
                 stood alone,
           While the men they agonised for hurled the contumelious
                 stone;
           Stood serene, and down the future saw the golden beam incline
           To the side of perfect justice, mastered by their faith
                 divine,
           By one man's plain truth to manhood and to God's supreme
                 design."
                                                        LOWELL.


Truly Jeremiah was a prophet of evil. The king might have addressed
him in the words with which Agamemnon reproaches Kalchas.[852]

          "Augur accursed! denouncing mischief still:
           Prophet of plagues, for ever boding ill!
           Still must that tongue some wounding message bring,
           And still thy priestly pride provoke thy king."

Never was there a sadder man.[853] Like Phocion, he believed in the
enemies of his country more than he believed in his own people. He saw
"Too late" written upon everything. He saw himself all but universally
execrated as a coward, as a traitor, as one who weakened the nerves
and damped the courage of those who were fighting against fearful odds
for their wives and children, the ashes of their fathers, their
altars, and their hearths. It had become his fixed conviction that any
prophets--and there were a multitude of them--who prophesied peace
were false prophets, and _ipso facto_ proved themselves conspirators
against the true well-being of the land.[854] In point of fact,
Jeremiah lived to witness the death-struggle of the idea of religion
in its predominantly national character (vii. 8-16, vi. 8). "The
continuity of the national faith refused to be bound up with the
continuance of the nation. When the nation is dissolved into
individual elements, the continuity and ultimate victory of the true
faith depends on the relations of Jehovah to individual souls out of
which the nation shall be bound up."[855]

And now a sad misfortune happened to Jeremiah. His home was not at
Jerusalem, but at Anathoth, though he had long been driven from his
native village by the murderous plots of his own kindred, and of those
who had been infuriated by his incessant prophecies of doom. When the
Chaldæans retired from Jerusalem to encounter Pharaoh, he left the
distressed city for the land of Benjamin, "to receive his portion from
thence in the midst of the people"--apparently, for the sense is
doubtful, to claim his dues of maintenance as a priest. But at the
city gate he was arrested by Irijah, the son of Shelemiah, the captain
of the watch, who charged him with the intention of deserting to the
Chaldæans. Jeremiah pronounced the charge to be a lie; but Irijah took
him before the princes, who hated him, and consigned him to dreary and
dangerous imprisonment in the house of Jonathan the scribe. In the
vaults of this "house of the pit" he continued many days.[856] The
king sympathised with him: he would gladly have delivered him, if he
could, from the rage of the princes; but he did not dare.[857]

Meanwhile, the siege went on, and the people never forgot the anguish
of despair with which they waited the reinvestiture of the city. Ever
since that day it has been kept as a fast--the fast of Tebeth.
Zedekiah, yearning for some advice, or comfort--if comfort were to be
had--from the only man whom he really trusted, sent for Jeremiah to
the palace, and asked him in despicable secrecy, "Is there any word
from the Lord?" The answer was the old one: "Yes! Thou shalt be
delivered into the hands of the King of Babylon." Jeremiah gave it
without quailing, but seized the opportunity to ask on what plea he
was imprisoned. Was he not a prophet? Had he not prophesied the return
of the Chaldæan host? Where now were all the prophets who had
prophesied peace? Would not the king at least save him from the
detestable prison in which he was dying by inches?

The king heard his petition, and he was removed to a better prison in
the court of the watch, where he received his daily piece of bread out
of the bakers' street until all the bread in the city was spent.

For now utter famine came upon the wretched Jews, to add to the
horrors and accidents of the siege. If we would know what that famine
was in its appalling intensity, we must turn to the Book of
Lamentations. Those elegies, so unutterably plaintive, may not be by
the prophet himself, but only by his school; but they show us what was
the frightful condition of the people of Jerusalem before and during
the last six months of the siege. "The sword of the wilderness"--the
roving and plundering Bedouin--made it impossible to get out of the
city in any direction. Things were as dreadfully hopeless as they had
been in Samaria when it was besieged by Benhadad.[858] Hunger and
thirst reduce human nature to its most animal conditions. They
obliterate the merest elements of morality. They make men like beasts,
and reveal the ferocity which is never quite dead in any but the
purest and loftiest souls. They arouse the least human instincts of
the aboriginal animal. The day came when there was no more bread left
in Jerusalem.[859] The fair and ruddy Nazarites, who had been purer
than snow, whiter than milk, more ruddy than corals, lovely as
sapphires, became like withered boughs,[860] and even their friends
did not recognise them in those ghastly and emaciated figures which
crept about the streets. The daughters of Zion, more cruel in their
hunger than the very jackals, lost the instincts of pity and
motherhood. Mothers and fathers devoured their own little unweaned
children.[861] There was parricide as well as infanticide in the
horrible houses. They seemed to plead that none could blame them,
since the lives of many had become an intolerable anguish, and no man
had bread for his little ones, and their tongues cleaved to the roof
of their mouth. All that happened six centuries later, during the
siege of Jerusalem by Titus, happened now. Then Martha the daughter of
Nicodemus ben-Gorion, once a lady of enormous wealth, was seen picking
the grains of corn from the offal of the streets; now the women who
had fed delicately and been brought up in scarlet were seen sitting
desolate on heaps of dung.[862] And Jehovah did not raise His hand to
save His guilty and dying people. It was too late!

And as is always the case in such extremities, there were men who stood
defiant and selfish amid the universal misery. Murder, oppression, and
luxury continued to prevail. The godless nobles did not intermit the
building of their luxurious houses, asserting to themselves and others
that, after all, the final catastrophe was not near at hand. The sudden
death of one of them--Pelatiah, the son of Benaiah--while Ezekiel was
prophesying, terrified the prophet so much that he flung himself on his
face and cried with a loud voice, "Ah, Lord God! wilt Thou make a full
end of the remnant of Israel?" But on the others this death by the
visitation of God seems to have produced no effect; and the glory of God
left the city, borne away upon its cherubim-chariot.[863]

Even under the stress of these dreadful circumstances the Jews held
out with that desperate tenacity which has often been shown by nations
fighting behind strong walls for their very existence, but by no
nation more decidedly than by the Jews. And if the rebel-party, and
the lying prophets who had brought the city to this pass, still
entertained any hopes either of a diversion caused by Pharaoh Hophrah,
or of some miraculous deliverance such as that which had saved the
city from Sennacherib years earlier, it is not unnatural that they
should have regarded Jeremiah with positive fury. For he still
continued to prophesy the captivity. What specially angered them was
his message to the people that all who remained in Jerusalem should
die by the sword, the famine, and the pestilence, but that those who
deserted to the Chaldæans should live. It was on the ground of his
having said this that they had imprisoned him as a deserter; and when
Pashur and his son Gedaliah heard that he was still saying this, they
and the other princes entreated Zedekiah to put him to death as a
pernicious traitor, who weakened the hands of the patriot soldiers.
Jeremiah was not guilty of the lack of patriotism with which they
charged him. The day of independence had passed for ever, and Babylon,
not Egypt, was the appointed suzerain. The counselling of
submission--as many a victorious chieftain has been forced at last to
counsel it, from the days of Hannibal to those of Thiers--is often the
true and the only possible patriotism in doomed and decadent nations.
Zedekiah timidly abandoned the prophet to the rage of his enemies; but
being afraid to murder him openly as Urijah had been murdered, they
flung him into a well in the dungeon of Malchiah, the king's son. Into
the mire of this pit he sank up to the arms, and there they purposely
left him to starve and rot.[864] But if no Israelite pitied him, his
condition moved the compassion of Ebed-Melech, an Ethiopian, one of
the king's eunuch-chamberlains. He hurried to the king in a storm of
pity and indignation. He found him sitting, as a king should do, at
the post of danger in the gate of Benjamin; for Zedekiah was not a
physical, though he was a moral, coward. Ebed-Melech told the king
that Jeremiah was dying of starvation, and Zedekiah bade him take
three[865] men with him and rescue the dying man. The faithful
Ethiopian hurried to a cellar under the treasury, took with him some
old, worn fragments of robes, and, letting them down by cords, called
to Jeremiah to put them under his arm-pits. He did so, and they drew
him up into the light of day, though he still remained in prison.

It seems to have been at this time that, in spite of his grim
vaticination of immediate retribution, Jeremiah showed his serene
confidence in the ultimate future by accepting the proposal of his
cousin Hanameel to buy some of the paternal fields at Anathoth, though
at that very moment they were in the hands of the Chaldæans. Such an
act publicly performed must have caused some consolation to the
besieged, just as did the courage of the Roman senator who gave a good
price for the estate outside the walls of Rome on which Hannibal was
actually encamped.

Then Zedekiah once more secretly sent for him, and implored him to tell
the unvarnished truth. "If I do," said the prophet, "will you not kill
me? and will you in any case hearken to me?" Zedekiah swore not to
betray him to his enemies; and Jeremiah told him that, even at that
eleventh hour, if he would go out and make submission to the
Babylonians, the city should not be burnt, and he should save the lives
of himself and of his family. Zedekiah believed him, but pleaded that he
was afraid of the mockery of the deserters to whom he might be
delivered. Jeremiah assured him that he should not be so delivered, and
that, if he refused to obey, nothing remained for the city, and for him
and his wives and children, but final ruin. The king was too weak to
follow what he must now have felt to be the last chance which God had
opened out for him. He could only "attain to half-believe." He entrusted
the result to chance, with miserable vacillation of purpose; and the
door of hope was closed upon him. His one desire was to conceal the
interview; and if it came to the ears of the princes--of whom he was
shamefully afraid--he begged Jeremiah to say that he had only entreated
the king not to send him back to die in Jonathan's prison.

As he had suspected, it became known that Jeremiah had been summoned
to an interview with the king. They questioned the prophet in prison.
He told them the story which the king had suggested to him, and the
truth remained undiscovered. For this deflection from exact truth it
is tolerably certain that, in the state of men's consciences upon the
subject of veracity in those days, the prophet's moral sense did not
for a moment reproach him. He remained in his prison, guarded probably
by the faithful Ebed-Melech, until Jerusalem was taken.

Let us pity the dreadful plight of Zedekiah, aggravated as it was by
his weak temperament. "He stands at the head of a people determined to
defend itself, but is himself without either hope or courage."[866]

FOOTNOTES:

[852] Homer, _Iliad_, i. 106-109.

[853] But it must not be forgotten that Jer. xxxi. 1-34 is so hopeful
that it has been called "the Gospel before Christ."

[854] Jer. vi. 14, viii. 11; Ezek. xiii. 10.

[855] W. R. Smith, "Prophets" (_Enc. Brit._).

[856] Jer. xxxvii, 11-15.

[857] Jer xxxviii. 5. The Jewish aristocracy consisted, says Grätz, of
three classes: the _benî hammelech_, or "king's sons"--_i.e._, princes
of the blood-royal; the _roshî aboth_, "heads of the fathers," or
_zekenîm_, "elders"; and the _abhodî hammelech_, "king's servants," or
"courtiers" (ii. 446).

[858] Lam. v. 4.

[859] Jer. xxxvii. 21, xxxviii. 9, lii. 6.

[860] Lam. iv. 7, 8.

[861] Lam. iv. 10, ii. 20; Ezek. v. 10; Baruch ii. 3.

[862] Lam. iv. 5. See Stanley, _Lectures_, ii. 470.

[863] Ezek. xi. 22.

[864] This may possibly be alluded to in Psalm lxix. 2.

[865] Jer. xxxviii. 10, A.V., "thirty."

[866] Van Oort, iv. 52.




                            CHAPTER XXXVIII

                        _THE FALL OF JERUSALEM_

                                B.C. 586

                           2 KINGS xxv. 1-21

    "In that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all
    nations."--ZECH. xii. 3.

    "An end is come, the end is come; it awaketh against thee: behold
    the end is come."--EZEK. vii. 6.

                  "Behold yon sterile spot
              Where now the wandering Arab's tent
                  Flaps in the desert blast;
              There once old Salem's haughty fane
          Reared high to heaven its thousand golden domes,
              And in the blushing face of day
                Exposed its shameful glory."
                                        SHELLEY.


After the siege had lasted for a year and a half, all but one day, at
midnight the besiegers made a breach in the northern city wall.[867]
It was a day of terrible remembrance, and throughout the exile it was
observed as a solemn fast.[868]

Nebuchadrezzar was no longer in person before the walls. He had other
war-like operations and other sieges on hand--the sieges of Tyre,
Asekah, and Lachish--as well as Jerusalem. He had therefore
established his headquarters at Lachish, and did not superintend the
final operations against the city.[869] But now that all had become
practically hopeless, and the capture of the rest of Jerusalem was
only a matter of a few days more, Zedekiah and his few best surviving
princes and soldiers fled by night through the opposite quarter of the
city. There was a little unwatched postern between two walls near the
king's garden, and through this he and his escort fled, hoping to
reach the Arabah, and make good his escape, perhaps to the
Wady-el-Arish, which he could reach in five hours, through the wilds
beyond the Jordan.[870] The heads of the king and his followers were
muffled, and they carried on their shoulders their choicest
possessions.[871] But he was betrayed by some of the mean
deserters,[872] and pursued by the Chaldæans. His movements were
doubtless impeded by the presence of his harem and his children. His
little band of warriors could offer no resistance, and fled in all
directions. Zedekiah, his family, and attendants were taken prisoners,
and carried to Riblah to appear before the mighty conqueror.[873]
Nebuchadrezzar showed no pity towards one whom he had elevated to the
throne, and who had violated his most solemn assurances by intriguing
with his enemies. He brought him to trial, and doomed him to witness
with his own eyes the massacre of his two sons and of his attendants.
After he had endured this anguish, worse than death, his eyes were put
out, and, bound in double fetters,[874] he was sent to Babylon, where
he ended his miserable days. To blind a king deprived him of all hope
of recovering the throne, and was therefore in ancient days a common
punishment.[875] The LXX. adds that he was sent by the Babylonians to
grind a mill--εἰς οἰκίον μυλῶνος. This is probably a reminiscence of
the blinded Samson. But thus were fulfilled with startling literalness
two prophecies which might well have seemed to be contradictory.[876]
For Jeremiah had said (xxxiv. 3),--

"Thine eyes shall behold the eyes of the King of Babylon, and he shall
speak with thee mouth to mouth, and thou shalt go to Babylon."

Whereas Ezekiel had said (xii. 13),--

"I will bring him to Babylon, the land of the Chaldæans; yet shall he
not see it, though he shall die there."

Henceforth Zedekiah was forgotten, and his place knew him no more. We
can only hope that in his blindness and solitude he was happier than
he had been on the throne of Judah, and that before death came to end
his miseries he found peace with God.

The conqueror did not come to spoil the city. He left that task to three
great officers,--Nebuzaradan, the captain of the guard, or chief
executioner;[877] Nebushasban, the Rabsaris, or chief of the eunuchs;
and Nergalshareser, the Rabmag, or chief of the magicians. They took
their station by the Middle Gate, and first gave up the city to pillage
and massacre. No horror was spared.[878] The sepulchres were rifled for
treasure; the young Levites were slain in the house of their Sanctuary;
women were violated; maidens and hoary-headed men were slain. "Princes
were hanged up by the hand, and the faces of elders were dishonoured;
priest and prophet were slain in the Sanctuary of the Lord,"[879] till
the blood flowed like red wine from the winepress over the desecrated
floor.[880] The guilty city drank at the hand of God the dregs of the
cup of His fury.[881] It was the final vengeance. "The punishment of
thine iniquity is accomplished, O daughter of Zion. He will no more
carry thee away into captivity."[882] And, meanwhile, the little Bedouin
principalities were full of savage exultation at the fate of their
hereditary foe.[883] This was felt by the Jews as a culmination of their
misery, that they became a derision to their enemies. The callous
insults hurled at them by the neighbouring tribes in their hour of shame
awoke that implacable wrath against Gebal and Ammon and Amalek which
finds its echo in the Prophets and in the Psalms.[884]

After this the devoted capital was given up to destruction. The Temple
was plundered. All that remained of its often-rifled splendours was
carried away, such as the ancient pillars Jachin and Boaz, the
masterpieces of Hiram's art, the caldron, the brazen sea, and all the
vessels of gold, of silver, and of brass. Then the walls of the city
were dismantled and broken down. The Temple, and the palace, and all the
houses of the princes were committed to the flames. As for the principal
remaining inhabitants, Seraiah the chief priest, perhaps the grandson of
Hilkiah and the grandfather of Ezra, Zephaniah the second priest, the
three Levitic doorkeepers, the secretary of war, five of the greatest
nobles who "saw the king's face,"[885] and sixty of the common people
who had been marked out for special punishment, were taken to Riblah,
and there massacred by order of Nebuchadrezzar.[886] With these
Nebuchadrezzar took away as his prisoners a multitude of the wealthier
inhabitants, leaving behind him but the humblest artisans. As the
craftsmen and smiths had been deported,[887] these poor people busied
themselves in agriculture, as vine-dressers and husbandmen. The existing
estates were divided among them; and being few in number, they found the
amplest sustenance in treasures of wheat and barley, and oil and honey,
and summer fruits, which they kept concealed for safety, as the
fellaheen of Palestine do to this day.[888]

According to the historic chapters added to the prophecies of
Jeremiah, the whole number of captives carried away from Jerusalem by
Nebuchadrezzar in the seventh, the eighteenth, and the twenty-third
years of his reign were 4,600.[889] The completeness of the desolation
might well have caused the heart-rending outcry of Psalm lxxix.: "O
God, the heathen are come into Thine inheritance; Thy holy Temple have
they defiled; they have made Jerusalem a heap of stones. The dead
bodies of Thy servants have they given to be meat unto the fowls of
heaven, and the flesh of Thy saints unto the beasts of the land. Their
blood have they shed like water round about Jerusalem; and there was
no man to bury them."

Among the remnant of the people was Jeremiah. Nebuzaradan had received
from his king the strictest injunctions to treat him honourably; for he
had heard from the deserters that he had always opposed the rebellion,
and had prophesied the issue of the siege. He was indeed sent in
manacles to Ramah;[890] but there Nebuchadrezzar gave him free choice to
do exactly as he liked--either to accompany him to Babylon, where he
should be well treated and cared for, or to return to Jerusalem, and
live where he liked. This was his desire. Nebuchadrezzar therefore
dismissed him with food and a present;[891] and he returned. The LXX.
and Vulgate represent him as sitting weeping over the ruins of
Jerusalem, and tradition says that he sought for his lamentations a cave
still existing near the Damascus Gate. Of this Scripture knows nothing.
But the melancholy prophet was only reserved for further tragedies. He
had lived one of the most afflicted of human lives. A man of tender
heart and shrinking disposition, he had been called to set his face like
a flint against kings, and nobles, and mobs. Worse than this, being
himself a prophet and priest, naturally led to sympathise with both, he
was the doomed antagonist of both--victim of "one of the strongest of
human passions, the hatred of priests against a priest who attacks his
own order, the hatred of prophets against a prophet who ventures to have
a voice and a will of his own." Even his own family had plotted against
his life at humble Anathoth;[892] and when he retreated to Jerusalem, he
found himself at the centre of the storm. Now perhaps he hoped for a
gleam of sunset peace. But his hopes were disappointed. He had to tread
the path of anguish and hatred to the bitter end, as he had trodden it
for nearly fifty years of the troubled life which had followed his call
in early boyhood.

"But, in the case of Jerusalem," says Dean Stanley, "both its first
and second destruction have the peculiar interest of involving the
dissolution of a religious dispensation, combined with the agony of an
expiring nation, such as no other people has survived, and, by
surviving, carried on the living recollection, first of one, and then
of the other, for centuries after the first shock was over."[893]

FOOTNOTES:

[867] Jos., _Antt._, X. viii. 2; 2 Chron. xxxii. 5, xxxiii. 14. First
and last, the siege seems to have lasted one year, five months, and
twenty-seven days.

[868] Zech. viii. 19.

[869] The inscriptions of Nebuchadrezzar which have been as yet
deciphered speak of his sumptuous buildings and of his worship of the
gods rather than of his conquests. See _Records of the Past_, vii.
69-78.

[870] Robinson, _Bibl. Res._, ii. 536. Some suppose that "the king's
garden" was near the mouth of the Tyropœon Valley.

[871] Ezek. xii. 12. Perhaps the gate alluded to is the fountain gate
of Neh. iii. 15. Ezekiel seems to speak of "digging through the wall."
Robinson says that a trace of the outermost wall still exists in the
rude pathway which crosses the mouth of the Tyropœon on a mound hard
by the old mulberry tree which marks the traditional site of Isaiah's
martyrdom.

[872] Jos., _Antt._, X. viii. 2.

[873] Traces of his presence are found in inscriptions in the Wady of
the Dog near Beyrout, and in Wady Brissa. See Sayce, _Proceedings of
the Bibl. Arch. Soc._, November 1881.

[874] 2 Kings xxv. 7. See Layard, _Nineveh_, ii. 376.

[875] The blinding was sometimes done by passing a red-hot rod of
silver or brass over the open eyes; sometimes by plucking out the eyes
(Jer. lii. 11, Vulg. _oculos eruit_; 2 Kings xxv. 7, _effodit_). See a
hideous illustration of a yet more brutal process in Botta (_Monum. de
Ninève_, Pl. cxviii.), where Sargon with his own hand is thrusting a
lance into the eyes of a captive prince, whose head is kept steady by
a bridle fastened to a hook through his lips. See also Judg. xvi. 21;
Xen., _Anab._, i. 9, § 13; Procopius, _Bel. Pers._, i. 1; Ammianus,
xxvii. 12; Rawlinson, _Ancient Monarchies_, i. 307.

[876] Jos., _Antt._, X. viii. 2, 3.

[877] Nebur-zir-iddina, "Nebo bestowed seed." Jer. xxxix. 9, 13, is in
some way corrupt. Ezekiel (ix. 2), however, and Josephus (_Antt._, X.
viii. 2) mention _six_ officers. Nebuzaradan was "chief of the
executioners" (Gen. xxxvii. 36; 1 Kings ii. 25, 35, 46).

[878] Psalm lxxix. 2, 3.

[879] 2 Chron. xxxvi. 17; Lam. ii. 21, v. 11, 12.

[880] To the reminiscences of these scenes are partly due the Talmudic
legend about the blood of Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada, bubbling up
to demand vengeance. Nebudchadrezzar slew a holocaust of human victims
to appease the shade of the wrathful prophet, until the king himself
was terrified, and asked if he wished his whole people to be
slaughtered. Then the blood ceased to bubble.

[881] See Rawlinson, _Kings of Israel and Judah_, p. 236.

[882] Lam. iv. 22.

[883] Psalm lxxix, 1.

[884] Obad. 14-16; Psalm cxxxvii. 7; 1 Esdras iv. 45.

[885] Comp. Esther i. 14.

[886] On these personages see 1 Chron. vi. 13, 14; 2 Kings xxii. 4;
Ezra vii. 1; Jer. xxi. 1, xxxvii. 3, etc.

[887] Nebuchadrezzar had no doubt needed them for his great buildings
at Babylon, and their deportation would render more difficult any
attempt to refortify Jerusalem.

[888] Jer. xli. 8, xl. 12.

[889] Jer. lii. 28-30. In his seventh year, 3,023; in his eighteenth,
832 in his thirty-third, 745 = 4,600.

[890] Ramah was but five miles from Jerusalem, and at first Jeremiah
may not have been identified (Jer. xl. 1-6).

[891] The present, if accepted, could only be regarded, under the
circumstances, as part of the necessity of life. It does not fall
under the head of the presents often offered to prophets (1 Sam. ix.
7; 2 Kings iv. 42; Mic. iii. 5, 11; Amos vii. 12).

[892] Jer. xi. 19-21, xii. 6.

[893] Stanley, _Lectures_, ii. 515.




                             CHAPTER XXXIX

                               _GEDALIAH_

                                B.C. 586

                           2 KINGS xxv. 22-30

          "Vedi che son un che piango."--DANTE, _Inferno_.

          "No, rather steel thy melting heart
           To act the martyr's sternest part,
           To watch with firm, unshrinking eye
           Thy darling visions as they die,
           Till all bright hopes and hues of day
           Have faded into twilight grey."
                                         KEBLE.


In deciding that he would not accompany Nebuchadrezzar to Babylon,
Jeremiah made the choice of duty. In Chaldæa he would have lived at
ease, in plenty, in security, amid universal respect. He might have
helped his younger contemporary Ezekiel in his struggle to keep the
exiles in Babylon faithful to their duty and their God. He regarded the
exiles as representing all that was best and noblest in the nation; and
he would have been safe and honoured in the midst of them, under the
immediate protection of the great Babylonian king. On the other hand, to
return to Judæa was to return to a defenceless and a distracted people,
the mere dregs of the true nation, the mere phantom of what they once
had been. Surely his life had earned the blessing of repose? But no! The
hopes of the Chosen People, the seed of Abraham, God's servant, could
not be dissevered from the Holy Land. Rest was not for him on this side
of the grave. His only prayer must be, like that which Senancour had
inscribed over his grave, "Éternité, deviens mon asile!" The decision
cost him a terrible struggle; but duty called him, and he obeyed. It has
been supposed by some critics[894] that the wild cry of Jer. xv. 10-21
expresses his anguish at the necessity of casting in his lot with the
remnant; the sense that they needed his protecting influence and
prophetic guidance; and the promise of God that his sacrifice should not
be ineffectual for good to the miserable fragment of his nation, even
though they should continue to struggle against him.

So with breaking heart he saw Nebuzaradan at Ramah marshalling the
throng of captives for their long journey to the waters of Babylon.
Before them, and before the little band which returned with him to the
burnt Temple, the dismantled city, the desolate house, there lay an
unknown future; but in spite of the exiles' doom it looked brighter
for them than for him, as with tears and sobs they parted from each
other. Then it was that--

"A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rachel
weeping for her children refuseth to be comforted, because they are
not. Thus saith the Lord, 'Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine
eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded,' saith the Lord; 'and
they shall come again from the land of the enemy. And there is hope
for thy time to come,' saith the Lord, 'that thy children shall come
again to their own border.'"[895]

Disappointed in the fidelity of the royal house of Judah, Nebuchadrezzar
had not attempted to place another of them on the throne. He appointed
Gedaliah, the son of Ahikam, the son of Shaphan, his satrap (_pakîd_)
over the poor remnant who were left in the land. In this appointment we
probably trace the influence of Jeremiah. There is no one whom
Nebuchadrezzar would have been so likely to consult. Gedaliah was the
son of the prophet's old protector,[896] and his grandfather Shaphan had
been a trusted minister of Josiah. He thoroughly justified the
confidence reposed in him, and under his wise and prosperous rule there
seemed to be every prospect that there would be at least some pale gleam
of returning prosperity. The Jews, who during the period of the siege
had fled into all the neighbouring countries, no sooner heard of his
viceroyalty than they came flocking back from Moab, and Ammon, and Edom.
They found themselves, perhaps for the first time in their lives, in
possession of large estates, from which the exiles of Babylon had been
dispossessed; and favoured by an abundant harvest, "they gathered wine
and summer fruits very much."[897]

Jerusalem--dismantled, defenceless, burnt--was no longer habitable. It
was all but deserted, so that jackals and hyænas prowled even over the
mountain of the Lord's House. All attempt to refortify it would have
been regarded as rebellion, and such a mere "lodge in a garden of
cucumbers" would have been useless to repress the marauding incursions
of the envious Moabites and Edomites, who had looked on with shouts at
the destruction of the city, and exulted when her carved work was
broken down with axes and hammers. Gedaliah therefore fixed his
headquarters at Mizpah, about six miles north of Jerusalem, of which
the lofty eminence could be easily secured.[898] It was the watchtower
from which Titus caught his first glimpses of the Holy City, as many a
traveller does to this day, and the point at which Richard I. averted
his eyes with tears, saying that he was unworthy to look upon the city
which he was unable to save. Here, then, Gedaliah lived, urging upon
his subjects the policy which his friend and adviser Jeremiah had
always supported, and promising them quietness and peace if they would
but accept the logic of circumstances--if they would bow to the
inevitable, and frankly acknowledge the suzerainty of Nebuchadrezzar.
It was perhaps as a pledge of more independence in better days to come
that Nebuzaradan had left Gedaliah in charge of the young daughters of
King Zedekiah, who had with them some of their eunuch-attendants. As
that unfortunate monarch was only thirty-two years old when he was
blinded and carried away, the princesses were probably young girls;
and it has been conjectured that it was part of the Chaldæan king's
plan for the future that in time Gedaliah should be permitted to marry
one of them, and re-establish at least a collateral branch of the old
royal house of David.

How long this respite continued we do not know. The language of
Jeremiah xxxix 2, xli. 1, compared with 2 Kings xxv. 8, might seem to
imply that it only lasted two months. But since Jeremiah does not
mention the year in xli. 1, and as there seems to have been yet
another deportation of Jews by Nebuchadrezzar five years latter (Jer.
lii. 30), which may have been in revenge for the murder of his satrap,
some have supposed that Gedaliah's rule lasted four years. All is
uncertain, and the latter passage is of doubtful authenticity; but it
is at least possible that the vengeful atrocity committed by Ishmael
followed almost immediately after the Chaldæan forces were well out of
sight. Respecting these last days of Jewish independence, "History,
leaning semisomnous on her pyramid, muttereth something, but we know
not what it is."

However this may be, there seem to have been guerilla bands wandering
through the country, partly to get what they could, and partly to
watch against Bedouin marauders. Johanan, the son of Kareah, who was
one of the chief captains among them,[899] came with others to
Gedaliah, and warned him that Baalis, King of Ammon, was intriguing
against him, and trying to induce a certain Ishmael, the son of
Nethaniah, the son of Elishama--who, in some way unknown to us,
represented, perhaps on the female side, the seed royal[900]--to come
and murder him. Gedaliah was of a fine, unsuspicious temperament, and
with rash generosity he refused to believe in the existence of a plot
so ruinous and so useless. Astonished at his noble incredulity,
Johanan then had a secret interview with him, and offered to murder
Ishmael so secretly that no one should know of it. "Why," he asked,
"should this man be suffered to ruin everything, and cause the final
scattering of even the struggling handful of colonists at Mizpah and
in Judah?" Gedaliah forbad his intervention. "Thou shalt not do this,"
he said: "thou speakest falsely of Ishmael."

But Johanan's story was only too true. Shortly afterwards, Ishmael,
with ten confederates,[901] came to visit Gedaliah at Mizpah, perhaps
on the pretext of seeing his kinswomen, the daughters of Zedekiah.
Gedaliah welcomed this ambitious villain and his murderous accomplices
with open-handed hospitality. He invited them all to a banquet in the
fort of Mizpah; and after eating salt with him, Ishmael and his
bravoes first murdered him, and then put promiscuously to the sword
his soldiers, and the Chaldæans who had been left to look after
him.[902] The gates of the fort were closed, and the bodies were flung
into a deep well or tank,[903] which had been constructed by Asa in
the middle of the courtyard, when he was fortifying Mizpah against the
attacks of Baasha, King of Israel.

For two days there was an unbroken silence, and the peasants at Mizpah
remained unaware of the dreadful tragedy. On the third day a sad
procession was seen wending its way up the heights. There were scattered
Jews in Shiloh and Samaria who still remembered Zion; and eighty
pilgrims, weeping as they went, came with shaven beards and rent
garments to bring a _minchah_ and incense to the ruined shrine at
Jerusalem. In the depth of their woe they had even violated a law (Lev.
xix. 28, xxi. 5), of which they were perhaps unaware, by cutting
themselves in sign of their misery. Mizpah would be their last
halting-place on the way to Jerusalem; and the hypocrite Ishmael came
out to them with an invitation to share the hospitality of the murdered
satrap. No sooner had the gate of the charnel-house closed upon
them,[904] than Ishmael and his ten ruffians began to murder this
unoffending company. Crimes more aimless and more brutal than those
committed by this infinitely degenerate scion of the royal house it is
impossible to conceive. The place swam with blood. The story "reads
almost like a page from the annals of the Indian Mutiny." Seventy of the
wretched pilgrims had been butchered and flung into the tank, which must
have been choked with corpses, like the fatal well at Cawnpore,[905]
when the ten survivors pleaded for their lives by telling Ishmael that
they had large treasures of country produce stored in hidden places,
which should be at his disposal if he would spare them.[906]

As it was useless to make any further attempt to conceal his
atrocities, Ishmael now took the young princesses and the inhabitants
of Mizpah with him, and tried to make good his escape to his patron
the King of Ammon. But the watchful eye of Johanan, the son of Kareah,
had been upon him, and assembling his band he went in swift pursuit.
Ishmael had got no farther than the Pool of Gibeon, when Johanan
overtook him, to the intense joy of the prisoners. A scuffle ensued;
but Ishmael and eight of his blood-stained desperadoes unhappily
managed to make good their escape to the Ammonites. The wretch
vanishes into the darkness, and we hear of him no more.

Even now the circumstances were desperate. Nebuchadrezzar could not in
honour overlook the frustration of all his plans, and the murder, not
only of his viceroy, but even of his Chaldæan commissioners. He would
not be likely to accept any excuses. No course seemed open but that of
flight. There was no temptation to return to Mizpah with its frightful
memories and its corpse-choked tank. From Gibeon the survivors made
their way to Bethlehem, which lay on the road to Egypt, and where they
could be sheltered in the caravanserai of Chimham. Many Jews had
already taken refuge in Egypt. Colonies of them were living in
Pathros, and at Migdol and Noph, under the kindly protection of
Pharaoh Hophrah. Would it not be well to join them?

In utter perplexity Johanan and the other captains and all the people
came to Jeremiah. How he had escaped the massacre at Mizpah we do not
know; but now he seemed to be the only man left in whose prophetic
guidance they could confide. They entreated him with pathetic
earnestness to show them the will of Jehovah; and he promised to pray
for insight, while they pledged themselves to obey implicitly his
directions.

The anguish and vacillation of the prophet's mind is shown by the fact
that for ten whole days no light came to him. It seemed as if Judah
was under an irrevocable curse. Whither could they return? What
temptation was there to return? Did not return mean fresh intolerable
miseries? Would they not be torn to pieces by the robber bands from
across the Jordan? And what could be the end of it but another
deportation to Babylon, with perhaps further massacre and starvation?

All the arguments seemed against this course; and he could see very
clearly that it would be against all the wishes of the down-trodden
fugitives who longed for Egypt, "where we shall see no war, nor hear
the sound of the trumpet, nor have hunger of bread."

Yet Jeremiah could only give them the message which he believed to
represent the will of God. He bade them return. He assured them that
they need have no fear of the King of Babylon, and that God would
bless them; whereas if they went to Egypt, they would die by the
sword, the famine, and the pestilence. At the same time--doomed always
to thwart the hopes of the multitude--he reproved the hypocrisy which
had sent them to ask God's will when they never intended to do
anything but follow their own.

Then their anger broke out against him. He was, as always, the prophet
of evil, and they held him more than half responsible for being the
_cause_ of the ruin which he invariably predicted. Johanan and "all
the proud men" (_zēdim_) gave him the lie. They told him that the
source of his prophesy was not Jehovah, but the meddling and
pernicious Baruch. Perhaps some of them may have remembered the words
of Isaiah, that a day should come when five cities, of which one
should be called Kir-Cheres ("the City of Destruction")--a play on the
name Kir-Heres, "the City of the Sun," On or Heliopolis should--speak
the language of Canaan and swear by the Lord of hosts, and there
should be an altar in the land of Egypt and a _matstsebah_ at its
border in witness to Jehovah, and that though Egypt should be smitten
she should also be healed.[907]

So they settled to go to Egypt; and taking with them Jeremiah, and
Baruch, and the king's daughters, and all the remnant, they made their
way to Tahpanhes or Daphne,[908] an advanced post to guard the road to
Syria. Mr. Flinders Petrie in 1886 discovered the site of the city at
Tel Defenneh, and the ruins of the very palace which Pharaoh Hophrah
placed at the disposal of the daughters of his ally Zedekiah. It is
still known by the name of "The Castle of the Jew's Daughters"--_El
Kasr el Bint el Jehudi_.[909]

In front of this palace was an elevated platform (_mastaba_) of brick,
which still remains. In this brickwork Jeremiah was bidden by the word
of Jehovah to place great stones, and to declare that on that very
platform, over those very stones, Nebuchadrezzar should pitch his
royal tent, when he came to wrap himself in the land of Egypt, as a
shepherd wraps himself in his garment, and to burn the pillars of
Heliopolis with fire.[910]

Jeremiah still had to face stormy times. At some great festival
assembly at Tahpanhes he bitterly reproached the exiled Jews for their
idolatries. He was extremely indignant with the women who burned
incense to the Queen of Heaven. The multitude, and especially the
women, openly defied him. "We will not hearken to thee," they said.
"We will continue to burn incense, and offer offerings to the Queen of
Heaven, _as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our
princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem_; for
then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil. It is
only since we have left off making cakes for her and honouring her
that we have suffered hunger and desolation; and our husbands were
always well aware of our proceedings."

Never was there a more defiantly ostentatious revolt against God and
against His prophet! Remonstrance seemed hopeless. What could Jeremiah
do but menace them with the wrath of Heaven, and tell them that in
sign of the truth of his words the fate of Pharaoh Hophrah should be
the same as the fate of Zedekiah, King of Judah, and should be
inflicted by the hand of Nebuchadrezzar.[911]

So on the colony of fugitives the curtain of revelation rushes down in
storm. The prophet went on the troubled path which, if tradition be
true, led him at last to martyrdom. He is said to have been stoned by
his infuriated fellow-exiles. But his name lived in the memory of his
people. It was he (they believed) who had hidden from the Chaldæans
the Ark and the sacred fire, and some day he should return to reveal
the place of their concealment.[912] When Christ asked His disciples
six hundred years later, "Whom say the people that I am?" one of the
answers was, "Some say Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He became, so
to speak, the guardian saint of the land in which he had suffered such
cruel persecutions.

But the historian of the Kings does not like to leave the close of his
story in unbroken gloom. He wrote during the Exile. He has narrated
with tears the sad fate of Jehoiachin; and though he does not care to
dwell on the Exile itself, he is glad to narrate one touch of kindness
on the part of the King of Babylon, which he doubtless regarded as a
pledge of mercies yet to come. Twenty-six years had elapsed since the
capture of Jerusalem, and thirty-seven since the captivity of the
exiled king, when Evil-Merodach, the son and successor of
Nebuchadrezzar, took pity on the imprisoned heir of the House of
David.[913] He took Jehoiachin from his dungeon, changed his garments,
spoke words of encouragement to him, gave him a place at his own
table,[914] assigned to him a regular allowance from his own
banquet,[915] and set his throne above the throne of all the other
captive kings who were with him in Babylon. It might seem a trivial
act of mercy, yet the Jews remembered in their records the very day of
the month on which it had taken place, because they regarded it as a
break in the clouds which overshadowed them--as "the first gleam of
heaven's amber in the Eastern grey."

FOOTNOTES:

[894] So Grätz and Cheyne.

[895] Jer. xxxi. 15-17.

[896] Jer. xxvi. 24.

[897] Jer. xl. 12.

[898] Some identify it with _Shaphat_, a mile from Jerusalem.

[899] They are called _sarî_ ("princes").

[900] There is no Elishama in the royal genealogy, except a son of
David. Ishmael may have been the son or grandson of some Ammonite
princess. An Elishama was scribe of Jehoiakim (Jer. xxxvi. 12).

[901] The Hebrew text calls these ten ruffians _rabbî hammelech_,
"chief officers of the king" of Ammon.

[902] Josephus records or conjectures that the governor was
overpowered by wine, and had sunk into slumber (_Antt._, X. ix. 2).

[903] In Jer. xli. 9, for "because of Gedaliah," the better reading is
"was a great pit" (LXX., φρέαρ μέγα).

[904] Ishmael--a marvel of craft and villainy--put into practice the
same stratagem which on a larger scale was employed by Mohammed Ali in
his massacre of the Mamelukes at Cairo in 1806 (Grove, _s.v._ _Bibl.
Dict._). For "the midst of the city" (Jer. xli. 7), we ought to read
"courtyard," as in Josephus.

[905] Comp. Jehu's treatment of the family of Ahaziah (2 Kings x. 14).

[906] The dark deed is still commemorated by a Jewish fast, as in the
days of Zechariah (Zech. vii. 3-5, viii. 19).

[907] Isa. xix. 18-22.

[908] Jer. ii. 16, xliv. 1; Ezek. xxx. 18; Jer. xliii. 7, xlvi. 14;
Herod., ii. 30.

[909] Fl. Petrie, _Memoir on Tanis_ (Egypt. Explor. Fund, 4th memoir),
1888.

[910] Jer. xliii. 13, Beth-shemesh. Only one pillar of the Temple of
the Sun is now standing. It is said to be four thousand years old. It
is certain that Nebuchadrezzar invaded Egypt and defeated Amasis, the
son of Hophrah, B.C. 565, reducing Egypt to "the basest of kingdoms"
(Ezek. xxix. 14, 15). Three of Nebuchadrezzar's terra-cotta cylinders
have been found at Tahpanhes.

[911] How far the prophecy was fulfilled we do not know. Assyrian and
Egyptian fragments of record show that in the thirty-seventh year of
his reign Nebuchadrezzar invaded Egypt and advanced to Syene (Ezek.
xxix. 10).

[912] 2 Macc. ii. 1-8; comp. xv. 13-16. The tradition is singular when
we recall the small store which Jeremiah set by the Ark (Jer. iii. 16).

[913] Evil-Merodach (Avil-Marduk, "Man of Merodach") only reigned two
years, and was then murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar
(Berosus _ap._ Jos.: comp. _Ap._, i. 20). The Rabbis have a
story--perhaps founded on that of Gaius and Agrippa I.--that
Evil-Merodach had been imprisoned by his father for wishing his death,
and in prison formed a friendship for Jehoiachin.

[914] "Lifted up his head." Comp. Gen. xl. 13, 20.

[915] To be thus ὁμοτράπεζος, or σύσσιτος, of the king was a high honour
(Herod., iii. 13, v. 24. Comp. Judg. i. 7; 2 Sam. ix. 13, etc.).




                                EPILOGUE

          "On Jordan's banks the Arab's camels stray,
           On Zion's hills the False One's votaries pray,
           The Baal-adorer bows on Sinai's steep;
           Yet there--e'en there--O God, Thy thunders sleep."
                                                    BYRON.

          "God, Thou art Love: I build my faith on that."
                                                  BROWNING.


Before concluding I should like to add a few words (1) on what some may
regard as the too favourable attitude towards what is called the "Higher
Criticism" adopted in this book; and (2) on the deep, essential, eternal
lessons which we have found in chapter after chapter of it.

1. As regards the first, I need only say that the one thing I seek,
the sole thing I care for, is Truth,--truth, not tradition. Even St.
Cyprian, devoted as he was to custom and tradition, warns us that
"Custom without Truth is only antiquated error," and that what we
believe must be established by reason, not prescribed by tradition.

And it cannot be laid down too clearly that the old view of
Inspiration--which defined it as consisting in verbal dictation, which
made the sacred writers "not only the penmen but the pens of the Holy
Spirit," and which spoke of every sentence, word, syllable, and every
letter of Scripture as Divine and infallible--was a dangerous and
absolute falsity, and that any attempt in these days to enforce it as
binding on the intellect and conscience of mankind could only lead to
the utter shipwreck of all sincere and reasonable religion. "Not
needlessly," says the learned author of _Italy and her
Invaders_--himself an able opponent of many modern conclusions on the
subject--"should I wish to shake even that faith which practically
believes that the whole Bible, exactly in its present shape, yes, almost
the English Bible just as we have it, came straight down from heaven.
But we do want to get away from all mere theories as to the way in which
God _might_ have revealed Himself, and to learn as much as we can of the
way in which He _has_ revealed Himself in actual fact, and in real human
lives."[916]

To do this has been one of my objects in this volume, and in the
preceding volume on the First Book of Kings.

2. We have now only to cast one last glance on this book, and on the
lessons which it is meant to teach.

Consider, first, its deep and varied interest. It has the combined
value of History and of Biography; and, in dealing with both, its aim
is to pass over all minor and earthly details, and to show the method
of God's dealings both with nations and with the individual soul.

If we look at the book only as a History, it shows us in the briefest
possible compass a series of national events of the greatest
importance in the annals of mankind. We become witnesses of the fierce
occasional struggles between Israel and Judah, and of the constant
warfare of both with those wild surrounding nations--the people of
Moab, and of Edom, Gebal, and Ammon, and Amalek, the Philistines also,
and them that dwell at Tyre. We watch the indomitable resistance of
Tyre to Assyria and Babylon. We see the Northern Kingdom of Israel
rise into wealth, power, and luxury, only to sink into deep moral
corruption, until, at last, the patience of God is exhausted, and He
obliterates its very existence in an apparently final and irremediable
overthrow. We witness the rise, culmination, and fall of Syria; the
culmination and the crashing overthrow of Nineveh; the rise and the
splendour of Babylon. We see the surging tide of the nomad Scythians
and Cimmerians rise into flood and ebb away with spent and shallow
waves. We see the petty fortress of Zion triumph in its defiance of
the mighty hosts of Sennacherib because it is strong in reliance upon
God, and we see it grow faithless to God until it succumbs to the
captains of Nebuchadrezzar. Again and again we observe that the
Almighty stills the raging of the sea, the noise of his waves, and the
madness of the people.

The conviction is borne upon our soul with overwhelming power, as we
read the pages of Amos, of Isaiah, and of Jeremiah, that, in spite of
all their rage and tumult, and apparently irresistible dominance, God
still sitteth above the water-floods, and God remaineth a King for ever.

Side by side with this spectacle of the dealing of God with nations, in
which we see written in large letters, in characters of blood and of
fire, His dealing with guilty nations, we have abundantly in these
chapters the narrower yet more intense interest which arises from the
contemplation of human nature--one and the same in its general elements,
but infinitely varied in its conditions--in the lives of individual men.
It is revealed to us as in a picture--it is brought home to us, not by
didactic inferences, but with the silent conviction which springs from
the evidence of facts--that wealth is nothing, and rank nothing, and
power nothing, but that the only thing of essential importance in human
lives is whether a man does that which is good or that which is evil in
the sight of the Lord. Good and bad kings pass before us; and though the
best kings, like Hezekiah and Josiah, were no more free from earthly
misfortune than are any of the saints of God--though Hezekiah had to
suffer anguish and humiliation, and Josiah died in defeat on the
battle-field,--yet we are irresistibly led to the belief: "Say ye of the
righteous that it shall be well with him; for they shall eat the fruit
of their doings. Woe unto the wicked! It shall be ill with him; for the
work of his hands shall be done to him."

We all have a guide in life. "We are not left to steer our course even
by the stars, which the clouds of earth may dim. The ship has something
on board which points towards the spiritual pole of the universe. I will
not venture to call it an _infallible_ guide. It wavers with tremulous
sensitiveness; it may be deflected by disturbing influences; but still
in the main it points with mysterious fidelity towards the pole of our
spirits, even God. And what is this compass which we have for our
guidance? Some would call it Conscience; but we call it by a holier
name, and say that even as the needle is acted on by the magnetic
current, so our spiritual compass is the spirit of man acted on by the
Spirit of the living and infinite God." The lesson of this book--of
every book of biography or of history--is that men are noble and useful
in proportion as they are true to that law of an enlightened conscience
which represents to them the will and the voice of God.

Ahaziah and Jehoram of Judah, tainted with the blood of Jezebel, and
perverted by the example of Ahab, live wretchedly, reign contemptibly,
and perish miserably; while good Jehoshaphat and pious Josiah are
richly blessed. In the vaunting elation of Amaziah, in the
blood-stained ferocity of Jehu, in the ruthless examples of usurpation
and murder set by king after king in Israel, and in the consequences
which befell them, we see that "fruit is seed." Shallum, Menahem,
Pekah, Athaliah, have to pay a terrible price for brief spells of
troubled royalty; and the slow corruption and disintegration of the
people reflects the vile example of their rulers. Like king, like
people; like people, like priest. We look on at a succession of
thrilling scenes--the horrors of beleaguered cities, the raptures of
unexpected deliverance, the insulting vanities of triumph; we hear the
wail that rises from long lines of fettered captives as they turn
their backs weeping upon their native land. And we are told "strange
stories of the deaths of kings." We see the King of Moab sacrificing
his eldest son to Chemosh upon the wall of Kir-Haraseth in the sight
of three invading hosts. We shudder to think of Ahaz and Manasseh
passing their children through the fire before the grim bull-headed
monster in the valley of the children of Hinnom. We see the two
ghastly piles of the heads of young princes on either side the gates
of Jezreel. We see Jehu driving his fierce chariot over the body of
the painted Tyrian Queen. We catch a glimpse of the sackcloth under
the purple of the King of Israel as he rends his clothes at the
horrible cry of mothers who have devoured their babes. We see the
child Joash standing with the high priest in the Temple amid the blast
of trumpets, while the alien murderess is pushed out and hewn to the
ground. We see Manasseh dragged with hooks to Babylon. We watch the
haggard face of the miserable Zedekiah as his sons are slaughtered
before the eyes which thenceforth are blinded for evermore. We burn
with indignation to see the villain Ishmael close with corpses the
well of Mizpah. But even when the phantasmagoria seems most appalling
and most bloody, we watch the Day-star from on high begin to shed its
glory over the grey east. In due time that Day-star was to rise in
men's hearts and on the world, with healing in His wings; and we feel
that somehow, beyond the smoke and stir of earth's anguish,

          "God's in His heaven,
           All's right with the world."

And like a Greek chorus amid the agonies of destiny stand the
prophets, those clearest and greatest of moral teachers. They, in
spite of their holiness and faithfulness, are not exempt from the
calamities of life. Amos was insulted and expelled by the high priest
of Bethel; Urijah was martyred; Hosea's prophecy is one long and
almost unbroken wail; Isaiah was mocked and slandered by the priests
of Jerusalem, and, if the tradition be true, sawn asunder; Micah,
though spared, prophesied under imminent peril; Jeremiah, saddest of
mankind, type of the suffering servant of Jehovah, was smitten in the
face by the priest Pashur, thrust into the stocks for the general
derision, flung into a deathful prison, let down into a miry well,
hurried into exile, defied, denounced, insulted, at last in all
probability martyred. Prophets in general were hated and disbelieved.
They were the eternal antagonists of priests and mobs. With priests
they had so little affinity, that when a prophet was born a priest,
like Jeremiah and Ezekiel, he might count on the undying hatred and
antagonism of his order. Priests, with scarcely an exception, under
every erring or apostatising king, from Rehoboam to Ahaz, from Ahaz to
Zedekiah, with a monotony of meanness, did nothing but acquiesce,
careful mainly for their own rights and revenues; prophets did little
but raise, against them and their party, an unavailing protest. When,
in the days of the priest-regent Jehoiada, the priests had power, he
had made a special ordinance that there should be overseers in the
Temple whose function it should be to put in the stocks and the collar
"every man that is mad, and that maketh himself a prophet";[917] and
Shemaiah was quite indignant that there should be any delay in putting
this convenient ordinance into force. Priests were chiefly absorbed in
functions and futilities in the exact spirit of their guilty
successors in the days of Christ. There could be little sympathy
between them and the inspired messengers who spoke of such reliance on
observances with almost passionate scorn, and to whom religion meant
righteousness towards men and faith in the Living God.

This high lesson of Prophecy came into greater prominence with each
succeeding generation. It had been taught by Amos, the first of the
literary prophets, with emphatic distinctness. It was summarised by
Hosea in words which our Saviour loved to quote: "Go ye and learn what
that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice." It had been
uttered by Micah in an outburst of splendid poetry which summed up all
that God requires. It was reiterated in many forms by Isaiah and by
Jeremiah in words of richer moral value than all that came from the
teaching of the priestly functionaries from the days when Aaron
seduced Israel with his golden calf till the days when Caiaphas and
Annas goaded the multitude to prefer Barabbas to Jesus, and to shout
of their Messiah, "Let Him be crucified."

It was the richest fruit which sprang from the long Divine discipline of
the nation,--the knowledge that outward things are of no avail to save
any man; that God requires righteousness, that God looketh at the heart.

And the prophets themselves had to learn by the irony of events that
no suppression of local sanctuaries under Hezekiah, no multiplication
of ceremonies and acceptance of Deuteronomic Codes under Josiah, were
deep enough to change men's hearts. Isaiah, like Amos, dwells with
anger on the reliance upon vain ritual, which is so cheap a substitute
for genuine holiness; and Jeremiah, despairing utterly of that
reformation under Josiah of which he had once felt hopeful, had to
denounce the new reliance on the Temple and its sacrifices. He
ultimately felt no confidence in anything except in a new covenant in
which God Himself would write His law upon men's hearts, and all
should know Him from the least even to the greatest.

But the History of Prophecy also in this epoch is marked by events of
world-wide importance. In the days of Isaiah we see the change of
Israel from a nation into a church of the faithful, for which alone he
has any permanent hope. In him, too, we hear the first distinct
utterances of the final form in which should be fulfilled the
Messianic hope. Under Jeremiah there was still further advance. He
points, as Joel does, to the epoch of the gift of the Holy Spirit, and
shows that God does not only deal with men as nations, or as churches,
or even as families, but as beings with individual souls.

This and much besides we have seen in the foregoing pages, in which we
have endeavoured to point the lessons of the Books of Kings. The one
main lesson which the narrative is meant to teach is absolute faith
and trust in God, as an anchor which holds amid the wildest storms of
ruin, and of apparently final failure. Not until we have realised that
truth can we hear the words of God, or see the vision of the Almighty.
When we have learnt it, we shall not fear, though the hills be moved
and carried into the midst of the sea. It is the lesson which gets
behind the meaning of failure, and raises us to a height from which we
can look down on prosperity as a thing which--except in fatally
delusive semblance--cannot exist apart from righteousness and faith.
This is the lesson of life, the lesson of lessons. If it does not
solve all problems on their intellectual side, it scatters all
perplexities in the spiritual sphere. It shows us that duty is the
reward of duty, and that there can be no happiness save for those who
have learnt that duty and blessedness are one. And thus even by this
book of annals--annals of wild deeds and troubled times--we may be
taught the truths which find their perfect illustration and proof in
the life and teaching of the Son of God. When those truths are our
real possession, the work of life is done. Then

          "Vigour may fail the towering fantasy,
           But yet the Will rolls onward, like a wheel
           In even motion by the love impelled
           That moves the sun in heaven and all the stars."

FOOTNOTES:

[916] T. Hodgkin, _Friends' Quarterly_, September 1893, p. 401.

[917] Jer. xxix. 25-27.




                               APPENDIX I

                _THE KINGS OF ASSYRIA, AND SOME OF THEIR
                             INSCRIPTIONS._


Dates from the _Eponym Canon_ and the Assyrian Monuments; Schrader,
_Cuneiform Inscriptions, and the Old Testament_, E. Tr., 1888, pp.
167-187.

  B.C.

  860.--Shalmaneser II.

  854.--Battle of Karkar. War with _Ahab_ and _Benhadad_.

  842.--War with Hazael. Tribute of _Jehu_.

  825.--Samsi-Ramman.[918]

  812.--Ramman-Nirari.

  783.--Shalmaneser III.

  773.--Assur-dan III.

  763.--June 15th. Eclipse of the sun.

  755.--Assur-Nirari.

  745.--Tiglath-Pileser II.

  742.--Azariah (Uzziah) heads a league of nineteen Hamathite
      districts against Assyria (?).

  740.--Death of Uzziah (?).

  738.--Tribute of Menahem, Rezin, and Hiram.

  734.--Expedition to Palestine against Pekah. Tribute of Ahaz.

  732.--Capture of Damascus. Death of Rezin. First actual
      collision between Israel and Assyria.

  728.--Hoshea refuses tribute.

  727.--Shalmaneser IV.

  724.--Siege of Samaria begun.

  722.--Sargon. Fall of Samaria.

  721.--Defeat of Merodach-Baladan.

  720.--Battle of Raphia. Defeat of Sabaco, King of Egypt.

  715.--Subjugated people deported to Samaria. Accession of
      Hezekiah.

  711.--Capture of Ashdod.

  707.--Building of great palace of Dur-Sarrukin.

  709.--Sargon expels Merodach-Baladan, and becomes King of
      Babylon.

  705.--Assassination (?) of Sargon.

  705.--Sennacherib.

  704.--Embassy of Merodach-Baladan to Hezekiah.

  703.--Belibus made King of Babylon.

  702.--Construction of the Bellino Cylinder.

  721.--Siege of Ekron. Defeat of Egypt at Altaqu. Siege of
      Jerusalem. Campaign against Hezekiah and Tirhakah
      disastrously concluded at Pelusium and Jerusalem.

  681.--Murder of Sennacherib.

  681.--Esar-haddon.

  676.--Manasseh pays tribute.

  668.--Assur-bani-pal (Sardanapalus).

  608.--Death of Josiah in the battle of Megiddo against Pharaoh
      Necho.

The dates and names of Assyrian kings as given in _Records of the
Past_ (ii. 207, 208) do not exactly accord with these in all cases.

                                             B.C.

  Tiglath-Pileser II.                        950
  Assur-dan II.                              930
  Rimmon-Nirari II.                          911
  Tiglath-Uras II.                           889
  Assur-natzu-pal                            883
  Shalmaneser II.                            858
  Assur-dain-pal (a rebel)                   825
  Samsi-Rimmon II.                           823
  Rimmon-Nirari III.                         810
  Shalmaneser III.                           781
  Assur-dan III.                             771
  Assur-Nirari                               753
  Tiglath-Pileser III. (Pul)                 745
  Shalmaneser IV. (an usurper)               727
  Sargon (Jareb?) (usurper)                  722
  Sennacherib                                705
  Esar-haddon I.                             681
  Assur-bani-pal                             668
  *       *       *       *       *       *
  Destruction of Nineveh under Esar-haddon
      II., or Sarakos                        606


          INSCRIPTION OF SHALMANESER II. ON THE BLACK OBELISK
                        IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM[919]

It begins with an invocation to the gods Rimmon, Adar, Merodach,
Nergal, Beltis, Istar, and proceeds:--

"I am Shalmaneser, the strong king, king of all the four Zones of the
Sun, the marcher over the whole world, ... who has laid his yoke upon
all lands hostile to him, and has swept them like a whirlwind."

It tells of his campaigns against the Hittites etc., etc.

The allusion to Jehu runs as follows:--

"The tribute of Yahua, son of Khumri, silver, gold, bowls of gold,
vessels of gold, goblets of gold, pitchers of gold, lead, sceptres for
the king's hand, staves, I received."

This inscription is supplemented by another on a monolith found at
Karkh, twenty miles from Diarbekr (_Records_, iii 81-100), which
mentions the battle of Karkar, with its slaughter of fourteen thousand
of the enemy, among whom was Sirlai--_i.e._, Ahab of Israel.


                                   II

                  TIGLATH-PILESER II. (CIRC. B.C. 739)

In his Records he mentions no less than five Hebrew kings--Azariah,
Jehoahaz (Ahaz), Menahem, Pekah, Hoshea--as well as Rezin of Damascus,
Hiram of Tyre, etc. His name perhaps means "He who puts his trust in
Adar." See _Records of the_ _Past_, v. 45-52; Schrader, _Keilinschr._,
pp. 149-151; G. Smith, _Assyrian Discoveries_, pp. 254-287.

Unfortunately the inscriptions are very mutilated and fragmentary.


                                  III

Our chief knowledge of SARGON is from the great inscription in the
Palace of Khorsabad. It is translated by Prof. Dr. Jules Oppert,
_Records of the Past_, ix. 1-21. The king's inscription at Bavian,
north-east of Mosul, is in the same volume, pp. 21-28, translated by
Dr. T. G. Pinches. See, too, _id._, vii. 21-56, xi. 15-40.

The Khorsabad inscription has these passages:--

"The great gods have made me happy by the constancy of their affection;
they have granted me the exercise of my sovereignty over all kings."

He says:--

"I besieged and occupied the town of Samaria; I took twenty-seven
thousand two hundred and eighty of its inhabitants captive. I took
from them fifty chariots, but left them the rest of their belongings.
I placed my lieutenants over them; I renewed the obligations imposed
upon them _by one of the kings who preceded me_." [Tiglath-Pileser,
whom Sargon does not choose to name.]

"Hanun, King of Gaza, and Sabaco, Sultan of Egypt, allied themselves
at _Raphia_ to oppose me. I put them to flight. Sabaco fled, and no
one has seen any trace of him since. I imposed a tribute on Pharaoh,
King of Egypt."

He tells us that he defeated the usurper Ilubid of Hamath, who had
been a smith; burnt Karkar; and flayed Ilubid alive.

He defeated Azuri and Jaman of Ashdod, and his most persistent enemy,
Merodach-Baladan, son of Jakin, King of Chaldæa.

He ends with a prayer that Assur may bless him.


                                   IV

Bellino's Cylinder comprises the first two years of SENNACHERIB. It is
translated by Mr. H. F. Talbot, _Records of the Past_, i. 22-32. It
was published by Layard in the first volume of _British Museum
Inscriptions_, pl. 63. The facsimile of it was made by Bellino.

It begins:--

"SENNACHERIB, the great king, the powerful king, the king of Assyria,
the king unrivalled, the pious monarch, the worshipper of the great
gods, ... the noble warrior, the valiant hero, the first of all kings,
the great punisher of unbelievers who are breakers of the holy
festivals.

"Assur, my lord, has given me an unrivalled monarchy. Over all princes
he has raised triumphantly my arms.

"In the beginning of my reign I defeated Marduk-Baladan, King of
Babylon, and his allies the Elamites, in the plains near the city of
Kish. He fled alone; he got into the marshes full of reeds and rushes,
and so saved his life."

(He proceeds to narrate the spoiling of Marduk's camp, and his palace
in Babylon, and how he carried off his wife, his harem, his nobles.)

We see here an illustration of the vaunting tones of this king which
are so faithfully reproduced in 2 Kings xviii.

His Bull Inscription, chiefly relating to his defeats of
Merodach-Baladan, is translated by Rev. J. M. Rodwell (_Records of the
Past_, vii. 57-64).


                                   V

The Taylor Cylinder, so called from its former possessor, is a hexagonal
clay prism found at Nineveh in 1830, and now in the British Museum
(translated by Mr. H. F. Talbot, _Records of the Past_, i. 33-53).

The first two campaigns of Sennacherib are related as on the Bellino
Cylinder. The Taylor Cylinder narrates campaigns of his first eight
years.

The story of the third campaign narrates the defeat of Elulæus, King
of Sidon; the tribute of Menahem, King of Samaria; the defeat of
Zidka, King of Askelon; the revolt of Ekron, which deposed the
Assyrian vassal Padi, and sent him in iron chains to Hezekiah; the
battle of Egypt and Ethiopia at Altaqu (Eltekon, Josh. xv. 59), and
the capture of Timnath. Of Hezekiah the king says:--

"And Hezekiah, King of Judah, who had not bowed down at my feet,
forty-six of his strong cities, castles, and smaller towns, with
warlike engines, I captured; 200,500 people, small and great, male and
female, horses, sheep, etc., without number, I carried off. Himself I
shut up like a bird in a cage inside Jerusalem. Siege-towers against
him I constructed. I gave his plundered cities to the kings of Ashdod,
Ekron, and Gaza. I diminished his kingdom; I augmented his tribute.
The fearful splendour of my majesty had overwhelmed him. The horsemen,
soldiers, etc., which he had collected for the fortification of
Jerusalem his royal city, now carried tribute, thirty talents of gold,
eight hundred of silver, scarlet, embroidered woven cloth, large
precious stones, ivory couches and thrones, skins, precious woods; his
daughters, his harem, his male and female slaves, unto Nineveh, my
royal city, after me he sent; and to pay tribute he sent his envoy."

He then narrates his fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh campaigns
against Elam, etc. His eighth was against "the children of Babylon,
wicked devils," etc. He ends by describing the splendour of the palace
which he built.


                                   VI

An inscription of ESAR-HADDON, found at Kouyunjik, now in the British
Museum, mentions his receipt of the intelligence of his father's
murder by his unnatural brothers, while he was commanding his fathers
army on the northern confines.

"From my heart I made a vow. My liver was inflamed with rage.
Immediately I wrote letters, saying I assumed the sovereignty of my
Father's House." He prayed to the gods and goddesses; they encouraged
him, and in spite of a great snowstorm he reached Nineveh, and defeated
his brother, because Istar stood by his side and said to their army, "An
unsparing deity am I" (_Records of the Past_, iii, 100-108).


                                  VII

A terra-cotta cylinder of ASSUR-BANI-PAL (the Sardanapalus of the
Greeks) is now in the British Museum. It is translated by Mr. G.
Smith, _Records of the Past_, i. 55-106, ix. 37-64; Oppert, _Mémoire
sur les Rapports de l'Egypte et l'Assyrie_; and G. Smith, _Annals of
Assur-bani-pal_.

Its most interesting parts relate to the campaign of his father
Esar-haddon against Egypt, and how Tirhakah, King of Egypt and
Ethiopia, reoccupied Memphis. He defeated the army of Tirhakah, who,
to save his life, fled from Memphis to Thebes. The Assyrians then took
Thebes, and restored Necho's father, Psamatik I., to Memphis and Sais,
and other Egyptian kings, friends of Assyria, who had fled before
Tirhakah. The kings, however, proved ungrateful, and made a league
against him. He therefore threw them into fetters, and had them
brought to Nineveh, but subsequently released Necho with splendid
presents. Tirhakah fled to Ethiopia, where he "went to his place of
night"--_i.e._, died.

FOOTNOTES:

[918] Up to the time of Tiglath-Pileser II., the Eponym Year (which is
not here given) marks the second complete year of each king's reign.

[919] This Shalmaneser died about B.C. 825, after a reign of
thirty-five years (Sayce in _Records of the Past_, v. 27-42; Oppert,
_Hist. des Empires de Chaldée et d'Assyrie_; Ménant, _Annales des Rois
d'Assyrie_, 1874).




                              APPENDIX II

                 _INSCRIPTION IN THE TUNNEL OF SILOAM_


The inscription of Siloam is the oldest known Hebrew inscription. "It is
engraved on the rocky wall of the subterranean channel which conveys the
water of the Virgin's Spring at Jerusalem into the Pool of Siloam. In
the summer of 1880 one of the native pupils of Dr. Schick, a German
architect, was playing with other lads in the Pool, and while wading up
the subterranean channel slipped and fell into the water. On rising to
the surface he noticed, in spite of the darkness, what looked like
letters on the rock which formed the southern wall of the channel. Dr.
Schick visited the spot, and found that an ancient inscription,
concealed for the most part by the water, actually existed there." The
level of the water was lowered, but the inscription had been partly
filled up with a deposit of lime, and the first intelligible copy was
made by Professor Sayce in February 1881, and six weeks later by Dr.
Guthe. Professor Sayce had to sit for hours in the mud and water,
working under masonry or earth. There can be little doubt that this work
is alluded to in 2 Kings xx. 20; 2 Chron. xxxii. 30; Isa. viii. 6 ("the
waters of Shiloah ["the tunnel"?] which flow softly").

The alphabet is that used by the prophets before the exile, somewhat
like that on the Moabite Stone, and on early Israelitish and Jewish
seals. The language is pure Hebrew, with only one unknown
word--_zadah_, in line three: perhaps "excess" or "obstacle."

Professor Sayce thinks that it proves that "the City of David" (Zion)
must have been on the southern hill, the so-called Ophel. If so, the
Valley of the Sons of Hinnom must be the rubbish-choked Tyropœon,
under which must be the tombs of the kings, and the relics of the
Temple and Palace destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar.

The inscription is:--

"The excavation! Now this is the history of the excavation. While the
excavators were lifting up the pick each towards his neighbour, and
while there were yet three cubits [to excavate], there was heard the
voice of one man calling to his neighbour, for there was an excess in
the rock on the right hand [and on the left?]. And after that on the
day of excavating, the excavators had struck pick against pick, one
against another, the water flowed from the spring [_môtsâ_, "exit," 2
Chron. xxxii. 30] to the Pool" (that of Siloam, which therefore was
the only one which then existed) "for twelve hundred cubits. And
[part] of a cubit was the height of the rock over the head of the
excavators" (Sayce, _Records of the Past_, i. 169-175).

The letters are on an artificial tablet cut in the wall of rock,
nineteen feet from where the subterranean conduit opens on the Pool of
Siloam, and on the right-hand side. The conduit is at first sixteen
feet high, but lessens in one place to no more than two feet. It is,
according to Captain Conder, seventeen hundred and eight yards long,
but not in a straight line, as there are two _culs-de-sac_, caused by
faulty engineering. The engineers, beginning, as at Mount Cenis, from
opposite ends, intended to meet in the middle, but failed. The floor
has been rounded to allow the water to flow more easily. It is a
splendid piece of engineering for that age.

The Pool of Siloam is at the south-east end of a hill which lies to
the south of the Temple hill: the Virgin's Fountain is on the opposite
side of the hill, more to the north, and is the only natural spring or
"Gihon" near Jerusalem, so that its water was of supreme importance.
Being outside the city wall, a conduit was necessary. Hezekiah
"stopped all the fountains" (2 Chron. xxxii. 4)--_i.e._, concealed
them. By providing a subterranean channel for them, he saved them from
the enemy and secured the water-supply of the besieged city.




                              APPENDIX III

                   _WAS THERE A GOLDEN CALF AT DAN?_


The question might seem absurd, but for its solution I must refer to
my paper on the subject in the _Expositor_ for October 1893.

The _sole_ authorities for a calf at Dan are 1 Kings xii. 28-30; 2
Kings x. 29. If in the former passage we alter _one letter_, and read
האפד (the "ephod") for האחד (the "one")--as Klostermann suggests--we
throw light on an obscure and perhaps corrupt passage. The allusion
then would be to Micah's old idolatrous image (which _may_ have been a
calf) at Dan. The two words "and in Dan" in 2 Kings x. 29 may easily
have been (as Klostermann thinks) an exegetical gloss added from the
error of one letter in 1 Kings xii. 30.

Dan was a most unlikely place to select: for (1) It was a remote
frontier town; and (2) there was no room, and no necessity there, for
a new cultus beside the ancient one established some centuries
earlier, and still served by priests who were direct lineal
descendants of Moses (Judg. xviii. 30, 31).

This would further account for the absolute silence of prophets and
historians about any golden calf at Dan; and it adds to the inherent
probability, also supported by some evidence, that there were _two_
cherubic calves at Bethel.

For further arguments I must refer to my paper.




                              APPENDIX IV

              _DATES OF THE KINGS OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH, AS
              GIVEN BY KITTEL AND OTHER MODERN CRITICS[920]_


                                 ISRAEL

                                B.C.

  Ahaziah                     855-854
  Jehoram                     854-842
  Jehu                        842-814
  Jehoahaz                    814-797
  Joash                       797-781
  Jeroboam II.                781-740
  Zachariah                       740
  Shallum                         740
  Menahem                     740-737
  Pekahiah                    737-735
  Pekah                       735-734
  Hoshea                      734-725

                                 JUDAH

                                B.C.

  Jehoram ben-Jehoshaphat     851-843
  Ahaziah ben-Jehoram         843-842
  Athaliah                    842-836
  Joash ben-Ahaziah           836-796
  Amaziah                     796-783
  Amaziah-Uzziah              783-737
  Jotham                      737-735
  Ahaz                        735-715
  Hezekiah                    715-686

  Manasseh                    686-641
  Amon                        641-639
  Josiah                      639-608
  Jehoahaz                        608
  Jehoiakim                   608-597
  Jehoiachin                      597
  Zedekiah                    597-586

FOOTNOTE:

[920] Many of these dates can only be regarded as uncertain and
approximate. Kamphausen dates the commencement of all the latter kings
a year later (_Die Chronologie der hebräischen Könige_, Bonn, 1883).




Transcriber's Notes:


Obvious punctuation and spelling errors have been fixed throughout.

Inconsistent hyphenation left as in the original text.

Missing footnote anchors have been placed, when possible to determine
placement.

Footnote 198: Greek has been corrected to add accents.

Footnote 215: Greek has been corrected.