2 Kings 1:1-18 THE REVOLT OF MOAB. THE ILLNESS, IMPIETY, AND DEATH OF AHAZIAH The narrative of the Second Book of Kings follows on that of the First Book in the closest possible sequence. The history of Ahaziah’s reign begins in 1 Kings 22:51, and is carried on, without any real break or pause in the sense, to 2 Kings 1:18. How the two books came to be divided at this point is quite inexplicable. The division is most unhappy. Not only does it, without apparent reason, draw a strong line of demarcation in the middle of a reign; but it separates what it was evidently the intention of the writer most closely to connect—viz. the sins of the monarch and their punishment. Ahaziah began his reign by openly showing himself a devotee of Baal—by "walking in the way of his father and in the way of his mother," the wicked Jezebel: therefore calamity immediately smote him—first Moab rebelled, threw off the Israelite yoke, and re-established its independence; and then, within a short space, Ahaziah himself met with an accident which produced a dangerous illness. The writer relates barely the former fact, but enlarges on the latter, which gave occasion for one of the most remarkable of the miracles of Elijah. 2 Kings 1:1 Then Moab rebelled; literally, and Moab rebelled, but with an idea, not merely of sequence, but of consequence. The "Moabite Stone," discovered in 1869, throws considerable light on the character and circumstances of this rebellion. Moab had, we know, been subjected by David (2 Samuel 8:2), and had been very severely treated. Either in the reign of Solomon, or more probably at his death, and the disruption of his kingdom, the Moabites had revolted, and resumed an independent position, which they had maintained until the reign of Omri. Omri, who was a warlike monarch, the greatest of the Israelite monarchs after Jeroboam, after settling himself firmly upon the throne of Israel, attacked the Moabite territory, and in a short time reduced it, making the native king, Chemosh-gad, his tributary. At the death of Omri, Ahab succeeded to the suzerainty, and maintained it during his lifetime, exacting a tribute that was felt as a severe "oppression". The death of Ahab in battle and the defeat of his army encouraged Mesha, who had succeeded his father, Chemosh-gad, to raise the standard of revolt once more, and to emancipate his country after a period of subjection which he estimates roughly at "forty years." The "Stone" is chiefly occupied with an account of the steps by which he recovered his territory. After the death of Ahab. Probably, as soon as he heard of it. In Oriental empires the death of a brave and energetic monarch is constantly the signal for a general revolt of the subject peoples. They entertain a hope that his successor will not inherit his vigor and capacity. 2 Kings 1:2 Ahaziah fell down through a lattice; rather, through the lattice. It is implied that the upper chamber had a single window, which was closed by a single lattice, or shutter of interlaced woodwork. The shutter may have been insufficiently secured; or the woodwork may have been too weak to bear his weight, Compare the fall of Eutychus (Acts 20:9), where, however, there is no mention of a "lattice." Was sick; i.e. "was so injured that he had to take to his bed." Inquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron. As a worshipper of Baal, bent on walking in the evil way of his father and of his mother (1 Kings 22:52), Ahaziah would naturally inquire of some form of the Baal divinity. Why he chose "Baal-zebub the god of Ekron," it is impossible to say. Perhaps Baal-zebub had at the time a special reputation for giving oracular responses. Perhaps the Ekron temple was, of all the ancient sites of the Baal-worship, the one with which he could most readily communicate. Philistia lay nearer to Samaria than Phoenicia did, and of the Philistine towns Ekron (now Akir) was the most northern, and so the nearest. "Baal-zebub" has been thought by some to be equivalent to "Beel-samen," "the lord of heaven"—a divine title well known to the Phoenicians; but this view is etymologically unsound, since zebub cannot possibly mean "heaven." "Baal-zebub" is "the lord of flies "—either the god who sends them as a plague on any nation that offends him (setup. Exodus 8:21-31), or the god who averts them from his votaries and favorites, an equivalent of the Greek Ζεὺςἀπόμυιος, or the Roman "Jupiter Myiagrus," flies being in the East not infrequently a terrible plague. The Septuagint translation, Βάαλμυΐαν, though inaccurate, shows an appreciation of the true etymology. Of this disease; rather, of this illness (ἐκτῆςἀρρωστίαςμουταύτης, LXX.). 2 Kings 1:3 The angel of the Lord. It would be better to translate, with the LXX; an angel (ἄγγελος, not ὁἄγγελος). An angel had appeared to Elijah on a previous occasion (1 Kings 19:5, 1 Kings 19:7). Elijah the Tishbite. Arise, go up. Elijah was, apparently, in the low tract of the Shefelah, or in Sharon, when the messengers started, and was thus commanded to go up and meet them, or intercept them on their journey before they descended into the plain. God would not have the insult to his majesty, carried out. Is it not because there is not a God in Israel? rather, Is it that there is no God at all in Israel? The double negative is intensitive, and implies that the king’s consultation of Baal-zebub, god of Ekron, is a complete and absolute denial of the Divinity of Jehovah. To consult a foreign oracle is equivalent to raying that the voice of God is wholly silent in one’s own land. This was going further in apostasy than Ahab had gone (see 1 Kings 22:6-9). 2 Kings 1:4 Now therefore. The word translated, "therefore" (לָכֵן) is emphatic, and means "for this reason," "on this account." Because Ahaziah had apostatized from Cod, God sentenced him to die from the effects of his fall, and not to recover. It is implied that he might have recovered if he had acted otherwise. And Elijah departed; i.e. quitted the messengers, showing that his errand was accomplished—he had said all that he was commissioned to say. 2 Kings 1:5 And when the messengers turned back; rather, when the messengers returned; i.e. when they reached the presence of Ahaziah, he perceived at once that they could not have been to Ekron and come back in the time. He therefore inquired of them, Why are ye now turned back? "Why have ye not completed your journey?" 2 Kings 1:6 There came a man. It is not likely that the messengers did not know Elijah by sight. He was too prominent a person in the history of the time, and too remarkable in his appearance, not to have been recognized, at any rate by some of them. But they thought it best to keep back the prophet’s name, and to call him simply "a man" (ish)—perhaps actuated by good will towards Elijah, perhaps by a fear for their own safety, such as had been felt by Obadiah (1 Kings 18:8-14). 2 Kings 1:7 What manner of man was he? literally, what was the manner of the man? What was his appearance? Were there any marks about him by which he might be recognized and known? Ahaziah may have already suspected that the man who had denounced woe on him would be the same who had denounced woe on his father (see 1 Kings 21:20-22). 2 Kings 1:8 A hairy man; literally, a lord of hair (בַּעַל שַׂעָר). Some take the meaning to be that he was rough and unkempt, with his hair and beard long; and so the LXX; who give ἀνὴρδασύς. But the more usual explanation is that he wore a shaggy coat of untanned skin, with the hair outward. Such a garment seems certainly to have been worn by the later prophets (Zechariah 13:4; Matthew 3:4), and to have been regarded as a sign of their profession. But there is no positive evidence that the dress had been adopted by Isaiah’s time. Girt with a girdle of leather. Generally the Israelites wore girdles of a soft material, as linen or cotton. The "curious girdle" of the high priest’s ephod was of "fine twined linen," embroidered with gold, and blue, and purple, and scarlet (Exodus 28:8). Girdles of leather, rough and uncomfortable, would only be worn by the very poor and by the ascetic. Elijah may have adopted his rough and coarse costume, either to show contempt for things earthly, as Hengstenberg thinks; or as a penitential garb indicating sorrow for the sins of the people, as Keil supposes; or simple to chastise and subdue the flesh, as other ascetics. It is Elijah the Tishbite. The description given is enough. The king has no longer any doubt. His suspicion is turned into certainty. There is no living person hut Elijah who would at once have the boldness to prophesy the death of the king, and would wear such a costume as described. Elijah is, of course, his enemy, as he had been his father’s "enemy" (1 Kings 21:20), and will wish him ill, and prophesy accordingly, the wish being "father to the thought." It is not improbable that Elijah had withdrawn himself into obscurity on the accession of Ahaziah, or at any rate on his exhibition of strong idolatrous proclivities (Ewald), as he had done on more than one occasion from Ahab (1 Kings 17:10; 1 Kings 19:8). Ahaziah may have been long wishing to arrest and imprison him, and now thought he saw his opportunity. 2 Kings 1:9 The king sent unto him a captain of fifty. "Captains of fifties" were first instituted in the wilderness by the advice of Jethro (Exodus 18:21-25). Though not expressly mentioned in the military organization of David, they probably formed a part of it, and so passed into the institutions of the kingdom of Israel. With his fifty. Some recognition of Elijah’s superhuman power would seem to have led Ahaziah to send so large a body. His doing so was a sort of challenge to the prophet to show whether Ahaziah or the God whom he represented was the stronger. The circumstances recall those of the "band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees" (John 18:3), which was sent, "with swords and staves," to arrest another righteous Person. He sat on the top of a hill; literally, on the top of the hill (ἐπὶτῆςκορυφῆςτοῦὄρους, LXX.). The high ground where Elijah had met the messengers (2 Kings 1:3) seems to be intended. When they were gone, the prophet took his seat on the highest point, conspicuous on all sides, so avoiding any attempt at concealment, and awaiting the next step that the king would take, calmly and quietly. He spake unto him; Thou man of God. The captain is thought by some to have spoken ironically; hut there is no evidence of this. The address is respectful, submissive. The miraculous powers of Elijah (1 Kings 17:22; 1 Kings 18:38) were probably known to the officer, who hoped by the tone of his address to escape the prophet’s anger. In the same spirit he avoids issuing any command of his own, and prefers simply to deliver the king’s command—The king hath said, Come down. 2 Kings 1:10 And Elijah answered … let fire come down. The LXX. render, καταβήσεταιπῦρ—"fire will come down;" and so some moderns, who are anxious to clear the prophet of the charges of cruelty and bloodthirstiness which have been brought against him. But there is no need of altering the translation, Elijah undoubtedly "commanded fire to come down from heaven" (Luke 9:54), or, in other words, prayed to God that it might come down, and in answer to his prayer the fire fell. The narrative may be set aside as an embellishment of later times, having no historical foundation, by those who (like Ewald) deny that miracles are possible; but, if it be accepted, it must be accepted as it stands, and Elijah must be regarded, not as having merely prophesied a result, but as having been instrumental in producing it. We must judge Elijah, not by the ideas of our own day, but by those of the age wherein he lived. He was raised up to vindicate God’s honor, to check and punish idolatry, to keep alive a faithful remnant in Israel, when all the powers of the earth were leagued together to destroy and smother true religion. He was an embodiment of the Law—of absolute, strict, severe justice. The fair face of mercy was not revealed to him. Already, at Carmel, he had executed the Divine vengeance on idolaters after an exemplary fashion (1 Kings 18:40). Now, Ahaziah, the son of the wicked Jezebel, had challenged Jehovah to a trial of strength by first ignoring him, and then sending a troop of soldiers to arrest his prophet. Was Elijah to succumb without an effort, or was he to vindicate the majesty and honor of Jehovah? He had no power of himself to do either good or harm. He could but pray to Jehovah, and Jehovah, in his wisdom and perfect goodness, would either grant or refuse his prayer. If he granted it, the punishment inflicted would not be Elijah’s work, but his. To tax Elijah with cruelty is to involve God in the charge. God regarded it as a fitting time for making a signal example, and, so regarding it, he inspired a spirit of indignation in the breast of his prophet, who thereupon made the prayer which he saw fit to answer. The judgment was in accordance with the general tone and tenor of the Law, which assigns "tribulation and anguish to every soul of man that doeth evil" (Romans 2:9), and visits with death every act of rebellion against God. There came down fire. Josephus says that the "fire" was a flash of lightning (πρηστήρ), and so the commentators generally. 2 Kings 1:11 Again also; rather, and again (see the Revised Version). He answered and said; rather, he spoke and said (ἐλάησεκαὶεἴτε, LXX.). Come down quickly. The king has grown impatient. It is conceivable that the death of the first captain with his band of fifty had been kept from him, and that he was only aware of an unaccountable delay. He therefore changes his order from "Come down" to "Come down quickly." 2 Kings 1:13 A captain of the third fifty; rather, the captain of a third fifty (see the Revised Version). This captain went up—i.e. ascended the hill on which Elijah was still seated, and there fell on his knees, or bowed himself down, before the prophet, as suppliants were wont to do, beseeching his compassion. The fate of the two former captains had become known to him by some means or other, and this induced him to assume an attitude, not of command, but of submission. He acknowledged that the prophet held his life and the lives of his fifty men at his free disposal, and begged that they might be precious in his sight, or, in other words, that he would spare them. What response Elijah would have made, had he been left to himself, is uncertain. But he was not left to himself. An angel of God again appeared to him, and directed his course of action. 2 Kings 1:15 Go down with him: be not afraid of him; i.e. "descend the hill with him—have no fear of him, accompany him to the presence of the king; do my will, and there shall no harm happen unto thee." And he arose, and went down. Elijah showed no hesitation, no fear, no undue regard for his own personal safety. He had been contending for God’s honor, not for his own advantage. Now that God bade him contend no more, but yield, he complied promptly, and ceased all resistance. 2 Kings 1:16 He said unto him; i.e. Elijah said to the king. Introduced into the royal presence, as a prisoner, perhaps fettered and chained, the prophet in no way lowered his tone or abated from the severity of his speech. Distinctly, in the plainest possible words, he warned the monarch that his end approached—he would never quit the bed whereon he lay, but, because he had insulted Jehovah by sending to consult the god of Ekron, would surely die. Apparently the king, abashed and confounded, released the prophet, and allowed him to go his way. Thus saith the Lord. Elijah rehearses the words of the message which he had sent by the first of the three captains (see 2 Kings 1:6). Thus saith the Lord, Forasmuch as thou hast sent messengers to inquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron, is it not because there is no God in Israel to inquire of his word! Therefore thou shalt not come down off that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die. God’s determinations are unalterable. 2 Kings 1:17 So he died according to the word of the Lord which Elijah had spoken. Not only did he die in consequence of his fall without once quitting his bed, but his death was, as Elijah had said, a judgment on his sin in sending to consult Baal-zebub. REIGN OF JEHORAM. 2 Kings 1:17 And Jehoram—or, Joram LXX; "whom Jehovah exalts;" another evidence that Ahab did not regard himself as having abandoned altogether the worship of Jehovah (see the comment on 1 Kings 22:40)—reigned in his stead ("his brother," אציו, has probably fallen out after "Jehoram," and requires to be inserted in order to give force to the last clause of the verse) in the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat King of Judah. In 2 Kings 3:1 it is said that Jehoram, the son of Ahab and brother of Ahaziah, began to reign over Israel in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat himself. The apparent discrepancy is reconciled by supposing that Jehoshaphat associated his son Jehoram in the kingdom in his seventeenth year, when he was about to enter upon the Syrian war, so that the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat was also the second year of Jehoram. It is certain that association was largely practiced in Egypt at a date long anterior to Jehoshaphat, and David’s proclamation of Solomon as king was an association, so that the explanation is not untenable. On the other hand, the difficulties of the chronology of 2 Kings are so numerous and so great as to defy complete reconciliation, and to lead to a suspicion that the numbers have either suffered extensive corruption, or have been manipulated by an unskillful reviser. Because he had no son; i.e. because he, Ahaziah, had no son, he was succeeded by his younger brother, Jehoram. 2 Kings 1:18 Now the rest of the acts of Ahaziah which he did. These may have included some months of warfare against Mesha, King of Moab, who seems to have rebelled at the very beginning of Ahaziah’s reign (2 Kings 1:1 and 2 Kings 3:5). Mesha’s war of independence consisted of a succession of sieges, whereby he recovered one by one the various strongholds in his territory, which were occupied by the Israelites—Medeba, Ataroth, Nebo, Jahaz, Horonaim, and others—expelling the foreign garrisons, rebuilding or strengthening the fortifications, and occupying the cities by garrisons of his own. On one occasion, at the siege of Nebo, he declares that he killed seven thousand men. He found in the town a place of worship containing vessels, which he regarded as "vessels of Jehovah" (Moabite Stone, line 18); these he took? and dedicated them to Chemosh, the special god of Moab. How much of the war fell into the reign of Ahaziah, and how much into that of Jehoram his brother, is uncertain. Are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the tines of Israel? Mesha’s stone is a striking testimony to the contemporary record of historical events by the Palestinian monarchs of the time, which has sometimes been doubted. 2 Kings 1:1-18 The short reign of Ahaziah: his sins, and their punishment. For homiletic purposes we must attach to this chapter the last three verses of the First Book of the Kings. We find in that passage a short but very complete account of the general character of Ahaziah’s sins; we find in this chapter a tolerably full account of one great act of sin, and a clear declaration of the manner in which that act and his other sins were punished. It will be well to consider separately (1) the sins; (2) their aggravations; and (3) their punishment. I. THE SINS. These were three in number: (1) walking in the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat (1 Kings 22:52), or maintaining the calf-worship—the hereditary will-worship of the northern kingdom, introduced by Jeroboam, the first non-Davidic king, and thenceforth continued uninterruptedly by each successive Israelite monarch; (2) walking in the way of his father—neglecting the worship of Jehovah, persecuting his prophets, practically proscribing the old religion, and probably ruling with harshness and cruelty; and (3) walking in the way of his mother—"serving Baal and worshipping him (1 Kings 22:53), maintaining the Phoenician sensualistic cult, which Jezebel had introduced from Zidon (1 Kings 16:31), and which was of a most demoralizing and debasing character. It was, primarily, under this third head that the special act of sin fell which forms the main subject of 2 Kings 1:1-18. II. THEIR . Ahaziah might have been expected to have learnt wisdom by experience, to have taken to heart the warning ’furnished by his father’s life and death, and at least to have avoided the sins which had brought down upon the king and upon the kingdom so terrible a blow, so signal and severe a punishment. But, on the contrary, he went beyond his father in the great sin for which his lather was punished, viz. apostasy from Jehovah to Baal. Ahab had always been half-hearted in his irreligion—he would, and he would not; he strove to combine an acknowledgment of Jehovah with a practical devotion to his rival; he gave both his sons names which placed them under the protection of Israel’s true God; he at one time "humbled himself before Jehovah" and "fasted, and lay in sackcloth, and went softly" (1 Kings 21:27, 1 Kings 21:29); he consented to inquire of a prophet of the Lord at the request of Jehoshaphat (1 Kings 22:9); he had no dealings, that we know of, with the foreign Baalistic temples or oracles which abounded in Phoenicia and Philistia, and thus did not, at any rate, parade his contempt of Jehovah in the eyes of the adjoining nations. Ahaziah acted differently. He was a consistent, thorough-faced, out-and-out idolater. Jehovah was nothing to him; Baal was everything. We ought, perhaps, to view it as some extenuation of his sin that he would naturally be influenced to some extent by his mother, whatever her character, and that the strong, firm, and fierce character of Jezebel would naturally influence him to a large extent. But men are not mere creatures of circumstances; they have the power to resist influences no less than to yield to them, and are bound to consider the nature of the influences surrounding them, and to resist such as they perceive to be bad. There is no evidence that Ahaziah offered any resistance at all to Jezebel’s influences. He was the weak son of a wicked mother, and simply "walked in her way," As Ewald says, he "exhibited a far more decided inclination than Ahab had done to all sorts of heathenish superstitions". He made a parade of his Baalistic leanings. He was obdurate and persistent, and despised warning after warning. A cruel hardness of heart, quite equal to his mother’s, is shown in his exposing to probable death a second and a third body of fifty men, rather than submit to Elijah, and own himself in the wrong. Thus he would appear to have reached, in his comparatively short life, a deeper depth of moral evil than his father in his longer one. III. THEIR . The revolt of the subject kingdom of Moab was the first punishment which befell the apostate king. He had to determine, on ascending the throne, what line he would take in religious matters—whether he would maintain or abolish the Baal-worship, whether he would maintain or abolish the worship of the calves, whether he would persecute or protect the adherents of the Jehovistic religion. He decided to "walk in the way of his father and of his mother," and at once the first blow fell Moab revolted, and was successful. The mere attempt at revolt might have happened in any case, for Mesha would naturally have seized such an opportunity as the death of Ahab under such circumstances offered. But the God of battles determines success or failure, and Mesha’s unbroken series of victories (Moabite Stone, lines 9-33) were the consequence of Ahaziah’s guilt. As usual, "for the king’s offence the people bled." Seven thousand Israelite warriors were destroyed in one siege; the women and children were taken prisoners, and "devoted to Ashtar-Chemosh." There was widespread and extreme suffering. This should not surprise us. There is a solidarity between a king and his people, which unites them almost indissolubly in their fortunes and in their sins. The people follow the king’s example, and, partaking in his guilt, naturally and justly partake in his punishment. The king’s second punishment was personal It was permitted that an accident should befall him. Sitting in an upper chamber, i.e. in one not upon the ground floor, which had a latticed window, opening out probably on a garden, he rashly leant against it, when the fastenings or the woodwork gave way, and he was precipitated to the ground. The hurt received was serious, and forced him to take to his bed, where he lay probably in much pain and discomfort. Here was an opportunity for considering his ways, for asking himself what was amiss in them, for mourning over the sins which he had committed (1 Kings 22:52, 1 Kings 22:53), and renouncing them and turning away from them. God’s judgments are sent to lead men to repentance. Prolonged lying on a sick-bed is especially favorable to meditation, self-examination, self-condemnation, penitence. But Ahaziah was obdurate. He thought nothing of the goodness of God in sparing his life, for the fall might well have been instantaneously fatal; he thought nothing of God’s mercy in giving him a time for reflection and amendment. He was merely impatient of his affliction, and anxious to have done with it. And in his impatience and obduracy he added sin to sin. Ignoring Jehovah and his prophets, through whom it was always possible to "inquire of the Lord" (1 Kings 22:5-28), he makes his appeal to Baal. It is an ostentatious appeal. He sends a public embassy to consult the Baal of a foreign town. Then his final punishment is decreed. Hitherto his life had hung in the balance—his fate had been in the hands of him with whom are the issues of life and death, now his own act had shut the gate of mercy. The sentence went forth from the mouth of God’s prophet, "Thou shalt not come down off that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die." Cut off in his youth, childless (2 Kings 1:17), he pays the fitting penalty of obstinate persistence in sin, and, after weeks or months of suffering, "goes to his own place." He "whom Jehovah upholds" becomes "he whom Jehovah destroys"—destroys after a short reign of little more than a year—a reign disgraceful to himself and disastrous to his country. 2 Kings 1:9-16 The spirit we are of-the old dispensation and the new. I. THE SPIRIT OF THE OLD . The spirit of the Law was strict, stern, inexorable justice. "Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image …. Cursed be he that setteth light by his father or his mother …. Cursed be he that removeth his neighbor’s landmark," etc. (Deuteronomy 27:15-26); "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death" (Exodus 21:17); "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" (Exodus 21:24, Exodus 21:25); "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall surely be put to death" (Exodus 21:12); "He that smiteth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death" (Exodus 21:15); "He that stealeth a man, and selleth him, shall surely be put to death" (Exodus 21:16); "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18); "Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death" (Exodus 22:19); "He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed" (Exodus 22:20), etc. Man was so far gone from original righteousness, had so corrupted and depraved himself, that only by the strictest possible system, by the most solemn warnings, the most awful threats, and the sternest possible execution of the threats when the occasion came, could wickedness be repressed, crime prevented from becoming rampant, mankind be reclaimed, society saved. Hence the severity of the Mosaic code, the frequency of the penalty of death, and the strictness with which the penalty was in almost every case exacted. The first idolatry was punished by the death of three thousand by the sword (Exodus 32:28). Nadab and Abihu, for offering strange fire, were destroyed by fire from heaven (Leviticus 2 Kings 10:1, 2 Kings 10:2). When Korah, Dathan, and Abiram rebelled against Moses, the earth gaped and swallowed them up (Numbers 16:32). The iniquity of Peer was avenged by the slaughter of all the heads of the people (Numbers 25:4, Numbers 25:5). The sin of Gibeah cost the lives of twenty-five thousand Benjamites (Judges 20:46). Elijah, in calling down fire from heaven upon the minions of an idolatrous tyrant sent to arrest him for declaring to their master the sentence of Jehovah, was but acting in the general spirit of the Law, which regarded all opposition to Jehovah as deserving of death, and looked upon the inspired prophets of God as the ministers of an avenging righteousness. From time to time some signal display of Jehovah’s anger against rebels and his power to punish them was requisite to preserve among the people any respect or reverence at all for true religion; and Elijah deemed that the time for such a display was now come. That the fire fell at his word showed that he had judged aright, and that his will reflected the Divine will and was in unison with it. II. THE SPIRIT OF THE NEW . The new dispensation opened with the proclamation of "peace on earth, good will toward men" (Luke 2:14). The curses of the Law were replaced by the Beatitudes" (Matthew 5:3-10). The gentle and tender Jesus destroyed nothing but a single senseless tree (Matthew 21:19). He went about doing good. He was "sent to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that were bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord" (Luke 4:18, Luke 4:19). When men rose up against him, when his life was attempted, before his hour was come, he was content by an exertion of his miraculous power to withdraw himself, to pass through their midst, and go his way. On one occasion he himself pointed the contrast between the two dispensations in the most distinct and remarkable manner. It was when he and his disciples were proceeding on a journey through this very district of Samaria, where Elijah had shown forth the justice of God, that his disciples, James and John, the "Sons of Thunder," as they were called, desired to repeat the Tishbite’s act for the punishment of some Samaritans who would not permit him to enter their village. "Lord," they said, "wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?" But they little knew the Master they addressed. Jesus "turned and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village" (Luke 9:51-56). "It was," remarks Archbishop Trench, "as if he had said, ’Ye are mistaking and confounding the different standing-points of the old and new covenants, taking your stand upon the old—that of an avenging righteousness, when you should rejoice to take it upon the new—that of a forgiving love’". The spirit of the Christian dispensation is seen especially in such commands as the following: "Resist not evil but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew 5:39); "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you" (Matthew 5:44); "Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honor preferring one another" (Romans 12:10); "Recompense to no man evil for evil" (Romans 12:17); "Avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written; Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:19-21). BY C.H. IRWIN 2 Kings 1:1-4 Seeking after strange gods: its cause and consequence. We are here introduced to a kingly home. All the pomp of royalty is there. But it is not a happy home. To beta with, there is sickness in that home. Royalty, or rank, or riches cannot keep sickness out. Ahaziah had been looking through the window of his chamber, or, as some think, leaning over the frail baluster of wicker-work which ran round the roof on the inner or courtyard side, when the lattice-work gave way, and he was precipitated into the court beneath and seriously injured. But there are homes of sickness that are nevertheless happy homes. The sufferer is happy; the other members of the family are happy. Why? Because they all know that Jesus is there. They hear his voice saying, "It is I: be not afraid." They took Christ into their house when all was going well with them, and they find that he does not leave them when sickness comes. But it was not so with Ahaziah. How a man will bear sickness depends a good deal on what his life and character have been when he was in health. This is true physically. It is true also in a moral and spiritual sense. The bad man is generally afraid of sickness. Yes; for he is afraid of death. What about Ahaziah’s previous history? We have it summed up in the closing verses of 1 Kings. "He did evil in the sight of the Lord, and walked in the way of his father, and in the way of his mother, and in the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin: for he served Baal, and worshipped him, and provoked to anger the Lord God of Israel, according to all that his father had done." Oh, the tremendous influence of a bad example. Ahaziah was in alarm about this illness. He wanted to know if he was to recover. He had forsaken God when in health; perhaps he does not think that God would hear him now. Or perhaps he has been so hardened in sin that he really believes his heathen god can help him. So he sends messengers to inquire of Baal-zebub at Ekron, whether he would recover of his disease. I. THE CAUSE OF SEEKING AFTER STRANGE GODS. What is the secret of that idolatry which in all ages has taken such a hold of the human heart? Why is it that such a people as the Hebrews, descended from one who lived so entirely under the power of the invisible God as Abraham did—they who in their Passover had a constant reminder of God’s existence and power, and in their ten commandments a constant reminder of his mind and will,—why is it that they so far forgot God as to sink into the degrading worship of the heathen deities? Or, to bring it more home to ourselves and our own surroundings, why is it that men and women who know that Christ died for them, who therefore know the priceless worth of their immortal souls, who bear in the very name of Christian a constant reminder of the Son of God, and who have in the precepts of the gospel the highest code of morality ever taught to man,—why, is it that they too forget God, reject his mercy, set at naught his counsels, and writ have none of his reproof? Why is it that in our Christian land so many are living in practical heathenism? Why are they so few who read the Bible, and, of those who do read it, so few who obey its teachings? Why so many thousands who never enter the house of God? Why is it that a really religious daily newspaper it is almost impossible to find, while nearly all our daily newspapers largely devote themselves to advance the interests of the theatre, the race-course, and the betting-ring? Truly it may be said that our nation has gone after strange gods. What is the secret of it all? Largely this, the love of what is seen, more than of what is unseen. This is at the root of all idolatry. It is this that makes men such an easy prey to sin. They are absorbed in the interests and pleasures of the body only. They forget the interests of the immortal soul. They live for the present, but neglect the future. They live for self, but neglect God. They lay up treasure on earth, but have no treasure in heaven. We see this love of what is seen—this going after strange gods—in much of the philosophy of the present day. Men deny God, the God of the Bible, the intelligent, wise, powerful, provident, holy, loving Creator of the universe. And what do they substitute for him? A mere negation. At best matter or force. Here plainly they are absorbed in what is seen. They make a god of matter. They forget that only mind could produce mind, only soul could produce soul, that only an intelligent Being could produce the order and control the workings of the universe. Strange gods, indeed—gods of which they have no certainty—they set up in place of the God of our Christian faith. We see this love of what is seen operating also in the case of the money-lover. It is not wrong to acquire wealth, provided it is rightly won and rightly used. But there are many who make a god of money. It occupies all their thoughts while they are awake. When they are asleep, they dream of it. Even the sabbath, supposed to be devoted to the worship of God, is often devoted to meditations on money and how to get it. Yet even for the present life there are things more precious than money. Men who sacrifice everything for money soon find that they have lost things which money cannot buy. "The world with stones instead of bread My hungry soul has always fed: It promised health; in one short hour Perished the fair but fragile flower. It promised riches; in a day They made them wings and flew away. It promised friends; all sought their owns And left my widowed heart alone." And then what shall we say of the folly of those who, while making ample provision for this short life, have made none for the life that is to come? "What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Let us beware of making a god of money. We see the same love of what is seen entering even into the Church of God. There is too much tendency, even in the Christian Church, to worship earthly rank, to attend to the rich and neglect the poor. How often have our Churches made a god of custom, of the traditions of men, of public opinion, of expediency and worldly policy I Images and pictures are set up to aid in the worship of him of whom it is said that "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." II. THE OF SEEKING AFTER STRANGE GODS. "But the angel of the Lord said to Elijah the Tishbite, Arise, go up to meet the messengers of the King of Samaria, and say unto them, Is it not because there is not a God in Israel, that ye go to inquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron? Now therefore thus saith the Lord, Thou shalt not come down from that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die." The strange deity that Ahaziah sought after had not served him much. Strange gods have never been much help to those who seek after them. They have not helped the heathen nations, but their degrading and demoralizing worship has always been a source of weakness and decay. It is the same with all the strange gods that men serve everywhere—with all the passions and desires to gratify which they spend their energies and time. We read of King Ahaz that he turned away from the true God to serve the gods of Damascus, because Syria enjoyed prosperity. He said, "Because the gods of the kings of Syria help them, therefore will I sacrifice to them, that they may help me? But, says the Bible narrative, they were the ruin of him, and of all Israel" (2 Chronicles 28:23). How many a man has done like Ahaz—turned his back upon God, and found that the strange gods whom he served proved to be his ruin! Many a man has lived without God when in health, who was very glad to seek him when sickness came and death was drawing nigh. It is told of a skeptic called Saunderson, who was a great admirer of Sir Isaac Newton’s talents, but who made light of his religion when in health, that when on his death-bed he was heard to say, in mournful entreaty, "God of Sir Isaac Newton, have mercy on me!" But, as many a one has found, it may be too late then to seek the Lord. Such are the consequences of seeking after strange gods. The same message which was sent to Ahaziah will one day be sent to us—this part at least: "Thou shalt not come down from that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die." The way to prepare for that message is to accept the messages of life. The way to prepare for sickness is so serve God while in health.—C.H.I. 2 Kings 1:5-16 Fire from heaven. Ahaziah’s messengers were intercepted by Elijah. They brought back to Ahaziah the fearless prophet’s announcement of his doom. Elijah’s message was God’s message. He began it by "Thus saith the Lord." The statement that Ahaziah would surely die was in reality the sentence of him who knows the future of every life, and in whose band is the breath of every human being, be he peasant or be he king. But such a terrible sentence had not brought Ahaziah to his senses. He does not begin to set his house in order. He does not prepare to meet his God as a guilty but penitent sinner. No; but when the messengers tell him of the strange interruption they bad met with, recognizing at once from their description that it was Elijah the Tishbite who had stopped them, he is filled with anger and defiance. He has defied God when in health; now he defies him from a bed of sickness. He sends forth a captain with a company of fifty men to lay hold upon the prophet. It was not the first time Elijah’s life had been threatened by royal sinners. When a man is fearless in rebuking sin, he must expect the hatred of impenitent sinners. Smooth words may win a fleeting popularity, but the friendship of this world is enmity against God. Popularity is dearly bought that is obtained at the sacrifice of truth, of conscience, and of duty. But Elijah’s life is safe in the hands of the Master whom he serves. Once before God had vindicated his own honor and Elijah’s faithfulness by sending fire from heaven to consume his sacrifice. In a similar manner now he defends Elijah and punishes his enemies. The incident is one which presents some difficulties. The study of it suggests many useful lessons. I. FIRE FROM HEAVEN IS AN ACT OF JUSTICE. It may appear to some that these first two captains and their fifties were hardly dealt with. Some one may say, "It was their duty to obey. They were only executing the king’s orders. They were not responsible for the message which they brought from the king to Elijah. It was hard, then, that they should suffer for doing that which it was their duty to do." These are very plausible statements. Let us examine them a little more closely. Let us remember that man is not a mere machine. Every man has an immortal soul, coming from God, going back to God, and accountable to God for its actions. There is such a thing as individual personal responsibility. No external circumstances, no position in life, can ever take away that responsibility. These captains and their men were bound to do their duty to their king. Yes; but not in defiance of the Law and power of God. Where the will of man or the word of man comes into conflict with the will or Word of God, then it is the duty of every human being to say, "We ought to obey God rather than men" These officers and soldiers were really encouraging Ahaziah in his guilt. They knew that he was an idolater. They knew that he was a worshipper of Baal. They knew that the man whom he was sending them to arrest was a servant of the most high God, and his foremost living prophet. They knew of the sentence which had already been pronounced against Ahaziah. Yet here, at his bidding, they go forth as the instruments of his defiance against the living God. They were sharers in his guilt—participes criminis. They were personally guilty before God. We can never shift our own responsibility on to the shoulders of others. It did not make Adam’s guilt less that he accused Eve, or Eve’s guilt less that she accused the serpent. They were intelligent beings, with the power of free choice. Our plain duty is, if we are in any position or business which requires us to violate the Law of God, at once to give it up. God says, "Them that honor me I will honor." Moreover, they had already been warned of the sin and danger of resisting God. They knew how the prophets of Baal had been slain. They knew how Elijah’s prophecy—in other words, God’s sentence—against Ahab had come true, that where the dogs licked the blood of Naboth, there they would lick the blood of Ahab, and they knew that a similar doom was foretold against Jezebel. Yet in spite of all these warnings they went forth against the prophet of God. So the sinner has many warnings. How often God’s Word and God’s messenger have called him to repentance! Perhaps by sickness and suffering he has had reminders of approaching death. By sudden bereavement he has been reminded that "in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh." Let him beware of turning a deaf ear to the warning voice. "See that ye refuse not him that speaketh." Further, when we are considering the justice of this fire from heaven, let us remember that the life of God’s most useful servant was at stake. It is pretty certain that Ahaziah, when he sent for Elijah, wanted to take his life. It is pretty certain also that, had Elijah gone with either of the first two captains, his life would have been in danger. It was only after the third time of sending that God said to Elijah, "Be not afraid of him." It was only then, perhaps, that Ahaziah realized the uselessness of fighting against God. We hold by the principle that life should not be recklessly sacrificed. But if we are disposed to speak of this incident as reckless sacrifice of life, let us remember what hundreds of lives have been imperiled and sacrificed more than once, even for the sake of a single British subject. No right-minded person would condemn the sending forth of soldiers—many of them to certain death—in such a case as that of Abyssinia, where the lives of British subjects were in danger, or that of the attempted rescue of General Gordon. Before we can cherish a suspicion of injustice against the dealings of God, let us be sure that we have fight and reason on our side. A full examination of all the circumstances will generally banish even such a suggestion from our minds. But, then, there are many cases where we cannot possibly understand or know all the circumstances. In such a case, is it not the only course we can take to bow in submission to the all-wise will of God? "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" For all these reasons I conclude that the fire which came down from heaven upon these soldiers was an act of justice. II. FIRE FROM HEAVEN IS AN ACT OF . More than one reason has already been suggested why this fire from heaven was necessary. It may have been necessary in defense of the prophet’s life. It may have been necessary in vindication of the power and honor of God; for it took place at a time of almost universal idolatry and Baal-worship on the part of Israel. This, however, we may be sure of, that, whether we can see the necessity for it or not, fire from heaven is necessary, or God would not send it. There are three uses, which fire serves in the natural world, for which analogies may be found in the spiritual world. These are purifying, destroying, and testing. We need the cleansing fires to purify us in the spiritual life. Perhaps we are becoming too worldly, too much engrossed with the things of this life, laying up for ourselves treasures upon earth. Perhaps we are making an idol of some earthly object of our affection. Perhaps we are becoming spiritually proud. Perhaps we compare ourselves favorably with others, and think how much better we are than they. Then our heavenly Father may think it wise to purify us from such dross as this. And so he calls us to pass through the furnace of affliction, or adversity, or sickness. Thus he humbles us. Thus he keeps us mindful that we are but dust. Thus he keeps us mindful of our dependence upon him. Then the destroying fire is needed in the moral and spiritual world, as well as in the natural world. It was a necessary part of the Divine government that Sodom and Gomorrah should be destroyed. They were a moral plague-spot. The festering limb must be cut off if the body is to be saved. So also Herculaneum and Pompeii were destroyed when they too became a center of moral degradation and corruption. Would it be any wonder, would it be any injustice, if the fire of God would come down from heaven and burn up some of the moral plague-spots of modern times? Would not the world be vastly the better if the gambling-hells and drinking-hells and hells of immorality were burnt up in one vast conflagration? And if they are spared, and if the moral corrupters of others are spared, will it be any better for them in that day when "the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death"? Then there is the testing fire. This also is necessary in the spiritual world. "Wherein ye greatly rejoice," says the Apostle Peter, "though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations, that the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honor and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 1:6, 1 Peter 1:7). If there were no trials and difficulties, there would be no test, no proof of our faith. And then the time is coming when the fire—the searching, testing fire of God’s judgment—shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If our life is built up on Christ, then out of the purifying fire it will come clearer and brighter, from the destroying fire it will suffer no harm, and from the testing fire it will come forth to honor and glory. "Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father" (Matthew 13:43). III. FIRE FROM HEAVEN IS NOT WITH THE DIVINE MERCY. Here we may consider a difficulty which some have raised. When Jesus, on his way to Jerusalem, passed through a village of the Samaritans, the people there would not receive him, "because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem." The disciples, in anger, asked him if they should command fire to come down from heaven, as Elijah did, and consume them. The answer of our Savior was, "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them" (Luke 9:51-56). Now, the question which some have asked is this—Does not Christ here condemn the action of Elijah? A careful study of the narrative before us would at once dispose of such a question as that. It is said here, "The fire of God came down from heaven." Even if this were not stated, it is obvious that Elijah of himself had no power to bring down fire from heaven, unless with God’s sanction and assistance. But a great many commentators and preachers, who would not go the length of saying that Christ condemned Elijah, seem to suggest that he condemned his spirit, as unsuited to gospel times. Even for this suggestion I do not think there is any warrant. Our Savior condemned the disciples for a spirit of vindictiveness and revenge, which probably was intensified by the feeling of prejudice and animosity which existed against the Samaritans. He also stated that he was not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. His work, then, was one of salvation. But those who rejected his salvation were certainly to perish. More than once Christ in the clearest manner teaches this. "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." He foretells the doom of Jerusalem. He foretells the terrible agony of lost souls, who shall go away into everlasting fire; "there shall be the wailing and the gnashing of teeth." The action of retributive justice, therefore, is perfectly consistent with mercy toward the sinner. The consuming fire may be part of a merciful and loving purpose toward the world at large. In the particular case before us, we see that mercy was exhibited as well as justice. The third captain, who showed a humble spirit, and apparently some regret at the work he had to do, was mercifully spared the fate, which had fallen upon the other two. While we speak of the consuming fire of God’s justice, we would speak also of mercy for the penitent, of forgiveness, full and free, for every anxious soul, for every returning wanderer. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved."—C.H.I. BY D. THOMAS 2 Kings 1:1-8 Worldly royalty and personal godliness. "Then Moab rebelled against Israel," etc. The two Books of Kings, which form but one in the most correct and ancient edition of the Hebrews, whilst they constitute a very strange and significant history, are fraught with much moral and practical suggestion. These verses bring under our notice two subjects of thought—worldly royalty in a humiliating condition, and personal godliness truly majestic. I. WORLDLY ROYALTY IN A . 1. Here is a king in mortal suffering. "And Ahaziah fell down through a lattice in his upper chamber that was in Samaria, and was sick." Nature has no more respect for kings than for beggars; her laws treat them as ordinary mortals. 2. Here is a king in mental distress. On his bed of suffering the king’s mind was most painfully exercised as to what would be the issue of his bodily suffering. He sends messengers to the idols in order to ask whether "I shall recover of this disease." No doubt the fear of death distressed him, as indeed it distresses most. 3. Here is a king in superstitious darkness. He had no knowledge of the true God, no enlightened religious feeling, and he sent his messengers to an idol—the god of flies-to know whether he should recover or not. What a humiliating condition for royalty to be in! And yet it is a condition in which kings and princes are often found. The other subject of thought here is— II. TRULY . Elijah is an example of personal godliness, though, in a worldly sense, he was very poor, and his costume seemed to be almost the meanest of the mean. "He was a hairy man, and girt with a girdle of leather about his loins." But see the majesty of this man in two things. 1. In receiving communication from heaven. "But the angel of the Lord said to Elijah the Tishbite." A truly godly man is ever in correspondence with Heaven; his "conversation is in heaven." 2. In reproving the king. "Is it not because there is not a God in Israel, that thou sendest to inquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron?" The thing called religion in many countries is just strong enough to reprove the poor, but too weak to thunder reproof into the ear of the corrupt and pleasure-seeking monarchs. In his reproof he pronounces on him the Divine judgment, "Thou shalt not come down off that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die." . Which is the better, do you think—a throne or a godly character? Fools only prefer the former; the man of sense, thoughtfulness, and reflection would say the latter.—D.T. 2 Kings 1:9-18 Man in three aspects. "Then the king sent unto him a captain of fifty," etc. In this paragraph we have man in three aspects. I. MAN RUINED THROUGH THE CONDUCT OF OTHERS. The messengers which the king sent to Elijah—fifty each time on three different occasions—were all, except the last fifty, destroyed by lightning. This awful judgment came upon them, not merely on their own account—although, like all sinners, they had forfeited their lives to eternal justice—but as messengers of the king. Throughout the human race, in all races and times, there are found millions groaning under the trials and sufferings brought on them by the conduct of others. In this world the innocent suffer for the guilty; the "fathers eat sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge." II. MAN AS THE OF DIVINE JUSTICE. These hundred men, messengers from the king, were struck down by Elijah at the command of God. There was no personal vengeance in the act. Elijah was used as the organ of Heaven. God’s plan in this world is to punish as well as to save man by man. How was Pharaoh punished, and the Canaanites, etc.? By man. Sinful nations are punished, often by worthless kings and ruthless despots. III. MAN INTO THE PLACE OF THE DEAD. The King Ahaziah dies; Jehoram steps into his place. "So he died according to the word of the Lord which Elijah had spoken. And Jehoram reigned in his stead." "One generation cometh, and another passeth away." Places, positions, and the various offices of life are no sooner vacated by death than they are stepped into by others. Thus the world goes on, and the dead are soon forgotten. The greatest man on earth today is but a mere bubble on the great river of human life; he sparkles for a moment, and is lost forever in the abyss.—D.T. BY J. ORR 2 Kings 1:1 The revolt of Moab. (On this cf. 2 Kings 3:1-27.) Moab, one of the conquests of David (2 Samuel 8:2), perhaps regained its independence after the death of Solomon, and, if the Moabite Stone can be trusted, was again subdued by Omri, Ahab’s father. Now, on the occasion of the death of Ahab, it renewed the attempt to throw off the Israelitish yoke. 1. The original conquest had been not unstained by cruelty. These things burn into the memory of peoples. 2. The rule of Omri and Ahab had been most oppressive (2 Kings 3:4). Nothing else could be expected from these godless monarchs. "The tender mercies of the wicked are cruel" (Proverbs 12:10). Half the rebellions and revolutions in the world have their origin in oppression and misgovernment. 3. Ahab and Israel had just sustained a severe defeat, that viz. at the hands of the Syrians (1 Kings 22:1-53.). This weakened the Israelitish power, and gave a favorable opportunity for revolt. Those whom we hold in subjection by force, not love, cannot be blamed if they take the earliest opportunity to get rid of our yoke. 4. Israel and Moab were divided by religion. This is the deepest ground of severance among peoples, Nationalities based on different religious faiths constantly tend to fall asunder. Any unity in which they are held can be only external. The federation of the race can only be accomplished on the basis of the worship of the One Jehovah, and the one Lord Jesus Christ. 5. God used these revolts as a means of chastisement (cf. 1 Kings 11:23). Under David, the greatest theocratic ruler, the kingdom was built up, consolidated, extended. The revolt from God, both in Judah and Israel, was signalized by the revolt of dependencies. Will our own Britain hold its foremost position among the nations, or will its greatness too decay, and its power be shorn by successive breaking off of its colonies? The answer, we believe, will depend very much on its fidelity to God.—J.O. 2 Kings 1:1-8 Ahaziah’s sickness. Son of a doomed house (1 Kings 21:29), Ahab’s successor on the throne reigned for two inglorious years. His evil character is described in the words, "He walked m the way of his father, and in the way of his mother, and in the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin" (1 Kings 22:52). A weak ruler, he was probably the mere tool of his mother Jezebel, whose worst qualities he inherited. In determined idolatry, open defiance of Jehovah, and vindictive persecution of God’s servants, as shown by his attempt on the life of Elijah, he is the true child of the "cursed woman" (2 Kings 9:34). Even on his death-bed he shows no such compunction as occasionally visited his father Ahab (1 Kings 21:27). Undeterred by examples and warnings, he "hardened his neck’ in a way which led to his being "suddenly destroyed" (Proverbs 29:1). I. THE FATAL FALL. The faineant king came to his end in a manner: 1. Sufficiently simple. Idly lounging at the projecting lattice-window of his palace in Samaria—perhaps leaning against it, and gazing from his elevated position on the fine prospect that spreads itself around—his support suddenly gave way, and he was precipitated to the ground, or courtyard, below. He is picked up, stunned, but not dead, and carried to his couch. It is, in common speech, an accident—some trivial neglect of a fastening—but it terminated this royal career. On such slight contingencies does human life, the change of rulers, and often the course of events in history, depend. We cannot sufficiently ponder that our existence hangs by the finest thread, and that any trivial cause may at any moment cut it short (James 4:14). 2. Yet providential. God’s providence is to be recognized in the time and manner of this king’s removal. He had "provoked to anger the Lord God of Israel" (1 Kings 22:53), and God in this sudden way cut him off. This is the only rational view of the providence of God, since, as we have seen, it is from the most trivial events that the greatest results often spring. The whole can be controlled only by the power that concerns itself with the details. A remarkable illustration is afforded by the death of Ahaziah’s own father. Fearing Micaiah’s prophecy, Ahab had disguised himself on the field of battle, and was not known as the King of Israel. But he was not, therefore, to escape. A man in the opposing ranks "drew a bow at a venture," and the arrow, winged with a Divine mission, smote the king between the joints of his armor, and slew him (1 Kings 22:34). The same minute providence which guided that arrow now presided over the circumstances of Ahaziah’s fall. There is in this doctrine, which is also Christ’s (Matthew 10:29, Matthew 10:30), comfort for the good, and warning for the wicked. The good man acknowledges, "My times are in thy hand" (Psalms 31:15), and the wicked man should pause when he reflects that he cannot take his out of that hand. 3. Irremediable. From the bed to which he had been carried up, the king was never to rise. The injury he had received was fatal. Yet a little space was given him—even him—for repentance. His fall might have produced immediate death. These few remaining days, when the sands were running out, were, however, only to demonstrate further his incorrigibility of nature. II. THE MESSAGE TO EKRON. A sick-bed, with the possibility of the sickness proving fatal, tests most men. It tested Ahaziah. We note in his behavior the following instructive facts: This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Kings 2:1-25 THE REMOVAL OF ELIJAH FROM EARTH, AND SOME EARLY OF ELISHA. The great prophet of Israel was to have a departure from earth as marvelous as his life had been. Ewald’s words, though not intended in an historical, but only in a literary sense, embody very forcibly what the humble believer may accept as the actual rationale of the occurrence related in 2 Kings 2:1-12: "An earthly career which had no equal in the purity of its devotion to the service of Jehovah, and was at the same time consummated by such powerful efforts to promote the kingdom of God, could only have a corresponding close. It ceases before the very eyes of men, only to he taken up into the realm of pure spirit, that is, to heaven, there to carry on its work with less disturbance, and with greater power; and at that moment heaven itself descends to earth, to take to itself that spirit which is already entirely its own. And so a fiery chariot with fiery horses comes down from heaven and bears Elijah in the tempest up to heaven". In Ewald’s view, the narrative is pure imagination, the beautiful conception of one who greatly admired the Tishbite, and invented for him an end in ideal harmony with his life. But may not Omnipotence sometimes work out ideal harmonies in the actual matter-of-fact universe? And is it "advanced criticism," or sound criticism at all, to take a professed history, and pick and cull from it certain portions as absolute facts, quite indubitable, while rejecting other portions, which have exactly the same external testimony, as pure fictions absolutely devoid of the slightest historical foundation? The record of Elisha’s early miracles (2 Kings 2:13-24) prepares the way for the position which Elisha is to occupy in the next section of the history, under the Israelite monarchs, Jehoram, Jehu, Jeheahaz, and Jehoash. On Elisha falls the mantle of Elijah (2 Kings 2:13), and with it a portion of his spirit, sufficient to enable him to carry on the prophetic office with vigor and steadfastness. 2 Kings 2:1 And it came to pass, when the Lord would take up Elijah into heaven. The subject is introduced as one of general notoriety, the writer professing rather to give the exact details of a well-known fact, than to relate a new fact unknown to his readers. "When the time came," he means to say, "for Elijah’s translation, of which you, my readers, all know, the following were the circumstances under which it took place." The fact itself was deeply impressed on the Jewish consciousness. "Elias," says the Sou of Sirach, "was taken up in a whirlwind of fire, and in a chariot of fiery homes" (Ecclesiasticus 48:9). He was ranked with Enoch, as not having seen death (Josephus, ’Ant. Jud.,’ 9.2. § 2), and was viewed as "continuing in heaven a mysterious life, which no death had ever interrupted, whence he was ready at any time to return to earth". The scribes thought that he was beyond all doubt to make his appearance upon the earth in person, before the coming of the Messiah (Matthew 16:10). By a whirlwind. Sa’arach is not so much an actual "whirlwind" as a storm or atmospheric disturbance (συσσεισμός, LXX.). It is a word which only occurs here in the historical Scriptures. That Elijah went with Elisha from Gilgal. Elisha had become to Elijah what Joshua was to Moses (Exodus 24:13)—his "minister," or regular attendant, from the time of his call at Abel-meholah (1 Kings 19:21). Elijah had no fixed residence, but moved from place to place as the Spirit of God suggested. His wanderings had now brought him to Gilgal (probably Jiljilieh, near Nablous), one of the most ancient sanctuaries of the land (1 Samuel 10:8; 1 Samuel 11:15, etc.), celebrated in the history of Saul and Samuel. 2 Kings 2:2 And Elijah said unto Elisha, Tarry here, I pray thee; for the Lord hath sent me. Elijah makes three efforts to rid himself of the presence of his faithful attendant (see 2 Kings 2:4 and 2 Kings 2:6), either really desirous to pass in solitude the few remaining hours of his earthly life, for he knows that his end is approaching (2 Kings 2:9, 2 Kings 2:10), or for the purpose of testing his fidelity and affection. Under ordinary circumstances, the servant would naturally have obeyed his lord, and submitted to a temporary separation; but Elisha has a presentiment, or something stronger than a presentiment, of what is impending (2 Kings 2:3, 2 Kings 2:5), and will not be induced to accelerate by a single moment the time of the last parting. He will remain with his master, ready to do him all needful service, until the end. To Bethel. Bethel was the spiritual center of the kingdom of the ten tribes. There may have been many reasons why Elijah should visit it once more before he quitted the earth. He may have had directions to leave, consolation to give, words of warning to speak. We must not suppose that the narrative before us is complete. And Elisha said unto him, As the Lord liveth, and as thy soul liveth. These were ordinary forms of earnest asseveration with the Israelites, generally used separately (Judges 8:19; Rth 3:13; 1 Samuel 1:26; 1 Samuel 14:39; 1 Samuel 17:55; 1 Samuel 19:6; 1 Samuel 20:21; 2 Samuel 4:9; 2 Samuel 11:11, etc.); but on occasions of special solemnity united, as here and in 1 Samuel 20:3; 1 Samuel 25:26; 2 Kings 4:30). The prophet is not to be blamed for using them, since the command, "Swear not at all," had not yet been given. I will not leave thee. The resolve indicates strong attachment, deep fidelity, combined, perhaps, with a reasonable curiosity to see how the end would be brought about. So they went down to Bethel. The expression, "went down," shows that the Gilgal of 2 Kings 4:1 is not that of the Jordan valley, but the mountain-city between Sichem and Bethel. 2 Kings 2:3 The sons of the prophets that were at Bethel (On the expression, "sons of the prophets," see the comment upon 1 Kings 20:35.) The institution of the "schools of the prophets," or theological colleges where young prophets were brought up, is usually assigned to Samuel, one of whose habitual residences for a part of the year was Bethel (1 Samuel 7:16). Probably he had established a "school" there which continued to this time. Came forth to Elisha, and said unto him. The students did not venture to address the master himself, who was a person of too much dignity to be intruded on; but sought out the servant, to give him a warning of what their prophetic instinct assured them was about to happen. Knowest thou that the Lord will take away thy master from thy head (i.e. from his position as teacher and master) today? There was, perhaps, something a little officious and self-assertive in this question. They might have felt sure, if they had been properly modest, that Elisha would have at least as much prophetic instinct and foresight as themselves. Hence he answers them with something of rebuke: And he said, Yea, I know it—literally, I too know it—hold ye your peace; or, "Hush—do not chatter about what is so sacred; do not suppose that you are wiser than any one else; be a little modest and a little reticent." 2 Kings 2:4 And Elijah said unto him, Tarry here, I pray thee. The first trial of Elisha’s fidelity is followed by a second. The master suggests his tarrying at Bethel, the sacred center, where he will have the company of the "sons of the prophets," and will not be companionless, as perhaps he would have been at Gilgal. He himself is ordered to take a second journey, longer and rougher than the first. For the Lord hath sent me to Jericho. Will it not be better that Elisha shall spare himself the long and rugged descent from the high-land of Ephraim to the deep gully of Jordan, and remain with the friends who have sought him out, while his master accomplishes the remainder of Iris journey alone? And he said, As the Lord liveth, and as thy soul liveth, I will not leave thee. Absolute unchangeableness of resolution is best shown by absolute un-changingness of speech. Elisha, therefore, simply repeats his previous words. And the master once more yields. So they came to Jericho. 2 Kings 2:5 And the sons of the prophets that were at Jericho came to Elisha, and said unto him; Knowest thou that the Lord will take away thy master from thy head today? And he answered, Yea, I know it hold ye your peace. At Jericho, too, as well as at Bethel, there was a school of the prophets, though the two places were not more than about twenty miles apart. This would seem to imply the existence of a large number of such seminaries at this period. No doubt, when the secular power was most strongly opposed to true religion, the prophetical order had to make increased efforts to raise its numbers and multiply its schools. The prophets of Israel, it must be remembered, were, after the withdrawal of the priests and Levites (2 Chronicles 11:13, 2 Chronicles 11:14), the sole teachers of the people in true religion. 2 Kings 2:6 And Elijah said unto him, Tarry, I pray thee, here; for the Lord hath sent me to Jordan. Elijah makes a third effort to detach his follower from him, or a third trial of his fidelity. He is ordered, not to a town, where his follower might find lodging and refreshment and companionship, but into the open country—to the Jordan. And then, who can say whither? Will it not be best for Elisha to leave him now, and not continue a wandering which threatens to be endless? But the follower is staunch; nothing daunts him; and he makes the same reply as before. And he said, As the Lord liveth, and as thy soul liveth, I will not leave thee. And they two went on. 2 Kings 2:7 And fifty men of the sons of the prophets went, and stood to view. It is a harsh judgment to blame the "sons of the prophets" for an idle and shallow curiosity in merely "standing" at a distance "to view" the wonderful event, which Elisha was determined to witness as closely, and associate himself with as intimately, as possible. For the sons of the prophets to have approached nearer, and hung on the skirts of Elijah, would have been an impertinence, Elisha’s persistence is only justified by his strong affection, and the special office which he held, of attendant minister. The fifty students showed a courteous sense of what was due to the prophet’s desire of seclusion by not pressing on his footsteps, and at the same time a real interest in him, and a reasonable curiosity, by quitting their college and "standing to view" on some eminence which commanded a prospect of the lower Jordan valley. There were many such eminences within a short distance of Jericho. And they two stood by Jordan. At length all other human companionship was shaken off—"they two" stood, side by side, on the banks of the sacred stream, which had played so important a part, and was still to play so far more important a part, in the theocratic history. All the world, except their two selves, was remote—was beyond their ken; the master and the servant, the prophet of the past and the prophet of the coming generation, were together, with none to disturb them, or interfere between them, or separate them. Jordan rolled its waters before their eyes, a seeming barrier to further advance; and Elisha may naturally have looked to see the final scene transacted in that "plain below a plain," the Jordan bed, sunk beneath the general level of the Ghor, green with lush grass and aquatic plants, and with beds of reeds and osiers, but squalid with long stretches of mud and masses of decaying vegetation, brought down from the upper river, and with rotting trunks of trees torn from the banks higher up. But the end was not yet. Jordan was to be crossed, and the ascension to take place from the plain whence Moses, when about to quit earth, had made his ascent to Pisgah. 2 Kings 2:8 And Elijah took his mantle (the LXX. have τὸνμηλωτήν); the sheep-skin cape or capote, which covered his shoulders. And wrapped it together; rather, and rolled it up (εἴλησε, LXX.); so that it resembled in some degree a rod or staff. And [with this he] smote the waters; consciously imitating the act of Moses when he "stretched out his hand over the Red Sea" (Exodus 14:21), and divided its waters asunder. And they were divided hither and thither, so that they two went over on dry ground. The parallelism with the miraculous acts of Moses and Joshua (Joshua 3:13) is obvious, and allowed even by those who view the acts themselves as having no historical foundation. It was intended that Israel should regard Elijah and Elisha as a second Moses and Joshua, and should therefore yield them a ready obedience. If miracles are impossible, cadit quaestio; exegesis of Scripture, and even reading of Scripture, may as well be put aside. But if they are possible, and have a place in the Divine economy, here was a worthy occasion for them. The powers of the world were arrayed against the cause of true religion and so against God; the cause was about to lose its great champion and assertor, Elijah; a weaker successor was about to take his place;—without some manifest display of supernatural might the cause of religion would evidently have lost ground, perhaps have been ruined altogether. It pleased God, therefore, just at this time, to grant that signs and wonders of an extraordinary character should be done by the hands of his servants Elijah and Elisha, that a halo of mystic glory should encircle them, for the better sustentation of his own cause against his adversaries, for the exaltation and glorification of his faithful ones, and for the confusion and dismay of those who were opposed to them. Now, surely, if ever, was there a dignus vindice nodus, justifying a miraculous interposition. 2 Kings 2:9 And it came to pass, when they were gone over, that Elijah said unto Elisha, Ask what I shall do for thee, before I be taken away from thee. Elijah knows that the time is growing now very short. He will soon have left the earth. A yearning comes over him, before he goes, to leave his faithful follower, his trusty, persevering adherent, some parting gift, some token of his appreciation, some sign of his love. What does his "minister" desire? Let him ask what he will, and his master will, if it be possible, grant it. And Elisha said, I pray thee, let a double portion of thy spirit be upon me. Elisha’s request has been variously explained. The older commentators regarded him as having asked for twice as much spiritual and prophetical power as Elijah had possessed; and this interpretation is certainly favored by the reply of Elijah, as recorded in the next verse. But it is objected (1) that Elisha’s modesty would prevent him from asking so much; and (2) that double the spirit and power of Elijah certainly did not rest upon him. This latter fact is quite undeniable. As Keil says, "It is only a quite external and superficial view of the career of Elisha that can see in it a proof that double the spirit of Elijah rested upon him" (’Commentary on Kings,’ ad loc.). To one who looks beneath the surface, and regards something besides length of life and number of miracles, Elisha is a very faint and feeble replica of Elijah. Ewald’s judgment is here correct: "Elisha is great only so far as he continues and carries out with more force than any other man of his time the work which Elijah had begun with new and wonderful power … he did not possess any such intensity of inward power as his master". Accordingly, Ewald, rejecting the old explanation, suggests one of his own—that Elisha asked for "two thirds of Elijah’s spirit"; but this would be a very strange and unusual request, even if the Hebrew could be made to mean it. Who ever asks for two-thirds of a thing? The third explanation, to which most modern commentators incline (Keil, Thenius, Patrick, Clarke, Pool, Bottcher), is that Elisha merely requested that he might receive twice as much of Elijah’s spirit as should be received by any other of the "sons of the prophets." He made a reference to Deuteronomy 21:17, and asked for the "double portion" (literally, "double mouthful") which was the right of an eldest son. The only objection to this view is Elijah’s answer (see the next verse). 2 Kings 2:10 And he said, Thou hast asked a hard thing; literally, thou hast been hard in asking (ἐσκλήρυναςτοῦαἰτήσασθαι, LXX.). Perhaps the "hardness" of the request was in the thing asked, not in the quantity of the thing. Had Elisha asked for anything that Elijah had it directly in his power to give, as for his mantle, or his blessing, or his prayers in the other world, to grant the request would have been easy. But he had asked for something that was not Elijah’s to give, but only God’s. Elijah could not bequeath his spirit, as a man bequeaths his property; he could only pray God that Elisha’s pious request might be granted. Nevertheless, if thou see ms when I am taken from thee, it shall be so unto thee; but if not, it shall not be so. Our translators have thought to clear the sense by inserting "nevertheless" and "when I am." But the inserted words would be better away. As Elijah cannot either grant or refuse a request for a spiritual gift, which it is not in his power to Bestow, he is divinely instructed to give Elisha a sign, by which he shall know whether God grants his prayer or not. The sign of acceptance is to be his actually seeing his master’s translation. Probably the chariot and horses were not visible to the natural human eye, any more than the angelic hosts were who compassed Elisha himself about at Dothan (2 Kings 6:17). 2 Kings 2:11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked (comp. Luke 24:50, Luke 24:51,). The antitype answers to the type in little details as well as in the general outline. That behold, there appeared a chariot of firs, and horses of fire. God’s "angels are spirits, and his ministers a flaming fire" (Psalms 104:4). When the eyes of Elisha’s servant were opened, and he saw the angelic host that protected his master, it appeared to him that "the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha" (2 Kings 6:17). Material fire is, of course, not to be thought of. But the glory and brightness of celestial beings, when made visible to man, has some analogy with fire, or at any rate brings the conception of fire before the mind. The historian doubtless reports the account which Elisha gave of what he saw on this memorable occasion. And parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven; literally, and Elijah went up in a storm into the heavens. There is no mention of a "whirlwind;" and "the heavens" are primarily the visible firmament or sky which overhangs the earth. Elijah, like our Lord, rose bodily from the earth into the upper region of the air, and was there lost to sight. Three only of the seed of Adam—Enoch, Elijah, Jesus—have passed from earth to heaven without dying. 2 Kings 2:12 And Elisha saw it. The condition was fulfilled which Elijah had laid down, and Elisha knew that his request for a "double portion" of his master’s spirit was granted. And he cried, My father! my father! It was usual for servants thus to address their masters (2 Kings 5:13), and younger men would, out of respect, almost always thus address an aged prophet (2 Kings 6:21; 2 Kings 13:14, etc.). But Elisha probably meant something more than to show respect. He regarded himself as Elijah’s specially adopted son, and hence had claimed the "double portion" of the firstborn. That his request was granted showed that the relationship was acknowledged. The chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof; i.e. the best earthly defense of Israel. "In losing thee," he means, "we lose our great protector—him that is more to us than chariots and horsemen—the strength of Israel, against both domestic and foreign foes." The sight of the fiery chariot and horses may have determined the imagery, but they are not spoken of. Note the substitution of "horsemen" for "horses," and comp. 2 Kings 13:10, where the same expression is used in reference to Elisha. And he saw him no more. Elijah passed beyond Elisha’s ken. So far as we can gather from the expressions employed, no cloud received him (Acts 1:9), but he gradually vanished from sight. And he took hold of his own clothes, and rent them in two pieces; an action marking extreme horror or extreme grief—here the latter (comp. Genesis 37:29; 2 Samuel 13:19; Job 1:20; Job 2:12, etc.). 2 Kings 2:13 He took up also the mantle of Elijah that fell from him; and went back, and stood by the bank of Jordan; literally, the lip of the Jordan; that is, the brink of the stream, at the point, probably, where he and his master had crossed it. 2 Kings 2:14 And he took the mantle of Elijah that fell from him; and smote the waters—imitated, i.e; the action of Elijah (2 Kings 2:8), as Elijah had imitated the action of Moses at the passage of the Red Sea—and said, Where is the Lord God of Elijah? The present Hebrew text reads, "Where is the Lord God of Elijah, even he?" the last two words being emphatic; but the emphasis scarcely appears to be needed. Hence the translators have very generally detached the two words from Elisha’s question, and, attaching them to the succeeding clause, have rendered it, And when he also had smitten the waters; but the position of the van conjunctive, after אַף־הוּא and before יַכֶּה, makes this division of the clauses impossible. It has therefore been proposed by some to read אֵפוֹא, "now," for אַף־הוּא, "even he" (Houbigant, Thenius, Schultz, Botteher, Dathe), and to translate, "Where now is the Lord God of Elijah?" Is he still here, with me, or has he withdrawn himself from earth with his prophet, and left me alone to my own unaided strength? This gives a good meaning, but is perhaps too bold a change. The LXX. had evidently our present Hebrew text before them, and, as they could make nothing of it, transcribed it into Greek characters, ΠοῦὁΘεὸςΗλιοὺἀφφώ; they parted hither and thither: and Elisha wont over. God showed, i.e; that he was still with Elisha by enabling him to repeat Elijah’s last miracle, and thus gave him an assurance that he would be with him thenceforth An his prophetic ministry. 2 Kings 2:15 And when the sons of the prophets, which were to view at Jericho (see 2 Kings 2:7), saw him, they said, The spirit of Elijah cloth rest on Elisha. It is not quite clear upon what grounds the sons of the prophets came to this conclusion. Probably they had seen the passage of the Jordan by the two prophets, the disappearance of Elijah, and the return of Elisha across the stream in a way which they may have suspected to be miraculous. But the Jordan is four or five miles distant from the city of Jericho, and their apprehension of the various circumstances would be incomplete, and more or less vague. Perhaps there was something in Elisha’s appearance and expression of countenance which impressed them, and appeared to them to mark his exaltation to a higher dignity and spiritual position. And they came to meet him; and bowed themselves to the ground before him; thus acknowledging him for their master, as they had been wont to acknowledge Elijah. 2 Kings 2:16 And they said unto him. Thenius suggests that Elisha first related to them what had befallen his master; but the impression left by the narrative is rather that they began the conversation, being aware of Elijah’s disappearance, which in that clear atmosphere they may have distinctly perceived, though the ascension may not have been visible to them. Keil thinks that they saw the ascension, but supposed that the body, after being taken up a certain height into the air, would necessarily fall to earth, and that they wished to find it and bury it. But the natural interpretation is that they thought the prophet had been "caught away" by a Divine influence, as Philip the evangelist was in later times (Acts 8:39), and would be found somewhere alive, as Philip "was found at Azotus." Behold now, there be with thy servants fifty strong men; literally, sons of strength; i.e. stout, active persons, capable of climbing the rough and precipitous rocks among which they thought that Elijah might be east. Let them go, we pray thee, and seek thy master: lest peradventure the Spirit of the Lord hath taken him up, and cast him upon some mountain, or into some valley. On either side of the ciccar, or Jordan plain, are rugged districts, consisting of alternate rocky mountain slopes and narrow gulleys, or water-courses, dry during the greater part of the year. The sons of the prophets think that Elijah has been carried by the Spirit of God into one or other of these mountain tracts, and wish to search them. And he said, Ye shall not send; or, do not send; meaning, "it will be useless—you will find nothing—it is not as you suppose." 2 Kings 2:17 And when they urged him, till he was ashamed, he said, Send; literally, when they urged him until shame; which some expound to mean, "until they were ashamed to press him any more" (Gesenius, Winer, Keil); but others, with more reason, "until he was ashamed to persist in his refusal" (ἑὼςοὗἠσχύνετο, LXX.). It is always a hard thing for one man to refuse the repeated and earnest request of a multitude. When Elisha said, "Send," he had not in the least changed his mind; he only meant to say, "Send, then, if you insist upon it, to satisfy yourselves, not me. There is no harm in your sending." They sent therefore fifty men; and they sought three days, but found him not. The result bore out the advice and anticipations of the prophet. It was simply nil. No trace was found of the aged seer who had been translated from earth to heaven. 2 Kings 2:18 And when they came again to him, (for he tarried at Jericho,) he said unto them, Did I not say unto you, Go not? The prophet was not above vindicating the propriety of his past conduct. He waited at Jericho until the fifty men returned from their vain search, and then reminded them that his advice to them had been not to start on a useless errand. The ministers of God have to vindicate themselves, because God’s honor is concerned in their being without reproach. 2 Kings 2:19-25 The historian passes to the record of some of Elisha’s minor miracles, belonging to the time whereof he is writing, and helping to explain the position of dignity and respect which he is found to occupy in the next chapter (2 Kings 2:11-14). The miracles showed his twofold power, both to confer benefits and to punish. 2 Kings 2:19 And the men of the city—i.e. the inhabitants of Jericho; probably the civic authorities, having heard of the recent miracle—said unto Elisha, Behold, I pray thee, the situation of this city is pleasant, as my lord seeth. According to the unanimous voice of travelers, the situation of Jericho (now Eriha) is charming. Lying on a broad plain which is traversed by an abundant river, at the point where one of the main wadys debouched from the Judaean upland upon the low country, shaded by groves of palm trees (Deuteronomy 34:3) and fig-mulberries (Luke 19:4), the air scented with aromatic shrubs, opobalsam, myroba-lanum, and the like, facing the Orient sun, and commanding a wide prospect both across and also up and down the Ghor, with the mountains of Moab in the distance, Jericho was, no doubt, even before the miracle of Elisha, a "pleasant" place. But—there was one drawback—the water is naught, and the ground barren. Bitter and brackish springs, of which there are many in the Jordan valley, gushed forth from the foot of the mountains, and formed rivulets, which ran across the plain towards the Jordan, not diffusing health and fertility, but rather disease and barrenness. Untimely births, abortions, and the like prevailed among the cattle which were fed in the neighborhood, perhaps even among the inhabitants of the locality, and were attributed to the bitter springs, which made the land "miscarrying" (ἀτεκνουμένη, LXX.). It was the prayer of the men of Jericho that Elisha would remove this inconvenience. 2 Kings 2:20 And he said, Bring me a new cruse. Impurity must be cleansed by means that are wholly clean and pure. The prophet called for an absolutely new cruse, one that had been put to no use at all, and therefore could not have been defiled. And put salt therein. Salt, which physically would be most unapt to heal an unwholesome stream already holding too much salt in solution, is selected doubtless as emblematic of purity, being that by which corruption is ordinarily prevented or stayed. Under the Law every offering was to be purified by salt (Leviticus 2 Kings 2:13). The same symbolism is still employed under the gospel. And they brought it to him. 2 Kings 2:21 And he went forth unto the spring of the waters, and cast the salt in there. The "spring" intended is supposed to be that now called Ain-es-Sultan, "the spring of the Sultan," which is the only copious source near the site of the ancient Jericho. The modern town lies at a distance of two miles from it. Ain-es-Sultan is described as "a large and beautiful fountain of sweet and pleasant water", and as "scattering, even at the hottest season, the richest and most grateful vegetation over what would otherwise be a bare tract of sandy soft." The other springs of the neighborhood are mostly brackish. And said, Thus saith the Lord, I have healed these waters; there shall not be from thence—i.e; from the waters—any more death or barren land; rather, or miscarrying. 2 Kings 2:22 So the waters were healed unto this day, according to the saying of Elisha which he spake. It was not a mere temporary, but a permanent, benefit which Elisha bestowed upon the town. 2 Kings 2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel. The ascent is steep and long from the Jordan valley to the highlands of Benjamin, on which Bethel stood, probably one of not less than three thousand feet. The object of Elisha’s visit may have been to inform the "sons of the prophets" at Bethel (2 Kings 2:3) of the events that had befallen Elijah. And as he was going up by the way—i.e; by the usual road or pathway, for, in the strict sense of the word, roads did not exist in Palestine—there came forth little children out of the city. "Little children" is an unfortunate translation, raising quite a wrong idea of the tender age of the persons spoken of. On the other hand, Bishop Patrick’s assertion that the words are to be "understood of adult persons, who had a hatred to the prophet," is quite untenable. Naarim ketanaim would be best translated "young lads"—boys, that is, from twelve to fifteen. Such mischievous youths are among the chief nuisances of Oriental towns; they waylay the traveler, deride him, jeer him—are keen to remark any personal defect that he may have, and merciless in flouting it; they dog his steps, shout out their rude remarks, and sometimes proceed from abusive words to violent acts, as the throwing of sticks, or stones, or mud. On this occasion they only got as far as rude words. And mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head! go up, thou bald head! It has been maintained that the scoff of the lads contained an allusion to the ascension of Elijah (Patrick, Pool, Clarke), of which they had beard, and was a call upon Elisha to follow his master’s example in quitting the world, that they might be no longer troubled with him. But it is not at all apparent that the lads even knew who Elisha was—they would probably have jeered at any aged person with whom they had fallen in; and by "Go up" they merely meant "Go on thy way; ’the force of their jeer was not in the word’ aleh, but in the word kereach, "bald head." Baldness was sometimes produced by leprosy, and then made a man unclean (Leviticus 13:42-44); but the boys probably flouted the mere natural defect, in which there was no "uncleanness" (Leviticus 13:40, 41), but which they regarded as a fit subject for ridicule. Their sin was disrespect towards old age, combined, perhaps, with disrespect for the prophetical order, to which they may have known from his dress that Elisha belonged. 2 Kings 2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them; rather, and he looked behind him, and saw them, as in the Revised Version. The boys, after the manner of boys, were following him, hanging upon him, not daring to draw too near, hooting him from behind, as ill-bred and ill-intentioned youths are apt to do. And cursed them in the name of the Lord. The action cannot be defended from a Christian point of view—Christians have no right to curse any one. But we can well understand that, under the old covenant, a prophet newly installed in office, and commencing his ministry, might deem it right to vindicate the honor of his office by visiting such conduct as that of these misguided youths with a malediction. Under the Law God’s ministers were required to curse the disobedient (Deuteronomy 27:14-26). Elisha could not tell what would be the effect of his curse. It could have no effect at all excepting through the will and by the action of God. And there came forth two she-bears out of the wood; or, the forest; i.e. the forest, which, as all knew, lay within a short distance of Bethel, and was the haunt of wild beasts (see 1 Kings 3:24). And tare forty and two children of them. It is not said how far the lads were injured, whether fatally or not. But the punishment, whatever its severity, came from God, not from the prophet, and we may be sure was just. For "shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" A severe example may have been needed under the circumstances of the time, when a new generation was growing up in contempt of God and of religion; and the sin of the lads was not a small one, but indicated that determined bent of the will against good, and preference of evil, which is often developed early, and generally goes on from bad to worse. 2 Kings 2:25 And he went from thence to Mount Carmel. Ewald thinks that Carmel was, on the whole, the main residence of Elijah, and "through him became a special prophetic locality". If so, we may account for Elisha’s visiting it on this occasion by his desire to communicate the facts of Elijah’s removal from earth to those who had been his intimates in that quarter. And from thence he returned to Samaria. Elisha does not imitate the wild, half-savage life and almost constant seclusion of his master. He "prefers from the first the companionship of men," fixes his home in the capital of his country, Samaria (2 Kings 5:9; 2 Kings 6:32); is a friendly counselor of the king (2 Kings 6:9), and highly honored by him (2 Kings 8:4); his whole life, indeed, is, compared with that of Elijah, one of ease and tranquility. But, though living "in the world," he is not "of the world." As Ewald says, "In spite of all the seductions to which he was abundantly exposed through the great consideration in which he was held, he retained at every period of his life the true prophetic simplicity and purity, and contempt for worldly wealth and advantages". He is thus, far more than Elijah, a pattern for Christian ministers, especially for such as are highly placed, who will do well to follow his example. 2 Kings 2:1-10 Preparation for our departure from earth. Abnormal as was the mode of Elijah’s departure from the earth, his conduct in prospect of departure may be to some extent a lesson to Christians. Note— I. HIS . No murmur escapes him; he shows no unwillingness to depart, no clinging to earth, no fear of removal, no shrinking from entrance on the unseen world. When God determines that the objects with which he has been placed upon the earth are accomplished, and that the Divine purposes will now be best carried out by other agents, he is quite ready to go, satisfied to depart, content that God should do with him as seemeth him good. Occupied with listening intently to the Divine voice which speaks within him, and executing its mandates, he moves from place to place, as ordered, indifferent where he is or what toils he undergoes, so that to the last he may faithfully perform the Divine will. II. HIS IN DIVINE AND . The things of earth concern him no more. He moves on in a holy calm, wrapt in pious thought, not even speaking, except in rare snatches, to his attached follower. The unseen world, the coming change, the things of heaven, occupy him. He does not address, perhaps he scarcely sees, the "sons of the prophets," who come forth to take their last look on the great teacher of the day. The time is too solemn a one for greetings, or conversations, or even exhortations. He does not seek to "improve the occasion," as shallower spirits might have done. In silence he goes his way, his mind fixed on God and the things of God—things ineffable, inexpressible—which "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man" to conceive, but which are revealed in flashes to the soul about to depart, and give it a foretaste of the final "joy of the Lord." III. HIS , DESPITE HIS , FOR HIS . Nothing is more common than for persons, in the near prospect of death, to be wholly occupied with themselves, and to have no consideration at all for others—to lose them out of sight, to forget them. Elijah, though wrapt in holy contemplation, is constantly mindful of his follower. Three times he suggests that his attendance is not necessary, and that he should spare himself the toil and trouble of tedious journeys (2 Kings 2:2, 2 Kings 2:4, 2 Kings 2:6). Finally, he invites him to ask whatever boon he pleases, with a replied pledge that, if it be within his power, he will grant it. The boon asked is one not directly in his power to grant; but he does not refuse it on that account. He consults God secretly as to the Divine will with respect to it, and obtains an answer which sustains the spirit of his follower, and makes the moment of his bereavement one also of comfort and triumph to him. 2 Kings 2:2-12 Faithful friendship. Though Elisha is said to have "ministered" to Elijah (1 Kings 19:21), and to have "poured water on his hands" (2 Kings 3:11), yet he was far more Elijah’s friend than his servant. There was no broad difference of rank between the two to hinder this. Rather Elisha was, in original worldly position, the higher of the two. The glimpse we get of his early home in 1 Kings 19:19-21 is indicative of comfort and wealth. In education and manners he must have been quite Elijah’s equal. A friendship, in the proper sense of the term, was thus possible between them, and seems to have existed, and to have been warm and true. It was a friendship, however, in which a certain disparity was recognized on either side—the φιλίακαθὑπεροχὴν, of Aristotle. Elijah was the elder man of the two; he had, when the two became acquainted, the higher social position, being familiar with the court at the time when Elisha was a mere well-to-do farmer; and, as the recognized head of the prophetical order, he had a quasi-ecclesiastical position far higher than that which Elisha occupied during his lifetime. The French proverb says, "Darts les amities il y a toujours un qui aline, et l’autre qui est aime;" and, under the circumstances, it was natural that the attachment should be warmest on Elisha’s side. 1. Elisha shows his attachment by that continuous ministry which caused him to be designated as "Elisha, which poured water on the hands of Elijah" (2 Kings 3:11)—that constant waiting upon the great prophet, and unceasing service, which lasted from the casting of the mantle at Abel-Meholah to the ascent in the chariot and horses of fire. 2. He shows it by his determination to see the last of his friend, to remain in his company as long as he possibly can. 3. He shows it very remarkably by the sympathy which he displays with Elijah’s mood on the journey from Gilgal to the plain east of Jordan, the silence which he keeps, the brief replies which he makes, the care which he takes that his master’s meditations shall be kept free from disturbance. 4. Finally, he shows it by his deep grief when the hour of parting comes; the exclamation forced from him, "My father! my father!" and the violent rending of his clothes into two pieces, which was something very different from the conventional rending of ordinary mourners. As David and Jonathan furnish the scriptural model for a friendship between equals, so Elijah and Elisha may properly be regarded as the model for a friendship between unequals, both equally constant, but perhaps not both equally loving—one the protector, the director, the benefactor, the teacher, the master, the guide; the other the dependent, the scholar, the servant, the faithful devotedly attached follower, admirer, almost slave; bound together in a lifelong bond always becoming more and more close, and presented to us, not merely to awaken in us a passing interest, but to stir us under suitable circumstances to imitation. 2 Kings 2:9 Desire for spiritual exaltation. The Apostle Paul exhorts his converts to "covet earnestly the best gifts" (1 Corinthians 12:31). Selfishness can intrude everywhere; and no doubt there may be a selfish desire for high spiritual gifts and powers, merely to promote our individual glorification. We must be on our guard, not only against the more vulgar forms of selfishness, but also against those rarer and more recondite forms of it which constitute the special temptations of minds not accessible to low motives of the ordinary kind. It is, perhaps, difficult for us, in all eases, to discern our own motives; but an honest wish to discern them will go a long way towards enabling us to arrive at the truth. Desire for spiritual exaltation is noble, pure, and right— I. WHEN OUR MOTIVE IS TO BE OF GREATER USE TO OTHERS. In this case our wish will be for the gifts which tend most to the good of others—for the power to edify, for the power to console, for the power to convert the wicked, for the power to strengthen the upright. We shall not desire to be clever, or eloquent, or logical, or deeply learned; but to be able to win souls to Christ. We shall not be concerned about other persons’ estimates of us; we shall not want their admiration, or their praise, or even their good opinion; but we shall want to see some fruit of our ministerial labors, some increase of earnestness and spiritual-mindedness amongst those who are committed to our charge, some improvement in their habits, some greater zeal, some warmer devotion, some higher spirit of self-sacrifice. II. WHEN OUR MOTIVE IS THE GREATER GLORY OF GOD. God is glorified in the perfection of his creatures; and desire of spiritual exaltation is right when we really and truly desire it for this end. But it is hard to know when this is the case. Great saints, no doubt, have attained to such a condition, and have longed to reach nearer and nearer to spiritual perfectness, not from any selfish motive, but purely to do more honor to God, to glorify him in their souls and spirits, which are God’s. But so few attain to this spiritual height, that a man can scarcely be justified in assuming to himself that he has reached it. We shall do well to suspect our own motives; to keep strict watch upon ourselves, to be on our guard against the insidiousness of self-seeking. Ascetics in all ages, and some in the present age who do not affect any remarkable strictness or severity of life, but call themselves searchers after occult science, or after the higher wisdom, or esoteric Buddhists, or by some other similar outlandish name, and profess to be seeking high spiritual perfection as their own highest good, do not for the most part seek to conceal the selfishness of their aims, or pretend to be actuated either by the wish to benefit others or the desire to promote the glory of God. Their self-training and self-culture begin and end in self, and have nothing noble, or grand, or admirable about them; but, if they are insincere, are a cloak for ordinary vulgar self-seeking, and, if they are sincere, are the result of a delusion cast on them by Satan. 2 Kings 2:14-24 The signs of a teacher sent from God. No man is entitled to assume the position of a teacher sent from God of his own mere motion, or without some external authorization. "How can men preach, except they be sent?" (Romans 10:15). Where an organization has been established by Divine agency, human authorization, the mission of those to whom the power of mission has been assigned, is sufficient. But where there is no such established Church system, the commission has to be given directly by God, and can only be attested to man by the accompaniment of miraculous powers. Miraculous operations may be of three kinds: (1) τέρατα, mere "wonders," suspensions of or departures from the ordinary course of nature; (2) ἰάματα, "cures," works of mercy, miraculous interpositions for the benefit of mankind at large, or of certain persons; and (3) φθοραί, "destructions," miraculous hurts to persons or things, withering up of limbs, smitings with leprosy, or with palsy, or with death itself. It has often been remarked that our Lord’s miracles were predominantly of the second kind. The same may be said of Elisha’s. But as, in the providence of God, it was thought fitting that our Lord, besides his numerous miracles of mercy, should work some mere wonders, as walking on the sea, passing through closed doors (John 20:19), ascending up in his human body to heaven; and should also work at least one miracle of destruction, the withering up of the barren fig tree through his curse; so also Elisha’s mission was attested by miracles of all three kinds. First of all, he exhibits a "wonder" by dividing Jordan; then he works a miracle of mercy, by healing the bitter waters; thirdly, by his curse, he brings about a miracle of destruction, or at least of serious injury, through the she-bears tearing the children. He is thus shown forth to his nation as God’s accredited messenger, endowed with miraculous power of each kind, and therefore entitled to speak to them with fall and complete authority. BY C.H. IRWIN 2 Kings 2:1-8 Parting visits. Here, through the telescope of Scripture story, we are permitted to witness the closing scene of a great life. Let us draw near and look carefully at what happens there, for the like of it only happened once before—and of that we have little record—and it has never happened since. Only two men, Enoch and Elijah, went straight from earth to heaven without passing through the valley of death. It was true of Elijah as well as of Enoch, that "he walked with God." It is a solemn time, surely, in a man’s life when he knows that his earthly journey is drawing to a close, that the shadows of death are closing in upon him, and that eternity is opening up before him. It is well for those who, like Elijah, are ready to depart. "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." It is a solemn time, too, for those who are left behind. What anxious questioning! What possible doubts about the future! What eagerness to look behind the veil and penetrate the darkness which hides the loved one from our view! How happy those who by the eye of faith can see their departed ones entering through the gates into the city, to be forever with the Lord! It is quite evident that God had conveyed to Elijah some intimation of the fact that he was so soon to be taken away from earth. The sons of the prophets were aware of it, and Elisha knew it also. But Elijah seems to have felt no personal anxiety at the thought. Many hundred years after this, when John Knox—the Elijah of Scotland—was on his death-bed, he said to those who stood around him, "Oh, serve the Lord in fear, and death shall not be terrible unto you!" Something like this was Elijah’s experience. He had been faithful to God’s cause and commands during his life, and now he was not afraid that God would forsake him at its close. How, then, did Elijah spend the few hours that remained to him before he entered into the presence of his Maker? Some there are who would like to spend those hours in peaceful contemplation alone with God. Elijah was himself a man of contemplative disposition. He loved to he alone with God. His "soul was like a star, and dwelt apart." And yet, with all this, the active was stronger in him than the contemplative; or rather, the two were so well balanced that the one was a help to the other. From his hours of solitude and communion with God he drew inspiration and strength for his stern conflicts with men and sin. If he was a man of contemplation, he was also a man of action. And so we find him spending the greater part of his closing hours in busy activity and usefulness—visiting the schools of the prophets. Is there not a lesson here? Ought we not to imitate Elijah in redeeming the time, in working while it is day? Do you want to spend your last hours well! If so, you should spend everyday, as you would like to spend your last. One day a lady asked John Wesley how he would spend that day if he knew it was to be his last. She doubtless expected some rules for pious meditation and seclusion. His answer was, "Just, madam, as I intend to spend it;" and then he proceeded to tell her what his busy program of work was for the day. Oh, that we could all say that every day, that if it was to be our last we would spend it just as we intend to spend it! We ought to be able to say it, for any day may be our last. No doubt there are many whom God lays aside by age, or infirmity, or suffering for weeks, or months, or years before he calls them home. They cannot spend their closing hours in what is usually called work for Christ, though they may be really working for him by their patience in suffering, by their faith and hope, by their words of counsel to others. But so long as God gives us health and strength to work for him, then it is best to do as Elijah did—to live in harness to the last. Notice the scene of Elijah’s closing labors. He visited the schools of the prophets, the colleges or institutions where young men were trained for their future work of teaching others the truths of religion. It was amongst the young his last hours were spent. Elijah felt the importance of these colleges, he realized that the young were the hope of the Church. Hence he would devote to them his last, and probably his best, hours. He would give them words of counsel and exhortation—words that, under such circumstances, few of them would ever forget. There is a lesson here for us all. Parents need to realize more the importance of personally instructing their children. They need to take more interest in the kind of education they receive. They need to be more careful about the companions with whom they permit their children to associate. Not merely parents, but all members of the Christian Church, should take a deeper interest in the education of the young. How little our people know, as a rule, about our theological colleges! and how little encouragement do those laboring in them receive from the Church as a whole! Elijah’s closing hours were spent in active work, and that active work consisted in visiting among the young. Such were his parting visits.—C.H.I. 2 Kings 2:9 A parting request. After visiting the schools of the prophets at Bethel and Jericho, which were both on the west side of Jordan—the side nearest Jerusalem, the side nearest Europe—Elijah, accompanied by Elisha, crossed over to the other side, that is, the east side of Jordan, the side nearest the center of Asia. Why was this? Elijah was a Tishbite, of the inhabitants of Gilead, on this east side of Jordan. Like the mountaineer of Switzerland, or the Highlander of Scotland, he was brought up amid the mountains of Gilead. Like them, he was fearless and brave. And he would seem also to have had all the love of the Swiss or the Highlander for his native hills. He wishes to end his earthly life where it had first begun. Perhaps in the dim distance he can see the spot where nestles the home of his childhood. His life has been a stormy one, and now, ere he leaves it for the peaceful life of heaven, he takes one last fond, lingering look at the quiet home of earth. The friends of his youth are gone. Those whom he knew in childhood have forgotten him. But by his side there is a faithful friend who forsook home and friends for his sake and the sake of the truth of God. Elijah was not a rich man. Silver and gold he had none. But he was one of those who could say, "As sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich." Such as he had, he wanted to give to his friend. "And it came to pass, when they were gone over, that Elijah said to Elisha, Ask what I shall do for thee, before I be taken away from thee. And Elisha said, I pray thee, let a double portion of thy spirit be upon me." As Solomon, when he came to the throne, asked not for riches, or honor, or long life, but for a wise and understanding heart, so Elisha also realized what was of most importance for a minister of God, for a teacher of others. Character is the best gift. You may give your children a good education, you may store up a fortune for them, but if they have not a good character, all else is useless and worse than useless. The spirit of Elijah—that was just what a minister of God needed then, and what the minister of the gospel needs still. The spirit of Elijah was a spirit of fidelity to duty, a spirit of faithfulness in rebuking sin, a spirit of fearlessness and courage in the presence of opposition and danger, and at the same time also a spirit of tenderness and love. Such a spirit every Christian worker should seek to possess. And just as Elisha sought to obtain a double portion of it to qualify him for his responsible and prominent position, so also, the minister of Christ needs to be doubly endowed with the Spirit of God. He who would lead and teach others must be doubly spiritual, doubly wise, doubly careful, doubly holy, doubly zealous and scrupulous for the honor and cause of Christ. The spirit of Elijah was needed then, and it is needed still. The sins of his time are the sins of our own time. There are the same immorality, the same covetousness, the same forgetfulness of God, the same absorption in the concerns and pleasures of the present world. We need more men with the spirit of Elijah, who will be faithful to God and conscience at any cost, who will rebuke sin in high places and in any place—the sins of royalty and rank as well as the sins of the poor. How much indecision and worldliness and timidity and timeserving there are on the part of many professing Christians! We need more men with the spirit of Elijah, to ask, "Who is on the Lord’s side?" and to cry aloud to the faltering, weak-kneed, half-hearted Christians, "How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Lord Be God, follow him; but if the world Be your god, follow it." Elisha’s parting request is a request which we might all appropriately make in prayer to God, that a double portion of Elijah’s spirit may rest upon us.—C.H.I. 2 Kings 2:11, 2 Kings 2:12 Parted friends. Elijah seems to have had a desire to avoid a final parting. Either for that reason, or to try Elisha’s devotion, he urged him to tarry first at Gilgal, and afterwards at Bethel. But in vain. Elisha remained with him to the last. What hours of emotion those must have been for Elisha! How he put away from him the very mention of his friend’s departure! When the sons of the prophets asked him if he knew that God was going to take away his master from his head that day, he answered, in words of natural impatience, "Yes, I know it; hold ye your peace." Their words were a thoughtless intrusion on his grief, an unintentional probing of his keen emotions. And so it was as if he said, "Don’t talk to me about it." "Talking of trouble makes it double." And when they had passed over Jordan, and still walked on, what a talk that was I. Those who have ever sat by the bedside of a dying friend know what such moments are. The time seems all too short. So much is to be said. So many questions to ask. So many counsels to be given. So many wonderings as to what it will all be like when next we meet. But the sharp, decisive moment comes at last. Strange forms fill the sky. They draw near to the earth. They are chariots and horses of fire. They touch the earth. Elijah enters, and suddenly, in a whirlwind, is lost to mortal sight. Elisha stands a moment like one in a dream. Then, recovering himself, and gazing after his beloved leader’s vanishing form, he cries, "My father! my father I the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof!" He felt, in the poignancy of his grief, as if the strength of Israel had been that day taken from it. But he soon resigns himself, and passes on, to carry on Elijah’s work. SO, too, will the Christian think of his departing friend. "Sleep on, beloved, sleep, and take thy rest, Lay down thy head upon thy Savior’s breast We love thee well, but Jesus loves thee best: Good night!" When friends are parted by death, perhaps the one who remains wonders why one was take, and the other left. Perhaps you were not prepared to die. Perhaps you had done but little for your Master, and he wanted you to do some more for him. He gave you another chance. If God spares our lives, if he raises us up again from a bed of sickness, we may be assured that there is a gracious purpose in it all. But Elijah not only passed out of mortal sight. It is recorded that he went up into heaven. There is no word of an intermediate state. On through the pearly gates, on through the strains of heavenly music, on into the presence of the King. "Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his." Let me live as Elijah lived, and I shall—even though I pass through the valley of the shadow of death—enter as Elijah entered into that house of many mansions, that home eternal in the heavens, that "city that hath foundations, whose Builder and Maker is God."—C.H.I. 2 Kings 2:13-18 The beginning of Elisha’s work. I. DIVINE POWER TESTED. Elisha wanted a token that God’s presence and power were with him. To obtain this he used Elijah’s mantle as he had seen Elijah use it. He smote the waters, and said, "Where is the Lord God of Elijah?" We learn from this a twofold lesson. 1. The best way to prove the power of Divine grace is to exercise the gifts we have. "Neglect not the gift that is in thee." We shall not accomplish much in the world if we stand gazing up into heaven. "We may not make this world a paradise By walking it together with clasped hands." 2. All effort should be accompanied by prayer. Elisha knew that the mantle of Elijah was of little use, unless the Lord God of Elijah was with him. "Apostolical succession" profits little if there be not also the baptism of the Holy Ghost. If we would succeed in our business, we must look for the Divine guidance, help, and blessing. "Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it." II. THE DIVINE . "When he had smitten the waters, they parted hither and thither: and Elisha went over." If we had faith to undertake great things for God, then we might expect great things from God. Are we attempting as much as we might for our Lord? Are we putting his Divine promises and power to the test? Have we not his own assurance, "Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world"? Why should our efforts be so feeble, when we have all the resources of Divine grace at our disposal? The Divine presence was manifest not only to Elisha himself, but to the sons of the prophets also. When they saw him, they said, "The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha." If we are walking with God, abiding in Christ, the evidence of it will soon be manifest in our lives. III. DIVINE DOUBTED. Although, as we have seen above, the sons of the prophets knew that Elijah was to be taken from them, yet they were slow to believe in his actual removal. They asked Elisha’s permission to send fifty strong men to seek for Elijah, "lest peradventure the Spirit of the Lord hath taken him up, and cast him upon some mountain, or into some valley." Elisha knew how vain it was, and forbade an expedition so futile. But in response to their urgent and repeated entreaties he gave them permission to send. After the exploring party had been searching for Elijah for three days in vain, they at length gave up the quest and returned to Jericho. So the human heart is ever reluctant to submit to God’s purposes. Because we cannot see the meaning of some good man’s removal, we think it was ill-timed. Yet God’s work does not depend upon the human instruments whom he uses. No doubt there is something beautiful and pathetic about this affection of these young men for their old teacher. But when he was gone, why spend their time in profitless brooding over his loss, instead of showing his spirit, and fulfilling his desires by throwing themselves heartily into their work under Elisha? The Church of Christ best shows its regard for the workers of the past and for their work, not by standing still where they have left off, but by carrying forward and improving the work they have begun. There are ever-new conditions of life opening up, and these must be considered as well as the memories of the past.—C.H.I 2 Kings 2:19-22 The waters healed. A beautiful city was Jericho. It stood in the midst of a small but luxuriant plain. Fig trees and palm trees, and wheat, aromatic flowers and plants, grew there in great profusion. A few miles distant rolled the river Jordan, "the most interesting river on earth," and in the background lay the rugged hills of Quarantana. Jericho, too, had a famous history. It was the first city to which the Israelitish spies came when they set out to view the land of promise. It was the first city taken by the Israelites, when its walls fell down as they were compassed about by the priests and people of Israel. Five hundred years after that its walls were rebuilt, in the days of Ahab, by Hiel the Bethelite, who suffered the judgment pronounced by God against the man that would rebuild them (1 Kings 16:34). Yet despite their history and their beautiful surroundings, the inhabitants of Jericho were not happy. The city, rich in so many natural advantages, lacked one of the most important of all necessities of a large town—pure water. The water was diseased or bad, and its badness seems to have affected even the fertile land. The men of the city tell Elisha that the water is bad and the ground barren. (The word translated "barren" really means in the original that the ground cast its fruit or did not bring its fruit to perfection.) Beautiful Jericho with its bad water is like many another place on earth. Many a city is fair without, but all corrupt within. Many a mansion, outwardly gorgeous, is full of wretchedness within. Many a man who presents a smiling face to the world has the canker of a guilty conscience gnawing at his heart. Those who are wrong and want to get set right may find some thoughts of comfort and hope in the passage before us. It points us to Jesus, the only One who can set all right and keep all right. "Thus saith the Lord, I have healed these waters." Notice here SOME WATERS THAT NEED HEALING, AND CHRIST’S POWER TO HEAL THEM. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Kings 3:1-27 THE GENERAL OF JEHORAM’S REIGN OVER ISRAEL; HIS WAR WITH MOAB. 2 Kings 3:1 Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat King of Judah. This note of time is not quite in accordance with the chronology of 1 Kings, which gives Jehoshaphat a reign of twenty-five years (1 Kings 22:42), Ahab one of twenty-two years (1 Kings 16:29), and Ahaziah one of two years (1 Kings 22:51), and makes Jehoshaphat’s first year run parallel with Ahab’s fourth (1 Kings 22:41), since thus Ahab’s death-year would be Jehoshaphat’s nineteenth, and Jehoram’s accession-year, at the earliest, Jehoshaphat’s twentieth. The difficulty may be removed by assigning to Ahab a reign of twenty instead of twenty-two years. On the mode of reconciling the statement of this place with that of 2 Kings 1:17, that Jehoram of Israel began to reign in the second year of Jehoram of Judah, see the comment upon that passage. And reigned twelve years. 2 Kings 3:2 And he wrought evil in the sight of the Lord—as did every other king of Israel both before him (1 Kings 14:16; 1 Kings 15:25, 1 Kings 15:34; 1 Kings 16:13, 1 Kings 16:19, 1 Kings 16:25, 1 Kings 16:30; 1 Kings 22:52) and after him (2 Kings 8:27; 2 Kings 10:31; 2 Kings 13:2, 2 Kings 13:11; 2 Kings 14:24; 2 Kings 15:9, 2 Kings 15:18, 2 Kings 15:24, 2 Kings 15:28; 2 Kings 17:2)—but not like his father, and like his mother—i.e. Ahab and Jezebel, the introducers of the Baal-worship into Israel—for he put away the image of Baal that his father had made. It had not been said previously that Ahab had actually set up an image of Baal, but only that he had "built him a house in Samaria, and reared him up an altar," and that he "served him and worshipped him" (1 Kings 16:31, 1 Kings 16:32). But an image of the god for whom a "house" was built was so much a matter of course in the idolatrous systems of the East, that it might have seemed superfluous to mention it. The actual existence of the image appears later, when its destruction is recorded (2 Kings 10:27). It seems that Jehoram, at the commencement of his reign, took warning by the fates of his father and brother, so far as to abolish the state worship of Baal, which his father had introduced, and to remove the image of Baal from the temple where it had been set up. The image, however, was not destroyed—it was only "put away." 2 Kings 3:3 Nevertheless he cleaved unto the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, which made Israel to sin; he departed not there from. The maintenance of the calf-worship was, no doubt, viewed as a political necessity. If the two sanctuaries at Dan and Bethel had been shut up, the images broken, and the calf-worship brought to an end, there would, as a matter of course, have been a general flocking of the more religious among the people to the great sanctuary of Jehovah at Jerusalem; and this adoption of Jerusalem as a spiritual center would naturally have led on to its acceptance as the general political center of the whole Israelite people. Israel, as a separate kingdom, a distinct political entity, would have disappeared. Hence every Israelite monarch, even the Jehovistic Jehu, felt himself bound, by the political exigencies of his position, to keep up the calf-worship, and maintain the religious system of Jeroboam the son of Nebat. 2 Kings 3:4-27 THE WAR WITH MOAB. The historian goes back to the origin of the war. He had already, in 2 Kings 1:1, mentioned the revolt of Moab at the death of Ahab; but he now recalls his readers’ attention to the fact, and to some extent explains it and accounts for it. Moab had been treated oppressively—had been forced to pay an extraordinarily heavy tribute—and was in a certain sense driven into rebellion (2 Kings 1:4, 2 Kings 1:5). Jehoram, when he came to the kingdom, determined to make a great effort to put the rebellion down, and to re-establish the authority of Israel over the revolted people His relations with Jehoshaphat of Israel were so close that he had no difficulty in persuading him to join in the war. He was also able to obtain the alliance of the King of Edom. Thus strengthened, he made no doubt of being successful, and confidently invaded the country (2 Kings 1:6-9). The course of the war is then related (2 Kings 1:10 -27). 2 Kings 3:6 And King Jehoram went out of Samaria the same time—literally, the same day—and numbered all Israel; rather, mustered or reviewed (ἐπεσκέψατο, LXX.) all Israel. "Numbering" was forbidden (1 Samuel 24:1), and is not here intended, the verb used being פקד, and not מנה. 2 Kings 3:7 And he went and sent to Jehoshaphat the King of Judah, saying. Jehoshaphat had originally allied himself with Ahab, and had cemented the alliance by a marriage between his eldest son, Jehoram, and Athaliah, Ahab’s daughter (2 Kings 8:18; 2 Chronicles 18:1). He had joined Ahab in his attack on the Syrians at Ramoth-Gilead (1 Kings 22:4-36), and had thereby incurred the rebuke of Jehu the son of Hanani (2 Chronicles 19:2). This, however, had net prevented him from continuing his friendship with the Israelite royal house; he "joined himself with Ahaziah" (2 Chronicles 20:35), Ahab’s successor, and though their combined naval expedition met with disaster (1 Kings 22:48), yet he still maintained amicable relations with the Israelite court. Jehoram, therefore, confidently sought his active help when he made up his mind to engage in a war with Moab. The king of Moab hath rebelled against me: wilt thou go with me against Moab to battle! And he said, I will go up: I am as thou art, my people as thy people, and my hones as thy horses. Compare the answer which the same king had made to Ahab, when requested to join him in his attack on the Syrians (1 Kings 22:4). The words were probably a common formula expressive of willingness to enter into the closest possible alliance. Jehoshaphat, it appears from 2 Chronicles 20:1-35, had, a little before this, been himself attacked by the united forces of Moab and Ammon, and brought into a peril from which he was only delivered by miracle. It was, therefore, much to his advantage that Moab should be weakened. 2 Kings 3:8 And he said, Which way shall we go up? Jehoram asked Jehoshaphat’s advice as to the plan of campaign. There ’were two ways in which Moab might be approached—the direct one across the Jordan and then southward through the country east of the Dead Sea to the Amen, which was the boundary between Moab and Israel; and a circuitous one through the desert west of the Red Sea, and across the Arabah south of it, then northwards through Northern Edom, to the brook Zered, or Wady-el-Ahsy, which was the boundary between Moab and Edom. If the former route were pursued, Moab would be entered on the north; if the latter, she would be attacked on the south. Jehoshaphat recommended the circuitous route. And he answered, The way through the wilderness of Edom; probably for two reasons: Edom, though under a native king, was a dependency of Judah (1 Kings 22:47), and on passing through the Edomite country, an Edomite contingent might be added to the invading force; Moab, moreover, was mere likely to be surprised by an attack on this quarter, which was unusual, and from which she would not anticipate danger. 2 Kings 3:9 So the King of Israel went—as leader of the expedition, he is placed first—and the King of Judah—the second in importance, therefore placed second—and the King of Edom—the third in importance, therefore placed last. It is to be remarked that, when Edom was last mentioned, she was ruled by a "deputy," who received his appointment from the King of Judah (1 Kings 22:47). Now, apparently, she has her own native "king." The change is, perhaps, to be connected with the temporary revolt of Edom hinted at in 2 Chronicles 20:22. And they fetched a compass of seven days’ journey. The distance from Jerusalem, where the forces of Israel and Judah probably united, to the southern borders of Moab by way of Hebron, Malatha, and Thamara, which is the best-watered route, and would probably be the route taken, does not much exceed a hundred miles; but its difficulties are great, and it is quite probable that the march of an army along it would not average more than fifteen miles a day. And there was no water for the host. The confederate army had reached the border of Moab, where they had probably expected to find water in the Wady-el-Ahsy, which is reckoned a perennial stream; but it was dry at the time. All the streams of these parts fail occasionally, when there has been no rain for a long time. And for the cattle that followed them; rather, for the beasts that followed them (see the Revised Version). The baggage-animals are intended (see 2 Chronicles 20:17). 2 Kings 3:10 And the King of Israel said, Alas! that the Lord hath called these three kings together, to deliver them into the hand of Moab! Jehoram first assumes, without warrant, that the expedition is one which Jehovah has sanctioned, and then complains that it is about to fail utterly. As he had made no attempt to learn God’s will on the subject at the mouth of any prophet, he had no ground for surprise or complaint, even had the peril been as great as he supposed. God had not "called the three kings together;" they had come together of their own accord, guided by their own views of earthly policy. Yet God was not about to "deliver them into the hands of Moab," as in strict justice he might have done. He was about to deliver the three kings from their peril. 2 Kings 3:11 But Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here a prophet of the Lord, that we may inquire of the Lord by him? The Israelite monarch despairs at once; the Jewish monarch retains faith and hope. Undoubtedly he ought to have had inquiry made of the Lord before he consented to accompany Jehoram on the expedition. But one neglect of duty does not justify persistence in neglect. This he sees, and therefore suggests that even now, at the eleventh hour, the right course shall be taken. It may not even yet be too late. And one of the King of Israel’s servants—i.e; one of the officers in attendance on him—answered and said, Here is Elisha. Apparently,-Jehoram was not aware of Elisha’s presence with the army. He had to be enlightened by one of his attendants, who happened to be acquainted with the fact. We may suppose that Elisha had joined the army "at the instigation of the Spirit of God" (Keil), God having resolved to rescue the Israelites from their peril by his instrumentality, and at the same time to show forth his glory before the people of Moab. The son of Shaphat, which poured water on the hands of Elijah; i.e. who was accustomed to minister to Elijah’s wants, and to attend upon him. 2 Kings 3:12 And Jehoshaphat said, The word of the Lord is with him; that is, "he is a true prophet; he can tell us the will of God." It is impossible to say how Jehoshaphat had acquired this conviction. Elijah’s selection of Elisha to be his special attendant (1 Kings 19:19-21) was no doubt generally known, and may have raised expectations that Elisha would be the next great prophet. Jehoshaphat may have heard of the miracles recorded in 2 Kings 2:1-25. At any rate, he appears to have been firmly convinced of Elisha’s prophetic mission, and to have accepted him as the authorized exponent of God’s will at the time. So the King of Israel and Jehoshaphat and the King of Edom went down to him. Prophets were commonly summoned into the king’s presence, or, if they had a message to him, contrived a meeting in some place where they knew he would be. That the kings should seek Elisha out and visit him was a great sign both of the honor in which he was held, and also of the extent to which they were humbled by the danger which threatened them. 2 Kings 3:13 And Elisha said unto the King of Israel, What have I to do with thee? get thee to the prophets of thy father, and to the prophets of thy mother. Despite Jehoram’s self-humiliation, Elisha regards it as incumbent on him to rebuke the monarch, who, though he had "put away the image of Baal which his father had made," still "wrought evil in the sight of the Lord," and "cleaved to the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat" (2 Kings 2:2, 2 Kings 2:3). Jehoram must not be allowed to suppose that he has done enough by his half-repentance and partial reformation; he must be rebuked and shamed, that he may, if possible, be led on to a better frame of mind. "What," says the prophet, "have I to do with thee? What common ground do we occupy? What is there that justifies thee in appealing to me for aid? Get thee to the prophets of thy father"—the four hundred whom Ahab gathered together at Samaria, to advise him as to going up against Ramoth-Gilead (1 Kings 22:6)—"and the prophets of thy mother," the Baal-prophets, whom Jezebel, who was still alive, and held the position of queen-mother, still maintained (2 Kings 10:19)—"get thee to them, and consult them. On them thou hast some claim; on me, none." And the King of Israel said unto him; Nay: for the Lord hath called these three kings together, to deliver them into the hand of Moab. A most soft and meek answer—one well calculated to "turn away wrath." "Nay," says the king; "say not so. Let not that be thy final answer. For it is not I alone who am in danger. We are three kings who have come down to thee to ask thy aid; we are all in equal danger; have respect unto them, if thou wilt not have respect unto me; and show them a way of deliverance." 2 Kings 3:14 And Elisha said, As the Lord of hosts liveth, before whom I stand, surely, were it not that I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, I would not look toward thee, nor see thee. Jehoshaphat’s conduct had not been blameless; he had twice incurred the rebuke of a prophet for departures from the line of strict duty—once for "helping the ungodly" Ahab at Ramoth-Gilead (2 Chronicles 19:2); and a second time for "joining himself with Ahaziah to make ships to go to Ophir". Even now he was engaged in an expedition which had received no Divine sanction, and was allied with two idolatrous monarchs. But Elisha condones these derelictions of duty in consideration of the king’s honesty of purpose and steady attachment to Jehovah, which is witnessed to by the authors both of Kings (1 Kings 22:43; 2 Kings 3:11) and Chronicles (2 Chronicles 17:3-6; 2 Chronicles 19:4-11; 2 Chronicles 20:5-21, etc.). He "regards the presence of Jehoshaphat," and therefore consents to return an answer to the three kings, and announce to them the mode of their deliverance. The adjuration wherewith he opens his speech is one of great solemnity, only used upon very special occasions (see 1 Kings 17:1; 2 Kings 5:16), and adds great force to his declaration. 2 Kings 3:15 But now bring me a minstrel. A player on the harp seems to be intended. Music was cultivated in the schools of the prophets (1 Samuel 10:5; 1 Chronicles 25:1-3), and was employed to soothe and quiet the soul, to help it to forget things earthly and external, and bring it into that ecstatic condition in which it was most open to the reception of Divine influences. As David’s harping refreshed Saul, and tranquillized his spirit (1 Samuel 16:23), so the playing of any skilled minstrel had a soothing effect on those possessing the prophetic gift generally, and enabled them to shut out the outer world, and concentrate their whole attention on the inward voice which communicated to them the Divine messages. And it came to pass, when the minstrel played, that the hand of the Lord came upon him. By "the hand of the Lord" is meant the power of the Spirit of God, the Divine effluence, whatever it was, which acquainted the prophets with the Divine will, and enabled them to utter it. 2 Kings 3:16 And he said, Thus saith the Lord, Make this valley full of ditches; rather, full of pits (βοθύβους, LXX.). The object was to detain the water which would otherwise have all run off down the torrent-course in a very little time. 2 Kings 3:17 For thus saith the Lord, Ye shall not see—i.e; perceive—wind, neither shall ye see rain. Wind and rain usually go together in the East, especially when there is sudden heavy rain after a time of drought. What Elisha promises is a heavy storm of wind accompanied by violent rain, which, however, will be at such a distance that the Israelites will see nothing of it, but whereof they will experience the effects when the torrent-course that separates them from the Moabite country suddenly becomes a rushing stream as the rain flows off down it. Their "pits," or trenches, will retain a portion of the water, and furnish them with a sufficient supply for their wants. It was necessary that the storm should be distant, that the Moabites might know nothing of it, and so fall under the delusion (2 Kings 3:23), which led to their complete defeat. Yet that valley shall be filled with water. Travelers tell us that, in certain circumstances, it takes but ten minutes or a quarter of an hour for a dry water-course in the East to become a raging torrent quite impassable. That ye may drink, both ye, and your cattle—i.e; the animals which you have brought with you for food—and your boasts; i.e. your beasts of burden, or baggage-animals. Animals, except camels, suffer from drought even more than men, and die sooner. The Israelites do not appear to have ever employed camels. 2 Kings 3:18 And this is but a light thing in the sight of the Lord. God, the Author of nature, has full control over nature, and it is an easy matter for him to produce at will any natural phenomena. It is otherwise when the stubborn element of the human will is brought into play. Then difficulty may arise. He will deliver the Moabites also into your hand. It would be better to translate, he will also deliver (see the Revised Version). 2 Kings 3:19 And ye shall smite every fenced city, and every choice city. The LXX. omit the second clause, perhaps because they could not reproduce in Greek the assonance of the Hebrew, where the words for "fenced" and "choice" (מִבְצֶר and מִבְצוֹר) have nearly the same sound. And shall fell every good tree. It has been said that the Law forbade this, and argued (1) that Elisha did not here utter a command, but only a prediction (Pool), not bidding the Israelites to cut down the trees, but only telling them they would do so; (2) that Elisha intentionally excepted the Moabites from the merciful provision of the Law (Deuteronomy 20:19, Deuteronomy 20:20), having authority to do so, and regarding the Moabites as exceptionally wicked (Keil); and (3) that the Mosaic Law was not observed under the kings, and that Elisha himself had forgotten the provision about fruit trees (Geddes). But a careful examination of the passage in Deuteronomy will show (1) that there is no general prohibition of the cutting down of fruit trees, but only a prohibition of their being cut down for siege works; (2) that the prohibition rests on prudential, not on moral, grounds, and is thus practically limited to eases where the conquest of the country attacked, and its occupation by the conquerors, are looked forward to. The words are, "When thou shalt besiege a city …. thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them: for thou mayest eat of them." The destruction of the fruit trees in an enemy’s country was a common feature of the wars of the period, and was largely practiced, both By the Assyrians and the Egyptians. And stop all wells of water. The stoppage of springs and wells was another common practice in ancient times, often employed against enemies and aliens. The Philistines stopped the Hebrew wells in the days of Isaac (Genesis 26:18). Hezekiah stopped the springs of water outside Jerusalem, when he expected to be besieged By the Assyrians (2 Chronicles 32:3, 2 Chronicles 32:4). The Scythians, when Darius invaded their country, stopped all their own wells as they retired before him (Herod; 4.120). Arsaces III. partly stopped, and partly poi-ached, the Persian wells in his war with Antiochus the Great (Polyb; 10.28. § 5). The practice was regarded as quite legitimate. And mar every good piece of land with stones; literally, grieve every good piece of land. To clear the stones off a piece of ground was the first step towards preparing it for cultivation in the stony regions on either side of the Jordan. The clearance was generally effected by collecting the stones into heaps. When it was wished to "mar the land," the stones were there to be spread over it afresh. 2 Kings 3:20 And it came to pass in the morning, when the meat offering was offered—i.e. about sunrise, which was the time of the morning sacrifice—that, behold, there came water by the way of Edom. The Wady-el-Ahsy drains a portion of Southern Moab, and also a considerable tract of Northern Edom. The nocturnal storm had burst, not in the Moabite country, where it would have attracted the attention of the Moabites, but in some comparatively distant part of the Idumaean territory, so that the Moabites were not aware of it. Josephus says that the storm burst at a distance of three days’ journey from the Israelite camp (’Ant. Jud.,’ 9.3. § 2); but this can only be his conjecture. And the country was filled, with water. By "the country" (ha-arets) must be meant here the bed or channel of the water-course. This was suddenly filled with a rushing stream, which, however, rapidly ran off, leaving the water-course dry, excepting where the pits had been made by the Israelites. But this supply was ample for the army. 2 Kings 3:21 And when all the Moabites heard that the kings were come up to fight against them. The Hebrew has no pluperfect tense; but the verbs have here a pluperfect force. Translate, When all the Moabites had heard that the kings were come up to fight against them, they had gathered all that were able, etc. The muster of the troops had long preceded the storm. They gathered all that were able to put on amour; literally, there had been gathered together all that girded themselves with girdles; i.e. all the male population of full age. And upward—i.e; and all above the age when the girdle was first assumed—and stood in the border; took up a position near the extreme border of their territory, on the northern bank of the Wady-el-Ahsy. 2 Kings 3:22 And they rose up early in the morning, and the sun shone upon the water, and the Moabites saw the water on the other side as red as blood. The red hue of the water is ascribed by Ewald to "the red tinge of the soil" in the part of Edom where the rain had fallen; by Keil, to "the reddish earth of the freshly dug trenches," or pits; but the only cause of the redness mentioned either in Kings or in Josephus is the ruddy hue of the sunrise. A ruddy sunrise is common in the East, more especially in stormy weather (see Matthew 16:3); and the red light, falling upon the water in the pits, and reflected thence to the opposite side of the wady, would quite sufficiently account for the mistake of the Moabites, without supposing that the water was actually stained and discolored. The Moabites concluded that the red-looking liquid was blood, from knowing that the wady was dry the day before, and from not suspecting that there had been any change in the night, as the storm which had caused the change was at such a distance. 2 Kings 3:23 And they said, This is blood. Even Ewald recognizes here "a historical background for the narrative." The idea of such a mistake could scarcely have occurred to a romancer. The kings are surely slain, and they have smitten one another. There were rivalries and jealousies subsisting between Judah, Israel, and Edom, which made it quite possible that at any time open quarrel might break out among them. Edom especially was, it is probable, a reluctant member of the confederacy, forced to take her part in it by her suzerain, Jehoshaphat. The Moabites, moreover, had recently had personal experience how easily the swords of confederates might be turned against each other, since their last expedition against Judah (2 Chronicles 20:1-25) had completely failed through such a sudden disagreement and contention. Now therefore, Moab, to the spoil. If their supposition were correct, and the kings had come to blows, and the hosts destroyed each ether, Moab would have nothing to do but to fly upon the spoil, to strip the slain, and plunder the camp of the confederates. A disorderly rush took place for this purpose (see Josephus, ’Ant. Jud.,’ 9.3. § 2). 2 Kings 3:24 And when they came to the camp of Israel, the Israelites rose up. The first rush of the main body would be upon the camp, where they would expect to find the richest spoil. It was near at hand; and the occupants kept themselves concealed in it, expecting the disorderly attack which actually took place. They then "rose up," and fell upon the crowd of assailants, who were off their guard, and expecting nothing less. A confused rout followed. And smote the Moabites, so that they fled before them. Josephus says, "Some of the Moabites were cut to pieces; the others fled, and dispersed themselves over their country." But they went forward, smiting the Moabites even in their country. There are two readings here, ויבו and ויכו. The former is to be preferred, and is to be pointed וַיָּבוֹ (for וַיָּבוֹא, as in 1 Kings 12:12). This gives the meaning of the text. The marginal translation follows the Keri וַיַּכוּ, which is (as Keil says) "a bad emendation." 2 Kings 3:25 And they beat down the cities—i.e. destroyed them—leveled them with the ground—and on every good piece of land cast every man his stone (see 2 Kings 3:19 and the comment ad loc.), and filled it [with stones]. And they stopped all the wells of water, and felled all the good trees—i.e. the fruit trees, δένδραἥμερα (Josephus)—only in Kir-haraseth left they the stones thereof; literally, until in Kir-haraseth—i.e; in Kir-haraseth only—left he the stones thereof. He (i.e. the commander, or the army) went on destroying and leveling the cities, until he came to Kir-haraseth, which proved too strong for him. There he was obliged to leave the stones untouched. Kir-haraseth, which is not mentioned among the early Moabite towns, nor even upon the Moabite Stone, and which is therefore thought to have been a newly constructed fortress (Ewald), was, in the later times, one of the most important of the strongholds of Moab (see Isaiah 15:1; Isaiah 16:7, Isaiah 16:11; Jeremiah 48:36). It was sometimes called Kir-Moab, "the fortress of Moab." At what time it got the name of Kerak is uncertain; but we find it spoken of as Kerak-Moab by Ptolemy, and by Stephen of Byzantium. It was a place of much importance in the time of the Crusades. The situation is one of great strength. The fortress is built upon the top of a steep hill, surrounded on all sides by a deep arid narrow valley, which again is completely enclosed by mountains, rising higher than the fort itself. It is undoubtedly one of the strongest positions within the territory anciently possessed by the Moabites. Howbeit the slingers went about it, and smote it. Ewald thinks that by "slingers" are meant, not mere ordinary slingers, but persons who worked more elaborate engines, as catapults and the like. He is undoubtedly correct in saying that "all sorts of elaborate modes of attacking fortifications were very early known in Asia;" but it is very questionable whether the Hebrew word used (הַקַּלָּעִים) can mean anything but "slingers" in the usual sense. The LXX. translate by σφενδονῆται. The situation is one which would allow of "slingers," in the ordinary sense, sending their missiles into the place, and grievously harassing it. 2 Kings 3:26 And when the King of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him—i.e. that he could not hope to maintain the defense much longer, but would be forced to surrender the fortress—he took with him seven hundred men that drew swords, to break through even unto the King of Edom. Perhaps he regarded the King of Edom as the weakest of the three confederates, and the least likely to offer effectual resistance; perhaps he viewed him as a traitor, since Edom had been his ally a little earlier (2 Chronicles 20:10, 2 Chronicles 20:22), and wished to wreak his vengeance on him. But they could not. The attempt failed; Edom was too strong, and he was forced to throw himself once more into the beleaguered town. 2 Kings 3:27 Then he took his eldest son, that should have reigned in his stead—the throne of Moab being hereditary, and primogeniture the established law (cf. Moabite Stone, lines 2 and 3, "My father reigned over Moab thirty years, and I reigned after my father")—and offered him for a burnt offering. Human sacrifice was widely practiced by the idolatrous nations who bordered on Palestine, and by none more than by the Moabites. A former King of Moab, when in a sore strait, had asked, "Shah I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?" (Micah 6:7); and there is reason to believe that a chief element in the worship of Chemosh was the sacrifice of young children by their unnatural parents. The practice rested on the idea that God was best pleased when men offered to him what was dearest and most precious to them; but it was in glaring contradiction to the character of God as revealed by his prophets, and it did violence to the best and holiest instincts of human nature. The Law condemned it in the strongest terms as a profanation of the Divine Name (Leviticus 2 Kings 18:21; 2 Kings 20:1-5), and neither Jeroboam nor Ahab ventured to introduce it when they established their idolatrous systems. The King of Mesh, undoubtedly, offered the sacrifice to his god Chemosh (see Moabite Stone, lines 3, 4, 8, 12, etc.), hoping to propitiate him, and by his aid to escape from the peril in which he found himself placed. HIS motive for offering the sacrifice upon the wall is not so clear. It was evidently done to attract the notice of the besiegers, but with what further object is uncertain. Ewald thinks the king’s intention was to" confound the enemy by the spectacle of the frightful deed to which they had forced him," and thus to "effect a change in their purposes"; but perhaps it is as likely that he hoped to work upon their fears, and induce them to retire under the notion that, if they did not, Chemosh would do them some terrible injury. And there was great indignation against Israel: and they departed. It seems necessary to connect these clauses, and to regard them as assigning cause and effect. The deed done aroused an indignation against Israel, which led to the siege being raised. But an indignation on whose part? Keil thinks, on God’s. But could God be angry with Israel for an act of the King of Moab, which they had no ground for anticipating, and which they could not possibly have pro-vented? especially when the Israelites had done nothing to cause the act, except by carrying out God’s own command to them through his prophet, to "smite every fenced city and every choice city" (2 Kings 3:19). The indignation, therefore, must have been human. But who felt it? Probably the Moabites. The terrible act of their king, to which they considered that Israel had driven him, stirred up such a feeling of fury among the residue of the Moabite nation, that the confederates quailed before it, and came to the conclusion that they had best give up the siege and retire. They therefore departed from him—i.e. the King of Mesh—and returned to their own land; severally to Edom, Judea, and Samaria. 2 Kings 3:1-3 Half-repentances not accepted by God. Jehoram was better than his father and his mother, very considerably better than his brother (l Kings 22:52, 53). He "put away the image of Baal that his father had made," lowered the Baal-worship from the position of the state religion to that of (at the most) a tolerated cult, and professed himself a worshipper of Jehovah. But his heart was not whole with God. He "cleaved unto the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat; and departed not therefrom." At Dan and Bethel the golden calves still received the homage of both king and people; priests, not of the blood of Aaron, offered the sacrifices of unrighteousness before the insensible images; and ritual practices were maintained which had no Divine sanction. Jehoram’s reformation stopped half-way. He repented of what Ahab and Jezebel and Ahaziah had done, but not of what Jeroboam had done. His was a half-hearted repentance. I. HALF- IS FROM FIRST TO LAST BY . "How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him" (1 Kings 18:21); "Oh that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always!" (Deuteronomy 5:29); "I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life" (Deuteronomy 30:19); "No man can serve two masters … ye cannot serve God and mammon" (Matthew 6:24); "Whosoever shall keep the whole Law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all" (James 2:10); "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would that thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth" (Revelation 3:15,Revelation 3:16). God’s true servants are those whose heart is whole with him (Psalms 78:37), who are "faithful in all his house" (Numbers 12:7), who "fear him, and walk in all his ways, and love him, and serve him with all their heart and all their soul’ (Deuteronomy 10:12). II. HALF- WITHIN ITSELF THE GERMS OF AND OF FAILURE. "A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways" (James 1:8). Changefulness, vacillation, infirmity of purpose, inconsistency, half-repentances, half-resolves, are sure to result in failure and inability to effect anything. No policy is successful unless it is thorough. No character is calculated to impress others, or carry through any important work, or leave its mark on the world, but one that is firm, strong, sincere, consistent, thorough-going. Haft-measures are of little service. Half-resolves are almost worse than absence of all resolve. Half-repentances stand in the way of real change of heart and amendment of life. Haft-hearted rulers are apt to "ordain something good here and there, or abolish something bad, while they perceive still more which their duty would require them to remove, but they cannot bring themselves to do it, from motives of policy which are not pure, or pleasing to God" (Lange). Such halt-heartedness, while it angers God, is not even expedient, with reject to men, in the long run. 2 Kings 3:4, 2 Kings 3:5 Rebellion not to be entered upon with a light heart. We are not sufficiently acquainted with the position of Moab under Israel, or with the extent of the Moabite resources, or with the grounds of just complaint which they may have had, to determine whether this particular rebellion was justifiable or no. But we can clearly see from the narrative that rebellion is a very grave matter, one to be very carefully considered, and only to be adventured upon under a combination of circumstances that very rarely occurs. I. THERE MUST BE GREAT AND SERIOUS . Whether the tribute exacted by Israel from Moab was excessive and unduly burdensome, or even absolutely intolerable, depends on the actual wealth of the country in flocks and herds, which is a point whereon we have no sufficient information. But it is clear that a tribute may be excessive; nay, may be so oppressive as to justify revolt. There is a point beyond which a country’s resources cannot be strained, and no subject people is bound to wait until the last straw has broken its back. Systematic insult and injury, determined misgovernment without prospect of alleviation, severe oppression, absolutely exhaustive taxation, are grievances against which a subject people may fairly rebel, and appeal to the arbitrament of arms. But the weight of the grievances endured is not the only factor in the equation. II. THERE MUST ALSO BE A OF SUCCESS. Probably ten rebellions have been crushed for one that has succeeded. It is difficult to calculate chances beforehand; and hope is apt to "tell a flattering tale." To have a good cause is certainly not enough, fortune being too often on the side, not of justice and right, but of "big battalions." No cause could be much better than that of the gladiators who revolted under Spartacus; but Rome crushed them, and quenched the flames of their rebellion in blood, within the specs of two years from the time of its breaking out. The war of the Fronds was equally justifiable from a moral point of view; but it was hopeless from the first, and ought never to have been adventured on. On the other hand, the rebellion of the Jews against Antiochus Epiphanes, and that of the Swiss against Gessler, which might well have seemed hopeless to those who initiated them, succeeded. The issue in every case is in the hand of God, with whom, as Judas Maccabaeus said, "it is all one to deliver with a great multitude or a small company; for the victory of battle standeth not in the multitude of an host, but strength cometh from heaven" (1 Macc. 3:18, 19). Still, in every case, probabilities ought to be seriously weighed, consequences thoughtfully considered. In nine cases out of ten, it is better to "bear the ills we have than fly to others that we know not of." War is such a terrible evil, the source of such incalculable mischief and wretchedness, that almost everything should be borne before the appeal is made to it. III. THERE SHOULD BE A THAT THE OF SUCCESS WILL THE EVILS OF THE FOR IT. An oppressed nationality will, perhaps, always expect this to be the case, and will turn a deaf ear to those who urge the prudential consideration. But it may be worth attending to nevertheless. It will be too late, if the discovery be made after the struggle is over, that "le jeu ne valait pus la chandelle." A nation may, after long years of bitter conflict, shake off a foreign yoke, but may emerge from the strife so weakened, so exhausted, so impoverished, that its new life is not worth living. The evils of the struggle are certain; the benefits of independence are problematical. Subject nationalities should consider well, before they break into revolt, not only the chances of success, but the probable balance of loss and gain supposing that ultimately success is achieved. 2 Kings 3:6-12 Faith and unfaith tested by danger and difficulty. Jehoshaphat and Jehoram are associates, allies, brothers-in-arms. They are united in one cause, have one object, one aim. And they fall into one and the same danger and difficulty. A failure of water at the spot where they had fully expected to find it brings them and their armies into peril of almost instant destruction. But how differently are they affected under the same circumstances! Jehoram at once despairs, sees no way out of the difficulty, has no plan, no counsel, to suggest. Far from flying to God for succor, he only thinks of him to reproach him. Jehovah, he says, has called three kings together, only to deliver them into the hand of Moab. The reproach is as unfounded as it is useless. Jehovah had not called the three kings together. He had not been consulted on the subject of the expedition, and he had not spoken. The three kings had come together of their own free will, and of their own mere motion. And Jehovah was not about to deliver them into the hand of Moab, but was about to give them a great victory over Moab—a victory which would prevent Moab from causing any further trouble for half a century (2 Kings 13:20). But Jehoram, being the embodiment of unfaith, is blind, hopeless, and helpless. It is otherwise with Jehoshaphat, who all his life "has prepared his heart to seek God" (2 Chronicles 19:3). Danger and difficulty draw forth what is best in him, rouse him out of a sort of trance of religious indifference into which he had fallen, and cause him to fall back upon Jehovah as the only sure Refuge in time of trouble, and to ask, "Is there not here a prophet of the Lord, that we may inquire of the Lord by him?" Jehoshaphat’s faith makes him both hopeful and helpful. He suggests a course which leads to a happy result. Bat for him, so far as appears, the danger might have terminated in disaster. 2 Kings 3:13-19 The servant of God in the presence of the great of the earth. Three lessons may be learnt from the conduct of Elisha before the confederate kings. I. A LESSON OF ZEAL FOR GOD. Elisha does not allow himself to be abashed by the earthly grandeur and dignity of his visitors, or to be rendered yielding and complaisant by the compliment which they have paid him in seeking him out, instead of summoning him to their presence. As the servant and minister of God, he is always in a grander presence than theirs ("As the Lord God liveth, before whom I stand," 2 Kings 3:14); and as God’s mouthpiece he is entitled to be approached, even by the most exalted of human dignitaries, as a superior. Out of zeal for God he asserts himself, and adopts a tone of rebuke, remonstrance, and almost contempt, which would have ill befitted a subject, had he not been acting in the capacity of God’s prophet and representative. II. A LESSON OF . Oriental kings are not accustomed to rebuke, and are apt to resent it. They have despotic, or quasi-despotic power, and can visit with very severe pains and penalties those who provoke them. Ahab imprisoned Micaiah the son of Imlah, and fed him with "the bread of affliction and the water of affliction" (1 Kings 22:27); Jezebel sought Elijah’s life (1 Kings 19:2); Joash was privy to the murder of Zechariah the son of Jehoiada (2 Chronicles 24:20). In openly rebuking Jehoram, his sovereign, on account of his idolatry, Elisha showed a boldness and a fearlessness that were at once surprising and admirable. He evidently "did not fear what flesh could do unto him’ (Psalms 56:4). III. A LESSON OF FOR DIVINE . Elisha, having exhibited his zeal for God and his fearlessness of man, had finally to address himself to the special needs of the occasion. Three kings had applied to him to know the will of God with respect to a certain difficult conjuncture. He did not yet know it. How could he bring himself into the frame of mind best fitted to receive an effluence from on high? He regarded music as, under the circumstances, the best preparation. His example teaches us (1) that music has religious uses; (2) that it is of the utmost importance to prepare ourselves, if we would have the Divine Spirit speak to our own spirits. Men often complain that they derive no benefit from sacramental and other ordinances. May not the reason be that they do not prepare themselves aright? The Holy Spirit will not enter into our hearts unless they are made ready for his august presence. 2 Kings 3:21-25 God’s enemies rewarded after their deserving. Whether or no the Moabites were, humanly speaking, justified in their attempt to shake off the Israelitish yoke, and re-establish their independence, at any rate they were, as a nation, distinctly hostile to Jehovah and his laws, and must be counted as among God’s enemies. Their Chemosh cannot be reckoned as an adumbration of the true God; he is rather an adumbration of the evil and malignant spirit. A people that delights in human sacrifice, and offers to its deities tender and innocent children, drowning their cries with the loud din of drums and tom-toms, must have depraved its conscience by long persistence in evil, and departed very far indeed from original righteousness. Moab, moreover, had, from the time of Balak, determinately set itself at once to oppose the Israelites, whenever opportunity offered, by armed force, and also to corrupt and deprave them morally and religiously. The Moabites had recently made what seems to have been an entirely unprovoked attack upon Jehoshaphat, and had stirred up the Ammonites and Edomites to do the same (2 Chronicles 20:1-15). They had already suffered one chastisement for this wrong-doing, at the hand of God (2 Chronicles 20:22-24); but God’s anger against them was not yet fully appeased. The rebellion on which Mesha had adventured led now to a further chastisement—Moab was ravaged from one end of the country to the other, the towns were taken and demolished, the fruit trees cut down, the good land "marred," only Kir-haraseth was left unharmed; and even there the inhabitants suffered greatly. Moab was severely punished; but, as usually, God’s justice was tempered with mercy. She was not crushed; she was not destroyed. If we may believe Mesha, she gradually recovered and rebuilt her towns. After fifty years of depression she was able to resume her raids into the land of Israel (2 Kings 13:20), and it was not till the establishment of the Roman supremacy over the East that, having filled up the measure of her iniquities, she ceased to exist as a nation. BY C.H. IRWWIN 2 Kings 3:1-3 The continuity of evil. How hard it is to get rid of the power of evil! Ahaziah had sought after strange gods. He had served Baal with all his corruptions. Jehoram his brother, who succeeds him, is a little better. "He put away the image of Baal which his father had made." Perhaps he was frightened by Ahaziah’s fate as the consequence of his sin, and by the fire from heaven which had consumed the two captains and their fifties for their defiance of the Most High. But still "he cleaved unto the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin." Both Ahaziah and Jehoram had been trained in evil by their father and mother. The whole land had been contaminated by the influence of Ahab and Jezebel. How true are the poet’s words, "The evil that men do lives after them!" Beware of leaving evil influences behind you.—C.H.I. 2 Kings 3:4-12 Forgetting God, and its results. We see from these verses how very partial was Jehoram’s reformation. He put away the image of Baal, but he experienced no change of heart. Outward observances of religion, outward conformity to God’s Law, are of little use, if the heart is not right within. Observe how Jehoram shows his entire forgetfulness or disregard of God. I. BY HIS OF THE PEOPLE. The King of Moab had risen in rebellion against him. What is Jehoram’s first act? Is it to seek help or guidance from God? No; he goes forth and musters all Israel. He relied for safety upon the strength of his army. He forgot the chariots of Israel, and the horsemen thereof." He forgot the judgments that had come upon Ahaziah for his disregard of God. II. BY SEEKING HUMAN HELP AND . He goes and seeks the help of Jehoshaphat King of Judah. "Wilt thou go up with me to battle?" From him also he seeks guidance. "Which way shall we go up?" There is no word of turning to God for direction. How very like the manner in which we act still! We seek guidance anywhere but from God. We ask of public opinion, of men of the world, of godless neighbors, "Which way shall we go up?" No wonder that our plans are so often failures, and that anxiety and trouble fill our hearts. Far better that we should turn to the Lord, as Moses did, and say, "If thy presence go not with us, carry us not up hence." Where God’s guidance is not sought, God’s blessing cannot be expected. So Jehoram found. He and Jehoshaphat were joined by the King of Edom, and, as the three kings and their armies journeyed through the wilderness, there was no water for the host and for the cattle that followed them. Jehoram thinks of God then. He remembers there is such a thing as an overruling providence. But how does he think of him? Only to throw upon God the blame of his own actions. He says, "Alas! that the Lord hath called these three kings together, to deliver them into the hand of Moab!" So we have heard men blame God for the consequences of their own acts. Like Jehoram, they will have none of God’s counsel, they follow their own way, and then they grumble at God because he lets them eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices. Then, in their trouble and difficulty, Jehoshaphat inquires for a prophet of the Lord. Jehoram never thought of it. Elisha is discovered, and the three kings do not wait to send for him, but go down in person, and together, to consult with him. What a beautiful testimony that is which Jehoshaphat bears to Elisha, "The word of the Lord is with him"! That was the secret of Elisha’s power.—C.H.I. 2 Kings 3:13-15 Elisha and the minstrel. When the kings come down to see him, at first Elisha is filled with just indignation. He rebukes the King of Israel for his godlessness, and says, "What have I to do with thee? get thee to the prophets of thy father, and to the prophets of thy mother." And then, when Jehoram repeats his profanity of throwing the blame upon God, Elisha protests that, but for the presence of Jehoshaphat King of Judah, he would have nothing more to do with him. But he has God’s people to think of, and God’s message, and so, in order to calm his mind and bring him into a fit state to deliver God’s message, he says, "Bring me a minstrel" (the Hebrew word means one who played upon the harp). "And it came to pass, when the minstrel played, that the hand of the Lord came upon him." And then Elisha delivers to them that command of God by obeying which the armies obtained at once refreshing and safety, strength and victory. We learn here— I. THE USE OF MEANS IN GENERAL. The kings had not taken the right way to obtain success. In setting out on their expedition they had used no means to obtain God’s guidance. They trusted in the arm of flesh, and leaned to their own understanding. Then at last, when in a difficulty, in distress for want of water, and in danger of being defeated by their enemies, they think then of some means of obtaining God’s help. It was no harm for them to look to the state of their armies, and to take the best military advice, they could get, provided they had first of all sought direction from God. But this they had not done. Elisha acts very differently. He seeks to put his mind into a fit state to receive and deliver God’s message. 1. We ought to use means to bring our souls into fellowship with God. There are few persons, no matter how godless, no matter how worldly, who do not cherish the hope of getting to heaven and being with God hereafter. But when are they going to prepare for heaven? Many professing Christians lead practically godless lives. They seldom or never read the Word of God. They never pray to God—in any real sense of the word, at least. Are they in a fit state to enter God’s heaven? When, then, is the preparation to be made? Death-bed preparation is a rare thing, and at best a very mean thing, though one would rather see a poor sinner turning to his God at the eleventh hour than not at all. Unless you are converted, you are never fit to enter heaven. "Prepare to meet thy God." Use the means which God has given you to obtain the salvation of your soul. Strive to enter in at the narrow door. Look to Jesus as your Savior. Search the Scriptures, for in them eternal life is to be found. They are able to make you wise unto salvation. Go where you will get blessing. Here is one means which Christ himself recommends to every sinner, "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. The same exhortation is applicable to Christian people. Use the means to bring your souls into fellowship with God, to obtain the touch of God’s hand. Use every means to promote the spiritual life of yourselves and others. How important for parents and children is the observance of family prayer! Many a conversion, many a consecration of a young life to God, can be traced to the words read, to the earnest pleadings offered up, at the family altar. Happy that home where God-fearing parents " … their secret homage pay, And proffer up to heaven the warm request That he who stills the raven’s clam’rous nest, And decks the lily fair in flow’ry pride, Would in the way his wisdom sees the best For them and for their little ones provide; But chiefly in their hearts with grace Divine preside." 2. We ought to use also the best means for carrying on God’s work. The Church must not despise the use of means. What progress is made in facilities for carrying on the business of the world! What rapid communication! What gigantic efforts made to push commercial enterprises! And is the Church of Christ to be the only body that is asleep? Is there no need for activity, for earnestness, for push, in the concerns of eternity? While immortal souls are perishing, while so many fields are white to harvest, ought we not to be up and doing? There are methods that it is no advantage for the Church to adopt, But the Church of Christ should avail itself of every lawful means to advance the Redeemer’s kingdom. It should use the press far more than it does. It should advertise far more than it does. It should do anything and everything in the way of enterprise that will bring the gospel to the people, and that will bring the people to the gospel. It must go out into the streets and lanes of the city, to the highways and hedges of the country, and compel the people to come in. The Church that knows best how to use the means which modern civilization has placed at its disposal, is the Church that will do most, with God’s blessing and the presence of his Spirit, to advance the kingdom of Christ. We must seek to use everything and win everything for Jesus. Some persons say that ministers are so often talking about money. There is so much money devoted to the service of the devil and of sin and of pleasure every week, that it is the minister’s duty to try to win a little of it for Christ. If he spoke about it every Sunday it would not be one whir too often. Let us use the means if we want to win the world for Jesus. Let us not think that anything will do for him. Let us not give to the Lord that which costs us nothing. II. THE USE OF MUSIC IS . When Elisha said, "Bring me a minstrel," it was because he believed the harper’s music would be a real help to him in experiencing God’s presence and in doing God’s work. And he was right. For "it came to pass, when the minstrel played, that the hand of the Lord came upon him." There are many uses of music in the Christian life. 1. Music is an inspiration for work and warfare. Why is it that our regiments go forth to battle accompanied by their bands of music? Is it not that they may be inspirited and cheered by martial and triumphant strains? Is there no place, then, for inspiring music in the Christian life? Are there not times when our spirits flag, and we are easily discouraged? At such times how inspiriting is a joyful song of praise! 2. Music is also a soother of the spirit. So it was here in Elisha’s case. So it was in the case of King Saul. When David played before him on his harp, the evil spirit went from him, and the troubled mind became at peace. We read also in the account of the Last Supper of our Lord, just before his agony at Gethsemane and on the cross, that "when they had sung an hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives." Who can doubt that the spirits both of Master and disciples were soothed and tranquillized as their hearts and voices joined together in the hymn of praise? 3. Music is largely the occupation of the redeemed in heaven. St. John tells us in the Revelation, "And I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps: and they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and the four living creatures, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth." The sweetest earthly music we have ever heard, the largest and best-trained chorus of human voices, will give us but a faint conception of the sweetness and grandeur of the heavenly music. Mozart or Mendelssohn, Handel or Beethoven, never in their loftiest flights conceived a strain so thrilling as the song around the throne of God. Considering, therefore, the power of music, considering the uses to which it may be put on earth and the help it renders to true devotion, considering the place assigned to it in heaven,—it may fairly be claimed that music should be more cultivated by the Christian Church. While we do not go to church for a musical performance, we should have in our churches the very best music it is possible to have. It is often the very worst. The best music ought not to be left to the service of the devil and of the world. To preach the gospel is our great work. Yea; but there is no special merit in preaching the gospel unless you try to get the people to come and hear it. There is really no reason why we should not preach the gospel, and have attractive services and bright music at the same time. Martin Luther said, "One of the finest and noblest gifts of God is music. This is very hateful to the devil, and with it we may drive off temptations and evil thoughts. After theology, I give the next and highest place to music. It has often aroused and moved me so that I have won a desire to preach. We ought not to ordain young men to the office of preacher, if they have not trained themselves and practiced singing in the schools." Luther was not far wrong. Our congregations should devote more time to the practice and preparation of congregational psalmody. Young ladies, young men, with musical gifts and accomplishments—why not consecrate them to the service of Jesus? "Sing at the cottage bedside; They have no music there, And the voice of praise is silent After the voice of prayer. "Sing of the gentle Savior In the simplest hymns you know, And the pain-dimmed eye will brighten As the soothing verses flow. Sing! that your song may silence The folly and the jest, And the ’idle word’ be banished As an unwelcome guest. "Sing to the tired and anxious— It is yours to fling a ray, Passing indeed, but cheering, Across the rugged way. "Thus, aided by his blessing, The song may win its way Where speech had no admittance, And change the night to day." C.H.I. 2 Kings 3:16-25 The valley full of ditches. Two troubles had come upon Israel at this time. The kings of Israel, Judah, and Edom were gone forth to battle against the King of Moab. Strife is an evil between nations or individuals. It takes years for a nation to recover from the devastating effects of war. Terrible is the destruction of life and property which war causes. To the horrors and perils of war in this case was added a fresh difficulty. Their armies, passing through the desert, had no water to drink. Under the burning heat, they suffered fearfully from thirst. We know how greatly our own troops suffered from lack of water in Egypt and the Soudan. Dr. Livingstone, in his travels, has given us an idea of what it is to be without water in the desert. When he saw his children almost perishing of thirst before his eyes, he had a new idea of the value of water. It was no wonder, then, that, with the soldiers weak and languishing from thirst, with no water either for them or for their horses and cattle, they began to despair and regard defeat as certain. But the Prophet Elisha was sent for, as we have seen, and, on being consulted by the kings of Israel and Judah, he said, "Make this valley full of ditches. For thus saith the Lord, Ye shall not see wind, neither shall ye see rain; yet that valley shall be filled with water, that ye may drink, both ye, and your cattle, and your beasts. And this is but a light thing in the sight of the Lord: he will deliver the Moabites also into your hand." We have here— I. A STRANGE COMMAND. "Make this valley full of ditches." 1. It was a strange command that ditches should be dug in a desert place. But so it is also in the spiritual kingdom. God often chooses the most unlikely places and the most unlikely persons for the operations of his grace. Is it not a fact that, in thinking of the spread of the gospel, and in engaging in Christian work, we are too much guided by human calculations? We judge too much by outward appearances. We forget that God’s ways are not as our ways, nor his thoughts as our thoughts. People have sometimes refused to give to certain missions because they did not think there was any use in sending the gospel to the particular people for whom the mission was intended. Is God’s arm shortened that it cannot save? It is time for us as Christian Churches and as Christian people to work wherever God gives us the opportunity, even though it should be in the most unlikely and unpromising sphere. God calls us, wherever we are, to dig up wells in the valley. 2. Further, it was a strange command, because there was no appearance of rain at the time, and there was no river at hand from which the wells could be supplied. Why dig wells when you don’t know where the water is to come from? We live in a utilitarian age. Men like to have a reason for everything. They like to be assured of a return for their labor. Consequently, even professedly Christian men are disposed to question the utility of many of God’s commands. Why rest on the sabbath more than on any other day? Why attach any peculiar sanctity to the sabbath? Why not worship God at home, or walk in the fields, instead of going to church? We might show the benefit to the nation of religious observances and of religious teaching. We might show the benefit to the individual of assembling with others for devotional exercises instead of merely worshipping God in private or even in the home. But it is enough here to notice that God has commanded these duties. That ought to be enough to convince any intelligent being, any religious being. God gives no command for which there is not a good reason. I may not see the reason. I may not see the benefit that will result from it. But I am convinced by reason, by conscience, by history, by human experience, that whatever the command may be, a real benefit follows the obedience of it, and real unhappiness and suffering the disobedience of it. 3. One other thought this strange command of God suggests—God wants us to be fellow-workers with him. God could have sent the water and provided a place of storage for it without the assistance of the Israelites here. But he does not choose to do so. He says, "Make the valley full of ditches." When modern missions to the heathen first began to be spoken of about a century ago, those who advocated them were met on every side, and in many a church, from pulpit and from pew, from prelate and from presbyter, with the objection that God could save the heathen without their instrumentality. It is obvious that those who reasoned thus about God’s method of converting the world had read their Bible to very little purpose. We find human agency, as a rule, accompanying Divine grace. Christ’s own command is clear, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations … and, lo! I am with you always." How do we stand in regard to the commands of God? Is there any command that we are deliberately and constantly disobeying? It ought to be the daily prayer of every Christian, "Make me to go in the path of thy commandments; for therein do I delight." This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Kings 4:1-44 TYPICAL WROUGHT BY ELISHA. General introduction. The miracles of this chapter are all of them miracles of mercy. The first and last consist in the multiplying of food, and thus belong to the same class as our Lord’s feeding the four and the five thousands, and Elijah’s increasing the meal and oil of the widow of Zarephath (1 Kings 17:10-16). It serves no useful purpose to ask how miracles of this class were wrought. The inspired writers have not told us; and our own thoughts upon the subject can at the best be mere unfounded conjectures. The rationalistic attempts which have been made to solve the mystery exhibit a weakness and feebleness that are absolutely puerile. The second miracle is the resuscitation of a dead person, and he-longs, consequently, to the very narrow class of such recoveries—of which in the Old Testament there are three only (see 1 Kings 17:17,1 Kings 17:23; here; and 2 Kings 13:21). The third miracle consists in rendering fit for man’s use that which was previously unfit, not by human skill or science, but by miracle; and is analogous to the act of Moses whereby the waters of Marah ceased to be hitter (Exodus 15:25), and to that other act of Elisha himself, whereby the waters of Jericho were healed (2 Kings 2:19-22). It is evidently the object of the writer or compiler of 2 Kings to collect in this place the principal, or at any rate the most noted, of the miraculous acts of the great prophet who succeeded Elijah, and so to preserve them from oblivion. This object, which he began to set before himself in 2 Kings 2:13, continues to be pursued, and forms a link uniting the various narratives together, up to 2 Kings 8:6. 2 Kings 4:1-7 1. The multiplication of the widow’s oil. 2 Kings 4:1 Now there cried a certain woman of the wives of the sons of the prophets unto Elisha, saying. We learn from this that the "sons of the prophets" were not merely, all of them, college students, but included fathers of families, who cannot have lived a cloistered life, but must have had separate homes for themselves and their families. Such persons may still have taught in the prophetical schools, as do the married tutors and professors of modern universities. Thy servant my husband is dead. Elisha had, it seems, known her husband, who had been his "servant," not literally and in deed, but in will and heart, i.e. always ready to serve him. She recalls this fact to his memory, to predispose him in her favor. And thou knowest that thy servant did fear the Lord. Here was a second ground for Elisha’s interference—the woman’s husband had been a God-fearing man, one who not only acknowledged Jehovah, but worshipped him in spirit and in truth. There is a Jewish tradition, or legend, that the woman’s husband was the Obadiah of 1 Kings 18:3-16, but no dependence can be placed on it. Obadiah, the "governor of Ahab’s house," can scarcely have been one of the "sons of the prophets." And the creditor is come to take unto him my two sons to he bondmen. In primitive communities, men borrowed upon their personal credit, and the primary security for debt was regarded as being their own persons, the value of their labor, and that of those dependent on them. In Greece and Rome, originally, as in the Hebrew community, borrowers ordinarily raised money by pledging their persons, and, if they could not pay when the debt became due, went into servitude with their children. The Mosaic Law presupposes this state of things, and permits its continuance, but in two respects interferes to modify it: (1) by requiring that the service exacted shall not be severe (Leviticus 25:43, 46), but such as was commonly rendered by hired servants (Leviticus 25:39, 40); and (2) by limiting the period of service to the date of the next jubilee year (Leviticus 25:40, 41). In the instance brought here under our notice, it would seem that the creditor had not proceeded to claim his rights until the debtor died, when he on-forced them against the man’s children (comp. Nehemiah 5:1-8). 2 Kings 4:2 And Elisha said unto her, What shall I do for thee? Elisha acknowledges at once the call upon him to do something for the woman. This is, no doubt, in part, because she is a widow. Widows were, in the Law, especially commended to the attention and care of the faithful. As Bahr says, "It is a well-known feature of the Mosaic Law, one which is distinctly prominent, that it often and urgently commands to succor the widows and the fatherless, and to care for them (Exodus 22:22-24; Deuteronomy 14:29; Deuteronomy 24:17, Deuteronomy 24:19; Deuteronomy 26:12; Deuteronomy 27:19). They are mentioned as representatives of the forsaken, the oppressed, and the necessitous as a class (Isaiah 10:2; Jeremiah 6:6; Jeremiah 22:3; Zechariah 7:10; Matthew 3:5; Baruch 6:37). It is especially emphasized and praised in Jehovah, that he is the Father and Judge (i.e. Protector of the rights) of the widows and the fatherless (Deuteronomy 10:18; Psalms 68:5; Psalms 146:9; Isaiah 9:17, etc.). Neglect and contempt of them are counted among the heaviest offences (Psalms 94:6; Job 22:9; Ezekiel 22:7); just as, on the other hand, compassion and care for them is a sign of the true fear of God, and of true piety. (Job 29:12; Job 31:16; Tobit 1:7; James 1:27). Elisha could also gather from the tone of the woman’s address that she, like her late husband, was God-fearing. Tell me, what hast thou in the house? Hast thou anything, that is, which thou canst soil, and so pay the debt? And she said, Thins handmaid hath not anything in the house, save a pot of oil; literally, save an anointing of oil; i.e. so much oil as will suffice for one anointing of my person. 2 Kings 4:3 Then he said, Go, borrow thee vessels abroad of all thy neighbors, even empty vessels; borrow not a few. God stints not in his gifts (Isaiah 55:1). When he offers them, men should take advantage of the offer largely, in the same spirit in which it is made (see below, 2 Kings 13:19). 2 Kings 4:4 And when thou art come in, thou shalt shut the door upon thee and upon thy sons. The miracle was to be performed secretly. Attention was not to be called to it—perhaps because otherwise the prophet would have been overwhelmed with applications from others; perhaps because the act was not a mere mechanical one, but required that, during its performance, the hearts of the woman and of her sons should be lifted up in prayer and adoration and thankfulness to God for the mercy which he was bestowing. Interruption from without would have interfered with the frame of mind which was befitting the occasion. Compare our Lord’s secret performance of many miracles. And shalt pour out into all those vessels—i.e. those which thou shalt have borrowed—and thou shalt set aside that which is full; i.e. as each vessel is filled, it shall be removed and set aside, and one of the empty vessels substituted—that the pouring might be continuous. 2 Kings 4:5 So she went from him, and shut the door upon her and upon her sons—i.e. obeyed exactly the prophet’s orders—who brought the vessels to her; and she poured out; literally, they bringing the vessels to her, and she pouring out. The modus operandi had been left to the woman and her sons, and was thus arranged and ordered, so that there was no confusion nor hurry. 2 Kings 4:6 And it came to pass, when the vessels were full, that she said unto her son, Bring me yet a vessel. It did not occur to her that all the vessels had been already filled; so she asked her son for another, that she might fill it. And he said unto her, There is not a vessel more; i.e. all the vessels that we have in the house are full; there remains no empty one. And the oil stayed. God will not have waste. If the oil had continued to flow, it would have fallen on the floor of the house, and have been of no service to any one. Therefore, when all the vessels were full, there was a sudden stoppage. 2 Kings 4:7 Then she came and told the man of God; i.e. Elisha. She did not feel entitled to make use of the oil which she had got by his instrumentality without first telling him and receiving his directions respecting it. The prophet gave them with all plainness and brevity. And he said, Go, sell the oil, and pay thy debt, and live thou and thy children of the rest. The oil in the vessels was more than sufficient for the discharge of the debt. The prophet directs the woman to sell the whole, and, after satisfying the claim of her creditor with part of the money, to support herself and her children on the remainder. 2 Kings 4:8-37 2. The promise of a child to the Shunammite woman, and the restoration of the child to life. 2 Kings 4:8 And it fall on a day, that. The expression seems to be archaic. It occurs only hero and in. the opening chapters of the Book of Job (i. 6, 13; Job 2:1). The most literal rendering would be, and the day came when. Elisha passed to Shunem. Shunem was a village of Galilee, situated in the territory assigned to Issachar (Joshua 19:18). It is reasonably identified with the modern Solam, at the south-eastern foot of the Gebel Duhy, or "Little Hermon," a "flourishing village encompassed by gardens" (Porter), and "in the midst of the finest corn-fields in the world" (Grove), on the edge of the Plain of Esdraelon. Elisha, in his progression to different parts of the northern kingdom, happened to come on one occasion to Shunem. Where was a great woman. Houbigant strangely translates, "a tan woman," maintaining that a woman would not be called "great" in the sense of "wealthy" during her husband’s lifetime; but no other commentator has accepted his view. The meaning seems to be that she was a woman of substance, one well-to-do, perhaps one that had brought her husband the bulk of his wealth. And she constrained him to eat broad; i.e. she invited him in as he passed her house, and would take no denial. Compare Lot’s pressing hospitality, as related in Genesis 19:1-3. And so it was, that as oft as he passed by, he turned in thither to eat bread. Elisha, it appears, had frequent occasion to pass through Shunem on his way from Carmel to visit the cities of Galilee, or versa. It became his habit, on these journeys, to eat his meals at the house of the rich Shunammite. Hence arose a kindly feeling on both sides and a close intimacy. 2 Kings 4:9 And she said unto her husband, Beheld now, I perceive that this is an holy man of God. Not all the soi-disant men of God were truly religious and God-fearing. In Elisha’s time, as in all others, there were among the teachers of religion some who were "wolves in sheep’s clothing:’ The Shunammite woman, after a certain length of acquaintance, came to the conclusion that Elisha deserved the title which he commonly bore, was truly a "man of God," a real devoted servant of Jehovah. She therefore wished to do more for him than she had hitherto done. Which passeth by us continually; i.e. who passes through our village, and has his meals with us so frequently. 2 Kings 4:10 Let us make a little chamber, I pray thee, on the wall. Thenius understands "a walled chamber," which he supposes to have been "built upon the flat roof of the house;" but it is more probable that a small addition to the existing upper chamber of the house is meant—a tiny room resting partly upon the wall of the house, partly projecting beyond it, balcony fashion. Such sleeping-chambers are common in Oriental dwellings. And let us set for him there a bed, aria a table, and a stool, and a candlestick; raffler, a bed, and a table, and a chair, and a lamp—the necessary furniture of an apartment which was to be used, not only; as a sleeping-chamber, but also for retirement, for study, and perhaps for literary composition. And it shall be, when he cometh to us, that he shall turn in thither. In the intervals between his active ministrations, a prophet would naturally desire quiet retirement, security from interruption. He would need to reflect, to meditate, to pray, perhaps to write. The Shunammite’s proposal shows, not only kindness, but thoughtfulness and appreciation. 2 Kings 4:11 And it fell on a day, that he came thither, and he turned into the chamber, and lay there; i.e. slept there, passed the night there. 2 Kings 4:12 And he said to Gehazi his servant. Gehazi is here mentioned for the first time. He seems to have been Elisha’s "servant" in a lower sense than Elisha had been Elijah’s. Still, his position was such that on one occasion (2 Kings 8:4, 2 Kings 8:5) a king of Israel did not disdain to hold a conversation with him. Call this Shunammite. And when he had called her, she stood before him; i.e. before Gehazi. Elisha communicates with the woman through his servant, or at any rate in his presence, probably to prevent any suspicion of impropriety arising in the mind of any one. The prophet of the Lord must not be evil spoken of. 2 Kings 4:13 And he said unto him, Say now unto her, Behold, thou hast been careful—literally, anxious—for us with all this care—or, anxiety; i.e. thou hast taken all this trouble in lodging both me and my servant, and in attending on us—what is to be done for thee? or, What is there that thou wouldest have done for thee? Is there anything that we can do for thee in return? Wouldest thou be spoken for to the king? Elisha assumes that he has credit at court, and offers to use it in the Shunammite’s favor, if she has any request to prefer. We see something of his influence in 2 Kings 6:9-12, 2 Kings 6:21-23; 2 Kings 8:4-6. Or to the captain of the host? i.e. the person whose authority and influence was next to that of the king. And she answered, I dwell among mine own people; i.e. "The court is nothing to me. I want nothing from it. I have no wrong to complain of, no quarrel with any of my neighbors, so as to need the help of one m power. I dwell peaceably among them. They are ’my own people’—friends or dependents." The reply is that of one perfectly content with her position. Perhaps she aims at impressing on Elisha that she has had no selfish motive in what she has done for him, but has merely wished to honor God in his prophet. 2 Kings 4:14 And he said—he, Elisha, said to Gehazi—What then is to be done for her? If the woman will suggest nothing herself, can Gehazi suggest anything? Has he heard her express any wish? Does he know of any boon that would be welcome to her? Evidently the woman’s disinterestedness has increased the prophet’s desire to do something for her. And Gehazi answered, Verily she hath no child, and her husband is old. It does not appear that the woman had made any complaint or exhibited any special anxiety on the subject of offspring. But Gehazi knows, that to be barren is regarded by all Hebrew women as a re-preach, that it exposes them to scorn and contumely (1 Samuel 1:6, 1 Samuel 1:7), and that offspring is universally, or all but universally, desired. He therefore assumes that the Shunammite must wish for it. And Elisha accepts his suggestion without a moment’s hesitation. 2 Kings 4:15 And he said, Call her. And when he had called her, she stood in the door; rather, the doorway. The same word in Hebrew stands both for "doorway" and for "door." It would seem that the woman came at once on being called, but, out of modesty and respect, would not advance beyond the entrance of the apartment. 2 Kings 4:16 And he—i.e. Elisha—said, About this season, according to the time of life—rather, when the time comes round; literally, revives; i.e. about this time next year—thou shalt embrace a son; i.e. "a son shall be born to thee, whom thou wilt embrace, as mothers are wont to do." And she said, Nay, my lord, thou man of God, do not lie unto thine handmaid. Like Sarah, the woman was incredulous; she could not believe the good tidings, and thought the prophet was only raising hopes to disappoint them. Her words, "Do not lie unto thy servant," are less harsh in the original, being merely equivalent to the "Do not deceive me" of 2 Kings 4:28. 2 Kings 4:17 And the woman conceived, and bare a son at that season that Elisha had said unto her, according to the time of life; rather, as the Revised Version gives the passage, the woman conceived, and bare a son at that season, when the time came round, as Elisha had said unto her. The event was exactly as predicted; the child was born at the same season of the ensuing year. 2 Kings 4:18 And when the child was grown—not grown up, for he was still a "child" (2 Kings 4:30, 2 Kings 4:31, 2 Kings 4:35, etc.), but grown to be a boy, perhaps four or five years old—it fell on a day, that he went out to his father to the reapers. The corn-fields about Shunem attract the admiration of travelers. The husband of the Shunammite, the owner of several, was in one of them, superintending the cutting of his corn by the reapers; and the boy joined him there, as he had probably often done before. Country children delight in watching the various operations of the farmstead. 2 Kings 4:19 And he said unto his father, My head, my head. Sunstroke was common in Palestine (Psalms 121:6; Isaiah 49:10; Judith 8:2, 3), and would be most frequent and most fatal at the time of harvest. The cry of the child is at once most touching and most natural. And he said to a lad; literally, to the lad-probably the lad who had attended the" young master" to the field. Carry him to his mother; i.e. take him indoors, and let his mother see to him. No wiser directions could have been given. 2 Kings 4:20 And when he had taken him, and brought him to his mother, he sat on her knees till noon. It was in the morning, therefore, that the child received his sunstroke—an unusual, but not an unknown, occurrence. In the East the sun often becomes intensely hot by ten o’clock. And then died. There is no ambiguity here, no room for doubt; the child not only became insensible, but died. The historian could not possibly have expressed himself more plainly. 2 Kings 4:21 And she went up, and laid him on the bed of the man of God. One cannot be certain what thoughts were working in the poor bereaved mother’s heart; but probably she entertained some vague notion that the prophet might be able to resuscitate her child, and thought that, until his presence could be obtained, the next best thing was to place the child where the prophet’s presence had lately been. Elijah had placed on his own bed the child whom he restored to life (1 Kings 17:19); and the fact may have been known to the Shunammite. She certainly did not expect mere contact with the bed to resuscitate her child. And shut the door upon him. Either that the body should not be disturbed, or rather that the death should not be known. It is clear that, from whatever motive, the woman wished to conceal the death of the child until she had seen what Elisha could do for her. She neither told her husband nor the servant who accompanied her. And went out; i.e. quitted the prophet’s apartment, closing the door as she quitted it. 2 Kings 4:22 And she culled unto her husband, and said, Send me, I pray thee, one of the young men, and one of the asses. She "called to her husband" from the house, without calling him into the house, expressing her desire to visit Elisha, without stating the object of her visit, and asked for the necessary riding-animal and escort. The nearest part of Carmel was at least fourteen or fifteen miles from Shunem, so that she could not walk, That I may run—i.e; hasten—to the man of God. "Man of God" was evidently the designation by which Elisha was known in the house (2 Kings 4:16, 2 Kings 4:21, 2 Kings 4:25). And some again; i.e. return home before nightfall. 2 Kings 4:23 And he said, Wherefore wilt thou go to him today? it is neither new moon nor sabbath. The husband demurred; he saw no occasion for the journey. It was not either "new moon" or "sabbath"—times when evidently the prophets conducted services, which were attended by pious persons from the neighborhood: what could she want of Elisha? He had evidently no idea that the child was dead. Probably he had not realized to himself that he was in any danger. And she said, It shall be well. She uttered the single word shalom, literally, "peace," but used, like the German gut, or the English "all right," to content an inquirer without giving him a definite answer. And the husband accepted her assurance, and did not press for an explanation. The ass and the servant were placed at her disposal without more words. 2 Kings 4:24 Then she saddled an ass; rather, then she saddled (i.e. "caused to be saddled") the ass—the particular animal which her husband had placed at her disposal. And said to her servant, Drive, and go forward; i.e. "set the ass in motion, and then proceed steadily forward." In the East, each donkey has its driver, who sots it in motion, and regulates its pace. The rider leaves all to him. Slack not thy riding for me—rather, slacken me not the riding (Revised Version), or, slacken not my riding; i.e. "do not lessen the pace of my riding"—except I bid thee. 2 Kings 4:25 So she went and came unto the man of God to Mount Carmel. Carmel was to Elisha what Gilead had been to Elijah in his early days—a place for solitary retirement and meditation, where, free from disturbance, he might hold communion with nature and with God. It was not usual for his disciples to intrude upon him there, except at stated times, when gatherings were held at his residence for edification and for worship. And it came to pass, when the man of God saw her afar off—literally, over against him; i.e. coming towards him (ἐρχομένην, LXX.)—that he said to Gehazi his servant, Behold, yonder is that Shunammite. The prophet knew her at a distance, probably by her attire and carriage. We may gather, from her husband’s words in 2 Kings 4:23, that she was one of those who had been accustomed to attend the gatherings on new moons and sabbaths. 2 Kings 4:26 Run now, I pray thee, to meet her, and say unto her, Is it well with thee? is it well with thy husband? is it well with the child? Elisha feels that there must be something the matter, to account for the Shunammite’s coming to him so unexpectedly. His anxiety is aroused, and, in his impatience to know what has happened, instead of waiting for the woman’s arrival, he bids his servant run, and ask what is the matter. Some misfortune, he supposes, must have happened either to her, or to her husband, or to the child. And she answered, It is well. She gave, as before to her husband (2 Kings 4:23), the ambiguous answer, "Peace," intending thereby merely to put off Gehazi, and not explain herself to any one but his master. 2 Kings 4:27 And when she earns to the man of God to the hill—rather, the mountain; i.e. Carmel, where Elisha’s residence was—she caught him by the feet. It has always been usual in the East to embrace the feet or the knees, in order to add force to supplication. But Gehazi came near to thrust her away. He regarded the act as one unduly familiar or unduly importunate, and interfered to protect and release his master. And the man of God said, Let her alone; for her soul is vexed within her. Elisha would not have the woman disturbed. He saw that she was in deep distress, and, if there was anything unseemly in her action according to the etiquette of the time, excused it to her profound grief and distraction. The ordinary mind is a slave to conventionalities; the superior mind knows when to be above them. And the Lord hath hid it from me, and hath not told me. God had not informed Elisha, by inward miraculous illumination, of the illness of the child, or its death, or the wild hopes stirring in the afflicted mother’s mind, which induced her to make her long and troublesome journey. We need not feel surprised at this. There is always a limit to the miraculous; and facts that may be learnt by a little inquiry are but rarely communicated supernaturally. 2 Kings 4:28 Then she said, Did I desire a son of my lord? did I not say, Do not deceive me? The woman does not directly reveal her grief. Great sorrow is reticent, cannot endure to put itself into words. But she sufficiently indicates the nature of her trouble by the form of her reproach. "Did I ask for a son? Did I make complaint of my childlessness? Had I been importunate, and obtained my son of thee by much asking, I would not have complained. But I did not ask. I did not even snatch greedily at the offer. I demurred. I said, ’Do not deceive me.’ But now thou hast done worse than deceive me. Thou hast kept the word of promise to the ear, and broken it to the hope. It is greater misery to have a child and lose him, than never to have had one at all." All this, and more, seems to be involved in the woman’s words. And the prophet fully understood their meaning. 2 Kings 4:29 Than he said to Gehazi, Gird up thy loins, and take my staff in thine hand, and go thy way: if thou meet any man, salute him not; and if any salute thee, answer him not again. The object of all these injunctions is haste. Lose not a moment. Go as quickly as thou canst to the house where the child lies. Spend no time in greetings on the way. Slack not. Tarry not. And lay my staff upon the face of the child. What effect the prophet expected from this act, we are not told. Gehazi appears to have expected that it would at once cause a resuscitation (2 Kings 4:31); but there is no evidence that the prophet participated in the expectation. He may have done so, for prophets are not infallible beyond the sphere of the revelations made to them; but he may only have intended to comfort and cheer the mother, and to raise in her an expectation of the resuscitation which he trusted it would be allowed him to effect. 2 Kings 4:30 And the mother of the child said, As the Lord liveth, and as thy soul liveth, I will not leave thee. Apparently, the woman supposed that Elisha intended to do nothing more, but trust the child’s recovery to such virtue as might inhere in his staff. But her own resolution was long ago taken—she would be content with nothing less than bringing the prophet face to face with her dead child. She "will not leave" him till he consents to accompany her to her home. And he arose, and followed her; as, no doubt, he had intended from the first. 2 Kings 4:31 And Gehazi passed on before them, and laid the staff on the face of the child; but there was neither voice, nor hearing. Gehazi did as he had Been told, executed his mission faithfully; but there was no apparent result. The child was not reused by the staff being placed across his face. All remained still and silent as before. Although on some occasions it has pleased God to allow miracles to be wrought by the instrumentality of lifeless objects, as when Elisha’s hones resuscitated a dead man (2 Kings 13:21), and when virtue went out from the hem of our Lord’s garment (Mark 5:25-34), and still more remarkably, when "handkerchiefs or aprons from the body of Paul were brought unto the sick, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits were case out of them" (Acts 19:12); yet the instances are, comparatively speaking, rare, and form exceptions to what may be called the usual Divine economy of miracles. Miracles are, as a general rule, attached in Scripture to intense unwavering faith—faith, sometimes, in those that are the objects of them, almost always in those that are the workers of them. The present case was not to be an exception to the general rule, the circumstances not calling for an exception. The power of faith was to be shown forth once more in Elisha, as not long previously in Elijah (1 Kings 17:19-23); and Israel was to be taught, by a second marvelous example, how much the effectual fervent prayer of a faithful and righteous man avails with the Most High. The lesson would have been lest had the staff been allowed to effect the resuscitation. Wherefore he—i.e. Gehazi—went again to meet him—i.e. Elisha—and told him, saying, The child is not waked. It is clear from this, that Gehazi had expected an awakening; but there is nothing to show what the prophet himself had expected. We are certainly not entitled to conclude, with Peter Martyr,’ that "Elisha did wrong in attempting to ’delegate his power of working miracles to another;" or even, with Starke, that "Elisha gave the command to Gehazi from over haste, without having any Divine incentive to it." 2 Kings 4:32 And when Elisha was come into the house, behold, the child was dead, and laid upon his bed. The child remained where his mother had laid him. 2 Kings 4:33 He went in therefore, and shut the door upon them twain—that he might not be interrupted during his efforts to restore the child’s life—and prayed unto the Lord. Probably his heart had been lifted up in inarticulate prayer from the time that he realized the calamity which had befallen the Shunammite; but now he went down on his knees, and lifted up his voice in outspoken words of prayer. 2 Kings 4:34 And he went up, and lay upon the child, and put his mouth upon his mouth, and his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands; following the example set him by his master and predecessor, Elijah (1 Kings 17:21). The idea may in both cases have been to fit the Body for reinhabitation by the soul (see 2 Kings 4:22), through the restoration of warmth to it. And he stretched himself upon the child; i.e. brought his flesh as close as he could to the flesh of the child, covering the body and pressing on it, to force his own bodily warmth to pass into it. The word used, יִגְהַר, is different from that in 1 Kings 17:21, which is יִתְמֹדֵד, and implies a closer contact. And the flesh of the child waxed warm. Elisha’s efforts had an effect; the child’s Body was actually warmed by them. 2 Kings 4:35 Then he returned, and walked in the house to and fro; literally, once and once fro; took, i.e; a single turn up and down the large room adjoining his bed-chamber—scarcely with any remedial object, but as men do when they are in distress and doubt. And went up, and stretched himself upon him—i.e. repeated his former act, laying himself upon the child, and warming it—and the child sneezed seven times—showing the recovery of suspended respiration—and the child opened his eyes; i.e. came to himself. 2 Kings 4:36 And he called Gehazi, and said, Call this Shunammite; i.e. tell her to come here. No time was to be lost in restoring the child to his mother, now that he was alive again. And when she was come in unto him, he said, Take up thy son; i.e. lift him up, take him in thine arms, feel him to be all thine own once more. 2 Kings 4:37 Then she went in, and fell at his feet, and bowed herself to the ground; in acknowledgment of the boon conferred on her. In the East such prostrations are common, and denote at once gratitude and humility. And took up her son, and went out. (On some later circumstances in the life of the woman, see 2 Kings 8:1-6.) 2 Kings 4:38-41 3. The healing of the unwholesome pottage. 2 Kings 4:38 And Elisha came again to Gilgal; i.e. revisited Gilgal, where he had been previously with his master (2 Kings 2:1), either casually, or perhaps on one of his regular circuits (Keil) to visit the schools of the prophets. And there was a dearth in the land—probably the dearth again mentioned in 2 Kings 8:1—and the sons of the prophets were sitting before him. Some translate "the sons of the prophets dwelt with him" (Vulgate, Luther, Bishop Hersley); but our version is probably correct. The LXX. give ἀκάθηντο; and Ezekiel 8:1; Ezekiel 16:1; Ezekiel 33:31; with Zechariah 3:8, show that ישׁבים לפני may have the meaning of "sitting in the presence of a person." And he said unto his servant, Set on the great pot—i.e. the one great pot that there would be in the house—and seethe pottage for the sons of the prophets. Even in a famine there would be some vegetables produced on which life might be sustained. 2 Kings 4:39 And one went out into the field to gather herbs. One of the sons of the prophets, probably, went out into the neighboring country, and looked about for any wild fruits or vegetables that he could see anywhere. And found a wild vine. Not a wild grape vine (Vitis labrusea), the fruit of which would have been harmless, but some cucurbitaceous plant, with tendrils, and a growth like that of the vine. And gathered thereof wild gourds. The exact kind of gourd is uncertain. Recent critics have mostly come to the conclusion that the vegetable intended is the Cucumis agrestis or Ecbalium elaterium, the "squirting cucumber" of English naturalists. This is a kind of gourd, the fruit of which is egg-shaped, has a bitter taste, and bursts when ripe at a slight touch, squirting out sap and seeds. The main ground for this conclusion is etymologieal, פַקֻּעֹת being derived from פקע, "to crack" or "split." Another theory, and one which has the ancient versions in its favor, identifies the "gourd" in question with the fruit of the colocynth, which is a gourd-like plant that creeps along the ground, and has a round yellow fruit of the size of a large orange. This fruit is exceedingly bitter, produces colic, and affects the nerves. His lap full; as many as he could carry in the sinus, or large fold, of his beged, or shawl. And came and shred them into the pot of pottage: for they knew them not; i.e. the sons of the prophets, who stood by and saw them shred into the pot, did not recognize them, or did not know that they were unwholesome. 2 Kings 4:40 So they poured out for the men to eat. And it came to pass, as they were eating of the pottage, that they cried out and said, O thou man of God, there is death in the pot. Either the bitter flavor alarmed them, or they began to feel ill effects from what they had swallowed, which, if it was colocynth, might very soon have produced stomachache or nausea. Rushing, therefore, at once to the worst possible supposition, they concluded that they were poisoned, and exclaimed, "O man of God, there is death in the pot!" "If eaten in any large quantity," says Keil, "colocynths might really produce death." And they could not eat thereof; i.e. they could not continue to eat the pottage—all stopped eating. 2 Kings 4:41 But he said, Then bring meal. Elisha seems not to have hesitated for a moment. Prompt measures must be taken, if poisoning is even suspected. He has meal brought—not that meal has any virtue in itself against colocynth, or against any other deleterious drug. But he acts, now as always, under Divine direction, and is instructed to use meal on this occasion, as he used salt in healing the waters of Jericho. The meal, as Keil observes, "might somewhat modify the bitterness and injurious qualities of the vegetable," whatever it was, but "could not possibly take them entirely away. The meal, the most wholesome food of man, was only the earthly substratum for the working of the Divine effluence which proceeded from Elisha, and made the noxious food perfectly wholesome." And he cast it into the pot; and he said, Pour out now for the people—i.e; the assembled company of sons of the prophets—that they may eat. And there was no harm in the pot. Such as had faith in Elisha, and continued to eat of the pottage, found no ill result. What they ate did them no harm. 2 Kings 4:42-44 4. The feeding of a hundred men on twenty loaves. 2 Kings 4:42 And there came a man from Baal-shalisha. "Baal-shalisha" is reasonably identified with the "Beth-shalisha" of Eusebius and Jerome, which they place twelve Roman miles north of Diospolis, or Lydda (now Ludd). By "north" we must probably understand "northeast," since the "land of Shalisha" lay between the territories of Ephraim and Benjamin (1 Samuel 9:4). The position thus indicated would not be very far from the Gilgal (Jiljileh) of 2 Kings 2:1-25. and 2 Kings 4:38. And brought the man of God bread of the firstfruits. It is clear that the more pious among the Israelites not only looked to the prophets for religious instruction (2 Kings 4:23), but regarded them as having inherited the position of the Levitical priests whom Jeroboam’s innovations had driven from the country. The firstfruits of corn, wine, and oil were assigned by the Law (Numbers 18:13; Deuteronomy 18:4, Deuteronomy 18:5) to the priests. Twenty loaves of barley. The "loaves" of the Israelites were cakes or rolls, rather than "loaves" in the modem sense of the word. Each partaker of a meal usually had one for himself. Naturally, twenty "loaves" would be barely sufficient for twenty men. And full ears of corn; i.e. a few ripe ears of the same corn as that whereof the bread was made. Ears of corn were offered as firstfruits at the Passover (Leviticus 23:10), and were regarded as the most natural and becoming tokens of gratitude for God’s harvest mercies. In the husk thereof; rather, in his bag, or in his sack (see the Revised Version). And he said, Give unto the people—i.e; to the sons of the prophets who dwelt at Gilgal—that they may eat. 2 Kings 4:43 And his servitor said, What, should I set this before an hundred men? The servant felt that the quantity was quite insufficient, and thought it absurd to invite a hundred men to sit down to a meal, which would not satisfy a fifth of the number; but Elisha repeated his command. He said again, Give the people, that they may eat. This time, however, he added an explanation of the proceeding: for thus saith the Lord, They shall eat, and shall leave thereof. God had supernaturally intimated to him that the quantity of food would prove ample for the hundred men; they would show that they had had enough by leaving some of it. And the result was as predicted. 2 Kings 4:44 So he set it before them, and they did eat, and left thereof, according to the word of the Lord. We are not expressly told how the miracle was wrought, whether by an augmentation of the quantity of the food supernaturally produced, or by a lessening of the appetites of the men, as Bahr supposes. But the analogy of our Lord’s miracles of feeding the multitudes, whereof this is a manifest type, makes it probable that in this case also there was a miraculous increase of the food. The object of the writer in communicating the account is certainly not merely to show how the Lord cared for his servants, but to relate another miracle wrought by Elisha, of a different kind from those previously related. He is occupied with Elisha’s miracles through this entire chanter and through the three next. 2 Kings 4:1-7 The seed of the righteous never forsaken by God. The whole ground of appeal on which the poor widow relies, and which proves so entirely adequate, is the fidelity to God of her deceased husband. "Thy servant my husband is dead; and thou knowest that thy servant did fear the Lord" (2 Kings 4:1). She assumes that Elisha is on this account almost, bound to interfere on behalf of the man’s two sons, who are in danger of being carried into slavery. And Elisha allows the validity of her claim, and straightway comes to their relief. The example may well recall the emphatic words of the psalmist, which the minister and director cannot too strongly impress on anxious and doubting mothers, "I have been young, and now am old; and yet saw I never the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging their bread" (Psalms 37:25). A blessing rests upon the seed of the righteous— I. BY DIVINE PROMISE. "I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments" (Exodus 20:5, Exodus 20:6); "The mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children’s children" (Psalms 103:17); "The children of thy servants shall continue, and their seed shall be established before thee (Psalms 102:28). II. BY THE IN GOD’S . After God all fatherhood (πᾶσαπατρία) in heaven and earth is named (Ephesians 3:15). As a Father, he sympathizes with all fathers, knows their hearts, understands their longings, is tender towards their tenderness. Them that love him he will love, and will reward them where they would most wish to be rewarded, in their children. The seed of the righteous may often, does often, wander into devious ways, depart from righteousness, provoke God, draw down upon himself God’s chastisements; but in the end how seldom does he wholly fall away, completely forget the lessons of his youth, the example of godly parents, the precepts so carefully instilled into his mind in early life, day by day and year by year! how seldom does he become a blasphemer, or an unbeliever, or an utterly hardened reprobate! How often, on the other hand, does he recover from grievous falls, retrains to God, repeat, amend, and "do the first works"! God’s tender care not only saves the children of the righteous from begging their bread, or falling into utter destitution, but watches over their spiritual welfare, and in a thousand ways checks their wanderings, weans them from their evil courses, and at last brings them to himself. 2 Kings 4:8-37 Godliness has, to a large extent, the promise of this life, as well as of the life to come. The "good Shunammite" and her husband are examples of the union, which is more common than men are apt to allow, between piety and prosperity. They have nothing heroic about them, nothing out of the common. They are substantial middle-class people, dwelling in a quiet country-side, farming on a moderate scale, with a comfortable house of their own, dwelling contentedly amid their laborers and their country neighbors. But they are not rendered selfish or worldly minded by their prosperity. They feel and admit the claims of religion upon them. In Elisha they recognize a "man of God;" first, it would seem, officially. As the official representative to them of the Most High, they regard him as entitled to kindness and hospitality. They press upon him their good offices, insist on his taking his meals with them, "constrain him to eat bread" (2 Kings 4:8). When by degrees they have become acquainted with his character, they recognize in him something more—they "perceive that he is a holy man of God" (2 Kings 4:9). Like is perceived by like. It takes some holiness to perceive and recognize holiness. And the perception raises a desire for greater intimacy. Like desires like. It will be a blessed thing if they can persuade the prophet, not merely to take an occasional meal in their house, but to be an occasional inmate—to rest there, to sleep there. So the woman proposes to her husband to build the prophet a sleeping-chamber; and he readily consents, apparently without a murmur (2 Kings 4:10). He is neither jealous, nor stingy, nor ill-natured. The woman has her way, and her kindly nature is gratified by the frequent presence of the godly man, whose ministrations she attends on sabbaths and holy days (2 Kings 4:23). And now her piety, which has been wholly disinterested, receives an earthly reward. The disgrace of barrenness is, at the prophet’s intercession, removed from her, and she obtains the blessing of offspring. Nay, more. Though death removes her offspring, he is restored to her, rendered doubly precious by having seemed to be forever lost. The well-deserved prosperity of herself and husband culminates in this happy restoration, which puts the finishing touch to the earthly bliss that had lacked only this crowning joy. And so it is in life generally. Not only the proud and ungodly, but the godly also, are "rewarded after their deserving" (Psalms 94:2). Many virtues, e.g. honesty, sobriety, industry, prudence, have a natural tendency to draw to their possessor a considerable share of this world’s goods, as the opposite vices, dishonesty, drunkenness, idleness, imprudence, have a natural tendency to disperse such goods when possessed and prevent their accumulation. Goodness, on the whole, secures the respect and esteem of other men; and the respect and. esteem of our fellows tends in various ways to our worldly advantage. Men place more trust in the godly than in the ungodly, and situations of trust are, for the most part, situations of profit. Nor must we omit the consideration of the Divine blessing, which always rests upon the godly, in fact, and is sometimes openly manifested. "The eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil" (Psalms 34:15, Psalms 34:16); "No good thing will God withhold from them that walk uprightly" (Psalms 84:11). And the entire result is that, upon the whole, even in this life, right conduct, goodness, piety, have the advantage over their opposites, and that happiness and misery are distributed, even here, very much "according to men’s deserving"—not, of course, without exceptions, even numerous exceptions—but still predominantly, so that the law holds good as a general one, that "godliness hath the promise of this life." Our blessed Lord went so far as to say, "There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel’s, but he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life". 2 Kings 4:27-31 Limits to inspiration. Many men seem to suppose that the prophetical inspiration, the Divine afflatus, whatever it was, which God vouchsafed in times past to his prophets, apostles, and evangelists, was absolutely unlimited—a sort of omniscience, at any rate omniscience on all those subjects on which they spoke or wrote. But Scripture lends no sanction to this supposition. "Let her alone," says Elisha to Gehazi; "for her soul is vexed within her: and the Lord hath hid it from me, and hath not told me" (2 Kings 4:27). Ignorance of the future would also seem to underlie the instructions given to Gehazi in 2 Kings 4:29. And there are, in point of fact, limitations to every prophet’s knowledge even with respect to the things concerning which he writes or speaks. "Now, behold," says St. Paul, "I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there" (Acts 20:22). And again, "Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful" (1 Corinthians 7:25). The apostles spoke much of the coming of Christ to judgment, but "of that day and of that hour knoweth no man" (Matthew 24:36). Prophetic knowledge was always partial, limited. To Isaiah the return from Babylon, the establishment of Christ’s kingdom upon earth, and the final triumph of Christianity, were blended together into a single vision of glory from which the chronological idea was absent. Ezekiel probably did not know whether the temple which he described (40.- 44.) was to be spiritual or material. Zechariah knew that a day would come when there would be "a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness;" but the nature of the fountain was, apparently, not revealed to him. The prophets always "saw through a glass darkly," "knew in part" and prophesied in part; had not even a full knowledge of the meaning of their own words. We must therefore not look in the inspired writings for an exactness and accuracy and completeness to which they make no pretence; we must not claim infallibility for the obiter dicta of apostles or evangelists; we must not be surprised at occasional slips of memory, as the quotation of "Jeremy" for "Zachary" (Matthew 27:9), or at little discrepancies, as the various readings of the title on the cross, or at other similar imperfections. The Divine element in Scripture does not exclude the presence also of a human element; and the human element cannot but show traces of human weakness, human ignorance, human frailty. The trifling errors that a microscopic criticism points out in the sacred volume no more interfere with its illuminating power, than do the spots seen by astronomers on its surface interfere with the light of the sun, or slight flaws with the magnificence and splendor of a unique diamond. The Bible is God’s Word, the most precious treasure that man possesses, even although it be true that "we have this treasure in earthen vessels" (2 Corinthians 4:7). BY C.H. IRWIN 2 Kings 4:1-7 The widow’s oil increased. This simple and touching story is one of those many narratives which make the Bible a book for every one, and a book for everyday life. The individual is never lost in the nation or the race. It is so in actual fact. Our own personal needs and struggles and anxieties are of more importance and interest to us than the struggles of a nation or the general well-being of the human race. It is the same in the Bible. The Bible is partly a history of nations, and particularly of the Jewish nation. But it is much more a history of individuals. It is this that makes it such a book of universal comfort and instruction. We can all find something in it that suits ourselves. As we read of the men and women whose lives are recorded in it, we learn more from their faith and their failings, from their temptations and their victories, than we could from any abstract discourses about the benefit of virtue and the evil of vice. We learn that they were men and women of like passions with ourselves. We learn that the temptations they conquered we can conquer by the help of the same Spirit; that the trials they endured we can endure; and that the faith and holiness to which they attained are within our reach also. And then how homely and how practical the Bible is! Its heroes and heroines do net live in a Utopia. It shows them to us under very much the same conditions as we live under still. It shows them to us in their homes and at their business, in their loves and in their married life, at the plough and in the fishing-boat, at the marriage-feast and at the funeral. Perhaps we think it hard to be religious in our business, in society, or amid the petty cares and worries of our daily life. The Bible shows us men and women living under the same conditions, and yet living so much in the fear of God and the presence of eternity that they triumphed over their distractions, and, whilst in the world, were not of it. Such a glimpse of everyday life we obtain in the narrative before us. We learned some valuable lessons from the palace of King Ahaziah; we may learn quite as important ones from the humble home of a prophet’s widow. I. . There is a good deal of suffering in the world. Many suffer innocently. But not all those who think they suffer innocently are really innocent. Here, however, there appears to be a case of really innocent suffering. It is a poor widow who comes to tell Elisha her tale of want and woe. Her husband had been one of "the sons of the prophets"—a word that was used in a general sense to signify those who were pupils of the prophets, trained by the prophets. He had unfortunately got into debt. How he was led into it we are not told. He was a God-fearing man. It was not, therefore, through dissipation or sin. But it may have been through his own imprudence or improvidence. Or it may have been through some unexpected loss, or through failure on the part of others to meet their liabilities to him. At any rate, he died in debt, and his poor widow is the sufferer. 1. This incident, and there are many like it happening every day, shows us the folly and danger of getting into debt. One of the worst features of it is that so often the innocent—the wife or children who perhaps know nothing at all of the debt—have to suffer for the folly or the dishonesty of others. We need to have a more awakened conscience on this subject of using money which really is not our own. As a matter of worldly policy and prudence, it is a great mistake. As a matter of morality, it is very doubtful indeed. How many of the tremendous crashes, which have taken place in the commercial world are the result of men living beyond their means! They made too large demands upon the future. They incurred liabilities which they had no means of meeting. And in many cases debt proves to be a temptation to dishonesty. I have yet to learn the difference between the dishonesty of the man who gets a month’s imprisonment for a petty theft, and the dishonesty of many who are legally protected in their crime by the strange device of the bankruptcy court. Not that every bankrupt is dishonest. But many who are thus protected are. We want a clearer and a cleaner public conscience on this question of debt. 2. There is a word here also for creditors. The creditor in this story was a regular Shylock. He wanted his pound of flesh. He would be satisfied with nothing less. Mark the utter heartlessness and cruelty of the man. He knew the poor widow was unable to pay. There were no goods and chattels that he could seize, or none worth seizing, so he actually came to make her two sons his slaves. Even the slightest touch of humanity might have led him to content himself with one of the sons. He might have left the other to be the solace and support of his widowed mother. But no. There is no mercy, no pity, in his hard and selfish heart. He must have the two sons to satisfy his claim. Now, the Scripture, while it countenances lending to these who are in want, and while it commands the payment of debts, recommends the exercise of mercy and humanity in exacting this payment. For instance, in Exodus it is said, "Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry; and my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless" (Exodus 22:22-24). And in Deuteronomy 24:17 we have a similar command. We learn here in all the relationships of life to mingle mercy with justice. Too often in the keen competition of life, and in the race for wealth, the finer feelings become blunted, if you are a Christian, it is your duty to imitate the spirit and precepts of Jesus. Whether you are a Christian or not, you are responsible to God for the way you act towards your fellow-men. Always consider the circumstances of the case. Where it is possible, be specially careful of the widow and the fatherless and the orphan. God has a special care for them, and he will avenge their cause on the persecutor and the oppressor. II. ACTIVE FAITH. The poor widow had nothing in her house save a pot of oil. She was not as well off as the widow of Zarephath, to whom Elijah came; she had not even a handful of meal in the barrel. The olive oil was used as butter with the flour or meal. Dr. Kitto says it is indeed a remarkable fact that poor people in Israel, who are reduced to the last extremity, have generally a little oil left. Yet in this extremity, with this jar of oil as her sole possession, what does the prophet tell her to do? To go and borrow empty vessels of all her neighbors, and to borrow just as many as she could get. Was it not a strange command? Empty vessels! Why not borrow vessels with something in them. No; for that would have been to get deeper into debt. Empty vessels. The fact of bringing empty vessels into her house implied that she had something to fill them with. This just shows the greatness of the woman’s faith. She trusted God’s prophet. She knew that he would not deceive her or bid her do anything for which there was not a good reason- She trusted God’s power. She knew that God was able, in his own way and in his own time, to supply all her need. We need to learn a similar faith, tire need it for our temporal affairs. We need to trust God that he can and will and does supply the daily wants of his people. What though the purse is empty? God can send the means to fill it. "It may not be my time; It may not be thy time; But yet in his own time the Lord will provide." We need to learn similar faith—a faith that shows itself not in idleness but in action—in regard to spiritual things. We may see but empty vessels before us. God is able to fill them. He does it very often by making us laborers together with him, as he did in this case of the widow and her sons. A respected Sunday-school teacher tells that when he first went to teach in a mission Sunday school in one of our large cities, he said to the superintendent, "Where is my class?" He could see no class for him to teach. The superintendent’s answer was, "You’ll have to out and gather class." He did so, and soon had a large and attentive class of lads gathered in by his own exertions from the streets. Don’t you know of any empty vessels that would be better if they were filled with the love of Christ and the grace of God? Are there no empty vessels in your own homes? Are there no empty vessels round about you where you live—hearts that are without God and without hope, lives that are utterly destitute of any aims or usefulness? If you know of such, will you not try to bring them under the influence of the gospel? This woman showed a strong faith, for she had doubtless to face the ridicule and difficulties and questionings of her neighbors. They probably laughed at a woman borrowing vessels when she had nothing to fill them with. We must learn not to mind what people will say of us when we are doing God’s work. There are some people who object to everything. There are some people who are always raising difficulties. Those who raise the difficulties and make the objections are generally those who do the least and give the least. Never mind them. Make sure that your work is God’s work. Consider it prayerfully and carefully before you undertake it. And then, having made sure that it is God’s work, so far as you can get light upon your path, turn not aside to the right hand or to the left. Trust in God to carry you and your work safely through, and to crown your labors with success. "The fear of man bringeth a snare; but he that putteth his trust in the Lord shall be safe." III. . The woman was well rewarded for her unquestioning faith. So long as she continued pouring from her little jar of oil, so long the oil continued to flow until all the vessels were full. She could have filled more vessels if she had had them. But when there were no more vessels to be filled, the oil ceased to flow. At any rate she had enough to sell for the payment of her debt, and to provide herself and her sons with a temporary support. We learn here that our blessings may be limited by our capacity to receive. There is no limit to God’s love. There is no limit to his power to bless. He gives in overflowing measure, far beyond our expectations, far beyond our deservings. But then we may stint the blessing for ourselves by not being in a fit state to receive it. We see constantly in Scripture and in the history of the Christian Church that there are certain conditions under which larger spiritual blessings may be expected, and certain conditions which may hinder these blessings. 1. We may hinder our blessings by want of faith and expectation. Had Abraham persevered in prayer, he might have won the salvation of Sodom even on account of righteous Lot alone. On a later occasion Elisha was displeased with King Joash for his want of faith in shooting the arrows. The king only smote thrice upon the ground, and Elisha said, "Thou shouldest have smitten five or six times; then hadst thou smitten Syria till thou hadst consumed it: whereas now thou shalt smite Syria but thrice." How often we hinder our blessings because we do not persevere in prayer! 2. We may hinder our blessings by not making a right use of those we have got. "To him that hath shall be given, and from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he seemeth to have." There is no waste in God’s kingdom. He will not give further blessings to those who are neglecting or misusing the privileges they have got. Let us see to it that we are in a fit state to receive God’s blessing. "If we regard iniquity in our hearts, the Lord will not hear us." Let us empty ourselves of worldliness and selfishness and sin, if we are to expect God to fill us with his Spirit. A word to Christians. Search your heart, examine your own life, and see if there is anything that hinders the Divine blessing. Give up that besetting sin; give up that godless society; put away that pride, or hatred, or love of the world, or evil temper, out of your heart, and then you may expect God to bless you and make you a blessing. Then you will be a vessel meet for the Master’s use. A word to the unrepenting. Why go away once more without Christ? Why go away empty from the house of God? All fullness dwells in Christ—fullness of pardon, fullness of grace and strength. Thirsty, unsatisfied soul, draw near to the feet of Jesus. Repent, and ask of him, and he will give you the living water.—C.H.I. 2 Kings 4:8-17 Kindness requited. I. GOOD MEN CARRY THEIR THEY GO. The Shunammite’s words are a testimony to the character of Elisha. "I perceive that this is a holy man of God, which passeth by us continually." Elisha’s conduct and conversation showed him to be a holy man of God. It was evident that God was with him, and that he lived near to God. He did not leave his religion behind him at home. Wherever he was, he took his religion with him. A lesson for modern Christians. There is not much reality in our religion if we do not confess it amongst strangers just as much as where we are known. The inward character is shown by the outward acts. "Coelum, non animum, mutant, qui trans mare currunt." It is evident that Elisha was a man of studious habits. The furniture which the Shunammite placed in his room shows this. The stool or chair and the table were intended to afford him facilities for study. He who will teach others must store his own mind with knowledge. Paul exhorted Timothy to give attention to reading. The minister and the Sunday-school teacher need constant study to equip themselves for their important work. II. GOOD MEN CARRY A . Their goodness benefits others as well as themselves. "The holy seed shall be the substance thereof." Some there are who bring evil wherever they go. One bad man, one wicked woman, may corrupt a whole community. Some are the perpetual occasions of strife, discord, unpleasantness, unhappiness. What an unenviable character! Oh to be like him who "went about every day doing good!" III. TO GOOD MEN IS NEVER LOST. This Shunammite treated Elisha kindly because he was a servant of God, and the God whom he served rewarded her for her kindness to his servant. "Give, and it shall be given unto you" She lost nothing, but gained much, by her generosity and hospitality, by the trouble she took to provide a resting-place for the prophet. He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward."—C.H.I. 2 Kings 4:18-37 Death and restoration. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Kings 5:1-27 THE CURE OF NAAMAN’S LEPROSY. HIS ; AND THE SIN OF GEHAZI, The historian continues his narrative of Elisha’s miracles, commenced in 2 Kings 2:1-25; and gives in the present chapter a very graphic and complete account of two which were especially remarkable, and which stood in a peculiar relation the one towards the other. One was the removal of leprosy; the other, its infliction. One was wrought on a foreigner and a man of eminence; the other, on a Hebrew and a servant. The second was altogether consequential upon the first, without which the occasion for it would not have arisen. The two together must have greatly raised the reputation of the prophet, and have given him an influence beyond the borders of the laud of Israel; at the same time extending the reputation of Jehovah as a great God through many of the surrounding nations. 2 Kings 5:1 Now Naaman, captain of the host of the King of Syria. The name "Naaman" is here found for the first time. It is thought to be derived from that of an Aramaean god (Ewald), and appears in the later Arabic under the form of Noman, in which shape it is familiar to the students of Arabian history. Benhadad, who had been wont in his youth and middle age to lead his armies into the field in person, seems now in his old age to have found it necessary to entrust the command to a general, and to have made Naaman captain of his host. Compare the similar practice of the Assyrian monarchs. Was a great man with his master, and honorable—rather, honored, or held in esteem (τεθαυμασμένος, LXX.)—because by him the Lord had given deliverance—literally, salvation, or safety (σωτηρίαν, LXX.)—unto Syria. Probably he had commanded the Syrian army in some of its encounters with the Assyrians, who at this time, under Shalmaneser II; were threatening the independence of Syria, but did not succeed in subjecting it. He was also a mighty man in valor—gibbor hail, commonly translated in our version by "mighty man of valor," does not mean much more than "a good soldier"—but he was a leper. Leprosy had many degrees. Some of the lighter kinds did not incapacitate a man for military service, or unfit him for the discharge of court duties (2 Kings 5:18). But there was always a danger that the lighter forms might develop into the severer ones. 2 Kings 5:2 And the Syrians had gone out by companies; or, in marauding bands. No peace had been made after Ahab’s expedition against Ramoth-Gilead. Hostilities, therefore, still continued upon the borders, where raids were frequent, as upon our own northern border in mediaeval times. And had brought away captive out of the land of Israel a little maid. The marauding expeditions of ancient times had for one of their main objects the capture of slaves. In Africa wars are still carried on chiefly for this purpose. And she waited on Naaman’s wife. Either Naaman had led the expedition, and this particular captive had been assigned to him in the division of the booty, or she had merely passed into his possession by purchase, and thus become one of his wife’s attendants. 2 Kings 5:3 And she said unto her mistress, Would God my lord were with the prophet that is in Samaria! literally, Oh that my lord were before the prophet who is in Samaria! Elisha had a house in Samaria (2 Kings 6:1-33:82), where he resided occasionally. For he would recover him of his leprosy. The "little maid" concludes from her small experience that, if her master and the great miracle-working prophet of her own land could be brought together, the result would be his cure. She has, in her servile condition, contracted an affection both for her master and her mistress, and her sympathies are strongly with them. Perhaps she had no serious purpose in speaking as she did. The words burst from her as a mere expression of goodwill. She did not contemplate any action resulting from them. "Oh that things could be otherwise than as they are! Had I my dear master in my own country, it would be easy to accomplish his cure. The prophet is so powerful and so kind. He both could and would recover him." Any notion of her vague wish being carried out, being made the ground of a serious embassy, was probably far from the girl’s thought. But the "bread cast upon the waters returns after many days." There is no kind wish or kind utterance that may not have a result far beyond anything that the wisher or utterer contemplated. Good wishes are seeds that ofttimes take root, and grow, and blossom, and bear fruit beyond the uttermost conception of those who sow them. 2 Kings 5:4 And one went in, and told his lord, saying. "One went in" is a possible translation; but it is simpler and more natural to translate "he went in," i.e. Naaman went in, and told his lord, Ben-hadad, the King of Syria. Thus and thus said the maid that is of the land of Israel. Being "of the land of Israel," her words had a certain weight—she had means of knowing—she ought to know whether such a thing as the cure of leprosy by the intervention of a prophet was a possible occurrence in her country. 2 Kings 5:5 And the King of Syria said, Go to, go; rather, Go, depart; i.e. lose no time; go at once, if there is any such possibility as the maiden has indicated. "We see," Bahr says, "from the king’s readiness, how anxious he was for the restoration of Naaman." And I will send a letter unto the King of Israel. Letters had been interchanged between Solomon and Hiram, King of Tyro (2 Chronicles 2:3-11), a century earlier; and the communications of king with king in the East, though sometimes carried on orally by ambassadors, probably took place to a large extent by means of letters from a very early date. Written communications seem to have led to the outbreak of the war by which the foreign dynasty of the Hyksos was driven out of Egypt, and the native supremacy reestablished. Written engagements were certainly entered into between the Egyptian kings and the Hittites at a date earlier than the Exodus. Benhadad evidently regards the sending of a letter to a neighboring monarch as a natural and ordinary occurrence. And he—i.e. Naaman—departed, and took with him ten talents of silver—reckoned by Keil as equal to 25,000 thalers, or £3750; by Thenius as equal to 20,000 thalers, or £3000—and six thousand pieces of gold. "Pieces of gold" did not yet exist, since coin had not been invented. Six thousand shekels’ weight of gold is probably intended. This would equal, according to Keil, 50,000 thalers; according to Thenius, 60,000 thalers. Such sums are quite within the probable means of a rich Syrian nobleman of the time, a favorite at court, and the generalissimo of the Syrian army. Naaman evidently supposed that he would have, directly or indirectly, to purchase his cure. And ten changes of raiment (comp. Genesis 45:22; Hom; ’Od.,’ 13:67; Xen; ’Cyrop.,’ Genesis 8:2. § 8; ’ Anab.,’ 1.2. § 29; etc.). The practice of giving dresses of honor as presents continues in the East to this day. 2 Kings 5:6 And he brought the letter to the King of Israel, saying. The hostile relations between Syria and Israel would not interfere with the coming and going of a messenger from either king to the other, who would be invested with an ambassadorial character. Now when this letter is come unto thee. We must not suppose that we have here the whole letter, which, no doubt, began with the customary Eastern formalities and elaborate compliments. The historian omits these, and hastens to, communicate to us the main point of the epistle, or rather, perhaps, its main drift, which he states somewhat baldly and bluntly. Behold, I have therewith sent Naaman my servant to thee, that thou mayest recover him—literally, and thou shalt recover him—of his leprosy. The letter made no mention of Elisha. Ben-hadad assumed that, if the King of Israel had in his dominions a person able to cure leprosy, he would be fully cognizant of the fact, and would at once send for him, and call upon him for an exertion of his gift or art. He is not likely to have comprehended the relations in which Kings of Israel stood towards the Jehovistic prophets, but may probably have thought of Elisha "as a sort of chief magus, or as the Israelitish high priest" (Menken), whom the king would have at his beck and call, and whose services would be completely at his disposal. 2 Kings 5:7 And it came to pass, when the King of Israel had read the letter, that he rent his clothes. In horror and alarm. He concluded that once more (see 1 Kings 20:7) the Syrian monarch was determined to find a ground of quarrel, and had therefore sent to him an impossible request. And said, Am I God, to kill and to make alive? To "kill" and to "make alive" were familiar expressions in the mouth of the Israelites to designate omnipotence (see Deuteronomy 32:39; 1 Samuel 2:6). Recovering from leprosy was equivalent to making alive, for a leprous person was "as one dead" (Numbers 12:12) according to Hebrew notions. That this man doth send unto me to recover a man of his leprosy. The king evidently does not bethink himself of Elisha, of whose great miracle of raising the dead to life (2 Kings 4:35-36) he may not up to this time have heard. Elisha’s early miracles were mostly wrought with a certain amount of secrecy. Wherefore consider, I pray you, and see how he seeketh a quarrel against me. The king misjudged Benhadad, but not without some grounds of reason, if he was ignorant of Elisha’s miraculous gifts. Benhadad, when seeking a ground of quarrel with Ahab, had made extravagant requests (see 1 Kings 20:3-6). 2 Kings 5:8 And it was so—or, it came to pass—when Elisha the man of God (see 2 Kings 4:7, 2 Kings 4:16, etc.) had heard that the King of Israel had rent his clothes, that he sent to the king, saying, Wherefore hast thou rent thy clothes? The king’s act was public; his complaint was public; he wished his subjects to know the outrageous conduct, as he viewed it, of the Syrian king. Thus the rumor went through the town, and reached the ears of the prophet, who therefore sent a message to the king. Let him come now to me; i.e. let Naaman, instead of applying to thee, the earthly head of the state, the source of all human power, which is utterly unavailing in such a case, apply to me, the source of spiritual power, the commissioned minister of Jeho-yah, who alone can help him under the circumstances. And [then] he shall know that there is a prophet in Israel; i.e. he shall have swift and sure demonstration, that God "has not left himself without witness," that, "in spite of the apostasy of king and people, the God who can kill and make alive yet makes himself known in Israel in his saving might through his servants the prophets" (Bahr), of whom I am one. 2 Kings 5:9 So Naaman came with his horses and with his chariot. The Syrians had had chariots, and used horses to draw them, from a remote date. The Hyksos, who introduced horses and chariots into Egypt, though not exactly a Syrian people, entered Egypt from Syria; and in all the Syrian wars of the Egyptians, which began about B.C. 1600, we find their adversaries employing a chariot force. In one representation of a fight between the Egyptians and a people invading Egypt from’ Syria, the war-chariots of the latter are drawn by four oxen; but generally the horse was used on both sides. Syria imported her horses and chariots from Egypt (1 Kings 10:29), and, as appears from this passage, employed them for peaceful as well as for warlike purposes. There was a similar employment of them from a very early time in Egypt (see Genesis 41:43; Genesis 50:9). And stood at the door of the house of Elisha. Elisha was at this time residing in Samaria, whether in his own house or not we cannot say. His abode was probably a humble one; and when the great general, accompanied by his cavalcade of followers, drew up before it, he had, we may be sure, no intention of dismounting and entering. What he expected he tells us himself in 2 Kings 5:11. The prophet regarded his pride and self-conceit as deserving of a rebuke. 2 Kings 5:10 And Elisha sent a messenger unto him. Elisha asserted the dignity of his office. Naaman was "a great man" (2 Kings 5:1), with a high sense of his own importance, and regarded the prophet as very much inferior to himself. He expected to be waited on, courted, to receive every possible attention. Elisha no doubt intended very pointedly to rebuke him by remaining in his house, and communicating with the great man by a messenger. But there is no ground for taxing him with "priestly pride," or even with "impoliteness" on this account. He had to impress upon the Syrian noble the nothingness of wealth and earthly grandeur, and the dignity of the prophetic office. He did not do more than was requisite for these purposes. Saying, Go and wash in Jordan seven times. Elisha speaks no doubt, "by the word of the Lord." He is directed to require of Naaman a compliance with a somewhat burdensome order. The nearest point on the course of Jordan was above twenty miles distant from Samaria. Naaman is to go thither, to strip himself, and to plunge into the stream seven times. The directions seem given to test his faith. They may be compared with that of our Lord to the blind man, "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam," and, in another point of view, with that given to Joshua (Joshua 6:3-5), and that of Elijah to his servant (1 Kings 18:43). To repeat a formal act six times with- out perceiving any result, and yet to persevere and repeat it a seventh time, requires a degree of faith and trust that men do not often possess. And thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean. The scaly leprous scurf shall fall off and reveal clean flesh underneath. Thy body shall be manifestly freed from all defilement. 2 Kings 5:11 But Naaman was wroth … and said. Not unnaturally. As a "great man," the lord on whose arm the king leant, and the captain of the host of Syria, Naaman was accustomed to extreme deference, and all the outward tokens of respect and reverence. He had, moreover, come with a goodly train, carrying gold and silver and rich stuffs, manifestly prepared to pay largely for whatever benefit he might receive. To be curtly told, "Go, wash in Jordan," by the prophet’s servant, without the prophet himself condescending to make himself visible, would have been trying to any Oriental’s temper, and to one of Naaman’s rank and position might well seem an insult. The Syrian general had pictured to himself a very different scene. Behold, I thought, He will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the Name of the Lord his God, and strike his hand over the place, and recover the leper; rather, take away the leprosy (ἀποσυνάξειτὸλεπρόν, LXX.). Naaman had imagined a striking scene, whereof he was to be the central figure, the prophet descending, with perhaps a wand of office, the attendants drawn up on either side, the passers-by standing to gaze—a solemn invocation of the Deity, a waving to and fro of the wand in the prophet’s hand, and a sudden manifest cure, wrought in the open street of the city, before the eyes of men, and at once noised abroad through the capital, so as to make him "the observed of all observers, the cynosure of all neighboring eyes." Instead of this, he is bidden to go as he came, to ride twenty miles to the stream of the Jordan, generally muddy, or at least discolored, and there to wash himself, with none to look on but his own attendants, with no eclat, no pomp or circumstance, no glory of surroundings. It is not surprising that he was disappointed and vexed. 2 Kings 5:12 Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? may I not wash in them, and be clean? The "rivers of Damascus" are streams of great freshness and beauty. The principal one is the Barada, probably the Abaua of the present passage, which, rising in the Antilibanus range, and flowing through a series of romantic glens, bursts finally from the mountains through a deep gorge and scatters itself over the plain. One branch passes right through the city of Damascus, cutting it in half. Others flow past the city both on the north and on the south, irrigating the gardens and orchards, and spreading fertility far and wide over the Merj. A small stream, the Fidjeh, flows into the Barada from the north. Another quite independent river, the Awaaj. waters the southern portion of the Damascene plain, but does not approach within several miles of the city. Most geographers regard this as the "Pharpar;" but the identification is uncertain, since the name may very possibly have attached to one of the branches of the Barada. The Barada is limpid, cool, gushing, the perfection of a river: It was known to the Greeks and Romans as the Chrysorrhoas, or "river of gold." We can well understand that Naaman would esteem the streams of his own city as infinitely superior to the turbid, often sluggish, sometimes "clay-colored" Jordan. If leprosy was to be trashed away, it might naturally have appeared to him that the pure Barada would have more cleansing power than the muddy river recommended to him by the prophet. So he turned and went away in a rage. 2 Kings 5:13 And his servants came near, and spake unto him, and said, My father. Naaman’s attendants did not share his indignation, or, if they did, since servants in the East are apt to be jealous of their masters’ honor, had their feelings more under control; and they therefore inter-feted with mild words, anxious to pacify him, and persuade him to follow the prophet’s advice. "My father" is a deferential and, at the same time, an affectionate address, not unnatural in the mouth of a confidential servant. There is thus no need of any alteration of the text, such as Ewald (לוֹ for אָבִי) or Thenius (אִם for אָבִי) proposes. It must be admitted, however, that the LXX. seem to have had לוֹ in their copies. If the prophet had bid thee do some great thing—"had set thee," i.e; "some difficult task"—wouldest thou not have done it? how much rather then, [shouldest thou perform his behest] when he saith to thee, Wash, and be clean? The reasoning was unanswerable, and took effect. Naaman was persuaded. 2 Kings 5:14 Then went he down; i.e. descended into the deep Jordan valley from the highland of Samaria—a descent of above a thousand feet. The nearest route would involve a journey of about twenty-five miles. And dipped himself seven times in Jordan—i.e. followed exactly the prophet’s directions in 2 Kings 5:10—according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child—literally, of a little lad—and he was clean. Not only was the leprosy removed, hut the flesh was more soft and tender than that of a grown man commonly is. It was like the flesh of a boy. 2 Kings 5:15 And he returned to the man of God, he and all his company. It is not always seen what this involved. It involved going out of his way at least fifty miles. At the Jordan, Naaman was on his way home, had accomplished a fourth part of his return journey; in three more days he would be in Damascus, in his own palace. But he feels that it would be an unworthy act to accept his cure and make no acknowledgment of it, having turned away from the prophet "in a rage" (2 Kings 5:12), now, without apology, or retraction, or expression of regret or gratitude, to return into his own country under the obligation of an inestimable benefit. His cure has wrought in him, not merely a revulsion of feeling from rage and fury to thankfulness, hut a change of belief. It has convinced him that the God of Elisha is the God of the whole earth. It has turned him from a worshipper of Rimmon into a worshipper of Jehovah. He must proclaim this. He must let the prophet know what is in his heart. He must, if possible, induce him to accept a recompense. Therefore he thinks nothing of an outlay of time and trouble, but retraces his steps to the Israelite capital, taking with him all his company, his horses and his chariots, his gold and silver and bales of clothing, and numerous train of attendants. And came, and stood before him; i.e. descended from his chariot, and asked admittance into the prophet’s house, and was received and allowed an audience—a striking contrast with his previous appearance before the house, in expectation that the prophet would come down and wait upon him. And he said, Behold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel. This is an acknowledgment of the sole supremacy of Jehovah on the part of a heathen, such as we scarcely find elsewhere. The general belief of the time, and indeed of antiquity, was that every land had its own god, who was supreme in it—Baal in Phoenicia, Che-mesh in Moab, Moloch in Ammon, Rimmon in Syria, Bel or Bel-Merodach in Babylon, Amun-Ra in Egypt, etc.; and when there is an acknowledgment of Jehovah on the part of heathens in Scripture, it is almost always the recognition of him as a god—the God of the Jews or of the Israelites, one among many (see Exodus 10:16, Exodus 10:17; 2 Kings 17:26; 2 Kings 18:33-35; 2 Chronicles 2:11; Daniel 2:47; Daniel 3:29; Daniel 6:20, etc.). But here we have a plain and distinct recognition of him as the one and only God that is in all the earth. Naaman thus shows a greater docility, a readier receptivity, than almost any of the other pious heathens who are brought before us in Scripture. Balaam and Cyrus alone equal him. Now therefore, I pray thee, take a blessing—i.e. "a present"—of thy servant. Heathens were accustomed to carry presents to the oracles which they consulted, and to reward those from which they received favorable responses with gifts of enormous value (see Herod; 2 Kings 1:14, 50, etc.). The Jewish prophets did net generally object to such free-will offerings. Naaman therefore quite naturally and reasonably made the offer. He would have contravened usage had he not done so. 2 Kings 5:16 But he said, As the Lord liveth, before whom I stand, I will receive none. Elisha regards it as best, under the circumstances, to refuse the offered recompense. It was not compulsory on him so to act; for the precept, "Freely ye have received, freely give" (Matthew 10:8), had not been yet uttered. Pious Israelites commonly brought gifts to the prophets whom they consulted (1 Samuel 9:7, 1 Samuel 9:8; 1 Kings 14:3). But, in the case of a foreigner, ignorant hitherto of true religion, whom it was important to impress favorably, and, if possible, win over to the faith, Elisha deemed it advisable to take no reward. Naaman was thus taught that Jehovah was his true Healer, the prophet the mere instrument, and that it was to Jehovah that his gratitude, his thanks, and his offerings were due. And he urged him to take it; but he refused. Contests of politeness are common in the East, where the one party offers to give and even insists on giving, while the other makes a pretence of declining; but here both parties were in earnest, and the gift was absolutely declined. 2 Kings 5:17 And Naaman said, Shall there not then, I pray thee, be given to thy servant two mules’ burden of earth? Naaman does not state what he intends to do with the earth; and the critics have consequently suggested two uses. Some suppose that he intended to make the earth into an altar upon which he might offer his sacrifices; comp. Exodus 20:24, where an altar of earth is spoken of (Bahr and others). But the more general opinion (Thenius, Von Gerlach, etc.) is that he wished to spread the earth over a piece of Syrian ground, and thereby to hallow the ground for purposes of worship. The Jews themselves are known to have acted similarly, transferring earth from Jerusalem to Babylonia, to build a temple on it; and the idea is not an unnatural one, It does not necessarily imply the "polytheistic superstition" that every god has his own laud, where alone he can be properly worshipped. It rests simply on the notion of there being such a thing as "holy ground" (Exodus 3:5)—ground more suited for the worship of God than ordinary common soil, which therefore it is worth while to transfer from place to place for a religious purpose. For thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice [as meat offerings or firstfruits] unto other gods, but unto the Lord. It is implied that Naaman had been hitherto a polytheist. Not much is known of the Syrian religion, but, so far as can be gathered, it would seem to have been a somewhat narrow polytheism. The sun was the supreme god, and was worshipped ordinarily under the name of Hadad (Ma-crob, ’Sat.,’ 1.23). There was also, certainly, a great goddess, the "Dea Syra" of the Romans, whom they identified with Cybele and with their own "Bona Dea," a divinity parallel with the Ashtoreth of the Phoenicians, and the Ishtar of the Assyrians and Babylonians. Whether there were any other distinct deities may be doubted, since Bitumen is possibly only another name of Hadad (see the comment on verse 18). Adonis is simply "Adonai," i.e. "my Lord," an epithet of the Supreme Being. 2 Kings 5:18 In this thing the Lord pardon thy servant. Naaman is not prepared to be a martyr for his religion. On returning to Damascus, it will be among his civil duties to accompany his master to the national temples, and to prostrate himself before the images of the national deities. If he declines, if (like an early Christian) he will not enter "the house of devils," much less bow down before the graven image of a false god, it may cost him his life; it will certainly cost him his court favor. For such a sacrifice he is not prepared. Yet his conscience tells him that he will be acting wrongly. He therefore expresses a hope, or a prayer, that his fault, for a fault he feels that it will be, may be forgiven him—that Jehovah will not be "extreme to mark what is done amiss," but will excuse his outward conformity to his inward faith and zeal. That when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon. Riminon is probably derived from rum (רוּם), "to be high," and means "the exalted god," according to the gloss of Hesychins—Ράμαςὕψιστοςθεός. It is wrongly connected with רִטּוןֹ, "a pomegranate," and should rather be compared with the Arabic Er Rhaman, "the Most High." The royal name, "Tab-Bitumen" (1 Kings 15:18), contains the root, as does also the local name (Zechariah 12:11), "Hadad-Rimmon." This last word gives rise to the suspicion that Hadad and Rimmon are merely two names of the same deity, who was called "Hadad" or "Hadar" as bright and glorious, "Rim-men" as lofty and exalted. To worship there, and he leaneth on my hand. Either Naaman’s leprosy must have been recent, and he refers to the king’s practice in former times, or there must have been far less horror of leprosy among the Syrians than there was among the Hebrews. And I bow myself in the house of Rimmon—before the image, or at any rate before the supposed presence of the god—when I bow down myself in the house of Rimmon, the Lord pardon thy servant in this thing. The repetition of the clause indicates Naaman’s anxiety on the subject. 2 Kings 5:19 And he said unto him; Go in peace. Elisha declared neither that God would nor that he would net forgive Naaman his departure from the path of strict right. He was not called upon to give an answer, since Naaman had not put a question, but had only expressed a wish. His Go in peace is to be taken simply as "wishing the departing Syrian the peace of God upon the road." So Keil, rightly. So he departed from him a little way. Naaman left the presence of Elisha, quitted Samaria, and had gone a short way on his homeward journey when Gehazi overtook him. 2 Kings 5:19 is closely connected with 2 Kings 5:20. 2 Kings 5:20 But Gehazi, the servant of Elisha the man of God, said (see 2 Kings 4:12-36 for the position held towards Elisha by Gehazi), Behold, my master has spared Naaman this Syrian. Gehazi either honestly thinks, or at least persuades himself, that a Syrian ought to be, not spared, but spoiled, as being a foreigner and an enemy. In not receiving at his hands that which he brought (see 2 Kings 5:5). Gehazi may not have known how much it was, but he had seen the laden animals, and rightly concluded that the value was great. But, as the Lord liveth, I will run after him, and take somewhat of him. "As the Lord liveth" seems a strange phrase in the mouth of one who is bent on lying and on stealing. But experience teaches us that religious formulae do drop from the lips of persons engaged in equally indefensible proceedings. This is partly because formulae by frequent use become mere forms, to which the utterer attaches no meaning; partly because men blind themselves to the wrongfulness of their actions, and find some excuse or other for any course of conduct by which they hope to profit. 2 Kings 5:21 So Gehazi followed after Naaman. A company of travelers in the East, even though it consist of the retinue of a single great man, will always contain footmen, as well as those who ride on horses or in chariots, and will not travel at a faster pace than about three miles an hour. Thus Gehazi, if he went at his best speed, could expect to overtake, and did actually overtake, the cavalcade of Naaman. He probably overtook them at a very short distance from Samaria. And when Naaman saw him running after him. Gehazi was pressed for time. He could not start at once, lest he should make it too plain that he was going m pursuit of Naaman; and he could not absent himself from the house too long, lest his master should call for him. He had, therefore, at whatever loss of dignity, to hurry himself, and actually "run after" the Syrian. Naaman, either accidentally looking back, or warned by some of his train, sees him, recognizes him, and is only too glad to respond to his wishes. He lighted down from the chariot to meet him. An act of great condescension. As Bahr notes, "Descent from a vehicle is, in the East, a sign of respect from the inferior to the superior;" and Naaman, in lighting down from his chariot, must have intended to "honor the prophet in his servant". But such honor is not commonly paid, and thus the act of Naaman was abnormal. And said, Is all well? The words admit of no better translation. Seeing Gehazi’s haste and anxious looks, Naaman suspects that all is not well, that something has happened since he left the prophet’s house, and accordingly puts his question, הֲשָׁלוֹם—Rectene sunt omnia? (Vulgate). 2 Kings 5:22 And he said, All is well. Gehazi’s reply was, "All is well." There has been no accident, no calamity—only a casual circumstance has caused a change in my master’s wishes, which I am sent thus hurriedly to communicate to thee. My master hath sent me, saying, Behold, even now (i.e. just at this time) there be come to me from Mount Ephraim two young men of the sons of the prophets. The details are added to give a greater air of truthfulness to the story. Give them, I pray thee, a talent of silver, and two changes of garments; i.e. a change apiece, and a talent between them—rather a large sum in respect of the pretended occasion, but a trifle compared with the amount which Naaman had expected to expend (2 Kings 5:5), and probably very much less than he had recently pressed upon the prophet (2 Kings 5:16). Gehazi had to balance between his own greed on the one hand, and the fear of raising suspicion on the other. His story was altogether most plausible, and his demand prudently moderate. 2 Kings 5:23 And Naaman said, Be content, take two talents; rather, consent, take two talents. Do not oppose thyself to my wishes—consent to receive double what thou hast asked. Naaman is anxious to show his gratitude by giving as much as he can induce the ether side to accept. He suggests two talents, probably because the strangers who are said to have arrived are two. And he urged him. Gehazi must have made some show of declining the offer. And bound two talents of silver in two bags—i.e. put up two talents separately in two bags, closing the month Of the bag in each case by "binding" it round with a string—with two changes of garments—as asked for (2 Kings 5:22)—and laid them upon two of his servants. If the Hebrew silver talent was worth £375 as Keil supposes, or even £300 as Thenius reckons, it would be pretty well as much as an ordinary slave could carry, being somewhat over a hundredweight. And they bare them before him; i.e. they—the servants—bare the two sacks of money before him—Gehazi. 2 Kings 5:24 And when he came to the tower; rather, to the hill (Revised Version). Some well-known eminence at a little distance from the Damascus gate of Samaria must be intended. Here Gehazi stopped the slaves, and took the money from them. It was important for his purpose that they should not be seen re-entering the city, as that would have occasioned remark, and might naturally have led to inquiry. He took them—i.e; the bags—from their hand—i.e. from the hands of Naaman’s servants—and bestowed them in the house; i.e. by himself or deputy brought them to Elisha’s house, and there hid them away. And he let the men—Naaman’s servants—go, and they departed. They hastened, no doubt, to rejoin their master. 2 Kings 5:25 But he went in, and stood before his master. Gehazi, lest his absence should be noticed, as soon as he had put away the money, sought his master’s presence, entering the room casually, as if he had been busied about the house. He was met at once, however, by the plain and stern question which follows. And Elisha said unto him; Whence comest thou, Gehazi? literally, Whence, Gehazi? A short, stem, abrupt question. And he said, Thy servant went no whither. There was no help for it. One lie necessitates another. Once enter on the devious path, and you cannot say whither it will conduct you. To deceive and plunder a foreigner of a hostile nation probably seemed to Gehazi a trifle, either no sin at all, or a very venial sin. But now he finds himself led on to telling a direct lie to his master, which even he could not have justified to himself. 2 Kings 5:26 And he said unto him, Went not mine heart with thee? There is no "with thee" in the original; and the words have been taken in quite a different sense. Ewald regards לבִּי, "my heart," as designating Gehazi, and meaning "my loved one, my favorite disciple." "Thou hast denied that thou wentest any whither; but did not my favorite disciple in truth go forth, when the man turned again from his chariot, as Naaman did?" (2 Kings 5:21). But no parallel instance can be adduced of any such use of לִבִּי, which is altogether too strong a term to be applied to a mere favorite servant. The irony, moreover, of the term under the circumstances would be too great. Maurer’s interpretation of לִבִּי by "my prophetic power" (my prophetic power had not departed from me) is no better, since it requires צָלַךְ to be taken in two different senses in the two most closely connected clauses of 2 Kings 5:25 and 2 Kings 5:26. Altogether, our version would seem to be the best rendering that has been suggested. It accords with the Septuagint, with Theodoret, and with the Vulgate; and it gives a satisfactory sense: "Did not my spirit go forth with thee when thou wentest forth, etc.? Was I not present in spirit during the whole transaction?" When the man turned again from his chariot to meet thee? (see 2 Kings 5:21). Is it a time to receive money, and to receive garments, and olive yards, and vineyards, and sheep, and oxen, and menservants, and maidservants? The prophet follows Gehazi’s thoughts, which had been to purchase, with the money obtained from Naaman, olive yards, and vineyards, and sheep, and oxen, etc.; and asks—Was this a time for such proceedings? Keil well explains, "Was this the time, when so many hypocrites pretend to be prophets from selfishness and avarice, and bring the prophetic office into contempt with unbelievers, for a servant of the true God to take money and goods from a non-Israelite … that he might acquire property and luxury for himself?" It was evidently a most unfit time. As Thenius says, "In any other case better than in this mightest thou have yielded to thy desire for gold and goods." 2 Kings 5:27 The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee; i.e. "As thou hast taken his goods, thou shalt also take his leprosy, which goes with them." A just Nemesis. And unto thy seed forever. The iniquity of the fathers is visited upon the children. Gehazi, however, could avoid this part of the curse by not marrying. And he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow. There were many forms and degrees of leprosy (Leviticus 2 Kings 13:2 -46). Gehazi’s was of the most pronounced kind, And it fell on him suddenly, as her leprosy fell upon Miriam (Numbers 12:10), complete at once, so that there could he no further aggravation of it. The lesson should be taken to heart, and should be a warning to us, both against lying and against covetousness. 2 Kings 5:1-19 The lessons taught by the story of Naaman. "The story of Naaman," says Menken, "is a worthy part of the history of those revelations and manifestations of the living God which, in their connection and continuation through many centuries, and in their tendency towards one goal and object, were designed to plant upon earth the knowledge and the worship of the true God! But it offers besides to our consideration a rich store of reflections, in which neither heart nor understanding can refuse a willing participation." Among the lessons, or "reflections," would seem to be the following. I. No EARTHLY WITHOUT ALLOY. Naaman, as far as external prosperity went, had all that he could desire. 1. He was "captain of the host of the King of Syria," commander-in-chief, i.e; of all the national forces. He held a great position, involving high rank, vast patronage, considerable emolument, and a place in the thoughts of men next to that of the king. 2. He was "a great man with his master"—high in the royal favor—able to obtain any boon that he desired, and advance all whom he cared to patronize. 3. He was also "a mighty man of valor," or rather "a good tried soldier," approved by deeds of arms to the nation, and enjoying his own confidence and self-respect. But on all this there was one drawback. Naaman "was a leper." And so it is generally. "Everywhere, where there is or seems to be something great and fortunate, there is also some discordant ’but,’ which, like a false note in a melody, mars the perfectness of the good fortune. A worm gnaws at the root of everything pertaining to this world; and everything here below contains the germs of death in itself" (Menken). Life is full of compensations. There is no misery without alleviation; no low estate without some gleam of joy or hope to brighten and glorify it; and also no happiness without some concomitant annoyance or discomfort. Now it is domestic trouble, now an unhappy turn of mind, now a recollection of some sin in the past, now an anticipation of some calamity in the future. But, perhaps most frequently, it is ill health, some form of bodily suffering. Naaman’s affliction was of the most grievous kind—leprosy! a disease at once painful, unsightly, disgusting, and regarded as a disgrace. II. SOLACE AND HELP COME TO US FROM THE MOST . A "little maid," a foreigner, a captive, a slave, accidentally introduced into his household, and occupying a very humble place in it, perhaps almost unknown by sight to the great lord of the mansion, who has something better to do than to take notice of his wife’s attendants—this little maid, humble as she is, and apparently of the least possible consequence, initiates the entire series of events which form the substance of the narrative. She sees her master’s sufferings, she is touched by them; she longs to have them assuaged; and she bethinks herself of a possible cure of them. "Would God my lord were with the prophet that is in Samaria!" Perhaps it was a mere vague wish, a thought that rose in the mind, and was uttered without the slightest idea that action would be based on it. But our lightest words may have effects of which we never thought. The "little maid’s" gentle aspiration fell on some ear which took note of it; inquiry was made; hope was aroused; and finally action followed. The small accident of an Israelite maid, who knew of Elisha’s power to work miracles, being a member of his wife’s household, and giving utterance to her feelings of compassion, led on to the great general’s cure, and to the glorification of the Name of Jehovah throughout the Syrian nation. The mouse in the fable gave aid, which was of the most vital importance to the lion. We can never tell from what humble friend or dependant we may not receive help in trouble, by precious hints or suggestions, or by effectual fervent prayers, which may be of inestimable service to us. III. THE GREAT OF THE EARTH A POOR STAY AND SUPPORT. Neither Benhadad King of Syria, nor Joram King of Israel, were really of any help to Naaman in his trouble. Benhadad meant well; but his letter to the King of Israel confused the plain issue, and was not of the slightest practical service. Joram had to acknowledge himself utterly powerless (2 Kings 5:7), and, but for the prophet’s interference, would probably have represented to the King of Syria that there was no more help to be obtained for Naaman in Israel than in his own country. Great civil personages are rarely fit to take the lead in matters, which even touch upon religion. They place far too much trust in the cunning devices of mere human policy, and far too little in the force of religious principle and the overruling providence of God. The Magi did not help Christ by bringing him their gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh. They did but draw Herod’s attention to him, and bring his infant life into peril. Herod Antipas did not help John the Baptist. He "heard him gladly" (Mark 6:20), but imprisoned him, and ultimately put him to death. The advice of the psalmist is excellent, "Put not your trust in princes … for there is no help in them" (Psalms 146:3). IV. OUR BEST HELP FROM AND ITS . Naaman might have returned to Damascus in the same condition in which he left it, unhelped, unaided, uncured, but for the existence, and for the action taken by, a minister of God. Men often jeer at ministers, deride them, deny the use of them, call them idlers and supernumeraries, and declare their belief that the world would get on quite as well, or much better, without them; but in times of difficulty and danger, and especially in the time of sickness, they are apt to have recourse to them. A Belshazzar in difficulty seeks to Daniel (Daniel 5:13), a Naaman to Elisha, a Theodosius to Ambrose, a guilty sinner to his parish priest or to the nearest godly minister of his acquaintance. Ministers, it is true, do not now heal diseases; and it is fitting that in sickness the physician should be called in, to begin with. But when the physician can do no more, when he declares the resources of his art exhausted, when death draws near us, then there are but few who despise the aid of the previously contemned servant of God, but few who are not glad to have a minister of God at their bedside, and to receive from his hands the last consolations of religion. How many have been brought by ministerial aid to die in peace and joy, who without it would have lain for days tortured with doubts and fears and misgivings! How many have even been snatched at the last moment like brands from the burning, brought through ministerial influence, even on their death-beds, to a repentance not to be repented of! It is well not to trust beforehand to a death-bed repentance, but to set our house in order while we are still in health. But the example of the thief on the cross shows that, even under the very shadow of death, the mercy of God is not exhausted. A death-bed repentance is always possible; and in bringing it about the assistance to be derived from an experienced minister can scarcely be over-estimated. V. THE NATURAL MAN A POOR JUDGE OF GOD’S METHODS OF . "I thought," said Naaman, "he will surely come out to me," etc. Naaman had made up his mind what the prophet’s method would be. He had his own notions concerning the fitness of things, and the mode in which Divine help, if it came at all, would come to him. When his expectations were disappointed, as human expectations on such a subject are likely to be, he was offended, and "turned and went away in a rage" (verse 12). Do not many turn from religion altogether on similar utterly insufficient grounds? They "thought," if God gave a revelation at all, he would give it in this or that way—by a voice from heaven speaking with equal force to all, with the accompaniment of a continuous display of miracles, by the mouth of an immaculate priesthood, or in some way quite different from that in which it has pleased God to give it; and, being disappointed in their expectation, they reject the whole matter, refuse to have anything to do with it, "turn and go away in a rage." "I thought" is all-powerful with them. Well does Menken observe, "This ’I thought’ is the most mighty of all mighty things upon earth, and even if it is not the most ruinous of all ruinous things, it is yet certainly the most unfortunate of all unfortunate ones. This ’I thought’ brought sin and misery and death into the world; and it prevents redemption from sin and death in the case of thousands! These thousands, if they perish in their opinion, will begin the next life with ’I thought.’" VI. SECOND OFTEN THE BEST. It is never too late to amend. To pride one’s self on absolute consistency and unchangingness is the height of folly in a being who is not, and knows he is not, omniscient. Our first thoughts must often be mistaken ones, and in such cases it is at least possible that our second thoughts may be better. Moreover, second thoughts may be suggested from without, and may come from those who are far wiser than ourselves. Naaman showed his good sense in giving up his original intention and adopting the advice of his servants. To have persisted for consistency’s sake would have been foolish obstinacy, and would have resulted in his remaining a leper and an idolater to the day of his death. VII. A TIME FOR ALL THINGS—A TIME TO GET, AND A TIME TO LOSE. "The laborer is worthy of his hire." Ministers cannot live on air any more than other people. There is a time when, and there are circumstances under which, it is lawful for them to receive such an amount of this world’s goods as they need, or even such an amount as is offered to them. For any surplus which they receive beyond their needs they are trustees, bound to expend such surplus as they deem best for the honor of God and the benefit of man. Prophets were entitled to accept gifts of those who consulted them (1 Samuel 9:7, 1 Samuel 9:8), and Elisha himself took without hesitation the twenty loaves from the man of Baal-shalisha. But when Naaman made his offer, Elisha felt that it was "a time to lose." He had to show that "the gift of God could not be purchased with money;" he had to impress it on an ignorant but intelligent heathen, that Jehovah was a God not like other gods, and that his prophets were men not like other men. He had to teach the doctrine of free grace. His example should be a lesson to ministers, that not every gift, even though it be offered by a willing heart, ought to be accepted. There are times when a minister should decline a testimonial, an augmentation of stipend, the donation of a new pulpit, or a new organ, and when he should be glad to "lose" them for the furtherance of higher objects. VIII. FOR BEST SHOWN BY OUR TURNING TO GOD. When Naaman found that the prophet would receive no gift at his hand, he acquiesced, and resolved to show his gratitude for the great blessing which he had received in another way. He would thenceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice unto any other god, but only unto the Lord (verse 17). It was a noble resolve. It might offend his sovereign, it might hamper his promotion, it might deprive him of court favor. Still, he did not hesitate; he made the resolution, and he proclaimed it. Whether he kept it faithfully or no, we are not told; we know nothing of his after-life; the curtain drops on him as he departs to his own country. But, so far as the history is carried, it shows him faithful and true. He bears off his two mules’ burden of earth. He means no more to worship Rimmon. He will acknowledge and worship one God only, Jehovah. There may be weakness in the compromise with conscience, which he proposes in verse 18; but it is a pardonable weakness in one bred up a heathen. At any rate, he does right, and sets us a good example, in his resolute turning to Jehovah, as the true Source of the blessing, which he has received, and as therefore deserving henceforth of all his worship and all his gratitude. 2 Kings 5:20-27 The lessons taught by the sin and punishment of Gehazi. Gehazi’s is a sad case, but a not unusual one; the case of a person brought into close contact with a high form of moral excellence and spirituality, who, instead of profiting by the example, willfully casts it aside, and adopts a low standard of life and conduct—a standard which always tends to become lower. The first lesson to be learnt from his case is this— I. IF CONTACT WITH FAIL TO RAISE US, IT WILL SINK US, IN THE MORAL SCALE. The two disciples closest to our Lord seem to have been St. John and Judas Iscariot. The one leant upon Jesus’ breast; the other dipped with him habitually (τὸνβάπτονταμετἐμοῦἐντῷτρυβλίῳ) in the dish (Mark 14:20). The one was exalted to a spirituality rarely attained by man; the other sank to such a condition that his Lord said of him, he "is a devil" (John 6:70). Both elevation and degradation are equally natural. The one comes from the imitation of the high example before us; the other from resisting the impulse to such imitation. If we resist impulses to good, we do ourselves irreparable harm; we blunt our consciences, harden our hearts, render ourselves less sensitive to good influences forever after. And the longer the contact with goodness continues, the higher the exaltation, or the lower the deterioration, of our nature. Gehazi had been for years Elisha’s servant. He had been on the closest terms of intimacy with him. He had witnessed his patience, his self-denial, his gentleness, his kindness, his zeal for Jehovah. But the only effect had been to harden him in evil. He had grown proud and contemptuous, as shown by his calling Naaman "this Syrian" (verse 20), a swearer (verse 20), covetous, untruthful, careless of his master’s honor, secretive (verse 24), shameless. He had no sense of God’s watchful eye and continual presence, no respect or love for his master, no care for what Naaman and the other Syrians would think of him. He thus did as much as in him lay to ruin his master’s projects, and to lower him in the esteem of those whose good opinion he knew his master valued, Another lesson to be drawn from the narrative is the following:— II. ONE SIN LEADS ON TO ANOTHER BY A WHICH IS ALMOST . Gehazi begins with covetousness. He cannot see the great wealth of Naaman, the wedges of silver and gold, and the large bales of rich stuffs, without a keen desire to obtain possession of a portion. He hopes that his master will spoil the Syrian, and not spare him; in that case he may contrive to get a share in the advantage. His master’s refusal, no doubt, seems to him mere folly, quixotism—almost madness. He sets his clever wits to work, and soon frames a scheme by which his master’s intentions shall be frustrated. The scheme, as any scheme must under such circumstances, involves him in lying; nay, in a whole heap of lies. He tells a circumstantial tale in which there is not a single word of truth. The tale runs glibly off his tongue, and easily deceives the foreigner, who is not of a suspicious temper. Gehazi is completely successful, obtains even more than he had ventured to ask; hides it away without any difficulty, and thinks that all is over. But all is not over. "Whence comest thou, Gehazi?" sounds in his ears; and he must either confess all or, directly and unmistakably, lie to his master. Of course, the lie is resolved upon; his previous conduct has so demoralized him, that we cannot even imagine him to have hesitated. The direct falsehood to his master, which he would fain have avoided, has to be uttered: "Thy servant went no whither." Facilis descensus Averni. The only security against a moral decline as grievous as Gehazi’s is not to enter upon it, not to take the first step. Principiis obsta. Check evil tendencies at once, and the fatal sequence need never be entered upon. Gehazi’s punishment has also its lesson. He had gained his coveted wealth; the prophet could not take it from him. He was a rich man, and might carry out all his far-reaching schemes of proprietorship, and lordship over others. But what will it all profit him, if he is to be, to the end of his days, a leper? The apples of Sodom, so "fair to view," are felt and known to be worthless, when they "turn to ashes on the lips." So was it with him; and so is it, commonly, with those who pursue a course similar to his. The prosperity acquired by fraud has within it a taint of rottenness. There is "a little rift within the lute"—a drawback of some kind or other, which deprives the prosperity of all its value, and makes the wealthy prosperous man a miserable wretch. If he escape external calamity, he will, at any rate, not escape the worm of remorse, which will cat into his heart, and poison his cup of pleasure. BY C.H. IRWIN 2 Kings 5:1-3 The captive Israelitish maid. There are four personages that stand out with special prominence in this chapter, from each of which important lessens may be learned. These are—the little Hebrew maid; Naaman, the commander-in-chief of the Syrian army; the Prophet Elisha; and Gehazi, the prophet’s servant. We shall speak first of the little maid. I. THIS LITTLE MAID DID NOT FORGET HER WHEN SHE WENT FROM HOME. We see that, though in a foreign land, she still thought of her fathers’ God and of his prophet. That is an important lesson in these days, when traveling has become so common. The motto with a great many professing Christians seems to be that when they are at Rome, they must do as Rome does. When they travel on the continent, they keep the continental Sunday, just as if the same God was not looking clown upon them there as at home, just as if the Lord’s day was not the Lord’s day everywhere, and as if there were not good Christian people on the continent who valued the day as a day of rest and worship. Mr. Ruskin wrote some pointed words lately in reference to the way Christian people seem to forget their religion when they go abroad. He asked them to count up their expenditure on railway fares and sight-seeing, on guides and guide-books, on luxuries and photographs; and then to ask themselves how much they had spent in donations to the poor Churches of France and Belgium, or of the Waldenses in Italy. Happily, all travelers are not like this. Many Christian tourists like to find a Sunday blessing, and to hear a word of refreshing, in some little country church among the hills of Scotland or of Switzerland, or in the quiet chapel amid the pleasure-seeking crowds of Paris. But how many there are who look up their religion when they turn the key in their house-door, and, however careful they may be of taking guide-books and other provisions for the journey, never dream of putting a Bible in the trunk! No matter where we go, let us take our religion with us, as Joseph took his into Egypt, as Daniel took his into Babylon, as this little Hebrew maid took hers into Syria. This little maid had strong inducements to give up her religion. No doubt it would have pleased her master and mistress if she had worshipped their gods. They might have said that her worship of any other God was an impertinence, a sort of suggestion that they were doing wrong. But she listens to the voice of conscience and of duty rather than to the voice of worldly policy and expediency. It is a message to all who are in the employment of others. Never sacrifice principle for place. Never sacrifice the favor of God for the favor of man. Your employer pays for your labor; he does not buy your conscience. If ever attempts are made to tamper with your conscience, be it yours to answer, "We ought to obey God rather than man." Trust God for the consequences. Trust him to provide for you. "In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths." II. THIS LITTLE MAID DID NOT RENDER EVIL FOR EVIL. She had been torn from her home and from her native land by the rude hands of Syrian soldiers. Perhaps her father had fallen beneath the enemy’s sword. Yet we do not find her cherishing a spirit of vindictiveness or revenge. Instead of rejoicing to see her captor suffer, she pities him. She longs that he may be healed of that terrible and loathsome disease. Have we never exulted in the sufferings of others? Have we never felt a secret thrill of gratification when some misfortune has befallen one with whom we were at variance? Such a spirit, the spirit of revenge, however natural it may be, is not the spirit of Christ. He bids us do unto others as we would wish them to do unto us. The Christ-like spirit is to love our enemies, to bless them that curse us, to do good to them that hate us, and to pray for them that despitefully use us and persecute us. III. THE LITTLE MAID WAS BUT YOUNG; YET, BY DOING WHAT SHE COULD, SHE BECAME A TO OTHERS. She did not say to herself, "I am but young; there is nothing I can do" She did not wait for some great thing to do. But she just did the work that lay nearest her. She saw a way in which she might be useful, and she took the opportunity at once. She said to her mistress, "Would God my lord were with the prophet that is in Samaria! for he would recover him of his leprosy." That was all. She just told of where the blessing of health was likely to be found. 1. This is a lesson for young people, for the children. None of you is too young to do something for Jesus. Jesus has some work for every one of you to do. It may be his work for you that you should conquer some sinful passion, some evil habit. It may be his work for you that you should stand up for him and his Word among bad companions; or that by your own quiet and gentle life, and loving disposition and kind deeds, you should show how good it is to be a Christian. Do the work that lies nearest. If you are at school or college, and find your studies irksome, and long to get free to work at your own will and pleasure; if you are learning your business, and find it a drudgery;—remember that just here Christ has a work for you to do. These difficulties have to be mastered. Master them, and then you will show your fitness for mastering far greater difficulties. "He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much." 2. It is a lesson for young and old. What are you doing to be a blessing to others? Is there not some sick person to whom you might read, some poor family that you might visit occasionally with some of the comforts of life, some tempted one to whom you might speak a word of help and encouragement, some backslider to whom you might speak a word of kindly warning, some careless, godless one whom you might urge to flee from the wrath to come? And if you can do but little for the sinner and the godless yourself, perhaps you can do as the little maid did—tell them where blessing is to be found, and invite them to come to the house of God. There is no need for rivalry between different Christian communities. There are godless people enough to fill all the places of worship, if only Christian people would stir themselves and go out into the streets and lanes, into the highways and hedges, and, by the power of irresistible persuasion, compel them to come in. Don’t trouble yourself by thinking of your own fitness or unfitness. Are you willing to be of use in Christ’s work? Are you anxious to be a blessing to others? That is the great question. If so, Jesus will do the rest. He will make you a vessel unto honor, sanctified, meet for the Master’s use. IV. THE SECRET OF THIS LITTLE MAID’S AND WAS HER STRONG AND SIMPLE FAITH. She could be faithful to God, because she believed in God. She believed that God would take care of her when she was faithfully serving him. She could be useful to others because, though she was a captive and had no means to help them, she knew of One who had. She had faith in God. She knew that God was with Elisha, and therefore she had no doubt about Elisha’s success. Yes; it is faith we want, if we are to be useful. We say we believe a great many things. But how do we believe them? Where is our faith in God’s promises shown in our patience under difficulties and trials and discouragements? Where is our faith in God’s promises shown by our liberality to his cause? Where is our faith in God’s promises shown by our work done for Christ? If our faith in God is real, it will show itself in every detail of our daily life; it will overflow in acts of usefulness and love.—C.H.I. 2 Kings 5:4-19 Naaman the Syrian. This case of Naaman is an illustration of the imperfection that there is in all things human. Naaman was commander-in-chief of the Syrian army. Not only so, but he had seen service. He had won his spurs in active warfare. He had led his troops to victory. "By him the Lord had given deliverance to Syria" Hence, as we read, "he was a great man with his master, and honorable." No doubt he had been greeted on his return from battle, as victorious generals were greeted then and are greeted still, with the triumphant shouts of a joyful and exultant multitude. His cup of happiness was almost full. But there was one element of trouble that mingled with his joy. "But he was a leper." That little word "but," how significant it is! We should all be happy, but for something. Our plans would all be successful, but for something. We should all be very good, but for some inconsistency, some failing, some besetting sin. Here is a very good man, but he has such a bad temper. There is a very kind woman, but she has such a bitter tongue. Here is a very good man, but he is so stingy and so selfish. Here is a man who would be very useful in the Church of Christ, but he is so worldly minded. Here is a good preacher, but he doesn’t just practice what he preaches. These little "buts" have their uses. They keep us, or they ought to keep us, humble. We ought not to be very proud of ourselves, we ought not to be very hard on others, when we think of that ugly sin of our own. But most of all, these "buts" ought to be the means of driving us, as Naaman’s leprosy was the means of driving him, nearer to God. That almighty hand can alone weed the evil forces out of our nature, and bring us into conformity to his own heavenly likeness. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ Verse 1-7:20 FURTHER WROUGHT BY ELISHA. The historian relates first a (comparatively) private miracle wrought by Elisha in the vicinity of Jericho, for the benefit of one of the "sons of the prophets" (2 Kings 7:1-8). He then tells us briefly of a series of public miracles which brought Elisha into much note and prominence. War, it appears, had again broken out in a pronounced form between Israel and Syria, Syria being the aggressor. The Syrian monarch prepared traps for his adversary, encamping in places where he hoped to take him at a disadvantage. But Elisha frustrated these plans, by addressing warnings to the King of Israel, and pointing out to him the various positions occupied (2 Kings 7:8-12), which he consequently avoided. When this came to the ears of the King of Syria, he made an attempt to obtain possession of Elisha’s person—an attempt which failed signally (2 Kings 7:13 -23), owing to the miraculous powers of the prophet. Benhadad, some time after this, made a great expedition into the land of Israel, penetrating to the capital, and laying siege to it. The circumstances of the siege, and the escape of the city when at the last gasp, are related partly in the present chapter (verses 24-33), partly in the next. 2 Kings 6:1 And the sons of the prophets said unto Elisha, Behold now, the place where we dwell with thee—literally, before thee—is too strait for us. The scene of this miracle is probably the vicinity of Jericho, since both Gilgal and Bethel were remote from the Jordan. The "school of the prophets" at Jericho, whereof we heard in 2 Kings 2:5, 2 Kings 2:19, had increased so much, that the buildings which hitherto had accommodated it were no longer sufficient. A larger dwelling, or set of dwelling, was thought to be necessary; but the scholars would make no change without the sanction of their master. When he comes on one of his circuits, they make appeal to him. 2 Kings 6:2 Let us go, we pray thee, unto Jordan. Jericho was situated at some little distance from the Jordan, on the banks of a small stream, which ran into it. Along the course of the Jordan trees and shrubs were abundant, chiefly willows, poplars, and tamarisks (see Josephus, ’Bell. Jud.,’ 4.8. § 3; Strabo, 16.2. § 41). It would seem that the Jordan thickets were unappropriated, and that any one might cut timber in them. And take thence every man a beam. The meaning is, "Let us all join in the work, each cutting beams and carrying them; and the work will soon be accomplished." And let us make us a place there. They propose to build the new dwelling on the banks of Jordan, to save the trouble of conveying the materials any long distance. Where we may dwell. And he answered, Go ye. Elisha, i.e; approved the proposal, gave it his sanction and encouragement. 2 Kings 6:3 And one said, Be content, I pray thee, and go with thy servants. One of the number was not satisfied with the prophet’s mere approval of the enterprise, but wished for his actual presence, probably as securing a blessing upon the work. And he answered, I will go. Elisha approved the man’s idea, as springing from piety and faith in God. He, therefore, raised no difficulty, but at once, in the simplest manner, acceded to the request. There is a remarkable directness, simplicity, and absence of fuss in all that Elisha says and does. 2 Kings 6:4 So he went with them. And when they came to Jordan—i.e. to the river-bank—they cut down wood. They set to work, each felling his tree, and fashioning it into a rough beam. 2 Kings 6:5 But as one was felling a beam—i.e. a tree, to make it into a beam—the axe-head; literally, the iron. We see from Deuteronomy 19:5 that the Hebrews made their axe-heads of iron as early as the time of Moses. They probably learnt to smelt and work iron in Egypt. Fell into the water. The tree must have been one that grew close to the river’s edge. As the man hewed away at the stem a little above the root, the axe-head flew from the haft, into which it was insecurely fitted, and fell into the water. The slipping of an axe-head was a very common occurrence (Deuteronomy 19:5), and ordinarily was of little consequence, since it was easily restored to its place. But now the head had disappeared. And he cried, and said, Alas, master!—rather, Alas, my master! or, Alas, my lord!—for it was borrowed; rather, and it was a borrowed one. The words are part of the man’s address to Elisha. He means to say, "It is no common misfortune; it is not as if it had been my own axe. I had borrowed it, and now what shall I say to the owner?" There is no direct request for help, but the tone of the complaint constitutes a sort of silent appeal. 2 Kings 6:6 And the man of God said, Where fell it? And he showed him the place. And he cut down a stick, and cast it in thither; and the iron did swim. Two natural explanations of this miracle have been attempted: (1) that Elisha passed a piece of wood underneath the axe-head, which he could see lying at the bottom of the river, and then lifted it up to the surface (Von Gerlach); (2) that he thrust a stick or bar of wood through the hole in the axe-head, made to receive the haft, and so pulled it out (Thenins). But both explanations do violence to the text; and we may be sure that, had either been true, the occurrence would not have been recorded. The sacred writers are not concerned to put on record mere acts of manual dexterity. 2 Kings 6:7 Therefore said he, Take it up to thee. And he put out his hand, and took it. Elisha does not take the axe-head out of the water himself, but requires the scholar to do it, in order to test his faith. He must show that he Believes the miracle, and regards the iron as really floating on the top of the water, not as merely appearing to dose. Verse 8-7:20 PUBLIC or ELISHA (resumed). 2 Kings 6:8 Then the King of Syria warred against Israel. It may seem strange that, so soon after sending an embassy to the court of Samaria, and asking a favor (2 Kings 5:5, 2 Kings 5:6), Benhadad should resume hostilities, especially as the favor had been obtained (2 Kings 5:14); but the normal relations between the two countries were those of enmity (2 Kings 5:2), and a few years would suffice to dim the memory of what had happened. The gratitude of kings is proverbially short-lived. And took counsel with his servants—i.e; his chief officers—saying, In such and such a place shall be my camp; or, my encampment. תַּצְצֲנֹץ appears to be "a noun in the form of the infinitive." It does not occur elsewhere. 2 Kings 6:9 And the man of God—i.e. Elisha, who at the time was "the man of God "(κατἐξοήν)—sent unto the King of Israel—Jehoram, undoubtedly (see 2 Kings 6:32)—saying, Beware that thou pass not such a place; for thither the Syrians are come down. Some translate, "Beware that thou neglect not such a place, for thither the Syrians are coming down;" but our version is probably correct, and is approved by Bahr and Thenius. Elisha did not suffer his hostile feeling towards Jehoram personally (2 Kings 3:13; 2 Kings 5:8; 2 Kings 6:32) to interfere with his patriotism. When disaster threatened his country, he felt it incumbent on him to warn even an ungodly king. 2 Kings 6:10 And the King of Israel sent to the place. Recent commentators (Keil, Thenius, Bahr) mostly suppose this to mean that Jehoram sent troops to the place pointed out by the prophet, and anticipated the Syrians by occupying it. But it agrees better with the prophet’s injunction, "Beware that thou pass not such a place," to suppose that he merely sent out scouts to see if the place were occupied or no, and finding, in each ease, Elisha’s warning true, he avoided the locality. Which the man of God told him and warned him of, and saved himself there, not once nor twice; i.e. repeatedly; at least three several times, perhaps more. 2 Kings 6:11 Therefore the heart of the King of Syria was sore troubled for this thing. Keil says, "The King of the Syrians was enraged at this;" but סָעַר exactly expresses "trouble," "disturbance," not "rage," being used of the tossing of the sea, in Jonah 1:11. And he called his servants, and said unto them, Will ye not show me which of us is for the king of Israel? Benhadad not unnaturally suspected treachery among his own subjects. How otherwise could the King of Israel become, over and over again, aware of his intentions? Some one or other of his officers must, he thought, betray his plans to the enemy. Cannot the others point out the traitor? 2 Kings 6:12 And one of his servants said—i.e. one of those interrogated, answered—None, my lord, O king; literally, Nay, my lord, the king—meaning, "Think not so; it is not as thou supposest; there is no traitor in thy camp or in thy court; we are all true men. The explanation of the circumstances that surprise thee is quite different." But Elisha, the prophet that is in Israel—compare "the man of God" (2 Kings 6:9); so much above the others, that he is spoken of as if there were no other—telleth the King of Israel the words that thou speakest in thy bedchamber; literally, in the secret place of thy bedchamber. How the Syrian lord knew this, or whether he merely made a shrewd guess, we cannot say. Elisha’s miraculous gifts had, no doubt, become widely known to the Syrians through the cure of Naaman’s leprosy; and the lord, who may possibly have been Naaman himself, concluded that a man who could cure s leper could also read a king’s secret thoughts without difficulty. 2 Kings 6:13 And he—i.e. Benhadad—said, Go and spy where he is, that I may send and fetch him; i.e. "Send out spies to learn where Elisha is at present residing, that I may dispatch a force to the place, and get him into my power." The object was scarcely "to find out, through Elisha, what the King of Israel and other princes were plotting against him in their secret counsels" (Cassel), but simply to put a stop to Elisha’s betrayal of his own plans to Jobs-ram. And it was told him, saying, Behold, he is in Dothan. The spies were sent, and brought back word that, at the time, Elisha was residing in Dothan. Dothan, the place where Joseph was sold by his brethren to the Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:17), lay evidently not very far from Shechem (Genesis 37:14), and is placed by Eusebius about twelve miles north of Samaria. In the Book of Judith (4:6; 7:3) it is mentioned among the cities bordering the southern edge of the Plain of Esdraelon. Modern travelers (Van de Velde, Robinson) have reasonably identified it with the present Dothan, a tel, or hill, of a marked character, covered with ruins, and from the foot of which arises a copious spring, to the south-west of Jenin, between that place and Jeba, a little to the left of the great road leading from Beisan (Scythopolis) to Egypt. 2 Kings 6:14 Therefore sent he thither horses, and chariots, and a great host; rather, and a strong force. The expression, צַיִל כָּבֵד, is used by the historical writers with a good deal of vagueness-sometimes of a really great army, sometimes merely of a large retinue (1 Kings 10:2) or of a moderate force (2 Kings 18:17). We must assign it its meaning according to the context. And they came by night, and compassed the city about. A night march was made, to take the prophet by surprise, and the city was encompassed, that it might be impossible for him to escape. 2 Kings 6:15 And when the servant of the man of God was risen early—he had, perhaps, heard the arrival of the Syrian forces during the night, and "rose early" to reconnoiter—and gone forth, behold, an host compassed the city both with horses and chariots; rather, an host compassed the city, and horses, and chariots. A force of footmen, a force of horsemen, and a chariot force, are intended. And his servant said unto him, Alas, my master! how shall we do? Though the servant could not know that it was Elisha’s person which was especially sought, yet he was naturally alarmed at seeing the city invested by a hostile force, and anticipated either death or capture, which last would involve the being sold as a slave. Hence his "Alas!" and his piteous cry, "How shall we do?" Can we, i.e. in any way, save ourselves? 2 Kings 6:16 And he—i.e. Elisha—answered, Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them. Elisha did not need to see the forces arrayed on his side. He knew that God and God’s strength was "with him," and cared not who, or how many, might be against him (comp. Psalms 3:6, "I will not be afraid for ten thousands of people, that have set themselves against me round about;" and Psalms 27:3, "Though an host should encamp against me, my heart shall not fear: though war should rise against me, in this will I be confident"). His confidence reminds us of that shown by Hezekiah (2 Chronicles 32:7) on the invasion of Sennacherib. 2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, Lord, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. If the prophet’s servant was to be reassured, he must be made to see that help was at hand; he would not have found rest or peace in the mere assurance that God was nigh, and would keep his prophet from harm. His mental state required something like a material manifestation; and hence Elisha prays that he may be permitted to behold the angelic host, which everywhere throughout creation is employed at all times in doing the will of God, and accomplishing his ends (comp. Genesis 28:12; Genesis 32:2; Psalms 34:7; Psalms 68:17; Daniel 7:10, etc.). The prayer is granted. And the Lord opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha. As the earthly force, which had alarmed Elisha’s servant, was a force mainly of horses and chariots, so the heavenly force revealed to his eyes was made to bear the same appearance. But the heavenly chariots and horses were "of fire"—glowed, i.e. with a strange unearthly brightness (see the comment on 2 Kings 2:11). 2 Kings 6:18 And when they came down to him. Keil and others suppose this to mean that the Syrians "came down" to Elisha; hut, if they were in the plain that surrounds the hill whereon Dothan was built, as appears from 2 Kings 6:15, they would have had to ascend in order to reach Elisha, not to descend. We must, therefore, with F. Meyer, Thenius, and Bahr, translate, "When they [Elisha and his servant] came down to them [the Syrians]"—either changing אֵלָיו into אֲלַיהֶם, as Thenius does, or understanding אֵלָיו to refer to the "host" (צַיִל) of the Syrians. Elisha prayed unto the Lord, and said, Smite this people, I pray thee, with blindness. Not literal blindness, or they could not have followed Elisha’s lead, and marched a distance of twelve miles to Samaria; but a state of confusion and Bewilderment, in which" seeing they saw, but did not perceive" (compare the "blindness" of the men of Sodom, in Genesis 19:11). And he smote them with blindness according to the word of Elisha. 2 Kings 6:19 And Elisha said unto them, This is not the way, neither is this the city. This was clearly "an untruthful statement" (Keil), if not in the letter, yet in the intent. Elisha meant the Syrians to understand him to say, "This is not the way which ye ought to have taken if ye wanted to capture the Prophet Elisha, and this is not the city (Dothan) where you were told that he was to be found." And so the Syrians understood him. In the morality of the time, and, indeed, in the morality of all times up to the present, it has been held to be justifiable to deceive a public enemy. Follow me, and I will bring you to the man whom ye seek. But he led them to Samaria. It could only be through the miraculous delusion for which Elisha had prayed, and which had been sent, that the Syrians believed the first comer in an enemy’s country, followed him to the capital without hesitation, and allowed him to bring them inside ’the walls. But for the delusion, they would have suspected, made inquiries of others, and retreated hastily, as soon as the walls and towers of Samaria broke on their sight. 2 Kings 6:20 And it came to pass, when they were come into Samaria, that Elisha said, Lord, open the eyes of these men, that they may see. And the Lord opened their eyes, and they saw; and, behold, they were in the midst of Samaria. Their delusion was disputed—they returned to their proper senses, and, seeing the size and strength of the town, recognized the fact that they were in Samaria, their enemy’s capital, and so were helpless. 2 Kings 6:21 And the King of Israel said unto Elisha, when he saw them, My father. In his joy at the deliverance of so large a force of the enemy into his hands, Jehoram forgets the coldness and estrangement which have hitherto characterized the relations between himself and the prophet (2 Kings 3:11-14; 2 Kings 5:8), and salutes him by the honorable title of "father," which implied respect, deference, submission. Compare the use of the same expression by Joash (2 Kings 13:14), and the employment of the correlative term "son" (2 Kings 8:9) by Berthadad. Shall I smite them? shall I smite them? The repetition marks extreme eagerness, while the interrogative form shows a certain amount of hesitation. It is certain that the Israelites were in the habit of putting to death their prisoners of war, not only when they were captured with arms in their hands, but even when they surrendered themselves. When a city or country was conquered, the whole male population of full age was commonly put to death (Numbers 31:7; 1 Samuel 15:8; 1 Kings 11:15; 1 Chronicles 20:3, etc.). When a third part was spared, it was from some consideration of relationship (2 Samuel 8:2). The Law distinctly allowed, if it did not even enjoin, the practice (Deuteronomy 20:13). Jehoram, therefore, no doubt, put his prisoners of war to death under ordinary circumstances. But he hesitates now. He feels that the ease is an extraordinary one, and that the prophet, who has made the capture, is entitled to be consulted on the subject. Hence his question. 2 Kings 6:22 And he answered, Thou shalt not smite them. The prophet has no doubt. His prohibition is absolute. These prisoners, at any rate, are not to be slain. "The object of the miracle," as Keil says, "would have been frustrated, if the Syrians had been slain. For the intention was to show the Syrians that they had to do with a prophet of the true God, against whom no human power could be of any avail, that they might learn to fear the Almighty God". There was also, perhaps, a further political object. By sparing the prisoners and treating them with kindness, it might be possible to touch the heart of the King of Syria, and dispose him towards peace. Wouldest thou smite those whom thou hast taken captive with thy sword and with thy bow? rather, Wouldest thou be smiting those, etc.? i.e. "Wouldest thou, in smiting these persons, be smiting those whom thou hadst made prisoners in war, so as to be able to justify thy conduct by Deuteronomy 20:13? No; thou wouldest not. Therefore thou shalt not smite them." Set bread and water before them. "Bread" and "water" stand for meat and drink generally. Elisha bids Jehoram entertain the captive Syrians hospitably, and then send them back to Benhadad. That they may eat and drink, and go to their master. 2 Kings 6:23 And he prepared great provision for them. Jehoram followed the directions of the prophet, carrying them out, not in the letter merely, but in the spirit. He entertained the captives at a grand banquet (Josephus, ’Ant. Jud.,’ 9.4. § 3), and then gave them leave to depart. And when they had eaten and drunk, he sent them away, and they went to their master. So the bands of Syria came no more into the land of Israel. The Syrian raids, which had hitherto been frequent, perhaps almost continuous (2 Kings 5:2), now ceased for a time, and the kingdom of Israel had a respite. Bahr supposes that the raids were discontinued simply "because the Syrians had found out that they could not accomplish anything by these expeditions, but rather brought themselves into circumstances of great peril". But the nexus of the clause, "So the bands," etc; rather implies that the cessation was the consequence of Jehoram’s sparing and entertaining the captives. Verse 24-7:20 The siege of Samaria by Benhadad. 2 Kings 6:24 And it came to pass after this—probably some considerable time after, when the memory of Jehoram’s kind act had passed away—that Benhadad king of Syria gathered all his host. A contrast is intended between the inroads of small bodies of plunderers and the invasion of the territory by the monarch himself at the head of his entire force. And went up. However Samaria was approached from Syria, there must always have been a final ascent, either from the Jordan valley or from the Plain of Esdraelon. And besieged Samaria. Josephus says that Jehoram was afraid to meet Benhadad in the open field, since his forces were no match for those of the Syrian king, and therefore at once shut himself up within his capital, without risking a battle. The walls of Samaria were very strong. 2 Kings 6:25 And there was a great famine in Samaria. It was Benhadad’s design to capture the place, not by battering down its walls with military engines, but by blockading it, and cutting off all its supplies, as Josephus tells us (l.s.c.). And, behold, they besieged it, until an ass’s head was sold for fourscore pieces of silver, and the fourth part of a cab of dove’s dung for five pieces of silver. The ass, being an unclean animal (Leviticus 2 Kings 11:4), would not be eaten at all except in the last extremity, and the head was the worst and so the cheapest part; yet it sold for "eighty pieces" (rather, shekels) of silver, or about £5 of our money; as in the Cadusian famine mentioned by Plutarch (’Wit. Artaxerx.,’ § 24), where an ass’s head was sold for sixty drachmas (about forty shillings). "Dove’s dung" is thought by some to be the name of a plant; but it is better to understand the term literally. Both animal and human excrement have been eaten in sieges, when a city was in the last extremity. 2 Kings 6:26 And as the King of Israel was passing by upon the wall. The wall of Babylon is said to have been so broad at the top that a four-horse chariot could turn round on it (Herod; 1:179). All ancient cities had walls upon which a great part of the garrison stood, and from which they shot their arrows and worked their engines against the assailants. From time to time the commandant of the place—the king himself, in this instance—would mount upon the wall to visit the posts, and inspect the state of the garrison, or observe the movements of the enemy. There cried a woman unto him. Houses sometimes abutted on the wall of a town (see Joshua 2:15; 1 Samuel 19:12, etc.), and women sometimes took part in their defense (Judges 9:53), so that in visiting the posts a commandant might be brought into contact with women. Saying, Help, my lord, O king; rather, save, i.e. "preserve me from perishing of hunger." 2 Kings 6:27 And he said, If the Lord do not help thee. This is probably the true mean-tug. The king is not so brutal as to "curse" the woman (ἐπηράσατοαὐτήτὸνΘεόν, Josephus, ’ Ant. Jud.,’ 9.4. § 4); neither does he take upon himself to tell her that God will not save her (Maurer). He merely refers her to God, as alone competent to do what she asks. Whence shall I help thee? Whence, i.e; dost thou suppose that I can save thee? Out of the barnfloor, or out of the winepress? Dost thou suppose that I have stores of food at my disposal? An overflowing barnfloor, where abundant corn is garnered, or a winepress full of the juice of the grape? I have nothing of the kind; my stores are as much exhausted as those of the meanest of my subjects. I cannot save thee. 2 Kings 6:28 And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? Probably, as Bahr suggests, the woman explained to the king that she did not appear before him to beg food, but to claim his interposition as judge, in a case in which she considered herself to be wronged. Such an appeal the king was bound to hear; and he therefore asks," What aileth thee?" i.e. "What is thy ground of complaint?" Then she tells her story. And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him today, and we will eat my son tomorrow. Compare the prophecy in Deuteronomy, "The tender and delicate woman among you, 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 toward her son, and toward her daughter, and toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates" (Deuteronomy 28:56, Deuteronomy 28:57). There is historical testimony that the prophecy was three times fulfilled; viz. (1) in Samaria on the present occasion; (2) in Jerusalem during the last siege by Nebuchadnezzar (Lamentations 4:10); and (3) in Jerusalem during the last siege by Titus (Josephus, ’Bell. Jud.,’ 6:3. § 4). In modern sieges surrender is made before the population is driven to such straits. 2 Kings 6:29 So we boiled my son (setup. Lamentations 4:10, "The hands of the pitiful woman have sodden their own children"), and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son. Some have supposed that the woman concealed her child in order to consume it alone; but it is more probable that, when the time came for carrying out her agreement, she found that she could not give it up, and hid it in order to save it. 2 Kings 6:30 And it came to pass, when the king heard the words of the woman, that he rent his clothes. In horror and consternation at the terrible state of things revealed by the woman’s story. And he passed by upon the wall, and the people looked. It is better to translate, with our Revisers, (Now he yeas passing by upon the wall;) and the people looked; or, and, as he was passing by upon the wall, the people looked. And, behold, he had sackcloth within upon his flesh. Jehoram had secretly assumed the penitential garment, not a mere sign of woe, but a constant chastisement of the flesh. He wore sackcloth next his skin, no one suspecting it, until, in the exasperation of his feelings at the woman’s tale, he rent his robe, and exposed to view the sackcloth which underlay it. We are scarcely entitled to deny him any true penitential feeling, though no doubt he was far from possessing a chastened or humble spirit. Poor weak humanity has at one and the same time good and evil impulses, praiseworthy and culpable feelings, thoughts which come from the Holy Spirit of God, and thoughts which are inspired by the evil one. 2 Kings 6:31 Then he said, God do so and more also to me, if the head of Elisha the son of Shaphat shall stand on him—i.e. "continue on him"—this day. The form of oath was a common one (comp. Rth 1:17; 1 Samuel 3:17; 1 Samuel 25:22; 2 Samuel 19:13; 1 Kings 2:23; 1 Kings 19:2, etc.). It was an imprecation of evil on one’s self, if one did, or if one failed to do, a certain thing. Why Jehoram should have considered Elisha as responsible for all the horrors of the siege is not apparent; but perhaps he supposed that it was in Elisha’s power to work a miracle of any kind at any moment that he liked. If so, he misunderstood the nature of the miraculous gift. In threatening to behead Elisha, he is not making himself an executor of the Law, which nowhere sanctioned that mode of punishment, but assuming the arbitrary power of the other Oriental monarchs of his time, who regarded themselves as absolute masters of the lives and liberties of their subjects. Beheading was common in Egypt, in Babylonia, and in Assyria. 2 Kings 6:32 But Elisha sat in his house, and the elders sat with him; and the king sent a man from before him. It is best to translate, Now Elisha was sitting in his house, and the elders were sitting with him, when the king sent a man from before him. Elisha had a house in Samaria, where he ordinarily resided, and from which he made his circuits. He happened to be sitting there, and the elders of the city to be sitting with him, when Jehoram sent "a man from before him," i.e. one of the court officials, to put him to death. The "elders" had probably assembled at Elisha’s house to consult with him on the critical situation of affairs, and (if possible) obtain from him some miraculous assistance. But ere the messenger came to him; he said to the elders, See ye how this son of a murderer hath sent to take away mine head; Elisha was supernaturally warned of what was about to take place—that an executioner was coming almost immediately to take away his life, and that the king himself would arrive shortly after. He calls the king "this son of a murderer," or rather "this son of the murderer," with reference to Ahab, the great murderer of the time, who had sanctioned all Jezebel’s cruelties-the general massacre of the prophets of Jehovah (1 Kings 18:13), the judicial murder of Naboth (1 Kings 21:9-13), the attempt to kill Elijah (1 Kings 19:2)—and had, by a fierce and long continued persecution, reduced the worshippers of Jehovah in Israel to the scanty number of seven thousand (1 Kings 19:18). Jehoram had now shown that he inherited the bloodthirsty disposition of his father, and had justly earned the epithet which Elisha bestowed on him. Look, when the messenger cometh, shut the door, and hold him fast at the door. Keil renders the last clause, "force him back at the door;" the LXX. "press upon him in the doorway"—παραθλίψατεαὐτὸνἐντῇθύρᾳ—they were not to allow him to enter the apartment. Is not the sound of his master’s feet behind him? Elisha adds this as a reason why the elders should stop the messenger. He could not in a general way have expected them to resist the king’s will as declared by his representative; but he might reasonably ask a short respite, if the king was just about to arrive at the house, to confirm the order that he had given, or to revoke it. 2 Kings 6:33 And while he yet talked with them—i.e; while Elisha yet talked with the elders, endeavoring probably to persuade them to stop the messenger—behold, the messenger came down unto him: and he said. The narrative is very compressed and elliptical. Some suppose words to have fallen out (as וצמלךְ אצריו after אליו); but this is unnecessary. The reader is expected to supply missing links, and to understand that all happened as Elisha had predicted and enjoined—that the messenger came, that the elders stopped him, and that the king shortly arrived. The king was, of course, admitted, and, being admitted, took the word, and said, Behold, this evil is of the Lord; what—rather, why—should I wait for the Lord any longer? Jehoram had, apparently, to some extent repented of his hasty message, and had hurried after his messenger, to give Elisha one further chance of life. We must understand that they had been in communication previously on the subject of the siege, and that Elisha had encouraged the king to "wait for" an interposition of Jehovah. The king now urges that the time for waiting is over; matters are at the last gasp; "this evil" this terrible suffering which can no longer be endured—"is of the Lord," has come from him, is continued by him, and is not relieved. What use is there in his "waiting" any longer? Why should he not break with Jehovah, behead the lying prophet, and surrender the town? What has Elisha to say in reply? 2 Kings 6:1-7 Mutual love and help the best bond of religious communities. "Behold, how good and joyful a thing it is, brethren, to dwell together in unity! It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down unto the beard, even unto Aaron’s beard, and went down to the skirts of his clothing; like as the dew of Hermon, which fell upon the hill of Zion" (Psalms 133:1-3). In religious communities it has been too often the practice to govern by fear. An autocratic authority has been committed to, or assumed by, the head, who has exacted from all the other members an entire, absolute, and unreasoning obedience. Vows of obedience, of the most rigid character, have been taken; and it has been inculcated on all that the sum total of virtue lay in obeying, without a murmur or a question, every order issued by the superior. An iron rule has characterized such institutions, and a cold, unloving temper has prevailed in them. How different is the picture drawn in the beautiful passage before us! How sweet and pleasing is the community-life of Elisha and his prophet-disciples! Though bound by no vow of obedience, they undertake nothing without their master (2 Kings 6:2 and 2 Kings 6:3). They require an enlargement of their dwelling-place, but they will not commence it without his sanction. Even his sanction is not enough; they ask his presence, his superintending eye, his guiding mind. And he complies willingly, cheerfully. No trouble is too much for him. "Go ye," he says; but when they object and plead, "Be content, I pray thee, and go with thy servants," he at once consents, and says, "I will go." He goes, he looks on with sympathy, he guides, he aids. At the first touch of misfortune, his sympathy blossoms into help. How charming is the childlike confidence and communicativeness of the disciple, who, on losing his axe-head, immediately reveals his loss to the master, and tells him why it was so especially grievous to him—"And it a borrowed one!" And how admirable the kindness and fellow-feeling, which uttered no reproach, made no suggestion of carelessness or of stupidity in selecting a tree so near the stream, but thought only of finding a remedy. Natural means being unavailing, the prophet deems the occasion no unsuitable one for the exercise of his miraculous powers, which he is as willing to exert on behalf of a humble prophet-student as on that of a great Syrian general. The terms on which Elisha and his disciples live are evidently those of mutual confidence and affection, of protection and fatherly care on the one hand; of appeal, regard, and childlike love on the other; and the result is a community which it is delightful to contemplate, and which increases and flourishes, in spite of the contempt and persecution of the world-lover, so that its place is "too strait for it." 2 Kings 6:8-23 Wicked men vainly attempt to outwit God. Benhadad, after the miracle wrought upon his favorite Naaman, had abundant reason to know that Israel was the people of God, and enjoyed special Divine protection and superintendence. Had he been truly wise, he would have laid aside his hostile designs against the nation, and have made it his endeavor to cultivate friendly relations with them, and, if possible, secure their alliance. But true wisdom is a plant of rare growth, while its counterfeit, cunning, is a weed that grows rankly at all times and everywhere. Benhadad resolved to have recourse to craft against the Israelites, and thought perhaps that, while the protection of their God would not fail them in a pitched battle, he might be able in petty engagements, by means of ambushes and surprises, to snatch an occasional victory. But his plan failed egregiously. God enabled his prophet to foresee where each ambush would be placed; and each time he warned Jehoram of the snare, which was thereupon easily avoided. Craft and cunning were of no avail against the wisdom which is from on high—the Divine foreknowledge, of which the prophet was made in some measure partaker. Benhadad then bethought him of a new device. He would capture the prophet, and thenceforward his plans would be undetected, and the success which he had expected from them would follow. How simple and easy it must have seemed! The prophet moved about from city to city, teaching the faithful, and was now in one place, now in another. What could be easier than to make inquiry, and learn where he was residing at any particular time, and then to make a sudden inroad, surround the place, occupy it, and obtain possession of his person? Such seizures of individuals have been planned many hundreds of times, and have generally been successful. Had Benhadad had only human enemies to deal with, there can be little doubt that his plans would have prospered. He would have outwitted the prophet, and would have got him into his power; but it was necessary that he should also outwit God. Here was a difficulty which had not presented itself to his mind, and which yet surely ought to have done so. What had frustrated his efforts previously? Not human strength; not human wisdom or sagacity; but Divine omniscience. God had enabled Elisha to show the King of Israel the words which he spake in the secrecy of his bedchamber. Why should he not grant him a foreknowledge of the new design? Or why should he not enable the prophet in some other way to frustrate it? There are ten thousand ways in which God can bring the counsels of men to no effect, whenever he pleases. Benhadad ought to have known that it was God, not merely the prophet, against whom he was contending, and that it would be impossible to outwit the Source of wisdom, the Giver of all knowledge and understanding. But men in all ages have thought (and vainly thought) to hoodwink and outwit God. 1. The first dwellers upon the earth after the Flood were divinely commanded to spread themselves over its face and "replenish" it (Genesis 9:1). They disliked the idea, and thought to frustrate God’s design by building themselves a city and a tower as a focus of union (Genesis 9:4). But God "came down," and confounded their language; and so "scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth" (Genesis 9:8). 2. Isaac sought to outwit God, and frustrate his preference of Jacob over Esau (Genesis 25:23), by giving his special blessing to his firstborn; but God blinded him, and caused him to be himself outwitted by Rebekah and Jacob, so that he gave the blessing where he had not intended to give it (Genesis 27:27-29). 3. Pharaoh King of Egypt at the time of the Exodus, thought to frustrate God’s designs respecting his people by a long series of delays and impediments, and finally by shutting them up into a corner of the land, whence apparently they had no escape unless by an absolute surrender; but God gave them a way of escape across the Red Sea, which removed them wholly from his control. 4. Jonah thought to outwit God, when commanded to warn the Ninevites, by flying from Asia to the remotest corner of Europe, and there hiding himself; but God counteracted his schemes and made them of no avail. 5. Herod the Great thought to outwit God, to preserve his kingdom, and to make the advent of Christ upon earth unavailing, by a general massacre of all the young children to be found in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:16); but the warning given by God to Joseph and Mary confounded his counsels, and made the massacre futile. 6. Men have, in all periods of the world’s history, endeavored to hoodwink God by professing to serve him, while they offered him a formal, outward, and ceremonial observance, instead of giving him the true worship of the heart. But God has not been deceived; he "is not mocked;" he readily discerns the counterfeit from the genuine, and rejects with abhorrence all feigned and hypocritical religiousness. Every attempt of man to cheat his Maker recoils on his own head. "The foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men" (1 Corinthians 1:25). We cannot deceive him. "All things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do’ (Hebrews 4:13). 2 Kings 6:16, 2 Kings 6:17 The spirit-world, and the power to discern it. The little episode of the alarm felt by Elisha’s servant, and the manner in which Elisha removed it, teaches us principally three things. I. THE REALITY, AND , AROUND US AND ABOUT US, OF THE SPIRIT-WORLD. The existence of an order of spirits intermediate between God and man, who are closely connected with man, and play an important part in the Divine government of the world wherein we live, is an essential part of the scheme of things set before us in the Scriptures. "The doctrine of angels," as it has been called, is this: "That there lives in the presence of God a vast assembly, myriads upon myriads of spiritual beings (Psalms 68:17; Daniel 7:10), higher than we, but infinitely removed from God, mighty in strength, doers of his word, who ceaselessly bless and praise God, wise also, to whom be gives charge to guard his own in all their ways, ascending and descending to and from heaven and earth (Genesis 28:12, Genesis 28:13; John 1:51), and who variously minister to men, most often invisibly. All these beings are interested in us and in our well-being. When our earth was created, ’ all the sons of God burst forth into jubilee’ (Job 38:7) in prospect of our birth, who were to be their care here, their fellow-citizens hereafter in bliss. At the giving of the Law on Mount Sinai, they were present in myriads. When God vouchsafed his presence on Mount Zion, and the holy place became a new Sinai, ’twice ten thousand angels, yea, thousands many times repeated’ (Psalms 68:17)were there. They are present with God, witnessing the trials of our race (Job 1:6; Job 2:1; 1 Kings 22:19). Their love for man is indicated by the charge given to them when they are set to destroy the guilty in Jerusalem, ’Let not your eye spare, neither have pity’ (Ezekiel 10:5), as though they would have pity, only that they must needs be of the same mind with God. There is a distinction, or gradation of ranks, among the members of the heavenly host—Cherubim, seraphim, archangels, principalities, powers". It is irrational to explain away as embellishment or poetic imagery a representation of the actual condition of things in God’s universe, which is so frequent, so all-pervading, so harmonious, and, it may be added, so consistent with what we should have naturally expected apart from revelation. II. THE OF THIS BY THOSE OF FAITH. There is no reason to believe that Elisha saw the angels that compassed him round, with his bodily eyes. But he knew that they were there. He was sure that God would not desert him in his peril, and had such a confident faith in "the doctrine of angels," that it was as if he could see them. And so it was with David. "The angel of the Lord," he says, "encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them" (Psalms 34:7). So with Hezekiah, who, when Sennacherib invaded his land, "spake comfortably to the people, saying, Be strong and courageous, be not afraid nor dismayed for the King of Assyria, nor for all the multitude that is with him: for there be more with us than with him" (2 Chronicles 32:7). Judas Maccabaeus had probably the same faith when he uttered the words, "It is no hard matter for many to be shut up in the hands of a few; and with the God of heaven it is all one, to deliver with a great multitude, or a small company: for the victory of battle standeth not in the multitude of an host; but strength cometh from heaven" (1 Macc. 3:18, 19). St. Paul realized the continual angelic presence when he declared, "We are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men" (1 Corinthians 4:9). The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews realized it when he told the Jewish converts, Ye are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels" (Hebrews 12:22). St. John the divine realized it, when he gave the angels a large share in all the later judgments that should befall the earth, and made them dispensers of the blessings and of the wrath of God (Revelation 7:1-20:3). If the doctrine has been at any time obscured, it has been when faith wavered, and there was a tendency to confine the supernatural within the narrowest possible limits. It was easy to suggest that the expression, "the angels of God," was a periphrasis for God himself, and that he had no need to act, and therefore probably did not act, by intermediaries. But the faith of the Church has always been different. The festival of St. Michael and All Angels has been generally celebrated from a very ancient date; and the Collect for that festival has borne witness to the perpetual ministration of angels, not only in heaven, but also upon earth, and to the part borne by them in the succor and defense of God’s people. III. THE OF A OF THE IN TO THE BODILY SENSES OF THOSE WHOSE FAITH IS TOO WEAK TO IT. Elisha’s servant did not see a vision. It was not his mind only that was impressed. His bodily eyes beheld an appearance as of chariots and horses of fire (verse 17), which was based on the objective reality of the actual presence of an angelic host upon the hill whereon Dothan was situated. The prophet prayed that his eyes should be opened, and his, prayer was granted. "The Lord opened the eyes of the young man, and he saw. Physicists are probably right in saying that what is absolutely immaterial cannot be seen by the optic nerve. But we are nowhere told that angels are absolutely immaterial. It is the belief of many philosophers that all finite spirits are attached to bodies of some kind or other—bodies more or less volatile and ethereal. We can readily conceive that the optic nerve may, by an increase of its sensitiveness, be made to see these; and in this way we may account, not only for the wonderful sight beheld on this occasion by Elisha’s servant, but for the many other appearances of angels to men and women recorded in Scripture (Genesis 3:1; Genesis 19:1-15; Genesis 32:24-30; Judges 6:11-22; 2 Samuel 24:16, 2 Samuel 24:17; 1 Kings 19:5-7; Isaiah 6:6; Daniel 6:22; Daniel 9:21; Daniel 10:16-21; Zechariah 1:11-19; Zechariah 4:1, etc.; Luke 1:11-19, Luke 1:26-38; Luke 2:9-13; John 20:12; Acts 5:19; Acts 8:26; Acts 12:7-10; Revelation, passim). Miraculously, power is given to the optic nerve, which it does not ordinarily possess, and it is enabled to see beings actually present, who under ordinary circumstances are invisible to it. 2 Kings 6:24-33 Half-heartedness. Jehoram was altogether half-hearted in his religion. He "halted between two opinions." While he paid a certain amount of respect to Elisha, as the prophet of Jehovah, he nevertheless allowed the worship of Baal to continue in the capital (2 Kings 10:18-28), if not elsewhere, and maintained the calf-worship also at Dan and Bethel (2 Kings 3:3). He had suffered himself to be guided by Elisha in respect of the Syrian prisoners captured by the prophet (2 Kings 6:23), and had evidently been in communication with him on the subject of the present siege, had probably been exhorted by him to repentance, and promised that, if he would wait upon Jehovah, in due time there should be deliverance. The prophet’s words had made some impression on him; he had to a certain extent turned to God, had put sackcloth upon his loins, not ostentatiously, but secretly (2 Kings 6:30), had borne the privations of the siege without murmuring, had refused to surrender the town, and looked to Jehovah to deliver it. But there was no depth in his penitence, no surrender of the heart and the will to God, no firm and rooted faith in God’s truthfulness, and in the certain accomplishment of his promises. His repentance was but a half repentance. A single incident of the siege, a horrible one certainly, but yet not without a parallel in other sieges and in shipwrecks, shattered the whole fabric of his repentance and his resolution, turned him against the prophet and against Jehovah, caused him to threaten the prophet’s life, and to make up his mind that he would follow his own course, and not wait for the Lord any longer (2 Kings 6:33). He thus revealed the true state of his heart and soul, showed his spiritual unsoundness, revealed himself as one whose character was rotten at the core, who had never turned to Jehovah in sincerity and truth. What wonder, then, that God had not granted the deliverance promised to true faith and true penitence, that a half-repentance had not availed with him? So it had been with Ahab (1 Kings 21:27; 1 Kings 22:34); so it would always be with all those who, after Jehoram’s example, should be half-hearted in religion, should at once "fear the Lord, and serve their own gods" (2 Kings 17:33)—own for masters both God and mammon. A half-repentance is useless. Nothing avails but to turn to God with all the heart and all the soul and all the strength. God hates waverers. To such he says, "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth" (Revelation 3:15, Revelation 3:16). 2 Kings 6:32 Princes may be resisted when they are bent upon wrong-doing. There was a time when princes were flattered, by being told that they "could do no wrong;" that "a divinity hedged them in;" that their subjects were bound to render them, under all circumstances, an absolute and unqualified obedience. But this is certainly not scriptural teaching. The higher powers are to be obeyed in their lawful commands, but not in their unlawful ones. When Pharaoh, King of Egypt, commanded the midwives to put to death all the male children borne by the Hebrew women, "the midwives feared God, and did not as the King of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive" (Exodus 1:17); and God rewarded them for so acting: "Therefore God dealt well with the midwives … and because they feared God, he made them houses" (Exodus 1:20, Exodus 1:21). So now Elisha, the prophet of God, bids the elders resist the king’s messenger—"hold him fast," and not let him execute the king’s commands. Again, the higher powers, the great council of the Sanhedrin, commanded Peter and John, shortly after the Day of Pentecost, "not to speak at all nor preach in the Name of Jesus" (Acts 4:18); to whom the apostles replied, "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard" (Acts 4:19, Acts 4:20). Resistance to lawful authority, when it commands unlawful acts, is an important part of a Christian man’s duty, and ought to be inculcated just as much as obedience to lawful authority when it commands lawful acts. BY C.H. IRWIN 2 Kings 6:1-7 An early theological college; its life and lessons. Our theological colleges, where young men are trained for the office of the Christian ministry, do not receive from the Christian public that attention and sympathy, which they deserve, more interest ought to be taken in education generally. The Church should show more interest in Sunday-school work. If office-bearers and parents in every Christian land would visit the Sunday school occasionally, and hear the children repeat their lessons and sing their hymns, it would do themselves good, and it would be a great encouragement to those who are engaged in the important work of Sunday-school teaching. The work of our theological colleges is to a great extent different from that of other places of education. The very nature of the studies is such that the general public could not be expected to take much interest in them. But there are other ways of showing an interest in our colleges besides actually entering a college class-room, or listening to a professor’s lecture. Occasionally, a rich member of the Church leaves a considerable sum to found a scholarship or a bursary; but how little is done by the members of the Church generally! Yet all the members of the Church are interested in having not only a godly, but also a well-educated ministry. I. THERE WAS IN THAT COLLEGE. These students in Elisha’s college knew how to work, and they were not above doing their own work. They had not reached that high state of civilization when manual labor is considered a disgrace. Their house, which was college and students’ residence all in one, had become too small for them. So they said to Elisha one day, "Let us go, we pray thee, unto Jordan, and take thence every man a beam, and let us make us a place there, where we may dwell." It was an enactment of the Jewish religion that every boy, no matter what his position, should be taught some handicraft. The Jewish Talmud says, "What is commanded of a father toward his son? To circumcise him, to teach him the Law, and to teach him a trade." Thus we find that the Apostle Paul, who had sat at the feet of Gamaliel, and was a distinguished scholar, was also a tentmaker. Even when a preacher of the gospel, he labored with his own hands for his support. It is not generally the custom now for ministers of the gospel to follow any other calling. It is found more convenient that they should devote themselves entirely to the work of the ministry, for all men have not the genius of the Apostle Paul. It is true that the missionaries of certain Missionary Societies all learn a trade, and most of them support themselves by their own exertions at farming or other work. But this also has been found very undesirable, and it has been under serious consideration to abandon the custom altogether. But whether they engage in manual labor or not, all ministers and all students for the ministry should be, as these students in Elisha’s time were, industrious in their work. In whatever calling we are engaged, let us cultivate habits of industry. Let us remember the apostle’s injunction to be "diligent in business, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord." II. THERE WAS IN THAT COLLEGE. These young students, excellent and well-conducted as they no doubt were, did not think they might do as they liked or go where they liked. They came to Elisha, and asked his consent to their proposal. And so it should be in all the relationships of life. "Order is Heaven’s first law." There should be discipline in the family, discipline in the Church, discipline in the Sunday school, discipline in the nation, and regard for constituted authority. Dr. Arnold of Rugby once said to his assembled scholars, when there had been some disorder in the school, and he had expelled several boys, "It is not necessary that this should be a school of three hundred, or of one hundred, or of fifty boys; but it is necessary that it should be a school of Christian gentlemen." No wonder there is disregard for authority in the nation when it is not properly taught or insisted on in the home. The Christian Church should be a model of order. Order should characterize its services, its management, its work. "Let all things be done decently and in order." III. THERE WAS IN THAT COLLEGE. What pleasant and brotherly relations between the prophet and his pupils! He could be stern with the haughty Naaman; he could severely rebuke the covetous, lying Gehazi; but he knew how to unbend among his innocent-hearted students. He had evidently already won their affections. It was a good sign of both him and them they asked him to accompany them. And now he shows his kindly nature once more by going with them at their request. So it ought to be with all Christians. We hardly think enough of Christ’s command that we should love one another. What friendly relations there should be between professors and students, between ministers and their people, between parents and children, between teachers and scholars, between employers and employed, between masters and servants! Authority is never weakened by kindness. Some employers, some teachers, seem to think it adds to their dignity and to their influence to be stern to those beneath them. They make a great mistake. The most respected professors are those who treat their students as brothers, and not as inferiors. The most respected employers are those who are kind and courteous and considerate to those in their employment. Kindness does not weaken influence; it increases it. Oh! to be filled with the spirit of Christ, who made himself of no reputation, and took upon himself the form of a servant. Kindness and humility are twin sisters. IV. THERE WAS GROWTH IN THAT COLLEGE. Under the influence of such a teacher as Elisha, the number of students increased so much that the place became too small for them, and it was necessary for them to build a new school of the prophets. Let me see growth in a Church and I shall believe in its life. A stone does not grow, because it has no life. A tree grows, because there is life in it. If you see that a tree has ceased to grow, to put forth new leaves in the spring-time, you know that it is dead. A Church that is not growing must be a lifeless Church. If you are a living Christian, let the signs of it be manifest in the growth of your Christian graces. V. THE OF GOD WAS THERE. This was shown in the miracle which Elisha wrought of causing the iron to swim. It was not by his own power, he was only the instrument in the hand of God, and God owned his efforts, for he was engaged in God’s work. This last feature of that theological college was the best of all. God’s presence was in the midst of it. Without that, of what use would have been their industry or their discipline? Without that, would there have been such bonds of kindness? Without that, would there have been such evidences of growth? "Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it." Without that, what a mockery it would have been for them to have looked forward to be the teachers of others in the truths of religion! What a mockery for any man to enter a pulpit and speak about the love of Jesus, who is himself a stranger to that love! What a mockery for any man to speak about the grace of God, who has never experienced it in his own heart and life! The late Rev. Dr. Cooke of Belfast once said that "an educated ministry is desirable, but a converted ministry is essential."—C.H.I. 2 Kings 6:8-16 God’s presence with his people. There has been a sudden change in the horizon of Elisha’s life. From the quiet work of cutting down trees and budding a college, he is suddenly called upon to stand a siege from a Syrian army. These changes do come in the lives of most of us. Health suddenly changes into sickness. Friendship suddenly changes into hostility. Wealth suddenly changes into poverty. Such changes will come in the life of the believer and in the history of the Church of God. At one time all seems bright; the next moment the prospect seems dark and discouraging. It is well to be prepared for such changes when they come. The true servant of God will heed them very little. He lives not under, but above, the things of earth. "As some tall cliff that lifts its awful form, Swells from the vale, and midway cleaves the storm, Though round its breast the rolling clouds are spread, Eternal sunshine settles on its head." So it was with Elisha. Wherever you find him, he always seems the same. On the present occasion the circumstances were such as to strike terror to the stoutest heart. Elisha’s servant trembled at the sight that met him when he rose that morning and looked forth from the city walls. A mighty host, with horses and chariots, encompassed the city round about. It was an unexpected attack. No forces were within the city to defend it against such a mighty host. Elisha was the only one whom the besieging army wanted. In the desire for self-preservation, it was not unlikely that the inhabitants of Dothan might give him up to the enemy, and thus turn away the invader from their gates. From a human point of view it was no wonder that Elisha’s servant said, "Alas, my master! how shall we do?" There was no terror in Elisha’s face, no panic in his heart, at this startling news. What calmness, what courage, what sublime confidence there is in that answer of his, "Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them!" And what was the secret of his confidence? The one reason of Elisha’s confidence and calm was that God’s presence was with him. What a beautiful fulfillment of that promise, "Thou shalt hide them in the secret of thy presence from the pride of man; thou shalt keep them secretly in a pavilion from the strife of tongues!" We learn from this story— I. GOD’S WITH HIS PEOPLE IS NOT BY THEIR ENEMIES. It was so on the occasion before us. The King of Syria commenced another war against Israel. He held, as we should say, a council of war, and consulted with his generals concerning the arrangements for the campaign. He thought, by skilful strategy, to take the King of Israel unawares. But all his plans and maneuvers were thwarted in some mysterious way. The King of Israel seemed to know all his movements with more certainty than a clever player at a game of skill might anticipate the moves of his opponent. Several times in this way the King of Israel saved himself. At last the King of Syria began to be suspicious. There must be a traitor in the camp. Some of those enjoying the king’s confidence must be revealing his plans to the enemy. And so he asks, "Will ye not show me which of us is for the King of Israel?" The King of Syria was an able general; but like another great general of modern times, Napoleon the Great, there were some forces that he did not take sufficient account of. The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. There are other things than military skill and big battalions to be thought of in going forth to battle. When Edward, the English king, came forth to view the Scottish troops before the battle of Bannockburn, he was astonished at the small force waiting on foot to receive the attack of his mighty army. But they were putting their trust in the God of battles, and presently he saw the unusual sight of the whole Scottish army, as their custom was, kneeling down and offering a short prayer to God. "Believe me," said the general who rode by his side, "you men will win or die." Of that unseen Power, in whose hands are the issues of battle, the Syrian king took no account. He did not realize that God’s presence was with his people. Is not this the mistake which the enemies of God’s people have made in all ages? It was the mistake of the persecutors and oppressors of Israel. It was the mistake of those who persecuted the Reformers of England, Scotland, France, and Switzerland. It was the mistake which Pharaoh made when he refused to let the children of Israel go. It was the mistake, which Herod made when he thought to crush the new kingdom that was yet to arise, by slaughtering the helpless babes in Bethlehem and its neighborhood. It was the mistake, which Nero made in his persecutions of the Christians at Rome. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Kings 7:1-20 THE SIEGE OF SAMARIA (continued): THE . 2 Kings 7:1, 2 Kings 7:2 The separation of these verses from the preceding narrative is most unfortunate. They are an integral part of it, and form its climax. In answer to the king’s attempt upon his life, and hasty speech in which he has threatened to renounce Jehovah, Elisha is commissioned to proclaim that the siege is on the point of terminating, the famine about to be within twenty-four hours succeeded by a time of plenty. There is thus no reason for the king’s despair or anger. 2 Kings 7:1 Then Elisha said, Hear ye the word of the Lord. This was a very solemn exordium, well calculated to arrest attention. It must be remembered that the prophet’s life was trembling in the balance. The executioner was present; the king had not revoked his order; the elders would probably have suffered the king to work his will. All depended on Elisha, by half a dozen words, changing the king’s mind. He therefore announces a Divine oracle. Thus saith the Lord, Tomorrow about this time shall a measure—literally, a seah—of fine flour be sold for a shekel. The "seah" was probably about equal to a peck and a half English, the shekel of the time to about half a crown. Thus no extraordinary cheapness is promised, but only an enormous fall in prices from the rate current at the moment (2 Kings 7:1-20:25). Such a fall implied, almost necessarily, the discontinuance of the siege. Jehoram appears to have accepted the prophet’s solemn asseveration, and on the strength of it to have spared his life, at any rate till the result should be seen. And two measures—literally, seahs—of barley for a shekel, in the gate of Samaria. The gates, or rather gateways, of Oriental towns were spacious places, where business of various kinds was transacted. One at Nineveh had an area of above two thousand five hundred square feet. Kings often held their courts of justice in the city gates. On this occasion one of the gates of Samaria seems to have been used as a corn-market. 2 Kings 7:2 Then a lord on whose hand the king leaned; rather, the lord, or the captain, as the word שׁלישׁ is commonly translated (Exodus 14:7; Exodus 15:4; 2 Samuel 23:8; 1 Kings 9:22; 2 Kings 9:25; 2 Kings 10:25; 2 Kings 15:25; 1 Chronicles 11:11; 1 Chronicles 12:18; 2 Chronicles 8:9). (For the habit of kings to lean on the hand of an attendant, see above, 2 Kings 5:18.) Answered the man of God, and said, Behold, if the Lord would make windows in heaven, might this thing be? The king makes no reply; he waits for the result. But the officer on whose arm he leans is not so reticent. Utterly incredulous, he expresses his incredulity in a scoffing way: "Could this possibly be, even if God were to ’make windows in heaven,’ as he did at the time of the Flood (Genesis 7:11), and pour through them, instead of rain, as then, a continual shower of fine meal and corn?" Disbelief is expressed, not only in the prophetic veracity of Elisha, but in the power of God. Hence Elisha’s stern reply. And he said, Behold, thou shalt see it with thine eyes, but shalt not eat thereof. At once a threat and a warning. If the thing was to be, and the lord to see it and yet not profit by it, the only reasonable conclusion was that his death was imminent. He was thus warned, and given time to "set his house in order," and to repent and make his peace with the Almighty. Whether he took advantage of the warning, or even understood it, we are not told. 2 Kings 7:3-16 The mode in which Elisha’s prophecy of relief and deliverance was fulfilled is now set forth. Four lepers, excluded from the city, and on the point of perishing of hunger, felt that they could be no worse off, and might better their condition, if they deserted to the Syrians. They therefore drew off from the city at nightfall, and made for the Syrian camp. On arriving, they found it deserted. The entire host, seized with a sudden panic, had fled, about the time that they began their journey. The lepers’ first thought was to enrich themselves by plunder, but after a while it occurred to them that, unless they hastened to carry the good news to Samaria, inquiry would be made, their proceedings would be found out, and they would be severely punished. So they returned to the capital, and reported what they had discovered. Jehoram, on receiving the news, feared that the Syrians had prepared a trap for him, and declined to move. He consented, however, to send out scouts to reconnoiter. The scouts found evident proof that the entire army had actually fled and was gone, whereupon there was a general raid upon the camp and its stores, which were so abundant that Elisha’s prophecy was fulfilled ere the day ended. 2 Kings 7:3 And there were four leprous men at the entering in of the gate; or, at the entrance to the gate-house. Lepers were forbidden by the Law to reside within cities (Leviticus 13:46; Numbers 5:3). They were thrust out when the disease developed itself, and forced to dwell without the walls. No doubt their friends within the city ordinarily supplied them with food; and hence they congregated about the city gates. And they said one to another, Why sit we here until we die? In the extreme scarcity, it is probable that no food was brought to them, the inmates of the city having barely enough wherewith to sustain themselves (2 Kings 6:25). Thus they were on the point of perishing. 2 Kings 7:4 If we say, We will enter into the city, then the famine is in the city, and we shall die there. The lepers were certainly not at liberty to enter the city when they pleased; but perhaps they might have managed, in one way or another, to return within the walls. They ask themselves, however, "Cut bone?" What will he the use of it? The famine is inside the town no less than outside. If they entered the city, by hook or by crook, it would only be to "die there" And if we sit still here, we die also; rather, if we remain here, or, if we dwell here. Lepers, excluded from a city, are in the habit of building themselves huts near the gateways. "The lepers of Jerusalem, at the present day, have their tents by the side of the Zion gate" (Keil, ad loc.). If the leprous men remained where they were, death stared them in the face equally. Now therefore come, and let us fall unto the host of the Syrians. Let us, i.e; fall away from our own side, desert them, and go over to the enemy. If they save us alive, we shall live; and if they kill us, we shall but die; i.e. we cannot be worse off than we are, even if they kill us; while it may be that they will be more merciful, and let us live. 2 Kings 7:5 And they rose up in the twilight. Most certainly in the evening twilight, as soon as the sun was down (see 2 Kings 7:9). Had they set off in the daytime, the garrison would have shot at them from the walls. To go unto the camp of the Syrians: and when they were come to the uttermost part—i.e. the most advanced part, that which was nearest to Samaria—of the camp of Syria, behold, there was no man there. The camp was empty, deserted. Not a soul was anywhere to be seen. 2 Kings 7:6 For the Lord had made the host of the Syrians to hear a noise of chariots, and a noise of horses, even the noise of a great host. קוֹל, voice, is used for noises of any kind (see Exodus 20:18; Psalms 42:7; Psalms 93:4; Jeremiah 47:3; Ezekiel 1:24; Ezekiel 3:13; Joe 2:5; Nahum 3:2), though generally for those in which the human voice preponderated. A noise like that of chariots and of horses and of a great host (צַאילִ גָדוֹל) was borne in upon the ears of the Syrians about nightfall of the day on which Jehoram had determined to put Elisha to death; and, as they expected no reinforcements, they naturally concluded that succor had arrived to help their enemy. How the noise was produced it is impossible to say. Na-rural causes are insufficient; and the writer evidently regards the event as miraculous: "The Lord had made the host of the Syrians to hear a noise," etc. Nothing can be more weak and irrelevant than to remark, with Bahr," There are instances, even nowadays, that people in certain mountainous regions regard a rushing and roaring sound, such as is sometimes heard there, as a sign of coming war." The Syrians thought they heard the actual arrival of a vast army. And they said one to another, Lo, the King of Israel hath hired against us the kings of the Hittites. This supposition has been thought "strange," almost inexplicable. "No such nation as the Hittites any longer existed," says Mr. Sumner. But the Assyrian records of the ninth and eighth centuries B.C. make it evident, not only that the Hittites still existed at that date, but that they were among the most powerful enemies of the Ninevite kings, being located in Northern Syria, about Carchemish (Jerabus) and the adjacent country. It is also apparent that they did not form a centralized monarchy, but were governed by a number of chiefs, or "kings," twelve of whom are mentioned in one place. It was no very improbable supposition on the part of the Syrians that Jehoram had called in the aid of the Hittite confederacy, and that they had marched an army to his assistance. And the kings of the Egyptians. "The plural, kings of the Egyptians," says Keil, "is not to be pressed. It is probably occasioned only by the parallel expression,’ kings of the Hittites.’" But Egyptian history shows us that about this date Egypt was becoming disintegrated, and that two or three distinct dynasties were sometimes ruling at the same time, in different parts of the country—one at Bubastis another at Thebes, a third at Tanis, occasionally a fourth at Memphis. The writer thus shows a knowledge of the internal condition of Egypt which we should not have expected. To come upon us; i.e. to fall upon us from the north and from the south at the same time. In their panic, the Syrians did not stop to weigh probabilities, or to think how unlikely it was that such a simultaneous attack could have been arranged between powers so remote one from the other. 2 Kings 7:7 Wherefore they arose and fled in the twilight. At the very time when the lepers were drawing off from the gate of Samaria to fall away to them (see 2 Kings 7:5). And left their tents, and their horses, and their asses, even the camp as it was. Partly, perhaps, in mere panic; partly to induce a belief on the part of the enemy that they had not quitted their camp. So Darius Hystaspis, when he began his retreat from Scythia (Herod; 4.135), left his camp standing, and the camp fires lighted, and the asses tethered (see 2 Kings 7:10), that the Scythians, seeing the tents and hearing the noise of the animals, might be fully persuaded that his troops were still in the same place. Asses were the chief baggage-animals in many ancient armies. And fled for their life. Thinking that, if they waited till dawn, the Israelite allies, Hittites and Egyptians, would exterminate them. 2 Kings 7:8 And when these lepers came to the uttermost part of the camp. The narrative, begun in 2 Kings 7:3, is here taken up from the point where it was broken off in 2 Kings 7:5, and the phrase there used is repeated, to mark the connection. They went into one tent, and did eat and drink. The first necessity was to satisfy the cravings of their appetite, as they were well-nigh starving. Then their covetousness was excited by the riches exposed to view in the tent. And carried thence silver, and gold, and raiment. Oriental armies carried with them vast quantities of the precious metals, in the shape of gold and silver vases, goblets, dishes, as well as in collars, chains, furniture, and trappings. Herodotus says (ix. 80) that, when the camp of Mardonius at Plataea fell into the hands of the Greeks, there were found in it "many tents richly adorned with furniture of gold and silver, many couches covered with plates of the same, and many golden bowls, goblets, and other drinking-vessels. On the carriages were bags containing gold and silver kettles; and the bodies of the slain furnished bracelets and chains, and scimitars with golden ornaments—not to mention era-broidered apparel, of which no one made any account." The camp of the Syrians would scarcely have been so richly provided; but still it contained, no doubt, a large amount of very valuable plunder. And went and hid it. The lepers had no right to the pick of the spoil. It belonged to the nation, and it was probably the king’s right to apportion it. The lepers had to conceal what they appropriated, lest it should he taken from them. And came again, and entered into another tent, and carried thence also, and went and hid it. Plundering thus probably, not two tents only, but several. At last, either covetousness was satiated or conscience awoke. 2 Kings 7:9 Then they said one to another, We do not well. It was a tardy recognition of what their duty required of them. As Grotius says, "Officium civium est ea indicate, quae ad salutem publicam pertinent." Their fellow-countrymen in the city of Samaria were perishing of hunger, mothers eating their children, and the like, while they employed hour after hour in collecting and hiding away their booty. They ought, as soon as they had satisfied their hunger, to have hurried back to the city and spread the good news. This day is a day of good tidings, and we hold our peace; i.e. we keep silence, and do not proclaim them, as we ought. If we tarry till the morning light, some mischief will come upon us; rather, punishment will fall on us; we shall suffer for what we have done—a very reasonable supposition. Now therefore come, that we may go and tell the king’s household. The "king’s household" means the court, the medium through which the king was ordinarily approached. 2 Kings 7:10 So they came and called unto the porter of the city; i.e. to the guard of the gate nearest them. The word שֹׂעַד, "porter," or "gate-man," is used collectively. And they told them, saying, We came to the camp of the Syrians, and, behold, there was no man there, neither voice of man, but horses tied, and asses tied, and the tents as they were. The horses and asses within a camp were always "tied," or tethered, as we see from the monumental representations of Egyptian camps, and also learn from historians (Herod; 4:135). It is somewhat surprising that the horses were left behind, as they would have expedited the flight had they been saddled and mounted. But this was, perhaps, overlooked in the panic. 2 Kings 7:11 And he called the porters; and they told it to the king’s house within; rather, and the porters (or, gate-keepers) called out and told it, etc. יִקְרָא may be a plural before its subject; or the true reading may be יִקְרְאוּ, which is found in some manuscripts. 2 Kings 7:12 And the king arose in the night, and said unto his servants, I will now show you what the Syrians have done to us. They know that we be hungry; therefore are they gone out of the camp to hide themselves in the field. Jehoram, knowing of no reason for the flight of the Syrians, suspected a not uncommon stratagem. He supposed that the enemy had merely gone a little way from their camp, and placed themselves in ambush, ready to take ad- vantage of any rash movement which the Israelites might make. So Cyrus is said to have entrapped and slaughtered Spargapises, the son of Tomyris, together with a large detachment, in his last war against the Massagetae (Herod; 1.211). His supposition was not unreasonable. Saying, When they come out of the city, we shall catch them alive, and get into the city. A double advantage might be expected to follow—those who quitted the town to plunder the camp would be surrounded and made prisoners, while the town itself, left without defenders, would be captured. Compare the capture of Ai by Joshua (Joshua 8:3-19), when the chief part of the garrison had been enticed out of it. 2 Kings 7:13 And one of his servants answered and said, Let some take, I pray thee, five of the horses that remain. One of Jehoram’s "servants," i.e. of the officers attached to his person, suggested that a small body of horse (four or five) should be sent out to reconnoiter. The besieged had still some horses left, though apparently not many. Note the phrase, "five of the horses that remain." The majority had died of want, or been killed to furnish food to the garrison. (Behold, they are as all the multitude of Israel that are left in it—i.e. in Samaria—behold, I say, they are even as all the multitude of the Israelites that are consumed); i.e. they will run no more risk than the other troops who remain in the city, for these, too, "are consumed," i.e. are on the point of perishing. Supposing that they fall into the enemy’s hands, it will go no harder with them than with the "multitude" which is on the point of starvation. And let us send and see. We can do nothing until we know whether the siege is really raised, or whether the pretended withdrawal is a mere ruse. We must send and have this matter made clear. 2 Kings 7:14 They took therefore two chariot horses; literally, two chariots of horses; i.e. two chariots, with the accustomed number of horses, which (with the Israelites) was two, though with the Assyrians and Egyptians it was frequently three. The employment of chariots instead of horsemen is remarkable, and seems to indicate that with the Israelites, as with the Egyptians, the chariot force was regarded as superior to the cavalry for practical purposes. And the king sent after the host of the Syrians, saying, Go and see. The advice of the king’s "servant" was taken; a couple of chariots were sent out to reconnoiter. 2 Kings 7:15 And they went after them unto Jordan. The charioteers, finding the camp really empty, discovering no ambush, and coming upon abundant signs of a hasty and perturbed flight, followed upon the track of the fugitives until they reached the Jordan, probably in the vicinity of Beth-shah, which lay on the ordinary route between Samaria and Damascus. Convinced by what they saw that the Syrians had really withdrawn into their own country, they pursued no further, but returned to Samaria. And, lo, all the way was full of garments and vessels, which the Syrians had cast away in their haste. Cloaks, shawls, shields, and even swords and spears, would be cast away as impedimenta—hindrances to a rapid flight. These strewed the line of the retreating army’s march. And the messengers returned, and told the king. Gave a full and complete account of what they had seen. 2 Kings 7:16 And the people went out, and spoiled the tents of the Syrians. The whole population of Samaria, with one accord, quitted the town, and flung themselves upon the spoil—the rich garments, the gold and silver vessels, the horses and asses, of which mention had been made previously (2 Kings 7:8-10). At the same time, no doubt, they feasted on the abundant dainties which they found in the tents. Having satisfied their immediate wants, they proceeded to lay in a store of corn for future use, and crowded tumultuously into the gate, where the corn found in the camp was being sold. So a measure of fine flour; rather, and a measure, etc.—was sold for a shekel, and two measures of barley for a shekel, according to the word of the Lord (see 2 Kings 7:1). 2 Kings 7:17 And the king appointed the lord on whose hand he leaned to have the charge of the gate. Anticipating disorder, unless special care were taken, through the probable eagerness of the people to purchase the corn which was offered to them at so moderate a rate, Jehoram appointed the officer on whose arm he had leant when he visited the house of Elisha (see 2 Kings 7:2), to have the charge of the gate, and preside over the sale. Probably there was no thought of the post being one of danger. And the people trod upon him in the gate, and he died. It has been questioned whether the death was accidental (Bahr), and suggested that the eager and famished people resisted his authority, and violently bore down his attempts to control them. But there is nothing in the text that is incompatible with an accidental death. Such deaths ate not uncommon in dense crowds of anxious and excited people. As the man of God had said, who spake when the king came down to him. The varieties of reading here do not affect the general sense. The writer’s intention is to lay special stress on the fulfillment of Elisha’s prophecy; and to emphasize the punishment that follows on a lack of faith. The concluding passage of the chapter is, as Bahr says, "a finger of warning to unbelievers." 2 Kings 7:18 And it came to pass as the man of God had spoken to the king, saying, Two measures of barley for a shekel, and a measure of fine flour for a shekel, shall be tomorrow about this time in the gate of Samaria. The otiose repetition of almost the whole of 2 Kings 7:1 can only be explained as a mode of emphasizing, and so impressing upon the reader two main points: (1) Elisha’s prophetic powers; and (2) the dreadful consequences that follow on scornful rejection of a message from God (see the comment on 2 Kings 7:2). 2 Kings 7:19 And that lord answered the man of God, and said, Now, behold, if the Lord should make windows in heaven, might such a thing be? And he said, Behold, thou shalt see it with thine eyes, hut shalt not eat thereof (see the comment on the preceding verse). 2 Kings 7:20 And so it fell out unto him; i.e. the prophecy was exactly fulfilled. The lord, being appointed to keep order in the gate where the corn was sold, "saw with his eyes" (2 Kings 7:2) the wonderful fall of prices within the short space of twenty-four hours, which Elisha had prophesied; hut "did not eat thereof"—did not, in his own person, obtain any benefit from the sudden plenty, since he perished before he could profit by it. For the people trod upon him in the gate, and he died (see the comment on 2 Kings 7:17). 2 Kings 7:1, 2 Kings 7:2, and 2 Kings 7:17-20 The sin of the scoffer, and its punishment. Unbelief may be involuntary, and so neither incur guilt nor deserve punishment. St. Paul "obtained mercy" notwithstanding his bitter persecution of the, early Christians, "because he did it ignorantly in unbelief" (1 Timothy 1:13). Modem skeptics are, no doubt, in many cases unable to believe, their eyes being blinded through their education, through ingrained prejudice or invincible ignorance. But to scoff at religion must be at all times a voluntary act; and it is an act, which Holy Scripture views as in the highest degree blamable. In the instance here recorded, where Elisha, rising up in all the majesty of God’s prophet, and addressing himself to king, nobles, and elders, solemnly required them to "hear the word of Jehovah," and then proclaimed with a voice of authority the raising of the siege and the speedy conversion of the existing scarcity into abundance, it indicated extreme effrontery and contempt for holy things, to take the word, when the king himself was silent, and utter a scoff, questioning the power as well as the truthfulness of God. The "lord" was clearly puffed up with a high opinion of his own wisdom, enlightenment, and knowledge of the world and its ways, and perceiving no probability of the change prophesied, of which there was indeed at the time no sign, thought himself entitled, not only to disbelieve the announcement, but to pour contempt upon it. "It is too often the case that high-born and apparently well-bred men, at court, take pleasure in mockeries of the Word of God and of its declarations, without reflecting that they thereby bear testimony to their own inner rudeness, vulgarity, and want of breeding" (Bahr). They think it a proof of their own cleverness and superiority to superstitious terrors, to mock and ridicule what they know to be reverenced by others. For the most part God allows them to escape punishment in this world, but now and then he signally vindicates his honor in the sight of all, by a manifest judgment upon the scoffers. An Elymas the sorcerer is struck blind (Acts 13:11) suddenly, an Arius perishes in the dead of night, or an Israelite "lord" suffers the penalty due to his rash words by being "trampled underfoot." God can at any time "arise to judgment," and "reward the proud after their deserving." Let men see to it that they provoke him not by "speaking unadvisedly with their lips." If they cannot receive his Word and hold fast his truth, let them at least "keep still silence," refrain themselves, and not draw down his vengeance upon them by profane scoffs and idle jesting. 2 Kings 7:3-15 The plenitude of God’s power to deliver from the extremist dangers. It is impossible to conceive a peril greater than that of Samaria at this time. The Syrians were masters of all the open country. They had for months surrounded the town and strictly blockaded it. The store of provisions within the walls was almost wholly exhausted, and there was no possibility of obtaining a supply from without. Jehoram had no ally who could be expected to come to his aid. Human wisdom, as personified in the "lord on whose hand the king leaned," might well view the end as certain, not seeing from what quarter deliverance could possibly come. But man’s extremity is God’s opportunity. With God nothing is impossible. Nothing is even hard. He has a thousand resources. He can send forth his angel into a camp at nightfall, and in the morning they shall be "all dead men" (2 Kings 19:35). He can make brothers-in-arms to fall out, and turn their swords one against another (2 Chronicles 20:23). He can send a soundless panic upon the largest and best-appointed host, and cause them to flee away and disappear, "like the chaff of the summer threshing-floor." He can make two men, like Jonathan and his armor-bearer (1 Samuel 14:6-16), victorious over a multitude. "A thousand shall flee at the rebuke of one," if God so wills it. Panic he can cause in a hundred ways. "It is only necessary that in the darkness a wind should blow, or that water should splash in free course, or that an echo should resound from the mountains, or that the wind should rustle the dry leaves, to terrify the godless, so that they flee as if pursued by a sword, and fall though no one pursues them" (Leviticus 26:36). In the present case, the Syrians heard a sound, how caused we know not, and instantly imagined that a danger threatened them, which could only be escaped by immediate flight. Israel had hired against them, they thought, two armies, one of Egyptians and the other of Hittites; the armies had arrived, and would fall upon them at dawn of day. So they hastily fled in the darkness, casting away arms and vessels and garments as they went (2 Kings 7:15), and leaving behind them their camp standing, with all its stores intact, its flour and barley, its gold and silver, its rich raiment, its war-horses and beasts of burden. The Samaritans were called upon to do nothing—they had but to "stand still, and see the salvation of God" (Exodus 15:13). In one day, without any exertion of their own, their deliverance was complete. And so it is with God always. I. GOD HAS POWER TO DELIVER FROM ALL EARTHLY PERILS. In an hour, in a moment, if he pleases, God has power to deliver: 1. From disease. He can cleanse the leper; give sight to the blind; heal malignant ulcers; infuse strength and vigor into the palsied; make plague, or fever, or any other mortal sickness to pass away. 2. From poverty. He can cause the poorest man to find a treasure, or put it into the heart of a rich man to leave him one, or so bless his little store that it becomes abundance (2 Kings 4:1-7), or give him favor in the sight of a monarch (Esther 7:6 -11), or put the wealth of thousands at his disposal (Acts 4:34-37). 3. From oppression. He can destroy or cast down the oppressor, cut him off suddenly, release his victims, break the chains from off their neck, "lift them up out of the mire, and set them with the princes of his people." 4. From shame. He can raise from the dungeon to the palace (Genesis 41:14; Daniel 6:23-28); can make men ready to worship one whom a moment before they denounced as a murderer (Acts 28:3-6); can "set on thrones" those who have been treated as "the offscouring of all things" (1 Corinthians 4:14). II. GOD HAS ALSO POWER TO DELIVER FROM PERILS. 1. He can preserve from the power of Satan, "deliver from the evil one," quench all his fiery darts, abate his pride, rescue men from his dominion when they seem on the point of submitting to it. 2. He can deliver from the guilt of sin; can accept atonement; can put away men’s sins from them, so that, "though they were as scarlet, they shall become white as snow; though they were red like crimson, they shall be as wool" (Isaiah 1:18). 3. And he can deliver from the power of sin. He can "strengthen the weak hands, and confirm the feeble knees" (Isaiah 35:3), can take away the evil out of men’s hearts, and put his Holy Spirit within them; can enable them to resist the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the devil; can make of them "new creatures" God, and God alone, can do this; and to him we must look for this deliverance; to him we must pray for this deliverance; to him, when we have obtained it, we must be eternally grateful for this deliverance. "Thanks be to God for his unspeakable Gift!" 2 Kings 7:4-11 Afflictions may alienate men from God instead of bringing them dear to him. This truth is remarkably exemplified in the conduct and reasonings of the lepers. Here are four poor men, severely afflicted by a malady which was reckoned to come, more directly than most others, from God’s hand, whom we should have expected to find humbled and softened by it, more God-fearing, more tender and compassionate towards their fellow-men, than the generality. But the reverse is the case with them. Instead of submitting themselves to God in their wretchedness, and hanging upon him, and looking to him for succor, they are sunk in a dull discontent, well nigh reckless and desperate. It is scarcely possible that they had not heard how Elisha preached a miraculous deliverance, and urged the king not to surrender the city, but "wait for Jehovah" (2 Kings 6:33). Yet of deliverance they have not the slightest expectation; they are as unbelieving as the proud "lord" of the court; if they remain with their countrymen, they hold that they must certainly die. So they resolve not to remain, but to go over to the enemy. No feeling of shame restrains them—it does not seem even to occur to them that there is any disgrace in desertion. They are impelled by motives which are purely egoistic—what is their best chance? Whether their countrymen will be damaged by its becoming known that they have now no food for their lepers, they either do not inquire or they do not care. What weighs with them is that, if they go over, they may possibly save their wretched lives; if they do not, they have, they think, no chance at all. It may be said that "self-preservation is the first law of nature;" but not self-preservation at all costs. Death is preferable to dishonor. The lepers take their departure, and reach the Syrian camp. Hero an extraordinary surprise befalls them; the camp, which they had expected to be full of Syrian soldiery, is empty—there is not a man left in it (2 Kings 7:5). All its wealth, all its stores, are open to the first comer. How do the lepers act under these strange circumstances? Again in a purely selfish spirit. That they should fall upon the food, and "eat and drink" (2 Kings 7:8), was natural, and no one will blame them so far, though it would have been nobler to have at once hurried back, and proclaimed the glad tidings to the famished city. But, having satiated their appetites, they are not content. Covetousness is stirred up by what meets their gaze, and they must proceed to enrich themselves by carrying off and securing a quantity of objects in silver and gold (2 Kings 7:8). When doubt begins to stir in their minds as to the propriety of this proceeding, it is not conscience that awakens, or regard for their fellow-citizens that moves them, but mere consideration for their own interests—" If we tarry till the morning light, we shall find punishment" (marginal rendering). Thus, from first to last, the lepers are an example of mean and groveling selfishness—such selfishness as poverty too often engenders, as misfortune intensifies, and to which the sense of belonging to a despised class lends a peculiar bitterness. Their calamities have in no way brought the lepers near to God, or induced them to cast their care upon him, but have hardened and brutalized them. We may learn from this— I. THAT, THOUGH ARE SENT FOR OUR GOOD, WE SHALL GET NO GOOD FROM THEM UNLESS WE RECEIVE THEM IN A RIGHT SPIRIT i.e. submissively, resignedly, even gratefully, as intended to benefit us. II. THAT, IF WE EXTRACT NOT FROM THEM THE SWEET USES FOR WHICH THEY WERE MEANT, WE SHALL BE APT TO GET FROM THEM HARM—the irreparable harm of a lowering of our moral tone, and an alienation of our souls from their Creator. 2 Kings 7:12-15 Unseasonable distrust. Humanly speaking, Jehoram’s distrust of the report of the lepers was not unreasonable. Such a stratagem as that which he suspected was often practiced in the wars of the ancient world, with great advantage to one side and great loss to the other. But his distrust, though not unreasonable, was unseasonable from the point of view of faith and belief in God. Elisha having just announced such an inversion of the actual state of things as could only be brought about in an extraordinary way, the occurrence of something extraordinary was to be expected. Jehoram ought to have been on the look out for some strange intelligence; and that which the lepers brought him was in such complete accordance with the tenor of Elisha’s prophecy, that a very moderate degree of faith would have sufficed to make him receive it gladly, joyfully, and without any mistrust. He would then have shortened the sufferings of his people by a day, which must have been lost by the dispatch of the two chariots to reconnoiter; and he might, perhaps, have saved the life of his "lord," whose dreadful death may have been caused by the impatience of a famished multitude too long restrained from sallying forth. Men are apt to be mistrustful; and it is generally just at the wrong time. They are sanguine and over-confident when it would have been well to suspect, suspicious and over-circumspect when there is no need of doubt or circumspection. God calls them to the kingdom that he has prepared for men, and bids them "come, buy and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price" (Isaiah 55:1); and they hang back, hesitate, delay, as if they were about to be entrapped. A bold impostor invites them to adopt his shibboleth, and trust in it for salvation—they listen eagerly, hang on his words, are persuaded, and join the Mormons or the Peculiar People. Rash youth boasts as it girds on its armor, and looks for an easy victory over sin and Satan, over the world, the flesh, and the devil. Timid old age faints and is weary, and despairs of winning through and "persevering to the end," though God has brought it so far upon its way. It is well to mistrust one’s self; it is faithless to mistrust God. He who has borne us up hitherto on eagles’ wings will still bear us up. He "fainteth not, neither is weary." He "will not leave us, nor forsake us." BY C.H. IRWIN 2 Kings 7:1, 2 Kings 7:2, with 12-20 The unbelieving lord. Elisha interrupts the king’s evil design by a prediction of plenty in Samaria. His mention of a fixed time doubtless induced the king to wait until he should see if the prophecy was fulfilled. "Thus saith the Lord, Tomorrow about this time shall a measure of fine flour be sold for a shekel, and two measures of barley for a shekel, in the gate of Samaria." It was a bold statement to make, for there was no human likelihood of its fulfillment. If the next day had proved Elisha to be a deceiver, no doubt he would have been torn limb from limb by the infuriated and hungry populace. But Elisha makes not the state-inert on his own authority, but uses the words, "Thus saith the Lord." One of the king’s principal courtiers, on whose arm he leaned, could not conceal his scorn and incredulity. "Behold, if the Lord would make windows in heaven, might this thing be?" Observe, his statement is not "If the Lord would make windows in heaven, this thing might be." He doesn’t even admit that. It is a question expressing entire impossibility. "Even if the Lord would open windows in heaven, is it at all likely that such a thing as this would happen?" But what seemed impossible to him was possible with God. The prophet warned him that he would suffer for his unbelief. "Behold, thou shalt see it with thine eyes, but shalt not eat thereof." As it was predicted, so it came to pass. During the night, the Lord caused the Syrian army to hear a great noise, like the noise of horses and chariots and a mighty host, and they fled in terror, leaving their camp with all their possessions and provisions behind them. Four lepers, going out of the city in the evening twilight, discovered the deserted camp. They brought back the news to the beleaguered city. At first, a stratagem was feared; but by-and-by in wild eagerness for food and plunder, the famished citizens rushed forth. The unhappy lord, who had doubted the prophet’s message and the promise of God himself, was trodden upon at the gate and died. From this striking and tragic story we may learn— I. MAY HAVE REASON, , ON ITS SIDE. This courtier might have given many plausible reasons for doubting the prophet’s message. 1. He might have disputed the prophet’s right to speak in the name of God at all. He might have said, "How do I know that this man is speaking the truth?" though even there Elisha had already given pretty tangible proof of his credibility and trustworthiness. The faithful minister of Christ need not mind the sneers of men, provided God has owned his work, and set his heavenly seal upon his ministry. 2. Or he might have said, "The thing is utterly incredible. It is utterly impossible. Where is flour to come from in such plenty as to supply this whole city of Samaria? There has been a besieging army around our walls for many days. They have desolated and plundered the country round about. Where is the food to come from, even if there was any one to bring it to us? And we know of no friendly army that is coming to raise the siege or cut its way through the serried ranks of the Syrians." All these would have been very natural thoughts to pass through that courtier’s mind. No doubt they were the very reasons, or some of them, which led him to disbelieve Elisha’s message. Probably, if he had stated his reasons to the people, he would have got a hundred to agree with him for every one who believed Elisha. No doubt they all looked upon Elisha as a fanatic and an enthusiast. They, to all appearance, had common sense, had reason on their side. And yet it turned out to be one of those many cases in which "God hath chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise, and the weak things to confound the mighty." Unbelief can be very plausible. Unbelief nearly always appears to have reason on its side. There is not a doctrine of the Bible against which the most plausible arguments might not, and have not, been advanced. Even Scripture itself can be quoted in support of unbelief and sin. "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose." Good arguments are not necessarily a proof of the truth or justice of a case. This needs to be remembered in an age when many arguments are urged against the truth of Christianity. What plausible reasons have been urged against the main truths of the Christian religion! Take the Deity of Christ, for example. How plausible are the arguments which human reason can bring forward against the doctrine of the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ! And yet of what value are such arguments when placed side by side with our Lord’s statement, "I and my Father are one;" with the statement of the Apostle John, "The Word was with God, and the Word was God;" or with the statement of the Apostle Paul, that "in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily?" In the same way the most plausible arguments can be, and are being, brought against the atoning nature of Christ’s death, although we have the clear statements of God’s Word that "he bore our sins in his own body on the tree," and Christ’s own statement that he laid down his life for the sheep. Over and over again it has been asserted that the Gospel miracles are incredible. Over and over again the most plausible arguments have been brought against future punishment, although we have the clear and emphatic statements of our Lord Jesus Christ himself on the subject. Unbelief may have reason, apparently, on its side. II. OUR REASON IS NO TEST OF . Our ideas are no test as to what is possible or impossible. Our minds are limited in their range. How often in the march of scientific discovery and invention it has happened that things, which seemed impossible in one century were proved to be possible in the next! It is not yet three hundred years since Galileo was condemned to imprisonment by the Inquisition for asserting that the earth moved round the sun. Even our own Sir Isaac Newton, little more than two hundred years ago—the man who discovered the force of gravitation, and invented the first reflecting telescope—was assailed with such abuse on propounding his discoveries, that he actually determined on suppressing the third book of the ’Principia,’ which contains the theory of comets. And what shall we say of the invention of the steam-engine by James Watt, scarcely a hundred years ago—an invention which has revolutionized our manufactures, and made possible a speed of locomotion by land and sea that would have been ridiculed as impossible only a few years ago? Every discovery of science, every invention in the useful arts, has at first been scorned as an impossible dream, then laughed at as impracticable, and finally accepted when it became impossible to deny the truth of the one or the usefulness of the other. The impossibilities of today turn out to be the possibilities of tomorrow. It is well to remember this, that, because we are unable to conceive of something taking place, it does not therefore follow that it is impossible. The fact is, that when we say anything is "impossible," we just mean that we cannot conceive it. But, as has already been shown, this is no reason why a doctrine or statement may not be true, or why a certain occurrence may not take place. We may have never known anything of the kind to occur before; but that is no proof that a thing is impossible, though in the minds of many people it is the only argument. What has never occurred before may occur yet. There are discoveries in science still undreamed of in our advanced philosophy. There are inventions yet to be conceived which, if today we could hear of them, we might pronounce the wild ravings of a fanatic. There are infinite resources in the hand of him who rules the world. Who are we, that we should limit God? Who are we, that we should set bounds to his power? Who are we, that we should set bounds to his justice on the one hand, or to his mercy on the other? Must we not bow in deep humility before all the problems that affect his dealings with men, and say, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" Must we not reverently accept whatever he has been pleased to reveal in his own Word of his Divine purposes and plans, no matter what our reason may say? III. THE OF . We have seen how unreasonable this courtier’s unbelief was. Not only so, but it was injurious. So unbelief in a professing Christian is injurious to himself and to others. It hinders his own usefulness. It hinders the progress of the gospel. It hinders the success of Christian work. It is the Achan in the camp, the canker of Christian life and power, the chilling blight of the Christian Church. What an age of deadness in the Church of Christ in England, Scotland, and Ireland, was the eighteenth century, the age of moderatism, the age of indifference and rationalism! What an absence of missionary enterprise! What an absence of evangelistic effort! As Churches and as individuals, we should pray to be delivered from unbelief, and to be filled with living, working, all-conquering faith. Mr. Spurgeon says, in his remarks on this passage, that if we are hindering God’s work by our unbelief, it may happen to us as it happened to this nobleman, that God may see fit to take us out of the way. He says that he has remarked, "that when any truly good man has stood in God’s way, God has made short work with him. He has taken him home, or he has laid him aside by sickness. If you will not help and will hinder, you will be put aside, and perhaps your own usefulness will be cut short." If you have not faith enough in the power of the gospel, if you have not faith enough in the promises of God, if you have not faith enough in the power of prayer, then be in earnest in asking for more faith—such faith as will stand firm in the day of temptation, of trial, of conflict, of opposition. Never say to yourself about any Christian work, "If the Lord would make windows in heaven, might such a thing be?" An affectionate word to the unbeliever, to the sinner. Unbelief is dangerous. Christ speaks of unbelief as a sin. He says of the Holy Spirit that "he will convince the world of sin, because they believed not on me." Men may call it a hard doctrine, but there it is. "He that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the Name of the only begotten Son of God." Is there anything hard in that? The offer of salvation is made to every one. It is so plain that there can be no mistake about it. If there had been any other way, any other Savior, men might plead uncertainty. But they are plainly told, "neither is there salvation in any other." Those who believed not the warnings in the days of Noah, perished. Their day of grace was long, but they neglected it. So with the Israelites whose bones lay whitening in the wilderness. "They entered not in because of unbelief." Oh, how terrible that unbelieving courtier’s doom: "Thou shalt see it with thine eyes, but shalt not eat thereof!"—C.H.I. BY D. THOMAS 2 Kings 7:1, 2 Kings 7:2 A Divine teacher and a haughty skeptic. "Then Elisha said, Hear ye the word of the Lord; Thus saith the Lord, Tomorrow," etc. Here are two objects not only to be looked at, but to be studied. I. A DIVINE TEACHER. "Then Elisha said, Hear ye the word of the Lord; Thus saith the Lord, Tomorrow about this time shall a measure of fine flour be sold for a shekel, and two measures of barley for a shekel, in the gate of Samaria." Elisha was inspired and commanded by the Almighty God to make a proclamation to a starving population. The famine was still prevailing. The shadow of death darkened the sky, and his freezing breath was in the air, and men were shivering on the confines of the grave. Thus, when things seemed to be at their worst, Elisha appears as a messenger of mercy from Heaven, declaring that on the next morning there would be an abundance of provision obtainable in the gate of Samaria. Two circumstances connected with this promise will apply to the gospel. 1. It was a communication exactly suited to the condition of those to whom it was addressed. People were starving, and the one great necessity was food, and here it is promised. Mankind are morally lost; what they want is spiritual restoration, and the gospel proclaims it. 2. It was a communication made on the authority of the Eternal. "Thus saith the Lord." That the gospel is a Divine message is a truth too firmly established even to justify debate. By the gospel, of course, I do not mean all the tracts of which the book we call the Bible is composed, but the Divine biography of Christ as recorded by his four biographers. II. A HAUGHTY SCEPTIC. "Then a lord on whose hand the king leaned answered the man of God, and said, Behold, if the Lord would make windows in heaven, might this thing be?" Here is one of the most contemptible of all classes of men—a courtier, a sycophant in relation to his king, a haughty despot in regard to all beneath him. When he heard the prophet’s deliverance, he, forsooth, was too great a man, and thought himself, no doubt, too great a philosopher, to believe it. It was the man’s self-importance that begat his incredulity, and this, perhaps, is the parent of all skepticism and unbelief.—D.T. 2 Kings 7:3-8 The force of will. "And there were four leprous men at the entering in of the gate," etc. Here we have— I. MEN IN THE MOST . "There were four leprous men at the entering in of the gate." Of all the diseases which afflict mankind none is more painful, loathsome, and disastrous than leprosy. It was the scourge of the Hebrew race. Moses minutely describes the appearance of this malady, and gives clear and forcible rules to govern the medical treatment of it. Fat and blood and other particles of diet, which excite or aggravate constitutional tendencies to diseases of the skin, were strictly forbidden to the Jews. There are many points of analogy between leprosy and sin. II. Men in the most wretched condition FORMING A . "They said one to another, Why sit we here until we die? If we say, We will enter into the city, then the famine is in the city, and we shall die there: and if we sit still here we die also. Now therefore come, and let us fall unto the host of the Syrians: if they save us alive, we shall live; and if they kill us, we shall but die." Emaciated and wretched as might have been their bodily condition, their moral nature had sufficient stamina left to make a resolution. Mind is often more active in physical disease than in physical health. Pain whips all the faculties into action, marshals all the forces of the soul. Truly wonderful is the power of the human will. Let no man justify mental indolence and moral inertia by pleading his bodily troubles. But how often this is done! How often do you hear men say, "We can do nothing because of the circumstances in which we are placed"! The "cannot" of such is their "will not," and the "will not" is their own choice. III. MEN ACTING OUT THE formed in the most wretched condition. These four poor starving leprous men not only formed a resolution, but they worked it out. "And they rose up in the twilight, to go unto the camp of the Syrians." In giving practical effect to their resolution, two results followed. 1. Difficulties vanished. Their great dread was of the Syrians, but as they approached the Syrian camp, "Behold, there was no man there." Wherefore had they fled? Here is the answer: "For the Lord hath made the host of the Syrians to hear a noise of chariots, and a noise of horses, even the noise of a great host. And they said one to another, Lo, the King of Israel hath hired against us the kings of the Hittites, and the kings of the Egyptians, to come upon us. Wherefore they rose and fled in the twilight, and left their tents, and their horses and their asses, even the camp as it was, and fled for their life." By what force were these Syrians scared away? Not the force of the rough elements of nature, or the force of armies, but the force of terrible ideas—ideas that made them hear the noise of the rattling chariots and the tramping steeds of war, that had no existence. But these ideas, albeit, were ideas from God. "The Lord had made the host of the Syrians to hear a noise." God often frightens wicked men by ideas. "God can," says Matthew Henry, "when he pleases, dispirit the boldest and most brave, and make the stoutest heart to tremble. Those that will not fear God, he can make to fear at the shaking of a leaf." Before a strong resolution, apprehended difficulties frequently vanish into air. Where there’s a will there’s a way, even though it be over rugged mountains and surging floods. A man’s "I will" has a power in it mighty as the forces of nature, ay, mightier, for it can subordinate them. "If thou hast faith as a grain of mustard seed, thou shalt say to this mountain, Be thou removed," etc. 2. The object was realized. What these poor starving leprous men deeply needed and sought was provisions to appease the cravings of hunger and to reinvigorate their waning life. And they got them. "And when these lepers came to the uttermost part of the camp, they went into one tent, and did eat and drink, and carried thence silver, and gold, and raiment, and went and hid it," etc. Thus they gained even more than they sought; they not only gained food, but wealth. . Learn here the wonderful moral force of the human mind. It possesses a power to make resolutions under the most trying external conditions, and the power to work them out successfully. The fiat "I’ll try" has wrought wonders in human history, is working wonders now, and so it ever can. Well does Dr. Tulloch say, "Everything yields before the strong and earnest will. It grows by exercise. It excites confidence in others, while it takes to itself the lead. Difficulties before which mere cleverness fails, and which leave the irresolute prostrate and helpless, vanish before it. They not only do not impede its progress, but it often makes of them step-ping-stones to a higher and more enduring triumph."—D.T. 2 Kings 7:9-11 The right and the prudent. "Then they said one to another, We do not well," etc. These verses record the conference which these four lepers had with one another after they had succeeded in working out their resolution to go unto the "host of the Syrians;" and in this conference we discover— I. THE RIGHT. "They said one to another, We do not well; this day is a day of good tidings, and we hold our peace." The silver and the gold which they had discovered they had hidden away; and now, perhaps, conscience told them it was not right. It is not right for us to conceal the good we have discovered, or to appropriate it entirely to our own use; let us communicate it. The distribution of good is right. Every man should be "ready to communicate." The monopoly of material good is a huge wrong, and the crying sin of the age. Legislation will have to deal with this social abomination sooner or later; it is crushing the millions to the dust. Monopolies must be broken up; the wants of society and the claims of eternal justice demand it. What is truly "glad tidings" to us we should proclaim to others. The rays of joy that fall over our own lives we should not retain, but reflect. II. THE PRUDENT. Whether these poor men felt it was right to communicate to others the tidings of the good they had received or not, they certainly felt it was prudent. "If we tarry till the morning light, some mischief will come upon us: now therefore come, that we may go and tell the king’s household." Accordingly they acted. "So they came and called unto the porter of the city: and they told them, saying, We came to the camp of the Syrians, and, behold, there was no man there, neither voice of man, but horses tied, and asses tied, and the tents as they were. And he called to the porters; and they told it to the king’s house within." Not to do the right thing must cause some "mischief"—mischief not only to the body, but to the soul as well, to the entire man. There is no prudence apart from rectitude. What is wrong in moral principle is mischievous in conduct. He who is in the right, however outvoted by his age, is always in the majority, for he has that vote which carries all material universes and spiritual hierarchies with it. Right is infallible utilitarianism.—D.T. 2 Kings 7:12-16 The help that comes to distressed men from without. "And the king arose in the night," etc. These verses suggest a few thoughts concerning the help that sometimes comes to distressed men from without. The best help that a man can get in any case is from within—from a right working of his own faculties, independence on his Maker. Still, help from without is often most valuable. There are three kinds of human helpers without. 1. Those that help men by their will. These are men, the chosen of the race, who lay themselves out for philanthropic service. 2. Those that help men against their will. It often turns out, as in the case of Joseph’s brethren, that our enemies really serve us. 3. Those that help men irrespective of their will. We are helped in many ways by those who know and care nothing about us. We come into possession of their knowledge, inventions, property. The property of the men of the last age is ours today. Such is the kind of help which the Syrians now rendered the Israelites, and we offer three remarks concerning this help. I. IT WAS NEEDED. The men of Samaria were in the utmost distress, and the king arose in the night and sent forth two of his servants (2 Kings 7:12) in pursuit of the Syrians to see what had happened. As they approached the spot they found that the Syrians had departed, but had left their property behind. "And the way was full of garments and vessels, which the Syrians had cast away in their haste." Thus in the height of their distress they found relief. It is often so in passing through life; often so in individual as well as in social life. In the greatest extremity help appears. When the cloud is darkest a beam of light breaks on it. II. IT WAS . Did these Samaritans deserve help? By no means. They were nearly all idolatrous and worthless people. They merited condign punishment, everlasting ruin. This is true of all men as sinners. Whatever help we receive is utterly undeserved. "It is of the Lord’s mercies that we are not consumed." III. IT WAS . They went forth longing for food, but quite uncertain whether they would find any. They found that the enemy had fled, and in their haste had left provisions behind. "So a measure of fine flour was sold for a shekel." Are not all men, in the providence of God, constantly receiving unexpected favors? The choicest blessings come when least expected.—D.T. 2 Kings 7:17-20 God’s promise realized and his truth vindicated. "And the king appointed the lord on whose hand he leaned to have the charge of the gate," etc. We have here an instance of two things. I. GOD’S PROMISE . In the first verse of this chapter Elisha had said, "Hear ye the word of the Lord; Thus saith the Lord, Tomorrow about this time shall a measure of fine flour be sold for a shekel." The morrow had come, and here is the fine flour and the barley being sold in the gate of Samaria. Here is the Divine promise fulfilled to the letter. God is ever faithful who hath promised. If a being makes a promise, and it is not fulfilled, it must be for one of three reasons—either because he was insincere when he made the promise, or subsequently changed his mind, or met with unforeseen difficulties which he had not the power to surmount. None of these can be applied to the all-truthful, unchangeable, all-seeing, and almighty God. II. GOD’S TRUTH . The haughty courtier said to the prophet yesterday, when he was told that a measure of fine flour would be sold for a shekel, "If the Lord would make windows in heaven, might this thing be?" As if he had said, "Do not presume to impose on me, a man of my intelligence and importance. The intellectual rabble may believe in you, but I cannot." Whereupon the prophet replied, "Thou shalt see it with thine eyes, but shalt not eat thereof." And so it came to pass. Here are the flour and the barley, and there lies dead the haughty skeptic. "And so it fell out unto him: for the people trod upon him in the gate, and he died." Truth has ever vindicated itself, and will ever do so. Men’s unbelief in facts does not either destroy or weaken facts; the facts remain. Though all the world deny the existence of a God, moral obligation, and future retribution, the facts remain.—D.T. BY J. ORR 2 Kings 7:1, 2 Kings 7:2 The unbelieving lord. The spirit of despair had taken possession of Jehoram. It was at this point that Elisha interposed with his promise of deliverance. I. . Elisha made what must have seemed an incredible announcement. 1. The city was at that moment suffering the extremest horrors of famine. By the same hour on the morrow food would exist in plenty. 2. Such food as was then obtainable was of the coarsest, most loathsome, and most revolting nature. By tomorrow they would be dieting on fine flour and barley in abundance. 3. Their disgusting food was only to be had at famine prices. Tomorrow a measure of fine flour would be sold for a shekel, and two measures of barley for a shekel. 4. Today they were fast beleaguered. Tomorrow flour and barley would be sold in the open gates of Samaria. After this, is anything too hard for the Lord? (Genesis 18:14). If men will not seek him, God leaves them to feel the extremity of their own helplessness before he interposes. Then he shows himself "plenteous" in mercy (Psalms 103:8). Who can doubt that, if king and city had sought God earlier with sincere hearts, the deliverance would have come sooner? Thus by his own forwardness does the sinner stand in the way of his own good. II. DOUBT. The spirit of incredulity, which must have been in many minds when Elisha made this surprising announcement, found expression in the utterance of the captain on whose hand the king leaned, "Behold, if the Lord would make windows in heaven, might this thing be?" 1. The author of this skeptical scoff was a person in high rank. The atmosphere of a court, and the position of a courtier, are not favorable to the development of piety. They are more apt to develop, as here, a worldly, skeptical, cynical spirit, with small faith in God, virtue, and truth. Piety is to be looked for rather in the cottages than in the palaces of a people, though there are notable exceptions. "Not many mighty," etc. (1 Corinthians 1:26). 2. The language is that of scornful incredulity. It is the speech of a rationalist. Judged by the standards of sense and of natural reason, the sudden access of plenty which Elisha predicted was impossible. If the Lord opened windows m heaven, it might be looked for, but not otherwise. And who expected help from that quarter? Thus the worldly wise lord reasoned, sneering at Elisha’s word as the imagination of a heated brain. He is the type of all rationalists. Interpositions from heaven are the last things they are disposed to believe in; and in any case they will not believe God’s Word unless they can see how it is to be fulfilled, and on what natural principles the unusual event is to be explained. As in the present case there was no possibility of help from within the city, and no prospect of the Syrians leaving when the city was just about to fall within their power, and no evidence that food in such abundance could be obtained at a day’s notice even if they did leave, Elisha’s promise could only be assigned to the category of delusion. The spirit of faith is the opposite of this. It takes God at his word, and leaves him to find out the means of accomplishing his own predictions. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Kings 8:1-29 THE SEQUEL OF THE STORY OF THE . THE KILLING OF BY HAZAEL; AND THE WICKED REIGNS OF JEHORAM AND AHAZIAH IN JUDAH. 2 Kings 8:1-15 Elisha is still the protagonistes of the historical drama. The writer brings together in the present section two more occasions of a public character in which he was concerned, and in which kings also bore a part. One of the occasions is domestic, and shows the interest which Jehoram took in the miracles of the prophet, and in those who were the objects of them (2 Kings 8:1-6). The other belongs to Syrian, rather than to Israelite, history, and proves that the influence of Elisha was not confined to Palestine (2 Kings 8:7-15). 2 Kings 8:1-6 The sequel of the story of the Shunammite. 2 Kings 8:1 Then spake Elisha unto the woman, whose son he had restored to life. There is no "then" in the original, of which the simplest rendering would be, "And Elisha spake unto the woman," etc. The true sense is, perhaps, best brought out by the Revised Version, which gives the following: Now Elisha had spoken unto the woman, etc. The reference is to a time long anterior to the siege of Samaria. Saying, Arise, and go thou and thine household, and sojourn wheresoever thou canst sojourn: for the Lord hath called for a famine. A famine is mentioned in 2 Kings 4:38, which must belong to the reign of Jehoram, and which is probably identified with that here spoken of. Elisha, on its approach, recommended the Shunammite, though she was a woman of substance (2 Kings 4:8), to quit her home and remove to some other residence, where she mighty, escape the pressure of the calamity He left it to her to choose the place of her temporary abode. The phrase, "God hath called for a famine," means no more and no less than "God has determined that there shall be a famine." With God to speak the word is to bring about the event. And it shall also come upon the land seven years. Seven years was the actual duration of the great famine, which Joseph foretold in Egypt (Genesis 41:27), and was the ideally perfect period for a severe famine (2 Chronicles 24:13). Many of the best meteorologists are inclined to regard the term of "seven years" as a cyclic period in connection with weather changes. 2 Kings 8:2 And the woman arose, and did after the saying of the man of God. It is a satisfaction to find that there was yet faith in Israel. There were still those to whom the prophet was the mouthpiece of God, who waited on his words, and accepted them as Divine commands whereto they were ready to render immediate and entire obedience. It is conjectured by some that the woman had become a widow, and fallen into comparative poverty; but the narrative gives no indication of this. Even opulent persons have to migrate in times of severe dearth. And she went with her household, and sojourned in the land of the philistines. Philistia was a great grain country (Judges 15:5), and, though not altogether exempt from famine, was less exposed to it than either Judaea or Samaria. The soil was exceedingly fertile, and the vapors from the Mediterranean descended upon it in clews and showers, when their beneficial influence was not felt further inland. The Shunammite may have had other reasons for fixing her residence in the Philistine country; but probably she was chiefly determined in her choice by its proximity and its productiveness. Seven years. As long, i.e; as the famine lasted (see the last clause of 2 Kings 8:1). 2 Kings 8:3 And it earns to pass at the seven years’ end, that the woman returned out of the land of the Philistines. She stayed no longer than she could help. Her own land, where she could have the ministrations of a "man of God" (2 Kings 4:23), was dear to her; and no sooner had the famine abated than she returned to it. And she went forth to cry unto the king for her house and for her land. During her prolonged absence, some grasping neighbor had seized on the unoccupied house and the uncultivated estate adjoining it, and now refused to restore them to the rightful owner. Widows were especially liable to such treatment on the part of greedy oppressors, since they were, comparatively speaking, weak and defenseless (see Isaiah 10:2; Matthew 23:14). Under such circumstances the injured party would naturally, in an Oriental country, make appeal to the king. 2 Kings 8:4 And the king talked with Gehazi; rather, now the king was talking with Gehazi, as in the Revised Version. The king, i.e; happened to be talking with Gehazi at the moment when the woman came into his presence and "cried" to him. It has been reasonably concluded from this, that chronological order is not observed in the portion of the narrative which treats of Elisha and his doings, since a king of Israel would scarcely be in familiar conversation with a leper (Keil). It may be added that Gehazi can scarcely have continued to be the servant of Elisha, as he evidently now was, after his leprosy. He must have dwelt "without the gate." The servant of the man of God. That a king should converse with a servant is, no doubt, somewhat unusual; but, as Bahr notes, there is nothing in the circumstance that need astonish us. It is natural enough that, having been himself a witness of so many of the prophet’s marvelous acts done in public, Jehoram should become curious concerning those other marvelous acts which he had performed in private, among his personal friends and associates, with respect to which many turnouts must have got abroad; and should wish to obtain an account of them from a source on which he could rely. If he had this desire, he could scarcely apply to the prophet himself, with whom he was at no time on familiar terms, and who would shrink from enlarging on his own miraculous powers. "To whom, then, could he apply with more propriety for this information than to the prophet’s familiar servant"—an eye-witness of most of them, and one who would have no reason for reticence? Oriental ideas would not be shocked by the king’s sending for any subject from whom he desired information, and questioning him. Saying, Tell me, I pray thee, all the great things that Elisha hath done. Miracles are often called "great things" (גְדֹלוֹת) in the Old Testament, but generally in connection with God as the doer of them (see Job 5:9; Job 9:10; Job 37:5; Psalms 71:19; Psalms 106:21, etc.). 2 Kings 8:5 And it came to pass, as he was telling the king how he—i.e. Elisha—had restored a dead Body to life. This was undoubtedly the greatest of all Elisha’s miracles, and Gehazi naturally enlarged upon it. As an eye-witness (2 Kings 4:29-36), he could give all the details. That, behold, the woman, whose son he had restored to life, cried to the king for her house and for her land. The coincidence can scarcely have been accidental. Divine providence so ordered matters that, just when the king’s interest in the woman was most warm, she should appear before him to urge her claim. At another time, Jehoram would, it is probable, have been but slightly moved by her complaint. Under the peculiar circumstances, he was deeply moved, and at once granted the woman the redress for which she asked. And Gehazi said, Wry lord, O king, this is the woman, and this is her son, whom Elisha restored to life. The Shunammite was accompanied by her son, now a boy of at least tea or eleven years old—the actual object of Elisha’s miracle. The king’s interest in the woman would be still more roused by this circumstance. 2 Kings 8:6 And when the king asked the woman, she told him; rather, and the king made inquiry of the woman, and she answered him. The extent of the inquiries is not indicated. They may have included questions concerning the miracle, as well as questions concerning the woman’s claim to the land and house, and the evidence which she could produce of proprietorship. So the king appointed unto her a certain officer—literally, a certain eunuch, or chamberlain—an officer of the court, who was in his confidence, and would give effect to his directions saying, Restore all that was hers, and all the fruits of the field since the day that she left the land, even until now. The order was, that not only was the Shunammite to receive back her house and estate, but that she was also to have "the mesne profits" i.e. the full value of all that the land had produced beyond the expense of cultivation during the seven yearn of her absence. English law lays down the same rule in cases of unlawful possession for which there is no valid excuse. 2 Kings 8:7-15 Elisha’s visit to Damascus, and its consequences. It has been usual to connect this visit of Elisha’s to Damascus with the commission given to Elijah many years previously, to anoint Hazael to be king over Syria (1 Kings 19:16). But it is certainly worthy of remark that neither is Elijah authorized to devolve his corn-mission on another, nor is he said to have done so, nor is there any statement in the present narrative or elsewhere that Elisha anointed Hazael. It is therefore quite possible that Elisha’s journey was wholly unconnected with the command given to Elijah. It may, as Ewald imagines, have been the consequence of disorders and dangers in Samaria, growing out of the divergence of views between Jehoram and the queen-mother Jezebel, who still retained considerable influence over the government; and Elisha may have taken his journey, not so much for the sake of a visit, as of a prolonged sojourn. That he attracted the attention both of Benhadad and of his successor Hazael is not surprising. 2 Kings 8:7 And Elisha came to Damascus. It was a bold step, whatever the circumstances that led to it. Not very long previously the Syrian king had made extraordinary efforts to capture Elisha, intending either to kin him or to keep him confined as a prisoner (2 Kings 6:18-19). Elisha had subsequently helped to baffle his plans of conquest, and might be thought to have caused the disgraceful retreat of the Syrian army from the walls of Samaria, which he had certainly prophesied (2 Kings 7:1). But Elisha was not afraid. He was probably commissioned to take his journey, whether its purpose was the anointing of Hazael or no. And Benhadad the King of Syria was sick. Ewald supposes that this "sickness" was the result of the disgrace and discredit into which he had fallen since his ignominious retreat, without assignable reason, from before the walls of Samaria; but Ben-hadad must have been of an age When the infirmities of nature press in upon a man, and when illness has to be expected. He was a contemporary of Ahab (1 Kings 20:1), who had now been dead ten or twelve years. And it was told him, saying, The man of God is come hither. Elisha seems to have attempted no concealment of his presence. No sooner was he arrived than his coming was reported to Benhadad. The Syrians had by this time learnt to give him the name by which he was commonly known (2 Kings 4:7, 2 Kings 4:21, 2 Kings 4:40; 2 Kings 5:20; 2 Kings 6:6, 2 Kings 6:10; 2 Kings 7:2, 2 Kings 7:18) in Israel. 2 Kings 8:8 And the king said unto Hazael. It is implied that Hazael was in attendance on Benhadad in his sick-room, either permanently as a chamberlain, or occasionally as a minister. According to Josephus (’Ant. Jud.,’ 9.4. § 6), he was "the most faithful of the king’s domestics" (ὁπιστότατοςτῶνοἱκετῶν). We cannot presume from 2 Kings 8:12 that he had as yet distinguished himself as a warrior. Take a present in thine hand, and go, meet the man of God. It was usual, both among the heathen and among the Israelites, for those who consulted a prophet to bring him a present (see 1 Samuel 9:7; 1 Kings 14:3). Hence, mainly, the great wealth of the Delphic and other oracles. Naaman (2 Kings 5:5) had brought with him a rich present when he went to consult Elisha in Samaria. And inquire of the Lord by him, saying, Shall I recover of this disease! The miracles of Elisha had had at any rate this effect—they had convinced the Syrians that Jehovah was a great and powerful God, and made them regard Elisha himself as a true prophet. Their faith in their own superstitions must have been at least partially shaken by these convictions. It was by these and similar weakenings of established errors that the world was gradually educated, and the way prepared for the introduction of Christianity. There was very early among the Syrians a flourishing Christian Church. 2 Kings 8:9 So Hazael went to meet him—i.e. Elisha—and took a present with him; literally, in his hand; but we must not pros this expression "In his hand" means "under his control." The present was far too large to be carried by an individual. It consisted even of every good thing of Damascus; i.e. of gold and silver and costly raiment, of the luscious wine of Helbon, which was the drink of the Persian kings (Strab; 15.3. § 22), of the soft white wool of the Antilibanus (Ezekiel 27:18), of damask coverings of couches (Amos 3:12), perhaps of Damascus blades, and of various manufactured articles, the products of Tyro, Egypt, Nineveh, and Babylon, which her extensive land trade was always bringing to the Syrian capital. Forty camels’ burden. Not as much as forty camels could carry, but a gift of such a size that it was actually placed on the backs of forty camels, which paraded the town, and conveyed in a long procession to the prophet’s house the king’s magnificent offering. Orientals are guilty of extreme ostentation with respect to the presents that they make. As Chardin says, "Fifty persons often carry what a single one could have very well borne". The practice is illustrated by the bas-reliefs of Nineveh and Persepolis, which furnish proofs of its antiquity. One present-bearer carries a few pomegranates; another, a bunch of grapes; a third, a string of locusts; a fourth, two small ointment-pots; a fifth, a branch of an olive tree, and the like (Layard, ’Monuments of Nineveh,’ second series, pls. 8, 9, etc.). It is not unlikely that a single camel could have carried the whole. And earns and stood before him, and said, Thy son Benhadad King of Syria hath sent me to thee, saying—Benhadad seeks to propitiate Elisha by calling himself his son, thus indicating the respect he feels for him—Shall I recover of this disease? Nothing was more common in the ancient world than the consultation of an oracle or a prophet in cases of disease or other bodily affliction. Two questions were commonly asked, "Shall I recover?" and "How may I recover?" So Pheron of Egypt is said to have consulted an oracle with respect to his blindness (Herod; 2.111), and Battus of Cyrene to have done the same with respect to his stammering (ibid; 4.155). It was seldom that a clear and direct answer was given. 2 Kings 8:10 And Elisha said unto him; Go, say unto him; Thou mayest certainly recover. The existing Masoretic text (צָיִה תִצְיָה אֱמָר־לא) is untranslatable, since emar-lo cannot mean, "say not," on account of the order of the words; and lo cannot he joined with khayiah thikhyah, first on account of the makkeph whick attaches it to emar, and secondly because the emphatic infinitive is in itself affirmative, and does not admit of a negative prefix. The emendation in the Hebrew margin (לוֹ for לא), accepted by all the versions, and by almost all commentators, is thus certain. Our translators are therefore, so far, in the right; but they were not entitled to tone down the strong affirmative, khayih thikhyah, "living thou shalt live," or "thou shalt surely live," into the weak potential, "thou mayest certainly recover." What Elisha says to Hazael is, "Go, say unto him, Thou shalt surely live;" i.e. "Go, say unto him, what thou hast already made up thy mind to say, what a courtier is sure to say, Thou shalt recover." Howbeit the Lord hath showed me that he shall surely die. If Hazael had reported the whole answer to Benhadad, he would have told no lie, and thus Elisha is not responsible for his lie. 2 Kings 8:11 And he settled his countenance steadfastly—literally, and he settled his countenance and set it; i.e. Elisha fixed on Hazael a long and meaning look—until he—i.e. Hazael—was ashamed; i.e. until Hazael felt embarrassed, and his eyes fell It may be gathered that the ambitious courtier had already formed a murderous design against his master, and understood by the peculiar gaze which the prophet fixed upon him that his design was penetrated. And the man of God wept. There flashed on the prophet’s mind all the long series of calamities which Israel would suffer at the hands of Syria during Hazael’s reign, and he could not but weep at the thought of them (see the next verse). 2 Kings 8:12 And Hazael said, Why weepeth my lord? While inwardly contemplating an act of audacious wickedness in defiance of the prophet’s implied rebuke, Hazael preserves towards him outwardly an attitude of extreme deference and respect. "My lord" was the phrase with which slaves addressed their masters, and subjects their monarchs (see 2 Kings 5:3; 2 Kings 6:12, etc.). And he answered, Because I know the evil that thou wilt do unto the children of Israel: their strongholds wilt thou set on fire, and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash their children, and rip up their women with child. The prophet does not intend to tax Hazael with any special cruelty, tie only means to say, "Thou wilt wage long and bloody wars with Israel, in which will occur all those customary horrors that make war so terrible—the burning of cities, the slaughter of the flower of the youth, the violent death of children, and even the massacre of women in a state of pregnancy. These horrors belonged, more or less, to all Oriental wars, and are touched on in Psalms 137:9; 2 Kings 15:16; Isaiah 13:16, Isaiah 13:18; Hosea 10:14; Nahum 3:10; Amos 1:13, etc. The wars of Hazael with the Israelites are mentioned in 2 Kings 10:32, 2 Kings 10:33; 2 Kings 13:3-7; and Amos 1:3, Amos 1:4. 2 Kings 8:13 And Hazael said, But what, is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great thing? This rendering is generally allowed to Be incorrect. The true sense, which is well represented in the Septuagint (Τίςἐστινὁδοῦλόςσουὁκύωνὁτεθνηκὼςοτιποιήσειτὸῥῆματοῦτο;), is—"But what is thy servant, this dog, that he should do so great a thing?" Hazael does not accuse Elisha of making him out a dog in the future, but calls himself a dog in the present. "Dog" is a word of extreme contempt—"the most contemptuous epithet of abuse" (Winer), as appears, among other places, from 1 Samuel 24:14 and 2 Samuel 16:9. Hazael means to say—How is it possible that he, occupying, as he does, so poor and humble a position as that of a mere courtier or domestic (οἰκετής, Josephus), should ever wage war with Israel, and do the "great things" which Elisha has predicted of him? And Elisha answered, The Lord hath showed me that thou shalt be king over Syria. Elisha explains how it would be possible. Hazael would not continue in his poor and humble condition. Jehovah has revealed it to him that the mere courtier will shortly mount the Syrian throne. 2 Kings 8:14 So he departed from Elisha, and came to his master; who said to him, What said Elisha to thee? And he answered, He told me that thou shouldest surely recover. This, as already observed, was giving half Elisha’s answer, and suppressing the other half. The suppressio veri is a suggestio falsi; and the suppression was Hazael’s act, not Elisha’s. Had Hazael repeated the whole of Elisha’s answer, "Say unto him, Thou shalt surely recover; howbeit the Lord hath showed me that he shall surely die;"—Benhadad might have been puzzled, but he would not have been deceived. 2 Kings 8:15 And it came to pass on the morrow, that he took a thick cloth. Macber is a cloth of a coarse texture—a mat, or piece of carpeting. It has here the article prefixed to it (ham-macber), which implies that there was but one in the sick-room. We may conjecture that it was a mat used as a sort of pillow, and interposed between the head-rest (so common in Egypt and Assyria) and the head (compare the c’bir of 1 Samuel 19:13). And dipped it in water. The water would fill up the interstices through which air might otherwise have been drawn, and hasten the suffocation. A death of the same kind is recorded in the Persian history entitled ’Kholasat el Akhbar,’ which contains the following passage: "The malik ordered that they should place a carpet on Abdallah’s mouth, so that his life was cut off." And spread it on his face, so that he died. It has been supposed by some commentators, as Luther, Schultz, Geddes, Boothroyd, that Benhadad put the wet macber on his own face for refreshment, and accidentally suffocated himself; but this is very unlikely, and it is certainly not the natural sense of the words. As "Hazael" is the subject of "departed" and "came" and "answered" in 2 Kings 8:14, so it is the natural subject of "took" and "dipped" and "spread" in 2 Kings 8:15. 2 Kings 8:11 also would be unintelligible if Hazael entertained no murderous intentions. Why Ewald introduces a "bath-servant," unmentioned in the text, to murder Benhadad for no assignable reason, it is difficult to conjecture. And Hazael reigned in his stead. The direct succession of Hazael to Benhadad is confirmed by the inscription on the Black Obelisk, where he appears as King of Damascus (line 97) a few years only after Benhadad (Bin-idri) had been mentioned as king. 2 Kings 8:16-24 THE WICKED REIGN OF JEHORAM IN JUDAH. At this point the writer, who has been concerned with the history of the kingdom of Israel hitherto in the present book, takes up the story of the kingdom of Judah from 1 Kings 22:50, and proceeds to give a very brief account of the reign of Jehoshaphat’s eldest son, Jehoram, or (by contraction) Joram. His narrative has to be supplemented from 2 Chronicles 21:1-20; which contains many facts not mentioned by the writer of Kings. 2 Kings 8:16 And in the fifth year of Joram the son of Ahab King of Israel, Jehoshaphat being then King of Judah; literally, and of Jehoshaphat King of Judah. The words are wanting in three Hebrew manuscripts, in some editions of the Septuagint, in the Peshito Syriac, in the Parisian Heptaplar Syriac, in the Arabic Version, and in many copies of the Vulgate. They cannot possibly have the sense assigned to them in our version, and are most probably a gloss which has crept into the text from the margin. Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat King of Judah began to reign. Jehoram’s reign was sometimes counted from the seventeenth year of his father, when he was given the royal title, sometimes from his father’s twenty-third year, when he was associated, and sometimes from his father’s death in his twenty-fifth year, when he became sole king (see the comment on 2 Kings 1:17 and 2 Kings 3:1). 2 Kings 8:17 Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem. The eight years seem to be counted from his association in the kingdom by his father in his twenty-third year. He reigned as sole king only six years. 2 Kings 8:18 And he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, as did the house of Ahab; i.e. he introduced into Judah the Baal and Astarte worship, which Ahab had introduced into Israel from Phoenicia. The "house of Ahab" maintained and spread the Baal-worship, wherever it had influence. Ahaziah, the son of Ahab, championed it in Israel (1 Kings 22:53); Jehoram, his brother, allowed its continuance (2 Kings 10:18-28); Jehoram of Judah was induced by his wife, Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab, to countenance it in Judaea; Athaliah, when she usurped the throne upon the death of her son Ahaziah, made it the state religion in that country. "Evil communications corrupt good manners." The alliance of the two separated kingdoms, concluded between Jehoshaphat and Ahab (1 Kings 22:2-4), had no tangible result beyond the introduction into Judah of the licentious and debasing superstition which had previously overspread the sister country. For the daughter of Ahab was his wife. In 2 Kings 8:26 Athaliah, the wife of Jehoram, is called "the daughter of Omri;" but by "daughter" in that place must be meant "descendant" or "granddaughter." Athaliah has been well called "a second Jezebel." And he did evil in the sight of the Lord. The wicked actions of Jehoram are recorded at some length in Chronicles (2 Chronicles 21:2-4,2 Chronicles 21:11-13). Shortly after his accession he put to death his six brothers—Azariah, Jehiel, Zechariah, Ahaziah (?), Michael, and Shephatiah—in order to "strengthen himself." At the same time, he caused many of the "princes of Israel" to be executed. Soon afterwards he "made high places in the mountains of Judah, and caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit fornication" (i.e. to become idolaters), "and compelled Judah thereto." That the idolatry, which he introduced, was the Baal-worship is clear, both from the present passage and from 2 Chronicles 21:13. 2 Kings 8:19 Yet the Lord would not destroy Judah for David his servant’s sake. The natural punishment of apostasy was rejection by God, and on rejection would, as a matter of course, follow destruction and ruin. God had declared by Moses, "If thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and statutes, which I command thee this day; all these curses shall come upon thee The Lord shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me. The Lord shall make the pestilence cleave unto thee, until he have consumed thee from off the land, whither thou goest to possess it. The Lord shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee till thou perish. And thy heaven which is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is underneath thee shall be iron …. The Lord shall cause thee to be smitten of thine enemies; thou shalt go out one way against them, and flee seven ways before them: and thou shalt be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth …. Thou shall become an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword, among all nations whither the Lord shall lead thee" (Deuteronomy 28:15-37). The apostasy of Jeheram, and of the nation under him, was calculated to bring about the immediate fulfillment of all these threats, and would have done so but for a restraining cause. God had made promises to David, and to his seed after him (2 Samuel 7:13-16; Psalms 89:29-37, etc.), which would be unfulfilled if Judah’s candlestick were at once removed. He had declared, "If thy children forsake my Law, and walk not in my statutes … I will visit their offences with the rod, and their sin with scourges. Nevertheless my loving-kindness will I not utterly take away, nor suffer my truth to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips; I have sworn once by my holiness that I will not fail David." If he had now swept away the Jewish kingdom, he would have dealt more hardly with these who clave to David than with those that broke off from him. He would not have shown the "faithfulness" or the "mercy" which he had promised, tie would have forgotten "the loving-kindnesses which he aware unto David in his truth" (Psalms 89:49). Therefore he would not—he could not—as yet "destroy Judah," with which, in point of fact, he bore for above three centuries longer, until at last the cup of their iniquities was full, and "there was no remedy." As he promised him to give him always a light, and to his children. There is no "and" in the original. Translate—As he promised him to give him always a light in respect of his children, and compare, for the promise of "a light" (1 Kings 11:36; 1 Kings 15:4; and Psalms 132:17). 2 Kings 8:20 In his days Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah. Edom had been conquered by Joab in the time of David, and had been treated with great severity, all the males, or at any rate all those of full age, having been put to death (1 Kings 11:15, 1 Kings 11:16). On the death of David, Edom seems to have revolted under a prince named Hadad, and to have re-established its independence. It had been again sub-jeered by the time of Jehoshaphat, who appointed a governor over it (1 Kings 22:47), and treated it as a portion of his own territories (2 Kings 3:8). Now the yoke was finally thrown off, as had been prophesied (Genesis 27:40). Edom became once more a separate kingdom, and was especially hostile to Judah. In the reign of Ahaz the Edomites "smote Judah" and carried away many captives (2 Chronicles 28:17). When the Chaldaeans attacked and besieged Jerusalem, they cried, "Down with it, down with it, even to the ground!" (Psalms 137:7). They looked on with joy at the capture of the holy city (Obadiah 1:12), and "stood in the crossway, to cut off such as escaped" (Obadiah 1:14). After the return from the Captivity, they were still Judah’s enemies, and am especially denounced as such by the Prophet Malachi (Malachi 1:3-5). In the Maccabee wars, we find them always on the Syrian side (1 Mac. 4:29, 61; 5:3; 6:31; 2 Macc. 10:15, etc.), doing their best to rivet the hateful yoke of the heathen on their suffering brethren. As Idumaeans, the Herodian family must have been specially hateful to the Jews. And made a king over themselves. The king mentioned in 2 Kings 3:9, 2 Kings 3:26 was probably a mere vassal king under Jehoshaphat. 2 Kings 8:21 So Joram went over to Zair. Naturally, Joram did not allow Edom to become independent without an attempt to reduce it. He invaded the country in full force, taking up a position at a place called Zair, which is not otherwise known. Zair (צָעִיר) can scarcely be Zoar (צוֹעַר), which, wherever it was, was certainly not in Edom; and it is hardly likely to be a corruption of "Seir" (צָעִיר), since the utterly unknown צעיר would scarcely be put by a copyist in the place of the well-known שׂעיר. Moreover, if Mount Seir were intended, it would probably have had the prefix הַר, as in 1 Chronicles 4:42; 2 Chronicles 20:10, 2 Chronicles 20:22, 2 Chronicles 20:23; Ezekiel 35:2, Ezekiel 35:3, Ezekiel 35:7, Ezekiel 35:15. "Seir" alone is poetical rather than historical, especially in the language of the later books of the Old Testament. And all the chariots with him; or, all his chariots (Revised Version). The article has the force of the possessive pronoun. And he rose by night, and smote the Edomites which compassed him about. Josephus understands the writer to mean that Joram made his invasion by night, and smote the Edomites on all sides (’Ant. Jud.,’ 9.5. § 1); but it seems better to suppose, with most modern commentators, that the meaning is the following: Soon after Joram invaded the country, he found himself surrounded and blocked in by the Edomite troops, and could only save himself by a night attack, which was so far successful that he broke through the enemy’s lines and escaped; his army, however, was so alarmed at the danger it had run, that it at once dispersed and returned home. And the captains of the chariots; i.e. the captains of the Edomite chariots. They too were "smitten," having probably taken the chief part in trying to prevent the escape. And the people fled into their tents; i.e. dispersed to their homes. Compare the cry of Jeroboam (1 Kings 12:16), "To your tents, O Israel!" 2 Kings 8:22 Yet Edom revolted; rather, and Edom revolted; or, so Edom revolted. Joram’s attempt having failed, the independence of the country was established. From under the hand of Judah unto this day. The successes of Amaziah and Azariah against Edom (2 Kings 14:7, 2 Kings 14:22) did not amount to reconquests. Edom continued a separate country, not subject to Judaea, and frequently at war with it, until the time of John Hyrcanus, by whom it was subjugated. "Unto this day" means, at the most, until the time when the Books of Kings took their present shape, which was before the return from the Captivity. Then Libnah revolted at the same time. Libnah was situated on the borders of Philistia, in the Shefelah, or low country, but towards its eastern edge. Its exact position is uncertain; but it is now generally thought to be identical with the modern Tel-es-Safi, between Gath and Ekron, about long. 34° 50’ E; Int. 31° 38’ N. It had been an independent city, with a king of its own, in the early Canaanite time (Joshua 10:30; Joshua 12:15), but had been assigned to Judah (Joshua 15:42), and had hitherto remained, so far as appears, contented with its position. Its people can scarcely have had any sympathy with the Edomites, and its revolt at this time can have had no close connection with the Edomite rebellion. Libnah’s sympathies would be with Philistia, and the occasion of the revolt may have been the invasion of Judaea by the Philistines in the reign of Jehoram, of which the author of Chronicles speaks (2 Chronicles 21:16), and in which Jehoram’s sons were carried off. 2 Kings 8:23 And the rest of the sets of Joram, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? Some of these acts are recorded in our present Second Book of Chronicles; e.g. his execution of his brothers and of many nobles (2 Chronicles 21:4); his erection of high places (2 Chronicles 21:11); his persecution of the followers of Jehovah (2 Chronicles 21:11); his reception of a writing from Elisha, which, however, had no effect upon his conduct (2 Chronicles 21:12-15); his war with the Philistines (2 Chronicles 21:16) and with the Arabs (2 Chronicles 21:16); his loss of all his sons but one during his lifetime; his long illness, and his painful death (2 Chronicles 21:18, 2 Chronicles 21:19). But the ’Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah’ was a work on a larger scale than the extant Book of Chronicles, and probably went into much greater detail. 2 Kings 8:24 And Joram slept with his fathers. Joram died after an illness, that lasted two years, of an incurable disease of his bowels. "No burning" was made for him, and there was no regret at his death. And was buried with his fathers in the city of David; i.e. in the portion of Jerusalem which David built; but, according to Josephus (’Ant. Jud.,’ 9.5. § 3) and the author of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 21:20), not in the sepulchers of the kings. And Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead. Ahaziah is called "Jehoahaz" in 2 Chronicles 21:17, by an inversion of the two elements of his name, and "Azariah" in 2 Chronicles 22:6, apparently by a slip of the pen. 2 Kings 8:25-29 THE WICKED REIGN OF AHAZIAH IN JUDAH. The writer continues the history of Judah through another reign—a very short one-almost to its close. He describes the wickedness of Ahaziah, for the most part, in general terms, attributes it to his connection with the "house of Ahab," and notes his alliance with Joram of Israel against the Syrians, and his visit to his brother monarch at Samaria, which led on to his death. 2 Kings 8:25 In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab King of Israel. In 2 Kings 9:29 the year of Ahaziah’s accession is said to have been Joram’s eleventh year. It is conjectured that he began to reign as viceroy to his father during his severe illness in Joram’s eleventh year, and became sole king at his father’s death in the year following. Did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram King of Judah begin to reign; i.e. begin to be full king. 2 Kings 8:26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. The writer of Chronicles says, "two and forty" (2 Chronicles 22:2), which is absolutely impossible, since his father was but forty when he died. Even "two and twenty" is a more advanced age than we should have expected, since Ahaziah was the youngest of Jehoram’s sons (2 Chronicles 21:17); he must therefore have been born in his father’s nineteenth year. Yet he had several elder brothers (2 Chronicles 21:17; 2 Chronicles 22:1)! To explain this, we have to remember (1) the early age at which marriage is contracted in the East (twelve years); and (2) the fact that each prince had, besides his wife, several concubines. That Joram had several appears from 2 Chronicles 21:17. And he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother’s Ares was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri King of Israel. There is something very remarkable in the dignity and precedence attached to Omri. He was, no doubt, regarded of a sort of second founder of the kingdom of Israel, having been the first monarch to establish anything like a stable dynasty. His "statutes" were looked upon as the fundamental laws of the kingdom, and were "kept" down to the time of its destruction (Micah 6:16). Foreigners knew Samaria as Beth. Khumri, or "the house of Omri." He is the only Israelite king mentioned by name on the Moabite Stone (line 5), and the earliest mentioned in the inscriptions of Assyria. Even Jehu, who put an end to his dynasty, was regarded by the Assyrians as his descendant, and known under the designation of" Yahua, the son of Khnmri" (Black Obelisk, epig. 2.). Athallah, the daughter of Ahab, is called "the daughter of Omri," not only in the present passage, but also in 2 Chronicles 22:2. 2 Kings 8:27 And he walked in the way of the house of Ahab. Compare what is said of Ahaziah of Israel in 1 Kings 22:52, 1 Kings 22:53, and of Jehoram of Judah in the present chapter (1 Kings 22:18). What is specially intended is that Ahaziah kept up the Baal-worship introduced by his father into Judah. And did evil in the sight of the Lord, as did the house of Ahab: for he was the son-in-law of the house of Ahab; literally, for he was related by marriage to the house of Ahab. צתן is any relation by marriage, not "son-in-law" in particular (see Exodus 3:1, and the comment on the place). 2 Kings 8:28 And he went with Joram the son of Ahab to the war against Hazael King of Syria in Ramoth-Gilead. Some translate, and Joram himself went; but this is a very rare use of אָת, and one which would be unnatural in this place—for why "Joram himself," when "Joram" alone would have been quite sufficient?—and still more unnatural in 2 Chronicles 22:5, where the same phrase occurs. It is best, therefore, to follow our translators, who are in accord both with the Septuagint and with the Vulgate. Ahaziah followed the example of his grandfather Jehoshaphat, who had accompanied Ahab to Ramoth-Gilead (1 Kings 22:29), to fight against the Syrians in the time of Benhadad. That the city was still disputed shows the importance which it possessed in the eyes of both parties. And the Syrians wounded Joram. It appears that Hazael, soon after his accession, with the ardor of a young prince anxious to distinguish himself, made an expedition against Ramoth-Gilead, which had been recovered by the Israelites between the death of Ahab and the time of which the historian is now treating. Joram went to the relief of the town with a large force, and, being received within the walls, maintained a gallant defense (2 Kings 9:14), in the course of which he was wounded severely, though not fatally. Thereupon he and his brother king quitted the town and returned to their respective capitals, leaving a strong garrison in Ramoth-Gilead under Jehu and some other captains. Joram needed rest and careful nursing on account of his wounds, and Ahaziah would naturally withdraw with him; since he could not serve under a mere general. 2 Kings 8:29 And King Joram went back to be healed in Jezreel. Jezreel was more accessible from Ramoth-Gilead than Samaria. It lay in the plain, and could be reached without traveling over any rough or mountainous country. It was also the usual place to which the court retired for rest and refreshment-the Versailles or Windsor of Samaria, as it has been called. Of the wounds which the Syrians had given him at Ramah, when he fought against Hazael wing of Syria. "Ramah" is another name for "Ramoth-Gilead" or "Ramoth in Gilead," which is the full name of the place. The word means "high," "elevated," and is cognate to Aram. And Ahaziah the son of Jehoram King of Judah went down to see Joram the son of Ahab in Jezreel. Ahaziah would probably take the route by way of Jericho, the Jordan valley, and the Wata el Jalud, and would consequently begin his journey by the rapid descent from Jerusalem to Jericho. Because he was sick; i.e. unwell, wounded. 2 Kings 8:1-6 All things work together for good to them that love God. The piety of the Shunammite had been sufficiently shown in the previous record left us of her (2 Kings 4:8-37). The sequel of her story indicates how, in a wonderful way, events and circumstances seemingly fortuitous and unconnected work together for the advantage and happiness of one who lives virtuously, and seeks in all things to serve God and advance the cause of religion. "The series of incidents," it has been well said, "forms a marvelous web of Divine dispensations" (Bahr). I. THE FAME. This lies at the root of the whole. If God had not ordained a famine upon the land—"called for it," and brought it about—none of the other incidents would have been possible. The woman would not have lost her property, would have had no occasion to "cry" to the king, and would have come into no personal contact either with him or with Gehazi. II. THE PROPHET’S WARNING. The prophet, when so terrible a calamity as a seven years’ famine impended over the land, might well have given all his thoughts to the general sufferings of the people, and have forgotten individuals. But God’s providence determines otherwise. Elisha bethinks himself of the Shunammite, albeit she is but a unit in the vast mass of suffering humanity, and warns her of the coming evil, bidding her quit the land and sojourn elsewhere. This advice, which she follows, is the second link in the chain. III. THE OF THE KING’S DESIRE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT ELISHA WITH THE RETURN OF THE WOMAN TO HER OWN LAND. It was, humanly speaking, a pure accident that the curiosity of the king with respect to Elisha happened to be aroused just as the famine was over, and the woman, having returned from Philistia into the land of Israel, found her estate occupied by another. It was another accident that she bethought herself of appealing to the king, instead of having recourse to any other remedy. IV. THE OF GEHAZI BEING OF HER CASE EXACTLY AS SHE MADE HER . Gehazi had scores of miracles to relate, and might have been discoursing of any one of them; but events were so ordered that it was of her child’s resurrection that he was telling the king, and not of any other miracle, when she came into the royal presence. This coincidence it was which so interested the king in her, that he at once gave the order for restoring her estate to her. We may learn from the entire narrative, (1) that our lives are divinely ordered; (2) that nothing happens to us by mere chance; (3) that events which seem to us, at the time when they happen, of the least possible importance, may be necessary links in the chain which Divine providence is forging for the ordering of our lives, and for the working out through them of the Divine purposes. 2 Kings 8:7-9 The power of calamity to bend the spirit of the proud. Benhadad had hitherto been an enemy of Jehovah and his prophets. He had sought Elisha’s life (2 Kings 6:13-20), and, when baffled in his design to seize his person, had made a bold attempt to crush and destroy the whole Israelite nation. But now God had laid his hand upon him; he was prostrated on a sick-bed; and lo! all was altered. The mighty monarch, so lately glorying in his strength, and, in his own opinion, infinitely above any soi-disant prophet, is brought down so low that, on hearing of Elisha’s having come voluntarily to his capital, instead of seizing him, he sends him a humble embassy. Hazael, a high officer of the court, is bidden to "take a present in his hand, and go meet the man of God, and inquire of Jehovah by him—Will the king recover from his disease?" The present is a rich one, made by Oriental ostentation to appear even grander than it is in reality. Forty camels bear their burden to the prophet’s door, and bring him "every good thing of Damascus," without let or stint. The great king calls himself Elisha’s son—"Thy son Benhadad has sent me to thee" (2 Kings 8:9). Never was there a more complete reversal of human conditions. The hunted enemy is now felt to be the best friend; is courted, flattered, propitiated both by act and word. The proud king grovels in the dust, is content to be the prophet’s son and servant, does him obeisance morally, and hangs upon his words as those of one with whom are the issues of life and death! And so it is with the proud and mighty generally. (1) A Pharaoh despises Jehovah, and asks, "Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice and let Israel go? I know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel go" (Exodus 5:2); but in a little time the same Pharaoh has to rise up in the dead of the night, and to call for Jehovah’s servants, Moses and Aaron, and to entreat them to go forth from among his people, both they and the children of Israel, and go, serve Jehovah, as they had said; also to take their flocks and their herds, as they had said, and to be gone; and to "bless him also" (Exodus 12:31, Exodus 12:32). (2) An Ahab lets loose the dogs of persecution against the people of God, destroys the prophets of Jehovah, and sells himself to work evil in the sight of the Lord; but, when boldly rebuked and threatened with calamity, all his pride forsakes him, and he rends his clothes, and puts sackcloth upon his flesh, and fasts, and lies in sackcloth, and goes softly (1 Kings 21:27). (3) A Manasseh turns from God to worship Baal, and does after all the abominations of the heathen, and builds again the high places, and rears up altars for Baal, and uses witchcraft, and sets up a carved image in the house of God, and sheds innocent blood very much till he fills Jerusalem from one end to another (2 Kings 21:16), and does worse than the heathen whom the Lord destroyed before the children of Israel, even causing Isaiah (according to the tradition) to be sawn asunder; but calamity smites him, the captains of the host of the King of Assyria take him, and put hooks in his mouth, and chains upon his limbs, and carry him captive to Babylon to the King of Assyria—then all his pride falls away from him like a cast-off garment, and in his affliction he beseeches the Lord his God, and humbles himself greatly before the God of his fathers, and prays to him, and makes supplication, and is forgiven, and thenceforth serves Jehovah (2 Chronicles 33:11-16). The pastor who has under his charge proud, tyrannical, oppressive persons, who scorn rebuke, and think to ride roughshod over their fellow-men, may wait with a good hope for the hour of sickness or calamity, which sooner or later, unless in the case of sudden death, comes to all. He will find the Benhadad of the sick-room a very different person from the Benhadad of the camp, or of the court, or of the mart, and one much more open to admonition. Hardness, stubbornness, self-reliance, can scarcely survive, when the weakness of decay and the helplessness of acute sickness have supervened. He need not despair, however cruel, oppressive, and injurious to others the man’s earlier life may have been. If a Benhadad could humble himself, if an Ahab could repent and "go softly," if a Manasseh could turn to God and obtain pardon, there must be a possibility of repentance even for the most hardened sinners. 2 Kings 8:10-15 Hazael and Elisha. The contrast is striking between the two characters here brought for the first and last time into contact. In Hazael we have— I. THE CRAFTY SCHEMER, cunning and treacherous, who sees in his master’s calamity his own opportunity; who feels no gratitude for past favors, no pity for present weakness and suffering, no compunction at playing a double part; who has no horror of crime, no dread of the enduring infamy which attaches to the assassin and the traitor. Hazael is wise in a certain sense—he is clever, audacious, skilful in devising means to ends, secret, determined, unscrupulous. He contrives a mode of death which will leave no trace of violence, and may appear accidental, if suspicion arises that it has not happened in the ordinary course of nature. II. THE MAN OF BLOOD. Hazael is altogether cruel and unsparing. He reaches the throne through blood. As king, he deluges Israel in blood, "cutting the nation short, and smiting them in all their coasts" (2 Kings 10:32); "destroying them, and making them like the dust by threshing" (2 Kings 13:7). We must view him as a born soldier, never so happy as when engaged in a campaign, now resisting the attacks of Assyria on his northern border, now attacking the Philistines (2 Kings 12:17), almost constantly warring with his immediate neighbors the kings of Israel, once even threatening Judah, and "setting his face to go up to Jerusalem" (2 Kings 12:17) in the hope of taking it. III. THE WARRIOR. Hazael succeeded in repulsing the Assyrians, and maintaining his independence, notwithstanding all their efforts to conquer him. He reduced Israel to a species of semi-subjection (2 Kings 13:7). He compelled even Judaea to purchase peace at his hands (2 Kings 12:18). He was, on the whole, the most warlike of all the early kings of Syria; and, though he suffered one great defeat at the hands of the Assyrian king, Shalmaneser II; yet he issued from the struggle unsubdued, and left his dominions intact to his son and successor, Benhadad III. In Elisha, on the other hand, we have— I. THE WISE, CLEAR-SIGHTED, SINGLE-MINDED, HONEST ADVISER. Elisha has no cunning, no art, no special cleverness. But he can read character; he can see through Hazael’s designs. Whether king, or noble, or common person applies to him for advice, he uses the same simplicity, counsels each as seems to him for the best, and seeks to gain nothing for himself by the advice which he gives them. His plainness offends Naaman (2 Kings 5:12); his firmness enrages Jehoram (2 Kings 6:31); his penetration disconcerts Hazael (2 Kings 8:11); but he cares nothing how men may receive his words. It is a Divine message that he delivers, and deliver the message he must and will, in simple plain language, whether men will hear or whether they will forbear. II. THE MAN OF PEACE. Elisha’s character is eminently peaceful and conciliatory. He weeps at the thought of those horrors which war causes almost of necessity (2 Kings 8:11). Once only do his counsels lead on to an engagement (2 Kings 3:16-24); mostly he contrives that perils shall be averted without the shedding of blood (2 Kings 6:18-22; 2 Kings 7:6-15). He will not allow the prisoners that he has made to be put to death, or in any way ill treated (2 Kings 6:22, 2 Kings 6:23). He seeks to check Hazael’s murderous propensities by a look which he cannot misunderstand (2 Kings 8:11). III. THE PROPHET AND TEACHER. The office of the prophet was to rebuke sin, as Elisha did (2 Kings 3:13, 2 Kings 3:14), to sustain faith, to train up fresh prophets, to teach the faithful (2 Kings 4:23), to announce God’s will to king and people, and to execute commissions with which God specially entrusted him. Elisha never failed in the performance of any of these duties. Cast upon a dark time, when a debasing superstition, imported from a foreign country, had full possession of the court and had laid a strong hold upon the country, he faithfully upheld Jehovah and Jehovah’s laws before backsliding kings and "a disobedient and gainsaying people." To Elisha principally it was owing that true religion still maintained itself in the land against the persecutions of Jezebel and her sons, and that, when the dynasty of Omri came to an end, there was still a faithful remnant left, which had not bowed the knee to Baal, but had clung to Jehovah under all manner of difficulties. If Elisha left no great prophet to succeed him, it was probably because great men are not made to order, and God’s providence did not see fit to continue the succession of first-rate prophetical teachers, which had been raised up to meet the extreme danger of the introduction and maintenance of a false state religion by apostate kings. When two such characters are brought into contact, the natural result is mutual repulsion. Hazael is ashamed that Elisha should read him so well; and Elisha weeps when he thinks of the woes that Hazael will inflict upon Israel Outward respect is maintained; But the two must have felt, when they parted, that they were adversaries for life, bent on opposite courses, with opposed principles, aims, motives; not only the servants of different gods, but antagonistic in their whole conception of life and its objects, sure to clash if ever they should meet again, and, even if they should not meet, sure to be ever working for different ends, and engaged in thwarting one the other. 2 Kings 8:16-27 The power of bad women for evil. All the evil wrought, all the irreligion, all the licentiousness and depravity, and almost all the misery suffered during the reigns of Ahab, Ahaziah, and Jehoram in Israel, and of Jehoram and Ahaziah in Judah, were caused by the machinations and influence of two wicked women—Jezebel and her daughter Athaliah. Jezebel, a proud imperious woman, born in the purple, a "king’s daughter;" and extraordinarily strong-minded and unscrupulous, obtained a complete ascendancy over the weak and unstable Ahab, and must be viewed as the instigator of all his wicked actions. With Ahab’s connivance, she "slew the prophets of the Lord," persecuted the faithful, set up the worship of Baal and Ashtoreth in Samaria, introduced into Israel the unchaste rites of the Dea Syra and of Adonis, threatened the life of Elijah and drove him into banishment, contrived the judicial murder of Naboth, and imparted to Ahab’s reign that character of licentiousness and bloody cruelty which gives it its sad pre-eminence above all others in the black list of Israel’s monarchs. Nor did Jezebel’s evil influence stop her. She outlived her husband by some thirteen years, and during that period was the evil genius of her two sons, Ahaziah and Jehoram. Ahaziah she completely perverted (2 Kings 22:1-20:52, 53). Over Jehoram she had less influence; but to her we must ascribe it that during his reign the Baal-worship continued in the capital (2 Kings 10:25-27) and in the country districts (2 Kings 10:21), though he himself took no part in it (2 Kings 3:2). Athaliah, though without the strength of mind and will which characterized her mother, resembled her, as a faint replica resembles a strongly painted portrait. Married to Jehoram of Israel, a weak prince, she had little difficulty in establishing her ascendancy over him, and becoming his chief adviser and counselor (2 Kings 8:18). It was under her direction that Jehoram "made high places in the mountains of Judah, and caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit fornication, and compelled Judah thereto" (2 Chronicles 21:11), or, in other words, established the Baal-worship in Judah and Jerusalem, and forced the inhabitants to embrace it. Over Ahaziah, her son, who was but two and twenty at his accession, her influence was naturally greater. He seems to have been a mere puppet in her hands (2 Chronicles 22:3-5). With a boldness worthy of her mother, Athaliah, on the death of her son Ahaziah, murdered all his half-brothers, and seized the sovereign power, which she held for six years—a unique feature in the history of the Jews. The Baal-worship was now made to supersede the worship of Jehovah in the temple on Mount Zion, and Mattan, the chief of Baal, was installed in the place previously occupied by the Aaronic high priest (2 Chronicles 23:17). Jehovah-worship was forbidden, persecuted, and probably ceased, except in secret; and the kingdom of Judah was, so far as appearances went, apostate. Such were the evils wrought by these two ambitious and wicked women. The history of the world, though it can furnish no exact parallels, has many cases more or less similar. Semiramis may be a myth, but Queen Hatasu in Egypt, Queens Atossa and Parysatis in Persia, Olympia in Greece, Messalina and Poppaea Sabina in Rome, Catharine de Medici, and Catherine Empress of Russia, in modern Europe, were women equally imperious, equally determined, and the prolific causes of equal mischief. It would seem that, in the female nature, where the natural impulses are so largely towards good, if these are perverted and Satan allowed the mastery, there is no longer any let or restraint; the passions become ungovernable, the will as iron, the heart hard and unrelenting; evil has unresisted sway, and the result is something even more fearful and terrible than the wickedness of the worst man. Corruptio optimi pessima. Woman’s function in the world is to be soft and tender, to smooth down man’s roughnesses, to pacify and soothe and mitigate; if she abnegates these functions, and assumes the man’s duties of ruling and repressing and bending to her will the stubborn necks of others, she runs counter to her proper nature, and becomes a monstrosity. There is no saying to what lengths of profligacy, cruelty, and other wickedness she may not go. She is worse than a wild beast, and may do infinitely more evil. She may utterly corrupt a society, or she may deluge with blood a continent. She may ruin the country to which she belongs and bring its fairest provinces to desolation. She may stir up hatreds, set class against class, and cause a civil war that shall cost the lives of hundreds of thousands. The only security against all this mischief is for woman not to desert her sphere, but to remain within it, working for God, and doing the good which she was designed to do. BY C.H. IRWIN 2 Kings 8:1-6 The Shunammite’s land restored. The Bible has a good deal to say about the land question. There is one memorable passage in Isaiah (v. 8): "Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth l" There is another memorable passage in the Epistle of St, James: "Behold, the hire of the laborers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord God of Sabaoth." If such denunciations of oppression and wrong had been remembered, we should have had less of socialistic combinations and less of agrarian crime. In this passage we have— I. A COMMAND OBEYED. Elisha’s command seemed a hard one. This woman of Shunem was to arise with her household, and leave her home and farm for seven years. He told her, indeed, that there was to be a famine in the land. But she might have wanted more proof. She might have said, "Well, I shall wait till I see some signs of the famine. It is a great hardship to have to get up in this way and leave my home, without any immediate reason. What if Elisha’s fears should turn out to be untrue? May not the famine be as bad anywhere else?" So men often reason when God gives them some command or points out to them the way of salvation. Lot lingered, when urged to depart out of Sodom, though the very angels of God had come to warn him of his doom. So men linger still, when urged to flee from the wrath to come. They linger, though every day is bringing them nearer to eternity. They linger, though they know not the day nor the hour when the Son of man may come. Whether it be the path of salvation or the path of Christian service which God calls us to tread, let us not linger, let us not hesitate to obey, but, like this woman of Shunem, let us do at once what God commands. II. LOSS . This woman actually did suffer by her prompt obedience. She escaped the famine, indeed, but she lost her land. On this subject Dr. Thomson says, in ’The Land and the Book,’ "It is still common for even petty sheikhs to confiscate the property of any person who is exiled for a time, or who moves away temporarily from his district. Especially is this true of widows and orphans, and the Shunammite was now a widow. And small is the chance to such of having their property restored, unless they can secure the mediation of some one more influential than themselves. The conversation between the king and Gehazi about his master is also in perfect keeping with the habits of Eastern princes; and the appearance of the widow and her son so opportunely would have precisely the same effect now that it had then. Not only the land, but all the fruits of it would be restored. There is an air of genuine verisimilitude in such simple narratives which it is quite impossible for persons not intimately familiar with Oriental manners to appreciate, but which stamps the incidents with undoubted certainty." We may incur loss from a worldly point of view by obeying a command of God. But which do we prefer—worldly gain or a conscience at peace with God? Which less is greater—the loss of a few pounds, or the loss of our heavenly Father’s smile? Even if we do lose by it—it is best to do the will of God, to follow in the footsteps of Jesus. III. ASKED. We are not told what led to this remarkable conversation which Jehoram had with Gehazi. Perhaps the time of famine had humbled him. Perhaps he was becoming penitent for his threat of taking Elisha’s life. Perhaps it was mere idle curiosity. But at any rate, here is the King of Israel inquiring of Gehazi, "Tell me, I pray thee, all the great things that Elisha hath done." Gehazi, at this time, loved to think and speak of Elisha. He had been a good master to him. His deeds were worth recording. And so Gehazi proceeds to tell the story of Elisha’s mighty deeds. 1. We ought to be ready to answer questions about our Master. They may proceed from curiosity, from wrong motives, Never mind. Our answer, given in a Christian spirit, may be the means of disarming ridicule. It may be an opportunity for us to tell the old, old story of the cross. 2. We ought not to be ashamed of our Master. He is "the chiefest among ten thousand … and altogether lovely." His Name is above every name. The Name, the life, the works, the words, of Jesus ought to be a favorite theme with us. IV. MADE. When God’s time comes, how very easily he can fulfill his purposes! Gehazi had just reached that part of his story where Elisha restored the Shunammite’s son to life, when, to his astonishment and delight, the Shunammite herself appeared on the scene. She came with her petition to the king that he would cause her house and land to be restored. Gehazi, not, perhaps, very regardful of courtesy or etiquette, calls out in the fullness of his joy, "My lord, O king, this is the woman, and this is her son, whom Elisha restored to life." The king, whose feelings had already been touched by the pathetic narrative of the little lad carried home from the harvest-field to die, touched also by the entreaty of the woman for the restoration of her lost property, and perhaps recognizing the hand of Providence in the remarkable events of that day, gives orders that not only her land, but the fruits of it from the day she left, should be restored to her. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Kings 9:1-37 THE OF JEHU. His MURDER OF JEHORAM AND AHAZIAH. THE DEATH OF JEZEBEL. 2 Kings 9:1-10 Elisha is still the primary figure in the historical drama; but at this point his personality merges in the general account of the kingdom of Israel, which it is one of the objects of the writer to trace from beginning to end. Elisha here performs his last public act, being commissioned, and carrying out his commission, to transfer the kingdom of Israel from the unworthy dynasty of Omri, which on account of its persistent idolatry has fallen under Divine condemnation, to a new dynasty, that of Jehu, which will, at any rate, check the worst excesses of the prevalent idolatrous system, and maintain the Jehovah-worship as the religion of the state. The position recalls that of Saul and David at the original institution of the monarchy, but has many special points which differentiate it from that conjuncture. The circumstances called on Jehu for prompt action; there was no such immediate call upon David. Jehu’s public proclamation as king laid him open to a charge of high treason; David’s secret anointing placed him in no such danger. History never repeats itself exactly, and its events have severally to be judged by a consideration of all their circumstances, without much reference to any former quasi-parallel historical passage. 2 Kings 9:1-10 The anointing of Jehu. 2 Kings 9:1 And Elisha the prophet called one of the children of the prophets; i.e. one of the students in one of the prophetical schools which he superintended. There is no indication that the individual chosen for the mission stood to Elisha in any peculiar relation. A rabbinical fancy, scarcely to be called a tradition, makes him "Jonah, the son of Amittai." And said unto him, Gird up thy loins, and take this box of oil; rather, this flask of oil. Oil and ointments were commonly kept in open-mouthed jars, vases, or bottles, made of stone, glass, or alabaster, as appears from the remains found in Egypt and Assyria. Many of the bottles are earlier than the time of Elisha. In thine hand, and go to Ramoth-Gilead. Ramoth-Gilead lay across the Jordan, in the proper territory of Gad. It had been seized and occupied by the Syrians in the reign of Ahab; and the possession had been maintained till recently. Joram, however, had recovered it (Josephus, ’Ant. Jud.,’ 9.6. § 1, Ἤδηγὰραὐτὴνἡρήκεικατὰκράτος), and had left a strong garrison in the place when he retired to Jezreel. 2 Kings 9:2 And when thou comest thither, look out Share Jehu the son of Jehoshaphat the son of Nimshi. Jehu had been in a high position under Ahab (2 Kings 9:25), and had been pointed out to Elijah, by Divine revelation, as the future King of Israel (1 Kings 19:16). Elijah had been bidden to anoint him king, but apparently had neglected to do so, or rather had devolved the task upon his successor. Meantime Jehu served as a soldier under Ahaziah and Jehoram, Ahab’s sons, and attained such distinction that he became one of the captains of the host (infra, 2 Kings 9:5), according to Josephus (l.s.c.) the chief captain. Jehu was commonly known as "the son of Nimshi" (1 Kings 19:16; 2 Kings 9:20), either because, his father having died young, he was brought up by his grandfather, or perhaps simply "because Nimshi was a person of more importance than Jehoshaphat." And go in—i.e; seek his presence, go into his quarters, wherever they may be, have direct speech with him—and make him arise up from among his brethren. Jehu’s "brethren" are his brother-officers, among whom Elisha knows that he will be found sitting. And carry him to an inner chamber. Persuade him, i.e; to quit the place where thou wilt find him sitting with the other generals, and to go with thee into a private apartment for secret conference. Secrecy was of extreme importance, lest Joram should get knowledge of what was happening, and prepare himself for resistance. Had he not been taken by surprise, the result might have been a long and bloody civil war. 2 Kings 9:3 Then take—rather, and take—the box of oil—rather, the flask of oil—and pour it on his head. Compare the consecration of Aaron to the high-priestly (Leviticus 2 Kings 8:12), and of Saul (1 Samuel 10:1) and David (1 Samuel 16:12) to the kingly office. The oil used was the holy anointing oil of the sanctuary (Exodus 30:25)—τὸἅγιονἔλαιον, as Josephus says. And say, Thus faith the Lord, I have anointed thee king over Israel. This is an abbreviated form of the actual message, which is given in its entirety in 2 Kings 9:7-10. The writer of Kings avoids all needless repetitions. Then open the door—the conference was to be with closed doors, that no one might either hear or see what took place—and flee, and tarry not. The Divine message delivered, all would have been done that needed to be done. There would be nothing to wait for. So the young man was to depart with the same haste with which he had come. 2 Kings 9:4 So the young man, even the young man the prophet—the repetition of han-na’ar is doubtful, since it is not found either in the Syriac or in the Septuagint—went to Ramoth-Gilead. 2 Kings 9:5 And when he came, behold, the captains of the host were sitting—either "sitting in council," or, at any rate, collected together in one place, not engaged in any active work, but seated—and he said, I have an errand—literally, a word—to thee, O captain. Probably he knew Jehu by sight, and looked at him as he spoke; but, as he addressed no one by name, there might be a doubt who was intended. Jehu, therefore, causes the doubt to be resolved by his question. And Jehu said, Unto which of all us? And he said—i.e; the young man the prophet answered—To thee, O captain. Jehu was thus singled out as the object of the message—the person to whom alone it was addressed, and whose special attention was, consequently, required to it. 2 Kings 9:6 And he (Jehu) arose, and went into the house. Jehu left his seat, rose up, and led the way, from the court, where he had probably been sitting with the other generals, into the house which adjoined the court. The messenger followed; and the two were together, alone. And he—i.e. the messenger—poured the oil on his head—as directed (2 Kings 9:3)—and said unto him, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel; literally, Thus saith Jehovah, God of Israel. Jehovah’s name is emphatically put forward, in contrast with the name of Baal, as that of the true God of Israel; and appeal is made to Jehu, as to one whose God is Jehovah, and who will accept as authoritative a message emanating from him. I have anointed thee king over the people of the Lord, even over Israel; literally, over the people of Jehovah, over Israel. Practically, the people is, in the main, "the people of Baal" (2 Kings 10:19-21), but theoretically and by covenant it is "the people of Jehovah"—his "peculiar people" (Deuteronomy 14:2), chosen by him out of all the nations of the earth to be his own. 2 Kings 9:7 And thou shalt smite the house of Ahab thy master. This is plainly a command, not a prophecy. Jehu is expressly ordered by God to "smite," i.e. destroy utterly, the whole house of Ahab. This command he carried out (2 Kings 9:24, 2 Kings 9:33; 2 Kings 10:1-11); and his obedience to it obtained for him the temporal reward that his children to the fourth generation should sit on the throne of Israel (2 Kings 10:30). Yet still his conduct in destroying the house of Ahab is spoken of by the Prophet Hosea as a sin, and God declares, by Hosea’s mouth, that he will "avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu" (Hosea 1:4). It is naturally asked—"How could Jehu’s shedding this blood, at God’s command and in fulfillment of his will, be a sin?" And it is rightly answered, "Because, if we do what is the will of God for any end of our own, for anything except God, we do in fact our own will, not God’s. It was not lawful for Jehu to depose and slay the king his master, except at the express command of God, who, as the supreme King, sets up and puts down earthly rulers as he wills. For any other end, and done otherwise than at God’s express command, such an act is sin. Jehu was rewarded for the measure in which he fulfilled God’s commands, as Ahab, ’who had sold himself to work wickedness,’ had yet a temporal reward for humbling himself publicly, when rebuked by God for his sin, and so honoring God, amid an apostate people. But Jehu, by cleaving, against the will of God, to Jeroboam’s sin (2 Kings 11:1-21:29, 31), which served his own political ends, showed that, in the slaughter of his master, he acted, not as he pretended, out of zeal for the will of God (2 Kings 10:16), but served his own will and his own ambition only. By his disobedience to the one command of God, he showed that he would have equally disobeyed the other, had it been contrary to his own will or interest. He had no principle of obedience. And so the blood which was shed according to the righteous judgment of God, became sin to him that shed it in order to fulfill, not the will of God, but his own". That I may avenge the blood of my servants the prophets. Comp. 1 Kings 18:4 and 1 Kings 19:14. Elijah believed all the prophets of Jehovah, except himself, to have been either slain or banished under Ahab, as we see from 1 Kings 18:22 and 1 Kings 19:10, 1 Kings 19:14. And the blood of all the servants of the Lord. There had evidently been a general persecution of the followers of Jehovah, and not merely a persecution of the prophets. It was only after a number of martyrdoms that the followers of Jehovah in Israel were reduced (1 Kings 19:18) to the scanty number of "seven thousand." At the hand of Jezebel. Jezebel was at the bottom of all the persecutions. Sometimes she took matters into her own hands, gave her own orders, and saw them carried out (1 Kings 18:13; 1 Kings 21:8-14). At other times she was content to "stir her husband up" (1 Kings 21:25) and incite him to evil courses. 2 Kings 9:8 For the whole house of Ahab shall perish: and I will cut off from Ahab him that passeth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel (see the comment on 1 Kings 14:10). While the exact force of the phrases used is doubtful, the general intention to embrace in the sentence all Ahab’s posterity cannot be doubted. 2 Kings 9:9 And I will make the house of Ahab like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat. Jeroboam’s house had been "cut off," smitten, destroyed, till not one of his posterity was left, about seventy years previously (1 Kings 15:29), by Baasha, "because of his sins which he sinned, and which he made Israel sin, by his provocation wherewith he provoked the Lord God of Israel to anger" (1 Kings 15:30). The far greater sin of Ahab could not be visited with less severity. And like the house of Baasha the Son of Ahijah. As the whole house of Jeroboam had been cut off for its idolatries, so the house of Baasha, which succeeded to the throne, was removed even more speedily, Baasha himself and all his posterity being swept from the earth by. Zimri, who "smote him and killed him," and succeeded him (1 Kings 16:11). The house of Ahab had had a double warning of the fate in reserve for those who deserted the religion of Jehovah, but had disregarded both warnings alike, and had provoked God yet more than their predecessors, by introducing a novel and degraded form of idolatrous worship. 2 Kings 9:10 And the dogs shall eat Jezebel in the portion of Jezreel. This had been previously prophesied by Elijah (1 Kings 21:23; 2 Kings 9:26, 2 Kings 9:27). To an Israelite, and even to a Phoenician, it was an awful threat; for both nations alike buried their dead carefully in deep-dug graves or rocky receptacles, and both regarded the desecration of a corpse as a grievous calamity. The dog was to the Hebrews, and to the Orientals generally, an unclean animal, and to be devoured by dogs would have been viewed as a fate which, for a queen, was almost inconceivable. And there shall be none to bury her. Jezebel had no one sufficiently interested in her fate to watch over her remains. Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah, had kept watch over the bodies of the seven sons of Saul, and suffered neither the birds of the air to rest on them by day, nor the beasts of the field by night (2 Samuel 21:10); and in Greece, if we may believe the poets, life had been risked, and actually forfeited, to save a near relative from similar ignominy. But "Jezebel had none to bury her." When she was ejected from the palace window (2 Kings 9:33) and fell to the ground, and was trodden under foot by Jehu’s chariot-horses, no one came forth from the palace to give the bruised and wounded corpse such tendance as was possible. There was entire neglect of the body for (probably) some hours; and, during these, the catastrophe occurred which Divine foresight had prophesied, but which human malice had not intended (see 2 Kings 9:34-37). And he opened the door, and fled. The young man the prophet obeyed to the letter the injunctions which Elisha had given him (2 Kings 9:3). The moment that he had executed his errand, he fled. 2 Kings 9:11-22 Conspiracy of Jehu against Jehoram. 2 Kings 9:11 Then Jehu came forth to the servants of his lord. After the young man the prophet had made his precipitate retreat, Jehu, too, quitted the inner chamber, and "came forth"—returned to the place where he had been sitting with "the servants of his lord"—the other captains of the host (2 Kings 9:5)—and rejoined their company. And one said unto him, Is all well? One of the other captains of the host took the word and asked, in the ordinary phraseology of the time, "Is it peace?"—or, in other words, u Is all right?" "Is all well?" The sudden appearance and disappearance of the messenger had evidently created an impression that all was not well. Wherefore came this mad fellow to thee? He did not suppose the man to be actually mad. He calls him "this wild fellow"—"this scatterbrain," on account of the haste and strangeness of his conduct; but he quite expects to hear that there was "method in the madness," and that the communication had some serious import. And he—i.e. Jehu—said unto them, Ye know the man, and his communication. Jehu suspected that the whole scene had been arranged beforehand; that Elisha and the young prophet and the captains of the host were in league, and had concerted a way of offering him the throne. He may have had reason to regard the captains as disaffected towards Jehoram, though this does not appear at all distinctly in the very brief narrative. 2 Kings 9:12 And they said, It is false. There was no rudeness in the reply. It merely denied that Jehu’s supposition was correct. There had been no collusion between the spiritual and temporal authorities. The captains had no knowledge of the young prophet’s errand. Tell us now. "Tell us," i.e; "what the young prophet said, since we are completely in the dark upon the subject." And he said, Thus and thus spoke he to me, saying, Thus saith the Lord, I have anointed thee king over Israel. Jehu declared to them without any reserve all that the young prophet had said to him. He accepted their declaration that they were not in league with him, and then gave them an exact account of all that had occurred. He left it for them to determine what, under the circumstances, they would do. 2 Kings 9:13 Then they hasted, and took every man his garment, and put it under him on the top of the stairs. Kings were honored by the spreading of garments in their way, that their feet might not touch the dusty ground (Matthew 20:8). The captains of the host, without hesitation, acclaimed Jehu king on the strength of the prophetical announcement, made his cause their own, and joined in his rebellion. It is reasonably conjectured (Bahr) that "a deep dissatisfaction with Joram must have prevailed in the army," though whether the dissatisfaction arose from the idolatry of the house of Ahab, or from Joram’s withdrawal from the war, may be doubted, Jehu, on the ether hand, was evidently highly esteemed. The captains threw themselves with ardor into his cause, and extemporized a sort of enthronement. As often in an Oriental house, an external staircase led from the court to the upper story or to the roof. This they carpeted with their begeds, or outer cloaks, and, seating him on the top stair, saluted him as actual king. The expression, el-gerem hamma’aloth, is not literally, "on the top of the stairs," but rather "on the stairs themselves." Naturally, however, the captains would emplace him upon the topmost stair. And blew with trumpets. This was a recognized part of the ceremonial of a coronation (see 2 Samuel 15:10; 1 Kings 1:39; 2 Kings 11:14). Saying, Jehu is king. 2 Kings 9:14 So Jehu the son of Jehoshaphat the son of Nimshi (see the comment on 2 Kings 9:2) conspired against Joram. It is not meant that there was a secret conspiracy previous to the prophet’s coming, but that, by the open acts which followed on his coming, Jehu and the captains were guilty of a "conspiracy." Now Joram had kept Ra-moth-Gilead; rather, now Joram was keeping Ramoth-Gilead. Joram, in his capacity of chief ruler, was keeping, i.e. defending, Ramoth-Gilead against the Syrians with the bulk of his forces. He and all Israel, because of Hazael King of Syria; since Hazael wished to win the city back, and would have done so, had it not been stoutly defended. The writer speaks of Joram as the defender, though he was absent, because the defense was made under his orders. Then, to lore-vent misunderstanding, he repeats what he had already said in 2 Kings 8:29 with respect to Joram’s wounds, and his retirement to Jezreel to be healed of them. 2 Kings 9:15 But King Joram was returned to be healed in Jezreel of the wounds which the Syrians had given him, when he fought with Hazael King of Syria (see the comment on 2 Kings 8:29). And Jehu said, If it be your minds. As soon as he is proclaimed king, Jehu addresses himself to the captains, and proposes a policy. He does not venture to assume a tone of authority, or of imperative command, since he is still but a pretender, and not "established in the kingdom." "If it be your minds," he says; i.e. "If you agree with me, and have nothing to urge against my proposal. Then let none go forth nor escape from the city—literally, let no escaper go forth from the city—equivalent to let no one quit the city—to go to tell it in Jezreel. This is the important point. Secrecy was absolutely essential. If the revolt had got wind—and a single messenger might have carried the news—the whole attempt might have failed, or only have succeeded after a long and bloody civil war. All John’s efforts were bent on keeping his revolt secret until he himself announced it to the astonished king (see verse 22). 2 Kings 9:16 So Jehu rode in a chariot, and went to Jezreel; for Joram lay there. We must understand that the captains came into Jehu’s views, acknowledged the necessity of secrecy, and took precautions against the departure of any one, openly or secretly, from the city. Jehu, with a moderate troop or company (שִׁפְעֶה), sets out, perhaps on the very day of his enthronement, and hastens with all speed to Jezreel, bent on arriving there before any suspicion has arisen of revolt or rebellion. His great object was to surprise Joram, and to kill or capture him before he could take any steps to organize a defense. Probably the force which accompanied him was wholly a chariot force. And Ahaziah King of Judah was come down to see Joram (see 2 Kings 8:29, and the comment ad. loc). Ahaziah, it must be remembered, was Joram’s nephew, as well as his ally in the war against Syria. It was natural that he should visit his uncle when he was wounded, even if the wounds were not very serious. 2 Kings 9:17 And there stood a watchman on the tower in Jezreel; literally, and the watchman stood on the tower in Jezreel. The watchtower on the southeast, towards Ramoth-Gilead, is intended. There were probably others in other directions; but the writer is not concerned with them. Each watchtower had its one watchman, who gave warning if anything unusual caught his attention. And he spied the company of Jehu as he came. Shiph’ah is generally "abundance," "multitude" (Deuteronomy 33:19; Job 22:11; Isaiah 60:6), but seems here to designate a "baud ’ or "company" of moderate size. It is a somewhat rare word. And said, I see a company. The watchman gave notice to those whose business it was to inform the king, that a band or company of men was approaching the city. And Joram said, Take an horseman, and send to meet them, and let him say, Is it peace? Joram apprehended no danger. If the "company" had been a band of Syrians, or other enemies, coming in hostile fashion, the watchman would have worded his warning differently. The king probably concluded that he was about to receive tidings from the seat of war, and meant to ask, "Is the news good or bad—peaceful or the contrary?" No blame attaches to him for not taking alarm at once. 2 Kings 9:18 So there went one on horseback to meet him, and said, Thus saith the king, Is it peace? And Jehu said, What hast thou to do with peace! turn thee behind me. Jehu chooses to accept the messenger’s words as if they were his own, and not those of the king. "What does it matter to such a one as thee, a mere common man, whether my tidings are peaceful or the contrary? I shall not tell thee my errand. Turn and follow in my train." The messenger had no choice but to obey. An attempt at flight would have led to his being seized or slain. And the watchman told, saying, The messenger came to them, but he cometh not again. The watchman evidently thought his not returning suspicious, and reported it at once. Joram should now have taken alarm, but he did not. He appears to have had no notion that any danger could be approaching. 2 Kings 9:19 Then he sent out a second on horseback. Persistency in a course shown by experience to be futile was characteristic of the sons of Ahab and Jezebel (compare the conduct of Ahaziah, as described in 2 Kings 1:9, 2 Kings 1:11, 2 Kings 1:13). Which came to them, and said, Thus saith the king, Is it peace? Exactly the same inquiry as before, and no doubt in the same sense (see the comment on 2 Kings 9:17). Jehu, addressed with the same words thinks it sufficient to give the same answer. His object is to lose no time, but to reach the king as quickly as possible. And Jehu answered, What hast thou to do with peace? turn thee behind me. 2 Kings 9:20 And the watchman told, saying, He came even unto them, and cometh not again. A still stranger circumstance, and one still more suspicious. The second messenger could only have been sent out because the king disapproved the detention or the first. Whoever, therefore, had detained the second messenger must be consciously acting in opposition to the wishes of the king. And the driving is like the driving of Jehu the son of Nimshi. It is not meant that Jehu was driving his own chariot (which great men never did, 2 Kings 22:1-20:34), and drove in a furious manner, but that the "company" was being urged forward at an unusual pace, in a reckless and hot-headed way. The watchman conjectured, therefore, that Jehu must be leading them, since he had a character for impetuosity. For he driveth furiously; or, madly—" like a madman" (Keil)—"praecipitanter" (Vatabl.). The LXX. translate ἐνπαραλλαγῇ—which has, perhaps, the same meaning. 2 Kings 9:21 And Joram said, Make ready—rather, harness; literally, attach—i.e. "attach the horses to the chariot—and his chariot was made ready—literally, and one attached, or harnessed, his chariot—and Joram King of Israel and Ahaziah King of Judah went out, each in his chariot. The uncle and the nephew went out together, still, as it would seem, unapprehensive of any danger, though the circumstances were certainly such as might well have amused suspicion. Joram was probably anxious to know the reasons which had induced the captain of his host to quit his post at Ramoth-Gilead. Ahaziah probably accompanied him out of politeness, though he too may have been curious to learn the news. If any disaster had overtaken the army of Israel, the safety of Judah might also be endangered. "Tun res agitur, paries cum proximus ardet." And they went out against Jehu—rather, to meet Jehu—εἰςἀπαντὴνἸοὺ (LXX.); see the Revised Version—and met him in the portion of Naboth the Jezreelite. Humanly speaking, this was accidental. The "portion of Naboth," or his plot of ground, lay outside the southeastern gate of the city, at no great distance from the walls; and it happened that Joram and Jehu met within its limits. Had the king started a little sooner, or had Jehu made less haste, the meeting would have taken place further from the town, and outside the "portion of Naboth." But Divine providence so ordered matters that vengeance for the sin of Ahab was exacted upon the very scene of his guilt, and a prophecy made, probably by Elisha, years previously, and treasured up in the memory of Jehu (2 Kings 9:26), was fulfilled to the letter. 2 Kings 9:22 And it came to pass, when Joram saw Jehu, that he said, Is it peace, Jehu? Still the same question is asked; but we cannot be sure that it is asked in exactly the same sense. Something in the aspect of Jehu, and in his furious haste, may by this time have alarmed the king. Or possibly he maybe merely repeating the question put through his messengers, and still unanswered, Is all well with the army or no? Has there been any disaster?" Jehu, at any rate, chooses to understand his vague phrase in the former sense, as if he had asked, "Is it peace between thee and me?" and answers in the negative. And he answered, What peace, so long as the whoredoms of thy mother Jezebel and her witch-crafts are so many? literally, so long as the whoredoms of thy mother Jezebel and those many witchcrafts of hers continue. By "whoredoms" are meant idolatries, as so frequently in Scripture (Leviticus 2 Kings 19:29; 2 Kings 20:5; Jeremiah 3:2, Jeremiah 3:9; Jeremiah 13:17; Ezekiel 16:17; Ezekiel 20:30; Ezekiel 23:11, etc.; Hosea 2:2; Hosea 4:12; Hosea 5:4; Nahum 3:4, etc.); by "witchcrafts" all those magical practices which were so common at the time in Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia, and no doubt also in Phoenicia, and which were so strictly forbidden by the Mosaic Law (Exodus 22:18; Deuteronomy 18:10). Besides the Baal-worship, Jezebel had introduced these unhallowed practices into the kingdom of Israel. Jehu reproaches Joram with allowing them, and declares that there can be no peace between him and his master under ouch circumstances. Having gained his object and got within bowshot of the unsuspecting monarch, he throws off the mask and declares uncompromising hostility. "No man could use such terms of the queen-mother who was willing any longer to be a subject." 2 Kings 9:23-26 Murder of Jehoram by Jehu. 2 Kings 9:23 And Joram tamed his hands, and fled. Joram made his charioteer turn the chariot suddenly round, and fled by the way by which he had come. "Turning the hands" is turning the chariot round by means of the hands; and Joram is said to have done that which he caused to be done. And said to Ahaziah, There is treachery, O Ahaziah. Mirmah is "deceit" or "fraud" of any kind, and here is not ill rendered by "treachery." Jehu’s conduct was not justified by the mission given him (2 Kings 9:6-10), which certainly did not authorize him to commit a treacherous murder. 2 Kings 9:24 And Jehu drew a bow with his full strength. This meaning is scarcely contained in the Hebrew, which merely says that Jehu "filled his hand with his bow," that is to say, took his bow into his hands for the purpose of using it. And smote Jehoram between his arms; i.e. directed an arrow against Jehoram with so true an aim, that it struck him in the middle of the back between his shoulders. And the arrow went out at his heart. This was quite possible, for the heart lies towards the center of the chest, not wholly on the left side. It is not necessary to suppose an oblique wound. And he sank down in his chariot. Jehoram fell into the "well," or body, of the chariot, and there lay, the chariot being brought to a stand. 2 Kings 9:25 Then said Jehu to Bidkar his captain; literally, his thirdsman; Keil renders "his aide-de-camp," probably one of those who was in his chariot with him—Take up, and cast him in the portion of the field of Naboth the Jezreelite. "Take up the body," i.e. "and cast it into the plot of ground which once belonged to Naboth the Jezreelite, and was forfeited to the crown at his death (1 Kings 21:15), and taken possession of by Ahab" (1 Kings 21:16). The reason for the order follows. For remember how that, when I and thou rode together after Ahab his father, the Lord laid this burden upon him. The LXX. have μνημονεύω, "I remember;" but the Hebrew text is זכר, not אזכר "Remember" (imperative mood) is the correct translation. Jehu recalls his captain’s recollection to an occurrence which was deeply impressed upon his own. "When thou and I rode together after Ahab" probably means "when we two stood behind Ahab in his chariot." The Assyrian sculptures usually represent the monarch as attended by two body-guards, who ride in the same chariot with him, standing up behind him, and often interposing their shields to protect his person. In this near proximity Jehu and Bidkar would hear any speech which was addressed to Ahab. By a "burden" is meant a sentence of punishment (comp. Isaiah 13:1; Isaiah 15:1; Isaiah 17:1; etc.; Nahum 1:1, etc.). 2 Kings 9:26 Surely I have seen yesterday the blood of Naboth. Jehu, after the lapse of fourteen or fifteen years, naturally had forgotten the exact words used. And the blood of his sons. The execution of Naboth’s sons had not been mentioned previously; but, under the rude jurisprudence of the age (2 Kings 14:6), sons were usually slain with their fathers. And, unless they had been removed, Ahab could not have inherited the vineyard. Saith the Lord; and I will requite thee in this plat, saith the Lord. This was the gist of the prophecy, which ran as follows: "In the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth shall dogs lick thy blood, even thine." Now therefore take and cast him into the plat of ground, according to the word of the Lord. The evil prophesied against Ahab had been formally and expressly deferred to his son’s days on Ahab’s repentance (cf. 1 Kings 21:29). 2 Kings 9:27-29 Murder of Ahaziah. 2 Kings 9:27 But when Ahaziah the king of Judah saw this, he fled by the way of the garden house. As soon as Ahaziah saw Jehu shoot his arrow, he too took to flight; not, however, in the same direction as Joram, but southwards, towards his own land. If "garden house" is the right translation of בֵית הַגַּן, we can say no more than that it was probably one of the lodges of the royal demesne, which lay south-east and south of Jezreel, whereof nothing more is known. But it is quite possible that we ought to translate, with the LXX; "by the way of Beth-Gan"—ἔφυγενὁδὸνΒαιθ-γάν. In this case "Beth-Gan" would be a village or town, probably identical with En-gannim, which lay at the foot of the hills bounding the Plain of Esdraelon, nearly due south of Jezreel (Zerin), and which is now known as Jenin (see the Map of Western Palestine, by Mr. Trelawney Saunders, compiled from the surveys of the Palestine Exploration Fund, where Ahaziah’s flight is well traced. And Jehu followed after him; and said, Smite him also in the chariot; rather, in his chariot, not in that of Jehoram, since the two kings rode respectively in their own chariots (2 Kings 9:21). It was a bold step in a pretender not yet settled upon the throne to provoke the hostility of a neighboring country by murdering its monarch; but Jehu probably thought he had more to fear from Ahaziah himself, who had been on such close terms of friendship with Jehoram, than from any probable successors. He, therefore, finding him in his power, pursued after him and slew him. From a religious point of view he could justify the act; since the commission given to him (2 Kings 9:7) was to smite all the house of Ahab, and Ahaziah was Ahab’s grandson. And they did so at the going up to Gur, which is by Ibleam. The "ascent of Gur," מַעֲלֵה־גוּר, was probably the rising ground between the southern edge of the Plain of Esdraslon and the place known as" Ibleam," or "Bileam" (1 Chronicles 6:70), which is reasonably identified with the modern Bir-el-Belameh, two miles south of Jenin. Here the steep ascent necessarily delayed the chariot, and Ahaziah’s pursuers gained upon him, approached him, and wounded him. And he fled to Megiddo. Wounded at the ascent of Gur, and despairing of making his way through the rough mountainous country which lay between him and Jerusalem, Ahaziah suddenly changed his route, perhaps thereby baffling his pursuers, and, skirting the hills, had himself conveyed to Megiddo (Ledjun), where he died, either of his wounds, or through some fresh violence on the part of Jehu (see 2 Chronicles 12:8, 2 Chronicles 12:9). The reconciliation of 2 Chronicles 12:8, 2 Chronicles 12:9 with the present passage is difficult, but not wholly impossible. Perhaps the Chronicler means by "Samaria" the kingdom, not the town. 2 Kings 9:28 And his servants carried him in a chariot to Jerusalem. No king of the house of David had as yet been buried elsewhere than in the rock-hewn sepulcher which David had constructed for himself and family at Jerusalem. As soon, therefore, as Ahaziah was dead, his attendants conveyed his dead body in a chariot to the Judaean capital. Jehu did not oppose, having no quarrel with the dead. And buried him in his sepulcher; i.e. in the particular excavation, or loculus, which he had prepared for himself. Jewish, like Egyptian, kings seem to have made it their business to see to the construction of their tomb as soon as they mounted the throne. Thus Ahaziah, though he had reigned but a year (2 Kings 8:26), had already prepared, himself, a sepulcher. His "servants" buried him in it. With his fathers in the city of David. 2 Kings 9:29 And in the eleventh year of Joram the son of Ahab began Ahaziah to reign over Israel. In 2 Kings 8:25 the accession of Ahaziah is placed in Joram’s twelfth, instead of his eleventh, year. The slight discrepancy is sufficiently explained By the double reckoning of a king’s "first year," familiar to chronologists, either (1) from the date of the accession to the end of the current civil year; or (2) from the date of the accession to the same day in the ensuing year. Verses 30-37.—Death of Jezebel. 2 Kings 9:30 And when Jehu was come to Jezreel. Some commentators suppose that Jehu did not engage personally in the pursuit of Ahaziah, but, leaving that to a portion of his retinue, pushed on with all haste to Jezreel, where Jezebel was, "the originator of all the mischief." But it is certainly more natural to understand (with Keil and Josephus) that Jehu himself pursued. The pursuit to Ibleam, where Ahaziah was mortally wounded, and the return to Jezreel, need not have occupied more than about three hours. Jezebel heard of it. She would naturally be the first to hear. On the death of her son, which must have been plainly seen from the walls of Jezreel, she become practically the chief authority in the place, and indeed in the kingdom. Jehoram’s sons were probably minors. And she painted her face; literally, and she put her eyes in antimony; i.e. she adorned her eyes with the dark dye which has always been fashionable in the East, and which is still used at the present day. The dye is spread both on the upper and the lower eyelids. It at once increases the apparent size of the eye, and gives it unnatural brilliancy. The Oriental nations, Babylonians, Assyrians, Medes, Persians, were acquainted with the practice from very early times; and it is not surprising that it was known to Jezebel. What was her exact object in applying it is more doubtful. The older commentators, who are followed by Ewald, suppose that she intended to "summon up all her seductive fascinations in order to tempt and conquer Jehu;" but more recent writers (Bahr, Keil, and others) argue that her probable age renders this incredible, since she had already a grandson who was twenty-three years of age (2 Kings 8:26), and must therefore have been herself at least fifty. But, if we remember that Cleopatra was forty when She held Antony as her slave and hoped to captivate Augustus, it would seem to be not altogether beyond the bounds of possibility that a Phoouician princess of fifty may have thought that, by the use of art, she might reader herself a captivating personage. There is, at any rate no evidence that "putting the eyes in antimony" was an ordinary or a fitting preparation for meeting death in a way worthy of a queen. Ewald’s view has, therefore much to commend it to our acceptance. Jezebel, trusting in the charms and the fascination which had been so potent over Ahab, may have imagined that she had still enough beauty left to capture Jehu, provided she increased her natural attractions by a careful use of all the resources of art. And tired her head. Phoenician statues of goddesses have their hair arranged in long pendent curls, and bear on their heads a small conical cap with a ribbon wreathed round the base. The artists probably had queens and princesses as their models. There is no evidence that false hair was worn in Phoenicia, either by men or women. And looked out at a window. Windows, sometimes open, sometimes latticed, were common in Oriental houses from the earliest times. They mostly looked into the court round which a house was commonly built; but some few were in the external wall of the building; and through these new arrivals might be reconnoitered. Jezebel "looked out," partly to see, but perhaps still more to be seen. 2 Kings 9:31 And as Jehu entered in at the gate, she said, Had Zimri peace, who slew his master? This is a possible meaning of Jezebel’s words, and it has among its advocates—Luther, De Wette, Maurer, and Dathe, besides our own translators. But so defiant an utterance is quite incompatible within intention to captivate and conciliate. Probably, therefore, we should understand the queen either as saying affirmatively, "Peace to thee, Zimri!" (or, "Hail, Zimri!") "slayer of thy lord," or else as asking, "Is it peace" (i.e. "Is it peace now between thee and me?"), Zimri, slayer of thy lord?" In either case, Zimri is an honorific appellation, recalling the fact of another Israelite general, who had revolted, slain his master, and reigned as king. 2 Kings 9:32 And he lifted up his face to the window, and said, Who is on my side? who? Whatever Jezebel’s intention, Jehu yielded not a jot; he was deaf to her flatteries, blind to her seductions. He had made up his mind for "war to the knife" before he embarked upon his enterprise, and the feeble attempts of a queen whose part was played out, whose age he knew, and whom he no doubt regarded as an old woman, had no power on him. Instead of responding to her blandishments, he took a stern and hard line. He would not see her privately. He summoned to his aid the menials of the palace—the eunuchs -those on whom beauty has least influence. "Who is on my side? who?" he exclaimed (literally, "Who is with me? who?"); thus calling on the court servants to desert their masters, the guards to turn their swords against their employers, the menials to consummate an intra-palatial revolution. We cannot deny to Jehu the credit of vigor, promptness, audacity, the talent to seize on the opportunity of the moment, and to make the most of it; but he must ever present himself to us as the rough soldier, with no courtesy, with no chivalry, bent on accomplishing his own ends, and shrinking from no deed of blood, no precedent pessimi exempli, if thereby his ends might be brought about. And there looked out to him two or three eunuchs. Eunuchs had become an integral part both of the Jewish and of the Israelite courts from the time of David (1 Chronicles 28:1). They are an institution which almost necessarily accompanies polygamy; and they had long held high office in. Egypt, in Babylon, and in Assyria. A position outside nature, at variance with all men’s natural feelings and aspirations, of necessity depraves the character, weakens the moral principle, and ends by debasing the class. In Oriental history, the lowest, vilest part is always played by the eunuchs of the palace, who are ever ready to take part in any intrigues, in any conspiracies, and who seem to be almost wholly devoid of the ordinary feelings of humanity. The eunuchs who "looked out" to Jehu were probably the chief eunuchs of the palace, who had authority over the others, and indeed over the court officials generally. 2 Kings 9:33 And he said, Throw her down. A splendid example of the wicked man’s prompt and bold and unscrupulous decision. A queen, a queen-mother, always more tenderly regarded than an ordinary queen-regnant, a princess in her own right (see 2 Kings 9:34), daughter of a neighboring and powerful potentate, settled in her kingdom for over thirty years, the most powerful person the state during that entire period, backed up by the numerous and dominant party of her co-religionists, she is to Jehu nothing but a wicked woman who is in his way; she inspires him with no awe, she does not even touch him with any feeling of respect. "Throw her down." History presents no parallel to such an indignity. Kings and queens had been, time after time, removed by violence; their lives had been taken; they had been transplanted to another sphere of being. But the open casting forth from a window of a crowned head by the menials of the court, at the command of a usurper, was a new thing, unprecedented, unparalleled. It must have been a shock to all established notions of propriety. In commanding it Jehu showed his superiority to existing prejudice, his utter fearlessness, and his willingness to create a new precedent, which might seriously shake the monarchical principle. So they threw her down. There appears to have been no hesitation. The boldness of Jehu communicated itself to those whom he addressed; and the eunuchs violently seized the person of the queen, and precipitated her from the window to the ground below. She fell on the road by which the palace was approached, and lay there bleeding and helpless. And some of her blood was sprinkled on the wall. As she fell, some portion of her body struck against the wall of the palace, and left splashes of blood upon it. There were probably some projections from the wall between the window and the ground. And on the horses. As her body struck the projections, a bloody shower spurted from it, which fell in part upon the horses that drew Jehu’s chariot. And he trode her underfoot. Like Tullia (Liv, 1.48), Jehu had his chariot driven over the prostrate corpse, so that the hoofs of his horses, and perhaps his own person, were sprinkled with the royal blood. Compare the passage of Livy, "Amens, agitantibus furiis, Tullia per patris corpus carpentum egisse fertur, partemque sanguinis ac caedis paternae cruento vehiculo, contaminata ipsa respersaque, tutisse ad penates suos virique sui." It is not often that royal corpses, unless in the heat of battle, have received such treatment. 2 Kings 9:34 And when he was come in—i.e. when Jehu had established himself in the royal palace—he did eat and drink, and said. His first care was to refresh himself—to order a banquet to be served, and to satisfy his appetite with food and drink. Not till afterwards did he bethink himself of the bloody corpse of his late queen and mistress, lying on the cold ground uncared for and untended, exposed to scorn and ignominy. When the thought occurred to him, it brought about a certain amount of relenting. Go, see now this cursed woman. He calls Jezebel, "a cursed woman," not inappropriately. She had brought a curse on her husband, on her sons, and on her grandsons; she had been the evil genius of two countries, Israel and Judah; she had been the prime mover in a bloody persecution of the worshippers of Jehovah; and was the true original source of the present revolution, which was to result in the deaths of so many others. And bury her: for she is a king’s daughter. As queen-mother, Jehu, it seems, would not have regarded Jezebel as entitled to burial; but as daughter of Eth-Baal, King of the Zidonians (1 Kings 16:31), and so a princess born, he allowed her claim. Perhaps he feared lest further insult to the corpse might provoke the resentment of the Phoenician monarch, and draw down upon him that prince’s hostility. 2 Kings 9:35 And they went to bury her: hut they found no more of her than the skull, and the feet, and the palms of her hands. "The harder parts of the human frame" (Stanley); perhaps also the less palatable, since cannibals say that the palm of the human hand is excessively bitter. Dogs in Oriental countries are ever prowling about, especially in the vicinity of towns, on the lookout for food, and will eat flesh or offal of any kind. They have been called "the scavengers of the East," and the phrase well describes them. Dean Stanley saw "the wild dogs of Jezreel prowling about the mounds where the offal is cast outside the gates of the town by the inhabitants." 2 Kings 9:36 Wherefore they came again, and told him. The men whom he had sent to bury Jezebel returned, and told the king what they had found. The narrative woke another chord of memory which had hitherto slept. And he said, This is the word of the Lord, which he spake by his servant Elijah the Tishbite. The prophecy referred to is doubtless that recorded in 1 Kings 21:23. It is, however, here expanded, either because Jehu’s recollection was not exact, or because the record in 1 Kings is abbreviated. The great point of the prophecy is common to both records, viz. that the dogs should eat Jezebel at Jezreel, on the scene of her iniquities. Saying, In the portion of Jezreel shall dogs eat the flesh of Jezebel. It is not quite clear what is meant by the portion (צֵלָק) of Jezreel. Probably there is no allusion to the "portion" (צֶלְקָה) of Naboth (verses 25, 26). Rather the same is meant as by צֵל in 1 Kings 21:23, viz. the cultivated space or "portion" of land outside the wall of the town (see the comment on that passage). 2 Kings 9:37 And the carcass of Jezebel shall be as dung upon the face of the field (comp. Psalms 83:10; Zephaniah 1:17; Jeremiah 9:22; Jeremiah 16:4, etc.). The expression was proverbial. In the portion of Jezreel (see the comment on the preceding verse); so that they shall not say, This is Jezebel. The fragments of the body were so scattered that there could be no collective tomb, no place whereat admirers could congregate and say, "Here lies the great queen—here lies Jezebel." To rest in no tomb was viewed as a shame and a disgrace. 2 Kings 9:1-10 The prophet and the prophet-disciple-the duties of direction and of obedience. The time had come for a great change—a "great revolution," to use the words of Ewald. The first dynasty of Israel which had shown any indications of stability was to be swept away, and another still more stable dynasty was to be established. That the will of God might be seen and recognized in the matter, its initiation was entrusted to the regular expounders of the Divine will—the prophets. Elisha, we may be sure, received express directions how to act; and the directions included a delegation of certain most important duties to another. Thus two persons are concerned in the great initiative scene; and the conduct of each is worthy of attention, and, under given circumstances, of imitation. Consider— I. ELISHA AS . 1. Elisha has made up his mind; there is no hesitation about him, no instability of purpose; he knows what he has to do, and is wholly bent on doing it. 2. His directions are clear, definite, unmistakable. There is no ambiguity in any of them. He prescribes a fixed and clearly defined line of conduct, which his subordinate is to carry out. He wastes no time on the consideration of accidents or contingencies. A certain work is to be done; and his subordinate is to do it in the simplest and most direct way. II. THE PROPHET- AS AGENT. 1. The prophet-disciple accepts the subordinate position readily, cheerfully, without reluctance. He is content to obliterate himself, and to play the part of a tool or instrument. 2. His obedience is exact, perfect. Whatever he has been ordered to do, he does; and he does no more. He is not officious, as so many zealous servants are; he does not seek to better his instructions. 3. His errand done, he disappears, sinks back into obscurity. We hear of his making no claim either on Elisha or on Jehu. The greatest political transaction of the day had proceeded from his initiative; but he asks no reward, he makes no boast. His work done, he vanishes, and we hear no more of him. God’s work has still to be carried on in the world by two sets of persons—directors and executants. It will be well or badly done, according as the lines here marked out are kept to or departed from. That wonderful efficiency which none can fail of admiring in the working of so many institutions within the Roman communion is traceable in a great measure to the fact that both directors and executants act in the spirit that animated Elisha and the prophet-disciple. 2 Kings 9:11-24 Political revolutions justifiable under certain circumstances. In a general way, revolution, resistance to constituted authority, rebellions, risings against the civil power, seem to be condemned, or at any rate discountenanced, by the teaching of Scripture, whether in the Old Testament or the New. They arise, for the most part, from human ambitions, from lust of power, from greed, from unrestrained passions, from selfishness; they involve in their course untold sufferings to large numbers; they issue commonly in a condition of social and political life, not better, but worse, than that from which they sprang. "Let every soul be subject to the higher powers;" "Fear God: honor the king;" "Ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but for conscience’ sake," are precepts of wide application and of great force, deriving additional weight from the fact that, when they were uttered, a Nero occupied the throne. Still, their force may be overstrained. Scripture does not require, under all circumstances, an absolute and entire submission to the civil rulers, but justifies resistance, and allows of the resistance being pushed, in extreme cases, to rebellion. Examples are: 1. The resistance offered by David, first to Saul, and then to Ishbosheth. According to human law, Ishbosheth was the legitimate ruler, against whom David rebelled (2 Samuel 2:1-10). 2. The rebellion of Jeroboam (1 Kings 12:12-20). 3. The present instance—the rebellion of Jehu. 4. The rebellion of the Maceabee princes, related in the first and second Books of the Maccabees, which enlist our sympathy strongly in their behalf, and are set before her members by the Church "for example of life, and instruction in morals." If we ask, "When is rebellion justifiable?" the answer would seem to be— I. IN THE LAST RESORT, WHEN THE NATION MUST BE INJURED. In Jehu’s case "a family was on the throne which had introduced a licentious worship, had fostered it, and had persecuted the older and purer religion, which, if it had not succeeded in taking so firm a hold upon the people as to bind them to purity and virtue, at any rate had not been itself a deeply corrupting influence. The mischief had spread so far that it was time to try the last and severest measures, or to give up the contest entirely. The indictment was made out against the ruling house of corrupting the national honor, and undermining the national existence, of depriving the nation of a religion whose spirit was pure and elevating, and giving it one whose spirit was corrupting and licentious" (Bahr). In the case of the Maccabees, a foreign power, dominant over the country by right of conquest, had formed the design of completely sweeping away the Jewish religion and substituting for it the Greek, or rather the Syrian, polytheism and idolatry. The crisis was even more terrible than that in Jehu’s time, the danger more pressing and greater. In both these cases the nation seems to have waited with the utmost patience, until there was no other remedy. Either a convulsion had to be faced, or the national religion, the national morality, and the national self-respect, would have been swept away. The nation in each case preferred revolution to submission; and the sympathies of the sacred writers evidently go with them in their choice. II. WHEN THERE IS A FAIR OF SUCCESS IF A STAND IS MADE. Nemo tenetur ad impossibilia. If the force on the side of authority is overwhelming, if the national spirit opposed to it is weak and faint, if there is no reasonable hope that resistance may be effectual and save the nation from the evils suffered and apprehended, then, whatever their reluctance, though it be "pain and grief to them," patriots are hound to restrain themselves and to remain quiescent. As Plato says, they must shelter themselves under a wall while the storm rages; they must be content to keep themselves pure, as the seven thousand, who had not bowed the knee to Baal, did in Ahab’s reign; they must wait for better days. If, however, there be a fair chance of success, if it be reasonable to hope that the yoke which is doing deadly hurt to the nation may be thrown off, then no considerations of their own convenience or ease, no fear of blame, no shrinking from disturbance, or even bloodshed, should deter patriotic souls from initiating the struggle by which alone their country can be saved. Desperate diseases require desperate remedies. If Elisha and Jehu had waited with folded hands for Joram and Jezebel to work out their wicked will, the Baal-worship would have been riveted upon the northern, perhaps even upon the southern, kingdom. If the Maccabee family had submitted to the agents of Antiochus Ephiphanes, and failed to raise the standard of revolt, Judaism would have been merged in heathenism, and have perished from the earth. It may be added that if, in our own country, no resistance had been offered to James II; but his commands had been submitted to and carried out, then Great Britain would have been recovered to the Roman obedience, and the witness to a purer Christianity than that of Rome, which has been held up to the world by the English Church during the last two centuries, would have been extinguished and crushed, with what loss to the nation, to Europe, and to the world generally, it is impossible to estimate. 2 Kings 9:25-37 Retribution may be long in coming, but it comes at last. Even a heathen could say, "Raro antecedentem scelestum deseruit pede poena claudo" (Horace, ’Od.,’ 2 Kings 3:2, lines 31, 32). Yet throughout all history evil-disposed men have persisted in wicked and cruel conduct, just as if it was not only possible, but probable, that retribution would be escaped. The lesson thus needs continually to be impressed on men, that, sooner or later, retribution must come—that there is no escape from it, Retribution must come— I. BECAUSE GOD RULES THE , AND GOD IS JUST. Disbelief in retribution is essentially atheistic. It implies either that there is no God, or that God is without one or more of those attributes which make him God. A just God must have the will to punish; an omnipotent God must have the power to punish. If a so-called God did not punish sin, he must be either not just, or not omnipotent, or not either; but then he would not be God. As Bahr says, "A God without vengeance, i.e. who cannot and will not punish, is no God, but a divinity fashioned from one’s thoughts." II. BECAUSE GOD HAS THAT IT SHALL COME, AND GOD IS TRUE. God has said to each man, through his conscience, that he will punish sin. Remorse and reset, the dissatisfaction of a guilty conscience, are such punishment begun. In his Word God has expressly declared that he "will reward every man according to his works" (Psalms 62:12; Proverbs 24:12; Matthew 16:7; Romans 2:6; 2 Timothy 4:14); that he "will by no means clear the guilty" (Exodus 34:7); that "indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, shall be on every soul of man that doeth evil" (Romans 2:8, Romans 2:9). Nothing is more plainly taught in the whole of Scripture, from the beginning to the end, than requital, retribution, condign punishment. Ahab’s case is singular, not in the general principle, but only in the exact correspondence between the sin and its punishment. Such correspondence is rare and abnormal; but it does occur from time to time, and, when it occurs, there is something about it that is most impressive and striking. When the author of proscription, Marius, is himself proscribed; when the dethroner of kings, Napoleon L, is himself dethroned; when the inventor of conspiracies, Titus Oates, falls a victim to an invented conspiracy; when Robespierre and Danton, who have ruled by the guillotine, perish by the guillotine;—"poetic justice" as it has been called, is satisfied, and the world at large is forced to recognize and acknowledge that requital has taken place in a signal way. III. BECAUSE ANY THAT CAN BE WILL ONLY SHOW A DELAY, NOT AN OF THE . Infinite time is at the disposal of the Almighty. Men are impatient, and, if retribution does not overtake the sinner speedily, are apt to conclude that it will never overtake him. But with the Almighty "one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." The important thing to be borne in mind is the end; and the end will not be reached till "the judgment is set, and the books are opened" (Daniel 7:10), and men are "judged out of those things which are written in the books, according to their works" (Revelation 20:12). Punishment may be long in coming—the ungodly may continue during their whole lifetime in prosperity. But there remains a future. Where the heathen felt and said, "Raro," the Christian will say, "Nuquam antecedentem scelestum deseruit pede poena claudo." BY C.H. IRWIN 2 Kings 9:1-37 The deaths of Jehoram and Jezebel; or, the Divine law of retribution. King Jehoram was lying sick at Jezreel of the wounds he had received in battle from the Syrians. Ahaziah King of Judah had come down to visit him, and, as they conversed together, the watchman upon the city wall brought tidings of an armed company approaching. Jehu, at the head of them, was by-and-by recognized by his furious driving. He had already been proclaimed king in Ramoth-Gilead, but Jehoram knew nothing of this. He suspected some ill news, however, and he and Ahaziah drove out with their two chariots to meet Jehu. And where was it that they met? Jehu had good reason to know the place. So had Jehoram. About twenty years before, another memorable meeting had taken place there. Jehoram’s father, Ahab, had coveted Naboth’s vineyard. Jehoram’s mother, Jezebel, had brought about Naboth’s death by a process of false swearing against him. Naboth was dead, and Ahab, accompanied by his two captains, Jehu and Bidkar, rode out to take possession of that vineyard whose owner the queen had murdered. But his sin had found him out. Elijah, the messenger of God, met him there. And there, in that vineyard which he had procured through covetousness, envy, treachery, and bloodshed, Ahab was compelled to listen to his doom. Terrible words they were indeed for a king to hear. "Thus saith the Lord, In the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth shall dogs lick thy blood, even throe. And Jezebel, the instigator of the crime, was not forgotten. The dogs shall eat Jezebel by the wall of Jezreel." And now, in that very place, stained with the blood of Naboth, Jehu meets Jehoram, the son of Ahab the murderer and the king. The blood of Naboth cries to Heaven for vengeance. Jehoram was little better than his father. He too "cleaved unto the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin." He forsook the true God and served other gods. No doubt his conscience smote him and his spirit failed him, as he asked of Jehu, "Is it peace?" But there was not much time left him to prepare to die. Jehu’s words were few, and his actions quick as thought. With his full strength he drew his bow and sent his arrow straight to Jehoram’s heart. It was then that the words of Elijah, spoken twenty years before in that very place, flashed back upon his mind, and he caused the lifeless body of Jehoram to be cast into the field of Naboth the Jezreelite. But Jehu’s work of vengeance is not yet done. Jezebel’s long career of wickedness had hardened her heart and blinded her to her danger. As Jehu rode into the city, she sat at her window in her best attire, as if to defy him, and greeted him with the sneering question, "Had Zimri peace, who slew his master?’ But Jehu is not a man to be trifled with. He finds willing helpers in her own servants. At his command they threw her down into the street, and she—the adulteress and the murderess, the woman whose name has become proverbial as a symbol of everything that is bad—is trampled under the horses’ feet, and once more the doom of Heaven is fulfilled: "In the portion of Jezreel shall dogs eat the flesh of Jezebel." We learn from this narrative some important lessons. I. SIN, NOT OF, MUST BE . This is a law of nature. It is a fact of history. It is the very essence of morality. It is the very essence of justice. It is at the basis of social order in a nation. It is at the basis of the moral government of the universe. Those who transgress the law of nations, those who transgress the laws of honesty or of morality, those who take away the life, or the property, or the character of others, must be made to suffer for it. This is necessary, that justice may be vindicated. It is necessary, in order that property and person and character may be safe. It is necessary, in order that other evil-doers may be deterred from crime. Even under our own national law, we feel that there is something wrong when an evil-doer escapes. We feel that it has a bad effect upon the community when crime goes unpunished. Now, what is sin in the Bible sense? Sin is the transgression of the Law. It is a transgression of a far higher law than the law of nations, of that law on which the well-being of all nations depends—the eternal Law of God. The Law of God is at the foundation of all true well-being and happiness in every nation and in every age. "This do, and thou shalt live." "The commandment is holy, and just, and good." It is, therefore, in the interests of every nation, it is in the interests, not of one generation of men merely, but of those who shall come after them, that those who transgress the Divine Law should suffer for it. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Kings 10:1-36 THE REIGN OF JEHU OVER ISRAEL. 2 Kings 10:1-28 The revolution initiated by the destruction of Joram and Jezebel is here traced through its second and its third stages. The immediate question, after Joram’s death, was—Would any member of his family rise up as a claimant of the throne, and dispute the succession with Jehu? Ahab had seventy male descendants, all of them resident in Samaria: would there be any one among their number bold enough to come forward and assert his hereditary fight? Jehu regarded this as the most pressing and imminent danger, wherefore his first step was to challenge such action, and either precipitate it or crush it. In 2 Kings 10:1-11 is related the action taken by him, so far as the descendants of Ahab were concerned, and his success in ridding himself of all rivals possessed of so strong a claim. 2 Kings 10:12-14 relate his dealings with another body of Ahab’s relations, belonging to the neighboring kingdom of Judah. In 2 Kings 10:15-28 an account is given of the still more bloody and more sweeping measures by which he cowed the party opposed to him, and firmly established his dynasty in the Israelite kingdom. 2 Kings 10:1-11 The destruction of the seventy seas of Ahab. 2 Kings 10:1 And Ahab had seventy sons in Samaria. By " sons" we must understand "male descendants. Most of the seventy wore probably his grandsons (see 2 Kings 10:3); some may have been great-grandsons. They lived in Samaria; since Samaria was the principal residence of the court, Jezreel being simply a country palace—the "Versailles," as it has been called, or "Windsor" of the Israelite kings. And Jehu wrote letters, and sent to Samaria, unto the rulers of Jezreel. "Jezreel" is almost certainly a corrupt reading. The "rulers of Jezreel" would be at Jezreel; and, if Jehu wished to communicate with them, he would not need to "write." Had any chance taken them to Samaria—a very improbable circumstance—they would have had no authority there, and to address them would have been useless. John’s letters were, no doubt, addressed to the rulers of Samaria; and so the LXX. expressly state (ἀπέστειλενἐνΣαμαρείᾳπρὸςτοὺςἄρχονταςΣαμαρείας); but the reading "Jezreel" can scarcely have arisen out of "Samaria" (יזרעאל out of שׁמרון), since the difference of the two words is so great. Most probably the original word was "Israel" (ישׂראל), which is easily corrupted into "Jezreel" (יזרעאל). The rulers of Samaria, the capital, might well be called "the rulers of Israel." To the elders rather, even the elders. Not distinct persons from the "rulers," but the same under another name (see 1 Kings 21:8, 1 Kings 21:13; and compare the Revised Version). And to them that brought up Ahab’s children—i.e. the tutors, or governors, under whose charge they were placed—saying— 2 Kings 10:2 Now as soon as this letter cometh to you. In the East at this time, and in most parts of it to the present day, letters can only be sent by special messengers. There is no public post. Kings and private individuals must equally find persons who will undertake to carry and deliver their despatches. Even the post organized by Darius Hystaspis was not one that went daily, but only one kept ready for the king to use when he had occasion for it. Seeing your master’s sons are with you. "Your master’s sons" must mean Joram’s sons; by which we learn that, unlike his brother Ahaziah (2 Kings 1:17), Joram had male offspring who survived him, and were now with the rest of Ahab’s descendants, at Samaria. And there are with you chariots and horses, a fenced city also, and armor; literally, the chariots, and the horses, a fenced city also, and the armor. The main chariot force of the country, and the chief arsenal, containing both armor and arms, were naturally at Samaria, the capital, and might thus be regarded as at the disposition of the Samaritan municipality. Jehu scornfully challenges them to make use of their resources against him. He is quite ready for a contest. Let them do their worst. The LXX. have "fenced cities" (πόλειςὀχυραί) instead of "a fenced city;" but the existing Hebrew text is probably right Samaria was the only fortified town in their possession. 2 Kings 10:3 Look even out the belt and meetest of your master’s sons, and set him on his father’s throne. "Choose," i.e; "among the sons of Joram the strongest, the boldest, and the ablest, and make him king in his father’s zoom; take him for your leader against me; do not hesitate and beat about the bush; but at once make up your minds, and let me know what I have to expect." And fight for your master’s house. There had been a civil war before the dynasty of Omri succeeded in settling itself on the throne (1 Kings 16:21, 1 Kings 16:22). Jehu believes, or affects to believe, that there will now be another. He does not deprecate it, but invites it. Probably he felt tolerably confident that the garrison of Samaria, even if called upon by the municipality, would not venture to take up arms against the army of Ramoth-Gilead, which had declared itself in his favor. Still, supposing that it did, he was not fearful of the result. 2 Kings 10:4 But they wore exceedingly afraid. They were men of peace, not men of war—accustomed to discharge the duties of judges and magistrates, not of commandants and generals. They could not count on the obedience even of the troops in Samaria, much less on that of any others who might be in garrison elsewhere. They would naturally have been afraid of taking up arms under almost any circumstances. What, however, caused them now such excessive fear was probably the tone which Jehu had adopted—his "scornful challenge," as it has been called. He evidently entertained no fear himself. He dared them to do that which he pretended to recommend them to do. They must have felt that he was laughing at them in his sleeve. And said, Behold, two kings stood not before him: how then shall we stand? The kings intended are Joram and Ahaziah, who had confronted Jehu, and had met their deaths. What were they that they should succeed where "two kings" had failed? The argument was fallacious, and a mere cloak for cowardice. The two kings had been taken by surprise, and treacherously murdered. Their fate could prove nothing concerning the probable issue of a civil war, had the "princes" ventured to commence it. It must be admitted, however, that the chance of success was but slight. 2 Kings 10:5 And he that was ever the house—i.e. the officer in charge of the royal palace—and he that was over the city. There would be a single "governor of the city"—net the commandant of the garrison, but the chief civil ruler nearly corresponding to a modern "mayor" (see 1 Kings 22:26). The elders also. The "governor" of a town was assisted by a council of elders. And the bringers up of the children (see the comment on 2 Kings 10:1). Sent to Jehu, saying, We are thy servants, and will do sit that thou shalt bid us; we will not make any king. Jehu’s letter had the effect which he intended, of making the authorities of Samaria declare themselves. They might, perhaps, have temporized, have sent an ambiguous answer, or have sent no answer at all, and have let their action be guided by the course of events. But, taken aback by Jehu’s directness and plainness of speech, it did not occur to them to be diplomatic; they felt driven into a corner, and compelled to make their choice at once. Either they must resist Jehu in arms or they must submit to him. If they submitted, they had best (they thought) do it with a good grace. Accordingly, his letter produced a reply, more favorable than he can possibly have expected—"They were his servants," or "his slaves," ready to do all his pleasure; they would not set up a king, or in any way dispute his succession; they submitted themselves wholly to his will. Do thou [they said] that which is good in thine eyes; i.e. "take what steps thou pleasest to confirm thyself in the kingdom." 2 Kings 10:6 Then he wrote a letter the second time to them, saying; rather, a second time. The reply of the Samaritan authorities gave Jehu an opportunity, of which he was not slow to take advantage. They might have been contented with their negative response, "We will not make any man king;" but they had gone beyond it—they had departed from the line of neutrality, and had placed themselves unreservedly on Jehu’s side. "We are thy servants," they had said, "and will do all that thou shalt bid us." It is always rash to promise absolute obedience to a human being. To volunteer such a promise, when it is not even asked, is the height of folly. If ye be mine—as they had said they were, when they called themselves his "slaves"—and if ye will hearken unto my voice—i.e; obey me, do as I require—take ye the heads of the men your master’s sons, and come to me to Jezreel. The Samaritan authorities were ordered to bring the heads with them, that they might be seen and counted. In the East generally, the heads of rebels and pretenders, by whatever death they may have died, are cut off, brought to the sovereign, and then exposed in some public place, in order that the public at large may be certified that the men are really dead. By tomorrow this time. As Jezreel was not more than about twenty miles from Samaria, the order could be executed by that time. It necessitated, however, very prompt measures, and gave the authorities but little time for consideration. Now the king’s sons, being seventy persons, were with the great men of the city, which brought them up. 2 Kings 10:7 And it came to pass, when the letter came to them, that they took the king’s sons, and slew seventy persons. Having committed themselves by their answer to Jehu’s first letter, the Samaritan great men seemed to themselves to have no choice, on receiving his second, but to allow themselves to become the tools and agents of his policy. They accordingly put the seventy princes to death without any hesitation, though they can scarcely have done so without reluctance. And put their heads in baskets. Thus concealing their bloody deed as long as they could. In the Assyrian sculptures, those who slay the king’s enemies carry the heads openly in their hands, as though glorying in what they have done. And sent him them to Jezreel. Jehu had bidden them to bring the heads to him; but this was a degradation to which they did not feel bound to submit. They therefore sent the heads by trusty messengers. 2 Kings 10:8 And there came a messenger, and told him; saying, They have brought the heads of the king’s sons. And he said, Lay ye them in two heaps at the entering in of the gate until the morning. Thus all who entered into the town or quitted it would see them, and, being struck by the ghastly spectacle, would make inquiry and learn the truth. "The gate" was also a general place of assembly for the gossips of the town and others, who would soon spread the news, and bring together a crowd of persons, curious to see so unusual a sight. 2 Kings 10:9 And it came to pass in the morning, that he went out, and stood, and said to all the people, Ye be righteous. Not an ironical reproach to those who had brought the heads—"Ye consider yourselves righteous, yet this bloodshed rests upon you;" much less a serious declaration (Gerlach) that now at last the sins of idolatrous Israel were atoned for; but an argument ad captandum, addressed to the crowd of spectators whom the unwonted spectacle had brought together, "Ye are just persons, and capable of pronouncing a just judgment; judge, then, if I am the wicked person which men generally consider me." Behold, I conspired against my master, and slew him: but who slew all these? I confess to one murder; but here are seventy murders. And who is guilty of them? Not I, or my party, but the trusted adherents of the Ahabite dynasty, the rulers placed by them over the capital, and the governors to whom they had entrusted the royal children. Does not this show that all parties are weary of the Ahabites and of their system? Does it not clear me of any private or selfish motive, and indicate the desire of the whole nation for a change, civil and religions—a change which shall entirely subvert the new religion introduced by Jezebel, and fall back upon the lines of that maintained by Elijah and Elisha? 2 Kings 10:10 Know now that there shall fall unto the earth—i.e. "perish," "come to naught"—nothing of the word of the Lord, which the Lord spake concerning the house of Ahab. As the accomplishment had gone so far, it was safe to predict, or at any rate Jehu felt emboldened to predict, that the entire prophecy of Elijah would be fulfilled to the letter. The whole house of Ahab would perish—it would be made like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and like the house of Baasha the son of Ahijah (1 Kings 21:23), and its adherents would share its fate. For the Lord hath done that which he spake by his servant Elijah; i.e. "has requited Ahab in the portion of Jezreel; has caused dogs to eat the flesh of Jezebel; and has begun the destruction of his house. The inchoate fulfillment of prophecy was always felt to be the strongest possible argument for its ultimate complete fulfillment. 2 Kings 10:11 So Jehu slew all that remained of the house of Ahab in Jezreel, and all his great men, and his kinsfolks; rather, and Jehu slew. Encouraged by his past success, having killed Jehoram, Ahaziah, and Jezebel, having secured the adhesion of the chief men in Samaria, and effected the destruction of all those who might naturally have claimed the succession and involved him in civil war, Jehu proceeded to greater lengths. He "slew all that remained of the house of Ahab in Jezreel"—the princesses probably, as well as the princes—and further put to death all the leading partisans of the dethroned dynasty, the "great men," perhaps even those who had worked his bloody will at Samaria, and the intimate friends and supporters of the house—the מְיֻדָּעִים, as they are here called—not relatives, but "intimate acquaintances." And his priests. This expression causes a difficulty, since the destruction of the Baal-priests is related subsequently (2 Kings 10:19-25). It has been suggested to understand by כֹּהֲניִם, not" priests," but "high state officers" (Bahr)—a meaning which the word is thought to have in 2 Samuel 8:18 and 1 Kings 4:5. But this signification of כֹּהֵן is scarcely an ascertained one. Perhaps the same persons are intended as in 1 Kings 4:19, the present notice of their death being a mere summary, and the narrative of 1 Kings 4:19-25 a full statement of the circumstances. Until he left him none remaining; i.e. until the entire Ahabite faction was blotted out. 2 Kings 10:12-14 The massacre of the brethren of Ahaziah. 2 Kings 10:12 And he arose and departed, and came to Samaria; rather, went on his way to Samaria (ἐπορεύθηεἰςΣαμάρειαν, LXX.). Having arranged matters at Jezreel as his interests required, and secured the adhesion of the Samaritan "great men," Jehu now sot out for the capital. The narrative from this point to 2 Kings 10:17 is of events that happened to him while he was upon his road. And as he was at the shearing-house in the way. Between Jezreel and Samaria was a station where the shepherds of the district were accustomed to shear their flocks. The custom gave name to the place, which became known as Beth-Eked (Βαιθακάθ, LXX.; Beth-Akad, Jerome), "the house of binding," from the practice of tying the sheep’s four feet together before shearing them, The situation has not been identified. 2 Kings 10:13 Jehu met with the brethren of Ahaziah King of Judah. The actual "brethren" of Ahaziah had been carried off and slain by the Arabians in one of their raids into Palestine, as we learn from 2 Chronicles 21:17; 2 Chronicles 22:1; the youths here mentioned were their sons (2 Chronicles 22:8), and therefore Ahaziah’s nephews. And said, Who are ye? Travelers in a foreign country were always liable to be questioned, and were expected to give an account of themselves (see Genesis 42:7-13; Story of Saneha, line 38; Herod, 2:159, etc.). The princes were thus not surprised at the inquiry, and readily answered it. And they answered, We are the brethren of Ahaziah; and we go down to salute the children of the king. There is something abnormal and needing explanation in this visit. Forty-two princes, with their retinues, do not, under ordinary circumstances, start off on a sudden from one capital, on a complimentary visit to their cousins at another. Perhaps Ewald is right in surmising that, "at the first report of disturbances in the kingdom of the ten tribes, they had been sent off by Athaliah to render any assistance that they could to the house of Ahab in its troubles". In this case their answer must be regarded as insincere. Falling in with an armed force stronger than their own, they pretended ignorance of the revolution that had taken place, and sought to pass off their hostile purpose under the pretence of a visit of compliment. But the pretence did not deceive Jehu. And the children of the queen. The queen-mother, Jezebel, is probably intended. Her rank entitled her to special mention. 2 Kings 10:14 And he said, Take them alive. And they took them alive, and slew them. The Brevity of the narrative leaves many points of it obscure. It is impossible to say why the order was given, "Take them alive," when, immediately afterwards, they were massacred. Perhaps Jehu at first intended to spare their lives, but afterwards thought that it would be safer to have them put out of his way. It must be borne in mind that they were descendants of Ahab. At the pit of the shearing-house; rather, at the well of Beth-Eked. Probably the bodies were thrown into the well (comp. Jeremiah 41:7). Even two and forty men. It is this number which makes the idea of a visit of compliment incredible. Neither left he any of them. The Greeks said, Νήπιοςὂςπατέρακτείταςπαῖδαςκαταλείπει; and the general Hebrew practice was to give effect to the teaching conveyed by the maxim (see Joshua 7:24, Joshua 7:25; 2 Kings 9:26; 2 Kings 14:6). 2 Kings 10:15-17 Jehonadab the son of Rechab associated by Jehu in his acts. 2 Kings 10:15 And when he was departed thence, he lighted on Jehonadab the son of Rechab. Between Beth-Eked and Samaria Jehu fell in with the great Kenite chief, Jehonadab, the founder of the remarkable tribe and sect of the Rechabites (Jeremiah 35:6-19). Jehonadab is mentioned only here and in the passage of Jeremiah just quoted; but it is evident that he was an important personage. His tribe, the Kenites, was probably of Arab origin, and certainly of Arab habits. It attached itself to the Israelites during their wanderings in the Sinaitic desert, and was given a settlement in "the wilderness of Judah," on the conquest of Palestine (Judges 1:16). Jehonadab seems to have been of an ascetic turn, and to have laid down for his tribe a rule of life stricter and more severe than any known previously. He required them not merely to dwell in tents, and, unless under the compulsion of war, never to enter cities, but also to abstain wholly from the use of wine, and to have neither house, nor field, nor vineyard (Jeremiah 35:8-10). Gautama, between three and four centuries later, enjoined a somewhat similar rule upon his disciples. It is indicative of much strength of character in either case, that so strict a rule was accepted, adopted, and acted upon for centuries. On the present occasion, Jehu, it would seem, desired the sanction of Jehonadab to the proceedings upon which he was about to enter, as calculated to legitimate them in the eyes of some who might otherwise have regarded them with disapproval. Jehonadab had, no doubt, the influence which is always wielded by an ascetic in Oriental countries. Coming to meet him. This expression tells us nothing of Jehonadab’s intent. The meeting may have been merely a chance one. And he saluted him, and said to him, Is thine heart right, as my heart is with thy heart? literally, he blessed him; but the word used (barak) has frequently the sense of "to salute" (see 1 Samuel 13:10; 1 Samuel 25:14; 2 Kings 4:29, etc.). Jehu’s inquiry was made to assure himself of Jehonadab’s sympathy, on which no doubt he counted, but whereof he was glad to receive a positive promise. Jehonadab must have been known as a zealous servant of Jehovah, and might therefore be assumed to be hostile to the house of Ahab. And Jehonadab answered, It is. Unhesitatingly, without a moment’s pause, without the shadow of a doubt, the Kenite chief cast in his lot with the revolutionist. Heart and soul he would join him in an anti-Ahab policy. If it he, Give me thine hand. The Hebrews did not clench agreements, like the Greeks and Romans, by grasping each other’s hands. Jehu merely means to say, "If this is so, if thou art heart and. soul with me in the matter, put out thy hand, and I will take thee into my chariot." Jehu intended at once to do honor to the Kenite chief, and to strengthen his own position by being seen to be so familiar with him. And he—i.e. Jehonadab—gave him—i.e. Jehu—his hand; and he took him up to him into the chariot. There was always room in a chariot for at least three or four persons—the charioteer and the owner of the chariot in front, and one or two guards behind. 2 Kings 10:16 And he said, Come with me, and see my zeal for the Lord. Jehonadab must have understood that some further measures were about to be taken against the family and adherents of Ahab. He evidently approved of all that Jehu had already done, and was willing to give his countenance to further severities. He probably did not know exactly what Jehu designed; but he must have been able to make a tolerably shrewd guess at what was impending. So they made him ride in his chariot. Perhaps וַיַדְכִבוּ should be changed into וַיַּדְכִּיב, which seems to have been the reading of the LXX; who translate, by ἐπικάθισεναὐτὸνἐντῷἅρματιαὐτοῦ, "he made him ride in his chariot." 2 Kings 10:17 And when he came to Samaria, he slew all that remained unto Ahab in Samria, till he had destroyed him. Seventy male descendants of Ahab had been already destroyed in Samaria (2 Kings 10:1-7). It seems unlikely that the city can have contained any other members of his house excepting females. Did Jehu now destroy the daughters of Ahab resident in Samaria, with their families? The masculine form used—הַנּשְׂאָרִים—does not disprove this. According to the saying of the Lord, which he spake to Elijah. 2 Kings 10:18-28 Jehu destroys the worshippers of Baal, arid puts an end to the Baal-worship. 2 Kings 10:18 And Jehu gathered all the people together, and said unto them, Ahab served Baal a little; but Jehu shall serve him much. Hitherto the revolution had borne the appearance of a mere dynastic change, like those introduced by Baasha (1 Kings 15:27-29), Zimri (1 Kings 16:9-12), and Omri (1 Kings 16:17-19), and had had none of the characteristics of a religious reformation. Probably, as yet, no suspicion had touched the public mind that Jehu would be a less zealous worshipper of Baal than his predecessor. The outburst against Jezebel’s "whoredoms" and "witchcrafts" (2 Kings 9:22) would be known to few, and might not have been understood as a condemnation of the entire Baalistic system. The "zeal for Jehovah" whispered in the ear of Jehonadab (2 Kings 10:16) had been hitherto kept secret. Thus there was nothing to prevent the multitude from giving implicit credence to the proclamation now made, and looking to see the new reign inaugurated by a magnificent and prolonged festival in honor of the two great Phoenician deities, Baal the sun-god, and Ashtoreth or Astarte the famous "Dea Syra" Such festivals were frequently held in Phoenicia and the rest of Syria, often lasting over many days, and constituting a time of excitement, feasting, and profligate enjoyment, which possessed immense attraction for the great mass of Asiatics. 2 Kings 10:19 Now therefore call unto me all the prophets of Baal, all his servants, and all his priests. In Phoenicia, it would seem, as in Egypt and among the Jews, "prophets" and "priests" were distinct classes of persons. The Egyptians called the priest ab, the prophet neter hen, literally, "servant of God." They held the priest in the greater honor. In Phoenicia, on the contrary, judging from the scanty notices that we possess, prophets appear to have taken precedence of priests, and to have had the more important functions assigned to them (see 1 Kings 18:19-40; 1 Kings 22:6). Let none be wanting—literally, let not a man fail—for I have a great sacrifice to do to Baal. Like the other gods of the heathen, Baal and Ashtoreth were worshipped chiefly by sacrifice. The sacrifice was sometimes human, but more Commonly a sacrificial animal, such as a bull, a ram, or a he-goat. In the greater festivals several hundreds of victims were offered; and their flesh was served up at the banquets by which the festivals were accompanied. Whosoever shall be wanting, he shall not live. His absence would be regarded as an act of contumacy verging on rebellion, and so as deserving of capital punishment. But Jehu did it in subtilty, to the intent that he might destroy the worshippers of Baal. "Subtilty" was characteristic of John, who always preferred to gain his ends by cunning rather than in a straightforward way. Idolaters were by the Law liable to death, and Jehu would have had a perfect right to crush the Baal-worship throughout the land, by sending his emissaries everywhere, with orders to slay all whom they found engaged in it. But to draw some thousands of his subjects by false pretences into a trap, and then to kill them in it for doing what he had himself invited them to do, was an act that was wholly unjustifiable, and that savored, not of the wisdom which is from above, but of that bastard wisdom which is "earthly, sensual, devilish" (James 3:15). Jehu’s religious reformation did not succeed, and it was conducted in such a way that it did not deserve to succeed. A little more honest boldness, and a little less frequent resort to subterfuge and craft, might have had a different result, and have been better both for himself and for his people. 2 Kings 10:20 And Jehu said, Proclaim a solemn assembly for Baal. The word translated "solemn assembly" is the same which is applied to the great feasts of Jehovah among the Israelites in Leviticus 2 Kings 23:36; Numbers 29:35; Deuteronomy 16:8; 2 Chronicles 7:9; Nehemiah 8:18; Isaiah 1:13; Joe 1:14; Joe 2:15; and Amos 5:21. Originally, it signified a time of repression, or abstention from worldly business; but it had probably grown to mean a day when worldly business was suspended for the sake of a religious gathering. Such gatherings had no doubt been held from time to time in honor of Baal; and Jehu’s proclamation consequently excited no distrust. And they proclaimed it. No opposition was made to the king’s wish. No Jehovist party showed itself. The "solemn assembly" was proclaimed for some day in the near future, when all the people had been apprised of it. 2 Kings 10:21 And Jehu sent through all Israel; i.e. through the whole of his own kingdom, from Dan on the north to Bethel on the south. And all the worshippers of Baal came, so that there was not a man left that came not. Duty and inclination for once coincided. The king’s command made it incumbent on them, they would argue, to attend; and attendance would, they supposed, result in a time of excitement and enjoyment, which they were not disposed to miss. The death-penalty threatened for non-attendance (2 Kings 10:19) was scarcely needed to induce them all to come. And they came into the house of Baal. Ahab had erected a temple to Baal in Samaria shortly after his marriage with Jezebel (1 Kings 16:22). Like the other temples of the time, in Judaea, in Egypt, and in Phoenicia, it was not a mere "house," but contained vast courts and corridors fitted for the reception of immense numbers. And the house of Baal was full from one end to another; literally, from brim to brim; i.e. brimful—"metaphora sumpta a vasibus humore aliquo plenis." 2 Kings 10:22 And he said unto him that was over the vestry. The word translated "vestry" (מֶלְתָּצָה) occurs only in this place; but its meaning is sufficiently ascertained, first, from the context, and secondly, from the cognate Ethiopic altah, which means "a linen garment." Linen garments were regarded as especially pure, and were generally affected by the priests of ancient religions, and preferred by the worshippers. Heathen temples had almost always "vestries" or "wardrobes" attached to them, where garments considered suitable were laid up in store. Bring forth vestments for all the worshippers of Baal. It may be doubted whether "all the worshippers of Baal" could have been supplied with robes out of the temple vestry, which would ordinarily contain only vestments for the priests. But Jehu may have had the supply kept up from the robe-room of the palace, which would be practically inexhaustible. The gift of garments to all comers, which was certainly not usual, must have been intended to render the festival as attractive as possible. And he brought them forth vestments. The keeper of the wardrobe obeyed the order given him, and supplied vestments to all the worshippers. 2 Kings 10:23 And Jehu went, and Jehonadab the son of Rechab, into the house of Baal. Keeping up the pretence that he was a devotee of Baal, anxious to "serve him much" (2 Kings 10:18), Jehu himself entered the sacred edifice, together with Jehonadab the son of Rechab, whom he wished to have as a witness to his "zeal for the Lord" (2 Kings 10:16). Having entered, he addressed the multitude, or the chief authorities among them, requiring that they should exercise extreme vigilance, and make it quite certain that none but true followers of Baal were present. And said unto the worshippers of Baal, Search, and look that there be here with you none of the servants of the Lord, but the worshippers of Baal only. Jehu’s real object was undoubtedly to save the lives of any "servants of Jehovah" who might incautiously have mixed themselves up with the Baal-wor-shippers, out of curiosity, or to have their share in the general holiday. That he should have thought such a thing possible or even probable indicates the general laxity of the time, and the want of any sharp line of demarcation between the adherents of the two religions. He cleverly masked his desire for the safety of his own religionists under a show of keen anxiety that the coming ceremonies should not be profaned by the presence of scoffers or indifferent persons. His requirement was in the spirit of that warning which the heathen commonly gave before entering upon the more sacred rites of their religion—"Proculeste, profani." 2 Kings 10:24 And when they went in—rather, when they had gone in; i.e. when the whole multitude of Baal-worshippers, priests and people, had entered within the precincts of the temple—to offer sacrifices and burnt offerings. The priests officiate, but the offerings are regarded as conjointly made by priest and people. Jehu appointed four score men without. Josephus says (’Ant. Jud.,’ 9.6. § 6) that they were the most trusty men of his body-guard, which is likely enough. They were no doubt also known to Jehu as attached to the worship of Jehovah. And said, If any of the men whom I have brought into your hands escape, he that letteth him go, his life shall be for the life of him. Gaolers were commonly put to death if a prisoner committed to their charge escaped them (see Acts 12:19; Acts 16:27). 2 Kings 10:25 And it came to pass, as soon as he had made an end of offering the burnt offering. It has been concluded from this that Jehu" offered the sacrifices with his own hand, as though he were the most zealous of Baal’s adorers"; but the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the expression used. The suffix וֹ in כְּכַלֹּתוֹ may be used indefinitely, "when one finished," or "when they finished;" or Jehu may be said to have made the offerings, because he famished the victims, not because he immolated them with his own hand. Throughout heathendom, wherever there wore priests, it was the duty of the prints to slay the victims offered. That Jehu said to the guard—literally, to the runners (see the comment on 1 Kings 1:38)—and to the captains—i.e; the officers in command of the guard—Go in, and slay them; let none come forth. We must suppose that some guarded the doors, while others advanced into the crowd and struck right and left. The unarmed multitude seems to have made no resistance. And they smote them with the edge of the sword—i.e. cut them down unsparingly, smote and slew till none were left alive—and the guard and the captains cast them out. This is generally understood to mean that all the bodies were thrown by the guards out of the temple. Dean Stanley says, "The temple was strewn with corpses, which, "as fast as they fell, the guard and the officers threw out with their own hands". But it is not apparent why they should have taken this trouble. Perhaps Bahr is right in suggesting that no more is meant than that the guard and the officers thrust the bodies out of their way, as they pressed forward to enter the sanctuary which contained the sacred images. And went to the city of the house of Baal. "They made their way," as Ewald says, "into the inner sanctuary, the enclosure of which rose like a lofty fortress—עיר originally meant "fortress"—where Baal was enthroned, surrounded by the images of his fellow-gods" (’History of Israel,’ l.s.c.). It is to be remembered that the assembled multitude occupied the court or courts of the temple, within which, in a commanding position, was the "house" or "sanctuary"—perhaps reserved for the priests only. 2 Kings 10:26 And they brought forth the images out of the house of Baal; rather, the pillars (see the comment on 1 Kings 14:23). It was a special feature of the Phoenician worship to represent the gods by στῆλαι or κίονες, which appear to have been conical stones, or obelisks, destitute of any shaping into the semblance of humanity. The Phoenicians acknowledged several deities besides Baal, as Ashtoreth, Melkarth, Dagon, Adonis or Tammuz, El, Sadyk, Esmun, and the Kabiri. The "pillars brought forth" may have represented some of these deities, who might all of them be "contemplar" deities with Baal; or they may have been "Baalim," i.e. forms and aspects of Baal, each the object of some special cult. And burned them. The "pillars" in this instance were probably, not of stone, but of wood. 2 Kings 10:27 And they brake down the image of Baal; rather, they brake in pieces the pillar of Baal. The representation of Baal, the main stele of the temple, being of stone or metal, could not be destroyed by fire, and was therefore broken to pieces. And brake down the house of Baal—i.e. partially ruined it, but still left portions of it standing, as a memorial of the sin and of its punishment—a solemn warning, one would have thought, to the people of the capital—and made it a draught-house unto this day; made it, i.e; "a depository for all the filth of the town" (Stanley); comp. Ezra 6:11; Daniel 2:5; Daniel 3:29; and for the word "draught" in this sense, see Matthew 15:17. Such a use was the greatest possible desecration. 2 Kings 10:28 Thus Jehu destroyed Baal out of Israel. The measures taken were effectual; the worship of Baal was put down, and is not said to have been revived in the kingdom of the ten tribes. Moloch-worship seems to have taken its place (see 2 Kings 17:17). 2 Kings 10:29-31 Jehu’s shortcomings. 2 Kings 10:29 Howbeit from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin, Jehu departed not from after them. It was a crucial test of Jehu’s faithfulness to Jehovah; would he maintain the calf-worship of Jeroboam or not? With whatever intent the worship had been set up by its author, the curse of God had been pronounced against it by the chief prophet of the time (1 Kings 13:2), and his word had been attired as from heaven by two miracles (1 Kings 13:4, 1 Kings 13:5). Jehu ought to have known that the calf-worship, if not as hateful to God as the Baal-worship, at any rate was hateful, was a standing act of rebellion against Jehovah, and laid the nation under his displeasure. But, while his own interests were entirely detached from the one, they were, or at least would seem to him to be, bound up with the other. The calf-worship was thought to be essential to the matureance of the divided kingdom. Abolish it, and all Israel would "return to the house of David" (1 Kings 12:26-30). Jehu was not prepared to risk this result. His "zeal for Jehovah" did not reach so far. Thus his "reformation of religion" was but a half-reformation, a partial turning to Jehovah, which brought no permanent blessing upon the nation. To wit, the golden calves that were in Bethel, and that were in Dan. The erection of the calves (1 Kings 12:29) was the initial sin, their worship the persistent one. (On the nature of the calf-worship, see the comment on 1 Kings 12:28, and compare the ’Speaker’s Commentary’ on the same passage.) 2 Kings 10:30 And the Lord said unto John—scarcely by direct revelation, rather by the mouth of a prophet, most probably of Elisha, as Thenius supposes—Because thou hast done well in executing that which is right in mine eyes. In making himself the executor of God’s will with respect to the house of Ahab, and utterly destroying it, as he had been commanded (2 Kings 9:7), Jehu had "done well;" he had also done well in putting down the worship of Baal, and slaying the idolaters, for the destruction of idolaters was distinctly commanded in the Law (Exodus 22:20; Exodus 32:27; Numbers 25:5). These acts of his are praised; but nothing is said of his motives in doing them. They were probably to a great extent selfish. And hath done unto the house of Ahab all that was in mine heart (see 2 Kings 9:26-37; 2 Kings 10:1-7, 2 Kings 10:11, 2 Kings 10:14), thy children of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel. External obedience was suitably rewarded by an external, earthly honor—the honor of having his dynasty settled upon the throne during five generations, and for a period of above a hundred years. No other Israelite dynasty held the throne longer than three generations, or for so much as fifty years. The "children" or descendants of Jehu who sat upon the throne after him were Jehoahaz, his son, Jehoash or Joash, his grandson, Jeroboam II; his great-grandson, and Zachariah, son of Jeroboam II; his great-great-grandson 2 Kings 10:31 But Jehu took no heed to walk in the Law of the Lord God of Israel with all his heart. Jehu’s character is thus summed up by Dean Stanley: "The character of Jehu is not difficult to understand, if we take it as a whole, and consider the general impression left upon us by the biblical account. He is exactly one of those men whom we are compelled to recognize, not for what is good or great in themselves, but as instruments for destroying evil, and preparing the way for good; such as Augustus Caesar at Rome, Sultan Mahmoud II. in Turkey, or one closer at hand in the revolutions of our own time and neighborhood. A destiny, long kept in view by himself or ethers—inscrutable secrecy and reserve in carrying out his plans—a union of cold, remorseless tenacity with occasional bursts of furious, wayward, almost fanatical zeal;—this is Jehu, as he is set before us in the historical narrative, the worst type of a son of Jacob—the ’supplanter’ …without the noble and princely qualities of Israel; the most unlovely and the most coldly commended of all the heroes of his country". The estimate is lower than that formed by most other writers; but it is not far from the truth. For he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam, which made Israel to sin. 2 Kings 10:32-36 Jehu’s wars, length of reign, and successor. 2 Kings 10:32 In those days the Lord began to out Israel short. It is certainly not stated in direct terms that the ill success of Jehu’s foreign wars was a punishment on him for his continued maintenance of the calf-idolatry; but the juxtaposition of 2 Kings 10:31 and 2 Kings 10:32 naturally raises the idea, and constitutes a strong presumption that it was in the writer’s mind. The "theocracy" under the kings was carried on mainly, as the writer of Chronicles clearly saw, by the bestowal of worldly prosperity and military success on good kings, and the accumulation of misfortunes and military disasters on bad ones (see 2 Chronicles 12:5-12; 2 Chronicles 13:4-18; 2 Chronicles 14:2-15; 2 Chronicles 15:2-15; 2 Chronicles 17:3-5. etc.). By "cutting Israel short"—literally, "cutting off in Israel"—is probably meant the conquest of certain portions of the territory. Hazael resumed the war which Benhadad had so long waged, and gained numerous successes. And Hazael smote them in all the coasts of Israel; or, along their whole frontier (Bahr). The frontier intended is, of course, that on the north and east, where the Israelite territory was conterminous with that of Syria. 2 Kings 10:33 From Jordan eastward. The territory west of the Jordan was not attacked at this time. Hazael’s expeditious were directed against the trans-Jordanic region, the seats of the three tribes of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh. This tract was far easier of access than the other, and was more tempting, being the richest part of Palestine. The region comprised all the land of Gilead—i.e. the more southern region, reaching from the borders of Moab on the south to the Hieromax or Sheriat-el-Mandhur upon the north, the proper land of the Gadites, and the Reubenites, and [a portion of] the Manassites—together with Bashan, the more northern region, which belonged wholly to Manasseh—from Aroer (now Arair), which is by the river Arnon—the Wady-el-Mojeb, which was the boundary between Israel and Moab (Numbers 21:13, Numbers 21:24), both in the earlier and (Isaiah 16:2) in the later times—even Gilead and Bashan. There is other evidence, besides this, that Hazael was one of the most warlike of the Syrian kings. We find him, on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser II; mentioned as a stubborn adversary of the Assyrian arms. In the seventeenth campaign of Shalmaneser, a great battle was fought between the two monarchs. Hazael brought into the field more than twelve hundred chariots, but was defeated, and obliged to retreat, his camp falling into the hands of the enemy. Four years later Shalmaneser invaded Hazael’s territory, and took, according to his own account, four cities or fortresses belonging to him. He does not claim, however, to have made him a tributary; and By his later annals it is evident that he avoided further contest, preferring to turn his arms in other directions. (On Hazael’s campaign in Philistia, and designs against Jerusalem, see the comment upon 2 Kings 12:17, 2 Kings 12:18,) 2 Kings 10:34 Now the rest of the acts of Jehu, and all that he did, and all his might. This last phrase is remarkable, considering that Jehu’s wars, after he became king, seem to have been entirely unsuccessful ones, that he lost a large portion of his dominions to Syria, and (as appears by the Black Obelisk) paid tribute to the Assyrians. "Might" has been ascribed by the writer of Kings only to Baasha and Omri among previous Israelite monarchs, and only to Asa and Jehoshaphat among previous Jewish ones. "All his might" has only been used of Asa. We must probably understand, that, although defeated, Jehu gained much distinction, by his personal prowess and other military qualities, in the Syrian wars, and was reckoned "a mighty man of valor" in spite of the ill success of his wars. Are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? (see the comment on 2 Kings 1:18). 2 Kings 10:35, 2 Kings 10:36 And Jehu slept with his fathers: and they buried him in Samaria. And Jehoahaz his son reigned in his stead. And the time that Jehu reigned over Israel in Samaria was twenty and eight years. Twenty-eight years was a long reign for an Israelite king, only exceeded by one other king in the entire list, viz. Jeroboam II; who is said in 2 Kings 14:23 to have reigned forty-one years. The kings of Judah were longer lived, 2 Kings 10:1-7 The fear of man a stronger motive with the wicked and worldly than the fear of God. Revolutions subject to severe trial most of those who occupy high stations at the time of their occurrence. Such persons have to determine, at very short notice for the most part, the line which they Will pursue, the side which they will embrace, and the lengths to which they will go in their support of it. In making their choice they are apt to think less of what they ought to do than of what their worldly interests require them to do. They "are in a strait betwixt two"—on the one hand is the fear of man, on the other the fear of God. The one ought to prevail; the other commonly does prevail. Let us consider a little why this is so. I. REASONS WHY THE FEAR OF GOD IS WEAK. 1. The wicked and worldly, who form, alas! the vast mass of mankind, do not generally even so much as realize the existence of God. They may not be absolute atheists, but practically they do not have God in their thoughts. 2. Those who believe in God and have some fear of him view him as distant, and his vengeance as a thing that may come or may not. He is merciful, and may be propitiated; he is compassionate, and may not be "extreme to mark what is done amiss" Men hope that he Will forget their misdeeds, or forgive them for his Son’s sake, or accept a tardy repentance as compensating for them and blotting them out. 3. Some view God as altogether benevolent and beneficent, and therefore as incapable of punishing men, forgetting that, if he is kind, he is also just, and, if he is forgiving, he is also jealous. They take their idea of God, not from what is revealed concerning him in Scripture, but from their own imaginations respecting him—imaginations which are echoes of their wishes. II. REASONS WHY THE FEAR OF MAN IS STRONG. 1. Man is visibly present, and has a power to injure and punish which cannot be doubted. 2. Man’s vengeance falls heavily and speedily. It is rarely delayed; and it is often of great severity. 3. It consists of pains and penalties, which are more easily realized than those which God threatens. We know very well what is meant by the death of the body, but what the death of the soul may mean is obscure to us. 4. If we offend men, it is very unlikely that they will forgive us. Most men regard clemency as a weakness, and exact the uttermost farthing from those who, they think, have injured them. Under these circumstances, the fear of man prevails. The rulers of Samaria, challenged by Jehu either to raise the standard of revolt against him, or definitely to embrace his cause, and mark their adhesion to it by imbuing their hands in blood, must have balanced in their minds for a time the two alternatives—should they consent to slay, without offence alleged, seventy persons obnoxious to the powers that were, undeterred by fear of Divine vengeance, to escape the anger of Jehu? or should they brave his anger, and refuse to engage in the massacre required of them, out of regard for the Law of God (Exodus 20:13), and through fear of the vengeance denounced By God upon such as contravened it (Genesis 9:6)? They yielded to the lower, but more immediate, fear, and submitted themselves to be mere tools in Jehu’s hands, because they feared man rather than God. Having made up their minds that their forces were insufficient to contend with those of Jehu, they put themselves at his disposal, and consented to do all that he required of them. So, constantly, in civil struggles, parties have put before them the alternative of following conscience and embroiling themselves with the civil authorities, or of defying those authorities, keeping their conscience clear, and observing the strict Law of God in the matters whereon they have to exercise a choice. Sometimes, as in the case of the Girondists, the better part is taken—duty, truth, virtue, are preferred to expediency, and martyrdom, a glorious martyrdom, is for the most part the consequence; but generally the result is different—expediency carries the day, and the sad spectacle is seen of men sacrificing their principles to their immediate interest, and consenting to wade through crime if they may preserve their worthless lives by so doing. 2 Kings 10:8-11 The wicked have small regard for their helpers and confederates. Jehu had made the authorities of Samaria his tools. He had required of them the performance of a wicked and bloody act, such as despotism has rarely exacted from its instruments. Seventy persons to be slain in the course of a few hours—for no offence, for no state necessity except to smooth the path of a usurper! And the seventy persons for the most part boys and youths, some probably infants, and these defense-less ones entrusted to the care and protection of those who were now called upon to take their lives! It was a tremendous burden to cast on men not previously his partisans, not bound to him by any interchange of good offices and benefits—rather, under the circumstances, his natural opponents and adversaries. Yet they took the burden on themselves; they accepted the miserable task assigned to them—they accepted it, and carried it out. No doubt they thought that by so doing they had bound the king to them, made him their debtor, and laid him under an obligation which he would not be slow to acknowledge. But the deed once done, the deaths once accomplished, and immediately the instigator of the crime turns against his accomplices. "Ye are righteous," he says to the crowd which has gathered together to gaze at the heads of the victims—"ye can discern aright; now judge between me and these murderers. I slew my master—I killed one man, political necessity compelling me but who slew all these?" He holds up his friends and allies, without the least compunction, to the popular odium. He entirely conceals the fact that he himself has been at the root of the whole matter, has conceived the massacre, and commanded it (2 Kings 10:6). He contrasts the terrible deed of blood, which has horrified all who have heard of it, with his own comparatively small crime, and claims to have his light offence condoned, overshadowed as it is by the heinous deed of the Samaritans. We do not know whether by his speech he provoked any popular outbreak. At the least, he turned the tide of popular disfavor from himself to his confederates, and left them to answer, as best they might, the serious question, "Who slew all these?" It is worth the preacher’s while to impress on men the frequency of such conduct on the part of the persons who conceive evil designs, but must have tools to execute them. There is no solidarity among those who are confederates in wickedness. We hear of "honor among thieves;" but it is often "conspicuous by its absence." Monarchs engaged m plots denounce and disgrace their agents, when the plots fail, even sometimes permitting their execution; ministers are conveniently oblivious of the services rendered by those who win elections by intimidation and bribery; even "head-centers" are apt to look coldly on the work done by "ratteners" or "moonlighters" and, instead of commending and rewarding them, are rather anxious to disclaim all complicity in their actions. If the poor tools knew beforehand how little benefit they would derive from their wicked violence, what small thanks they would get from those who set them on, and how ready these last would be, on any difficulty arising, to leave them in the lurch, they would scarcely lend themselves to the purposes of their instigators. It is one of the weaknesses of the kingdom of evil that its agents do not keep faith one with another. It would weaken the kingdom still more if the conviction were general that this is so, and that the subordinate agents who work out an end have little to look for in the way of reward or encouragement from their employers. 2 Kings 10:15-23 John and Jehonadab-the man of the world and the recluse ascetic. Worldly policy often finds it advisable to call to its aid the sanctions of religion, and the support of those who stand high in popular estimation as religionists of more than ordinary strictness and sanctity. It is comparatively seldom in the East that a political revolution is effected without the assistance of a dervish or a mullah of high reputation for strictness of life, who throws over a questionable movement the halo of his reputed holiness. In the present instance we have, on the one hand— I. JEHU, THE MAN OF THE WORLD, versed in the ways of courts, experienced in affairs both civil and military, a good general, popular with his brother-officers, prompt in action, decided, not overburdened with scruples, and at the same time subtle, inclined to gain his ends by cunning and artifice rather than by force. Circumstances have brought him to the front, and put the direction of a politico-religious movement into his hands; but the situation is not without its risks and dangers. Jehu, if he does not absolutely require, cannot but welcome, and feel Ms position strengthened by, any spiritual support. From the time that he took action, he had not received, and he did not dare to invite, the cooperation of Elisha. He could not expect that Elisha would approve the proceedings on which he was bent, involving, as they did, a large amount of falsehood and dissimulation. All the more, therefore, must he have rejoiced when help appeared from another quarter—help on which it is scarcely possible that he can have reckoned. Over against Jehu stands— II. THE SON OF RECHAB, a chief whose position is abnormal and peculiar. The tribe of the Rechabites, whose sheikh he was, was a branch of the Kenites, Midianitish Arabs apparently, settled at the time of the Exodus in the Sinaitic peninsula. The Kenites, or some of them, had accompanied the Israelites during a large part of their wanderings in the wilderness, and had been of great assistance to them (Numbers 10:29-32; 1 Samuel 15:6); in return for which they were allowed to settle in Southern Judaea (Judges 1:16) and other parts of the Holy Land (Judges 4:11). They retained, however, their nomadic habits, and were a wandering people, like our gypsies, in the midst of the settled inhabitants of Palestine. When the Rechabite tribe fell under the chieftainship of Jehonadab, he appears to have bound them down by stricter rules than they had previously observed, and to have required of them an austerity of life whereof there have been few examples in the history of nations (Jeremiah 35:6, Jeremiah 35:7). They were to dwell in tents, avoid cities, drink no wine, and cultivate no land. Jehonadab must himself have been a recluse and an ascetic, or he would never have instituted such a "rule." He had probably the same sort of reputation as now attaches to a Mohammedan santon or fakir, and represented to the mind of his tribe, and even to numbers among the Israelites, the strict devout religionist, whose accession to a party or a cause stamped it at once with a high moral and religious character. Jehu needed Jehonadab; but there was not much to attract Jehonadab to Jehu. He would seem to have lent Jehu his countenance simply from a regard for the honor of Jehovah, and a detestation of the Baal-worship. But he would, perhaps, have done Jehovah more honor had he held himself aloof from the crafty schemer who disgraced the cause of true religion by lies and treachery. 2 Kings 10:29-33 Half-heartedness punished by God as severely as actual apostasy from true religion. The temper of the Laodiceans is no uncommon one. Men may even think that they have a "zeal for the Lord" (2 Kings 10:16), and yet show by their acts that it is every half-hearted zeal—a zeal that goes a certain length, and then stops suddenly. There is no reason to doubt that Jehu honestly disliked, nay, perhaps detested, the religion of Baal. It was an effeminate, sensual, weakening, debasing system, which a rough soldier might well view with abhorrence. Jehu was honest and earnest in his opposition to it, as he showed by the measures which he took to put it down. They were no half-measures—they stamped out the religion, for the time at any rate (2 Kings 10:28). But with this destructive process his zeal terminated. He did not go on to consider what he could do to reintroduce and stimulate the true worship of Jehovah. Had his thoughts moved in this direction, he would have been brought face to face with the calf-worship, and would have had to consider seriously the question of its maintenance or abolition. But this question probably never presented itself to his mind. He was not possessed by any real love of God, or desire to worship him in spirit and in truth. Had he been, he would have called in the advice and help of Elisha, and taken counsel with him as to what was best to be done. But this is exactly what he does not do. He comes into no contact with Elisha. After delivering his one great attack upon Baalism, he rests upon his oars, and is "neither cold nor hot" (Revelation 3:15). Consequently, punishment fails upon him. Hazael smites him in all his coasts." While the apostate Ahab and his dynasty had maintained the kingdom, on the whole, without serious loss or diminution of power, Jehu loses province after province to Syria, is deprived of all his trans-Jordanic territories, and induced to submit to the indignity of paying tribute to Assyria. God punishes his lukewarmness as severely—may we not say more severely than Ahab’s open rebellion? BY C.H. IRWIN 2 Kings 10:1-11 Ahab’s sons put to death. Jehu’s commission is to cut off utterly the whole house of Ahab. Like a moral plague was the iniquity of Ahab’s house. Every member of it, by heredity, by example, by association, shared the guilt of Ahab and Jezebel There is a good moral reason for the extermination of such a nest of evildoers. But Jehu was not troubled with many scruples or difficulties. He had got a certain work to do, and he did it. We have here— I. . The general corruption and demoralization were manifest in the way in which Ahab’s sons were treated by the elders of Samaria, and those that brought up Ahab’s children. It was no zeal for what was right, no particular hatred of what was wrong, that caused them to yield so complaisantly to Jehu’s real wish. Jehu, indeed, satirized them to their face. He made it appear as if he really wanted them to defend their master’s children and fight for their master’s house. It would not have been unnatural to expect this from them. But they were sore afraid. Not only were they willing, in their craven cowardice, to surrender Ahab’s children to Jehu, to let him work his own will on them, but they actually slew them with their own hands, and sent their heads to Jehu. Where there is unfaithfulness toward God, there wilt be unfaithfulness in the relations between man and man. Fickleness is a characteristic of the world’s friendships. Deception is a characteristic of the world’s business. But the Christian will be faithful to duty, to conscience, to God. "He sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not" (Psalms 15:4). II. THE WORD. "There shall fall unto the earth nothing of the word of the Lord, which the Lord spake concerning the house of Ahab: for the Lord hath done that which he spake by his servant Elijah." Every judgment of God which was threatened upon Ahab’s house was fulfilled. God’s judgments upon Israel—how literally and fully have they been fulfilled! Every judgment pronounced against sin is sure of certain and complete fulfillment. So also God’s promises will be fulfilled. Not a single promise of God was ever broken, why, then, should any of us doubt his word, his willingness to receive, his power to save, his desire to pardon? "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."—C.H.I. 2 Kings 10:12-14 Ahaziah’s brethren put to death. Fresh from the scene of retribution and bloodshed at Jezreel, Jehu is now on his way to Samaria. At the shearing-house on the way he meets the brethren of Ahaziah King of Judah. Ahaziah himself had already perished at Jehu’s hands for his companionship with Jehoram. And now his brethren, not warned by Ahaziah’s fate, go down "to salute the children of the king and the children of the queen." Jehu’s vengeance on Ahab’s house was searching and complete. He had already slain at Jezreel not only Ahab’s kinsfolk, but his great men and his priests—all who in any way showed favor or encouragement to Ahab. In the same spirit he now puts to death these brethren of Ahaziah because of their relationship and sympathy with Ahab’s house. Note here— I. THE RESULTS OF EVIL . "The companion of fools," says the wise man, "shall be destroyed." These brethren of Ahaziah might have pleaded that they were doing no harm. But the house of Ahab was notorious for its wickedness. It had been singled out for the terrible retribution of God. To keep up friendship with men and women so wicked was to become a partaker of their crimes. The old Latin proverb was Noseitur a sociis—"A man is known by the company he keeps." If we would avoid the fate of the wicked, let us avoid their fellowship. "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." "Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful." II. THE RESULT OF . The brethren of Ahaziah had already got a warning in the fate which had befallen their brother. But notwithstanding this, they went on to their own destruction. So men act every day. 1. God’s Word warns them, but in vain. They laugh to scorn the message of the gospel that urges them to accept salvation, and to flee from the wrath to come. They act as the people in the days of Noah, who disregarded the warnings of that faithful, patient preacher, and knew not till the flood came and swept them all away. 2. God’s providences warn them, but in vain. Sudden deaths remind them of life’s uncertainty. Perhaps for a day or two they are impressed; and then they become engrossed with the world again. If one were to speak to them about their soul, they would say, "Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee." 3. Goers judgments warn them, but in vain. The intemperate man, the immoral man, the dishonest man, infatuated with evil desires, go on in their sinful courses, notwithstanding the ruin and misery, the premature deaths, the unhappy lives, the degradation and disgrace, which so many have suffered in consequence of these sins. "See that ye refuse not him that speaketh."—C.H.I. 2 Kings 10:15-31 This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Kings 11:1-21 IN JUDAH, THE IN ISRAEL. REIGN OF OVER JUDAH. OF , AND DEATH OF . 2 Kings 11:1-3 On learning the death of Ahaziah (2 Kings 9:27), Athaliah, daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, the queen-mother, murders all her grandchildren (except the youngest, Joash, who is secreted by his aunt, Jehosheba) and seizes the kingdom. No resistance is made to her, and she retains the sole authority for six years. The worship of Baal, introduced by Jehoram into Judah, and supported by Ahaziah (2 Kings 8:27), is maintained by her (2 Kings 11:18). 2 Kings 11:1 And when Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead. (On Athaliah, see the comment upon 2 Kings 8:18.) She was married to Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat, probably in the lifetime of his father, to cement the alliance concluded between Ahab and Jehoshaphat against the Syrians (1 Kings 22:2-4). She inherited much of her mother Jezebel’s character, obtained an unlimited ascendancy over her husband, Jehoram, and kept her son Ahaziah in leading-strings. It was unquestionably through her influence that Jehoram was prevailed upon to introduce the Baal-worship into Judah (2 Kings 8:18; 2 Chronicles 2:5, 2 Chronicles 2:11), and Ahaziah prevailed upon to maintain it (2 Kings 8:27; 2 Chronicles 22:3, "He also Talked in the ways of the house of Ahab: for his mother was his counselor to do wickedly"). On the death of Ahaziah, she found her position seriously imperiled. The crown would have passed naturally to one of her grandchildren, the eldest of the sons of Ahaziah. She would have lost her position of gebirah, or queen mother, which would have passed to the widow of Ahaziah, the mother of the new sovereign. If she did not at once lose all influence, at any rate a counter-influence to hers would have been established; and this might well have been that of the high priest, who was closely connected by marriage with the royal family. Under these circumstances, she took the bold resolution described in the next clause. She arose and destroyed the seed royal. She issued her orders, and had all the members of the house of David on whom she could lay her hands put to death. The royal house had already been greatly depleted by Jehoram’s murder of his brothers (2 Chronicles 21:4), by Arab marauders (2 Chronicles 21:17), and by Jehu’s murder of the "brethren of Ahaziah" (2 Kings 10:14); but it is clear that Ahaziah had left several sons behind him, and some of his "brethren" had also, in all probability, left issue. There may also have been many other descendants of David in Judah, belonging to other branches of the house than that of Rehoboam. Athaliah, no doubt, endeavored to make a clean sweep, and get rid of them all. 2 Kings 11:2 But Jehosheba ("Jehoshabeath," Chronicles; "Josabethe," Josephus). The daughter of King Joram, sister of Ahaziah—half-sister, according to Josephus (’Ant. Jud.,’ 2 Kings 9:7. § 1), the daughter of Joram by a secondary wife, not by Athaliah—took Jonah the son of Ahaziah, and stole him from among the king’s sons which were slain. As aunt of the royal children, Jehosheba would have free entrance into the palace, and liberty to visit all the apartments. She did not dare openly to oppose Athallah’s will, but contrived secretly to save one of the intended victims, the smallest of them, an infant of a year old (παμδίονἐνιαύσιον, Josephus). His tender age, probably, moved her compassion, and induced her to select him from the rest. And they hid him: even him and his nurse. The order in the Hebrew is, "even him and his nurse, and they hid him," which clears the sense. Jehosheba stole away Joash and his nurse, and they, i.e. Jehosheba and the nurse together, hid him between them. In the bedchamber; rather, in the chamber of mattresses—a room in the palace where mattresses, and perhaps coverlets, were stored. Chardin notes that there is usually retch a room m an Oriental palace, which is only used as a store-chamber, and not as a dwelling-room. From Athaliah, so that he was not slain. Athaliah’s servants may not have been very anxious to carry out her cruel orders to the uttermost, and may have made no very careful search. 2 Kings 11:3 And he was with her—he, i.e. Joash, was with her, i.e. Jehosheba, his aunt—hid in the house of the Lord; i.e. the temple. We learn from Chronicles (2 Chronicles 22:11) that Jehosheba was married to Jehoiada, the high priest, and would thus have ready access to the temple. We must suppose that, after a few days’ concealment in the "chamber of mattresses," Jehosheba found an opportunity of transferring him, with his nurse, to a chamber in the temple, where he was thenceforward nourished and brought up. There were various chambers in the temple used for secular purposes, as we learn from 1 Kings 6:5-8 and Nehemiah 13:5-9. Six years (comp. Nehemiah 13:21 and 2 Chronicles 24:1). And Athaliah did reign over the land. It is difficult to realize all that this implies. It cannot mean less than that for six years Baalism was triumphant in Judah—the temple was allowed to fall into decay (2 Kings 12:5)—a temple to Baal was erected in Jerusalem itself, to supersede the temple of Jehovah (2 Kings 11:18), and a high priest appointed to be a rival to the successor of Aaron. Whether persecution was indulged in, as under Jehoram (2 Chronicles 21:11), is uncertain; but the servants of Jehovah were at any rate under a cloud, slighted, contemned, held as of small account. Perhaps we may conclude, from the position occupied by Jehoiada, and from the powers which he was able to exercise when he determined on revolt (Nehemiah 13:4; 2 Chronicles 23:1, 2 Chronicles 23:2), that Athaliah, during her six years’ reign, was to some extent held in check by a Jehovistic party, which she knew to exist, and which she did not dare openly to defy. Thus she left Jehoiada (apparently) in possession of the temple, of its treasures and its armory (Nehemiah 13:10); she allowed the temple service to continue (2 Chronicles 23:4-7); she permitted the priests and the Levites to serve in their regular "courses" (2 Chronicles 23:8); she let the fortress of the eastern city—for the temple was always a fortress—remain in her enemies’ hands. Still, the time was evidently one "of trouble, and of rebuke, and blasphemy" the oppressed worshippers of Jehovah were greatly discontented; and the nation generally was ripe for a counter-revolution, so soon as the signal was given by an authority whom they could trust. 2 Kings 11:4-16 Conspiracy of Jehoiada. After waiting, impatiently we may be sure, for six long years, and seeing the young prince grow from an infant to a boy of seven years of age, Jehoiada deemed that the time was come to venture on an effort. It was necessary for him to make his arrangements beforehand with great care. His first step was to sound the captains of the royal guard. To these men, five in number (2 Chronicles 23:1), he sent secretly, and in-wired them to confer with him in the temple on important business. Finding them well disposed to adopt his views, he revealed to them the fact that Joash had escaped the massacre of Ahaziah’s sons, and was still living, even allowing them to see him. The result of the interview was that they put themselves at Jehoiada’s disposal, and agreed to take their orders from him (2 Kings 11:4). Jehoiada then proceeded to his second step. Either distrusting the body-guard which the captains commanded, or regarding it as insufficient in numbers, he gave them orders to visit the various cities of Judea, and collect from them a strong force of Levites and other trusty persons, and bring them to Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 23:2), where he would give them their orders. This was done successfully, and, as it would seem, without in any way rousing the suspicions of Athaliah. A day was fixed for proclaiming Joash king; the guard and the Levites were skillfully disposed about the temple and the palace; the king was brought up, crowned, anointed, and saluted as monarch, with noisy acclamations (2 Kings 11:12). The noise was heard in the palace, and Athaliah went forth, with a few attendants, to inquire the reason of it. Following the sound, she came to the temple, and entered it, when she saw what was going on, and cried out, "Treason! Treason!" By Jehoiada’s order the guards seized her, conducted her out of the temple, and slew her (2 Kings 11:13-16). 2 Kings 11:4 And the seventh year—literally, and in the seventh year; i.e. in the course of it—Jehoiada sent and fetched the rulers over hundreds, with the captains and the guard; rather, the captains over hundreds (or, centurions) of the Carites and the guard (see the Revised Version). The "Carites," here first named, are generally regarded as identical with the Cherethites of earlier times (2 Samuel 8:18; 1 Kings 1:38; 1 Chronicles 18:17). They were undoubtedly a particular portion of the royal guard, and may, perhaps, as many suppose, have been "Caftan" mercenaries, though we have no other evidence that the Carians had adopted the mercenary life so early as the time of Athaliah. Still, as their devotion to it had passed into a proverb when Archilochus wrote, it is quite possible that they had begun the practice a century or two earlier. When Jehoiada is said to have "sent and fetched" the centurions, we must understand that he secretly invited them, and that they consented to come. He could not possibly have any authority over them, so as to require their attendance. The names of the five centurions, together with their fathers’ names, were put on record by the writer of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 23:1), whose account of the revolution is in many respects fuller than that in Kings. And brought them to him into the house of the Lord—as the safest place for an interview which had to be kept secret from the queen—and made a covenant with them, and took an oath of them in the house of the Lord. We can easily understand that the soldiers, who had been willing to serve Athaliah under the notion that the house of David was extinct, might waver in their allegiance so soon as they heard that a scion of the old royal stock survived, and could be produced at a moment’s notice. Their traditions would attach them to David and his seed, not to the house of Ahab. And showed them the king’s son. Having bound the centurions by a solemn covenant to the cause of the young king, Jehoiada introduced them into his presence. He had, no doubt, previously sworn them to secrecy. 2 Kings 11:5 And he commanded them, saying, This is the thing that ye shall do. It is evident, from 2 Chronicles and from Josephus, that a considerable interval of time separates the events of verse 5 from those of verse 4. The immediate arrangement made between Jehoiada and the centurions was that they should "go throughout the whole land" (Josephus, ’Ant. Jud.,’ 9.7. § 2), visit "all the cities of Judah" (2 Chronicles 23:2), and gather out of them a strong force of Levites and priests (Josephus), together with a certain number of other representative Israelites, which force they should bring with them to Jerusalem, and place at his disposal. To accomplish this must have taken some weeks. When the force had arrived, Jehoiada summoned it to meet him in the courts of the temple, and swore it to a similar covenant to that which he had made with the centurions. He then bided his time, completed his arrangements, utilized the store of arms laid up in the temple armory (verse 10), and finally gave two charges—one to the centurions, which is given here (verses 5-8), and the other to the force collected from the cities of Judah, which is given in Chronicles (2 Chronicles 23:4-7). The orders given to the two forces were very similar, but not identical. A third part of you that enter in on the sabbath. The royal body-guard consisted of five divisions, each probably of a hundred men, and each commanded by its own captain (2 Chronicles 23:1). It was usual on the sabbath for three divisions out of the five to mount guard at the royal palace, while two were engaged outside, keeping order in the city, and especially at the temple. We do not know the ordinary disposition of the guard, either inside or outside the palace. On this occasion Jehoiada commanded that the palace-guard should be disposed as follows: one division at the palace proper, in the courts and halls and antechambers; a second at one of the issues from the palace, known as "the gate of Sur;" and a third at an issue called "the gate of the guard," which was certainly towards the east, where the palace fronted the temple. The object was to secure the palace, but not to prevent the queen from leaving it. Shall even be keepers of the watch of the king’s house; i.e. of the royal palace. 2 Kings 11:6 And a third part shall be at the gate of Sur. The "gate of Sur" is not elsewhere mentioned. It seems to be called in Chronicles (2 Chronicles 23:5) "the gate of the foundation" (שַׂעַר יְסוֹד) instead of "the gate of Sur" (שַׁעַר סוּר), as here—the one reading having evidently arisen out of the other by a corruption. We must understand one of the palace gates, but which of them is uncertain. And a third part at the gate behind the guard; called in 2 Kings 11:19 "the gate of the guard," and shown there to have been on the cast side of the palace, where it faced the temple, and abutted on the Tyropoeon. So shall ye keep the watch of the house—i.e; of the "king’s house," or palace, which is contrasted with the "house of the Lord" of the next verse—that it be not broken down. This rendering is scarcely accepted at the present time by any writers. Ewald renders, "according to custom;" Keil, "for defense;" Furst, "alternately;" our Revisers, "and be a barrier." The Hebrew word used occurs nowhere else, and it seems impossible to determine its sense. The LXX. simply omit it. 2 Kings 11:7 And two parts of all you that go forth on the sabbath. Three-fifths of the guard having been disposed of about the palace, there remained only two-fifths, or two "companies" (margin of Authorized Version). These Jehoiada commanded to enter the temple and protect the young king. Even they shall keep the watch of the house of the Lord about the king. According to Chronicles (2 Chronicles 23:7), the great body of the Levites gathered from the cities of Judah was also to be in the temple, and to assist in the protection of the monarch. 2 Kings 11:8 And ye shall compass the king round about; every man with his weapons in his hand. The guard was to take up a position, partly in front of the king, and partly behind him; interposing themselves between his person and any danger, and at the same time extending themselves across the entire court of the temple (2 Kings 11:11) from one wall to the other. They were, of course, to have their weapons in their hands, ready for use. And he that cometh within the ranges, let him be slain; rather, within the ranks. The order was that if any one entered the temple, and attempted to break through the ranks of the guard, either in front of the king or behind him, he should instantly be put to death. No attempt of the kind was made; and so the order re-rosined a dead letter. And be ye with the king as he goeth out and as he cometh in; accompany him, i.e. in all his movements—let him never for a moment stray outside your ranks—continue to surround him whithersoever he goes. Boys are restless, and curiosity would lead the young prince to move from place to place in order to see what was going on. 2 Kings 11:9 And the captains over the hundreds—i.e; the five centurions of the guard, Azariah the son of Jeroham, Azariah the son of Obed, Ishmael, Maaseiah, and Eli-shaphat—did according to all things that Jehoiada the priest commanded. The secular arm placed itself entirely at the disposal of the spirituality, and was content for once to be subordinate. And they took every man his men that were to come in on the sabbath, with them that should go out on the sabbath, and came to Jehoiada the priest. The position of Jehoiada as high priest ("the priest" always means "high priest") had not been previously mentioned, probably because it was presumed to be known. The Chronicler, writing much later, gives Jehoiada the title on the first occasion that he mentions him (2 Chronicles 22:11). When it is said that "all the captains took their men and came to Jehoiada," the intention is to mark their exact obedience to the orders given them. Strictly speaking, only two out of the five actually appeared before Jehoiada on the day of the execution of his project, two divisions only having been summoned to come to the temple (verse 7). The other three took up the positions assigned them in and about the royal palace. 2 Kings 11:10 And to the captains over hundreds did the priest give King David’s spears and shields, that were in the temple of the Lord. We hear of David carrying with him to Jerusalem the "shields of gold," i.e. shields ornamented with gold, which he took from the servants of Hadadezer (2 Samuel 8:7); but otherwise we are not told of his establishing an armory. Solomon made six hundred shields of solid gold, and laid them up in the house of the forest of Lebanon (1 Kings 10:17); but these were carried off by Sheshonk, when he invaded Judaea in the reign of Rehoboam (1 Kings 14:26). Rehoboam, in their place, made three hundred brazen shields (1 Kings 14:27), which, however, were deposited in the guard-chamber of the royal palace. Of spears collected by David, and laid up in the temple, we know nothing beyond the present passage. There can be little doubt that the weapons were brought forth from their receptacle with the view (as Ewald says) of "consecrating the work of the restoration of the Davidic house with the sacred arms of the great founder himself"—not, however, with arms that he had worn, but with some which he had collected and laid up. 2 Kings 11:11 And the guard stood, every man with his weapons in his hand, round about the king, from the right corner of the temple to the left corner of the temple. "Corner" is a wrong word used in this connection. The Hebrew כָתֶף is literally, "shoulder," and must mean here, not "corner," but "side" (so our Revisers). The guard was drawn up right across the temple court from wall to wall, probably in several ranks, both before and behind the king (see 2 Kings 11:8). Along by the altar. The "altar" intended is, of course, the altar of burnt offering, which stood in the great court, a little way from the porch, right in front of it; not the altar of incense, which was inside the sanctuary. No one, it must be remembered, was ever allowed to enter inside the sanctuary but the priests and officiating Levites (see 2 Chronicles 23:6). And the temple. "The temple" is here the sanctuary, as in the passage of Chronicles just quoted. The guard occupied a position at the upper end of the court, immediately in front of the altar and the temple porch. 2 Kings 11:12 And he—i.e. Jehoiada—brought forth the king’s son—produced him, i.e; from the chamber or chambers where he had been concealed hitherto. (On the temple chambers, see Nehemiah 13:4-9.) And put the crown upon him. That the Israelite kings actually wore crowns appears from 2 Samuel 1:10 and 1 Chronicles 20:2. The crown was probably a band of gold, either plain or set with jewels (Zechariah 9:16), fastened behind with a riband. It receives here the same name that is given to the high priest’s diadem in Exodus 29:6 and Exodus 39:30. And gave him the testimony. The words "gave him" are not in the original, and are superfluous. What is meant plainly is that the high priest laid on the young king’s head a copy of the Law, or of some essential portion of it, perhaps the Decalogue, which is often called "the testimony" (Exodus 16:34; Exodus 25:16, Exodus 25:21, etc.). The object apparently was to show that the king was to rule by law, not arbitrarily—that he was to be, as Dean Stanley says, "not above, but beneath, the law of his country". The ceremony seems to have been a new one, and is indicative of the gradual curtailment of the regal power under the later monarchy. And they made him king, and anointed him. A change is made from the singular to the plural, because, as we learn from 2 Chronicles 23:11, "Jehoiada and his sons anointed him." We have had no mention of the anointing of a new monarch in Judah since the time of Solomon (1 Kings 1:39). It may, however, have been the usual practice. And they—i.e. the people—all who were present—clapped their hands—an ordinary sign of joy (see Psalms 47:1; Psalms 98:8; Isaiah 4:1-6:12; Nahum 3:19, etc.)—and said, God save the king! literally, long live the king!. 2 Kings 11:13 And when Athaliah heard the noise of the guard and of the people. The "and," which is omitted in the present Hebrew text, may be supplied by a very slight alteration. We have only to read הָרָצִי וְהָעָם for הָרָצין הָעָם—an emendation rendered almost certain by the fact that the plural in ־יּן does not belong to the date of the writer of Kings. She came to the people into the temple of the Lord. It was not her habit to enter the temple on the sabbath, or on any ether day; but, hearing the noise, she hurried across from the palace to learn its cause. It would seem that she was still unsuspicious of danger, and brought no guards with her, nor any large body of attendants. 2 Kings 11:14 And when she looked, behold, the king stood by a pillar; rather, on the pillar, or on the raised platform. The king’s proper place in the temple seems to have been a raised standing-place (הָעַמּוּד, from עָמֹד, to stand) in front of the entrance to the sanctuary, which made him very conspicuous. As the manner was—i.e. as was the usual practice when kings visited the temple—and the princes—i.e. the centurions or captains of the guard—and the trumpeters by the king—the officials whose business it was to blow the trumpet at a coronation (see 2 Samuel 15:10; 1 Kings 1:39; 1 Kings 9:13)—and all the people of the land rejoiced, and blew with trumpets; i.e. the people who had been admitted into the great court to witness the coronation. Some rumor of what was about to occur had got abroad, and many of the people had provided themselves with trumpets. As Dean Stanley puts it, "The temple court was crowded with spectators, and they too took part in the celebration, and themselves prolonged the trumpet-blast, blended with the musical instruments of the temple service." And Athaliah rent her clothes. Athaliah took in all with a single glance. She "saw that the fatal hour was come" (Stanley). With a strong hand she rent her royal robes, partly in horror, partly in despair; for the single glance which she had cast around was sufficient to show her that all was lost. And cried, Treason! Treason! or, conspiracy! conspiracy! The cry was scarcely an appeal for help, as Josephus makes it (’Ant. Jud.,’ 9.7. § 3), but rather an instinctive utterance, without distinct aim or object, wrung from her under the circumstances. It fell dead on the assembly. 2 Kings 11:15 But Jehoiada the priest commanded the captains—literally, princes—of the hundreds, the officers of the host—the commanders, i.e; of the small "army" assembled in the temple court—and said unto them, Have her forth without the ranges; rather, have her forth, or conduct her out between your ranks. The object was probably to preserve her from suffering violence at the hands of any of the people within the temple precincts, which Jehoiada desired to preserve free from pollution. And him that followeth her kill with the sword; i.e. if any come after her out of the temple, to attempt a rescue, slay them with the sword. The order, given aloud, was sufficient to deter persons from making the attempt. For the priest had said, Let her not be slain in the house of the Lord. Jehoiada had previously given an order that her execution should take place outside the temple. 2 Kings 11:16 And they laid hands on her. So the LXX. (ἐπέθηκαναὐτῇχεῖρας), the Vulgate, Luther, and others; but most moderns understand that they formed in two lines, one on either side of her, and so let her pass out of the temple and proceed towards the palace untouched—the divinity that hedged a queen preventing them from molesting her until the time came for her execution (see the Revised Version). And she went by the way by the which the horses came into the king’s house. Josephus makes Athaliah pass out of the temple by the east gate, and descend into the Kedron valley. He says she was put to death "at the gate of the king’s mules," but does not mark the locality. The gate intended can scarcely be the "horse gate" of Nehemiah 3:28, which was in the eastern wall, and north of the temple. It was probably a gate on the western side of the Tyropoeon valley, giving entrance to the stables of the palace. And there was she slain; "with the sword" (Nehemiah 3:20). A single blow from one of the guardsmen probably sufficed. 2 Kings 11:17-21 Further doings of Jehoiada. The king being at present a mere puppet in his hands, Jehoiada had to determine the next steps which were necessary to be taken. These, in his judgment, were three. 1. A solemn covenant must be made between the king and the people; and another between the king, the people, and God—the latter pledging the king and people to maintain the worship of Jehovah, and never again to apostatize; the former pledging the king to govern according to law, and the people to remain faithful to him. 2. The temple of Baal, erected in Jerusalem at the instance of Athaliah, must be destroyed. 3. The king must be removed from the temple and installed in the palace of his ancestors. A brief account of these proceedings concludes the present chapter. 2 Kings 11:17 And Jehoiada made a covenant between the Lord and the king and the people. In the original it is "made the covenant;" and the meaning is that the high priest renewed the old covenant understood to exist between king and people on the one hand and God on the other, that they would be faithful to God and God to them—that they would maintain his worship, and that he would continue his protection (see Exodus 19:5-8; Exodus 24:3-8; Exodus 34:10-28). The apostasy of Jehoram, Ahaziah, and Athaliah was regarded as having put an end to the old covenant, and therefore it was solemnly remade or renewed. That they should be the Lord’s people (comp. Exodus 19:5; Deuteronomy 4:20; Deuteronomy 9:29; Deuteronomy 32:9, etc.); between the king also and the people. The terms of this covenant are nowhere distinctly stated, but we can only suppose them to have expressed in words the intention of that novel act, the imposition of "the testimony" upon the head of the king at the time of his coronation (see the comment upon 2 Kings 11:12). 2 Kings 11:18 And all the people of the land—i.e. all those who had come up to Jerusalem from the various cities of Judah to help Jehoiada (see 2 Chronicles 23:2)—went into the house of Baal. According to Josephus, "the house of Baal" hero mentioned was built by Jehoram and Athaliah in the reign of the former (’Ant. Jud.,’ 9.7. § 4), But, if this was the case, it is rather strange that the writer of Chronicles, who enumerates so many of the evil acts of Jehoram (2 Chronicles 21:4, 2 Chronicles 21:6, 2 Chronicles 21:11), does not mention it. The present narrative shows that the temple was in, or very near, Jerusalem; but there is nothing to fix the site of it. And brake it down—Josephus says they "razed it to the ground" (κατέσκαψαν)—his altars and his images brake they in pieces thoroughly. It was common among the heathen to have several altars in one temple, and not uncommon to have several images even of the same god, especially if he was a god worshipped under different forms, as Baal was (whence the word "Baalim"). The Baalim of this temple are mentioned by the writer of Chronicles (see 2 Chronicles 24:7). And slew Mattan the priest of Baal before the altars. The name "Mattan" recalls that of the last King of Judah, which was originally Mattaniah, equivalent to "gift of Jehovah" (2 Kings 24:17). Mattan would be simply "gift." We may presume that, though only called "priest," he was the high priest. And the priest—i.e. Jehoiada—appointed officers over the house of the Lord. The parallel passage of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 23:18, 2 Chronicles 23:19) explains this statement. We are there told that "Jehoiada appointed the offices of the house of the Lord by the hand of the priests the Levites … to offer the burnt offerings of the Lord, as it is written in the Law of Moses, with rejoicing and with singing, as it was ordained by David. And he set the porters at the gates of the house of the Lord, that none which was unclean in anything should enter in." During Athaliah’s reign the temple service had ceased; breaches had been broken in the outer walls; and neither the priests nor the porters had served in their regular order; there had been no morning or evening sacrifice, and no antiphonal psalm-singing. Jehoiada re-established the regular courses and the worship. 2 Kings 11:19 And he took the rulers—literally, princes—over hundreds—i.e. the five centurions of 2 Chronicles 23:2—and the captains—rather, and the Carites (see the comment on 2 Chronicles 23:4)—and the guard—i.e. the "runners," the other division of the guard—and all the people of the land—those who had flocked to his standard either originally (2 Chronicles 23:2) or since—and they brought down the king from the house of the Lord. They escorted Joash from the temple to the palace, first bringing him down into the valley of the Tyropoeon, and then conducting him up the opposite, or western hill, on which the palace stood. And came by the way of the gate of the guard to the king’s house. The "gate of the guard" is probably that called in 2 Chronicles 23:6 "the gate behind the guard." We may presume that it was the main entrance to the palace on the eastern side. And he sat on the throne of the kings. Not till he had placed Joash on the royal throne of his ancestors, in the great throne-room of the palace, was Jehoiada content with the work of the day. 2 Kings 11:20 And all the people of the land rejoiced. "All the people of the land" has here, perhaps, a wider signification than in 2 Kings 11:18 and 2 Kings 11:19. The whole land was content with the revolution that had taken place. No opposition showed itself. Ewald has no ground for his statement that the heathenizing party was strong in Jerusalem, and that the worshippers of Jehovah "had for a long time to keep watch in the temple, to prevent surprise by the heathenizing party". He has mistaken the intention of the last clause of 2 Kings 11:18. If anything is clear from the entire narrative of the early reign of Joash (2 Kings 11:3-21; 2 Kings 12:1-16; 2 Chronicles 23:1-21; 2 Chronicles 24:1-14), it is that there was no heathenizing party in Jerusalem, or none that dared to show itself, until after the death of the high priest Jehoiada, which was later than the twenty-third year of Joash. And the city—i.e. Jerusalem—was in quiet: and they slew—it might he translated, when they had slain—Athaliah with the sword beside the king’s house. The intention of the writer is to connect the period of tranquility with the removal of Athaliah, and therefore to point her out as the cause of disturbance previously. 2 Kings 11:21 Seven years old was Jehoash—or, Joash—when he began to reign. The clause would be better placed at the beginning of the next chapter. 2 Kings 11:1-3 and 2 Kings 11:14-16 Athaliah and Jezebel, the wicked daughter and the wicked mother. It has often been noted that, while women are, as a general rule, better than men, in the cases where they enter upon evil courses their wickedness exceeds that of their male associates. The character of Lady Macbeth is true to nature. Wicked women are more thorough-going than wicked men, more bloody, more daring, more unscrupulous. In Athatiah we have a sort of repetition of Jezebel—a second picture on the same lines—the picture of a fierce, ambitious, utterly unscrupulous woman, occupying much the same station as her mother, equally powerful, equally unsparing, and equally remorseless. Both women are represented as— I. OF THE SAME AND IMMORAL CULT. Jezebel introduces the Baal and Ashtoreth worship into Israel; Athaliah into Judah. Each defiles the capital of her adopted country with a temple to Baal—a temple where images of Baal are set up, altars erected to him, and sacrifices offered to him. Each brings with her into her new home the Baal priesthood, and installs it in power. II. OPEN OF JEHOVAH. Jezebel persecutes the Jehovistic prophets, slaying as many as she can, and threatening the life even of Elijah (1 Kings 18:4; 1 Kings 19:2). Athaliah stops the temple-worship at Jerusalem, has breaches made in the temple walls, and gives to Baal the offerings which properly belong to Jehovah (2 Chronicles 24:7). III. . Jezebel, of Naboth (1 Kings 21:8-14) and of the Jehovistic prophets (1 Kings 18:4); Athaliah, of "all the seed royal of the house of Judah" (2 Chronicles 22:10). IV. EAGER TO GRASP AND WIELD POWER. Jezebel governs Ahab (1 Kings 21:25), uses his signet (1 Kings 21:8), orders executions (1 Kings 18:4; 1 Kings 21:10), and the like. Athaliah governs Jehoram (2 Kings 8:18) and Ahaziah (2 Chronicles 22:3), and then seizes the royal power, and actually rules Judaea (2 Kings 11:3). Athaliah is, on the whole, the bolder of the two, and the more unscrupulous; since to destroy the entire seed royal, including several of her own grandchildren, was a more atrocious and unnatural deed than any committed by Jezebel; and the actual assumption of the royal name and power, in spite of her sex, was a more audacious proceeding than any on which her mother ventured. But her audacity verged on rashness, which cannot be said of Jezebel She brought her fate upon herself; Jezebel succumbed to an inevitable stroke of adverse fortune. There was weakness in Athaliah’s half-measures after she became queen, in her suffering Jehoiada to retain so much liberty and so much power, and still greater weakness in her unsuspiciousness. We cannot imagine Jezebel, if she had ever been actual queen, allowing herself to be put down in the way that Athaliah was. She would at least have made a fight for her life, instead of walking straight into a trap, which was what Athaliah did. Quem Deus vult perdere prius dementat is an old saying. Athaliah’s folly at the last can only be accounted for by an infatuation, which may have been a Divine judgment on her. 2 Kings 11:4-19 Jehoiada an example of a faithful and wise high priest under trying circumstances. The history of the Jewish kingdom from the time of Saul to the Captivity furnishes but few examples of remarkable high priests. Zadok and Abiathar were personages of some importance in the time of David, and left behind them a name for zeal and fidelity; but otherwise no man of eminence had arisen among the high priests until Jehoiada. This may be partly accounted for by the fact that the high priesthood was hereditary, not elective; but still more by the nature of the office, which was not such as to bring its holder into historical prominence in quiet times. Jehoiada’s opportunity for distinction arose from the difficult circumstances in which he was placed. Holding the office of high priest when the throne was usurped and religion outraged by Athaliah, it devolved on him to rescue Church and state alike from peril, and to counter-work the wicked schemes of an enemy alike bold and unscrupulous. He could not prevent the destruction of the royal stock by Athaliah, which was a crime so unnatural that none could have anticipated it; but he did what he could. At the peril of his life he saved one prince, concealed him from prying eyes, protected him, bred him up secretly, and did not allow his existence to be even suspected. In faith and patience he waited till the infant had become a boy of an age to interest people, and till Athaliah had lest the affections of all classes of her subjects. He then organized a counter-revolution to the one effected by Athaliah, with the greatest prudence, caution, and sagacity. It would have been easy to gather partisans and raise a revolt; but Jehoiada shrank from the horrors of a civil war, and from the risk of losing his precious charge by a stray shot or a chance sword-thrust. He therefore set to work to detach Athaliah’s supporters from her cause by the peaceful method of persuasion. First he gained over the captains of her guard, then through them the rank-and-file, finally the "chief fathers" of Israel in the various cities (2 Chronicles 23:2). Doubting the sufficiency of this force, he farther summoned to his aid a large body of Levites. And all this he did so secretly as to create no alarm, to arouse no suspicion. When the time for action came, he made his arrangements with the most consummate skill. He could not, indeed, have foreseen that Athaliah would so play into his hand, as she did, by coming within the temple walls with few or no attendants; but he had taken his measures in such a way as to make failure impossible, and to reduce to a minimum the probability of tumult or armed resistance. It was an indication of extraordinary prudence and political wisdom to be able to effect a complete revolution, both in Church and state, at the cost of two lives, both of them clearly forfeit by the Law of Moses. Up to this time, Jehoiada’s wisdom had been chiefly conspicuous. Henceforth it is his fidelity that draws our admiration. Aiming at nothing for himself, his first thought is for the honor of God, and therefore he renews the Mosaic covenant; his next for the welfare of his country, and therefore he makes king and people mutually swear to each other; has third for the honor of true religion, and therefore he destroys the temple of Baal, and inaugurates afresh the Jehovistic service. As Bahr says, "If ever a man stood pure and blameless in the midst of such a bold, difficult, and far-reaching enterprise, then Jehoiada, the ideal Israelitish priest, did so here." The after-life of Jehoiada is less remarkable (2 Kings 12:2-16; 2 Chronicles 24:2-14), but not unworthy of his earlier reputation. 2 Kings 11:15-17 God’s judgments not infrequently fall in this life, though sometimes they are deferred to the life beyond the grave. The Athaliahs and Mattans of history seldom come to a good end. Though the wicked man be often seen in prosperity, though he "flourishes as a green bay tree," yet it is not often that he continues flourishing to the close of his days, or dies in comfort, peace, and happiness. The psalmist was satisfied when he saw "the end’ of the man whose long-continued prosperity had vexed and grieved him (Psalms 73:2-22). Heathen wisdom bade men "never to pronounce any one happy before his death," since in human life changes were of continual occurrence, and the higher a man’s exaltation above his fellows at a given time, the lower was likely to be his depression and degradation at another. The rationale of the matter seems to be— I. GOD HAS TO VICE IN THE WAY OF NATURAL , WHICH TAKE EFFECT IF TIME BE ALLOWED. Tyrants lay up for themselves a constantly increasing amount of hatred and resentment, which naturally bursts forth and sweeps them away after a while; e.g. Hipparchus, Tarquin, Dionysius, Caligula, Nero. Drunkards, gluttons, and profligate persons destroy their health. Reckless spendthrifts reduce themselves to poverty and want. Unfaithfulness strips men of their friends, and leaves them weak and defenseless against their adversaries. The prosperity of the wicked is naturally but for a time—give them the full term of human life, and, before they die, their sin will, to a certainty, find them out, and they will cease to prosper. II. GOD DOES, ON , VISIT HIGH-PLACED, SINNERS WITH SUDDEN, SIGNAL DEALT BY HIS OWN HAND. Scripture gives us a certain number of examples, as those of the Pharaoh of the Exodus, Saul, Jezebel, Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, Herod Agrippa, and the like, whose afflictions are distinctly declared to have been sent upon them by God himself in the way of punishment. While, no doubt, great caution is necessary in applying the principle thus indicated to other persons in history, and especially to living persons, we need not shrink from some application of it. God speaks to us in history, not only in his Word. When selfish usurpers, who have deluged whole continents in blood, and sacrificed tens or hundreds of thousands of lives to gratify their ambition, are cast down from their thrones, and die in exile or banishment, it is almost impossible not to see his hand in the occurrences, executing judgment. When an Arius, bent on the disruption of the Church, and seemingly at the point of triumph, expires silently in the night, or a Galerius, the most cruel of persecutors, perishes in most horrible agonies, there is no want of charity or of reverence in once more recognizing his finger interposed to save has Church or to avenge his martyred ones. "Some men’s sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment" (1 Timothy 5:24); and, when the judgment falls, it would be willful blindness on our part not to recognize it. We must be cautious, and remember that those on whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, were not sinners above the other dwellers in Jerusalem (Luke 13:4); but, if it was God’s vengeance that destroyed the cities of the plain, and that visited Nadab and Abihu, Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, Sihon and Og, Balaam, Adonizedek and his brother kings, Eglon, Sisera, Zebah, Zalmunna, Abimelech, Agag, Doeg, Shimei, Jezebel, Haman, Ananias, Sapphira, Herod Agrippa, Elymas, so we may be sure that it has fallen on hundreds of others whose names do not occur in Scripture, coming suddenly upon them, and cutting them off in their iniquities, generally when neither they nor others were in the least expecting it. God is still, as he has ever been, "the great, the mighty God, the Lord of hosts, great in counsel and mighty in work; his eyes are open upon all the ways of the sons of men, to give every one according to his ways and according to the fruit of his doings" (Jeremiah 32:18, Jeremiah 32:19). Either m this life or in the life to come he will execute vengeance upon evil-doers. Well for them if it is in this life, and if they so escape the dreadful lot of those "to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever" (Jude 2 Kings 1:13). BY C.H. IRWIN 2 Kings 11:1-16 The preservation and coronation of Joash. This is a touching story of hymen wickedness and of God’s overruling and preserving power. Three principal personages come before us here, from each of whom something may be learned. I. AND HER WORK. Athaliah’s life-work was a Work of destruction. She did much harm. She did no good. A daughter of Ahab and Jezebel (sometimes called a daughter of Omri, whose granddaughter she was), she had inherited all the evil propensities of her parents. She destroyed her own husband, Jehoram King of Judah. We read of him that "he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, like as did the house of Ahab: for he had the daughter of Ahab to wife: and he wrought that which was evil in the eyes of the Lord" (2 Chronicles 21:6). She destroyed also her son Ahaziah. We read of him that "he also walked in the ways of the house of Ahab: for his mother was his counselor to do wickedly. Wherefore he did evil in the sight of the Lord like the house of Ahab; for they were his counselors after the death of his father to his destruction" (2 Chronicles 21:3, 2 Chronicles 21:4). And now she completes her destructive career by putting to death her grandchildren, the seed royal of the kingdom. There are many women like Athaliah, whose life-work is a work of destruction. What harm one wicked woman can do! Some corrupt the morals of others. Some, by their evil-speaking and slander, do what they can to destroy the reputation and good name of their neighbors. The Jezebels and Athaliahs of Scripture story have their parallels in the Queen Marys, the Pompadours, the Medicis, and the Maintenons of more modern times. II. AND HER WORK. Jehosheba’s work was a work of preservation. She too was a king’s daughter. But she had not been corrupted by the wickedness of the court. She was the wife of Jehoiada the priest—a good wife of a good man. She rescued Joash from Athaliah’s massacre, and kept him hid in the priests’ apartments in the temple. There he was hid for six years, until the time that, as a boy-king, he was called to the throne. If there are Athaliahs in the world still, there are also Jehoshebas. If there are women of cruelty, there are also women of sympathetic and. compassionate spirit. If there are women who are corrupters of others, how many there are who by their own pure life and conduct have been the preservers of public purity and morality! If one wicked woman can do much harm, one pure-minded Christian woman can do a vast amount of good. What an amount of quiet beneficence is being carried on by Christian women throughout the world at the present day! What a vast number of ladies who visit and minister to the poor! What a vast number of ladies who, in hospitals and in private houses, devote themselves to the noble work of nursing the sick I How many are engaged in instructing the young in our Sunday schools! How many have gone forth as missionaries to heathen lands! Woman’s work in the Christian Church, and in the cause of charity and philanthropy, seems to be increasing every year. III. AND HIS WORK. Jehoiada’s work was of a twofold nature. His work was both destroying and preserving. He destroyed idolatry. He put an end to Athaliah’s reign and life. He did not believe in the policy of non-resistance. He believed in doing his utmost to overthrow even the power of the reigning queen, when that power was wickedly obtained, and exercised in an evil way, dishonoring to God and injurious to the interests of the nation. Like many another reformer, he incurred the charge of disloyalty and treason. But there are many things that need to be destroyed. And who can overestimate the harm done by a wicked ruler? But Jehoiada was no mere revolutionist. He did not rebel against Athaliah for revolution’s sake. He did not put an end to her reign because of his antipathy to governments. He would have agreed with St. Paul that "the powers that be are ordained of God." He set up another king in her place, and, in place of the idolatry which she had sanctioned, he set up the worship of the true God. We see in the whole narrative the overruling providence of God. Athaliah thought she would make her power secure by her holocaust of young princes. But man proposes, and God disposes. We see also the use of human instrumentality. God works by means. He used Jehosheba to preserve the young life which in the end was the means, in Jehoiada’s hand, of overthrowing the wicked power of Athaliah.—C.H.I. 2 Kings 11:17-21 The covenant and its results. Jehoiada was faithful to God. All that he had hitherto done was but the work of a pioneer, preparing the way for the restoration of God’s worship and God’s Law in the land. We have here— I. THE MADE. Very early in the history of God’s people we find them entering into covenants with him. When Jacob had that comforting vision at Bethel, he entered into a covenant. "If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go … so that I come again to my father’s house in peace; then shall the Lord be my God; and this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God’s house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee." The pillar he set up was the witness of the covenant. When God gave the Ten Commandments to the children of Israel, they entered into a covenant that they would keep them and do them. That covenant they publicly renewed and ratified many times in their subsequent history. They renewed it shortly before the death of Moses. They renewed it shortly before the death of Joshua, and on that occasion Joshua set up a great stone to be a witness of what they had done. On the occasion before us they renew it under the influence of Jehoiada. "And Jehoiada made a covenant between the Lord and the king and the people, that they should be the Lord’s people; between the king also and the people." They renewed it also in the reign of Josiah, and under Ezra and Nehemiah after the return from the Captivity. In all these cases we find three important features, common to them all. In each case the duty of making the covenant was enjoined upon the people by eminent men of God—prophets, priests, and kings. In each case it was a public covenant, entered into by all the people. And in each case, when the covenant was renewed, it was accompanied by moral and spiritual revival and reformation. Have we not in the New Testament the same duty pointed out and practiced, though not indeed under the same name? It was a public covenant with the Lord when on the Day of Pentecost the three thousand souls were baptized. When Paul praises the Churches of Macedonia for that "they first gave their own selves to the Lord;" when he calls his readers to present themselves a living sacrifice unto God; to remember that they are not their own, but are bought with a price; to come out from among the godless and be separate;—all these are just different ways of reminding them that as Christians they have entered into a covenant with God. Passing over the dark ages which came upon the Christian Church, we find that when the Bible truths began to shed their light once more in the surrounding darkness, the early Reformers found it necessary to baud themselves together in a solemn covenant with God and with one another. By this means they kept before them their great purpose. By this means they stimulated and strengthened and encouraged one another. By this means they lifted up a testimony against surrounding error. Such a covenant was publicly agreed to by the Protestant princes and states of Germany, and also by the Huguenots of France. But the best-known and most memorable covenants are those of Scotland. John Knox laid the foundation of the Reformation in Scotland, but the covenants built it up and strengthened it. The first of these was called the National Covenant, first drawn up in the year 1580. It was signed by the king, nobles, and persons of all ranks—the king being James VI. of Scotland, afterwards James I. of England. By this memorable document the whole people of Scotland pledged themselves to renounce and resist all the errors of popery, and to maintain the truth as it is in Jesus. It was this covenant which was afterwards renewed in the Greyfriar’s Churchyard at Edinburgh, when, among the immense multitude who signed it, many opened their veins and wrote their names with their own blood. The other was the Solemn League and Covenant, entered into between the two parliaments of England and Scotland, also for resistance to popery, and the maintenance of pure religion throughout the land. These things suggest to us that, in times of prevailing wickedness or of prevailing error, it is the duty of God’s people to make public avowal of their faith in Christ and allegiance to him. It is a duty pointed out both in the Old Testament and in the New, and confirmed by the experience of God’s Church both in Scripture times and in more recent days. If ever there was a time when it was the duty of Christ’s people publicly and unitedly to confess him, that time is the present. Wickedness abounds. The love of many waxes cold. Many of Christ’s professing people seem utterly indifferent to the claims of their Master and his cause. False doctrines are taught; and under the show of religion there is a growing conformity to the world. A faithful, strong, united testimony for Christ is urgently needed. How, then, are we to carry out this duty of making a public covenant with God? There is one way which is available to us all, and that is the Lord’s Supper. It is an act of commemoration, communion, and consecration. In partaking of the Lord’s Supper we enter into a covenant with God. It is a public covenant. The eyes of the world are upon us. They see us make a profession to be Christ’s. Do they see that our practice corresponds with our profession? Each communion ought to be a personal covenant with God on the part of each individual believer. It ought to be a public covenant with God on the part of families. It ought to be a public covenant with God on the part of congregations. II. THE KEPT. Jehoiada and the people had entered into a covenant or engagement that they would be the Lord’s. And they kept their promise. The first way in which they showed it was by breaking in pieces the idols and their altars, which were so abundant in the land. So, if we take Christ’s vows upon us at his table, let us show that we mean what we profess. Let us show that we are on the Lord’s side. "Better not to vow, than to vow and not pay." Let us begin with our own hearts. Are there no idols there that need to be thrown down, no besetting sins that need to be put away, no evil passions that need to be crucified? "If ye do return unto the Lord with all your hearts, then put away the strange gods and Ashtaroth from among you, and prepare your hearts unto the Lord, and serve him only" (1 Samuel 7:3). III. THE OF THE . "And all the people of the land rejoiced, and the city was in quiet." God kept them in perfect peace, because their minds were stayed on him. They kept their part of the covenant. God kept his. We find in Scripture that God promises special blessings to those who enter into a covenant with him. Before he gave the Law on Mount Sinai, he said to the children of Israel, "Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine." Then again God says, "Come ye out from among them, and be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord God Almighty." We also find that more than once these promises were fulfilled. In the days of Asa, when the people of Judah made a covenant with God, we read that "it was a time of great rejoicing, for they had sought the Lord with all their heart, and he was found of them; and the Lord gave them rest round about." So in the days of Josiah, When they made the covenant and put away the strange gods, we read, "Surely there was not holden such a Passover from the days of the judges that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the kings of Judah." It was the same in more recent times. The covenanters, whose motto was "For Christ’s crown and covenant," and who shed their blood in defense of Christ’s authority, were a great means of preserving pure and undefiled religion in Scotland. Let us all, then, faithfully witness for him by our lives. "Come, and let us join ourselves to the Lord in a perpetual covenant that shall not be forgotten’ (Jeremiah 1:5).—C.H.I. BY D. THOMAS 2 Kings 11:1-21 The history of Athaliah. "And when Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead," etc. Among the blackest names in the long roll of the world’s infamy are those of kings and queens, and amongst them Athaliah is not the least abhorrent and revolting. She was the daughter of Ahab King of Israel, and of Jezebel, his notorious wife. She married Joram (or Jehoram) King of Judah. She was the mother of Ahaziah, and advised him in his wickedness. After Jehu had slain him, she resolved to put an end to all the children of her husband by his former wives, and then mount the throne of Judah herself. But the half-sister of Ahaziah, Jehosheba, secured Joash, one of the children and heir to the throne, and secreted him with his nurse for six long years. In the seventh year the young prince was brought forth and placed on the throne. Crowds of people assembled to witness the ceremony, and Athaliah, hearing the shouts of the crowd, hastened to the temple, utterly unsuspicious even of the existence of the young king. When, however, she caught a sight of the young king and heard the hurrahs of the crowd, she felt that her atrocious plans had been frustrated, and in her savage humiliation rent her clothes and cried, "Treason! Treason!" But her hour was over; she was too late to rally a party in favor of her own interest, and by the command of the priest she was instantly removed and violently destroyed. In this woman’s life, as here sketched, we have hereditary depravity, outwitted wickedness, and just retribution. I. . We find in this woman, Athaliah, the infernal tendencies of her father and her mother, Ahab and Jezebel. Though they had been swept as monsters from the earth, and were now lying in the grave, their hellish spirit lived and worked in this their daughter. It is, alas! often so. We have an immortality in others, as well as in ourselves. The men of long-forgotten generations still live in the present. Even the moral pulse of Adam throbs in all. By this fact we are reminded: 1. That the moral qualities of parents may become physical tendencies in their children. The man who voluntarily (and all moral qualities are voluntary productions) contracts habits of falsehood, dishonesty, profanity, incontinence, drunkenness, and general intemperance, transmits these to his children as physical tendencies. This is marvelous, but patent to every observer of society and student of history. Who cannot refer to both men and women who have received an unappeasable craving for strong drinks by the drunken habits contracted by their parents? 2. That the evil moral qualities of parents, reappearing in their children in the form of physical tendencies, is no complete justification for the children’s wickedness. This is clear: (1) From the fact that God has endowed all with sufficient force to control all physical tendencies. Most men have sufficient mental faculties to quench the strongest physical passion. (2) From the personal consciousness of every sinner. When the conscience is quickened, the greatest liar, debauchee, drunkard, thief, becomes filled with compunctions for the crimes committed. Every sigh of remorse on account of sin is a testimony to the power of the human mind to control the passions. (3) From the Divine Word as found in the Scriptures. "Whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free." "He that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons." 3. That the way to raise the human race is to improve their moral qualities. Indoctrinate men’s souls with truth, benevolence, piety, chastity, purity, etc; and you help on the race to its millennium. And in no other way. The gospel is the instrument for this. II. . NO doubt this woman, who thought she had destroyed all the "seed royal," considered she had made her way to the throne clear and secure. For six long years she had no conception that one had escaped her bloody purpose. Now it was revealed to her, and her disappointment maddens her with vengeance, and excites the desperate cry, "Treason! Treason!" It is ever so. "He disappointeth the devices of the crafty." History abounds with the examples of the bafflement of wrong. The conduct of Joseph’s brethren, Ahithophel, Sanballat, Haman, and the Jewish Sanhedrin in relation to Christ, are instances. Satan, the arch-enemy of the universe, will exemplify this through all the crises of his accursed future. A piece of conduct, wrought by the highest human skill and earnest industry, if not in accord with the immutable principles of right and truth, can no more succeed in its purpose than a house can stand, which is built regardless of the resistless laws of gravitation. The architecture may look well, the materials be most precious, and the production be most costly, yet down it must come, and confound the builder. Craftiness uses lies as concealment and defense, but the eternal law of Providence makes them snares. One lie leads to another, and so on, until they become so numerous that the author involves himself in contradictions, and he falls and flounders like a wild beast in a snare. III. JUST . "Jehoiada the priest commanded the captains of the hundreds, the officers of the host, and said unto them, Have her forth without the ranges: and him that followeth her kill with the sword …. And they laid hands on her; and she went by the way by the which the horses came into the king’s house: and there was she slain …. And all the people of the land rejoiced, and the city was in quiet: and they slew Athaliah with the sword beside the king’s house." Thus Soepe intereunt aliis meditantes necem. Those who plot the destruction of others often fall themselves. Here is: 1. A terrible retribution. 2. A prompt retribution. It came on her here before she passed into the other world. Retribution is going on now and here. 3. A retribution administered by human hands. Truly "the triumphing of the wicked is short, and the joy of the hypocrite but for a moment. Though his excellency mount up to the heavens, and his head reach unto the clouds; yet he shall perish forever …. Yea, he shall be chased away as a vision of the night." An Oriental act thus vividly describes the retribution that must follow wickedness— "All vice to which man yields in greed to do it, Or soon or late, be sure, he’ll sorely rue it; Experience deep, howe’er false seeming blind him, Surcharged with retribution, out will find him. It locks upon his soul a fatal fetter, Explodes throughout his face in horrid tatter, Over his shameless eyeballs brings a blurring, Keeps in his heart a deadly fear-load stirring; At all pure joys with fiendish talon snatches, The noblest traits from out his being catches; Each beam and hope and vision darkens, His conscience stuns whene’er towards heaven be hearkens; On goading thorns his sleepless longing tosses, With soul remorse-foam pleasure’s waves embosses. Sometimes from phantom-fears impels him flying, Sometimes in frantic horrors shrouds his dying; Now turns his dearest friends to cease to love him, Now spreads avenging Siva’s form above him; Makes this world black with prison walls and gibbets, And in the next escape from hell prohibits. The whole creation’s strange and endless dealing, In spite of shields and veils and arts concealing, Proclaims that whosoe’er is long a sinner Can only be by it of woe a winner." D.T. BY J. ORR 2 Kings 11:1-3 Athaliah’s usurpation. Athaliah was the evil genius of Judah, as Jezebel was of Israel. The mother was slain, but, unwarned by her fall, the daughter snatched at the reins of power, and held the throne for six years. The track of both was marked by violence, bloodshed, and political convulsion. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Kings 12:1-21 THE REIGN OF JOASH. THE REPAIR OF THE TEMPLE. WAR OF JOASH WITH HAZAEL, AND HIS DEATH BY A . 2 Kings 12:1-3 The writer of Kings is extremely brief and incomplete in his account of the reign of Joash. He seems to have had a great tenderness for him, and to have determined that he would put on record nothing to his discredit. We have to go to Chronicles (2 Chronicles 24:1-27.) for a complete account, and for an estimate of the real character of the king and of his reign. Both writers appear to have drawn from the same original document, but the writer of Kings made large omissions from it. In a few points only is his narrative fuller than Chronicles. 2 Kings 12:1 In the seventh year of Jehu. Athaliah began to reign very soon after the accession of Jehu (2 Kings 11:1), and reigned six full years (2 Kings 12:3). The first year of Joash was thus parallel with Jehu’s seventh. Jehoash—or Joash, as he is called sometimes in Kings (2 Kings 11:2; 2 Kings 13:1, 2 Kings 13:10), and always in Chronicles—began to reign; and forty years reigned he in Jerusalem—the writer of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 24:1) and Josephus (’Ant. Jud.,’ 2 Kings 9:8. § 4) agree—and his mother’s name was Zibiah of Beersheba. Josephus calls her "Sabia." 2 Kings 12:2 And Jehoash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord all his days wherein Jehoiada the priest instructed him. So the Septuagint, the Vulgate, Luther, De Wette, Keil, Bahr, and our Revisers. Only Ewald and Thenius attempt to make the passage contradict Chronicles by translating, "Jehoash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord all his days, because Jehoiada the priest had instructed him." But this translation is very forced and unnatural. The writer evidently intended to add a qualifying clause to his statement that Joash reigned well "all his days," but did not wish to draw too much attention to it. 2 Kings 12:3 But the high places were not taken away. So it had been with the best of the previous kings of Judah, as Asa (1 Kings 15:14) and Jehoshaphat (1 Kings 22:43); and so it was with the other "good" kings (2 Kings 14:4; 2 Kings 15:4, 2 Kings 15:35) until the reign of Hezekiah, by whom the high places were removed (see below, 2 Kings 18:4). We must remember that it was Jehovah who was worshipped in the "high places," not Baal, or Moloch, or Ashtoreth (see the comment on l Kings 2 Kings 15:14). The people still sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places. The people, not the king, in the earlier portion of his reign; but in the later portion, probably the king also (see 2 Chronicles 24:17, 2 Chronicles 24:18). 2 Kings 12:4-16 The repair of the temple. It is rather surprising that the temple had not been thoroughly repaired by Jehoiada during the long minority of Joash, when he must practically have had the sole management of affairs. Probably he did repair the worst of the damage done by Athaliah’s orders (2 Chronicles 24:7), which may have been very considerable, but neglected the restoration of such portions of the edifice as appeared to him of secondary importance, as the walls of the courts and the outbuildings. Joash, however, when his minority came to an end, and he succeeded to the administration of the state, took a different view. To him the completion of the repairs seemed a pressing business. Probably he thought the honor of God required the entire obliteration of Athaliah’s wicked proceedings, and the renewal of the temple’s old glories. His six years’ residence within the temple precincts may have also inspired him with a love of the building as a building. 2 Kings 12:4 And Jehoash said to the priests. The initiative of Joash is strongly marked, alike in Kings and Chronicles (2 Chronicles 24:4). The general weakness of his character, and want of vigor and decision, make it the more surprising that he should in this particular matter have shown himself capable of taking his own line and adhering to it (2 Kings 12:7). He has scarcely received from historians the credit that is due to him for his persistent and successful efforts to accomplish an object which was for the honor of religion, and which was yet not pressed forward by the priesthood. Certainly he was no mere puppet of the priestly order. All the money of the dedicated things that is brought into the house of the Lord; rather, all the money of the holy gifts that is brought into the house of the Lord; i.e. all that ye receive from the people in the way of money. This money accrued from three sources, which the king proceeded to enumerate. First, even the money of every one that passeth the account; i.e. the census money—the aggregate of the half-shekels received from the males of above twenty years old, whenever a census was taken (Exodus 30:12-16). The rendering, "current money," preferred by Thenius, Bahr, and our Revisers, is shown by Keil to be untenable. Secondly, the money that every man is set at; i.e. the redemption money, derived in part from the payments made for redeeming the firstborn (Numbers 18:15, Numbers 18:16); in part from the sums which the priests exacted from such as had vowed themselves (Leviticus 27:2-8), or those belonging to them, to God. And [thirdly] all the money that cometh into any man’s heart to bring into the house of the Lord; i.e. all the free-will offerings that should be made in money by any of the Israelites. 2 Kings 12:5 Let the priests take it to them, every man of his acquaintance. The money was to be gathered of "all Israel," out of all "the cities of Judah" (2 Chronicles 24:5). The priests of each locality were to be the collectors, and would therefore gather "of their acquaintance." As we cannot suppose that very much would accrue from either the first or second source, since a census was rarely taken, and personal vows were not very common, we must regard the command of Joash as, in the main, the authorization of a general collection throughout the kingdom of voluntary contributions towards the temple repairs, and so as analogous to the "letters" which our own sovereigns, or archbishops, issue from time to time for collections in churches for special objects. And let them repair the breaches of the house, wheresoever any breach shall be found. The "breaches," or dilapidations, may have been caused, partly by the neglect of necessary repairs during the reigns of Jehoram, Ahaziah, and Athaliah; but they were mainly the result of the willful violence of Athaliah (2 Chronicles 24:7). Apparently, the damage done must have been very great. 2 Kings 12:6 But it was so, that in the three and twentieth year of King Jehoash the priests had not repaired the breaches of the house. No charge is made against the priests of malversation or embezzlement. They had simply been negligent. Probably very little money had come in; and they had not been very active in their endeavors to obtain larger contributions. It must be remembered that what went to the fabric fund would, for the most part, be a deduction from the ordinary revenue of the temple, which was not, perhaps, much in excess of the ordinary demands upon it. We can, therefore, quite understand that the king’s policy would not be popular with the priests (see 2 Chronicles 24:5). Still, it is to be observed that they are not said to have executed no repairs, but only not to have "made haste" and completed their task by the time that the king looked for its completion. 2 Kings 12:7 Then King Jehoash called for Jehoiada the priest. So, too, the writer of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 24:6). The king did not take the matter into his own hands, but consulted with the head of the priestly order on the best steps to take in order to expedite the repairs. He made no" charge," delivered no "rebuke." He did not "remove the administration of the funds from the hands of the delinquent order" (Stanley). On the contrary, he left it in their hands (2 Kings 12:9-11). Two changes only were made: 1. A public chest was set up conspicuously in the temple court, near the great altar, and the people were invited to bring their contributions to the temple, and hand them to the priests, who should straightway deposit them in the chest in the sight of the congregation. 2. The chest was opened from time to time, and the money counted, in the presence of the high priest and of a royal secretary. It was then delivered over to "the overseers of the house"—persons, probably, of the priestly order—appointed by Jehoiada (2 Kings 11:18), who disbursed it to the carpenters and masons (2 Kings 12:11, 2 Kings 12:12). The chest was a sort of tangible evidence to the people of the purpose to which their contributions would be applied, and naturally stimulated their giving. The presence of the king’s officer at the counting of the money, was equivalent, not really to an "audit" (Stanley), but to a publication of the accounts, and would prevent any suspension of the work, so long as it was clear that the money found in the chest had not been expended. Thus a new impetus was given to the movement. The measures taken completely answered. Contributions flowed in rapidly, and in a few years the whole work was accomplished (see 2 Chronicles 24:13, 2 Chronicles 24:14). And the other priests, and said unto them, Why repair ye not the breaches of the house? This shows that no repairs were going on ’in the twenty-third year of Joash, but not that none had been done previously. Now therefore receive no more money of your acceptance. This was a revocation of the order given in 2 Kings 12:5, and necessarily put an end to the local collections, which that order required. But deliver it for the breaches of the house. If the priests were not to "receive the money," they could not "deliver" it. Obscurity is introduced by the desire for extreme brevity. In point of fact, they were to "receive" (2 Kings 12:9), but in a new way. 2 Kings 12:8 And the priests consented to receive no more money of the people—i.e; to put an end to the local collections ordered in 2 Kings 12:5—neither to repair the breaches of the house; i.e. neither to be responsible severally for laying out the money which they collected in repairs. 2 Kings 12:9 But Jehoiada the priest took a chest. The writer of Chronicles says, "At the king’s commandment, they made a chest" (2 Chronicles 24:8). The suggestion was probably the king’s, but the ecclesiastical and civil authorities worked harmoniously in the business. And bored a hole in the lid of it—as hundreds of thousands have done since his time—and set it beside the altar, on the right side as one cometh into the house of the Lord. The altar intended is, of course, the altar of burnt offering, which was in the court of the temple, directly opposite the porch. The chest was placed outside the sanctuary (2 Chronicles 24:8), and, indeed, outside the porch, on the right hand as one entered into the court by the north door. It was thus very conspicuous. And the priests that kept the door—i.e. the door of the court—put therein all the money that was brought into the house of the Lord. The priests received the money from those who offered, at the gate of the court, and, proceeding to the chest, dropped it in through the aperture. A man could not see that all which he had given was put in, but he reckoned on the good faith of the priest, and was satisfied. 2 Kings 12:10 And it was so, when they saw that there was much money in the chest. "When they saw" means "when they perceived." They would not see that the chest was becoming full, but would know by the weight, and perhaps by the sound which the money made when it was dropped in. That the king’s scribe. "Royal secretaries" were common in ancient Persia, and often acted as the king’s commissioners (Herod; 3.128; Xen; ’Cyrop.,’ 8.6. § 16; ’AEcouom.,’ 4.8). Such persons are seen on the Assyrian sculptured slabs, with a roll of paper or parchment in one hand, and a pen in the other, taking account for the king of the spoil brought in from foreign countries. And the high priest. Since the time of Joshua, the high priest had been called simply "the priest." The restoration of the full title (hac-cohen hag-gadol) marks the increasing power of the priests and the diminishing power of the kings under the later monarchy. Came up, and they put up in bags, and told, the money that was found in the house of the Lord. Money was ordinarily put up in bags, containing a certain definite amount, the mouth of the bag being then tied round with a string (see 2 Kings 5:23; and comp. Proverbs 7:20; Isaiah 46:6; Haggai 1:6). Hence putting money up in bags was sometimes called, as in this place, "binding it." No doubt they "told," or counted, the money first, and put it in the bags afterwards; but ὒστερονπρότερον is a very common figure of speech. 2 Kings 12:11 And they gave the money, being told—rather, after weighing it—into the hands of them that did the work, that had the oversight of the house of the Lord. It must be remembered that no coins existed as yet; and the lumps of silver which passed as shekels and half shekels, were of very uncertain weight. To know the value of the money in each bag, it was necessary, not only to count the pieces, but to weigh each bag separately. The bags, when weighed, were handed over by the high priest and the royal secretary to the officers whom Jehoiada had appointed (2 Kings 11:18) to have the general superintendence of the "house." And they laid it out to the carpenters and builders, that wrought upon the house of the Lord. The "paid it out" of our Revisers is better than "laid it out." The overseers of the temple paid over to the carpenters and the builders, from time to time, such money as was needed for the work done or doing. 2 Kings 12:12 And to masons; rather, to the masons. The "masons" (goderim) are the actual artisans who worked under instructions from the "builders." And hewers of stone—or, stone-cutters—rather, those who sawed up the stones on the spot, than those who hewed them in the quarries—and to buy timber and hewed stone to repair the breaches of the house of the Lord. The writer of Chronicles mentions "workers in iron and brass" (bronze) also (2 Chronicles 24:12). Probably, when once the work was taken thoroughly in hand, it was found that repairs of all sorts and kinds were needed. The temple had stood for a hundred and thirty-six years, and up to this time it had, so far as we know, undergone no repairs at all. Certainly none are mentioned. And for all that was laid out for the house to repair it. This general clause shows how wide were the powers of the overseers. The suspicions and jealousies which modern writers have imagined contrast remarkably with the general confidence and trust which seem to have prevailed among all those concerned in the repairs. 2 Kings 12:13 Howbeit there was not made for the house of the Lord bowls of silver, snuffers, basins, trumpets, any vessels of gold, or vessels of silver, of the money that was brought into the house of the Lord; i.e. while the repairs were incomplete, while the work was still going on, no portion of the money taken from the chest was expended in the purchase of new sacred vessels, whether of gold or silver, whether howls, or snuffers, or basins, or trumpets the whole was rigidly applied to the renovation of the temple building. There is no contradiction between this statement and that of the writer of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 24:14), who tells us that, after the entire repairs were completed, the surplus money was expended in this way, on the purchase of "vessels to minister and to offer, spoons, and vessels of gold and silver." We can well understand that, after the spoiling of the temple by successive kings to buy off enemies—by Rehoboam to content Shishak (1 Kings 14:26), by Asa to gratify Benhadad (1 Kings 15:18), and by Joash himself (2 Kings 12:18) to procure the retreat of Hazael from the siege of Jerusalem, the vessels of the temple must have required renovating almost as much as the fabric itself; and when it was found that there remained a surplus over and above all that was needed for building purposes, we cannot wonder that it was applied to the renewal of the vessels, absolutely essential as they were for the service of the sanctuary. 2 Kings 12:14 But they gave that—i.e; the whole money contributed—to the workmen—equivalent to "the carpenters, builders, masons, hewers of stone," etc; mentioned in 2 Kings 12:11, 2 Kings 12:12—and repaired therewith the house of the Lord; i.e. expended the money on the repairs. 2 Kings 12:15 Moreover they reckoned not with the men, into whose hand they delivered the money to be bestowed on workmen. Society rests upon faith and trust. In all business transactions confidence must be reposed in some one, whose character is the guarantee of his honesty. In the case before us, the overseers of the temple were the persons trusted to expend the money aright (see 2 Kings 12:11). The overseers (2 Kings 11:18) had been appointed by the high priest. For they dealt faithfully; i.e. honestly. 2 Kings 12:16 The trespass money. When a man had injured another, he was bound by the Law to make compensation to the injured party at the valuation of the priest, with the addition of one-fifth more than the value (Leviticus 2 Kings 6:2-6; Numbers 5:6-8). The compensation was, primarily, to be made to the man himself; secondarily, if he were dead, to his nearest kinsman; finally, if he had left no kinsman, to the priest. And sin money. According to the Law, the priest was entitled to no money with a sin offering; but it seems to have become customary to make the priest who offered it a voluntary gift, to compensate him for his trouble. Such free gifts the priest was by the Law (Numbers 5:10) entitled to receive. Was not brought into the house of the Lord—i.e. it was not deposited in the chest, or applied to the repairs, but—it was the priests’. 2 Kings 12:17, 2 Kings 12:18 The war of Joash with Hazael. A considerable gap occurs between 2 Kings 12:16 and 2 Kings 12:17. We learn from Chronicles some particulars of the interval. Not long after the completion of the repairs, Jehoiada, who had lived to a good old age in complete harmony with the monarch, expired. His piety, and his good services, as preserver of the house of David, as restorer of the temple-worship, and joint-repairer with Joash of the temple itself, were regarded as entitling him to extraordinary funeral honors; and by general consent he was interred within the city of Jerusalem, in the sepulchers of the kings (2 Chronicles 24:16). His removal led to a fresh religious revolution. "The Jewish aristocracy, who perhaps had never been free from the licentious and idolatrous taint introduced by Rehoboam and confirmed by Athaliah, and who may well have been galled by the new rise of the priestly order, presented themselves before Joash, and offered him the same obsequious homage that bad been paid by the young nobles to Rehoboam. He … feeling himself released from personal obligations by the death of his adopted father, threw himself into their hands. Athaliah was avenged almost upon the spot where she had been first seized by her enemies". Joash began by allowing the reintroduction of idolatry and grove-worship (2 Chronicles 24:18), and then, when remonstrated with by Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada, who had succeeded his father in the office of high priest, had the remonstrant set upon by the people and slain. The writer of Chronicles closely connects this murderous deed with the Syrian war, which followed it within a year (2 Chronicles 24:23), and was generally regarded as a Divine judgment. 2 Kings 12:17 Then Hazael King of Syria went up, and fought against Gath. Hitherto Judah had been safe from any attack on the part of Syria, since Israel had been interposed between the two powers. Now, however, that Hazael had conquered from Jehu the entire trans-Jordanic territory (2 Kings 10:33), the case was wholly altered—Judah and Syria had become conterminous along the line of the lower Jordan, and Syria could invade Judaea at any moment. It is surprising that Gath should have been the special object of attack, since Oath (Abu-Gheith) lay remote from the Syrian frontier, in the southwestern part of Judaea, and could only be reached from Syria by an enemy who was not afraid of leaving Jerusalem behind him. Gath, when last mentioned, was a Judaean city, and was fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chronicles 11:8); but it was originally Philistine (1 Samuel 5:1-12:17), and the Philistines had recovered it before the time of Uzziah (2 Chronicles 26:6). To which power it belonged when Hazael made war upon it is uncertain. And took it—probably took it by storm, and plundered it, but did not attempt an occupation—and Hazael set his face to go up to Jerusalem. If Gath be Abu-Gheith, as appears probable, it would be distant from Jerusalem not less than forty miles in a direct line. If Hazael, however, was returning to the trans-Jordanic country taken from Israel, it would lie in his way, and might naturally tempt him to make a dash at it, more especially as he was flushed with victory. 2 Kings 12:18 And Jehoash King of Judah took all the hallowed things. The writer of Chronicles tells us that, first of all, there was a battle. "The army of the Syrians came with a small company of men, and the Lord delivered a very great host into their hand" (2 Chronicles 24:24). The loss was especially heavy among the nobles, who officered the Jewish army. Much plunder was taken by the visitors (2 Chronicles 24:23). Then, probably, the siege of the city was commenced, and Joash, like Rehoboam and Asa before him (1 Kings 14:26; 1 Kings 15:18), and Hezekiah subsequently (2 Kings 18:15, 2 Kings 18:16), had recourse to the temple treasures, and with them bought off the invader. It is noticeable that Athaliah had not deprived the temple of them previously. That Jehoshaphat, and Jehoram, and Ahaziah, his fathers, kings of Judah, had dedicated. Though Jehoram and Ahaziah apostatized so far as to maintain the Baal-worship in Jerusalem, and even to force attendance on it (2 Chronicles 21:11), yet they did not relinquish altogether the worship of Jehovah. That Jehoram called his son, Ahaziah, "possession of Jehovah," and Ahaziah one of his sons, Joash, "whom Jehovah supports," is indicative of this syncretism, which was common in ancient times, but against which pure Judaism made the strongest possible protest. And his own hallowed things—i.e; the gifts which he had himself made to the temple—and all the gold that was found in the treasures of the house of the Lord. This was probably not much; but some "vessels of gold" had been made (2 Chronicles 24:14) out of the residue of the money subscribed for the repairs. And in the king’s house. The royal palace had been plundered by the Arabs and Philistines combined in the reign of Jehoram (2 Chronicles 21:16, 2 Chronicles 21:17); but in the thirty years that had since elapsed there had been time for fresh accumulations. And sent it to Hazael King of Syria: and he went away from Jerusalem. The personal presence of Hazael at the siege seems to be here implied, while 2 Chronicles 24:23 rather implies his absence. Perhaps he was absent at first, but joined the besiegers after a while. 2 Kings 12:19-21 The close of the reign of Joash—his murder by his servants. Again the narrative of Kings is to be supplemented by that of Chronicles. From Chronicles we learn that, before the withdrawal of the Syrians, Joash had fallen into a severe illness, which confined him to his apartment (2 Chronicles 24:25). This gave opportunity for conspiracy. Among the courtiers were two, perhaps more, whom the fate of Zechariah had grieved, and who were probably opposed to the entire series of later changes in religion which had been sanctioned by Joash (2 Chronicles 24:17, 2 Chronicles 24:18). These persons "made a conspiracy," which was successful, and "slew Joash on his bed" (2 Chronicles 24:25). They then buried him in Jerusalem, but "not in the sepulchers of the kings." 2 Kings 12:19 And the rest of the acts of Joash, and all that he did, are they not written in the chronicles of the kings of Judah? This formal phrase, with which he concludes his account of almost every Jewish king (1 Kings 14:29; 1 Kings 15:7, 1 Kings 15:23; 1 Kings 22:45; 2 Kings 8:23; 2 Kings 14:18; 2 Kings 15:6, etc.), cannot be regarded as an acknowledgment by the author of any special or designed reticence with respect to the reign of Joash. We must suppose him unconscious of any such design. He had to omit much in every case; in the present he happened to omit all the darker shades; and the result was an over-favorable portraiture of the monarch. But, in the providence of God, complete historical justice was secured by the labors and researches of a second inspired writer. 2 Kings 12:20 And his servants arose, and made a conspiracy. By "his servants" officers of his household are probably intended, attendants whose position would give them ready access to his person. And slew Joash in the house of Millo. Joash had probably transferred his residence to "the house of Mille."—the great fortress built by David (2 Samuel 5:9) and Solomon (1 Kings 9:15, 1 Kings 9:24) in Jerusalem—for greater security during the siege; and, being there prostrated by sickness, could not remove from it when the siege was over. Which goeth down to Silla. No commentator has succeeded in explaining this passage. There is no other mention of Silla; and it is difficult to understand how a fortress could be said to "go down" to any place. Our Revisers’ conjecture—"on the way that goeth down to Silla"—may be accepted as a possible explanation; but it implies that a word (בַּדֶּרֶךְ) has dropped out of the text. 2 Kings 12:21 For Jozachar the son of Shimeath; called in Chronicles "Zabad," probably through a corruption of the text. His mother, Shimeath, was, according to Chronicles (2 Chronicles 24:26), an Ammonitess. And Jehozabad the son of Shomer. For "Shomer" we have in Chronicles "Shimrith," which is the feminine form of "Shomer," and we are told that she was a Moabitess. The Jews were at all times fond of taking wives from Moab and Ammon (Rth 1:4; 1 Kings 11:1; Ezra 9:1, Ezra 9:2; Nehemiah 13:23), despite the prohibition of mixed marriages in the Law (see Deuteronomy 7:3). His servants, smote him, and he died (for their motives, see the introductory paragraph), and they buried him with his fathers in the city of David. Some critics (as Thenius and Dean Stanley) see a contradiction between this statement and that of 2 Chronicles 24:25, that he was "not buried in the sepulchers of the kings;" but, as Bertheau, Keil, and Bahr observe. "the two statements are not irreconcilable," since he may have been regarded as "buried with his fathers," if his grave was anywhere in Jerusalem, even though he was excluded from the royal burying-place. And Amaziah his son reigned in his stead. (For the reign of Amaziah, see 2 Kings 14:1-20.) 2 Kings 12:2 Weakness in a monarch almost as bad as wickedness. The most prominent trait in the character of Joash was his lack of independence and moral weakness. He had no strength of will, no stamina; in the expressive, if inelegant, language of our times, "no backbone." He must always lean upon some one. Let us look at Joash— I. IN HIS YOUTH. At this time he was so fortunate as to have a natural prop and support in Jehoiada, his uncle by marriage, and his guardian during the years of his minority. Jehoiada’s was a strong character, and the life of Joash, while Jehoiada guided his steps, if not marked by any strikingly great actions, was correct, exemplary, worthy of praise. There was piety and right feeling in the pains, which he took to promote the restoration of the temple, and prudence in the measures whereby he succeeded in effecting his purpose. The measures may have been—probably were—suggested by Jehoiada; but the king deserves some credit for adopting them. Οὗτοςμενμανάριστος, ὂςαὐτὸςπάντανοεῖται Φρασσόμενοςτάἔπειτακαὶἐςτέλοςἐστὶνἀμείνω Ἐσθλὸςδ̓αὖκᾴκεινος, ὂςεὖεἰπόντιπίθηται As the writer of Kings says, "Joash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord all his days wherein Jehoiada the priest instructed him" (2 Kings 12:2). But Jehoiada could not live forever. He reached a very advanced age; but at last he "waxed old and died" (2 Chronicles 24:15), and Joash was left to manage as he might without him. Let us look at him now— II. IN HIS MIDDLE AGE, AFTER THE DEATH OF . Apparently his weakness is known, and it is at once assumed that he must put himself under directors. The "princes of Judah" go to him, pay him court, flatter him probably, at any rate offer him unusual honors. And at once he succumbs, and places himself under their influence. We cannot suppose him not to have been aware of what he was doing. He must have known the leanings of the "princes," and have understood that, in adopting them as his advisers, he was giving up all the traditions of his earlier life, and taking a new departure. Such lightness would not have been surprising in a mere youth; but Joash was now at least thirty years of age, probably more, and might have been expected to have formed and settled his principles and his character. Still, experience shows that even thirty years of a pious life, if it has been passed "under tutors and governors," does not fix a man’s future in the same line—nay, often leads him to an almost irrepressible desire for revolt, and for departing widely from his antecedents. The desire is a temptation of the devil, and, if yielded to, has devilish results; but it is very often yielded to. Nero’s outbreak after he had got rid of Seneca is the most palpable historical example; but the experience of most persons must have shown them scores of instances of men, trained and brought up in good courses till middle life, and then suddenly set free to take their own line, who have plunged into dissipation, impiety, and wickedness of all kinds. The case of Joash is extraordinary, not in its general features, but in the lengths to which he went. Under the influence of the "princes," he allowed the Baal-worship to be reintroduced, and gave it free tolerance. When prophets remonstrated, and Zechariah denounced God’s vengeance on those who had forsaken him (2 Chronicles 24:19, 2 Chronicles 24:20), then Joash, unaccustomed to opposition, was so exasperated that he went the length of murder—murder of a high priest within the precincts of the temple, by the cruet death of stoning, and murder of one for whom he ought to have had a special kindness, in remembrance of the vast benefits which he had received from his father (2 Chronicles 29:22). It is quite possible—nay, probable—that Joash (like Henry II. in the case of Becket) did not deliberately determine on the murder—that hasty words, uttered in extreme exasperation, were seized upon (Stanley) by his too-officious servants, and carried out in act before he could retract them. But this only emphasizes his weakness. A well-intentioned prince, yielding to evil influences, sanctions the most atrocious crime that the temple ever witnessed (Matthew 23:35) and through Ms wellness involves the nation in guilt greater than any that had been incurred by the doings of the most wicked of preceding monarchs. 2 Kings 12:4-8 Inconvenience of setting priests and ministers to serve tables. However convinced we may be of the honesty of the priests and Levites concerned in collecting money at this time for the repairs of the temple, it is undeniable that their proceedings in the matter created distrust and dissatisfaction. We know too little of the monetary arrangements previously in use among the Jews to see with any real clearness what exactly the complaint of the laity was, or how far the priests and Levites had a satisfactory answer to it. Probably the rules given were not sufficiently definite; and it may also well have been that the priests and Levites were not sufficiently versed in business transactions to understand completely what the rules laid down expressed. We must remember that, in the early Church, when the apostles had to occupy themselves with money matters, it was not long before complaints arose (Acts 6:1), and the apostles refused any longer to "serve tables." The very foundation of society is a division of labor. In an organization like that of the Church, whether Jewish or Christian, it is of extreme importance to disconnect the performance of high spiritual functions from the duty of receiving, apportioning, and disbursing large sums of money. This is so— I. BECAUSE, AS A GENERAL RULE, THE MOST MINDED OF MEN ARE THE MOST INAPT FOR THE DETAILS OF . Different qualities of mind, qualities offering a strong contrast, and very rarely united in the same person, are requisite for success in business and for winning souls to God; also intimate acquaintance with an entirely different set of facts is in each ease necessary. Spiritually minded men are in many instances woefully deficient in worldly knowledge, know nothing of book-keeping by double entry, and even find a difficulty in remembering the multiplication mine. Their faculties are suited for something higher than "serving tables," and to employ them in such service is to waste valuable material in work for which it is wholly unsuited. II. BECAUSE, IF ARE ILL MANAGED, ARISE, AND GOD’S SHOULD BE ABOVE . A minister’s usefulness is gone if once he is suspected in money matters. It is seriously impaired, even if nothing is proved against him beyond incapacity and blundering. Many a clergyman has got into most serious trouble by undertaking work of a worldly kind, which he never ought to have undertaker, and failing in the proper management of it, though his honesty was quite unimpeachable. III. BECAUSE THE TIME GIVEN BY TO MATTERS MIGHT BE BETTER SPENT IN THE PROPER WORK OF THE . This was what the apostles felt (Acts 6:2-4); they wished to give themselves wholly to "the ministry of the Word and to prayer." Modern clergymen have, in addition, parochial visiting and reading to employ them, both making large demands upon their time, and impossible to be shifted upon others. A congregation will, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, derive far more benefit from their minister having an additional hour a day, or two hours a day, for reading, than from his spending the time in slaving at accounts, collecting the children’s pence, looking after clubs, and bargaining for coals or blankets. The study of the Bible, with all the new light which is thrown upon it by recent scholarship and research, is imperative; and it is also essential that a clergy man should hay? such a knowledge of the current and tendencies of modern thought as is only to be maintained by very diligent reading of the popular literature, periodical and other, of the day. IV. BECAUSE IT HARMONY AND UNION IF THE LAITY ARE IN THE MATTERS OF THE , OR CHURCH, OR PARISH. In almost every parish or congregation there will be among the laity persons quite fit to undertake the functions whereof we have been speaking. And such persons will in most cases be gratified by being asked to undertake them. They will be glad to be associated with the clergyman in parochial matters, and to relieve him of a portion of his burdens. It will be a satisfaction to them to be doing some work for Christ and his Church, to feel that they are a part of the organization, and that by their gratuitous service they are furthering the cause of their Lord and Master. And the greater intercourse which will thus take place between them and their spiritual guides will foster good feeling and mutual regard and respect. 2 Kings 12:4-15 Church restoration a good work, acceptable to God. David’s desire to build God a house is often mentioned to his honor (2 Samuel 7:2; 1 Chronicles 17:1, 1 Chronicles 17:2; 2 Chronicles 6:7; Acts 7:46). Solomon’s reputation for piety and zeal rests mainly upon the pains which he took to erect for God’s worship a noble and suitable edifice (Wis. 9:8; Ecclesiasticus 47:13; Acts 7:47). The "repairing of the house of God" (2 Chronicles 24:27) by Joash obtained him his place among the good kings (2 Kings 12:2). Josiah’s restoration (2 Kings 22:3-7) helped to put him in the higher category of those who were in no way defective (Ecclesiasticus 42:4). Zerubbabel and Jeshua were long held in honor, because they "builded the house, and set up a holy temple to the Lord" (Ecclesiasticus 49:12). It was the great glory of Judas Maccabaeus that he cleansed and "renewed the sanctuary" (1 Macc. 5:1). If God is to have any outward worship at all, if nations are to honor him openly, if men are to join in common prayer for mutual encouragement and edification, there must be buildings for the purpose; and natural reverence requires that they shall be kept solely for the purpose. He who provides such buildings does a good work; he who repairs them when they need it, or restores them when they have gone to decay, shows the same spirit as the original builder, and deserves scarcely less praise. Of course, we assume that both builders and repairers and restorers do their work in a proper frame of mind, and from proper motives; otherwise church-building, like almsgiving or any other good work, may cease to be pleasing to God, or may even become an "offense" to him. Church-builders and church-restorers should see— I. THAT THEY DO NOT THEIR WORK OUT OF OR FOR THEIR OWN GLORY. This their conscience will readily tell them if they honestly consult it. II. THAT THEY DO IT NOT IN A SPIRIT OF MERE , OUT OF A LOVE OF ART. Considering the personal character of those who built St. Peter’s at Rome, and the dominant spirit of the age, it is difficult to suppose that the main motive at work among the promoters was not the aesthetic one. And there may be a danger of the same kind at the present day, when art is in such high estimation. III. THAT THEY DO IT NOT OUT OF STRIFE, OR , OR , BUT, IF , WITH A SINGLE EYE TO GOD’S HONOR, OR, AT ANY RATE, WITH GOD’S HONOR AS THEIR MAIN OBJECT. As some preached the gospel out of strife (Philippians 1:15) in the apostles’ time, so it may be that occasionally nowadays the desire of surpassing a neighbor, or outshining a rival, may be at the root of men’s munificence in church-building and chapel-building. As "dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to stink" (Ecclesiastes 10:1), so a wrong motive takes away all its sweet savor from a good action. BY C.h. IRWIN 2 Kings 12:1-3 The influence of a wise counselor. "Joash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord all his days wherein Jehoiada the priest instructed him." I. MUCH DEPENDS UPON THE OF THE . Compare England under the Stuarts with England under Cromwell or Queen Victoria. An impure and licentious court demoralizes a whole nation. A pure court is a standing rebuke to iniquity in high places. We have much need to pray "for kings, and for all that are in authority." We have much need to be thankful for the character and life of our present sovereign. II. THE LIFE LARGELY DEPENDS UPON THE OF THE NATION’S . In our limited monarchy the "ministers of the Crown" are virtually the rulers of the nation. How important that a Christian nation should have Christen rulers, Christian legislators! The time has surely come when the voice of the Christian people of the British empire should be much more heard in Parliament. It is not so much the politics of party we need, as the politics of Christianity. We want rulers who will remember that "righteousness exalteth a nation." We want our laws to be based upon the eternal law of God. We want legislators who have the fear of God before their eyes. Christian people need to be aroused to their duty in this matter. They should see to it that, so far as they can secure it, Christian men are chosen to represent them in the legislature of the nation.—C.H.I. 2 Kings 12:4-16 The repairing of the temple under Joash: a missionary sermon. I. THIS WORK HAD ITS ORIGIN IN THE KING’S COMMAND. Kings get a great many hard knocks nowadays. But kings have not been all bad. Considering the fierce light which beats upon a throne, and the special temptations to which they are exposed, perhaps the character of kings will bear investigation as well as the character of many of their critics. If in Jewish history we find a Jeroboam and an Ahab, we also find a Solomon and a Hezekiah. If in Roman history we find a Nero staining with cruelty and bloodshed the imperial purple, we find others like Trajan and Marcus Aurelius, the patrons of literature, philosophy, and the arts. If in our British nation some of our sovereigns were not all they should have been, we can point to the influence for good which many of our rulers have exercised. So, although Joash ended badly, he began well. The first work of Joash and Jehoiada was to pull down the temple of Baal, and destroy his images. Their next work was to repair the temple of the Lord. Not merely had the house of the Lord been neglected for the worship of Baal, but, as we read in 2 Chronicles, "the sons of Athaliah, that wicked woman, had broken up the house of God; and also all the dedicated things of the house of the Lord did they bestow upon Baalim." Joash was grieved that the house of God should be in this shameful condition. He gave command that the temple should be repaired. He instructed the priests and Levites that they were to make collections for this purpose, not only in the temple, but throughout the land, every man from his acquaintance. 1. We have got the command of a King in reference to his Church. The Lord Jesus Christ expects that all who are his people will take an interest in building up that Church. We are first of all to build up the Church of Christ in our own land and in our own district. The professing Christian who enjoys the privileges of a Church, but contributes nothing to its support, is not obeying the teaching of God’s Word. Then, also, we are to pray and give and labor for the extension of Christ’s kingdom throughout the world. "Let him that heareth say, Come." "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." "The harvest truly is plenteous, but the laborers are few; pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth laborers into his harvest." Here are three commands of Christ. How are we seeking to fulfill them? 2. The cause of Christian missions rests upon the command of our King. Some may think little of Christian missions. They may make light of their necessity, or undervalue the work they have done—though testimonies to the value of missionary work are becoming more frequent every year from explorers, from scientific men, from statesmen, even from heathen who have not become Christians. But it is enough for the true Christian that Christ has commanded the evangelization of the world. "That command," said the Duke of Wellington, "is the marching orders of the Christian Church." II. THIS WORK WAS DELAYED BY PRIESTS. Notwithstanding the command of King Joash, which would seem to have been given early in his reign, for a long time nothing was done. The time passed by till the twenty-third year of his reign, and still the priests had not repaired the breaches of the house of the Lord. Joash called the priests and the Levites together, and asked them why they had not carried out the work entrusted to them. Then he took it out of their hands in a certain measure. They who should have been the foremost in their zeal for the house of God had been tardy in this important work. How often it has unhappily been so in the history of the Christian Church! It was through the priesthood of the Western Church in the Middle Ages that the greatest corruptions crept in. Forgetting their spiritual profession, they mixed themselves up with the political strife of their day. The popes aspired to be lords over God’s heritage—a claim which Christ forbade his apostles to exercise. They thirsted for temporal power, and put the power of the Church into competition with the governments of the nations, just as the present pope is seeking to do in our own time. They thirsted for wealth and splendor, and thus began the traffic in indulgences against which Luther raised his mighty voice. All this time they were unfaithful to the high commission they professed to hold. They were forgetful of the plain statement of Christ, "My kingdom is not of this world." But this unfaithfulness of the teachers of religion is not confined to the Church of Rome. All Churches have suffered from it at one time or another. How much of the delay in the great work of Christian missions has been due to the neglect and unfaithfulness of religious teachers! For centuries scarcely anything was done to carry the gospel into heathen lands. Protestant missions can scarcely be said to have existed before the nineteenth century. The blight of moderatism, which was over all Christian communities in the last century, was fatal to all missionary effort for the time. But God’s work does not depend upon men, or on any class of men. If those who are stewards of God are unfaithful to their trust, God will commit it to other hands. If men enter the sacred stoics of the ministry for the sake of earning a livelihood, God can deprive them even of that. How important for ministers of Christ to remember that they are watchmen upon the walls of Zion, and that if they neglect to warn the sinner, the blood of lost souls will be required at their hands! They are to be teachers and examples of the flock, leaders in every good work. Well it is for the Christian minister when he can say with the Apostle Paul, "I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men, for I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God." III. THIS WORK WAS BY PEOPLE. We may learn much from this chapter about the place of money in the Church of God. First of all, we see that the people were regularly rated or assessed for the support of religious ordinances. It is to this that Joash refers (verse 4) when he speaks of the money of every one that passeth the account—the money that every man is set at. And in the account which is given in 2 Chronicles it is said that they made a proclamation throughout Judah and Jerusalem to bring in to the Lord the collection that Moses the servant of the Lord laid upon Israel in the wilderness. When we look into the thirtieth chapter of Exodus, the last chapter of Leviticus, and other passages, we find the clear instructions of God himself on this matter. When the numbering or census of the people was made, each one was assessed at so much for an atonement offering. This money was devoted to maintain the services of the sanctuary. Then again, if any one entered into a special vow to be the Lord’s, he incurred special pecuniary obligations, and was rated accordingly. All these offerings Joash ordered to be set apart on this occasion for the repairs of the temple, with the exception of the sin and trespass offerings, which were secured to the priests, and which could not be touched for any other purpose. From these and other details we learn that God expected the Israelites to contribute regularly a fixed sum, in proportion to their income, for the support of religious ordinances. He expected of those who took special vows upon them that they should consecrate more of their money to his service. So God expects of his people still, and particularly of those who make the full profession of Christianity involved in attendance at the Lord’s table. Some preacher stated lately that it is no "charity" when we give to the support of the Church with which we are connected. It is merely the payment of a debt—the fulfillment of obligations which every one incurs when he becomes a member of a Christian Church, and obligations which can no more be rightly shirked than any other just and lawful debt. Over and above that, he said, there is, of course, a large margin for the exercise of Christian charity and benevolence. This was the case when Joash appealed to the people to contribute, not only the fixed sum at which they were rated, but also "all the money that cometh into any man’s heart to bring into the house of the Lord." He was not ashamed to appeal to them for money, for it was for a good cause. It was for God’s cause, for God’s house. He put the chest in a prominent place, where it could be seen (verse 9). And his faithful, earnest appeal was not without effect. We read in 2 Chronicles 24:10 that" all the princes and all the people rejoiced, and brought in, and cast into the chest, until they had made an end." No doubt they experienced the blessing which is implied in the words, "God loveth a cheerful giver." We need to study God’s Word more on this subject of Christian giving. We have seen what the Old Testament rules were. Here is one from the New Testament: "On the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him." If we were to give systematically, as these words exhort; if we were to measure our weekly offerings by our prosperity, how much larger our offertories would be! what an overflowing offering of silver and gold would be given to carry the gospel to the heathen! IV. THIS WORK WAS CARRIED OUT BY WORKERS. Those are very remarkable words, "Moreover they reckoned not with the men, into whose hand they delivered the money to be bestowed on workmen: for they dealt faithfully" (2 Chronicles 24:15). There were faithful workmen, and faithful overseers of the work. And what was the explanation of this unusual confidence on the part of the contributors, and unusual faithfulness on the part of the workers? Ah! there had been a reformation of religion! Wherever true religion flourishes, there there will be honest and upright dealing between man and man. When the great revival of religion took place in Ulster in 1859, the change was soon manifest in the conduct of the whole community. Scenes of strife and turbulence became scenes of kindness and peace. The officers of justice had easy work in maintaining law and order, and at many of the sessions there was absolutely no criminal business. When men are influenced by the fear of God it will not be hard to procure obedience for the law of man. When the love of Christ is in men’s hearts there will be love for our fellow-creatures also. May we not say the same of the great work of missions to the heathen, that it is being carried on by faithful workers? Where shall we find such a record of faithfulness, of patience, of devotedness, of perseverance, of heroic courage, as in the life and work of many a humble missionary to heathen lauds? When we remember how many of those who have gone forth as missionaries, in connection with the Church and with the great missionary societies, have sacrificed high literary, or commercial, or professional prospects at home, it is but reasonable that the Christian Church should express its sympathy with such self-denial and devotedness by contributing liberally to the work of foreign missions (vide infra, on 2 Kings 13:14-19).—C.H.I. 2 Kings 12:17-21 The last days of Joash. He began well, but ended badly. The close of the reign of Joash is a melancholy contrast to its beginning. In a most remarkable way preserved, by the providence of God and the kindness of a God-fearing woman, from the massacre of his brothers; then kept safe in the house of the Lord for six years of his helpless childhood;—one would think he would never have forgotten how much he owed to the watchful care and goodness of God. He had been surrounded with good influences. Jehoiada had watched over him like a father. When he came to the throne, Jehoiada had caused him to enter into a covenant with God. He began his reign with a great religious reformation. He ended it with a shameful forsaking of God. There were three causes of his fall. 1. He retained the high places. His reformation was not complete. The germs of future evil were there. How careful we should be of the beginnings of evil! It seemed a small matter to retain the high places. But that small act of negligence or want of courage prepared the way for national idolatry, and for the ultimate downfall of Joash. It accustomed the people to heathen modes of worship (cf. infra, on 2 Kings 14:1-4). 2. He listened to evil counselors. It was an evil day for Joash when Jehoiada passed away. "Now after the death of Jehoiada came the princes of Judah, and made obeisance to the king. Then the king hearkened unto them. And they left the house of the Lord God of their fathers, and served groves and idols: and wrath came upon Judah and Jerusalem for this their trespass" (2 Chronicles 24:17, 2 Chronicles 24:18). Ah! how true it is that "evil communications corrupt good manners"! 3. He disregarded the warnings of God. The Lord "sent prophets to them, to bring them again unto the Lord … but they would not give ear" (2 Chronicles 24:19). Zechariah the son of Jehoiada came with a special warning. But here again we see the hardening effect of sin. Not only did Joash pay no attention to his warnings, but with the basest ingratitude, forgetful of all he owed to Jehoiada, Zechariah’s father, he put Zechariah to death. The messenger of God may suffer for his faithfulness in rebuking sin, as John the Baptist was imprisoned by Herod, but no royal power can stay the judgments of God. Joash, who had slain God’s prophet, was himself slain by his own servants. The nation had forsaken God, and God forsook them in their time of need. Such a career as that of Joash shows the necessity for constant watchfulness against sin. Many, like him, begin well, but end badly. They make a fair profession at first, but by-and-by, when troubles or persecutions arise, they are offended. They go back and walk no more with Christ. Or they become worldly minded, and, being engrossed in the present, forget the concerns of eternity. Many might utter the melancholy cry, "Our lamps are gone out." To every one of us the message may well be sent, "Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall."—C.H.I. BY D. THOMAS 2 Kings 12:1-21 The history of Joash. "In the seventh year," etc. The whole story of Joash is soon told. He was a son of Ahaziah, and the only one of his children who escaped the murderous policy of Athaliah. "It would seem that this child, whom the pity and affection of a pious aunt (Jehosheba) had preserved, was the only surviving male representative of the line of Solomon. Jehoram, his grandfather, who married Athaliah, in order to strengthen his position on the throne, slew all his brethren, and all his own sons were slain in an incursion by the Arabians, except Ahaziah, the youngest, who succeeded him; while on the death of Ahaziah, his wicked mother, Athaliah, ’arose and destroyed all the seed royal of the house of Judah,’ except the little child Joash, who was rescued from her grasp. So that the unholy alliances formed by the descendants of Solomon, and the manifold disorders then accruing, had reduced everything to the verge of ruin. Measures were concerted by Jehoiada, the high priest, for getting rid of Athaliah, and placing Joash on the throne, after he had attained to the age of seven; and having in his youth the wise and the faithful round his throne, the earlier part of the reign of Joash was in accordance with the great principles of the theocracy. The Lord’s house was repaired and set in order, while the temple and idols of Baal were thrown down. But after Jehoiada’s death, persons of a different stamp got about him, and, notwithstanding the great and laudable zeal which he had shown for the proper restoration of God’s house and worship, a return was made to idolatry to such an extent as to draw forth severe denunciations from Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada. Even this was not the worst, for the faithfulness of Zechariah was repaid with violence; he was even stoned to death, and this, it is said, at the express command of the king. The martyred priest exclaimed as he expired, ’The Lord look upon it, and require;’ and it was required as in a whirlwind of wrath. For a Syrian host, under Hazael, made an incursion into Judaea, and both carried off much treasure and executed summary judgment on many in Jerusalem, not excepting Joash himself, whom they left in an enfeebled state, and who was shortly afterwards fallen upon and slain by his servants. Such was the unhappy termination of a career which began in much promise of good, and the cloud under which he died even followed him to the tomb, for while he was buried in the city of David, it was not in the sepulchers of the kings of Judah. He reigned forty years—from B.C. 878 to 838." The narrative, whether we regard it as inspired or not, reminds us of five things worth considering—the dilapidating influence of time upon the best material productions of mankind; the incongruity of worldly rulers busying themselves in religious institutions; the value of the co-operative principle in the enterprises of mankind; the potency of the religious element in the nature of even depraved people; and the power of money to subdue enemies. I. THE OF TIME UPON THE BEST OF MANKIND. Joash here called upon the priests and the people "to repair the breaches of the house," i.e. the temple. The temple, therefore, though it had not been built more than about a hundred and sixty years, had got into a state of dilapidation, there were breaches in it; where the breaches were we are not told, whether in the roof, the floor, the walls, or in the ceiling. The crumbling hand of time had touched it. No human superstructure, perhaps, ever appeared on the earth built of better materials, or in a better way, than the temple of Solomon. It was the wonder of ages. Notwithstanding this, it was subject to the invincible law of decay. The law of dilapidation seems universal throughout organic nature; the trees of the forest, the flowers of the field, and the countless tribes of sentient life that crowd the ocean, earth, and air, all fall into decay; and so also with the material productions of feeble man. Throughout the civilized world we see mansions, churches, cathedrals, palaces, villages, towns, and cities, in ruins. All compound bodies tend to dissolution; there is nothing enduring but primitive elements or substances. This being so, how astoundingly preposterous is man’s effort to perpetuate his memory in material monuments! The only productions of men that defy the touch of time, and that are enduring, are true thoughts, pure sympathies, and noble deeds. He who builds up the temple of a true moral character produces a superstructure that will last through the sweep of ages, the wreck of thrones, and the crash of doom. II. THE OF WORLDLY RULERS BUSYING IN . Joash was no saint, the root of the matter was not in him; he had no vital and ruling sympathy with the Supreme Being, yet he seemed zealous in the work of repairing the temple. "Then King Joash called for Jehoiada the priest, and the other priests, and said unto them, Why repair ye not the breaches of the house? now therefore receive no more money of your acquaintance, but deliver it for the breaches of the house." Though the conduct of corrupt men in busying themselves with things pertaining to religion is incongruous, alas! it is not uncommon. Such conduct generally springs from one of two things, or from both—policy or superstition. The religion that is popular, whether it be true or false, rulers recognize and sanction. They use the religious element in the community as a means by which to strengthen their thrones and augment their fame. Not only, indeed, are kings actuated thus, but even the corrupt tradesman, lawyer, doctor, etc; must show some interest in the popular religion in order to succeed in his secular pursuits. But superstition as well as policy often prompts corrupt men to busy themselves in matters of religion. Do not many build and beautify churches and subscribe to religions institutions, hoping thereby to escape perdition and to ensure the favor of Heaven? Alas! some of the corruptest men are often most busy in religious affairs. The man that betrayed the Son of God at the last Passover was most busy on that awful night; "his hand was on the table." III. THE VALUE OF THE CO- IN THE OF MANKIND. It would seem that the work of repairing the temple was so great that no one man could have accomplished it. Hence the king called earnestly for the cooperation of all. "And Jehoash said to the priests, All the money of the dedicated things that is brought into the house of the Lord, even the money of every one that passeth the account, the money that every man is set at, and all the money that cometh into any man’s heart to bring into the house of the Lord, let the priests take it to them, every man of his acquaintance: and let them repair the breaches of the house." They obeyed his voice. The people gave the money, and all set to work; the "priest that kept the door," the "high priest," the "carpenters," the "masons," the" builders," the "hewers of stone," etc. By this unity of action "they repaired the house of the Lord." Two remarks may be made concerning the principle of cooperation. 1. It is a principle that should govern all men in the undertakings of life. It was never the purpose of the Almighty that man should act alone for himself, should pursue alone his own individual interests. Men may, and often do, make large fortunes by it, but they destroy their own peace of mind, degrade their natures, and outrage the Divine laws of society. Men are all members of one great body; and was ever a member made to work alone? No; but for the good of the whole, the common weal. 2. It is a principle that has done and is doing wonders in the undertakings of life. Our colleges, hospitals, railways, etc; are all the products of co-operation. The more men get intellectually enlightened and morally improved, the more this principle will be put into operation. This principle, however, has its limits. In spiritual matters it must not infringe the realm of individual responsibility. There is no partnership in moral responsibility. Each man must think, repent, and believe for himself. "Every man must bear his own burden." IV. THE POTENCY OF THE ELEMENT EVEN IN . At this time Israel was morally almost as corrupt as the heathen nations. From the beginning Israel was the Church of God in little more than a metaphorical sense. Never in the history of the world has there been a member of the true Church whose sympathies with Jehovah were not supreme. But how many of the Jews had this supreme sympathy? This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Kings 13:1-25 REIGNS OF , SON OF JEHU, AND JOASH, SON OF , OVER ISRAEL. NOTICES OF ELISHA. WAR OF ISRAEL WITH SYRIA. 2 Kings 13:1-9 THE REIGN OF . The writer returns in this chapter to the history of the Israelite kingdom, taking it up from the death of Jehu, which was recorded in the closing verses of 2 Kings 10:1-36. He sketches briefly the reign of Jehu’s son and successor, Jehoahaz, in the present section, after which he passes to that of John’s grandson, Jehoash or Joash. The Syrian oppression was the great event of Jehoahaz’s reign. 2 Kings 13:1 In the three and twentieth year of Joash; rather, as in Josephus (’Ant. Jud.,’ 9.8. § 5), in the one and twentieth year. This is a correction required by 2 Kings 13:10 and also by 2 Kings 12:1. The proof is given at somewhat tedious length by Keil and Bahr. It seems unnecessary to enter into a lengthy discussion of the point, since all the synchronisms of the later kings of Israel and Judah are in confusion, and appear to be the work of a later hand. The son of Ahaziah King of Judah, Jehoahaz the son of Jehu began to reign over Israel; literally, reigned over Israel. The "later hand," which inserted the synchronism, neglected to bring the two portions of the verse into agreement. Our translators have sought to cover up his omission by translating malak "began to reign," and then supplying "and reigned" in the next clause. And reigned seventeen years (so also Josephus, l.s.c.). 2 Kings 13:2 And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord. There is no reason to believe that Jehoahaz re-introduced the Baal-worship, or sinned in any other flagrant way than by maintaining the calf-worship at Dan and Bethel. Jehu had done the same (2 Kings 10:29), as had all previous kings of Israel from the time of Jeroboam. The honor of God, however, required that idolatry of whatever kind should be punished, and the Samaritan kingdom could not otherwise be saved from destruction than by, "casting away all the works of darkness" and returning to the pure worship of Jehovah. Hence Jehu himself, notwithstanding the good service that he had done in crushing the Baal-worship, was chastised by God (2 Kings 10:32, 2 Kings 10:33) on account of his continuance in the "sin of Jeroboam;" and now Jehoahaz was even more signally punished. As Keil remarks, "The longer and the more obstinately the sin was continued, the more severe did the punishment become." And followed the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat which made Israel to sin; he departed not therefrom. This is emphatic. Jehoahaz kept up the worship to the full, and in no way suffered it to decline. 2 Kings 13:3 And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel. We know so much less of the nature of the calf-worship and of the rites which accompanied it, that we cannot to the same extent justify the Divine severity in connection with it as in connection with the Baal and Astarte cult. Still, we must remember the coarse, lewd dancing which accompanied the first calf-worship (Exodus 32:19), for which death was not thought too heavy a penalty (Exodus 32:27), and the almost universal combination of unchastity with idolatrous ceremonies, which raises a suspicion that those who frequented the shrines at Dan and Bethel were not wholly innocent of impurity. And he delivered them into the hand of Hazel King of Syria. The national sins of Israel were mostly punished in this way, by the sword of some foreign foe. Hazael had been already made an instrument for the chastisement of Jehu (2 Kings 10:32, 2 Kings 10:33). Now he was to chastise Jehoahaz still more severely. And into the hand of Benhadad the son of Hazael, all their days; literally, all the days. Not certainly all the days of the two kings Hazael and Benhadad, for Benhadad was entirely worsted in his war with Joash (2 Kings 13:24, 2 Kings 13:25), but either all the days of Jehoahaz, or all the days that God had appointed for the duration of the calamity. It is perhaps against the former interpretation that Hazael appears to have outlived Jehoahaz (2 Kings 13:22-24); but Ben-hadad may have warred against him as his father’s general (2 Kings 13:25) during his father’s lifetime. 2 Kings 13:4 And Jehoahaz besought the Lord; literally, besought the face of the Lord. Jehoahaz, as Josephus says, "betook him-serf to prayer and supplication of God, entreating that he would deliver him out of the hands of Hazael, and not suffer him to continue subject" (’Ant. Jud.,’ 2 Kings 9:8. § 5). He did not turn from his sin of idolatry, perhaps did not suspect that it was this sin which had provoked God’s anger; but in a general way he repented, humbled himself, and besought God’s mercy and assistance. And the Lord hearkened unto him. God accepted his repentance, all imperfect as it was, so far as to save the people from the entire destruction with which it was threatened by the severe measures of Hazael (2 Kings 13:7), to continue the national existence (2 Kings 13:23), and ultimately to restore the national prosperity (2 Kings 13:25 and 2 Kings 14:25-27). But he did not remove the oppression, as Josephus imagines, in Jehoahaz’s time. 2 Kings 13:22 makes this fact absolutely certain. For he saw the oppression of Israel, because the King of Syria oppressed them. Oppression is always hateful to God, even when he is using it as his instrument for chastising or punishing a guilty people. He "sees" it, notes it, lays it up in his remembrance for future retribution (camp. Exodus 3:7; Isaiah 10:5-12, etc.). (On the nature and extent of the oppression of this period, see 2 Kings 13:7, and the comment ad loc.) 2 Kings 13:5 And the Lord gave Israel a savior, so that they went out from under the hand of the Syrians. A "savior’" means a deliverer from the hand of the Syrians (comp. Judges 3:9, Judges 3:15; Nehemiah 9:27, where in the Hebrew the word used is the same). The special "deliverer" was probably in the mind of the writer, Jeroboam II; by whom he says, in 2 Kings 14:27, that God "saved" Israel; but Joash, who began the deliverance (2 Kings 14:25), may also be glanced at, And the children of Israel dwelt in their tents. Here, as so often elsewhere (1 Kings 8:66; 1 Kings 12:16; 2 Kings 14:12; Zechariah 12:7), the word "tents" is a mere archaism for "abodes, houses." Israel had dwelt in tents until the going down into Egypt, and again from the time of quitting Egypt to the entrance into Canaan; and thus the word ohel had acquired a secondary meaning of "abode," "dwelling-place." In the time which followed on the deliverance from the Syrian yoke, the Israelites of the ten tribes were no longer engaged in marches and countermarches, in battles, skirmishes, or sieges, but quietly abode in their several houses. As beforetime; i.e. as in the peaceful time before the attacks of Hazael began. 2 Kings 13:6 Nevertheless they departed not from the sins of the house of Jeroboam, who made Israel sin. "The house of Jeroboam" is an unusual expression in this connection, and is scarcely appropriate, since every "house" had acted in the same way, Some manuscripts omit the word, and it is wanting in the Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic versions. Thenius would cancel it. But walked therein; literally, he walked. But here again a corruption may be suspected. Instead of הָלָךְ we should read צָלְכוּ, which lost its final letter in consequence of the vau that immediately followed it. And there remained the grove also in Samaria. "The grove in Samaria" was that idolatrous emblem which Ahab had set up at Jezebel’s suggestion (1 Kings 16:33), the nature of which has been much disputed. Some think that it was "an image of Astarte"; but more probably it was a mere emblem, analogous to the Assyrian "sacred tree." Its material may sometimes have been wood, but was perhaps more usually metal. The mistranslation "grove" originated with the Septuagint translators, who uniformly rendered אֲשֵׂרָה by ἄλσος. It is surprising that Jehu did not destroy the asherah together with the other idolatrous erections of Ahab in Samaria (2 Kings 10:26-28); but, for some reason or other, it seems to have been spared, and to have been still standing. So long as it stood, even if it did not attract the religious regards of any, it would be a standing dishonor to God, and would so increase the sin of the nation. Hence its mention in this passage. 2 Kings 13:7 Neither did he leave of the people to Jehoahaz but fifty horsemen, and ten chariots, and ten thousand footmen. This verse seems to be an exegetical note on 2 Kings 13:4, which perhaps it once followed immediately, the parenthetic section (2 Kings 13:5 and 2 Kings 13:6) having been added later, as an afterthought, either by the original writer, or perhaps by a later hand. The meaning seems to be that Hazael limited the standing army of Jehoahaz to fifty horsemen, ton chariots, and ten thousand footmen, not that he slew the entire military population except this small remnant. The policy of limiting the forces to be maintained by a subject-king was one known to the Romans, and has often been adopted in the East. It is still a part of our own policy in the government of India. The limitation left the country at the mercy of all its neighbors (see verse 20). For the king of Syria had destroyed them, and had made them like the dust by threshing. Possibly this means no more than an utter destruction—a trampling in the dust, as we phrase it (see Jeremiah 51:33; Micah 4:12, Micah 4:13; and perhaps Isaiah 21:10). But it may be an allusion to that destruction of prisoners by means of a threshing instrument, which was certainly sometimes practiced (2 Samuel 12:31; Proverbs 20:26), and which is made a special charge against Damascus. 2 Kings 13:8 Now the rest of the acts of Jehoahaz, and all that he did, and his might; rather, his prowess, or his valor. Though defeated and reduced to subjection by the Syrians, yet Jehoahaz had distinguished himself, and shown his own personal courage, in the course of the war. Are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?. The regular use of the phrase is one of the indications that the two Books of the Kings are by one author, and form one book. 2 Kings 13:9 And Jehoahaz slept with his fathers; and they buried him in Samaria. The kings of Israel from the time of Omri were buried in the capital, Samaria, as those of Judah were in Jerusalem. It is uncertain whether they had one common mausoleum, like the kings of Judah (2 Chronicles 28:27), but it is most probable that they had. To rest with their fathers in the same royal sepulcher was to be duly honored at their death; to be excluded from it was a disgrace. And Joash his son reigned in his stead. 2 Kings 13:10-25 THE REIGN OF JOASH. The writer passes from the reign of Jehoahaz, Jehu’s son, to that of Joash, Jehu’s grandson, which he seems to have intended at first to dispatch in the short space of four verses (2 Kings 13:10-13). He afterwards, however, saw reason to add to his narrative, first, an account of an interview between Joash and Elisha, shortly Before the death of the latter (2 Kings 13:14-19); secondly, an account of a miracle wrought soon afterwards by means of Elisha’s corpse (2 Kings 13:20, 2 Kings 13:21); and thirdly, a brief notice of Joash’s Syrian war (2 Kings 13:22-25). 2 Kings 13:10 In the thirty and seventh year of Joash King of Judah. Three years before his death, since he reigned forty years (2 Kings 12:1). The two Joashes were thus contemporary monarchs for the space of three years. Began Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz to reign ever Israel in Samaria, and reigned sixteen years. The construction is the same as that of 2 Kings 13:1, and is equally ungrammatical. Our translators again amend the faulty phrase by introducing the words "and reigned" The "sixteen years" of the reign of Joash are confirmed by Josephus (’Ant. Jud.,’ 9.8. § 6), but still present some difficulty (see the comment on 2 Kings 14:23). 2 Kings 13:11 And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord; he departed not from all the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel sin; but he walked therein. Josephus says that Joash was a good king, and quite unlike his father in disposition (’Ant. Jud.,’ l.s.c.); but he is not likely to have had any independent data for judging of his character. Our author seems to include both son and father in the same category. The narrative contained in 2 Kings 13:14 is probably the foundation of the historian’s favorable judgment. 2 Kings 13:12 And the rest of the acts of Joash, and all that he did, and his might wherewith he fought against Amaziah King of Judah (see 2 Kings 14:11-14), are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? Either this and the next verses have been displaced from their rightful position by some accident, or the author at one time intended to terminate his account of Joash at this point. The formula used is one, which regularly closes the reign of each king. The proper place for it would have been after 2 Kings 13:25. 2 Kings 13:13 And Joash slept with his fathers; and Jeroboam sat upon his throne. That Joash should call his eldest son Jeroboam, after the founder of the kingdom, indicated a thorough approval of that founder’s policy and conduct, and perhaps a hope that he would be to the apparently decaying kingdom a sort of second founder. The name means, "he whose people is many," and was thus anticipative of that great enlargement of the Israelite kingdom, which took place under him (see 2 Kings 14:25-28). And Joash was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel (see the comment on 2 Kings 13:9). 2 Kings 13:14 Now Elisha, was fallen sick of his sickness whereof he died. Elisha, who was grown to manhood before the death of Ahab (l Kings 2 Kings 19:19), must have been at least eighty years old at the accession of Joash: His illness was therefore probably the result of mere natural decay. And Joash the King of Israel came down unto him. The visit of a king to a prophet, in the way of sympathy and compliment, would be a very unusual occurrence at any period of the world’s history. In the East, and at the period of which the historian is treating, it was probably unprecedented. Prophets waited upon kings, not kings upon prophets: If a king came to a prophet’s house, it was likely to be on an errand of vengeance (2 Kings 6:32), not on one of kindness and sympathy. The act of Joash certainly implies a degree of tenderness and consideration on tits part very uncommon at the time, and is a fact to which much weight should be attached in any estimate that we form of his character. He was, at any rate, a prince of an amiable disposition. And wept over his face—i.e; leant over the sick man as he lay on his bed, and shed tears, some of which fell on him—and said, O my father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof. As Elisha had addressed Elijah, when he was quitting the earth (2 Kings 2:12), so Joash now addressed the dying Elisha, using exactly the same words, not (certainly) by a mere coincidence. Joash must have known the circumstances of Elijah’s departure, which had probably been entered before this in the ’Book of the Kings,’ and intended pointedly to allude to them. "O my father, my father," he meant to say, "when Elijah was taken from the earth, thou didst exclaim that the defense of Israel was gone" (see the comment on 2 Kings 2:12): "how much more must it be true that it is gone now, when thou art on the point of departure! He left thee as his successor; thou leavest no one!" 2 Kings 13:15 And Elisha said unto him, Take bow and arrows. The prophet was moved, no doubt, by a sudden inspiration tie was bidden to assure the weeping king of victory—speedy victory-over Syria. The defense of Israel would not fail because he—a mere weak instrument by whom God had been pleased to work—was taken from the earth. God would bless the king’s own efforts. "Take bow and arrows," he exclaims under the prophetic afflatus. "Take them at once into thine hands, and do my bidding." Words would not have been enough; greater assurance and conviction was produced when prophecy took the shape of a symbolical action. So the Spirit of the Lord moved the prophet to the performance of a symbolical act, or set of acts, which the historian now proceeds to describe. And he took unto him how and arrows. Joash would take these from the hands of his attendants, who might be carrying his own special weapons after him, as was the practice in Persia, or who would at any rate have arms of their own, since they would wait upon him not merely as attendants, but as guards. 2 Kings 13:16 And he said to the King of Israel, Put thine hand upon the bow—literally, let thine hand ride upon the bow; i.e. "Take it into active use—place thine hands as thou dost commonly for shooting—and he put his hand upon it—he did as Elisha commanded—and Elisha put his hands upon the king’s hands. Elisha, it would seem, rose from his bed, and took the attitude of an archer, covering the king’s two hands with his own hands, and making as if he too was pulling the bow, so that the shooting should be, or at least appear to be, the joint act of himself and the king. The intention was, no doubt, as Keil says, "to show that the power which was to be given to the bow-shot" was not the king’s own power, but "came from the Lord through the mediation of his prophet." 2 Kings 13:17 And he said, Open the window. Though glass was unknown, or at any rate not applied to windows, yet the windows of sitting-rooms, and still more of bedrooms, had latticed shutters, which partially excluded the light and the air, and could be opened and closed at pleasure (see the comment on 2 Kings 1:2). The prophet ordered the shutter to be opened, that the king might shoot from the window. He addressed, not the king, whose hands were both engaged, but his own servant, or one of the royal attendants. Eastward. Not so much in the direction of Syria, which was north-east of the Israelite territory, as in the direction of Gilead and Bashan, which had been the scene of Hazael’s victories (2 Kings 10:33), and was now to be the scene of his reverses. Aphek lay almost duo east of Shunem, where it is probable that Elisha was. And he opened it; or, and one opened it, or they opened it. The Hebrew idiom allows of this indefinite use of the third person singular. Then Elisha said, Shoot. And he shot. And he—i.e. Elisha—said, The arrow of the Lord’s deliverance, and the arrow of deliverance from Syria; rather, an arrow. "This is," the prophet meant to say, "an arrow symbolical of deliverance about to come from Jehovah, of deliverance from the cruel oppression of the Syrians"—and not merely of deliverance, but of victory. For thou shalt smite the Syrians in Aphek. The Aphek intended is probably that which lay east of the Sea of Galilee, at the distance of about three miles, in lat. 32° 49’ nearly. This place was on the direct route between Samaria and Damascus, and had already been the scene of one great victory gained by Israel over Syria (1 Kings 20:26-30). The site is marked by the modern village of Fik. Till thou have consumed them; literally, till consuming—i.e; till the army which thou shalt defeat at that place is destroyed utterly. We have no account of the fulfillment of this prophecy, but may regard the defeat as one of those touched on in 2 Kings 13:25. 2 Kings 13:18 And he said, Take the arrows. And he took them. Elisha bade the king take into his band the remainder of the arrows which the quiver contained. This the king did, and held them in a bunch, as archers do when they have no quiver. And he said unto the King of Israel, Smite upon the ground. It is disputed what this means The LXX. translate Πάταξονεἰςτὴνγῆν "Strike upon the ground;" and so Ewald, De Wette, and Thenius, who regard the order as one to strike with the arrows against the ground (i.e. the floor) or in the direction of the ground. Keil and Bahr, on the contrary, think that the order was to shoot the arrows down from the window and hit the earth with them. But some contrast seems to be intended between the "shoot" (יְרַה) of 2 Kings 13:19 and the "strike" (צַךְ) of the present passage. Ewald’s explanation is thus to be preferred. And he smote thrice, and stayed. Joash struck with the arrows against the floor three times, and then paused, thinking he had done enough. He did not enter into the spirit of the symbolical act, which represented the smiting and slaying of enemies. Perhaps he had not much faith in the virtue of the symbolism, which he may even, with the arrogance of a proud and worldly minded man, have thought childish. 2 Kings 13:19 And the man of God was wroth with him. Elisha was angered at the lukewarmness of Joash, and his lack of faith and zeal. He himself, from his higher standpoint, saw the greatness of the opportunity, the abundance of favor which God was ready to grant, and the way in which God’s favor was stinted and narrowed by Joash’s want of receptiveness. Had the king been equal to the occasion, a full end might at once have been made of Syria, and Israel might have been enabled to brace herself for the still more perilous struggle with Assyria, in which she ultimately succumbed. And said, Thou shouldest have smitten five or six times; then hadst thou smitten Syria till thou hadst consumed it. It has been suggested that Joash associated the number throe with the notion of completeness, and "thought that what was done thrice was done perfectly" (Bahr); but in this case the prophet would scarcely have been angered. It is far more consonant with the entire narrative to suppose that he stopped from mere weariness, and want of strong faith and zeal. If he had been earnestly desirous of victory, and had had faith in the symbolical action as divinely directed, he would have kept on smiting till the prophet told him it was enough, or at any rate would have smitten the ground five or six times instead of three. The idea that he abstained from modesty or from prudence, "lest too extravagant demands might deprive him of all" (Von Gerlach), finds no support in the text of the narrative. He abstained (as Keil says) because "he was wanting in the proper zeal for obtaining the full promises of God." Had it been otherwise, the complete success obtained by Jeroboam II. (2 Kings 4:25-28) might have been anticipated by the space of fifteen or twenty years. Whereas now thou shalt smite Syria but thrice. 2 Kings 13:20 And Elisha died, and they buried him. There had been no burial of Elijah, who" went up by a whirlwind into heaven" (2 Kings 2:11). All the more anxious, therefore, would the Israelites be to bury their second great prophet with due honor. They prepared him, no doubt, one of those excavated sepulchers which were usual at the time and in the country—a squared or vaulted chamber cut in the native rock. St. Jerome says that the place of his sepulture was near Samaria (’Epitaph. Paulae’), and this is sufficiently probable; but in the Middle Ages his grave was shown at Ruma, in Galilee. According to Josephus (’Ant. Jud.,’ 2 Kings 9:8. § 6), his funeral was magnificent. And the bands of the Moabites invaded the land at the coming in of the year. It seems to be implied that this was a usual occurrence. Just as the Syrians in the days of Naaman made marauding raids into the land from time to time (2 Kings 5:2), so now the Moabites each spring made an incursion. The weakness of Israel is strongly marked by this fact, and still more by the penetration of the Moabites so deep into their country. Amos 2:1 perhaps glances at these incursions of Moab. 2 Kings 13:21 And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that. "They" is used indefinitely of some unnamed Israelites, like the French on. Certain persons, it does not matter who, were burying a man, i.e. about to bury him, and were carrying the corpse to the grave, when an interruption occurred. Behold, they spied a band of men—rather, the band, i.e. the band of that year—and they cast the man into the sepulcher of Elisha. There was no time for ceremony. Hastily, and somewhat roughly, it may be, the bearers of the body thrust it into Elisha’s tomb, which happened to be at hand, and from the mouth of which they were able to remove the closing stone. They did not "throw" the body in, but pushed it in. And when the man was let down. The man was not "let down." Our translators seem to have been unacquainted with the Jewish mode of burial. They imagine that Elisha’s tomb is a pit dug in the ground from the surface downwards, like a modern grave, and the man has therefore to be "let down," or to "go down" (marginal translation) into it. The Revised Version avoids the mistranslation, but weakens the force of the original. Translate, and when the man came, etc. And touched the bones of Elisha, he revived. The violent push given to the corpse imparted to it a movement which brought it in contact with the bones, i.e. the body (1 Kings 13:31) of Elisha, as it lay, wound in its grave-clothes, but uncoffined, on the floor of the sepulchral chamber. At the moment of contact the dead man came to life—"revived." And stood up on his feet. In many Jewish tombs the sepulchral chamber would allow of this. 2 Kings 13:22 But Hazael King of Syria oppressed Israel all the days of Jehoahaz; rather, now Hazael King of Syria had oppressed Israel, etc. The author, having parenthetically related the extraordinary miracle wrought by the instrumentality of Elisha’s corpse, returns to the subject of the Syrian oppression. He had, in 2 Kings 13:14-19, dwelt upon the promises of victory given by the prophet to Joash. He is now bent on relating their fulfillment. But before doing so he recapitulates. 2 Kings 13:22 refers back to 2 Kings 13:3, and 2 Kings 13:23 to 2 Kings 13:4 and 2 Kings 13:5. 2 Kings 13:23 And the Lord was gracious unto them, and had compassion on them. Even in his wrath God, thinketh upon mercy." While he was still punishing Israel by the sword of Hazael, he was yet careful not to make a full end, not to allow the affliction to proceed too far. He still preserved the nation, and kept it in being. And had respect unto them—i.e. "considered them—kept them in his mind—did not permit them to slip out of his recollection"—because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God’s covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was a covenant of mercy. By it he had pledged himself to multiply their seed, to be their God, and the God of their seed after them, and to give to their seed the whole land of Canaan for an everlasting possession (Genesis 17:4-8, etc.). This covenant bound him to extend his protection over the people of Israel so long as they had not utterly and entirely cast off their allegiance. And would not destroy them. They were "persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed" (2 Corinthians 4:9). The national life might seem to hang by a thread, but the thread had not snapped. Neither east he them from his presence as yet. The writer has it in his mind that ultimately they were cast away, rejected, removed out of God’s sight (2 Kings 17:18, 2 Kings 17:20, 2 Kings 17:23); but it was not "as yet"—there was still an interval of a century, or a little more, before the blow fell, and the nation of the ten tribes ceased to exist. 2 Kings 13:24 So Hazael King of Syria died; rather, and Hazael … died. His death is a new fact, not involved in anything that has been previously stated. It appears by 2 Kings 13:22 that he outlived Jehoahaz. And Benhadad his son reigned in his stead. Hazael, the usurper, gave his eldest son the name of the monarch whom he had murdered. It was an old royal name in Syria (1 Kings 15:18), having been borne by at least two of Hazael’s predecessors. The meaning which has been assigned to it ("Son of the sun") is doubtful. 2 Kings 13:25 And Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz took again out of the hand of Benhadad the son of Hazael the cities, which he had taken out of the hand of Jehoahaz his father by war. The capture of these cities by Ben-hadad had not been previously mentioned. It appears by the present passage, compared with 2 Kings 13:22, that, during the lifetime of his father, Benhadad had led expeditions into the land of Israel, acting as his father’s representative and general, and had made himself master of several Israelite towns. These were now recovered by Jehoash. They lay probably in the Cis-Jordanic territory. Three times did Joash beat him; and recovered the cities of Israel. Thrice defeated, Hazael was forced to abandon his conquests in Western Samaria. He retained, however, the trans-Jordanic territory, which was not recovered by the Israelites till the reign of Jeroboam II. (see 2 Kings 14:25). 2 Kings 13:1-7 God’s severity and God’s goodness alike shown in the history of Israel under Jehoahaz. I. GOD’S . Two sins only are noted as existing among the people at this time—the calf-worship, and the maintenance of the "grove" or asherah (2 Kings 13:6). One of these, the worship of the calves, was ancestral. It had been an established usage for a hundred and twenty years, and had been upheld by every king from the date of its institution. Even the prophets, with one exception (1 Kings 13:2, 1 Kings 13:3), had not denounced it. The people at this time accepted it without question, and were probably quite unconscious that it was a sin at all, The other sin, the maintenance of the asherah, was negative rather than positive-the emblem still stood erect; it had not been removed—but it is not said that it was worshipped. Yet God, in his severity, visited the people for these two sins heavily, terribly (2 Kings 13:4 and 2 Kings 13:7). He did not accept thoughtlessness, unconsciousness, absence of any evil intention, as an excuse. His honor was impugned by both practices, and he is very jealous of his honor. To leave the asherah standing, not to break it down, was to show a want of zeal for the purity of religion, for the honor of God, for the true faith, for virtue, for decency. To be indifferent to the calf-worship, to tolerate it, to continue it, was to live in constant violation of the second commandment. God could not, would not, tolerate this. If the conscience of the nation had gone to sleep, he must rouse it. By sharp pains, by severe afflictions, by actual agonies, if necessary, he must stir them from their self-satisfaction, awake them to self-examination and keen searchings of heart, and so bring them to a sense of their sinfulness, if not to a distinct recognition of their special sins. II. GOD’S . As soon as any relenting is shown, as soon as the king acknowledges God’s hand in his punishment, and turns to him and entreats his aid, even although he does not put a stop to the practices by which God’s anger has been provoked (2 Kings 13:6), yet the Divine compassion is stirred. "The Lord hearkened unto him" (2 Kings 13:4). A savior is given, in the Divine counsels, if not at once in fact. The nation’s fall is arrested, its life prolonged. "O faithful Christian, if God heard Jehoahaz, how much more will he hear thee, if thou callest upon him! The Lord gave Israel a deliverer, but Jehoahaz did not live to see him. God hears the cry of those who earnestly call upon him, and helps them; but the time, and place, and manner of his aid are retained in his own discretion. Do not despair if thy prayer does not seem to be heard, and the Lord delays his assistance. He knows that fitting season as well as he knows what is useful to us" (Starke). 2 Kings 13:6 The persistency of evil. "There remained the grove." One would have thought that, in such a reformation as that of Jehu (2 Kings 10:15-28), there would have been a clean sweep, or, at any rate, that Ahab’s pot idolatries (1 Kings 16:33) would have gone. But no! evil is terribly persistent. "The evil that men do lives after them," and not in men’s recollections only, but in fact. No reformation ever sweeps away at once all that it was intended to sweep away. "The grove remains." How many heathen superstitious survived the supersession of heathenism by Christianity! How many iniquitous laws continue in all countries after every attempt that is made to reform the laws! How many abuses remain after each removal of abuses I The result is partly through the fault of the reformers, who are careless about doing their work thoroughly, and cease their efforts while much still remains to be done; but it is also caused in part by the tenacity of life which the things that need to be swept away possess in themselves. And, as evil is thus persistent in communities, so is it also in the character of individuals. Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret. A man makes a great effort at self-reformation, changes his rules of conduct, his habits, the whole method of his life, as he thinks; but in some corner there still lurks a remnant of the old leaven, which shortly reasserts itself, and too often leavens the whole mass with its corrupting influence. The lesson to be learnt is watchfulness and perseverance. By care, by consideration, and by constant effort, the persistency of evil may be met and counteracted. God’s Holy Spirit is always ready to assist our endeavors; and, whether in a community or in an individual, continued effort, divinely aided, will prevail at last. 2 Kings 13:14-19 The closing scene of Elisha’s life. The time had come to Elisha which comes to all the sons of men, however great, however holy, at the last. He had exceeded man’s ordinary term of three score years and ten—nay, he had exceeded the extended term of those who are exceptionally "strong" men, four score years (Psalms 90:10)—but now at length he was overtaken by sickness, he was manifestly drawing near to death. What lessons does his departure teach us? It may teach us— I. A LESSON OF . It is a good thing so to have lived that our departure is felt as a loss, not merely to our family or to our own narrow circle of friends, but to our king and country. Not many persons can do the sort of service which Elisha did for Israel; but all may do some service. All may seek their country’s good, labor for it, strive for it, pray for it. All may use the powers and talents committed to them by God in such a way that not themselves alone, but their country also, may derive advantage from them. Honest endeavors of this kind will at any rate bring to us "the answer of a good conscience" at the last—they may bring to us something more, viz. praise and acknowledgment on the part of those who represent the nation an d have a right to speak on its behalf. Due acknowledgment is seldom grudged, when the end has come or approaches; and, though man’s judgment is a "small thing" compared with God’s, it is not altogether to be despised—we may feel in such acknowledgment a legitimate satisfaction. II. A LESSON OF . Elisha makes no moan, expresses no complaint. It is extraordinary how many men, even men who profess to believe in a future life of infinitely greater happiness than the present one, are discontented, and murmur, or even passionately cry out, when a mortal disease attacks them. And this although they have lived the full term of average human life in this world. Very few quit the scene gracefully, placidly, bravely. Almost all seem to regard the summons to set their house in order as untimely, and themselves as hardly used by the call being made upon them. There is always something for which they think they might as well have been allowed to wait— "Half the cows to calve, and Barnaby Holmes to plough." III. A LESSON OF AND EFFORT TO THE VERY END. Elisha, though stricken with a mortal disease, does not give himself up to inaction, or cease to take an interest in the affairs of this life. On the contrary, he has his country’s welfare most deeply at heart, and initiates and carries through a scene, in which his physical powers must have been severely tasked, for encouraging king and people in their death-struggle with Syria, and assuring them of final victory. The confidence inspired may have been a serious factor in the result. Elisha, at his age, might have been excused, had he remained wholly passive, and received the king’s visit as the compliment which it was intended to be; but he could not be content without utilizing the visit to the utmost. He rouses the king from his despair (2 Kings 13:14); inspires in him hope, courage, energy; promises him success, actively participates in the symbolic drama, which at once indicates and helps forward the result aimed at. We may learn from this that, while we live, we have active duties to perform; we are not exauctorati till the last summons comes; on our sick-bed, on our death-bed, we may still be agents for good—we may advise, exhort, incite, rebuke evil (2 Kings 13:19), and be active ministers of good, impressing men more than we ever did before, when we speak from the verge of the grave, and having our "strength made perfect in weakness." 2 Kings 13:20, 2 Kings 13:21 Life in death. The miracle wrought by the instrumentality of Elisha’s bones would seem to have been designed for three main ends or purposes. I. FOR THE HONOR OF THE PROPHET; that so he might have in his death (as Elijah had had in the method of his departure) a testimony from God that he was approved by him, and that he would have him respected and honored by his countrymen. Worship of relics was not a Jewish superstition; and thus there was no danger of those ill results which followed on the alleged miracles wrought by the bodies of Christian martyrs. Those who witnessed or heard of the miracle in Elisha’s tomb were led to venerate the memory of the prophet, to whom so great a testimony had been given; and might thence be moved to pay greater attention and stricter obedience to what they knew of his teaching. II. FOR THE OF THE NATION. The death of Elisha was no doubt felt as a national calamity. Many, besides the king, must have seen in it the loss to the nation of one who was more to it than "chariots and horsemen" (2 Kings 13:14). Despondency, we may be sure, weighed down the spirits of numbers who might think that God, in withdrawing his prophet, had forsaken his people. It was a great thing to such persons that they should have a clear manifestation that, though the prophet was gone, God still continued present with his people, was still among them, ready to help, potent to save. The more spiritually minded might view the miracle as symbolical, and interpret it to mean that, as the dead man had sprung to life again on contact with Elisha’s bones, so the dead nation should, as it were, rise out of his tomb and recover itself, once more standing on its feet, in full possession of all its energies. III. FOR THE HONOR OF GOD, AND THE SHOWING FORTH OF HIS POWER. To give life is among the highest of the Divine attributes. It is God’s special privilege, one that he cannot communicate to a creature. Even modern scientists bow their heads before the mysterious, inconceivable act, and confess that they find it impossible to present it distinctly to their consciousness. But to give life to that which is held by death, in which decay is begun, which is under the law of dissolution and corruption, is a still more incomprehensible thing, stranger, more astonishing. And to crown all by bringing the new life out of death, making a dead corpse the source out of which vitality shall leap forth to fresh energy, is to surpass all that the most lively fancy could imagine of wonderful, and almost to reconcile contradictions. God willed at this time to show that he could effect even this marvelous thing—make death give life to that which was recently dead—educe from one dead in him the vital power that should resuscitate and reanimate another also dead, and make a tomb—the place of death—the scene of the transformation! "O Lord, thou art my God; I will exalt thee, I will praise thy Name; for thou hast done wonderful things" (Isaiah 25:1); truly "wonderful art thou in thy doing towards the children of men" (Psalms 66:4). The miracle of Elisha’s bones is no argument for relic-worship. Relic-worship implies a belief that a virtue exists in the remnants of a deceased saint’s body, which enables them of themselves to exercise a miraculous power. Elisha’s bones were never thought to possess any such property. They were not exhumed, placed in cases, or exhibited to the faithful to be touched with the hand or kissed by the lips. It was understood that God had been pleased to work one miracle by them; it was never supposed that they might be expected to work any more. They were therefore suffered to remain in the tomb wherein they had been from the first deposited. It was not till the time of Julian that any importance was attached to them; though then we must conclude that they had become objects of reverential regard, since the Apostate took the trouble to burn them. BY C.H. IRWIN 2 Kings 13:1-13, with 22-25 The reigns of Jehoahaz and Joash, kings of Israel. Observe here I. THE OF EVIL. How sad it is to read of one king after another, "He did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord"! And then the statement is usually made, "He departed not from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin." A bad man does harm to others besides himself. "None of us liveth to himself." Not merely while we live, but after we are gone, our lives and words and deeds will influence others. We may think ourselves very obscure and insignificant, so insignificant that we may argue it does not matter to others how we live. But who can measure the circle of his influence? In ways that we know not, influence may reach other hearts and other lives. Oh! how dangerous is one evil influence in a community! It takes a long time to do away with its effects. "The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones." Let us be careful how we are influencing others. For good or for evil we are exercising some influence, however unconsciously, on those around us. If we would influence men for good, we ourselves must live near to God. II. THE MERCY OF GOD. God punished Jehoahaz and his people for their sins. "He delivered them into the hand of Hazael King of Syria, and into the hand of Ben-hadad the son of Hazael, all their days." When suffering or troubles come, let us see whether the cause of them is not within our own hearts and lives. But he mingled mercy with judgment. God is ever on the watch for signs of the prodigal’s return. His ear is ever open for the cry of penitence, for the faintest’ prayer for forgiveness and help. Jehoahaz besought the Lord, and the Lord hearkened unto him; for he saw the oppression of Israel, because the King of Syria oppressed them" (2 Kings 13:4; see also 2 Kings 13:23). Come, let us to the Lord our God With contrite hearts return; Our God is gracious, nor will leave The desolate to mourn. "His voice commands the tempest forth, And stills the stormy wave; And, though his arm be strong to smite, ’Tis also strong to save." III. HUMAN . Though God delivered them from their difficulty and distress, and gave them peace from their enemies, yet, when the difficulty was over, they forgot all about God’s mercy. They went back to their old sins. "Nevertheless they departed not from the sins of the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat … but walked therein" (2 Kings 13:6). How prone the human heart is to forsake God! The Books of Judges and Kings are full of illustrations of this painful fact. By forsaking God the Israelites brought themselves into misery and bondage. Time after time God raised up judges and kings and prophets to be the means of their deliverance. But when these were dead, or when the immediate danger had passed away, once again the people forsook God. It is the same in the history of the individual. How ungrateful we are for God’s unceasing and unfailing goodness! How forgetful of his commandments and his promises! "The way of man is not in himself; and it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." We need all the influence of Divine grace to keep us in the way that is right. IV. A HUMBLED NATION. To what a low level sin reduces a nation! How shamefully Israel was humiliated before Syria! The King of Syria only left to Jehoahaz fifty horsemen, ten chariots, and ten thousand footmen; "for the King of Syria had destroyed them, and had made them like the dust by threshing." The fate of Israel, the fate of other mighty nations of the past, are a great national lesson to be remembered so long as the world shall last. Ought we not earnestly to pray that this great British empire, which has been built up by God-fearing men, and which God has blessed and honored so highly, may not forsake God for secularism or gross corruption, and thus fall into the fate of the fallen nations of the past? Knowing how great are the forces of evil, it becomes every true Christian to be more valiant for the truth, to be more active in everything that will extend the kingdom of Christ in this and other lands.—C.H.I. 2 Kings 13:14-19 A royal visit to a dying prophet. What a peaceful deathbed Elisha’s was! He had long since made his choice. He had lived not for time, but for eternity; not under the fear of man, but under the fear of God; not for the favor of kings or their rewards, but so as to win the approval of his conscience and his Creator. And now, when death came, it brought him no terrors. Not only so, but he was able to give encouragement to others. When King Joash sees the prophet on his deathbed, he feels how great is the loss which Israel is about to sustain. Good men are a nation’s strength. And so Joash, bending in tears over the dying prophet’s couch, exclaims, "O my father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof!" But Elisha wants to keep up his heart. He wants to teach him that, though the prophet dies, the prophet’s God remains. The workmen pass away, but the work of God goes on.- So the true Christian will ever look beyond his own death to the glory that awaits him, beyond the present hour of darkness or difficulty or delay to the ultimate triumph of the Church of Christ. It was in this spirit that the martyrs died. What a vision of the future lit up their suffering faces! What a prophetic instinct in such words as those which’ Bishop Latimer spoke to his fellow-reformer Ridley, as they stood side by side, waiting for the faggots to be kindled: "Be of good cheer, brother Ridley, and play the man; we shall this day light such a candle in England, as by God’s grace shall never be put out." And here Elisha on his deathbed gives utterance to prophetic words. He told Joash that the arrow, which, in obedience to his directions, he had shot forth from the open window, signified the arrow of the Lord’s deliverance. But Joash was slow to learn the double lesson of God’s unlimited power and the necessity-for human effort which this simple illustration taught. Elisha had already told him that he should smite the Syrians till they were consumed, and then, to teach him furthermore the necessity for perseverance and patience, he commands him to smite upon the ground. Joash, seeing that the prophet had already revealed to him so much and encouraged him so greatly, might have continued until he was requested to cease. But instead of that, he only smote three times, and then gave up. Thus he illustrated his own want of faith in God’s almighty power, his own want of patience and perseverance, and therefore how little he deserved God’s interference on his behalf. The old proverb truly says, "God helps those that help themselves." The chief lesson of this incident is—Want of faith a hindrance to success in Christian work. I. SHOW WANT OF FAITH, THEY HAVE DIVINE . It was so here in the case of Joash. He had stood beside the bedside of Elisha in a state of utter dismay. It had seemed to him as if he already saw the downfall of his kingdom, as if all other resources were useless if the man of God, who had so often guided kings and people to victory, was taken away. But look at the encouragement which Elisha had given him. He had taken his thoughts away from human wisdom and human strength, and turned them upward to the almighty, unlimited power of God. "The arrow of the Lord’s deliverance." What suggestions of power, of help, of victory, were in those simple words! The Lord’s deliverance! That almighty power which delivered Israel out of the hand of Pharaoh; that almighty power which turned back the waves of the Red Sea, and brought the people over safely on dry land; that almighty power which, only a few years since, filled the dry valley with water and thus gave victory to Israel, and which, by smiting the Syrians with blindness, delivered Israel out of the hands of their enemies;—that almighty power, O Joash, will be with you, will deliver you. Oh, what a thrill of determination, of resolute, energetic purpose, should have been awakened in his mind! Might he not reasonably have felt, "Yes, the Lord is on my side. Victory is sure. I shall redouble my efforts against the enemies of Israel, against the workers of evil. Out of gratitude to God I shall serve the Lord only"? But Joash failed when put to the test. When Elisha gave him an opportunity of showing his faith by his own efforts, he only showed how little faith he had in the promises of God. If we believe that God’s Word is true, that his promises are true, it is but reasonable that he should expect us to act on them. To every unsaved soul God says, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." The promise is salvation. But there is a duty, a condition, a necessity, coupled with it. That duty is faith in Christ—taking him as our Savior, serving him as our King. How many act like Joash! They would like to get to heaven, but they are not willing to tread the narrow path. They would like to obtain salvation, but they are not willing to take God’s way of obtaining it. They say, "If I’m to be saved, I shall be saved." To any one who has been thinking about eternity and the judgment to come, whose heart has been softened by sickness or bereavement, who has been impressed by any message from God’s Word, but has not yet accepted Christ, we would say, "Stay not thine hand. Let not the good impressions pass away." "Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the Lord." Arise today, and in the strength of God smite your unbelief, smite the tempter to the ground. Strive to enter in at the narrow door. Then shall that good impression, then shall that warning voice, prove to be to you the arrow of the Lord’s deliverance. Take the step, fulfill the condition, if you would obtain the blessing. The same applies to Christian work. How many call themselves God’s servants, how many expect the reward of the faithful servant, who are doing absolutely nothing for the Lord. Jesus has given one very precious promise to his people: "Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world;" but it is to those who in some way are seeking to fulfill that command, Go ye therefore, and preach the gospel to every creature." The truth is, the promise depends upon the work, and the work depends upon the promise. We cannot expect God’s blessings if we are not doing his work. And we cannot do his work if we do not meditate much on his promises. II. SHOW WANT OF FAITH, THEY HAVE PROOFS OF DIVINE POWER. In the history of his nation, even in the history of Elisha’s life alone, Joash had many proofs of Divine power, yet still he showed a want of faith in God. In the whole history of God’s kingdom in the world, in the whole history of the Christian Church, we have proofs of God’s power, yet where is our faith at all proportionate to the strength of evidence on which it rests? There is no stronger testimony to the power of the gospel than the history of modern missions. It is just seventy years since the first missionaries landed in Madagascar; it is not thirty years since the terrible persecutions ceased there, by which the missionaries were driven out of the island, and the little companies of Christians who survived the-massacre met for worship in secret, in dens and caves of the mountains, and were in constant danger of their lives. Yet in that large island today there is a Christian population of nearly three hundred thousand, the idols have been publicly burned, and the Christian religion is publicly recognized by the state. What hath God wrought! Think of the work which Dr. Moffat accomplished among the degraded tribes of South Africa, not so many years ago. The conversion of Africaner, the Hottentot chief, under his ministry, is well known. Every one warned Moffat against him as a man who was a terror to the whole neighborhood. But Moffat thought he was just the man to go to with the gospel He went, and was the means of leading the savage chief to Christ, and "Africaner’s changed life convinced many, who had never believed in them before, of the efficacy of Christian missions." Think of the progress of Christianity in Japan, in India, in China. The following testimony was recently borne to mission work in China in his report to the Foreign Office by the late British Consul at Newchwang. He says, "The labors of the missionaries indirectly benefit our merchants, manufacturers, and artisans. I further believe that, partly owing to the Christian principles disseminated by the missionaries, the tone of morality among the Chinese people has during the last twenty years perceptibly attained a higher platform." The Rev. William Swanson, a veteran missionary, and lately moderator of the English Presbyterian Church, states that when he went to China twenty-six years ago there were only five small churches at the treaty ports. Now, in going from Canton to Shanghai, and traveling twenty or twenty-five miles a day, he could sleep every night, with one or two exceptions, in a village having a Christian church. The first time Charles Darwin visited the island of Tierra del Fuego, he said that the people there were irreclaimable. He saw four Christian Fuegians at a meeting in England, and was so impressed by what he heard of the work of the missionaries that he became an annual subscriber to the funds of the Missionary Society, and said he should feel proud if the committee would think fit to elect him one of its honorary members. When we think of these things, of the wonderful work done in the South Sea Islands, and of the many nations where heathenism has yielded to the preaching of the cross, surely we may well say, "What hath God wrought!" Today, just as in St. Paul’s day, the gospel is "the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth." If we doubt the power of the gospel, our doubts are in the face of overwhelming and irresistible facts. III. THE EVIL RESULTS OF THIS WANT OF FAITH. This want of faith has ill results on life and practice and Christian work. Many who went part of the way with Christ turned back and walked no more with him because of their want of faith. It is so still. Want of faith leads to low expectations and feeble efforts. True faith in God’s presence and power, instead of making us inactive and careless, is the greatest stimulus to activity. It rouses us to put forth all our energies. It makes us patient under difficulties. It causes us to persevere even when we see no immediate result. How many a good work has been begun, but given up, because of want of faith! This was nearly being the case at one time with what has since proved one of the most successful missions to the heathen. After twelve years’ labor in the island of Tahiti, in the Pacific, the mission seemed to be an utter failure. All but one of the missionaries left the South Sea Islands. At home the directors of the London Missionary Society seriously discussed the abandoning of the mission. But two members of the committee, men of strong faith in God and the gospel, strenuously opposed this, and proposed a season of special prayer for a blessing on its work. This was agreed to; letters of encouragement were written to the missionaries; and while the ship that bore these letters was on her way to Tahiti, another ship was bearing to England the rejected idols of the people. How had this happened? Some of the missionaries who had left the island were led in some way to return. One morning one of them went out into the fields for meditation, when he heard, with a thrill of joy, the voice of a native raised in prayer to God—the first token that their teaching had been blessed in Tahiti. Soon they heard of others. A Christian Church was formed. The priests publicly burned their idols; and thus, after a night of toil of sixteen years, the dawn at last broke (see ’Outlines of Protestant Missions,’ by Rev. John Robson, D.D.). What a rebuke to the weak faith of the directors who had proposed to abandon the mission! What a lesson to every minister and missionary, to every Sunday-school teacher, to every Christian worker, not to stay their hand, even where they see no results of their labor! "He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him." Work done for God never dies. Stay not your hand in the matter of your own spiritual life. Persevere in the conflict with your besetting sins. Persevere in the cultivation of Christian graces. Use the arrow of the Lord’s deliverance. Put on the whole armor of God. Persevere also in prayer for others, Never give up as hopeless a single soul. Stay not thine hand. You can’t do much for them, perhaps, but God can. Lay the case of erring child or godless friend before God in prayer. Ask him to open their eyes. Ask the Lord Jesus to lay his hand upon them—to speak the word only, and they shall be made whole. Persevere also in Christian work. "Be not weary in well-doing" Leave no work unfinished for which God gives you the strength and the means. Perhaps we have been shooting too few arrows, making too little effort in God’s cause. Seek the guidance of God’s hand and the power which God’s presence gives, and then go forth to win victories for him.—C.H.I. 2 Kings 13:20, 2 Kings 13:21 A resurrection and its lessons. This miracle was wrought, in a time of prevailing unbelief, to teach a lesson to a faithless age. Strange sight indeed—for those who were engrossed with the sensual pleasures of the present world, thus unexpectedly to be brought face to face with the power of the Unseen! I. GOD’S POWER TO RAISE THE DEAD. Here was something which their heathen gods could never do. Heathenism, agnosticism,—these systems bring no comfort to the bereaved and sorrowing spirit. Christ alone has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. None but he has ever dared to say, "I am the Resurrection and the Life." II. THE UNDYING OF GOOD MEN. "Non omnis moriar" was the saying of the old heathen poet. But the humblest Christian who is faithful to God may have confidence that his influence for good will continue long after he has passed away from earth. 1. Elisha’s words were to continue. The prophet was dead, but his words still lived. His words were the words of God. "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." We see in the twenty-fifth verse how Elisha’s prediction to Joash was literally fulfilled. Three times Joash defeated the Syrians and recovered the cities of Israel. Elisha’s words still remain, to be our consolation and comfort. 2. Elisha’s work remained. The memory of his faithfulness to God, of the wonders he was able to do by God’s presence with him, remained to be a help and stimulus to many faithful servants of God when Israel was growing worse and worse. A good man’s influence—who can tell how long it may last, or what unexpected places and persons it may reach?—C.H.I. BY D. THOMAS 2 Kings 13:1-21 The death of Elisha. "In the three and twentieth," etc. The Book of Kings is, to a large extent, a record of crime, and of crime of the most heinous and aggravated character. The terrible monstrosities recorded are, for the most part, ascribable, directly or indirectly, to kings. In this very chapter we have a sketch of two of those monarchs who have been among the greatest curses of their race. Jehoahaz, son and successor of Jehu King of Israel, whose reign was disastrous to the kingdom to such a degree that his army was all but utterly destroyed, and had become like the dust on the "threshing-floor;" and Jehoash, who for three years was associated with his father in the government, and who, when his father was swept away, was a curse to the world for sixteen years. The only portion of this chapter which requires notice is from 2 Kings 13:14 to 2 Kings 13:21. These verses present to us four subjects of thought—a great man dying; a good man leaving the world interested in posterity; a wicked man regretting the event; and a dead man exerting a wonderful influence. I. A GREAT MAN DYING. "Now Elisha was fallen sick of his sickness whereof he died." The whole history of Elisha is not only the history of the marvelous, but the history of loyalty to Heaven and of devotion to the interests of the Israelite race. But here we find this great and good man dying. Elijah, his master, had escaped death and had been borne to heaven in a chariot of fire, but Elisha had to die in the ordinary way of mankind, through sickness. It is true he was an old man; threescore years had passed since he commenced his prophetic ministry. For a great many years we are told nothing about him, but no doubt he had been actively and usefully engaged. Even the most useful public men, and the most popular too, cease to attract great public attention as they pass into years. Often they become as "dead men out of sight," albeit they are useful. Though all men have to die, death is not the same to all men. It has a widely different significance to different men. To the good man it is life breaking through exuviae and taking wing to revel in a sunny universe. It is the "mortal putting on immortality." II. A WICKED MAN THE EVENT. "And Joash the King of Israel came down unto him, and wept over his face, and said, O my father, my father!" Why did he weep? Not because he had any sympathy with the character of the departing man. His moral sympathies were in antagonism to those of the prophet. Not because he felt that the prophet himself would suffer loss. He was not thinking of the prophet’s gaining or losing by death. Not because he knew that the event would be a loss to the living in general. He cared nothing for his race, not he; but because he knew that the prophet was the "chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof." His chariots and horsemen were gone, and Elisha was his only hope. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Kings 14:1-29 REIGNS OF AMAZIAH, SON OF JOASH KING OF JUDAH, OVER JUDAH, AND OF , SON OF JOASH KING OF ISRAEL, OVER ISRAEL. 2 Kings 14:1-20 THE REIGN OF AMAZIAH OVER JUDAH. This chapter takes up the history of the kingdom of Judah from the each of 2 Kings 12:1-21; with which it is closely connected. The writer, after a few such general remarks as those with which he commonly opens the history of each reign (2 Kings 12:1-4), proceeds to relate (1) the punishment by Amaziah of the murderers of his father (2 Kings 12:5, 2 Kings 12:6); (2) the war of Amaziah with Edom (2 Kings 12:7); (3) the challenge which he sent to Joash King of Israel, that king’s reply, and the war which followed (2 Kings 12:8-16); and (4) the circumstances of Amaziah’s death (2 Kings 12:17-20). Between 2 Kings 12:14 and 2 Kings 12:16 there is interposed a summary of the reign of King Joash of Judah, which is little more than a repetition of 2 Kings 13:12, 2 Kings 13:13, and is thought by many to be an interpolation. 2 Kings 14:1 In the second year of Joash son of Jehoahaz King of Israel reigned Amaziah the son of Joash King of Judah. Again the chronology is defective. If Joash of Israel ascended the throne in the thirty-seventh year of Joash of Judah (2 Kings 13:10), and the latter reigned forty years (2 Kings 12:1), Amaziah cannot have become king till the fourth or fifth year of the Israelitish Joash, instead of the second. The ordinary explanation of commentators is a double accession; but this is unsatisfactory. It is best to allow that the chronology of the later half of the Israelite kingdom is in confusion. 2 Kings 14:2 He was twenty and five years old when he began to reign, and reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. Josephus (’Ant. Jud.,’ 9.’ 9. § 3) and the author of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 25:1) confirm these numbers. And his mother’s name was Jehoaddan of Jerusalem. Josephus (l.s.c.) calls her Jodade, but the LXX. have, more correctly, Joadim. 2 Kings 14:3 And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, yet not like David his father. Only one King of Judah hitherto, viz. Asa, had obtained the praise that he "did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, as did David his father" (1 Kings 15:11). All the others had fallen short more or less; and Amaziah fell short in many respects. He was wanting in "a perfect heart" (2 Chronicles 25:2), i.e. a fixed intention to do God’s will; he was proud and boastful (2 Kings 14:10); he gave way to idolatry in his later years (2 Chronicles 25:14), and he despised the reproof of the prophet who was sent to rebuke his sin (2 Chronicles 25:16). Though placed among the "good kings’ by the authors of both Kings and Chronicles, it is, as it were, under protest, with a distinct intimation that, although better than most of his predecessors, he did not reach a high standard. He did according to all things as Joash his father did. There is something of Oriental hyperbole in this statement, which must be understood in the spirit, not in the letter. The two kings were differently circumstanced, and history did not "repeat itself" in their reigns. The position of Joash with respect to Jehoiada finds no parallel in the circumstances of the life of Amaziah. Still, the lives are parallel to some extent. Both kings began better than they ended. Both were zealous for Jehovah at first, but turned to idolatry at last. Both opposed themselves to prophets, and treated their rebukes with scorn. Both reused conspiracy against them by their misconduct, and were murdered by the malcontents. Further, both were unsuccessful in war, had to withstand a siege of their capital, and bought off their enemy by the surrender of the greater part of its wealth, including the treasures of the temple. 2 Kings 14:4 Howbeit the high places were not taken away. No king ventured to touch the "high places" until the time of Hezekiah, by whom they were put down (2 Kings 18:4). Even Asa did not remove them (1 Kings 15:14). They were remnants of an old ancestral worship which went back to the time of the judges, and which had been connived at by judges and kings and prophets. Local feeling was everywhere in their favor, since they provided for local needs, and enabled men to dispense with the long] and tedious journey to the distant Jerusalem. As yet the people did sacrifice and burnt incense on the high places; literally, were sacrificing and burning incense; i.e. continued the practice, which had come down to them from their ancestors. (On the morality and legality of the practice, see the comment on 1 Kings 3:2.) 2 Kings 14:5 And it came to pass, as soon as the kingdom was confirmed in his hand. Joash had been murdered in Jerusalem by conspirators (2 Kings 12:20). A time of trouble had, no doubt, supervened. The conspirators would not wish to see Amaziah placed upon the throne, and may have opposed and delayed his appointment. But their efforts proved fruitless. After a time, the young king was confirmed (literally, "strengthened"), i.e. settled and established in his kingdom, all opposition being overcome or dying away. This seems to be what the writer means. He cannot intend a confirmation by a foreign suzerain, which the phrase used might import (2 Kings 15:19), when he has given no hint of any subjection of the kingdom to any foreign power, or indeed of any serious attack on its independence. That he slew his servants. Jozachar and Jehozabad were "servants" of Joash, apparently domestic servants employed in his palace, and are therefore reckoned "servants" also of his successor. Which had slain the king his father. In the "house of Millo,’ where he lay sick. They "slew him on his bed" (see 2 Chronicles 24:25). 2 Kings 14:6 But the children of the murderers he slew not. It was the ordinary usage in the East for the sons of traitors to share the fate of their fathers. A Greek poet went so far as to say that a man was a fool who put to death the father, and allowed the son to live. The practice had a double ground. Sons, it might be assumed, would be cognizant of their father’s intention, and would so be accessories before the fact. And the law of claim, or "blood-feud," would make it dangerous to spare them, since they would be bound to avenge their father’s death on his destroyer. That the practice prevailed among the Israelites appears from Joshua 7:24, where we find the children of Achan involved in his fate, and again from 2 Kings 9:26, where we are told that Naboth’s sons suffered with their father. But it was contrary to an express command of the Law, as the writer goes on to show. According unto that which is written in the book of the Law of Moses. "The book of the Law of Moses" (סֵפֶר תוֹרַת־משֶׁה) may be either the Pentateuch regarded as one book, or Deuteronomy, the particular" book" of the Pentateuch in which the passage occurs. In either case the passage is fatal to the theory of the late’ composition of Deuteronomy, which is here found to have ruled the conduct of a Jewish king a hundred and fifty years before Manasseh, two hundred before Josiah, and two hundred and eighty before the return from the Captivity—the dates assigned to Deuteronomy by recent "advanced" critics. Wherein the Lord commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin. As usual, when one sacred writer quotes another, the quotation is not exact. "But" (כִּוּ אִם) is inserted at the beginning of the final clause, and the form of the verb in the same clause is modified. It seems to be intended that we should be made to feel that it is the sentiment or meaning conveyed, and not the phraseology in which it is wrapped up, that is of importance. 2 Kings 14:7 He slew of Edom in the valley of salt ten thousand. Edom had revolted from Judah and recovered complete independence in the reign of Jehoram, about fifty years previously (2 Kings 8:20). Since that time the two countries had remained at peace. Now, however, Amaziah resolved upon a great effort to resubjugate them. According to Josephus (’Ant. Jud.,’ 9.9. § 1) and Chronicles (2 Chronicles 25:5), he levied an army of 400,000 men—300,000 Jews, and 100,000 hired Israelites—with which he marched against the three nations of the Amalekites, the Idumaeans, and the Gabalites. Rebuked by a prophet for want of faith in calling to his aid the wicked Israelites, he consented to dismiss them, and made the invasion at the head of his own troops only. These were carefully organized (2 Chronicles 25:5), and met with a great success. Ten thousand of his enemies fell in battle, and an equal number were made prisoners. These last were barbarously put to death by being precipitated from the top of a rock (2 Chronicles 25:12). "The valley of salt," the scene of the battle, is probably identified with the sunken plain, now called Es Sabkah, at the southern extremity of the Dead Sea. This is "a large flat of at least six miles by ten, occasionally flooded" (Tristram), but dry in the summer.time. It is full of salt springs, and is bounded on the west and northwest by a long ridge of pure salt, known as the Khasm Usdum, so that the name "valley of salt" would be very appropriate. And took Selah by war. Selah with the article (has-Selah) can only be the Idumaean capital, which the Greeks called Petra (Πέτρα or ἡΠέτρα), and which is one of the most remarkable sites in the world. In the rocky mountains which form the eastern boundary of the Arabah or sandy slope reaching from the edge of the Sabkah to the Red Sea, amid cliffs of gorgeous colors, pink and crimson and purple, and ravines as deep and narrow as that of Proffers, partly excavated in the rook, partly emplaced upon it, stood the Edomite town, difficult to approach, still more difficult to capture, more like the home of a colony of sea-gulls than that of a number of men. Petra is graphically described by Dean Stanley, and has also received notice from Robinson, Highten, and others. And called the name of it Joktheel; i.e. "subdued by God." The name took no permanent hold. Selah is still "Sela" in Isaiah (Isaiah 16:1), Obadiah (Obadiah 1:3), and Jeremiah (Jeremiah 49:16). It is known only as "Petra" to the Greeks and Romans. Unto this day; i.e. to the time of the writer who composed the account of Amaziah’s reign for the ’Book of the Kings,’ and whoso words the author of Kings transcribes here as so often elsewhere. 2 Kings 14:8 Then Amaziah sent messengers to Jehoash, the son of Jehoahaz son of Jehu, King of Israel, saying. Amaziah had a cause of complaint against Jehoash, or at any rate against his subjects, which does not appear in the narrative of Kings. The author of Chronicles tells us that, when Amaziah dismissed his Israelite mercenaries, they were offended, and vented their anger by an inroad into his territories (2 Chronicles 25:13), where they killed three thousand men and "took much spoil." This was a clear casus belli, if Amaziah chose to consider it such. Come, let us look one another in the face. A rude message, if it was actually couched in these terms. But perhaps the writer substitutes the gist of the message for the language in which it was wrapped up. Josephus says that Amaziah wrote a letter to Joash, and required him to submit himself and people to the authority of the Jewish state, and thus restore the state of things which had existed under David and Solomon. Otherwise the sword must decide between them (’Ant. Jud.,’ 9.9. § 2). Whatever its terms, pride and self-confidence, the result of his success against Edom, were at the root of the challenge. 2 Kings 14:9 And Jehoash the King of Israel sent to Amaziah King of Judah, saying. According to Josephus, the reply to the challenge was given in a formal letter, of which he presents us with a copy- "King Joash to King Amaziah [sends greeting]: "Once upon a time there was in Mount Lebanon a very tall cypress, and also there was a thistle. And the thistle sent to the cypress, saying,’ Contract thy daughter in marriage to my son.’ And while this was transacting, a wild beast passed by and trod down the thistle. Let this be a warning to thee not to cherish immoderate desires, and not, because thou hast had success against Amalek, to pride thyself thereupon, and so draw down dangers both upon thee and upon thy kingdom." The force of the original message is much weakened in this paraphrase. The thistle that was in Lebanon. "Thistle" is a better translation than "thorn-bush" (Keil), first, as a meaner, growth, and secondly, as more likely to be trodden down by a wild beast. The monarch intends to say that the meanest thing in the vegetable world sent to the grandest, claiming equality. Sent to the cedar—certainly "the cedar." and not "the cypress," as translated by Josephus—that was in Lebanon, saying, Give thy daughter to my son to wife. Nube pari was a Roman maxim; and the rule was one generally established throughout the ancient world. To ask a man’s daughter in marriage for one’s self or for one’s son was to claim to be his equal. And there passed by a wild beast—literally, a beast of the field—that was in Lebanon (on Lebanon as the haunt of wild beasts, see Son 4:8), and trode down the thistle. So leveling with the dust the pride of the impertinent one. We must not seek an exact application of all the details either of a fable or of a parable. It is not required that metaphors should "run on all fours." 2 Kings 14:10 Thou hast indeed smitten Edom (see 2 Kings 14:7, and the comment), and thine heart hath lifted thee up—i.e; made thee proud, exalted thee above measure—glory of this, and tarry at home—i.e; rest content with the glory which thou hast gained in thy Edomite war; make thy boast thereof, but do not affront fresh dangers—for why shouldest thou meddle to thy hurt—literally, why wilt thou meddle with misfortune?—that thou shouldest fall, even thou, and Judah with thee? Joash was as confident of success, if it came to war, as Amaziah. His three victories over Syria (2 Kings 13:25) were, he thought, at least as good evidence of military strength as Amaziah’s one victory over Edom. 2 Kings 14:11 But Amaziah would not hear. The message of Joash was not conciliatory, but provocative. On hearing it, Amaziah (as Josephus says, ’Ant. Jud.,’ 9.9. § 3) was the more spurred on to make his expedition. Therefore Jehoash King of Israel went up. "Joash," as Bahr says, "did not wait for the attack of Amaziah, but anticipated his movements, and carried the war into the enemy’s country." Defensive warfare often requires such an Offensive movement. And he and Amaziah King of Judah looked one another in the face—e.g; came to an engagement—at Beth-shemesh, which belongeth to Judah. Beth-shemesh was assigned to Judah by Joshua (Joshua 19:38), and lay on its western frontier line. Its position is marked by the modern Ain-Shems, which lies nearly due west of Jerusalem, on the road from Hebron to Jaffa. Ain-Shems itself is an Arab village, but "just to the west of it are the manifest traces of an ancient site". The position commands the approach from the Philistine plain; and we may suspect that Joash, avoiding the direct line of approach, led his troops to the attack through Philistia, as was so often done by the Syrians in their attacks on the Maccabees (see 1 Macc. 3:40; 13:12, 13; 15:40; 16:4-8, etc.). 2 Kings 14:12 And Judah was put to the worse before Israel; and they fled every man to their tents; i.e. "to their homes" (see the comment on 2 Kings 13:5). This was the first trial of strength between the two nations of which we have any distinct account. It resulted in the complete discomfiture of Israel. There was another great struggle in the time of Pekah and Ahaz, wherein Judah suffered even more severely (see 2 Chronicles 28:6-8). 2 Kings 14:13 And Jehoash King of Israel took Amaziah King of Judah, the son of Jehoash the son of Ahaziah at Beth-shemesh—Josephus says (l.s.c.) that Amaziah was deserted by his troops, who were seized with a sudden panic and fled from the field—and came to Jerusalem, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem. According to Josephus, Joash threatened his prisoner with death unless the gates of Jerusalem were opened to him, and his army admitted into the town; and it was upon Amaziah’s representations that the surrender was made as soon as the Israelite army appeared before the place. The breach in the wall was therefore not the result of siege operations, but the act of a conqueror, who desired to leave his enemy as defenseless as possible. From the gate of Ephraim; i.e. the main gate in the northern wall of the city—that by which travelers ordinarily proceeded into the territory of the tribe of Ephraim. In later times it seems to have been called indifferently "the gate of Ephraim" (Nehemiah 8:16; Nehemiah 12:39) and "the gate of Benjamin" (Jeremiah 37:13; Zechariah 14:10). The great north road, which passed through it, led across the Benjamite into the Ephraim-its territory. Unto the corner gate. The, "corner gate" is generally thought to have been that at the north-western angle of the City wall, where it turned southward, but this is perhaps doubtful. The exact line of the city wall in the time of Amaziah is exceedingly uncertain. Four hundred cubits; six hundred feet, or two hundred yards. This seems to have been the entire distance between the two gates. As there were at least thirteen gates in the circuit of the walls (Nehemiah 3:1-31; Nehemiah 12:31-39; Zechariah 14:10), which were probably not mere extensive than those of the present town, the distance of two hundred yards between one gate and another would not be improbable, the average distance being about three hundred yards. 2 Kings 14:14 And he took all the gold and silver, and all the vessels that were found in the house of the Lord. As Joash of Judah had, fifteen or twenty years previously, stripped the temple of its treasures to buy off the hostility of Hazael (2 Kings 12:18), there could not have been at this time very much for Joash of Israel to lay his hands on. Still, whatever there was passed into the possession of the Israelite king. And in the treasures of the king’s house. Neither can this have amounted to much, unless the booty taken from Hazael after his defeats (2 Kings 14:25) was very considerable. And hostages. This is a new feature in the warfare of the time; but hostages were given and taken from an early date by the Persians (Xen; ’Cyrop.,’ 4.2. § 7; Herod; 6.99), the Greeks, and the Romans. 2 Kings 14:15, 2 Kings 14:16 Now the rest of the acts of Jehoash which he did, and his might, and how he fought with Amaziah King of Judah, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? And Jehoash slept with his fathers, and was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel; and Jeroboam his son reigned in his stead. These verses are repeated with very slight alterations from 2 Kings 13:11, 2 Kings 13:12. Curiously, on both occasions they are out of place. It is scarcely worth while to consider how they came into the text at this point, since no explanation could be more than a conjecture. In point of fact, they are redundant. 2 Kings 14:17 And Amaziah the son of Joash King of Judah lived after the death of Jehoash son of Jehoahaz King of Israel fifteen years. This note of time is based on 2 Kings 14:2, which makes Amaziah begin to reign in the second year of Joash of Israel, and hold the throne for twenty-nine years. If he really began to reign in the fourth year of Joash, he would have survived him only thirteen years (see the comment on 2 Kings 14:2). 2 Kings 14:18 And the rest of the acts of Amaziah—especially the circumstances of his war with Edom, as related in 2 Chronicles 25:5-13, his idolatry (2 Chronicles 25:14), and the rebuke which he received from one of God’s prophets (2 Chronicles 25:15, 2 Chronicles 25:16) in consequence—are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? 2 Kings 14:19 Now they made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem. The author of Chronicles connects this conspiracy with the idolatry of which Amaziah was guilty (2 Chronicles 25:27); but, though his subjects may have been offended by his religions changes, and have become alienated from him in consequence, the actual conspiracy can scarcely have been prompted by an act which was fifteen, or at any rate thirteen, years old. It is more likely to have sprung out of dissatisfaction with Amaziah’s military inaction from and after his defeat by Joash. While Jeroboam H. was carrying all before him in the north, recovering his border, pushing it as far as Hamath, and even exercising a suzerainty over Damascus (2 Kings 14:25, 2 Kings 14:28), Amaziah remained passive, cowed by his one defeat, and took no advantage of the state of weakness to which he had reduced Edom, but sat with folded hands, doing nothing. The conspirators who removed Amaziah, and placed his son Azariah, or Uzziah, upon the throne, may be credited with the wish and intention to bring the period of inaction to an end, and to effect in the south what Jeroboam was effecting in the north. It is true that Azariah was but sixteen years of age, but he may have given indications of his ambition and capacity. Sixteen, moreover, is the time of manhood in the East, and the conspirators had probably waited until Azariah was sixteen in order that his competency to reign should not be disputed. As soon as he was on the throne he initiated the warlike policy which they desired (see verse 22). And he fled to Lachish. Lachish, one of the south-western Judaean towns (Joshua 15:39), was at all times a fortress of importance. It resisted Joshua (Joshua 10:3, Joshua 10:31), and was taken by storm. It was fortified by Jeroboam against the Egyptians (2 Chronicles 11:9). It was besieged and taken by Sennacherib. The position is marked by the modern Um-Lakis, on "a low round swell or knoll," between Gaza and Beit-Jibrin, about thirteen miles from Gaza and nearly thirty-five from Jerusalem. But they sent after him to Lackish, and slew him there. So the author of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 25:27) and Josephus (’Ant. Jud.,’ Joshua 9:9. § 3); but details are wanting. 2 Kings 14:20 And they brought him on horses; literally, on the horses, which must mean "on his horses." Probably Amaziah had fled to Lachish in the royal chariot, and his body was now brought back in it to Jerusalem. The conspirators were evidently minded to treat the royal corpse with all respect. And he was buried at Jerusalem with his fathers in the city of David; i.e. the city on the eastern hill, which David took from the Jebusites (see the comment on 1 Kings 2:10). 2 Kings 14:21, 2 Kings 14:22 OF AZARIAH AND OF THE WAR WITH EDOM. Though reserving his account of the reign of Azariah to the next chapter (verses 1-7), the writer is led by the circumstances of Amaziah’s death to mention at once the fact of his son Azariah’s succession, and the first important act of his reign, the resumption of war with Edom. He then breaks off suddenly, in order to interpose an account of the reign of Jeroboam II; who was contemporary with Amaziah during fourteen years of his reign, 2 Kings 14:21 And all the people of Judah took Azariah. This is a new expression, and implies a new, perhaps a tumultuary, proceeding. The people, uncertain probably of the intentions of the conspirators, and fearful that they might set up a king not of the house of David, took the initiative, went to the royal palace, and finding there a son of Amaziah—whether his eldest son or not, we cannot say—proclaimed him king and placed him upon the throne. The author of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 16:1) agrees. Josephus is silent. Which was sixteen years old. Young certainly, considering that his father was fifty-four (see verse 2), but not necessarily "a younger son," since Amaziah’s earlier children may have been daughters, or he may have married late in life. It is not doubted that Manasseh was Hezekiah’s eldest son, yet he was only twelve when Hezekiah died at the same age as Amaziah, viz. fifty-four. And made him king instead of his father Amaziah. There are two forms of the king’s name, Azariah and Uzziah. The difference between them is not so great in the Hebrew, where they both begin with the same letter; but still it is considerable. One name is not a mere contraction of the other. Some suppose that the king changed one name for the other upon his accession; others, that he was called indifferently by either, since they were very similar in meaning. "Azariah" is "he whose help is Jehovah;" "Uzziah," "he whose strength is Jehovah." "Uzziah" is the predominant form, occurring four times in 2 Kings, twelve times in 2 Chronicles, three times in Isaiah, once in Hoses, once in Amos, and once in Zechariah; while "Azariah" occurs only in 2 Kings (eight times) and in 1 Chronicles 3:12 (once). Josephus uses the form "Ozias" (equivalent to, Uzziah), and so does St. Matthew (Matthew 1:8, Matthew 1:9). 2 Kings 14:22 He built Elath, and restored it to Judah. On the position of Elath, or Eloth, and its importance, see the comment on 1 Kings 9:26. It had been the headquarters of Solomon’s fleet (1 Kings 9:26), and again of Jehoshaphat’s (1 Kings 22:48; 2 Chronicles 20:36); but had been, of course, recovered by the Edomites when they revolted (2 Kings 8:22). Azariah’s re-occupation seems to imply an intention on his part of, renewing the old Red Sea trade. By "built ’ in this passage we must understand "rebuilt" or (as in 2 Chronicles 11:6) "fortified." After that the king slept with his fathers. Keil is probably right in understanding this to mean "immediately after he had ascended the throne," or "as soon as ever his father was dead" (see the comment on verse 19). His further military successes will be considered in the comment on his reign, as sketched in the next chapter. 2 Kings 14:23-29 REIGN OF THE SON OF JOASH OVER ISRAEL. This reign, the most important of those belonging to the kingdom of Israel since that of Ahab, is treated with great brevity by the writer, whose interest is far more in Judah than in Israel. Seven verses only are devoted to him. The result of his wars is given without any account of the wars themselves. And the great fact of his ruling over Damascus only comes in by a sort of afterthought (verse. 28). The usual formulas are followed in introducing his reign and missing it. 2 Kings 14:23 In the fifteenth year of Amaziah the son of Joash King of Judah—this note of time agrees with those in 2 Kings 13:10 and 2 Kings 45:1, 17, but not with that in 2 Kings 15:1 (see the comment on that passage)—Jeroboam the son of Joash King of Israel began to reign in Samaria, and reigned forty and one years. Josephus says "forty years; Many moderns (Thenius, Bahr, and others) extend the term to fifty-one years. Some suppose that Jeroboam was joint-king with his father in Amaziah’s third year, solo king from his fifteenth. But it is better to acknowledge the general confusion of the chronology, and to regard it as uncertain, unless where a synchronism is distinctly made out. Such assured synchronisms are the following: (1) The synchronism of Ahab with Jehoshaphat: (2) the synchronism of Jehoram, Ahab’s son, with the same; (3) the synchronism of Jehu’s first year with the first year of Athaliah; (4) the synchronism of Amaziah with Joash of Israel; (5) the synchronism of Pekah with Ahaz; (6) the synchronism of Hoshea’s last year with Hezekiah’s sixth; (7) the synchronism of Amaziah’s fourteenth year with Jeroboam II.’s first, being twice asserted in two distinct forms (2 Kings 15:17 and 2 Kings 15:23), is, at any rate, highly probable. Numbers which occur once only in ancient writers can seldom be implicitly trusted, since the liability of numbers to corruption is excessive. 2 Kings 14:24 And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord: he departed not from all the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin. The judgments which had fallen upon Jehu and Jehoahaz on account of these sins did not teach any lesson to Joash or Jeroboam II. The fatal taint, which was congenital with the Israelite monarchy, could never be purged out, hut clung to it to the end. 2 Kings 14:25 He restored the coast of Israel from the entering in of Hamath. By "the entering in of Hamath" is to be understood the opening into the Coele-Syrian valley a little north of Baalbec, where the ground begins to slope northwards, and the streams to flow in the same direction to form the Orontes. Hamath itself was between eighty and ninety miles further to the north, on the middle Orontes, about N. lat. 35° 22’. The "entering in of Hamath" was always reckoned the northern boundary of the Holy Land (see Numbers 34:8; Joshua 13:5; Judges 3:3; 1 Kings 8:65). It corresponded with the watershed between the Orontes and the Litany. Unto the sea of the plain. The "sea of the plain" is undoubtedly the Dead Sea, the plain (ha-Arabah) being used as a sort of proper name for the lower Jordan valley, like El-Ghor at the present day (see Deuteronomy 3:17; Joshua 3:16; Joshua 12:3, etc.). The territory recovered no doubt included all the trans-Jordanic region as far south as the river Aruon; but the recovery of dominion over Moab, and even over Ammon, which some have seen in this passage, is scarcely con-rained in it. According to the word of the Lord God of Israel, which he spake by the hand of his servant Jonah, the son of Amittai (comp. Jonah 1:1). Jonah’s date is determined by this passage. He was contemporary with Hosea and Amos, and earlier than Micah. His prophecy concerning Jeroboam is probably assigned to the early part of that king’s reign. The prophet, which was of Gath-hepher. Gath-hepher is mentioned in Joshua, under the name of Gittah-hepher, as a city of Zebulon (2 Kings 19:13), not far from Mount Tabor. It is conjecturally identified with El-Meshhed north of Nazareth, where the tomb of Jonah is shown. 2 Kings 14:26 For the Lord saw the affliction of Israel, that it was very bitter. The repetition is perhaps to be accounted for by the desire of the writer to explain how it came to pass that so great a deliverance was granted to Israel under a king who maintained the worship of the calves. He views it as the consequence of God’s infinite compassion, and of the extreme bitterness of Israel’s sufferings under the Syrians. For there was not any shut up, nor any left (see the comment on 1 Kings 14:10), nor any helper for Israel. Apart from Jehovah, Israel had no one to come to her aid. Judah would not help her, for Judah had just suffered at her hands (2 Kings 14:11-14); still less would Philistia, or Moab, or Ammon, who were her constant enemies. Her isolation rendered her all the more an object for the Divine compassion. 2 Kings 14:27 And the Lord said not that he would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven. God’s decision under the circumstances was not, as it well might have been, considering Israel’s ill desert, to blot out forthwith the very name of Israel from the earth. On the contrary, he gave the nation a breathing-space, a gleam of light, a second summer before the winter set in—a further opportunity of repenting and turning to him with all their hearts if they would only have taken advantage of it, a chance of redeeming the past and reestablishing themselves in his favor. He might well have destroyed them at this time if he had looked only to considerations of justice, if in his wrath he had not thought upon mercy. But he saved them; i.e. he gave them the deliverance promised first by Elisha (2 Kings 13:17), and then by Jonah the son of Amittai (verse 25)—deliverance from Syria, recovery of their borders, and triumph over their enemies. He gave them all this by the hand of Jeroboam the son of Joash. Joash began the salvation, but it was reserved for Jeroboam to complete it. He was the true "savior" (2 Kings 13:5), the true accomplisher of the work, for which his father only paved the way. Thus one Jeroboam founded the kingdom; another refounded it, restored its ancient glories, and gave it its old dimensions. 2 Kings 14:28 Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, and all that he did, and his might, how he warred, and how he recovered Damascus and Hamath. It has been suggested that these words mean no more than that Jeroboam took territory from Damascus and Hamath—from Damascus the trans-Jordanic territory which Hazael had conquered from Jehu (2 Kings 10:33); from Hamath some small portion of the Coele-Syrian valley, about the head-streams of the Orontes and Litany (so Keil and Bahr). But there does not seem to be any sufficient reason for giving the words used this narrow signification. Damascus was conquered and annexed by David (2 Samuel 8:6), and held for a time even by Solomon (1 Kings 11:24), of whose kingdom Hamath also seems to have formed part (1 Kings 4:21-24; 2 Chronicles 8:4; 2 Chronicles 9:26). The word "recovered" is, therefore, a suitable one. The prophecy of Amos, no doubt, represents Damascus as independent (Amos 1:3, Amos 1:4); but this may have been written before Jeroboam conquered it. Hamath’s subjection seems to be implied in Amos 6:2, Amos 6:14. We may, therefore, well understand, with Ewald and Dr. Pusey, that Jeroboam ’ subdued Damascus and even Hamath," and added them to his kingdom. How long the subjection continued is a different question. Probably, in the troubles that followed the death of Zachariah (2 Kings 15:10-14), the yoke was thrown off. In the Assyrian Inscriptions, Damascus appears under its own king about B.C. 786, and it was certainly independent in B.C. 743. At the latter date Hamath also appears as the capital of an independent kingdom under its own monarch. Which belonged to Judah. Keil and Bahr render,"Hamath of Judah," regarding לִיהוּדָה as a genitive. Ewald proposes to read צֲמָת לְצוֹבָה, "Hamath of Zobah", or else to cut out ליצודה altogether. The passage is one of great difficulty. For Israel. It is questionable whether this meaning can be obtained from the present text, which is בְיִשׂרָאֵל. Bahr thinks that it can; but Ewald regards the change into לְיִשׂרָאֵל as one "of necessity." Might we not avoid all these alterations by translating simply—" how he recovered Damascus and Hamath to Judah through Israel"? Attaching them to Israel was a sort of recovering of them to Judah, to which (i.e. the Judah of David and Solomon) they had once belonged. Are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? 2 Kings 14:29 And Jeroboam slept with his fathers, oven with the kings of Israel—his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather had been actually among the kings of Israel; but all the kings, his predecessors, were probably reckoned among his ancestors—and Zachariah his son reigned in his stead (see the comment on 2 Kings 15:8). By Zachariah’s accession the promise given to Jehu (2 Kings 10:30), that his "children to the fourth generation should sit on the throne of Israel," was literally fulfilled. No other royal house occupied the Israelitish throne for more than three generations. 2 Kings 14:3, 2 Kings 14:4 A father’s evil example no justification for a son’s misconduct. Amaziah "did according to all things as Joash his father did." Like his father, he was half-hearted. In his earlier years he kept to the worship of Jehovah, and "did that which was right in the sight of the Lord," yet not with any zeal or energy. Afterwards he fell away, introduced idolatry (2 Chronicles 25:14), and when a prophet rebuked him for his evil courses, answered him with scoffs and threatenings (2 Chronicles 25:15, 2 Chronicles 25:16). His father Joash had done even worse after the death of Jehoiada. He had not only sanctioned idolatries (2 Chronicles 24:17, 2 Chronicles 24:18), but had had the servant of God who rebuked them put to death (2 Chronicles 24:21). This, however, is not held by the sacred writer to be any justification or excuse for Amaziah. The reasons are manifest. I. NO MAN IS TO BE CALLED MASTER, NOT EVEN A FATHER. God gives men in his Law and in their conscience a standard of right, which they are to follow. He nowhere bids them take any man but the "God-Man" for pattern. He warns them that men are, all of them, more or less imperfect. He requires that parents shall be "honored," not imitated. II. THE EVIL EXAMPLE OF A FATHER IS A WARNING TO SONS, WHICH SHOULD LEAD TO , NOT . The sight of a drunken father should disgust sons with drunkenness. Blasphemous and violent words should so shock them as to suggest an exactly opposite behavior. Looseness of morals should breed in them a determination never to offend in a way so absolutely revolting. Given that simplicity which is natural to youth, and every fault of a father should so keenly wound and vex their souls as to bend them in the exactly contrary direction. Sin is so ugly, so offensive, so coarse, that in another it naturally disgusts us; and the more plainly it is revealed, the closer it is brought to us, the more are we naturally provoked and angered by it. III. THE WHICH SIN DRAWS AFTER IT SHOULD COME HOME TO THOSE WHOSE HOMES ARE CURSED WITH IT, AND ACT AS A . Disease, decay, the loss of others’ respect, the severing of friendships, general dislike and aversion, in some cases contempt, dog the footsteps of sin, and mark it as a thing to be avoided. Sons are naturally sensitive with regard to their fathers’ honor, and keen to mark whether they are held in respect or no. There can be no natural deterrent from evil courses stronger than the perception that one with whom we are bound up is deteriorating from day to day, not merely in character, but in reputation, falling in men’s esteem, becoming a mark for their scorn. The father’s fall should thus not produce the son’s, but rather stimulate the son to rise to greater and greater heights of virtue. 2 Kings 14:5, 2 Kings 14:6 A father’s sins not to be visited by the civil magistrate on his children. Human legislators have differed greatly in their judgments upon this point. In the East, and in early times, the idea was generally accepted that the guilt of the father attached to all his descendants, and was justly visited on them. "Lege cantum erat," says Q. Curtius (’Vit. Alex.,’ 2 Kings 6:11), "ut propinqui eorum, qui regi insidiati essent, cum ipsis necarentur.’ The family was regarded as the unit of society, and the crime of one member tainted the whole of it. What the Egyptian practice was is uncertain; but we find the Israelites, shortly after the Exodus, putting to death the whole family of Achan on account of their father’s sin (Joshua 7:24, Joshua 7:25), and the usage seems to have continued long afterwards (2 Kings 9:26). The Greeks and Romans adopted a different line of action. Recognizing the separateness of the individual, they never executed a family en masse, but only the guilty member or members of it. Yet, in secondary punishments, the contrary idea to some extent prevailed. At Athens, when the sentence on a man was degradation from his rights of citizenship (ἀτιμία), the penalty was shared by his children. A similar disability attached to the children of those who were executed. So, even by our own law, attainder and forfeiture, which mainly affect the children, are attached to the crime of treason, and the property of felons escheats to the Crown. It is very remarkable that the Law of Moses should have anticipated the ultimate judgment of the human conscience upon the point, and have laid down so clearly and strongly the humane principle that the criminal alone should be punished for his own crime. To us at the present day the principle may appear axiomatic; but at the time when Moses enunciated it, the contrary idea was prevalent; and it is doubtful whether the broad assertion, "Every man shall be put to death for his own sins," had ever been heard previously. Even now, though in the letter the principle is universally accepted, infractions of its spirit are common enough— I. BY NATIONS. Nations infringe it when they cashier a royal family for the fault, or even the crime, of the reigning sovereign. In a hereditary monarchy the son has a right to succeed, though his father may by unconstitutional acts have justly forfeited the crown. Still more unjust is the perpetual exile of all those whose ancestors have ever reigned over a country. Such persons are punished, not so much for the sins as for the merits—the wisdom, prowess, high renown—of their forefathers, since it is for their merits, ordinarily, that persons are first placed upon thrones. Confiscation of the property of exiled princes is still more indefensible, since it is at once unjust and mean. It may be added that forfeiture and attainder, as they exist in our own law, seem to be contrary to the spirit of the rule, which is that no one should be punished for anything but his own acts. II. BY . Individuals infringe this rule when they maintain a family feud, transferring to the children of those by whom they consider themselves to have been injured the animosity which they have long entertained towards their parents. Or when they treat a man with coldness or incivility because his father has done something disgraceful. Or, generally, when they attach blame or discredit to any one, not for anything that he has done, but for something that somebody connected with him has done. Strict justice requires that each man should "bear his own burden," and stand or fall by his own acts. If we allow anything but his own acts to affect our estimate of a man—still more, if we allow it to affect our demeanor towards him—we act unjustly, we infringe the principle of the law, "Every man shall be put to death [i.e. shall suffer] for his own sin." 2 Kings 14:8-14 Pride goes before a fall. Amaziah’s challenge and its result furnish a remarkable illustration of this maxim. The following points should be dwelt upon. I. THE WEAK GROUND OF THE PRIDE. This was military success, which is just as often the result of good fortune, or one’s enemies’ mistakes, as of any merits of one’s own. Amaziah’s after-life showed that he did not possess any great military capacity, and so had nothing on which he ought to have prided himself. Men constantly over estimate their own merits. II. THE WAY IN WHICH THE PRIDE VENTED ITSELF. In quarrel, causeless quarrel with a neighbor. Amaziah had no grievance which he felt it necessary to redress, no need to quarrel with Joash. Having gained one success, he was simply greedy for more. And to gratify his self-esteem he was careless how many lives he sacrificed or what injuries he inflicted (1) on his adversaries; (2) on his own subjects. He forgot that the Israelites were of kindred blood (1 Kings 12:24), of the same religion, a portion of God’s people. He plunged into an unnecessary war—in itself always a sin—with a nation towards which he ought to have felt friendly, without obtaining or seeking any Divine sanction, in sole reliance on himself. What wonder that God punished such combined folly and wickedness! III. THE WITH WHICH THE COURSE WAS IN. Proud men dislike above all things admitting that they are in the wrong. Amaziah had ample time to retract his challenge and. give up his enterprise. Joash was not at all eager for the encounter; on the contrary, he was quite willing to have remained at peace if Amaziah would have let him. But to retract, still more to apologize, would have been unpleasant. The pride which had given birth to the challenge absolutely forbade its withdrawal. IV. THE AND EXTREME OF THE FALL. Amaziah had, no doubt, counted on an easy victory; he went to war "with a light heart." He would do with Israel as he had done with Edom—smite and slay, and make prisoners, and perhaps punish his prisoners with death (2 Kings 14:7). The result is, not a victory, not even a drawn battle, not a long war with alternations of success and defeat, but one crushing blow, from which there is no recovery even for an instant. His army is defeated, dispersed; he himself is a prisoner in the hands of his enemy, his capital is taken, its walls broken down, its treasures carded off. He is disgraced in the eyes of all his subjects, as well as of the neighboring nations, and thenceforth remains absolutely quiescent, attempts nothing, but, humbled and confounded, "sits in the dust." 2 Kings 14:1-4 with 7-20 Compromise and its consequences. We read here of Amaziah that "he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, yet not like David his father: he did according to all things as Joash his father did. Howbeit the high places were not taken away; as yet the people did sacrifice and burnt incense on the high places." And we read of him in 2 Chronicles that "he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, but not with a perfect heart." To understand the meaning of the statement which we meet with so often, that "the high places were not taken away," we must go back to the period before the children of Israel entered the promised land. At that time the inhabitants of Canaan were heathen—pagans and idolaters. One of the peculiarities of their heathen worship was to have groves of trees, generally of oaks, planted on the summit of the hills. In these groves there was usually placed a shrine with an image of their deity, just as we see, when traveling on the continent, shrines of the blessed Virgin, or shrines with a crucifix, by the roadside and on the hill-tops. The custom of having groves of oaks for religious purposes was shared by the early inhabitants of Britain, and the Druids derived their name from this very practice. In these groves the heathen priests sacrificed and burnt incense to their gods. It was to such groves that the name of "high places" was given. When the Israelites were about to enter Canaan, God foresaw the temptation to which they would be exposed from the idolatry of the heathen inhabitants and of the neighboring nations. He therefore charged them not only to drive out the heathen nations from Canaan, but also to utterly destroy their high places, to overthrow their altars, and break their graven images, and burn their groves with fire (Deuteronomy 12:2, Deuteronomy 12:3). This command was repeated over and over again. But, notwithstanding this, the high places were never utterly abolished. Time after time during the period of the judges, the people set up a worship in the high places, which, though nominally that of Jehovah, was tinged with idolatrous practices. It was much the same under the kings. Now and then some courageous, God-fearing, whole-hearted king made a clean sweep of the high places. But the old habit was continually revived, and so in one reign after another we read the policy of compromise," The high places were not taken away." And whenever that was the case, we find it had evil results. It was so in the time of Solomon himself. It was so in the time of the two kings who succeeded him over the divided kingdom—Rehoboam and Jeroboam. It was so in the case of Amaziah now before us. I. AMAZIAH’S THE WAY FOR SIN. The high places in themselves were not necessarily places of idolatry. There is no doubt that sincere worship to the true God was often offered up in them. Thus we find Solomon sacrificing to the Lord in Gibeon, which was the great high place. But the associations of these places were entirely idolatrous. From time immemorial they had been associated with the worship of the heathen gods. It was for this reason that God forbade the use of them. It was necessary to make the wall of separation between his people and the heathen as wide as possible—to teach them that they could not serve God and Baal, that there could be no compromise between right and wrong without danger to the right. The results showed the wisdom and necessity of God’s strict command. The natural tendency of the human heart is to worship what is seen, to look at the outward symbol rather than at the thing signified. This was just what happened in Amaziah’s case. He did not see that there was any harm in preserving the high places. Might not God be worshipped there as well as in Jerusalem? And so he made the compromise: "The high places were not taken away." But look at the result. "Now it came to pass, after that Amaziah was come from the slaughter of the Edomites, that he brought the gods of the children of Seir, and set them up to be his gods, and bowed down himself before them, and burned incense unto them" (2 Chronicles 25:14). What a falling off was there! This is that Amaziah who began his career by doing right in the sight of the Lord, now stupidly bowing down before the lifeless idols of the heathen! He conquered the heathen in one sense, but the heathen conquered him in another and more dangerous sense. Has it not been the same in the history of the Christian Church? The early Christian Church was simple in its worship and its government; its members were simple in their habits and pure in their lives. But when it became powerful at Rome, and in a sense captured pagan Rome, its very power was its danger. There was a sense in which the paganism of Rome captured the simplicity of the gospel. As Mourant Brock has so fully shown in that interesting book of his on ’Rome: Pagan and Papal,’ and as Gibbon and other historians have pointed out, Christianity, in Rome at least, made a compromise with paganism. And the compromise was anything but an advantage to the Christian religion. The ill effects of it remain to this day in the images and pilgrimages, and the many other superstitions which deface the Roman branch of the Christian Church. Such facts of history carry with them a memorable lesson. The Christian Church ought ever to keep in mind the spiritual objects for which it exists. It ought, therefore, to guard most scrupulously the spirituality and scripturality of its worship. "God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." It ought to guard also the spirituality and scripturality of its doctrine, and teach men to trust, not to penances or indulgences for their acceptance with God, but to the work and merits of Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and man. The countries of the Reformation are marked out among the nations of Europe for their prosperity and industry. The more thorough the work of religious reformation, the stronger has been the national character, the more vigorous the national life. And on the other hand, as we look at the general decay of the Roman Catholic nations, and the corruption that has marked their history, may we not trace the secret of their downfall in the words of the fourth verse, "The high places were not taken away?" II. AMAZIAH’S LED TO . Amaziah had elements of strength mingled with the elements of weakness in his character. He was capable of acting upon certain occasions with decision and firmness. What a pity he had not carried that spirit of decision into the most important duty for every human being—obedience to the Law of God! Once, indeed, he had done so. And the success which followed his obedience to God’s command on that occasion should have encouraged him in a similar decision always. He was going forth to battle against the Edomites. He had raised out of his own kingdom of Judah alone an army of three hundred thousand men. In addition to these, he hired out of the kingdom of Israel a hundred thousand men for a hundred talents of silver, that is to say at a cost of about £50,000. But there came to him a man of God, saying, "O king, let not the army of Israel go with thee; for the Lord is not with Israel" (2 Chronicles 25:7). Amaziah had not yet hardened his heart against God’s message. He was not yet blinded to the evil results of forsaking God. So he considered seriously this difficulty, and saw that it would be folly to go forth in defiance of God’s warning. But the question arose about the payment of these hired soldiers, and he said, "What shall we do for the hundred talents which I have given to the army of Israel?" And the man of God answered, "The Lord is able to give thee much more than this." Amaziah hesitated no longer. He sent away these hired troops, though he incurred their anger and vengeance in consequence; but when he went forth against the Edomites, his army gained a most decisive and overwhelming victory. Would that Amaziah had acted in a similar spirit of decision all through his life! Would that he had showed in other matters a similar spirit of dependence on God and obedience to him! Would that he had always remembered the prophet’s words, "The Lord is able to give thee much more than this"! Oh that we would all remember this when tempted to make compromise with the world—when, for the sake of worldly gain, or popular applause, or the favor of men, or earthly rank, we are tempted to disregard the voice of conscience and of God! God’s commands are clear. His promises are equally clear. We never gain anything by making compromise with sin. From the moment that Amaziah forsook God, success began to forsake his banners. He and his army were defeated by the army of Israel, and eventually he himself was slain by a conspiracy of his own servants. Let us learn that we should never, for the sake of any temporal advantage, make a compromise with sin, or disobey the command of God. We may be the losers for the time, but the Lord is able to give us much more than this. In an interesting book lately published, which gives an account of the mission to the fishermen in the North Sea, we are told that some of the owners of the fishing-vessels refused to allow their vessels to be used for a prayer-meeting or other religious service; but expected the men to work on the Lord’s day as on others. There was a small fleet, all the skippers of which were anxious to have no fishing on Sunday, and accordingly sent home a "round robin" to the owners, praying for this concession. They waited anxiously for the return of the cutter with the owners’ reply, and when at length it reached them, their hopes were utterly dashed, for the employers, while saying they would not forbid the skippers to keep their fishing-gear on board, gave them clearly to understand that any skipper doing so would run the risk of losing his berth at the end of the voyage. The matter was quietly and prayerfully discussed, and eventually all but one agreed, "We ought to obey God rather than man;" and so sabbath after sabbath this solitary dissentient labored with his gear, while all the other vessels were lying-to. As each skipper’s voyage expired, he ran home for the bi-monthly refit, yet not a word was said about discharging him, and as this happened to every skipper in turn, they made up their minds that the threat was an empty one. However, at Christmas the secret came out; for the owner, according to custom, read aloud to his assembled crews the list of the different vessels’ earnings during the year. At last he stopped, and put down the paper. "Oh, but, sir," exclaimed several skippers, "you haven’t read what So-and-so made" referring to the skipper who had fished seven days a week. "Why, what is that to you? I’ve read what you’ve made: doesn’t that satisfy you?" "Why, no, sir, because, don’t you see, he’s fished every Sunday, while we’ve kept our trawls on board." "Well, well," muttered the owner, "I suppose it’s sure to come out, so I may as well tell you. He’s at the bottom of the list." The man who related this story added reverently, "Them that honor me I will honor, but they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed." Those men showed true faithfulness. They would have no compromise. Cost what it might, they would obey the command of God, "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy." And he who gave the command honored and rewarded them for their observance of it. He prospered their industry on the six days of the week more than the industry of the man who labored on every day of the seven. Even in temporal blessings the policy of compromise is a policy of disaster. Much more when we look at the eternal consequences, "What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" We find that Amaziah’s spirit of compromise infected his whole character. Unfaithful himself, he did not like faithfulness in others. When he began to worship the heathen idols, God sent a prophet to remonstrate with him. The prophet said to Amaziah, "Why hast thou sought after the gods of the people, which could not deliver their own people out of thine hand?" (2 Chronicles 25:15). A very reasonable question, one would say. But the king was beyond rebuke. He commanded the prophet to cease, and threatened to punish him if he continued. It is a sign that something is wrong when men and women begin to dislike faithful preaching. Those whose own conscience is clear need feel no hurt when sin is rebuked. Beware of the policy of compromise. Let there be no compromise with the world, with godlessness, with sin; no compromise with godlessness in your family; no compromise with wrong in your business; no compromise with evil customs or companionships in your social life; no calling of evil good, and of good evil. Nail your colors to the mast. Let there be no compromise with your own besetting sins. Many a man has begun well, like Amaziah, but has ended badly, because he made a compromise with sin. He retained some old habit. He did not put away the high places of his pride, or his ambition, or his covetousness, or his passion—and in the long ran his sin became too strong for him.—C.H.I 2 Kings 14:5, 2 Kings 14:6 Personal responsibility. Amaziah visits with just execution the servants who had conspired against his father Joash. But he did not put to death the children of the murderers. He acted on the principle laid down by God through Moses (Deuteronomy 24:16), that "the fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin." I. EVERY ONE OF US IS FOR HIS OWN LIFE. "For we must all appear before the judgment-scat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." II. EVERY ONE OF US IS FOR THE RIGHT OF HIS OWN DUTIES. We cannot excuse ourselves by the unfaithfulness of others. Responsibility is something which we can never transfer to any one else. Men may deny their responsibility. They may refuse to fulfill it. They may neglect it. But there it is—they cannot get rid of it. Our responsibility to God for the life and opportunities which he has given is a truth we should do well to keep constantly before us.—C.H.I. BY D. THOMAS 2 Kings 14:1-29 Significant facts in God’s government. "In the second year of Joash," etc. In this chapter we have a sketch of a succession of kings both of Judah and Israel. Here are two kings of Judah—Amaziah and Azariah; and Joash, Jeroboam, and his son Zachariah, kings of Israel. The whole chapter suggests certain significant facts in God’s government of mankind. I. THE FREEDOM OF ACTION WHICH HE ALLOWS WICKED MEN. Here we learn: 1. That God allows wicked men to form wrong conceptions of himself. All these kings, although descendants of Abraham, who was a monotheist, became idolaters. "The high places were not taken away: as yet the people did sacrifice and burnt incense on the high places." Golden calves, symbols of Egyptian worship, still stood in Dan and Bethel, at the extremities of the dominions. Terribly strange it seems to us that the Almighty Author of the human mind should permit it to think of him as some material object in nature, or as some production of the human hand. What human father, had he the power, would permit his children to form not only wrong but wicked impressions of himself? For what reason this is permitted I know not, Albeit it shows God’s practical respect for that freedom of action with which he has endowed us. 2. That God allows wicked men to obtain despotic dominion over others. All these kings were wicked—Amaziah, Azariah, Joash, Jeroboam, and Zachariah, and yet they enjoyed an almost autocratic dominion over the rights, possessions, and lives of millions. Here we read of Amaziah slaying ten thousand men, capturing ten thousand prisoners, and taking Selah, the capital of the Edomites, and of Joash King of Israel using harshly the rights of the conqueror. "He came to Jerusalem, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem from the gate of Ephraim unto the corner gate." It is said of Jeroboam, who reigned forty-one years, that he "did evil in the sight of the Lord, and departed not from the sins of his father." Antecedently one might have concluded that, if a wicked man was allowed to live amongst his fellows, he would be doomed to obscurity and to social and political impotence; but it is not so. Why? Who shall answer? II. GOD WICKED MEN BY THEIR OWN . 1. A wicked man is punished by his own wickedness. Amaziah’s conduct is an example. Elated with his triumph over the Edomites, he sought occasion of war with the King of Israel. "He sent messengers to Joash, the son of Jehoahaz son of Jehu, King of Israel, saying, Come, let us look one another in the face," etc. About fifteen years after his defeat he fled from Jerusalem to Laehish to escape assassination, but the assassin pursued him, and struck him dead. It is ever so. Wickedness is its own punishment. The wicked passions of a corrupt man are his tormenting devils. Sin is suicidal. 2. A wicked man is punished by the wickedness of others. The thousands whom these despotic kings reduced to anguish, destitution, and death, were idolaters and rebels against Heaven, and by the hand of wicked men they were punished. Thus it ever is. Devils are their own tormentors. Sin converts a community of men into tormenting fiends; man becomes the avenging fate of man. . Learn: 1. Humanity in this world is obviously in a morally abnormal condition. It can never be that he whose power is immeasurable, whose wisdom and goodness are infinite and radiant everywhere above us and below us, could create such a state of things as we have here. He originates the good alone, permits the evil, and will ultimately overrule it for good. 2. Faith in a future that shall rectify the evils of the present seems essential to true religion. Genuine religion is a supreme love for the Supreme Existence. But who could love a Supreme Existence, which could permit forever such a state of existence as we have here? There must come a day of rectification: "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him," etc. (Matthew 25:31-46).—D.T. BY J. ORR 2 Kings 14:1-7 Amaziah doing right. The murder of Joash King of Judah, and the accession of his son Amaziah, took place a little after the accession of Joash the son of Jehoahaz in Israel, therefore just before the turn of the tide in the fortunes of the latter kingdom. I. EARLY RIGHT-DOING. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Kings 15:1-38 REIGNS OF AZARIAH AND JOTHAM OVER JUDAH; AND OF , SHALLUM, MENAHEM, , AND PEKAH OVER ISRAEL. 2 Kings 15:1-7 THE REIGN OF AZARIAH OVER JUDAS. The writer now more and more compresses his narrative. Into a single chapter he crowds the events of seven reigns, covering the space of nearly seventy years. He is consequently compelled to omit several most important historical events, which are however, fortunately supplied by the writer of Chronicles. Azariah’s reign, which here occupies only seven verses, in Chronicles fills an entire chapter (twenty-three verses). (See 2 Chronicles 26:1-23.) 2 Kings 15:1 In the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam King of Israel began Azariah son of Amaziah King of Judah to reign. In 2 Kings 14:23 it is distinctly stated that Jeroboam’s reign of forty-one years commenced in the fifteenth of Amaziah, who from that time lived only fifteen years (2 Kings 14:17). Either, therefore, Azariah must have begun to reign in the fifteenth year of Jeroboam, or there must have been an interregnum of twelve years between the death of Amaziah and the accession of Azariah. As this last hypothesis is pre-cluded by the narrative of 2 Chronicles 26:1 and 2 Kings 14:20, 2 Kings 14:21, we must correct the, twenty-seventh year" of this verse into the "fifteenth." If we do this, corresponding changes will have to be made in 2 Kings 14:8, 2 Kings 14:13, 2 Kings 14:23, and 2 Kings 14:27. 2 Kings 15:2 Sixteen years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned two and fifty years in Jerusalem. These numbers are confirmed by Chronicles (2 Chronicles 26:1-3) and by Josephus (’Ant. Jud.,’ 9.10. § 4), who says that he reigned fifty-two years, and died at the ago of sixty-eight. And his mother’s name was Jecholiah of Jerusalem. Josephus (’Ant. Jud.,’ 9.10. § 3) calls her "Achiala." 2 Kings 15:3 And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his father Amaziah had done. Josephus uses still stronger expressions. "Azariah was," he says (l.s.c.), "a good king, naturally just and high-minded, and indefatigable in his administration of affairs." According to the author of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 26:5), he "sought God in the days of Zechariah." 2 Kings 15:4 Save that the high places were not removed: the people sacrificed and burnt incense still on the high places. 2 Kings 15:5 And the Lord smote the king. This comes in somewhat strangely, following close upon a statement that the king "did that which was right in the sight of the Lord." We have to go to Chronicles for an explanation. By Chronicles it appears that, in the earlier portion of his reign, Azariah was a good and pious prince, and that God blessed him in all his undertakings. Not only did he recover Eloth (2 Chronicles 26:2), but he carried on a successful war with the Philistines—took Garb, Jabneh (Jamnia), and Ashdod, and dismantled them (2 Chronicles 26:6), defeated the Arabians of Gur-Baal, and the Mehuuim or Maonites (2 Chronicles 26:7), forced the Ammonites to pay him a tribute, and caused his power to be known and feared far and wide (2 Chronicles 26:8). The standing army which he maintained numbered 307,500 men, under 2600 officers, well armed and equipped with shields, spears, helmets, breast-plates, bows, and slings (2 Chronicles 26:12-14). "His name spread far abroad, for he was wonderfully helped" (2 Chronicles 26:15). This marvelous prosperity developed in him a pride equal to that of his father, but one which vented itself differently, Azariab, deeming himself superior to all other men, and exempt from ordinary rules, boldly invaded the priestly office, took a censer, and entered into the temple, and proceeded to burn incense upon the golden altar that was before the veil (2 Chronicles 26:16-18). It was then that "the Lord smote the king." As, in defiance of the high priest and his attendant train, who sought to prevent the lawless act, Azariah persisted in his endeavors, God struck him with leprosy, his forehead grew white with the unmistakable scaly scab, and in a moment his indomitable pride was quelled. The priests closed in upon him and began to thrust him out, but no violence was necessary. Aware of what had happened, "he himself also hasted to go out, because the Lord had smitten him" (2 Chronicles 26:20). It is not very clear why the writer of Kings passes over these facts; but certainly they are not discredited by his silence. At any rate, those who accept the entire series of conquests, whereof the writer of Kings says nothing, on the sole authority of Chronicles, are logically precluded from rejecting the circumstances accompanying the leprosy, which is acknowledged by the writer of Kings, and viewed as a judgment from God. So that he was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a several house. Lepers had to be separated from the congregation—to "dwell alone"—"without the camp" (Leviticus 13:46). Ahaziah’s "several house" is regarded by some as an "infirmary," or "hospital for lepers" (Ewald, Gesenius, Winer); but there is no reason to believe that hospitals of any kind existed among the Israelites. The lepers mentioned in 2 Kings 7:3 are houseless. הַצָפְשִׂית בַּית is best translated "house of separation" and understood of a house standing by itself in the open country, separate from others. "Probably the house in which the leprous king lived was," as Bahr says, "especially built for him." And Jotham the Mug’s son was over the house—not over the "several house," but over the royal palace—judging the people of the land; i.e. executing the royal functions, whereof "judging" was one of the highest. Azariah’s infirmity made a regency necessary, and naturally his eldest son held the office. 2 Kings 15:6 And the rest of the acts of Azariah, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? For Azariah’s principal acts, see the commentary on the first clause of verse 5. 2 Kings 15:7 So Azariah slept with his fathers; and they buried him with his fathers in the city of David. Here again the writer of Chronicles is more exact. Azariah, he tells us (2 Chronicles 26:23), was not buried in the rock-sepulcher which contained the bodies of the other kings, but in another part of the field wherein the sepulcher was situated. This was quite consonant with Jewish feeling with respect to the uncleanness of the leper. And Jotham his son reigned in his stead. Jotham, already for some years prince regent, became king as a matter of course on his father’s demise. 2 Kings 15:8-12 REIGN OF OVER ISRAEL. OF THE PROMISE MADE JEHU. The writer has nothing to record of Zachariah but his murder by Shallum after a reign of six months. 2 Kings 15:8, 2 Kings 15:9, and 2 Kings 15:11 contain the usual formula. 2 Kings 15:10 gives the only event that needed record. 2 Kings 15:12 recalls to the reader’s attention a previous passage, in which a prophecy had been mentioned, whereof Zachariah’s reign was the fulfillment. 2 Kings 15:8 In the thirty and eighth year of Azariah King of Judah did Zachariah the son of Jeroboam reign over Israel in Samaria. If Azariah began to reign in the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam (verse 1), and Jeroboam died in his forty-first or forty-second year (2 Kings 14:23), Zachariah must have ascended the throne in the fifteenth or sixteenth year of Azariah. Even if Azariah became king in the fifteenth of Jeroboam, as has been shown to be probable (see the comment on verse 1), Zachariah’s accession cannot have been earlier than Azariah’s twenty-sixth year. An interregnum between the death of Jeroboam and the accession of Zachariah is not to be thought of. Six months. So also Josephus (see ’Ant. Jud.,’ 9.11. § 1). 2 Kings 15:9 And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, as his fathers had done: he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin. The customary formula, with nothing to emphasize it. In the short space of barely six months, Zachariah could not do either much good or much evil. 2 Kings 15:10 And Shallum the son of Jabesh conspired against him. Josephus calls Shallum Zachariah’s "friend," but otherwise adds nothing to the present narrative. And smote him before the people. The phrase employed is very unusual, and has justly excited suspicion. It was not understood by the LXX; who translate ἐπάταξαναὐτὸνΚεβλαάμ, which gives no sense. Ewald sought to solve the difficulty by inventing a king, "Zobolam," but other critics have found this expedient too bold. The rendering of our translators is generally accepted, though qobal, "before," only occurs here and in Daniel. If we accept this rendering, we must suppose that the act of violence was done openly, like Jehu’s murder of Jehoram. And slew him, and reigned in his stead (comp. verse 13). 2 Kings 15:11 And the rest of the acts of Zachariah, behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel. 2 Kings 15:12 This was the word of the Lord which he spake unto Jehu, saying, Thy sons shall sit on the throne of Israel unto the fourth generation. The direct promise was, "Thy house shall hold the throne so long;" the implied prophecy, "They shall not hold it longer." There had not been wanting other indications of the coming troubles. Hosea had declared that God would avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu (Hosea 1:4). Amos had gone further, and had openly proclaimed that God would "rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword" (Amos 7:9). The threat had been understood as a threat against Jeroboam himself (Amos 7:11), but this was a misinterpretation. The words plainly pointed, to a revolution in the time of his son. And so it came to pass. The house of Jehu ceased to reign in the fourth generation of the descendants of its founder. No considerations of prudence or of gratitude could keep the nation faithful to any dynasty for a longer time than this. In breaking off from the divinely chosen house of David, and choosing to themselves a king, the Israelites had sown the seeds of instability in their state, and put themselves at the mercy of any ambitious pretender. Five dynasties had already borne rule in the two hundred years that the kingdom had lasted; four more were about to hold the throne in the remaining fifty years of its existence. "Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel," though said of Reuben only (Genesis 49:4), fairly expressed the character of the entire kingdom, with which Reuben cast in its lot at the time of the separation. 2 Kings 15:13-15 SHORT AND REIGN OF SHALLUM. Three verses suffice for the reign of Shallum, the son of Jabesh, who held the throne for only thirty days. Hearing of his conspiracy, Menahem, the son of Gadi—"the general," as Josephus calls him (’Ant. Jud.,’ 10.11. § 1)—marched from Tirzah to Samaria, got Shallum into his power, and put him to death (2 Kings 15:14). The writer concludes with the usual formula (2 Kings 15:15). 2 Kings 15:13 Shallum the son of Jabesh began to reign in the nine and thirtieth year of Uzziah King of Judah. This date follows from that of 2 Kings 15:8, and must stand or fall with it. The true accession-year of Shallum was probably the twenty-seventh of Uzziah. And he reigned a fall month in Samaria; literally, a month of days—"thirty days" according to Josephus. 2 Kings 15:14 For Manahem the son of Gadi went up from Tirzah. Ewald supposes Tirzah to have been the "native city" of Menahem; but this is not stated. According to Josephus (l.s.c.), he was commander-in-chief, and happened to be in Tirzeh at the time. (On the probable site of Tirzeh, see the comment on 1 Kings 14:17.) It was the royal city of the kingdom of the ten tribes from the later part of Jeroboam’s reign to the building of Samaria by Omri (see 1 Kings 14:17; 1 Kings 16:6, 1 Kings 16:8, 1 Kings 16:15, 1 Kings 16:23). And came to Samaria, and smote Shallum the son of Jabesh in Samaria—Josephus says that there was a battle, in which Shallum was slain—and slew him, and reigned in his stead. 2 Kings 15:15 And the rest of the acts of Shallum, and his conspiracy which he made (see 2 Kings 15:10), behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel. 2 Kings 15:16-22 REIGN OF MENAHEM, AND OF PUL AGAINST SAMARIA. Two events only of Menahem’s reign receive notice from the writer. (1) His capture of Tiphsah, and severe treatment of the inhabitants (2 Kings 15:16). (2) The invasion of his land by an Assyrian monarch, called "Pul" or "Phul," and his submission to that monarch’s authority. Pul’s retirement was bought by a large sum of money, which Menahem collected from his subjects (2 Kings 15:19, 2 Kings 15:20). 2 Kings 15:16 Then Menahem smote Tiphsah. The only town of this name known to history or geography is the famous city on the Euphrates (1 Kings 4:24), called by the Greeks Thapsacus. It has been thought that Menahem could not have pushed his conquests so far, and a second Tiphsah has been invented in the Israelite highland, between Tirzah and Samaria, of which there is no other notice anywhere. But "Tiphsah," which means "passage" or "fordway," is an unsuitable name for a city in such a situation. The view of Keil is clearly tenable—that Zachariah had intended to carry on his father’s warlike policy, and had collected an army for a great Eastern expedition, which had its head-quarters at the royal city of Tirzah, and was under the command of Menahem. As the expedition was about to start, the news came that Shallum had murdered Zachariah and usurped the throne. Menahem upon this proceeded from Tirzah to Samaria, crushed Shallum, and, returning to his army, carried out without further delay the expedition already resolved upon. The Assyrian records show that, at the probable date of the expedition, Assyria was exceptionally weak, and in no condition to resist an attack, though a little later, under Tiglath-pileser, she recovered herself. And all that were therein, and the coasts thereof, from Tirzah. "From Tirzah" means "starting from Tir-zah," as in 2 Kings 15:14. It is to be connected with "smote," not with "coasts." Because they opened not to him, therefore he smote it. Determined resistance on the part of a city summoned to surrender has always been regarded as justifying an extreme severity of treatment. It is not clear that Menahem transgressed the ordinary usages of war in what he did, however much he transgressed the laws of humanity. And all the women therein that were with child he ripped up. 2 Kings 15:17 In the nine and thirtieth year of Azariah King of Judah began Menahem the son of Gadi to reign over Israel (comp. verse 13, and the comment), and reigned ten years in Samaria. So Josephus (’Ant. Jud.,’ 9.11. § 1). 2 Kings 15:18 And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord: he departed not all his days from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin. The writer does not seem to regard Menahem as either better or worse than his predecessors. The usual formula suffices to describe the moral and religious aspect of his reign. 2 Kings 15:19 And Pul, the King of Assyria came against the land. There is no connective in the Hebrew text, and it has been proposed to supply one; but there can be little doubt that the best emendation is that suggested by Thenius, who changes the כָּל־יָמָיו of 2 Kings 15:18 into בְיָמָיו, and attaches that word to 2 Kings 15:19. 2 Kings 15:19 will then read thus: "In his days Pul the King of Assyria came against the laud"—and no connective will be wanted. The greatest doubt has been entertained with regard to the identity of Pul, whose name does not appear in the Assyrian Eponym Canon, or in any other purely Assyrian document. But recently discovered Babylonian documents seem to prove that Pul (Pulu) was the Babylonian name for Tiglath-pileser, who reigned under that name in Babylon during his last two years, and appears in the Canon of Ptolemy as "Porus." Tiglath-pileser, the great founder of the later Assyrian empire, made himself king in B.C. 745, and proceeded to consolidate the Assyrian power on every side, after a period of great weakness and disorganization. He made several expeditions against Babylonia, and several into Syria and Palestine. The expedition in which he came into contact with Menahem is thought to have been that of his eighth year, B.C. 738. And Menahem gave Pal a thousand talents of silver. A vast sum certainly, equal to above a quarter of a million of our money, perhaps to some extent a punishment for the siege and sack of Tiphsah. But not a sum that it would have been impossible to pay. A King of Damascus, about fifty years previously, had bought off an Assyrian attack by the payment of two thousand three hundred talents of silver and twenty talents of gold. That his hand might be with him to confirm the kingdom in his hand; i.e. that Pal might take him under his protection, accept him as one of his subject-princes, and (by implication) support him against possible rivals. 2 Kings 15:20 And Menahem exacted the money of Israel. Either he was not possessed of any accumulated treasure, such as the kings of Judah could commonly draw upon (1 Kings 15:18; 2 Kings 12:18; 2 Kings 16:8; 2 Kings 18:15, 2 Kings 18:16), or he thought it more prudent to keep his stores untouched, and obtain the money from his subjects. Even of all the mighty men of wealth. The context shows this to be the meaning; and the rendering is justified by Rth 2:1; 1 Samuel 9:1. "Mighty men of valor" cannot possibly be intended. Of each man fifty shekels of silver, to give to the King of Assyria. Fifty shekels was a heavy tax, not less than £5 or £6 of our money. To produce a thousand talents, this tax had to be levied on some sixty thousand persons. Tiglath-pileser mentions his receipt of tribute from "Minikhimmi of Tsammirin" (Menahem of Someron or Samaria), but does not tell us the amount. So the King of Assyria turned back, and stayed not there in the land. Kings of Assyria usually returned home at the end of each campaign, and wintered in their own territory. 2 Kings 15:21 And the rest of the acts of Menahem, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? Nothing more is known of Menahem the son of Gadi, since he certainly cannot be identical with the prince of the same name who is mentioned as "Menahem of Samaria" in the inscriptions of Sennacherib. This second Menahem is probably a descendant of the first, who was allowed a sort of titular sovereignty ever the conquered town. 2 Kings 15:22 And Menahem slept with his fathers—i.e; died—and Pekahiah his son reigned in his stead. So Josephus (’Ant. Jud.,’ 9.11. § 1), who calls him "Phakeias." 2 Kings 15:23-26 SHORT REIGN OF . The short reign of Pekahiah was wholly undistinguished. He held the throne for two years only, or perhaps for parts of two years, and performed no action that any historian has thought worthy of record. Our author has nothing to relate of him but the circumstances of his death (2 Kings 15:25), wherewith he combines the usual formulae (2 Kings 15:23, 2 Kings 15:24, 2 Kings 15:26). 2 Kings 15:29 In the fiftieth year of Azariah King of Judah; really in the thirty-seventh year (see the comment on verses 1, 8, and 27). Azariah is mentioned by Tiglath-pileser as contending with him in the year in which he took tribute from Menahem, which is thought to have been B.C. 738. Apparently, he too was forced to pay tribute to the Assyrian monarch. Pekahiah the son of Menahem began to reign over Israel in Samaria, and reigned two years. So Josephus (l.s.c.). 2 Kings 15:24 And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord: he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin. Josephus adds that he reigned with the same cruelty as his father (τῇτοῦκατακολουθήσαςὠμότητι), but ’we cannot be sure that this is more than a conjecture, founded on the shortness of his reign. 2 Kings 15:25 But Pekah the son of Remaliah. Remaliah was probably a man of some importance, since Pekah seems to have been almost better known by his patronymic, Ben-Remaliah, "son of Remaliah," than by his own proper name (see Isaiah 7:4, Isaiah 7:5, Isaiah 7:9; Isaiah 8:6). A captain of his—"captain of a thousand," according to Josephus (l.s.c.)—conspired against him, and smote him in Samaria, in the palace of the king’s house; literally, in the tower (or keep) of the king’s house, the loftiest part (אַרְמוֹן is from רוּם, to be high)—certainly not the harem (Ewald), if Pekahiah was feasting there with his friends (δολοφονηθεὶςἐνσυμποσίῳμετὰφίλωνἀπέθανε), as Josephus says. With Argob and Arieh. These seem to be the "friends" of Josephus, who were with the king and shared his fate, not fellow-conspirators with Pekah. The names are uncommon ones. And with him—i.e. Pekah—fifty men of the Gileadites; fifty men of "the Four Hundred," according to the LXX. "The Four Hundred" were probably the royal body-guard, which at this time may have consisted of Gileadites. And he killed him, and reigned in his room. It does not appear that Pekah had any grievance. His crime seems to have been simply prompted by ambition. 2 Kings 15:26 And the rest of the acts of Pekahiah, and all that he did, behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel. 2 Kings 15:27-31 REIGN OF PEKAH. The writer is again exceedingly brief. Pekah’s reign was a remarkable one, and might have furnished much material to the historian. In conjunction with Rezin of Damascus, he made war upon Judaea, defeated Ahaz with great loss (2 Chronicles 28:6), and laid siege to Jerusalem (Isaiah 7:1). Ahaz called in the aid or’ Assyria, and Tiglath-pileser made two expeditions into Palestine—the one mentioned in 2 Kings 15:29, and another some years afterwards. In the latter he seems to have had the assistance of Hoshea, who, with his sanction, slew Pekah, and became king. The scanty notices of our author must be supplemented from 2 Chronicles 28:1-27.; Isaiah 7:1-9; Isaiah 8:1-8; and the Assyrian inscriptions. 2 Kings 15:27 In the two and fiftieth year of Azariah King of Judah; rather, in the thirty-ninth or thirty-eighth year (see the comment on verse 23). Pekahiah’s "two years" may not have been complete. Pekah the son of Remaliah began to reign over Israel in Samaria, and reigned twenty years. The Assyrian records make this number impossible. Tiglath-pileser’s entire reign lasted only eighteen years, yet it more than covered the entire reign of Pekah. When he first invaded the kingdom of Samaria, Menahem was upon the throne; when he last attacked it, probably in B.C. 730—two years before his death in B.C. 728—he set up Hoshea, or, at any rate, sanctioned his usurpation. Pekah’s entire reign must have come in the interval, which is certainly not more than one of fifteen, probably not more than one of ten years. 2 Kings 15:28 And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord: he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin. Josephus (’Ant. Jud.,’ 2 Kings 9:11. § 1) says that Pekah was an irreligious king, and a transgressor of the Law (ἀσεβήςτεκαὶπαράνομος). Isaiah shows how he intrigued with foreigners against his brethren of the sister kingdom (Isaiah 7:2-6). The writer of Chronicles tells of his fierce anger against the Jews (2 Chronicles 28:9), and of the dreadful carnage which he sanctioned after the great battle. 2 Kings 15:29 In the days of Pekah Feng of Israel came Tiglath-pileser King of Assyria. Tiglath-pileser’s records are not in the shape of annals, and are, moreover, in a very mutilated condition. He does not date events, like most Assyrian kings, by his regal years. His first expedition into Syria is thought, however, to have been in his third year, B.C. 743, but there is no evidence that, on this occasion, he proceeded further south than Damascus, where he took tribute from Rezin. Some years after this—B.C. 738, according to Mr. G. Smith—he penetrated to Palestine, where his chief enemy was Azariah King of Judah, who had united under his sway most of the tribes as far as Hamath. After chastising Azariah, he extended his dominion over most of the neighboring states and kingdoms; and it was at this time that (as related in verse 19) he took tribute from Menahem. Subsequently he made an expedition for the purpose of conquest, which receives very scant notice, in one inscription only. This is probably the expedition of the present passage. And took Ijon, and Abel-beth-maachah. These were places in the extreme north of the Israelite territory, in the vicinity of the Lake Merem, such as would naturally be among the first to fall before an Assyrian invader (on their exact position, see the comment on 1 Kings 15:20). And Janoah. Janoah is now generally regarded as identical with the modern Hunin, a village close by "an ancient fortress of great strength", in the hill country northwest of Merom. It is in a direct line between Abel-beth-maa-chah (Abil) and Kedesh (Cades), as we should expect from the present passage. And Kedesh, and Hazor. Kedesh is beyond all doubt the "Kedes" or "Cades," of today—an important site in the same mountain district, rather more than six miles south of Hunin, and four from the "waters of Merom". Hazer was in the near neighborhood of Kedesh, towards the south probably. The exact position is disputed. Robinson’s arguments in favor of El-Khu reibch are weighty; but the engineers employed by the Palestine Exploration Fund regard Khurbat-Harrah, between Kedesh and the Lake Merom, as a still more probable situation. And Gilead. "Gilead," in this connection, can scarcely be "the whole of the land to the east of the Jordan" (Keil, Bahr)—the territory of Gad, Reuben, and Manasseh, not of Naphtali. It is more likely to be a small district near Merom, perhaps the eastern coast of the lake (Gesenius), which was afterwards a part of Gaulouitis. The LXX; instead of Γαλαὰδ, have Γαλαάν. And Galilee; Hebrew הַגָּלִילָה. The inscription of Tiglath-pileser, which appears to allude to this expedition, mentions "Galhi," and "Abel" (probably Abel-beth-maachah) as conquered at this time, and "added to Assyria." The places were, it says, on the border of the land of Beth-Omri (Samaria). And carried them captive to Assyria. Deportation of captives was largely practiced by Tiglath-pileser, as appears from the ’Eponym Canon,’ pp. 118-120, and 122. 2 Kings 15:30 And Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and smote him, and slew him, and reigned in his stead. By a mutilated notice in the records of Tiglath-pileser, it appears that the revolution here related was the result of another invasion of the Israelite territory by that monarch. "The land of Beth-Croft," he says, " … the tribe … the goods of its people and their furniture I sent to Assyria. Pekah their king [I caused to be put to death?] and Hoshea I appointed to the kingdom ever them; their tribute I received, and [their treasures?] to Assyria I sent". It is probably this invasion of which the writer of Chronicles speaks (1 Chronicles 5:26) as resulting in the deportation of the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh. In the twentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzziah. This date stands in contradiction with verse 33, where Jotham’s entire reign is reckoned at sixteen years, and apparently must be a corrupt reading. 2 Kings 15:31 And the rest of the acts of Pekah and all that he did (see the comment on 2 Kings 15:27-31), behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel. 2 Kings 15:32-38 REIGN OF JOTHAM. Once more the writer turns from Israel to Judah, and proceeds to give an account of the reign of Jotham the son of Azariah, or Uzziah, who was appointed regent in his father’s place, when Uzziah was struck with leprosy (verse 5). The account given of the reign is somewhat scanty, and requires to be supplemented from Chronicles (2 Chronicles 27:1-9.). 2 Kings 15:32 In the second year of Pekah the son of Remaliah King of Israel began Jotham the son of Uzziah King of Judah to reign. In the second year of Pekah, Azariah died, and Jotham became actual king; but his joint reign with his father commenced very much earlier. His sole reign was probably a short one. 2 Kings 15:33 Five and twenty years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem—i.e. sixteen years from his appointment to be regent, as appears plainly from 2 Chronicles 26:23 and 2 Chronicles 27:1 (comp. Josephus, ’Ant. Jud.,’ 9.10. § 4; 12. § 1)—and his mother’s name was Jerusha, the daughter of Zadok. So the author of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 27:1); Josephus (’Ant. Jud.,’ 9.11. § 2) calls his mother "Jerasa." 2 Kings 15:34 And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord: he did according to all that his father Uzziah had done. The author of Chronicles says the same, but adds, very pertinently, "Howbeit he entered not into the temple of the Lord"—i.e. he did not repeat his father’s act of impiety. Josephus is still warmer in his praises. "This king," he says (l.s.c.), "was deficient in no manner of virtue; but was at once pious in things pertaining to God, and just in those pertaining to men. He was careful and watchful over the city; whatever needed reparation or adornment, he labored to supply strenuously, as the porticoes in the temple and the gates thereof; and where any part of the wall had gone to ruin, he raised it up again, and built towers of vast size and difficult to capture. And in all other matters pertaining to the kingdom, where there had been neglect, he applied great care and attention." 2 Kings 15:35 Howbeit the high places were not removed: the people sacrificed and burned incense, still in the high places. He built the higher gate of the house of the Lord. The "higher gate "is thought to be that towards the north, and its fortification implied a fear of attack from that quarter. It must have become amply evident to the kings of Judah, at any rate from the time of the attack on Menahem (2 Kings 15:19), that the independence of both kingdoms was menaced by Assyria, and that it was of great importance that their principal fortresses should be placed in a state of efficient defense. Azariah had paid great attention to the fortifying and arming of Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 26:9, 2 Chronicles 26:15), and his son now followed in his footsteps. From 2 Chronicles 27:3 we learn that he not only built the high gate of the temple, but also "on the wall of Ophel built much," Nor was he content with fortifying the capital. He also "built cities in the mountains of Judah, and in the forests he built castles and towers." Tiglath-pileser had made war on his father. He felt that any day his own turn might come. 2 Kings 15:36 Now the rest of the acts of Jotham, and all that he did. The principal event of Jotham’s reign was his war with Ammon. The writer of Chronicles says, "He fought also with the king of the Ammonites, and prevailed against them. And the children of Ammon gave him the same year an hundred talents of silver, and ten thousand measures of wheat, and ten thousand of barley. So much did the children of Ammon pay unto him, both the second year, and the third" (2 Chronicles 27:5). Josephus (’Ant. Jud.,’ 9.11. § 2) gives nearly the same account, but regards the payment as an annual tribute, intended to be permanent. Are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? 2 Kings 15:37 In those days the Lord began to send against Judah Resin the King of Syria. Rezin’s name occurs in the Assyrian inscriptions early in the reign of Tigiath-pileser, probably in the year B.C. 743. At that time he pays to the Assyrians a heavy tribute, consisting of eighteen talents of gold, three hundred talents of silver, two hundred talents of copper, and twenty talents of spices. Subsequently, about the year B.C. 734, he is found in revolt. His alliance with Pekah, here implied, is directly stated by Isaiah 7:2. Begun in Jotham’s reign, it continued, and came to a head, in the reign of Ahaz (see 2 Kings 16:5 and Isaiah 7:1-9; Isaiah 8:6). And Pekah the son of Remaliah. Pekah and Rezin intended to establish on the Jewish throne a certain Ben-Tabeal (Isaiah 7:6), a creature of their own, with whose aid they thought to offer an effectual resistance to Assyria. 2 Kings 15:38 And Jotham slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David his father: and Ahaz his son reigned in his stead. It may be suspected that the full name of this king was Jehoahaz. Ahaz, "possession," is a name never assigned to any other Israelite, and it is one not likely to have been given by a religious father like Jotham. In the Assyrian inscriptions the Jewish king contemporary with Rezin and Pekah is called "Yahu-khazi." 2 Kings 15:1-7 The leper-king a pattern and a warning. I. IN HIS EARLIER YEARS AZARIAH WAS A PATTERN KING. He "did that which was right in the sight of the Lord" (2 Kings 15:3); he "sought God" (2 Chronicles 26:5); he consorted with "Zechariah, who had understanding in the visions of God;" and the result was that "God made him to prosper," "God helped him against the Philistines and the Arabians and the Mehunim" (2 Chronicles 26:7), and he "was marvelously helped" (2 Chronicles 26:15). So far, he is a pattern to us, the model of a good king, of one who is at once religiously minded and full of practical zeal and energy, who serves God without ceasing to serve man, "not slothful in business, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord" (Romans 12:11). But there is a reverse to the picture. II. IN HIS LATER YEARS AZARIAH WAS A WARNING TO KINGS AND GREAT MEN . Azariah, like his father (2 Kings 14:10), became "lifted up" (2 Chronicles 26:16). He was not content with his kingly power and greatness, his secular dignity and majesty; he would be first everywhere, and invaded the priestly office (2 Chronicles 26:16-19). It had pleased God, in the theocratic polity, which he had set up, to draw the sharpest possible line between the sacerdotal order and the rest of the community. None were allowed to sacrifice, or to burn incense, or even to enter into the sanctuary, but "the priests the sons of Aaron"—the lineal descendants of the first and greatest of the high priests. Kings had their functions—great and high and (in a certain sense) sacred functions—to rule, to judge, to determine on peace or war; to lead armies, if it so pleased them; to direct the whole policy of the nation. But one thing they might not do, and that was to assume the duties, which had been assigned to the priests and Levites, who had been appointed God’s special ministers, to minister to him in the congregation. The exclusive right of the priests to their functions had been vindicated in a most terrible and awful way, when, soon after the institution of the Levitical priesthood, its honors were coveted by great men who did not belong to the privileged body. Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, with their company, were swallowed up, and "went down quick into hell," because they claimed to be as "holy" as the priests (Numbers 16:3), and to offer incense before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, each from his own censer. The lesson taught by the miracle had been taken deeply to heart; and even such mighty monarchs as David and Solomon had carefully abstained from setting aside the privileges of the priests, or infringing upon them in any way. But Azariah despised the teaching of the past, and the example set him by his predecessors. See him as Josephus depicts him! On a great festival day, when the people had all come together in crowds to keep the feast, he robed himself in priestly garments, and entering into the sacred enclosure declared his intention of going within the temple building, and himself offering incense on the golden altar that was before the veil. In vain did the eighty priests in attendance, headed by the high priest, resist him, and exhort him to lay aside his design and retire; Azariah, hot with passion, refused, and threatened them with death if they made more ado. Then, Josephus declares, the ground suddenly rocked with an earthquake (comp. Amos 1:1; Zechariah 14:5), and the roof of the temple gaped, and a sunbeam entering smote upon the head of the king, and at once leprosy spread over his face, and, overwhelmed with grief and shame, he departed (’Ant. Jud.,’ 9:10. § 4). Here Azariah is a warning to kings (1) that they attempt not to minister the Word and sacraments; and (2) that they in no way trench upon the rights of the priests or other ministers; and further, he is a warning to great men, or such as think themselves great, in less exalted positions, that they rest content with the performance of their own proper duties and do not invade the office of others; either (1) by dictating to ministers what doctrine they shall preach; or (2) by undue interference with schools, teachers, etc.; or (3) by any other form of arrogant and overbearing conduct. Punishment will assuredly fall upon those who so act. They will lose men’s respect and God’s approval. Failure will overtake them at the moment when they look to have their efforts crowned with complete success. Well for them if it be simply failure, and not an utter downfall. It often happens that he who covets more than he has any right or claim to have, loses that which was lawfully in his possession. 2 Kings 15:8-31 Worldly prosperity not infrequently the ruin of kingdoms. I. EXAMPLE OF SAMARIA. Scarcely ever was there a more prosperous reign than that of Jeroboam II.—a reign of forty-one years of continual success, uncheckered by a misfortune-Syria defeated, the old border everywhere recovered, Hamath occupied, Damascus brought into a subject condition. As usual, where there is military success, wealth flowed in, and with wealth, luxury. "Great houses" were built (Amos 3:15), "ivory houses;’ i.e. houses inlaid or paneled with ivory; distinct mansions were inhabited during the summer and during the winter time (Amos 3:15). The children of Israel passed their lives in Samaria, lying "in the corner of a bed," and in Damascus lounging "upon a couch" (Amos 3:12). "Flagons of wine’ were "loved" (Hosea 3:1); "whoredom and wine and new wine took away their heart" (Hosea 4:11). And with this softness was blended, on the one hand, the seductive influence of a licentious religionism, on the other, the coarser and ruder vices to which luxury and self-indulgence inevitably lead. Patriotism disappeared, and self-seeking took its place. "Politically all was anarchy or misrule; kings made their way to the throne through the murder of their predecessors, and made way for their successors through their own. Shallum slew Zechariah (2 Kings 15:10); Menahem slew Shallum (verse 14); Pekah slew the son of Menahem (verse 25); Hoshea slew Pekah (verse 30). The whole kingdom of Israel was a military despotism, and, as in the Roman empire, those in command came to the throne". Society was corrupt to the core. The idolatries of the calves, of Baal, and of Moloch worked out their natural results, and bore their bitter fruit. "Creature-worship," as St. Paul points out (Romans 1:23-32), was the parent of every sort of abomination; and religion having become creature-worship, what God gave as the check to sin became its incentive. Every commandment of God was broken, and that habitually. All was falsehood (Hosea 4:1), adultery (Hosea 4:11; Amos 2:7), blood shedding (Hosea 5:2; Hosea 6:8); deceit of God (Hosea 4:2) producing faithlessness to man; excess and luxury were supplied by secret or open robbery (Hosea 7:1), oppression (Hosea 12:7), false dealing (Amos 8:5; Hosea 12:7), perversion of justice (Hosea 10:4; Amos 2:6), grinding of the poor (Hosea 12:7). Blood was shed like water, until one stream met another (Hosea 4:2), and overspread the land with one defiling deluge. Adultery was consecrated as an act of religion (Hosea 4:14). Those who were first in rank were first in excess. People and king vied in debauchery (Hosea 7:5); and the sottish king joined and encouraged the free-thinkers and blasphemers of his court (Hosea 7:3). The idolatrous priests loved and shared in the sins of the people (Hosea 4:8, Hosea 4:9); nay, they seem to have set themselves to intercept those on either side of Jordan, who would go to worship at Jerusalem, laying wait to murder them (Hosea 5:1; Hosea 6:9). Corruption had spread through the whole land, even the places once sacred through God’s revelations or other mercies to their fore-fathers—Bethel, Gilgal, Gilead, Mizpah, Shechem—were especial scenes of corruption or of sin (Hosea 4:15; Hosea 5:1; Hosea 6:8, Hosea 6:9, etc.). Every holy memory was effaced by present corruption. Could things be worse? There was one aggravation more. Remonstrance was useless (Hosea 4:4); the knowledge of God was willfully rejected (Hosea 4:6); the people hated rebuke (Amos 5:10); the more they were called, the more they refused (Hosea 11:2, Hosea 11:7); they forbade their prophets to prophesy (Amos 2:12); and their false prophets hated God greatly (Hosea 9:7, Hosea 9:9). All attempts to heal all this disease only showed its incurableness". II. EXAMPLE OF TYRE. The prosperity of Tyre in the seventh and eighth centuries before our era was extraordinary. She was mistress of her sister cities, Sidon and Gebal and Arvad; she ruled over a hundred colonies; on her island-rock she was safe from Assyria; the trade of the world was in her hands. "Situate at the entry of the sea, a merchant of the people for many isles" (Ezekiel 27:3); full of worldly wisdom, the wisdom that gets increase of riches (Ezekiel 28:3-5); rich beyond all conception in precious metals, and in gems (Ezekiel 28:13), and in spices, and in broidered work (Ezekiel 27:9.2, 24), and in ivory and ebony (Ezekiel 27:15), and in all manner of merchandise; approved, respected, called "the renowned city, strong in the sea" (Ezekiel 26:17);—she had reached the acme of her glory, of her wealth, of her greatness. But with what results to her moral tone and temper? Her heart was "lifted up" (Ezekiel 28:5); her pride became excessive; she said in her heart, "I am of perfect beauty" (Ezekiel 27:8)—"I am a god; I sit in the seat of God" (Ezekiel 28:2). "Iniquity" of every kind was found in her (Ezekiel 28:15)—envp (Ezekiel 26:2), and "violence" (verse 16), and corrupt wisdom (verse 17), and profanation of sanctuaries (verse 18), and even dishonesty in her traffic (verse 18). And with iniquity, as usual, came ruin. Because of her pride, and her envy, and her violence, and her other iniquities, God brought a fire into her midst, which devoured her and reduced her to ashes (Ezekiel 26:18). The Babylonians were made God’s instrument to chastise her, and carry off her wealth, and break down her walls, and destroy her pleasant houses, and slay her people with the sword (Ezekiel 26:11, Ezekiel 26:12), and make her a byword among the nations (Ezekiel 27:32)—a desolation, a hissing, and a terror (verse 36). III. EXAMPLE OF ROME. The ruin of Rome was undoubtedly wrought by that long career of unexampled military success, which began with the closing years of the Second Punic War, and continued till she was the world’s mistress. The wealth of Carthage, Macedonia, and Asia flowing into her coffers, destroyed the antique simplicity and severity of manners, stimulated ambition, provoked inordinate desire, and led to those terrific civil wars, in which the blood of the noblest and the bravest was shed like water, and "Rome fell ruined by her own strength" (Horace). It was not the influx of the barbarians that destroyed Rome; she fell from internal decay. The decline of Roman civilization dates from before the fall of the republic. It was then that population began to diminish, and the pure Roman blood to be mingled with the refuse of every nation. Slaves, freedmen, clients, glided into the tribes and gentes, and were followed by absolute foreigners, Greeks and Egyptians and Syrians, effete races in a state both of physical and moral degradation. "The Orontes flowed into the Tiber." The very names of those in the highest position became grotesque and strange, such as Cicero and Cato would have pronounced manifestly barbarous. A decay of moral principles followed this admixture. Slavery prevailed, and slavery in ancient as in modern times was "a hotbed of vice and selfish indulgence, enervating the spirit and vital forces of mankind, discouraging legitimate marriage, and enticing to promiscuous and barren concubinage. The fruit of such hateful unions, if fruit there were, engaged little regard from their selfish fathers, and both law and usage continued to sanction the exposure of infants, from which the female sex undoubtedly suffered most. The losses of Italy from this horrid practice were probably the greatest; but the provinces also lost proportionally; the imitation of Roman habits was rife on the remotest frontiers; the conquests of the empire were consolidated by the attractions of Roman indulgence and sensuality; slavery threw discredit on all manual labor, and engendered a false sentiment of honor, which constrained the poorer classes of freemen to dependence and celibacy; vice and idleness went hand-in-hand, and combined to stunt the moral and physical growth of the Roman citizen, leaving his weak and morbid frame exposed in an unequal contest to the fatal influences of his climate". It was a race which had thus lost its stamina, and become effete and worn out, that succumbed to barbarian inroads which, a few centuries earlier, it would have repulsed without any difficulty. BY C.H. IRWIN 2 Kings 15:1-7 Prosperity and its dangers. The contrast between the opening and the close of Uzziah’s reign—here so sharply set before us—has few parallels in history. There is, indeed, no lack of monarchs who have risen to proud positions of authority and power, and then suddenly have fallen ignominiously from their pinnacle of pride. Memory at once recalls such names as Nebuchadnezzar, one day surveying with pride great Babylon that he had made, and the next dwelling among the beasts of the field, his body wet with the dew of heaven; or Napoleon, one day with all Europe at his feet, and but a few days after, like a caged lion, a baffled, helpless prisoner on the lonely island of St. Helena. But Uzziah’s early career was different from that of most monarchs who have fallen. To all appearance he promised well. He did right in the sight of the Lord. He did indeed continue that dangerous compromise of which Amaziah, his father, had been guilty, of permitting the high places to remain. But still he worshipped the true God. He sought God’s help and guidance. He honored God’s prophet. Moreover, he used his power well, not as a tyrant, but for the good of his people and for the prosperity and strengthening of the nation. And God prospered him in his efforts, as he will prosper all those who seek his help and blessing (2 Chronicles 26:5-15). But in an evil hour Uzziah (he is also called Azariah in this chapter) forgot that, though he was a king, he owed allegiance to a greater King. His prosperity turned his head. He forgot how much he owed to God. There was an old command of God, given after the rebellion of Korah and his sons, that none but the sons of Aaron—the priestly family—were to offer incense before the Lord. The obvious lesson was that special fitness, special holiness, was required of those who would stand as representatives of the people before God. But Uzziah disregards both the letter and the spirit of the command. He—poor weak mortal!—dares to defy the living God, and enters into the sanctuary to burn incense. It is another case of compromise and its consequences. He had been so accustomed to the violation of God’s command in the matter of the high places, that now he thinks very little of this flagrant act of high-handed defiance. The priests remonstrated, but in vain. The proud king seizes the censer, and thrusts the priests aside with gestures of impatience and anger. But stay! What means that growing whiteness in his forehead? Ah! the symptoms are too well known. The hand of God is upon him. He is a leper. The censer falls from his hand. He can resist no longer. The priests thrust him forth from the holy place, and beyond the very precincts of the temple. Henceforth he is a king and yet an outcast, separated and secluded from the haunts and enjoyments of men (see 2 Chronicles 26:16-21). I. AND ITS UPWARD PATH. For a long time the career of Uzziah was an upward path. His motto would seem to have been, as the motto of every young person, of every one of us, ought to be, "Excelsior!" There were three elements in his progress, three sources of his prosperity, three steps in his upward path. Along these three steps every one of us may fairly and with advantage follow Uzziah. 1. First of all, there was the fear of God. As a young man, unquestionably he had the fear of God before his eyes. We read of him in 2 Chronicles that "he sought the Lord." This implies that he honored God’s worship. He honored God’s house. He honored God’s Word, and sought guidance from the Divine Law. And what was the consequence? Just what the consequence of a God-fearing life will always be. "As long as he sought the Lord, God made him to prosper." It is so still. God keeps his word. He has never yet broken that promise, "Them that honor me I will honor." This was the starting-point in Uzziah’s prosperity, and, so long as he prospered, the secret of it was that he sought the Lord. Godliness is the best foundation of all true and lasting prosperity. Men like the late Samuel Morley, or the late Sir William McArthur, were not less successful because they were God-fearing men, and their business did not suffer because of the large amount of time and attention and money they devoted to religious work. To seek God’s guidance in everything, God’s blessing on every undertaking and every event of life—that is the secret of true prosperity and success. 2. The second step in Uzziah’s prosperity was a good man’s influence. We read in 2 Chronicles that "he sought the Lord in the days of Zechariah, who had understanding in the visions of God." While the Word of God and our own conscience are to be our chief guides, there are many details and plans of daily life in which we shall be greatly the better for the experience and advice of others. To what kind of men do you go for your advice or guidance? Go by all means to those who have best experience of the business or subject in question. But if you are to choose between the advice of a practical Christian man and that of a practical worldly man, surely for a Christian the Christian man’s advice will carry most weight. Some one has well said, "You can never rise above the level of your companionship." Cultivate the society, seek the advice, look for the sympathy, of good men and good women. 3. The third step in Uzziah’s prosperity was his diligence in business. Uzziah was no idler. He realized the responsibility of life. He realized the responsibilities of his high position. So we find him improving the defenses of Jerusalem and building towers; improving also the condition of the country and digging wells, so useful to the traveler and the husbandman in the East; and, as it was a time of warfare, providing suitable equipments for his soldiers, and encouraging new inventions of military engines and weapons. No success is won without hard work. Whatsoever our hand findeth to do, we should do it with our might. By these three methods, then, Uzziah attained to great prosperity. "He was marvelously helped, till he was strong," are the words of the writer in 2 Chronicles. His name and fame became well known. If you want to attain to prosperity and success in your business—and it is a desirable thing to see wealth, honorably earned and wisely spent, in the hands of Christian men—then, with the strong arm of a vigorous resolution, cut these three steps in your upward path, and plant your feet firmly in them—the fear of God, the influence of good men, and diligence in business. This is prosperity and its upward path. But we have reached the summit of Uzziah’s career. Hitherto all has been progress upward. Hitherto all has been bright as the path of the just. But the scene changes. The shadows gather. The footsteps that pointed upwards now are turned downwards. We must look now at the other side of the picture, at— II. AND ITS PATH. We may gain prosperity by rightful means, but sometimes the difficulty is to keep our prosperity and our religion at the same time. Riches bring with them their own temptations and dangers. We see in Uzziah’s case the way to prosperity, which we should follow; we also see the dangers of prosperity, which we should avoid. 1. Prosperity leads to pride. We read of Uzziah in 2 Chronicles: "But when he was strong, his heart was lifted up to his destruction." He became filled up with ideas of his own importance, and, instead of giving God the glory, reflected with complacency on all the great deeds that he had done, and all the benefits he had conferred upon the nation. When he was younger, and in the beginning of his career, he was humbler. He was very glad then to seek God’s guidance, to have the help and influence of Zechariah. But now he has got beyond all that. His whole character is completely changed. "For lowliness is young ambition’s ladder, Whereto the climber upward turns his face; But, when he once have gained the topmost round, He then unto the ladder turns his back, Looks in the clouds, scorning the base degrees By which he did ascend." Pride of riches, pride of rank, how vain, how foolish they are! Riches may bring with them bodily comforts and enjoyments. But if health goes or troubles come, what comfort can they bring us? Can they give us any satisfaction or peace of mind? Can they banish care or sickness? Can they arrest the skinny hand of Death? Yet this is a common danger to those who are prosperous in worldly things—to be puffed up with this empty and unreasonable pride. How much we all need, in any time of prosperity, to pray for humility! If our business prospers, let us ask God to keep us humble. If our Church prospers, let our sincere utterance ever be "Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy Name be all the praise." 2. Prosperity leads to presumption. It is a step further than pride. Uzziah’s pride was bad enough, but when it led him to trample on the Law of God and to violate the sacredness of God’s holy place, his presumption was a bad example to others. Yet how many there are whose prosperity or whose wealth leads them to violate the laws of God! They think anything becomes them. They have become inflated with success, and the Law of God is a very small matter indeed in their eyes. Look at Claverhouse, inflated with his triumphs over the Scottish Covenanters, as with his dragoons he surrounded the cottage of John Brown of Priesthill. Touched by the prayers of John Brown, and the sight of his wife and helpless children gathered round him, the dragoons, with moistened eyes, refused to do their deadly work. Snatching a pistol from his belt, Claverhouse himself shot the good man through the head. Turning to the wife whom he had widowed, he said, "What do you think of your husband now?" "I always thought much of him, sir," replied the brave woman; "but never so much as I do this day. But how are you to answer for this morning’s work? To men," he replied, "I can be answerable, and as for God, I will take him in my own hands." Four years afterwards, in the Pass of Killiecrankie, Claverhouse died by an unknown hand. How many think as Claverhouse did! Because they have rank, or wealth, or power, there- fore they imagine they can trample on God’s laws, or trample on morality. Napoleon the Great thought that when he divorced his innocent and faithful wife; and be afterwards testified that that false and guilty step was the beginning of his downfall and disgrace. Because, by their wealth or their position, men think they can defy public opinion, therefore they imagine they can also disregard the commands of God. But it is a great mistake. No prosperity, no riches, no position in life, can ever lift us above the Law of God. "In the corrupted currents of this world, Offences gilded hand may shove by justice, And oft ’tis seen the wicked prize itself Buys out the law. But ’tis not so above. There is no shuffling; there the action lies In his true nature; and we ourselves compelled, Even to the teeth and forehead of our faults, To give in evidence." Ah! yes; that is the one message for rich and poor alike. "For we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." Such, then, are the dangers which prosperity brings with it. There is a strong temptation to presumption and to pride. If we have much prosperity, then we need to be much in prayer. If riches increase, the responsibility to use them well increases also. If we look at worldly prosperity in relation to eternity, on the one hand it will seem very poor and insignificant. What are all the riches of this world compared with the "inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, that fadeth not away"? What are all the honors and privileges that worldly rank and prosperity bring with them, compared to the privilege of being one of God’s children? What is all the society of earth in comparison with the fellowship of Jesus? If you are making worldly prosperity the be-all and end-all of your existence, sacrificing for it, as many do, health and conscience and your spiritual life, pause and think! Is it worth it? Put the two worlds in the balance. To an unsaved soul, with a dark and hopeless eternity, earthly prosperity is only a mockery. But, on the other hand, worldly prosperity, won by Christian efforts, guided by a Christian heart, and used by a Christian hand, what a blessing it may become! Let Jesus be in your heart first. Let him abide there—his love your motive power, his Word your guide—and then there will be no danger in prosperity.—C.H.I. BY D. THOMAS 2 Kings 15:1-38 Some lessons from the history of kings. "In the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam," etc. The mighty Governor of the universe is represented as saying to the Jewish nation, "I gave thee a king in mine anger" (Hosea 13:2). And truly, with a certain number of exceptions here and there through the ages, kings have proved malific scourges of the race. In this chapter there are mentioned no less than seven of those men who are called kings, but who, instead of having one grain of moral royalty in their souls, were contemptible serfs to the last degree, slaves to their passions of sensuality and greed. How many conventional kings in all ages are moral paupers and vassals of Satan! Glance for a moment at each of the kings before us. Here is Azariah, elsewhere called Uzziah, who was the son and successor of Amaziah. Here is Zachariah, the son and successor of Jeroboam II. King of Israel, who reigned only six months, and then fell by the hand of Shallum. Here is Shallum, the fifteenth King of Israel, and the murderer of Zachariah, and who in his turn was murdered. Here is Menahem, the son of Gadi, who, having slain Shallum, reigned in his stead ten years—a reign characterized by ruthless cruelty and tyrannic oppression. Here is Pekahiah, the son and successor of Menahem, who reigned two years over Israel, and then was assassinated by Pekah. Here is Pekah, who was a general of the Israelitish army, and assassinated King Pekahiah in his palace, and usurped the government, reigning, according to the existing text, twenty years. Here is Jotham, the son and successor of Uzziah, the eleventh King of Judah, who reigned for sixteen years. He, perhaps, was the least wicked of all these princes. The whole chapter reminds us of several things worth note. I. THE OF IN THIS LIFE. Here we discover retribution in the leprosy of Azariah, and in the fate of the other kings. Of Azariah it is said, "The Lord smote the king, so that be was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a several house" Of all physical afflictions, perhaps that of leprosy is the most painful and revolting. It eats out the life of a man and dooms him to solitude. Disease strikes princes as well as paupers. Then see how the other wicked doers fared. The murderer is murdered, the slayer is slain; Shallum strikes down Zachariah; Menahem strikes down Shallum; and Pul, the King of Assyria, strikes Menahem with a terrible blow of humiliation and oppression; Pekah smites Pekahiah, and reigns twenty years when he is himself struck down by the blow of an assassin. Truly, even in this life," with what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you again." Though retribution here may not be complete and adequate, still it is at work everywhere in human society: It comes as a pledge and a prophecy of that realm beyond the grave, where every man shall be dealt with according to his works. II. THE OF ERROR. In this chapter there is the record of long periods and of great changes. Battles are fought, revolutions are effected, monarch succeeds monarch, and the years come and go; but one thing remains, that is, idolatry" The high places were not removed: the people sacrificed and burnt incense still on the high places" (verses 4 and 34). Among the many evil tendencies of man there is none so mighty and influential as the pseudo-religious. Two facts will account for this. 1. The strength of the religious element in man. Burke and others of the wisest of the race have designated man as a religious animal. Religion with man is not a faculty, but the substratum in which all the faculties inhere; it is the core and the root of his nature. Hence, wherever man is found, if he has no home, he has a shrine; if he has no friend, he has a god. 2. The might of selfishness in man. What man needs most presents the greatest motives to human avarice and ambition. Hence the creation of bodies of priests to bolster up false religions, and derive position and wealth from them. Corruptio optimi pessima. It is most sad when men seek to" make a gain of godliness." III. THE CRAVEN- OF PEOPLES. Had the peoples of Judah and Israel been really men worthy of their humanity, would they have tolerated for a day such monsters as we have in this chapter? The existence of tyrants is the fault of the people.—D.T. BY J. ORR 2 Kings 15:1-7 Another king beginning well, ending ill. It is remarkable that three kings of Judah in succession exhibited this characteristic. They begin well, serve God for a time and prosper, yet stumble and fail at last. We have seen the fates of Joash and Amaziah; and Azariah furnishes a third example. I. AZARIAH’S REIGN. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Kings 16:1-20 REIGN OF AHAZ OVER JUDAH. WAR OF AHAZ WITH PEKAH AND REZIN. OF TIGLATH-PILESER AGAINST THEM. CHANGES MADE BY AHAZ. HIS DEATH. 2 Kings 16:1-4 General character of the reign of Ahaz. Ahaz was the most wicked king that had as yet reigned in Judah. The author, therefore, prefaces his account of the reign by a brief summary of some of the king’s chief iniquities. (1) He departed from the way of David (2 Kings 16:2); (2) he made his son pass through the fire to Moloch (2 Kings 16:3); and (3) he took an active part in the worship at the high places and in the groves, at which most previous kings had winked, but which they had not countenanced. 2 Kings 16:1 In the seventeenth year of Pekah the son of Remaliah Ahaz the son of Jotham King of Judah began to reign. (For the chronological difficulties connected with this statement, see the comment on 2 Kings 15:27.) 2 Kings 16:2 Twenty years old was Ahaz when he began to reign. As sixteen years afterwards his son Hezekiah was twenty-five (2 Kings 18:2), it is scarcely possible that Ahaz can have been no more than twenty at his accession, since in that case he must have married at ten years of age, and have had a son at eleven! The reading of "twenty-five" instead of "twenty," found in some Hebrew codices, in the Vatican manuscript of the Septuagint, and elsewhere, is therefore to be preferred. And reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem. So the author of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 28:1) and Josephus (’Ant. Jud.,’ 2 Kings 9:12. § 3). The reign of Ahaz probably lasted from B.C. 742 to B.C. 727. And did not that which was right in the sight of the Lord his God, like David his father. Compare what is said of Abijah (1 Kings 15:3), but the form of speech here used is stronger. Manasseh (2 Kings 21:2) and Amon (2 Kings 21:20-22) alone, of all the kings of Judah, receive greater condemnation. 2 Kings 16:3 But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel. Not, of course, by establishing a worship of calves, but by following the worst practices of the worst Israelite kings, e.g. Ahab and Ahaziah, and reintroducing into Judah the Phoenician idolatry, which Joash and the high priest Jehoiada had cast out (2 Kings 11:17, 2 Kings 11:18). As the writer of Chronicles says (2 Chronicles 28:2), "He walked in the ways of the kings of Israel, and made also molten images for Baalim." Baalim is either a plural of dignity, or a word denoting the different forms under which Baal was worshipped, as Melkarth, Adonis, Rimmon, etc. Yea, and made his son to pass through the fire. In Chronicles (2 Chronicles 28:3) we are told that "he burnt incense in the valley of Hinnom, and burnt his children in the fire," as if he had sacrificed more than one son. The practice of offering children in sacrifice was not a feature of the Assyro-Babylonian religion, as some suppose, but an intrinsic part of the worship of the Phoenicians, common to them with the Moabites, Ammonites, and others. It was based upon the principle of a man’s offering to God that which was dearest and most precious to himself, whence the crowning sacrifice of the kind was a man’s offering of his firstborn son (see 2 Kings 3:27; Micah 6:7). Some hare supposed that the rite was a mere dedication or lustration, the children passing between two fires, and being thenceforward employed only in God’s service. But the expressions used by the sacred writer and others, and still more the descriptions that have come down to us from heathen and patristic authors, make it absolutely certain that the "passing through the fire’ was no such innocent ceremony as this, but involved the death of the children. The author of Chronicles says, "Ahaz burnt his children in the fire;" Jeremiah 19:5, "They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal;" Ezekiel 16:21, "Thou hast slain my children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire." Josephus declares of Ahaz that he "made his own son a whole burnt offering (ἴδιονὠλοκαύτωσεπαῖδα)." Diodorus Sicalus describes the ceremony as it took place at Carthage, the Phoenician colony. There was in the great temple there, he says, an image of Saturn (Moloch), which was a human figure with a bull’s head and outstretched arms. This image of metal was made glowing hot by a fire kindled within it; and the children, laid in its arms, rolled from thence into the fiery lap below. If the children cried, the parents stopped their noise by fondling and kissing them; for the victim ought not to weep, and the sound of complaint was drowned in the din of flutes and kettle-drums (Died. Sic; Ezekiel 20:14). "Mothers," says Plutarch (’De Superstitione,’ § 13), "stood by without tears or sobs; if they wept or sobbed, they lost the honor of the act, and the children were sacrificed notwithstanding." The only doubtful point is whether the children were placed alive in the glowing arms of the image, or whether they were first killed and afterwards burnt in sacrifice; but the description of Diodorus seems to imply the more cruel of the two proceedings. According to the abominations of the heathen, whom the Lord east out from before the children of Israel. (On the practice of this terrible rite by the Canaanitish nations at the time of the Israelite invasion, see Le Ezekiel 18:21; Deuteronomy 12:31; Deuteronomy 18:9,Deuteronomy 18:10; Psalms 106:37, Psalms 106:38.) 2 Kings 16:4 And he sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places. The special sin of Ahaz here noted is that he not only allowed the high-place and grove worship, as so many other kings of Judah had done, e.g. Solomon (1 Kings 3:2), Rehoboam (1 Kings 14:23), Asa (1 Kings 15:14), Jehoshaphat (1 Kings 22:43), Joash (2 Kings 12:3), Amaziah (2 Kings 14:4), Azariah (2 Kings 15:4), and Jotham (2 Kings 15:35), but himself countenanced and took part in it, which no other king appears to have done. It was probably the stimulus that his example gave to the cult which induced Hezekiah to abolish it (see 2 Kings 18:4). And on the hills, and under every green tree. 2 Kings 16:5, 2 Kings 16:6 War of Ahazleith Pekah and Rezin. 2 Kings 16:5 Then Rezin King of Syria and Pekah son of Remaliah King of Israel came up to Jerusalem to war. The alliance between Rezin and Pekah has been already glanced at (2 Kings 16:1-20:37). It began, apparently, in the reign of Jotham. The policy which brought it about was one that was entirely new. Since Syria developed an aggressive tendency under the first Ben-hadad (1 Kings 20:1), there had till now been no alliance made with her by either of the two Israelite kingdoms. She had been reckoned as their common enemy; and while they had on two occasions been allied together against her (1 Kings 22:4-36; 2 Kings 8:28), never as yet had either asked her help against the other. Now, however, Ephraim became confederate with Syria against Judah. The new policy must be ascribed to the new condition of things consequent upon the attitude assumed by Assyria under Tiglath-pileser. Assyria had been under a cloud for forty years. The nations of the western coast of Asia had ceased to fear her, and had felt at liberty to pursue their own quarrels. Her recovery of vigor altered the whole situation. It was at once evident to the statesmen who directed the policy of the small western states that, unless they combined; they were lost. Hence the alliance between Pekah and Rezin. Probably they would have been glad to have drawn Ahaz into the confederacy; but it would seem that he did not share their fears, and would not join them. Hereupon the design was formed to dethrone him, and set up in his place a new ruler, a certain Ben-Tabeal (Isaiah 7:6), on whose assistance they could rely. The two confederate princes then began the campaign. Pekah invaded Judaea, and gained a great victory over Ahaz, which is perhaps exaggerated in 2 Chronicles 28:6-15; Rezin carried his arms further south, took Elath, and reestablished the Edomites in power (see the comment on 2 Chronicles 28:6). Then the allies joined forces and proceeded to besiege Jerusalem. And they besieged Ahaz, but could not ever-come him. The siege is mentioned by Isaiah 7:1, who was commissioned by God to comfort Ahaz, and assure him that the city would not fall (Isaiah 7:7). The fortifications of Uzziah (2 Chronicles 26:9) and Jotham (2 Chronicles 27:3) had, no doubt, greatly strengthened the city since the time when (as related in 2 Kings 14:13) it was captured so easily by Joash. 2 Kings 16:6 At that time Rezin, King of Syria recovered Elath to Syria. The Syrians had certainly never previously been masters of Elath, which had always hitherto been either Jewish or Edomite (see 1 Kings 9:26; 1 Kings 22:48; 2 Kings 14:22). Hence it seems to be necessary that we should either translate the Hebrew verb צֵשִׁיב by "gained," "conquered," instead of "recovered;" or else change אַרַם, "Syria," into אֱדֹם "Edom." The Syrians could "recover" Elath for Edom; they could only "gain" it for themselves. And drave the Jews from Elath—i.e. expelled the Jewish garrison which had been maintained in Elath from the time of its conquest by Uzziah (2 Kings 14:22)—and the Syrians came to Elath; rather, the Edomites—אֲדוֹמִים for אֲרוֹמִים. Rezin could not have thought of holding a place so remote from Damascus as Elath; and, had he done so, the danger of his kingdom in the next year would have necessitated the relinquishment of so distant a possession. And dwelt there unto this day. It is quite certain that Elath belonged to Edom, and not to Syria, at the time when the Books of Kings were written. 2 Kings 16:7-9 Expedition of Tiglath-pileser against Pekah and Rezin. In the extremity of his danger, when the confederacy had declared itself, or perhaps later, when he had suffered terrible defeats, and was about. to be besieged in his capital (2 Chronicles 28:5, 2 Chronicles 28:6), Ahaz invoked the aid of Tiglath-pileser, sent him all the treasure on which he could lay his hands (2 Kings 16:8), offered to place himself and his kingdom under the Assyrian monarch’s suzerainty, and entreated him to come and "save him out of the hands" of his enemies (2 Kings 16:7). Humanly speaking, he might be justified. He had not called in one foreign power until Pekah had called in another. There was no other prospect (again humanly speaking) of escape. But, had he accepted the offers of Isa 7:4-16, and relied wholly on Jehovah, his position would have been far better. However, he was unable to see this; he made his application; and Tiglath-pileser "came up," and utterly crushed the Syro-Israelite confederacy (Isaiah 7:9). 2 Kings 16:7 So Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath-pileser King of Assyria, saying. This appeal to man rather than to God, this trust in "an arm of flesh," was exactly what Isaiah had been endeavoring to prevent, what he viewed as unfaithfulness, and as inevitably drawing down God’s wrath both upon king and kingdom. Ahaz was young, was weak, and had no doubt a large body of advisers, who considered the prophet to be a fanatic, who had no belief in supernatural aid, and who thought that in any emergency recourse was to be had to the measures which human prudence and human policy dictated. The aid of Tiglath-pileser seemed to them, under the circumstances, the only thing that could save them; and they persuaded the weak prince to adopt their views. I am thy servant and thy son. The offer of submission was unmistakable. "Servant," in the language of the time, meant "slave." Complete subjection, enrollment among Assyria’s feudatories, the entire loss of independence, was well understood to be the price that had to be paid for Assyria’s protection. Ahaz and his worldly advisers were prepared to pay it. They surrendered themselves, body and soul, into the hands of the great world-power of the period. Come up, and save me out of the hand of the King of Syria, and out of the hand of the King of Israel, which rise up against me. Syria is put forward as at once the more formidable of the two foes, and the one most open to Assyrian attack. Already Damascus had been more than once menaced by Assyrian armies, while the kingdom of Samaria had only suffered at her extremities (2 Kings 15:29). Samaria could not well be approached excepting through Syria, and after Syria’s downfall. 2 Kings 16:8 And Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the king’s house. Hitherto the temple treasures had been diverted from their proper use, and secularized for the sole purpose (except in one instance) of buying off the hostility of foreign foe, who threatened the city and the temple itself with destruction (see 1 Kings 14:26; 2 Kings 12:18; 2 Kings 14:14). Now, as on one former occasion (1 Kings 15:18), they were utilized to purchase an alliance. And sent it for a present to the King of Assyria. So Gyges King of Syria sent presents to Asshur-bani-pal to purchase his aid against the Cimmerians, and Susub of Babylon sent his temple treasures to Umman-Minan of Elam, to purchase his assistance against Sennacherib. 2 Kings 16:9 And the King of Assyria hearkened unto him. Overtures of the kind were almost certain to be accepted. The great conquering monarchs of the East were always glad to receive small states into their alliance for a time, and even to allow them a shadow of independence, while they made use of their services against their near neighbors. Tiglath-pileser was already bent on conquering Samaria and Damascus, and could not fail to perceive that their subjugation would be greatly facilitated by his having the support of Judaea. For the King of Assyria—rather, and the King of Assyria—went up against Damascus. Damascus was naturally attacked first, as nearer to Assyria than Samaria, and also as more wealthy and more important. Tiglath-pileser’s records contain an account of the campaign, but it is unfortunately much mutilated. We may gather from it, however, that Resin began by meeting his assailant in the field, and engaging him in a battle which was stoutly contested. Eventually the Assyrians were victorious, and Resin, having fled hastily to Damascus, shut himself up within its walls. Tiglath-pileser pursued him, laid siege to the city, and eventually took it, though not perhaps till it had resisted for above a year. The Assyrian monarch thus describes the siege: "Damascus, his city, I besieged, and like a caged bird I enclosed him. His forests, the trees of which were without number, I cut down; I did not leave a tree standing. [I burnt] Hadara, the house of the father of Rezin, King of Syria." And took it. The ancient Damascene kingdom, which had lasted from the time of Solomon (1 Kings 11:24), was thus brought to an end. Damascus gave the Assyrians no further trouble; and within little more than thirty years it had been so absolutely absorbed into the empire that its governor was one of the Assyrian eponyms. The capture of the city, foretold by Amos 1:4, Amos 1:5, was followed by the destruction of its walls and palaces. And carried the people of it captive. The system of transplanting large masses of the population from one part of the empire to another seems to have begun with Tiglath-pileser. In his very imperfect and fragmentary annals we find the removal of above thirty thousand captives recorded, of whom more than half are women. His example was followed by his successors on a still larger scale. To Kir. The situation of "Kir" (קִיר) is wholly uncertain. It has been identified with Kis (Elam or Kissia); with the country watered by the Kur; with Kourena or Koura, on the river Mardus; with Karine, the modern Kirrind; with Kirkhi near Diartekr; and with Kiransi in the Urumiyeh country. But the similarity of sound is the sole basis for each and all of these identifications. It is best to confess our ignorance. And slew Rezin. This is perhaps implied, but it is not distinctly stated, in the extant annals of Tiglath-pileser. 2 Kings 16:10-18 Religious changes introduced into Judea by Ahaz. The new position into which Ahaz had brought himself with respect to Assyria was followed by certain religious changes, which were probably, in part at any rate, its consequence, though some of them may have been the result of his own religious (or irreligious) convictions. He had a new altar made and introduced into the temple, which at first he used for his own private sacrifices (2 Kings 16:10-13); then, that his new altar might occupy the pest of honor, he removed from its place the old brazen altar of Solomon, and put it in an inferior position (2 Kings 16:14). After this, he required all sacrifices to be offered on the new altar (2 Kings 16:15). Finally, he proceeded to interfere with several other of Solomon’s arrangements, with what particular object is not very apparent (2 Kings 16:17, 2 Kings 16:18). In carrying out all these changes, he had the high priest of the time for his obsequious servant. 2 Kings 16:10 And King Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglath-pileser King of Assyria. It was a practice of the Assyrian monarchs to hold durbar’s, or courts, at central places in the provinces, in the course of their military expeditions, whereat to receive the subject princes of the neighborhood, who were expected to do homage, and bring with them presents, or their fixed tribute. Tiglath-pileser held one such court in the earlier part of his reign at Arpad, a Syrian town, at which were present the kings of Comma-gene, Syria, Tyre, Carchemish, Gaugama, and others. He seems to have held another at some unknown place, about B.C. 732, which was attended by the kings of Commagene, Carchemish, Gebal, Hamath, Gaugama, Tubal, Arvad, Ammon, Moab, Askelon, Gaza, Edom, and Judah, the last-mentioned being Yahu-khazi (Jehoahaz), by which is probably meant Ahaz. It is with reason conjectured that this was the occasion mentioned in the text, when "King Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglath-pileser." And saw an altar that was at Damascus. It is almost certain that this was an Assyrian altar. Ahaz may at one time have turned for help to the gods of Syria (2 Chronicles 28:23), and asked their aid against his enemies; but the glory of Syria was now gone, her gods were discredited, and the place of power was occupied by Assyria, which had asserted its supremacy. When Ahaz visited Tiglath-pileser at Damascus, and "saw an altar," it was, in all probability, Tiglath-pileser’s altar. The Assyrian kings were accustomed to carry altars about with them, and to have them set up in their fortified camps, or in other convenient places. They also, not infrequently, set up altars to the great gods in the countries which they conquered, and required the inhabitants to pay them reverence. Ahaz may either have been required by Tiglath-pileser to set up an Assyrian altar in the temple, or he may have volunteered the act as one which was likely to please his suzerain. And King Ahaz sent to Urijah the priest—i.e; the high priest—the fashion of the altar and the pattern of it. Assyrian altars were quite different from Jewish ones. Generally they were of small size, either square with a battlemented edge, or round at the top and supported on a triangular base. It is scarcely likely that Ahaz was particularly pleased with the pattern (Keil), and therefore wished to have one like it. He probably merely wished to satisfy his suzerain that he had conformed to some of his religious usages. According to all the workmanship thereof. Though not very elaborate, the Assyrian altars have an ornamentation which is peculiar and unmistakable. Careful instructions would be needed for workmen who had never seen the sort of object which they were required to produce. 2 Kings 16:11 And Urijah the priest. No doubt the Uriah of Isaiah (Isaiah 8:2), who might be a "faithful witness" to the record of a fact, though a bad man, over-complaisant in carrying out the will of the king. Built an altar according to all that King Ahaz had sent from Damascus:—rather, built the altar, i.e. the altar commanded by the monarch—so Urijah the priest made it against King Ahaz came from Damascus. A bold high priest like Azariah (2 Chronicles 26:17) would have refused to work the king’s will in such a matter, which was certainly a desecration of the temple, and to some extent a compromise with idolatry. But Urijah was a man of a weaker fiber, and does not seem to have thought even of remonstrance, much less of resistance. 2 Kings 16:12 And when the king was come from Damascus, the king saw the altar: and the king approached to the altar, and offered thereon. It is not necessarily implied in these words that Ahaz, like Uzziah, usurped the priestly functions, though conceivably he may have done so, and Urijah may have stood tamely by. What the writer has it in his mind to record is that the king, on his return from Damascus, at once made use of the new’ altar for his private sacrifices. If he had meant to tax Ahaz with so great a sin as that which brought the curse of leprosy upon Uzziah, he would almost certainly have made his meaning clearer. 2 Kings 16:13 And he burnt his burnt offering and his meat offering, and poured his drink offering, and sprinkled the blood of his peace offerings, upon the altar. (On the different kinds of offerings, see Leviticus 1-7.) 2 Kings 16:14 And he brought also the brazen altar, which was before the Lord. One sin leads on to another. Having introduced his self-invented quasi-idolatrous altar into the temple, and so inserted "the thin end of the wedge," Ahaz was not satisfied, but proceeded to another innovation. Urijah, having had no express order from the king with respect to the position of the new altar, had placed it in front of the old one, between it and the eastern gate of the court. Thus the old altar, which was directly in front of the temple porch, seemed to cut the new altar off from the temple. Ahaz would not have this continue, and resolved on removing the altar of Solomon from, its place, and putting it elsewhere. From the forefront of the house, from between the altar—i.e; the new altar—and the house of the Lord—i.e. the temple building—and put it on the north side of the altar. The removal of Solomon’s altar from its place of honor to a side position left the space clear between the temple and the new altar, which thus, without exactly occupying the same site, took practically the place of Solomon’s altar. Solomon’s altar, shifted to one side, was put, as it were, in the background; the eye rested on the new altar, right in front of the porch and temple, which so became "the main altar" (הַמִּזְבַּת צַגָּדוֹל), as it is called in the next verse. 2 Kings 16:15 And King Ahaz commanded Urijah the priest, saying. Here the king, no doubt, stepped out of the sphere of his duties, not to usurp exactly the priestly office, but to give directions in matters which belonged, not to the regale, but to the pontificale. Urijah ought to have refused obedience. Upon the great altar. Certainly not so called because of its size (Keil), for it was probably much smaller than the old altar, but because of its position (see the comment on 2 Kings 16:14). Burn the morning burnt offering, and the evening meat offering—i.e. offer the daily sacrifice both morning and evening—and the king’s burnt sacrifice, and his meat offering—i.e. the customary royal sacrifices (see 1 Kings 8:62)—with the burnt offering of all the people of the land, and their meat offering, and their drink offerings—i.e; all the private offerings of the people for themselves—and sprinkle upon it all the blood of the burnt offering, and all the blood of the sacrifice (comp. Exodus 29:16, Exodus 29:20; Le Exodus 1:5, Exodus 1:11; Exodus 3:2, Exodus 3:8, Exodus 3:13; Exodus 7:2; Exodus 17:6; Numbers 18:17, etc.) and the brazen altar shall be for me to inquire by; rather, and as for the brazen altar, it will be for me to inquire concerning it; i.e. I shall hereafter determine what use, if any, it shall be put to. As, by the king’s directions, all the regular and all the occasional sacrifices were to be offered upon his new altar, the other would practically be superfluous. It would have been only logical to remove it, or break it up; but this the king was probably afraid of doing. He therefore said that he would take time to consider what he should do. 2 Kings 16:16 Thus did Urijah the priest, according to all that King Ahaz commanded. An emphatic condemnation of the high priest, whose subserviency evidently pro-yokes the writer’s indignation. 2 Kings 16:17 And King Ahaz cut off the borders of the bases. By "the bases" are probably meant the stands of the ten brazen layers, which Hiram the Tyrian artificer made for Solomon, and which Solomon placed outside the temple, five on either side of the entrance (1 Kings 7:39). The "borders of the bases" seem to have consisted of ornamental panels, on which were carved, in relief, figures of lions, oxen, and cherubim (1 Kings 7:29), The object of Ahaz in these mutilations may have been merely destructive, as we find Egyptian kings, after a change of religion, mutilating the tablets, and erasing the inscriptions put up in honor of those gods who had ceased to be in favor with them. Or, possibly, he may, as Keil supposes, have wished to transfer the ornamental carvings to some other edifice, e.g. an idolatrous temple or a palace. And removed the laver from off them—removed, i.e; from each base "the laver" which stood upon it—and took down the sea from off the brazen oxen that were under it. The "sea" was probably removed from off the backs of the oxen, in order that they might be made use of, as ornaments, elsewhere. And put it upon a pavement of stones; rather, upon a pedestal of stone (ἐπὶβάσινλιθίνην, LXX.). 2 Kings 16:18 And the covert for the sabbath that they had built in the house. The "covert for the sabbath" was probably (as Keil notes) "a covered place or stand in the court of the temple, to be used by the king whenever he visited the temple with his retinue on the sabbath, or on feast-days." It may have been elaborately ornamented. And the king’s entry without. This may have been "the ascent into the house of the Lord," which Solomon constructed for his own use (1 Kings 10:5), and which was among those marvels of art that made the spirit of the Queen of Sheba faint within her. Turned he from the house of the Lord for the King of Assyria. It is not clear what meaning our translators intended to express, and it is still less clear what was the sense intended by the original writer. Ahaz did something to the royal stand inside the temple, and to the;’ ascent" which led to it, and what he did was done, not "for the King of Assyria," but "for fear of the King of Assyria;" but what exactly his action was, we cannot say. No satisfactory meaning has been assigned to הֵסֵב בֵית יְהֹוָה by any commentator. 2 Kings 16:19, 2 Kings 16:20 The death of Ahaz. The writer terminates his account of the reign of Ahaz with his usual formulae, which in this instance are wholly colorless. Ahaz’s acts were written in the book of the chronicles of the kings; he died, and was buried with his fathers; Hezekiah, his son, reigned in his stead. This is all that he thinks it needful to say. 2 Kings 16:19 Now the rest of the acts of Ahaz which he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? The writer of Chronicles adds some important facts not found in the narrative of Kings. Among them are the following: (1) The complete defeat of Ahaz by Pekah, who "smote him with a great slaughter" (2 Chronicles 28:5), killing a hundred and twenty thousand of his soldiers, and carrying Off two hundred thousand captives, men, women, and children (2 Chronicles 28:8); these captives were, however, afterwards restored (2 Kings 16:15). (2) His defeat by the Syrians (2 Kings 16:5). This is, perhaps, implied in 2 Kings 16:6; but it is not expressly stated. (3) His defeat by the Edomites, who invaded his land, and made a largo number of prisoners (2 Chronicles 28:17). (4) The conquest in his reign of a considerable portion of Southern Judaea by the Philistines (2 Kings 16:18). (5) The fact that Ahaz at one time in his life adopted the Syrian worship, and "sacrificed to the gods of Damascus which smote him" (verse 23). (6) The fact that in his latter years he shut up the temple (verse 24), closing the doors of the porch (2 Chronicles 29:7), extinguishing the lamps (2 Chronicles 29:7), and putting an end to the burning of incense and the offering of sacrifice. (7) The fact that, not content with the previously existing high places, he set up a number of new ones, so that there should be a "high place" in every several city (2 Chronicles 28:25). The religious condition of Judaea can scarcely have been worse in the worst time of Manasseh or Amon. 2 Kings 16:20 And Ahaz slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David. This must be taken in the same sense, and with the same limitations, as the same phrase in 2 Kings 12:21. The writer of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 28:27) says, "And Ahaz slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the city, even in Jerusalem: but they brought him not into the sepulchers of the kings." Like Uzziah, he was not thought worthy of sepulture in the royal catacomb (see the comment on 2 Kings 12:21). 2 Kings 16:1-4 The godliness of parents does not secure the perseverance of their children in well doing, but increases the children’s guilt if they take to evil courses. Ahaz, the worst of all the kings of Judah, is the son of one of whom it is said that "he did right in the sight of the Lord" (2 Kings 15:34). Manasseh, perhaps the next worst, is the child of the one king for whom the sacred writers have no word of blame. Wicked Abimelech is the son of the pious Gideon (Judges 9:1). We naturally expect the contrary of this to happen. We suppose that education does everything, and we look to see the children of godly parents grow up godly, and are apt, without any inquiry into the circumstances, to suppose that every ill-conducted young man must have been badly brought up. The dictum of the wise man, "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it" (Proverbs 22:6), may be quoted in justification of such views, and is often so quoted, as if it were a rule without any exception. But no proverb is of this character. All are general rules, which admit of exceptions; and the exceptional character of this particular proverb is continually allowed in the Scriptures (Proverbs 17:21, Proverbs 17:25; Proverbs 19:13; Ezekiel 18:10, etc.). The points to be urged practically are— I. THAT PARENTS SHOULD MAKE EVERY EFFORT, JUST AS IF THEIR ’S UPON THEM. "Instruction," education, training, though sometimes of no avail, have, in the majority of cases, very great weight. Even when they seem to have failed, it often happens that their results remain deep buried in the soul, and in the end show themselves, and are of sufficient force to snatch many a brand from the burning. The parent must not despair because he does not see much fruit of his labors at once. He has to do his best, to "liberate his own soul," to see that, if his child be lost, it is not owing to his neglect. He has to "hope against hope," to persevere with his efforts, to be unwearied in his prayers, to do the utmost that lies in his power to lead his children into the right path. A parent ought never to despair. While there is life there is hope. The way of repentance is open to all; and, historically, there have been repentances from such a depth of depravity that no case should seem quite hopeless. Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound" (Romans 5:20). The mercy of God is unsearchable, unfathomable. There is no saying what sinner may not turn from his sin, put away the iniquity of his doings, and become a true servant of the Most High. II. THAT PARENTS SHOULD NOT BE OVER-, OR BEYOND MEASURE, BECAUSE THEIR EFFORTS TO KEEP THEIR IN THE RIGHT PATH HAVE IN SOME CASES FAILED. If, indeed, they have had many children, and their efforts have failed with all, they may reasonably suspect some defect in themselves or in their system. But if the results are varied, if a portion of their children have been all that they could wish, while others—despite all that they could do—have preferred to "walk in the way of sinners," and even to "sit in the seat of the scornful," then they have no need to sorrow overmuch, or to regard themselves as culpable. The influences which go to form each man’s character are countless, and with hundreds of them a parent has nothing to do. Again, there is "the personal equation," There do seem to be some who, "as soon as they are born, go astray and speak lies." It is among the mysteries of man’s existence here on earth that natural dispositions should so greatly vary. No parent of many children but knows, by certain experience, that this is so. One child gives no trouble, and scarcely requires any guidance. Another is willful, perverse, headstrong, almost devoid of good impulses, and full of inclination to evil. Parents are answerable for neglect, for unwisdom, above all for bad example; but they need not fear, if they earnestly endeavor to do their duty by their children, that in God’s just judgment the iniquity of their children will be imputed to them. "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son" (Ezekiel 18:20); "The soul that sinneth, it shall die" (Ezekiel 18:4). III. THAT WHO HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP, IF THEY TURN TO EVIL COURSES, INCUR A FEARFUL . "It had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them" (2 Peter 2:21). If children, notwithstanding a godly training, take to an evil life, what must we suppose that they would have done had they been born, as so many are, amidst adverse influences, and from infancy exposed to contact with indecency, drunkenness, blasphemy? Alas! every blessing abused becomes a curse; and to have a pattern of goodness before our eyes, to have virtue instilled into us, and then to reject it—to choose the evil and refuse the good—is to provoke God’s heavy displeasure, and bring down his severe judgments upon us. What excuse can such persons offer for their misconduct? They know that by sin they displease God, grieve their parents, injure themselves, ruin their worldly prospects, imperil their salvation; yet for a little present pleasure they shut their eyes to all future consequences, and rush to their destruction. Their conduct is folly, madness, idiocy; but not the sort of madness which shuts out responsibility. They are answerable for it, and will have to answer at God’s judgment-seat. Oh! that they would pause ere it is too late, recognize the folly of their evil courses, and "put away their iniquity!" God is still willing to pardon all whom he suffers to live. Let them "arise, and go to their Father," and say unto him, "We have sinned;" and he will go out to meet them, and receive them, and "there will be joy in the presence of the angels of God over each such sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance" (Luke 15:7, Luke 15:10). 2 Kings 16:5-7 God’s punishments of a nation’s sins are often long delayed, but, when they come, it is not by degrees, but suddenly, violently, and at once. This subject may best be treated, as the last, under three heads, viz. (1) the sins of Judah, which had provoked God; (2) the long delay in their punishment; and (3) the suddenness and overwhelming force with which the punishment came at last. I. THE SINS OF JUDAH. Though, on the whole, less guilty than her sister, Ephraim, still Judah had, from the division of the kingdom of Solomon, been more or less unfaithful to Jehovah in several respects. 1. An unauthorized and illegitimate high-place worship, tinged with superstition and perhaps even idolatry, had maintained its place by the side of the authorized Jehovah-cult, throughout the whole period of the divided monarchy, from the accession of Rehoboam to the death of Ahaz (1 Kings 14:23; 1 Kings 15:14; 1 Kings 22:43; 2 Kings 12:3; 2 Kings 14:4; 2 Kings 15:4, 2 Kings 15:35; 2 Kings 16:4). 2. The worship of Baal had been introduced from the sister kingdom by the influence of Athaliah, and had prevailed during the reigns of her husband, Jehoram, her son, Ahaziah, and her own (2 Kings 8:18, 2 Kings 8:27; 2 Kings 11:18). 3. Luxury and effeminacy had crept in, especially during the prosperous reigns of Uzziah and Jotham, and had led on to debauchery and licentiousness (Isaiah 1:4; Isaiah 2:6-8; Isaiah 3:16-24; Isaiah 5:11, Isaiah 5:12; Joe 1:5; Amos 6:1-6, etc.). 4. Injustice and oppression had become rife. The rich men sought to "join house to house, and field to field’ (Isaiah 5:8); they stripped the poor of their small properties by legal chicanery (Isaiah 3:14), oppressed them, and "ground their faces" (Isaiah 3:15). The judges in the courts accepted bribes (Isaiah 1:23) and gave wrong judgments (Isaiah 5:23). Widows and orphans were the special objects of attack, on account of their weakness and defenselessness (Isaiah 1:17, Isaiah 1:23; Isaiah 10:2). 5. The forms of religion were kept up, but the spirit had evaporated. Men thronged God’s courts, brought abundant offerings, made many prayers, kept the new moons and the sabbaths and the appointed feasts, but without any real care for the honor of God or any thought of seeking to serve and obey him. Hence their worship was "an offence;" their ceremonies were mockeries, their oblations "vain," their solemn meetings "iniquity" God was "weary to bear them" (Isaiah 1:11-15). II. THE LONG DELAY IN THEIR . More than two centuries had elapsed since Judah began to "do evil in the sight of the Lord, and to provoke him to jealousy with their sins which they had committed, above all that their fathers had done" (1 Kings 14:22). Above a century had passed since the apostasy of Jehoram and Ahaziah. During all this time Judah had maintained her independence, had received no severe blow, fallen under no crushing affliction. Latterly, she had even prospered. Under Uzziah she had recovered Elath (2 Kings 14:22), conquered a part of Philistia (2 Chronicles 26:6), defeated the Arabians and Mehunim (2 Chronicles 26:7), and made the Ammonites her tributaries (2 Chronicles 26:8); under Jotham she had maintained these conquests, and when Ammon revolted bad reduced her to subjection (2 Chronicles 27:5) without any difficulty. God, in his long-suffering mercy, bore with his people. He would win them by kindness, draw them to him by cords of love, at any rate give them ample time for repentance. But it was in vain. The longer he left them unpunished, the further they wandered from the right way, and the more they hardened their hearts. The time came when the prophet could only say of them, "Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evil-doers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward. The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrefying sores" (Isaiah 1:4-6). III. THE AND FORCE WITH WHICH THE WHEN IT CAME. Bishop Butler remarks how, in the punishment which God brings upon vicious individuals in this world, there is often a long respite. "After the chief bad consequences, temporal consequences, of their follies have been delayed for a great while; at length they break in irresistibly, like an armed force; repentance is too late to relieve, and can only serve to aggravate their distress; the case is become desperate, and poverty and sickness, remorse and anguish, infamy and death, the effects of their own doings, overwhelm them, beyond possibility of remedy or escape". And so it is often with nations; so it was now with the nation of the Jews. As soon as the punishment began, blow was dealt upon blow. First, Rezin "smote them, and carried away a great multitude of them captives, and brought them to Damascus" (2 Chronicles 28:5). Then they were delivered into the hand of Pekah, who "smote them with a great slaughter, slaying a hundred and twenty thousand in one day, which were all valiant men" (2 Chronicles 28:5, 2 Chronicles 28:6). Next, Edom had her fling at the sick lion, and "came and smote Judah, and carried away captives" (2 Chronicles 28:17). Then Philistia attacked the cities of the low country, and of the south of Judah, and took a number of them, "and dwelt there" (2 Chronicles 28:18). Presently, Pekah and Rezin, joining their forces, advanced together to the siege of Jerusalem. All was lost, except only honor; and then honor was thrown into the gulf; Judah went down on her knees to Assyria, and implored aid, gave tribute, accepted a suzerain, made the inglorious confession, "I am thy servant and thy son" (2 Kings 16:7). Having incurred defeat, disgrace, the loss of military honor, the loss of the flower of her troops, she crowns all by giving up her national independence, inviting a master, and herself placing a foreign yoke upon her own shoulders. But for the wonderful efforts made by Hezekiah when he ascended the throne (2 Kings 18:3-8), Judaea’s ruin would have been completed under Ahaz; and the punishment so long delayed, when it came, would have been final, "without escape or remedy." 2 Kings 16:10-17 A wicked king allowed to have his way by a weak priest. The double regime, civil and ecclesiastical, which it pleased God to establish in his first Church, the Jewish, and to continue, with certain modifications, in his second Church, the Christian, seems to have been designed for the mutual advantage of both parties. Authority, in whatever hands it is placed, is always liable to be abused, to over-assert itself, to grow arbitrary, autocratic, tyrannical. Hence the necessity of checks, of a balance of forces, of counterpoise, of an arrangement by which the undue preponderance of any single authority shall be prevented. It is sometimes needful that the civil authority shall interpose to keep the spiritual within due bounds, and disallow the establishment of sacerdotal tyranny. It is quite as often requisite for the spirituality to assert itself, and check the endeavors of kings and nobles to establish an unlimited autocracy. From time to time the two independent authorities, the civil and ecclesiastical, the regale and the pontificale, are sure to come into collision. Our own history presents instances in the struggles of Anselm against Rufus, of Becket against Henry II; and of the seven bishops against the last of the Stuart kings. Under such circumstances weakness on either side constitutes a serious peril to the community. A weak king, priest-ridden, makes dangerous concessions to the ecclesiastical order, and imperils the peace and prosperity of his kingdom by so doing. A weak priest, timid and timeserving, allows the rights of his order to be trampled on, and lays up no less an amount of trouble in the future for the nation to which he belongs. If Ahaz had been succeeded by another worldly minded and ambitious king, instead of the pious Hezekiah, there is no saying how low the ecclesiastical authority might not have sunk, or how soon the kingly office might not have freed itself from all checks, arid have become absolute, and in a short time tyrannical. Urijah did his best to destroy the constitution of his country, and to turn the Judaean limited monarchy into a pure despotism. He was weak rather than wicked; but his weakness might have had the worst results. It was only the accident of Ahaz being succeeded by a truly religious prince that prevented the precedent, which he had set, from entailing ruinous consequences. BY C.H IRWIN 2 Kings 16:1-20 Steps in a downward path: the reign of Ahaz. In the opening chapters of Isaiah we have an account of the condition of the kingdom of Judah at the time that Ahaz succeeded to the throne. The prosperity which the country had enjoyed under Uzziah had been continued and increased under the righteous reign of his son Jotham. And now the grandson, Ahaz, a young man of twenty, finds the country abounding in wealth, full of silver and gold. Isaiah says there was no end of their treasure; their land also was full of horses, neither was there any end of their chariots. Their commerce, too, was in a thriving condition. "The ships of Tarshish, sailing from Elath, could boast their gilded prows and stems, and purple sails, and brought home rich cargoes from the distant East". But before Ahaz died, all this was changed. Enemy after enemy invaded his country. The land became desolate. The king was reduced to great extremities to obtain money. Instead of the sunshine of prosperity, there was on every side the dark shadow of desolation and decay. We have the explanation of it all in the third and fourth verses. Ahaz began badly, and every fresh movement in his life was a step from bad to worse. His history is a further illustration of how one sin leads to another. It was a continuously downward path. I. THE FIRST STEP IN THE CAREER OF AHAZ WAS HIS . (Verses 3, 4.) He forsook the worship of the true and living God, and worshipped the gods of the heathen. Even that step he would seem to have taken gradually. At first he began with the high places, which bad never been taken away. Then graven images and other heathen customs were used in the worship of God; and finally the idols of the false gods themselves were set up. The policy of compromise had now reached its fitting conclusion. When the right makes compromise with the wrong, the wrong is sure to gain the victory. So it was in this case. The people had got accustomed to the high places. They saw no harm in them. And now they see no harm in the idols. Isaiah describes the universal corruption when he says, "Their land also is full of idols; they worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made." And what a worship it was to substitute for the worship of the only true and living and almighty God! A useless worship, as Isaiah indicates, to worship the work of their own hands. It brought them no help in their hour of distress. But it was worse than useless. It was a foul and degrading worship. It is best described in the words of the third verse, "the abominations of the heathen." We can have but a faint conception of the loathsome practices associated with the worship of the pagan deities. The passage before us speaks of one act of worship—by no means the worst, though sufficiently cruel and revolting. This was the worship of Moloch Kings In the valley of Hinnom, afterwards called Gehenna or Tophet, an image of Moloch was erected. Dr. Thomson, in ’The Land and the Book,’ refers to the passage in Jeremiah (19) where the valley of Hinnom is spoken of, and thinks, because it is said there that the image of Baal was there, that Moloch and Baal were one and the same. At any rate, part of the worship of Moloch consisted in making children pass through the fire before his image, or in actually burning them in it. The cries of the children were drowned by the sound of musical instruments and the shouts of the frenzied worshippers. It is to this that Milton refers when he says— "First, Moloch, horrid king, besmear’d with blood Of human sacrifice, and parents’ tears; Though for the noise of drums and timbrels loud Their children’s cries unheard, that passed through fire To his grim idol." Such was the worship which Ahaz, in his infatuation and desire to be like the nations round about him, substituted for the spiritual, elevating worship of the great Father of us all. After all, was he much worse than many in modern times who profess to be so enlightened that they regard the Christian religion as a superstition? And what do they give us in place of it? A worship of dead matter, of blind force; of a mere supposition of their own minds. If Christianity be a superstition, what are some of the fancies of our philosophers? Before we give up our Christian religion, let us know, what we are to have in place of it. Let us compare the results of Christianity with the results of any rival system, and how immeasurably superior to them all it stands, in the purity of its teaching, in the power it exercises to elevate and ennoble human life, and in the blessings it has brought to the nations! How it alone lights up the darkness of the grave, and breathes into the bereaved heart the inspiration and comfort of the heavenly hope! This was the first downward step in the career of Ahaz—forsaking the worship of God. So many a man has begun the downward path. The empty seat in the house of God indicates often the beginning of a useless and wasted life. Or if he comes to the house of God, he worships God in form only. His thoughts are far away. Self and the world, money and pleasure,—how often are these the idols men worship with the thoughts of their hearts and with all the efforts of their lives! II. THE NEXT STEP IN THE PATH OF AHAZ WAS THE HE ENTERED INTO. (Verses 5-7.) The Syrians made war on him along with the King of Israel. Ahaz, in his difficulty, sought the help of the King of Assyria. How humiliating is his entreaty! "I am thy servant and thy son," was the message he sent: "come up and save me out of the hand of the King of Syria, and out of the hand of the King of Israel, which rise up against me." There was nothing wrong in itself in seeking the help of friendly kings. On this occasion, however, God absolutely warned Ahaz against seeking their help. But, to begin with, there was something wanting. Ahaz did not seek God’s guidance in the matter. He did not seek God’s help. He who had rejected the service of the living God, makes himself the cringing slave of the King of Assyria, and humbles himself to a heathen for help. What a mistake when a nation trusts to its resources or its strong alliances, and forgets to look to that Divine power from whom all blessings flow! There may be nothing wrong in all our efforts to improve our worldly position, but there may be something wanting. There may be nothing wrong in your life, but there may be something wanting. You may be anxious to be useful in the world; but are you setting about it in the light way? One thing is needful, one thing is essential to all true happiness, to all true usefulness. That is the presence and help of God. Is the Lord Jesus dwelling in your heart? Whatever else may disappoint you, he will never fail. "When other helpers fail, and comforts flee, Help of the helpless, oh, abide with me:" III. THE NEXT STEP WHICH AHAZ TOOK WAS HIS - THE HOUSE OF GOD. (Verses 8, 9, 17, 18.) Ahaz paid dear for his alliance with the King of Assyria. He had already disobeyed and dishonored God by his idolatry. He had already dishonored God by refusing to heed the warnings which Isaiah gave him. But now he commits a still more flagrant act of defiance and desecration. In order to reward the Assyrian king for his help, and to retain his friendship, he actually takes the silver and gold that was found in the house of the Lord, and sends it for a present to the King of Assyria. The world’s friendships are often dearly bought. We pay for them, in peace of mind, in peace of conscience, in loss of money, in loss of time, a greater price than they are worth. Sooner or later the crisis must come in every man’s life when he must choose between the friendship of God and the friendship of the world. What choice are you making? What choice would you make if you were put to the test now? Perhaps you are being put to the test in your daily life. Perhaps you are being tempted, for the sake of worldly friendship, for the sake of your business, for the sake of popularity, to sacrifice some principle, to trample on some command of God, to neglect some plain duty which conscience and the Word of God alike point out. Business! The great business of your life, of every man’s life, is to fear God and keep his commandments. "Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and enjoy him forever." Oh what a fearful thing it is to take from God that which rightfully belongs to him! It is a crime against law, against morality, to take from our fellow-creatures, without their permission, that which belongs to them. But how much more guilty is he who would take from God that which is his! We condemn Ahaz for his impiety and sacrilege in taking from the temple those things which had been consecrated to God. But let us look into our own hearts and lives. Are we giving God that which is his due? Are we keeping back nothing from him? Has he no greater claim on our daily thoughts than a hurried prayer at morning or evening, or none at all? Has he no greater claim on our money than the few shillings, or, it may be, few pounds we give to him every year? Let us measure our service of God much less by what others do and give, and much more by our own responsibilities, by our own overflowing cup of mercies, by the relation of our own soul to God. IV. THE NEXT STEP OF AHAZ WAS TO SET UP A HEATHEN ALTAR IN THE HOUSE OF THE LORD. (Verses 10-17.) Ahaz had gone to Damascus to meet the King of Assyria. While there he saw an altar used in the worship of the heathen gods. Its workmanship may perhaps have pleased him. He sent to Urijah the priest a description, perhaps a drawing of it, and Urijah, influenced more by the fear of the king than by the fear of God, caused a similar altar to be erected in the temple at Jerusalem. When Ahaz returned, he substituted this altar for the altar of the Lord, although God himself had given the pattern of that altar to Moses and to David. But all the idols and sacrifices of Ahaz did not benefit him much. He thought the gods of the heathen would help him; but, says the writer in 2 Chronicles, "They were the ruin of him and of Israel" So in everyday experience many a man finds, when he forsakes the gospel of Christ, and turns his back upon the Law of God, to follow worldly gain or pleasure, or society, or dissipation, that these things are the ruin of him. "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."—C.H.I. BY D. THOMAS 2 Kings 16:1-20 A people’s king and priest; or, kinghood and priesthood. "In the seventeenth year of Pekah," etc. Throughout all lands, almost throughout all times, two functionaries have been at the head of the peoples, too often treading them down by oppression, and fattening on them by their greed. One of these functionaries was not, among the Jews, of Divine ordinations; for the Almighty is represented as saying, "They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not." Let us notice each functionary as presented in this chapter—the king and the priest—the one named Ahaz, the other Urijah. I. THE . It is said, "In the seventeenth year of Pekah the son of Remaliah Ahaz the son of Jotham King of Judah began to reign. Twenty years old was Ahaz when he began to reign, and reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem, and did not that which was right in the sight of the Lord his God, like David his father." Here we learn that Ahaz, who was the son of Jotham, began to reign over Judah in his twentieth year, and that his reign continued for sixteen years. Elsewhere we are told that Hezekiah, his son, succeeded him at the age of twenty-five (see 2 Kings 18:17). According to this he became a father when he was only eleven years of age. This is not, necessarily, a mistake of the historian, since among the Jews in Tiberias there are mothers of eleven years of age and fathers of thirteen. And in Abyssinia boys of ten years and twelve years enter into the marriage relationship (see Keil). The account given of Ahaz in this chapter furnishes us with an illustration of several enormous evils. 1. The dehumanizing force of false religion. Ahaz was an idolater. "He walked in the way of the kings of Israel," we are told. Instead of worshipping the one true and living God, he bowed down before the idols of the heathen. This false religion of his made him so inhuman that he "made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen, whom the Lord cast out from before the children of Israel; and he sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree." Moloch was this idol-god of fire, and the rabbins tell us "that it was made of brass, and placed on a brazen throne, and that the head was that of a calf, with a crown upon it. The throne and image were made hollow, and a furious fife was kindled within it. The flames penetrated into the body and limbs of the idol, and, when the arms were red hot, the victim was thrown into them, and was almost immediately burnt to death." The revolting cruelty of Moloch-worship is thus described by Milton— "In Argob and in Basan, to the stream Of utmost Arnon. Nor content with such Audacious neighborhood, 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." Thus the idolatrous religion of this Ahaz dehumanized him, by destroying within him all parental affection and transforming him into a fiend. This is true, more or less, of all false religions. Idolatry is not the only religion that makes men cruel. A corrupt Judaism and a corrupt Christianity generate in their votaries the same dehumanizing results. False religion kindled in Paul the savage ferocity of a wild beast. "He breathed out slaughter." Ecclesiastical history abounds with illustrations. 2. The national curse of a corrupt kinghood. Then "Rezin King of Syria and Pekah son of Remaliah King of Israel came up to Jerusalem to war: and they besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him. At that time Rezin King of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and drave the Jews from Elath: and the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there unto this day." These two kings, Rezin of Syria and Pekah of Israel, had their eyes upon this Ahaz, saw, perhaps, how his wickedness had injured his people, had taken away their heart and exhausted their resources, until they felt that this was the time for striking at Jerusalem, taking possession of the metropolis, and subjugating the country. And they made the attempt. Although they could not "overcome" Ahaz, and failed to strike him down personally, yet they "recovered Elath to Syria [or, ’Edom’], and drave the Jews from Elath." So it has ever been; corrupt kings expose their country to danger, they invite the invader and make way for him. "Proudly up the regal heights they sit in pampered power, While fires smoulder underground that strengthen every hour." 3. The mischievous issues of a temporary expediency. Ahaz, in order to extricate himself from the difficulties and trials which Rezin and Pekah had brought on his country, applies to the King of Assyria. "So Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath-pileser King of Assyria, saying, I am thy servant and thy son: come up, and save me out of the hand of the King of Syria, and out of the hand of the King of Israel, which rise up against me. And Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the king’s house, and sent it for a present to the King of Assyria. And the King of Assyria hearkened unto him: for the King of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took it, and carried the people of it captive to Kir, and slew Rezin." What else could he do? To whom could he have looked for help in his emergency? The right thing to have done would have been the utter renunciation of his idolatry, submission to the Divine will, and invocation of the Almighty’s help; but he followed what appeared to him the expedient, not the right, and hence two evils ensued. (1) He degraded himself. He sold himself as a slave to the king whose help he invoked. "I am thy servant and thy son: come up, and save me out of the hand of the King of Syria." What more dishonorable thing can a man do than to renounce his independence and become the slave of another? He loses his self-respect, which is the very essence of true manhood. (2) He impoverished his people. "And Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the king’s house, and sent it for a present to the King of Assyria." This silver and gold belonged to the nation. It was public property. What right had he to dispose of a fraction? No right whatever. Alas! it is not uncommon for kings to rob their people, consume what they have never produced, live on the property of others, and thus impoverish their subjects! What happened with Ahaz must happen with all, in the long run, who pursue the expedient rather than the right. The right alone is truly expedient. II. HIS . Urijah is the priest. There seems to have been more priests than one of this name, and little is known of this Urijah more than what is recorded in the present chapter. He was the priest, who at this time presided in the temple of Jerusalem. He seems to have been influential in the state, and, although a professed monotheist, was in far too close connection with Ahaz the idolatrous king. Two things are worthy of note concerning him, which too frequently characterize wicked priests in all times. 1. An obsequious obedience to the royal will. The Assyrian king, having taken Damascus, is visited by Ahaz in the city, the object of his visit being, no doubt, to congratulate him on his triumphs. While at Damascus, Ahaz is struck with the beauty of an altar. He seems to have been so charmed with it that he commands Urijah, the priest, to make one exactly like it. "And King Ahaz sent to Urijah the priest the fashion of the altar, and the pattern of it, according to all the workmanship thereof." Knowing the king’s wishes, with shameful obsequiousness he sets to the work. "And Urijah the priest built an altar according to all that King Ahaz had sent from Damascus: so Urijah the priest made it against King Ahaz came from Damascus. And when the king was come from Damascus, the king saw the altar: and the king approached to the altar, and offered thereon." This obsequious priest not only did this, but, without one word of protest or reproof, he witnessed the sacrifices of the king at the altar, and allowed the position of the brazen altar in the temple to be altered; further, he actually engaged, according to the king’s command, in the services. "And King Ahaz commanded Urijah the priest, saying, Upon the great altar burn the morning burnt offering, and the evening meat offering, and the king’s burnt sacrifice, and his meat offering, with the burnt offerings of all the people of the land, and their meat offering, and their drink offerings; and sprinkle upon it all the blood of the burnt offering, and all the blood of the sacrifice; and the brazen altar shall be for me to inquire by. Thus did Urijah the priest, according to all that King Ahaz commanded." Thus wicked priests have too often acted. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Kings 17:1-41 THE REIGN OF HOSHEA OVER ISRAEL. OF THE KINGDOM, AND THE GROUNDS OF IT RE- OF THE KINGDOM BY . 2 Kings 17:1-6 REIGN OF HOSHEA. Hoshea, the last King of Israel, had a short reign of nine years only, during two of which he was besieged in his capital by the Assyrians. The writer notes that he was a bad king, but not so bad as most of his predecessors (2 Kings 17:2); that he submitted to Shalmaneser, and then rebelled against him (2 Kings 17:3, 2 Kings 17:4); that he called in the aid of So, King of Egypt (2 Kings 17:4); that he was besieged by Shalmaneser in Samaria (2 Kings 17:5); and that after three years, or in the third year of the siege, he was taken, and with his people carried off into captivity (2 Kings 17:6). 2 Kings 17:1 In the twelfth year of Ahaz King of Judah began Hoshea the son of Elah to reign in Samaria. In 2 Kings 15:30 Hoshea was said to have smitten Pekah and slain him, and become king in his stead, "in the twentieth year of Jotham." This has been supposed to mean "in the twentieth year from the accession of Jotham," or, in other words, in the fourth year of Ahaz, since Jotham reigned only sixteen years (2 Kings 15:33). But now the beginning of his reign is placed eight years later. An interregnum of this duration has been placed by some between Pekah and Doshea; but this is contradicted by 2 Kings 15:30, and also by an inscription of Tiglath-pileser. If Ahaz reigned sixteen years, the present statement would seem to be correct, and the former one wrong. Hoshea’s accession may be confidently dated as in B.C. 730. Nine years. It is certain that Hoshea’s reign came to an end in the first year of Sargon, B.C. 722, from which to B.C. 730 would be eight complete, or nine incomplete, years. 2 Kings 17:2 And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, but not as the kings of Israel that were before him. Hoshea’s general attitude towards Jehovah was much the same as that of former kings of Israel. De maintained the calf-worship, leant upon "arms of flesh," and turned a deaf ear to the teaching of the prophets e.g, Hoshea and Micah, who addressed their warnings to him. But he was not guilty of any special wickedness—he set up no new idolatry; he seems to have allowed his subjects, if they pleased, to attend the festival worship at Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 30:11, 2 Chronicles 30:18). The rabbis add that when the golden calf of Bethel had been carried off by the Assyrians in one of their incursions, he did not replace it (’Seder Olam,’ 2 Kings 22:1-20.); but it is not at all clear that the image was carried away until Hoshea’s reign was over. 2 Kings 17:3 Against him came up Shal-maneser King of Assyria. Shalmaneser’s succession to Tiglath-pileser on the throne of Assyria, once doubted, is now rendered certain by the Eponym Canon, which makes him ascend the throne in B.C. 727, and cease to reign in B.C. 722. It is uncertain whether he was Tiglath-pileser’s son or a usurper. The name, Shalmaneser (Sali-manu-uzur) was an old royal name in Assyria, and signified "Shalman protects" (compare the names Nabu-kudur-uzur, Nergal-asar-uzur, Nabu-pal-uzur, etc.). And Hoshea became his servant. Hoshea had been placed on the throne by Tiglath-pileser, and had paid him tribute (ibid; lines 18, 19). We must suppose that on Tiglath-pileser’s death, in B.C. 727, he had revolted, and resumed his independence. Shalmaneser. having become king, probably came up against Hoshea in the same year, and forced him to resume his position of Assyrian tributary. This may have been the time when "Shalman spoiled Beth-Arbel in the day of battle" (Dos. 10.14), defeating Hoshea near that place (Arbela, now Irbid, in Galilee), and taking it. And gave him presents; or, rendered him tribute, as in the margin of the Authorized Version. 2 Kings 17:4 And the King of Assyria found conspiracy in Hoshea: for he had sent messengers to So, King of Egypt. We learn from the Prophet Hosea that the expediency of calling in Egypt as a counterpoise to Assyria had long been in the thoughts of those who directed the policy of the Israelite state (see Hosea 7:11; Hosea 12:1, etc.). Now at last the plunge was taken. An Ethiopian dynasty of some strength and vigor had possession of Egypt, and held its court during some part of the year at Memphis (Hosea 9:6). The king who occupied the throne was called Shabak or Shebek—a name which the Greeks represented by Sabakos or Sevechus, and the Hebrews by סוא. (The original vocalization of this word was probably סֵוֶא, Seveh; but in later times this vocalization was lost, and the Masorites pointed the word as סוֹא, Soh or So). The Assyrians knew the king as Sibakhi, and contended with him under Sargon. Hoshea now sent an embassy to this monarch’s court, requesting his alliance and his support against the great Asiatic power by which the existence of all the petty states of Western Asia was threatened. Shalmaneser was at the time endeavoring to capture Tyro, and Hoshea might reasonably fear that, when Tyre was taken, his own turn would come. It is not clear how Shabak received Hoshea’s overtures; but we may, perhaps, assume that it was with favor, since otherwise Hoshea would scarcely have ventured to withhold his tribute, as he seems to have done. It must have been in reliance on "the strength of Egypt" that he ventured to brave the anger of Assyria. And brought no present—or, sent no tribute—to the King of Assyria, as he had done year by year: therefore the King of Assyria shut him up, and bound him in prison. The ultimate result is mentioned at once, before the steps by which it was accomplished are related. Shalmaneser did not "summon Hoshea before his presence to listen to his explanations," and then, "as soon as he came, take him prisoner, put him in chains, and imprison him" (as Ewald thinks), but simply declared war, invaded Hoshea’s country, besieged him in his capital, and ultimately, when he surrendered, consigned him to a prison, as Nebuchadnezzar afterwards did Jehoiachin (2 Kings 24:15; 2 Kings 25:27). Otherwise Hoshea’s reign would have come to an end in his sixth or seventh, and not in his ninth year. 2 Kings 17:5 Then the King of Assyria—rather, and the King of Assyria—came up throughout all the land—i.e; with an army that spread itself at once over the whole land, that came to conquer, not merely to strike a blow, and obtain submission, as on the former occasion (see 2 Kings 17:3, and the comment)—and went up to Samaria, and besieged it three years. From some time in Hoshea’s seventh year (2 Kings 18:9) to some time in his ninth (2 Kings 18:10). According to the Hebrew mode of reckoning, parts of years are counted as years; and thus the siege need not have lasted much over a year, though it may have been extended to nearly three years. In either case, there was ample time for Shabak to have brought up his forces, had he been so minded; and his failure to do so, or in any way to succor his ally, showed how little reliance was to be placed on Egyptian promises. 2 Kings 17:6 In the ninth year of Hoshea the wing of Assyria took Samaria. In B.C. 722, the ninth year of Hoshea, there seems to have been a revolution at Nineveh. The reign of Shalmaneser came to an end, and Sargon seated himself upon the throne. There have been commentators on Kings (Keil, Bahr) who have supposed that Shalmaneser and Sargon were the same person, and have even claimed that the Assyrian inscriptions support their view. But the fact is otherwise. Nothing is more certain than that, according to them, Sargon succeeded Shalmaneser IV. in B.C. 722 by a revolution, and was the head of a new dynasty. He claims in his annals, among his earliest acts, the siege and capture of Samaria. It is remarkable that Scripture, while in no way connecting him with the capture, never distinctly assigns it to Shalmaneser. Here we are only told that "the King of Assyria" took it. In 2 Kings 18:9, 2 Kings 18:10, where we are distinctly told that Shalmaneser "came up against Samaria, and besieged it," the capture is expressed by the phrase, "they took it," not "he took it." Perhaps neither king was present in person at the siege, or, at any rate, at its termination. The city may have been taken by an Assyrian general, while Shalmaneser and Sargon were contending for the crown. In that case, the capture might be assigned to either. Sargon certainly claims it; Shalmaneser’s annals have been so mutilated by his successors that we cannot tell whether he claimed it or not. The city fell in B.C. 722; and the deportation of its inhabitants at once took place. And carried Israel away into Assyria. The inscription of Sargon above referred to mentions only the deportation, from the city of Samaria itself, of 27,290 persons. No doubt a vast number of others were carried off from the smaller towns and from the country districts. Still, the country was not left uninhabited, and Sargon assessed its tribute at the old rate (’Eponym Canon,’ l.s.c.). Nor was the cry of Samaria destroyed, since we hear of it subsequently more than once in the Assyrian annals. And placed them in Halah. "Halah" (צֲלַה) has been supposed by some to be the old Assyrian city (Genesis 10:11) of Calah (כָּלַץ), which was, down to the’ time of Tiglath-pileser, the main capital; but the difference of spelling is an objection, and the Assyrians do not seem to have ever transported subject-populations to their capitals. It is moreover reasonable to suppose that Halah, Habor, Gozan, and Hara (1 Chronicles 5:26) were in the same neighborhood. This last consideration points to the "Chalcitis" of Ptolemy (5. 18) as the true "Halah," since it was in the immediate vicinity of the Khabour, of Gauzanitis, and of Haran. And in Habor by the river of Gozan. This is a mistranslation. The Hebrew runs, "And on Habor (Khabor), the river of Gozan" (so also in 2 Kings 18:11). "Habor, the river of Gozan," is undoubtedly one of the Khabours. Those who find Halah in Calah, or in Calacine (Calachene), generally prefer the eastern river which runs into the Tigris from Kurdistan a little below Jezireh. But there is no evidence that rids river bore the name in antiquity. The Western Khabour, on the other hand, was well known to the Assyrians under that appellation, and is the Aborrhas of Strabo and Procopius, the Chaboras of Pliny and Ptolemy, the Aburas of Isadore of Charax, and the Abora of Zosimus. It adjoins a district called Chalcitis, and it drains the country of Gauzanitis or Mygdonia. The Western Khabour is a river of Upper Mesopotamia, and runs into the Euphrates from the northeast near the site of the ancient Circesion. The tract which it drains is called Mygdonia by Strabo, Gauzanitis by Ptolemy. And in the cities of the Medes. Media had been repeatedly invaded and ravaged by the Assyrians from the time of Vulnirari IV.; but the first king to conquer any portion of it, and people its cities with settlers from other parts of his dominions, was Sargon. We learn from the present passage that a certain number of these settlers were Israelites. 2 Kings 17:7-23 The provocations which induced God to destroy the Israelite kingdom. Here, for once, the writer ceases to be the mere historian, and becomes the religious teacher and prophet, drawing out the lessons of history, and justifying the ways of God to man. As Bahr says, he "does not carry on the narrative as taken from the original authorities, but himself here begins a review of the history and fate of Israel, which ends with 2 Kings 17:23, and forms an independent section by itself." The section divides itself into four portions: (1) From 2 Kings 17:7 to 2 Kings 17:12, a general statement of Israel’s wickedness; (2) from 2 Kings 17:13 to 2 Kings 17:15, a special aggravation of their guilt, viz. their rejection of prophets; (3) verses: 16 and 17 contain a specification of their chief acts of sin; and (4) from 2 Kings 17:18 to 2 Kings 17:23, a general summary, including some words of warning to Judah. 2 Kings 17:7 For so it was, that the children of Israel had sinned against the Lord their God; rather, And it came to pass, when, etc. The clauses from the present to the end of 2 Kings 17:17 depend on the "when" of this verse; the apodosis does not come till 2 Kings 17:18, "When the children of Israel had done all that is stated in 2 Kings 17:7-17, then the result was that the Lord was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of his sight." Which had brought them up out of the land of Egypt. So commencing his long series of mercies to the nation, and indicating his gracious favor towards it. "The deliverance from Egypt," as Bahr well says, "was not only the beginning, but the symbol, of all Divine grace towards Israel, and the pledge of its Divine guidance." Hence the stress laid upon it, both here and by the Prophet Hoses (comp. Hosea 11:1; Hosea 12:9, Hosea 12:13; Hosea 13:4). From under the hand—i.e. the oppression—of Pharaoh King of Egypt, and had feared other gods; i.e. reverenced and worshipped them. 2 Kings 17:8 And walked in the statutes of the heathen. The" statutes of the heathen" are their customs and observances, especially in matters of religion. The Israelites had been repeatedly warned not to follow these (see Leviticus 2 Kings 18:3, 2 Kings 18:30; Deuteronomy 12:29-31; Deuteronomy 18:9-14, etc.). Whom the Lord east out from before the children of Israel—i.e. the Canaanitish nations, whose idolatries and other "abominations" were particularly hateful to God (see Leviticus 2 Kings 18:26-29; Deuteronomy 20:18; Deuteronomy 29:17; Deuteronomy 32:16, etc.)—and of the kings of Israel. The sins and idolatries of Israel had a double origin. The great majority were derived from the heathen nations with whom they were brought into contact, and were adopted voluntarily by the people themselves. Of this kind were the worship at "high places" (2 Kings 17:9), the "images" and "groves" (2 Kings 17:10), the causing of their children to "pass through the fire" (2 Kings 17:17), the employment of divination and enchantments (2 Kings 17:17), and perhaps the "worship of the host of heaven" (2 Kings 17:16). A certain number, however, came in from a different source, being imposed upon the people by their kings. To this class belong the desertion of the temple-worship, enforced by Jeroboam (vex. 21), the setting up of the calves at Dan and Bethel (2 Kings 17:16) by the same, and the Baal and Astarte worship (2 Kings 17:16), introduced by Ahab. This last and worst idolatry was not established without a good deal of persecution, as we learn from 1 Kings 18:4. Which they had made. 2 Kings 17:9 And the children of Israel did secretly those things that were not right against the Lord their God. Most of the evil practices of the Israelites were open and flagrant, but some sought the veil of secrecy, as the use of divination and enchantments (2 Kings 17:17). It is doubtful, however, whether the Hebrew words have the signification assigned to them in the Authorized Version. They may mean no more than that the Israelites made their evil deeds a barrier between themselves and God. And they built them high places in an their cities. "In all their cities" is probably rhetorical; but the gist of the charge is that, instead of keeping to the one temple and one altar commanded by God for the conservation of their belief in his unity, the Israelites "erected places of worship all over the country, after the fashion of the heathen" (Bahr), and so at once depraved their own faith, and ceased to be a perpetual protest to the surrounding nations. From the tower of the watchman to the fenced city; i.e. from the smallest and most solitary place of human abode to the largest and most populous. The expression was no doubt proverbial, and (as used here) is a strong hyperbole. 2 Kings 17:10 And they set them up images; rather, pillars (comp. Gem 28:18, 22; 31:13, 45, 51, 52; 35:14, 20; Exodus 24:4; Deuteronomy 12:3; 2 Samuel 18:18, where the same word is so rendered). The matse voth were stone pillars, anciently connected with the worship of Baal, but in Judah perhaps used in a debased and debasing worship of Jehovah with self-invented rites, instead of those which had the express sanction of God, being commanded in the Law. And groves (compare the comment on 1 Kings 14:14 and 1 Kings 14:23, and see also that on 2 Kings 13:6) in every high hill—rather, on every high hill—and under every green tree. Mote that the "groves" (ash,-rim) were "set up under green trees," and must therefore have been artificial structures of some kind, such as could stand beneath their boughs. 2 Kings 17:11 And there they burnt incense in all the high places. Incense symbolized prayer (Psalms 141:2), and ought to have been burnt only on the golden altar of incense within the veil. As did the heathen whom the Lord carried away before them. The offering of incense to their gods by the Canaanitish nations had not been previously mentioned; but the use of incense in religious worship was so widely spread in the ancient world, that their employment of it might have been assumed as almost certain. The Egyptians used incense largely in the worship of Ammon. The Babylonians burnt a thousand talents’ weight of it every year at the great festival of Bel-Merodach (Herod; 1:183). The Greeks and Romans offered it with every sacrifice. And wrought wicked things to provoke the Lord to anger (see below, verses 15-17). 2 Kings 17:12 For they served idols; rather, and they served idols. The sense flows on from 2 Kings 17:7, each verso being joined to the preceding one by the vav connective. Gillulim, the term translated "idols," is a word rarely used, except by Ezekiel, with whom it is common. "It contains," as Bahr says, "a subordinate contemptuous and abusive signification;" the primary meaning of galal being "dung," "ordure." Whereof the Lord had said unto them, Ye shall not do this thing (see Exodus 20:4, Exodus 20:5, Exodus 20:23; Deuteronomy 4:16-18, etc.). 2 Kings 17:13 Yet the Lord testified—rather, and the Lord testified—against Israel, and against Judah, by all the prophets, and by all the seers. A "seer" is, properly, one who sees visions; a "prophet," one inspired to pour forth utterances. But the words were used as synonyms (see 1 Samuel 9:9). Ever since the revolt of Jeroboam, there had been a succession of prophets in both countries whose office it had been to rebuke sin and to enforce the precepts of the Law. In Judah there had been Shemaiah, contemporary with Rehoboam (2 Chronicles 11:2; 2 Chronicles 12:5); Iddo, contemporary with Abijah (2 Chronicles 13:22); Azariah, with Asa (2 Chronicles 15:1); Hanani, with the same (2 Chronicles 16:7); Jehu, the son of Hanani, with Jehoshaphat (2 Chronicles 19:2); Jahaziel, the son of Zechariah, with the same (2 Chronicles 20:14); Eliezer, the son of Dodavah, also contemporary with the same (2 Chronicles 20:37); Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada, contemporary with Joash (2 Chronicles 24:20); another Zechariah, contemporary with Uzziah (2 Chronicles 26:5); Joel, Micah, and Isaiah, besides several whose names are unknown. In Israel, the succession had included Ahijah the Shilonite, contemporary with Jeroboam (1 Kings 14:2); Jehu, the son of Hanani, with Baasha (1 Kings 16:1); Elijah, and Micaiah the son of Imlah, with Ahab (1 Kings 22:8) and Ahaziah (2 Kings 1:3); Elisha, with Jehoram, John, Jehoahaz, and Joash (2 Kings 3:11-13:14); Jonah, with Jeroboam II. (2 Kings 14:25); Hosea and Amos, with the same (Hosea 1:1; Amos 1:1): and Oded (2 Chronicles 28:9), contemporary with Pekah. God had never left himself without living witness. Besides the written testimony of the Law, he had sent them a continuous series of prophets, who "repeated and enforced the teaching of the Law by word of month, breathing into the old words a new life, applying them to the facts of their own times, urging them on the con- sciences of their hearers, and authoritatively declaring to them that the terrible threatenings of the Law were directed against the very sins which they habitually practiced." The prophets continually addressed them in the Name of God, saying, Turn ye from your evil ways, and keep my commandments and my statutes, according to all the Law which I commanded your fathers, and which I sent to you by my servants the prophets. This was the general burden of the prophetical teaching, both in Israel and in Judah, both before the captivity of Israel and afterwards (see Hosea 12:6; Hosea 14:2; Joe 2:12, Joe 2:13; Amos 5:4-15; Isaiah 1:16-20; Isaiah 31:6; Jeremiah 3:7, Jeremiah 3:14; Ezekiel 14:6; Ezekiel 18:30, etc.). 2 Kings 17:14 Notwithstanding they would not hear; rather, and they would not hear. The construction still runs on without any change (see the comment on 2 Kings 17:7 and 2 Kings 17:12). But hardened their necks. (On the origin of the phrase, see ’Homiletic Commentary’ on Exodus 32:9.) The obstinate perversity of the Israelites, which the phrase expresses, is noted through the entire history (see Exodus 33:3, Exodus 33:5; Exodus 34:9; Deuteronomy 9:6, Deuteronomy 9:13; Psalms 75:5; 2 Chronicles 30:8; 2 Chronicles 36:13; Nehemiah 9:16, Nehemiah 9:17, Nehemiah 9:29; Jeremiah 7:26; Jeremiah 17:23; Acts 7:51, etc.). Like to the neck of their fathers, that did not believe in the Lord their God. The reference is especially to the many passages in the Pentateuch where the Israelites are called "a stiff-necked people" (see, besides those already quoted, Deuteronomy 31:27). 2 Kings 17:15 And they rejected his statutes, and his covenant that he made with their fathers. The covenant made at Sinai, first by the people generally (Exodus 19:5-8), and then by their formal representatives (Exodus 24:3-8), was, on their part, a solemn promise that "all which the Lord commanded them they would do." Rejecting the "statutes" of God was thus rejecting the "covenant." And his testimonies which he testified against them. The "testimonies" of God are his commandments, considered as witnessing of him and setting forth his nature. The use of the term is common in Deuteronomy and in the Psalms, but otherwise rare. And they followed vanity, and became vain. False gods are "vanity;" false religions are "vanity;" there is nothing firm or substantial about them; they belong to the realm of futility and nothingness. And the followers of such religions derive weakness from them—they "become vain "—i.e. weak, futile, impotent. Their energies are wasted; they effect nothing of that which they wish to effect; they are completely powerless for good, at any rate; and they are not really powerful for evil. Their plans, for the most part, miscarry; and "their end is destruction." And went after the heathen that were round about them. Upon a neglect to keep God’s commandments follows active revolt from him, and the doing of that which he has forbidden. When they rejected God’s statutes, the Israelites adopted "the statutes of the heathen" (verse 8), and "walked in them." Concerning whom the Lord had charged them, that they should not do like them (see above, verse 12, and compare the comment on verse 8). 2 Kings 17:16, 2 Kings 17:17 The main sins of Israel are now specified, that they themselves may stand self-convicted, and that others may be warned against doing the like. First, generally. 2 Kings 17:16 They left all the commandments of the Lord their God; i.e. neglected them, rendered them no obedience, offered none of the stated sacrifices, attended none of the appointed feasts, broke the moral law (Hosea 4:1, Hosea 4:2, Hosea 4:11; Hosea 7:1, etc.) by swearing, and lying, and stealing, and committing adultery, by drunkenness, and lewdness, and bloodshed. And made them molten images, even two calves. These at least were undeniable—there they were at Dan and Bethel, until the Captivity came (Hosea 8:5; Hosea 10:5, Hosea 10:6; Hosea 13:2; Amos 8:14), worshipped, sworn by (Amos 8:14), viewed as living gods (Amos 8:14), offered to, trusted in. Every king had upheld them, so that Bethel was regarded as "the king’s court," and "the king’s chapel" (Amos 7:13); all the people were devoted to them, and "brought their sacrifices to Bethel every morning" (Amos 4:4), "and their tithes after three years." And made a grove. The "grove "(asherah) which Ahab set up at Samaria (1 Kings 16:1-34:38), and which remained there certainly to the time of Jehoahaz (see the comment on 2 Kings 13:6). And worshipped all the host of heaven. This worship had not been mentioned before; and it is nowhere else ascribed to the Israelites of the northern kingdom. Manasseh seems to have introduced it into Judah (2 Kings 21:3; 2 Kings 23:5, 2 Kings 23:11). Such knowledge as we have of the Western Asiatic religions seems to indicate that astral worship, strictly so called, was a peculiarity of the Assyro-Babylonian and Arabian systems only, and did not belong to the Syrian, or the Phoenician, or the Canaanite. It may be suspected that the present passage is somewhat rhetorical, and assigns to the Israelites the "worship of the host of heaven," simply because an astral character attached to Baal and Ashtoreth, who were associated in the religion of the Phoenicians with the sun and moon. On the ether hand, it is just possible that the Assyro-Babylonian star-worship had been introduced into Israel under Menahem, Pekah, or Hoshea. And served Baal. The Baal-worship, introduced by Ahab (1 Kings 16:31), was not finally abolished by Jehu (2 Kings 10:28). Like other popular religions, it had a revival Hosea, writing under the later kings from Jeroboam II. to Hoshea, alludes to the Baal-worship (Hosea 2:8, Hosea 2:17) as continuing. 2 Kings 17:17 And they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire. (On this phrase, see the comment upon 2 Kings 16:3.) The sin of child-murder had not Been previously laid to the charge of Israel; but, as it had infected Judah (2 Kings 16:3), there is no reason why it should not have invaded also the sister kingdom. Perhaps it is alluded to by Hosea 4:2; Hosea 5:2; and Hosea 6:8. It was an old sin of the Canaanitish nations (Leviticus 18:21, etc.), and continued to be practiced by the Moabites (2 Kings 3:27; Amos 2:1) and Ammonites, neighbors of Israel. And used divination and enchantments. The "witchcrafts" of Jezebel have been already mentioned (2 Kings 9:22). Magical practices always accompanied idolatry, and were of many kinds. Sometimes divination was by means of staves or rods (rhabdomancy), which were manipulated in various ways. Sometimes it was by arrows (Ezekiel 21:21). Very often, especially in Greece and Rome, it was by inspecting the entrails of victims. Where faith in God wanes, a trust in magical practices, astrology, chiromancy, "sertes Virgilianae," horoscopes, spirit-rapping, and the like, almost always supervenes. And sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger. (On the expression, "sold themselves to do evil," see the comment upon 1 Kings 21:20.) 2 Kings 17:18 Therefore the Lord was very angry with Israel; rather, that then the Lord was very angry, etc. We have here the apodosis of the long sentence beginning with 2 Kings 17:7 and continuing to the end of 2 Kings 17:17. When all that is enumerated in these verses had taken place, then the Lord was moved to anger against Israel, then matters had reached a crisis, the cup of their iniquity was full, and God’s wrath, long restrained, descended on them. And removed them out of his sight. Removal out of God’s sight is loss of his favor and of his care. "The eyes of the Lord are over the righteous" (Psalms 34:15)—he "knoweth their way," "watcheth ever them" (Jeremiah 31:28), "careth for them" (Psalms 146:8); but "the countenance of the Lord is against them [averted from them] who do evil" (Psalms 34:16). He will not look upon them nor hear them. There was none left but the tribe of Judah only. The "tribe of Judah" stands for the kingdom of the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin (see 1 Kings 11:31-36; 1 Kings 12:23; ’2 Chronicles 17:14-18), into which the greater part of Dan and Simeon had also been absorbed. This became now, exclusively, God’s "peculiar people," the object of his love and of his care. The writer, it must be remembered, belongs to the period of the Captivity, and is not speaking of the restored Israel. 2 Kings 17:19 Also Judah kept not the commandments of the Lord their God. The sharp contrast which the writer has drawn between Israel and Judah in 2 Kings 17:18 reminds him that the difference was only for a time. Judah followed in Israel’s sins, and ultimately shared in her punishment. This verso and the next are parenthetic. But walked in the statutes of Israel which they made; i.e. followed Israel in all her evil courses, first in her Baal-worship, under Jehoram, Ahaziah, and Athaliah; then in her other malpractices under Ahaz (2 Kings 16:3, 2 Kings 16:4), Manasseh (2 Kings 21:2-9), and Amen (2 Kings 21:20-22). Of course, the calf-worship is excepted, Judah having no temptation to follow Israel in that. 2 Kings 17:20 And the Lord rejected all the seed of Israel. God is no respecter of persons. As he had rejected the ten tribes on account of certain transgressions, which have been enumerated (2 Kings 17:8-17), so, when Judah committed the self-same sins, and transgressed equally, Judah had equally to be rejected. "All the seed of Israel" is the entire nation—Israel in the widest sense, made up of Judah and of Israel in the narrow sense. So Keil, rightly. And afflicted them—by the hands of Sargon, and Sennacherib, and Esarhaddon (2 Chronicles 33:11), and Pharaoh-Nechoh, and others—and delivered them into the hands of spoilers. The "spoilers" intended are probably, first, the "bands of the Chaldees, and of the Syrians, and of the Moabites, and of the children of Ammon," who were let loose upon Judaea by Nebuchadnezzar when Jehoiakim rebelled against him (2 Kings 24:2), and secondly Nebuchadnezzar himself and Nebuzaradan, who completed the spoliation of the country, and plundered Jerusalem itself, to punish the revolts of Jehoiachid and Zedekiah (2 Kings 24:13-16 and 2 Kings 25:8-21), when all the treasures of the temple were carried off. Until he had cast them out of his sight; i.e. until he had punished Judah as he had previously punished Israel (2 Kings 17:18), which was what justice required. 2 Kings 17:21 For he rent; rather, for he had rent. The nexus of the verse is with 2 Kings 17:18. The difference between the fates of Israel and Judah—the survival of Judah for a hundred and thirty-four years—is traced back to the separation under Rehoboam, and to the wicked policy which Jeroboam then pursued, and left as a legacy to his successors. Israel could suffer alone, while Judah was spared, because the kingdom of David and Solomon had been rent in twain, and the two states had thenceforth continued separate. Israel from the house of David; and they made Jeroboam the son of Nebat king: and Jeroboam drave Israel from following the Lord. The separation alone might not have had any ill result; but it was followed by the appointment of Jeroboam as king, and Jeroboam introduced the fatal taint of idolatry, from which all the other evils flowed, including the earlier destruction of the northern kingdom. Jeroboam not only introduced the worship of the calves, but he "drave Israel from following the Lord "—i.e. compelled the people to discontinue the practice of going up to worship at Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 11:13-16), and required them to take part in the calf-worship. And [thus] made them sin a great sin. 2 Kings 17:22 For the children of Israel walked in all the sins of Jeroboam which he did. The nation, having been once persuaded to adopt Jeroboam’s innovations, continued to "walk" in them—followed Jeroboam’s example in "all his sins"—gave up the temple-worship altogether; accepted the ministrations of priests not of the seed of Aaron (1 Kings 13:33; 2 Chronicles 13:9); brought their tithes to these idol-priests; sacrificed to the calves at Dan and Bethel (Amos 4:4); and put their trust in the "similitude of a calf that eateth hay." They departed not from them. 2 Kings 17:23 Until the Lord removed Israel out of his sight (see the comment on 2 Kings 17:18) as he had said by all his servants the prophets. The destruction of the kingdom of Israel had been distinctly prophesied by Ahijah the Shilonite (1 Kings 14:15, 1 Kings 14:16), Hosea (Hosea 1:4; Hosea 9:3, Hosea 9:17), and Amos (Amos 7:17). General warnings and denunciations had been given by Moses (Leviticus 26:33; Deuteronomy 4:26, Deuteronomy 4:27; Deuteronomy 28:36, etc.), by Isaiah (Isaiah 7:8; Isaiah 28:1-4), and probably by the entire series of prophets enumerated in the comment on verse. 13. So was Israel carried away out of their own land to Assyria unto this day; i.e. up to the time that the Second Book of Kings was written, about B.C. 580-560, the Israelites remained within the limits of the country to which they were carried by the conqueror. Not long after this time, about B.C. 538, a considerable number returned with Zerubbabel to Palestine, and others with Ezra (see Ezra 2:70; Ezra 3:1; Ezra 6:16, Ezra 6:17; Ezra 7:13; Ezra 8:35; 1 Chronicles 9:2, 1 Chronicles 9:3; Zechariah 8:13). What became of the rest has been a fertile subject of speculation. Probably the more religions united with the Jewish communities, which were gradually formed in almost all the cities of the East; while the irreligious laid aside their peculiar customs, and became blended indistinguishably with the heathen. ’There is no ground for expecting to find the "ten tribes" anywhere at the present day. 2 Kings 17:24-41 Re-peopling of the kingdom of Israel by Assyrian colonists, and formation of a mixed religion. The writer, before dismissing the subject of the Israelite kingdom, proceeds to inform us of certain results of the conquest. Having removed the bulk of the native inhabitants, the Assyrians did not allow the country to lie waste, but proceeded to replace the population which they had carried off by settlers from other localities (2 Kings 17:24). These settlers were, after a short time, incommoded by lions, which increased upon them, and diminished their numbers (2 Kings 17:25). The idea arose that the visitation was supernatural, and might be traced to the fact that the newcomers, not knowing "the manner of the God of the land," displeased him by the neglect of his rites or by the introduction of alien worship (2 Kings 17:26). A remedy for this was sought in the sending to them from Assyria one of the priests who had been carried off, from whom it was thought they might learn how "the God of the land" was to be propitiated. This was the orion of the "mixed religion" which grew up in the country. While the nations who had replaced the Israelites brought in their own superstitions, and severally worshipped their own gods (2 Kings 17:30, 2 Kings 17:31), there was a general acknowledgment of Jehovah by all of them, and a continuance of Jehovistic worship in the various high places. The nations both "feared the Lord, and served their graven images," down to the time when the writer of Kings composed his work (2 Kings 17:33-41). 2 Kings 17:24 And the King of Assyria brought men from Babylon. It has been supposed, in connection with Ezra 4:2, that no colonists were introduced into the country till the time of Esarhaddon, who began to reign in B.C. 681. But this, which would be intrinsically most improbable (for when did a king forego his tribute from a fertile country for forty-one years?), is contradicted by a statement of Sargon, that he placed colonists there in B.C. 715. These were not necessarily the first; and, on the whole, it is probable that the re-peopling of the country begun earlier. Hamath was reduced by Sargon in B.C. 720, and punished severely. Its inhabitants were carried off, and replaced by Assyrians. Probably some of them were at once settled in Samaria. The conquest of Babylon by Sargon was not till later. It occurred in B.C. 709, and was probably followed by the immediate deportation of some of its inhabitants to the same quarter. And from Cuthah. "Cuthah," or "Cutha," was an important Babylonian city, often mentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions. Its ruins exist at the site now called Ibrahim, about fifteen miles northeast of Babylon. Sargon must have become master of it when he put down Merodach-Baladan and assumed the sovereignty of Babylonia, in B.C. 709. Why the later Jews called the Samaritans "Cuthaeans," rather than Sepharvites, or Avites, or Hamathites, it is impossible to determine. Possibly the Cuthaean settlers preponderated in numbers ever the others. And from Ava. "Ava" (עוא) is probably the same as the Ivah (עוה) of 2 Kings 18:34 and 2 Kings 19:13, and perhaps identical with the Ahava (אהוא) of Ezra (Ezra 8:15, Ezra 8:21). The city intended is thought to be the "Is" of Herodotus, and the modern Hit. Hit lies upon the Euphrates, about a hundred and thirty miles above Babylon, in lat. 33° 45’ nearly. It is famous for its bitumen springs. And from Hamath (see the comment on 2 Kings 14:25). Hamath on the Orontes was conquered by Sargon in B.C. 720, two years after his capture of Samaria. Its rude inhabitants were carried off, and Assyrians were placed there. And from Sepharvaim. It is generally allowed that "Sepharvaim" is "Sippara," the dual form being accounted for by the fact that Sippara was a double town, partly on the right and partly on the left bank of a stream derived from the Euphrates. Hence Pliny speaks of it as "oppida Hipparenorum" (’Hist. Nat.,’ 6.30). The exact site, at Abu-Habba, sixteen miles southwest of Baghdad, has only recently been discovered. And placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel: and they possessed Samaria, and dwelt in the cities thereof. Transplantation of nations, commenced by Tiglath-pileser, was practiced on a still larger scale by Sargon. The following summary will illustrate this point: "In all his wars Sargon largely employed the system of wholesale deportation. The Israelites were removed from Samaria, and planted partly in Gozan or Mygdonia, and partly in the cities recently taken from the Medes. Hamath and Damascus were peopled with captives from Armenia and other regions of the north. A portion of the Tibareni were carried captive to Assyria, and Assyrians were established in the Tibarenian country. Vast numbers of the inhabitants of the Zagros range were also transported to Assyria; Babylonians, Cuthaeans, Sapharrites, Arabians, and others were placed in Samaria; men from the extreme east (perhaps Media) in Ashdod. The Comukha were removed from the extreme north to Susiana, and Chaldaeans were brought from the extreme south to supply their places. Everywhere Sargon ’changed the abodes’ of his subjects, his aim being, as it would seem, to weaken the stronger races by dispersion, and to destroy the spirit of the weaker ones by severing at a blow all the links which unite a patriotic people to the country it has long inhabited. The practice had not been unknown to previous monarchs; but it had never been employed by any of them so generally or on so grand a scale as it was by this king". 2 Kings 17:25 And so it was at the beginning of their dwelling there, that they feared not the Lord. They were ignorant, i.e; of Jehovah, and paid him no religious regard. They brought with them their own forms of heathenism (see 2 Kings 17:30, 2 Kings 17:31). Therefore the Lord sent lions among them. Lions are not now found in Palestine, nor indeed in any part of Syria, though they are numerous in Mesopotamia; but anciently they appear to have been tolerably common in all parts of the Holy Land (see the comment on 1 Kings 13:24). We may gather from what is said here that, though new settlers had been brought into the country by the Assyrians, yet still there had been a considerable decrease in the population, which had been favorable to the lions multiplying. The new settlers, it is to be noted, were placed in the towns (2 Kings 17:24); and it is probable that many of the country districts lay waste and desolate. Still, the writer views the great increase in the number of the lions as a Divine judgment, which it may have been, though based upon a natural circumstance. Which slew some of them. (For the great boldness of the Palestinian lion, see 1 Kings 13:24; 1 Kings 20:36; Proverbs 22:13; Isaiah 31:4; Isaiah 38:13; Jeremiah 5:6, etc.) 2 Kings 17:26 Wherefore they spake to the Feng of Assyria, saying. The meaning seems to be, not that the colonists made direct complaint to the king, but that some of the persons about the court, having heard of the matter, reported it to him as one requiring consideration and remedy. Hence the use of the third person instead of the first. The nations which thou hast removed, and placed in the cities of Samaria (see 2 Kings 17:24), know not the manner of the God of the land. It was the general belief of the heathen nations of antiquity that each country and nation had its own god or gods, who presided over its destinies, protected it, went out at the head of its armies, and fought for it against its enemies. Each god had his own "manner," or ritual and method of worship, which was, in some respects at any rate, different from that of all other gods. Unless this ritual and method were known, new-comers into any land were almost sure to displease the local deity, who did not allow of any departure from traditional usage in his worship. Therefore he hath sent lions among them, and, behold, they slay them, bemuse they know not the manner of the God of the land. 2 Kings 17:27 Then the King of Assyria commanded, saying, Carry thither one of the priests whom ye brought from thence. It does not appear that this was a suggestion of the colonists. Either it was the king’s own idea, or that of one of his advisers. The priests, who ministered at the two national sanctuaries—those of Dan and Bethel—had, as important personages, been all carried off. Though a "remnant" of Israel was left in the land (2 Chronicles 34:9), they were probably of the baser sort, or at any rate could not be trusted to know the details and intricacies of the Samaritan ritual. Thus it was necessary to send back a priest. And let them go and dwell there. We should have expected, "Let him go;" but the writer assumes that the priest would have an entourage, assistant-ministers and servants, and so says, "Let them go;" but immediately afterwards, And let him teach—since he alone would be competent—them the manner of the God of the land. 2 Kings 17:28 Then one of the priests whom they had carried away from Samaria—the country, not the city, as in 2 Kings 17:24 and 2 Kings 17:25—came and dwelt in Bethel. Bethel from a very early time greatly eclipsed Dan. While the allusions to Bethel, commonly called "Bethaven" (" House of nothingness" for "House of God "), are frequent in the Israelitish prophets (Hosea 4:15; Hosea 5:8; Hosea 10:5, Hosea 10:8, Hosea 10:15; Amos 3:14; Amos 4:4; Amos 5:5, Amos 5:6; Amos 7:10-13), there is but a single distinct allusion to Dan (Amos 8:14). Bethel was "the king’s chapel" and "the king’s court" (Amos 7:13). The priest selected by Sargon’s advisers was a Bethelite priest, and, returning thither, took up the worship familiar to him. And taught them—i.e; the new settlers—how they should fear the Lord. This worship could only be that of the calf-priests instituted by Jeroboam, which was, however, most certainly a worship of Jehovah, and an imitation or travesty of the temple - worship at Jerusalem. Whether the returned priest set up a new calf-idol to replace the one which had been carried off to Assyria (Hosea 10:5), is doubtful. 2 Kings 17:29 Howbeit every nation made gods of their own, and put them in the houses of the high places which the Samaritans had made, every nation in their cities wherein they dwelt. The several bands of settlers found in the cities assigned to them "houses of the high places," or high-place temples (2 Kings 17:9), which had been left standing when the inhabitants were carried off. These "houses" they converted to their own use, setting up in them their several idolatries. 2 Kings 17:30 And the men of Babylon made Succoth-benoth. There is no deity of this name in the Assyrian or Babylonian lists. The explanation of the word as "tents" or "huts of daughters," which Satisfied Selden, Calmer, Gesenius, Winer, Keil, and others, is rendered absolutely impossible by the context, which requires that the word, whatever its meaning, should be the name of a deity. The Septuagint interpreters, while as much puzzled as others by the word itself, at least saw this, and rendered the expression by τὴνΣουκχὼθΒενίθ, showing that they regarded it as the name of a goddess. The Babylonian goddess who corresponds most nearly to the word, and is most likely to be intended, would seem to be Zirat-banit, the wife of Merodach. Zirat-banit means "the creating lady;" but the Hebrew interpreter seems to have mistaken the first element, which he confounded with Zarat, the Babylonian for "tents," and so translated by "Succoth." The goddess Zirat-banit was certainly one of the principal deities of Babylon, and would be more likely to be selected than any ether goddess. Probably she was worshipped in combination with her husband, Merodach. And the men of Cuth—i.e. "Cuthah"—made Nergal. Nergal was the special deity of Cutha. He was the Babylonian war-god, and had a high position in the Assyrian pantheon also. His name appears as an element in the "Nergal-sharezer" of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 39:3, Jeremiah 39:13) and the Neriglissar of Ptolemy and Berosus. And the men of Hamath made Ashima. The-nius conjectures that "Ashima" represents the Phoenician Eshmoun,one of the Cabiri, or eight "Great Ones." But the etymological resemblance of the two words is not close, and it is not at all certain that the Hamathites at any time acknowledged the Phoenician deities. The Hamathite inscriptions are in the character now known as "Hittite;" and there is reason to believe that the people were non-Semitic. This identification, therefore, must be regarded as very doubtful. Perhaps "Ashima" represents Simi, the daughter of Hadad (see Melito, ’Apologia’). 2 Kings 17:31 And the Avites made Nibhaz and Tartak. "Nibhaz" and "Tartak" are very obscure. The Sabians are said to have acknowledged an evil demon, whom they called Nib’az or Nabaz; and Tartak has been derived by Gesenius from the Pehlevi Tar-thak, "hero of darkness;" but these guesses cannot be regarded as entitled to much attention. We do not know what the religion of the Avites was, and need not be surprised that the names of their gods are new to us. The polytheism of the East was prolific of deities, and still more of divine names. Nibhaz and Tartak may have been purely local gods, or they may have been local names for gods worshipped under other appellations in the general pantheon of Babylonia. And the Sepharvites burnt their children in fire to Adrammelech and Anammelech, the gods of Sepharvaim. The god principally worshipped at Sippara was Shamas, "the sun." It is probable that "Adrammelech" (equivalent to adir-melek, "the glorious king," or edir-malek, "the arranging king") was one of his titles. Shamas, in the Babylonian mythology, was always closely connected with Anunit, a sun-goddess; and it is probably this name which is represented by Anammelech, which we may regard as an intentional corruption, derisive and contemptuous. 2 Kings 17:32 So they feared the Lord—rather, and they (also) honored Jehovah; i.e. with their idolatrous worship they combined also the worship of Jehovah—and made unto themselves of the lowest of them priests of the high places—i.e; followed the example of Jeroboam in taking for priests persons of all ranks, even the lowest (see the comment on 1 Kings 12:31)—which sacrificed for them in the houses of the high places. 2 Kings 17:33 They feared the Lord, and served their own gods. This syncretism, this mixed religion, is so surprising to the writer, and so abhorrent to his religious sentiments, that he cannot but dwell upon it, not shrinking from repeating himself (see 2 Kings 17:32, 2 Kings 17:33, 2 Kings 17:41), in order to arrest the reader’s attention, and point out to him the folly and absurdity of such conduct. The practice was still going on in his own day (2 Kings 17:34, 2 Kings 17:41), and may have had attractions for the descendants of the small Israelite population which had been left in the land. After the manner of the nations whom they carried away from thence; rather, after the manner of the nations from whom they (i.e. the authorities) carried them away; i.e. after the manner of their countrymen at home. The translation of the Revised Version gives the sense, while changing the construction—"after the manner of the nations from among whom they had been carried away." 2 Kings 17:34 Unto this day—i.e; the time at which Kings was written—they do after the former manners—that is, they maintain the mixed religion, which they set up on the coming of the Samaritan priest from Assyria a hundred and fifty or sixty years previously—they fear not the Lord. This statement seems directly opposed to the thrice-repeated one (2 Kings 17:32, 2 Kings 17:33, 2 Kings 17:41), "They feared the Lord;" but the apparent contradiction is easily reconciled. The new immigrants "feared Jehovah" in a certain sense, i.e. externally. They admitted him into their pantheon, and had ritual observances in his honor. But they did not really fear him in their hearts. Had they done so, they would have inquired what were his laws, statutes, and ordinances, and would have set themselves to obey them. This they did not think of doing. Neither do they after their statutes, or after their ordinances—either the "statutes" and "ordinances" are regarded as having become de jure "theirs" by their occupation of the Holy Land, or "their" refers by anticipation to "the children of Jacob" towards the close of the verse—or after the Law—rather, and after the Law—and commandment which the Lord commanded the children of Jacob, whom he named Israel (see Gem 32:28). 2 Kings 17:35 With whom the Lord had made a covenant, and charged them, saying, Ye shall not fear other gods, nor bow yourselves to them, nor serve them, nor sacrifice to them (see Exodus 20:3; Deuteronomy 5:7; Deuteronomy 6:14; Deuteronomy 11:28. For the "covenant," see Exodus 19:5-8; Exodus 24:3-8). 2 Kings 17:36 But the Lord, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt with great power and a stretched-out arm (comp. Exodus 6:6; Deuteronomy 4:34; Deuteronomy 5:15; Deuteronomy 7:19; Deuteronomy 9:29; Psalms 136:12, etc.), him shall ye fear, and him shall ye worship, and to him shall ye do sacrifice (see Deuteronomy 6:13; Deuteronomy 10:20; Deuteronomy 13:4; Joshua 24:14, etc.). 2 Kings 17:37 And the statutes, and the ordinances, and the Law, and the commandment, which he wrote for you—i.e; which, by his Providence, were given you in a written form (comp. Exodus 24:4; Deuteronomy 31:9; Joshua 8:34)—ye shall observe to do forevermore (comp. Leviticus 2 Kings 18:4, 2 Kings 18:5; 2 Kings 19:37; Deuteronomy 4:6; Deuteronomy 5:1; Deuteronomy 6:24, Deuteronomy 6:25, etc.); and ye shall not fear other gods (see the comment on 2 Kings 17:35). 2 Kings 17:38 And the covenant that I have made with you ye shall not forget. The "covenant" intended is not the covenant of circumcision, which God made with Abraham (Genesis 17:9-14), but the covenant of protection and obedience made at Sinai between God and the entire people (Exodus 19:5-8), and most solemnly ratified by sprinkling with blood and by a covenant feast, as related in Exodus 24:3-11. This was the covenant which Israel had been warned so frequently not to "forget" (Deuteronomy 4:23; Deuteronomy 8:11; Deuteronomy 26:13; Proverbs 2:17), yet which they had "forgotten," or, at any rate, "forsaken," as already declared in Exodus 24:15. Neither shall ye fear other gods. The writer has probably a practical object in his reiteration. He expects his words to reach the ears of the mixed race inhabiting Samaria in his day, and would fain warn them against their idolatrous practices, and point them to the pure worship of Jehovah. It is pleasing to remember that ultimately the mixed race was won to the true faith, and that the Samaritans of our Lord’s time were as true worshippers of Jehovah, and as zealous followers of the Law, as the Jews themselves. The interesting community at Nablous still maintains Samaritan forms, and reads the Samaritan Pentateuch. 2 Kings 17:39 But the Lord your God ye shall fear; and he shall deliver you out of the hand of all your enemies. This promise had been made repeatedly (see Exodus 23:27; Le Exodus 26:7, Exodus 26:8; Deuteronomy 6:18, Deuteronomy 6:19; Deuteronomy 20:4; Deuteronomy 23:14; Deuteronomy 28:7, etc.). The writer of Chronicles aims at showing in detail that the promise was literally fulfilled in the history, victory in every case declaring itself in favor of God’s people, when they were faithful and obedient, while reverses always befell them in the contrary ease (see 1 Chronicles 5:20-22; 1 Chronicles 10:13; 1 Chronicles 14:10-16; 2 Chronicles 12:1-12; 2 Chronicles 13:4-18; 2 Chronicles 14:9-12; 2 Chronicles 20:5-30, etc.). 2 Kings 17:40 Howbeit they did not hearken. The mixed race, with their mixed religion, though professing to be worshippers of Jehovah, paid no attention to the warnings and threatenings of the Law (2 Kings 17:34), which were to them a dead letter. But they did after their former manner; i.e. they continued to maintain the syncretism described in 2 Kings 17:28-33. 2 Kings 17:41 So these nations—i.e; the Babylonians, Cuthaeans, Hamathites, Avites, and Sepharvites settled in Samaria—feared the Lord, and served their graven images. The rabbinical writers tell us that Nergal was worshipped under the form of a cock, Ashima under the form of a goat, Nibhaz under the form of a dog, Tartak under that of an ass, while Adrammelech and Anammelech were represented by a mule and a horse respectively. Not much confidence can be placed in these representations. The Babylonian gods were ordinarily figured in human forms. Animal ones—as those of the bull and the lion, generally winged and human-headed, were in a few cases, but only in a few, used to represent the gods symbolically. Other emblems employed were the winged circle for Asshur; the disc plain or four-rayed for the male sun, six or eight-rayed for the female sun; the crescent for the moon-god Sin; the thunderbolt for the god of the atmosphere, Vul or Rimmon; the wedge or arrow-head, the fundamental element of writing, for Nebo. Images, however, were made of all the gods, and were no doubt set up by the several "nations" in their respective "cities." Both their children, and their children’s children—i.e. their descendants to the time of the writer of Kings—as did their fathers, so do they unto this day. 2 Kings 17:1-4 The unwisdom of worldly craft and policy. Hoshea came to the throne at a time of great danger and difficulty. The Assyrian system of gradual expansion and annexation was settled and almost declared. The petty states upon her borders were first invaded and ravaged; then they were taken under her protection; finally they were absorbed. The process had been going on from the days of Tiglath-pileser I., and was still in operation. Damascus was a recent example of it. Under these circumstances, Hoshea could not but feel his throne precarious, and the independence of his country more than threatened. How would he act most wisely for his own security and that of his country? There were three courses open to him. I. HE MIGHT LOOK SOLELY TO THE KING. Absolute submission, fidelity, watchful regard for the suzerain’s interests, punctual payment of the fixed tribute, liberal donations to the court officials and the monarch beyond the sum appointed, generally secured to the protected state the continuance of its suzerain’s favor, and a prolongation of its protected existence. Hoshea might have adopted this policy. He might have bent all his efforts to the propitiation of the Assyrian monarch, and the obtaining of his favorable regard. In this way he would probably have secured to himself a long and quiet reign; and his country would have been spared for many a year the horrors of war, and his people the misery of being carried into captivity. II. HE MIGHT LOOK FOR A HUMAN AGAINST ASSYRIA. Human helps, negotiations, treaties, alliances, are the natural and ordinary resort of weak states when menaced by a stronger. Cannot a counterpoise be raised up against the monster community which threatens the existence of all its neighbors? Cannot a "balance of power" be established? Hoshea was particularly tempted at the time by the rise to greatness of a new dynasty in Egypt, which seemed to have greater strength and greater resources than had been possessed by its predecessors. It was probably regarded by his advisers as a wonderfully clever stroke of policy when they suggested that alliance with Shebek, the new King of Egypt, might be the salvation of Samaria under the circumstances. So AEtolia called in the aid of Rome against Macedon; and so recently, with better results, Sardinia called in the aid of France against Austria. Hoshea caught at the suggestion. Though pledged to Assyria, though actually owing his throne to an Assyrian monarch, he accepted the advice, made alliance with Shebek, and broke with Shalmaneser, to his own destruction and that of his country. III. HE MIGHT DISCARD "ARMS OF FLESH," AND LOOK WHOLLY TO JEHOVAH. The prophets were calling Israel to repentance. They were denouncing the calf-worship and the other idolatries. They were condemning reliance on either Egypt or Assyria (Hosea 7:11; Hosea 12:1). They were threatening the destruction of the kingdom unless Israel truly repented and turned to the Lord. They were pointing to a possible restoration to God’s favor if these conditions were fulfilled (Hosea 2:14-23; Hosea 7:1-3; Hosea 14:1-9; Amos 5:4-9, and Amos 5:14, Amos 5:15), and urging compliance before it was too late. They taught that God could save by his own power, and "not by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen" (Hosea 1:7). True wisdom would have taught Hoshea and his advisers to look for salvation to this quarter; but they were so infatuated with their trust in the strength of Egypt that they seem not even to have given the alternative course a thought. The result showed that their (supposed) worldly wisdom was the extremest unwisdom, their perfection of policy the worst policy that could possibly have been adopted. 2 Kings 17:7-23 The lessons to be learnt from the destruction of the kingdom of Samaria. The first and main lesson is, of course, the great fact— I. THAT NATIONS ARE TREATED BY GOD AS UNITS, AND ARE , EVEN , FOR THEIR SINS. It was their "evil ways," their transgression against the commandments of God, that lay at the root of Israel’s rejection. The prophets Hosea and Amos paint an awful picture of the condition of Samaria under its later kings. Luxury, oppression, lewdness, drunkenness, idolatry, prevailed. The service of God was a lip-service, which "his soul hated." There was no truth, no mercy, no real "knowledge of God," in the land (Hosea 4:1). "By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing … they broke out, and blood touched blood" (Hosea 4:2). "Whoredom and wine and new wine had taken away their heart" (Hosea 4:11). "A man and his father would go in unto the same maid" (Amos 2:7). False balances were employed (Amos 8:5). "Companies of priests murdered in the way by consent" (Hosea 6:9). Therefore was the doom pronounced against the nation—they should "go into captivity beyond Damascus" (Amos 5:27). "The Lord swore by his holiness … that he would take them away with hooks, and their posterity with fish-hooks" (Amos 4:2). "The end came upon them; they could not be passed by any more" (Amos 8:2). Minor lessons are— II. THAT SINS ARE GREATLY IN GOD’S SIGHT WHEN THEY ARE OF A MADE WITH HIM. Israel was under covenant with God—had been made God’s "peculiar people" on the express condition of keeping his statutes, testimonies, commandments, and judgments (Exodus 19:5-8). This they had bound themselves to do; but they had done the exact opposite. Hence the reproaches in verses 15 and 35-40. It is the breach of the covenant by the northern kingdom that, in the view of the writer of Kings, is the main and special cause of its fall. All else might have been forgiven, but not that. A covenant is a holy thing, even when it is only between man and man (Galatians 3:15); but a covenant between man and God—how can anything be more holy? Must not the infraction of such a covenant entail fearful consequences? III. THAT IT IS A FURTHER GREAT OF THE GUILT OF SIN TO COMMIT IT AGAINST . "Yet the Lord testified against Israel, and against Judah, by all the prophets, and by all the seers, saying, Turn ye from your evil ways" (verse 13). Comp. 2 Chronicles 36:15, 2 Chronicles 36:16, "And the Lord God of their fathers sent to them by his messengers, rising up betimes, and sending; because he had compassion on his people, and on his dwelling-place: but they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against his people, till there was no remedy." The sin of Israel would have been far less, would not perhaps have been quite "without remedy," had they not for so long a time turned a deaf ear to the warnings and exhortations of the prophets, refusing to "hear the voice of the charmers, charmed they never so wisely," and persisting in their disobedience, their wickedness, their greed, their cruelty, their besotted idolatry, despite the scathing denunciations, the tender pleadings, the wise counsels, almost uninterruptedly addressed to them. "Stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears" (Acts 7:51), they "resisted the Holy Ghost; "and their doom had to be pronounced. Congregations in this country and at the present day may be reminded (1) that England is not without her national sins; (2) that the sins of Christians are, all of them, infractions of the covenant made in baptism between themselves and God; and (3) that the sins of Christians are committed against the constant warnings of God’s appointed ministers, who stand to them as the prophets stood to the Israelites. 2 Kings 17:24-41 The absurdity and uselessness of a mixed religion. Syncretism has been at all times a form which religion is apt to assume in mixed communities. Theoretically, religions are antithetic, exclusive, mutually repulsive. Practically, where they coexist, they tend to give and take, to approximate one to the other, to drop differences, to blend together into an apparent, if not a real, union. Christianity had at first those who would sit in an idol-temple, and partake of idol-sacrifices (1 Corinthians 8:10). Judaism under the Seleucidae, but for the rude impatience of Antiochus Epiphanes, was on the point of making terms with Hellenism. In Samaria, after the events related in 2 Kings 17:24-28, a mixed religion—a "mingle-mangle," to use Reformation language—took its place as the religion of the mixed people. "They feared the Lord, and served their own gods." Jehovah was everywhere acknowledged, honored, worshipped with sacrifice. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 18-25 THE HISTORY OF THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH AFTER THE FALL OF SAMARIA. 2 Kings 18:1 THE OF . HIS . HIS WAR WITH . 2 Kings 18:1-8 THE EARLY YEARS Or . From his narrative of the destruction of the kingdom of Samaria, the writer turns, with evident relief, to the accession of the good king Hezekiah in Judah, and to a brief account of (1) his religious reformation (2 Kings 18:3-6); (2) his revolt from Assyria (2 Kings 18:7); and (3) his war with the Philistines (2 Kings 18:8). The narrative is still exceedingly brief, and has to be filled out from the Second Book of Chronicles, where the religious reformation of Hezekiah is treated with great fullness (2 Kings 29-31.). 2 Kings 18:1 Now it came to pass in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah King of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz King of Judah began to reign. There can scarcely be any doubt of this synchronism, which is in close accordance with the dates in 2 Kings 18:9,2 Kings 18:10 of this chapter, and agrees well with the Assyrian inscriptions. Hezekiah’s accession may be placed almost certainly in B.C. 727. 2 Kings 18:2 Twenty and five years old was he when he began to reign (on the difficulties connected with this statement, and the best mode of meeting them, see the comment upon 2 Kings 16:1); and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. So Josephus (’Ant. Jud.,’ 10.3. § 1), and the author of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 29:1). He reigned fourteen years before his severe illness, and fifteen afterwards. His mother’s name also was Abi. Abi, "my father," is scarcely a possible name. We must, therefore, correct Kings by Chronicles, and regard her true name as Abijah, which menus "Jehovah is my father" (compare "Abiel"). The daughter of Zachariah. Perhaps the Zechariah of Isa 8:2. 2 Kings 18:3 And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that David his father did. Such unqualified praise is only assigned to two other kings of Judah—Asa (1 Kings 15:11) and Josiah (2 Kings 22:2). It is curious that all three were the sons of wicked fathers. Hezekiah was probably, at an early age, Brought under the influence of Isaiah, who was on familiar terms with his father Ahaz (Isaiah 7:3-16), and would be likely to do all that lay in his power to turn Hezekiah from his father’s evil ways, and to foster all the germs of good in his character. 2 Kings 18:4 He removed the high places. This was a comparatively late step in Hezekiah’s religious reformation. He began, as we learn from Chronicles (2 Chronicles 29:3, 2 Chronicles 29:17), "in the first year of his reign, the first month, and the first day," by reopening the temple, which Ahaz had shut up, removing from it all the "filthiness" which Ahaz had allowed to accumulate (2 Chronicles 29:5), gathering together the priests and Levites and exhorting them (2 Chronicles 29:4-11), restoring and renewing the vessels which Ahaz had cut in pieces (2 Chronicles 29:19), and then re-establishing the temple-worship with all due solemnity (2 Chronicles 29:20-35). He next resolved on holding a grand Passover-festival, in the second month, as it had not been possible to keep it in the first (2 Chronicles 30:2, 2 Chronicles 30:3), and invited thereto, not only his own subjects, but the Israelites of the neighboring kingdom who were not yet carried off, but were still under the rule of Hoshea (2 Chronicles 30:10, 2 Chronicles 30:11, 2 Chronicles 30:18). It was not until this festival was over that the removal of the high places was taken in hand. Then, in a fit of zeal, which no doubt the king encouraged, a multitude of those who had kept the feast went forth from Jerusalem, first into the cities of Judah and Benjamin, and then into several of the cities of Israel, and "brake the images in pieces, and cut down the groves, and threw down the high places and the altars … and utterly destroyed them all" (see 2 Chronicles 31:1). And brake the images, and cut down the groves; literally, the grove, according to the present text; but, as all the versions have the plural, Thenius thinks אֲשֵׁרָה should be changed into אֲשֵׁרִים. Keil and Bahr, on the contrary, would retain the singular, but understand it "collectively." That idolatry was practiced at some of the high places seems clear from this place, as well as from 1 Kings 14:23. And brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made (see Numbers 21:9). Difficulties are raised with respect to this statement. Some argue that the serpent, having served its purpose, would have been left hanging at the place where it was set up in the wilderness; others, that Moses would have destroyed it, lest the Israelites should make it an idol; others, again, that it was not likely to have lasted seven hundred years from the Exodus, even if it was brought into Palestine and taken care of. It is supposed, therefore, that an imitation of the original serpent had been made by the Jews in the reign of Ahaz, had been called "the serpent Of Moses," and was now destroyed. But there is no sufficient reason for any of these suppositions. Considering what the serpent typified (John 3:14), it is not surprising that Moses should have been instructed to preserve it with the furniture of the tabernacle, or that, when once attached to that structure, it should have been preserved as a religious relic for seven hundred years. Many Egyptian figures in bronze now exist which are from three thousand to four thousand years old. The statement of the writer of Kings, that Hezekiah did now destroy "the serpent that Moses had made," is of more weight than a thousand speculations concerning what is likely, or not likely, to have happened. For unto these days the children of Israel did burn incense to it. Not, certainly, "from Moses’ time to Hezekiah’s," but from a date left vague and undetermined to the time when Hezekiah took his religious reformation in hand. Hezekiah found the practice continuing; the writer is not concerned to say—perhaps does net know—when it began. He implies, however, that it was of long standing. Serpent-worship was widely spread in the East, and there was more excuse for directing religious regard toward this serpent than toward any other. And he called it Nehushtan; rather, and it was called Nehushtan. יקרא is a singular with indefinite subject ("one called"), equivalent to "they called," or "it was called" (comp. Genesis 25:26; Genesis 38:29, Genesis 38:30). Nehushtan is not from נצשׁ "serpent," but from נצשׁת, "brass," and means "the little brass thing," ïbeing a diminutive, expression of tenderness. 2 Kings 18:5 He trusted in the Lord God of Israel. Unlike Hoshea (see homiletics on 2 Kings 17:1-4), unlike Ahaz (2 Kings 16:7-10), Hezekiah discarded trust in man, and—it may be after some hesitation—put his trust wholly in God. This was exactly what God required as the condition on which he would give his aid (Isaiah 30:1-7), and what no previous king since the Assyrian troubles began could bring himself to do. So that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor any that were before him. It has been concluded from this statement that, "when the merits of the kings were summed up after the fall of the monarchy, Hezekiah was, by a deliberate judgment, put at the very top"; but, as exactly the same words are used of Josiah in 2 Kings 23:25, the true conclusion would seem to be rather that Hezekiah and Josiah were selected from the rest, and placed upon a par, above all the others. At first sight there may seem to be contradiction between the two passages, since absolute pre-eminence over all the other kings is ascribed to Hezekiah in one of them, to Josiah in the other; but the context shows that the pre-eminence is not the same in the two cases. To Hezekiah is ascribed pre-eminence in trust; to Josiah, pre-eminence in an exact observance of the Law: one excels in faith, the other in works; Josiah’s whole life is one of activity, Hezekiah’s great merit lies in his being content, in the crisis of his fate, to "stand still, and see the salvation of God." 2 Kings 18:6 For he clave to the Lord—rather, and he clave to the Lord; i.e. he persevered through the whole of his life; he did not fall into sins at the last, like Asa and Azariah (see 2 Chronicles 16:7-12; 2 Chronicles 26:1-23.’ 16-21)—and departed not from following him. The writer probably considers "the princes of Judah" answerable for the embassy to Egypt mentioned in Isaiah 30:4, and excuses Hezekiah’s ostentatious display of his treasures to the ambassadors of Merodach-Baladan (2 Kings 20:13) as a weakness, not an actual breach of obedience. But kept his commandments, which the Lord commanded Moses. 2 Kings 18:7 And the Lord was with him. Of no other King of Judah or Israel is this said, except only of David (2 Samuel 5:10). It was the promise made to Moses (Exodus 3:12), repeated to Joshua (Joshua 1:5, Joshua 1:7), and by implication given in them to all those who would rule his people faithfully. And he prospered whithersoever he went forth; rather, in all his goings—in cunctis ad quae procedebat (Vulgate). Hezekiah’s prosperity is enlarged upon by the writer of Chronicles, who says (2 Chronicles 32:27-30), "And Hezekiah had exceeding much riches and honor: and he made himself treasuries for silver, and for gold, and for precious stones, and for spices, add for shields, and for all manner of pleasant jewels; storehouses also for the increase of corn, and wine, and oil; and stalls for all manner of beasts, and cotes for flocks. Moreover he provided him cities, and possessions of flocks and herds in abundance: for God had given him substance very much …. And Hezekiah prospered in all his works." Many brought presents to him to Jerusalem, and he was magnified in the sight of all the surrounding nations (see 2 Chronicles 32:23). And he rebelled against the King of Assyria, and served him not. Hezekiah’s "rebellion" probably took place at the very commencement of his reign, B.C. 727, in the year that Shalmaneser ascended the throne. Most likely it consisted simply in his withholding his tribute, and neither going in person nor sending representatives to Nineveh, to congratulate the new monarch on his accession. This would be understood as an assertion of independence. That it was not at once resented must be ascribed to Shalmaneser’s difficulties with Samaria and with Tyre, which were more pressing, as they lay nearer to Assyria. Before these were over, Sargon usurped the crown. There is reason to believe that he made at least one expedition against Hezekiah; but the date of it is uncertain. Rebellion met him on all sides, and had to be crushed near home before he could venture to deal with it on the remote outskirts of his empire. Meanwhile Hezekiah strengthened himself and built up a considerable power. 2 Kings 18:8 He smote the Philistines. Hezekiah’s Philistine war seems to have followed on an attempt which Sargon made to bring the whole country under the Assyrian dominion. Sargon attacked Philistia in B.C. 720, made Gaza and the other towns subject, and committed the custody of them to tributary kings, in whom he had confidence. But opposition soon manifested itself. Sargon’s creatures were expelled—Akhimiti from Ash-clod, Padi from Ekron. Hezekiah assisted in this war of independence, attacked Sargon’s viceroys, and helped the cities to free themselves. About the year B.C. 711 Sargon speaks of a league against Assyria, to which the parties were Philistia, Judaea, Edom, and Moab. The Philistines, whom Hezekiah "smote," must be regarded as Assyrian partisans, whom he chastised in the interests of the national party. He did not seek conquests in Philistia for himself. Even unto Gaza. Gaza seems to have remained faithful to Assyria from its capture in B.C. 720. And the borders thereof, from the tower of the watchmen unto the fenced city. (On this expression, see the comment upon 2 Kings 17:9.) 2 Kings 18:9-12 THE OF SAMARIA FOR . In contrast with Hezekiah’s piety and consequent prosperity, the author places the disobedience (2 Kings 18:12) and consequent extinction of the sister kingdom (2 Kings 18:9-11), which Belonged to Hezekiah’s earlier years, and was an event of the greatest importance to him, since it made his dominions conterminous with those of Assyria, and exposed his northern frontier to attack at any moment from the Assyrian forces. According to all probable human calculation, the fall of Samaria should have been followed at once by an attack on Judaea; and but for the change of dynasty, and troubles on all sides which ensued thereupon, this would naturally have taken place. As it was, Judaea was allowed a Breathing-space, during which she strengthened her power in Philistia (see the comment on the preceding verse), and otherwise prepared herself to resist attack (see 2 Chronicles 33:3-6; Isaiah 22:8-11). 2 Kings 18:9 And it came to pass in the fourth year of King Hezekiah, which was the seventh year of Hoshea son of Elah King of Israel. Hezekiah Began to reign before Hoshea had completed his third year (2 Kings 18:1). His first year thus ran parallel with part of Hoshea’s third and part of his fourth; his fourth with part of Hoshea’s sixth and part of his seventh; his sixth with part of Hoshea’s eighth and part of his ninth. That Shalmaneser King of Assyria came up against Samaria, and besieged it (see the comment on 2 Kings 17:4, 2 Kings 17:5). 2 Kings 18:10 And at the end of three years they took it. The expression, "at the end of three years," does not show that the three years were complete. On the contrary, as the siege Began in Hezekiah’s fourth year, probably in the spring, and was over in his sixth, say, by the autumn, the entire duration was not more than two years and a half. The plural verb, יִלְכְּדֻהָ, "they took it," is remarkable, since it would have seemed more natural to write יִלְכְּדָהּ, "he took it"—and so the LXX; the Vulgate, and the Syriac—but the writer seems to have known that Shalmaneser did not take it, but died during the siege, the capture falling into the first year of Sargon. Even in the sixth year of Hezekiah, that is the ninth year of Hoshea King of Israel (see the comment on 2 Kings 18:9), Samaria was taken. 2 Kings 18:11 And the King of Assyria—i.e. Sargon—did carry away Israel unto Assyria—the empire, not the country—and put them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Modes (see the comment on 2 Kings 17:6). 2 Kings 18:12 Because they obeyed not the voice of the Lord their God, but transgressed his covenant, and all that Moses the servant of the Lord commanded, and would not hear them, nor do them (compare the expanded version of this statement in 2 Kings 17:7-23). The sin of Samaria may be summed up under three heads: (1) disobedience; (2) breach of the covenant; and (3) disregard of Moses, and the other "servants of the Lord." 2 Kings 18:13-16 FIRST OF AGAINST . The writer now, as is his manner, omitting as comparatively unimportant all Hezekiah’s dealings with Sargon, which were without positive result, proceeds to give a brief account of Sennacherib’s first expedition against him, and of its unfortunate, if not disgraceful, issue: (1) the capture of all the important cities except Jerusalem; (2) the submission of Hezekiah to any terms which Sennacherib chose to impose; and (3) the purchase of peace by the payment of three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold out of the treasures of the temple and of the royal palace. The narrative obtains copious illustration from the inscriptions of Sennacherib. 2 Kings 18:13 Now in the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah did Sennacherib King of Assyria come up. It is impossible to accept this note of time as genuine without rejecting altogether the authority of the Assyrian inscriptions. Sargon took Samaria in his first year, B.C. 722, and then had a reign of between seventeen and eighteen years, for fifteen of which we have his annals. He certainly did not associate Sennacherib with him on the throne, nor did the latter exercise any authority at all until B.C. 705, when, "on the 12th of Ab, he the throne ascended". Sennacherib places his first expedition against Hezekiah in his fourth year, B.C. 701. Thus, according to the Assyrian records, which are very ample, and of which we have the actual originals, twenty years intervened between the capture of Samaria and the attack of Sennacherib on Hezekiah; according to the present passage, compared with 2 Kings 18:9, 2 Kings 18:10, eight years only intervened. No contradiction can be more absolute. It has been proposed to alter the date from "the fourteenth year" to "the twenty-sixth year; ’ but it seems most probable that the original writer inserted no date, but simply said, "And Sennacherib, King of Assyria, came up," etc; just as he had said, without a date, "Pul the King of Assyria came up against the land" (2 Kings 15:19); and "against him (Hoshea) came up Shalmaneser" (2 Kings 17:3); and, with a very vague date, if it may be called a date, "In the days of Pekah King of Israel came Tiglath-pileser King of Assyria" (2 Kings 15:29. Comp. also 2 Kings 24:1, 2 Kings 24:11). Later on, a redactor—perhaps the same who inserted the whole series of synchronisms—introduced the words, "In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah," having obtained the number from 2 Kings 20:6, which he assumed to belong to the time of Sennacherib’s attack. Against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them. Sennacherib himself says, "And of Hezekiah of Judah, who did not submit to my yoke, forty-six strong cities, fortresses, and smaller cities round about them without number, by the march of my troops … by the force of battering-rams, mining, and missiles, I besieged, I captured". 2 Kings 18:14 And Hezekiah King of Judah sent to the King of Assyria to Lachish, saying. (On the position of Lachish, see the comment upon 2 Kings 14:19.) A bas-relief in the British Museum is thought to represent Sennacherib at the siege of Lachish. He is seated on a highly ornamented throne, and is engaged in receiving prisoners. The city is represented as strongly fortified, and as attacked with sealing-ladders and battering-rams. The surrender is taking place, and the captives of importance are being conducted from one of the tower-gates to the presence of the conqueror. An accompanying inscription is to the following effect: "Sennacherib, the great king, the King of Assyria, sitting on the throne of judgment before the city of Lakhisha (Lachish). I give permission for its destruction." It would seem that while Sennacherib was personally engaged in this siege, a portion of his army had invested Jerusalem, and were pressing the siege (see Isaiah 22:1-7). I have offended; return from me. The tone of the submission is abject. In vain had Isaiah counseled resistance, and promised deliverance if trust were placed in God (Isaiah 8:9-15; Isaiah 10:24-26; Isaiah 14:24, Isaiah 14:25). When the siege commenced, all was dismay within the walls—it was "a day of trouble, and of treading down, and of perplexity (Isaiah 22:5). Some of the rulers fled (Isaiah 22:3); others gave themselves up for lost, and resolved on "a short life and a merry one" (Isaiah 22:13). Hezekiah found no encouragement to resist in any of his counselors except Isaiah, and was therefore driven to despair—acknowledged himself in the wrong for rebelling, and besought Sennacherib to "return from him"—i.e. in retire and withdraw his troops. That which thou puttest on me will I bear. Whatever burden Sennacherib chooses to put upon him, Hezekiah says he will bear, be it tribute, be it cession of territory, be it indignity of any sort or kind. He makes no reservation; but of course he assumes that the terms about to be offered him will be such as, according in the usages of war at the time, would be regarded as reasonable. And the King of Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah King of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. Sennacherib says that the payment made him by Hezekiah was thirty talents of gold and eight hundred talents of silver. He has, perhaps, exaggerated, or he may have counted in all the silver that he carried off from the whole of Judaea; or, possibly, the payment to purchase peace was eight hundred talents, the fixed tribute three hundred. We learn from Sennacherib’s inscription that, besides making this money payment, Hezekiah had to consent to (1) a cession of territory towards the south-west, which was apportioned between Gaza, Ekron, and Ash-deal; (2) the surrender of an Assyrian vassal king, detained in Jerusalem; and (3) the contribution to the harem at Nineveh of two if not more of his daughters. 2 Kings 18:15 And Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the king’s house. Ahaz had exhausted both these stores of wealth about thirty years previously (2 Kings 16:8), and there could not have been very much accumulation since. Hence the stripping of the metal-plating from off the temple doors (see the next verse). 2 Kings 18:16 At that time did Hezekiah cut off the gold from the doors of the temple of the Lord, and from the pillars which Hezekiah King of Judah had overlaid, and gave it to the King of Assyria. In the time of his great wealth and prosperity, Hezekiah, while engaged in restoring the temple (2 Chronicles 29:17-19), had adorned the pillars and doors of the sanctuary with a metal covering, which was probably gold, like Solomon’s (1 Kings 6:20-22, 1 Kings 6:28, 1 Kings 6:30, 1 Kings 6:32). To make up the "thirty talents of gold" he was now obliged to undo his own work, and strip the doors and pillars bare. Sennacherib tells us that, besides the two large sums of gold and silver, Hezekiah sent him at this time "woven cloth, scarlet,’ embroidered; precious stones of large size; couches of ivory; movable thrones of ivory; skins of buffaloes; horns of buffaloes; and two kinds of woods". It was customary to accompany the fixed tribute with the more precious products of each country. 2 Kings 18:17-37 SECOND OF . This section and 2 Kings 19:1-37. form one continuous narrative, which can only have been divided on account of its great length (fifty-eight verses). The subject is one throughout, viz. Sennacherib’s second expedition against Hezekiah. The narrative flows on without a break. It consists of (1) an account of the embassy of Rabshakeh (2 Kings 18:17-37; 2 Kings 19:1-8); (2) an account of an insulting letter written by Sennacherib to Hezekiah, and of Hezekiah’s "spreading it before the Lord" (2 Kings 19:9-14); (3) the prayer of Hezekiah, and God’s answer to it by the mouth of Isaiah (2 Kings 19:15-34); (4) the destruction of Sennacherib’s host, his flight to Nineveh, and his murder by two of his sons. The Assyrian inscriptions are absolutely silent with respect to this expedition and its result—it being a fixed rule with the historiographers of Assyria to pass over without notice all defeats and disasters. 2 Kings 18:17 And the King of Assyria sent Tartan and Rabsaris and Rabshakeh from Lachish to King Hezekiah with a great host against Jerusalem. Sennacherib appears, by his great inscription, to have returned to Nineveh, with his Judaean captives (more than two hundred thousand in number) and his rich booty, towards the close of the year B.C. 701. In the following year he was called into Babylonia, where troubles had broken out, and Hezekiah, left to himself, seems to have made up his mind to revolt, and to have called in the assistance of Egypt (Isaiah 30:4; 2 Kings 18:21). Sabatok was probably the nominal sovereign, but Tirhakah, who held his court at Meres, was lord paramount. An alliance was made; and hopes held out that, if Sennacherib again marched into Judaea, Hezekiah would receive effectual aid, especially in chariots and horsemen (2 Kings 18:24). Under these circumstances, Sennacherib made his second expedition, probably in B.C. 699. Regarding Egypt as his main enemy, and Judaea as of small account, he led his army by the ordinary route into the Philistian plain, pressing southward, while he detached a moderato force to hold Jerusalem in check, to threaten it, and, if an opportunity offered, to seize it. At the head of this force were three commanders, who seem to have borne, all of them, official titles; viz. the Tartan, or "commander-in-chief;" the Rabsaris, or "chief eunuch;" and the Rabshakeh, or "chief cupbearer." The Tartan was the highest of all the officials of the empire, and ranked next to the king. Sennacherib detached this force from Lachish, which seems to have revolted, and to have been undergoing a second siege. And when they were come up, they came and stood by the conduit of the upper pool. It was, perhaps, this army which Isaiah saw in vision, advancing on Jerusalem from the pass of Michmash (Isaiah 10:28-32), and "shaking its hand" at the city from the northern plateau outside the walls—the traditional "camp of the Assyrians." At any rate, the "upper pool" and the" fuller’s field" were in this direction (see the comment on Isaiah 7:3). Which is in the highway of the fuller’s field. 2 Kings 18:18 And when they had called to the king—i.e; when they had announced that they had a message to deliver to the king—there came out to them; by Hezekiah’s order, doubtless. Learning that they were three of Sennacherib’s highest officials, he sent out to them three of the chief officers of his own court. Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, which was over the household. Recently promoted to that high position, instead of Shebna, according to the prophecy (Isaiah 22:19-22), and perhaps by the influence of Isaiah. And Shebna the scribe; or, secretary—the official employed to draw up documents, such as treaties, protocols, despatches, and the like. He had been removed to this inferior position, to make room for Eliakim, but had not yet suffered, the banishment with which Isaiah (Isaiah 22:18) had threatened him. And Joah the son of Asaph the recorder; or, remembrancer—the person whose chief duty it probably was to chronicle events as they occurred, and finally to draw up the memoir of each reign at its close. (For another view, see the comment on 1 Kings 4:3.) 2 Kings 18:19 And Rabshakeh said unto them. Although the third in order of dignity, Rabshakeh took the word, probably because he was familiar with the Hebrew language, and could speak it fluently (see 2 Kings 18:26). His being spokesman made him appear to be the chief ambassador, and made Isaiah, in the parallel passage (36.), pass over in silence the other two. Speak ye now to Hezekiah. It was a rude, almost an insulting commencement, to give Hezekiah no title—neither "the king," nor "King of Judah," nor even "your master," but to call him merely "Hezekiah." The same rudeness is persisted in throughout (verses 22, 29, 30, 31, 32), and it is emphasized by the employment of some title or other, generally a lofty title, when Sennacherib is spoken of. Sennacherib himself is less rude in his inscriptions. Thus saith the great king, the King of Assyria. The "great king"—sarru rabu—was the ordinary title assumed by Assyrian monarchs. It passed from them to the Babylonians and the Persians. Sennacherib calls himself, on Bellino’s cylinder," the great king, the powerful king, the King of Assyria, the king unrivalled, the pious monarch, the worshipper of the great gods, the protector of the just, the lover of the righteous, the noble warrior, the valiant hero, the first of all kings, the great punisher of unbelievers". What confidence is this wherein thou trustest? We may assume that Hezekiah had, at the beginning of the year, withheld his tribute. He had certainly not gone out to meet the "great king" as he approached his territories, to do homage, and place the forces of Judah at his disposal. On the contrary, he had taken up an attitude of hostility. He had fortified his capital (2 Chronicles 32:2-5); he had collected arms and soldiers, and had shut himself up in Jerusalem, having made every preparation for a siege. Sennacherib inquires why he has dared to do all this—on what strength does he rely? What is the ground of his confidence? 2 Kings 18:20 Thou sayest (but they are but vain words); literally, words of lips; i.e. words which the lips speak, without the heart having any conviction of their truth. We must suppose that Sennacherib has either heard from his spies that Hezekiah is speaking to the people as he represents him to be speaking, or conjectures what he is likely to say. According to the writer of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 32:7, 2 Chronicles 32:8), what he did say was very different. He neither boasted of "counsel" nor of material "strength;" but simply said, "There be more with us than with him: with him is an arm of flesh; but with us is the Lord our God to help us and to fight our battles." I have counsel and strength for the war. Sennacherib imagines that Hezekiah’s real trust is in the "fleshly arm" of Egypt, and in the counselors who have advised and brought about the alliance. And perhaps he is not far wrong. Hezekiah, it would seem, "halted between two opinions." He hoped for aid from Egypt; but, if it failed, then he hoped for the Divine help promised by Isaiah. Now on whom dost thou trust, that thou rebellest against me? 2 Kings 18:21 Now, behold, thou trustest upon the staff of this bruised reed, even upon Egypt. Sennacherib had good information. Hezekiah’s embassy to Egypt (Isaiah 30:2-7) was known to him; and he rightly judged that Hezekiah was expecting aid from this quarter. This expectation he ridicules. What is Egypt but a "bruised reed"? The Nile bulrush (רצץ) has a goodly show; it rears itself aloft, and leeks strong and stately; but use it as a staff, lean upon it, and it snaps at once. Such is Pharaoh—nay, he is worse; he is a bruised reed, which can give no support at all, even for a moment. The Assyrian monarch was justified in his contempt. Egypt had never yet given any effectual support to the states attacked by Assyria Shebek gave no manner of aid to Hoshea, but allowed Samaria to be conquered in B.C. 722 without making the slightest effort on her behalf. In B.C. 720 he came to the aid of Gaza, but Gaza was captured notwithstanding. In B.C. 711 either he or Sabatok undertook the protection of Ashdod, but with the same lack of success. "Kings of Egypt" assisted the Ascalonites against Sennacherib himself in B.C. 701, and were again completely defeated. Sargon calls the King of Egypt, whoso aid was invited by the Ashdedites, "a monarch who could not save them." On which if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce it; i.e. trust in Egypt will not only bring a country no advantage, but it will bring positive injury. The sharp siliceous casing of a reed might run into the hand and give an ugly wound. So is Pharaoh King of Egypt unto all that trust on him. Sargon in one place speaks of a King of Egypt under the title of "Pharaoh." 2 Kings 18:22 But if ye say unto me, We trust in the Lord our God. Sennacherib had also heard of this second ground of trust, which Hezekiah had certainly put forward with great openness (2 Chronicles 32:8). No doubt he thought it purely fantastical and illusory. But he was not unaware that it might inspire a determined resistance. He therefore condescended to argue against reliance on it. Is not that he, whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away? His counselors have suggested to Sennacherib a specious argument—How can Hezekiah confidently rely on the protection of the God of the land, Jehovah, when he has been employing himself for years in the destruction of this very God’s high places and altars? Surely the God will not favor one who has been pulling down his places of worship! Putting out of sight the special requirements of the Jewish Law, the argument might well seem unanswerable. At any rate, it was calculated to have a certain effect on the minds of those who were attached to the high-place worship, and desired its continuance. And hath said to Judah and Jerusalem, Ye shall worship before this altar in Jerusalem. A weak argument, if addressed to Jews of Jerusalem only, but likely to have weight with the country Jews, if, as is probable, they had crowded into the city when the invasion began. 2 Kings 18:23 Now therefore, I pray thee, give pledges to my lord the King of Assyria, and I will deliver thee two thousand horses, if thou be able on thy part to set riders upon them. "Pledge thyself," i.e. "to find the men, and I will pledge myself to find the horses." It is a strong expression of contempt for the military power of the Jews. They have not only no trained cavalry, but, were any one to furnish them with two thousand horses, they could not find the men to ride them. The Jewish army does, in fact, appear to have consisted of infantry and chariots only. 2 Kings 18:24 How then wilt thou turn away the face of—i.e. "repulse, "cause to retreat"—one captain of the least of my master’s servants; literally, one governor—the word used is that which in modern times takes the form of "pasha," or "pacha." It properly applies to the rulers of provinces; but as these were expected to collect and command, upon occasions, the troops of their province, it has a secondary sense of "commander" or "captain." And put thy trust; rather, and thou puttest thy trust—in this extremity of weakness, so far as thine own forces are concerned, thou art so foolish as to put thy trust in Egypt, and to expect that her strength will make up for thine own impotence. Vain hope! (see 2 Kings 18:21). On Egypt for chariots and for horsemen? or, chariots and chariot-men. 2 Kings 18:25 Am I now come up without the Lord against this place to destroy it? The Lord said to me, Go up against this land, and destroy it. The Assyrian monarchs constantly state that Asshur, their "great god," directs them to make war against this or that nation, but not that the god of the country to be attacked does so. It is difficult to account for Sennacherib’s very exceptional boast, "Jehovah said to me. Go up against this laud." Perhaps he identifies "Jehovah" with "Asshur." Perhaps he has heard of prophecies, uttered in the name of Jehovah, by Jewish prophets, which threatened the land with desolation at the hand of the Assyrians (e.g. Isaiah 7:17-24; Isaiah 10:5-12; Joe 2:1-11, etc.). Or he may have made the statement in mere bravado, as one that might frighten some, and at any rate could not be contradicted. 2 Kings 18:26 Then said Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and Shebna, and Joah, unto Rabshakeh, Speak, I pray thee, to thy servants in the Syrian language; literally, in the Aramaic language. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Assyrian were three cognate languages, closely allied, and very similar both in their grammatical forms and in their vocabularies, but still sufficiently different to be distinct languages, which were only intelligible to those who had learnt them. Rabshakeh had addressed the Jewish officials in Hebrew, probably as the language which they would best understand, if it were not even the only one that they would understand; not with the express "object of influencing the common people," as Bahr supposes. But the Jewish officials feared that the words uttered were influencing them. They proposed, therefore, that the further negotiations should be conducted in Aramaic, a tongue which they understood, and one which they supposed that Rabshakeh, as he knew Hebrew, would also know. Aramaic was spoken in most of the tract that lay between Assyria and Palestine, in Syria and Damascus certainly, in Upper Mesopotamia, along the line of the Euphrates, and perhaps as far as the Khabour river. For we understand it. It is not likely that the Jews of this time generally understood Aramaic; but high officials of the court, who might have to deal with embassies and negotiate treaties, found it necessary to understand it, just as such persons in our own country have to know French. And talk not with us in the Jews’ language in the ears of the people that are on the wall. Besides the sentinels and other soldiers, there would probably be many idlers upon the wall, attracted by the unwonted spectacle of an ambassadorial cortege, and anxious to pick up intelligence. The loud voices of Orientals would be heard to a considerable distance. 2 Kings 18:27 But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall? An intolerable speech on the part of an envoy, and one which might have justified an order to send an arrow through his head. Ambassadors are accredited by governments to governments, and the safe conduct granted to them is on the understanding that they will conduct themselves according to established usage. In no state of society can it have been allowable for envoys to intervene between the governors and the governed, and endeavor to stir up discontent among the latter. Yet this is what Rabshakeh did, and boasted of doing. Well might Isaiah say of such an arrogant and lawless aggressor, "He hath broken the covenant, he hath despised the cities, he regardeth no man" (see Isaiah 33:8). That they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you? Rabshakeh means to say that the effect of the men "sitting on the wall," and continuing the defense of the town, will be to bring them to the last extremity of hunger and thirst, when they will be forced even to consume their own excrement. 2 Kings 18:28 Then Rabshakeh stood and cried with aloud voice in the Jews’ language, and spake, saying. Rabshakeh had probably been sitting before. He now stood up to attract attention, and raised his voice to be the better heard. Still speaking Hebrew, and not Aramaic, he addressed himself directly to the people on the wall, soldiers and others, doing the very opposite to what he had been requested to do, and outraging all propriety. History scarcely presents any other instance of such coarse and barefaced effrontery, unless the affronts put upon a Danubian principality by the envoy of a "great Power" may be regarded as constituting a parallel. Hear the word of the great king, the King of Assyria. It is scarcely likely that Sennacherib had anticipated his envoy’s action, much less directed it, and told him exactly what he was to say. But Rabshakeh thinks his words will have more effect if he represents them as those of his master. 2 Kings 18:29 Thus saith the king, Let not Hezekiah deceive you. Rabshakeh and his master, no doubt, both of them thought Hezekiah’s grounds of confidence would prove fallacious, and that all who should trust in them would find themselves "deceived." There were but two grounds that Hezekiah could possibly put forward: (1) deliverance by human means—by his own armed strength and that of his allies; (2) deliverance by supernatural means—by some great manifestation of miraculous power on the part of Jehovah. Rabshakeh thinks both equally impossible. The first, however, is too absurd for argument, and he therefore takes no further notice of it; but the second he proceeds to combat, in 2 Kings 18:33-35. For he shall not be able to deliver you out of his hand. Correct grammar requires "out of my hand;" but Rabshakeh forgets that he is professing to report the words of Sennacherib. 2 Kings 18:30 Neither let Hezekiah make you trust in the Lord. Rabshakeh seems to be aware that this is the argument which Hezekiah is, in point of fact, mainly urging. If at one time he had trusted in Egypt, that trust was now quite or well-nigh gone. The tone of his exhortations was that recorded in Chronicles (2 Chronicles 32:6-8), "He set captains of war over the people, and gathered them together to him in the street of the gate of the city, and spake comfortably to them, saying, Be strong and courageous, be not afraid nor dismayed for the King of Assyria, nor for all the multi-rude that is with him: for there be more with us than with him [see 2 Kings 6:16]; with him is an arm of flesh; but with us is the Lord our God to help us, and to fight our battles. And the people rested themselves upon the words of Hezekiah King of Judah." Saying, The Lord will surely deliver us, and this city shall not be delivered into the hand of the King of Assyria. Hezekiah’s was, in part, a general conviction that God would not forsake his people, who had recently turned to him, if not with absolute sincerity, yet at any rate with public confession of sin, and public acknowledgment of his mercies, and public profession of an intention to serve him; in part, probably, a special reliance on some definite prophecies of Isaiah, that the city should not be taken (see Isaiah 31:4-6; Isaiah 34:1-17:20-22). 2 Kings 18:31 Hearken not to Hezekiah: for thus saith the King of Assyria. Rabshakeh, before concluding, tries the effect of blandishments. The King of Assyria is no harsh lord, as he has been represented to them. He will be a kinder master than Hezekiah. Hezekiah condemns them to all the hardships of a siege; and then, if they survive it, to a wasted land, ruined homes, broken cisterns. Sennacherib, if they will but yield to him, promises them peace and prosperity, a time of quiet enjoyment in their own land, and then removal to another equally good, where they will "live and not die," be happy and not miserable. It will be observed that none but material inducements are held out to them. They are expected to barter freedom, independence, religious privileges, country, home, for the sake of creature comforts—for ease, quiet, and security. Setting aside the question whether they could count on the performance of the promises made them, it will be felt that they did well not to be tempted. Better vigorous national life, with any amount of hardship, struggle, and suffering, than the gilded chains of the most peaceful servitude. Make an agreement with me by a present—rather, make peace with me, or "make terms with me" (Knobel, Thenius, Keil, Bahr); in other words, give in your submission—and come out to me; i.e. quit the town, surrender it (see 1 Samuel 11:3; Jeremiah 21:9; Jeremiah 38:17), place yourselves at my mercy, "and then" see what great things I will do for you." The tone, as Bahr says, is one of "wheedling" and cajolement. And then eat ye every man of his own vine, and every one of his fig tree. Proverbial expressions for a peaceful, happy time (see 1 Kings 4:25; Micah 4:4; Zechariah 3:10), when there are no inroads, no ravages, no disturbances. Rabshakeh promises, in the name of Sennacherib, that they shall rest in their own land for a term—an indefinite term—in a blissful state of peace and quietness before any new resolution is taken about them. And drink ye every one the waters of his cistern; rather, of his well (בר). Every man who had a field or a vineyard was sure to have a well in it. Cisterns for the storage of rain-water were comparatively uncommon. 2 Kings 18:32 Until I come and take you away to a land like your own land. Rabshakeh did not dissemble the fact that they must look for a transplantation. Probably he felt that, if he did, he would not be believed. The transplantations had been too numerous and too recent, the examples of Samaria, Damascus, Hamath, Ashdod, etc; were too notorious, for it to be worth his while to pretend that Judaea would have any other fate. He therefore set himself the task of persuading the Jews that transplantation had nothing about it displeasing or even disagreeable—that, in fact, they were to be envied rather than pitied for being about to experience it. The King of Assyria, in the goodness of his paternal breast, would select for them a land as nearly as possible "like their own land"—a land teeming with corn and wine and oil, full of rich arable tracts, of vineyards and of olive-grounds, which would yield them those fruits of the earth to which they were accustomed, in abundance. What security they had that these promises would be fulfilled, he did not attempt to show them; much less did he explain to them why, if they were to gain rather than lose, it was worth while transplanting them at all; how that transplanted nations lost all spirit and patriotism, sank into apathy, and gave no trouble to their masters. A land of corn and wine, a land of bread and vineyards, a land of oil olive and of honey (comp. Deuteronomy 8:8, Deuteronomy 8:9, which has, no doubt, affected the language of the reporter, who gives the general tenor of Rabshakeh’s speech, but could not have taken down or have remembered his exact words) that ye may live, and not die—as you win if you follow Hezekiah’s advice—and [therefore] hearken not unto Hezekiah, when he persuadeth—i.e; seeketh to persuade—you, saying, The Lord will deliver us (see the comment on 2 Kings 18:30). 2 Kings 18:33 Hath any of the gods of the nations delivered at all his land out of the hand of the King of Assyria? To Rabshakeh, and the Assyrians generally, this seemed a crushing and convincing, absolutely unanswerable, argument. It had all the force of what appeared to them a complete induction. As far back as they could remember, they had always been contending with different tribes and nations, each and all of whom had had gods in whom they trusted, and the result had been uniform—the gods had been unequal to the task of protecting their votaries against Assyria: how could it be imagined that Jehovah would prove an exception? If he was not exactly, as Knobel calls him, "the insignificant god of an insignificant people," yet how was he better or stronger than the others—than Chemosh, or Moloch, or Rim-moll, or Baal, or Ashima, or Khaldi, or Bel, or Merodach? What had he done for the Jews hitherto? Nothing remarkable, so far as the Assyrians knew; for their memories did not reach back so far as the time of Asa and the deliverance from Zerah, much less to the conquest of Canaan or the Exodus. He had not ’saved the trans-Jordanic tribes from Tiglath-pileser, or Samaria from his successors. Was it not madness to suppose that he would save Judaea from Sennacherib? A heathen reasoner could not see, could not be expected to see, the momentous difference; that the gods of the other countries were "no gods" (2 Kings 19:18), while Jehovah was "the Lord of the whole earth." 2 Kings 18:34 Where are the gods of Hamath, and of Arpad? Hamath and Arpad had been recently conquered by Sargon. Of the latter city but little is known, net even its site. We find it generally connected with Damascus and Hamath, and may conjecture that it lay between them, either in Coele-Syria or in the Anti-Libanus. (On Hamath, see the commentary upon 2 Kings 14:25; and for its special god, Ashima, see that on 2 Kings 17:30.) Where are the gods of Sepharvaim, Hens, and Ivah?, see the comment on 2 Kings 17:24 and 2 Kings 17:31.) "Hena," mentioned always with Sepharvaim and Ivah (2 Kings 19:13; Isaiah 38:13), is probably Allah on the Euphrates, about seventy miles above Hit (Ivah). Nothing is known of its gods. Probably Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivah had rebelled in conjunction, and been re-conquered at no distant date. Sargon mentions in his annals that he besieged and took Sepharvaim (Sippara) in his twelfth year. Have they delivered Samaria out of mine hand? There is probably some compression of the original narrative here. The meaning is, "Have they delivered their several cities, or has the god of Samaria delivered his city out of my hand?" No god had hitherto delivered any city which the Assyrians had attacked. 2 Kings 18:35 Who are they among all the gods of the countries—i.e; the countries with which Assyria had been at war—that have delivered their country out of mine hand, that the Lord should deliver Jerusalem out of mine hand? Produce an example of deliverance," Rabshakeh means to say, "before you speak of deliverance as probable, or even possible. If you cannot, relinquish the hope, and submit yourselves." Rabshakeh cannot conceive the idea that Jehovah is anything but a local god, on a par with all the other gods of the countries. 2 Kings 18:36 But the people held their peace, and answered him not a word. All Rabshakeh’s efforts to produce open disaffection failed. Whatever impression his arguments may have made, no indication was given that they had produced any. If, then, he had hoped to bring about a mutiny, or even to create a disturbance, he was disappointed. For the king’s commandment was, saying, Answer him not. Hezekiah had either anticipated Rabshakeh’s tactics, and given an order beforehand that no word should be uttered, or he had promptly met them by sending such an order, on learning Rabshakeh’s proceedings, The latter is more probable, since such an outrageous course as that which Rabshakeh had pursued can scarcely have been expected. 2 Kings 18:37 Then came Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, which was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph the recorder, to Hezekiah with their clothes rent. They had rent their clothes, not so much in grief or in alarm, as in horror at Rabshakeh’s blasphemies. They were blasphemies, no doubt, arising from "invincible ignorance," and not intended as insults to the one Almighty Being who rules the earth, of whose existence Rabshakeh had probably no conception; but they struck on Jewish ears as insults to Jehovah, and therefore as dreadful and horrible (comp. Genesis 37:29; 1 Samuel 4:12; 2 Samuel 1:2; Ezra 9:3, etc.). And told him the words of Rabshakeh; reported to him, i.e. as nearly as they could, all that Rabshakeh had said. The three envoys would supplement, and perhaps correct, one another; and Hezekiah would have conveyed to him a full and, on the whole, exact account of the message sent to him through Rabshakeh by the Assyrian king, and of Rabshakeh’s method of enforcing it. The crisis of Hezekiah’s life was reached. As he acted under it would be fixed his own fate, his character in the judgment of all future time, and the fate of his own country. 2 Kings 18:4 Iconoclasm right or wrong, judicious or injudicious, according to circumstances. The destruction of the brazen serpent of Moses by Hezekiah has always been a favorite argument with extreme iconoclasts for their extreme views. In the time of Henry VIII; and still more in that of Cromwell, statuary was destroyed or mutilated, precious pictures were burnt, priceless stained-glass windows were shivered to atoms, by those with whom a main justification of their conduct was the example of Hezekiah. Let that example, then, be considered, both in respect of what Hezekiah did, and of what he did not do. I. WHAT DID. 1. He removed the high places, which were distinctly contrary to the Law, since the Law allowed sacrifice in one place only—before the ark of the covenant, in the tabernacle, or at Jerusalem. 2. He brake down the "images," or idolatrous emblems of Baal—mere pillars probably, which were the objects of an actual worship. 3. He cut down the groves, or idolatrous emblems of Ashtoreth—"sacred trees," also the objects of worship. 4. He brake in pieces the brazen serpent, to which the Israelites had for some time been in the habit of offering incense. II. WHAT DID NOT DO. Hezekiah did not understand the second commandment in any other sense than Solomon. He allowed the ministry of art to religion. He left untouched the carved figures of cherubim and palm-trees and open flowers upon the walls of the temple (1 Kings 6:29). He left untouched the brazen lavers, on the borders of which were lions, oxen, and cherubim (1 Kings 7:29). He probably restored to their place, he certainly did not destroy, the twelve oxen (Jeremiah 52:20) which Solomon had made to support his "brazen sea" (1 Kings 7:25), and which Ahaz had removed from the temple (2 Kings 16:17). He himself added to the gold ornamentation of the doors and pillars (2 Kings 18:16). It is evident, therefore, that Hezekiah’s iconoclasm was limited to those objects which were being actually abused to idolatrous uses at the time when he destroyed them. He did not spy around him, scenting peril of idolatry in every image or other representation of natural forms that had come down to him from former ages, even when they were employed in the service of religion. He was on the side of a rich and gorgeous and artistic ceremonial, of a musical service (2 Chronicles 29:25-27), a highly ornamented sanctuary, a "house" as "magnifical" as art could make it (1 Chronicles 22:5). He recognized that the preservation of artistic objects devoted to religion was the rule, destruction of them the rare exception, only justified (1) where idolatrous abuse had actually crept in; and (2) where such idolatrous abuse still continued. An observance of these wise limitations would have saved much that is now irrevocably lost in the past, and may be required to save what remains to us of religious art in the future. 2 Kings 18:5-7 God’s service not really a hard service. God’s service is not the hard service that some suppose it to be. No doubt it involves a certain amount of pain and suffering. For, first, there is no true service of God without self-denial; and self-denial is painful. Secondly, it involves chastening at the hand of God; for "whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth" (Hebrews 12:6); and chastening is "not joyous, but grievous’ (Hebrews 12:11). But there are to be set against these pains so many and so great compensations as leave a vast preponderance of advantage, and even enjoyment, to the godly over the ungodly. I. THE OF A GOOD . Just as there is nothing so painful, so depressing, so burdensome, as an evil conscience, the continually abiding sense of guiltiness and ill desert, so there is nothing which is a greater comfort to a man, more calculated to sustain him and maintain within him a perpetual quiet cheerfulness, than "the answer of a good conscience towards God" (1 Peter 3:21), the knowledge that one has striven and is striving to do God’s will, and that by God’s grace one has been kept from falling away from him. Notwithstanding their self-depreciation and self-distrust, good men have, on the whole, a self-approving conscience (Romans 2:15), which is a source of inward satisfaction and enjoyment. II. THE ESTEEM AND OF GOOD MEN. There is implanted in man a love of approbation, the gratification of which is the source of a very positive pleasure. Godly men, good men, whatever amount of dislike they may arouse among those whose designs they thwart, or to whom their lives are a continual reproach, elicit from the better sort a much greater amount of very warm and cordial approval. This cannot but be a satisfaction to them. The praise of men is not what they seek; but when it comes to them unsought, as it will almost certainly come at last, it cannot fail to be grateful and acceptable. III. ARISING FROM MAN’S RESPECT AND ESTEEM. The approval of our fellowmen naturally leads on to temporal advantages. Men place those whom they esteem in situations of trust, which are also, generally or frequently, situations of emolument. They make them presents or leave them legacies. They give them their custom, and recommend their friends to do the same. The worldly maxim, "Honesty is the best policy," witnesses to the worldly advantage which accrues, by mere natural causation, to the upright, honest man. "All things work together for good to them that love God;" and, generally speaking, even this world’s goods seem to gather round them, and to cling to them, in spite of their slight esteem for earthly dross, and their proneness to scatter their riches on those around them. IV. ARISING FROM THE DIRECT ACTION OF DIVINE . Of this we have in Hezekiah a notable example. He "clave to the Lord, and departed not from following him, but kept his commandments … and the Lord was with him; and he prospered whithersoever he went forth." The Divine blessing rested on all that he did; God "prospered him in all his works." When he seemed at the point of death, he miraculously recovered from his sickness, and God added to his life fifteen years (2 Kings 20:6). When he provoked a judgment by indiscreet ostentation, the boon was granted him that the judgment should not fall in his days (2 Kings 20:19). When an overwhelming calamity seemed about to fall upon him, and to crush both him and his nation, the catastrophe was averted by a stupendous miracle—the Assyrian host was destroyed, and the peril escaped (2 Kings 19:35). "Riches and honor exceeding much" were given him (2 Chronicles 32:27), and he was "magnified in the sight of all the nations" (2 Chronicles 32:23). It may be said that all this was abnormal, and belonged to "the age of miracles;" but the principles of God’s action do not change, and if we examine human life at the present day dispassionately, we shall find that still, as general rule, if men cleave to the Lord, and keep his commandments, and depart not from following him, he will be with them, and will, more or less, prosper them. 2 Kings 18:13-17 The danger of trusting to a purchased peace. I. IN THE HISTORY OF NATIONS a purchased peace is seldom more enduring or more trustworthy than this peace which Hezekiah bought of Sennacherib. Once successful in extorting money by threats, why should an enemy refrain from repeating the process? Why should he stop till he has squeezed the sponge dry, and there is no more to be got from his victim? Even then, why should he not step in and execute his original threat of destruction and ruin? So Samaria found when she gave her thousand talents to the Assyrians (2 Kings 15:19). So Rome found when she bribed Attila and Alaric. So will all nations ever find who seek to prolong their lives a little bit by paying for being let alone. And so also— II. IS THE HISTORY OF . Persons frequently get themselves into some trouble or other, which they do not wish to be known, and their secret is discovered by some unscrupulous individual, who proceeds to trade upon it. What will they give him to remain silent? If they once consent to purchase a peace of their enemy, all peace in life is gone from them. A man’s appetite is only whetted by the first bribe, and still more by the second. "Increase of appetite doth grow by what it feeds on." Demand follows demand, threat follows threat. The blood-sucker is insatiate. True wisdom consists in not yielding to the first threat, in declining to purchase peace, and defying the enemy. He may as well do his worst at once as at last. It will generally be found that his worst is not so very bad. Even if it is, it is the just penalty which has to be paid for our past transgression, and which must be paid in some way or other, and at some time, here or hereafter. It is best for us that it should be paid soon; for the penalty of sin, if not so paid, is apt to be demanded at last with a heavy accumulation of interest. 2 Kings 18:20, 2 Kings 18:21 Bruised reeds. It is astonishing what trust is still placed, by generation after generation of mankind, in "bruised reeds." Whatever may be the case with individuals, mankind, the human race, learns nothing from experience. Men still trust implicitly in such "bruised reeds" as these— I. BIG . They think they are safe if they have sufficient "strength for the war." They go on increasing their military establishments, adding regiment to regiment, and battery to battery, and corps d’armee to corps d’armee. They count the armies of their neighbors; they reckon up man against man, and gun against gun, and ship against ship; and calculate, and plan, and act, as if the "multitude of an host"—the number of troops capable of being brought at once into the field—was everything. They forget that "it is nothing to the Lord to help, whether with many or with them that have no power" (2 Chronicles 14:11). They forget, or misread, history, and fail to note how often "the race has not been to the swift, nor the battle to the strong" (Ecclesiastes 9:11). II. ALLIES. Weak powers have always some "Egypt" to which they look for succor. Strong Powers count on "triple" or "quadruple" alliances to augment their strength, and render them irresistible. They forget how easily alliances are broken up, how sure they are to arouse discontents and jealousies, how little dependence can be placed on the promises of statesmen, or the persistence of a particular mood in a nation, or the view which a state may take of its interests. They forget that the friend of today may be the enemy of to-morrow, and may fail them at the moment of greatest need. III. AND . It is forgotten, or at any rate not borne steadily in mind, how intellect decays, how mental power lessens, as men grow old; how often under a prolonged strain the strongest intellect suddenly snaps and is no longer of any account. Nor is it generally felt and recognized how limited and imperfect even the greatest intellect always is—how incompetent to forecast all possibilities, or to deal with all emergencies. "The weakness of God is stronger than man, and the foolishness of God is wiser than man" (1 Corinthians 1:25). Man’s wisdom is at best a poor purblind wisdom, apt to err, apt to fail when most needed—a very "bruised reed" to trust in. IV. GOOD LUCK OR A STAR. The trust of the first Napoleon in his "star" is well known. It is not so well known, but it is sufficiently attested, that the third Napoleon had nearly as implicit a trust. Thousands of persons deem themselves "lucky," and trust in their "good luck," as if it were an actual tangible possession. Otherwise there would be far less gambling than there is. The poor peasants of Italy and Germany would Waste less money in lotteries, and the simpletons of England less in bets upon horses. Persons "luck" is, on the whole, probably about equal, and if a man has been "lucky" hitherto, he should expect to be "unlucky" in the future. V. TURNING UP. The phrase is a vulgar one, but it would need a long periphrasis to express the idea otherwise, and even then we might not make our meaning clear. Men who do not think themselves particularly lucky are still constantly waiting for "something to turn up," looking for it, trusting in it. The trust is made an excuse for idleness, for inaction, for waste of the best years of life, even for dissipated courses—for gambling, drinking, frequenting evil company. This "bruised reed" is more rotten even than most of the others. For the idler, the waster of his time, the haunter of smoking saloons, billiard-rooms, and race-courses, nothing ever does "turn up." He offers no temptation to steady business-like men to employ him. He does not seek work, and work is not very likely to seek him. He is an idler, and will remain an idler to the end of the chapter. There is no help for him, unless he gives up his silly trust, and betakes himself to a better one. BY C.H. IRWIN 2 Kings 18:1-8 The secret of a successful fife; or, trust in God, and its results. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Kings 19:1-37 SECOND OF AGAINST (continued). The chapter falls into four portions: (1) The sequel to the embassy of Rabshakeh (2 Kings 19:1-8); (2) the insulting letter of Sennacherib (2 Kings 19:9-14); (3) Hezekiah’s prayer, and God’s answer to it by the mouth of Isaiah (verses 15-34); and (4) the destruction of Sennacherib’s host, his hurried flight, and his murder at Nineveh by his sons (verses 35-37). The narrative runs parallel with that in Isaiah 37:1-38; with which it corresponds almost word for word. 2 Kings 19:1 And it came to pass, when King Hezekiah heard it, that he rent his clothes—following the example of his chief officers, who came into his presence "with their clothes rent" (see 2 Kings 18:37)—and covered himself with sackcloth. A sign of grief and self-humiliation (comp. Genesis 37:34; 2 Samuel 3:31; 2 Samuel 21:10; 1 Kings 20:31, 1 Kings 21:27; 2 Kings 6:30, etc.). It was natural that the king should be even more strongly affected than his ministers. And went into the house of the Lord; to open his griefs, ask counsel, and beg for aid. 2 Kings 19:2 And he sent Eliakim, which was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and the elders of the priests. "The elders of the priests" are aged men holding the priestly office, not necessarily the high priest, or the most notable or most dignified of the priests. The king felt that his best hope, so far as man was concerned, lay in the prophetical order. Isaiah, Hosed, Joel, Micah, and perhaps Obadiah, were the prophets of the time; but it is not clear that any of them were accessible except Isaiah. He had been Ahaz’s counselor (Isaiah 7:4-16), and was now certainly among the regular counselors of Hezekiah. Moreover, he was in Jerusalem, and could readily be consulted. Hezekiah, therefore, sends to him in his distress, and sends a most honorable and dignified embassy. It is his intention to treat the prophet with the utmost respect and courtesy. No doubt, at this period the prophetical order stood higher than the priestly one in general estimation; and not unworthily. If any living man could give the king sound advice under the circumstances, it was the son of Amoz. Covered with sackcloth. Probably by the king’s command. Hezekiah wished to emphasize his own horror and grief in the eyes of the prophet, and could only do so by making his messengers assume the garb which he had judged suitable for himself on the occasion. To Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz. Nothing morels known of Amoz beyond his being Isaiah’s father. He is not to be confounded with the Prophet Amos, whose name is spelt quite differently: עָמוֹס, not אמוֹץ. 2 Kings 19:3 And they said unto him, Thus saith Hezekiah, This day is a day of trouble, and of rebuke, and of Blasphemy. Of "trouble," or "distress," manifestly—a day on which the whole nation is troubled, grieved, alarmed, distressed, made miserable. It is also a day of "rebuke," or rather of "chastisement"—a day on which God’s hand lies heavy upon us and chastises us for our sins. And it is a day, not of "blasphemy," but of "abhorrence" or of "contumely"—a day on which God contumeliously rejects his people, and allows them to be insulted by their enemies (see the comments of Keil and Bahr). For the children are come to the birth, and there is not strength to bring forth. A proverbial expression, probably meaning that a dangerous crisis approaches, and that the nation has no strength to carry it through the peril. 2 Kings 19:4 It may be the Lord thy God—still "thy God," at any rate, if he will not condescend to be called ours, since we have so grievously offended him by our many sins and backslidings—will hear all the words of Rabshakeh. "The words of Rabshakeh" (Isaiah 37:4); but the expression here used is more emphatic. Hezekiah hoped that God would "hear" Rabshakeh’s words, would note them, and punish them. Whom the King of Assyria his master hath sent to reproach the living God (For the "reproaches" intended, see 2 Kings 18:30-35. For the expression, "the living God," אֱלצִים צַי, see Deuteronomy 5:26; Joshua 3:10; 1 Samuel 17:26; Psalms 42:2; Psalms 84:2; Hosea 1:10, etc.) A contrast is intended between the "living" God, and the dead idols whom Rabshakeh has placed on a par with him. And will reprove the words which the Lord thy God hath heard. The "words of Rabshakeh," his contemptuous words concerning Jehovah (2 Kings 18:33-35) and his lying words (2 Kings 18:25), constituted the new feature in the situation, and, while a ground for "distress," were also a ground for hope: would not God in some signal way vindicate his own honor, and "reprove" them? Wherefore lift up thy prayer for the remnant that are left. Sennacherib, in his former expedition, wherein he took forty-six of the Judaean cities, besides killing vast numbers, had, as he himself tells us, carried off into captivity 200,150 persons. He had also curtailed Hezekiah’s dominions, detaching from them various cities with their territories, and attaching them to Ashdod, Gaza, and Ekron. Thus it was only a "remnant" of the Jewish people that was left in the land (comp. Isaiah 1:7-9). 2 Kings 19:5 So the servants of King Hezekiah came to Isaiah. Superfluous, according to modern notions, but rounding off the paragraph commenced with verse 2. 2 Kings 19:6 And Isaiah said unto them, Thus shall ye say to your master. Isaiah seems to have been ready with a reply. The news of the words spoken by Rabshakeh had probably flown through the city, and reached him, and he had already laid the matter before God, and received God’s instructions concerning it. He was therefore able to return an answer at once. Thus saith the Lord, Be not afraid of the words which thou hast heard, with which the servants—rather, lackeys; the term used is not the common one for "servants," viz. עַבְדֵי, but a contemptuous one, נַעֲרֵי, "foot-boys," or "lackeys"—of the King of Assyria have blasphemed me. 2 Kings 19:7 Behold, I will send a blast upon him. The meaning is doubtful. Most modern critics translate, with the LXX; "I will put a spirit within him," and understand "a spirit of cowardice," or "a despondent mood" (Thenius), or "an extraordinary impulse of Divine inspiration, which is to hurry him blindly on" (Drechsler). But the idea of our translators, that the blast (רוּה) is external, and sent upon him, not put in him—that, in fact, the destruction of his army is referred to, seems defensible by such passages as Exodus 15:8 and Isaiah 25:4. The prophecy was, no doubt, intentionally vague—enough for its immediate purpose, which was to comfort and strengthen Hezekiah—but not intended to gratify man’s curiosity by revealing the exact mode in which God would work. And he shall hear a rumor; literally, he shall hear a hearsay; i.e. he shall be told something, which shall determine him on a hasty retreat. It is best, I think, to understand, not news of Tirhakah’s advance (Knobel, Keil, Bahr), much less news of an insurrection in some other part of the empire (Cheyne), but information of the disaster to his army. It is no objection to this that Sennacherib was "with his army." No doubt he was. But he would learn the catastrophe from the mouth of some one who came into his tent and told him—he would "hear a hearsay" And shall return to his own land (see verse 36), and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land. (On Sennacherib’s murder, see the comment upon verse 37.) 2 Kings 19:8 So Rabshakeh returned. Rabshakeh’s embassy came to an end with the retirement of Hezekiah’s officers from their conference with the three envoys of Sennacherib. No further communication was held with him. He had outraged all propriety by his appeal to the "men upon the wall" (2 Kings 18:27-35); and it seems to have been thought most dignified to give him no answer at all. He had offered no terms—he had simply delivered a summons to surrender, and the closed gates and guarded walls were a sufficient reply. So he felt, and returned to his master, re infecta. And found the King of Assyria warring against Libnah. The position of Libnah relatively to Lachish is uncertain. The site of Lachish may be regarded as fixed to Um-Lakis; but that of Libnah rests wholly on conjecture. It has been placed at Tel-es-Safieh, twelve miles northeast of Um-Lakis; at Arak-el-Menshiyeh, about five miles nearly due east of the same; and near Umm-el-Bikar, four miles south-east of Um-Lakis. A removal from Um-Lakis to Tel-el-Safieh would mean a retreat. A march from Um-Lakis to either of the other sites would he quite compatible with an intention to push on to Egypt. For he had heard that he was departed from Lachish. Whether Lachish had been taken or not cannot be determined from these words. But we can scarcely suppose that a place of such slight strength can have defied the Assyrian arms successfully. It is beat therefore to suppose, with Keil and Thenius, that Lachish had been taken. 2 Kings 19:9-14 Sennacherib’s letter to Hezekiah. Sennacherib seems to have been induced to write to Hezekiah by the fact that he could not march against him at once. A forward movement on the part of Tirhakah was reported to him (2 Kings 19:9), and he thought it necessary to meet, or at least watch it. But he must vent his anger on the rebel Judaean monarch in some way. He sends a letter, therefore, as more weighty and impressive than a mere message. He warns Hezekiah against being himself deceived by Jehovah (2 Kings 19:10); and he expands his inductive argument in proof of the irresistible might of Assyria, by an enumeration of four more recent conquests (2 Kings 19:12). Otherwise, he does little but repeat what Rabshakeh had already urged. 2 Kings 19:9 And when he heard say of Tirhakah King of Ethiopia. Tirhakah was one of the most distinguished of the later Egyptian monarchs. An Ethiopian by birth, and originally ruling from Napata over the Upper Nile valley from the First Cataract to (perhaps) Khartoum, he extended his dominion over Egypt probably about B.C. 700, maintaining, however, Shabatok, as a sort of puppet-king, upon the throne. About B.C. 693 he succeeded Shabatok, and held the throne till B.C. 667, being engaged in many wars with the Assyrians. The native form of his name is "Tahrak" or "Tahark," the Assyrian "Tarku" or "Tarqu," the Greek "Taracos" or "Tearchon." He has left numerous memorials in Egypt and Ethiopia, and was regarded by the Greeks as a great conqueror. At the time of Sennacherib’s second attack on Hezekiah he was, as appears in the text, not yet King of Egypt, but only of Ethiopia. Still, he regarded Egypt as practically under his suzerainty, and when it was threatened by Sennacherib’s approach, he marched to the rescue. Behold, he is come out to fight against thee. He may have regarded himself as bound in honor to come to the relief of Hezekiah, or he may have been simply bent on defending his own territory. He sent messengers again unto Hezekiah, saying, 2 Kings 19:10 Thus shall ye speak to Hezekiah King of Judah, saying. The messengers brought a "letter" (סְפָדִים), as we see from 2 Kings 19:14; but still they were to "speak to Hezekiah"—i.e. they were first to read the contents to him, and then to hand him the copy. Let not thy God in whom thou trustest deceive thee, saying, Jerusalem shall not be delivered into the hand of the King of Assyria. Sennacherib drops the fiction that he himself is sent by Jehovah to attack Judaea and destroy it (2 Kings 18:25), and contents himself with suggesting that any announcements which Hezekiah may have received from his God are untrustworthy. Probably he spoke his convictions. He did not think it possible that Jerusalem could resist or escape him (comp. Isaiah 10:8-11 and Isaiah 10:13, Isaiah 10:14). 2 Kings 19:11 Behold, thou hast heard what the kings of Assyria have done to all lands, by destroying them utterly (see the comment on 2 Kings 18:33). The fact was indisputable (secret. 17). The question remained—Would this triumphant career of success necessarily continue? And shalt thou be delivered? A perfect induction is impossible in practical matters. Anything short of a perfect induction is short of a proof. 2 Kings 19:12 Have the gods of the nations delivered them which my fathers have destroyed? The Assyrian kings always speak of all their predecessors as their ancestors. In point of fact, Sennacherib bad had only one "father" among the previous kings, viz. Sargon. As Gozan (see the comment on 2 Kings 17:6). It is uncertain at what time Gozan was finally conquered and absorbed. It was frequently overrun by the Assyrians from the reign of Tiglath-pileser I.; but it was probably not absorbed until about B.C. 809. The Prefect of Gozan first appears in the list of Assyrian Eponyms in B.C. 794. And Haran. "Haran" is generally admitted to be the city of Terah (Genesis 11:32), and indeed there is no rival claimant of the name. Its position was in the western part of the Gauzanitis region, on the Belik, about lat. 36° 50’ N. It was probably conquered by Assyria about the same time as Gozan. And Reseph. A town called "Razappa," probably "Rezeph," appears in the Assyrian inscriptions from an early date. It is thought to have been in the near vicinity of Haran, but had been conquered and absorbed as early as B.C. 818. Whether it is identical with the Resapha of Ptolemy (’Geograph.,’ 5.15) is doubtful. And the children of Eden. Probably the inhabitants of a city called "Bit-Adini" in the Assyrian inscriptions, which was on the Middle Euphrates, not far from Carchemish, on the left bank. This place was conquered by Asshur-nazir-pal, about B.C. 877. Which were in Thelasar. "Thelasar" is probably the Hebrew equivalent of "Tel-Asshur," "the hill or fort of Asshur," which may have been the Assyrian name of Bit-Adini, or of a city dependent on it. Asshur-nazir-pal gave Assyrian names to several cities on the Middle Euphrates. 2 Kings 19:13 Where is the King of Hamath. Ilu-bid, King of Hamath, raised a rebellion against Sargon in B.C. 720, and was taken prisoner the same year and carried to Assyria. And the King of Arpad. Arpad revolted in conjunction with Hamath, and was reduced about the same time. Its "king" is not mentioned, but he probably shared the fate of Ilu-bid. And the King of the city of Sepharvaim, of Hens, and Ivah? It is probably not meant that these three cities were all of them under the dominion of one and the same king. "King" is to be taken distributively. (On the sites of the cities, see the comment upon 2 Kings 18:34.) 2 Kings 19:14 And Hezekiah received the letter. It had not been previously stated that Sennacherib had written a letter. But the author forgets this, and so speaks of "the letter." Kings generally communicated by letters, and not merely by messages (see 2 Kings 5:5; 2 Kings 20:12; 2 Chronicles 2:11; Nehemiah 1:9, etc.). Of the hand of the messengers, and read it. Probably Sennacherib had caused it to be written in Hebrew. And Hezekiah went up into the house of the Lord, and spread it before the Lord. Not as if God would not otherwise know the contents of the letter, but to emphasize his detestation of the letter, and to make it silently plead for him with God. Ewald rightly compares what Judas Maccabaeus did with the disfigured copies of the Law at Maspha (1 Mace. 3:48), but incorrectly calls it "a laying down of the object in the sanctuary." Maspha was "over against" the temple, at the distance of a mile or more. 2 Kings 19:15 And Hezekiah prayed before the Lord, and said, O Lord God of Israel. In the parallel passage of Isa 37:16 we find, "O Lord of hosts, Cod of Israel." Our author probably abbreviates. Which dwellest between the cherubims; or, on the cherubim—"which hast thy seat," i.e; behind the veil in the awful holy of holies, consecrated to thee, and where thou dost manifest thyself." Hezekiah, as Keil observes, calls into prominence "the covenant relation into which Jehovah, the Almighty Creator and Ruler of the whole world, had entered towards Israel. As the covenant God, who was enthroned above the cherubim, the Lord was bound to help his people, if they turned to him with faith in the time of their distress and entreated his assistance." Thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth. Thou art not, i.e; as Sennacherib supposes, a mere local god, presiding over Judaea, and protecting it; but thou art the God of all the earth and of all its kingdoms, including his own, equally. Moreover, thou alone art the God of the kingdoms. Their supposed gods are no gods, have no existence, are the mere fictions of an idle and excited imagination, are mere "breath" and "nothingness." Thou hast made heaven and earth. Whereas they have done nothing, have given no proof of their existence (see Isaiah 41:23, Isaiah 41:24). 2 Kings 19:16 Lord, bow down thine ear, and hear. "Bow down thine ear" is a Hebrew idiom for "give ear," "attend "(see Psalms 31:2; Psalms 71:2; Psalms 86:1; Proverbs 22:17, etc.). It is based upon the fact that, when men wish to catch exactly what another says to them, they bend themselves towards him, and bring one ear as near to him as they can. Open, Lord, thine eyes, and see. Take cognizance both with eye and ear; i.e. take full cognizance—let nothing escape thee. And hear the words of Sennacherib, which hath sent him to reproach the living God; rather, which he has sent to reproach. The suffix translated "him" in our version really means "it"—i.e. the speech or letter of Sennacherib, which Hezekiah has "spread before the Lord." 2 Kings 19:17 Of a truth, Lord, the kings of Assyria—i.e. Sennacherib, and his predecessors—the long line of monarchs who have sat on the Assyrian throne for many past ages—have destroyed the nations and their lands; rather, have laid waste, as in the parallel passage of Isaiah (Isaiah 37:18). "Destroyed" is too strong a word. Hezekiah fully admits the boast of the Assyrian monarch, that he and his predecessors have had a wonderful career of success (comp. Isaiah 10:5-14); but he refuses to regard this past success as ensuring success in the future. All is in the hand of God, and will be determined as God pleases. It is not an iron necessity that rules the world, but a personal will, and this well may be affected by prayer, to which (verse 19) he therefore has recourse. 2 Kings 19:18 And have east their gods into the fire. The images worshipped by the various nations are regarded as "their gods," which they were, at any rate in the minds of the common people. The ordinary practice of the Assyrians was to carry off the images taken from a conquered people, and to set them up in their own country as trophies of victory (see Isaiah 46:1, Isaiah 46:2, where a similar practice is ascribed by anticipation to the Persians). But there are places in the inscriptions where the gods are said to have been "destroyed" or "burnt." It is reasonable to suppose that the images destroyed were those of wood, stone, and bronze, which had little or no intrinsic value, while the gold and silver idols were carried off to the land of the conqueror. No doubt idols of the former far outnumbered those of the latter kind, and, at each sack of a city the "gods" which it contained were mostly burnt. For they were no gods, but the work of men’s hands, wood and stone (comp. Isaiah 42:17; Isaiah 44:9-20; Isaiah 46:6, Isaiah 46:7). Wooden images (the Greek ξόανα) were probably the earliest that were made, and, on account of their antiquity, were often especially reverenced. They were "carved, but rude, with undivided feet, and eyes indicated by a line, the face colored red, or white, or gilt. It was only later that ivory and gold plates were commonly laid over the wood, vested and decked out with ornaments". Stone idols were at first shapeless masses, then pillars or cones, finally imitations of the human form, varying from the rudest representations to the priceless statues of Phidias. In Assyrian times, neither the wooden nor the stone idols were possessed of any artistic beauty. Therefore they have destroyed them. "Gods" of this kind could not help themselves, much less save their devotees or the cities supposed to be under their protection. It was not to be wondered at that the Assyrians had triumphed ever such gods. 2 Kings 19:19 New therefore, O Lord our God. Hezekiah draws the strongest possible contrast between Jehovah and the idols. Sennacherib had placed them upon a par (2 Kings 18:33-35; 2 Kings 19:10-13). Hezekiah insists that the idols are "no gods," are "nothing"—at any rate are mere blocks of wood and stone, shaped by human hands. But Jehovah is "the God of all the kingdoms of the earth" (2 Kings 19:15), the Maker of heaven and earth (2 Kings 19:15), the one and only God (2 Kings 19:19)—answering to his name, self-existing, all-sufficient, the groundwork of all other existence. And he is "our God"—the special God of Israel, bound by covenant to protect there against all enemies. I beseech thee, save thou us out of his hand; i.e. "do that which this proud blasphemer thinks that thou canst not do" (2 Kings 18:35); show him that thou art far mightier than he supposes, wholly unlike those "no-gods," over whom he has hitherto triumphed—a "very present Help in trouble"—potent to save. That all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou art the Lord God. The glory of God is the end of creation; and God’s true saints always bear the fact in mind, and desire nothing so much as that his glory should be shown forth everywhere and always. Moses, in his prayers for rebellious Israel in the wilderness, constantly urges upon God that it will not be for his glory to destroy or desert them (Exodus 32:12; Numbers 14:13-16; Deuteronomy 9:26-29). David, in his great strait, asks the destruction of his enemies, "that men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the Most High over all the earth" (Psalms 83:18); and again (Psalms 59:13), "Consume them in wrath, consume them, that they may not be; and let them know that God ruleth in Jacob unto the ends of the earth." Hezekiah prays for a signal vengeance on Sennacherib, not for his own sake, not even for his people’s sake, so much as for the vindication of God’s honor among the nations of the earth—that it may be known far and wide that Jehovah is a God who can help, the real Ruler of the world, against whom earthly kings and earthly might avail nothing. Even thou only. It would not satisfy Hezekiah that Jehovah should be acknowledged as a mighty god, one of many. He asks for such a demonstration as shall convince men that he is unique, that he stands alone, that he is the only mighty God in all the earth. 2 Kings 19:20 Then Isaiah the son of Amos sent to Hezekiah, saying. As Hezekiah prays, Isaiah is by Divine revelation made cognizant of his prayer, and commissioned to answer it favorably. That he sends his answer, instead of taking it, is indicative of the high status of the prophets at this period, which made it not unseemly that, in spiritual matters, they should claim at least equality with the monarch. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, That which thou hast prayed to me against Sennacherib King of Assyria I have heard. First of all, Hezekiah is assured that his prayer has been "heard." God has "bowed down his ear" to it (verse 16)—has taken it into his consideration, and has sent a reply. Then the reply follows, in fourteen verses arranged in four strophes or stanzas. The first (verses 21-24) and second (verses 25-28) are addressed to Sennacherib, and breathe a tone of scorn and contempt. The third (verses 29-31), is addressed to Hezekiah, and is encouraging and consolatory. The fourth (verses 32-34) is an assurance to all whom it may concern, that Jerusalem is safe, that Sennacherib will not take it, that he will not even commence its siege. 2 Kings 19:21 This is the word that the Lord hath spoken concerning him. "Him" is, of course, Sennacherib. It adds great liveliness and force to the opening portion of the oracle, that it should be addressed directly by Jehovah to Sennacherib, as an answer to his bold challenge. The only address at all similar in Scripture is that to Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 4:31, Daniel 4:32), spoken by "a voice from heaven" But the present passage is one of far greater force and beauty. The virgin the daughter of Zion; rather, the virgin daughter of Zion, or the virgin daughter, Zion. Cities were commonly personified by the sacred writers, and represented as "daughters" (see Isaiah 23:10, Isaiah 23:12; Isaiah 47:1, Isaiah 47:5, etc.). "Virgin daughter" here may perhaps represent "the consciousness of impregnability" (Drechsler); but the phrase seems to have been used rhetorically or poetically, to heighten the beauty or pathos of the picture (Isaiah 23:12; Isaiah 47:1; Jeremiah 46:11; Lamentations 2:13), without any reference to the question whether the particular city had or had not been previously taken. Jerusalem certainly had been taken by Shishak (1 Kings 14:26), and by Joash (2 Kings 14:13); but Zion, if it be taken as the name of the eastern city (Bishop Patrick, ad lee.), may have been still a "virgin fortress." Hath despised thee, and laughed thee to scorn; or, despises thee and laughs thee to scorn. The Hebrew preterite has often a present sense. Whatever was the case a little while ago (see Isaiah 22:1-14), the city now laughs at thy threats. The daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee; or, wags her head at thee—in scorn and ridicule (comp. Psalms 22:7). 2 Kings 19:22 Whom hast thou reproached and blasphemed? i.e. "Against whom hast thou been mad enough to measure thyself? Whom hast thou dared to insult and defy?" Not an earthly king—not a mere angelic being—but the Omnipotent, the Lord of earth and heaven. What utter folly is this! What mere absurdity? And against whom hast thou exalted thy voice? i.e. "spoken proudly"—in the tone in which a superior speaks of an inferior—and lifted up thine eyes on high?—i.e. "looked down upon"—treated with contempt, as not worth consideration—even against the Holy One of Israel. Isaiah’s favorite phrase—used by him twenty-seven times, and only five times in the rest of Scripture—marks this entire prophecy as his genuine utterance, net the composition of the writer of Kings, but a burst of sudden inspiration from the Coryphaeus of the prophetic band. The oracle bears all the marks of Isaiah’s elevated, fervid, and highly poetic style. 2 Kings 19:23 By thy messengers—literally, by the hand of thy messengers—Rabshakeh and others (see 2 Kings 18:30, 2 Kings 18:35; 2 Kings 19:10-13)—thou hast reproached the Lord, and but said. Sennacherib had net said what is here attributed to him, any more than Sargon had said the words ascribed to him in Isaiah 10:13, Isaiah 10:14. But he had thought it; and God accounts men’s deliberate thoughts as their utterances. Isaiah’s "oracle" brings out and places in a striking light the pride, self-confidence, and self-sufficiency which underlay Sennacherib’s messages and letters. With the multitude of my chariots; or, with chariots upon chariots. The chariot-force was the main arm of the Assyrian military service—that on which most dependence was placed, and to which victory was commonly attributed. The number of chariots that could be brought into the field by the Assyrians is nowhere stated; but we find nearly four thousand hostile chariots collected to oppose an ordinary Assyrian invasion, and defeated. The estimates of Cterias—eleven thousand for Ninas, and a hundred thousand for Semiramis (Died. Sic; Isaiah 2:5. § 4)—are, of course, unhistorical. I am come up to the height of the mountains. "The height of the mountains" is here the high ground which an army would have to traverse in passing from the Coele-Syrian valley into Palestine. It is not exactly Lebanon, which runs parallel with the coast, and certainly does not "guard Palestine to the north," as Keil supposes; But it may be viewed as a "side" or "flank" of Lebanon. In point of fact, Lebanon and Hermon unite their roots to form a barrier between the Coele-Syrian plain (El Buka’a) and the valley of the Jordan, and an invader from the north must cross this barrier. It is not so difficult or rugged but that the Assyrians could bring their chariots ever it. They were accustomed to traverse far more difficult regions in Zagros and Niphatos and Taurus, and to carry their chariots with them, dismounting when necessary, and having the vehicles lifted over obstacles by human hands. To the sides of Lebanon. An army which invades Palestine by the Coele-Syrian valley—quite the easiest and most usual line of invasion—necessarily passes along the entire eastern "side," or "flank," of Lebanon, which is the proper meaning of יַרְכָּה, and not "loftiest height" (Keil), or "innermost recess" (Revised Version). The plural, יַרְכְתֵי, is natural when a mountain range, like Lebanon, is spoken of. And will cut down the tall cedar trees thereof, and the choice fir trees thereof. The felling of timber in the Syrian mountain-chains was a common practice of the Assyrian invaders, and had two quite distinct objects. Sometimes it was mere cruel devastation, done to injure and impoverish the inhabitants; but more often it was done for the sake of the timber which the conqueror carried off into his own country. "The mountains of Amanus I ascended," says Asshur-nazir-pal; "wood for bridges, pines, box, cypress, I cut down … cedar-wood from Amanus I destined for Bit-Hira and my pleasure-house called Azmaku, and for the temple of the moon and sun, the exalted gods. I proceeded to the land of Iz-mehri, and took possession of it throughout: I cut down beams for bridges, and carried them to Nineveh". The cedar (erez) and the pine, or juniper (berosh), were in special request. And I will enter into the lodgings of his borders—rather, the lodge of its border—perhaps a palace or hunting-lodge on the outskirt of the Lebanon forest region (comp. Son 7:4)—and into the forest of his Carmel; rather, the forest of its orchard; i.e. the choicest part of the Lebanon forest region—the part which is rather park or orchard than mere forest. 2 Kings 19:24 I have digged and drunk strange waters; rather, perhaps, I dig, and drink … and dry up—the preterit having again a present sense. Sennacherib means that this is what he is wont to do. As mountains do not stop him (2 Kings 19:23), so deserts do not stop him—he digs wells in them, and drinks water "strange" to the soil—never before seen there. And with the sole of my feet have I dried up all the rivers of besieged places; rather, will I dry up all the rivers of Egypt (compare the Revised Version. "Mazor" is used for "Egypt" in Isaiah 19:6 and Micah 7:12). It is the old singular from which was formed the dual Mizraim. Whether it meant "land of strength" (Pusey), or "land of distress" (Ewald), may be doubted, since we have no right to assume a Hebrew derivation. There was probably a native word, from which the Hebrew Mazor, the Assyrian Muzr, and the Arabic Misr were taken. Sennacherib’s beast is that, as he makes deserts traversable by digging wells, so, if rivers try to stop him, he will find a way of drying them up. Compare the boasts of Alaric in Clau-dian, who had probably this passage of Kings in his thoughts— "To patior suadente fugam, cum cesserit omnis Obsequiis natura meis? Subsidere nostris Sub pedibus montes, arescere vidimus amnes Fregi Alpes, galeisque Padum victricibus hausi." 2 Kings 19:25 Hast thou not heard long ago how I have done it? The strain suddenly changes—the person of the speaker is altered. It is no longer Sennacherib who reveals the thoughts of his own heart, but Jehovah who addresses the proud monarch. "Hast thou not heard, how from long ago I have acted thus? Hast thou never been taught that revolutions, conquests, the rise and fall of nations, are God’s doing, decreed by him long, long age—ay, from the creation of the world? Art thou not aware that this is so, either from tradition, or by listening to the voice of reason within thine own heart?" It is implied that such knowledge ought to he in the possession of every man. And of ancient times that I have formed it? A rhetorical repetition of the previous question, needful for the balance of clauses, in which Hebrew poetry delights, but adding nothing to the sense. Now have I brought it to pass, that thou shouldest be to lay waste fenced cities into ruinous heaps. The idea was very familiar to Isaiah and his contemporaries. Years before, when Assyria first became threatening, Isaiah, speaking in the person of Jehovah, had exclaimed, "O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation. I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets" (Isaiah 10:5, Isaiah 10:6). But the heathen kings whom God made his instruments to chasten sinful nations imagined that they conquered and destroyed and laid waste by their own strength (see Isaiah 10:7-14). 2 Kings 19:26 Therefore their inhabitants were of small power; literally, were short of hand—unable, i.e; to make an effectual resistance. When God has decreed a change in the distribution of power among the nations, his providence works doubly. It infuses confidence and strength into the aggressive people, and spreads dismay and terror among those who are attacked. Unaccountable panics seize them—they seem paralyzed; instead of making every possible preparation for resistance, they fold their hands and do nothing. They are like fascinated birds before the stealthy advance of the serpent. They were dismayed and confounded. Historically, the prophet declares, this was the cause of the general collapse of the nations whom the Assyrians attacked. God put a craven fear into their hearts. They were as the grass of the field, and as the green herb, as the grass on the house-tops. The "grass of the field" is one of the most frequent similes for weakness. "All flesh is grass" (Isaiah 40:6); "They shall soon be cut down like the grass" (Psalms 37:2); "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth" (Isaiah 40:8); "I am withered like grass" (Psalms 102:11). In the hot sun of an Eastern sky nothing faded more quickly. But this weakness was intensified in the "grass of the house-tops." It "withered before it grew up" (Psalms 129:6). The depth of earth was so slight, the exposure so great, the heat so scorching, that it sank in death almost as soon as it had sprung to life. Such has been the weakness of the nations given over as a prey to the Assyrians. And as corn blasted before it be grown up. Corn blasted before it shoots into a stalk is as frail as grass, or frailer. It dwindles and disappears without even asserting itself. 2 Kings 19:27 But I know thy abode, and thy going out, and thy coming in. "Resting in peace, going out, and coming in, cover all the activity of a man" (Bahr), or rather, cover his whole life, active and passive. Jehovah claims an absolute knowledge of all that Sennacherib does or thinks, both when he is in action and when he is at rest. Nothing is hid from him (comp. Psalms 139:1-16). Human pride should stand abashed before such absolute knowledge. And thy rage against me. Opposition to their will fills violent men with fury and rage. Sennacherib’s anger was primarily against Hezekiah, but when once he was convinced that Hezekiah really trusted in Jehovah (2 Kings 19:10), his fury would turn against God himself (see Psalms 2:1-3, where the Lord’s anointed is primarily David). 2 Kings 19:28 Because thy rage against me, and thy tumult—rather, thy arrogancy (see the Revised Version); שׁאנן is rather the quiet security of extreme pride and self-confidence than "tumult"—is come up into mine ears—i.e. has attracted my notice—therefore I will put my hook in thy nose, and my bridle in thy lips. The imagery is most striking. Captive kings were actually so treated by the Assyrians themselves. A hook or split-ring was thrust through the cartilage of the nose, or the fleshy part of the under lip, with a rope or thong attached to it, and in this guise they were led into the monarch’s presence, to receive their final sentence at his hands. In the sculptures of Sargon at Khorsabad we see three prisoners brought before him in this fashion, one of whom he seems to be about to kill with a spear. In another sculpture set up by a Babylonian king, his vizier brings before him two captives similarly treated, but with the ring, apparently, passed through the cartilage of their noses Manasseh seems to have received the same treatment at the hands of the "captains" (2 Chronicles 33:11) who brought him a prisoner to Esarhaddon at Babylon. Other allusions to the practice in Scripture will be found in Isaiah 30:28; Ezekiel 29:4; Ezekiel 38:4. The threat in the present passage was, of course, not intended to be understood life-rally, but only as a declaration that God would bring down the pride of Sennacherib, humiliate him, and reduce him to a state of abject weakness and abasement. And I will turn thee back by the way by which thou camest (comp. verse 33). The meaning is clear. Sennacherib would not be allowed to come near Jerusalem. He would hurry back by the low coast route (2 Kings 18:17), by which he had made his invasion. 2 Kings 19:29 And this shall be a sign unto thee. Another sudden change in the address. The prophet turns from Sennacherib to Hezekiah, and proceeds to give him a sign, and otherwise speak to him encouragingly. Signs were at the time freely offered and given by God both to the faithful and the unfaithful (see 2 Kings 20:4; Isaiah 7:11, Isaiah 7:14). They generally consisted in the prediction of some near event, whose occurrence was to serve as a pledge, or evidence, of the probable fulfillment of another prediction of an event more distant. Such signs are not necessarily miraculous. Ye shall eat this year such things as grow of themselves. The Assyrian invasion, coming early in the spring, as was usual, had prevented the Israelites from sowing their lands. But they would soon be gone, and then the Israelites could gather in such self-sown corn as they might find in the corn-lands. The next year, probably a sabbatical year, they were authorized to do the same, notwithstanding the general prohibition (Leviticus 25:5); the third year they would return to their normal condition. The sign was not given with reference to Sennacherib’s departure, which belonged to the first year, and must take place before the ingathering of the self-sown corn could begin, but with reference to the promise that Jerusalem should be free from any further attack on his part. Sennacherib reigned seventeen years longer, but led no further expedition into Palestine. And in the second year that which springeth of the same; and in the third year sow ye, and reap, and plant vineyards, and eat the fruits thereof. 2 Kings 19:30 And the remnant that is escaped of the house of Judah. Sennacherib, who in his first expedition had carried away out of Judaea 200,150 prisoners, had in his second probably done considerable damage to the towns in the south-west of Palestine—Lachish, for instance, which was a city of Judah (Joshua 15:39; 2 Kings 14:19). The open country had been wasted, great numbers killed, and many probably carried off by famine and pestilence. Thus both Hezekiah (2 Kings 19:4) and Isaiah regard the population still in the land as a mere "remnant." Shall yet again take root downward—i.e; be firmly fixed and established in the land, like a vigorous tree that strikes its roots into the soil deeply—and bear fruit upward; i.e. exhibit all the outward signs of prosperity. The reign of Josiah, when the Jewish dominion embraced the whole of Palestine (2 Kings 23:15-20), was the special fulfillment of this prophecy. 2 Kings 19:31 For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant. The march of Sennacherib and the raid of Rabshakeh had driven the mass of the escaped population of Judaea to take refuge within the walls of Jerusalem, from which, on the retirement of the invaders, they would gladly "go forth," to recultivate their lands (2 Kings 19:29) and restore their ruined homes. And they that escape—rather, that shall escape—out of Mount Zion—"Mount Zion" is a variant for Jerusalem, as in 2 Kings 19:21, and in Isaiah and the Psalms so continually—the zeal of the Lord of hosts shall do this. So in Isaiah 9:7 and Isaiah 37:32. Here most manuscripts have "the zeal of the Lord," omitting "of hosts;" and this is probably the right reading. The meaning is that God’s zealous love and care for his people will effect their complete restoration to prosperity and glory, difficult as it was at the time to imagine such a restoration. 2 Kings 19:32 Therefore thus saith the Lord concerning the King of Assyria. The oracle concludes with a general announcement, addressed to all whom it may concern, not to any one individually, concerning the existing distress. First, it is laid down what shall not be the issue. He—i.e. Sennacherib—shall not come into—rather, unto—this city—i.e. Jerusalem—nor shoot an arrow there—i.e; he shall not begin the attack, as was usually done, with discharges of arrows, to clear the walls of their defenders, and make it safe for the sappers and miners and the siege artillery to draw near—nor come before it with shield—i.e. advance close, to raise the scaling-ladders, or mine the walls, or fire the gates, under the protection of huge shields—nor east a bank against it. Much less shall he proceed to the last extremity of raising mounds against the walls, and planting upon them his balistae and his battering-rams, with the object of effecting a breach. Each of the successive stages of a siege is touched, and negatived. None of these things shall be done. There shall be no siege. 2 Kings 19:33 By the way that he came, by the same shall he return (see 2 Kings 19:28). Not merely, "he shall fail of his object" (Bahr, Keil), "he shall return disappointed;" but, literally, he shall retrace his steps, he shall quit Palestine by the same route by which he entered it—the coast route along the maritime plain, which left Jerusalem on the right at a distance of forty miles. And shall not come into—rather, unto—this city, saith the Lord. An emphatic ending (comp. Isaiah 22:14; Isaiah 45:13; Isaiah 54:17; Isaiah 55:8; Isaiah 59:20; Isaiah 65:25; Isaiah 66:21, Isaiah 66:23). 2 Kings 19:34 For I will defend this city, to save it—not merely with a view of saving it, but in such sort as effectually to save it—for mine own sake—i.e; because my own honor is concerned in its preservation, especially after the taunts of Sennacherib (2 Kings 18:32-35; 2 Kings 19:10-13)—and for my servant David’s sake. Not so much on account of the promises made to David, as on account of the love which God bore towards him for his faithfulness and earnest devotion. 2 Kings 19:35-37 OF ’S HOST, AND HIS OWN VIOLENT DEATH AT NINEVEH. The sequel is told in a few words. That night destruction came down on the host of Sennacherib, as it lay en-camped at some distance from Jerusalem, silently and swiftly. Without noise, without disturbance, the sleeping men slept the sleep of death, and in the morning, when the survivors awoke, it was found that a hundred and eighty-five thousand were slain. Upon this, with the remnant of his army, Sennacherib hastily returned to Nineveh. There, some time after—about seventeen years according to our reckoning—a conspiracy was formed against him by two of his sons, who murdered him as he was worshipping in a temple, and fled into Armenia. Another son, Esarhaddon, succeeded. 2 Kings 19:35 And it came to pass that night. The important expression, "that night," is omitted from the narrative of Isa 37:36, but is undoubtedly an original portion of the present history. It can have no other meaning—as Keil and Bahr have seen—than "the night following the day on which Isaiah had foretold to Hezekiah the deliverance of Jerusalem." God’s word "runneth very swiftly." No sooner was the premise given than the destroying angel received his orders, and "that night" the terrible stroke fell. That the angel of the Lord went out; or, an angel (ἄγγελοςΚυρίου, LXX.). We cannot say, with Bahr, that it was "the same one who smote the firstborn in Egypt, and inflicted the pestilence after the census under David." Revelation does not tell us that there is definitely one destroying angel. "The angel of death" is a rabbinical invention. It accords rather with the analogy of God’s dealings that he should use at one time the services of one minister, at another time those of another. And smote. Imagination has been over-busy in conjecturing the exact manner of the smiting. Some critics have suggested pestilence, or more definitely "the plague" (Gesenius, Dathe, Maurer, Ewald, Winer, Thenins, Keil, etc.); others a terrible storm (Vitringa, Stanley); others the simoom (Prideaux, Milman); others a nocturnal attack by Tirhakah (Ussher, Preiss, Michaelis). Some of these the text altogether precludes, as the attack of Tirhakah, which must have aroused the whole host, and not left the disaster to be discovered by those who "awoke early in the morning." Others are improbable, as the simoom, or a terrible storm with thunder and lightning, which have never been known to accomplish such a destruction. Pestilence is no doubt possible, but a pestilence of a strange and miraculous character, to which men succumbed without awaking or disturbing others. But the narrative rather points to sudden and silent death during sleep, such as often happens to men in the course of nature singly, and here on this occasion was made to happen in one night to a hundred and eighty-five thousand men by the Divine omnipotence acting abnormally. In the camp of the Assyrians. The destruction was not only at one time, but in one place. "The camp of the Assyrians" cannot mean half a dozen camps situated in half a dozen different places, as Keil supposes. Sennacherib was somewhere with his main army, encamped for the night, and there, wherever it was, the blow fell. But the exact locality is uncertain. All that the narrative makes clear is that it was not in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem. Herodotus places the catastrophe at Pelusium. Bahr thinks it was probably before Libnah. I should incline to place it between Libnah and the Egyptian frontier, Sennacherib, when he heard that Tirhakah was coming against him (verse 9), having naturally marched forward to meet and engage his army. A hundred four score and five thousand. These figures do not pretend to exactness, and can scarcely have been more than a rough estimate. They are probably the Assyrians’ own estimate of their loss, which the Jews would learn from such of the fugitives as fell into their hands. And when they—i.e; the survivors—arose early in the morning, they—i.e. the hundred and eighty-five thousand—were all dead corpses—absolutely dead, that is; not merely sick or dying. The fact makes against the theory of a pestilence. 2 Kings 19:36 So Sennacherib King of Assyria departed, and went and returned. The, original is more lively, and more expressive of haste. Sennacherib, it is said, "decamped, and departed, and returned"—the heaping up of the verbs expressing the hurry of the march home (Keil); comp. 1 Kings 19:3. And dwelt at Nineveh. Nineveh was Sennacherib’s favorite residence. He had built himself a palace, there, marked by the modern mound of Koyunjik. Sargon, his father, had dwelt mainly at Dur-Sargina or Khorsabad, Tiglath-pileser and Shalmaueser at Calah or Nimrod. Sennacherib’s palace and his ether buildings at Nineveh are described in his annals at some length. The expression, "dwelt at Nineveh," does not mean that he never quitted it, but merely implies that he dwelt there for some considerable time after his return, as he appears to have done by his annals. The Eponym Canon makes his last year B.C. 682. 2 Kings 19:37 And it came to pass—seventeen or eighteen years afterwards; not "fifty-five days" after, as the author of Tobit (1. 21) says—as he was worshipping in the house of Nisroch his god. The word Nisroch offers considerable difficulty. It has been connected with nesher (נֶשֶׁר), "eagle," and explained as a reference to the eagle-headed genius sometimes seen in the Assyrian sculptures. But there is no evidence that the genii were ever worshipped in Assyria, much less that they had temples of their own, nor is any name resembling "Nisroch" attached to any of them. The word itself is somewhat doubtful, and different manuscripts of the Septuagint, here and in Isaiah 37:38, have the variants of Nasaraeh, Esorach, Meserach, and Asarach, while Josephus has Araskas. Asarach might conceivably be a strengthened form of Asshur; but the substitution of samech for shin is against this explanation. Still, Asshur was certainly Sennacherib’s favorite god, the deity whom he principally worshipped. Josephus regards the name as belonging, not to the god, but to the temple (ἐντῷἰδίῳναῷΑράσκῃλεγομένῳ), which is perhaps the true solution of the difficulty. Translate—"as he was worshipping his god in the house Nisroch." That Adram-melech and Sharezer his sons. Adram-melech is called "Adrammeles" by Abydenus, "Ardamazanes" by Polyhistor. Neither form resembles any known Assyrian name, but Adrammelech has a good Semitic derivation (see the comment on 2 Kings 18:31). "Sharezer" is probably a shortened form of Nergal-shar-ozer (comp. "Shalman," Hosea 10:14), which was a name in use at the time. Abydenus seems to have called him Nergilus. Smote him with the sword. So Josephus (’Ant. Jud.,’ 10.1. § 5) and Mos. Chor. (’Hist. Armen.,’ 1.22). A mutilated inscription of Esarhaddon’s seems to have described his war with his brothers at the commencement of his reign, but the earlier part is wanting. And they escaped into the land of Armenia; literally, of Ararat. The Hebrew "Ararat" is the Assyrian "Ur-arda"—the ordinary name for the country about Lakes Van and Urumiyeh. The name "Armenia" is not found earlier than the inscriptions of Darius Hystaspis. And Esarhaddon his son reigned in his stead. Esarhaddon (the Sarchedon of Tobit 1:21, and the Asshur-akh-iddin of the Assyrian inscriptions) succeeded his father in B.C. 681, and was engaged for some time in a war with his brothers on the Upper Euphrates, after which he made himself master of Nineveh. He reigned from B.C. 681 to B.C. 669, when he was succeeded by his son, Asshur-bani-pal. Assyria reached the acme of her prosperity in his time. 2 Kings 19:1-35 The wisdom of trust in God, and the foolishness of trust in self. The contrast between the devout, God-fearing, God-trusting Hezekiah, and the proud, self-trusting, self-asserting Sennacherib is one of the most striking and instructive in Scripture. The two are set one over against the other in the most graphic way. I. THE PICTURE OF shows him: 1. Jealous of God’s honor. Sennacherib’s words against God strike him with horror, appear to him such shocking blasphemy, that he rends his clothes and covers himself with sackcloth (2 Kings 19:1), as if he would wipe out the insult offered to God by one of his creatures’ arrogancy, by causing to be presented before him the profoundest self-abasement and self-humiliation on the part of another. 2. Sensible of his own weakness. The day is "a day of trouble, of rebuke, and of contumely." Israel is despised, insulted, disgraced, and yet can do nothing. The time of her utmost trial has come, and she has "no strength’ to carry her through the crisis. 3. Trustful in God’s power to save. If God will, Hezekiah does not doubt he can "reprove" Sennacherib’s words—disperse them, scatter them, show them to be vain words, words of naught. 4. Reliant on the power of prayer. "Wherefore lift up thy prayer for the remnant that are left." Prayer is the only key that can unlock a door of escape. He himself resorts to prayer (2 Kings 19:15), and he exhorts Isaiah to do the same. If he himself is sinful, Isaiah is a righteous man, God’s prophet, and "the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much" (James 5:16). II. THE PICTURE OF shows him: 1. A hater and reviler of God. "Let not thy God … deceive thee" (verse 10). As though God ever deceived, as though he were not the Truth itself. Sennacherib represents him as either a poor braggart who could not do what he had promised, or a malevolent being intentionally beguiling men, to their ruin. "Jehovah," he says, "has sent him against Jerusalem," has bidden him "go up and destroy it (2 Kings 18:25), while at the same time he was deluding Hezekiah with promises of deliverance. 2. Absolutely confident in his own strength. Who can stand against the Assyrians? Who has ever been able to resist them? "Hath any of the gods of the nations delivered at all his land out of the hand of the King of Assyria?" (verse 33). And if not, "shalt thou be delivered?" He sets his own strength against Hezekiah’s weakness (verses 23, 24), and regards himself as irresistible. His will is law. What can hinder it? Not armies—least of all Egyptian armies—not mountains, not rivers, not deserts. Intoxicated with success, he thinks there is no power equal to him either in earth or heaven. The gods of the nations have all failed. Hezekiah’s God will fail equally. 3. Secure of the future, and without any thought of suing for Divine aid. Why should Sennacherib sue? Success had always attended him in the past; surely "tomorrow would be as today," only "yet more abundant." He does not appear to give even his own gods a thought. Conventional ascription of his victories to Asshur may be found in his inscriptions; but, as Isaiah lays bare to us the workings of his innermost soul (verse 23, 24), there is no leaning on any higher power, no recognition of anything behind his own greatness and material strength, no suspicion even of the possibility of a reverse. He is a god to himself; he commands the future; everything must necessarily go well with him. The event shows the wisdom of Hezekiah’s trust and the utter folly of Sennacherib’s. "Out of the depths" Hezekiah "cries unto the Lord," and "the Lord hears his voice." "With the Lord there is mercy, and with him is plenteous redemption." Hezekiah may in the past have wavered, have listened to evil counselors, have paid his court to Pharaoh, and put his trust in the broken reed Egypt; but now, at any rate, he has repented of such evil courses, he has put them away from him, and thrown himself wholly upon God. His words (verses 15-19) have the unmistakable ring of sincerity and truth. To God he looks, and to him only. His strength is become perfected in his weakness; with the result that God hears his prayer (verse 20), and grants the unparalleled deliverance related in verse 35. Sennacherib, on the other hand, finds in a moment the whole ground of his self-confidence fail. It was as the master of many legions that he had thought to bend all things to his will. Bereft of his legions, he is nothing. Today a mighty conqueror carrying everything before him, unfeignedly astonished that any one should dare to disobey his commands; on the morrow he is a wretched fugitive, hurrying homewards as fast as his chariot-steeds will bear him, only anxious to escape from the foes whom he so lately despised, and to bury his shame and his disgrace within the walls of his distant palace. In his pride and his self-trust he had thrown out a challenge to God. God took up the challenge, and struck him down to the earth. The circumstances of the catastrophe are unique in the world’s history; but the lesson is one that the events of history have taught again and again. At the height of his pride and arrogancy and self-trust, the ungodly conqueror is stricken with failure, humiliated, beaten down to the ground, shown that, after all, he is a mere man, and that the fates of nations are not in his power, but in the hand of One whose name is "the Most High," and who ruleth in all the kingdoms of the earth. BY C.H. IRWIN 2 Kings 19:1-7 A good man’s prayers sought. Hezekiah is in deep distress of spirit at the haughty, defiant, confident tone of Rabshakeh. He wants help in his trouble. He sends not to his men of war, not to his statesmen, for advice, but to the man of God. I. GIVES . Isaiah was known to live near to God. Therefore Hezekiah had confidence in him. Here is a good test of the character of your companions and associates. Would you go to them in time of trouble? Would you expect them to give you any comfort? Would you tell them the inner secrets of your heart? If not, is it not because you have no confidence in them? Their character does not command your respect. Choose the company, seek the counsel, of good. men. II. GIVES POWER IN PRAYER. "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." The man who expects an answer to his prayers is the man who habitually lives near to God. Mary Queen of Scots said she feared the prayers of John Knox more than an army of ten thousand men. Therefore: 1. Live near to God if you would influence others. Power for service comes from fellowship with God. Men like Isaiah have that quiet power that enables them to inspire others with confidence. "Be not afraid of the words which thou hast heard" (verse 6). So with St. Paul on his perilous voyage to Rome. "I exhort you to be of good cheer: for there shall be no loss of any man’s life among you, but of the ship. For there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve, saying, Fear not, Paul Wherefore, sirs, be of good cheer: for I believe God, that it shall be even as it was told me." 2. Live near to God if you would have power in prayer. The man who prays most is the man who knows the power of prayer. "Thrice blest whose lives are faithful prayers, Whose loves in higher love endure; What souls possess themselves so pure, Or is there blessedness like theirs?" 2 Kings 19:8-37 Our difficulties, and how to deal with them. We have seen that Hezekiah was a man distinguished by his trust in God. We have seen how his trust in God led him to act in times of peace. His trust in God led to personal religion, to practical effort, and to prosperity in life. We see here how he acted when troubles came. Depend upon it, the man who makes his peace with God when all is going well with him—he will have peace within his spirit when the time of trouble comes. The man who does not allow the flowing tide of worldly prosperity or worldly pleasure to draw him away from God, he will find that God is near to him in the hour of danger and of need. It was certainly an hour of danger and anxiety with Hezekiah. With a vast army, Sennacherib, the King of Assyria, was threatening Jerusalem. The very name of Assyria was at that time a terror to the nations, just as for a long time the name of Napoleon was a terror to Europe. One by one, nation after nation had gone down before the triumphal progress of the Assyrian arms. Sennacherib, conscious of his past successes, conscious of the mighty host that accompanies him, looks down with contempt upon Hezekiah and his attempt at resistance. He sends him a letter, in which he points out how futile his efforts at resistance must prove. The gods of the other nations had not been able to deliver them, and let him not think that his God whom he served would deliver him. This letter and Hezekiah’s action regarding it suggest to us some instructive lessons. I. ’S LETTER, AND THE IT BROUGHT. (2 Kings 19:9-13.) The drift of Sennacherib’s letter was entirely to lead Hezekiah to distrust God. Sennacherib was confident of victory; but he wanted Hezekiah to surrender to him, so that he might obtain as much tribute as he could, and at the same time incur no loss of life in his own army. So he turns into ridicule Hezekiah’s faith in his God. "Let not thy God in whom thou trustest deceive thee, saying, Jerusalem shall not be delivered into the hand of the King of Assyria. Behold, thou hast heard what the kings of Assyria have done to all lands, by destroying them utterly: and shalt thou be delivered? Have the gods of the nations delivered them which my fathers have destroyed? Where is the King of Hamath, and the King of Arpad, and the King of the city of Sepharvaim, of Hens, and Ivah?" In a similar way Rabshakeh, one of Sennacherib’s generals, had already spoken to the people of Jerusalem. He had sought to influence their fears. He had sought to tempt them by bribes. He had said, "Let not Hezekiah deceive you … neither let Hezekiah make you trust in the Lord Hearken not to Hezekiah: for thus saith the King of Assyria, Make an agreement with me by a present, and come ye out to me, and then eat ye every man of his own vine, and every one of his fig tree, and drink ye every one the waters of his cistern: until I come and take you away into a land like your own land, a land of corn and wine, a land of bread and. vineyards, a land of oil olive and of honey, that ye may live, and not die: and hearken not unto Hezekiah, when he persuadeth you, saying, The Lord will deliver us." It is easy to imagine the effect of such statements upon a people few in number compared with the Assyrian’s mighty host. The horrors of a protracted siege were in prospect. The longer they continued their resistance, the more desolation and devastation would be committed by the Assyrian army in their fields and homesteads. Many of them doubtless were already murmuring at Hezekiah, and some of them perhaps ready to make an agreement with the enemy. It was a trying position for Hezekiah. Both the letter of Sennacherib, and the circumstances in which he was placed, were a strong temptation to him to distrust God. He might have said, "Is this the reward which my service of God has brought me? I have been faithful to God’s commands. I have restored the temple; I have restored the service of God. I have thrown down the altars and high places, and broken the images in pieces. Even the brazen serpent, which the people valued so highly as a relic of the past, I have ground to powder, because their idolatry of it was dishonoring to God. And now is it thus that God rewards me?" This is just the temptation that our difficulties and troubles constantly bring to us. They tempt us to distrust God. 1. It is so in the growth of our own spiritual life. How often the young beginner in the Christian life is discouraged by the difficulties which arise, and which he did not calculate on! He finds that there is still an old nature within him which has to be grappled with and conquered. He meets, perhaps, with opposition and discouragements from the world without, and perhaps even from those from whom he expected sympathy and help. These difficulties tempt many a one to distrust God. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Kings 20:1-21 ILLNESS OF AND EMBASSY OF -BALADAN. ’S DEATH. The writer proceeds to relate an illness and a recovery of Hezekiah, which happened about the middle of his reign, probably in B.C. 713, and which was accompanied by strange, if not miraculous, circumstances (2 Kings 20:1-11). Hezekiah’s recovery was followed by an embassy of congratulation from Merodach-Baladan, King of Babylon, which led Hezekiah into an act of folly, and brought upon him the rebuke of Isaiah (verses 12-19). The narrative terminates with a notice of some of Hezekiah’s great works, and of his decease (verses 20, 21). 2 Kings 20:1-11 The illness and recovery of Hezekiah. 2 Kings 20:1 In those days. This is a very vague note of time, and cannot be regarded as determining the position of the events here related with respect to the preceding narrative. 2 Kings 20:6, however, shows that a time anterior to Sennacherib’s discomfiture is intended; and the same verse also fixes the date to Hezekiah’s fourteenth year, which was B.C. 713. If the date in 2 Kings 18:13 be regarded as genuine, we must consider that the illness happened in the year of Sennacherib’s first expedition against Palestine; but if we regard that date as interpolated, and accept the Assyrian inscriptions as our chronological authorities, we must place the events of the present chapter twelve years earlier than that expedition, in the reign of Sargon over Assyria, and in the first reign of Merodach-Baladan over Babylon. It belongs, at any rate, to the middle part of Hezekiah’s reign, while his treasures were intact (2 Kings 18:13-17), and had not been carried off to Nineveh. Was Hezekiah sick unto death; stricken, i.e; by a malady which, in the ordinary course of nature, would have been fatal. And the Prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz came to him. The designation of Isaiah as "the prophet," and" the son of Amoz," as if previously unknown to the reader, indicates the original independency of the narrative, which the writer of Kings probably obtained from a separate source. And said unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live. The statement was a warning, not a prophecy. It is parallel to that of Jonah to the Ninevites, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown." 2 Kings 20:2 Then he turned his face to the wall—i.e; away from those who were standing beside his bed, and might have distracted his attention, to pray with more concentration and earnestness—and prayed unto the Lord, saying. It was natural to Hezekiah, in every kind of affliction and distress, to take his trouble direct to God. 2 Kings 20:3 I beseech thee, O Lord, remember now how I have walked before thee in truth and with a perfect heart. There is no Pharisaical self-righteousness here. Hezekiah is conscious that he has honestly endeavored to serve God, and to do his will—that, whatever may have been his shortcomings, his heart has been right towards God. He ventures, therefore, on something like expostulation. Why is he to be cut off in the midst of his days, at the age of thirty-nine, when such a wicked king as Uzziah has lived to be sixty-eight (2 Kings 15:2), and Rehoboam to be fifty-eight (1 Kings 14:21)? It is to be remembered that, under the old covenant, length of days was expressly promised to the righteous (Proverbs 3:2; Proverbs 9:11; Proverbs 10:27, etc.), and that a shortened life was the proclaimed penalty of wicked-doing (Job 15:32, Job 15:33; Job 22:16; Psalms 55:23; Proverbs 10:27). Hezekiah’s self-assertion is thus a sort of laying hold of God’s promises. And have done that which is flood in thy sight; comp. 2 Kings 18:3-6; and note the similar pleadings of David, "With my whole heart have I sought thee" (Psalms 119:10); "I have remembered thy Name, O Lord, and have kept thy Law. This I had because I kept thy commandments" (Psalms 119:55, Psalms 119:56), and the like. And Hezekiah wept sore. Human nature shrinks from death instinctively, and it requires a very vivid imagination for even the Christian in middle life to feel with St. Paul, that "it is better for him to depart and to be with Christ." The Hebrew of Hezekiah’s time had far mere reason to regard death as an evil. His hopes of a life beyond the grave were feeble—his conceptions of the life, if life there were, faint and unattractive. Sheol, like Hades, was a vague, awful, terrible thing. If we consider Hezekiah’s words, "The grave cannot praise thee, death cannot celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth. The living, the living, he shall praise thee" (Isaiah 38:18, Isaiah 38:19), we may understand how the Hebrew shrank from the fearful change. And in Hezekiah’s case there was a yet further reason for grief Hezekiah had as yet no male offspring (Josephus, ’Ant. Jud.,’10.2. § 1). Manasseh was as yet unborn (comp. verse 6 with 2 Kings 21:1). If he died now, his house would be cut off, he would be without posterity—a sore grief to every Hebrew. Ewald’s references to Isaiah 38:19 and Isaiah 39:7, as indicative of Hezekiah having sons at the time, are absolutely without value. 2 Kings 20:4 And it same to pass, afore Isaiah was gone out into the middle court. The narrative in Isaiah 38:4 does not contain this touch, which is very graphic, and indicative of the eye-witness. "The middle court" is probably the second or intermediate court of the royal palace. Isaiah had not gone further than this, when he was arrested in his course by a Divine communication. That the word of the Lord came to him, saying. How the word of the Lord came to the prophets is an inscrutable mystery. Sometimes, no doubt, it came in vision, which to a certain extent we can understand. But how, when the prophet was secularly engaged, as in this instance, walking across a court, he knew that the thought which occurred to him was a Divine message, it is almost impossible to conceive. Still, we cannot doubt that if God determines to communicate his will to man, he must be able, with the message, to impart an absolute certainty of its source, an assured conviction that it is his word, which precludes all question, hesitation, or dubiety. Isaiah, in the middle of his walk, finds his steps arrested, anew injunction laid upon him, with a necessity of immediately obeying it. 2 Kings 20:5 Turn again—or, turn back—"retrace thy steps, and enter once more into the bedchamber of the king"—and tell Hezekiah the captain of my people. An unusual title for the Jewish monarch, but one applied in 1 Samuel 9:16 and 1 Samuel 10:1 to Saul, and in 1 Samuel 13:14 and 2 Samuel 5:2 to David. The proper meaning of נָגִיד is "leader"—"one who goes in front." Thus saith the Lord, the God of David thy father—Hezekiah obtains mercy, both as David’s son and as David’s imitator (see 2 Kings 18:3)—I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears (comp. Exodus 2:24; Exodus 3:7; Psalms 56:8). There is not a cry, not a groan, not a tear, not a sigh of his faithful ones, to which the heart of God is not open, which does not touch him, move him, draw forth his sympathy. If he does not always grant our prayers, it is because we "ask amiss"—without faith, or without fervor, or things not good for us. Hezekiah’s earnest, faithful, and not unwise prayer was, as such prayers always are, effectual. Behold, I will heal thee: on the third day thou shalt go up unto the house of the Lord; i.e. thou shalt be so completely recovered as to be able to quit thy palace and pay thy vows in the courts of the Lord’s house. God knows that to do this will be Hezekiah’s first wish, as soon as his sickness is past (comp. Isaiah 38:20). 2 Kings 20:6 And I win add unto thy days fifteen years. God "does exceeding abundantly more than we either ask or think" (Ephesians 3:20). Hezekiah had asked for nothing more than immediate escape from death. God grants him fifteen additional years of life, i.e. more than doubles the length of his reign. And I will deliver thee and this city out of the hand of the King of Assyria. If Hezekiah’s illness took place in B.C. 713, and Jerusalem was then in danger of being attacked by the Assyrians, the king who threatened the attack must have been Sargon. Sargon made an expedition into Palestine in B.C. 720, another in B.C. 713, and a third in B.C. 711. In none of them does he seem to have invaded Judaea; but in the third he counts the Jews among his enemies. Hezekiah, who had revolted from him (2 Kings 18:7), may well have felt alarm both in B.C. 713 and 711. And I will defend this city for mine own sake, and for my servant David’s sake. The promise given in B.C. 713 in respect of Sargon was repeated in B.C. 699 (?) with respect to Sennacherib in almost the same words. 2 Kings 20:7 And Isaiah said, Take a lump of figs. Figs were the usual remedy for boils. Dioscorides says of the fig, διαφορεῖσκληρίας; Pliny, "Ulcera aperit;" while Jerome, in his-commentary on Isaiah, has the following: "Juxta artem medicorum omnis sanies siccioribus ficis atque contusis in cutis superficiem provocatur." The remedy is said to be still in use among Easterns. It can scarcely be supposed to have cured a malignant bell by its intrinsic force; hut under the Divine blessing it was made effectual, and the cure followed. And they took and laid it on the boil. The royal attendants obtained a lump of figs, and applied it to the inflamed boil or carbuncle, as Isaiah had suggested. It is impossible to say what exactly was the nature of the "boil," since diseases change their characters, and every age has its own special disorders; but modem medical science knows of more than one kind of pustular swelling, which, as soon as it is detected, is regarded as fatal. And he recovered. Not suddenly, but by degrees; after the manner of natural remedies. It was three days before he was well enough to quit the palace, and offer thanks in the temple for his miraculous cure (see verse 5). 2 Kings 20:8 And Hezekiah said unto Isaiah, What shall be the sign that the Lord will heal me? Having regard to the weakness of human faith, God, under the old covenant, often gave, or offered, near "signs" of promised blessings that were more remote, in order to sustain and encourage the doubtful and the wavering (comp. Exodus 3:12; 2 Kings 19:29; Isaiah 7:11, Isaiah 7:14, etc.). Hezekiah assumes that a near "sign" will now he granted to him, and simply asks what the sign is to be. And that I shall go up into the house of the Lord the third day? Three days would be a long and weary time to wait. It was not unnatural that Hezekiah should crave some more immediate assurance that his prayer was indeed heard. Neither God nor the prophet was angry at his request. 2 Kings 20:9 And Isaiah said, This sign shalt thou have of the Lord, that the Lord will do the thing that he hath spoken. Hezekiah is no more reproved for asking for a sign than was Gideon (Judges 6:37, Judges 6:39). Ahaz, his father, had been reproved for not asking (Isaiah 7:13). It would be faithless now for Christians to demand signs; but in an age of miracles, when there were prophets upon the earth empowered to give signs, faithful men might request them without incurring God’s displeasure. Shall the shadow go forward ten degrees? The Hebrew text will scarcely bear this translation, which, however, seems to be required by Hezekiah’s answer. Perhaps for צָלַךְ we should read הֲצָלךְ. Or go back ten degrees? literally, in both clauses, ten steps. There are abundant reasons for believing that the early dials consisted of a gnomon set up on the top of a flight of steps, and that time was measured by the number of steps on which the shadow of the gnomon fell. 2 Kings 20:10 And Hezekiah answered, It is a light thing for the shadow to go down ten degrees. Hezekiah views it as a comparatively easy thing for the shadow, which is already descending the steps, to accelerate its pace and rapidly descend fifteen degrees instead of slowly traversing them; and therefore accepts Isaiah’s other offer. Nay, but let the shadow return backward ten degrees. Let it, i.e; change its direction, and having descended a certain distance, suddenly return and ascend again. This will be no "light thing," but a great marvel, which will thoroughly convince him. The thought was natural, though perhaps not strictly logical. 2 Kings 20:11 And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the Lord. Though the sign had been promised, Isaiah regarded his own intercessional prayer as not out of place, and "cried unto the Lord," i.e. prayed with energy, that the king’s wish might be accomplished. So, though we have God’s promise to care for us, and keep us from want (Matthew 6:25-30), yet we must daily beseech him to "give us this day our daily bread." And he brought the shadow ten degrees backward. How this was done, we are not told, and can therefore only conjecture. The earlier commentators imagined that the revolution of the earth upon its axis was actually reversed for a time; but this idea is now generally rejected. It is clear from 2 Chronicles 32:31 that the phenomenon, whatever may have been its cause, was local, "done in the land" of Judah, and not visible elsewhere. Some moderns have suggested an earthquake affecting the gnomon; some a trick on the part of Isaiah; ethers, and the generality, a very abnormal refraction of the sun’s rays. An observed instance of something similar, which took place at Metz, in Lotheringia, in the year 1703, is on record. Two scientists, Professor Seyffarth and Mr. J. W. Bosanquet, think that the phenomenon was due to an eclipse, in which the upper limb of the sun was obscured temporarily. In such a case a slight recession of the shadow would certainly take place; but it would scarcely be such as to attract attention from any one but a scientific observer. On the whole, the most probable cause would seem to be refraction, which is accepted by Keil, Bahr, and Kay. By which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz; literally, on the steps of Ahaz. Sundials were invented by the Babylonians (Herod; 2:109), and were no doubt in use at Babylon long before the time of Hezekiah. They were of various kinds, and in some of them the gnomon was made to cast its shadow upon steps. There are still two dials in India—one at Benares, known as the Manmandir, and the other at Delhi—where this is the case. 2 Kings 20:12-19 The embassy of Merodach-Baladan. Soon after his recovery, Hezekiah received an embassy from a new quarter. Hitherto Babylon and Judaea had been isolated from one another, and had perhaps scarcely known of each other’s existence. Assyria had stood between them, and Babylonia had been for the most part an Assyrian dependency. But recently Babylonia had asserted herself. In B.C. 722, on the death of Shalmaneser, a native Chaldean named Meredach-Baladan had made himself king of the country, and maintained his independence against all the efforts of Sargon to reduce him. His position, however, was precarious, and it was probably in the hope of concluding an alliance with Hezekiah also an enemy of Sargon’s (see the comment on 2 Kings 20:6)—that he sent his embassy. He had two excuses for it. A neighboring king might well congratulate his brother monarch on his recovery; and a Chaldean prince might well inquire into an astronomical marvel (2 Chronicles 33:1-25:31). The date of the embassy appears to have been B.C. 712, the year following on Hezekiah’s illness. 2 Kings 20:12 At that time Berodach-Baladan. Isaiah gives the name more correctly as "Merodach-Baladan" (Isaiah 39:1). The native form is Marduk-pal-iddin, i.e. "Merodach a son has given." This king makes his first appearance in an inscription of Tiglath-pileser’s, where he is one of many chieftains among whom Babylonia is divided. Subsequently he is mentioned as revolting from Sargon in the latter’s first year, B.C. 722, and holding the throne of Babylon for twelve years, when Sargon conquered him, deposed him, and took the kingdom. This twelve-years’ reign is acknowledged by Ptolemy in his Canon, but the name of the king is given as Mardoc-Empadus. On the death of Sargon, in B.C. 705, Merodach-Baladan again revolted, and reigned for six months, when he was driven out of the country by Sennacherib, B.C. 704. He continued, however, to give trouble even after this; and his sons and grandsons were pretenders to the Babylonian throne in the reigns of Esar-haddon and his successor, Asshur-bani-pal. The son of Baladan. In the Assyrian inscriptions Merodach-Baladan is always called "the son of Yakin". Yakin, however, may have been his grandfather, as Nimshi was the grandfather of Jehu, and Baladan (Bel-dash?) his father. King of Babylon, sent letters and a present unto Hezekiah. Thus opening diplomatic communication. It has been almost universally felt that the object of the embassy must have been to conclude, or at any rate to pave the way for, an alliance. So Josephus (’Ant. Jud.,’ 10.2. § 2), Ewald, Von Gerlach, Thenius, Keil, Bahr, and others. Assyria menaced both countries, and the common danger produced naturally a mutual attraction. But it was prudent to disguise this motive. For he had heard that Hezekiah had been sick. Assyria could not take umbrage at an embassy of congratulation, nor at one for scientific purposes (2 Chronicles 33:1-25:31). So these two objects were paraded. 2 Kings 20:13 And Hezekiah hearkened unto them. Hezekiah was dazzled by the prospect that opened upon him. It was a grand thing that his fame should have reached so far as Babylon, a still grander thing to be offered such an alliance. It must be remembered that he and his counselors were inclined from the first to meet Assyrian menace by calling in foreign aid (2 Kings 18:21-24; Isaiah 20:6; Isaiah 30:2-7; Isaiah 36:6). He had not yet accepted the view of Isaiah, that human aid was vain, and that the only reasonable ground of hope or confidence was, in Jehovah. And showed them all the house of his precious things; i.e. his treasury. Hezekiah did not do this in mere ostentation, though he may have had a certain pride in exhibiting his wealth. His main wish, no doubt, was to make known his resources, and show that he was a valuable ally. So Oroetes acted towards Polycrates (Herod; 3:123), and Hannibal towards the Gortynians (Com. Nep; ’Vit. Hannib.,’ § 9). It is to be borne in mind that Hezekiah’s treasures were, in B.C. 712, still intact, and included all that ample store which he sacrificed to save Jerusalem at the time of the first expedition of Sennacherib. The silver, and the gold, and the spices. Compare the description of the wealth of Solomon (1 Kings 10:25). "Spices" always form an important portion of the treasure of Oriental kings (comp. Herod; 2. 97, sub fin.). And the precious ointment; rather, the precious oil—שֶׂמֶן, not רֹקַץ. It is thought (Keil, Bahr) that the valuable balsam oil, which was obtained from the royal gardens, is intended. And all the house of his armor; or, of his vessels; but arms and armor are probably intended. It would be almost as important to show that he had abundant arms in store, as that he had abundant riches. And all that was found in his treasures—a clause implying that there was much more which had not been specified, as precious stones, ivory, ebony, and the like—there was nothing in his house, nor in all his dominion, that Hezekiah showed them not. This is a manifest hyperbole; but it can scarcely mean less than that he gave orders for them to be shown the collections of arms and stores which existed in his other strongholds besides Jerusalem. Hezekiah, no doubt, had many "store cities," as Solomon (2 Chronicles 8:6) and Rehoboam (2 Chronicles 11:5-12) had. 2 Kings 20:14 Then came Isaiah the prophet unto King Hezekiah; and said unto him. When a prophet came, unsummoned, into king’s presence, it was usually to rebuke him. What said these men? and from whence came they unto thee? Isaiah does not ask because he does not know, but to obtain a confession, on which he may base the message that he has to deliver. And Hezekiah said, They are come from a far country, even from Babylon. Note first, that Hezekiah does not give any answer to the prophet’s first question, "What said these men?" being unwilling probably to make known the overtures that he had received from them, since he knows that Isaiah is opposed to any reliance on an "arm of flesh:" and secondly, that he answers the second question, not with shame, but with complacency, "They are come to me from a very far country, whither my fame has reached—even from Babylon are they come, ’the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees’ excellency’ (Isaiah 13:19)." Self-satisfaction shows itself in the answer. He thinks it redounds to his honor that he has been sought out from so great a distance, and by so great a city. 2 Kings 20:15 And he said, What have they seen in thine house? i.e. What hast thou shewed them? Hast thou treated them like ordinary ambassadors, or hast thou gone out of thy way to court an alliance with their master? And Hezekiah answered, All the things that are in mine house have they seen: there is nothing among my treasures that I have not showed them. The reply is open and straightforward. Hezekiah is not ashamed of what he has done, or at any rate, will not, to escape blame, take refuge in lies or concealment. He readily acknowledges that he has shown the ambassadors everything. 2 Kings 20:16 And Isaiah said unto Hezekiah, Hear the word of the Lord. This is a phrase of warning very common in the mouth of the prophets, when they are about to deliver a rebuke or solemn condemnation. 2 Kings 20:17 Behold, the days come, that all that is in thine house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store unto this day, shall be carried into Babylon. These treasures of thy royal house, whereof thou art so proud, and which thou hast of thine own accord made known to the Babylonians, to obtain their alliance, will in fact excite their cupidity, and the time will come when they, or what remains of them and represents them, will be carried off as plunder to Babylon by a conquering monarch, who will strip thy palace of its valuables, and drag thy descendants into captivity, and degrade them to the condition of slaves or servants, and make them discharge menial offices about his court. The revelation was now, it would seem, for the first time made that Babylon, and not Assyria, was the true enemy which Judaea had to fear, the destined foe who would accomplish all the threats of the prophets from Moses downwards, who would destroy the holy city and the glorious temple of Solomon, and carry away the ark of the covenant, and tear the people from their homes, and bring the kingdom of David to an end, and give Jerusalem over as a prey to desolation for seventy years. Henceforth it was Babylon and not Assyria which was feared, Babylon and not Assyria whereto the prophetic gaze of Isaiah himself was directed, and which became in his later prophecies the main object of his denunciations. Considering the circumstances of the time, the prophecy is a most extraordinary one. Babylonia was at the time merely one of several kingdoms bordering on Assyria which the Assyrians threatened with destruction. From the time of Tiglath-pileser she had been continually diminishing, while Assyria had been continually increasing, in power. Tiglath-pileser had overrun the country and established himself as king there. Shalmaneser’s authority had been uncontested. If just at present a native prince held the throne, it was by a very uncertain tenure, and a few years later Assyria regained complete mastery. No human foresight could possibly have anticipated such a complete reversal of the relative positions of the two countries as was involved in Isaiah’s prophecy—a reversal which was only accomplished by the appearance on the scene of a new power, Media, which hitherto had been regarded as of the very slightest account. Nothing shall be left, saith the Lord. 2 Kings 20:18 And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget. Under "sons" are included by the Hebrew idiom all descendants, however remote. The princes carried off from Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar were Hezekiah’s descendants, either in the fourth or the fifth generation. Shall they take away. Among the descendants of Hezekiah taken to Baby]on by Nebuchadnezzar were Jehoiachin (2 Kings 24:15), Zedekiah (2 Kings 25:7), Daniel (Daniel 1:3), and others. And they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the King of Babylon. Keil and Bahr translate סָרִיסִים in this place by "chamberlains" or "footmen;" but there is no reason why the word should not have its ordinary sense of "eunuchs". 2 Kings 20:19 Then said Hezekiah unto Isaiah, Good is the word of the Lord which thou hast spoken. Hezekiah accepts the rebuke, thereby acknowledging himself to have been in the wrong, and submits without remonstrance to his punishment. "Good is the word of the Lord"—who "in his wrath has thought upon mercy." The king feels that God might, in justice, have visited him, in his own person, with some immediate affliction or calamity. It is a relief to hear that the blow will not fall during his lifetime. There may be a tinge of selfishness in his acquiescence, but it is not very pronounced, and does not call for any severe animadversion. The Old Testament saints were not faultless, and are not set before us as perfect patterns. There is one only "Ensample" given us whose steps we are to follow in all things. And he said—apparently after a pause, per-Imps turning to his courtiers, whose looks may have expressed astonishment at the words which he had just spoken—Is it not good, if peace and truth be in my days? i.e. Am I not right to acquiesce in the sentence and pronounce it "good," if it promises me "peace and truth," or "tranquility and steadfastness"? Ought I not to accept with thankfulness the immediate boon, instead of troubling myself about a remote future? The sentiment is not far removed from that of the well-known lines— "I do not ask to see The distant scene; one step enough for me." 2 Kings 20:20, 2 Kings 20:21 The great works of Hezekiah, and his decease. Hezekiah was known, not only as a pious king, and the king in whose reign the pride of the Assyrians was dashed to the ground, but also as one who, by works of great importance, conferred permanent benefit on Jerusalem (see 2 Chronicles 32:3-5 and 2 Chronicles 32:30; Ecclesiasticus 48:17). The writer feels that he cannot conclude his notice of Hezekiah’s reign without some mention of these works. He enters, however, into no description, but, having referred the reader for details to the "book of the chronicles," notes in the briefest possible way the decease of Hezekiah, and the accession of his son and successor. 2 Kings 20:20 And the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and all his might. Hezekiah’s "might" was chiefly shown in the earlier portion of his reign, when he "smote the Philistines, even unto Gaza, and the borders thereof" (2 Kings 18:8). Against Assyria he was unsuccessful, and must have succumbed, but for the miraculous destruction of Sennacherib’s host. And how he made a pool; rather, the pool, or the reservoir. The writer of Kings either knows of one pool only in the neighborhood of Jerusalem, or regards one as so superior that it deserves to be called κατἐξοχήν, "the pool." Recent discoveries make it highly probable that the "pool" intended is that of Siloam, or, if not the present Siloam reservoir, a larger one, a little below it, now known as Birket el Hamra. That there was at least one other pool in Hezekiah’s time is evident from Isaiah 22:9, Isaiah 22:11. And a conduit; rather, the conduit. If "the pool" is Siloam, "the conduit" must almost certainly be that which was excavated under Ophel for the purpose of conveying the water from the Well of the Virgin in the Kedron valley to the Siloam reservoir on the western side of the spur. This conduit, which is curiously twisted, has a length of 1708 feet, with a height varying from two feet to four or five, and a width of about two feet. The roof is flat, the sides perpendicular, and the floor hollowed into a groove for the more rapid passage of the water. About nineteen feet from the southern extremity, where the channel opens upon the Siloam pool, a niche has been cut in the right-hand wall in the shape of a square tablet, and smoothed to receive an inscription of six lines, the greater part of which has been recovered. The letters are of the old Hebrew or Phoenician type, and by their forms indicate a date "between the eighth and the sixth centuries" (Sayce). The inscription, so far as it is legible, appears to have run as follows: "Behold the tunnel! Now, this is the history of the tunnel. As the excavators were lifting up the pick, each towards the other, and while there were yet three cubits to be broken through … the voice of the one called to his neighbor, for there was an excess (?) of the rock on the right. Then they rose up … they struck on the west of the excavators; the excavators struck, each to meet the other, pick to pick. And the waters flowed from their outlet to the pool for a distance of a thousand cubits; and three-fourths (?) of a cubit was the height of the rock over the head of the excavation here." We learn from it that the workmen began at either end, and tunnelled through the rock until they met in the middle—a result which their previous divergences from the straight line force us to attribute more to good fortune than to engineering science. And brought water into the city. The Well of the Virgin was without, the Pool of Siloam within, the city—the wall of the town being carried across the Tyropoeon valley from the extreme point of Ophel to the opposite hilt (see Nehemiah 3:15). Are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? Hezekiah’s fame rested very much upon these works, as we see by what is said of him by the son of Sirach (see the comment on verses 20, 21). 2 Kings 20:21 And Hezekiah slept with his fathers. The writer of Chronicles adds, "And they buried him in the chiefest," or rather, in the topmost, "of the sepulchers of the sons of David" (2 Chronicles 32:33). The catacomb of David being now full, Hezekiah and his descendants (2 Kings 21:18, 2 Kings 21:26; 2 Kings 23:30) had to he buried elsewhere. The tomb of Hezekiah was either over the catacomb of David, or on the ascent which led to it. And Manasseh his son reigned in his stead. (See 2 Chronicles, 50. s.c; and Josephus, ’Ant. Jud.,’ 10.3. § 1.) 2 Kings 20:1-3 Aspects of death. We may look on death from three points of view—that of the natural man, unenlightened by Divine revelation; that of the Israelite under the Law; and that of the Christian. The contemplation will be wholesome, for we are all too apt to turn our thoughts away from any consideration of the grim enemy, who will certainly have to be met and encountered one day. I. DEATH FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE NATURAL MAN. By nature man has an absolute horror of death. Self-preservation is the first law of his being. He will suffer anything, he will do anything, to avoid death. Death is in his eyes a fierce monster, cruel, relentless, detestable. To live may be hard, grievous, wretched, scarcely tolerable; but to die is wholly intolerable. It is to exchange the bright pure light of day for absolute darkness, or at best for a dim, dull, murky region in which souls wander without aim or hope. It is to be cut off from all that is known, customary, intelligible, and to be thrown into a world unknown, unfamiliar, full of terrors. It is to lose all energy, all vigor, all robustness, all sense of power. In the "happy hunting-fields," the shade of the living man may still pursue the unsubstantial forms of elk, or deer, or antelope; but the sport is a poor and colorless replica of that pursued on earth, and is anticipated with but little satisfaction. Better, in the eyes of the natural man, to live on earth, even as slave or hireling, the hardest of all possible earthly lives, than to hold the kingship of the world below and rule over the entire realm of shadows. In the vigor of his youth and early manhood the natural man forgets death, views it as so distant that the fear of it scarcely affects him sensibly; but let the shadow be suddenly cast across his path, and he starts from it with a cry of terror. He can, indeed, meet it without blenching in the battle-field, when his blood is hot, and to the last he does not know whether he will slay his foe, or his foe him; but if he has to die, he accepts his death as a miserable necessity. It is hateful to him to die; it is still more hateful to be cut off in his prime, while he is still strong, vigorous, lusty. It is not till old age comes on, and his arm grows weak, and his eye dim, that he can look on death without loathing. Then, perhaps, he may accept the necessity without protest, feeling that actual death can be little worse than the death-in-life whereto he has come. II. DEATH FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE . The Israelite had not very much advantage over the natural man in respect of the contemplation of death. But little was revealed to him concerning the life beyond the grave. He knew, indeed, that his life did not end everything, that he would certainly go down to Sheol when he died, and there have a continued existence; but Sheol presented itself to him in as dismal colors as Hades did to the Greek. "The living, the living shall praise thee; Sheol cannot praise thee, death cannot celebrate thee," cried Hezekiah from his bed of sickness (Isaiah 38:18, Isaiah 38:19). Thus the Israelite too shrank from death, not merely instinctively, but as a sad and poor condition compared with life. And untimely death was even more hateful to him than to the natural man, since under the Mosaic dispensation it was declared to be a mark of the displeasure of God. "The fear of the Lord prolongeth days; but the years of the wicked shall be shortened" said Solomon (Proverbs 10:27). "Bloodthirsty and deceitful men shall not live out half their days," sang David (Psalms 55:23). Long life was a gift repeatedly promised to the righteous (Proverbs 3:2, Proverbs 3:16; Proverbs 9:10, Proverbs 9:11; Psalms 91:16, etc.); and when a man found himself struck down by a dangerous disease in his middle age, it seemed to him, and to those about him, that he must have sinned grievously, and so brought down upon himself God’s anger. Still more bitter was the feeling of one who was cut off in mid life, if he was childless. Then the man’s name was "clean put out;" his memorial perished with him; he had no more part or lot in Israel, no more inheritance among his brethren. Thus death remained a terror and a calamity, even to the most religious Jew, until, about the time of Daniel, the doctrine of the resurrection began to be preached (Daniel 12:1-3), and the life beyond the grave to take a more cheerful aspect. III. DEATH FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE . The whole relation of death to life and of life to death became changed by the revelation made to man in Christ. Then for the first time were "life and immortality" fully "brought to light." Then first it appeared that earth was a mere sojourning-place for those who were here as "strangers and pilgrims" upon it, having "no continuing city." Then first were the joys of heaven painted in glowing hues, and men told that eye had not seen, nor ear heard, neither had it entered into the heart of man [to conceive], the things which God had prepared for those that love him" (1 Corinthians 2:9). No sensuous Paradise of earthly joys was depicted, no "Castle of Indolence," no mere haven of rest, but man’s true home, the place and state for which he was created, where is his citizenship, where he will be reunited to those whom in life he loved, where his nature will be perfected, and where, above all, he will "be with Christ" (Philippians 1:23), will "see God" (1 John 3:2), and "know even as he is known ’ (1 Corinthians 13:12). The prospect of death thus, to the true Christian, lost all its terrors. "I am in a strait betwixt two," says St. Paul, "having a desire to depart, and be with Christ, which is far better" (Philippians 1:23); and again, "I am willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:8). Natural shrinking there may be, for "the flesh is weak;" but thousands have triumphed over it, have sought martyrdom, have gone gladly to their deaths, and preferred to die. Even when there is no such exaltation of feeling, death is contemplated with calmness, as a passage to a better world—a world where there is no sorrow nor sighing (Isaiah 35:10), where there is no sin, "where the wicked cease from troubling, and the weary are at rest" (Job 3:17). Untimely death from natural disease or accident is to the Christian no sign of God’s displeasure, but rather an indication of the contrary. God takes to himself those whom he recognizes as fit to die, of whom it may be said that τελειωθέντεςἐνὀλίγῳἐπλήρωσανχρόνουςμακρόυς. He takes them in love, not in wrath, to join the company of "the spirits of just men made perfect" (Hebrews 12:23), to be among his "jewels" (Isaiah 61:10; Malachi 3:17). 2 Kings 20:12-18 The sunshine of prosperity a greater danger than the storms of adversity. When Sennacherib threatens, when his messengers blaspheme, when the huge battalions of the most powerful kingdom in the world have entered his territory and are about to march upon his capital, the Jewish monarch remains firm; his faith is unshaken; he casts his care upon God, looks to him and him only; believes in him, trusts in him, regards prayer as the only door of safety. Similarly, when disease prostrates him, when a painful and dangerous malady confines him to his bed, and the prophet, instead of bringing him words of comfort, is commissioned to bid him "set his house in order; for he shall die, and not live" (2 Kings 20:1), his faith fails not, in God is still his refuge, to God alone he betakes himself, and prays and weeps sore (2 Kings 20:2, 2 Kings 20:3). The blasts of calamity cannot tear away from him the cloak of faith; he clutches it the tighter the more the storm rages; nothing will induce him to let it go. But the danger past, health restored, the admiration of foreign kings attracted, his car besieged by congratulations and flatteries, his court visited by envoys from "a far country," and at once his grasp relaxes, the thought of God fades from his heart, his faith slips from him, and he is a mere worldling, bent on winning to himself a seat alliance, and obtaining the aid of an "arm of flesh ’ against his enemies. And so it is and will ever be with most of us. We can bear the world’s frowns, the buffets of fortune, the cruelty of oppressors, the open attacks of rivals and enemies; we can resist them, defy them, and still maintain our integrity; but let the world smile, let fortune favor us, let riches increase, let friends spring up on all sides, and how few of us can stand the sunshine! How few of us can remain as close to God as we were before! How few of us but drop the habits of prayer, of communing with God, of constant reliance upon him, which were familiar to us in the darker time, and substitute a mere occasional and perfunctory acknowledgment of his goodness! Alas, how few! Oh! may our cry, the cry of our heart, ever be, "In all time of our tribulation, in all time of our wealth … good Lord, deliver us!" BY C.H. IRWIN 2 Kings 20:1-11 Hezekiah’s sickness. Every changing scene of life is depicted for us in the Bible. Whatever our circumstances may be, we can get some guidance, help, or comfort from that treasure-house of wisdom and experience. We have here— I. A SOLEMN MESSAGE. "Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live." 1. It was a solemn message for Hezekiah. His kingdom seemed now to be securely established. God had helped him against the Philistines, and had overthrown them. He was doubtless looking forward to many years of rest and quietness, when he might enjoy for himself the benefits of peace, and develop the resources of the nation, so long desolated by invading armies. How startling, then, the announcement of his approaching death! 2. It is a solemn message for every one. It is a solemn thing for a human soul to pass from time into eternity, to enter into the immediate presence of the Eternal, to stand before God. 3. It is a message which may be truly spoken to every one. "Thou shalt die, and not live," There is an hour of death in store for every one of us. Somewhere in the unknown future there waits for us— "The shadow feared of man." We know not what a day may bring forth. "In such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh." 4. The certainty of death suggests the necessity for immediate preparation. "Set thine house in order." Can you say that you are prepared to meet your God? Is your heart right with God? Have you set your house in order? The time for preparation is "now." Scripture is very clear on that point. It is nowhere said, "See that you make ready when death comes." It is nowhere said," Look forward to being prepared for death" No; that would only be deceiving us, because death might come before we were prepared, though we might intend to be prepared, if we knew that death was near. No; but it is said, "Be ready." It is said, "Prepare to meet thy God." "Now is the accepted time, now is the day of salvation." II. A KING. "Hezekiah wept sore." 1. He was not sorrowful because of a guilty conscience. He had endeavored to serve God faithfully. No doubt he had made mistakes. But his heart was right with God. "I beseech thee, 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." It is well to have a good conscience when the hour of death draws nigh. It is well when we can say with St. Paul, "Herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God and toward men." Such a man is always "ready to depart." 2. He was sorrowful only because of the shortening of his life. How little we know what is best for us! It was after this that Hezekiah was led astray, as we shall see, by the pride of his heart. Though God lengthened Hezekiah’s life in answer to his piteous request, perhaps it would have been better for him if he had been content to go when God first sent for him. There is often a great mystery to us when good men seem prematurely taken away. But God knows the reason why, and he doeth all things well. Let us leave the time of our own departure, and the departure of our friends, contentedly in God’s hands. III. A SPARED LIFE. The life was spared in answer to prayer; and yet this ease gives no encouragement to what is commonly known as "healing by faith." Isaiah directed the attendants to take a lump of figs and lay it for a plaster on the boil, and Hezekiah recovered (verse 7; Isaiah 38:21). We believe in the power of faith and prayer to heal the sick, and yet we believe in using the means. We use food to preserve and sustain our life from day to day. There is no lack of faith in that. And it shows no lack of faith if we use means to restore our life, asking all the time that God’s blessing may accompany the means we use. How many of our lives has God spared? How many of us has he brought back again from the gates of death? Let the goodness of God lead us to repentance. Let the lives that he has spared be dedicated to him—C.H.I. 2 Kings 20:12-21 Hezekiah and the ambassadors. Friendly greetings are always welcome. They are especially so after a time of sickness. Hezekiah’s illness, no doubt, called forth many expressions of sympathy, and, among the rest, a message and present from Merodach-Baladan King of Babylon. The ambassadors who bore the message and the present were very courteously received by Hezekiah. Unfortunately, he allowed himself to be unduly elated by the honor done to him by the heathen king. He showed the messengers all the house of his precious things, and all his treasures of gold and silver and armor; "there was nothing in his house, nor in all his dominion, that Hezekiah showed them not." We see here— I. FOOLISH PRIDE. Hezekiah’s prosperity for once led him astray. 1. He gave not glory to God. It was God who had prospered him, and crowned all his labors with success. But there is no word of this to the ambassadors. He takes all the honor and glory to himself. He might have, perhaps, excused himself, as many do, by saying that there is no use in obtruding our religion upon strangers. But why should he have been ashamed to acknowledge God’s bountiful hand, if he was not ashamed to take his bounties? Why should any of us be ashamed to confess Christ? To be ashamed of Christ is not only weak and cowardly; it is unreasonable. 2. We see also how foolish Hezekiah’s pride was, when we remember his recent sickness. It was not so long since Hezekiah, now so vain and boastful, turned his face to the wall, and wept sore. The memory of that should have humbled him. Not only so, but when he was recovered of his sickness, he made special promises of praise to God and humility of spirit. "The living, the living, he shall praise thee, as I do this day." Where was Hezekiah’s praise of God’s goodness when these Babylonish ambassadors came to him? "I shall go softly all my years in the bitterness of my soul" (Isaiah 38:15). Where now is Hezekiah’s humility? On the contrary, as it is said in 2 Chronicles 32:25, "Hezekiah rendered not again according to the benefit done unto him; for his heart was lifted up." 3. We see here how watchful we need to be over our own hearts. We read in 2 Chronicles 32:31, "Howbeit in the business of the ambassadors of the princes of Babylon, who sent unto him to inquire of the wonder that was done in the land, God left him, to try him, that he might know all that was in his heart." We cannot tell how we may act until the temptation comes. Such a crisis as this may come to each of us. Let us watch and pray, that we enter not into temptation. "Above all treasure guard thy heart, for out of it are the fountains of life." II. A PROPHET. Isaiah did not delay in the path of duty. Hezekiah had humbled himself and his nation, and he had dishonored God, before these heathen ambassadors. Isaiah at once proceeds to the king’s presence, and rebukes him for his folly and pride. Not only so, hut he foretells that Babylon, whose avarice had thus been aroused, would one day take advantage of this act of weakness, and take possession of the treasures of Jerusalem. Hezekiah’s answer was wise and humble. He was a God-fearing, if mistaken, man. "Good is the word of the Lord which thou hast spoken." So let us receive God’s judgments, in humility, submission, and patience, and not in rebellion and defiance. What a blessing to a king to have a faithful and wise counselor! What a blessing to a nation and to a Church to have faithful ministers! They who fear God need not fear the face of man.—C.H.I BY D. THOMAS 2 Kings 20:1-21 Death. "In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death," etc. A thoughtful man might raise many questions on this chapter—indeed, on all the chapters in this book. He might ask—Who was the writer of this chapter, ay, and of the entire Books of Kings? A question this which has not been settled, and, perhaps, never will be. He might ask on what authority certain men, called prophets, such as Isaiah, speak as from heaven, and say, "Thus saith the Lord." Priests and leaders of all sects profess to speak in the name of the Lord, and say, "Thus saith the Lord." Such questions might open up discussions of critical and speculative interest, but would be of no practical benefit whatever. Anyhow, I forego them. My purpose all along has been to turn whatever I find in this or any other book of the Old Testament to some practical use. Some years before the overwhelming destruction of Sennacherib and his army, as recorded in the preceding chapter, Hezekiah was seized with some severe disease which threatened the extinction of his life: death was before him. The account leads us to consider death in three aspects: as (1) consciously approaching; as (2) temporarily arrested; and as (3) ultimately triumphant. I. As . "In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And the Prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz came to him, and said unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live." Mark here three things. 1. When he became conscious of its approach. "In those days." "By this expression," says Dr. Keil, "the illness of Hezekiah is merely assigned in a general manner to the same time as the events previously described. That it did not occur after the departure of the Assyrians … is evident from the sixth verse, both from the fact that, in answer to his prayer, fifteen years more of life were promised him, and that he, nevertheless, reigned only twenty-nine years (2 Kings 18:2); and also from the fact that God promised to deliver him out of the hand of the Assyrians, and to defend Jerusalem." 2. How he became conscious of its approach. "Thus saith the Lord, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live." It needs no Isaiah, or any other prophet, to deliver this message to man. It comes to him from all history, from every graveyard, from every funeral procession, as well as from the inexorable law of decay working ever in his constitution. Yes; and not merely the announcement, but the duty: "Set thine house in order." (1) Men have much to do in this life. The "house" is out of order. (2) Unless the work is done here, it will not be done yonder. "Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might," etc. 3. How he felt in the consciousness of its approach. "Then he turned his face to the wall." (1) He seems to have been overwhelmingly distressed. "He wept sore." He turned away from the world, with all its multiplex concerns, from all his regal pomp, and peered into the invisible and the infinite. (2) He cried earnestly to heaven. "He prayed unto the Lord, saying, I beseech thee, 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." In his prayer we note the cry of nature. All men, even those who are atheistic in theory, are urged by the law of their spiritual nature to cry to heaven in great and conscious danger. In his prayer we also note something of self-righteousness. "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." Though he had been free from most sins, and had displayed some virtues, he had not done this. Perhaps no man that ever appeared on this earth, save the "Son of man," could say, "I have walked before thee in truth and with a perfect heart," Moral self-deception is one of the most prevalent sins of the human heart. Like the Pharisee in the temple, we exult in virtues we have not. Now, death is approaching all men, whether we are conscious of the fact or not. The decree has gone forth, "Thou shalt die, and not live." Death is ever coming with stealthy steps, yet with resistless force. He is coming always, whether we are at home or abroad, on ocean or on land, in society or in solitude; asleep or awake, he, the king of terrors, is coming. II. AS . Five things are to be observed here. 1. The primary Author of its arrest. "And it came to pass, afore Isaiah was gone out into the middle court, that the word of the Lord came to him, saying, Turn again, and tell Hezekiah the captain of my people, Thus saith the Lord, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee." How came Isaiah into possession of this knowledge, this "word of the Lord," concerning Hezekiah’s restoration? Was it by a dream, or through some other supernatural communication? On this point I confess my utter ignorance. The grand practical idea is that God can arrest death, and he only. Our times are in his hands. His constant visitation preserveth us. He is the absolute Master of death. At his bidding the most fragile creature may live forever, the most robust expire. 2. The secondary means of its arrest. "Isaiah said, Take a lump of figs. And they took and laid it on the boil, and he recovered." It would seem that the ancients, in the case of boils, abscesses, and such like, frequently applied figs to the affected parts, and no doubt there was remedial virtue in the figs. For aught we know, there may be an antidote sleeping in plants and minerals for all our physical complaints. The man who lives by the medical art is untrue to his mission, and unfaithful to his patient, unless he, with an independent mind and a devoted heart, searches Nature for those remedial elements with which she is charged. 3. The extraodinary sign of its arrest. "And Hezekiah said unto Isaiah, What shall be the sign that the Lord will heal me, and that I shall go up into the house of the Lord the third day? And Isaiah said, This sign shalt thou have of the Lord, that the Lord will do the thing that he hath spoken: shall the shadow go forward ten degrees, or go back ten degrees? And Hezekiah answered, It is a light thing for the shadow to go down ten degrees: nay, but let the shadow return backward ten degrees. And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the Lord: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz." Perhaps it was natural for a man, who when he felt himself on the brink of eternity was told he would recover, to desire some assurance of the fact so unexpected and yet so acceptable. Hezekiah desired a sign, and he had it. But what was the sign? We are told that the shadow on the dial-plate "returned ten degrees backwards." How was this? Did the sun recede, or, in other words, was the rotation of the earth reversed? I know not; neither does it matter. It is sufficient to know that, whether it was an illusion, or a natural eclipse of the sun, which some astronomers say did actually take place at this time, or a physical miracle, it seems to have satisfied the king. it seems to be a law of mind, that phenomena which it earnestly expects often occur. "Be it to thee according to thy faith." 4. The exact extension of its arrest. "I will add unto thy days fifteen years." The addition of fifteen years to man’s brief existence in this life is a considerable item, and the more so when that fifteen years is added at a period when the man has fully reached middle life, and passed through the chief training experiences. He who can add fifteen years to a man’s life can add eternity. "Our times are in his hands." 5. The mental inefficiency of its arrest. What spiritual good did these additional fifteen years accomplish for the king? They might have done much; they ought to have done much. But did they make him a morally better man, or an intellectually wiser man? Not the former, I trow, for mark his vanity. The letters which the King of Babylon, Mero-dach-Baladan, dispatched to him, together with a present, so excited his egotism that he "hearkened [or, as Isaiah puts it, ’was glad’] unto them," that is, the Babylonian deputies; and "showed them all the house of his precious things, the silver, and the gold, and the precious ointment, and all the house of his armor, and all that was found in his treasures: there was nothing in his house, nor in all his dominion, that Hezekiah showed them not." At this time he had enormous possessions. We find from 2 Chronicles 32:23 that presents were brought to Hezekiah from various quarters. "He had," says the Chronicler, "exceeding much riches and honor: and he made himself treasuries for silver, and for gold, and for precious stones, and for spices, and for shields, and for all manner of pleasant jewels; storehouses also for the increase of corn, and wine, and oil; and stalls for all manner of beasts, and cotes for flocks" (2 Chronicles 32:27, 2 Chronicles 32:28). All this, with an elated vanity, he exposed to the Babylonian magnates. Vanity, for many reasons, is one of the worst of all the bad elements of depravity; it is a species ’of moral evil, hideous to all beholders, and damnable to its possessor. Did these fifteen years added to his life make Hezekiah an intellectually wiser man? No; his judgment was not improved. In sooth, he seems to have lost that penetration, that insight into things and men, which he had previously possessed. Bow blind was he not to see that, by exposing his treasures, he was exciting the avarice of the Babylonians, tempting them to make an invasion of his country! This Isaiah told him: "Behold, the days come, that all that is in thine house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store unto this day, shall be carried into Babylon: nothing shall be left, saith the Lord." Affliction does not always improve men, either morally or intellectually. Ah me! how many have I known who, when they have "turned their face to the wall," writhing in agony, with grim death before them, have solemnly vowed improvement should they ever recover? They have recovered, and become worse in every respect than before. What boots a term of fifteen years, or even a thousand years, added to our existence, if our souls are not improved thereby? III. As . "And Hezekiah slept with his fathers." The end of the fifteen years came, and he meets with the common destiny of all. The unconquered conqueror is not to be defrauded of his prey, however long delayed. Since death cannot be escaped by any, whether young or old, it has been asked, is there any advantage in longevity? Rather, would it not be better to die in the first dawn of infancy, than in any subsequent period? "Whom the gods love die young," was said of yore. We may go a step further, and say, "Why live at all?"—D.T. BY J. ORR 2 Kings 20:1-11 Hezekiah’s sickness. In order of time, this recovery of King Hezekiah from sickness stands before the destruction of Sennacherib, though in order of narration it comes after it. So with the Babylonian embassy (see on 2 Kings 18:1-13). I. WARNING OF DEATH. 1. Unexplained sickness. "In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death." His disease was some ulcerous growth, called in the narrative "a boil." We have been accustomed in this history to see troubles of body, and calamities in the state, connected with sin, as part of its temporal punishment. But there is no reason to believe that Hezekiah was guilty of any special transgression which led to his being visited with this sickness. His own conscience was clear, and there is no indication of blame in the narrative. Affliction is sent for other reasons than the punishment of sin, and we grievously err, and do great injustice to the sufferers, if we insist on always interpreting it in this light. Job’s friends committed this error (Job 42:7, Job 42:8; cf. Luke 13:1-5; John 9:1-3). In Hezekiah’s case affliction was no doubt sent as a purificatory and strengthening discipline, intended to try his faith, and lead him to new experience of the grace of God. 2. The announcement of death. It was while Hezekiah’s mind was troubled about his sickness that the Prophet Isaiah came to him, and brought the message, "Thus saith the Lord … thou shalt die, and not live." In its natural course the sickness would have had a fatal issue. The fact of our mortality is one we should often have before us. Every ache, pain, and trouble of body, reminds us that we are here but for a time—that this is not our rest. They are prophetic of the end. A time, however, comes when the near approach of the end is unmistakable, if not to the individual himself, yet to others. If a man is dying, it is the truest kindness to let him know it. Isaiah might have withheld this information from Hezekiah on the ground that it would agitate him, might hasten his death, could do no good, etc.,—the usual pleas for keeping back from a patient the news of his hopeless condition. We have only to put the matter to ourselves: would we like to be within a few weeks or days of our death, and not be made aware of the fact? Would we in such circumstances like to be buoyed up by false hopes? Then why buoy up others? By acquainting a patient with his real state, we give him opportunity for setting his house in order; for prayer to God that might, as in Hezekiah’s case, lead to his recovery; in any case, for suitably preparing his mind in view of departure. 3. The duty of preparation. "Set thine house in order" said Isaiah; "for thou shalt die." It is a duty incumbent on us, even in health, to have our worldly affairs so arranged that, if we should be unexpectedly removed, they would be found in order. The neglect of this simple duty—the putting it off under the idea that there is still plenty of time—leads in numberless cases to confusion, heartburning, strife, and loss. If the putting the house in order has not been attended to, the approach of death is a solemn call to do it. In any case, there wilt be final arrangements, last words, loving directions which belong peculiarly to the dying hour. If it is important to set our worldly affairs in order in view of death, how much more to have every spiritual preparation made! II. PRAYER FOR LIFE. 1. Hezekiah’s distress. The announcement that he was soon to die filled Hezekiah with deep grief. He turned his face to the wall, prayed earnestly to God, and wept sore. The grounds of his distress may be inferred from the hymn composed by him after his recovery (Isaiah 38:9-20). (1) The natural love of life. This is implanted in every one. It has its root in a true instinct, for death in the case of the human being is unnatural. It was not a part of the primal order. Man as made by God was destined for immortality, not immortality of the soul only, but immortality of the whole person. Death is the violent wrenching asunder of two parts of his personality which were meant to be inseparable. It is the fruit of sin, and abnormal (Romans 5:12). (2) The want of a clear hope of immortality. The experience of the Old Testament saints teaches us to distinguish between a mere idea of future existence, and such a hope of immortality as is now possessed by Christians. The Hebrew believed in the after-existence of the soul. But this of itself brought no comfort to them. Sheol was uniformly pictured as a region of gloom, silence, and inaction. Its shadowy life was no compensation for the loss of the rich, substantial joys of earthly existence. In hours of depression this was the view of Sheol that prevailed. Only in moments of strong faith did the believer rise to the confidence that God would be with him even in Sheol, and would deliver his soul out of these gloomy abodes. The Hebrew hope of immortality was really a hope of resurrection (Psalms 16:10; Psalms 49:14, Psalms 49:15). It is Jesus Christ who, in the full sense of the words, has brought life and immortality to light (2 Timothy 1:10). (3) The thought that death would cut him off from the comforts of God’s presence, and the privilege of waiting on God and serving him. This is implied in his view of Sheol, and is expressed in his song (Isaiah 38:11). It was, therefore, no unmanly fear of death which Hezekiah showed, but one resting on good and substantial reasons. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Kings 21:1-26 THE REIGNS OF AND AMON. 2 Kings 21:1-18 THE REIGN OF . Hezekiah’s good and glorious reign was followed by one of exactly the opposite character. His son and successor, Manasseh, reversed Hezekiah’s entire religious policy, and returned to the wicked practices of his grandfather Ahaz. In verses 3-9 and verse 16 his various abominations are enumerated, while in verses 10-15 God’s sentence is pronounced upon them. The account of his reign terminates with a brief summary (verses 17, 18). 2 Kings 21:1 Manasaeh was twelve years old. Manasseh was thus not born till three years after Hezekiah’s dangerous illness, or till the year B.C. 710. Hezekiah may have given him the name in the spirit in which Joseph gave it to his firstborn (Genesis 41:51), because God, in at last blessing him with a son, had "made him forget" his dangerous illness, with the griefs and regrets that accompanied it. "Manasseh" means "Forgetting." When he began to reign—in B.C. 698 or 697, the seventh or eighth year of Sennacherib—and reigned fifty and five years in Jerusalem. So the author of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 33:1) and Josephus (’Ant. Jud.,’ 10.3. § 2). The reign exceeds in length that of any other King of Judah or Israel. And his mother’s name was Hephzibah. "Hephzibah" means "My delight is in her." Isaiah gives it as a name of honor to the restored Jerusalem (Isaiah 62:4). It has been conjectured that, as queen-mother, Hephzibah was regent during her son’s minority. But there is no trace of her regency either in Kings or Chronicles. 2 Kings 21:2 And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord. Manasseh was too young at the death of his father for his character to have been then definitively formed. He probably fell under the influence of the "princes of Judah," who, supported by many of the priests, had maintained themselves as a party antagonistic to Isaiah during the whole of Hezekiah’s reign. Hezekiah’s reformation had been carried out against their wishes. They had always leant towards foreign alliances (Isaiah 20:5; Isaiah 30:1-7) and foreign rites (Isaiah 2:6-9; Isaiah 65:3). The accession of a boy-king would be joyfully hailed by them, and they would make every effort to draw him to their side. It would seem that they were successful. After the abominations of the heathen—the details which follow in verses 3-9 sufficiently explain this strong expression—whom the Lord east out before the children of Israel. It was solely because of their abominations that they were east out (see Genesis 15:16; Le Genesis 18:25; Genesis 20:1-18:23; Deuteronomy 9:5; Deuteronomy 18:12, etc.). 2 Kings 21:3 For he built up again the high places which Hezekiah his father had destroyed. On the high-place worship, see the comment upon 1 Kings 14:23. It is quite clear that the people were deeply attached to it, and gladly saw it restored. And he reared up altars for Baal; i.e. he reintroduced the Phoenician Baal-worship, the special abomination of the house of Ahab (1 Kings 16:31; 1 Kings 22:53; 2 Kings 8:18, 2 Kings 8:27, etc.), which Athaliah had been the first to introduce into Judah (2 Kings 11:18), which Joash had put away (2 Kings 11:18), but which Ahaz (2 Chronicles 28:2) had recalled. And made a grove; literally, an Asherah, or emblem of Astarte (compare the comment on 1 Kings 14:23)—as did Ahab King of Israel (see 1 Kings 16:33) and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served them. The worship the host of heaven, or the entire multitude of the heavenly bodies, commonly known as Sabaeanism or Ssabianism, was an ancient Babylonian, Arabian, and Syrian practice. It had, perhaps, been introduced among the Jews by Ahaz (2 Kings 23:12). At any rate, it was from the time of Manasseh one of the favorite idolatries of the Jewish people. The stars were believed to guide the destiny of men, and astrology was cultivated as a main part, or even as the essence, of religion. Astrological tracts form an important element in the literature of the Babylonians. The chief objects of adoration in this worship were the sun and moon, the five planets, and the signs of the zodiac. 2 Kings 21:4 And he built altars in the house of the Lord. He created, i.e; altars to other gods in the very temple of Jehovah (see 2 Kings 21:5). This was a pollution beyond any that either Athaliah or Ahaz had ventured on. Of which the Lord had said, In Jerusalem will I put my Name (see 1 Kings 8:29; 1 Kings 9:3; 1 Kings 14:21). Where Jehovah "put his Name," making the place his, and condescending, in a certain sense, to dwell there, it might at least have been expected that he would not find himself confronted with rivals. 2 Kings 21:5 And he built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the Lord. The temple of Solomon had two courts only, an inner and an outer. The outer court was for the people, the inner for the priests and Levites. Manasseh desecrated the temple to the extent of setting up in each of these two courts an idolatrous altar, dedicated to the worship of the host of heaven. In the inner court his altar was a rival to the great brazen altar of Solomon (1 Kings 9:1-28:64; 2 Chronicles 4:1), which Ahaz had for a time removed from its place in front of the porch (2 Kings 16:14), but which Hezekiah had most certainly reinstated. 2 Kings 21:6 And he made his son pass through the fire. The author of Chronicles says, "his sons" (2 Chronicles 33:6); but this is, perhaps, rhetorical. It was usually the eldest son, who, as the most precious possible offering, was sacrificed to Moloch (see 2 Kings 3:27; 2 Kings 16:3; and, for the true nature of the sacrifice, see the comment on this latter passage). And observed times. If this translation is right, the reference would be to a superstitious regard for lucky and unlucky days, such as we note in the accounts left of themselves by the Baby-Ionian kings, who begin their buildings "in a happy month, on an auspicious day". But probably the true meaning is, "he exercised βασκανία," or, "had regard to the evil eye," a common superstition in the East. And used enchantments. A use of spoils is perhaps intended, such as those by which serpents (נֶצָשִׁים) were charmed (see the comment on Isaiah 47:9). And dealt with familiar spirits and wizards—rather, he placed in office necromancers (literally, a necromancer) and wizards; i.e. he gave such persons official positions at his court, instead of putting them to death, as the Law (Leviticus 20:27) required—he wrought much wickedness in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger; literally, he multiplied to work wickedness; i.e. he sought out every possible way; he not only restored all the different kinds of heathen sacrifices and idolatrous customs which had been in use under Ahaz, but carried his opposition to Jehovah a great deal further. As Ewald says, "He endeavored to become acquainted with all the heathen religions he could find and introduce them into Judah. For this purpose he sent into the most distant lands where there was any famous cultus, and grudged no pains for his one object." 2 Kings 21:7 And he set a graven image of the grove that he had made in the house. He introduced into the temple, and set up there for adoration, an elaborately wrought Asherah, or "sacred tree," probably copied from the elaborate sacred trees of the Assyrians. These had, in the center, the essential stele, or pillar, ornamented with rams’ horns, symbols of fecundity, and crowned with a representation of a palm tree, the whole being encircled by a framework of metal, twined about it, and throwing out from the circumference, at intervals, either palms or blossoms, or in some instances pomegranates or fir-cones. All the parts represented either animal or vegetable productiveness. Of which the Lord said to David, and to Solomon his son, In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, will I put my Name forever. It was the extremest aggravation of Manasseh’s wickedness that he was not content to introduce his new religions into the land in other places, but brought them to God’s special city which he had chosen, namely, Jerusalem, and there established them, not on the opposite hills, as Solomon had done (1 Kings 11:7), or in a rival temple within the walls, as had been done by Athaliah (2 Kings 11:18), but within God’s holy temple itself. In each of the two courts he placed an idolatrous altar, whereon the people were invited to deposit their offerings; and probably in the temple building itself, perhaps in the very holy of holies, he placed that lust-exciting emblem of Astarte, which was the most horrible profanation of all true religion, turning the truth and grace of God into lasciviousness (Jude 1:4). What practical consequences followed on this profanation, we are not distinctly told; but we may readily surmise, especially in the light of 2 Kings 23:7. 2 Kings 21:8 Neither will I make the feet of Israel move any more out of the land which I gave their fathers. The writer’s argument is that Manasseh, by these impieties, annulled God’s promises, brought about the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem, and caused the entire people to be carried off into captivity. The promises of permanence to the city and temple, and of the continued possession of the laud by the people, were, he notes, conditional; and Manasseh, by breaking through the conditions, forfeited them. Only if they will observe to do according to all that I have commanded them, and according to all that my servant Moses commanded them. The words are not taken from any single passage, but express the general sense of numerous passages, as for example of Deu 4:25-27; Deuteronomy 30:15-19; Psalms 89:28-32; 1 Kings 9:4-9, etc. 2 Kings 21:9 But they hearkened not. The people, and not Manasseh alone, were disobedient. Had they remained faithful, Manasseh’s sin would not have affected their future. And Manasseh seduced them. The influence of a young and gay king, always great, is in the East immense. When such a king succeeds one of strict and rind principles, he easily carries away the multitude with him, and leads them on to any excess of profligacy and irreligion. The beginnings of sin are delightful, and the votaries of pleasure, readily beguiled into evil courses, know not where to stop. Manasseh seduced them, we are told, to do more evil than did the nations whom the Lord destroyed before the children of Israel; that is, than the Hivites, Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Gergashites, and Jebusites (Deuteronomy 7:1, etc.). The sin of Israel exceeded that of the Canaanitish nations, not so much in any outward and tangible features, as in the fact that it was committed against light, in spite of the Law, and against all the warnings and denunciations of the prophets. 2 Kings 21:10 And the Lord spake by his servants the prophets, saying. It is uncertain who were the prophets of Manasseh’s time. Probably Isaiah was one of them. Habakkuk is thought to have been another (Keil). Nahum and Zephaniah seem also to belong, in part, to his reign. 2 Kings 21:11 Because Manasseh King of Judah hath done these abominations (comp. verse 2), and hath done wickedly above all that the Amorites did, which were before him (comp. verse 9). The "Amorites" are put here (as in Genesis 15:16; 1 Kings 21:26; and Amos 2:9, Amos 2:10) for the Canaanitish nations generally. Next to the Hittites, they were the most important of the seven nations. And hath made Judah also to sin with his idols (see the comment on verse 9). 2 Kings 21:12 Therefore thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Behold, I am bringing such evil upon Jerusalem and Judah, that whosoever heareth of it, both his ears shall tingle. "As a sharp discordant note," says Bahr, "pains one’s ears, so the news of this harsh punishment shall give pain to all who hear of it." The phrase is one never uttered by any other lips than those of Jehovah (1 Samuel 3:11; Jeremiah 19:3). "It denotes" (Keil) "such a judgment as has never been heard of before, and excites alarm and horror." Not the Jews only, but the other neighboring nations, when they heard of the sufferings endured in the siege (2 Kings 25:8), and the severities exercised upon the king (2 Kings 21:7.) and the city (2 Kings 21:9, 2 Kings 21:10) and. the inhabitants (2 Kings 21:11), would have a thrill of pain go through them at the hearing, partly unselfish, partly perhaps selfish, since the treatment that was dealt out to others might also be reserved for them. 2 Kings 21:13 And I will stretch over Jerusalem the line of Samaria; i.e. "I will do to Jerusalem as I have done to Samaria; I will execute upon it a similar judgment." God applies his measuring-line, a perfectly uniform standard, to all nations, as to all individuals, and metes out to them an equal measure of justice. Jerusalem will be presently treated as Samaria has been recently treated; and a similar destruction will overtake it. The metaphor is not to be pressed, as if cities were destroyed with as much care as they are built, by constant use of the measuring-line and the plummet. And the plummet of the house of Ahab. The justice meted out to the house of Ahab shall be meted out also to the house of David. The ways of God are equal (Ezekiel 18:25), and he is no" respecter of persons." He has one law for all; and, as the house of David has sinned in the same way, and to the same extent, as the house of Ahab had sinned, one and the same punishment will fall upon both of them. And I will wipe Jerusalem as a man wipeth a dish, wiping it, and turning it upside down. Jerusalem will be emptied, as a man empties his dish of the refuse scraps remaining on it, and will be then put away, as done with. The metaphor expresses contempt as well as condemnation. 2 Kings 21:14 And I will forsake the remnant of mine inheritance. "The remnant" here is not the remnant left of Judah after the deportation of two hundred thousand souls by Sennacherib (as in 2 Kings 19:4), but the remnant that is left of the whole people of Israel—the two tribes as distinct from the ten. The ten tribes were forsaken when the Assyrians took and destroyed Samaria (2 Kings 17:18, 2 Kings 17:23); the two remained. Now the two also would be forsaken, and the last remnant of God’s inheritance cast out. And deliver them into the hand of their enemies. Not the Chaldeans only, who were not yet "their enemies," but their persistent and inveterate enemies, the Syrians, Moabites, Ammonites (see 2 Kings 24:2), and Edomites (Ezekiel 25:12; Joe 3:19), who all joined with Nebuchadnezzar at the last, and "indulged their ancient hatred by taking a very active part in the final war." And they shall become a prey and a spoil to all their enemies (comp. Jeremiah 41:2-10; Jeremiah 48:27; Obadiah 1:10-14; Zephaniah 2:8, etc.). The years which immediately followed the Captivity were years of terrible suffering to the remnant whom Nebuchadnezzar left in the land (2 Kings 25:12). Every petty power in the neighborhood felt itself at liberty to make incursions with Judaea at its pleasure, to plunder and ravage, and drive off cap-tires, or massacre them in cold blood, or commit, any other atrocity. Some critics regard the description of Isaiah in 2 Kings 42:22-24 as prophetic of these sufferings. 2 Kings 21:15 Because they have done that which was evil in my sight. The chief sins of the people were the following: Altars for the worship of the host of heaven were erected upon almost every roof (Jeremiah 19:13; Zephaniah 1:5); offerings of cakes were made in the very streets to Astarte (Jeremiah 7:18); the fire of Tophet—a huge furnace in the valley of Hinnom—was kept constantly burning, and the sacrifice of innocent children to the bloody sun-god, Moloch, was perpetual (Jeremiah 7:31; Ezekiel 23:37); it was as common to swear by the name of Moloch as by that of Jehovah (Zephaniah 1:5). Lascivious rites were practiced. Close by the temple the unchaste priestesses of Venus had their habitations, and their wretched male attendants, the Galli of the classical writers, plied their trade (2 Kings 23:7). Cruelty and oppression increased among the upper classes (Zephaniah 3:1-3); the prophets were "light and treacherous persons;" the priests "polluted the sanctuary, and did violence to the Law" (Zephaniah 2:1-3). "Spoiling and violence," "strife and contention;" were rife throughout the city (Habakkuk 1:3). Ewald sums up the state of things as follows: "The atmosphere of the age was poisoned from above; and the leaders of the people of every class, whose moral decline had already become a subject of lament in the preceding century, sank into an almost incredible degeneracy. The prophets, who ought to have been ever the most loyal guardians of the truth, were for the most part like dumb and greedy dogs; many of the priests allowed themselves to be seduced into offering heathen sacrifices; the judges and nobles paid little heed to the eternal right. Equivocation and hypocrisy spread among those who ought to have ministered most austerely to public truthfulness of life; while those who were engaged in commerce and trade sank into the harshest indifference to every higher aim, and thought only of the acquisition and enjoyment of wealth. So terrible was the demoralization which set in under Manasseh, that those who remained faithful to the ancient religion were either scoffed at as fools, or allowed to perish in cold contempt without any effort being made to save them, and were even derided after their death." And have provoked me to anger, since the day their fathers came forth out of Egypt, even unto this day. The moral and spiritual depravity of Judah, though it only came to a head in the time of Manasseh, had its roots in a long-distant past. As St. Stephen pointed out to the Sanhedrin (Acts 7:39-43), it began in the wilderness with the worship of the golden calf, and went on to the worship of the host of heaven, of Moloch, and of Remphan; it was shown markedly in the terrible sin of Peer (Numbers 25:1-3); it stinted God’s hand when the nations had to be driven out from Canaan (Judges 2:1-5); it provoked God’s anger greatly during the whole period of the Judges (Judges 2:11-19); checked under David and Solomon, it broke out afresh on the accession of Rehoboam (1 Kings 14:22-24), and showed itself, more or less, under every subsequent king, culminating at last in that fearful condition of things which has been described above (see the comment on the first clause of this verse). 2 Kings 21:16 Moreover Manasseh shed innocent blood very much. We must not understand this of his own offerings to Moloch, for these have been already put on record against him (verse 6), and this is something additional (note the strong expression, וְגַם), nor even of the multitudinous sacrifices of the same kind which were the result of his influence on the people. Some culminating horror is required, something not touched upon before, and something specially attaching to the monarch himself. These conditions are answered by supposing a bloody persecution of the faithful to be intended. Josephus declares positively that Manasseh "cruelly put to death all the righteous among the Hebrews, and did not even spare the prophets" (’Ant. Jud.,’ 10.3. § 1). A tradition, very widely received, declared Isaiah to have been one of the victims. Stanley says, "A reign of terror commenced against all who ventured to resist the reaction. Day by day a fresh batch of the prophetic order were ordered for execution. It seemed as if a devouring lion were let loose against them. From end to end of Jerusalem were to be seen traces of their blood. The nobles who took their part were thrown headlong from the rocky cliffs of Jerusalem". The persecution has been compared to that of Anglicans under Mary Tudor. Till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another—i.e. "till he had filled it with blood and slaughter"—beside his sin wherewith he made Judah to sin, in doing that which was evil in the sight of the Lord (see verse 9). 2 Kings 21:17 Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh. Important additions to the history of Manasseh are made by the writer of Chronicles. From him we learn that, after prophetical warnings had been in vain addressed to him and to his people (2 Chronicles 33:10), he was visited with a Divine judgment, an Assyrian army under "captains" being sent against him, who took him prisoner, and carried him to Babylon—the city where Esarheddon, the successor of Sennacherib, and contemporary of Manasseh, ordinarily held his court. Here he remained for some considerable time "in affliction" (verse 12), and, becoming convinced of sin and deeply penitent for his manifold transgressions, he turned to God in sincerity and truth, and being restored by the Assyrians to his kingdom, he put away the idolatrous practices and emblems which he had previously introduced, "repaired the altar of the Lord" which had gone to decay, and re-established, so far as he could, the worship of Jehovah (verse 16). A special prophet, Hosai, seems to have chronicled his sins and his repentance in a work which survived the Captivity, and is twice quoted by the compiler of the Books of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 33:18, 2 Chronicles 33:19). The submission of Manasseh to Esarhaddon is noted in the latter’s annals, about the year B.C. 680. Other "acts" of Manasseh were the fortification of Jerusalem "on the west side of Gihon in the valley" the strengthening of the defenses of Ophel, and the occupation with strong garrisons of the various fortresses within his dominions. He thus played his part of tributary ally to Assyria With zeal, placing the south-eastern frontier in an excellent condition to resist the assaults of Egypt. Manasseh outlived Esarhaddon, and was for many years contemporary with Asshur-bani-pal, his son, whose inscriptions, however, contain no mention of him. Most likely his name occurred on Cylinder C, line 3, which is now illegible. And all that he did, and his sin that he sinned, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? The "sin which he sinned" is probably his persecution, which was viewed as his worst sin. 2 Kings 21:18 And Manasseh slept with his fathers, and was buried in the garden of his own house. We have already seen reason for believing that the catacomb of David was full, and that Hezekiah was buried outside it, though in the neighborhood, on this account (see the comment on 2 Kings 20:21). Manasseh seems to have made a new family tomb in a garden belonging to his house. It is quite impossible to fix its site. In the garden of Uzza. Probably an addition to the old palace garden; perhaps a purchase made by Manasseh with the object of converting it into a burial-ground. "Uzza," or "Uzzah," was a common name among the Jews (2 Samuel 6:8; Ezra 2:49; Nehemiah 7:51; 1 Chronicles 6:29; 1 Chronicles 8:7; 1 Chronicles 13:7-11), and does not point to any definite individual. And Amen his son reigned in his stead. "Amon" in Hebrew means "Nursling," or "Darling," and it is quite possible that Manasseh gave his son the name in this sense. But it is also the ordinary Hebrew form of the term ("Amen," or "Amun") by which the Egyptians designated the great god of Thebes, whom the Greeks and Romans called "Ammon." It has therefore been thought by many that it was given by Manasseh to his son "in an idolatrous spirit." So Bishop Cotton in Smith’s ’Dictionary of the Bible,’ vol. 1. p. 61, and others. 2 Kings 21:19-26 REIGN OF AMON. The short reign of Amen, the son and successor of Manasseh, was distinguished by only two events: (1) his restoration of all the idolatrous and wicked practices which his father had upheld during the earlier portion of his reign; and (2) his untimely death, in consequence of a conspiracy which was formed against him among the officers of his court. The writer of Kings is therefore able to dispatch his history in eight verses. 2 Kings 21:19 Amon was twenty and two years old when he began to reign. So Josephus (’Ant. Jud.,’ 10.4. § 1), and the author of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 33:21). He must have been born in B.C. 664, early in the reign of Asshur-bani-pal, probably in the year of that monarch’s expedition against Tyro. And he reigned two years in Jerusalem. The "twelve years" assigned to Amen By the Duke of Manchester (’Times of Daniel’) are wholly devoid of foundation, and would throw the entire chronology into confusion. As it is, there is a very exact accordance in this part of the history between the profane and the scriptural dates. And his mother’s name was Meshullemeth, the daughter of Haruz of Jotbah. Jotbah is probably the same city as the "Jotbath" of Deuteronomy 10:7, and the "Jotbathah" of Numbers 33:33, which was in the neighborhood of Ezion-geber, and therefore probably in the Arabah. Josephus, however, says that Jot-bah was "a city of Judah." 2 Kings 21:20 And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, as his father Manasseh did. 2 Kings 21:21 And he walked in all the way that his father walked in. There was not a single one among the early wickednesses of Manasseh which Amen did not imitate. The details of Josiah’s reformation (2 Kings 23:4-24) show that under Amon (1) the Asherah or "grove" maintained its place in the temple building; (2) the two idolatrous altars stood in the two courts; (3) the temple was the scene of the worship of Baal, Ashtoreth, and the host of heaven; (4) the unchaste priestesses of the Syrian goddess, with the male partners in their guilt, were lodged in houses close by the house of the Lord; (5) chariots and horses dedicated to the sun were maintained at one of the temple gates; (6) the fire of Tophet burnt continually in the valley of Hinnom, and children were there "passed through the fire to Moloch;" (7) an idolatrous worship held possession of all the high places all ever Judaea and Samaria, and idolatrous priests, deriving their appointment from the king, burnt incense in the high places to Baal, to the sun, the moon, the planets, and all the host of heaven; and (8) magic and necromancy were practiced openly under royal sanction throughout the length and breadth of the land. And served the idols that his father served—as Baal, Ashtoreth, Moloch, the Asherah, and others—and worshipped them. 2 Kings 21:22 And he forsook the Lord God of his fathers. Other kings, as Ahaz, had made a sort of compromise between the worship of Jehovah and idolatry (2 Kings 16:10-15). Manasseh and Amen forsook the worship of Jehovah altogether. And walked not in the way of the Lord; i.e. did not even maintain an outward observance of the Law of Moses, but set it wholly aside. 2 Kings 21:23 And the servants of Amon—i.e. his attendants, the officers of his court—conspired against him, and slew the king in his own house. Conspiracies in the palace, frequent in Israel (see 1 Kings 16:9; 2 Kings 9:32-37; 2 Kings 11:10, 25, 30), were not unknown in Judah (see 2 Kings 12:21). They naturally arose from various causes, as insults, injuries, hopes of advantage, ambition, etc. Where, as in the present case, no clue is given, it is idle to conjecture the motives by which the conspirators were actuated. Religious motives can scarcely have come into play. 2 Kings 21:24 And the people of the land slew all them that had conspired against King Amon. We certainly, therefore, cannot attribute Amon’s murder to a popular reaction against his idolatries. Everything unites to prove that the foreign worships were in favor with the people at this period, and that the kings who patronized them were more generally popular than those who pursued the opposite course. And the people of the land made Josiah his son king in his stead. The prestige of the house of David was still strong. The conspirators may have intended a change of dynasty; but the mass of the people could not contemplate with equanimity the occupation of the throne by a stranger—one not of David’s house. They there, in a tumultuary manner, having punished the conspirators with death, sought out the true heir, and, having found him, though he was a boy of but eight years of age, placed him upon his father’s throne. 2 Kings 21:25 Now the rest of the acts of Amen which he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? No other acts of Amen have come down to us. He was probably, during his short reign of two years, a submissive tributary of Asshur-bani-pal. 2 Kings 21:26 And he was buried in his sepulcher in the garden of Uzza—i.e. in the same place as his father (see 2 Kings 21:18)—and Josiah his son reigned in his stead. So the writer of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 33:25), and Josephus (l.s.c.) 2 Kings 21:1-18 The lesson of Manasseh’s life, that it is far easier to do than to undo evil. Manasseh, carried away by the impetuosity of youth, and under the advice of evil counselors, threw himself into a movement the direct opposite of that instituted by his father, and in a short time completely changed in all respects the whole religion of the kingdom. His idea, so far as we can trace it, seems to have been a welcoming of heathen and idolatrous creeds and rites of all kinds and from all quarters, together with a stern repression of the religion of Jehovah. The bloody rites of Moloch, the licentious orgies of the Syrian goddess, the Phoenician Baal-worship, the Arabian astrology, the magic and necromancy of Babylon, were all regarded as equally worthy of his patronage, all given a home in his capital; one single cult was disallowed, and its exercise punished with death—the worship of "the Holy One of Israel." In all these respects Manasseh found it easy enough to work his will; no one resisted him; the awful child-sacrifices suited well with one side of the national temperament, the wild sensualism of Syrian and Phoenician orgies harmonized with another. Manasseh easily "seduced" the mass of the people to do as he would have them; and, when he met with recalcitrants, had a "short and easy method" with them—the method of instant execution. All went smoothly and satisfactorily with him, probably for near thirty years of his reign, when by some act—we know not what-he displeased his Assyrian suzerain, was carried captive to Babylon, and there, in the bitterness of confinement, brought to see the error of his ways. Restored to his throne, he thought to undo his evil work as easily and completely as he had done it. Again, outwardly no one resisted his will. The external changes were made. "The strange gods" were "put away" (2 Chronicles 33:15); the idols cleared out of the house of the Lord; the idolatrous altars banished; the formal worship of Jehovah reintroduced; the brazen altar of Solomon "repaired" (2 Chronicles 33:16) and used for sacrifice; Judah commanded to serve Jehovah, the God of Israel. But the spirit of true and pure religion could not be brought back. Thirty years of idolatry had debauched the heart of the nation. Jehovah’s faithful followers had been martyred. The rest of the people could only give to Jehovah a lip-service. And thus no sooner was Manasseh dead than everything reverted into its former condition. The idols were restored—the altars to the host of heaven replaced in the temple courts—the flames of Tophet relighted—the filthy rites of the Dea Syria re-established. When Josiah came to the throne, the state of things was as bad as it had ever been, even in the worst years of Manasseh. Baal was the god chiefly worshipped in Jerusalem (Zephaniah 1:4); altars to the host of heaven covered the housetops; men commonly swore by Moloch; the whole nation had "turned back from Jehovah" (Zephaniah 1:6), and the city was filled with "violence and deceit" (Zephaniah 1:9). Not even could all Josiah’s efforts remedy the evil which Manasseh had brought about. The corruption was too deep-seated; and it was Manasseh’s evil-doing, which he could not undo, that caused the final destruction of the kingdom (2 Kings 23:26, 2 Kings 23:27; 2 Kings 24:3, 2 Kings 24:4). BY C.H. IRWIN 2 Kings 21:1-16 Manasseh’s wicked reign. Two thoughts are brought before us by the reign of Manasseh. They are a striking contrast to one another. I. THE POWER OF SIN. 1. We see how sin perpetuates itself. The deeds of Manasseh were just a repetition of the worst deeds of his predecessors. "He did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, after the abominations of the heathen." He built up again the high places. He made altars for Baal. He worshipped all the host of heaven. He made his son pass through the fire to Moloch. (What we have already said on these sins applies here.) 2. We see also the progressive power of s/n. There is a progress in sin from bad to worse. Manasseh imitated the sins of his predecessors. But he went further than any of them. "He built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the Lord" (verse 5). Worse than all, he set up a carved image, the idol that he had made, in the very temple of the living God. It is also stated that he shed innocent blood very much, till he had filled Jerusalem with blood from one end to the other (verse 16). Let us beware of the beginnings of evil. 3. We see also the power of sin to harden men’s hearts. We read in 2 Chronicles that "God spake to Manasseh and his people; but they would not hearken." How often God still speaks to men by his Word, by his providences, and yet sin has so hardened their hearts, that they pay no attention to his warnings, remonstrances, and appeals! II. THE POWER OF PRAYER. There is no reference in this account of Manasseh to any prayer of his. And yet, strange though it may seem, prayer played an important part in Manasseh’s history. When we turn to the summary of his life which is given in 2 Chronicles 33:1-25; we read (2 Chronicles 33:18, 2 Chronicles 33:19), "Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh, and his prayer unto his God, and the words of the seers that spake unto him in the name of the Lord God of Israel, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel. His prayer also, and how God was entreated of him, and all his sins, and his trespass … before he was humbled: behold, they are written among the sayings of the seers." Now, what was this prayer of Manasseh? It was simply a prayer for pardon. Observe how Manasseh learned to pray. For all his wickedness the Lord brought judgments upon him (verses 10-15). He brought upon him and his people "the captains of the host of the King of Assyria, which took Manasseh prisoner, and bound him with fetters, and carried him to Babylon." It was then, in his extremity and calamity, that Manasseh learned to pray. "And when he was in affliction, he besought the Lord his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers, and prayed unto him: and he was entreated of him, and heard his supplication, and brought him again to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the Lord he was God" (2 Chronicles 33:12, 2 Chronicles 33:13). Often it is affliction and trial that first teach men to pray, to turn to God. We see here the power of penitent prayer. We see here that no one is too great a sinner to pray to God for mercy. Your past life may have been given up to sin. So was Manasseh’s. You may have dishonored and disobeyed God. So did Manasseh. Yet he obtained mercy. The greatest, guiltiest sinner may get pardon at the cross. "Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."—C.H.I. 2 Kings 21:19-24 Amon’s wicked reign. We have here more than one instructive lesson. I. THE POWER OF EVIL OFTEN THE GOOD. Manasseh had humbled himself before God. He obtained pardon. But he could not undo the guilty past. He could not undo the effects of his evil example and influence. We see how his sins were imitated and continued by his son Amen. How careful we should be what influence we exercise, what an example we leave behind us! Many a penitent sinner would give worlds if he could undo the consequences to others of his own past sins. II. THE LAW OF ONCE MORE. "With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." Every case of disobedience against God on the part of Israel and her kings brought its corresponding penalty. Amen was very defiant in his sin. "He humbled not himself before the Lord … but trespassed more and more" (2 Chronicles 33:23). He cast off the authority of God. The day came when his own servants rose in rebellion against his authority, and conspired against him, and slew him. The conspirators also met with their punishment. "The people of the land slew all them that had conspired against King Amen" (verse 24). Amid all its corruptions, the nation had not yet utterly lost the sense of justice. "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."—C.H.I. BY D. THOMAS 2 Kings 21:1-18 Manasseh; or, the material and moral in human life. "Manasseh was twelve years old when he began to reign, and reigned fifty and five years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Hephzibah. And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord," etc. "Manasseh" says Keil, "having begun to reign at an early age, did not choose his father’s ways, but set up the idolatry of his grandfather Ahaz again, since the godless party in the nation, all whose chief priests, and (false) prophets stood, and who would not hearken to the Law of the Lord, and in the time of Hezekiah had sought help against Assyria, not from Jehovah, but from the Egyptians, had obtained control of the young and inexperienced king. He built again the high places which Hezekiah had destroyed, erected altars for Baal, and Asherah, like Ahab of Israel." There are two great mistakes prevalent amongst men—one is an over-estimation of the secular; the other, a depreciation of the spiritual. Many theoretically hold, and more practically indicate, that man should attend mainly, if not entirely, to his secular interests, as a citizen of time; that the present, the palpable, and the certain should engage a far greater portion of his attention than the future, the unseen, and the probable. It is bad to hold these ideas, but it is worse to practice them. More respect, perhaps, is due to the mistaken men who theoretically adopt them, than to those who denounce in no very measured terms their votaries and yet practically carry them out in their daily life. And yet such characters abound in Christian England, abound in our congregations, and in our clergy too. The religionist who gives more of his thought, energy, and time to the secular than the spiritual, is carrying out in his everyday conduct the principles of those secular and infidel teachers against whom he is ever ready to thunder his condemnation. Far more distressed am I at the practical secularism of the Christian than at the theoretical secularism of the skeptic. The other mistake is overrating the spiritual at the expense of the secular. It is not very uncommon for religious teachers to profess to despise secular interests, and so to enforce the claims of piety as if they required the sacrifice of our corporeal and secular happiness. I have no faith in such representations of moral duty. Man is one, and all his duties and interests are concurrent and harmonious; the end of Christianity is to make man happy, body and soul, here and hereafter. These remarks are suggested by the history of Manasseh. He was the son of Hezekiah; was born upwards of seven hundred years before Christ; began to reign when he was twelve years of age; continued his rulership for fifty-five years, died at the age of sixty-eight, and was buried in a sepulcher which he had prepared for himself in his own garden (see 2 Chronicles 33:1-20). His inner life or character will appear as we proceed in the illustration of our subject. In his biography we have three instructive views of the secular and spiritual. We have here— I. THE OF THE SECULAR AND THE OF THE . "He built up again the high places which Hezekiah his father had destroyed; and he reared up altars for Baal, and made a grove, as did Ahab King of Israel; and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served them," etc. Here is a man at the height of the secular elevation. He is raised to a throne, called to bear sway over a people the most enlightened, and in a country as fertile and lovely as any on the face of the earth. In the person of this Manasseh you have secular greatness in its highest altitude and most attractive position. But in connection with this you have spiritual degradation. Penetrate the gaudy trappings of his royalty, look within, and what see you? A low, wretched, infamous spirit, a spirit debased almost to the lowest point in morals. Few names in the history of our sinful world stand out with more prominent features of depravity and vice than this of Manasseh. Look at him: 1. Socially. How acted he as a son? His father, Hezekiah, was a man of undoubted piety—a monarch of distinguished worth. Many earnest prayers he offered, no doubt, for his son, and many tender counsels on religious subjects had he addressed to him. Yet what was the return for all this? His sire was scarcely cold in his grave before the son commenced undoing in the kingdom all that his pious father had for years endeavored to accomplish. His insane fanaticism in the cause of debased religion was not surpassed even by the king in modern times who most resembled him, Philip II. of Spain. How did he act as a parent? Was he anxious for the virtue and happiness of his children? No; "he caused his children to pass through the fire of the son of Hinnom." History represents the god Moloch, to which this Manasseh presented his children, as a brazen statue, which was ever kept burning hot, with its arms outstretched. Into these outstretched arms the idolatrous parent threw his children, which soon fell down into the raging furnace beneath. 2. Religiously. A dupe of the most stupid imposture. "He observed times, and used enchantments [and used witchcraft], and dealt with familiar spirits and wizards." He was the maddened votary of the most cruel and monstrous superstition. 3. Politically. Ruining his own country, provoking the indignation of Heaven. "So Manasseh made Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to err, and to do worse than the heathen, whom the Lord had destroyed before the children of Israel." The elevation of the secular and the degradation of the spiritual, so manifest, alas! in all times and lands, is not destitute of many grave and startling suggestions. 1. It shows the moral disorganization of the human world. This state of things can never be according to the original plan of the creation. Can it be accordant with the original purpose of the Creator that wickedness should sit on thrones and hold the scepters of the world in its grasp? Can it be that Infinite Parity intended to endow depravity with such worldly wealth and power? Impossible. A terrible convulsion has happened to the human world, a convulsion that has thrown every part into disorder. "All the foundations of the earth are out of course." The social world is in a moral chaos. The Bible traces the cause and propounds the remedy of this terrible disorganization. 2. It shows the perverting capability of the son. The greater the amount of worldly good a man possesses, the stronger is the appeal of the Creator for his gratitude and devotion. These earthly mercies urge self-consecration. Moreover, the larger the amount of worldly wealth and power, the greater the facilities as well as the obligations to a life of spiritual intelligence, holiness, and piety. But here, in the case of this monarch, you have, what indeed you find in different degrees everywhere in human life past and present, the soul turning these advantages to the most fiendish iniquity. The perverting capability of the soul within us may well fill us with amazement and alarm. We can darken the light of truth, make the tree of life drop poison, and cause the very breath of God to be pestilential. 3. It shows the high probability of a judgment. Under the government of a righteous monarch, will vice always have its banquets, its purple, and its crown? Will the great Mechanician always allow the human engine thus to ply its wondrous energies in confusion? Will the great Lord allow his stewards to misappropriate his substance, and never call them to account? It cannot be! There must come a day for balancing long-standing accounts; a day for making all that has been irregular in human history chime harmoniously with the original law of the universe. II. THE OF THE SECULAR AND THE OF THE . The judgment of God, which must ever follow sin, at length overtook the wicked monarch. The Assyrian army, under the direction of Esarhaddon, invaded the country, and carried all before it. The miserable monarch can make no effectual resistance. He is seized, bound in chains, transported to Babylon, and then cast into prison. Here is secular degradation. Here, away in exile, chains, and prison, like the prodigal, he began to think. His guilty conduct passed under sad review—memory brought past crimes and abused mercies in awful and startling forms before him, and his heart is smitten with contrition. He prays; his prayer is heard; and here, bereft of every vestige of secular greatness, he begins to rise spiritually, to become an intellectual and moral man (2 Chronicles 33:12). We may learn from this: 1. That man’s circumstances are no necessary hindrances to conversion. If the question were asked—What circumstances are the most inimical to the cultivation of piety? I should unhesitatingly answer—Adversity. I am well aware, indeed, that adversity, as in the case before us, often succeeds in inducing religious thoughtfulness and penitence, when prosperity has failed; that afflictions have often broken the moral slumber of the soul, and led the careless to consider his ways. But, notwithstanding this, I cannot regard adversity itself as the most suited to the cultivation of the religious character. Sufferings are inimical to that grateful feeling and spiritual effort which religious culture requires. It is when the system bounds with health, when Providence smiles on the path, when the mind is not necessarily pressed with anxieties about the means of worldly subsistence, when leisure and facilities for religious reflection and effort are at command, that men are in the best position to discipline themselves into a godly life. But here we find a man in the most unfavorable position, away from religious institutions and friends and books, an imprisoned exile in a pagan land, beginning to think of his ways, and directing his feet into the paths of holiness. Such a case as this meets all the excuses which men offer for their want of religion. It is often said, "Were we in such and such circumstances we would be religious." The rich man says, "Were I in humble life, more free from the anxieties, cares, responsibilities, and associations of my position, I would live a godly life." Whilst the poor, on the other hand says, with far more reason, "Were my spirit not pressed down by the crushing forces of poverty; had I sufficient of worldly goods to remove me from all necessary anxiety, I would give my mind to religion, and serve my God." The man in the midst of the excitement and bustle of commercial life says, "Were I in a more retired situation, in some rural region away from the eternal din of business—away in quiet fields and under clear skies, amidst the music of birds and brooks, I would serve my Maker." Whilst on the contrary, and with greater reason, the tenant of these quiet scenes says, "Were I distant from this eternal monotony, amidst scenes of mental stimulus and social excitement, I should be roused from the apathy, which oppresses me, and I would be a religious man." The fact, after all, is that circumstances are no necessary hindrances or helps to a religious life. 2. That Heaven’s mercy is greater than man’s iniquities. When conscience-stricken with the enormity of his wickedness, this one of the chief of human sinners betakes himself to his knees in humble prayer "before the God of his fathers," how is he treated? Is he scathed with a flash of retributive displeasure? Who would have wondered if he had been so? But no. Is he upbraided for his past wickedness? Who would have been surprised if he had been stunned with thunders of reproof? But no. Is he received with cold indifference? No. "He was entreated of him, and heard his supplication, and brought him again to Jerusalem into his kingdom." What a confirmation is here of that promise, "Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy on him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon!" "Abundantly!" This is a glorious word, a word that, like the boundless heavens of God, towers and expands over a universe of sin. III. THE BOTH OF THE AND THE SECULAR. The Almighty hears his prayer. He is emancipated from bondage, brought back to his own country, and restored to the throne of Israel. There he is now with a true heart, in a noble position—a real great man occupying a great office. This is a rare scene; and yet the only scene in accordance with the real constitution of things and the will of God. It seems to me that if man had remained in innocence, his outward position would always have been the product and type of his inner soul; that he who got a throne would do so because of the moral nobility of his nature, and that in all cases secular circumstances, whether elevated, affluent, or otherwise, would ever be the effects and exponents of spiritual character. Manasseh’s restoration to the throne, and the work of reformation to which he sets himself, suggest two subjects of thought. 1. The tendency of godliness to promote man’s secular elevation. The monarch comes back in spirit to God, and God brings him back to his throne. As the material condition of men depends upon their moral condition, improve the latter, and you improve the former. As the world gets spiritually holier, it will get secularly happier. Godliness is material as well as moral "gain." The system that best promotes godliness is the system that best promotes man’s temporal well-being. And that system is the gospel Hence, let philanthropists adopt this as their grand instrument. When Christianity shall have won its triumph over all souls, men’s bodies will be restored to their lost inheritance of health, elasticity, force, and plenty, as Manasseh was now restored to his lost throne. There is a physical millennium for the world as well as a spiritual; the former will grow out of and reveal the latter, as trees and flowers their hidden life. 2. The tendency of penitence to make retribution; Concerning Manasseh, it is thus written: "Now after this he built a wall without the city of David, on the west side of Gihon, in the valley, even to the entering in at the fish gate, and compassed about Ophel, and raised it up a very great height, and put captains of war in all the fenced cities of Judah. And he took away the strange gods," etc. Here is restitution, and an earnest endeavor to undo the mischief which he had wrought. Thus Zacchaeus acted, and thus all true penitents have ever acted and will ever act. True penitence has a restitutionary instinct. But how little, alas I of the mischief done can ever be undone! What can we do? We cannot destroy the fact of wrong. That fact will never be erased from the moral annals of the universe; it is chronicled with unfading ink on an imperishable substance. What can we do? We cannot destroy the influence of our wrong. The wrong that is gone out from us will roll its pestilential streams down through the ages. What can we do? We can "cease to do evil;" and, thank God! we can do more—we can make some compensation for the injury we have done the creation. We can, by Heaven’s grace, open up within us a fountain for the washing away of sin and uncleanness—a fountain whose streams will bless with life and beauty many generations yet to come.—D.T. 2 Kings 21:19-26 Amon. "Amon was twenty and two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned two years in Jerusalem." This is a short account of the brief and wicked reign of Amon the son of Manasseh. I. HIS REIGN WAS VERY SHORT. "He reigned two years," etc. The wonder is that such a man should have been permitted to breathe the breath of life. The sooner a bad king dies the better. 1. The better for his own sake. It restrains his own responsibilities and the aggravation of his guilt. 2. The better for his race. A fountain of moral poison has been dried up for him; the social air is less poisonous. II. HIS REIGN WAS VERY WICKED. "And he walked in all the way that his father walked in, and served the idols that his father served, and worshipped them." Of the wickedness of kings we have had abundant examples in these sketches. It is, indeed, a fire that burns athwart the ages. III. THE REIGN WAS VERY . "And the servants of Amon conspired against him, and slew the king in his own house." How tragic the end of this man! His "servants," who should have guarded him, murdered him. "His own house," that should have been his castle of defense, was the place of his execution. In this verse the people: 1. Did justice to the traitors who murdered their king. 2. Did kindness to themselves in preparing the way for Josiah.—D.T. BY J. ORR 2 Kings 21:1-9, 2 Kings 21:16 The reaction under Manasseh. Light and dark alternate strangely in the later history of Judah. Overlooking the brief reign of Amon, Hezekiah alternates with Ahaz, and Josiah with Manasseh. The good kings are very good, the bad kings very bad. The climax of wickedness is reached in Manasseh. He had a good father, as Hezekiah had a wicked one, yet he outstripped in daring ungodliness all the kings before and after him. I. HIS IN EVIL. 1. His tendencies were evil. Manasseh’s tender years when he became king do not wholly explain the strong bent he showed towards evil He became king, it is true, when he was but twelve, a mere boy, with character unformed, and open to the seductions of wicked courtiers; but Josiah, his grandson, was only eight when he ascended the throne, and he showed a disposition the very opposite. Nor does environment explain everything. Josiah had far fewer advantages than Manasseh. Evil influences were round the young prince, but there were good ones also. Hezekiah his father would give him the best of training; his mother, Hephzibah, if it was she that suggested the prophet’s allusion in Isaiah 62:5, seems to have left a fragrant memory behind her; Isaiah was still living to be his instructor, if he had been willing to be guided as Josiah was (2 Kings 12:2); there were also the remarkable mercies God had shown to his father and to the nation but a few years before. Contrast Josiah’s position, with Amon for a father, and the country in the state to which it was reduced after half a century of heathenism. There is no accounting for these differences through heredity, environment, or in any other way which ignores personality. While as a rule the children of the good turn out well, and the children of the wicked badly, there are startling exceptions on either side. Some from their childhood seem to be the subjects of an innate, virulent depravity, which only needs opportunity to break out into violent forms of evil. 2. His environment was evil. At the same time, it is to be admitted that the circumstances in which he was placed only afforded too much encouragement to the development of Manasseh’s ungodly tendencies. It was undeniably a disadvantage to be so early deprived of a father’s guidance, and saddled with the responsibilities of a throne. The courtly aristocratic party had never been in real sympathy with Hezekiah’s reforms, and they doubtless eagerly embraced the opportunity afforded by the accession of a young king of influencing him to a different line of conduct. Throughout the country also Hezekiah’s reformation had been largely external, and people were tired of the restraints which it imposed. The reaction which ensued has been compared to that of queen Mary’s reign after the death of Edward VI; or of the Restoration after the Puritan strictness of the Commonwealth. The upper and aristocratic classes of a country have seldom been marked by their fondness for earnest religion. The way of the world and fashion are far more ruling influences with them, and as at this time "Nineveh was to Western Asia what the Paris of Louis XIV. was to Europe," it can easily be understood that "not to imitate it was to be provincial and vulgar" (Geikie). The moment the heathen spirit got the upper hand, and secured the countenance of the king, it was sure to prevail. The earnest followers of Jehovah shrank down into an inconsiderable minority. II. HIS IN . The account given of Manasseh’s doings shows to what lengths he went in undoing the arrangements of his father. He seems, in fact, to have aimed at nothing less than a complete suppression of the worship of Jehovah, and the reorganization of the religious cult of the nation upon foreign models. 1. He rebuilt the high places. These Hezekiah had pulled down—a point of attainment to conformity with God’s Law not reached by any previous king. Manasseh now reversed that action of his father, and rebuilt the shrines. The centralization of worship in Jerusalem may have been felt to be irksome; perhaps, too, the bad character of many of the priests added to its unpopularity. Manasseh may have claimed to he going back to old custom, with the end of making religion more free, popular, and joyous in its character. In this he had the mass of the people, and most of the official classes with him, as "in England the bulk of the nation and of the clergy returned at once to Romanism, when restored by Mary, after the death of Edward VI." It is a sad thing to see a nation going back from any high point of attainment—Reformation or other—as, again, it is a sad thing to see one individual building again the things which he destroyed (Galatians 2:18). 2. His wholesale importation of idolatries. (1) Foreign idolatries. Manasseh exceeded even Ahaz in the zeal with which he imported idolatries of every kind from foreign nations. Baal and Astarte worship, of course, was introduced after the pattern of Ahab, and the Asherah symbol again reared itself in public view in Jerusalem. The taste of Ahaz for new altars was more than surpassed under the auspices of his successor. There was imported also, in grander style than ever, the worship of the sun and moon and heavenly bodies—the white horses and chariots of the sun being now one of the institutions of the temple (2 Kings 23:10, 2 Kings 23:11). "Hath a nation changed their gods, which are yet no gods?" asks a prophet (Jeremiah 2:11); but Judah had changed her God for senseless idols. A policy of this kind is bound to end in the dissolution of a nation. The deepest bond of nationality is religion, and when a people renounces its traditional faith, and becomes a mere receptacle for a chaos of foreign religious ideas, it is sure, ere long, to fall to pieces. The Roman Empire was in this condition before its fall. (2) The worst idolatries. It was not merely foreign idolatries which Manasseh introduced, but the worst, the vilest, and the most cruel of these idolatries. In particular, license was given to the practice of the worst and vilest rites of the Astarte-worship, and that close by the very house of the Lord (2 Kings 23:6, 2 Kings 23:7); while the fearful worship of Moloch, with its human sacrifices, was revived, and the king himself gave sanction to it by devoting at least one of his sons to the fire. These were the abominations for which God had cast out the original inhabitants of the land, and now they were reintroduced in full force. (3) The attendant superstitions of idolatry. Idolatry here, as elsewhere, brought in its train a host of other baleful superstitions. Those who forsake God have ever been prone to fall a prey to the most childish delusions and impostures. The worship of the heavenly bodies brought with it the practice of astrology; the craving for communion with the unseen world led to necromancy, witchcraft, and enchantments; boasting a false freedom, the mind fell into an abject slavery to demonism (cf. the development of spiritualism in our own day). The movers in this new introduction of idolatry would no doubt claim the praise due to minds enlightened and emancipated from the narrow ideas in which the people of Judah hitherto had been bound. They were bringing in a new era of toleration, culture, breadth of view and sentiment, and the result was to be a great improvement in the state of the nation. In reality they were loosening all religious and social bonds, and opening the floodgates to corruption. 3. His desecration of the temple. The tale of Manasseh’s iniquities is not yet ended. Not content with bringing new idolatries into vogue, Manasseh set to work systematically to overthrow the worship of Jehovah, and put his foreign gods in the place devoted to Jehovah’s honor. Neither Athaliah nor Ahaz had ventured to introduce idolatry into the temple, but Manasseh took this step beyond either of them. He set up his numerous altars in the house of the Lord. Specially he erected altars for the worship of the host of heaven in the two courts of the temple. Then, to cap all, he introduced into the very building itself an image of the Asherah he had made, replete as that was with vile associations. Insult to Jehovah could go no further. In that very place of which Jehovah had said, "In Jerusalem will I put my Name there;" "In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all tribes of Israel, will I put my Name forever; "—even there, in the very dwelling-place of the holy God among men, this impure symbol was erected. The Asharah-image in the temple was, as it were, the summing-up in symbol of the whole apostasy of the people, the formal token of their breach of the covenant, on fidelity to which depended their possession of the land, and as such, the desecration is frequently alluded to (Jeremiah 7:30; Jeremiah 19:3-5). 4. His shedding of innocent blood. This is the final and culminating charge against Manasseh, "Be shed innocent blood very much, Sill he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another." The words speak to a deliberate and organized persecution of Jehovah’s servants—perhaps a massacre such as that of St. Bartholomew in France, a determined attempt to crush out in blood all dissent from and opposition to the king’s measures. This is the persecution in which it is said that Isaiah perished. It is the shedding of innocent blood which, we are told further, "the Lord would not pardon" (2 Kings 24:4). "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints" (Psalms 116:15). We see from this example what the spirit of false toleration, of spurious culture, of the breadth of view which confounds truth and error, leads to; what real intolerance and hatred of God underlie it. Rights of conscience will meet with scant recognition under any system which denies the true God. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Kings 22:1-20 OF JOSIAH. REPAIR OF THE TEMPLE. OF THE BOOK OF THE LAW. 2 Kings 22:1-7 GENERAL OF JOSIAH’S REIGN. His repair of the temple. The writer begins his account of Josiah’s reign with the usual brief summary, giving his age at his accession, the length of his reign, his mother’s name and birthplace (2 Kings 22:1), and the general character of his rule (2 Kings 22:2). He then proceeds to mention some circumstances connected with the repair of the temple, which Josiah had taken in hand (2 Kings 22:3-7). 2 Kings 22:1 Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign. So the writer of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 34:1) and Josephus (’Ant. Jud.,’ 10.4. § 1). He must have been born, therefore, when his father was no more than sixteen years of age, and Amen must have married when he was only fifteen. And he reigned thirty and one years in Jerusalem. Probably from B.C. 640 to B.C. 609—a most important period of the world’s history, including, as it does, (1) the great Scythic invasion; (2) the fall of Assyria; (3) the formation of the Median empire; and the foundation of the Babylonian empire by Nabopolasar. And his mother’s name was Jedidah—i.e. "Darling"—the daughter of Adaiah of Boscath. Boscath is mentioned as among the cities of Judah (Joshua 15:39). It lay in the Shefelah (Joshua 15:33), not far from Lachish and Eglon. The recent explorers of Palestine identify it with the modern Um-el-Bikar, two miles and a half southeast of Ajlun (Eglon). (See the ’Map of Western Palestine,’ published by Mr. Trelawny Saunders.) 2 Kings 22:2 And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, and walked in an the way of David his father. This is a stronger expression than any which has been used of any previous king of Judah except Hezekiah, and indicates a very high degree of approval. The son of Sirach says of Josiah, "The remembrance of Josias is like the composition of the perfume that is made by the art of the apothecary: it is sweet as honey in all mouths, and as music at a banquet of wine. He behaved himself uprightly in the conversion of the people, and took away the abominations of iniquity. He directed his heart unto the Lord, and in the time of the ungodly he established the worship of God. All, except David and Ezekias and Josias, were defective: for they forsook the Law of the Most High, even the kings of Judah failed" (see Ecclesiasticus 49:1-4). And turned not aside to the right hand or to the left; i.e. he never deviated from the right path (comp. Deuteronomy 5:32; Deuteronomy 17:11, Deuteronomy 17:20; Deuteronomy 28:14; Joshua 1:7; Joshua 23:6). 2 Kings 22:3 And it came to pass in the eighteenth year of King Josiah. The writer of Kings, bent on abbreviating as much as possible, omits the early reforms of Josiah, which are related in 2 Chronicles 34:3-7, with perhaps some anticipation of what happened later. The young king gave marked indications of personal piety and attachment to true religion as early as the eighth year of his reign, when he was sixteen, and had just attained his majority. Later, in his twelfth year, he began the purging of the temple and of Jerusalem, at the same time probably commencing the repairs spoken of in 2 Chronicles 34:9. Jeremiah’s prophesying, begun in the same or in the next year (Jeremiah 1:2), must have been a powerful assistance to his reformation. That the king sent Shaphan the son of Azaliah, the son of Meshullam, the scribe, to the house of the Lord, saying. Shaphan held the office, which Shebna had held in the later part of Hezekiah’s reign (2 Kings 18:18), an office of much importance and dignity. According to the author of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 34:8), there were associated with him on this occasion two other personages of importance, viz. Maaseiah, the governor of the city, and Joah the son of Joahaz, the "recorder," or "remembrancer." 2 Kings 22:4 Go up to Hilkiah the high priest. Hilkiah is mentioned again in the genealogy of Ezra (Ezra 7:1). He is there called "the son of Shallum." That he may sum the silver which is brought into the house of the Lord. A collection must have been progressing for some time. As in the reign of Joash, after the impieties and idolatry of Athaliah, it was found necessary to collect money for the repair of the temple (2 Kings 12:4-14), so now, after the wicked doings of Manasseh and Amen, a renovation of the sacred building was required, and the money needed was being raised by a collection. Great care was taken in all such cases that an exact account should be kept and rendered. Which the keepers of the door—literally, of the threshold—have gathered of the people. The money had, apparently, been allowed to accumulate in a box or boxes (see 2 Kings 12:9), from the time when the collection was first authorized, probably six years previously. The high priest was now required to count it, to take the sum of it, and undertake the distribution. 2 Kings 22:5 And let them deliver it into the hand of the doers of the work, that have the oversight of the house of the Lord. The "doers that have the oversight" are not the actual workmen, but the superintendents or overseers of the workmen, who hired them, looked after them, and paid them. And let them give it to the doers of the work which is in the house of the Lord—let the overseers, i.e; give out the money to the actual workmen, the carpenters, etc; of the next verse—to repair the breaches of the house; rather, the dilapidation of the house. It is not implied that any violence had been used, such as is required to make a "breach." The "house" had simply been allowed to fall into disrepair. 2 Kings 22:6 Unto carpenters, and builders, and masons, and to buy timber, and hewn stone to repair the house. The money had to be expended, partly in labor, partly in materials. The materials consisted of both wood and stone, since it was of these that Solomon’s temple had been built (see 1 Kings 5:18; 1 Kings 6:7, 1 Kings 6:9, 1 Kings 6:10, 1 Kings 6:15, 1 Kings 6:36). 2 Kings 22:7 Howbeit there was no reckoning made with them of the money that was delivered into their hand, because they dealt faithfully. The superintendents or overseers were persons of position, in whom full confidence was placed. Their names are given in 2 Chronicles 34:12. They were, all of them, Levites. 2 Kings 22:8-14 Discovery of the book of the Law. When Shaphan had transacted with Hilkiah the business entrusted to him by the king, Hilkiah took the opportunity of sending word by him to the king with respect to a discovery that he had recently made, during the investigations connected with the repairs. He had found a book, which he called without any doubt or hesitation, "the book of the Law"—סֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה—and this book he put into the hands of Shaphan, who "read it," i.e. some of it, and found it of such importance that he took it back with him to the palace, and read a portion to the king. Hereupon the king "rent his clothes," and required that special inquiry should be made of the Lord concerning the words of the book, and particularly concerning the threatenings contained in it. The persons entrusted with this task thought it best to lay the matter before Huldah, a prophetess, who lived in Jerusalem at the time, and proceeded to confer with her at her residence. 2 Kings 22:8 And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the Law in the house of the Lord. There has been great difference of opinion as to what it was which Hilkiah had found. Ewald believes it to have been the Book of Deuteronomy, which had, he thinks, been composed some thirty or forty years before in Egypt by a Jewish exile, and had found its way, by a sort of chance, into Palestine, where "some priest" had placed a copy of it in the temple. Thenius suggests "a collection of the laws and ordinances of Moses, which was afterwards worked up into the Pentateuch;" Bertheau, "the three middle books of the Pentateuch, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers;" Gramberg, "Exodus by itself." But there seem to be no sufficient grounds for questioning the ancient opinion—that of Josephus, and of the Jews generally—that it was a copy of the entire Pentateuch.. The words, סֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה, "the book of the Law," are really sufficient to decide the point; since, as Keil says, they "cannot mean anything else, either grammatically or historically, than the Mosaic book of the Law (the Pentateuch), which is so designated, as is generally admitted, in the Chronicles and the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah." The same conclusion follows from the expression, "the book of the covenant" (סֵפֶר הַּבְּרִית), in 2 Kings 23:2, and also from 2 Kings 23:24, 2 Kings 23:25, and 2 Chronicles 34:14. Whether or no the copy was the actual original deposited in the ark of the covenant by Moses (Deuteronomy 31:26), as Keil believes, is doubtful. As Egyptian manuscripts which are from three to four thousand years old still exist in good condition, there can be no reason why a manuscript of Moses’ time should not have been found and have been legible in Josiah’s. But, if not the actual handwriting of Moses, it was probably its lineal descendant—the copy made for the temple service, and kept ordinarily "in the side of the ark"—which may well have been lost in the time of Manasseh or Amen, and which was now happily "found." And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it. We need not suppose that Shaphan read the whole. But he read enough to show him how important the work was, and how necessary it was to make it known to the king. 2 Kings 22:9 And Shaphan the scribe came to the king, and brought the king word again, and said, Thy servants have gathered the money that was in the house (see above, 2 Kings 22:4-6), and have delivered it into the hand of them that do the work, that have the oversight of the house of the Lord; i.e. "We have carried out the king’s orders exactly, in every particular." 2 Kings 22:10 And Shaphan the scribe showed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. Shaphan does not venture to-characterize the book, as Hilkiah has done. He is not officially learned in the Law. And he has only read a few passages of it. To him, therefore, it is only "a book," the authorship and value of which he leaves it to others to determine. And Shaphan read it before the king. It is most natural to understand hero, as in 2 Kings 22:8, that Shaphan read portions of the book. Where the author intends to say that the whole book was read, he expresses himself differently (see 2 Kings 23:2, "The king read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant"). 2 Kings 22:11 And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the Law, that he rent his clothes. To Josiah the book was evidently, as to Hilkiah, in some sort a discovery. It was not, however, a wholly new thing; rather, he accepted it as the recovery of a thing that was known to have been lost, and was now happily found. And in accepting it he regarded it as authoritative. It was not to him "a book of Law" (Ewald), but "the book of the Law." We can well imagine that, although the book may have been lost early in Manasseh’s reign, yet echoes of it had lingered on (1) in the liturgies of the Jehovistic worship; (2) in the teachings of the prophets; (3) in the traditional teaching of religious families; so that the pious ear recognized its phrases as familiar. It is also probable that there were external tokens about the book indicative of its character, which caused its ready acceptance. 2 Kings 22:12 And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan. "Ahikam the son of Shaphan" is almost certainly Jeremiah’s protector at the court of Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 26:24), the father of the Godaliah who wan made governor of Judaea on Nebuchadnezzar’s final conquest (Jeremiah 39:14; Jeremiah 40:7). "Shaphan;’ his father, is no doubt "Shaphan the scribe." And Achbor the son of Michaiah. The parallel passage of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 34:20) has "Abdon the son of Micah," which is probably a corrupt reading. Achbor was the father of El-nathan, one of the "princes of Judah" (Jeremiah 36:12) in Jehoiakim’s reign. And Shaphan the scribe, and Asa-hiah a servant of the king’s—or Asaiah, as the name is given in Chronicles, l.s.c.—saying, 2 Kings 22:13 Go ye, inquire of the Lord for me. Inquiry of the Lord, which from the time of Moses to that of David was ordinarily "by Urim and Thummim," was after David’s time always made by the consultation of a prophet (see 1 Kings 22:5-8; 2 Kings 3:11; 2 Kings 8:8; Jeremiah 21:2; Jeremiah 37:7; Ezekiel 14:7; Ezekiel 20:1, etc.). The officers, therefore, understood the king to mean that they were to seek out a prophet (see 2 Kings 22:14), and so make the inquiry. And for the people, and for all Judah—the threats read in the king’s ears were probably those of Deu 28:15-68 or Le Deuteronomy 26:16 -39, which extended to the whole people—concerning the words of this book that is found. Not "whether they are authentic, whether they are really the words of Moses" (Duneker), for of that Josiah appears to have had no doubt; but whether they are words that are to have an immediate fulfillment, "whether," as Yon Gerlach says, "the measure of sin is already full, or whether there is yet hope of grace?" (compare Huldah’s answer in Deuteronomy 26:16 -20, which shows what she understood the king’s inquiry to be). For great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us. Josiah recognized that Judah had done, and was still doing, exactly those things against which the threatenings of the Law were directed—bad forsaken Jehovah and gone after other gods, and made to themselves high places, and set up images, and done after the customs of the nations whom the Lord had cast out before them. He could not, therefore, doubt but that the wrath of the Lord "was kindled;" but would it blaze forth at once? Because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us. Josiah assumes that their fathers have had the book, and might have known its words, either because he conceives that it had not been very long lost, or because he regards them as having possessed other copies. 2 Kings 22:14 So Hilkiah the priest, and Ahi-ham, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asa-hiah, went unto Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah. The principal prophets at or very near the time were Jeremiah, whose mission had commenced in Josiah’s thirteenth year (Jeremiah 1:2) and Zephaniah, the son of Cushi, whose prophecy appears by internal evidence to have belonged to the earliest part of Josiah’s reign. It might have been expected that the matter would have been laid before one of these two persons. Possibly, however, neither of them was at Jerusalem. Jeremiah’s early home was Anathoth, and Zephaniah may have finished his course before Josiah’s eighteenth year (see Pusey, l.s.c.). Huldah may thus have been the only possessor of the prophetic gift who was accessible. The son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe; literally, keeper of the garments: In Chronicles the name of the keeper is given as "Hasrah." Now she dwelt at Jerusalem in the college—rather, in the lower city (comp. Zephaniah 1:10 and Nehemiah 11:9; literally, in each place, "the second city ")—and they communed with her; literally, spoke with her; ἐλάλησανπρὸςαὐτήν, LXX. 2 Kings 22:15-20 The prophecy of Huldah. The word of the Lord comes to Huldah with the arrival of the messengers, or perhaps previous to it, and she is at once ready with her reply. It divides itself into two parts. In 2 Kings 22:15-17 the inquiry made is answered—answered affirmatively, "Yes, the fiat is gone forth; it is too late to avert the sentence; the anger of the Lord is kindled, and shall not be quenched." After this, in 2 Kings 22:18-20, a special message is sent to the king, granting him an arrest of judgment, on account of his self-humiliation and abasement. "Because his heart was tender, and he had humbled himself before Jehovah, the evil should not happen in his day." 2 Kings 22:15 And she said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel. Huldah is the only example of a prophetess in Israel, who seems to rank on the same footing with the prophets. Miriam (Exodus 15:20), Deborah (Judges 4:4), Isaiah s wife (Isaiah 8:2), and Anna (Luke 2:36) are called "prophetesses," but in a secondary sense, as holy women, having a certain gift of song or prediction from God. Huldah has the full prophetic afflatus, and delivers God’s oracles, just as Isaiah and Jeremiah do. The case is a remarkable exception to the general rule that women should "keel) silence in the Churches." Tell the man that sent you to me. The contrast between this unceremonious phrase and that used in verse 18 is best explained by Thenius, who says, "In the first part Huldah has only the subject-matter in mind, while in verse 18, in the quieter flow of her words, she takes notice of the state of mind of the particular person who sent to make the inquiry." 2 Kings 22:16 Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place—i.e. Jerusalem—and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the words of the book which the King of Judah hath read. In the parallel passage of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 34:24) the expression used is stronger, viz, "Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the curses that are written in the book which they have road before the King of Judah." The passage which most strongly affected Josiah was probably that, already mentioned, in Deuteronomy 28:1-68; which began with a series of curses. 2 Kings 22:17 Because they have forsaken me. This was the gist of their offence, the thing that was unpardonable. Against this were all the chief warnings in the Law (Deuteronomy 12:19; Deuteronomy 29:25-28; Deuteronomy 31:16, Deuteronomy 31:17; Deuteronomy 32:15, etc.) and the prophets (Judges 10:13; 1 Samuel 8:8; 1 Samuel 12:9; 1 Kings 9:9; 1 Kings 11:33; 1 Kings 18:18; Isaiah 1:4; Isaiah 65:11; Jeremiah 1:16; Jeremiah 2:13, etc.). It was not merely that they broke the commandments, but they turned from God altogether, and "cast him behind their back." And have burned incense unto other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the works of their hands; i.e. "with the idols that they have made for themselves" (Keil). Therefore my wrath shall be kindled against this place—i.e. against Jerusalem—and shall not be quenched. Here lies the whole point of the answer. God’s threatenings against nations are for the most part conditional, and may be escaped, or at least their fulfillment may be deferred indefinitely, by repentance, as we learn from the example of Nineveh (Jonah 3:1-10). But if a nation persists long in evil-doing, there comes a time when the sentence can be no longer averted. A real repentance has become impossible, and a mock one does but provoke God the more. For such a state of things there is "no remedy" (2 Chronicles 36:16), and this was the state of things reached by the Jews. God’s anger against them could not be quenched. 2 Kings 22:18 But to the King of Judah which sent you to inquire of the Lord, thus shall ye say to him (see the comment on 2 Kings 22:15), Thus saith the Lord God of Israel. As touching the words which thou hast heard; i.e. the words that were read to thee by Shaphan (2 Kings 22:10)—the awful threats which caused thee to rend thy clothes and to make inquiry of me. 2 Kings 22:19 Because thine heart was tender—or, faint, timid (comp. Deuteronomy 20:3; Isaiah 7:4)—and thou hast humbled thyself before the Lord. Rending the garments (2 Kings 22:11) was an outward act of humiliation. Josiah had accompanied it by inward repentance and self-abasement. He had even been moved to tears (see the last clause but one of this verse). When thou heartiest what I spake against this place. The book was, therefore, a record of what God had really spoken, not a fraud imposed on the king by the high priest, or on the high priest by an unknown Egyptian exile. And against the inhabitants thereof; that they should become a desolation and a curse. This is not a direct quotation from the Law, but a summary, in pregnant language, of the general effect of such passages as Leviticus 26:31-35 and Deuteronomy 28:15-20. The language is like that of Jer 26:6; Jeremiah 41:18; Jeremiah 44:22. And hast rent thy clothes (see Jeremiah 44:11), and wept before me. This had not been previously stated, but might have been gathered from Josiah’s evident sincerity, and from the ordinary habits of Orientals. I also have heard thee, saith the Lord. The general sense of Jer 44:18, Jeremiah 44:19, is, as Bahr notes, "Because thou hast heard me and taken heed to my threats, I also have heard thee, and will delay their fulfillment." 2 Kings 22:20 Behold therefore, I will gather thee unto thy fathers, and thou shalt be gathered into thy grave in peace. There is a seeming contradiction between these words and the fact of Josiah’s violent death in battle against Pharaoh-Nechoh (2 Kings 23:29). But the contradiction is not a real one. Huldah was commissioned to assure Josiah that, though the destruction of his kingdom and the desolation of Judaea and Jerusalem, threatened in the Law, were at hand, yet they would not come in his day. He would not see the evil time. Before it came he would be "gathered to his fathers" i.e; in Jerusalem, as his predecessors had been (2 Kings 23:30), and not hurried off into captivity, to die in a foreign land, or given "the burial of an ass, drawn and east forth before the gates of Jerusalem" (Jeremiah 22:19). The promise given him was fulfilled. He died in battle; but he was buried in peace (2 Chronicles 35:24, 2 Chronicles 35:25); and the fated enemy who was to destroy Jerusalem, and carry the Jewish nation into captivity, did not make any attack upon the land until three years later, when he was departed to his rest, and the throne was occupied by Jehoiakim (see 2 Kings 24:1). And thine eyes shall not see all the evil which I will bring upon this place; e.g. the three sieges of Nebuchadnezzar, the destruction of the temple and city by Nebuzaradan (2 Kings 25:9, 2 Kings 25:10), the deportation of the bulk of the inhabitants (2 Kings 25:11), and the calamities which happened to the remnant left (2 Kings 25:22-26). Josiah did not witness any of this. He was "taken away from the evil to come." And they brought the king word again; i.e. Hilkiah, Shaphan, and their companions (2 Kings 22:14) reported to Josiah the message which Huldah had sent by them. 2 Kings 22:1-13 A righteous branch from a wicked root. Josiah is the most astonishing instance that is contained in Scripture of goodness springing up, and attaining high perfection under the most extraordinarily unfavorable circumstances. Josiah was— I. THE SON OF AN WICKED FATHER. Amon, Josiah’s father, did evil in the sight of the Lord to an extent scarcely equaled even by any of the Israelite monarchs. "He forsook the Lord God of his fathers" (2 Kings 21:22), and gave himself wholly up to idolatry. And he did this notwithstanding the example of his father’s fall, punishment, and repentance. As the writer of Chronicles says (2 Chronicles 33:23), "he trespassed more and more." Every idolatry of every neighboring country was adopted by him and reintroduced into Judah; the temple was defiled afresh; the fires of Tophet were relighted; sodomites polluted the temple precincts (2 Kings 23:7). Wickedness of every kind was encouraged, not only idolatry and debauchery, but "violence and deceit" (Zephaniah 1:9), profane swearing (Zephaniah 1:5), luxury in apparel (Zephaniah 1:8), covetousness (Zephaniah 1:18), oppression (Zephaniah 3:1), injustice (Zephaniah 3:2), treachery (Zephaniah 3:3), and utter shamelessness (Zephaniah 3:5). II. THE OF A STILL MORE WICKED . Manasseh was worse than Amon in that he set at naught all the restraints of his bringing up, the example of his saintly father, and the instruction of Isaiah, whom he is said to have executed. He was worse, again, as the original introducer of many most corrupting idolatries which, but for his example, Amon might never have thought of. And he was worse as enforcing his false and impure religion on those who were reluctant to adopt it by means of persecution, and so "filling Jerusalem with innocent blood from one end to another" (2 Kings 21:16)—a sin which is never laid to the charge of Amon. If heredity be indeed the strong predisposing cause which modern biologists assert it to be, what depths of depravity might not a prince have been expected to sound, who had such a father as Amon, such a grandfather as Manasseh! III. BROUGHT UP IN A CORRUPT COURT. Manasseh’s court, even after his repentance, was probably but half-purified. Amon’s must have been a sink of corruption. Childish innocence is soon lost in an atmosphere of profligacy; and Josiah, ere he was eight years of age, had probably been made to witness many of the worst forms of human depravity. "Nil dictu foedum facture haec liming tangat intra quae puer est" was a maxim not likely to obtain much observance in a palace where the rites of the Syrian goddess were approved and practiced. IV. WITHOUT, SO FAR AS WE KNOW, ANY . Isaiah had been martyred in the earlier portion of Manasseh’s reign. Micah had gone to his rest even earlier. Jeremiah did not receive his call until Josiah’s thirteenth year (Jeremiah 1:2). Habakkuk and Zephaniah lived, perhaps, under Amon, but are not likely to have been allowed access to his court, much less opportunity for influencing the heir to the throne. Josiah’s official tutors and instructors under Amon must undoubtedly have been persons devoted to the court religion, which was the syncretic idolatry conceived by Manasseh and maintained by his successor. It is not quite easy to see how the young prince would come into contact with any of the professors of true religion, or obtain any knowledge of the Jehovistic worship. Such, however, was the natural purity and strength of character by God’s grace implanted in the young prince from the first, that to none of the evil influences within him or without him did he succumb. It is declared of him in the infallible Word, that "he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, and walked in all the way of David his father, and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left (verse 2). As soon as he had any power to show what his inclinations were, as soon (that is) as he was free from the trammels which confined a Jewish prince during his minority, he courageously set himself to undo the ill that his father and grandfather had done, to abolish the strange rites, to drive out the foul idolatries, and to restore the worship of Jehovah. And he earned the praise that "Like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to the Lord with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the Law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him (2 Kings 23:25). We may learn from this history not to assign too much weight to a man’s surroundings, but to hold firm to the belief that there is in each man a sufficient force of personality and will to enable him, if his heart be set on well-doing, to resist any amount of external circumstances, and to mould his life and character for himself, even in the exact opposite shape to that whereto all the external circumstances pointed, and which they might have seemed to have rendered necessary. 2 Kings 22:8-13 A strange loss, and a strange recovery. The loss by a nation of its sacred book is a strange and extraordinary occurrence. Books deemed sacred are naturally so highly valued and so deeply reverenced that the utmost care is taken of them. Generally, copies are multiplied and are in so many hands that the loss of all, while the nation itself survives, is practically impossible. It is practically impossible, nowadays, that the Christians should lose their Bible, or the Mohammedans their Koran, or the Hindoos their Vedas, or the Parsecs their Zendavesta, or the Chinese their Shu-King or their Taou-tih King. To understand what had taken place in Palestine shortly before Josiah came to the throne, we must consider the peculiar circumstances of the Jewish religion, and the place, which "the book of Law" occupied in it. The following points are especially worthy of note. I. THE BOOK OF THE LAW WAS RESIDE THE ARK, AND KEPT THERE, "It came to pass," we are told, "when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this Law in a book, until they were finished, that Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the Law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against them" (Deuteronomy 31:24-26). II. THERE WAS NO FOR MAKING COPIES OF IT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS ISRAEL SHOULD HAVE KINGS. Then indeed each king was to "write him a copy of the Law in a book out of that which was before the priests the Levites ’ (Deuteronomy 17:18). But, except on such occasions, the book, it would seem, remained in the ark, and was not lent about to be copied. III. THE DESIGN WAS TO MAKE THE LAW KNOWN TO THE PEOPLE BY READING IT TO THEM . Such reading was prescribed once in each seven years, in the sabbatical year, at the Feast of Tabernacles (Deuteronomy 31:10-13). Under Nehemiah certainly (Nehemiah 8:2-5), perhaps at other times, the precept was acted on. IV. OF COPIES WAS NOT NEEDED FOR , WHICH DID NOT AS YET EXIST. The result was that probably, besides the temple copy, very few copies of the Law had at any time existed. Irreligious kings, as Rehoboam, Abijah, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Ahaz, Manasseh, and Amen, would, as a matter of course, disobey the precept to make a copy; and it is not even certain that all religious kings would carry out the precept. David, whose delight was in the Law (Psalms 119:77), Asa, Jehoshaphat, Joash, Hezekiah, would almost certainly have made copies; but Solomon may not have done so, nor Amaziah, nor Uzziah, nor Jotham. If the prophets seem to show such a familiarity with the Law as implies constant study, it may well be that the "schools of the prophets" were in possession of some of the royal autograph copies, or the prophets may have been allowed access as often as they required it to the temple copy. Passages of the Law as the Decalogue and other precepts regarding conduct, or, again, the promises made to the patriarchs, and to the nation at large through Moses, may have been widely known, being fixed in the memory of the people, and passed on from father to son by word of mouth. And these well-known passages may also have sometimes taken a written shape. But entire copies of the Law must, even in the time of the later kings, have been exceedingly scarce. Thus when an irreligious king like Manasseh set aside the Jehovistic worship, and thrust, it may be, into lumber-rooms, the old furniture of the temple, so that the book of the Law, i.e. the temple copy, became mislaid or lost, there was no very ready way of replacing it. Nor, perhaps, did there seem to be any absolute necessity of so doing. Except once in seven years, the reading of the Law does not appear to have formed a part of any temple service. The precepts of the Law were inculcated orally by priests and Levites, who had received them from their predecessors. Hilkiah and the priests generally were probably content to carry on the traditional teaching, and did not feel the need of seeking the water of life from the fountain-head. But suddenly a discovery was made. There had been no wanton or malignant destruction of the book of the Law. It had merely been thrust out of sight, and then forgotten. As the repair and restoration of the temple proceeded, and even lumber-rooms and closets were searched, that the whole building might be brought into proper order, those employed in the work came upon the lost volume. It was, probably, very easily recognized. As Bahr says, it may have been "distinguished by its external appearance, size, material, beauty of the writing," etc; as the Samaritan copy of the Pentateuch at Nablous is distinguished. Or it may have had for its title, "The Book of the Law of the Lord by the hand of Moses" (2 Chronicles 34:14). There may even have been priests living who had seen the book before it was lost, and knew it as the volume with which, fifty years before, they had been familiar. At any rate, priests, king, and people unanimously, though with much grief and fear, accepted it. The prophetess, who was God’s mouthpiece at the time, confirmed their view; and it remained for nineteenth-century critics to throw a doubt upon the conclusion thus come to, and to brand the work as a forgery of Hilkiah’s, or as a chance production of a chance author, who had amused himself by composing a code of laws for a Utopia. BY C.H. IRWIN 2 Kings 22:1 2 Kings 23:30 The reign of King Josiah. The last days of Judah as an independent kingdom are fast hastening to a close. The people, in spite of all God’s merciful dealings with them, in spite of all the judgments and warnings which he had sent to their fathers, in spite of the influence and example of good kings and holy prophets whom he had raised up, were becoming worse and worse. More than a hundred years before, God had already abolished the kingdom of Israel, when the ten tribes were led away into captivity. And now for their great idolatries the destruction of the kingdom of Judah also is close at hand. In the midst of this period of decline and decay Josiah came to the throne to redeem for a time the history of his nation, and for a time to save it from its impending doom. I. JOSIAH’S EARLY . We read that in the eighth year of his reign, while he was yet young, he began to seek after the God of David his father. He was then sixteen years of age. 1. He began to seek after God in a time of almost universal godlessness and corruption. It is almost impossible for us to conceive the depth of degradation to which the nation had sunk. Two wicked kings in succession had undone all the reforms of good King Hezekiah. The first of these was Hezekiah’s own son, Manasseh, the second was Manasseh’s son, Amon. Manasseh worshipped all the host of heaven, and built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the Lord. He set up the worship of Moloch, which is almost too terrible to describe (see above on 2 Kings 16:1-20). He made his own son to pass through the fire to Moloch. He introduced not only the horrid cruelty of heathenism, but also its most filthy lusts. The reign of Amon was no better, but worse. He revived, and continued all the idolatries and all the corruption of his father’s reign. It was at such a time as this that, when Amon died, his son Josiah, then only eight years old, came to the throne. At such a time as this he began to seek after the Lord his God. 2. Moreover, he was the son of a godless and wicked father. All the influences which surrounded him seem to have been unfavorable to the growth of true religion and the fear of God. But Josiah determined that, as for him, he would not bow down to idols, that he would serve the Lord only. And God gave him strength to serve him, and crowned his subsequent efforts with blessing and success. Learn here the folly of excusing yourself from serving God by the circumstances in which you are placed. You are responsible to God for your own life, and for your own conduct, no matter how others may act. It may cost us many a hard struggle to resist the temptations that surround us on every side; but it always succeeds in the end. You may be children of ungodly parents; you may be at service in ungodly households; you may be thrown by your business among ungodly companions and surroundings;—no matter! God expects you to be faithful unto him. Young men, Josiah’s early devotion is a bright example for you to follow. Never suffer yourselves to be led astray by the notion that religion is an unmanly thing. The truly religious man is the noblest and most perfect man. He is great in all that constitutes true manhood. And if you want to find the greatest heroes in the world’s history, you will find them, not among the followers of the world’s fashion and the world’s pleasure, but among the prophets, apostles, martyrs, and humble Christians in the Church of God. It is the highest aim any young man can set before him to be a humble and devoted follower of Jesus Christ. Never mind what circumstances or companions surround you, except to try and make them better. Joseph was faithful to God in Egypt. His faithfulness sent him to a prison for a time; but afterwards it raised him to be the greatest man in Egypt after the king. Daniel was faithful to God in Babylon, though he knew well it was at the risk of his life. His faithfulness brought him for a little while to the lions’ den; but it afterwards made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon. It is true heroism to be ready to suffer—to suffer bodily pain, to suffer the loss of worldly goods, yes, to suffer even the loss of reputation itself, for the sake of truth and purity and right. Like Josiah, the sooner you begin to serve God the better. You will never regret it. "Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth." II. JOSIAH’S WORK OF . (Verse 3.—2 Kings 23:25.) Here also he began very early to do what he believed to be right. It was in the twelfth year of his reign—when he was only twenty years old—that he began to purge Judah and Jerusalem from the high places and the idols. Then in the eighteenth year of his reign—when he was twenty-six years old—he began to repair the house of the Lord, which had been long disused and neglected. God so prospered him in this work that the people brought large sums of money for the repairing of the temple. It was when this was being done that Hilkiah the priest found in the temple the book of the Law. There it lay, probably all covered with dust, like the unused Bible in many a home, a silent reproof to those who should have known what was right but did not do it. When the book of the Law was read to the king, he rent his clothes, in sorrow and in shame, when he thought of how the Law of God had been broken and neglected. It was determined that it should be so no longer, and, having gathered all the people together, he read in their ears all the words of the Law. Then, standing on a pillar, he made a covenant that they would serve the Lord and keep his commandments, and all the people agreed to it. After this was done, he appointed a solemn Passover to be kept by all the people. And it is said, "Surely there was not holden such a Passover from the days of the judges that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the kings of Judah; but in the eighteenth year of King Josiah, wherein this Passover was holden to the Lord in Jerusalem" (2 Kings 23:22, 2 Kings 23:23). It was a marvelous work for a young king to have accomplished in the twenty-sixth year of his age. He found the land full of idolatry and corruption. But he had already pulled down the altars, and burned the idols, and swept away the dens of vice. He found the temple closed, neglected, and in decay. He had already repaired it and restored the worship of the true God. He found the Law of God forgotten, forsaken, and unknown—the temple copy of it hidden away out of sight. He had already restored it to its proper place as the ruling principle of his government and of the nation’s life. Truly a marvelous work for a young king of twenty-six. We see here, as we have seen in the life of Hezekiah, the power of decision for what is right. Josiah was not content merely to know God and serve him by himself. He was determined that, so far as he had any influence, others should know and serve God too. He might have said, in the spirit of many lukewarm Christians of modern times, "What matters it? They have their religion, and I have mine." He might have said that, as a ruler, he had nothing to do with his people’s religion, but only with their conduct as members of the state. Not so. He knew that it is religion, or the want of it, which makes or mars the happiness and prosperity of the nation. He knew that, as a servant of God, he was bound to bear his testimony and to use every influence in his power against sin and in favor of what was right. And so he acted, not with half-measures, not with half-hearted hesitation, but with firmness, fearlessness, promptness, and determination, as becomes one who is doing the work of God. And so, also, God stood by him, and gave him success in all his work. Such an example is full of instruction for our modern life. Never be a consenting party, even by your silence, to what your conscience tells you is wrong. Never consent, even by your silence, to anything dishonoring to God or not in accordance with his will. Never be a consenting party to anything that you would be ashamed of in the sight of God and men—to acts of injustice to others, to dishonesty or unfairness of any kind, to profanity, to neglect of Sunday observance, or any other form of prevailing wickedness. "O my soul, come not thou into their secret; with their assembly, mine honor, be not thou united." Like Josiah, we can never begin too soon, not only to serve God ourselves, but also to bring others to him. Like Josiah, let every servant of God show the reality of his and her religion by deeds of usefulness, by bearing testimony against sin, and by unwavering firmness in the cause of Christ and duty. III. JOSIAH S EARLY DEATH. Josiah died at an early age. He was mourned for with great lamentation. Some think that it is of him that Jeremiah, in his Book of Lamentations, speaks when he says, "The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of Jehovah, was taken in their pits, of whom we said, Under his shadow we shall live among the heathen." The passage perhaps indicates how great was the influence for good, which Josiah exercised, and how much the people depended upon him as their leader and defender. His early death, before he had completed his fortieth year, must have caused many to wonder at God’s mysterious providence. But his work was done. He had really done the work of many lives in one. And so when servants of God are taken away in the prime of life—or prematurely, as we say—let us remember that God’s ways are not our ways. In Ms sight their work is done. They have finished the work, which he gave them to do. Let us so use the precious time, which God has given us, that in our dying hour we shall not have to look back upon a wasted life. But let us live, as Josiah lived, a life of holiness, of usefulness, "redeeming the time." And then when we are drawing’, near to the gates of death, we shall feel that for us they are the gates of heaven. We shall be able humbly and thankfully to say, "I have fought the good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day."—C.H.I. BY D. THOMAS 2 Kings 22:1-20 A monarch of rare virtue, and a God of retributive justice. "Josiah was eight years old," etc. There are two subjects in this chapter that arrest our attention, and which are fertile with suggestions. I. A MONARCH OF RARE VIRTUE. "Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty and one years in Jerusalem," etc. In this monarch we discover four distinguished merits. 1. Religiousness of action. "He did that which was right in the sight of the Lord." This is the testimony of the historian, whoever he may be, and we are further told, "Josiah walked in all the way of David his father." Elsewhere we have given the biblical account of David’s life. £ From that account it might, perhaps, be questioned whether to "walk in the way of David" was a morally creditable life. But undoubtedly in the opinion of this writer, Josiah was a man whose activity was inspired, by true religious feeling. Here we find him providing for the repairs of the temple. And it came to pass in the eighteenth year of King Josiah, that the king sent Shaphan the son of Azaliah, the son of Meshullam, the scribe, to the house of the Lord, saying, Go up to Hilkiah the high priest, that he may sum the silver which is brought into the house of the Lord, which the keepers of the door have gathered of the people: and let them deliver it into the hand of the doers of the work, that have the oversight of the house of the Lord: and let them give it to the doers of the work which is in the house of the Lord, to repair the breaches of the house." The king who provides for the religions instruction and worship of his people proves thereby that he is under the influence of the religious sentiment. In repairing the temple, Josiah honors his people, not only by allowing, but by encouraging them to co-operate with him in the noble work. He coerces none; all were left free, and they did their work honestly and honorably. "Howbeit there was no reckoning made with them of the money that was delivered into their hand, because they dealt faithfully." 2. Docility of mind. "And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the Law in the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it. And Shaphan the scribe came to the king, and brought the king word again. And Shaphan the scribe showed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the Law, that he rent his clothes." What book was this? Old time buries the choicest books; volumes that once moved the intellects and fired the hearts of men are sunk in the black waves of oblivion. In all probability the book here was the Pentateuch, the five books of Moses. A copy of this, it seems, having been laid beside the ark in the most holy place (Deuteronomy 31:25, Deuteronomy 31:26), had been lost, and now, during the repairing of the temple, it was discovered. Was this a Divine book? If so, why should its Author have suffered it to have been lost, perhaps for generations? A human author, had he the power to prevent it, would not suffer his productions to meet with such a fate. But the thoughts of God are independent of books; they are not only written on the pages of nature, but in imperishable characters on the souls of men. But how did Josiah act towards this discovered book? Did he reject it, or was he indifferent to it? No. "It came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the Law, that he rent his clothes." Herein how unlike is this man, not only to ordinary mortals, but also to ordinary kings! How many kings have been ready to receive new light? Are they not for the most part so mailed in traditions and prejudices as to render the admission of a new truth well-nigh impossible? If the modem occupants of thrones would but universally open their eyes to those old truths of eternal right which come flashing from their graves, all oppressions would cease, and kingdoms would march on to freedom and. light. "Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth." 3. Tenderness of heart. See how the discovery of the book affected him. "He rent his clothes." It is also said, in 2 Kings 22:19, "Thine heart was tender." Sensibility of heart gives life, worth, and power to intellect. Where sensibility and intellect are not in their due proportion, the character is defective. Where the sensibility is stronger than the intellect, the man is likely to become a morbid pietist or a reckless fanatic. Where the intellect is stronger in proportion to the sensibility, the man is likely to become a cold theorist, living in the frigid abstractions of his own brain. But where both are properly combined, you have a man fit for great things. A man who, if he be a friend, will give counsels that will tell alike on your understanding and heart. Sensibility feathers the arrows of argument, gives poetry and power to thought. 4. Actualization of conviction. When this discovered document came under Josiah’s attention, and its import was realized, he was seized with a conviction that he, his fathers, and his people, had disregarded, and even outraged, the written precepts of Heaven. He exclaims, "Great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us." With this new conviction burning within him, wharf does he do? Does he strive to quench it? or does he allow it to burn itself out without any effort on his part? No; he at once commands his servants to make an effort on behalf of himself and his people. "Go ye, inquire of the Lord for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found." The new emotions that rushed into his tender heart prompted him to seek immediate counsel how to avert the curses under which his kingdom lay. They obeyed his behests. "So Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asahiah, went unto Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college); and they communed with her. And she said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Tell the man that sent you to me, Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the words of the book which the King of Judah hath read: because they have forsaken me, etc. (2 Kings 22:14-18). Here the prophetess spoke the universal sentiment of mankind, viz. that where wrong is, suffering must follow. All experience, all history, attests the truth of the sentiment. But the noteworthy point here is that this tender-hearted man translated his emotions into actions. He did not allow his new feelings to pass away as the morning cloud, nor did he expend them in sentimental sighs and groans. Well would it be for all men if they acted thus; for this, in truth, is the only method of spiritual progress. It is only as men embody true thoughts and feelings in actions that they rise to true manhood. II. A GOD OF JUSTICE. Such a God the prophetess here reveals. "Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Tell the man that sent you to me, Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the words of the book which the King of Judah hath read." The government over us, and to which we are bound with chains stronger than adamant, is retributive; it never allows evil to go unpunished. It links in indissoluble bonds sufferings to sin. Sorrows follow sin by a law as immutable and resistless as the waves follow the moon. "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." In this retribution (1) the wicked are treated with severity, and (2) the good are treated with favor. In the name of God this prophetess declares concerning Josiah, "As touching the words which thou hast heard; because thine heart was tender, and thou hast humbled thyself before the Lord, when thou heartiest what I spake against this place, and against the inhabitants thereof, that they should become a desolation and a curse, and hast rent thy clothes, and wept before me; I also have heard thee, saith the Lord. Behold therefore, I will gather thee unto thy fathers, and thou shalt be gathered into thy grave in peace; and thine eyes shall not see all the evil which I will bring upon this place." Though righteous judgments were soon to descend upon his country on account of its manifold and heinous sins, he, Josiah, who had proved faithful amongst the faithless, would be spared the terrible storm. He should neither feel it nor see it; his body would be sleeping in the quiet grave, and his spirit be gathered to his "fathers," with all the true men of past times. We are prone to think of death as an evil; it is an event that often appalls us with the ghastly aspects that it assumes before our imagination. There are circumstances that make it appear especially sad. For example: when a man like Josiah, of immense influence for good, dies in the zenith of life, and in the midst of usefulness, we deem it an occasion of special sadness. But it is not so, either to the man himself or to his generation. He is taken away from the evil that is coming, and the circumstance of his death, and the loss caused by his departure, tend to rouse his contemporaries to serious and salutary thought. Death is no respecter of persons. The Divine government of the world is like a stream that rolls under us; men are only as bubbles that rise to its surface; some are brighter and larger, and sparkle longer in the sun than others: but all must break, whilst the mighty current rolls on in its wonted majesty. We are shadows, and following shadows. There is nothing real but God.—D.T. BY J. ORR 2 Kings 22:1-7 Josiah: the temple again repaired. The reign of Josiah affords another example of the law of action and reaction in national life. Dr. R. Payne Smith says, "The nation itself had gradually swung round, as nations now do, and had begun to be as dissatisfied with Baal and Moloch as their fathers had been with Jehovah" (’Introduction to Jeremiah’); and Dean Stanley remarks, "The popular election which placed Josiah on the throne, of itself marks some strong change of public feeling". It is safer, however, to infer this change in public feeling from the support afterwards given to Josiah in his measures of reform, than from the mere fact of his accession; for as yet his disposition was quite uncertain. The craving for a change of some kind, with a secret weariness of the policy and extreme doings of the pagan party, had perhaps more to do with the young king’s popularity than any real desire to serve Jehovah. I. THREE . 1. The beginning of a reign. Josiah was but a boy of eight years old when he was placed upon the throne. At this age he was in danger, like his grandfather Manasseh, of being a mere puppet in the hands of the godless aristocracy. But God’s providence seems to have watched over Josiah, and to have caused some care to be taken to guide the young king right. The queen-mother, Jedidah ("the beloved of God"), daughter of Adiah ("the honored of God"), may perhaps have deserved her lofty name, and given her boy the priceless benefit of a godly mother’s example and counsels" (Geikie). She may even have acted as regent during his minority, and in that capacity have gathered around her the worthy persons who afterwards figure in the narrative, Shaphan the scribe, etc. 2. The beginning of grace. Josiah from the first must have shown good dispositions, and a willingness to be guided and taught by godly counselors. But it is to the eighth year of his reign, that is, his sixteenth year, that the Book of Chronicles attributes the first decided evidence of his determination to seek Jehovah. "For in the eighth year of his reign, while he was still young, he began to seek after the God of David his father’ (2 Chronicles 34:3). From this period his career seems to have been a singularly straightforward and consistent one: "He walked in all the way of David his father, and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left." What led to this decision in his eighth year we cannot tell. The age at which he had now arrived marks the time about which independent thought commonly begins; possibly some increase of responsibility led him to deeper reflection; it may well be that his mind had long been secretly brooding on religion, and he now took some public step which showed decidedly which side he was on. Nothing seems so beautiful as early piety. A character like Josiah’s appearing after reigns like those of Manasseh and Amon is as a snowdrop at the close of winter. It is the piety which begins early that lasts longest, and shows the most blameless record. Beautiful in all, early grace is specially beautiful in those who occupy high positions, and are destined to exercise a wide influence. With many young men the sixteenth year of life is a turning-point in a different direction. Josiah then "began" to seek the Lord. Too often it is the period when the restraints of home religion are thrown off, and young men "begin" to think and act for themselves in forbidden ways. 3. The beginning of reforms. The chronicler gives us another date, viz. the twelfth year of Josiah’s reign, as that in which he began to effect a religious reformation in the land. "In the twelfth year he began to purge Judah and Jerusalem from the high places, and the Asherim, and the graven images, and the molten images," etc. He was then twenty years of age, and the reforms mentioned, though begun in that year, extended on till after his eighteenth year. He had probably to begin cautiously, dealing with the more obvious abuses, and gradually feeling his way to bolder changes. A strong party, no doubt, were opposed to his reforms, and it is difficult to say how far they had advanced before the repair of the temple and the finding of the Law-book. The narratives of neither Chronicles nor Kings adhere strictly to chronological order, but we may suppose that before the projected repairs on the temple building were undertaken, both "the land and the house" had been purged of their worst abominations (2 Chronicles 34:8). The Baal-altars, idols, and Asherim would be removed; idolatrous worship on the high places stepped, though the people may still have sacrificed on them, as in the latter days of Manasseh, "yet unto the Lord their God only" (2 Chronicles 33:17); the sacrifices to Moloch in the valley of Hinnom put an end to. If this was so, it is certain that the temple, in which the worship of Jehovah, with a priest like Hilkiah at its head, had been restored, would not be left uncleared of its Baal-images, its horses of the sun, its prostitutes, etc. (2 Kings 23:6, 2 Kings 23:7, 2 Kings 23:11). Things, in short, would be brought back to the state in which they had been left at Manasseh’s death (2 Chronicles 33:15-18). This Josiah might safely attempt, though passages in the prophets show that much idolatry still remained. Earnest religion invariably brings forth its appropriate fruits in zeal for the honor of God, the purification of his worship, and the purging away of evils and abuses. II. THE YEAR. Hitherto, whatever Josiah had done had been more or less the result of his individual action. The conscience of the nation had not been touched, nor had any enthusiasm been awakened in favor of the new reforms. On the contrary, these had probably aroused not a little bitterness and sullen hostility. At the head of this narrative in Kings, therefore, is placed the date of "the eighteenth year of King Josiah," when the movement enters on an altogether new phase, and swells to national dimensions. The immediate occasion of this change was the finding of the Law-book in the temple, and this again was owing to the repairs which the king had ordered to be executed on the sacred edifice. Glancing at present only at the narrative of these repairs on the temple, we find that they were: 1. Much healed. There is no record of repairs on the temple since the days of King Hezekiah (2 Chronicles 29:3). In the interval the building had frequently suffered from total neglect, and idolatrous kings had made changes in its structure to suit their own purposes. There were "breaches’ to repair (verse 5), roofs to fit with "beams’ (2 Chronicles 34:11), and much carpentry and mason work to do with timber and hewn stone throughout the house. It is strange how indifferent those who dwell in their own "ceiled houses" can often be to the state of the house wherein God is worshipped (Haggai 1:4). It is the sign of a true zeal for God when there is a proper desire shown to maintain even the outer fabric of ecclesiastical buildings in a decent condition of repair. 2 Already collected for. The means for executing the repairs on the Lord’s house had been obtained by voluntary collections at the door of the temple. It is by the king’s order, sent through Shaphan the scribe to Hilkiah the high priest, to sum up the money which had been thus gathered, that the matter first comes before us in the narrative. These collections from the peoples which must have been going on for some time, show that the worship of Jehovah was now regularly conducted. They also afford us a lesson as to the mode of meeting the expense connected with church building and repairs. (1) The money was raised before the repairs were commenced. This was a sound principle, and, if more frequently acted upon, would save a good deal of trouble with Church debt. The temple was sorely in need of repair, and it might have been pleaded that the case was too urgent to admit of delay till the money was collected. It was resolved, however, to collect the money before a single workman was put upon the building. (2) It was raised by voluntary, subscription. The people were not taxed, or forced in any way, to give this money. It was their own free-will offering. Yet apparently the sums required were raised without difficulty. The modern Church expedients of bazaars, etc; are surely inferior to this Old Testament plan. If the appeal to voluntary liberality sometimes does not yield all that we could wish, it is, on the whole, the surest source of income to rely on, and reacts, as no other does, on the heart of the giver. 3. After a good precedent. Alike in the collecting of the money, the distribution to the workmen, and the reliance placed in the fidelity of the overseers, those in charge of this business seem to have followed closely the precedents of the reign of Joash. It is good to learn from those who have gone before us.—J.O. 2 Kings 22:8-20 The finding of the Law-book. The finding of the book of the Law by Hilkiah in the temple marks a distinct turning-point in Josiah’s reformation It is admitted generally that this Law-book included, if it did not exclusively consist of, the Book of Deuteronomy. As it is further allowed that some of the main narrative documents of our present Pentateuch, and the book of the covenant (Exodus 21:1-36.-23.), if not also collections of priestly laws, were then in existence, and had long been, we see no reason to doubt that the "book of the Law" discovered by Hilkiah included the bulk of the writings which make up "the five books of Moses." Several legitimate inferences may be drawn from the narrative. 1. A "book of the Law" was known to have been once in existence. Hilkiah speaks of it as "the book of the Law"—a book long lost, now found, and at once recognized. 2. The copy found was the complete, standard, authoritative copy. It was this which gave it its peculiar value. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Kings 23:1-37 JOSIAH’S RENEWAL OF THE . HIS REFORMS AND DEATH. REIGN OF . OF . 2 Kings 23:1-3 Josiah’s renewal of the covenant. The first care of Josiah, on receiving Huldah’s message, which stamped the book found as the true "book of the covenant," was to call together a great assembly of the nation, which should be sufficiently representative of it, and renew the covenant between God and his people made originally at Horeb (Exodus 19:5-8; Exodus 24:3-8), which it was apparent, by the words of the book, that he and his people had broken. His proceedings may be fitly compared with those of Jehoiada, the high priest after the reign of the idolatrous Athaliah, recorded in 2 Kings 11:17; but they were still more formal and solemn, inasmuch as the recent alienation of the people from Jehovah had been so much more prolonged, and so much more complete, than the alienation under Athaliah. 2 Kings 23:1 And the king sent, and they gathered unto him all the elders of Judah and of Jerusalem; i.e. all the elders of Jerusalem and of the rest of Judah. (On the important position held by "the elders" in the undivided kingdom, see 1 Kings 8:1, and the comment ad loc.; and on their position in the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah, see 1 Kings 20:7, 1 Kings 20:8; 1 Kings 21:8, 1 Kings 21:11; 2 Kings 10:1, etc.) 2 Kings 23:2 And the king went up into the house of the Lord. No place could be so suitable for the renewal of the covenant between God and his people as the house of God, where God was in a peculiar way present, and the ground was, like the ground at Horeb, holy. Josiah "went up" to the temple from the royal palace, which was on a lower level. And all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with him. Not only the "elders," who had been summoned, but of the people, as many as chose to attend, besides. The gathering was no doubt great; but the expressions used are (as with the Orientals generally) hyperbolical. And the priests, and the prophets. The representation would have been incomplete without these two classes—the priests, the ordinary and regular readers (Deuteronomy 31:11) and teachers (Deuteronomy 33:10) of the Law; and the prophets, the extraordinary and occasional teachers, inspired from time to time, and commissioned to enforce the Law, and futile to declare God’s will to the people. And all the people, both small and great; i.e. without distinction of classes—all ranks of the people, high and low, rich and poor, noble and base-born. All were concerned, nay, concerned equally, in a matter which touched the national life and the prospects of each individual. And he read in their ears. There is no reason for translating, with Keil, "he caused to be read in their ears," as though either the Jewish kings could not read, or would be usurping the functions of the priests in publicly reading the Law to the people. If a king might, like Solomon (1 Kings 8:22-61), lead the prayers of the congregation of Israel in the temple, much more might he read the Law to them. The readers in the Jewish synagogues are ordinarily lay people. All the words of the book of the covenant. Perhaps there is here some exaggeration, as in the phrases, "all the men of Judah," and "all the inhabitants of Jerusalem." The entire Pentateuch could scarcely be read through in less than ten hours. Possibly, the Book of Deuteronomy was alone read. Which was found in the house of the Lord (see above, 2 Kings 22:8). 2 Kings 23:3 And the king stood by a pillar—עַל צָעַמּוֹד is not "by the pillar," but (as in 2 Kings 11:14) "on the platform" (see the comment on that place)—and made a covenant before the Lord; literally, made the covenant (as in 2 Kings 11:17); i.e. made, or renewed, the old covenant with God (Exodus 24:5-8), which had been broken by the complete neglect of the Law, and the manifold idolatries of Manasseh and Amon. He renewed this covenant "before the Lord," i.e. from his platform in the court, directly opposite the entrance to the temple, through which he could, perhaps, see the veil hanging in front of the holy of holies-at any rate being, and feeling himself to be, in the immediate presence of God. To walk after the Lord—i.e. to be his true follower and servant—and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes. (On the multiplication of such terms, see the comment upon 1 Kings 2:3.) They are intended to express "the totality of the Law," all its requirements without exception. With all their heart and all their soul—obedience was worthless, unless paid from the heart and soul (see Deuteronomy 4:29; Deuteronomy 30:2; Joe 2:12, Joe 2:13)—to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people stood to the covenant. The representatives of the people, one and all, were parties to the premise made on their behalf by the king, and signified their consent, probably as they had done in Horeb, when "Moses took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people; and they said, All that the Lord has said will we do, and be obedient" (see Deuteronomy 24:7). 2 Kings 23:4-27 Josiah’s reformation of religion. The reformation of religion by Josiah next engages the writer’s attention, and is treated, not chronologically, but rather gee-graphically, under the three heads of (1) reforms in Jerusalem; (2) reforms outside Jerusalem, but in the kingdom of Judah; and (3) reforms in the territory which had belonged to the kingdom of Samaria (2 Kings 23:4-20). The celebration of the Passover is then briefly noticed (2 Kings 23:21-25); and the section concludes with a eulogy of Josiah (2 Kings 23:24, 2 Kings 23:25), who, however, it is noticed could not, with all his piety, obtain a revocation of the sentence passed on Judah in consequence of the sins of Manasseh. The fate of Judah was fixed (verses 26, 27). 2 Kings 23:4 And the king commanded Hilkiah the high priest, and the priests of the second order. Not the "deputy-high priests," of whom there seems to have been only one at this period of the history (2 Kings 25:18); nor the "heads of the courses," who were not recognized as a distinct class of priests till much later; but merely the common priests, as distinguished from the high priest. (So Keil, Bahr, and others.) And the keepers of the door; literally, the keepers of the threshold; i.e. the Levites, whose duty it was to keep watch and ward at the outer temple gates (see 1 Chronicles 26:13-18). Their importance at this time appears again in 2 Kings 25:18. To bring forth out of the temple of the Lord all the vessels that were made for Baal. The reformation naturally began with the purging of the temple. So the reformation under Jehoiada (2 Kings 11:18) and that of Manasseh (2 Chronicles 33:15). Under "the vessels" (הַכֵּלִים) would be included the entire paraphernalia of worship, even the two altars which had been set up in honor of Baal in the outer and the inner courts. And for the grove (see 2 Kings 21:3), and for all the host of heaven. The three worships are here united, because there was a close connection between them. Baal was, in one of his aspects, the sun; and Astarte, the goddess of the "grove" wet-ship, was, in one of her aspects, the moon. The cult of "the host of heaven," though, perhaps, derived from a different source, naturally became associated with the cults of the sun and moon. And he burned them without Jerusalem in the fields of Kidron. The Law required that idols should be burnt with fire (Deuteronomy 7:25), and likewise "groves" (Deuteronomy 12:3). It was enough to "overthrow" altars (Deuteronomy 12:3) and to "break" pillars. But Josiah seems to have thought it best to destroy by fire, i.e. in the completest possible way, all the objects, of whatever kind, which had been connected with the idol-worship (see verses 6, 12, 15, 16). The burning took place in "the fields of Kidron," i.e. in the upper part of the Kidron valley, to the northeast of Jerusalem, in order that not even the smoke should pollute the town. And carried the ashes of them unto Bethel. This was a very unusual precaution, and shows Josiah’s extreme scrupulousness. He would not have even the ashes of the wooden objects, or the calcined powder of the metal ones, remain even in the vicinity of the holy city, but transported them to a distance. In selecting Bethel as the place to convey them to, he was no doubt actuated by the circumstance that that village was in some sense the fount and origin of all the religious impurities which had overflowed the land. That which had proceeded from Bethel might well be taken back thither. 2 Kings 23:5 And he put down the idolatrous priests; literally, the chemarim. The same word is used of idolatrous priests in Hosea 10:5 and Zephaniah 1:4. It is best connected with the Arabic root chamar, colere deum, and with the Syriac cumro, "priest" or "sacrificer." The Syrian priests were probably so called at the time, and the Hebrews took the word, and applied it to all false priests or idolatrous priests, reserving their own cohanim (כֹּהֲנִים) for true Jehovistic priests only. Whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places in the cities of Judah, and in the places round about Jerusalem. This practice had not been mentioned previously, and can scarcely have belonged to the earlier kingdom of Judah, when "the people" (as we are told so often) "worshipped and burnt incense in the high places." But it is quite in harmony with the other doings of Manasseh and Amen, that, when they re-established the high places (2 Kings 21:3, 2 Kings 21:21), they should have followed the custom of the Israelite monarchs at Dan and Bethel (1 Kings 12:28-32), and have "ordained priests" to conduct the worship at them. Them also that burned incense unto Baal, to the sun, and to the moon (on the Baal-worship of Manasseh and Amen, see 2 Kings 21:3; on the sun-worship, compare below, 2 Kings 21:11; the moon-worship was probably a form of the worship of Astarte), and to the planets; rather, to the twelve signs. The constellations or signs of the zodiac are, no doubt, intended. The proper meaning of the term is "mansions;" or "houses," the zodiacal signs being regarded as the "mansions of the sun" by the Babylonians. And to all the host of heaven (see the comment on 2 Kings 21:3). 2 Kings 23:6 And he brought out the grove from the house of the Lord. The Asherah set up by Manasseh (2 Kings 21:3 and 2 Kings 21:7), and if removed (2 Chronicles 33:15), then replaced by Amon (2 Chronicles 33:22), is intended. (On its probable form, see the comment upon 2 Kings 21:7.) Without Jerusalem, unto the brook Kidron (see the comment on verse 4), and burned it at the brook Kidron. After the example of Asa, who had treated in the same way the idol of the queen-mother Maachah (1 Kings 15:13). Asa followed the example of Moses (Exodus 32:20), when he destroyed the golden calf. And stamped it small to powder. Metals may be calcined by intense heat, and reduced into a state in which a very small application of force will crush them into a fine powder. It is clear from the present passage, that Manasseh’s Asherah was made of metal, at any rate in part. And cast the powder thereof upon the graves of the children of the people; i.e. "upon the graves of the common people" (comp. Jeremiah 26:23, where the expression used in the Hebrew is the same). The common people were not buried, like the better sort, in rock-hewn sepulchers, but in graves of the ordinary description. Burial-places were regarded as unclean, and were thus fit receptacles for any kind of impurity. 2 Kings 23:7 And he brake down the houses of the sodomites; literally, of the consecrated ones. (See the comment on 1 Kings 14:24; and note that the male prostitutes, or Galli, who consecrated themselves to the Des Syra, formed an essential element in the Astarte-worship, and accompanied it wherever it was introduced.) Dollinger says of these wretched persons, "To the exciting din of drums, flutes, and inspired songs, the Galli cut themselves on the arms; and the effect of this act, and of the music accompanying it, was so strong upon mere spectators, that all their bodily and mental powers were thrown into a tumult of excitement, and they too, seized by the desire to lacerate themselves, deprived themselves of their manhood by means of potsherds lying ready for the purpose. Thereupon they ran with the mutilated part through the city, and received from the houses which they threw them into, a woman’s gear. Not chastity, but barrenness, was intended by the mutilation. In this the Galli only desired to be like their goddess. The relation of foul lust, which they thenceforward occupied towards women, was regarded as a holy thing, and was tolerated by husbands in their wives." That were by the house of the Lord. The near vicinity is an indication that the Galli took part in the foreign rites introduced into the temple by Manasseh and Amon. The awful profanation of the house of God by such orgies is too terrible to dwell on. Where the women wove hangings for the grove. "The women" are no doubt the priestesses of the Dea Syra, who are constantly mentioned with the Galli, and, indeed, lived with them. They employed themselves, among other occupations, in weaving "hangings" (literally, "houses," i.e. "coverings") for the Asherah. It may be gathered from Ezekiel 16:16 that these "coverings" were dainty fabrics of many colors. 2 Kings 23:8 And he brought all the priests out of the cities of Judah. Here the writer diverges from his proper subject—the reforms in and near Jerusalem—to speak of changes which were made in other parts of Judaea. The Levitical priests, who in various cities of Judah had conducted the worship at the high places, were summoned to Jerusalem by Josiah, and forced to remain there, that the unauthorized worship which they had conducted might be brought to an end. And defiled the high places where the priests had burned incense. Hezekiah had "removed the high places, and broken the images, and cut down the groves" throughout his dominions (2 Kings 18:4), but he had not in any way "defiled the high places;" and therefore no sooner did a king take a different view of his duties than the worship was at once restored (2 Kings 21:3), and flourished as before. Josiah conceived the idea that, if the high places were "defiled," it would be impossible to renew the worship at them. From Geba to Beersheba. Geba takes here the place of Bethel as the northern limit of Judah. It was situated at a very short distance from Bethel, and was made to supersede it on account of the idolatries by which Bethel had been disgraced. The exact site is probably the modern Jeba, on the southern edge of the Wady Suweinit. And brake down the high places of the gates. The high-place worship had, it would seem, invaded Jerusalem itself. In some of the gates of the city, which were "large open buildings for public meetings and intercourse" (Bahr), altars, or more elaborate places of worship, had been established, and an unauthorized ritual of the high-place type had been set up. That were—rather, that which was—in the entering in of the gate of Joshua the governor of the city. This and the succeeding clauses are limitations of the general statement concerning the "high places of the gates," and indicate that two gates only had been polluted by high-place worship, viz. "the gate of Joshua," and the gale known κατἐξοχὴν as "the city gate." Neither of these can be determinately fixed, since they are only mentioned in the present passage. Which were on a man’s left hand at the gate of the city; rather, and also that which was on the left-hand side in the gate of the city. (So Thenius, Keil, and Bahr.) 2 Kings 23:9 Nevertheless the priests of the high places came not up to the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem. Though Josiah recalled to Jerusalem the Levitical priests who had recently been attached to the various high places, yet he did not attach them to the temple, or assign them any part in its services. Their participation in a semi-idolatrous service had disqualified them for the temple ministrations. But they did eat of the unleavened bread among their brethren. They were allowed, i.e; their maintenance out of the priestly revenues, as were priests disqualified by a personal blemish (Leviticus 2 Kings 21:21, 2 Kings 21:22). Practically they lived on the altar gifts intended for the priests (Leviticus 2 Kings 6:9, 2 Kings 6:10, 2 Kings 6:22), in which it was unlawful to mix leaven. 2 Kings 23:10 And he defiled Topheth. "To-pheth" or "Tophet" was the name given to the place in the valley of Hinnom where the sacrifices were offered to Moloch. The root of the word is thought by some to be taph (תַּף), "a drum," because the cries of the children burnt there were drowned by the beating of drums. Others suggest as the root, tuph (תּוּף), "to spit," because the place was "spat at" by the orthodox. But Gesenius and Bottcher derive it from an Aryan root, taph, or tap, "to burn," whence Greek θάπτειντέφρα, Latin tepidus, Mod. Persian taftan, Sanskrit tap, etc; and regard the meaning as simply "the place of burning" (see the comment on Isaiah 30:33). Which is in the valley of the children of Hinnom. The valley of Hinnom, or of the sons of Hinnom, is generally allowed to be that which sweeps round the more western of the two hills whereon Jerusalem was built, in a direction at first south and then east, uniting itself with the Kidron valley a little to the south of Ophel. The origin of the name is uncertain; but it is most likely that the Beni-Hinnom were a tribe of Canaanites, settled on this side of Jerusalem in the time of Joshua (Joshua 15:8). The "valley" is a ravine, deep and narrow, with steep, rocky sides. When the Moloch-worship first began in it we cannot say; but it was probably before the time of Solomon, who built a high place for Moloch (1 Kings 11:11), on one of the heights by which the valley is enclosed. (On the horrible profanations of the Moloch-worship, see Jeremiah 7:31, Jeremiah 7:32; Jeremiah 19:4-13; Jeremiah 32:35.) After the Captivity, the valley of Hinnom—Ge-Hinnom—was reckoned an accursed and abominable place, a sort of earthly counterpart of the place of final punishment, which. thence derived its name of "Geheuna" (Γέεννα); (see Matthew 5:22, Matthew 5:29, etc.). That no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Moloch (see the comment on 2 Kings 16:3). 2 Kings 23:11 And he took away the horses that the kings of Judah had given to the sun. The custom of dedicating horses to the sun was practiced by many ancient nations; but it is only in Persia that we find horses and chariots so dedicated (Xen; ’Cyrop.,’ 2 Kings 8:3. § 12). The idea of the sun-god as a charioteer, who drove his horses daily across the sky, is one common to several of the Aryan nations, as the Greeks, the Romans, the Hindoos, and others;but we do not find it either in Egypt or among the Semitic peoples. The sacrifice of the horse to the sun was more general, but does not seem to have been adopted by the Hebrews. It is not at all clear whence the "kings of Judah"—i.e. Ahaz, Manasseh, and Amon—derived the idea of maintaining sacred chariots and horses to be used in their sun-worship. They certainly could not have received it, as Keil thinks, "through the Assyrians." At the entering in of the house of the Lord—the horses, i.e; were kept near one of the entrances to the temple, to be ready for use in sacred processions—by the chamber of Nathan-melech the chamberlain, which was in the suburbs. There were many "chambers" attached to the temple, which were sometimes used as store-rooms for different materials (1 Chronicles 9:26; 2 Chronicles 31:11, 2 Chronicles 31:12; Nehemiah 10:38; Nehemiah 13:5), sometimes as residences (Nehemiah 13:7). In Josiah’s time, "Nathan-melech the chamberlain," or rather "the eunuch," occupied one of these. It was situated בַפַדְוָרִים—"in the outskirts" or "purlieus" of the temple. And burned the chariots of the sun with fire (comp. verses 4, 6, 15, etc.). Josiah burnt all the material objects that had been desecrated by the idolatries; the persons and animals so desecrated he "removed," or deprived of their functions. 2 Kings 23:12 And the altars that were on the top of the upper chamber of Ahaz. It would seem that "the upper chamber of Ahaz" was within the temple precincts, since the pollutions spoken of, both before and after, are pollutions belonging to the temple. It may have been erected on the flat roof of one of the gates, or on the top of a store-chamber. Altars upon roofs were a new form of idolatry, apparently connected with the worship of the "host of heaven" (see Jeremiah 19:13; Zephaniah 1:5). Which the kings of Judah—i.e. Manasseh and Amen, perhaps also Ahaz—had made, and the altars which Manasseh had made in the two courts of the house of the Lord (see above, 2 Kings 21:4, 2 Kings 21:5). As Manasseh, on his repentance, merely "cast these altars out of the city" (2 Chronicles 33:15), it was easy for Amen to replace them. They belonged to the worship of the "host of heaven." Did the king beat down, and brake them down from thence, and east the dust of them into the brook Kidron (comp. verse 6, and the comment ad loc.). 2 Kings 23:13 And the high places that were before Jerusalem. The high places which Solomon established in the neighborhood of Jerusalem for the use of his wives, and in the worship at which he became himself entangled in his old age, appear to have been situated on the ridge of the mountain which lies over against Jerusalem to the east, a part of which is Olivet. The southern summit, the traditional roans offensionis, was probably the high place of Moloch (Milcom), while the most northern summit (now called Karem-es-Seyad) has some claim to be regarded as the high place of Chemosh. The site of the high place of Ashtoreth is doubtful. Which were on the right hand of the mount of corruption. The name "mount of corruption" seems to have been given after Solomon’s time to the entire ridge of hills which lies over against Jerusalem to the east, on account of the rites which he had allowed to be established on it. The "right hand" of the mountain would, according to Jewish notions, be the more southern part. Which Solomon the King of Israel—rather, King of Israel, since there is no article—had builded for Ashtoreth the abomination of the Zidonians (see 1 Kings 11:7). Though Ashtoreth, or Astarte, or Ishtar, or the Dea Syra, was worshipped generally throughout Phoenicia, and perhaps even more widely, yet she was in a peculiar way "the abomination of the Zidonians," being the deity to whom the city of Sidon was especially dedicated. And for Chemosh the abomination of the Moabites. Chemosh appears as the special god of the Moabites on the famous Moabite Stone in eleven places. The stone itself was dedicated to Chemosh (line 3). The Moabites are spoken of as "the people of Chemosh" (lines 5, 6). Success in war comes from him, and defeat is the result of his anger. One of his designations is "Ashtar-Chemosh" (line 17), or "Chemosh, who is also Ashtar," Ashtar being the male principle corresponding to the female Astarte or Ashtoreth. And for Milcom. Moloch was called by the Jews "Milcom," or "Malcam"—"their king" i.e. the king of the Ammonite people, since he was the sole god whom they acknowledged (see 1 Kings 11:5; Jeremiah 49:3 compared with Jeremiah 48:7; Amos 1:15; Zephaniah 1:5). The abomination of the children of Ammon. Did the king defile. The manner of the defilement is stated in the next verse. 2 Kings 23:14 And he brake in pieces the images—or, pillars (see the comment on 1 Kings 14:23)—and out down the groves—i.e. the asherim, or "sacred trees"—and filled their places with the bones of men. Whatever spoke of death and dissolution was a special defilement to shrines where the gods worshipped were deities of productivity and generation. Bones of men had also the actual taint of corruption about them. The "uncleanness" of dead bodies arose first out of man’s natural shrinking from death, and was then further confirmed by the horrors accompanying decay. The notion was probably coeval with death itself. It received a sanction from the Law, which made it a legal defilement to touch a corpse (Numbers 19:11, Numbers 19:16), and placed under a sentence of uncleanness all that was in the tent where a man died (Numbers 19:14, Numbers 19:15). 2 Kings 23:15 Moreover the altar that was at Bethel, and the high place; rather, the altar that was at Bethel, the high place, without any "and." הַבָמָה is in apposition with הַמִּזְבֵּץַ. By setting up an altar at Bethel, Jeroboam constituted Bethel a "high place." Which Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin, had made, both that altar end the high place he brake down. "The high place" is here equivalent to the "house of high places" in 1 Kings 12:31, and designates "the buildings of this sanctuary" (Keil). At such a national center as Bethel a temple would, of course, accompany the altar. Whether the temple and altar were in use or not at the time when Josiah destroyed them, is uncertain. The mixed race which had superseded the Israelites in the country (2 Kings 17:24-41) may have continued the worship, or may have set it aside. And burned the high place, and stamped it small to powder. It is not clear that this latter clause applies to the high place. Perhaps we should translate—And stamped small to powder, and burned, the grove. It is for the most part only comparatively small objects that are "stamped small to powder". 2 Kings 23:16 And as Josiah turned himself, he spied the sepulchers that were there in the mount. The Israelite sepulchers, excavated in the reeky sides of hills, are everywhere conspicuous. Those of Bethel may have been in the low hill on which the town stands, or in the sides of the Wady Suweinit, a little further to the south. His accidentally "spying the sepulchers" gave Josiah the thought of completing his desecration of Bethel by having bones brought from them and burnt upon the altar—whereby he exactly accomplished the old prophecy (1 Kings 13:2), which was not at all in his mind. And sent, end took the bones out of the sepulchers, and burned them upon the altar, and polluted it (see the comment on 2 Kings 23:14), according to the word of the Lord which the men of God proclaimed, who proclaimed these words; rather, who prophesied these things. The reference is to 1 Kings 13:2, and the meaning is, not that Josiah acted as he did in order to fulfill the prophecy, but that in thus acting he unconsciously fulfilled it. 2 Kings 23:17 Then he said, What title is that that I see? rather, What pillar is that that I see? Josiah’s eye caught sight of a "pillar" or obelisk (צִיוֹן) among the tombs, or in their neighborhood, and he had the curiosity to ask what it was. And the men of the city told him, It is the sepulcher of the man of God, which earns from Judah (see 1 Kings 13:1). The "pillar" could not have been the actual "sepulcher," but was no doubt a monument connected with it. Many of the Phoenician excavated tombs are accompanied by monuments above ground, which are very conspicuous (see Renan’s ’Mission de Phenicie,’ pls. 11; et seq.). And proclaimed these things that thou hast done against the altar of Bethel (see 1 Kings 13:2). According to the present text of Kings, Josiah was prophesied of by name, as the king who would defile the altar; but it is possible that the words, "Josiah by name" (יאשִׁיָהוּ שְׂמוֹ), have crept in from the margin. 2 Kings 23:18 And he said, Let him alone; let no man move his bones. Josiah remembered the circumstances when they were recalled to him, and, in order to show honor to the "man of God" (1 Kings 13:1-34; passim), commanded that his tomb should be undisturbed. So they let his bones alone, with the bones of the prophet that came out of Samaria; i.e. with the bones of the Israelite prophet, who had taken care to be buried with him. The reference is to 1 Kings 13:31. 2 Kings 23:19 And all the houses also of the high places that were in the cities of Samaria. The writer of Chronicles enters into more detail. Josiah, he says, carried out his destruction of the high places, the groves, and the images "in the cities of Manasseh, and Ephraim, and Simeon, even unto Naphtali" (2 Chronicles 34:6)—i.e. to the northern limit of the Holy Land, which was occupied by Naphtali and Asher. By what right Josiah exercised sovereign authority in the old kingdom of Samaria, which the Assyrians had conquered and attached to their empire, can only be conjectured. Some have supposed that the Assyrians had enlarged his sovereignty, and placed Samaria under his rule; others regard him as having transferred his allegiance to Nabopolassar, and having been made by him viceroy over Palestine. But it is, perhaps, most probable that he merely took advantage of the political commotions of the time to extend his dominion so far as it seemed safe to do so. Asshur-bani-pal, the last energetic King of Assyria, appears to have ceased to reign in Josiah’s fourteenth year, when he was succeeded by a weak monarch, Asshur-ebil-ili. Great troubles now broke out. The Scythians ravaged Western Asia far and wide. Assyria was attacked by the Medea and Babylonians in combination. Under these circumstances, Josiah found himself practically independent, and began to entertain ambitious projects. He "extended his dominion from Jerusalem over Samaria" (Ewald). Assyria was too much occupied to take any notice. Baby-Ionia was in the thick of the struggle. Josiah found himself able to reunite under his own headship all the scattered portions of the old Israelite kingdom, except, perhaps, the trans-Jordanic district. He levied taxes in Samaria as freely as in Judaea (2 Chronicles 33:9). He reformed on the same model the religions of both countries. When finally he had to fight for his throne, he marched his army into the northern portion of Samaria, and there fought the battle which cost him his life. Which the kings of Israel had made to provoke the Lord to anger. The earlier kings of Israel had simply allowed the "high places" to continue, without actively increasing or multiplying them; but Manasseh had re-established them after their destruction by Hezekiah (2 Kings 21:3), and Amen had probably done the same after Manasseh’s tardy reformation. Jonah took away, and did to them according to all the acts that he done in Bethel (see above, verse 15). 2 Kings 23:20 And he slew all the priests of the high places that were there upon the altars. It is not directly said that he had done this at Bethel, though it had been prophesied that he would do so (1 Kings 13:2). Possibly there were no priests at Bethel at the time, since the "calf" set up by Jeroboam had been carried off (Hosea 10:6) by the Assyrians. The difference between the treatment of the high-place priests in Israel and in Judah (2 Kings 23:9) clearly implies that the former were attached to the worship of false gods, while the latter were priests of Jehovah who worshipped him with superstitious and unauthorized rites and ceremonies. And burned men’s bones upon them, and returned to Jerusalem. 2 Kings 23:21 And the king commanded all the people, saying, Keep the Passover. The account given of Josiah’s Passover is much more full in Chronicles than in Kings. In Chronicles it occupies nineteen verses of 2 Chronicles 35:1-27. We learn from Chronicles that all the rites prescribed by the Law, whether in Exodus, Leviticus, or Deuteronomy, were duly observed, and that the festival was attended, not only by the Judaeans, but by many Israelites from among the ten tribes, who still remained intermixed with the Assyrian colonists in the Samaritan country (see 2 Chronicles 35:17, 2 Chronicles 35:18). Unto the Lord your God, as it is written in the book of this covenant. The ordinances for the due observance of the Passover feast are contained chiefly in Exodus (Exodus 12:3-20; Exodus 13:5-10). They are repeated, but with much less fullness, in Deuteronomy 16:1-8. The "book of the covenant" found by Hilkiah must, therefore, certainly have contained Exodus (see below, verse 25). 2 Kings 23:22 Surely there was not holden such a Passover from the days of the judges that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the kings of Judah. Such a Passover, one so numerously attended (2 Chronicles 35:18). and so exactly kept according to every ordinance of the Law of Moses (2 Chronicles 35:6), had not been celebrated during all the period of the judges, from Joshua to Samuel, nor under the kings of all Israel, Saul, David, and Solomon, nor under those of the separated kingdom of Judah, from Rehoboam to this year (the eighteenth) of Josiah. It is an extraordinary perversity which concludes (as do De Wette and Thenius), from this comparison of the present with former Passovers under the judges and the kings, that there had been no such former Passovers at all! Two, at any rate, are recorded (Joshua 5:10, Joshua 5:11; 2 Chronicles 30:13-26). Ewald has the good sense to express his dissent from this view, and to declare the meaning of the writer to be simply that "since the time of the judges there had never been such a celebration of the Passover, in such strict accordance, that is, with the prescriptions of a sacred book as that which now took place". 2 Kings 23:23 But in the eighteenth year of King Josiah, wherein this Passover was holden to the Lord in Jerusalem (compare, on the date, 2 Kings 22:3 and 2 Chronicles 35:19). The eighteenth year of Josiah corresponded probably, in part to B.C. 622, in part to B.C. 621. 2 Kings 23:24 Moreover the workers with familiar spirits, and the wizards. Persons of these classes had been encouraged by Manasseh, in his earlier reign (2 Kings 21:6), and probably by Amon (2 Kings 21:21). As Josiah designed a thorough reformation, it was necessary for him to put them down. And the images; literally, the teraphim, which are thought to have been small images kept as household gods in many Israelite families from a very ancient date (see Genesis 31:19-35). The superstition was exceedingly persistent. We find it under the judges (Judges 18:14), under Saul (1 Samuel 19:13), here under the later kings, and it is still mentioned after the return from the Captivity (Zechariah 10:2). The superstition was, apparently, Babylonian (Ezekiel 21:21), and brought from Ur of the Chaldees by the family of Abraham. Besides being regarded as household gods, the teraphim were used in divination. And the idols, and all the abominations that were spied. The "idols," gillulim, are probably, like the teraphim, of a private nature, figures used as amulets or talismans. Excepting in Ezekiel, the word is an uncommon one. By the "abominations that were spied" are meant secret defilements and superstitious practices in households, which needed to be searched out. (So Thenius and Bahr.) In the land of Judah and in Jerusalem. Not, apparently, in the cities of Samaria, where such a rigid inquisition would perhaps have provoked a stubborn resistance. Did Josiah put away, that he might perform the words of the Law; rather, that he might establish the words of the Law. Laws against such practices as Josiah now put down will be found in Exodus 22:18; Leviticus 19:31; 20:27; Deuteronomy 18:10-12. Which were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of the Lord (see 2 Kings 22:8). 2 Kings 23:25 And like unto him was there no king before him (see the comment on 2 Kings 18:5). The writer of Kings cannot be said to place Josiah above Hezekiah, or Hezekiah above Josiah. He accords them the same degree of praise, but, in Hezekiah’s case, dwells upon his trust in God; in Josiah’s, upon his exact obedience to the Law. On the whole, his judgment accords very closely with that of the son of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus 49:4). "All, except David and Ezekias and Josias, were defective: for they forsook the Law of the Most High." That turned to the Lord with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might. This triple enumeration is intended to include the whole moral and mental nature of man, all the energies of his understanding, his will, and his physical vitality (see the comment on Deuteronomy 6:5—a passage which is in the writer’s mind). According to all the Law of Moses. This is an indication that, in the writer’s view, the whole Law was contained in the book found by Hilkiah. Neither after him arose there any like him. This is but moderate praise, since the four kings who reigned after him—Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah—were, one and all, wicked princes. 2 Kings 23:26 Notwithstanding the Lord turned not from the fierceness of his great wrath. It was too late, not for God to forgive upon repentance, but for the nation to repent sincerely and heartily. Sin had become engrained in the national character. Vain were the warnings of Jeremiah, vain were his exhortations to repentance (Jeremiah 3:12-14, Jeremiah 3:22; Jeremiah 4:1-8; Jeremiah 7:3-7, etc.), vain his promises that, if they would turn to God, they would be forgiven and spared. Thirty years of irreligion and idolatry under Manasseh had sapped the national vigor, and made true repentance an impossibility. How weak and half-hearted must have been the return to God towards the close of Manasseh’s reign, that it should have had no strength to resist Amon, a youth of twenty-two, but should have disappeared wholly on his accession! And how far from sincere must have been the present conformity to the wishes of Josiah, the professed renewal of the covenant (verse 3), and revival of disused ceremonies (verses 21-23)! Jeremiah searched in vain through the streets of Jerusalem to find a man that executed judgment, or sought the truth (Jeremiah 5:1). The people had "a revolting and rebellious heart; they were revolted and gone" (Jeremiah 5:23). Not only idolatry, but profligacy (Jeremiah 5:1) and injustice and oppression everywhere prevailed (Jeremiah 5:25-28). "From the least to the greatest of them, every one was given to covetousness" (Jeremiah 6:13); even the prophets and the priests "dealt falsely" (Jeremiah 6:13), The state of things was one which necessarily brought down the Divine judgment, and all that Josiah’s efforts could do was a little to delay it. Wherewith his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations that Manasseh had provoked him withal. Manasseh’s provocations lived in their consequences. God’s judgment upon Israel was not mere vengeance for the sins that Manasseh had committed, or even for the multitudinous iniquities into which he had led the nation (2 Kings 21:9). It was punishment rendered necessary by the actual condition of the nation—the condition whereto it had been reduced by Manasseh’s evil doings. 2 Kings 23:27 And the Lord said—God said in his secret counsels, came to the determination, and pronounced the sentence in his thoughts—I will remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed Israel. The sins of Judah were now as great as those of Israel had been; therefore her punishment must be the same, as God is no respecter of persons. And I will east off this city Jerusalem which I have chosen. God "chose" Jerusalem when he put it into the heart of David to bring up the ark thither (2 Samuel 6:1-17). And the house of which I said, My Name shall he there (see Deuteronomy 12:11; 1 Kings 8:29, etc.). A visible confirmation was given to all that David and Solomon had done in establishing the temple at Jerusalem as the head-quarters of the national religion, when "fire came down from heaven, and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices" made there, and "the glory of the Lord filled the house". 2 Kings 23:28-30 The events of Josiah’s reign from his eighteenth to his thirty-first year are left a blank, both here and in Chronicles. Politically, the time was a stirring one. The great invasion of Western Asia by the Scythic hordes (Herod; 1.103-106), which is alluded to by Jeremiah 6:1-5, Ezekiel 38:1-23:39; and perhaps by Zephaniah 2:6, probably belongs to it; as also the attack of Psamatik I. upon Philistia (Herod; 2.105), the fall of the Assyrian empire, and the destruction of Nineveh: the establishment of the independence of Babylon, and her rise to greatness; together with the transfer of power in the central part of Western Asia, from the Assyrians to the Medea. Amid the dangers which beset him, Josiah appears to have conducted himself prudently, gradually extending his power over Samaria and Galilee, without coming into hostile collision with any of the neighboring nations, until about the year B.C. 609 or 608, when his land was invaded by Pharaoh-Nechoh, the Neku of the Egyptian monuments. Josiah felt himself called upon to resist this invasion, and, in doing so, met his death (verses 29, 30). 2 Kings 23:28 Now the rest of the acts of Josiah, and all that he did. Josiah was reckoned a good rather than a great king. No mention is made of his "might." The writer of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 35:26) commemorates his "kindnesses" or "his good deeds." The son of Sirach speaks of his "upright" behavior (Ecclesiasticus 49:2). Josephus (’Ant. Jud.,’ 10.4. § 1) praises his "justice" and his "piety," and says (ibid; 10.4. § 5) his later years were passed "in peace and opulence." Are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (see 2 Chronicles 35:27). 2 Kings 23:29 In his days Pharaoh-Nechoh King of Egypt went up against the King of Assyria. Neku, the "Pharaoh-Nechoh" of this passage, and the Necos of Herodotus, was the son of Psamatik I; and succeeded his father on the throne of Egypt, probably in B.C. 610. He was one of the most enterprising of the later Egyptian kings, and appears to have made this expedition in his second or third year. The unsettled condition of Western Asia after the Scythic invasion, and the fall of the Assyrian empire, seemed to give an opportunity for Egypt to reclaim her old dominion over Syria and Mesopotamia. The "King of Assyria," against whom Pharaoh-Nechoh "went up," was probably Nabopolassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar. His proper rifle was "King of Babylon," which is what Nebuchadnezzar always calls him; but the Jews not unnaturally regarded him as the inheritor of the Assyrian empire, as indeed they regarded the Persian monarchs also (Ezra 6:22), and therefore gave him the title of "King of Assyria." To the river Euphrates. The author of Chronicles says that "Necho King of Egypt came up to fight against Carchemish" (or "at Carehemish") "by Euphrates," which shows that his design was to penetrate into Northern Syria, where Carchemish (now Jerabus) was situated, with a view probably of crossing the Euphrates by the ford at Bir, or by that at Balis, into Mesopotamia. And King Josiah wont against him. It is possible that Josiah had accepted the position of Babylonian tributary after the fall of the Assyrian kingdom, and thought himself bound to resist an attack upon his suzerain. Or he may simply have resented the violation of his territory, without his permission, by a foreign army. Certainly, if he had allowed the free passage of the Egyptian troops, backwards and forwards, through his country, he would in a short time have lost even the shadow of independence. Nechoh’s assurance that his expedition was not against him (Josiah), but against the Assyrians (2 Chronicles 35:21), was not a thing to be relied upon, any more than his declaration that God had commanded his expedition. And he slew him at Megiddo, when he had soon him. Megiddo is, beyond all doubt, the present El-Ledjun on the northern outskirt of the range of hills which separates the Plain of Esdraelon from that of Sharon. It is certainly surprising to find that Josiah had taken up a position so far to the north, leaving Jerusalem, and, indeed, all Judaea, unprotected. But he may have thought the advantages of the position such as to compensate for any risk to the Judaean cities, in which he would, of course, have left garrisons. Or, possibly, as Keil and Bahr suppose, Nechoh may have conveyed his troops to the Syrian coast by sea, and have landed in the Bay of Acre, close to the Plain of Esdraelon. In this case Josiah would have no choice, but, if he opposed the Egyptian monarch at all, must have met him where he did, in the Esdraelon plain, as he entered it from the Plain of Acre. 2 Kings 23:30 And his servants carried him in a chariot—his "second chariot," according to the writer of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 35:24), which was probably one kept in reserve in case flight should be necessary, of lighter construction, and drawn by fleeter horses, than his war-chariot—dead from Megiddo. Wounded to death, that is. From Chronicles we gather that his wound, which was from an arrow, was not immediately fatal (2 Chronicles 35:23, 2 Chronicles 35:24); but that he died of it on his way to Jerusalem, or directly after his arrival. And brought him to Jerusalem, and buried him in his own sepulcher. The writer of Chronicles says, "in the sepulcher of his fathers," apparently meaning the burial-place in which were interred the bodies of Manasseh and Amen. We learn from Chronicles that a great lamentation was made for Josiah, the only King of Judah slain in battle, the last good king of David’s line, the pious prince whose piety had not sufficed to avert the anger of Jehovah. Jeremiah "lamented for him" (2 Chronicles 35:25), perhaps in a set composition (Josephus, ’ Ant. Jud.,’ 10.5. § 1); though that composition is certainly not either the Book of Lamentations or the fourth chapter of that book. He was further mourned by "all the singing men and the singing women" (2 Chronicles, l.s.c.), who "spake of him in their lamentations, and "made them an ordinance in Israel," and entered these "lamentations," apparently in a book, which was called ’The Book of Lamentations,’ or ’of Dirges.’ And the people of the laud took Jehoahaz the son of Josiah. Jehoahaz was otherwise named "Shallum" (1 Chronicles 3:15; Jeremiah 22:11). On what grounds the people preferred him to his elder brother, Eliakim, we do not know. Perhaps Eliakim had accompanied his father to Megiddo, and been made prisoner by Nechoh in the battle. And anointed him (see the comment on 1 Kings 1:34, and supra, 2 Kings 11:12), and made him king in his father’s stead. 2 Kings 23:31-33 SHORT REIGN OF . Pharaoh-Nechoh, having defeated Josiah, left Jerusalem and Judaea behind him, while he pressed forward on his original enterprise (see 2 Kings 23:29) into Northern Syria and the district about Carehemish, or the tract north-east of Aleppo. It was three months before he had completed his conquests in these quarters, and, having arranged matters to his satisfaction, set out on his return to Egypt. During these three months Jehoahaz bore rule at Jerusalem (2 Kings 23:31), and "did evil in the sight of the Lord" (2 Kings 23:32). Ezekiel compares him to "a young lion," which "learned to catch the prey, and devoured men" (Ezekiel 19:3). It may be suspected that he re-established the idolatries which Josiah had put down; but this is uncertain. Pharaoh-Nechoh, on his return from Carehemish, learning what the Jews had done, sent envoys to Jerusalem, and summoned Jehoahaz to his presence at Riblah, in the territory of Hamath (verse 33; comp. Josephus, ’Ant. Jud.,’ 10.5. § 2). Je-hoahaz obeyed the summons; and Nechoh, having obtained possession of his person, "put him in bands," and carried him off to Egypt, where he died (verse 34; comp. Jeremiah 22:10-12; Josephus, l.s.c.) 2 Kings 23:31 Jehoahaz was twenty and three years old when he began to reign. He was, therefore, younger than his brother Eliakim, who, three months later, was "twenty-five years old" (2 Kings 23:36). His original name seems to have been "Shallum," as above noticed (see the comment on 2 Kings 23:30). Probably he changed it to "Jehoahaz" ("Possession of Jehovah") on his accession. And he reigned three months in Jerusalem—three months and tern days, according to Josephus—and his mother’s name was Hamutal, the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah. The father of Hamutal was not, therefore, Jeremiah the prophet, who was a native of Anathoth (see Jeremiah 1:1). 2 Kings 23:32 And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord (see the comment on 2 Kings 23:31-33). Josephus says that he was ἀσεβὴςκαὶμιαρὸςτὸντρόπον (l. s. c.)—"irreligious and of impure habits." Ezekiel (Ezekiel 19:3) seems to call him a persecutor. According to all that his fathers had done. As idolatry was the chief sin of his "fathers," Jehoahaz must have been an idolater. 2 Kings 23:33 And Pharaoh-Nechoh put him in bands at Riblah. "Riblah," which retains its name, was situated in the Coele-Syrian plain, on the right bank of the Orontes, in lat. 34° 23’ N. nearly. It commanded a ford over the river, and is in the midst of a rich, corn-producing country. Hamath, to which it was regarded as belonging, is situated more than fifty miles further down the river. Riblah was well placed as a center for communication with the neighboring countries. As Dr. Robinson says, "From this point the roads were open by Aleppo and the Euphrates to Nineveh, or by Palmyra (Tadmor) to Babylon, by the end of Lebanon and the coast to Palestine (Philistia) and Egypt, or through the, Buka’a and the Jordan valley to the center of the Holy Land." Nebuchadnezzar followed the example of Nechoh in making Ribiah his headquarters during his sieges of Tyro and Jerusalem (see 2 Kings 25:21; Jeremiah 39:5; Jeremiah 52:9, Jeremiah 52:10, Jeremiah 52:26, Jeremiah 52:27). In the land of Hamath. The "land of Hamath" was the upper part of the Coele-Syrian valley from about lat. 34° to lat. 35° 30’ N. That he might not reign in Jerusalem. Nechoh might naturally distrust the people’s choice. He might also regard the setting up of any king at Jerusalem without his sanction as an act of contumacy on the part of a nation which had been practically conquered by the complete defeat of Josiah at Megiddo. Whether his conduct in seizing Jehoahaz after inviting him to a conference was justifiable or not may be questioned; but, in point of fact, he did but use the right of the conqueror somewhat harshly. And put the land to a tribute of an hundred talents of silver, and a talent of gold. (So Josephus, l.s.c.) The tribute was a very moderate one. A century earlier Sennacherib had enacted a tribute of three hundred talents of silver, and thirty of gold (see above, 2 Kings 18:14). We may conjecture that Nechoh wished to conciliate the Jews, regarding them as capable of rendering him good service in the struggle, on which he had entered, with Babylon. 2 Kings 23:34-37 AND EARLY YEARS OF . Pharaoh-Nechoh, when he deposed Jehoahaz, at once supplied his place by another king. He had no intention of altering the governmental system of Palestine, or of ruling his conquests in any other way than through dependent monarchs. His choice fell on Josiah’s eldest surviving son (1 Chronicles 3:15), Eliakim, who was the natural successor of his father. Eliakim, on ascending the throne, changed his name, as Jehoahaz appears to have done (see the comment on 2 Kings 23:31), and reigned as Jehoiakim. For three years he continued a submissive vassal of the Egyptian monarch, and remitted him his tribute regularly (2 Kings 23:36). But his rule was in all respects an evil one. He "did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord" (2 Kings 23:37). He leant towards idolatry (2 Chronicles 36:8); he was oppressive and irreligious (Josephus, ’Ant. Jud.’ 10.5. § 2); he "shed innocent blood" (Jeremiah 22:17); he was luxurious (Jeremiah 22:14, Jeremiah 22:15), covetous (Jeremiah 22:17), and tyrannical (Ezekiel 19:6). 2 Kings 23:34 And Pharaoh-Nechoh made Eliakim the son of Josiah king in the room of Josiah his father. (On the general inclination of Oriental monarchs to support the hereditary principle, and to establish sons in their fathers’ governments, even when the father’s had been rebels or enemies, see Herod; 2 Kings 3:15.) And turned his name to Jehoiakim. We may understand that Nechoh required him to take a new name, as a mark of subjection (comp. Genesis 41:45; Ezra 5:14; Daniel 1:7; and also 2 Kings 24:17), but left the choice of the name to himself. He made the change as slight as possible, merely substituting "Jehovah" for "El" as the initial element. The sense of the name remained the same, "God will set up." The idea that Nechoh was pleased with the new name on account of its apparent connection with the Egyptian moon-god, Aah (Menzel), is very fanciful. And took Jehoahaz away—i.e. carried him captive to Egypt (see Jeremiah 22:10, Jeremiah 22:11; Ezekiel 19:4), a very common practice of Egyptian conquerors, and one often accompanied by extreme severities—and he cams to Egypt, and died there (see Jeremiah 22:12, where this is prophesied). 2 Kings 23:35 And Jehoiakim gave the silver and the gold to Pharaoh. Jehoiakim, i.e; paid the tribute, which Nechoh had fixed (2 Kings 23:33), regularly. He did not, however, pay it out of the state treasury, which was exhausted. But he taxed the land to give the money according to the commandment of Pharaoh: he exacted the silver and the gold of the people of the land, of every one according to his taxation, to give it unto Pharaoh-Nechoh; rather, he had the land valued (comp. Leviticus 27:8), and "exacted the silver and the gold of the people of the land, of every one according to his valuation." 2 Kings 23:36 Jehoiakim was twenty and five years old when he began to reign—he was therefore two years older than his brother Jehoahaz (see the comment on 2 Kings 23:31)—and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem—probably from B.C. 608 to B.C. 597—and his mother’s name was Zebudah—he was, therefore, only half-brother to Jehoahaz and Zedekiah, whose mother was "Hamutal" (see 2 Kings 23:31 and 2 Kings 24:18)—the daughter of Pedaiah of Rumah. "Rumah" is probably the same city as the "Arumah" of Judges 9:41, which was in the vicinity of Shechem. 2 Kings 23:37 And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his fathers had done. Jeremiah says of Jehoiakim, "Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; that useth his neighbor’s service without wages, and giveth him not for his work; that saith, I will build me a large house and wide chambers, and cutteth him out windows; and it is coiled with cedar, and painted with vermilion. Shalt thou reign, because thou closest thyself in cedar? did not thy father eat and drink, and do judgment and justice, and then it was well with him? He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well with him: was not this to know me? saith the Lord. But thine eyes and thine heart are not but for thy covetousness, and for to shed innocent blood, and for oppression, and for violence, to do it" (Jeremiah 22:13-17). Josephus calls him "an unjust man and an evil-doer, neither pious in his relations towards God nor equitable in his dealings with his fellow men" (’Ant. Jud.,’ 10.5. § 2). His execution of Urijah, the son of Shemalah, for prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem (Jeremiah 26:20-23), was an act at once of cruelty and impiety. It is suspected that, besides reintroducing into Judah all the foreign rites extirpated by his father, he added Egyptian rites to their number. The tyranny which he practiced was likewise of an Egyptian cast, including, as it did, the exaction of forced labor from his subjects (Jeremiah 22:13), an old custom of the Pharaohs, and it is quite possible that his "passion for building splendid and costly houses" (Ewald) was awakened by his knowledge of the magnificence which characterized the monarchs of the Saitic dynasty, who revived in Egypt the architectural glories of the Ramessides. 2 Kings 23:1-3 Standing to the covenant. With a heart stirred up to intense zeal for God by the words which he had heard read out of the newly found book—the precious "book of the Law," thrust into temporary oblivion by his wicked grandfather and father—Josiah felt that a greet act of national repentance and national profession of faith was called for; and summoning "the men of Judah" by their representatives, and all the whole mass of the people of Jerusalem, he proceeded to call upon them to "stand to the covenant." The idea was well conceived and well carried out. After a national apostasy—an open, evident, and flagrant turning away from God, and adoption of idolatrous worships most abominable in his sight—it was only fitting, only decent, that there should be a sort of public reparation of the wrong done—a turning to God as open, evident, and manifest as the turning away had been. Accordingly, this was what Josiah determined-on; and the public act of reparation resolved itself into three parts. I. A PUBLIC OF THE . As the Law had been put out of sight, neglected, forgotten, during the space of two reigns, or the greater part of them, so now it was solemnly and publicly recited, proclaimed, declared to be the basis of the national life, the law of the community. The utmost possible honor was done to it by the king reading it himself in the ears of the people—reading it from first to last, "all the words of it," while the priests and the prophets and "all the people" stood attent, listening to the words so long unheard, so long forgotten, so long treated with contempt. II. A OF ASSENT AND CONSENT TO THE WORDS OF THE BY THE KING. The king was the federal head of the nation, and, in pledging himself to the keeping of the covenant, performed not a mere personal, but a representative and federal act. He pledged the nation as a whole to the acceptance and performance of the covenant, undertaking for them that they should "walk after the Lord, and keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all their heart and all their soul." III. A OF ASSENT AND CONSENT TO THE WORDS OF THE BY THE PEOPLE . Nations cannot be saved in the lump. It is necessary that each individual come into personal relations with his Maker and Redeemer and Savior. So "all the people," each of them severally, with one accord and one acclaim, "stood to the covenant"—pledged themselves to keep all the words of it henceforth with all their heart and with all their soul. A great wave of religious feeling seems to have passed over the people, and with a sincerity that was for the moment quite real and unfeigned, they declared their willing acceptance of the whole covenant, of its terrible threats as well as of its gracious promises, of its stern commands no less than of its comforting assurances. They bound themselves individually to observe all the words that were written in the book; so renewing their federal relation with God, and again becoming—what they had well-nigh ceased to be—his people. But something more was wanting. It is in no case enough to make a resolution unless we keep to it. Performance must follow upon promise. The people were bound, not merely to "stand to the covenant," in the way of profession, just once in their lives, but to stand to it, in the way of action, thenceforward perpetually. It was here that they failed; and it is here that men most commonly fail. To resolve is easy; to stick to our resolutions, difficult. The writings of Jeremiah prove to us that, within a very few years of their acceptance of the covenant in the eighteenth year of Josiah, the people of Judah cast it behind them, became a backsliding people, returned to their idolatries and abominations, forsook God, and sware by them that were no gods, committed adultery, assembled themselves by troops in the harlots’ houses—were "as fed horses in the morning, every one neighing after his neighbor’s wife" (Jeremiah 5:7, Jeremiah 5:8). A righteous God could not but "visit for these things"—could not but "be avenged upon such a nation as this" (Jeremiah 5:29). 2 Kings 23:4-27 The inability of the best intentions and the strongest will to convert a nation that is corrupt to the core. Josiah’s reformation was the most energetic and the most thorough-going that was ever carried out by any Jewish king. It far transcended, not only the efforts made by Jehoiada in the time of Joash (2 Kings 11:17-21; 2 Kings 12:1-16), and the feeble attempts of Manasseh on his return from Babylon (2 Chronicles 33:15-19), but even the earnest endeavors of Hezekiah at the beginning of his reign (2 Kings 17:3-6). "It extended not only to the kingdom of Judah, but also to the former kingdom of Israel; not only to the public, but also to the private, life of the people. The evil was everywhere to be torn out, roots and all. Nothing which could perpetuate the memory of heathen or of illegitimate Jehovah-worship remained standing. All the places of worship, all the images, all the utensils, were not only destroyed, but also defiled; even the ashes were thrown into the river (?) at an unclean place, that they might be borne away forever. The idol-priests themselves were slain, and the bones of those who were already dead were taken out of the graves and burnt. The priests of Jehovah, who had performed their functions upon the heights, were deposed from their office and dignity, and were not allowed to sacrifice any more at the altar of Jehovah" (Bahr). It may be added to this account that private superstitions, the use of teraphim and gillulim, together with the practice of witchcraft and magic arts, were put a stop to, and the rightful ordinances of the Mosaic religion restored and re-established with the utmost strictness and exactitude (verses 24, 25). Josiah did all that a godly king could do to check the downward course of his nation and recall it to piety and virtue. And for his efforts the sacred writers give him the highest praise (2 Kings 22:2; 2 Kings 23:25; 2 Chronicles 34:2; 2 Chronicles 35:26; Ecclesiasticus 49:1-3). It has been reserved for modern criticism to discover that he defeated his own ends by the violence of his methods, and injured the cause of true religion by making a book—"especially such an imperfect law-book and history as the Pentateuch"—the fundamental law of the nation (Ewald, Eisenlohr). It has not, however, been as yet shown that Josiah’s methods were any more violent than the Law required (Exodus 22:20; Deuteronomy 13:5, Deuteronomy 13:9, Deuteronomy 13:15), much less that injury is done to the cause of true religion by the adoption of a sacred book as the standard of religious truth and morality. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ 2 Kings 25:1-30 THE LAST SIEGE OF . THE JEWS LED INTO . HISTORY OF THE REMNANT LEFT BEHIND. RELEASE FROM PRISON OF . 2 Kings 25:1-10 LAST SIEGE AND CAPTURE OF . The open rebellion of Zedekiah was followed almost immediately by the advance into Judaea of a Babylonian army under Nebuchadnezzar in person, and the strict investment of the capital. We learn the circumstances of the siege from Jeremiah, in the prophecy which bears his name, and in the Book of Lamentations. It lasted one year and seven months, and was accompanied by a blockade so strict that the defenders were reduced to the last extremity, and, as in Samaria under Jehoram (2 Kings 6:29), and again in Jerusalem during the siege by Titus (Josephus, ’Bell. Jud.,’ 6.3. § 4), mothers ate their children (see Lamentations 2:20; Lamentations 4:10). When resistance was no longer possible, Zedekiah, with his men-at-arms, attempted to escape by night, and fled eastward, but were overtaken and captured in the plain of Jericho (Jeremiah 39:4, Jeremiah 39:5). Meanwhile the city fell into the enemy’s hands, and was treated with all the rigors of war. The temple, the royal palace, and the great houses of the rich men were first plundered and then delivered to the flames (verse 9). The walls of the city were broken down (verse 10), and the gates laid even with the ground (Lamentations 2:9). A great massacre of the population took place in the streets (Lamentations 2:3, Lamentations 2:4). 2 Kings 25:1 And it cams to pass in the ninth year of his—i.e. Zedekiah’s—reign, in the tenth month, in the tenth day of the month. Extreme exactness with respect to a date indicates the extreme importance of the event dated. In the whole range of the history contained in the two Books of the Kings, there is no instance of the year, month, and day being all given excepting in the present chapter, where we find this extreme exactness three times (2 Kings 25:1, 2 Kings 25:4, and 2 Kings 25:8). The date in 2 Kings 25:1 is confirmed by Jeremiah 52:10 and Ezekiel 24:1. That Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon came, he, and all his host, against Jerusalem. ’According to the description of the eye-witness, Jeremiah, the army was one of unusual magnitude. Nebuchadnezzar brought against Jerusalem at this time "all his army, and all the kingdoms of the earth of his dominion, and all the people" (Jeremiah 34:1). The march of the army was not direct upon Jerusalem; it at first spread itself over Judea, wasting the country and capturing the smaller fortified towns (.Josephus, ’Ant. Jud.,’ 10.7. §3)—among them Lachish, so famous in the war against Sennacherib (2 Kings 18:14, 2 Kings 18:17; 2 Kings 19:8), and Azekah (Jeremiah 34:7). The capture of these two places was important as intercepting Zedekiah’s line of communication with Egypt. Having made himself master of them, Nebuchadnezzar proceeded to invest the capital. And pitched against it—i.e; encamped, and commenced a regular siege—and they built forts against it round about. It has been argued that דָיֵק does not mean a "fort" or "tower," but a "line of circumvallation" (Michaelis, Hitzig, Thenius, Bahr). Jerusalem, however, can scarcely be surrounded by lines of circumvallation, which, moreover, were not employed in their sieges by the Orientals. Dayek (דָיֵק) seems to be properly a "watchtower," from דוּק, speculari, whence it passed into the meaning of a "tower" generally. The towers used in sieges by the Assyrians and Babylonians were movable ones, made of planks, which were pushed up to the walls, so that the assailants might attack their adversaries, on a level, with greater advantage. Sometimes they contained battering rams (see Layard, ’Monuments of Nineveh,’ first series, pl. 19; and comp. Jeremiah 52:4; Ezekiel 4:2; Ezekiel 17:17; Ezekiel 26:8; Josephus, ’Ant. Jud.,’ 10.8. § 1). 2 Kings 25:2 And the city was besieged unto the eleventh year of King Zedekiah. The writer omits all the details of the siege, and hastens to the final catastrophe. From Jeremiah and Ezekiel we learn that, after the siege had continued a certain time, the Egyptian monarch, Hophra or Apries, made an effort to carry out the terms of his agreement with Zedekiah, and marched an army into Southern Judaea, with the view of raising the siege (Jeremiah 37:5; Ezekiel 17:17). Nebuchadnezzar hastened to meet him. With the whole or the greater part of his host he marched southward and offered battle to the Egyptians. Whether an engagement took place or not is uncertain. Josephus affirms it, and says that Apries was "defeated and driven out of Syria" (’Ant. Jud.,’ 10.7. § 3). The silence of Jeremiah is thought to throw doubt on his assertion. At any rate, the Egyptians retired (Jeremiah 37:7) and took no further part in the struggle. The Babylonians returned, and the siege recommenced. A complete blockade was established, and the defenders of the city soon began to suffer from famine (Jeremiah 21:7, Jeremiah 21:9; Lamentations 2:12, Lamentations 2:20). Ere long, as so often happens in sieges, famine was followed by pestilence (Jeremiah 21:6, Jeremiah 21:7; Josephus, ’Ant. Jud.,’ l.s.c.), and after a time the place was reduced to the last extremity (Lamentations 4:3-9). Bread was no longer to be had, and mothers devoured their children (Lamentations 4:10). At length a breach was effected in the defenses; the enemy poured in; and the city fell (see the comment on verse 4). 2 Kings 25:3 And on the ninth day of the fourth month. The text of Kings is hero incomplete, and has to be restored from Jeremiah 52:6. Our translators have supplied the missing words. The famine prevailed in the city (see the comment on Jeremiah 52:2). As I have elsewhere observed, "The intensity of the suffering endured may be gathered from Lamentations, Ezekiel, and Josephus. The complexions of the men grew black with famine (Lamentations 4:8; Lamentations 5:10); their skin was shrunk and parched (Lamentations 4:8); the rich and noble women searched the dunghills for setups of offal (Lamentations 4:5); the children perished for want, or were even devoured by their parents (Lamentations 2:20; Lamentations 4:3, Lamentations 4:4, Lamentations 4:10; Ezekiel 5:10); water was scarce, as well as food, and was sold at a price (Lamentations 5:4); third part of the inhabitants died of the famine, and the plague which grew out of it (Ezekiel 5:12)". And there was no bread for the people of the land. Bread commonly fails comparatively early in a siege. It was some time before the fall of the city that Ebed-Meleeh expressed his fear that Jeremiah would starve, since there was no more bread in the place (see Jeremiah 38:9). 2 Kings 25:4 And the city was broken up; rather, brown into; i.e. a breach was made in the walls. Probably the breach was on the north side of the city, where the ground is nearly level (see Ezekiel 9:2). According to Josephus (’Ant. Jud.,’ 10.8. § 2), the enemy entered through the breach about midnight. And all the men of war—i.e; all the soldiers who formed the garrison—fled by night by the way of the gate between two walls; rather, between the two walls, as in Jeremiah 52:7. As the enemy broke in on the north, the king and garrison quitted the city on the south by a gate which opened into the Tyropoeon valley, between the two walls that guarded the town on either side of it. Which is by the king’s garden. The royal gardens were situated near the Pool of Siloam, at the mouth of the Tyrepoeon, and near the junction of the Hinnom with the Kidron valley (see Josephus, ’Ant. Jud.,’ 7.11). (Now the Chaldees were against the city round about.) The town, i.e; was guarded on all sides by Chaldean troops, so that Zedekiah and his soldiers must either have attacked the line of guard, and broken through it, or have slipped between two of the blockading pests under cover of the darkness. As no collision is mentioned, either here or in Jeremiah, the latter seems the more probable supposition. And the king went the way toward the plain; literally, and he ’went. The writer supposes that his readers will understand that the king left the city with his troops; and so regards "he went" as sufficiently intelligible. Jeremiah 52:7 has "they went. By "the plain" (literally, "the Arabsh") the valley of the Jordan is intended, and by "the way" to it the ordinary road from Jerusalem to Jericho. 2 Kings 25:5 And the army of the Chaldees pursued after the king. When the escape of Zedekiah and the soldiers of the garrison was discovered, hot pursuit was made, since the honor of the great king required that his enemies should be brought captive to his presence. The commanders at Jerusalem would fuel this the more sensibly, since Nebuchadnezzar had for some time retired from the siege, and left its conduct to them, while he himself exercised a general superintendence over military affairs from Riblah (see 2 Kings 25:6). They were liable to be held responsible for the escape. And overtook him in the plains of Jericho. The "plains of Jericho" (עַרְבוֹת יְרֵצוֹ) is the fertile tract on the right bank of the Jordan near its embouchure, which was excellently watered, and cultivated in gardens, orchards, and palm-groves. It is probable, though not certain, that Zedekiah intended to cross the Jordan, and seek a refuge in Moab. And all his army were scattered from him (comp. Ezekiel 12:14). This seems to be mentioned in order to account for there being no engagement. Perhaps, thinking themselves in security, and imagining that they were not followed, the troops had dispersed themselves among the farmhouses and homesteads, to obtain a much-needed refreshment. 2 Kings 25:6 So they took the king [Zedekiah], and brought him up to the King of Babylon. The presentation of rebel kings, when captured, to their suzerain, seated on his throne, is one of the most common subjects of Assyrian and Babylonian sculptures. The Egyptian and Persian artists also represent it. To Riblah. (For the situation of Riblah, see the comment on 2 Kings 23:33.) As Nebuchadnezzar was engaged at one and the same time in directing the sieges both of Tyro and of Jerusalem, it was a most convenient position for him to occupy. And they gave judgment upon him. As a rebel, who had broken his covenant and his oath (Ezekiel 17:16, Ezekiel 17:18), Zedekiah was brought to trial before Nebuchadnezzar and his great lords. The facts could not be denied, and sentence was therefore passed upon him, nominally by the court, practically by Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 52:9). By an unusual act of clemency, his life was spared; but the judgment was still sufficiently severe (see the next verse). 2 Kings 25:7 And they slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes (comp. Herod; 2 Kings 3:14, and 2 Macc. 7; for similar aggravations of condemned persons’ sufferings). As Zedekiah was no more than thirty-two years of age (2 Kings 24:18), his sons must have been minors, who could not justly be held responsible for their father’s doings. It was usual, however, in the East, and even among the Jews, to punish children for the sins of their fathers (see Joshua 7:24, Joshua 7:25; 2 Kings 9:26; 2 Kings 14:6; Daniel 6:24). And put out the eyes of Zedekiah. This, too, was a common Oriental practice. The Philistines blinded Samson (Judges 16:21). Sargon, in one of his sculptures, seems to be blinding a prisoner with a spear (Botta, ’Monumens de Ninive,’ pl. 18). The ancient Persians often blinded criminals. In modern Persia, it was, until very lately, usual for a king, on his accession, to blind all his brothers, in order that they might be disqualified from reigning. The operation was commonly performed in Persia by means of a red-hot iron rod (see Herod; 7.18). Zedekiah’s loss of eyesight reconciled the two apparently conflicting prophecies—that he would be carried captive to Babylon (Jeremiah 22:5, etc.), and that he would never see it (Ezekiel 12:13)—in a remarkable manner. And bound him with fetters of brass; literally, with a pair of brazen fetters. Assyrian fetters consisted of two thick rings of iron, joined together by a single long link (Botta, l.s.c.); Babylonian were probably similar. Captives of importance are usually represented as fettered in the sculptures. And carried him to Babylon. Jeremiah adds (Jeremiah 52:11) that Nebuchadnezzar "put him in prison till the day of his death:" and so Josephus (’Ant. Jud.,’ 10.8. § 7). The latter writer further tells us that, at his death, the Babylonian monarch gave him a royal funeral (comp. Jeremiah, Jeremiah 34:5). 2 Kings 25:8 And in the fifth month, on the seventh clay of the month. Jeremiah says (Jeremiah 52:12) that it was on the tenth day of the month; and so Josephus (’Bell Jud.; 6.4. § 8). The mistake probably arose from a copyist mistaking é(ten) for æ(seven). According to Josephus, it was on the same day of the same month that the final destruction of the temple by the soldiers of Titus was accomplished. Which is the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar ascended the throne in B.C. 605, which was the fourth year of Jehoiakim, who began to reign in B.C. 608. The seven remaining years of Jehoiakim, added to the eleven of Zedekiah, and the three months of Jehoiachin, produce the result of the text—that the last year of Zedekiah was the nineteenth of Nebuchadnezzar. Came Nebuzaradan. Nebuchadnezzar had apparently hesitated as to how he should treat Jerusalem, since nearly a month elapsed between the capture of the city and the commencement of the work of destruction. He was probably led to destroy the city by the length of the resistance, and the natural strength of the position. The name, Nebuzar-adan, is probably a Hebraized form of the Babylonian Nebu-sar-iddina. "Nebo has given (us) a king." Captain of the guard; literally chief of the executioners; but as the King’s guard were employed to execute his commissions, and especially his death-sentences, the paraphrase is quite allowable. A servant of the King of Babylon—i.e. a subject—unto Jerusalem. He came doubtless with instructions, which he proceeded to carry out. 2 Kings 25:9 And he burnt the house of the Lord. After it had stood, according to Josephus (’Ant. Jud.,’ 2 Kings 10:8. § 5), four hundred and seventy years six months and ten days. This calculation, however, seems to exceed the truth. Neither the Assyrians nor the Babylonians had any regard for the gods of other nations. They everywhere burnt the temples, plundered the shrines, and carried off the images as trophies of victory. In the temple of Jerusalem they would find no images except those of the two cherubim (1 Kings 6:23-28), which they probably took away with them. And the king’s house (see 1 Kings 7:1, 1 Kings 7:8-12; 2 Kings 11:16). The royal palace was, perhaps, almost as magnificent as the temple; and its destruction was almost as great a loss to art. It doubtless contained Solomon’s throne of ivory (1 Kings 10:18), to which there was an ascent by six steps, with two sculptured lions on each step. And all the houses of Jerusalem. This statement is qualified by the words of the following clause, which show that only the houses of the princes and great men were purposely set on fire. Many of the remaining habitations may have perished in the conflagration, but some probably escaped, and were inhabited by "the poor of the land." And every great man’s house burnt he with fire. 2 Kings 25:10 And all the army of the Chaldees, that were with the captain of the guard, brake down the walls of Jerusalem round about. A complete demolition is not intended. When the exiles returned, and even in the time of Neh 2:13, Nehemiah 2:15, much of the wall was still standing, and the circuit was easily traced. Probably the Babylonians did not do more than break one or two large breaches in the wall, as Joash had done (2 Kings 14:13) when he took Jerusalem in the reign of Amaziah. 2 Kings 25:11-21 Fate of the inhabitants of Judah, and of the contents of the temple. Having burnt the temple, the royal palace, and the grand residences of the principal citizens, Nebuzar-adan proceeded to divide the inhabitants of the city and country into two bodies—those whom he would leave in the land, and those whom he would carry off. The line of demarcation was, in a general way, a social one. The rich and well-to-do he would take with him; the poor and insignificant he would leave behind (2 Kings 25:11, 2 Kings 25:12). Among the former were included the high priest, the "second priest," three of the temple Levites, the commandant of the city, a certain number of the royal councilors, the "principal scribe of the host," and sixty of the "princes" (2 Kings 25:18, 2 Kings 25:19). The latter were chiefly persons of the agricultural class, who were left to be "vinedressers and husbandmen." From the temple, which had been already plundered twice (2 Chronicles 36:7, 2 Chronicles 36:10), he carried off such vessels in gold and silver and bronze as were still remaining there, together with the bronze of the two pillars Jachin and Boaz, of the great laver, or "molten sea," and of the stands for the smaller layers, all of which he broke up (2 Kings 25:13). Having reached Riblah, where Nebuchadnezzar still was, he delivered up to him both the booty and the prisoners. Rather more than seventy of the latter Nebuchadnezzar punished with death (2 Kings 25:21). The rest were taken to Babylon. 2 Kings 25:11 Now the rest of the people that were left in the city—i.e; that remained behind when the king and the garrison fled—and the fugitives that fen away to the King of Babylon, with the remnant of the multitude; rather, both the fugitives that had fallen away to the King of Babylon, and the remnant of the multitude, The writer means to divide "the rest of the people" into two classes: (1) those who during the siege, or before it, had deserted to the Babylonians, as no doubt many did, and as Jeremiah was accused of doing (Jeremiah 37:13); (2) those who were found inside the city when it was taken. Did Nebuzar-adan the captain of the guard carry away. 2 Kings 25:12 But the captain of the guard left of the poor of the land. It was inconvenient to deport persons who had little or nothing. In the Assyrian sculptures we see the captives, who are carried off, generally accompanied by their own baggage-animals, and taking with them a certain amount of their own household stuff. Pauper immigrants would not have been of any advantage to a country. To be vinedressers and husbandmen. Jeremiah adds that Nebuzar-adan "gave" these persons "vineyards and fields at the same time" (Jeremiah 39:10). The Babylonians did not wish Judaea to lie waste, since it could then have paid no tribute. On the contrary, they designed its continued cultivation; and Gedaliah, the governor of their appointment, made great efforts to have cultivation resumed and extended (see Jeremiah 40:10, Jeremiah 40:12). 2 Kings 25:13 And the pillars of brass that were in the house of the Lord. The two columns, Jachin and Boaz, cast by Hiram under the directions of Solomon (1 Kings 7:15-22), are intended. They were works of art of an elaborate character, but being too bulky to be carried off entire, they were "broken in pieces." And the bases. "The bases" were the stands for the layers, also made by Hiram for Solomon (1 Kings 7:27-37), and very elaborate, having "borders" ornamented with lions, oxen, and cherubim. And the brazen sea that was in the house of the Lord. This was the great laver, fifteen feet in diameter, emplaced originally on the backs of twelve oxen, three facing each way (1 Kings 7:23-26), which King Ahaz had taken down from off the oxen (2 Kings 16:17) and "put upon a pavement of stones," but which Hezekiah had probably restored. The oxen are mentioned by Jeremiah 52:20 among the objects which Nebuzar-adan carried off. Did the Chaldees break in pieces—thus destroying the workmanship, in which their value mainly consisted—and carried the brass of them to Babylon. Brass, or rather bronze, was used by the Babylonians for vessels, arms, armor, and implements generally. 2 Kings 25:14 And the pots. The word used, סִירוֹת, is translated by, "caldrons" in Jeremiah 52:18, and "ash-pans" in Exodus 27:3. The latter is probably right. And the shovels—appurtenances of the altar of burnt sacrifice—and the snuffers—rather, the knives—and the spoons—or, incense-cups—and all the vessels of brain wherewith they ministered. It appears that after the two previous spoliations of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar, in B.C. 605 and in B.C. 597, wherein so many of the more costly vessels had been carried off (Daniel 1:2; 2 Kings 24:13); the ministrations had to be performed mainly with vessels of bronze. Took they away. Soldiers are often represented in the Assyrian sculptures as carrying off vessels from temples, apparently on their own account. 2 Kings 25:15 And the firepans, and the bowls; rather, the snuff-dishes, (Exodus 25:38; 1 Kings 7:50) and the bowls, or basins (Exodus 12:22; 1 Kings 7:50; 2 Chronicles 4:8). Of these Solomon made one hundred, all in gold. And such things as were of gold, in gold. The "and" supplied by our translators would be better omitted. The writer means that of the articles enumerated some were in gold and some in silver, though probably the greater pert were in bronze. And of silver, in silver, the captain of the guard took away (comp. Jeremiah 52:19). 2 Kings 25:16 The two pillars (see the comment on 2 Kings 25:13), one sea—rather, the one sea—and the bases which Solomon had made for the house of the Lord; the brass of all these vessels was without weight; i.e. the quantity of the brass was so large that it was not thought to be worth while to weigh it. When gold and silver vessels were carried off, their weight was carefully taken by the royal scribes or secretaries, who placed it on record as a check upon embezzlement or peculation. 2 Kings 25:17 The height of the one pillar wee eighteen cubits, and the chapiter upon it was brass; rather, and there was a chapiter (or capital) upon it of brass—and the height of the chapiter three cubits. The measure given, both in 1 Kings 7:16 and Jeremiah 52:22, is "five cubits," which is generally regarded as correct; but the proportion of 3 to 18, or one-sixth, is far more suitable for a capital than that of 5 to 18, or between a third and a fourth. And the wreathen work—rather, and there was wreathen work, or network—and pomegranates upon the chapiter round about, all of brass: and like unto these had the second pillar with wreathen work. The ornamentation of the second pillar was the same as that of the first (see Jeremiah 52:22). 2 Kings 25:18 And the captain of the guard took Seraiah the chief priest. The "chief priest" is a new expression; but it can only mean the "high priest." Seraiah seems to have been the grandson of Hilkiah (1 Chronicles 6:18, 1 Chronicles 6:14), and an ancestor (grandfather or great-grandfather) of Ezra (Ezra 7:1). He had stayed at his post till the city was taken, and was now seized by Nebuzar-adan as one of the most important personages whom he found in the city. And Zephaniah the second priest. Keil and Bahr translate "a priest of the second order;’ i.e. a mere Ordinary priest; but something more than this must be intended by Jeremiah, who calls him (Jeremiah 52:34), כֹּהֵן הַמִּשְׁנֶה i.e. distinctly "the second priest." It is conjectured that he was the high priest’s substitute, empowered to act for him on occasions. Possibly he was the Zephaniah, son of Maaseiah, of whom we hear a good deal in Jeremiah (see Jeremiah 21:1; Jeremiah 29:25-29: Jeremiah 37:3). And the three keepers of the door; rather, and three keepers of the threshold. There were twenty-five "gatekeepers" of the temple (1 Chronicles 26:17, 1 Chronicles 26:18), all of them Levites. On what principle Nebuzar-adan selected three out of the twenty-four is uncertain, since we have no evidence that the temple had. as Bahr says it had, "three main entrances." Jeremiah 38:14 certainly does not prove this. 2 Kings 25:19 And out of the city he took an officer—literally, a eunuch—that was set over the man of war—eunuchs were often employed in the East as commanders of soldiers. Bagoas, general of the Persian monarch, Ochus, is a noted example—and five men of them that were in the king’s presence—literally, of them that saw the king’s face; i.e. that were habitually about the court; Jeremiah says (Jeremiah 50:25) "seven men" instead of five—which were found in the city—the majority of the courtiers had, no doubt, dispersed, and were not to be found when Nebuzar-adan searched for them—and the principal scribe of the host; rather, as in the margin, the scribe of the captain of the host (τὸνγραμματέατοῦἄρχοντοςτῆςδυνάμεως, LXX.). "Scribes" or "secretaries" always accompanied the march of Assyrian armies, to count and record the number of the slain, to catalogue the spoil, perhaps to write dispatches and the like. We may gather that Jewish commandants were similarly attended. Which mustered the people of the land—i.e; enrolled them, or entered them upon the army list, another of the "scribe’s" duties—and threescore men of the people of the land that were found in the city. Probably notables of one kind or another, persons regarded as especially responsible for the revolt. 2 Kings 25:20 And Nebuzar-adan captain of the guard took those, and brought them to the King of Babylon to Riblah (see the comment on 2 Kings 25:6). Two batches of prisoners seem to have been brought before Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah—first, the most important of all the captives, Zedekiah and his sons (2 Kings 25:6, 2 Kings 25:7); then, a month later, Seraiah the high priest, and the other persons enumerated in 2 Kings 25:18 and 2 Kings 25:19. The remaining prisoners were no doubt brought also by Nebuzar-adan to Ribiah, but were not conducted into the presence of the king. 2 Kings 25:21 And the King of Babylon smote them, and slew them at Riblah in the land of Hamath. Severities of this kind characterized all ancient warfare. The Assyrian sculptures show us prisoners of war impaled on crosses, beheaded, beaten on the head with maces, and sometimes extended on the ground and flayed. The inscriptions speak of hundreds as thus executed, and mention others as burnt in furnaces, or thrown to wild beasts, or cruelly mutilated. Herodotus says that Darius Hystaspis crucified three thousand prisoners round about Babylon after one of its revolts. That monarch himself, in the Behistun inscription, speaks of many eases where, after capturing rebel chiefs in the field or behind walls, he executed them and their principal adherents (see Colossians 2:1-23. Par. 13; Colossians 3:1-25. Par. 8, 11). If Nebuchadnezzar contented himself with the execution of between seventy and eighty of the rebel inhabitants of Jerusa-lee, he cannot be charged with cruelty, or extreme severity, according to the notions of the time. So Judah was carried away out of their land. Jeremiah adds an estimate of the number carried off. These were, he says (Jeremiah 52:28-30), in the captivity of the seventh (query, seventeenth?) year, 3023; in the captivity of the eighteenth year, 832; and in that of the twenty-third, five years later, 745, making a total of 4600. If we suppose these persons to be men, and multiply by four for the women and children, the entire number will still be no more than 18,400. 2 Kings 25:22-26 History of the remnant left in the land by Nebuzar-adan. Nebuchadnezzar, when he carried off Zedekiah to Babylon, appointed, as governor of Judaea, a certain Gedaliah, a Jew of good position, but not of the royal family. Gedaliah made Mizpah, near Jerusalem, his residence; and here he was shortly joined by a number of Jews of importance, who had escaped from Jerusalem and hidden themselves until the Babylonians were gone. Of these the most eminent were Johanan the son of Karcah, and Ishmael, a member of the royal house of David. Gedaliah urged the refugees to be good subjects of the King of Babylon, and to settle themselves to agricultural pursuits. His advice was accepted and at first followed; but presently a warning was given to Gedaliah by Johanan that Ishmael designed his destruction; and soon afterwards, as Gedaliah took no precautions, the murder was actually carried out. Other atrocities followed; but after a time Johanan and the other leading refugees took up arms, forced Ishmael to fly to the Ammonites, and then, fearing that Nebuchadnezzar would hold them responsible for Ishmael’s act, against Jeremiah’s remonstrances, fled, with the great mass of the Jews that had been left in the land, from Judaea into Egypt. Here our writer leaves them (verse 26), without touching on the calamities which befell them there, according to the prophetic announcements of Jer 44:2-28. 2 Kings 25:22 And as for the people that remained in the land of Judah. These con-stated of Gedaliah and his court, which included Jeremiah, Baruch, and some princesses of the royal house (Jeremiah 43:6); the poor of the land, whom Nebuzar-adan had intentionally left behind; and a considerable number of Jewish refugees of a better class, who came in from the neighboring nations, and from places in Judaea where they had been hiding themselves (Jeremiah 40:7-12). For about two months all went well with this "remnant," who applied themselves to agricultural pursuits, in which they prospered greatly. Whom Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon had left (see verse 12), even over them he made Gedaliah the son of Ahikam. Ahikam had protected Jeremiah in his earlier days (Jeremiah 26:24); Gedaliah protected him in the latter part of the siege (Jeremiah 39:14). Nebuchadnezzar’s choice of Gedaliah for governor was probably made from some knowledge of his having sided with Jeremiah, whose persistent endeavors to make the Jews submit to the Babylonian yoke seem to have been well known, not only to the Jews, but to the Babylonians; most likely by reason of the letter he sent to his countrymen already in captivity (Jeremiah 29:1-32.). The son of Shaphan, ruler. Probably not "Shaphan the scribe" (2 Kings 22:3, 2 Kings 22:12), but an unknown person of the same name. 2 Kings 25:23 And when all the captains of the armies; rather, the captains of the forces (Revised Version); i.e. the officers in command of the troops which had defended Jerusalem, and, having escaped from the city, were dispersed and scattered in various directions, partly in Judaea, partly in foreign countries. They and their men—apparently, each of them had kept with him a certain number of the men under his command—heard that the King of Babylon had made Gedaliah governor. The news was gratifying to them. It was something to have a Jewish ruler set over them, and not a Babylonian; it was, perhaps, even more to have a man noted for his justice and moderation (Josephus, ’Ant. Jud.,’ 10.9. § 12), who had no selfish aims, but desired simply the prosperity and good government of the country. There same to Gedaliah to Mispah, even Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, and Jo-hanan the son of Careah—Jeremiah 40:8 has "Johanan and Jonathan, the sons of Kareah"—and Seraiah the son of Tanhumeth the Netophathite. In Jeremiah 40:8 we read, "And Seraiah the son of Tanhumeth, and the sons of Ephai the Netephathite," by which it would seem that some words have fallen out here. By "Netophathite" is to be understood "native of Netophah," now Antubah, near Bethlehem (see Ezra 2:22; Nehemiah 7:26). And Jaazaniah the son of a Maschathite. Called Jezaniak by Jeremiah, and said by him (Jeremiah 42:1) to have been the son of a certain Heshaiah. Hoshaiah was a native of the Syrian kingdom, or district, known as Maschah, or Maachathi (Deuteronomy 3:14; 1 Chronicles 19:6, 1 Chronicles 19:7), which adjoined Bashan towards the north. They and their men. The persons mentioned, that is, with the soldiers under them, came to Gedaliah at Mizpah, and placed themselves under him as his subjects. 2 Kings 25:24 And Gedaliah aware to them, and to their men. As rebels, their lives were forfeit; but Gedaliah granted them an amnesty, and for their greater assurance swore to them that, so long as they remained peaceful subjects of the King of Babylon, they should suffer no harm. Jeremiah adds (Jeremiah 40:10) that he urged them to apply themselves diligently to agricultural pursuits. And said unto them, Fear not to be the servants of the Chaldees: dwell in the land, sad serve the King of Babylon; and it shall be well with you; rather, and said unto them, Fear not because of the servants of the Chaldeans, etc. "Do not be afraid," i.e; "of the Chaldean officials and guards (Jeremiah 42:3) that are about my court. Be assured that they shall do you no hurt." 2 Kings 25:25 And it mane to pass in the seventh month—two months only after Gedaliah received his appointment as governor, which was in the fifth month—that Ishmael the son of Nethaniah; the son of Elishama—"Nethaniah" is otherwise unknown; "Elishama" may be the "scribe" or secretary of Jehoiakim mentioned in Jeremiah 36:12, Jeremiah 36:20—of the seed royal. So Josephus (’Ant. Jud.,’ 10.9. § 2) and Jeremiah 41:1. Josephus adds that he was a wicked and most crafty man, who, during the siege of Jerusalem, had made his escape from the place, and fled for shelter to Baalim (Baalis, Jeremiah 40:14), King of Ammon, with whom he remained till the siege was over. Came, and ten men with him—as his retinue—and smote Gedaliah, that he died. Gedaliah had been warned by Johanan and the other captains (Jeremiah 40:13-15) of Ishmael’s probable intentions, but had treated the accusation as a calumny, and refused to believe that his life was in any danger. When Ishmael and his ten companions arrived, he still suspected nothing, but received them hospitably (Jeremiah 41:1), entertained them at a grand banquet, according to Josephus (’Ant. Jud.,’ 10.9. § 4), and being overtaken with drunkenness, was attacked and killed without difficulty. And the Jews and the Chaldees that were with him at Mizpah (comp. Jeremiah 41:3, "Ishmael also slew all the Jews that were with him, even with Gedaliah, at Mizpah, and the Chaldeans that were found them, and the men of war"). It is evident from this that Gedaliah had a Chaldean guard. 2 Kings 25:26 And all the people, both small and great, and the captains of the armies (see above, 2 Kings 25:23). The leader of the movement was Johanan, the son of Careah. Having first attacked Ishmael, and forced him to fly to the Ammonites (Jeremiah 41:15), he almost immediately afterwards conceived a fear of Nebuchadnezzar, who would, he thought, resent the murder of Gedaliah, and even avenge it upon these who had done all they could to prevent it. He therefore gathered together the people, and made a preliminary retreat to Chimham, near Bethlehem (Jeremiah 41:17), on the road to Egypt, whence he subsequently, against the earnest remonstrances and prophetic warnings of Jer 42:9-22, carried them on into Egypt itself (Jeremiah 43:1-7). The first settle-merit was made at Tahpanhes, or Daphnae. Arose, and came into Egypt: for they were afraid of the Chaldees (see Jeremiah 41:18; Jeremiah 43:3). There does not appear to have been any real reason for this fear. Nebuchadnezzar might have been trusted to distinguish between the act of an individual and conspiracy on the part of the nation. 2 Kings 25:27-30 Fate of Jehoiachin. The writer of Kings, whose general narrative, since the time of Hezekiah, has been gloomy and dispiriting, seems to have desired to terminate his history in a more cheerful strain. He therefore mentions, as his last incident, the fate of Jehoiachin, who, after thirty-six years of a cruel and seemingly hopeless imprisonment, experienced a happy change of circumstances. The king who succeeded Nebuchadnezzar, his son, Evil-Merodach, in the first year of his sovereignty had compassion upon the miserable captive, and releasing him from prison, changed his garments (2 Kings 25:29), and gave him a place at his table, among other dethroned monarchs, even exalting him above the rest (2 Kings 25:28), and making him an allowance for his support (2 Kings 25:30). This alleviation of their king’s condition could not but be felt by the captive Jews as a happy omen—a portent of the time when their lot too would be alleviated, and the Almighty Disposer of events, having punished them sufficiently for their sins, would relent at last, and put an end to their banishment, and give them rest and peace in their native country. 2 Kings 25:27 And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin King of Judah. According to Berosus and the Canon of Ptolemy, Nebuchadnezzar reigned forty-four years. He carried off Jehoiachin to Babylon in his eighth year (2 Kings 24:12), and thus the year of his death would exactly coincide with the thirty-seventh year of the captivity of the Jewish prince. In the twelfth month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month. The five and twentieth day, according to Jeremiah 52:31, (On the rarity of such exact dates in the historical Scriptures, see the comment on Jeremiah 52:1.) That Evil-Merodach King of Babylon. The native name, which is thus expressed, seems to have been "Avil-Marduk." The meaning of avil is uncertain; but the name probably placed the prince under the protection of Merodach, who was Nebuchadnezzar’s favorite god. Avil-Marduk ascended the Babylonian throne in B.C. 561, and reigned two years only, when he was murdered by Neriglissar, or Nergal-sar-uzur, his brother-in-law. In the year that he began to reign—the year B.C. 561—did lift up the head of Jehoiachin King of Judah out of prison. (For the phrase used, see Genesis 40:13, Genesis 40:19, Genesis 40:20.) The act was probably part of a larger measure of pardon and amnesty, intended to inaugurate favorably the new reign. 2 Kings 25:28 And he spake kindly to him; literally, he spake good things with him; but the meaning is well expressed by our rendering. Evil-Merodach compassionated the sufferings of the unfortunate monarch, who had grown old in prison, and strove by kind speech to make up to him for them in a certain measure. And set his throne above the throne of the kings that were with him in Babylon. Evil-Merodach had at his court other captured kings besides Jehoiachin, whose presence was considered to enhance his dignity and grandeur (comp. Judges 1:7). An honorable position and probably a seat of honor was assigned to each; but the highest position among them was now conferred on Jehoiachin. Whether he had actually a more elevated seat, is (as Bahr observes) a mattes of no importance. 2 Kings 25:29 And changed his prison garments. The subject to "changed" may be either "Jehoiachin" or" Evil-Merodach." Our translators preferred the latter, our Revisers the former. In either case the general meaning is the same. Evil Merodach supplied suitable garments to the released monarch instead of his "prison garments," and Jehoiachin arrayed himself in the comely apparel before taking his seat among his equals. Dresses of honor are among the most common gifts which an Oriental monarch makes to his subjects (see Genesis 41:42; Esther 6:8, Esther 6:11; Esther 8:15; Daniel 5:29; Xen; ’Cyrop.,’ 5.1. § 1). And he—i.e. Jehoiachin—did eat bread continually before him. Besides giving occasional great feasts (see Esther 1:3-9), Oriental monarchs usually entertain at their table daily a large number of guests, some of whom are specially invited, while others have the privilege of daily attendance. It was to this latter class that Jehoiachin was admitted. Comp. 2 Samuel 9:7-13, which shows that the custom was one not unknown at the Jewish court. All the days of his—i.e. Jehoiachin’s—life. Jehoisohin enjoyed this privilege till his death. Whether this fell in the lifetime of Evil-Merodach or not, is scarcely in the writer’s thoughts. He merely means to tell us that the comparative comfort and dignity which Jehoiachin enjoyed after the accession of Evil-Merodach to the throne was not subsequently clouded over or disturbed. He continued a privileged person at the Baby-Ionian court so long as he lived. 2 Kings 25:30 And his allowance was a continual allowance. Keil supposes that this "allowance" was a daily "ration of food," intended for the maintenance of a certain number of servants or retainers. But it is quite as likely to have been a money payment. The word translated by "allowance"—אֲרֻצַת—does not point necessarily to food. It is a "portion’ of any kind. Given him of the king—i.e; out of the privy purse, by the king’s command—a daily rate for every day—or, a certain amount day by day—all the days of his life (see the comment on the preceding verse). Beth the privileges accorded to Jehoiachin, his sustenance at the king’s table, and his allowance, whether in money or in kind, continued to the day of his death. Neither of them was ever revoked or forfeited. Thus this last representative of the Davidic monarchy, after thirty-six years of chastisement, experienced a happy change of circumstances, and died in peace and comfort. Probably, as Keil says, "this event was intended as a comforting sign to the whole of the captive people, that the Lord would one day put an end to their banishment, if they would acknowledge that it was a well-merited punishment for their sins that they had been driven away from before his face, and would turn again to the Lord their God with all their heart." 2 Kings 25:1-10 The fall of Judah and Jerusalem a warning for all time to all nations. Jerusalem had defied Zerah with his host of a minion men (2 Chronicles 14:9-15), and had triumphed over Sennacherib at the head of all the armed force of Assyria (2 Kings 19:35, 2 Kings 19:36): why did she succumb to Nebuchadnezzar? It is quite certain that Babylon was not a stronger power than either Egypt or Assyria when in their prime. There is no reason to believe that Nebuchadnezzar was a better general than Sennacherib, or even than Zerah. The ground of the difference in the result of Judah’s struggle with Babylon, and her earlier struggles with Egypt and Assyria, is certainly not to be sought in the greater strength of her assailant, but in her own increased weakness. What, then, were the causes of this weakness? I. IT WAS NOT THE RESULT OF ANY DECLINE IN , AS . The population of Judaea may have diminished, but under Josiah her dominion had increased (2 Kings 23:15-20), and it is probable that she could still put into the field as many men as at any former period. Even if there were a diminution in the number of her troops, the fact would not have been one of much importance, since her military successes had never been dependent upon the numerical proportion between her own forces and those of her adversaries, but had been most signal and striking where the disproportion had been the greatest (see Numbers 31:3 47; Judges 7:7-22; Judges 8:4 12; Judges 15:15; 1 Samuel 14:11-16; 2 Chronicles 14:8-12; 2 Chronicles 20:15-24, etc.). II. IT WAS NOT BY QUARREL OR . Ewald attributes the fall of Judah and Jerusalem mainly to the antagonism between the monarchy and the prophetical order, and to the violence employed by each against the other. "The kingdom of Judah was torn," he says, "with less and less hope of remedy, by the most irreconcilable internal divisions; and the sharpest dissensions at length made their way into the sanctity of every house." Violence on the part of the kings was met by violence on the part of the prophets; and "the sacred land went to ruin under the development of the element of force". It is difficult to discover any sufficient support for this view in the sacred narrative, which shows us Hezekiah on the most friendly terms with Isaiah, Josiah on the same terms with Huldah, and Zedekiah certainly not on unfriendly terms with Jeremiah. In the closing scene the antagonism is not between prophetism and monarchy, but between prophetism and an aristocratical clique. Nor is it at all clear that the final result was seriously affected by the antagonism in question. It may have somewhat relaxed the defense; but we cannot possibly imagine that, if there had been no difference of view, no sharp dissension, a successful resistance could have been made, The resistance might, perhaps, have been prolonged had all Israelites been of one mind; but still Babylon would have prevailed in the end. III. IT WAS NOT FROM ANY OR ON THE PART OF ALLIES. Allies had never done Judaea much good; and dependence on them was regarded as an indication of want of faith in Jehovah. But, so far as the matter of alliances went, Judah was in a superior, rather than in an inferior, position now than formerly. Her natural allies in any struggle with the dominant power of Western Asia were Phoenicia and Egypt; and at this time both Phoenicia and Egypt rendered her aid. Tyro was in revolt against Babylon from B.C. 598 to B.C. 585, and gave occupation to a considerable portion of the Babylonian forces while Jerusalem was being besieged. Egypt, under the enterprising Hophra, took the field soon after the siege began, and for a time succeeded in raising it. Babylon had to contend with the three allies, Tyro, Egypt, and Judea, at one and the same time, but proved equal to the strain, and overcame all three antagonists. Judaea’s weakness lay in this—that she had offended God. From the time of Moses to that of Zedekiah, it was not her own inherent strength, or vigor, or energy, that had protected and sustained her, but the supporting hand of the Almighty. God had ever "gone forth with her armies" (Psalms 60:10). God had given her "help from trouble." Through God she had "done valiantly." He it was who had "trodden down her enemies" (Psalms 60:11, Psalms 60:12). Many of their deliverances had been through actual miracle; others were the result of a divinely infused courage pervading their own ranks, or a panic falling upon their adversaries. It was only as God’s "peculiar people," enjoying his covenanted protection, that they could possibly hold their place among the nations of the earth, so soon as great empires were formed and mighty monarchs devised schemes of extensive conquests. God’s arm had saved them, from Egypt and from Assyria; he could as easily have saved them from Babylon. It is nothing with God to help, whether with many, or with them that have no power" (2 Chronicles 14:11). He could have bridled Nebuchadnezzar as easily as Zerah or Sennacherib, and have saved the Jews under Zedekiah as readily as under Asa or Hezekiah. But Judah’s sins came between him and them. The persistent transgressions of the people from the time of Manasseh, their idolatries, immoralities, cruelties, and wickedness of all kinds, shortened God’s arm, that he could not interpose to save them. As the author of Chronicles puts it, "there was no remedy" (2 Chronicles 36:16). "They had transgressed very much after all the abominations of the heathen; and polluted the house of the Lord which he had hallowed in Jerusalem … they had mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets" (2 Chronicles 36:14-16); and so "filled up the measure of their iniquities." Under such circumstances, God could not spare even his own children (Isaiah 1:4; Isaiah 63:16)—his own people. Can, then, any sinful nation hope to escape? Ought not each to feel the fate of Judah a warning to itself? a warning to repent of its evil ways, and turn from them, and walk in the paths of righteousness, according to the exhortation of Isaiah?—"Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it" (Isaiah 1:16-20). 2 Kings 25:27-30 The loving-kindness of the Lord. God, "in his wrath, thinketh upon mercy." The captive king, and the captive nation, each of them suffered a long and severe punishment. Each of them must have been inclined to sink into a state of hopelessness and apathy. Each may have thought that God had forgotten them altogether, or at any rate had forgotten, and would forget, to be gracious. Thirty-six years—how long a space is this in the life of a man! Jehoiachin had grown from youth to a man of full age, and from a man of full age almost into an old man, for he was in his fifty-fifth year, and Jewish monarchs rarely reached the age of sixty. Yet he had not really been forgotten. God had had his eye upon him all the while, and had kept in reserve for him a happy change of circumstances. The Disposer of events brought Evil-Merodach to the throne, and put it into the heart of that monarch to have compassion upon the aged captive. Jehoiachin passed from a dungeon to a chair of state (2 Kings 25:28), from prison food and prison dress to royal banquets and apparel fitting his rank, from the extreme of misery to happiness, dignity, and honor. This was the doing of the Almighty Father, using men as his instruments; and it was a strong evidence of his loving-kindness. Would not the nation likewise experience his mercy? The penal sentence passed upon it was well deserved, and might, in strict justice, have been final. But would God exact the uttermost farthing? No. By the release and restoration to honor of Jehoiachin, he sufficiently indicated to his people that for them too there was a place of repentance, a day of grace, a restoration to his favor. A ray of light thus broke in upon the long darkness of the Captivity. God’s gracious intent was indicated. The nation felt a stir of hope, and woke up to the expectation of a new life; Isaiah’s later prophecies (Isaiah 40:1-31:66.), which had seemed a dead letter, became living words, speaking to the heart of the people; and the later years of the Captivity were cheered by the prospect—ever becoming brighter and clearer—of a reinstatement in God’s favor, a return to the Holy Land, and a restoration of the sanctuary (Daniel 9:2-19). BY C.H. IRWIN 2 Kings 25:1-21 The last days of Jerusalem. The shameful story of Judah’s disobedience and sin is now drawing to a close. Here we have an account of the capture of Jerusalem and its king by Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon. Zedekiah, the king, was taken prisoner. His sons were first put to death before his eyes. Then his own eyes were put out. He was bound in fetters of brass, and carried sway to Babylon. Jerusalem itself, the city of David and Solomon, was a scene of desolation. Nebuzar-adan, captain of the Babylonian guard, burnt with fire the house of the Lord and the king’s house and all the principal houses of the city. The men of war had deserted their pests and fled from the city. All who remained there were taken captive. The poor of the land only were left to be vinedressers and husbandmen. What were the causes of this sad downfall. I. THE OF ITS RULERS. One after the other, the kings of Judah had done evil in the sight of the Lord. 1. They disobeyed God’s commands. They imitated the idolatry and the vices of the heathen. 2. They ill-treated God’s prophets. When men begin to despise and ill-treat God’s messengers, those who are trying to lead them to what is fight, they are blind to their own true interests. The treatment which the Prophet Jeremiah in particular received showed how low in degradation the kingdom of Judah had sunk. After the prophet’s fearless denunciations of national sin (Jeremiah 13-19.), Pashur, who was chief governor of the temple, smote Jeremiah, and put him in the stocks, or pillory, that was in the high gate of Benjamin, near the temple, where all men might see him and mock at his disgrace. We have seen how Jehoiakim cut the roll of Jeremiah’s prophecies with his penknife, and burned its leaves. Jeremiah’s last years at Jerusalem were years of increased suffering and persecution. Zedekiah actually put him in prison. The princes cast him to perish in a hideous pit in the prison-house, where he sank in the mire, but at the intercession of an Ethiopian officer, Ebed-Melech, the king rescued him. Wickedness in high places soon proves to be a nation’s ruin. II. THE OF ITS PEOPLE. Unhappily, the people were just as corrupt and as godless as their rulers. A nation is responsible for its national sins. The sins of Judah cried aloud to Heaven for vengeance. And in the days of the Captivity they were taught to feel that there is a God that reigneth in the earth. We learn from the fate of Judah and Jerusalem: 1. The danger of forsaking God. They forsook God in the day of their prosperity. And when the hour of their need came, the gods whom they served were not able to deliver them. 2. The danger of disregarding God’s Word. How often, in these later years of Judah’s history, was the Law of God utterly neglected and forgotten: No life can be truly happy which is not based on the Word of God. No home can be truly happy where the Bible is not read. No nation can expect prosperity which disregards the Word of God. 3. The danger of despising God’s warnings. Every message God sends us is for our good. If it is worth his while to speak to us, it is worth our while to listen. Neglected warnings—what guilt they revolve! what danger they threaten. Because I have called, and. ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded … I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh."—C.H.I. BY D. THOMAS 2 Kings 25:18-21 Space for repentance. "And the captain of the guard took Seraiah the chief priest, and Zephaniah the second priest, and the three keepers of the door," etc. This piece of history may be usefully employed to illustrate that space which Heaven allows to be given men for improvement in this life. Notice here— I. SPACE FOR . "And the captain of the guard," etc. Though we have reason to think that the army of Chaldeans were much enraged against the city for holding out with so much stubbornness, yet they did not therefore put all to fire and sword as soon as they had taken the city (which is too commonly done in such cases), but three months after Nebuzar-adan was sent with orders to complete the destruction of Jerusalem. This space God gave them to repent after all the foregoing days of his patience; but in vain. Their hearts were still hardened. Thus wicked men constantly ignore "things that belong to their peace." II. SPACE FOR . "And out of the city he took an officer that was set over the men of war," etc. These men, to whom time had been given to do the work required, day after day neglected it. No effort was put forth to avoid the threatened calamity. It is ever thus. Men are waiting for a more "convenient season." The cry, "Unless ye repent ye shall all likewise perish," was neglected. III. SPACE FOR AVENGED. "And Nebuzar-adan captain of the guard took these, and brought them to the King of Babylon to Riblah." "Be sure your sins will find you out." "Rejoice, O, young man, in thy youth … but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment." IV. THE OF THIS NEGLECT WAS IN THE EXTREME. "And the King of Babylon smote them, and slew them at Biblah in the land of Hamath. So Judah was carried away out of their land." The city and the temple were burnt. The walls were never repaired until Nehemiah’s time; and Judah was carried out of their land, etc. The history of this calamity is too well known to record here. "Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil."—D.T. 2 Kings 25:22-26 Rulers and their enemies. "And as for the people that remained in the land of Judah, whom Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon had left," etc. By this fragment of Jewish history two observations are suggested. I. MEN ARE INTO . Gedalaih, a friend of Jereremiah’s, and acting under the prophet’s counsel, took the government of Judaea, and fixed his court at Mizpah. He seemed on the whole qualified for the office he assumed. The people committed to his charge were those who were left in the country after Judah had been carried away into Babylonian captivity. They were, perhaps, considered too insignificant to be removed. However, being peasantry, who could till the land and dress the vineyards, he counseled them to submit to his rule, promising them that they should retain their possessions and enjoy the produce of the land. Such was the responsible position to which this Gedaliah was elevated. In every age and land there are some men thus distinguished—men that rise to eminence and obtain distinction and power. Sometimes it may be by the force of their own genius and character, and sometimes by the force and patronage of others. Hence in Church and state, literature, commerce, and art, we have rulers ecclesiastical, political, scholastic, and mercantile. This arrangement in our social life has many signal advantages, although often exposed to many terrible evils. II. ENMITY THE PURPOSE OF SUCH MEN. "But it came to pass in the seventh month, that Ishmael the son of Nathaniah, the son of Elishama, of the seed royal, came, and ten men with him, and smote Gedaliah, that he died, and the Jews and the Chaldees that were with him at Mizpah." Thus envy is always excited by superiority, and one of the most cruel of human passions terminated the life of Gedaliah and-the purpose of his mission a few brief months after his elevation to office. Envy murdered Gedaliah, and drove back those poor scattered Jews to Egypt, which they loathed. Thus envy is ever at work, blasting the reputations and degrading the positions of distinguished men. "Envy is the daughter of Pride, the author of murder and revenge, the beginner of secret sedition, and the perpetual tormentor of virtue. Envy is the filthy slime of the soul; a worm, a poison or quicksilver which consumeth the flesh, and drieth up the marrow of the bones" (Socrates).—D.T. 2 Kings 25:27-30 Jehoiachin as a victim of tyrannic despotism, and as an object of delivering mercy. "And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year," etc. The life of this man has been already sketched. The incident here recorded presents him— I. AS A VICTIM OF . He had been in prison for thirty-seven years, and was fifty-five years of age. It was Nebuchadnezzar, the tyrannic King of Babylon that stripped this man of liberty and freedom, and shut him up in a dungeon for this long period of time. Such despotism has prevailed in all egos and lands. II. As AN OBJECT OF MERCY. We are told that as soon as Evil. Merodach came to the throne on the death of his father Nebuchadnezzar, mercy stirred his heart and relieved this poor victim of tyranny. Corrupt as this world is, the element of mercy is not entirely extinct. This mercy gave honor and liberty to the man who had been so long in confinement and disgrace. Let not the victims of tyranny—and they abound everywhere—despair. Mercy will ere long sound the trump of jubilee over all the land. "The Spirit of the Lord," said the great Redeemer of the race, "is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised."—D.T. BY J. ORR 2 Kings 25:1-10 The fall and destruction of Jerusalem. With this account of the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar should be compared the narrative of its later destruction by Titus (A.D. 70). History does not always repeat itself; but in this instance it does so with marvelous fidelity. The close investment of the city, the desperate resistance, the horrors of famine within, the incidents of the capture, the burning of the temple, the demolition of the walls, and the captivity of the people, present striking parallels in the two cases. By one of those rare coincidences that sometimes occur, it was on the very same month and day of the month on which the temple was burned by Nebuchadnezzar, that the sanctuary was fired by the soldiers of Titus. The earlier destruction fulfilled the predictions of the prophets; the later the predictions of our Lord (Matthew 24:1-51.). I. THE LAST SIEGE. 1. Fatal dates. The days which mark the different stages of this terrible siege of Nebuchadnezzar are minutely recorded and carefully remembered. "The ninth year" of Zedekiah, "in the tenth month, in the tenth day of the month," Nebuchadnezzar came, he and his host, against Jerusalem (verse 1); in the eleventh year of Zedekiah "on the ninth day of the fourth month the-famine prevailed in the city" (verse 3), and a breach was affected; "in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, which is the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar," the temple and other buildings were burned by Nebuzar-adan (verse 8). We have the same careful dating in Jeremiah 39:1, Jeremiah 39:2; Jeremiah 52:4, Jeremiah 52:12 (in the latter passage "tenth" for "seventh" as above). These were dates which burned themselves into the very memories of the wretched people crowded in the city, and could never be forgotten. Indirectly they testify to the intensity of misery which was endured, which made them so well remembered. They were observed afterwards as regular days of fasting (Zechariah 7:3, Zechariah 7:5; Zechariah 8:19). 2. The enemy without. Nebuchadnezzar’s army came up against the city, and closely invested it, building forts against it round about. Ezekiel 21:1-32. is a vivid prophecy of what was about to happen. The prophet announces the impending capture of the holy city. A sword was furbished which would work terrible destruction. Ezekiel is directed to mark off two ways along which this sword was to travel—the one leading to Jerusalem, and the other to Rabbath of Ammon. The scene changes, and we see the King of Babylon standing at the head of the ways, deliberating, which one he shall choose. He shakes the arrows, consults images, looks for omens m the liver of dead beasts. The decision given is for advancing first against Jerusalem. Now he is at its gates, and has appointed captains "to open the mouth in the slaughter, to lift up the voice with shouting, to appoint battering-rams against the gates, to cast a mount, and to build a fort" (Ezekiel 21:21, Ezekiel 21:22). 3. The famine within. For a year and five months the weary siege dragged itself on, the people within well knowing that, when once it was captured, they could expect no mercy. The writings of Jeremiah give us a vivid picture of the city during this period. From the first the prophet held out no hope. When Zedekiah, at the beginning of the siege entreated him, "Inquire, I pray thee, of the Lord for us," Jeremiah plainly told him that the city was delivered to the Chaldeans, and that Nebuchadnezzar would not spare them, "neither have pity, nor have mercy" (Jeremiah 21:1-7). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/