2 Kings 17 commentary

When the measure of sin is filled up, the Lord will forbear no longer. The inhabitants of Samaria must have endured great affliction. Some of the poor Israelites were left in the land. Those who were carried captives to a great distance, were mostly lost among the nations.

Though the destruction of the kingdom of the ten tribes was but briefly related, it is in these verses largely commented upon, and the reasons of it given. It was destruction from the Almighty: the Assyrian was but the rod of his anger, Isa 10:5. Those that bring sin into a country or family, bring a plague into it, and will have to answer for all the mischief that follows. And vast as the outward wickedness of the world is, the secret sins, evil thoughts, desires, and purposes of mankind are much greater. There are outward sins which are marked by infamy; but ingratitude, neglect, and enmity to God, and the idolatry and impiety which proceed therefrom, are far more malignant. Without turning from every evil way, and keeping God's statutes, there can be no true godliness; but this must spring from belief of his testimony, as to wrath against all ungodliness and unrighteousness, and his mercy in Christ Jesus.

The terror of the Almighty will sometimes produce a forced or feigned submission in unconverted men; like those brought from different countries to inhabit Israel. But such will form unworthy thoughts of God, will expect to please him by outward forms, and will vainly try to reconcile his service with the love of the world and the indulgence of their lusts. May that fear of the Lord, which is the beginning of wisdom, possess our hearts, and influence our conduct, that we may be ready for every change. Wordly settlements are uncertain; we know not whither we may be driven before we die, and we must soon leave the world; but the righteous hath chosen that good part which shall not be taken from him.

CHAPTER 17

2Ki 17:1-6. Hoshea's Wicked Reign.

1. In the twelfth year of Ahaz king of Judah, began Hoshea ... to reign--The statement in 2Ki 15:30 may be reconciled with the present passage in the following manner: Hoshea conspired against Pekah in the twentieth year of the latter, which was the eighteenth of Jotham's reign. It was two years before Hoshea was acknowledged king of Israel, that is, in the fourth of Ahaz, and twentieth of Jotham. In the twelfth year of Ahaz his reign began to be tranquil and prosperous [Calmet].

2. he did evil ... but not as the kings of Israel--Unlike his predecessors from the time of Jeroboam, he neither established the rites of Baal, nor compelled the people to adhere to the symbolic worship of the calves. [See on 2Ch 30:1.] In these respects, Hoshea acted as became a constitutional king of Israel. Yet, through the influence of the nineteen princes who had swayed the scepter before him (all of whom had been zealous patrons of idolatry, and many of whom had been also infamous for personal crimes), the whole nation had become so completely demoralized that the righteous judgment of an angry Providence impended over it.

3. Against him came up Shalmaneser--or Shalman (Ho 10:14), the same as the Sargon of Isaiah [Is 20:1]. Very recently the name of this Assyrian king has been traced on the Ninevite monuments, as concerned in an expedition against a king of Samaria, whose name, though mutilated, Colonel Rawlinson reads as Hoshea.

4. found conspiracy in Hoshea--After having paid tribute for several years, Hoshea, determined on throwing off the Assyrian yoke, withheld the stipulated tribute. Shalmaneser, incensed at this rebellion, proclaimed war against Israel. This was in the sixth year of Hoshea's reign.

he had sent messengers to So, king of Egypt--the Sabaco of the classic historians, a famous Ethiopian who, for fifty years, occupied the Egyptian throne, and through whose aid Hoshea hoped to resist the threatened attack of the Assyrian conqueror. But Shalmaneser, marching against [Hoshea], scoured the whole country of Israel, besieged the capital Samaria, and carried the principal inhabitants into captivity in his own land, having taken the king himself, and imprisoned him for life. This ancient policy of transplanting a conquered people into a foreign land, was founded on the idea that, among a mixed multitude, differing in language and religion, they would be kept in better subjection, and have less opportunity of combining together to recover their independence.

6. carried Israel away--that is, the remaining tribes (see on 2Ki 15:29).

and placed them, &c.--This passage Gesenius renders thus, omitting the particle by, which is printed in italics to show it is not in the original: "and placed them in Halah, and on the Chabor, a river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes."

Halah--the same as Calah (Ge 10:11, 12), in the region of the Laycus or Zab river, about a day's journey from the ruins of Nineveh.

Chabor--is a river, and it is remarkable that there is a river rising in the central highlands of Assyria which retains this name Khabour unchanged to the present day.

Gozan--("pasture") or Zozan, are the highlands of Assyria, which afford pasturage. The region in which the Chabor and the Zab rise, and through which they flow, is peculiarly of this character. The Nestorians repair to it with their numerous flocks, spending the summer on the banks or in the highlands of the Chabor or the Zab. Considering the high authority we possess for regarding Gozan and Zozan as one name, there can be no doubt that this is the Gozan referred to in this passage.

cities of the Medes--"villages," according to the Syriac and Vulgate versions, or "mountains," according to the Septuagint. The Medish inhabitants of Gozan, having revolted, had been destroyed by the kings of Assyria, and nothing was more natural than that they should wish to place in it an industrious people, like the captive Israelites, while it was well suited to their pastoral life [Grant, Nestorians].

2Ki 17:7-41. Samaria Taken, and Israel for Their Sins Carried Captive.

7. For so it was, that the children of Israel had sinned--There is here given a very full and impressive vindication of the divine procedure in punishing His highly privileged, but rebellious and apostate, people. No wonder that amid so gross a perversion of the worship of the true God, and the national propensity to do reverence to idols, the divine patience was exhausted; and that the God whom they had forsaken permitted them to go into captivity, that they might learn the difference between His service and that of their despotic conquerors.

24-28. the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, etc.--This was not Shalmaneser, but Esar-haddon (Eze 4:2). The places vacated by the captive Israelites he ordered to be occupied by several colonies of his own subjects from Babylon and other provinces.

from Cuthah--the Chaldee form of Cush or Susiana, now Khusistan.

Ava--supposed to be Ahivaz, situated on the river Karuns, which empties into the head of the Persian Gulf.

Hamath--on the Orontes.

Sepharvaim--Siphara, a city on the Euphrates above Babylon.

placed them in the cities of Samaria, &c.--It must not be supposed that the Israelites were universally removed to a man. A remnant was left, chiefly however of the poor and lower classes, with whom these foreign colonists mingled; so that the prevailing character of society about Samaria was heathen, not Israelite. For the Assyrian colonists became masters of the land; and, forming partial intermarriages with the remnant Jews, the inhabitants became a mongrel race, no longer a people of Ephraim (Is 7:6). These people, imperfectly instructed in the creed of the Jews, acquired also a mongrel doctrine. Being too few to replenish the land, lions, by which the land had been infested (Jud 14:5; 1Sa 17:34; 1Ki 13:24; 20:36; So 4:8), multiplied and committed frequent ravages upon them. Recognizing in these attacks a judgment from the God of the land, whom they had not worshipped, they petitioned the Assyrian court to send them some Jewish priests who might instruct them in the right way of serving Him. The king, in compliance with their request, sent them one of the exiled priests of Israel [2Ki 17:27], who established his headquarters at Beth-el, and taught them how they should fear the Lord. It is not said that he took a copy of the Pentateuch with him, out of which he might teach them. Oral teaching was much better fitted for the superstitious people than instruction out of a written book. He could teach them more effectually by word of mouth. Believing that he would adopt the best and simplest method for them, it is unlikely that he took the written law with him, and so gave origin to the Samaritan copy of the Pentateuch [Davidson, Criticism]. Besides, it is evident from his being one of the exiled priests, and from his settlement at Beth-el, that he was not a Levite, but one of the calf-worshipping priests. Consequently his instructions would be neither sound nor efficient.

29. Howbeit every nation made gods of their own--These Assyrian colonists, however, though instructed in the worship, and acknowledging the being of the God of Israel, did not suppose Him to be the only God. Like other heathens, they combined His worship with that of their own gods; and as they formed a promiscuous society from different nations or provinces, a variety of idols was acknowledged among them.

30. Succoth-benoth--that is, the "tents" or "booths of the daughters," similar to those in which the Babylonian damsels celebrated impure rites (Am 2:8).

Nergal--The Jewish writers say this idol was in the form of a cock, and it is certain that a cock is often associated with a priest on the Assyrian monuments [Layard]. But modern critics, looking to the astrological character of Assyrian idolatry, generally consider Nergal as the planet Mars, the god of war. The name of this idol formed part of the appellation of two of the king of Babylon's princes (Jr 39:3).

Ashima--an idol under the form of an entirely bald he-goat.

31. Nibhaz--under that of a dog--that Egyptian form of animal-worship having prevailed in ancient Syria, as is evident from the image of a large dog at the mouth of the Nahr-el-Kelb, or Dog river.

Tartak--According to the rabbis, it was in the form of an ass, but others understand it as a planet of ill-omen, probably Saturn.

Adrammelech--supposed by some to be the same as Molech, and in Assyrian mythology to stand for the sun. It was worshipped in the form of a mule--others maintain in that of a peacock.

Anammelech--worshipped in the form of a hare; others say in that of a goat.

34. Unto this day--the time of the Babylonian exile, when this book was composed. Their religion was a strange medley or compound of the service of God and the service of idols. Such was the first settlement of the people, afterwards called Samaritans, who were sent from Assyria to colonize the land, when the kingdom of Israel, after having continued three hundred fifty-six years, was overthrown.

Shalmaneser - This was the son and successor of Tiglath-pileser. He is called Shalman by Hosea, Hos 10:14, and Enemessar, in the book of Tobit, 1:2.

Gave him presents - Became tributary to him.

Found conspiracy to Hoshea - He had endeavored to shake off the Assyrian yoke, by entering into a treaty with So, King of Egypt; and having done so, he ceased to send the annual tribute to Assyria.

Besieged it three years - It must have been well fortified, well provisioned, and well defended, to have held out so long.

Took Samaria - According to the prophets Hosea, Hos 13:16, and Micah, Mic 1:6. He exercised great cruelties on this miserable city, ripping up the women with child, dashing young children against the stones, etc. etc.

Carried Israel away into Assyria - What were the places to which the unfortunate Israelites were carried, or where their successors are now situated, have given rise to innumerable conjectures, dissertations, discourses, etc. Some maintain that they are found on the coast of Guinea; others, in America; the Indian tribes being the descendants of those carried away by the Assyrians. In vol. i. of the Supplement to Sir Wm. Jones's works, we find a translation of the History of the Afghans, by Mr. H. Vansittart; from which it appears that they derive their own descent from the Jews. On this history Sir Wm. Jones writes the following note: - "This account of the Afghans may lead to a very interesting discovery. We learn from Esdras, that the ten tribes, after a wandering journey, came to a country called Arsaret, where we may suppose they settled. Now the Afghans are said by the best Persian historians to be descended from the Jews; they have traditions among themselves of such a descent, and it is even asserted that their families are distinguished by the names of Jewish tribes; although, since their conversion to the Islam, they studiously conceal their origin. The Pushtoo, of which I have seen a dictionary, has a manifest resemblance to the Chaldaic; and a considerable district under their dominion is called Hazarek or Hazaret, which might easily have been changed into the word used by Esdras. I strongly recommend an inquiry into the literature and history of the Afghans."

Every thing considered, I think it by far the most probable that the Afghans are the descendants of the Jews, who were led away captives by the Assyrian kings.

Thus ended the kingdom of Israel, after it had lasted two hundred and fifty-four years, from the death of Solomon and the schism of Jeroboam, till the taking of Samaria by Shalmaneser, in the ninth year of Hoshea; after which the remains of the ten tribes were carried away beyond the river Euphrates.

The rest of this chapter is spent in vindicating the Divine providence and justice; showing the reason why God permitted such a desolation to fall on a people who had been so long his peculiar children.

Did secretly those things - There was much hidden iniquity and private idolatry among them, as well as public and notorious crimes.

From the tower of the watchmen to the fenced city - That is, the idolatry was universal; every place was made a place for some idolatrous rite or act of worship; from the largest city to the smallest village, and from the public watchtower to the shepherd's cot.

Images and groves - Images of different idols, and places for the abominable rites of Ashtaroth or Venus.

Yet the Lord testified against Israel - What rendered their conduct the more inexcusable was, that the Lord had preserved among them a succession of prophets, who testified against their conduct, and preached repentance to them, and the readiness of God to forgive, provided they would return unto him, and give up their idolatries.

Sold themselves to do evil - Abandoned themselves to the will of the devil, to work all iniquity with greediness.

Removed them out of his sight - Banished them from the promised land, from the temple, and from every ordinance of righteousness, as wholly unworthy of any kind of good.

None left but the tribe of Judah only - Under this name all those of Benjamin and Levi, and the Israelites, who abandoned their idolatries and joined with Judah, are comprised. It was the ten tribes that were carried away by the Assyrians.

The king of Assyria brought men from Babylon - He removed one people entirely, and substituted others in their place; and this he did to cut off all occasion for mutiny or insurrection; for the people being removed from their own land, had no object worthy of attention to contend for, and no patrimony in the land of their captivity to induce them to hazard any opposition to their oppressors.

By men from Babylon, we may understand some cities of Babylonia then under the Assyrian empire; for at this time Babylon had a king of its own; but some parts of what was called Babylonia might have been still under the Assyrian government.

From Cuthah - This is supposed to be the same as Cush, the Chaldeans and Syrians changing ש shin into ת tau; thus they make כוש Cush into כות Cuth; and אשור Ashshur, Assyria, into אתור Attur. From these came the Scythae; and from these the Samaritans were called Cuthaeans, and their language Cuthite. The original language of this people, or at least the language they spoke after their settlement in Israel, is contained in the Samaritan version of the Pentateuch, printed under the Hebraeo-Samaritan in vol. i. of the London Polyglot. This Cuthah was probably the country in the land of Shinar, first inhabited by Cush.

From Ava - The Avim were an ancient people, expelled by the Caphtorim from Hazerim, Deu 2:23.

From Hamath - This was Hemath or Emath of Syria, frequently mentioned in the sacred writings.

From Sepharvaim - There was a city called Syphera, near the Euphrates; others think the Saspires, a people situated between the Colchians and the Medes, are meant. There is much uncertainty relative to these places: all that we know is, that the Assyrians carried away the Israelites into Assyria, and placed them in cities and districts called Halah and Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes, 2Kgs 17:6; and it is very likely that they brought some of the inhabitants of those places into the cities of Israel.

The Lord sent lions among them - The land being deprived of its inhabitants, wild beasts would necessarily increase, even without any supernatural intervention; and this the superstitious new comers supposed to be a plague sent upon them, because they did not know how to worship him who was the God of the land; for they thought, like other heathens that every district had its own tutelary deity. Yet it is likely that God did send lions as a scourge on this bad people.

The manner of the God of the land - משפט mishpat, the judgment; the way in which the God of the land is to be worshipped.

Carry thither one of the priests - Imperfect as this teaching was, it, in the end, overthrew the idolatry of these people, so that soon after the Babylonish captivity they were found to be as free from idolatry as the Jews themselves, and continue so to the present day. But they are now nearly annihilated: the small remains of them is found at Naplouse and Jaffa; they are about thirty families; and men, women, and children, amount to about two hundred persons! They have a synagogue, which they regularly attend every Sabbath; and they go thither clothed in white robes. The reader may find much curious information relative to this people, in a Memoire sur L'Etat actuel des Samaritains, by Baron Sylvestre de Sacy, 8vo., Paris, 1812.

Every nation made gods of their own - That is, they made gods after the fashion of those which they had worshipped in their own country.

The men of Babylon made Succoth-benoth - This, literally, signifies the tabernacles of the daughters or young women, and most evidently refers to those public prostitutions of young virgins at the temple of Melitta or Venus among the Babylonians. See at the end of the chapter, 2Kgs 17:41 (note). From benoth it is probable that the word Venus came, the B being changed into V, as is frequently the case, and the th into s, benoth, Venos. The rabbins say that her emblem was a hen with her chickens; see Jarchi on the place.

The men of Cuth made Nergal - This is supposed to have been the solar orb or light. According to the rabbins, his emblem was a cock. See at the end of the chapter, 2Kgs 17:41 (note).

The men of Hamath made Ashima - Perhaps the fire; from אשם asham, to make atonement or to purify. Jarchi says this was in the form of a goat. See below on 2Kgs 17:41 (note).

The Avites made Nibhaz - This was supposed to be the same as the Anubis of the Egyptians; and was in form partly of a dog, and partly of a man. A very ancient image of this kind now lies before me: it is cut out of stone, about seven inches high; has the body, legs, and arms, of a man; the head and feet of a dog; the thighs and legs covered with scales; the head crowned with a tiara; the arms crossed upon the breasts, with the fingers clenched. The figure stands upright, and the belly is very protuberant. See below.

And Tartak - This is supposed by some to be another name of the same idol; Jarchi says it was in the shape of an ass. Some think these were the representations of the sun in his chariot; Nibhaz representing the solar orb, and Tartak the chariot. See below.

Adrammelech - From אדר adar, glorious, and מלך melech, king. Probably the sun.

Anammelech - From anah, to return, and מלך melech, king. Probably, the Moloch of the Ammonites. Jarchi says, the first was in the form of a mule, the second in the form of a horse; this was probably the moon.

Of the lowest of them priests - One priest was not enough for this motley population; and, as the priesthood was probably neither respectable nor lucrative, it was only the lowest of the people who would enter into the employment.

They feared the Lord, and served their own gods - They did not relinquish their own idolatry but incorporated the worship of the true God with that of their idols. They were afraid of Jehovah, who had sent lions among them; and therefore they offered him a sort of worship that he might not thus afflict them: but they served other gods, devoted themselves affectionately to them, because their worship was such as gratified their grossest passions, and most sinful propensities.

But the Lord - Jehovah, the supreme, self-existent, and eternal Being; author of all being and life. This was to be the sole object of their adoration.

Who brought you up - This was a strong reason why they should adore Him only: he had saved them from the hands of their enemies, and he did it in such a way as to show his power to be irresistible; in such a Being they might safely confide.

Him shall ye fear - Here is the manner in which he is to be worshipped. Him ye shall reverence as your Lawgiver and Judge; ye shall respect and keep all his commandments; doing what he has enjoined, and avoiding what he has forbidden.

Him shall ye worship - Before Him ye shall bow the knee; living in the spirit of obedience, and performing every religious act in the deepest humility.

And to him shall ye do sacrifice - Ye shall consider that, as ye have sinned, so ye deserve death; ye shall therefore bring your living victims to the altar of the Lord, and let their life's blood be poured out there, as an atonement for your souls. We see in this verse three important points:

1. The object of their worship.

2. The reasons of that worship; and,

3. The spirit and manner in which it was to be performed: viz.,

1. In fear,

2. Humility; and,

3. By sacrifice.

So do they unto this day - This must have been written before the Babylonish captivity; because, after that time, none of the Israelites ever lapsed into idolatry. But this may chiefly refer to the heathenish people who were sent to dwell among the remains of the ten tribes.

On these nations and the objects of their worship, I present my readers with the following extracts from Dodd and Parkhurst. 2Kgs 17:30. The men of Babylon made Succoth-benoth. We have here an account of the idols which were consecrated by the different nations, transplanted by the king of Assyria to Samaria. It is difficult, however, and has afforded a large field for conjecture, to give any satisfactory account concerning them. The reader will find in Selden, Vossius, and Jurieu, much upon the subject. Succoth-benoth may be literally translated, The Tabernacles of the Daughters, or Young Women; or if Benoth be taken as the name of a female idol, from בנה to build up, procreate children, then the words will express the tabernacles sacred to the productive powers feminine. And, agreeably to this latter exposition, the rabbins say that the emblem was a hen and chickens. But however this may be, there is no room to doubt that these succoth were tabernacles wherein young women exposed themselves to prostitution in honor of the Babylonish goddess Melitta. Herodotus, (lib. i., c. 199), gives us a particular account of this detestable service. "Every young woman," says he, "of the country of Babylon must once in her life sit at the temple of Venus, [whom he afterwards tells us the Assyrians called Melitta], and prostitute herself to some stranger. Those who are rich, and so disdain to mingle with the crowd, present themselves before the temple in covered chariots, attended by a great retinue. But the generality of the women sit near the temple, having crowns upon their heads, and holding a cord, some continually coming, others going. [See Baruch 6:43]. The cords are held by them in such a manner as to afford a free passage among the women, that the strangers may choose whom they like. A woman who has once seated herself in this place must not return home till some stranger has cast money into her lap, and led her from the temple, and defiled her. The stranger who throws the money must say, 'I invoke the goddess Melitta for thee.' The money, however small a sum it may be, must not be refused, because it is appointed to sacred uses. [See Deu 23:18]. The woman must follow the first man that offers, and not reject him; and after prostitution, having now duly honored the goddess, she is dismissed to her own house. In Cyprus," adds the historian, "they have the same custom." This abomination, implied by Succoth-benoth, the men of Babylon brought with them into the country of Samaria; and both the name of the idol Melitta, and the execrable service performed to her honor, show that by Melitta was originally intended the procreative or productive power of nature, the Venus of the Greeks and Romans. See the beginning of Lucretius's first book De Rerum Natura. Mr. Selden imagines that some traces of the Succoth-benoth may be found in Sicca Veneria, the name of a city of Numidia, not far from the borders of Africa Propria. The name itself bears a near allusion to the obscene custom above taken notice of, and seems to have been transported from Phoenicia: nor can this well be disputed, when we consider that here was a temple where women were obliged to purchase their marriage-money by the prostitution of their bodies. See Univ. Hist., vol. xvii., p. 295, and Parkhurst's Lexicon on the word סך.

The men of Cuth made Nergal. - Cuth was a province of Assyria, which, according to some, lies upon the Araxis: but others rather think it to be the same with Cush, which is said by Moses to be encompassed with the river Gihon; and must, therefore, be the same with the country which the Greeks call Susiana, and which to this day is called by the inhabitants Chusesta. Their idol, Nergal, seems to have been the sun, as the causer of the diurnal and annual revolutions of the planets; for it is naturally derived from נר ner, light, and by גל gal, to revolve. The rabbins say that the idol was represented in the shape of a cock; and probably they tell us the truth, for this seems a very proper emblem. Among the latter heathens we find the cock was sacred to Apollo or the sun, (see Pierii Hieroglyph., p. 223), "because," says Heliodorus, speaking of the time when cocks crow, "by a natural sensation of the sun's revolution to us, they are incited to salute the god." Aethiop. lib. i. And perhaps under this name, Nergal, they meant to worship the sun, not only for the diurnal return of its light upon the earth, but also for its annual return or revolution. We may observe that the emblem, a cock, is affected by the latter as well as by the former, and is frequently crowing both day and night, when the days begin to lengthen. See Calmet's Dictionary under the word, and Parkhurst's Lexicon.

The men of Hamath made Ashima. - There are several cities and countries which go under the name of Hamath; but what we take to be here meant is that province of Syria which lies upon the Orontes, wherein there was a city of the same name; which when Shalmaneser had taken, he removed the inhabitants from thence into Samaria. Their idol Ashima signifies the atoner or expiator, from אשם asham. The word is in a Chaldee form, and seems to be the same as אשמת שמרון ashmath Shomeron, the sin of Samaria, mentioned Amo 8:14, where ashmath is rendered by the Lxx. propitiation. It is known to every one who has the least acquaintance with the mythology of the heathen, how strongly and universally they retained the tradition of an atonement or expiation for sin, although they expected it from a false object and wrong means. We find it expressed in very clear terms among the Romans even so late as the time of Horace, lib. i., ode 2: -

Cui dabit partes scelus expiandi Jupiter?

And whom, to expiate the horrid guilt, Will Jove appoint?

The answer is, "Apollo," the god of light. Some think that, as Asuman or Suman, asman, in the Persian language, signifies heaven, the Syrians might from hence derive the name of this god; who, they suppose, was represented by a large stone pillar terminating in a conic or pyramidical figure, whereby they denoted fire. See Parkhurst on the word אשם asham, Calmet's Dictionary, and Tennison on Idolatry. 2Kgs 17:31. The Avites made Nibhaz and Tartak. - It is uncertain who these Avites were. The most probable opinion seems to be that which Grotius has suggested by observing that there are a people in Bactriana, mentioned by Ptolemy, under the name of Avidia, who possibly might be those transported at this time into Palestine by Shalmaneser. Nibhaz, according to the rabbins, had the shape of a dog, much like the Anubis of the Egyptians. In Pierius's Hieroglyphics, p. 53, is the figure of a cunocephalus, a kind of ape, with a head like a dog, standing upon his hinder feet, and looking earnestly at the moon. Pierius there teaches us that the cunocephalus was an animal eminently sacred amongst the Egyptians, hieroglyphical of the moon, and kept in their temples to inform them of the moon's conjunction with the sun, at which time this animal is strangely affected, being deprived of sight, refusing food, and lying sick on the ground; but on the moon's appearance seeming to return thanks, and congratulate the return of light both to himself and her. See Johnston's Nat. Hist. de Quadruped., p. 100. This being observed, the נבחז nibchaz, (which may well be derived from נבח nabach, to bark, and חזה chazah, to see), gives us reason to conclude that this idol was in the shape of a cunocephalus, or a dog looking, barking, or howling at the moon. It is obvious to common observation that dogs in general have this property; and an idol of the form just mentioned seems to have been originally designed to represent the power or influence of the moon on all sublunary bodies, with which the cunocephaluses and dogs are so eminently affected. So, as we have observed upon Nergal, the influence of the returning solar light was represented by a cock; and the generative power of the heavens by Dagon, a fishy idol. See Parkhurst on נבחז who is of opinion that Tartak תרתק is compounded of תר tar, to turn, go round, and רתק rathak, to chain, tether; and plainly denotes the heavens, considered as confining the planets in their respective orbits, as if they were tethered. The Jews have a tradition that the emblem of this idol was an ass; which, considering the propriety of that animal when tethered to represent this idol, is not improbable; and from this idolatrous worship of the Samaritans, joined perhaps with some confused account of the cherubim, seems to have sprung that stupid story by the heathens, that the Jews had an ass's head in their holy of holies, to which they paid religious worship. See Bochart, vol. ii., p. 221. Jurieu is of opinion that as the word Nibhaz, both in the Hebrew and Chaldee, with a small variation, denotes quick, swift, rapid; and tartak, in the same languages, signifies a chariot, these two idols may both together denominate the sun mounted on his car, as the fictions of the poets and the notions of the mythologists were wont to represent that luminary.

The Sepharvites burned their children - to Adrammelech and Anammelech. - As these Sepharvites probably came from the cities of the Medes, whither the Israelites were carried captive, and as Herodotus tells us that between Colchis and Media are found a people called Saspires, in all likelihood they were the same with those here named Sepharvites. Moloch, Milcom, and Melech, in the language of different nations, all signify a king, and imply the sun, which was called the king of heaven; and consequently the addition of אדר adar, which signifies powerful, illustrious, to the one, and of ענה anah, which implies to return, to answer, to the other, means no more than the mighty or the oracular Moloch. And as the children were offered to him, it appears that he was the same with the Moloch of the Ammonites. See Univ. Hist. and Calmet. Mr. Locke is also of opinion that these two names were expressive of one and the same deity. What they were, or in what form, and how worshipped, we have not light from antiquity to determine.

To reign - He usurped the kingdom in Ahaz's fourth year; but either was not owned as king, by the generality of the people; or was not accepted and established in his kingdom, 'till Ahaz's twelfth year. Nine - After his confirmation and peaceable possession of his kingdom: for in all, he reigned seventeen, or eighteen years; twelve with Ahaz, who reigned sixteen years, and six with Hezekiah.

But not, &c. - For he neither worshipped Baal, as many of his predecessors did; nor compelled the people to worship the calves; (one of them, that of Dan, being destroyed, or carried away before, as the Hebrew writers affirm;) nor, as some add, hindered those by force, who were minded to go to Jerusalem to worship. And yet, the measure of the Israelites sins, being now full, vengeance comes upon them without remedy.

Shalmaneser - The son, or successor of Tiglath - pileser. The ancient Hebrew writers made him the same with Sennacherib, who eight years after this time, invaded the kingdom of Judah; it being very frequent in the Eastern parts, for one man to be called by several names. Josephus affirms, that he met with his name in the annals of the Tyrians, which were extant in his days. He came against him, either because he denied the tribute which he had promised to pay; or that he might make him tributary.

Carried Israel away, &c. - There, we have reason to think, after some time, they were so mingled with the nations, that they were lost, and the name of Israel was no more in remembrance. They that forgot God, were themselves forgotten, and they that studied to be like the nations, were buried among them. Thus ended Israel as a nation. When we read their entry into Canaan, under Hoshea the son of Nun, who would have thought, that such would be their exit, under Hoshea, the son of Elah? Yet we find St. James writing to the twelve tribes scattered abroad. So that tho' we never read of the return of those that were carried captive, nor have any ground to believe, that they still remain a distinct body in some remote corner of the world, yet a remnant of them did escape, and will remain 'till all Israel shall be saved.

Did secretly - This belongs, either, To their gross idolatries, and other abominable practices, which they were ashamed to own before others; or, to the worship of calves: and so the words are otherwise rendered; they covered things that were not right towards the Lord: they covered their idolatrous worship of the calves, with fair pretences of necessity, the two kingdoms being now divided, and at enmity; and of their honest intention of serving the true God, and retaining the substance of the Jewish religion. City - In all parts and places, both in cities, and in the country; yea, in the most uninhabited parts, where few or none dwell, beside the watchmen, who are left there in towers, to preserve the cattle and fruits of the earth, or to give notice of the approach of enemies.

Seers - To whom he declared his mind, by revelations and visions, and by whom he published it, bearing witness, from heaven to their doctrine by eminent and glorious miracles.

Hardened, &c. - Refused to submit their neck to the yoke of God's precepts. A metaphor from stubborn oxen, that will not bow to the yoke.

Vanity - Idols; so called because of their nothingness, impotency, and unprofitableness; and by the long worship of idols, they were made like them, vain, sottish, and senseless creatures.

Left all - They grew worse and worse; from a partial disobedience to some of God's laws, they fell by degrees to a total apostacy from all. The host - The stars, as Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus.

Judah only - And the greatest part of the tribe of Benjamin, with those of the tribes of Simeon and Levi who were incorporated with them.

Judah kept not - Judah's idolatry and wickedness are here remembered, as an aggravation of the sin of the Israelites, which was not only evil in itself, but mischievous to their neighbour, who by their examples were instructed in their wicked arts, and provoked to an imitation of them.

All Israel - All the tribes of Israel: first, one part of them, and now the rest. But this extends not to every individual person of these tribes; for many of them removed into the kingdom of Judah, and were associated with them.

They made - Which action is here ascribed to the people, because they would not tarry 'till God by his providence, had invested Jeroboam with the kingdom which he had promised him; but rashly, and rebelliously, rose up against the house of David, to which they had so great obligations; and set him upon the throne without God's leave or advice. Drave - He not only dissuaded, but kept then, by force from God's worship at Jerusalem, the only place appointed for it. A great sin - So the worship of the calves is called, to meet with that idle conceit of the Israelites, who esteemed it a small sin, especially when they were forced to it by severe penalties; which yet he shews did not excuse it from being a sin, and a great sin too.

Therefore - For their gross neglect, and contempt of God, which was contrary to the principles and practices of the Heathens, who used to worship the gods of the nations where they lived, and gave that honour to their false Gods, which here they denied to the true. Hereby also God asserted his own sovereignty over that land, and made them to understand, that neither the Israelites were cast out, nor they brought in by their valour, or strength, but by God's providence, who as he had cast the Israelites out for their neglect of God's service; so both could, and would in his due time, turn them out also, if they were guilty of the same sins.

Taught them - The manner of God's worship, as it was practised in Israel; as may be gathered both from the quality of this person, who was an Israelitish priest; and from the place of his residence, Beth - el, a place infamous for the worship of the calves, and from the manner of their making priests by this man's direction.

Sacrificed - Unto the true God: for as to the worship of their own gods, they needed no instruction, and would not permit a person of another religion to minister therein.

They feared - They worshipped God externally in that way which the Israelites used. But every nation made gods of their own besides.

Unto this day - That is, till the time when this book was written, above three hundred years in all, till the time of Alexander the Great, when they were prevailed upon to call away their idols. Former manners - As the Israelites before their captivity, gave these nations an ill example, in serving the Lord, and Baal together; so, or after their former manner, they do unto this day, in the land of their captivity. They fear not - Though they pretended to fear, and serve both the Lord and idols, yet in truth they did not, and do not fear or worship the Lord, but their own calves, or other vain inventions: and God will not accept that mongrel and false worship, which they pretend to give to the true God. Statutes - God's law delivered to their fathers, and to them, as their inheritance, Psal 119:111. This is alleged as an evidence, that they did not fear the Lord, whatsoever they pretended, because they lived in the constant breach of his statutes. Israel - A name, signifying his special interest in God, and power with him, which was given to him, not only for himself, but for his posterity also, whom God frequently honours with that name. And by this great favour he aggravates their sin.

So - In like manner, and after their example. These - Who came in their stead.

IN the twelfth year of Ahaz king of Judah, began Hoshea the son of Elah to reign in Samaria, over Israel nine years .

Quest. How can this be true, seeing it is said, that he reigned, or began to reign in Israel in the twentieth year of Iotham, chap. 15. 30. which was the Fourth Year of Ahaz, as was there noted? Ans. He usurped the Kingdom in Ahaz his Fourth Year; but either was not owned as King, by the generality of the People; or was not accepted and established in his Kingdom by the Assyrian, till Ahaz his Twelfth Year: Or, in his Eight First Years, he was onely a Tributary Prince, and the King of Assyria's Viceroy; and after that time he set up for himself, which drew the Assyrian upon him.

To wit, after his confirmation, and peaceable possession of his Kingdom: For in all, he reigned Seventeen, or Eighteen Years; to wit, Twelve with Ahaz, who reigned Sixteen Years, and Six with Hezekiah, 2 Kings 18. 10.

Marginal references: Heb. reigned.

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 .

For he neither worshipped Baal, as many of his predecessors did; nor compelled the People to worship the Calves; one of them, that of Dan, being destroyed, or carried away before, as the Hebrew Writers affirm; nor, as some add, hindred those by force, who were minded to go to Ierusalem to worship. And yet, the measure of the Israelites sins, being now full, vengeance comes upon them without remedy; Compare 2 Kings 23. 26.

3 ¶ Against him came up Shalmaneser king of Assyria, and Hoshea became his servant, and gave him presents .

The Son, or Successor of Tiglath-pileser. The ancient Hebrew Writers make him the same with Sennacherib, who Eight Years after this time, invaded the kingdom of Iudah; See chap. 18. 10, 13. it being very frequent in the Eastern parts, for one man to be called by several Names, especially by the People of several Countries. Iosephus affirms, that he met with his Name in the Annals of the Tyrians, which were extant in his days. He came against him, either because he denied the Tribute which he had promised to pay; or that he might make him Tributary.

Swore Fealty to him, and engaged to pay him a Tribute.

Marginal references: Heb. rendred.; Or, tribute.

4 And the king of Assyria found conspiracy in Hoshea: for he had sent messengers to So king of Egypt , and brought no present 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 .

By Heathen Writers called Sua, or Sabacus, that by his assistance he might shake off the Yoke of the King of Assyria; who now was, and for many Years had been the King of Egypt's Rival; See 2 Kings 18. 21. Ier. 37. 5.

To wit, after he had come up against him, and taken him, with Samaria; the particular Relation whereof here follows.

6 ¶ In the ninth year of Hoshea, the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria, and placed them in Halah▪ and in Habor, by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes .

This is added, to distinguish this place from the former, which was either in Assyria, or in the Mountainous and less inhabited parts of Media. Hither he carried them, partly to replenish his own Country; and partly, because these places were at so great a distance from Canaan, that this would cut off all hopes and thoughts of returning to their own Country.

Marginal references: Chap. 18. 10.

8 And walked in the statutes of the heathen (whom the LORD had cast out from before the children of Israel) and of the kings of Israel, which they had made .

i. e. According to the Laws and Customs of the Heathen, is the Worship of their Baals, and other of their sins.

i. e. Which the Kings of Israel had ordained concerning the Worship of the Calves, and against their going up to Ierusalem to worship.

9 And the children of Israel did secretly th[illegible: 1+ letters]e things that were not right, against the LORD their God, and they built them high places in all their cities, from the tower of the watchmen, to the fenced city .

This belongs, either 1. to their gross Idolatries, and other abominable practises, which they were ashamed to own before others; Compare Ezek. 8. 12. Or, 2. to the worship of Calves: And so the words are otherwise [illegible: 1+ letters]ndered, and that agreeably to the Hebrew Text; th[illegible: 1+ letters] [illegible: 1+ letters] ed, or disguised, or covered things that were not [illegible: 1 word] against, or before, or towards the Lord: i. e. They [illegible: 1 word] their idolatrous worship of the Calves, with fair pre[illegible: 1+ letters]ences of necessity, the Two Kingdoms being now divided, and at enmity; and of their honest intention of serving the true God, and retaining the substance of the Iewish Religion, from which they alledged, that they differed onely in circumstances of Worship.

In all parts and places, both in Cities, and in the Country; yea, in the most uninhabited and neglected parts, where few or none dwell, beside the Watchmen, who are left there in Towers, to preserve the Cattel and Fruits of the Earth, or to give notice of the approach of Enemies.

11 And there they burnt incense in all the high places, as did the heathen whom the LORD carried away before them ; and wrought wicked things to provoke the LORD to anger .

Not onely to the Lord, which was practised and tolerated, sometimes in the Kingdom of Iudah; but also to the Idols or Baals of the Heathen.

For the same sins; by whose Example they should have taken warning.

i. e. In despight and contempt of God, and his Authority and Command, as the next Verse shews.

13 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, 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.

Disowned, and gave testimony against their false Worship, which they would fasten upon him, and against all their impieties.

To whom he declared his mind, by extraordinary Revelations and Visions, and by whom he published it to you, bearing witness from Heaven to their Doctrine, by eminent and glorious miracles.

Whereby he accuseth them of partiality, that they observed onely those laws of God, which they might safely keep, and lived in the constant breach of others, which their Kings forbad them to observe.

Marginal references: Heb. by the hand of all.; 1 Sam. 9. 9.; Jer. 18. 11. and 25. 5. and 35. 15.

14 Notwithstanding, they would not hear, but hardened their necks like to the neck of their fathers, that did not believe in the LORD their God.

i. e. Refused to submit their neck to the Yoke of Gods Precepts. A Metaphor from stubborn Oxen, that make their hearts hard, or stiff, and will not bow to the Yoke; see on Deut. 31. 27.

Marginal references: Deut. 31. 27.

15 And they rejected his statutes, and his covenant that he made with their fathers, and his testimonies which he testified against them, and they followed vanity , and became vain , and went after the heathen that were round about them, concerning whom the LORD had charged them, that they should not do like them.

i. e. Idols; oft so called, because of their nothingness, impotency, and unprofitableness; and to shew the folly and madness of Idolaters.

By the long worship of Idols, they were made like them, vain, sottish, and senseless Creatures.

16 And they left all the commandments of the LORD their God, and made them molten images, even two calves, and made a grove, and worshipped all the host of heaven , and served Baal.

They grew worse and worse, from a partial disobedience to some of Gods Laws, they fell by degrees to a total Apostacy from all of them.

The Stars, as Saturn, Iupiter, Mars, Venus, &c. See Deut. 4. 19.

Marginal references: Exod. 32. 8. 1 Kings 12. 28.; 1 Kings 14. 15, 23. and 15. 13. and 16. 33.; 1 Kings 16. 31. and 22. 53. Chap. 11. 18.

17 And they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, and used divination, and inchantments, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.

Of which Phrase, see on 1 Kings 21. 21.

Marginal references: Lev. 18. 21. Chap. 16. 3.

18 Therefore the LORD was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of his sight : there was none left but the tribe of Judah onely .

i. e. Out of Canaan, the onely place of God's solemn worship, and gracious presence; or, out of his Church.

And the greatest part of the Tribe of Benjamin, and those of the Tribes of Simeon and Levi who adhered to them, and were incorporated with them; and therefore very fitly denominated from them: See of this Phrase on 1 Kings 11. 13.

Marginal references: 1 King. 11. 13.

19 Also Judah kept not the commandments of the LORD their God, but walked in the statutes of Israel which they made

Iudah's idolatry and wickedness is here remembred, as an aggravation of the sin of the Israelites, which was not onely evil in it self, but scandalous, and mischievous to their Neighbour, who by their examples were instructed in their wicked arts, and provoked to an imitation of them; See Hosea 4. 15. and compare Matth. 18. 7.

20 And the LORD rejected all the seed of Israel , and afflicted them, and delivered them into the hand of spoilers, until he had cast them out of his sight.

i. e. All the Kingdom, or Tribes of Israel: first, one part of them, chap. 15. 29. and now the rest. But this extends not to every individual person of these Tribes; for many of them removed into the Kingdom of Iudah, and were associated with them, as appears from 2 Chron. 11. 16. and many other places.

21 For he rent Israel from the house of David, and they made Jeroboam the son of Nebat king , and Jeroboam drave Israel from following the LORD , and made them sin a great sin .

Which action is here ascribed to the people, because they would not tarry till God, by his providence, had invested Ieroboam with the Kingdom which he had promised him; but rashly, and unthankfully, and rebelliously, rose up against the house of David, to which they had such great Obligations; and set him upon the Throne without God's leave or advice.

He not onely disswaded, but kept them by force from God's Worship at Ierusalem, the onely place appointed for it.

So the worship of the Calves is called, to meet with that idle conceit of the Israelites, who esteemed it a small sin, especially when they were forced to it by severe penalties; which yet he shews did not excuse it from being a sin, and a great sin too.

Marginal references: 1 Kings 11. 11, 31.; 1 Kings 12. 20, 28.

22 For the children of Israel walked in all the sins of Jeroboam which he did, they departed not from them :

But willingly and resolutely followed the wicked Examples and Commands of their Kings, though contrary to God's express commands.

23 Until the LORD removed Israel out of his sight , as he had said by all his servants the prophets. So was Israel carried away out of their own land to Assyria, unto this day.

They continued to the last, obstinate and incorrigible under all the instructions and corrections which God sent to them; and therefore were most justly given up by God into this dreadful captivity; which all this foregoing discourse was designed to prove.

24 ¶ And the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon , and from Cuthah, and from Ana, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim , and placed them in the cities of Samaria, instead of the children of Israel; and they possessed Samaria, and dwelt in the cities thereof.

Either Shalmanezer, or rather his Son and Successor, Esarhaddon, Ezra 4. 2. because this was a work o[illegible: 1+ letters] some time; and as his Father had projected, and possibly began this; so he executed or finished it: whence it is ascribed to him, rather than to his Father.

Which then was subject to the Assyrian Monarch; but a few years after, revolted from him, and set up another King; as appears both from sacred and profane Histories.

Several places then in his Dominion.

25 And so it was at the beginning of their dwelling there, that they feared not the LORD ; therefore the LORD sent lions among them, which slew some of them.

They did not acknowledg, nor worship God in any sort.

For this gross neglect, and contempt of God, which was contrary to the Principles and Practises of the Heathens, who used to worship the Gods of the Nations where they lived, and gave that honour to their false gods, which here they denied to the true. Hereby also God asserted his own right and soveraignty over that land, and made them to understand, that neither the Israelites were cast out, nor they brought into that land by their valour, or strength, but by God's Providence, who as he had cast the Israelites out for their neglect of God's service; so both could, and would in his due time, turn them out also, if they were guilty of the same sins.

26 Wherefore they spake to the king of Assyria, saying, The nations which thou hast removed, and placed in the cities of Samaria, know not the manner of the God of the land : therefore he hath sent lions among them, and behold, they slay them, because they know not the manner of the God of the land.

i. e. They wrote, or sent messengers to him for relief.

They supposed the true God to be like one of their Topical Deities, who had their particular Countries and Provinces allotted to them.

27 Then the king of Assyria commanded, saying, Carry thither one of the priests , whom ye brought from thence, and let them go and dwell there, and let him teach them the manner of the God of the land.

i. e. One of the chief of the Priests, with others, to be under his inspection and direction, as may be gathered from the following words; where it is said of the same person, or persons, let them go, &c. and then, let him teach, &c. Nor is it probable, that one Priest could suffice for the instruction of the Inhabitants of so many and distant parts.

28 Then one of the priests whom they had carried away from Samaria, came and dwelt in Bethel, and taught them how they should fear the LORD .

i. e. The manner of God's Worship, as it was practised in Israel; as may be gathered both from the quality of this person, who was an Israelitish Priest; and from the place of his residence, Bethel, a place infamous for the worship of the Calves, and from the manner of their making Priests by this man's direction, ver. 32.

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.

Or, worshipped (as that Verb is sometimes used; of which, see Exod. 32. 35.) i. e. those whom they worshipped in the places from whence they came, whose names here follow.

i. e. The former People, or Inhabitants, not of the City, but of the Kingdom of Samaria.

32 So they feared the LORD, and made unto themselves of the lowest of them priests of the high places , which sacrificed for them in the houses of the high places.

See the Notes on 1 Kings 12. 31.

To wit, unto the true God: For as to the worship of their own gods, they needed no instruction, and would not permit a person of another Religion to minister therein.

33 They feared the LORD , and served their own gods, after the manner of the nations whom they carried away from thence .

They worshipped God externally in that way which the Israelites used.

These words belong, either 1. to both the foregoing branches, and to the Israelites; and then the sense is, They trod in the steps of their predecessors, the Israelites (who, in regard of their several Tribes, are both here, and elswhere, called Nations) who did, many of them, worship both God in their Calves, and Baal too. Or, 2. to the last branch onely; but then the words must be otherwise rendred; they served their own gods, after the manner of the Nations from which they brought, or carried them, or from whence they (these new Inhabitants) were brought; i. e. each of them served the god of the country or place whence he was brought, as is related above, ver. 30, 31. But these Nations could not so properly be said to be carried away, or to be carried away captive (as this Hebrew word signifies), as the Israelites; and therefore the former interpretation seems more proper.

Marginal references: [illegible: 1 word] ▪ 1[illegible: 1+ letters].; [illegible: 1 word] ▪ [illegible: 1+ letters]ho car [illegible: 1+ letters] [illegible: 1 word] away [illegible: 1 word] [illegible: 1 word].

34 Unto this day they do after the former manners: they fear not the LORD , neither do they after their statutes , or after their ordinances, or after the law and commandment which the LORD commanded the children of Jacob , whom he named Israel .

Either 1. the Samaritans, whose Religion he hath hitherto been describing, and to the description whereof he re [illegible: 1+ letters], ver. 41. So the following Verses are a digression, wherein he designs onely to take an occasion to compare them with the Israelites, and to aggravate the sins of the Israelites above theirs, which he doth, ver. 35, &c. and then returns to the former description, ver. 31. Or rather, 2. The Israelites, who are the principal Subjects of this whole Discourse; and of whom he unquestionably speaks, ver. 35. and thence to ver. 41. of whom also the last words of ver. 33. are to be understood; and from thence he takes an occasion to return to his main business, to relate, and aggravate the sins of Israel; and thereby to justifie his severe proceedings against them, to all the World. So the sense of the place is this; As the Israelites before their captivity, gave these Nations an ill Example, in serving the Lord, and Baal together; so, or after their former manner, they do unto this day, in the land of their captivity.

Though they pretended to fear, and serve both the Lord and Idols, yet in truth they did not, and do not fear or worship the Lord, but their own Calves, or other vain inventions: And God will not accept that mongrel and false Worship, which they pretend to give to the true God. Or, this may intimate, that the Israelites were worse than their Successors, because these feared the Lord, and Idols too; but they did quite cast off the fear and worship of God in their captivity, and wholly degenerated into Heathenish Idolatry.

i. e. God's Law delivered to their Fathers, and to them, as their Inheritance, Psal. 119. 111. This is alledged as an Evidence, that they did not fear the Lord, whatsoever they pretended, because they lived in the constant breach of his statutes.

i. e. Themselves: the Noun put for the Pronoun; which is usual among the Hebrews.

A Name, signifying his special interest in God, and power with him, which was given to him, not onely for himself, but for his Posterity also, whom God frequently honours with that Name. And by this great favour he aggravates their sin.

Marginal references: Gen. 32. 28. and 35. 10.

35 With whom the LORD had made a covenant , and charged them, saying, Ye shall not fear other gods, nor bow your selves to them, nor serve them, nor sacrifice to them:

Containing many precious promises, upon the condition here following: see Gen: 17. 7. Exod. 19. 5. and 24. 7.

Marginal references: Judg. 6. 10.

39 But the Lord your God ye shall fear, and he shall deliver you out of the hand of all your enemies .

i. e. God above, as the whole context shews.

And therefore you have no pretence of need to go to other gods for relief.

41 So these nations feared the LORD, and served their graven images, both their children, and their childrens children: as did their fathers, so do they unto this day.

i. e. In like manner, and after their example.

Who came in their stead.

2Ki 17:1-2

Reign of Hoshea King of Israel. - 2Ki 17:1. In the twelfth year of Ahaz began Hoshea to reign. As Hoshea conspired against Pekah, according to 2Ki 15:30, in the fourth year of Ahaz, and after murdering him made himself king, whereas according to the verse before us it was not till the twelfth year of Ahaz that he really became king, his possession of the throne must have been contested for eight years. The earlier commentators and almost all the chronologists have therefore justly assumed that there was en eight years’ anarchy between the death of Pekah and the commencement of Hoshea’s reign. This assumption merits the preference above all the attempts made to remove the discrepancy by alterations of the text, since there is nothing at all surprising in the existence of anarchy at a time when the kingdom was in a state of the greatest inward disturbance and decay. Hoshea reigned nine years, and “did that which was evil in the eyes of Jehovah, though not like the kings of Israel before him” (2Ki 17:2). We are not told in what Hoshea was better than his predecessors, nor can it be determined with any certainty, although the assumption that he allowed his subjects to visit the temple at Jerusalem is a very probable one, inasmuch as, according to 2Ch 30:10., Hezekiah invited to the feast of the Passover, held at Jerusalem, the Israelites from Ephraim and Manasseh as far as to Zebulun, and some individuals from these tribes accepted his invitation. But although Hoshea was better than his predecessors, the judgment of destruction burst upon the sinful kingdom and people in his reign, because he had not truly turned to the Lord; a fact which has been frequently repeated in the history of the world, namely, that the last rulers of a decaying kingdom have not been so bad as their forefathers. “God is accustomed to defer the punishment of the elders in the greatness of His long-suffering, to see whether their descendants will come to repentance; but if this be not the case, although they may not be so bad, the anger of God proceeds at length to visit iniquity (cf. Exo 20:5).” Seb. Schmidt.

2Ki 17:3 “Against him came up Salmanasar king of Assyria, and Hoshea became subject to him and rendered him tribute” (מנחה, as in 1Ki 5:1). שׁלמנאסר, Δαλαμανασσάρ (lxx), Salmanasar, according to the more recent researches respecting Assyria, is not only the same person as the Shalman mentioned in Hos 10:14, but the same as the Sargon of Isa 20:1, whose name is spelt Sargina upon the monuments, and who is described in the inscriptions on his palace at Khorsabad as ruler over many subjugated lands, among which Samirina (Samaria?) also occurs (vid., Brandis üb. d. Gewinn, pp. 48ff. and 53; M. v. Niebuhr, Gesch. Ass. pp. 129, 130; and M. Duncker, Gesch. des Alterth. i. pp. 687ff.). The occasion of this expedition of Salmanasar appears to have been simply the endeavour to continue the conquests of his predecessor Tiglath-pileser. There is no ground whatever for Maurer’s assumption, that he had been asked to come to the help of a rival of Hoshea; and the opinion that he came because Hoshea had refused the tribute which had been paid to Assyria from the time of Menahem downwards, is at variance with the fact that in 2Ki 15:29 Tiglath-pileser is simply said to have taken a portion of the territory of Israel; but there is no allusion to any payment of tribute or feudal obligation on the part of Pekah. Salmanasar was the first to make king Hoshea subject and tributary. This took place at the commencement of Hoshea’s reign, as is evident from the fact that Hoshea paid the tribute for several years, and in the sixth year of his reign refused any further payment.

2Ki 17:4-5

The king of Assyria found a conspiracy in Hoshea; for he had sent messengers to So the king of Egypt, and did not pay the tribute to the king of Assyria, as year by year. The Egyptian king סוא, So, possibly to be pronounced סוה, Seveh, is no doubt one of the two Shebeks of the twenty-fifth dynasty, belonging to the Ethiopian tribe; but whether he was the second king of this dynasty, Såbåtåkå (Brugsch, hist. d'Egypte, i. p. 244), the Sevechus of Manetho, who is said to have ascended the throne, according to Wilkinson, in the year 728, as Vitringa (Isa. ii. p. 318), Gesenius, Ewald, and others suppose, or the first king of this Ethiopian dynasty, Sabako the father of Sevechus, which is the opinion of Usher and Marsham, whom M. v. Niebuhr (Gesch. pp. 458ff. and 463) and M. Duncker (i. p. 693) have followed in recent times, cannot possibly be decided in the present state of Egyptological research.It is true that M. Duncker says, “Synchronism gives Sabakon, who reigned from 726 to 714;” but he observes in the note at pp. 713ff. that the Egyptian chronology has only been firmly established as far back as the commencement of the reign of Psammetichus at the beginning of the year 664 b.c., that the length of the preceding dodekarchy is differently given by Diodorus Sic. and Manetho, and that the date at which Tarakos (Tirhaka), who succeeded Sevechus, ascended the throne is so very differently defined, that it is impossible for the present to come to any certain conclusion on the matter. Compare with this what M. v. Niebuhr (pp. 458ff.) adduces in proof of the difficulty of determining the commencement and length of the reign of Tirhaka, and the manner in which he proposes to solve the difficulties that arise from this in relation to the synchronism between the Egyptian and the Biblical chronology.  - As soon as Salmanasar received intelligence of the conduct of Hoshea, which is called קשׁר, conspiracy, as being rebellion against his acknowledged superior, he had him arrested and put into prison in chains, and then overran the whole land, advanced against Samaria and besieged that city for three years, and captured it in the ninth year of Hoshea. These words are not to be understood as signifying that Hoshea had been taken prisoner before the siege of Samaria and thrown into prison, because in that case it is impossible to see how Salmanasar could have obtained possession of his person.The supposition of the older commentators, that Hoshea fought a battle with Salmanasar before the siege of Samaria, and was taken prisoner in that battle, is not only very improbable, because this would hardly be passed over in our account, but has very little probability in itself. For “it is more probable that Hoshea betook himself to Samaria when threatened by the hostile army, and relied upon the help of the Egyptians, than that he went to meet Salmanasar and fought with him in the open field” (Maurer). There is still less probability in Ewald’s view (Gesch. iii. p. 611), that “Salmanasar marched with unexpected rapidity against Hoshea, summoned him before him that he might hear his defence, and then, when he came, took him prisoner, and threw him into prison in chains, probably into a prison on the border of the land;” to which he adds this explanatory remark: “there is no other way in which we can understand the brief words in 2Ki 17:4 as compared with 2Ki 18:9-11... For if Hoshea had defended himself to the utmost, Salmanasar would not have had him arrested and incarcerated afterwards, but would have put him to death at once, as was the case with the king of Damascus.” But Hoshea would certainly not have been so infatuated, after breaking away from Assyria and forming an alliance with So of Egypt, as to go at a simple summons from Salmanasar and present himself before him, since he could certainly have expected nothing but death or imprisonment as the result.

We must rather assume, as many commentators have done, from R. Levi ben Gersom down to Maurer and Thenius, that it was not till the conquest of his capital Samaria that Hoshea fell into the hands of the Assyrians and was cast into a prison; so that the explanation to be given to the introduction of this circumstance before the siege and conquest of Samaria must be, that the historian first of all related the eventual result of Hoshea’s rebellion against Salmanasar so far as Hoshea himself was concerned, and then proceeded to describe in greater detail the course of the affair in relation to his kingdom and capital. This does not necessitate our giving to the word ויּעצרהוּ the meaning “he assigned him a limit” (Thenius); but we may adhere to the meaning which has been philologically established, namely, arrest or incarcerate (Jer 33:1; Jer 36:5, etc.). ויּעל may be given thus: “he overran, that is to say, the entire land.” The three years of the siege of Samaria were not full years, for, according to 2Ki 18:9-10, it began in the seventh year of Hoshea, and the city was taken in the ninth year, although it is also given there as three years.

2Ki 17:6

The ninth year of Hoshea corresponds to the sixth year of Hezekiah and the year 722 or 721 b.c., in which the kingdom of the ten tribes was destroyed. 6b. The Israelites carried into exile. - After the taking of Samaria, Salmanasar led Israel into captivity to Assyria, and assigned to those who were led away dwelling-places in Chalach and on the Chabor, or the river Gozan, and in cities of Media. According to these clear words of the text, the places to which the ten tribes were banished are not to be sought for in Mesopotamia, but in provinces of Assyria and Media. חלח is neither the city of כּלח built by Nimrod (Gen 10:11), nor the Cholwan of Abulfeda and the Syriac writers, a city five days’ journey to the north of Bagdad, from which the district bordering on the Zagrus probably received the name of Χαλωνῖτις or Καλωνῖτις, but the province Καλαχεηνή of Strabo (xi. 8, 4; 14, 12, and xvi. 1, 1), called Καλακινή by Ptolemaeus (vi. 1), on the eastern side of the Tigris near Adiabene, to the north of Nineveh on the border of Armenia. חבור is not the כּבר in Upper Mesopotamia (Eze 1:3; Eze 3:15, etc.), which flows into the Euphrates near Kirkesion (Carchemish), and is called Chebar (kbr) or Chabur (kbwr) by the Syriac writers, Chabûr (xâbûr) by Abulfeda and Edrisi, Χαβώρας by Ptolemaeus, Ἀβόῤῥας (Aboras) by Strabo and others, as Michaelis, Gesenius, Winer, and even Ritter assume; for the epithet “river of Gozan” is not decisive in favour of this, since Gozan is not necessarily to be identified with the district of Gauzanitis, now Kaushan, situated between the rivers of Chaboras and Saokoras, and mentioned in Ptol. v. 18, 4, inasmuch as Strabo (xvi. 1, 1, p. 736) also mentions a province called Χαζηνή above Nineveh towards Armenia, between Calachene and Adiabene. Here in northern Assyria we also find both a mountain called Χαβώρας, according to Ptol. vi. 1, on the boundary of Assyria and Media, and the river Chabor, called by Yakut in the Moshtarik l-hsnîh (Khabur Chasaniae), to distinguish it from the Mesopotamian Chaboras or Chebar. According to Marasz. i. pp. 333f., and Yakut, Mosht. p. 150, this Khabur springs from the mountains of the land of Zauzan, zawzan, i.e., of the land between the mountains of Armenia, Adserbeidjan, Diarbekr, and Mosul (Marasz. i. p. 522), and is frequently mentioned in Assemani as a tributary of the Tigris. It still bears the ancient name Khabûr, taking its rise in the neighbourhood of the upper Zab near Amadîjeh, and emptying itself into the Tigris a few hours below Jezirah (cf. Wichelhaus, pp. 471, 472; Asah. Grant, Die Nestorianer, v. Preiswerk, pp. 110ff.; and Ritter, Erdk. ix. pp. 716 and 1030). This is the river that we are to understand by חבור.

It is a question in dispute, whether the following words גּוזן נהר are in apposition to בּחבור: “by the Chabor the river of Gozan,” or are to be taken by themselves as indicating a peculiar district “by the river Gozan.” Now, however the absence of the prep. ב, and even of the copula ,ו on the one hand, and the words of Yakut, “Khabur, a river of Chasania,” on the other, may seem to favour the former view, we must decide in favour of the latter, for the simple reason that in 1Ch 5:26 גּוזן נהר is separated from חבור morf d by והרא. The absence of the preposition בּ or of the copula ו before נהר ג in the passage before us may be accounted for from the assumption that the first two names, in Chalah and on the Khabur, are more closely connected, and also the two which follow, “on the river Gozan and in the cities of Media.” The river Gozan or of Gozan is therefore distinct from חבור (Khabur), and to be sought for in the district in which Gauzani'a, the city of Media mentioned by Ptol. (vi. 2), was situated. In all probability it is the river which is called Kisil (the red) Ozan at the present day, the Mardos of the Greeks, which takes its rise to the south-east of the Lake Urumiah and flows into the Caspian Sea, and which is supposed to have formed the northern boundary of Media.The explanation given in the text of the geographical names, receives some confirmation from the Jewish tradition, which describes northern Assyria, and indeed the mountainous region or the district on the border of Assyria and Media towards Armenia, as the place to which the ten tribes were banished (vid., Wichelhaus ut sup. pp. 474ff.). Not only Ewald (Gesch. iii. p. 612), but also M. v. Niebuhr (Gesch. Ass. p. 159), has decided in favour of this view; the latter with this remark: “According to the present state of the investigations, Chalah and Chabor are no doubt to be sought for on the slope of the Gordyaean mountains in the Kalachene of Strabo, the Kalakine of Ptolemaeus, and on the tributary of the Tigris, which is still called Chabur, therefore quite close to Nineveh. The Yudhi mountains in this region possibly bear this name with some allusion to the colony.” But with reference to the river Gozan, Niebuhr is doubtful whether we are to understand by this the Kisil Ozan or the waters, in the district of Gauzanitis by the Kehbar, and gives the preference to the latter as the simpler of the two, though it is difficulty to see in what respect it is simpler than the other.

The last locality mentioned agrees with this, viz., “and in the cities of Media,” in which Thenius proposes to read הרי, mountains, after the lxx, instead of ערי, cities, though without the least necessity.

2Ki 17:7

The causes which occasioned this catastrophe. - To the account of the destruction of the kingdom of the ten tribes, and of the transportation of its inhabitants into exile in Assyria, the prophetic historian appends a review of the causes which led to this termination of the greater portion of the covenant-nation, and finds them in the obstinate apostasy of Israel from the Lord its God, and in its incorrigible adherence to idolatry. 2Ki 17:7. כּי ויהי, “and it came to pass when” (not because, or that): compare Gen 6:1; Gen 26:8; Gen 27:1; Gen 44:24; Exo 1:21; Jdg 1:28; Jdg 6:7, etc. The apodosis does not follow till 2Ki 17:18, as 2Ki 17:7-17 simply contain a further explanation of Israel’s sin. To show the magnitude of the sin, the writer recalls to mind the great benefit conferred in the redemption from Egypt, whereby the Lord had laid His people under strong obligation to adhere faithfully to Him. The words refer to the first commandment (Exo 20:2-3; Deu 5:6-7). It is from this that the “fearing of other gods” is taken, whereas פּרעה יד מתּחת recall Exo 18:10.

2Ki 17:8

The apostasy of Israel manifested itself in two directions: 1. in their walking in the statutes of the nations who were cut off from before them, instead of in the statutes of Jehovah, as God had commanded (cf. Lev 18:4-5, and Lev 18:26, Lev 20:22-23, etc.; and for the formula וגו הורישׁ אשׁר הגּוים, which occurs repeatedly in our books - e.g., 2Ki 16:3; 2Ki 21:2, and 1Ki 14:24 and 1Ki 21:26 - compare Deu 11:23 and Deu 18:12); and 2. in their walking in the statutes which the kings of Israel had made, i.e., the worship of the calves. עשׂוּ אשׁר: it is evident from the parallel passage, 2Ki 17:19, that the subject here stands before the relative.

2Ki 17:9 דברים ויחפּאוּ: “they covered words which were not right concerning Jehovah their God,” i.e., they sought to conceal the true nature of Jehovah their God,” i.e., they sought to conceal the true nature of Jehovah by arbitrary perversions of the word of God. This is the explanation correctly given by Hengstenberg (Dissert. vol. i. p. 210, transl.); whereas the interpretation proposed by Thenius, “they trifled with things which were not right against Jehovah,” is as much at variance with the usage of the language as that of Gesenius (thes. p. 5050, perfide egerunt res ... in Jehovam, since חפּא with על simply means to cover over a thing (cf. Isa 4:5). This covering of words over Jehovah showed itself in the fact that they built בּמות (altars on high places), and by worshipping God in ways of their own invention concealed the nature of the revealed God, and made Jehovah like the idols. “In all their cities, from the tower of the watchmen to the fortified city.” נוצרים מגדּל is a tower built for the protection of the flocks in the steppes (2Ch 26:10), and is mentioned here as the smallest and most solitary place of human abode in antithesis to the large and fortified city. Such bamoth were the houses of high places and altars built for the golden calves at Bethel and Dan, beside which no others are mentioned by name in the history of the kingdom of the ten tribes, which restricts itself to the principal facts, although there certainly must have been others.

2Ki 17:10

They set up for themselves monuments and asherim on every high hill, etc., - a practice condemned in 1Ki 14:16, 1Ki 14:23, as early as the time of Jeroboam. In this description of their idolatry, the historian, however, had in his mind not only the ten tribes, but also Judah, as is evident from 2Ki 17:13, “Jehovah testified against Israel and Judah through His prophets,” and also from 2Ki 17:19.

2Ki 17:11 “And burned incense there upon all the high places, like the nations which Jehovah drove out before them.” הגלה, lit., to lead into exile, is applied here to the expulsion and destruction of the Canaanites, with special reference to the banishment of the Israelites.

2Ki 17:12

They served the clods, i.e., worshipped clods or masses of stone as gods (גּלּלים, see at 1Ki 15:12), notwithstanding the command of God in Exo 20:3., 2Ki 23:13; Lev 26:1, etc.

2Ki 17:13-14

And the Lord was not satisfied with the prohibitions of the law, but bore witness against the idolatry and image-worship of Israel and Judah through all His prophets, who exhorted them to turn from their evil way and obey His commandments. But it was all in vain; they were stiff-necked like their fathers. Judah is mentioned as well as Israel, although the historian is simply describing the causes of Israel’s rejection to indicate beforehand that Judah was already preparing the same fate for itself, as is still more plainly expressed in 2Ki 17:19, 2Ki 17:20; not, as Thenius supposes, because he is speaking here of that which took place before the division of the kingdom. The Chethîb כל־חזה כּל־נביאו is not to be read וכל־חזה כּל־נביא (Houbig., Then., Ew. §156, e.), but after the lxx כּל־חזה כּל־נביאו, “through all His prophets, every seer,” so that כּל־חזה is in apposition to כּל־נביאו, and serves to bring out the meaning with greater force, so as to express the idea, “prophets of every kind, that the Lord had sent.” This reading is more rhetorical than the other, and is recommended by the fact that in what follows the copula ו is omitted before חקּותי also on rhetorical grounds. וגו שׁלחתּי ואשׁר: “and according to what I demanded of you through my servants the prophets.” To the law of Moses there was added the divine warning through the prophets. את־ערפּם יקשׁוּ has sprung from Deu 10:16. The stiff-necked fathers are the Israelites in the time of Moses.

2Ki 17:15 “They followed vanity and became vain:” verbatim as in Jer 2:5.

A description of the worthlessness of their whole life and aim with regard to the most important thing, namely, their relation to God. Whatever man sets before him as the object of his life apart from God is הבל (cf. Deu 32:21) and idolatry, and leads to worthlessness, to spiritual and moral corruption (Rom 1:21). “And (walked) after the nations who surrounded them,” i.e., the heathen living near them. The concluding words of the verse have the ring of Lev 18:3.

2Ki 17:16-17

The climax of their apostasy: “They made themselves molten images, two (golden) calves” (1Ki 12:28), which are called מסּכה after Exo 32:4, Exo 32:8, and Deu 9:12, Deu 9:16, “and Asherah,” i.e., idols of Astarte (for the fact, see 1Ki 16:33), “and worshipped all the host of heaven (sun, moon, and stars), and served Baal” - in the time of Ahab and his family (1Ki 16:32). The worshipping of all the host of heaven is not specially mentioned in the history of the kingdom of the ten tribes, but occurs first of all in Judah in the time of Manasseh (2Ki 21:3). The fact that the host of heaven is mentioned between Asherah and Baal shows that the historian refers to the Baal and Astarte worship, and has borrowed the expression from Deu 4:19 and Deu 17:3, to show the character of this worship, since both Baal and Astarte were deities of a sidereal nature. The first half of 2Ki 17:17 rests upon Deu 18:10, where the worship of Moloch is forbidden along with soothsaying and augury. There is no allusion to this worship in the history of the kingdom of the ten tribes, although it certainly existed in the time of Ahab. The second half of 2Ki 17:17 also refers to the conduct of Ahab (see at 1Ki 21:20).

2Ki 17:18-19

This conduct excited the anger of God, so that He removed them from His face, and only left the tribe (i.e., the kingdom) of Judah, although Judah also did not keep the commandments of the Lord and walked in the statutes of Israel, and therefore had deserved rejection. 2Ki 17:19 contains a parenthesis occasioned by וגו שׁבט רק (2Ki 17:18). The statutes of Israel in which Judah walked are not merely the worship of Baal under the Ahab dynasty, so as to refer only to Joram, Ahaziah, and Ahaz (according to 2Ki 8:18, 2Ki 8:27, and 2Ki 16:3), but also the worship on the high places and worship of idols, which were practised under many of the kings of Judah.

2Ki 17:20 ויּמאס is a continuation of יהוה ויּתאנּף in 2Ki 17:18, but so that what follows also refers to the parenthesis in 2Ki 17:19. “Then the Lord rejected all the seed of Israel,” not merely the ten tribes, but all the nation, and humbled them till He thrust them from His face. מאס differs from מפּניו השׁליך. The latter denotes driving into exile; the former, simply that kind of rejection which consisted in chastisement and deliverance into the hand of plunderers, that is to say, penal judgments by which the Lord sought to lead Israel and Judah to turn to Him and to His commandments, and to preserve them from being driven among the heathen. שׁסים בּיד נתן as in Jdg 2:14.

2Ki 17:21 וגו קרע כּי: “for He (Jehovah) rent Israel from the house of David.” This view is apparently more correct than that Israel rent the kingdom from the house of David, not only because it presupposes too harsh an ellipsis to supply את־המּמלכה, but also because we never meet with the thought that Israel rent the kingdom from the house of David, and in 1Ki 11:31 it is simply stated that Jehovah rent the kingdom from Solomon; and to this our verse refers, whilst the following words וגו ויּמליכוּ recall 1Ki 12:20. The כּי is explanatory: the Lord delivered up His people to the plunderers, for He rent Israel from the house of David as a punishment for the idolatry of Solomon, and the Israelites made Jeroboam king, who turned Israel away from Jehovah, etc. The Chethîb וידא is to be read ויּדּא, the Hiphil of נדא = נדה, “he caused to depart away from the Lord.” The Keri ויּדּה, Hiphil of נדח, he drove away, turned from the Lord (cf. Deu 13:11), is not unusual, but it is an unnecessary gloss.

2Ki 17:22-23

The sons of Israel (the ten tribes) walked in all the sins of Jeroboam, till the Lord removed them from His face, thrust them out of the land of the Lord, as He had threatened them through all His prophets, namely, from the time of Jeroboam onwards (compare 1Ki 14:15-16, and also Hos 1:6; Hos 9:16; Amo 3:11-12; Amo 5:27; Isa 28:1 etc.). The banishment to Assyria (see 2Ki 17:6) lasted “unto this day,” i.e., till the time when our books were written. As the Hebrew דע, like the German bis, is not always used in an exclusive sense, but is frequently abstracted from what lies behind the terminus ad quem mentioned, it by no means follows from the words, “the Lord rejected Israel ... to this day,” that the ten tribes returned to their own country after the time when our books were written, viz., about the middle of the sixth century b.c. And it is just as impossible to prove the opposite view, which is very widely spread, namely, that they are living as a body in banishment even at the present day. It is well known how often the long-lost ten tribes have been discovered, in the numerous Jewish communities of southern Arabia, in India, more especially in Malabar, in China, Turkistan, and Cashmir, or in Afghanistan (see Ritter’s Erdkunde, x. p. 246), and even in America itself; and now Dr. Asahel Grant (Die Nestorianer oder die zehn Stämme) thinks that he has found them in the independent Nestorians and the Jews living among them; whereas others, such as Witsius (Δεκαφυλ. c. iv.ff.), J. D. Michaelis (de exsilio decem tribuum, comm. iii.), and last of all Robinson in the word quoted by Ritter, l. c. p. 245 (The Nestorians, etc., New York, 1841), have endeavoured to prove that the ten tribes became partly mixed up with the Judaeans during the Babylonian captivity, and partly attached themselves to the exile who were led back to Palestine by Zerubbabel and Ezra; that a portion again became broken up at a still later period by mixing with the rest of the Jews, who were scattered throughout all the world after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, and a further portion a long time ago by conversion to Christianity, so that every attempt to discover the remnants of the ten tribes anywhere must be altogether futile. This view is in general the correct one, though its supporters have mixed up the sound arguments with many that are untenable. For example, the predications quoted by Ritter (p. 25), probably after Robinson (viz., Jer 50:4-5, Jer 50:17, Jer 50:19, and Eze 37:11.), and also the prophetic declarations cited by Witsius (v. §§11-14: viz., Isa 14:1; Mic 2:12; Jer 3:12; Jer 30:3-4; Jer 33:7-8), prove very little, because for the most part they refer to Messianic times and are to be understood spiritually. So much, however, may certainly be gathered from the books of Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, that the Judaeans whom Nebuchadnezzar carried away captive were not all placed in the province of Babylonia, but were also dispersed in the different districts that constituted first the Assyrian, then the Chaldaean, and afterwards the Persian empire on the other side of the Euphrates, so that with the cessation of that division which had been so strictly maintained to suit the policy of the Israelitish kings, the ancient separation would also disappear, and their common mournful lot of dispersion among the heathen would of necessity bring about a closer union among all the descendants of Jacob; just as we find that the kings of Persia knew of no difference between Jews and Israelites, and in the time of Xerxes the grand vizier Haman wanted to exterminate all the Jews (not the Judaeans merely, but all the Hebrews). Moreover, the edict of Cyrus (Ezr 1:1-4), “who among you of all his people,” and that of Artaxerxes (Ezr 7:13), “whoever in my kingdom is willing of the people of Israel,” gave permission to all the Israelites of the twelve tribes to return to Palestine. And who could maintain with any show of reason, that no one belonging to the ten tribes availed himself of this permission? And though Grant argues, on the other side, that with regard to the 50,000 whom Cyrus sent away to their home it is expressly stated that they were of those “whom Nebuchadnezzar had carried away into Babylon” (Ezr 2:1), with which 2Ki 1:5 may also be compared, “then rose up the heads of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests and Levites, etc.;” these words apply to the majority of those who returned, and undoubtedly prove that the ten tribes as such did not return to Palestine, but they by no means prove that a considerable number of members of the remaining tribes may not have attached themselves to the large number of citizens of the kingdom of Judah who returned. And not only Lightfoot (Hor. hebr. in Eph 1 ad Cor. Addenda ad c. 14, Opp. ii. p. 929) and Witsius (p. 346), but the Rabbins long before them in Seder Olam rab. c. 29, p. 86, have inferred from the fact that the number of persons and families given separately in Ezra 2 only amounts to 30,360, whereas in Ezr 2:64 the total number of persons who returned is said to have been 42,360 heads, besides 7337 men-servants and maid-servants, that this excess above the families of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi, who are mentioned by name, may have come from the ten tribes. Moreover, those who returned did regard themselves as the representatives of the twelve tribes; for at the dedication of the new temple (Ezr 6:17) they offered “sin-offerings for all Israel, according to the number of the twelve tribes.” And those who returned with Ezra did the same. As a thanksgiving for their safe return to their fatherland, they offered in sacrifice “twelve oxen for all Israel, ninety-six rams, seventy-seven sheep, and twelve he-goats for a sin-offering, all as a burnt-offering for Jehovah” (Ezr 8:35) There is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of those who returned with Zerubbabel and Ezra belonged to the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi; which may be explained very simply from the fact, that as they had been a much shorter time in exile, they had retained a much stronger longing for the home given by the Lord to their fathers than the tribes that were carried away 180 years before. But that they also followed in great numbers at a future time, after those who had returned before had risen to a state of greater ecclesiastical and civil prosperity in their own home, is an inference that must be drawn from the fact that in the time of Christ and His apostles, Galilee, and in part also Peraea, was very densely populated by Israelites; and this population cannot be traced back either to the Jews who returned to Jerusalem and Judaea under Zerubbabel and Ezra, or to the small number of Israelites who were left behind in the land when the Assyrian deportation took place.

On the other hand, even the arguments adduced by Grant in support of his view, viz., (1) that we have not the slightest historical evidence that the ten tribes every left Assyria again, (2) that on the return from the Babylonian captivity they did not come back with the rest, prove as argumenta a silentio but very little, and lose their force still more if the assumptions upon which they are based - namely, that the ten tribes who were transported to Assyria and Media had no intercourse whatever with the Jews who were led away to Babylon, but kept themselves unmixed and quite apart from the Judaeans, and that as they did not return with Zerubbabel and Ezra, they did not return to their native land at any later period-are, as we have shown above, untenable. Consequently the further arguments of Grant, (3) that according to Josephus (Ant. xi. 5, 2) the ten tribes were still in the land of their captivity in the first century, and according to Jerome (Comm. on the Prophets) in the fifth; and (4) that in the present day they are still in the country of the ancient Assyrians, since the Nestorians, both according to their own statement and according to the testimony of the Jews there, as Beni Yisrael, and that of the ten tribes, and are also proved to be Israelites by many of the customs and usages which they have preserved (Die Nestor. pp. 113ff.); prove nothing more than that there may still be descendants of the Israelites who were banished thither among the Jews and Nestorians living in northern Assyria by the Uramiah-lake, and by no means that the Jews living there are the unmixed descendants of the ten tribes. The statements made by the Jews lose all their importance from the fact, that Jews of other lands maintain just the same concerning themselves. And the Mosaic manners and customs of the Nestorians prove nothing more than that they are of Jewish origin. In general, the Israelites and Jews who have come into heathen lands from the time of Salmanasar and Nebuchadnezzar onwards, and have settled there, have become so mixed up with the Jews who were scattered in all quarters of the globe from the time of Alexander the Great, and more especially since the destruction of the Jewish state by the Romans, that the last traces of the old division into tribes have entirely disappeared. .

2Ki 17:24

The Samaritans and Their Worship. - After the transportation of the Israelites, the king of Assyria brought colonists from different provinces of his kingdom into the cities of Samaria. The king of Assyria is not Salmanasar, for it is evident from 2Ki 17:25 that a considerable period intervened between the carrying away of the Israelites and the sending of colonists into the depopulated land. It is true that Salmanasar only is mentioned in what precedes, but the section vv. 24-41 is not so closely connected with the first portion of the chapter, that the same king of Assyria must necessarily be spoken of in both. According to Ezr 4:2, it was Esarhaddon who removed the heathen settlers to Samaria. It is true that the attempt has been made to reconcile this with the assumption that the king of Assyria mentioned in our verse is Salmanasar, by the conjecture that one portion of these colonists was settled there by Salmanasar, another by Esarhaddon; and it has also been assumed that in this expedition Esarhaddon carried away the last remnant of the ten tribes, namely, all who had fled into the mountains and inaccessible corners of the land, and to some extent also in Judaea, during Salmanasar’s invasion, and had then collected together in the land again after the Assyrians had withdrawn. But there is not the smallest intimation anywhere of a second transplantation of heathen colonists to Samaria, any more than of a second removal of the remnant of the Israelites who were left behind in the land after the time of Salmanasar. The prediction in Isa 7:8, that in sixty-five years more Ephraim was to be destroyed, so that it would be no longer a people, even if it referred to the transplantation of the heathen colonists to Samaria by Esarhaddon, as Usher, Hengstenberg, and others suppose, would by no means necessitate the carrying away of the last remnant of the Israelites by this king, but simply the occupation of the land by heathen settlers, with whom the last remains of the Ephraimites intermingled, so that Ephraim ceased to be a people. As long as the land of Israel was merely laid waste and deprived of the greater portion of its Israelitish population, there always remained the possibility that the exiles might one day return to their native land and once more form one people with those who were left behind, and so long might Israel be still regarded as a nation; just as the Judaeans, when in exile in Babylon, did not cease to be a people, because they looked forward with certain hope to a return to their fatherland after a banishment of seventy years. But after heathen colonists had been transplanted into the land, with whom the remainder of the Israelites who were left in the land became fused, so that there arose a mixed Samaritan people of a predominantly heathen character, it was impossible to speak any longer of a people of Ephraim in the land of Israel. This transplantation of colonists out of Babel, Cutha, etc., into the cities of Samaria might therefore be regarded as the point of time at which the nation of Ephraim was entirely dissolved, without any removal of the last remnant of the Israelites having taken place. We must indeed assume this if the ten tribes were deported to the very last man, and the Samaritans were in their origin a purely heathen people without any admixture of Israelitish blood, as Hengstenberg assumes and has endeavoured to prove. But the very opposite of this is unmistakeably apparent from 2Ch 34:6, 2Ch 34:9, according to which there were not a few Israelites left in the depopulated land in the time of Josiah. (Compare Kalkar, Die Samaritaner ein Mischvolk, in Pelt’s theol. Mitarbeiten, iii. 3, pp. 24ff.). - We therefore regard Esarhaddon as the Assyrian king who brought the colonists to Samaria. The object to ויּבא may be supplied from the context, more especially from ויּשׁב, which follows. He brought inhabitants from Babel, i.e., from the country, not the city of Babylon, from Cuthah, etc. The situation of Cuthah or Cuth (2Ki 17:30) cannot be determined with certainty. M. v. Niebuhr (Gesch. p. 166) follows Josephus, who speaks of the Cuthaeans in Ant. ix. 14, 3, and x. 9, 7, as a people dwelling in Persia and Media, and identifies them with the Kossaeans, Kissians, Khushiya, Chuzi, who lived to the north-east of Susa, in the north-eastern portion of the present Khusistan; whereas Gesenius (thes. p. 674), Rosenmüller (bibl. Althk. 1, 2, p. 29), and J. D. Michaelis (Supplem. ad Lex. hebr. p. 1255) have decided in favour of the Cutha (Arabic kûthâ or kûtha) in the Babylonian Irak, in the neighbourhood of the Nahr Malca, in support of which the fact may also be adduced, that, according to a communication from Spiegel (in the Auslande, 1864, No. 46, p. 1089), Cutha, a town not mentioned elsewhere, was situated by the wall in the north-east of Babylon, probably on the spot where the hill Ohaimir with its ruins stands. The greater number of colonists appear to have come from Cutha, because the Samaritans are called כותיים by the Rabbins. עוּא, Avva, is almost always, and probably with correctness, regarded as being the same place as the עוּה (Ivvah) mentioned in 2Ki 18:34 and 2Ki 19:13, as the conjecture naturally suggests itself to every one that the Avvaeans removed to Samaria by Esarhaddon were inhabitants of the kingdom of Avva destroyed by the Assyrian king, and the form עוּה is probably simply connected with the appellative explanation given to the word by the Masoretes. As Ivvâh is placed by the side of Henah in 2Ki 18:34 and 2Ki 19:13, Avva can hardly by any other than the country of Hebeh, situated on the Euphrates between Anah and the Chabur (M. v. Niebuhr, p. 167). Hamath is Epiphania on the Orontes: see at 1Ki 8:65 and Num 13:21. Sepharvaim is no doubt the Sippara (Σιπφάρα) of Ptolem. (v. 18, 7), the southernmost city of Mesopotamia on the Euphrates, above the Nahr Malca, the Ἡλιούπολις ἐν Σιππάροισιν or Σιππαρεενῶν πόλις, which Berosus and Abydenus mention (in Euseb. Praepar, evang. ix. 12 and 41, and Chronic. Armen. i. pp. 33, 36, 49, 55) as belonging to the time of the flood. - שׁמרון: this is the first time in which the name is evidently applied to the kingdom of Samaria.

2Ki 17:25-29

In the earliest period of their settlement in the cities of Samaria the new settlers were visited by lions, which may have multiplied greatly during the time that the land was lying waste. The settlers regarded this as a punishment from Jehovah, i.e., from the deity of the land, whom they did not worship, and therefore asked the king of Assyria for a priest to teach them the right, i.e., the proper, worship of God of the land; whereupon the king sent them one of the priests who had been carried away, and he took up his abode in Bethel, and instructed the people in the worship of Jehovah. The author of our books also looked upon the lions as sent by Jehovah as a punishment, according to Lev 26:22, because the new settlers did not fear Him. העריות: the lions which had taken up their abode there. שׁם וישׁבוּ וילכוּ: that they (the priest with his companions) went away and dwelt there. There is no need therefore to alter the plural into the singular.

The priest sent by the Assyrian king was of course an Israelitish priest of the calves, for he was one of those who had been carried away and settled in Bethel, the chief seat of Jeroboam’s image-worship, and he also taught the colonists to fear or worship Jehovah after the manner of the land. This explains the state of divine worship in the land as described in 2Ki 17:29. “Every separate nation (גּוי גּוי: see Ewald, §313, a.) made itself its own gods, and set them up in the houses of the high places (הבּמות בּית: see at 1Ki 12:31, and for the singular בּית, Ewald, §270, c.) which the Samaritans (השּׁמרנים, not the colonists sent thither by Esarhaddon, but the former inhabitants of the kingdom of Israel, who are so called from the capital Samaria) had made (built); every nation in the cities where they dwelt.”

2Ki 17:30

The people of Babel made themselves בּנות סכּות, daughters’ booths. Selden (de Diis Syr. ii. 7), Münter (Relig. der Babyl. pp. 74, 75), and others understand by these the temples consecrated to Mylitta or Astarte, the καμάραι, or covered little carriages, or tents for prostitution (Herod. i. 199); but Beyer (Addit. ad Seld. p. 297) has very properly objected to this, that according to the context the reference is to idols or objects of idolatrous worship, which were set up in the בּמות בּית. It is more natural to suppose that small tent-temples are meant, which were set up as idols in the houses of the high places along with the images which they contained, since according to 2Ki 23:7 women wove בּתּים, little temples, for the Asherah, and Ezekiel speaks of patch-work Bamoth, i.e., of small temples made of cloth. It is possible, however, that there is more truth than is generally supposed in the view held by the Rabbins, that בּנות סכּות signifies an image of the “hen,” or rather the constellation of “the clucking-hen” (Gluckhenne), the Pleiades, - simulacrum gallinae coelestis in signo Tauri nidulantis, as a symbolum Veneris coelestis, as the other idols are all connected with animal symbolism. In any case the explanation given by Movers, involucra seu secreta mulierum, female lingams, which were handed by the hierodulae to their paramours instead of the Mylitta-money (Phöniz. i. p. 596), is to be rejected, because it is at variance with the usage of speech and the context, and because the existence of female lingams has first of all to be proved. For the different views, see Ges. thes. p. 952, and Leyrer in Herzog’s Cycl. - The Cuthaeans made themselves as a god, נרגּל, Nergal, i.e., according to Winer, Gesenius, Stuhr, and others, the planet Mars, which the Zabians call nerîg, Nerig, as the god of war (Codex Nasar, i. 212, 224), the Arabs mrrîx, Mirrig; whereas older commentators identified Nergal with the sun-god Bel, deriving the name from ניר, light, and גּל, a fountain = fountain of light (Selden, ii. 8, and Beyer, Add. pp. 301ff.). But these views are both of them very uncertain. According to the Rabbins (Rashi, R. Salomo, Kimchi), Nergal was represented as a cock. This statement, which is ridiculed by Gesenius, Winer, and Thenius, is proved to be correct by the Assyrian monuments, which contain a number of animal deities, and among them the cock standing upon an altar, and also upon a gem a priest praying in front of a cock (see Layard’s Nineveh). The pugnacious cock is found generally in the ancient ethnical religions in frequent connection with the gods of war (cf. J. G. Müller in Herzog’s Cycl.). עשׁימא, Ashima, the god of the people of Hamath, was worshipped, according to rabbinical statements, under the figure of a bald he-goat (see Selden, ii. 9). The suggested combination of the name with the Phoenician deity Esmun, the Persian Asuman, and the Zendic açmano, i.e., heaven, is very uncertain.

2Ki 17:31

Of the idols of the Avvaeans, according to rabbinical accounts in Selden, l.c., Nibchaz had the form of a dog (נבחז, latrator, from נבח), and Tartak that of an ass. Gesenius regards Tartak as a demon of the lower regions, because in Pehlwi tar - thakh signifies deep darkness or hero of darkness, and Nibchaz as an evil demon, the נבאז of the Zabians, whom Norberg in his Onomast. cod. Nasar. p. 100, describes as horrendus rex infernalis: posito ipsius throno ad telluris, i.e., lucis et caliginis confinium, sed imo acherontis fundo pedibus substrato, according to Codex Adami, ii. 50, lin. 12. - With regard to the gods of the Sepharvites, Adrammelech and Anammelech, it is evident from the offering of children in sacrifice to them that they were related to Moloch. The name אדרמּלך which occurs as a personal name in 2Ki 19:37 and Isa 37:38, has been explained either from the Semitic אדר as meaning “glorious king,” or from the Persian dr, ‛zr, in which case it means “fire-king,” and is supposed to refer to the sun (see Ges. on Isaiah, ii. p. 347). ענמּלך is supposed to be Hyde (de relig. vett. Persarum, p. 131) to be the group of stars called Cepheus, which goes by the name of “the shepherd and flock” and “the herd-stars” in the Oriental astrognosis, and in this case ענם might answer to the Arabic gnm = צאן. Movers, on the other hand (Phöniz. i. pp. 410, 411), regards them as two names of the same deity, a double-shaped Moloch, and reads the Chethîb סכרים אלה as the singular הסּפרום אל, the god of Sepharvaim. This double god, according to his explanation, was a sun-being, because Sepharvaim, of which he was πολιοῦχος, is designated by Berosus as a city of the sun. This may be correct; but there is something very precarious in the further assumption, that “Adar-Melech is to be regarded as the sun’s fire, and indeed, since Adar is Mars, that he is so far to be thought of as a destructive being,” and that Anammelech is a contraction of מלך עין, oculus Molechi, signifying the ever-watchful eye of Saturn; according to which Adrammelech is to be regarded as the solar Mars, Anammelech as the solar Saturn. The explanations given by Hitzig (on Isa. p. 437) and Benfey (die Monatsnamen, pp. 187, 188) are extremely doubtful.

2Ki 17:32

In addition to these idols, Jehovah also was worshipped in temples of the high places, according to the instructions of the Israelitish priest sent by the king of Assyria. יראים ויּהיוּ: “and they were (also) worshipping Jehovah, and made themselves priests of the mass of the people” (מקצותם as in 1Ki 12:31). להם עשׂים ויּהיוּ: “and they (the priests) were preparing them (sacrifices) in the houses of the high places.”

2Ki 17:33 2Ki 17:33 sums up by way of conclusion the description of the various kinds of worship.

2Ki 17:34-39

This mixed cultus, composed of the worship of idols and the worship of Jehovah, they retained till the time when the books of the Kings were written. “Unto this day they do after the former customs.” הראשׁנים המּשׁפּטים can only be the religious usages and ordinances which were introduced at the settlement of the new inhabitants, and which are described in 2Ki 17:28-33. The prophetic historian observes still further, that “they fear not Jehovah, and do not according to their statutes and their rights, nor according to the law and commandment which the Lord had laid down for the sons of Jacob, to whom He gave the name of Israel” (see 1Ki 18:31), i.e., according to the Mosaic law. חקּתם and משׁפּטם “their statutes and their right,” stands in antithesis to והמּצוה התּורה which Jehovah gave to the children of Israel. If, then, the clause, “they do not according to their statutes and their right,” is not to contain a glaring contradiction to the previous assertion, “unto this day they do after their first (former) rights,” we must understand by וּמשׁפּטם חקּתם the statutes and the right of the ten tribes, i.e., the worship of Jehovah under the symbols of the calves, and must explain the inexactness of the expression “their statutes and their right” from the fact that the historian was thinking of the Israelites who had been left behind in the land, or of the remnant of the Israelitish population that had become mixed up with the heathen settlers (2Ki 23:19-20; 2Ch 34:6, 2Ch 34:9, 2Ch 34:33). The meaning of the verse is therefore evidently the following: The inhabitants of Samaria retain to this day the cultus composed of the worship of idols and of Jehovah under the form of an image, and do not worship Jehovah either after the manner of the ten tribes or according to the precepts of the Mosaic law. Their worship is an amalgamation of the Jehovah image-worship and of heathen idolatry (cf. 2Ki 17:41). - To indicate the character of this worship still more clearly, and hold it up as a complete breach of the covenant and as utter apostasy from Jehovah, the historian describes still more fully, in 2Ki 17:35-39, how earnestly and emphatically the people of Israel had been prohibited from worshipping other gods, and urged to worship Jehovah alone, who had redeemed Israel out of Egypt and exalted it into His own nation. For 2Ki 17:35 compare Exo 20:5; for 2Ki 17:36, the exposition of 2Ki 17:7, also Exo 32:11; Exo 6:6; Exo 20:23; Deu 4:34; Deu 5:15, etc. In 2Ki 17:37 the committal of the thorah to writing is presupposed. For 2Ki 17:39, see Deu 13:5; Deu 23:15, etc.

2Ki 17:40-41

They did not hearken, however (the subject is, of course, the ten tribes), but they (the descendants of the Israelites who remained in the land) do after their former manner. הראשׁון משׁפּטם is their manner of worshipping God, which was a mixture of idolatry and of the image-worship of Jehovah, as in 2Ki 17:34. - In 2Ki 17:41 this is repeated once more, and the whole of these reflections are brought to a close with the additional statement, that their children and grandchildren do the same to this day. - In the period following the Babylonian captivity the Samaritans relinquished actual idolatry, and by the adoption of the Mosaic book of the law were converted to monotheism. For the later history of the Samaritans, of whom a small handful have been preserved to the present day in the ancient Sichem, the present Nablus, see Theod. Guil. Joh. Juynboll, commentarii in historiam gentis Samaritanae, Lugd. Bat. 1846, 4, and H. Petermann, Samaria and the Samaritans, in Herzog’s Cycl.

Samaria Besieged by the Assyrians; Israel Subdued by Assyria. (b. c. 730.)

1 In the twelfth year of Ahaz king of Judah began Hoshea the son of Elah to reign in Samaria over Israel nine years. 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. 3 Against him came up Shalmaneser king of Assyria; and Hoshea became his servant, and gave him presents. 4 And the king of Assyria found conspiracy in Hoshea: for he had sent messengers to So king of Egypt, and brought no present 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. 5 Then the king of Assyria came up throughout all the land, and went up to Samaria, and besieged it three years. 6 In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria, and placed them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.

We have here the reign and ruin of Hoshea, the last of the kings of Israel, concerning whom observe,

I. That, though he forced his way to the crown by treason and murder (as we read ch. xv. 30), yet he gained not the possession of it till seven or eight years after; for it was in the fourth year of Ahaz that he slew Pekah, but did not himself begin to reign till the twelfth year of Ahaz, v. 1. Whether by the king of Assyria, or by the king of Judah, or by some of his own people, does not appear, but it seems so long he was kept out of the throne he aimed at. Justly were his bad practices thus chastised, and the word of the prophet was thus fulfilled (Hos. x. 3), Now they shall say We have no king, because we feared not the Lord.

II. That, though he was bad, yet not so bad as the kings of Israel had been before him (v. 2), not so devoted to the calves as they had been. One of them (that at Dan), the Jews say, had been, before this, carried away by the king of Assyria in the expedition recorded ch. xv. 29, (to which perhaps the prophet refers, Hos. viii. 5, Thy calf, O Samaria! has cast thee off), which made him put the less confidence in the other. And some say that this Hoshea took off the embargo which the former kings had put their subjects under, forbidding them to go up to Jerusalem to worship, which he permitted those to do that had a mind to it. But what shall we think of this dispensation of providence, that the destruction of the kingdom of Israel should come in the reign of one of the best of its kings? Thy judgments, O God! are a great deep. God would hereby show that in bringing this ruin upon them he designed to punish, 1. Not only the sins of that generation, but of the foregoing ages, and to reckon for the iniquities of their fathers, who had been long in filing the measure and treasuring up wrath against this day of wrath. 2. Not only the sins of their kings, but the sins of the people. If Hoshea was not so bad as the former kings, yet the people were as bad as those that went before them, and it was an aggravation of their badness, and brought ruin the sooner, that their king did not set them so bad an example as the former kings had done, nor hinder them from reforming; he gave them leave to do better, but they did as bad as ever, which laid the blame of their sin and ruin wholly upon themselves.

III. That the destruction came gradually. They were for some time made tributaries before they were made captives to the king of Assyria (v. 3), and, if that less judgment had prevailed to humble and reform them, the greater would have been prevented.

IV. That they brought it upon themselves by the indirect course they took to shake off the yoke of the king of Assyria, v. 4. Had the king and people of Israel applied to God, made their peace with him and their prayers to him, they might have recovered their liberty, ease, and honour; but they withheld their tribute, and trusted to the king of Egypt to assist them in their revolt, which, if it had taken effect, would have been but to change their oppressors. But Egypt became to them the staff of a broken reed. This provoked the king of Assyria to proceed against them with the more severity. Men get nothing by struggling with the net, but entangle themselves the more.

V. That it was an utter destruction that came upon them. 1. The king of Israel was made a prisoner; he was shut up and bound, being, it is probable, taken by surprise, before Samaria was besieged. 2. The land of Israel was made a prey. The army of the king of Assyria came up throughout all the land, made themselves master of it (v. 5), and treated the people as traitors to be punished with the sword of justice rather than as fair enemies. 3. The royal city of Israel was besieged, and at length taken. Three years it held out after the country was conquered, and no doubt a great deal of misery was endured at that time which is not particularly recorded; but the brevity of the story, and the passing of this matter over lightly, methinks, intimate that they were abandoned of God and he did not now regard the affliction of Israel, as sometimes as he had done. 4. The people of Israel were carried captives into Assyria, v. 6. The generality of the people, those that were of any note, were forced away into the conqueror's country, to be slaves and beggars there. (1.) Thus he was pleased to exercise a dominion over them, and to show that they were entirely at his disposal. (2.) By depriving them of their possessions and estates, real and personal, and exposing them to all the hardships and reproaches of a removal to a strange country, under the power of an imperious army, he chastised them for their rebellion and their endeavour to shake off his yoke. (3.) Thus he effectually prevented all such attempts for the future and secured their country to himself. (4.) Thus he got the benefit of their service in his own country, as Pharaoh did that of their fathers; and so this unworthy people were lost as they were found, and ended as they began, in servitude and under oppression. (5.) Thus he made room for those of his own country that had little, and little to do, at home, to settle in a good land, a land flowing with milk and honey. In all these several ways he served himself by this captivity of the ten tribes. We are here told in what places of his kingdom he disposed of them—in Halah and Habor, in places, we may suppose, far distant from each other, lest they should keep up a correspondence, incorporate again, and become formidable. There, we have reason to think, after some time they were so mingled with the nations that they were lost, and the name of Israel was no more in remembrance. Those that forgot God were themselves forgotten; those that studied to be like the nations were buried among them; and those that would not serve God in their own land were made to serve their enemies in a strange land. It is probable that they were the men of honour and estates who were carried captive, and that many of the meaner sort of people were left behind, many of every tribe, who either went over to Judah or became subject to the Assyrian colonies, and their posterity were Galileans or Samaritans. But thus ended Israel as a nation; now they became Lo-ammi—not a people, and Lo-ruhamah—unpitied. Now Canaan spued them out. When we read of their entry under Hoshea the son of Nun who would have thought that such as this should be their exit under Hoshea the son of Elah? Thus Rome's glory in Augustus sunk, many ages after, in Augustulus. Providence so ordered the eclipsing of the honour of the ten tribes that the honour of Judah (the royal tribe) and Levi (the holy tribe), which yet remained, might shine the brighter. Yet we find a number sealed of every one of the twelve tribes (Rev. vii.) except Dan. James writes to the twelve tribes scattered abroad (Jam. i. 1) and Paul speaks of the twelve tribes which instantly served God day and night (Acts xxvi. 7); so that though we never read of those that were carried captive, nor have any reason to credit the conjecture of some (that they yet remain a distinct body in some remote corner of the world), yet a remnant of them did escape, to keep up the name of Israel, till it came to be worn by the gospel church, the spiritual Israel, in which it will ever remain, Gal. vi. 16.

The Wickedness of Israel. (b. c. 730.)

7 For so it was, that the children of Israel had sinned against the Lord their God, which had brought them up out of the land of Egypt, from under the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and had feared other gods, 8 And walked in the statutes of the heathen, whom the Lord cast out from before the children of Israel, and of the kings of Israel, which they had made. 9 And the children of Israel did secretly those things that were not right against the Lord their God, and they built them high places in all their cities, from the tower of the watchmen to the fenced city. 10 And they set them up images and groves in every high hill, and under every green tree: 11 And there they burnt incense in all the high places, as did the heathen whom the Lord carried away before them; and wrought wicked things to provoke the Lord to anger: 12 For they served idols, whereof the Lord had said unto them, Ye shall not do this thing. 13 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, 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. 14 Notwithstanding they would not hear, but hardened their necks, like to the neck of their fathers, that did not believe in the Lord their God. 15 And they rejected his statutes, and his covenant that he made with their fathers, and his testimonies which he testified against them; and they followed vanity, and became vain, and went after the heathen that were round about them, concerning whom the Lord had charged them, that they should not do like them. 16 And they left all the commandments of the Lord their God, and made them molten images, even two calves, and made a grove, and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served Baal. 17 And they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, and used divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the Lord , to provoke him to anger. 18 Therefore the Lord was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of his sight: there was none left but the tribe of Judah only. 19 Also Judah kept not the commandments of the Lord their God, but walked in the statutes of Israel which they made. 20 And the Lord rejected all the seed of Israel, and afflicted them, and delivered them into the hand of spoilers, until he had cast them out of his sight. 21 For he rent Israel from the house of David; and they made Jeroboam the son of Nebat king: and Jeroboam drave Israel from following the Lord , and made them sin a great sin. 22 For the children of Israel walked in all the sins of Jeroboam which he did; they departed not from them; 23 Until the Lord removed Israel out of his sight, as he had said by all his servants the prophets. So was Israel carried away out of their own land to Assyria unto this day.

Though the destruction of the kingdom of the ten tribes was but briefly related, it is in these verses largely commented upon by our historian, and the reasons of it assigned, not taken from the second causes—the weakness of Israel, their impolitic management, and the strength and growing greatness of the Assyrian monarch (these things are overlooked)—but only from the First Cause. Observe, 1. It was the Lord that removed Israel out of his sight; whoever were the instruments, he was the author of this calamity. It was destruction from the Almighty; the Assyrian was but the rod of his anger, Isa. x. 5. It was the Lord that rejected the seed of Israel, else their enemies could not have seized upon them, v. 20. Who gave Jacob for a spoil, and Israel to the robbers? Did not the Lord? Isa. xliii. 24. We lose the benefit of national judgments if we do not eye the hand of God in them, and the fulfilling of the scripture, for that also is taken notice of here (v. 23): The Lord removed Israel out of his favour, and out of their own land, as he had said by all his servants the prophets. Rather shall heaven and earth pass than one tittle of God's word fall to the ground. When God's word and his works are compared, it will be found not only that they agree, but that they illustrate each other. But why would God ruin a people that were raised and incorporated, as Israel was, by miracles and oracles? Why would he undo that which he himself had done at so vast an expense? Was it purely an act of sovereignty? No, it was an act of necessary justice. For, 2. They provoked him to do this by their wickedness. Was it God's doing? Nay, it was their own; by their way and their doings they procured all this to themselves, and it was their own wickedness that did correct them. This the sacred historian shows here at large, that it might appear that God did them no wrong and that others might hear and fear. Come and see what it was that did all this mischief, that broke their power and laid their honour in the dust; it was sin; that, and nothing else, separated between them and God. This is here very movingly laid open as the cause of all the desolations of Israel. He here shows,

I. What God had done for Israel, to engage them to serve him. 1. He gave them their liberty (v. 7): He brought them from under the hand of Pharaoh who oppressed them, asserted their freedom (Israel is my son), and effected their freedom with a high hand. Thus they were bound in duty and gratitude to be his servants, for he had loosed their bonds; nor would he that rescued them out of the hand of the king of Egypt have contradicted himself so far as to deliver them into the hand of the king of Assyria, as he did, if they had not, by their iniquity, betrayed their liberty and sold themselves. 2. He gave them their law, and was himself their king. They were immediately under a divine regimen. They could not plead ignorance of good and evil, sin and duty, for God had particularly charged them against those very things which here he charges them with (v. 15), That they should not do like the heathen. Nor could they be in any doubt concerning their obligation to observe the laws which they are here charged with rejecting, for they were the commandments and statutes of the Lord their God (v. 13), so that no room was left to dispute whether they should keep them or no. He had not dealt so with other nations, Ps. cxlvii. 19, 20. 3. He gave them their land, for he cast out the heathen from before them (v. 8), to make room for them; and the casting out of them for their idolatries was as fair a warning as could be given to Israel not to do like them.

II. What they had done against God, notwithstanding these engagements which he had laid upon them. 1. In general. They sinned against the Lord their God (v. 7), they did those things that were not right (v. 9), but secretly. So wedded were they to their evil practices that when they could not do them publicly, could not for shame or could not for fear, they would do them secretly—an evidence of their atheism, that they thought what was done in secret was from under the eye of God himself and would not be required. Again, they wrought wicked things in such a direct contradiction to the divine law that they seemed as if they were done on purpose to provoke the Lord to anger (v. 11), in contempt of his authority and defiance of his justice. They rejected God's statutes and his covenant (v. 15), would not be bound up either by his command or the consent they themselves had given to the covenant, but threw off the obligations of both, and therefore God justly rejected them, v. 20. See Hos. iv. 6. They left all the commandments of the Lord their God (v. 16), left the way, left the work, which those commandments prescribed them and directed them in. Nay, lastly, they sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the Lord, that is, they wholly addicted themselves to sin, as slaves to the service of those to whom they are sold, and, by their obstinately persisting in sin, so hardened their own hearts that at length it had become morally impossible for them to recover themselves, as one that has sold himself has put his liberty past recall. 2. In particular. Though they were guilty (no doubt) of many immoralities, and violated all the commands of the second table, yet nothing is here specified, but their idolatry. This was the sin that did most easily beset them; this was, of all sins, most provoking to God: it was the spiritual adultery that broke the marriage-covenant, and was the inlet of all other wickedness. Hence it is again and again mentioned here as the sin that ruined them. (1.) They feared other gods (v. 7), that is, worshipped them and paid their homage to them, as if they feared their displeasure. (2.) They walked in the statutes of the heathen, which were contrary to God's statutes (v. 8), did as did the heathen (v. 11), went after the heathen that were round about them (v. 15), so prostituting the honour of their peculiarity, and defeating God's design concerning them, which was that they should be distinguished from the heathen. Must those that were taught of God go to school to the heathen—those that were appropriated to God take their measures from the nations that were abandoned by him? (3.) They walked in the statutes of the idolatrous kings of Israel (v. 8), in all the sins of Jeroboam, v. 22. When their kings assumed a power to alter and add to the divine institutions they submitted to them, and thought the command of their kings would bear them out in disobedience to the command of their God. (4.) They built themselves high places in all their cities, v. 9. If in any place there was but the tower of the watchmen (a country tower that had no walls, but only a tower to shelter the watch in time of danger), or but a lodge for shepherds, it must be honoured with a high place, and that with an altar. If there was a fenced city, it must be further fortified with a high place. Having forsaken God's only place, they knew no end of high places, in which every man followed his own fancy and directed his devotion to what god he pleased. Sacred things were hereby profaned and laid common, when their altars were as heaps in the furrows of the field, Hos. xii. 11. (5.) They set them up images and groves—Asherim (even wooden images, so some think the term, which we translate groves, should be rendered) or Ashtaroth (so others)—directed contrary to the second commandment, v. 10. They served idols (v. 12), the works of their own hands and creatures of their own fancy, though God had warned them particularly not to do this thing. (6.) They burnt incense in all the high places, to the honour of strange gods, for it was to the dishonour of the true God, v. 11. (7.) They followed vanity. Idols are called so, because they could do neither good nor evil, but were the most insignificant things that could be; those that worshipped them were like unto them, and so they became vain and good for nothing (v. 16), vain in their devotions, which were brutish and ridiculous, and so became vain in their whole conversation. (8.) Besides the molten images, even the two calves, they worshipped all the host of heaven—the sun, moon, and stars: for it is not meant of the heavenly host of angels; they could not rise so far above sensible things as to think of them. And, withal, they served Baal, the deified heroes of the Gentiles, v. 16. (9.) They caused their children to pass through the fire, in token of their dedicating them to their idols. (10.) They used divinations and enchantments, that they might receive directions from the gods to whom they paid their devotions.

III. What means God used with them, to bring them off from their idolatries, and to how little purpose. He testified against them, showed them their sins and warned them of the fatal consequences of them by all the prophets and all the seers (for so the prophets had been formerly called), and pressed them to turn from their evil ways, v. 13. We have read of prophets, more or less, in every reign. Though they had forsaken God's family of priests, he did not leave them without a succession of prophets, who made it their business to teach them the good knowledge of the Lord, but all in vain (v. 14); they would not hear, but hardened their necks, persisted in their idolatries, and were like their fathers, that would not bow their necks to God's yoke, because they did not believe in him, did not receive his truths, nor would venture upon his promises: it seems to refer to their fathers in the wilderness; the same sin that kept them out of Canaan turned these out, and that was unbelief.

IV. How God punished them for their sins. He was very angry with them (v. 18); for, in the matter of his worship, he is a jealous God, and resents nothing more deeply than giving that honour to any creature which is due to himself only. He afflicted them (v. 20) and delivered them into the hand of spoilers, in the days of the judges and of Saul, and afterwards in the days of most of their kings, to see if they would be awakened by the judgments of God to consider and amend their ways; but, when all these corrections did not prevail to drive out the folly, God first rent Israel from the house of David, under which they might have been happy. As Judah was hereby weakened, so Israel was hereby corrupted; for they made a man king who drove them from following the Lord and caused them to sin a great sin, v. 21. This was a national judgment, and the punishment of their former idolatries; and, at length, he removed them quite out of his sight (v. 18, 23), without giving them any hopes of a return out of their captivity.

Lastly, Here is a complaint against Judah in the midst of all (v. 19): Also Judah kept not the commandments of God; though they were not as yet quite so bad as Israel, yet they walked in the statutes of Israel; and this aggravated the sin of Israel, that they communicated the infection of it to Judah; see Ezek. xxiii. 11. Those that bring sin into a country or family bring a plague into it and will have to answer for all the mischief that follows.

The Samaritans' Idolatry. (b. c. 720.)

24 And the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Ava, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel: and they possessed Samaria, and dwelt in the cities thereof. 25 And so it was at the beginning of their dwelling there, that they feared not the Lord : therefore the Lord sent lions among them, which slew some of them. 26 Wherefore they spake to the king of Assyria, saying, The nations which thou hast removed, and placed in the cities of Samaria, know not the manner of the God of the land: therefore he hath sent lions among them, and, behold, they slay them, because they know not the manner of the God of the land. 27 Then the king of Assyria commanded, saying, Carry thither one of the priests whom ye brought from thence; and let them go and dwell there, and let him teach them the manner of the God of the land. 28 Then one of the priests whom they had carried away from Samaria came and dwelt in Beth-el, and taught them how they should fear the Lord . 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. 30 And the men of Babylon made Succoth-benoth, and the men of Cuth made Nergal, and the men of Hamath made Ashima, 31 And the Avites made Nibhaz and Tartak, and the Sepharvites burnt their children in fire to Adrammelech and Anammelech, the gods of Sepharvaim. 32 So they feared the Lord , and made unto themselves of the lowest of them priests of the high places, which sacrificed for them in the houses of the high places. 33 They feared the Lord , and served their own gods, after the manner of the nations whom they carried away from thence. 34 Unto this day they do after the former manners: they fear not the Lord , neither do they after their statutes, or after their ordinances, or after the law and commandment which the Lord commanded the children of Jacob, whom he named Israel; 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: 36 But the Lord , who brought you up out of the land of Egypt with great power and a stretched out arm, him shall ye fear, and him shall ye worship, and to him shall ye do sacrifice. 37 And the statutes, and the ordinances, and the law, and the commandment, which he wrote for you, ye shall observe to do for evermore; and ye shall not fear other gods. 38 And the covenant that I have made with you ye shall not forget; neither shall ye fear other gods. 39 But the Lord your God ye shall fear; and he shall deliver you out of the hand of all your enemies. 40 Howbeit they did not hearken, but they did after their former manner. 41 So these nations feared the Lord , and served their graven images, both their children, and their children's children: as did their fathers, so do they unto this day.

Never was land lost, we say, for want of an heir. When the children of Israel were dispossessed, and turned out of Canaan, the king of Assyria soon transplanted thither the supernumeraries of his own country, such as it could well spare, who should be servants to him and masters to the Israelites that remained; and here we have an account of these new inhabitants, whose story is related here that we may take our leave of Samaria, as also of the Israelites that were carried captive into Assyria.

I. Concerning the Assyrians that were brought into the land of Israel we are here told, 1. That they possessed Samaria and dwelt in the cities thereof, v. 24. It is common for lands to change their owners, but sad that the holy land should become a heathen land again. See what work sin makes. 2. That at their first coming God sent lions among them. They were probably insufficient to people the country, which occasioned the beasts of the field to multiply against them (Exod. xxiii. 29); yet, besides the natural cause, there was a manifest hand of God in it, who is Lord of hosts, of all the creatures, and can serve his own purposes by which he pleases, small or great, lice or lions. God ordered them this rough welcome to check their pride and insolence, and to let them know that though they had conquered Israel the God of Israel had power enough to deal with them—that he could have prevented their settling here, by ordering lions into the service of Israel, and that he permitted it, not for their righteousness, but the wickedness of his own people—and that they were now under his visitation. They had lived without God in their own land, and were not plagued with lions; but, if they do so in this land, it is at their peril. 3. That they sent a remonstrance of this grievance to the king their master, setting forth, it is likely, the loss their infant colony had sustained by the lions and the continual fear they were in of them, and stating that they looked upon it to be a judgment upon them for not worshipping the God of the land, which they could not, because they knew not how, v. 26. The God of Israel was the God of the whole world, but they ignorantly call him the God of the land, apprehending themselves therefore within his reach, and concerned to be upon good terms with him. Herein they shamed the Israelites, who were not so ready to hear the voice of God's judgments as they were, and who had not served the God of that land, though he was the God of their fathers and their great benefactor, and though they were well instructed in the manner of his worship. Assyrians begged to be taught that which Israelites hated to be taught. 4. That the king of Assyria took care to have them taught the manner of the God of the land (v. 27, 28), not out of any affection to that God, but to save his subjects from the lions. On this errand he sent back one of the priests whom he had carried away captive. A prophet would have done them more good, for this was but one of the priests of the calves, and therefore chose to dwell at Bethel for old acquaintance' sake, and, though he might teach them to do better than they did, he was not likely to teach them to do well, unless he had taught his own people better. However, he came and dwelt among them, to teach them how they should fear the Lord. Whether he taught them out of the book of the law, or only by word of mouth, is uncertain. 5. That, being thus taught, they made a mongrel religion of it, worshipped the God of Israel for fear and their own idols for love (v. 33): They feared the Lord, but they served their own gods. They all agreed to worship the God of the land according to the manner, to serve the Jewish festivals and rites of sacrificing, but every nation made gods of their own besides, not only for their private use in their own families, but to be put in the houses of their high places, v. 9. The idols of each country are here named, v. 30, 31. The learned are at a loss for the signification of several of these names, and cannot agree by what representations these gods were worshipped. If we may credit the traditions of the Jewish doctors, they tell us that Succoth-Benoth was worshipped in a hen and chickens, Nergal in a cock, Ashima in a smooth goat, Nibhaz in a dog, Tartak in an ass, Adrammelech in a peacock, Anammelech in a pheasant. Our own tell us, more probably, that Succoth-Benoth (signifying the tents of the daughters) was Venus. Nergal, being worshipped by the Cuthites, or Persians, was the fire, Adrammelech and Anammelech were only distinctions of Moloch. See how vain idolaters were in their imaginations, and wonder at their sottishness. Our very ignorance concerning these idols teaches us the accomplishment of that word which God has spoken, that these false gods should all perish (Jer. x. 11); they are all buried in oblivion, while the name of the true God shall continue for ever. 6. This medley superstition is here said to continue unto this day (v. 41), till the time when this book was written and long after, above 300 years in all, till the time of Alexander the Great, when Manasse, brother to Jaddus the high priest of the Jews, having married the daughter of Sanballat, governor of the Samaritans, went over to them, got leave of Alexander to build a temple in Mount Gerizim, drew over many of the Jews to him, and prevailed with the Samaritans to cast away all their idols and to worship the God of Israel only; yet their worship was mixed with so much superstition that our Saviour told them they knew not what they worshipped, John iv. 22.

II. Concerning the Israelites that were carried into the land of Assyria. This historian has occasion to speak of them (v. 22), showing that their successors in the land did as they had done (after the manner of the nations whom they carried away), they worshipped both the God of Israel and those other gods; but what did the captives do in the land of their affliction? Were they reformed, and brought to repentance, by their troubles? No, they did after the former manner, v. 34. When the two tribes were afterwards carried into Babylon, they were cured by it of their idolatry, and therefore, after seventy years, they were brought back with joy; but the ten tribes were hardened in the furnace, and therefore were justly lost in it and left to perish. This obstinacy of theirs is here aggravated by the consideration, 1. Of the honour God had put upon them, as the seed of Jacob, whom he named Israel, and from him they were so named, but were a reproach to that worthy name by which they were called. 2. Of the covenant he made with them, and the charge he gave them upon that covenant, which is here very fully recited, that they should fear and serve the Lord Jehovah only, who had brought them up out of Egypt (v. 36), that, having received his statutes and ordinances in writing, they should observe to do them for evermore (v. 37), and never forget that covenant which God had made with them, the promises and conditions of that covenant, especially that great article of it which is here thrice repeated, because it had been so often inculcated and so much insisted on, that they should not fear other gods. He had told them that, if they kept close to him, he would deliver them out of the hand of all their enemies (v. 39); yet when they were in the hand of their enemies, and stood in need of deliverance, they were so stupid, and had so little sense of their own interest, that they did after the former manner (v. 40), they served both the true God and false gods, as if they knew no difference. Ephraim is joined to idols, let him alone. So they did, and so did the nations that succeeded them. Well might the apostle ask, What then, Are we better than they? No, in no wise, for both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin, Rom. iii. 9.