# comment

text:
<p>The king appointed the captain on whose hand he leaned to be in charge of the gate; and the people trod on him in the gate, and he died as the man of God had said when the king came down to him- </p><p>This means that in <a href='B:120 6:33'>2Ki 6:33</a>, the king himself and not just his messenger went down to Elisha's house, perhaps intending himself to have Elisha slain before his eyes.</p>


text:
<p>(It happened, as the man of God had spoken to the king saying, Two measures of barley for a shekel, and a measure of fine flour for a shekel, shall be tomorrow about this time in the gate of Samaria- </p><p>Perhaps this was the same open space where the false prophets had gathered and mocked Yahweh's words (<a href='B:110 22:10'>1Ki 22:10</a>).</p>


text:
<p>and that captain answered the man of God and said, Now, behold, if Yahweh should make windows in heaven, might such a thing be? And he said, Behold, you shall see it with your eyes, but shall not eat of it- </p><p>The fulfilment of the prophecy over the mocking of the captain is laboriously stressed. The implication is that there was such an urgent stampede that the man literally didn't have time to eat of the food. Although he was apparently the second in command (:2), he had not himself gone out to the camp of the Syrians. He remained inside the city until the food and spoil had been brought into it. He just didn't want to see God's word come true, even though it meant blessing for starving people. This was all due to pride, and the related fear of being proven wrong before God.</p>


text:
<p>It happened like that to him; for the people trod on him in the gate, and he died- </p><p>Death by trampling underfoot was seen as seen as a death of shame. Perhaps the people intentionally did this to him because he was trying to limit their access to the food, desperate by all means to stop the fulfilment of the prophecies which he had mocked. He may well have been the same officer as in <a href='B:120 8:6'>2Ki 8:6</a> (see note there and on <a href='B:120 8:1'>2Ki 8:1</a>), who had previously witnessed the accounts of the power of Elisha. He was therefore the more reprehensible and accountable for his mockery of Elisha's words.</p>


text:
<p>Now Elisha had spoken to the woman whose son he had restored to life, saying, Arise and go, you and your household, and stay for a while wherever you can; for Yahweh has called for a famine. It shall also come on the land seven years- </p><p>The famine of <a href='B:120 6:25'>2Ki 6:25</a> was because of the siege by the Syrians, but it seems the people didn't learn from the events of 2 Kings 7. The king and his captain had been in denial of the fulfilment of God's word right to the end. They were not reformed by the famine caused by siege, and so now a major famine is called for. We notice the contrast with how Elijah himself called for a famine (<a href='B:110 17:1'>1Ki 17:1</a>), "according to my word". Elisha seems to have reflected upon Elijah's arrogance which had led to his dismissal as the lead prophet. And he expresses the call for a famine in far more humble, God-centred words.</p><p>However, the record in Kings isn't chronological. We are given cameos from the ministry of Elisha arranged according to theme and not chronology:&nbsp; These seven years famine may be the famine of <a href='B:120 4:38'>2Ki 4:38</a>, which was at the very time that Elisha had restored this woman's son to life. This would explain why Gehazi was not yet a leper, and could freely talk with the king:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The woman arose, and did according to the word of the man of God. She went with her household, and lived in the land of the Philistines seven years- </p><p>This was a major act of obedience, especially as it resulted in living amongst the Philistines. Although she herself was likely&nbsp; Gentile, perhaps a Philistine. It is typical of God's grace that He would work with a Philistine, and a female- despised generally within Israelite society. The intention of the famine was to elicit repentance, and perhaps she was one of the few who had already repented and so didn't need the famine experience. "Seven years" may be an idiom or symbolic period and not literal.</p>


text:
<p>It happened after the seven years, that the woman returned out of the land of the Philistines. Then she went forth to plead to the king for her house and for her land- </p><p>It appears someone else had taken her land and house whilst she was away, and as a Philistine and a female head of house, apparently with no man around to plead for her, she was in a very weak position. It must have been through the good offices of Elisha that she even got a hearing with the king.</p>


text:
<p>Now the king was talking with Gehazi the servant of the man of God saying, Please tell me all the great things that Elisha has done- </p><p>I noted on :1 that the events in the record of Elisha's life aren't in chronological order. So if this happened at the time of <a href='B:120 4:38'>2Ki 4:38</a>, Gehazi was not yet a leper. However it could be that he repented and was healed of his leprosy, or that laws about lepers were not strictly enforced; we recall that Naaman as a leper had free access to his king and a place in Syrian society. And Gehazi would now be conducting his ministry with an appropriate sense of humility. King Jehoram is summarized overall as a wicked king, but perhaps he had some sense of conscience, and just as Herod was desirous to hear from John the Baptist, so he wished to learn more about Elisha's ministry.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, as he was telling the king how he had restored to life him who was dead, that the woman whose son he had restored to life, cried to the king for her house and for her land. Gehazi said, My lord, O king, this is the woman, and this is her son whom Elisha restored to life- </p><p>It was perhaps orchestrated by Elisha that the woman approached the king whilst Gehazi was before him. Otherwise we can see this as a typical outcome of the hand of providence. The restoration of dead man to life was clearly the most gripping of all the Elisha stories, and then the mother of the man appears on the scene. God was really trying to persuade the king of the power of His word. And yet ultimately he refused to accept it in his own life.</p>


text:
<p>When the king asked the woman, she told him. So the king appointed to her a certain officer saying, Restore all that was hers, and all the fruits of the field since the day that she left the land, even until now-</p><p>This latter provision was effectively a punishment for the person who had taken her land. Or it could be that the king himself had taken possession of the land, and now repents. This would explain the ease with which he rectifies the situation and can give the woman all the harvest she would otherwise have had in those seven years, which an ordinary farmer would not have been able to do. We wonder if this was the same officer of 2 Kings 7, seeing that the events are not arranged chronologically. In this case he was the more reprehensible for his mockery of Elisha's prophecy that food would be made instantly available during the siege of Samaria.</p>


text:
<p>Elisha came to Damascus; and Ben Hadad the king of Syria was sick. It was told him saying, The man of God has come here- </p><p>Ben Hadad is a generic term for the Syrian kings, like Pharaoh for the Egyptian rulers. As noted on :1, it is hard to work out exactly where this fits in to the chronological sequence. It could well have been after the events of Naaman in 2 Kings 5, seeing that the seven years famine began it seems at the time of <a href='B:120 4:38'>2Ki 4:38</a>. Elisha may well have also intended making a pastoral visit to his convert Naaman.</p>


text:
<p>The king said to Hazael, Take a present in your hand, and go, meet the man of God, and inquire of Yahweh by him, saying, ‘Will I recover from this sickness?’- </p><p>Hazael appears to have been the army commander. Depending upon the chronology (see on :1), he may have replaced Naaman, who as a convert to Yahweh wished to resign from his position or just fade out of the limelight of senior leadership. If this was after the events of 2 Kings 5, then he would have recalled how Naaman had been healed by Elisha. He lacks the faith to ask Elisha to heal him, although that may be implicit in his request. He took a present for Elisha as Naaman had done; and thanks to the deception of Gehazi, he would have been under the impression that Elisha had accepted a present for healing Naaman.</p>


text:
<p>So Hazael went to meet him, and took a present with him, even of every good thing of Damascus, forty camels’ burden, and came and stood before him and said, Your son Ben Hadad king of Syria has sent me to you, saying, ‘Will I recover from this sickness?’-</p><p>The language of good things, presents, camels and coming and standing before Elisha recalls how Naaman came with similar things and stood before Elisha's house, seeking healing. It seems almost certain that these things happened after the time of 2 Kings 5.</p>


text:
<p>Elisha said to him, Go, tell him, ‘You shall surely recover;’ however Yahweh has shown me that he shall surely die- </p><p>The word / Gospel will inevitably have a result, and yet it is also limited by the attitudes of men. The widow woman was told to borrow pots in which to place the oil which would be miraculously provided. The extent of the miracle was limited by the number and size of the pots she borrowed in faith. Or take <a href='B:120 8:10'>2Ki 8:10</a> AV: “Thou mayest certainly recover: howbeit the Lord hath shewed me that he shall surely die”. Ben-Hadad could recover, it was possible in prospect, but God knew he would not fulfil certain preconditions, and therefore he would not. Or the idea may be that Hazael is told to tell the dying king that he would recover, as a courtier was supposed to bring only good news; although in fact, he was going to die.</p>


text:
<p>He settled his gaze steadfastly on him, until he was ashamed. Then the man of God wept- </p><p>It is interesting to compare Elijah's attitude with how Elisha weeps tears over Hazael, knowing how much damage he is going to do to Israel in response to Elijah's prayer (<a href='B:120 8:12'>2Ki 8:12</a>). Yet significantly, Elijah doesn't actually do what he is told; he doesn't anoint Jehu nor Hazael to destroy Israel (<a href='B:120 9:3'>2Ki 9:3</a>). It's hard to decide whether this was disobedience or rather an awkward realization that he had been praying with too harsh a spirit for something that would have been best left to God. Elisha was effectively doing what Elijah ought to have done- anointing Hazael as king over Syria.</p>


text:
<p>Hazael said, Why do you weep, my lord? He answered, Because I know the evil that you will do to the children of Israel. You will set their strongholds on fire, kill their young men with the sword, dash in pieces their little ones and rip up their women with child- </p><p>The command to Elijah to anoint Hazael king over Syria (<a href='B:110 19:15'>1Ki 19:15</a>) was therefore part of God's intended judgments upon Israel for their sins. There is no specific record of Hazael doing this, but in the records of his attacks upon Israel we are therefore to assume that he did so at those times (<a href='B:120 10:32'>2Ki 10:32</a>; <a href='B:120 13:3'>2Ki 13:3</a>; <a href='B:120 13:22'>2Ki 13:22</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Hazael said, But what is your servant, is he a dog, that he should do this awful thing? Elisha answered, Yahweh has shown me that you will be king over Syria- </p><p>This may have been mere politeness to Elisha. He was indeed what Israel would call a "dog", a Gentile. His denial of this may mean that he wanted to give the impression that like Naaman whom he had replaced, he was a proselyte.</p>


text:
<p>Then he departed from Elisha, and came to his master, who said to him, What did Elisha say to you? He answered, He told me that you would surely recover- </p><p>This may have been a polite lie sanctioned by Elisha, or perhaps a literal repeat of Elisha's message, but only part of it. See on :10.</p>


text:
<p>It happened on the next day, that he took a thick cloth, dipped it in water, and spread it on his face, so that he died. Then Hazael reigned in his place-</p><p>If he had had true faith in the prophetic word, he would have surely waited for Hazael to die and then taken over from him. But on the other hand, he did believe what Elisha had said, and was impatient to get on and be the king Elisha said he would be. And so he forced the fulfilment of the prophecy by murdering Benhadad. LXX "coverlet" may mean he did it in such a way that it was not perceived as murder. For the body would have shown no signs of violence. We see here how a man can have both faith and unbelief within him at the same time. We are all the same, like the man who said he believed but asked for help with his unbelief (<a href='B:480 9:24'>Mar 9:24</a>).</p>


text:
<p>In the fifth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel, Jehoshaphat being king of Judah then, Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah began to reign- </p><p><a href='B:120 1:17'>2Ki 1:17</a> says Joram son of Ahab began reigning in the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat of Judah. It seems that Jehoram reigned alongside his father Jehoshaphat:&nbsp; Putting together <a href='B:110 22:42'>1Ki 22:42</a>; <a href='B:120 1:17'>2Ki 1:17</a>; <a href='B:120 3:1'>2Ki 3:1</a>; <a href='B:120 8:16'>2Ki 8:16</a>, Jehoram began reigning as regent in around the 17th year of Jehoshaphat, and yet he was reaffirmed as king two years before Jehoshaphat died (:17).</p>


text:
<p>He was thirty-two years old when he began to reign. He reigned eight years in Jerusalem- </p><p>Putting together <a href='B:120 1:17'>2Ki 1:17</a>; <a href='B:120 3:1'>2Ki 3:1</a>; <a href='B:120 8:3'>2Ki 8:3</a>; <a href='B:120 8:16'>2Ki 8:16</a>; <a href='B:140 21:5'>2Ch 21:5</a>; <a href='B:140 21:20'>2Ch 21:20</a>, it seems Jehoram became king as regent about two years before Jehoshaphat died.</p>


text:
<p>He walked in the way of the kings of Israel, as did the house of Ahab; for he had the daughter of Ahab as wife. He did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh- </p><p>His wife was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri (<a href='B:140 22:2'>2Ch 22:2</a>; <a href='B:120 8:26'>2Ki 8:26</a>). "Athaliah", 'Yah has constrained', may mean that she was bitter that Yahweh had as it were limited her; the same groundless complaint as in <a href='B:540 6:12'>2Co 6:12</a>.</p><p>Ahab's marriage to a Gentile was far worse than all the sins of Jeroboam; the idolatry, the perversion, the making of Israel sin; these were "a light thing" compared to the evil of marriage out of the faith (<a href='B:110 16:31'>1Ki 16:31</a>). That perspective on marriage out of the faith needs to be appreciated. And further, those who married the daughters of Ahab were led astray by them (<a href='B:120 8:18'>2Ki 8:18</a>; <a href='B:120 8:27'>2Ki 8:27</a>).</p>


text:
<p>However, Yahweh would not destroy Judah, for David His servant’s sake, as He promised him to give to him a lamp for his children always- </p><p>That promise was understood by God at this stage as meaning that a descendant of David would continue to reign on David's throne "always", and therefore He did not destroy Judah. However, He did eventually. He reinterpreted and reapplied His words of promise. And He does this often with the various possible futures prophesied. His word is not proven false but He reapplies it, as He continues His purpose with respect for the freewill decisions of man.</p>


text:
<p>In his days Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah, and made a king over themselves- </p><p>A sad decline from the situation in his father's time (<a href='B:140 17:10'>2Ch 17:10</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then Joram passed over to Zair, and all his chariots with him. He rose up by night, and struck the Edomites who surrounded him, and the captains of the chariots; and the people fled to their tents- </p><p>We note that horses and chariots were forbidden to Israel's king (<a href='B:50 17:17-18'>Deu 17:17-18</a>). Yet it seems that his chariots and captains prevailed against those of Edom, even when he was surrounded and about to be defeated. Perhaps this was a repeat of the situations of <a href='B:140 13:15'>2Ch 13:15</a>; <a href='B:140 18:31'>2Ch 18:31</a>, where weak believers in their time of need called to God when surrounded by enemies, and were heard. This reflects God's deep sensitivity to faith in Him, even in time of desperation. And yet His final judgment is of the state of a person's heart.</p>


text:
<p>So Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah to this day. Then Libnah revolted at the same time- </p><p>Libnah was a priestly city (<a href='B:130 6:47'>1Ch 6:47</a>), but the tribes seem to have given the Levites towns which were not particularly valuable to them, or which were exposed to attack. Contrary to the spirit of David, they offered to God that which cost them nothing. And we must take a lesson from that. Some manuscripts read “Then did the Edomites who dwelt in Libnah revolt”. So Libnah had been taken over by Edomites and was formerly only technically under Israelite control.</p>


text:
<p>The rest of the acts of Joram, and all that he did, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?- </p><p>This may not necessarily the same books we have in our Bibles known as 1 and 2 Chronicles.</p>


text:
<p>Joram slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David; and Ahaziah his son reigned in his place-</p><p>The description of death as sleeping with fathers is clear evidence that death is seen as a sleep, unconsciousness, and not as the start of an immortal soul going to heaven or 'hell'. Good and bad, David and Solomon, are gathered together in death. The division between them will only therefore come at the resurrection of the dead, and the granting of immortality at the judgment seat of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel, Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah began to reign- </p><p><a href='B:140 22:1'>2Ch 22:1</a> adds: "The inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his place; for the band of men who came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the older ones". It could be that this band of men had preserved Ahaziah and were seeking for him to be a puppet king for them. And the fact his mother immediately took the throne after his death hints again at this.</p>


text:
<p>Twenty-two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri king of Israel- </p><p>In fact the granddaughter of Omri. "Athaliah", 'Yah has constrained', may mean that she was bitter that Yahweh had as it were limited her; the same groundless complaint as in <a href='B:540 6:12'>2Co 6:12</a>. Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began to reign (<a href='B:120 8:26'>2Ki 8:26</a>), but 42 in <a href='B:140 22:2'>2Ch 22:2</a>. LXX has 20. But in Biblical Hebrew, numbers were expressed by single letters, and mem, forty, is very similar in orthography to caph, twenty. And that difference is even more probable in ancient Hebrew or 'Samaritan'. So this appears to be a case of where there were indeed slight errors in copying the Divinely inspired text.</p>


text:
<p>He walked in the way of the house of Ahab, and did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, as did the house of Ahab; for he was the son-in-law of the house of Ahab- </p><p><a href='B:140 22:3'>2Ch 22:3</a> adds: "He also walked in the ways of the house of Ahab; for his mother was his counsellor to do wickedly". </p><p>His father had done the same (<a href='B:140 21:6'>2Ch 21:6</a>). So much sin and spiritual failure is due to a refusal to individuate from parental influence and be an independent person before God. "Counsellor" suggests she specifically instructed him in the ways of idolatry; and it was by listening to the wrong counsel that Rehoboam went wrong when the kingdom of Judah first began (s:w. <a href='B:140 10:8-9'>2Ch 10:8-9</a>).</p>


text:
<p>He went with Joram the son of Ahab to war against Hazael king of Syria at Ramoth Gilead; and the Syrians wounded Joram- </p><p>Ahaziah was clearly intended to have learned from the experience of Jehoshaphat, who also went to war with Syria at Ramoth Gilead and was nearly slain there. He was only saved by grace, and afterwards experienced God's wrath for going there (<a href='B:140 16:2'>2Ch 16:2</a>). Circumstances and similarities repeat within our lives, and between our lives and those of people in the Biblical histories, in order that we might learn. Jehoram is called "Joram" within this same verse, perhaps because the name of God was no longer part of his name in practice.</p>


text:
<p>King Joram returned to be healed in Jezreel of the wounds which the Syrians had given him at Ramah, when he fought against Hazael king of Syria. Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah went down to see Joram the son of Ahab in Jezreel, because he was sick- </p><p>As noted on :28, Ahaziah failed to perceive the similarities with the situation of Jehoshaphat. And this was to lead to his death (<a href='B:120 9:27'>2Ki 9:27</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Elisha the prophet called one of the sons of the prophets and said to him, Put your belt on your waist, take this vial of oil in your hand, and go to Ramoth Gilead- </p><p>King Joram had gone away from the fighting to Jezreel, having been lightly wounded (so :15,21 imply- he was able to ride his chariot quite fine). This would not have sat well with the soldiers under Jehu who remained defending Ramoth Gilead, and so Jehu as the army commander was going to be a popular choice as next leader. Elijah had been told to anoint Jehu and Hazael, but it seems he did neither of those things, and Elisha is now doing it.</p>


text:
<p>When you come there, find Jehu the son of Jehoshaphat the son of Nimshi, and go in, and make him arise up from among his brothers, and carry him to an inner room- </p><p>Jehu was exalted from amongst his brethren as was the Lord Jesus Christ (<a href='B:50 18:18'>Deu 18:18</a>; <a href='B:230 45:7'>Psa 45:7</a>) and taken up into a chamber within a chamber (AVmg), cp. the most holy place / Heaven itself. There Jehu was anointed, made Lord and Christ, and then the people placed their garments underneath him (:13) and proclaimed him to the world as King of Israel. This symbolic incident teaches a clear lesson- the exaltation of Jesus should lead us to be witnesses for Him. The wonder and joy of it alone, that one of us, one of our boys, a man like us::. should be so exalted.</p>


text:
<p>Then take the vial of oil, and pour it on his head, and say, ‘Thus says Yahweh, I have anointed you king over Israel’. Then open the door, flee, and don’t wait- </p><p>Elijah doesn't actually do what he was told; he didn't personally anoint Jehu nor Hazael to destroy Israel (<a href='B:110 19:15'>1Ki 19:15</a>). It's hard to decide whether this was disobedience or rather an awkward realization that he had been praying with too harsh a spirit for judgment to come upon Israel, and didn't want it to come. The prophet was maybe told to leave immediately because Jehu was to be left to use his own initiative in how to take things forward now.</p>


text:
<p>So the young man, even the young man the prophet, went to Ramoth Gilead- </p><p>His being a "prophet" is stressed, because it was through the prophetic word that Jehu was to become king.</p>


text:
<p>When he came, behold, the captains of the army were sitting. Then he said, I have a message for you, captain. Jehu said, To which of us all here? He said, To you, O captain- </p><p>Jehu takes the initiative in asking the messenger to whom he is sent. This suggests he was already the de facto leader of the army captains now that the king had left the front and returned to Jezreel under the pretext of having had a slight wound:&nbsp; They were apparently sitting in a courtyard, perhaps having been discussing battle plans; for the prophet and Jehu now go "into the house" (:6).</p>


text:
<p>He arose, and went into the house. Then he poured the oil on his head and said to him, Thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel, ‘I have anointed you king over the people of Yahweh, even over Israel- </p><p>There is the reminder that God didn't really want human kings, and He was their real king. We also note that God considered Himself the king of the apostate ten tribes, just as much as over Judah through the Davidic line. All such divisions within God's people are not visible from God's perspective.</p>


text:
<p>You shall strike the house of Ahab your master, that I may avenge the blood of My servants the prophets, and the blood of all the servants of Yahweh, at the hand of Jezebel- </p><p>Ahab had apparently repented in humility and had been accepted. But this didn't mean that his family were not going to be punished for his sins; there were still consequences for his sins, not least because it seems they continued in his sins.</p>


text:
<p>For the whole house of Ahab shall perish. I will cut off from Ahab every male, both him who is shut up and him who is left at large in Israel- </p><p>"He who is shut up and he who is left free" is apparently an idiom referring to children still shut up at home, and those who are free to move about independently. The meaning would then be "young and old".</p>


text:
<p>I will make the house of Ahab like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and like the house of Baasha the son of Ahijah- </p><p>The extreme judgment pronounced was because of the great potentials God had enabled for Jeroboam (see <a href='B:110 11:38'>1Ki 11:38</a>; <a href='B:110 14:10'>1Ki 14:10</a>). But he refused to realize them. We live in an age of great potentials. We are generally literate, mobile, with easy access to God's word; and many members of the body of Christ live in relative ease and luxury, free from persecution. The potentials for service are far higher for the average believer today than they were centuries ago. So this issue of judgment according to wasted potentials is so relevant to our age. Baasha had failed to learn the lessons of Jeroboam and so he was judged in the same way (<a href='B:110 16:3-4'>1Ki 16:3-4</a>). And the house of Ahab had likewise not learned these lessons.</p>


text:
<p>The dogs will eat Jezebel on the plot of ground of Jezreel, and there shall be none to bury her’. He opened the door, and fled- </p><p>The "rampart" of Jezreel where Jezebel was to be eaten (<a href='B:110 21:23'>1Ki 21:23</a>) is s:w. "trench" in <a href='B:100 20:15'>2Sa 20:15</a>. It would refer to the trench immediately below the city wall. Jezebel was in a house on the city wall when she was thrown out of it (<a href='B:120 9:36-37'>2Ki 9:36-37</a>), and her body would have landed in the drainage ditch which was probably dry. Dogs wandered there looking for scraps of food thrown out of the windows of the houses on the city wall.</p>


text:
<p>Then Jehu came forth to the servants of his lord; and one said to him, Is all well? Why did this mad fellow come to you? He said to them, You know the man and what his talk was- </p><p>"You know the man", because he was dressed in the distinctive clothing of the prophets. Jehu tries to initially pass him off as a typical mad prophet, reflecting his disrespect of the prophetic word. See on :22,26,35,37. The prophets were often perceived as mad. And indeed the pressure upon them was great indeed. The psychological strengthening of the prophets (see on <a href='B:330 2:4-6'>Eze 2:4-6</a>) was absolutely necessary- for no human being can live in a constant state of inspiration without breaking. The composer Tchaikovsky commented: “If that condition of mind and soul, which we call inspiration, lasted long without intermission, no artist could survive it. The strings would break and the instruments be shattered into fragments” (Rosa Newmarch, The Life And Letters Of Peter Ilich Tchaikovsky (New York: Vienna House, 1973 ed:) pp. 274,275). The whole tremendous experience of having God’s mind in them, sharing His perspective, seeing the world through His eyes, made the prophets appear crazy to others. There’s a marked emphasis upon the fact that they were perceived as madmen (e:g. <a href='B:300 29:24'>Jer 29:24</a>; <a href='B:300 29:26'>Jer 29:26</a>; <a href='B:350 9:7'>Hos 9:7</a>; <a href='B:120 9:11'>2Ki 9:11</a>). For us to walk down a street for even ten minutes, feeling and perceiving and knowing the sin of every person in those rooms and houses and yards, feeling the weeping of God over each of them… would send us crazy. And yet God strengthened the prophets, and there’s no reason to think that He will not as it were strengthen us in our sensitivity too.</p>


text:
<p>They said, That is a lie. Tell us now. He said, He told me, ‘Thus says Yahweh, I have anointed you king over Israel’- </p><p>Although he appeared mad, they correctly perceived that he was not and that likely he was a prophet with a message. People have a way of perceiving Divine truth when they encounter it. What they later do with it, or whether they then deny it, is another question. We get the impression Jehu rather blurts out the absolute truth. The record has every ring of psychological credibility.</p>


text:
<p>Then they hurried, and took every man his garment, and put it under him on the top of the stairs and blew the trumpet, saying, Jehu is king-</p><p>As noted on :1, they were army captains who were disillusioned with Joram and were psychologically open to this prophetic message at this time- although not from spiritual motives:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>So Jehu the son of Jehoshaphat the son of Nimshi conspired against Joram. (Now Joram was keeping Ramoth Gilead, he and all Israel, because of Hazael king of Syria- </p><p>As noted on :1, Joram as king was commander in chief of the army, and was defending Ramoth Gilead against the Syrians under Hazael, whom God had anointed to judge Israel. Yet He was also working through Jehu to judge Joram and the house of Ahab.</p>


text:
<p>but king Joram had returned to be healed in Jezreel of the wounds which the Syrians had given him, when he fought with Hazael king of Syria). Jehu said, If this is your thinking, then let no one escape and go out of the city to go to tell it in Jezreel-</p><p>See on :1. Jehu clearly intended to kill Joram and so he didn't want him to have advanced warning. For he was in Jezreel. LXX "If your mind be with me" begins the theme we will see developed in :18, that Jehu was on an ego trip, and demanded people follow him personally (:18 etc:).</p>


text:
<p>So Jehu rode in a chariot, and went to Jezreel; for Joram lay there. Ahaziah king of Judah had come down to see Joram- </p><p><a href='B:140 22:7'>2Ch 22:7</a> comments: "Now the destruction of Ahaziah was of God, in that he went to Joram". This is not guilt by association, but rather a case of bad company resulting in sharing in the judgments of those we prefer to company with. </p><p>There are a number of other passages which mention how "it was of the Lord" that certain attitudes were adopted by men, resulting in the sequence of events which He desired (<a href='B:60 11:20'>Jos 11:20</a>; <a href='B:90 2:25'>1Sa 2:25</a>; <a href='B:110 12:15'>1Ki 12:15</a>; <a href='B:140 10:15'>2Ch 10:15</a>; <a href='B:140 22:7'>2Ch 22:7</a>; <a href='B:140 25:20'>2Ch 25:20</a>). It is tempting to read <a href='B:70 14:4'>Jdg 14:4</a> in this context, meaning that God somehow made Samson desire that woman in order to bring about His purpose of freeing Israel from Philistine domination. God through His Spirit works to confirm men in the path they wish to go. And this is the huge significance of the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives today.</p>


text:
<p>Now the watchman was standing on the tower in Jezreel, and he spied the company of Jehu as he came, and said, I see a company. Joram said, Take a horseman, and send to meet them, and let him say, ‘Is it peace?’- </p><p>The zoom of the Divine cameraman is close in on the scene. Jehu was clearly not alone and had taken some of the army with him from Ramoth Gilead. The one horseman is seen by us from the tower on the wall, drawing closer to the larger group racing toward him. We feel the atmosphere of foreboding and imminent tragedy.</p>


text:
<p>So there went one on horseback to meet him and said, Thus says the king, ‘Is it peace?’ Jehu said, What do you have to do with peace? Fall in behind me! The watchman said, The messenger came to them, but he isn’t coming back- </p><p>As noted on :15, there is a theme here of Jehu wanting people to follow him personally. He comes over as being on an ego trip, using the apparent service of God and judgment of apostacy as an opportunity to flaunt his own ego. And that is not unheard of today.</p>


text:
<p>Then he sent out a second on horseback, who came to them, and said, Thus says the king, ‘Is it peace?’ Jehu answered, What do you have to do with peace? Fall in behind me!- </p><p>Again "fall in behind me" suggests a man on an ego trip. See on :18; <a href='B:120 10:15'>2Ki 10:15</a>. Jehu was using the old argument 'We cannot have peace until we judge apostacy'. But like many who use that argument, they despise the concept of peace, when this is one of the fruits of the Spirit.</p>


text:
<p>The watchman said, He came to them, and isn’t coming back. The driving is like the driving of Jehu the son of Nimshi; for he drives angrily- </p><p>We sense the native anger of Jehu reflected in the style of driving and lack of care for his horses which was well know; but it was now apparently channeled into serving God by judging others. Again, this ancient character speaks to so many of our age, who use the judgment of apostacy as a mere vehicle for their own anger, rather than genuinely serving God to His glory.</p>


text:
<p>Joram said, Get ready! They got his chariot ready. Joram king of Israel and Ahaziah king of Judah went out, each in his chariot, and they went out to meet Jehu, and found him in the portion of Naboth the Jezreelite- </p><p><a href='B:140 22:7'>2Ch 22:7</a> says that Ahaziah "went out with Jehoram against Jehu"; perhaps not merely to meet him; although "against" can simply mean that they faced off against each other. See on :23. They met with Jehu almost as soon as leaving the palace, for they met at the vineyard of Naboth, which was next to Ahab's palace (<a href='B:110 21:1'>1Ki 21:1</a>). It was Divinely overruled that the meeting was at the vineyard of Naboth which Ahab had wrongfully stolen from him, as Joram had apparently not returned the land to Naboth's family. He was not penitent for the sins of his father but continued in them.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when Joram saw Jehu, that he said, Is it peace, Jehu? He answered, What peace, so long as the prostitution of your mother Jezebel and her witchcraft abound?- </p><p>The last time Joram had seen Jehu was at Ramoth Gilead, when they had been fighting against the Syrians together. Jehu realized that his Divine remit was to judge the family of Ahab and Jezebel for her Baal worship, and especially her encouragement of others to do it [her "prostitution"]. And yet Jehu as a typical member of the ten tribe kingdom was likely also an idolater, and had spoken most disparagingly of Yahweh's prophet in :22.</p>


text:
<p>Joram turned around to flee- </p><p>Just as Ahab his father did before being slain (<a href='B:110 22:34'>1Ki 22:34</a>).</p><p>And said to Ahaziah, There is treason, Ahaziah!- </p><p>This was the first Joram had sensed, it seems, of the putsch. He had presumably assumed that Jehu was racing towards Jezreel with news of events from the conflict with the Syrians at Ramoth Gilead. He may have been giving Ahaziah a chance to get away, as Ahaziah did manage to flee (:27) and managed to hide in Samaria before being found (<a href='B:140 22:9'>2Ch 22:9</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Jehu drew his bow with his full strength, and struck Joram between his arms; and the arrow went out at his heart, and he sunk down in his chariot- </p><p>LXX "Sunk down upon his knees". He was finally humbled, all too late. We sense Jehu's great physical strength, and his dependence upon that rather than God's strength. He comes over as strong, angry (see on :20), judgmental and on a massive ego trip (see on :18,19).</p>


text:
<p>Then Jehu said to Bidkar his captain, Pick him up, and throw him in the plot of the field of Naboth the Jezreelite; for remember how, when you and I rode together after Ahab his father, Yahweh laid this burden on him- </p><p>Jehu and Bidkar had been with Ahab when he went to take possession of Naboth's vineyard, and would have heard Elijah's words to Ahab.</p>


text:
<p>‘Surely I have seen yesterday the blood of Naboth, and the blood of his sons’, says Yahweh; ‘and I will repay you in this plot of ground’, says Yahweh. Now therefore take and cast him onto the plot of ground, according to the word of Yahweh- </p><p>This reported speech is not actually a quotation but rather an interpretation of <a href='B:110 21:19'>1Ki 21:19</a>. Again we see Jehu not really respecting the word of Yahweh which he claimed to be so obedient to. See on :11,22. The taking possession of the vineyard by Ahab was apparently in the sense of permanently having the vineyard registered in his name. For he could have leased it from Naboth until the next Jubilee year. And possibly renewed the lease after that. But Ahab was so obsessive about what he wanted. He wanted the vineyard as his permanent possession. This was why Naboth had to be killed, along with his sons (as we learn only here) so that they would not have any argument for inheriting it later. Ahab reasoned in a very long term manner, forgetting his own mortality. He 'just loved the idea' not only of the vineyard, but of adding it to his inheritance. And so Naboth and his sons had to die, and the people and leaders of Jezreel led into major sin. And yet legally it is hard to see how he could have added it to his inheritance, unless he was some relative of Naboth. So all the drama was to obtain a piece of legal documentation that was always going to be questionable as to its validity.</p>


text:
<p>But when Ahaziah the king of Judah saw this, he fled by the way of the garden house. Jehu followed after him, and said, Strike him also in the chariot!- </p><p>It seems however that he escaped from his chariot. <a href='B:140 22:9'>2Ch 22:9</a> says that Jehu "Sought Ahaziah, and they caught him (now he was hiding in Samaria), and they brought him to Jehu, and killed him". Putting the records together, it seems that Ahaziah fled in his chariot through the garden house road (<a href='B:120 9:27'>2Ki 9:27</a>), avoiding Jehu's call to slay him in his chariot. He got to Samaria and hid somewhere, Jehu's men searched for him and found him (<a href='B:140 22:9'>2Ch 22:9</a>), brought him to Jehu who was then "by Ibleam" (<a href='B:120 9:27'>2Ki 9:27</a>), who struck him so hard that he eventually died of it, but he managed to again escape in his chariot to Megiddo, where he died of the wounds inflicted by Jehu.</p><p>They struck him at the ascent of Gur, which is by Ibleam. He fled to Megiddo, and died there- </p><p>In the list of cities given to the Levites, this is called "Bileam". "Bileam" means 'not of the people', called Ibleam, <a href='B:70 1:27'>Jdg 1:27</a>; <a href='B:120 9:27'>2Ki 9:27</a>, and in <a href='B:60 21:25'>Jos 21:25</a>, Gath-rimmon. Perhaps it is called "Bileam" in <a href='B:130 6:70'>1Ch 6:70</a> because it continues the theme that the tribes of Israel may have somehow manipulated the lots so that they gave less valuable cities to the Levites, or even cities which weren't theirs, thereby breaking the foundation principle of <a href='B:100 24:24'>2Sa 24:24</a>.</p>


text:
<p>His servants carried him in a chariot to Jerusalem, and buried him in his tomb with his fathers in the city of David- </p><p><a href='B:140 22:9'>2Ch 22:9</a> adds: "They buried him, for they said, He is the descendant of Jehoshaphat, who sought Yahweh with all his heart".</p>


text:
<p>In the eleventh year of Joram the son of Ahab began Ahaziah to reign over Judah-</p><p>Ahaziah was Ahab's grandson because of the intermarriage between the rulers of Israel and Judah. So Jehu did have a commission to kill him. But it would seem from <a href='B:140 22:7'>2Ch 22:7</a> that Ahaziah could have avoided this had he not shown unity with Joram by visiting him when he was sick. Such is the flexibility of God's purpose, with so many potentials built into it, ever respecting the possibility of human repentance.</p>


text:
<p>When Jehu had come to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of it; and she painted her eyes, and attired her head, and looked out at the window- </p><p>Presumably this means she placed the crown upon her head. It seems the royal palace was on the wall of the city by the gate (:31), with Naboth's vineyard just next to it but outside the city limits (<a href='B:110 21:1'>1Ki 21:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>As Jehu entered in at the gate she said, Do you come in peace, Zimri, you murderer of your master?- </p><p>Zimri had slain his master some time before and was famed for it (<a href='B:110 16:9-20'>1Ki 16:9-20</a>). So she is effectively calling Jehu "You Zimri!", pointing out that servants who slay their masters never have peace. Zimri slew all the male descendants of Baasha in fulfilment of God's word, and Jezebel was surely aware that Ahab was under the same judgment. She is arrogant to the end, saying that the man who fulfilled Yahweh's word (as Jehu was about to) had no peace. For he committed suicide after reigning only seven days.</p>


text:
<p>He lifted up his face to the window and said, Who is on my side? Who? Two or three eunuchs looked out at him-</p><p>Again, Jehu expresses things in terms of people being on his side and following him personally; see on :18,19. The reference to "two or three" may allude to how two or three witnesses were required to condemn (<a href='B:50 17:6'>Deu 17:6</a>; <a href='B:50 19:15'>Deu 19:15</a>).</p>


text:
<p>He said, Throw her down! So they threw her down; and some of her blood was sprinkled on the wall, and on the horses. Then he trampled her under foot- </p><p>The blood on the wall suggests she may have put up a struggle and the eunuchs had attacked her, leaving her bleeding. To trample under foot was to despise.</p>


text:
<p>When he had come in, he ate and drank; and he said, See now to this cursed woman, and bury her; for she is a king’s daughter- </p><p>The eating and drinking was a sign of having taken power, and was likely a small feast to celebrate himself as king. Clearly Jezebel had no supporters amongst her retainers. She was daughter of Ethbaal, king of Sidon. By wanting to bury her, Jehu showed his lack of knowledge or respect of the word of Divine judgment against her, which said she would not be buried (:37). And yet he claimed to be so zealous in fulfilling it. Clearly he was grabbing hold of bits and pieces of God's word, and seeking to fulfil them as an excuse for giving his own ego and blood lust full reign. He is so similar to over zealous 'defenders of the faith' of our age.</p>


text:
<p>They went to bury her; but they found no more of her than the skull, and the feet, and the palms of her hands- </p><p>Nobody was concerned with her corpse, showing how unpopular she was. Nobody chased the wild dogs away from eating her. She is set up as representative of all whom God will finally reject, cast out of the city to the wild dogs in the rubbish tip in the small valley beneath the city walls (:36). And nobody will feel sorry for them. In the last day, we will see things differently, and from God's perspective. All questions about God's justice will evaporate.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore they came back, and told him. He said, This is the word of Yahweh which He spoke by His servant Elijah the Tishbite saying, ‘The dogs will eat the flesh of Jezebel on the plot of Jezreel- </p><p>The "rampart" of Jezreel where Jezebel was to be eaten (<a href='B:110 21:23'>1Ki 21:23</a>) is s:w. "trench" in <a href='B:100 20:15'>2Sa 20:15</a>. It would refer to the trench immediately below the city wall. Jezebel was in a house on the city wall when she was thrown out of it (<a href='B:120 9:36-37'>2Ki 9:36-37</a>), and her body would have landed in the drainage ditch which was probably dry. Dogs wandered there looking for scraps of food thrown out of the windows of the houses on the city wall.</p>


text:
<p>and the body of Jezebel shall be as dung on the face of the field in the portion of Jezreel, so that they shall not say, This is Jezebel’- </p><p>Jehu clearly intended to give her some kind of burial (see on :35), but this was not according to the very prophetic word which Jehu claimed to be so zealous to fulfil. He comes over as consistently insincere and not truly respectful of God's word. See on :11.</p>


text:
<p>Now Ahab had seventy sons in Samaria. Jehu wrote letters and sent to Samaria, to the rulers of Jezreel, even the elders, and to those who brought up the sons of Ahab, saying- </p><p>As noted throughout 2 Kings 9, Jehu now had blood lust, and his huge ego sought to fulfil it through the excuse that he was obeying God's word against Ahab. He was indeed fulfilling that word, but he didn't respect Yahweh's word in his heart (see on <a href='B:120 9:11'>2Ki 9:11</a>; <a href='B:120 9:35'>2Ki 9:35</a>; <a href='B:120 9:37'>2Ki 9:37</a>). "Samaria" is used for the region, as some were killed in Jezreel (:11). Although the rulers of Jezreel were apparently in Samaria at the time, unless we read with LXX "the rulers of Samaria":&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Now as soon as this letter comes to you, since your master’s sons are with you, and there are with you chariots and horses, a fortified city also, and armour- </p><p>This confirms that despite the unclarity of :1, the city of Samaria is in view. For at this time, Jehu was in Jezreel, and also needing to take care of the war in Ramoth Gilead.</p>


text:
<p>Select the best and fittest of your master’s sons, set him on his father’s throne, and fight for your master’s house- </p><p>This shows again Jehu's self confidence and trust in human strength. He was challenging any who supported the house of Ahab to set a descendant of Ahab on the throne, and enter into a civil war with him and the Israelite military, who were all under his control at Ramoth Gilead. We note that he was thereby prepared to surrender control of Ramoth Gilead, to cease fighting the Syrians, in order that he might fight his own brethren in order to establish his own personal power base.</p>


text:
<p>But they were exceedingly afraid and said, Behold, the two kings didn’t stand before him! How then shall we stand?- </p><p>It was known that he had recently murdered Ahaziah of Judah as well as Joram of Israel. He had done this almost singlehanded. But see on :7.</p>


text:
<p>He who was over the household, and he who was over the city, the elders also, and those who raised the children, sent to Jehu saying, We are your servants, and will do all that you ask us. We will not make any man king. You do that which is good in your eyes- </p><p>It was typical after a power grab to slay the entire family of the ousted king. These men knew well enough what was required of them, and they agree.</p>


text:
<p>Then he wrote a letter the second time to them saying, If you are on my side, and if you will listen to my voice, take the heads of the men your master’s sons, and come to me to Jezreel by tomorrow this time. Now the king’s sons, being seventy persons, were with the great men of the city who brought them up- </p><p>The Philistines in <a href='B:90 29:4'>1Sa 29:4</a> recalled how David had carried the head of Goliath to Saul (<a href='B:90 17:57'>1Sa 17:57</a>). To carry the heads of a king's enemies was a way to get the king's favour, as in <a href='B:70 7:25'>Jdg 7:25</a>; <a href='B:100 4:8'>2Sa 4:8</a>; <a href='B:100 16:9'>2Sa 16:9</a>; <a href='B:100 20:21'>2Sa 20:21</a>; <a href='B:120 10:6-8'>2Ki 10:6-8</a>. Again we see the inspired, historical record has consistency. It would have required a clever editor to insert this theme of beheading to curry a leader's favour throughout the entire Biblical record. But the histories were clearly written at different times; a later hand would not have thought of all these realistic touches to sprinkle so consistently throughout it. The internal harmony of the Bible is to me the greatest indication that it is what it claims to be, the Divinely inspired word of God, evidencing His editing throughout.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when the letter came to them, that they took the king’s sons and killed them, all seventy persons, and put their heads in baskets, and sent them to him to Jezreel- </p><p>It was only a few hours journey from Samaria to Jezreel. They did this all on the basis of the fact he had killed two kings (:4). But they likely imagined that had been on the basis of a battle, when in fact Jehu had effectively assassinated unsuspecting men. The two kings had rushed out to meet him without their body guards, assuming that he as their inferior and army general was bringing news from the battle front. So all on the basis of rumour and exaggerated impressions, the elders of Samaria killed 70 children of Ahab. This is the kind of thing which goes on all the time- people taking major decisions on the basis of fake news and exaggerated impressions and fears.</p>


text:
<p>A messenger came and told him, They have brought the heads of the king’s sons. He said, Lay them in two heaps at the entrance of the gate until the morning- </p><p>This was to display them openly, in order to make openly clear his hold on power.</p>


text:
<p>It happened in the morning, that he went out and stood and said to all the people, You are righteous. Behold, I conspired against my master, and killed him; but who struck all these?-</p><p>Jehu consistently appears out of step with God's principles. It is for God and not men like Jehu to pronounce His people as just / righteous. The heaps of young heads would have been grotesque. Jehu's argument is that he indeed has killed his master, but who killed these 70 young men and boys? Not him, but the elders of Samaria who had raised them and now supported him over Ahab. It was clever enough as a political statement, but is very spiritually deficient. For the grosser sin of others doesn't remove nor justify our sins. And Jehu ought to have reasoned that in humility he had fulfilled God's word about Ahab's family, rather than seeking to justify it by such mind games.</p>


text:
<p>Know now that nothing shall fall to the earth of the word of Yahweh, which Yahweh spoke concerning the house of Ahab. For Yahweh has done that which He spoke by His servant Elijah- </p><p>Time and again we are brought to realize that the same external action can be judged by God quite differently, according to our motives. Uzziah was condemned for acting as a priest; when David did the same, he was reflecting his spirituality. God commanded Jehu to perform the massacre of Ahab's family at Jezreel, and blessed him for it (<a href='B:120 10:10'>2Ki 10:10</a>; <a href='B:120 10:29-30'>2Ki 10:29-30</a>); and yet <a href='B:350 1:4'>Hos 1:4</a> condemns the house of Jehu for doing that. Why? Presumably because their later attitude to that act of obedience was wrong, and the act therefore became judged as God as something which brought just punishment on the house of Jehu many years later. Why? Because even an outward act of obedience, when perceived through wrong motives and feelings, becomes an act of sin and a basis even for condemnation. All our works need careful analysis once we grasp this point.</p>


text:
<p>So Jehu struck all that remained of the house of Ahab in Jezreel, with all his great men, his familiar friends, and his priests, until he left him none remaining- </p><p>The Divine commission was to destroy the male descendants of Ahab, but Jehu excuses his blood lust in the name of serving God. And right wing Christian extremists have and still do the same. Even though there is actually a lack of understanding and respect for the Divine word they claim to be fulfilling (see on <a href='B:120 9:11'>2Ki 9:11</a>; <a href='B:120 9:35'>2Ki 9:35</a>; <a href='B:120 9:37'>2Ki 9:37</a>). We note Jehu killed Ahab's personal priests, which suggests Ahab's repentance was not very thorough.</p>


text:
<p>He arose and departed, and went to Samaria. As he was at the shearing house of the shepherds on the way- </p><p>This probably referred to some inn where the brothers of Ahaziah were staying for the night:&nbsp; RV margin "‘house of gathering", where the sheep were gathered before slaughter, and so Jehu likes to imagine this is a providential hint that he should kill these people there. Such imagination of 'the hand of providence' is common amongst those who set themselves on a supposed path of fulfilling God's word, without really doing so from the heart and with full understanding.</p>


text:
<p>Jehu met with the brothers of Ahaziah king of Judah and said, Who are you? They answered, We are the brothers of Ahaziah. We are going down to greet the children of the king and the children of the queen- </p><p>Ahaziah was grandson of Ahab, so they were relatives of Ahab. But the Divine commission had been to destroy his male descendants. Jehu is seeking to justify his own blood lust by apparently generously interpreting that commission. These men were obviously ignorant of the putsch, and we have to remember that they were living in an age where communication was difficult. The "queen" is better 'the queen mother' (as <a href='B:110 15:13'>1Ki 15:13</a>), referring to Jezebel.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Take them alive! They took them alive, and killed them at the pit of the shearing house, even forty-two men. He didn’t leave any of them- </p><p>This seems to suggest Jehu originally thought of taking them captives, but then killed them in the cistern (RVmg:) where the sheep were washed before shearing or slaughter. His change of plan shows that he was far from clear in his understanding of the Divine commission.</p>


text:
<p>When he had departed from there, he met Jehonadab the son of Rechab coming to meet him. He greeted him and said to him, Is your heart right, as my heart is with your heart? Jehonadab answered, It is. If it is, give me your hand. He gave him his hand; and he took him up to him into the chariot- </p><p>The Rechabites were part of the Kenites (<a href='B:130 2:55'>1Ch 2:55</a>), from where Moses' wife came (<a href='B:70 1:16'>Jdg 1:16</a>). Jael was married to a Kenite (<a href='B:70 4:17'>Jdg 4:17</a>), and they were not slain along with the Amalekites (<a href='B:90 15:6'>1Sa 15:6</a>). They were clearly a nomadic, spiritually minded family (<a href='B:300 35:6-7'>Jer 35:6-7</a>). It seems there is a purposeful juxtaposition here, between the truly spiritual person and Jehu, whose zeal for Yahweh was clearly only superficial, and was a justification of his own pride and ego. Jehu asks Jehonadab to be of his own "heart", because his heart is "right". Again we see the same spirit as in <a href='B:120 9:18-19'>2Ki 9:18-19</a>. To follow God meant following Jehu personally, and we sense his desire for power and leadership everywhere in this.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Come with me, and see my zeal for Yahweh. So they made him ride in his chariot- </p><p>This so obviously smacks of pride, and exhibiting human pride and strength under the cover of 'I am doing this for Yahweh'. And this is to be seen so often in misguided religious attempts to serve self in the name of serving God. I noted on :15 the intended contrast between Jehonadab and Jehu; and Jehu makes him ride in his chariot, as if this was agreed to reluctantly by Jehonadab.</p>


text:
<p>When he came to Samaria, he struck all who remained to Ahab in Samaria, until he had destroyed him, according to the word of Yahweh, which He spoke to Elijah-</p><p>If he had been truly zealous for Yahweh, he would have removed the calves in Dan and Bethel. But instead he seemed interested in murdering people, on the mistaken basis of some kind of guilt by association ethic. It could be that we are intended to read this as meaning 'according to his interpretation of the word of Yahweh', because his massacre of anyone remotely associated with Ahab was not what the Divine command had stated. He was using God's word, as many do, to justify his own native desire for power and abuse of others.</p>


text:
<p>Jehu gathered all the people together and said to them, Ahab served Baal a little; but Jehu will serve him much- </p><p>The gathering of all the Baal worshippers together was meant to imitate Elijah on Carmel, whose words Jehu claimed to be fulfilling. But Elijah was clear that he was not a Baal worshipper, and would never have used this kind of deceit which Jehu did. His claim that he personally wanted to hold a feast to Baal had credibility and people attended because of it- because he was well known himself as a Baal worshipper. His hypocrisy was awful.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore call to me all the prophets of Baal, all of his worshippers, and all of his priests. Let none be absent; for I have a great sacrifice to Baal. Whoever is absent, he shall not live. But Jehu did it in subtlety, intending that he might destroy the worshippers of Baal- </p><p>As noted on :19, he had clearly been a Baal worshipper because his invitation had credibility and was responded to. Threatening to murder any who didn't attend again reflects the bloodlust with which Jehu appears to now be drunk with. The word "subtlety" suggests he was as the serpent in Eden and not acting as he ought to have done. LXX "Now, O ye prophets of Baal, call ye unto me all his servants" would further underline that he had absolutely solid credibility with them as a Baal worshipper, who had only slain Ahab's personal prophets because he was destroying Ahab's inner circle. We note that he proclaims he is doing this in accord with Yahweh's word to Elijah (:17). And yet he can also credibly announce that he is a Baal worshipper. This again shows how Baal worship was practiced as a form of Yahweh worship. This has been the perennial problem for God's people; to claim to serve God through serving the flesh, to mix Divine truth with pagan error. See on :20,21.</p>


text:
<p>Jehu said, Sanctify a solemn assembly for Baal! They proclaimed it- </p><p>This is the very word used of proclaiming feasts and assemblies of Yahweh (<a href='B:360 1:14'>Joe 1:14</a>; <a href='B:30 23:36'>Lev 23:36</a>; <a href='B:40 29:35'>Num 29:35</a>; <a href='B:50 16:8'>Deu 16:8</a>; <a href='B:160 8:18'>Neh 8:18</a>). As noted on :19, he was mixing paganism with Yahweh worship. Feasts to Baal were seen as fulfilling the commands to hold feasts to Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>Jehu sent through all Israel; and all the worshippers of Baal came, so that there was not a man left that didn’t come. They came into the house of Baal; and the house of Baal was filled from one end to the other- </p><p>Again we note that the credibility of Jehu's appeal was only because he must have been a known worshipper of Baal. This "house of Baal" must have been huge, and was likely an imitation of the Jerusalem temple. For the nature of Baal worship was that it was understood as a form of Yahweh worship; see on :19.</p>


text:
<p>He said to him who was over the vestry, Bring out robes for all the worshippers of Baal! He brought robes out to them- </p><p>As noted on :21, this house of Baal was an imitation of the Jerusalem temple, which also had rooms where the priestly robes were kept (see on <a href='B:120 22:14'>2Ki 22:14</a>). See on :19.</p>


text:
<p>Jehu went with Jehonadab the son of Rechab into the house of Baal. Then he said to the worshippers of Baal, Search, and look that there are here with you none of the servants of Yahweh, but the worshippers of Baal only- </p><p>We get the impression that the humble, spiritually minded Jehonadab would not have approved of this deceit, and just as he had been "made" to ride in Jehu's chariot, so he was being used here. The demand that any worshipper of Yahweh should leave would mean that really Jehonadab and Jehu ought to have themselves exited. The whole situation was unethical, and Jehonadab, like many good men, was railroaded into it. I have shown on :19-22 that Baal worship was seen as a form of Yahweh worship. So "the servants of Yahweh" would be a technical term here for those known to insist upon only worshipping Yahweh and who rejected Baal worship.</p>


text:
<p>They went in to offer sacrifices and burnt offerings. Now Jehu had appointed him eighty men outside and said, If any of the men whom I bring into your hands escape, he who lets him go, his life shall be for the life of him- </p><p>If the house of Baal was so packed, we wonder whether 80 men were really enough to kill all the hundreds or thousands of Baal worshippers inside it. But numbers in the Hebrew Bible are often not to be read literally, especially when used in connection with numbers of soldiers. This could refer to a group or division of soldiers called 'an eighty'.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, as soon as he had made an end of offering the burnt offering, that Jehu said to the guard and to the captains, Go in, and kill them! Let none escape- </p><p>It seems Jehu himself offered the offering, as if he were the high priest of Baal. As noted above, he could only have done this if he were well known as a senior Baal worshipper.</p><p>They struck them with the edge of the sword; and the guard and the captains cast them out, and went into the inner room of the house of Baal- </p><p>The house of Baal appears to have been an imitation of the house of Yahweh in Jerusalem. It also had an "inner room", corresponding to the most holy place. See on :19.</p>


text:
<p>They brought out the pillars that were in the house of Baal, and burned them- </p><p>As there were "pillars" associated with the Jerusalem temple, so there were with this house of Baal. See on :19. However these pillars were burned, meaning they were made of wood, which as a fertility symbol would have been associated with the worship of the likes of Astarte and Baal.</p>


text:
<p>They broke down the pillar of Baal, and broke down the house of Baal and made it a latrine, to this day-</p><p>The house of Baal was broken down, but soon afterwards, it was rebuilt and had to be destroyed yet again (<a href='B:120 11:18'>2Ki 11:18</a>). There are examples galore of purges and re-purges in the record of the Kings. This was an apparent obedience to <a href='B:50 7:5'>Deu 7:5</a>; <a href='B:50 7:25'>Deu 7:25</a>; <a href='B:50 12:2-3'>Deu 12:2-3</a> - but the real idols were the pride and ego in Jehu's heart. That is the fairly clear implication of the narrative. External obedience didn't deal with those idols.</p>


text:
<p>Thus Jehu destroyed Baal out of Israel-</p><p>The next verse shows the hollowness of this. For other idols were allowed to continue, such as the calves (:29) and Asherah (<a href='B:120 13:6'>2Ki 13:6</a>), and it is clear that Baal was replaced with Moloch worship (<a href='B:120 17:17'>2Ki 17:17</a>). It's rather like the addict who quits one drug for another. Destruction of one form of idolatry is in no way any guarantee that our heart is therefore given over to Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>However Jehu didn’t depart from following the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, with which he made Israel to sin: the golden calves that were in Bethel, and in Dan- </p><p>See on :28. The political motive for retaining them was so that Israel would not reunite with Judah (<a href='B:110 12:26-30'>1Ki 12:26-30</a>); and for Jehu, his hold on personal power was of paramount importance to him, far more than instituting worship of Yahweh and seeking His glory.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to Jehu, Because you have done well in executing that which is right in My eyes, and have done to the house of Ahab according to all that was in My heart, your sons of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel- </p><p>Hosea’s prophesied that the blood of Jezreel would be visited upon the house of Jehu (<a href='B:350 1:4'>Hos 1:4</a>). At Jezreel, Jehu had killed Ahab’s family in a quite literal bloodbath. And God had commented that because Jehu had done this and thus fulfilled His word, Jehu’s family would reign for the next four generations. So why, then, does Hosea start talking about punishing the house of Jehu for what they did to the house of Ahab? Jehu became proud about the manner in which he had been the channel for God’s purpose to be fulfilled, inviting others to come and behold his “zeal for the Lord” (<a href='B:120 10:16'>2Ki 10:16</a>). Jehu and his children showed themselves to not really be spiritually minded, and yet they prided themselves in having physically done God’s will. And because of this, Hosea talks in such angry terms about retribution for what they had done; the house of Jehu’s act of obedience to God actually became something his family had to be punished for, because they had done it in a proud spirit. We see this all the time around us. Men and women who clearly are instruments in God’s hand, like the Assyrians were, doing His will… but being proud about it and becoming exalted in their own eyes because of it. And Hosea is so sensitive to the awfulness of this, he goes ballistic about it.</p>


text:
<p>But Jehu took no heed to walk in the law of Yahweh, the God of Israel, with all his heart. He didn’t depart from the sins of Jeroboam, with which he made Israel to sin- </p><p>Jeroboam was apparently a believer. He had his eyes open. He was an apparent enthusiast in doing God's work, and working for the good of His people Israel in strengthening their cities, fighting their enemies etc:. He had some faith, for example that God would heal him. He knew the real date of the feast of tabernacles; he knew his Bible, he had an enthusiasm for studying the genealogies and some aspects of the Mosaic Law. He seems to have taught the truth to his son. He understood a little about the symbology of the ark and the cherubim. But he shut his eyes to the real spirit of God's word. Now we can't say we have no similarity with that man. <a href='B:120 10:31'>2Ki 10:31</a> sums up his real failures. Jehu "took no heed to walk in the law with all his heart, for (because)" he followed the sins of Jeroboam. So this was his specific sin; not walking in God's law with all his heart&nbsp; . It is stressed in the records that he was "the son of Nebat". 'Nebat' means 'one who pays careful attention'; as if to emphasize that Jeroboam was not that person; he was the son of that person. Israel , Malachi says, were "partial" in God's law. Are we partial? Are we just focusing on those parts of spiritual life which we don't find difficult? Are we avoiding the real pain of spiritual growth? See on <a href='B:350 1:4'>Hos 1:4</a>.</p>


text:
<p>In those days Yahweh began to weaken Israel; and Hazael struck them in all the borders of Israel- </p><p>This was the fulfilment of Elisha's words to Hazael in <a href='B:120 8:12'>2Ki 8:12</a>: "I know the evil that you will do to the children of Israel. You will set their strongholds on fire, kill their young men with the sword, dash in pieces their little ones and rip up their women with child". The command to Elijah to anoint Hazael king over Syria (<a href='B:110 19:15'>1Ki 19:15</a>), which Elisha fulfilled, was therefore part of God's intended judgments upon Israel for their sins. There is no specific record of Hazael doing this, but in the records of his attacks upon Israel we are therefore to assume that he did so at those times (<a href='B:120 10:32'>2Ki 10:32</a>; <a href='B:120 13:3'>2Ki 13:3</a>; <a href='B:120 13:22'>2Ki 13:22</a>).</p>


text:
<p>from the Jordan eastward, all the land of Gilead, the Gadites, and the Reubenites, and the Manassites, from Aroer, which is by the valley of the Arnon, even Gilead and Bashan- </p><p>This meant that about 25% of Israelite territory was taken from them, and these areas were famed as good pasture land. Bashan was famed for the "fat bulls of Bashan" and for "the oaks of Bashan".</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Jehu, and all that he did, and all his might, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?-</p><p>This is the common rubric found in the histories of the kings (<a href='B:110 15:23'>1Ki 15:23</a>; <a href='B:110 16:5'>1Ki 16:5</a>; <a href='B:110 16:27'>1Ki 16:27</a>; <a href='B:110 22:45'>1Ki 22:45</a>; <a href='B:120 10:34'>2Ki 10:34</a>; <a href='B:120 13:8'>2Ki 13:8</a>; <a href='B:120 13:12'>2Ki 13:12</a>; <a href='B:120 14:15'>2Ki 14:15</a>; <a href='B:120 14:28'>2Ki 14:28</a>; <a href='B:120 20:20'>2Ki 20:20</a>). "His might that he showed" uses a word for "might" which has the sense of victory / achievement. But the contrast is marked with the way that David so often uses this word for "might / victory / achievement" in the context of God's "might"; notably in <a href='B:130 29:11'>1Ch 29:11</a>, which the Lord Jesus places in our mouths as part of His model prayer: "Yours is the power [s:w. "might"], and the glory and the majesty". The kings about whom the phrase is used were those who trusted in their own works. It therefore reads as a rather pathetic memorial; that this man's might / achievement was noted down. But the unspoken further comment is elicited in our own minds, if we are in tune with the spirit of David: "But the only real achievement is the Lord's and not man's". All human victory and achievement must be seen in this context. The same word is used in <a href='B:300 9:23-24'>Jer 9:23-24</a>: "Don’t let the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might [s:w:]::. but let him who glories glory in this, that he has understanding, and knows Me, that I am Yahweh who exercises loving kindness, justice, and righteousness, in the earth". The glorification of human "might" is often condemned. "Their might [s:w:] is not right" (<a href='B:300 23:10'>Jer 23:10</a>; also s:w. <a href='B:300 51:30'>Jer 51:30</a>; <a href='B:330 32:29'>Eze 32:29</a>; <a href='B:400 7:16'>Mic 7:16</a> and often).</p>


text:
<p>Jehu slept with his fathers; and they buried him in Samaria. Jehoahaz his son reigned in his place- </p><p>The description of death as sleeping with fathers is clear evidence that death is seen as a sleep, unconsciousness, and not as the start of an immortal soul going to heaven or 'hell'. Good and bad, David and Solomon, are gathered together in death. The division between them will only therefore come at the resurrection of the dead, and the granting of immortality at the judgment seat of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>The time that Jehu reigned over Israel in Samaria was twenty-eight years- </p><p>This was the second longest reign of an Israelite king. The kings of Israel lived and reigned far shorter than those of Judah. And yet in the final analysis, Ezekiel says that Judah sinned more than Israel. But their kings had greater signs of external blessing, and perhaps overall they were generally more righteous than their people. Whereas the kings of Israel were as wicked as their people.</p>


text:
<p>Now when Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead, she arose and destroyed all the seed royal- </p><p>So obsessed was she with personal power that she killed her own relatives, perhaps her own children, in order to establish herself as the only living heir to David's throne. The royal family had already been depleted because of the murders of <a href='B:120 10:14'>2Ki 10:14</a>; <a href='B:140 21:4'>2Ch 21:4</a>; <a href='B:140 21:17'>2Ch 21:17</a>. She saw the significance of the promises to David, but twisted them into mere religion. For she was an idolater, Jezebel's daughter:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>But Jehosheba, the daughter of king Joram, sister of Ahaziah, took Joash the son of Ahaziah, and stole him away from among the king’s sons who were slain, even him and his nurse, and put them in the bedroom. They hid him from Athaliah, so that he was not slain- </p><p>In a sense, God's entire purpose through the line and seed of David depended upon the quick thinking of a young woman, and was concentrated in this small baby. For "all the royal seed" had been slain (:1). Her name means 'sworn to Jehovah', and this likely represents her later character rather than her birth name. She came from a bad background, but was married to the high priest (although we note Jehoiada is not listed in the list of high priests in 1 Chronicles 6). "The bedroom" is better "the chamber of the beds", perhaps a room in the temple (:1) used for the storage of old beds and furniture. Or maybe this was where he was temporarily hidden, before being moved to somewhere in the temple (:2). We marvel at how Jehoiada kept his own faith in Yahweh strong (<a href='B:140 23:1'>2Ch 23:1</a>), although surely he must have been somewhat of an underground believer at this time.</p>


text:
<p>he was with her hidden in the house of Yahweh six years. Athaliah reigned over the land-</p><p>The temple was likely relatively disused, as Athaliah was such a strong worshipper of Baal. Therefore Joash later had to majorly repair it. However in <a href='B:140 23:1-8'>2Ch 23:1-8</a> we do read of its usage, but perhaps not as it was before. It could be inferred from <a href='B:140 23:18'>2Ch 23:18</a> that the burnt offerings were not offered during Athaliah's dictatorship. And <a href='B:140 24:7'>2Ch 24:7</a> is clear: "For the sons of Athaliah, that wicked woman, had broken up God’s house". See on <a href='B:140 24:13'>2Ch 24:13</a> for the extent of the damage done. So they hid the child in one of the disused chambers for the priests of Yahweh, who likely were not regularly officiating any more at that time. We note how Jehoshabeath and her husband Jehoiada the priest (<a href='B:140 22:11'>2Ch 22:11</a>) would have had access to both the palace and the temple because of their positions. And although they must have been underground believers to some extent, they used their connections well, to keep alive the line of David. Joash became king at seven, so he was a one year old baby when saved from Athaliah.</p>


text:
<p>In the seventh year Jehoiada sent and fetched the captains over hundreds of the Carites and of the guard, and brought them to him into the house of Yahweh. He made a covenant with them, and took an oath of them in the house of Yahweh, and showed them the king’s son- </p><p>The Carites were the Cherethites of <a href='B:100 20:23'>2Sa 20:23</a>. More information is given in <a href='B:140 23:1'>2Ch 23:1</a>: "In the seventh year Jehoiada strengthened himself, and took the captains of hundreds, Azariah the son of Jeroham, Ishmael the son of Jehohanan, Azariah the son of Obed, Maaseiah the son of Adaiah and Elishaphat the son of Zichri, into covenant with him". The five men and their followers of <a href='B:140 23:1'>2Ch 23:1</a> match the description of three "third parts" and another "two parts" in <a href='B:120 11:5-7'>2Ki 11:5-7</a>. The corroboration between the records, clearly written by different hands, reflects the Divine inspiration of the record. The names of all these men include the name of God. To overthrow Athaliah was a risky undertaking and their faith and commitment to the Davidic line was very strong.</p>


text:
<p>He commanded them saying, This is the thing that you shall do: a third part of you, who come in on the Sabbath, shall be keepers of the watch of the king’s house- </p><p>This is fleshed out by <a href='B:140 23:4'>2Ch 23:4</a>: "This is the thing that you shall do. A third part of you, who come in on the Sabbath, of the priests and of the Levites, shall be porters at the thresholds". Chronicles stresses the role of the Levites (<a href='B:140 23:2'>2Ch 23:2</a>; <a href='B:140 23:4'>2Ch 23:4</a>) whereas Kings hardly mentions them in the record. Clearly Chronicles is largely a history of the priesthood and Levites, written up in captivity to encourage the Levites to return to Judah and revive Yahweh worship there. Comparing with <a href='B:140 23:8'>2Ch 23:8</a>, the idea is that the Levites had a changeover of shifts that Sabbath. Those who were going off shift were to remain, so that there would be a larger number of them present. It seems that the Kings records speaks of three battalions of royal guards, one of which was on duty, and the others later brought into the temple by Jehoiada (<a href='B:140 23:7'>2Ch 23:7</a>). Whereas Chronicles has three battalions of Levitical temple guards / doorkeepers. They could be the same groups, but it seems easier to read them as separate. This would mean that somehow Jehoiada had persuaded even Athaliah's own bodyguards to betray her.</p>


text:
<p>a third part shall be at the gate Sur; and a third part at the gate behind the guard. So you shall keep the watch of the house, and be a barrier- </p><p>We must compare this with <a href='B:140 23:5'>2Ch 23:5</a> "A third part shall be at the king’s house; and a third part at the gate of the foundation. All the people shall be in the courts of Yahweh’s house". "The king's house" isn't the royal palace; for in any case, Athaliah was a queen and not a king. It refers to the place where the king Joash was hiding. The Gate of the Foundation was apparently near the valley separating Moriah from the hill opposite it, literally "the gate of Sur", mentioned in <a href='B:120 11:6'>2Ki 11:6</a>. But "Svr" may be "Svs", the horse gate, which is that of <a href='B:140 23:15'>2Ch 23:15</a>; <a href='B:120 11:16'>2Ki 11:16</a>.</p>


text:
<p>The two companies of you, even all who go out on the Sabbath, shall keep the watch of the house of Yahweh around the king- </p><p>Those whose period of service ended that Sabbath were to remain present. We again note how even under Athaliah's idolatrous rule, the temple services continued. Baal worship was thought to be a form of Yahweh worship. See on <a href='B:120 10:19'>2Ki 10:19</a>.</p>


text:
<p>You shall surround the king, every man with his weapons in his hand; and he who comes within the ranks, let him be slain. Be with the king when he goes out, and when he comes in- </p><p>The reference is specifically to the Levites: "The Levites shall surround the king, every man with his weapons in his hand. Whoever comes into the house, let him be slain. Be with the king when he comes in, and when he goes out" (<a href='B:140 23:7'>2Ch 23:7</a>). The whole putsch was a risky undertaking, and Jehoiada was aware of the possibility of armed opposition from Athaliah's loyalists. The Levites were armed, presumably with weapons like knives or whatever they could get hold of. Perhaps this command foresaw how Athaliah would come running into the temple (:13) and should therefore be slain.</p>


text:
<p>The captains over hundreds did according to all that Jehoiada the priest commanded; and they took every man his men, those who were to come in on the Sabbath, with those who were to go out on the Sabbath, and came to Jehoiada the priest- </p><p>The idea is that the Levites had a changeover of shifts that Sabbath. Those who were going off shift were to remain, so that there would be a larger number of them present. "All Judah" being present in <a href='B:140 23:8'>2Ch 23:8</a> refers to the representatives of all Judah who were present. "All" in the Bible often refers not to literally everybody but to representatives of the "all". The taking of the Gospel to "all the world" must surely be understood in that way. "The Levites and all Judah" is therefore matched here by “the captains over the hundreds".</p>


text:
<p>The priest delivered to the captains over hundreds the spears and shields that had been king David’s, which were in the house of Yahweh- </p><p>Possibly the shields of gold David had taken and dedicated at the time of <a href='B:100 8:7'>2Sa 8:7</a>; <a href='B:100 8:11'>2Sa 8:11</a>. Gold represents faith, and they were probably not very functional for combat. But this whole putsch was on the basis of faith and not secular strength and wisdom.</p>


text:
<p>The guard stood, every man with his weapons in his hand, from the right side of the house to the left side of the house, along by the altar and the house, around the king- </p><p><a href='B:140 23:10'>2Ch 23:10</a> "He set all the people::.". The altar would be the altar of burnt offering in the outer court. "All the people" refers to those other than the priests and Levites who had agreed to help in the putsch.</p>


text:
<p>Then he brought out the king’s son and put the crown on him, and gave him the testimony. They made him king and anointed him; and they clapped their hands, and said, Long live the king!- </p><p>"The testimony" was a copy of the law the king was supposed to write out when he became king, but it had presumably been written out for him (<a href='B:50 17:18-20'>Deu 17:18-20</a>).</p>


text:
<p>When Athaliah heard the noise of the guard and of the people, she came to the people into the house of Yahweh-</p><p>See on :8. Any who came into the temple were to be slain, and it seems Jehoiada set her up to do just what she did. That this was all pulled off right under her nose was quite an achievement.</p>


text:
<p>She looked, and behold, the king stood by the pillar, as the tradition was- </p><p>Heb. 'pedestal', a kind of podium, considering he was only seven years old and small.</p><p>And the captains and the trumpets near the king; and all the people of the land rejoiced, and blew trumpets. Then Athaliah tore her clothes and cried, Treason! Treason!-</p><p>"Treason" is literally "conspiracy". She realized all too late that a huge conspiracy had been going on under her nose.</p>


text:
<p>Jehoiada the priest commanded the captains of hundreds who were set over the army, and said to them, Bring her out between the ranks. Kill him who follows her with the sword. For the priest said, Don’t let her be slain in the house of Yahweh-</p><p>This confirms the suggestion that the command in :8 to slay whoever entered Yahweh's house was planned with Athaliah in view. "The ranks" would likely refer to the ranks of soldiers; or possibly to the temple precincts.</p>


text:
<p>So they made way for her; and she went by the way of the horses’ entry to the king’s house. She was slain there-</p><p>Making way for her suggests they all restrained themselves from touching her, the unclean, until she was outside the temple. It would have been an awful last walk to her death. I suggested on <a href='B:140 23:5'>2Ch 23:5</a> that "the horse gate" is the same as the "gate of the foundation".</p>


text:
<p>Jehoiada made a covenant between Yahweh and the king and the people, that they should be Yahweh’s people; also between the king and the people-</p><p>"Between himself and the people" (<a href='B:140 23:16'>2Ch 23:16</a>) suggests Jehoiada was absolutely representing Yahweh; 2 Kings says the covenant was between Yahweh and the people. The Bible is full of examples of where men function as God and functionally represent Him to man. But this didn't make them God Himself in person. And it is within this context that we must read the passages which likewise speak of the Lord Jesus as functioning as God- without being God Himself.</p>


text:
<p>All the people of the land went to the house of Baal, and broke it down. They broke his altars and his images in pieces thoroughly, and killed Mattan the priest of Baal before the altars. The priest appointed officers over the house of Yahweh-</p><p>The allusion is to how "all the people" were to put to death those who incited others to idolatry (<a href='B:50 13:9'>Deu 13:9</a>). It seems that the temple of Baal had been built near the temple, just as Solomon had built such idol temples near to the temple:&nbsp;The house of Baal was broken down in <a href='B:120 10:27'>2Ki 10:27</a>. But now, soon afterwards, it was rebuilt and had to be destroyed yet again. There are examples galore of purges and re-purges in the record of the Kings.</p>


text:
<p>He took the captains over hundreds, and the Carites, and the guard, and all the people of the land; and they brought down the king from the house of Yahweh, and came by the way of the gate of the guard to the king’s house. He sat on the throne of the kings-</p><p>"The upper gate" of <a href='B:140 23:20'>2Ch 23:20</a> is here "the gate of the guard".</p>


text:
<p>So all the people of the land rejoiced, and the city was quiet. Athaliah they had slain with the sword at the king’s house-</p><p>Quietness or peace is often associated with obedience. We read of this at least twice during Jehoshaphat's reign. Going God's way is the only way to true peace; although that peace is juxtaposed against the violent slaying of Athaliah which had been necessary to bring it about.</p>


text:
<p>Jehoash was seven years old when he began to reign- </p><p>He had been hidden six years in the temple (<a href='B:140 22:12'>2Ch 22:12</a>), and so it follows that he was grabbed to safety when he was a one year old baby. That was how frail was the line of descent from David, for the rest of the male line had been slain by Athaliah (<a href='B:140 22:10'>2Ch 22:10</a>). The royal family had already been depleted because of the murders of <a href='B:120 10:14'>2Ki 10:14</a>; <a href='B:140 21:4'>2Ch 21:4</a>; <a href='B:140 21:17'>2Ch 21:17</a>.</p>


text:
<p>In the seventh year of Jehu began Jehoash to reign; and he reigned forty years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Zibiah of Beersheba- </p><p>Beersheba was famed for idolatry at this time (<a href='B:370 5:5'>Amo 5:5</a>; <a href='B:370 8:14'>Amo 8:14</a>), and the mother's name, meaning 'gazelle', has no mention of God's Name in it:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Jehoash did that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh all the days in which Jehoiada the priest instructed him- </p><p>Joash did right before God whilst the priest Jehoiada was alive, and then apostatized; Uzziah did likewise, with Zechariah the priest (<a href='B:140 24:2'>2Ch 24:2</a>; <a href='B:140 26:5'>2Ch 26:5</a>). He didn’t reflect upon the personal implications of Divine history. And we too must appreciate that there are Bible characters whose experiences are framed in terms directly relevant to us- for our learning. Interestingly, straight after Jehoiada died, the princes of the land came to Joash with a request, which he wrongly listened to. This has great similarities with the tragic mistake made by Rehoboam after Solomon died (<a href='B:140 10:3-4'>2Ch 10:3-4</a> cp. 24:17). So Joash was given chance after chance to be directed back to previous examples and be instructed by them- but he went on in his own way.</p><p>But when Jehoiada died, Joash listened to, and was influenced by, the wicked princes of Judah (<a href='B:140 23:17'>2Ch 23:17</a>). It is clear that for all his apparent strength of character and zeal for God, Joash was simply a product of those he was with. And so it can be that our generation especially, can tend to be people with no real character, their very personalities influenced by others rather than being real, credible people. Insofar as we can break free from all these moulding influences, we will be real, credible persons. And our independence, our realness, is what will attract others to the message of Divine influence which we preach. Those raised in Christian homes need to pay especial attention to the possibility that they are where they are spiritually because of the good influence of others upon them. There is no harm in this; but we need to strive to have a faith that is not merely the faith of our fathers, but a real and personal response to the love of God which we have for ourselves perceived in the man Christ.</p>


text:
<p>However the high places were not taken away; the people still sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places-</p><p>From this we get the hint that despite all this initial zeal, things were not spiritually solid with Joash even from the start. Likewise from <a href='B:140 24:3'>2Ch 24:3</a> we learn that Joash was a polygamist from the start, for "Jehoiada took for him two wives".</p>


text:
<p>Jehoash said to the priests, All the money of the holy things that is brought into the house of Yahweh, in current money, the money of the persons at which each man is rated, and all the money that it comes into any man’s heart to bring into the house of Yahweh- </p><p>This presumably meant that the half shekel temple tax had not been paid for some time. So Joash urged that it be paid, although unsurprisingly there was reluctance. Plague was threatened for not paying it, but there is no record that this happened.</p>


text:
<p>let the priests take it to them, every man from his acquaintance; and they shall repair the breaches of the house, wherever any breach shall be found- </p><p>These breaches in the temple had presumably been caused not only by assault, but more likely by the various apostate kings taking the valuable building materials (timber, cut stone etc:) in order to build pagan temples. He had a personal emotional attachment to the temple, seeing that he had grown up hiding in one of its disused side rooms (<a href='B:140 22:12'>2Ch 22:12</a>). The temple was in a serious state of disrepair at Athaliah's time; she was an idolater, and the daily sacrifices weren't offered (<a href='B:140 23:18'>2Ch 23:18</a>). The way Joash later desecrates the temple with idolatry is therefore a tragic example of turning away from the faith. No amount of devotion to the things of God's house, or emotional, sentimental feelings towards them, is a guarantee that true faith will be retained in the long term. This restoration of the temple would have been programmatic for the exiles, for whose benefits these historical records were originally written.</p>


text:
<p>But, in the twenty third year of king Jehoash the priests had not repaired the breaches of the house- </p><p>We have the abiding impression that the priesthood was never completely dedicated solely to Yahweh. Although it was through the temple being in such a state of disrepair, that Joash could be hidden in it for six years, living as if the child of some homeless woman squatting in one of the disused side rooms (see on <a href='B:140 22:11'>2Ch 22:11</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then king Jehoash called for Jehoiada the priest, and for the other priests, and said to them, Why don’t you repair the breaches of the house? Now therefore take no more money from your treasurers, but deliver it for the breaches of the house- </p><p>The collection ordered in:5 was abandonned. Instead of going around Judah trying to get donations, those who came to offer were to be encouraged to donate. Trying to force money out of God's people is never a good idea; it must be offered freely by those who already understand the concept of sacrifice.</p>


text:
<p>The priests agreed that they should take no more money from the people, neither repair the breaches of the house themselves- </p><p>The priests had not done these repairs, and so the responsibility for them was removed from the priests. And they accepted that (:11).</p>


text:
<p>Jehoiada the priest took a chest, and bored a hole in its lid, and set it beside the altar, on the right side as one comes into the house of Yahweh. The priests who kept the threshold put therein all the money that was brought into the house of Yahweh- </p><p>"Chest" is the Hebrew word usually used for "ark". I suggested on <a href='B:140 24:6'>2Ch 24:6</a> that the ark may have gone missing or even been destroyed by Athaliah, resulting in the rather strange term "tent of the testimony" [the tables of stone] being used for the most holy place. Kings says it was in the court opposite the porch, by the side of the altar of burnt offering. But "outside" in <a href='B:140 24:6'>2Ch 24:6</a> may also mean outside of the most holy place. It could be that the chest was stored by the altar, but in the day time was taken to the gate of the temple to receive contributions (see on <a href='B:140 24:11'>2Ch 24:11</a>). <a href='B:140 24:9'>2Ch 24:9</a> GNB says this was for "the tax which Moses, God's servant, had first collected in the wilderness". The idea may be that that was the only time they ever really obeyed the law of giving the half shekel. Israel's collective disobedience to the law is quite stunning.</p>


text:
<p>It was so, when they saw that there was much money in the chest, that the king’s scribe and the high priest came up, and they put up in bags and counted the money that was found in the house of Yahweh- </p><p>This was done "day by day" (<a href='B:140 24:11'>2Ch 24:11</a>), which can mean 'from time to time', suggesting it was done whenever the chest was full. We note that the counting and management of the money was done not by the priests and Levites, another hint (as in :15) that they had embezzled it before.</p>


text:
<p>They gave the money that was weighed out into the hands of those who did the work, who had the oversight of the house of Yahweh. They paid it out to the carpenters and the builders, who worked on the house of Yahweh- </p><p>Those who had the oversight of the repair work were not the priests, who had failed to do this previously (:8). We sense the priesthood were very weak at this time, and Jehoiada was almost alone in his dedication to the work. So when he died, things immediately reverted to the previous apostacy.</p>


text:
<p>and to the masons and the stone cutters, and for buying timber and cut stone to repair the breaches of the house of Yahweh, and for all that was laid out for the house to repair it- </p><p>The language is rather similar to that used of building the temple, as if this rebuilding was really major, seeing Athaliah had consciously "broken up" the temple (<a href='B:140 24:7'>2Ch 24:7</a>). We have the repeated impression that the overseers were the ones who "laid out" the money for workers and materials, suggesting again that the Levites and priests had not been honest with this (see on :10).</p>


text:
<p>But there were not made for the house of Yahweh cups of silver, snuffers, basins, trumpets, any vessels of gold, or vessels of silver, of the money that was brought into the house of Yahweh- </p><p>The idea seems to be, comparing with <a href='B:140 24:14'>2Ch 24:14</a>, that these vessels were made only after the house was completed. The focus was to be upon repairing the house first, and the vessels were seen as of secondary importance. We wonder whether this is also a hint at spiritual weakness and wrong priorities; for surely the house was not of the essence. God had said He didn't in fact want a physical house built. Surely the vessels which enabled the rituals to be performed ought to have been made first, so that Divine worship could continue, even within a ruined building.</p>


text:
<p>for they gave that to those who did the work, and repaired therewith the house of Yahweh- </p><p>As discussed on :13, it seems that all the funds were given solely to the builders, because of a wrong perception that the building of a physical temple was more important than what went on within it.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover they didn’t demand an accounting from the men into whose hand they delivered the money to give to those who did the work; for they dealt faithfully- </p><p>This may be in implied contrast to the priests and Levites who had not done the work, perhaps because of embezzlement of the funds. See on :10. The money was delivered to these overseers directly from the king (:11), and not via the priesthood.</p>


text:
<p>The money for the trespass offerings, and the money for the sin offerings, were not brought into the house of Yahweh: it was the priests’-</p><p>It seems there had begun the practice of buying sacrificial animals in Jerusalem, at the temple, and this in turn degraded to giving money to the priests in lieu of sin offerings. The Mosaic commands said nothing about this; the sinner was to bring an animal and make personal identification with it (<a href='B:30 5:1-12'>Lev 5:1-12</a>; <a href='B:30 14:13'>Lev 14:13</a>). And we see here the easy slide away from personal repentance and dedication to Yahweh, to merely giving some money.</p>


text:
<p>Then Hazael king of Syria went up and fought against Gath, and took it; and Hazael set his face to go up to Jerusalem-</p><p>2 Chronicles 24 adds the account of Joash's apostacy and murder of Jehoiada's son after Jehoiada dies. <a href='B:140 24:23'>2Ch 24:23</a> adds: "It happened at the end of the year, that the army of the Syrians came up against him. They came to Judah and Jerusalem, and destroyed all the princes of the people from among the people, and sent all their spoil to the king of Damascus":&nbsp; </p><p>The princes were those who had encouraged Joash to idolatry after Jehoiada died (<a href='B:140 24:17'>2Ch 24:17</a>). We wonder why they spared Joash. Perhaps his extra bit of life was in order to give him the chance of repentance. But he turned it down.</p>


text:
<p>Jehoash king of Judah took all the holy things that Jehoshaphat, Jehoram and Ahaziah, his fathers, kings of Judah, had dedicated, and his own holy things, and all the gold that was found in the treasures of the house of Yahweh, and of the king’s house, and sent it to Hazael king of Syria; and he went away from Jerusalem-</p><p>It could be that this effectively means that he saved his life by paying them off, after they had already entered Jerusalem and slain the princes (<a href='B:140 24:23'>2Ch 24:23</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Joash, and all that he did, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?- </p><p>This is not necessarily the same books of Chronicles which we have in our Bibles.</p>


text:
<p>His servants arose, and made a conspiracy, and struck Joash at the house of Millo, on the way that goes down to Silla-</p><p>We wonder whether his servants were so loyal to Yahweh that they killed him for what he had done to the sons of Jehoiada:&nbsp; Although these servants were apparently secular Gentiles (<a href='B:140 24:25'>2Ch 24:25</a>), perhaps even they were disgusted at his deep ingratitude. Or it could mean that their conspiracy against Joash was meant by God as punishment for his conspiracy against Zechariah (<a href='B:140 24:21'>2Ch 24:21</a>). Joash was killed on his bed, probably his sick bed (<a href='B:140 24:25'>2Ch 24:25</a>), "at the house of Millo, on the way that goes down to Silla”. This may have been the equivalent of a hospital.</p>


text:
<p>For Jozacar the son of Shimeath, and Jehozabad the son of Shomer, his servants, struck him, and he died; and they buried him with his fathers in the city of David. Amaziah his son reigned in his place- </p><p><a href='B:140 24:26'>2Ch 24:26</a> "Shimeath the Ammonitess and Jehozabad the son of Shimrith the Moabitess". We wonder whether these servants were in fact his sons by Gentile wives. If so, then even before the death of Jehoiada he had shown his unspirituality by marrying Gentiles, for all his avowed devotion to the rebuilding of the temple. This is why there was specific commentary written about "his sons" (<a href='B:140 24:27'>2Ch 24:27</a>).</p>


text:
<p>In the twenty-third year of Joash son of Ahaziah king of Judah, Jehoahaz the son of Jehu began to reign over Israel in Samaria for seventeen years- </p><p>This appears to be a slight contradiction with :10, but it is not so in the LXX- which is the version the New Testament prefers to quote over the Hebrew Masoretic text.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, and followed the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, in which he made Israel to sin. He didn’t depart from it- </p><p>At the end of Jehu's reign, God had removed 25% of Israel's territory (<a href='B:120 10:33'>2Ki 10:33</a>). But Jehoahaz didn't repent, he refused to learn any lesson from his father's sins. We note that although Jehu had no real spirituality, he inserted the name of God in his son's name. The usage of the Divine Name in the names of the kings of Israel was the same mere tokenism with which the Name is used by effective unbelievers today:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel, and He delivered them into the hand of Hazael king of Syria, and into the hand of Ben Hadad the son of Hazael, continually- </p><p>He had already done this in Jehu's time (<a href='B:120 10:32'>2Ki 10:32</a>), but as Israel had failed to learn the lesson, His anger was the more kindled. We note that Ben Hadad is a generic term for a leader of Syria, like "Pharaoh". For Hazael had murdered the Ben Hadad before him, and yet has a son who was also a Ben Hadad.</p>


text:
<p>Jehoahaz begged Yahweh, and Yahweh listened to him; for He saw the oppression of Israel, how that the king of Syria oppressed them- </p><p>This was the fulfilment of Elisha's words to Hazael in <a href='B:120 8:12'>2Ki 8:12</a>: "I know the evil that you will do to the children of Israel. You will set their strongholds on fire, kill their young men with the sword, dash in pieces their little ones and rip up their women with child". The command to Elijah to anoint Hazael king over Syria (<a href='B:110 19:15'>1Ki 19:15</a>), which Elisha fulfilled, was therefore part of God's intended judgments upon Israel for their sins. There is no specific record of Hazael doing this, but in the records of his attacks upon Israel we are therefore to assume that he did so at those times (<a href='B:120 10:32'>2Ki 10:32</a>; <a href='B:120 13:3'>2Ki 13:3</a>; <a href='B:120 13:22'>2Ki 13:22</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh gave Israel a saviour, so that they went out from under the hand of the Syrians; and the children of Israel lived in their tents as before- </p><p>We note the simple love and pity of God for His children, responding to their suffering which He Himself had brought upon them in anger (:3)- even though they were impenitent (:6). We see the two conflicting aspects of God's character, His justice and His grace, His anger and His pity. They were reflected in Hosea's conflicting feelings for his sexually addicted, unfaithful wife Gomer (<a href='B:350 11:8'>Hos 11:8</a>). The saviour was Jeroboam (<a href='B:120 14:27'>2Ki 14:27</a>), although he was a wicked man.</p>


text:
<p>Nevertheless they didn’t depart from the sins of the house of Jeroboam, with which he made Israel to sin, but walked therein. There remained the Asherah also in Samaria- </p><p>Jehu's apparent zeal to destroy Baal worship was just an excuse for the flaunting of his own power and blood lust. It was not real "zeal for Yahweh" as he proclaimed; for he destroyed Baal, but the Asherah remained. See on <a href='B:120 10:28'>2Ki 10:28</a>.</p>


text:
<p>For the king of Syria didn’t leave to Jehoahaz of the people any more than fifty horsemen, ten chariots and ten thousand footmen; for the king of Syria destroyed them, and made them like the dust in threshing-</p><p>The king of Israel was not supposed to have horses and chariots anyway (<a href='B:50 17:16'>Deu 17:16</a>). So this could be read as God still seeking the repentance of Jehoahaz, trying to elicit from him true trust in Him.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Jehoahaz, and all that he did, and his might, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?- </p><p>This is the common rubric found in the histories of the kings (<a href='B:110 15:23'>1Ki 15:23</a>; <a href='B:110 16:5'>1Ki 16:5</a>; <a href='B:110 16:27'>1Ki 16:27</a>; <a href='B:110 22:45'>1Ki 22:45</a>; <a href='B:120 10:34'>2Ki 10:34</a>; <a href='B:120 13:8'>2Ki 13:8</a>; <a href='B:120 13:12'>2Ki 13:12</a>; <a href='B:120 14:15'>2Ki 14:15</a>; <a href='B:120 14:28'>2Ki 14:28</a>; <a href='B:120 20:20'>2Ki 20:20</a>). "His might that he showed" uses a word for "might" which has the sense of victory / achievement. But the contrast is marked with the way that David so often uses this word for "might / victory / achievement" in the context of God's "might"; notably in <a href='B:130 29:11'>1Ch 29:11</a>, which the Lord Jesus places in our mouths as part of His model prayer: "Yours is the power [s:w. "might"], and the glory and the majesty". The kings about whom the phrase is used were those who trusted in their own works. It therefore reads as a rather pathetic memorial; that this man's might / achievement was noted down. But the unspoken further comment is elicited in our own minds, if we are in tune with the spirit of David: "But the only real achievement is the Lord's and not man's". All human victory and achievement must be seen in this context. The same word is used in <a href='B:300 9:23-24'>Jer 9:23-24</a>: "Don’t let the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might [s:w:]::. but let him who glories glory in this, that he has understanding, and knows Me, that I am Yahweh who exercises loving kindness, justice, and righteousness, in the earth". The glorification of human "might" is often condemned. "Their might [s:w:] is not right" (<a href='B:300 23:10'>Jer 23:10</a>; also s:w. <a href='B:300 51:30'>Jer 51:30</a>; <a href='B:330 32:29'>Eze 32:29</a>; <a href='B:400 7:16'>Mic 7:16</a> and often).</p>


text:
<p>Jehoahaz slept with his fathers; and they buried him in Samaria: and Joash his son reigned in his place-</p><p>The description of death as sleeping with fathers is clear evidence that death is seen as a sleep, unconsciousness, and not as the start of an immortal soul going to heaven or 'hell'. Good and bad, David and Solomon, are gathered together in death. The division between them will only therefore come at the resurrection of the dead, and the granting of immortality at the judgment seat of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>In the thirty-seventh year of Joash king of Judah, Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz began to reign over Israel in Samaria for sixteen years- </p><p>This appears to be a slight contradiction with :1, but it is not so in the LXX- which is the version the New Testament prefers to quote over the Hebrew Masoretic text.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh; he didn’t depart from all the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, with which he made Israel to sin; but he walked therein- </p><p>The note that he did not depart from those sins would reflect how the prophets had appealed to him to depart from them; but he didn't. Israel had been commanded to "not depart" from the way of Yahweh's commandments (<a href='B:50 28:14'>Deu 28:14</a>; <a href='B:60 1:7'>Jos 1:7</a>), but the frequent lament of the historical records is that they did not depart from the sins of Jeroboam. The Bible, especially in Proverbs, constantly reduces human moral choice to that between two ways of life and being. We constantly wish to argue that "it's not so simple" because there are grey areas. But the 'grey area' argument is what leads us so often into sin, into following the "way" of sin.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Joash, and all that he did, and his might with which he fought against Amaziah king of Judah, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?-</p><p>See on :8. The account occurs in <a href='B:120 14:8-14'>2Ki 14:8-14</a> and 2 Chronicles 25, but this may not be the same books of Chronicles in view which we have in our Bibles.</p>


text:
<p>Joash slept with his fathers; and Jeroboam sat on his throne. Joash was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel-</p><p>We note the use of "his throne" rather than "the throne of Yahweh". They had no sense of being kings on God's behalf. Samaria had only recently been built by Omri, Ahab’s father, so we should not imagine that there was a long line of kings already buried there.</p>


text:
<p>Now Elisha contracted a sickness of which he would die- </p><p>Evidence enough that Pentecostalism is wrong in claiming that the righteous don't due of illness and always recover.</p><p>Joash the king of Israel came down to him and wept over him and said- </p><p>Joash was not a spiritual person, but he wept over Elisha as a prophet of Yahweh. For Israel had mixed Baal worship with that of Yahweh, and never rejected Yahweh totally.</p><p>My father, my father, the chariots of Israel and its horsemen!- </p><p>Elijah’s example clearly influenced Elisha, both in the nature of the miracles which he performed, and in how when Elisha died, he was likewise seen as “My father, the chariot of Israel, and its horsemen”, the same words used at Elijah's departure from ministry. How Elisha related to Elijah, was how people came to relate to Elisha. This is not only a neat cameo of the immense personal influence which we have upon each other; it reflects how Elisha learnt the lesson from Elijah, which we too must learn, of freely and totally absorbing ourselves in the progress of God’s Angelic, cherubic work to bring about His glory and not our own. Elisha had related to Elijah as his spiritual father, so now others were relating to Elisha in just the same way- as their spiritual father. The child had become the father, in spiritual terms. He had brought forth a spiritual child in his own image and likeness.</p>


text:
<p>Elisha said to him, Take bow and arrows; and he took to him bow and arrows- </p><p>The victory was to be through bow and arrows, not horses and chariots, which were forbidden to Israel's kings (<a href='B:50 17:16'>Deu 17:16</a>), nor through swords. See on :17.</p>


text:
<p>He said to the king of Israel, Put your hand on the bow; and he put his hand on it. Elisha laid his hands on the king’s hands- </p><p>Joash was intended to understand that this was a symbolic act, and that what he now did had God's prophetic blessing upon it through the hands of Elisha. But he failed to perceive that, and so the extent of blessing was far less than potentially it could have been. The story of wasted potentials is so frequent in the Bible, and in the lives of God's people to this day. Joash would have felt how feeble were Elisha's hands, for he was on his death bed. But those apparently feeble hands were those of God.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Open the window eastward; and he opened them. Then Elisha said, Shoot! And he shot. He said, Yahweh’s arrow of victory, even the arrow of victory over Syria; for you shall strike the Syrians in Aphek- </p><p>We might think that Elisha was being rather unreasonable with Joash; how was he to know what was in Elisha's mind? But the point is, Elisha expected the king to be more spiritually perceptive, to understand that they were enacting a parable of deliverance, to have grasped that those arrows were symbolic of victory over Syria. And so the lesson comes to us: we may be expected to have a greater understanding than we think reasonable of God to expect of us:&nbsp;"Aphek" means 'strength', so the idea was that Divine strength was to triumph over human strength. Hence the use of bows and arrows (see on&nbsp; :15). This was to repeat the defeat at Aphek (<a href='B:110 20:26'>1Ki 20:26</a>), a victory also given by faith to an unspiritual Ahab. Yahweh had earlier given victory to Syria (s:w. <a href='B:120 5:1'>2Ki 5:1</a>), but this was now to be reversed. Victory against Syria was to be given to Israel. Both sides were probably about equally unspiritual, but by grace God had finished trying to educate Israel through defeat at the hands of the Syrians. Now He wanted to educate them by giving the grace of undeserved victory, in the hope that would elicit their repentance. The arrow was shot eastwards toward Gilead which was then under the control of Syria, from the hands of Joash. The idea was that the victories depended upon his personal faith, and putting his hand in God's hand, represented by Elisha's hands.</p><p>Until you have consumed them- </p><p>But :19 states clearly that Joash would not consume them (s:w:). He lacked the spiritual vision to enable this potential to come true. No specific conditions are mentioned at this point, and neither are they in many prophecies. Yet that is not to say that they are not in fact only conditionally true, and may not come true unless certain unstated conditions are fulfilled.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Take the arrows; and he took them. He said to the king of Israel, Strike the ground; and he struck three times, and stopped- </p><p>"Ground" is the word for "land"; if 'earth' was solely meant, then another word would have been used. The same phrase is used five or six times in Exodus of the smiting of the land of Egypt with plagues. Perhaps that is the significance of the complaint that Joash ought to have struck the land five or six times (:19). The intention was that these victories would have led to not only the salvation of Israel, but their rebirth as a nation. Even at this late stage in their history, God was looking and hoping for their rebirth. See on :21.</p>


text:
<p>The man of God was angry with him and said, You should have struck five or six times. Then you would have struck Syria until you had consumed it, whereas now you shall strike Syria just three times-</p><p>See on :17,18. Elisha tells Joash to smite upon the ground with arrows; if Joash had perceived deeper what Elisha meant, he would have smitten many times and the Syrian threat would have been eliminated entirely. But he didn’t, and therefore Elijah was frustrated with him; the great potential victory was limited by a man’s lack of spiritual perception.</p>


text:
<p>Elisha died, and they buried him. Now the bands of the Moabites invaded the land at the coming in of the year- </p><p>We assume Elisha died at his home in Samaria. In this case, the Moabite bands had crossed the Jordan from Gilead, which was in Syrian hands, and had boldly entered this far into Israel. The promised victory against enemies didn't seem to happen. Because Joash simply respected Elisha as a great person and liked the culture of Yahweh worship, and yet failed to live up to the huge potentials:&nbsp; See on :22.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, as they were burying a man, that behold, they spied a band; and they cast the man into the tomb of Elisha. As soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet- </p><p>The band is one of the Moabite bands of :20. We see how weak Israel were at this time, for Elisha had lived in Samaria. Even near their capital, Israel were prone to such fear at the appearance of just one band of marauders. The idea of course was that there was power and potential of new life in the word of the prophets. I noted on :18 the potential for a rebirth of the people at this time. The language is later applied to the exiles in Ezekiel 39, who likewise could have been revived by the Spirit to stand upon their feet as a great army. But that potential was likewise wasted.</p>


text:
<p>Hazael king of Syria oppressed Israel all the days of Jehoahaz- </p><p>See on :4 for the extent of the evil done to Israel at this time. This statement seems to exemplify how the promise of potential victory against Syria wasn't realized in practice because of Israel's lack of spiritual vision.</p>


text:
<p>But Yahweh was gracious to them and had compassion on them, and had respect to them because of His covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and would not destroy them, neither did He cast them out from His presence at that time- </p><p>The implication is that a time did come when even their connection with the fathers didn't save them. The covenant which led to so much grace was broken by Israel, and God eventually accepted that. He broke the covenant with them in response to how they had themselves broken it (<a href='B:450 11:7-14'>Zec 11:7-14</a>). Covenant relationship meant salvation and blessing by grace alone; for Israel were impenitent at this time. And yet they broke it and spurned it as mere history irrelevant to them, as many do today.</p><p>The presence of God may have been articulated at that time through the Angels. Angels being physically with us in our lives means that we are always in the presence of God, as they represent Him. The fact that "the Lord spoke to Moses face to face" through an Angel shows that they represent God's face, and they are also likened to the eyes of God. Even when a man is wicked in some ways , he may still have presence of the Angels in his life. Thus although Israel were wicked in the time of Jehoahaz and were therefore punished by Hazael of Syria, because of the covenant with Abraham "neither cast He them from His presence (Heb. face) as yet" (<a href='B:120 13:23'>2Ki 13:23</a>). And therefore Jehoahaz is described as doing what was right in the sight (the eyes) of the Lord (i:e. the Angels with him), although he did not take away the high places (<a href='B:120 14:3-5'>2Ki 14:3-5</a>). It seems that great stress is placed in Scripture on the Angels physically moving through space, both on the earth and between Heaven and earth, in order to fulfil their tasks, rather than being static in Heaven or earth and bringing things about by just willing them to happen. See on <a href='B:10 18:10'>Gen 18:10</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Hazael king of Syria died; and Ben Hadad his son reigned in his place- </p><p>We note that Ben Hadad is a generic term for a leader of Syria, like "Pharaoh". For Hazael had murdered the Ben Hadad before him, and yet has a son who was also a Ben Hadad.</p>


text:
<p>Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz took again out of the hand of Ben Hadad the son of Hazael the cities which he had taken out of the hand of Jehoahaz his father by war. Joash struck him three times, and recovered the cities of Israel- </p><p>We must compare this with the statement in :22 that there was constantly oppression from Syria. The three victories were not enough to stop this, and we conclude that the huge potential available to Israel, as demonstrated by Elisha, wasn't realized. The history of God's people is such a tragic list of wasted potentials.</p>


text:
<p>&nbsp; In the second year of Joash son of Joahaz king of Israel began Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah to reign- </p><p>Amaziah's father Joash died at 47, so Joash would have been 22 when Amaziah was born. He would have lived under the Godly influence of Jehoiada for some time, and witnessed his father's apostacy and gross ingratitude to Jehoiada shown by murdering his sons.</p>


text:
<p>He was twenty-five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem: and his mother’s name was Jehoaddin of Jerusalem- </p><p>His mother, 'pleasing to Jehovah', was one of the wives chosen for Joash by his Godly uncle Jehoiada.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh, yet not like David his father- Chronicles says, "not with a perfect heart", Kings says "yet not like David". David was far from perfect, but he had a heart wholly ['perfectly'] devoted to God.</p><p>He did according to all that Joash his father had done- Repeatedly, the New Testament speaks of converting others as a bringing forth of children. This means that our level and style of spirituality is likely to be replicated in those we convert. Thus Amaziah “did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord… according to all things as Joash his father had done” (<a href='B:120 14:3'>2Ki 14:3</a>). What spirituality he had was according to that which his father had displayed.</p>


text:
<p>However the high places were not taken away. The people still sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places- </p><p>"Taken away" is the same word as 'depart from' in :24. The way of Jeroboam was not departed from, and so the high places were not departed from. The suggestion is that they were associated with the calf worship.</p>


text:
<p>As soon as the kingdom was established in his hand, he killed his servants who had slain the king his father- </p><p>This continues a theme, of the kings of Judah strengthening or establishing themselves, often when they first became king; but then having that human strength tested by God or removed. The same word is used repeatedly (<a href='B:130 11:10'>1Ch 11:10</a>; <a href='B:140 11:11'>2Ch 11:11</a>; <a href='B:140 11:17'>2Ch 11:17</a>; <a href='B:140 12:13'>2Ch 12:13</a>; <a href='B:140 13:21'>2Ch 13:21</a>; <a href='B:140 17:1'>2Ch 17:1</a>; <a href='B:140 23:1'>2Ch 23:1</a>; <a href='B:140 25:3'>2Ch 25:3</a>; <a href='B:140 25:11'>2Ch 25:11</a>; <a href='B:140 26:8'>2Ch 26:8</a>; <a href='B:140 26:15'>2Ch 26:15</a>; <a href='B:140 29:3'>2Ch 29:3</a>; <a href='B:140 32:5'>2Ch 32:5</a>). The lesson of course was that it is God's Angelic eyes who run to and fro in the land promised to Abraham, "to shew Himself strong on behalf of those whose heart is perfect toward him" (<a href='B:140 16:9'>2Ch 16:9</a>).</p>


text:
<p>But the children of the murderers he didn’t put to death; as written in the book of the law of Moses, that Yahweh commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall die for his own sin- </p><p>Overall this man appears to have spiritually failed. But he as it were grabs hold of one commandment and religiously obeys it. We see this kind of thing all the time in 'religious' approaches to Christianity. But it is the heart which God is looking at, and it was in this that Amaziah failed, ultimately. Chronicles was written for the exiles, and perhaps they needed reminding of this principle (as in <a href='B:330 18:20'>Eze 18:20</a>) because of their wrong idea that they were being unjustly punished for the sins of their fathers.</p>


text:
<p>He killed of Edom in the Valley of Salt ten thousand and took Sela by war, and called its name Joktheel to this day- </p><p>Far more details are given in <a href='B:140 25:5-10'>2Ch 25:5-10</a>. This was where David had won a great victory (<a href='B:130 18:12'>1Ch 18:12</a>). Amaziah was being guided to follow in David's footsteps. This, as noted on <a href='B:140 25:7'>2Ch 25:7</a>, was another baby step taken to try to reform him.</p>


text:
<p>Then Amaziah sent messengers to Jehoash, the son of Jehoahaz son of Jehu, king of Israel, saying, Come, let us look one another in the face- </p><p>The soldiers he had hired were apparently mercenaries. They had apparently been paid, but not used in the battle. And so they had gotten offended and sacked cities of Judah (<a href='B:140 25:13'>2Ch 25:13</a>). And Amaziah was demanding compensation for this from the king of Israel. By so doing he demonstrated that his apparent willingness to lose the money paid for them was not a decision taken from the heart. He was still after compensation for his losses, rather than believing that God could give him all riches (see on <a href='B:140 25:9'>2Ch 25:9</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Jehoash the king of Israel sent to Amaziah king of Judah saying, The thistle that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon saying, ‘Give your daughter to my son as wife. Then a wild animal that was in Lebanon passed by, and trampled down the thistle- </p><p>This is similar to the parable of the trees in <a href='B:70 9:7-15'>Jdg 9:7-15</a>, which also talks of the land of Israel as "Lebanon" (<a href='B:70 9:15'>Jdg 9:15</a>). The king of Israel presents himself and Amaziah as both living in the same land, and considered himself to be the glorious cedar and Amaziah merely a thistle. It was quite inappropriate, he felt, for Amaziah to provoke him over the fact mercenaries from his country had ransacked towns in Judah over an argument about money and payment. He is saying that it as inappropriate as a poor man asking a wealthy man to give him his daughter to marry the poor man's son. And he threatens to act not just as an elegant cedar, but to morph into a wild beast who would trample down Amaziah. Perhaps Amaziah had indeed provoked Joash by making a marriage proposal which he knew Joash would turn down.</p>


text:
<p>You have indeed struck Edom, and your heart has lifted you up. Enjoy the glory of it, and stay at home; for why should you meddle to your harm, that you should fall, even you, and Judah with you?’- </p><p>The victory against Edom was from God, but by accepting the vanquished gods of Edom, Amaziah shows that he trusted in his own strength rather than that of Yahweh. So often the victories God gives, be it passing an exam or military victory, lead to pride and boasting.</p>


text:
<p>But Amaziah would not listen. So Jehoash king of Israel went up- </p><p><a href='B:140 25:20'>2Ch 25:20</a> says this was "of the Lord". There are a number of other passages which mention how "it was of the Lord" that certain attitudes were adopted by men, resulting in the sequence of events which He desired (<a href='B:60 11:20'>Jos 11:20</a>; <a href='B:90 2:25'>1Sa 2:25</a>; <a href='B:110 12:15'>1Ki 12:15</a>; <a href='B:140 10:15'>2Ch 10:15</a>; <a href='B:140 22:7'>2Ch 22:7</a>; <a href='B:140 25:20'>2Ch 25:20</a>). It is tempting to read <a href='B:70 14:4'>Jdg 14:4</a> in this context, meaning that God somehow made Samson desire that woman in order to bring about His purpose of freeing Israel from Philistine domination. The fact a man does something "of the Lord" doesn't mean that he is guiltless. In the same context of God's deliverance of Israel from the Philistines, men who did things "of the Lord" were punished for what they did (<a href='B:50 2:30'>Deu 2:30</a>; <a href='B:90 2:25'>1Sa 2:25</a>; <a href='B:140 22:7'>2Ch 22:7</a>; <a href='B:140 25:20'>2Ch 25:20</a>). God through His Spirit works to confirm men in the path they wish to go. And this is the huge significance of the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives today.</p><p>And he and Amaziah king of Judah faced each other at Beth Shemesh, which belongs to Judah- </p><p>This was on the border of Judah and Dan, the frontier of Judah. The pagan name, "house of the sun", had not been changed; and reflects Judah's abiding penchant for idolatry.</p>


text:
<p>Judah was defeated by Israel; and they fled each man to his tent- </p><p>This was not because Israel were more spiritual or faithful, but because God has a special interest in judging pride. Victories of secular people must be understood in this context. The giving of victory by God (in whatever context) is multi factorial and is not simply a reflection of His pleasure with the victor.</p>


text:
<p>Jehoash king of Israel took Amaziah king of Judah, the son of Jehoash the son of Ahaziah, at Beth Shemesh, and came to Jerusalem, and broke down the wall of Jerusalem from the gate of Ephraim to the corner gate, four hundred cubits-</p><p>This is s:w. <a href='B:160 1:3'>Neh 1:3</a>; <a href='B:160 4:7'>Neh 4:7</a>, and would have helped remind the exiles how the walls of Jerusalem had come to be so broken down. It would seem by the implication of <a href='B:300 31:38'>Jer 31:38</a>; <a href='B:450 14:10'>Zec 14:10</a> that this gate was on the north of Jerusalem. Depending how we define a cubit, this would have been between 600 and 700 feet.</p>


text:
<p>He took all the gold and silver, and all the vessels that were found in the house of Yahweh and in the treasures of the king’s house, with hostages also, and returned to Samaria- </p><p>This faithful family who had cared for the ark had been entrusted with caring for the gold and silver in the temple. But Joash had given much of this to the Syrians previously.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Jehoash which he did, and his might, and how he fought with Amaziah king of Judah, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?-</p><p>This is the common rubric found in the histories of the kings (<a href='B:110 15:23'>1Ki 15:23</a>; <a href='B:110 16:5'>1Ki 16:5</a>; <a href='B:110 16:27'>1Ki 16:27</a>; <a href='B:110 22:45'>1Ki 22:45</a>; <a href='B:120 10:34'>2Ki 10:34</a>; <a href='B:120 13:8'>2Ki 13:8</a>; <a href='B:120 13:12'>2Ki 13:12</a>; <a href='B:120 14:15'>2Ki 14:15</a>; <a href='B:120 14:28'>2Ki 14:28</a>; <a href='B:120 20:20'>2Ki 20:20</a>). "His might that he showed" uses a word for "might" which has the sense of victory / achievement. But the contrast is marked with the way that David so often uses this word for "might / victory / achievement" in the context of God's "might"; notably in <a href='B:130 29:11'>1Ch 29:11</a>, which the Lord Jesus places in our mouths as part of His model prayer: "Yours is the power [s:w. "might"], and the glory and the majesty". The kings about whom the phrase is used were those who trusted in their own works. It therefore reads as a rather pathetic memorial; that this man's might / achievement was noted down. But the unspoken further comment is elicited in our own minds, if we are in tune with the spirit of David: "But the only real achievement is the Lord's and not man's". All human victory and achievement must be seen in this context. The same word is used in <a href='B:300 9:23-24'>Jer 9:23-24</a>: "Don’t let the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might [s:w:]::. but let him who glories glory in this, that he has understanding, and knows Me, that I am Yahweh who exercises loving kindness, justice, and righteousness, in the earth". The glorification of human "might" is often condemned. "Their might [s:w:] is not right" (<a href='B:300 23:10'>Jer 23:10</a>; also s:w. <a href='B:300 51:30'>Jer 51:30</a>; <a href='B:330 32:29'>Eze 32:29</a>; <a href='B:400 7:16'>Mic 7:16</a> and often).</p>


text:
<p>Jehoash slept with his fathers, and was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel; and Jeroboam his son reigned in his place- </p><p>The description of death as sleeping with fathers is clear evidence that death is seen as a sleep, unconsciousness, and not as the start of an immortal soul going to heaven or 'hell'. Good and bad, David and Solomon, are gathered together in death. The division between them will only therefore come at the resurrection of the dead, and the granting of immortality at the judgment seat of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah lived after the death of Jehoash son of Jehoahaz king of Israel fifteen years- </p><p>The implication may be that he was given ample opportunity to repent; and we have noticed that in the lives of other kings.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Amaziah, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?- </p><p>This may not necessarily be the same books of Chronicles which we have in our Bible.</p>


text:
<p>They made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem; and he fled to Lachish; but they sent after him to Lachish, and killed him there- </p><p>Perhaps he was trying to flee to Egypt, ever representative of human strength which fails. For Lachish was on the road there. Athaliah, Joash and Amaziah each died due to a conspiracy. Surely Amaziah was intended to learn from the deaths of his predecessors, but the great theme of Biblical history is that so few learn from it. And that is the challenge to us. The planning of the conspiracy apparently took at least 15 years (<a href='B:140 25:25'>2Ch 25:25</a>).</p>


text:
<p>They brought him on horses; and he was buried at Jerusalem with his fathers in the city of David- </p><p>Horses were forbidden to the kings of Israel (<a href='B:50 17:16'>Deu 17:16</a>) so this is an appropriate end for an unfaithful man who trusted in human strength.</p>


text:
<p>All the people of Judah took Azariah, who was sixteen years old, and made him king in the place of his father Amaziah- </p><p>Called Uzziah in <a href='B:140 26:1'>2Ch 26:1</a>. Those who conspired against Amaziah were apparently stopped by the people from taking power. And they insisted upon the line of David continuing, through Uzziah. Despite their general unspirituality. "Uzziah", 'strength of Jehovah', has a very similar meaning to the name of his father Amaziah, 'power of Jehovah'. Yet Amaziah had not lived up to that (see on <a href='B:140 25:15'>2Ch 25:15</a>. He may have named his son similarly in a hope that he would succeed where he failed.</p>


text:
<p>He built Elath, and restored it to Judah, after that the king slept with his fathers-</p><p>Amaziah his father had defeated Edom, and Eloth was in Edom. This explains the comment that Uzziah did this after his father died. But in doing so he was really living out the ghost of his father and fulfilling parental expectation; for he repeated the works for Yahweh which his father had done (<a href='B:140 26:4'>2Ch 26:4</a>). Those raised in believing families must ever probe the degree to which their faith and works are possibly just living out parental expectation.</p>


text:
<p>In the fifteenth year of Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah, Jeroboam the son of Joash king of Israel began to reign in Samaria for forty-one years-</p><p>This was the longest reign of an Israelite king. The kings of Israel lived and reigned far shorter than those of Judah. And yet in the final analysis, Ezekiel says that Judah sinned more than Israel. But their kings had greater signs of external blessing, and perhaps overall they were generally more righteous than their people. Whereas the kings of Israel were as wicked as their people.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh: he didn’t depart from all the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, with which he made Israel to sin- </p><p>See on :4. Israel had been commanded to "not depart" from the way of Yahweh's commandments (<a href='B:50 28:14'>Deu 28:14</a>; <a href='B:60 1:7'>Jos 1:7</a>), but the frequent lament of the historical records is that they did not depart from the sins of Jeroboam. The Bible, especially in Proverbs, constantly reduces human moral choice to that between two ways of life and being. We constantly wish to argue that "it's not so simple" because there are grey areas. But the 'grey area' argument is what leads us so often into sin, into following the "way" of sin.</p>


text:
<p>He restored the border of Israel from the entrance of Hamath to the sea of the Arabah, according to the word of Yahweh, the God of Israel, which He spoke by His servant Jonah the son of Amittai, the prophet who was of Gath Hepher- </p><p>Jeroboam was a wicked man, but God reversed Israel's fortunes through him, by grace alone (:26). The entrance of Hamath generally means the northern border of Israel (<a href='B:40 13:21'>Num 13:21</a>; <a href='B:40 34:8'>Num 34:8</a>); the sea of the Arabah is the Dead Sea. The Jonah of the book of Jonah was also the son of Amittai, so we conclude this was the same prophet:&nbsp; Hosea and Amos also prophesied at this time. This prophecy of restoration of territory was fulfilled by grace alone (:26), and would have been an encouragement to the exiles at the time of the restoration, who would have feared that the exiles were generally so unspiritual that the restoration could not happen. "Restored" is the usual word used for the "return" of the exiles. Gath Hepher was near Nazareth in the tribe of Zebulon. According to Jewish tradition, he was the son of the widow of Zarephath.</p>


text:
<p>For Yahweh saw the affliction of Israel, that it was very bitter; for there was none shut up nor left at large, neither was there any helper for Israel- </p><p>As noted on :25, the restoration of :25 was therefore an example of God's fulfilment of His prophetic word by grace alone, rather than in response to the righteousness of His people.</p><p>We must watch out for the tendency to think that because a man has dug a hole and then fallen into it, well, that’s his problem. But we have all done this, hopelessly so. We only have ourselves to blame. And yet God has rushed to us in Christ. He was grieved for the affliction of Israel, even though it was purely due to their own sin and wilful rebellion. If a man has fallen into his own hole, well he is still there and needs help, however he got there.</p><p>Scripture repeatedly speaks as if God notices things and is then hurt by what He sees (<a href='B:390 3:10'>Jon 3:10</a>; <a href='B:10 29:31'>Gen 29:31</a>; <a href='B:20 3:4'>Exo 3:4</a>; <a href='B:50 32:19'>Deu 32:19</a>; <a href='B:120 14:26'>2Ki 14:26</a>; <a href='B:140 12:7'>2Ch 12:7</a>; <a href='B:330 23:13'>Eze 23:13</a>; <a href='B:290 59:15'>Isa 59:15</a> cp. <a href='B:490 7:13'>Luk 7:13</a>). If He knew in advance what they were going to do, this language is hard for me to understand. But God is therefore hurt and 'surprised' at sin- He saw Israel as the firstripe grapes, but they were worshipping Baal even then (<a href='B:350 9:9'>Hos 9:9</a>). Thus God can allow Himself to feel an element of surprise- and this was a shock to Jeremiah, who queried: "Why are You like a man who is caught by surprise:::?" (<a href='B:300 14:9'>Jer 14:9</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh didn’t say that He would blot out the name of Israel from under the sky; but He saved them by the hand of Jeroboam the son of Joash- </p><p>And this Jeroboam was a wicked man, although the appointed saviour (<a href='B:120 13:5'>2Ki 13:5</a>). The idea may be that He did not say at that time that He would blot out the name of Israel. Or perhaps the message is that for all their sins, God did not blot out the name of Israel, for it continued, as in a sense He never cast away His people (<a href='B:520 11:1-2'>Rom 11:1-2</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, and all that he did, and his might, how he warred, and how he recovered for Israel Damascus and Hamath, which had belonged to Judah, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?- </p><p>See on :15. This may not be the same books of Chronicles which we have in our Bibles. David had put garrisons in Damascus (<a href='B:100 8:6'>2Sa 8:6</a>) and had made Hamath's king a tributary to him (<a href='B:100 8:9-11'>2Sa 8:9-11</a>). So we are reading here of how Jeroboam restored to some extent the Davidic kingdom and situation- but by grace alone (:26), seeing he was wicked. This was all encouragement to the exiles, that God's word of restoration had come true earlier, by grace alone, despite His people's weakness.</p>


text:
<p>Jeroboam slept with his fathers, even with the kings of Israel; and Zechariah his son reigned in his place- </p><p>This was now the fourth generation from Jehu who were to reign on the throne before being cut off (<a href='B:120 10:30'>2Ki 10:30</a>).</p>


text:
<p>In the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam king of Israel began Azariah son of Amaziah king of Judah to reign- </p><p>Azariah is called Uzziah in 2 Chronicles 26. The margin of the earlier versions of the AV states: "This is the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam’s partnership in the kingdom with his father, who made him consort at his going to the Syrian wars. It is the sixteenth year of Jeroboam’s monarchy”. Lightfoot tries to reconcile with <a href='B:120 14:16-17'>2Ki 14:16-17</a> by claiming that “At the death of Amaziah, his son and heir Uzziah was but four years old, for he was about sixteen in Jeroboam’s twenty-seventh year; therefore, the throne must have been empty eleven years, and the government administered by protectors while Uzziah was in his minority”. These explanations rather founder when compared with <a href='B:140 26:1'>2Ch 26:1</a>; <a href='B:120 14:20-21'>2Ki 14:20-21</a>. Probably the better resolution is to just accept that the numerals טו 15 and כז 27 have been confused by copying error. The difference between them is not that great, just a few tiny stems on letters.</p><p>"Uzziah", 'strength of Jehovah', has a very similar meaning to the name of his father Amaziah, 'power of Jehovah'. Yet Amaziah had not lived up to that (see on <a href='B:140 25:15'>2Ch 25:15</a>. He may have named his son similarly in a hope that he would succeed where he failed.</p>


text:
<p>Sixteen years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned fifty-two years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Jecoliah of Jerusalem- </p><p>This means that he was born about the time that his father Amaziah turned away from Yahweh (<a href='B:140 25:25-27'>2Ch 25:25-27</a>). His spirituality may therefore have been due to his mother, 'Yah will enable'.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh, according to all that his father Amaziah had done- </p><p>God's judgment of Amaziah was that he did what was right, but his heart was not consistently with God. So the meaning of this may be that Uzziah likewise did what was right, he did something which were right, as Amaziah did. But there is no comment at this point about the all important judgment of God about his state of heart. And I suggested on <a href='B:140 26:2'>2Ch 26:2</a> that be began by simply living out parental expectation. See on <a href='B:140 26:16'>2Ch 26:16</a>.</p>


text:
<p>However the high places were not taken away: the people still sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places- </p><p>"Taken away" is the same word as 'depart from' in :9. The way of Jeroboam was not departed from, and so the high places were not departed from. The suggestion is that they were associated with the calf worship.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh struck the king, so that he was a leper to the day of his death, and lived in a separate house. Jotham the king’s son was over the household, judging the people of the land- </p><p>There is far more background in the record in 2 Chronicles 26. This living in a separate house indicates obedience to God's law. For Naaman was a leper and yet had an active place in Syrian society, and Uzziah and Judah might have adopted their attitude to leprosy. The fact Uzziah didn't seek to get around this could perhaps indicate that he accepted his judgment and may have repented. But see on <a href='B:140 26:23'>2Ch 26:23</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Azariah, and all that he did, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?- </p><p>This may not be the same book of Chronicles which we have in our Bibles.</p>


text:
<p>Azariah slept with his fathers; and they buried him with his fathers in the city of David. Jotham his son reigned in his place-</p><p><a href='B:140 26:23'>2Ch 26:23</a> is more detailed: "So Uzziah slept with his fathers; and they buried him with his fathers in the field of burial which belonged to the kings; for they said, He is a leper". They were hyper sensitive to the Mosaic legislation about leprosy (see on :5), and yet Isaiah says that Judah at that time were spiritually so leprous, and they didn't even realize it. They focused upon external obedience to the law when it concerned others, but failed to see that they in essence were just as bad as those whom they were carefully separate from. And this again is an abiding lesson for us. We note that sleeping with fathers doesn't have to mean being buried next to them.</p>


text:
<p>In the thirty-eighth year of Azariah king of Judah, Zechariah the son of Jeroboam reigned over Israel in Samaria six months-</p><p>Some wicked kings reigned just six months, others decades. We cannot immediately explain this, although it seems some showed signs of repentance whereas others didn't, and God patiently worked with them- even if in the end He didn't persuade them of repentance.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, as his fathers had done: he didn’t depart from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, with which he made Israel to sin- </p><p>See on :4. Israel had been commanded to "not depart" from the way of Yahweh's commandments (<a href='B:50 28:14'>Deu 28:14</a>; <a href='B:60 1:7'>Jos 1:7</a>), but the frequent lament of the historical records is that they did not depart from the sins of Jeroboam. The Bible, especially in Proverbs, constantly reduces human moral choice to that between two ways of life and being. We constantly wish to argue that "it's not so simple" because there are grey areas. But the 'grey area' argument is what leads us so often into sin, into following the "way" of sin.</p>


text:
<p>Shallum the son of Jabesh conspired against him, and struck him before the people, and killed him, and reigned in his place- </p><p>Amos was a prophet contemporary with this situation and he had prophesied in <a href='B:370 7:9'>Amo 7:9</a> that God "will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword". Hence the murder was committed "before the people", in some kind of public execution.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Zechariah, behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel-</p><p>Not necessarily the same book of Chronicles which we have in our Bibles. See on :21.</p>


text:
<p>This was the word of Yahweh which He spoke to Jehu, saying, Your sons to the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel. So it came to pass-</p><p>We must read in an ellipsis; "this was the [fulfilment of] the word of Yahweh". His word is so sure of fulfilment that His word is the fulfilment of it. We are to grasp this perspective by living as if the word of promise has been fulfilled in essence.</p>


text:
<p>Shallum the son of Jabesh began to reign in the thirty-ninth year of Azariah king of Judah; and he reigned for a month in Samaria- </p><p>Amos describes the situation at this time as being of very deep moral failure.</p>


text:
<p>Menahem the son of Gadi went up from Tirzah, and came to Samaria, and struck Shallum the son of Jabesh in Samaria, and killed him, and reigned in his place-</p><p>Tirzah may have been the home town of Menahem. Or it could be that he was at Tirzah on the way to a campaign in Tiphsah (:16); Menahem appears to have been the commander of the army.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Shallum, and his conspiracy which he made, behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel- </p><p>Not the same book of Chronicles which we have in our Bibles; see on :21.</p>


text:
<p>Then Menahem struck Tiphsah, and all who were therein, and its borders, from Tirzah, because they didn’t open to him. Therefore he struck it; and all the women therein who were with child he ripped up-</p><p>Tiphsah was on the Euphrates (<a href='B:110 4:24'>1Ki 4:24</a>). But this was very far away, and maybe the reference is to some other town; the name means "passage" or "ford". Perhaps Zachariah had sought to continue on his father’s policy of restoring Israel's border, and had gathered an army to do this which was at the royal city of Tirzah, with Menahem as general. But before they marched "from [i:e. starting from] Tirzah", they heard that Shallum had murdered Zachariah and taken the throne. Menahem therefore marched from Tirzah to Samaria, destroyed Shallum, returning to his military base as Tirzah, and then continued the eastern campaign.</p><p>Slaying the pregnant women was surely not in accord with the spirit of the Mosaic laws of engagement. And yet he conducted his campaign under the excuse he was zealously restoring Israel's borders in accordance with the covenant.</p>


text:
<p>In the thirty-ninth year of Azariah king of Judah, Menahem the son of Gadi began to reign over Israel for ten years in Samaria- </p><p>"Gadi" means "fortune" and is a term associated with idolatry. He doesn't have even God's name in his name nor did his son Menahem, and Amos describes the spiritual situation in Israel as utterly dire at this time.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh. He didn’t depart all his days from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, with which he made Israel to sin- </p><p>For "depart", see on :9.</p>


text:
<p>There came against the land Pul the king of Assyria; and Menahem gave Pul one thousand talents of silver, that he might help him to confirm the kingdom in his hand-</p><p>Menahem clearly didn't have a strong hold on power within Israel nor amongst the surrounding nations, and sought strength from Pul rather than God. "Pul" does not appear in the Assyrian Canon, but Babylonian documents seem claim Pul (Pulu) was the Babylonian name for Tiglath-pileser, who reigned under that name in Babylon during his last two years. It was the same power which was to desolate Israel; and yet they invited them to come into their land, in their faithfulness.</p><p>The 1000 talents was maybe a punishment for taking Tiphsah.</p>


text:
<p>Menahem exacted the money of Israel, even of all the mighty men of wealth, of each man fifty shekels of silver, to give to the king of Assyria. So the king of Assyria turned back, and didn’t stay there in the land:-</p><p>Fifty shekels was a heavy tax, and to get 1000 talents, it would have had to be taken from 60,000 people. This confirms the impression we get from the prophecies of Amos at this time; that there was wealth in Israel, although in the hands of the ruling elite. And it was this wealth which led to their apostacy.</p>&nbsp;<p></p><p></p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Menahem, and all that he did, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?-</p><p>Not the same book of Chronicles which we have in our Bibles, which says nothing about Menahem.</p>


text:
<p>Menahem slept with his fathers; and Pekahiah his son reigned in his place-</p><p>The description of death as sleeping with fathers is clear evidence that death is seen as a sleep, unconsciousness, and not as the start of an immortal soul going to heaven or 'hell'. Good and bad, David and Solomon, are gathered together in death. The division between them will only therefore come at the resurrection of the dead, and the granting of immortality at the judgment seat of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>In the fiftieth year of Azariah king of Judah Pekahiah the son of Menahem began to reign over Israel in Samaria for two years- </p><p>We note the contrast in the general lengths of reign; the kings of Judah reigned far longer on average that those of Israel. Although Menahem was far from God, he inserted the name Yah in his son's name. Typically Israel sinned not by totally rejecting Yahweh, but as we are tempted to, mixing His religion with our own idolatry and agendas.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh. He didn’t depart from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, with which he made Israel to sin- </p><p>For "depart", see on :9.</p>


text:
<p>Pekah the son of Remaliah, his captain, conspired against him and struck him in Samaria, in the castle of the king’s house, with Argob and Arieh; and with him were fifty men of the Gileadites. He killed him, and reigned in his place- </p><p>The men of Gilead were those whom a few years ago Menahem had sought to restore to Israel through his campaign at Tiphsah on the Euphrates (see on :16). But the people were disloyal and ever seeking for petty advantage and settling old scores, so they helped to murder his son. "With Argob and Arieh" suggests they were with him at the time and not part of the conspiracy against him. Perhaps they were his deputies, but we note neither of them have the name of God in their names.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Pekahiah, and all that he did, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel-</p><p>Not the same book of Chronicles which we have in our Bibles, see on :21.</p>


text:
<p>In the fifty-second year of Azariah king of Judah, Pekah the son of Remaliah began to reign over Israel in Samaria for twenty years- </p><p>Isaiah mentions Pekah as ‘the son of Remaliah’ only, without mention of his name, perhaps because his life was a denial of his name, 'Yah is watching'.</p>


text:
<p>In the days of Pekah king of Israel came Tiglath Pileser king of Assyria, and took Ijon, Abel Beth Maacah, Janoah, Kedesh, Hazor, Gilead, Galilee all the land of Naphtali; and he carried them captive to Assyria- </p><p>Yet despite this loss of his northern borderlands, he planned on restoring the size of his territory by attacking Judah, as explained in Isaiah 7-9.</p>


text:
<p>Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and struck him, and killed him, and reigned in his place, in the twentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzziah- </p><p>The end of Israel is associated with conspiracies and brother murdering brother. This is why division and aggression between brethren is associated with condemnation, and by behaving like this, we herald not only the destruction of our own community of believers but are living out our own condemnation (see on <a href='B:550 5:15'>Gal 5:15</a>).</p><p><a href='B:120 15:30'>2Ki 15:30</a> says that Hoshea began to reign in the twentieth year of Jotham; but Jotham only reigned 16 years (<a href='B:120 15:33'>2Ki 15:33</a>). But <a href='B:120 17:1'>2Ki 17:1</a> says that Hoshea became king of Israel in the 12th year of Ahaz. There are various possibilities here. One is that if <a href='B:120 15:30'>2Ki 15:30</a> "in the twentieth year of Jotham" means "in the twentieth year from the accession of Jotham" i:e. in the fourth year of Ahaz, as Jotham reigned sixteen years (<a href='B:120 15:33'>2Ki 15:33</a>). There may have been some overlap in the reigns, whereby two kings rule at the same time, an "interregnum". Although we must then somehow factor in <a href='B:120 15:30'>2Ki 15:30</a>. Another possibility is that although Hoshea killed Pekah in the fourth year of Ahaz (<a href='B:120 15:30'>2Ki 15:30</a>), he didn't fully become king until eight years later. Eight years of anarchy between the death of Pekah and establishment of Hoshea as king would not be unimaginable, given the terribly divided state of Israel at the time.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Pekah, and all that he did, behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel-</p><p>Not the same book of Chronicles which we have in our Bibles, see on :21.</p>


text:
<p>In the second year of Pekah the son of Remaliah king of Israel began Jotham the son of Uzziah king of Judah to reign-</p><p>Verse 33 notes that "He was twenty-five years old when he began to reign, and reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem". &nbsp;</p><p>He died at 41, which is a number which repeats at least three other times in the history of the kings (<a href='B:110 14:21'>1Ki 14:21</a>; <a href='B:110 15:10'>1Ki 15:10</a>; <a href='B:120 14:23'>2Ki 14:23</a>). We can only ponder whether this is all some kind of Divinely arranged program, the exact function of which we cannot understand although we perceive it as existent.</p>


text:
<p>He was twenty-five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem: and his mother’s name was Jerusha the daughter of Zadok- </p><p>Zadok, righteousness, is a typical priestly name; so we wonder whether this was another example of the kingly and priestly lines uniting.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh; he did according to all that his father Uzziah had done- </p><p>So often kings who were not very faithful or spiritual are described with a rubric like: "He did that which was right in the sight of the Lord: he did according to all that his father::. had done". This may not mean that he totally did what was right in God's sight. He did what was right only insofar as his father had done. And this is why over time, the spirituality of the kings of Judah decreased.</p>


text:
<p>However the high places were not taken away: the people still sacrificed and burned incense in the high places. He built the upper gate of the house of Yahweh- </p><p>This was the gate which led from the king's palace to the temple. The fact the king rebuilt it would reflect his desire for access to the temple and a wish to show solidarity with the temple.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Jotham, and all that he did, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?-</p><p>Bearing in mind the note on :21, it is so that 2 Chronicles 27 records in great detail Jotham's mighty works.</p>


text:
<p>In those days Yahweh began to send against Judah Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah- </p><p>God had condemned and forbidden any fighting between His people. But He sent Pekah of Israel against Judah. He confirms division and conflict between brethren if that is what they wish, just as He confirms the unity of the Spirit through His Spirit.</p>


text:
<p>Jotham slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David his father; and Ahaz his son reigned in his place- </p><p>The description of death as sleeping with fathers is clear evidence that death is seen as a sleep, unconsciousness, and not as the start of an immortal soul going to heaven or 'hell'. Good and bad, David and Solomon, are gathered together in death. The division between them will only therefore come at the resurrection of the dead, and the granting of immortality at the judgment seat of the Lord Jesus.</p><p></p>


text:
<p>In the seventeenth year of Pekah the son of Remaliah Ahaz the son of Jotham king of Judah began to reign-</p><p>Ahaz means 'taker hold of', and Isaiah [who prophesied at his time] seems to make a play on his name when he uses the word about the judgment which was to come upon or 'take hold of' him (<a href='B:290 5:29'>Isa 5:29</a>; <a href='B:290 13:8'>Isa 13:8</a>; <a href='B:290 21:3'>Isa 21:3</a>; <a href='B:290 33:14'>Isa 33:14</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Twenty years old was Ahaz when he began to reign; and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem. He didn’t do that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh his God, like David his father- </p><p>Isaiah, Hosea and Micah all prophesied during his evil reign and provide more details about the awful nature of his sins.</p>


text:
<p>But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel- </p><p>Although Israel is often described as the source of Judah's apostacy, we must give due weight to Ezekiel's word that Judah was in fact more wicked than Israel. This could have been because Judah fell further, from greater spiritual potential. Or maybe because sinners can provoke people to sin worse than they do.</p><p>Yes, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the nations, whom Yahweh cast out from before the children of Israel- </p><p>Hezekiah his son somehow survived this, but may have reacted to his father's murder of his brothers by turning right against such idolatry. This means that his apparent zeal for Yahweh [remembering that he turned away from Him in the end and raised Manasseh] was partly due to a psychological reaction against his father and traumatic childhood experiences. For he would have lived in constant fear that he would also be offered, at the whim of the gods of his father. It was common to make children pass through fire as a kind of dedication ceremony; but he actually burnt his children in the fire, such was his obsession.</p><p>The valley of Hinnom, Ge Hinnom, was to later be known as Gehenna, and became a symbol used by the Lord for complete destruction (<a href='B:470 5:22'>Mat 5:22</a>). As they burnt their children there, to destruction, so sinners would be burnt to destruction in that same place. Joachim Jeremias explains how the literal valley of Gehenna came to be misinterpreted as a symbol of a ‘hell’ that is supposed to be a place of fire: “[Gehenna]…since ancient times has been the name of the valley west and south of Jerusalem…from the woes pronounced by the prophets on the valley (<a href='B:300 7:32'>Jer 7:32</a> = <a href='B:120 19:6'>2Ki 19:6</a>; cf. <a href='B:290 31:9'>Isa 31:9</a>; <a href='B:290 66:24'>Isa 66:24</a>) because sacrifices to Moloch took place there (<a href='B:120 16:3'>2Ki 16:3</a>; <a href='B:120 21:6'>2Ki 21:6</a>), there developed in the second century BC the idea that the valley of Hinnom would be the place of a fiery hell (Eth. Enoch 26; 90:26)… it is distinguished from sheol” (New Testament Theology, London: SCM, 1972 p. 129).</p>


text:
<p>He sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places and on the hills, and under every green tree- </p><p>Large, flourishing green trees weren't so common in the landscape, and they therefore came to be seen as the presence of fertility gods. This is the huge significance of the old covenant promising fertility from Yahweh- for most of the pagan gods were seen as fertility gods, and this is why they were worshipped by largely agricultural people.</p>


text:
<p>Then Rezin king of Syria and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to war; and they besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him- </p><p>2 Chronicles 28 records their massive military victories against Ahaz. But Kings wishes to stress that despite these, they could not overcome him in order to take Jerusalem. He outlived their siege. It seems he lost nearly all of Judah apart from Jerusalem. This focus upon the fact Jerusalem was retained is perhaps to show how it was preserved by grace, because of God's special grace toward the throne of David there. But that grace was not limitless, and the situation was to repeat in Hezekiah's time, until finally Jerusalem did fall, because of the persistent evil of the people.</p>


text:
<p>At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and drove the Jews from Elath; and the Syrians came to Elath, and lived there, to this day- </p><p>Elath was Judah's eastern port, and yet it was surrounded by Edom. "The Syrians" could be as LXX "the Idumeans", i:e. the Edomites.</p>


text:
<p>So Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath Pileser king of Assyria saying, I am your servant and your son. Come up, and save me out of the hand of the king of Syria, and out of the hand of the king of Israel, who are rising up against me- </p><p><a href='B:120 16:7'>2Ki 16:7</a> "Syria" is LXX "Edom". Although Kings then records the Assyrian attack upon Syria (:17). So perhaps the idea is that the Edomites of <a href='B:140 28:17'>2Ch 28:17</a> were in fact under the control of Syria: "For again the Edomites had come and struck Judah, and carried away captives". It seems Edom was under the control of Syria. And so Ahaz paid Assyria to attack Syria. Or it could be [putting the Kings record together with this] that Ahaz paid Assyria to help him against Edom, but Assyria instead attacked Syria, claiming that was good enough work done for the money. Even though Assyria had their own agenda for attacking Syria (Aram).</p>


text:
<p>Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found in the house of Yahweh, and in the treasures of the king’s house, and sent it for a present to the king of Assyria- </p><p>Chronicles says that he "gathered together the vessels of the house of God and cut in pieces the vessels of the house of God", as if he melted them down to send to Assyria. He showed thereby how little respect he had for the things of Yahweh worship. Gold is a symbol of faith (<a href='B:670 1:7'>1Pe 1:7</a>), and his faith was clearly not in God but in the might of Assyria- which was to later almost destroy Judah in Hezekiah's time.</p>


text:
<p>The king of Assyria listened to him. The king of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took it, and carried its people captive to Kir, and killed Rezin- </p><p><a href='B:140 28:20'>2Ch 28:20</a> comments that "Tilgath Pilneser king of Assyria came to him and distressed him, but didn’t strengthen him". Giving God's money to Gentile powers never achieved anything but only ever made matters worse (<a href='B:140 16:2'>2Ch 16:2</a>; <a href='B:120 12:18'>2Ki 12:18</a>; <a href='B:120 18:15'>2Ki 18:15</a>). But even Hezekiah refused to learn this clearly taught theme in the history of God's people. "It didn't help him" was to be Judah's later experience in seeking help from Egypt against Babylon (s:w. <a href='B:290 31:1'>Isa 31:1</a>; <a href='B:310 4:17'>Lam 4:17</a>). Again, they failed to learn the lessons from history, unwilling to see that these historical situations spoke directly to their own situations and lives. We too can fail to perceive this. In fact the choice of histories and biographies we have in the Bible have been carefully selected in order that man need never feel alone; in essence, every life situation has been met at some point and time in the past.</p>


text:
<p>King Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglath Pileser king of Assyria, and saw the altar that was at Damascus- </p><p>This was surely one of the mobile altars which the Assyrians took with them. Assyria had conquered Damascus and so were enthroning their gods there. Tiglath Pileser was known for holding regional courts for his vassals as he travelled around on his campaigns.</p><p>And king Ahaz sent to Urijah the priest the fashion of the altar, and its pattern, according to all its workmanship- </p><p>However, Ahaz also tried worshipping the gods of Syria (Aram) whom he had asked Assyria to attack: "For he sacrificed to the gods of Damascus which struck him. He said, Because the gods of the kings of Syria helped them, so I will sacrifice to them, that they may help me. But they were the ruin of him, and of all Israel" (<a href='B:140 28:23'>2Ch 28:23</a>). The increasing distress upon Ahaz was intended to elicit his repentance and turning to Yahweh. But instead he turned even more to idolatry. This mad obsession with idolatry is described in Ezekiel and Hosea as like a kind of sexual addiction, whereby the more partners a sex addict has, the more they require. Most nations had a set of national gods, and they only changed them if they were conquered by other nations and forced to accept their gods. But God's people had an obsession with every kind of god, until the Jerusalem temple was filled with all manner of shrines to various gods at the time of its destruction. And the bizarre thing was that Syria was to fall at this time to Assyria (<a href='B:120 16:9'>2Ki 16:9</a>); their gods didn't ultimately help them, and in fact Ahaz had paid money to Assyria to attack the Syrians.</p><p>"Fashion::. pattern" is a similar phrase to that in <a href='B:10 1:26'>Gen 1:26</a>, where God made man in His image and likeness. Here, Ahaz creates after another image and likeness. Just as man has in a sense created gods after his own image and likeness, and not in God's.</p>


text:
<p>Urijah the priest built an altar: according to all that king Ahaz had sent from Damascus, so Urijah the priest made it for the coming of king Ahaz from Damascus- </p><p>If Urijah the priest is the one of <a href='B:290 8:2'>Isa 8:2</a>, we see how even Isaiah's inner circle had fallen away. Assyrian altars were small and mobile (see on :10), built on a triangular base with very specific Assyrian inscriptions. We note the pagan associations of the triangle have a long history, which continues in the false doctrine of the Trinity.</p>


text:
<p>When the king had come from Damascus, the king saw the altar, and the king drew near to the altar, and offered on it- </p><p>He acted as a priest within the temple. Uzziah did this and was struck with leprosy. Ahaz apparently 'got away with it'. But this connects with the question as to why such a sinful man had such a long reign. We can only assume that this was because God kept trying with him, in the hope of repentance. But God responds differently to sin in every life; and therein lies the fallacy of churches seeking to have a standard policy on how to respond to sin and failure. Each case is different, even if the external sin is apparently the same. Seeing and then worshipping recalls the sin of Adam and Eve, seeing the fruit and then eating it. Their sin was indeed the essence of every sin which was to follow.</p>


text:
<p>He burnt his burnt offering and his meal offering, and poured his drink offering, and sprinkled the blood of his peace offerings on the altar- </p><p>Again we see Ahaz acting as a priest (see on :12), although with no faithful priest like Azariah to step in and stop him (<a href='B:140 26:17'>2Ch 26:17</a>). We note he offered peace offerings, something only possible through having persuaded himself that he could worship idols as a form of Yahweh worship. Are we going to be like Israel, who offered peace offerings, and then rose up from their tables to worship idols and indulge their flesh (<a href='B:20 32:5-6'>Exo 32:5-6</a>)? Are we going to be like those Israelites who offered a peace offering, when actually they were not at peace with God at all (<a href='B:90 13:9'>1Sa 13:9</a>; <a href='B:120 16:13'>2Ki 16:13</a>; <a href='B:240 7:14'>Pro 7:14</a>; <a href='B:370 5:22'>Amo 5:22</a>)? These are challenges especially appropriate to the breaking of bread meeting, which is a kind of new covenant equivalent for the peace offering.</p>


text:
<p>The bronze altar, which was before Yahweh, he brought from the forefront of the house, from between his altar and the house of Yahweh, and put it on the north side of his altar- </p><p>We note he didn't destroy Yahweh's altar nor melt it down as he did other things in the temple (<a href='B:140 28:24'>2Ch 28:24</a>). He saw himself as reinterpreting Yahweh worship, rather than destroying it.</p>


text:
<p>King Ahaz commanded Urijah the priest saying, On the great altar burn the morning burnt offering, and the evening meal offering, and the king’s burnt offering, and his meal offering, with the burnt offering of all the people of the land, and their meal offering and their drink offerings; and sprinkle on it all the blood of the burnt offering, and all the blood of the sacrifice; but the bronze altar shall be for me to inquire by- </p><p>Again we see Ahaz continuing to worship Yahweh, but claiming to do so through worshipping idols. This has been the perennial temptation for God's people, to mix flesh and spirit, to go the way of the flesh in the name of the Spirit. The king continued to have "his" special offerings. He did not turn away from Yahweh officially, but rather sought to show that he was continuing faithful to the tradition of the king leading the way in offering sacrifice (<a href='B:110 8:62'>1Ki 8:62</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Urijah the priest did so, according to all that king Ahaz commanded-</p><p>We must compare the scene with the reminiscence of <a href='B:140 29:7'>2Ch 29:7</a>: "Also they have shut up the doors of the porch, and put out the lamps, and have not burned incense nor offered burnt offerings in the holy place to the God of Israel". </p><p>I suggest that offerings were offered there, but to Yahweh through the pagan gods. But this was not therefore offering to the God of Israel, who demands totally devotion to Himself as the only true God. For the temple services continued on some level (<a href='B:120 16:14-16'>2Ki 16:14-16</a>), although Ahaz had brought idols into the holy place of the temple (<a href='B:140 29:5'>2Ch 29:5</a>).</p><p>Ahaz didn't totally reject Yahweh worship (see on <a href='B:140 28:24'>2Ch 28:24</a>). He had mixed Yahweh worship with idolatry, which in essence is the temptation we all have. Scientific atheism, a total rejection of our God, is likely not our biggest temptation; rather is it to mix His ways with those of the flesh and the secular world.</p>


text:
<p>King Ahaz cut off the panels of the bases, and removed the basins from off them, and took down the sea from off the bronze oxen that were under it, and put it on a pavement of stone- </p><p>Ahaz saw no need for cleansing within the rituals of worship. He had no conscience of personal sin. And so his desecration of the laver is particularly recorded. The 'gathering together' of the temple vessels (<a href='B:140 28:24'>2Ch 28:24</a>) may mean he melted them down. However <a href='B:120 16:17'>2Ki 16:17</a> implies this was only done to the huge supports of the laver. I suggest Ahaz retained some level of belief in Yahweh, for the temple services continued on some level (<a href='B:120 16:13'>2Ki 16:13</a>), although Ahaz had brought idols into the holy place of the temple (<a href='B:140 29:5'>2Ch 29:5</a>). He had mixed Yahweh worship with idolatry, which in essence is the temptation we all have. Scientific atheism, a total rejection of our God, is likely not our biggest temptation; rather is it to mix His ways with those of the flesh and the secular world.</p>


text:
<p>The covered way for the Sabbath that they had built in the house, and the king’s entry outside the house of Yahweh, he changed because of the king of Assyria- </p><p><a href='B:140 28:24'>2Ch 28:24</a> says that "Ahaz gathered together the vessels of God’s house, cut in pieces the vessels of God’s house, and shut up the doors of the house of Yahweh; and he made him altars in every corner of Jerusalem". But perhaps <a href='B:120 16:18'>2Ki 16:18</a> helps understand this as meaning that he shut up one door or gate of the temple and devoted it to the idols of Assyria; without meaning that all the doors or gates of the temple were closed. It's doubtful Ahaz resigned all belief in Yahweh, but rather wanted to treat all his gods equally. Lest he offend any of them. The fundamental teaching that Yahweh is one, the one and only God, was ignored. This particular "way" was the passage between the king's house and the temple which he used every Sabbath. He "changed" it, or perhaps named it in honour of the king of Assyria.</p><p>These changes to the temple and its equipment in :17,18 are similar to how the Egyptian kings are recorded as mutilating their gods and temples when the gods fell out of favour with them. However we noted on :15 that Ahaz continued the semblance of worship of Yahweh, but dedicated it instead to his new gods. It is too simplistic to think that he totally rejected Yahweh for other gods. Our temptations likewise are not a case of becoming atheists.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Ahaz which he did, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?- </p><p>This may not be the same book of Chronicles which we have in our Bibles. See on <a href='B:120 15:21'>2Ki 15:21</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Ahaz slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David; and Hezekiah his son reigned in his place- </p><p>The description of death as sleeping with fathers is clear evidence that death is seen as a sleep, unconsciousness, and not as the start of an immortal soul going to heaven or 'hell'. Good and bad, David and Solomon, are gathered together in death. The division between them will only therefore come at the resurrection of the dead, and the granting of immortality at the judgment seat of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>In the twelfth year of Ahaz king of Judah, Hoshea the son of Elah began to reign in Samaria over Israel for nine years- </p><p><a href='B:120 15:30'>2Ki 15:30</a> says that Hoshea began to reign in the twentieth year of Jotham; but Jotham only reigned 16 years (<a href='B:120 15:33'>2Ki 15:33</a>). But <a href='B:120 17:1'>2Ki 17:1</a> says that Hoshea became king of Israel in the 12th year of Ahaz. There are various possibilities here. One is that if <a href='B:120 15:30'>2Ki 15:30</a> "in the twentieth year of Jotham" means "in the twentieth year from the accession of Jotham" i:e. in the fourth year of Ahaz, as Jotham reigned sixteen years (<a href='B:120 15:33'>2Ki 15:33</a>). There may have been some overlap in the reigns, whereby two kings rule at the same time, an "interregnum". Although we must then somehow factor in <a href='B:120 15:30'>2Ki 15:30</a>. Another possibility is that although Hoshea killed Pekah in the fourth year of Ahaz (<a href='B:120 15:30'>2Ki 15:30</a>), he didn't fully become king until eight years later. Eight years of anarchy between the death of Pekah and establishment of Hoshea as king would not be unimaginable, given the terribly divided state of Israel at the time.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, yet not as the kings of Israel who were before him- </p><p>There are degrees of sin. God sees some wicked men as more wicked than others; for He is sensitive to every one of their sins. "For three transgressions and for four" of Israel or the Gentiles, God would still punish Jew and Gentile alike (Amos 1, 2)- i:e. He still feels the fourth sin, He doesn't become insensitive after the third sin. See on :7.</p>


text:
<p>Against him came up Shalmaneser king of Assyria; and Hoshea became his servant, and brought him tribute- </p><p>Shalmaneser appears from the inscriptions to be the Shalman of <a href='B:350 10:14'>Hos 10:14</a>, and the Sargon of <a href='B:290 20:1'>Isa 20:1</a>.</p>


text:
<p>The king of Assyria found conspiracy in Hoshea; for he had sent messengers to So king of Egypt, and offered no tribute to the king of Assyria, as he had done year by year. Therefore the king of Assyria shut him up, and bound him in prison- </p><p>Hoshea paid the tribute for six years (cp. :5,6). The notice that he was imprisoned will be explained in :5,6 as to how it came about. He was likely imprisoned after Samaria fell. Although it is possible there was a battle with the Assyrians before the siege began, during which Hoshea was captured.</p><p>Judah were intended to learn from the judgments upon the ten tribes. For they were not much better, and Ezekiel 16, 20 say that finally they were worse than the ten tribes. As Samaria was besieged, so was Jerusalem to be besieged by the same nation. But Hezekiah apparently didn't learn the lesson. As Israel tried to avoid paying tribute to Assyria and instead made a covenant with Egypt for help (<a href='B:120 17:4'>2Ki 17:4</a>), so did Hezekiah. And the message 'don't ever trust in Egypt' was engrained in the Biblical narrative. But likewise we find the consistent theme that God's people refuse to learn from their history. See on :7.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king of Assyria came up throughout all the land, and went up to Samaria, and besieged it three years-</p><p>The King of Assyria “came up” throughout the land promised to Abraham (<a href='B:120 17:5'>2Ki 17:5</a>). The Hebrew word used is alah, meaning to ascend up- and this is the very battle cry of the Islamic fundamentalists, Allah ahbar. The Assyrians were persuaded that the one true God, Yahweh, had sent them against Israel (<a href='B:120 18:25'>2Ki 18:25</a>)- just as the Islamic fundamentalists are today. The three years were not three whole years, but one year and parts of two others (cp. <a href='B:120 18:9-10'>2Ki 18:9-10</a>).</p>


text:
<p>In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away to Assyria- </p><p>It seems that in this very year (BC722), Sargon succeeded Shalmaneser IV in a revolution. Sargon in his annals refers to his victory over Samaria as his earliest act. <a href='B:120 18:9-10'>2Ki 18:9-10</a> record that Shalmaneser "came up against Samaria, and besieged it" but "they took it" rather than "he took it". It seems the representatives of these kings are referred to, and they were not personally present. Sargon as it were capitalized on the progress made whilst Shalmaneser was king. The annals of Sargon claim that 27,290 people were deported from Samaria. But those annals also imply many were left in the land and paid tribute to him.</p><p>And placed them in Halah- </p><p>Perhaps the Calah of <a href='B:10 10:11'>Gen 10:11</a>, the old capital of Assyria.</p><p>And on the Habor, the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes-</p><p>Assyria had only recently overrun those cities, and so the captured Israelites were used to populate them and thus dilute the ethnicity of the local population.</p>


text:
<p>It was so, because the children of Israel had sinned against Yahweh their God, who brought them up out of the land of Egypt from under the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. They had feared other gods- </p><p>Hoshea is not recorded as being a wildly sinful king, and although not a true believer, he did not sin as badly as those before him (:2). And yet judgment came in his day. The judgment is presented here as being because of the sin of the people, not so much their leaders. The reformers of God's people were it seems lone voices, with very little groundswell of support amongst the ordinary people. The fearing of other gods is here blamed upon their refusal to learn the spirit of the Passover, to refuse to be awed by the great redemption which they had historically experienced. This continues the consistent theme that God's people refuse to learn from their history. See on :4. The equivalent for us would be a failure to learn the lesson of historical redemption which is intended to be regularly learned through the breaking of bread memorial service.</p>


text:
<p>and walked in the statutes of the kings of Israel which they had made, and of the nations, whom Yahweh cast out from before the children of Israel- </p><p>2 Kings 17 points a contrast between people deciding to follow the customs and manners of their own kings and the pagan nations, rather than accept the commandments of God; His commandments were and are designed to elicit a way of life, to be the alternative to the customs or tradition which we previously lived by. Judah walked in the habits [“customs”] of the heathen and of the kings of Israel; “they followed vanity and became vain and went after the heathen” (:15). The habits of our world likewise are vain; wasting time online, following gossip and speculations, and in the end we become as vain as the vain habits we have slipped into. Once habit solidifies, it becomes effectively part of our nature and almost impossible to change, at least in human strength- so <a href='B:300 13:23'>Jer 13:23</a> teaches us: “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may you also do good, that are accustomed to do evil”. The Hebrew translated “accustomed” carries the idea of repeated habit. The Hebrew idea of ‘teaching’ is connected to the words for ‘habit’ or ‘custom’; because teaching was by repetition.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Israel did secretly things that were not right against Yahweh their God. They built them high places in all their cities, from the tower of the watchmen to the fortified city- </p><p>There was no ultimate secret, for God knew their ways, and their actions were manifest on “every high hill and under every green tree” (:10). The ‘secrecy’ was in that they thought their deeds could be kept secret from God. And the record reflects their wrong perspective with no further comment. It is for us to perceive it. And the same is true with the matter of demons. This is one reason why the apparent error isn’t corrected.</p><p>Having high places "in all their cities", from lonely watchtowers to their larger fenced cities, contrasts with the intention of centralized worship in Jerusalem at the temple. The division with Judah precluded that; and so we see how division amongst God's people sets up the possibility of not serving Him as we ought.</p>


text:
<p>and they set them up pillars and Asherim on every high hill, and under every green tree- </p><p>Large, flourishing green trees weren't so common in the landscape, and they therefore came to be seen as the presence of fertility gods. This is the huge significance of the old covenant promising fertility from Yahweh- for most of the pagan gods were seen as fertility gods, and this is why they were worshipped by largely agricultural people.</p>


text:
<p>There they burnt incense in all the high places, as did the nations whom Yahweh carried away before them; and they worked wicked things to provoke Yahweh to anger- </p><p>God can be grieved [s:w. 'provoke to anger']. He has emotions, and His potential foreknowledge doesn't mean that these feelings are not legitimate. They are presented as occurring in human time, as responses to human behaviour. This is the degree to which He has accommodated Himself to human time-space limits, in order to fully enter relationship and experience with us. As He can limit His omnipotence, so God can limit His omniscience, in order to feel and respond along with us.</p>


text:
<p>and they served idols, of which Yahweh had said to them, You shall not do this thing- </p><p>"Idols" here translates an unusual word, a form of galal, meaning "dung". We always feel how God so detests idolatry. And this is how He sees it. Plain simple commandments (<a href='B:20 20:4-5'>Exo 20:4-5</a>; <a href='B:20 20:23'>Exo 20:23</a>) were just ignored by them.</p>


text:
<p>Yet Yahweh testified to Israel and to Judah, by every prophet and every seer, saying, Turn 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- </p><p>See on <a href='B:300 23:18'>Jer 23:18</a>; <a href='B:300 23:22'>Jer 23:22</a>. "Testified" is the language of the court room. In the court of Heaven, they had been testified to by the prophets. The last generation had the testimony of "every" prophet against them. God's word became a cumulative weight of evidence against them. And we in our last days, having a completed Bible so readily available to us, likewise have a greater responsibility than those of earlier days. We cannot claim ignorance to God's will. See on :16.</p>


text:
<p>Notwithstanding, they would not listen, but stiffened their neck, like the neck of their fathers, who didn’t believe in Yahweh their God- </p><p>Judah in their last days were to fail to learn from the example of Israel (<a href='B:140 36:13'>2Ch 36:13</a>). See on :4,7. The hardening of the neck was in order to refuse the yoke of Yahweh's covenant which was placed upon them; they refused to cooperate and work with Him. It was for this reason that Judah too were taken into captivity (s:w. <a href='B:300 7:26'>Jer 7:26</a>; <a href='B:300 17:23'>Jer 17:23</a>; <a href='B:300 19:15'>Jer 19:15</a>). We would likely have focused upon their idolatry as the reason for their judgment. But the essential problem, as always, was human pride in refusing to hear God's word. They were intended to have the yoke of the covenant upon them, but they like a difficult beast of burden refused it. They didn't want covenant relationship with Yahweh. They "did" the ordinances as a matter of casuistic legal obedience, but didn't live in their spirit.</p>


text:
<p>They rejected His statutes and His covenant that He made with their fathers, and His testimonies which He had testified to them; and they followed vanity, and became vain, and followed the nations that were around them, concerning whom Yahweh had commanded them that they should not do like them- </p><p>See on :8. Although it is true as it was with Saul that those who reject Yahweh's word are rejected (<a href='B:90 15:23'>1Sa 15:23</a>), God's grace is beyond such a simplistic picture. Israel were to despise / reject God's word (s:w. <a href='B:30 26:15'>Lev 26:15</a>; <a href='B:30 26:43'>Lev 26:43</a>), "and yet for all that:. I will not reject them / cast they away" (<a href='B:30 26:44'>Lev 26:44</a> s:w:). Israel rejected Yahweh when they wanted Saul to be their king (s:w. <a href='B:90 8:7'>1Sa 8:7</a>; <a href='B:90 10:19'>1Sa 10:19</a>), and yet He did not reject them immediately because of that. The relevance to the exiles was in that they were in captivity because they too had rejected God's word and therefore God had rejected them (<a href='B:120 17:15'>2Ki 17:15</a> cp. <a href='B:120 17:20'>2Ki 17:20</a>; <a href='B:120 23:27'>2Ki 23:27</a>), because they rejected His prophetic words, He rejected them (<a href='B:300 6:19'>Jer 6:19</a>; <a href='B:300 6:30'>Jer 6:30</a>; <a href='B:350 4:6'>Hos 4:6</a>), "and yet for all that:. I will not reject them / cast they away" (<a href='B:30 26:44'>Lev 26:44</a>; <a href='B:300 31:37'>Jer 31:37</a> s:w:). For ultimately God has not rejected / cast away His people (<a href='B:290 41:9'>Isa 41:9</a>; <a href='B:300 33:26'>Jer 33:26</a>; <a href='B:520 11:2'>Rom 11:2</a>). This is the mystery of grace, no matter how we may seek to explain it away by Biblical exposition and balancing Bible verses against each other.</p>


text:
<p>They forsook all the commandments of Yahweh their God, and made them molten images, even two calves, and made an Asherah-</p><p>This is clearly a historical survey of Israel's sins, but the last generation are going to be judged for it because they refused to repent; and as noted on :13, that last generation had the testimony of "every" prophet against them. God's word became a cumulative weight of evidence against them. As it is with our generation too. The Asherah or grove refers to that set up by Ahab.</p><p>And worshipped all the army of the sky- </p><p>This was not mentioned previously in the accounts of Israel's apostacy, although it is in the record of Judah's. Star worship was specific to the Assyrians and Babylonians, so it seems they accepted a whole package of Assyrian gods and idolatry. See on :24.</p><p>And served Baal- </p><p>Jehu's reforms were not therefore permanent (<a href='B:120 10:28'>2Ki 10:28</a>).</p>


text:
<p>They caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, and used divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, to provoke Him to anger- </p><p>Sin is serious. An example of this occurs in the fact that the last generation of Israel were judged for their sins not because they had sinned more than any other generation, but because the collective, unforgiven sin of Israel had accumulated with God to such an extent that His judgments fell (<a href='B:120 17:2'>2Ki 17:2</a>; <a href='B:120 17:13-18'>2Ki 17:13-18</a>; <a href='B:330 9:9'>Eze 9:9</a>). God is not passive and overlooking of unrepented sin, even though His patience and the high threshold level He sets before releasing judgment may make it look like this. The Amorites were likewise only judged once the cup of their iniquities reached a certain level (<a href='B:10 15:16'>Gen 15:16</a>).</p><p>"Sold themselves" is the language of prostitution, and is commonly used by the prophets of the time, Hosea especially. Every and any idol is a form of competition with Yahweh, and this remains chillingly true to this days.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore Yahweh was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of His sight. There was none left but the tribe of Judah only- </p><p>We see how in a way, Israel and Judah are spoken of as the same entity. There was nothing left of "Israel" apart from "Judah". God has never recognized the divisions amongst His people, and neither should we.</p>


text:
<p>Also Judah didn’t keep the commandments of Yahweh their God, but walked in the statutes of Israel which they made- </p><p>The contrast is between God's "commandments", and the "statutes" of Israel, by which they had enshrined their idolatry. Whilst "statutes" is indeed used of God's commandments, there may be an intended contrast here between God's commandments, and the "statutes"- s:w. "custom", "manner", referring more to tradition and culture. For this is the basis of most merely religious forms of Christianity, and it stands in contrast to following God's living word.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh 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- </p><p>See on :15. Jonah, a contemporary prophet, recognized “I am cast out of Your sight” (<a href='B:390 2:4'>Jon 2:4</a>), the very language of condemnation used at this time (<a href='B:110 9:7'>1Ki 9:7</a>; <a href='B:120 17:20'>2Ki 17:20</a>; <a href='B:120 21:2'>2Ki 21:2</a>; <a href='B:120 23:27'>2Ki 23:27</a>; <a href='B:300 7:15'>Jer 7:15</a>). But the lesson was that there was hope that even through the traumas in the sea of nations, Israel could still be restored and resume their intended mission in the Gentile world. We marvel at how Jonah was so proud of Israel and nationalistic that he didn't want the Assyrians of Nineveh to repent. But Israel were so unspiritual at his time.</p>


text:
<p>For He tore Israel from the house of David; and they made Jeroboam the son of Nebat king. Jeroboam drove Israel from following Yahweh, and made them sin a great sin- </p><p>God tore them, and Jeroboam drove them. Clearly the division amongst God's people was from God, even though He didn't recognize it in some ways. The division was the fault of men, and yet God caused it. He will confirm divisive behaviour just as He will confirm the spirit of true unity. "Tore" is the word usually used for the rending of clothes. It is as if even at the time of the division, God tore His own clothes in grief at the behaviour of His people. The word used for how Jeroboam "drove" Israel away from Yahweh to idols is that used in <a href='B:50 4:19'>Deu 4:19</a>; <a href='B:50 13:5'>Deu 13:5</a>; <a href='B:50 13:10'>Deu 13:10</a>; <a href='B:50 13:13'>Deu 13:13</a> of the false prophet who should be killed for doing this. But Israel didn't do that to Jeroboam, and Judah were so parochial and arrogant that even their better leaders didn't consider that dealing with Israel's apostacy was their duty. So the end of Israel and Judah was really a case of failure all around.</p>


text:
<p>The children of Israel walked in all the sins of Jeroboam which he did; they didn’t depart from them- </p><p>Israel had been commanded to "not depart" from the way of Yahweh's commandments (<a href='B:50 28:14'>Deu 28:14</a>; <a href='B:60 1:7'>Jos 1:7</a>), but the frequent lament of the historical records is that they did not depart from the sins of Jeroboam. The Bible, especially in Proverbs, constantly reduces human moral choice to that between two ways of life and being. We constantly wish to argue that "it's not so simple" because there are grey areas. But the 'grey area' argument is what leads us so often into sin, into following the "way" of sin.</p>


text:
<p>until Yahweh removed Israel out of His sight, as He spoke by all His servants the prophets. So Israel was carried away out of their own land to Assyria to this day-</p><p>"Removed" is s:w. 'departed from' in :22. They did not depart from their way of sin, and so they were departed from. The frequent references to Israel being removed from His sight, or eye (e:g. <a href='B:120 17:23'>2Ki 17:23</a>) may refer to the way that an Angel was permanently present in Israel, the land in which the Angel eyes of the Lord ran to and fro. By going into captivity, Israel were thus removed from God’s Angelic ‘eye’. This would explain how Israel were never out of God’s sight in the sense of His awareness of them. And yet language of limitation is being used here- because the Angel dwelling in Israel no longer ‘saw’ the people. This idea may be behind the references to God’s eye not sparing nor pitying Israel (<a href='B:330 7:4'>Eze 7:4</a>)- when in fact God Himself did and does spare and pity Israel. The implication would then be that His grace and pity is even greater than that of His Angels- which is an encouraging thought to us here on earth who struggle to believe in the extent of God’s personal grace to us.</p>


text:
<p>The king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath and Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel; and they possessed Samaria, and lived in the cities of it- </p><p>This was really living out how Israel had taken to themselves the gods of Babylon, whom Assyria had only recently conquered, as their gods. For the reference to their worship of the stars is something distinctly Babylonian (see on :16). They let their gods possess their hearts, and so the people of those gods took their inheritance.</p>


text:
<p>So it was, at the beginning of their dwelling there, that they didn’t fear Yahweh; therefore Yahweh sent lions among them, which killed some of them- </p><p>Even in judgment and great sorrow for sin, for God takes no pleasure in punishing sin, God still worked toward human salvation. His vision was of Gentiles from throughout the land promised to Abraham (:24) living in His land and worshipping Him. So He sought to move them toward Him by acting as they imagined, as if the land was unhappy with them because they weren't worshipping its God.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore they spoke to the king of Assyria saying, The nations which you have carried away and placed in the cities of Samaria, don’t know the law of the god of the land. Therefore he has sent lions among them, and behold, they kill them, because they don’t know the law of the god of the land- </p><p>There were plenty of Israelites left in the land, but none of them could teach the law of Yahweh. And it seemed Judah were not much better. "Law" here is the word for "judgment". The truth is, neither Israelite nor Gentile perceived the judgment of God, considering the invasion and captivity as just the passage of time and tide. Lions would have naturally increased with a depleted population, but God was surely behind this, and those lions elsewhere represented the Gentile nations who entered the land.</p>


text:
<p>Then the king of Assyria commanded saying, Carry there one of the priests whom you brought from there; and let them go and dwell there, and let him teach them the law of the god of the land- </p><p>The main priestly duty was to teach God's word to the people. A whole string of texts make this point: <a href='B:50 24:8'>Deu 24:8</a>; <a href='B:120 17:27'>2Ki 17:27</a>; <a href='B:140 15:3'>2Ch 15:3</a>; <a href='B:160 8:9'>Neh 8:9</a>; <a href='B:400 3:11'>Mic 3:11</a>. Note too the common partnership between priests and prophets. Because of their role as teachers, it is understandable that the anger of the first century priesthood was always associated with Christ and the apostles teaching the people: <a href='B:470 21:33'>Mat 21:33</a>; <a href='B:490 19:47'>Luk 19:47</a>; <a href='B:490 20:1'>Luk 20:1</a>; <a href='B:510 5:21'>Act 5:21</a>. The priests felt that their role was being challenged. As part of the priesthood, our duty is to all teach or communicate the word of God to each other. It was God's intention that natural Israel should obey the spirit of this, so that they would "teach every man his neighbour and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord" (<a href='B:650 8:11'>Heb 8:11</a>). That was how God intended Israel of old to fulfil this idea of being a priestly nation.</p><p>The priesthood had failed to teach God's law earlier. But now God was working through the fallacious idea that Yahweh was a mere localized God of the land, who needed to be placated lest He send lions, in order to give the priesthood a chance to do what they ought to have done before- to teach His law. And to be a light to the Gentile world thereby, for He had allowed Gentiles to be brought to live in the land. We see how God's judgments are always ultimately creative, and designed towards restoration- they were not the lashing out in anger of an offended deity.</p>


text:
<p>So one of the priests whom they had carried away from Samaria came and lived in Bethel, and taught them how they should fear Yahweh- </p><p>See on :27. Bethel had been the centre of idolatry before the captivity, the location of one of the golden calves. The priest would surely have reflected that their captivity had been because of that, and would have apparently taught them the true fear of Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>However 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 in which they lived- </p><p>This was the same miserable story of Israel's apostacy all along. True worship of Yahweh was apparently taught (:28), but mixed with their own idolatry. The fear of Yahweh which was taught would surely have included the fact that to fear or worship Him meant having no other gods. But this cardinal point in the fear of Yahweh was ignored, and His worship again reduced to mere ritualism.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Babylon made Succoth Benoth- </p><p>Zir-banit, the wife of Merodach (also known as Bel).</p><p>The men of Cuth made Nergal- </p><p>The Babylonian god of war (cp. Mars). Cuthah was therefore near Babylon, the city devoted to Nergal located between the Tigris and Euphrates.</p><p>The men of Hamath made Ashima- </p><p>The god of shepherds and the woods, the equivalent of Pan.</p>


text:
<p>the Avvites made Nibhaz and Tartak; and the Sepharvites burnt their children in the fire to Adrammelech and Anammelech, the gods of Sepharvaim- </p><p>Even though burning children in fire had led to Israel's expulsion from the land, the newcomers continued to do so. Again the theme repeats, of nobody learning anything from history, although the Bible is full of it.</p>


text:
<p>So they feared Yahweh, and made to them from among themselves priests of the high places, who sacrificed for them in the houses of the high places- </p><p>They accepted the teaching about fearing Yahweh (:28), and yet continued in their idolatry. Even though the most basic tenet of Yahweh worship was that He was to be the only God, and no other god was to be worshipped. Their acceptance of the teaching was therefore only on the level of theory and ritual, and we have to ask ourselves whether we have not done just the same.</p>


text:
<p>They feared Yahweh, and served their own gods, after the ways of the nations from among whom they had been carried away-</p><p>See on :32. The mixed worship of the Samaritans is almost derided by the all demanding Yahweh: "So these nations feared Yahweh, and served their graven images::. as did their fathers, so do they unto this day::. unto this day they do after the former manners: they fear not the Lord" (<a href='B:120 17:33-34'>2Ki 17:33-34</a>; <a href='B:120 17:41'>2Ki 17:41</a>). Did they fear Yahweh, or didn't they? They did, but not wholeheartedly; therefore from God's perspective, they didn't fear Him at all. The Lord wasn't just trying to shock us when He offered us the choice between hating God and loving Him (<a href='B:470 6:24'>Mat 6:24</a> cp. <a href='B:660 4:4'>Jas 4:4</a>); He was deadly literal in what He said. The Lord hammered away at the same theme when He spoke of how a tree can only bring forth one kind of spiritual fruit: bad, or good (<a href='B:470 7:18-19'>Mat 7:18-19</a>). James likewise: a spring can either give sweet water or bitter water (<a href='B:660 3:11'>Jas 3:11</a>). We either love God, or the world. If we love the world, we have no love of God in us (<a href='B:690 2:15'>1Jn 2:15</a>).</p>


text:
<p>To this day they do what they did before: they don’t fear Yahweh, neither do they follow their statutes, or their ordinances, or the law or the commandment which Yahweh commanded the children of Jacob, whom He named Israel- </p><p>Jacob’s name change reflected God's perception that Jacob had changed. And yet at that point in time, it seems Jacob didn't realize his change; for he had to be reminded of the change of name later, he had to be encouraged to accept that it was really true. See on :38. <a href='B:120 17:34'>2Ki 17:34</a> criticizes men for worshipping Yahweh but also their own gods; they are rebuked with the comment that God had made a covenant with "the children of Jacob, whom he named Israel". The suggestion is surely that when Jacob became Israel, he quit the life of half-hearted service to God. This was the decision he came to that night when he wrestled with the Angel, and his name was changed.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh had made a covenant with them and commanded them saying, You shall not fear other gods, nor bow yourselves to them nor serve them nor sacrifice to them- </p><p>It seems unclear whether this is a historical reminiscence of how Yahweh became Israel's God (:34), or whether the "them" refers to the people living in Israel after the Assyrian invasion. The ambiguity is perhaps purposeful, because God did make a covenant with those people, just as He did with Israel; but they responded as Israel did, breaking the covenant by worshipping other gods as well as Yahweh. See on :40. It was God's intention in all this that Gentiles would join a repentant Israelite remnant in the land, and be taught to fear Him in truth (:28), enter covenant with Him- and thus form a reestablished Kingdom of God in Israel. And He as it were tried to push this through with them, making a unilateral covenant of grace with them, even though they were not fully committed to Him. For neither were Israel when they entered covenant with Yahweh, for Ezekiel says they had with them the idols of Egypt which they carried through the Red Sea. And so the fulfilment of these things has to be in the last days.</p>


text:
<p>but you shall fear Yahweh, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt with great power and with an outstretched arm, and you shall bow yourselves to Him, and you shall sacrifice to Him- </p><p>God's deliverance of Israel by grace was intended to be the abiding memory or awareness which defined Israel's later faithfulness. Just as we are to remember the wonder of our Red Sea baptism and the shedding of the saving blood of the lamb of God for us. We are therefore to remember these things at the breaking of bread service regularly, as well as all the time.</p>


text:
<p>The statutes and the ordinances, the law and the commandment which He wrote for you, you shall observe to do for evermore. You shall not fear other gods- </p><p>That law was designed to help Israel achieve the awareness of their great redemption mentioned in :36. It was not a meaningless set of regulations and laws designed just as simple tests of obedience. They had a far higher intention. Through obedience to those laws, there would be achieved an abiding awareness of their salvation by grace, and a desire to remain in covenant.</p>


text:
<p>You shall not forget the covenant that I have made with you; neither shall you fear other gods- </p><p>The "covenant" referred to is not the covenant of circumcision, for the Gentiles now in the land weren't asked to be circumcised. Rather it refers to the covenant at Sinai (<a href='B:20 19:5-8'>Exo 19:5-8</a>). For it is this which Israel were urged never to forget (<a href='B:50 4:23'>Deu 4:23</a>; <a href='B:50 8:11'>Deu 8:11</a>; <a href='B:50 26:13'>Deu 26:13</a>). Just as spiritually weak, idolatrous Jacob was called Israel because of the covenant of grace, so these Gentiles could be called Israel.</p>


text:
<p>But you shall fear Yahweh your God; and He will deliver you out of the hand of all your enemies- </p><p>This promise had been reiterated so often, and it was available to the Gentiles now offered covenant relationship with Yahweh (<a href='B:20 23:27'>Exo 23:27</a>; <a href='B:20 26:8'>Exo 26:8</a>; <a href='B:50 6:18-19'>Deu 6:18-19</a>; <a href='B:50 20:4'>Deu 20:4</a>; <a href='B:50 23:14'>Deu 23:14</a>; <a href='B:50 28:7'>Deu 28:7</a>). Whenever Israel had been faithful, then this had been fulfilled. The Assyrians were equally enemies of the Babylonians and others who had been transported to live in Israel. They too could be free from those enemies, if they joined in covenant with Yahweh:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>However they did not listen, but they did what they did before- </p><p>I suggested on :35 that these words apply to both historical Israel, and to the mixed peoples of the land after the Assyrian transportations. God also entered into covenant with them. This is why the "they" of :40 identifies naturally with the "these nations" of :41. This making of a covenant with Gentiles didn't work out; and so it was reapplied and deferred to the work of the Lord Jesus, through whom the Gentiles along with Israel could enter a new covenant with God.</p>


text:
<p>So these nations feared Yahweh, and served their engraved images. Their children likewise, and their children’s children, as their fathers did, so they do to this day- </p><p>At baptism, we changed masters, from 'sin' to 'obedience'. It may seem that we flick back and forth between them. In a sense, we do, but from God's perspective (and <a href='B:520 6:16-20'>Rom 6:16-20</a> describes how God sees our baptism), we don't. The recurring weakness of natural Israel was to serve Yahweh and the idols (<a href='B:90 7:3'>1Sa 7:3</a>; <a href='B:120 17:41'>2Ki 17:41</a>; <a href='B:430 1:5'>Zep 1:5</a>). For the new Israel in the first century, the temptation was to fellowship with both the Lord Jesus and the idols (<a href='B:530 10:21-22'>1Co 10:21-22</a>). But there is no lack of evidence that this was actually counted as total idol worship in God's eyes; thus the prophets consistently taught the need for wholehearted devotion to Yahweh, and nothing else. In essence, we have the same temptation; to serve God and mammon, to have a little of both, to be passive Christians; to flunk the challenge of the logic of devotion.</p>


text:
<p>Now it happened in the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Hezekiah the son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign- </p><p>This was a parade example of a wicked man having a righteous son; and the reverse happened in Biblical history. And this is how we would expect, if indeed people must each ultimately build their own personal relationship with God rather than merely follow the religion of their fathers.</p>


text:
<p>He was twenty-five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem-</p><p>Hezekiah reigned 29 years (<a href='B:120 18:2'>2Ki 18:2</a>), and the sickness after which he was given 15 years therefore happened in the 14th year or his reign- the very same time that Assyria invaded (<a href='B:290 38:1'>Isa 38:1</a>). Trials so often come together, in such an intense and extreme way that the situation can only be of God rather than mere bad luck or coincidence.</p><p>His mother’s name was Abi the daughter of Zechariah- </p><p>Or "Abijah", as in the Chronicles record, meaning "Jehovah is my father". Zechariah may be the one of <a href='B:290 8:2'>Isa 8:2</a>.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh, according to all that David his father had done- </p><p>It seems that in the last 15 years of his life, Hezekiah turned away from God. I have commented quite negatively upon Hezekiah in 2 Chronicles 32 and Isaiah 39. The way he gave the gold of the temple to the Assyrians and trusted in Egypt really speaks for itself. And yet we are told here that he did what was right, as David did. Perhaps this is simply a record that he did what was right, as we read about here and especially in Chronicles- before the deliverance from Assyria, after which he was lifted up in pride and fell away. I suggest this is an example of where the Biblical narrative is at times intentionally open or ambiguous, because it invites us to reflect, and try to enter into the characters and situations. Because we could also argue that just as David sinned at many points in his life, and ended his life on a spiritual low, ordering the deaths of those he had earlier forgiven::. so Hezekiah too failed at specific points, and ended his life on a spiritual low, but was ultimately seen as acceptable to God. But the correct interpretation of these words is, it seems to me, left intentionally vague; to exercise our thoughts. For by doing so, we are led to examine ourselves. And to not be wrongly judgmental of others' lives:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>He removed the high places, and broke the pillars, and cut down the Asherah- </p><p>This was a radical move, as even good kings before him had failed to remove the high places. The tendency to worship Baal as a form of Yahweh worship was so strong, and so attractive.</p><p>He also broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made; for in those days the children of Israel burned incense to it; and he called it Nehushtan- </p><p>The Lord Jesus interpreted it as a symbol of Himself, lifted up on the cross, identified with us as sinners. And just as the bronze serpent was abused and prayed to, so has the cross been abused. "Nehushtan" is literally "the bronze [copper] thing", "the mere piece of bronze" being the idea. Hezekiah called it for what it was, as we should call out idolatry for all it is. An expensive car is just a mass of metal, plastics and chemicals arranged in a certain way. An expensive house can be described in similar terms. And that is what Hezekiah did to the bronze serpent. Archaeologists have uncovered evidence that there were cults of snake worship in Canaan. The usage of the bronze serpent would then be a typical example of how the Jews had mixed paganism with Yahweh worship, the flesh with the spirit::. just as we are tempted to do.</p>


text:
<p>He trusted in Yahweh the God of Israel; so that after him was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor among them that were before him- </p><p>If Hezekiah was the stellar example of trust in Yahweh at that time, then Hezekiah's proverb (see on <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>) applies to himself: "One who is greedy stirs up strife; but one who trusts in Yahweh will prosper" (<a href='B:240 28:25'>Pro 28:25</a>). Hezekiah has in view the Assyrians, with himself as the prospering one who trusted in Yahweh. He was using these Divine truths to justify himself. As discussed on :3, Hezekiah is commented upon very positively here. But his faith was very weak or non existent at times; he cut off the gold [representing faith] of the temple and gave it to the Assyrians, and paid the Egyptians to try to save him from the Assyrians- rather than having faith in God. Either this statement describes how things were at one point in his life; or God very graciously counts him as righteous and faithful more than he was:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Hezekiah and faith go together. There was no king like him for his faith / trust [note a similar rubric used about Josiah in <a href='B:120 23:25'>2Ki 23:25</a>, in relation to Josiah’s obedience to the Law]. Josiah was the most obedient king; Hezekiah was the most faith-ful. But <a href='B:120 18:6'>2Ki 18:6</a> goes on to say that this faith was “for” or because Hezekiah was obedient to God’s commandments. Here we see the upward spiral in the spiritual life, and how each aspect of spirituality reinforces others. His obedience reinforced his faith; indeed the entire Law of Moses wasn’t designed as a hopeless obstacle course, it was “holy, just and good” and was intended to lead people to faith, especially in the Messiah to come.</p>


text:
<p>For he joined with Yahweh; he didn’t depart from following Him, but kept His commandments which Yahweh commanded Moses-</p><p>As discussed on :3 and :5, Hezekiah did at times depart from following Yahweh. So we can conclude this either describes how things were in the earlier, more faithful part of Hezekiah's life; or it is how God very graciously counted Hezekiah to be, looking at his heart which cleaved or was joined to Him, and not the fact he did depart from Him and ended his life on a spiritual low.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh was with him; wherever he went forth he prospered. He rebelled against the king of Assyria, and didn’t serve him-</p><p>After the lapse of faith in paying off Sennacherib, it became harder for Hezekiah to show faith again. After that, it was going to be really hard to rebel against him and refuse the payments. I take the comment here that Hezekiah rebelled against Assyria and refused to serve / worship him as part of a summary of what Hezekiah did in his life. He refused any longer to serve Sennacherib as God, but decided to serve Yahweh alone. This rebellion against Sennacherib is singled out as the most noteworthy thing he did. He had submitted to Assyria, paid what they asked, made an agreement with them. And then he broke it, and so the Assyrians sent their army against Hezekiah. If this isn’t the correct reconstruction, then we have the scenario of Hezekiah sending money to Assyria as they requested, but then them coming and invading anyway. In every other case of gold being given to buy off Israel’s enemies, it seems the bargain was stuck to, at least in the short term.</p>


text:
<p>He struck the Philistines to Gaza and its borders, from the tower of the watchmen to the fortified city- </p><p>This may not be chronological; rather are we reading cameos from Hezekiah's life which demonstrated his faith. As Gaza was the most far south of the five Philistine cities, "to Gaza" may mean the Philistines were entirely subdued, and we never hear much more about them.</p>


text:
<p>It happened in the fourth year of king Hezekiah, which was the seventh year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, that Shalmaneser king of Assyria came up against Samaria, and besieged it-</p><p>Judah were intended to learn from the judgments upon the ten tribes. For they were not much better, and Ezekiel 16, 20 say that finally they were worse than the ten tribes. As Samaria was besieged, so was Jerusalem to be besieged by the same nation. But Hezekiah apparently didn't learn the lesson. As Israel tried to avoid paying tribute to Assyria and instead made a covenant with Egypt for help (<a href='B:120 17:4'>2Ki 17:4</a>), so did Hezekiah:&nbsp;</p><p>The King of Assyria “came up” throughout the land promised to Abraham (<a href='B:120 17:5'>2Ki 17:5</a>). The Hebrew word used is alah, meaning to ascend up- and this is the very battle cry of the Islamic fundamentalists, Allah ahbar. The Assyrians were persuaded that the one true God, Yahweh, had sent them against Israel (<a href='B:120 18:25'>2Ki 18:25</a>)- just as the Islamic fundamentalists are today.</p>


text:
<p>At the end of three years they took it: in the sixth year of Hezekiah, which was the ninth year of Hoshea king of Israel, Samaria was taken- </p><p>This may look forward to a three and a half year tribulation of Israel at the hands of a latter day Assyrian.</p>


text:
<p>The king of Assyria carried Israel away to Assyria- </p><p>This was in the ninth year of Hoshea (<a href='B:120 17:6'>2Ki 17:6</a>). It seems that in this very year (BC722), Sargon succeeded Shalmaneser IV in a coup. Sargon in his annals refers to his victory over Samaria as his earliest act. <a href='B:120 18:9-10'>2Ki 18:9-10</a> record that Shalmaneser "came up against Samaria, and besieged it" but "they took it" rather than "he took it". It seems the representatives of these kings are referred to, and they were not personally present. Sargon as it were capitalized on the progress made whilst Shalmaneser was king. The annals of Sargon claim that 27,290 people were deported from Samaria. But those annals also imply many were left in the land and paid tribute to him.</p><p>And placed them in Halah- </p><p>Perhaps the Calah of <a href='B:10 10:11'>Gen 10:11</a>, the old capital of Assyria.</p><p>And on the Habor, the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes-</p><p>Assyria had only recently overrun those cities, and so the captured Israelites were used to populate them and thus dilute the ethnicity of the local population.</p>


text:
<p>because they didn’t obey the voice of Yahweh their God, but transgressed His covenant, even all that Moses the servant of Yahweh commanded, and would not hear it, nor do it-</p><p>Israel did not obey / hearken to the voice of Yahweh, and He did not hearken to their voice in prayer (<a href='B:50 1:45'>Deu 1:45</a>; <a href='B:50 9:23'>Deu 9:23</a>; <a href='B:50 28:15'>Deu 28:15</a>; <a href='B:60 5:6'>Jos 5:6</a>; <a href='B:70 2:20'>Jdg 2:20</a>; <a href='B:70 6:10'>Jdg 6:10</a> cp. <a href='B:50 8:20'>Deu 8:20</a> s:w:). <a href='B:120 18:12'>2Ki 18:12</a> states this specifically. God hearkened to Joshua's voice in prayer (<a href='B:60 10:14'>Jos 10:14</a>) because Joshua hearkened to His voice. It was to be the same with Saul. He didn't hearken to God's voice (<a href='B:90 15:19'>1Sa 15:19</a>) and God didn't hearken to Saul's voice in prayer in his final desperation at the end of his life (<a href='B:90 28:18'>1Sa 28:18</a>). If God's word abides in us, then our prayer is powerful, we have whatever we ask, because we are asking for things according to His will expressed in His word (<a href='B:500 15:7'>Joh 15:7</a>):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Now in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah, and took them- </p><p>He succeeded in taking all of Judah apart from Jerusalem. Isaiah describes the invasion as a flood of waters which engulfed Judah "up to the neck", the surviving head referring to Jerusalem and Hezekiah. See on :2.</p>


text:
<p>Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria to Lachish saying, I have offended; return from me. That which you put on me, I will bear. The king of Assyria appointed to Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold-</p><p>“I have sinned” (AV) suggests Hezekiah took false guilt; lack of faith in God often is related to false guilt. Faith in God’s opinion and perspective on us saves us from such false guilt. Even worse, Hezekiah treated Sennacherib as God, addressing him with the language of confession and repentance which should be directed only to God. By doing so, he believed in Sennacherib as God. And whenever we let people give us false guilt, we are effectively believing in them as God rather than in the one true God. Hezekiah then stripped the temple of its gold, representing faith, and gave it to the Assyrians. It was a sad blip on the screen in Hezekiah’s life of faith. The way he has to deal with the prophet Isaiah through messengers soon afterwards may suggest an estrangement between Hezekiah and Isaiah- exactly because of this.</p>


text:
<p>Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the house of Yahweh, and in the treasures of the king’s house- </p><p>He repeated the failure of his father Ahaz, who emptied the treasuries likewise instead of trusting in God (<a href='B:120 16:8'>2Ki 16:8</a>). One major dimension of sin is the example it sets to others, especially within families.</p>


text:
<p>At that time, Hezekiah cut off the gold from the doors of Yahweh’s temple, and from the pillars which Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid, and gave it to the king of Assyria- </p><p>We each have two ‘people’ as it were within us; we act both as spiritual and as fleshly people. The record of Hezekiah in <a href='B:120 18:16'>2Ki 18:16</a> reflects this: “At that time did Hezekiah cut off the gold from… the pillars which Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid, because of the king of Assyria”. The Hezekiah who faithfully overlaid the pillars with gold was the same man, acting a different persona, who then cut it off faithlessly when under pressure. Likewise the Jews could be described as both Abraham’s seed (<a href='B:500 8:37'>Joh 8:37</a>) and not Abraham’s seed (<a href='B:500 8:39'>Joh 8:39</a>); as having Abraham as their father (<a href='B:500 8:56'>Joh 8:56</a>), and yet also having the devil as their father (<a href='B:500 8:39-41'>Joh 8:39-41</a>; <a href='B:500 8:44'>Joh 8:44</a>).</p><p>This undoubted weakness of faith, recalling that gold represents faith, highlights God's great understanding and grace to stress that overall, Hezekiah was such a man of faith.</p>


text:
<p>The king of Assyria sent Tartan and Rabsaris and Rabshakeh from Lachish to king Hezekiah with a great army to Jerusalem. They went up and came to Jerusalem. When they had come up, they came and stood by the conduit of the upper pool, which is in the highway of the fuller’s field- </p><p>The washer or fuller uses the same word for 'washing' as used in the context of cleansing from sin (<a href='B:230 51:2'>Psa 51:2</a>; <a href='B:230 51:7'>Psa 51:7</a>; <a href='B:300 2:2'>Jer 2:2</a>; <a href='B:300 4:14'>Jer 4:14</a>; <a href='B:460 3:2'>Mal 3:2</a>). The suggestion was that they could repent and be cleansed of their sin. This location was significant, because it was there that Hezekiah's father Ahaz had been met by Isaiah and his son Shearjashub [a man of sign, 'a remnant shall return / repent'], with their demand for Jerusalem to surrender to God (<a href='B:290 7:3'>Isa 7:3</a>). So Hezekiah was intended to recall how Ahaz had been faced with Isaiah at that same spot; and the call was to repent, to be washed, to become the remnant which would triumph. Circumstances repeat in our lives and between our lives and those of others; in this case, the experience of Ahaz repeated in the life of his son Hezekiah. And we are intended to join the dots and learn the lesson.</p>


text:
<p>When they had called to the king, there came out to them Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, who was over the household, and Shebnah the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph the recorder-</p><p>The "scribe" or historian was a senior advisor in the Hebrew court (<a href='B:100 8:17'>2Sa 8:17</a>; <a href='B:120 18:18'>2Ki 18:18</a>; <a href='B:120 18:37'>2Ki 18:37</a>; <a href='B:140 34:8'>2Ch 34:8</a>) because of the huge value attached to history in the Hebrew mind, and as reflected in the Bible being largely history. Advice on how to act was to be based upon historical, or as we would now say, "Biblical", precedent.</p><p>"Shebna" is an Egyptian name and may have been installed in office by Hezekiah as part of his deal with Egypt, upon whom he trusted rather than solely in Yahweh. He had the office of being "over the house" but by the time of the Assyrian invasion Shebna had been replaced in this office by Eliakim (<a href='B:290 22:15'>Isa 22:15</a>; <a href='B:290 22:20'>Isa 22:20</a>; <a href='B:290 37:2'>Isa 37:2</a>). However, Shebna had not been completely 'hurled away' for his immorality of <a href='B:290 22:15-19'>Isa 22:15-19</a> as required by <a href='B:290 22:17'>Isa 22:17</a>, because he is mentioned here as being the "scribe", a senior secretary, although Eliakim was "over the household". This seems typical of the partial response made to Isaiah's prophecies. But it seems Yahweh accepted that partial response and repentance of a remnant, and so the invaders were destroyed and the awful outcome threatened upon Jerusalem in this chapter was averted or at best deferred.</p>


text:
<p>Rabshakeh said to them, Say now to Hezekiah, ‘Thus says the great king, the king of Assyria, What confidence is this in which you trust?- </p><p>LXX "Why are you secure". GNB "the emperor wanted to know what made King Hezekiah so confident". Clearly Hezekiah did have some faith; and real faith is always evident to others. Rabshakeh's words are a tacit admission that Hezekiah did indeed trust in Yahweh:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>You say (but they are but vain words), ‘There is counsel and strength for war’. Now on whom do you trust, that you have rebelled against me?-</p><p>The immediate reference is to how "he took counsel with his princes and his mighty men to stop the waters of the springs which were outside of the city" (<a href='B:140 32:3'>2Ch 32:3</a>).</p><p>GNB "Do you think that words can take the place of military skill and might?". This is the essence of our temptations today- to think that the ideas of God's word are merely abstract and philosophical, and have no cash value in reality. But God's word is active and powerful, once spoken, it is done. The "counsel" in view is primarily the prophecies of Isaiah (s:w. <a href='B:290 5:19'>Isa 5:19</a>; <a href='B:290 28:29'>Isa 28:29</a>), and in the last day application, the "counsel and strength" of the Messiah of Israel (<a href='B:290 11:2'>Isa 11:2</a> s:w:). But Rabshakeh may have been mocking the "counsel" of the false prophets (see :6), which had been to trust in Egypt rather than Yahweh (s:w. <a href='B:290 19:3'>Isa 19:3</a>; <a href='B:290 19:11'>Isa 19:11</a>; <a href='B:290 29:15'>Isa 29:15</a>; <a href='B:290 30:1'>Isa 30:1</a>; <a href='B:300 19:7'>Jer 19:7</a>). The "counsel" or prophetic word of Yahweh, however, was what could save Israel; it was that which would bring them back from captivity and reestablish Yahweh's Kingdom in the land (s:w. <a href='B:290 44:26'>Isa 44:26</a>; <a href='B:290 46:10'>Isa 46:10</a>). Although most in Judah still refused to trust in Yahweh's "strength for the war" (s:w. <a href='B:290 30:15'>Isa 30:15</a>), yet by grace and in respect to the faith of the remnant, He still saved them from Assyria at this time.</p><p>Hezekiah had taken counsel with men in order to try to avert the fall of Jerusalem (<a href='B:140 32:3'>2Ch 32:3</a>). Isaiah had earlier warned against trust in human "counsel" (s:w. <a href='B:290 5:19'>Isa 5:19</a>; <a href='B:290 19:3'>Isa 19:3</a>). Woe was pronounced upon those (like Hezekiah?) who took counsel from men rather than God (<a href='B:290 30:1'>Isa 30:1</a> s:w:). <a href='B:240 25:28'>Pro 25:28</a> LXX advises doing things with "counsel". As explained on <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>, this may be a justification of Hezekiah, who dealt with the Assyrian crisis by saying he trusted in God's counsel to overcome the Assyrians (<a href='B:120 18:20'>2Ki 18:20</a> AV). Like Solomon, Hezekiah's Proverbs are all Divinely inspired and true, but he seems to insert into them a subtext of self justification.</p>


text:
<p>Now, behold, you trust in the staff of this bruised reed, even in Egypt- </p><p>"Bruised reed" is better "broken reed", and this is the very phrase used about how the Messiah, the Lord Jesus, would not break a "bruised / broken reed" (<a href='B:290 42:3'>Isa 42:3</a>). Egypt were a broken reed, recently broken in battle and now useless to save Israel. They were too weak to uphold the weight of Judah if they were to lean upon it for strength. God turns the figure around- He as it were is in need of man, He wishes to trust upon us; and although we are broken reeds, we will not be crushed nor will He be disappointed. He so wishes to work with us.</p><p>If a man leans on it, it will go into his hand, and pierce it. So is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all who trust on him- </p><p>Hezekiah paid all the wealth of Judah to Assyria and entered an agreement with them. And it seems he impoverished Judah yet more by then making some arrangement with Egypt to throw off the Assyrian domination (<a href='B:120 18:21'>2Ki 18:21</a>; <a href='B:120 18:24'>2Ki 18:24</a>). Hezekiah really did mess up. But then he breaks the agreement with Assyria, inevitably provoking an Assyrian invasion of his now impoverished country. He must’ve been almost alone in this. Because doing this made no human sense; his cabinet and people would’ve surely been against it. Following our conscience often puts us in situations like this.</p><p>"Lean" here is the same word for "steadfast" in <a href='B:290 26:3'>Isa 26:3</a> "You will keep whoever’s mind is steadfast in perfect peace, because he trusts in You". The LXX understands this to be a description of the "righteous nation" of <a href='B:290 26:2'>Isa 26:2</a>. They are saved from their traumas by the state of their mind. And Yahweh will respond to this through the work of His Spirit on the human spirit, to keep their mind in perfect peace. This is the peace which comes from knowing sin is forgiven. "Mind" here is literally 'imagination'. We must ask what are our fantasies, our hopes, according to which we live, think and feel day by day. If they are above all for the Kingdom, then we will be 'kept' in this. In Isaiah's immediate context this was in contrast to leaning upon Egypt for salvation (s:w. "lean"). The great salvation of the restored Kingdom could have come apart at that time, but it was precluded by a lack of real faith and focus on the Kingdom in the majority of Israel.</p><p>Judah did as it were trust in Egypt, and so were left with pierced hands. But that was exactly what the Lord Jesus experienced on the cross. Here we have one of many examples of where although He did not personally sin, He on the cross experienced the sufferings for sin which were due to God's people.</p>


text:
<p>But if you tell me, ‘We trust in Yahweh our God’; isn’t that He whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah has taken away, and has said to Judah and to Jerusalem, ‘You shall worship before this altar in Jerusalem?’- </p><p>Rabshakeh argues as if the high places and altars to the idols were actually used for Yahweh worship. And that was true. Judah justified their idol worship by claiming it was a form of Yahweh worship; and that is an abiding temptation for God's people of all ages. Rabshakeh mocked at the idea of a religion which had only one altar and high place; although that was indeed appropriate to the worship of the one true God who had given one specific way of approach to Him.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore, please give pledges to my master the king of Assyria, and I will give you two thousand horses, if you are able on your part to set riders on them-</p><p>Although many in Judah had fled into Jerusalem, the siege conditions and battle losses meant that there were not even 2000 fighting men within the city. But the Assyrians were destroyed by just one Angel, a member of the Angel cherubim, the heavenly horses and riders who stood for Israel. They were left with no human horses nor army, so that they might trust in Yahweh of Hosts of Angelic armies and the cherubim chariot. And this is why we too at times are stripped of all human strength.</p><p>"Make a pledge" is literally to be sweet or pleasing, and it appears to be sarcastic. But it is the word used by Hezekiah when he asks Yahweh to "undertake" or be sweet to him in the oppression of his sickness, which came at the same time as the siege of Jerusalem (<a href='B:290 38:14'>Isa 38:14</a>):See on :2.</p>


text:
<p>How then can you turn away the face of one captain of the least of my master’s servants, and put your trust on Egypt for chariots and for horsemen?- </p><p>There are various translation options here. LXX "And how can ye then turn to the face of the satraps? They that trust on the Egyptians for horse and rider, are our servants"; GNB "You are no match for even the lowest ranking Assyrian official, and yet you expect the Egyptians to send you chariots and horsemen". <a href='B:140 32:21'>2Ch 32:21</a> uses the same phrase to describe the king of Assyria turning away his face in shame from Jerusalem after the Angelic destruction of his army; all was to be dramatically reversed overnight. Just as Joseph was elevated from prison rags to royal glory in a few hours, so God can work very quickly to save us from otherwise humanly impossible situations.</p>


text:
<p>Have I now come up without Yahweh against this place to destroy it? Yahweh said to me, ‘Go up against this land, and destroy it’- </p><p>The King of Assyria “came up” throughout the land promised to Abraham (<a href='B:120 17:5'>2Ki 17:5</a>). The Hebrew word used is alah, meaning to ascend up- and this is the very battle cry of the Islamic fundamentalists, Allah ahbar. The Assyrians were persuaded that the one true God, Yahweh, had sent them against Israel (<a href='B:120 18:25'>2Ki 18:25</a>)- just as the Islamic fundamentalists are today.</p><p>Rabshakeh appears to have been an apostate Jew, speaking fluent Hebrew, fully aware of the situation within Judah and of the prophetic message that Yahweh would be behind their invaders; and quoting Isaiah's prophecies. We can look to some possible equivalent in the events concerning the latter day Assyrian.</p>


text:
<p>Then Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, Shebnah and Joah said to Rabshakeh, Please speak to your servants in the Syrian language; for we understand it. Don’t speak with us in the Jews’ language, in the hearing of the people who are on the wall- </p><p>Rabshakeh knew Hebrew and was likely a renegade Jew. The fact the Jewish leadership knew the Assyrian language is a tacit reflection of the way they had made it their business to communicate with them in the past, in seeking ways around the Assyrian threat other than through trust in Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>But Rabshakeh said to them, Has my master sent me to your master, and to you, to speak these words? Hasn’t he sent me to the men who sit on the wall, to eat their own dung, and to drink their own water with you?- </p><p>Rabshakeh was aware of the prophecies of Micah and Isaiah. He was fully aware that Isaiah had opened his prophecies by insisting that his message of judgment was against both the heavens and the earth, the leadership and the ordinary people; for they were alike guilty.</p>


text:
<p>Then Rabshakeh stood and cried with a loud voice in the Jews’ language, and spoke, saying- </p><p>This very loud voice becomes the prototype for the great voice of Babylon (<a href='B:300 51:55'>Jer 51:55</a>), akin to the great voice of Goliath the Philistine / Palestinian, which is to be answered by the far greater voice of Yahweh in the last days commanding the Angels to unleash judgment upon the latter day Assyrian confederacy (<a href='B:360 2:11'>Joe 2:11</a>; <a href='B:730 16:1'>Rev 16:1</a>; <a href='B:730 18:2'>Rev 18:2</a>). But in the immediate context, this "loud voice" is that of <a href='B:290 29:6'>Isa 29:6</a> bringing destruction and judgment upon Jerusalem; they were condemned, but were saved by grace and God's respect of the prayers and repentance of a small minority. The loud voice of the "great king" of Assyria is being set up as a parody of that of Yahweh, who is the supreme "great king" (s:w. <a href='B:230 47:2'>Psa 47:2</a>; <a href='B:230 95:3'>Psa 95:3</a>; <a href='B:460 1:14'>Mal 1:14</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Hear the word of the great king, the king of Assyria- </p><p>“Hear [shema] the word of the great King, the King of Assyria” (<a href='B:120 18:28'>2Ki 18:28</a>) is a conscious imitation of the shema to Israel from their King, Yahweh. “The great king” is a title of Yahweh. The king of Assyria was parodying the giving of the Law to Israel, implying his commandments were a new Torah for Israel; and some Islamic fundamentalists have spoken of producing a new Torah, making him the one mentioned in Daniel as changing laws.</p>


text:
<p>Thus says the king, ‘Don’t let Hezekiah deceive you; for he will not be able to deliver you out of his hand- </p><p>This was part of his narrative, that the gods of the nations were "not able to deliver" them from the Assyrians (s:w. <a href='B:140 32:15'>2Ch 32:15</a>). He encouraged them to see the one true God as just another god, another source of secular strength as good as anything else. Yahweh the one true God is not, however, just another religious system. There is something awesomely and radically different. Rabshakeh's words recognize that Hezekiah alone was seeking to lead the people to totally trust in Yahweh. His influence was considered hugely significant. As we noted on <a href='B:290 1:1'>Isa 1:1</a>, the reforms of Hezekiah were largely ineffective in encouraging the general populace towards spirituality. In accordance with that, Rabshakeh perceived Hezekiah as effectively seeking alone to persuade the people to trust Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>Neither let Hezekiah make you trust in Yahweh saying, Yahweh will surely deliver us, and this city shall not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria- </p><p>Rabshakeh appears to know the very words of Hezekiah within Jerusalem, supporting the suggestion made that he was a renegade Jew. Hezekiah's faith that the city wouldn't fall was presumably based upon Isaiah's prophetic words; and yet Isaiah also speaks as if the city would fall, unless there was repentance in Judah. Perhaps Hezekiah really believed that the repentance of a minority would be counted by God as enough, and that their prayers would ensure the salvation of Zion. And this huge faith in Divine grace was rewarded.</p><p>It would seem from Rabshakeh’s words to the people of Jerusalem that Hezekiah had begun a ‘Trust in God!’ campaign: “Do not let Hezekiah make you trust in the LORD by saying, ‘The LORD will surely deliver us, and this city will not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria'::. do not listen to Hezekiah when he misleads you by saying, The LORD will deliver us” (<a href='B:120 18:30'>2Ki 18:30</a>; <a href='B:120 18:32'>2Ki 18:32</a> AV). “The Lord will deliver us” therefore appears to have been a catch cry of Hezekiah to all the people. Jerusalem was surrounded by her strong enemies, whom Hezekiah had sorely provoked&nbsp; by faithlessly siding with Egypt against them and then in faith towards God breaking off his agreement with the Assyrians. So now Hezekiah was driven to throw himself upon God for a miracle. His utter confidence is recognized by God, when He speaks of how the faithful remnant in Jerusalem- the “virgin daughter of Zion”- had despised Assyria, laughed her to scorn, and wagged her head at Assyria (<a href='B:120 19:21'>2Ki 19:21</a>). That would’ve required an extraordinary level of faith to do that. Hezekiah wasn’t just hoping for the best, using prayer as a last resort, a kind of back up insurance policy after doing all he could. This was the prayer and faith of utter confidence, believing that things that are not are in fact, and being so sure they will come about that this faith actually affects our feelings. Hezekiah felt confident, superior to the Assyrians, all the feelings that come from knowing that one is in a far stronger position. This is a challenge in our self-assessment. To what extent does our confidence in faith affect our emotions and feelings?</p>


text:
<p>Don’t listen to Hezekiah’- </p><p>It seems Hezekiah was singlehandedly seeking to persuade the people to totally trust in Yahweh.</p><p>For thus says the king of Assyria, ‘Make your peace with me, and come out to me- </p><p>LXX "If ye wish to be blessed, come out to me". Receiving peace or 'blessing' (LXX) was what comes from Yahweh; Judah were being offered covenant relationship with a false pretender to Yahweh. All this is the stuff of the latter day antiChrist; for an anti-Christ is strictly not someone against Christ but rather posing as the Christ, a fake, imitation Christ.</p><p>And every one of you will eat of his vine, and every one of his fig tree, and everyone will drink the waters of his own cistern- </p><p>Rabshakeh promised the Jews an Assyrian Kingdom where everyone sat under their own vine and fig tree- consciously parodying Micah’s contemporary prophecies of God’s future Kingdom (<a href='B:400 4:4'>Mic 4:4</a>). The Assyrian Kingdom was set up as a parody of Solomon’s, which was the Kingdom of God (<a href='B:110 4:25'>1Ki 4:25</a>; <a href='B:140 9:8'>2Ch 9:8</a>). A glance through the descriptions of the beasts- the Kingdoms of this world- reveals that they are all set up in terms of the Lord Jesus and His Kingdom. Rabshakeh was aware of Isaiah's prophecies as he quotes from them here; see on :10. And in essence the world today offers a fake, imitation Kingdom of God.</p>


text:
<p>until I come and take you away to a land like your own land, a land of grain and new wine, a land of bread and vineyards, a land of olive trees and of honey, that you may live, and not die. Don’t listen to Hezekiah when he persuades you saying, Yahweh will deliver us- </p><p>As noted on :31, Assyria was presented as an imitation kingdom of God. The language all alludes to God's descriptions of the promised land, which were familiar to Rabshakeh as a renegade Jew. The allusions are to <a href='B:40 14:7'>Num 14:7</a>; <a href='B:50 8:7-9'>Deu 8:7-9</a>; <a href='B:50 11:11-12'>Deu 11:11-12</a>. "Persuade" is 'seduce', as if the Assyrians had the one true religion and Hezekiah was seducing Judah away from it. The Assyrian inscriptions describe and portray their wars as religious wars between their god Asshur and the gods of the nations they conquered. It was perhaps this very aspect to the Assyrian boasts which as it were provoked Yahweh to action. His unique victory against Asshur when all other gods and religious systems had failed was intended to help the Gentile nations see the utter supremacy of Yahweh- and to turn to Him:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Has any of the gods of the nations ever delivered his land out of the hand of the king of Assyria?-</p><p>It seems that when Hezekiah said “The Lord will surely deliver us”, he said it with such confidence that the people were inclined to share his faith. Several times, Rabshakeh picks up this word “deliver” and mocks that no other nation had been ‘delivered’ from Assyria, so why should Judah be. It seems Hezekiah took this catchword from Isaiah’s earlier prophecy of <a href='B:290 31:5'>Isa 31:5</a>, where he had stated that “Like birds hovering, so the LORD of hosts will protect Jerusalem; he will protect and deliver it”. Hezekiah had heard those words of the Lord; and he believed them, even when they appeared to have no human chance of fulfilment. We too need to cling on to just one verse of Scripture and believe it. Of course we try to excuse our lack of faith by spiritualizing it away, wondering whether it can really apply to me, here, today. Hezekiah must’ve gone through the same. But it seems he ceased upon that one verse::. and clung to it. This is where our faith in the Bible as God’s word isn’t merely a painless academic assent to a proposition. To believe God’s word is true demands an awful lot from us.</p>


text:
<p>Where are the gods of Hamath, and of Arpad? Where are the gods of Sepharvaim, Hena and Ivvah? Have they delivered Samaria out of my hand?- </p><p>Rabshakeh, knowing the prophecies of Isaiah as a renegade Jew, may be alluding to the common prophetic theme that Judah were in fact no better than Israel, and would face the same judgment. And he knew that Samaria, the ten tribes, had trusted in the gods of the surrounding nations. Hamath and Arpad were in Syria, and so probably Sepharvaim was likewise. Isaiah 8 and <a href='B:290 10:9-11'>Isa 10:9-11</a> had condemned Israel for their trust in Syria against Assyria, and clearly their covenant with Syria had involved taking on the worship of their gods.</p>


text:
<p>Who are they among all the gods of the countries, that have delivered their country out of my hand, that Yahweh should deliver Jerusalem out of my hand?’- </p><p>The point of course was made: Who or what indeed were any of those gods compared to Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>But the people held their peace, and answered him not a word; for the king’s commandment was, Don’t answer him-</p><p>I suggest that <a href='B:240 26:4'>Pro 26:4</a> alludes to this: "Don’t answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him". This verses is clearly intended to be connected with <a href='B:240 26:5'>Pro 26:5</a> ["answer a fool according to his folly"], the idea being that there are times when a fool should be answered according to his folly, and times when he shouldn't be. This is one of the Hezekiah Proverbs (see on <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>), and the allusion may be to how Hezekiah commanded the people not to answer Rabshakeh, who is thereby interpreted as the archetypical "fool". But a fool must at times be answered (<a href='B:240 26:5'>Pro 26:5</a>), and the idea may be that God will answer fools like Rabshakeh in His own way and in His own time; and we don't need to. But we then get the hint that Hezekiah, like Solomon, was using the Divine truth of the Proverbs with a subtext of his own self justification, just as we can.</p>


text:
<p>Then Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, who was over the household, came with Shebna the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph the recorder, to Hezekiah with their clothes torn, and told him the words of Rabshakeh- </p><p>This sign of sorrow was to be turned into joy. But for now, there was sorrow. Their deep grief however suggests they didn't believe Hezekiah's assurances of Divine salvation.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when king Hezekiah heard it, that he tore his clothes, and covered himself with sackcloth, and went into the house of Yahweh- </p><p>Instead of devising human schemes of salvation, he does as we should, turning to God's house, His presence, and His people. He could have prayed anywhere, but he felt that God's presence was there in particular. Judah's leadership had torn their clothes but not dressed in sackcloth (<a href='B:290 36:22'>Isa 36:22</a>). Sackcloth was a sign of repentance, as witnessed by the response of Nineveh. Nineveh had repented the generation before; and it seems Hezekiah is now seeking to imitate their repentance. Nineveh was the capital of Assyria; if their repentance had been permanent, they would not have invaded Judah. Hezekiah was seeking to imitate Nineveh but make it permanent, although after the crisis passed, it seems his repentance likewise didn't hold. God knew all this from the start, and yet still so respected the repentance of Hezekiah and Nineveh in their extremity that He still changed His threatened judgment of them. Hezekiah was aware that he had sinned by trying to buy off the Assyrians with the gold of the temple, representing faith sacrificed to human expedient; and Judah had definitely trusted in Egypt for help rather than God. His words of :3 are a recognition that the invasion was a Divine rebuke and rejection of him. But a man may be rejected by God in this life, having a foretaste of condemnation ahead of time; but still change the verdict. Hence Peter went out from the Lord's presence and wept and gnashed his teeth, the very language of the rejected; but changed the verdict. This is the intensity of our situation, as Paul in Romans emphasizes; we stand condemned, and yet in this life we can change the verdict, by God's grace.</p>


text:
<p>He sent Eliakim, who was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and the elders of the priests, covered with sackcloth, to Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz- </p><p>Humanly speaking, sending your right hand men to a prophet was not the way out of the situation. But he realized as should we, that the only ultimate recourse is to God's word. The covering of the leadership with sackcloth as noted on :1 was a sign of repentance, again imitating how the leadership of Nineveh repented in sackcloth and achieved a change of the Divinely promised judgment.</p>


text:
<p>They said to him, Thus says Hezekiah, ‘This day is a day of trouble, of rebuke, and of rejection- </p><p>As noted on :1, Hezekiah understood he had sinned, hence his sackcloth and desperate repentance. Isaiah has repeatedly condemned Judah for trusting in Egypt for help from the Assyrians (<a href='B:290 20:5-6'>Isa 20:5-6</a>; <a href='B:290 30:1-4'>Isa 30:1-4</a>; <a href='B:290 36:6'>Isa 36:6</a>; <a href='B:290 36:9'>Isa 36:9</a>). Those passages all say that if Judah did this, they would be rejected by God, as they were rejecting His help. And Hezekiah realizes that now those prophecies were going to come true. But the depth of his repentance meant that they didn't; just as the destruction of Nineveh in 40 days didn't happen, all because of human repentance. See on :1,4; <a href='B:290 22:5'>Isa 22:5</a>, which prophecy Hezekiah appears to allude to here.</p><p>For the children have come to the point of birth, and there is no strength to deliver them- </p><p>The birth of a remnant is spoken of in Isaiah in spiritual terms; "the children" here are "the remnant" of :4. The sense may be that Hezekiah sensed there had been some spiritual reformation, which he himself had done so much to bring about through his banishing of idolatry in Judah, but the final strength for the birth was lacking; they had indeed trusted in Egypt and in gold rather than in God, despite all the purging of idolatry. This was the tragedy which Hezekiah felt, as we do; that there was some genuine spirituality, but not enough. That may be the idea in <a href='B:350 13:13'>Hos 13:13</a> where the imagery is used again.</p><p><a href='B:290 66:9'>Isa 66:9</a> can be read as an implicit criticism of the words of Hezekiah at the time of the Assyrian invasion, who lamented that the children had come to be born but there was no strength to bring them forth: "Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? says Yahweh: shall I who cause to bring forth shut the womb? says your God". God is saying that He will certainly bring forth the new nation of Zion out of their trauma at the hands of their invaders. He is not powerless, and therefore Hezekiah was wrong to imply this. Why the children were not brought forth at Hezekiah's time was because of the lack of spirituality in the daughter of Zion, rather than because of God's limited ability.</p>


text:
<p>It may be Yahweh your God- </p><p>This continues the connection with Nineveh's repentance (see on :1,3); in this case, to <a href='B:390 3:9'>Jon 3:9</a> "Who knows whether God will not turn and relent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that we might not perish?". However "your God" is a recognition by Hezekiah that Isaiah stood closer to God than he did.</p><p>Will hear all the words of Rabshakeh- </p><p>"Hear" is used at times to mean 'hear and respond to', as God in that sense 'hears' all things and there is no need to ask Him to hear anything.</p><p>Whom the king of Assyria his master has sent to defy the living God- </p><p>This is not just Hezekiah trying to get God to see the situation from the viewpoint of His own glory; rather was there a real and actual spiritual dimension to the invasion. The idea of 'defying' Israel's God is stressed so much (<a href='B:290 37:4'>Isa 37:4</a>; <a href='B:290 37:17'>Isa 37:17</a>; <a href='B:290 37:23-24'>Isa 37:23-24</a>); although Isaiah concludes by using this word about what Judah had effectively done to their own God (<a href='B:290 65:7'>Isa 65:7</a>). Sennacherib really did despise Yahweh and wanted to impose his gods upon Judah, and this will be the dominant feature of the latter day Assyrian invasion of the land. Radical Islam would appear the obvious latter day equivalent.</p><p>And will rebuke the words which Yahweh your God has heard- "Rebuke" here is a legal word, used of legal reasoning against an accuser in court (as in <a href='B:290 1:18'>Isa 1:18</a>; <a href='B:290 11:3-4'>Isa 11:3-4</a>; <a href='B:290 29:21'>Isa 29:21</a>; <a href='B:400 6:2'>Mic 6:2</a>). Hezekiah had a strong sense of the court of Heaven; and so the answer is expressed in terms of an Angel 'coming out' from that court room and articulating the agreed judgment (:36). This is a huge comfort; that all situations on earth are reflected in Heaven, and judged there.</p><p>Therefore lift up your prayer for the remnant that is left’. So the servants of king Hezekiah came to Isaiah- </p><p>The remnant would refer not only to the fact that Jerusalem alone remained, but to the righteous remnant within the city who were now repentant. The desire to get others to pray for issues is found throughout the Bible. But we should not draw the implication that God is as it were hard of hearing and only responds if enough of us offer enough prayers. But on the other hand, the combined prayerful requests of many of God's children are not unnoticed by God.</p><p>In response to Isaiah’s prayer, an Angel ‘went forth’ on earth and slew 185,000 Assyrians (<a href='B:120 19:35'>2Ki 19:35</a>). Hezekiah was aware of the court of Heaven responding to his prayer; for he had commented that God would there “reprove the words” of Rabshakeh (<a href='B:120 19:4'>2Ki 19:4</a>). The Hebrew for “reprove” is a legal term, meaning to convict, judge, plead etc. Hezekiah knew that the court of Heaven was considering Rabshakeh’s words, and his prayer was a plea for those words to be convicted in Heaven’s court, and an answer sent out. And this is what happened. Later, we read of Hezekiah asking that same court to “remember” his good life- again using a word capable of having legal overtones, of considering witness. And God replied by saying that He had “heard” that prayer- the same Hebrew word is translated ‘to make a proclamation’, as if He had considered Hezekiah’s ‘plea’ and would respond (<a href='B:120 20:3'>2Ki 20:3</a>; <a href='B:120 20:5'>2Ki 20:5</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Isaiah said to them, Thus you shall tell your master, ‘Thus says Yahweh, Don’t be afraid of the words that you have heard, with which the servants of the king of Assyria have blasphemed Me- </p><p>We too can fear words, forgetting that the only ultimate reality in all things is God. "Servants" here translates a word which is almost colloquial, the idea being "lackeys". Just as the risen Lord referred to the disciples as "guys, fellas" (see on <a href='B:500 21:5'>Joh 21:5</a>), so His Father is able to relate to people on their language level too.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, I will put a spirit in him- </p><p>Sennacherib retreated because God “put a spirit in him”. The AV has: “I will send a blast / spirit upon him”. Was it not that the Angel who later destroyed his army came upon him and put a spirit / disposition of mind within him that made him want to retreat? We see how God can directly affect the human spirit / mind. He can give a holy spirit, or an evil spirit. The Old Testament sets us up to understand that God can work directly on the human spirit, and then the New Testament says that He can give us a holy spirit, working again directly on the human mind and perception.</p><p>And he will hear news, and will return to his own land. I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land’- </p><p>The "news" could have been of the destruction of Rabshakeh's army; or of the approach of Tirhakah, or some other threat to his empire. The situation points ahead to how the latter day "king of the north" will likewise hear "news" (s:w. <a href='B:340 11:44'>Dan 11:44</a> "tidings"). The Lord 'caused' Sennacherib to fall by the sword in that He put a spirit of jealousy in his sons, resulting in the murder of :39.</p>


text:
<p>So Rabshakeh returned, and found the king of Assyria warring against Libnah; for he had heard that he had departed from Lachish-</p><p>Sennacherib was aiming for Egypt and was attacking the fortresses on the route there; and Libnah was just south of Lachish, which he had destroyed. This is the scene we have in Daniel 11, where the "king of the north" attacks "the king of the south", Egypt, ransacking Palestine along the way, but then had to return to his own land after hearing the "tidings" of <a href='B:340 11:44'>Dan 11:44</a>. The historical invasions of Israel and Judah therefore follow a pattern; and this will be repeated in the final latter day invasion which all the previous invasions point forward to. The image of Daniel 2 stands complete in the last days, and all the beasts of Daniel 7 are incorporated into the mega beast of the last days. This is to say that the final destructive entity oppressing Israel in the last days will combine features of all her historical oppressors, including the Assyrians. We note too the difference between Rabshakeh and Sennacherib, and wonder how far this points forward to the "false prophet" of Revelation who appears to be an agent of the beast.</p>


text:
<p>When he heard it said of Tirhakah king of Ethiopia, Behold, he has come out to fight against you, he sent messengers again to Hezekiah saying- </p><p>Tirhakah was the dominant king in Egypt at the time. We wonder if the much criticized efforts of Judah to get "Egypt" to help them were actually directed towards Tirhakah. But we wonder why therefore God still used this person to play a part in His plan to destroy Sennacherib. Or it could be that Tirhakah was the one who had destroyed the Egyptians upon whom Judah had hoped [rather than upon their God], and so it was appropriate that he and not Egypt played a part in the Divine plan to destroy "the king of the north".</p>


text:
<p>Thus you shall speak to Hezekiah king of Judah saying, Don’t let your God in whom you trust deceive you saying, Jerusalem will not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria- </p><p>The king recognizes that Hezekiah does indeed trust in God, and that Yahweh was indeed his God. This may have comforted him, as we noted on :4 that Hezekiah speaks of God as Isaiah's God rather than his God.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, you have heard what the kings of Assyria have done to all lands, by destroying them utterly. Will you be delivered?-</p><p>This is the classic challenge to faith; no other god achieved anything, therefore, the one true God can't either. But the point is that the gods of this world didn't achieve anything precisely because they are not God. The 'utter destruction' of conquered lands by Assyria is historically well attested. But the word has the sense of 'sanctified' in a religious sense; like the latter day "king of the north", the invader thought that they were serving their God by destroying people, and the barbarity of the destruction was a sign of how far they had devoted people and lands to their God. Jihadist Islam exactly fits this scenario.</p>


text:
<p>Have the gods of the nations delivered them, which my fathers have destroyed, Gozan, Haran, Rezeph and the children of Eden that were in Telassar?- </p><p>These were the very cities to which the Assyrians had deported the ten tribe Kingdom of Israel (<a href='B:120 17:6'>2Ki 17:6</a>; <a href='B:120 18:11'>2Ki 18:11</a>). The implication is that Judah would be taken there likewise.</p><p>The historical Assyria ‘destroyed utterly’ the nations around Israel (<a href='B:120 19:11'>2Ki 19:11</a>); but the Hebrew word used specifically means to consecrate or dedicate. It has a distinctly religious sense. And this is precisely the idea of jihad- taking land in a holy war in order to dedicate that land to Allah. In practice, the Assyrians did this by ‘destroying’ or ‘drying up’ these lands. Charab¸ ‘to dry up’, is used about their scorched earth policies (<a href='B:120 19:17'>2Ki 19:17</a>), and Assyria threatened to ‘dry up’ Judah (<a href='B:140 32:11'>2Ch 32:11</a>), just as he boasted “with the sole of my feet have I dried up all the rivers of besieged places” (<a href='B:120 19:24'>2Ki 19:24</a>); and the metaphor continues with the idea of Assyria being like a river gushing forth over the land they had dried up (<a href='B:290 8:7'>Isa 8:7</a>). This is why God’s answer to the Assyrian threat to Judah is expressed in terms of His reminding Judah that it is He who has ultimate power to dry up rivers and nations (<a href='B:290 44:27'>Isa 44:27</a>; <a href='B:290 50:2'>Isa 50:2</a>; <a href='B:290 51:10'>Isa 51:10</a> - every time, the same Hebrew word charab is used).</p>


text:
<p>Where is the king of Hamath, the king of Arpad, the king of the city of Sepharvaim, of Hena and Ivvah?-</p><p>The kings of these cities are paralleled with their gods (:11). The parallel <a href='B:290 36:19'>Isa 36:19</a> asks "Where are the gods" of these same cities. Truly we become like that which we worship; football fans become like their idols, in spirit. And if we worship the one true God of Israel, Yahweh, then we will become like Him.</p>


text:
<p>Hezekiah received the letter from the hand of the messengers, and read it. Then Hezekiah went up to the house of Yahweh, and spread it before Yahweh-</p><p>"Spread" translates the same Hebrew word used about spreading abroad the hands in prayer (<a href='B:20 9:29'>Exo 9:29</a>; <a href='B:20 9:33'>Exo 9:33</a> etc:). It was as if the letter was the prayer. Our situation is read by God as our prayer. There are times especially in serious illness when we are too weak or mentally unclear to be able to verbalize prayer; or where the situation is so complex that we do not know what to pray for in terms of our desired outcome. And some are simply better at verbalizing than others. But the essence is our faith that God sees the situation and will respond. It was in this sense that Hezekiah spread the letter before Yahweh, as we might place an unpleasant hospital diagnosis on the kitchen table and attempt to pray, but what we are doing is bringing the situation before God and asking for His wise and powerful response.</p><p>Rabshakeh confirmed the threatened destruction of Jerusalem with a letter. Hezekiah took this “before the Lord”. His first response was not to turn to Egypt; he’d learnt the wrongness of that. He went to the house of the Lord. Whilst we are always in God’s presence, there is surely a sense in which coming into His presence through prayer is drawing yet closer to Him. And so it was with the special presence of YHWH in the temple at that time. Hezekiah was aware that YHWH ‘dwells between the cherubim” (<a href='B:120 19:15'>2Ki 19:15</a>). Presumably standing before the ark, Hezekiah “spread out” the letter (<a href='B:120 19:14'>2Ki 19:14</a>). The Hebrew word translated ‘spread out’ is the same as that usually used about how the wings of the cherubim were ‘spread out’ over the ark (<a href='B:20 25:20'>Exo 25:20</a>; <a href='B:20 37:9'>Exo 37:9</a>). It’s also the word used in Solomon’s prophecy of how repentant people would spread out their hands in the temple at the time of the punishment for their sins, and receive forgiveness and help: “Whatever prayer, whatever plea is made by any man or by all your people Israel, each knowing his own affliction and his own sorrow and stretching out his hands in this house, then hear from heaven your dwelling place and forgive” (<a href='B:140 6:29-30'>2Ch 6:29-30</a>). And Hezekiah would also have been only too aware of Isaiah’s judgment against Judah of a few years earlier: “When you spread out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen” (<a href='B:290 1:15'>Isa 1:15</a>). But Hezekiah summoned his faith in God’s forgiveness, and spread out his hands as he spread out the letter. He showed his deep repentance, and his faith in forgiveness to such an extent that he was bold enough to ask God for deliverance. Faith in forgiveness of our sins is perhaps one of the hardest things to believe in- strangely enough, seeing that God delights in forgiveness.</p>


text:
<p>Hezekiah prayed before Yahweh and said- </p><p>As noted on :13, the situation itself was the prayer; but Hezekiah, like us, does his best to articulate things in words.</p><p>Yahweh, the God of Israel, Who sits above the cherubim- </p><p>Hezekiah has just "spread" the letter before Yahweh (:13), using the same word for how the cherubim 'stretched forth their wings' (<a href='B:20 25:20'>Exo 25:20</a>; <a href='B:110 8:7'>1Ki 8:7</a> etc:). He knows that God is in Heaven with the cherubim as it were around Him, and also in the Most Holy place of the temple where Hezekiah was. And he imagined that letter as being with God, spread out as the cherubic wings were spread out. Those wings were spread out over the mercy seat, the cover over the ark, which was sprinkled with the blood of atonement each year. This is a profound insight into prayer. Our situations are not unnoticed. They are placed as it were upon the blood of the Lord Jesus, in the very presence of God, with the cherubim overshadowing them, peering down into them. And we can understand the cherubim in this context as representing God's Angelic might. And appropriately enough, an Angel was sent to bring about the great deliverance sought. There over our kitchen table with the troubling letter placed upon it, as with Hezekiah, there are the cherubim and the presence of Almighty God Himself.</p><p>God, whom we reflect, is not something nebulous of which we cannot conceive. Ezekiel saw God enthroned above the cherubim, with the silhouette of “the likeness of a man” (<a href='B:330 1:26'>Eze 1:26</a>; <a href='B:330 10:20'>Eze 10:20</a>); it is God Himself who is located above the cherubim (<a href='B:120 19:14'>2Ki 19:14</a> RV). All this has a practical import; because we are in the image of God, because it is imprinted on every part of our bodies, we must give that body to God, just as men were to give the penny which had Caesar’s image on it to Caesar (<a href='B:490 20:25'>Luk 20:25</a>).</p><p>You are the God, even You alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven and earth- </p><p>Believing that the cosmos was created and didn’t evolve from nothing isn’t a painless academic decision which we take somewhere within our brain cells. To believe God is the creator means that we believe that nothing in the life of this planet or our own lives is therefore too hard for Him to do.</p><p>Reflection upon God's power in creation should inspire our faith too; the God who could do that has made all men and their kingdoms, and is unlimited in what He can do for us. To let 'science' diminish our faith in God as creator is to remove such inspiration from us. Hezekiah states that God alone is the God of all kings or kingdoms of the earth; and yet we have just learnt that those kings were identified with their idols and were no more. Perhaps Hezekiah was using the present tense as God does, speaking of the reality of the final Messianic Kingdom as being so sure of ultimately coming about.</p>


text:
<p>Incline Your ear, Yahweh, and hear. Open your eyes, Yahweh, and see. Hear the words of Sennacherib, with which he has sent to defy the living God- </p><p>This is not to say that God is deaf and blind usually. Seeing and hearing are being used with the sense 'See, hear and respond'. God sees and hears but doesn't respond immediately, usually; He waits until judgment day. Hezekiah is asking for an immediate response in the here and now, for the essence of judgment day to come now, just as we noted on :16 that he was in expectation of the Messianic Kingdom being established.</p><p>Perhaps he even placed the letter upon the top of the ark, beneath the spread out wings of the cherubim, upon the blood-sprinkled mercy seat or atonement cover, symbolizing the future work of the Lord Jesus. He brought the situation before the presence of God. He asks God to open His eyes and see. I take this as a tacit recognition from Hezekiah that God had turned away His eyes from Judah and Hezekiah personally because of their sin. But Hezekiah believed in the promises of forgiveness, and asks God to therefore respond to the awful situation they were in. He believed that the cherubim-Angels, God's eyes, would take note of that letter. And it’s significant that God’s response was to send an Angel to destroy the Assyrians. It may help us to focus our faith in prayers by being aware of the way that God responds to prayer through sending out Angels. He is enthroned, as Hezekiah put it, upon the cherubim.</p>


text:
<p>Truly, Yahweh, the kings of Assyria have laid waste the nations and their lands- </p><p>"Destroyed / laid waste" is the word for sanctifying and devoting in a religious sense. The king of Assyria, like his latter day equivalent, was deeply religious, and saw the cruel destruction of other lands and peoples as part of his service to God, and a sign that his god was triumphant over their gods and belief systems. This exactly fits the spirit of jihadist Islam, which I suggest is the latter day equivalent.</p><p>Goliath's defiance of Israel is a major theme (s:w. <a href='B:90 17:10'>1Sa 17:10</a>; <a href='B:90 17:25-26'>1Sa 17:25-26</a>; <a href='B:90 17:36'>1Sa 17:36</a>; <a href='B:90 17:45'>1Sa 17:45</a>). David's victory over Goliath was inspirational to other Israelites, just as the Lord's triumph on the cross should be to us. The history of Goliath would have been inspirational when the Assyrians likewise defied the living God, and again this is a theme of the record (<a href='B:120 19:4'>2Ki 19:4</a>; <a href='B:120 19:16'>2Ki 19:16</a>; <a href='B:120 19:22-23'>2Ki 19:22-23</a>; <a href='B:140 32:17'>2Ch 32:17</a> s:w:).</p>


text:
<p>and have cast their gods into the fire; for they were no gods, but the work of men’s hands, wood and stone. Therefore they have destroyed them- </p><p>Here we have an example of the Bible using language from the viewpoint of men on earth. They thought their gods were indeed "gods", but they were "no gods". Likewise the language of demons is used in the New Testament, but this doesn't mean demons exist or have power in reality.</p><p>Passages like this almost define God by reason of His being uncreate. Whatever is created, is not God. And it follows that if we think that we have truly created anything, or that we are anything that God didn’t create, then we are in fact playing God. Understanding God as creator, in its true, deep and thought-through sense, leads to an understanding of grace. That all we have, are, were, shall ever be, is purely His gift. Likewise, to take for ourselves what is God’s is to play God. Materialism and selfishness are in this sense playing God</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore, Yahweh our God, save us, I beg You, out of his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that You, Yahweh, are God alone- </p><p>The day when all earth's kingdoms shall know Yahweh is the Kingdom age, as Isaiah points out elsewhere with the same Hebrew phrase (<a href='B:290 12:5'>Isa 12:5</a>; <a href='B:290 49:26'>Isa 49:26</a>; <a href='B:290 61:9'>Isa 61:9</a>). Hezekiah envisaged salvation from the "king of the north" as leading directly to the establishment of the Kingdom; and that is the scenario in <a href='B:340 11:40'>Dan 11:40</a> to <a href='B:340 12:3'>Dan 12:3</a>. Perhaps it was potentially possible; but Judah's general lack of repentance and Hezekiah's apostacy meant it was deferred in fulfilment. The desire for salvation was therefore not simply for the sake of personal safety, but for the wider glory of God in the earth.</p><p>There will come a day when all the world realizes that God is one (<a href='B:290 37:20'>Isa 37:20</a> Heb:)- in that they will realize that He alone is God and all else is pure vanity. Because God alone is holy, only He will be worshipped then (<a href='B:730 15:4'>Rev 15:4</a>). "The Lord alone shall be exalted in that day" (<a href='B:290 2:11'>Isa 2:11</a>; <a href='B:290 2:17'>Isa 2:17</a>).</p><p>Hezekiah’s faith was also strengthened by having the right motives: “Save us, please, from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you, O LORD, are God alone”. This is alluded to by the Lord in His prayer just before His death: “That the world may know” (<a href='B:500 17:23'>Joh 17:23</a>). Hezekiah’s prayer for the Assyrian destruction was in fact so that the Gentile nations around Judah would come to know Yahweh, to accept Him. What finer motivation! This was no selfish shriek for help.</p><p>That God is one is a command, an imperative to action (<a href='B:480 12:28-29'>Mar 12:28-29</a>). It underlies the whole law and prophets (<a href='B:470 22:40'>Mat 22:40</a>)- it's that fundamental. If there were two Gods, Yahweh would only demand half our energies. Nothing can be given to anything else; for there is nothing else to give to. There's only one God. There can be no idolatry in our lives, because there is only one God (<a href='B:120 19:18-19'>2Ki 19:18-19</a>). Because "there is none else, thou shalt keep therefore his statutes" (<a href='B:50 4:39-40'>Deu 4:39-40</a>). The Hebrew text of <a href='B:50 6:4'>Deu 6:4</a> suggests: "The Lord is our God, the Lord is one", thereby linking Yahweh's unity with His being our God, the sole Lord and unrivalled Master of His people. It also links the first principle of the unity of God with that of the covenant to Abraham; for "I will be their God" was one of the features of the covenant. The one God has only one people; not all religious systems can lead to the one Hope of Israel.</p>


text:
<p>Then Isaiah the son of Amoz sent to Hezekiah saying, Thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel, ‘Whereas you have prayed to Me against Sennacherib king of Assyria, I have heard you-</p><p>Answers to prayer don't often come through bolts of revelation; in this case it was through another believer, Isaiah. And we note the power of one man's prayer- because of this prayer, God's word of :20 was uttered. See on <a href='B:480 2:5'>Mar 2:5</a>.</p>


text:
<p>This is the word that Yahweh has spoken concerning him: The virgin daughter of Zion has despised you and ridiculed you. The daughter of Jerusalem has shaken her head at you- </p><p>The remnant within the closed city of Jerusalem, likened to a protected virgin who had not been 'opened', had hardly despised and ridiculed the Assyrians. They were terrified of them. But their faith was counted to them for more than it was; according to Psalms 2, it was God within Zion who despised and ridiculed the armies outside the walls. But His characteristics were counted to them. This is exactly the reasoning of Paul in Romans about imputed righteousness.</p>


text:
<p>Whom have you defied and blasphemed? Against whom have you exalted your voice and lifted up your eyes on high? Against the Holy One of Israel- </p><p>When and how was this mocking made? I suggest on <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a> that a number of the Proverbs in the later part of the book of Proverbs were rewritten in the context of the Assyrian crisis at the time of Hezekiah. We may have a clue in <a href='B:240 26:6'>Pro 26:6</a>: "One who sends a message by the hand of a fool is cutting off his own feet and drinking violence". Rabshakeh, the servant of the king of Assyria, is presented as a "fool" (see on <a href='B:240 26:4'>Pro 26:4</a>), and by using him, the king of Assyria was cutting off his own feet. This and other of Hezekiah's Proverbs (see on <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>) which mock messengers would then be the reference of <a href='B:120 19:21'>2Ki 19:21</a>, where we read that the daughter of Zion had mocked at and despised the Assyrians and their messengers. There is no other recorded fulfilment of this. Defeat by Assyria looked certain, and so to mock them at the time when they would [humanly speaking] soon be seeking their grace- was a true act of faith. See on :32.</p><p>That would’ve required an extraordinary level of faith to do that. Hezekiah wasn’t just hoping for the best, using prayer as a last resort, a kind of back up insurance policy after doing all he could. This was the prayer and faith of utter confidence, believing that things that are not are in fact, and being so sure they will come about that this faith actually affects our feelings. Hezekiah felt confident, superior to the Assyrians, all the feelings that come from knowing that one is in a far stronger position. This is a challenge in our self-assessment. To what extent does our confidence in faith affect our emotions and feelings?</p><p>Sennacherib was fully aware that he had done all these things against Yahweh; the motivation for his rage against Jerusalem was his particular hatred of Yahweh. And so it shall be in the latter day invasion, which will also be strongly motivated by religion. This verse is simply restating the truth about Sennacherib. It is addressed to him, so presumably Isaiah's duty was to get the message to him. We wonder why God would, as it were, bother. But there are many points of contact with Pharaoh. God even tried to bring him to repentance, and perhaps this address to Sennacherib was to likewise give even him a chance. This is great encouragement to us, to never consider anyone not even worth trying with.</p>


text:
<p>By your messengers you have defied the Lord, and have said, ‘With the multitude of my chariots I have come up to the height of the mountains, to the innermost parts of Lebanon- </p><p>The intensive plurals here refer to the great mountain, of Zion. Sennacherib spoke in the present tense because he was certain he would achieve it. His intention was to desecrate the innermost parts of the cedar-of-Lebanon decorated temple.</p><p>And I will cut down its tall cedars, and its choice fir trees; and I will enter into His deepest dwelling place, the forest of His fruitful field- </p><p>This could continue the allusion to the cedar-of-Lebanon covered temple. Or the whole verse may be simply as GNB: "You sent your servants to boast to me that with all your chariots you had conquered the highest mountains of Lebanon. You boasted that there you cut down the tallest cedars and the finest cypress trees, and that you reached the deepest parts of the forests". However, an obsession with destroying the temple would fit the theme of Sennacherib's rage against Yahweh and particular desire to destroy the temple and gain the temple mount. This would match the similar motivations of the latter day Assyrian.</p>


text:
<p>I have dug and drunk strange waters, and with the sole of my feet will I dry up all the rivers of Egypt’- </p><p>Rabshakeh tried to cut off water from Jerusalem (hence Hezekiah's tunnel of <a href='B:120 20:20'>2Ki 20:20</a>). Sennacherib considered victory against Egypt as just as certain; although he was clearly fazed by Tirhakah's approach.</p>


text:
<p>Haven’t you heard how I have done it long ago, and formed it of ancient times? Now have I brought it to pass, that it should be yours to lay waste fortified cities into ruinous heaps- </p><p>This is the Divine response. Understanding predestination helps us see the frailty of all human strength and device; and Paul introduces it into his argument in Romans to likewise demonstrate that salvation is of grace and not by works. "Destroy" is literally to rush upon, and the word is used of how the rushing of the nations against God's people would be turned back (see on <a href='B:290 17:13'>Isa 17:13</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Therefore their inhabitants were of small power. They were dismayed and confounded. They were like the grass of the field, and like the green herb, like the grass on the housetops, and like grain blasted before it has grown up- </p><p>Similar language is used in <a href='B:290 40:6'>Isa 40:6</a> of how "all flesh" is like this. The reference is to the "all flesh" of the nations around Israel whom the Assyrians had conquered, who trusted in their own human strength.</p>


text:
<p>But I know your sitting down, and your going out, and your coming in, and your raging against Me- </p><p>This reflects David's awareness that God knows our every physical movement, standing or sitting. God knew Sennacherib's going out from his homeland and how he would return there. Sennacherib's rage was against Yahweh; he intended to utterly subvert the true faith; see on :27.</p>


text:
<p>Because of your raging against Me- There was a specifically religious, spiritual aspect to the invasion; the idea was that the claims of this Yahweh were to be shown false. The motivation of the latter day Assyrian will be the same. <a href='B:340 11:40'>Dan 11:40</a> [see note there] envisages the "king of the north" likewise raging against the God of the fortress of Zion.</p><p>And because your arrogance has come up into My ears, therefore will I put My hook in your nose and My bridle in your lips, and I will turn you back by the way by which you came- This is the language of the latter day invasion by Gog (<a href='B:330 38:4'>Eze 38:4</a>), which has this Assyrian invasion as its prototype. The Gog confederacy, of 10 nations headed by a rosh, a charismatic leader, will likewise be unsuccessful.</p>


text:
<p>This shall be the sign to you: You shall eat this year that which grows of itself, and in the second year that which springs of the same; and in the third year sow, and reap, and plant vineyards, and eat its fruit- </p><p>They were besieged in Jerusalem. This sign was a medium term sign, not the short term indication of salvation they perhaps wanted. The sign was that there was the potential for the house of Judah to bear fruit "upward", to God (:29); the fruit of repentance. But there are hints later in Isaiah that this sign was not believed; they did not respect the Jubilee year, they did sow instead of trusting that the land around Jerusalem would miraculously bring forth its own fruit. And this reflects how they did not bring forth the fruit of the Spirit "upward" to God but rather of their own strength (:29). See on :30. The language here seems to suggest that the events of the Assyrian invasion and deliverance happened around a year of Jubilee, which later in Isaiah is alluded to as a type of the time of the Lord's return and the Messianic Kingdom. It could have come then; but Isaiah 58 and other hints in later Isaiah are that the Jubilee year was not respected, they did plant instead of trusting in the Lord's provision, and so the Kingdom was precluded from coming then. The idea of planting vineyards and eating their fruit is used in Isaiah 65 of the Messianic Kingdom; it is kingdom language.</p><p>The verse has been translated: 'Ye did eat (the first year) such as groweth of itself, and in the second year that which springeth of the same, but in this third year sow ye'. This would mean that they were now in the third year of the Assyrian invasion. Perhaps there was a three and a half year domination of Judah by the Assyrians, just as there shall be in the last days.</p>


text:
<p>The remnant that has escaped of the house of Judah shall again take root downward, and bear fruit upward- </p><p>See on :28,30. Apart from Jerusalem, Judah had been overrun by the Assyrians, so this remnant who escaped could refer to the inhabitants of Jerusalem; or it could be that "the remnant" refers to the spiritually faithful minority.</p><p><a href='B:290 4:2'>Isa 4:2</a> had spoken of how this "remnant" (s:w:) would be the basis of a revived kingdom of God in Judah, based around a Messianic "Branch", "in that day"- the day of <a href='B:290 4:1'>Isa 4:1</a>, when Jerusalem would be overcome and left in ruins with hardly any men left. These "survivors" are those saved from the ruins of a desolated Jerusalem, those who "escaped" the Assyrian invasion (s:w. <a href='B:290 10:20'>Isa 10:20</a>); the same word is used in <a href='B:360 2:32'>Joe 2:32</a>; <a href='B:380 1:17'>Oba 1:17</a>, the "remnant" of <a href='B:330 14:22'>Eze 14:22</a> (s:w:). The destruction of Jerusalem was intended to elicit repentance and to lead seamlessly into a revived Zion and reestablished Kingdom of God in Israel, when again all things would be "glorious" (s:w. <a href='B:290 24:23'>Isa 24:23</a>; <a href='B:290 35:2'>Isa 35:2</a>). But this didn't happen. Jerusalem was saved by grace, and yet Hezekiah failed to act as "Yahweh's branch", and Judah were impenitent, unmoved by their salvation by grace.</p>


text:
<p>For out of Jerusalem a remnant will go out, and out of Mount Zion those who shall escape. The zeal of Yahweh will perform this’- </p><p>This is the language of Obadiah about the final establishment of Messiah's Kingdom. As noted on :28, this could have happened then, if Judah had kept the year of Jubilee as intended and brought forth spiritual fruit "upward" to God.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore thus says Yahweh concerning the king of Assyria, ‘He shall not come to this city, nor shoot an arrow there, neither shall he come before it with shield, nor cast up a mound against it- </p><p>This is in contrast to Sennacherib's first approach to Jerusalem, when according to his own inscriptions he did cast up a mound: 'Because Hezekiah, king of Judah, would not submit to my yoke, I came up against him, and by force of arms, and by the might of my power, I took 46 of his fenced cities, and of smaller towns scattered about I took a countless number. And I carried off as spoil 200,150 people. And Hezekiah himself I shut up in Jerusalem, his capital city, like a bird in a cage, building towers round the city to hem him in. Then upon this Hezekiah there fell the fear of the power of my arms, and he sent out to me the chiefs of Jerusalem, with 30 talents of gold and 800 talents of silver'. The fact not an arrow would be fired must be compared with how <a href='B:290 22:6'>Isa 22:6</a> had predicted the presence of the archers of Elam around Jerusalem at the invasion, who would overthrow her. It was deferred until this same nation came with the Babylonians against Jerusalem at a later date (<a href='B:300 49:35'>Jer 49:35</a>). Likewise <a href='B:290 22:7'>Isa 22:7</a> foresaw the Assyrians 'coming before' the city; but this too was averted by the repentance and intercession of a minority. It is all a great lesson in the power of the repentance and intercession of a minority.</p>


text:
<p>By the way that he came, by the same shall he return, and he shall not come to this city’, says Yahweh- </p><p>This unsuccessful invasion is like that of Ezekiel 38 and Psalms 2; the nations surround Jerusalem but fail to capture it because of the Lord's presence there. Jerusalem will indeed fall in the last days and be desecrated, but the Lord will return and save Israel, establish Himself in Zion- and then there will be this unsuccessful invasion which He crushes.</p><p>As discussed on :21, the Proverbs of Hezekiah are relevant to this situation. At this point,&nbsp; <a href='B:240 26:8'>Pro 26:8</a> "As one who binds a stone in a sling, so is he who gives honour to a fool". I suggested on <a href='B:240 26:4'>Pro 26:4</a>; <a href='B:240 26:6'>Pro 26:6</a> that the particular fool in view is Rabshakeh, who had been honoured by the king of Assyria. But because of God's anger with this "fool", the military technology of Assyria would be confounded. Not a stone would be hurled at Jerusalem- exactly as stated here.</p>


text:
<p>‘For I will defend this city to save it, for My own sake and for My servant David’s sake’- </p><p>The implication could be 'not for the sake of your righteousness, but by grace alone; for My sake, and because I respect the covenant of grace I gave David'.</p>


text:
<p>It happened that night, that the angel of Yahweh went out- </p><p>He went out from the throne room of heaven, where the case had been as it were considered; see on :4. Isaiah 37 is shot through with allusions to the Angel cherubim destroying the Assyrian host. The Angel went out- perhaps referring to Him physically going forth out of the temple where He dwelt to slay the Assyrians outside the walls of Jerusalem. This phrase 'went out' is nearly always used about literal physical movement, which we have seen is what&nbsp; Angels literally do. Thus in the Ezekiel visions of the cherubim, they and the lightnings "went forth", physically and literally, in performing God's work. "Let my sentence come forth from Thy presence (Angelic language); let Thine eyes (Angels) behold the things that are equal", seeing they are involved with the 'coming forth', according to the parallelism of this verse. Similarly Job's satan Angel "went forth" from the presence of the Lord (<a href='B:220 1:12'>Job 1:12</a>). And so it happened that there were Angels on earth, as it were. <a href='B:450 2:3'>Zec 2:3</a> also has an Angel going forth to answer the prayers concerning&nbsp; restoring the fortunes of Jerusalem (see <a href='B:450 5:5'>Zec 5:5</a> too). <a href='B:230 81:5'>Psa 81:5</a> describes the Angel going out through the land of Egypt in order to "remove (Israel's) shoulder from the burden". Psalms 81 is 'Angelic', following Psalms 80, which is another such Psalm. <a href='B:650 1:14'>Heb 1:14</a> also offers support: the Angels are "sent forth" to minister to us- by answering prayers offered in the spirit of Hezekiah's prayer here?</p><p>And struck one hundred and eighty-five thousand in the camp of the Assyrians. When men arose early in the morning, behold, these were all dead bodies- </p><p>The bodies were spoiled by the Jerusalem Jews (<a href='B:290 33:4'>Isa 33:4</a>). The agent of destruction appears to have been fire and hail (<a href='B:290 29:6'>Isa 29:6</a>; <a href='B:290 30:30'>Isa 30:30</a>), both of which may be used in the last days too.</p>


text:
<p>So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned, and lived at Nineveh- </p><p>This was due to the "tidings" he received (:8), presumably of the destruction of his army outside the walls of Jerusalem.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, as he was worshipping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech and Sharezer struck him with the sword; and they escaped into the land of Ararat. Esar Haddon his son reigned in his place- </p><p>As noted on :7, this was caused by God putting a spirit / attitude of mind in these sons to do this. His Spirit, as today, confirmed the human spirit. He was killed as he was worshipping, about 20 years later; worshipping a god who had spectacularly failed him. We see here the terrible power of religion in blinding men to spiritual reality.</p>


text:
<p>In those days was Hezekiah sick to death- </p><p>Hezekiah reigned 29 years (<a href='B:120 18:2'>2Ki 18:2</a>), and the sickness after which he was given 15 years therefore happened in the 14th year or his reign- the very same time that Assyria invaded (<a href='B:290 36:1'>Isa 36:1</a>). Trials so often come together, in such an intense and extreme way that the situation can only be of God rather than mere bad luck or coincidence. The full title of Isaiah is given perhaps because the theme is that Hezekiah was to live because of the prophetic word.</p><p>Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came to him and said to him, Thus says Yahweh, ‘Set your house in order; for you shall die, and not live’- </p><p>We should not assume too quickly that Hezekiah had no family at this stage; for he is commanded here to put in order his household ("house" is so often 'family' rather than the bricks of a house). Indeed the very same phrase is used of how Abraham would "command his household" to keep God's laws (<a href='B:10 18:19'>Gen 18:19</a>). Perhaps that was the idea. He was to urgently teach his household more of God's ways as he was to soon die.</p>


text:
<p>Then he turned his face to the wall, and prayed to Yahweh saying- </p><p>The divans, which were also beds, were arranged next to the walls. We are left with the impression of a man utterly alone with God, turning his face away from Isaiah when he had delivered the message, facing the wall- and praying to Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>Remember now, Yahweh, I beg You, how I have walked before You in truth and with a perfect heart, and have done that which is good in Your sight- </p><p>Hezekiah claimed to have lived with a good conscience but was at the same time aware of his sins (<a href='B:290 38:3'>Isa 38:3</a> cp. 17); and his cutting off the gold of the temple to try to buy peace was surely a failure. Yet the conscience can be cleansed of sin, through the depth of the power of God's forgiveness. This is not the same as forgetfulness, self-righteousness or minimization of personal failings. Paul must surely have had twinges of guilt over his behaviour at times (not least over the bust up with brethren Barnabas and Mark, <a href='B:510 15:39'>Act 15:39</a> cp. <a href='B:620 4:11'>2Ti 4:11</a>); and yet he insists that he always had a good conscience. Paul likewise claims that the Jewish forefathers served God with a pure conscience (<a href='B:620 1:3'>2Ti 1:3</a> NIV). Yet the Jewish fathers, dear Jacob particularly, must have had plenty of twinges of guilt over their years.</p><p>Walking in truth is the term used to characterize the seed of David (<a href='B:110 2:4'>1Ki 2:4</a>; <a href='B:110 3:6'>1Ki 3:6</a>), as David personally walked in truth (<a href='B:230 26:3'>Psa 26:3</a>; <a href='B:230 86:11'>Psa 86:11</a>), and may not of itself mean that Hezekiah is saying he has not sinned; it's as if Hezekiah assumed that because he was the seed of David, he therefore ought not to die. As will be explained later, the adding of days to his life was a way of saying that he was being accepted as the seed of David; and yet he failed to use those years to save his people. It could be argued that by refusing to die when asked to, Hezekiah was disallowing his being the fulfilment of the Messianic suffering servant who was to die for his people.</p><p>Hezekiah wept bitterly- </p><p>Perhaps in prayer, asking God to change the outcome. For as with Nineveh, in the gap between Divine statement and its fulfilment, we can repent and change the word which otherwise would have come true (<a href='B:300 18:8-10'>Jer 18:8-10</a>). See on <a href='B:120 19:35'>2Ki 19:35</a>.</p>


text:
<p>It happened, before Isaiah had gone out into the middle part of the city, that the word of Yahweh came to him saying- </p><p>Once he reached the middle court of the palace, he was told by God to "turn again" and give Hezekiah assurance of healing. The whole incident shows the speed with which God responds to prayers, and His sensitivity to human prayer and repentance.</p>


text:
<p>Turn back and tell Hezekiah the prince of My people, ‘Thus says Yahweh the God of David your father, I have heard your prayer. I have seen your tears. Behold, I will heal you. On the third day, you shall go up to the house of Yahweh- </p><p>The defence of Zion at this time was predicated upon God's grace; judgment was intended to come unless they repented, and most of them hadn't. And so God stresses He will save Zion by grace, for His own sake and not that of His peoples' prayer or repentance. The cure was not instant, it took three days; for the same reason as there will be the process of judgment between our resurrection and entrance to the Kingdom. The period between God's pronouncement of blessing and the realization of it is for our benefit, that we might grow in appreciation. The healing enabled Hezekiah to enter the temple; from God's perspective, the most significant aspect of his illness was that its uncleanness precluded him from entering the temple. We notice the parallel between Hezekiah's prayer and his tears;&nbsp; God reads situations as prayers. Prayer is understood by Him far wider than simply words as lexical items. Otherwise those more able to verbalize would pray 'better'; and acceptable prayer is not related to our ability to verbalize.</p>


text:
<p>I will add to your days fifteen years- </p><p>The years 'added' to the king's life are expressed in the words of <a href='B:230 61:6'>Psa 61:6</a>, where David felt that God would "prolong [s:w. "add to"] the king's life [s. w. "days"]. The clear allusion to David's words was perhaps to show that God considered Hezekiah to be the Davidic king who could have been the Messianic Son of David. But Hezekiah despised that and wasted those years in self-satisfaction. There is also a theme in Solomon's teaching that his son would have 'days added' (the same Hebrew phrase) to his life, because of his obedience to wisdom (<a href='B:240 3:2'>Pro 3:2</a>; <a href='B:240 9:11'>Pro 9:11</a>; <a href='B:240 10:27'>Pro 10:27</a>). Again, the idea is that the adding of days to Hezekiah's life was confirming him as the seed of David.</p><p>There is a strong sense that God has determined a number of "days" for our mortal life (<a href='B:230 23:6'>Psa 23:6</a>; <a href='B:100 7:12'>2Sa 7:12</a>), and David like all of us wished to know how many those days were for him, in order that he might live an appropriately humble life in response to realizing his frailty (<a href='B:230 39:4'>Psa 39:4</a>). But that predetermined number of days can be cut short (<a href='B:230 102:4'>Psa 102:4</a>; <a href='B:230 102:23-24'>Psa 102:23-24</a>) or extended (<a href='B:110 3:14'>1Ki 3:14</a>; <a href='B:240 9:11'>Pro 9:11</a>). Hezekiah would be the parade example of this; his days were cut short (<a href='B:290 38:10'>Isa 38:10</a>), and then lengthened in response to prayer (<a href='B:120 20:6'>2Ki 20:6</a>). God is open to dialogue, His timetable in our personal lives is flexible according to our prayers; and He is also responsive to human behaviour. Like Job we should perceive our life as "my days" (he uses this term multiple times), so that we might use each of them for Him.</p><p>I will deliver you and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria. I will defend this city for My own sake, and for My servant David’s sake’- </p><p>Yahweh had earlier stated that He would not "deliver" (s:w:) Jerusalem from the Assyrian lion (<a href='B:290 5:29'>Isa 5:29</a>). But as in Hosea, God speaks in wrath but then His grace is such that He doesn't carry out what He threatens. He has emotion and speaks and acts in that fire of passion. That was normal in the Middle East; it is the western obsession with nicespeak and measured responses which make outburst behaviour and language appear inappropriate. Micah was contemporary with Isaiah, and he spoke of the 'deliverance' &nbsp;(s:w:) of the city from the Assyrians as being due to the appearance of a Messianic figure (<a href='B:400 5:6'>Mic 5:6</a>):&nbsp; Here, the deliverance of Hezekiah personally from inevitable death is tied up with the deliverance of Jerusalem from inevitable judgment. He surely could have been one of the possible fulfillments of the Messianic figure, which makes his failure to rise up to it all the more tragic.</p>


text:
<p>Isaiah said, Take a cake of figs. They took and laid it on the boil, and he recovered- </p><p>It’s surely significant that Hezekiah is stated to be Judah’s most faithful King, and yet he had a major lack of faith when he cut off the gold of the temple and gave it to the Assyrians; and he asks God to give him a sign that the promised healing was really going to happen. Indeed the whole nature of the dialogue here seems to indicate a man of somewhat faltering faith, needing every encouragement. And so although the healing was completely through God's power, perhaps this human mechanism of the cake of figs was used for Hezekiah's benefit; not because it had any efficacy of itself.</p>


text:
<p>Hezekiah said to Isaiah, What shall be the sign that Yahweh will heal me, and that I shall go up to the house of Yahweh the third day?- </p><p>Hezekiah asks for a sign “to prove” that God’s predicted cure of him was going to happen. And when given the option of the shadow of the sun jumping forward by ten degrees, he almost mocks that as too ‘easy’. Yet this is the man with the accolade that no King believed in God like he did. Perhaps he reached his heights of faith through having these low moments. ‘Putting God to the test’ as it seems Hezekiah did is seen in Scripture as not fully believing in Him (<a href='B:40 14:20-24'>Num 14:20-24</a>; <a href='B:50 6:16'>Deu 6:16</a>; <a href='B:290 7:12'>Isa 7:12</a>; <a href='B:490 11:33-36'>Luk 11:33-36</a>). Maybe God left Hezekiah to test him in the matter of the ambassadors from Babylon as a kind of response- ‘You put me to the test, I’ll put you to the test’ (<a href='B:140 32:31'>2Ch 32:31</a>). &nbsp;Let’s remember that in Bible characters like Hezekiah, we are reading only a few cameos of their lives. Most of his life history, his inner thoughts, are unknown to us. But God’s summary statement was that he was the most believing King of Judah. So when we read cameos from his life that reflect a weakened faith, we surely have little option but to conclude that somehow in the Divine economy, low points of faith lead a person to higher and stronger ones. And we can all take a lot of comfort from that conclusion as we survey our own lives.</p>


text:
<p>Isaiah said, This shall be the sign to you from Yahweh, that Yahweh will do the thing that He has spoken: shall the shadow go forward ten steps, or go back ten steps?- </p><p>It seems that unlike his father Ahaz, Hezekiah had asked for this sign (:8). It is apparent that the experiences of believers are often suggestive of those of other believers. Insofar as we appreciate this, we will find strength to go the right way. Consider how Hezekiah was intended to see the similarities between himself and the earlier king Ahaz his father, and learn the lessons. They were both threatened by invasion and tempted to turn to human help (<a href='B:290 7:2'>Isa 7:2</a>; <a href='B:290 37:1'>Isa 37:1</a>); Visited by Isaiah and told to not fear (<a href='B:290 7:4-9'>Isa 7:4-9</a>; <a href='B:290 37:6-7'>Isa 37:6-7</a>). Ahaz was unfaithful by “the conduit of the upper pool on the highway to the fuller’s field” (<a href='B:290 7:3'>Isa 7:3</a>); and in just the same place Hezekiah’s faith was tested and he learnt the lessons of Ahaz’ failure (<a href='B:290 36:2'>Isa 36:2</a>). Both were given a sign by God and promised deliverance (<a href='B:290 7:14'>Isa 7:14</a>; <a href='B:290 37:30'>Isa 37:30</a>). Ahaz refused to ask for a sign when offered one (<a href='B:290 7:11'>Isa 7:11</a>); whereas Hezekiah learnt, and asked for a sign (<a href='B:290 38:7'>Isa 38:7</a>; <a href='B:290 38:22'>Isa 38:22</a>). Thus his asking for a sign was not a sign of faithlessness but rather his seeking to not be like Ahaz. “The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform it” was spoken to both Ahaz (<a href='B:290 9:6'>Isa 9:6</a>) and Hezekiah (<a href='B:290 37:32'>Isa 37:32</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Hezekiah answered, It is a light thing for the shadow to go forward ten steps. Nay, but let the shadow return backward ten steps- </p><p>The Hebrew word translated "light" can mean two things, and neither of them read very nicely for Hezekiah to say this. It can mean 'easy'; and to say it was easy for the light to go forward, involving the apparent manipulation of the sun and therefore the entire cosmos, was no "light" thing for God to do. The word can by extension mean "despised" or "cursed", and is often translated like that. Hezekiah is saying that for life to be 'fast forwarded', for him to be cut off in the midst of his days by the sun advancing forward, is easy for God. But it would be harder, surely, for God to make the sun as it were go backward, to create time, to reverse the time of his life by giving him more time. And despite that unpleasant, bitter attitude to God, God responds by giving him more life. Hezekiah had faith, but so did Elijah; but faith without hope and love is nothing, as Paul says. And Elijah was removed from his ministry despite having so much faith.</p>


text:
<p>Isaiah the prophet cried to Yahweh; and He brought the shadow ten steps backward, by which it had gone down- </p><p>"Gone down" is the word used by Hezekiah in speaking of how he feels he had "gone down" into the grave (:18). It is as if Hezekiah has died, the sun gone down those degrees, and then resurrected, brought up the same amount. He could have been a Messianic figure in a reestablished kingdom of God in Judah. The "return backward" of the sun is a phrase often used of the return of the exiles from Babylon to be part of that reestablished Kingdom. Hezekiah's revival / resurrection was to be seen as that of his people. How the miracle happened is not the essential question; but it could have been caused by the glory of Yahweh bursting forth so that the shadow was chased back.</p><p>On the dial of Ahaz- </p><p>"The stairway built by King Ahaz", Hezekiah's father, was part of his idolatrous sun worship which Hezekiah ought to have destroyed. It was a kind of small ziggurat. It was the Babylonians who had begun telling the time in this way; there is no mention of "hours" of the day in the Hebrew Bible until the time of Daniel. Here we have another hint at the incomplete spirituality and reformation of Hezekiah. The "songs of degrees" were written or rewritten to apply to this experience of the sun returning ten degrees or steps. There are 15 of them, matching the 15 extra years of life given to Hezekiah.</p>


text:
<p>At that time Berodach Baladan the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a present to Hezekiah; for he had heard that Hezekiah had been sick- </p><p>Gentiles bringing presents to Zion is the language of the reestablished kingdom (<a href='B:230 68:29'>Psa 68:29</a>). It could have come about then, when the surrounding nations brought presents to Hezekiah; but human pride and impenitence precluded it. See on <a href='B:290 18:7'>Isa 18:7</a>. And Hezekiah and his descendants adopted the ways of those nations rather than ruling over them and helping them toward Israel's God. <a href='B:140 32:31'>2Ch 32:31</a> describes these people as "the ambassadors of the princes of Babylon", but an unusual word is used there for "ambassadors"; it is the word usually translated "scorner" or "mocker". The idea is clearly that these men had an agenda and were not sincere. And Hezekiah was willfully duped by them, falling for their agenda and being blinded by their gifts, rather than seeking to share the ways of Yahweh with them. Hezekiah ought to have learnt not to trust in them, seeing that trust in the "princes and ambassadors" of Egypt had been proven so false just in recent history (<a href='B:290 30:4'>Isa 30:4</a>). God likewise brings situations into our lives whereby situations repeat- to test our faith and understanding.</p><p>The "letters" and 'ambassadors'&nbsp;recall the 'letter' from the ambassadors of Assyria in <a href='B:290 37:14'>Isa 37:14</a>. He didn't respond spiritually to this 'trial by prosperity'. Hence: "However concerning the ambassadors of the princes of Babylon, who sent to him to inquire of the wonder that was done in the land, God left him, to try him, that He might know all that was in his heart" (<a href='B:140 32:31'>2Ch 32:31</a>). "The wonder" could refer to the miracle on the sundial, or to the miraculous revival of the land physically in line with Isaiah's prophecies.</p>


text:
<p>Hezekiah listened to them- </p><p><a href='B:290 39:2'>Isa 39:2</a> "Hezekiah was pleased with them". "Pleased" is s:w. "joy", "to rejoice". It is used of how Hezekiah previously had rejoiced in spiritual things (<a href='B:140 29:36'>2Ch 29:36</a>; <a href='B:140 30:25'>2Ch 30:25</a>). Now he rejoices in material things, and being respected by Gentiles rather than God. His "joy" or 'pleasure' ought to have been solely in Yahweh's salvation (<a href='B:290 25:9'>Isa 25:9</a> s:w:). Hezekiah rejoiced "with them"; the Hebrew text is emphatic about this joy "with them". But the whole land had been charged not to rejoice at the fall of Assyria because it would revive in another form (s:w. <a href='B:290 14:29'>Isa 14:29</a>). Hezekiah is presented as totally ignorant of all this.</p><p>And showed them all the house of his precious things, the silver, the gold, the spices, the precious oil, the house of his armour and all that was found in his treasures: there was nothing in his house, nor in all his dominion, that Hezekiah didn’t show them- </p><p>LXX "the houses of his treasures". This sounds as if his kingdom had become like that of Egypt and Solomon, where treasure cities were associated with gross materialism and refusal of the things of God's Kingdom. The Babylonians had revolted against Assyria, and they wanted help from Judah to form a political alliance against Assyria. But Hezekiah was taken in by the presents and attention paid to him, responding in pride rather than telling them he had nearly died because of his alliances; he ought to have told Babylon to accept Yahweh as their God, and thus be saved from Assyria as Judah had been. Presumably he agreed to the alliance; hence the judgment given, that his people would go into captivity in Babylon. He had recently been so lacking in gold that he had stripped the temple's gold and given it to the Assyrians (<a href='B:120 18:16'>2Ki 18:16</a>). This sudden abundance of wealth may well have come from nations such as Babylon, who were eager to have Judah onside with them as a now significant and respected ally against Assyria. The wealth of the Gentiles flowed in to the liberated Zion, but only as a very weak foreshadowing of the things of the Kingdom. Human "armour" ought not to have been gloried in; for the entire message of Zion's deliverance was that it was achieved by God's power and grace and not at all by human strength. But the same Hebrew word is used repeatedly of the temple vessels which Hezekiah had earlier sanctified for usage (<a href='B:140 29:19'>2Ch 29:19</a>; <a href='B:140 29:26-27'>2Ch 29:26-27</a>; <a href='B:140 30:21'>2Ch 30:21</a>). But now he had removed them out of temple service in Yahweh's house into his own house. His focus was upon his kingdom ["dominion"], rather than the things of Yahweh's Kingdom. It was these very vessels which were to be carried to Babylon (s:w. <a href='B:140 36:7'>2Ch 36:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then Isaiah the prophet came to king Hezekiah and said to him, What did these men say? From where did they come to you? Hezekiah said, They have come from a far country, even from Babylon- </p><p>Surely these were rhetorical questions aimed at rebuking Hezekiah. His reply was made in pride (<a href='B:140 32:25'>2Ch 32:25</a>, although see note there). The prophetic intention had been that the Gentiles would come from far countries to Israel's God with offerings to Yahweh, but Hezekiah sees it in terms of them coming to him with presents and respect for him. He uses the very phrase of <a href='B:50 28:49'>Deu 28:49</a>, of how a nation "from a far country" was to come and destroy Israel.</p>


text:
<p>He said, What have they seen in your house? Hezekiah answered, They have seen all that is in my house. There is nothing among my treasures that I have not shown them- </p><p>As in :14, these are rhetorical questions; and rather like those given to Adam in Eden, they were intended to elicit repentance. LXX "yea, also the possessions in my treasuries". Note the emphasis on "my::. my:. I". The focus on his possessions and treasuries suggests the Lord quarried the parable of the rich fool from Hezekiah, who thought he had wealth to enjoy for the remainder of his days; see on :17. "My house::. your house" stands in contrast to the temple / house of Yahweh which ought to have been Hezekiah's focus. All that was in his house was to be taken to Babylon (:17). The intention was that the Gentiles "from a far country" (s:w. <a href='B:290 5:26'>Isa 5:26</a>) would come to Zion and "see" or "be shown" (s:w:) God's glory (<a href='B:290 49:7'>Isa 49:7</a>; <a href='B:290 52:15'>Isa 52:15</a>; <a href='B:290 60:5'>Isa 60:5</a>; <a href='B:290 61:9'>Isa 61:9</a>; <a href='B:290 62:2'>Isa 62:2</a>; <a href='B:290 66:18'>Isa 66:18</a> s:w:). But instead Hezekiah showed them his own glory. He precluded the fulfilment of these prophecies in terms of his kingdom being the reestablished kingdom of Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>Isaiah said to Hezekiah, Hear the word of Yahweh- </p><p>"Hear" may be an appeal to repent and stop the prophesied outcome from happening in accordance with <a href='B:300 18:8-10'>Jer 18:8-10</a>.</p>


text:
<p>‘Behold, the days come, that all that is in your house, and that which your fathers have laid up in store to this day, shall be carried to Babylon. Nothing shall be left’, says Yahweh- </p><p>This would have seemed impossible; for Babylon was one of many apparently irrelevant small powers whom both Sargon and Sennacherib had overrun, destroyed her towns, and enforced direct Assyrian rule. That in 160 years' time Babylon would be the dominant power and would take Judah captive::. appeared laughable. But God had just demonstrated that He could destroy the Assyrian army in a moment; and indeed it happened (<a href='B:120 24:13'>2Ki 24:13</a>). 'Storing up' is surely alluded to by the Lord in the parable of the rich fool; he stored up riches only to lose them in a moment of Divine judgment, and was not rich toward God. See on :15.</p>


text:
<p>‘Of your sons who shall issue from you, whom you shall father, shall they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon’- </p><p>There is a theme in Isaiah of conceiving, suffering pain in labour- but bringing forth in vain (<a href='B:290 26:18'>Isa 26:18</a>; <a href='B:290 33:11'>Isa 33:11</a>; <a href='B:290 59:4'>Isa 59:4</a>):&nbsp; And so did Hezekiah, in that he and his children turned away from true faith (<a href='B:290 39:7'>Isa 39:7</a>). In Isaiah's immediate context, the application would have been to the sense that the remnant had come to the birth but there was not strength to bring forth (<a href='B:290 37:3'>Isa 37:3</a>); apart from a few individuals, there was no bringing forth of a significant repentant remnant who would be the basis for the restored Kingdom. It felt like they were still under the curse of bringing forth in pain but in vain. The pain in vain at the time of the Assyrian invasion led to Micah offering a reworked version of all this; they were to be in pain at the hands of the Babylonians, but would bring forth in Babylon in that they would there repent, and the spiritually reborn remnant would emerge and their captors therefore judged (<a href='B:400 4:10'>Mic 4:10</a>). But that possibility also didn't work out:&nbsp; And so this idea of bringing forth but not in vain, but rather finding meaning in the resurrection of Messiah and all in Him, came to be reapplied to the birth of the Lord Jesus from the grave in resurrection; and it would characterize the establishment of the Kingdom age in Zion (<a href='B:290 65:24'>Isa 65:24</a>). Hezekiah's immediate sons "who will issue from you, whom you shall father" weren't permanently taken to Babylon. Manasseh was taken there but repented and returned to Judah (<a href='B:140 33:11-13'>2Ch 33:11-13</a>); but it was in <a href='B:340 1:3'>Dan 1:3</a> that "the king's seed" were all deported there permanently. Again we have an example of a prophecy being delayed and suspended in fulfilment. This could have been because of the prayer and repentance of a minority, not least Manasseh; the spirituality of Josiah; or God's constant pity towards His people.</p>


text:
<p>Then Hezekiah said to Isaiah, The word of Yahweh which you have spoken is good. He said moreover, Isn’t it so, if peace and truth shall be in my days?- </p><p>Sadly despite the warning from the example of Shebna (see on <a href='B:290 22:15'>Isa 22:15</a>) and the specific command not to just live for today and resign ourselves to an eternal death (<a href='B:290 22:13'>Isa 22:13</a>), Hezekiah at the end of his life gave in to just this same mentality. The sense is as GNB "King Hezekiah understood this to mean that there would be peace and security during his lifetime, so he replied, "The message you have given me from the LORD is good". "Peace and truth" is the language of the restored kingdom of God (<a href='B:300 33:6'>Jer 33:6</a>); and it is the same term used by Hezekiah when he failed to grasp the potential of the Kingdom being reestablished in his times; he was content with peace and truth in his times alone (see on <a href='B:290 38:18'>Isa 38:18</a>; <a href='B:290 38:20'>Isa 38:20</a>). Likewise the Jews of Esther's time were content with "peace and truth" in their times, rather than seeing that what had happened was to lead them towards the eternal peace and truth with God of His Kingdom and not their own (see on <a href='B:190 8:13-16'>Est 8:13-16</a>; <a href='B:190 9:30'>Est 9:30</a>). And this is the abiding temptation for all believers; to be satisfied with some degree of "peace and truth" emotionally and intellectually in their lives now, but resign the far greater realities of the Kingdom to come when "peace and truth" shall be in eternal reality.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Hezekiah and all his might- </p><p>This is the common rubric found in the histories of the kings (<a href='B:110 15:23'>1Ki 15:23</a>; <a href='B:110 16:5'>1Ki 16:5</a>; <a href='B:110 16:27'>1Ki 16:27</a>; <a href='B:110 22:45'>1Ki 22:45</a>; <a href='B:120 10:34'>2Ki 10:34</a>; <a href='B:120 13:8'>2Ki 13:8</a>; <a href='B:120 13:12'>2Ki 13:12</a>; <a href='B:120 14:15'>2Ki 14:15</a>; <a href='B:120 14:28'>2Ki 14:28</a>; <a href='B:120 20:20'>2Ki 20:20</a>). "His might that he showed" uses a word for "might" which has the sense of victory / achievement. But the contrast is marked with the way that David so often uses this word for "might / victory / achievement" in the context of God's "might"; notably in <a href='B:130 29:11'>1Ch 29:11</a>, which the Lord Jesus places in our mouths as part of His model prayer: "Yours is the power [s:w. "might"], and the glory and the majesty". The kings about whom the phrase is used were those who trusted in their own works. It therefore reads as a rather pathetic memorial; that this man's might / achievement was noted down. But the unspoken further comment is elicited in our own minds, if we are in tune with the spirit of David: "But the only real achievement is the Lord's and not man's". All human victory and achievement must be seen in this context. The same word is used in <a href='B:300 9:23-24'>Jer 9:23-24</a>: "Don’t let the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might [s:w:]::. but let him who glories glory in this, that he has understanding, and knows Me, that I am Yahweh who exercises loving kindness, justice, and righteousness, in the earth". The glorification of human "might" is often condemned. "Their might [s:w:] is not right" (<a href='B:300 23:10'>Jer 23:10</a>; also s:w. <a href='B:300 51:30'>Jer 51:30</a>; <a href='B:330 32:29'>Eze 32:29</a>; <a href='B:400 7:16'>Mic 7:16</a> and often).</p><p>And how he made the pool and the conduit and brought water into the city, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?- </p><p>Hezekiah's doing this is cited in <a href='B:290 22:9'>Isa 22:9</a> in a negative light, as if done without faith and in seeking to defend Jerusalem in his own strength rather than God's. It was done in his might- not Yahweh's.</p>


text:
<p>Hezekiah slept with his fathers; and Manasseh his son reigned in his place- </p><p>Typically there is some Divine commentary upon a king when he dies. When Hezekiah began reigning, he receives a very positive accolade from God. But the silence at the end is perhaps because he messed up and failed to realize the great potential there was for him. I suggested earlier that the comment that he was faithful with God may be ultimately true, although he undoubtedly ended his life on a spiritual low. And he raised one of Judah's most wicked kings during his last 15 years. His complaint that he was dying without an heir is therefore to be contrasted with how things actually worked out.</p>


text:
<p>Manasseh was twelve years old when he began to reign; and he reigned fifty-five years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Hephzibah- </p><p>"Causing to forget" is a strange name for a child unless the father [like Joseph] had a previous life he wanted to forget. Manasseh was born three years into Hezekiah's final 15 years of life in which he turned away from God. So I suggest that his name reflects Hezekiah's desire to 'forget all that God stuff' and get on with 'enjoying' his last 15 years without God. And this was naturally reflected in the way he raised a son who was one of Israel's most evil rulers.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, after the abominations of the nations whom Yahweh cast out before the children of Israel- </p><p>We may wonder why God let such an evil man live and reign for 55 years (:1), the longest reigning of any king. Surely if he had been slain for his wickedness, as other men were, then he would have led fewer people astray? I suggest the answer is that God worked for decades towards this evil man's repentance- and it paid off. He did repent in the end. And we can look forward to eternity together with him. We see in this the huge meaning and value God places upon the individual person, and how He will not give up searching for the lost until He finds them. Manasseh would be the parade example of that.</p><p>See on :15. Jonah recognized “I am cast out of Your sight” (<a href='B:390 2:4'>Jon 2:4</a>), the very language of condemnation used at this time (<a href='B:110 9:7'>1Ki 9:7</a>; <a href='B:120 17:20'>2Ki 17:20</a>; <a href='B:120 21:2'>2Ki 21:2</a>; <a href='B:120 23:27'>2Ki 23:27</a>; <a href='B:300 7:15'>Jer 7:15</a>).</p>


text:
<p>For he built again the high places which Hezekiah his father had destroyed; and he reared up altars for Baal, and made an Asherah, as did Ahab king of Israel, and worshiped all the host of the sky, and served them- </p><p>This revival of idolatry would not have been possible unless the people generally were eager and willing for it. I suggested previously that Hezekiah's reforms were largely on the cusp of his becoming king. They were partly a psychological reaction against the misery of Ahaz's reign, and the reforms of 2 Chronicles 31 were often a result of group psychology rather than personal reformation of the heart. They were all too sudden and spontaneous, at the same moment, to have been the outcome of all the concerned individuals having the same heart response. There was a group psychology there, a going with the crowd. And so it is unsurprising that they all turned away relatively soon afterwards.</p>


text:
<p>He built altars in the house of Yahweh, of which Yahweh said, I will put My name in Jerusalem-</p><p>The Name is called upon us; and therefore and thereby we are Yahweh's servants, dominated by His principles and character. Because the Name was called upon the temple, therefore it was simply impossible that those who realized this could worship idols in it (<a href='B:120 21:4'>2Ki 21:4</a>; <a href='B:120 21:7'>2Ki 21:7</a>); whatever has God's Name called upon it, whatever bears His image, must be devoted to Him alone. The Lord pointed out that this applies to our very bodies, which being in God's image should be given over to Him.</p><p>This was precisely the behaviour of his grandfather Ahaz. I suggest that this was only done by persuading themselves that these altars were in fact a form of Yahweh worship. For there is never any specific statement that Judah formally renounced Yahweh. And this continues to be the abiding weakness of God's people; to justify wrongdoing by claiming it is part of worshipping God. Such as justifying luxury homes and goods in the name of needing them to serve God with.</p>


text:
<p>He built altars for all the host of the sky in the two courts of the house of Yahweh- </p><p>These were the court of the priests, and the court of the common people (<a href='B:140 4:9'>2Ch 4:9</a>). The priesthood were surely complicit in this. For when Uzziah had tried to offer incense himself, 80 faithful priests resisted him. But there is no record of any such resistance to Manasseh. The priests in Hezekiah's time had been reticent to devote themselves solely to Yahweh . I suggested that this was because they were accustomed to being priests both of Yahweh and of the pagan gods. This means that they took a cut from all the offerings to all the gods.</p>


text:
<p>He made his son to pass through the fire, and practised sorcery, used enchantments and dealt with those who had familiar spirits and with wizards-</p><p>This would have meant that his surviving children would have hated him for slaying their siblings; although passing through the fire may have been a dedication ceremony rather than actually burning them to death. <a href='B:120 21:6'>2Ki 21:6</a> has "his son", <a href='B:140 33:6'>2Ch 33:6</a> has "his children". As he had more than one son, we are to infer surely that this focus upon "his son" meant that one of his sons in particular passed through the fire, and that could imply that he sacrificed his son [maybe his firstborn]. Israel should have removed from amongst them a man who did this (<a href='B:50 18:10'>Deu 18:10</a>), and the fact they didn't suggests they therefore passively supported him in his apostacy.</p><p>The valley of Hinnom, Ge Hinnom, was to later be known as Gehenna, and became a symbol used by the Lord for complete destruction (<a href='B:470 5:22'>Mat 5:22</a>). As they burnt their children there, to destruction, so sinners would be burnt to destruction in that same place. Joachim Jeremias explains how the literal valley of Gehenna came to be misinterpreted as a symbol of a ‘hell’ that is supposed to be a place of fire: “[Gehenna]…since ancient times has been the name of the valley west and south of Jerusalem… from the woes pronounced by the prophets on the valley (<a href='B:300 7:32'>Jer 7:32</a> = <a href='B:120 19:6'>2Ki 19:6</a>; cf. <a href='B:290 31:9'>Isa 31:9</a>; <a href='B:290 66:24'>Isa 66:24</a>) because sacrifices to Moloch took place there (<a href='B:120 16:3'>2Ki 16:3</a>; <a href='B:120 21:6'>2Ki 21:6</a>), there developed in the second century BC the idea that the valley of Hinnom would be the place of a fiery hell (Eth. Enoch 26; 90:26)… it is distinguished from sheol” (New Testament Theology, London: SCM, 1972 p. 129). AV "a familiar spirit" is misleading, and many of the modern versions give something like "witch" or [ESV, GNB] "a medium". LXX has "a divining spirit". It doesn't mean she did actually have any such spirit; but that she was considered as having this. Such people were thought to be able to be possessed by the spirit of dead people, and to therefore speak in their name. But the Bible clearly teaches that the "spirit returns to God" (<a href='B:230 146:4'>Psa 146:4</a>; <a href='B:250 12:7'>Ecc 12:7</a>), and that death is unconsciousness. The spirit of dead persons don't enter other people. I would go so far as to say that the record of the witch at Endor, who supposedly had a "familiar spirit", is deconstructing this belief. For Samuel himself appears, and speaks directly to Saul, and not through the "medium". The woman therefore screamed in shock when Samuel actually appeared. He was resurrected, briefly, in order to give God's final message to Saul. The people claiming to have "familiar spirits" lay on the ground and mumbled hard to understand words in a voice seeking to imitate the dead person (<a href='B:290 29:4'>Isa 29:4</a>) but Samuel appeared in person and spoke clearly to Saul, directly. We also note that Samuel appeared to Saul standing upright, because Saul bowed before him: "Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and showed respect" (<a href='B:90 28:14'>1Sa 28:14</a>). This was quite different to how the mediums lay on the ground and mumbled words into the dust.</p><p>He worked much evil in the sight of Yahweh, to provoke Him to anger- </p><p>God can be grieved [s:w. 'provoke to anger']. He has emotions, and His potential foreknowledge doesn't mean that these feelings are not legitimate. They are presented as occurring in human time, as responses to human behaviour. This is the degree to which He has accommodated Himself to human time-space limits, in order to fully enter relationship and experience with us. As He can limit His omnipotence, so God can limit His omniscience, in order to feel and respond along with us.</p>


text:
<p>He set the engraved image of Asherah that he had made, in the house of which Yahweh said to David and to Solomon his son, In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, will I put My name forever- </p><p>Manasseh is criticized for placing an idol in the very place where God's Name of Yahweh was meant to dwell. He replaced the invisible things- the more abstract things of the characteristics of God which the Name speaks of- by something material and visible. We make the same mistake when we turn away from true spirituality and become lost in physical works. If Judah had not forgotten the Name [and this must refer to their lack of appreciation of it rather than forgetting the letters JHVH], then they wouldn’t have served Baal and other gods (<a href='B:300 23:27'>Jer 23:27</a>). It is this particular idol which it seems was returned to the temple just prior to the destruction of the temple (<a href='B:330 8:3'>Eze 8:3</a>), despite Manasseh himself removing it on his repentance.</p>


text:
<p>neither will I cause the feet of Israel to wander any more out of the land which I gave their fathers, if only they will observe to do according to all that I have commanded them, and according to all the law that My servant Moses commanded them- </p><p>This is apparently (:7) a quotation from what God said to David and Solomon. But it appears to be an adaptation about the promises to the singular seed, that he must continue in obedience if the promises were to be fulfilled through him. But just as Abraham's seed is both the Lord Jesus and all those in Him, the true Israel of God, so the promises about David's seed also have a collective dimension.</p>


text:
<p>But they didn’t listen: and Manasseh seduced them to do more evil than the nations did whom Yahweh destroyed before the children of Israel-</p><p>God's tolerance of Judah in His land was therefore by grace, and in hope of their repentance. Their doing "more evil" than the Gentiles could refer to the fact that as in covenant relationship with God, they were the more responsible for their sins. Or the idea may be that most Gentiles were faithful to their set of gods, only changing them if that was enforced upon them by the military dominance of a neighbour. But Judah went running madly to every god they could, described by Hosea under the figure of sexual addiction.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh spoke by His servants the prophets saying- </p><p><a href='B:140 33:10'>2Ch 33:10</a> Yahweh spoke to Manasseh, and to his people; but they gave no heed". "They gave no heed", or 'did not listen', is a phrase used in the later prophets as they appeal to the exiles (<a href='B:160 9:34'>Neh 9:34</a>; <a href='B:450 1:4'>Zec 1:4</a>). The sins of Manasseh in 'not listening' to God's word are cited as the main reason for the exile. We note that refusing to listen to God's word is the essence of all the sins of idolatry etc. It is the spurning of relationship with God which appears to hurt Him even more than the list of sins which Manasseh was also guilty of.</p>


text:
<p>Because Manasseh king of Judah has done these abominations, and has done wickedly above all that the Amorites did who were before him, and has made Judah also to sin with his idols- </p><p>Making others to sin is a major dimension of human sin, although personal sin is still a significant issue here in the condemnation of Manasseh. The mention of the Amorites is because they were cast out of the land once they had sinned to a certain point, and Israel were treated in the same way (<a href='B:10 15:16'>Gen 15:16</a>).</p>


text:
<p>therefore thus says Yahweh the God of Israel, ‘Behold, I bring such evil on Jerusalem and Judah, that whoever hears of it, both his ears shall tingle- </p><p>God is repeatedly presented as the ultimate source of "evil". There is no radical evil in the cosmos outside of His control. There is no cosmic Satan figure; all "evil" is under His control, and performed by His Angelic "armies" manifested through human armies used by them, as the Babylonians were at this time.</p>


text:
<p>I will stretch over Jerusalem the line of Samaria, and the plummet of the house of Ahab- </p><p>They would be judged like Israel, because they had sinned in fact worse than Israel, according to Ezekiel's parable of the two adulterous sisters.</p><p>And I will wipe Jerusalem as a man wipes a dish, wiping it and turning it upside down-</p><p>The idea is that not one drop would be left. And yet by grace many were left in Judah, and there was even some attempt at worship at the temple site, according to Jeremiah. "Turning it upside down" is ‘to turn it upon its face', as if never to be used again. "Wipe" is s:w. for utter destruction (<a href='B:10 7:4'>Gen 7:4</a>; <a href='B:20 32:33'>Exo 32:33</a>; <a href='B:40 5:23'>Num 5:23</a>). We could render it as 'wiping out'. Yet this was spoken in wrath, and in wrath God remembered mercy. For a set time to remember Zion was yet to come, and He would restore Jerusalem. It is this kind of apparent contradiction within God which Hosea speaks of, as His "repentings" being "kindled together" (<a href='B:350 11:8'>Hos 11:8</a>). See on :14.</p>


text:
<p>I will cast off the remainder of My inheritance and deliver them into the hand of their enemies. They will become a prey and a spoil to all their enemies- </p><p>But Israel were not cast off eternally. See on :13, where we can understand the apparent contradiction as the wrath of love, a threat and feeling which was not carried out. Or we can argue that Israel's not being cast off was a result of a reinterpretation and redefinition of God's people. Paul’s positive approach to Israel’s conversion is reflected in his whole reasoning in Romans 11, his classic statement about preaching to Israel. He begins by saying that God has not cast off His people Israel totally, because some, e:g. himself, have turned to Christ. So, seeing that God will not cast off His people Israel in the ultimate sense, it perhaps follows that in every generation some of them will come to Christ as Paul did (<a href='B:520 11:1-2'>Rom 11:1-2</a>). In some sense, God has cast off His people (<a href='B:120 21:14'>2Ki 21:14</a> RV; <a href='B:450 10:6'>Zec 10:6</a>); and yet, because a minority of them will always accept Christ, it is not true that God has cast off His people in a total sense (<a href='B:520 11:1'>Rom 11:1</a> RV). It was only because of this remnant that Israel have not become like Sodom (<a href='B:520 9:29'>Rom 9:29</a>)- even though Old Testament passages such as Ezekiel 16 clearly liken Jerusalem to Sodom. Yet they are not as Sodom ultimately, for the sake of the remnant who will believe.</p><p>The Lord Jesus was well aware of the connection between God's refusal to answer prayer and His recognition of sin in the person praying (<a href='B:100 22:42'>2Sa 22:42</a> = <a href='B:230 2:2-5'>Psa 2:2-5</a>). It is emphasized time and again that God will not forsake / cast off those who love Him (e:g. <a href='B:50 4:31'>Deu 4:31</a>; <a href='B:50 31:6'>Deu 31:6</a>; <a href='B:90 12:22'>1Sa 12:22</a>; <a href='B:110 6:13'>1Ki 6:13</a>; <a href='B:230 94:14'>Psa 94:14</a>; <a href='B:290 41:17'>Isa 41:17</a>; <a href='B:290 42:16'>Isa 42:16</a>). Every one of these passages must have been well known to our Lord, the word made flesh. He knew that God forsaking Israel was a punishment for their sin (<a href='B:70 6:13'>Jdg 6:13</a>; <a href='B:120 21:14'>2Ki 21:14</a>; <a href='B:290 2:6'>Isa 2:6</a>; <a href='B:300 23:33'>Jer 23:33</a>). God would forsake Israel only if they forsook Him (<a href='B:50 31:16-17'>Deu 31:16-17</a>; <a href='B:140 15:2'>2Ch 15:2</a>). We can therefore conclude that His desperate “Why have You forsaken me?” was because He was so intensely identified with our sins that in the crisis of the cross, He indeed felt forsaken because of sin. He did not sin, but felt like a sinner; He thereby knows how sinners feel.</p>


text:
<p>because they have done that which is evil in My sight, and have provoked Me to anger, since the day their fathers came forth out of Egypt even to this day’- </p><p>God can be grieved [s:w. 'provoke to anger']. He has emotions (see on :13), and His potential foreknowledge doesn't mean that these feelings are not legitimate. They are presented as occurring in human time, as responses to human behaviour. This is the degree to which He has accommodated Himself to human time-space limits, in order to fully enter relationship and experience with us. As He can limit His omnipotence, so God can limit His omniscience, in order to feel and respond along with us.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover Manasseh shed very much innocent blood, until he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another; besides his sin with which he made Judah to sin, in doing that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh-</p><p>Josephus claims many prophets were slain at this time. Jewish tradition has it that Isaiah was slain by being "sawn asunder", and that apparently is alluded to in <a href='B:650 11:37'>Heb 11:37</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh and all that he did, and his sin that he sinned, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?-</p><p>We wonder why Kings says nothing of Manasseh’s repentance, which is recorded in detail in Chronicles and was one of the most amazing examples of human repentance (<a href='B:140 33:12-19'>2Ch 33:12-19</a>). Perhaps it is because the record wishes to provide a relatively uninterrupted record of the sins of God's people. For the Babylonian destruction was not because of the sins of the kings so much as for those of the people.</p>


text:
<p>Manasseh slept with his fathers, and was buried in the garden of his own house, in the garden of Uzza; and Amon his son reigned in his place-</p><p>The description of death as sleeping with fathers is clear evidence that death is seen as a sleep, unconsciousness, and not as the start of an immortal soul going to heaven or 'hell'. Good and bad, David and Solomon, are gathered together in death. The division between them will only therefore come at the resurrection of the dead, and the granting of immortality at the judgment seat of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>Amon was twenty-two years old when he began to reign; and he reigned two years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Meshullemeth the daughter of Haruz of Jotbah- </p><p>He had been raised in the spirit of his father's apostacy, and was apparently unimpressed by Manasseh's amazing repentance.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, as Manasseh his father did- </p><p><a href='B:140 33:22'>2Ch 33:22</a> adds: "He did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, as did Manasseh his father; and Amon sacrificed to all the engraved images which Manasseh his father had made, and served them". Manasseh had removed the images, but not apparently destroyed them. The history of the kings abounds with such references to idolatry being reformed, and then so quickly revived. The speed of its revival reflects the fact that the heart of the people generally was with the idols. And we must assess our own episodes of apparent repentance in this light. Manasseh had repaired the temple (<a href='B:140 33:16'>2Ch 33:16</a>), but by Josiah's time it needed repairing again; so it could be that Amon also desecrated and damaged the temple yet further.</p>


text:
<p>He walked in all the way that his father walked in, and served the idols that his father served, and worshipped them- </p><p>See on :20. He revived the idols his father had destroyed on his repentance.</p>


text:
<p>and he forsook Yahweh the God of his fathers- </p><p>We get the impression Amon was never "with" Yahweh, so his forsaking Yahweh may refer to how there is a conscience toward God in every man, however latent, but he had forsaken this.</p><p>And didn’t walk in the way of Yahweh- </p><p>Think through the implications of <a href='B:490 3:4'>Luk 3:4</a>, where we read that John’s preaching was in order to make [s:w. ‘to bring forth fruit’] His [the Lord’s] paths straight- but the ways of the Lord are “right” [s:w. “straight”] anyway (<a href='B:510 13:10'>Act 13:10</a>). So how could John’s preaching make the Lord’s ways straight / right, when they already are? God is so associated with His people that their straightness or crookedness reflects upon Him; for they are His witnesses in this world. His ways are their ways. This is the N:T. equivalent of the O:T. concept of keeping / walking in the way of the Lord (<a href='B:10 18:19'>Gen 18:19</a>; <a href='B:120 21:22'>2Ki 21:22</a>). Perhaps this is the thought behind the exhortation of <a href='B:650 12:13'>Heb 12:13</a> to make straight paths for our own feet. We are to bring our ways into harmony with the Lord’s ways; for He is to be us, His ways our ways.</p>


text:
<p>The servants of Amon conspired against him and put the king to death in his own house- </p><p>There seems a special stigma and shame attached to being murdered in ones' own home, rather than on a battlefield or dying from old age.</p>


text:
<p>But the people of the land killed all those who had conspired against king Amon; and the people of the land made Josiah his son king in his place- </p><p>The final part of Judah's history, like that of Israel's, involves division between brethren, conspiracy and politics. Those who indulge in such things are really living out their own condemnation, as well as sounding the death toll for their own communities of God's people (see on <a href='B:550 5:15'>Gal 5:15</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Amon which he did, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?-</p><p>This may not necessarily be the books of Chronicles which we have in our Bibles.</p>


text:
<p>He was buried in his tomb in the garden of Uzza; and Josiah his son reigned in his place- </p><p>Josiah means 'foundation of Yah'. It's unlikely this was the name Amon gave him, although a repentant Manasseh may have influenced it. However, at no point did even kings like Amon and Manasseh formally deny Yahweh. They worshipped Him, so they thought, through worshipping idols. So it is not impossible that indeed this was Josiah's birth name. And from that we can take yet another warning, to serve Yahweh with our whole hearts; and not assume that our service of the flesh is serving Him.</p>


text:
<p>Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign; and he reigned thirty-one years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Jedidah the daughter of Adaiah of Bozkath-</p><p>Josiah means 'foundation of Yah'. It's unlikely this was the name Amon gave him, although a repentant Manasseh may have influenced it. However, at no point did even kings like Amon and Manasseh formally deny Yahweh. They worshipped Him, so they thought, through worshipping idols. So it is not impossible that indeed this was Josiah's birth name. And from that we can take yet another warning, to serve Yahweh with our whole hearts; and not assume that our service of the flesh is serving Him.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh, and walked in all the way of David his father, and didn’t turn aside to the right hand or to the left-</p><p>There is a huge imputation of righteousness to human beings, reflected right through Scripture. God sought them, the essence of their hearts, and was prepared to overlook much ignorance and misunderstanding along the way. Consider how good king Josiah is described as always doing what was right before God, not turning aside to the right nor left- even though it was not until the 18th year of his reign that he even discovered parts of God’s law, which he had been ignorant of until then, because the scroll containing them had been temporarily lost (<a href='B:120 22:2'>2Ki 22:2</a>; <a href='B:120 22:11'>2Ki 22:11</a>). Josiah is described as having done "that which was right in the eyes of Yahweh"- even though he was ignorant of part of God's word and law (<a href='B:120 22:2'>2Ki 22:2</a>; <a href='B:120 22:10-13'>2Ki 22:10-13</a>), not knowing all "that is enjoined us to do" (<a href='B:120 22:13'>2Ki 22:13</a> RVmg:), and not knowing all that was in "the book of the covenant" (<a href='B:120 23:2'>2Ki 23:2</a>). Full knowledge, even of some quite important things, didn't stop Josiah from being credited with doing what was right before God and not 'turning aside to the right hand or to the left'. He was judged according to how well he responded to that which he did know. And this may be a helpful window for us into how we should feel towards those who sincerely seek to follow the Lord and yet with imperfect knowledge.</p>


text:
<p>It happened in the eighteenth year of king Josiah that the king sent Shaphan, the son of Azaliah the son of Meshullam, the scribe, to the house of Yahweh, saying- </p><p>We wonder if Meshullam was a relative of Meshullemeth, the female form of Meshullam, who was Josiah's grandmother (<a href='B:120 21:19'>2Ki 21:19</a>). Shaphan was the father of Ahikam (:12) and the Gemariah of <a href='B:300 36:10-12'>Jer 36:10-12</a>) and the grandfather of Gedaliah of <a href='B:300 39:14'>Jer 39:14</a>; <a href='B:300 40:5'>Jer 40:5</a>; <a href='B:300 40:9'>Jer 40:9</a>; <a href='B:300 40:11'>Jer 40:11</a>. Shaphan would have been elderly, as 35 years later his grandson Gedaliah was set up as governor of Judah by the Babylonians.</p>


text:
<p>Go up to Hilkiah the high priest, that he may sum the money which is brought into the house of Yahweh, which the keepers of the threshold have gathered of the people- </p><p>Hilkiah is well attested as the one who found the lost book of the law (<a href='B:120 22:8'>2Ki 22:8</a>), helped in Josiah's reforms (<a href='B:120 22:14-20'>2Ki 22:14-20</a>) and arranged the great Passover observance of <a href='B:140 35:1-19'>2Ch 35:1-19</a>. But Hilkiah did all this despite being the son of a High Priest called Shallum (<a href='B:130 6:12-13'>1Ch 6:12-13</a>), whose name can mean 'bribe' (s:w. <a href='B:400 7:3'>Mic 7:3</a> about the corruption of the priesthood). Perhaps this was what he was known for. But his son / descendant rose above that bad background, as we can. The "scribe" or historian was a senior advisor in the Hebrew court (<a href='B:100 8:17'>2Sa 8:17</a>; <a href='B:120 18:18'>2Ki 18:18</a>; <a href='B:120 18:37'>2Ki 18:37</a>; <a href='B:140 34:8'>2Ch 34:8</a>) because of the huge value attached to history in the Hebrew mind, and as reflected in the Bible being largely history. Advice on how to act was to be based upon historical, or as we would now say, "Biblical", precedent.</p>


text:
<p>Let them deliver it into the hand of the workmen who have the oversight of the house of Yahweh; and let them give it to the workmen who are in the house of Yahweh, to repair the breaches of the house- </p><p>The half shekel temple tax was to be paid when a census was taken, and it seems this is what he did. <a href='B:140 34:9'>2Ch 34:9</a> notes the generosity of the people even in the northern tribes, as well as the Israelites living in Judah ["the remnant of Israel"].</p>


text:
<p>to the carpenters, to the builders and to the masons, and for buying timber and cut stone to repair the house- </p><p><a href='B:140 34:10'>2Ch 34:10</a> says this was because "the kings of Judah had destroyed" the temple. The destruction of the temple by these kings may not have been because they totally rejected Yahweh. The essence of their apostacy, as ours, was to use the things of Yahweh for idolatry, to mix paganism and the way of the flesh with Yahweh worship. So it is likely that when we read of men like Manasseh building other temples or shrines to idols in the vicinity of the temple, what happened was that they took the materials from the temple structure and used them for the idol temples. For materials like cut stone and timber were expensive and hard to source; Solomon had spent huge effort in bringing them from far away to build Yahweh's temple.</p>


text:
<p>However there was no accounting made with them of the money that was delivered into their hand; for they dealt faithfully-</p><p>This is exactly the same as happened in <a href='B:120 12:15'>2Ki 12:15</a>. This may be in implied contrast to the priests and Levites who had not done the work at that time, perhaps because of embezzlement of the funds. The money was delivered to these overseers directly from the one who had received and counted in, and not via the priesthood.</p>


text:
<p>Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of Yahweh. Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan, and he read it- </p><p>All spiritual endeavour leads to the Lord inviting us deeper into that endeavour; thus it was as Barnabas and Paul went about their ministering to the Lord that they were invited to go on a missionary journey (<a href='B:510 13:2'>Act 13:2</a>). Likewise it was as the Levites were in process of collecting funds for repairing the temple, that they found the book of the law- perhaps because they needed more space in which to store the donations, and whilst making space they found the scroll. In the process of being a deacon, faith is developed (<a href='B:610 3:13'>1Ti 3:13</a>). The very process of service and obedience leads to greater faith in practice.</p>


text:
<p>Shaphan the scribe came to the king, and brought the king word again and said, Your servants have emptied out the money that was found in the house, and have delivered it into the hand of the workmen who have the oversight of the house of Yahweh- </p><p>There is an apparent parallel between money being found in the temple, and the book of the law being found (<a href='B:120 22:8-9'>2Ki 22:8-9</a>). The idea is that as David often says in Psalms 119, Yahweh's law was the greatest treasure. So much so that the Chronicles record focuses so much on the book of the law being found that no mention is made of the money also found along with it. Even in Kings, the discovery of the money is only mentioned in passing, as if the greatest discovery was not wealth, but God's law. And that is an abiding principle.</p>


text:
<p>Shaphan the scribe told the king saying, Hilkiah the priest has delivered a book to me. Shaphan read it before the king- </p><p>This book was probably not the entire Pentateuch, but the curses for disobedience in Deuteronomy 28, for Josiah's response is appropriate to someone who had just heard them read. But see on :5. <a href='B:300 15:16'>Jer 15:16</a> refers to this: "Your words were found, and I did eat them::. [they] were to me the joy and the delight of my heart: for I am called by Your name, Yahweh". Jeremiah rejoiced in those words of judgment. And as a result, “I am called by Your name”- the language of a woman marrying and taking her husband’s name (<a href='B:290 4:1'>Isa 4:1</a>). The word of God was his “joy [and] delight”- two words used four times elsewhere in Jeremiah, and always in the context of the joy of a wedding (<a href='B:300 7:34'>Jer 7:34</a>; <a href='B:300 16:9'>Jer 16:9</a>; <a href='B:300 25:10'>Jer 25:10</a>; <a href='B:300 33:11'>Jer 33:11</a>). Jeremiah saw his prophetic task as actually a marriage to God, an inbreathing of His word and being, to the point that he could say that he personally was “full of the wrath / passion of God” (<a href='B:300 6:11'>Jer 6:11</a>). Jeremiah's lament that the people had no joy or delight in God's word (<a href='B:300 6:10'>Jer 6:10</a>) is the basis for this comment that when he found God's words, they were his joy.</p><p>What was read were the curses for disobedience. The harder side of the Father and the Lord Jesus should actually serve as an attraction to the serious believer. Peter knew that if it really was the Lord Jesus out there on the water, then He would bid him walk on the water to Him. Peter knew his Lord, and the sort of things He would ask men to do- the very hardest things for them in their situation. He knew how Jesus could be a demanding Lord. Jeremiah “knew that this was the word of the Lord” when he was asked to do something so humanly senseless- to buy property when he was in prison, when the land was clearly about to be overrun by the Babylonians (<a href='B:300 31:8'>Jer 31:8</a>):&nbsp; When Jeremiah had earlier found the curses for disobedience recorded in the book of the Law which had been lost, He 'ate them', those words of cursings were "the joy and rejoicing of my heart" - they so motivated him (<a href='B:300 15:16'>Jer 15:16</a> = <a href='B:140 34:18-21'>2Ch 34:18-21</a>). When Ananias and Sapphira were slain by the Lord, fear came upon "as many as heard these things" .</p>


text:
<p>It happened, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he tore his clothes- </p><p>Although Josiah was personally innocent, he felt so passionately for God's people. We too need to have hearts that bleed for others, and not be solely concerned with our own standing before God. For our standing before Him involves our attitudes to others and our concern for their salvation, if we truly seek God's glory and not our own. See on :2.</p>


text:
<p>The king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Micaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah the king’s servant saying- </p><p>We note Josiah didn't go to her himself. For the significance of this, see on :15.</p>


text:
<p>Go inquire of Yahweh for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found; for great is the wrath of Yahweh that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not listened to the words of this book, to do according to all that which is written concerning us- </p><p>"Poured out" in Chronicles is "kindled" in 2 Kings; the sense was that he realized the wrath of God was kindled and was literally about to burn against them, and so repentance must be immediate with no time to lose.</p>


text:
<p>So Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam, Achbor, Shaphan and Asaiah went to Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe (now she lived in Jerusalem in the second quarter); and they talked with her- </p><p>"The second quarter" may refer to a newer area of Jerusalem (<a href='B:430 1:10'>Zep 1:10</a> RV), or as AV "the college", implying as a prophetess she had a kind of Bible study centre. "Keeper of the wardrobe" may refer to the priestly garments (cp. <a href='B:120 10:22'>2Ki 10:22</a>).</p>


text:
<p>She said to them, Thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel: ‘Tell the man who sent you to Me- </p><p>We see here how Josiah had no direct vision from God. He was dealing all the time through the prophetic word relayed to him, and his obedience to it is the more commendable. Because it reflects his humility to God's revealed word, in a way more impressive than if these words had come directly to him. We are in his position, and should learn from him.</p>


text:
<p>Thus says Yahweh, Behold, I will bring evil on this place and on its inhabitants, even all the words of the book which the king of Judah has read- </p><p><a href='B:140 34:24'>2Ch 34:24</a> adds: "even all the curses that are written in the book which they have read before the king of Judah". The reference to curses suggests that the scrolls discovered contained at least Deuteronomy 28 and <a href='B:50 27:15-26'>Deu 27:15-26</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Because they have forsaken Me, and have burned incense to other gods, that they might provoke Me to anger with all the work of their hands, therefore My wrath shall be kindled against this place, and it shall not be quenched- </p><p>God can be grieved [s:w. 'provoke to anger']. He has emotions, and His potential foreknowledge doesn't mean that these feelings are not legitimate. They are presented as occurring in human time, as responses to human behaviour. This is the degree to which He has accommodated Himself to human time-space limits, in order to fully enter relationship and experience with us. As He can limit His omnipotence, so God can limit His omniscience, in order to feel and respond along with us.</p><p>Idolatrous Israel never consciously&nbsp; tried to provoke Yahweh to anger with their apostasy; the words of the prophets must have seemed to them a gross exaggeration. But this was really how God saw it (<a href='B:140 34:25'>2Ch 34:25</a>).</p><p>Although "it shall not be quenched", Josiah knew God well enough to try to quench it, by getting all His people to make a from the heart commitment to Him. &nbsp;Even though God had told Josiah that His wrath with His people would not be quenched, it would seem that there was still some possibility of "remedy", had the people accepted God's word in their hearts (<a href='B:140 36:16'>2Ch 36:16</a>). We see here His absolute eagerness for their repentance, and unwillingness that any of His people should have to perish. And that is the same God with whom we have to do.</p>


text:
<p>But to the king of Judah, who sent you to inquire of Yahweh, thus you shall tell him, Thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel: Concerning the words which you have heard- </p><p>See on :15 for the significance of Josiah not receiving these words directly.</p>


text:
<p>because your heart was tender, and you humbled yourself before Yahweh when you heard what I spoke against this place and against its inhabitants, that they should become a desolation and a curse, and have torn your clothes, and wept before Me; I also have heard you, says Yahweh- </p><p>We see here the mutuality between God and man; He hears the man who hears Him. We see the root of humility as being in having a heart / mind sensitive to Him. But "tender heart" is the same phrase used for being "faint hearted" in time of battle (<a href='B:50 20:3'>Deu 20:3</a>; <a href='B:290 7:4'>Isa 7:4</a>; <a href='B:300 51:46'>Jer 51:46</a>). It was as if Josiah saw the judgment of God coming, as if it had come, and was faint hearted before the soldiers he saw coming against him. And yet even such a tender heart can be given by God (s:w. <a href='B:220 23:16'>Job 23:16</a>), for He can also give attitudes of mind by His sovereign operation&nbsp; .</p><p>Josiah’s zealous reforms started with reading “the book of the covenant” (<a href='B:120 23:2'>2Ki 23:2</a>), probably the list of curses which were to come for disobedience (<a href='B:120 22:19'>2Ki 22:19</a> =&nbsp; <a href='B:30 26:31-32'>Lev 26:31-32</a>). In this sense Paul used the terror of possible condemnation to persuade men (<a href='B:540 5:11'>2Co 5:11</a>). Interestingly, the very words which Jeremiah was tempted not to speak forth, so stern was their message of judgment to come, were what had the power to lead Israel to repentance (<a href='B:300 26:2-3'>Jer 26:2-3</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Therefore behold, I will gather you to your fathers, and you shall be gathered to your grave in peace, neither shall your eyes see all the evil which I will bring on this place’. They brought back this message to the king- </p><p>There are times when God takes away the righteous from the evil of this life (<a href='B:290 57:1'>Isa 57:1</a> - probably alluding to what God did to Joash, <a href='B:120 22:20'>2Ki 22:20</a> cp. 23:29). There are other Biblical instances where the wicked have long life and prosperity in this world. This is because the Bible presents the ultimate judgment and reward of human life and faith as being at the last day, and not right now.</p><p>This is a similar situation to the promise to Hezekiah and Ahab (<a href='B:110 21:29'>1Ki 21:29</a>). It is as if God judged the entire weight of sin to be such that even Josiah's reformation could only delay and not remove the judgment for it. However, if the people had all repented in their hearts, rather than passively allowing a reformer like Josiah to remove the external evidence of idolatry, then surely the outcome could have been different. See on :31.</p><p>The reality was that Josiah died in battle, not in peace (<a href='B:140 35:22-24'>2Ch 35:22-24</a>). Yet he had been promised to be gathered to his grave in peace (<a href='B:140 34:28'>2Ch 34:28</a>). Here we have an example of God making a statement about the future which is conditional upon human behaviour. Thus He stated that Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days; but it wasn't, because they repented. There is a gap between the pronouncement and its fulfilment, and in that gap our behaviour can change the outcome. We too must waste so many potential futures.</p>


text:
<p>The king sent, and they gathered to him all the elders of Judah and of Jerusalem- </p><p>Josiah's idea was to bring about a reformation of the ordinary people, as in :2 we read of the people small and great being gathered. So presumably his gathering of the leaders was in order for them to bring their people with them.</p>


text:
<p>The king went up to the house of Yahweh, and all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with him, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the people, both small and great. He read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of Yahweh- </p><p>See on <a href='B:120 22:2'>2Ki 22:2</a>. Josiah’s zealous reforms started with reading “the book of the covenant” (<a href='B:120 23:2'>2Ki 23:2</a>), probably the list of curses which were to come for disobedience (<a href='B:120 22:19'>2Ki 22:19</a> =&nbsp; <a href='B:30 26:31-32'>Lev 26:31-32</a>). In this sense Paul used the terror of possible condemnation to persuade men (<a href='B:540 5:11'>2Co 5:11</a>). Interestingly, the very words which Jeremiah was tempted not to speak forth, so stern was their message of judgment to come, were what had the power to lead Israel to repentance (<a href='B:300 26:2-3'>Jer 26:2-3</a>).</p><p>2 Kings has "prophets" for Chronicles "Levites". There were clearly prophets actively operating at this time. As noted on :3, Josiah saw the only way to change the threatened judgments as getting the ordinary people to repent in their hearts. Unlike Hezekiah, he was not satisfied with simply avoiding seeing judgment come in his days. Indeed he learned from Hezekiah's mistake in that matter. See on <a href='B:140 35:7'>2Ch 35:7</a>.</p>


text:
<p>The king stood by the pillar and made a covenant before Yahweh, to walk after Yahweh- </p><p>Maybe a reference to <a href='B:50 10:12-13'>Deu 10:12-13</a>, which perhaps was in this scroll.</p><p>And to keep His commandments, His testimonies and His statutes with all his heart and all his soul, to confirm the words of this covenant that were written in this book; and all the people stood to the covenant- </p><p>Josiah recognizes that Judah have broken covenant with God and must be judged appropriately. God was unwilling to ultimately avert the judgment upon the people because of their state of heart. And yet Josiah throws himself into trying to persuade the people to totally give themselves to covenant relationship. He realized that in the gap between the pronunciation of judgment, and it being carried out, there was the possibility of repentance and the judgment not being performed. His mentor Jeremiah had made this point in Jeremiah 18, and was also appealing to the people to change their hearts so that the threatened judgment wouldn't happen. This is how open God's purpose is, and Josiah and Jeremiah perceived that.</p><p>Josiah's actions here are one of a number of Old Testament examples of preaching the word after becoming aware of the depth of one's own sins. Consider Jonah preaching the second time, with the marks in his body after three days in the whale, admitting his rebellion against Yahweh, pleading with them to respond to His word. Reflect how when his head was wrapped around with seaweed, at the bottom of the sea at the absolute end of mortal life, he made a vow to God, which he then fulfilled, presumably in going back to preach to Nineveh (<a href='B:390 2:9'>Jon 2:9</a>). His response to having confessed his sins and daring to believe in God’s forgiveness, turning again towards His temple even from underwater, was to resolve to preach to others if he was spared his life. And this he did, although as with so many of us, the pureness of his initial evangelical zeal soon flaked. Or consider Manasseh, <a href='B:140 33:16'>2Ch 33:16</a>; Jehoshaphat, <a href='B:140 19:3'>2Ch 19:3</a> cp. 18:31; 19:2; Josiah, <a href='B:140 34:29'>2Ch 34:29</a>; <a href='B:140 34:32'>2Ch 34:32</a>; Nebuchadnezzar, <a href='B:340 3:29'>Dan 3:29</a>; <a href='B:340 4:2'>Dan 4:2</a>::.</p><p>We note the specific reference in <a href='B:140 34:32'>2Ch 34:32</a> to the people of Jerusalem. It seems that Josiah tried to gather together literally all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, all "found" there. And yet Jerusalem particularly was to suffer in the judgments to come, and Jeremiah's prophesies at this time tend to single out Jerusalem for particular judgment for the unspirituality of the population. So again we perceive that this was all the enthusiasm of Josiah; the people's hearts weren't affected. This is the trouble with mass meetings for "revival". Reformation is essentially personal and of the heart.</p>


text:
<p>The king commanded Hilkiah the high priest, and the priests of the second order, and the keepers of the threshold, to bring forth out of Yahweh’s temple all the vessels that were made for Baal, and for the Asherah, and for all the host of the sky; and he burned them outside of Jerusalem in the fields of the Kidron, and carried their ashes to Bethel- </p><p>Josiah discovered the book of the Law- and he then went on to do something about it in practice. Reflect through what he did:</p><p>Passover kept in Jerusalem (23:21-23) = <a href='B:50 16:1-8'>Deu 16:1-8</a>; Removed asherahs (23:4,6,14) = <a href='B:50 12:3'>Deu 12:3</a>; <a href='B:50 16:21'>Deu 16:21</a>; Star worship removed (23:4,11) = <a href='B:50 17:3'>Deu 17:3</a>; The ‘high places’ and cults removed (23:8-20) = Deuteronomy 12; Child sacrifice ended (23:10) = <a href='B:50 12:31'>Deu 12:31</a>; <a href='B:50 18:10'>Deu 18:10</a>; The cultic stones / ‘mazzeboth’ removed (23:14) = <a href='B:50 12:3'>Deu 12:3</a>; <a href='B:50 16:22'>Deu 16:22</a>; Conjouring up the dead ended (23:24) = <a href='B:50 18:11'>Deu 18:11</a>.</p><p>Do you notice from where in Deuteronomy he got those ideas? From chapters 12 - 18. My suggestion is that he maxed out on that part of the ‘book of the law’ which was read to him, and went and did it. The Lord in the wilderness was likewise motivated by Deuteronomy chapters 6 and 8.</p><p>In the first century, when people heard the Gospel, they were generally baptized immediately. This meant that the prison keeper was baptized in the middle of the night, amidst an earthquake… in essence, people heard the message, and responded immediately. We likewise heard of the Bible’s teaching about baptism, and we did something concrete and actual- we got wet. We went under the water. But we must ask ourselves whether we are continuing to be responsive to the word of God which we become increasingly familiar with as we read daily. Our very familiarity with it can militate against a real response. When last did you read / understand something from Scripture, and then get up and do something real, concrete and actual about it?</p>


text:
<p>He put down the idolatrous priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places in the cities of Judah and in the places around Jerusalem; those also who burned incense to Baal, to the sun, the moon, to the planets and to all the host of the sky- </p><p>We notice here Judah's addiction to idolatry. Usually a nation was loyal just to one god, e:g. the sun god; but as Hosea puts it, Judah were like a sexually obsessed woman going after every man or god of the surrounding nations.</p>


text:
<p>He brought out the Asherah from the house of Yahweh, outside of Jerusalem, to the brook Kidron, and burned it at the brook Kidron, and beat it to dust, and cast its dust on the graves of the common people- </p><p>This may have been inspired by Hezekiah, who likewise destroyed idolatry in the Kidron and then called for the Passover to be celebrated (<a href='B:140 30:14-15'>2Ch 30:14-15</a>). We are to take inspiration from Biblical history as Josiah did.</p>


text:
<p>He broke down the houses of the sodomites that were in the house of Yahweh, where the women wove hangings for the Asherah- </p><p>These sodomites were associated with the idol shrines (<a href='B:110 14:23-24'>1Ki 14:23-24</a>). They may well have been Gentiles from Phoenicia, hence they were expelled from the land rather than killed. They may well have been involved with homosexual practices, but the Hebrew qadesh means literally a devoted person.</p>


text:
<p>He brought all the priests out of the cities of Judah-</p><p>The priests had ostensibly offered only to Yahweh in the high places (<a href='B:140 33:17'>2Ch 33:17</a>), but those high places were destroyed and the priests who officiated there were removed to Jerusalem, but not allowed to come up to the altar (:9). Clearly they had mixed Yahweh worship with idolatry.</p><p>And defiled the high places where the priests had burned incense, from Geba to Beersheba- </p><p>The limits of Judah.</p><p>And he broke down the high places of the gates that were at the entrance of the gate of Joshua the governor of the city, which were on a man’s left hand at the gate of the city- </p><p>The open spaces by the city gates were where Manasseh and Amon had set up idol worship.</p>


text:
<p>Nevertheless the priests of the high places didn’t come up to the altar of Yahweh in Jerusalem, but they ate unleavened bread among their brothers- </p><p>See on :8. The priests who had previously been unfaithful at the high places were disciplined, but were allowed to eat of the sacrifices which the other priests could eat. For according to the law, those portions of food could not have leave in them. "Bread" may be used here for 'food'.</p>


text:
<p>He defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech- </p><p>This became Gehenna (Ge Hinnom) in the Lord's time, the rubbish dump and previous place of idolatry which was now despised. And it was used by Him as a symbol of the total destruction and shame of the rejected at the last day. It was as if they were seen by Him as being offered there to the idols they had worshipped during their lives.</p>


text:
<p>He took away the horses that the kings of Judah had given to the sun, at the entrance of the house of Yahweh, by the room of Nathan Melech the officer, who was in the court; and he burned the chariots of the sun with fire- </p><p>The idea was that the sun god daily drove his chariot across the sky. As so often noted, the kings of Judah had not turned away from Yahweh completely, but mixed idolatry with Yahweh worship. This kind of syncretism is seen all around us, in practical and doctrinal terms; and it is the perennial temptation of God's people to mix the flesh and spirit.</p>


text:
<p>The king broke down the altars that were on the roof of the upper room of Ahaz, which the kings of Judah had made, and the altars which Manasseh had made in the two courts of the house of Yahweh- </p><p>This is a tacit recognition that Manasseh's repentance and apparent destruction of his idols had not been very thorough. Perhaps that is why Kings doesn't mention it. And Hezekiah's apparently radical reforms had not even removed the altars on the roof of his father's house. The reforms of the reformers were never really as radical as they might appear. See on :15.</p><p>And beat them down from there, and cast their dust into the brook Kidron- </p><p>This may have been inspired by Hezekiah, who likewise destroyed idolatry in the Kidron and then called for the Passover to be celebrated (<a href='B:140 30:14-15'>2Ch 30:14-15</a>). We are to take inspiration from Biblical history as Josiah did.</p>


text:
<p>The king defiled the high places that were before Jerusalem, which were on the right hand of the mountain of corruption, which Solomon the king of Israel had built for Ashtoreth the abomination of the Sidonians, and for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Milcom the abomination of the children of Ammon- </p><p>What a contrast with <a href='B:230 125:2'>Psa 125:2</a> "As the mountains surround Jerusalem, so Yahweh surrounds His people from this time forth and forever". The hills around Jerusalem are not huge mountains. They are small hills, and this is the picture of God's protection; not hugely visible, but there. But the mountains around Jerusalem became the "high places" of idolatry (<a href='B:110 11:7'>1Ki 11:7</a>; <a href='B:120 23:13'>2Ki 23:13</a>; <a href='B:140 21:11'>2Ch 21:11</a>); what should have been the symbols of Yahweh's protection became perverted. "The mount of corruption" appears to have been the mount of Olives.</p><p>The way Solomon built&nbsp;idol&nbsp;temples&nbsp;for his wives on mock temple mounts near Jerusalem was surely a studied statement that he saw himself as a hopeless apostate. Like the alcoholic or drug abuser, Solomon could analyze his problem in Ecclesiastes so accurately- and yet do nothing about it. This is the utter tragedy of all spiritual failure. Even politically, his marriages with all those Gentile women didn't&nbsp;seem&nbsp;to&nbsp; achieve him the support he desired from their&nbsp;home&nbsp; countries; Egypt gave refuge to Jeroboam, Solomon's main rival (<a href='B:110 11:40'>1Ki 11:40</a>), even though he always acquiesced to his wives and even in his very old age he still didn’t destroy the idol temples he built for them.</p>


text:
<p>He broke in pieces the pillars, and cut down the Asherim, and filled their places with the bones of men- </p><p>The idols were desecrated in the eyes of the worshippers by dead bodies being near them. And yet the sense that dead bodies brought defilement was itself from the law of Moses (<a href='B:40 19:14-15'>Num 19:14-15</a>). We see here the confused conscience of the people, partly formed by their experience of Yahweh's principles, and partly blunted by the experience of idol worship. The idols were typically associated with fertility cults, and so to make the dead bones of their priests placed on their altars and pillars was a denial of all they stood for.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover the altar that was at Bethel, and the high place which Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin, had made, even that altar and the high place he broke down; and he burned the high place and beat it to dust, and burned the Asherah- </p><p>We marvel that despite the reforms of Hezekiah and others, this altar and high place remained in Israel. There was a kind of false temple complex still there (<a href='B:110 12:31'>1Ki 12:31</a>). See on :12. The reforms of the reformers were never really as radical as they might appear. Although Bethel was in the area of the ten tribes, Josiah realized that it was their influence which had led Judah into such apostacy. He set an example for all time of having a sense of spiritual care even for brethren he was separated from; for they were still his brethren.</p>


text:
<p>As Josiah turned himself, he spied the tombs that were there in the mountain; and he sent, and took the bones out of the tombs and burned them on the altar and defiled it, according to the word of Yahweh which the man of God proclaimed, who proclaimed these things- </p><p>We get the impression that Josiah may have been ignorant of the prophecy of <a href='B:110 13:2'>1Ki 13:2</a>, or had forgotten it (:17); and fulfilled this unconsciously. We have the impression that he just happened to notice tombs far away in the mountain side, and the idea thus came to his mind to take the bones from there and use them to desecrate the altar. This is how the Spirit works in our lives too. We "by chance" notice something, from the corner of our eye; turn left rather than right. But that was all of God's direct operation upon our hearts and eyes, to take His purpose further and, in this case, to fulfil His prophetic word.</p>


text:
<p>Then he said, What monument is that which I see? The men of the city told him, It is the tomb of the man of God, who came from Judah, and proclaimed these things that you have done against the altar of Bethel- </p><p>It seems that therefore, as noted on :16, he fulfilled those prophetic words unconsciously rather than consciously. For the man of God had prophesied of Josiah by name as doing this. But we are given to understand that he did not consciously try to fulfil it, and therefore we conclude he was either ignorant of the prophecy or had forgotten it; or perhaps didn't know all the details of it.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Let him be! Let no man move his bones. So they let his bones alone, with the bones of the prophet who came out of Samaria- </p><p>Both prophets had been to some extent unfaithful to God's word, and yet in other aspects of their lives they had been faithful (<a href='B:110 13:31'>1Ki 13:31</a>). And this is surely the position with all God's children. They were at least honoured at this point as having been faithful rather than unfaithful.</p>


text:
<p>All the houses also of the high places that were in the cities of Samaria, which the kings of Israel had made to provoke Yahweh to anger, Josiah took away, and did to them according to all the acts that he had done in Bethel- </p><p>God can be grieved [s:w. 'provoke to anger']. He has emotions, and His potential foreknowledge doesn't mean that these feelings are not legitimate. They are presented as occurring in human time, as responses to human behaviour. This is the degree to which He has accommodated Himself to human time-space limits, in order to fully enter relationship and experience with us. As He can limit His omnipotence, so God can limit His omniscience, in order to feel and respond along with us.</p>


text:
<p>He killed all the priests of the high places that were there, upon the altars, and burned men’s bones on them; and he returned to Jerusalem-</p><p>We notice the contrast with how he treated the priests of the high places in Judah (:9), whom he allowed to live. Although for sure they were also apostate, or else they would not have been demoted as they were. These priests in Israel however were not Levites. Perhaps he was made more aware of the prophecies of the man of God in <a href='B:110 13:2'>1Ki 13:2</a>, and therefore fulfilled them:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The king commanded all the people saying, Keep the Passover to Yahweh your God, as it is written in this book of the covenant- </p><p>Josiah urged the people to keep this, despite having been told in <a href='B:140 34:25'>2Ch 34:25</a> that the people would indeed to judged for their sons. He had sought to change this by appealing for all the people to enter covenant with Yahweh from their hearts (<a href='B:140 34:30'>2Ch 34:30</a>). And he seeks to confirm this by holding a huge Passover, where he provided the people with the sacrifices.</p>


text:
<p>Surely there was not kept such a Passover from the days of the judges who judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the kings of Judah- </p><p>This Passover was unique both in terms of numbers of offerings, and in the strict obedience to all the legislation about it. We note the repeated treatment in 2 Chronicles 35 of "the inhabitants of Jerusalem" as a separate group. And yet Jeremiah, who was the contemporary prophet, specifically criticizes this group above all as being so far from Yahweh in their hearts. And this was the critical dimension which was not addressed by all this ritualistic obedience.</p>


text:
<p>but in the eighteenth year of king Josiah was this Passover kept to Yahweh in Jerusalem- </p><p>We have no record of what Josiah did in the last 13 years of his reign, apart from the note we will have in 2 Chron. about how he died in disobedience to God's word. Perhaps this was the end point of a spiritual slip in that period. Tragically, so many of the kings started well and slipped at the end; truly a warning to us. We would rather hope to read that Judah continued to keep Passovers after this one, but there is no record of that. See on <a href='B:140 35:20'>2Ch 35:20</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover Josiah removed those who had familiar spirits, and the wizards, the teraphim, the idols and all the abominations that were seen in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, that he might confirm the words of the law which were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of Yahweh- </p><p>He was trying by all means to avoid the judgments for disobedience which were written in the book of the law read to him. But God had said that He would not change that judgment. Josiah would have been motivated by the example of Moses in seeking to still change the outcome. But the reforms of a king were not the same as the required change of heart of the people. Removing all visible signs of idolatry was not the same as transforming hearts; and God looks upon the heart, rather than the external state of religion amongst His people.</p><p>Hilkiah is well attested as the one who found the lost book of the law (<a href='B:120 22:8'>2Ki 22:8</a>), helped in Josiah's reforms (<a href='B:120 22:14-20'>2Ki 22:14-20</a>) and arranged the great Passover observance of <a href='B:140 35:1-19'>2Ch 35:1-19</a>. But Hilkiah did all this despite being the son of a High Priest called Shallum (<a href='B:130 6:12-13'>1Ch 6:12-13</a>), whose name can mean 'bribe' (s:w. <a href='B:400 7:3'>Mic 7:3</a> about the corruption of the priesthood). Perhaps this was what he was known for. But his son / descendant rose above that bad background, as we can.</p>


text:
<p>Like him was there no king before him, who turned to Yahweh with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him- </p><p>As noted on :24, the point was that God was interested in the hearts of His individual people, and the spiritual zeal of one man could not alter that. Perhaps this is why Kings omits the account of Josiah's death in disobedience to God's word, which we find in Chronicles. The idea is that even this generally good man could not avert the judgment of others if their hearts were not with Him.</p>


text:
<p>Notwithstanding, Yahweh didn’t turn from the fierceness of His great wrath with which His anger was kindled against Judah, </p><p>The fact that men such as Moses and Jeremiah (<a href='B:300 18:20'>Jer 18:20</a>) turned away God’s wrath without these things happening, or simply by prayer (<a href='B:340 9:16'>Dan 9:16</a>) therefore means that God accepted the intercession of those men and counted their righteousness to those from whom His wrath turned away. We shouldn’t assume that these righteous men merely waved away God’s wrath. That wrath was real, and required immense pleading and personal dedication on their behalf. Thus we read that despite Josiah’s righteousness, the wrath of God against Manasseh was still not turned away. Truly “wise men turn away wrath” (<a href='B:240 29:8'>Pro 29:8</a>). And they evidently pointed forward to the work of the Lord Jesus- perhaps, like the sacrifices, those men only achieved what they did on account of the way they pointed forward to the Lord Jesus. He delivered us from God’s coming wrath (<a href='B:590 1:10'>1Th 1:10</a>)- the wrath of God is frequently spoken of in the New Testament as being poured out with devastating physical effects in the last days. All those not reconciled to God through the Lord Jesus are “by nature the children of wrath” (<a href='B:560 2:3'>Eph 2:3</a>). The very existence of the law of God creates His wrath, because we break that law (<a href='B:520 4:15'>Rom 4:15</a>). Romans has much to say about the wrath of God; and the letter begins with the reminder that we are all sinners, and the wrath of God will be revealed against all forms of sin (<a href='B:520 1:18'>Rom 1:18</a>). It is only through the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus that we are saved from this wrath and ‘reconciled’ to God (<a href='B:520 5:8-10'>Rom 5:8-10</a>).</p><p>Because of all the provocation with which Manasseh had provoked Him- </p><p>There is a connection with <a href='B:240 27:3'>Pro 27:3</a> GNB, where the same Hebrew word is used: "A stone is heavy and sand is a burden; but a fool’s provocation is heavier than both". This is a Hezekiah Proverb (see on <a href='B:240 25:1'>Pro 25:1</a>); the "provocation" of his son Manasseh led to the huge burden of judgment upon Judah. Hezekiah's son clearly paid no attention to his father's proverbs.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said, I will remove Judah also out of My sight as I have removed Israel- </p><p>Jonah recognized “I am cast out of Your sight” (<a href='B:390 2:4'>Jon 2:4</a>), the very language of condemnation used at his time (<a href='B:110 9:7'>1Ki 9:7</a>; <a href='B:120 17:20'>2Ki 17:20</a>; <a href='B:120 21:2'>2Ki 21:2</a>; <a href='B:120 23:27'>2Ki 23:27</a>; <a href='B:300 7:15'>Jer 7:15</a>).</p><p>And I will cast off this city which I have chosen, even Jerusalem, and the house of which I said, ‘My name shall be there’-</p><p>Although it is true as it was with Saul that those who reject Yahweh's word are rejected (<a href='B:90 15:23'>1Sa 15:23</a>), God's grace is beyond such a simplistic picture. Israel were to despise / reject God's word (s:w. <a href='B:30 26:15'>Lev 26:15</a>; <a href='B:30 26:43'>Lev 26:43</a>), "and yet for all that:. I will not reject them / cast they away" (<a href='B:30 26:44'>Lev 26:44</a> s:w:). Israel rejected Yahweh when they wanted Saul to be their king (s:w. <a href='B:90 8:7'>1Sa 8:7</a>; <a href='B:90 10:19'>1Sa 10:19</a>), and yet He did not reject them immediately because of that. The relevance to the exiles was in that they were in captivity because they too had rejected God's word and therefore God had rejected them (<a href='B:120 17:15'>2Ki 17:15</a> cp. <a href='B:120 17:20'>2Ki 17:20</a>; <a href='B:120 23:27'>2Ki 23:27</a>), because they rejected His prophetic words, He rejected them (<a href='B:300 6:19'>Jer 6:19</a>; <a href='B:300 6:30'>Jer 6:30</a>; <a href='B:350 4:6'>Hos 4:6</a>), "and yet for all that:. I will not reject them / cast they away" (<a href='B:30 26:44'>Lev 26:44</a>; <a href='B:300 31:37'>Jer 31:37</a> s:w:). For ultimately God has not rejected / cast away His people (<a href='B:290 41:9'>Isa 41:9</a>; <a href='B:300 33:26'>Jer 33:26</a>; <a href='B:520 11:2'>Rom 11:2</a>). This is the mystery of grace, no matter how we may seek to explain it away by Biblical exposition and balancing Bible verses against each other.</p>


text:
<p>Now the rest of the acts of Josiah, and all that he did, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?- </p><p>Not necessarily the same as the books of Chronicles we have in our Bibles.</p>


text:
<p>In his days Pharaoh Necoh king of Egypt went up against the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates. King Josiah went against him; and Pharaoh Necoh killed him at Megiddo when he had seen him- </p><p>There are times when God takes away the righteous from the evil of this life (<a href='B:290 57:1'>Isa 57:1</a> - probably alluding to what God did to Joash, <a href='B:120 22:20'>2Ki 22:20</a> cp. 23:29). There are other Biblical instances where the wicked have long life and prosperity in this world. This is because the Bible presents the ultimate judgment and reward of human life and faith as being at the last day, and not right now.</p>


text:
<p>His servants carried him in a chariot dead from Megiddo, and brought him to Jerusalem, and buried him in his own tomb. The people of the land took Jehoahaz the son of Josiah, and anointed him, and made him king in his father’s place-</p><p><a href='B:140 35:22'>2Ch 35:22</a> gives a different perspective (see on :25 for why this is): "Nevertheless Josiah would not turn his face from him, but disguised himself, that he might fight with him, and didn’t listen to the words of Neco from the mouth of God, and came to fight in the valley of Megiddo". Going into battle disguised is exactly what Ahab did (<a href='B:140 18:29'>2Ch 18:29</a>), and was slain doing it- having also defied God's prophetic word to do so. Josiah totally failed to hear God's word at this point, both from the historical precedents and the explicit prophecy given to him. The valley of Megiddo, and mourning in it (<a href='B:140 35:24'>2Ch 35:24</a>), will have an equivalent in the latter days (<a href='B:450 12:10'>Zec 12:10</a>). Josiah therefore seems to represent a disobedient Israel, who will be finally saved by grace as he was.</p>


text:
<p>Jehoahaz was twenty-three years old when he began to reign; and he reigned three months in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Hamutal the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah- </p><p><a href='B:120 23:31'>2Ki 23:31</a> says that Jehoahaz was the son of Hamutal, whereas his brother Eliakim was the son of Zebudah (<a href='B:120 23:36'>2Ki 23:36</a>). So we see that Josiah practiced polygamy- another indication that he was not such a stellar example of spirituality, despite his works of obedience to the Mosaic law; see on :30 and <a href='B:140 35:19-20'>2Ch 35:19-20</a>. And the mothers of his sons are blamed in Ezekiel 19 for leading them into very bad behaviour, so these were not good women.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, according to all that his fathers had done- </p><p>It is possible that Josiah was spiritually sliding downwards in the last 13 years of his reign; see on :30 and <a href='B:140 35:19-20'>2Ch 35:19-20</a>. So the formative years of his sons may not have been spent under a good parental influence, which would explain their weakness and apostacy.</p>


text:
<p>Pharaoh Necoh put him in bonds at Riblah in the land of Hamath, that he might not reign in Jerusalem; and put the land to a tribute of one hundred talents of silver and a talent of gold- </p><p>He was "deposed at Jerusalem" (<a href='B:140 36:3'>2Ch 36:3</a>) but put in bonds at Riblah (<a href='B:120 23:33'>2Ki 23:33</a>), which was on the Orontes river on the road from Babylon to Palestine. This was the same place where Nebuchadnezzar was based during the destruction of Jerusalem, and where the captives were brought to him for judgment (<a href='B:120 25:20-21'>2Ki 25:20-21</a>). The parallel is to show how Judah were intended to learn from their sufferings at the hands of the Egyptians and to repent. But they didn't, and so the situation repeated with the Babylonians.</p>


text:
<p>Pharaoh Necoh made Eliakim the son of Josiah king in the place of Josiah his father, and changed his name to Jehoiakim; but he took Jehoahaz away; and he came to Egypt, and died there- </p><p>"Eliakim" means "God will raise", alluding to their hope that <a href='B:100 7:12'>2Sa 7:12</a> would be fulfilled in him; and "Jehoiakim" means the same, only "Yah will raise". Perhaps the king made Eliakim swear by his God Jehovah, that he would be subservient to him. But it could be that the "Jeh" prefix meant something different to the Egyptians, and was effectively a sign of subservience to them; it may even refer to an Egyptian god. But see on :36. Joahaz died in Egypt as prophesied in <a href='B:300 22:12'>Jer 22:12</a>. Shallum in Jeremiah 22 is the same as Jehoahaz. Perhaps he is called Shallum because that word means 'The one marked out for judgment'. I explain on <a href='B:330 4:6'>Eze 4:6</a> that potentially, the captivity of Judah need only have lasted for 40 days or years, but this period was extended, just as it could have been reduced. But Jehoahaz was not going to experience this, he had precluded any reduction in his captivity period because of his impenitence at that time. <a href='B:300 22:11-12'>Jer 22:11-12</a> imply that the false prophets were claiming that his exile was going to be very short lived and he would return to establish a Messianic kingdom, thus twisting the prophecies of the restoration which Jeremiah may have already given, along with those of Isaiah which were already extant.</p>


text:
<p>Jehoiakim gave silver and the gold to Pharaoh; but he taxed the land to give the money according to the commandment of Pharaoh. He exacted the silver and the gold of the people of the land, of each one according to his taxation, to give it to Pharaoh Necoh-</p><p>Jehoiakim raised the tribute for the Babylonians by imposing a poll tax on the people. And he succeeded in raising the money. Yet such a tax ought to have been paid to the temple, but Jehoiakim hadn't bothered doing that.</p>


text:
<p>Jehoiakim was twenty-five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Zebidah the daughter of Pedaiah of Rumah- </p><p>The change from Eliakim to Jehoiakim (:34) is so similar that perhaps the change was just symbolic, to show Pharaoh's power over him; or maybe Jehoiakim was another name he already went under, or a name he himself suggested as an alternative.</p>


text:
<p>He did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh, according to all that his fathers had done- </p><p><a href='B:300 22:13-18'>Jer 22:13-18</a> gives an example of the sins of Jehoiakim- he built an opulent home for himself and refused to pay the labourers for their work. He also murdered the prophet Urijah who spoke against him (<a href='B:300 26:20-23'>Jer 26:20-23</a>), and burnt the scroll of God's words and persecuted Jeremiah (Jeremiah 36).</p>


text:
<p>In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant three years, then rebelled against him-</p><p><a href='B:140 36:6'>2Ch 36:6</a> adds: "Against him came up Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and bound him in fetters, to carry him to Babylon". It may not have been Nebuchadnezzar in person. "To carry him to Babylon" means that was the intention, but it may not have happened. <a href='B:300 22:18-19'>Jer 22:18-19</a> says he was to be thrown out onto the garbage tip outside Jerusalem like a dead donkey. 2 Kings says that bands of the Babylonians attacked him at this time, and he may have been slain at this time:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh sent against him bands of the Chaldeans, the Syrians, Moabites and of the children of Ammon, and sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of Yahweh, which He spoke by His servants the prophets- </p><p><a href='B:50 11:17'>Deu 11:17</a> had said that God's people would "perish [s:w. "destroy"] quickly from off the good land". But by grace, that didn't happen "quickly" at all. They were finally destroyed from off it (<a href='B:120 24:2'>2Ki 24:2</a> and often), but God did not bring that about quickly but after much patient pleading through the prophets. This is one of so many examples of where God simply did not punish His people to the extent He said He would; simply because of His grace and love toward them.</p>


text:
<p>Surely at the commandment of Yahweh came this on Judah, to remove them out of His sight, for the sins of Manasseh, according to all that he did- </p><p>We can't be brethren in Christ who have no effect on the rest of the body. We all have an influence on others. Our behaviour, however passive, has a powerful effect on our brethren. We are all members of one body. Job pointed out that the words of another can assuage grief in a way that ones’ own self-talk simply cannot (<a href='B:220 16:5-6'>Job 16:5-6</a>). On the contrary, a whole community can be cursed for the sake of one man’s sin, even if he later repents (<a href='B:120 24:3-4'>2Ki 24:3-4</a>). The fact we can be guilty of causing others to stumble means that we can limit God's gracious plan for them. However, it is also true that God would not punish innocent people on the basis of guilt by association with a sinner. So we conclude that the "sins of Manasseh" were practiced from the heart by the people, and that was the basis of their condemnation.</p>


