2 Kings · Chapter 17

V. 1. To reign-He usurped the kingdom in Ahaz’s fourth year; but either was not owned as king, by the generality of the people; or was not accepted and established in his kingdom, ‘till Ahaz’s twelfth year. Nine-After his confirmation and peaceable possession of his kingdom: for in all, he reigned seventeen, or eighteen years; twelve with Ahaz, who reigned sixteen years, and six with Hezekiah.

Verse 1. In the twelfth year of Ahaz, began Hoshea to reign — He usurped the kingdom in Ahaz’s fourth year; but either was not owned as king by the generality of the people, or was not accepted and established in his kingdom till Ahaz’s twelfth year. Nine years — After his confirmation and peaceable possession of his kingdom; for in all he reigned seventeen or eighteen years; twelve with Ahaz, who reigned sixteen years, and six with Hezekiah.

Verse 1. The twelfth year of Ahaz. Hoshea did not get confirmed in the kingdom of nine years, for in 2 Kings 15:30 it is said that he began to reign the twentieth year of Jotham. Either there is some mistake in the transcriber, or there was an interregnum.

REIGN OF HOSEA AND FALL OF THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL, 1-23.

1. In the twelfth year of Ahaz — In our note on 2 Kings 15:30, following Usher we understand that Hoshea slew Pekah in the fourth year of Ahaz. Accordingly there must have been an interregnum of about eight years after Pekah’s death before Hoshea succeeded in seating himself on the throne. This opinion is adopted by Keil, who says, “His possession of the throne must have been contested for eight years. The earlier commentators, and almost all the chronologists, have justly assumed that there was an eight years’ anarchy between the death of Pekah and the commencement of Hoshea’s reign. This assumption merits the preference, above all the attempts made to remove the discrepancy by alterations of the text, since there is nothing at all surprising in the existence of anarchy at a time when the kingdom was in a state of the greatest inward disturbance and decay.” This seems to us more satisfactory than Bahr’s proposal to alter the text in 2 Kings 15:27 by reading thirty instead of twenty years for Pekah’s reign, and to regard the latter part of 2 Kings 15:30 as an interpolation.

V. 2. But not, &c.-For he neither worshipped Baal, as many of his predecessors did; nor compelled the people to worship the calves; (one of them, that of Dan, being destroyed, or carried away before, as the Hebrew writers affirm;) nor, as some add, hindered those by force, who were minded to go to Jerusalem to worship. And yet, the measure of the Israelites sins, being now full, vengeance comes upon them without remedy.

Verse 2. But not as the kings of Israel that were before him — For he neither worshipped Baal, as many of his predecessors had done, nor compelled the people to worship the calves, one of which, that of Dan, being destroyed or carried away before this time, as the Hebrew writers affirm. And whereas the kings of Israel had hitherto maintained guards upon the frontiers, to hinder their subjects from going to Jerusalem to worship, Hoshea took away those guards, and gave free liberty to all, to go and pay their adoration where the law had directed; and, therefore, when Hezekiah had invited all Israel to come to his passover, this prince permitted all that would to go: and when, upon their return from that festival, they destroyed all the monuments of idolatry that were found in the kingdom of Samaria, instead of forbidding them, in all probability he gave his consent to it; because, without some tacit encouragement, at least, they durst not have ventured to do it. — Prideaux. And yet God, whose judgments are a great deep, brought destruction on the kingdom of Israel in the reign of this king. The fact was, that the Israelites had now completely filled up the measure of their iniquities, and God, by bringing ruin upon them at this time, when their king was less guilty than his predecessors, designed to show that he was punishing, not only the sins of that generation, but of the foregoing ages, and reckoning with them for the iniquities of their fathers. Add to this, that if Hoshea was not so bad as the generality of their former kings, yet the people were quite as wicked as those that went before them; and it was an aggravation of their wickedness, and brought ruin on them the sooner, that their king did not set them so bad an example as the former kings had done, nor hinder their reforming. He gave them leave to abandon their idols and their sins, and to return to the worship of the true God, and obedience to his laws: but they persisted in their idolatries and other vices, which laid the blame of their sin and ruin wholly upon themselves.

2. Not as the kings of Israel that were before him — “It looks,” says Ewald, “like the bitter irony of fate that this Hoshea, who was to be the last king, was a better one than any of his predecessors. The words of the true prophets who had uttered so many and such important truths concerning this kingdom during the last fifty years, may, perhaps, have exercised a powerful influence over him, and instilled into him better principles. But they had always predicted its fall as certain; and now the irresistible force of history was to prove that no single man, whatever might be his position and superiority, could be strong enough to delay the ruin of the whole structure, if the right moment for its reformation had passed.”

V. 3. Shalmaneser-The son, or successor of Tiglath-pileser. The ancient Hebrew writers made him the same with Sennacherib, who eight years after this time, invaded the kingdom of Judah; it being very frequent in the Eastern parts, for one man to be called by several names. Josephus affirms, that he met with his name in the annals of the Tyrians, which were extant in his days. He came against him, either because he denied the tribute which he had promised to pay; or that he might make him tributary.

Verse 3. Shalmaneser] This was the son and successor of Tiglath-pileser. He is called Shalman by Hosea, Hosea 10:14, and Enemessar, in the book of Tobit, 1:2.

Gave him presents.] Became tributary to him.

Verse 3. Against him came up Shalmaneser — The son or successor of Tiglath-pileser. The ancient Hebrew writers made him the same with Sennacherib, who, eight years after this time, invaded the kingdom of Judah; it being very frequent, in the eastern parts, for one man to be called by several names. Josephus affirms, that he met with his name in the annals of the Tyrians, which were extant in his days. He came against him, either because he denied the tribute which he had promised to pay, or that he might make him tributary. And Hoshea became his servant, and gave him presents — Swore fealty to him, and engaged to pay him tribute. Thus the destruction came gradually, and they were, for some time, made tributaries, before they were made captives to the king of Assyria. And if the lesser judgment had prevailed to humble and reform them, the greater would have been prevented.

3. Shalmaneser — This Assyrian king and warrior seems to have been the regular and undisputed successor of Tiglath-pileser, and was therefore, probably, his son. The monuments bearing his records have been so mutilated by his successors that they shed very little light on his history. Josephus states, on the authority of Menander, that the name of this king was inscribed in the archives of Tyre, and that during the reign of one Eluleus he overran all Phenicia. But after his departure old Tyre rebelled, and the king of Assyria returned, and warred for five years against the city; but though he was assisted by many Phenicians, the Tyrians were more than a match for him, and his siege was unsuccessful. These wars with Phenicia were probably contemporaneous with those against Samaria. Hoshea became his servant — Became a vassal king, rendering presents, or tribute, to Shalmaneser as the great king. Some think that Hoshea had refused or neglected to pay tribute to Assyria, and this was the reason of Shalmaneser’s invasion; others think that this coming up of the Assyrian king was merely an expedition of conquest, growing out of the ambition of the new sovereign, and not from any provocation of Hoshea.

Verse 4. Found conspiracy to Hoshea] He had endeavoured to shake off the Assyrian yoke, by entering into a treaty with So, King of Egypt; and having done so, he ceased to send the annual tribute to Assyria.

Verse 4. The king of Assyria found conspiracy in Hoshea — If the king and people of Israel had applied themselves to God, made their peace with him, and addressed their prayers to him, they might, and no doubt would have recovered their liberty, ease, and honour; but they withheld their tribute, and trusted to the king of Egypt to assist them in their revolt, which, if it had been attended with success, would only have been to change their oppressors: but Egypt became to them the staff of a broken reed. This provoked the king of Assyria to proceed against them with the more severity. For he, Hoshea, sent messengers to So, king of Egypt — By some heathen writers called Sua, or Sabacus, that, by his assistance, he might shake off the yoke of the king of Assyria, who now was, and for many years had been, the rival of the king of Egypt, 2 Kings 18:21; Jeremiah 37:5. “This So,” says Mr. Locke, “seems to be Sabacon, the Ethiopian king of Egypt, of whom Herodotus relates, that, being warned in a dream, he departed of his own accord from Egypt, after he had reigned there fifteen years. It was in the beginning of Hezekiah’s reign that he invaded Egypt, and having taken Boccharis the king thereof prisoner, with great cruelty he burned him alive, and then seized on his kingdom.” — Dodd.

Ver. 4. So, king of Egypt. Dean Prideaux is confident, out of Diodorus Siculus and Herodotus, that this So is Sabacon, an Ethiopian by birth, who swayed the sceptre of Egypt.

4. Found conspiracy in Hoshea — This, of course, was after the first invasion. Ewald thinks this conspiracy of Hoshea was prompted by the successful rebellion of Tyre. “It was now seen to be possible for the Assyrians to be beaten; and when a few years had passed, it was thought that a favourable opportunity had arrived for concluding an offensive and defensive alliance against the Assyrians with the Egyptian king Seveh; for the Ethiopic dynasty, which was then ruling in Egypt, appeared to be the only power which could successfully maintain a contest against them by land.” So king of Egypt — The Masoretic pointing would make So the correct pronunciation, but it would seem better to write the name, aws, as Ewald does, Seveh. It is settled that this king belonged to the twenty-fifth dynasty, but whether he was the first or second king of this dynasty is not clear. He was very probably the same king whom Herodotus (ii, 137) calls “Sabakon, king of the Ethiopians,” who, during the reign of a blind king, Anysis, “invaded Egypt with a large force, and reigned for fifty years.” He is called Shebek on the monuments. “The appearance of this great conqueror on the scene,” says Sumner, in Schaff’s Lange, “infused hope into the small nations of Western Asia that they might be able, at least, to change masters; that this new Egyptian power might form a counterpoise to the Assyrian; and that his power might be found to be milder.” Perhaps it was owing to some assistance rendered by this Egyptian sovereign that Samaria was enabled to sustain so long a siege. See on verse 6. Shut him up… in prison — The order of verses would indicate that this capture and imprisonment of Hoshea was before the siege of Samaria, and so many interpreters believe. Rawlinson thinks there was an interval of a year or two between the imprisonment of Hoshea and the expedition mentioned in the next verse. But it is very common with the Hebrew writers to record the result of an expedition before the details are told; and as verse 6 implies that Hoshea was king when Samaria was taken, and verse 1 declares that he reigned in Samaria nine years, we adopt the opinion that his imprisonment was subsequent to the capture of Samaria, and when he was no longer king.

Verse 5. Besieged it three years.] It must have been well fortified, well provisioned, and well defended, to have held out so long.

Verses 5, 6. Then the king of Assyria came up throughout all the land — And made himself master of it, treating the Israelites as traitors rather than as fair enemies, and punishing them with the sword of justice. And went up to Samaria, and besieged it three years — During which time it held out, but doubtless endured a great deal of misery, though this be not particularly recorded. At length the royal city was taken, and the king made a prisoner, shut up, and bound. This was in the ninth year of the reign of Hoshea, at which time Israel was carried away captive into Assyria — There, we have reason to think, after some time, they were so mingled with the nations, that they were lost, and the name of Israel was no more in remembrance. They that forgot God were themselves forgotten, and they that studied to be like the nations were buried among them; and they that would not serve God in their own land, were made to serve their enemies in a strange land. Thus ended Israel as a nation, and the prophecy of Hoshea was fulfilled: they became Lo-ammi, not a people, and Lo-ruhamah, unpitied. Now Canaan spewed them out. When we read of their entry into Canaan under Hoshea the son of Nun, who would have thought that such would be their exit under Hoshea the son of Elah? Thus Rome’s glory in Augustus sunk many ages after in Augustulus; yet we find St. James writing to the twelve tribes scattered abroad, (James 1:1,) and Paul speaks of the twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, Acts 26:7: so that, though we never read of the return of those that were carried captive, nor have any ground to believe that they still remain a distinct body in some remote corner of the world, yet a remnant of them did escape, and will remain, till all Israel be saved.

5. Came up throughout all the land — He overran all the country, subduing all the smaller towns, apparently as a measure preliminary to the final siege of the capital. Besieged it three years — The length of this siege evidences the strength of Samaria, and the desperate resistance of its people. “It is remarkable,” says Ewald, “how strong a resemblance the fall of Samaria bears to the first and second destructions of Jerusalem, in the heroic resistance of its inhabitants.” The horrors of this siege may be inferred from Isaiah 28:1-4; Hosea 10:14; 13:16; Amos 6:9-14.

V. 6. Carried Israel away, &c.-There, we have reason to think, after some time, they were so mingled with the nations, that they were lost, and the name of Israel was no more in remembrance. They that forgot God, were themselves forgotten, and they that studied to be like the nations, were buried among them. Thus ended Israel as a nation. When we read their entry into Canaan, under Hoshea the son of Nun, who would have thought, that such would be their exit, under Hoshea, the son of Elah? Yet we find St. James writing to the twelve tribes scattered abroad. So that tho’ we never read of the return of those that were carried captive, nor have any ground to believe, that they still remain a distinct body in some remote corner of the world, yet a remnant of them did escape, and will remain ‘till all Israel shall be saved.

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

Carried Israel away into Assyria] What were the places to which the unfortunate Israelites were carried, or where their successors are now situated, have given rise to innumerable conjectures, dissertations, discourses, &c. Some maintain that they are found on the coast of Guinea; others, in America; the Indian tribes being the descendants of those carried away by the Assyrians. In vol. i. of the Supplement to Sir Wm. Jones’s works, we find a translation of the History of the Afghans, by Mr. H. Vansittart; from which it appears that they derive their own descent from the Jews. On this history Sir Wm. Jones writes the following note:— “This account of the Afghans may lead to a very interesting discovery. We learn from Esdras, that the ten tribes, after a wandering journey, came to a country called Arsaret, where we may suppose they settled. Now the Afghans are said by the best Persian historians to be descended from the Jews; they have traditions among themselves of such a descent, and it is even asserted that their families are distinguished by the names of Jewish tribes; although, since their conversion to the Islam, they studiously conceal their origin. The Pushtoo, of which I have seen a dictionary, has a manifest resemblance to the Chaldaic; and a considerable district under their dominion is called Hazarek or Hazaret, which might easily have been changed into the word used by Esdras. I strongly recommend an inquiry into the literature and history of the Afghans.” Every thing considered, I think it by far the most probable that the Afghans are the descendants of the Jews, who were led away captives by the Assyrian kings. Thus ended the kingdom of Israel, after it had lasted two hundred and fifty-four years, from the death of Solomon and the schism of Jeroboam, till the taking of Samaria by Shalmaneser, in the ninth year of Hoshea; after which the remains of the ten tribes were carried away beyond the river Euphrates.

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

Verses 5, 6. Then the king of Assyria came up throughout all the land — And made himself master of it, treating the Israelites as traitors rather than as fair enemies, and punishing them with the sword of justice. And went up to Samaria, and besieged it three years — During which time it held out, but doubtless endured a great deal of misery, though this be not particularly recorded. At length the royal city was taken, and the king made a prisoner, shut up, and bound. This was in the ninth year of the reign of Hoshea, at which time Israel was carried away captive into Assyria — There, we have reason to think, after some time, they were so mingled with the nations, that they were lost, and the name of Israel was no more in remembrance. They that forgot God were themselves forgotten, and they that studied to be like the nations were buried among them; and they that would not serve God in their own land, were made to serve their enemies in a strange land. Thus ended Israel as a nation, and the prophecy of Hoshea was fulfilled: they became Lo-ammi, not a people, and Lo-ruhamah, unpitied. Now Canaan spewed them out. When we read of their entry into Canaan under Hoshea the son of Nun, who would have thought that such would be their exit under Hoshea the son of Elah? Thus Rome’s glory in Augustus sunk many ages after in Augustulus; yet we find St. James writing to the twelve tribes scattered abroad, (James 1:1,) and Paul speaks of the twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, Acts 26:7: so that, though we never read of the return of those that were carried captive, nor have any ground to believe that they still remain a distinct body in some remote corner of the world, yet a remnant of them did escape, and will remain, till all Israel be saved.

Ver. 6. Placed them in Halah and in Habor. These are called rivers, which run into the Caspian sea. They were also dispersed in the cities of the Medes, almost a thousand miles east of Samaria. Thus was fulfilled the prophecies of Moses against the apostate race of Israel. The Assyrians were at this time masters of the Medes, and the cruel policy of that bloody nation was to break the heart of all captives, and remove them away like cattle. Enquiries have in all ages been made for remnants of this dispersion of the ten tribes. Dr. Claudius Buchanan, twelve years a missionary in India, and a learned traveller, says, “There exists a nation of Jews in India called Affgans. This nation hitherto reputed Mahomedans, are really Jews, and in complete possession of the old testament.” The doctor adds, “there are two other colonies of Jews in Cochin, the one white, and the other black. Their number is about sixteen thousand. They possess the Pentateuch, the Psalms, and the book of Job. They seem to know nothing of the prophets, but still hope for the Messiah.” The Samaritans were also mixed remnants of the ten tribes.

6. The king of Assyria took Samaria — From the context we most naturally infer that this Assyrian king was no other than Shalmaneser, mentioned in verse 3, but the Assyrian inscriptions show that it was Shalmaneser’s successor, whose name, Sargon, occurs in Isaiah 20:1. This fact by no means conflicts with our historian, who simply calls the conqueror, the king of Assyria. Compare chap. 18:10. In a long inscription discovered in the palace of Khorsabad, and commonly called the “Acts of Sargon,” occurs the following: “I besieged, took, and occupied the city of Samaria, and carried into captivity twenty-seven thousand two hundred and eighty of its inhabitants. I changed the former government of the country and placed over it lieutenants of my own… And Sebeh, ruler of Egypt, came to Raphia [a city near the seacoast southwest of Gaza] to fight against me; they met me and I routed them; Sebeh fled.” This last statement gives support to the conjecture that it was some interference from the king of Egypt that enabled Samaria to hold out so long against the Assyrian armies. Compare note on verse 4. Sargon seems, therefore, to have been a usurper who gained possession of the throne of Assyria during Shalmaneser’s prolonged absence at the siege of Samaria. “In the East,” says Rawlinson, “it is always dangerous for the reigning prince to be long away from his metropolis. In the king’s absence all languishes: the course of justice is suspended; public works are stopped; workmen are discharged; wages fall; and the people, anxious for better times, are ready to welcome any pretender who will come forward and declare the throne vacant, and claim to be its proper occupant. If Shalmaneser continued to direct in person the siege of Samaria three years, we cannot be surprised that the patience of the Ninevites was exhausted, and that in the third year they accepted the rule of the usurper who boldly proclaimed himself king.” So the siege of Samaria was commenced and long carried on by Shalmaneser, but was completed by Sargon, who subsequently warred against Hamath and Egypt, as his inscription claims. But the Hebrew historian does not concern himself with this dynastic revolution, as it in no way changed the attitude of Assyria towards Israel. Halah — The exact locality of Halah is not settled, and whether it were a city or a district is doubtful. The most probable supposition is, that it was a district lying on or near the river of Gozan, and probably near its source. Habor is usually identified with the modern Khabur, which rises in Mount Masius, and flows in a nearly southerly direction, and empties into the Euphrates at the site of the ancient Carchemish. According to Benjamin of Tudela there were large communities of Israelites as late as the twelfth century living on the banks of this river. Many think this river identical with the Chebar of Ezekiel. Ezekiel 1:1. Others, however, identify the Habor with a river of similar name which empties into the Tigris some seventy miles above Nineveh. In this verse the river of Gozan seems to be in apposition with Habor, and J.L. Porter suggests that Habor is the name of the district watered by the lower Khabur, while the upper part of the same river, flowing through the province of Gozan, is called the river of Gozan. In 1 Chronicles 5:26, the river of Gozan is distinguished from Habor, which would be natural enough if different names were applied to different portions of the same river. Ptolemy mentions a province on the southern declivities of Mount Masius called Gausanitis, and it was probably identical with the ancient Gozan. At the time of Sargon all this region must have belonged to the Assyrian empire. Cities of the Medes — So all the captives were not placed along the Habor, but some transported into the more distant Media. One of the Median cities, to which exiles were taken, appears from Tobit 1:14, to have been Rages. It is interesting to note that in his long inscription, already mentioned, Sargon claims to have subjected Media to his sway. “Sargon seems to have been the first Assyrian monarch who conquered Media; and he expressly relates that, in order to complete its subjection, he founded there a number of cities, which he planted with colonists from other portions of his dominion.” — RAWLINSON, Hist. Eviden., p. 119. It seems to have been a favourite policy of his to colonize newly-conquered districts by placing in them people from a distance, and forming a mixed population which would not be so likely to plan revolt or treason. Comp. verse 24.

Verse 7. For so it was, &c. — Though the destruction of the kingdom of the ten tribes is but briefly related in the preceding verses, it is largely commented upon by the historian in those that follow; and the reasons of it assigned, which are not taken from the second causes, the weakness of Israel and their impolitic management; the strength and growing greatness of the Assyrian monarchy: these things are overlooked, and only the first cause is mentioned. It was the Lord that removed Israel out of his sight: whoever were the instruments, he was the author of this calamity. The destruction was from the Almighty, and the Assyrian was but the rod of his anger, Isaiah 10:5. It was the Lord that rejected the seed of Israel, otherwise their enemies could not have seized upon them. Who gave Jacob to the spoil, and Israel to the robbers? Did not the Lord? Isaiah 42:24. We lose the benefit of national judgments if we do not mark the hand of God in them, and the fulfilling of the Scriptures. It must be well observed, however, that their way and their doing procured all this to themselves, and it was their own wickedness that did correct them. This the sacred historian shows here at large, that it might appear God did them no wrong, and that others might hear and fear. The children of Israel had sinned against the Lord, and had feared other gods — This they had done a long time: for, from the beginning of Jeroboam’s setting up the golden calves, to the carrying of Israel away captive, were two hundred and sixty-three years, to say nothing of their former various and multiplied idolatries.

7. For so it was, that — Rather, and it came to pass when. Compare the use of yk yhyw, in Genesis 6:1; 26:8; 27:1; 44:24. From this verse on through verse 17 the historian gives the theocratic view of Israel’s downfall. The apodosis, giving the consequences of Israel’s sins, follows in verses 18-23. So momentous a catastrophe was the fall of the kingdom of Israel, that the historian pauses in the midst of his narrative to dwell at length upon its moral aspects. Which had brought them up out of… Egypt — “The deliverance from Egypt was really the selection of Israel to be God’s peculiar and covenant people. Exodus 19:4-6. It was not only the beginning, but also the symbol, of all Divine grace towards Israel, the pledge of its Divine guidance. It therefore stands at the head of the covenant, or organic law, (Exodus 20:2; Deuteronomy 5:6,) and it is always cited as the chief and fundamental act of the Divine favour. Levit. 11:45; Joshua 24:17; 1 Kings 8:51; Psalm 81:10; Jeremiah 2:6. Therefore this author also makes it the stand-point for his review and criticism of the history. He means to say thereby: “Although no people on earth had experienced such favour from Almighty God as Israel had, nevertheless it abandoned this God and served other gods.” — Bahr. Feared other gods — See the fuller statement of verse 16.

Verses 8, 9. And walked in the statutes of the heathen — According to their laws and customs in the worship of their Baals, and other of their sins. And of the kings of Israel, which statutes they had made — Had ordained concerning the worship of the calves, and against their going up to Jerusalem to worship. And the children of Israel did secretly, &c. — This belongs, either, 1st, To their gross idolatries, and other abominable practices, which they were ashamed to own before others; or, 2d, To the worship of the calves, and so the words are otherwise rendered, They covered things that were not right toward the Lord: they covered their idolatrous worship of the calves with fair pretences of necessity, the two kingdoms being now divided, and at enmity; and of their honest intention of serving the true God, and retaining the substance of the Jewish religion. From the tower of the watchmen to the fenced city — In all parts and places, both in cities and in the country; yea, in the most uninhabited parts, where few or none dwelt besides the watch-men, who were left there in towers, to preserve the cattle and fruits of the earth, or to give notice of the approach of enemies.

8. Walked in the statutes — Observed the religions customs and ordinances. Whom the Lord cast out — To adopt the religions and worship of peoples whom Jehovah had so signally defeated and cast out from the Land of Promise was the height of idolatrous infatuation. Of the kings of Israel, which they had made — That is, in addition to walking in the statutes of the heathen they also observed statutes of their kings, that is, religious ordinances which their kings had made. The allusion is to the calf worship established at Beth-el and at Dan. See 1 Kings 12:26, 27, notes.

V. 9. Did secretly-This belongs, either,

1. To their gross idolatries, and other abominable practices, which they were ashamed to own before others; or,

2. to the worship of calves: and so the words are otherwise rendered; they covered things that were not right towards the Lord: they covered their idolatrous worship of the calves, with fair pretences of necessity, the two kingdoms being now divided, and at enmity; and of their honest intention of serving the true God, and retaining the substance of the Jewish religion.

City-In all parts and places, both in cities, and in the country; yea, in the most uninhabited parts, where few or none dwell, beside the watchmen, who are left there in towers, to preserve the cattle and fruits of the earth, or to give notice of the approach of enemies.

Verse 9. Did secretly those things] There was much hidden iniquity and private idolatry among them, as well as public and notorious crimes. From the tower of the watchmen to the fenced city.] That is, the idolatry was universal; every place was made a place for some idolatrous rite or act of worship; from the largest city to the smallest village, and from the public watchtower to the shepherd’s cot.

Verses 8, 9. And walked in the statutes of the heathen — According to their laws and customs in the worship of their Baals, and other of their sins. And of the kings of Israel, which statutes they had made — Had ordained concerning the worship of the calves, and against their going up to Jerusalem to worship. And the children of Israel did secretly, &c. — This belongs, either, 1st, To their gross idolatries, and other abominable practices, which they were ashamed to own before others; or, 2d, To the worship of the calves, and so the words are otherwise rendered, They covered things that were not right toward the Lord: they covered their idolatrous worship of the calves with fair pretences of necessity, the two kingdoms being now divided, and at enmity; and of their honest intention of serving the true God, and retaining the substance of the Jewish religion. From the tower of the watchmen to the fenced city — In all parts and places, both in cities and in the country; yea, in the most uninhabited parts, where few or none dwelt besides the watch-men, who were left there in towers, to preserve the cattle and fruits of the earth, or to give notice of the approach of enemies.

9. Did secretly those things that were not right against the Lord — Literally, covered things (or words, µyrbd which are not right upon Jehovah. The general idea is, that they distorted his worship, and sacrilegiously changed his ordinances. Keil translates and explains thus: “They covered words which were not right concerning Jehovah their God; that is, they sought to conceal the true nature of Jehovah by arbitrary perversions of the word of God. This covering of words over Jehovah showed itself in the fact that they built altars on high places, and by worshipping God in ways of their own invention concealed the nature of the revealed God, and made Jehovah like the idols.” Similarly Bahr: “They covered Jehovah with things which were not right; that is, they concealed him by them so that he could no longer be seen and recognised; which is as much as to say that they practically denied and ignored him.” High places — Compare note on 1 Kings 3:2. Tower of the watchmen — A tower built in the desert or in lonely places for the convenience of shepherds and the protection of flocks. Compare 2 Chronicles 26:10. Here and in chap. 18:8 it is named in antithesis to the thickly populated and fortified towns.

Verse 10. Images and groves] Images of different idols, and places for the abominable rites of Ashtaroth or Venus.

10. Images… groves — See note on 1 Kings 14:15, 23.

Verse 11. They burned incense, as did the heathen — Namely, in high places; and that not only to the Lord, which, though an irregularity, was practised and tolerated sometimes, even in the kingdom of Judah, but also to the idols of the heathen. Whom the Lord carried away before them — For the same sins; by whose example they ought to have taken warning. To provoke the Lord to anger — That is, in despite and contempt of God, and his authority and command, as the next verse shows.

REIGN OF HOSEA AND FALL OF THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL, 1-23.

1. In the twelfth year of Ahaz — In our note on 2 Kings 15:30, following Usher we understand that Hoshea slew Pekah in the fourth year of Ahaz. Accordingly there must have been an interregnum of about eight years after Pekah’s death before Hoshea succeeded in seating himself on the throne. This opinion is adopted by Keil, who says, “His possession of the throne must have been contested for eight years. The earlier commentators, and almost all the chronologists, have justly assumed that there was an eight years’ anarchy between the death of Pekah and the commencement of Hoshea’s reign. This assumption merits the preference, above all the attempts made to remove the discrepancy by alterations of the text, since there is nothing at all surprising in the existence of anarchy at a time when the kingdom was in a state of the greatest inward disturbance and decay.” This seems to us more satisfactory than Bahr’s proposal to alter the text in 2 Kings 15:27 by reading thirty instead of twenty years for Pekah’s reign, and to regard the latter part of 2 Kings 15:30 as an interpolation.

REIGN OF HOSEA AND FALL OF THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL, 1-23.

1. In the twelfth year of Ahaz — In our note on 2 Kings 15:30, following Usher we understand that Hoshea slew Pekah in the fourth year of Ahaz. Accordingly there must have been an interregnum of about eight years after Pekah’s death before Hoshea succeeded in seating himself on the throne. This opinion is adopted by Keil, who says, “His possession of the throne must have been contested for eight years. The earlier commentators, and almost all the chronologists, have justly assumed that there was an eight years’ anarchy between the death of Pekah and the commencement of Hoshea’s reign. This assumption merits the preference, above all the attempts made to remove the discrepancy by alterations of the text, since there is nothing at all surprising in the existence of anarchy at a time when the kingdom was in a state of the greatest inward disturbance and decay.” This seems to us more satisfactory than Bahr’s proposal to alter the text in 2 Kings 15:27 by reading thirty instead of twenty years for Pekah’s reign, and to regard the latter part of 2 Kings 15:30 as an interpolation.

V. 13. Seers-To whom he declared his mind, by revelations and visions, and by whom he published it, bearing witness, from heaven to their doctrine by eminent and glorious miracles.

Verse 13. Yet the Lord testified against Israel] What rendered their conduct the more inexcusable was, that the Lord had preserved among them a succession of prophets, who testified against their conduct, and preached repentance to them, and the readiness of God to forgive, provided they would return unto him, and give up their idolatries.

Verse 13. Yet the Lord testified against Israel — Against their false worship, and all their impieties. By all the prophets, and by all the seers — To whom he declared his mind by extraordinary revelations and visions, and by whom he published it, bearing witness from heaven to their doctrine, by eminent and glorious miracles. Abarbinel, in his commentary on these books, hath noticed one or more prophets in every king’s reign, both in Israel and Judah, from the time of Saul to Zedekiah, in whose time Jerusalem was laid desolate. The ten tribes had lately had among them two most singularly eminent for their zeal, courage, fidelity, and the wonders which they wrought, in the name of God, in confirmation of their divine mission and doctrine, namely, Elijah and Elisha: the latter of whom had been instrumental in rescuing them from their enemies sundry times, when all human means had failed, and their case appeared perfectly hopeless, and who had been mercifully continued to them, a faithful witness for God, and a burning and shining light, for about sixty years. And in the days of this very king, when Israel was carried away captive, they had Hoshea, Amos, Isaiah, and Micah. And in the days of the last king of Judah, when that tribe was carried captive, they had Jeremiah and Ezekiel. All these had made it their care to show both the kings and people their sins, and warn them of the fatal consequences of them; and to exhort, beseech, and urge them to turn from them, to the worship and service of the living and true God.

13. By all the prophets, and by all the seers — Prophets of every kind had been sent to warn them. Besides many of less note, there were Elisha, Isaiah, Hosea, Amos, and Micah, who uttered memorable warnings and admonitions for Israel.

V. 14. Hardened, &c.-Refused to submit their neck to the yoke of God’s precepts. A metaphor from stubborn oxen, that will not bow to the yoke.

Verse 14. Notwithstanding, they would not hear, but hardened their necks — Refused to submit their necks to the yoke of God’s precepts: a metaphor taken from stubborn oxen that will not bow to the yoke. Like to the neck of their fathers — In the wilderness; that did not believe in the Lord their God — This was the original and primary cause of all their sins and sufferings, their unbelief; this formerly prevented their fathers from entering Canaan, and now turned them out of it: they did not truly believe in God’s power, and love, and faithfulness; did not receive his truths, though attested by signs and wonders innumerable; did not credit his threatenings, nor rely on his promises. The testimony of the prophets, therefore, was without effect, with respect to the nation in general, and their endeavours to reclaim them were exerted in vain. And God was compelled, humanly speaking, in vindication of his own infinite perfections, the injured rights of his moral government, and the cause of truth and righteousness, to execute the frequently-denounced vengeance, and send wrath upon them to the uttermost.

REIGN OF HOSEA AND FALL OF THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL, 1-23.

1. In the twelfth year of Ahaz — In our note on 2 Kings 15:30, following Usher we understand that Hoshea slew Pekah in the fourth year of Ahaz. Accordingly there must have been an interregnum of about eight years after Pekah’s death before Hoshea succeeded in seating himself on the throne. This opinion is adopted by Keil, who says, “His possession of the throne must have been contested for eight years. The earlier commentators, and almost all the chronologists, have justly assumed that there was an eight years’ anarchy between the death of Pekah and the commencement of Hoshea’s reign. This assumption merits the preference, above all the attempts made to remove the discrepancy by alterations of the text, since there is nothing at all surprising in the existence of anarchy at a time when the kingdom was in a state of the greatest inward disturbance and decay.” This seems to us more satisfactory than Bahr’s proposal to alter the text in 2 Kings 15:27 by reading thirty instead of twenty years for Pekah’s reign, and to regard the latter part of 2 Kings 15:30 as an interpolation.

V. 15. Vanity-Idols; so called because of their nothingness, impotency, and unprofitableness; and by the long worship of idols, they were made like them, vain, sottish, and senseless creatures.

Verses 15-17. They followed vanity — Idols; so called, because of their unprofitableness, impotency, and nothingness, and to show the folly and madness of idolaters. And became vain — By the long worship of idols they were made like them, vain, sottish, and senseless creatures. And they left all the commandments of the Lord — They grew worse and worse; from a partial disobedience to some of God’s laws, they fell by degrees to a total apostacy from all of them. And worshipped all the host of heaven — The sun, moon, and stars, as Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, &c.; against which Moses had particularly cautioned them, Deuteronomy 14:19. They caused their sons and daughters to pass through the fire — Thus offering or consecrating them to their idols: see on 2 Kings 16:3. And used divination and enchantments — Which were the abominable sins of the heathen. And sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the Lord — Wholly addicted themselves to sin, as slaves are addicted to the service of those to whom they are sold; and, by their obstinately persisting in sin, so hardened their own hearts, that at length it was become morally impossible for them to recover themselves, as one that has sold himself has put his liberty beyond recall.

15. Followed vanity, and became vain — Compare Jeremiah 2:5; Romans 1:21. The idol is from the theocratic standpoint a nothing, (lbh, a breath,) compare 1 Corinthians 8:4; and therefore devotion to idols can lead only to emptiness — utter spiritual worthlessness.

V. 16. Left all-They grew worse and worse; from a partial disobedience to some of God’s laws, they fell by degrees to a total apostacy from all. The host-The stars, as Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus.

Verses 15-17. They followed vanity — Idols; so called, because of their unprofitableness, impotency, and nothingness, and to show the folly and madness of idolaters. And became vain — By the long worship of idols they were made like them, vain, sottish, and senseless creatures. And they left all the commandments of the Lord — They grew worse and worse; from a partial disobedience to some of God’s laws, they fell by degrees to a total apostacy from all of them. And worshipped all the host of heaven — The sun, moon, and stars, as Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, &c.; against which Moses had particularly cautioned them, Deuteronomy 14:19. They caused their sons and daughters to pass through the fire — Thus offering or consecrating them to their idols: see on 2 Kings 16:3. And used divination and enchantments — Which were the abominable sins of the heathen. And sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the Lord — Wholly addicted themselves to sin, as slaves are addicted to the service of those to whom they are sold; and, by their obstinately persisting in sin, so hardened their own hearts, that at length it was become morally impossible for them to recover themselves, as one that has sold himself has put his liberty beyond recall.

16. Two calves — See at 1 Kings 12:28. Grove — See note on 1 Kings 14:15. Worshipped all the host of heaven — In our note on 2 Kings 16:10 we observed that the Assyrian astral worship was probably introduced into the kingdoms of Israel and Judah in the times of Pekah and Ahaz, and 2 Kings 21:3 and 23:5, 11 show that it was common in Judah in the times of Manasseh and Ammon. But long anterior to this it may have been introduced in connexion with the Baal and Ashtoreth worship of Phenicia, for Ashtoreth was not without a sidereal character. “It is not by any means easy,” says Wilkins, (Phenicia and Israel, p. 171,) “to determine the exact form which the worship of the heavenly bodies took in the various nations of Western Asia. The purest form of star worship was that of the Assyrio-Persian magism; it admitted of no images of the deity, and in its adoration of the heavenly bodies it drew its deepest inspiration from the thought of their perfect beauty. This was the cultus to which Job (xxxi, 26) felt himself tempted when he ‘beheld the sun when it shined, or the moon walking in brightness.’ Compare Deuteronomy 4:19. A second mode of regarding the stars was that of the Phenicians, by whom they were looked upon as the originators of the growth and decay of nature — the embodiment of the creative and generative principle; and from this view there was readily developed a further symbolism, which led ere long to the grossest idolatry. The third great system of astral worship was that whose leading tendency was to dwell rather on the contemplation of the eternal unchangeableness of the heavenly bodies, as contrasted with the chances and changes of this transitory life. This was the form most common among the Chaldeans, and naturally produced the astrology for which they were famous. It is not always possible to determine which form of the worship of the host of heaven was that which presented itself as a temptation to the children of Israel; on the whole, we may assume it to have been the second, not only from the connexion in which it is mentioned, but also from the circumstances of the case.” Served Baal — See note on 1 Kings 16:31.

Verse 17. Sold themselves to do evil] Abandoned themselves to the will of the devil, to work all iniquity with greediness.

Verses 15-17. They followed vanity — Idols; so called, because of their unprofitableness, impotency, and nothingness, and to show the folly and madness of idolaters. And became vain — By the long worship of idols they were made like them, vain, sottish, and senseless creatures. And they left all the commandments of the Lord — They grew worse and worse; from a partial disobedience to some of God’s laws, they fell by degrees to a total apostacy from all of them. And worshipped all the host of heaven — The sun, moon, and stars, as Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, &c.; against which Moses had particularly cautioned them, Deuteronomy 14:19. They caused their sons and daughters to pass through the fire — Thus offering or consecrating them to their idols: see on 2 Kings 16:3. And used divination and enchantments — Which were the abominable sins of the heathen. And sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the Lord — Wholly addicted themselves to sin, as slaves are addicted to the service of those to whom they are sold; and, by their obstinately persisting in sin, so hardened their own hearts, that at length it was become morally impossible for them to recover themselves, as one that has sold himself has put his liberty beyond recall.

17. Pass through the fire — See at 2 Kings 16:3. Used divination and enchantments — No record of this appears in the previous history of the ten tribes, but abundant evidence in the allusions of contemporary prophets. So Isaiah 2:6; 8:19; 19:3; 47:13; Hosea 4:12; Micah 3:7. Sold themselves — Voluntarily made themselves slaves to all the above-mentioned forms of wickedness.

V. 18. Judah only-And the greatest part of the tribe of Benjamin, with those of the tribes of Simeon and Levi who were incorporated with them.

Verse 18. Removed them out of his sight] Banished them from the promised land, from the temple, and from every ordinance of righteousness, as wholly unworthy of any kind of good. None left but the tribe of Judah only.] Under this name all those of Benjamin and Levi, and the Israelites, who abandoned their idolatries and joined with Judah, are comprised. It was the ten tribes that were carried away by the Assyrians.

Verse 18. Therefore the Lord was very angry with Israel — For he is a jealous God, and highly resents the giving that honour to any created or imaginary being, which is due to himself only. And removed them out of his sight — A very strong expression, to signify, not only his casting them out of Canaan, then the only place of his solemn worship, and gracious presence, or out of his church, but his utter rejection and total removal of this apostate people from his care and providence. There was none left but Judah only — And the greatest part of the tribe of Benjamin, with those of the tribes of Simeon and Levi, who adhered to them, and were incorporated with them, and therefore are fitly denominated from them.

18. Therefore — In view of all the sins mentioned in verses 7-17. See note on verse 7. Removed them out of his sight — “That is, out of the Holy Land where Jehovah had his dwelling; out of the land of the covenant and out of the land of revelation.” — Bahr. The tribe of Judah only — Compare marginal references.

V. 19. Judah kept not-Judah’s idolatry and wickedness are here remembered, as an aggravation of the sin of the Israelites, which was not only evil in itself, but mischievous to their neighbour, who by their examples were instructed in their wicked arts, and provoked to an imitation of them.

Verse 19. Also Judah kept not, &c., but walked in the statutes of Israel — Followed the idolatrous devices of the ten tribes, which they did most notoriously in the reign of Ahaz. And though his son Hezekiah made a noble reformation, it lasted no longer than his time, so extremely corrupted was the nation. Judah’s idolatry and wickedness are here remembered as an aggravation of the sin of the Israelites, which was not only evil in itself, but mischievous to their neighbours, who by their examples were instructed in their wicked arts, and provoked to an imitation of them: see Hosea 4:15; Matthew 18:7. Those that bring sin into a country or family bring a plague into it, and will have to answer for all the mischief that follows.

19. Also Judah — This verse should be enclosed in a parenthesis, as it is merely a remark of the writer occasioned by the closing words of verse 18; so that, says Thenius, “the parenthesis intimates that in truth Judah also was ripe for punishment.”

V. 20. All Israel-All the tribes of Israel: first, one part of them, and now the rest. But this extends not to every individual person of these tribes; for many of them removed into the kingdom of Judah, and were associated with them.

Verse 20. The Lord rejected all the seed of Israel — All the kingdom, or tribes of Israel, first one part of them, and now the rest: but this extends not to every individual person of these tribes, for many of them removed into the kingdom of Judah, and were associated with them: see 2 Chronicles 11:16.

20. All the seed of Israel — That is, all Israel included in the ten tribes, for the kingdom of Judah had not yet fallen. Spoilers — First the Syrians, (2 Kings 10:32; 13:3,) and lastly the Assyrians, (2 Kings 15:19, 29,) who utterly ruined them. Verses 3-6.

V. 21. They made-Which action is here ascribed to the people, because they would not tarry ‘till God by his providence, had invested Jeroboam with the kingdom which he had promised him; but rashly, and rebelliously, rose up against the house of David, to which they had so great obligations; and set him upon the throne without God’s leave or advice. Drave-He not only dissuaded, but kept then, by force from God’s worship at Jerusalem, the only place appointed for it. A great sin-So the worship of the calves is called, to meet with that idle conceit of the Israelites, who esteemed it a small sin, especially when they were forced to it by severe penalties; which yet he shews did not excuse it from being a sin, and a great sin too.

Verse 21. They made Jeroboam king — Which action is here ascribed to the people, because they would not tarry till God, by his providence, had invested Jeroboam with the kingdom which he had promised him, but rashly and rebelliously rose up against the house of David, to which they were under such great obligations, and set him upon the throne without God’s leave or advice. Jeroboam drave, &c. — He not only dissuaded, but kept them by force from God’s worship at Jerusalem, the only place appointed for it. And made them sin a great sin — So the worship of the calves is called, in opposition to that idle conceit of the Israelites, who esteemed it a small sin, especially when they were forced to it by severe penalties; which yet he shows did not excuse it from being a sin, and a great sin too.

21. He — Jehovah. Rent Israel — Tore it away from Judah. See 1 Kings 11:13, 32.

Verses 22, 23. They departed not from them — But willingly and resolutely followed the wicked examples and commands of their kings, though contrary to God’s express commands. Until the Lord removed Israel — They continued to the last, obstinate and incorrigible under all the instructions and corrections which God sent to them; and therefore were justly given up by God to this dreadful captivity, which all this foregoing discourse was designed to prove.

REIGN OF HOSEA AND FALL OF THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL, 1-23.

1. In the twelfth year of Ahaz — In our note on 2 Kings 15:30, following Usher we understand that Hoshea slew Pekah in the fourth year of Ahaz. Accordingly there must have been an interregnum of about eight years after Pekah’s death before Hoshea succeeded in seating himself on the throne. This opinion is adopted by Keil, who says, “His possession of the throne must have been contested for eight years. The earlier commentators, and almost all the chronologists, have justly assumed that there was an eight years’ anarchy between the death of Pekah and the commencement of Hoshea’s reign. This assumption merits the preference, above all the attempts made to remove the discrepancy by alterations of the text, since there is nothing at all surprising in the existence of anarchy at a time when the kingdom was in a state of the greatest inward disturbance and decay.” This seems to us more satisfactory than Bahr’s proposal to alter the text in 2 Kings 15:27 by reading thirty instead of twenty years for Pekah’s reign, and to regard the latter part of 2 Kings 15:30 as an interpolation.

Verses 22, 23. They departed not from them — But willingly and resolutely followed the wicked examples and commands of their kings, though contrary to God’s express commands. Until the Lord removed Israel — They continued to the last, obstinate and incorrigible under all the instructions and corrections which God sent to them; and therefore were justly given up by God to this dreadful captivity, which all this foregoing discourse was designed to prove.

23. To Assyria unto this day — Thus the Assyrian captivity lasted until our historian’s day, and how much longer is not said. The subsequent history of “the ten tribes” has been the subject of endless speculation and inquiry. In the time of Josephus there seems to have been a notion prevailing that the ten tribes abode together in a body of innumerable multitude beyond the Euphrates. Antiquities, 11:5, 2. Also Esdras has a vision of the ten tribes separating themselves from the heathen, and migrating to a distant land never before inhabited by men. English Apocrypha, 2 Esdras 13:40-47. Perhaps this vision of Esdras was the starting-point of all the speculations about the “Lost Tribes,” for they have been “lost” and “found” in nearly every part of Asia, Europe, and North America. But vague traditional tales and ingenious speculations are of little weight to counterbalance the abundant testimony of Scripture on the subject, which may be stated as follows: —

1.) A considerable portion of the Israelitish population never went into the Assyrian exile. The first deportations were by Pul and Tiglath-pileser, (2 Kings 15:19, 29; 1 Chronicles 5:26,) and in all probability were composed of fewer captives than Shalmaneser (or Sargon, see note on verse 6) carried away after the capture of Samaria and the fall of the northern kingdom. Sargon’s inscription, which would not be likely to make too low an estimate, mentions twenty-seven thousand two hundred and eighty captives, (see note on verse 6,) but the northern kingdom must surely have had a population far exceeding these numbers. Multitudes were, of course, slain in the siege of Samaria, and in previous wars; but supposing them to have been ten times the number of the captives, (two hundred and seventy-two thousand eight hundred — a liberal estimate,) what became of all the rest of Israel, which in David’s time numbered eight hundred thousand warriors, which, of course, implies a population of many millions. 2 Samuel 24:9. Doubtless the captives, like those from Jerusalem, (2 Kings 24:14, 15; 25:12,) were composed chiefly of “the princes and mighty men of valour, and craftsmen, and smiths, and the king’s mother, and wives, and officers, and the mighty of the land” — the flower and strength of the nation, while “the poor of the land, vinedressers and husbandmen,” (numerically, perhaps, the majority of the population,) were left in the land, or else fled to other parts. Only “the cities of Samaria” (verse 24) seem to have been depopulated, so that in other and remoter districts of the kingdom a large majority of the population seem to have been left to care for the land. Thus the kingdom of the ten tribes ceased to exist; but numerically the mass of the people were left in their ancient homes. Certain it is that they were not all carried into exile. 2.) The captives were not allowed to settle in one district. Verse 6, compared with 1 Chronicles 5:26, may perhaps indicate that a majority of the exiles, both under Tiglath-pileser and Sargon, were placed in Halah and along the Habor, but others (and how large a proportion does not appear) were scattered abroad in various cities of Media. This fact of their being scattered throughout various parts of the vast Assyrian empire argues against the notion of their continuing their tribe distinctions, and especially of their perpetuating the ten tribes as an organized community. 3.) There is reason to believe that after the fall of Samaria the old enmity between Judah and Israel began to cease. In the reign of Hezekiah arrangements were made to proclaim “throughout all Israel, from Beer-sheba even to Dan, that they should come to keep the passover unto the Lord God of Israel at Jerusalem;” and letters were sent “to Ephraim and Manasseh,” accompanied by an exhortation for them “to turn again unto the Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel.” Many scorned the invitation, but “divers of Asher and Manasseh and of Zebulun humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem,” so that there appeared at the passover “many of Ephraim and Manasseh, Issachar and Zebulun.” And on that proud occasion “all the congregation of Judah, with the priests and the Levites, and all the congregation that came out of Israel, and the strangers that came out of the land of Israel, and that dwelt in Judah, rejoiced,” for it was the first occasion of the kind “since the time of Solomon the son of David.” and it betokened a reunion of the divided kingdom. See 2 Chronicles 30. At the close of the passover it is also said that “all Israel that were present went out,” and utterly destroyed all the signs of idolatry “out of all Judah and Benjamin, in Ephraim also and Manasseh.” Chap. 31:1. The like thing was done by Josiah, (2 Kings 23:19; 2 Chronicles 34:7; 35:18,) who also collected money for repairing the temple “of the hand of Manasseh and Ephraim, and of all the remnant of Israel, and of all Judah and Benjamin.” 2 Chronicles 34:9. Such a coming together in their now oppressed land would rapidly efface from Judah and Israel their ancient bitterness and jealousy. The better portion of all the people would see and obey the manifest will of Jehovah, and the rest, having no bond of union, would gradually, like all foolish factions, die and fade away.

4.) The prophets with one voice represent both Judah and Israel as returning together from their exile. More than a century after the fall of Samaria, Judah also was led into exile, and Jeremiah, who flourished at that time, began at once to comfort them with prophecies of a restoration. He says, “The house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto your fathers.” Jeremiah 3:18; comp. 30:3; 33:7. “The children of Israel shall come, they and the children of Judah together, going and weeping: they shall go, and seek the Lord their God.” Jeremiah 50:4. So we may believe that the chastisement of the exile not only cleansed all Israel from idolatry, but also utterly crushed out the old tribal feuds and jealousies. Ezekiel also prophesies: “Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land: and I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all.” Ezekiel 37:21, 22; compare also verses 16-20. Other similar prophecies may be found in these same prophets, and also in Isaiah 11:11-13; 14:1; Hosea 1:11; Micah 2:12. Some of these prophecies are doubtless Messianic; but all have more or less to show that in their exile Judah and Israel became united in all their higher sympathies and hopes, and were thus prepared, whenever opportunity offered, to return together to the land of their fathers.

5.) Finally, all we know of the subsequent history of Israel tends to confirm these prophecies, and to show that in the lands of their exile, and elsewhere, Judah and Israel became largely intermingled. Three successive deportations of Jews seem to have been carried away by Nebuchadnezzar, (2 Kings 24:11-16; 25:11; Jeremiah 52:30,) and yet it is probable that all these captives were not, numerically, a majority of the population of Judah. The vast multitude of the poorer classes were left in the land, (2 Kings 24:14; 25:12,) and some fled to other countries. We have no record of all the localities in which these captives were placed, but as the Babylonian empire under Nebuchadnezzar comprised a large portion of the ancient Assyrian, it is very likely that many of the Jewish exiles were settled in cities and districts already occupied by descendants of those Israelites from the cities of Samaria who had been carried off by the Assyrian kings more than a century before. Ezekiel, a prophet of the Jewish exiles, is made “a watchman unto the house of Israel.” 2 Kings 3:17. When Cyrus issued his proclamation for the Jews to return and rebuild the temple, he had dominion over all the lands into which either Jews or Israelites had been exiled, but he seems to know of no such distinction as “Judah and Israel.” He proclaims, “Who is there among you of all his people,” (Ezra 1:3:) and subsequently Artaxerxes decrees “that all they of the people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites, in my realm, which are minded of their own freewill to go up to Jerusalem,” may return from exile; and Keil well asks, “Who could maintain, with any show of reason, that no one belonging to the ten tribes availed himself of this permission?” In Ezra 2:64, 65, the whole number of those who first returned from the captivity is said to have been forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty, “besides their servants and their maids, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred and thirty-seven;” but the previous list of families, which seems to be “of the fathers of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests, and the Levites,” (2 Kings 1:5,) amounts to only twenty-nine thousand eight hundred and eighteen. Hence it has been plausibly inferred that the gross number, forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty, includes many representatives of the ten tribes. Then in the offerings that were made by the returned exiles at the feast of dedication, “twelve he goats” were offered “for a sin offering for all Israel, according to the number of the tribes of Israel.” Ezra 6:17. Compare, also, 2 Kings 8:35. “There is no doubt,” says Keil, “that the majority of those who returned with Zerubbabel and Ezra belonged to the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi; which may be explained very simply from the fact, that as they had been a much shorter time in exile, they had retained a much stronger longing for the home given by the Lord to their fathers than the tribes that were carried away one hundred and eighty years before.” Hence, too, it is, that since the captivity, the common name for all Israelites, wherever scattered abroad, is Jews. We must also remember that, with the fall of Samaria, Jehovah “caused to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel,” (Hosea 1:4;) it had no longer an existence, but was largely absorbed by Judah; and therefore it is not to be wondered at that no express mention is made of descendants of the ten tribes returning along with Judah from exile. But there were vast multitudes of Judah and Israel that never accepted the offer to return to the fatherland. They chose to remain in their new homes; and subsequently, under Ahasuerus, the Jews are spoken of as “scattered abroad and dispersed among the people in all the provinces” of the Persian empire. Esther 3:8. On the day of Pentecost there were at Jerusalem devout Jews “out of every nation under heaven,” who had been born among, and spoke as their vernacular the languages of, the “Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome.” Acts 2:5-10. Josephus also speaks of the great numbers of Jews who in his time dwelt in Babylon, Mesopotamia, and beyond the Euphrates. Antiquities, 15:2, 2; 3:1; 18:9, 1. Paul speaks of “our twelve tribes,” (Acts 26:7,) and James addresses his epistle “to the twelve tribes scattered abroad;” (James 1:1;) from all which we infer that after the Babylonish exile the old division of “Judah and Israel” became lost, all the scattered tribes became intermixed, no one region held any one tribe or any definite number of tribes, the name of Jews was applied to them all, the ten tribes as a distinct nation had long ceased to exist, and the whole body of Israelites throughout the world became amalgamated into one people, recognising themselves as the descendants and representatives of the twelve ancient tribes.

Verse 24. The king of Assyria brought men from Babylon] He removed one people entirely, and substituted others in their place; and this he did to cut off all occasion for mutiny or insurrection; for the people being removed from their own land, had no object worthy of attention to contend for, and no patrimony in the land of their captivity to induce them to hazard any opposition to their oppressors.

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

From Cuthah] This is supposed to be the same as Cush, the Chaldeans and Syrians changing v shin into t tau; thus they make vwk Cush into twk Cuth; and rwva shshur, Assyria, into rwta Attur. From these came the Scythæ; and from these the Samaritans were called Cuthæans, and their language Cuthite. The original language of this people, or at least the language they spoke after their settlement in Israel, is contained in the Samaritan version of the Pentateuch, printed under the Hebræo-Samaritan in vol. i. of the London Polyglot. This Cuthah was probably the country in the land of Shinar, first inhabited by Cush.

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

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

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

Verse 24. The king of Assyria brought men from Babylon — Which then was subject to the Assyrian monarch, but a few years after revolted from him, and set up another king, as appears from both sacred and profane histories. And from Cuthah, &c. — Several places then in his dominion. It is probable that it was not Shalmaneser, but Esar-haddon, his son and successor, that did this, (Ezra 4:2,) because it was a work of some time; and as his father had projected, and perhaps even begun it, so he executed and finished it, whence it is ascribed to him rather than to his father. And they possessed Samaria, &c. — That is, the whole country in which the ten tribes had dwelt.

ORIGIN OF THE SAMARITANS, 24-41.

24. The king of Assyria brought — This king was Sargon, who tells us in his inscription that he “took and occupied the city of Samaria, and… changed the former government of the country, and placed over it lieutenants of his own.” See the note on verse 6. It appears from Ezra 4:2, that subsequently Esar-haddon also transported colonists to the cities of Samaria. From Babylon — Either from the city or province, for the whole of Babylonia belonged at this time to the Assyrian empire. Cuthah — Called, in verse 30, Cuth. Its site has been the subject of dispute and uncertainty, but G. Rawlinson is confident that it was a city near Babylon whose ruins are now called Ibrahim. He says, (Herodotus, vol. i, p. 515,) “The city was called Digona by Ptolemy, Digba by Pliny, Digubis in the Peutingerian map. The ruins of Cuthah, distant about twelve miles from Babylon, were first discovered by Sir H. Rawlinson in 1846, and have since been repeatedly visited by travellers.” In the Chaldee and the Talmud the Samaritans are called Cuthites, and hence some have thought that the main portion of these colonists came from Cuthah. Compare also Josephus, 9:14, 3. “With almost equal confidence,” adds Rawlinson, (Historical Evidences, p. 341,) “may we pronounce on the position of Ava, of which Winer says, that it is most probably a Mesopotamian town, ‘of which no trace remains in ancient authors, or in modern Oriental topography.’ Ava, or Ivah, (2 Kings 18:34,) is a city dedicated to the god Hea, (Neptune,) which was on the Euphrates, at the extreme northern limit of Babylonia. It is called by the Talmudical writers Ihi, or with an epithet, Ihi-dakira, by Herodotus Is, by the Egyptians Ist, by the Turks and Arabs of the present day Hit. The first corruption of the name may be traced in the Ahava of Ezra, (Ezra 8:15, 21,) where the Jews encamped on their way from Babylon to Jerusalem.” Hamath — On the Orontes. See on Joshua 13:5; 1 Kings 8:65. This city had probably been subjected to Assyria during the reign of Tiglath-pileser. Sepharvaim — Doubtless identical with the Sippara of Ptolemy, which was situated on the Euphrates above Babylon, near the modern Mosaib. The dual form of the name is explained from the fact, noted in the inscriptions, that the city was built on each side of the river. Berosus calls it a city of the sun, and, according to Rawlinson, the inscriptions give it the same name. Hence a reason why “the Sepharvites burnt their children in fire.” Verse 31. They possessed Samaria — And hence their descendants are called, even to this day, Samaritans.

V. 25. Therefore-For their gross neglect, and contempt of God, which was contrary to the principles and practices of the Heathens, who used to worship the gods of the nations where they lived, and gave that honour to their false Gods, which here they denied to the true. Hereby also God asserted his own sovereignty over that land, and made them to understand, that neither the Israelites were cast out, nor they brought in by their valour, or strength, but by God’s providence, who as he had cast the Israelites out for their neglect of God’s service; so both could, and would in his due time, turn them out also, if they were guilty of the same sins.

Verse 25. The Lord sent lions among them] The land being deprived of its inhabitants, wild beasts would necessarily increase, even without any supernatural intervention; and this the superstitious new comers supposed to be a plague sent upon them, because they did not know how to worship him who was the God of the land; for they thought, like other heathens that every district had its own tutelary deity. Yet it is likely that God did send lions as a scourge on this bad people.

Verse 25. And so it was that they feared not the Lord — They did not acknowledge nor worship the true God in any sort. Therefore the Lord sent lions among them — For their gross neglect and contempt of God, which was contrary to the principles and practices of the heathen, who used to worship the gods of the nations where they lived, and gave that honour to their false gods which here they denied to the true. Hereby also God asserted his own sovereignty over that land, and made them to understand that neither the Israelites were cast out, nor they brought in, by their valour or strength, but by God’s providence, who, as he had cast the Israelites out for their neglect of God’s service, so both could and would, in his due time, turn them out also, if they were guilty of the same sins.

Ver. 25. The Lord sent lions among them. The destructive character of the Assyrian wars had so depopulated the countries, that the wild beasts of mount Lebanon multiplied.

25. They feared not the Lord — For they were idolaters, (verses 30, 31,) and knew nothing of Jehovah. The Lord sent lions — The theocratic historian views all calamities as Divine dispensations. Compare Leviticus 26:22. It was very natural that wild beasts should multiply and become dangerous in a region so suddenly and so largely depopulated as was Samaria. And it is probable that the number of the new colonists was much smaller than that of the exiles, and at the beginning of their dwelling there they would be likely to cleave together, and not occupy the wilder districts.

Verse 26. The manner of the God of the land.] cpvm mishpat, the judgment; the way in which the God of the land is to be worshipped.

Verse 26. Wherefore they spake to the king of Assyria, &c. — They wrote, or sent messengers to him, to acquaint him with this grievance, setting forth, it is likely, the loss which their infant colony had sustained by the lions, and the continual fear they were in of them; and that they looked upon it as a judgment sent upon them for not worshipping the God of the land, which they could not, because they knew not how. The God of Israel was the God of the whole earth, but they ignorantly call him the God of the land, imagining him to be like one of their local deities, who were supposed to preside only over particular countries or provinces; and apprehending themselves to be within his reach, as being now in the country in which he governed, and therefore concerned to be upon good terms with him. Herein they shamed the Israelites, who were not so ready to hear the voice of God’s judgments as they were, and who had not served the God of that land, though he was the God of their fathers, and their great benefactor, and though they were well instructed in the manner of his worship. In short, these heathen beg to be taught that which Israelites hated to be taught!

26. The manner of the God of the land — The manner in which he ought to be recognised and worshipped. It was a common doctrine of ancient heathenism that each country had its local deity, its special tutelary god. Therefore he hath sent lions — The idolaters recognise in their distress a divine dispensation.

Verse 27. Carry thither one of the priests] Imperfect as this teaching was, it, in the end, overthrew the idolatry of these people, so that soon after the Babylonish captivity they were found to be as free from idolatry as the Jews themselves, and continue so to the present day. But they are now nearly annihilated: the small remains of them is found at Naplouse and Jaffa; they are about thirty families; and men, women, and children, amount to about two hundred persons! They have a synagogue, which they regularly attend every Sabbath; and they go thither clothed in white robes. The reader may find much curious information relative to this people, in a Memoire sur L’Etat actuel des Samaritains, by Baron Sylvestre de Sacy, 8vo., Paris, 1812.

Verse 27. Then the king of Assyria commanded, Carry thither one of the priests — That is, one of the chief priests, with others under his inspection and direction, as may be gathered from the following words, where it is said of the same person or persons, Let them go, &c, and then, Let him teach, &c. — Nor is it probable that one priest could suffice for the instruction of the inhabitants of so many and distant districts.

ORIGIN OF THE SAMARITANS, 24-41.

24. The king of Assyria brought — This king was Sargon, who tells us in his inscription that he “took and occupied the city of Samaria, and… changed the former government of the country, and placed over it lieutenants of his own.” See the note on verse 6. It appears from Ezra 4:2, that subsequently Esar-haddon also transported colonists to the cities of Samaria. From Babylon — Either from the city or province, for the whole of Babylonia belonged at this time to the Assyrian empire. Cuthah — Called, in verse 30, Cuth. Its site has been the subject of dispute and uncertainty, but G. Rawlinson is confident that it was a city near Babylon whose ruins are now called Ibrahim. He says, (Herodotus, vol. i, p. 515,) “The city was called Digona by Ptolemy, Digba by Pliny, Digubis in the Peutingerian map. The ruins of Cuthah, distant about twelve miles from Babylon, were first discovered by Sir H. Rawlinson in 1846, and have since been repeatedly visited by travellers.” In the Chaldee and the Talmud the Samaritans are called Cuthites, and hence some have thought that the main portion of these colonists came from Cuthah. Compare also Josephus, 9:14, 3. “With almost equal confidence,” adds Rawlinson, (Historical Evidences, p. 341,) “may we pronounce on the position of Ava, of which Winer says, that it is most probably a Mesopotamian town, ‘of which no trace remains in ancient authors, or in modern Oriental topography.’ Ava, or Ivah, (2 Kings 18:34,) is a city dedicated to the god Hea, (Neptune,) which was on the Euphrates, at the extreme northern limit of Babylonia. It is called by the Talmudical writers Ihi, or with an epithet, Ihi-dakira, by Herodotus Is, by the Egyptians Ist, by the Turks and Arabs of the present day Hit. The first corruption of the name may be traced in the Ahava of Ezra, (Ezra 8:15, 21,) where the Jews encamped on their way from Babylon to Jerusalem.” Hamath — On the Orontes. See on Joshua 13:5; 1 Kings 8:65. This city had probably been subjected to Assyria during the reign of Tiglath-pileser. Sepharvaim — Doubtless identical with the Sippara of Ptolemy, which was situated on the Euphrates above Babylon, near the modern Mosaib. The dual form of the name is explained from the fact, noted in the inscriptions, that the city was built on each side of the river. Berosus calls it a city of the sun, and, according to Rawlinson, the inscriptions give it the same name. Hence a reason why “the Sepharvites burnt their children in fire.” Verse 31. They possessed Samaria — And hence their descendants are called, even to this day, Samaritans.

V. 28. Taught them-The manner of God’s worship, as it was practised in Israel; as may be gathered both from the quality of this person, who was an Israelitish priest; and from the place of his residence, Beth-el, a place infamous for the worship of the calves, and from the manner of their making priests by this man’s direction.

Verse 28. Then one of the priests whom they had carried away came, &c. — A prophet would have done them more good, especially as it appears this was but one of the priests of the calves, who therefore chose to dwell at Beth-el. And taught them how they should fear the Lord — That is, the manner of God’s worship as it had been practised in Israel: for as to any thing further, whether respecting their duty to God or man, though he might possibly teach them to know more than they knew before, and to do better than they did, it is not likely he should teach them to know the truth, or to do well, unless he had taught his own people better.

Ver. 28. One of the priests, a son of Aaron, true to his God, succeeded ultimately in teaching those strangers, and in prevailing with them to put away their idols, which could not defend Samaria, nor now protect them from the lions.

28. One of the priests… from Samaria — Probably one of the priests of Jeroboam’s calf-worship, and therefore not Levitical. Compare verse 32, note. As was natural with one of those priests, he came and dwelt in Bethel, which had been the principal seat of the calf-worship, (1 Kings 12:28-33,) and perhaps, as Bahr supposes, he erected there images like the golden calves which had been taken away. Taught them how they should fear the Lord — But taught them very imperfectly, as the sequel shows. As Jeroboam’s attempt to identify or associate the golden calves with the God of the Exodus (1 Kings 12:28) became a sin to Israel, so this priest’s teaching by means of images, or from the standpoint of the old calf-worship, resulted, as the following verses show, in a mixed and confusing system of religion.

Verse 29. Every nation made gods of their own] That is, they made gods after the fashion of those which they had worshipped in their own country.

Verse 29. Howbeit, every nation made gods of their own — Or, worshipped, as the Hebrew word here used sometimes means; of which see Exodus 32:35. That is, they worshipped the gods which they had served in the places from whence they came. And put them in the high places which the Samaritans — That is, which the former inhabitants of the city and kingdom had made.

29. Every nation made gods of their own — While trying to observe the manner of the god of their new country they did not reject or neglect their old divinities. This was no inconsistency for a heathen, for none of these idolaters supposed that the gods of his own land were the only true divinities. Houses of the high places — Which the exiled Israelites had built, and which had been left standing in the various cities of Samaria. The Samaritans in this verse are not the new colonists, but the former Israelitish population, called Samaritans from the name of their capital city.

Verse 30. The men of Babylon made Succoth-benoth] This, literally, signifies the tabernacles of the daughters or young women, and most evidently refers to those public prostitutions of young virgins at the temple of Melitta or Venus among the Babylonians. See at the end of the chapter. See Clarke “2 Kings 17:31”. From benoth it is probable that the word Venus came, the B being changed into V, as is frequently the case, and the th into s, benoth, Venos. The rabbins say that her emblem was a hen with her chickens; see Jarchi on the place.

The men of Cuth made Nergal] This is supposed to have been the solar orb or light. According to the rabbins, his emblem was a cock. See at the end of the chapter. See Clarke “2 Kings 17:31”.

The men of Hamath made Ashima] Perhaps the fire; from אשם asham, to make atonement or to purify. Jarchi says this was in the form of a goat. See below. See Clarke “2 Kings 17:41”.

Verse 30. The men of Babylon made Succoth-benoth, &c. — In this and the following verse are the names of the gods or goddesses which each nation of these new-comers to Samaria and its vicinity set up. The learned are not agreed as to the signification of several of these names, nor is it worth while to spend time in endeavouring to determine it. The reader whose curiosity leads him to wish for information on the subject, may consult Selden, Vossius, and Jurieu. Concerning two or three of them we may observe as follows: The first name signifies, The tabernacles of the daughters, or young women, and, if it be the name of an idol, it was doubtless the same with the imaginary goddess termed Venus by the Greeks and Romans. The Jewish rabbins tell us, she was worshipped under the emblem of a hen and chickens. There is reason to believe, that in these succoth, or tents, young women exposed themselves to prostitution in honour of the Babylonish goddess Melitta. Nergal, worshipped by the Cuthites, or Persians, was probably the fire, or the sun, being derived from rn, ner, light, and llg, galal, to revolve. The Jewish doctors say his idol was represented in the shape of a cock. Adrammelech and Anammelech were only different names for Moloch, as is evident from their burning their children to these idols in the fire. See the Universal History and Calmet. Alas! how vain were these idolaters in their imaginations! It is justly observed by Henry, that our very ignorance concerning these idols teaches us the accomplishment of God’s word by Jeremiah, (Jeremiah 10:11,) that these false gods should all perish. They are all buried in oblivion, while the name of the true God shall continue for ever!

Ver. 30. Succoth-benoth. The learned Selden relieves us here, by saying that the Greeks, as is usual with them, changed the letters B for V, which makes Venoth, Venos, or Venus. The rabbins read here, tabernacula filiarum, daughters of the tabernacle, stars or satellites, or sanctified harlots that surround the temple of the goddess. Herodotus says, that at the festivals the worshippers assemble before the temple, when the lower sort of people prostitute themselves to the goddess, but that the better sort attend only to pay their respects to her.

30. Succoth-benoth — These words mean, in Hebrew, tents of daughters; and most expositors explain them of the tents in which the Babylonian women prostituted themselves in honour of Mylitta, the Assyrian Venus. — Herodotus. But the context shows that Succoth-benoth is the name of an idol, as are Nergal and Ashima; and Furst thinks its etymology must not be sought in Hebrew. Sir H. Rawlinson considers it a modified form of the name of Zir-banit, who was worshipped at Babylon, and is represented in the inscriptions as the wife of Bel-Merodach. “From a passage in the great inscription of Nebuchadnezzar, where the goddess is, as usual, associated with Merodach, it is evident that Zir must be a proper name, and that banit, ‘genitrix,’ is the mere feminine of bann, which, is one of the standard epithets of Merodach. The name, as written in the passage referred to, is Zir Umbanitrya, or ‘Zir, the mother who bore me;’ and it is almost certain, that in this title we must look for the original form of the Succoth-benoth of Scripture, the goddess worshipped by the Babylonian colonists in Samaria.” — RAWLINSON’S Herodotus, vol. i, p. 513. Nergal — This idol is thus described by G. Rawlinson: (Ancient Monarchies, vol. i, p. 136:) “His name is evidently compounded of the two Hamitic roots nir, ‘a man,’ and gula, ‘great;’ so that he is ‘the great man,’ or ‘the great hero.’ He is the special god of war and of hunting, more particularly of the latter. His titles are, ‘the king of battle,’ ‘the champion of the gods,’ ‘the storm ruler,’ ‘the strong begetter,’ ‘the tutelar god of Babylonia;’ and ‘the god of the chase.’ The city peculiarly dedicated to Nergal was Cutha, which is constantly called his city in the inscriptions.” Ashima — Of this idol little is known, and its name is of uncertain etymology. The rabbies assert that it was worshipped under the form of a bare goat, that is, a goat without wool, but this opinion seems to rest on no certain evidence. Possibly Ashima (amyca) is identical with Eshmon, (ˆmva,) the Phenician Esculapius, or god of medicine.

Verse 31. The Avites made Nibhaz] This was supposed to be the same as the Anubis of the Egyptians; and was in form partly of a dog, and partly of a man. A very ancient image of this kind now lies before me: it is cut out of stone, about seven inches high; has the body, legs, and arms, of a man; the head and feet of a dog; the thighs and legs covered with scales; the head crowned with a tiara; the arms crossed upon the breasts, with the fingers clenched. The figure stands upright, and the belly is very protuberant. See below. See Clarke “2 Kings 17:41”.

And Tartak] This is supposed by some to be another name of the same idol; Jarchi says it was in the shape of an ass. Some think these were the representations of the sun in his chariot; Nibhaz representing the solar orb, and Tartak the chariot. See below. See Clarke “2 Kings 17:41”. Adrammelech] From rda adar, glorious, and Ëlm melech, king. Probably the sun.

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

Ver. 31. Burnt their children to Adrammelech. It should read, Adram- Moloch, and Anam-Moloch, as we often find Baal joined to the name of the place where the idol was adored. Thus ended the kingdom of the ten tribes; it began in apostasy and strife, was perpetuated by wars, by superstition, and rivers of blood. This kingdom, according to Usher, continued about two hundred and fifty four years. What other end can be expected of a nation, guided by evil counsel, and supported by wicked means.

31. Nibhaz and Tartak, idols of the Avites, are also unknown, save that rabbinical conjecture assigns to Nibhaz the form of a dog, and to Tartak the form of an ass. Of the character of the gods of Sepharvaim more can be said. The sacrifice of children as burnt offerings to them clearly indicate that they were fire-gods, akin to Molech. Hence Adrammelech and Anammelech would obviously seem to be respectively the male and female deities of fire. “The male and female powers of the sun,” says Rawlinson, “whose worship at Sippara was celebrated throughout the East, were with more than their usual accuracy identified by the Greeks with the Apollo and Diana of their own mythology; and they are, of course, represented in Scripture by the Adrammelech and Anammelech to whom the Sepharvites burnt their children in the fire. The meaning of these Hebrew names is not very certain. Adrammelech may be ‘the fire-king,’ or it may be ‘the royal arranger,’ ediru and gamilu, ‘the arranger’ and ‘benefactor,’ being epithets which, together, are frequently applied to the gods, and which are sufficiently applicable to the sun. Anammelech, for the female sun, cannot be explained, unless it be connected with the name Anunit. The female power of the sun is named Gula or Anunit; but her primitive Babylonian name seems to have been Ai, and it is under that form that she is found in most Babylonian documents to be associated as an object of worship with the sun. It is possible that Ai, Gula, and Anunit may represent the female power of the sun in his three different phases of rising, culminating, and setting, for the names do not appear to be interchangeable, and yet they are equally associated with the sun-god.” — Herodotus, vol. i, p. 497.

V. 32. Sacrificed-Unto the true God: for as to the worship of their own gods, they needed no instruction, and would not permit a person of another religion to minister therein.

Verse 32. Of the lowest of them priests] One priest was not enough for this motley population; and, as the priesthood was probably neither respectable nor lucrative, it was only the lowest of the people who would enter into the employment.

Verse 32. So they feared the Lord — Worshipped him externally in that way which the Israelites had used: having and serving gods of their own besides. And made unto themselves of the lowest of them priests, &c. — See note on 1 Kings 12:31. Which sacrificed in the high places — Unto the true God; for as to the worship of their own gods, they needed no instruction, and would not permit a person of another religion to minister therein.

32. The lowest of them priests — As Jeroboam had done. See note on 1 Kings 12:31. This fact further argues (compare note on verse 28) that the priest who taught these nations the fear of Jehovah was one of Jeroboam’s order.

V. 33. They feared-They worshipped God externally in that way which the Israelites used. But every nation made gods of their own besides.

Verse 33. They feared the Lord, and served their own gods] They did not relinquish their own idolatry but incorporated the worship of the true God with that of their idols. They were afraid of Jehovah, who had sent lions among them; and therefore they offered him a sort of worship that he might not thus afflict them: but they served other gods, devoted themselves affectionately to them, because their worship was such as gratified their grossest passions, and most sinful propensities.

33. Feared the Lord, and served their own gods — This was no inconsistency for them, as it would have been in a true Israelite, who recognised no god but Jehovah. It was the manner, that is, the judgment, the common opinion of the nations represented by these colonists, that in settling in a new country they should acknowledge and fear the god of that country no less than the deities of their native land. See notes on verses 28,

29. Whom they carried away from thence — Rather, whence they carried them away, or, whence they had been carried away.

V. 34. Unto this day-That is, till the time when this book was written, above three hundred years in all, till the time of Alexander the Great, when they were prevailed upon to call away their idols. Former manners-As the Israelites before their captivity, gave these nations an ill example, in serving the Lord, and Baal together; so, or after their former manner, they do unto this day, in the land of their captivity. They fear not-Though they pretended to fear, and serve both the Lord and idols, yet in truth they did not, and do not fear or worship the Lord, but their own calves, or other vain inventions: and God will not accept that mongrel and false worship, which they pretend to give to the true God. Statutes-God’s law delivered to their fathers, and to them, as their inheritance, Psalm 119:111. This is alleged as an evidence, that they did not fear the Lord, whatsoever they pretended, because they lived in the constant breach of his statutes. Israel-A name, signifying his special interest in God, and power with him, which was given to him, not only for himself, but for his posterity also, whom God frequently honours with that name. And by this great favour he aggravates their sin.

Verse 34. Unto this day, &c. — That is, till the time when this book was written, and long after, about three hundred years in all, till the time of Alexander the Great, when Manasseh, brother to Jaddus the high-priest of the Jews, having married the daughter of Sanballat, governor of the Samaritans, went over to them, and, obtaining leave of Alexander to build a temple on mount Gerizim, drew over many of the Jews to him, and prevailed with the Samaritans to cast away their idols, and to worship the God of Israel only. Yet their worship was mixed with so much superstition, that our Lord tells them they knew not what they worshipped. They do after the former manners — As the Israelites, before their captivity, (verse 33,) gave these nations an ill example, in serving the Lord and Baal together; so these nations both worshipped the God of Israel, and those other gods. But, adds the historian, they feared not the Lord — Their pretended fear of him, and serving him together with their idols, was not worthy of the name of piety, or the fear of the Lord: nor would God accept such a mongrel religion and false worship as they offered to him. Neither do they after their statutes — God’s law delivered to the Israelites, and to them as their inheritance, Psalm 119:111. This is alleged as an evidence that they did not fear the Lord, whatsoever they pretended, because they lived in the constant breach of his statutes. Which the Lord commanded the children of Jacob, whom he named Israel — A name signifying Jacob’s special interest in God, and power with him, which was given to him, not only for himself, but for his posterity also, whom God frequently honoured with that name. And by this great favour he aggravates the sin, both of the Israelites, and of those nations planted in their land, who professed to learn their way of worshipping God, and to imitate it.

34. They do — They here refers to the mixed population, composed of the colonists from the several Eastern nations mentioned in the preceding verses. After the former manners — They continued in our historian’s day to practice the mixed religion described in verses 29-33. They fear not the Lord — That is, as is immediately explained, they do not reverence and worship him according to the requirements of that holy law which he gave to the people whom he named Israel. There was at least a portion of them who, like the teaching priest and other Israelites at Beth-el, worshipped Jehovah in connexion with images like the golden calves of Jeroboam; but this was a form of worship so akin to idolatry, and so alien to the requirements of the law, that our author does not attempt to distinguish particularly the different classes of the people, but treats them all as being in irreconcilable antagonism to the statutes and ordinances of the true Israel.

Thus these Samaritans continued till the return of the Jews from exile, when they desired to unite with Zerubbabel and the chief of the fathers in rebuilding the temple at Jerusalem. Ezra 4:2. The latter denied their request, and thenceforth the Samaritans were regarded as “the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin.” They long hindered the rebuilding of the temple, and also opposed Nehemiah in rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem. Nehemiah

4. Subsequently a son of Jehoiada, the high priest, married the daughter of Sanballat the Samaritan governor, (Nehemiah 13:28,) and was expelled from Jerusalem, whereupon he withdrew to the Samaritans, and Sanballat built for him a temple on Mount Gerizim to rival that at Jerusalem. JOSEPHUS, Antiq., 11:8, 2, 4. From this time the Samaritans seem to have gradually abandoned their earlier idolatry, and became thoroughly monotheistic, but the enmity between them and the Jews never ceased. It rather became intensified, and in the time of our Lord the two nations had no dealings with each other. John 4:9. Compare note on Matthew 10:5. A remnant of the Samaritans still linger in the vale of Shechem, and three times a year go up to the top of Mount Gerizim to worship.

ORIGIN OF THE SAMARITANS, 24-41.

24. The king of Assyria brought — This king was Sargon, who tells us in his inscription that he “took and occupied the city of Samaria, and… changed the former government of the country, and placed over it lieutenants of his own.” See the note on verse 6. It appears from Ezra 4:2, that subsequently Esar-haddon also transported colonists to the cities of Samaria. From Babylon — Either from the city or province, for the whole of Babylonia belonged at this time to the Assyrian empire. Cuthah — Called, in verse 30, Cuth. Its site has been the subject of dispute and uncertainty, but G. Rawlinson is confident that it was a city near Babylon whose ruins are now called Ibrahim. He says, (Herodotus, vol. i, p. 515,) “The city was called Digona by Ptolemy, Digba by Pliny, Digubis in the Peutingerian map. The ruins of Cuthah, distant about twelve miles from Babylon, were first discovered by Sir H. Rawlinson in 1846, and have since been repeatedly visited by travellers.” In the Chaldee and the Talmud the Samaritans are called Cuthites, and hence some have thought that the main portion of these colonists came from Cuthah. Compare also Josephus, 9:14, 3. “With almost equal confidence,” adds Rawlinson, (Historical Evidences, p. 341,) “may we pronounce on the position of Ava, of which Winer says, that it is most probably a Mesopotamian town, ‘of which no trace remains in ancient authors, or in modern Oriental topography.’ Ava, or Ivah, (2 Kings 18:34,) is a city dedicated to the god Hea, (Neptune,) which was on the Euphrates, at the extreme northern limit of Babylonia. It is called by the Talmudical writers Ihi, or with an epithet, Ihi-dakira, by Herodotus Is, by the Egyptians Ist, by the Turks and Arabs of the present day Hit. The first corruption of the name may be traced in the Ahava of Ezra, (Ezra 8:15, 21,) where the Jews encamped on their way from Babylon to Jerusalem.” Hamath — On the Orontes. See on Joshua 13:5; 1 Kings 8:65. This city had probably been subjected to Assyria during the reign of Tiglath-pileser. Sepharvaim — Doubtless identical with the Sippara of Ptolemy, which was situated on the Euphrates above Babylon, near the modern Mosaib. The dual form of the name is explained from the fact, noted in the inscriptions, that the city was built on each side of the river. Berosus calls it a city of the sun, and, according to Rawlinson, the inscriptions give it the same name. Hence a reason why “the Sepharvites burnt their children in fire.” Verse 31. They possessed Samaria — And hence their descendants are called, even to this day, Samaritans.

Verse 36. But the Lord] JEHOVAH, the supreme, self-existent, and eternal Being; author of all being and life. This was to be the sole object of their adoration.

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

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

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

And to him shall ye do sacrifice.] Ye shall consider that, as ye have sinned, so ye deserve death; ye shall therefore bring your living victims to the altar of the Lord, and let their life’s blood be poured out there, as an atonement for your souls. We see in this verse three important points: 1. The object of their worship. 2. The reasons of that worship; and, 3. The spirit and manner in which it was to be performed: viz., 1. In fear, 2. Humility; and, 3. By sacrifice.

ORIGIN OF THE SAMARITANS, 24-41.

24. The king of Assyria brought — This king was Sargon, who tells us in his inscription that he “took and occupied the city of Samaria, and… changed the former government of the country, and placed over it lieutenants of his own.” See the note on verse 6. It appears from Ezra 4:2, that subsequently Esar-haddon also transported colonists to the cities of Samaria. From Babylon — Either from the city or province, for the whole of Babylonia belonged at this time to the Assyrian empire. Cuthah — Called, in verse 30, Cuth. Its site has been the subject of dispute and uncertainty, but G. Rawlinson is confident that it was a city near Babylon whose ruins are now called Ibrahim. He says, (Herodotus, vol. i, p. 515,) “The city was called Digona by Ptolemy, Digba by Pliny, Digubis in the Peutingerian map. The ruins of Cuthah, distant about twelve miles from Babylon, were first discovered by Sir H. Rawlinson in 1846, and have since been repeatedly visited by travellers.” In the Chaldee and the Talmud the Samaritans are called Cuthites, and hence some have thought that the main portion of these colonists came from Cuthah. Compare also Josephus, 9:14, 3. “With almost equal confidence,” adds Rawlinson, (Historical Evidences, p. 341,) “may we pronounce on the position of Ava, of which Winer says, that it is most probably a Mesopotamian town, ‘of which no trace remains in ancient authors, or in modern Oriental topography.’ Ava, or Ivah, (2 Kings 18:34,) is a city dedicated to the god Hea, (Neptune,) which was on the Euphrates, at the extreme northern limit of Babylonia. It is called by the Talmudical writers Ihi, or with an epithet, Ihi-dakira, by Herodotus Is, by the Egyptians Ist, by the Turks and Arabs of the present day Hit. The first corruption of the name may be traced in the Ahava of Ezra, (Ezra 8:15, 21,) where the Jews encamped on their way from Babylon to Jerusalem.” Hamath — On the Orontes. See on Joshua 13:5; 1 Kings 8:65. This city had probably been subjected to Assyria during the reign of Tiglath-pileser. Sepharvaim — Doubtless identical with the Sippara of Ptolemy, which was situated on the Euphrates above Babylon, near the modern Mosaib. The dual form of the name is explained from the fact, noted in the inscriptions, that the city was built on each side of the river. Berosus calls it a city of the sun, and, according to Rawlinson, the inscriptions give it the same name. Hence a reason why “the Sepharvites burnt their children in fire.” Verse 31. They possessed Samaria — And hence their descendants are called, even to this day, Samaritans.

ORIGIN OF THE SAMARITANS, 24-41.

24. The king of Assyria brought — This king was Sargon, who tells us in his inscription that he “took and occupied the city of Samaria, and… changed the former government of the country, and placed over it lieutenants of his own.” See the note on verse 6. It appears from Ezra 4:2, that subsequently Esar-haddon also transported colonists to the cities of Samaria. From Babylon — Either from the city or province, for the whole of Babylonia belonged at this time to the Assyrian empire. Cuthah — Called, in verse 30, Cuth. Its site has been the subject of dispute and uncertainty, but G. Rawlinson is confident that it was a city near Babylon whose ruins are now called Ibrahim. He says, (Herodotus, vol. i, p. 515,) “The city was called Digona by Ptolemy, Digba by Pliny, Digubis in the Peutingerian map. The ruins of Cuthah, distant about twelve miles from Babylon, were first discovered by Sir H. Rawlinson in 1846, and have since been repeatedly visited by travellers.” In the Chaldee and the Talmud the Samaritans are called Cuthites, and hence some have thought that the main portion of these colonists came from Cuthah. Compare also Josephus, 9:14, 3. “With almost equal confidence,” adds Rawlinson, (Historical Evidences, p. 341,) “may we pronounce on the position of Ava, of which Winer says, that it is most probably a Mesopotamian town, ‘of which no trace remains in ancient authors, or in modern Oriental topography.’ Ava, or Ivah, (2 Kings 18:34,) is a city dedicated to the god Hea, (Neptune,) which was on the Euphrates, at the extreme northern limit of Babylonia. It is called by the Talmudical writers Ihi, or with an epithet, Ihi-dakira, by Herodotus Is, by the Egyptians Ist, by the Turks and Arabs of the present day Hit. The first corruption of the name may be traced in the Ahava of Ezra, (Ezra 8:15, 21,) where the Jews encamped on their way from Babylon to Jerusalem.” Hamath — On the Orontes. See on Joshua 13:5; 1 Kings 8:65. This city had probably been subjected to Assyria during the reign of Tiglath-pileser. Sepharvaim — Doubtless identical with the Sippara of Ptolemy, which was situated on the Euphrates above Babylon, near the modern Mosaib. The dual form of the name is explained from the fact, noted in the inscriptions, that the city was built on each side of the river. Berosus calls it a city of the sun, and, according to Rawlinson, the inscriptions give it the same name. Hence a reason why “the Sepharvites burnt their children in fire.” Verse 31. They possessed Samaria — And hence their descendants are called, even to this day, Samaritans.

ORIGIN OF THE SAMARITANS, 24-41.

24. The king of Assyria brought — This king was Sargon, who tells us in his inscription that he “took and occupied the city of Samaria, and… changed the former government of the country, and placed over it lieutenants of his own.” See the note on verse 6. It appears from Ezra 4:2, that subsequently Esar-haddon also transported colonists to the cities of Samaria. From Babylon — Either from the city or province, for the whole of Babylonia belonged at this time to the Assyrian empire. Cuthah — Called, in verse 30, Cuth. Its site has been the subject of dispute and uncertainty, but G. Rawlinson is confident that it was a city near Babylon whose ruins are now called Ibrahim. He says, (Herodotus, vol. i, p. 515,) “The city was called Digona by Ptolemy, Digba by Pliny, Digubis in the Peutingerian map. The ruins of Cuthah, distant about twelve miles from Babylon, were first discovered by Sir H. Rawlinson in 1846, and have since been repeatedly visited by travellers.” In the Chaldee and the Talmud the Samaritans are called Cuthites, and hence some have thought that the main portion of these colonists came from Cuthah. Compare also Josephus, 9:14, 3. “With almost equal confidence,” adds Rawlinson, (Historical Evidences, p. 341,) “may we pronounce on the position of Ava, of which Winer says, that it is most probably a Mesopotamian town, ‘of which no trace remains in ancient authors, or in modern Oriental topography.’ Ava, or Ivah, (2 Kings 18:34,) is a city dedicated to the god Hea, (Neptune,) which was on the Euphrates, at the extreme northern limit of Babylonia. It is called by the Talmudical writers Ihi, or with an epithet, Ihi-dakira, by Herodotus Is, by the Egyptians Ist, by the Turks and Arabs of the present day Hit. The first corruption of the name may be traced in the Ahava of Ezra, (Ezra 8:15, 21,) where the Jews encamped on their way from Babylon to Jerusalem.” Hamath — On the Orontes. See on Joshua 13:5; 1 Kings 8:65. This city had probably been subjected to Assyria during the reign of Tiglath-pileser. Sepharvaim — Doubtless identical with the Sippara of Ptolemy, which was situated on the Euphrates above Babylon, near the modern Mosaib. The dual form of the name is explained from the fact, noted in the inscriptions, that the city was built on each side of the river. Berosus calls it a city of the sun, and, according to Rawlinson, the inscriptions give it the same name. Hence a reason why “the Sepharvites burnt their children in fire.” Verse 31. They possessed Samaria — And hence their descendants are called, even to this day, Samaritans.

ORIGIN OF THE SAMARITANS, 24-41.

24. The king of Assyria brought — This king was Sargon, who tells us in his inscription that he “took and occupied the city of Samaria, and… changed the former government of the country, and placed over it lieutenants of his own.” See the note on verse 6. It appears from Ezra 4:2, that subsequently Esar-haddon also transported colonists to the cities of Samaria. From Babylon — Either from the city or province, for the whole of Babylonia belonged at this time to the Assyrian empire. Cuthah — Called, in verse 30, Cuth. Its site has been the subject of dispute and uncertainty, but G. Rawlinson is confident that it was a city near Babylon whose ruins are now called Ibrahim. He says, (Herodotus, vol. i, p. 515,) “The city was called Digona by Ptolemy, Digba by Pliny, Digubis in the Peutingerian map. The ruins of Cuthah, distant about twelve miles from Babylon, were first discovered by Sir H. Rawlinson in 1846, and have since been repeatedly visited by travellers.” In the Chaldee and the Talmud the Samaritans are called Cuthites, and hence some have thought that the main portion of these colonists came from Cuthah. Compare also Josephus, 9:14, 3. “With almost equal confidence,” adds Rawlinson, (Historical Evidences, p. 341,) “may we pronounce on the position of Ava, of which Winer says, that it is most probably a Mesopotamian town, ‘of which no trace remains in ancient authors, or in modern Oriental topography.’ Ava, or Ivah, (2 Kings 18:34,) is a city dedicated to the god Hea, (Neptune,) which was on the Euphrates, at the extreme northern limit of Babylonia. It is called by the Talmudical writers Ihi, or with an epithet, Ihi-dakira, by Herodotus Is, by the Egyptians Ist, by the Turks and Arabs of the present day Hit. The first corruption of the name may be traced in the Ahava of Ezra, (Ezra 8:15, 21,) where the Jews encamped on their way from Babylon to Jerusalem.” Hamath — On the Orontes. See on Joshua 13:5; 1 Kings 8:65. This city had probably been subjected to Assyria during the reign of Tiglath-pileser. Sepharvaim — Doubtless identical with the Sippara of Ptolemy, which was situated on the Euphrates above Babylon, near the modern Mosaib. The dual form of the name is explained from the fact, noted in the inscriptions, that the city was built on each side of the river. Berosus calls it a city of the sun, and, according to Rawlinson, the inscriptions give it the same name. Hence a reason why “the Sepharvites burnt their children in fire.” Verse 31. They possessed Samaria — And hence their descendants are called, even to this day, Samaritans.

ORIGIN OF THE SAMARITANS, 24-41.

24. The king of Assyria brought — This king was Sargon, who tells us in his inscription that he “took and occupied the city of Samaria, and… changed the former government of the country, and placed over it lieutenants of his own.” See the note on verse 6. It appears from Ezra 4:2, that subsequently Esar-haddon also transported colonists to the cities of Samaria. From Babylon — Either from the city or province, for the whole of Babylonia belonged at this time to the Assyrian empire. Cuthah — Called, in verse 30, Cuth. Its site has been the subject of dispute and uncertainty, but G. Rawlinson is confident that it was a city near Babylon whose ruins are now called Ibrahim. He says, (Herodotus, vol. i, p. 515,) “The city was called Digona by Ptolemy, Digba by Pliny, Digubis in the Peutingerian map. The ruins of Cuthah, distant about twelve miles from Babylon, were first discovered by Sir H. Rawlinson in 1846, and have since been repeatedly visited by travellers.” In the Chaldee and the Talmud the Samaritans are called Cuthites, and hence some have thought that the main portion of these colonists came from Cuthah. Compare also Josephus, 9:14, 3. “With almost equal confidence,” adds Rawlinson, (Historical Evidences, p. 341,) “may we pronounce on the position of Ava, of which Winer says, that it is most probably a Mesopotamian town, ‘of which no trace remains in ancient authors, or in modern Oriental topography.’ Ava, or Ivah, (2 Kings 18:34,) is a city dedicated to the god Hea, (Neptune,) which was on the Euphrates, at the extreme northern limit of Babylonia. It is called by the Talmudical writers Ihi, or with an epithet, Ihi-dakira, by Herodotus Is, by the Egyptians Ist, by the Turks and Arabs of the present day Hit. The first corruption of the name may be traced in the Ahava of Ezra, (Ezra 8:15, 21,) where the Jews encamped on their way from Babylon to Jerusalem.” Hamath — On the Orontes. See on Joshua 13:5; 1 Kings 8:65. This city had probably been subjected to Assyria during the reign of Tiglath-pileser. Sepharvaim — Doubtless identical with the Sippara of Ptolemy, which was situated on the Euphrates above Babylon, near the modern Mosaib. The dual form of the name is explained from the fact, noted in the inscriptions, that the city was built on each side of the river. Berosus calls it a city of the sun, and, according to Rawlinson, the inscriptions give it the same name. Hence a reason why “the Sepharvites burnt their children in fire.” Verse 31. They possessed Samaria — And hence their descendants are called, even to this day, Samaritans.

V. 41. So-In like manner, and after their example. These-Who came in their stead.

Verse 41. So do they unto this day.] This must have been written before the Babylonish captivity; because, after that time, none of the Israelites ever lapsed into idolatry. But this may chiefly refer to the heathenish people who were sent to dwell among the remains of the ten tribes. ON these nations and the objects of their worship, I present my readers with the following extracts from Dodd and Parkhurst.

Ver. 30. The men of Babylon made Succoth-benoth. We have here an account of the idols which were consecrated by the different nations, transplanted by the king of Assyria to Samaria. It is difficult, however, and has afforded a large field for conjecture, to give any satisfactory account concerning them. The reader will find in Selden, Vossius, and Jurieu, much upon the subject. Succoth-benoth may be literally translated, The Tabernacles of the Daughters, or Young Women; or if Benoth be taken as the name of a female idol, from hnb to build up, procreate children, then the words will express the tabernacles sacred to the productive powers feminine. And, agreeably to this latter exposition, the rabbins say that the emblem was a hen and chickens. But however this may be, there is no room to doubt that these succoth were tabernacles wherein young women exposed themselves to prostitution in honour of the Babylonish goddess Melitta. Herodotus, (lib. i., c. 199,) gives us a particular account of this detestable service. “Every young woman,” says he, “of the country of Babylon must once in her life sit at the temple of Venus, [whom he afterwards tells us the Assyrians called Melitta,] and prostitute herself to some stranger. Those who are rich, and so disdain to mingle with the crowd, present themselves before the temple in covered chariots, attended by a great retinue. But the generality of the women sit near the temple, having crowns upon their heads, and holding a cord, some continually coming, others going. [See Baruch vi. 43.] The cords are held by them in such a manner as to afford a free passage among the women, that the strangers may choose whom they like. A woman who has once seated herself in this place must not return home till some stranger has cast money into her lap, and led her from the temple, and defiled her. The stranger who throws the money must say, ‘I invoke the goddess Melitta for thee.’ The money, however small a sum it may be, must not be refused, because it is appointed to sacred uses. [See Deuteronomy 23:18.] The woman must follow the first man that offers, and not reject him; and after prostitution, having now duly honoured the goddess, she is dismissed to her own house. In Cyprus,” adds the historian, “they have the same custom.” This abomination, implied by Succoth-benoth, the men of Babylon brought with them into the country of Samaria; and both the name of the idol Melitta, and the execrable service performed to her honour, show that by Melitta was originally intended the procreative or productive power of nature, the Venus of the Greeks and Romans. See the beginning of Lucretius’s first book Deuteronomy Rerum Natura. Mr. Selden imagines that some traces of the Succoth-benoth may be found in Sicca Veneria, the name of a city of Numidia, not far from the borders of Africa Propria. The name itself bears a near allusion to the obscene custom above taken notice of, and seems to have been transported from Phœnicia: nor can this well be disputed, when we consider that here was a temple where women were obliged to purchase their marriage-money by the prostitution of their bodies. See Univ. Hist., vol. xvii., p. 295, and Parkhurst’s Lexicon on the word Ës. The men of Cuth made Nergal.-Cuth was a province of Assyria, which, according to some, lies upon the Araxis: but others rather think it to be the same with Cush, which is said by Moses to be encompassed with the river Gihon; and must, therefore, be the same with the country which the Greeks call Susiana, and which to this day is called by the inhabitants Chusesta. Their idol, Nergal, seems to have been the sun, as the causer of the diurnal and annual revolutions of the planets; for it is naturally derived from rn ner, light, and by lg gal, to revolve. The rabbins say that the idol was represented in the shape of a cock; and probably they tell us the truth, for this seems a very proper emblem. Among the latter heathens we find the cock was sacred to Apollo or the sun, (see Pierii Hieroglyph., p. 223,) “because,” says Heliodorus, speaking of the time when cocks crow, “by a natural sensation of the sun’s revolution to us, they are incited to salute the god.” Æthiop. lib. i. And perhaps under this name, Nergal, they meant to worship the sun, not only for the diurnal return of its light upon the earth, but also for its annual return or revolution. We may observe that the emblem, a cock, is affected by the latter as well as by the former, and is frequently crowing both day and night, when the days begin to lengthen. See Calmet’s Dictionary under the word, and Parkhurst’s Lexicon. The men of Hamath made Ashima.-There are several cities and countries which go under the name of Hamath; but what we take to be here meant is that province of Syria which lies upon the Orontes, wherein there was a city of the same name; which when Shalmaneser had taken, he removed the inhabitants from thence into Samaria. Their idol Ashima signifies the atoner or expiator, from אשם asham. The word is in a Chaldee form, and seems to be the same as שמרונ אשמת ashmath Shomeron, the sin of Samaria, mentioned Amos 8:14, where ashmath is rendered by the LXX. propitiation. It is known to every one who has the least acquaintance with the mythology of the heathen, how strongly and universally they retained the tradition of an atonement or expiation for sin, although they expected it from a false object and wrong means. We find it expressed in very clear terms among the Romans even so late as the time of Horace, lib. i., ode 2:—

Cui dabit partes scelus expiandi

Jupiter?

And whom, to expiate the horrid guilt,

Will Jove appoint?

The answer is, “Apollo,” the god of light. Some think that, as Asuman or Suman, [Persian] asman, in the Persian language, signifies heaven, the Syrians might from hence derive the name of this god; who, they suppose, was represented by a large stone pillar terminating in a conic or pyramidical figure, whereby they denoted fire. See Parkhurst on the word אשם asham, Calmet’s Dictionary, and Tennison on Idolatry.

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

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

II KINGS

Verse 41. So these nations feared the Lord, &c. — Namely, the nations that came in the place of the Israelites. They followed their example, and acted as they had done, endeavouring to unite things perfectly irreconcilable, the worship of the true God and the worship of idols.

ORIGIN OF THE SAMARITANS, 24-41.

24. The king of Assyria brought — This king was Sargon, who tells us in his inscription that he “took and occupied the city of Samaria, and… changed the former government of the country, and placed over it lieutenants of his own.” See the note on verse 6. It appears from Ezra 4:2, that subsequently Esar-haddon also transported colonists to the cities of Samaria. From Babylon — Either from the city or province, for the whole of Babylonia belonged at this time to the Assyrian empire. Cuthah — Called, in verse 30, Cuth. Its site has been the subject of dispute and uncertainty, but G. Rawlinson is confident that it was a city near Babylon whose ruins are now called Ibrahim. He says, (Herodotus, vol. i, p. 515,) “The city was called Digona by Ptolemy, Digba by Pliny, Digubis in the Peutingerian map. The ruins of Cuthah, distant about twelve miles from Babylon, were first discovered by Sir H. Rawlinson in 1846, and have since been repeatedly visited by travellers.” In the Chaldee and the Talmud the Samaritans are called Cuthites, and hence some have thought that the main portion of these colonists came from Cuthah. Compare also Josephus, 9:14, 3. “With almost equal confidence,” adds Rawlinson, (Historical Evidences, p. 341,) “may we pronounce on the position of Ava, of which Winer says, that it is most probably a Mesopotamian town, ‘of which no trace remains in ancient authors, or in modern Oriental topography.’ Ava, or Ivah, (2 Kings 18:34,) is a city dedicated to the god Hea, (Neptune,) which was on the Euphrates, at the extreme northern limit of Babylonia. It is called by the Talmudical writers Ihi, or with an epithet, Ihi-dakira, by Herodotus Is, by the Egyptians Ist, by the Turks and Arabs of the present day Hit. The first corruption of the name may be traced in the Ahava of Ezra, (Ezra 8:15, 21,) where the Jews encamped on their way from Babylon to Jerusalem.” Hamath — On the Orontes. See on Joshua 13:5; 1 Kings 8:65. This city had probably been subjected to Assyria during the reign of Tiglath-pileser. Sepharvaim — Doubtless identical with the Sippara of Ptolemy, which was situated on the Euphrates above Babylon, near the modern Mosaib. The dual form of the name is explained from the fact, noted in the inscriptions, that the city was built on each side of the river. Berosus calls it a city of the sun, and, according to Rawlinson, the inscriptions give it the same name. Hence a reason why “the Sepharvites burnt their children in fire.” Verse 31. They possessed Samaria — And hence their descendants are called, even to this day, Samaritans.