The people itself could not, however, be so much influenced by the moral depravity of the nobles as to allow it to obtain full sway. Morality, justice and pure worship of God still had followers, who protested more and more strongly against the vices practised by the great, and who, though in humble positions, knew how to obtain a hearing. Although almost a century had passed since the prophet Elijah, with flowing hair, declaimed against the sins of Ahab and Jezebel, the prophetic societies which he had founded still existed, and acted according to his spirit and with his energy. The young, who are generally readier to receive ideal impressions, felt a disgust at the increasing moral ruin which came on them, and assembled round the prophetic disciples in Bethel, Gilgal and Jericho. The generation which Elisha had reared and taught adopted the external symbols of prophecy, pursuing the same abstentious mode of life, and wearing long-flowing hair; but they did not stop at such outward signs, but raised their voices against the religious errors, against luxury and immorality. Sons became the moral judges of their fathers. Youths gave up drinking wine, whilst the men revelled in the drinking places. The youthful troop of prophets took the place of the warning voice of conscience. In the presence of king and nobles, they preached in the public assemblies against the worship of Baal, against immorality and the heartlessness of the great. Did their numbers shield them from persecution, or were there amongst the ranks of the prophets sons of the great, against whom it was impossible to proceed with severity? Or was King Jeroboam more patient than the accursed Jezebel, who had slaughtered the prophets' disciples by hundreds? Or did he disregard and ignore their words? In any case, it is noteworthy that the zealous youths remained unharmed. The revellers merely compelled them to drink wine and forbade them to preach; they derided the moral reformers who exposed their wrongdoings, but they did not persecute them.
One of the prophets in the kingdom of the Ten Tribes made use of this freedom of speech; he was the first of a succession of prophets who combined great and poetic thought with evenly flowing rhythm of diction, and made kings and grandees as well as the people wince under their incisive words of truth. It was Amos of Tekoa. Amos did not belong to the prophetic guild, he was no prophetic disciple, and probably neither wore a garment of haircloth, like Elijah, nor let his hair grow long, but was a simple herdsman and planter of sycamores. Whilst tending his herds, the prophetic spirit came mightily upon him, and he could not refrain from appearing in public. "God spake to him, and in him, how should he not prophesy?" The prophetic spirit urged him to repair to Bethel, and there, in the temporary capital of King Jeroboam II., he declaimed against the perversions and vices of the nobles, and opened their eyes to the consequences of their evil deeds. That a countryman, clad in shepherd's garb, dared speak publicly, could not help creating sensation in Bethel. A high degree of culture must have prevailed in those days in Samaria, when a shepherd was able to speak in beautiful, rhythmic utterances, and was understood, or at least expected to be understood, by the people. The speeches of Amos and those of his successors combine the eloquence and comprehensibility of prose with the metre and the rhythm of poetry. Metaphors and imagery lend additional solemnity to their diction. It is therefore difficult to decide whether these utterances should be classed as prose or as poetry. In place of a more suitable description, they may be designated as beautifully formed poetic eloquence. The orations of Amos, however, did not fail to betray his station. He used similes taken from his shepherd life. They showed that, while tending his flocks, he often listened to the roaring of the lion, and studied the stars in his night-watches. But these peculiarities only lent a special charm to his speeches. Amos came to Bethel before the earthquake occurred, and he predicted the event in words of prophetic foresight. The earthquake thereupon followed, with all its accompanying terrors, and carried desolation everywhere. The subsequent plagues of drought, sterility, and locusts afflicted the kingdom of the Ten Tribes equally with the kingdom of Judah. Amos, and with him all right-minded people, expected that these visitations would effect a reform, putting an end to the hideous excesses of the wealthy and their cruel oppression and persecution of the poor. But no improvement took place, and Amos inveighed against the impenitent sinners in the severest terms. He reproved the men who ridiculed his prophetic utterances. He denounced those who, relying on their power or their piety or their nobility of descent, felt themselves unassailable. (Amos v. 4–15, vi. 1–8.)
Against such daring speeches, directed even against the royal house, the high priest of Bethel, Amaziah, felt it his duty to take measures. Either from indifference or out of respect for the prophet, King Jeroboam seems hitherto to have allowed him unlimited sway; but even now, when Amaziah called his attention to the prophet's dangerous upbraidings, he appears to have remained unmoved. At all events, the prophet was not interfered with, except that the high priest, probably in the king's name, said to him, "Go thou, haste to Judah; eat thy bread and prophesy there, but in Bethel thou mayest not remain, for it is the sanctuary of the king, and the capital of the kingdom." Amos did not permit himself to be interrupted in his preaching further than to say, "I am no prophet and no prophetic disciple, but only a shepherd and planter; but the Lord spake unto me, 'Go, prophesy unto my people Israel.'" In the strongest language, he concluded with a threat of punishment. It is noteworthy that he did not protest against the evil deeds in Judah with the same energy, but rather displayed a certain leniency towards the kingdom governed by the house of David. He entered into no particulars concerning the sins which were rife there, but only spoke of them in general terms. He predicted a happy future for the kingdom of Judah, while predicting woe to Israel.
"Behold, the eyes of the Lord God are upon the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from off the face of the earth; saving that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith the Lord."
When contemplating in his prophetic vision the new plagues which would descend upon the land, he interceded with prayer in behalf of Judah, exclaiming, "Lord God, cease, I beseech thee; how shall Jacob rise, since he is so small?" (Amos vii. 2, 5.)
The state of weakness into which Judah had fallen since the death of Amaziah, and from which it had not yet recovered in the first years of Uzziah's reign, filled the prophet Amos with compassion. He did not wish to discourage the nation and the court still further, but prophesied the future reunion of the tribes under the house of David.
At this time another prophet arose in Jerusalem, named Joel, the son of Pethuel. Most of the prophets were of obscure origin, and returned to obscurity without leaving a trace of their individuality, which was entirely merged in their deeds or works. Joel appeared at a time when all minds had been terrified and driven into a condition of despair bordering on stupor, by the repeated attacks of the Idumæans and neighbouring nations, and the subsequent plagues of earthquake, drought and locusts. The inhabitants of Jerusalem and the country were wearing themselves away in long fasts and lamentations; they tore their garments as a sign of mourning, and assembled around the Temple with cries and supplications to avert Divine anger, and the priests were equally despondent. Joel, therefore, had a different task from that of Amos; not to censure and blame the people was his mission, but to raise and cheer up the despondent, and to arouse those whom despair had stupefied. He did not openly denounce, but merely hinted at the sins and errors of the nation, alluding to the drunkards now left without wine, pointing to the external repentance which contented itself with torn garments and left the heart untouched, and scorning the popular notion that the Deity could not be appeased without sacrifices. Joel had to exert the whole power of his eloquence in order to convince the nation that God's mercy had not departed from them, that Zion was yet His holy mountain; that He would not deliver up His people to disgrace; that He was long-suffering and full of mercy, and would relieve them from their misfortunes without their burnt-offerings and fasts.
Joel's oratorical power was, perhaps, even greater than that of Amos. His highly coloured description of the ravages of the locusts and the accompanying calamities is a stirring picture; the reader feels himself to be an eye-witness. The extant production of Joel's prophetic eloquence, with its rhythm and metre and even a certain strophic structure, also occupies the middle between poetry and prose. The only speech of his which has been preserved is divided into two halves; in the one half he describes the misfortunes of the nation, blames their perverted ideas, and points out wherein their conversion must consist; and in the other, he seeks to fill their hearts with a joyous hope for the future. Joel endeavoured to carry his trembling, wailing and despondent hearers, who had collected on the Temple Mount, beyond the narrow boundaries of their present sorrow to a higher view of life. He told them that God had sent the plagues as forerunners of a time full of earnestness and awe, of a day great and fearful, destined to purify them and lead to a higher moral order. The sorrows of the present would pass away and be forgotten. Then the great day of the Lord would dawn.
Joel also predicted political changes, when the enslaved Jews of Judah and Jerusalem, whom Philistines and Tyrians had sold to the slave-trading Ionians, who again on their part had scattered them far and wide, should again return. The peoples who had committed acts of cruelty would be severely punished in the Valley of Justice (Emek Jehoshaphat), where God would pronounce judgment on all nations. Then Egypt and Idumæa would become deserts, because they had shed the innocent blood of the Judæans; but Judah and Jerusalem would be inhabited throughout all generations. Then a higher moral order would begin, and all creatures would be filled with the divine spirit of prophecy.
"And it shall come to pass afterwards that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions. And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit." (Joel iii. 1–2.)
The wish which has been attributed to Moses (Numbers xi. 29) will, according to Joel's prophecy, be realized at some future time. Not only Israelites born in the land, but also the strangers, who lived as slaves in their families, would have a share in this kingdom of God, and would become worthy of the gift of prophecy. Thus the prophetic vision began to roam beyond the national barriers.
Hosea, son of Beeri, the third prophet of Jeroboam's and Uzziah's times, spoke yet more decidedly against the kingdom of the Ten Tribes, and in favour of the house of Jacob. Nothing is known of his life and actions; we are not even told in which kingdom he delivered his speeches. It is, however, probable that the scene of his activity was Bethel or Samaria. Whilst Amos made moral corruption the main object of his rebuke and scorn, Hosea declaimed against the religious defection of the kingdom of the Ten Tribes, which had returned to the worship of Baal. He did not possess the wealth of expression nor the metrical evenness of his two contemporaries. His eloquence comes nearer the form of common prose; it is more amplified, more fluent, but also more artificial; it likes the interweaving of allegorical names, in which Hosea probably followed the style of the prophetic school from which he appears to have come. He started from one simile, which he applied in a twofold manner. He represented the introduction of the Baal worship in the Ten Tribes as the conduct of a faithless wife, and compared the future return of the people to God, which he predicted, to the return to the path of duty of a repentant and abashed adulteress. This his theme he premised with an introduction. In a prophetic vision, he said, he received the command to take to himself an adulterous wife. Following this command, he married a woman of evil repute, who bore him three children—a son, Jezreel, a daughter, whom he called "Unloved" (Lo-Ruchamah), and a second son, named "Not-My-Nation" (Lo-Ammi). The prophet explained these metaphorical names; thus, Jezreel meant two things—in the first place, that God would visit on the house of Jehu the blood that their forefather had shed in Jezreel; and further, Jezreel denoted that God would destroy the armies of Israel in the Valley of Jezreel. The name of the daughter meant that God would no longer care for the house of Israel; and, lastly, the name of the second son denoted that the God of Israel had deserted the nation, and would no longer be its God. After this introduction and its interpretation, the prophet began his address:
Then the prophet depicts the entire extent of the faithlessness of the house of Israel,—that adulteress who pursues her lover (Baal), in the belief that her riches and her plenty had come from him, forgetting that God had endowed her with the corn and wine, the silver and gold which she was wasting on the idol Baal; God would therefore deprive her of everything, and not leave her even sufficient clothes to cover her body. In her need she would be overcome by repentance, and say, "I will return to my first love, for then it was better with me than now." The prophet then pictures the return of the faithless wife, who would remorsefully recognise the whole extent of her past wickedness, and, turning to her husband, would call him "My husband," for the name "lord" (Baal) would have become hateful to her. (Hosea ii.)
Reconciled with his betrothed (the nation), the Lord would again show mercy to her, as in the days of the exodus from Egypt; from the desert he would again lead her to her land, and she would once more sing psalms of praise as in the time of her youth, and in the days when she went forth from Egypt. The renewed covenant between her God and her would shield her from the wild beasts, and bow and sword and war would be no more. Jezreel, the ominous name, would receive an auspicious meaning (planted in the land); the "Unloved" would be once more the "Beloved," and "Not-My-Nation" would again become "My-Nation" and would acknowledge his God.
In unrolling a glowing picture of the future of the Ten Tribes, Hosea did not desire to mislead his hearers into the belief that such a time was close at hand. In a second oration, which has probably not been fully preserved, he predicts that many unhappy days would intervene before the return of the Ten Tribes and their expiation. This speech he also introduced with the account of a vision. God had commanded him again to take a much-beloved, yet faithless wife. She was not to bear him children, but he was to keep himself apart from her, nor permit her to associate with other men. This vision denoted that, though God loved the Israelitish nation, she had, forgetting all ties of honour and duty, given her love to other gods. And it denoted further, that the sons of Israel would remain long without a king or a prince, without an altar or columns, without an ephod, as well as without house-gods (Teraphim); till at last, purified by severe trials, she would return to her God—in the latter days. Hosea prophesied the total destruction of the kingdom of the Ten Tribes. On the other hand, he laid even more stress than his contemporaries on the continuance of the house of David and the kingdom of Judah, at the same time reproaching King Uzziah for the importance which he attached to his warlike preparations.
Corruption in the one kingdom and misfortunes in the other brought from the hidden depths the precious ore of prophetic eloquence, which was destined to obtain wide-reaching influence. The sins of Ahab and Jezebel aroused Elijah; the evil deeds of Jeroboam II. and his nobles drew Amos away from his flocks, and brought Hosea out of his quiet life into publicity, to communicate in a fascinating form the thoughts which possessed their souls. Their fears and hopes, their thoughts and convictions, became thenceforth the common property of the many whom they inspired and ennobled. Anxiously listening disciples of the prophet imprinted these prophetic lessons on their memories or recorded them in writing. They formed the first pages of that prophetic literature, which was destined to stir up the indolent nations of the earth. By picturing, though only in dim outlines, the prospect of a better future, the prophetic wizards, Amos, Hosea and Joel, have insured the permanence of the nation from which they sprung; for a nation which looks confidently forward to a happy future is safe against destruction, and does not permit itself to be crushed by the most terrible trials of the present. One of these prophets—Joel or Hosea—pictured an ideal of the future, to which the noblest minds have clung, and to which they still hold fast. (Isaiah ii. 2–4.)
That grand picture of everlasting peace—to be founded on the teachings of Israel—which will transform the deadly instruments of war into implements of life-giving labour, excels all works of art that will ever charm the eyes and hearts of mankind. The Israelitish prophets have predicted that this high morality of the nations of the earth will be the outcome of the law which will go forth to them from Zion.
The hostile attitude which the two prophets of the kingdom of Israel assumed towards the house of Jehu was not without effect. Just as Elisha and his disciples raised up an enemy against the Omris, so were the attempts against the last of the Jehuides probably the outcome of Amos's and Hosea's fiery opposition.
Jeroboam II. died in peace, at an advanced age and after a long and happy reign, but no sooner had his son Zechariah ascended the throne (769), than a conspiracy was formed against him. The ringleader was Shallum, son of Jabesh, who killed the fourth descendant of Jehu in Ibleam. Zechariah reigned only a few months. His murderer, following the example set by Jehu in dealing with the house of Ahab, destroyed the house of Jeroboam II., sparing neither women nor children. Shallum then went to Samaria in order to take possession of the throne and kingdom, but he maintained his position only one month. A conspiracy was also instituted against him by Menahem, the son of Gadi, a former inhabitant of the capital Tirzah. He proceeded towards Samaria, and was admitted into the capital without difficulty. He killed Shallum (768), but no doubt met with greater opposition than he expected. Although the capital opened its gates to him, other towns did not immediately submit. The town of Tiphsah (Tapuach) shut its doors against him. Menahem, however, was more daring than his predecessor, and united with his courage the utmost hardness of heart. He laid siege to the rebellious city, and, having compelled it to surrender, he executed the entire population—men, women, and children, not even sparing pregnant women. After this massacre he proceeded to Samaria, where he seized upon the throne of the Jehuides. A chief who displayed cruelty such as this could hardly expect to win all hearts. Menahem appears to have abolished the worship of Baal. The worship of the bull, however, was still continued. During his reign the fate of the Ten Tribes was influenced by a powerful kingdom which was destined to put an end to the house of Israel.
If the better elements of that house might have felt inclined to follow the intimations of the prophet, and turn to the house of Judah for remedy, they met here with conditions equally repulsive. Internal dissensions broke out under Uzziah, which, it appears, were purposely ignored. Uzziah's aim was wholly and solely directed to military affairs—the acquisition of bows, shields, and spears. Spiritual interests were far from his mind, or perhaps were even distasteful to him. To the Aaronides he undoubtedly gave frequent offence, the former harmony between royalty and priesthood having received a severe shock in the latter days of his grandfather Joash. Any endeavour on the part of the king to extend his sway over the Temple would have met with the opposition of the anointed high priests, whose authority rested on claims equal to those of the descendants of David. It is certain that in the latter years of Uzziah's government conflicts arose between him and the high priest Azariah, similar to those between King Joash and Zechariah. In order to deprive the high priest of his prestige, Uzziah took a bold step. He entered the sanctuary and began to light the incense-burner on the golden altar, an act which was the especial privilege and duty of the high priest. The indignation of the Aaronides ran high. The high priest, Azariah, who together with eighty priests hastened after the king into the sanctuary, angrily reproved him, saying, "It is not for thee, O Uzziah, to bring incense, but only for the anointed priest of Aaron's family. Leave the sanctuary: thou art guilty of desecration, and it will not be for thy honour from the Lord."
What followed is wrapt in obscurity. Uzziah in the latter years of his reign was attacked by leprosy, and had to be kept in a special house for the rest of his days. The nation considered this illness as a divine punishment for his daring to perform the rites of the priesthood.
In this contest between the sacerdotal and royal houses the former was triumphant, for it possessed the law as its weapon, and this was of greater avail than the sword. But another spiritual power was soon to enter the contest against the priesthood.
King Menahem—The Babylonians and the Assyrians—Pekah—Jotham's reign—Isaiah of Jerusalem—His style and influence—His first public address—Later speeches—Their immediate and permanent effect—His disciples—Their characteristics—Zechariah—His prophecies.
758–740 B. C. E.
While Uzziah was compelled by his disease to pass his last years in solitude, his youthful son Jotham managed the affairs of the kingdom. In the kingdom of the Ten Tribes, Menahem, the cruel usurper (768–758), was probably ruling with an iron hand. Both kingdoms continued in the same grooves, unconscious of the fact that in the distant horizon storm-laden clouds were gathering which would discharge themselves on them with fearful effect. From the north, from the districts of the Euphrates and Tigris, heavy trials were approaching for the people of both kingdoms.
No sooner had the Assyrians extended their territory in the north, east and west, than they turned their attention to the south. They intended, in the first place, to gain possession of the sea-coast of the Phœnicians, and thus obtain control over the wealth of that commercial nation. The next point in view was Egypt, the wealth and renown of which attracted their ambition. For the first time an Assyrian army appeared on Israelitish ground, when King Pul invaded Samaria. King Menahem did not dare summon his forces against the mighty Assyrian hosts. The internal confusion must have crippled his powers to such an extent that he could not think of resistance. The curse of the regicide rested heavily on his head, but it pressed with equal, if not greater, severity on his nation. Menahem was hated by his people, for the cruel means by which he had obtained possession of the throne were ever fresh in their memories, and the friends of the murdered king nursed this hostile feeling. When Pul arrived on Israelitish ground, it appears that the enemies of Menahem suggested to the invader the advisability of dethroning the king. Menahem, meanwhile, betook himself to the Assyrian conqueror, and promised him a large sum of money on condition that his government was left secure. Pul accepted the money and retired from the country, carrying his booty and prisoners with him. Menahem did not draw the money from his own treasury, but forced wealthy individuals to provide it. Each one had to pay what was at that time a heavy sum, viz., 50 shekels.
Thus came the beginning of the end, and the fate which Amos had clearly predicted half a century before, appeared to be in process of realisation. He had said that a distant nation would carry off the Israelites to a foreign land beyond Damascus. The Israelites were in fact carried off to the region of the Tigris, or to some other division of the large Assyrian kingdom. The power of the kingdom of the Ten Tribes, however, remained to all appearance unbroken. It still numbered 60,000 wealthy men, who could pay large sums of tribute money. Menahem still had his cavalry, his war materials, and the fortresses on which he thought he could place dependence. But, unknown to him, old age (as one of the prophets had rightly designated the national decadence) had now crept over the people. Menahem probably introduced the Assyrian mode of worship. One characteristic feature of this consisted in the adoration of Mylitta, the goddess of love, and the duties of her creed included the renunciation of virtue and the adoption of an immoral life. This innovation, added to the already existing internal dissensions, gradually sapped the foundations of the state. When the cruel Menahem died, and his son Pekahiah succeeded (757), the latter was able to retain the throne for scarcely two years. His own charioteer, Pekah, the son of Remaliah, headed a conspiracy against him, killed him in his palace in Samaria (756), and placed himself on the vacant throne. The mode of this regicide, the seventh which had occurred since the commencement of the kingdom of the Ten Tribes, is wrapped in darkness; it seems, however, that Pekah had to remove two other competitors before he could himself ascend the throne of Samaria.
The son of Remaliah, the last king but one in Israel (755–736), was an inconsiderate and ruthless man, who oppressed the country to an even greater extent than his predecessors. He was characterised as a faithless shepherd, "who deserted his flock, who sought not the missing ones, who healed not the wounded, who tended not the sick, and who even devoured the flesh of the healthy." In order to protect himself against the attacks of the Assyrians, he joined an alliance which the neighbouring princes had formed in order to resist the encroachments of the Assyrians. The plan probably originated in Damascus, which now once more owned a king, named Rezin, and which would be the first to suffer from the Assyrian conqueror. Judah was also drawn in. Uzziah, the king, having died in the leper's house, his son Jotham, who had ruled for many years as viceroy, assumed the title of king (754–740). Jotham had no very striking qualities. He was neither ambitious nor statesmanlike, but he kept in the grooves in which his father had moved. Civic peace seems to have remained undisturbed; there is at least no account of any conflict between him and the high priest. The material condition of the country also remained the same as under Uzziah. There were the squadrons of cavalry, the war chariots, the ships of Tarshish which navigated the Red Sea, and wealth and splendour. Jotham also strengthened the fortifications of Jerusalem. He maintained friendly relations with the kingdom of the Ten Tribes, or rather with their king, Pekah, and there seems to have been a very intimate connection between the two sovereigns. This friendship, however, as well as the rise of an ambitious nobility in Judah, exerted an injurious influence on the morals of the people, the evil being especially strong in the capital. Through circumstances which cannot now be traced, some of the noble families had attained a height of power that exalted them almost to equality with the king. The princes of Judah led the councils, decided the most important affairs of state, usurped the powers of justice, and so thoroughly obscured the dignity of the house of David, that but a mere shadow of its authority remained. There existed a junior branch of the royal family, the house of Nathan, from which the superintendent of the palace seems always to have been chosen. This high official ruled court and attendants alike, and gradually attained to such power and influence, that he was considered the actual regent. He was known by the title of Manager of the Court (Sochen).
Other evils arose out of these abuses. The princes of Judah sought to enrich themselves by all possible means, and to extend their territories by obtaining possession of the pasture lands, vineyards, and meadows of the country people. Things seem to have come to such a pass that the nobles and elders employed slaves, or the poor whom they had reduced to slavery, to cultivate their vast estates. They did not hesitate to make serfs of the children of those poor who were unable to pay their debts, and force them to tread the mill. To this cruel injustice, they soon added the vices of debauchery. They arose early in the morning and had recourse to the wine-cup, and till late at night they inflamed their blood with wine. At such entertainments they had the noisy music of flutes, trumpets, harps, and lutes. This was an innocent amusement compared with the excesses resulting therefrom. But the severe morality enjoined by the Sinaitic law was hostile to dissipation. As long as this law held sway, the love of licentious pleasures could not be fully gratified. But this restriction disappeared, when Judah entered into connection with the kingdom of the Ten Tribes. Here, and especially in the capital Samaria, the greatest excesses wore, so to say, a sacred character, forming, as they did, a constituent part of the Baal worship. Here there were temple priestesses in numbers; sacrifices were offered on the summits of the mountains and hills, whilst vice held its orgies in the shade of the oaks and terebinths. So great had been its progress, that Israelitish daughters unblushingly followed the example of their fathers. Wine and depravity had so vitiated the minds of the great, that they consulted blocks of wood and sticks as oracles concerning the future. From these nobles of the kingdom of the Ten Tribes,—"the drunkards of Ephraim,"—the princes of Judah learnt how to follow their evil desires without restraint. Divine service in the Temple of Jerusalem was, it is true, officially recognised; but this did not prevent the princes from following their own mode of worship privately. The brotherly fusion of Israel and Judah chiefly resulted in making idolatry, dissipation, intoxication, pride, and scorn of what was right, the common character of both kingdoms.
However, depraved as the Israelitish and Judæan nobles had become, there existed a safeguard which prevented depravity from becoming an established institution of law. In Israel, injustice could never pass as public justice. Here there were men who loudly declaimed against the mockery of justice, and the degradation of the poor; men who defended justice and morality as the only right course; men who supported the weak against the mighty. Just at this period of degradation, while Jotham ruled in Judah and Pekah in Israel, several God-inspired men arose, who spoke with words of fire against the vices of the nobility. These men were the third generation of great prophets who succeeded Amos, Joel, and Hosea, as these had followed Elijah and Elisha.
The most important amongst them was Isaiah, son of Amoz, from Jerusalem. With his contemporary prophets, Zechariah, Hosea II., and Micah II., he shared the courage which calls vice and crime by their right names, and which mercilessly brands the guilty. But he surpassed them and all his predecessors in depth of thought, beauty of rhythm, exaltation of poetical expression, in the accuracy of his similes, and in the clearness of his prophetic vision. Isaiah's eloquence combined simplicity with beauty of speech, conciseness with intelligibility, biting irony with an inspiring flow of language. Of his private life but little is known. His wife was also gifted with prophetic insight. He wore the usual prophet's dress—a garment of goat's hair. Like Elijah, he considered his prophetic task as the vocation of his life. His energies were entirely directed to exposing wickedness, to warning and exhorting the nation, and to holding before it the ideal of a future, to attain which it must strive with heart and soul. He gave his sons symbolical names, indicative of future events, to serve as signs and types. For more than forty years (755–710) he pursued his prophetic ministration with untiring zeal and unshaken courage. In critical moments, when all—great and small, kings and princes—despaired, his confidence never deserted him, but aroused the hope and courage of his people.
Isaiah first appeared in the year of king Uzziah's death (755), when he was about thirty-three years of age. He announced to the nation (probably on the Temple Mount) the vision which he had been vouchsafed, and his election as a prophet. Isaiah's first speech was a short, simple communication of this vision, the deep meaning of which could not be misunderstood. He related that he had seen in a dream Jehovah Zebaoth on a high and exalted throne, surrounded by the winged seraphim. One seraph after another cried, "Holy, holy, holy is Jehovah Zebaoth," with such thrilling voices that the very supports of the Temple trembled:
"Then I said, Woe is me, for I am undone; I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips, for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts.
"Then flew one of the seraphim unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs off the altar, and he touched therewith upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin is purged."
In his first speech, Isaiah had but lightly touched on the sins of the nobles, only intimating that they were not alive to pure influences. In another speech, which has been preserved, he went into greater detail, and more especially held up a mirror to the princes of Judah wherein they might see their folly and sin. He described the ideal destiny of the people of Israel, of the Law which had been entrusted to it, and of the Temple which was to be its visible representation, and he chose for his purpose the ever-memorable words of an older prophet:
"For from Zion shall the law go forth, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem."
In this speech Isaiah touched the root of the evil which had produced that state of religious demoralisation and heartless injustice which he denounced. It was pleasure-seeking and wantonness, encouraged by the women, to satisfy whom the men were continually urged to commit depredations, and to pillage and enslave their weaker neighbours. With surprising force the prophet describes the love of display of the daughters of Zion. Leaving for a moment this sad picture, the speaker attunes a cheery, hope-inspiring strain:—
"The Lord will create upon every dwelling-place of Mount Zion, and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day and the brightness of a flaming fire by night. For upon all the glory shall be a covering. There shall be a tabernacle for a shade in the daytime from the heat, and for refuge, and for a covert from tempest and from rain."
It may be questioned whether this masterly speech, perfect though it was in subject and form, made any impression for the moment. At all events it led to no lasting improvement, for Isaiah and contemporary prophets had still often to preach against the same errors and the same sins. The nobles could not easily be converted; they scorned and scoffed at the threats of an awful future. But Isaiah's powerful words have not been spoken in vain; they have influenced people to whom they were not addressed; they have been heard in distant lands, among distant nations, and in remote days. Isaiah did not content himself with inveighing against sin; he depicted a moral ideal, through the realisation of which men would find happiness and contentment. "The king shall rule with justice, and cause the princes to govern according to right." "The king shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, and shall not decide after the hearing of his ears." Isaiah treated with great contempt the hypocrisy which praises God with the lips whilst the heart is far from Him. He scorned still more the offering of sacrifices combined with baseness of thought and wickedness of deed. (Isaiah xxix. 13; i. 11–14.)
Isaiah appears to have used other means besides soul-stirring sermons, in order to heal the moral and religious ills of Judah. Adopting the measures of Elijah and Samuel, he assembled around himself those who shared his principles, or instructed young men and imbued them with his spirit. From among those who had suffered from the injustice and tyranny of the nobles of Judah, he drew into his circle the thoughtful and susceptible, who became at once his disciples and his children. He did not instil into them impatient and impetuous zeal, but he impressed on them the virtues of gentleness, patience, and entire resignation to God. The members of the circle which he had collected around him were called the "gentle ones," or "the sufferers of the land" (Anavim, Anve-Arez). They were mostly either of poor family, or impoverished through the depredations of the nobles. They called themselves or were called "the poor" (Dallim, Ebionim). From Isaiah they learnt not to complain of poverty and spoliation, but to bear suffering and wrong with faith in God and His dispensations. These "gentle ones" formed a special community, to which they devoted all their heart and mind, and to which Isaiah and his successors looked forward as the national core and substance. They were expected to regenerate and purify the entire people. These poor Anavim were to become the popular models of virtue. The light shed by these great prophets cast beneficent rays around; germs of thought, which lay hidden in the teachings of Sinai, came to light, and the spiritual rulership of the nation became established through them. Isaiah, therefore, forms a turning point in the national history of the people of Israel, as Samuel and, in a lesser degree, Elijah had done before him. Isaiah's prophetic view was not confined to his nation and country; it passed beyond these boundaries to the two great states of Egypt and Assyria, which, like great cloud-masses, were soon to cast their electric flashes over Israel and Judah.
Another prophet, named Zechariah, son of Berechiah, rose up against the continued perversions of the times. This prophet's oratory could not compare with the fiery and graceful eloquence of his contemporary, Isaiah. He is wanting in power and continuity; he does not let thought follow thought in logical sequence, but passes without any perspicuous connection from one subject to another. The language of Zechariah, too, is poetically tinted and not without symmetry, but it lacks the scansion and other forms of poetry. Zechariah frequently employs the metaphor of shepherd and flock, which he applies to the relation between king and people. He unrolls the picture of a glorious future, in order to lift the people up above the dispiriting present. He predicts that the neighbouring nations, who were hostile to Israel,—the Aramæans, Tyrians, and even the Philistines—would acknowledge the God of Israel, and would be accepted as His children, when they have laid aside their evil deeds and their false pride. He also prophesies that God would make peace between the house of Judah and the house of Ephraim, and that He would bring back their exiles. Even though He had dispersed them amongst the nations, they would remember Him in their banishment, and return to Him with their children. The pride of Assyria would be humbled, the Egyptian rod be stayed. This declaration closed with the prospect that of the entire nation only a third should survive; but even this remnant would have to pass through the refining crucible of trials in order to become worthy of its mission as the people of God. Zechariah made special allusions to Pekah, king of Israel, as the "false shepherd," who had treated his flock more ruthlessly than his predecessors. He relates how God appointed a shepherd over His people, and gave him two staves—one named "Mercy," and the other "Concord." But the nation had rejected God, and therefore it had been rejected by God, who broke the staff of mercy, and annulled the covenant He had made with all the tribes of Israel; and now He would break the second staff, the "staff of Concord," to annul the friendship between the tribes of Israel and Judah. God had placed over them a foolish shepherd who did not seek for the lambs that are lost—who did not heal the wounded, and who devoured the flesh of the healthy ones. The nation, it is true, deserved no better guide; nevertheless, the shepherd who had thus deserted his flock would surely incur the chastisement of God.
The Reign of Ahaz—His Character—Alliance between Pekah and Rezin—Tiglath-Pileser and Assyria—Ahaz seeks Assyrian Aid—Isaiah's Opposition—Defeat of Pekah and Rezin—Introduction of Assyrian Worship—Human Sacrifices—The Second Micah—Samaria after Pekah's Death—Assyria and Egypt—Hoshea—Samaria taken by Shalmaneser—The Exile—Hezekiah—His Early Measures—His Weakness of Character—Isaiah's Efforts to Restrain Hezekiah from War with Assyria—Arrangements for the Defence—Change of Policy—Isaiah Predicts the Deliverance—Micah—Rabshakeh's Embassy—Hezekiah's Defiance—His Illness and Recovery—The Destruction of Sennacherib's Army—Merodach-baladan—Hezekiah's Rule—The Psalmists—Death of Hezekiah.
739–696 B. C. E.
The bond of union which connected Judah and Israel, under Uzziah and Jotham, was snapped asunder on the death of the latter, and dissensions filled all minds. The cause of this can only be conjectured. The new king of Judah, Ahaz (739–725), who ascended the throne in his twenty-fifth year, was a weakling, with confused ideas, and by no means equal to his dangerous position. Important political complications occurred during his reign, in the meshes of which he became hopelessly entangled. Shortly after his accession to the throne he had to decide a question of great import, namely, whether or not to join the alliance formed by Pekah of Israel, Rezin, king of Damascus, and other less important confederates. This alliance was formed to meet a twofold danger. On the one side was Egypt, which had become powerful under King Sabako, and on the other side Assyria, which was also governed by a king ambitious of conquest, whose strong hand had reduced to subjection the refractory tributary states.
After the death of King Pul, the last descendant of the royal house of the Derketades, an energetic king ascended the throne of Assyria, who not only reunited the crumbling kingdom, but gave it still greater power and extent; this was Tiglath-Pileser. After capturing and destroying the fortresses of Mesopotamia, he turned towards the countries westward from the Euphrates and in the neighbourhood of Lebanon. He wished to complete the annexation of the kingdoms which Pul had subjugated. In order to oppose the Assyrian conqueror, Rezin, king of Aram-Damascus, formed an offensive and defensive alliance with Pekah, and was desirous of securing the co-operation of Ahaz. When the latter refused to join them, the two kings, united, it appears, with the Philistines and other neighbouring nations, prepared an attack upon Judah.
The report of this plan occasioned great alarm in the house of David, and Ahaz then had recourse to a fatal step. He sent secret messengers to the Assyrian king, Tiglath-Pileser, and asked him for help against his enemies. At the same time he offered himself as a vassal, and his land as an Assyrian province. This step might bring him momentary help, but could only endanger the whole future.
Isaiah, with his prophetic insight, looked far into the future, and warned the king against acting rashly. Accompanied by his son Shear Jashub, he went to Ahaz, to the spot near the lake where he was supervising the work of fortification. He first tried to reassure the king in clear, yet eloquent language (Isaiah vii. 3–9). He then pointed out the evils which would result from an alliance with the Assyrian king (Ib. 17–25). From the near future, however, Isaiah's prophetic vision turned to more distant days. He sees the land, overrun by the Assyrian army, turned into a field of thorns and thistles, and dwells particularly on the devastation of the mountains covered with noble vineyards, which had become the cause of revelry and dissipation. Only the pasture lands were to remain, and every man would have to content himself with a young bull and two sheep; but the land would once more flow with milk and honey, sufficient for the needs of the remnant of the nation (Shear-Jashub).
Isaiah then reverted to the present time. He related how instructions had come to him to write in large letters in popular writ, "Quick booty, hasty plunder" (Maher Shalal, Chash Baz). He was to take the priest Uriah and the prophet Zechariah, the son of Berachiah, as witnesses to confirm his prophecy. Furthermore, when his wife, the prophetess, had borne to him a son, he had, in prophetic inspiration, bestowed on him the significant name of Maher-Shalal-Chash-Baz, as a sign of the foreboding, "Before the new-born son of the prophet shall have knowledge to call Father and Mother, the land of Damascus and the possessions of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria." Isaiah then declaimed against the traitorous party which was secretly allied with the enemy (Ib. viii. 5–8).
Ahaz, however, remained deaf to all these predictions. He had more confidence in Tiglath-Pileser than in the God of Israel, and thus fate took its course. No sooner did the news reach the Assyrian king that various nations and princes had formed an alliance against him, than he invaded their lands. Rezin consequently had to raise the siege of Jerusalem, and hurry to the defence of his country. Pekah also had to think of his own safety, and Jerusalem was for the moment safe from both of the hostile kings.
The latter could no longer avert the consequences of the steps they had taken. Tiglath-Pileser first besieged Damascus, captured it, took Rezin prisoner, and slew him. From Damascus the victor proceeded against the kingdom of the Ten Tribes, conquered the fastnesses of the mountain lands and of the maritime as well as the Jordanic districts. Pekah does not appear even to have attempted any opposition, but to have submitted without resistance. Tiglath-Pileser therefore spared his life, but he carried off the inhabitants of the northern cities and those of the other side of the Jordan as prisoners (738). He distributed them in various districts of the great Assyrian empire. Thus the kingdom of Israel was deprived of half its land and half its inhabitants. Its boundary on the north barely reached Mount Tabor, and this remnant became an appendage to the Assyrian kingdom, bound to pay a yearly tribute and gifts of allegiance. Great, no doubt, was the discontent felt against Pekah, who had incurred these misfortunes through his cowardice; he was the foolish shepherd who had deserted his flock. This discontent ended in a conspiracy against him. Hoshea, the son of Elah, headed the plot, and killed Pekah (736), after he had ruled for two decades, and brought down misfortunes on his country.
An important change also occurred at this period in the kingdom of Judah. Ahaz, in his timidity, had made himself the vassal of the king of Assyria, and had, therefore, to pay homage to Tiglath-Pileser. Instead of feeling humiliated, he was seized with admiration for the Assyrian customs, and determined to imitate them in his own country. He introduced the worship of the sun and stars in Jerusalem. The image of the sun-god was erected probably at the entrance of the Temple, and horses and chariots were dedicated to him. Ahaz outvied the king of Israel in idolatry. Other Assyrian influences made themselves felt in Judah. The Assyrian language, which closely resembles that of the Aramæans, was spoken by the courtiers to facilitate communication with their sovereign lord. Ahaz went beyond all bounds in his love of imitation. Once, when a misfortune befell him, he determined to sacrifice his own son in honour of Moloch, this cruel rite being part of the Assyrian creed. In the beautiful vale of Hinnom, or Ben Hinnom, at the southern extension of the valley of Kidron, where the spring of Siloah and other brooklets produce a magnificent vegetation, a fire-altar was erected. There, Ahaz, regardless of the heart-rending lamentations of his son, sacrificed the innocent child.
The example of Ahaz was, as a matter of course, not without influence on others. The nobles of Judah, who had a decided preference for all that was foreign, because it allowed full sway to their passions, gladly welcomed this adoption of Assyrian customs. Favoured by the weakness of King Ahaz, they could indulge in sensual pleasures, and continue their acts of injustice towards the nation. The priests were also infected by the bad example. From motives either of selfishness or of fear, they passed over with silence, and even favoured the evil deeds of the king and the nobles. They preached for hire according to the wishes of the mighty nobles. One of these depraved priests appears to have asserted that the sacrifice of the first-born was not displeasing to the God of Israel, but that such offerings were acceptable to Him. The law of Moses which commanded the first-born to be sanctified to the Lord, was explained as an order to surrender them to the fire. Happily, there yet remained representatives of the ancient law in its purity, who raised their voices in powerful and eloquent protest against these crimes and depravities. A younger prophet of that time laid his finger on the gaping wound, and not only called the degeneracy by the right name, but also pointed out the source whence it had arisen. The second Micah of Moresheth, probably one of the disciples of Isaiah, shared with him the arduous task of appealing to the hearts of the sinners, and of making clear to them the indispensable results of their evil-doings. He probably took up his dwelling-place in Jerusalem, but knowing the feelings prevalent in the country places and villages, he paid more attention to them than did the other prophets.
In a speech uttered in the time of King Ahaz, Micah laid bare the prevalent religious and moral evils, and especially declaimed against human sacrifices (Micah vi.). Notwithstanding all this, the evil spread further, and also attacked the healthy portions of the nation. False prophets, speaking in the name of the Lord, arose, who advocated crimes and vices in order to flatter the men in power. These false prophets spoke with eloquence—they pretended to have had visions; they employed the prophetic mode of speech, and by these means brought about a terrible confusion of ideas. The nation was bewildered, and knew not which to believe—its critics and censors, or its adulators and encomiasts. These evil days under King Ahaz were even more baneful than the six years of Athalia's government; they witnessed a king trampling the ancient law under foot, and introducing idolatry with its concomitant immorality and contempt of justice, nobles allowing their passions untrammelled license, and false prophets daring to speak in defence of those misdeeds, while the prophets of truth and justice were proscribed.
But in the meantime political events took their course and gave rise to fresh complications. In the kingdom of Samaria, which since its separation from the eastern and northern districts, could no longer be called the kingdom of the Ten Tribes, wrongdoing and short-sightedness continued to prevail. The wounds inflicted by the Assyrians had not crushed the pride and selfishness of those in power. Defying the misery of the present, they said: "Dwellings of brick have fallen in; we will erect buildings of stone. Sycamores have been hewn down; well, let us plant cedars instead." In their drunken carousals the Ephraimitish nobles failed to perceive that the defeats which their country had suffered, unless followed by a manly revival of energies, were only the prelude to their complete destruction. In addition to this short-sightedness, or perhaps in consequence of it, anarchy set in. After Pekah's death at the hands of Hoshea, the ringleader of the conspirators, nine years elapsed, during which no king could maintain himself in power. Hoshea appears at first to have refused the crown of thorns, and there was no one else who could lay claim to sovereignty. From the time of Pul's interference with the Lebanon affairs and the destruction of the Aramæan kingdom by Tiglath-Pileser, war between Egypt and Assyria had become inevitable. The two empires, on the Nile and on the Tigris, watched each other suspiciously, and prepared themselves for the final contest, through diplomatic movements and counter-movements, in which each endeavoured to strengthen itself and weaken the enemy by the acquisition of allies.
Meanwhile the doom of Samaria was ripe for fulfilment. Was it from a knowledge of their weakness, or only a thoughtless whim, that her nobles finally recognised Hoshea the son of Elah, the murderer of King Pekah, as their king? This last king of Samaria (727–719) was better, or rather less bad than his predecessors. He was also warlike; yet he was unable to avert the impending destruction. He appears to have secretly entered into connections with Egypt, which continually duped him with false promises. At this time a warrior-king of Assyria, Shalmaneser, proceeded against Elulai, king of Tyre and Phœnicia, and subdued him. The Tyrian kingdom was not able to offer any resistance. On this occasion Shalmaneser directed his plans also against Samaria. Hoshea did not await his coming, but went to meet him, offering surrender and gifts of allegiance. But no sooner had the Assyrian king withdrawn than conspiracies were organised against him. Hoshea commenced the secession by withdrawing the yearly tribute, and Phœnicia followed suit.
Shalmaneser thereupon collected his troops, and crossing the Euphrates and Lebanon, proceeded first against the Phœnicians. At his approach, the nations lost all hope of liberty. The Phœnician towns of Zidon, Acre, and even the ancient capital of Tyre, surrendered, probably without attempting resistance. From Acre, Shalmaneser advanced to the Samaritan kingdom by way of the plain of Jezreel. The inhabitants of the Israelitish towns either submitted to the mighty king or fled to the capital. Hoshea, undaunted by all these defections, continued his opposition, though, as it appears, the expected or promised help from Egypt was withheld. The capital, Samaria, which lay on a hill-top, could, if properly intrenched, hold out for some time. Meanwhile, Hoshea and the inhabitants of Samaria hoped for some unlooked-for event which might compel Shalmaneser to retreat. The walls, towers, and battlements of Samaria were therefore fortified, and rendered capable of defence; provisions and water supplies were also collected, and all the preparations needed for the defence of a besieged city were made. But the Assyrians were masters in the art of attacking and capturing fortified cities. The attack and the defence must have been carried on with great energy and endurance, for the siege of Samaria lasted nearly three years (from the summer of 721 till the summer of 719). But all the exertions, the courage and the patience of the besieged proved fruitless. The capital of the kingdom of the Ten Tribes, after an existence of two hundred years, was taken by storm. The last king of that state, Hoshea, though he was probably caught fighting, was mercifully treated by his conqueror. He was stripped of his dignities, and kept in prison for the rest of his life. No pen has noted how many thousands perished in this last contest of the kingdom of Israel, or how many were carried off into banishment. So estranged was that kingdom from those who recorded the memorials of the Israelitish nation, that they devoted but few words to its decline. No lament resounded, as though the sad fate of the nation was a matter of indifference to the poets. The prediction of the prophets had been fulfilled. Ephraim was no more; the idols of Dan, Samaria, and other cities, wandered away to Nineveh, and prisoners in thousands were carried off and dispersed. They were sent to colonise the thinly-populated territories—the position of which is not precisely known—in Halah and Habor, on the river Gozan, and in the towns of mountainous Media. The kingdom of the Ten Tribes, or Israel, had existed for two centuries and a half; twenty kings had ruled over it; but in one day it disappeared, leaving no trace behind. Alienated from the source of its existence through the obstinacy of Ephraim, which disregarded the Law and its influences on national morality, liberty and political strength, it had fallen into idolatry and its attendant vices. The country vomited out the Ten Tribes, as it had vomited out the Canaanitish tribes. What has become of them? They have been looked for and believed to have been discovered in the distant East as well as the far West. Cheats and dreamers have claimed to be descended from them. But there can be no doubt that the Ten Tribes have been irretrievably lost among the nations. A few of them, such as agriculturists, vine-dressers, and shepherds may have remained in the country, and some, especially such as lived near the borders of Judah, may have taken refuge in that country.
Thus the diseased limb, which had infected and paralyzed the entire body of the nation, was cut off and rendered harmless. The tribe of Ephraim, which on its first entry into the country had caused national disintegration through its selfishness, and which later on, owing to its haughtiness and self-seeking, brought on the weakening and final destruction of a kingdom once occupying the position of an empire, was now lamenting in exile. "Thou hast chastised me, and I was chastised as an untamed calf. I was ashamed, yea, I am confounded, because I bear the disgrace of my youth." (Jeremiah xxxi. 17, 18.) The body of the nation seemed to be healthier and more at ease after the removal of its unruly member. The tribes of Judah and Benjamin, with their dependencies of Simeon and Levi, which, since the downfall of the Ten Tribes, formed the people of Israel, or the "remnant of Israel," now rose to new power and developed fresh splendour. The destruction of Samaria, stunning as it was in its immediate effect on the remnant of the nation, served also a salutary purpose, inasmuch as, for the moment at least, it induced the people to put aside the follies and sins which had contributed also to their degeneration and weakness. The people and the nobles were now no longer deaf to the exhortations of the prophets; Isaiah's prediction to erring Samaria—that "the crown of pride on the head of the fat valley of the drunkards of Ephraim would be as an early ripe fig which is hastily devoured," (Isaiah xxviii. 1–4)—being fulfilled, they could no longer refuse him a hearing. How little was wanting, and Jerusalem had shared the fate of Samaria! Its existence depended on a whim of the Assyrian conqueror. In Jerusalem the fear of national overthrow begot humility, and a desire to listen to the words of those who would lead them in the right path.
Fortunately a king now occupied the throne, the like of whom had not been known since the time of David. Hezekiah (724–696), the son of Ahaz, was the very opposite of his father. His gentle, poetical soul was filled with an ideal, which he beheld in his people's own law, in its ancient statutes and traditions. With the same eagerness with which his father had paid homage to foreign usages, Hezekiah was intent on the restoration of pristine Judæan morals, and the purification of religious conceptions and institutions. He accepted the Torah as the guide of his own life and of that of his nation. His were not only the virtues of justice, generosity and high-mindedness, but also those distinctions of character, which as a rule are foreign to crowned heads, gentleness, modesty, and humility, adorned him. He possessed that deep piety and pure fear of God which are as rarely met with as artistic perfection or military genius.
Did the prophets early recognise this nobility of soul and heart in the young prince? Or did their power of vision enable them to foresee the accession of a king on David's throne who would adorn it? Or was it through their early teaching and guidance that he grew up to become the ideal king that he was? Nevertheless it is a fact that two prophets predicted great and promising things of Hezekiah while he was still in his boyhood.
During Ahaz's misrule, the prophets and that circle of "the Gentle" who composed the kernel and heart of the nation of Israel, turned their attention to the young prince, from whom they expected the restoration of the golden age enjoyed during the glorious days of David. Hezekiah had witnessed the sins of his father with pain, and bore testimony to the aversion he felt for them immediately after his father's death, inasmuch as he did not bury him in the hereditary sepulchre of the house of David, but in a specially prepared tomb. Hezekiah expressed his convictions in a psalm composed on his accession to the throne, which may be considered a manifesto. (Ps. ci.)
Hezekiah's reign, rich as it was in the manifestation of great virtues, in events of great import and in poetical creations, might have become a golden age had it not been that his wishes and plans were opposed by a barrier which he found it impossible to break down. Royalty had long ceased to have sole power in Judah. The overseer or superintendent of the palace (Sochen) had full power over the army and the officers of the court. He kept the king like a prisoner in his own apartments. In Hezekiah's time, the superintendent Shebna behaved as though he were the possessor of the throne and of sovereign power. In the beginning of his reign, however, the courtiers and those who were in office as judges or otherwise, not knowing his character or force of will, gave the young king free scope. During this time Hezekiah could carry his good resolves into effect, and in part introduce innovations, such as removing the idols, restoring the unity of worship, and dismissing the most unworthy of the courtiers from the palace and filling their places with more deserving men.
But it was no slight task to remove the accumulated evils of idolatry and long-continued immorality. The Temple was deserted, and the country was filled with idols and altars. Hezekiah reopened the sanctuary, and restored it to its former dignity. In order to root out the evils of idolatry, he ordained that altars should be no longer erected on the mountains and heights, not even for the worship of the God of Israel, but that all who felt a desire to show Him honour should repair to Jerusalem. This precaution appeared to many as a hardship and an infringement on ancient customs. But Hezekiah felt that he dared not spare local predilections if he wished to ensure a purification of the popular religion. When the spring festival approached, he commanded that the paschal lamb, which had hitherto been sacrificed on private altars, should be offered in the sanctuary at Jerusalem only. He, however, postponed the celebration of the feast from the usual month to the one following, probably because the season was not sufficiently advanced. Meanwhile the courtiers did not mean to leave the king to his own devices in his government. The inspector of the palace—Shebna—appears to have gradually wrested all power from him. Hezekiah was a poet, an idealist, weak and yielding, and possessed of but little firmness of will. Men with such a disposition can easily be led, and even kings will submit to a strong mind. Shalmaneser's invasion of Tyre and Samaria, which occurred in the first year of Hezekiah's reign, naturally aroused great alarm and fear at Jerusalem and at the court. It was necessary to take a firm decision—either to join the allies, or to offer the Assyrian monarch pledges of loyalty. Hezekiah, from his peculiar character and mode of thought, was wavering as to the course he should take. Was it honourable to desert his fellow-tribesmen, who were bleeding to death under the three years' invasion of Samaria, and who, if conquered, could only have a most dismal fate? On the other hand, was it prudent to expose himself to the anger of the great monarch? Hezekiah was perhaps glad that Shebna and his ministers relieved him of the trouble of deciding.
In consequence of this want of harmony amongst the highest authorities of the country, Hezekiah's government appears full of contrasts—high-mindedness and meanness, moral improvement and degradation, pure faith in God and dependence on foreign aid; the king an ideal of justice, and his capital full of murderers. Not even in effecting the banishment of idolatry was Hezekiah successful. The nobles retained their silver and golden idols, and worshipped the handiwork of man; in their gardens remained the statues of Astarte under the thickly-laden terebinth trees, planted for idolatrous purposes. This internal double policy, due to the powerlessness of the king and the obstinacy of the palace inspector and the nobles, exercised a bad influence on the foreign relations of the government. The Judæan statesmen, after the fall of Samaria, followed a course of politics which would have been more wise and more honourable if it had been resolved upon earlier. They adopted the plan of breaking with Assyria and uniting themselves with Egypt. They took the same measures that Samaria had pursued a decade ago. They courted the aid of Egypt in order to obtain, if not an army, yet a sufficient number of horses to resist Assyria. The plan of rebelling against the sovereign power of Assyria was naturally developed in secret, for the premature report of their intentions might have led to great misfortunes. But, however secret their undertakings, the Judæan statesmen could not keep them concealed from public notice. They could not escape Isaiah's prophetic vision, and he exerted all his eloquence, in order, if possible, to prevent their rash proceedings. His most glorious, most thrilling speeches were made at this time of public anxiety. All the weapons of prophetic oratory—description of the threatening evils, scorn of the blindness of the leaders, and exhortations and cheering prospects for the future—all these he employed in order to win his obstinate countrymen from their undertakings. The most beautiful figures and most striking metaphors, the most touching thoughts dropped from his lips in powerful eloquence. Isaiah's advice was that Judah should remain neutral in the hot contest which was about to break out between Assyria and Egypt.
Meanwhile matters took their course regardless of Isaiah's exhortations and advice. King Hezekiah (for all steps were taken in his name) gave up his allegiance to the Assyrians; at least, he no longer sent tributary offerings to Nineveh, and the only result which could be expected followed. King Sennacherib collected a large army, with the intention of making an onslaught upon Judah as well as upon Egypt. Having subdued the intermediate lands of Aram, Phœnicia, Samaria and Philistia, the road to Egypt was paved and the obstacles in the way of direct attack removed. Judah prepared for defence. Her generals, feeling themselves too weak for open warfare, determined to occupy the mountain fastnesses, and hoped to check the progress of the Assyrian troops until the arrival of their Egyptian allies. Jerusalem was fortified with especial care. The weak parts of the wall were repaired, the wall itself raised, and those houses which had been built too near the wall in consequence of the extension of the city, were pulled down. Around the old fortifications of the town of David (Zion) and the lower town (Millo) a new outer wall, strengthened by towers, was erected. The upper lake, which was fed by the spring of Gihon, was closed up, and its water was conducted into the town by means of a subterranean canal. The aqueduct was also pulled down, in order to cut off the water supply of the enemy, and thus to make a protracted siege infeasible. The armoury, "the House of the Forest of Lebanon," was provided with instruments of warfare.
Shebna, the lieutenant and inspector of the palace, appears to have been the moving spirit in all these arrangements. Both he and the princes of Judah, with their adherents, were of good courage, and without fear expected the advance of the Assyrians. In fact, excessive wantonness ruled in Jerusalem; the evenings were spent in feasting; people ate and drank and made merry. As though impatient of the arrival of the enemy, they ascended the roofs of the houses in order to espy them. Isaiah could not allow such folly and daring to pass unreproved. In an exhortation, every word of which was of crushing force, he portrayed to the nation, or rather to the nobles, their thoughtless confidence (Isaiah xxii. 1–14).—Turning towards Shebna, he exclaimed, "What hast thou here? and whom hast thou here that thou hast hewn out for thyself a sepulchre?... Behold, the Lord will thrust thee about with a mighty throw, O man! ... thou, disgrace of the house of thy lord!" (Ib. 16–25).
This speech of Isaiah's, directed as it was against the most powerful man in Jerusalem, could not but have created a great sensation. It surely roused King Hezekiah from his contemplative and passive attitude, for soon after this we find Eliakim, son of Hilkiah, occupying the post which Shebna had so long maintained. This new superintendent of the palace acted according to the advice of Isaiah, and Hezekiah, through his means, appears to have been drawn into an active interest in public affairs. Shebna's fall initiated a change for the better. What had been done could not, however, be undone. The Assyrian monarch Sennacherib, filled with anger at Hezekiah's rebellion, was already on his way to Judah in order to devastate it. A part of his army, having crossed the Jordan, proceeded to the interior of the country. All fortified towns that lay on the way were taken by storm and destroyed, and the inhabitants fled weeping to the capital. The roads were laid desolate, no traveller could cross the country, for the enemy respected no man. The bravest lost courage whilst the enemy came ever nearer to the capital; their daring was changed to despair. Every thought of resistance was abandoned. But when all despaired, the prophet Isaiah remained steadfast, and inspired the faint-hearted with courage. In one of the open places of Jerusalem he delivered another of those orations, sublime in thought and perfect in form, such as have never flowed from other lips than his (Isaiah x. 5-xi. 10). He predicted to Assyria the frustration of her plans, and unrolled before Israel a glorious future which was to follow their deliverance from the threatening enemy. The scattered would return from the lands of their dispersion; the exiles of the Ten Tribes would be reunited with Judah; jealousy and enmity would appear no more; the miracles of the time of the Exodus from Egypt would be repeated, and the nation once more raise its voice in inspired hymns. What marvellous strength of mind, what all-conquering faith in God, in the ultimate victory of justice and the realisation of the ideal of everlasting peace, amidst the terror, devastation, and despair, and the deathlike gloom of the present!
Sennacherib had marched his troops (then proceeding to the attack on Egypt) through the Philistine lowland southward without turning towards Jerusalem, while he himself put up his headquarters at Lachish, which was one of the most important of the provincial cities of Judah. He had no reason to besiege the town of Jerusalem, fortified as it was by nature and human art. When the country was completely conquered, the capital would be forced to surrender of itself. If this plan had succeeded, Jerusalem would have suffered a fate similar to that of Samaria, and the few remaining tribes would have been carried off into captivity and scattered abroad, to be irretrievably lost amongst the various nationalities. In spite of this hopeless prospect, Isaiah held firm to the prediction that Judah would not fall. It would suffer under the dominion of Sennacherib, but these very sufferings would tend to the reformation of a part of the nation, if not of the whole of it.