Verse 2

he did evil . . . but not as the kings of Israel--Unlike his predecessors from the time of Jeroboam, he neither established the rites of Baal, nor compelled the people to adhere to the symbolic worship of the calves. [See on Ch2 30:1.] In these respects, Hoshea acted as became a constitutional king of Israel. Yet, through the influence of the nineteen princes who had swayed the scepter before him (all of whom had been zealous patrons of idolatry, and many of whom had been also infamous for personal crimes), the whole nation had become so completely demoralized that the righteous judgment of an angry Providence impended over it.

Verse 3

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

Verse 4

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

Verse 6

carried Israel away--that is, the remaining tribes (see on Kg2 15:29). and placed them, &c.--This passage GESENIUS renders thus, omitting the particle by, which is printed in italics to show it is not in the original: "and placed them in Halah, and on the Chabor, a river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes." Halah--the same as Calah (Gen 10:11-12), in the region of the Laycus or Zab river, about a day's journey from the ruins of Nineveh. Chabor--is a river, and it is remarkable that there is a river rising in the central highlands of Assyria which retains this name Khabour unchanged to the present day. Gozan--("pasture") or Zozan, are the highlands of Assyria, which afford pasturage. The region in which the Chabor and the Zab rise, and through which they flow, is peculiarly of this character. The Nestorians repair to it with their numerous flocks, spending the summer on the banks or in the highlands of the Chabor or the Zab. Considering the high authority we possess for regarding Gozan and Zozan as one name, there can be no doubt that this is the Gozan referred to in this passage. cities of the Medes--"villages," according to the Syriac and Vulgate versions, or "mountains," according to the Septuagint. The Medish inhabitants of Gozan, having revolted, had been destroyed by the kings of Assyria, and nothing was more natural than that they should wish to place in it an industrious people, like the captive Israelites, while it was well suited to their pastoral life [GRANT, Nestorians].

Verse 7

SAMARIA TAKEN, AND ISRAEL FOR THEIR SINS CARRIED CAPTIVE. (2Ki. 17:7-41) For so it was, that the children of Israel had sinned--There is here given a very full and impressive vindication of the divine procedure in punishing His highly privileged, but rebellious and apostate, people. No wonder that amid so gross a perversion of the worship of the true God, and the national propensity to do reverence to idols, the divine patience was exhausted; and that the God whom they had forsaken permitted them to go into captivity, that they might learn the difference between His service and that of their despotic conquerors.

Verse 24

the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, etc.--This was not Shalmaneser, but Esar-haddon (Eze 4:2). The places vacated by the captive Israelites he ordered to be occupied by several colonies of his own subjects from Babylon and other provinces. from Cuthah--the Chaldee form of Cush or Susiana, now Khusistan. Ava--supposed to be Ahivaz, situated on the river Karuns, which empties into the head of the Persian Gulf. Hamath--on the Orontes. Sepharvaim--Siphara, a city on the Euphrates above Babylon. placed them in the cities of Samaria, &c.--It must not be supposed that the Israelites were universally removed to a man. A remnant was left, chiefly however of the poor and lower classes, with whom these foreign colonists mingled; so that the prevailing character of society about Samaria was heathen, not Israelite. For the Assyrian colonists became masters of the land; and, forming partial intermarriages with the remnant Jews, the inhabitants became a mongrel race, no longer a people of Ephraim (Isa 7:6). These people, imperfectly instructed in the creed of the Jews, acquired also a mongrel doctrine. Being too few to replenish the land, lions, by which the land had been infested (Jdg 14:5; Sa1 17:34; Kg1 13:24; Kg1 20:36; Sol 4:8), multiplied and committed frequent ravages upon them. Recognizing in these attacks a judgment from the God of the land, whom they had not worshipped, they petitioned the Assyrian court to send them some Jewish priests who might instruct them in the right way of serving Him. The king, in compliance with their request, sent them one of the exiled priests of Israel [Kg2 17:27], who established his headquarters at Beth-el, and taught them how they should fear the Lord. It is not said that he took a copy of the Pentateuch with him, out of which he might teach them. Oral teaching was much better fitted for the superstitious people than instruction out of a written book. He could teach them more effectually by word of mouth. Believing that he would adopt the best and simplest method for them, it is unlikely that he took the written law with him, and so gave origin to the Samaritan copy of the Pentateuch [DAVIDSON, Criticism]. Besides, it is evident from his being one of the exiled priests, and from his settlement at Beth-el, that he was not a Levite, but one of the calf-worshipping priests. Consequently his instructions would be neither sound nor efficient.

Verse 29

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

Verse 30

Succoth-benoth--that is, the "tents" or "booths of the daughters," similar to those in which the Babylonian damsels celebrated impure rites (Amo 2:8). Nergal--The Jewish writers say this idol was in the form of a cock, and it is certain that a cock is often associated with a priest on the Assyrian monuments [LAYARD]. But modern critics, looking to the astrological character of Assyrian idolatry, generally consider Nergal as the planet Mars, the god of war. The name of this idol formed part of the appellation of two of the king of Babylon's princes (Jer 39:3). Ashima--an idol under the form of an entirely bald he-goat.

Verse 31

Nibhaz--under that of a dog--that Egyptian form of animal-worship having prevailed in ancient Syria, as is evident from the image of a large dog at the mouth of the Nahr-el-Kelb, or Dog river. Tartak--According to the rabbis, it was in the form of an ass, but others understand it as a planet of ill-omen, probably Saturn. Adrammelech--supposed by some to be the same as Molech, and in Assyrian mythology to stand for the sun. It was worshipped in the form of a mule--others maintain in that of a peacock. Anammelech--worshipped in the form of a hare; others say in that of a goat.

Verse 34

Unto this day--the time of the Babylonian exile, when this book was composed. Their religion was a strange medley or compound of the service of God and the service of idols. Such was the first settlement of the people, afterwards called Samaritans, who were sent from Assyria to colonize the land, when the kingdom of Israel, after having continued three hundred fifty-six years, was overthrown. Next: 2 Kings Chapter 18

Verse 1

In the twelfth year of Ahaz king of Judah began Hoshea the son of Elah to reign in Samaria over Israel nine years. In this account there is some difficulty, since it was in the twentieth of Jotham, that is, the fourth of Ahaz, that Hosea conspired against Pekah king of Israel, and slew him, when it might be reasonably thought he began his reign: now either there was an interregnum until the twelfth of Ahaz, or Hoshea however was not generally received and acknowledged as king till then, as others think; he being a tributary to the king of Assyria, and a kind of viceroy, is not said to reign until he rebelled against him; after which he reigned nine years, four in the times of Ahaz, and five in the reign of Hezekiah, Kg2 18:9, in this way the author of the Jewish chronology goes (r), in which he is followed by other Jewish writers; and this bids as fair as any to remove the difficulty, unless these nine years refer to the time of his reign before the twelfth of Ahaz; and the sense be, that in the twelfth of Ahaz he had reigned nine year's; but it is said he "began" to reign then. (r) Seder Olam Rabba, c. 22.

Verse 2

And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, but not as the kings of Israel that were before him. He did not worship Baal, as some of them had done; and he could not worship the calves, as all of them had, for they were carried away by the Assyrians in the former captivities, as the Jews (s) say; and who also observe (t), that he removed the garrisons set on the borders of the land to watch the Israelites, that they might not go up to Jerusalem; and this being done on the fifteenth of Ab, that day was afterwards observed as a festival on that account; and they further remark (u), that the captivity of the ten tribes was in the reign of this king, who was better than the rest, to show that it was not barely the sins of the kings on whom the Israelites would cast the blame, that they were carried captives, but their own, according to Hos 5:3. (s) Seder Olam Rabba, c. 22. (t) T. Bab. Gittin, fol. 88. Kimchi in loc. (u) Seder Olam Raba, ut supra. (c. 22.)

Verse 3

Against him came up Shalmaneser king of Assyria,.... Which some take to be the same with Tiglathpileser, see Ch1 5:26 but he rather seems to be his son; his name was to be found, as Josephus (w) relates, in the archives of the Tyrians, against whom he had an expedition; his name is Salmanassar in Metasthenes (x), who says he reigned seventeen years: and Hoshea became his servant, and gave him presents, to depart from him; he became tributary to him, and agreed to pay him a yearly tax. (w) Antiqu. l. 9. c. 14. sect. 2. (x) De Judicio Temp. fol. 221. 2.

Verse 4

And the king of Assyria found conspiracy in Hoshea,.... That he was forming a scheme to rebel against him, and cast off his yoke; of this he had intelligence by spies he sent, and placed to observe him very probably: for he had sent messengers to So king of Egypt; to treat with him, and enter into alliance with him, to help him against, and free him from, the king of Assyria. This king of Egypt is supposed to be Sabacon the Ethiopian, who reigned in Egypt ninety years; of whom Herodotus (y) and Diodorus Siculus (z) make mention; by Theodoret he is called Adramelech the Ethiopian, who dwelt in Egypt: and brought no presents to the king of Assyria, as he had done year by year; did not pay him his yearly tribute: therefore the king of Assyria shut him up, and bound him in prison; that is, after he took Samaria, the siege of which is next related; unless it can be thought that he met with him somewhere out of the capital, and seized him, and made him his prisoner, and after that besieged his city; which is not so likely. (y) Euterpe, sive, l. 2. c. 137. (z) Bibliothec l. 1. p. 59.

Verse 5

Then the king of Assyria came up throughout all the land,.... Of Israel, there being none to oppose his march; Hoshea not daring to come out, and meet him and fight him: and went up to Samaria, and besieged it three years; so long the city held out against him, see Kg2 18:9.

Verse 6

In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria took Samaria,..... Which was the last year of his reign, and to be reckoned either from the time of his reigning in full power and authority, or from his first casting off the Assyrian yoke; See Gill on Kg2 17:1. and carried Israel away into Assyria; not only the inhabitants of Samaria, but all the ten tribes inhabiting the several parts of the kingdom, for which Josephus is express (a). and placed them in Halah, and in Habor, by the river of Gozan; some of them he placed here, which were in Assyria. Halah is the Calachena of Ptolemy, at the north of Assyria, and Habor is the mount Chobaras of the same; from which mountain, as you go to the Caspian sea, about midway, is the city Gauzania, the same with Gozan, which might give name to this river (b). The Jews say (c), this is the river Sambation, which runs so swiftly, that there is no passing except on the sabbath day; and which then the Jews cannot pass because of the profanation of the sabbath; and is the reason they give why the ten tribes are there detained; and Manasseh ben Israel (d) fancies Habor to be Tabor, a province in Tartary, where some Jews are: and in the cities of the Medes; others of them he placed there, under his jurisdiction, the same with Hara, Ch1 5:26, which with the Greeks is called Aria; and Herodotus says (e), these Medes formerly were called by all Arii. It appears from hence that the kingdom of Media was now subject to the king of Assyria: some (f) take Halach to be Colchi, and Habor to be Iberia, and Hara to be Armenia, and Gauzani to be Media, which all bounded the north of Assyria. (a) Antiqu. l. 9. c. 10. sect. 1. (b) Vid. Witsium de 10 Trib. Israel. c. 4. sect. 2. (c) Rambam apud Eliam in Tishbi, p. 134. (d) Spes Israelis, sect. 17. p. 55. (e) Polymnia, sive, l. 7. c. 60. So Pausanias Corinthiac. sive, l. 2. p. 91. Vid. Vossium in Melam, de Situ Orbis, l. 1. c. 2. p. 13. (f) See Bierwood's Inquiries, p. 104.

Verse 7

For so it was, that the children of Israel had sinned against the Lord their God,.... By committing idolatry, which is the sin enlarged upon in the following discourse, as the cause of their being carried captive: which had brought them up out of the land of Egypt, from under the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt; which is observed to show their ingratitude, and to aggravate their sin of idolatry: and had feared other gods; which could do them neither good nor hurt, wherefore it must be great stupidity to fear them.

Verse 8

And walked in the statutes of the heathen, whom the Lord cast out from before the children of Israel,.... Meaning the Canaanites, in whose idolatrous ways they walked, and whom they imitated; though their ejection out of the land should have been a warning to them, and they were the more inexcusable, as they were particularly cautioned against walking in them, Lev 18:3. and of the kings of Israel, which they had made; their laws and statutes, to worship the golden calves, and not go up to Jerusalem to worship.

Verse 9

And the children of Israel did secretly those things that were not right against the Lord their God,.... As being partly conscious to themselves that they were not right, and ashamed to commit them openly; and partly as foolishly imagining, that, being done privately, they were not seen and observed of God, having imbibed some atheistical notions of him, that he was not omniscient, or saw not, and had forsaken the earth; or they "covered" (g) these actions of theirs under reigned and plausible pretences, that what they did they were obliged to by their kings, and with political views, and that they worshipped the true God in the calves; but these were coverings too thin not to be seen through: and they built them high places in all their cities, from the tower of the watchmen to the fenced city; not content with those built in former times, they built new ones; and these not in their metropolis only, but in all the cities of the kingdom; and not in large cities only, but in every town and village between one fortified city and another; even wherever there was a watch tower erected, either for shepherds to watch their flocks, or for keepers of gardens, orchards, and vineyards, to watch the fruits of them, that they were not taken away. (g) "occultaverunt", Montanus, Vatablus, Grotius; "palliaverunt", Piscator.

Verse 10

And they set them up images and groves in every high hill, and under every green tree. That is, statues and idols; for groves of trees could not be set under green trees; but they placed idols of stone, and of wood, as the latter were, in such places as Heathens were wont to do; see Jer 3:6; see Gill on Kg1 14:23, so the Indians to this day have idols dispersed here and there in the fields, placed in little groves, or at the foot of some hill that casts a shadow (h). (h) Agreement of Customs between the East Indians and Jews, art. 5. p. 34.

Verse 11

And there they burnt incense in all the high places,.... As even the tribe of Judah did, which is observed in all the preceding reigns: as did the Heathen whom the Lord carried away before them: the Canaanites, and therefore they might justly expect to be carried captive also: and wrought wicked things to provoke the Lord to anger: by their several immoralities, but especially their idolatries.

Verse 12

For they served idols,.... Baalim, as the Targum; dunghill gods, as the word signifies, as they are often called in Scripture; and Sterculius was one of the names of Saturn, an Heathen deity, which he had, as is supposed, by his finding out the method of making land fruitful with dung (i): whereof the Lord said unto them, ye shall not do this thing; see Exo 20:3. (i) Vid. Macrob. l. 1. c. 7. Lactant. de fals. Relig. l. 1. c. 20.

Verse 13

Yet the Lord testified against Israel, and against Judah, by all the prophets, and by all the seers,.... Against their sins, reproving them for them, dehorting them from them, exhorting them to repent and leave them; as in all preceding reigns, by Ahijah the Shilonite, by Elijah and Elisha, by Hosea, Amos, and Micah, and others: saying, turn ye from your ways; repent of them, and reform from them, worship of the calves particularly: and keep my commandments, and my statutes, according to all the law which I commanded your fathers; which was given them and enjoined them at Mount Sinai: and which I sent to you by my servants the prophets; by whom he put them in mind of them, explained them, and urged obedience to them.

Verse 14

Notwithstanding, they would not hear,.... Their instructions, advice, and admonitions, and obey them: but hardened their necks, like to the neck of their fathers, that did not believe in the Lord their God: as Terah and Nahor, who were idolaters; or rather, their fathers in the wilderness, that made and served the calf, and those that rebelled against Moses and Aaron; it is a metaphor taken from oxen, that will not submit their necks to the yoke, but draw back from it, or cast it off, see Act 7:51.

Verse 15

And they rejected his statutes, and his covenant that he made with their fathers,.... At Sinai and Horeb, see Exo 24:8, and his testimonies which he testified against them; calling heaven and earth to witness what he would do to them if they broke his laws, Deu 4:26, and which were so many testifications of his mind and will what they should do, or otherwise what should be done to them; Ben Gersom also interprets this of the feasts of the passover and tabernacles, which were witnesses of Israel's coming out of Egypt, and of the sanctification and redemption of the firstborn, a testimony of the slaying the firstborn in Egypt: and they followed vanity; idols, which are vain things for help, can neither hear, see, speak, &c. and became vain; as sottish and stupid as the idols they worshipped; which is the usual fruit and effect of idolatry, see Rom 1:21. and went after the heathen that were round about them: imitated them in their idolatrous practices, as the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, &c. concerning whom the Lord had charged them, that they should not do like them; of this charge see Deu 6:13.

Verse 16

And they left all the commandments of the Lord their God,.... Which their idolatry led them to; and indeed he that offends in one point is guilty of them all, Jam 2:10. and made them molten images, even two calves; which they set up at Dan and Bethel, in the times of their first king Jeroboam, Kg1 13:28. and made a grove; as Ahab, another of their kings, did, Kg1 16:33. and worshipped all the host of heaven: not the angels, sometimes so called, but, besides the sun and moon, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Mercury, Venus: and served Baal; which was service to the sun, as Abarbinel interprets it; this was the god of the Zidonians Ahab worshipped, having married a princess of that people, Kg1 16:31.

Verse 17

And they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire,.... To Baal or Moloch, which were the same, and represented the sun, which, as the above writer observes, presides in the element of fire; this was done either by way of lustration, or so as to be burnt, see Kg2 16:3. and used divination and enchantments: to get knowledge of what was to be done at present, or of things to come, neglecting the word of God and his prophets, and acting against the express law of God, Deu 18:10. and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger; as Ahab their king did, see Kg1 21:20, they were as much the servants of sin as if they had sold themselves to be slaves to it.

Verse 18

Therefore the Lord was very angry with Israel,.... Nothing being more provoking to him than idolatry: and removed them out of his sight; not out of the reach of his all seeing eye, but from all tokens of his favour, from the good land he had given them, and all the benefits and privileges of it: there was none left but the tribe of Judah only; and part of Benjamin, which was annexed to it, and incorporated in it, and made one kingdom, and maintained the same worship; and there was the lot of Simeon, which was within the tribe of Judah; and the priests and the Levites, and various individuals of the several tribes, that came and settled among them for the sake of worship; but no perfect, distinct, tribe besides.

Verse 19

Also Judah kept not the commandments of the Lord their God,.... But were infected with the idolatry of the ten tribes, and drawn into it by their example, and persisted therein, notwithstanding what befell the ten tribes; which are aggravations of the sins of them both, see Jer 3:7, but walked in the statutes of Israel which they made; worshipping the calves as they did, particularly in the times of Ahaz, he setting the example, see Kg2 16:3.

Verse 20

And the Lord rejected all the seed of Israel,.... The ten tribes, with loathing and contempt, and wrote a "loammi" on them, rejected them from being his people, gave them a bill of divorce, and declared them no more under his care and patronage: and afflicted them; as he did before he utterly cast them off, as by famine, drought, and pestilence, Amo 4:6. and delivered them into the hands of spoilers; as, first, into the hands of Hazael and Benhadad, kings of Syria, and then of Tiglathpileser king of Assyria, Kg2 13:3, until he had cast them out of his sight; by suffering them, as now, to be carried captive by Shalmaneser, Kg2 17:6.

Verse 21

For he rent Israel from the house of David,.... In the times of Rehoboam the son of Solomon, when ten tribes revolted from him, signified by the rending of a garment in twelve pieces, ten of which were given to Jeroboam; and it is here ascribed to the Lord, being according to his purpose and decree, and which was brought about by his providence, agreeably to a prophecy of his, see Kg1 11:30. and they made Jeroboam the son of Nebat king; of themselves, without consulting the Lord and his prophets; and which was resented by him, though it was his will, and he had foretold it, that Jeroboam should be king, see Hos 8:4. and Jeroboam drave Israel from following the Lord; forbidding them to go up to Jerusalem to worship; the Targum is, "made them to err:" and made them sin a great sin; obliging them to worship the calves he set up.

Verse 22

For the children of Israel walked in all the sins of Jeroboam which he did,.... They observed his injunction, not to go to Jerusalem to worship, and they worshipped the calves he did: they departed not from them: in all succeeding reigns, until the time of their captivity.

Verse 23

Until the Lord removed Israel out of his sight,.... Suffered them to be carried captive into the land of Assyria: as he had said by all his servants the prophets; by Hosea, Amos, Micah, and others; see their prophecies, and also Kg1 13:32, so was Israel carried away out of their own land to Assyria, unto this day; the time of the writing this book; nor have they returned unto our days, nearly 2,800 years later.

Verse 24

And the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon,.... Which was at this time under the dominion of the king of Assyria; though in a little time after this it revolted, and had a king of its own, Kg2 20:12, this king of Assyria was either Shalmaneser, who carried Israel captive, or it may be rather his son Esarhaddon, see Ezr 4:2, and from Cuthah; which, according to Josephus (k), was a city in Persia, where was a river of the same name; but it was rather a place in Erech, in the country of Babylon; see Gill on Gen 10:10, and from Ava; the same with Ivah, Isa 37:13, where perhaps a colony of the Avim had settled, Deu 2:23. and from Hamath; a city of Syria, which lay on the northern borders of the land of Canaan, Num 34:8 and from Sepharvaim; thought by some to be the Sippara of Ptolemy, or the Sippareni of Abydenus, in Mesopotamia; though Vitringa takes it to be a city in Syro-Phoenicia; see Gill on Isa 36:19, and placed them in the cities of Samaria, instead of the children of Israel; not in Samaria, which was now destroyed, according to the prophecy in Mic 1:6 as Abarbinel and other Jewish writers note: and they possessed Samaria; as an inheritance; sowed it with corn, and planted vineyards there: and dwelt in the cities thereof; in the several parts of the kingdom. (k) Antiqu. l. 9. c. 14. sect. 1.

Verse 25

And so it was at the beginning of their dwelling there, that they feared not the Lord,.... Did not serve him in any manner, but their idols only, which they brought with them; whereas it was usual with Heathens to serve the gods of the country, as they reputed them, where they came, along with their own; but even this those men did not do: therefore the Lord sent lions among them; even into their cities, into which lions sometimes came (l), especially when old, out of the thickets of Jordan and other places where they haunted, see Jer 49:19. which slew some of them; this the Lord did to assert his sovereignty, authority, and mighty power, and to let them know that he could as easily clear the land of them, as they, by his permission, had cleared the land of the Israelites, Josephus (m) calls this a plague that was sent among them. (l) Aristot. Hist. Animal. l. 9. c. 44. Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 8. c. 16. (m) Ut supra. (Antiqu. l. 9. c. 14. sect. 1.)

Verse 26

Wherefore they spake to the king of Assyria,.... In letters, or by messengers they sent unto him: saying, the nations which thou hast removed; from different places before mentioned: and placed in the cities of Samaria, know not the manner of the God of the land; taking Jehovah the God of Israel to be a topical deity, limited peculiarly to the land of Israel, whereas he was the God of the whole earth; a like notion obtained among the Syrians, see Kg1 20:28 now they say they know not his "manner" or "judgment" (n), the laws, statutes, ordinances, and judgments, according to which he was worshipped by the people of Israel: therefore he hath sent lions among them, and, behold, they slay them; they perceived it was not a common case, nor could they impute it to any second cause, as want of food with the lions, &c. but the hand of a superior Being was in it: and they could think of no other reason, but because they know not the manner of the God of the land; how he was to be worshipped; and because they did not worship him, and knew not how to do it, it was resented in this manner by him. (n) "judicium", Pagninus, Montanus, &c.

Verse 27

Then the king of Assyria commanded, saying,.... Gave the following orders and directions: carry thither one of the priests whom ye brought from thence; for they carried away all the people of every class, civil and religious: and let him go and dwell there, and let him teach them the manner of the God of the land; it is in the plural number, "let them go", &c. (o); there might be more priests than one ordered, or, however, others, to attend and assist him in his work; the Jews say (p), two were sent to circumcise them, and teach them the book of the law; and they give their names, Dosthai, or Dosithaeus, and Zachariah; and Josephus (q) says, the people desired that priests might be sent to them of the captives. (o) "eant et sedeant", Montanus. (p) Pirke Eliezer, c. 38. (q) Antiqu. l. 9. c. 14. sect. 3.

Verse 28

Then one of the priests whom, they had carried away from Samaria came and dwelt in Bethel,.... According to an Arabic writer (r), his name was Uzziah; but Epiphanius (s) says his name was Esdras; but he wrongly makes him to be sent by Nebuchadnezzar, thirty years after the captivity of the Jews in Babylon: this priest was, doubtless, one of the priests of the calves; for there were none else in the kingdom of Israel carried captive, and as seems also by his choosing to dwell in Bethel, where probably he formerly dwelt, and officiated in the service of the calf there, and by teaching to make priests of the lowest order of the people, as Jeroboam's priests were, Kg2 17:32. and taught them how they should fear the Lord; serve and worship him; he might not teach them the worship of the calves, that being a political business, and now no end to be answered by it; and besides, they were now carried out of the land. This priest taught, no doubt, according to the law of Moses, but was not the author of the Pentateuch; which ridiculous conceit of Le Clerc is sufficiently exposed by Witsius (t). (r) Abulpharag. Hist. Dynast. Dyn. 3. p. 65. (s) Contr. Haeres. l. 1. Haer. 8. (t) Miscellan. tom. 1. l. 1. c. 14. sect. 7. 28.

Verse 29

Howbeit, every nation made gods of their own,.... Served and worshipped those they brought with them, and which were the work of their own hands, even the nations, or those out of the nations, mentioned Kg2 17:24 these, notwithstanding the instructions they had about the worship of the God of Israel, retained and served their own deities: and put them in the houses of the high places which the Samaritans had made, every nation in their cities wherein they dwelt; as the Israelites had built high places everywhere for idolatry, and put images in them, Kg2 17:9 these Heathens placed their gods there in the room of them, which were as follow. these Heathens placed their gods there in the room of them, which were as follow. 2 Kings 17:30 kg2 17:30 kg2 17:30 kg2 17:30And the men of Babylon made Succothbenoth,.... That is, those that came from Babylon made and served an idol of this name, which, according to the Jewish writers (u), were the figures of an hen and chickens; but others suppose them to be the Pleiades, or seven stars, the stars being had in great veneration by the Babylonians; though others rather think those Succothbenoth, "tabernacles", or "booths of the daughters", as the words may be rendered, have respect to the apartments in the temple of Venus, or Mylitta with the Babylonians and Assyrians, in which women once in their lives prostituted themselves to whomsoever asked them, in honour of Venus; of which filthy practice of theirs Herodotus (w) makes mention; and Valerius Maximus speaks (x) of a temple of Sicca Venus, which is near in sound to this, where the like impurities were committed: and the men of Cuth made Nergal; which, according to the Jews, was in the likeness of a cock; but others, because the first part of the word signifies a lamp, suppose fire is meant, worshipped by the Persians, from whom it is thought these men came; but rather the word signifies, as Hillerus (y) observes, the fountain of light, and denotes the sun, worshipped by the Babylonians, Cuth being a province of theirs; from hence one of the princes of Babylon had part of his name, Jer 39:3. and the men of Hamath made Ashima; which, the Jews say, was in the form of a goat, without any wool on it, or an ape (z); but according to Hillerus (a), with the Arabs, Ashima is the name of a lion, a symbol of the sun, under which form it might be worshipped; unless Ashima is the same with Shamaim, the heavens, worshipped by the Heathens; we read of the Ashemath of Samaria, by which they swore, Amo 8:14, though that was before these men came thither. (u) T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 63. 2. (w) Clio, sive, l. 1. c. 199. (x) L. 2. c. 6. sect. 15. (y) Onomastic. Sacr. p. 601. (z) David de Pomis Lexic. fol. 17. 2. (a) Onomast. Sacr. p. 609.

Verse 30

And the Avites made Nibhaz and Tartak,.... The former of which is represented by the Jews in the shape of a dog, deriving the word from "nabach", to bark, as if it was the same with the Anubis Latrator of Virgil (b), an Egyptian deity; though that is said (c) to have its name from NOeb, which in the Egyptian language signifies "gold", the statutes of it being made of gold; and the latter in the form of an ass, for what reason I cannot say; but the first word, according to Hillerus (d), signifies, "the remote one seeth", that is, the sun, which beholds all things; and Tartak is a chain, and may denote the fixed stars chained as it were in their places; or the satellites of the planets, chained to their orbs: and the Sepharvites burnt their children in fire to Adrammelech and to Anammelech the gods of Sepharvaim; which were the same with Moloch; which may be concluded, partly from the worship paid them, and partly from the signification of their names; both end with "melech", king, which Moloch also signifies; the first may be interpreted the mighty king, and the latter the king that answers in an oracular way; from the first, one of the sons of Sennacherib king of Assyria had his name, Isa 37:36, though the Jews, according to their fancy, represent the one in the likeness of a mule, and the other in the likeness of a horse; and some make the one to be a peacock, and the other a pheasant (e); the Septuagint version puts the article before them in the feminine gender, excepting the two last, taking them for she deities, or leaving the word "images", to be understood. (b) Aeneid. l. 6. So Ovid. Metamorph. l. 9. Fab. 12. ver. 689. (c) Jablonski apud Michael. Obs. Sacr. Exercit. 4. p. 66, 67. (d) Ut supra, (Onomast. Sacr.) p. 859. (e) Vid. Kimchium in loc.

Verse 31

So they feared the Lord,.... Worshipped the God of Israel in the manner they were taught: and made unto themselves of the lowest of them priests of the high places, which sacrificed for them in the houses of the high places; these were made after the manner of Jeroboam's priests, Kg1 12:31, and were to sacrifice to the God of Israel in the high places, and temples built there; for otherwise they had, no doubt, priests of their own to sacrifice to their gods, and which they brought with them.

Verse 32

They feared the Lord, and served their own gods,.... Worshipped both: after the manner of the nations whom they carried away from thence; the Israelites, whom they had carried captive from Samaria; they worshipped the Lord in their idols, as they did, who pretended to worship God in the calves; so they worshipped the supreme God in and by their idols, and made use of them as mediators with him.

Verse 33

Unto this day they do after the former manners,.... Which may be understood either of the new colonies in Samaria doing after the former customs in their own land, or after the customs of the idolatrous Israelites; or of the Israelites in captivity continuing in their idolatry, not being in the least reformed by their troubles; or of such of them as were left in the land, who repented not of their idolatries, nor reformed from them: they fear not the Lord; did not worship him, at least not alone, and much less in a spiritual manner, with reverence and godly fear: neither do they after their statutes, or after their ordinances, or after the law and commandment which the Lord commanded the children of Jacob, whom he named Israel; that is, they did not observe the statutes and ordinances of the law given on Mount Sinai respecting religious worship, to act according to them.

Verse 34

With whom the Lord had made a covenant,.... As he did at Sinai, Kg2 17:15. and charged them, saying, ye shall not fear other gods, nor bow yourselves to them, nor serve them, nor sacrifice to them; all which is contained in the first and second commandments of the law.

Verse 35

But the Lord, which brought you up out of the land of Egypt, with a great power, and a stretched out arm,.... Which is observed, to show the obligations they lay under, in point of gratitude, to serve the Lord: him shall ye fear, and him shall ye worship, and to him shall ye do sacrifice: and him only, and not other gods; none but he being the object of religious fear and divine worship, and to whom sacrifices should be offered.

Verse 36

And the statutes, and the ordinances, and the law, and the commandment which he wrote for you,.... On the two tables of stone: ye shall observe to do for evermore; those commands relating to religious worship, especially the object of it, and to moral duties, being of eternal obligation; and all other statutes and ordinances of a ceremonial kind he ordered to be written for them, being such that they were to regard until the Messiah came, and a new world began: and ye shall not fear other gods; which is repeated, that it might be observed, as it also afterwards is.

Verse 37

And the covenant that I have made with you, ye shall not forget,.... The law given at Mount Sinai; the first table of which chiefly concerned the worship of the one true and living God, and forbid the worship of any other, as follows: neither shall ye fear other gods; or make them the object of worship.

Verse 38

But the Lord your God ye shall fear,.... Or worship him, both internally and externally, according to his revealed will; for the fear of God includes both internal and external worship: and he shall deliver you out of the hand of all your enemies; that is, provided they feared and served him as he required, and it became them to do.

Verse 39

Howbeit, they did not hearken, but did after their former manner. They did not repent of their idolatries, but persisted in them, and even when they were in captivity in Assyria, or such of them as were left in the land. 2 Kings 17:41

Verse 3

"Against him came up Salmanasar king of Assyria, and Hoshea became subject to him and rendered him tribute" (מנחה, as in Kg1 5:1). שׁלמנאסר, Δαλαμανασσάρ (lxx), Salmanasar, according to the more recent researches respecting Assyria, is not only the same person as the Shalman mentioned in Hos 10:14, but the same as the Sargon of Isa 20:1, whose name is spelt Sargina upon the monuments, and who is described in the inscriptions on his palace at Khorsabad as ruler over many subjugated lands, among which Samirina (Samaria?) also occurs (vid., Brandis b. d. Gewinn, pp. 48ff. and 53; M. v. Niebuhr, Gesch. Ass. pp. 129, 130; and M. Duncker, Gesch. des Alterth. i. pp. 687ff.). The occasion of this expedition of Salmanasar appears to have been simply the endeavour to continue the conquests of his predecessor Tiglath-pileser. There is no ground whatever for Maurer's assumption, that he had been asked to come to the help of a rival of Hoshea; and the opinion that he came because Hoshea had refused the tribute which had been paid to Assyria from the time of Menahem downwards, is at variance with the fact that in Kg2 15:29 Tiglath-pileser is simply said to have taken a portion of the territory of Israel; but there is no allusion to any payment of tribute or feudal obligation on the part of Pekah. Salmanasar was the first to make king Hoshea subject and tributary. This took place at the commencement of Hoshea's reign, as is evident from the fact that Hoshea paid the tribute for several years, and in the sixth year of his reign refused any further payment.

Verse 4

The king of Assyria found a conspiracy in Hoshea; for he had sent messengers to So the king of Egypt, and did not pay the tribute to the king of Assyria, as year by year. The Egyptian king סוא, So, possibly to be pronounced סוה, Seveh, is no doubt one of the two Shebeks of the twenty-fifth dynasty, belonging to the Ethiopian tribe; but whether he was the second king of this dynasty, Sbtk (Brugsch, hist. d'Egypte, i. p. 244), the Sevechus of Manetho, who is said to have ascended the throne, according to Wilkinson, in the year 728, as Vitringa (Isa. ii. p. 318), Gesenius, Ewald, and others suppose, or the first king of this Ethiopian dynasty, Sabako the father of Sevechus, which is the opinion of Usher and Marsham, whom M. v. Niebuhr (Gesch. pp. 458ff. and 463) and M. Duncker (i. p. 693) have followed in recent times, cannot possibly be decided in the present state of Egyptological research. (Note: It is true that M. Duncker says, "Synchronism gives Sabakon, who reigned from 726 to 714;" but he observes in the note at pp. 713ff. that the Egyptian chronology has only been firmly established as far back as the commencement of the reign of Psammetichus at the beginning of the year 664 b.c., that the length of the preceding dodekarchy is differently given by Diodorus Sic. and Manetho, and that the date at which Tarakos (Tirhaka), who succeeded Sevechus, ascended the throne is so very differently defined, that it is impossible for the present to come to any certain conclusion on the matter. Compare with this what M. v. Niebuhr (pp. 458ff.) adduces in proof of the difficulty of determining the commencement and length of the reign of Tirhaka, and the manner in which he proposes to solve the difficulties that arise from this in relation to the synchronism between the Egyptian and the Biblical chronology.) - As soon as Salmanasar received intelligence of the conduct of Hoshea, which is called קשׁר, conspiracy, as being rebellion against his acknowledged superior, he had him arrested and put into prison in chains, and then overran the whole land, advanced against Samaria and besieged that city for three years, and captured it in the ninth year of Hoshea. These words are not to be understood as signifying that Hoshea had been taken prisoner before the siege of Samaria and thrown into prison, because in that case it is impossible to see how Salmanasar could have obtained possession of his person. (Note: The supposition of the older commentators, that Hoshea fought a battle with Salmanasar before the siege of Samaria, and was taken prisoner in that battle, is not only very improbable, because this would hardly be passed over in our account, but has very little probability in itself. For "it is more probable that Hoshea betook himself to Samaria when threatened by the hostile army, and relied upon the help of the Egyptians, than that he went to meet Salmanasar and fought with him in the open field" (Maurer). There is still less probability in Ewald's view (Gesch. iii. p. 611), that "Salmanasar marched with unexpected rapidity against Hoshea, summoned him before him that he might hear his defence, and then, when he came, took him prisoner, and threw him into prison in chains, probably into a prison on the border of the land;" to which he adds this explanatory remark: "there is no other way in which we can understand the brief words in Kg2 17:4 as compared with Kg2 18:9-11... For if Hoshea had defended himself to the utmost, Salmanasar would not have had him arrested and incarcerated afterwards, but would have put him to death at once, as was the case with the king of Damascus." But Hoshea would certainly not have been so infatuated, after breaking away from Assyria and forming an alliance with So of Egypt, as to go at a simple summons from Salmanasar and present himself before him, since he could certainly have expected nothing but death or imprisonment as the result.) We must rather assume, as many commentators have done, from R. Levi ben Gersom down to Maurer and Thenius, that it was not till the conquest of his capital Samaria that Hoshea fell into the hands of the Assyrians and was cast into a prison; so that the explanation to be given to the introduction of this circumstance before the siege and conquest of Samaria must be, that the historian first of all related the eventual result of Hoshea's rebellion against Salmanasar so far as Hoshea himself was concerned, and then proceeded to describe in greater detail the course of the affair in relation to his kingdom and capital. This does not necessitate our giving to the word ויּעצרהוּ the meaning "he assigned him a limit" (Thenius); but we may adhere to the meaning which has been philologically established, namely, arrest or incarcerate (Jer 33:1; Jer 36:5, etc.). ויּעל may be given thus: "he overran, that is to say, the entire land." The three years of the siege of Samaria were not full years, for, according to Kg2 18:9-10, it began in the seventh year of Hoshea, and the city was taken in the ninth year, although it is also given there as three years.

Verse 6

The ninth year of Hoshea corresponds to the sixth year of Hezekiah and the year 722 or 721 b.c., in which the kingdom of the ten tribes was destroyed. 6b. The Israelites carried into exile. - After the taking of Samaria, Salmanasar led Israel into captivity to Assyria, and assigned to those who were led away dwelling-places in Chalach and on the Chabor, or the river Gozan, and in cities of Media. According to these clear words of the text, the places to which the ten tribes were banished are not to be sought for in Mesopotamia, but in provinces of Assyria and Media. חלח is neither the city of כּלח built by Nimrod (Gen 10:11), nor the Cholwan of Abulfeda and the Syriac writers, a city five days' journey to the north of Bagdad, from which the district bordering on the Zagrus probably received the name of Χαλωνῖτις or Καλωνῖτις, but the province Καλαχεηνή of Strabo (xi. 8, 4; 14, 12, and xvi. 1, 1), called Καλακινή by Ptolemaeus (vi. 1), on the eastern side of the Tigris near Adiabene, to the north of Nineveh on the border of Armenia. חבור is not the כּבר in Upper Mesopotamia (Eze 1:3; Eze 3:15, etc.), which flows into the Euphrates near Kirkesion (Carchemish), and is called Chebar (kbr) or Chabur (kbwr) by the Syriac writers, Chabr (xbr) by Abulfeda and Edrisi, Χαβώρας by Ptolemaeus, Ἀβόῤῥας (Aboras) by Strabo and others, as Michaelis, Gesenius, Winer, and even Ritter assume; for the epithet "river of Gozan" is not decisive in favour of this, since Gozan is not necessarily to be identified with the district of Gauzanitis, now Kaushan, situated between the rivers of Chaboras and Saokoras, and mentioned in Ptol. v. 18, 4, inasmuch as Strabo (xvi. 1, 1, p. 736) also mentions a province called Χαζηνή above Nineveh towards Armenia, between Calachene and Adiabene. Here in northern Assyria we also find both a mountain called Χαβώρας, according to Ptol. vi. 1, on the boundary of Assyria and Media, and the river Chabor, called by Yakut in the Moshtarik l-hsnh (Khabur Chasaniae), to distinguish it from the Mesopotamian Chaboras or Chebar. According to Marasz. i. pp. 333f., and Yakut, Mosht. p. 150, this Khabur springs from the mountains of the land of Zauzan, zawzan, i.e., of the land between the mountains of Armenia, Adserbeidjan, Diarbekr, and Mosul (Marasz. i. p. 522), and is frequently mentioned in Assemani as a tributary of the Tigris. It still bears the ancient name Khabr, taking its rise in the neighbourhood of the upper Zab near Amadjeh, and emptying itself into the Tigris a few hours below Jezirah (cf. Wichelhaus, pp. 471, 472; Asah. Grant, Die Nestorianer, v. Preiswerk, pp. 110ff.; and Ritter, Erdk. ix. pp. 716 and 1030). This is the river that we are to understand by חבור. It is a question in dispute, whether the following words גּוזן נהר are in apposition to בּחבור: "by the Chabor the river of Gozan," or are to be taken by themselves as indicating a peculiar district "by the river Gozan." Now, however the absence of the prep. ב, and even of the copula ,ו on the one hand, and the words of Yakut, "Khabur, a river of Chasania," on the other, may seem to favour the former view, we must decide in favour of the latter, for the simple reason that in Ch1 5:26 גּוזן נהר is separated from חבור morf d by והרא. The absence of the preposition בּ or of the copula ו before נהר ג in the passage before us may be accounted for from the assumption that the first two names, in Chalah and on the Khabur, are more closely connected, and also the two which follow, "on the river Gozan and in the cities of Media." The river Gozan or of Gozan is therefore distinct from חבור (Khabur), and to be sought for in the district in which Gauzani'a, the city of Media mentioned by Ptol. (vi. 2), was situated. In all probability it is the river which is called Kisil (the red) Ozan at the present day, the Mardos of the Greeks, which takes its rise to the south-east of the Lake Urumiah and flows into the Caspian Sea, and which is supposed to have formed the northern boundary of Media. (Note: The explanation given in the text of the geographical names, receives some confirmation from the Jewish tradition, which describes northern Assyria, and indeed the mountainous region or the district on the border of Assyria and Media towards Armenia, as the place to which the ten tribes were banished (vid., Wichelhaus ut sup. pp. 474ff.). Not only Ewald (Gesch. iii. p. 612), but also M. v. Niebuhr (Gesch. Ass. p. 159), has decided in favour of this view; the latter with this remark: "According to the present state of the investigations, Chalah and Chabor are no doubt to be sought for on the slope of the Gordyaean mountains in the Kalachene of Strabo, the Kalakine of Ptolemaeus, and on the tributary of the Tigris, which is still called Chabur, therefore quite close to Nineveh. The Yudhi mountains in this region possibly bear this name with some allusion to the colony." But with reference to the river Gozan, Niebuhr is doubtful whether we are to understand by this the Kisil Ozan or the waters, in the district of Gauzanitis by the Kehbar, and gives the preference to the latter as the simpler of the two, though it is difficulty to see in what respect it is simpler than the other.) The last locality mentioned agrees with this, viz., "and in the cities of Media," in which Thenius proposes to read הרי, mountains, after the lxx, instead of ערי, cities, though without the least necessity.

Verse 7

The causes which occasioned this catastrophe. - To the account of the destruction of the kingdom of the ten tribes, and of the transportation of its inhabitants into exile in Assyria, the prophetic historian appends a review of the causes which led to this termination of the greater portion of the covenant-nation, and finds them in the obstinate apostasy of Israel from the Lord its God, and in its incorrigible adherence to idolatry. Kg2 17:7. כּי ויהי, "and it came to pass when" (not because, or that): compare Gen 6:1; Gen 26:8; Gen 27:1; Gen 44:24; Exo 1:21; Jdg 1:28; Jdg 6:7, etc. The apodosis does not follow till Kg2 17:18, as Kg2 17:7-17 simply contain a further explanation of Israel's sin. To show the magnitude of the sin, the writer recalls to mind the great benefit conferred in the redemption from Egypt, whereby the Lord had laid His people under strong obligation to adhere faithfully to Him. The words refer to the first commandment (Exo 20:2-3; Deu 5:6-7). It is from this that the "fearing of other gods" is taken, whereas פּרעה יד מתּחת recall Exo 18:10. Kg2 17:8 The apostasy of Israel manifested itself in two directions: 1. in their walking in the statutes of the nations who were cut off from before them, instead of in the statutes of Jehovah, as God had commanded (cf. Lev 18:4-5, and Lev 18:26, Lev 20:22-23, etc.; and for the formula וגו הורישׁ אשׁר הגּוים, which occurs repeatedly in our books - e.g., Kg2 16:3; Kg2 21:2, and Kg1 14:24 and Kg1 21:26 - compare Deu 11:23 and Deu 18:12); and 2. in their walking in the statutes which the kings of Israel had made, i.e., the worship of the calves. עשׂוּ אשׁר: it is evident from the parallel passage, Kg2 17:19, that the subject here stands before the relative. Kg2 17:9 דברים ויחפּאוּ: "they covered words which were not right concerning Jehovah their God," i.e., they sought to conceal the true nature of Jehovah their God," i.e., they sought to conceal the true nature of Jehovah by arbitrary perversions of the word of God. This is the explanation correctly given by Hengstenberg (Dissert. vol. i. p. 210, transl.); whereas the interpretation proposed by Thenius, "they trifled with things which were not right against Jehovah," is as much at variance with the usage of the language as that of Gesenius (thes. p. 5050, perfide egerunt res ... in Jehovam, since חפּא with על simply means to cover over a thing (cf. Isa 4:5). This covering of words over Jehovah showed itself in the fact that they built בּמות (altars on high places), and by worshipping God in ways of their own invention concealed the nature of the revealed God, and made Jehovah like the idols. "In all their cities, from the tower of the watchmen to the fortified city." נוצרים מגדּל is a tower built for the protection of the flocks in the steppes (Ch2 26:10), and is mentioned here as the smallest and most solitary place of human abode in antithesis to the large and fortified city. Such bamoth were the houses of high places and altars built for the golden calves at Bethel and Dan, beside which no others are mentioned by name in the history of the kingdom of the ten tribes, which restricts itself to the principal facts, although there certainly must have been others. Kg2 17:10 They set up for themselves monuments and asherim on every high hill, etc., - a practice condemned in Kg1 14:16, Kg1 14:23, as early as the time of Jeroboam. In this description of their idolatry, the historian, however, had in his mind not only the ten tribes, but also Judah, as is evident from Kg2 17:13, "Jehovah testified against Israel and Judah through His prophets," and also from Kg2 17:19. Kg2 17:11 "And burned incense there upon all the high places, like the nations which Jehovah drove out before them." הגלה, lit., to lead into exile, is applied here to the expulsion and destruction of the Canaanites, with special reference to the banishment of the Israelites. Kg2 17:12 They served the clods, i.e., worshipped clods or masses of stone as gods (גּלּלים, see at Kg1 15:12), notwithstanding the command of God in Exo 20:3., Kg2 23:13; Lev 26:1, etc. Kg2 17:13-14 And the Lord was not satisfied with the prohibitions of the law, but bore witness against the idolatry and image-worship of Israel and Judah through all His prophets, who exhorted them to turn from their evil way and obey His commandments. But it was all in vain; they were stiff-necked like their fathers. Judah is mentioned as well as Israel, although the historian is simply describing the causes of Israel's rejection to indicate beforehand that Judah was already preparing the same fate for itself, as is still more plainly expressed in Kg2 17:19, Kg2 17:20; not, as Thenius supposes, because he is speaking here of that which took place before the division of the kingdom. The Chethb כל־חזה כּל־נביאו is not to be read וכל־חזה כּל־נביא (Houbig., Then., Ew. 156, e.), but after the lxx כּל־חזה כּל־נביאו, "through all His prophets, every seer," so that כּל־חזה is in apposition to כּל־נביאו, and serves to bring out the meaning with greater force, so as to express the idea, "prophets of every kind, that the Lord had sent." This reading is more rhetorical than the other, and is recommended by the fact that in what follows the copula ו is omitted before חקּותי also on rhetorical grounds. וגו שׁלחתּי ואשׁר: "and according to what I demanded of you through my servants the prophets." To the law of Moses there was added the divine warning through the prophets. את־ערפּם יקשׁוּ has sprung from Deu 10:16. The stiff-necked fathers are the Israelites in the time of Moses. Kg2 17:15 "They followed vanity and became vain:" verbatim as in Jer 2:5. A description of the worthlessness of their whole life and aim with regard to the most important thing, namely, their relation to God. Whatever man sets before him as the object of his life apart from God is הבל (cf. Deu 32:21) and idolatry, and leads to worthlessness, to spiritual and moral corruption (Rom 1:21). "And (walked) after the nations who surrounded them," i.e., the heathen living near them. The concluding words of the verse have the ring of Lev 18:3. Kg2 17:16-17 The climax of their apostasy: "They made themselves molten images, two (golden) calves" (Kg1 12:28), which are called מסּכה after Exo 32:4, Exo 32:8, and Deu 9:12, Deu 9:16, "and Asherah," i.e., idols of Astarte (for the fact, see Kg1 16:33), "and worshipped all the host of heaven (sun, moon, and stars), and served Baal" - in the time of Ahab and his family (Kg1 16:32). The worshipping of all the host of heaven is not specially mentioned in the history of the kingdom of the ten tribes, but occurs first of all in Judah in the time of Manasseh (Kg2 21:3). The fact that the host of heaven is mentioned between Asherah and Baal shows that the historian refers to the Baal and Astarte worship, and has borrowed the expression from Deu 4:19 and Deu 17:3, to show the character of this worship, since both Baal and Astarte were deities of a sidereal nature. The first half of Kg2 17:17 rests upon Deu 18:10, where the worship of Moloch is forbidden along with soothsaying and augury. There is no allusion to this worship in the history of the kingdom of the ten tribes, although it certainly existed in the time of Ahab. The second half of Kg2 17:17 also refers to the conduct of Ahab (see at Kg1 21:20). Kg2 17:18-19 This conduct excited the anger of God, so that He removed them from His face, and only left the tribe (i.e., the kingdom) of Judah, although Judah also did not keep the commandments of the Lord and walked in the statutes of Israel, and therefore had deserved rejection. Kg2 17:19 contains a parenthesis occasioned by וגו שׁבט רק (Kg2 17:18). The statutes of Israel in which Judah walked are not merely the worship of Baal under the Ahab dynasty, so as to refer only to Joram, Ahaziah, and Ahaz (according to Kg2 8:18, Kg2 8:27, and Kg2 16:3), but also the worship on the high places and worship of idols, which were practised under many of the kings of Judah. Kg2 17:20 ויּמאס is a continuation of יהוה ויּתאנּף in Kg2 17:18, but so that what follows also refers to the parenthesis in Kg2 17:19. "Then the Lord rejected all the seed of Israel," not merely the ten tribes, but all the nation, and humbled them till He thrust them from His face. מאס differs from מפּניו השׁליך. The latter denotes driving into exile; the former, simply that kind of rejection which consisted in chastisement and deliverance into the hand of plunderers, that is to say, penal judgments by which the Lord sought to lead Israel and Judah to turn to Him and to His commandments, and to preserve them from being driven among the heathen. שׁסים בּיד נתן as in Jdg 2:14. Kg2 17:21 וגו קרע כּי: "for He (Jehovah) rent Israel from the house of David." This view is apparently more correct than that Israel rent the kingdom from the house of David, not only because it presupposes too harsh an ellipsis to supply את־המּמלכה, but also because we never meet with the thought that Israel rent the kingdom from the house of David, and in Kg1 11:31 it is simply stated that Jehovah rent the kingdom from Solomon; and to this our verse refers, whilst the following words וגו ויּמליכוּ recall Kg1 12:20. The כּי is explanatory: the Lord delivered up His people to the plunderers, for He rent Israel from the house of David as a punishment for the idolatry of Solomon, and the Israelites made Jeroboam king, who turned Israel away from Jehovah, etc. The Chethb וידא is to be read ויּדּא, the Hiphil of נדא = נדה, "he caused to depart away from the Lord." The Keri ויּדּה, Hiphil of נדח, he drove away, turned from the Lord (cf. Deu 13:11), is not unusual, but it is an unnecessary gloss. Kg2 17:22-23 The sons of Israel (the ten tribes) walked in all the sins of Jeroboam, till the Lord removed them from His face, thrust them out of the land of the Lord, as He had threatened them through all His prophets, namely, from the time of Jeroboam onwards (compare Kg1 14:15-16, and also Hos 1:6; Hos 9:16; Amo 3:11-12; Amo 5:27; Isa 28:1 etc.). The banishment to Assyria (see Kg2 17:6) lasted "unto this day," i.e., till the time when our books were written. (Note: As the Hebrew דע, like the German bis, is not always used in an exclusive sense, but is frequently abstracted from what lies behind the terminus ad quem mentioned, it by no means follows from the words, "the Lord rejected Israel ... to this day," that the ten tribes returned to their own country after the time when our books were written, viz., about the middle of the sixth century b.c. And it is just as impossible to prove the opposite view, which is very widely spread, namely, that they are living as a body in banishment even at the present day. It is well known how often the long-lost ten tribes have been discovered, in the numerous Jewish communities of southern Arabia, in India, more especially in Malabar, in China, Turkistan, and Cashmir, or in Afghanistan (see Ritter's Erdkunde, x. p. 246), and even in America itself; and now Dr. Asahel Grant (Die Nestorianer oder die zehn Stmme) thinks that he has found them in the independent Nestorians and the Jews living among them; whereas others, such as Witsius (Δεκαφυλ. c. iv.ff.), J. D. Michaelis (de exsilio decem tribuum, comm. iii.), and last of all Robinson in the word quoted by Ritter, l. c. p. 245 (The Nestorians, etc., New York, 1841), have endeavoured to prove that the ten tribes became partly mixed up with the Judaeans during the Babylonian captivity, and partly attached themselves to the exile who were led back to Palestine by Zerubbabel and Ezra; that a portion again became broken up at a still later period by mixing with the rest of the Jews, who were scattered throughout all the world after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, and a further portion a long time ago by conversion to Christianity, so that every attempt to discover the remnants of the ten tribes anywhere must be altogether futile. This view is in general the correct one, though its supporters have mixed up the sound arguments with many that are untenable. For example, the predications quoted by Ritter (p. 25), probably after Robinson (viz., Jer 50:4-5, Jer 50:17, Jer 50:19, and Eze 37:11.), and also the prophetic declarations cited by Witsius (v. 11-14: viz., Isa 14:1; Mic 2:12; Jer 3:12; Jer 30:3-4; Jer 33:7-8), prove very little, because for the most part they refer to Messianic times and are to be understood spiritually. So much, however, may certainly be gathered from the books of Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, that the Judaeans whom Nebuchadnezzar carried away captive were not all placed in the province of Babylonia, but were also dispersed in the different districts that constituted first the Assyrian, then the Chaldaean, and afterwards the Persian empire on the other side of the Euphrates, so that with the cessation of that division which had been so strictly maintained to suit the policy of the Israelitish kings, the ancient separation would also disappear, and their common mournful lot of dispersion among the heathen would of necessity bring about a closer union among all the descendants of Jacob; just as we find that the kings of Persia knew of no difference between Jews and Israelites, and in the time of Xerxes the grand vizier Haman wanted to exterminate all the Jews (not the Judaeans merely, but all the Hebrews). Moreover, the edict of Cyrus (Ezr 1:1-4), "who among you of all his people," and that of Artaxerxes (Ezr 7:13), "whoever in my kingdom is willing of the people of Israel," gave permission to all the Israelites of the twelve tribes to return to Palestine. And who could maintain with any show of reason, that no one belonging to the ten tribes availed himself of this permission? And though Grant argues, on the other side, that with regard to the 50,000 whom Cyrus sent away to their home it is expressly stated that they were of those "whom Nebuchadnezzar had carried away into Babylon" (Ezr 2:1), with which Kg2 1:5 may also be compared, "then rose up the heads of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests and Levites, etc.;" these words apply to the majority of those who returned, and undoubtedly prove that the ten tribes as such did not return to Palestine, but they by no means prove that a considerable number of members of the remaining tribes may not have attached themselves to the large number of citizens of the kingdom of Judah who returned. And not only Lightfoot (Hor. hebr. in Eph 1 ad Cor. Addenda ad c. 14, Opp. ii. p. 929) and Witsius (p. 346), but the Rabbins long before them in Seder Olam rab. c. 29, p. 86, have inferred from the fact that the number of persons and families given separately in Ezra 2 only amounts to 30,360, whereas in Ezr 2:64 the total number of persons who returned is said to have been 42,360 heads, besides 7337 men-servants and maid-servants, that this excess above the families of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi, who are mentioned by name, may have come from the ten tribes. Moreover, those who returned did regard themselves as the representatives of the twelve tribes; for at the dedication of the new temple (Ezr 6:17) they offered "sin-offerings for all Israel, according to the number of the twelve tribes." And those who returned with Ezra did the same. As a thanksgiving for their safe return to their fatherland, they offered in sacrifice "twelve oxen for all Israel, ninety-six rams, seventy-seven sheep, and twelve he-goats for a sin-offering, all as a burnt-offering for Jehovah" (Ezr 8:35). There is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of those who returned with Zerubbabel and Ezra belonged to the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi; which may be explained very simply from the fact, that as they had been a much shorter time in exile, they had retained a much stronger longing for the home given by the Lord to their fathers than the tribes that were carried away 180 years before. But that they also followed in great numbers at a future time, after those who had returned before had risen to a state of greater ecclesiastical and civil prosperity in their own home, is an inference that must be drawn from the fact that in the time of Christ and His apostles, Galilee, and in part also Peraea, was very densely populated by Israelites; and this population cannot be traced back either to the Jews who returned to Jerusalem and Judaea under Zerubbabel and Ezra, or to the small number of Israelites who were left behind in the land when the Assyrian deportation took place. On the other hand, even the arguments adduced by Grant in support of his view, viz., (1) that we have not the slightest historical evidence that the ten tribes every left Assyria again, (2) that on the return from the Babylonian captivity they did not come back with the rest, prove as argumenta a silentio but very little, and lose their force still more if the assumptions upon which they are based - namely, that the ten tribes who were transported to Assyria and Media had no intercourse whatever with the Jews who were led away to Babylon, but kept themselves unmixed and quite apart from the Judaeans, and that as they did not return with Zerubbabel and Ezra, they did not return to their native land at any later period-are, as we have shown above, untenable. Consequently the further arguments of Grant, (3) that according to Josephus (Ant. xi. 5, 2) the ten tribes were still in the land of their captivity in the first century, and according to Jerome (Comm. on the Prophets) in the fifth; and (4) that in the present day they are still in the country of the ancient Assyrians, since the Nestorians, both according to their own statement and according to the testimony of the Jews there, as Beni Yisrael, and that of the ten tribes, and are also proved to be Israelites by many of the customs and usages which they have preserved (Die Nestor. pp. 113ff.); prove nothing more than that there may still be descendants of the Israelites who were banished thither among the Jews and Nestorians living in northern Assyria by the Uramiah-lake, and by no means that the Jews living there are the unmixed descendants of the ten tribes. The statements made by the Jews lose all their importance from the fact, that Jews of other lands maintain just the same concerning themselves. And the Mosaic manners and customs of the Nestorians prove nothing more than that they are of Jewish origin. In general, the Israelites and Jews who have come into heathen lands from the time of Salmanasar and Nebuchadnezzar onwards, and have settled there, have become so mixed up with the Jews who were scattered in all quarters of the globe from the time of Alexander the Great, and more especially since the destruction of the Jewish state by the Romans, that the last traces of the old division into tribes have entirely disappeared.)

Verse 24

The Samaritans and Their Worship. - After the transportation of the Israelites, the king of Assyria brought colonists from different provinces of his kingdom into the cities of Samaria. The king of Assyria is not Salmanasar, for it is evident from Kg2 17:25 that a considerable period intervened between the carrying away of the Israelites and the sending of colonists into the depopulated land. It is true that Salmanasar only is mentioned in what precedes, but the section vv. 24-41 is not so closely connected with the first portion of the chapter, that the same king of Assyria must necessarily be spoken of in both. According to Ezr 4:2, it was Esarhaddon who removed the heathen settlers to Samaria. It is true that the attempt has been made to reconcile this with the assumption that the king of Assyria mentioned in our verse is Salmanasar, by the conjecture that one portion of these colonists was settled there by Salmanasar, another by Esarhaddon; and it has also been assumed that in this expedition Esarhaddon carried away the last remnant of the ten tribes, namely, all who had fled into the mountains and inaccessible corners of the land, and to some extent also in Judaea, during Salmanasar's invasion, and had then collected together in the land again after the Assyrians had withdrawn. But there is not the smallest intimation anywhere of a second transplantation of heathen colonists to Samaria, any more than of a second removal of the remnant of the Israelites who were left behind in the land after the time of Salmanasar. The prediction in Isa 7:8, that in sixty-five years more Ephraim was to be destroyed, so that it would be no longer a people, even if it referred to the transplantation of the heathen colonists to Samaria by Esarhaddon, as Usher, Hengstenberg, and others suppose, would by no means necessitate the carrying away of the last remnant of the Israelites by this king, but simply the occupation of the land by heathen settlers, with whom the last remains of the Ephraimites intermingled, so that Ephraim ceased to be a people. As long as the land of Israel was merely laid waste and deprived of the greater portion of its Israelitish population, there always remained the possibility that the exiles might one day return to their native land and once more form one people with those who were left behind, and so long might Israel be still regarded as a nation; just as the Judaeans, when in exile in Babylon, did not cease to be a people, because they looked forward with certain hope to a return to their fatherland after a banishment of seventy years. But after heathen colonists had been transplanted into the land, with whom the remainder of the Israelites who were left in the land became fused, so that there arose a mixed Samaritan people of a predominantly heathen character, it was impossible to speak any longer of a people of Ephraim in the land of Israel. This transplantation of colonists out of Babel, Cutha, etc., into the cities of Samaria might therefore be regarded as the point of time at which the nation of Ephraim was entirely dissolved, without any removal of the last remnant of the Israelites having taken place. We must indeed assume this if the ten tribes were deported to the very last man, and the Samaritans were in their origin a purely heathen people without any admixture of Israelitish blood, as Hengstenberg assumes and has endeavoured to prove. But the very opposite of this is unmistakeably apparent from Ch2 34:6, Ch2 34:9, according to which there were not a few Israelites left in the depopulated land in the time of Josiah. (Compare Kalkar, Die Samaritaner ein Mischvolk, in Pelt's theol. Mitarbeiten, iii. 3, pp. 24ff.). - We therefore regard Esarhaddon as the Assyrian king who brought the colonists to Samaria. The object to ויּבא may be supplied from the context, more especially from ויּשׁב, which follows. He brought inhabitants from Babel, i.e., from the country, not the city of Babylon, from Cuthah, etc. The situation of Cuthah or Cuth (Kg2 17:30) cannot be determined with certainty. M. v. Niebuhr (Gesch. p. 166) follows Josephus, who speaks of the Cuthaeans in Ant. ix. 14, 3, and x. 9, 7, as a people dwelling in Persia and Media, and identifies them with the Kossaeans, Kissians, Khushiya, Chuzi, who lived to the north-east of Susa, in the north-eastern portion of the present Khusistan; whereas Gesenius (thes. p. 674), Rosenmller (bibl. Althk. 1, 2, p. 29), and J. D. Michaelis (Supplem. ad Lex. hebr. p. 1255) have decided in favour of the Cutha (Arabic kth or ktha) in the Babylonian Irak, in the neighbourhood of the Nahr Malca, in support of which the fact may also be adduced, that, according to a communication from Spiegel (in the Auslande, 1864, No. 46, p. 1089), Cutha, a town not mentioned elsewhere, was situated by the wall in the north-east of Babylon, probably on the spot where the hill Ohaimir with its ruins stands. The greater number of colonists appear to have come from Cutha, because the Samaritans are called כותיים by the Rabbins. עוּא, Avva, is almost always, and probably with correctness, regarded as being the same place as the עוּה (Ivvah) mentioned in Kg2 18:34 and Kg2 19:13, as the conjecture naturally suggests itself to every one that the Avvaeans removed to Samaria by Esarhaddon were inhabitants of the kingdom of Avva destroyed by the Assyrian king, and the form עוּה is probably simply connected with the appellative explanation given to the word by the Masoretes. As Ivvh is placed by the side of Henah in Kg2 18:34 and Kg2 19:13, Avva can hardly by any other than the country of Hebeh, situated on the Euphrates between Anah and the Chabur (M. v. Niebuhr, p. 167). Hamath is Epiphania on the Orontes: see at Kg1 8:65 and Num 13:21. Sepharvaim is no doubt the Sippara (Σιπφάρα) of Ptolem. (v. 18, 7), the southernmost city of Mesopotamia on the Euphrates, above the Nahr Malca, the Ἡλιούπολις ἐν Σιππάροισιν or Σιππαρεενῶν πόλις, which Berosus and Abydenus mention (in Euseb. Praepar, evang. ix. 12 and 41, and Chronic. Armen. i. pp. 33, 36, 49, 55) as belonging to the time of the flood. - שׁמרון: this is the first time in which the name is evidently applied to the kingdom of Samaria. Kg2 17:25-29 In the earliest period of their settlement in the cities of Samaria the new settlers were visited by lions, which may have multiplied greatly during the time that the land was lying waste. The settlers regarded this as a punishment from Jehovah, i.e., from the deity of the land, whom they did not worship, and therefore asked the king of Assyria for a priest to teach them the right, i.e., the proper, worship of God of the land; whereupon the king sent them one of the priests who had been carried away, and he took up his abode in Bethel, and instructed the people in the worship of Jehovah. The author of our books also looked upon the lions as sent by Jehovah as a punishment, according to Lev 26:22, because the new settlers did not fear Him. העריות: the lions which had taken up their abode there. שׁם וישׁבוּ וילכוּ: that they (the priest with his companions) went away and dwelt there. There is no need therefore to alter the plural into the singular. The priest sent by the Assyrian king was of course an Israelitish priest of the calves, for he was one of those who had been carried away and settled in Bethel, the chief seat of Jeroboam's image-worship, and he also taught the colonists to fear or worship Jehovah after the manner of the land. This explains the state of divine worship in the land as described in Kg2 17:29. "Every separate nation (גּוי גּוי: see Ewald, 313, a.) made itself its own gods, and set them up in the houses of the high places (הבּמות בּית: see at Kg1 12:31, and for the singular בּית, Ewald, 270, c.) which the Samaritans (השּׁמרנים, not the colonists sent thither by Esarhaddon, but the former inhabitants of the kingdom of Israel, who are so called from the capital Samaria) had made (built); every nation in the cities where they dwelt." Kg2 17:30 The people of Babel made themselves בּנות סכּות, daughters' booths. Selden (de Diis Syr. ii. 7), Mnter (Relig. der Babyl. pp. 74, 75), and others understand by these the temples consecrated to Mylitta or Astarte, the καμάραι, or covered little carriages, or tents for prostitution (Herod. i. 199); but Beyer (Addit. ad Seld. p. 297) has very properly objected to this, that according to the context the reference is to idols or objects of idolatrous worship, which were set up in the בּמות בּית. It is more natural to suppose that small tent-temples are meant, which were set up as idols in the houses of the high places along with the images which they contained, since according to Kg2 23:7 women wove בּתּים, little temples, for the Asherah, and Ezekiel speaks of patch-work Bamoth, i.e., of small temples made of cloth. It is possible, however, that there is more truth than is generally supposed in the view held by the Rabbins, that בּנות סכּות signifies an image of the "hen," or rather the constellation of "the clucking-hen" (Gluckhenne), the Pleiades, - simulacrum gallinae coelestis in signo Tauri nidulantis, as a symbolum Veneris coelestis, as the other idols are all connected with animal symbolism. In any case the explanation given by Movers, involucra seu secreta mulierum, female lingams, which were handed by the hierodulae to their paramours instead of the Mylitta-money (Phniz. i. p. 596), is to be rejected, because it is at variance with the usage of speech and the context, and because the existence of female lingams has first of all to be proved. For the different views, see Ges. thes. p. 952, and Leyrer in Herzog's Cycl. - The Cuthaeans made themselves as a god, נרגּל, Nergal, i.e., according to Winer, Gesenius, Stuhr, and others, the planet Mars, which the Zabians call nerg, Nerig, as the god of war (Codex Nasar, i. 212, 224), the Arabs mrrx, Mirrig; whereas older commentators identified Nergal with the sun-god Bel, deriving the name from ניר, light, and גּל, a fountain = fountain of light (Selden, ii. 8, and Beyer, Add. pp. 301ff.). But these views are both of them very uncertain. According to the Rabbins (Rashi, R. Salomo, Kimchi), Nergal was represented as a cock. This statement, which is ridiculed by Gesenius, Winer, and Thenius, is proved to be correct by the Assyrian monuments, which contain a number of animal deities, and among them the cock standing upon an altar, and also upon a gem a priest praying in front of a cock (see Layard's Nineveh). The pugnacious cock is found generally in the ancient ethnical religions in frequent connection with the gods of war (cf. J. G. Mller in Herzog's Cycl.). עשׁימא, Ashima, the god of the people of Hamath, was worshipped, according to rabbinical statements, under the figure of a bald he-goat (see Selden, ii. 9). The suggested combination of the name with the Phoenician deity Esmun, the Persian Asuman, and the Zendic amano, i.e., heaven, is very uncertain. Kg2 17:31 Of the idols of the Avvaeans, according to rabbinical accounts in Selden, l.c., Nibchaz had the form of a dog (נבחז, latrator, from נבח), and Tartak that of an ass. Gesenius regards Tartak as a demon of the lower regions, because in Pehlwi tar - thakh signifies deep darkness or hero of darkness, and Nibchaz as an evil demon, the נבאז of the Zabians, whom Norberg in his Onomast. cod. Nasar. p. 100, describes as horrendus rex infernalis: posito ipsius throno ad telluris, i.e., lucis et caliginis confinium, sed imo acherontis fundo pedibus substrato, according to Codex Adami, ii. 50, lin. 12. - With regard to the gods of the Sepharvites, Adrammelech and Anammelech, it is evident from the offering of children in sacrifice to them that they were related to Moloch. The name אדרמּלך which occurs as a personal name in Kg2 19:37 and Isa 37:38, has been explained either from the Semitic אדר as meaning "glorious king," or from the Persian dr, ‛zr, in which case it means "fire-king," and is supposed to refer to the sun (see Ges. on Isaiah, ii. p. 347). ענמּלך is supposed to be Hyde (de relig. vett. Persarum, p. 131) to be the group of stars called Cepheus, which goes by the name of "the shepherd and flock" and "the herd-stars" in the Oriental astrognosis, and in this case ענם might answer to the Arabic gnm = צאן. Movers, on the other hand (Phniz. i. pp. 410, 411), regards them as two names of the same deity, a double-shaped Moloch, and reads the Chethb סכרים אלה as the singular הסּפרום אל, the god of Sepharvaim. This double god, according to his explanation, was a sun-being, because Sepharvaim, of which he was πολιοῦχος, is designated by Berosus as a city of the sun. This may be correct; but there is something very precarious in the further assumption, that "Adar-Melech is to be regarded as the sun's fire, and indeed, since Adar is Mars, that he is so far to be thought of as a destructive being," and that Anammelech is a contraction of מלך עין, oculus Molechi, signifying the ever-watchful eye of Saturn; according to which Adrammelech is to be regarded as the solar Mars, Anammelech as the solar Saturn. The explanations given by Hitzig (on Isa. p. 437) and Benfey (die Monatsnamen, pp. 187, 188) are extremely doubtful. Kg2 17:32 In addition to these idols, Jehovah also was worshipped in temples of the high places, according to the instructions of the Israelitish priest sent by the king of Assyria. יראים ויּהיוּ: "and they were (also) worshipping Jehovah, and made themselves priests of the mass of the people" (מקצותם as in Kg1 12:31). להם עשׂים ויּהיוּ: "and they (the priests) were preparing them (sacrifices) in the houses of the high places." Kg2 17:33 Kg2 17:33 sums up by way of conclusion the description of the various kinds of worship. Kg2 17:34-39 This mixed cultus, composed of the worship of idols and the worship of Jehovah, they retained till the time when the books of the Kings were written. "Unto this day they do after the former customs." הראשׁנים המּשׁפּטים can only be the religious usages and ordinances which were introduced at the settlement of the new inhabitants, and which are described in Kg2 17:28-33. The prophetic historian observes still further, that "they fear not Jehovah, and do not according to their statutes and their rights, nor according to the law and commandment which the Lord had laid down for the sons of Jacob, to whom He gave the name of Israel" (see Kg1 18:31), i.e., according to the Mosaic law. חקּתם and משׁפּטם "their statutes and their right," stands in antithesis to והמּצוה התּורה which Jehovah gave to the children of Israel. If, then, the clause, "they do not according to their statutes and their right," is not to contain a glaring contradiction to the previous assertion, "unto this day they do after their first (former) rights," we must understand by וּמשׁפּטם חקּתם the statutes and the right of the ten tribes, i.e., the worship of Jehovah under the symbols of the calves, and must explain the inexactness of the expression "their statutes and their right" from the fact that the historian was thinking of the Israelites who had been left behind in the land, or of the remnant of the Israelitish population that had become mixed up with the heathen settlers (Kg2 23:19-20; Ch2 34:6, Ch2 34:9, Ch2 34:33). The meaning of the verse is therefore evidently the following: The inhabitants of Samaria retain to this day the cultus composed of the worship of idols and of Jehovah under the form of an image, and do not worship Jehovah either after the manner of the ten tribes or according to the precepts of the Mosaic law. Their worship is an amalgamation of the Jehovah image-worship and of heathen idolatry (cf. Kg2 17:41). - To indicate the character of this worship still more clearly, and hold it up as a complete breach of the covenant and as utter apostasy from Jehovah, the historian describes still more fully, in Kg2 17:35-39, how earnestly and emphatically the people of Israel had been prohibited from worshipping other gods, and urged to worship Jehovah alone, who had redeemed Israel out of Egypt and exalted it into His own nation. For Kg2 17:35 compare Exo 20:5; for Kg2 17:36, the exposition of Kg2 17:7, also Exo 32:11; Exo 6:6; Exo 20:23; Deu 4:34; Deu 5:15, etc. In Kg2 17:37 the committal of the thorah to writing is presupposed. For Kg2 17:39, see Deu 13:5; Deu 23:15, etc. Kg2 17:40-41 They did not hearken, however (the subject is, of course, the ten tribes), but they (the descendants of the Israelites who remained in the land) do after their former manner. הראשׁון משׁפּטם is their manner of worshipping God, which was a mixture of idolatry and of the image-worship of Jehovah, as in Kg2 17:34. - In Kg2 17:41 this is repeated once more, and the whole of these reflections are brought to a close with the additional statement, that their children and grandchildren do the same to this day. - In the period following the Babylonian captivity the Samaritans relinquished actual idolatry, and by the adoption of the Mosaic book of the law were converted to monotheism. For the later history of the Samaritans, of whom a small handful have been preserved to the present day in the ancient Sichem, the present Nablus, see Theod. Guil. Joh. Juynboll, commentarii in historiam gentis Samaritanae, Lugd. Bat. 1846, 4, and H. Petermann, Samaria and the Samaritans, in Herzog's Cycl.

Verse 1

We have here the reign and ruin of Hoshea, the last of the kings of Israel, concerning whom observe, I. That, though he forced his way to the crown by treason and murder (as we read Kg2 15:30), yet he gained not the possession of it till seven or eight years after; for it was in the fourth year of Ahaz that he slew Pekah, but did not himself begin to reign till the twelfth year of Ahaz, Kg2 17:1. Whether by the king of Assyria, or by the king of Judah, or by some of his own people, does not appear, but it seems so long he was kept out of the throne he aimed at. Justly were his bad practices thus chastised, and the word of the prophet was thus fulfilled (Hos 10:3), Now they shall say We have no king, because we feared not the Lord. II. That, though he was bad, yet not so bad as the kings of Israel had been before him (Kg2 17:2), not so devoted to the calves as they had been. One of them (that at Dan), the Jews say, had been, before this, carried away by the king of Assyria in the expedition recorded Kg2 15:29, (to which perhaps the prophet refers, Hos 8:5, Thy calf, O Samaria! has cast thee off), which made him put the less confidence in the other. And some say that this Hoshea took off the embargo which the former kings had put their subjects under, forbidding them to go up to Jerusalem to worship, which he permitted those to do that had a mind to it. But what shall we think of this dispensation of providence, that the destruction of the kingdom of Israel should come in the reign of one of the best of its kings? Thy judgments, O God! are a great deep. God would hereby show that in bringing this ruin upon them he designed to punish, 1. Not only the sins of that generation, but of the foregoing ages, and to reckon for the iniquities of their fathers, who had been long in filing the measure and treasuring up wrath against this day of wrath. 2. Not only the sins of their kings, but the sins of the people. If Hoshea was not so bad as the former kings, yet the people were as bad as those that went before them, and it was an aggravation of their badness, and brought ruin the sooner, that their king did not set them so bad an example as the former kings had done, nor hinder them from reforming; he gave them leave to do better, but they did as bad as ever, which laid the blame of their sin and ruin wholly upon themselves. III. That the destruction came gradually. They were for some time made tributaries before they were made captives to the king of Assyria (Kg2 17:3), and, if that less judgment had prevailed to humble and reform them, the greater would have been prevented. IV. That they brought it upon themselves by the indirect course they took to shake off the yoke of the king of Assyria, Kg2 17:4. Had the king and people of Israel applied to God, made their peace with him and their prayers to him, they might have recovered their liberty, ease, and honour; but they withheld their tribute, and trusted to the king of Egypt to assist them in their revolt, which, if it had taken effect, would have been but to change their oppressors. But Egypt became to them the staff of a broken reed. This provoked the king of Assyria to proceed against them with the more severity. Men get nothing by struggling with the net, but entangle themselves the more. V. That it was an utter destruction that came upon them. 1. The king of Israel was made a prisoner; he was shut up and bound, being, it is probable, taken by surprise, before Samaria was besieged. 2. The land of Israel was made a prey. The army of the king of Assyria came up throughout all the land, made themselves master of it (Kg2 17:5), and treated the people as traitors to be punished with the sword of justice rather than as fair enemies. 3. The royal city of Israel was besieged, and at length taken. Three years it held out after the country was conquered, and no doubt a great deal of misery was endured at that time which is not particularly recorded; but the brevity of the story, and the passing of this matter over lightly, methinks, intimate that they were abandoned of God and he did not now regard the affliction of Israel, as sometimes as he had done. 4. The people of Israel were carried captives into Assyria, Kg2 17:6. The generality of the people, those that were of any note, were forced away into the conqueror's country, to be slaves and beggars there. (1.) Thus he was pleased to exercise a dominion over them, and to show that they were entirely at his disposal. (2.) By depriving them of their possessions and estates, real and personal, and exposing them to all the hardships and reproaches of a removal to a strange country, under the power of an imperious army, he chastised them for their rebellion and their endeavour to shake off his yoke. (3.) Thus he effectually prevented all such attempts for the future and secured their country to himself. (4.) Thus he got the benefit of their service in his own country, as Pharaoh did that of their fathers; and so this unworthy people were lost as they were found, and ended as they began, in servitude and under oppression. (5.) Thus he made room for those of his own country that had little, and little to do, at home, to settle in a good land, a land flowing with milk and honey. In all these several ways he served himself by this captivity of the ten tribes. We are here told in what places of his kingdom he disposed of them - in Halah and Habor, in places, we may suppose, far distant from each other, lest they should keep up a correspondence, incorporate again, and become formidable. There, we have reason to think, after some time they were so mingled with the nations that they were lost, and the name of Israel was no more in remembrance. Those that forgot God were themselves forgotten; those that studied to be like the nations were buried among them; and those that would not serve God in their own land were made to serve their enemies in a strange land. It is probable that they were the men of honour and estates who were carried captive, and that many of the meaner sort of people were left behind, many of every tribe, who either went over to Judah or became subject to the Assyrian colonies, and their posterity were Galileans or Samaritans. But thus ended Israel as a nation; now they became Lo-ammi - not a people, and Lo-ruhamah - unpitied. Now Canaan spued them out. When we read of their entry under Hoshea the son of Nun who would have thought that such as this should be their exit under Hoshea the son of Elah? Thus Rome's glory in Augustus sunk, many ages after, in Augustulus. Providence so ordered the eclipsing of the honour of the ten tribes that the honour of Judah (the royal tribe) and Levi (the holy tribe), which yet remained, might shine the brighter. Yet we find a number sealed of every one of the twelve tribes (Rev. 7) except Dan. James writes to the twelve tribes scattered abroad (Jam 1:1) and Paul speaks of the twelve tribes which instantly served God day and night (Act 26:7); so that though we never read of those that were carried captive, nor have any reason to credit the conjecture of some (that they yet remain a distinct body in some remote corner of the world), yet a remnant of them did escape, to keep up the name of Israel, till it came to be worn by the gospel church, the spiritual Israel, in which it will ever remain, Gal 6:16.

Verse 7

Though the destruction of the kingdom of the ten tribes was but briefly related, it is in these verses largely commented upon by our historian, and the reasons of it assigned, not taken from the second causes - the weakness of Israel, their impolitic management, and the strength and growing greatness of the Assyrian monarch (these things are overlooked) - but only from the First Cause. Observe, 1. It was the Lord that removed Israel out of his sight; whoever were the instruments, he was the author of this calamity. It was destruction from the Almighty; the Assyrian was but the rod of his anger, Isa 10:5. It was the Lord that rejected the seed of Israel, else their enemies could not have seized upon them, Kg2 17:20. Who gave Jacob for a spoil, and Israel to the robbers? Did not the Lord? Isa 43:24. We lose the benefit of national judgments if we do not eye the hand of God in them, and the fulfilling of the scripture, for that also is taken notice of here (Kg2 17:23): The Lord removed Israel out of his favour, and out of their own land, as he had said by all his servants the prophets. Rather shall heaven and earth pass than one tittle of God's word fall to the ground. When God's word and his works are compared, it will be found not only that they agree, but that they illustrate each other. But why would God ruin a people that were raised and incorporated, as Israel was, by miracles and oracles? Why would he undo that which he himself had done at so vast an expense? Was it purely an act of sovereignty? No, it was an act of necessary justice. For, 2. They provoked him to do this by their wickedness. Was it God's doing? Nay, it was their own; by their way and their doings they procured all this to themselves, and it was their own wickedness that did correct them. This the sacred historian shows here at large, that it might appear that God did them no wrong and that others might hear and fear. Come and see what it was that did all this mischief, that broke their power and laid their honour in the dust; it was sin; that, and nothing else, separated between them and God. This is here very movingly laid open as the cause of all the desolations of Israel. He here shows, I. What God had done for Israel, to engage them to serve him. 1. He gave them their liberty (Kg2 17:7): He brought them from under the hand of Pharaoh who oppressed them, asserted their freedom (Israel is my son), and effected their freedom with a high hand. Thus they were bound in duty and gratitude to be his servants, for he had loosed their bonds; nor would he that rescued them out of the hand of the king of Egypt have contradicted himself so far as to deliver them into the hand of the king of Assyria, as he did, if they had not, by their iniquity, betrayed their liberty and sold themselves. 2. He gave them their law, and was himself their king. They were immediately under a divine regimen. They could not plead ignorance of good and evil, sin and duty, for God had particularly charged them against those very things which here he charges them with (Kg2 17:15), That they should not do like the heathen. Nor could they be in any doubt concerning their obligation to observe the laws which they are here charged with rejecting, for they were the commandments and statutes of the Lord their God (Kg2 17:13), so that no room was left to dispute whether they should keep them or no. He had not dealt so with other nations, Psa 147:19, Psa 147:20. 3. He gave them their land, for he cast out the heathen from before them (Kg2 17:8), to make room for them; and the casting out of them for their idolatries was as fair a warning as could be given to Israel not to do like them. II. What they had done against God, notwithstanding these engagements which he had laid upon them. 1. In general. They sinned against the Lord their God (Kg2 17:7), they did those things that were not right (Kg2 17:9), but secretly. So wedded were they to their evil practices that when they could not do them publicly, could not for shame or could not for fear, they would do them secretly - an evidence of their atheism, that they thought what was done in secret was from under the eye of God himself and would not be required. Again, they wrought wicked things in such a direct contradiction to the divine law that they seemed as if they were done on purpose to provoke the Lord to anger (Kg2 17:11), in contempt of his authority and defiance of his justice. They rejected God's statutes and his covenant (Kg2 17:15), would not be bound up either by his command or the consent they themselves had given to the covenant, but threw off the obligations of both, and therefore God justly rejected them, Kg2 17:20. See Hos 4:6. They left all the commandments of the Lord their God (Kg2 17:16), left the way, left the work, which those commandments prescribed them and directed them in. Nay, lastly, they sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the Lord, that is, they wholly addicted themselves to sin, as slaves to the service of those to whom they are sold, and, by their obstinately persisting in sin, so hardened their own hearts that at length it had become morally impossible for them to recover themselves, as one that has sold himself has put his liberty past recall. 2. In particular. Though they were guilty (no doubt) of many immoralities, and violated all the commands of the second table, yet nothing is here specified, but their idolatry. This was the sin that did most easily beset them; this was, of all sins, most provoking to God: it was the spiritual adultery that broke the marriage-covenant, and was the inlet of all other wickedness. Hence it is again and again mentioned here as the sin that ruined them. (1.) They feared other gods (Kg2 17:7), that is, worshipped them and paid their homage to them, as if they feared their displeasure. (2.) They walked in the statutes of the heathen, which were contrary to God's statutes (Kg2 17:8), did as did the heathen (Kg2 17:11), went after the heathen that were round about them (Kg2 17:15), so prostituting the honour of their peculiarity, and defeating God's design concerning them, which was that they should be distinguished from the heathen. Must those that were taught of God go to school to the heathen - those that were appropriated to God take their measures from the nations that were abandoned by him? (3.) They walked in the statutes of the idolatrous kings of Israel (Kg2 17:8), in all the sins of Jeroboam, Kg2 17:22. When their kings assumed a power to alter and add to the divine institutions they submitted to them, and thought the command of their kings would bear them out in disobedience to the command of their God. (4.) They built themselves high places in all their cities, Kg2 17:9. If in any place there was but the tower of the watchmen (a country tower that had no walls, but only a tower to shelter the watch in time of danger), or but a lodge for shepherds, it must be honoured with a high place, and that with an altar. If there was a fenced city, it must be further fortified with a high place. Having forsaken God's only place, they knew no end of high places, in which every man followed his own fancy and directed his devotion to what god he pleased. Sacred things were hereby profaned and laid common, when their altars were as heaps in the furrows of the field, Hos 12:11. (5.) They set them up images and groves - Asherim (even wooden images, so some think the term, which we translate groves, should be rendered) or Ashtaroth (so others) - directed contrary to the second commandment, Kg2 17:10. They served idols (Kg2 17:12), the works of their own hands and creatures of their own fancy, though God had warned them particularly not to do this thing. (6.) They burnt incense in all the high places, to the honour of strange gods, for it was to the dishonour of the true God, Kg2 17:11. (7.) They followed vanity. Idols are called so, because they could do neither good nor evil, but were the most insignificant things that could be; those that worshipped them were like unto them, and so they became vain and good for nothing (Kg2 17:16), vain in their devotions, which were brutish and ridiculous, and so became vain in their whole conversation. (8.) Besides the molten images, even the two calves, they worshipped all the host of heaven - the sun, moon, and stars: for it is not meant of the heavenly host of angels; they could not rise so far above sensible things as to think of them. And, withal, they served Baal, the deified heroes of the Gentiles, Kg2 17:16. (9.) They caused their children to pass through the fire, in token of their dedicating them to their idols. (10.) They used divinations and enchantments, that they might receive directions from the gods to whom they paid their devotions. III. What means God used with them, to bring them off from their idolatries, and to how little purpose. He testified against them, showed them their sins and warned them of the fatal consequences of them by all the prophets and all the seers (for so the prophets had been formerly called), and pressed them to turn from their evil ways, Kg2 17:13. We have read of prophets, more or less, in every reign. Though they had forsaken God's family of priests, he did not leave them without a succession of prophets, who made it their business to teach them the good knowledge of the Lord, but all in vain (Kg2 17:14); they would not hear, but hardened their necks, persisted in their idolatries, and were like their fathers, that would not bow their necks to God's yoke, because they did not believe in him, did not receive his truths, nor would venture upon his promises: it seems to refer to their fathers in the wilderness; the same sin that kept them out of Canaan turned these out, and that was unbelief. IV. How God punished them for their sins. He was very angry with them (Kg2 17:18); for, in the matter of his worship, he is a jealous God, and resents nothing more deeply than giving that honour to any creature which is due to himself only. He afflicted them (Kg2 17:20) and delivered them into the hand of spoilers, in the days of the judges and of Saul, and afterwards in the days of most of their kings, to see if they would be awakened by the judgments of God to consider and amend their ways; but, when all these corrections did not prevail to drive out the folly, God first rent Israel from the house of David, under which they might have been happy. As Judah was hereby weakened, so Israel was hereby corrupted; for they made a man king who drove them from following the Lord and caused them to sin a great sin, Kg2 17:21. This was a national judgment, and the punishment of their former idolatries; and, at length, he removed them quite out of his sight (Kg2 17:18, Kg2 17:23), without giving them any hopes of a return out of their captivity. Lastly, Here is a complaint against Judah in the midst of all (Kg2 17:19): Also Judah kept not the commandments of God; though they were not as yet quite so bad as Israel, yet they walked in the statutes of Israel; and this aggravated the sin of Israel, that they communicated the infection of it to Judah; see Eze 23:11. Those that bring sin into a country or family bring a plague into it and will have to answer for all the mischief that follows.

Verse 24

Never was land lost, we say, for want of an heir. When the children of Israel were dispossessed, and turned out of Canaan, the king of Assyria soon transplanted thither the supernumeraries of his own country, such as it could well spare, who should be servants to him and masters to the Israelites that remained; and here we have an account of these new inhabitants, whose story is related here that we may take our leave of Samaria, as also of the Israelites that were carried captive into Assyria. I. Concerning the Assyrians that were brought into the land of Israel we are here told, 1. That they possessed Samaria and dwelt in the cities thereof, Kg2 17:24. It is common for lands to change their owners, but sad that the holy land should become a heathen land again. See what work sin makes. 2. That at their first coming God sent lions among them. They were probably insufficient to people the country, which occasioned the beasts of the field to multiply against them (Exo 23:29); yet, besides the natural cause, there was a manifest hand of God in it, who is Lord of hosts, of all the creatures, and can serve his own purposes by which he pleases, small or great, lice or lions. God ordered them this rough welcome to check their pride and insolence, and to let them know that though they had conquered Israel the God of Israel had power enough to deal with them - that he could have prevented their settling here, by ordering lions into the service of Israel, and that he permitted it, not for their righteousness, but the wickedness of his own people - and that they were now under his visitation. They had lived without God in their own land, and were not plagued with lions; but, if they do so in this land, it is at their peril. 3. That they sent a remonstrance of this grievance to the king their master, setting forth, it is likely, the loss their infant colony had sustained by the lions and the continual fear they were in of them, and stating that they looked upon it to be a judgment upon them for not worshipping the God of the land, which they could not, because they knew not how, Kg2 17:26. The God of Israel was the God of the whole world, but they ignorantly call him the God of the land, apprehending themselves therefore within his reach, and concerned to be upon good terms with him. Herein they shamed the Israelites, who were not so ready to hear the voice of God's judgments as they were, and who had not served the God of that land, though he was the God of their fathers and their great benefactor, and though they were well instructed in the manner of his worship. Assyrians begged to be taught that which Israelites hated to be taught. 4. That the king of Assyria took care to have them taught the manner of the God of the land (Kg2 17:27, Kg2 17:28), not out of any affection to that God, but to save his subjects from the lions. On this errand he sent back one of the priests whom he had carried away captive. A prophet would have done them more good, for this was but one of the priests of the calves, and therefore chose to dwell at Bethel for old acquaintance' sake, and, though he might teach them to do better than they did, he was not likely to teach them to do well, unless he had taught his own people better. However, he came and dwelt among them, to teach them how they should fear the Lord. Whether he taught them out of the book of the law, or only by word of mouth, is uncertain. 5. That, being thus taught, they made a mongrel religion of it, worshipped the God of Israel for fear and their own idols for love (Kg2 17:33): They feared the Lord, but they served their own gods. They all agreed to worship the God of the land according to the manner, to serve the Jewish festivals and rites of sacrificing, but every nation made gods of their own besides, not only for their private use in their own families, but to be put in the houses of their high places, Kg2 17:9. The idols of each country are here named, Kg2 17:30, Kg2 17:31. The learned are at a loss for the signification of several of these names, and cannot agree by what representations these gods were worshipped. If we may credit the traditions of the Jewish doctors, they tell us that Succoth-Benoth was worshipped in a hen and chickens, Nergal in a cock, Ashima in a smooth goat, Nibhaz in a dog, Tartak in an ass, Adrammelech in a peacock, Anammelech in a pheasant. Our own tell us, more probably, that Succoth-Benoth (signifying the tents of the daughters) was Venus. Nergal, being worshipped by the Cuthites, or Persians, was the fire, Adrammelech and Anammelech were only distinctions of Moloch. See how vain idolaters were in their imaginations, and wonder at their sottishness. Our very ignorance concerning these idols teaches us the accomplishment of that word which God has spoken, that these false gods should all perish (Jer 10:11); they are all buried in oblivion, while the name of the true God shall continue for ever. 6. This medley superstition is here said to continue unto this day (Kg2 17:41), till the time when this book was written and long after, above 300 years in all, till the time of Alexander the Great, when Manasse, brother to Jaddus the high priest of the Jews, having married the daughter of Sanballat, governor of the Samaritans, went over to them, got leave of Alexander to build a temple in Mount Gerizim, drew over many of the Jews to him, and prevailed with the Samaritans to cast away all their idols and to worship the God of Israel only; yet their worship was mixed with so much superstition that our Saviour told them they knew not what they worshipped, Joh 4:22. II. Concerning the Israelites that were carried into the land of Assyria. This historian has occasion to speak of them (Kg2 17:22), showing that their successors in the land did as they had done (after the manner of the nations whom they carried away), they worshipped both the God of Israel and those other gods; but what did the captives do in the land of their affliction? Were they reformed, and brought to repentance, by their troubles? No, they did after the former manner, Kg2 17:34. When the two tribes were afterwards carried into Babylon, they were cured by it of their idolatry, and therefore, after seventy years, they were brought back with joy; but the ten tribes were hardened in the furnace, and therefore were justly lost in it and left to perish. This obstinacy of theirs is here aggravated by the consideration, 1. Of the honour God had put upon them, as the seed of Jacob, whom he named Israel, and from him they were so named, but were a reproach to that worthy name by which they were called. 2. Of the covenant he made with them, and the charge he gave them upon that covenant, which is here very fully recited, that they should fear and serve the Lord Jehovah only, who had brought them up out of Egypt (Kg2 17:36), that, having received his statutes and ordinances in writing, they should observe to do them for evermore (Kg2 17:37), and never forget that covenant which God had made with them, the promises and conditions of that covenant, especially that great article of it which is here thrice repeated, because it had been so often inculcated and so much insisted on, that they should not fear other gods. He had told them that, if they kept close to him, he would deliver them out of the hand of all their enemies (Kg2 17:39); yet when they were in the hand of their enemies, and stood in need of deliverance, they were so stupid, and had so little sense of their own interest, that they did after the former manner (Kg2 17:40), they served both the true God and false gods, as if they knew no difference. Ephraim is joined to idols, let him alone. So they did, and so did the nations that succeeded them. Well might the apostle ask, What then, Are we better than they? No, in no wise, for both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin, Rom 3:9.

Verse 1

17:1-23 The report of the northern kingdom’s fall proceeds in two major sections: (1) events in the reign of Israel’s final king, Hoshea, and the circumstances that brought about the capture of Samaria and the deportation of Israel’s citizens (17:1-6); (2) the reasons for Israel’s collapse and conquest by Assyria—Israel’s many sins (17:7-17) that merited God’s judgment (17:18-20) and the great sin of Jeroboam I, who laid the foundation for Israel’s rampant apostasy (17:21-23).

17:1 Hoshea . . . began to rule over Israel in 732 BC. • Hoshea’s reign is listed as beginning in “the twentieth year of Jotham” (15:30) and in the twelfth year of King Ahaz’s reign in Judah. Ahaz apparently co-reigned with Jotham from about 743 BC, when he was twelve years old, but Ahaz’s official regnal years were calculated from 731 BC (16:2). Thus the references to Ahaz’s reign are in harmony.

Verse 2

17:2 Hoshea’s evil deeds were not to the same extent as his forebears, though what this means exactly is not explained.

Verse 3

17:3-4 King Shalmaneser V succeeded his father Tiglath-pileser III in 726 BC. Hoshea may have reasoned that this leadership change would allow Israel to become independent of Assyrian vassalage. But his withholding of the annual tribute simply invited Shalmaneser’s reprisal. • by asking King So of Egypt: Some scholars understand the name So as an abbreviation of Pharaoh Osorkon IV (730–715 BC). Others equate So with Pharaoh Piankhy (747–716 BC), viewing the biblical name So as a Hebraic rendering of one of the names in Piankhy’s titulary. Still others suggest that So refers to the city of Sais, the capital of Pharaoh Tefnakht (727–720 BC). Whatever the identity of this king, it is clear that Hoshea’s hope for help from Egypt was misplaced.

Verse 5

17:5-6 the king of Assyria: Although sources identify Samaria’s conqueror as Shalmaneser V of Assyria (726–722 BC), Sargon II (who ruled Assyria 721–705 BC) claimed that he captured the city. Perhaps Sargon was the field commander when Samaria fell and then became king when Shalmaneser died during the year of the siege. • invaded the entire land: Assyrian military strategy was to devastate the territory surrounding an enemy’s primary city before launching a final attack. • The ninth year of King Hoshea’s reign was 722 BC. • the people . . . were exiled: The Assyrians practiced deportation in order to defuse future rebellions. Sargon also brought other people to Israel to form a mixed population (17:24-25). • Halah was situated northeast of Nineveh in Assyria. • The Habor River is a tributary of the Euphrates River in northwestern Assyria. • Gozan was located on the Habor River northeast of Haran (Gen 12:4). Assyrian documents from the area list personal names that are clearly Israelite, perhaps reflecting the deportation of the people of Samaria.

Verse 7

17:7 sinned against the Lord . . . who had brought them . . . out of Egypt: Israel’s demise was due to the people’s persistent sin of infidelity. Rather than remaining true to their Redeemer, the Israelites worshiped other gods. • Israel’s redemption out of Egypt is a theme repeated throughout the Old Testament, appearing in the poetic literature (Exod 15:1-18; Pss 77:13-20; 105:26-45; 106:7-12; 114:1-8; Hab 3:3-15), the prophets (Isa 63:11-14; Jer 2:1-8; 32:21-23; Ezek 20:10-12; Mic 6:4), and the historical literature (Josh 3:5; 4:14, 18-24; 1 Sam 12:6).

Verse 8

17:8-13 The catalog of Israel’s sins includes numerous pagan rites and practices. Whether done in the open or secretly, God was aware of them all. Many were even initiated by Israel’s kings who built pagan shrines, sacred pillars, and Asherah poles and emulated heathen sacrifices and idolatry (10:29; 15:18, 28; 1 Kgs 12:28-33; 15:34; 16:30-33). All levels of Israelite society, royalty and commoner alike, persisted in such sins despite denunciation and warning by God’s prophets, which included the writings of Isaiah, Hosea, Amos, and Micah.

Verse 11

17:11 arousing the Lord’s anger: When God becomes angry, he is not vindictive or bad tempered. Instead, human evil angers him because people have rebelled against God and done evil to one another. God responds to human evil with his justice in dealing with sin and evil (see also 13:3; 17:17-18; 21:6; 22:13, 17; 23:26-27; 24:20; Rom 3:23; 6:23; 14:10; 2 Cor 5:10; Col 3:6; 1 Jn 1:8-10).

Verse 14

17:14-15 Like their ancestors (Deut 10:16; 1 Sam 12:6-9; Ps 106:28), the Israelites persisted in their infidelity to the Lord (Isa 65:6-7; Amos 2:4; see Acts 7:51-53).

Verse 16

17:16-17 all the commands of the Lord: The narrator lists specific examples of Israel’s disobedience: the two calves made from metal erected at Dan and Bethel (1 Kgs 12:28-30), the Canaanite fertility symbol known as an Asherah pole (2 Kgs 13:6; 17:10; 1 Kgs 14:23; 16:33; Mic 5:14), the persistent worship of Baal (1 Kgs 16:31-33; Hos 2:13; 13:1), and the detestable Molech rites (2 Kgs 16:3; Ps 106:37).

Verse 18

17:18-20 the Lord was very angry: God’s wrath is his righteous response to evil that demands his justice. • even the people of Judah refused to obey the commands of the Lord: This remark foreshadows the eventual fall of the southern kingdom as well (25:1-21).

Verse 21

17:21-23 All of Israel’s evil and disobedience were connected to the sins of Jeroboam I (1 Kgs 12:26-33).

Verse 24

17:24-41 The writer appends information concerning later events in Israel, including the repopulation of the land with foreigners and the syncretistic worship that developed among the mixed population.

17:24 Not only were the Israelites exiled to other places held by the Assyrians (17:6), but groups of people were sent to settle in Israel. By mixing diverse peoples, the Assyrians hoped to have better control of the resulting population and transfer their loyalties to Assyria. • Samaria became the official name of the new Assyrian province.

Verse 26

17:26-31 The king of Assyria was Sargon II (721–705 BC). • the God of the land . . . has sent lions: Religious belief in the ancient Near East held that the tranquility and success of a land was strongly identified with its god and the rites associated with his worship. • One of the priests . . . returned to Bethel, though his instruction in how to worship the Lord was doubtless influenced by the religion of Jeroboam I and mixed with paganism. • The foreigners also continued to worship their own gods. They simply added the worship of Israel’s God to the worship of their own gods. Most of the false gods mentioned here are unknown. Their names may have been altered by Jewish scribes. • Nergal was the Mesopotamian god of the underworld. Nibhaz and Tartak were probably Elamite deities.

Verse 32

17:32-34 worshiped the Lord, but . . . continued to follow their own gods: Hebrew faith, already blended with the religion of Jeroboam I, was now mixed with many different foreign religious customs. Genuine worship of the Lord virtually disappeared. Only a handful of faithful Israelites remained to respond to Hezekiah’s later invitation to come to Judah for the Passover celebration (2 Chr 30:10-19).

Verse 35

17:35-39 According to Israel’s covenant with the Lord (Exod 20:5; Deut 6:4-15), Israel was to worship only the Lord. He alone could provide true redemption and rescue them from all . . . enemies.

Verse 40

17:40-41 worshiped the Lord . . . worshiped their idols: The reconstituted Samaritan religion was thoroughly syncretistic (an eclectic combination of religions), perhaps explaining why Samaritans were later regarded with suspicion and disdain (see Neh 4:1-2; 10:28-31; John 4:7-9).