Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Kings 17:6
In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria, and placed them in Halah and in Habor [by] the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.
6. in Halah ] Most likely this is the district which Ptolemy calls . It lies directly north from Thapsacus between Anthemusia and Gauzonitis.
and in Habor ] Habor is the river still known as the Khabour, which flows through Gauzonitis, and empties itself into the Euphrates at Circesium. Hence ‘on Habor, the river of Gozan’, would be a better rendering of the Hebrew. For we do not know of a place called Habor.
by [R.V. on ] the river ] There is no preposition in the original, it is therefore better to take ‘the river of Gozan’ as in apposition with Habor.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The king of Assyria took Samaria – i. e., from the Assyrian inscriptions, not Shalmaneser but Sargon, who claims to have captured the city in the first year of his reign (721 B.C.). At first Sargon carried off from Samaria no more than 27,280 prisoners and was so far from depopulating the country that he assessed the tribute on the remaining inhabitants at the same rate as before the conquest. But later in his reign he effected the wholesale deportation here mentioned.
Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan – Rather, on the Habor, the river of Gozan. Halah is the tract which Ptolemy calls Chalcitis, on the borders of Gauzanitis (Gozan) in the vicinity of the Chaboras, or Khabour (Habor, the great affluent of the Euphrates). In this region is a remarkable mound called Gla, which probably marks the site, and represents the name, of the city of Chalach, from where the district Chalcitis was so called.
In the cities of the Medes – Sargon relates that he overran Media, seized and annexed to Assyria a number of the towns, and also established in the country a set of fortified posts or colonies.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
2Ki 17:6-8
In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria took Samaria.
Captivity of Israel
The seeds of Israels captivity were sown by Solomon. The introduction of foreign wives into the royal family was the first step toward Israels fall. Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, cuts the die that stamps the face of all the subsequent religious history of Israel With the fourth dynasty, that of Omri, a new religious period begins. Omris greatness and foreign popularity secured for his son Ahab alliance with the royal house of Zidon. With all the energy and fire of her strong character, Jezebel persecuted and destroyed the prophets of Jehovah, and transplanted into Israel the sensual worship of Baal and the Asherah. But the rise of the dynasty of Jehu was the fall not only of Omris house, but of Phoenician Baal-worship also. From a political point of view, Israel had seen some prosperous times. Omri had secured a large domain, and probably a rich revenue. Ahab was less fortunate in his political relations. An invasion of the great Assyrian army forced a coalition of all the petty western nations for self-defence. In an inscription of Shalmanezer
II. is an account of a battle between him and these peoples, which took place near the ancient city of Karkar. Among the enemies vanquished we find twelve hundred chariots, twelve hundred horsemen, twenty thousand men of Hadadezer of Damascus; two thousand chariots, iron thousand men, of Ahab of Israel. In another inscription of the same monarch there is mention of Jehu, the son of Omri! as one of his tributaries. Here Omri appears as the ancestor of Jehu. The anarchy that cursed Israel during its later history seems to have been instigated largely by the monarchs of the East. In one of Tiglath-pilesers inscriptions, where he gives an account of his subjection of the land of Omri, he says: Pekah their king I put to death, and I appointed Hoshea to the sovereignty over them. The Bible record, 2Ki 15:30, simply mentions the conspirator, murderer, and successor. The inscriptions tell us who stood behind, shifted the scenes, and directed the actors. Tiglath-pileser was absolute ruler of Palestine. Israels power was broken, its army reduced, its land partially depopulated.
I. The capture of Samaria. Hoshea seems to have been faithful to his Assyrian lord as long as the latter lived. But at the death of Tiglath-pileser and the accession of his successor, Shalmanezer IV., there was probably, as whenever rulers changed at Nineveh, a widespread revolt among their tributaries in the distant provinces. Hoshea, though religiously superior to his predecessors, despairs of the situation under the tyrants of the East, and appeals to So (Sabako), of Egypt, for relief. He withholds his accustomed tribute, thus openly defying the armies of the great king. His appeal to Egypt seems to have won for him only the enmity of the new king of Assyria. Shalmanezer then came up throughout all the land, and went up to Samaria and besieged it three years. He threshed the land right and left, taking captive and devastating, until he had driven the unsubmissive within the walls of Samaria.
II. Causes of the captivity of Israel. After narrating the catastrophe of Samaria and the disposition of its population, the writer enumerates the causes of the same. The Israelites practised secretly the idolatry of their neighbours, building high places throughout the land, upon which they burnt incense to Canaanitish deities. Obelisks of Baal and the Asherim were set on every high hill and under every green tree. These Phoenician deities were symbols of the generative powers of Nature. They were the objects of the most degrading and licentious forms of worship. They appealed directly to the sensual impulses, and thus easily corrupted and led astray Israel.
III. Significance of the captivity. The ten tribes revolted against Solomons successor in order to avoid political oppression. But their anarchistic method of choosing rulers made them for a hundred and fifty years the victims of the most arbitrary kings. By their disregard of political obligations and treachery toward their conquerors, these self-willed monarchs ultimately brought upon their people the just rewards of national rebellion–captivity and servitude. Jehovah had permitted them to exist as a part of his chosen people, but they were under the same conditions as Judah; their continuance depended on their faithfulness to his commands. When all law and testimony were ignored, and Jehovah was insulted and defied, then mercy gave place to justice, prosperity to disaster, blessings to cursings, and peace to captivity. This catastrophe is the strongest kind of corroboration to the truth of the warnings of the prophets. They besought and entreated Israel to turn from all evil ways. They warned and threatened, they accused and condemned them by the word of Jehovah. The threatened fate at length came to pass. With steadfast purpose, Jehovah brought upon his enemies the just fruits of their evil deeds. God is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever. Disregard of His words, commands, warnings, and threats is just as blameworthy in His sight to-day as two thousand five hundred years ago. Godless living is still the bane of national life. Let each one of us, by the grace of God, so live that the golden text of the lesson may never be true of us,–Because you have forsaken Jehovah, He hath also forsaken you. (Ira M. Price.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 6. Took Samaria] According to the prophets Hosea, Ho 13:16, and Micah, Mic 1:6. He exercised great cruelties on this miserable city, ripping up the women with child, dashing young children against the stones, c. c.
Carried Israel away into Assyria] What were the places to which the unfortunate Israelites were carried, or where their successors are now situated, have given rise to innumerable conjectures, dissertations, discourses, &c. Some maintain that they are found on the coast of Guinea others, in America the Indian tribes being the descendants of those carried away by the Assyrians. In vol. i. of the Supplement to Sir Wm. Jones’s works, we find a translation of the History of the Afghans, by Mr. H. Vansittart; from which it appears that they derive their own descent from the Jews. On this history Sir Wm. Jones writes the following note: –
“This account of the Afghans may lead to a very interesting discovery. We learn from Esdras, that the ten tribes, after a wandering journey, came to a country called Arsaret, where we may suppose they settled. Now the Afghans are said by the best Persian historians to be descended from the Jews; they have traditions among themselves of such a descent, and it is even asserted that their families are distinguished by the names of Jewish tribes; although, since their conversion to the Islam, they studiously conceal their origin. The Pushtoo, of which I have seen a dictionary, has a manifest resemblance to the Chaldaic; and a considerable district under their dominion is called Hazarek or Hazaret, which might easily have been changed into the word used by Esdras. I strongly recommend an inquiry into the literature and history of the Afghans.” Every thing considered, I think it by far the most probable that the Afghans are the descendants of the Jews, who were led away captives by the Assyrian kings.
Thus ended the kingdom of Israel, after it had lasted two hundred and fifty-four years, from the death of Solomon and the schism of Jeroboam, till the taking of Samaria by Shalmaneser, in the ninth year of Hoshea; after which the remains of the ten tribes were carried away beyond the river Euphrates.
The rest of this chapter is spent in vindicating the Divine providence and justice; showing the reason why God permitted such a desolation to fall on a people who had been so long his peculiar children.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
This is added to distinguish this place from the former, which was either in Assyria, or in the mountainous and less inhabited parts of Media. Hither he carried them, partly to replenish his own country; and partly because these places were at so great a distance from Canaan, that this would cut off all hopes and thoughts of returning to their own country.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
6. carried Israel awaythatis, the remaining tribes (see on 2Ki15:29).
and placed them, c.Thispassage GESENIUS rendersthus, omitting the particle by, which is printed in italics toshow it is not in the original: “and placed them in Halah, andon the Chabor, a river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.”
Halahthe same as Calah(Gen 10:11 Gen 10:12),in the region of the Laycus or Zab river, about a day’s journey fromthe ruins of Nineveh.
Chaboris a river, andit is remarkable that there is a river rising in the centralhighlands of Assyria which retains this name Khabour unchanged to thepresent day.
Gozan(“pasture”)or Zozan, are the highlands of Assyria, which afford pasturage. Theregion in which the Chabor and the Zab rise, and through which theyflow, is peculiarly of this character. The Nestorians repair to itwith their numerous flocks, spending the summer on the banks or inthe highlands of the Chabor or the Zab. Considering the highauthority we possess for regarding Gozan and Zozan as one name, therecan be no doubt that this is the Gozan referred to in this passage.
cities of theMedes“villages,” according to the Syriac andVulgate versions, or “mountains,” according to theSeptuagint. The Medish inhabitants of Gozan, having revolted,had been destroyed by the kings of Assyria, and nothing was morenatural than that they should wish to place in it an industriouspeople, like the captive Israelites, while it was well suited totheir pastoral life [GRANT,Nestorians].
2Ki17:7-41. SAMARIATAKEN, AND ISRAELFOR THEIR SINSCARRIED CAPTIVE.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
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 comments on 2Ki 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, 1Ch 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.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
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. is neither the city of 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 or , but the province of Strabo (xi. 8, 4; 14, 12, and xvi. 1, 1), called by Ptolemaeus (vi. 1), on the eastern side of the Tigris near Adiabene, to the north of Nineveh on the border of Armenia. is not the 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, by Ptolemaeus, (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 above Nineveh towards Armenia, between Calachene and Adiabene. Here in northern Assyria we also find both a mountain called , 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 .
It is a question in dispute, whether the following words are in apposition to : “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. , and even of the copula , on the one hand, and the words of Yakut, “Khabur, a river of Chasania,” on the other, may seem to favour the former view, we must decide in favour of the latter, for the simple reason that in 1Ch 5:26 is separated from morf d by . The absence of the preposition or of the copula before 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 (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 , mountains, after the lxx, instead of , cities, though without the least necessity.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
(6) In the ninth year of Hosheathe king of Assyria took Samaria.Comp. Hos. 10:5 seq.; Mic. 1:6; Isa. 28:1-4. In the great inscription published by Botta, Sargon says: The city of Samaria I assaulted, I took; 27,280 men dwelling in the midst thereof I carried off; 50 chariots among them I set apart (for myself), and the rest of their wealth I let (my soldiers) take; my prefect over them I appointed, and the tribute of the former king upon them I laid.
Placed them.Literally, made them dwell. LXX.,
In Halah.This place appears to be identical with Halahhu, a name occurring in an Assyrian geographical list between Arrabha (Arrapachitis) and Ratsappa (Rezeph). It probably lay in Mesopotamia, like Rezeph and Gozan. (See Note on 1Ch. 5:26.)
In Habor by the river of Gozan.Rather, on Habor the river of Gozan.
The cities of the Medes.- The LXX. seems to have read mountains of the Medes. (Comp. Notes on 1Ch. 5:26, where Hara and the river of Gozan is probably the result of an inadvertent transposition of The river of Gozan and Hara.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
6. The king of Assyria took Samaria From the context we most naturally infer that this Assyrian king was no other than Shalmaneser, mentioned in 2Ki 17:3, but the Assyrian inscriptions show that it was Shalmaneser’s successor, whose name, Sargon, occurs in Isa 20:1. This fact by no means conflicts with our historian, who simply calls the conqueror, the king of Assyria. Compare chap. 2Ki 18:10. In a long inscription discovered in the palace of Khorsabad, and commonly called the “Acts of Sargon,” occurs the following: “I besieged, took, and occupied the city of Samaria, and carried into captivity twenty-seven thousand two hundred and eighty of its inhabitants. I changed the former government of the country and placed over it lieutenants of my own And Sebeh, ruler of Egypt, came to Raphia [a city near the seacoast southwest of Gaza] to fight against me; they met me and I routed them; Sebeh fled.” This last statement gives support to the conjecture that it was some interference from the king of Egypt that enabled Samaria to hold out so long against the Assyrian armies. Compare note on 2Ki 17:4. Sargon seems, therefore, to have been a usurper who gained possession of the throne of Assyria during Shalmaneser’s prolonged absence at the siege of Samaria. “In the East,” says Rawlinson, “it is always dangerous for the reigning prince to be long away from his metropolis. In the king’s absence all languishes: the course of justice is suspended; public works are stopped; workmen are discharged; wages fall; and the people, anxious for better times, are ready to welcome any pretender who will come forward and declare the throne vacant, and claim to be its proper occupant. If Shalmaneser continued to direct in person the siege of Samaria three years, we cannot be surprised that the patience of the Ninevites was exhausted, and that in the third year they accepted the rule of the usurper who boldly proclaimed himself king.” So the siege of Samaria was commenced and long carried on by Shalmaneser, but was completed by Sargon, who subsequently warred against Hamath and Egypt, as his inscription claims. But the Hebrew historian does not concern himself with this dynastic revolution, as it in no way changed the attitude of Assyria towards Israel.
Halah The exact locality of Halah is not settled, and whether it were a city or a district is doubtful. The most probable supposition is, that it was a district lying on or near the river of Gozan, and probably near its source.
Habor is usually identified with the modern Khabur, which rises in Mount Masius, and flows in a nearly southerly direction, and empties into the Euphrates at the site of the ancient Carchemish. According to Benjamin of Tudela there were large communities of Israelites as late as the twelfth century living on the banks of this river. Many think this river identical with the Chebar of Ezekiel. Eze 1:1. Others, however, identify the Habor with a river of similar name which empties into the Tigris some seventy miles above Nineveh. In this verse the river of Gozan seems to be in apposition with Habor, and J.L. Porter suggests that Habor is the name of the district watered by the lower Khabur, while the upper part of the same river, flowing through the province of Gozan, is called the river of Gozan. In 1Ch 5:26, the river of Gozan is distinguished from Habor, which would be natural enough if different names were applied to different portions of the same river. Ptolemy mentions a province on the southern declivities of Mount Masius called Gausanitis, and it was probably identical with the ancient Gozan. At the time of Sargon all this region must have belonged to the Assyrian empire.
Cities of the Medes So all the captives were not placed along the Habor, but some transported into the more distant Media. One of the Median cities, to which exiles were taken, appears from Tob 1:14 , to have been Rages. It is interesting to note that in his long inscription, already mentioned, Sargon claims to have subjected Media to his sway. “Sargon seems to have been the first Assyrian monarch who conquered Media; and he expressly relates that, in order to complete its subjection, he founded there a number of cities, which he planted with colonists from other portions of his dominion.” RAWLINSON, Hist. Eviden., p. 119. It seems to have been a favourite policy of his to colonize newly-conquered districts by placing in them people from a distance, and forming a mixed population which would not be so likely to plan revolt or treason. Comp. 2Ki 17:24.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2Ki 17:6. Carried Israel away into Assyria, &c. The policy of any prince in transplanting a conquered people in another country, is, to prevent their combining (which they cannot so well do in a strange land, and amongst a mixed multitude of different languages), in order to shake off their uneasy yoke, and recover their liberty. Among other rich things which Shalmaneser took and carried away in this expedition was the golden calf which Jeroboam had set up at Bethel, and which ever since his time had been worshipped by the ten tribes that had revolted with him from the house of David, as the other golden calf, which he set up at the same time at Dan, had been taken thence about ten years before by Tiglath-pileser, when he invaded Galilee, the province wherein that city stood. See Prideaux, A. 729 and Seder Olam Rabbi, ch. 22.
Placed them inthe cities of the Medes Media was then subject to the king of Assyria, which destroys the credit of Ctesias. The king of Assyria here mentioned, Shalmaneser, is not the same king who is mentioned 2Ki 17:24 of this chapter (see Ezr 4:2.); unless Shalmanezer and Ezar-haddon was the same king. Marsham makes them to be two different kings. Stackhouse would render the latter part of this verse, he placed them in Halah, and by the river Habor, in Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
2Ki 17:6 In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria, and placed them in Halah and in Habor [by] the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.
Ver. 6. And carried Israel away into Assyria. ] Whither Tiglathpileser had before carried five of the tribes. 1Ch 5:26 And this was the end of the Israelitish kingdom, after it had stood two hundred and fifty-four years; the time being now come of which the prophet Isaiah had spoken, saying, Within sixty-five years Ephraim shall be wasted, so that he shall not be a people. This time began, say the Hebrews, in the twenty-fifth year of Uzziah, when their carrying away captive was first threatened by Amos.
And placed them in Halah and in Habor. 2 Kings
A KINGDOM’S EPITAPH
2Ki 17:6 – 2Ki 17:18 The brevity of the account of the fall of Samaria in 2Ki 17:6 contrasts with the long enumeration of the sins which caused it, in the rest of this passage. Modern critics assume that 2Ki 17:7 – 2Ki 17:23 are ‘an interpolation by the Deuteronomic writer,’ apparently for no reason but because they trace Israel’s fall to its cause in idolatry. But surely the bare notice in 2Ki 17:6 , immediately followed by 2Ki 17:24 , cannot have been all that the original historian had to say about so tragic an end of so large a part of the people of God. The whole purpose of the Old Testament history is not to chronicle events, but to declare God’s dealings, and the fall of a kingdom was of little moment, except as revealing the righteousness of God.
The main part of this passage, then, is the exposition of the causes of the national ruin. It is a post mortem inquiry into the diseases that killed a kingdom. At first sight, these verses seem a mere heaping together, not without some repetition, of one or two charges; but, more closely looked at, they disclose a very striking progress of thought. In the centre stands 2Ki 17:13 , telling of the mission of the prophets. Before it, 2Ki 17:7 – 2Ki 17:12 , narrate Israel’s sin, which culminates in provoking the Lord to anger 2Ki 17:11. After it, the sins are reiterated with noticeable increase of emphasis, and again culminate in provoking the Lord to anger 2Ki 17:17. So we have two degrees of guilt-one before and one after the prophets’ messages; and two kindlings of God’s anger-one which led to the sending of the prophets, and one which led to the destruction of Israel. The lessons that flow from this obvious progress of thought are plain.
I. The less culpable apostasy before the prophets’ warnings. The first words of 2Ki 17:7 , rendered as in the Revised Version, give the purpose of all that follows; namely, to declare the causes of the calamity just told. Note that the first characteristic of Israel’s sin was ungrateful departure from God. There is a world of pathos and meaning in that ‘their God,’ which is enhanced by the allusion to the Egyptian deliverance. All sins are attempts to break the chain which binds us to God-a chain woven of a thousand linked benefits. All practically deny His possession of us, and ours of Him, and display the short memory which ingratitude has. All have that other feature hinted at here-the contrast, so absurd if it were not so sad, between the worth and power of the God who is left and the other gods who are preferred. The essential meanness and folly of Israel are repeated by every heart departing from the living God.
The double origin of the idolatry is next set forth. It was in part imported and in part home-made. We have little conception of the strength of faith and courage which were needed to keep the Jews from becoming idolaters, surrounded as they were by such. But the same are needed to-day to keep us from learning the ways of the world and getting a snare to our souls. Now, as ever, walking with God means walking in the opposite direction from the crowd, and that requires some firm nerve. The home-made idolatry is gibbeted as being according to ‘the statutes of the kings.’ What right had they to prescribe their subjects’ religion? The influence of influential people, especially if exerted against the service of God, is hard to resist; but it is no excuse for sin that it is fashionable.
The blindness of Israel to the consequences of their sin is hinted in the reference to the fate of the nations whom they imitated. They had been cast out; would not their copyists learn the lesson? We, too, have examples enough of what godless lives come to, if we had the sense to profit by them. The God who cast out the vile Canaanites and all the rest of the wicked crew before the sons of the desert has not changed, and will treat Israel as He did them, if Israel come down to their level. Outward privileges make idolatry or any sin more sinful, and its punishment more severe.
Another characteristic of Israel’s sin is its being done ‘secretly.’ Of the various meanings proposed for that word 2Ki 17:9 the best seems to be that it refers to the attempt to combine the worship of God and of idols, of which the calf worship is an instance. Elijah had long ago taunted the people with trying ‘to hobble on both knees,’ or on ‘two opinions’ at once; and here the charge is of covering idolatry with a cloak of Jehovah worship. A varnish of religion is convenient and cheap, and often effectual in deceiving ourselves as well as others; but ‘as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he,’ whatever his cloak may be; and the thing which we count most precious and long most for is our god, whatever our professions of orthodox religion.
The idolatry is then described, in rapid touches, as universal. Wherever there was a solitary watchman’s tower among the pastures there was a high place, and they were reared in every city. Images and Asherim deformed every hill-top and stood under every spreading tree. Everywhere incense loaded the heavy air with its foul fragrance. The old scenes of unnamable abomination, which had been so terribly avenged, seemed to have come back, and to cry aloud for another purging by fire and sword.
The terrible upshot of all was ‘to provoke the Lord to anger.’ The New Testament is as emphatic as the Old in asserting that there is the capacity of anger in the God whose name is love, and that sin calls it forth. The special characteristic of sin, by which it thus attracts that lightning, is that it is disobedience. As in the first sin, so in all others, God has said, ‘Ye shall not do this thing’; and we say, ‘Do it we will.’ What can the end of that be but the anger of the Lord? ‘Because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.’
II. 2Ki 17:13 gives the pleading of Jehovah. The mission of the prophets was God’s reply to Israel’s rebellion, and was equally the sign of His anger and of His love. The more sin abounds, the more does God multiply means to draw back to Himself. The deafer the ears, the louder the beseeching voice of His grieved and yet pitying love. His anger clothes itself in more stringent appeals and clearer revelations of Himself before it takes its slaughtering weapons in hand. The darker the background of sin, the brighter the beams of His light show against it. Man’s sin is made the occasion for a more glorious display of God’s character and heart. It is on the storm-cloud that the sun paints the rainbow. Each successive stage in man’s departure from God evoked a corresponding increase in the divine effort to attract him back, till ‘last of all He sent unto them His Son.’ In nature, attraction diminishes as distance increases; in the realms of grace, it grows with distance. The one desire of God’s heart is that sinners would return from their evil ways, and He presses on them the solemn thought of the abundant intimations of His will which have been given from of old, and are pealed again into all ears by living voices. His law for us is not merely an old story spoken centuries ago, but is vocal in our consciences to-day, and fresh as when Sinai flamed and thundered above the camp, and the trumpet thrilled each heart.
III. The heavier sin that followed the divine pleading. That divine voice leaves no man as it finds him. If it does not sway him to obedience, it deepens his guilt, and makes him more obstinate. Like some perverse ox in the yoke, he stiffens his neck, and stands the very picture of brute obduracy. There is an awful alternative involved in our hearing of God’s message, which never returns to Him void, but ever does something to the hearer, either softening or hardening, either scaling the eyes or adding another film on them, either being the ‘savour of life unto life or of death unto death.’ The mission of the prophets changed forgetfulness of God’s ‘statutes’ into ‘rejection’ of them, and made idolatry self-conscious rebellion. Alas, that men should make what is meant to be a bond to unite them to God into a wedge to part them farther from Him! But how constantly that is the effect of the gospel, and for the same reason as in Israel-that they ‘did not believe in the Lord their God’!
The miserable result on the sinners’ own natures is described with pregnant brevity in 2Ki 17:15 . ‘They followed vanity, and became vain.’ The worshipper became like the thing worshipped, as is always the case. The idol is vanity, utter emptiness and nonentity; and whoever worships nothingness will become in his own inmost life as empty and vain as it is. That is the retribution attendant on all trust in, and longing after, the trifles of earth, that we come down to the level of what we set our hearts upon. We see the effects of that principle in the moral degradation of idolaters. Gods lustful, cruel, capricious, make men like themselves. We see it working upwards in Christianity, in which God becomes man that men may become like God, and of which the whole law is put into one precept, which is sure to be kept, in the measure of the reality of a man’s religion. ‘Be ye therefore imitators of God, as beloved children.’
In 2Ki 17:16 – 2Ki 17:17 the details of the idolatry follow the general statement, as in 2Ki 17:9 – 2Ki 17:12 , but with additions and with increased severity of tone. We hear now of calves and star worship, and Baal, and burning children to Moloch, and divination and enchantment. The catalogue is enlarged, and there is added to it the terrible declaration that Israel had ‘sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the Lord.’ The same thing was said by Elijah to Ahab-a noble instance of courage. The sinner who steels himself against the divine remonstrance, does not merely go on in his old sins, but adds new ones. Begin with the calves, and fancy that you are worshipping Jehovah, and you will end with Baal and Moloch. Refuse to hear God’s pleadings, and you will sell your freedom, and become the lowest and only real kind of slave-the bondsman of evil. When that point of entire abandonment to sin, which Paul calls being ‘sold under sin,’ is reached, as it may be reached, at all events by a nation, and corruption has struck too deep to be cast out, once again the anger of the Lord is provoked; but this time it comes in a different guise. The armies of the Assyrians, not the prophets, are its messengers now. Israel had made itself like the nations whom God had used it to destroy, and now it shall be destroyed as they were.
To be swept out of His sight is the fate of obstinate rejection of His commandments and pleadings. Israel made itself the slave of evil, and was made the captive of Assyria. Self-willed freedom, which does as it likes, and heeds not God, ends in bondage, and is itself bondage. God’s anger against sin speaks pleadingly to us all, saying, ‘Do not this abominable thing that I hate.’ Well for us if we hearken to His voice when ‘His anger is kindled but a little.’ If we do not yield to Him, and cast away our idols, we shall become vain as they. Our evil will be more fatal, and our obstinacy more criminal, because He called, and we refused. ‘Who may abide the day of His coming? and who shall stand when He appeareth?’ These captives, dragging their weary limbs, with despair in their hearts, across the desert to a land of bondage, were but shadows, in the visible region of things, of the far more doleful and dreary fate that sooner or later must fall on those who would none of God’s counsel, and despised all His reproof, but cling to their idol till they and it are destroyed together.
king of Assyria = Shalmaneser. See 2Ki 17:3.
took Samaria. Here, in the days of Hoshea (king of Israel); and in 2Ki 18as connected with the days of Hezekiah (king of Judah). Compare 2Ki 18:9.
carried Israel away. Sargon’s own inscription says 27,290. Compare 2Ki 18:9-12.
Halah. Some codices, with four early printed editions, read “Halath”.
am 3283, bc 721
the king of Assyria: 2Ki 18:10, 2Ki 18:11, Hos 1:6, Hos 1:9, Hos 13:16, foretold
carried: Lev 26:32, Lev 26:33, Lev 26:38, Deu 4:25-28, Deu 28:36, Deu 28:64, Deu 29:27, Deu 29:28, Deu 30:18, 1Ki 14:15, 1Ki 14:16, Amo 5:27
Halah: 2Ki 19:12, 1Ch 5:26, Isa 37:12, Isa 37:13
the Medes: Isa 13:17, Isa 21:2, Dan 5:28
Reciprocal: 1Ki 8:46 – unto the land 1Ki 16:24 – the name of the city 1Ki 20:1 – besieged 2Ki 15:29 – carried them 2Ki 17:23 – So was Israel 2Ki 17:24 – in the cities thereof 2Ki 18:32 – I come 2Ki 18:34 – have they delivered 2Ki 19:4 – the remnant 2Ki 19:17 – the kings 2Ki 21:13 – I will stretch 1Ch 5:22 – until the captivity 2Ch 6:36 – thou be angry 2Ch 32:1 – king of Assyria 2Ch 32:13 – I and my 2Ch 34:21 – that are left Psa 44:11 – scattered Isa 5:13 – my people Isa 8:4 – the riches of Damascus Isa 9:1 – afterward Isa 9:14 – will cut Isa 10:9 – Samaria Isa 10:13 – I have removed Isa 17:3 – fortress Isa 26:15 – thou hadst Isa 27:13 – and they Isa 28:19 – the time Isa 36:17 – I come Isa 37:18 – the kings Jer 3:8 – when for Jer 3:12 – toward the north Jer 50:17 – first Dan 9:7 – near Hos 1:4 – will cause Hos 9:3 – in Assyria Amo 6:14 – I will Amo 7:11 – and Israel Amo 7:17 – die Mic 1:16 – for Mic 2:10 – and Act 2:9 – Medes Act 7:43 – and I
17:6 In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria, and placed them in Halah and in Habor [by] the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the {c} Medes.
(c) For at this time the Medes and Persians were subject to the Assyrians.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes