2 Kings 17:4 Komentář

This chapter gives us an account of the captivity of the ten tribes, and so finishes the history of that kingdom, after it had continued about 265 years, from the setting up of Jeroboam the son of Nebat. In it we have, I. A short narrative of this destruction (Kg2 17:1-6). II. Remarks upon it, and the causes of it, for the justifying of God in it and for warning to others (v. 7-23). III. An account of the nations which succeeded them in the possession of their land, and the mongrel religion set up among them (v. 24-41).

INTRODUCTION TO 2 KINGS 17 This chapter relates the captivity of the ten tribes of Israel, and how it came about, Kg2 17:1, the cause of it, their idolatry, which they persisted in, notwithstanding the remonstrances made against it, Kg2 17:7, in whose stead were placed people from different parts, who exercised a mixed religion, partly Heathenish, and partly Israelitish, Kg2 17:24.

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.

At this point it is also appropriate to tell where the Samaritans originated. I say this because the entire region is called Samaria. From what source, then, did they derive this name? The mountain is called Semer from the man who had taken possession of it, as Isaiah also said: "And the head of Samaria, Ephraim." The inhabitants, however, were called not Samaritans but Israelites. But as time went on, they transgressed against God, and during the reign of Pekah, Tiglath-pileser went up and seized many cities. After attacking and killing Elah, he gave the kingdom over to Hoshea. Later, Shalmaneser came and captured other cities and made them subject and tributary. However, though Hoshea at first yielded, he revolted afterwards from subjection and took refuge in the aid of the Ethiopians. The Assyrian learned this and, having made an expedition and taken them captive, forbade the nation to remain there any longer, because he suspected the possibility of another such revolt.

Hoshea's wicked reign, Kg2 17:1, Kg2 17:2. Shalmaneser comes up against him, makes him tributary, and then casts him into prison, Kg2 17:3, Kg2 17:4. He besieges Samaria three years; and at last takes it, and carries Israel captive into Assyria, and places them in different cities of the Assyrians and Medes, Kg2 17:5, Kg2 17:6. The reason why Israel was thus afflicted; their idolatry, obstinacy, divination, etc., Kg2 17:7-18. Judah copies the misconduct of Israel, Kg2 17:19. The Lord rejects all the seed of Israel, Kg2 17:20-23. The king of Assyria brings different nations and places them in Samaria, and the cities from which the Israelites had been led away into captivity, Kg2 17:24. Many of these strange people are destroyed by lions, Kg2 17:25. The king of Assyria sends back some of the Israelitish priests to teach these nations the worship of Jehovah; which worship they incorporate with their own idolatry, Kg2 17:26-33. The state of the Israelites, and strange nations in the land of Israel, Kg2 17:34-41.

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

HOSHEA'S WICKED REIGN. (Kg2 17:1-6) In the twelfth year of Ahaz king of Judah, began Hoshea . . . to reign--The statement in Kg2 15:30 may be reconciled with the present passage in the following manner: Hoshea conspired against Pekah in the twentieth year of the latter, which was the eighteenth of Jotham's reign. It was two years before Hoshea was acknowledged king of Israel, that is, in the fourth of Ahaz, and twentieth of Jotham. In the twelfth year of Ahaz his reign began to be tranquil and prosperous [CALMET].

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.

Reign of Hoshea King of Israel. - Kg2 17:1. In the twelfth year of Ahaz began Hoshea to reign. As Hoshea conspired against Pekah, according to Kg2 15:30, in the fourth year of Ahaz, and after murdering him made himself king, whereas according to the verse before us it was not till the twelfth year of Ahaz that he really became king, his possession of the throne must have been contested for eight years. The earlier commentators and almost all the chronologists have therefore justly assumed that there was en eight years' anarchy between the death of Pekah and the commencement of Hoshea's reign. This assumption merits the preference above all the attempts made to remove the discrepancy by alterations of the text, since there is nothing at all surprising in the existence of anarchy at a time when the kingdom was in a state of the greatest inward disturbance and decay. Hoshea reigned nine years, and "did that which was evil in the eyes of Jehovah, though not like the kings of Israel before him" (Kg2 17:2). We are not told in what Hoshea was better than his predecessors, nor can it be determined with any certainty, although the assumption that he allowed his subjects to visit the temple at Jerusalem is a very probable one, inasmuch as, according to Ch2 30:10., Hezekiah invited to the feast of the Passover, held at Jerusalem, the Israelites from Ephraim and Manasseh as far as to Zebulun, and some individuals from these tribes accepted his invitation. But although Hoshea was better than his predecessors, the judgment of destruction burst upon the sinful kingdom and people in his reign, because he had not truly turned to the Lord; a fact which has been frequently repeated in the history of the world, namely, that the last rulers of a decaying kingdom have not been so bad as their forefathers. "God is accustomed to defer the punishment of the elders in the greatness of His long-suffering, to see whether their descendants will come to repentance; but if this be not the case, although they may not be so bad, the anger of God proceeds at length to visit iniquity (cf. Exo 20:5)." Seb. Schmidt.

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.