ga.ve them the delivore.noe promised first by tion. Probably, in the troubles that fol- Elislrn (eh. xiii. 17), a.nd then by J onnh the lowed the death of Zachariah (eh. xv. 10- son of Amitta.i (ver. 25)-deliverance from 14), the yoke was thrown off. In the As- Syria, recovery of their borders, and triumph syrian Inscriptions, Damascus appears under over their enemies. He gove them all this its own king abont B.o. 786 (G. Smith, by the hand of Jeroboam the son of Joash. • Eponym Canon,' p. 115), and it was cer- Joaeh began the ealvo.tion, but it was re- tainly independent in B.C. 743. At the served for Jeroborim to complete it. He latter date Ha.math also appears as the was the true "saviour" (eh. xiii. 5), the capital of an independent kingdom (ibid., true accomplisher of the work, for which pp. 118, 120) under its own monarch. his father only paved the way. Thus one Which belonged to Judah. Keil and Bii.hr Jeroboam fonnded the kingdom ; another render, "Hamath of Judah,'' regarding ,7:i,:,•7 refounded it, restored its o.ncient glories, as a genitive. Ewald proposes to read and gave it its old dimensions. Ver. 28.-Now the rest of the aote of i1?il~ r,?!1,, "Hamath of Zobah" (comp. 2 Jeroboam, and all that he did, and his might, Chrou. viii. 3), or else to cut out ;,71r;•~ how he warred, and how he recovered Da- altogether. The passage is one of great ma.sous and Hamath. It has been suggested difficulty. For Israel. It is questiouable that these words mean no more than that whether this meaning can be obtaine,I from Jeroboam took territory from Damascus and the present text, which is ~!n::>:=1- Bahr Hamo.th-from Damascus the trans-Jordanio thinks that it can ; but Ewald reganls tlie territory which Hazael had conquered from change into S~:il,:~ as one "of necessity." Jehu (eh. x. 88); from Hamath some small portion of the Ccele-Syrian vo.lley, about the Might we not avoid all these alterations by bend-streams of the Orontes and Litany traDBlating simply-" how he recovered Da- (so Keil and Bii.hr). But there does not mascus and Hamath !o Judah through Is- seem to be any sufficient reason for giving rael"? Attaching them to Turael wo.s a the words used this narrow signification. sort of recovering of them to J n<lah, to Do.mascus was conquered and annexed by which (i.e. the Judah of David e.nd Solomon) David (2 Sam. viii. 6), and held for a time they had once belonged. Are they not even by Solomon (1 Kings xi. 24), of whose written in the book of the ohromoles of the kingdom Hamath also seems to have formed kings of Israel 1 a po.rt (1 Kings iv. 21-24 ; 2 Chron. viii. Ver. 29.-And Jeroboam slept with his 4 ; ix. 26). The word " recovered "is, there- fathers, even with the kings of Israel-his fore, a suitable one. The prophecy of Amos, father, grandfather, and great-grandf:tlher no doubt, represents Damascus as inde- ho.d been actually among the kings of Is- pendent (Amo~ i. 8, 4) ; but thle may have rael; but all thfl kin~, bis predecessors, been written before Jeroboam conquered it. were probably reckoned among his ancestors Hamatb's subjection seems to be implied in -and Zaohariah his son reigned in his stead Amoe vi. 2, 14. We may, thereforn, well (see the eowment on eh. xv. 8). Dy Zaclia- understand, with Ewald (' History of Is- riah's accession the promise given to J ehu rael,' vol. iv. p. 12!) and Dr. Pusey(' 111inor (eh. x. 30), tho.t hie "children to the fourth. Prophete,' pp. 157, 209), that Jeroboam generation should sit on the throne of Is- "subdued Damascus and even Hamath,'' rael," was !itero.lly fulfilled. No otherroyal o.nd added them to his kingdom. How long house occupied the Israelitish throne for the aubjection continued is a different ques- more thnn three generations.
HOMILETICS. Vere. 3, 4.-.Afather's evil example no justification for a son's misconduct. Amaziah "did according to all things as Joash his lather did." Like his father, he was half-hearted. In his earlier years he kept to the worship of Jehovah, and "did that which was right in the sight of the Lor<l," yet not with any zeal or tmergy. Afterwards he fell away, introduced idolatry (2 Chron. xxv. 14), and when a prophet rebuked him for his evil courses, answered him with scoffs and threatenings (2 Chron. xxv. 15, 16). His father Joash had done even worse after the death of Jehoiada. He had not only sanctioned idolatries (2 Chron. xxiv. 17, 18), but had had the servant of God who rebuked them put to death (2 Chron. xxiv. 21). This, however, is not held by the sacred writer to be any justification or excuse for Amaziah. The reasons are manifest. I. No MAN IB TO BE CALLED MASTER, NOT EVEN A FATHER. God gives men in his Law and in their conscience a standard of right, which they are to follow. He llQwhcre bids them take any m~n but the "God-Man" for pattern. He warns them 286 THE SECOND BOOK OF THE KINGS. [oa. xiv. 1-29.