Vers. 1-6.-The end of the ldngdom of Israel. We learn from the inscriptions that Hoshea, the m~rderer of P~kah, only secured his throne by acknowledging the supre- lD:ac! of the King of A~syn&. It was not long, however, before he conspired to achieve his moependence. This led to the final o,·erthrow of the kingdom. I. A LAST FLIOKEB. 1. Hoshea's better charactei·. It is said of this last Kin" of Israel that he did evil in the sight of the Lord, "but not a.s the kings of Israel that were before him." The testimony rather points to the great wickedness of the ~arlier kings than implies any exceptional virt11e in llosbea, who came to the throne by blood and showed no more reliance on God than the others. His character, however, must have had some redeeming qualities. Possibly he tried to check some of the excesses of wickedness in the land, and to discountenance at least foreign idolatries. The unfavour- able judgment we a.re sometimes compelled to pass on men's characters as a. whole need not blind us to what is praiseworthy in them. 2. .A hopeless task. It is both curious and pathetic to see this last flicker of a. better disposition in the kings of Israel just before the end. But even had Hoshea been a better ruler than he was, it was probably now too late to do the nation any good. Every attempt to bring the people back to God bnd proved in vain, and corruption had reached a height which made a crisis inevitable. The carcase was there, and the vultures were preparing to descend upon it. We have a modern example in the state of the French nation l'rior to the great Revolution. A nation, like an individual, has its day of grace, and if that is sinned away there remains only" a fearful looking for of judgment" (Heb. x. 27). II. BROKEN ENGAGEMENTS. 1. .A policy of double-dealing. Hoshea's desire from the first was to free his land from the yoke of Assyria. Some attempt of this kind, pro- bably at the death of Tiglath-pileser, brought down upon him the new king, Shal- maneser, who compelled his submission, and exacted tribute. But Hoshea was not faithful to his engagements. While still pretending loyalty to Sbalmaneser, he was carrying on a system of intrigue with So, King of Egypt (Sabaco). They "made a cuvenant with the Assyrio.ns," and at the same time "oil was carried into Egypt" (Hos. xii 1). It was not God Hoshea trusted in, but an alliance with Egypt. He relied on treachery, on double-dealing, on clever intrigue, to get him out of his diffi- culties. This kind of policy never permanently succeeds. 2. Open revolt. When Hosbea thought himself strong enough, he threw off his allegiance to Shalmaneser. He brought him no present, as he had done year by year. He was playing a desperate game, but he seems to have thought himself secure. A people is justified in rebellion against foreign authority when it is strong enough to ma.~e success l?roba~le; b~t God's blessing could hardly be looked for on an attempt which was cra.aled m dupli- city, and in which God himself was totally ignored. 3. .A bruised reed. As might have been anticipated, So failed Hoshea in his hour of need. His "oil" and other presents had been sent in vain. The King of Assyria came against him; but there was no movement on the part of Egypt for his help. He had trusted in the staff of a bruised reed (eh. xviii. 21). How mauifuld are the disappointments of those who rely on "the help of man" (Ps. Ix. 11), and put their "trust in princes" (Ps. cxlvi. 3) I Hoshea himself was captured, and shut up in prison. His ultimate fate we do not know. III. FINAL RUIN. 1. The siege ef Samaria. The King of Assyria now marched against Samaria, which bravely held out for three years. Had details been given us, it would no doubt have been found that this was one of the great sieges of history-grtat in its horrors as well as in its after-results. We may picture the extremities of the famine of eh: vi. repeated with additional horrors of anarchy and bloodshed ; or, with perhaps more truth, we may draw our ideas of this siege from the descriptions of ~be siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar (cf. eh. xxiv., xxv.). That was _the conc}udrng act in the history of the southern kingdom, as this was the concludmg act m the history of the northern. Both were long-delayed, and in the end terrible jurlgments of God. The cup of iniquity was full, and another cup-the cup of God's wrath- oa. xvn. 1-41.J 'l'HE SECO.ND BOOK OF THE KINGS. 388
we.a now put into the ne.tion'8 hand ( cf. Pa. lxxv. 8). The city e.t length fell, and the final blow descended. 2. The captivity of the tribes. We read on the monuments that, e.fter the fe.11 of Se.maria., the King of Egypt, alarmed probe.bly for his own safety, approached, and was defeated by Sargon, Shalmaneser's Ruccessor. In any case, help we.snow unavailing for the unhappy Israelites. The children of Israel were removed ~rom their cities, nnd c~rried away c~ptive into Assyria, being scattered up and down ,.n the places named. 27,280, accordmg to Sargon, were taken from Samaria a.Ione. What sorrow was here I 'l'orn from their land, exiles from house e.nd home, forced to Jat unclean things in Assyria (Hos, ix. 3, 4), their national existence extinguished, ruled by the heathen,-all because, when they knew God, they would not glorify him .'ls God, but gave his glory to dumb idols, and defiled bis land with their abominations, and misused the gifts he had so richly bestowed on them (cf. Hos. ii.).-J. 0.