was the active and energetic high-priest,* Jehoiada, the husband of Jehosheba or Jehoshabeath,**

the half-sister of the late King Ahaziah.*** And Athaliah must have felt that if, after the slaughter

of the other princes by Jehu, a minor were proclaimed king, his guardianship and the government

would naturally pass into other hands than hers.

* From the absence of any designation to that effect, it has been doubted whether Jehoiada was

actually the high-priest. But this seems implied throughout the narrative, and also indicated in 2

Kings 12, specially in verse 10.

** The two names are identical in meaning, and only differ in fo rm. The signification is almost the

same as that of Elisheba or Elisabeth. 162

*** Every probability attaches to the statement of Josephus (Ant. 9. 7, 10), that Jehosheba was the

daughter of Jehoram {half -sister to Ahaziah) by another mother than Athalia h. Whether or not she

was full sister of Joash, whose mother was "Zibiah of Beer-sheba" (2 Chronicles 24:1), must

remain undetermined.

In view of such possible dangers to herself, but especially for the realization of her own ambitious

designs, the queen -mother resolved, in true Oriental fashion, on the slaughter of all that remained

of the house of David. On its extinction there could no longer be any possible rival, nor yet any

center around which an opposition could gather. It casts manifold light on the institution and the

position of the priesthood, with its central national sanctuary in the capital, that at such a period

the safety of the people ultimately rested with it. Evidently it must have been an institution of the

highest antiquity; evidently, it must have formed part of the central life of Israel; evidently, it was

from the first invested with all the dignity and influence which we associate with it in the Mosaic

legislation; evidently, it was intended as, and did constitute, the religiously preservative and

conservative element in the commonwealth, the guardian of Israel's religion, the rallying-point of

civil rights and of true national life. Even the fact that in such a time the high-priest was wedded to

the king's sister is significant.

From the general massacre of the royal house by Athaliah, Jehosheba had succeeded in rescuing

an infant son of Ahaziah, Joash by name. Together with his nurse, he was for a short time

concealed in "the chamber of beds," apparently that where the mattresses and coverlets of the

palace were stored, and which would offer a very convenient hiding-place. Thence his aunt

removed him to a still more safe retreat in the Temple, either one of the numerous chambers

attached to the sanctuary, or, as seems most likely,* to the apartments occupied by her husband

and his family within the sacred enclosure, or closely joined to it.**

* Comp. the "her" of 2 Kings 11:3, with the "them" of 2 Chronicles 22:12.

** The twofold objection raised that, in accordance with 2 Chro nicles 8:11, the wife of the high-

priest could not have lived in the Temple, while, according to Nehemiah 3:20, 21, the high-priest

had a house outside the Temple, is inapplicable. The former passage applies only to the Egyptian

{foreign) wife of Solomon, while the latter only informs us of what was the rule in the time of

Nehemiah. In any case it seems difficult to understand how an infant with his nurse, or with that

nurse and his aunt, could have been concealed for six years in the Temple, unless that aunt resided

with her husband within the precincts of the sanctuary. If, as some critic would have us believe,

Jehosheba was not married at all to the priest, but only concealed with the child in the Temple,

Athaliah would surely have searched out her hiding-place.

So matters continued for six years, Joash probably passing for one of the children of the high-

priest. During that time the plunder of the house of Jehovah and the transference of its dedicated

things to the service of Baalim, which had been begun by the sons of Athaliah (2 Chronicles 24:7),

must have been carried to its utmost extent. Naturally it would arouse a strong reaction on the part

not only of those who held the foreign rites in abhorrence, but also of those who were opposed to