to God, but even of the gratitude he owed to his former preserver and counselor, the grandson of

Jehoiada was stoned to death "between the temple and the altar."

All things combined to mark this as a crime of no ordinary guilt, specially typical of what befell

the last and greatest Prophet of Israel, t he Christ of God. The death inflicted on Zechariah was that

which the law had appointed for idolatry and blasphemy (Leviticus 20:2; 24:23). Thus the

murderers of the high-priest, as those of Christ, unrighteously inflicted the punishment which was

due to t hemselves. Again, in the one case as in the other, the crime was provoked by faithful

admonitions and warnings sent directly of God. In both instances the crime was national, the rulers

and people having equal part in it; in both, also, it was connected with the Temple, and yet the

outcome of national apostasy. Lastly, in both instances the punishment was likewise national. Yet

there is marked difference also. For, as Zechariah died, "he said, Jehovah, look upon it, and

require it," while our Lord, when referring to this event as parallel to what was about to befall

Him, implied no personal resentment when He uttered this prediction: "Behold your house is left

unto you desolate." And yet further, unlike the words of Zechariah, those of Christ ended not with

judgment, but with the promise of His return in mercy and the prospect of Israel's repentance

(Matthew 23:39). Jewish tradition has preserved, although with many legendary additions,* the

remembrance of this national crime, fabling that the blood of the h igh-priest spilt on the Temple

pavement could neither be wiped away nor be at rest, but was still bubbling up when more than

two and a half centuries later Nebuzar-adan entered the Temple, till God in His mercy at last put it

to rest after the slaughter of many priests.

* The story is told, though with some variations, both in the Babylonian Talmud (Sanh. 96 b; Gitt.

57 b) and in the Jerusalem Talmud (Jer. Taan. 69 a, b), also in the Midrash on Ecclesiastes and on

Lamentations. According to Jewish tradition, the sin had been sevenfold: they had murdered one

who was priest, prophet, and judge; they shed innocent blood in the court of the Temple, and it

was the Sabbath, and also the Day of Atonement. See the Targum on Lamentations 2:20. It

deserves special n otice that there Zechariah is, exactly as in Matthew 23:35, designated "the son of

Iddo" (comp. Ezra 5:1; 6:14), who was really the omitted (as in Genesis 29:5; 2 Kings 9:20),

perhaps because Zechariah succeeded Iddo (Nehemiah 12:4, 16).

The judgment predicted upon Judah was not long delayed. Joining together the notices in the

Books of Chronicles and of Kings, we learn that exactly a year after the murder of Zechariah,

Hazael, the king of Syria, made a victorious raid into Judah. We cannot be mistaken in connecting

this with the expedition of the king of Damascus into the northern kingdom of Israel (2 Kings

13:3, 7, 22). Having conquered the territory east, and subjected that west of the Jordan, when

Gilead specially suffered (Amos 1:3), Hazael seems next to have marched into Philistine territory,

either for personal conquest or perhaps even at the request of the people. The latter seems

suggested, as we shall see, alike by the siege and capture of Gath, and by the conjunction of the

Philistine cities with Hazael in the prophecies of Amos (1:6 -10; comp. also 6:2). These imply that

the Philistine cities had been conspicuous by their traffic in the captives whom Hazael had taken in

The varying history of Gath deserves special notice. In the reign of Solomon it seems to have had

a king of its own, although apparently under the suzerainty of Judea (1 Kings 2:39). During the

reign of Rehoboam, the son and successor of Solomon, Gath is mentioned as one of the cities

fortified for the defense of Judah (2 Ch ronicles 11:8). The suzerainty of Judah over Philistia seems

to have continued up to the time of Jehoshaphat (2 Chronicles 17:11). We have no means of

judging how the Egyptian expedition in the time of Asa affected the later condition of Philistia;

but we know that in this, as in other hostile attacks upon Judah, the Philistines took an active part

(2 Chronicles 21:16, 17). On all these grounds it seems likely that the native population of Gath,

apparently the only city held by Judah, had called in the aid of the Syrians on their occupation of

the kingdom of Israel, and that this had been the occasion for the siege of Gath by Hazael. From

Gath to Jerusalem the distance is only about thirty miles, and the defeat of the Judean garrison in

the Philistine fortre ss was naturally followed by an incursion of Judea proper. Although the Syrian