with greater confidence in its trustworthiness, as not concocted but apparently strung together

from extracts of existing historical documents.

Jehoahaz was succeeded on the throne of Israel by his son Jehoash (or Joash), whose reign

extended over sixteen years (2 Kings 13:10, 11). Religiously it was, like that of his father, marked

by continuance in "the sins of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat." Indeed, as previously stated, this

return to the religious policy of the founder of the northern kingdom, supplies the explanation of

the administration of Jehu, and of the popular reaction against the house of Ahab which he

represented and headed. Of this uniform policy we find an indication even in the name Jeroboam,

which the son and successor of Jehoash bore. There was this other continuity also, that the

monarchy founded by Jehu, originating in a military revolution, continued a military rule under his

successors. This appears from the alliances with Assyria, from the continuous and finally

successful wars with Syria during the whole of this dynasty, and lastly from the war with

Amaziah, king of Judah (2 Kings 13:12). In this, as in the abolition of Ahab's religious institutions,

we observe a reversal of the policy of the dethroned house. Nor can we be mistaken in ascribing t o

the latter cause the new friendly relations with the servants of Jehovah, and especially His

prophets, which the new dynasty sought to inaugurate.

Almost the first act of Jehu had been to invite Jehonadab, the son of Rechab, to make public entry

with h im into Samaria, and to witness his zeal for Jehovah (2 Kings 10:16). Almost his first public

measure had been the destruction of the temple of Baal, with its priests and worshippers (2 Kings

10:18 -28). Even the slaughter of the descendants of Ahab and of the princes of Judah (2 Kings

13:4) might be imputed to the same motives - at least by a people in the religious condition of

Israel. The same feelings may be traced in the repentant prayer of Jehoahaz (2 Kings 13:4), and

lastly in the visit of Jehoash to the deathbed of Elisha (2 Kings 13:14).

It is another and a more serious question how the relation of these servants of Jehovah and

especially of Elisha towards a dynasty stained by so many crime, and so unfaithful to the true

service of the Lord, is to be explained. It certainly cannot be understood without taking several

considerations into account. The situation was not simple, but complicated, and accordingly the

motives influencing the conduct of the prophets were varied, and, if one-sidedly viewed, may for

that very reason appear conflicting. These three considerations may, however, help us to

understand their general bearing. First, the prophets were always only the executors of God's

behests; they stood not in any independent personal relation to events or individuals. Secondly, the

behests of God, and consequently the prophetic commission, whether as regarded judgment or

deliverance, applied to acts and individual events, not to persons or lives.

Thirdly, the final object of all was, on the one h and, the vindication of Jehovah's dealings, and, on

the other, the arresting of Israel's spiritual, and with it of their national decline. It was needful that

signal judgments should sweep away Ahab and all connected with his ways, and Jehu was, in the

circumstances of the time and in the state of the people, the most suitable instrument for it. Thus

far, and thus far only, had his counter-revolution the countenance of the prophets. Again, it was in

accordance with the Divine purpose of mercy that the first indication of any spiritual

comprehension of God's judgments should be welcomed and encouraged.

Hence the prayer of Jehoahaz was heard; hence, also, and in further pursuance of the promise of

deliverance, the interview between the king and the dying pro phet, as well as the prediction of

Jonah, the son of Amittai (2 Kings 14:25). Nor must we overlook in all this the human aspect of

the question. The prophets were indeed first and foremost God's messengers; but they were also

true patriots, and intensely n ational, and this not despite, but rather because of their office. Any

national reaction, any possible prospect of national return to God, must have had their warmest

sympathy and received their most hearty encouragement. In short, whenever they could, they

would most readily range themselves on the side of their people and its rulers. They would co-

operate whenever and in whatsoever they might; and only protest, warn, and denounce when they

must. And a consideration alike of the bearing of Jehonadab (comp. Vol. VI., p. 210), and again of