proposed b y some. It indicates that it was part of the ancient territory of Judah, before the two

kingdoms were divided, although it was now recovered for Israel (the northern kingdom), within

whose territorial limits it was.

Indeed, the conquests of Jeroboam seem to have extended even beyond this, and to the boundary

of Moab (see Amos 6:14, where for "river of the wilderness," read "of the Arabah "). The Dead

Sea unquestionably marked on that side the southern boundary originally of united Palestine, and

afterwards of the trans-Jordanic kingdom of Israel, while the "entering in of Hamath" equally

indicates the northern limits of the realm (Numbers 13:21; 34:8; Joshua 13:5; 1 Kings 8:65; 2

Chronicles 7:8; Amos 6:14). The precise locality designated as the "entering o f Hamath," has not

yet been accurately ascertained. But it must be sought in that broad rich plain, flanked towards the

west by the Lebanon, and watered by the Orontes, which ascends for a distance of about eight

hours from Homs to Hamah, the ancient Hamath the Great (Amos 6:2).*

* See, besides the geographical authorities previously mentioned, Robinson, Res.; Conder, Heth

and Moab, pp. 7, 8; and for a different location, Porter, Damascus, II. pp. 355 -359. On the map it

must be looked for north and a lit tle east from Baalhec.

In all likelihood it is in this general sense that we are to understand what seems the parallel notice

of these conquests (2 Kings 14:28):" Damascus and Hamath." The expression seems to refer to the

whole of the broad plain just des cribed the words bearing the same general meaning as when

David is stated to have put garrisons in Syria of Damascus (2 Samuel 8:5, 6), and Solomon to have

occupied Hamath (2 Chronicles 8:3, 4).*

* Hamath itself may have been occupied by the Jews, at the time of Solomon, and in that of

Jeroboam II.; but it is scarcely credible that they ever held Damascus. Hamath lies in a narrow

valley between high cliffs, open only to the east and west, where the stream passes through them.

The territory, as we shall see, soon passed out of the possession of Israel.

Here again welcome light comes to us from the monuments of Assyria. Thence we learn, on the

one hand, that the kingdom of Israel was tributary to the king of Assyria, and, on the other, that

that monarch conquered Damascus, took prisoner its king, who, having embraced his knees in

submission, had to pay a ransom of 2,300 talents of silver, 20 of gold, 3,000 of copper, 5,000 of

iron, together with garments of wool and linen, a couch and an umbrella of ivory, and other spoil

numberless.* The disastrous war of Syria with Assyria, and the tributary alliance of Israel with

the latter, would sufficiently account for the conquests of Jeroboam II.

* Schrader, u.s. pp. 212-217.

And yet here also there is a higher meaning. If, on the suggestion just made, the instrumentality

used to bring about the victories of Jeroboam II. was not the direct help of Jehovah, but the

prowess of Assyria, we ought to bear in mind that direct interposition on the part of the LORD in

behalf of such a king could not have been expected. And yet, as noted in the sacred text (2 Kings

14:25), the promise of the LORD given through the prophet Jonah, the son of Amittai, was

literally fulfilled - only in the natural course of political events. And the more clearly to mark the

agency of God in what might seem the natural course of events, the connection between these

successes and the original promise in 2 Kings 13:4, 5, is indicated in 2 Kings 14:26, as well as the

higher meaning of all (in ver. 2 7).

It still remains to point out the strict accuracy of the Biblical account, alike as regards the

prosperous internal condition of the land at that period (2 Kings 13:5), and the moral and religious

decay of the people (2 Kings 13:6). If the victories of Jeroboam had, as on grounds of

contemporary history seems likely, been gained in the early part of his reign, the rest of that long

period was one of almost unprecedented wealth and prosperity, but also of deepest moral