before. Under two thousand six hundred "heads" or "chiefs of houses," "mighty men of valor," an

army of not less than 307,500 men was gathered, and completely equipped by the king - the heavy

infantry being furnished with shields, cuirasses, and helmets, the light infantry with bows and

"stones for slings."*

* So, and not as in the A.V. "slings to cast stones." The armament was that common to the nations

of antiquity.

This specially indicates the completeness of the armament, which, this time, was not only

furnished by the central authority, but with such care that even the slings and the stones generally

picked up by the men were served out to the troops.*

* We purposely omit reference to the Assyrian inscription, which records an attempted alliance

between Hamath and nineteen cities of the district, and Azriyahu - Azariah or Uzziah (Schrader,

V. 5, pp. 217- 227). It is quite possible that in their revolt from Assyria these cities may have

sought an alliance with Uzziah, into which, however, that monarch did not enter. But the reference

to Uzziah in the boastful record by Tiglath-pileser of this Syrian coalition is too shadowy to admit,

in our view, any certain inference (comp. Nowack, Assyr. Bab. Inschr. p. 27, Note 8). Are we to

regard the introduction of the name of Azriyahu as meaning literally that monarch, or only in a

general sense as referring to him in his successors - just as Omri is introduced in the inscriptions?

Again, are we to regard the reference as indicating a strictly historical event? This seems scarcely

possible. Or is it a general reference to, or inference from, a later policy - or does it express a

suspicion, or is it only a boast? On the Assyrian chronology, in its bearing on that of Scripture, we

purposely forbear entering for reasons previously indicated. An attempt at conciliation of the two

chronologies (by Oppert), see at the close of Hommel, Abriss d. Bab. Ass. u. Isr. Gesch. Comp.

also H. Brandes, Abh. zur Gesch. d. Orients im Alterth.

In these circumstances we do not wonder that the warlike fame of the king "went forth unto far,"

although we specially note how carefully the sacred text throughout emphasizes the Divine help

extended to Uzziah in each p art of his undertakings. Nor was the internal prosperity of the realm

less marked. We have already seen how the reoccupation of Elath led to a revival of shipping and

commerce which must have brought wealth to the country. Similarly, the king took a deep interest

in agriculture. In the mountains of Judah the ancient terraces were repaired for the culture of the

vine; in the more flat portions, as in the district of Carmel (1 Samuel 15:12; 25:2, 5), agriculture

was carried on; whilst, alike in "the wildernes s" of Judah, in "the low country" of the Philistine

downs, and in the rich "plain" across the Jordan, numerous flocks and herds browsed - provision

and security for the operations of "husbandry" being afforded by hewing out many cisterns and

building watch-towers (2 Chronicles 26:10).

It has previously been stated that this was the flourishing period of prophetism in Israel. This

perhaps the more, because now the last warning voices were raised among a people sunk in

idolatry and corruption, and nigh to judgment. From the prophetic allusions the state of matters in

Judah seems, at least during the first period of this reign, to have been somewhat better. But here

also, alike owing to increasing prosperity and to success, "pride" and its resultant vices, soon

became apparent (Amos 2:4; Hosea 5:5, 14; comp. also Isaiah 2:5, etc.; 3:12, 15; 7:10 -13; 28:7-

This chiefly on the part of the king himself. In the expressive language of Holy Scripture, "when

he was strong his heart was lifted up unto destructio n" - that is, until he did that which was

wrongful and destructive. Intolerant of any power in the land but his own, he sought to combine

the chief functions of the priesthood with those of royalty.*

* Some critics have endeavored to maintain that, in this, Uzziah only aimed to act as David and

Solomon had done, and to reassert the ancient royal right of chief conduct of the religious services.