symbolized all of present promise and future salvation connected with the house of David.*

* This is not the place to attempt a detailed explanation - or rather vindication of the Messianic

prophecy, Isaiah 7:14. We will only say that the intermingling of elements of the present in the

verses following the prophecy is, in our view, characteristic of all such prophecy. See remarks in

the sequel.

The result was what might have been expected from the character of Ahaz. As, with ill-disguised

irony, he rejected the "sig n," implying that his trust was in the help of Assyria, not in the promise

of God, so he persevered in his course, despite the prophet's warning. Yet it scarcely required a

prophet's vision to foretell the issue, although only a prophet could so authoritatively, and in such

terms, have announced it (Isaiah 7:17-8:22). Every Jewish patriot must have felt the wrong and

humiliation, every clear-sighted politician have anticipated the consequences of calling in - and in

such manner - the aid of Tiglath-pileser. For the terms on which Ahaz purchased it were the

acknowledgment of the suzerainty of Assyria (2 Kings 16:7), and a present of the silver and gold

in the Temple, the royal palace, and in the possession of the princes (2 Kings 16:8; 2 Chronicles

28:21.) If it led to the immediate withdrawal of Rezin and Pekah, yet the danger incurred was far

greater than that avoided. And in 2 Chronicles 28:20 we read: "And Tiglath-pileser, king of

Assyria, came against him* [viz., against Ahaz], and distressed him, but strengthened him not."

Although, even from its position in the text,** this seems a general statement rather than the

record of a definite event, yet some historical fact must underlie it.

* This is the correct rendering of the text.

** Compare specially the previous verses.

Further reference will be made to it in the sequel. But, while we do not read of an expedition of

Tiglath-pileser against Jerusalem, such may have been made, even if under the guise of a friendly

* It is possible that Tigla th-pileser, after his conquering progress through Galilee, Philistia, and to

Gaza and Northern Arabia, may, on his way back to occupy Samaria, have passed close by, or

even through Jerusalem. An account of this expedition will be given in the sequel.

And perhaps there may be some connection between this and the reported Temple alterations, "on

account of the king of Assyria" (2 Kings 16:18). In any case Tiglath-pileset must have desired to

extend his conquests further south than Samaria. He must have coveted the possession of such a

city and fortress as Jerusalem; and the suzerainty so abjectly offered by. Ahaz would in his hands

become a reality. In fact, the subjugation of Judea must have formed part of his general policy,

which had the subjection of Egypt as its scope. And from 2 Kings 18:7, 14, 20, and Isaiah 36:5,

we infer that from the time of Ahaz to that of Hezekiah the kingdom of Judah was actually both

subject and tributary to Assyria.

An episode in the Syro -Israelitish war, hitherto only alluded to, still remains to be described. It

will be remembered that the Israelitish victors had taken 200,000 prisoners. From the expressions

used, we infer that these were brought to Samaria, not by the whole army - the majority having,

after the Eastern manner, probably dispersed to their homes - but by a division, or armed escort,

perhaps by those who formed the standing army. But even in Samaria God had not left Himself

without a witness. "A prophet of Jehovah was there, whose name was Oded." As in the days of

Asa, the prophet Azariah had met the victorious army of Judah on its return not with words of

flattery, but of earnest admonition (2 Chronicles 15:1-7), so now this otherwise unknown prophet

of Samaria. And his very obscurity, and sudden and isolated me ssage, as well as its effect, are

instructive of the object and character of prophetism. Only a prophet of the Lord could have dared,

in the circumstances, to utter words so humiliating to Israel's pride, and so exacting in their

demand. The defeat and loss of Judah had been in Divine punishment of sin, and would they now