only been presented in dim outline, and of which only the germ had existed in the religious

consciousness of the people. Thus in every respect this was the beginning of a n ew era, an era of

judgment indeed, but also of larger mercy; an era of new development in the history of the

kingdom of God; a type also of the final hardening of Israel in the rejection of their Messiah, and

of the opening of the kingdom of heaven to all believers.

Hoshea, the son of Elah, the last king of Israel, ascended the throne in the twelfth year of Ahaz,

king of Judah. His reign extended, at least nominally, over nine years (2 Kings 17:1). Of its

religious character we have this brief notice, that "he did that which was evil in the sight of the

Lord, but not as the kings of Israel that were before him." In the absence of details, we can only

conjecture that this indicates decrease in the former active opposition to the worship of Jehovah.

This seems implied in the circumstance that apparently no official hindrance was offered to the

later invitation of Hezekiah to attend the Passover in Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 30:1 -12). The

Talmud has it that after the deportation of the golden calves to Assyria (Hosea 10:5, 6), Hoshea

had abolished the military posts which since the time of Jeroboam 1. had been set to prevent

Israelites from going up to the feasts at Jerusalem (Gitt. 88 a; Babh. Q. 121 b; comp. Seder O1. R.

22). Tiglath-pileser died probably five y ears after Ahaz had "met" him in Damascus. He was

followed on the throne by Shalmaneser IV.*

* On the Assyrian inscriptions: "Salmanu-ussir" (Salman [a god] be merciful!); Hoshea on the

Assyrian inscriptions: A -u-si'.

Although special records and inscriptions of his reign do not exist, we learn from fragmentary

notices that in the third year of his reign the Assyrian monarch undertook expeditions against the

west - presumably Phoenicia and Israel. Further light. comes to us from Josephus (Ant 9. 14, 2),

who reproduces an extract from the historical work of Menander, itself derived from the Tyrian

archives. Thence we learn that the Assyrian king invaded Phoenicia, and on the same occasion no

doubt also Samaria, which was in league with it. As Shalmaneser was not a successful leader, we

can easily understand that the allies may have cherished a hope that the heavy yoke of Assyria

might be shaken off. But on the appearance of Shalmaneser Hoshea had to submit -in the language

of Scripture, he "became his serv ant and rendered him tribute"* (2 Kings 17:3).

* Literally, a "present," hjnm here, as in other places, a euphemistic mode of expression for

"tribute."

Similarly, according to the Tyrian annals, most of the Phoenician cities seem to have surrendered

or made terms with him, with the exception of Tyre, which held out for five years, and was only

taken by Sargon, the successor of Shalmaneser. It is probably to this that the prophecy in Isaiah

23: refers.* The Tyrian annals, and even the Assyrian inscriptio ns, mutilated as they are, lead us to

regard this campaign as consisting of several expeditions into Phoenicia. This renders it difficult to

know at what precise period the first submission of Hoshea was made.

* Some critics have referred it to the later conquest by Nebuchadnezzar. On the supposed

incompatibility of our view with Isaiah 23:13, see Cheyne, Prophecies of Isaiah, vol. 1, pp. 132.

It seems likely that the protracted resistance offered by Tyre may have encouraged the hope that

Shalmaneser mig ht after all prove unsuccessful against a powerful combination. Accordingly,

Hoshea entered into negotiations with Seve,* "the king of Egypt."

* The Massoretic pointing So seems incorrect; the proper reading would be Seve or Sava. By the

Greeks he is called Sabakon (Sevechus); on the monuments Shabaka, the last syllable being

perhaps an Ethiopic end-syllable. On the cuneiform inscriptions he is called Shabi-'i. Comp. Ebers

in Riehm's Hand-Worterb. 2. p. 1505, b.