Armenia in Comments -- Author: Albert Barnes (Notes on the Bible) 1834

Searched terms: amalek

Exodus

tEx 17:8Then came Amalek - The attack occurred about two months after the Exodus, toward the end of May or early in June, when the Bedouins leave the lower plains in order to find pasture for their flocks on the cooler heights. The approach of the Israelites to Sinai would of course attract notice, and no cause of warfare is more common than a dispute for the right of pasturage. The Amalekites were at that time the most powerful race in the Peninsula; here they took their position as the chief of the pagans. They were also the first among the pagans who attacked God's people, and as such were marked out for punishment (see the marginal references). Exodus 17:9

Exodus

tEx 17:12Until the going down of the sun - The length of this first great battle indicates the strength and obstinacy of the assailants. It was no mere raid of Bedouins, but a deliberate attack of the Amalekites, who had been probably thoroughly trained in warfare by their struggles with Egypt. Exodus 17:13

Exodus

tEx 18:13From the morning unto the evening - It may be assumed as at least probable that numerous cases of difficulty arose out of the division of the spoil of the Amalekites Exo 17:13, and causes would have accumulated during the journey from Elim. Exodus 18:15

Exodus

tEx 25:1Yahweh had redeemed the Israelites from bondage. He had made a covenant with them and had given them laws. He had promised, on condition of their obedience, to accept them as His own "peculiar treasure," as "a kingdom of priests and an holy nation" Exo 19:5-6. And now He was ready visibly to testify that He made his abode with them. He claimed to have a dwelling for Himself, which was to be in external form a tent of goats' hair Exo 19:4, to take its place among their own tents, and formed out of the same material (see Exo 26:7 note). The special mark of His presence within the tent was to be the ark or chest containing the Ten Commandments on two tables of stone Exo 31:18, symbolizing the divine law of holiness, and covered by the mercy-seat, the type of reconciliation. Moses was divinely taught regarding the construction and arrangement of every part of the sanctuary. The directions which were given him are comprised in Exo. 25:1-31:11. The account of the performance of the work, expressed generally in the same terms, is given Exo. 35:21-40:33.
Moses is commanded to invite the people to bring their gifts for the construction and service of the sanctuary and for the dresses of the priests.
Exo 25:2
An offering - The word is used here in its general sense, being equivalent to korban, κορβᾶν korban, (compare Mar 7:11). On the marginal rendering "heave offering," see the note at Exo 29:27.
That giveth it willingly with his heart - The public service of Yahweh was to be instituted by freewill offerings, not by an enforced tax. Compare Ch1 29:3, Ch1 29:9,Ch1 29:14; Ezr 2:68-69; Co2 8:11-12; Co2 9:7. On the zeal with which the people responded to the call, see Exo 35:21-29; Exo 36:5-7.
Exo 25:3
Gold, and silver, and brass - The supply of these metals possessed by the Israelites at this time probably included what they had inherited from their forefathers, what they had obtained from the Egyptians Exo 12:35, and what may have been found amongst the spoils of the Amalekites Exo 17:8-13. But with their abundant flocks and herds, it can hardly be doubted that they had carried on important traffic with the trading caravans that traversed the wilderness, some of which, most likely, in the earliest times were furnished with silver, with the gold of Ophir (or gold of Sheba, as it seems to have been indifferently called), and with the "brass" (the alloy of copper and tin, called bronze) of Phoenicia and Egypt. Compare Exo 38:24 note.
Exo 25:4
Blue, and purple, and scarlet - i. e. the material dyed with these colors. The Jewish tradition has been very generally received that this material was wool. Compare Heb 9:19 with Lev 14:4, Lev 14:49, etc. When spun and dyed by the women, it was delivered in the state of yarn; and the weaving and embroidering was left to Aholiab and his assistants, Exo 35:25, Exo 35:35. The "blue" and "purple" dye are usually thought to have been obtained from shell-fish, the "scarlet" from the cochineal insect of the holm-oak.
Fine linen - The fine flax or the manufactured linen, for which Egypt was famous Eze 27:7, and which the Egyptians were in the habit of using for dresses of state Gen 41:42. It was used as the groundwork of the figured curtains of the tabernacle as well as of the embroidered hangings of the tent and the court. See Exo 35:35.
Exo 25:5
Rams' skins dyed red - Skins tanned and colored like the leather now known as red morocco.
Badgers' skins - Rather, leather, probably of a sky-blue color, formed from the skins of the תחשׁ tachash (a general name for marine animals), which was well adapted as a protection against the weather.
Shittim wood - The word שׁטים shı̂ṭṭâm is the plural form of שׁטה shı̂ṭâh, which occurs as the name of the growing tree, Isa 41:19. The tree is satisfactorily identified with the Acacia seyal, a gnarled and thorny tree, somewhat like a solitary hawthorn in its habit and manner of growth, but much larger. It flourishes in the driest situations, and is scattered more or less numerously over the Sinaitic Peninsula. It appears to be the only good wood produced in the wilderness. No other kind of wood was employed in the tabernacle or its furniture. In the construction of the temple cedar and fir took its place Kg1 5:8; Kg1 6:18; Ch2 2:8.
Exo 25:6-7
See the notes to Exo. 27; 28; 30,
Exo 25:8
sanctuary - i. e. a hallowed place. This is the most comprehensive of the words that relate to the place dedicated to Yahweh. It included the tabernacle with its furniture, its tent, and its court.
That I may dwell among them - The purpose of the sanctuary is here definitely declared by the Lord Himself. It was to be the constant witness of His presence among His people. Compare the marginal references.
Exo 25:9
According to all that I shew thee - The tabernacle and all that pertained to it were to be in strict accordance with the ideas revealed by the Lord to Moses (compare Exo 25:40; Exo 26:30; Act 7:44; Heb 8:5). The word here translated "pattern" is also used to denote the plans for the temple which were given by David to Solomon Ch1 28:11-12, Ch1 28:19; it is elsewhere rendered "form, likeness, similitude," Deu 4:16-17; Eze 8:3, Eze 8:10.
The tabernacle - The Hebrew word signifies the "dwelling-place." It here denotes the wooden structure, containing the holy place and the most holy place, with the tent which sheltered it. See Exo 26:1 note. Exodus 25:10

Exodus

tEx 31:1Exo 35:30-35. This solemn call of Bezaleel and Aholiab is full of instruction. Their work was to be only that of handicraftsmen. Still it was Yahweh Himself who called them by name to their tasks, and the powers which they were now called upon to exercise in their respective crafts, were declared to have been given them by the Holy Spirit. Thus is every effort of skill, every sort of well-ordered labor, when directed to a right end, brought into the very highest sphere of association.
There appears to be sufficient reason for identifying Hur, the grandfather of Bezaleel, with the Hur who assisted Aaron in supporting the hands of Moses during the battle with Amalek at Rephidim Exo 17:10, and who was associated with Aaron in the charge of the people while Moses was on the mountain Exo 24:14. Josephus says that he was the husband of Miriam. It is thus probable that Bezaleel was related to Moses. He was the chief artificer in metal, stone, and wood; he had also to perform the apothecary's work in the composition of the anointing oil and the incense Exo 37:29. He had precedence of all the artificers, but Aholiab appears to have had the entire charge of the textile work Exo 35:35; Exo 38:23.
Exo 31:3
Wisdom, understanding, Knowledge - Or, that "right judgment in all things" for which we especially pray on Whitsunday; the perceptive faculty; and experience, a practical acquaintance with facts.
Exo 31:4
To devise cunning works - Rather, to devise works of skill. The Hebrew phrase is not the same as that rendered "cunning work" in respect to textile fabrics in Exo 26:1.
Exo 31:10
And the cloths of service - Rather, And the garments of office; that is, the distinguishing official garments of the high priest. The three kinds of dress mentioned in this verse appear to be the only ones which were unique to the sanctuary. They were:
(1) The richly adorned state robes of the high priest (see Exo. 28:6-38; Exo 39:1 following).
(2) the "holy garments" of white linen for the high priest, worn on the most solemn occasion in the year (see Exo 28:39; Lev 16:4).
(3) the garments of white linen for all the priests, worn in their regular ministrations (see Exo 28:40-41). Exodus 31:12

Numbers

tNum 13:29The Amalekites - See Num 14:25 note.
The Canaanites - i. e. those of the Phoenician race: the word is here used in its narrow sense: compare Gen 10:15-18 note. Numbers 13:32

Numbers

tNum 14:25Render: And now the Amalekites and the Canaanites are dwelling (or abiding) in the valley: wherefore turn you, etc. (that so ye be not smitten before them). The Amalekites were the nomad bands that roved through the open pastures of the plain Num 14:45 : the Canaanites, a term here taken in its wider sense, were the Amorites of the neighboring cities (compare Num 14:45 with Deu 1:44), who probably lived in league with the Amalekites.
Tomorrow - Not necessarily the next day, but an idiom for "hereafter," "henceforward" (compare the marginal reading in Exo 13:14; Jos 4:6).
By the way of the Red sea - That is, apparently, by the eastern or Elanitic gulf. Numbers 14:33

Numbers

tNum 24:7Balaam's native soil was ordinarily irrigated by water fetched from the neighboring Euphrates, and carried in buckets suspended from the two ends of a pole. Thus the metaphor would import that Israel should have his own exuberant and unfailing channels of blessing and plenty. Some take the word to be predictive of the future benefits which, through the means of Israel, were to accrue to the rest of the world.
Agag - The name, apparently hereditary (compare 1 Sam. 15) to the chieftains of Amalek, means "high." The words point to the Amalekite kingdom as highly prosperous and powerful at the time (compare Num 24:20); but also to be far excelled by the future glories of Israel. The Amalekites never in fact recovered their crushing defeat by Saul (Sa1 15:2 ff), though they appear again as foes to Israel in the reign of David (Sa1 27:1-12 and 30). The remnant of them was destroyed in the reign of Hezekiah Ch1 4:43. Numbers 24:14

Deuteronomy

tDeut 1:44The Amorites - In Num 14:45, it is "the Amalekites and the Canaanites" who are said to have discomfited them. The Amorites, as the most powerful nation of Canaan, lend their name here, as in other passages (eg. Deu 1:7) to the Canaanite tribes generally. Next: Deuteronomy Chapter 2

Deuteronomy

tDeut 25:13Honesty in trade, as a duty to our neighbor, is emphatically enforced once more (compare Lev 19:35-36). It is noteworthy that John the Baptist puts the like duties in the forefront of his preaching (compare Luk 3:12 ff); and that "the prophets" (compare Eze 45:10-12; Amo 8:5; Mic 6:10-11) and "the Psalms" Pro 16:11; Pro 20:10, Pro 20:23, not less than "the Law," especially insist on them.
Deu 25:13
Divers weights - i. e. stones of unequal weights, the lighter to sell with, the heavier to buy with. Stones were used by the Jews instead of brass or lead for their weights, as less liable to lose anything through rust or wear.
Deu 25:17-19
It was not after the spirit or mission of the Law to aim at overcoming inveterate opposition by love and by attempts at conversion (contrast Luk 9:55-56). The law taught God's hatred of sin and of rebellion against Him by enjoining the extinction of the obstinate sinner. The Amalekites were a kindred people Gen 36:15-16; and living as they did in the peninsula of Sinai, they could not but have well known the mighty acts God had done for His people in Egypt and the Red Sea; yet they manifested from the first a persistent hostility to Israel (compare Exo 17:8, and note; Num 14:45). They provoked therefore the sentence here pronounced, which was executed at last by Saul (Sa1 15:3 ff). Next: Deuteronomy Chapter 26

Joshua

tJosh 15:21List of the towns of the tribe of Judah. These are arranged in four divisions, according to the natural features of the district; namely,, those of the Negeb or south country Jos 15:21-32; of "the valley," or "the plain" ("Shephelah", Jos 15:33-47); of "the mountains" Jos 15:48-60; and of "the wilderness" Jos 15:61-62. Many of the identifications are still conjectural only.
Jos 15:21-32. The Negeb was for the most part rocky and arid, and cannot have been at any time very thickly populated.
Jos 15:21
Kabzeel was the native place of Benaiah Sa2 23:20, who was famous as a slayer of lions. The Negeb was a principal haunt of these beasts.
Jos 15:24
Telem may be the Telaim of Sa1 15:4, where Saul mustered his army for the expedition against the Amalekites. It is possibly to be looked for at "El-Kuseir", a spot where the various routes toward different parts of the Negeb converge, and which is occupied by the Arab tribe the "Dhullam", a word identical with Telem in its consonants. Bealoth is probably the "Baalath-beer - Ramath of the south" Jos 19:8, and was one of the towns afterward assigned to the Simeonites. It is identified with the modern Kurnub.
Jos 15:25
And Hezron which is Hazor - In this verse are the names of two towns only, not of four. Two places bearing the common topographical appellation, Hazor ("enclosure") are here mentioned and distinguished as "Hazor Hadattah" and "Kerioth-Hezron," otherwise termed Hazor, simply: the former has been identified by some with "El-Hudhera"; the latter is probably the modern "El-Kuryetein". Kerioth, prefixed to a name, bespeaks military occupation, as Hazor points to pastoral pursuits. The place would therefore seem to be an ancient pastoral settlement which had been fortified by the Anakims, and called accordingly Kerioth; to which name the men of Judah, after they had captured it, added that of Hezron, in honor of one of their leading ancestors (compare Gen 46:12; Rut 4:18). Kerioth was the home of Judas the traitor, if the ordinary derivation of Iscariot (= קריות אישׁ 'ı̂ysh qerı̂yôth), i. e. man of Kerioth) be accepted: Mat 10:4.
Jos 15:26
Moladah is probably the modern "El-Milh", and like Hazar-shual ("Berrishail" near Gaza) ( "enclosure of foxes") occurs Jos 19:2-3; Ch1 4:28, as a town belonging to Simeon, and Neh 11:26-27 as a place occupied by Jews after the captivity.
Jos 15:29-32
Baalah Jos 19:3 is found in the modern "Deir-el-Belah", near Gaza. Iim, i. e. "ruinous heaps" or "conical hills" (Num 21:11 note) is by some connected with Azem; and the compound name, "Ije Azem", is traced in El-Aujeh, in the country of the Azazimeh Arabs, in whose name the ancient Azem may perhaps be traced. Eltolad is connected with "Wady-el-Thoula", in the extreme south of the Negeb. Chesil appears to be the town called Bethul Jos 19:4, and probably the Bethel Sa1 30:27 situated not far from Ziklag. The name Chesil ( "fool") was most likely bestowed by way of opprobrium (compare the change of Bethel, house of God, into Bethaven, house of vanity, Hos 4:15). As Chesil signifies the group of stars known as Orion (compare Job 38:31; Amo 5:8), probably it was the worship of the heavenly bodies in particular that was carried on here. Bethel may have been the ancient name, and the spot was perhaps the very one near Beer-sheba where Abraham planted a tamarisk tree Gen 21:33.
The place is probably "El Khulasah", the Elusa of ecclesiastical writers, situated some fifteen miles southwest of Beer-sheba. Jerome testifies to the fact, that the worship of Venus as the morning star was practiced there, and Sozomen appears to be speaking of this place, when he mentions a Bethel Βηθελια Bēthelia in the territory of Gaza, populous and famous for an ancient and splendid temple. The site of Ziklag is uncertain. Madmannah and Sansannah correspond to Beth-marcaboth ( "house of chariots") and Hazar-susah ("horse enclosure") in Jos 19:5 Ch1 4:31. The latter names point to two stations of passage on or near the high road between Egypt and Palestine, and are represented by the modern "Minyay" and "Wady-es-Suny", on the caravan route south of Gaza. Shilhim or Sharuhen, Jos 19:6, and Shaaraim Ch1 4:31 is traced in "Khirbet-es-Seram", near El Aujeh. Ain and Rimmon were possibly originally two towns, but in process of time became so connected as to be treated as one name Neh 11:29. The place is probably the present "Um-er-Rummamim," i. e. "mother of pomegranates," a place about ten miles north of Beer-sheba.
Jos 15:32
Twenty and nine - The King James Version gives 34 names. The difference is due either to the confusion by an early copyist of letters similar in form which were used as numerals; or to the separation in the King James Version of names which in the original were one (e. g. Jos 15:25).
Jos 15:33-47
"The valley" or the Shephelah, is bounded on the south by the Negeb, on the west by the Mediterranean, on the north by the plain of Sharon, on the east by "the mountains" Jos 15:48. It is a well-defined district, of an undulating surface and highly fertile character, thickly dotted, even at the present time, with villages, which are for the most part situated on the different hills. The towns in this district, like those in the Negeb, are classed in four groups.
Jos 15:33-36
First group of fourteen towns: these belong to the northeastern portion of the Shephelah. Eshtaol and Zoreah were afterward assigned to the tribe of Dan, and inhabited by Danites Jdg 13:25; Jdg 18:2, Jdg 18:8,Jdg 18:11. The latter place was the home of Samson Jdg 13:2. It was one of the cities fortified by Rehoboam Ch2 11:10, and was re-occupied by the Jews after the captivity Neh 11:29. It is probably the modern Surah. (Eshtaol has been identified with Eshua (Conder)). Both places were in later times partly populated by Judahites from Kirjath-jearim; perhaps after the departure of the colony of Danites for Dan-Laish. Zanoah is the present "Zanna", not far from Surah. Socoh is the modern "Shuweikah". Sharaim is perhaps to be sought in the modern "Zakariya". Gederah ("wall" or "fortress") was a name borne with various terminations by several places.
Jos 15:37-41
Second group of towns, containing those in the middle portion of the Shephelah, and of which some only Jos 10:3, Jos 10:10 can be identified.
Jos 15:42-44
Third group; towns in the south of the Shephelah. For Libnah see Jos 10:29. Mareshah is believed to be near Beit-jibrin, the ancient "Eleutheropolis."
Jos 15:45-47
Fourth group: the towns of the Philistine seacoast: see Jos 13:3.
Jos 15:48-60
This highland district extends from the Negeb on the south to Jerusalem, and is bounded by the Shephelah on the west, and the "wilderness" Jos 15:61-62 on the east. The mountains, which are of limestone, rise to a height of near 3,000 feet. At present, the highlands of Judah present a somewhat dreary and monotonous aspect. The peaks are for the most part barren, though crowned almost everywhere with the ruins of ancient towns, and bearing on their sides marks of former cultivation. Many of the valleys, especially toward the south, are, however, still very productive. The towns here enumerated are given in six groups.
Jos 15:48-51
First group: towns on the southwest. Dannah (is identified with "Idnah" (Conder)). Jattir ("Attir"), and Eshtemoh ("Semua") were priestly cities Jos 21:14; Ch1 6:57, and the place to which David, after routing the Amalekites, sent presents Sa1 30:27-28. Socoh is "Suweikeh."
Jos 15:52-54
Second group of nine towns, situated somewhat to the north of the last mentioned. Of these Dumah is perhaps the ruined village "Ed Daumeh," in the neighborhood of Hebron; and Beth-tappuah, i. e. "house of apples," "Teffuh," a place which has still a good number of inhabitants, is conspicuous for its olive groves and vineyards, and bears on every side the traces of industry and thrift.
Jos 15:55-57
Third group; lying eastward of the towns named in the last two, and next to "the wilderness."
Jos 15:55
The four towns retain their ancient names with but little change. Maon Sa1 23:24; Sa1 25:2, the home of Nabal, is to be looked for in the conical hill, "Main," the top of which is covered with ruins. It lies eight or nine miles southeast of Hebron Carmel Sa1 25:2, the modern "Kurmul," is a little to the north of "Main." The name belongs to more than one place Jos 12:22. Ziph gave its name to "the wilderness" into which David fled from Saul Sa1 23:14.
Jos 15:58, Jos 15:59
Fourth group. Towns north of the last mentioned, of which Beth-zur and Gedor are represented by "Beit-sur" and "Jedur."
After Jos 15:59 follows in the Greek version a fifth group of eleven towns, which appears to have dropped in very ancient times out of the Hebrew text, probably because some transcriber passed unawares from the word "villages" at the end of Jos 15:59, to the same word at the end of the missing passage. The omitted group contains the towns of an important, well-known, and populous district lying immediately south of Jerusalem, and containing such towns as Tekoah Sa2 14:2; Neh 3:5, Neh 3:27; Amo 1:1; Bethlehem, the native town of David and of Christ Gen 35:19; and Aetan, a Grecised form of Etam Ch2 11:6.
Jos 15:61, Jos 15:62
This district, including the towns in "the wilderness," the scene of David's wanderings (Sa1 23:24; Psa 63:1-11 title), and of the preaching of the Baptist Mat 3:1, and perhaps of our Lord's temptation Matt. 4, extended from the northern limit of Judah along the Dead Sea to the Negeb; it was bounded on the west by that part of "the mountains" or highlands of Judah, which adjoined Bethlehem and Maon. It abounds in limestone rocks, perforated by numerous caverns, and often of fantastic shapes. It is badly supplied with water, and hence, is for the most part barren, though affording in many parts, now quite desolate, clear tokens of former cultivation. It contained only a thin population in the days of Joshua.
Jos 15:62
"The city of Salt" is not mentioned elsewhere, but was no doubt connected with "the valley of salt" Sa2 8:13. The name itself, and the mention of En-gedi (Gen 14:7 note) suggest that its site must be looked for near the Dead Sea. Next: Joshua Chapter 16

Judges


jdg 0:0
Introduction to Judges
The Book of Judges, like the other historical books of the Old Testament, takes its name from the subject to which it chiefly relates, namely, the exploits of those JUDGES who ruled Israel in the times between the death of Joshua and the rise of Samuel. The rule of the Judges Rut 1:1 in this limited sense was a distinct dispensation, distinct from the leadership of Moses and Joshua, distinct from the more regular supremacy of Eli, the High Priest, and from the prophetic dispensation inaugurated by Samuel Sa1 3:19-21; Act 3:24.
The book consists of three divisions: (1) The PREFACE, which extends to Jdg 3:6 (inclusive). (2) the MAIN NARRATIVE, Judg. 3:7-16:31. (3) THE APPENDIX, containing two detached narratives, (a) Jdg 17:1-13; (b) Judg. 18-21. To these may be added the Book of Ruth, containing another detached narrative, which anciently was included under the title of JUDGES, to which book the first verse shows that it properly belongs.
(1) the general purpose of the PREFACE is to prepare the ground for the subsequent narrative; to explain how it was that the pagan nations of Canaan were still so powerful, and the Israelites so destitute of Divine aid and protection against their enemies; and to draw out the striking lessons of God's righteous judgment, which were afforded by the alternate servitudes and deliverances of the Israelites, according as they either forsook God to worship idols, or returned to Him in penitence, faith, and prayer. Throughout there is a reference to the threatenings and promises of the Books of Moses (Jdg 2:15, Jdg 2:20, etc.), in order both to vindicate the power and faithfulness of Jehovah the God of Israel, and to hold out a warning to the future generations for whose instruction the book was written. In the view which the writer was inspired to present to the Church, never was God's agency more busy in relation to the affairs of His people, than when, to a superficial observer, that agency had altogether ceased. On the other hand, the writer calls attention to the fact that those heroes, who wrought such wonderful deliverances for Israel, did it not by their own power, but were divinely commissioned, and divinely endowed with courage, strength, and victory. The writer of the preface also directs the minds of the readers of his history to that vital doctrine, which it was one main object of the Old Testament dispensation to keep alive in the world until the coming of Christ, namely,, the unity of God. All the calamities which he was about to narrate, were the fruit and consequence of idolatry. "Keep yourselves from idols," was the chief lesson which the history of the Judges was intended to inculcate.
The preface consists of two very different portions; the recapitulation of events before, and up to, Joshua's death Judg. 1-2:9, and the reflections on the history about to be related Judg. 2:10-3:6.
(2) the MAIN NARRATIVE contains, not consecutive annals of Israel as a united people, but a series of brilliant, striking, pictures, now of one portion of the tribes, now of another. Of some epochs minute details are given; other periods of eight or ten years, nay, even of twenty, forty, or eighty years, are disposed of in four or five words. Obviously in those histories in which we find graphic touches and accurate details, we have preserved to us narratives contemporary with the events narrated - the narratives, probably, of eye-witnesses and actors in the events themselves. The histories of Ehud, of Barak and Deborah, of Gideon, of Jephthah, and of Samson, are the product of times when the invasions of Moab, of Jabin, of Midian, of Ammon, and of the Philistines, were living realities in the minds of those who penned those histories. The compiler of the book seems to have inserted bodily in his history the ancient narratives which were extant in his day. As the mind of the reader is led on by successive steps to the various exploits of the twelve Judges, and from them to Samuel, and from Samuel to David, and from David to David's son, it cannot fail to recognize the working of one divine plan for man's redemption, and to understand how judges, and prophets, and kings were endowed with some portion of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, preparatory to the coming into the world of Him in whom all the fulLness of the Godhead should dwell bodily, and who should save to the uttermost all that come to God by Him.
Some curious analogies have been noted between this, the heroic age of the Israelites, and the heroic ages of Greece and other Gentile countries. Here, as there, it is in the early settlement and taking possession of their new country, and in conflicts with the old races, that the virtues and prowess of the heroes are developed. Here, as there, there is oftentimes a strange mixture of virtue and vice, a blending of great and noble qualities, of most splendid deeds with cruelty and ignorance, licentiousness and barbarism. And yet, in comparing the sacred with the pagan heroes, we find in the former a faith in God and a religious purpose, of which pagandom affords no trace. The exploits of the sacred heroes advanced the highest interests of mankind, and were made subservient to the overthrow of abominable and impure superstitions, and to the preserving a light of true religion in the world until the coming of Christ.
(3) the APPENDIX contains a record of certain events which happened "in the days when the judges ruled," but are not connected with any exploits of the judges. Though placed at the end of the book, the two histories both manifestly belong chronologically to the beginning of it: the reason for the place selected is perhaps that suggested in the Jdg 17:1 note.
Exact chronology forms no part of the plan of the book. The only guide to the chronology is to be found in the genealogies which span the period: and the evidence of these genealogies concurs in assigning an average of between seven and eight generations to the time from the entrance into Canaan to the commencement of David's reign, which would make up from 240 to 260 years. Deducting 30 years for Joshua, 30 for Samuel, and 40 for the reign of Saul Act 13:21, in all 100 years, we have from 140 to 160 years left for the events related in the Book of Judges. This is a short time, no doubt, but quite sufficient, when it is remembered that many of the "rests" and "servitudes" (Jdg 3:8 note) therein related are not successive, but synchronize; and that no great dependence can be placed on the recurring 80, 40, and 20 years, whenever they are not in harmony with historical probability.
The narratives which have the strongest appearance of synchronizing are those of the Moabite, Ammonite, and Amalekite servitude Judg. 3:12-30 which lasted eighteen years, and was closely connected with a Philistine invasion Jdg 3:31; of the Ammonite servitude which lasted eighteen years, and was also closely connected with a Philistine invasion Jdg 10:7-8; and of the Midianite and Amalekite servitude which lasted seven years Jdg 6:1, all three of which terminated in a complete expulsion and destruction of their enemies by the three leaders Ehud, Jephthah, and Gideon, heading respectively the Benjamites, the Manassites and the northern tribes, and the tribes beyond Jordan: the conduct of the Ephraimites as related in Jdg 8:1; Jdg 12:1, being an additional very strong feature of resemblance in the two histories of Gideon and Jephthah. The 40 years of Philistine servitude mentioned in Jdg 13:1, seems to have embraced the last 20 years of Eli's judgeship, and the first 20 of Samuel's, and terminated with Samuel's victory at Eben-ezer: and, if so, Samson's judgeship of 20 years also coincided in part with Samuel's. The long rests of 40 and 80 years spoken of as following the victories of Othniel, Barak, and Ehud, may very probably have synchronized in whole or in part. It cannot however be denied that the chronology of this book is still a matter of uncertainty.
The time of the compilation of this book, and the final arrangement of its component parts in their present form and in their present connection in the series of the historical books of Scripture, may with most probability be assigned to the latter times of the Jewish monarchy, included in the same plan. (The Book of Ezra, it may be observed, by the way, is a continuation, not of Kings, but of Chronicles.) There is not the slightest allusion in the Book of Judges, to the Babylonian captivity. Only Jdg 3:5-6, as regards the Canaanite races mentioned, and the context, may be compared with Ezr 9:1-2. The language of the Book of Judges points to the same conclusion. It is pure and good Hebrew, untainted with Chaldaisms or Persian forms, as are the later books.
The inference to which these and other such resemblances tends, is that the compilation of the Book of Judges is of about the same age as that of the books of Samuel and Kings, if not actually the work of the same hand. But no absolute certainty can be arrived at.
The chief allusions to it in the New Testament are those in Heb 11:32 following, and Act 13:20. But there are frequent references to the histories contained in it in the Psalms and in the prophets. See Psa 78:56, etc.; Psa 83:9-11; Psa 106:34-45, etc.; Isa 9:4; Isa 10:26; Neh 9:27, etc. See also Sa1 12:9-11; Sa2 11:21. Other books to which it refers are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua. See the marginal references to Judg. 1; Jdg 2:1-3, Jdg 2:6-10, Jdg 2:15, Jdg 2:20-23; Jdg 4:11; Jdg 6:8, Jdg 6:13; Jdg 10:11; Jdg 11:13-26; Jdg 13:5; Jdg 16:17; Jdg 18:30; Jdg 19:23-24; Jdg 20:26-27, etc. Next: Judges Chapter 1

Judges

tJudg 3:13The children of Ammon (Bent-Ammon), almost always so spoken of from their ancestor Ben-ammi Gen 19:38, seem to be under the leadership of the king of Moab, as do also the Amlekites: this is perhaps the strengthening spoken of in Jdg 3:12. In Judg. 6 the combination is Midianites, Amalekites, and children of the East, or Arab tribes. In the narrative of Jephthah's judgeship, the Ammonites alone are mentioned; but with a reference to the Moabites, and as if they were one people Jdg 11:24. The Amalekites appear as the constant and bitter foes of the Israelites (Exo 17:8 notes and references); and the naming a mountain in Ephraim, "the mount of the Amalekites" Jdg 12:15 is probably a memorial of this joint invasion of Moabites and Amalekites, and marks the scene either of their occupation, or of some signal victory over them.
The city of palm trees: i. e. Jericho Jdg 1:16, having been utterly destroyed by Joshua, and not rebuilt until the time of Ahab Jos 6:24-26; Kg1 16:34, can only have existed at this time as an unwalled village, - like Jerusalem after its destruction by Nebuzaradan, until Nehemiah rebuilt its waits - and like its modern representative er-Riha, a village with a fortress for the Turkish garrison. This occupation of Jericho should be compared with the invasion in Jdg 10:9, where two out of the three tribes named, Benjamin and Ephraim, are the same as those here concerned, and where Jdg 10:7 the Philistines are coupled with the Ammonites, just as here Jdg 3:31 the Philistines are mentioned in near connection with the Moabites. See Introduction. Judges 3:15

Judges

tJudg 5:14Render "Of Ephraim (Deborah's own tribe) came down those whose root is in Mount Amalek Jdg 12:15; after thee (O Ephraim) came Benjamin among thy people; of Machir (the west-Jordanic milies of Manasseh. See Jos 17:1-6) there came down the chiefs, and of Zebulon they that handle the staff of the officer" the military scribe, whose duty it was, like that of the Roman tribunes, to keep the muster roll, and superintend the recruiting of the army. (See Kg2 25:19.) Judges 5:15

Judges

tJudg 6:1Midian - See Gen 25:2 note. They were remarkable not only for the vast number of their cattle Jdg 6:5; Num 31:32-39, but also for their great wealth in gold and other metal ornaments, showing their connection with a gold country. (Compare Num 31:22, Num 31:50-54, with Jdg 8:24 :26.) At this time they were allies of the Amalekites and of the Arabian tribes called collectively "the children of the East" Jdg 6:3. They seem to have extended their settlements to the east of Jordan, and to have belonged to the larger section of Arabs called Ishmaelites Jdg 8:24. Judges 6:2

Judges

tJudg 6:33A fresh invasion, and the last, of Midianites Amalekites, and Arabs (see Jdg 6:3). But the Israelites, instead of hiding in dens and caves, and tamely leaving all their substance as pIunder to the invaders, now rally around their leader. Judges 6:34

Judges

tJudg 7:21The effect to the Midianites would be, that they were surrounded by a mighty host. Their own camp being in darkness, as soon as the confusion of flight began they would mistake friends for foes, and fleers for pursuers. When once fighting had begun by the first casual mistake, the clashing of swords and the shouts of the combatants in the camp, accompanied by the continuous blowing of Gideon's trumpets outside, would make it appear that the whole of the enemy was in the camp. Suspicion of treachery on the part of their allies would also be likely to arise in the minds of Midianites, Amalekites, and Arabs. Compare a similar scene in marginal references. Judges 7:22

Judges

tJudg 10:12The Zidonians - An allusion to the time of Barak, when the Zidonians doubtless formed part of the great confederacy of Canaanites under Jabin king of Hazor. See Jos 11:8.
The Amalekites - In the time of Gideon (marginal reference).
The Maonites - Probably one of the tribes of the "children of the East," who came with the Midianites and Amalekites in the time of Gideon, and may have been conspicuous for their hostility to Israel, and for the greatness of their discomfiture, though the record has not been preserved. The name is "Mehununs" in Ch2 26:7. Judges 10:17

Ruth

tRuth 1:1In the days when the Judges ruled - "Judged." This note of time, like that in Rut 4:7; Jdg 18:1; Jdg 17:6, indicates that this Book was written after the rule of the judges had ceased. The genealogy Rut 4:17-22 points to the time of David as the earliest when the Book of Ruth could have been written.
A famine - Caused probably by one of the hostile invasions recorded in the Book of Judges. Most of the Jewish commentators, from the mention of Bethlehem, and the resemblance of the names Boaz and Ibzan, refer this history to the judge Ibzan Jdg 12:8, but without probability.
The country of Moab - Here, and in Rut 1:2, Rut 1:22; Rut 4:3, literally, "the field" or "fields." As the same word is elsewhere used of the territory of Moab, of the Amalekites, of Edom, and of the Philistines, it would seem to be a term pointedly used with reference to a foreign country, not the country of the speaker, or writer; and to have been specially applied to Moab. Ruth 1:4

1 Kings (1 Samuel)

t1Kings 14:47Compare Sa2 8:15. The preceding narrative shows that before this time Saul had been king in name only, since his country was occupied by the Philistines, and he could only muster 600 men, and those but half armed and pent up in a narrow stronghold. Now, however, on the expulsion of the Philistines from his country, and the return of the Israelites from their vassalage and from their hiding places Sa1 14:21-22, Saul became king in deed as well as in name, and acted the part of a king through the rest of his reign in defending his people against their enemies round about. A comprehensive list of these enemies, including the Ammonite war which had already been described Sa1 11:1-15, and the Amalekite war which follows in 1 Sam. 15, is given in Sa1 14:47-48. There is not the slightest indication from the words whether this "taking the kingdom" occurred soon or really years after Saul's anointing at Gilgal. Hence, some would place the clause Sa1 14:47-52 immediately after Sa1 11:1-15, or 1 Sam. 12, as a summary of Saul's reign. The details of the reign, namely, of the Philistine war in 1 Sam. 13; 14, of the Amalekite war in 1 Sam. 15, and the other events down to the end of Sa1 31:1-13, preceded by the formulary, Sa1 13:1, would then follow according to the common method of Hebrew historical narrative.
Zobah - This was one of the petty Ara-roman kingdoms flourishing at this time (Psa 60:1-12 title). It seems to have been situated between Damascus and the Euphrates. 1 Kings (1 Samuel) 14:49

1 Kings (1 Samuel)

t1Kings 15:2Compare the marginal references. It appears Sa1 14:48 that this expedition against Amalek was not made without fresh provocation. Probably some incursion similar to that described in 1 Sam. 30 was made by them upon the south country at a time when they thought the Israelites were weakened by their contests with the Philistines. 1 Kings (1 Samuel) 15:3

1 Kings (1 Samuel)

t1Kings 15:12A place - Rather, "a monument." The Hebrew word יד yâd means a "hand," but is used in the sense of "monument," or "trophy," in Sa2 18:18, where we are told that the marble pillar which Absalom set up in his lifetime, was called "Yad Absalom."
Carmel - (see the marginal reference) would be on Saul's line of march on his return from the country of the Amalekites, more especially if he came from the neighborhood of Akaba. 1 Kings (1 Samuel) 15:13

1 Kings (1 Samuel)

t1Kings 22:19Both men and women ... - The language employed in the case of the Amalekites Sa1 15:3 and of Jericho Jos 6:21. Nothing could be more truculent than Saul's revenge. 1 Kings (1 Samuel) 22:20

1 Kings (1 Samuel)

t1Kings 27:10The Jerahmeelites - i. e. the descendants of Jerahmeel, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah (marginal references). They were therefore a portion of the "south of Judah."
The Kenites - See Num 24:21 note; Num 4:11; and for their near neighborhood to Amalek, see Sa1 15:6. 1 Kings (1 Samuel) 27:11

1 Kings (1 Samuel)

t1Kings 29:10With thy master's servants - The clue to this may be found in Ch1 12:19-21, where it appears that a considerable number of Manassites "fell" to David just at this time, and went back with him to Ziklag. It is therefore to these new comers that Achish applies the expression. It is impossible not to recognize here a merciful interposition of Providence, by which David was not only saved from fighting against his king and country, but sent home just in time to recover his wives and property from the Amalekites 1 Sam. 30. That David maintained his position by subtlety and falsehood, which were the invariable characteristics of his age and nation, is not in the least to be wondered at. No sanction is given by this narrative to the use of falsehood. Next: 1 Kings (1 Samuel) Chapter 30

1 Kings (1 Samuel)

t1Kings 30:1On the third day - This indicates that Aphek was three days' march from Ziklag, say about 50 miles, which agrees very well with the probable situation of Aphek (Sa1 4:1 note). From Ziklag to Shunem would not be less than 80 or 90 miles.
The Amalekites, in retaliation of David's raids Sa1 27:8-9, invaded "the south" of Judah Jos 15:21; but owing to the absence of all the men with David there was no resistance, and consequently the women and children were carried off as prey, and uninjured. 1 Kings (1 Samuel) 30:7

1 Kings (1 Samuel)

t1Kings 30:20The meaning is, "and David took all the sheep and oxen which the Amalekites drove" (i. e. had in their possession) "before that acquisition of cattle" (namely, before what they took in their raid to the south), "and they" (the people) "said, This is David's spoil." This was his share as captain of the band (compare Jdg 8:24-26). All the other plunder of the camp - arms, ornaments, jewels, money, clothes, camels, accoutrements, and so on - was divided among the little army. David's motive in choosing the sheep and oxen for himself was to make presents to his friends in Judah Sa1 30:26-31. 1 Kings (1 Samuel) 30:27

2 Kings (2 Samuel)

t2Kings 1:10The Amalekite was one of those who came "to strip the slain" on "the morrow" after the battle Sa1 31:8, and had the luck to find Saul and possess himself of his crown and bracelet. He probably started off immediately to seek David, and invented the above story, possibly having heard from some Israelite prisoner an account of what really did happen. 2 Kings (2 Samuel) 1:12

2 Kings (2 Samuel)

t2Kings 1:13Whether David believed the Amalekite's story, or not, his anger was equally excited, and the fact that the young man was an Amalekite, was not calculated to calm or check it. That David's temper was hasty, we know from Sa1 25:13, Sa1 25:32-34. 2 Kings (2 Samuel) 1:16

1 Chronicles

t1Chron 1:36Timna - In Gen 36:11, Eliphaz has no son Timna; but he has a concubine of the name, who is the mother of Amalek, and conjectured to be Lotan's sister Ch1 1:39. The best explanation is, that the writer has in his mind rather the tribes descended from Eliphaz than his actual children, and as there was a place, Timna, inhabited by his "dukes" (Ch1 1:51; compare Gen. 35:40), he puts the race which lived there among his "sons." 1 Chronicles 1:41

1 Chronicles

t1Chron 7:20The sons of Ephraim - The genealogy is difficult. It is perhaps best to consider Ezer and Elead Ch1 7:21 as not sons of Zabad and brothers of the second Shuthelah, but natural sons of Ephraim. The passage would then run thusly:
"And the sons of Ephraim, Shuthelah (and Bered was his son, and Tahath his son and Eladah his son, and Tahath his son, and Zabad his son, and Shuthelah his son) and Ezer and Elead, whom the men of Gath slew" (i. e. the settled inhabitants, as contrasted with the nomadic Hebrews, Amalekites, etc.). 1 Chronicles 7:24

1 Chronicles

t1Chron 10:13For his transgression - Compare Ch1 9:1. The "transgression" intended is probably the disobedience with respect to Amalek, recorded in Sa1 15:1-9 (compare Sa1 28:17-18). Next: 1 Chronicles Chapter 11

Esther

tEsther 3:1The name, Haman, is probably the same as the Classical Omanes, and in ancient Persian, "Umana", an exact equivalent of the Greek "Eumenes." Hammedatha is perhaps the same as "Madata" or "Mahadata", an old Persian name signifying "given by (or to) the moon."
The Agagite - The Jews generally understand by this expression "the descendant of Agag," the Amalekite monarch of 1 Sam. 15. Haman, however, by his own name, and the names of his sons Est 9:7-9 and his father, would seem to have been a genuine Persian.
The Classical writers make no mention of Haman's advancement; but their notices of the reign of Xerxes after 479 B.C. are exceedingly scanty. Esther 3:2

Job

tJob 5:21Thou shalt be hid from the scourge of the tongue - Margin, Or, "when the tongue scourgeth." The word rendered "scourge" - שׁוט shôṭ - means properly a whip. It is used of God when he scourges people by calamities and punishments; Isa 10:26; Job 9:23. See the use of the verb שׁוּט shûṭ in Job 2:7. Here it is used to denote a slanderous tongue, as being that which inflicts a severe wound upon the reputation and peace of an individual. The idea is, that God would guard the reputation of those who commit themselves to him, and that they shall be secure from slander, "whose breath," Shakespeare says, "outvenoms all the worms of Nile."
Neither shalt thou be afraid when destruction cometh - That is, your mind shall be calm in those calamities which threaten destruction. When war rages, when the tempest howls, when the pestilence breathes upon a community, then your mind shall be at peace. A similar thought occurs in Isa 26:3 : "Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on thee;" and the same sentiment is beautifully illustrated at length in Ps. 91. The Chaldee Paraphrase applies all this to events which had occurred in the history of the Hebrews. Thus, Job 5:20 : "In the famine in Egypt, he redeemed thee from death; and in the war with Amalek, from being slain by the sword;" Job 5:21 : "In the injury inflicted by the tongue of Balaam thou wert hid among the clouds, and thou didst not fear from the desolation of the Midianites when it came;" Job 5:22 : "In the desolation of Sihon, and in the famine of the desert, thou didst laugh; and of the camps of Og, who was like a wild beast of the earth, thou wert not afraid." Job 5:22

Job

tJob 40:19He is the chief of the ways of God - In size and strength. The word rendered "chief" is used in a similar sense in Num 24:20, "Amalek was the first of the nations;" that is, one of the most powerful and mighty of the nations.
He that made him can make his sword approach unto him - According to this translation, the sense is, that God had power over him, notwithstanding his great strength and size, and could take his life when he pleased. Yet this, though it would be a correct sentiment, does not seem to be that which the connection demands. That would seem to require some allusion to the strength of the animal; and accordingly, the translation suggested by Bochart, and adopted substantially by Rosenmuller, Umbreit, Noyes, Schultens, Prof. Lee, and others, is to be preferred - "He that made him furnished him with a sword." The allusion then would be to his strong, sharp teeth, hearing a resemblance to a sword, and designed either for defense or for the purpose of cutting the long grass on which it fed when on the land. The propriety of this interpretation may be seen vindicated at length in Bochart, "Hieroz." P. ii. Lib. v. c. xv. pp. 766, 762. The ἅρπη harpē, i. e. the sickle or scythe, was ascribed to the hippopotamus by some of the Greek writers. Thus, Nicander, "Theriacon," verse 566:
Η ἵππον, τὸν Νεῖλος ύπερ Σάιν αἰθαλοεσσαν
Βόσκει, ἀρούρησιν δὲ κακὴν ἐπιβάλλεται
ἍΡΠΗΝ.
Ee hippon, ton Neilos huper Sain aithaloessan
Boskei, arourēsin de kakēn epiballetai.
Harpēn
On this passage the Scholiast remarks, "The ἅρπη harpē, means a sickle, and the teeth of the hippopotamus are so called - teaching that this animal consumes (τρώγει trōgei) the harvest." See Bochart also for other examples. A slight inspection of the "cut" will show with what propriety it is said of the Creator of the hippopotamus, that he had armed him with a sickle, or sword. Job 40:20

Psalms


psa 34:0
This psalm purports, by its title, to have been written by David, and there is no reason to call in question the correctness of the inscription. It is not probable that the title was given to the psalm by the author himself; but, like the other inscriptions which have occurred in many of the previous psalms, it is in the Hebrew, and was doubtless prefixed by him who made a collection of the Psalms, and expresses the current belief of the time in regard to its author. There is nothing in the psalm that is inconsistent with the supposition that David was the author, or that is incompatible with the circumstances of the occasion on which it is said to have been composed.
That occasion is said to have been when David, "changed his behavior before Abimelech." The circumstance here referred to is, undoubtedly, that which is described in Sa1 21:10-15. David, for fear of Saul, fled to Gath, and put himself under the protection of Achish (or Abimelech), the king of Gath. It soon became known who the stranger was. The fame of David had reached Gath, and a public reference was made to him by the "servants of Achish," and to the manner in which his deeds had been celebrated among the Hebrews: "Did they not sing one to another of him in dances, saying, Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands?" Sa1 21:11. David was apprehensive that he might be betrayed, and be delivered up by Achish to Saul, and he resorted to the device of feigning himself mad, supposing that this would be a protection; that either from pity Achish would shelter him; or, that as he would thus be considered harmless, Saul would regard it needless to secure him. He, therefore, acted like a madman, or like an idiot. He "scrabbled on the doors of the gate, and let his spittle fall down upon his beard." The device, though it may have saved him from being delivered up to Saul, had no other effect. Achish was unwilling to harbor a madman; and David left him, and sought a refuge in the cave of Adullam. Sa1 21:15; Sa1 22:1. It is not necessary, in order to a proper understanding of the psalm, to attempt to vindicate the conduct of David in this. Perfect honesty would doubtless, in this case, as in all others, have been better in regard to the result as it is certainly better in respect to a good conscience. The question of adopting "disguises," however, when in danger, is not one which it is always easy to determine.
It is by no means necessary to suppose that the psalm was written "at that time," or "when" he thus "changed his behavior." All that the language of the inscription properly expresses is, that it was with reference to that occasion, or to the danger in which he then was, or in remembrance of his feelings at the time, as he recalled them afterward; and that it was in view of his own experience in going through that trial, and of his deliverance from that danger. In the psalm itself there is no allusion to his "change of behavior;" and the design of David was not to celebrate that, or to vindicate that, but to celebrate the goodness of God in his deliverance as it was effected at that time. In the psalm David expresses no opinion about the measure which he adopted to secure his safety; but his heart and his lips are full of praise in view of the fact that he "was" delivered. It is, moreover, fairly implied in the inscription itself, that the psalm was composed, not at that time, but subsequently: "A Psalm of David, when he changed his behavior before Abimelech, who drove him away, and he departed." The obvious construction of this would be that the psalm was composed after Abimelech had driven him away.
The "name" of the king of Gath at the time is said, in the text of the inscription or title, to have been Abimelech; in the margin, it is Achish. In Sa1 21:1-15 it is "Achish" in the text, and "Abimelech" in the margin. It is not at all improbable that he was known by both these names. His personal name was doubtless "Achish;" the hereditary name - the name by which the line of kings of Gath was known - was probably Abimelech. Thus the general, the hereditary, the family name of the kings of Egypt in early times was Pharaoh; in later times Ptolemy. In like manner the kings of Pontus had the general name of Mithridates; the Roman emperors, after the time of Julius Caesar, were "the Caesars;" and so, not improbably, the general name of the kings of Jerusalem may have been Adonizedek, or Melchizedek; and the name of the kings of the Amalekites, Agag. We have evidence that the general name Abimelech was given to the kings of the Philistines Gen. 20; 26 as early as the time of Abraham; and it is certainly not impossible or improbable that it became a hereditary name, like the names Pharaoh, Ptolemy, Mithridates, and Caesar. A slight confirmation of this supposition may be derived from the signification of the name itself. It properly means "father of the king," or "father-king;" and it might thus become a common title of the kings in Philistia. Thus, also, the term "Padisha" (Pater, Rex) is given to the kings of Persia, and the title "Atalik" (father) to the khans of Bucharia. (Gesenius, Lexicon)
This psalm is the second of the alphabetical psalms, or the psalms in which the successive verses begin with one of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. See the introduction to Ps. 25. The arrangement is regular in this psalm, except that the Hebrew letter ו (v) is omitted, and that, to make the number of the verses equal to the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, an additional verse is appended to the end, commencing, as in the last verse of Ps. 25, with the Hebrew letter פ (p).
The psalm consists essentially of four parts, which, though sufficiently connected to be appropriate to the one occasion on which it was composed, are so distinct as to suggest different trains of thought.
I. An expression of thanksgiving for deliverance Psa 34:1-6; concluding with the language, "This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles." From this it has been supposed, as suggested above, that the psalm was composed after David had left the court of Abimelech, and not "at the time" when he was feigning madness.
II. A general statement about the privilege of confiding in God, as derived from his own experience; and an exhortation to others, founded on that experience, Psa 34:7-10.
III. A special exhortation to the "young" to trust in the Lord, and to pursue a life of uprightness, Psa 34:11-14. The psalmist professes himself able to instruct them, and he shows them that the way to attain to prosperity and to length of days is to lead a life of virtue and religion. What he had himself passed through - his deliverance in the time of trial - the recollections of his former life - all suggested this as an invaluable lesson to the young. From this it would seem not to be improbable that the psalm was written at a considerable period after what occurred to him at the court of the king of Gath, and perhaps when he was himself growing old - yet still in view of the events at that period of his life.
IV. A general statement that God will protect the righteous; that their interests are safe in His hands; that they may confidently rely upon Him; that though they may be afflicted, yet God will deliver them from their afflictions, and that He will ultimately redeem them from all their troubles, Psa 34:15-22.
The general purport and bearing of the psalm, therefore, is to furnish an argument for trusting in God in the time of trouble, and for leading such a life that we may confidently trust him as our Protector and Friend.
Psalm 34:Title
In the title, the words "a psalm" are not in the original. The original is simply of "David," לדוד ledâvid, or "by David," without denoting the character of the production, whether it was to be regarded as a "psalm," or some other species of composition. "When he changed his behavior." The word "behavior" does not quite express the meaning of the original word, nor describe the fact as it is related Sa1 21:1-15. The Hebrew word - טעם ṭa‛am - means properly, "taste, flavor of food;" then intellectual taste, judgment, discernment, understanding; and in this place it would literally mean, "he changed his understanding;" that is, he feigned himself mad. This corresponds precisely with the statement of his conduct in Sa1 21:13.
Before Abimelech - Margin, "Achish." As remarked above, this latter is the proper or personal name of the king.
Who drove him away - See Sa1 21:15. Psalms 34:1

Psalms


psa 60:0
In the title, this psalm is ascribed to David. The occasion on which it is said to have been composed was after he had been engaged in wars in the East - in Aramea - and when he was meditating the completion of his conquests in the subjugation of Idumea. The time of its composition, according to the title, was that referred to in 2 Sam. 8, compare 1 Chr. 18. The occasion will be best understood by an explanation of the title.
On the phrase "To the chief Musician," see the notes at the introduction to Psa 4:1-8.
The phrase "upon Shushan-eduth" means properly "Lily of Testimony." The word שׁושׁן shôshân means properly lily. See the notes at the title to Ps. 45, where, as in the titles to Ps. 69; 80, the plural form of the word occurs. This is the only instance in which it is found in the singular number, when in the title to a psalm. The word עדות ‛êdûth means properly testimony; law; precept; revelation. It is applied to the law of God, as a testimony which God bears to the truth, Psa 19:7; Kg2 11:12; and especially to the ark, called "the ark of the testimony," as containing the law or the divine testimony to the truth. Exo 25:21-22 (compare Exo 16:34); Exo 26:33-34; Exo 30:6, Exo 30:26; Exo 31:7. The word occurs frequently, and is uniformly translated testimony. Exo 27:21; Exo 30:36; Exo 31:18, et saepe. See the notes at Psa 19:7. The lily of the law would properly express the meaning of the phrase here, and it may have been the name of a musical instrument having a resemblance to a lily - open-mouthed like the lily; perhaps some form of the trumpet.
Why the term earth - testimony or law - was connected with this, it is not easy to determine. Gesenius (Lexicon) supposes that the word means revelation, and that the term was used in these inscriptions because the authors of the psalms wrote by revelation. But if this was the reason, it would not explain why the title was prefixed to these psalms rather than others, since all were composed by revelation. Prof. Alexander, somewhat fancifully, supposes that the name lily is used in this title to denote beauty; that the reference is to the beauty of the law, and that the psalm is designed to celebrate that beauty. But it is sufficient to say in reply to this that there is no particular mention of the law in this psalm, and no special commemoration of its beauty. If the title had been prefixed to Psa 19:1-14, or to Ps. 119, there would then have been some foundation for the remark. On the whole, it seems impossible to determine the reason of the use of the term here. It would seem most probable that the allusion is to a musical instrument, or to some classes of musical instruments to which the term had been originally applied with reference to the use of those instruments in the services connected with the "ark of the testimony," or the celebration of the law of God; but on what occasion such instruments were first used, or why the term was applied, we cannot hope now to understand.
On the word Michtan, see the notes at the Introduction to Psa 16:1-11. It indicates nothing here in regard to the character of the psalm to which it is prefixed. It may be merely one form of denoting that it was a composition of David.
The word rendered "to teach," means here that the psalm was adapted to impart instruction, and in this sense it is not unlike the word Maschil (Title to Psa 32:1-11), as being a psalm suited to impart valuable information on the subject referred to, or perhaps to be learned and treasured up in the memory. It is not possible for us, however, to understand why the language was applied to this psalm rather than to others.
The psalm is said to have been composed when David "strove with Aramnaharaim and with Aram-zobah, when Joab returned and smote in the valley of salt twelve thousand." The allusion is to the transactions referred to in 2 Sam. 8 and 1 Chr. 18. In those chapters we learn that David made extensive conquests in the East, extending his victories over Moab, Syria, and Hamath, and subduing the country as far as the Euphrates. It is to these victories that the psalm refers, see Psa 60:7-8. The words rendered Aram-nahaim mean properly Aram (or Aramea) of the two rivers, and the reference is to Syria or Mesopotamia. The compound word occurs elsewhere in the following places, in all of which it is rendered Mesopotamia, Gen 24:10; Deu 23:4; Jdg 3:8; Ch1 19:6. The word Aram is of frequent occurrence, and properly refers to Syria. The name comprehended more than Syria proper, and the term Aram-naharaim, or Aram of the two rivers, was used to designate that part of the general country of Aramea which was between the Tigris and the Euphrates. The compound term Aram-zobah refers also to a part of Aramea or Syria. This kingdom was in the neighborhood of Damascus, and perhaps comprehended Hamath, and probably extended as far as the Euphrates. The king of this country is represented as making war with Saul Sa1 14:47, and with David Sa2 8:3; Sa2 10:6. In Sa2 8:3, David is represented as having smitten "Hadadezer, the son of Rehob, king of Zobah, as he went to recover his border at the river Euphrates." It is to these wars, and to this conquest, that the title of the psalm alludes.
The language in the title "when Joab returned," would seem to imply that these conquests were achieved not by David in person, but by Joab - a circumstance not at all improbable, as he was the leader of the armies of David; Sa2 20:23, "Now Joab was over all the host of Israel." David had thus subdued Syria, and Moab, and the children of Ammon, and the Philistines, and the Amalekites, and Hadadezer, king of Zobah, and had dedicated to the Lord the silver and the gold which he had taken in these conquests Sa2 8:11-12; but it would seem probable that Edom or Idumea stilt held out, or that at the time of composing the psalm that country had not been subdued. But the subjugation of that land was necessary to complete the conquests of David, and to make his kingdom safe. It was at this time probably, in the interval between Sa2 8:12 and Sa2 8:14, that the psalm was composed, or in view of the strong desire of David to subdue Edom; see Psa 60:8-9, "Over Edom will I cast out my shoe,"..."Who will lead me into Edom?" It would seem that there were some special difficulties in the conquest of that country; or that there had been some partial discomfiture in attempting it Psa 60:1-3, and David was now fearful that he had in some way incurred the divine displeasure after all his conquests, and that Edom - a place so strong and so important - was likely to remain unsubdued. And yet the conquest was made, for it is said in the title "that Joab smote of Edom in the valley of salt twelve thousand." Compare Sa2 8:13.
The phrase "the Valley of Salt" is explained by the fact that not a few valleys are found in Arabia and Syria, which are at certain periods - in the wet seasons - stagnant pools; but which, when they are dried up, leave an incrustation of salt, or a saline deposit on the sand. Travelers make mention of such pools, from which they obtain their supplies of salt. Van Hamelsveld, Bib. Geog., i. p. 402. What valley is here referred to is not certain. It would seem most probable that it was the valley in which the Dead Sea is situated, as being eminently the valley of salt, or the valley in which such deposits abounded. Dr. Robinson (Researches in Palestine, vol. ii. p. 483), supposes that this "valley of salt" is situated at the southern end of the Dead Sea - the Ghor south of the Dead Sea; and adjacent to the Mountain of Salt - "the whole body of the mountain being a solid mass of rock-salt" p. 482. This valley separates the ancient territories of Judah and Edom, and would, therefore, be the place where the battle would naturally be fought.
This victory is said in the title of the psalm to have been achieved by Joab; in Sa2 8:13, it is attributed to David; in the parallel place in Ch1 18:12, it is said to have been achieved by Abishai - in the margin, Abshai. There is no discrepancy between the account in 2 Samuel, where the victory is ascribed to David, and that in the title to the psalm where it is ascribed to Joab, for though the battle may have been fought by Joab, yet it was really one of the victories of David, as Joab acted under him and by his orders - as we speak of the conquests of Napoleon, attributing to him the conquests which were secured by the armies under his command. There is greater difficulty in reconciling the account in 1 Chronicles with the title to the psalm, where one ascribes the victory to Joab, and the other to Aibishai. Some have supposed that either in the title to the psalm or in 1 Chronicles there has been an error in transcribing. But such an error could hardly have occurred. The most probable opinion seems to be that the victory was achieved by the joint action of the forces under Joab and his brother Abishai, and that with propriety it may be spoken of as the victory of either of them. We know that on one occasion Joab thus divided his forces, retaining the command of a portion of the army to himself, and assigning the other portion to his brother Abishai Sa2 10:9-10, and it is possible that there may have been such a division of the army here, and that the victory may have been so connected with the skill and valor of Abishai that it might without impropriety be spoken of as his victory, while there was no impropriety also in ascribing it to Joab, as entrusted with the general command, or to David who had planned and directed the expedition.
There is, also, a discrepancy in the numbers mentioned as slain, in the title to the psalm, and in the account in Samuel and Chronicles. In Sa2 8:13, and in Ch1 18:12, the number is "eighteen thousand;" in the title to the psalm, it is "twelve thousand." Why the statement varies, it is impossible to determine with certainty. We cannot suppose that the author of the psalm was ignorant of the usual estimate of the number, and we have no evidence that there is an error in the transcription. The probability is, that there may have been, as is often the case, in the account of battles, two estimates. The common and more moderate estimate may have been that the number was twelve thousand - and this was adopted by the author of the psalm. The more accurate and well-ascertained estimate may have been that which was placed in the regular history, in the Books of Samuel and the Chronicles. If the actual number was in fact as great as eighteen thousand, then there is no contradiction - for the greater number includes the less. If eighteen thousand were actually slain, there was no falsehood in the assertion, according to the first estimate, that twelve thousand had fallen in the battle, for that statement was in fact true, though a subsequent and more accurate "return" from the army made the number larger. Both statements were true. In saying that three men were drowned in a flood, or lost at sea in a storm, I do not falsify a declaration which may be made subsequently that not only three perished but six or more.
There is no reference, in the accounts in Samuel and the Chronicles, to the partial discomfiture referred to in the psalm Psa 60:1-3; and the impression from those historical narratives would probably be that the armies of David had been uniformly successful. Yet it is possible that some things may have been omitted in the rapid survey of the conquests of David in Samuel and the Chronicles. The design of the authors of those books may have been to give a general summary of the wars or series of wars by which David obtained a final victory over his enemies, and brought into subjection all that he regarded as properly his territory, or all that had been included in the general promise to Abraham and his posterity, without noticing the reverses or disasters that may have occurred in securing those triumphs. Perhaps the most probable supposition in the case is, that during the absence of the armies in the east the Edomites had taken occasion to invade the land of Palestine from the south, and that in endeavoring to repel them, there had been some defeats and losses in the comparatively small forces which David was then able to employ. He now summoned his armies on their return, and made a vigorous and decided effort to expel the Edomites from the land, to carry the warfare into their own country, and to add their territory to that which he had already brought under subjection. In this he was entirely successful. Sa2 8:14; Ch1 18:13.
The contents of the psalm are as follows:
I. A statement of the disaster which had occurred, as if God had cast his people off, and as if, after all, they might be given up into the hands of their enemies, Psa 60:1-3.
II. A statement of the object for which God now summoned his people to war - that of carrying forth the banner of truth, or of bringing nations into subjection to the true religion, Psa 60:4-5.
III. A reference to the conquests already made, or to the dominion which David had set up over Shechem, Succoth, Gilead, Manasseh, Ephraim, Judah, Moab, and Philistia, Psa 60:6-8.
IV. The expression of a strong desire to complete the series of conquests by subduing Edom or Idumea, Psa 60:8-9. That alone remained. That offered formidable resistance to the armies of David. The conquest of that seemed difficult, if not hopeless, and the psalmist, therefore, asks with deep solicitude who would aid him in this war; who would bring him successfully into the strong city - the strong fortifications of Edom, Psa 60:9.
V. An appeal to God to do it; to that God who had cast them off; to him who had left their armies to go forth alone. David now calls on him to return to those forces, and to render aid - expressing the confident assurance that he would thus return, and that the victory would be secured, Psa 60:10-12. Psalms 60:1

Psalms


psa 83:0
This is another of the psalms of Asaph, the last of the group or collection that is found under his name. Compare the Introduction to Ps. 73. The occasion on which this was composed is not certainly known, and cannot now be ascertained. Grotius supposes that it relates to the time of David, and especially to the first war with the Syrians referred to in 2 Sam. 8, or to the second war with the Syrians referred to in 2 Sam. 10, and 1 Chr. 19. Kimchi, DeWette, and others, suppose that it relates to the time of Jehoshaphat, and to the war with the Ammonites and Moabites, referred to in 2 Chr. 20. Hengstenberg and Prof. Alexander concur in this opinion, and suppose that it was written on the same occasion as Psa 47:1-9; Psa 48:1-14; the first, composed and sung on the field of battle; the second, on the triumphant return to Jerusalem; the third - the one before us - in confident anticipation of victory. This is, perhaps, rather fanciful, and it certainly cannot be demonstrated that this is the correct opinion. It would seem, at least, to be hardly probable that a psalm would be composed and sung in a battlefield.
All that is certain in regard to the psalm is, that it was written in view of a threatened invasion by combined armies, and the prayer is, that God would give help, as he had done when the nation had been threatened on other occasions. The nations which were combined, or which had formed an alliance for this purpose, are specified in Psa 83:6-8; Edom; Ishmael; Moab; the Hagarenes; Gebal; Ammon; Amalek; the Philistines; the Tyrians, Assur, and the children of Lot.
The contents of the psalm are as follows:
I. A prayer that God would no longer keep still, or be silent, Psa 83:1.
II. A statement of the occasion for the prayer, to wit, the conspiracy or combination formed against his people, Psa 83:2-5.
III. An enumeration of the nations thus combined, Psa 83:6-8.
IV. A prayer that God would interpose as he had done in former times, in critical periods of the Jewish history - as in the case of the Midianites; as in the time of Sisera, and Jabin; and as in the wars waged with Oreb and Zeeb, Zebah and Zalmunna, Psa 83:9-12.
V. A prayer that these enemies might be utterly overthrown and confounded; that God would promote his own glory; and that his people might be secure and happy, Psa 83:13-18. Psalms 83:1

Psalms

tPs 83:7Gebal - The Gebal here referred to was probably the same as Gebalene, the mountainous tract inhabited by the Edomites, extending from the Dead Sea southward toward Petra, and still called by the Arabs Djebal. (Gesenius, Lexicon) The word means mountain. Those who are here referred to were a part of the people of Edom.
And Ammon - The word Ammon means son of my people. Ammon was the son of Lot by his youngest daughter, Gen 19:38. The Ammonites, descended from him, dwelt beyond the Jordan in the tract of country between the streams of Jabbok and Arnon. These also would be naturally associated in such a confederacy. Sa1 11:1-11.
And Amalek - The Amalekites were a very ancient people: In the traditions of the Arabians they are reckoned among the aboriginal inhabitants of that country. They inhabited the regions on the south of Palestine, between Idumea and Egypt. Compare Exo 17:8-16; Num 13:29; Sa1 15:7. They also extended eastward of the Dead Sea and Mount Seir Num 24:20; Jdg 3:13; Jdg 6:3, Jdg 6:33; and they appear also to have settled down in Palestine itself, whence the name the Mount of the Amalekites, in the territory of Ephraim, Jdg 12:15.
The Philistines - Often mentioned in the Scriptures. They were the ancient inhabitants of Palestine, whence the name Philistia or Palestine. The word is supposed to mean the land of sojourners or strangers; hence, in the Septuagint they are uniformly called ἀλλοφύλοι allophuloi, those of another tribe, strangers, and their country is called γῆ ἀλλοφύλων gē allophulōn. They were constant enemies of the Hebrews, and it was natural that they should be engaged in such an alliance as this.
With the inhabitants of Tyre - On the situation of Tyre, see the Introduction to Isa. 23. Why Tyre should unite in this confederacy is not known. The purpose seems to have been to combine as many nations as possible against the Hebrew people, and - as far as it could be done - all those that were adjacent to it, so that it might be surrounded by enemies, and so that its destruction might be certain. It would not probably be difficult to find some pretext for inducing any of the kings of the surrounding nations to unite in such an unholy alliance. Kings, in general, have not been unwilling to form alliances against liberty. Psalms 83:8

Jeremiah

tJer 35:2The house - The family.
The Rechabites - The Rechabites were a nomadic tribe not of Jewish but of Kenite race, and connected with the Amalekites Num 24:21; Sa1 15:6, from whom however they had separated themselves, and made a close alliance with the tribe of Judah Jdg 1:16, on whose southern borders they took up their dwelling Sa1 27:10. While, however, the main body of the Kenites gradually adopted settled habits, and dwelt in cities Sa1 30:29, the Rechabites persisted in leading the free desert life, and in this determination they were finally confirmed by the influence and authority of Jonadab, who lived in Jehu's reign. He was a zealous adherent of Yahweh Kg2 10:15-17, and possibly a religious reformer; and as the names of the men mentioned in the present narrative are all compounded with Yah, it is plain that the tribe continued their allegiance to Him.
The object of Jonadab in endeavoring to preserve the nomad habits of his race was probably twofold. He wished first to maintain among them the purer morality and higher feeling of the desert contrasted with the laxity and effeminacy of the city life; and secondly he was anxious for the preservation of their freedom. Their punctilious obedience Jer 35:14 to Jonadab's precepts is employed by Jeremiah to point a useful lesson for his own people.
The date of the prophecy is the interval between the battle of Carchemish and the appearance of Nebuchadnezzar at Jerusalem, Jer 35:11 at the end of the same year. It is consequently 17 years earlier than the narrative in Jer 34:8 ff Jeremiah 35:3

Jeremiah

tJer 49:7Edom stretched along the south of Judah from the border of Moab on the Dead Sea to the Mediterranean and the Arabian deserts, and held the same relation to Judah which Moab held toward the kingdom of Israel. Although expressly reserved from attack by Moses Deu 2:5, a long feud caused the Edomites to cherish so bitter an enmity against Judah, that they exulted with cruel joy over the capture of Jerusalem by the Chaldaeans, and showed great cruelty toward those why fled to them for refuge.
Of the prophecies against Edom the first eight verses of Obadiah are also found in Jeremiah (see the marginal references). As Jeremiah wrote before the capture of Jerusalem, and Obadiah apparently after it (see Jer 49:13-14), it might seem certain that Obadiah copied from Jeremiah. Others held the reverse view; while some consider that the two prophets may both have made common use of some ancient prediction. See the introduction to Obadiah.
The prophecy is divisible into three strophes. In the first Jer 49:7-13, the prophet describes Edom as terror-stricken.
Jer 49:7
Teman - A strip of land on the northeast of Edom, put here for Edom generally. Its inhabitants were among those "children of the East" famed for wisdom, because of their skill in proverbs and dark sayings.
Jer 49:8
Dwell deep - Jer 49:30. The Dedanites, who were used to travel through the Edomite territory with their caravans, are advised to retire as far as possible into the Arabian deserts to be out of the way of the invaders.
Jer 49:9
Translate it: "If vintagers come to thee, they will not leave any gleaning: if thieves by night, they will destroy their fill."
Jer 49:10
But - For. The reason why the invaders destroy Edom so completely. His secret places are the hiding-places in the mountains of Seir.
His seed - Esau's seed, the Edomites; his brethren are the nations joined with him in the possession of the land, Amalek, and perhaps the Simeonites; his neighbors are Dedan, Tema, Buz.
Jer 49:11
As with Moab Jer 48:47, and Ammon Jer 49:6, so there is mercy for Edom. The widows shall be protected, and in the orphans of Edom the nation shall once again revive.
Jer 49:12
Translate it: "Behold they whose rule was not to drink of the cup shall surely drink etc." It was not the ordinary manner of God's people to suffer from His wrath: but now when they are drinking of the wine-cup of fury Jer 25:15, how can those not in covenant with Him hope to escape?
Jer 49:14-18
The second strophe, Edom's chastisement.
Jer 49:14
Rumour - Or, "revelation."
Ambassador - Or, messenger, i. e., herald. The business of an ambassador is to negotiate, of a herald to carry a message.
Jer 49:15
Small ... - Rather, small among the nations, i. e., of no political importance.
Jer 49:16
Edom's "terribleness" consisted in her cities being hewn in the sides of inaccessible rocks, from where she could suddenly descend for predatory warfare, and retire to her fastnesses without fear of reprisals.
The clefts of the rock - Or, the fastnesses of Sela, the rock-city, Petra (see Isa 16:1).
The hill - i. e., Bozrah.
Jer 49:17
Better, "And Edom shall become a terror: every passer by shalt be terrified, and shudder etc."
Jer 49:18
Neighbour ... - Admah and Zeboim.
A son of man - i. e., "Any man." From 536 a.d. onward, Petra suddenly vanishes from the pages of history. Only in the present century was its real site discovered.
Jer 49:19-22
Concluding strophe. The fall of Edom is compared to the state of a flock worried by an enemy strong as a lion Jer 4:7, and swift as an eagle.
Jer 49:19
The swelling of Jordan - Or, the pride of Jordan, the thickets on his banks (marginal reference note).
Against the habitation of the strong - Or, to the abiding pasturage. The lion stalks forth from the jungle to attack the fold, sure to find sheep there because of the perennial (evergreen) pasturage: "but I will suddenly make him (the flock, Edom) run away from her (or it, the pasturage)."
And who is a chosen ... - Better, and I will appoint over it, the abandoned land of Edom, him who is chosen, i. e., my chosen ruler Nebuchadnezzar.
Who will appoint me the time? - The plaintiff, in giving notice of a suit, had to mention the time when the defendant must appear (see the margin). Yahweh identifies himself with Nebuchadnezzar Jer 25:9, and shows the hopelessness of Edom's cause. For who is like Yahweh, His equal in power and might? Who will dare litigate with Him, and question His right? etc.
Jer 49:20
Surely the least ... - Rather, Surely they will worry them, the feeble ones of the flock: surely their pasture shall be terror-stricken over them. No shepherd can resist Nebuchadnezzar Jer 49:19, but all flee, and leave the sheep unprotected. Thereupon, the Chaldaeans enter, and treat the poor feeble flock so barbarously, that the very fold is horrified at their cruelty.
Jer 49:21
Is moved - Quakes.
At the cry ... - The arrangement is much more poetical in the Hebrew, The shriek - to the sea of Suph (Exo 10:19 note) is heard its sound.
Jer 49:22
Nebuchadnezzar shall swoop down like an eagle, the emblem of swiftness. Jeremiah 49:23

Amos

tAmos 1:11Edom - God had impressed on Israel its relation of brotherhood to Edom. Moses expressed it to Edom himself , and, after the suspicious refusal of Edom to allow Israel to march on the highway through his territory, he speaks as kindly of him, as before; "And when we passed by from our brethren, the children of Esau" Deu 2:8. It was the unkindness of worldly politics, and was forgiven. The religious love of the Egyptian and the Edomite was, on distinct grounds, made part of the law. "Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land" Deu 23:7. The grandchild of an Egyptian or of an Edomite was religiously to become as an Israelite Deu 23:8. Not a foot of Edomite territory was Israel to appropriate, however provoked. It was God's gift to Edom, as much as Canaan to Israel. "They shall be afraid of you, and ye shall take exceeding heed to yourselves. Quarrel not with them, for I will give you, of their land, no, not so much as the treading of the sole of the foot, for I have given Mount Seir unto Esau for a possession" Deu 2:4-5.
From this time until that of Saul, there is no mention of Edom; only that the Maonites and the Amalekites, who oppressed Israel Jdg 6:3; Jdg 10:12, were kindred tribes with Edom. The increasing strength of Israel in the early days of Saul seems to have occasioned a conspiracy against him, such as Asaph afterward complains of; "They have said, come and let us cut them off from being a nation, that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance. For they have consulted together with one consent, they are confederate against Thee; the tabernacles of Edom and the Ishmaelites; of Moab and the Hagarenes; Gebal and Ammon and Amalek; the Philistines with the inhabitants of Tyre; Assur also is joined with them; they have been an arm to the children of Lot" Psa 83:4-8. Such a combination began probably in the time of Saul. "He fought against all his enemies on every side; against Moab, and against the children of Ammon, and against the king of Edom, and against the Philistines" Sa1 14:47.
They were "his enemies," and that, round about, encircling Israel, as hunters did their prey. "Edom," on the south and southeast; "Moab" and "Ammon" on the east; the Syrians of "Zobah" on the north; the Philistines on the west enclosed him as in a net, and he repulsed them one by one. "Whichever why he turned, he worsted" them. It follows "he delivered Israel out of the hands of them that spoiled them" Sa1 14:48. The aggression was from Edom, and that in combination with old oppressors of Israel, not from Saul . The wars of Saul and of David were defensive wars. Israel was recovering from a state of depression, not oppressing. "The valley of salt" Sa2 8:13, where David defeated the Edomites, was also doubtless within the borders of Judah, since "the city of salt" was Jos 15:62; and the valley of salt was probably near the remarkable "mountain of salt," 5 56 miles long, near the end of the Dead Sea , which, as being Canaanite, belonged to Israel. It was also far north of Kadesh, which was "the utmost boundary" of Edom Num 20:16.
From that Psalm too of mingled thanksgiving and prayer which David composed after the victory, "in the valley of salt" (Psa 60:1-12 title), it appears that, even after that victory, David's army had not yet entered Edom. "Who will bring me into the strong city? who will lead me into Edom?" Psa 60:9. That same Psalm speaks of grievous suffering before, "in" which God had "cast" them "off" and "scattered" them; "made the earth tremble and cleft it;" so that "it reeled" Psa 60:1-3, Psa 60:10. Joab too had "returned" from the war in the north against the Syrians of Mesopotamia, to meet the Edomites. Whether in alliance with the Syrians, or taking advantage of the absence of the main army there, the Edomites had inflicted some heavy blow on Israel; a battle in which Abishai killed 18,000 men Ch1 18:12 had been indecisive. The Edomites were relpalsed by the rapid counter-march of Joab. The victory, according to the Psalm, was still incomplete Ch1 18:1, Ch1 18:5, Ch1 18:9-12. David put "garrisons in Edom" Sa2 8:14, to restrain them from further outbreaks. Joab avenged the wrong of the Edomites, conformably to his character Kg1 11:16; but the fact that "the captain of the host" had "to go up to bury the slain" (Kg1 11:15. It should be rendered, not, after he had slain, but, and he killed, etc.), shows the extent of the deadly blow, which he so fearfully avenged.
The store set by the king of Egypt on Hadad, the Edomite prince who fled to him Kg1 11:14-20, shows how gladly Egypt employed Edom as an enemy to Israel. It has been said that he rebelled and failed . Else it remained under a dependent king appointed by Judah, for 1 12 century (Kg1 22:47; Kg2 3:9 ff). One attempt against Judah is recorded Ch2 20:10, when those of Mount Seir combined with Moab and Ammon against Jehoshaphat after his defeat at Ramoth-gilead. They had penetrated beyond Engedi Ch2 20:2, Ch2 20:16, Ch2 20:20, on the road which Arab marauders take now , toward the wilderness of Tekoa, when God set them against one another, and they fell by each other's hands Ch2 20:22-24. But Jehoshaphat's prayer at this time evinces that Israel's had been a defensive warfare. Otherwise, he could not have appealed to God, "the children of Ammon and Moab and mount Seir, whom Thou wouldest not let Israel invade when they came out of the land of Egypt, but they turned from them, and destroyed them not, behold, they reward us, to come to cast us out of Thy possession, which Thou hast given us to inherit" Ch2 20:10-11.
Judah held Edom by aid of garrisons, as a wild beast is held in a cage, that they might not injure them, but had taken no land from them, nor expelled them. Edom sought to cast Israel out of God's land. Revolts cannot be without bloodshed; and so it is perhaps the more probable, that the words of Joel, "for the violence against the children of Judah, because they have shed innocent blood in their land" Joe 3:19, relate to a massacre of the Jews, when Esau revolted from Jehoram Kg2 8:20-22. We have seen, in the Indian Massacres, how every living being of the ruling power may, on such occasions, be sought out for destruction. Edom gained its independence, and Jehoram, who sought to recover his authority, escaped with his life by cutting through the Edomite army by night Kg2 8:21. Yet in Amaziha's time they were still on the offensive, since the battle wherein he defeated them, was again "in the valley of salt" Kg2 14:7; Ch2 25:11, Ch2 25:14.
Azariah, in whose reign Amos prophesied, regained Elath from them, the port for the Indian trade Ch2 26:2. Of the origin of that war, we know nothing; only the brief words as to the Edomite invasion against Ahaz, "and yet again had the Edomites come, and smitten in Judah, and carried captive a captivity" Ch2 28:17, attest previous and, it may be, habitual invasions. For no one such invasion had been named. It may probably mean, "they did yet again, what they had been in the habit of doing." But in matter of history, the prophets, in declaring the grounds of God's judgments, supply much which it was not the object of the historical books to relate. "They" are histories of God's dealings with His people, His chastisements of them or of His sinful instruments in chastising them. Rarely, except when His supremacy was directly challenged, do they record the ground of the chastisements of pagan nations. Hence, to those who look on the surface only, the wars of the neighboring nations against Israel look but like the alternations of peace and war, victory and defeat, in modern times. The prophets draw up the veil, and show us the secret grounds of man's misdeeds and God's judgments.
Because he did pursue his brother - The characteristic sin of Edom, and its punishment are one main subject of the prophecy of Obadiah, inveterate malice contrary to the law of kindred. Eleven hundred years had passed since the birth of their forefathers, Jacob and Esan. But, with God, eleven hundred years had not worn out kindred. He who willed to knit together all creation, human beings and angels, in one in Christ Eph 1:10, and, as a means of union, "made of one blood all nations of people for to dwell on all the face of the earth" Act 17:26, used all sorts of ways to impress this idea of brotherhood. "We" forget relationship mostly in the third generation, often sooner; and we think it strange when a nation long retains the memories of those relationships . God, in His law, stamped on His people's minds those wider meanings. To slay a man was to slay a "brother" Gen 9:5.
Even the outcast Canaan was a brother Gen 9:25 to Shem and Ham. Lot speaks to the men of Sodom amidst their iniquities, "my brethren" Gen 19:7; Jacob so salutes those unknown to him Gen 29:4. The descendants of Ishmael and Isaac were to be brethren; so were those of Esau and Jacob Gen 16:12; Gen 25:18. The brotherhood of blood was not to wear out, and there was to be a brotherhood of love also Gen 27:29, Gen 27:37. Every Israelite was a brother ; each tribe was a brother to every other Deu 10:9; Deu 18:2; Jdg 20:23, Jdg 20:28; the force of the appeal was remembered, even when passion ran high Sa2 2:26. It enters habitually into the divine legislation. "Thou shall open thy hand wide unto thy brother Deu 15:11; if thy brother, a" Hebrew, sell himself to thee Deu 15:12; thou shalt not see thy brother's ox or his sheep go astray and hide thyself from them Deu 22:1-4; if thy brother be waxen poor, then shalt thou relieve him, though a stranger and a sojourner, that he may live with thee" (Lev 25:35-39; add Lev 19:17; Deu 24:7, Deu 24:10, Deu 24:14).
In that same law, Edom's relationship as a brother was acknowledged. It was an abiding law that Israel was not to take land, nor to refuse to admit him into the congregation of the Lord. Edom too remembered the relation, but to hate him. The nations around Israel seem to have been little at war with one another, bound together by common hatred against God's people. Of their wars indeed we should not hear, for they had no religious interest. They would be but the natural results of the passions of unregenerate nature. Feuds there doubtless were and forays, but no attempts at permanent conquest or subdual. Their towns remain in their own possession . Tyre does not invade Philistia; nor Philistia, Tyre or Edom. But all combine against Israel. The words, "did pursue his brother with the sword," express more than is mentioned in the historical books.
To "pursue" is more than to fight. They followed after, in order to destroy a remnant, "and cast off all pity:" literally, and more strongly, "corrupted his compassions, tendernesses." Edom did violence to his natural feelings, as Ezekiel, using the same word, says of Tyre, "corrupting Eze 28:17 his wisdom," that is, perverting it from the end for which God gave it, and so destroying it. Edom "steeled himself," as we say, against his better feelings," his better nature," "deadened" them. But so they do not live again. Man is not master of the life and death of his feelings, anymore than of his natural existence. He can destroy; he cannot re-create. And he does, so far, "corrupt," decay, do to death, his own feelings, whenever, in any signal instance, he acts against them. Edom was not simply unfeeling. He destroyed all "his tender yearnings" over suffering, such as God has put into every human heart, until it destroys them. Ordinary anger is satisfied and slaked by its indulgence; malice is fomented and fed and invigorated by it. Edom ever, as occasion gratified his anger; "his anger did tear continually;" yet, though raging as some wild ravening animal, without control, "he kept his wrath for ever," not within bounds, but to let it loose anew. He retained it when he ought to have parted with it, and let it loose when he ought to have restrained it.
"What is best, when spoiled, becomes the worst," is proverbial truth. : "As no love wellnigh is more faithful than that of brothers, so no hatred, when it hath once begun, is more unjust, no odium fiercer. Equality stirs up and inflames the mind; the shame of giving way and the love of preeminence is the more inflamed, in that the memory of infancy and whatever else would seem to gender good will, when once they are turned aside from the right path, produce hatred and contempt." They were proverbial sayings of paganism, "fierce are the wars of brethren" , and "they who have loved exceedingly, they too hate exceedingly." : "The Antiochi, the Seleuci, the Gryphi, the Cyziceni, when they learned not to be all but brothers, but craved the purple and diadems, overwhelmed themselves and Asia too with many calamities." Amos 1:12

Amos

tAmos 1:13Ammon - These who receive their existence under circumstances, in any way like those of the first forefathers of Moab and Ammon, are known to be under physical as well as intellectual and moral disadvantages. Apart from the worst horrors, on the one side reason was stupefied, on the other it was active in sin. He who imprinted His laws on nature, has annexed the penalty to the infraction of those laws. It is known also how, even under the Gospel, the main character of a nation remains unchanged. The basis of natural character, upon which grace has to act, remains, under certain limits, the same. Still more in the unchanging east. Slave-dealers know of certain hereditary good or evil qualities in non-Christian nations in whom they traffic. What marvel then that Ammon and Moab retained the stamp of their origin, in a sensual or passionate nature? Their choice of their idols grew out of this original character and aggravated it.
They chose them gods like themselves, and worsened themselves by copying these idols of their sinful nature. The chief god of the fierce Ammon was Milehem or Molech, the principle of destruction, who was appeased with sacrifices of living children, given to the fire to devour. Moab, beside its idol Chemosh, had the degrading worship of Baal Peor Num 25:1-3, reproductiveness the counterpart of destruction. And, so. in fierce or degrading rites, they worshiped the power which belongs to God, to create, or to destroy. Moab was the seducer of Israel at Shittim Num 25:1-3. Ammon, it has been noticed, showed at different times a special wanton ferocity . Such was the proposal of Nahash to the men of Jabesh-Gilead, when offering to surrender, "that I may thrust out all your right eyes and lay it for a reproach unto all Israel" Sa1 11:1-3.
Such was the insult to David's messengers of peace, and the hiring of the Syrians in an aggressive war against David Sa2 10:1-6. Such, again, was this war of extermination against the Gileadites. On Israel's side, the relation to Moab and Ammon had been altogether friendly. God recalled to Israel the memory of their common descent, and forbade them to war against either. He speaks of them by the name of kindness, "the children of Lot," the companion and friend of Abraham. "I will not give thee of their land for a possession, because I have given it unto the children of Lot for a possession" Deu 2:9, Deu 2:19. Akin by descent, their history had been alike. Each had driven out a giant tribe; Moab, the Emim; Ammon, the Zamzummim Deu 2:10-11, Deu 2:20-21. They had thus possessed themselves of the tract from the Arnon, not quite half way down the Dead Sea on its east side, to the Jabbok, about half-way between the Dead Sea and the Sea of Galilee . Both had been expelled by the Amorites, and had been driven, Moab, behind the Arnon, Ammon, behind the "strong border" Num 21:24 of the upper part of the Jabbok, what is now the Nahr Amman, "the river of Ammon," eastward.
The whole of what became the inheritance of the 2 12 tribes, was in the hands of the Amorites, and threatened very nearly their remaining possessions; since, at "Aroer that is before Rabbah" Jos 13:25, the Amorites were already over against the capital of Ammon; at the Arnon they were but 2 12 hours from Ar-Moab, the remaining capital of Moab. Israel then, in destroying the Amorites, had been at once avenging and rescuing Moab and Ammon; and it is so far a token of friendliness at this time, that, after the victory at Edrei, the great "iron bedstead" of Og was placed in "Rabbah of the children of Ammon" Deu 3:11. Envy, jealousy, and fear, united them to "hire Balaam to curse Israel" Deu 23:4, although the king of Moab was the chief actor in this Num. 22-24, as he was in the seduction of Israel to idoltary Num 25:1-3. Probably Moab was then, and continued to be, the more influential or the more powerful, since in their first invasion of Israel, the Ammonites came as the allies of Eglon king of Moab. "He gathered unto him the children of Ammon and Amalek Jdg 3:13. And" they "served Eglon." Yet Ammon's subsequent oppression must have been yet more grievous, since God reminds Israel of His delivering them from the Ammonites Jdg 10:11, not from Moab. There we find Ammon under a king, and in league with the Philistines Jdg 10:7, "crashing and crushing for 18 years all the children of Israel in Gilead." The Ammonites carried a wide invasion across the Jordan against Judah, Benjamin and Ephraim Jdg 10:9, until they were subdued by Jephthah. Moab is not named; but the king of Ammon claims as my land Jdg 11:13, the whole which Moab and Ammon had lost to the Amorites and they to Israel, "from Arnon unto Jabbok and unto Jordan" Jdg 11:13.
The range also of Jephthah's victories included probably all that same country from the Arnon to the neighborhood of Rabbah of Ammon . The Ammonites, subdued then, were again on the offensive in the fierce siege of Jabesh-Gilead and against Saul (see above the note at Amo 1:11). Yet it seems that they had already taken from Israel what they had lost to the Amorites, for Jabesh-Gilead was beyond the Jabbok ; and "Mizpeh of Moab," where David went to seek the king of Moab Sa1 22:3, was probably no other than the Ramoth-Mizpeh Jos 13:26 of Gad, the Mizpeh Jdg 11:29 from where Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites. With Hanan, king of Ammon, David sought to remain at peace, on account of some kindness, interested as it probably was, which his father Nahash had shown him, when persecuted by Saul Sa2 10:2.
It was only after repeated attempts to bring an overwhelming force of the Syriains against David, that Rabbah was besieged and taken, and that awful punishment inflicted. The severity of the punishment inflicted on Moab and Ammon, in that two-thirds of the fighting men of Moab were put to death Sa2 8:2, and fighting men of "the cities of Ammon" Sa2 12:31 were destroyed by a ghastly death, so different from David's treatment of the Philistines or the various Syrians, implies some extreme hostility on their part, from which there was no safety except in their destruction. Moab and Ammon were still united against Jehoshaphat 2 Chr. 20, and with Nebuchadnezzar against Jehoiakim Kg2 24:2, whom they had before sought to stir up against the king of Babylon Jer 27:3. Both profited for a time by the distresses of Israel, "magnifying" themselves "against her border" Zep 2:8, and taking possession of her cities after the 2 12 tribes has been carried away by Tiglath-pileser. Both united in insulting Judah, and (as it appears from Ezekiel Eze 25:2-8), out of jealousy against its religious distinction.
When some of the scattered Jews were reunited under Gedaliah, after the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, it was a king of Ammon, Baalis, who instigated Johanan to murder him Jer 40:11-14; Jer 41:10. When Jerusalem was to be rebuilt after the return from the captivity, Ammonites and Moabites Neh 2:10, Neh 2:19; Neh 4:1-3, "Sanballat the Horonite" (that is, out of Horonaim, which Moab had taken to itself Isa 15:5; Jer 48:3, Jer 48:5, Jer 48:34.) "and Tobiah the servant, the Ammonite," were chief in the opposition to it. They helped on the persecution by Antiochus (1 Macc. 5:6). Their anti-religious character, which showed itself in the hatred of Israel and the hire of Balaam, was the ground of the exclusion of both from admission "into the congregation of the Lord forever" Deu 23:3. The seduction of Solomon by his Ammonite and Moabite wives illustrates the infectiousness of their idolatry. While he made private chapels "for all his strange wives, to burn incense and sacrifice to their gods" Kg1 11:8, the most stately idolatry was that of Chemosh and Molech, the abomination of Moab and Ammon . For Ashtoreth alone, besides these, did Solomon build high places in sight of the temple of God, on a lower part of the Mount of Olives Kg2 23:13.
They have ripped up the women with child in Gilead - Since Elisha prophesied that Hazael would be guilty of this same atrocity, and since Gilead was the scene of his chief atrocities , probably Syria and Ammon were, as of old, united against Israel in a war of extermination. It was a conspiracy to displace God's people from the land which He had given them, and themselves to replace them. The plan was effective; it was, Amos says, executed. They expelled and "inherited Gad" Jer 49:1. Gilead was desolated for the sins for which Hosea rebuked it; "blood had blood." It had been "tracked with blood" (see the note at Hos 6:8); now life was sought out for destruction, even in the mother's womb. But, in the end, Israel, whose extermination Ammon devised and in part effected, survived. Ammon perished and left no memorial.
That they might enlarge their border - It was a horror, then, exercised, not incidentally here and there, or upon a few, or in sudden stress of passion, but upon system and in cold blood. We have seen lately, in the massacres near Lebanon, where male children were murdered on system, how methodically such savageness goes to work. A massacre, here and there, would not have "enlarged their border." They must haw carried on these horrors then, throughout all the lands which they wished to possess, making place for themselves by annihilating Israel, that there might be none to rise up and thrust them from their conquests, and claim their old inheritance. Such was the fruit of habitually indulged covetousness. Yet who beforehand would have thought it possible? Amos 1:14

Amos

tAmos 2:1Moab - The relation of Moab to Israel is only accidentally different from that of Ammon. One spirit actuated both, venting itself in one and the same way, as occasion served, and mostly together (see the note at Amo 1:13). Beside those more formal invasions, the history of Elisha mentions one probably of many in-roads of "bands of the Moabites." It seems as though, when "the year entered in," and with it the harvest, "the bands of the Moabites entered in" too, like "the Midianites and Amalekites and the children of the east" Jdg 6:3-4, Jdg 6:11 in the time of Gideon, or their successors the Bedouins, now. This their continual hostility is related in the few words of a parenthesis. There was no occasion to relate at length an uniform hostility, which was as regular as the seasons of the year, and the year's produce, and the temptation to the cupidity of Moab, when Israel was weakened by Hazael.
Because he burned the bones of the king of Edom - The deed here condemned, is unknown. Doubtless it was connected with that same hatred of Edom, which the king of Moab showed, when besieged by Israel. People are often more enraged against a friend or ally who has made terms with one whom they hate or fear, than with the enemy himself. Certainly, "when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him" Kg2 3:26-27, his fury was directed personally against the king of Edom. He "took with him" 700 chosen men "to cut through to the king of Edom, and they could not." Escape was not their object. They sought not "to cut through" the Edomite contingent into the desert, but "to the king of Edom." Then "he took his oldest son," that is, probably the oldest son of the king of Edom whom he captured, "and offered him up as a burnt offering on the wall."
Such is the simplest structure of the words; He "strove to cut through to the king of Edom, and they could not, and he took his oldest son, etc., and there was great indignation against Israel." That "indignation" too on the part of Edom (for there was no other to be indignant "against Israel") is best accounted for, if this expedition, undertaken because Moab had rebelled against Israel, had occasioned the sacrifice of the son of the king of Edom, who took part in it only as a tributary of Judah. Edom would have had no special occasion to be indignant with Israel, if on occasion of an ordinary siege, the king of Moab had, in a shocking way, performed the national idolatry of child-sacrifice. That hatred the king of Moab carried beyond the grave, hatred which the pagan too held to be unnatural in its implacableness and unsatiableness. The soul being, after death, beyond man's reach, the hatred, vented upon his remains, is a sort of impotent grasping at eternal vengeance.
It wreaks on what it knows to be insensible, the hatred with which it would pursue, if it could, the living being who is beyond it. Its impotence evinces its fierceness, since, having no power to wreak any real revenge, it has no object but to show its hatred. Hatred, which death cannot extinguish, is the beginning of the eternal hate in hell. With this hatred Moab hated the king of Edom, seemingly because he had been, though probably against this will, on the side of the people of God. It was then sin against the love of God, and directed against God Himself. The single instance, which we know, of any feud between Moab and Edom was, when Edom was engaged in a constrained service of God. At least there are no indications of any conquest of each other. The Bozrah of Moab, being in the Mishor, "the plain" Jer 48:21, Jer 48:24, is certainly distinct from the Bozrah of Edom, which Jeremiah speaks of at the same time, as belonging to Edom Jer 49:13. Each kingdom, Edom and Moab, had its own strong city, Bozrah, at one and the same time. And if "the rock," which Isaiah speaks of as the strong hold of Moab Isa 16:1, was indeed the Petra of Edom, (and the mere name, in that country of rock-fortresses is not strong, yet is the only, proof,) they won it from Judah who had taken it from Edom, and in whose hands it remained in the time of Amos (Kg2 14:7; see above the note at Amo 1:12), not from Edom itself. Or, again, the tribute "may" have been only sent through Petra, as the great center of commerce. Edom's half-service gained it no good, but evil; Moab's malice was its destruction.
The proverb, "speak good only of the dead," shows what reverence human nature dictates, not to condemn those who have been before their Judge, unless He have already openly condemned them. "Death," says Athanasius in relating the death of Arius on his perjury, "is the common end of all people, and we ought not to insult the dead, though he be an enemy, for it is uncertain whether the same event may not happen to ourselves before evening." Amos 2:2

Amos

tAmos 6:1Woe to them that are at ease - The word always means such as are recklessly at their ease, "the careless ones," such as those whom Isaiah bids Isa 32:9-11, "rise up, tremble, be troubled, for many days and years shall ye be troubled." It is that luxury and ease, which sensualize the soul, and make it dull, stupid, hard-hearted. By one earnest, passing word, the prophet warns his own land, that present sinful ease ends in future woe. "Woe unto them that laugh now: for they shall mourn and weep" Luk 6:25. Rup.: "He foretells the destruction and captivity of both Judah and Israel at once; and not only that captivity at Babylon, but that whereby they are dispersed unto this day." Luxury and deepest sins of the flesh were rife in that generation (see Joh 8:9; Rom 2:21-24; Luk 11:39, Luk 11:42; Mat 23:14, Mat 23:23, Mat 23:26), which killed Him who for our sakes became poor.
And trust in the mountain of Samaria - Not in God. Samaria was strong (see the note above at Amo 3:9), resisted for three years, and was the last city of Israel which was taken. "The king of Assyria came up throughout all the land and went up to Samaria, and besieged it Kg2 17:5. Benhadad, in that former siege, when God delivered them Kg2 7:6, attempted no assault, but famine only.
Which are named the chief of the nations - Literally, "the named of the chief of the nations," that is, those who, in Israel, which by the distinguishing favor of God were "chief of the nations," were themselves, marked, distinguished, "named." The prophet, by one word, refers them back to those first princes of the congregation, of whom Moses used that same word Num 1:17. They were "heads of the houses of their fathers Num 1:4, renowned of the congregation, heads of thousands in Israel Num 1:16. As, if anyone were to call the Peers, "Barons of England," he would carry us back to the days of Magna Charta, although six centuries and a half ago, so this word, occurring at that time , here only in any Scripture since Moses, carried back the thoughts of the degenerate aristocracy of Israel to the faith and zeal of their forefathers, "what" they ought to have been, and "what" they were. As Amalek of old was "first of the nations" Num 24:20 in its enmity against the people of God , having, first of all, shown that implacable hatred, which Ammon, Moab, Edom, evinced afterward, so was Israel "first of nations," as by God. It became, in an evil way, "first of nations," that is, distinguished above the heat by rejecting Him.
To whom the house of Israel came, or have come - They were, like those princes of old, raised above others. Israel "came" to them for judgment; and they, regardless of duty, lived only for self-indulgence, effeminacy, and pride. Jerome renders in the same sense, "that enter pompously the house of Israel," literally, "enter for themselves," as if they were lords of it, and it was made for them. Amos 6:2

Amos

tAmos 9:7Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto Me, O children of Israel! - Their boast and confidence was that they were children of the patriarch, to whom God made the promises. But they, not following the faith nor doing the deeds of Israel, who was a "prince with God," or of Abraham, the father of the faithful, had, for "Bene Israel," children of Israel, become as "Bene Cushiim, children of the Ethiopians," descendants of Ham, furthest off from the knowledge and grace of God, the unchangeableness of whose color was an emblem of unchangeableness in evil. "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil" Jer 13:23.
Have I not brought up - (Did I not bring up) Israel out of the land of Egypt? Amos blends in one their plea and God's answer. God by bringing them up out of Egypt, pledged His truth to them to be their to protect and preserve them. True! so long as they. retained God as their God, and kept His laws. God chose them, that they might choose Him. By casting Him off, as their Lord and God, they cast themselves off and out of God's protection. By estranging themselves from God, they became as strangers in His sight. His act in bringing them up from Egypt had lost its meaning for them. It became no more than any Other event in His Providence, by which He brought up "the Philistines from Caphtor," who yet were aliens from Him, and "the Syrians from Kir," who, He had foretold, should be carried back there.
This immigration of the Philistines from Caphtor must have taken place before the return of Israel from Egypt. For Moses says, "The Caphtorim, who came forth from Caphtor" had at this time "destroyed the Avvim who dwelt in villages unto Gazah, and dwelt in their stead" Deu 2:23 An entire change in their affairs had also taken place in the four centuries and a half since the days of Isaac. In the time of Abraham and Isaac, Philistia was a kingdom; its capital, Gerar. Its king had a standing army, Phichol being "the captain of the host" Gen 21:22; Gen 26:26 : he had also a privy councillor, Ahuzzath Gen 26:26. From the time after the Exodus, Philistia had ceased to be a kingdom, Gerar disappears from history; the power of Philistia is concentrated in five new towns, Gaza, Ashdod, Askelon, Gath, Ekron, with five heads, who consult and act as one (see above, the note at Amo 1:6-8).
The Caphtorim are in some sense also distinct from the old Philistines. They occupy a district not co-extensive with either the old or the new land of the Philistines. In the time of Saul, another Philistine clan is mentioned, the Cherethite. The Amalekites made a marauding inroad into the south country of the Cherethites; Sa1 30:14; which immediately afterward is called "the land of the Philistines" Sa1 30:16. Probably then, there were different immigrations of the same tribe into Palestine, as there were different immigrations of Danes or Saxons into England, or as there have been and are from the old world into the new, America and Australia. They, were then all merged in one common name, as English, Scotch, Irish, are in the United States. The first immigration may have been that from the Casluhim, "out of whom came Philistim" Gen 10:14; a second, from the Caphtorim, a kindred people, since they are named next to the Casluhim Gen 10:14, as descendants of Mizraim. Yet a third were doubtless the Cherethim. But all were united under the one name of Philistines, as Britons, Danes, Saxons, Normans, are united under the one name of English. Of these immigrations, that from Caphtor, even if (as seems probable) second in time, was the chief; which agrees with the great accession of strength, which the Philistines had received at the time of the Exodus; from where the Mediterranean had come to be called by their name, "the sea of the Philistines" Exo 23:31 : and, in Moses' song of thanksgiving, "the inhabitants of Philistia" are named on a level with "all the inhabitants of Canaan" Exo 15:14-15; and God led His people by the way of Mount Sinai, in order not to expose them at once to so powerful an enemy Exo 13:17.
A third immigration of Cherethim, in the latter part of the period of the Judges, would account for the sudden increase of strength, which they seem then to have received. For whereas heretofore those whom God employed to chasten Israel in their idolatries, were Kings of Mesopotamia, Moab, Hazor, Midian, Amalek, and the children of the East Judg. 3-10:5, and Philistia had, at the beginning of the period, lost Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron Jdg 1:18, to Israel, and was repulsed by Shamgar, thenceforth, to the time of David, they became the great scourge of Israel on the west of Jordan, as Ammon was on the east.
The Jewish traditions in the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and three Targums, agree that Caphtor was Cappadocia, which, in that it extended to the Black Sea, might be callad "I, seacoast," literally, "habitable land, as contrasted with the sea which washed it, whether it surrounded it or no. The Cherethites may have come from Crete, as an intermediate resting place in their migrations. Amos 9:8

Nahum


nah 0:0
Introduction to Nahum
The prophecy of Nahum is both the complement and the counterpart of the Book of Jonah. When Moses had asked God to show him His glory, and God had promised to let him see the outskirts of that glory, and to proclaim the Name of the Lord before him, "the Lord," we are told, "passed by before him and proclaimed, "The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty" Exo 34:6-7. God proclaimed at once His mercy and His justice. Those wondrous words echo along the whole patch of the Old Testament. Moses himself Num 14:17-18, David Psa 86:15; Psa 103:8; Psa 145:8, other Psalmists Psa 111:4; Psa 112:4; Psa 116:5, Jeremiah Jer 32:18-19, Daniel Dan 9:4, Nehemiah Neh 9:17 all pled to God or recounted some words in thanksgiving. Joel repeated such words as a motive for repentance Joe 2:13. Upon the repentance of Nineveh, Jonah had recited to God the bright side of His declaration of Himself, "I knew that Thou art a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger and of great goodness" Jon 4:2, repeating to God His words to Moses, and adding a change of heart concerning the harm. Nineveh, as appears from Nahum, had fallen back into the violence of which it had repented. Nahum then, in reference to that declaration of Jonah, begins by setting forth the awful side of the attributes of God. First, in a stately rhythm, which, in the original, reminds us of the gradual Psalms, he enunciates the solemn threefold declaration of the severity of God to those who will be His enemies.
A jealous God and Avenger is the Lord:
An Avenger is the Lord, and lord of wrath;
An Avenger is the Lord to His adversaries:
And a Reserver of wrath to His enemies.
Nah 1:2
Then, Naham too recites that character of mercy recorded by Moses, "The Lord is slow to anger, and great in power" Nah 1:3. But anger, although slow, comes, he adds, not the less certainly on the guilty; "and will not at all clear the guilty" Nah 1:3. The iniquity is full. As a whole, there is no more room for repentance. Nineveh had had its prophet, and had been spared, and had sunk back into its old sins. The office of Nahum is to pronounce its sentence. That sentence is fixed. "There is no healing of thy bruise" Nah 3:19. Nothing is said of its ulterior conversion or restoration. On the contrary, Nahum says, "He will make the place thereof an utter desolation" Nah 1:8.
The sins of Nineveh spoken of by Nahum are the same as those from which they had turned at the preaching of Jonah. In Jonah, it is, "the violence of their hands" Jon 3:8. Nahum describes Nineveh as "a dwelling of lions, filled with prey and with ravin, the feeding-place of young lions, where the lion tore enough for his whelps" Nah 2:11-12; "a city of bloods, full of lies and robbery, from which the prey departeth not" Nah 3:1.
But, amid this mass of evil, one thing was eminent, in direct antagonism to God. The character is very special. It is not simply of rebellion against God, or neglect of Him. It is a direct disputation of His Sovereignty. Twice the prophet repeats the characteristic expression, "What will ye devise against the Lord?" "devising evil against the Lord;" and adds, "counselor of evil" Nah 1:11. This was exactly the character of Sennacherib, whose wars, like those of his forefathers, (as appears from the cuneiform inscriptions . There were religious wars, and Sennacherib blasphemously compared God to the local deities of the countries, which his forefathers or himself had destroyed Isa 36:18-20; Isa 37:10-13. Of this enemy Nahum speaks, as having "gone forth;" out of thee (Nineveh) hath gone forth Nah 1:11 one, devising evil against the Lord, a counselor of Belial. This was past.
Their purpose was inchoate, yet incomplete. God challenges them, "What will ye devise so vehemently against the Lord?" Nah 1:9. The destruction too is proximate. The prophet answers for God, "He Himself, by Himself is already making an utter end" Nah 1:9. To Jerusalem he turns, "And now I will break his yoke from off thee, and will break his bonds asunder" Nah 1:13. Twice the prophet mentions the device against God; each time he answers it by the prediction of the sudden utter destruction of the enemy, while in the most perfect security. "While they are intertwined as thorns, and swallowed up as their drink, they are devoured as stubble fully dry" Nah 1:10; and, "If they are perfect" Nah 1:12, unimpaired in their strength, "and thus many, even thus shall they be mown down." Their destruction was to be, their numbers, complete. With no previous loss, secure and at ease, a mighty host, in consequence of their prosperity, all were, at one blow, mown down; "and he (their king, who counseled against the Lord) shall pass away and perish."
"The abundance of the wool in the fleece is no hindrance to the shears," nor of the grass to the sythe, nor of the Assyrian host to the will of the Lord, After he, the chief, had thus passed away, Nahum foretells that remarkable death, in connection with the house of his gods; "Out of the house of thy gods I will cut off the graven image and the molten image: I will make thy grave" Nah 1:14. There is no natural construction of these words, except, "I will make it thy grave" . Judah too was, by the presence of the Assyrian, hindered from going up to worship at Jerusalem. The prophet bids to proclaim peace to Jerusalem; "keep thy feasts - for the wicked shall no more pass through thee." It was then by the presence of the wicked, that they were now hindered from keeping their feasts, which could be kept only at Jerusalem.
The prophecy of Nahum coincides then with that of Isaiah, when Hezekiah prayed against Sennacherib. In the history Kg2 19:4, Kg2 19:22-28, and in the prophecy of Isaiah, the reproach and blasphemy and rage against God are prominent, as an evil design against God is in Nahum. In Isaiah we have the messengers sent to blaspheme Isa 37:4, Isa 37:23-29; in Nahum, the promise, that "the voice of thy messengers shall no more be heard." Isaiah prophesies the fruitlessness of his attempt against Jerusalem Isa 37:33-34; his disgraced return; his violent death in his own land Isa 37:7; Nahum prophesies the entire destruction of his army, his own passing away, his grave. Isaiah, in Jerusalem, foretells how the spontaneous fruits of the earth shall be restored to them Kg2 19:29; Isa 37:30, and so, that they shall have possession of the open corn-country; Nahum, living probably in the country, foretells the free access to Jerusalem, and bids them to (Nah 1:15; Nah 2:1 (Nah 2:2 in Hebrew)) keep their feasts, and perform the vows, which, in their trouble, they had promised to God. He does not only foretell that they may, but he enjoins them to do it.
The words (Nah 2:2 (verse 3 in Hebrew)), "the emptiers have emptied them out and marred their vine branches," may relate to the first expedition of Sennacherib, when, Holy Scripture says, he "came up against all the fenced cities of Judah and took them," and Hezekiah gave him "thirty talents of gold and 300 talents of silver" Kg2 18:13-14; Isa 36:1. Sennacherib himself says , "Hezekiah, king of Judah, who had not submitted to my authority, forty-six of his principal cities, and fortresses and villages depending upon them of which I took no account, I captured, and carried away their spoil. And from these places I captured and carried off as spoil 200, 150 people," etc. This must relate to the first expedition, on account of the exact correspondence of the tribute in gold, with a variation in the number of the talents of silver, easily accounted for .
In the first invasion Sennacherib relates that he besieged Jerusalem. : "Hezekiah himself I shut up in Jerusalem his capital city, like a bird in a cage, building towers round the city to fence him in, and raising banks of earth against the gates, so as to prevent escape." It is perhaps in reference to this, that, in the second invasion, God promises by Isaiah; "He shall not come into this city, and shall not shoot an arrow there; and shall not present shield before it, and shall not cast up bank against it" Isa 37:33. Still, in this second invasion also, Holy Scripture relates, that "the king of Assyria sent Rabshakeh from Lachish to Jerusalem unto king Hezekiah with a great army" Isa 36:2; Kg2 18:17. Perhaps it is in regard to this second expedition, that God says, "Though I have afflicted thee, I will affict thee no more" Nah 1:12; i. e., this second invasion should not desolate her, like that first. Not that God absolutely would not again afflict her, but not now. The yoke of the Assyrian was then broken, until the fresh sins of Manasseh drew down their own punishment.
Nahum then was a prophet for Judah, or for that remnant of Israel, which, after the ten tribes were carried captive, became one with Judah, not in temporal sovereignty, but in the one worship of God. His mention of Basan, Carmel and Lebanon alone, as places lying under the rebuke of God, perhaps implies a special interest in Northern Palestine. Judah may have already become the name for the whole people of God who were left in their own land, since those of the ten tribes who remained had now no separate religious or political existence. The idol-center of their worship was gone into captivity.
The old tradition agrees with this as to the name of the birthplace of Nahum, "the Elkoshite." "Some think," says Jerome , "that Elcesaeus was the father of Nahum, and, according to the Hebrew tradition, was also a prophet; whereas Elcesi is even to this day a little village in Galilee, small indeed, and scarcely indicating by its ruins the traces of ancient buildings, yet known to the Jews, and pointed out to me too by my guide." The name is a genuine Hebrew name, the "El," with which it begins, being the name of God, which appears in the names of other towns also as El'ale, Eltolad, Elteke Eltolem. The author of the short-lived Gnostic heresy of the Elcesaites, called Elkesai, elkasai, elxai, elxaios, Elkasaios , probably had his name from that same village. Eusebius mentions Elkese, as the place "whence was Nahum the Elkesaean." Cyril of Alexandria says, that Elkese was a village somewhere in Judaea.
On the other hand "Alcush," a town in Mosul, is probably a name of Arabic origin, and is not connected with Nahum by any extant or known writer, earlier than Masius toward the end of the 16th century , and an Arabic scribe in 1713 . Neither of these mention the tomb. "The tomb," says Layard , "is a simple plaster box, covered with green cloth, and standing at the upper end of a large chamber. The house containing the tomb is a modern building. There are no inscriptions, nor fragments of any antiquity near the place." The place is now reverenced by the Jews, but in the 12th century Benjamin of Tudela supposed his tomb to be at Ain Japhata, South of Babylon. Were anything needed to invalidate statements more than 2000 years after the time of Nahum, it might suffice that the Jews, who are the authors of this story, maintain that not Jonah only but Obadiah and Jephthah the Gileadite are also buried at Mosul .
Nor were the ten tribes placed there, but "in the cities of the Medes" Kg2 17:6. The name Capernaum, "the village of Nahum," is probably an indication of his residence in Galilee. There is nothing in his language unique to the Northern tribes. One very poetic word Nah 3:2; Jdg 5:22, common to him with the song of Deborah, is not therefore a "provincialism," because it only happens to occur in the rich, varied, language of two prophets of North Palestine. Nor does the occurrence of a foreign title interfere with "purity of diction" . It rather belongs to the vividness of his description.
The conquest of No-Ammon or Thebes and the captivity of its inhabitants, of which Nahum speaks, must have been by Assyria itself. Certainly it was not from domestic disturbances ; for Nahum says, that the people were carried away captive Nah 3:10. Nor was it from the Ethiopians ; for Nahum speaks of them, as her allies Nah 3:9. Nor from the Carthaginians ; for the account of Ammianus , that "when first Carthage was beginning to expand itself far and wide, the Punic generals, by an unexpected inroad, subdued the hundred-gated Thebes," is merely a mistaken gloss on a statement of Diodorus, that "Hanno took Hekatompylos by siege;" a city, according to Diodorus himself , "in the desert of Libya." Nor was it from the Scythians ; for Herodotus, who alone speaks of their maraudings and who manifestly exaggerates them, expressly says, that Psammetichus induced the Scythians by presents not to enter Egypt ; and a wandering predatory horde does not besiege or take strongly-fortified towns.
There remain then only the Assyrians. Four successive Assyrian Monarchs Sargon, his son, grandson and great grandson, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, Asshur-bani-pal, from 718 b.c. to about 657 b.c., conquered in Egypt . The hostility was first provoked by the encouragement given by Sabacho the Ethiopian (Sab'e in the cuneiform inscriptions, S b k, in Egyptian), the So of Holy Scripture , to Hoshea to rebel against Shalmaneser Kg2 17:4. Sargon, who, according to his own statement, was the king who actually took Samaria , led three expeditions of his own against Egypt. In the first, Sargon defeated the Egyptian king in the battle of Raphia ; in the second, in his seventh year, he boasts that Pharaoh became his tributary ; in a third, which is placed three years later, Ethiopia submitted to him .
A seal of Sabaco has been found at Koyunjik, which, as has been conjectured , was probably annexed to a treaty. The capture of Ashdod by the Tartan of Sargon, recorded by Isaiah Isa 20:1, was probably in the second expedition, when Sargon deposed its king Azuri, substituting his brother Akhimit : the rebellion of Ashdod probably occasioned the third expedition, in which as it seems, Isaiah's prophecy was fulfilled, that Egyptians and Ethiopians, young and old, should be carried captive by the king of Assyria. The king of Ashdod, Yaman, is related to have fled to Egypt, which was subject to Merukha or Meroe; and to have been delivered up by the king of Meroe who himself fled to some unnamed desert afar, a march of (it is conjectured) months . The king of Meroe, first, from times the most distant, became tributary. : "His forefathers had not" in all that period "sent to the kings my ancestors to ask for peace and to acknowledge the power of Merodach." The fact, that his magnificent palace, "one of the few remains of external decoration," Layard says , "with which we are acquainted in Assyrian architecture," "seems" according to Mr. Fergusson, , "at first sight almost purely Egyptian," implies some lengthened residence in Egypt or some capture of Egyptian artists.
Of Sennacherib, the son of Sargon, Josephus writes , "Berosus, the historian of the Chaldee affairs, mentions the king Sennacherib, and that he reigned over the Assyrians, and that he warred against all Asia and Egypt, saying as follows." The passage of Berosus itself is missing, witether Josephus neglected to fill it in, or whether it has been subsequently lost; but neither Chaldee nor Egyptian writers record expeditions which were reverses; and although Beresus was a Babylonian, not an Assyrian, yet the document, which he used, must have been Assyrian. In the second expedition of Sennacherib, Rabshakeh, in his message to Hezekiah, says, "Behold thou trustest upon the staff of this bruised reed, upon Egypt" Kg2 18:21. The expression is remarkable. He does not speak of Egypt, as a power, weak, frail, failing, but, passively, as crushed by another. It is the same word and image which he uses in his prophecy of our Lord, "a bruised reed (רצץ קנה qâneh râtsats) shall He not break," i. e., He shall not break that which is already bruised. The word implies, then, that the king of Egypt had already received some decided blow before the second expedition of Sennacherib. The annals of Sennacherib's reign, still preserved in his inscriptions, break off in the eighth of his twenty-two years , and do not extend to the time of this second expedition against Hezekiah . Nor does Holy Scripture say, in what year this second expedition took place. In this he defeated "the kings of Egypt and the king of Meroe at Altakou (Elteke) and Tamna (Timnatha)."
Sennacherib's son Esarhaddon appears for the time to have subdued Egypt and Ethiopia, and to have held them as kingdoms dependent on himself. "He acquired Egypt and the inner parts of Asia," is the brief statement of Abydenus (i. e., of Berosus): "He established" (his son relates) "twenty kings, satraps, governors in Egypt" , among which can be recognized Necho, (the father of Psammetichus) king of Memphis and Sais; a king of Tanis, or Zoan (now San); Natho (or, according to another copy, Sept), Hanes, Sebennytus, Mendes, Bubastis, Siyout or Lycopolis, Chemmis, Tinis, and No. These were all subordinate kings, for so he entitles each separately in the list, although he sums up the whole , "These are the names of the Kings, Pechahs, Satraps who in Egypt obeyed my father who begat me." Tearcho or Taracho himself, "king of Egypt and Ethiopia" , was in like way subject to Esarhaddon. The account of the revolt, which his son Asshur-bani-pal quelled, implies also a fixed settlement in Egypt. The 20 kings were involved in the rebellion through fear of Taracho, but there is notice of other servants of Esarhaddon who remained faithful and were maltreated by Taraoho .
Asshur-bani-pal says also, that he strengthened his former garrisons . One expedition of Esarhaddon (probably toward the close of his reign, since he does not mention it in his own annals which extend over eight years) is related by his son Asshur-bani-pal . "He defeated Tirhakah in the lower country, after which, proceeding Southward, he took the city, where the Ethiopian held his court," and assumed the title , "king of the kings of Egypt and conqueror of Ethiopia." On another inscription in a palace built for his son, at Tarbisi, now Sherif-khan, he entitles himself "king of the kings of Egypt, Pathros, Ethiopia." We do not, however, find the addition, which appears to recur upon every conquest of a people not before conquered by Assyria, "which the kings, my fathers, had not subdued." This addition is so regular, that the absence of it, in itself, involves a strong probability of a previous conquest of the country.
The subdual apparently was complete. They revolted at the close of the reign of Esarhaddon (as his son Asshur-bani-pal relates) from fear of Taracho rather than from any wish of their own to regain independence. Asshur-bani-pal accordingly, after the defeat of Taracho, forgave and restored them . Even the second treacherous revolt was out of fear, lest Taracho shall return , upon the withdrawal of the Assyrian armies. This second revolt and perhaps a subsequent revolt of Urdamanie a stepson of Taracho, who succeeded him, Asshur-bani-pal seems to have subdued by his lieutenants , without any necessity of marching in person against them. Thebes was taken and retaken; but does not appear to have offered any resistance. Taracho, upon his defeat at Memphis, fled to it, and again abandoned it as he had Memphis, and the army of Asshur-bani-pal made a massacre in it . Once more it was taken, when it had been recovered by Urdamanie , and then, if the inscriptions are rightly deciphered, strange as it is, the carrying off of men and women from it is mentioned in the midst of that of "great horses and apes." "Silver, gold, metals, stones, treasures of his palace, dyed garments, berom and linen, great horses, men, male and female, immense apes - they drew from the midst of the city, and brought as spoils to Nineveh the city of my dominion, and kissed my feet."
All of those kings having been conquerors of Egypt, the captivity of No might equally hav, e taken place under any of them. All of them employed the policy, which Sargon apparently began, of transporting to a distance those whom they had conquered . Yet it is, in itself, more probable, that it was at the earlier than at the later date. It is most in harmony with the relation of Nahum to Isaiah that, in regard to the conquest of Thebes also, Nahum refers to the victory over Egypt and Ethiopia foretold by Isaiah, when Sargon's general, the Tartan, was besieging Ashdod. The object of Isaiah's prophecy was to undeceive Judah in regard to its reliance on Egypt and Ethiopia against Assyria, which was their continual bane, morally, religiously, nationally. But the prophecy goes beyond any mere defeat in battle, or capture of prisoners. It relates to conquest within Egypt itself. For Isaiah says, "the king of Assyria shall lead into captivity Egyptians and Ethiopians, young and old" Isa 20:4. They are not their choice young men, the flower of their army, but those of advanced age and those in their first youth, such as are taken captive, only when a population itself is taken captive, either in a marauding expedition, or in the capture of a city. The account of the captivity of No exactly corresponds with this. Nahum says nothing of its permanent subdual, only of the captivity of its inhabitants. But Esarhaddon apparently did not carry the Egyptians captive at all . Every fact given in the Inscriptions looks like a permanent settlement. The establishment of the 20 subordinate kings, in the whole length and breadth of Egypt, implies the continuance of the previous state of things, with the exception of that subordination. No itself appears as one of the cities settled apparently under its native though tributary king .
In regard to the fulfillment of prophecy, they who assume as an axiom, or petitio principii, that there can be no prophecy of distant events, have overlooked, that while they think that, by assuming the later date, they bring Nahum's prophecy of the capture of Nineveh nearer to its accomplishment, they remove in the same degree Isaiah's prophecy of the captivity of Egyptians and Ethiopians, young and old, from its accomplishment. "Young and old" are not the prisoners of a field of battle; young and old of the Ethiopians would not be in a city of lower Egypt. If Isaiah's prophecy was not fulfilled under Sargon or Sennacherib, it must probably have waited for its fulfillment until this last subdual by Asshurbanipal. For the policy of Esarhaddon and also of Asshurbanipal, until repeated rebellions wore his patience, was of settlement, not of deportation. If too the prophecy of Nahum were brought down to the reign of Asshurbanipal, it would be the more stupendous.
For the empire was more consolidated. Nahum tells the conqueror, flushed with his own successes and those of his father, that he had himself no more inherent power than the city whose people he had carried captive. Thebes too, like Nineveh, dwelt securely, conquering all, unreached by any ill, sea-girt, as it were, by the mighty river on which she rested. She too was strengthened with countless hosts of her own and of allied people. Yet she fell. Nineveh, the prophet tells her, was no mightier, in herself. Her river was no stronger defense than that sea of fresh water, the Nile; her tributaries would disperse or become her enemies. The prophet holds up to her the vicissitudes of No-amon, as a mirror to herself. As each death is a renewed witness to man's mortality, so each marvelous reverse of temporal greatness is a witness to the precariousness of other human might. No then was an ensample to Nineveh, although its capture was by the armies of Nineveh. They had been, for centuries, two rivals for power. But the contrast bad far more force, when the victory over Egypt was fresh, than after 61 years of alternate conquest and rebellion.
But, anyhow, the state of Nineveh and its empire, as pictured by Nahum, is inconsistent with any times of supposed weakness in the reign of its last king: the state of Judah, with reference to Assyria, corresponds with that under Sennacherib but with none below. They are these. Assyria was in its full unimpaired strength Nah 1:12; Nah 2:12. She still blended those two characters so rarely combined, but actually united in her and subsequently in Babylon, of a great merchant and military people. She had, at once, the prosperity of peace and of war. Lying on a great line of ancient traffic, which bound together East and West, India with Phoenicia, and with Europe through Phoenicia, both East and West poured their treasures into the great capital, which lay as a center between them, and stretched out its arms, alike to the Indian sea and the Mediterranean. Nahum can compare its merchants only to that which is countless by man, the locusts or the stars of heaven Nah 3:16.
But amid this prosperity of peace, war also was enriching her. Nineveh was still sending out its messengers (such as was Rabshakeh), the leviers of its tribute, the demanders of submission. It was still one vast lion-lair, its lions still gathering in prey from the whole earth Nah 2:12-13, still desolating, continually, unceasingly, in all directions Nah 3:19, and now, especially, devising evil against God and His people Nah 1:9, Nah 1:11. Upon that people its yoke already pressed, for God promises to break it off from them Nah 1:13; the people was already afflicted, for God says to it, "Though I have afflicted thee, I will afflict thee no more" Nah 1:12, namely, by this invader. The solemn feasts of Judah were hindered through the presence of ungodly invaders; Belial, the counselor of evil spoken of under that name, already passing through her. War was around her, for he promises that one should publish peace upon her mountains Nah 1:15. This was the foreground of the picture. This was the exact condition of things at Hezekiah's second invasion, just before the miraculous destruction of his army. Sennacherib's yoke was heavy, for he had exacted from Hezekiah "three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold" Kg2 18:14; Hezekiah had not "two thousand horsemen" Kg2 18:23; the "great host" Kg2 18:17 of the Assyrians encircled Jerusalem. They summoned it to surrender on the terms, that they should pay a new tribute, and that Sennacherib, whenever it pleased him, should remove them to Assyria Kg2 18:31-32.
At no subsequent period were there any events corresponding to this description. Manasseh was carried captive to Babylon by Esarhaddon; but probably this was no formidable or resisted invasion, since the book of Kings passes it over altogether, the Chronicles mention only that the Assyrian generals took Manasseh prisoner in a thicket (Ch2 33:11, accordingly not in Jerusalem, and carried him to Babylon. Probably, this took place, in the expedition of Esarhaddon to the West, when he settled in the cities of Samaria people of different nations, his captives Ezr 4:2, Ezr 4:9-10. The capture of Manasseh was then, probably, a mere incident in the history. Since he was taken among the thickets, he had probably fled, as Zedekiah did afterward, and was taken in his place of concealment. This was simply personal. No taking of towns is mentioned, no siege, no terror, no exaction of tribute, no carrying away into captivity, except of the single Manasseh. The grounds of his restoration are not mentioned.
The Chronicles mention only the religious aspect of his captivity and his restoration, his sin and his repentance. But it seems probable that he was restored by Esarhaddon, upon the same system of policy, on which he planted subjects of his own in Samaria and the country around Zidon, built a new town to take the place of Zidon, and joined in the throne of Edom one, brought up in his own palace. For, when restored, Manasseh was set at full liberty to fortify Jerusalem Ch2 33:14, as Hezekiah had done, and to put "captains of war in all the cities of Judah" Ch2 33:14. This looks as if he was sent back as a trusted tributary of Esarhaddon, and as a frontier-power against Egypt. At least, 60 years afterward, we find Josiah, in the like relation of trust to Nebuchadnezzar, resisting the passage of Pharaoh-Necho. However, the human cause of his restoration must remain uncertain. Yet clearly, in their whole history, there is nothing to correspond to the state of Judaea, as described by Nahum.
A recent critic writes , "Nahum's prophecy must have been occasioned by an expedition of mighty enemies against Nineveh. The whole prophecy is grounded on the certain danger, to which Nineveh was given over; only the way in which this visible danger is conceived of, in connection with the eternal truths, is here the properly prophetic." Ewald does not explain how the danger, to which "Nineveh was given over" was certain, when it did not happen. The explanation must come to this. Nahum described a siege of Nineveh and its issue, as certain. The description in itself might be either of an actual siege, before the prophet's eyes, or of one beheld in the prophet's mind. But obviously no mere man, endowed with mere human knowledge, would have ventured to predict so certainly the fall of such a city as Nineveh, unless it was "given over to certain danger." But according to the axiom received in Ewald's school, Nahum, equally with all other men, could have had only human prescience.
Therefore, Nahum, prophesying the issue so confidently, must have prophesied when Nineveh was so "given over." The a priori axiom of the school rules its criticism. Meanwhile the admission is incidentally made, that a prophecy so certain, had it related to distant events, was what no man, with mere human knowledge, would venture upon. Ewald accordingly thinks that the prophecy was occasioned by a siege of Phraortes; which siege Nahum expected to be successful; which however failed, so that Nahum was mistaken, although the overthrow which he foretold came to pass afterward! The siege, however, of Nineveh by Phraortes is a mere romance. Herodotus, who alone attributes to Phraortes a war with Assyria, has no hint, that he even approached to Nineveh. He simply relates that Phraortes "subdued Asia, going from one nation to another, until, leading an army against the Assyrians, he perished himself, in the second year of his reign, and the greater part of his army."
It is not necessary to consider the non-natural expositions, by which the simple descriptions of Nahum were distorted into conformity with this theory, which has no one fact to support it. Herodotus even dwells on the good condition of the Assyrian affairs, although isolated from their revolted allies, and seemingly represents the victory as an easy one. And, according to Herodotus, whose account is the only one we have, Phraortes (even if he ever fought with the Ninevites, and Herodotus' account is not merely the recasting of the history of another Median Frawartish who, according to the Behistun Inscription, claimed the throne of Media against Darius, and perished in battle with him ) had only an unorganized army. Herodotus says of Cyaxares, his son , "He is said to have been more warlike far than his forefathers, and he first distributed Asiatics into distinct bands, and separated the spearmen and archers and horsemen from one another, whereas, before, everything had alike mixed into one confused mass." Such an undisciplined horde could have been no formidable enemy for a nation, whom the monuments and their history exhibit as so warlike and so skilled in war as the Assyrians.
Another critic, , then, seeing the untenableness of this theory, ventures (as he never hesitated at any paradox) to place the prophet Nahum, as an eye-witness of the first siege of Cyaxares.
Herodotus states that Cyaxares, the son of Phraortes, twice besieged Nineveh. First, immediately after his father's death, to avenge it ; the second, after the end of the Scythian troubles, when he took it . The capture of Nineveh was in the first year of Nabopolassor 625 b.c. The accession of Cyaxares, according to Herodotus, was 633 b.c. Eight years then only elapsed between his first siege and its capture, and, if it be true, that the siege lasted two years, there was an interval of six years only. But, at this time, the destruction of Nineveh was no longer a subject of joy to Judah. Since the captivity of Manasseh, Judah had had nothing to fear from Assyria; nor do we know of any oppression from it. Holy Scripture mentions none. The Assyrian monuments speak of expeditions against Egypt; but there was no temptation to harass Judah, which stood in the relation of a faithful tributary and an outwork against Egypt, and which, when Nineveh fell, remained in the same relation to its conquerors, into whose suzerainty it passed, together with the other dependencies of Assyria. The relation of Josiah to Babylon was the continuation of that of Manasseh to Esarhaddon.
The motive of this theory is explained by the words, "With a confidence, which leaves room for no doubt, Nahum expects a siege and an ultimate destruction of Nineveh. The security of his tone, nay that he ventures at all to trope so enormous a revolution of the existing state of things, must find its explanation in the circumstances of the time, out of the then condition of the world; but not until Cyaxares reigned in Media, did things assume an aspect, corresponding to this confidence." It is well that this writer doffs the courteous language, as to the "hopes," "expectations," "inferences from God's justice," and brings the question to the issue, "there is such absolute certainty of tone," that Nahum must have had either a divine or a human knowledge. He acknowledges the untenableness of any theory width would account for the prophecy of Nahum on any human knowledge, before Cyaxares was marching against the gates of Nineveh. Would human knowledge have sufficed then? Certainly, from such accounts as we have, Nineveh might still have stood against Cyaxares and its own rebel and traitorous general, but for an unforeseen event which man could not bring about, the swelling of its river.
But, as usual, unbelief fixes itself upon that which is minutest, ignores what is greatest. There are, in Nahum, three remarkable predictions.
(1) The sudden destruction of Sennacherib's army and his own remarkable death in the house of his god.
(2) The certain, inevitable, capture of Nineveh, and that, not by capitulation or famine, not even by the siege or assault, which is painted so vividly, but the river, which was its protection, becoming the cause of its destruction.
(3) Its utter desolation, when captured. The first, people assume to have been the description of events past; the second, the siege, they assume to have been present; and that, when truman wisdom could foresee its issue; the third, they generalize. The first is beyond the reach of proof now. It was a witness of the Providence and just judgment of God, to those days, not to our's. A brief survey of the history of the Assyrian Empire will show, that the second and third predictions were beyond human knowledge.
The Assyrian Empire dated probably from the ninth century before Christ. Such, it has been pointed out, is the concurrent result of the statements of Berosus and Herodotus. Moses, according to the simplest meaning of his words, spake of the foundation of Nineveh as contemporary with that of Babylon. "The beginning of the kingdom of Nimrod," he relates, "was Babel and Erech, and Accad and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh" Gen 10:10-11. Oppressed probably and driven forth by Nimrod, Asshur and his Semitic descendants went forth from the plain of Shinar, the Babylonia of after-ages. Had Moses intended to express (what some have thought), that Nimrod "went forth out of that land to Assyria," he would doubtless have used the ordinary style of connected narrative; "And he went forth thence." He would probably also have avoided ambiguity, by expressing that Nimrod "went forth to Asshur" Gen 25:18 using a form, which he employs a little later. As it is, Moses has used a mode of speech, by which, in Hebrew, a parenthetical statement would be made, and he has not used the form, which occurs in every line of Hebrew narrative to express a continued history. No one indeed would have doubted that such was the meaning, but that they did not see, how the mention of Asshur, a son of Shem, came to be anticipated in this account of the children of Ham. This is no ground for abandoning the simple construction of the Hebrew. It is but the history, so often repeated in the changes of the world, that the kingdom of Nimrod was founded on the expulsion of the former inhabitants. Nimrod began his kingdom; "Asshur went forth."
It is most probable, from this same brief notice, that Nineveh was, from the first, that aggregate of cities, which it afterward was. Moses says, "And he builded Nineveh and Rehoboth-Ir and Calach and Resen, between Nineveh and Calach; this is that great city" Gen 10:11-12. This cannot be understood as said exclusively of Nineveh; since Nineveh was mentioned first in the list, of cities, and the mention of the three others had intervened; and, in the second place where it is named, it is only spoken of indirectly and subordinately; it is hardly likely to be said of Resen, of whose unusual size nothing is elsewhere related. It seems more probable, that it is said of the aggregate of cities, that they formed together one great city, the very characteristic of Nineveh, as spoken of in Jonah.
Nineveh itself lay on the Eastern side of the Tigris, opposite to the present Mosul. In later times, among the Syrian writers, As shur becomes the name for the country, distinct from Mesopotamia and Babylonia , front which it was separated by the Tigris, and bounded on the North by Mount Niphates.
This distinction, however, does not occur until after the extinction of the Assyrian empire. On the contrary, in Genesis, Asshur, in one place, is spoken of as West of the Hiddekel or Tigris, so that it must at that time have comprised Mesopotamia, if not all on this side of the Tigris, i. e., Babylonia. In another place, it is the great border-state of Arabia on the one side, as was Egypt on the other. The sons of Ishmael, Moses relates, Gen 25:18, dwell from Havilah unto Shur that is before Egypt, as thou goest to Assyria; i. e., they dwelt on the great caraven-route across the Arabian desert from Egypt to Babylonia. Yet Moses mentions, not Babylon, but Asshur. In Balaam's prophecy Num 24:22, Asshur stands for the great Empire, whose seat was at one time at Nineveh, at another at Babylon, which should, centuries afterward, carry Israel captive.
Without entering into the intricacies of Assyrian or Babylonian history further than is necessary for the immediate object, it seems probable, that the one or other of the sovereigns of these nations had an ascendency over the others, according to his personal character and military energy. Thus, in the time of Abraham, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, in his expedition against the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah, took with him, as subordinate allies, the kings of Shinar, (or Babylon) and Ellasar, as well as Tidal king of nations, a king probably of Nomadic tribes. The expedition was to avenge the rebellion of the petty kings in the valley of Siddim against Chedorlaomer, after they had been for twelve years tributary. But, although the expedition closed with the attack on the live kings of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboim, and Zoar, its extent on the East side of the Jordan from Ashteroth Karnaim in Basan to Elparan (perhaps Elath on the Red Sea), and the defeat of the giant tribes, the Rephaim, Zuzim, Emim, Horites, the Amalekites and the Amorites in their several abodes, seems to imply one of those larger combinations against the aggressions of the East, which we meet with in later times .
It was no insulated conflict which spread over nearly three degrees of latitude. But it was the king of Elam, not the king of Babylon or of Asshur, who led this expedition; and those other kings, according to the analogy of the expeditions of Eastern monarchs, were probably dependent on him. It has been observed that the inscriptions of a monarch whose name partly coincides with that of Chedorlaomer, namely, Kudurmabuk, or Kudurmapula, show traces of a Persian influence on the Chaldee characters; but cuneiform decipherers having desponded of identifying those monarchs , Chedorlaomer appears as yet only so far cOnnected with Babylon, that its king was a tributary sovereign to him or a vice-king like those of later times, of whom Sennacherib boasts, "Are not my princes altogether kings?"
Assyria, at this time, is not mentioned, and so, since we know of its existence at an earlier period, it probably was independent. Lying far to the North of any of the nations here mentioned, it, from whatever cause or however it may have been engaged, took no share in the war. Subsequently also, down to a date almost contemporary with the Exodus, it has been observed that the name of Asshur does not appear on the Babylonian inscriptions, nor does it swell the titles of the king of Babylon . A little later than the Exodus, however, in the beginning of the 14th century b.c., Asshur and Egypt were already disputing the country which lay between them. The account is Egyptian, and so, of course, only relates the successes of Egypt. Thothmes III, in his fortieth year, according to Mr. Birch, received tribute from a king of Nineveh . In another monument of the same monarch, where the line, following on the name Nineveh, is lost, Thothmes says that he "erected his tablet in Naharaina (Mesopotamia) for the extension of the frontiers of Kami" (Egypt). Amenophis III, in the same century, represented Asiatic captives , with the names of Patens (Padan-Aram), Asuria, Karukamishi (Carchemish"). "On another column are Saenkar (Shiner), Naharaina, and the Khita (Hittites)." The mention of these contiguous nations strengthens the impression that the details of the interpretation are accurate. All these inscriptions imply that Assyria was independent of Babylon. In one, it is a co ordinate power; in the two others, it is a state which had measured its strength with Egypt, under one of its greatest conquerors, though, according to the Egyptian account, it had been worsted.
Another account, which has been thought to be the first instance of the extension of Babylonian authority so far northward, seems to me rather to imply the ancient self-government of Assyria. : "A record of Tiglath-pileser I. declares him to have rebuilt a temple in the city of Asshur, which had been taken down 60 years previously, after it had lasted for 641 years frp, the date of its first foundation by Shamas-Iva, son of Ismi-Dagon." Sir H. Rawlinson thinks that it is probable (although only probable) , that this Ismi-Dagon is a king, whose name occurs in the brick-legends of Lower Babylonia. Yet the Ismi-Dagon of the bricks does not bear the title of king of Babylon, but of king of Niffer only ; "his son," it is noticed, "does not take the title of king; but of governor of Hur ."
The name Shamas-Iva nowhere occurs in connection with Babylonia, but it docks recur, at a later period, as the name of an Assyrian Monarch . Since the names of the Eastern kings so often continue on in the same kingdom the recurrence of that name, at a later period, makes it even probable, that Shamas-Iva was a native king. There is absolutely nothing to connect his father Ismi-Dagon with the Ismi-Dagon king of Niffer, beyond the name itself, which, being Semitic, may just as well have belonged to a native king of Nineveh as to a king of Lower Babylonia. Nay, there is nothing to show that Ismi-Dagon was not an Assyrian Monarch who reigned at Niffer, for the name of his father is still unknown; there is no evidence that his father was ever a king, or, if a king, where he reigned. It seems to me in the last degree precarious to assume, without further evidence, the identity of the two kings. It has, further, yet to be shown that Lower Babylonia had, at that time, an empire, as distinct from its own local sovereignty. We know from Holy Scripture of Nimrod's kingdom in Shinar, a province distinct from Elymais, Mesopotamia, Assyria, and probably Chaldaea. In Abraham's time, 1900 b.c., we find again a king of Shinar. Shinar again, it is supposed, appears in Egyptian inscriptions, in the 14th century, b.c. ; and, if so, still distinct from Mesopotamia and Assyria. But all this implies a distinct kingdom, not an empire.
Again, were it ever so true, that Shamas-Iva was a son of a king in Lower Babylonia, that be built a temple in Kileh-Shergat, as being its king, and that he was king, as placed there by Ismi-Dagon, this would be no proof of the continual dependence of Assyria upon Babylonia. England did not continue a dependency of France, because conquered by William of Normandy. How was Alexander's empire broken at once! Spain under Charles the V was under one sovereignty with Austria; Spain with France had, even of late, alike Bourbon kings. A name would, at most, show an accidental, not a permanent, connection.
But there is, at present, no evidence implying a continued dependence of Assyria upon Babylon. Two facts only have been alleged;
1) that the cuneiform writing of inscriptions at Kileh-Shergat, 40 miles South of Nineveh, has a Babylonian character;
2) that, on those bricks, four names have been found of inferior Satraps.
But 1) the Babylonian character of the inscriptions would show a dependence of civilization, not of empire. Arts flourished early at Babylon, and so the graven character of the Inscriptions too may have been curried to the rougher and warlike North. The garment, worked at Babylon, was, in the 15th century b.c., exported as far as Palestine, and was, for its beauty, the object of Achan's covetousness Jos 7:21.
2) In regard to the satraps whose names are found on the bricks of Kileh-Shergat, it does not appear, that they were tributary to Babylon at all; they may, as far as it appears, have been simply inferior officers of the Assyrian empire. Anyhow, the utmost which such a relation to Babylon would evince, if ever so well established, would be a temporary dependence of Kileh-Shergat itself, not of Nineveh or the Assyrian kingdom. Further, the evidence of the duration of the dependency would, be as limited at its extent. Four satraps would be no evidence as to this period of 700 years, only a century less than has elapsed since the Norman conquest. The early existence of an Assyrian kingdom has been confirmed by recent cuneiform discoveries, which give the names of 8 Assyrian kings, the earliest of whom is supposed to have reigned about 3 12 centuries before the Commencement of the Assyrian Empire .
The "empire," Herodotus says , "Assyria held in Upper Asia for 520 years;" Berosus , "for 526 years." The Cuneiform Inscriptions give much the same result. Tiglath-pileser , who gives five years' annals of his own victories, mentions his grandfather's grandfather, the 4th king before him, as the king who "first organized the country of Assyria," who "established the troops of Assyria in authority." The expression, "established in authority," if it may be pressed, relates to foreign conquest. If this Tiglath-pileser be the same whom Sennacherib, in the 10th year of his own reign, mentions as having lost his gods to Merodach-ad-akhi, king of Mesopotamia, 418 years before , then, since Sennacherib ascended the throne about 703 b.c. , we should have 1112 b.c. for the latter part of the reign of Tiglath-pileser I, and counting tills and the six preceding reigns at 20 years each , should have about 1252 b.c. for the beginning of the Assyrian empire. It has been calculated that if the 526 years, assigned by Berosus to his 45 Assyrian kings, are (as Polyhistor states Berosus to have meant) to be dated back from the accession of Pul who took tribute from Menahem, and so from between 770 b.c. and 760 b.c., they carry back the beginning of the dynasty to about 1290 b.c. If they be counted, (as is perhaps more probable) from the end of the reign of Pul Kg2 15:19, i. e., probably 747 b.c., "the era of Nabonassar," the Empire would commence about 1273 b.c. Herodotus, it has been shown , had much the same date in his mind, when he assigned 520 years to the Assyrian empire in upper Asia, dating back from the revolt of the Medes. For he supposed this revolt to be 179 years anterior to the death of Cyrus 529 b.c. (and so, 708 b.c.) plus a period of anarchy before the accession of Deioces. Allowing 30 years for this period of anarchy, we have 738 b.c. plus 520, i. e., 1258 b.c., for the date of the commencement of Assyrian empire according to Herodotus. Thus, the three testimonies would coincide in placing the beginning of that Empire anyhow between 1258 and 1273 b.c.
But this Empire started up full-grown. It was the concentration of energy and power, which had before existed. Herodotus' expression is "rulers of Upper Asia." Tiglath-pileser attributes to his forefather, that he "organized the country," and "established the armies of Assyria in authority." The second king of that list takes the title of "ruler over the people of Bel" , i. e., Babylonia. The 4th boasts to have reduced "all the lands of the Magian world." Tiglath-pileser I claims to have conquered large parts of Cappadocia, Syria from Tsukha to Carchemish, Media and Muzr. According to the inscription at Bavian , he sustained a reverse, and lost his gods to a king of Mesopotamia, which gods were recovered by Sennacherib from Babylon. Yet this exception the more proves that conquest was the rule. For, had there been subsequent successful invasions of Assyria by Babylonia, the spoils of the 5th century backward would not have been alone recovered or recorded. If the deciphering of the Inscriptions is to be trusted, Nineveh was the capital, even in the days el Tiglath-pileser I. For Sennacherib brought the gods back, it is said, and put them in their places, i. e., probably where he himself reigned, at Nineveh. Thence then they were taken in the reign of Tiglath-pileser. Nineveh then was his capital also.
Of an earlier portion we have as yet but incidental notices; yet the might of Assyria is attested by the presence of Assyrian names in the Egyptian dynastic lists, whether the dynasties were themselves Assyrian, or whether the names came in through matrimonial alliances between two great nations .
With few exceptions, as far as appears from their own annals (and these are in the later times confirmed by Holy Scripture), the Assyrian Empire was, almost whenever we hear of it, one long series of victory and rapine. It is an exception, if any monarch is peaceful, and content to "repair the buildings" in his residence, "leaving no evidence of conquest or greatness." Tiglathi-Nin, father of the warlike Asshur-i-danipal or Sardanapalus, is mentioned only in his son's monument , "among his warlike ancestors, who had carried their arms into the Armenian mountains, and there set up stelae to commemorate their conquests."
Civil wars there were, and revolutions. Conquerors and dynasties came to an untimely end; there was parricide, fratricide; but the tide of war and conquest rolled on. The restless warriors gave no rest. Sardanapalus terms himself , "the conqueror from the upper passage of the Tigris to Lebanon and the great sea, who all countries, from the rising of the sun to the going down thereof, has reduced under his authority." His son, Shalmanubar or Shalmaneser, in his thirty-five years of reign led, in person twenty-three military expeditions. 20,000, 16,000, are the numbers of his enemies left dead upon a field of battle with Benhadad and Hazael . Cappadocia, Pontus, Armenia, Media, Babylonia, Syria, Phoenicia , 15 degrees of longitude and 10 of latitude, save where the desert or the sea gave him nothing to conquer, were the range of his repeated expeditions.
He circled round Judaea. He thrice defeated Benhadad with his allies (on several occasions, twelve kings of the Hittites). His own army exceeded on occasions 100,000 fighting men. Twice he defeated Hazael. Israel trader Jehu, Tyre, Sidon, 24 kings in Pontus, kings of the Hittites, of Chaldaea, 27 kings of Persia are among his tributaries ; "the shooting of his arrows struck terror," he says, "as far as the sea" (Indian Ocean); "he put up his arrows in their quiver at the sea of the setting sun." His son Shamesiva apparently subdued Babylonia, and in the West conquered tribes near Mount Taurus, on the North the countries bordering on Armenia to the South and East, the Medes beyond Mount Zagros, and "the Zimri Jer 25:25 in upper Luristan." His son Ivalush III or IV received undisturbed tribute from the kingdoms which his fathers conquered, and ascribes to his god Asshur the grant of "the kingdom of Babylon to his son."
Thus "Assyria with one hand grasped Babylonia; with the other Philistia and Edom; she held Media Proper, S. Armenia, possessed all Upper Syria, including Commagene and Amanus, bore sway over all the whole Syrian coast from Issus to Gaza, and from the coast to the desert." Tiglath-pileser II and Shalmaneser are known to us as conquerors from Holy Scripture . Tiglath-pileser, we are told from the inscriptions, warred and conquered in Upper Mesopotamia, Armenia, Media, Babylonia, drove into exile a Babyionian prince, destroyed Damascus, took tribute from a Hiram king of Tyre, and from a Queen of the Arabs . And so it continued, until nearly the close of the Monarchy.
The new dynasty which began with Sargon were even greater conquerors than their predecessors. Sargon, in a reign of seventeen or nineteen years, defeated the king of Elam, conquered in Iatbour beyond Elam, reigned from Ras, a dependency on Elam, over Poukoud (Pekod), Phoenicia, Syria, etc. to the river of Egypt, in the far Media to the rising sun, in Scythia, Albania, Parthia, Van, Armenia, Colchis, Tubal to the Moschi: he placed his lieutenants as governors over these countries, and imposed tribute upon them, as upon Assyrians; he, probably, placed Merodach-Baladan on the throne of Babylon, and after 12 years displaced him; he reduced all Chaldaea under his rule; he defeated "Sebech (i. e., probably, So), Sultan of Egypt, so that he was heard of no more;" he received tribute from the Pharaoh of Egypt, from a Queen of Arabia and from Himyar the Sabaean. To him first the king of Meroe paid tribute. He finally captured Samaria: he took Gaza, Kharkar, Arpad and Damascus, Ashdod (which it cost Psammetichus 29 years to reconquer), and Tyre, (which resisted Nebuchadnezzar for 13 years). He added to the Satrapy of Parthia, placed a Satrap or Lieutenant over Commagene and Sentaria, Kharkar, Tel-Garimmi, Gamgoum, Ashdod, and a king of his own choice over Albania. lie seized 55 walled cities in Armenia, 11, which were held to be "inaccessible fortresses;" and 62 great cities in Commagene; 34 in Media; he laid tribute on the "king of the country of rivers."
He removed whole populations at his will; from Samaria, he carried captive its inhabitants, 27,800, and placed them in "cities of the Medes" Kg2 17:6; Kg2 18:11; he removed those of Commagene to Elam; all the great men of the Tibareni, and the inhabitants of unknown cities, to Assyria; Cammanians, whom he had conquered, to Tel-Garimmi, a capital which he rebuilt; others whom he had vanquished in the East he placed in Ashdod: again he placed "Assyrians devoted to his empire" among the Tibareni; inhabitants of cities unknown to us, in Damascus; Chaldaeans in Commagene , extracted from the Annales de Philosophie Chretienne T. vi. (5e sêrie). Oppert p. 8, gives as the meaning of his name, "actual king," "roi de fait." (שׁר־כן shar-kēn) Sargon himself, if Oppert has translated him rightly, gives as its meaning, "righteous prince," p. 38). : "The Comukha were removed from the extreme North to Susiana, and Chaldaeans were brought from the extreme South to supply their place." "Seven kings of Iatnan, seven days voyage off in the Western seas, whose names were unknown to the kings" his "fathers; hearing of" his "deeds, came before" him to Babylon with "presents:" as did the king of Asmoun, who dwelt in the midst of the Eastern sea (the Persian gulf). He placed his statue, "writing on it the glory of Asshur his master," in the capital of Van, in Kikisim (Circesium) as also in Cyprus, which he does not name, but where it has been discovered in this century . The Moschian king, with his 3000 towns, who had never submitted to the kings his predecessors, sent his submission and tribute to him.
Sennacherib, the son of Sargon, says of himself, "Assour, the great Lord, has conferred on me sovereignty over the peoples; he has extended my dominion over all those who dwell in the world. From the upper Ocean of the setting sun to the lower Ocean of the rising sun, I reduced under my power all who carried aloft their head."
He defeated Merodach Baladan and the king of Elam together ; took in one expedition , "79 great strong cities of the Chaldaeans anti 820 small towns;" he took prisoners by hundreds of thousands; 200, 150 in his first expedition against Hezekiah, from 44 great walled cities which he took and little villages innumerable ; 208,000 from the Nabathseans anti Hagarenes : he employed on his great buildings 360,000 men, gathered from Chaldea and Aramaea, from Cilicia and Armenia ; he conquered populations in the North, which "had of old not submitted to the kings my brothers ," annexed them to the prefecture of Arrapachitis and set up his image ; he received tribute from the governor of Khararat , wasted the 2 residence cities, 34 smaller cities of Ispahara king of Albania, joining a part of the territory to Assyria, and calling its city, Ilhinzas, the city of Sennacherib ;
He reduced countries of "Media, whose names the kings his brothers had not heard ; he set a king, Toubaal, over the great and little Sidon, Sarepta, Achzib, Acco, Betzitti, Mahalliba; the kings of Moab, Edom, Bet-Amman, Avvad, Ashdod, submitted to him ; he deteated an "innumerable host" of Egyptians at Altakou (Elteke); sons of the king of Egypt fell into his hands; he captured Ascalon, Bene-Barak, Joppa, Hazor ; put back at Amgarron (Migron) the expelled king Padi, who had been surrendered to Hezekiah ; gave portions of the territory of Hezekiah to the kings of Ashdod, Migron, Gaza ; he drove Merodach-baladan again to Elam, captured his brothers, wasted his cities, and placed his own oldest son, Assurnadin, on the throne of Babylon took seven impregnable cities of the Toukharri, placed like birds' nests on the mountains of Nipour ; conquered the king of Oukkou in Dayi, among mountains which none of his ancestors had penetrated; look Oukkou and 33 other cities ; attached Elam, "crossing" the Persian gulf "in Syrian vessels" ; capturing the men, and destroying the cities ; in another campaign, he garrisoned, with prisoner-warriors of his own, cities in Elam which his father had lost ; destroyed 34 large cities and others innumerable of Elam .
His account of his reign closes with a great defeat of Elam, whom the escaped Souzoub had hired with the treasures of the temples of Babylon, and of 17 rebel tribes or cities, at Khalouli, and their entire subdual . He repelled some Greeks in Cilicia, set up his image there, with a record of his deeds, and built Tarsus, on the model of Babylon . It has been noticed, what a "keen appreciation of the merits of a locality" his selection of its site evinced. The destruction of his army of 185,000 men, at the word of God, might well deter him from again challenging the Almighty; but we have seen, in the wars of Napoleon I, that such losses do not break the power of an empire. It was no vain boast of Sennacherib, that he had "gathered all the earth, and carried captive the gods of the nations." The boast was true; the application alone was impious. God owned in him the instrument which He had formed, "the rod of His anger." He condenmed him, only because "the axe boasted itself against Him Who hewed therewith." Victorious, except when he fought against God, and employed by God "to tread down the people as the mire of the streets" Isa 10:5-15; Isa 36:18-20, Sennacherib was cut off as God foretold, but left his kingdom to a victorious son.
His son, Esarhaddon, takes titles, yet more lofty titan those of Sennacherib. He calls himself , "King of Assyria, Vicar of Babylon, King of the Sumirs and Accads, King of Egypt, Meroe and Cush, who reigned from sunrising to sun-set, unequalled in the imposition of tributes." In Armenia, he killed Adrammelech , his half-brother, one of his father's murderers, who fled to Armenia, probably to dispute thence his father's crown. In every direction he carried his conquests further than his powerful father . He speaks of conquests in the far Media , "where none of the kings, our fathers," had conquered, whose kings bore well-known Persian names .
They and their subjects were carried off to Assyria. Others, who "had not conspired against the kings my fathers and the land of Assyria, and whose territories my fathers had not conquered," submitted voluntarily in terror, paid tribute and received Assyrian governors. In the West, he pursued by sea a king of Sidon who rebelled, divided the Syrians in strange countries, and placed mountaineers, whom his bow had subdued in the East, with a governor, in a castle of Esarhaddon which he built in Syria. He warred successfully in Cilicia, Khoubousna, and destroyed 10 large cities of the Tibareni and carried their people captive; trod down the country of Masnaki, transported rebels of Van; he established on the Southern shore that son of Merodach-baladan who submitted to him, removing the brother who trusted in Elam, himself reigned in Babylon , where he carried Manasseh Ch2 33:11.
He reconquered "the city of Adoumou (Edom), (the city of the power of the Arabs,) which Sennacherib had conquered, and carried off its people to Assyria;" he named as Queen of the Arabs, Tabouya, born in his palace; put the son of Hazael on his father's throne. An expedition to "a far country to the bounds of the earth beyond the desert," Bazi (Buz), reached by traversing 140 farsakhs (?) of sandy desert, then 20 farsakhs (?) of fertile land and a stony region, Khazi (Uz), looks like an expedition across Arabia, and, if so, was unparalleled except by Nushirvan. Some of the other names are Arabic. Anyhow, it was a country, where none of his predecessors had gone; he killed 8 kings, carried off their subjects and spoils. He conquered the Gomboulou in their marshes. twelve kings on the coast of Syria whom he recounts by name, (Ba'lou king of Tyre, Manasseh king of Judah, and those of Edom, Maan, Gaza, Ascalon, Amgarron, Byblos, Aradus, Ousimouroun, Bet-Ammon, Ashdod) and 10 kings of Yatnan in the sea (Cyprus) - Aegisthus (Ikistonsi), King of Idalion (Idial), Pythagoras (Pitagoura) K. of Citium (Kitthim), Ki ..., K. of Salamis (Silhimmi), Ittodagon ("Dagon is with him," Itoudagon), K. of Paphos (Pappa), Euryalus (lrieli), K. of Soil (Sillou), Damasou, K. of Curium (Kuri,) Ounagonsou, K. of Limenion (Limini), Roumizu, K. of Tamassus (Tamizzi,) Damutsi of Amti-Khadasti, Puhali of Aphrodisium (Oupridissa) , held their rule from him.
The names of the countries, from which he brought those whom he settled in Samaria, attest alike his strength and the then weakness of two of the nations, which afterward concurred to overthrow his empire. The colonists, according to their own letters to Artaxerxes Ezr 4:9, comprehended, among others, Babylonians; Archevites i. e., inhabitants of Erech, mentioned in Genesis Gen 10:10, as, together with Babel, part of the beginning of the kingdom of Nimrod; Susanchites, i. e., inhabitants of Susiana or Chusistan; Dehavites, Daans in Herodotus , one of the wandering Persian tribes, whose name (Taia) still exists; Elamite's Isa 21:2; Isa 22:6 or the dwellers on the Persian gulf, bordering on Susiana; Apharsites or the Persians in their original abode in Paraca, Paraic, now Farsistan. It seems also probable that the Apharsachites are those more known to us as Sacae or Scythians, whom Esarhaddon says that he conquered ; and that the Apharsachthites (with the same word Aphar prefixed) are the Sittaceni on the Caspian. The Dinaites and the Tarphelites are as yet unidentified, unless the Tarpetes of the Palus Maeotis near the Sittaceni, or the Tapiri in Media be a corruption of the name.
The Samaritan settlers add, "And the rest of the nations, whom the great and noble Asnapper carried captive, and settled in the cities of Samaria and the rest on this side the river." Under this general term, they include the Mesopotamian settlers brought from Avvah and Sepharvaim, and those from Hamath Kg2 17:24, probably wishing to insist to the Persian Monarch on their Persian, Median, or Babylonian descent. They attest at the same time that their forefathers were not willingly removed but "transported, carried into exile" Ezr 4:10, and accordingly that Esarhaddon, in whose reign they were removed, had power in all these countries. The condensation also of settlers from twelve nations in so small a space as the cities of Samaria (analogous as it is to the dispersion of the Jews over so many provinces of their captors) illustrates the policy of these transportations, and the strength which they gave to the empire. Nations were blended together among those foreign to them, with no common bond except their relation to their conqueror. A check on those around them, and themselves held in check by them, they had no common home to which to return, no interest to serve by rebelling. Esarhaddon built 36 temples in Assyria by the labor of foreign slaves, his captives, who worshiped his gods .
This collection of people of twelve nations in the cities of Samaria represents moreover one portion only of the conquests of Esarhaddon, and, for the most part, that furthest from Judaea. For the principle of the policy was to remove them far from their own land. Ethiopian and Egyptian captives would be placed, not here from where they could easily return, but, like Israel in the cities of the Medes, from where they could find no escape.
The son of Esarhaddon, Asshurbanipal II. , yet further enlarged and consolidated the conquests of his conquering father. His expeditions into Egypt have been already dwelt upon; his victories were easy, complete. Tirhaka, himself a great conqueror, fled into unknown deserts beyond reach of pursuits. His step-son Urdaminie attempted to recover his kingdom, was defeated at once, fled and his capital was taken. In Asia, he took away tim king of Tyre, who offended him; made conquests beyond Mt. Taurus, where his fathers had never been ; received an embassy from Gyges; attached to Assyria a tract of Minni or Persarmenia, took the capital of Minni; took Shushan and Badaca; killed their kings, united Susiana to Babylonia; subdued anew Edom, Moab, Kedar, the Nabathaeans; received the submission of the king of Urarda, Ararat .
While Assyria was extended wider than before, its old enemies were more incorporated with it, or, at least, more subdued; it was more at one within itself. Egypt, the great rival Empire, had tried to shake off the yoke, but was subdued; no people in Syria or the valley of the Euphrates stirred itself; the whole tract within the Taurus, once so rife with enemies, lay hushed under his rule: hushed were the Hittites, Hamathites, the Syrians of Damascus, the Tibareni who had once held their own against his father; war was only at the very extremities, in Minni or Edom, and that, rather chastisement than war; Babylon was a tranquil portion of his empire, except during the temporary rebellion of the brother, whom he had placed over it, and whom he pardoned. His death, amid the tranquil promotion of literature , when he had no more enemies to conquer or rebels to chasten, left his empire at the zenith of its power, some 22 years before its destruction. "Culno" had become, as Sennacherib boasted Isa 10:9, "like Carehemish; Hamath like Arpad; Samaria as Damascus." He "had removed the bounds of the people and gathered all the earth, as one gathereth eggs, left" Isa 10:13-14 by the parent bird, undefended even by its impotent love. There was not a cloud on the horizon, not a token from where the whirlwind would come. The bas-reliefs attest, that neither the energy nor the cruelty of the Assyrians were diminished .
Of those twenty-two years, we have nothing reliable except their close. There was probably nothing to relate. There would not be anything, if Asshurbanipal had consolidated his empire, as he seems to have done, and if his son and successor inherited his father's later tastes, and was free from the thirst of boundless conquest, which had characterized the earlier rulers of Assyria. Anyhow, we know nothing authentic. The invasion of Assyria by Phraortes, which Herodotus relates, is held, on good grounds, to be a later history of a rebellion against Darius Hystaspes, adapted to times before the Medes became one nation . There was no reason why it should not have been recorded, had it taken place, since it is admitted to have been a total defeat, in which Phraortes lost his life . The invasion of the Scythians, which is to have stopped the siege of Nineveh under Cyaxares, was reported in a manifestly exaggerated form to Herodotus. The 28 years, during which Herodotus relates the Scythian rule to have lasted , is longer than the whole of the reign of the last king of Assyria; and yet, according to Herodotus, is to have been interposed between the two sieges of Cyaxares. And as its empire gave no sign of decay, so far as we can trace its history within 22 years before its destruction, so, with the like rapidity, did the empire rise, which was to destroy it.
The account which Herodotus received, that the Medians had thrown off the yoke of Assyria before Deioces , is in direct contradiction to the Assyrian inscriptions. This was, they state, the time, not of the revolt, but of the conquest of Media. They are confirmed by Holy Scripture, which says that the Assyrian king (Sargon) placed "in the cities of the Medes" Kg2 17:6 his Israelitish captives. The utmost, which Herodotus ascribes to Deioces however, is, that he consolidated the six Median tribes and built a capital, Agbatana . It is an union of wild hordes into one people, held together for the time by the will of one man and by their weariness of mutual oppressions. Even according to their accounts, Cyaxares (about 633 b.c., i. e., 8 years before the fall of Nineveh) first organized the Median army; the Greeks, in the time of Aeschylus, believed Cvaxares to have been the first of the Median kings ; rebels in Media and Sagartia claimed the Median throne against Darius, as descended from Cyaxares, as the founder of the Monarchy .
Further, the subsequent history supports the account of Abydenus against Herodotus, that not the Medes, but the rebel general of the last Monarch of Nineveh was, with his Babylonian troops, the chief author of the destruction of Nineveh. The chief share of the spoil, where no motives of refined policy intervene, falls to the strongest, who had chief portion in the victory. "The Medes," says Herodotus, "took Nineveh, and conquered all Assyria, except the Babylonian portion" . But Babylon was no spared province, escaping with its independence as a gain. Babylonia, not Media, succeeded to the Southern and Western dominions of the Assyrian empire, and the place, where Nineveh had stood, Cyaxares retaining the North. This was a friendly arrangement, since subsequently too we find a Babylonian prince in the expedition of Cyaxares against Asia Minor, and Medians assisting Nebuchadnezzar against the king of Egypt . Abydenus represents the Babylonians and Medes, as equal , but exhibits the rebel general, as the author of the attack . "After him (Sardanapal), Sarac held the empire of Assyria, who, being informed of a horde of mingled troops which were coming against him from the sea, sent Busalossor (Nebopalassar) general of his army, to Babylon. But he, having determined to revolt, betrothed to his son, Nebucbodrossor, Amuhea, daughter of Asdahag, prince of the Medes, and soon made a rapid attack on Nineveh. King Sarac, when he knew the whole, set the palace Evorita on fire. Then Nehuchodrossor, attaining to the empire, encircled Babylon with strong walls."
The "horde of mingled troops" "from the sea" were probably those same Susians and Elymaeans, whom the Assyrians had, in successive reigns, defeated. If the account of Herodotus were true, the father of the Median Monarch had perished in conflict with Assyria. The grandfather of the Assyrian Monarch had himself reigned in Babylon. Assyria ruled Babylon by viceroys to the end. It has been noticed that Nahum mentions no one enemy who should destroy Nineveh. True, for no one enemy did destroy her.
Even now its fall is unexplained. The conquests of its Monarchs had not been the victories of talented individuals. They were a race of world-wide conquerors. In the whole history, of which we have the annals, they are always on the aggressive. They exacted tribute where they willed. The tide of time bore them on in their conquests. Their latest conquests were the most distant. Egypt, her early rival, had been subdued by her. The powers, which did destroy her, had no common bond of interest. They were united, for one reign, not by natural interests, but, as far as we see, by the ambition of two individuals. These crushed, at once and for ever, the empire which for so many centuries had been the ravager of the world. But who could have foreseen such a combination and such results, save God, in Whose hands are human wills and the fate of empires?
The fiery empire of conquerors sank like a tropic sun. Its wrath had burned, unassuaged, "from" (in their own words) "the rising to the setting sun." No gathering cloud had tempered its heat or allayed its violence. Just ere it set, in those last hours of its course, it seemed, as if in its meridian. Its bloodstained disk cast its last glowing rays on that field of carnage in Susiana; then, without a twilight, it sank beneath those stormy waves, so strangely raised, at once and for ever. All, at once, was night. It knew no morrow.
Its fall is inexplicable still. It may have accelerated its own destruction by concentrating the fierce Chaldees at Babylon. It was weakened by the revolt of its own general, and with him the defection of an army. Still, in those days, the city of 1200 towers, each 200 feet high, its ordinary wall 100 feet high and of such breadth, that three chariots could drive on it abreast , could not be taken by mounds, except by some most gigantic army with patience inexhaustible. Famine could not reduce a city, which, in its 60 miles in circumference, enclosed, like Babylon, space for much cattle, and which could, within its walls, grow enough grain for its population of 600,000 Jon 4:11. With its perennial supply of provision, it might have laughed to scorn a more formidable foe than the Medes, Elamites and Babylonians, unaccustomed to sieges, except in as far as any had fought in its armies, while the Ninevites possessed the hereditary skill of centuries.
Babylon, smaller than Nineveh , was at rest amidst the siege of the more powerful grandson of Cyaxares. Cyrus could only take it by stratagem; Darius Hystaspes, by treachery. Then, every Ninevite was a warrior. Their descendants, the Curds, are still among the fiercest and most warlike people of Asia. The bas-reliefs, which bear internal evidence of truth, exhibit a wonderful blending of indomitable strength of will, recklessness of suffering, inherent physical energy, unimpaired by self-indulgence. A German writer on art says , "You recognize a strong thick-set race, of very powerful frame, yet inclined to corpulence, a very special blending of energy and luxury. The general impression of the figures, whether men, women or eunuchs, has uniformly something earnest and imposing." An English writer says still more vividly ; "All the figures indicate great physical development, animal propensities very strongly marked, a calm, settled ferocity, a perfect nonchalance amidst the most terrible scenes; no change of feature takes place, whether the individual is inflicting or experiencing horrid sufferings. The pictures are very remarkable as indicating the entire absence of higher mental and moral qualities: and the exuberance of brutal parts of man's nature. At the same time, there is not lacking a certain consciousness of dignity and of inherent power. There is a tranquil energy and fixed determination, which will not allow the beholder to feel any contempt of those stern warriors."
How then could it fall? The prophecy of Nahum describes, with terrible vividness, a siege; the rousing of its king from a torpor of indolence; "he remembereth his nobles" (Nah 2:5 (6)); the orderly advance, the confused preparations for defense; and then, when expectation is strung, and we see besiegers and besieged prepared for the last decisive strife, there is a sudden pause. No human strength overthrows the city "The gates of the rivers shall be opened, and the palace shall be dissolved. And it is decreed, she shall be led away captive" (Nah 2:6-7 (7, 8)). Her captivity follows on the opening of "the gates of the rivers." The "rivers," ordinarily her strength, were also her weakness. The annals of Sennacherib relate, how he repaired a palace which had been undermined by the Tigris. : "The small palace, which was become very ruinous in every part, because the river Tigris, during 16 years, had undermined and ravaged it, (I repaired.)" Dionysius, the Jacobite patriarch, relates how in his own time, 763 a.d. : "the Tigris, overflowing, laid waste all the towns around it, and especially Mosul" (opposite to Nineveh). Barhebraeus, in four different years, mentions the destruction of houses in Bagdad through the overflow of the Tigris .
He mentions also a city-wall, overthrown by an inundation, so that 3,000 men were drowned in their houses . Ives relates : "The Bishop (of Babylon) remembers that" about 1733 "the Euphrates and Tigris were so overflown, that the whole country between them appeared as one large sea. Over all the plain between Bagdad and Hilla, people could pass only in boats. The water flowed quite up to the glacis, the ditch was full, the city also overflown, and the foundation of most of the buildings hurt; 300 houses were entirely destroyed. To prevent as much as possible" the recurrence of such a calamity, "the Turks now face the foundation-wall of their houses with a composition of charcoal, ashes, and Demar (bitumen)." "The river Khosar," also, which would be swollen by the same causes as the Tigris, "entered the city," says Ainsworth , "by an aperture in the walls on the East side, which appears to have formed part of the original plan and to have been protected by a gateway and walls, vestiges of which still remain." "The Khausser," says Mr. Rich , "is generally drawn off for irrigating the cotton-plantations in the alluvial ground of the river; when it is much overflowed, it discharges itself into the Tigris above the bridge." : "The Khausser now (Dec. 1. after "very heavy tropical rain,") discharges itself direct into the Tigris, and brings an immense body of water." : "After rain, it becomes an impetuous torrent, overflowing its banks and carrying all before it." : "The stone-bridge was carried away one night by the violence of the Khausser, on a sudden inundation." On a lesser swelling of the river - "the water-wheels were removed" in precaution "and the bridge of boats opened." Cazwini, the Arabic geographer, speaks of "the rivers of Nineveh."
Ctesias, being a writer of suspected authority, cannot safely be alleged in proof of the fulfillment of prophecy. Yet in this case his account, as it is in exact conformity with the obvious meaning of the prophecy of Nahum, so it solves a real difficulty, how Nineveh, so defended, could have fallen. It seems certain that the account of the siege taken from him by Diodorus, is that of the last siege. It bas been remarked that the only event of the siege, known from any other source, namely, that the last Assyrian king; when be had learned the combination of the Medes and Babylonians against him, set fire to his palace, is related also by Ctesias. Ctesias has also the same fact, that the Babylonian revolt was recent; the name of the revolted general in Ctesias, Belisis, is the latter half of that given to him by Abydenus, , Nebopalassar, omitting only the name of the god, Nebo. The rest of the history is in itself probable.
The success of the Assyrian monarch at first against the combined armies, and the consequent revelry, are that same blending of fierceness and sensuality which is stamped on all the Assyrian sculptures, continned to the end. The rest of his relation, which, on account of the filets of nature, which we know, but which, since they are gathered from sources so various, Ctesias probably did not know, is, in itself, probable, accounts for what is unaccounted for, and corresponds with the words of Nahum. It is , "Sardanapalus, seeing the whole kingdom in the greatest danger, sent his three sons and two daughters with much wealth to Paphlagonia to Cotta the Governor, being the best-disposed of his subjects. He himself sent by messengers to all his subjects for forces, and prepared what was needed for the siege. He had an oracle handed down from his forefathers, that no one should take Nineveh, unless the river first became an enemy to the city.
Conceiving that this never would be, he held to his hopes, purposing to abide the siege and awaited the armies to be sent by his subjects." "The rebels, elated by their successes, set themselves to the siege, but on account of the strength of the walls, could in no wise injure those in the city." "But these had great abundance of all necessaries through the foresight of the king. The siege then being prolonged for two years, they pressed upon it; assaulting the walls and cutting off those therein from any exit into the country." "In the 3rd year, the river, swollen by continuous and violent rains, inundated a part of the city and overthrew 20 stadia of the wall. Then the king, thinking that the oracle was fulfilled, and that the river was plainly an enemy to the city, despaired of safety. And, not to fall into the enemy's hands, he made an exceeding great pile in the palace, heaped up there all the gold and silver and the royal apparel, and having shut up his concubines and eunuchs in the house formed in the midst of the pile, consumed himself and all the royalties with them all. The rebels, hearing that Sardanapalus had perished, possessed themselves of the city, entering by the broken part of the wall."
Yet Nahum had also prophesied, "the fire shall devour thy bars;" "fortify thy strong holds, there shall the fire devour thee;" "I will burn her chariots in the smoke" Nah 3:13, Nah 3:15; Nah 2:13, and all the ruins of Nineveh still speak from beneath the earth where they lie interred, that, overthrown as they have been by some gigantic power, fire consumed them within. : "The palaces of Khorsabad (Dur Sarjina) and Nimrud shew equal traces of fire with those of Koyunjik." : "The recent excavations have strewn that fire was a great instrument in the destruction of the Nineveh palaces. Calcined alabaster, masses of charred wood and charcoal, colossal statues split through with the heat, are met with in parts of the Ninerite mounds, and attest the veracity of prophecy." . "It is evident from the ruins that Khorsabad and Nimroud were sacked; and set on fire."
Yet this does not exhaust the fullness of the prophecy. Nahum not only foretold the destruction of Nineveh, that it should "be empty, void, waste, there is no healing of thy bruise," but in emphatic words, that its site also should be a desolation. "With an overrunning flood He shall make the place thereof (mekomah) a desolation" Nah 1:8. This was then new in the history of the world. Cities have remained, while empires passed away. Rome, Constantinople, Athens, Damascus, Alexandria, Venice, abide, although their political might is extinct. No or Thebes itself survived its capture by Sargon and a yet later loss of its inhabitants nearly two centuries, when the more fatal conquest of Cambyses, anti perhaps the rise of Memphis perpetuated its destruction. Nahum foretells emphatically as to Nineveh, "He will make the place thereof an utter consumption." Not only would God destroy the then Nineveh; but the very place or site thereof should be an utter desolation.
There was, then, no instance of so great a city passing away. Such had not been Babylonian, Assyrian, Egyptian policy. It had become an established policy in Sennacherib's time to remove populations, not to destroy cities. And these two policies were incompatible. For a conqueror who would remove populations must have, whither to remove them. Nineveh itself had conquered Babylon and Shushun, and the cities of the Medes; but had placed her own lieutenants in them. The mere destruction of such a city as Nineveh was "contrary to experience." Even later than this, Babylon, notwithstanding its rebellions, was spared by its first conqueror, and survived to be the grave of its second, Alexander. Xenophon describes Nineveh under the name of Mespila (of which Mosul has been supposed to be a corruption) "a wall, void, large, lying against the city - the basement was of polished stone, full of shells, its width 50 feet, its height 50 feet. Thereon was built a wall of brick, its breadth 50 feet, the height 100; the circuit was six farsangs," i. e., 22 12 miles.
The shell remained; the tumult of life was gone. Its protecting bulwarks remained; all, which they protected, had disappeared. They had forgotten already on the spot what it had been or by whom it had perished. : "The Medes inhabited it formerly. It was said that Media, a kings wife, had fled thither, when the Medes were losing their power through the Persians. The Persian king, besieging this city, could not take it, either by time or force; but Zeus made the inhabitants senseless, and so it was taken." A little later, Alexander marched over its site to gain the world, not knowing that a world-empire, like that which he gave his life to found, was buried under his feet . Gaugamela, near which Darius lost his empire, must have been close to its site. Yet three centuries, and history, not its mere neighbors only, had forgotten when it had perished. Strabo says , "It was effaced immediately after the destruction of the Syrians." Nearly two centuries later is Lucian's saying , "Nineveh has perished, and there is no trace left where it once was." Yet before this time, in the reign of Claudius, the Romans had built a new Nineveh which they called by his name "Ninive Claudiopolis." In the 6th century, it is mentioned as a Christian see . Its episcopate was taken away, probably on account of its decline, early in the 9th century; and it was united to Mosul . It was still in being at the beginning of the 14th century . Yet, in the 12th century, as a whole, "it was desolate, but there were there many villages and castles." This was not the Nineveh of prophecy; but it too was swept away, and a few coins alone attest the existence of the Roman city. "The city, and even the ruins of the city," relates Gibbon of the last victory of Heraclius, "had long since disappeared; the vacant space afforded a spacious field for the operation of the two armies." A line of lofty mounds, on the East of Tigris, long drew but a momentary gaze from the passers-by; a few cottages surmounted the heaps, which entombed the palaces of kings, who were the terror of the East; the plow turned up, unheeded, the bricks, which recorded their deeds; the tide of war swept over it anew; the summer's sands again filled up "the stupendous mass of brick-work, occasionally laid bare by the winter rains." The eyes rested on nothing but "the stern shapeless mound, rising like a hill from the scorched plain." : "The traveler is at a loss to give any form to the rude heaps, upon which he is gazing. Those of whose works they are the remains, unlike the Roman and the Greek, have left no visible traces of their civilization or of their arts; their influence has long since passed away. The scene around him is worthy of the ruin he is contemplating; desolation meets desolation; a feeling of awe succeeds to wonder, for there is nothing to relieve the mind, to lead to hope, or to tell of what has gone by. Those huge mounds of Assyria made a deeper impression upon me, gave rise to more serious thoughts and more earnest reflection, than the temples of Baalbee and the theaters of Ionia."
In 1827, Buckingham still wrote : "we came in about an hour to the principal mounds which are thought to mark the site of the ancient Nineveh. There are four of these mounds, disposed in the form of a square; and these, as they shew neither bricks, stones, nor other materials of building, but are in many places overgrown with grass, resemble the mounds left by entrenchments and fortifications of ancient Roman camps. The longest of these mounds runs nearly N. and S. and consists of several ridges of unequal height, the whole appearing to extend for four or five miles in length. There are three other distinct mounds, which are all near to the river, and in the direction of East and West - there are appearances of mounds and ruins extending for several miles to the southward; and still more distinctly seen to the Northward of this, though both are less marked than the mounds of the center.
The space between these is a level plain, over every part of the face of which, broken pottery, and the other usual debris of ruined cities are seen scattered about." "Mounds and smaller heaps of ruins were scattered widely over the plain, sufficient to prove, that the site of the original city occupied a vast extent." Niebuhr had ridden through Nineveh unknowingly. : "I did not learn that I was at so remarkable a spot, until near the river. Then they showed me a village on a great hill, which they call Nunia, and a mosque, in which the prophet Jonah was buried. Another hill in this district is called Kalla Nunia, or the Castle of Nineveh. On that lies a village Koindsjug. At Mosul, where I dwelt close by the Tigris, they strawed me in addition the walls of Nineveh, which in my journey through I had not observed, but supposed to be a set of hills." "It is well-known," begins an account of the recent discoveries , "that in the neighborhood of Mosul, travelers had observed some remarkable mounds, resembling small bills, and that Mr. Rich had, thirty years ago, called attention to one called Koyunjik, in which fragments of sculpture and pottery had been frequently discovered."
And yet, humanly speaking, even if destroyed, it was probable before hand, that it would not altogether perish. For a town near its site was needed for purposes of commerce. Of the two routes of commerce from the Persian gulf to the North by the Euphrates or by the Tigris, the Tigris-route was free from the perils of the arid wilderness, through which the line by the Euphrates passed. If, for the downward course, the Euphrates itself was navigable, yet the desert presented a difficulty for caravans returning upward from the Persian gulf. Arrian, who mentions the two lines of travel, says that Alexander , having crossed the Euphrates at Thapsacus, chose the less direct line by the Tigris, as having a better supply of all things, food for his cavalry, and a less scorching heat.
The mention of Haran (afterward Carrhae) Canneh, and Asshur in Ezekiel, (in one verse ) seems to indicate the continuation of the same line of commerce with Tyre, which must have existed from praehistoric times (i. e., from times of which we have no definite historic account), since there is no ground to question the statement of the Phoenicians themselves in Herodotus, that they had come from the Erythraean sea , i. e., the Persian gulf. The later hindrances to the navigation of the Tigris by the great dams (probably for irrigation), were of Persian date; but they could have had no great effect on the actual commerce; since for the greater part of the upward course on the Tigris line, this also must, on account of the rapidity of the river, have been by caravans.
The route was still used in the middle ages . : "The ancient road and the modern one on the upper Tigris follow, pretty nearly throughout, the same line, it being determined by the physical necessities of the soil." In the 16th century , "from the head of the Persian gulf two commercial lines existed: by one of them goods were carried some way up the Euphrates, and then by land to Bir, Aleppo, Iskonderun. By the other they followed the Tigris to Baghdad and were carried by Diyar-Bekr and Sires to Terabuzum." (But Mosul was necessarily on the way from Baghdad to Diyar Bekr). Mosul still lies on the line of commerce, from the Persian gulf, Basrah, Baghdad, Mosul, Mardin, Diyar-Bekr to Iskenderun, the port of Aleppo , or Trebizond (Tarabuzum ).
It still carries on some commerce with Kurdistan and other provinces (beside Diyar-Bekr and Baghdad). Col. Chesney, in 1850, advocated the advantages of extending the line of commerce by British stations at Diyar-Bekr and Mardin, in addition to and connection with those already existing at Baghdad and Mosul . There is, in fact, a consent as to this. Layard writes : "The only impediment between the Syrian coast and the Tigris and Euphrates in any part of their course, arises from the want of proper security. The navigation of the Persian gulf is, at all times, open and safe; and a glance at the map will shew that a line through the Mediterranean, the port of Suedia, Aleppo, Mosul, Baghdad, Busrah, and the Indian Ocean to Bombay is as direct as can well be desired.
With those prospects, and with the incalculable advantages, which a flourishing commerce and a safe and speedy transit through, perhaps, the richest portions of its dominions would confer upon the Turkish empire, it would seem that more than Eastern apathy is shown in not taking some steps, tending to restore security to the country watered by the Tigris and Euphrates." Ainsworth suggests a still wider commerce, of which Mosul might be the center. : "With a tranquil state of the surrounding country, Mosul presents mercantile advantages of no common order. There are several roads open to Persia, across the mountains; a transit from five to seven days, and by which, considering the short distance and good roads from Mosul to Iskenderun, British manufactures might be distributed into the heart of Persia, in a time and at an expense, which the line of Trebizond Erzrum and Tabriz, that of Bushire and Baghdad, or the Russian line of Astrakhan Bakhu and Mazenderan can never rival."
But although marked out by these advantages for continuance, even when its power was gone, Nineveh was to perish and it perished. Nor ought it to be alleged, that in other cases too, "if the position of the old capital was deemed, from political or commercial reasons more advantageous than any other, the population was settled in its neighborhood, as at Delhi, not amidst its ruins." For
1) there was, at the time of Nahum, no experience of the destruction of any such great city as Nineveh;
2) In the case of conquest, the capitol of the conquering empire became, ipso facto, the capital of the whole; but this did not, in itself, involve the destruction of the former.
Babylon, from having been the winter residence of Cyrus, became the chief residence of the Persian Emperor at the time of Alexander, and continued to exist for many centuries, oiler the foundation of Seleucia, although it ceased to be a great city . And this, notwithstanding its two rebellions under Darius , and that under Xerxes . There was no ground of human policy against Nineveh's continuing, such as Mosul became, anymore than Mosul itself. It existed for some time, as a Christian See.
The grandeur, energy, power, vividness of Nahum, naturally can be fully felt only in his own language. The force of his brief prophecy is much increased by its unity. Nahum had one sentence to pronounce, the judgments of God upon the power of this world, which had sought to annihilate the kingdom of God. God, in His then kingdom in Judah, and the world, were come face to face. What was to be the issue? The entire final utter overthrow of whatever opposed God. Nahum opens then with the calm majestic declaration of the majesty of God; Who God is, against whom they rebelled; the madness of their rebellion, and the extinction of its chief Nah 1:1-15; then in detail, what was to come long after that first overthrow, the siege and capture of Nineveh itself Nah 2:1-13; then, in wider compass, the overthrow of the whole power Nahum 3. It was to be the first instance, in the history of mankind, of a power so great, perishing and forever. Nahum's office was not, as Jonah's, to the people itself. There is then no call to repentance, no gleam of God's mercy toward them in this life. Nineveh was to perish wholly, as the habitable world had perished in the time of Noah. The only relief is in the cessation of so much violence. There is no human joy expressed at this destruction of the enemy of God and of His people; no sorrow, save that there can be no sorrow; "who will bemoan her? whence shall I find comforters for her?" Nah 3:7.
In conformity with this concentration of Nahum's subject, there is little in outward style or language to connect him with the other prophets. His opening (as already observed ) bears upon God's declarations of mercy and judgment; but, Nineveh having filled up the measure of its iniquites, he had to exhibit the dark side of those declarations; how much lay in those words, "that will by no means clear the guilty." : "Jonah and Nahum form connected parts of one moral history, the remission of God's judgment being illustrated in the one, the execution of it in the other: the clemency and the just severity of the divine government being contained in the mixed delineation of the two books." His evangelic character just gleams through, in the eight tender words, in which he seems to take breath, as it were; "Tob Yhvh lemaoz beyomtsarah, veyodeah chose bo," "Good is God (Yhvh), refuge in day of trouble, and knowing trusters in Him" Nah 1:7; then again, in the few words, which I think Isaiah expanded, "Lo on the mountains the feet of a good-tidings-bearer, peace-proclaimer" Nah 2:1. Else there is only the mingled tenderness and austereness of truth, which would sympathize with the human being, but that that object had, by putting off all humanity, alienated all which is man. "Who will bemoan her? Whence shall I seek comforters for thee?" Who? and Whence? None had escaped evil from her. "Upon whom hath not thy wickedness passed continually?"
It is difficult for us, who have to gather up our knowledge of the sacred language from the fragments which remain, in which also the number of words forms and idioms, which stand out singly here and there, seem but so many specimens of lest treasure, to judge with any certainty, whether any approximation of idiom, which we may observe, implies any connection between the writers in whom it occurs. Nahum has, especially in his picture of the capture of Nineveh, so many of those hapax legomena, consisting often of slight modifications, his language is so rich and so original, that one the more doubts whether in those idioms, in which he seems to approximate to other prophets, the expressions in common do not belong to the common stock of the language; and that the more, since mostly part of the idiom only coincides, the rest is different. As for the so-called Aramaisms or other peculiarities of language which Hitzig would have to be evidences of a later date, and from some of which others would infer that Nahum lived at Nineveh itself, "the wish has been father to the thought."
One only solid ground there would be why Nahum should not have written his prophecy, when, according to all history, it could alone have any interest for Judah, long before the event itself, namely, if He to whom all, past and future, are present, could not or did not declare beforehand things to come . If there be prophecy, the siege of Nineveh might be as vividly presented to the prophet's mind, as if he saw it with his bodily eyes . Next: Nahum Chapter 1

Habakkuk

tHab 3:14Thou didst strike through with his staves the head of his villages - The destruction comes not upon himself only, but upon the whole multitude of his subjects; and this not by any mere act of divine might, but "with his own staves," turning upon him the destruction which he prepared for others. So it often was of old. When the Midianites and Amalekites and the children of the east Jdg 6:3-4 wasted Israel in the days of Gideon "the Lord set every man's sword against his fellow, even throughout all the host" Jdg 7:22; and when God delivered the Philistines into the hand of Jonathan Sa1 14:12, Sa1 14:16, Sa1 14:20 so it was with "Ammon Moab and the inhabitants of Mount Seir," at the prayer of Jehoshaphat and his army Ch2 20:22-23. And so it shall be, God says, at the end, of the army of God; "every man's sword shall be against his brother," Eze 38:21. and Isaiah says, Isa 9:20, "every man shall eat the flesh of his own arm," and Zechariah Zac 14:13, "a great tumult from the Lord shall be among them; and they shall lay every man hold on the hand of his neighbor, and his hand shall rise up against the hand of his neighbor."
So Pharaoh drove Israel to the shore of the sea, in which he himself perished; Daniel's accusers perished in the den of lions, from which Daniel was delivered unharmed; Dan 6:24. and so Haman was hanged on the gallows which he prepared for Mordecai Est 7:10. So it became a saying of Psalmists (Psa 7:5, add Psa 9:15; Psa 10:2; Psa 35:8; Psa 57:6; Psa 94:23; Psa 141:10; Pro 5:22; Pro 26:27; Ecc 10:8.) "He made a pit and digged it, and is fallen into the ditch which he made; his mischief shall return upon his own head, and his violent dealing shall come down upon his own pate:" and this from above, sent down by God. The pagan too observed that there was "no juster law than that artificers of death by their own art should perish." This too befell him, when he seemed to have all but gained his end. "They came (out) as a whirlwind to scatter me," with whirlwind force, to drive them asunder to all the quarters of the heavens, as the wind scatters the particles of Job 37:11. cloud, or (Jer 13:24, add Jer 18:17; Isa 41:16, Delitzsch) "as the stubble which passeth away by the wind of the wilderness." Pharaoh at the Red Sea or Sennacherib, sweep all before them. Pharaoh said Exo 15:9. "I will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the spoil; my lust shall be satisfied upon them; I will draw my sword, my hand shall destroy them."
Their rejoicing - It is no longer one enemy. The malice of the members was concentrated in the head; the hatred concentrated in him was diffused in them. The readiness of instruments of evil to fulfill evil is an incentive to those who conceive it; those who seem to ride the wave are but carried on upon the crest of the surge which they first roused. They cannot check themselves or it. So the ambitious conceiver of mischief has his own guilt; the willing instruments of evil have theirs. Neither could be fully evil without the other. Sennacherib had been nothing without those fierce warriors who are pictured on the monuments, with individual fierceness fulfilling his will, nor the Huns without Attila, or Attila without his hordes whose tempers he embodied. Satan would be powerless but for the willing instruments whom he uses. So then Holy Scripture sometimes passes from the mention of the evil multitude to that of the one head, on earth or in hell, who impels them; or from the one evil head who has his own special responsibility in originating it, to the evil multitude, whose responsibility and guilt lies in fomenting the evil which they execute.
Their rejoicing - He does not say simply "they rejoice to," but herein is their exceeding, exulting joy. The wise of this earth glories in his wisdom, the mighty man in his might, the rich in his riches: the truly wise, that he understandeth and knoweth God. But as for these, their exultation is concentrated in this, savagery; in this is their jubilation; this is their passion. Psalmists and pious people use the word to express their exulting joy in God: people must have an object for their empassioned souls; and these, in cruelty.
As it were to devour the poor secretly - From the general he descends again to the individual, but so as now to set forth the guilt of each individual in that stormy multitude which is, as it were, one in its evil unity, when each merges his responsibility, as it were, in that of the body, the horde or the mob, in which he acts. Their exultation, he says, is that of the individual robber trod murderer, who lies wait secretly in his ambush, to spring on the defenseless wanderer, to slay him and devour his substance. Premeditation, passion, lust of cruelty, cowardice, murderousness, habitual individual savagery and treachery, and that to the innocent and defenseless, are all concentrated in the words, "their exultation is, as it were, to devour the poor secretly," i. e. "in their secret haunt."
Pharaoh had triumphed over Israel. "They are entangled in the land, the wilderness hath shut them in" Exo 14:3. He rejoiceth in having them wholly in his power, as a lion has his prey in his lair, in secret, unknown to the Eyes of God whom he regarded not, with none to behold, none to deliver. Dion.: "They gloried in oppressing the people of Israel, even as the cruel man glories in secretly rending and afflicting the needy, when without fear they do this cruelty, nor heed God beholding all as Judge. The invisible enemies too rejoice very greatly in the ruin of our souls "Lest mine enemy say, I have prevailed against him: for if I be cast down, they that trouble me will rejoice at it Psa 13:4. "O Lord and governor of all my life, leave me not to their counsels and let me not fall by them" (Ecclesiasticus 23:1). Yet God left them not in his hands; but even "brake the head of Leviathan in pieces." Habakkuk 3:15

Zephaniah

tZeph 2:5The "woe" having been pronounced on the five cities apart, now falls upon the whole nation of the Cherethites or Philistines. The Cherethites are only named as equivalent to the Philistines, probably as originally a distinct immigration of the same people . The name is used by the Egyptian slave of the Amalekite Sa1 30:14 for those whom the author of the first book of Samuel calls Philistines Sa1 30:16. Ezekiel uses the name parallel with that of "Philistines," with reference to the destruction which God would bring upon them .
The word of the Lord - Comes not to them, but "upon" them, overwhelming them. To them He speaketh not in good, but in evil; not in grace, but in anger; not in mercy, but in vengeance. Philistia was the first enemy of the Church. It showed its enmity to Abraham and Isaac and would fain that they should not sojourn among them Gen 21:34; Gen 26:14-15, Gen 26:28. They were the hindrance that Israel should not go straight to the promised land Exo 13:17. When Israel passed the Red Sea Exo 15:14, "sorrow" took hold of them." They were close to salvation in body, but far in mind. They are called "Canaan," as being a chief nation of it Gen 15:21, and in that name lay the original source of their destruction. They inherited the sins of Canaan and with them his curse, preferring the restless beating of the barren, bitter sea on which they dwelt, "the waves of this troublesome world," to being a part of the true Canaan. They would absorb the Church into the world, and master it, subduing it to the pagan Canaan, not subdue themselves to it, and become part of the heavenly Canaan. Zephaniah 2:6

Zephaniah

tZeph 2:8I - Dionysius: "God, Who know all things, "I heard" that is, have known within Me, in My mind, not anew but from eternity, and now I shew in effect that I know it; wherefore I say that I hear, because I act after the manner of one who perceiveth something anew." I, the just Judge, heard (see Isa 16:6; Jer 48:39; Eze 35:12-13). He was present and "heard," even when, because He avenged not, He seemed not to hear, but laid it up in store with Him to avenge in the due time Deu 32:34-35.
The reproach of Moab and the reviling of the children of Ammon, whereby they have reproached My people - Both words, "reproached, reviled," mean, primarily, cutting speeches; both are intensive, and are used of blaspheming God as unable to help His people, or reviling His people as forsaken by Him. If directed against man, they are directed against God through man. So David interpreted the taunt of Goliah, "reviled the armies of the living God" (Sa1 17:26, Sa1 17:36, Sa1 17:45, coll. 10. 25), and the Philistine cursed David "by his gods" Sa1 17:43. In a Psalm David complains, "the reproaches of them that reproached Thee are fallen upon me" (Psa 69:10 (9)); and a Psalm which cannot be later than David, since it declares the national innocency from idolatry, connects with their defeats, the voice of him "that reproacheth and blasphemeth" (Psa 44:16 (17), joining the two words used here). The sons of Corah say, "with a sword in my bones, mine enemies reproach me, while they say daily unto me, where is thy God?" Psa 42:10. So Asaph, "The enemy hath reproached, the foolish people hath blasphemed Thy Name" Psa 74:10, Psa 74:18; and, "we are become a reproach to our neighbors. Wherefore should the pagan say, where is their God? render unto our neighbors - the reproach wherewith they have reproached Thee, O Lord" Psa 79:4, Psa 79:10, Psa 79:12. And Ethan, "Remember, Lord, the reproach of Thy servants - wherewith Thine enemies have reproached, O Lord, wherewith they have reproached the footsteps of Thine Anointed" Psa 89:50-51.
In history the repeated blasphemies of Sennacherib and his messengers are expressed by the same words. In earlier times the remarkable concession of Jephthah, "Wilt not thou possess what Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess? so whomsoever the Lord our God shall drive out before us, them will we possess" Jdg 11:24, implies that the Ammonites claimed their land as the gift of their god Chemosh, and that that war was, as that later by Sennacherib, waged in the name of the false god against the True.
The relations of Israel to Moab and Ammon have been so habitually misrepresented, that a review of those relations throughout their whole history may correct some wrong impressions. The first relations of Israel toward them were even tender. God reminded His people of their common relationship and forbade him even to take the straight road to his own future possessions, across their hand against their will. "Distress them not, nor contend with them," it is said of each, "for I will not give thee of their land for a possession, for I have given it unto the children of Lot for a possession" Deu 2:9, Deu 2:19. Idolaters and hostile as they were, yet, for their father's sake, their title to their land had the same sacred sanction, as Israel's to his. "I," God says, "have given it to them as a possession." Israel, to their own manifest inconvenience, "went along through the wilderness, and compassed the land of Edom, and the land of Moab, but came not within the border of Moab" Jdg 11:18. By destroying Sihon king of the Amorites and Og king of Bashan, Israel removed formidable enemies, who had driven Moab and Ammon out of a portion of the land which they had conquered from the Zamzummim and Anakim Deu 2:10, Deu 2:20-21, and who threatened the remainder, "Israel dwelt in all the cities of the Amorites" Num 21:25, Num 21:31.
Heshbon, Dibon, Jahaz, Medeba, Nophah "were cities in the land of the Amorites, in" which "Israel dwelt." The exclusion of Moab and Ammon from the congregation of the Lord to the tenth generation Deu 23:3 was not, of course, from any national antipathy, but intended to prevent a debasing intercourse; a necessary precaution against the sensuousness of their idolatries. Moab was the first in adopting the satanic policy of Balaam, to seduce Israel by sensuality to their idolatries; but the punishment was appointed to the partners of their guilt, the Midianites Num 25:17; 31, not to Moab. Yet Moab was the second nation, whose ambition God overruled to chasten His people's idolatries. Eglon, king of Moab, united with himself Ammon and Amalek against Israel. The object of the invasion was, not the recovery of the country which Moab had lost to the Amorites but, Palestine proper.
The strength of Moab was apparently not sufficient to occupy the territory of Reuben. They took possession only of "the city of palm trees" Jdg 3:13; either the ruins of Jericho or a spot close by it; with the view apparently of receiving reinforcements or of securing their own retreat by the ford. This garrison enabled them to carry their forays over Israel, and to hold it enslaved for 18 years. The oppressiveness of this slavery is implied by the cry and conversion of Israel to the Lord, which was always in great distress. The memory of Eglon, as one of the oppressors of Israel, lived in the minds of the people in the days of Samuel Sa1 12:9. In the end, this precaution of Moab turned to its own destruction, for, after Eglon was slain, Ephraim, under Ehud, took the fords, and the whole garrison, 10,000 of Moab's warriors, "every strong man and every man of might" Jdg 3:29, were intercepted in their retreat and perished. For a long time after this, we hear of no fresh invasion by Moab. The trans-Jordanic tribes remained in unquestioned possession of their land for 300 years Judg. 40:26, when Ammon, not Moab, raised the claim, "Israel took away my land" Jdg 11:13, although claiming the land down to the Arnon, and already being in possession of the southernmost portion of that land, Aroer, since Israel smote him "from Aroer unto Minnith" Jdg 11:33. The land then, according to a law recognized by nations, belonged by a twofold right to Israel;
(1) that it had been won, not from Moab, but from the conquerors of Moab, the right of Moab having passed to its conquerors ;
(2) that undisputed and unbroken possession "for time immemorial" as we say, 300 years, ought not to be disputed .
The defeat by Jephthah stilled them for near 50 years until the beginning of Saul's reign, when they refused the offer of the "men of Jubesh-Gilead" to serve them, and, with a mixture of insolence and savagery, annexed as a condition of accepting that entire submission, "that I may thrust out all your right eyes, to lay it as a reproach to Israel" Sa1 11:1-2. The signal victory of Saul Sa1 11:11 still did not prevent Ammon, as well as Moab, from being among the enemies whom Saul "worsted" . The term "enemies" implies that "they" were the assailants. The history of Naomi shows their prosperous condition, that the famine, which desolated Judah Rut 1:1, did not reach them, and that they were a prosperous land, at peace, at that time, with Israel. If all the links of the genealogy are preserved Rut 4:21-22, Jesse, David's father, was grandson of a Moabitess, Ruth, and perhaps on this ground David entrusted his parents to the care of the king of Moab Sa1 22:3-4.
Sacred history gives no hint, what was the cause of his terrible execution upon Moab. But a Psalm of David speaks to God of some blow, under which Israel had reeled. "O God, Thou hast abhorred us, and broken us in pieces; Thou hast been wroth: Thou hast made the land to tremble and cloven it asunder; heal its breaches, for it shaketh; Thou hast showed Thy people a hard thing, Thou hast made it drink wine of reeling" Psa 60:3-5; and thereon David expresses his confidence that God would humble Moab, Edom, Philistia. While David then was engaged in the war with the Syrians of Mesopotamia and Zobah (Psa 60:1-12 title), Moab must have combined with Edom in an aggressive war against Israel. "The valley of salt" , where Joab returned and defeated them, was probably within Judah, since "the city of salt" Jos 15:62 was one of the six cities of the wilderness. Since they had defeated Judah, they must have been overtaken there on their return .
Yet this too was a religious war. "'Thou,'" David says "hast given a 'banner to them that fear Thee,' to be raised aloft because of the truth" Psa 60:4.
There is no tradition, that the kindred Psalm of the sons of Corah, Ps. 44 belongs to the same time. Yet the protestations to God of the entire absence of idolatry could not have been made at any time later than the early years of Solomon. Even were there Maccabee Psalms, the Maccabees were but a handful among apostates. They could not have pleaded the national freedom from unfaithfulness to God, nor, except in two subordinate and self-willed expeditions (1 Macc. 5:56-60, 67), were they defeated. Under the Persian rule, there were no armies nor wars; no immunity from idolatry in the later history of Judah. Judah did not in Hezekiah's time go out against Assyria; the one battle, in which Josiah was slain, ended the resistance to Egypt. Defeat was, at the date of this Psalm, new and surprising, in contrast with God's deliverances of old Psa 44:1-3; yet the inroad, by which they had suffered, was one of spoiling Psa 44:10, Psa 44:12, not of subdual. Yet this too was a religious war, from their neighbors. They were slain for the sake of God Psa 44:22, they were covered with shame on account of the reproaches and blasphemies Psa 44:13-14 of those who triumphed over God, as powerless to help; they were a scorn and derision to the petty nations around them. It is a Psalm of unshaken faith amid great prostration: it describes in detail what the lxth Psalm sums up in single heavy words of imagery; but both alike complain to God of what His people had to suffer for His sake.
The insolence of Ammon in answer to David's message of kindness to their new king, like that to the men of Jabesh Gilead, seems like a deliberate purpose to create hostilities. The relations of the previous king of Ammon to David, had been kind Sa2 10:2-3, perhaps, because David being a fugitive from Israel, they supposed him to be Saul's enemy. The enmity originated, not with the new king, but with "the princes of the children of Ammon" Sa2 10:3. David's treatment of these nations Sa2 8:2; Sa2 12:31 is so unlike his treatment of any others whom he defeated, that it implies an internecine warfare, in which the safety of Israel could only be secured by the destruction of its assailants.
Mesha king of Moab records one war, and alludes to others, not mentioned in Holy Scripture. He says, that before his own time, "Omri, king of Israel, afflicted Moab many days;" that "his son (Ahab) succeeded him, and he too said, 'I will afflict Moab.'" This affliction he explains to be that "Omri possessed himself of the land of Medeba" (expelling, it is implied, its former occupiers) "and that" (apparently, Israel) , "dwelt therein," "(in his days and in) the days of his son forty years." He was also in possession of Nebo, and "the king of Israel" (apparently Omri,) "buil(t) Jahaz and dwelt in it, when he made war with me" . Jahaz was near Dibon. In the time of Eusebius, it was still "pointed out between Dibon and Medeba" .
Mesha says, "And I took it to annex it to Dibon." It could not, according to Mesha also, have been south of the Arnon, since Aroer lay between Dibon and the Arnon, and Mesha would not have annexed to Dibon a town beyond the deep and difficult ravine of the Arnon, with Aroer lying between them. It was certainly north of the Arnon, since Israel was not permitted to come within the border of Moab, but it was at Jahaz that Sihon met them and fought the battle in which Israel defeated him and gained possession of his land, "from the Arnon to the Jabbok" Num 21:23-25. It is said also that "Israel dwelt in the land of the Amorites from Aroer which is on the edge of the river Arnon" , and the city which is in the river unto Gilead Jos 13:16, Jos 13:18. Aroer on the edge of the river Arnon, and the city which is in the river" Arnon, again occur in describing the southern border of Reuben, among whose towns Jahaz is mentioned, with Beth-Baal-Meon and Kiriathaim, which have been identified.
The afflicting then of Moab by Omri, according to Mesha, consisted in this, that he recovered to Israel a portion of the allotment of Reuben, between 9 and 10 hours in length from north to south, of which, in the time of Israel's weakness through the civil wars which followed on Jeroboam's revolt, Moab must have dispossessed Reuben. Reuben had remained in undisturbed possession of it, from the first expulsion of the Amorites to the time at least of Rehoboam, about five hundred years. : "The men of Gad" still "dwelt in Ataroth," Mesha says, "from time immemorial."
The picture, which Mesha gives, is of a desolation of the southern portion of Reuben. For, "I rebuilt," he says, "Baal-Meon, Kiriathaim, Aroer, Beth-bamoth, Bezer, Beth-Diblathaim, Beth-baal-Meon." Of Beth-Bamoth, and probably of Bezer, Mesha says, that they had previously been destroyed . But Reuben would not, of course, destroy his own cities. They must then have been destroyed either by Mesha's father, who reigned before him, when invading Reuben, or by Omri, when driving back Moab into his own land, and expelling him from these cities. "Possibly" they were dismantled only, since Mesha speaks only of Omri's occupying Medeba, Ataroth, and Jahaz. He held these three cities only, leaving the rest dismantled, or dismantling them, unable to place defenders in them, and unwilling to leave them as places of aggression for Moab. But whether they ever were fortified towns at all, or how they were desolated, is mere conjecture. Only they were desolated in these wars.
But it appears from Mesha's own statement, that neither Omri nor Ahab invaded Moab proper. For in speaking of his successful war and its results, he mentions no town south of the Arnon. He must have been a tributary king, but not a foot of his land was taken. The subsequent war was not a mere revolt, nor was it a mere refusal to pay tribute, of which Mesha makes no complaint. Nor could the tribute have been oppressive to him, since the spoils, left in the encampment of Moab and his allies shortly after his revolt, is evidence of such great wealth. The refusal to pay tribute would have involved nothing further, unless Ahaziah had attempted to enforce it, as Hezekiah refused the tribute to Assyria, but remained in his own borders. But Ahaziah, unlike his brother Jehoram who succeeded him, seems to have undertaken nothing, except the building of some ships for trade Ch2 20:35-36. Mesha's war was a renewal of the aggression on Reuben.
Heshbon is not mentioned, and therefore must, even after the war, have remained with Reuben.
Mesha's own war was an exterminating war, as far as he records it. "I fought against the city," (Ataroth), he says, "and took it, and killed all the mighty of the city for the well-pleasing of Chemosh and of Moab;" "I fought against it (Nebo) from break of day until norm and took it, and slew all of it, 7,000 men; the ladies and maidens I devoted to Ashtar Chemosh;" to be desecrated to the degradations of that sensual idolatry. The words too "Israel perished with an everlasting destruction" stand clear, whether they express Mesha's conviction of the past or his hope of the future.
The war also, on the part of Moab, was a war of his idol Chemosh against God. Chemosh, from first to last, is the agent. "Chemosh was angry with his land;" "Chemosh (was pleased) with it in my days;" "I killed the mighty for the well-pleasing of Chemosh;" "I took captive thence all ( ...)and dragged it along before Chemosh at Kiriath;" "Chemosh said to me, Go and take Nebo against Israel;" "I devoted the ladies and maidens to Ashtar-Chemosh;" "I took thence the vessels of ihvh and dragged them before Chemosh;" "Chemosh drove him (the king of Israel) out before (my face);" "Chemosh said to me, Go down against Horonaim." "Chemosh ( ...)it in my days."
Contemporary with this aggressive war against Israel must have been the invasion by "the children of Moab and the children of Ammon, the great multitude from beyond the sea, from Syria" Ch2 20:1-2, in the reign of Jehoshaphat, which brought such terror upon Judah. It preceded the invasion of Moab by Jehoshaphat in union with Jehoram and the king of Edom. For the invasion of Judah by Moab and Ammon took place, while Ahab's son, Ahaziah, was still living. For it was after this, that Jehoshaphat joined with Ahaziah in making ships to go to Tarshish . But the expedition against Moab was in union with Jehoram who succeeded Ahaziah. The abundance of wealth which the invaders of Judah brought with them, and the precious jewels with which they had adorned themselves, show that this was no mere marauding expedition, to spoil; but that its object was, to take possession of the land or at least of some portion of it.
They came by entire surprise on Jehoshaphat, who heard of them first when they were at Hazazon-Tamar or Engedi, some 36 12 miles from Jerusalem . He felt himself entirely unequal to meet them, and cast himself upon God. There was a day of public humiliation of Judah at Jerusalem. "Out of all the cities of Judah they came to seek the Lord" Ch2 20:4. Jehoshaphat, in his public prayer, owned, "we have no might against this great company which cometh against us; neither know we what to do; but our eyes are upon Thee" Ch2 20:13. He appeals to God, that He had forbidden Israel to invade Ammon, Moab, and Mount Seir, so that they turned away from them and destroyed them not; and now these rewarded them by "coming to cast us out of Thy possession which Thou hast given us to inherit" Ch2 20:10. One of the sons of Asaph foretold to the congregation, that they might go out fearlessly, for they should not have occasion to fight.
A Psalm, ascribed to Asaph, records a great invasion, the object of which was the extermination of Israel. "They have said; Come and let us cut them off from" being "a nation, that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance" Psa 83:4. It had been a secret confederacy. "They have taken crafty counsel against Thy people" Psa 83:3. It was directed against God Himself, that is, His worship and worshipers. "For they have taken counsel in heart together; against Thee do they make a covenant" Psa 83:5. It was a combination of the surrounding petty nations; Tyre on the north, the Philistines on the west; on the south the Amalekites, Ishmaelites, Hagarenes; eastward, Edom, Gebal, Moab, Ammon. But its most characteristic feature was, that Assur (this corresponds with no period after Jehoshaphat) occupies a subordinate place to Edom and Moab, putting them forward and helping "them." "Assur also," Asaph says, "is joined with them; they have become an arm to the children of Lot" Psa 83:8. This agrees with the description, "there is come against thee a great multitude from beyond the sea, from Syria."
Scripture does not record, on what ground the invasion of Moab by Jehoram and Jehoshaphat, with the tributary king of Edom, was directed against Moab proper; but it was the result doubtless of the double war of Moab against Reuben and against Judah. It was a war, in which the strength of Israel and Moab was put forth to the utmost. Jehoram had mustered all Israel Kg2 3:6; Moab had gathered all who had reached the age of manhood and upward, "everyone who girded on a girdle and upward" Kg2 3:21. The three armies, which had made a seven days' circuit in the wilderness, were on the point of perishing by thirst and falling into the hands of Moab, when Elisha in God's name promised them the supply of their want, and complete victory over Moab. The eager cupidity of Moab, as of many other armies, became the occasion of his complete overthrow. The counsel with which Elisha accompanied his prediction, "ye shall smite every fenced city and every choice city, and every good tree ye shall fell, and all springs of water ye shall stop up, and every good piece of land ye shall waste with stones" Kg2 3:19, was directed, apparently, to dislodge an enemy so inveterate. For water was essential to the fertility of their land and their dwelling there. We hear of no special infliction of death, like what Mesha records of himself. The war was ended by the king of Moab's sacrificing the heir-apparent of the king of Edom , which naturally created great displeasure against Israel, in whose cause Edom thus suffered, so that they departed to their own land and finally revolted.
Their departure apparently broke up the siege of Ar and the expedition. Israel apparently was not strong enough to carry on the war without Edom, or feared to remain with their armies away from their own land, as in the time of David, of which Edom might take the advantage. We know only the result.
Moab probably even extended her border to the south by the conquest of Horonaim .
After this, Moab is mentioned only on occasion of the miracle of the dead man, to whom God gave life, when cast into Elisha's sepulchre, as he came in contact with his bones. Like the Bedouin now, or the Amalekites of old, "the bands of Moab came into the land, as the year came" Kg2 13:20. Plunder, year by year, was the lot of Israel at the hands of Moab.
On the east of Jordan, Israel must have remained in part (as Mesha says of the Gadites of Arocr) in their old border. For after this, Hazael, in Jehu's reign, smote Israel "from Aroer which is by the river Arnon" Kg2 10:33; and at that time probably Amman joined with him in the exterminating war in Gilead, destroying life before it had come into the world, "that they might enlarge their border" . Jeroboam ii, 825 b.c.; restored Israel "to the sea of the plain" 2 Kings 16:25, that is, the dead sea, and, (as seems probable from the limitation of that term in Deuteronomy, 'under Ashdoth-Pisgah eastward,' Deu 3:17) to its northern extremity, lower in latitude than Heshbon, yet above Nebo and Medeba, lcaving accordingly to Moab all which it had gained by Mesha. Uzziah, a few years later, made the Ammonites tributaries Ch2 26:8 810 b.c. But 40 years later 771 b.c., Pul, and, after yet another 30 years, 740, Tiglath-pileser having carried away the trans-Jordanic tribes Ch1 5:26, Moab again possessed itself of the whole territory of Reuben. Probably before.
For 726 b.c., when Isaiah foretold that "the glory of Moab should be contemned with all that great multitude" Isa 16:14, he hears the wailing of Moab throughout all his towns, and names all those which had once been Reuben's and of whose conquest or possession Moab had boasted Isa 15:1-2, Isa 15:4, Nebo, Medeba, Dibon, Jahaz, Baiith; as also those not conquered then Isa 15:4-5, Isa 15:1, Heshbon, Elealeh; and those of Moab proper, Luhith, Horonaim, and its capitals, Ar-Moab and Kir-Moab. He hears their sorrow, sees their desolation and bewails with their weeping Isa 16:9. He had prophesied this before , and now, three years Isa 16:13-14 before its fulfillment by Tiglath-Pileser, he renews it. This tender sorrow for Moab has more the character of an elegy than of a denunciation; so that he could scarcely lament more tenderly the ruin of his own people.
He mentions also distinctly no sin there except pride. The pride of Moab seems something of common notoriety and speech. "We have heard" Isa 16:6. Isaiah accumulates words, to express the haughtiness of Moab; "the pride of Moab; exceeding proud; his pride and his haughtiness and his wrath," pride overpassing bounds, upon others. His words seem to be formed so as to keep this one bared thought before us, as if we were to say "pride, prideful, proudness, pridefulness;" and withal the unsubstantialness of it all, "the unsubstantiality of his lies." Pride is the source of all ambition; so Moab is pictured as retiring within her old bounds, "the fords of Arnon," and thence asking for aid; her petition is met by the counter-petition, that, if she would be protected in the day of trouble, the out-casts of Israel might lodge with her now: "be thou a covert to her from the face of the spoiler" Isa 16:4-5. The prophecy seems to mark itself out as belonging to a time, after the two and a half tribes had been desolated, as stragglers sought refuge in Moab, and when a severe infliction was to come on Moab: "the Isa 16:14 remnant" shall be "small, small not great."
Yet Moab recovered this too. It was a weakening of the nation, not its destruction. Some 126 years after the prophecy of Isaiah, 30 years after the prophecy of Zephaniah, Moab, in the time of Jeremiah, was in entire prosperity, as if no visitation had ever come upon her. What Zephaniah says of the luxuriousness of his people, Jeremiah says of Moab; "Moab is one at ease from his youth; he is resting on his lees; and he hath not been emptied from vessel to vessel, neither hath he gone into captivity" Jer 48:11. They "say, We are mighty and strong men for the war" Jer 48:14. Moab was a "strong staff, a beautiful rod" Jer 48:17; "he magnified himself against the Lord" Jer 48:26; "Israel was a derision to him" Jer 48:27; "he skipped for joy" at his distress. Jeremiah repeats and even strengthens Isaiah's description of his pride; "his pride, proud" Jer 48:29, he repeats, "exceedingly; his loftiness," again "his pride, his arrogancy, and the haughtiness of his heart."
Its "strongholds" Jer 48:18 were unharmed; all its cities, "far and near," are counted one by one, in their prosperity Jer 48:1, Jer 48:3, Jer 48:5, Jer 48:21-24; its summer-fruits and vintage were plenteous; its vines, luxuriant; all was joy and shouting. Whence should this evil come? Yet so it was with Sodom and Gomorrah just before its overthrow. It was, for beauty, "a paradise of God; well-watered everywhere; as the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt" Gen 13:10. In the morning "the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of the furnace" Gen 19:28. The destruction foretold by Jeremiah is far other than the affliction spoken of by Isaiah. Isaiah prophesies only a visitation, which should reduce her people: Jeremiah foretells, as did Zephaniah, captivity and the utter destruction of her cities. The destruction foretold is complete. Not of individual cities only, but of the whole he saith, "Moab is destroyed" Jer 48:4. "The spoiler shall come upon every city, and no city shall escape, and the valley shall perish and the high places shall be destroyed, as the Lord hath spoken" Jer 48:8.
Moab himself was to leave his land. "Flee, save your lives, and ye shall be like the heath in the wilderness. Chemosh shall go forth into captivity; his priests and his princes together. Give pinions unto Moab, that it may flee and get away, and her cities shall be a desolation, for there is none to dwell therein" Jer 17:6. It was not only to go into captivity, but its home was to be destroyed. "I will send to her those who shall upheave her, and they shall upheave her, and her vessels they shall empty, all her flagons" (all that aforetime contained her) "they shall break in pieces" Jer 48:12. Moab is destroyed and her cities" Jer 48:15; "the spoiler of Moab is come upon her; he hath destroyed the strongholds" Jer 48:18. The subsequent history of the Moabites is in the words, "Leave the cities and dwell in the rock, dwellers of Moab, and be like a dove which nesteth in the sides of the mouth of the pit" Jer 48:28. The purpose of Moab and Ammon against Israel which Asaph complains of, and which Mesha probably speaks of, is retorted upon her. "In Heshbon they have devised evil against it; come and let us cut it off from being a nation. Moab shall be destroyed from being a people, because he hath magnified himself against the Lord" Jer 48:2, Jer 48:42.
Whence should this evil come? They had, with the Ammonites, been faithful servants of Nebuchadnezzar against Judah Kg2 24:2. Their concerted conspiracy with Edom, Tyre, Zidon, to which they invited Zedekiah (Jer 27:2 following), was dissolved. Nebuchadnezzars march against Judaea did not touch them, for they "skipped with joy" Jer 48:27 at Israel's distresses. The connection of Baalis, king of the Ammonites, with Ishmael Jer 40:14; Jer 41:10 the assassin of Gedaliah, whom the king of Babylon made governor over the land Kg2 25:22-26; Jer 40:6; Jer 41:1 out of their own people, probably brought down the vengeance of Nebuchadnezzar. For Chaldaeans too were included in the slaughter Jer 41:3. The blow seems to have been aimed at the existence of the people, for the murder of Gedaliah followed upon the rallying of the Jews "out of all the places whither they had been driven" Jer 40:12. It returned on Ammon itself; and on Moab who probably on this, as on former occasions, was associated with it. The two nations, who had escaped at the destruction of Jerusalem, were warred upon and subdued by Nebuchadnezzar in the 23d year of his reign , the 5th after the destruction of Jerusalem.
And then probably followed that complete destruction and disgraced end, in which Isaiah, in a distinct prophecy, sees Moab trodden down by God as "the heap of straw is trodden down in the waters (the kethib) of the dunghill, and he (Moab) stretcheth forth his hands in the midst thereof, as the swimmer stretcheth forth his hands to swim, and He, God, shall bring down his pride with the treacheries of his hands" Isa 25:10-12. It speaks much of the continued hostility of Moab, that, in prophesying the complete deliverance for which Israel waited, the one enemy whose destruction is foretold, is Moab and those pictured by Moab. "We have waited for Him and He will save us - For in this mountain (Zion) shall the hand of the Lord rest, and Moab shall be trodden down under Him" Isa 25:9-10.
After this, Moab, as a nation, disappears from history. Israel, on its return from the captivity, was again enticed into idolatry by Moabite and Anmonite wives, as well as by those of Ashdod and others Neh 13:23-26, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Egyptians, Amorites Ezr 9:1. Sanballat also, who headed the opposition to the rebuilding of Jerusalem, was a Moabite Neh 2:10; Neh 4:1-8; Tobiah, an Ammonite Neh 4:2, Neh 4:9. Yet it went no further than intrigue and the threat of war. They were but individuals, who cherished the old hostility. In the time of the Maccabees, the Ammonites, not Moab, "with a mighty power and much people" were in possession of the Reubenite cities to Jazar (1 Macc. 5:6, 8). It was again an exterminating war, in which the Jews were to be destroyed (1 Macc. 5:9, 10, 27). After repeated defeats by Judas Maccabaeus, the Ammonites "hired the Arabians" (1 Macc. 5:39) (not the Moabites) to help them, and Judas, although victorious, was obliged to remove the whole Israelite population, "all that were in the land of Gilead, from the least unto the greatest, even their wives, and their children, and their stuff, a very great host, to the end they might come into the land of Judaea" (1 Macc. 5:45). The whole population was removed, obviously lest, on the withdrawal of Judas' army, they should be again imperiled. As it was a defensive war against Ammon, there is no mention of any city, south of the Arnon, in Moab's own territory. It was probably with the view to magnify descendants of Lot, that Josephus speaks of the Moabites as being "even yet a very great nation" . Justin's account, that there is "even now a great multitude of Ammonites," does not seem to me to imply a national existence. A later writer says , "not only the Edomites but the Ammonites and Moabites too are included in the one name of Arabians."
Some chief towns of Moab became Roman towns, connected by the Roman road from Damascus to Elath. Ar and Kir-Moab in Moab proper became Areopolis and Charac-Moab, and, as well as Medeba and Heshbon in the country which had been Reuben's, preserve traces of Roman occupancy. As such, they became Christian Sees. The towns, which were not thus revived as Roman, probably perished at once, since they bear no traces of any later building.
The present condition of Moab and Ammon is remarkable in two ways;
(1) for the testimony which it gives of its former extensive population;
(2) for the extent of its present desolation.
"How fearfully," says an accurate and minute observer , "is this residence of old kings and their land wasted!" It gives a vivid idea of the desolation, that distances are marked, not by villages which he passes but by ruins . : "From these ruined places, which lay on our way, one sees how thickly inhabited the district formerly was." Yet the ground remained fruitful.
It was partly abandoned to wild plants, the wormwood and other shrubs ; partly, the artificial irrigation, essential to cultivation in this land, was destroyed ; here and there a patch was cultivated; the rest remained barren, because the crops might become the prey of the spoiler , or the thin population had had no heart to cultivate it.
A list of 33 destroyed places which still retained their names, was given to Seetzen , "of which many were cities in times of old, and beside these, a great number of other wasted villages. One sees from this, that, in the days of old, this land was extremely populated and flourishing, and that destructive wars alone could produce the present desolation." And thereon he adds the names of 40 more ruined places. Others say : "The whole of the fine plains in this quarter" (the south of Moab) "are covered with sites of towns, on every eminence or spot convenient for the construction of one; and as all the land is capable of rich cultivation, there can be no doubt that this country, now so deserted, once presented a continued picture of plenty and fertility." : "Every knoll" (in the highlands of Moab) "is covered with shapeless ruins. - The ruins consist merely of heaps of squared and well-fitting stones, which apparently were erected without mortar." : "One description might serve for all these Moabite ruins. The town seems to have been a system of concentric circles, built round a central fort, and outside the buildings the rings continue as terrace-walks, the gardens of the old city. The terraces are continuous between the twin hillocks and intersect each other at the foot" . Ruined villages and towns, broken walls that once enclosed gardens and vineyards, remains of ancient roads; everything in Moab tells of the immense wealth and population, which that country must have once enjoyed."
The like is observed of Ammon . His was direct hatred of the true religion. It was not mere exultation at the desolation of an envied people. It was hatred of the worship of God. "Thus saith the Lord God; "Because thou saidst, Aha, against My sanctuary, because it was profaned" Eze 25:3; and against the land of Israel, because it was desolated; and against the house of Judah, because they went into captivity." The like temper is shown in the boast, "Because that Moab and Seir do say; Behold the house of Judah is like unto the pagan" Eze 25:8, that is, on a level with them.
Forbearing and long-suffering as Almighty God is, in His infinite mercy, He does not, for that mercy's sake, bear the direct defiance of Himself. He allows His creatures to forget Him, not to despise or defy Him. And on this ground, perhaps, He gives to His prophecies a fulfillment beyond what the letter requires, that they may be a continued witness to Him. The Ammonites, some 1600 years ago, ceased to "be remembered among the nations." But as Nineveh and Babylon, and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, by being what they are, are witnesses to His dealings, so the way in which Moab and Ammon are still kept desolate is a continued picture of that first desolation. Both remain rich, fertile; but the very abundance of their fertility is the cause of their desolation. God said to Ammon, as the retribution on his contumely: "therefore, behold, I give thee to the children of the East for a possession, and they shall set their encampments in thee, and place their dwellings in thee; "they" shall eat thy fruit and "they" shall drink thy milk; and I will make Rabbah a dwelling-place of camels, and the children of Ammon a couchingplace for flocks" Eze 25:4-5.
Of Moab He says also, "I will open the side of Moab from the cities, which are on his frontiers, the glory of the country, unto the men of the East with the Ammonites" Eze 25:8, Eze 25:10. And this is an exact description of the condition of the land at this day. All travelers describe the richness of the soil. We have seen this as to Moab. But the history is one and the same. One of the most fertile regions of the world, full of ruined towns, destitute of villages or fixed habitations, or security of property, its inhabitants ground down by those, who have succeeded the Midianites and the Amalekites, "the children of the East." "Thou canst not find a country like the Belka," says the Arabic proverb , but "the inhabitants cultivate patches only of the best soil in that territory when they have a prospect of being able to secure the harvest against the invasion of enemies." "We passed many ruined cities," said Lord Lindsay , "and the country has once been very populous, but, in 35 miles at least, we did not see a single village; the whole country is one vast pasturage, overspread by the flocks and herds of the Anezee and Beni Hassan Bedouins."
The site of Rabbath Amman was well chosen for strength. Lying "in a long valley" through which a stream passed, "the city of waters" could not easily be taken, flor its inhabitants compelled to surrender from hunger or thirst. Its site, as the eastern bound of Peraea , "the last place where water could be obtained and a frontier fortress against the wild tribes beyond" , marked it for preservation. In Greek times, the disputes for its possession attest the sense of its importance. In Roman, it was one of the chief cities of the Decapolis, though its population was said to be a mixture of Egyptians, Arabians, Phoenicians . The coins of Roman Emperors to the end of the second century contain symbols of plenty, where now reigns utter desolation .
In the 4th century, it and two other now ruined places, Bostra and Gerasa, are named as "most carefully and strongly walled." It was on a line of rich commerce filled with strong places, in sites well selected for repelling the invasions of the neighboring nations . Centuries advanced. It was greatly beautified by its Roman masters. The extent and wealth of the Roman city are attested both by the remains of noble edifices on both sides of the stream, and by pieces of pottery, which are the traces of ancient civilized dwelling, strewed on the earth two miles from the city. : "At this place, Amman, as well as Gerasa and Gamala, three colonial settlements within the compass of a day's journey from one another, there were five magnificent theaters and one ampitheater, besides temples, baths, aqueducts, naumachia, triumphal arches." : "Its theater was the largest in Syria; its colonnade had at least 50 columns." The difference of the architecture shows that its aggrandizement must have been the work of different centuries: its "castle walls are thick, and denote a remote antiquity; large blocks of stone are piled up without cement and still hold together as well as if recently placed." It is very probably the same which Joab called David to take, after the city of waters had been taken; within it are traces of a temple with Corinthian columns, the largest seen there, yet "not of the best Roman times."
Yet Amman, the growth of centuries, at the end of our 6th century was destroyed. For "it was desolate before Islam, a great ruin." : "No where else had we seen the vestiges of public magnificence and wealth in such marked contrast with the relapse into savage desolation." But the site of the old city, so well adapted either for a secure refuge for its inhabitants or for a secure depository for their plunder, was, on that very ground, when desolated of its inhabitants, suited for what God, by Ezekiel, said it would become, a place, where the men of the East should stable their flocks and herds, secure from straying. What a change, that its temples, the center of the worship of its successive idols, or its theaters, its places of luxury or of pomp, should be stables for that drudge of man, the camel, and the stream which gave it the proud title of "city of waters" their drinking trough! And yet of the cities whose destruction is prophesied, this is foretold of Rabbah alone, as in it alone is it fulfilled! "Ammon," says Lord Lindsay , "was situated on both sides of the stream; the dreariness of its present aspect is quite indescribable. It looks like the abode of death; the valley stinks with dead camels; one of them was rotting in the stream; and though we saw none among the ruins, they were absolutely "covered" in every direction with their dung." "Bones and skulls of camels were mouldering there (in the area of the ruined theater) and in the vaulted galleries of this immense structure." "It is now quite deserted, except by the Bedouins, who water their flocks at its little river, descending to it by a "wady," nearly opposite to a theater (in which Dr. Mac Lennan saw great herds and flocks) and by the "akiba."
Re-ascending it, we met sheep and goats by thousands, and camels by hundreds." Another says , "The space intervening between the river and the western hills is entirely covered with the remains of buildings, now only used for shelter for camels and sheep." Buckingham mentions incidentally, that he was prevented from sleeping at night "by the bleating of flocks and the neighing of horses, barking of dogs etc." Another speaks of "a small stone building in the Acropolis now used as a shelter for flocks." While he was "traversing the ruins of the city, the number of goats and sheep, which were driven in among them, was exceedingly annoying, however remarkable, as fulfilling the prophecies" . "Before six tents fed sheep and camels" . "Ezekiel points just to these Eze 20:5, which passage Seetzen cites. And in fact the ruins are still used for such stalls."
The prophecy is the very opposite to that upon Babylon, though both alike are prophecies of desolation. Of Babylon Isaiah prophesies, "It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it bedwelt in from generation to generation; neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there, neither shall the shepherds make fold there, but wild beasts of the desert shall lie there, and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and the ostriches shall dwell there, and the jackals shall cry in their desolate houses, and howling creatures in their pleasant palaces" Isa 13:20. And the ruins are full of wild beasts . Of Rabbah, Ezekiel prophesied that it should be "a possession for the men of the East, and I" Eze 25:4-5, God says, "will make Rabbah a stable for camels, and the Ammonites a couching-place for flocks;" and man's lawlessness fulfills the will and word of God. Zephaniah 2:9

Acts

tActs 4:25Who by the mouth ... - , Psa 2:1-2. This is a strong, solemn testimony to the inspiration of David. It is a declaration of the apostles, made in solemn prayer, that God himself spake by the mouth of David. This is the second part of their prayer. In the first, they acknowledge the right of God to rule; in this, they appeal to a prophecy; they plead that this was a thing foretold; and as God had foreseen it and foretold it, they appealed to him to protect them. The times of tumult and opposition which had been foreseen, as about to attend the introduction of the gospel, had now come. They inferred, therefore, that Jesus was the Messiah; and as God had designed to establish his kingdom, they appealed to him to aid and protect them in this great work. This passage is taken from Psa 2:1-2, and is an exact quotation from the Septuagint. This proves that the Psalm had reference to the Messiah. Thus, it was manifestly understood by the Jews; and the authority of the apostles settles the question. The Psalm was composed by David, but on what occasion is not known; nor is it material to our present purpose. It has been a matter of inquiry whether it referred to the Messiah primarily, or only in a secondary sense. Grotius supposes that it was composed by David when exposed to the hostility of the Assyrians, the Moabites, Philistines, Amalekites, etc.; and that, in the midst of his dangers, he sought consolation in the purpose of God to establish him and his kingdom. But the more probable opinion is, that it referred directly and solely to the Messiah.
Why did the heathen - The nations which were not Jews. This refers, doubtless, to the opposition which would be made to the spread of Christianity, and not merely to the opposition made to the Messiah himself, and to the act of putting him to death.
Rage - This word refers to the excitement and tumult of a multitude; not a settled plan, but rather the heated and disorderly conduct of a mob. It means that the progress of the gospel would encounter tumultuous opposition, and that the excited nations would rush violently to put it down and destroy it.
And the people - The expression "the people" does not refer to a class of people different essentially from the pagan. The "pagan," Hebrew and Greek, "the nations," refer to people as organized into communities; the expression the people is used to denote the same persons without respect to their being so organized. The Hebrews were in the habit, in their poetry, of expressing the same idea essentially in parallel members of a sentence; that is, the last member of a sentence or verse expressed the same idea, with some slight variation, as the former. (See Lowth on the sacred poetry of the Hebrews.)
Imagine - The word "imagine" does not quite express the force of the original. The Hebrew and the Greek both convey the idea of meditating, thinking, purposing. It means that they employed "thought," "plan," "purpose," in opposing the Messiah.
Vain things - The word used here κενά kena is a literal translation of the Hebrew רק rēyq, and means usually "empty," as a vessel. which is not filled; then "useless," or what amounts to nothing, etc. Here it means that they devised a plan which turned out to be vain or ineffectual. They attempted an opposition to the Messiah which could not succeed. God would establish his kingdom in spite of their plans to oppose it. Their efforts were vain because they were not strong enough to oppose God; because he had purposed to establish the kingdom of his Son; and because he could overrule even their opposition to advance his cause. Acts 4:26

Acts

tActs 13:22And when he had removed him - This was done because he rebelled against God in sparing the sheep and oxen and valuable property of Amalek, together with Agag the king, when he was commanded to destroy all, 1 Sam. 15:8-23. He was put to death in a battle with the Philistines, Sa1 31:1-6. The phrase "when he removed him" refers probably to his rejection as a king, and not to his death; for David was anointed king before the death of Saul, and almost immediately after the rejection of Saul on account of his rebellion in the business of Amalek. See Sa1 16:12-13.
He gave testimony - He bore witness, Sa1 13:14.
I have found David ... - This is not quoted literally, but contains the substance of what is expressed in various places. Compare Sa1 13:14, with Psa 89:20, and Sa1 16:1, Sa1 16:12.
A man after mine own heart - This expression is found in Sa1 13:14. The connection shows that it means simply a man who would not be rebellious and disobedient as Saul was, but would do the will of God and keep his commandments. This refers, doubtless, rather to the public than to the private character of David; to his character as a king. It means that he would make the will of God the great rule and law of his reign, in contradistinction from Saul, who, as a king, had disobeyed God. At the same time it is true that the prevailing character of David, as a pious, humble, devoted man, was that he was a man after God's own heart, and was beloved by him as a holy man. He had faults; he committed sin; but who is free from it? He was guilty of great offences; but he also evinced, in a degree equally eminent, repentance (see Ps. 51); and not less in his private than his public character did he evince those traits which were prevailingly such as accorded with the heart, that is, the earnest desires, of God.
Which shall fulfill all my will - Saul had not done it. He had disobeyed God in a case where he had received an express command. The characteristic of David would be that he would obey the commands of God. That David did this - that he maintained the worship of God, opposed idolatry, and sought to promote universal obedience to God among the people is expressly recorded of him, Kg1 14:8-9, "And thou Jeroboam hast not been as my servant David, who kept my commandments, and who followed me with all his heart, to do that only which was right in mine eyes," etc., Kg1 15:3, Kg1 15:5. Acts 13:23

Hebrews

tHeb 11:33Who through faith subdued kingdoms - That is, those specified in the previous verses, and others like them. The meaning is, that some of them subdued kingdoms, others obtained promises, etc. Thus, Joshua subdued the nations of Canaan; Gideon the Midianites; Jephtha the Ammonites; David the Philistines, Amalekites, Jebusites, Edomites, etc.
Wrought righteousness - Carried the laws of justice into execution, particularly on guilty nations. They executed the great purposes of God in punishing the wicked, and in cutting off his foes.
Obtained promises - Or obtained "promised blessings" (Bloomfield, Stuart); that is, they obtained as a result of their faith, promises of blessings on their posterity in future times.
Stopped the mouths of lions - As Samson, Jdg 14:6; David, Sa1 17:34 ff; and particularly Daniel; Dan 6:7, following To be able to subdue and render harmless the king of the forest - the animal most dreaded in early times - was regarded as an eminent achievement. Hebrews 11:34