Great King Jeroboam II missing from Chronicles

 

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

Reading through the accounts of the kings of Israel in Kings and Chronicles,

I was really surprised to find that Jeroboam II does not figure in Chronicles.

 

 

Suspecting (16^th September, 2019), once again, that there may be some degree of duplication amongst the listings of the kings of Israel of the Divided Monarchy period,

and then reading through the accounts of the kings of Israel in Kings and Chronicles, I was really surprised to find that Jeroboam II does not figure at all in Chronicles.

 

That I was not mistaken or deluding myself about this was confirmed when I read introductory parts of Todd Bolen’s thesis (2002):

 

The Reign of Jeroboam II: A Historical and Archaeological Interpretation

 

https://www.academia.edu/1644551/The_Reign_of_Jeroboam_II_A_Historical_and_Archaeological_Interpretation

 

For instance, Todd Bolen commences by writing of the scant treatment of Jeroboam II in the entire Scriptures despite the king’s undoubted importance:

 

It has long been recognized that some of the most defining political and military events received little attention from the theologically-oriented writer of the Scriptures. Jeroboam II was one such king whose importance to Israel’s political history went virtually unnoticed in the biblical record. Though he ruled longer than any other king of the north, the Scriptures accord him one of the briefest treatments of all kings (2 Kings 14:23-29). Much of this record is not unique to Jeroboam, but simply repeats the standard formulaic denunciation of wicked rulers.

 

The most peculiar feature of the biblical record of Jeroboam’s rule is its report of his territorial expansion: “He was the one who restored the boundaries of Israel from Lebo Hamath to the Sea of the Arabah.... He recovered for Israel both Damascus and Hamath, which had belonged to Judah” (2 Kings 14:25, 28). Typical assessments of Jeroboam’s reign extrapolate this note of northern expansion to include unprecedented glory, wealth, and prosperity for the nation of Israel. Conversely, recent attempts have been made to reject all suggestions of material prosperity or territorial expansion under Jeroboam II.

 

This study assesses the rule of Jeroboam II by first considering his historical background. The devastating oppression by the Arameans in the days before Jeroboam came to the throne are the backdrop for the expressions of expansion and wealth. Assyrian campaigns against Damascus reversed the fortunes of the southern Levant at the beginning of the eighth century B.C., and allowed Israel to rebound from a time of territorial oppression and economic poverty. The geographical references are studied in order to best understand the precise extent of Jeroboam’s kingdom to the north, east, and south. The conclusion of this study is that by the latter half of Jeroboam’s reign, Hamath and Damascus were paying regular tribute to Israel, much of Transjordan was under Israelite control, and the nation of Judah was an ally.

 

The archaeological record of the first half of the eighth century reveals a period of renewed construction and some measure of material prosperity. However, the current state of archaeological research does not support the position that Jeroboam’s kingdom was wealthier than the kingdom of Ahab. Analysis of the excavations at Hazor, Tirzah, Dan, Samaria, and Megiddo indicate that Israel at this time experienced a resurgence, and specific material finds at these sites reflect a degree of prosperity that appears limited primarily to the upper class.

The Samaria ostraca attest to an administrative system in Jeroboam’s coregent years whereby governmental officials were given land grants to meet their needs while residing at the king’s table at the capital. An understanding of the society of Jeroboam’s day is completed with a study of Amos’ and Hosea’s records of the Israelites’ religious and social failures.

 

Then Todd Bolen, in his Introduction to Chapter I, will proceed to tell of this startling fact: “Chronicles does not so much as hint of his existence, even in regnal synchronisms”:

 

For slightly over two hundred years, the northern kingdom of Israel survived as a sovereign nation in the tumultuous ancient Near East. Situated amidst larger and stronger powers, Israel was easily affected by the political forces and movements of the empires and powers around her. Within the relatively short span of two hundred years, Israel endured devastating conquest by the Egyptians, exacting tribute payments to the Assyrians, crushing oppression by the Arameans, damning idolatrous influence from the Phoenicians, but rarely satisfying independence.

 

After Jeroboam ben Nebat led the northern tribes away from a united kingdom with Judah, Israel would never again hold the territorial dominion that it enjoyed under David and Solomon, save perhaps one time.

 

Control of the trade routes would often be contested, and Israel would frequently be on the losing end. The history of this nation was not one in which to take great pride; its existence was marked by foreign oppression, dynastic usurpations and rival reigns.

 

The characteristics of Jeroboam II’s rule were not unlike those of his nation; it was not an era of uniform prosperity, peaceful coexistence, or popular satisfaction. His age was one marked by both blessings and curses, rises and falls, successes and failures, prosperity and adversity. The unvaried character sometimes attributed to the first half of the eighth century BC is unfounded. Israelite society reflected a wide range of events, circumstances and feelings, and Jeroboam’s reign was anything but static.

 

The first half of the eighth century was not a replication, however, of any other period of Israel’s existence. No king of Israel ruled longer than Jeroboam II, and no dynasty had as many monarchs sit on the throne as did that of Jeroboam’s forebear, Jehu. Jeroboam’s rule stands in stark contrast to that of his predecessors and successors. The half-century before him witnessed the most violent and trying time of persecution Israel had ever faced. Beaten down so that they were like “dust at threshing time,” the apostate rulers of Israel ultimately sought out even the Lord for salvation (2 Kgs 13:7).

 

The last half of the ninth century was most unlike the period of expansion and economic growth that Jeroboam fostered, and the stability that he established would be unknown after his death. In the period following Jeroboam, a duration shorter than Jeroboam’s reign, the country would have six rulers, four of them dying violent deaths. In fact, the Israelite nation under Jeroboam experienced an age that was unique - both in strength and stability.

 

Without the brief record in the Book of Kings and cursory mentions in two prophetic works, the name of this man would not be preserved (2 Kgs 14:23-15:8; Amos 1:1; 7:9-11; Hos 1:1).

 

Even the parallel account of the history of the Divided Monarchy neglects to mention Jeroboam, even in passing.

 

A replica of the Megiddo Seal of Shema, servant of King Jeroboam II. Photo: Ferrell Jenkins, https://ferrelljenkins.blog/2018/07/15/the-shema-seal-from-megiddo/

 

Chronicles does not so much as hint of his existence, even in regnal synchronisms. This king of unusually long reign and reported strong position is not attested to in Assyrian, Aramean, Hamathite, Babylonian, or Egyptian annals or inscriptions. Furthermore, the known history of the ancient Near East for his period is surprisingly sparse; very little has been preserved. The extent of the historical record is related in the Book of Kings:

 

In the fifteenth year of Amaziah son of Joash king of Judah, Jeroboam son of Jehoash king of Israel became king in Samaria, and he reigned forty-one years. He did evil in the eyes of the LORD and did not turn away from any of the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, which he had caused Israel to commit. He was the one who restored the boundaries of Israel from Lebo Hamath to the Sea of the Arabah, in accordance with the word of the LORD, the God of Israel, spoken through his servant Jonah son of Amittai, the prophet from Gath Hepher. The LORD had seen how bitterly everyone in Israel, whether slave or free, was suffering; there was no one to help them. And since the LORD had not said he would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven, he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam son of Jehoash. As for the other events of Jeroboam’s reign, all he did, and his military achievements, including how he recovered for Israel both Damascus and Hamath, which had belonged to Judah, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel? Jeroboam rested with his fathers, the kings of Israel. And Zechariah his son succeeded him as king. (2 Kgs 14:23-29 NIV4)

 

The sources for Jeroboam’s forty-year reign are, unfortunately, not only brief but sketchy as well. Very few details about his military accomplishments, economic prosperity, or administrative ability are known. The extrabiblical sources for this period of time are also very limited. Jeroboam’s father is recorded as having paid tribute to the Assyrians a few years prior to Jeroboam’s accession. The usurper of the throne of Jeroboam’s son also received mention for a similar action some ten years after Jeroboam’s death. The Samaria Ostraca likely date to the time of Jeroboam, but their interpretation and implications are somewhat unclear. The Zakkur and Pazarcik stelae both record contemporaneous events, but far to the north of Israelite territory. Assyrian annals concentrate on the troublesome events of home, and any western excursions receive very little detail. No inscriptions have been found from the smaller nations neighboring Israel.

 

The prophets Amos and Hosea both date at least a portion of their oracles to the reign of Jeroboam. Amos’ work is particularly valuable as he details the oppression of the lower class. His sharp remarks, pointed denunciations, and predictions of judgment undoubtedly reflect the Israelite society during this period. Also, Amos is unique in specifically condemning the Israelite monarch for his wickedness (7:9-11). Hosea appears to have begun his prophetic ministry during the reign of Jeroboam (1:1), but his words are more general in nature. ….

 

[End of quote]

 

Todd Bolen’s opening remark, “that some of the most defining political and military events received little attention from the theologically-oriented writer of the Scriptures”, may not necessarily be entirely true. Jeroboam so-called II may figure more prominently in the Scriptures than is thought – but under an alter ego.

 

That alter ego was, I believe, the potent Jehoash, the presumed father of Jeroboam II:

 

An Old Testament “saviour” of Israel

 

(6) An Old Testament "saviour" of Israel

 

In another article on Israel’s kings of the Divided Monarchy period, I had forensically employed the methodology of alter egos to show that the:

 

Last six Kings of Israel were only three

 

(6) Last six Kings of Israel were only three

 

there concluding as follows:

 

My conclusion

 

Zechariah (murdered) = Pekahiah (murdered);

Shallum (murderer-murdered) = Pekah (murderer-murdered);

Menahem (murderer) = Hoshea (murderer).

 

The last six listed kings of Israel were, in actual fact, only three.

 

For more on King Zechariah (above), see my article:

 

Zakir Stele in an historical context

 

(6) Zakir Stele in an historical context

 

For a discussion of how the long life of the prophet Jonah may early have impacted Jeroboam II (2 Kings 14:25), but, much much later, have impacted Nineveh, as according to the Book of Jonah, see e.g. my article:

 

Search for historical prophet Jonah requires re-casting Assyro-Babylonia

 

(6) Search for historical prophet Jonah requires re-casting Assyro-Babylonia

 

and the related article:

 

Adad-Nirari III favoured by some for the Book of Jonah’s ‘king of Nineveh’

(6) Adad-Nirari III favoured by some for the Book of Jonah’s ‘king of Nineveh’

 

For the geographical origins of the prophet Jonah, see e.g. my article:

 

Were any Old Testament prophets from Galilee?

 

(6) Were any Old Testament prophets from Galilee?

 

 

 

Isaiah took his family north to escape the wrath of king Ahaz

 

“… comparing the antitype with the type, even as Herod sought to destroy

the Divine Child whose birth might be supposed to endanger his throne,

so Ahaz, from a different motive indeed, may have sought to destroy

the typical Immanuel, the prediction concerning whose birth foretold

the ruin of Judah at the hands of Assyria”.

Charles Boutflower

  

Charles Boutflower, reading between the lines, came up with the fascinating theory that Isaiah and his family had felt compelled - just like the Holy Family that it typifies - to escape, by flight, from a wrathful king.

 

Here follows Chapter V, “Immanuel”, from Charles Boutflower’s 1930 classic, The Book of Isaiah, Chapters [I-XXXIX] in the light of the Assyrian monuments.

 

“Butter and honey shall he eat, when he knoweth to refuse the evil

and choose the good.”—Isa. vii. 15.

 

In studying the Book of Isaiah, whether for our own benefit or to edify others, the question will often force itself upon us, Who was the typical Immanuel? and Who the maiden who typified the Virgin Mother? To this question the commentators furnish various answers. But not to bewilder my readers with endless discussions, I shall only lay before them that answer which commends itself most to my own judgment. It seems, then, to me that Immanuel was the prophet’s own son, and that the maiden who became his mother was the prophet’s second wife. Isaiah’s first wife was the mother of Shear-jashub. When the prophet at Jehovah’s command took Shear-jashub with him and went to meet Ahaz, his first wife was dead; for he predicts that within a year the nameless maiden, whom he intends to marry, will become the mother of Immanuel.

 

Damien Mackey’s comment: According, though, to my recent article:

 

Was Hosea’s boy-child, Lo-Ammi, Isaiah’s famous son, Immanuel?

 

(2) Was Hosea's boy-child, Lo-Ammi, Isaiah's famous son, Immanuel?

 

the mother of Isaiah’s first son, Shear-jashub, was the self-same woman as was the mother of Immanuel.

 

Charles Boutflower continues:

 

After the birth of Immanuel this young woman, now the prophet’s wife, is very suitably called “the prophetess,” just as Solomon’s wives are called ‘‘queens” … and about a year later bears him a child, who is called Mahershalalhashbaz. The grounds for this opinion are as follows. In chap. viii. 18 the prophet says, “Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs.” He does not say that any other person’s children are for signs: he only mentions his own. ….

In what way Isaiah and Shear-jashub were signs when they appeared before king Ahaz in an acted parable we saw in our last chapter. It now remains to add that all three children, Shear-jashub, Immanuel, and Mahershalalhashbaz, were also signs in virtue of the names given to them. Thus the name Shear-jashub, “a remnant shall return,” finds its explanation in chap. x. 20-22, “And it shall come to pass in that day, that the remnant of Israel, and they that are escaped of the house of Jacob, shall no more again stay upon him that smote them; but shall stay upon the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, in truth. A remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the Mighty God. For though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them shall return.” This is a promise that a small fraction of the nation, who have escaped from the Assyrian deluge, shall no longer look for help to the power that smote them, but shall return in all sincerity to their Almighty Deliverer, the Holy One of Israel.

The significance of the name Immanu-El, as we have already seen, lies in this, that God is with us, i.e . with those who put their trust in Him. So then, should the rising flood of Assyrian invasion overwhelm the Northern Kingdom, and sweep onward into Judah, reaching even unto the neck, yet the nation shall not go under, for the land thus submerged is “thy land, O Immanu-El.” O With us-God! “Make an uproar,” then, “O ye peoples,” that go to form Assyria’s mighty host: mobilise your forces, arm yourselves for the conflict. It is all to no purpose: “ye shall be broken in pieces.” Let the wisest of your military strategists take counsel together, and issue their commands to the troops under them: all shall be of no avail, your counsels “shall be brought to nought,” your orders shall never take effect, for—Immanu-El “God is with us!” ….

The name of the prophet’s third child, Maher-shalal-hash-baz “Hasten booty, speed spoil,” is explained by God immediately after the mention of his birth: “Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz. For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and My mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be carried away before the king of Assyria.” …. But if these three children were all signs in virtue of the meaning of their names, there was one who was specially so called at the time when his birth was predicted and his name given. For when unbelieving Ahaz refused to ask for a sign, the prophet replied, “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” …. The above considerations, then, may very well lead us to look on Immanuel as the prophet’s own son, and to believe that Isaiah like Hosea had three children, all of whose names were prophetic.*

 

Damien Mackey’s comment: According to my article above, Isaiah was Hosea – the prophet and his wife having four children of whom we are informed: three boys and one girl.

 

Charles Boutflower continues:

 

But there is a yet further ground for looking on Immanuel as Isaiah’s own son and as own brother to Mahershalalhashbaz. It lies in this, that notes of time couched in similar language were struck when the births of each of these children were announced: the first note indicating a longer interval, the second a shorter one, before the coming of the same event, viz. the downfall of Syria and Israel. Of Immanuel it was said, ‘‘For before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou abhorrest shall be forsaken.”  …. These words I have explained to mean, Before the child is old enough to know what he may eat and what he must not eat: an explanation which agrees with the previous context, where it is said that he will eat butter and honey when he knows to refuse the evil and choose the good. The note of time, therefore, in this instance signifies that within a very few years the land of the two allied kings of Syria and Israel will be desolated. As a matter of fact it was desolated within three years of the time when the sign was given. In the case of Mahershalalhashbaz the note of time begins with the same words, but points to a shorter interval: “For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and, My mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be carried away before the king of Assyria.” If the first mention of this child’s name was made in 734 B.C., and his birth took place in the following year, then the above prediction, uttered at the time of his birth, was fulfilled within about a year of that event. Having regard, therefore, to these considerations, it seems most reasonable to look upon Immanuel as the older brother of Mahershalalhashbaz. But this being so, the “virgin,” who became the mother of these two children, must have been Isaiah’s second wife [sic].

If on the above grounds we are led to look upon the typical Immanuel as Isaiah’s own son, a very interesting deduction follows: viz. that within a year or two of Immanuel’s birth Isaiah must have left Jerusalem for a while and gone to live in the now desolated land of Israel. For it is predicted of Immanuel that when he is a young lad two principal articles of his diet will be butter and honey: chap. vi. 15. And then, a little further on in the same chapter, it is explained that this being obliged to depend on butter and honey, will be a consequence of the Assyrian invasion: that owing to the depopulation of the country, the land will go out of cultivation, and what is now vineyards and cornfields will become thickets ; but that there will still be pasturage for cattle, and the wild bees will still lay up their honied stores, so that “butter and honey shall every one eat that is left in the midst of the land.” Now since this description of Immanuel’s surroundings in his early boyhood’s years does not apply to Judah and Jerusalem, but does apply to the land of Israel, and especially to northern Israel, the presumption is that Immanuel while still a young lad was taken by his father to live in the northern kingdom, and into that part of the kingdom whose inhabitants had so lately been carried captive.

What was the reason for a prophet, whose heart was so centred in Jerusalem, leaving the Holy City and going to live in the desolated land of the Ten Tribes? In all probability it was the wrath of Ahaz. When Isaiah confronted Ahaz and bade him ask a sign of the LORD his God, the young king’s evasive answer showed that he was afraid of the prophet ; and as he listened to the terrible denunciations from the lips of Isaiah of the woes that were coming on his country because of the line of policy which he had secretly resolved to pursue, fear must have ripened into dislike and hatred. So then, comparing the antitype with the type, even as Herod sought to destroy the Divine Child whose birth might be supposed to endanger his throne, so Ahaz, from a different motive indeed, may have sought to destroy the typical Immanuel, the prediction concerning whose birth foretold the ruin of Judah at the hands of Assyria. …. In this case it would not be long safe for the prophet and his son to remain in Jerusalem. But whither shall he go when he leaves the Sacred City? To Ahaz he has spoken of Syria and Israel as forming one land though under two kings. …. This is because these two powers have for the time being made themselves into one: “Syria is confederate with Ephraim,” literally “resteth on Ephraim.” In the long-ago days “Ephraim departed from Judah’’—to use the prophet’s own words—and now her land is one with the Syrians. But the days of Ephraim’s existence as a separate kingdom are soon to come to an end. Within a few short years Ephraim “will be broken in pieces that it be not a people.” …. And with this disappearance of the kingdom of Ephraim before his mind the prophet seems to have hailed the thought that the land occupied by the two Jewish kingdoms, so long divided politically, was by Divine intention, no less than by nature, one land. Hence, when telling how the flood of Assyrian invasion will sweep over both kingdoms, he speaks of the two countries, thus for a time submerged, as “thy land, O Immanuel,” and Thine in all its “breadth.” …. If, then, our prophet must leave Judah, he need not leave Immanuel’s land: he will go into that part of it which has just been placed under the rule of Hoshea … and for greater safety he will go into that district which lies furthest off from the capital of king Ahaz: he will “withdraw into the parts of Galilee”. …. That Galilee, whose name is so endeared to us Christians, was then a deserted region, its inhabitants having been recently taken captive to Assyria. Their sad fate had fixed itself indelibly on the prophet’s mind. Nevertheless, the Spirit had revealed to him that there, where the first blow had fallen, the bright light of happier days, the days of the Messiah, should first dawn. ‘‘For there shall be no gloom,” he writes, ‘‘to her that was in anguish. In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time hath he made it glorious, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the nations. The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.” …. Many of the inhabitants of Galilee, as the previous context shows, had been “driven away into thick darkness’’; the darkness of a hopeless captivity. The present population was scanty; but in the Messianic age, as the prophet foretells, Jehovah will “multiply the nation’’ and thus “increase the joy”: a joy so great that it can only be compared to the rejoicing before God at the harvest festival, or to the dividing of the spoil after some signal victory. For Assyria’s oppressive “yoke” and heavy “burden” no longer rests on the nation: the taskmaster’s “staff’? no longer descends on its “shoulder.” …. The foe have been put to flight as on that day when the countless hosts of Midian fled before the sword of the LORD and of Gideon. They have vanished from the scene, and soon all the vestiges of hateful war shall vanish likewise. Those long-laced boots, in which the warriors of the enemy strode proudly amid the tumult … their thick, close-fitting tunics, now dyed yet deeper with blood … shall make fuel for the fire. …. And the pledge of all this is before his eyes as he looks at his own Immanuel. Immanuel! the type, surely, of the long-promised Davidic King! “For unto us,” he cries, ‘‘a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder’’—his royal robe fastened at the shoulder marking him as the Divinely constituted Ruler— “and his name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor,” fount of all political wisdom and sagacity ; ‘‘Mighty God,” his people’s all powerful deliverer; “Everlasting Father,” the father of his subjects, whose reign shall know no end; and then, last and best of all, because most desired in that sad day of domestic troubles and foreign invasion, “Prince of Peace”: peace, internal no less than external: peace, the fruit of righteous rule and good government: peace, ever on the increase with his ever-extending sway. How fondly does the prophet dwell on this closing note! “Of the increase,” he cries, “of his government and of peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with judgment and with righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of Jehovah of hosts shall perform this.” The zeal of Jehovah, His jealousy for His people, ensures all. He is pledged to help them by this God-given name, Immanuel.

              It will be seen from the above that we may reasonably suppose that the prophet Isaiah, leaving Judah because of the wrath of Ahaz, went with his son Immanuel into the land of Israel, and to that part of the land which was furthest off from Jerusalem, and to which his sympathies were so strongly drawn when he uttered his lament over the fate of Zebulun and Naphtali, and his glorious song of exultation over the bright future which awaited that now darkened region. Thus it was in Galilee that the early years of Immanuel must have been spent. And this may seem to point forward to our Saviour’s peaceful home at Nazareth, just as His early ministry “by the way of the sea,” i.e. the Sea of Galilee, and the coming of the bright Gospel Day is foretold, as St. Matthew assures us, in this very passage.” The hint of a withdrawal into Galilee contained in the words which form the heading of this chapter, appears to have been lost on king Ahaz, or, if noticed by him, may possibly have been welcomed as giving some hope that he would soon be rid of this troublesome prophet. Fear and dislike were probably the predominating feelings in his breast. There was, therefore, no urgent haste for the prophet to leave Jerusalem at once. Accordingly, he was no doubt there at the time when Immanuel was born, and also a little later, when at Jehovah’s command he wrote on a large metal tablet … “with the pen of a man,” i.e. with an ordinary graving-tool, but according to some translators “in ordinary characters,” FOR MAHER-SHALAL-HASH-BAZ. …. This was done in the presence of two witnesses, one of whom was “ Uriah the priest,” presumably the high priest: … the object being, as Cheyne points out, that when the prophecy involved in the name should be fulfilled, two men of rank would be able to testify to its genuineness. But may there not also have been a further object, viz. that the tablet might speak for the prophet in his absence? For though he still remained on at Jerusalem nearly a year longer until the birth of his third son, when the name written on the tablet was explained to mean that before the newborn child should be able to call its parents, the crisis, which began with the invasion of Judah by the armies of Syria and Israel, would end with the carrying off by the king of Assyria of the spoils of those two kingdoms; yet when that event took place he was gone, leaving behind him the tablet and the word of two reliable witnesses to vouch for the genuineness of the inscription and of the prophetic oracle enshrined in that long uncouth name.

Agreeable, then, to this view of Isaiah’s speedy departure from Jerusalem after the birth of Mahershalalhashbaz are the instructions which occur in chap. viii very shortly after the mention of that event: see verses 11 to 20. These instructions have about them the appearance of parting words of advice given by the teacher to his “disciples.” He warns them against being seized with panic fears like the multitude around them. Their only fear must be a holy fear: the fear of Jehovah of hosts. They are to have nothing to do with necromancy. Should the nation leave their God, and resort for council to the dead?

No! the law and the instruction, the teaching which they have received from his lips must be their guide. He also bids them take every care of his written oracles. Let them be bound up and sealed, that they may be preserved for future ages; for he has come to a pause, a break in his prophetic activities. ‘‘I will wait,” he says, “for the LORD, that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him.” He will wait until it shall please Jehovah to make further revelations to him. It may well have been, then, that as in the days of Ahab of Israel the prophet Elijah, acting on his own counsel, sought security by going outside Ahab’s kingdom; so in the days of Ahaz of Judah, the prophet Isaiah, led by better guidance, sought for safety by withdrawing beyond the dominions of Ahaz.

              In conclusion, let it be noted that just as the typical Virgin is merely mentioned afterwards as the “prophetess,” i.e. the prophet’s wife: whilst the typical Immanuel is introduced as inspiring the prophet with hope even when he sees in vision Assyria’s vast hosts mustering for the conflict, and again when he beholds the Assyrian deluge poured out over the land; so, in the Gospel Story, there is a wonderful withdrawing from our view of the Blessed Virgin that our gaze may be fixed on her Son, who is to His people, not only El Gibbor “the Mighty God,” … but also Immanu-El “God with us.”

 

 

 

Zakir Stele in an historical context

 

by

Damien F. Mackey

 

Proposed king and setting

 

Here it will be tentatively suggested that the hitherto unknown Zakir (or Zaccur), king of Hamath and Lu'ash (Laish/Dan?), was the very last ruler of the Jehu-ide dynasty, King Zechariah (or Zachariah) of Israel (c. 750 BC, conventional dating: Thiele).

 

This scenario immediately fits in various convincing ways.

 

The name Zakir (Zaccur) is a very good match for the Hebrew Zechariah (Zachariah):

Zechariah | The amazing name Zechariah: meaning and etymology

“The name Zechariah: Summary

….

Related names

• Via זכר (zakar): Zaccai, Zaccheus, Zaccur, Zacharias, Zecher, Zichri ….

 

The roughly estimated date for the Zakir Stele accords tolerably well with c. 750 BC, the conventional date for King Zechariah: Stele of Zakkur - Wikipedia

“The Stele of Zakkur (or Zakir) is a royal stele of King Zakkur of Hamath and … Lu'aš … who ruled around 785 BC”.

 

The later Jehu-ide dynasty, under fierce assault from Ben-Hadad II (often given as III) of Syria, son of Hazael, had managed – in the time of Zechariah’s father, Jeroboam II – to turn things around completely and now held Hamath (2 Kings 14:25): “This Jeroboam restored the boundary of Israel from Lebo-Hamath to the Sea of the Arabah, according to the word that the LORD, the God of Israel, had spoken through His servant Jonah son of Amittai, the prophet from Gath-hepher”.

 

King Zakir/Zechariah would be recording this fact in his Stele, he either having participated in this war with his father, or having been the one who had personally brought to completion Elisha’s prophecy that the dynasty of Jehu would strike down Syria “three times” (2 Kings 13:17-19).

 

While this prophecy of Elisha was given to King Jehoash of Israel, who is considered to have been the father of Jeroboam II, I have condensed the latter Israel kingship, believing that a 41-year reigning Jeroboam II cannot possibly be accommodated, and that Jeroboam II was, in fact, the same king as Jehoash.

 

Thus I would interpret the prediction about the Jehu-ide dynasty (2 Kings 10:30): ‘Because you have done well in carrying out what is right in My eyes and have done to the house of Ahab all that was in My heart, your descendants will sit on the throne of Israel to the fourth generation’, the same as has been done here (my emphasis):

The House of Jehu - Chabad.org

“The prophet foretold to Jehu that in recognition of his good deeds in behalf of G‑d's words he and three of his progeny would rule over Israel; but that they would eventually share the fate of the house of Jeroboam and Ahab”…

with Jehu himself to be included amongst the four.

 

I have also suggested that the supposedly last 6 kings of Israel, including Zechariah, be reduced to just 3, with Zechariah being also Pekahiah. Thus:

 

Zechariah (murdered) = Pekahiah (murdered);

Shallum (murderer murdered) = Pekah (murderer murdered);

Menahem (murderer) = Hoshea (murderer)

 

this last equation being greatly reiforced by the fact that, now Menahem, now Hoshea, gave 1000 talents of silver in tribute to Tiglath Pileser.