Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 13.djvu/429

 ISRAEL 413 prophet but by a priest, they were nevertheless subjects of the king, and had to act according to his orders. That the cultus of Jehovah at Jerusalem was purer than that at Bethel or at Samaria is an assertion which is contradicted by more than one well-attested fact. In this respect there was no essential difference between Israel and Judah. It was in Israel that the reaction against Baal-worship origi nated which afterwards passed over into Jiidah ; the initia tive in all such matters was Israel s. There the experi ments were made from which Jerusalem learned the lesson. How deep was the interest felt in the affairs of the larger kingdom by the inhabitants even of one of the smaller provincial towns of Judah is shown in the instance of Amos of Tekoah. Step by step with the decline of Israel after the death of Jeroboam II. did Judah rise in importance ; it was Isaiah, already preparing to take the inheritance. The man through whom the transition of the history from Israel to Judah was effected, and who was the means of securing for the latter kingdom a period of respite which was fruit ful of the best results for the consolidation of true religion, was the prophet Isaiah. The history of his activity is at the same time the history of Judah during that period. Isaiah became conscious of his vocation in the year of King Uzziah s death ; his earliest discourses date from the beginning of the reign of Ahaz. In them he contemplates the imminent downfall of Samaria, and threatens Judah also with the chastisement its political and social sins deserve. In chap, ix., and also in chaps, ii.-v., lie still confines himself on the whole to generalities quite after the manner of Amos. But on the occasion of the expedition of the allied Syrians and Ephraimites against Jerusalem he interposed with bold decision in the sphere of practical politics. To the very last he endeavoured to restrain Ahaz from his purpose of summoning the Assyrians to his help ; he assured him of Jehovah s countenance, and offered him a token in pledge. When the king refused this, the prophet recognized that matters had gone too far, and that the coming of the Assyrians could not be averted. He then declared that the dreaded danger would indeed be obviated by that course, but that another far more serious would be incurred. For the Egyptians would resist the westward movement of Assyria, and Judah as the field of war would be utterly laid waste ; only a remnant would remain as the basis of a better future. The actual issue, however, was not yet quite so disastrous. The Egyptians did not interfere with the Assyrians, and left Samaria and Damascus to their fate. Judah became indeed tributary to Assyria, but at the same time enjoyed considerable prosperity. Henceforward the prophet s most zealous efforts were directed to the object of securing the maintenance, at any price, of this condition of affairs. He sought by every means at his command to keep Judah from any sort of intervention in the politics of the great P owers &amp;gt; * n or ^ er ^ at ifc might devote itself with undivided energies to the necessities of internal affairs. He actually succeeded in maintaining the peace for many years, even at times when in the petty kingdoms around the spirit of revolt was abroad. The ill success of all attempts else where to shake off the yoke confirmed him in the convic tion that Assyria was the rod of chastisement wielded by Jehovah over the nations, who had no alternative but to yield to its iron sway. While thirty years passed thus peacefully away so far as foreign relations were concerned, internal changes of all the greater importance were taking place. Hezekiah ben Ahaz undertook for the first time a thorough-going refor- mation in the cultus of Jehovah. &quot; He removed the high places, and brake the pillars, and cut down the Ashera, and brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had Policy of non- Heze- kiah s ms made &quot;; so we are told in 2 Kings xviii. 4, with a mixture of the general and the special that does not inspire much confidence. For, e.g., the &quot;high places&quot; which Solomon had raised on the Mount of Olives were not removed by Hezekiah, although they stood quite close to Jerusalem, and moreover were consecrated to foreign deities. But in every respect there must have been a wide difference between the objects and results of the reformations of Hezekiah and Josiah. Undoubtedly Hezekiah undertook his reforms in worship under the influence of Isaiah. Following in the footsteps of Hosea, who had been the first to take and to express offence at the use of images in the worship of Jehovah, this prophet, utilizing the impres sion which the destruction of Samaria had produced in Jerusalem (Isa. xvii., cf. Jer. iii.), strove to the utmost against the adoration of the work of men s hands in the holy places, against the Asheras and pillars .(sun- pillars), and above all against the ephods, i.e., the idols of silver and gold, of which the land was full. But against the high places in and by themselves, against the multiplicity of the altars of Jehovah, he made no protest. &quot; (In the Messianic time) ye shall loathe and cast away as an unclean thing your graven images with silver coverings and your molten images overlaid with gold,&quot; he says (xxx. 22); and the inference is that he contemplated the purification of the high places from superstitious excesses, but by no means their abolition. To this one object 1 Hezekiah s reforma tion seems to have confined itself, an object of much greater primary importance than the destruction of the altars themselves. Their destruction was a measure which arose simply out of despair of the possibility of cleansing them. Sargon, king of Assyria, was succeeded in 705 by Sennacherib. The opportunity was seized by Merodach Baladan of Babylon to secure his independence ; and by means of an embassy he urged Hezekiah also to throw off the yoke. The proposal was adopted, and the king of Judah was joined by other petty kingdoms, especially some of the Philistine towns. Relations with Egypt were estab- Alliam lished to secure its support in case of need. Sennacherib s agains- more immediate and pressing business in Babylon enabled Palestine to gain some time ; but the issue of that revolt made self-deception impossible as to the probable result of the other movement. This was the period at which Isaiah, already far advanced in life, wielded his greatest influence. The preparations for revolt, the negotiations with Egypt, were concealed from him, a proof how greatly he was feared at court. When he came to know of them, it was already too late to undo what had been done. But he could at least give vent to his anger. With Jerusalem, it seemed to him, the story of Samaria was repeating itself ; uninstructed by that sad lesson, the capital was giving itself up to the mad intoxication of leaders who would inevitably bring her to ruin. &quot; Quietness and rest &quot; had been the motto given by Jehovah to Judah, powerless as it was and much in need of a period of peace ; instead of this, defiance based on ignorance and falsehood expressed the prevailing temper. But those who refused to listen to the intelligible language of Jehovah would be compelled to hear Him speak in Assyrian speech in a way that would deafen and blind them. Tsaiah shows himself no less indignant against the crowd that stupidly etared at his excitement than against the God-forsaken folly of the king, with his counsellors, his priests, and his prophets. They do not suffer themselves 1 That is, to the abolition of the images. Jeremiah s polemic is directed no longer against the images, but against wood and stone, i.e., Asheras and pillars. The date of the reformation under Hezekiah is uncertain; perhaps it ought to be placed after Sennacherib s with drawal from Jerusalem.