2 Kings 17:1

THE FALL OF THE NORTHERN KINGDOM OF ISRAEL

It would require an entire book of several hundred pages to explore in any exhaustive sense all of the problems and questions which scholars discuss concerning this chapter. Our purpose does NOT include such an extensive treatment of what is written here. The great facts of the chapter are as clear as our solar orb on a cloudless day when the sun is at perihelion.

(1) The day of grace for the Northern Israel expired, and God removed them "out of his sight" (2 Kings 17:18). Therefore, we may safely ignore the Book of Mormon and its fairy tale about the American Indians being "the lost ten tribes," as well as all the other cock and bull stories that, throughout history, have located those lost tribes in half a dozen places. Our theory is that if God can't see them anymore, men might as well stop looking for them. Many of the false theories about the present-day "discoveries" of the lost tribes are founded upon an obscure reference from an uncanonical book (Esdras 13:29-47).[1]

(2) Hoshea was the last king of Israel, and he reigned only about nine years, and all of that as an Assyrian vassal (2 Kings 17:3). Shalmaneser IV the son of Tiglath-pileser discovered Hoshea's defection to an alliance with Egypt and came up and conquered the land in either one or two campaigns. It is mentioned that he imprisoned Hoshea, but that probably took place after the fall of his capital city (Samaria) in 722 or 721 B.C. However, the actual capture of Samaria appears to have been made by Shalmaneser's successor Sargon II. Much of the history of this period is uncertain. Keil, for example wrote that Shalmaneser and Sargon "were one and the same person."[2]

This writer does not share the implicit confidence some scholars attribute to ancient pagan monuments; there is no reason whatever to consider them any more accurate than the Holy Bible, or their being, in any sense whatever, necessary as "confirmation" of what is therein written. We have already pointed out the gross error on a modern monument at the head of Wall Street on Broadway, New York City. And, if in the present state of civilization, such a mistake is possible, how much more likely it must be that there were countless mistakes, intentional errors, and outright lies in ancient pagan monuments.

(3) The depopulation of Samaria and its environs was also a result of the fall of the Northern Kingdom. One of the "monuments" cited by several scholars recorded that some 27,920 were deported by Sargon,[3] but that did not include the number carried into captivity by Tiglath-pileser (2 Kings 15:29). Also, that might have been merely the number of the initial list of captives. In fact, Hammond pointed out that, "The 27,920 were those taken from the city of Samaria," and that, "A vast number of others were carried off from the smaller towns and country districts."[4]

The fact that the entire land was so devastated that it was overrun and made unsafe by the prolific multiplication of wild animals (2 Kings 17:26) certainly indicates the near total depopulation of Palestine. One scholar mentioned what he called, "A Jewish tradition that only Judah was left." That, however, was not a tradition at all, but an emphatic declaration of God's Word that, "There was none left but the tribe of Judah only" (2 Kings 17:18).

Of course, this does not mean that individual descendants of the various tribes were all removed from history. The N.T., for example, names a number of persons identified with one or another of the lost tribes (See Luke 2:36).

(4) The origin of the mixed race of people known as the Samaritans is also revealed in this chapter, a matter of immense importance. Significantly, the priests (ignorant and inadequate as they were) delivered the Pentateuch to the peoples of Samaria, who, by reason of it, became monotheists, countless numbers of them accepting Christ in his ministry (Luke 4). Furthermore, the existence of that Samaritan Version of the Pentateuch gives the lie to the claim of modern radical critics who advocate a late date for the Law of Moses. Adam Clarke flatly declared that, "The Samaritan Version is precisely the same as the Hebrew, only fuller, having preserved many words, letters, and even whole sentences, and sometimes several verses NOT in the Hebrew. In all other respects, it is the same as the Hebrew, except for the Samaritan language."[5] In this light, how ridiculous is the false claim that the regulations of the Pentateuch were unknown until after the exile! The period (circa 722 B.C.) was a long, long time prior to the exile.

(5) The chapter also reveals that the devastation and removal that came to Northern Israel were also intended by the Lord to have been a warning to Judah of what would also happen to them, unless they forsook their idolatry and returned to the pure and faithful worship of Jehovah. Unfortunately, Judah was incapable of heeding the warning.

(6) The theological reasons given in 2 Kings 17:7-23 for God's destroying Northern Israel out of his sight are elaborated in these verses; and the passage is often referred to as a "homily" (sermon). No in-depth study of this section will be attempted. The entire O.T. up to this point is the background of this analysis of why God rejected them and cast them away.

The reasons may be summarized as follows:

(a) Their ingratitude and failure to appreciate all God did for them.

(b) Their idolatry in which they adopted and worshipped the very gods of the Canaanites whose worship of them was the very reason why God drove them out and repopulated Canaan with Israel.

(c) Their refusal to believe and heed the warnings of the great O.T. prophets whom God sent in the vain hope of rescuing them from their apostasy.

(d) Their self-satisfaction and conceit, thinking of themselves as being God's special darlings, coupled with their utter disdain and hatred of the Gentiles as exemplified so dramatically in the story of Jonah.

(e) Their breaking of the sacred Sinaitic covenant.

(f) They rejected the plainest commandments of the Law of Moses.

(g) They developed a social "upper class" who hated, despised, and oppressed the poor.

(h) They even sacrificed their children as burnt-offerings to Molek.

(i) Instead of seeking God's will by the appointed manner via the Urim and Thummin, they resorted to all kinds of enchantments and methods of divination.

(j) They even outlawed the worship of the true God and made idolatry the official religion of the nation.

(k) They even oppressed and murdered God's prophets.

(l) They became open enemies of the Davidic dynasty, and one of their rulers (Athaliah) even tried to exterminate David's dynasty.

This is only a partial and incomplete summary, but it is enough to indicate why no complete report of such a reprobate history is advisable just here. The only wonder is that God put up with Northern Israel as long as he did. No nation ever deserved destruction any more than did they. As Ezekiel stated it, "They became worse than Sodom and Gomorrah" (Ezekiel 16).

(7) The final part of this chapter carries a description of the corrupted worship that was carried on in Canaan by the populations placed there by Assyria.

THE SIEGE AND FALL OF SAMARIA

"In the twelfth year of Ahaz king of Judah began Hoshea the son of Elah to reign in Samaria over Israel, and reigned nine years. And he did that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah, yet not as the kings of Israel that were before him. Against him came Shalmaneser king of Assyria; and Hoshea became his servant and brought him tribute. And the king of Assyria found conspiracy in Hoshea; for he had sent messengers to So king of Egypt, and offered not tribute to the king of Assyria, as he had done year by year: therefore the king of Assyria shut him up, and bound him in prison. Then the king of Assyria came up throughout all the land, and went up to Samaria, and besieged it three years. In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria took Samaria. and carried Israel away unto Assyria, and placed them in Halah, and on the Habor, the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes."

"And (he) reigned 9 years" (2 Kings 17:1). Hoshea reigned until Samaria was taken, and therefore we must understand that the imprisonment of Hoshea (2 Kings 17:4) is a summary of what eventually happened, detailed by the following verses. Either that, or the statement of his imprisonment may be understood as a metaphorical reference to the siege that lasted three years.

"Yet not as the kings of Israel that were before him" (2 Kings 17:2). It is not exactly known why Hoshea was judged to have been any better than prior kings of Israel. It might be explained by a Jewish tradition mentioned by Montgomery, "That Hoshea removed the guards set on the road to Jerusalem to keep Israelites from going there to worship."[6] If that tradition is true, it is a sad comment upon the determination of previous kings of Israel not to allow the Israelites to worship in the place that God had appointed.

"So king of Egypt" (2 Kings 17:4). This king of Egypt cannot be certainly identified. One of the Sargon inscriptions, "Mentions a Piru as king of Egypt in the year 720 B.C., whose general, a certain Sibu, he claims to have defeated on the road to Egypt."[7] Again, we mention the danger of implicit trust in such ancient inscriptions.

"He besieged (Samaria) three years" (2 Kings 17:5). Samaria was a powerful stronghold, and it is a credit to the builders and defenders of that city that it withstood a siege for such a long while.

"He placed them (the captives) in Halah, and on the Habor, the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes" (2 Kings 17:6). It is evident that Assyria scattered her captives among the provinces and that they were not carried to Nineveh, the capital. "It was also their policy to place them in small groups so that they would lose their identity and mingle with the local populations."[8] It is not certain as to the exact location of the places mentioned here, but scholars generally suppose that the captives were placed in northern Mesopotamia.