Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
In the twelfth year of Ahaz king of Judah began Hoshea the son of Elah to reign in Samaria over Israel nine years.XVII.
THE REIGN OF HOSHEA, THE LAST KING OF SAMARIA. THE FALL OF SAMARIA. CAPTIVITY OF ISRAEL, AND RE-PEOPLING OF THE LAND BY FOREIGNERS.
(1) In the twelfth year of Ahaz.—If Pekah reigned thirty years (see Note on 2Kings 15:27), and Ahaz succeeded in Pekah’s seventeenth year (2Kings 16:1), Ahaz must have reigned thirteen years concurrently with Pekah. Hoshea, therefore, succeeded Pekah in the fourteenth year of Ahaz.
Began Hoshea.—See the inscription of Tiglath Pileser, quoted at 2Kings 15:30, according to which, Hoshea (A-u-si-ha) only mounted the throne as a vassal of Assyria. On the news of the death of Tiglath, he probably refused further tribute.
And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, but not as the kings of Israel that were before him.(2) But not as the kings of Israel that were before him.—The preceding phrase is used of all the northern kings but Shallum, who only reigned a month, and had no time for the display of his religious policy. We can hardly assume that Hoshea abandoned the calf-worship of Bethel, but he may have discountenanced the cultus of the Baals and Asheras. The Seder Olam states that Hoshea did not replace the calf of Bethel, which, it assumes, had been carried off by the Assyrians in accordance with the prophecy of Hosea (Hosea 10:5). We may remember that the last sovereigns of falling monarchies have not always been the worst of their line—e.g., Charles I. or Louis XVI.
Against him came up Shalmaneser king of Assyria; and Hoshea became his servant, and gave him presents.(3) Against him came up Shalmaneser king of Assyria.—Shalmaneser IV. (Shalmânu-ushshir, “Shalman be gracious!”), the successor of Tiglath Pileser II., and predecessor of Sargon, reigned 727-722 B.C. No annals of his reign have come down to us in the cuneiform inscriptions, but a fragment of the Eponyra-list notes foreign expeditions for the three successive years 725-723 B.C. This agrees with what Menander states (Josephus, Ant. ix. 14, 2), according to whom Shalmaneser made an expedition against Tyre (and no doubt Israel, as the ally of Tyre), which lasted five years—i.e., was continued beyond Shalmaneser’s reign into that of Sargon. Nothing is known of the death of Shalmaneser.
And the king of Assyria found conspiracy in Hoshea: for he had sent messengers to So king of Egypt, and brought no present 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.(4) Conspiracy—i.e., as is presently explained, a conspiracy with the king of Egypt against his suzerain. Shalmaneser regarded Hoshea, and probably the king of Egypt also, as his “servant” (2Kings 17:3). (Comp. 2Kings 12:20 and Jeremiah 11:9.) Thenius wishes to read “falsehood,” after the LXX., ἀδικίαν (comp. Deuteronomy 19:18; Micah 6:12), a change involving transposition of two Heb. letters (shèqer for qèsher); but the change is needless.
So.—The Hebrew letters should be pointed differently, so as to be pronounced Sèwè, or Sĕwē, as this name corresponds to the Assyrian Shab’i, and the Egyptian Shabaka, the Greek Sabaco, the first king of the 25th, or Ethiopian dynasty, whom Sargon defeated at Raphia in 720 B.C. Sargon calls him “prince,” or “ruler,; (shiltân), rather than “king” of Egypt; and it appears that at this time Lower Egypt was divided among a number of petty principalities, whose recognition of any central authority was very uncertain—a fact which rendered an Egyptian alliance of little value to Israel. (See Isaiah 19, 20)
Brought.—Rather, offered. The word elsewhere is always used of sacrifice.
As he had done.—Omit. The Hebrew phrase (according to a year, in a year), which is not found elsewhere, denotes the regular payment of yearly dues. This Hoshea failed to discharge.
Therefore . . . shut him up.—Comp. Jeremiah 33:1; Jeremiah 36:5; Jeremiah 32:2-3. This statement seems to imply that Shalmaneser took Hoshea prisoner before the siege of Samaria: a supposition which finds support in the fact that Sargon, who ended the siege, makes no mention of the capture or death of the Israelite king.
Then the king of Assyria came up throughout all the land, and went up to Samaria, and besieged it three years.(5) Then (and) the king of Assyria came up . . . and besieged it three years.—Sargon states that he took Samaria (Samerίna) in his first year. Shalmaneser therefore had besieged the city some two years before his death.
The brief narrative before us does not discriminate between the respective shares of the two Assyrian sovereigns in the overthrow of the kingdom of Israel, but it is noticeable that it does not say that Shalmaneser “besieged Samaria three years,” and “took Samaria.” (Comp. 2Kings 18:11.)
In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria, and placed them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.(6) In the ninth year of Hosheathe king of Assyria took Samaria.—Comp. Hosea 10:5 seq.; Micah 1:6; Isaiah 28:1-4. In the great inscription published by Botta, Sargon says: “The city of Samaria I assaulted, I took; 27,280 men dwelling in the midst thereof I carried off; 50 chariots among them I set apart (for myself), and the rest of their wealth I let (my soldiers) take; my prefect over them I appointed, and the tribute of the former king upon them I laid.”
Placed them.—Literally, made them dwell. LXX.,
In Halah.—This place appears to be identical with Halahhu, a name occurring in an Assyrian geographical list between Arrabha (Arrapachitis) and Ratsappa (Rezeph). It probably lay in Mesopotamia, like Rezeph and Gozan. (See Note on 1Chronicles 5:26.)
In Habor by the river of Gozan.—Rather, on Habor the river of Gozan.
The cities of the Medes.- The LXX. seems to have read “mountains of the Medes.” (Comp. Notes on 1Chronicles 5:26, where “Hara and the river of Gozan” is probably the result of an inadvertent transposition of “The river of Gozan and Hara.”)
For so it was, that the children of Israel had sinned against the LORD their God, which had brought them up out of the land of Egypt, from under the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and had feared other gods,(7-23) REFLECTIONS OF THE LAST EDITOR ON THE MORAL CAUSES OF THE CATASTROPHE.
(7) For so it was.—Literally, and it came to pass.
Sinned against the Lord . . . Egypt.—The claim of Jehovah to Israel’s exclusive fealty was from the outset based upon the fact that He had emancipated them from the Egyptian bondage—a fact which is significantly asserted as the preamble to Jehovah’s laws. (See Exodus 20:2; and comp. Hosea 11:1; Hosea 12:9.)
And walked in the statutes of the heathen, whom the LORD cast out from before the children of Israel, and of the kings of Israel, which they had made.(8) Statutes of the heathen . . . and of the kings of Israel.—The national guilt was twofold. It comprised: (1) idolatry in the strict sense—i.e., worship of other gods than Jehovah; (2) a heathenish mode of worshipping Jehovah Himself—namely, under the form of a bullock, as Jeroboam I. had ordained. The term “statutes” means religious rules or ordinances. (Comp. Exodus 12:14, “statutes;” Leviticus 20:23, “manners;” 1Kings 3:3, “ordinance.”)
Which they had made—i.e., the statutes which the kings of Israel had made. (Comp. 2Kings 17:19 b.)
And the children of Israel did secretly those things that were not right against the LORD their God, and they built them high places in all their cities, from the tower of the watchmen to the fenced city.(9) Did secretly.—The literal sense is covered. In this connection it is natural to remember that Heb. verbs of covering and hiding are often used in the sense of dealing perfidiously or deceitfully. (Comp. mā’al, l Chron. 10:13, with me’îl, “mantle;” and bāgad, “to deal treacherously,” Hosea 5:7, with bèged, “garment.”) The form in the text (the pihel of ‘hāphā) is only found here.
They built them high places.—First, the institution of unlawful places of worship.
From the tower of the watchmen to the fenced city.—The towers are such as are mentioned in 2Chronicles 26:10. Here, and in 2Kings 18:8, these solitary buildings, tenanted by a few herdsmen, are contrasted with the embattled cities which protected multitudes. Wherever men were, whether in small or large numbers, these high places were established.
And they set them up images and groves in every high hill, and under every green tree:(10) Images and groves.—Pillars and Asheras—i.e., sacred trunks.
The second degree of guilt: the setting up of idolatrous symbols.
And there they burnt incense in all the high places, as did the heathen whom the LORD carried away before them; and wrought wicked things to provoke the LORD to anger:(11) Wrought wicked things.—Not merely idolatrous rites, but also the hideous immoralities which constituted a recognised part of the nature - worships of Canaan.
For they served idols, whereof the LORD had said unto them, Ye shall not do this thing.(12) For they served idols.—Rather, and they served the dunglings; a term of contempt used in 1Kings 15:19; Deuteronomy 29:16, where see Note.
Yet the LORD testified against Israel, and against Judah, by all the prophets, and by all the seers, saying, Turn ye from your evil ways, and keep my commandments and my statutes, according to all the law which I commanded your fathers, and which I sent to you by my servants the prophets.(13) Yet the Lord testified against Israel.—Rather, And Jehovah adjured Israel . . . The verb means here, gave solemn warning, or charge. In 2Kings 17:15 it is repeated, with a cognate noun as object: “His testimonies which he testified against them;” or, his charges (i.e., precepts) which he had given them.
By all the prophets, and by all the seers.—The Hebrew text is, by the hand of all his prophets—namely, every seer. One or two MSS. and the Targum have prophet, instead of his prophets. The Syriac has “by the hand of all his servants the prophets, and all the seers.” The Vulg. and Arabic also have both nouns plural. Seers were such persons as, without belonging to the prophetic order, came forward in times of emergency upon a sudden Divine impulse. Thenius thinks Israel and Judah are mentioned together because the reference is to the time before the partition of the kingdom; more probably, because both apostatised, and prophets were sent to both.
And which I sent—i.e., the law which I sent. But—as according to later Jewish ideas, the prophets did not bring the Law, but only interpreted it—it seems better to understand with the Vulg. (“et sicut misi”) “and according to all that I sent to you (i.e., enjoined upon you) by my servants the prophets.”
Notwithstanding they would not hear, but hardened their necks, like to the neck of their fathers, that did not believe in the LORD their God.(14) Notwithstanding . . . hear.—Rather, and they hearkened not.
Like to the neck.—LXX. and Syriac, more than the neck. One letter different in the Hebrew.
Did not believe in the Lord their God.—The reference is not to intellectual but to moral unbelief, evincing itself as disobedience. Vulg., “qui volerunt obediren.” They did not render the obedience of faith. (Comp. the use of ἀπειθεῖ ν in the Greek Testament.)
And they rejected his statutes, and his covenant that he made with their fathers, and his testimonies which he testified against them; and they followed vanity, and became vain, and went after the heathen that were round about them, concerning whom the LORD had charged them, that they should not do like them.(15) And they followed vanity, and became Vain.—The same expression occurs in Jeremiah 2:5. The word “vanity” (hèbel) has the article. It denotes strictly breath; and then that which is as transient as a breath. (Comp. Job 7:16.) Here the idols and their worship are intended. The cognate verb, “became vain,” means “dealt (or, ‘talked;’ Job 27:12) foolishly.” The LXX. has ἐματαιώθησαν. (Comp. Romans 1:21.)
And they left all the commandments of the LORD their God, and made them molten images, even two calves, and made a grove, and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served Baal.(16) Molten images.—1Kings 12:28. Literally, a casting.
A grove.—An Asherah (1Kings 14:23; 1Kings 16:33). Schlottmann writes: “That Ashera was only another name for the same supreme goddess (i.e., Ashtoreth) is at once shown by the parallelism of ‘Baal and Ashtaroth’ (Judges 2:13) with ‘Baal and Asherim’ (the plural of Ashera) in Judges 3:7. In quite the same way Baal and Ashera stand side by side in Judges 6:28, 2Kings 23:4; and in 1Kings 18:19 the 450 prophets of the Baal and the 400 of the Ashera. further, in 2Chronicles 15:16; 2Chronicles 24:18, the LXX. render Ashera by Astarte; and in other passages Aquila, Symmachus, and the Peshito do the same thing.” He then refers to 1Kings 14:23 and Isaiah 17:8; Isaiah 27:9, and continues: “according to these and many other passages, Ashera was used as the designation of the commonest material representation of the goddess. It consisted of a block of wood, of considerable size (Judges 6:26), and resembling a tree, as is shown by the expressions used in connection with it, such as ‘setting up,’ ‘planting,’ and ‘cutting down’ (2Kings 17:10; Deuteronomy 16:21; Judges 6:28; 2Kings 18:4, &c). In Isaiah 27:9 the LXX. actually renders tree; ‘and so the Peshito in Deut. vi 21, Micah 5:13. Hence, we must not think of pillars like the Greek Hermae, but of a real trunk planted in the ground, rootless, but not branchless; for which purpose pines and evergreens were preferred. The tree signifies, according to an ancient and widespread conception, nature, or the world, which in this case stands as goddess at the side of the Baal——the lord of the world. (Comp. the Norse tree, Yggdrasil, and the Assyrian sacred tree.) Hence, the Ashera was set up by the altar of Baal (Judges 6:28). (Comp. Deuteronomy 16:21.)” Schlottmann adds that Movers is wrong in making Astarte and Ashera two different goddesses, the former being “the stern, cruel virgin,” the latter, “the goddess who excites to pleasure;” and he justly observes that, as in the case of Baal, the same deity may be conceived under contrary aspects (Riehm’s Handworterbuch Bibl. Alterthums, pp. Ill—114). For the Hebrew conception of Astarte see Jeremiah 7:18; Jeremiah 44:17 seq. Kuenen, Rel. of Isr. i. 88 seq., agrees with Movers, but hardly proves his case.
And they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, and used divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.(17) And they caused . . . fire.—The cultus of Moloch (2Kings 16:3).
Therefore the LORD was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of his sight: there was none left but the tribe of Judah only.(18) Removed them out of his sight.—By banishing them from his land (2Kings 17:23)—an expression founded upon the old local conceptions of deity.
The tribe—i.e., the kingdom. (Comp. 1Kings 11:36.)
Also Judah kept not the commandments of the LORD their God, but walked in the statutes of Israel which they made.(19) Also Judah kept not . . .—Judah was no real or permanent exception to the sins and punishment of Israel; she imitated the apostasy of her sister-kingdom, and was visited with a similar penalty.
The statutes of Israel which they made.—See Note on 2Kings 17:8 supra, and comp. Micah 6:16, “the statutes of Omri.” According to 2Kings 8:27; 2Kings 16:3, Ahaziah and Ahaz especially favoured the idolatry practised in the northern kingdom. The example of her more powerful neighbour exercised a fatally powerful spell upon Judah.
And the LORD rejected all the seed of Israel, and afflicted them, and delivered them into the hand of spoilers, until he had cast them out of his sight.(20) And the Lord rejected all the seed of Israel.—Thenius prefers the reading of the LXX. “and rejected the Lord (as in the last clause of 2Kings 17:19), and the Lord, was angry with all the seed of Israel,” &c. It thus becomes plain that the writer goes back to 2Kings 17:18, after the parenthesis relating to Judah. “Israel” is used in the narrow sense in those verses.
For he rent Israel from the house of David; and they made Jeroboam the son of Nebat king: and Jeroboam drave Israel from following the LORD, and made them sin a great sin.(21) For he rent . . .—The verse assigns the fons et origo mali; it makes the secession of the Ten Tribes from the house of David the ultimate cause of their ruin. The “for,” therefore, refers to what has just been said in 2Kings 17:18-20.
He rent Israel.—The Hebrew as it stands can only mean Israel rent. The want of an object after the transitive verb favours the suggestion of Thenius that the niphal should be restored: Israel rent himself away (comp. the Vulg., “scissus est”). (If Israel were the object, ‘eth should be expressed.)
Drave.—Hebrew text, put far away (Amos 2:3). Hebrew margin, misled (2Chronicles 21:11); the Targum and Syriac “caused to stray.” The argument obviously is this—separation from Judah led to the calf-worship, and that to idolatry pure and simple.
For the children of Israel walked in all the sins of Jeroboam which he did; they departed not from them;(22) The children of Israel walked . . .—Israel obstinately persisted in the sin of Jeroboam, in spite of all warning.
Until the LORD removed Israel out of his sight, as he had said by all his servants the prophets. So was Israel carried away out of their own land to Assyria unto this day.(23) By all his servants the prophets.—Comp. Hosea 1:6; Hosea 9:16; Amos 3:11-12; Amos 5:27; Isaiah 28:1-4.
So was Israel carried away.—That the land was not entirely depopulated appears from such passages as 2Chronicles 30:1; 2Chronicles 34:9. But henceforth “the distinctive character of the nation was lost; such Hebrews as remained in their old land became mixed with their heathen neighbours. When Josiah destroyed the ancient high places of the northern kingdom he slew their priests, whereas the priests of Judæan sanctuaries were provided for at Jerusalem. It is plain from this that he regarded the worship of the northern sanctuaries as purely heathenish (comp. 2Kings 23:20 with 2Kings 17:5), and it was only in much later times that the mixed population of Samaria became possessed of the Pentateuch, and set up a worship on Mount Gerizim, in imitation of the ritual of the second Temple. We have no reason to think that the captive Ephraimites were more able to retain their distinctive character than their brethren who remained in Palestine. The problem of the lost tribes, which has so much attraction for some speculators, is a purely fanciful one. The people whom Hosea and Amos describe were not fitted to maintain themselves apart from the heathen among whom they dwelt. Scattered among strange nations, they accepted the service of strange gods (Deuteronomy 28:64), and, losing their distinctive religion, lost also their distinctive existence.” (Robertson Smith.)
And the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Ava, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel: and they possessed Samaria, and dwelt in the cities thereof.(24-33) RE-PEOPLING OF THE LAND WITH ALIENS; THEIR WORSHIP DESCRIBED.
(24) The king of Assyria.—Sargon (Sargîna), who actually records that in his first year (721 B.C. ) he settled a body of conquered Babylonians in the land of Hatti or Syria. In another passage he speaks of locating certain Arab tribes, including those of Thamûd and Ephah, in the land of Beth-Omri; and in a third passage of his annals he says that he “removed the rest” of these Arab tribes, “and caused them to dwell in the city of Samerina” (Samaria). This notice be. longs to Sargon’s seventh year (715 B.C. ). Kuthah and Sepharvaim were also towns in Babylonia. The former is called Kutie in the cuneiform inscriptions. It had a temple of Nergal and Laz, the ruins of which have been discovered at Tell-Ibrâhîm, north-east of Babylon. Sepharvaim, in the cuneiform Sipar and Sippar, means “the two Sipars;” in allusion, probably, to the fact that the town was divided between the two deities Samas (the sun), and Anunitum, and bore the names of Sippar sa Samas (“Sippara of the Sun”), and Sippar sa Anunitum (“Sippara of Anunit”). Rassam discovered ruins of Èparra, the great sun-temple, at Abu Habba, south-west of Bagdad, on the east bank of the Euphrates.
Hamath.—Sargon has recorded his reduction, in 720 B.C. , of Itu-bi-’di (or Yau-bi-’di) king of Hamath, and also his settling of colonists in Hainathite territory. It is, therefore, quite likely that he had, as usual, deported the conquered Hamathites, and, in fact, settled some of them in Samaria, as this verse relates.
Placed them.—Heb., made them dwell, the very phrase used by Sargon himself in describing these arrangements (usesib). At a later period Esarhaddon reinforced these colonists (Ezra 4:2).
And so it was at the beginning of their dwelling there, that they feared not the LORD: therefore the LORD sent lions among them, which slew some of them.(25) The Lord sent (the) lions.—In the interval between the Assyrian depopulation and the re-peopling of the land, the lions indigenous to the country had multiplied naturally enough. Their ravages were understood by the colonists as a token of the wrath of the local deity on account of their neglect of his worship. The sacred writer endorses this interpretation of the incident, probably remembering Leviticus 26:22. (Comp. Exodus 23:29; Ezekiel 14:15.)
Which slew.—The form of the verb implies a state of things which lasted some time. Literally, and they were killing among them.
Wherefore they spake to the king of Assyria, saying, The nations which thou hast removed, and placed in the cities of Samaria, know not the manner of the God of the land: therefore he hath sent lions among them, and, behold, they slay them, because they know not the manner of the God of the land.(26) They spake.—Rather, men spake, i.e., the prefects of the province.
The manner of the God.—The word mishpāt, “judgment,” “decision,” here means “appointed worship” or “cultus.” In the Koran the word din, “judgment,” is used in a similar way, as equivalent to “religion,” especially the religion of Islam.
Then the king of Assyria commanded, saying, Carry thither one of the priests whom ye brought from thence; and let them go and dwell there, and let him teach them the manner of the God of the land.(27) Carry.—Cause to go.
Let them go and dwell.—To be corrected after the Syriac and Vulg.: let him go and dwell.
Ye brought.—Ye carried away.
Then one of the priests whom they had carried away from Samaria came and dwelt in Bethel, and taught them how they should fear the LORD.(28) And taught.—And was teaching, implying a permanent work.
In Bethel.—Because he was a priest of the calfworship.
Fear the Lord.—Not in the modern ethical but in the ancient ceremonial sense.
Howbeit every nation made gods of their own, and put them in the houses of the high places which the Samaritans had made, every nation in their cities wherein they dwelt.(29) Howbeit.—And. The colonists did not fear Jehovah in a monotheistic sense; they simply added his cultus to that of their ancestral deities.
The houses of the high places.—The temples or chaples which constituted the sanctuaries of the different cities in the Samaritan territory.
The Samaritans—i.e., the people of northern Israel. (Comp. Samaria in 2Kings 17:24.)
And the men of Babylon made Succothbenoth, and the men of Cuth made Nergal, and the men of Hamath made Ashima,(30) Succoth-benoth.—The Hebrew spelling of this name has probably suffered in transmission. The Babylonian goddess Zirbânit or Zarpanitum (“seed-maker”) the consort of Merodach, appears to be meant.
Nergal.—The name of the god represented by the colossal lions which guarded the doorways of Assyrian palaces. These colossi were called nirgali; and a syllabary informs us that Nergal was the god of Kutha.
Ashima.—Nothing is known of this idol. Schrader (in Riehm) pronounces against identification with the Phœnician Esm̂un. Lane’s lexicon gives an Arabic word, ‘usâmatu, or ’al’-usâmatu, “the lion,” which may be cognate with Ashima.
And the Avites made Nibhaz and Tartak, and the Sepharvites burnt their children in fire to Adrammelech and Anammelech, the gods of Sepharvaim.(31) Nibhaz and Tartak are unknown, but the forms have an Assyrio-Babylonian cast. (Comp. Nimrod, Nergal with the former, and Ishtar, Namtar, Merodach, Shadrach, with the latter.) Before Nibhaz the LXX. have another name, Abaazar, or Eblazer (? ’abal Assûr “the Son of Assur”).
Adrammelech.—Comp. 2Kings 19:37. Identified by Schrader with the Assyrian Adar-mâlik, “Adar is prince” (? Adrum).
Anammelech—i.e., Anum-mâlik, “Anu is prince.” Adar and Anu are well-known Assyrian gods.
So they feared the LORD, and made unto themselves of the lowest of them priests of the high places, which sacrificed for them in the houses of the high places.(32) They feared.—They were fearing. (See Note on 2Kings 17:25; 2Kings 17:28, supra.)
Of the lowest of them.—Rather, of all orders, or promiscuously. (Comp. 1Kings 12:31.) This is another indication that it was Jeroboam’s mode of worship which was now restored.
Which sacrificed.—Heb., and they used to do. The verb do is used in the sense of sacra facere, just like the Greek - ποιεῗν ἔρδειν ρέζειν.
Priests of the high places.—Rather, bāmāh-priests (omit the). Bamah-priests are opposed to the priests of Jehovah’s Temple.
They feared the LORD, and served their own gods, after the manner of the nations whom they carried away from thence.(33) They feared . . . gods.—Literally, Jehovah were they fearing, and their own gods were they serving. The verse recapitulates 28-32.
Whom they carried away from thence.—Rather, whence they had been carried away. Literally, whence men carried them away. The meaning is: according to the customs of the cities from which Sargon had deported them.
(34) They do after the former manners.—They still keep up the religious customs of the first colonists. They fear not the Lord.—They fear Him not in the sense of a right fear; they do not honour Him in the way He has prescribed in the Torah. The LXX. omits both nots in this verse. After their statutes, or after their ordinances.—The writer here thinks of the remnant of the Ten Tribes who amalgamated with the new settlers (2Kings 23:19; 2Chronicles 34:6; 2Chronicles 34:9; 2Chronicles 34:33; John 4:12). Ordinances.—Heb., ordinance, or judgment. Or after the law and commandment.—This pair of terms is exegetical of the preceding pair. Probably, however, the original reading was, “after the statutes, and after the ordinances,” as in 2Kings 17:37, where the same four terms recur. Then the sense will simply be, that the Samaritans contemporary with the writer do not worship Jehovah according to the Torah. Did.—Continued doing. After their former manner—i.e., they clung to the old-established cultus of the calves. Their children, and their children’s children.—The captivity of Ephraim took place in 721 B.C. Two generations later bring us to the times of the exile of Judah—the age of the last Redactor of Kings.
(34) They do after the former manners.—They still keep up the religious customs of the first colonists.
They fear not the Lord.—They fear Him not in the sense of a right fear; they do not honour Him in the way He has prescribed in the Torah. The LXX. omits both nots in this verse.
After their statutes, or after their ordinances.—The writer here thinks of the remnant of the Ten Tribes who amalgamated with the new settlers (2Kings 23:19; 2Chronicles 34:6; 2Chronicles 34:9; 2Chronicles 34:33; John 4:12).
Ordinances.—Heb., ordinance, or judgment.
Or after the law and commandment.—This pair of terms is exegetical of the preceding pair. Probably, however, the original reading was, “after the statutes, and after the ordinances,” as in 2Kings 17:37, where the same four terms recur. Then the sense will simply be, that the Samaritans contemporary with the writer do not worship Jehovah according to the Torah.
After their former manner—i.e., they clung to the old-established cultus of the calves.
Their children, and their children’s children.—The captivity of Ephraim took place in 721 B.C. Two generations later bring us to the times of the exile of Judah—the age of the last Redactor of Kings.