Melakhim B 15: Tumult and Decline
SEFER MELAKHIM BET: THE SECOND BOOK OF KINGS
By Rav
Alex Israel
Shiur #18: Chapter 15
Tumult and Decline
Chapter fifteen is comprised of a sequence of brief passages, each depicting
the successive kings of both Yehuda and Yisrael. Each regal summary bears stereotypical
features that are standard for Sefer Melakhim. For the casual reader, these
detail-heavy
formulaic
summaries offer little of interest other than
the monotony of names and dates. And yet, this assemblage of data reveals more
than meets the eye at first glance, as both the cumulative impression of the
passages and the novel
details regarding each sovereign suggest broader assessments of both the
personalities concerned and the state of the nation in this period.
The chapter
opens with the formidable King Uzzia of Yehuda, and closes with his son,
Yotam, presenting a sixty-two year span of dynastic stability and serenity in
the South. Concurrently, and occupying the central space of the chapter, five
Northern kings are described as passing in rapid, tumultuous succession, with
the Northern state racked by relentless political opportunism in which one
national revolt is swiftly followed by further mutiny. The quick pace of coup
and counter-coup along with foreign invasion race toward Yisrael's end, as
Yisrael stands on the precipice of exile. The kings of Yisrael are:
Zekharia (ben Yerav’am) – 6 months
~~~~~~~~ Revolt
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shalum ben Yavesh – 1 month
~~~~~~~~ Revolt
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Menachem ben Gadi –
10 years
Pekachya ben Menachem – 2 years
~~~~~~~~ Revolt
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pekach ben Remalyahu – 20 years
~~~~~~~~ Revolt
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hoshea ben Ella - 9
years
Under Zekharia,
the protected and "saved" dynasty of Yeihu (13:5, 23; 14:26-7) crumbles in a
public assassination. The chaotic closure of the House of Yeihu is marked by a
comment suggesting the reassurance of divine order, as it explains the end of
the family's rule as the fulfilment of the divine word (see 10:30 and 15:12).
Thereafter one gains
the impression of rapid decay leading to catastrophic collapse. Shalum
murders Zekharia after a month on the throne. Despite his short tenure, Shalum
is depicted as a warlord. It seems that some of the colonies under Israelite
control – the town of Tifsach near the Euphrates – witnessed the political
unrest in Shomron and took this as an opportunity to renounce their
subordination to Israelite control.[1] Shalum douses the flames of the
rebellion by attacking Tifsach, where he "tore open its pregnant women" –
savagery that evokes memories of the cruel Aramean king Chaza’el (compare II
Melakhim 15:16 with 8:12). And yet, this show of strength is a mere façade.
Shalum is himself assassinated by Menachem after a mere six months as
sovereign. The reign of Menachem and his son Pekachya ends in
another bloody coup (15:25), and the latest usurper, Pekach, loses his
own life at the hand of a third assassin, Hoshea (v.30).
The sheer violence
and shameless ambition to rule,[2]
callously discarding the extant sovereign, displays the total breakdown of
governmental authority in this ominous period.
ASHUR'S ADVANCE
A second feature
emerging from these accounts is the menacing advance of Ashur. In the first
instance Menachem ben Gadi is subject to military pressure as "Pul, King of
Ashur, came against the land" (15:19).
He stymies the aggressor with a huge monetary payment,[3]
financing the heavy tribute by taxing the aristocracy.[4]
Pul is the nickname in late sources for Tiglat-Pileser III, and its usage here
is witness to the degree to which he was a household name for the generation of
Sefer Melakhim.
The reign of Pekach
brings a more pernicious attack from Ashur, in which the enemy overruns the
entire valley of the Galilee, a major swathe of the kingdom: "Iyun,
Abel-Beit-Ma'akha, Yano’ach and Kedesh, Chazor, Gilad, and the Galil, all the
territory of Naftali, and he deported [the population] to Ashur" (15:29).
Records from Ashur mention 13,250 exiles.[5]
Read in a larger
context, these events foreshadow a sad and violent conclusion yet to be told:
the conquest by Ashur and Yisrael's exile and dispersion. Yisrael is
characterized by disarray, turbulent, weak and self-destructive, framed on both
sides by the stable strength of Yehuda.
FOUR CONCURRENT PROPHETS
In our previous shiur we depicted the powerful and prosperous period
of Yerav’am II (Yisrael) and Uzzia (Yehuda). We described the prophets Amos and
Yishayahu who offered a biting critique of the thriving kingdom with their
accusations of the wealthy societies of both Shomron and Yerushalayim as
religiously smug, corrupt, aloof, materialistic, and exploitative of the working
classes. Amos warns that Shomron will be destroyed; Yishayahu prophesizes the
ruin of Yehuda.
The Talmud suggests that these two prophets – Amos and Yishayahu – were not
alone:
Rabbi Yochanan said: “…Four prophets prophesized concurrently: Hoshea,
Yishayahu, Amos and Mikha.”
[6]
The source for Chazal's
statement may be found by simply examining the opening lines of the prophetic
books:
The vision of Yishayahu
the son of Amotz, which he saw concerning Yehuda and Yerushalayim in the days of
Uzzia, Yotam, Achaz, and Yechizkiyahu, kings of Yehuda. (Yishayahu 1:1)
The word of the Lord that came to Hoshea, the son of Be’eri, in the
days of Uzzia, Yotam, Achaz, and Yechizkiya, kings of Yehuda, and in
the days of Yerav’am the son of Yoash, king of Yisrael. (Hoshea 1:1)
The words of Amos, who was among the shepherds of Tekoa, which he saw
concerning Yisrael in the days of Uzzia king of Yehuda and in the days of
Yerav’am the son of Yoash, king of Yisrael, two years before the earthquake. (Amos 1:1)
The word of the Lord that came to Mikha of Moreshet in the days of Yotam,
Achaz, and Yechizkiya, kings of Yehuda, which he saw concerning Shomron and
Yerushalayim. (Mikha 1:1)
In other words, starting
with the Yerav’am-Uzzia period and continuing throughout kings Yotam, Achaz, and
Chizkiyahu (all kings of Yehuda), we are witness to a veritable burst of
prophetic voices. Typically, Tanakh features the prophet as a lone
figure; only a single prophet occupies the national stage at any given moment in
time. A historical epoch in which multiple prophetic voices sound in parallel
suggests a message that must be heard, as God funnels His guidance through a
variety of channels, determined, so
to speak, that the message penetrate. God's sending of prophet after prophet
indicates an impending catastrophe.
The looming danger is the ascent of the Empire of Ashur, a superpower the
likes of which the Middle East has never seen. It is a historical event that
will fundamentally change the region. Ashur is the aggressor that exiles and
destroys the Northern Kingdom. In Yehuda, forty-six walled cities will be
invaded and burned, and Yerushalayim will survive by dint of a miracle. The
storm is approaching.
What sort of message does the prophet offer to a country that will soon be
threatened by a devastating empire? The final chapter of Hoshea offers two
pointers:
"Ashur shall not save us; we will not mount horses…" (Hoshea 14:3)
Hoshea's statement is more
than a prophet's directive. We shall suggest that Hoshea is critiquing and
contesting opinions that were current in the contemporary society.
What strategy should be employed in the face of a huge superpower that
threatens to overwhelm your nation? One obvious policy is to ally with the
superior kingdom, serving as a vassal to their king. Hoshea rejects this policy
as ill-fated. He says: "Ashur will not save us!" Fealty of this sort generally
exacts a heavy cultural and religious price. This will be aptly demonstrated by
King Achaz's treaty with Ashur which instigated an absolute replacement of
Judaic religion by the deities of Ashur and their worship.
A second alternative would be to organize a resistance, a coalition of states
which could fight and fend off the foreign aggressor. Again Hoshea warns against
this: "We shall not mount horses." The horses are a reference to the leading
power in the resistance to Ashur: Egypt. Hoshea warns that a direct
confrontation with Ashur could endanger the very existence of the Judean state.
These messages recur, as we shall see, in the prophecies of Yishayahu.
Everyone agrees about the threat. Everyone wants to save the Jewish State. The
question is the appropriate policy. As we progress through this challenging era,
we shall identify God's call to Yehuda to maintain its neutrality and to avoid
alliances. For now, let us simply take note of the enormous hurdle on the
horizon.
KING YOTAM: A FLAWLESS MONARCH
Upon this background, King Yotam's reign is characterized by remarkable
national vitality. It appears that Yotam ruled the kingdom in his father's
lifetime, after Uzzia was struck by leprosy[7]
and rules for sixteen years in his own right.[8]
He continued his father's uncompromising devotion to God and his regional
control. He fortified the kingdom, renovating and fortifying the Ofel in
Yerushalayim, and constructing defense installations in the hill country of
Yehuda. He waged war against Ammon and they paid him annual tribute.[9]
But it is his religious prowess which seems unprecedented. Divrei
Hayamim states: "Yotam was strong because he kept a faithful course before
God his Lord" (27:6). In an amazing summative comment, Rashi succinctly surveys
each and every king of Yehuda, identifying the sin of each, and he concludes
regarding Yotam: "He had not a single flaw."[10]
This assessment finds its origin in the Talmud:
Chizkiya quoted Rav
Yirmiya in the name of R. Shimon b. Yochai: “I could save the world from
judgment from the time I was born unto the present moment; and together with my
son Eliezer,
from the
moment of creation until the present time; and in conjunction with Yotam ben
Uzzia we could exempt the world from Judgement from Creation until the end of
time.” (Sukka 45b)
We will ignore R' Shimon b.
Yochai's self-congratulatory attitude for the present time, and focus instead on
his appraisal of Yotam as the epitome of piety. Upon this broad assessment, one
detail particularly arouses our curiosity:
He did that which was pleasing to the Lord as his father Uzzia had done, but
he did not enter the Temple of the Lord. (II Divrei Hayamim 27:3)
Why did Yotam not enter the
Temple? The Radak offers two divergent readings:
That is to say, he followed his father in all respects but in this matter he
was unlike him, for his father entered the sanctuary to offer incense.
Alternatively, we may explain that because his father had stumbled in this
matter, he refrained from entering the Temple to pray or sacrifice; instead he
offered sacrifices on the local altars (bamot).
The first reading offers no
remarkable praise for Yotam and merely seeks to differentiate him from his
father who had sinned in the Temple. Yotam did enter the Temple, to pray and
sacrifice, but not in the same sinful manner as his father.
But the second reading is even more interesting. Yotam decides that since the
Temple had been the location of his father's downfall, attracting his penchant
for leadership and inducing him to offer the forbidden incense, Yotam decides to
keep his distance from the Temple. This would appear to be the mark of a true
penitent (Baal Teshuva), as Rambam points out in “Hilkhot
Teshuva” (2:4):
One of the ways to repent is … to remove oneself as far as possible from the
original sin
Or, as he writes in
“Hilkhot De’ot” (2:1):
So too should a person behave regarding all character traits. If he finds
himself on one extreme he should move to the opposite extreme and accustom
himself to such behavior … until he may return to the proper middle path.
Yotam removes himself form
the environs of the Mikdash so that he will not become entrapped in his
father's sin. In this regard, we begin to appreciate how this man invested
significant thought and effort in his dedication to God. Ironically, for the
Radak, this entangles him in the prohibition of worshipping at local altars, and
nonetheless, he is granted the accolade of the flawless monarch. We might see
this as an expression of the great power of repentance.
NEXT WEEK, we will dedicate
our shiur to the dramatic reign of King Achaz.
[1] Y. Kiel,
Daat Mikra
[2] See Hoshea's critique in
Hoshea 7:3-7.
[3] This tribute is recorded in
the annals of Ashur, See Bustenai and Kochman in Olam Ha-Tanakh who
suggest that this payment to Ashur was made by Menachem to procure Ashur’s
backing of his regime, against his political opponents. If this assessment is
correct then this is an instance in which Yisrael, in a narrow and self-centred
political calculation, tragically invites its eventual destroyer into its own
borders.
[4]“Gibor chayil” may indicate military prowess, but it frequently
suggests social standing, as in I Shmuel 9:1, Rut 2:1, and
II Melakhim 24:14.
[5] Records from Ashur cited in Olam Ha-Tanakh.
[6]
Pesachim 87a
[7]
II Divrei Hayamim 26:21
[8]
The chronology is complicated to say the least. In II Melakhim 15:33 we read
that Yotam had a sixteen year reign, but 15:30 talks about Hoshea ben Ella
rebelling against Pekach in the twentieth year of Yotam's reign. (Chazal
have an elegant solution – see Rashi and Radak.) But more problematic is the
resolution of the biblical timeline with the chronology of Ashur. See the
Biblical Encyclopedia (“Yotam, Chronology”) or Olam Ha-Tanakh for
details.
[9] II Divrei Hayamim 27:1-8
[10]
This commentary is attributed by Rashi to Rabbi Eliezer ben Moshe.
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!