born's share of the spiritual inheritance, for so must the passage 2 Kings ii. 9 be understood,-Elijah intimated that the fulfilment of this desire was not in his power, and only gave him a sign by which he might recognise that God had granted his petition (ver. 10) (5).

It is specially worthy of remark, that these schools of the prophets served the people of the northern kingdom as a substi tute for the legitimate sanctuary. From 2 Kings iv. 23, it may be inferred that the pious betook themselves, on the new moons and Sabbaths, to the schools of the prophets; nay, from the mention of the offering of first-fruits of barley loaves and new corn, ver. 42, it may be presumed that there were some who brought to the prophets the dues prescribed in the law (for the sanctuary). With regard to maintenance, the prophets seem in general to have been left to voluntary contributions (6). Considering the great respect in which they were held by the people (comp. e.g. the narrative iv. 8 sqq.), though the worldly regarded them as mad, ix. 11, they could not easily have lacked support. For this reason, too, it would the more frequently happen that, after the persecution of the prophets had ceased, worthless babblers would assume the prophetic habit from covetousness, as we see to have been the case from the narrative 1 Kings xxii. Amos (vii. 12 sqq.) points to such a degenerate kind of prophetship, when, in reply to the scornful admonition of the priest in Bethel, to get fed for his prophecy in the land of Judah, he disclaims the honour of being taken for a prophet (i.e. one of the company of prophets) or the son of a prophet (i.e. a disciple of the prophets). In this passage, which is of the date of Jeroboam II., we meet for the last time with the expression, and consequently with the last trace of the schools of the prophets (7). It was from one of these that the overthrow of the dynasty of Omri proceeded. While king Jehoram lay sick at Jezreel, in consequence of a wound received in battle against the Syrians, Elisha, to whom Elijah had bequeathed the commission entrusted to him 1 Kings xix.

16, sent one of the sons of the prophets to anoint Jehu, a captain of the host in the besieging army before RamothGilead, king over Israel, and to charge him with the execution of the curse pronounced by Elijah on the house of Ahab (xxi. 21-29). Jezreel was immediately surprised by Jehu, with whom his comrades combined; Jehoram, his mother Jezebel, and the whole house of Ahab were slain; and the worship of Baal soon after extirpated at one blow, 2 Kings ix. sq., the prophethood thus triumphing over the apostate kingdom. Assistance was in the last instance afforded to Jehu by Jehonadab the son of Rechab, 2 Kings x. 15, 23, who is also known, from Jer. xxxv. 6, as the founder of the Rechabites, a kind of nomadic ascetics, belonging, according to 1 Chron. ii. 55, to the Kenites, who from the time of Moses had possessed the rights of hospitality in Israel, and must, according to the context of the passage in Chronicles, have been incorporated into a л of the tribe of Judah. According to the statement of Jeremiah, the Rechabites were bound to sow no seed, to plant no vineyards, and to drink no wine. It is worthy of note that the same particulars are stated to have constituted the vouos of the Nabateans by Diodor. Sic. xix. 94. Diodorus declares the purpose of this enactment to have been the maintenance of their independence. In the case of Jehonadab, however, who appears before us as zealous for the Lord, a religious motive must undoubtedly be assumed; and he probably desired, by the commands which he imposed upon his descendants, to preserve their lives from the moral and religious corruption of town civilisation. The prohibition of cultivating the vine, the use of whose produce was forbidden, must probably be referred to the fact that this plant belongs to a state of civilisation. The now usual notion that the Rechabites were connected with Nazaritism may be correct, but there is no authority for regarding them as Nazarites properly speaking. It is worthy of remark that, according to the passage in Chronicles, families of Sopherim (writers or scribes) are said to have arisen among the

race of Kenites, descended from an ancestor named Hamath, to which the Rechabites also belonged.

(1) The schools of the prophets are first expressly mentioned under Jehoram, while the name of "sons of the prophets," given to members of these schools, already appears in the history of Ahab (1 Kings xx. 35). (Art. Pädagogik des A. T.)

gave

(2) The designation disciples of wisdom, in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, is analogous. (Art. Prophetenthum des A. T.) (3) The statement of Eichhorn (id. p. 196), that the prophetic dignity descended from father to son, and that birth a hereditary right of admission into the prophetic order, rests upon a misconception of the ' in Amos vii. 14; only one, and that an older example, being found of a son succeeding his father in the prophetic office, viz. that of Jehu the son of Hanani (1 Kings xvi. 1). The fact that the sons of the prophets are here and there called prophets (xx. 38, 41; 2 Kings ix. 4), and that in 1 Kings xx. 35 sqq. a son of the prophets appears, in virtue of "the word of the Lord" to him, to have exercised independent prophetic authority, certainly shows that the distinction between prophets and sons of the prophets was a fluctuating one, but does not authorize us entirely to deny it. The opinion of Kranichfeld (De prophetarum societatibus, p. 17 sq.), that the name means sons who are prophets, is linguis tically untenable.

(4) Isa. lxi. 1 proves nothing in favour of the anointing of prophets, the expression being used figuratively. Hence the traditionary tenet found in many works, that kings, priests, and prophets were anointed, is, so far as the last particular is concerned, incorrect.

(5) Accordingly, when Elisha proved himself the inheritor of the spirit of Elijah, he received the respectful homage of the sons of the prophets, 2 Kings ii. 15. Of the kind of instruction given in the schools of the prophets we are told nothing; the discipline would tend above all things to inculcate unreserved obedience to the Divine word (when it proved itself to be such), and unconditional surrender to the Divine call. How strict the obedience required of prophets was, is evident

from 1 Kings xiii. 20 sqq., xx. 35 sqq., and the history of Jonah. Comp. also Jer. i. 7, xx. 7 sq.; Ezek. iii. 17 sqq.

(6) It is evident from 1 Kings xiv. 3 (comp. 1 Sam. ix. 8) that presents were offered to the prophets when their advice. was sought; the narrative 2 Kings v. 20-27, and especially the words of Elisha, show, however, the unselfishness which his calling imposed upon the prophet, and how he was obliged to avoid all appearance of mercenary service. 1 Kings xiii. 16 sqq. also refers to this particular.

(7) The Second Book of Kings makes no mention of schools of the prophets after the accession of Jehu. Their cessation is probably connected with the turn taken by prophecy in the northern kingdom after the death of Elisha (see § 175).

SECOND PERIOD.

FROM JEHU TO THE OVERTHROW OF THE KINGDOM OF THE

TEN TRIBES (884-720 B.C.).

$ 175.

The Dynasty of Jehu.

Jehu's dynasty maintained itself on the throne for more than a century, a longer period of occupation than that of any other. Jehu's reformation stopped half-way. The worship of Baal was indeed extirpated, but the illegal worship at Dan and Bethel, and also the Asherah (grove, A. V.) at Samaria, were left unmolested (2 Kings xiii. 6). Hence Jehu's house was, according to the prophetic word, 2 Kings x. 30, to possess the throne to the fourth generation, but then to be in its turn condemned, and to have the blood-guiltiness of extirpating Omri's dynasty avenged upon it (see Hos. i. 4) (1). The state of the kingdom under Jehu, and still more under his son and successor Jehoahaz, was in a political aspect a very unfortunate one; for Hazael, who had been raised according to prophecy to the throne of Damascus as a Divine scourge to Israel, repeatedly and successfully invaded the land, treating with

especial harshness the provinces east of Jordan (Amos i. 3), which were for some time subject to the kingdom of Damascus. During this period of political oppression, the opposition of the prophets was withdrawn; nay, when the kingdom was reduced to the last exremity, it was by the mouth of the prophets that Divine deliverance was once more announced, the dying Elisha first promising to the dejected Joash, the son and successor of Jehcahaz, victory over the Syrians (2 Kings xiii. 14 sqq.), and Jonah the son of Amittai subsequently predicting the restoration of the ancient boundaries of the kingdom (xiv. 25) (2). Joash was successful in his wars against Damascus and Judah; but the glory of the kingdom was still further enhanced under his valiant son Jeroboam 11. (825-784), who not only restored the ancient limits of the kingdom, but even conquered a portion of Syria. External success, however, effected no internal change; on the contrary, its internal corruption continuing to increase, it was during the period in which, to human eyes, it was attaining a hitherto unparalleled prosperity, that the state, together with its royal house, was hastening towards those judgments which the prophets Amos and Hosea were raised up under Jeroboam II. to proclaim. First, it was the shepherd of Tekoa who came from Judah and testified to the tyrannical nobles of Samaria, revelling in proud security, and to the multitude trusting in their mistaken and hypocritical piety, the approach of the day of the Lord (Amos v. 10 sqq., vi. 1-6) (3). Afterwards, probably towards the end of Jeroboam the Second's reign, Hosea appeared; and when the respite granted by the prophetic word, 2 Kings x. 30, to the house of Jehu had nearly expired, he announced first to the latter, and then to the kingdom of Samaria in general, that judgment was now at hand, and continued his testimony during the terrible times beginning with Jeroboam's death.

(1) I at least can but esteem this the correct explanation of, "I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu," Hos. i. 4.