CHAPTER SIX
KINGS OF ISRAEL (Part II)
Introduction
In the preceding chapter, we started the stories of the kings who
reigned over the ten tribes of Israel, called the northern kingdom
of Israel, or simply as Israel. The kings of Israel examined in
the previous chapter are: Jereoboam I,
Nadah, Baasha, Elah, Zimri, Omri, Ahab, Ahaziah, Joram,
Jehu, Jehoahaz, and Joash. In this chapter, we take up the
stories of the remaining kings of Israel namely Jeroboam II,
Zachariah, Shallum, Menahem, Pekahiah, Pekah, and Hosea.
The prophetic roles of Amos and Hosea in the history and
religion of Israel during the reigns of some of these kings are
also examined.
Objective
At the end of this chapter, students should be able to identify
Jeroboam II, Zachariah, Shallum, Menhahem, Pekahiah, Pekah,
and Hosea, their achievements and failures as kings of Israel.
They should be able to identify the factors that led to the fall
and Assyrian captivity of Israel; and the roles of prophets such
as Amos, and Hosea in the lives and times of the kings of Israel.
Pre-test
1. Identify: (i) Jeroboam II, (ii) Zachariah, (iii) Shallum, and
(iv)Menhahem, in terms of their achievements and failures71Historical PerpectiveIsrael: Monarchy to Exile
as kings of Israel.
2. Identify: (i) Pekahiah, (ii)Pekah, and (iii)Hosea, in terms
of their achievements and failures as kings of Israel.
3. Why was Israel doomed and punished with exile?
4. What are the major themes of Amos’s and Hosea’s
prophetic ministries in Israel?
5. Why do Amos and Hosea criticize sacrificial cult as they
do in their books?
6. How did Hosea’s attitude toward Israel differ from the
attitude of Amos?
Content
Jeroboam II
Jeroboam II, son of Jehoash or Joash, was the thirteenth king of
Israel. He reigned over Israel for forty one years (II kgs. 14:16;
23-29). The kingdom of Israel had reached the height of its
power during the reign of Jeroboam II (983 BC) who succeeded
in achieving independence from Syrian dominance and bring
the nation to high degree of economic prosperity. However, this
affluence gave rise to moral and spiritual corruption to which
the prophets, Amos and Hosea, formed a nucleus of opposition
(Elija, 1984).
A period of instability followed when Jeroboam II and
Zachariah was assassinated by Shallum, who in turn was put to
death by the military commander, Menahem, son of Pekah. The
rising Assyrians empire, meanwhile, now posed a major threat.
Menahem warded off Assyrian invasion by paying tribute to
king Tiglath-pileser (also called Tiglath-pileser III) of Assyria
as did king Ahaz of Judah. Menahem, however, formed an
alliance with Rezin of Ramascus and attempted to influence
Judah to join the revolt against Assyria. Judah did not respond
and when Israel and Syria attacked Judah, Tiglath-pileser (king
of Assyria) came to Judah’s aid. Menahem’s son, Pekariah ruled72Israel: Monarchy to Exile Historical Perpective
only briefly and was assassinated by the usurper, Pekah, around
735 BC. During this time, the Assyrians succeeded in annexing
the Israelite territory of the Galilee, leaving Israel with only a
small area of land surrounding its capital of Samaria. Pekah’s
reign was put to an end when he was assassinated by Hoshea,
possibly in an attempt to put a stop to the policy of resistance
towards Assyria. Like all the northern kings, Hoshea is said by
the Bible to have done evil in the eyes of the Lord but it specifies
that Hoshea’s evil was not like that of the kings of Israel who
preceded him. Based on the Biblical description of the other
kings of Israel, this probably means that he was personally a
devotee of the Hebrew deity, Yahweh, and did not encourage
Baal worship, but that he did support the Israelite shrines at
Bethel and Dan of which the pro-Jerusalem Biblical writers
strongly disapproved. What happened to Hoshea following the
end of the kingdom of Israel and when or where he died is
unknown (Kolade, 2012).
The reign of Jeroboam II was a mixed blessing to the Northern
Kingdom of Israel. There was political peace and stability
coupled with material prosperity on the one hand, and social,
moral and religious decay on the other hand. In the preceding
century, internally weakened by Jehu’s purge of the house of
Omri, Israel had suffered severely at the hands of the Aramean
Kingdom of Damascus, losing all her territory east of the
Jordan and probably more besides, and becoming ultimately a
dependence of the Aramean King. At the end of the 9th century,
however, Assyrian invasion crippled Damascus while leaving
Israel relatively untouched. Then the Assyrians withdrew; and
for some fifty years busied with internal problems and with
campaigns elsewhere, did not march into Syria and Palestine
at all. This gave Israel her chance. Under Jehoash (801-786
BC) and then under Jeroboam II, she recovered all her lost
territories and enlarged her borders considerably at the expense
of her neighbours. Jeroboam II recaptured the border cities that
had been seized previously by Syria. He made expeditions of73Historical PerpectiveIsrael: Monarchy to Exile
conquest into Trans-Jordan where he made some territorial
gains. He was able to place his northern frontier at the entrance
of Hammath. By this victory, the Moabites and Ammonites
were ejected from Israelite territory and held in check. Thus,
under Jeroboam II, Israel became stronger. The political
peace and stability was parallel by intense economic activity
and thus Israel became more prosperous. The control gained
over Trans-Jordan left Jeroboam II in a position to control
the trade routes between Asia and Africa and so levy tolls on
considerable commercial traffic. This, with the free interchange
of goods poured into the country, trade flourished and there was
much wealth in the land. The economic prosperity which this
expansion implies is suggested also by excavations at Samaria
and Megiddo (Noth, 2013).
As the country became more and more wealthy, a rich and
affluent merchant class emerged. The consequence was the
creation of two classes of people in Israel, the rich few and the
poor who were in the majority. The rich took advantage of the
poor at every opportunity, amassing wealth by dishonest means
and without regard for the rights of the poor. Their women-folk
were equally guilty with them. Since the judges were venal,
the poor had no recourse. Thus, the tribal structure of Israel’s
society completely disintegrated, leaving a wide gap between
the rich and poor. Covenant law in which all social obligations
had once been based ceased to have any real meaning. The
shrines were busy and well supported but immorality and foreign
cultic practices were rampart. Religion had divorced itself from
morality. The clergy, being servants of the existing order, could
neither utter criticism nor combat societal corruption. Baalism
was the religion of a large proportion of the population at this
time. It is these ugly situations that the prophetic ministries of
Amos and Hosea attempted to address (Alahun, 2019).74Israel: Monarchy to Exile Historical Perpective
Amos and Hosea
It is against this historical background of mixed blessing that
Eze (2009) asserts that Amos and later, Hosea prophesied.
Whereas Amos’ message was proclaimed in a tone of righteous
indignation, Hosea proclaimed his message with tearful pleading.
Much of our information on the social, moral and religious
conditions of the period is gained from the denunciations of
Amos and Hosea. Amos exposed the maltreatment of the poor
by the rich. He denounced the practice whereby the poor were
bought for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals. Amos
declared: “They sell the righteous for silver and the needy for a
pair of shoes; they trample the head of the poor into the dust of
the earth, and turn aside the way of the afflicted” (Amos 2:6-7).
Amos attacked the wicked farmers and merchants who
exploited the poor through cheating, especially in the markets.
They used false weights and measures to extract more money
from the poor. “They make the ephah small and the shekel
great, and deal deceitfully with false balances” (Amos 8: 5).
The prophet condemned the domineering women of Samaria
whom he compared to the cows of Baashan for their selfish
luxury which forced them to make incessant demands on their
husbands, who in order to satisfy their wives, oppressed the
poor. “You cows of Baashan, who are in the mountains of
Samaria, who oppress the poor, who crush the needy, who say
to their husbands, ‘Bring that we may drink’ (Amos 4:1). The
prophet criticized the wealthy greedy land grabbers who took
advantage of the plight of the poor to enlarge their holdings.
They built houses of hewn stone and planted vineyards (Amos
5:11). Amos condemned the wealth and luxury of the rich.
They built winter and summer houses and also houses of ivory
(Amos 3: 15).
They sleep on ivory beds, they stretch themselves upon
their couches, and eat lambs from the flock and calves75Historical PerpectiveIsrael: Monarchy to Exile
from the midst of the stall, they sing songs of the sound of
the harp; they drink wine in bowls and anoint themselves
with the finest oil (Amos 6: 4-6).
Amos attacked corruption of the courts. He condemned the
venality of the judges. The judges turned justice into wormwood.
Those who advocated for justice were silenced. “They hate him
who reproves in the gate and they abhor him who speaks truth”
(Amos 5: 10). The judges perverted justice by taking bribes
from the rich in order to give judgment in their favour (Amos
5: 12) (Peters, 2014).
Amos condemned the practice whereby religious leaders like
the Nazarites were made to break their vows and the prophets
were silenced from performing their duties. “And I raised up
some of your sons for prophets, and some of your young men
for Nazarites… But you made the Nazarites drink wine, and
commanded the prophets saying, ‘you shall not prophesy”
(Amos 2: 11-12). To force the Nazarites to break their vows
and to stop the prophets from performing their sacred duties
(as Amaziah, the corrupt priest at Bethel sacked Amos from the
Northern Kingdom) meant that moral and religious perversions
had reached alarming proportions in Israel. The people were
so engrossed in their wickedness, likewise their own religious
leaders (Peters, 2014).
Amos attacked the shallow religiosity of the people. The shrines
were well, and outward religious duties like the payment of
tithes and the offering of sacrifices were with regularity and
great zeal but there was no moral transformation in the lives
of the people. The prophet reproved the sham worship and
sacrifices thus:
I hate, I despise your feasts; and I take no delight in
your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me burnt
offerings and cereal offerings, I will not accept them, and
the peace offerings of your fatted beasts I will not look76Israel: Monarchy to Exile Historical Perpective
upon. Take away from me the noise of your songs; to the
melody of your harp I will not listen. But let justice roll
down like waters, and righteousness like an ever flowing
stream. (Amos 5: 21-24).
With biting sarcasm, Amos indicted the people for carrying on
with their festivals and then come to the sanctuaries of Bethel
and Gilgal only to rebel against Yahweh.
Come to Bethel and transgress; to Gilgal and
multiply transgressions; bring your sacrifices every
morning, your tithes every three days; offer a sacrifice
of thanksgiving of that which is leavened, and proclaim
freewill offerings, publish them; for so you love to do O
Israel (Amos 4:4-5).
What the worshippers did at these sanctuaries was to intensify
their apostasy and rebellion against Yahweh. The regularity of
their sacrifices without any corresponding inner moral change
was the substance of their apostasy and rebellion. Hosea also
condemned the social vices of the period but laid emphasis
on the syncretism which had gripped the nation. “A spirit
of harlotry has led them astray, and they have left their God
to play the harlot” (Hosea 4: 12). In the midst of this social
injustice and moral and religious perversions, Amos stressed
the righteousness of Yahweh; and Hosea, the steadfast love of
God (Babalola, 2012).
Amos’ Concept of the Righteousness of
Yahweh
In the teaching of Amos, righteousness is a narrow religious or
legalistic concept. It is that aspect of Yahweh’s being by which
men are led into fuller perception of his whole nature. First, it
is an expression of the essential nature of Yahweh himself, and
second, it represents the character of God in his dealings with
man. It is a total description of the moral demand of Yahweh.77Historical PerpectiveIsrael: Monarchy to Exile
Thus, righteousness is an expression not only of the essential
nature of Yahweh himself, but also of the unique characteristics
of the moral or ethical imperatives which Yahweh lays upon all
those who are his creatures. Amos declared that Yahweh had
made the whole world and all human history as the outcome
of his will. Hence, he was concerned with all nations and he
appeared as the vindicator of universal moral laws. The moral
obligations of which all men are aware is identified with the
personal will of Yahweh who exercises universal sovereignty
and holds people accountable for their conduct. Thus, his
righteousness demands that he punishes neighbouring states
for crimes which violated natural laws of common humanity.
Damascus, Edom, Ammon and Moab are to be punished for
their inhuman atrocities. The Philistines and the Phoenicians
are to be punished for their participation in inhuman slave
trade. Yahweh’s righteousness, therefore, manifests itself
in his judgment of other nations for their acts of inhumanity
(Yohanan, 2010).
If Yahweh, in his righteousness, punishes other nations, then
Israel as Yahweh’s elect comes under severe punishment
because the total description of what Yahweh requires from
his people is explicitly stated in the covenant with a basic
stipulation that the people obey the covenant law in all dealings
with each other. Righteousness involves the establishment
of equal rights for all. Israel had perverted the notion of the
covenant through corruption, exploitation and oppression of
the poor and social injustice. Yahweh’s righteousness would
not tolerate corruption in the courts; corruption in the markets;
and corruption in high places with all the cruel suffering they
cause. Israel had become unrighteous, therefore, Yahweh, in
his righteousness, will punish Israel. Yahweh’s passion for
righteousness led him to punish Israel in the past with famine,
drought, blight, epidemic, disease, earthquake, etc., but Israel
had persisted in her unrighteousness. Therefore, Yahweh’s
judgment will fall heavily upon the nation. Israel is doomed78Israel: Monarchy to Exile Historical Perpective
and she will be punished with exile (Esiri, 2014).
The visions of Amos highlight the punishment in store for
Israel in consequence of her apostasy, moral and social evils. In
the first two visions, Yahweh was ready to punish his wayward
people but the prophet intervenes and he relents. First, a swarm
of locusts ready to devour the land, but Amos interceded
and Yahweh relented (Amos 7:1-3,); secondly, a vision of a
consuming fire devastating the land. The prophet interceded
again and for the second time, Yahweh changed his mind (Amos
7: 4-6). In the third vision, the prophet saw a man standing beside
a wall with a plumb line in his hand ready to demolish the wall.
This means that Yahweh is tired of relenting and will execute
judgment (Amos 7:7-9). In the fourth vision, the prophet saw a
basket of summer fruit which symbolized the end of summer.
The end has come for Israel; the judgment is certain (Amos
8:1-3). In the final vision, Yahweh avenged and there was no
escape whatsoever. The destruction would be complete (Amos
9: 1-8). It is reasonable to conclude from Amos’ condemnation
of Israel that the righteous demands of Yahweh do not exempt
Israel from divine punishment. In this, Amos made a significant
break away from popular understanding of the righteousness of
God. The contemporary idea was that Yahweh had chosen Israel
and was bound to protect his people under all circumstances.
Yahweh, in his righteousness, will come and punish every other
nation, except Israel. Thus, to Israel, the judgment associated
with the “Day of the Lord”, will mean vindication of Israel,
the elect of God, and her triumph over all her enemies. Thus,
it would be a time of rejoicing and exultation. This optimistic
attitude reflects in the oracle found in Amos 5: 18-20, where
it is said that the people were “desiring the Day of the Lord”
confident that it would be a day of ‘Light’, that is, a time of
victory and blessing (Juol, 2013).
Amos reverses this popular concept of the “Day of the Lord”
of his time, saying that it would be a day of punishment, gloom and destruction for Israel for failing to keep the moral demands
of Yahweh. He said Yahweh had known only Israel of all the
families of the earth; therefore, Israel would be punished for her
iniquities. Israel’s special calling, said Amos, does not entitle
her to special privilege, but only to greater responsibility. His
special relationship to his own people meant not privilege to do
wrong, but responsibility to do right. In fact, Amos censured
Israel far more heavily than any of the surrounding nations,
precisely because Israel alone had been called into relationship
with God and had received through her experience, the teaching
concerning God’s will. Having seen the light, however, Israel
preferred the darkness rather than light.
Consequently, Amos asked: “Is not the day of the Lord
darkness, and not light, and gloom with no brightness in
it?” (Grandt, 1979).
“The Day of the Lord” would prove to be a day of destruction
(Amos 5: 18-20; 8: 9-10). Since Yahweh knows the movement
of all nations, he would raise one of them to be the instrument
of divine judgment (Amos 6:14). Amos was so critical of the
doctrine or conventional belief in Israel’s election; in fact, he
seems to denounce the doctrine altogether (see, Amos 9:7).
Amos retained the idea of Yahweh’s coming to assert his
sovereignty in the world, but he made a radical break with all
popular expectations when he declared that it was Israel (and
not the Gentiles) who was Yahweh’s enemy and therefore, that it
was his own people who would be brought to judgment. Amos’
radical interpretation of the day of Yahweh’s visitation is to be
seen in the context of the covenant tradition, which included
blessings for obedience as well as threat in the form of curses
upon disobedience. The covenant did not give an unconditional
guarantee for the future; but popular religion reversed this
covenant tradition and clanged to the view that Yahweh would
favour Israel in spite of her wickedness and rather judge the
Gentiles (Esiri, 2014).80Israel: Monarchy to Exile Historical Perpective
Hosea’s Concept of the Steadfast Love of God
(Hesed)
According to Michael (2016), since the key to the interpretation
of Hosea’s message of God’s unyielding love for his apostate
people, Israel, is his marriage with Gomer, we shall take a look
at the marriage and then see the analogy in God’s relation to
Israel. Whereas Amos’ message was proclaimed in a tone of
righteous indignation, Hosea proclaimed his message with
tearful pleading. Hosea married Gomer, she gave birth to three
children. He gave symbolic names to his children in order that
they might be ‘walking signs’ of Yahweh’s word to Israel. The
first son was named Jezreel, in recollection of the place where
Jehu carried his bloody purge - a sign that in a little while,
Yahweh would punish the house of Jehu for their monstrous
atrocities. The second child, a daughter was named ‘Not
Pitied’, a symbol that Yahweh’s patience with Israel had been
exhausted. The third child, a son, was named ‘Not my People’,
a sign that Yahweh had dissolved the covenant and rejected his
people.
Initially, there was love between Hosea (husband) and Gomer
(wife). Later, Gomer proved unfaithful to the marriage bond by
going after other men.
Gomer’s infidelity indicated a clear rejection of the relationship
between her and Hosea (her husband). As a result, Hosea
divorced her. However, despite her disloyalty, Hosea was
prepared to go beyond the law and forgive her. Thus, Hosea
ransomed her and, after a period of discipline, restored her
as his wife. When Hosea married Gomer, she was not yet a
prostitute, although looking at the matter in retrospect she was
clearly destined to be one. Hosea insisted that his loving and
reconciling action towards Gomer was initiated at Yahweh’s
command. He was divinely ordered to take “a wife of harlotry
and have children of harlotry”. And once he had reflected on81Historical PerpectiveIsrael: Monarchy to Exile
Israel’s relation to Yahweh, the meaning of his own marriage
became clear. Just as Gomer forsook Hosea, “the land commits
great harlotry by forsaking Yahweh” (Harrah, 2008).
Hosea applied the sacred marriage concept to Yahweh’s relation
to Israel. He interpreted the covenant by comparing it with
marriage. He spoke of a historical marriage in the wilderness
between God and his people. The meaning of this marriage
was disclosed to him by a deep understanding of his own
relationship with Gomer. The initial relationship of openness
and spontaneity which characterized the beginning of Hosea’s
marriage is comparable to Yahweh’s relationship with Israel “in
the days of her youth, when she came out of the land of Egypt”.
Just as Gomer played the harlot, so the ‘wife’ whom Yahweh
had chosen and betrothed to himself had become a whore. In
the land of
Canaan, she began to pursue her ‘lovers’. The people’s
ungrateful forsaking of Yahweh for Baal and his licentious
worship at the sanctuaries is denounced as nothing than harlotry
and whoredom. Thus, Israel had abandoned Yahwism in favour
of the Canaanite way. Oyelade (2017) affirmed that the faithless
attempt to find security in foreign alliances in the chaotic years
after the death of Jeroboam II in 746 B.C. promoted Canaanite
idolatrous and sinful practices. The covenant is broken because
Israel, the ‘wife’ was estranged from her ‘husband’ by her
unfaithfulness.
Israel’s fidelity was likening to that of a fickle woman such
as Gomer. It lacked steadfastness of a true covenant love. In
short, it lacked ‘Hesed’. This is a covenant word that refers to
the faithfulness or loyal love that binds two parties together in
a covenant. When a person shows ‘Hesed’, he is not motivated
merely by legal obligations, but by an inner loyalty which arises
out of the situation itself. Such covenant love has the quality of
constancy, firmness, steadfastness and reliability. In Hosea’s
marital experience with an unfaithful wife, Israel’s ‘Hesed’ was82Israel: Monarchy to Exile Historical Perpective
like a transient morning cloud. Hosea divorced his wife for her
infidelity resulting from her fickleness and frailty. In the same
way, Yahweh would divorce
Israel (harlotrous mother of harlotrous children) for “she is not
my wife and I am not her husband”. Yahweh would forget his
people, he would abandon them when they seek him and he
would love them. A faithless people, no better than Gomer,
were to be cast off. The name of Hosea’s youngest child, “Not
My People”, stood for Yahweh’s abandonment of his people. In
short, the covenant is cancelled.
Bazeth (1994) affirmed that Hosea continued to love his wife
even though she proved unfaithful. In this experience, Hosea
found analogy between Yahweh and Israel, for Yahweh too
steadfastly loved his people even though they turn to other
gods. It is a divine love that will not let his people go, despite
their fickleness and harlotry. Hosea ransomed Gomer and
restored her to himself after subjecting her to a prolonged
period of discipline, during which she was denied all sexual
intercourse, whether legitimate or illegitimate. So, Israel is to
be disciplined for her infidelity; she had to go without king or
prince, without sacrifice or pillar, without ephod or teraphin.
The deprivation will be primarily political and religious, the
very areas that had been eroded by the culture of Canaan. Israel
is to be punished by Egypt or Assyria, the very nations to whom
Israel was turning for political salvation.
But God’s wrath or judgment as implied in the disciplinary
measures to be taken is not destructive; it is rather redemptive.
His wrath is not capricious and vindictive. Therefore, in
catastrophe, Yahweh neither abandons his people nor does
his love for them cease. It is not his will that Israel should
be destroyed as Admah and Zeboin were destroyed during
the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah. The purpose behind
Yahweh’s judgment is thus love, like that of a parent who
lovingly disciplines his wayward child. It is a struggle within the heart of God… a struggle that undoubtedly reflects the
agony of Hosea’s experience with Gomer. But the victory is on
the side of love that will not let go, “for I am God and not man,
the Holy One in your midst, and I will not come to destroy you”
(Hooker, 2008).
Junahdi (1995) stated that after many days of cleansing and
chastisement, there would be a beginning; a new relationship, for
Israel would return and seek Yahweh her God. The wilderness
was to be the scene of the renewal of the covenant and there
the long history of broken covenant would be ended. In the
wilderness, Israel would answer Yahweh’s overture of love
as she had responded in trust and gratitude at the time of the
Exodus. And Yahweh would restore Israel to the relationship
of a wife, betrothing her ‘to himself in righteousness and in
justice, in steadfast love (Hesed) and in mercy’. For Israel’s
persistent infidelity would be conquered by a love stronger and
deeper than hers and she would know
Yahweh in the relationship of a new covenant. Thus, Israel’s
faithlessness and the lack of it in its own marital experience
led Hosea to his mission. In this marriage tragedy, Hosea found
deep religious insight into God’s deep and intimate personal
relationship with Israel. Yahweh’s love for Israel is ‘Hesed’…
a steadfast love, covenant faithfulness with added qualities of
constancy and stability, reliability and dependability.
The Prophets’ Criticism of Sacrifices
The criticism of sacrifices which played an essential part in
the religion of Israel was a central element in the denunciation
of the 8th century prophets, especially Amos and Hosea. The
attitude of Amos to sacrifices is evident from several utterances
in his book. He condemns the cultic feasts as a whole with
all their varied ritual acts. To Yahweh, they were offensive.
Yahweh hates, despises their feasts; he takes no delight in the84Israel: Monarchy to Exile Historical Perpective
solemn assemblies; he will not accept their burnt sacrifices
and cereal offerings; he will not look upon the peace offerings
of their fatted beasts; he will not listen to their songs. Amos
is merciless in his attack on the shrines, especially the royal
shrine of Jeroboam II at Bethel. Hosea says that Yahweh will
punish Israel for the Baal feasts, Israel will be deprived of every
possibility of performing cultic rites. The sacrifices are simply
described as sin. The cult, on the sacred hills with its sacrifices
and sexual rites, brings about the ruin of the people. The entire
sacrificial cult is condemned; Yahweh does not require burnt
offering; he is not pleased with their sacrifices. With scorn, he
speaks of the cessation of the cultic feasts and performances on
the day when Israel will be deported to foreign countries, and
the total devastation of the temple at Bethel. The syncretic cult
is to Hosea a worship of Baal, or apostasy (Falalumi, 1994).
The prophetic denunciation of sacrifices is usually coupled
with a statement of the moral demand of Yahweh, though the
prophets never give this as the basis of their denunciation.
Therefore, the question is: why do Amos and Hosea criticize
sacrificial cult as they do in their books? Here, two possibilities
are opened to us: either they were denouncing corrupt practices
merely but not the cult itself, or they were doing something
more fundamental, which is, sweeping aside the cult as a
means of recalling the people to the true basis and demands
of Yahwism. There is evidence that the prophets denounced
corrupt practices but not the cult itself. It appears that they were
opposed to the forms in which men acted out their worship.
Amos condemns the cult because it was mingled with direct
immoral elements such as sacred prostitution. Garments and
the wine of fine persons used in the sanctuaries are condemned
because it was alien to Yahweh and apostasy to him. Israel’s
religious practice is condemned both for its corrupt practice
and its side show. The shrines were busy and well supported by
immorality together with the notion that religious obligations
could be discharged by external observances like sacrifices.85Historical PerpectiveIsrael: Monarchy to Exile
With bitter sarcasm, Amos indicted the people for observing
their festivals and come to the sanctuaries at Bethel and Gilgal
to rebel against Yahweh.
Niels (1987) stated that Hosea attacks the cult because of its
syncretism, which was to him an apostasy for Yahweh, being as
he says, the worship of the Canaanite Baal. In popular religion,
Yahweh and Baal had become identified. The people no longer
saw the difference between the worship of the god of fertility
and the God of history. Israel did not realize that the very gifts
she sought from Baal had been mercifully provided by the God
who had brought them out of the land of Egypt. The cult was
stained with grosser forms of wickedness.
Fornication was practiced in connection with the worship of
Yahweh himself. The people have corrupted the notion of the
covenant and imagined that the bond between Yahweh and
Israel was one based on the notion of sacrifice and ritual.
Apart from the hostile attack on the corrupt practices of the
cult, it appears that the prophets were doing something more
fundamental and more radical… they swept aside the cult as
a means of recalling the people to the true basis and demands
of Yahweh. Amos rejected not only the immoral rites but the
entire cult as it was celebrated in his time. That this is the case
is confirmed by the question in Amos 5: 25: “Did you bring me
sacrifices and offerings for the forty years in the wilderness, O
house of Israel?” From the non-existence of sacrifices during
Israel’s sojourn in the wilderness, Amos concludes that the
entire cult as it was celebrated in the sanctuaries was alien to
the moral demand of Yahwism. He repudiated the cult because
it was false homage to Yahweh who, above all, required of his
worshippers justice and righteousness (Kingston, 2017).
Instead of cultic achievements, Amos demanded a total change
of the moral life. In Amos 5: 23ff, he says: “Take away from me
the noise of your songs… and let justice roll on like water and86Israel: Monarchy to Exile Historical Perpective
righteousness like an ever flowing stream”. God is to be found
not in the cults but in everyday experience and human relations.
In short, Yahweh is not to be found in the sanctuaries, but rather
in right human relations. This moral alternative to the cult had
been made clear. Amos asserts it from the very beginning of
Israel’s Mosaic faith. Hosea also shared this fundamental view
point of Amos. He ultimately condemned the entire syncretic
cult and declared that what Yahweh required was not such a
cult but wholehearted devotion in faith and obedience, which
he calls the knowledge of God. “I desire steadfast love and not
sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offering”
(Hosea 6:6). The chief demand of Yahweh is faithfulness or
loyalty, including obedience to Yahweh’s command. The kings
of Israel were motivated by political expediency to leave the
real source of power and seek aid from Egypt or Assyria. This
was because international relations demand that a weak nation
align itself to powers that be. But to the prophet, this meant
trusting in something that saves.
Israel’s salvation lies not in these alliances, but
trusting in Yahweh (Fajenyo, 2009).
Zachariah
Zachariah, son of Jeroboam II, was the 14th king of Israel. He
was the king over Israel in Samaria for only six months. He did
evil in the sight of God as his father has done. He did not depart
from the sin of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat. Albright and Thiele
(2020) dated his reign as 746 BC-745 BC, while Albright
(2020) offers the dates 753-752 BC. Shallum conspired against
Zachariah, struck him down before the people and reigned in
his place. This was in fulfilment of the word of the Lord spoken
to his forefather, Jehu, that because of his faithfulness to God,
his son would sit on the throne of Israel to the fourth generation.87Historical PerpectiveIsrael: Monarchy to Exile
Shallum
Shallum was the 15th king and the son of Jabesh. Shallum
reigned for only one month in Samaria. Menahem came from
Tirzah, murdered Shallum and usurped his throne. The book of
Jeremiah chapter 22 focuses upon the three kings who occupied
the throne in Jerusalem between the death of Josiah in 609 BC
and the accession of the last king of Judah, Zedekiah in 597
BC. It was a period of increasing political and social instability.
Two of them reigned but a brief few months; the third long
enough to show only too clearly his true colours.
Menahem
He was the 16th king of Israel. He was the son of Gadi. He
reigned ten (10) years in Samaria. He did evil in the sight of
the Lord. The city of Tirzah did not open to him. Menahem
captured it and its borders, slaughtered all the people and
ripped open the pregnant women. Despite the knowledge of the
law of God, he still did evil without restraints. Throughout his
days, he did not turn away from the sins of Jeroboam, the son
of Nebat, by which he caused Israel to sin. Pul, king of Assyria,
came against the land and Manahem gave him quite an amount
of money exacted from Israel, from all the great men of wealth.
This made the King of Assyria to depart from the land. He died
and was buried in Israel. Pekaliah succeeded him (Oluyemi,
2015).
Pekahiah
He was the 17th and antepenultimate king of Israel. He was
the son of Menahem, and the second and last king of Israel
from the house of Gadi. He ruled from the capital of Samaria.
He became King in the 15th year of the reign of Uzziah, King
of Judah. He was the 6th to be assassinated. Pekahiah reigned
for two (2) years. His reign ended when he was assassinated88Israel: Monarchy to Exile Historical Perpective
by Pekah, a general in the army. Pekahiah is described as an
evil king who continued to worship false idols that were started
by Jeroboam I. Pekah conspired with 50 men from Gilead
to assassinate Pekahiah at the palace of Samaria. Pekah then
became king.
Pekah
He was 18th and penultimate king of Israel. He was the
captain in the army of king Pekahiah of Israel whom he killed
to become king. Pekah was the son of Remaliah. He reigned for
twenty (20) years, i.e. 735-732 BC. He was described as an evil
king as he continued the worship of false idols that was started
by Jeroboam I. It is believed by scholars that he killed Pekahiah
because the Jews were angry of the Assyrians’ domination.
Pekah aligned himself with king Rezin of Damascus. He also
encouraged the Edomites and Philistines to attack Jerusalem.
King Ahaz of Judah turned to king Tiglath-pileser of Assyria
for help.
The Assyrians then invaded Israel and took many people there
as captives to Assyria (Alomi, 1988).
Hoshea
Hosea (meaning, salvation in Hebrew), the son of Elah, was
the 19th and the last king of Israel (732-724 BC). He was the
king under whose reign Israel (the Ten Tribes, or Northern
kingdom) fell into the captivity of the Assyrians and was exiled
from her land. He became a king through conspiracy in which
his predecessor, Pekah was killed. The Assyrian king Tiglath-
pileser (also, called Tiglath-pileser III) claimed that he made
Hoshea king and Hosea paid an annual tribute to him. After
the death of Assyrian king, Hoshea revolted against the new
Assyrian king Shalmaneser, who then invaded Israel, took
Hoshea to prison and besieged Samaria until the city fell three89Historical PerpectiveIsrael: Monarchy to Exile
years later. Many Israel citizens (27,000) were deported beyond
the Euphrates River; and Shalmaneser emigrated various
foreign people to colonize Israel under Assyrian administration.
Assyrian captivity, according to biblical narratives, occurred
because the children of Israel sinned against the Lord, and not
because of the political miscalculation on
Hoshea’s part. The deportees were scattered throughout the
East and are popularly known as the lost tribes of Israel. Those
who stayed in Israel and intermarried with the colonists formed
the mixed blood people later known as Samaritans. Gradual
decline of Israel has been from Jeroboam I, who nationalised
idolatry for Israel, and in whose steps subsequent kings of
Israel had followed despite prophetic warnings and divine
interventions. Ignoring all acts of divine mercies, Israel cannot
but lose their land and became slave-fugitives in Assyria. The
relation between Israel and Judah before the Assyrian captivity
of the former deserves some consideration as follows:
Relations between Israel and Judah
According to Lalabi (2010), before turning attention to the
reasons behind the early decline of the Northern Kingdom of
Israel, the relationship between the independent kingdoms of
Israel and Judah from 922-721 B.C. deserves our examination
here. The relationship between these two independent kingdoms
falls roughly into four successive periods namely the periods of
hostility, alliance, toleration, and separation. He stated that the
period of hostility spanned about half-century (922-876 BC)
following the division of the united kingdom of Israel in which
two tribes went to Rehoboam and ten tribes went to Jeroboam
I. During this period, there was continual border fighting over
the disputed territory of the tribe of Benjamin, the ‘no-man’s
land’ between the two states. There was continual war between
Rehoboam and Jeroboam, the son of Nebat (1 Kings 14: 30),
and also between Asa and Baasha, king of Israel (1 Kings90Israel: Monarchy to Exile Historical Perpective
15:16). The feud was dropped when Judah, having bribed
Damascus to march against Israel, succeeded in pushing its
border far enough to safeguard Jerusalem (l Kings. 15: 16-22).
The period of alliance lasted throughout the dynasty of Omri
(876-841 BC), when Israel deliberately fostered friendly
relations with Judah and the two royal families even united
in marriage. Omri’s grand-daughter, Athaliah was married to
Jehoram, king of Judah (2 Kings 8: 18, 26, 27). In these years,
we find Judah being called upon three times to help Israel
against her neighbours. Ahab sought the help of Jehoshaphat
against Damascus (I Kings. 22: 1-40);
Jehoshaphat again went with Ahab’s successor, Jehoram against
Moab (II Kings. 3: 4-27). Jehoram co-opted Ahaziah of Judah
to wrestle Ramoth-gilead from
Damascus (II Kings. 8:23-29). The period of toleration began
with Jehu’s revolt in the Northern Kingdom and lasted for
sixty years (842-783 BC), when, for the most part, both were
too enfeebled for anything else. Jehu’s bloody purge was
extended to the royal house of Judah… killing Ahaziah and
his forty-two brothers (II Kings. 9: 27b, 10: 12-14); and put
an end to Omri’s policy of friendship. For forty years, Israel,
weak internally and by Damascus, crawled along in a state of
exhaustion. This explains why Judah suddenly threw down a
foolhardy challenge to Israel, sometimes after 801 B.C. It was
answered in an expedition without parallel, when Israel under
Joash, marched south, ravaged Jerusalem, and plundered the
temple (II Kings. 14:8-14). Judah was reduced to a vassal of
Israel.
The period of separation covered the last sixty years of the
coterminous life of the two kingdoms (783-721 BC). At first,
both of them exploited independently, with Jeroboam II in Israel
and Uzziah in Judah. These glorious years, however, came
to an abrupt end with the resurgence of Assyrian power after 745 BC. In this new and threatening situation, Judah opted to
become vassal to Assyria rather than join Israel in a defensive
alliance of minor states (Bright, 1982).
The Early Decline of Israel, the Northern
Kingdom
The Northern Kingdom of Israel collapsed with the fall of
Samaria in 721 B.C. Judah, on the other hand, was able to
survive over a hundred years following the destruction of
Samaria. A number of complicated factors led to the early
decline of the Northern Kingdom. Throughout their history,
the two Hebrew Kingdoms were trapped in a complex
international situation. They were drawn into the international
politics of the ancient Near East. Their own political fortunes
were almost entirely determined by the great powers. When
the nations (roundabout) were pre-occupied with their own
problems, the Hebrew Kingdoms were free to develop and
expand their territories. However, the great powers embarked
on territorial and commercial expansion, and the two kingdoms
were threatened. In this situation, Israel suffered more than
Judah, for whereas the latter was comparatively isolated in the
country, off the main roads of the ancient world, Israel stood
squarely on the path of history. Her position (astride the cross
roads of commerce between Egypt and Mesopotamia) exposed
her to foreign powers more than Judah. Israel therefore, the most
vulnerable, was always the first to feel the threat from outside.
With Israel’s political existence was the fact of her economic
wealth. Being the wealthier of the two kingdoms, she became
the envious target of commercial and territorial expansion of
her more powerful neighbours (Clarendom, 2018).
The two great nations which threatened the Hebrew Kingdoms
at this time were Syria and Assyria. The Syrians dominated the
affairs of the Northern Kingdom to a greater degree than Judah.
The Syrian threat started when Asa of92Israel: Monarchy to Exile Historical Perpective
Judah (913-873) bribed the Aramean king Benhadad (I) to come
to his rescue against Baasha of Israel, who was challenging
Judah’s northern border. The Arameans, who had an interest
in the great caravan route from Damascus which ran along the
eastern side of the Jordan to Edom and Arabia, readily invaded
Israel from the north. This invasion in 878 B.C. devastated
northern Galilee and probably, directly or indirectly, to the
loss of all Israelite territories east of the Jordan, and north
of Yarmuk. It seemed likely that Benhadad (I) retained his
dominant position throughout the reign of Omri (876-869),
who is reported to have ceded to him cities and trading rights
in Samaria (1 Kings 20:34). His son Benhadad (II) relentlessly
kept up the pressure on Israel in the time of Ahab (869850 BC),
probably with the aim of reducing Israel to an Aramean satellite
before the rising power of Assyria began its conquest to the
west. Ahab had to fight several wars against Aram, mainly
defensive. In the end, Ahab died fighting the Arameans over
Ramoth-gilead on the north-western frontier. The next Syrian
king, Hazael, engaged Joram of Israel. In the reign of Jehu
(842-815 BC), Israel lost to Hazael all her territories east of
the Jordan as far south as the Amon Valley (2 Kgs 10: 32, 33);
and in the reign of his son, Jehoahaz (815-801 BC), Israel was
reduced to a state of complete subjection. Jerusalem was spared
a similar fate only at the cost of an immense tribute. With the
death of Hazael about 796 BC, the power of Damascus was
completely down (Turah, 2016).
The Assyrians intent on expanding to the Mediterranean were
beginning to pose a threat to the petty kingdoms of Syria and
Palestine. Israel, the nearest and therefore, the most vulnerable
was the first to taste the threat of Assyrian expansion to the
west. The threat of Assyrian expansion became real after the
northern Syrian campaign of Ashur-nasirpal in about 870 B.C.
The next Assyrian attack was in 853 B.C. under Shalmanesser
III. A coalition of small states, Hamath, Aram and Israel and
others met Assyria at Quarqar in Hamath. The battle was93Historical PerpectiveIsrael: Monarchy to Exile
indecisive and Assyria withdrew. The next Assyrian attack
was in 848 B.C. on Syrian confederates. Assyria demolished
Syria in 802 B.C. and for more than forty years, the Assyrian
Empire was torn by internal revolts. This period of impotence
exactly coincided with the reigns of Jeroboam II and Uzziah in
Israel and Judah respectively. With the rise of Tiglath-pileser
III (745-727 BC) in Assyria, an aggressive policy of conquest
and dominion was vigorously pursued.
Assyria’s new foreign policy affected the Hebrew Kingdoms
immediately. In his first great campaign to the west (743-738
BC), Tiglath-pileser exacted tribute from Menahem of Israel
and from Uzziah of Judah. In the second campaign of 734-
732 B.C., Assyria answered the impertinent coalition led by
Damascus and Israel by capturing a number of Philistine cities
and exacting tribute from Ahaz of Judah, Ammon Edom and
Moab. Israel, however, fared worst and lost not only most of its
territories but also the bulk of its population.
Lisdon (2006) posited that the Northern Kingdom suffered a
devastating first deportation a decade before its final collapse
in 732 B.C. Damascus became part of the Assyrian Empire and
the remnant of Israel was given to king Hoshea, an Assyrian
puppet. Ten years later, it fell on Sargon II to claim the fall of
Samaria and make the second deportation from the Northern
Kingdom. Judah survived the Assyrian onslaught because she
submitted to Assyria. Apart from the complex international
situation which affected Israel more than Judah, there was
also the contrast between the stability of the throne of David
and the chronic instability of the throne of Israel. Compared
with the stability of Judah which had a single dynasty from
the time of David to its very end, the Northern Kingdom of
Israel had a chequered political career. There was rapid turn-
over of kings in Israel, owing to assassinations, suicides and
intrigues. Baasha gained the throne by murdering Nadab in his
army camp. Baasha’s son, Elah, assassinated within two years94Israel: Monarchy to Exile Historical Perpective
by Zimri, his chariot commander, who then reigned for a week
within which he exterminated the family of his predecessor
before finally committing suicide.
Omri, the commander-in-chief of the Israelite forces, became
king having first disposed Tibni of the throne in a military
coup d’etat. The dynasty which he founded, more on the basis
of military than hereditary principle, was overthrown thirty-
five years later, by Jehu, another officer, who was anointed
by a prophet in the middle of a session of the army council.
The dynasty which Jehu established lasted (largely because
of the untroubled reign of Jeroboam II) for nearly a century.
Zechariah, the last of Jehu’s line, was murdered by Shallum,
after a reign of only six weeks. In the chaos of Israel’s national
existence from 746-721 B.C., there were six kings and five of
them lost the throne by violence. Statistically speaking, Israel
in two hundred years ran through no less than nineteen (19)
kings. Out of these, nine were murdered and one committed
suicide. Of the ten kings who inherited the throne legitimately,
seven are accounted for by the two dynasties of Omri and Jehu
alone (Luther, 2016).
Philip (2013) posited that the political stability in the south was
abetted by the then logical conviction that Yahweh had made
a special covenant with David, promising to uphold his throne
and establish his sons after him. Thus, Judah remained faithful
to the Davidic dynasty which ensured a succession of David
as king on the throne of Jerusalem. In the north, there was no
religious sanction to assure permanence of the dynasty there.
The loss of the religious sanctions of the old tribal rule and the
rejection of Judah’s newly adopted dynastic system exposed
the Northern Kingdom to the lawless opportunism of military
usurpers and hurried Israel to its extinction. Socio-economic
factors also played their role in the early decline of Israel. Unlike
Israel where swift economic changes led to the erection of an
unstable social pyramid, Judah moved fairly smoothly from95Historical PerpectiveIsrael: Monarchy to Exile
the simplicities of the old tribal order to the more advanced
economy of town life. And in the process, she preserved an
astonishing degree of social stability. Though, Judah shared in
the flagrant social injustice of the north, nevertheless, the social
order was relatively stable.
What contributed to Judah’s social stability was the reform
in the south carried out by Hezekiah and Josiah. Though the
reforms were not a complete success yet they undoubtedly
served as a constant reminder of faithfulness to Yahweh upon
whom the longevity of the nation depends. By contrast, there
was no lasting reform in the north to act as a constant reminder.
The revolutions of Elijah and especially that of Jehu were
both an attempt to establish Yahwism by negative means and
virtually did nothing to the national consciousness (Kingston,
2017).
The fall of Northern Kingdom
Hershel (2016) recapitulate here the decline and fall of Israel
from Jeroboam II to Hoshea. The death of Jeroboam II in about
746 B.C. was followed by a period of political instability in
Israel. King after king was murdered in rapid succession.
Zachariah son of Jeroboam II was restored for only six months.
He was later assinated in a revolt, which restored Shallum on the
throne for one month, after which Menahem seized the throne,
following a civil war. During the first year of Menahem’s reign,
the Assyrians, under their new king Tiglath-pileser III, resumed
their drive towards the west. Having defeated the Babylonians
to the south and the kingdom of Utartu to the north, the Assyrian
king captured lands as far as Caspian Sea. In 743 B.C., he
turned to the west against Syria. An antiAssyria coalition failed
to ward off the advance and by 738 BC, if not before,
Tiglath-pileser had taken tribute from most of the states of
Syria and northern Palestine, including Hamath, Tyre, Byblos, Damascus and Israel. It was Menahem who paid tribute to
Tiglath-pileser when the latter advanced to the west. The tribute
which was quite heavy was raised by means of a head tax levied
on every landholder in Israel. Though Menahem probably had
little choice in the matter, it appears that he surrendered his
country’s independence willingly, hoping that Assyrian aid
would secure him on his throne. This was resented by patriotic
Israelites. When, therefore, Menahem was succeeded by his
son Pekahiah, he was suddenly killed by one of his officers,
Pekah, who then took the throne in 735 BC.
Pekah reigned for two years. The growing power of Assyria
under Tiglathpileser led to the formation of a coalition between
Rezin, king of Aram and Pekah of Israel. Their intention was to
pull together their military might in order to halt the Assyrians as
Ahab and Benhadad had done a hundred years or so earlier. The
two kings then attacked Ahaz of Judah in a bid to force her into
the confederation. The Edomites regained their independence
from Judah and joined the confederates in attacking Judah. The
Philistines invaded the Negeb and the Shepelah, taking and
occupying certain border towns. Thus, Judah was raided from
three sides (Parpola, 2014).
His throne endangered the helpless to defend himself, Ahaz
begged Assyria for assistance, which was quickly forthcoming.
Before then, the king was confronted by prophet Isaiah and
warning him of the serious results of what he was about to do.
The prophet begged him to take no such step but to trust in
the promises of Yahweh to David (Isaiah 7: I). Ahaz, however,
incapable of the faith that the prophet asked of him, refused the
advice, sent an enormous gift to Tiglathpileser, and implored
his assistance. Damascus was stormed by Assyria in 732 B.C.
after a bloody war, and Syria was converted into four Assyrian
provinces. Rezin was executed and a large portion of the
population deported to Kir. Even before the fall of Damascus,
the Assyrian armies swept over Israel, devastating Galilee, and97Historical PerpectiveIsrael: Monarchy to Exile
annexing all Israel except Ephraim and western Manasseh (735
B.C.). The occupied territory was then divided into three
Assyrian provinces, Gilead, Megiddo (including Galilee), and
Dan on the coastal plain (Sunai, 1998).
Tiglath-pileser would have destroyed Israel completely had
not Pekah been murdered by one Hoshea, who straightaway
surrendered and gave tribute. For some nine years, Hoshea
remained a faithful subject of Tiglath-pileser in order to save
as much of the land of Israel as possible from destruction.
When, however, the Assyrian king died in 727 B.C., he saw his
chance to revolt. He did not take immediate steps till 724 BC,
when he made overtures to Egypt. But Egyptian help was not
forthcoming and in 724 BC the new Assyrian king, Shalmaneser
V, attacked Israel. Hoshea was immediately taken prisoner, and
the Assyrians then occupied the land, except the city of Samaria,
which resisted for over two years. Shalmaneser died before
he could complete the conquest and his successor Sargon II
captured Samaria in 722/721 B.C. Sargon deported many of the
Israelite population to other parts of the Assyrian Empire. With
the deportation of the Israelites, the Assyrian brought into Israel
various captives from other parts of the Empire. Tullock (1992)
calls this Assyrian policy the policy of switchingpopulation
The Assyrian colonists intermarried with the Israelites and their
products became known as the Samaritans, a name derived
from the northern capital of Samaria (Ezra, 1990).
Factors leading to the fall of Israel, the Northern Kingdom
The following are factors that ultimately led to the fall and
captivity of Israel. There was a gross apostasy in the land,
from their first leader (Jeroboam I) who set up a sanctuary
at Dan and Bethel to rival the temple in Jerusalem. Most of
the kings forsook God and led Israel astray. Baal Worships
flourished and there was gross social injustice. There was
great and constant political unrest. But the leaders and all the98Israel: Monarchy to Exile Historical Perpective
Israelites refused to heed God’s warning through the numerous
prophets. God’s Judgement finally caught up with Israel in 722
BC when Shalmaneser brought large army from Assyria and
besiege it. Over 27,000 of them were carried as captives to
Assyria; colonists were sent to Israel to replace the captives.
Intermarriages took place between Assyrian colonist and the
Israelites, resulting in half-cast Israelites who are called the
Samaritans (Zee, 2014).
Summary
In Chapters 5 and 6, the reigns of the 19 kings of Israel have
been examined. They are Jereoboam I, Nadah, Baasha, Elah,
Zimri, Omri, Ahab, Ahaziah, Joram, Jehu, Jehoahaz, and
Joash, Jeroboam II, Zachariah, Shallum, Menhahem, Pekahiah,
Pekah, and Hosea. Their achievements and failures as kings of
Israel have been identified together with the roles of such as
Elijah, Elisha, Amos, and Hosea in the lives and times of these
kings. Compared with the stability of Judah which had a single
dynasty from the time of David to its very end, the Northern
Kingdom of Israel had a chequered political career. There was
rapid turn-over of kings in Israel, owing to assassinations,
suicides and intrigues. The death of Jeroboam II in about 746
B.C. was followed by a period of political instability in Israel.
King after king was murdered in rapid succession. Jeroboam II
was replaced for six months by his son, Zechariah. The latter
was killed in a revolt, which placed Shallum on the throne for
one month, after which Menahem seized the throne, following
a civil war. The Northern Kingdom of Israel eventually
collapsed with the fall of Samaria in 721 B.C. Judah, on the
other hand, was able to survive over a hundred years following
the destruction of Samaria.99Historical PerpectiveIsrael: Monarchy to Exile
Post test
1. Discuss the view that the reign of Jeroboam II was a mixed
blessing to Israel.
2. Examine the conditions in Israel during the reign of
Jeroboam II.
3. Show how the oracles of Amos and Hosea reflect the social
and religious conditions of their time.
4. Examine Amos’ conception of righteousness.
5. How far is it accurate to describe Amos as a prophet of
doom?
6. Consider carefully the view that for Amos, religion cannot
be separated from morality.
7. Examine the concept of the ‘Day of the Lord’ in the time
of Amos.
8. Discuss the concept of ‘Hesed’ in the teaching of Hosea.
9. How far did Israel benefit from the marriage tragedy of
Hosea?
10. Evaluate the attitude of the eighth century prophets towards
sacrifices in Israel.
11. What factors contributed to the fall of the Northern
Kingdom of Israel?
12. Why did Judah survive long after the collapse of the
Northern Kingdom of Israel?
13. The decline of the Northern Kingdom of Israel was
inevitable. Discuss.
14. The relationship between Israel and Judah underwent four
successive periods. Name and discuss these periods.