- 164-
(^280) Her adornment could not have been intended to attract Jehu, since, having a grandson twenty-three years old (2
Kings 8:26), she was of an age when no adornment could have given charms to an Eastern woman.
(^281) According to the Rabbis both Jeroboam and Jehu were of the tribe of Manasseh, and became kings in fulfillment of
Genesis 48:19 (Ber. R. 82).
(^282) We imagine that there was always the nucleus of a standing army, consisting of the king's body-guard, war-chariots,
and horses (horsemen), as well as an arsenal, and that the rest of the host consisted of levies hastily made, and only
partially drilled and disciplined.
(^283) Similarly we must take the term "brethren" in a wider sense. The elder "brethren" of Ahaziah had all been killed in
the invasion of the Philistines and Arabs; and yet they were "brethren" of Ahaziah - in the wider sense - who went to
salute the children of the king (ver. 13), and who were slain by Jehu.
(^284) So literally; the words "of Jezreel" are manifestly a clerical error, whether we emendate it into "of Israel" or "of the
city."
(^285) That, instead of coming with them to Jezreel, as they had been ordered (ver. 7), they sent the gory heads, is another
indication of their feelings.
(^286) The practice of bringing in the heads of enemies in evidence of their being killed was frequent in antiquity, and on
the Assyrian monuments also we see them laid in heaps.
(^287) The expression "ye are righteous" (ver. 9) probably meant: Ye have taken no part in this revolution, and are
unbiased; I appeal to you as judges! Josephus adds the somewhat realistic touch, that the messengers from Samaria,
bearing the seventy heads, arrived as Jehu and his friends were feasting at supper, and that this was the reason why he
ordered them to be heaped up against the morning.
(^288) So, and not "kinsfolks," as in the A.V.
(^289) So the word should be rendered here as in 2 Samuel 8:18; 1 Kings 4:5. The "priests" of Ahab were slain in Samaria.
(^290) The expression "brethren" must here be taken in the wider sense. In 2 Chronicles 22:8 they are called "the princes of
Judah, and the sons of the brethren of Ahaziah."
(^291) Most commentators suppose that they were going to Jezreel, but from 10:1 we infer that the royal princes of Israel
were at Samaria. As Jehu met them coming from the south, we must assume that he did not follow the direct road from
Jezreel. If he had gone first to Megiddo, and thence to Samaria, this would explain how he might have met the
"brethren of Ahaziah" coming from the south.
(^292) This, and not "at the pit of the shearing house" (10:14).
(^293) This is the view of Hitzig (on Jeremiah 35), who cites the instance of the Nabataeans, who, to ensure their freedom,
abstained from agriculture. But this does not explain the abstinence from wine. Besides, why should this rule have only
been laid down by Jehonadab, and if its reason had been to secure their freedom, would not the flight of the Rechabites
to Jerusalem in the time of Jeremiah have been in direct contravention of their object?
(^294) So Ewald (Gesch. d. Volk. Isr. Vol. 3. pp. 542-544), although parts of his analysis are fanciful.
(^295) The vestments of the priests of Baal are also referred to by classical writers. They seem to have been of byssus.
Generally it is supposed that all the worshippers in that temple received these vestments, in which case they must have
been supplied from the royal chamber of vestments, since the temple-vestry, however well filled, could scarcely have
furnished sufficient for such a multitude. But a more attentive consideration will lead to the conclusion that the
"servants of Baal" who were so robed were only the prophets, priests, and other leaders of the movement. For a
universal robing would imply an almost impossible scene of bustle and confusion in that crowded edifice, while the
possession of a distinctive dress would have rendered needless the next direction (ver. 23), to see that those with them
were not of the servants of Jehovah. Lastly, Josephus distinctly states that the vestments, which we imagine not to have
been ordinary priestly, but festive robes were given to "all the priests," and he lays stress on the subsequent slaughter as
(^)