As the most important external relations of Israel were with Damascus, so were those of Judah with Edom and Egypt. Some revolution in the state of Egypt appears to have followed the reign of Shishak. Apparently the country must have fallen under the power of an Ethiopian dynasty ; for the name of the Lubhn, who ac companied Zerah in his attack on Asa, is gene rally regarded as proving that Zerah was from Sennaar, the ancient Meroe. But as this invasion was signally repulsed, the attempt was not re peated ; and Judah enjoyed entire tranquillity from that quarter until the invasion of Pharaoh-necho. In fact, it may seem that this success assisted the reaction, favourable to the power of Judah, which was already begun, in consequence of a change in the policy of Damascus. Whether Abijah had been in league with the father of Benhadad I. (as is generally inferred from Kings xv. 19) may be doubted ; for the address cannot be rendered, 'Let Mere be a league between me and thee, as there 7C1 !ZS between my father and thine ;' and it possibly is only a hyperbolical phrase of friendship for, Let us be in close alliance ; let us count our fathers to have been allies.' However this may be, Asa bought, by a costly sacrifice, the serviceable aid of the Damascene king. Israel was soon distressed, and Judah became once more formidable to her southern neighbours. Jehoshaphat appears to have reasserted the Jewish authority over the Edomites without war, and to have set his own viceroy over them (r Kings xxii. 47). Intending to resume the distant commerce which had been so profitable to Solomon, he built ships suitable for long voyages (` ships of Tarshish ' as they are rightly called in Kings xxii. 48—a phrase which the Chronicler has misunderstood, and translated into ships to go to Tarshish,' 2 Chron. xx. 36) ; but not having the advantage of Tyrian sailors, as Solomon had, he lost the vessels by violent weather before they had sailed. Upon this Ahaziah, king of Judah, offered the service of his own mariners, probably from the tribe of Asher, and others accustomed to the Medi terranean ; but Jehoshaphat was too discouraged to accept his offer, and the experiment was never renewed by any Hebrew king. The Edomites, who paid only a forced allegiance, soon after revolted from Jehorarn, and elected their own king (2 Kings viii. 20, 22). At a later time they were severely defeated by Amaziah (2 Kings xiv. 7), whose son, Uzziali, fortified the town of Elath, intending, pro bably, to resume maritime enterprise ; but it re mained a barren possession, and was finally taken from them by Rezin, in the reign of Ahaz (2 Kings xvi. 6). The Philistines, in these times, seem to have fallen from their former greatness, their league having been so long dissolved. The most remark able event in which they are concerned is the assault on Jerusalem, in the reign of Jelloram (2 Chron. xxi. 16, 17).
It is strikingly indicative of the stormy scenes through which the line of David passed, that the treasures of the king and of the Temple were so often plundered or bargained away. First, uncle/ Rehoboam, all the hoards of Solomon, consecrated and common alike, were carried off by Shishak (r Kings xiv. 26). Two generations later, Asa emptied out to Benhadad all that had since accu mulated in thc house of Jehovah or in the king's house.' A third time, when Hazael had ta_ken Gath, and was preparing to march on Jerusalem, Jelloash, king of Judah, turned him away by send ing to him all that Jehoshaphat, Jehorarn, Aha.
and Jehoash himself had dedicated, and all the gold that was found in the treasures of the house of Jehovah and in the king's house' (2 Kings xii. i8). In the very next reign, Jehoash, king of Israel, defeated and captured Amaziah, took Jeru salem, broke down the walls, carried off hostages, and plundered the gold and silver deposited in the Temple and in the royal palace (2 Kings xiv. 11-14). A fifth sacrifice of the sacred and of the royal trea sure was made by Ahaz to Tiglath-pileser (2 Kings xvi. 8). The act was repeated by his son Hezekiah to Sennacherib, who had demanded `3oo talents of silver and 3o talents of gold.' It is added,
Hezekiah cut off the gold which he had overlaid, from the doors of the temple and from the pillars' (2 Kings xviii. 14-16). In the days of. Josiah, as in those of Jehoash, the Temple appears to have been greatly out of repair (xii. and xxii.) ; and when Pharaoh-necho, having slain Josiah, had re duced Judah to submission, the utmost tribute that could be exacted was roc) talents of silver and one talent of gold. Even this sum was obtained by diruct taxation, and no allusion is made to any treasure at all, either in the temple or in the king's house. It is the more extraordinary to find expres sions used when Nebuchadnezzar took the city, which at first sight imply that Solomon's far-famed stores were still untouched. Nebuchadnezzar carried out all the treasures of the house of Jehovah and of the king's house, and cut in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon had made in the temple of Jehovah' (2 Kings xxiv. 13). They must evidently have been few in number, for in I Kings xiv. 26, all' must, at least, mean nearly all :' Shishak took away the treasures of the house of Jehovah, and of the king's house ; he even took away all.' Yet the vessels of gold and silver taken away by Nebuchadnezzar, and restored by Cyrus, are reckoned 5400 in number (Ezra i. r).
The severest shock which the house of David received was the double massacre which it endured from Jehu and from AthalialL After a long mi nority, a youthful king, the sole surviving male descendant of his great-grandfather, and reared under the paternal rule of the priest Jehoiada, to whom he was indebted not only for his throne, but even for his recognition as a son of Ahazialt, was not in a situation to uphold the royal authority. That Jehoash conceived the priests to have abused the power which they had gained, sufficiently ap pears in 2 Kings xii., where he complains that they had for twenty-three years appropriated the money, which they ought to have spent on the repairs of the Temple. Jehoiada gave way ; but we see here the beg,inning of a feud (hitherto unknown in the house of David) between the crown and the priestly order ; which, after Jehoiada's death, led to the murder of his son Zachariah. The massacre of the priests of Baal, and of Athaliah, grand-daughter of a king of Sidon, must also have destroyed cordiality het ween the Plicenicians and the kingdom of Judah and when the victoi ious Hazael had subjugated all Israel and shewed himself near Jerusalem, Jehoash could look for no help from without, and had neither the faith of Hezekiah nor a prophet like Isaiah to support him. The assassination of Jehoash in his bed by his own servants' is described in the Chro nicles as a revenge taken upon him by the priestly party for his murder of the sons' of Jehoiada ; and the same fate, from the same influence, fell upon his son Amaziah, if we may so interpret the words in 2 Chron. xxv. 27 : From the tiine that Arnaziah turned away from following Jehovah they made a conspiracy against him,' etc. Thus the house of David appeared to be committing itself, like that of Saul, to permanent enmity with the priests. The wisdom of Uzziah, during a long reign, averted this collision, though a symptom of it returned towards its close. No further mischief from this cause followed, until the reign of his grandson, the weak and unfortunate Ahaz : after which the power of the kingdom rapidly mouldered away. On the whole, it would appear that, from Jehoiada downward, the authority of the priests was growing stronger, and that of the crown weaker ; for the king could not rule successfully, except by submitting to (what we might call) the constitu tional check ' of the priests ; and although it is reasonable to believe that the priests became less simple-minded, more worldly, and less religious, as their order advanced in authority (whence the kecn rebukes of them by the prophets), it is not the less certain that it was desirable for Judah, both in a temporal and a spiritual sense, to have the despotic power of the king subjected to a strong priestly pressure.