The Divided Monarchy – 07 / Jeroboam II – Azariah

The Reigns of Jeroboam II and Azariah

 Joash’s policies—and his success in the ongoing conflict with Damascus—were continued by his successor, Jeroboam II (787–748 BCE). The long reigns of Jeroboam II in Israel and Azariah in Judah (783–732 BCE) corresponded to a period of considerable prosperity in both kingdoms. This was possible not only because of the weakness of Damascus, which had dominated the southern Levant for several decades, but also because of the absence of Assyria, which would not again pose a serious threat to Israel until the first western campaign (743–738 BCE) of Tiglath-pileser III. After Adad-nirari’s 796 BCE incursion into Syria, the Assyrian armies were generally engaged near home, as a succession of three weak Assyrian kings dealt with a series of local revolts and other domestic problems. For many of these years, the Assyrian Eponym Chronicle indicates, there was no foreign campaign, and, when there was, it was often directed “against Urartu.” Urartu, the biblical Ararat, was the region around Lake Van, north of Assyria. The Urartians had been gradually expanding westward since the end of the reign of Shalmaneser III, who had held them in check, and by the beginning of the eighth century they had taken control of much of Anatolia and Syria north of Aleppo. Because of the distractions caused by domestic unrest and the conflict with Urartu, the Assyrian kings of this period seem to have paid little attention to southern Syria. Only five Syrian expeditions are listed in the Eponym Chronicle, and only one of these—a campaign in 773 BCE—is designated as “against Damascus.” Nevertheless, the fortunes of Damascus remained in decline. The devastation inflicted by Adad-nirari III seems to have left the once-powerful state broken and vulnerable.

This turn of events worked very much to the advantage of Israel, whose resurgence, begun under Joash, peaked during the reign of his son, Jeroboam II. According to 2 Kings 14:25, Jeroboam “restored the border of Israel from Lebo-hamath as far as the Sea of Arabah”—that is, from the town of Lebo (modern Lebweh), at the southern boundary of the state of Hamath on the Orontes, to the Dead Sea. One of the implications of this assertion is that Damascus was reduced to the status of an Israelite vassal state, a claim that seems to be made explicit in 2 Kings 14:28: “He recovered for Israel Damascus.” Jeroboam also extended the southeastern border of Israel “as far as the Sea of Arabah” at the expense of both Damascus and Moab. Jeroboam was reasserting Israelite control over trade along the King’s Highway, which had been lost in the time of Jehu and Hazael. It is safe to assume that the western coastal route from Philistia north into the Galilee, which Hazael had also commandeered, was now back under Israelite control as well.

Though Jeroboam II had the longest reign of any Israelite king and presided over one of the most prosperous periods in the history of the northern kingdom, the account of his reign in Kings is remarkably brief—only seven verses (2 Kings 14:23–29)—and its tone is hostile. This is because the summary notices of his achievements (2 Kings 14:25, 28) have been set in a negative framework by the Deuteronomistic historian, who looked on Jeroboam’s reign from the perspective of the fall of Samaria half a century later. Thus Jeroboam is condemned, in formulaic Deuteronomistic language, for having perpetuated “all the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat”—that is, Jeroboam I—the crimes that, from the Deuteronomistic point of view, led eventually to the destruction of the northern kingdom by the Assyrians (cf. 2 Kings 17:22–23). With regard to the recovery of territory for Israel and the expansion of its borders, we are told that Jeroboam II was permitted these accomplishments despite his shortcomings because Yahweh had pity for the plight of the Israelites and there was no one else available to do the job (2 Kings 17:26).

Though the Kings account of Jeroboam’s reign is, in its final form, the work of the Deuteronomistic historian of the late seventh century BCE, it expresses continuity with the hostility towards Jeroboam found in the oracles of his eighth-century contemporary, the prophet Amos, who confirms the prosperity of the period while presenting it as a facade masking social and religious corruption. In Amos’s view, the wealthy, the Samarian aristocracy, were very wealthy indeed (note the description of their extravagant and sybaritic lifestyle in Amos 6:4–6) but their wealth was gained at the expense of the poor. Thus his oracles are often addressed at an exploitative ruling class that oppresses the poor and governs corruptly; they are the idle but powerful rich, who “trample on the needy and bring ruin to the poor of the land … buying the poor for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals” (Amos 8:4, 6; cf. 2:6–7, 4:1). In Amos’s polemic, even the enlarged national boundaries achieved by Jeroboam (2 Kings 14:25) become the basis of a threat of national disaster: “I am raising up against you a nation … and they shall oppress you from Lebo-hamath to the Wadi Arabah” (Amos 6:14).

The oracles of Amos, therefore, provide confirmation—however indirect and grudging—that Jeroboam II’s expansion of Israel’s boundaries and recovery of control of the principal trade routes of Palestine led to a substantial increase in material prosperity in Israel. In contrast to the insight he provides about social tensions in the kingdom, however, Amos gives few hints about the ways in which the newly gained resources were put to use. The stinted account of Jeroboam’s reign in Kings is no help in this regard, since it lacks any reference to his domestic achievements, including building projects and improvements in living conditions. Faced with this scarcity of information in the biblical sources, therefore, we are primarily dependent on the archaeological record for assessing the state of material culture in eighth-century Israel. Excavations conducted at Israelite sites show that the first half of the eighth century BCE was a period of extensive construction, characterized not by the founding of new cities but by the renovation, refurbishment and expansion of existing cities, some with newly built fortifications and most with more evidence of city planning than is found in previous periods. Nationwide, there was a substantial population increase, as indicated by the results of archaeological surveys of small, nonurban sites as well as estimates based on evidence suggesting the enlargement of existing cities (expansions of walls or settlements spilling over city walls into the surrounding countryside).

A good indication that the trade advantage Jeroboam achieved did result in an accumulation of wealth is the discovery of luxury items in eighth-century archaeological strata. Most characteristic of these are the elaborately carved ivory inlays found at various sites in the northern kingdom but especially at Samaria. Carved ivory was an art form of Phoenician and north Syrian inspiration, so that its presence in the archaeological record points to a renewal of Israelite contact and cooperation with Phoenicia, which, as we have seen, was essential to a robust trade economy. An immense hoard known as the Samaria ivories, found in the ruins of the royal palace, provides direct testimony to the wealth of the aristocracy and is suggestive of extreme social stratification. It is not surprising, therefore, that references to ivory play a part in Amos’s invective against the excesses of the aristocracy (Amos 3:15, 6:4).

The epigraphic record also sheds light on life in Samaria during the reign of Jeroboam II. The most impressive Hebrew seal dating from the early to mid-eighth century BCE is surely the seal of “Shema‘, the servant of Jeroboam,” who must have been a high official of the Samarian government stationed at Megiddo, where the seal was found in 1904. The largest corpus of Hebrew inscriptions from the northern kingdom dating to this or any other period are the well-known Samaria ostraca, which were found in 1910 in the ruins of an administrative structure on the acropolis immediately to the west of the royal palace. Dating formulae indicate that the ostraca come from the ninth through the seventeenth year of an unnamed king, almost certainly Jeroboam II, so that they fall between the years 779 and 771 BCE They record regional shipments of agricultural goods, thus shedding light on the support given by large estates to the activities of the court in Samaria. An especially interesting feature of the Samaria ostraca is the number of personal names containing the theophoric or divine element Yahweh (in the form Yaw) as opposed to the element Baal (Ba‘l). The ratio is roughly 11:7. It is difficult to assess the significance of this statistic for the religion of Israel in the period. The Baal names might belong to foreigners (perhaps Phoenicians) who owned property in the vicinity of Samaria or to Israelites who worshiped a foreign god, but it is also possible that Ba‘l, which means “Lord,” might have been an acceptable epithet for Yahweh in this period (cf. Hosea 2:16).

Judah, too, was prosperous in this period, under the rule of Jeroboam’s contemporary Azariah (also known as Uzziah) (783–732 BCE).j Though Azariah reigned even longer than Jeroboam, the account of his reign in Kings (2 Kings 15:1–7) is, again, very brief, and there is no mention of victories in foreign wars or other international achievements. The Chronicler’s account of his reign (2 Chronicles 26:1–23) is somewhat longer; it presents Azariah as an effective military leader who reorganized the Judahite army and greatly increased both its size and readiness (2 Chronicles 26:11–15). It also describes successful military campaigns that he conducted. Keeping in mind that Judah, since Joash’s defeat of Amaziah early in the century, had been in the service of Israel as a junior ally if not actually a vassal state, we can assume that Azariah’s build-up of the Judahite army and his various military enterprises were probably encouraged and abetted by Israel as part of Jeroboam’s overall plan to reclaim control of the major trade routes of Palestine. It is in this light that we should probably interpret Azariah’s goals in the wars he is said to have conducted (2 Chronicles 26:6–7) against the Philistines and two Arabian groups, the Arabs of Gurbaal (an otherwise unknown group) and the Meunites. After his Philistine campaign, during which he breached the walls of Gath, Jabneh and Ashdod, Azariah is said to have built “cities” in Philistine territory. These are most likely to have been fortified garrisons positioned to guard trade routes that ran through disputed territory and connected with roads farther south, which he seems also to have secured with protective fortresses—note the reference in 2 Chronicles 26:10 to Azariah’s erection of “the towers in the wilderness.” These activities brought him in conflict with the Meunites, a northwestern Arabian tribe who seem at this time to have controlled access from the Philistine ports through the Beersheba depression and the Wadi Zered (the modern Wadi el-Hesa) to the southern end of the King’s Highway and the Hejaz route. After defeating the Meunites, Azariah evidently left them in place as guardians of this highly lucrative thoroughfare, but diverted its wealth to Judah by imposing tribute on them (2 Chronicles 26:8). It was probably at this point, after he had gained control of the southern trade corridor, that Azariah was able to recover the seaport of Elath on the Gulf of Aqabah from Edom and rebuild it (2 Chronicles 26:2; cf. 2 Kings 14:22).

Although Azariah’s domestic accomplishments may have been considerable—the Chronicler’s account credits him with assembling large herds of cattle and employing farmers and viticulturists in the fertile parts of Judah (2 Chronicles 26:10)—he is remembered principally for having been a “leper.” After his diagnosis it was necessary for him to live in quarantine, and his son Jotham ruled Judah as his co-regent (2 Kings 15:5). Since “leprosy” was determined by an examination by priests, who prescribed whether quarantine was required and how long it would last (Leviticus 13–14), Azariah’s exclusion from power may have been the result of a continuation of the struggle in Judah between the king and the priesthood that had created turmoil during the reign of Jehoash in the late ninth century B.C.E. In any case, as a “leper,” Azariah was apparently assigned a special burial place in the vicinity of—but apart from—the royal tombs (2 Chronicles 26:23; contrast 2 Kings 15:7). A plaque inscribed with his name found in Jerusalem suggests that he was reburied in the late Herodian period.

 Everyday Life During the Divided Monarchy

The rise of the Israelite and Judahite states in the early centuries of the first millennium BCE, the emergence of strongly centralized governments based in the capital cities of Samaria and Jerusalem, and the growth of large regional centers, such as Hazor, Megiddo and Dan in the north and Lachish and Beersheba in the south, led to a highly stratified society in both kingdoms. The upper stratum consisted of the king, his family and an aristocratic nobility that maintained the royal estates and ruled the regional centers as governors. Of somewhat lesser stature were artisans and skilled laborers of various kinds. Most of the rest of the population—indeed, the vast majority—were agriculturists. The lucrative international trade that flourished in those period when Israel enjoyed good relations with Phoenicia and Judah with Philistia, and when the competition with Damascus was successful, was a source of substantial wealth for the king and his aristocratic servants. The everyday livelihood of most of the ordinary citizens of Israel and Judah throughout the history of the monarchy, however, consisted of family-based farming and horticulture, usually supplemented by the maintenance of small flocks of sheep and goats. In the lowland areas the staple crops were grain—wheat, barley and millet—while in the higher elevations and the western slopes of the hill country cereal farming was mixed with arboriculture—the cultivation of figs, pomegranates, dates, sycamores and especially olives—and viticulture. In some areas olive oil or wine could be produced in sufficient quantities to accumulate surpluses that provided a valuable export commodity.

Archaeological evidence indicates that the basis of this production throughout the monarchical period was the extended family or, to use the biblical term, the “father’s house” (bêt ’ab). This is shown by the widespread persistence throughout the period of the four-roomed house, which consisted of a central courtyard enclosed by rooms designed not only to house the family (usually on a second story) but also livestock, and to provide storage for agricultural produce. The stockpiling of crop surpluses in individual households, rather than communal storage facilities, indicates that agriculture was family-based, with the work being done by individual “father’s houses,” consisting of three or more generations of an extended family (along with servants or slaves) and comprising perhaps one to two dozen individuals.

The larger structure of social organization described in the Bible parallels that of other agricultural societies investigated in cross-cultural anthropological studies and corresponds to the pattern that has prevailed in the eastern Mediterranean region from antiquity to the modern period. Several families or “father’s houses” constituted a clan. The families of a clan typically lived in the same village or at least in relatively close proximity to each other. A group of clans formed a tribe. Justice was ordinarily dispensed at the clan level by a group of elders, the senior men of the clan or village. In periods in which the central government at the state level was strong, however, the intervention of the king and his officers in matters of local justice, especially the allocation of property rights, was common, and the tension that resulted is reflected in the oracles of the biblical prophets, who often expressed the grievances of the citizenry against what they perceived as royal abuses of power (see, for example, Micah 2:2).

The social organization of ancient Israel and Judah was strongly patriarchal, and women had minimal official involvement in public affairs. Women had extensive and varied involvement in the activities of their families, however, and given the central position of the family in the economy and social organization of the two states, the influence of women on society as a whole is assumed to have been pervasive despite their invisibility in the public record. Spinning, weaving and sewing were tasks especially associated with women, but they also took part in the basic economic endeavors of the family—farming and caring for livestock. Within the family structure a woman’s ultimate role was that of mother. Childbearing conferred prestige and position on a woman because of the advantage of numerous children to the economic livelihood of her family in its agricultural activities and because of the necessity of offspring to perpetuate the lineage of her husband.

A woman’s legal status was subordinated to that of men in the family, so that she was dependent for her legal rights and protection on her father or husband. When women were orphaned, widowed or divorced, they lost these rights and needed special protection—hence the frequency of injunctions in the Bible calling for special provisions for the welfare of orphans and widows (Exodus 21:22 [Old Testament] = 21:21 [Hebrew Bible]); Deuteronomy 27:19; etc.). On the other hand, the inability of women to act on their own behalf in legal and economic matters is called into question by the discovery of a number of personal seals and seal impressions bearing the names of Judahite women. These seals and sealings, which date to the seventh and early sixth centuries BCE, raise the possibility that, at least in this period, women were sometimes involved in legal and economic transactions under their own names. Similarly, a woman’s name (“Meshullemeth daughter of Elichen”) appears in a list of the recipients—or, less likely, contributors—of specified commodities on a recently published ostracon from the early sixth century B.C.E., and this seems to be another example of a woman transacting business on her own behalf during the final days of the kingdom of Judah.