In discussing this subject we have to consider -

I. "THE WORD OF THE LORD WHICH HE SPAKE BY JOSHUA. THE SON OF NUN." The record of this word is found in Joshua 6:26. And the questions now arise -

1. Why did God thus curse Jericho?

(1) That its desolate condition might be a standing testimony to His abhorrence of the wickedness of the place. So abandoned were that people to idolatry that Rahab the hostess alone was accounted worthy of being saved. And "all her kindred" - (כלאּמשפחותיה) - all her families - the word is plural; families, viz., on her father's and mother's side, both were given to her (Joshua 6:23). Note: The faith of an individual is not only a personal blessing, but also a blessing to his family, to his nation, to the world, in time, in eternity.

(2) That it might he a standing sign prophetic of judgments to come.

(a) Jericho was the first city which offered resistance to the people of God; and it was proper it should stand forth as a figure of the last city that shall offer resistance, viz., Great Babylon.

(b) As Jericho was compassed about six days before it fell, so is Great Babylon destined to last until the beginning of the seventh age of prophetic chronology.

(c) As Jericho fell at the seventh blast of the trumpet, so at the sounding of the seventh Apocalyptic thumper will Great Babylon come into remembrance before God.

(d) As Rahab, through the righteousness of faith, escaped the plagues of war and fire which destroyed the city, so are the people of God urged to come out of Babylon lest they partake her plagues also of war and fire.

2. Why did God thus curse the rebuilder of Jericho?

(1) Consider the import of the curse. His eldest son was to perish by a judgment of Heaven as soon as the work commenced; and if, notwithstanding the judgment, he persisted in the undertaking, he should see the death of his youngest son. lit is thought the intermediate members of his family would also perish as the work advanced. That the curse involved the penalty of death is evident, since the curse upon the city meant the death of its inhabitants (see Joshua 6:17). The law of God also expresses that devoted things must die (see Leviticus 27:29).

(2) The curse, then, came to keep up the testimony for God against sin; also to be a public sign of the judgment upon Babylon to come. Whoever would remove such a testimony must be a man of determined wickedness, and therefore deserving execration. Let us beware how we oppose or discredit any faithful testimony for Christ.

II. THE TEMERITY OF HIEL TO ENCOUNTER THIS MALEDICTION.

1. The historical fact is before us.

(1) He did build Jericho. Not only did he lay the foundation, but he also set up the gates. Resolution and persistency are fine qualities when they are concerned with truth and goodness. But it was otherwise here.

(2) He paid the penalty accordingly. When he laid the foundation his firstborn Abiram perished. This did not deter him. So when he set up the gates "his youngest son Segub" was smitten.

2. But what could have possessed him?

(1) The general answer to this question is, that the spirit of wickedness possessed him. No godly man could be so rashly defiant. Even reputable men of the world would shrink from such an audacious undertaking. The respect for sacred things manifested by such unconverted men encourages the hope that they may yet seek His grace and mercy. Hiel must have been a hardened sinner to have attempted this.

(2) A more particular answer is suggested.

(a) He was a "Bethelite." This expression may mean that he was born in Bethel, though this is not clear. It suggests rather that he was wedded to the sin of Jeroboam; for Bethel was the head-quarters of that apostasy. There Jeroboam placed one of his famous calves. There he built an altar. There also he built a temple. There his priests congregated, and there he, in person, officiated as high priest. The service of the calves would so harden the heart of Hiel as to prepare him to disregard the curse of Jehovah.

(b) Then, he lived in the days of Ahab. These were days of fearful degeneracy. For Ahab provoked the Lord by wickedness more than all that had been before him. Hiel might argue that if Ahab could thus outrage the law of the God of Israel and survive, so might his own children survive, though he should transgress the adjuration of Joshua. It is dangerous to do evil because others have done it, apparently, with impunity.

(c) The curse was denounced a long time ago. Since then five centuries and a half had passed away. Time weakens memory with men, and when man has a purpose to serve, he may argue that this also is the case with God. But He that remembers mercy forever also remembers justice and judgment. Let us not deceive ourselves. Let us pray God to bring our sins to our remembrance, that we may repent of them before Him, for with Him they are never forgotten till forgiven. - J.A.M.

A careful study of the two kingdoms, Israel and Judah, compels one to feel that communities do the best when they most honour God, and that forgetfulness of Him, and especially revolt from Him, brings disturbance and destruction. It is true these events transpired more than two thousand five hundred years ago, but they "are written for our learning." Why should they be if there is nothing that we need to learn from them?

1. We need not trouble ourselves with the settling of the periods making up the dozen years of Omri's reign, which had its opening portion in Tirzah, the royal seat (ver. 17). Omri had ability of a certain sort, and hence, probably, was able to secure the adhesion of so many of the people and the conquest of his two rivals. He showed it in the selection of a new capital. Shemer owned a tract of land with a hill of great strategic value. With an opening out into the wider distant plain through the level grounds which divided it elsewhere, all around, from the mountains, it had on one side a gentle slope, and on all the others it was easily made strong against an enemy, when bows and arrows and spears constituted the common weapons of assault. The town got its name from him who owned the hill, and most fitly, for it was the synonym of "watch-tower," the very thing at which Omri aimed, having in mind through the slaughter of how many enemies he had to wade to the throne, and how necessary it was to be strong against any future assaults. They who part with Jehovah as Guide and Protector, and trust to human resources, need to multiply these to the utmost. Jeroboam had not flung off God formally. He had only modified the way of serving Him. He had set up the calves. This was politic, expedient, necessary. It was in harmony too with the ways of the nations. This was "the Way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat" (ver. 26). It was not the way of loyalty to Jehovah; it was not the way of truth. It was the way of disobedience under the inspiration of policy. Between this sin and the others that followed it was only a question of degree, not of kind. Set up taste, usage, popular craving, fashion, artistic completeness, or anything else as changing, modifying the method of Divine appointment, and you enter on the inclined plane. How far down and how fast you will go is determined by circumstances. So Omri's working "evil in the eyes of the Lord," and doing "worse than all that were before him" (ver. 25), is only walking in all "the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat," and in his corrupting and contaminating sin. So it is ever. Given the supremacy of Peter, then his control of all things, secular and sacred; then his infallibility! What was the effect of all these modifications? Toward man, to keep Israel together and from union with Judah. But in the other and higher direction — toward God — the effect was "to provoke (ver. 26) the Lord God of Israel to anger with their vanities." (See, for the "statutes of Omri," Micah 6:16.) When Omri died, the chronicles of the kings of Israel (ver. 27) containing the record of his deeds, they buried him in his capital, Samaria, and the throne fell to his son Ahab in the thirty-eighth year of Asa of Judah (ver. 29), and about nine hundred and eighteen years before the coming of our Lord. His career is as full of darkness and weakness as a king's life could well be. His reign of twenty-two years was a continued curse to the people. He held on the way of his father, but, according to the common rule in such cases, descending lower and lower. Moral rottenness, like material putrefaction, must increase. "Evil men and seducers wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived." He married Jezebel, the daughter of Ethbaal, King of the Zidonians. We are not surprised at the character of the daughter when we know the career of her father as it is learned from outside history. Among the innovations of Ahab our version mentions a "grove," a misleading word into which the translators were led from its being really an idolatrous image or group of images, including the "sacred symbolic tree" so frequently seen in Assyrian monuments. That it could not be a grove, a wood, is clear from 2 Kings 22:4, where Josiah brought out "the grove" — asherah in Hebrew — from the house of the Lord. It was doubtless a new and imposing idol, in keeping with the luxurious life now being lived by the Israelites as wealth grew through commerce.(1) There is a real connection between the moral and religious condition of a nation and its temporal affairs. If we as a people defy God or disregard His, laws, He in His government of the world may be expected to show that He is "contrary to us."(2) The temptation is always great to God's people to be like their neighbours; and if these neighbours be cultivated, be deemed standards of excellence in arts, in manners, or in arms; if they be wealthy; if their trade is of importance to us; if they be powerful and it is our interest to stand well with them — the inducements to conformity are all the greater. The distinctive elements of our religion are set aside. Why thrust our Bibles, our family worship, our Sabbaths, on them? True, God says of us that we are to be "holding forth the Word of life." Ah, yes, but that was in other circumstances.(3) The next step is to take up the ways of our friends. Much in their methods can be described as nice, impressive, beautiful — especially if we have taken their standard of "loveliness"; and, having done this, there is a stage of attempted combination. But it is awkward, difficult — in the end possible. One or other must go. And when man is choosing between his own products and God's orders, he prefers his own. So the light is superseded by the darkness; spiritual religion gives place to "impressive" forms, which put no check on tastes or lusts or passions, and make no conscience uncomfortable, while sin is swallowed as a sweet morsel.

(J. Hall, D. D.).