2 Kings 23:5

A ROYAL ICONOCLAST

‘He put down the idolatrous priests.’

2 Kings 23:5

I. What deserves to be borne in mind is this: If mild measures would not have availed to accomplish the desired object of rooting out idolatry and restoring the Mosaic constitution, neither did these violent measures have that effect.—Josiah’s reformatory efforts failed of any permanent effect, and his arrangements disappeared almost without a trace. It is very remarkable that the prophets, who might have been expected to rejoice in this undertaking, and to date from it as an epoch and a standing example of what a king of Judah ought to do, scarcely refer to it, if at all. There was a violent and bloody attempt by Manasseh to crush out the Jehovah religion, and establish the worship of other gods. Violence for violence, can we approve of the means employed in the one case any more than in the other? Is the most highly cultured Christian conscience so uncertain of its own principles that it is incapable of any better verdict than this: violence when employed by the party with which we sympathise is right; when employed against that party it is wrong? We justify Josiah, and we condemn the Christian persecutors and inquisitors. Are these views inconsistent, and, if not, how can we reconcile them?

II. We have to bear in mind that it is one thing to admit excuses for a line of conduct, and another to justify it.—Judaism certainly had intolerance as one of its fundamental principles. Violence in the support of the Jehovah religion was a duty of a Jewish king. In attempting to account for and understand the conduct of Josiah, it would be as senseless to expect him to see and practise toleration as to expect him to use firearms against Necho. We can never carry back modern principles into ancient times, and judge men by the standards of to-day. To do so argues an utter want of historical sense. On the other hand, however, when we have to judge actions, which may be regarded as examples for our own conduct, we must judge them inflexibly by the highest standards of right and justice and wisdom with which we are acquainted. How else can we deny that it is right to persecute heresy by violent means when that is justified by the example of Josiah?

III. Judged by the best standards, Josiah’s reformation was unwise in its method.—The king was convinced, and he carried out the reformation by his royal authority. The nation was not converted, and therefore did not heartily concur in the movement. It only submitted to what was imposed. Hence this reformation passed without fruit, as it was without root in public conviction. We are sure of our modern principles of toleration, and of suffering persecution rather than inflicting it. We believe in these principles even as means of propagating our opinions. Let us be true to those principles, and not be led into disloyalty to them by our anxiety to apologise for a man who is here mentioned with praise and honour. Violence is the curse of all revolutions, political or religious. Has not our generation seen enough of them to be convinced of this at last? Do we not look on during political convulsions with anxiety to see whether the cause with which we sympathise will succeed in keeping clear of this curse? Is it not the highest praise which we can impart to a revolution, and our strongest reason to trust in the permanence of its results, that it was ‘peaceful’? Josiah’s reformation is not an example for us. Its failure is a warning. We have not to justify the method of it. We cannot condemn the man, for his intentions and motives were the best, but we cannot approve of or imitate the method of action. Its failure warns us that no reformation can be genuine which is imposed by authority, or which rests on anything but a converted heart, and that all the plausible justifications of violence which may be invented are delusions.