2 Kings 18:4 - Homiletics

Iconoclasm right or wrong, judicious or injudicious, according to circumstances.

The destruction of the brazen serpent of Moses by Hezekiah has always been a favorite argument with extreme iconoclasts for their extreme views. In the time of Henry VIII ; and still more in that of Cromwell, statuary was destroyed or mutilated, precious pictures were burnt, priceless stained-glass windows were shivered to atoms, by those with whom a main justification of their conduct was the example of Hezekiah. Let that example, then, be considered, both in respect of what Hezekiah did, and of what he did not do.

I. WHAT HEZEKIAH DID .

1. He removed the high places, which were distinctly contrary to the Law, since the Law allowed sacrifice in one place only—before the ark of the covenant, in the tabernacle, or at Jerusalem.

2. He brake down the "images," or idolatrous emblems of Baal—mere pillars probably, which were the objects of an actual worship.

3. He cut down the groves, or idolatrous emblems of Ashtoreth—"sacred trees," also the objects of worship.

4. He brake in pieces the brazen serpent, to which the Israelites had for some time been in the habit of offering incense.

II. WHAT HEZEKIAH DID NOT DO . Hezekiah did not understand the second commandment in any other sense than Solomon. He allowed the ministry of art to religion. He left untouched the carved figures of cherubim and palm-trees and open flowers upon the walls of the temple ( 1 Kings 6:29 ). He left untouched the brazen lavers, on the borders of which were lions, oxen, and cherubim ( 1 Kings 7:29 ). He probably restored to their place, he certainly did not destroy, the twelve oxen ( Jeremiah 52:20 ) which Solomon had made to support his "brazen sea" ( 1 Kings 7:25 ), and which Ahaz had removed from the temple ( 2 Kings 16:17 ). He himself added to the gold ornamentation of the doors and pillars ( 2 Kings 18:16 ). It is evident, therefore, that Hezekiah's iconoclasm was limited to those objects which were being actually abused to idolatrous uses at the time when he destroyed them. He did not spy around him, scenting peril of idolatry in every image or other representation of natural forms that had come down to him from former ages, even when they were employed in the service of religion. He was on the side of a rich and gorgeous and artistic ceremonial, of a musical service ( 2 Chronicles 29:25-27 ), a highly ornamented sanctuary, a "house" as "magnifical" as art could make it ( 1 Chronicles 22:5 ). He recognized that the preservation of artistic objects devoted to religion was the rule, destruction of them the rare exception, only justified