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.

THE DEATH OF JOSIAH
‘His servants carried him in a chariot dead from Megiddo.’
2 Kings 23:30
If you would see the greatness of Josiah, you must look at the history of his life, not at the account which we have of his death. If the text of this sermon had been the only notice of Josiah, you would not have known that he was different from, or better than, other men of his time; you might have grieved over his death, and pitied one who seemed to fall so far short in glory of Solomon and others of the kings. But no, Josiah’s reign was a most glorious one, more glorious I should say than Solomon’s. He won for himself an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and having done this it mattered little whether it was a fever, or old age, or the sword of Pharaoh-nechoh, who was the messenger to call him away.
I. I think that the text may be very instructive to us as a picture of the manner in which God sometimes calls His servants away when they have done their work.—When I read in Holy Scripture of a man who like Josiah found his kingdom in confusion, and idolatry rampant, and false altars raised, and crime and pollution abundant, and when I read of him as setting himself to the work of purification with all his heart and with all his soul, I seem to read a parable describing the condition of each true member of Christ.
Josiah’s kingdom could not have been worse than the heart of each of us if left to itself, and he made it his business to cleanse his kingdom, even as each one of us, if he fulfils his promises, is bound to put out of his heart all that is unclean, all that maketh a lie, all that exalteth itself against God.
II. The moral which I draw from the text is this, that he who does his work in the proper time, who does not put off till old age the work of youth, nor to the hour of death the labour of life, may be quiet and unconcerned of the way in which God is pleased to call him; if he is called by some sudden Providence when engaged in his work, or summoned by some speedy sickness, or in whatever way God may take him, he may be of good cheer and of a quiet mind, knowing that God will do all things well.
Bishop Harvey Goodwin.
Illustrations
(1) ‘Josiah’s death was not a peaceful one. He persisted in going into conflict with Pharaoh-nechoh, king of Egypt, against the latter’s earnest remonstrance; and, in consequence of his hardihood, met his death. “His servants carried him in a chariot dead from Megiddo” ( 2 Kings 23:30). Is there, then, any real contradiction between the prophet’s prediction ( 2 Kings 22:20) and this sad event?
Certainly not! The one tells us what God was prepared to do for His servant; the other what he brought on himself by his own folly. There are many instances of this change of purpose in the Word of God. One of them is known as “his breach of promise,” or “altering of purpose” ( Numbers 15:34, marg.). He would have saved His people from the forty years’ wandering in the wilderness, but they made Him serve with their sins. He would have gathered Jerusalem as a hen gathers her brood, but she would not.
Let us beware lest there be in any of us an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God, and frustrating some blessed purpose of his heart. Eye hath not seen, nor heart conceived, what He has prepared for those who love Him. But we may limit the Holy One of Israel; we may so restrain Him by our unbelief as to stay Him from the mighty works which are in His thought to do for us.’
(2) ‘King Josiah’s end was sad and, as we may feel, disappointing and untimely. But he had done his work, and therefore God took him. Early as death came upon him, and painful as were its circumstances, it was really in mercy that God removed him. He himself, we may be sure, would not grieve at his departure, but rather thank God for having taken him from the evil to come. His history seems to warn us against laying too much stress on the circumstances of a man’s death, seeing that it is the life that is of real consequence. Our business in the world is to live for God, not to put off to old age the work of youth, nor to the hour of death the labour of life, but to work for God during the time appointed for our work. And then it matters not what the manner of our death may be.’