{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_42891/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_42891","id":"gutenberg_42891","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/42891","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. Kings, 1st -- Commentaries","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE\n\n\n\n\n                           EDITED BY THE REV.\n\n                    W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D.\n\n                      _Editor of \"The Expositor\"_\n\n\n\n\n                        THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS\n\n\n                                   BY\n\n                       F. W. FARRAR, D.D., F.R.S.\n\n\n\n\n                                =London=\n\n                          HODDER AND STOUGHTON\n\n                          27, PATERNOSTER ROW\n\n                               MDCCCXCIII\n\n\n\n\n                         THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE.\n\n              _Crown 8vo, cloth, price 7s. 6d. each vol._\n\n\n                         FIRST SERIES, 1887-8.\n\n  Colossians.\n      By A. MACLAREN, D.D.\n\n  St. Mark.\n      By Very Rev. the Dean of Armagh.\n\n  Genesis.\n      By Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D.\n\n  1 Samuel.\n      By Prof. W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D.\n\n  2 Samuel.\n      By the Same Author.\n\n  Hebrews.\n      By Principal T. C. EDWARDS, D.D.\n\n                         SECOND SERIES, 1888-9.\n\n  Galatians.\n      By Prof. G. G. FINDLAY, B.A.\n\n  The Pastoral Epistles.\n      By Rev. A. PLUMMER, D.D.\n\n  Isaiah I.--XXXIX.\n      By G. A. SMITH, M.A. Vol. I.\n\n  The Book of Revelation.\n      By Prof. W. MILLIGAN, D.D.\n\n  1 Corinthians.\n      By Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D.\n\n  The Epistles of St. John.\n      By Rt. Rev. W. ALEXANDER, D.D.\n\n                         THIRD SERIES, 1889-90.\n\n  Judges and Ruth.\n      By Rev. R. A. WATSON, D.D.\n\n  Jeremiah.\n      By Rev. C. J. BALL, M.A.\n\n  Isaiah XL.--LXVI.\n      By G. A. SMITH, M.A. Vol. II.\n\n  St. Matthew.\n      By Rev. J. MONRO GIBSON, D.D.\n\n  Exodus.\n      By Very Rev. the Dean of Armagh.\n\n  St. Luke.\n      By Rev. H. BURTON, B.A.\n\n                         FOURTH SERIES, 1890-1.\n\n  Ecclesiastes.\n      By Rev. SAMUEL COX, D.D.\n\n  St. James and St. Jude.\n      By Rev. A. PLUMMER, D.D.\n\n  Proverbs.\n      By Rev. R. F. HORTON, M.A.\n\n  Leviticus.\n      By Rev. S. H. KELLOGG, D.D.\n\n  The Gospel of St. John.\n      By Prof. M. DODS, D.D. Vol. I.\n\n  The Acts of the Apostles.\n      By Prof. STOKES, D.D. Vol. I.\n\n                         FIFTH SERIES, 1891-2.\n\n  The Psalms.\n      By A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. I.\n\n  1 and 2 Thessalonians.\n      By JAS. DENNEY, B.D.\n\n  The Book of Job.\n      By R. A. WATSON, D.D.\n\n  Ephesians.\n      By Prof. G. G. FINDLAY, B.A.\n\n  The Gospel of St. John.\n      By Prof. M. DODS, D.D. Vol. II.\n\n  The Acts of the Apostles.\n      By Prof. STOKES, D.D. Vol. II.\n\n                         SIXTH SERIES, 1892-3.\n\n  1 Kings.\n      By Ven. Archdeacon FARRAR.\n\n  Philippians.\n      By Principal RAINY, D.D.\n\n  Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther.\n      By Prof. W. F. ADENEY, M.A.\n\n  Joshua.\n      By Prof. W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D.\n\n  Daniel.\n      By Prof. FULLER, M.A.\n\n  The Psalms.\n      By A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. II.\n\n\n\n\n                                  THE\n                          FIRST BOOK OF KINGS\n\n\n\n\n                       F. W. FARRAR, D.D., F.R.S.\n\n        LATE FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE; ARCHDEACON OF\n                              WESTMINSTER\n\n\n\n\n\n                                =London=\n\n                          HODDER AND STOUGHTON\n\n                          27, PATERNOSTER ROW\n\n                               MDCCCXCIII\n\n\n\n\n    _Printed by Hazell, Watson, & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury._\n\n\n\n\n                               CONTENTS.\n\n\n                                BOOK I.\n\n                            _INTRODUCTION._\n\n                               CHAPTER I.\n\n                                                                  PAGE\n\n  THE HIGHER CRITICISM                                               3\n\n                              CHAPTER II.\n\n  THE BOOKS OF KINGS                                                14\n\n                              CHAPTER III.\n\n  THE HISTORIAN OF THE KINGS                                        30\n\n                              CHAPTER IV.\n\n  GOD IN HISTORY                                                    39\n\n                               CHAPTER V.\n\n  HISTORY WITH A PURPOSE                                            46\n\n                              CHAPTER VI.\n\n  LESSONS OF THE HISTORY                                            50\n\n\n                                BOOK II.\n\n                          _DAVID AND SOLOMON._\n\n                              CHAPTER VII.\n\n  DAVID'S DECREPITUDE                                               61\n      1 KINGS i. 1-4.\n\n                             CHAPTER VIII.\n\n  AN EASTERN COURT AND HOME                                         70\n      1 KINGS i.\n\n                              CHAPTER IX.\n\n  ADONIJAH'S REBELLION                                              81\n      1 KINGS i. 5-53.\n\n                               CHAPTER X.\n\n  DAVID'S DEATH-BED                                                 94\n      1 KINGS ii. 1-11.\n\n                              CHAPTER XI.\n\n  AVENGING JUSTICE                                                 105\n      1 KINGS ii. 13-46.\n\n                              CHAPTER XII.\n\n  THE BOY-KING'S WISDOM                                            120\n      1 KINGS iii. 5-28.\n\n                             CHAPTER XIII.\n\n  SOLOMON'S COURT AND KINGDOM                                      134\n      1 KINGS iv. 1-34.\n\n                              CHAPTER XIV.\n\n  THE TEMPLE                                                       149\n      1 KINGS v., vi., vii.\n\n                              CHAPTER XV.\n\n  THE IDEAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TEMPLE                             172\n      1 KINGS vii. 13-51; viii. 12-61.\n\n                              CHAPTER XVI.\n\n  THE ARK AND THE CHERUBIM                                         177\n      1 KINGS vi. 23-30; viii. 6-11.\n\n                             CHAPTER XVII.\n\n  THE GRADUAL GROWTH OF THE LEVITIC RITUAL                         186\n      1 KINGS viii. 1-66.\n\n                             CHAPTER XVIII.\n\n  THE TEMPLE WORSHIP                                               193\n      1 KINGS viii. 1-11.\n\n                              CHAPTER XIX.\n\n  THE TEMPLE SACRIFICES                                            202\n      1 KINGS viii. 62-66, ix. 25.\n\n                              CHAPTER XX.\n\n  SOLOMON IN ALL HIS GLORY                                         222\n      1 KINGS x. 1-29.\n\n                              CHAPTER XXI.\n\n  HOLLOW PROSPERITY                                                230\n      1 KINGS xi.\n\n                             CHAPTER XXII.\n\n  THE OLD AGE OF SOLOMON                                           239\n      1 KINGS xi. 1-13.\n\n                             CHAPTER XXIII.\n\n  THE WIND AND THE WHIRLWIND                                       250\n      1 KINGS xi. 14-41.\n\n\n                               BOOK III.\n\n                         _THE DIVIDED KINGDOM._\n\n                             B.C. 937-889.\n\n                             CHAPTER XXIV.\n\n  A NEW REIGN. B.C. 937                                            269\n      1 KINGS xii. 1-5.\n\n                              CHAPTER XXV.\n\n  THE DISRUPTION                                                   275\n      1 KINGS xii. 6-20.\n\n                             CHAPTER XXVI.\n\n  \"JEROBOAM THE SON OF NEBAT, WHO MADE ISRAEL\n       TO SIN.\" B.C. 937-915                                       286\n      1 KINGS xii. 21-23.\n\n                             CHAPTER XXVII.\n\n  JEROBOAM, AND THE MAN OF GOD                                     296\n      1 KINGS xiii. 1-34.\n\n                            CHAPTER XXVIII.\n\n  DOOM OF THE HOUSE OF NEBAT                                       302\n      1 KINGS xiv. 1-20.\n\n                             CHAPTER XXIX.\n\n  NADAB; BAASHA; ELAH. B.C. 915-889                                309\n      1 KINGS xv. 25; xvi. 10.\n\n                              CHAPTER XXX.\n\n  THE EARLIER KINGS OF JUDAH. B.C. 937-851                         313\n      1 KINGS xiv. 21-31; xv. 1-24.\n\n                             CHAPTER XXXI.\n\n  JEHOSHAPHAT. B.C. 876-851                                        327\n      1 KINGS xxii. 41-50.\n\n                             CHAPTER XXXII.\n\n  THE KINGS OF ISRAEL FROM ZIMRI TO AHAB. B.C.\n       889-877                                                     337\n      1 KINGS xvi. 11-34.\n\n\n                                BOOK IV.\n\n                           _AHAB AND ELIJAH._\n\n                             B.C. 877-855.\n\n                            CHAPTER XXXIII.\n\n  KING AHAB AND QUEEN JEZEBEL                                      347\n      1 KINGS xvi. 29-34.\n\n                             CHAPTER XXXIV.\n\n  ELIJAH                                                           357\n      1 KINGS xvii. 1-7.\n\n                             CHAPTER XXXV.\n\n  ELIJAH AT SAREPTA                                                372\n      1 KINGS xvii. 7-xviii. 19.\n\n                             CHAPTER XXXVI.\n\n  ELIJAH AND AHAB                                                  377\n      1 KINGS xviii. 1-20.\n\n                            CHAPTER XXXVII.\n\n  ELIJAH ON MOUNT CARMEL                                           383\n      1 KINGS xviii. 20-40.\n\n                            CHAPTER XXXVIII.\n\n  THE RAIN                                                         399\n      1 KINGS xviii. 41-46.\n\n                             CHAPTER XXXIX.\n\n  ELIJAH'S FLIGHT                                                  404\n      1 KINGS xix. 1-4.\n\n                              CHAPTER XL.\n\n  ELIJAH'S DESPAIR                                                 415\n      1 KINGS xix. 1-10.\n\n                              CHAPTER XLI.\n\n  HOW GOD DEALS WITH DESPONDENCY                                   424\n      1 KINGS xix. 5-8.\n\n                             CHAPTER XLII.\n\n  THE THEOPHANY AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE                               429\n      1 KINGS xix. 9-18.\n\n                             CHAPTER XLIII.\n\n  THE CALL OF ELISHA                                               445\n      1 KINGS xix. 19-21.\n\n                             CHAPTER XLIV.\n\n  AHAB AND BENHADAD                                                450\n      1 KINGS xx. 1-30.\n\n                              CHAPTER XLV.\n\n  AHAB'S INFATUATION                                               463\n      1 KINGS xx. 31-43.\n\n                             CHAPTER XLVI.\n\n  NABOTH'S VINEYARD                                                473\n      1 KINGS xxi. 1-29.\n\n                             CHAPTER XLVII.\n\n  ALONE AGAINST THE WORLD                                          485\n      1 KINGS xxii. 1-40.\n\n                            CHAPTER XLVIII.\n\n  CONCLUSION                                                       497\n\n                               APPENDIX.\n\n  CHRONOLOGY OF THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS                            500\n\n\n\n\n                         AUTHORITIES CONSULTED.\n\n\n  Josephus, _Antiquities_, Books VII. to X.\n\n  Munk, _Palestine_. 1845.\n\n  Jahn, _Hist. of the Hebrew Commonwealth_, E. T. 1828.\n\n  Reuss, _La Bible. Hist. des Israelites._ Paris, 1877.\n\n  Renan, _Histoire du Peuple Israel_. 1885-1890.\n\n  Lange, _Bibelwerk_ (_K. C. W. F. B\u00e4hr_, 1868).\n\n  Bunsen, _Bibelwerk_.\n\n  Heinrich von Ewald, _The History of Israel_, E. T.\n      \"         \"     _The Rise and Splendour of the Hebrew Monarchy_.\n      London, 1871.\n\n  Gr\u00e4tz, _Geschichte der Israeliten_, vol. ii. Leipzig, 1875.\n\n  Hitzig, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_. 1847, 1857, 1870.\n\n  Stade, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, vol. i. 1887.\n\n  Kuenen, _Religion of Israel_, E. T. 1874.\n\n  Eisenlohr, _Das Volk Israel unter der Herrschaft der K\u00f6nige_.\n      Leipzig, 1856.\n\n  Klostermann, _Die B\u00fccher Samuels und der K\u00f6nige_. 1887.\n\n  Van Oort, _Bible for Young People_, E. T., vol. iii. 1877.\n\n  F. W. Newmann, _Hebrew Monarchy_, Second Edition. 1853.\n\n  Milman, _Hist. of the Jews_, 3 vols.\n\n  Edersheim, _Hist. of the Jewish Nation_.\n     \"       _The Temple and its Services_. 1874.\n\n  Stanley, _Lectures on the Jewish Church_, Second Series. 1865.\n\n  Kittel, _Geschichte der Hebr\u00e4er_. Gotha, 1888, 1892.\n\n  Wellhausen-Bleek, _Einleitung_, Fourth Edition. Berlin, 1878.\n\n  Wellhausen, _Geschichte Israel_, E. T., Third Edition. 1891.\n\n  Driver, _Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament_. 1891.\n\n  Prof. J. R. Lumby, _The First Book of Kings_ (Cambridge Bible for\n      Schools). 1890.\n\n  Canon Rawlinson, _Speaker's Commentary,_ 1 _Kings_. 1872.\n\n  Prof. Robertson Smith, _The Old Testament in the Jewish Church_,\n      Second Edition. 1892.\n\n  K. F. Keil, _The Books of Kings_, E. T. 1857.\n\n  Maurice, _Prophets and Kings of the Old Testament_, Third Edition.\n      1871.\n\n  Canon Rawlinson, _The Kings of Israel and Judah_ (Men of the Bible).\n      1889.\n\n  Farrar, _Solomon_ (Men of the Bible). 1887.\n\n  Prof. Milligan, _Elijah_ (Men of the Bible).\n\n  Prof. Robertson, _Early Religion of Israel_. Baird Lecture, 1887.\n\n  Riehm, _Handw\u00f6rterbuch des Biblischen Altertums_. Leipzig, 1884.\n\n  Herzog, _Encyclop\u00e4die_, E. T. 1856.\n\n  Smith, _Dictionary of the Bible_. 1860.\n\n  Kitto, _Biblical Encyclop\u00e6dia_. 1864.\n\n  Duncker, _Geschichte des Altherthums_ (Bd. II. _Geschichte Israel_),\n      Fifth Edition. Leipzig, 1878.\n\n  Oppert, _Salomon et les successeurs_. Paris.\n\n  E. Maspero, _Hist. anc. des peuples de l'Orient_, E. T. 1892.\n\n  Schrader, _Keilinschriften u. das Alte Testament_, Second Edition.\n      Giessen, 1883.\n\n  Brugsch-Bey, _Geschichte \u00c6gyptens_. Leipzig, 1877.\n\n  Hamburger, _Real-Encyklop\u00e4die f\u00fcr Bibel und Talmud_. Strelitz, 1865,\n      1883.\n\n  Book by Book, _Popular Studies in the Canon of Scripture by various\n      authors_. Isbister & Co., 1892.\n\n  Prof. Robertson, D. D., _Early Religion of Israel_. Baird Lectures,\n      1889. Blackwood, 1892.\n\n  Robinson, _Researches in Palestine_, 3 vols. 1841.\n\n\n\n\n                                BOOK I.\n\n                            _INTRODUCTION._\n\n\n    \"Ich bin \u00fcberzeugt, dass die Bibel immer sch\u00f6ner wird, je mehr\n    man sie versteht, d.h. je mehr man einsieht und anschaut,\n    dass jedes Wort, das wir allgemein auffassen und in Besondern\n    auf uns anwenden, nach gewissen Umst\u00e4nden, nach Zeit- und\n    Orts-verh\u00e4ltnissen einen, eigenen, besondern, unmittelbar\n    individuellen Bezug gehabt hat.\"--GOETHE.\n\n    \"Es bleibt dabei, das beste Lesen der Bibel, dieses G\u00f6ttlichen\n    Buchs, ist _menschlich_. Ich nehme dies Wort im weitesten Umfang\n    und in der andringendsten Bedeutung. Menschlich muss man die\n    Bibel lesen: denn sie ist ein Buch durch Menschen f\u00fcr Menschen\n    geschrieben; menschlich ist die Sprache, menschlich die \u00e4ussern\n    H\u00fclfsmittel, mit denen sie geschrieben und aufbehalten ist.... Es\n    darf also sicher geglaubt werden: je humaner (im besten Sinn des\n    Worts) man das Wort Gottes liest, desto n\u00e4her kommt man dem Zweck\n    seines Urhebers, welcher Menschen zu seinem Bilde schuf ... und\n    f\u00fcr uns menschlich handelt.\"--HERDER.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER I.\n\n                        _THE HIGHER CRITICISM._\n\n    \"God shows all things in the slow history of their\n    ripening.\"--GEORGE ELIOT.\n\n\nGod has given us many Bibles. The book which we call the Bible\nconsists of a series of books, and its name represents the Greek\nplural \u03c4\u1f70 \u0392\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1. It is not so much a book, as the extant fragments\nof a literature, which grew up during many centuries. Supreme as is\nthe importance of this \"Book of God,\" it was never meant to be the\nsole teacher of mankind. We mistake its purpose, we misapply its\nrevelation, when we use it to exclude the other sources of religious\nknowledge. It is supremely profitable for our instruction, but, so\nfar from being designed to absorb our exclusive attention, its work\nis to stimulate the eagerness with which, by its aid, we are able to\nlearn from all other sources the will of God towards men.\n\nGod speaks to us in many voices. In the Bible He revealed Himself\nto all mankind by His messages to the individual souls of some of\nHis servants. But those messages, whether uttered or consigned to\nwriting, were but one method of enabling us to hold communion with\nHim. They were not even an _indispensable_ method. Thousands of\nthe saints of God lived the spiritual life in close communion with\ntheir Father in heaven in ages which possessed no written book; in\nages before any such book existed; in ages during which, though it\nexisted, it was practically inaccessible; in ages during which it\nhad been designedly kept out of their hands by priests. This fact\nshould quicken our sense of gratitude for the inestimable boon of\na Book wherein he who runs may now read, and respecting the main\nteaching of which wayfaring men, and even fools, need not err. But\nit should at the same time save us from the error of treating the\nBible as though it were in itself an amulet or a fetish, as the\nMohammedan treats his Koran. The Bible was written in human language,\nby men for men. It was written mainly in Jud\u00e6a, by Jews, for Jews.\n\"_Scripture_,\" as the old theological rule said, \"_is the sense of\nScripture_,\"[1] and the sense of Scripture can only be ascertained\nby the methods of study and the rules of criticism without which no\nancient document or literature can be even approximately understood.\nIn these respects the Bible cannot be arbitrarily or exceptionally\ntreated. No _a priori_ rules can be devised for its elucidation. It\nis what it is, not what we might have expected it to be. Language,\nat the best, is an imperfect and ever-varying instrument of thought.\nIt is full of twilight, and of gracious shadows. Vast numbers of\nits words were originally metaphorical. When the light of metaphor\nhas faded from them they come to mean different things at different\ntimes, under different conditions, in different contexts, on\ndifferent lips. Language can at the best be but an _asymptote_ to\nthought; in other words, it resembles the mathematical line which\napproaches nearer and nearer to the circumference of a circle,\nbut which, even when infinitely extended, can never actually touch\nit. The fact that the Bible contains a Divine revelation does not\nalter the fact that it represents a nation's literature. It is the\nlibrary of the Jewish people, or rather all that remains to us of\nthat library, and all that was most precious in it. Holy men of old\nwere moved by the Spirit of God, but as this Divine inspiration did\nnot make them personally sinless in their actions, or infallible in\ntheir judgments, so neither does it exempt their messages from the\nlimitation which attaches to all human conditions. Criticism would\nhave rendered an inestimable service to every thoughtful reader of\nthe Scriptures if it had done nothing more than impress upon them\nthat the component books are not one, but complex and multiform,\nseparated from each other by centuries of time, and of very varying\nvalue and preciousness. They too, like the greatest apostles of God,\nhave their treasure in earthen vessels; and we not only may, but\nmust, by the aid of that reason which is \"the candle of the Lord,\"\nestimate both the value of the treasure, and the age and character of\nthe earthen vessel in which it is contained.\n\nThere are hundreds of texts in Scripture which may convey to some\nsouls a very true and blessed meaning, but which do not in the\noriginal possess any such meaning as that which is now attached to\nthem. The words of Hebrew prophets often seem perfectly clear, but\nin some cases they had another set of connotations in the mouths of\nthose by whom they were originally spoken. It requires a learned\nand a literary training to discover by philology, by history, or by\ncomparison, what alone they could have meant when they were first\nspoken. In many cases their exact significance is no longer to be\nascertained with certainty. It must be more or less conjectural.\nThere are passages of Scripture which have received scores of\ndiffering interpretations. There are entire books of Scripture about\nthe general scope of which there have been diametrically opposite\nopinions. The spiritual intuition of the saint may in some instances\nbe keener to read aright than the laborious researches of the\nscholar, because spiritual things can only be spiritually discerned.\nBut in general it is true that the _ex cathedra_ assertions of\nignorant readers, though they are often pronounced with an assumption\nof infallibility, are not worth the breath which utters them. All\nartificial dogmas as to what Scripture _must_ be, and _must_ mean,\nare worse than idle; we have only to deal with what it _really is_,\nand what it _really says_. Even when opinions respecting it have\nbeen all but unanimously pronounced by the representatives of all\nthe Churches, they have nevertheless been again and again shown to\nbe absurdly erroneous. The slow light of scholarship, of criticism,\nof comparative religion, has proved that in many instances not only\nthe interpretations of former ages, but the very _principles_ of\ninterpretation from which they were derived, had no basis whatever in\nfact. And the methods of interpretation--dogmatic, ecclesiastical,\nmystic, allegorical, literal--have changed from age to age.[2] The\nasserted heresy of yesterday has in scores of instances become the\naccepted commonplace of to-morrow. The duty of the Church in the\npresent day is neither to make out that the Bible is what men have\nimagined that it was, nor to repeat the assertions of ancient writers\nas to what they declared it to be, but honestly and truthfully to\ndiscover the significance of the actual phenomena which it presents\nto the enlightened and cultivated intelligence.\n\nIf it were not so common a failing to ignore the lessons of the\npast, it might have been hoped that a certain modesty, of which the\nnecessity is taught us by centuries of error, would have saved a\nmultitude of writers from rushing into premature and denunciative\nrejection of results which they have not studied, and of which they\nare incapable to judge. St. Jerome complained that in his day there\nwas no old woman so fatuous as not to assume the right to lay down\nthe law about Scriptural interpretation. It is just the same in these\ndays. Half-taught dogmatists--\u1f00\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03c7\u03ad\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03bf\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u1f76, as they have\nbeen called--may sweepingly condemn the lifelong researches of men\nfar superior to themselves, not only in learning, but in love of\ntruth; they may attribute their conclusions to faithless infatuation,\nand even to moral obliquity. This has been done over and over again\nin our own lifetime; and yet such self-constituted and unauthorised\ndefenders of their own prejudices and traditions--which they always\nidentify with the Catholic faith--are impotent to prevent, impotent\neven greatly to retard, the spread of real knowledge. Many of the\nnow-accepted certainties of science were repudiated a generation ago\nas absurd and blasphemous. As long as it was possible to put them\ndown by persecution, the thumbscrew and the stake were freely used\nby priests and inquisitors for their suppression. _E pur si muove._\nTheologians who mingled the gold of Revelation with the clay of their\nown opinions have been driven to correct their past errors. Untaught\nby experience, religious prejudice is ever heaping up fresh obstacles\nto oppose the progress of new truths. The obstacles will be swept\naway in the future as surely as they have been in the past. The\neagle, it has been said, which soars through the air does not worry\nitself how to cross the rivers.\n\nIt is probable that no age since that of the Apostles has added\nso much to our knowledge of the true meaning and history of the\nBible as has been added by our own. The mode of regarding Scripture\nhas been almost revolutionised, and in consequence many books of\nScripture previously misunderstood have acquired a reality and\nintensity of interest and instructiveness which have rendered them\ntrebly precious. A deeper and holier reverence for all eternal truth\nwhich the Bible contains has taken the place of a meaningless letter\nworship. The fatal and wooden Rabbinic dogma of verbal dictation--a\ndogma which either destroys intelligent faith altogether, or\nintroduces into Christian conduct some of the worst delusions of\nfalse religion--is dead and buried in every capable and well-taught\nmind. Truths which had long been seen through the distorting mirage\nof false exegesis have now been set forth in their true aspect. We\nhave been enabled, for the first time, to grasp the real character\nof events which, by being set in a wrong perspective, had been made\nso fantastic as to have no relation to ordinary lives. Figures which\nhad become dim spectres moving through an unnatural atmosphere now\nstand out, full of grace, instructiveness and warning, in the clear\nlight of day. The science of Biblical criticism has solved scores of\nenigmas which were once disastrously obscure, and has brought out\nthe original beauty of some passages, which, even in our Authorised\nVersion, conveyed no intelligible meaning to earnest readers. The\nRevised Version alone has corrected hundreds of inaccuracies which\nin some instances defaced the beauty of the sacred page, and in\nmany others misrepresented and mistranslated it. Intolerance has\nbeen robbed of favourite shibboleths, used as the basis of cruel\nbeliefs, which souls unhardened by system could only repudiate with\na \"God forbid!\" Familiar error has ever been dearer to most men than\nunfamiliar truths; but truth, however slow may seem to be the beat of\nher pinions, always wins her way at last.\n\n          \"Thro' the heather an' howe gaed the creepin' thing,\n           But abune was the waft of an angel's wing.\"\n\nCan there be any doubt that mankind has everything to gain and\nnothing to lose from the ascertainment of genuine truth? Are we so\nwholly devoid of even an elementary faith as to think that man can\nprofit by consciously cherished illusions? Does it not show a nobler\nconfidence in facts to correct traditional prejudices, than to rest\nblindly content with conventional assertions? If we do not believe\nthat God is a God of truth, that all falsity is hateful to Him,--and\nreligious falsity most hateful of all, because it adds the sin of\nhypocrisy to the love of lies,--we believe in _nothing_. If our\nreligion is to consist in a rejection of knowledge, lest it should\ndisturb the convictions of times of ignorance, the dicta of \"the\nFathers,\" or dogmas which arrogate to themselves the sham claim of\nCatholicity--if we are to give only to the Dark Ages the title of the\nAges of Faith, then indeed\n\n          \"The pillared firmament is rottenness,\n           And earth's base built on stubble.\"\n\n\"There is and will be much discussion,\" says Goethe, \"as to the\nadvantage or disadvantage of the popular dissemination of the Bible. To\nme it is clear that it will be mischievous, as it always has been, if\nused dogmatically and capriciously; beneficial, as it always has been,\nif accepted didactically (for our instruction) and with feeling.\" There\nis abundance in the Bible for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,\nfor instruction in righteousness;--we shall weaken its moral and\nspiritual force, and gain nothing in its place, if we turn it into an\nidol adorned with impossible claims which it never makes for itself,\nand if we support its golden image upon the brittle clay of an exegesis\nwhich is morally, critically, and historically false.\n\nI do not see how there can be any loss in the positive results of\nwhat is called the Higher Criticism. Certainly its suggestions must\nnever be hastily adopted. Nor is it likely that they will be. They\nhave to fight their way through crowds of opposing prejudices. They\nare first held up to ridicule as absurd; then exposed to anathema\nas irreligious; at last they are accepted as obviously true. The\nvery theologians who once denounced them silently ignore or readjust\nwhat they previously preached, and hasten, first to minimise the\nimportance, then to extol the value of the new discoveries. It is\nquite right that they should be keenly scrutinised. All new sciences\nare liable to rush into extremes. Their first discoverers are misled\ninto error by premature generalisations born of a genuine enthusiasm.\nThey are tempted to build elaborate superstructures on inadequate\nfoundations. But when they have established certain irrefragable\nprinciples, can the obvious deductions from those principles be other\nthan a pure gain? Can we be the better for traditional delusions? Can\nmistakes and ignorance--can anything but the ascertained fact--be\ndesirable for man, or acceptable to God?\n\nNo doubt it is with a sensation of pain that we are compelled to give\nup convictions which we once regarded as indubitable and sacred. That\nis a part of our human nature. We must say with all gentleness to the\npassionate devotees of each old erroneous _mumpsimus_--\n\n          \"Disce; sed ira cadat naso rugosaque sanna\n           Cum veteres avias tibi de pulmone revello.\"\n\nOur blessed Lord, with His consummate tenderness, and Divine insight\ninto the frailties of our nature, made tolerant allowance for\ninveterate prejudices. \"No man,\" He said, \"having drunk old wine\nstraightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is good.\" But the\npain of disillusionment is blessed and healing when it is incurred\nin the cause of sincerity. There must always be more value in\nresults earned by heroic labour than in conventions accepted without\nserious inquiry. Already there has been a silent revolution. Many\nof the old opinions about the Bible have been greatly modified.\nThere is scarcely a single competent scholar who does not now admit\nthat the Hexateuch is a composite structure; that much of the\nLevitical legislation, which was once called Mosaic, is in reality\nan aftergrowth which _in its present form_ is not earlier than the\ndays of the prophet Ezekiel; that the Book of Deuteronomy belongs, in\nits present form, whatever older elements it may contain, to the era\nof Hezekiah's or Josiah's reformation; that the Books of Zechariah\nand Isaiah are not homogeneous, but preserve the writings of more\nprophets than their titles imply; that only a small section of the\nPsalter was the work of David; that the Book of Ecclesiastes was not\nthe work of King Solomon; that most of the Book of Daniel belongs\nto the era of Antiochus Epiphanes; and so forth. In what respect is\nthe Bible less precious, less \"inspired\" in the only tenable sense\nof that very undefined word, in consequence of such discoveries?\nIn what way do they touch the outermost fringe of our Christian\nfaith? Is there anything in such results of modern criticism which\nmilitates against the most inferential expansion of a single clause\nin the Apostolic, the Nicene, or even the Athanasian Creed? Do they\ncontravene one single syllable of the hundreds of propositions to\nwhich our assent is demanded in the Thirty-nine Articles? I would\ngladly help to mitigate the needless anxiety felt by many religious\nminds. When the Higher Criticism is in question I would ask them to\ndistinguish between established premisses and the exorbitant system\nof inferences which a few writers have based upon them. They may\nrest assured that sweeping conclusions will not be hastily snatched\nup; that no conclusion will be regarded as proved until it has\nsuccessfully run the gauntlet of many a jealous challenge. They need\nnot fear for one moment that the Ark of their faith is in peril, and\nthey will be guilty not only of unwisdom but of profanity if they\nrush forward to support it with rude and unauthorised hands. There\nnever has been an age of deep thought and earnest inquiry which\nhas not left its mark in the modification of some traditions or\ndoctrines of theology. But the truths of essential Christianity are\nbuilt upon a rock. They belong to things which cannot be shaken, and\nwhich remain. The intense labours of eminent scholars, English and\nGerman, thanklessly as they have been received, have not robbed us\nof so much as a fraction of a single precious element of revelation.\nOn the contrary, they have cleared the Bible of many accretions by\nwhich its meaning was spoilt, and its doctrines wrested to perdition,\nand they have thus rendered it more profitable than before for\nevery purpose for which it was designed, that the man of God may be\nperfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.\n\nWhen we study the Bible it is surely one of our most primary duties\nto beware lest any idols of the caverns or of the forum tempt us \"to\noffer to the God of truth the unclean sacrifice of a lie.\"[3]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] \"Scriptura est sensus Scriptur\u00e6.\"--St. Augustine.\n\n[2] For a decisive proof of these statements I refer to my Bampton\nLectures on the _History of Interpretation_ (Macmillan, 1890).\n\n[3] Bacon.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER II.\n\n                         _THE BOOKS OF KINGS._\n\n\nThe \"Two Books of Kings,\" as we call them, are only one book (Sepher\nMelak\u00eem), and were so regarded not only in the days of Origen (_ap._\nEuseb., _H. E._, vi. 25) and of Jerome (A.D. 420), but by the Jews\neven down to Bomberg's Hebrew Bible of 1518. They are treated as one\nbook in the Talmud and the Peshito. The Western Bibles followed the\nAlexandrian division into two books (called the third and fourth of\nKings), and Jerome adopted this division in the Vulgate (_Regum_,\niii. et iv.). But if this separation into two books was due to the\nLXX. translators, they should have made a less awkward and artificial\ndivision than the one which breaks off the first book in the middle\nof the brief reign of Ahaziah. Jerome's version of the Books of\nSamuel and Kings appeared first of his translations, and in his\nfamous _Prologus Galeatus_ he mentions these facts.\n\nThe History was intended to be a continuation of the Books of Samuel.\nSome critics, and among them Ewald, assign them to the same author,\nbut closer examination of the Book of Kings renders this more than\ndoubtful. The incessant use of the prefix \"King,\" the extreme frequency\nof the description \"Man of God,\" the references to the law, and above\nall the constant condemnation of high places, counterbalance the minor\nresemblance of style, and prove a difference of authorship.\n\nWhat has the Higher Criticism, as represented in historic sequence\nby such writers as Vatke, de Wette, Reuss, Graf, Ewald, Kuenen,\nBleek, Wellhausen, Stade, Kittel, Renan, Klostermann, Cheyne, Driver,\nRobertson Smith, and others, to tell us about the structure and\nhistoric credibility of the Books of Kings? Has it in any way shaken\ntheir value, while it has undoubtedly added to their intelligibility\nand interest?\n\n1. It emphasises the fact that they are a compilation. In this there\nis nothing either new or startling, for the fact is plainly and\nrepeatedly acknowledged in the page of the sacred narrative. The\nsources utilised are:--\n\n(1) The Book of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kings xi. 41).\n\n(2) The Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah (referred to\nfifteen times).\n\n(3) The Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel (referred to\nseventeen times).[4]\n\nBy comparing the authority referred to in 1 Kings xi. 41 with those\nquoted in 2 Chron. ix. 29, we see that \"the Book of the Acts of\nSolomon\" must have been to a large extent identical with the annals\nof that king's reign contained in \"the Book (R.V., Histories) of\nNathan the Prophet,\" the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and \"the\nstory (R.V., commentary) or visions of Iddo the Seer.\"[5] Similarly\nit appears that the Acts of Rehoboam, Abijam, Jehoshaphat, Uzziah,\nwere compiled, at any rate in part, from the histories of Shemaiah,\nJehu the son of Hanani,[6] Isaiah the son of Amoz, Hozai (2 Chron.\nxxxiii. 18, R.V.), and other seers. In the narrative of a history of\n450 years (from B.C. 1016 to 562) the writer was of course compelled\nto rely for his facts upon more ancient authorities. Whether he\nconsulted the original documents in the archives of Jerusalem, or\nwhether he utilised some outline of them which had previously been\ndrawn up, cannot easily be determined. The work would have been\nimpossible but for the existence of the officials known as recorders\nand historiographers (_Mazkirim, Sopherim_), who first make their\nappearance in the court of David. But the _original_ documents could\nhardly have survived the ravages of Shalmanezer in Samaria and of\nNebuchadnezzar in Jerusalem, so that Movers is probably right in the\nconjecture that the author's extracts were made, not immediately, but\nfrom the epitome of an earlier compiler.[7]\n\n2. Although no direct quotations are referred to other documents, it\nseems certain from the style, and from various minor touches, that\nthe compiler also utilised detailed accounts of great prophets like\nElijah, Elisha, and Micaiah son of Imlah, which had been drawn up\nby literary students in the Schools of the Prophets. The stories of\nprophets and men of God who are left unnamed were derived from oral\ntraditions so old that the names had been forgotten before they had\nbeen committed to writing.[8]\n\n3. The work of the compiler himself is easily traceable. It is seen\nin the constantly recurring formul\u00e6, which come almost like the\nrefrain of an epic poem, at the accession and close of every reign.\n\nThey run normally as follows. For the Kings of Judah:--\n\n\"And in the ... year of ... King of Israel reigned ... over Judah.\"\n\"And ... years he reigned in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was ...\nthe daughter of.... And ... did that which was {right/evil} in the\nsight of the Lord.\"\n\n\"And ... slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers\nin the City of David his father. And ... his son reigned in his\nstead.\" In the formul\u00e6 for the Kings of Israel \"_slept with his\nfathers_\" is omitted when the king was murdered; and \"_was buried\nwith his fathers_\" is omitted because there was no unbroken dynasty\nand no royal burial-place. The prominent and frequent mention of\nthe queen-mother is due to the fact that as _Gebira_ she held a far\nhigher rank than the favourite wife.\n\n4. To the compiler is also due the moral aspect given to the annals\nand other documents which he utilised. Something of this religious\ncolouring he doubtless found in the prophetic histories which he\nconsulted; and the unity of aim visible throughout the book is due to\nthe fact that his standpoint is identical with theirs. Thus, in spite\nof its compilation from different sources, the book bears the impress\nof one hand and of one mind. Sometimes a passing touch in an earlier\nnarrative shows the work of an editor after the Exile, as when in the\nstory of Solomon (1 Kings iv. 20-26) we read, \"And he had dominion\nover all the region _on the other side of the river_,\" _i.e._, west\nof the Euphrates, exactly as in Ezra iv. 10. Here the rendering of\nthe A.V., \"on this side the river,\" is certainly inaccurate, and is\nsurprisingly retained in the R.V. also.[9]\n\n5. To this high moral purpose everything else is subordinated.\nLike all his Jewish contemporaries, the writer attaches small\nimportance to accurate chronological data. He pays little attention\nto discrepancies, and does not care in every instance to harmonise\nhis own authorities.[10] Some contradictions may be due to additions\nmade in a later recension,[11] and some may have arisen from the\nintroduction of marginal glosses,[12] or from corruptions of the\ntext which (apart from a miraculous supervision such as was not\nexercised) might easily, and indeed would inevitably, occur in\nthe constant transcription of numerical letters closely resembling\neach other. \"The numbers as they have come down to us in the Book\nof Kings,\" says Canon Rawlinson, \"are untrustworthy, being in part\nself-contradictory, in part opposed to other Scriptural notices, in\npart improbable, if not impossible.\"[13]\n\n6. The date of the book as it stands was _after_ B.C. 542, for the last\nevent mentioned in it is the mercy extended by Evil-merodach, King of\nBabylon, to his unfortunate prisoner Jehoiachin (2 Kings xxv. 27) in\nthe thirty-seventh year of his captivity. The language--later than that\nof Isaiah, and earlier than that of Ezra--confirms this conclusion.\nThat the book appeared before B.C. 536 is clear from the fact that\nthe compiler makes no allusion to Zerubbabel, Jeshua, or the first\nexiles who returned to Jerusalem after the decree of Cyrus. But it is\ngenerally agreed that the book was _substantially_ complete before the\nExile (about B.C. 600), though some exilic additions may have been made\nby a later editor.[14] \"The writer was already removed by at least six\nhundred years from the days of Samuel, a space of time as long as that\nwhich separates us from the first Parliament of Edward I.\"\n\nThis date of the book--which cannot but have some bearing on its\nhistoric value--is admitted by all, since the peculiarities of the\nlanguage from the beginning to the end are marked by the usages of\nlater Hebrew.[15] The chronicler lived some two centuries later \"in\nabout the same chronological relation to David as Professor Freeman\nstands to William Rufus.\"[16]\n\n7. Criticism cannot furnish us with the name of this great\ncompiler.[17] Jewish tradition, as preserved in the Talmud,[18]\nassigned the Books of Kings to the prophet Jeremiah, and in the\nJewish canon they are reckoned among \"the earlier prophets.\" This\nwould account for the strange silence about Jeremiah in the Second\nBook of Kings, whereas he is prominently mentioned in the Book of\nChronicles, in the Apocrypha, and in Josephus. But unless we accept\nthe late and worthless Jewish assertion that, after being carried\nto Egypt by Johanan, son of Kareah (Jer. xlii. 6, 7), Jeremiah\nescaped to Babylon,[19] he could not have been the author of the last\nsection of the book (2 Kings xxv. 27-30).[20] Yet it is precisely in\nthe closing chapters of the second book (in and after chap. xvii.)\nthat the resemblances to the style of Jeremiah are most marked.[21]\nThat the writer was a _contemporary_ of that prophet, was closely\nakin to him in his religious attitude, and was filled with the\nsame melancholy feelings, is plain; but this, as recent critics\nhave pointed out, is due to the fact that both writers reflect the\nopinions and the phraseology which we find in the Book of Deuteronomy.\n\n8. The critics who are so often charged with rash assumptions have\nbeen led to the conclusions which they adopt by intense and infinite\nlabour, including the examination of various books of Scripture\nphrase by phrase, and even word by word. The sum total of their most\nimportant results as regards the Books of Kings is as follows:--\n\ni. The books are composed of older materials, retouched, sometimes\nexpanded, and set in a suitable framework, mostly by a single author\nwho writes throughout in the same characteristic phraseology, and\njudges the actions and characters of the kings from the standpoint\nof later centuries. The annals which he consulted, and in part\nincorporated, were twofold--prophetic and political. The latter\nwere probably drawn up for each reign by the official recorder\n(\u05de\u05b7\u05d6\u05b0\u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05e8), who held an important place in the courts of all the\ngreatest kings (2 Sam. viii. 16, xx. 24; 1 Kings iv. 3; 2 Kings\nxviii. 18), and whose duty it was to write the \"acts\" or \"words\" of\nthe \"days\" of his sovereign (\u05d4\u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd \u05d3\u05d1\u05e8\u05d9).\n\nii. The compiler's work is partly of the nature of an epitome,[22] and\npartly consists of longer narratives, of which we can sometimes trace\nthe Northern Israelitish origin by peculiarities of form and expression.\n\niii. The synchronisms which he gives between the reigns of the kings\nof Israel and Judah are computed by himself, or by some redactor, and\nonly in round numbers.\n\niv. The speeches, prayers, and prophecies introduced are perhaps\nbased on tradition, but, since they reflect all the peculiarities of\nthe compiler, must owe their ultimate form to him. This accounts for\nthe fact that the earlier prophecies recorded in these books resemble\nthe tone and style of Jeremiah, but do not resemble such ancient\nprophecies as those of Amos and Hoshea.\n\nv. The numbers which he adopts are sometimes so enormous as to be\ngrossly improbable; and in these, as in some of the dates, allowance\nmust be made for possible errors of tradition and transcription.\n\nvi. \"Deuteronomy,\" says Professor Driver, \"is the standard by which\nthe compiler judges both men and actions; and the history from the\nbeginning of Solomon's reign is presented, not in a purely 'objective'\nform (as _e.g._ in 2 Sam. ix.-xx.), but from the point of view of\nthe Deuteronomic code.[23]... The principles which, in his view, the\nhistory as a whole is to exemplify, are already expressed succinctly\nin the charge which he represents David as giving to his son Solomon\n(1 Kings ii. 3, 4); they are stated by him again in chap. iii. 14,\nand more distinctly in chap. ix. 1-9. Obedience to the Deuteronomic\nlaw is the qualification for an approving verdict; deviation from\nit is the source of ill success (1 Kings xi. 9-13, xiv. 7-11, xvi.\n2; 2 Kings xvii. 7-18), and the sure prelude to condemnation. Every\nking of the Northern Kingdom is characterised as doing 'that which\nwas evil in the eyes of Jehovah.' In the Southern Kingdom the\nexceptions are Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoash, Amaziah, Uzziah, Jotham,\nHezekiah, Josiah--usually, however, with the limitation that 'the high\nplaces were not removed' as demanded by the Deuteronomic law.[24]\nThe constantly recurring Deuteronomic phrases which most directly\nillustrate the point of view from which the history is regarded are,\n'_To keep the charge of Jehovah'; 'to walk in the ways of Jehovah';\n'to keep_ (or execute) _His commandments, or statutes, and judgments';\n'to do that which is right in the eyes of Jehovah'; 'to provoke\nJehovah to anger'; 'to cleave to Jehovah_.' If the reader will be at\nthe pains of underlining in his text the phrases here cited\" (and many\nothers of which Professor Driver gives a list), \"he will not only\nrealise how numerous they are, but also perceive how they seldom occur\nindiscriminately in the narrative as such, but are generally aggregated\nin particular passages (mostly comments on the history, or speeches)\nwhich are thereby distinguished from their context, and shown to be\npresumably the work of a different hand.\"[25]\n\nvii. It must not be imagined that the late compilation of the book,\nor its subsequent recensions, or the dogmatic colouring which it may\nhave insensibly derived from the religious systems and organisations\nof days subsequent to the Exile, have in the least affected the main\nhistoric veracity of the kingly annals. They may have influenced\nthe omissions and the moral estimates, but the events themselves\nare in every case confirmed when we are able to compare them with\nany records and monuments of Ph\u0153nicia, Moab, Egypt, Assyria, or\nBabylon. The discovery and deciphering of the Moabite stone, and\nof the painted vaunts of Shishak at Karnak, and of the cuneiform\ninscriptions, confirm in every case the general truth, in some\ncases the minute details, of the sacred historian. In so passing an\nallusion as that in 2 Kings iii. 16, 17 the accuracy of the narrative\nis confirmed by the fact that (as Delitzsch has shown) the method of\nobtaining water is that which is to this day employed in the Wady\nel-Hasa at the southern end of the Dead Sea.[26]\n\nviii. The Book of Kings consists, according to Stade,[27] of, (_a_)\n1 Kings i., ii., the close of a history of David, in continuation\nof 1 and 2 Samuel. The continuity of the Scriptures is marked in an\ninteresting way by the word \"and,\" with which so many of the books\nbegin. The Jews, devout believers in the work of a Divine Providence,\nsaw no discontinuities in the course of national events.[28]\n\n(_b_) 1 Kings iii.-xi., a conglomerate of notices about Solomon,\ngrouped round chaps. vi., vii., which narrate the building of the\nTemple. They are arranged by the pr\u00e6-exilic compiler, but not without\nlater touches from the Deuteronomic standpoint of a later editor\n(_e.g._, iii. 2, 3). Chap. viii. 14-ix. 9 also belong to the later\neditor.\n\n(_c_) 1 Kings xi.-2 Kings xxiii. 29, an epitome of the entire regal\nperiod of Judah and Israel, after the three first reigns over the\nundivided kingdom, compiled mainly before the Exile.\n\n(_d_) 2 Kings xxiii. 30-xxv. 30, a conclusion, added, in its present\nform, after the Exile.\n\nTwo positions are maintained (A) as regards the text, and (B) as\nregards the chronology.\n\nA. As regards the _text_ no one will maintain the old false\nassertion that it has come down to us in a perfect condition. There\nare in the history of the text three epochs: 1, The Pr\u00e6-Talmudic;\n2, The Talmudic-Massoretic up to the time when vowel-points were\nintroduced; 3, The Massoretic traditions of a later period. The\nmarginal annotations known as Q'ri, \"read\" (plural, _Qarjan_),\nconsist of glosses and euphemisms which were used in the service\nof the synagogue in place of the written text (K'tib); the oral\ntradition of these variations was known as the Massora (_i.e._,\ntradition). The Greek version (Septuagint, LXX.), which is of immense\nimportance for the history of the text, was begun in Alexandria under\nPtolemy Philadelphus (B.C. 283-247). It presents many additions and\nvariations in the Books of Kings.[30]\n\nAll Hebrew manuscripts, as is well known, are of comparatively\nrecent date, owing to the strict rule of the Jewish Schools that any\nmanuscript which had in the slightest degree suffered from time or\nuse was to be instantly destroyed. The oldest Hebrew manuscript is\nsupposed to be the Codex Babylonicus at St. Petersburg (A.D. 916),\nunless one recently discovered by Dr. Ginsburg in the British Museum\nbe older. Most Hebrew manuscripts are later than the twelfth century.\n\nThe variations in the Samaritan Pentateuch, and in the Septuagint\nversion--the latter of which are often specially valuable as\nindications of the original text--furnish abundant proof that no\nmiracle has been wrought to preserve the text of Scripture from the\nchanges and corruptions which always arise in the course of constant\ntranscriptions.\n\nA further and serious difficulty in the reproduction of events in\ntheir historic exactitude is introduced by the certainty that many\nbooks of the Bible, in their present form, represent the results\narrived at after their recension by successive editors, some of whom\nlived many centuries after the events recorded. In the Books of\nKings we probably see many _nuances_ which were not introduced till\nafter the epoch-making discovery of the Book of the Law (perhaps the\nessential parts of the Book of Deuteronomy) in the reign of Josiah,\nB.C. 621 (2 Kings xxii. 8-14). It is, for instance, impossible to\ndeclare with certainty what parts of the Temple service were really\nco\u00e6val with David and Solomon, and what parts had arisen in later\ndays. There appear to be liturgical touches, or alterations as\nindicated by the variations of the text in 1 Kings viii. 4, 12, 13.\nIn xviii. 29-36 the allusion to the _Minchah_ is absent from the LXX.\nin verse 36, and in 2 Kings iii. 20 another reading is suggested.\n\nB. As regards the difficult question of _Chronology_ we need add\nbut little to what has been elsewhere said.[31] Even the most\nconservative critics admit that (1) the numbers of the Biblical text\nhave often become corrupt or uncertain; and (2) that the ancient\nHebrews were careless on the subject of exact chronology. The\nChronology of the Kings, as it now stands, is historically true in\nits general outlines, but in its details presents us with data which\nare mutually irreconcilable. It is obviously artificial, and is\ndominated by slight modifications of the round number 40.[32] Thus\nfrom the Exodus to the Building of the Temple is stated at 480 years,\nand from that period to the fiftieth year of the Exile also at 480\nyears. In the Chronicles there are eleven high priests from Azariah\nben-Ahimaaz to the Exile of Jozadak, which, with the Exile period,\ngives twelve generations of 40 years each. Again, from Rehoboam to\nthe Fall of Samaria in the sixth year of Hezekiah, following the 40\nyears' reign of Saul, of David, and of Solomon, we have:--\n\n  Rehoboam, Abijah             20 years.\n  Asa                          41   \"\n  Jehoshaphat, Jehoram}        40   \"\n  Ahaziah, Athaliah   }\n  Joash                        40   \"\n  Amaziah, Uzziah              81   \"\n  Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah       38   \"\n\nAfter the Fall of Samaria we have:--\n\n  Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon     80   \"\n\nand it can hardly be a mere accident that in these lists the number\n40 is only modified by slight necessary details.\n\nThe history of the Northern Kingdom seems to be roughly trisected\ninto 80 years before Benhadad's first invasion, 80 years of Syrian\nwar, 40 years of prosperity under Jeroboam II., and 40 years of\ndecline.[33] This is probably a result of chronological system, not\nuninfluenced by mystical considerations. For 480 = 40 \u00d7 12. _Forty_\nis repeatedly used as a sacred number in connexion with epochs of\npenitence and punishment. _Twelve_ (4 \u00d7 3) is, according to B\u00e4hr (the\nchief student of numerical and other symbolism), \"the signature of\nthe people of Israel\"--as a whole (4), in the midst of which God (3)\nresides. Similarly Stade thinks that 16 is the basal number for the\nreigns of kings from Jehu to Hoshea, and 12 from Jeroboam to Jehu.[34]\n\nIt is possible that the synchronistic data did not proceed from the\ncompiler of the Book of Kings, but were added by the last redactor.\n\nAre these critical conclusions so formidable? Are they fraught with\ndisastrous consequences? Which is really dangerous--truth laboriously\nsought for, or error accepted with unreasoning blindness and\nmaintained with invincible prejudice?\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[4] How closely these documents are transcribed is shown by the\nrecurrence of \"_unto this day_,\" though the phrase had long ceased to\nbe true when the book appeared.\n\n[5] It is inferred from 1 Kings viii. 12, 13, which have a poetic\ntinge, and to which the LXX. add \"Behold they are written in the\nBook of the Song,\" that in this section the \"Book of Jashar\" has\nbeen utilised, and that the reading \u05d4\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8 has been confused with \u05e9\u05d9\u05e8\u05d4\n(Driver, p. 182).\n\n[6] 2 Chron. xx. 34, R.V., \"The history of Jehu, the son of Hanani,\nwhich _is inserted in the Book of the Kings of Israel_\" (not \"who is\nmentioned,\" A.V., which, however, gives in the margin the literal\nmeaning \"was made to ascend\").\n\n[7] Movers, _Krit. Untersuch._, p. 185 (Bonn, 1836). The use of older\ndocuments explains the phrase \"till this day,\" and the passages which\nspeak of the Temple as still standing (1 Kings viii. 8, ix. 21, xii.\n19; 2 Kings x. 27, xiii. 23). Sometimes the traces of earlier and later\ndate are curiously juxtaposed, as in 2 Kings xvii. 18, 21 and 19, 20.\n\n[8] Difference of sources is marked by the different designations of\nthe months, which are called sometimes by their numbers, as in the\nPriestly Codex (1 Kings xii. 32, 33), sometimes by the old Hebrew names\nZif (\"_blossom_,\" April, May, 1 Kings vi. 1), Ethanim (\"_fruit_,\"\nSept., Oct., 1 Kings viii. 2), and Bul (\"_rain_,\" 1 Kings vi. 38).\n\n[9] \u05de\u05b4\u05d6\u05be\u05d4\u05b7\u05e0\u05b8\u05bc\u05d4\u05b8\u05e8 (compare \u05e2\u05b2\u05d1\u05b7\u05e8\u05be\u05e0\u05b7\u05d4\u05b2\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4). _Lit._, \"_Beyond_ the\nriver,\" _i.e._, from the Persian standpoint. It becomes a fixed\ngeographical phrase. Traces of the editor's hand occur in 1 Kings\nxiii. 32 (\"the cities of Samaria\"); 2 Kings xiii. 23 (\"as yet\").\n\n[10] Comp. 2 Kings viii. 25 with ix. 29.\n\n[11] See 2 Kings xv. 30 and 33, viii. 25 and ix. 29.\n\n[12] As, perhaps, the clause \"In the thirty and first year of Asa\nking of Judah\" in 1 Kings xvi. 23; and the much more serious \"in the\n480th year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of\nEgypt,\" which are omitted by Origen (_comm. in Johannem_, ii. 20),\nand create many difficulties. The only narratives which critics have\nsuggested as possible interpolations, from the occurrence of unusual\ngrammatical forms, are 2 Kings viii. 1-6 and iv. 1-37 (in the story\nof Elisha); but these forms are perhaps northern provincialisms.\n\n[13] _Speaker's Commentary_, ii. 475. Instances will be found in 1\nKings xiv. 21, xvi. 23, 29; 2 Kings iii. 1, xiii. 10, xv. 1, 30, 33,\nxiv. 23, xvi. 2, xvii. 1, xviii. 2.\n\n[14] Stade, p. 79; Kalisch, _Exodus_, p. 495.\n\n[15] See Keil, pp. 9, 10.\n\n[16] R. F. Horton, _Inspiration_, p. 843.\n\n[17] He was not the author of the Book of Samuel, for the standpoint\nand style are quite different. In the First and Second Books of\nSamuel the high places are never condemned, as they are incessantly\nin Kings (1 Kings iii. 2, xiii. 32, xiv. 23, xv. 14, xxii. 43, etc.).\n\n[18] Baba Bathra, 15 a.\n\n[19] _Seder Olam Rabba_, 20.\n\n[20] Even then he would have been ninety years old.\n\n[21] There are, however, some _differences_ between 2 Kings xxv. and\nJer. lii. (see Keil, p. 12), though the manner is the same, Carpzov,\n_Introd._, i. 262-64 (H\u00e4vernick, _Einleit._, ii. 171). Jer. li. (verse\n64) ends with \"Thus far are the words of Jeremiah,\" excluding him from\nthe authorship of chap. lii. (Driver, _Introd._, p. 109). The last\nchapter of Jeremiah was perhaps added to his volume by a later editor.\n\n[22] \"The Old Testament does not furnish a history of Israel,\nthough it supplies the materials from which such a history can be\nconstructed. For example, the narrative of Kings gives but the\nmerest outline of the events that preceded the fall of Samaria. To\nunderstand the inner history of the time we must fill up this outline\nwith the aid of the prophets Amos and Hoshea.\"--ROBERTSON SMITH'S\n_Preface_ to translation of Wellhausen, p. vii.\n\n[23] \"In der Chronik,\" on the other hand, \"ist es der Pentateuch, d.h.\nvor Allem der _Priestercodex_, nach dessen Muster die Geschichte des\nalten Israels dargestellt wird\" (Wellhausen, _Prolegom._, p. 309).\nIt has been said that the Book of Kings reflects the political and\nprophetic view, and the Book of Chronicles the priestly view of Jewish\nhistory. It is about the Pentateuch, its date and composition, that\nthe battle of the Higher Criticism chiefly rages. With that we are\nbut indirectly concerned in considering the Book of Kings; but it is\nnoticeable that the ablest and most competent defender of the more\nconservative criticism, Professor James Robertson, D.D., both in his\ncontribution to _Book by Book_ and in his _Early Religion of Israel_,\nmakes large concessions. Thus he says, \"It is particularly to be\nnoticed that in the Book of the Pentateuch itself the Mosaic origin is\nnot claimed\" (_Book by Book_, p. 5). \"The anonymous character of all\nthe historical writings of the Old Testament would lead us to conclude\nthat the ancient Hebrews had not the idea of literary property which we\nattach to authorship\" (p. 8). \"It is long since the composite character\nof the Pentateuch was observed\" (p. 9). \"There may remain doubts as to\nwhen the various parts of the Pentateuch were actually written down; it\nmay be admitted that the later writers wrote in the light of the events\nand circumstances of their own times\" (p. 16).\n\n[24] Driver, p. 189. Comp. Professor Robertson Smith: \"The most\nnotable feature in the extant redactions of the book is the strong\ninterest shown in the Deuteronomic law of Moses, and especially in\nthe centralisation of worship in the Temple on Zion, as pre-supposed\nin Deuteronomy and enforced by Josiah. This interest did not exist\nin ancient Israel, and is quite foreign to the older memories\nincorporated in the book.\"\n\n[25] Driver, p. 192.\n\n[26] Delitzsch, _Genesis_, 6th ed., p. 567.\n\n[27] _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, i. 73.\n\n[28] Even the First Book of Maccabees begins with \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf.\n\n[29] Stade thinks that this is confirmed by viii. 46-49.\n\n[30] Stade, pp. 32 ff. Thus, in 1 Kings viii. 14-53, verses 12, 13\nare in the Septuagint placed _after_ verse 53, are incomplete in the\nHebrew text, and have a remarkable reading in the Targum. Professor\nRobertson Smith infers that a Deuteronomic insertion has misplaced\nthem in one text, and mutilated them in another. The order of the\nLXX. differs in 1 Kings iv. 19-27; and it omits 1 Kings vi. 11-14;\nix. 15-26. It transposes the story of Naboth, and omits the story\nof Ahijah and Abijah, which is added from Aquila's version to the\nAlexandrian MS. See Wellhausen-Bleek, _Einleitung_, \u00a7\u00a7 114, 134.\n\n[31] See Appendix on the Chronology.\n\n[32] See Wellhausen, _Prolegomena_, pp. 285-87; Robertson Smith,\n_Journ. of Philology_, x. 209-13.\n\n[33] _Encycl. Brit._, s.v. Kings (W.R.S.).\n\n[34] See Stade, i. 88-99; W. R. Smith, _l. c._; Kreuz, _Zeitschr. f.\nWiss. Theol._, 1877, p. 404. Some of the dates, as Dr. W. R. Smith\nshows, are \"traditional,\" and are probably taken from Temple records\n(_e.g._, the invasion of Shishak, and the change of the revenue\nsystem in the twenty-third year of Joash). Taking these as data, we\nhave (roughly) 160 years to the twenty-third year of Joash, + 160 to\nthe death of Hezekiah, + 160 years to the return from the Exile =\n480. He infers that \"the existing scheme was obtained by setting down\na few fixed dates, and filling up the intervals with figures in which\n20 and 40 were the main units.\"\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER III.\n\n                     _THE HISTORIAN OF THE KINGS._\n\n    \"The hearts of kings are in Thy rule and governance, and Thou dost\n    dispose and turn them as it _seemeth best_ to Thy godly wisdom.\"\n\n\nWere we to judge the compiler or epitomator of the Book of Kings\nfrom the literary standpoint of modern historians, he would, no\ndoubt, hold a very inferior place; but so to judge him would be\nto take a mistaken view of his object, and to test his merits and\ndemerits by conditions which are entirely alien from the ideal of his\ncontemporaries and the purpose which he had in view.\n\nIt is quite true that he does not even aim at fulfilling the\nrequirements demanded of an ordinary secular historian. He does not\nattempt to present any philosophical conception of the political events\nand complicated interrelations of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms.\nHis method of writing the story of the Kings of Judah and Israel in so\nmany separate paragraphs gives a certain confusedness to the general\npicture. It leads inevitably to the repetition of the same facts in\nthe accounts of two reigns. Each king is judged from a single point\nof view, and that not the point of view by which his own age was\ninfluenced, but one arrived at in later centuries, and under changed\nconditions, religious and political. There is no attempt to show that\n\n          \"God fulfils Himself in many ways,\n           Lest one good custom should corrupt the world.\"\n\nThe military splendour or political ability of a king goes for\nnothing. It has so little interest for the writer that a brilliant\nand powerful ruler like Jeroboam II. seems to excite in him as little\ninterest as an effeminate weakling like Ahaziah. He passes over\nwithout notice events of such capital importance as the invasion\nof Zerah the Ethiopian (2 Chron. xiv. 9-15, xvi. 8); the wars of\nJehoshaphat against Edom, Ammon, and Moab (2 Chron. xx. 1-25); of\nUzziah against the Philistines (2 Chron. xxvi. 6-8); and of the\nAssyrians against Manasseh (2 Chron. xxxiii. 11-13). He neither\ntells us that Omri subdued Moab, nor that he was defeated by Syria.\nHe scarcely more than mentions events of such deep interest as\nthe conquest of Jerusalem by Shishak (1 Kings xiv. 25, 26); the\nwar between Abijam and Jeroboam (1 Kings xv. 7); of Amaziah with\nEdom (2 Kings xiv. 7); or even the expedition of Josiah against\nPharaoh-nechoh (2 Kings xxiii. 29).[35] For these events he is\ncontent to relegate us to the best authorities which he used, with\nthe phrase \"and the rest of his acts, his wars, and all that he\ndid.\" The fact that Omri was the founder of so powerful a dynasty\nthat the Kings of Israel were known to Assyria as \"the House of\nOmri,\" does not induce him to give more than a passing notice to that\nking. It did not come within his province to record such memorable\ncircumstances as that Ahab fought with the Aram\u00e6an host against\nAssyria at the battle of Karkar, or that the bloodstained Jehu had to\nsend a large tribute to Shalmaneser II.\n\nThere is a certain monotony in the grounds given for the moral\njudgments passed on each successive monarch. One unchanging formula\ntells us of every one of the kings of Israel that \"_he did that which\nwas evil in the sight of the Lord_,\" with exclusive reference in most\ncases to \"the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, wherewith he made\nIsrael to sin.\" The unfavourable remark about king after king of\nJudah that \"_nevertheless the high places were not taken away; the\npeople offered and burnt incense yet in the high places_\" (1 Kings\nxv. 14, xxii. 43; 2 Kings xii. 3, xiv. 4) makes no allowance for\nthe fact that high places dedicated to Jehovah had been previously\nused unblamed by the greatest judges and seers, and that the feeling\nagainst them had only entered into the national life in later days.\n\nIt belongs to the same essential view of history that the writer's\nattention is so largely occupied by the activity of the prophets,\nwhose personality often looms far more largely on his imagination\nthan that of the kings. If we were to remove from his pages all that\nhe tells us of Nathan, Ahijah of Shiloh, Shemaiah, Jehu the son of\nHanani, Elijah, Elisha, Micaiah, Isaiah, Huldah, Jonah, and various\nnameless \"men of God,\"[36] the residuum would be meagre indeed. The\nsilence as to Jeremiah is a remarkable circumstance which no theory\nhas explained; but we must remember the small extent of the compiler's\ncanvas, and that, even as it is, we should have but a dim insight into\nthe condition of the two kingdoms if we did not study also the extant\nwritings of contemporary prophets. His whole aim is to exhibit the\ncourse of events as so controlled by the Divine Hand that faithfulness\nto God ensured blessing, and unfaithfulness brought down His\ndispleasure and led to national decline. So far from concealing this\nprinciple he states it, again and again, in the most formal manner.[37]\n\nThese might be objections against the author if he had written his\nbook in the spirit of an ordinary historian. They cease to have any\nvalidity when we remember that he does not profess to offer us a\nsecular history at all. His aim and method have been described as\n\"prophetico-didactic.\" He writes avowedly as one who believed in the\nTheocracy. His epitomes from the documents which he had before him were\nmade with a definite religious purpose. The importance or unimportance\nof kings in his eyes depended on their relation to the opinions which\nhad come home to the conscience of the nation in the still recent\nreformation of Josiah. He strove to solve the moral problems of God's\ngovernment as they presented themselves, with much distress and\nperplexity, to the mind of his nation in the days of its decadence and\nthreatened obliteration. And in virtue of his method of dealing with\nsuch themes, he shares with the other historical writers of the Old\nTestament a right to be regarded as one of the _Prophet\u00e6 priores_.[38]\n\nWhat were those problems?\n\nThey were the old problems respecting God's moral government of\nthe world which always haunted the Jewish mind, complicated by the\ndisappointment of national convictions about the promises of God to\nthe race of Abraham and the family of David.\n\nThe Exile was already imminent--it had indeed partly begun in the\ndeportation of Jehoiakin and many Jews to Babylon (B.C. 598)--when\nthe book saw the light. The writer was compelled to look back\nwith tears on \"the days that were no more.\" The epoch of Israel's\nsplendour and dominion seemed to have passed for ever. And yet, was\nnot God the true Governor of His people? Had He not chosen Jacob for\nHimself, and Israel for His own possession? Had not Abraham received\nthe promise that his seed should be as the sand of the sea, and that\nin his seed should all the nations of the earth be blessed? Or was it\na mere illusion that \"when Israel was a child I loved him, and out of\nEgypt I called My son\"? The writer clung with unquenchable faith to\nhis convictions about the destinies of his people, and yet every year\nseemed to render their fulfilment more distant and more impossible.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe promise to Abraham had been renewed to Isaac, and to Jacob, and\nto the patriarchs; but to David and his house it had been reiterated\nwith special emphasis and fresh details. That promise, as it stood\nrecorded in 2 Sam. vii. 12-16, was doubtless in the writer's hands.\nThe election of Israel as \"God's people\" is \"a world-historic fact,\nthe fundamental miracle which no criticism can explain away.\"[39]\nAnd, in addition, God had sworn in His holiness that He would not\nforsake David. \"When thy days be fulfilled,\" He had said, \"and thou\nshalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee\n... and will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for My\nname, and _I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever, I\nwill be his father, and he shall be My son_. If he commit iniquity,\nI will chastise him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of\nthe children of men. _But My mercy shall not depart from him, as I\ntook it from Saul whom I put away before thee, and thy house and thy\nkingdom shall be established for ever before thee; thy throne shall\nbe established for ever._\" This promise haunted the imagination of\nthe compiler of the Book of Kings. He repeatedly refers to it, and it\nis so constantly present to his mind that his whole narrative seems\nto be a comment, and often a perplexed and half-despairing comment,\nupon it.[40] Yet he resisted the assaults of despair. The Lord had\nmade a faithful oath unto David, and He would _not_ depart from it.\n\nIt is this that makes him linger so lovingly on the glories of\nthe reign of Solomon. At first they seem to inaugurate an era of\noverwhelming and permanent prosperity. Because Solomon was the heir\nof David whom God had chosen, his dominion is established without an\neffort in spite of a formidable conspiracy. Under his wise, pacific\nrule the united kingdom springs to the zenith of its greatness. The\nwriter dwells with fond regret upon the glories of the Temple, the\nEmpire, and the Court of the wise king. He records God's renewed\npromises to him that there should not be any among the kings like\nunto him all his days. Alas! the splendid visions had faded away\nlike an unsubstantial pageant. Glory had led to vice and corruption.\nWorldly policy carried apostasy in its train. The sun of Solomon set\nin darkness, as the sun of David had set in decrepitude and blood.\n\"And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned\nfrom the Lord God of Israel, who had appeared unto him twice: ...\nbut he kept not that which the Lord commanded. Wherefore the Lord\nsaid unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou\nhast not kept My covenant, ... I will surely rend the kingdom from\nthee.... Notwithstanding in thy day I will not do it for David thy\nfather's sake.... Howbeit I will not rend away all the kingdom; but\nwill give one tribe to thy son, for David My servant's sake, and for\nJerusalem's sake which I have chosen.\"[41]\n\nThus at one blow the heir of \"Solomon in all his glory\" dwindles\ninto the kinglet of a paltry little province not nearly so large as\nthe smallest of English counties. So insignificant, in fact, do the\nfortunes of the kingdom become, that, for long periods, it has no\nhistory worth speaking of. The historian is driven to occupy himself\nwith the northern tribes because they are the scene of the activity\nof two glorious though widely different prophets. From first to last\nwe seem to hear in the prose of the annalist the cry of the troubled\nPsalmist, \"Lord, where are Thy old loving-kindnesses which Thou\nswarest unto David in Thy truth? Remember, Lord, the rebukes that Thy\nservants have, and how I do bear in my bosom the rebukes of many\npeople wherewith thine enemies have blasphemed Thee, and slandered the\nfootsteps of Thine anointed.\" And yet, in spite of all, with invincible\nconfidence, he adds, \"Praised be the Lord for evermore. Amen and Amen.\"\n\nAnd this is one of the great lessons which we learn alike from\nScripture and from the experience of every holy and humble life. It\nmay be briefly summed up in the words, \"Put thou thy trust in God and\nbe doing good, and He shall bring it to pass.\" In multitudes of forms\nthe Bible inculcates upon us the lesson, \"Have faith in God,\" \"Fear\nnot; only believe.\" The paradox of the New Testament is the existence\nof joy in the midst of sorrow and sighing, of exultation (\u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2)\neven amid the burning fiery furnaces of anguish and persecution.\nThe secret of both Testaments alike is the power to maintain an\nunquenchable faith, an unbroken peace, an indomitable trust amid\nevery complication of disaster and apparent overthrow. The writer of\nthe Book of Kings saw that God is patient, because He is eternal;\nthat even the histories of nations, not individual lives only, are\nbut as one ticking of a clock amid the eternal silence; that God's\nways are not man's ways. And because this is so--because God sitteth\nabove the water floods and remaineth a King for ever--therefore\nwe can attain to that ultimate triumph of faith which consists in\nholding fast our profession, not only amid all the waves and storms\nof calamity, but even when we are brought face to face with that\nwhich wears the aspect of absolute and final failure. The historian\nsays in the name of his nation what the saint has so often to say in\nhis own, \"Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him.\" Amos, earliest\nof the prophets whose written utterances have been preserved,\nundazzled by the magnificent revival of the Northern Kingdom under\nJeroboam II., was still convinced that the future lay with the poor\nfallen \"booth\" of David's royalty: \"And I will raise up his ruins,\nand I will build it as in the days of old, ... saith the Lord that\ndoeth this.\"[42] In many a dark age of Jewish affliction this fire of\nconviction has still burned amid the ashes of national hopes after it\nhad seemed to have flickered out under white heaps of chilly dust.[43]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[35] _Speaker's Commentary_, ii. 477.\n\n[36] 1 Kings xiii. 1-32, xx. 13-15, 28, 35, 42; 2 Kings xxi. 10-15.\n\n[37] 2 Kings xvii. 7-23, 32, 41, xxiii. 26, 27.\n\n[38] \u05e8\u05b9\u05d0\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05b9\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd \u05e0\u05b0\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd. The three greater and twelve minor\nprophets are called _prophet\u00e6 posteriores_ (\u05d0\u05b7\u05d7\u05b2\u05e8\u05d5\u05b9\u05e0\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd). Daniel is\nclassed among the Hagiographa (\u05db\u05b0\u05bc\u05ea\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd). This title of \"former\nprophets\" was, however, given by the Jews to the historic books from\nthe mistaken fancy that they were all _written_ by prophets.\n\n[39] Martensen, _Dogmatics_, p. 363.\n\n[40] 2 Sam. vii. 12-16; 1 Kings xi. 36, xv. 4; 2 Kings viii. 19, xxv.\n27-30. \"His object evidently was,\" says Professor Robertson, \"to\nexhibit the bloom and decay of the Kingdom of Israel, and to trace\nthe influences which marked its varying destiny. He proceeds on the\nfixed idea that the promise given to David of a sure house remained\nin force during all the vicissitudes of the divided kingdom, and was\nnot even frustrated by the fall of the kingdom of Judah.\"\n\n[41] 1 Kings xi. 9-13.\n\n[42] Amos ix. 11, 12.\n\n[43] Psalm lxxxix. 48-50.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER IV.\n\n                           _GOD IN HISTORY._\n\n    \"The Lord remaineth a King for ever.\"\n\n\nHad the compiler of the Book of Kings been so incompetent and valueless\nan historian as some critics have represented, it would indeed have\nbeen strange that his book should have kindled so immortal an interest,\nor have taken its place securely in the Jewish canon among the most\nsacred books of the world. He could not have secured this recognition\nwithout real and abiding merits. His greatness appears by the manner in\nwhich he grapples with, and is not crushed by, the problems presented\nto him by the course of events to him so dismal.\n\n1. He wrote after Israel had long been scattered among the nations.\nThe sons of Jacob had been deported into strange lands to be\nhopelessly lost and absorbed amid heathen peoples. The district\nwhich had been assigned to the Ten Tribes after the conquest of\nJoshua had been given over to an alien and mongrel population. The\nworst anticipations of northern prophets like Amos and Hoshea had\nbeen terribly fulfilled. The glory of Samaria had been wiped out, as\nwhen one wipeth a dish, wiping and turning it upside down. From the\nbeginning of Israel's separate dominion the prophets saw the germ of\nits final ruin in what is called the \"calf-worship\" of Jeroboam,\nwhich prepared the way for the Baal-worship introduced by the House\nof Omri. In the two and a half centuries of Samaria's existence the\ncompiler of this history finds nothing of eternal interest except\nthe activity of God's great messengers. In the history of Judah the\nbetter reigns of a Jehoshaphat, of a Hezekiah, of a Josiah, had shed\na sunset gleam over the waning fortunes of the remnant of God's\npeople. Hezekiah and Josiah, with whatever deflections, had both\nruled in the theocratic spirit. They had both inaugurated reforms.\nThe reformation achieved by the latter was so sweeping and thorough\nas to kindle the hope that the deep wound inflicted on the nation by\nthe manifold crimes of Manasseh had been healed. But it was not so.\nThe records of these two best kings end, nevertheless, in prophecies\nof doom.[44] The results of their reforming efforts proved to be\npartial and unsatisfactory. A race of vassal weaklings succeeded.\nJehoahaz was taken captive by the Egyptians, who set up Jehoiakim as\ntheir puppet. He submits to Nebuchadnezzar, attempts a weak revolt,\nand is punished. In the short reign of Jehoiachin the captivity\nbegins, and the futile rebellion of Zedekiah leads to the deportation\nof his people, the burning of the Holy City, and the desecration of\nthe Temple. It seemed as though the ruin of the olden hopes could not\nhave been more absolute. Yet the historian will not abandon them.\nClinging to God's promises with desperate and pathetic tenacity he\ngilds his last page, as with one faint sunbeam struggling out of the\nstormy darkness of the exile, by narrating how Evil-merodach released\nJehoiachin from his long captivity, and treated him with kindness,\nand advanced him to the first rank among the vassal kings in the\ncourt of Babylon. If the ruler of Judah must be a hopeless prisoner,\nlet him at least occupy among his fellow-prisoners a sad pre-eminence!\n\n2. The historian has been blamed for the perpetual gloom which\nenwraps his narrative. Surely the criticism is unjust. He did not\ninvent his story. He is no whit more gloomy than Thucydides, who had\nto record how the brief gleam of Athenian glory sank in the Bay of\nSyracuse into a sea of blood. He is not half so gloomy as Tacitus,\nwho is forced to apologise for the \"hues of earthquake and eclipse\"\nwhich darken his every page. The gloom lay in the events of which\nhe desired to be the faithful recorder. He certainly did not love\ngloom. He lingers at disproportionate length over the grandeur of\nthe reign of Solomon, dilating fondly upon every element of his\nmagnificence, and unwilling to tear himself away from the one period\nwhich realised his ideal expectations. After that period his spirits\nsink. He cared less to deal with a divided kingdom of which only\nthe smallest fragment was even approximately faithful. There could\nbe nothing but gloom in the record of shortlived, sanguinary, and\nidolatrous dynasties, which succeeded each other like the scenes of\na grim phantasmagoria in Samaria and Jezreel. There could be nothing\nbut gloom in the story of that northern kingdom in which king after\nking was dogged to ruin by the politic unfaithfulness of the rebel\nby whom it had been founded. Nor could there be much real brightness\nin the story of humiliated Judah. There also many kings preferred a\ndiplomatic worldliness to reliance on their true source of strength.\nEven in Judah there were kings who defiled God's own temple with\nheathen abominations; and a saint like Hezekiah had been followed\nby an apostate like Manasseh. Had Judah been content to dwell in\nthe defence of the Most High and abide under the shadow of the\nAlmighty, she would have been defended under His wings and been safe\nbeneath His feathers; His righteousness and truth would have been\nher shield and buckler. He who protected her in the awful crisis of\nSennacherib's invasion had proved that He never faileth them that\ntrust Him. But her kings had preferred to lean on such a bruised reed\nas Egypt, which broke under the weight, and pierced the hand of all\nwho relied on her assistance. \"But ye said, Nay, but we will flee\nupon horses; therefore shall ye flee: and, We will ride upon the\nswift; therefore shall they that pursue you be swift.\"[45]\n\n3. And has not gloom been the normal characteristic of many a long\nperiod of human history? It is with the life of nations as with the\nlife of men. With nations, too, there is \"a perpetual fading of\nall beauty into darkness, and of all strength into dust.\" Humanity\nadvances, but it advances over the ruins of peoples and the wrecks of\ninstitutions. Truth forces its way into acceptance, but its progress\nis \"from scaffold to scaffold, and from stake to stake.\" All who have\ngeneralised on the course of history have been forced to recognise\nits agonies and disappointments. There, says Byron,\n\n          \"There is the moral of all human tales;\n           'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past;\n           First Freedom, and then Glory--when that fails,\n           Wealth, Vice, Corruption--Barbarism at last.\n           And History, with all her volumes vast,\n           Hath but one page: 'tis better written here\n           Where gorgeous tyranny hath thus amassed\n           All treasures, all delights that eye or ear,\n           Heart, soul could seek, tongue ask.\"\n\nMr. J. R. Lowell, looking at the question from another side, sings:--\n\n          \"Careless seems the Great Avenger; History's pages but record\n           One death-grapple in the darkness 'twixt all systems and\n               the Word;\n           Truth for ever on the scaffold, Wrong for ever on the\n               throne--\n           Yet that scaffold sways the Future, and behind the dim\n               unknown\n           Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above His own.\"\n\nMr. W. H. Lecky, again, considering the facts of national story from\nthe point of view of heredity, and the permanent consequences of\nwrong-doing, sings:--\n\n          \"The voice of the afflicted is rising to the sun,\n           The thousands who have perished for the selfishness of one;\n           The judgment-seat polluted, the altar overthrown,\n           The sighing of the exile, the tortured captive's groan,\n           The many crushed and plundered to gratify the few,\n           The hounds of hate pursuing the noble and the true.\"\n\nOr, if we desire a prose authority, can we deny this painful estimate\nof Mr. Ruskin?--\"Truly it seems to me as I gather in my mind the\nevidence of insane religion, degraded art, merciless war, sullen\ntoil, detestable pleasure, and vain or vile hope in which the nations\nof the world have lived since first they could bear record of\nthemselves, it seems to me, I say, as if the race itself were still\nhalf serpent, not extricated yet from its clay; a lacertine brood of\nbitterness, the glory of it emaciate with cruel hunger and blotted\nwith venomous stain, and the track of it on the leaf a glittering\nslime, and in the sand a useless furrow.\"[46]\n\nDark as is the story which the author of the Book of Kings has\nto record, and hopeless as might seem to be the conclusion of\nthe tragedy, he is responsible for neither. He can but tell the\nthings that were, and tell them as they were; the picture is,\nafter all, far less gloomy than that presented in many a great\nhistoric record. Consider the features of such an age as that\nrecorded by Tacitus, with the \"Iliad of woes\" of which he was the\nannalist.[47] Does Jewish history offer us nothing but this horrible\nmonotony of delations and suicides? Consider the long ages of\ndarkness and retrogression in the fifth and following centuries;\nor the unutterable miseries inflicted on the seaboard of Europe\nby the invasions of the Norsemen--the mere thought of which drove\nCharlemagne to tears; or the long complicated agony produced by\nhundreds of petty feudal wars, and the cruel tyranny of marauding\nbarons; or the condition of England in the middle of the fourteenth\ncentury when the Black Death swept away half of her population; or\nthe extreme misery of the masses after the Thirty Years' War; or the\ndesolating horror of the wars of Napoleon which filled Germany with\nhomeless and starving orphans. The annals of the Hebrew monarchy are\nless grim than these; yet the House of Israel might also seem to have\nbeen chosen out for a pre-eminence of sorrow which ended in making\nJerusalem \"a rendezvous for the extermination of the race.\" When once\nthe Jewish wars began--\n\n          \"Vengeance! thy fiery wing their race pursued,\n           Thy thirsty poniard blushed with infant blood!\n           Roused at thy call and panting still for game\n           The bird of war, the Latin eagle came.\n           Then Judah raged, by ruffian discord led,\n           Drunk with the steamy carnage of the dead;\n           He saw his sons by dubious slaughter fall,\n           And war without, and death within the wall.\"\n\nProbably no calamity since time began exceeded in horror and anguish\nthe carnage and cannibalism and demoniac outbreak of every vile and\nfurious passion which marked the siege of Jerusalem; and, in the\ndreary ages which followed, the world has heard rising from the\nJewish people the groan of myriads of broken hearts.\n\n\"The fruits of the earth have lost their savour,\" wrote one poor\nRabbi, the son of Gamaliel, \"and no dew falls.\"\n\nIn the crowded Ghettos of medi\u00e6val cities, during the foul tyranny\nof the Inquisition in Spain, and many a time throughout Europe, amid\nthe iron oppression of ignorant and armed brutality, the hapless\nJews have been forced to cry aloud to the God of their fathers:\n\"Thou feedest Thy people with the bread of tears, and givest them\nplenteousness of tears to drink!\" \"Thou sellest Thy people for\nnought, and givest no money for them.\"\n\nWhen the eccentric Frederic William I. of Prussia ordered his Court\nchaplain to give him in one sentence a proof of Christianity, the\nchaplain answered without a moment's hesitation: \"The Jews, your\nMajesty.\" Truly it might seem that the fortunes of that strange people\nhad been designed for a special lesson, not to them only, but to the\nwhole human race; and the general outlines of that lesson have never\nbeen more clearly and forcibly indicated than in the Book of Kings.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[44] 2 Kings xx. 16-18, xxii. 16-20.\n\n[45] Isa. xxx. 16.\n\n[46] _Queen of the Air_, p. 87.\n\n[47] Tac., _Hist._, 1, 2: \"Opus aggredior opimum casibus, atrox\npr\u0153liis, discors seditionibus, ipsa etiam pace s\u00e6vum.\"\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER V.\n\n                       _HISTORY WITH A PURPOSE._\n\n    \"History, as distinguished from chronicles or annals, must\n    always contain a theory whether confessed by the writer or not.\n    A sound theory is simply a general conception which co-ordinates\n    a multitude of facts. Without this, facts cease to have interest\n    except to the antiquarian.\"--LAURIE.\n\n\nThe prejudice against history written with a purpose is a groundless\nprejudice. Herodotus, Thucydides, Livy, Sallust, had each his\nguiding principle, no less than Ammianus Marcellinus, St. Augustine,\nOrosius, Bossuet, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Kant, Turgot, Condorcet,\nHegel, Fichte, and every modern historian worthy the name. They\nhave all, as Mr. Morley says, felt the intellectual necessity for\nshowing \"those secret dispositions of events which prepared the way\nfor great changes, as well as the momentous conjunctures which more\nimmediately brought them to pass.\" Orosius, founding his epitome on\nthe hint given by St. Augustine in his _De Civitate Dei_, begins with\nthe famous words, \"_Divina providentia agitur mundus et homo._\" Other\nserious writers may vary the formula, but in all their annals the\nlesson is essentially the same. \"The foundation upon which, at all\nperiods, Israel's sense of its national unity rested was religious in\nits character.\" \"The history of Israel,\" says Stade, \"is essentially\na history of religious ideas.\"[48]\n\nOf course the history is rendered valueless if, in pursuing his\npurpose, the writer either falsifies events or intentionally\nmanipulates them in such a way that they lead to false issues. But\nthe man who is not inspired by his subject, the man to whom the\nhistory which he is narrating has no particular significance, must be\na man of dull imagination or cold affections. No such man can write a\ntrue history at all. For history is the record of what has happened\nto men in nations, and its events are swayed by human passions, and\npalpitate with human emotions. There is no great historian who may\nnot be charged with having been in some respects a partisan. The ebb\nand flow of his narrative, the \"to-and-fro-conflicting waves\" of the\nstruggles which he records, must be to him as idle as a dance of\npuppets if he feels no special interest in the chief actors, and has\nnot formed a distinct judgment of the sweep of the great unseen tidal\nforces by which they are determined and controlled.\n\nThe greatness of the sacred historian of the Kings consists in his\nfirm grasp of the principle that God is the controlling power and sin\nthe disturbing force in the entire history of men and nations.\n\nSurely he does not stand alone in either conviction. Both\npropositions are confirmed by all experience. In all life, individual\nand national, sin is weakness; and human life without God, whether\nisolated or corporate, is no better than\n\n          \"A trouble of ants 'mid a million million of suns.\"\n\n\"Why do the heathen so furiously rage together,\" sang the Psalmist,\n\"and why do the people imagine a vain thing?... He that dwelleth in\nthe heavens shall laugh them to scorn; the Lord shall have them in\nderision.\" Even the oldest of the Greek poets, in the first lines\nof the _Iliad_, declares that amid those scenes of carnage, and the\ntragic fate of heroes, \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4' \u1f10\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03ae:--\n\n          \"Achilles' wrath, to Greece the direful spring\n           Of woes unnumbered, Heavenly Goddess sing;\n           That wrath which hurled to Pluto's gloomy reign\n           The souls of countless chiefs untimely slain;\n           Whose limbs, unburied on the naked shore,\n           Devouring dogs and hungry vultures tore:\n           Since great Achilles and Atreides strove,\n           Such was the sovereign doom, and such the will of Jove!\"\n\nIn the _Odyssey_ the same conviction is repeated, where Odysseus\nsays that \"it is the fate-fraught decree of Zeus which stands by\nas arbiter, when it is meant that miserable men should suffer many\nwoes.\"[49] The heathen, too, saw clearly that,\n\n          \"Though the mills of God grind slowly,\n           Yet they grind exceeding small;\"\n\nand that, alike for Trojans and Danaans, the chariot-wheels of Heaven\nroll onward to their destined goal.\n\nSuch words express a belief in the hearts of pagans identical with\nthat in the hearts of the early disciples when they exclaimed: \"Of a\ntruth in this city against Thy holy Servant Jesus, whom Thou didst\nanoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the\npeoples of Israel, were gathered together, _to do whatsoever Thy hand\nand Thy counsel foreordained to come to pass_.\"[50]\n\nThe ever-present intensity of these convictions leads the historian\nof the Kings to many shorter or longer \"homiletic excursuses,\" in\nwhich he develops his main theme. And if he inculcates his high faith\nin the form of speeches and other insertions which perhaps express\nhis own views more distinctly than they could have been expressed by\nthe earlier prophets and kings of Judah, he adopts a method which was\ncommon in past ages and has always been conceded to the greatest and\nmost trustworthy of ancient historians.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[48] Wellhausen, _History of Israel_, p. 432; Stade, _Gesch. des Volkes\nIsrael_, i., p. 12; Robinson, _Ancient History of Israel_, p. 15.\n\n[49] _Od._, ix. 51, 52.\n\n[50] Acts iv. 27, 28.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER VI.\n\n                       _LESSONS OF THE HISTORY._\n\n    \"Great men are the inspired texts of that Divine Book of\n    Revelation of which a chapter is completed from epoch to epoch,\n    and by some named History.\"--CARLYLE.\n\n\nThus history becomes one of the most precious books of God. To\nspeak vaguely of \"a stream of tendency not ourselves which makes\nfor righteousness,\" is to endow \"a stream of tendency\" with a moral\nsense. Philosophers may talk of \"dass unbekannte h\u00f6here Wesen das wir\nahnen\"; but the great majority, alike of the wisest and the humblest of\nmankind, will give to that moral \"Not-ourselves\" the name of God. The\ntruth was more simply and more religiously expressed by the American\norator when he said that \"One with God is always in a majority,\" and\n\"God is the only final public opinion.\" Only thus can we account for\nthe fact that events apparently the most trivial have repeatedly\nbeen overruled to produce the most stupendous issues, and opposition\napparently the most overwhelming has been made to further the very ends\nwhich it most fiercely resisted. \"The fierceness of man shall turn to\nThy praise, and the fierceness of them shalt Thou restrain.\"\n\nSt. Paul expresses his sense of this fact when he says, \"Not many\nwise after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:\nbut God chose the foolish things of the world, and the weak things\nof the world, and the base things of the world, and the things that\nare despised did God choose, and the things that are not, that He\nmight bring to nought the things that are\":[51] and that \"because\nthe foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is\nstronger than men.\"[52]\n\nThe most conspicuous instance of these laws in history is furnished\nby the victories of Christianity. It was against all probability that\na faith not only despised but execrated--a faith whose crucified\nMessiah kindled unmitigated contempt, and its doctrine of the\nResurrection unmingled derision--a faith confined originally to a\nhandful of ignorant peasants drawn from the dregs of a tenth-rate\nand subjugated people--should prevail over all the philosophy,\nand genius, and ridicule, and authority of the world, supported\nby the diadems of all-powerful C\u00e6sars and the swords of thirty\nlegions. It was against all probability that a faith which, in the\nworld's judgment, was so abject, should in so short a space of time\nachieve so complete a triumph, not by aggressive force, but by\nmeek non-resistance, and that it should win its way through armed\nantagonism by the sole powers of innocence and of martyrdom--\"not by\nmight, nor by power, but by My Spirit, saith the Lord of Hosts.\"\n\nBut though the thoughtful Israelite had no such glorious spectacle\nas this before him, he saw something analogous to it. The prophets\nhad been careful to point out that no merit or superiority of its own\nhad caused the people to be chosen by God from among the nations\nfor the mighty functions for which it was destined, and which it had\nalready in part fulfilled. \"And thou shalt answer before the Lord\nthy God, and say, A Syrian ready to perish was my father; he went\ndown to Egypt, and sojourned there, few in number.\"[53] The chosen\npeople could boast of no loftier ancestry than that they sprang from\na fugitive from the land of Ur, whose descendants had sunk into a\nhorde of miserable slaves in the hot valley of Egypt. Yet from that\ndegraded and sensuous serfdom God had led them into the wilderness\n\"through parted seas and thundering battles,\" and had spoken to them\nat Sinai in a voice so mighty that its echoes have rolled among the\nnations for evermore. If through their sins and shortcomings they\nhad once more been reduced to the rank of captive strangers in a\nstrange land, the historian knew that even then their lot was not\nso abject as it once had been. They had at least heroic memories\nand an imperishable past. He believed that though God's face was\ndarkened to them, the light of it was neither utterly nor finally\nwithdrawn. Nothing could henceforth shake his trust that, even when\nIsrael walked in the valley of the shadow of death, God would still\nbe with His people; that \"He would _love_ their souls out of the pit\nof destruction.\"[54] The vain-glorious efforts of the heathen were\nforedoomed to final impotence, for God ruled the raging of the sea,\nthe noise of his waves, and the madness of the people.\n\nIf this high faith seemed so often to lead only to frustrate hopes,\nthe historian saw the reason. His philosophy of history reduced\nitself to the one rule that \"Righteousness exalteth a nation, but\nsin is the reproach of any people.\" It is a sublime philosophy, and\nno other is possible. It might be written as the comment on every\nhistory in the world. The prophets write it large, and again and\nagain, as in letters of blood and fire. Upon their pages, even from\nthe days of Balaam,\n\n               \"In outline dim and vast\n                Their mighty shadows cast\n          The giant forms of Empires on their way\n                To ruin: one by one\n                They tower, and they are gone!\"\n\nBalaam had uttered his denunciation on Moab and Amalek and the\nKenite. Amos hurled defiance on Moab, Ammon, and the Philistines.\nIsaiah taunted Egypt with her splendid impotence, and had said of\nBabylon: \"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the\nmorning!\" As the sphere of national life enlarged, Nahum had poured\nforth his exultant dirge over the falling greatness of Assyria; and\nEzekiel had painted the desolation which should come on glorious\nTyre. These great prophets had read upon the palace-walls of the\nmightiest kingdoms the burning messages of doom, because they knew\nthat (to quote the words of a living historian) \"for every false\nword and unrighteous deed, for cruelty and oppression, for lust and\nvanity, the price has to be paid at last.... Justice and truth alone\nendure and live. Injustice and falsehood may be long-lived, but\ndoomsday comes to them at last.\"\n\nHas the course of ages at all altered the incidence of these eternal\nlaws? Do modern kingdoms offer any exceptions to the universal\nexperience of the past? Look at Spain. Corrupted by her own vast\nwealth, by the confusion of religion with the indolent acceptance\nof lies which paraded themselves as catholic orthodoxy, and by the\nfatal disseverance of religion from the moral law, she has sunk\ninto decrepitude. Read in the utter collapse and ruin of her great\nArmada the inevitable Nemesis on greed, indolence, and superstition.\nLook at modern France. When the inflated bubble of her arrogance\ncollapsed at Sedan as with a touch, two of her own writers, certainly\nnot prejudiced in favour of Christian conclusions--Ernest Renan\nand Alexandre Dumas, _fils_--pointed independently to the causes\nof her ruin, and found them in her irreligion and her debauchery.\nThe warnings which they addressed to their countrymen in that hour\nof humiliation, on the sanctity of family life and the eternal\nobligations of national righteousness, were identical with those\naddressed to the Israelites of old by Amos or Isaiah. The only\ndifference was that the form in which they were uttered was modern\nand came with incomparably less of impassioned force.\n\nThe historian who, six hundred years before Christ, saw so clearly,\nand illustrated with such striking conciseness, the laws of God's\nmoral governance of the world stands far above the casual censure\nof those who judge him by a mistaken standard. We owe him a debt of\nthe deepest gratitude, not only because he has preserved for us the\nnational records which might otherwise have perished, but far more\nbecause he has seen and pointed out their true significance. Imagine\nan English writer trying to give a sketch of English history since\nthe death of Henry VI. in a thin volume of sixty or seventy octavo\npages! Is it conceivable that even the most gifted and brilliant\nof our historians could in so short a space have rendered such a\nservice as this sacred historian has rendered to all mankind? Do\nwe owe nothing to the vivid insight which enabled him to set so\nmany characters clearly before us with a few strokes of the pen?\nIt is true that it is the _history_ which is inspired rather than\nthe _record_ of the history; but the record itself is of quite\nexceptional value. It is true that the prophetic historian and the\nscientific historian must be judged by wholly different canons of\ncriticism; but may not the prophetic historian be much the greater\nof the two? By the light of his histories we can read all histories,\nand see the common lesson taught us by the life of nations, as by the\nlife of individuals--which is, that obedience to God's law is the\nonly path of safety, the only condition of permanence. To fear God\nand keep His commandments is the end of the matter, and is the whole\nduty of man. To one who follows the guiding clue of these convictions\nhistory becomes \"Providence made visible.\"\n\nBossuet, like St. Augustine, found the key to all events in a Divine\nWill controlling and overruling the course of human destinies by a\nconstant exercise of superhuman power. Even Comte \"ascribed a hardly\nless resistible power to a Providence of his own construction,\ndirecting present events along a groove cut ever more and more deeply\nfor them by the past.\" And Mr. John Morley admits that \"whether\nyou accept Bossuet's theory or Comte's--whether men be their own\nProvidence, or no more than instruments or secondary agents in other\nhands--this classification of either Providence equally deserves\nstudy and meditation.\"\n\nThus, though the Jews were a small and insignificant people--though\ntheir kings were mere local sheykhs in comparison with the Pharaohs,\nor the kings of Assyria and Babylon; though they had none of that\nsense of beauty which gave immortality to the arts of Greece; though\ntheir temple was an altogether trivial structure when compared\nwith the Parthenon or the Serapeum; though they had no drama which\ncan be distantly compared with the Oresteia of \u00c6schylus, and no\nepic which can be put beside the Iliad or the Nibelungen; though\nthey had nothing which can be dignified with the name of a system\nof Philosophy--yet their influence on the human race--rendered\npermanent by their literature, or by that fragment of it which we\ncall \"The Books\" as though there were none other in the world worth\nspeaking of--has been more powerful than that of all nations upon\nthe development of humanity. Millions have known the names of David\nor Isaiah, who never so much as heard of Sesostris or of Plato.\nThe influence of the Hebrew race upon mankind has been a moral and\na religious influence. Leaving Christianity out of sight--though\nChristianity itself was nursed in the cradle of Judaism, and was the\nfulfilment of the Messianic idea which was the most characteristic\nelement in the ancient religion of the Hebrews--the history of Israel\nis more widely known a million-fold than any history of any people.\nProfessor Huxley is an unsuspected witness to this truth. He has\ndeclared that he knows of no other work in the world by the study of\nwhich children could be so much humanised, and made to feel that each\nfigure in that vast historical procession fills, like themselves,\nbut a momentary space in the interval between the two eternities.\nWhat other nation has contributed to the treasure of human thought\nelements so immeasurably important as the idea of monotheism, and\nthe Ten Commandments, and the high spiritual teaching by which the\nprophets brought home to the consciousness of our race the nearness,\nthe holiness, and the love of God? We do not underrate the value\nof Eternal Inspiration in the \"richly-variegated wisdom\" which\n\"multifariously and fragmentarily\" the Creator has vouchsafed to man;\nbut the Jews will ever be the most interesting of nations, chiefly\nbecause to them were entrusted the oracles of God.[55]\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[51] 1 Cor. i. 26-28.\n\n[52] _Id._, v. 25.\n\n[53] Deut. xxvi. 5.\n\n[54] Isa. xxxviii. 17 (Heb.).\n\n[55] See Stade, i. 1-8.\n\n\n\n                                BOOK II.\n\n                          _DAVID AND SOLOMON._\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER VII.\n\n                         _DAVID'S DECREPITUDE._\n\n                            1 KINGS i. 1-4.\n\n                     \"Praise a fair day at night.\"\n\n\nThe old age of good men is often a beautiful spectacle. They show\nus the example of a mellower wisdom, a larger tolerance, a sweeter\ntemper, a more unselfish sympathy, a clearer faith. The setting sun\nof their bright day tinges even the clouds which gather round it with\nsofter and more lovely hues.\n\nWe cannot say this of David's age. After the oppressive splendour of\nhis heroic youth and manhood there was no dewy twilight of honoured\npeace. We see him in a somewhat pitiable decrepitude. He was not\nreally old; the expression of our Authorised Version, \"stricken in\nyears,\" is literally \"entered into days,\" but the Book of Chronicles\ncalls him \"old and full of days.\"[56] Josephus says that when he died\nhe was only seventy years old. He had reigned seven years and a half\nin Hebron and thirty-three years in Jerusalem.[57] At the age of\nseventy many men are still in full vigour of strength and intellect,\nbut the conditions of that day were not favourable to longevity.\nSolomon does not seem to have survived his sixtieth year; and it is\ndoubtful whether any one of the kings of Israel or Judah--excepting,\nstrange to say, the wicked Manasseh--attained even that moderate age.\nThreescore years and ten have always been the allotted space of human\nlife, and few who long survive that age find that their strength then\nis anything but labour and sorrow.\n\nBut the decrepitude of David was exceptional. He was drained of all\nhis vital force. He took to his bed, but though they heaped clothes\nupon him he could get no warmth. \"He remained cold amid the torrid\nheat of Jerusalem.\" Then his physicians recommended the only remedy\nthey knew, to give heat to his chilled and withered frame. It was the\nprimitive and not ineffectual remedy--which was suggested twenty-two\ncenturies later to the great Frederic Barbarossa--of contact with\nthe warmth of a youthful frame.[58] So they sought out the fairest\nvirgin in all the coasts of Israel to act as the king's nurse, and\ntheir choice fell on Abishag, a maiden of Shunem in Issachar.[59]\nThere was no question of his taking another wife. He had already\nmany wives and concubines, and what the bed-ridden invalid required\nwas a strong and youthful nurse to cherish him. We are surprised at\nsuch total failure of life's forces. But David had lived through a\nyouth of toil and exposure, of fight and hardship, in the days when\nhis only home had been the dark and dripping limestone caves, and\nhe had been hunted like a partridge on the mountains by the furious\njealousy of Saul. The sun had smitten him by day and the moon by\nnight, and the chill dews had fallen on him in the midnight bivouacs\namong the crags of Engedi. Then had followed the burdens and cares of\nroyalty with guilty anxieties and deeds which shook his pulses with\nwrath and fear. Coincident with these were the demoralising luxuries\nand domestic sensualism of a polygamous palace. Worst of all, he\nhad sinned against God, and against light, and against his own\nconscience. For a time his moral sense had slumbered, and retribution\nhad been delayed. But when he awoke from his sensual dream, the\nbelated punishment burst over him in thunder and his conscience with\noutstretched finger and tones of menace must often have repeated to\nthe murderous adulterer the doom of Nathan and the stern sentence,\n\"Thou art the man!\" Many a vulgar Eastern tyrant would hardly have\nregarded David's sin as a sin at all; but when such a man as David\nsins, the fact that he has been admitted into a holier sanctuary adds\ndeadliness to the guilt of his sacrilege. True he was forgiven, but\nhe must have found it terribly hard to forgive himself. God gave back\nto him the clean heart, and renewed a right spirit within him; but\nthe sense of forgiveness differs from the sweetness of innocence,\nand the remission of his sins did not bring with it the remission of\ntheir consequences. From that disastrous day David was a changed man.\nIt might be said of him as of the Fallen Spirit:--\n\n                                 \"His face\n          Deep scars of thunder had entrenched, and care\n          Sat on his faded cheek.\"\n\nThe Nemesis of sin's normal consequences pursued him to the end. Dark\nspirits walked in his house. Joab knew his guilty secrets, and Joab\nbecame the tyrannous master of his destiny. Those guilty secrets\nleaked out, and he lost his charm, his influence, his popularity among\nhis subjects. He was haunted by an ever-present sense of shame and\nhumiliation. Joab was a murderer, and went unpunished; but was not he\ntoo an unpunished murderer? If his enemies cursed him, he sometimes\nfelt with a sense of despair, \"Let them curse. God hath said unto them,\nCurse David.\" His past carried with it the inevitable deterioration of\nhis present. In the overwhelming shame and horror which rent his heart\nduring the rebellion of Absalom, he must often have felt tempted to the\nfatalism of desperation, like that guilty king of Greek tragedy who,\nburdened with the curse of his race, was forced to exclaim,--\n\n          \"\u1f1c\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03c1\u1fb6\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4' \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2\n           \u1f3c\u03c4\u03c9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4' \u03bf\u1f56\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u039a\u03c9\u03ba\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u03cc\u03bd,\n           \u0398\u03b5\u1ff7 \u03c3\u03c4\u03c5\u03b3\u03b7\u03b8\u1f72\u03bd \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf \u039b\u03b1\u0390\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\"[60]\n\nCurses in his family, a curse upon his daughter, a curse upon\nhis sons, a curse upon himself, a curse upon his people,--there\nwas scarcely one ingredient in the cup of human woe which, in\nconsequence of his own crimes, this unhappy king had not been forced\nto taste. Scourges of war, famine, and pestilence--of a three years'\nfamine, of a three years' flight before his enemies, of a three\ndays' pestilence--he had known them all. He had suffered with the\nsufferings of his subjects, whose trials had been aggravated by his\nown transgressions. He had seen his sons following his own fatal\nexample, and he had felt the worst of all sufferings in the serpent's\ntooth of filial ingratitude agonising a troubled heart and a weakened\nwill. It is no wonder that David became decrepit before his time.\n\nYet what a picture does he present of the vanity of human wishes,\nof the emptiness of all that men desire, of the truth which Solon\nimpressed on the Lydian king that we can call no man happy before\nhis death! David's youth had been a pastoral idyll; his manhood an\nepic of war and chivalry; his premature age becomes the chronicle\nof a nursery. What different pictures are presented to us by David\nin his sweet youth and glowing bloom, and David in his unloved and\ndisgraced decline! We have seen him a beautiful ruddy boy, summoned\nfrom his sheepfolds, with the wind of the desert on his cheek and\nits sunlight in his hair, to kneel before the aged prophet and feel\nthe hands of consecration laid upon his head. Swift and strong, his\nfeet like hart's feet, his arms able to bend a bow of steel, he\nfights like a good shepherd for his flock, and single-handed smites\nthe lion and the bear. His harp and song drive the evil spirit from\nthe tortured soul of the demoniac king. With a sling and a stone the\nboy slays the giant champion, and the maidens of Israel praise their\ndeliverer with songs and dances. He becomes the armour-bearer of\nthe king, the beloved comrade of the king's son, the husband of the\nking's daughter. Then indeed he is driven into imperilled outlawry by\nthe king's envy, and becomes the captain of a band of freebooters;\nbut his influence over them, as in our English legends of Robin Hood,\ngives something of beneficence to his lawlessness, and even these\nwandering years of brigandage are brightened by tales of his splendid\nmagnanimity. The young chieftain who had mingled a loyal tenderness\nand genial humour with all his wild adventures--who had so generously\nand almost playfully spared the life of Saul his enemy--who had\nprotected the flocks and fields of the churlish Nabal--who, with the\nchivalry of a Sydney, had poured on the ground the bright drops of\nwater from the Well of Bethlehem for which he had thirsted, because\nthey had been won by imperilled lives--sprang naturally into the\nidolised hero and poet of his people. Then God had taken him from\nthe sheepfolds, from following the ewes great with young ones,\nthat he might lead Jacob His people and Israel His inheritance.\nGenerous to the sad memories of Saul and Jonathan, generous to the\nprincely Abner, generous to the weak Ishbosheth, generous to poor\nlame Mephibosheth, he had knit all hearts like the heart of one\nman to himself, and in successful war had carried all before him,\nnorth and south, and east and west. He enlarged the borders of his\nkingdom, captured the City of Waters, and placed the Moloch-crown of\nRabbah on his head. Then in the mid-flush of his prosperity, in his\npride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness, \"the tempting\nopportunity met the susceptible disposition,\" and David forgat God\nwho had done so great things for him.\n\nThe people must have felt how deep was the debt of gratitude which\nthey owed to him. He had given them a consciousness of power\nyet undeveloped; a sense of the unity of their national life\nperpetuated by the possession of a capital which has been famous\nto all succeeding ages. To David the nation owed the conquest of\nthe stronghold of Jebus, and they would feel that \"as the hills\nstand about Jerusalem so standeth the Lord round about them that\nfear Him.\"[61] The king who associates his name with a national\ncapital--as Nebuchadnezzar built great Babylon, or Constantine chose\nByzantium--secures the strongest claim to immortality. But the\nchoice made by David for his capital showed an intuition as keen as\nthat which has immortalised the fame of the Macedonian conqueror\nin the name of Alexandria. Jerusalem is a city which belongs to\nall time, and even under the curse of Turkish rule it has not\nlost its undying interest. But David had rendered a still higher\nservice in giving stability to the national religion. The prestige\nof the Ark had been destroyed in the overwhelming defeat of Israel\nby the Philistines at Aphek, when it fell into the hands of the\nuncircumcised. After that it had been neglected and half forgotten\nuntil David brought it with songs and dances to God's holy hill of\nZion. Since then every pious Israelite might rejoice that, as in the\nTabernacle of old, God was once more in the midst of His people.\nThe merely superstitious might only regard the Ark as a fetish--the\nfated Palladium of the national existence. But to all thoughtful men\nthe presence of the Ark had a deeper meaning, for it enshrined the\nTables of the Moral Law; and those broken Tables, and the bending\nCherubim which gazed down upon them, and the blood-sprinkled gold of\nthe Mercy-Seat were a vivid emblem that God's Will is the Rule of\nRighteousness, and that if it be broken the soul must be reconciled\nto Him by repentance and forgiveness. That meaning is beautifully\nbrought out in the Psalm which says, \"Who shall ascend into the hill\nof the Lord, or who shall rise up into the holy place? Even he that\nhath clean hands and a pure heart: who hath not lifted up his mind\nunto vanity, nor sworn to deceive his neighbour.\"\n\nTo David more than to any man that conviction of the supremacy of\nrighteousness must have been keenly present, and for this reason his\nsin was the less pardonable. It \"tore down the altar of confidence\"\nin many hearts. It caused the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, and\nwas therefore worthy of a sorer punishment. And God in His mercy\nsmote, and did not spare.\n\nHe sinned: then came earthquake and eclipse. His earthly life was\nshipwrecked in that place where two seas meet--where the sea of\ncalamity meets the sea of crime.[62] Then followed the death of his\ninfant child; the outrage of Amnon; the blood of the brutal ravisher\nshed by his brother's hands; the flight of Absalom; his insolence,\nhis rebellion, his deadly insult to his father's household; the long\nday of flight and shame and weeping and curses, as David ascended\nthe slope of Olivet and went down into the Valley of Jordan; the\nsanguinary battle; the cruel murder of the beloved rebel; the\ninsolence of Joab; the heartrending cry, \"O Absalom, my son, my son\nAbsalom; would God I had died for thee, O Absalom, my son, my son!\"\n\nNot even then had David's trials ended. He had to endure the fierce\nquarrel between Israel and Judah; the rebellion of Sheba; the murder\nof Amasa, which he dared not punish. He had to sink into the further\nsin of pride in numbering the people, and to see the Angel of the\nPlague standing with drawn sword over the threshing-floor of Araunah,\nwhile his people--those sheep who had not offended--died around him\nby thousands. After such a life he was made to feel that it was\nnot for blood-stained hands like his to rear the Temple, though he\nhad said, \"I will not suffer mine eyes to sleep nor mine eyelids\nto slumber, neither the temples of my head to take any rest till I\nfind a place for the tabernacle of the Lord, a habitation for the\nmighty God of Jacob.\" And now we see him surrounded by intrigues;\nalienated from the friends and advisers of his youth; shivering in\nhis sick-room; attended by his nurse; feeble, apathetic, the ghost\nand wreck of all that he held been, with little left him of his life\nbut its \"glimmerings and decays.\"\n\nIt is an oft-repeated story. Even so we see great Darius\n\n          \"Deserted at his utmost need\n           By those his former bounty fed;\n           On the bare ground exposed he lies\n           Without a friend to close his eyes.\"\n\nSo we see glorious Alexander the Great, dying as a fool dieth,\nremorseful, drunken, disappointed, at Babylon. So we see our great\nPlantagenet:--\n\n          \"Mighty victor, mighty lord,\n           Low on his funeral couch he lies!\n           No pitying heart, no eye afford\n           A tear to grace his obsequies.\"\n\nSo we see Louis XIV., _le grand monarque_, peevish, _ennuy\u00e9_,\nfortunate no longer, an old man of seventy-seven left in his vast\nlonely palace with his great-grandson, a frivolous child of five,\nand saying to him, \"_J'ai trop aime la guerre; ne m'imitez point_.\"\nSo we see the last great conqueror of modern times, embittering his\ndishonoured island-exile by miserable disputes with Sir Hudson Lowe\nabout etiquette and champagne. But among all the \"sad stories of\nthe deaths of kings\" none ends a purer glory with a more pitiful\ndecline than the poet-king of Israel, whose songs have been to so\nmany thousands their delight in the house of their pilgrimage. Truly\nDavid's experience no less than his own may have added bitterness to\nthe traditional epitaph of his son on all human glory: \"Vanity of\nvanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[56] 1 Chron. xxiii. 1.\n\n[57] 2 Sam. v. 5.\n\n[58] It is mentioned by Galen, vii.; Valesius, _De Sacr. Philos._,\nxxix., p. 187; Bacon, _Hist. Vit\u00e6 et Mortis_, ix. 25; Reinhard,\n_Bibel-Krankheiten_, p. 171. See Josephus, _Antt._, VII. xv. 3.\n\n[59] Now Solam, near _Zerin_ (Jezreel), five miles south of Tabor\n(Robinson, _Researches_, iii. 462), on the south-west of Jebel\nel-Duhy (Little Hermon), Josh. xix. 18; 1 Sam. xxviii. 4.\n\n[60] \u00c6sch., _Sept. c. Theb._, 690.\n\n[61] See Psalm cxxii. 3-5.\n\n[62] See Kittel, ii. 147.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER VIII.\n\n                      _AN EASTERN COURT AND HOME._\n\n                               1 KINGS i.\n\n    \"Pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness.\"--EZEK. xvi.\n    49.\n\n\nA man does not choose his own destiny; it is ordained for higher\nends than his own personal happiness. If David could have made his\nchoice, he might, indeed, have been dazzled by the glittering lure of\nroyalty; yet he would have been in all probability happier and nobler\nhad he never risen above the simple life of his forefathers. Our\nsaintly king in Shakespeare's tragedy says:--\n\n          \"My crown is in my heart, not on my head;\n           Not decked with diamonds and Indian stones,\n           Nor to be seen. My crown is called Content;\n           And crown it is which seldom kings enjoy.\"\n\nDavid assuredly did not enjoy that crown. After his establishment at\nJerusalem it is doubtful whether he could count more happy days than\nAbderrahman the Magnificent, who recorded that amid a life honoured\nin peace and victorious in war he could not number more than fourteen.\n\nWe admire the generous freebooter more than we admire the powerful\nking. As time went on he showed a certain deterioration of character,\nthe inevitable result of the unnatural conditions to which he\nhad succumbed. Saul was a king of a very simple type. No pompous\nceremonials separated him from the simple intercourse of natural\nkindliness. He did not tower over the friends of his youth like a\nColossus, and look down on his superiors from the artificial elevation\nof his inch-high dignity. \"In himself was all his state,\" and there\nwas something kinglier in his simple majesty when he stood under his\npomegranate at Migron, with his huge javelin in his hand, than in\n\n                \"The tedious pomp which waits\n          On princes, when their rich retinue long\n          Of horses led, and grooms besmeared with gold\n          Dazzles the crowd, and sets them all agape.\"\n\nWe should not have assumed beforehand that there was anything\nin David's character which rendered external pomp and ceremony\nattractive to him. But the inherent flunkeyism of Eastern servility\nmade his courtiers feed him with adulation, and approach him with\ngenuflexions. Apparently he could not rise superior to the slowly\ncorrupting influences of autocracy which gradually assimilated the\ncourt of the once simple warrior to that of his vulgar compeers\non the neighbouring thrones. There is something startling to see\nwhat a chasm royalty has cleft between him and the comrades of his\nadversity, and even the partner of his guilt who had become his\nfavourite queen. We see it throughout the story of the last scenes\nin which he plays a part. He can only be addressed with periphrases\nand in the third person. \"Let there be sought for _my lord the king_\na young virgin; and let her stand before _the king_, and let her\nlie in thy bosom, that _my lord the king_ may get heat.\" Bathsheba\ncan only speak to him in such terms as, \"Didst not thou, my lord,\nO king, swear unto thy handmaid?\" and even she, when she enters\nthe sick-chamber of his decrepitude, prostrates herself and does\nobeisance. Every other word of her speech is interlarded with \"my\nlord the king,\" and \"my lord, O king\"; and when she leaves \"the\npresence\" she again bows herself with her face to the earth, and does\nreverence to the king[63] with the words, \"May my lord, King David,\nlive for ever.\" The anointed dignity of the prophet who had once so\nboldly rebuked David's worst crime does not exempt him from the same\nceremonial, and he too goes into the inner chamber bowing his face\nbefore the king to the earth.\n\nInsensibly David must have come to require it all, and to like it.\nYet the unsophisticated instincts of his more natural youth would\nsurely have revolted from it. He would have deprecated it as sternly\nas the Greek conqueror in the mighty tragedy who hates to walk to his\nthrone on purple tapestries, and says to his queen:--\n\n          \"Ope not the mouth to me, nor cry amain\n           As at the footstool of a man of the East,\n           Prone on the ground: so stoop not thou to me;\"\n\nor, as another has more literally rendered it:--\n\n               \"Nor like some barbarous man\n          Gape thou upon me an earth-grovelling howl.\"[64]\n\nBut the royal position of David brought with it a surer curse\nthan that which follows the extreme exaltation of a man above\nhis fellows. It brought with it the permitted luxury of imaginary\nnecessity for polygamy, and the man-enervating, woman-degrading\nparaphernalia of an Eastern harem. Jesse and Boaz, in their paternal\nfields at Bethlehem, had been content with one wife, and had known\nthe true joys of love and home. But monogamy was thought unsuitable\nto the new grandeur of a despot, and under the curse of polygamy the\njoy of love, the peace of home, are inevitably blighted. In that\ncondition man gives up the sweetest sources of earthly blessing for\nthe meanest gratifications of animal sensuousness. Love, when it is\npure and true, gilds the life of man with a joy of heaven, and fills\nit with a breath of Paradise. It renders life more perfect and more\nnoble by the union of two souls, and fulfils the original purpose of\ncreation. A home, blessed by life's most natural sanctities, becomes\na saving ark in days of storm.\n\n          \"Here Love his golden shafts employs, here lights\n           His constant lamp, and waves his purple wings,\n           Reigns here and revels.\"\n\nBut in a polygamous household a home is exchanged for a troubled\nestablishment, and love is carnalised into a jaded appetite. The\nEastern king becomes the slave of every wandering fancy, and can\nhardly fail to be a despiser of womanhood, which he sees only on its\nignoblest side. His home is liable to be torn by mutual jealousies\nand subterranean intrigues, and many a foul and midnight murder has\nmarked, and still marks, the secret history of Eastern seraglios. The\nwomen--idle, ignorant, uneducated, degraded, intriguing--with nothing\nto think of but gossip, scandal, spite, and animal passion; hating\neach other worst of all, and each engaged in the fierce attempt to\nreign supreme in the affection which she cannot monopolise--spend\nwasted lives of _ennui_ and slavish degradation. Eunuchs, the\nvilest products of the most corrupted civilisation, soon make their\nloathly appearance in such courts, and add the element of morbid and\nrancorous effeminacy to the general ferment of corruption. Polygamy,\nas it is a contravention of God's original design, enfeebles the\nman, degrades the woman, corrupts the slave, and destroys the home.\nDavid introduced it into the Southern Kingdom, and Ahab into the\nNorthern;--both with the most calamitous effects.\n\nPolygamy produces results worse than all the others upon the children\nborn in such families. Murderous rivalry often reigns between them,\nand fraternal affection is almost unknown. The children inherit the\nblood of deteriorated mothers, and the sons of different wives burn\nwith the mutual animosities of the harem, under whose shadowing\ninfluence they have been brought up. When Napoleon was asked the\ngreatest need of France, he answered in the one laconic word,\n\"_Mothers_\"; and when he was asked the best training ground for\nrecruits, he said, \"_The nurseries, of course._\" Much of the manhood\nof the East shows the taint and blight which it has inherited from\nsuch mothers and such nurseries as seraglios alone can form.\n\nThe darkest elements of a polygamous household showed themselves\nin the unhappy family of David. The children of the various wives\nand concubines saw but little of their father during their childish\nyears. David could only give them a scanty and much-divided attention\nwhen they were brought to him to display their beauty. They grew up\nas children, the spoiled and petted playthings of women and debased\nattendants, with nothing to curb their rebellious passions or\ncheck their imperious wills. The little influence over them which\nDavid exercised was unhappily not for good. He was a man of tender\naffections. He repeated the errors of which he might have been warned\nby the effects of foolish indulgence on Hophni and Phinehas, the sons\nof Eli, and even on the sons of the guide of his youth, the prophet\nSamuel. The wild careers of David's elder sons show that they had\ninherited his strong passions and eager ambition, and that in their\ncase, as well as Adonijah's, he had not displeased them at any time\nin saying, \"Why hast thou done so?\"\n\nThe consequences which followed had been frightful beyond precedent.\nDavid must have learnt by experience the truth of the exhortation,\n\"Desire not a multitude of unprofitable children, neither delight in\nungodly sons. Though they multiply, rejoice not in them, except the\nfear of the Lord be with them: for one that is just is better than\na thousand; and better it is to die without children, than to have\nthose that are ungodly.\"[65]\n\nDavid's eldest son was Amnon, the son of Ahinoam of Jezreel; his second\nDaniel or Chileab, son of Abigail, the wife of Nabal of Carmel; the\nthird Absalom, son of Maacah, daughter of Talmai, King of Geshur;\nthe fourth Adonijah, the son of Haggith. Shephatiah and Ithream were\nthe sons of two other wives, and these six sons were born to David\nin Hebron. When he became king in Jerusalem he had four sons by\nBathsheba, born after the one that died in his infancy, and at least\nnine other sons by various wives, besides his daughter Tamar, sister of\nAbsalom. He had other sons by his concubines. Most of these sons are\nunknown to fame. Some of them probably died in childhood. He provided\nfor others by making them priests.[66] His line, down to the days of\nJeconiah, was continued in the descendants of Solomon, and afterwards\nin those of the otherwise unknown Nathan. The elder sons, born to\nhim in the days of his more fervent youth, became the authors of the\ntragedies which laid waste his house. They were youths of splendid\nbeauty, and, as they bore the proud title of \"the king's sons,\" they\nwere from their earliest years encircled by luxury and adulation.[67]\n\nAmnon regarded himself as the heir to the throne, and his fierce\npassions brought the first infamy into the family of David. By the\naid of his cousin Jonadab, the wily son of Shimmeah, the king's\nbrother, he brutally dishonoured his half-sister Tamar, and then\nas brutally drove the unhappy princess from his presence. It was\nDavid's duty to inflict punishment on his shameless heir, but he\nweakly condoned the crime. Absalom dissembled his vengeance for two\nwhole years, and spoke to his brother neither good nor evil. At the\nend of that time he invited David and all the princes to a joyous\nsheep-shearing festival at Baal Hazor. David, as he anticipated,\ndeclined the invitation, on the plea that his presence would burden\nhis son with needless expense. Then Absalom asked that, as the king\ncould not honour his festival, at least his brother Amnon, as the\nheir to the throne, might be present. David's heart misgave him, but\nhe could refuse nothing to the youth whose magnificent and faultless\nbeauty filled him with an almost doting pride, and Amnon and all the\nprinces went to the feast. No sooner was Amnon's heart inflamed with\nwine, than, at a preconcerted signal, Absalom's servants fell on him\nand murdered him. The feast broke up in tumultuous horror, and in the\nwild cry and rumour which arose, the heart of David was torn with\nthe intelligence that Absalom had murdered all his brothers. He rent\nhis clothes, and lay weeping in the dust surrounded by his weeping\nservants. But Jonadab assured him that only Amnon had been murdered\nin revenge for his unpunished outrage, and a rush of people along\nthe road, among whom the princes were visible riding on their mules,\nconfirmed his words. But the deed was still black enough. Bathed\nin tears, and raising the wild cries of Eastern grief, the band of\nyouthful princes stood round the father whose incestuous firstborn\nhad thus fallen by a brother's hand, and the king also and all his\nservants \"wept greatly with a great weeping.\"\n\nAbsalom fled to his grandfather the King of Geshur; but his purpose\nhad been doubly accomplished. He had avenged the shame of his sister,\nand he was now himself the eldest son and heir to the throne.[68]\nHis claim was strengthened by the superb physique and beautiful\nhair of which he was so proud, and which won the hearts both of king\nand people. Capable, ambitious, secure of ultimate pardon, the son\nand the grandson of a king, he lived for three years at the court\nof his grandfather. Then Joab, perceiving that David was consoled\nfor the death of Amnon, and that his heart was yearning for his\nfavourite son,[69] obtained the intercession of the wise woman of\nTekoah, and got permission for Absalom to return. But his offence\nhad been terrible, and to his extreme mortification the king refused\nto admit him. Joab, though he had man\u0153uvred for his return, did not\ncome near him, and twice refused to visit him when summoned to do so.\nWith characteristic insolence the young man obtained an interview\nby ordering his servants to set fire to Joab's field of barley. By\nJoab's request the king once more saw Absalom, and, as the youth felt\nsure would be the case, raised him from the ground, kissed, forgave,\nand restored him to favour.\n\nFor the favour of his weakly-fond father he cared little; what he\nwanted was the throne. His proud beauty, his royal descent on both\nsides, fired his ambition. Eastern peoples are always ready to concede\npre-eminence to splendid men. This had helped to win the kingdom for\nstately Saul and ruddy David; for the Jews, like the Greeks, thought\nthat \"loveliness of person involves the blossoming promises of future\nexcellence, and is, as it were, a prelude of riper beauty.\"[70] It\nseemed intolerable to this prince in the zenith of glorious life that\nhe should be kept out of his royal inheritance by one whom he described\nas a useless dotard. By his personal fascination, and by base\nintrigues against David, founded on the king's imperfect fulfilment of\nhis duties as judge, \"he stole the hearts of the children of Israel.\"\nAfter four years[71] everything was ripe for revolt. He found that\nfor some unexplained reason the tribe of Judah and the old capital\nof Hebron were disaffected to David's rule. He got leave to visit\nHebron in pretended fulfilment of a vow, and so successfully raised\nthe standard of revolt that David, his family, and his followers had\nto fly hurriedly from Jerusalem with bare feet and cheeks bathed in\ntears along the road of the Perfumers. Of that long day of misery--to\nthe description of which more space is given in Scripture than to that\nof any other day except that of the Crucifixion--we need not speak,\nnor of the defeat of the rebellion. David was saved by the adhesion\nof his warrior-corps (the _Gibborim_) and his mercenaries (the Kr\u00eathi\nand Pl\u00eathi). Absalom's host was routed. He was in some strange way\nentangled in the branches of a tree as he fled on his mule through the\nforest of Rephaim.[72] As he hung helpless there, Joab, with needless\ncruelty, drove three wooden staves through his body in revenge for his\npast insolence, leaving his armour-bearer to despatch the miserable\nfugitive. To this day every Jewish child flings a contumelious stone\nat the pillar in the King's Dale, which bears the traditional name of\nDavid's Son, the beautiful and bad.[73]\n\nThe days which followed were thickly strewn with calamities for the\nrapidly ageing and heart-broken king. His helpless decline was yet to\nbe shaken by the attempted usurpation of another bad son.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[63] The same word is rendered \"worship\" in Psalm xlv. 11. Comp. 2\nSam. ix. 6; Esth. iii. 2-5. In 1 Chron. xxix. 20 we are told that the\npeople \"_worshipped_\" the Lord and the king.\n\n[64]\n\n          \"\u039c\u03b7\u03b4\u1f72 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c6\u03c9\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b7\u03bd\n           \u03a7\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u1f72\u03c2 \u03b2\u03cc\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1\u03bd\u1fc7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bc\u03bf\u03af.\"\n                                            \u00c6sch., _Agam._, 887.\n\n[65] Ecclus. xvi. 1-3. He must have had at least twenty sons, and at\nleast one daughter (2 Sam. iii. 1-5, v. 14-16; 1 Chron. iii. 1-9,\nxiv. 3-7). Josephus again (_Antt._, VII. iii. 3) has a different list.\n\n[66] _Kohanim._\n\n[67] From the fact that his son Eliada (2 Sam. v. 16) is called\nBeeliada (_i.e._, \"Baal knows\") in 1 Chron. xiv. 7, it is surely a\nprecarious inference that \"now and then he paid his homage to some\nBaal, perhaps to please one of his foreign wives\" (Van Oort, _Bible\nfor Young People_, iii. 84). The true explanation seems to be that at\none time Baal, \"Lord,\" was not regarded as an unauthorised title for\nJehovah. The fact that David once had _teraphim_ in his house (1 Sam.\nxix. 13, 16) shows that his advance in knowledge was gradual.\n\n[68] Chileab was either dead, or was of no significance.\n\n[69] 2 Sam. xiii. 39. \"The soul of king David longed to go forth unto\nAbsalom.\"\n\n[70] Max. Tyr., _Dissert._, 9 (Keil, _ad loc._).\n\n[71] In 2 Sam. xv. 7 we should certainly alter \"forty\" into four.\n\n[72] Rephaim seems a more probable reading than Ephraim in 2 Sam.\nxviii. 6; see Josh. xvii. 15, 18. Yet the name \"Ephraim\" may have\nbeen given to this transjordanic wood. The notion that he _hung by\nhis hair_ is only a conjecture, and not a probable one.\n\n[73] His three sons had pre-deceased him; his beautiful daughter\nTamar (2 Sam. xiv. 27) became the wife of Rehoboam. She is called\nMaachah in 1 Kings xv. 2, and the LXX. addition to 2 Sam. xiv. 27\nsays that she bore both names. The so-called tomb of Absalom in the\nValley of Hebron is of Asmon\u00e6an and Herodian origin.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER IX.\n\n                        _ADONIJAH'S REBELLION._\n\n                            1 KINGS i. 5-53.\n\n    \"The king's word hath power; and who may say unto him, What doest\n    thou?\"--ECCLES. viii. 4.\n\n\nThe fate of Amnon and of Absalom might have warned the son who was\nnow the eldest, and who had succeeded to their claims.\n\nAdonijah was the son of Haggith, \"the dancer.\" His father had piously\ngiven him the name, which means \"Jehovah is my Lord.\" He, too, was\n\"a very goodly man,\" treated by David with foolish indulgence, and\nhumoured in all his wishes. Although the rights of primogeniture\nwere ill-defined, a king's eldest son, endowed as Adonijah was,\nwould naturally be looked on as the heir; and Adonijah was impatient\nfor the great prize. Following the example of Absalom \"he exalted\nhimself, saying, I will be king,\" and, as an unmistakable sign of\nhis intentions, prepared for himself fifty runners with chariots and\nhorsemen.[74] David, unwarned by the past, or perhaps too ill and\nsecluded to be aware of what was going on, put no obstacle in his way.\nThe people in general were tired of David, though the spell of his\nname was still great. Adonijah's cause seemed safe when he had won over\nJoab, the commander of the forces, and Abiathar, the chief priest. But\nthe young man's precipitancy spoiled everything. David lingered on. It\nwas perhaps a palace-secret that a strong court-party was in favour\nof Solomon, and that David was inclined to leave his kingdom to this\nyounger son by his favourite wife. So Adonijah, once more imitating\nthe tactics of Absalom, prepared a great feast at the Dragon-stone by\nthe Fullers' Well, in the valley below Jerusalem.[75] He sacrificed\nsheep and fat oxen and cattle, and invited all the king's fifteen sons,\nomitting Solomon, from whom alone he had any rivalry to fear. To this\nfeast he also invited Joab and Abiathar, and all the men of Judah, the\nking's servants, by which are probably intended \"all the captains of\nthe host\" who formed the nucleus of the militia forces.[76] At this\nfeast Adonijah threw off the mask. In open rebellion against David, his\nfollowers shouted, \"God save king Adonijah!\"\n\nThe watchful eye of one man--the old prophet-statesman, Nathan--saw\nthe danger. Adonijah was thirty-five; Solomon was comparatively a\nchild. \"Solomon, my son,\" says David, \"is young and tender.\"[77]\nWhat his age was at the date of Adonijah's rebellion we do not know.\nJosephus says that he was only twelve, and this would well accord\nwith the fact that he seems to have taken no step on his own behalf,\nwhile Nathan and Bathsheba act for him. It accords less well with\nthe calm magnanimity and regal decisiveness which he displayed from\nthe first day that he was seated on the throne. The Greek proverb\nsays, \u1f08\u03c1\u03c7\u1f74 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u03ba\u03bd\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd, \"Power shows the man.\" Perhaps Solomon,\nhitherto concealed in the seclusion of the harem, was, up to this\ntime, ignorant of himself as well as unknown to the people. Being\nunaware of the boy's capacity, many were taken in by the more showy\ngifts of the handsome Adonijah, whose age might seem to promise\ngreater stability to the kingdom.\n\nBut Solomon from his birth upwards had been Nathan's special\ncharge.[78] No sooner had he been born than David had entrusted\nthe infant to the care of the man who had awakened his slumbering\nconscience to the heinousness of his offence, and had prophesied\nhis punishment in the death of the child of adultery. An oracle had\nforbidden him to build the Temple because his hands were stained with\nblood, but had promised him a son who should be a man of rest, and in\nwhose days Israel should have peace and quietness.[79] Long before,\nin Hebron, David, yearning for peace, had called his eldest son\nAbsalom (\"the father of peace\"). To the second son of Bathsheba, whom\nhe regarded as the heir of oracular promise, he gave the sounding\nname of Shel\u014dmoh (\"the Peaceful\").[80] But Nathan, perhaps with\nreference to David's own name of \"the Beloved,\" had called the child\nJedidiah (\"the beloved of Jehovah\").\n\nThe secret of his destiny was probably known to few, though it was\nevidently suspected by Adonijah. To have proclaimed it in a crowded\nharem would have been to expose the child to the perils of poison,\nand to have doomed him to certain death if one of his unruly brothers\nsucceeded in seizing the royal authority. The oath to Bathsheba that\nher son should succeed must have been a secret known at the time to\nNathan only. It is evident that David had never taken any step to\nsecure its fulfilment.\n\nThe crisis was one of extreme peril. Nathan was now old. He had\nperhaps sunk into the courtly complaisance which, content with one\nbold rebuke, ceased to deal faithfully with David. He had at any rate\nleft it to Gad the Seer to reprove him for numbering the people.\nNow, however, he rose to the occasion, and by a prompt _coup d'\u00e9tat_\ncaused the instant collapse of Adonijah's conspiracy.\n\nAdonijah had counted on the jealousy of the tribe of Judah, on the\nking's seclusion and waning popularity, on the support of \"all the\ncaptains of the host,\" on the acquiescence of all the other princes,\nand above all on the favour of the ecclesiastical and military power of\nthe kingdom as represented by Abiathar and Joab. To Solomon himself, as\nyet a shadowy figure and so much younger, he attached no importance.\nHe treated his aged father as a cipher, and Nathan as of no particular\naccount.[81] He overlooked the influence of Bathsheba, the prestige\nwhich attached to the nomination of a reigning king, and above all the\nresistance of the body-guard of mercenaries and their captain Benaiah.\n\nNathan had no sooner received tidings of what was going on at\nAdonijah's feast than he shook off his lethargy and hurried to\nBathsheba. She seems to have retained the same sort of influence over\nDavid that Madame de Maintenon exercised over the aged Louis XIV.\n\"Had she heard,\" asked Nathan, \"that Adonijah's coronation was going\non at that moment? Let her hurry to King David, and inquire whether\nhe had given any sanction to proceedings which contravened the oath\nwhich he had given her that her son Solomon should be his heir.\" As\nsoon as she had broken the intelligence to the king, he would come\nand confirm her words.[82]\n\nBathsheba did not lose a moment. She knew that if Adonijah's\nconspiracy succeeded her own life and that of her son might not\nbe worth a day's purchase. The helplessness of David's condition\nis shown by the fact that she had to make her way into \"the inner\nchamber\" to visit him. In violation of the immemorial etiquette of an\nEastern household, she spoke to him without being summoned, and in\nthe presence of another woman, Abishag, his fair young nurse. With\nprofound obeisances she entered, and told the poor old hero that\nAdonijah had practically usurped the throne, but that the eyes of all\nIsrael were awaiting his decision as to who should be his successor.\nShe asked whether he was really indifferent to the peril of herself\nand of Solomon, for Adonijah's success would mean their doom.[83]\n\nWhile she yet spoke Nathan was announced, as had been concerted\nbetween them, and he repeated the story of what was going on at\nAdonijah's feast. It is remarkable that he says nothing to David\neither about consulting the Urim, or in any way ascertaining the will\nof God. He and Bathsheba rely exclusively on four motives--David's\nrights of nomination, his promise, the danger to Solomon, and the\ncontempt shown in Adonijah's proceedings. \"The whole incident,\"\nsays Reuss, \"is swayed by the ordinary movements of passion and\ninterest.\"[84] The news woke in David a flash of his old energy. With\ninstant decision he summoned Bathsheba, who, as custom required,\nhad left the chamber when Nathan entered. Using his strong and\nfavourite adjuration, \"As the Lord liveth, that hath redeemed my\nsoul out of all distress,\"[85] he pledged himself to carry out that\nvery day the oath that Solomon should be his heir. She bowed her\nface to the earth in adoration with the words, \"Let my lord, King\nDavid, live for ever.\" He then summoned Zadok, the second priest,\nNathan, and Benaiah, and told them what to do. They were to take the\nbody-guard[86] which was under Benaiah's command, to place Solomon on\nthe king's own she-mule[87] (which was regarded as the highest honour\nof all honours), to conduct him down the Valley of Jehoshaphat to\nGihon,[88] where the pool would furnish the water for the customary\nablutions, to anoint him king, and then to blow the consecrated ram's\nhorn (_shophar_)[89] with the shout, \"God save King Solomon!\" After\nthis the boy was to be seated on the throne, and proclaimed ruler\nover Israel and Judah.\n\nBenaiah was one of David's twelve chosen captains, who was placed\nat the head of one of the monthly courses of 24,000 soldiers in the\nthird month. The chronicler calls him a priest.[90] His available\nforces made him master of the situation, and he joyfully accepted\nthe commission with, \"Amen! So may Jehovah say!\" and with the prayer\nthat the throne of Solomon might be even greater than the throne\nof David. Joab was commander-in-chief of the army, but his forces\nhad not been summoned or mobilised. Accustomed to a bygone state\nof things he had failed to observe that Benaiah's palace-regiment\nof six hundred picked men could strike a blow long before he was\nready for action. These guards were the Kr\u00eathi and Pl\u00eathi,[91]\n\"executioners and runners,\" perhaps an alien body of faithful\nmercenaries originally composed of Cretans and Philistines. They\nformed a compact body of defenders, always prepared for action. They\nresemble the Germans of the Roman Emperors, the Turkish Janissaries,\nthe Egyptian Mamelukes, the Byzantian Varangians, or the Swiss Guard\nof the Bourbons. Their one duty was to be ready at a moment's notice\nto carry out the king's behests. Such a picked regiment has often\nheld in its hands the prerogative of Empire. They were, originally at\nany rate, identical with the _Gibborim_,[92] and had been at first\ncommanded by men who had earned rank by personal prowess. But for\ntheir intervention on this occasion Adonijah would have become king.\n\nWhile Adonijah's followers were wasting time over their turbulent\nbanquet, the younger court-party were carrying out the unexpectedly\nvigorous suggestions of the aged king. While the eastern hills\nechoed with \"Long live King Adonijah!\" the western hills resounded\nwith shouts of \"Long live King Solomon!\" The young Solomon had been\nceremoniously mounted on the king's mule, and the procession had gone\ndown to Gihon. There, with the solemnity which is only mentioned in\ncases of disputed succession,[93] Nathan the prophet and Zadok as\npriest anointed the son of Bathsheba with the horn of perfumed oil\nwhich the latter had taken from the sacred tent at Zion.[94] These\nmeasures had been neglected by Adonijah's party in the precipitation\nof their plot, and they were regarded as of the utmost importance, as\nthey are in Persia to this day.[95] Then the trumpets blew, and the\nvast crowd which had assembled shouted, \"God save King Solomon!\" The\npeople broke into acclamations, and danced, and played on pipes, and\nthe earth rang again with the mighty sound.[96] Adonijah had fancied,\nand he subsequently asserted, that \"all Israel set their faces on\nme that I should reign.\" But his vanity had misled him. Many of the\npeople may have seen through his shallow character, and may have\ndreaded the rule of such a king. Others were still attached to David,\nand were prepared to accept his choice. Others were struck with the\ngrave bearing and the youthful beauty of the son of Bathsheba. The\nmultitude were probably opportunists ready to shout with the winner\nwhoever he might be.\n\nThe old warrior Joab, perhaps less dazed with wine and enthusiasm\nthan the other guests of Adonijah, was the first to catch the sound\nof the trumpet blasts and of the general rejoicing, and to portend\nits significance. As he started up in surprise the guests caught\nsight of Jonathan, son of Abiathar, a swift-footed priest who had\nacted as a spy for David in Jerusalem at Absalom's rebellion,[97] but\nwho now, like his father Abiathar and so many of his betters, had\ngone over to Adonijah. The prince welcomed him as a \"man of worth,\"\none who was sure to bring tidings of good omen;[98] but Jonathan\nburst out with, \"Nay, but our Lord king David hath made Solomon\nking.\" He does not seem to have been in a hurry to bring this fatal\nintelligence; for he had not only waited until the entire ceremony\nat Gihon was over, but to the close of the enthronisation of Solomon\nin Jerusalem.[99] He had seen the young king seated on the throne of\nstate in the midst of the jubilant people. David had been carried\nout upon his couch, and, bowing his head in worship before the\nmultitude, had said, \"Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, which hath\ngiven one to sit on my throne this day, mine eyes even seeing it.\"\n\nThis intelligence fell like a thunderbolt among Adonijah's unprepared\nadherents. A general flight took place, each man being only eager to\nsave himself. The straw fire of their enthusiasm had already flared\nitself away. Deserted by every one, and fearing to pay the forfeit\nof his life, Adonijah fled to the nearest sanctuary, where the Ark\nstood on Mount Zion under the care of his supporter the high priest\nAbiathar.[100] There he caught hold of the horns of the altar--wooden\nprojections at each of its corners, overlaid with brass. When a\nsacrifice was offered the animal was tied to these horns of the\naltar,[101] and they were smeared with the victim's blood just as\nin after days the propitiatory was sprinkled with the blood of the\nbull and the goat on the Great Day of Atonement. The mercy-seat thus\nbecame a symbol of atonement, and an appeal to God that He would\nforgive the sinful priest and the sinful nation who came before Him\nwith the blood of expiation. The mercy-seat would have furnished an\ninviolable sanctuary had it not been enclosed in the Holiest Place,\nunapproachable by any feet but that of the high priest once a year.\nThe horns of the altar were, however, available for refuge to any\noffender, and their protection involved an appeal to the mercy of man\nas to the mercy of God.[102]\n\nThere in wretched plight clung the fallen prince, hurled down in one\nday from the summit of his ambition. He refused to leave the spot\nunless King Solomon would first of all swear that he would not slay\nhis servant with the sword.[103] Adonijah saw that all was over with\nhis cause. \"God,\" says the Portuguese proverb, \"can write straight on\ncrooked lines;\" and as is so often the case, the crisis which brought\nabout His will was the immediate result of an endeavour to defeat it.\n\nSolomon was not one of those Eastern princes who\n\n          \"Bear like the Turk no brother near the throne.\"\n\nMany an Eastern king has begun his reign as Baasha, Jehu, and\nAthaliah did, by the exile, imprisonment, or execution of every\npossible rival. Adonijah, caught red-handed in an attempt at\nrebellion, might have been left with some show of justice to starve\nat the horns of the altar, or to leave his refuge and face the\npenalty due to crime. But Solomon, unregarded and unknown as he had\nhitherto been, rose at once to the requirements of his new position,\nand magnanimously promised his brother a complete amnesty[104] so\nlong as he remained faithful to his allegiance. Adonijah descended\nthe steps of the altar, and having made sacred obeisance to his new\nsovereign[105] was dismissed with the laconic order, \"Go to thine\nhouse.\" If, as some have conjectured, Adonijah had once urged on his\nfather the condign punishment of Absalom, he might well congratulate\nhimself on receiving pardon.[106]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[74] Morier tells us that in Persia \"runners\" before the king's\nhorses are an indispensable adjunct of his state.\n\n[75] The Stone of Zoheleth, probably a sacred stone--one of the\nnumerous isolated rocks of Palestine; is not mentioned elsewhere.\nThe Fuller's Fountain is mentioned in Josh. xv. 7, xviii. 16; 2 Sam.\nxvii. 17. It was south-east of Jerusalem, and is perhaps identical\nwith \"Job's Fountain,\" where the wadies of Kedron and Hinnom meet\n(_Palestine Exploration Fund_, 1874, p. 80).\n\n[76] Comp. 1 Kings i. 9-25.\n\n[77] The same phrase is used of Rehoboam (2 Chron. xii. 13, xiii. 7)\nwhen he was twenty-one, reading \u05db\u05d0 for \u05de\u05d0, forty-one.\n\n[78] 2 Sam. xii. 25: \"And he sent by the hand of Nathan, the prophet;\nhe called his name Jedidiah, because of the Lord\" (A.V.). The verse\nis somewhat obscure. It either means that David sent the child to\nNathan to be brought up under his guardianship, or sent Nathan to ask\nof the oracle the favour of some well-omened name (Ewald, iii. 168).\nNathan was perhaps akin to David. The Rabbis absurdly identify him\nwith Jonathan (1 Chron. xxvii. 32; 2 Sam. xxi. 21), nephew of David,\nson of Shimmeah.\n\n[79] 1 Chron. xxii. 6-9.\n\n[80] LXX., \u03a3\u03b1\u03bb\u03c9\u03bc\u03ce\u03bd, and in Ecclus. xlvii. 13. Comp. Shel\u014dmith (Lev.\nxxiv. 11), Shel\u014dmi (Num. xxxiv. 27). But it became \u03a3\u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd in the New\nTestament, Josephus, the Sibylline verses, etc. The long vowel is\nretained in Sal\u014dme and in the Arabic S\u016bleyman, etc.\n\n[81] Among Solomon's adherents are mentioned \"Shimei and Rei\" (1 Kings\ni. 8), whom Ewald supposes to stand for two of David's brothers, Shimma\nand Raddai, and Stade to be two officers of the Gibborim. Thenius\nadopts a reading partly suggested by Josephus, \"Hushai, the friend of\nDavid.\" Others identify Rei with Ira; a Shimei, the son of Elah, is\nmentioned among Solomon's governors (_Nitzabim_, 1 Kings iv. 18); and\nthere was a Shimei of Ramah over David's vineyards (1 Chron. xxvii.\n27). The name was common, and meant \"famous.\"\n\n[82] Duncker, Meyer, Wellhausen, Stade, regard Solomon's accession\nas due to a mere palace intrigue of Nathan and Bathsheba, and\nDavid's dying injunctions as only intended to excuse Solomon. They\ntreat 1 Kings ii. 1-12 as a Deuteronomic interpolation. Dillmann,\nKittel, Kuenen, Budde, rightly reject this view. Stade says, \"Nach\nmenschlichen Gef\u00fchl, ein Unrecht war die Salbung Salomos.\" He thinks\nthat \"the aged David was over-influenced by the intrigues of the\nharem and the court\" (i. 292).\n\n[83] She said that they would be counted as \"offenders\" (_chattaim_)\nComp. 1 Kings i. 12, where Nathan assumes that they will both be put\nto death. Thus Cassander put to death Roxana, the widow of Alexander\nthe Great, and her son Alexander (Justin., xv. 2).\n\n[84] Reuss, _Hist. des Israelites_, i. 409.\n\n[85] Comp. 2 Sam. iv. 9; Psalm xix. 14.\n\n[86] \"The servants of your Lord.\" Comp. 2 Sam. xx. 6, 7.\n\n[87] Comp. Gen. xli. 43; 1 Kings i. 33; Esth. vi. 8.\n\n[88] 2 Chron. xxxii. 30, xxxiii. 14. It was apparently \"the Virgin's\nFountain,\" east of Jerusalem, in the Valley of Jehoshaphat.\n\n[89] Comp. 2 Kings ix. 13.\n\n[90] 1 Chron. xxvii. 5, where the true rendering is not \"Benaiah the\nchief priest,\" as in A.V., nor \"principal officer,\" as in the margin:\nbut \"Benaiah the priest, as chief.\"\n\n[91] 1 Sam. xxx. 14; Josephus, \u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c6\u03cd\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03c2. The Targum calls them\n\"archers and slingers\" (which is unlikely), or \"nobles and common\nsoldiers.\" This body-guard is also said to be composed of Gittites (2\nSam. xv. 18, xviii. 2); but some suppose that they were so called not\nby nationality, but because they had served under David at Gath. The\nquestion is further complicated by the appearance of \"Carians\" (A.V.,\ncaptains) in 2 Kings xi. 4, 15, and also in 2 Sam. xx. 23 (Heb.). The\nCarians were universal mercenaries (Herod., ii. 152; Liv., xxxvii.\n40). That there was an early intercourse between Palestine and the\nWest is shown by the fact that such words as peribolory, machaera,\nmacaina, lesche, pellex, have found their way into Hebrew (see Renan,\n_Hist. du Peuple Israel_, ii. 33).\n\n[92] 2 Sam. xxiii. 8-39; 1 Chron. xi. 10-47; 1 Kings i. 8. The Gibborim\nare by some supposed to be a different body from the Kr\u00eathi and Pl\u00eathi\n(2 Sam. xv. 18, xx. 7); but from 1 Kings i. 8, 10, 38 they seem to be\nthe same (Stade, i. 275). The thirty heroes at their head furnish, as\nRenan says, the first germ of a sort of \"Legion of Honour.\"\n\n[93] Saul (1 Sam. x. 1), David (1 Sam. xvi. 13, and twice afterwards, 2\nSam. ii. 4, v. 3), Jehu (1 Kings xix. 16), Joash (2 Chron. xxiii. 11).\n\n[94] 1 Kings i. 39. \"Tent,\" not \"tabernacle,\" as in A.V. It has\ngenerally been supposed that Zadok took it from the tabernacle at\nGibeon (1 Chron. xvi. 39), but there would have been no time to send\nso far. Zadok is called a \"Seer\" in the A.V. (2 Sam. xv. 27); but the\ntrue version may be \"Seeth thou?\" The LXX. and Vulgate omit the words.\n\n[95] Morier, quoted by Stanley, p. 172, says that the Mustched, or\nchief priest, and the Munajem, or prophet, are always present at a\nPersian coronation.\n\n[96] LXX., \u1f10\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03ac\u03b3\u03b7, \u1f24\u03c7\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd; Vulg., insonuit. Comp. Josephus, _Antt._,\nVII. xiv. 3, 5.\n\n[97] 2 Sam. xv. 27, xvii. 17.\n\n[98] 2 Sam. xviii. 27. Heb., \u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1\u05d7\u05b7\u05d9; LXX., \u1f00\u03bd\u1f74\u03c1 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2; Vulg.,\nvir fortis. It is rather \"virtuous,\" as in Prov. xii. 4.\n\n[99] It is true that Solomon's adherents had wasted no time over a\nfeast.\n\n[100] 1 Kings i. 50.\n\n[101] Psalm cxviii. 27, and Exod. xxvii. 2 ff., xxix. 12, xxx. 10.\nComp. Exod. xxi. 14.\n\n[102] Exod. xxi. 14. It protected the homicide, but not the wilful\nmurderer.\n\n[103] 1 Kings i. 51. The words \"this day\" should be \"first of all,\"\n_i.e._, before I leave the sanctuary. Many must have been reminded of\nthis scene when Eutropius, the eunuch-minister of Arcadius, under the\nprotection of St. Chrysostom, cowered in front of the high altar at\nConstantinople.\n\n[104] \"There shall not a hair of him fall.\" Comp. 1 Sam. xiv. 45; 2\nSam. xiv. 11.\n\n[105] \"Bowed himself.\" Comp. 1 Kings i. 47.\n\n[106] Gr\u00e4tz, i. 138 (E. T.).\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER X.\n\n                          _DAVID'S DEATH-BED._\n\n                           1 KINGS ii. 1-11.\n\n    \"Omnibus idem exitus est, sed et idem domicilium.\"--PETRON.,\n    _Satyr._\n\n\nIn the Book of Samuel we have the last words of David in the form of\na brief and vivid psalm, of which the leading principle is, \"He that\nruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.\" A king's\njustice must be shown alike in his gracious influence upon the good and\nhis stern justice to the wicked. The worthless sons of Belial are, he\nsays, \"to be beaten down like thorns with spear-shafts and iron.\"[107]\n\nThe same principle dominates in the charge which he gave to Solomon,\nperhaps after the magnificent public inauguration of his reign\ndescribed in 1 Chron. xxviii., xxix. He bade his young son to\nshow himself a man, and be rigidly faithful to the law of Moses,\nearning thereby the prosperity which would never fail to attend true\nrighteousness.[108] Thus would the promise to David--\"There shall\nnot fail thee a man on the throne of Israel\"--be continued in the\ntime of Solomon.\n\nWith our Western and Christian views of morality we should have\nrejoiced if David's charge to his son had ended there. It is painful\nto us to read that his last injunctions bore upon the punishment of\nJoab who had so long fought for him, and of Shimei whom he had publicly\npardoned. Between these two stern injunctions came the request that he\nwould show kindness to the sons of Barzillai,[109] the old Gileadite\nsheykh who had extended such conspicuous hospitality to himself and\nhis weary followers when they crossed the Jordan in their flight from\nAbsalom. But the last words of David, as here recorded, are: \"his\n(Shimei's) hoar head bring thou down to the grave with blood.\"[110]\n\nIn these avenging behests there was nothing which was regarded as\nunnatural, nothing that would have shocked the conscience of the\nage. The fact that they are recorded without blame by an admiring\nhistoriographer shows that we are reading the annals of times of\nignorance which God \"winked at.\" They belong to the era of imperfect\nmoral development, when it was said to them of old time, \"Thou\nshalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy,\" and men had not\nfully learnt the lesson, \"Vengeance is Mine; I will repay, saith\nthe Lord.\" We must discriminate between the _vitia temporis_ and\nthe _vitia hominis_. David was trained in the old traditions of\nthe \"avenger of blood\"; and we cannot be astonished, though we may\ngreatly regret, that his standard was indefinitely below that of\nthe Sermon on the Mount. He may have been concerned for the safety\nof his son, but to us it must remain a proof of his imperfect moral\nattainments that he bade Solomon look out for pretexts to \"smite the\nhoary head of inveterate wickedness,\" and use his wisdom not to let\nthe two offenders go down to the grave in peace.\n\nThe character of Joab furnishes us with a singular study. He,\nAbishai, and Asahel were the brave, impetuous sons of Zeruiah, the\nsister or half-sister of David. They were about his own age, and it\nis not impossible that they were the grandsons of Nahash, King of\nAmmon.[111] In the days of Saul they had embraced the cause of David,\nheart and soul. They had endured all the hardships and fought through\nall the struggles of his freebooting days. Asahel, the youngest, had\nbeen in the front rank of his _Gibborim_, and his foot was fleet as\nthat of a gazelle upon the mountain. Abishai had been one of the\nthree who, with jeopardy of their lives, had burst their way to\nBethlehem when David longed to drink of the water of its well beside\nthe gate. He had also, on one occasion, saved David's life from the\ngiant Ishbi of Gath, and had slain three hundred Philistines with his\nspear. His zeal was always ready to flash into action in his uncle's\ncause. Joab had been David's commander-in-chief for forty years. It\nwas Joab who had conquered the Ammonites and Moabites and stormed\nthe City of Waters. It was Joab who, at David's bare request, had\nbrought about the murder of Uriah. It was Joab who, after wise but\nfruitless remonstrance, had been forced to number the people. But\nDavid had never liked these rough imperious soldiers, whose ways\nwere not his ways. From the first he was unable to cope with them,\nor keep them in order. In the early days they had treated him with\nrude familiarity, though in late years they, too, were obliged to\napproach him with all the forms of Eastern servility. But ever since\nthe murder of Uriah, Joab knew that David's reputation and David's\nthrone were in his hand. Joab himself had been guilty of two wild\nacts of vengeance for which he would have offered some defence, and\nof one atrocious crime. His murder of the princely Abner, the son of\nNer, might have been excused as the duty of an avenger of blood, for\nAbner, with one back-thrust of his mighty spear, had killed the young\nAsahel, after the vain warning to desist from pursuing him. Abner had\nonly killed Asahel in self-defence; but, jealous of Abner's power as\nthe cousin of King Saul, the husband of Rizpah, and the commander of\nthe northern army, Joab, after bluntly rebuking David for receiving\nhim, had without hesitation deluded Abner back to Hebron by a false\nmessage and treacherously murdered him. Even at that early period of\nhis reign David was either unable or unwilling to punish the outrage,\nthough he ostentatiously deplored it.\n\nDoubtless in slaying Absalom, in spite of the king's entreaty, Joab\nhad inflicted an agonising wound on the pride and tenderness of his\nmaster. But Absalom was in open rebellion, and Joab may have held that\nDavid's probable pardon of the beautiful rebel would be both weak and\nfatal. This death was inflicted in a manner needlessly cruel, but might\nhave been excused as a death inflicted on the battle-field, though\nprobably Joab had many an old grudge to pay off besides the burning\nof his barley field. After Absalom's rebellion David foolishly and\nunjustly offered the commandership of the army to his nephew Amasa.\nAmasa was the son of his sister Abigail by an Ishmaelite father, named\nJether.[112] Joab simply would not tolerate being superseded in the\ncommand which he had earned by lifelong and perilous services. With\ndeadly treachery, in which men have seen the antitype of the world's\nworst crime, Joab invited his kinsman to embrace him, and drove his\nsword into his bowels. David had heard, or perhaps had seen, the\nrevolting spectacle which Joab presented, with the blood of war shed\nin peace, dyeing his girdle and streaming down to his shoes with its\nhorrible crimson. Yet, even by that act, Joab had once more saved\nDavid's tottering throne. The Benjamite Sheba, son of Bichri, was\nmaking head in a terrible revolt, in which he had largely enlisted the\nsympathy of the northern tribes, offended by the overbearing fierceness\nof the men of Judah. Amasa had been either incompetent or half-hearted\nin suppressing this dangerous rising. It had only collapsed when the\narmy welcomed back the strong hand of Joab. But whatever had been\nthe crimes of Joab they had been condoned. David, on more than one\noccasion, had helplessly cried, \"What have I to do with you, ye sons of\nZeruiah?\" \"I am this day weak though anointed king, and these men, the\nsons of Zeruiah, are too hard for me.\" But he had done nothing, and,\nwhether with or against his will, they continued to hold their offices\nnear his person. David did not remind Solomon of the murder of Absalom,\nnor of the words of menace--words as bold as any subject ever uttered\nto his sovereign--with which Joab had imperiously hushed his wail over\nhis worthless son. Those words had openly warned the king that, if he\ndid not alter his line of conduct, he should be king no more. They were\nan insult which no king could pardon, even if he were powerless to\navenge. But Joab, like David himself, was now an old man. The events\nof the last few days had shown that his power and influence were gone.\nHe may have had something to fear from Bathsheba as the wife of Uriah\nand the granddaughter of Ahithophel; but his adhesion to the cause of\nAdonijah had doubtless been chiefly due to jealousy of the ever-growing\ninfluence of the priestly soldier Benaiah, son of Jehoiada, who had so\nevidently superseded him in his master's favour. However that may be,\nthe historian faithfully records that David, on his death-bed, neither\nforgot nor forgave; and all that we can say is, that it would be unfair\nto judge him by modern or by Christian principles of conduct.\n\nThe other victim whose doom was bequeathed to the new king was\nShimei, the son of Gera. He had cursed David at Bahurim on the day\nof his flight, and in the hour of his extremest humiliation. He had\nwalked on the opposite side of the valley, flinging stones and dust\nat David,[113] cursing him with a grievous curse as a man of Belial\nand a man of blood, and telling him that the loss of his kingdom\nwas the retribution which had fallen upon him for the blood of the\nHouse of Saul which he had shed. So grievous was the trial of these\ninsults that the place where the king and his people rested that\nnight received the pathetic name of _Ayephim_, \"the place of the\nweary.\"[114] For this conduct Shimei might have pleaded the pent-up\nanimosities of the House of Saul, which had been stripped by David\nof all its honours, and of which poor lame Mephibosheth was the only\nscion left, after David had impaled Saul's seven sons and grandsons\nin human sacrifice at the demand of the Gibeonites. Abishai,\nindignant at Shimei's conduct, had said, \"Why should this dead dog\ncurse my lord the king?\" and had offered, then and there, to cross\nthe valley and take his head. But David rebuked his generous wrath,\nand when Shimei came out to meet him on his return with expressions\nof penitence, David not only promised but swore that he should not\ndie. No further danger surely could be anticipated from the ruined\nand humiliated House of Saul; yet David bade Solomon to find some\nexcuse for putting Shimei to death.\n\nHow are we to deal with sins which are recorded of God's olden saints\non the sacred page, and recorded without a word of blame?\n\nClearly we must avoid two errors--the one of injustice, the other of\ndishonesty.\n\n1. On the one hand, as we have said, we must not judge Abraham,\nor Jacob, or Gideon, or Jael, or David, as though they were\nnineteenth-century Christians. Christ Himself taught us that some\nthings inherently undesirable were yet permitted in old days because\nof the hardness of men's hearts; and that the moral standards of the\ndays of ignorance were tolerated in all their imperfection until men\nwere able to judge of their own deeds in a purer light. \"The times\nof ignorance God overlooked,\" says St. Paul, \"but now He commandeth\nmen that they should all everywhere repent.\"[115] \"Ye have heard that\nit was said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.\nBut _I say unto you, Love your enemies_,\" said our Lord.[116] When\nBayle and Tindal and many others declaim against \"the immorality\nof the Bible\" they are unfair in a high degree. They pass judgment\non men who had been trained from infancy in opinions and customs\nwholly unlike our own, and whose conscience would not be wounded by\nmany things which we have been rightly taught to regard as evil.\nThey apply the enlightenment of two millenniums of Christianity\nto criticise the more rudimentary conditions of life a millennium\nbefore Christ. The wild justice inflicted by an avenger of blood, the\nrude atrocity of the _lex talionis_, are rightly abhorrent to us in\ndays of civilisation and settled law: they were the only available\nmeans of restraining crime in unsettled times and half-civilised\ncommunities. In his final injunctions about his enemies, whom he\nmight have dreaded as enemies too formidable for his son to keep in\nsubjection, David may have followed the view of his day that his\nformer condonations had only been co-extensive with his own life,\nand that the claims of justice _ought_ to be satisfied.[117]\n\n2. But while we admit every palliation, and endeavour to judge\njustly, we must not fall into the conventionality of representing\nDavid's unforgiving severity as otherwise than reprehensible _in\nitself_. Attempts to gloss over moral wrong-doing, to represent it\nas blameless, to invent supposed Divine sanctions and intuitions\nin defence of it, can but weaken the eternal claims of the law\nof righteousness. The rule of right is inflexible: it is not a\nleaden rule which can be twisted into any shape we like. A crime\nis none the less a crime though a saint commits it; and imperfect\nconceptions of the high claims of the moral law, as Christ expounded\nits Divine significance, do not cease to be imperfect though they\nmay be sometimes recorded without comment on the page of Scripture.\nNo religious opinion can be more fatal to true religion than that\nwrong can, under any circumstances, become right, or that we may do\nevil that good may come. Because an act is relatively pardonable, it\ndoes not follow that it is not absolutely wrong. If it be dangerous\nto judge the essential morality of any earlier passage of Scripture\nby the ultimate laws which Scripture itself has taught us, it is\ninfinitely more dangerous, and essentially Jesuitical, to explain\naway misdeeds as though, under any circumstances, they could be\npleasing to God or worthy of a saint. The total omission of David's\ninjunctions and of the sanguinary episodes of their fulfilment by\nthe author of the Books of Chronicles, indicates that, in later\ndays, they were thought derogatory to the pure fame both of the\nwarrior-king and of his peaceful son.\n\nDavid slept with his fathers, and passed before that bar where\nall is judged of truly. His life is an April day, half sunshine\nand half gloom. His sins were great, but his penitence was deep,\nlifelong, and sincere. He gave occasion for the enemies of God to\nblaspheme, but he also taught all who love God to praise and pray.\nIf his record contains some dark passages, and his character shows\nmany inconsistencies, we can never forget his courage, his flashes\nof nobleness, his intense spirituality whenever he was true to his\nbetter self. His name is a beacon-light of warning against the\nglamour and strength of evil passions. But he showed us also what\nrepentance can do, and we are sure that his sins were forgiven him\nbecause he turned away from his wickedness. \"The sacrifices of God\nare a troubled spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou\nwilt not despise.\" \"I go the way of all the earth,\" said David. \"In\nlife,\" says Calmet, \"each one has his particular route: one applies\nto one thing, another to another. But in the way to death they are\nall re-united. They go to the tomb by one path.\"[118]\n\nDavid was buried in his own city--the stronghold of Zion; and his\nsepulchre--on the south part of Ophel, near the pool of Siloam--was\nstill pointed out a thousand years later in the days of Christ.[119] As\na poet who had given to the people splendid specimens of lyric songs;\nas a warrior who had inspired their youth with dauntless courage; as a\nking who had made Israel a united nation with an impregnable capital,\nand had uplifted it from insignificance into importance; as the man\nin whose family the distinctive Messianic hopes of the Hebrews were\ncentred, he must remain to the end of time the most remarkable and\ninteresting figure in the long annals of the Old Dispensation.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[107] 2 Sam. xxiii. 1-7. It is no part of my duty here to enter into\nthe extent of David's share in the Psalms; but I think that it is an\nexaggerated inference (of Wellhausen and others) from Amos vi. 5, 6\nto suppose that he only wrote festal and warlike songs.\n\n[108] Apparently an allusion to Deut. xvii. 18-20. We read of no such\nexhortation having been addressed to Saul, or to David.\n\n[109] Chimham accompanied David to Jerusalem (2 Sam. xvii. 27, xix.\n37-40), and perhaps inherited his property at Bethlehem, where he\nfounded the Khan (Jer. xli. 17), in the cavern stable of which it may\nbe that Christ was born.\n\n[110] Wellhausen, Stade, and others venture on the conjecture that\nDavid never gave these injunctions at all, but that they were\ninvented afterwards to excuse Solomon for his acts of severity\ntowards Adonijah's conspirators. I cannot see any valid ground for\nsuch arbitrary re-writing of the history. Shimei had taken no part in\nAdonijah's rebellion.\n\n[111] Zeruiah was \"a sister of the sons of Jesse\" (1 Chron. ii. 16),\nand was therefore a sister of Abigail, mother of Amasa; but she is\ncalled \"the daughter of _Nahash_\" (2 Sam. xvii. 25).\n\n[112] 1 Chron. ii. 17. \"Jether (_i.e._, Jethro, 'pre-eminence')\nthe Ishmaelite\" has been altered in 2 Sam. xvii. 25 into Ithra, an\n_Israelite_ (see 2 Sam. xix. 13). The way in which names have been\ntampered with is an interesting study, and often conceals Masoretic\nsecrets.\n\n[113] David's enemies thought but little of the fact that David had\nspared Mephibosheth. They may have supposed that David spared him,\nnot only because he was the son of the beloved Jonathan, but because\nbeing lame he could never become king. David's relations to him do\nnot seem to have been very cordial.\n\n[114] 2 Sam. xvi. 14 (Heb.). For Bahurim, see 2 Sam. xvi. 5, xvii. 18.\n\n[115] Acts xvii. 30.\n\n[116] Matt. v. 43, 44.\n\n[117] There is something analogous to protection _granted only for a\nlifetime_ in the fact that the homicide at a refuge city could not be\nslain there while the high priest lived. See Num. xxxv. 28.\n\n[118] Comp. Josh. xxiii. 14; Keil, _ad loc._\n\n[119] Acts ii. 29. Josephus says that both Hyrcanus and Herod\nopened it to find the treasures which legend asserted to have been\nburied there (_Antt._, VII. xv. 3. Comp. XIII. viii. 4, XVI. vii.).\nThe kings alone were buried in Jerusalem; but legend says that an\nexception was made in favour of Huldah the prophetess.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XI.\n\n                          _AVENGING JUSTICE._\n\n                           1 KINGS ii. 13-46.\n\n    \"The wrath of a king is as messengers of death.\"--PROV. xvi. 14.\n\n\nThe reign of Solomon began with a threefold deed of blood. An Eastern\nking, surrounded by the many princes of a polygamous family, and\nliable to endless jealousies and plots, is always in a condition of\nunstable equilibrium; the _death_ of a rival is regarded as his only\nsafe imprisonment.[120] On the other hand, it must be remembered that\nSolomon allowed his other brethren and kinsmen to live; and, in point\nof fact, his younger brother Nathan became the ancestor of the Divine\nMessiah of his race.[121]\n\nIt was the restless ambition of Adonijah which again brought down\nan avalanche of ruin. He and his adherents were necessarily under\nthe cold shadow of royal disfavour, and they must have known that\nthey had sinned too deeply to be forgiven. They felt the position\nintolerable. \"In the light of the king's countenance is life, and\nhis favour is as a cloud of the latter rain\"; but Adonijah, in the\nprime of strength and the heyday of passion, beautiful and strong,\nand once the favourite of his father, could not forget the banquet\nat which all the princes and nobles and soldiers had shouted, \"Long\nlive King Adonijah!\" That the royalty of one delirious day should be\nsucceeded by the dull and suspected obscurity of dreary years was\nmore than he could endure, if, by any possible subtlety or force,\nhe could avert a doom so unlike his former golden dreams. Was not\nSolomon at least ten or fifteen years younger than himself? Was not\nhis seat on the throne of his kingdom still insecure? Were not his\nown followers powerful and numerous?\n\nPerhaps one of those followers--the experienced Joab, or Jonathan,\nson of Abiathar--whispered to him that he need not yet acquiesce in\nthe ruin of his hopes, and suggested a subtle method of strengthening\nhis cause, and keeping his claim before the eyes of the people.\n\nEvery one knew that Abishag, the fair damsel of Shunem, the ideal\nof Hebrew maidenhood, was the loveliest virgin who could be found\nthroughout all the land of Israel. Had she been in the strict sense\nDavid's wife or concubine, it would have been regarded as a deadly\ncontravention of the Mosaic law that she should be wedded to one of\nher stepsons. But as she had only been David's nurse, what could be\nmore suitable than that so bright a maiden should be united to the\nhandsome prince?\n\nIt was understood in all Eastern monarchies that the harem of a\npredecessor belonged to the succeeding sovereign. The first thing that\na rival or a usurper aimed at was to win the prestige of possessing the\nwives of the royal house. Nathan reminds David that the Lord had given\nhis master's wives into his bosom.[122] Ishbosheth, weak as he was,\nhad been stung into indignation against his general and great-uncle\nthe mighty Abner, because Abner had taken Rizpah, the daughter of\nAiah, Saul's concubine, to wife, which looked like a dangerously\nambitious encroachment upon the royal prerogative. Absalom, by the\nvile counsel of Ahithophel, had openly taken possession of the ten\nconcubines whom his father, in his flight from Jerusalem, had left in\ncharge of the palace. The pseudo-Smerdis, when he revolted against the\nabsent Cambyses, at once seized his seraglio.[123] It is noted even in\nour English history that the relations between the Earl of Mortimer\nand Queen Isabella involved danger to the kingdom; and when Admiral\nSeymour married Queen Catharine Parr, widow of Henry VIII., he at once\nentered into treasonable conspiracies. Adonijah knew well that he would\npowerfully further his ulterior purpose if he could secure the hand of\nthe lovely Shunamite.\n\nYet he feared to make the request to Solomon, who had already\ninspired him with wholesome awe. With pretended simplicity he\nsought the intercession of the _Gebira_ Bathsheba, who, being the\nqueen-mother, exercised great influence as the first lady of the\nland.[124] She it was who had placed the jewelled bridal crown with\nher own hand on the head of her young son.[125]\n\nAlarmed at his visit she asked, \"Comest thou peaceably?\" He came,\nhe humbly assured her, to ask a favour. Might she not think of his\ncase with a little pity? He was the elder son; the kingdom by right\nof primogeniture was his; all Israel, so he flattered himself, had\nwished for his accession. But it had all been in vain, Jehovah had\ngiven the kingdom to his brother. Might he not be allowed some small\nconsolation, some little accession to his dignity? at least some\nlittle source of happiness in his home?\n\nFlattered by his humility and his appeal, Bathsheba encouraged him to\nproceed, and he begged that, as Solomon would refuse no request to\nhis mother, would she ask that Abishag might be his wife?\n\nWith extraordinary lack of insight, Bathsheba, ambitious as she was,\nfailed to see the subtle significance of the request, and promised to\npresent his petition.\n\nShe went to Solomon, who immediately rose to meet her, and seated\nher with all honour on a throne at his right hand.[126] She had only\ncome, she said, to ask \"a small petition.\"\n\n\"Ask on, my mother,\" said the king tenderly, \"for I will not say thee\nnay.\"\n\nBut no sooner had she mentioned the \"small petition\" than Solomon burst\ninto a flame of fury. \"Why did she not ask for the kingdom for Adonijah\nat once? He was the elder. He had the chief priest and the chief\ncaptain with him. They must be privy to this new plot. But by the God\nwho had given him his father's kingdom, and established him a house,\nAdonijah had made the request to his own cost, and should die that day.\"\n\nThe command was instantly given to Benaiah, who, as captain of the\nbody-guard, was also chief executioner. He slew Adonijah that same\nhour, and so the third of David's splendid sons died in his youth a\ndeath of violence.\n\nWe pause to ask whether the sudden and vehement outburst of King\nSolomon's indignation was only due to political causes? If, as\nseems almost certain, Abishag is indeed the fair Shulamite of the\nSong of Songs, there can be little doubt that Solomon himself loved\nher,[127] and that she was \"the jewel of his seraglio.\"[128] The true\nmeaning of Canticles is not difficult to read, however much it may\nlend itself to mystical and allegorical applications. It represents\na rustic maiden, faithful to her shepherd lover, resisting all the\nallurements of a king's court, and all the blandishments of a king's\naffection. It is the one book of Scripture which is exclusively\ndevoted to sing the glory of a pure love. The king is magnanimous;\nhe does not force the beautiful maiden to accept his addresses.\nExercising her freedom, and true to the dictates of her heart, she\nrejoicingly leaves the perfumed atmosphere of the harem of Jerusalem\nfor the sweet and vernal air of her country home under the shadow\nof its northern hills. Solomon's impetuous wrath would not be so\nunaccountable if an unrequited affection added the sting of jealousy\nto the wrath of offended power. The scene is the more interesting\nbecause it is one of the very few personal touches in the story of\nSolomon, which is chiefly composed of external details, both in\nScripture and in such fragments as have been preserved of the pagan\nhistorian Dios, Eupolemos, Nicolas Polyhistor, and those referred to\nby Josephus, Eusebius, and Clemens of Alexandria.\n\nThe fall of Adonijah involved his chief votaries in ruin. Abiathar had\nbeen a friend and follower of David from his youthful days. When Doeg,\nthe treacherous Edomite, had informed Saul that the priests of Nob had\nshown kindness to David in his hunger and distress, the demoniac king\nhad not shrunk from employing the Edomite herdsman to massacre all on\nwhom he could lay his hands. From this slaughter of eighty-five priests\nwho wore linen ephods, Abiathar had fled to David, who alone could\nprotect him from the king's pursuit.[129] In the days when the outlaw\nlived in dens and caves, the priest had been constantly with him, and\nhad been afflicted in all wherein he was afflicted, and had inquired of\nGod for him. David had recognised how vast was his debt of gratitude to\none whose father and all his family had been sacrificed for an act of\nkindness done to himself. Abiathar had been chief priest for all the\nforty years of David's reign. In Absalom's rebellion he had still been\nfaithful to the king. His son Jonathan had been David's scout in the\ncity. Abiathar had helped Zadok to carry the Ark to the last house by\nthe ascent to the Mount of Olives, and there he had stood under the\nolive tree by the wilderness[130] till all the people had passed by. If\nhis loyalty had been less ardent than that of his brother-priest Zadok,\nwho had evidently taken the lead in the matter, he had given no ground\nfor suspicion. But, perhaps secretly jealous of the growing influence\nof his younger rival, the old man, after some fifty years of unswerving\nallegiance, had joined his lifelong friend Joab in supporting the\nconspiracy of Adonijah, and had not even now heartily accepted the rule\nof Solomon. Assuming his complicity in Adonijah's request, Solomon\nsent for him, and sternly told him that he was \"a man of death,\"\n_i.e._, that death was his desert. But it would have been outrageous\nto slay an aged priest, the sole survivor of a family slaughtered for\nDavid's sake, and one who had so long stood at the head of the whole\nreligious organisation, wearing the Urim and carrying the Ark. He was\ntherefore summarily deposed from his functions, and dismissed to his\npaternal fields at Anathoth, a priestly town about six miles from\nJerusalem.[131] We hear no more of him; but Solomon's warning, \"I will\nnot _at this time_ put thee to death,\" was sufficient to show him that,\nif he mixed himself with court intrigues again, he would ultimately pay\nthe forfeit with his life. Solomon, like Saul, paid very little regard\nto \"benefit of the clergy.\"[132]\n\nThe doom fell next on the arch-offender Joab, the white-haired\nhero of a hundred fights, \"the Douglas of the House of David.\" He\nhad, if the reading of the ancient versions be correct, \"turned\nafter Adonijah, and _had not turned after Solomon_.\" Solomon could\nhardly have felt at ease when a general so powerful and so popular\nwas disaffected to his rule, and Joab read his own sentence in the\nexecution of Adonijah. On hearing the news the old hero fled up Mount\nZion, and clung to the horns of the altar. But Abiathar, who might\nhave asserted the sacredness of the asylum, was in disgrace, and Joab\nwas not to escape. \"What has happened to thee that thou hast fled to\nthe altar?\" was the message sent to him by the king. \"Because,\" he\nanswered, \"I was afraid of thee, and fled unto the Lord.\"[133] It was\nSolomon's habit to give his autocratic orders with laconic brevity.\n\"Go, fall upon him,\" he said to Benaiah.\n\nThe scene which ensued was very tragic.\n\nThe two rivals were face to face. On the one side the aged general,\nwho had placed on David's head the crown of Rabbah, who had saved\nhim from the rebellions of Absalom and of Sheba, and had been the\npillar of his military glory and dominion for so many years; on the\nother the brave soldier-priest, who had won a chief place among\nthe _Gibborim_ by slaying a lion in a pit on a snowy day, and \"two\nlion-like men of Moab,\"[134] and a gigantic Egyptian whom he had\nattacked with only a staff, and out of whose hand he had plucked a\nspear like a weaver's beam and killed him with his own spear. As\nDavid lost confidence in Joab he had reposed more and more confidence\nin this hero. He had placed him over the body-guards, whom he\ntrusted more than the native militia.\n\nThe Levite-soldier had no hesitation about acting as executioner, but\nhe did not like to slay any man, and above all such a man, in a place\nso sacred,[135]--in a place where his blood would be mingled with that\nof the sacrifices with which the horns of the altar were besmeared.\n\n\"The king bids thee come forth,\" he said.\n\n\"Nay,\" said Joab, \"but I will die here.\"\n\nPerhaps he thought that he might be protected by the asylum, as\nAdonijah had been; perhaps he hoped that in any case his blood might\ncry to God for vengeance, if he was slain in the sanctuary of Mount\nZion, and on the very altar of burnt offering.\n\nBenaiah naturally scrupled under such circumstances to carry out\nSolomon's order, and went back to him for instruction. Solomon had no\nsuch scruples, and perhaps held that this act was meritorious.[136]\n\"Slay him,\" he said, \"where he stands! He is a twofold murderer; let\nhis blood be on his head.\" Then Benaiah went back and killed him, and\nwas promoted to his vacant office. Such was the dismal end of so much\nvalour and so much glory! He had taken the sword, and he perished by\nthe sword. And the Jews believed that the curse of David clung to his\nhouse for ever, and that among his descendants there never lacked one\nthat was a leper, or a lame man, or a suicide, or a pauper.[137]\n\nShimei's turn came next. A watchful eye was fixed implacably on this\nlast indignant representative of the ruined House of Saul. Solomon\nhad sent and ordered him to leave his estate at Bahurim, and build\na house at Jerusalem, forbidding him to go \"any whither,\"[138] and\ntelling him that if on any pretence he passed the wady of Kidron he\nshould be put to death. As he could not visit Bahurim, or any of\nhis Benjamite connexions, without passing the Kidron, all danger\nof further intrigues seemed to be obviated.[139] To these terms\nthe dangerous man had sworn, and for three years he kept them\nfaithfully. At the end of that time two of his slaves fled from him\nto Achish, son of Maachah, King of Gath.[140] When informed of their\nwhereabouts, Shimei, apparently with no thought of evil, saddled his\nmule and went to demand their restoration. As he had not crossed the\nKidron, and had merely gone to Gath on private business, he thought\nthat Solomon would never hear of it, or would at any rate treat the\nmatter as harmless. Solomon, however, regarded his conduct as a proof\nof retributive dementation. He sent for him, bitterly upbraided him,\nand ordered Benaiah to slay him. So perished the last of Solomon's\nenemies; but Shimei had two illustrious descendants in the persons of\nMordecai and Queen Esther.[141]\n\nSolomon perhaps conceived himself to be only acting up to the\ntrue kingly ideal. \"A king that sitteth on the throne of judgment\nscattereth away all evil with his eyes.\" \"A wise king scattereth the\nwicked, and bringeth the wheel over them.\" \"An evil man seeketh only\nrebellion; therefore a cruel messenger shall be sent against him.\"\n\"The fear of a king is as the roaring of a lion, whoso provoketh\nhim to anger endangereth his own soul.\"[142] On the other hand,\nhe continued hereditary kindness to Chimham, son of the old chief\nBarzillai the Gileadite, who became the founder of the Khan at\nBethlehem in which a thousand years later Christ was born.[143]\n\nThe elevation of Zadok to the high priesthood vacated by the disgrace\nof Abiathar restored the priestly succession to the elder line of the\nHouse of Aaron. Aaron had been the father of four sons: Nadab, Abihu,\nEleazar, and Ithamar. The two eldest had perished childless in the\nwilderness, apparently for the profanation of serving the tabernacle\nwhile in a state of intoxication and offering \"strange fire\" upon\nthe altar.[144] The son of Eleazar was the fierce priestly avenger\nPhinehas. The order of succession was as follows:--\n\n                            AARON.\n                              |\n                    +---------+------+\n                    |                |\n                  Eleazar.        Ithamar.\n                  Phinehas.       (gap.)\n                  Abishua.        Eli.\n                  Bukki.          Phinehas.\n                  Uzzi.           Ahitub.\n                  Zerahiah.       Ahiah (1 Sam. xiv. 3).\n                  Meraioth.       Ahimelech.\n                  Amariah.        Abiathar (1 Sam. xxii. 20).\n                  Ahitub.\n                  Zadok.[145]\n\nThe question naturally arises how the line of succession came to be\ndisturbed, since to Eleazar, and his seed after him, had been promised\n\"the covenant of an everlasting priesthood.\"[146] As the elder line\ncontinued unbroken, how was it that, for five generations at least,\nfrom Eli to Abiathar, we find the _younger_ line of Ithamar in secure\nand lineal possession of the high priesthood? The answer belongs to the\nmany strange reserves of Jewish history. It is clear from the silence\nof the Book of Chronicles that the intrusion, however caused, was an\nunpleasant recollection. Jewish tradition has perhaps revealed the\nsecret, and a very curious one it is. We are told that Phinehas was\nhigh priest when Jephthah made his rash vow, and that his was the hand\nwhich carried out the human sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter. But the\ninborn feelings of humanity in the hearts of the people were stronger\nthan the terrors of superstition, and arising in indignation against\nthe high priest who could thus imbrue his hands in an innocent maiden's\nblood, they drove him from his office and appointed a son of Ithamar\nin his place. The story then offers a curious analogy to that told of\nthe Homeric hero Idomeneus, King of Crete. Caught in a terrible storm\non his return from Troy, he too vowed that if his life were saved he\nwould offer up in sacrifice the first living thing that met him. His\neldest son came forth with gladness to meet him. Idomeneus fulfilled\nhis vow, but the Cretans rose in revolt against the ruthless father,\nand a civil war ensued, in which a hundred cities were destroyed and\nthe king was driven into exile. The Jewish tradition is one which could\nhardly have been invented. It is certain that Jephthah's daughter _was_\noffered up in sacrifice, in accordance with his rash vow. This could\nhardly have been done by any but a priest, and the ferocious zeal of\nPhinehas would not perhaps have shrunk from the horrible consummation.\nRevolting, even abhorrent, as is such a notion from our views of God,\nand decisively as human sacrifice is condemned by all the highest\nteaching of Scripture, the traces of this horrible tendency of human\nguilt and human fear are evident in the history of Israel as of all\nother early nations. Some thought akin to it must have lain under the\ntemptation of Abraham to offer up his son Isaac. Twelve centuries later\nManasseh \"made his son pass through the fire,\" and kindled the furnaces\nof Moloch at Tophet in Gehenna, the valley of the sons of Hinnom.[147]\nHis grandfather Ahaz had done the same before him, offering sacrifice\nand burning his children in the fire.[148] Surrounded by kindred\ntribes, to which this worship was familiar, the Israelites, in their\nignorance and backsliding, were not exempt from its fatal fascination.\nSolomon himself \"went after,\" and built a high place for Milcom, the\nabomination of the Ammonites, on the right hand of \"the hill that is\nbefore Jerusalem,\" which from this desecration got the name of \"The\nMount of Corruption.\" These high places continued, and it must be\nsupposed, had their votaries on \"that opprobrious hill,\" until good\nJosiah dismantled and defiled them about the year 639, some three\ncenturies after they had been built.\n\nBut whether this legend about Phinehas be tenable or not, it is\ncertain that the House of Ithamar fell into deadly disrepute and\nabject misery. In this the people saw the fulfilment of an old\ntraditional curse, pronounced by some unknown \"man of God\" on the\nHouse of Eli, that there should be no old man in his house for ever;\nthat his descendants should die in the flower of their age; and that\nthey should come cringing to the descendants of the priest whom God\nwould raise up in his stead, to get some humble place about the\npriesthood for a piece of silver and a morsel of bread.[149]\n\nThe prolongation of the curse in the House of Joab and of Eli\nfurnishes an illustration of the menacing appendix to the second\ncommandment--\"For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting\nthe sins of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth\ngeneration of them that hate Me, and showing mercy unto thousands (of\ngenerations) of them that love Me and keep My commandments.\"\n\nThere is in families, as in communities, a solidarity alike of blessing\nand curse. No man perishes alone in his iniquity, whether he be an\noffender like Achan or an offender like Joab. Families have their\ninheritance of character, their prerogative examples of misdoing, their\ninfluence of the guilty past flowing like a tide of calamity over the\npresent and the future! The physical consequences of transgression\nremain long after the sins which caused them have ended. Three things,\nhowever, are observable in this, as in every faithfully recorded\nhistory. One is that mercy boasteth over justice, and the area of\nbeneficent consequence is more permanent and more continuous than that\nof the entailed curse, as right is always more permanent than wrong.\nA second is that, though man at all times is liable to troubles and\ndisabilities, no innocent person who suffers temporal afflictions\nfrom the sins of his forefathers shall suffer one element of unjust\ndepression in the eternal interests of life. A third is that the\nultimate prosperity of the children, alike of the righteous and of\nsinners, is in their own control; each soul shall perish, and shall\nonly perish, for its own sin. In this sense, though the fathers have\neaten sour grapes, the teeth of the children shall _not_ be set on\nedge. In the long generations the line of David no less than the line\nof Joab, the line of Zadok no less than that of Abiathar, was destined\nto feel the Nemesis of evil-doing, and to experience that, of whatever\nparentage men are born, the law remains true--\"Say ye of the righteous,\nthat it shall be well with him: for they shall eat the fruit of their\ndoings. Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him: for the reward\nof his hands shall be given him.\"[150]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[120] These events--like almost everything derogatory to David and\nSolomon--are omitted by the chronicler.\n\n[121] Luke iii. 31. Salathiel, son of Neri (Luke iii. 27), of\nNathan's house, was probably adopted by Jeconiah, who was childless;\nor if he had a son Assir (captive), the son had died. 1 Chron. iii.\n17; Isa. xxii. 3.\n\n[122] 2 Sam. xii. 8. Comp. 1 Kings xx. 7; 2 Kings xxiv. 15. We only\nknow, however, of one wife of Saul, and one concubine.\n\n[123] Herod., iii. 68; Justin., x. 2.\n\n[124] Comp. 1 Kings xv. 13; 2 Kings xi. 1. The queen-mother, like the\nSultana Walid\u00e9, is always more powerful than even the favourite wife.\n\n[125] Cant. iii. 11.\n\n[126] Psalm xlv. 9. Some little mystery evidently hangs over the name\nof Bathsheba. In 2 Sam. xi. 3 she is called \"Bathsheba, the daughter\nof Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite\"; but in 1 Chron. iii. 5 she\nis called \"_Bathshua_, the daughter of _Ammiel_.\" Now Shua was a\nCanaanite name (Gen. xxxviii. 12; 1 Chron. ii. 3), and it is at least\nremarkable that Bathsheba should be married to a Hittite. Further,\nthe chronicler disguises \"Ahithophel the Gilonite (the father of\nEliam) into Ahijah the Pelonite,\" who is one of David's Gibborim\nin 1 Chron. xi. 36. Pelonite means _nescio qius_; in Spanish, Don\nFulano,--Signor So-and-so. And how are we to account for the strange\nname Ahithophel (\"brother of foolishness?\")?\n\n[127] Comp. Cant. vii. 1. It has been assumed that Solomon had\nalready married Naamah the Ammonitess, and that Rehoboam was already\nborn (see 1 Kings xiv. 21), but this is uncertain. Rehoboam, if he\nhad reached the age of forty-one, could hardly have been called\n\"young and tender-hearted\" (2 Chron. xiii. 7).\n\n[128] Shunem (Sulem, Euseb., _Jer._) is now _Solam_ (Robinson,\n_Researches_, iii. 402).\n\n[129] 1 Sam. xxii. 23.\n\n[130] 2 Sam. xv. 18 (LXX.).\n\n[131] _Anata_, Robinson, _Researches_, ii, 319; Josh. xxi. 18; 1\nChron. vi. 60. It was the native town of Jeremiah (Jer. i. 1).\n\n[132] It should be remembered that, as Ewald points out, imprisonment\nfor life was a thing unknown.\n\n[133] This interesting addition is found in the Septuagint version.\n\n[134] 2 Sam. xxiii. 20. Ewald, Thenius, and most other critics,\nfollowed by the R.V., adopt the LXX. reading, \"Slew the two sons of\nAriel of Moab.\"\n\n[135] Comp. 2 Kings xi. 15.\n\n[136] See Deut. xix. 13.\n\n[137] 2 Sam. iii. 28, 29.\n\n[138] \u05d5\u05b8\u05d0\u05b8\u05e0\u05b8\u05d4 \u05d0\u05b8\u05e0\u05b6\u05d4 (1 Kings ii. 36).\n\n[139] It should be remembered that when Shimei came to meet David\non his return, he managed to muster one thousand of his Benjamite\nkinsmen. Such local influence might prove troublesome.\n\n[140] Achish seems to have been the dynastic name of the kings of\nGath (1 Sam. xxi. 10, xxvii. 2). If this was the Achish, son of\nMaoch, with whom David had taken refuge fifty years before, he must\nnow have been a very old man.\n\n[141] Esth. ii. 5.\n\n[142] Prov. xix. 11, xx. 2, 8, 26.\n\n[143] 1 Kings ii. 7; Jer. xli. 17.\n\n[144] Lev. x. 1-20; Num. iii. 4, xxvi. 61. This has been not\nunnaturally inferred from the prohibition to the priests to drink\nwine while serving the tabernacle lest they die, which occurs\nimmediately after the catastrophe of the two priests (Lev. x. 9-11).\n\n[145] 1 Chron. vii. 4-15. In David's time there were only eight\ndescendants of Ithamar, but sixteen of Eleazar (1 Chron. xxiv. 4).\nFor full discussion of these priestly genealogies, see Lord A.\nHervey, _On the Genealogies_, pp. 277-306. It is true that they are\nnot free from elements of difficulty, but I am unable to find any\nvalid ground for the suspicion of some critics that Zadok was not\neven a priest, or of the priestly house at all. All the evidence we\nhave points in the opposite direction.\n\n[146] Num. xxv. 13.\n\n[147] 2 Chron. xxxiii. 6; 2 Kings xxi. 6. \"His children.\"\n\n[148] 2 Chron. xxviii. 3; 2 Kings xvi. 3. \"His son.\"\n\n[149] 1 Sam. ii. 27-36. For eight centuries there was no other\ninstance of a high priest's deposition.\n\n[150] Isa. iii. 10.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XII.\n\n                        _THE BOY-KING'S WISDOM._\n\n                           1 KINGS iii. 1-28.\n\n    \"An oracle is upon the lips of a king.\"--PROV. xvi. 10 (Heb.).\n\n    \"A king that sitteth on the throne of judgment scattereth away\n    all evil with his eye.\"--PROV. xx. 8.\n\n          \"Ch' ei fu R\u00e8, che chiese senno\n           Accioch\u00e8 R\u00e8 sufficiente fosse.\"\n                                 DANTE, _Parad._, xiii. 95.\n\n    \"Deos ipsos precor ut mihi ad finem usque vit\u00e6 quietam et\n    intelligentem humani divinique juris mentem duint.\"--TAC.,\n    _Ann._, iv. 38.\n\n\nIt would have thrown an interesting light on the character and\ndevelopment of Solomon, if we had been able to conjecture with any\ncertainty what was his age when the death of David made him the\nunquestioned king. The pagan historian Eupolemos, quoted by Eusebius,\nsays that he was twelve; Josephus asserts that he was fifteen. If\nRehoboam was indeed as old as forty-one when he came to the throne (1\nKings xiv. 21), Solomon can hardly have been less than twenty at his\naccession, for in that case he must have been married before David's\ndeath (1 Kings xi. 42). But the reading \"forty-one\" in 1 Kings xiv.\n21 is altered by some into \"twenty-one,\" and we are left in complete\nuncertainty. Solomon is called \"a child\" (1 Kings iii. 7), \"young and\ntender\" (1 Chron. xxix. 1); but his acts show the full vigour and\ndecision of a man.[151]\n\nThe composite character of the Books of Kings leads to some\ndisturbance of the order of events, and 1 Kings iii. 1-4 is perhaps\ninserted to explain Solomon's sacrifice at the high place of\nGibeon,[152] where stood the brazen altar of the old Tabernacle.[153]\nBut no apology is needed for that act.[154] The use of high places,\neven when they were consecrated to the worship of Jehovah, was\nregarded in later days as involving principles of danger, and\nbecame a grave offence in the eyes of all who took the Deuteronomic\nstandpoint. But high places to Jehovah, as distinct from those\ndedicated to idols, were not condemned by the earlier prophets, and\nthe resort to them was never regarded as blameworthy before the\nestablishment of the central sanctuary.\n\nAfter the frightful massacre of the descendants of Aaron at Nob, the\nold \"Tabernacle of the congregation\" and the great brazen altar of\nburnt offerings had been removed to Gibeon from a city defiled by\nthe blood of priests.[155] Gibeon stood on a commanding elevation\nwithin easy distance of Jerusalem, and was henceforth regarded as\n\"the great high place,\" until the Temple on Mount Zion was finished.\nThither Solomon went in that imposing civil, religious, and military\nprocession of which the tradition may be preserved in the name of\nWady Suleiman still given to the adjoining valley. There, with\nOriental magnificence, like Xerxes at Troy, he offered what the\nGreeks called a _chiliombe_, that is, a tenfold hecatomb of burnt\nofferings.[156] This \"thousandfold holocaust,\" as the Septuagint\nterms it, must have been a stately and long-continued function,\nand in approval of his sacrifice Jehovah granted a vision to the\nyouthful king. Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams and\nten thousands of rivers of oil, when all the beasts of the forest are\nHis, and the cattle upon a thousand hills? \"Thinkest thou,\" He asked,\nin the words of the Psalmist, \"that I will eat bull's flesh or drink\nthe blood of goats?\" No; but God always accepts a willing sacrifice\nin accordance with the purpose and sincerity of the giver. In reward\nfor the pure intention of the king He appeared to Solomon in a dream,\nand said, \"Ask what I shall give thee.\"\n\nThe Jews recognised three modes of Divine communication--by dreams;\nby Urim, and by prophets. The highest and most immediate illumination\nwas the prophetic. The revelation by means of the primitive Urim and\nThummin, the oracle and jewelled breastplate of the high priest, was\nthe poorest, the most elementary, the most liable to abuse. It was\nanalogous to the method used by the Egyptian chief priests, who wore\nround their necks a sapphire ornament called Thmei, or \"truth,\" for\npurposes of divination.[157] After the death of David the Urim and\nThummin fell into such absolute desuetude, as a survival of primitive\ntimes, that we do not read of its being consulted again in a single\ninstance. It is not so much as mentioned during the five centuries\nof the history of the kings, and we do not hear of it afterwards.\nSolomon never once inquired of the priests as David did repeatedly.\nIn the reign of Solomon the voice of prophecy, too, was silent, until\ndisasters began to cloud its close. Times of material prosperity and\nautocratic splendour are unfavourable to the prophet's function,\nand sometimes, as in the days of Ahab, the prophets themselves\n\"philippised\" in Jehovah's name. But revelation by dreams occurs in all\nages. In his prophecy of the great future, Joel says, \"Your old men\nshall see visions, your young men shall dream dreams.\" It is true that\ndreams must always have a subjective element, yet, as Aristotle says,\n\"The visions of the noble are better than those of common men.\"[158]\nThe dreams of night are reflections of the thoughts of day. \"Solomon\nworships God by day; God appears to Solomon by night. Well may we look\nto enjoy God, when we have served Him.\"[159] Full of the thoughts\ninspired by an intense devotion, and a yearning desire to rule aright,\nthe sleeping soul of Solomon became bright with eyes,[160] and in his\ndream he made a worthy answer to the appeal of God.\n\n\"Ask what I shall give thee!\" That blessed and most loving offer\nis made to every human soul. To the meanest of us all God flings\nopen the treasuries of heaven. The reason why we fatally lose them\nis because we are blinded by the glamour of temptation, and snatch\ninstead at glittering bubbles or Dead Sea fruits. We fail to attain\nthe best gifts, because so few of us earnestly desire them, and so\nmany disbelieve the offer that is made of them. Yet there is no\nliving soul to which God has not given the choice of good and evil.\n\"He hath set fire and water before thee: stretch forth thy hand unto\nwhether thou wilt. Before man is life and death; and whether him\nliketh shall be given him.\"[161] Even when our choice is not evil it\nis often desperately frivolous, and it is only too late that we rue\nthe folly of having rejected the better and chosen the worse.\n\n          \"Damsels of Time the hypocritic days,\n           Muffled and dumb like barefoot dervishes,\n           And marching single in an endless file,\n           Bring diadems and fagots in their hands.\n           To each they offer gifts after his will,--\n           Bread, kingdoms, stars, and sky that holds them all.\n           I, in my pleach\u00e8d garden, watched the pomp,\n           Forgot my morning wishes; hastily\n           Took a few herbs and apples, and the Day\n           Turned and departed silent. I, too late,\n           Under her solemn fillet saw the scorn.\"[162]\n\nBut Solomon made the wise choice. In his dream he thanked God for\nHis mercifully fulfilled promise to David his father, and with the\ntouching humble confession, \"I am but a little child: I know not how to\ngo out or come in,\"[163] he begged for an understanding heart to judge\nbetween right and wrong in guiding his great and countless people.[164]\n\nGod was pleased with the noble, unselfish request. The youthful king\nmight have besought the boon of \"many days,\" which was so highly\nvalued before Christ had brought life and immortality to light; or\nfor riches, or for victory over his enemies. Instead of this he had\nasked for \"understanding, to discern judgment,\" and the lesser gifts\nwere freely accorded him. \"Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His\nrighteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.\"[165]\nGod promised him that he should be a king of unprecedented greatness.\nHe freely gave him riches and honour, and, conditionally on his\ncontinued faithfulness, a long life. The condition was broken, and\nSolomon was not more than sixty years old when he was called before\nthe God whom he forsook.[166]\n\n\"And Solomon awoke, and behold it was a dream.\" But he knew well that\nit was also more than a dream, and that \"God giveth to His beloved\neven sleeping.\"[167]\n\nIn reverential gratitude he offered a second sacrifice of burnt\nofferings before the ark on Mount Zion, and added to them peace\nofferings, with which he made a great feast to all his servants.\nTwice again did God appear to Solomon; but the second time it was to\nwarn, and the third time to condemn.\n\nIn the parallel account given by the chronicler, Solomon says,\n\"Give me now wisdom and knowledge,\" and God replies, \"Wisdom and\nknowledge is granted unto thee.\" There is a wide difference between\nthe two things. Knowledge may come while wisdom still lingers, and\nwisdom may exist in Divine abundance where knowledge is but scant\nand superficial. The wise may be as ignorant as St. Antony, or St.\nFrancis of Assisi; the masters of those who know may show as little\n'wisdom for a man's self' as Ab\u00e9lard, or as Francis Bacon. \"Among the\nJews one set of terms does service to express both intellectual and\nmoral wisdom. The 'wise' man means the righteous man; the 'fool' is\none who is godless. Intellectual terms that describe knowledge are\nalso moral terms describing life.\" No doubt in the ultimate senses of\nthe words there can be no true knowledge, as there can be no perfect\nwisdom, without goodness. This was a truth with which Solomon himself\nbecame deeply impressed. \"The fear of the Lord,\" he said, \"is the\nbeginning of wisdom, but fools despise knowledge and understanding.\"\nThe lineaments of \"a fool\" are drawn in the Book of Proverbs, and\nthey bear the impress of moral baseness and moral aberrations.\n\nTo Solomon both boons were given, \"wisdom and understanding exceeding\nmuch, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the sea\nshore.\" Of his many forms of intellectual eminence I will speak\nlater on. What he longed for most was evidently moral insight and\npractical sagacity. He felt that \"through justice shall the throne be\nestablished.\"\n\nPractical wisdom was eminently needed for the office of a judge.[168]\nJudgeship was a main function of Eastern royalty, and rulers were\ncalled _Shophetim_ or judges.[169] The reality of the gift which\nSolomon had received from God was speedily to be tested.[170] Two\nharlots came before him.[171] One had overlaid her child in the\nnight, and stealing the living child of the other she put her dead\nchild in its place. There was no evidence to be had. It was simply\nthe bare word of one disreputable woman against the bare word of\nthe other. With instant decision, and a flash of insight into the\nsprings of human actions, Solomon gave the apparently childish order\nto cut the children in two, and divide them between the claimants.\nThe people laughed,[172] and the delinquent accepted the horrible\ndecision; but the mother of the living child yearned for her babe,\nand she cried out, \"O my lord, give her the living babe,[173] and in\nno wise slay it.\" \"_Give her the living babe, and in no wise slay\nit_,\" murmured the king to himself, repeating the mother's words; and\nthen he burst out with the triumphant verdict, \"Give _her_ the living\nchild! _she_ is the mother thereof!\"[174]\n\nThe story has several parallels. It is said by Diodorus Siculus\nthat when three youths came before Ariopharnes, King of Thrace, each\nclaiming to be the only son of the King of the Cimmerians, he ordered\nthem each to hurl a javelin at their father's corpse. Two obeyed,\none refused, and Ariopharnes at once proclaimed him to be the true\nson.[175] Similarly an Indian story tells that a woman, before she\nbathed, left her child on the bank of the pool, and a female demon\ncarried it off. The goddess, before whom each claimed the child,\nordered them to pull it in two between them, and consigned it to\nthe mother who shuddered at the test.[176] A judgment similarly\nfounded on filial instinct is attributed to the Emperor Claudius. A\nmother refused to acknowledge her son; and as there were no proofs\nClaudius ordered her to marry the youth, whereupon she was obliged to\nacknowledge that he was her son.[177]\n\nModern critics, wise after the event, express themselves very\nslightingly of the amount of intelligence required for the decision;\nbut the people saw the value of the presence of mind and rapid\nintuition which settled the question by bringing an individual\ndilemma under the immediate arbitrament of a general law. They\nrejoiced to recognise the practical wisdom which God had given\nto their young king. The word _Chokhmah_, which is represented\nby one large section of Jewish literature, implied the practical\nintelligence derived from insight or experience, the power to govern\noneself and others. Its conclusions were expressed chiefly in a\ngnomic form, and they pass through various stages in the Sapiential\nBooks of the Old Testament. The chief books of the _Chokhmah_ are the\nBooks of Proverbs, Job, and Ecclesiastes, followed by such books as\nWisdom and Ecclesiasticus. On the Divine side Wisdom is the Spirit\nof God, regarded by man under the form of Providence (Wisdom i. 4,\n7, vii. 7, 22, ix. 17); and on the human side it is trustworthy\nknowledge of the things that are (_id._ vii. 17). It is, in fact, \"a\nknowledge of Divine and human things, and of their causes\" (4 Macc.\nii. 16). This branch of wisdom could be repeatedly shown by Solomon\nat the city gate and in the hall of judgment.\n\n2. His varied _intellectual_ wisdom created deeper astonishment. He\nspake, we are told, \"of trees from the cedar which is in Lebanon even\nunto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts\nand fowl and of creeping things and of fishes.\" This knowledge has been\nmisunderstood and exaggerated by later tradition. It is expanded in\nthe Book of Wisdom (viii. 17) into a perfect knowledge of kosmogony,\nastronomy, the alterations of solstices, the cycles of years, the\nnatures of wild beasts, the forces of spirits, the reasonings of men,\nthe diversities of plants. Solomon became to Eastern legend\n\n          \"The warrior-sage, whose restless mind\n           Through nature's mazes wandered unconfined,\n           Who every bird, and beast, and insect knew,\n           And spake of every plant that quaffs the dew.\"\n\nHis knowledge, however, does not seem to have been even empirically\nscientific. It consisted in the moral and religious illustration\nof truth by emblems derived from nature.[178] He surpassed, we are\ntold, the ethnic gnomic wisdom of all the children of the East--the\nArabians and Chald\u00e6ans, and all the vaunted scientific and mystic\nwisdom of Egypt.[179] Ethan and Heman were Levitic poets and\nmusicians;[180] Chalcol and Darda[181] were \"sons of the choir,\"\n_i.e._, poets (Luther), or sacred singers;[182] and all four were\nfamed for wisdom; but Solomon excelled them all. Of his one thousand\nand five songs, the majority were probably secular. Only two psalms\nare even traditionally assigned to him.[183] Of his three thousand\nproverbs not more than two hundred survive, even if all in the Book\nof Proverbs be his. Tradition adds that he was a master of \"riddles\"\nor \"dark sayings,\" by which he won largely in fines from Hiram, whom\nhe challenged for their solution, until the Tyrian king defeated him\nby the aid of a sharp youth named Abdemon.[184] Specimens of these\nriddles with their answers may be found in the Book of Proverbs,[185]\nfor the Hebrew word \"proverb\" (_Mashal_) probably means originally,\nan illustration. This book also contains various ambiguous hard\nsayings of which the skilful construction awoke admiration and\nstimulated thought.[186] The Queen of Sheba is said to have tested\nSolomon by riddles.[187] The tradition gradually spread in the\nEast that Solomon was also skilled in magic arts, that he knew the\nlanguage of the birds,[188] and possessed a seal which gave him\nmastery over the genii. In the Book of Wisdom he is made to say, \"All\nsuch things as are either secret or manifest, them I know.\" Josephus\nattributes to him the formul\u00e6 and spells of exorcism, and in Eccles.\nii. 8 the words rendered \"musical instruments\" (shiddah and shiddoth;\nR.V., \"concubines very many\") were understood by the Rabbis to mean\nthat he was the lord over male and female demons.[189]\n\n3. Far more precious than practical or intellectual ability is the\ngift of _moral_ wisdom, which Solomon so greatly appreciated but\nso imperfectly attained. Yet he felt that \"wisdom is the principal\nthing, therefore get wisdom.\" The world gives that name to many\nhigher and lower manifestations of capacity and attainment, but\nwisdom is in Scripture the one law of all true life. In that\nmagnificent outburst of Semitic poetry, the twenty-eighth chapter\nof the Book of Job, after pointing out that there is such a thing\nas natural knowledge--that there is a vein for the silver, and ore\nof gold, and a place of sapphires, and reservoirs of subterranean\nfire--the writer asks: \"But where shall wisdom be found? and where is\nthe place of understanding?\" After showing with marvellous power that\nit is beyond man's unaided search--that the depths and the seas say,\n\"It is not in us,\" and destruction and death have but heard the fame\nthereof with their ears--he adds with one great crash of concluding\nmusic, \"God understandeth the way thereof, and He knoweth the place\nthereof.... And unto man He said, _Behold, the fear of the Lord, that\nis wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding_.\"[190] And again\nwe read, \"_The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge_.\"[191]\nThe sated cynic of the Book of the Ecclesiastes, or one who had\nstudied, not without dissatisfaction, his sad experience, adds,\n\"_Fear God, and keep His commandments: for this is the whole duty of\nman_.\" And in answer to the question \"_Who is a wise man and endued\nwith knowledge among you?_\" St. James, the Lord's brother, who had\nevidently been a deep student of the Sapiential literature, does\nnot answer, \"He who understands all mysteries,\" or, \"He who speaks\nwith the tongue of men or of angels,\" but, \"Let him show out of a\ngood conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.\" Men whom the\nworld has deemed wise have often fallen into utter infatuation, as\nit is written, \"He taketh the wise in their own craftiness\"; but\nheavenly wisdom may belong to the most ignorant and simplehearted.\nIt is \"first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated,\nwithout partiality and without hypocrisy.\"\n\nWe should observe, however, that the _Chokhmah_, or\nwisdom-literature of the Jews, while it incessantly exalts morality,\nand sometimes almost attains to a perception of the spiritual life,\nwas neither prophetic nor priestly in its character. It bears the\nsame relation to the teaching of the prophets on the one hand,\nand the priests on the other, as morality does to religion and\nto externalism. Its teaching is loftier and truer than the petty\ninsistence of Pharisaism on meats and drinks and divers washings, in\nthat it deals with the weightier matters of the law; but it does not\nattain to the passionate spirituality of the greater Hebrew seers.\nIt cares next to nothing for ritual, and therefore rises above the\ndeveloped Judaism of the post-exilic epoch. It is lofty and true\ninasmuch as it breathes the spirit of the Ten Commandments, but it\nhas not learnt the freedom of love and the beatitudes of perfect\nunion with God. In one word, it finds its culmination in Proverbs and\nEcclesiasticus, rather than in the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount\nand the Gospel of St. John.\n\nWe cannot better conclude this chapter than with the eulogy of the\nson of Sirach: \"Solomon reigned in a peaceable time and was honoured;\nfor God made all quiet round about him, that he might build a house\nin His name and prepare His sanctuary for ever. How wise wast thou\nin thy youth, and, as a flood, filled with understanding! Thy soul\ncovered the whole earth, and thou filledst it with dark parables. Thy\nname went far unto the islands, and for thy peace thou wast beloved.\nThe countries marvelled at thee for thy songs, and proverbs, and\nparables, and interpretations. By the name of the Lord God, who is\ncalled the Lord God of Israel, thou didst gather gold as tin, and\ndidst multiply silver as lead.\"[192]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[151] See 1 Sam. xxi. 6, compared with 1 Chron. xvi. 39, 40; 2 Chron.\ni. 3.\n\n[152] An old Hivite capital (Josh. xviii. 21-25), now El Jib.\nJosephus alters it to \"Hebron.\"\n\n[153] See 1 Chron. xvi. 39, 40, xxi. 29; 2 Chron. i. 3. The annals of\nSolomon fall into three divisions: first, his secure establishment\nupon the throne (1 Kings i, ii.); next, his wisdom, wealth, glory,\nand great buildings, especially the building of the Temple (iii.-x.);\nlastly, his fall and death (xi.).\n\n[154] It was sufficiently sanctioned by Exod. xx. 24, and Jerusalem\nwas not yet chosen (Deut. xii. 13, 14). See Judg. vi. 24, xiii. 19;\n1 Sam. ix. 12, etc. This seems to have been the last great sacrifice\nthere. In 1 Kings iii. 5-15 the sacrifice is regarded with approval;\nin verses 2, 3 it is condemned, but excused by circumstances; in the\nverses inserted by the chronicler (2 Chron. i. 3-6) it is said that\nthe Tabernacle was there.\n\n[155] See 1 Sam. xxii. 17-19.\n\n[156] Herod., vii. 43. Xerxes offered one thousand at Troy, and\nCr\u0153sus three thousand at Delphi (_Id._, i. 50).\n\n[157] Hence, perhaps, the LXX. rendering of \u0394\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f08\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1.\nThis view is accepted by Hengstenberg (_Egypt and the Five Books of\nMoses_, chap. vi.), and Kalisch (on Exod. xxviii. 31).\n\n[158] Arist., _Eth. Nic._, i. 13: \"\u03b2\u03b5\u03bb\u03c4\u03af\u03c9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd\n\u1f22 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\"\n\n[159] Bishop Hall.\n\n[160] \"\u0395\u1f54\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c6\u03c1\u1f74\u03bd \u1f44\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\"--\u00c6sch., _Eum._, 104.\n\n[161] Ecclus. xv. 16, 17.\n\n[162] Emerson.\n\n[163] The phrase \"a little child\" (comp. Jer. i. 6) hardly bears on\nhis actual age. See Gen. xliii. 8; Exod. xxxiii. 11. It is proverbial\nlike the subsequent phrase, for which see Deut. xxviii. 6; Psalm\ncxxi. 8, etc.\n\n[164] Heb., \"A hearing heart.\" LXX., \"A heart to hear and judge Thy\npeople in righteousness.\" In 2 Chron. i. 10, \"Wisdom and knowledge.\"\n\n[165] Matt. vi. 33.\n\n[166] Josephus (_Antt._, VIII. vii. 8) makes him die at ninety-four,\nand become king at fourteen. Perhaps he mistook \u03bc' for \u03c0' in the LXX.\n\n[167] Psalm cxxvii. 2 (uncertain).\n\n[168] 1 Sam. viii. 6, 20; 2 Sam. xv. 4. \"To rule was with the\nancients the synonym of to judge.\" Artemidorus, _Oneirocr._, ii. 14.\n(B\u00e4hr, _ad loc._).\n\n[169] Compare the Ph\u0153nician's _Suffetes_ (Liv.).\n\n[170] As instances of the lower sense in which the term \"wisdom\" was\napplied, see 2 Sam. xiii. 3 (Jonadab); xiv. 2 (the woman of Tekoa);\nxx. 16 (the woman of Abel of Beth-maachah).\n\n[171] The Rabbis call them \"innkeepers,\" as they call Rahab.\n\n[172] I follow the not improbable additional details given by\nJosephus from tradition.\n\n[173] \u05d9\u05b5\u05dc\u05b6\u05d3. LXX., \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n[174] So the Greek version, which represents the clause rightly.\nTradition narrates a yet earlier specimen of Solomon's wisdom. Some\nsheep had strayed into a pasture. The owner of the land demanded\nreparation. David said that to repay his loss he might keep the\nsheep. \"No,\" said Solomon, who was but eleven years old, \"let him\nkeep them only till their wool, milk, and lambs have repaid the\ndamage; then let him restore them to their owner.\" David admitted\nthat this was the more equitable judgment, and he adopted it. See The\nQur'an, _Sura_ xxi. 79 (Palmer's Qur'an, ii. 52).\n\n[175] The parallel is adduced by Grotius.\n\n[176] Quoted by B\u00e4hr.\n\n[177] Suet., _Claud._, 15.\n\n[178] For references to animals, etc., see Prov. vi. 6, xxiv. 30-34,\nxxx. 15-19, 24-31; Josephus, _Antt._, VIII. ii. 5; Ecclus. xlvii. 17.\n\n[179] See Isa. xix. 11, xxxi. 2; Acts vii. 22; Herod., ii. 160;\nJosephus, _Antt._, VIII. ii. 5 (Keil).\n\n[180] See 1 Chron. ii. 6, vi. 44, xv. 17, 19, xxv. 5. Titles\nof Psalms xviii., lxxxviii., lxxxix. \"Ezrahite,\" perhaps, is a\ntransposition of Zerahite.\n\n[181] 1 Chron. ii. 6. In _Seder Olam_ they are called \"prophets who\nprophesied in Egypt.\"\n\n[182] \"Sons of Mahol\" (comp. Eccles. xii. 4).\n\n[183] Psalms lxxii., cxxvii. The so-called \"Psalms of Solomon,\" fifteen\nin number, are of the Maccabean age; Josephus calls his songs \u03b2\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f60\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd, and his proverbs \u03b2\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd.\n\n[184] See Euseb., _Pr\u00e6p. Evang._, ix. 34, \u00a7 19.\n\n[185] Prov. xi. 22, xxiv. 30-34, xxv. 25, xxvi. 8, xxx. 15.\n\n[186] _E.g._, Prov. vi. 10.\n\n[187] 1 Kings x. 1; LXX., \u1f10\u03bd \u03b1\u1f30\u03bd\u03af\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9. See W\u00fcnsche, _Die\nR\u00e4thselweisheit_, 1883; Gr\u00e4tz, _Hist. of the Jews_, i. 162. For\nspecimens of her traditional puzzles see the author's _Solomon_, p.\n135 (Men of the Bible).\n\n[188] \"And Solomon was David's heir, and said, Ye folk! we have been\ntaught the speech of birds, and we have been given everything: verily\nthis is a Divine grace\" (Qur'an, _Sura_ xxvii. 15). For the legend of\nSolomon and the hoopoes, see _Sura_ 27.\n\n[189] According to Suidas (s.v., \u1f18\u03b6\u03b5\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2) Hezekiah found his (magic?)\nformul\u00e6 for the cure of diseases engraved on the posts of the Temple.\nSee Targum on Esth. i. 2; Eccles. ii. 8.\n\n[190] Job xxviii. 23, 28.\n\n[191] Prov. i. 7.\n\n[192] Ecclus. xlvii. 13-18.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XIII.\n\n                     _SOLOMON'S COURT AND KINGDOM._\n\n                           1 KINGS iv. 1-34.\n\n          \"But what more oft in nations grown corrupt\n           And by their vices brought to servitude,\n           Than to love bondage more than liberty,\n           Bondage with ease than strenuous liberty?\"\n                                          _Samson Agonistes._\n\n\nWhen David was dead, and Solomon was established on his throne, his\nfirst thoughts were turned to the consolidation of his kingdom. He\nwas probably quite a youth.[193] He was not, nor did he ever desire\nto be, a warlike prince; but he was compelled to make himself secure\nfrom two enemies--Hadad and Rezon--who began almost at once to\nthreaten his frontiers. Of these, however, we shall speak later on,\nsince it is only towards the close of Solomon's reign that they seem\nto have given serious trouble. If the second psalm is by Solomon it\nmay point to some early disturbances among heathen neighbours which\nhe had successfully put down.\n\nThe only actual expedition which Solomon ever made was one against\na certain Hamath-Zobah, to which, however, very little importance\ncan be attached. It is simply mentioned in one line in the Book\nof Chronicles, and it is hard to believe--considering that Rezon\nhad possession of Damascus--that Solomon was master of the _great_\nHamath.[194] He made a material alteration in the military organisation\nof his kingdom by establishing a standing army of fourteen hundred\nwar-chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen, whom he dispersed in\nvarious cities and barracks, keeping some of them at Jerusalem.[195]\n\nIn order to save his kingdom from attack Solomon expended vast sums\non the fortification of frontier towns. In the north he fortified\nHazor; in the north-west Megiddo. The passes to Jerusalem on the west\nwere rendered safe by the fortresses at Upper and Nether Bethhoron.\nThe southern districts were overawed by the building of Baalath and\nTamar, \"the palm-city,\" which is described as \"in the wilderness in\nthe land,\"--perhaps in the desolate tract on the road from Hebron to\nElath.[196] Movers thinks that Hazezon-Tamar or Engedi is meant, as\nthis town is called Tamar in Ezek. xlvii. 19.\n\nAs the king grew more and more in power he gave full reins to his\ninnate love of magnificence. We can best estimate the sudden leap\nof the kingdom into luxurious civilisation if we contrast the\nroyalty of Saul with that of Solomon. Saul was little more than a\npeasant-prince, a local em\u00eer, and such state as he had was of the\nhumblest description. But Solomon vied with the gorgeous secular\ndynasts of historic empires.\n\nHis position had become much more splendid owing to his alliance with\nthe King of Egypt--an alliance of which his humbler predecessors would\nscarcely have dreamed. We are not told the name of his Egyptian bride,\nbut she must have been the daughter of one of the last kings of the\ntwenty-first Tanite dynasty--either Psinaces, or Psusennes II.[197]\nThe dynasty had been founded at Tanis (Zoan) about B.C. 1100 by an\nambitious priest named Hir-hor. It only lasted for five generations.\nWhatever other dower Solomon received with this Egyptian princess, his\nfather-in-law rendered him one signal service. He advanced from Egypt\nwith an army against the Canaanite town of Gezer, which he conquered\nand destroyed.[198] Solomon rebuilt it as an outpost of defence for\nJerusalem. Further than this the Egyptian alliance did not prove to\nbe of much use. The last king of this weak twenty-first dynasty was\nsucceeded B.C. 990 by the founder of a new Bubastite dynasty, the great\nShishak I. (Shesonk, \u03a3\u03b5\u03c3\u03cc\u03bd\u03c7\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), the protector of Jeroboam and the\nplunderer of Jerusalem and its Temple. Ker'amat, niece of the last king\nof the dynasty, married Shishak, the founder of the new dynasty, and\nwas the mother of U-Sark-on I. (Zerah the Ethiopian).\n\nIt has been a matter of dispute among the Rabbis whether Solomon was\ncommendable or blameworthy for contracting this foreign alliance. If\nwe judge him simply from the secular standpoint, nothing could be\nmore obviously politic than the course he took. Nor did he break any\nlaw in marrying Pharaoh's daughter. Moses had not forbidden the union\nwith an Egyptian woman. Still, from the religious point of view,\nit was inevitable that such a connexion would involve consequences\nlittle in accordance with the theocratic ideal. The kings of Judah\nmust not be judged as though they were ordinary sovereigns. They\nwere meant to be something more than mere worldly potentates. The\nEgyptian alliance, instead of flattering the pride, only wounded\nthe susceptibilities of the later Jews. The Rabbis had a fantastic\nnotion that Shimei had been Solomon's teacher, and that the king\ndid not fall into the error of wedding an alien[199] until Shimei\nhad been driven from Jerusalem.[200] That there was some sense of\ndoubt in Solomon's mind appears from the statement in 2 Chron. viii.\n11, that he deemed it unfit for his bride to have her residence on\nMount Moriah, a spot hallowed by the presence of the Ark of God.[201]\nThat she became a proselytess has been suggested, but it is most\nunlikely. Had this been the case it would have been mentioned in\ncontrast with the heathenism of the fair idolatresses who in later\nyears beguiled the king's heart. On the other hand, the princess, who\nwas his chief if not his earliest bride, does not seem to have asked\nfor any shrine or chapel for the practice of her Egyptian rites.\nThis is the more remarkable since Solomon, ashamed of the humble\ncedar house of David--which would look despicable to a lady who had\nlived in \"the gigantic edifices, and labyrinthine palace of Egyptian\nkings\"[202]--expended vast sums in building her a palace which should\nseem worthy of her royal race.\n\nFrom this time forward the story of Solomon becomes more the record\nof a passing pageant preserved for us in loosely arranged fragments.\nIt can never be one tithe so interesting as the history of a human\nheart with its sufferings and passions. \"Solomon in all his glory,\"\nthat figure so unique, so lonely in its wearisome pomp, can never\nstir our sympathy or win our affection as does the natural, impetuous\nDavid, or even the fallen, unhappy Saul. \"The low sun makes the\ncolour.\" The bright gleams and dark shadows of David's life are more\ninstructive than the dull monotony of Solomon's magnificence.\n\nThe large space of Scripture devoted to him in the Books of Kings\nand Chronicles is occupied almost exclusively with the details of\narchitecture and display. It is only in the first and last sections\nof his story that we catch the least glimpse of the man himself.\nIn the central section we see nothing of him, but are absorbed in\nmeasurements and descriptions which have a purely arch\u00e6ological, or,\nat the best, a dimly symbolic significance. The man is lost in the\nmonarch, the monarch in the appurtenances of his royal display. His\nannals degenerate into the record of a sumptuous parade.\n\nThe fourth chapter of the Book of Kings gives us the constitution\nof his court as it was in the middle of his reign, when two of his\ndaughters were already married. It need not detain us long.\n\nThe highest officers of the kingdom were called _Sarim_, \"princes,\" a\ntitle which in David's reign had been borne almost alone by Joab, who\nwas _Sar-ha-zaba_, or captain of the host. The son of Zadok[203] is\nnamed first as \"the priest.\" The two chief secretaries (_Sopherim_)\nwere Elihoreph and Ahiah. They inherited the office of their father\nShavsha (1 Chron. xviii. 16),[204] who had been the secretary of\nDavid. It was their duty to record decrees and draw up the documents\nof state. Jehoshaphat, the son of Ahilud, continued to hold the\noffice of annalist or historiographer (_Mazk\u00eer_), the officer known\nas the Waka Nuwish in Persian courts.[205] Azariah was over the\ntwelve prefects (_Nitzabim_), or farmers-general, who administered\nthe revenues.[206] His brother Zabud became \"priest\" and \"king's\nfriend.\"[207] Ahishar was \"over the household\" (_al-hab-Baith_); that\nis, he was the chamberlain, vizier, or mayor of the palace, wearing\non his shoulder the key which was the symbol of his authority.[208]\nAdoniram or Adoram, who had been tax-collector for David, still\nheld that onerous and invidious office,[209] which subsequently,\nin his advanced old age, cost him his life. Benaiah succeeded to\nthe chief-captaincy of Joab. We hear nothing more of him, but the\nsubsequent history shows that when David gathered around him this\nhalf alien and wholly mercenary force in a country which had no\nstanding army, he turned the sovereignty into what the Greeks would\nhave called a tyranny. As the only armed force in the kingdom the\nbody-guard overawed opposition, and was wholly at the disposal of the\nking. These troops were to Solomon at Jerusalem what the Pr\u00e6torians\nwere to Tiberius at Rome.\n\nThe chief points of interest presented by the list are these:--\n\n1. First we mark the absence of any prophet. Neither Nathan nor Gad\nis even mentioned. The pure ray of Divine illumination is overpowered\nby the glitter of material prosperity.\n\n2. Secondly, the priests are quite subordinate. They are only mentioned\nfifth in order, and Abiathar is named with Zadok, though after his\ndeposition he was living in enforced retirement.[210] The sacerdotal\nauthority was at this time quite overshadowed by the royal. In all\nthe elaborate details of the pomp which attended the consecration of\nthe Temple, Solomon is everything, the priests comparatively nothing.\nZadok is not even mentioned as taking any part in the sacrifices in\nspite of his exalted rank. Solomon acts throughout as supreme head of\nthe Church. Nor was this unnatural, since the two capital events in\nthe history of the worship of Jehovah--the removal of the Ark to Mount\nZion, and the suggestion, inception, and completion of the building of\nthe Temple--were due to Solomon and David, not to Zadok or Abiathar.\nThe priests, throughout the monarchy, suggest nothing, inaugurate\nnothing. They are lost in functions and formal ceremonies. They are\nbut obedient administrative servants, and, so far from protecting\nreligion, they acquiesce with tame indifference in every innovation and\nevery apostasy. History has few titles which form so poor a claim to\ndistinction as that of Levitic priest.\n\n3. Further, we have two curious and significant phenomena. The title\n\"the priest\" is given to Azariah, who is first mentioned among the\ncourt functionaries. Solomon had not the least intention to allow\neither the priestly or the much loftier prophetic functions to\ninterfere with his autocracy. He did not choose that there should be\nany danger of a priest usurping an exorbitant influence, as Hir-hor\nhad done in Egypt, or Ethbaal afterwards did in the court of Tyre,\nor Thomas \u00e0-Becket in the court of England, or Torquemada in that of\nSpain. He was too much a king to submit to priestly domination. He\ntherefore appointed one who should be \"the priest\" for courtly and\nofficial purposes, and should stand in immediate subordination to\nhimself.\n\n4. The Nathan whose two sons, Azariah and Zabud, held such high\npositions, was in all probability not Nathan the Prophet, who is rarely\nintroduced without his distinctive title, but Nathan, the younger\nbrother of Solomon, in whose line the race of David was continued\nafter the extinction of the elder branch in Jeconiah. Here again we\nnote the union of _civil_ with priestly functions. Zabud is called \"a\npriest\" though he is a layman, a prince of the tribe of Judah. Nor was\nthis the first instance in which princes of the royal house had found\nmaintenance, occupation, and high official rank by being in some sort\nengaged in the functions of the priesthood. Already in David's reign\nwe find the title \"priests\" (_Kohanim_) given to the sons of David in\nthe list of court officials[211]--\"_and David's sons were priests_.\" In\nthis we trace the possible results of Ph\u0153nician influences.\n\n5. Incidentally it is pleasing to find that, though Solomon put\nAdonijah to death, he stood in close and kindly relations with his\nother brothers, and gave high promotions to the sons of the brothers\nwho stood nearest to him in age, in one of whom we see the destined\nancestor of the future Messiah.[212]\n\n6. The growth of imposing officialism, and its accompanying gulf\nbetween the king and his people, is marked by the first appearance of\n\"the chamberlain\" as a new functionary. On him fell the arrangement\nof court pageants and court etiquette. The chamberlain in despotic\nEastern courts becomes a personage of immense importance, because\nhe controls the right of admission into the royal presence. Such\nofficers, even when chosen from the lowest rank of slaves--like\nEutropius the eunuch-minister of Arcadius,[213] or Olivier le Daim,\nthe barber-minister of Louis XI.--often absorb no mean part of the\ninfluence of the sovereign with whom they are brought into daily\nconnexion. In the court of Solomon the chamberlain stands only ninth\nin order; but three centuries later, in the days of Hezekiah, he has\nbecome the greatest of the officials, and \"Eliakim who was over the\nhousehold\" is placed before Shebna, the influential scribe, and Joah,\nthe son of Asaph the recorder.[214]\n\n7. Last on the list stands the minister who has the ominous title\nof _al-ham-Mas_, or \"over the tribute.\" The Mas means the \"levy,\"\ncorv\u00e9e, or forced labour. In other words, Adoram was overseer of the\nsoccagers. Saul had required an overseer of the flocks, and David a\nguardian of the treasury, but Adoram is not mentioned till late in\nhis reign.[215] The _gravamen_ of David's numbering of the people\nseems to have lain in the intention to subject them to a poll tax,\nor to personal service, such as had become necessary to maintain the\nexpenses of the court. It is obvious that, as royalty developed from\nthe conception of the theocratic king to that of the Oriental despot,\nthe stern warning of Samuel to the people of Israel was more and more\nfulfilled. They had said, \"Nay, but we will have a king to reign over\nus, when Jehovah was their king\"; and Samuel had told them how much\nless blessed was bondage with ease than their strenuous liberty. He\nhad warned them that their king would take their sons for his runners\nand charioteers and reapers and soldiers and armourers, and their\ndaughters for his perfumers and confectioners; and that he would\nseize their fields and vineyards for his courtiers, and claim the\ntithes of their possession, and use their asses, and put their oxen\nto his work. The word \"_Mas_\" representing soccage, serfdom, forced\nlabour (corv\u00e9e; Germ., _Frohndienst_), first became odiously familiar\nin the days of Solomon.\n\nSolomon was an expensive king, and the Jewish kings had no private\nrevenue from which the necessary resources could be supplied. In order\nto secure contributions for the maintenance of the royal establishment,\nSolomon appointed his twelve Prefects. The list of them is incorporated\nfrom a document so ancient that in several instances the names have\ndropped out, and only \"son of\" remains.[216] The districts entirely\nand designedly ignored the old tribal limits, which Solomon probably\nwished to obliterate. Ben-Hur administered the hill country of Ephraim;\nBen-Dekar had his headquarters in Dan; Ben-Hesed had the maritime\nplain; Ben-Abinadab the fertile region of Carmel, and he was wedded\nto Solomon's daughter Taphath;[217] Baana, son of Ahilud, managed the\nplain of Esdraelon; Ben-Geber the mountainous country east of Jordan,\nincluding Gilead and Argob with its basaltic towns; Ahinadab, son of\nIddo, was officer in Mahanaim; Ahimaaz in Naphtali (he was married to\nSolomon's daughter Basmath, and was perhaps the son of Zadok); Baanah,\nson of David's faithful Hushai, was in Asher; Shimei, son of Elah, in\nBenjamin; Jehoshaphat in Issachar. Geber administered alone the ancient\ndominions of Sihon and Og. We see with surprise that Judah seems to\nhave been exempted from the burdens imposed on the other districts,\nand if so the impolitic exemption was a main cause of the subsequent\njealousies.[218]\n\nThe chief function of these officers was to furnish provisions\nfor the immense numbers who were connected with the court. The\ncurious list is given of the provision required for one day--thirty\nmeasures of fine flour, sixty of bread,[219] ten fat oxen, twenty\npasture oxen, and one hundred sheep, besides the delicacies of\nharts, gazelles, fallow-deer, and fatted guinea-hens or swans.[220]\nBunsen reckons that this would provide for about fifteen thousand\npersons. In this there is nothing extraordinary, though the number\nis disproportionate to the smallness of the kingdom. About the same\nnumber were daily supported by the kings of the great empire of\nPersia.[221] We see how rapidly the state of royalty had developed\nwhen we compare Solomon's superb surroundings with the humble palace\nof Ishbosheth less than fifty years earlier--a palace of which the\nonly guard was a single sleepy woman, who had been sifting wheat in\nthe noontide, and had fallen asleep over her task in the porch.[222]\n\nYet in the earlier years of the reign, while the people, dazzled by\nthe novel sense of national importance, felt the stimulus given to\ntrade and industry, the burden was not painfully felt. They multiplied\nin numbers, and lived under their vines and fig trees in peace and\nfestivity.[223] But much of their prosperity was hollow and shortlived.\nWealth led to vice and corruption, and in place of the old mountain\nbreezes of freedom which purified the air, the nation, like Issachar,\nbecame like an ass crouching between two burdens, and bowing its\nshoulders to the yoke in the hot valley of sensuous servitude.\n\n          \"Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,\n           Where wealth accumulates and men decay!\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt is impossible to overlook the general drift of Jewish royalty\ntowards pure materialism in the days of Solomon. We search in vain\nfor the lofty spirituality which survived even in the rough epoch\nof the Judges and the rude simplicity of David's earlier reign. The\nnoble aspirations which throb in one Davidic psalm are worth all\nthe gorgeous formalism of the Temple service. Amid the luxuries of\nplenty and the feasts of wine on the lees there seems to have been an\never-deeping famine of the Word of God.\n\nThere was one innovation, which struck the imagination of Solomon's\ncontemporaries, but was looked on with entire disfavour by those who\nhad been trained in the old pious days. Solomon had immense stables\nfor his chariot horses (_susim_), and the swift riding horses of\nhis couriers (_parashim_).[224] It seems to have been Solomon's\nambition to equal or outshine \"the chariots of Pharaoh,\"[225] with\nwhich his Egyptian queen had been familiar at Tanis. This feature of\nhis reign is dwelt upon in the Arabian legends, as well as in all\nthe historical records of his greatness.[226] But the maintenance\nof a cavalry force had always been discouraged by the religious\nteachers of Israel. The use of horses in war is forbidden in\nDeuteronomy.[227] Joshua had houghed the horses of the Canaanites,\nand burned their chariots at Misrephoth-maim. David had followed\nhis example. Barak had defeated the iron chariots of Sisera, and\nDavid the splendid cavalry of Hadadezer with the simple infantry\nof Israel.[228] The spirit of the olden faithfulness spoke in such\nwords as, \"Some put their trust in chariots, and some in horses;\nbut we will trust in the name of the Lord our God.\" Solomon's[229]\nsuccessors discovered that they had not gained in strength by\nadopting this branch of military service in their hilly and rocky\nland. They found that \"a horse is but a vain thing to save a man,\nneither shall he deliver any man by his great strength.\"[230]\n\nFor a time, however, Solomon's strenuous centralisation was\nsuccessful. His dominion extended, at least nominally, from Tiphzah\n(Thapsacus), beside the ford on the west bank of the Euphrates, to\nthe Mediterranean; over the whole domain of the Philistines; and from\nDamascus to \"the river of Egypt,\" that is, the Rhinokolura or Wady\nel-Areesh. The names Jeroboam and Rehoboam imply that they were born\nin an epoch of prosperity.[231] But the sequel proves that it was\nthat sort of empire which,\n\n                      \"Like expanded gold,\n          Exchanges solid strength for feeble splendour.\"[232]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[193] Josephus, _Antt._, VIII. vii. 8. According to one tradition he\nlived to fifty-three (Ewald, iii. 208), and was only twelve when he\nsucceeded David.\n\n[194] 2 Chron. viii. 3. Ewald thinks it is confirmed by 2 Kings xiv.\n28, where, however, the Hebrew is obscure.\n\n[195] 1 Kings x. 26.\n\n[196] 1 Kings ix. 18. Here the \"Q'r\u00ee,\" the marginal, or \"read\" text,\nhas Tadmor (_i.e._, Palmyra), as also in 2 Chron. viii. 4. But this\nTamar (Ezek. xlvii. 19, xlviii. 28) is \"_in the land_\" on the south\nborder. In the Chronicles Tadmor is the right reading, for the\nchronicler is speaking of Hamath-Zobah and the north. It is not at\nall unlikely that Solomon also built Tadmor (Josephus, _Antt._, VIII.\nvi. 1) to protect his commerce on the route to the Euphrates.\n\n[197] The forty-fifth psalm is supposed by old interpreters to have\nbeen an epithalamium on this occasion, but was probably much later.\nPerhaps notices like 1 Kings iii. 1-3 (the Egyptian alliance), the\nadmonition in 1 Kings ix. 1-9 and the luxury described in x. 14-29,\nare meant as warning notes of what follows in xi. 1-8 (the apostasy),\n9-13 (the prophruption), and 14-43 (the concluding disaster).\n\n[198] Gezer is Abu-Shusheh, or Tell-el-Gezer, between Ramleh and\nJerusalem (Oliphant, _Haifa_, p. 253), on the lower border of\nEphraim. Ewald identifies it with Geshur, the town of Talmai,\nAbsalom's grandfather. See Lenormant, _Hist. anc. de l'Orient._, i.\n337-43. The genealogy of this dynasty is thus given by Brugsch-Bey\n(Gen. Table iv.), _Hist. of Egypt_, vol. ii.:--\n\n                           Hir-hor==Notem.\n                                   |\n                                Piankhi.\n                                   |\n                               Pinotem I.\n                                   |\n                          +--------+---------+\n                          |                  |\n                    Pisebkhan I.      Men-khepher-ra.\n                                             |\n                    +-------------|----------+-----+\n                    |             |                |\n              Pinotem II.   Pisebkhan II.     Ker'amat\n                                            (a daughter).\n\n[199] See Deut. xxiii. 7, 8.\n\n[200] Schwab's _Berakhoth_, p. 252; Hershon, _Treasures of the\nTalmud_, p. 25. In Sanhedrin, ff. 21, 22, there is another trace of\nthe dislike with which the marriage (though not forbidden, Deut.\nxxiii. 7, 8) was regarded: \"When Solomon married the daughter of\nPharaoh, Gabriel descended and fixed a reed in the sea. A sandbank\nformed around it on which _Rome_ was subsequently built.\" In\nShabbath, ff. 51, 52, we are told that \"the princess brought with\nher one thousand different kinds of musical instruments, and _taught\nSolomon the chants to his various idols_.\"\n\n[201] No trace of any such misgiving is found in the Book of Kings.\n\n[202] \"Seine Liebhaberei sind kostbare Bauten, fremde Weiber, reiche\nPrachtentfaltung\" (Kittel, ii. 160).\n\n[203] Perhaps rather \"the grandson.\" He was the son of Ahimaaz (comp.\nGen. xxix. 5; Ezra v. 1, where _son = grandson_).\n\n[204] Shisha and Shavsha are perhaps corruptions of Seraiah (2 Sam.\nviii. 17).\n\n[205] Comp. Esth. vi. 1. LXX., Isa. xxxvi. 3, \u1f41 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 2\nSam. viii. 17, \u1f41 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd. Jerome, \"_a commentariis_.\"\nComp. Suet., _Aug._ 79, \"_qui e memoria Augusti_.\"\n\n[206] It is a somewhat ominous fact that _netsib_ means properly an\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c7\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03cc\u03c2, a garrison in a hostile country.\n\n[207] The king's friend (2 Sam. xv. 37) seems to have been a sort of\nconfidential privy councillor (Prov. xxii. 11).\n\n[208] Isa. xxii. 21.\n\n[209] 2 Sam. xx. 24.\n\n[210] Possibly this clause is an interpolation.\n\n[211] 2 Sam. viii. 18. Even \"Ira the Jairite\" is called \"a priest\"\n(2 Sam. xx. 26). An attempt has been made to explain the word away\nbecause it obviously clashes with Levitic ordinances; but the word\n\"priest\" could not be used in two different senses in two consecutive\nlines. Dogmatic considerations have tampered with the obvious meaning\nof the word. The LXX. omits it, and in the case of David's sons calls\nthem \u03b1\u1f50\u03bb\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9. The A.V. renders it \"chief officer.\" The Vulgate\nwrongly refers it to Zadok (filius Sadoc _sacerdotis_). Movers\n(_Krit. Unters._, 301 ff.) renders it \"court chaplains.\" Already\nin 1 Chron. xviii. 17 we find that the title gave offence, and we\nread instead, \"And the sons of David _were at the hand of the king_\"\n(see Ewald, _Alterthumsk_, p. 276). Compare the title \"Bishop of\nOsnaburg,\" borne by Frederick, Duke of York, son of George III.\n\n[212] 2 Sam. v. 14; Zech. xii. 12; Luke iii. 31.\n\n[213] The degraded and ominous apparitions of _Sarisim_ (eunuchs)\nprobably began at the court of Solomon on a large scale, though the\nname occurs in the days of David (1 Sam. viii. 15; 1 Chron. xxviii.\n1). In the Northern Kingdom we first hear of them in the harem of the\npolygamous Ahab.\n\n[214] 2 Kings xviii. 18; Isa. xxii. 15.\n\n[215] 2 Sam. xx. 24. He is not mentioned in 1 Chron. xxvii. 25-31.\n\n[216] This use of patronymics only is common among the Arabs, but not\nin Scripture (Reuss, _Hist. d. Isr._, i. 423).\n\n[217] If he was the son of David's elder brother (1 Sam. xvi. 8,\nxvii. 13) he was Solomon's first cousin. The materialistic or\nnon-religious element in Solomon seems to come out in the names\nof his only known children. The element \"Jehovah,\" afterwards so\nuniversal, does not occur in them. Basmath, characteristically, means\n\"fragrant\"; Taphath is perhaps connected with \u05d8\u05b8\u05e4\u05b7\u05ea, to go mincingly;\nRehoboam means \"enlarger of the people.\"\n\n[218] The LXX. indeed reads \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03b1\u03c3\u1f72\u03c6 \u03b5\u1f37\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd \u03b3\u1fc7 \u1f38\u03bf\u03cd\u03b4\u03b1 (\"and he was\nthe only officer in the land of Judah\"). But this would make thirteen\nfiscal overseers. The Targum, adopting the same reading, says that the\nthirteenth _nitzab_ was to maintain the king in the intercalary month.\n\n[219] Taking the _cor_ at a low estimate this would amount to\neighteen thousand pounds of bread a day.\n\n[220] 1 Kings iv. 23, \u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05e8\u05b0\u05d1\u05bb\u05bc\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd. Vulg., _Avium altilium_.\n\n[221] Athen., _Deipnos._, iv. 146.\n\n[222] 2 Sam. iv. 6 (LXX.).\n\n[223] This description of _agricultural_ felicity soon became an\nanachronism.\n\n[224] Not \"dromedaries\" (A.V.). The ruins of his stables are still\npointed out at Jerusalem. He traded with Egypt for horses and\nchariots which his merchants brought to Tekoa, and he then sold\nthem at a profit to the Hittite princes. The forty thousand stalls\nof 1 Kings iv. 26 should doubtless be four thousand (2 Chron. ix.\n25), as Solomon only had fourteen hundred chariots (1 Kings x. 26).\nIn 1 Kings x. 28 the meaning and reading is \"as for the export of\nhorses, which Solomon got from Egypt _even from Tekoa_\" (LXX., \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f72\u03ba\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u1f72), \"the royal merchants used to fetch a troop of horses at a\nprice.\" The \"linen yarn\" of the A.V. is a mistranslation.\n\n[225] Cant. i. 9.\n\n[226] 1 Kings v. 6, ix. 19, x. 26, 28. Two of those passages are\nomitted in the LXX. Comp. 1 Kings xvi. 9.\n\n[227] Deut. xvii. 16.\n\n[228] Josh. xi. 9; 1 Sam. viii. 11, 12; 2 Sam. viii. 4.\n\n[229] The energetic dislike to the importation or use of horses is\nalso found in Isa. ii. 7, xxx. 16, 17, xxxi. 1-3; Micah v. 10-14;\nZech. ix. 10, x. 5, xii. 4.\n\n[230] Psalm xxxiii. 17, lxxvi. 6, cxlvii. 10.\n\n[231] Compare Poludemos, Eurudemos.\n\n[232] Xen., _Anab._, i. 4, 11; Arrian, ii. 13, iii. 7. For the phrase\n\"on _this_ side of the river,\" see _ante_, p. 18.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XIV.\n\n                             _THE TEMPLE._\n\n                         1 KINGS v., vi., vii.\n\n          \"And his next son, for wealth and wisdom famed,\n           The clouded Ark of God, till then in tents\n           Wandering, shall in a glorious temple enshrine.\"\n                                         _Paradise Lost_, xii. 340.\n\n\nAfter the destructive battle of Aphek, in which the Philistines\nhad defeated Israel, slain the two sons of Eli, and taken captive\nthe Ark of God, they had inflicted a terrible vengeance on the old\nsanctuary at Shiloh. They had burnt the young men in the fire,\nand slain the priests with the sword, and no widows were left to\nmake lamentation.[233] It is true that, terrified by portents and\ndiseases, the Philistines after a time restored the Ark, and the\nTabernacle of the wilderness with its brazen altar still gave\nsacredness to the great high place at Gibeon, to which apparently\nit had been removed.[234] Nevertheless, the old worship seems\nto have languished till it received a new and powerful impulse\nfrom the religious earnestness of David. He had the mind of a\npatriot-statesman as well as of a soldier, and he felt that a nation\nis nothing without its sacred memories. Those memories clustered\nround the now-discredited Ark. Its capture, and its parade as a\ntrophy of victory in the shrine of Dagon, had robbed it of all its\nsuperstitious prestige as a fetish; but, degraded as it had been, it\nstill continued to be the one inestimably precious historic relic\nwhich enshrined the memories of the deliverance of Israel from Egypt,\nand the dawn of its heroic age.\n\nAs soon as David had given to his people the boon of a unique capital,\nnothing could be more natural than the wish to add sacredness to\nthe glory of the capital by making it the centre of the national\nworship. According to the Chronicles, David--feeling it a reproach\nthat he himself should dwell in palaces ceiled with cedar and painted\nwith vermilion while the Ark of God dwelt between curtains--had made\nunheard-of preparations to build a house for God. But it had been\ndecreed unfit that the sanctuary should be built by a man whose hands\nwere red with the blood of many wars, and he had received the promise\nthat the great work should be accomplished by his son.[235]\n\nInto that work Solomon threw himself with hearty zeal in the\nmonth Zif[236] of the fourth year of his reign, when his kingdom\nwas consolidated.[237] It commanded all his sympathies as an\nartist, a lover of magnificence, and a ruler bent on the work of\ncentralisation. It was a task to which he was bound by the solemn\nexhortation of his father, and he felt, doubtless, its political as\nwell as its religious importance. With his sincere desire to build to\nGod's glory was mingled a prophetic conviction that his task would be\nfraught with immense issues for the future of his people and of all\nthe world. The presence of the Temple left its impress on the very\nname of Jerusalem. Although it has nothing to do with the Temple or\nwith Solomon, it became known to the heathen world as Hierosolyma,\nwhich, as we see from Eupolemos (Euseb., _Pr\u00e6p. Evang._, ix. 34), the\nGentile world supposed to mean \"the Temple (_Hieron_) of Solomon.\"\n\nThe materials already provided were of priceless value. David had\nconsecrated to God the spoils which he had won from conquered\nkings. We must reject, as the exaggerations of national vanity, the\nmonstrous numbers which now stand in the text of the chronicler; but\na king whose court was simple and inexpensive was quite able to amass\ntreasures of gold and silver, brass and iron, precious marbles and\nonyx stones. Solomon had only to add to these sacred stores.[238]\n\nHe inherited the friendship which David had enjoyed, with Hiram,\nKing of Tyre, who, according to the strange phrase of the Vatican\nSeptuagint, sent his servants \"to anoint\" Solomon. The friendliest\novertures passed between the two kings in letters, to which Josephus\nappeals as still extant. A commercial treaty was made by which\nSolomon engaged to furnish the Tyrian king with annual revenues of\nwheat, barley, and oil,[239] and Hiram put at Solomon's disposal the\nskilled labour of an army of Sidonian wood-cutters and artisans.[240]\nThe huge trunks of cedar and cypress were sent rushing down the\nheights of Lebanon by schlittage, and laboriously dragged by road or\nriver to the shore. There they were constructed into immense rafts,\nwhich were floated a hundred miles along the coast to Joppa, where\nthey were again dragged with enormous toil for thirty-five miles\nup the steep and rocky roads to Jerusalem. For more than twenty\nyears, while Solomon was building the Temple and his various royal\nconstructions, Jerusalem became a hive of ceaseless and varied\nindustry. Its ordinary inhabitants must have been swelled by an army\nof Canaanite serfs and Ph\u0153nician artisans to whom residences were\nassigned in Ophel. There lived the hewers and bevellers of stone;\nthe cedar-cutters of Gebal or Biblos;[241] the cunning workmen in\ngold or brass; the bronze-casters who made their moulds in the clay\nground of the Jordan valley; the carvers and engravers; the dyers who\nstained wool with the purple of the murex, and the scarlet dye of the\ntrumpet fish; the weavers and embroiderers of fine linen. Every class\nof labourer was put into requisition, from the descendants of the\nGibeonite _Nethinim_, who were rough hewers of wood and drawers of\nwater, to the trained artificers whose beautiful productions were the\nwonder of the world. The \"father,\" or master-workman, of the whole\ncommunity was a half-caste, who also bore the name of Hiram, and was\nthe son of a woman of Naphtali by a Tyrian father.[242]\n\nSome writers have tried to minimise Solomon's work as a builder, and\nhave spoken of the Temple as an exceedingly insignificant structure\nwhich would not stand a moment's comparison with the smallest and\nhumblest of our own cathedrals. Insignificant in size it certainly\nwas, but we must not forget its costly splendour, the remote age in\nwhich the work was achieved, and the truly stupendous constructions\nwhich the design required. Mount Moriah was selected as a site\nhallowed by the tradition of Abraham's sacrifice, and more recently\nby David's vision of the Angel of the Pestilence with his drawn sword\non the threshing-floor of the Jebusite Prince Araunah.[243] But to\nutilise this doubly consecrated area involved almost superhuman\ndifficulties, which would have been avoided if the loftier but less\nsuitable height of the Mount of Olives could have been chosen. The\nrugged summit had to be enlarged to a space of five hundred yards\nsquare, and this level was supported by Cyclopean walls, which have\nlong been the wonder of the world.[244] The magnificent wall on the\neast side, known as \"the Jews' wailing-place,\" is doubtless the work\nof Solomon, and after outlasting \"the drums and tramplings of a\nhundred triumphs,\" it remains to this day in uninjured massiveness.\nOne of the finely bevelled stones is 38-1/2 feet long and 7 feet\nhigh, and weighs more than 100 tons. These vast stones were hewn from\na quarry above the level of the wall, and lowered by rollers down\nan inclined plane. Part of the old wall rises 30 feet above the\npresent level of the soil, but a far larger part of the height lies\nhidden 80 feet under the accumulated _d\u00e9bris_ of the often captured\ncity. At the south-west angle, by Robinson's arch, three pavements\nwere discovered, one beneath the other, showing the gradual filling\nup of the valley; and on the lowest of these were found the broken\n_voussoirs_ of the arch. In Solomon's day the whole of this mighty\nwall was visible. On one of the lowest stones have been discovered\nthe Ph\u0153nician paint-marks which indicated where each of the huge\nmasses, so carefully dressed, edge-drafted, and bevelled, was to\nbe placed in the structure. The caverns, quarries, water storages,\nand subterranean conduits hewn out of the solid rock, over which\nJerusalem is built, could only have been constructed at the cost of\nimmeasurable toil. They would be wonderful even with our infinitely\nmore rapid methods and more powerful agencies; but when we remember\nthat they were made three thousand years ago we do not wonder that\ntheir massiveness has haunted the imagination of so many myriads of\nvisitors from every nation.\n\nIt was perhaps from his Egyptian father-in-law that Solomon, to his\nown cost, learnt the secret of forced labour which alone rendered\nsuch undertakings possible. In their Egyptian bondage the forefathers\nof Israel had been fatally familiar with the ugly word _Mas_, the\nlabour wrung from them by hard task-masters.[245] In the reign of\nSolomon it once more became only too common on the lips of the\nburdened people.[246]\n\nFour classes were subject to it.\n\n1. The lightest labour was required from the native freeborn\nIsraelites (_ezrach_). They were not regarded as bondsmen\n(\u05e2\u05b2\u05d1\u05b8\u05d3\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd), yet 30,000 of these were required in relays of 10,000 to\nwork, one month in every three, in the forest of Lebanon.[247]\n\n2. There were the strangers, or resident aliens (_Gerim_), such as the\nPh\u0153nicians and Giblites, who were Hiram's subjects and worked for pay.\n\n3. There were three classes of slaves--those taken in war, or sold\nfor debt, or home-born.\n\n4. Lowest and most wretched of all, there were the vassal Canaanites\n(_Toshabim_), from whom were drawn those 70,000 burden-bearers, and\n80,000 quarry-men, the Helots of Palestine, who were placed under the\ncharge of 3600 Israelite officers. The blotches of smoke are still\nvisible on the walls and roofs of the subterranean quarries where\nthese poor serfs, in the dim torchlight and suffocating air, \"laboured\nwithout reward, perished without pity, and suffered without redress.\"\nThe sad narrative reveals to us, and modern research confirms, that the\npurple of Solomon had a very seamy side, and that an abyss of misery\nheaved and moaned under the glittering surface of his splendour.[248]\nJerusalem during the twenty years occupied by his building must have\npresented the disastrous spectacle of task-masters, armed with rods\nand scourges, enforcing the toil of gangs of slaves, as we see\nthem represented on the tombs of Egypt and the palaces of Assyria.\nThe sequel shows the jealousies and discontents even of the native\nIsraelites, who felt themselves to be \"scourged with whips and laden\nwith heavy burdens.\" They were bondmen in all but name, for purposes\nwhich bore very little on their own welfare. But the curses of the\nwretched aborigines must have been deeper, if not so loud. They were\ntorn from such homes as the despotism of conquest still left to them,\nand were forced to hopeless and unrewarded toil for the alien worship\nand hateful palaces of their masters. Five centuries later we find a\npitiable trace of their existence in the 392 _Hierodouloi_, menials\nlower even than the enslaved _Nethinim_, who are called \"_sons of the\nslaves of Solomon_\"--the dwindling and miserable remnant of that vast\nlevy of Palestinian serfs.\n\nApart from the lavish costliness of its materials the actual Temple\nwas architecturally a poor and commonplace structure. It was quite\nsmall--only 90 feet long, 35 feet broad, and 45 feet high. It was\nmeant for the symbolic habitation of God, not for the worship of\ngreat congregations. It only represented the nascent art and limited\nresources of a tenth-rate kingdom, and was totally devoid alike of\nthe pure and stately beauty of the Parthenon and the awe-inspiring\ngrandeur of the great Egyptian temples with their avenues of obelisks\nand sphinxes and their colossal statues of deities and kings\n\n          \"Staring right on with calm, eternal eyes.\"\n\nWhen Justinian boastfully exclaimed, as he looked at his church, \"_I\nhave vanquished thee, O Solomon_,\"[249] and when the Khalif Omar,\npointing to the Dome of the Rock, murmured, \"_Behold, a greater than\nSolomon is here,_\" they forgot the vast differences between them and\nthe Jewish king in the epoch at which they lived and the resources\nwhich they could command. The Temple was built in \"majestic silence.\"\n\n          \"No workman's axe, no ponderous hammer rung,\n           Like some tall palm the noiseless fabric sprung.\"\n\nThis was due to religious reverence. It could be easily accomplished,\nbecause each stone and beam was carefully prepared to be fitted in\nits exact place before it was carried up the Temple hill.\n\nThe elaborate particulars furnished us of the measurements of Solomon's\nTemple are too late in age, too divergent in particulars, too\nloosely strung together, too much mingled with later reminiscences,\nand altogether too architecturally insufficient, to enable us to\nre-construct the exact building, or even to form more than a vague\nconception of its external appearance. Both in Kings and Chronicles the\nnotices, as Keil says, are \"incomplete extracts made independently of\none another,\" and vague in essential details. Critics and architects\nhave attempted to reproduce the Temple on Greek,[250] Egyptian,[251]\nand Ph\u0153nician[252] models, so entirely unlike each other as to show\nthat we can arrive at no certainty.[253] It is, however, most probable\nthat, alike in ornamentation and conception, the building was\npredominantly Ph\u0153nician.[254] Severe in outline, gorgeous in detail,\nit was more like the Temple of Venus-Astarte at Paphos than any other.\nFortunately the details, apart from such dim symbolism as we may\ndetect in them, have no religious importance, but only an historic and\nantiquarian interest.[255]\n\nThe Temple--called _Baith_ (\u05d1\u05b7\u05bc\u05d9\u05ea) or _H\u00eak\u00e2l_ (\u05d4\u05b5\u05d9\u05db\u05b8\u05dc)--was\nsurrounded by the thickly clustered houses of the Levites, and by\nporticoes[256] through which the precincts were entered by numerous\ngates of wood overlaid with brass. A grove of olives, palms, cedars,\nand cypresses, the home of many birds, probably adorned the outer\ncourt.[257] This court was shut from the \"higher court,\"[258]\nafterwards known as \"the Court of the Priests,\" by a partition of\nthree rows of hewn stones surmounted by a cornice of cedar beams. In\nthe higher court, which was reached by a flight of steps, was the\nvast new altar of brass, 15 feet high and 30 feet long, of which the\nhollow was filled with earth and stones, and of which the blazing\nsacrifices were visible in the court below.[259] Here also stood the\nhuge molten sea, borne on the backs of twelve brazen oxen, of which\nthree faced to each quarter of the heavens.[260] It was in the form\nof a lotus blossom, and its rim was hung with three hundred wild\ngourds in bronze, cast in two rows. Its reservoir of eight hundred\nand eighty gallons of water was for the priestly ablutions necessary\nin the butcheries of sacrifice, and its usefulness was supplemented\nby ten brazen caldrons on wheels, five on each side, adorned like\n\"the sea,\" with pensile garlands and cherubic emblems.[261] Whether\n\"the brazen serpent of the wilderness,\" to which the children of\nIsrael burnt incense down to the days of Hezekiah, was in that court\nor in the Temple we do not know.\n\nOn the western side of this court, facing the rising sun, stood the\nTemple itself, on a platform elevated some sixteen feet from the\nground. Its side chambers were \"lean-to\" annexes (Heb., ribs; LXX.,\n\u03bc\u03ad\u03bb\u03b1\u03b8\u03c1\u03b1; Vulg., _tabulata_), in three stories, all accessible by one\ncentral entrance on the outside. Their beams rested on rebatements\nin the thickness of the wall, and the highest was the broadest.\nAbove these were windows \"skewed and closed,\" as the margin of the\nA.V. says; or \"broad within and narrow without\"; or, as it should\nrather be rendered, \"with closed crossbeams,\" that is, with immovable\nlattices, which could not be opened and shut, but which allowed the\nescape of the smoke of lamps and the fumes of incense. These chambers\nmust also have had windows. They were used to store the garments of\nthe priests and other necessary paraphernalia of the Temple service,\nbut as to all details we are left completely in the dark.\n\nOf the external aspect of the building in Solomon's day we know\nnothing. We cannot even tell whether it had one level roof, or\nwhether the Holy of Holies was like a lower chancel at the end of\nit; nor whether the roof was flat or, as the Rabbis say, ridged;\nnor whether the outer surface of the three-storeyed chambers which\nsurrounded it was of stone, or planked with cedar, or overlaid with\nplinths of gold and silver;[262] nor whether, in any case, it was\nornamented with carvings or left blank; nor whether the cornices\nonly were decorated with open flowers like the Assyrian rosettes.\nNor do we know with certainty whether it was supported within by\npillars[263] or not. In the state of the records as they have come\ndown to us, all accurate or intelligible descriptions are slurred\nover by compilers who had no technical knowledge and whose main\ndesire was to impress their countrymen with the truth that the holy\nbuilding was--as indeed for its day it was--\"exceeding magnifical of\nfame and of glory throughout all countries.\"\n\nIn front of or just within the porch were two superb pillars,\nregarded as miracles of Tyrian art, made of fluted bronze, 27 feet\nhigh and 18 feet thick. Their capitals of 7-1/2 feet in height\nresembled an open lotos blossom, surrounded by double wreaths of two\nhundred pensile bronze pomegranates, supporting an abacus, carved\nwith conventional lily work. Both pomegranates and lilies had a\nsymbolic meaning.[264] The pillars were, for unknown reasons, called\nJachin and Boaz.[265] Much about them is obscure. It is not even\nknown whether they stood detached like obelisks, or formed Propyl\u00e6a;\nor supported the architraves of the porch itself, or were a sort of\ngateway, surmounted by a _melathron_ with two _epithemas_, like a\nJapanese or Indian _toran_.\n\nThe porch (_Olam_), which was of the same height as the house (_i.e._,\n45 feet high),[266] was hung with the gilded shields of Hadadezer's\nsoldiers which David had taken in battle,[267] and perhaps also with\nconsecrated armour, like the sword of Goliath,[268] to show that \"unto\nthe Lord belongeth our shield\" (Psalm lxxxix. 18), and that \"the\nshields of the earth belong unto God\" (Psalm xlvii. 9).\n\nA door of cypress wood, of two leaves, made in four squares, 7-1/2\nfeet broad and high, turning on golden hinges overlaid with gold, and\ncarved with palm branches and festoons of lilies and pomegranates,\nopened from the porch into the main apartment. This was the _Mikdash_\n(\u05de\u05b4\u05e7\u05b0\u05d3\u05b8\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1), Holy Place, or Sanctuary, and sometimes specially called\nin Chaldee \"the Palace\" (_H\u00eak\u00e2l_, or _B\u00eerah_) (Ezra v, 14, 15,\netc.). Before it, as in the Tabernacle, hung an embroidered curtain\n(_M\u0101sak_). It was probably supported by four pillars on each side. In\nthe interspaces were five tables on each side, overlaid with gold,\nand each encircled by a wreath of gold (_z\u00ear_). On these were placed\nthe cakes of shewbread.[269] At the end of the chamber, on each side\nthe door of the Holiest, were five golden candlesticks with chains\nof wreathed gold hanging between them. In the centre of the room\nstood the golden altar of incense, and somewhere (we must suppose)\nthe golden candlestick of the Tabernacle, with its seven branches\nornamented with lilies, pomegranates, and calices of almond flowers.\nNothing which was in the darkness of the Holiest was visible except\nthe projecting golden staves with which the Ark had been carried to\nits place. The Holy Place itself was lighted by narrow slits.\n\nThe entrance to the Holiest, the _Debir_, or oracle,[270] which\ncorresponded to the Greek _adytum_, was through a two-leaved door of\nolive wood, 6 feet high and broad, overlaid with gold, and carved\nwith palms, cherubim, and open flowers. The partition was of cedar\nwood. The floor of the whole house was of cedar overlaid with gold.\nThe interior of this \"Oracle,\" as it was called--for the title \"Holy\nof Holies\" is of later origin--was, at any rate in the later Temples,\nconcealed by an embroidered veil of blue, purple, and crimson, looped\nup with golden chains.\n\nThe Oracle, like the New Jerusalem of the Apocalypse, was a perfect\ncube, 30 feet broad and long and high, covered with gold, but\nshrouded in perpetual and unbroken darkness.[271] No light was ever\nvisible in it save such as was shed by the crimson gleam of the\nthurible of incense which the high priest carried into it once a\nyear on the Great Day of Atonement.[272] In the centre of the floor\nmust apparently have risen the mass of rock which is still visible\nin the Mosque of Omar, from which it is called _Al Sakhra_, \"the\nDome of the Rock.\" Tradition pointed to it as the spot on which\nAbraham had laid for sacrifice the body of his son Isaac, when the\nangel restrained the descending knife. It was also the site of\nAraunah's threshing-floor, and had been therefore hallowed by two\nangelic apparitions.[273] On it was deposited with solemn ceremony\nthe awful palladium of the Ark, which had been preserved through\nthe wanderings and wars of the Exodus and the troublous days of the\nJudges.[274] It contained the most sacred possession of the nation,\nthe most priceless treasure which Israel guarded for the world. This\ntreasure was the Two Tables of the Ten Commandments, graven (in the\nanthropomorphic language of the ancient record) by the actual finger\nof God; the tables which Moses had shattered on the rocks of Mount\nSinai as he descended to the backsliding people.[275] The Ark was\ncovered with its old \"Propitiatory,\" or \"Mercy-seat,\" overshadowed\nby the wings of two small cherubim; but Solomon had prepared for its\nreception a new and far more magnificent covering, in the form of\ntwo colossal cherubim, 15 feet high, of which each expanded wing was\n7-1/2 feet long. These wings touched the outer walls of the Oracle,\nand also touched each other over the centre of the Ark.\n\nSuch was the Temple.\n\nIt was the \"forum, fortress, university, and sanctuary\" of the Jews,\nand the transitory emblem of the Church of Christ's kingdom. It was\ndestined to occupy a large share in the memory, and even in the\nreligious development, of the world, because it became the central\npoint round which crystallised the entire history of the Chosen People.\nThe kings of Judah are henceforth estimated with almost exclusive\nreference to the relation in which they stood to the centralised\nworship of Jehovah. The Spanish kings who built and decorated the\nEscurial caught the spirit of Jewish annals when, in the Court of the\nKings, they reared the six colossal statues of David the originator, of\nSolomon the founder, of Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah, and Manasseh the\nrestorers or purifiers of the Temple worship.[276]\n\nIt required the toil of 300,000 men for twenty years to build one of\nthe pyramids. It took two hundred years to build and four hundred\nto embellish the great Temple of Artemis of the Ephesians. It took\nmore than five centuries to give to Westminster Abbey its present\nform. Solomon's Temple only took seven and a half years to build;\nbut, as we shall see, its objects were wholly different from those\nof the great shrines which we have mentioned. The wealth lavished\nupon it was such that its dishes, bowls, cups, even its snuffers\nand snuffer trays, and its meanest utensils, were of pure gold. The\nmassiveness of its substructions, the splendour of its materials, the\nartistic skill displayed by the Tyrian workmen in all its details\nand adornments, added to the awful sense of its indwelling Deity,\ngave it an imperishable fame. Needing but little repair, it stood\nfor more than four centuries. Succeeded as it was by the Temples of\nZerubbabel and of Herod, it carried down till seventy years after\nthe Christian era the memory of the Tabernacle in the wilderness, of\nwhich it preserved the general outline, though it exactly doubled all\nthe proportions and admitted many innovations.[277]\n\nThe dedication ceremony was carried out with the utmost pomp. It\nrequired nearly a year to complete the necessary preparations, and\nthe ceremony with its feasts occupied fourteen days, which were\npartly coincident with the autumn Feast of Tabernacles.[278]\n\nThe dedication falls into three great acts. The first was the removal\nof the Ark to its new home (1 Kings viii. 1-11); then followed the\nspeech and the prayer of Solomon (vv. 12-61); and, finally, the great\nholocaust was offered (vv. 62-66).\n\nThe old Tabernacle, or what remained of it, with its precious\nheirlooms, was carried by priests and Levites from the high place at\nGibeon, which was henceforth abandoned.[279] This procession was met\nby another, far more numerous and splendid, consisting of all the\nprinces, nobles, and captains, which brought the Ark from the tent\nerected for it on Mount Zion by David forty years before.\n\nThe Israelites had flocked to Jerusalem in countless multitudes,\nunder their sheykhs and em\u00eers[280] from the border of Hamath on the\nOrontes,[281] north of Mount Lebanon, to the Wady el-Areesh.[282]\nThe king, in his most regal state, accompanied the procession, and\nthe Ark passed through myriads of worshippers crowded in the outer\ncourt, from the tent on Mount Zion into the darkness of the Oracle\non Mount Moriah, where it continued, unseen perhaps by any human eye\nbut that of the high priest once a year, until it was carried away by\nNebuchadnezzar to Babylon.[283] To indicate that this was to be its\nrest for ever, the staves, contrary to the old law, were drawn out\nof the golden rings through which they ran, in order that no human\nhand might touch the sacred emblem itself when it was borne on the\nshoulders of the Levitic priests. \"And there they are unto this day,\"\nwrites the compiler from his ancient record, long after Temple and\nArk had ceased to exist.[284]\n\nThe king is the one predominant figure, and the high priest is not\nonce mentioned. Nathan is only mentioned by the heathen historian\nEupolemos. Visible to the whole vast multitude, Solomon stood in the\ninner court on a high scaffolding of brass. Then came a burst of\nmusic and psalmody from the priests and musicians, robed in white\nrobes, who densely thronged the steps of the great altar.[285]\nThey held in their hands their glittering harps and cymbals, and\npsalteries in their precious frames of red sandal wood, and twelve of\ntheir number rent the air with the blast of their silver trumpets as\nSolomon, in this supreme hour of his prosperity, shone forth before\nhis people in all his manly beauty.\n\nAt the sight of that stately figure in its gorgeous robes the song of\npraise was swelled by innumerable voices, and, to crown all, a blaze\nof sudden glory wrapped the Temple and the whole scene in heaven's\nown splendour (2 Chron. v. 13, 14). First, the king, standing with\nhis back to the people, broke out into a few words of prophetic song.\nThen, turning to the multitude, he blessed them--he, and not the\nhigh priest--and briefly told them the history and significance of\nthis house of God, warning them faithfully that the Temple after all\nwas but the _emblem_ of God's presence in the midst of them, and\nthat the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands, neither\nis worshipped with men's hands as though He needed anything. After\nthis he advanced to the altar, and kneeling on his knees (2 Chron.\nvi. 13)--a most unusual attitude among the Jews, who, down to the\nlatest ages, usually stood up to pray--he prayed with the palms of\nhis hands upturned to heaven, as though to receive in deep humility\nits outpoured benefits. The prayer, as here given, consists of an\nintroduction, seven petitions, and a conclusion. It was a passionate\nentreaty that God would hear, both individually and nationally, both\nin prosperity and in adversity, the supplications of His people, and\neven of strangers, who should either pray in the courts of that His\nhouse, or should make it the _Kibleh_ of their devotions.[286]\n\nAfter the dedicatory prayer both the outer and the inner court of the\nTemple reeked and swam with the blood of countless victims--victims\nso numerous that the great brazen altar became wholly insufficient\nfor them.[287] At the close of the entire festival they departed to\ntheir homes with joy and gladness.[288]\n\nBut whatever the Temple might or might not be to the people, the\nking used it as his own chapel. Three times a year, we are told, he\noffered--and for all that appears, offered with his own hand without\nthe intervention of any priest--burnt offerings and peace offerings\nupon the altar. Not only this, but he actually \"burnt incense therewith\nupon the altar which was before the Lord,\"--the very thing which\nwas regarded as so deadly a crime in the case of King Uzziah.[289]\nThroughout the history of the monarchy, the priests, with scarcely any\nexception, seem to have been passive tools in the hands of the kings.\nEven under Rehoboam--much more under Ahaz and Manasseh--the sacred\nprecincts were defiled with nameless abominations, to which, so far as\nwe know, the priests offered no resistance.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[233] Psalm lxxviii. 58-64.\n\n[234] According to 2 Chron. i. 3.\n\n[235] David's suggestion does not seem to have been received\nfavourably at first (2 Sam. vii. 1-17). The chronicler (1 Chron.\nxxviii. 19) indulges in the amazing hyperbole that David had been\nmade to understand all the works of the pattern of the Temple \"_in\nwriting_ from the hand of the Lord.\"\n\n[236] The ancient Israelites named their months from the seasons,\nas did the Canaanites. Only four of those old names are preserved\nin the Bible: _Zif_, \"brightness\" (comp. _Floreal_, _Lenz_); _Bul_,\n\"rain-month\" (_Pluviose_); _Abib_, \"corn-ear month\"; _Ethanim_,\n\"fruit-month\" (_Fructidor_).\n\n[237] In 1 Kings vi. 1 we read \"in the 480th year after the children\nof Israel were come out of the land of Egypt.\" This may possibly be\na later gloss. The LXX., Origen, Josephus, etc., omit the words,\nand the Old Testament does not, as a rule, date events by epochs.\nFurther, the date is full of difficulties, though our received\nchronology is based on it. It was perhaps arrived at after the Exile,\nby counting backwards from the Decree of Cyrus, B.C. 535. See note at\nthe end of the volume.\n\n[238] 1 Chron. xxii. 14 says that David (comp. xxviii., xxix.) \"with\nmuch labour\" (A.V., \"in my trouble,\" 1 Chron. xxii. 14) bequeathed to\nSolomon 100,000 talents of gold and 100,000 talents of silver! This\nimpossible number is very considerably reduced in 1 Chron. xxix. 4,\nwhere the mention of _darics_ shows an author living in the captivity.\n\n[239] Comp. Ezek. xxvii. 17; Acts xii. 20.\n\n[240] According to Tatian, _Orat. ad Gr\u00e6c._, p. 171, Solomon married a\ndaughter of Hiram. Hiram, like the Queen of Sheba, acknowledges Jehovah\nas the (local) God of Israel. He was the son of Abibaal, and, according\nto Menander (a Greek historian of Ephesus about B.C. 300, who consulted\nTyrian records), he began to reign at nineteen, and reigned thirty-four\nyears. Josephus thinks that there were two successive Hirams.\n\n[241] _Giblim_, 1 Kings v. 18, where \"and the stone-squarers\" should\nbe \"and especially the men of Gebal.\" LXX., Alex., \u03bf\u1f31 \u0392\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9; Vulg.,\n_Giblii_, Comp. Ezek. xxvii. 9, Psalm lxxxiii. 7, \"The ancients of\nGebal and the wise thereof were in thee.\" It is now Jebeil, between\nBeyrout and Tripoli. The Ph\u0153nician and Sidonian artisans were famous\nfrom the earliest antiquity for metal-work, embroidery, dyes,\nship-building, and the fine arts (Hom., _Il._, xxiii. 743; _Od._, iv.\n614-18, xv. 425; Herod., iii. 19, vii. 23, 96, etc.).\n\n[242] 2 Chron. ii. 13, iv. 16, where \"a cunning man of Huram my\nfather's\" should be \"even Huram, my father,\" _i.e._, master-workman\nor deviser (comp. Gen. xlv. 8). In Chronicles he is called the son\nof a Danite mother. Here we have another of the manipulations used\nby later Jewish tradition to get rid of what they disliked; for in\nEupolemos (Euseb., _Pr\u00e6p. Evang._, ix. 34) Hiram is said to belong to\nthe family of David. \"Quite a little romance,\" as Wellhausen says,\n\"has been constructed out of the fact that the chronicler assigns\nhis mother to the tribe of Dan; but it is not worth repeating, being\na mass of hypotheses.\" To the dislike of Sidonian and semi-Sidonian\ninfluence, we perhaps owe the notion that David had already received\na design from the hand of God Himself (1 Chron. xxviii. 11-19)\n(Ewald, iii. 227). Jerome mentions the Jewish fable that the artist\nHiram was of the family of Aholiab, the artist of the wilderness.\n\n[243] \"Araunah the king\" (2 Sam. xxiv. 23). The Temple Mount was\nusually called the \"Mount of the House.\" It is only called Mount\nMoriah in 2 Chron. iii. 1. It cannot be regarded as certain that \"the\nland of Moriah\" (Gen. xxii. 2) is identical with it.\n\n[244] \"The present platform is 1521 feet long on the east, 940 on the\nsouth, 1617 on the west, 1020 on the north.\" Bartlett, _Walks about\nJerusalem_, pp. 161-70; Williams, _The Holy City_, pp. 315-62. Kugle,\n_Gesch. der Baukunst_, p. 125. The excellent stone was supplied by\nquarries at Jerusalem itself. Comp. \"Cavati sub terra montes.\" (Tac.,\n_Hist._, v. 12). It may have been extended by Justinian when he built\nhis church. See Ewald, iii. 232, \"The Mount of the Temple was 500\nyards square\"; _Middoth_, c. 2. Comp. Ezek. xiii. 15-20, xlv. 2;\nJosephus, _Antt._, XV. xi. 3.\n\n[245] Exod. i., ii.\n\n[246] 1 Kings iv. 6, v. 13, 14, 17, 18, ix. 15, 21, xii. 18.\n\n[247] Ewald thinks that it was only \"at the beginning\" that\nSolomon, like Sesostris (Diod. Sic., _Hist._, i. 56), could boast\nthat his work was done without exacting bitter labour from his own\ncountrymen. But 1 Kings ix. 22 shows that the king's opinion on\nthis subject differed widely from that of his people (1 Kings xi.\n28, xii. 3); for we are told that he did not make _servants_ of the\nchildren of Israel, but used them as military officers (_Sarim_) and\nchariot-warriors (_Shalishim_, \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9) and knights. It required a\nlittle euphemism to gild the real state of affairs. The details of\nnumbers in the Books of Chronicles differ from those in the Kings.\n\n[248] 1 Kings v. 13, ix. 22; 2 Chron. viii. 9. (Omitted in the LXX.)\n\n[249] In token of this defeat of Solomon he was represented in a\nstatue outside the church leaning his hand on his cheek with a\ngesture of sorrow.\n\n[250] Professor Williams, _Prolus. Architectonic\u00e6_.\n\n[251] Professor Hoskins (_Enc. Brit._); Canina, _Jewish Antiquities_;\nThrupp, _Ancient Jerusalem_; Count de Vog\u00fc\u00e9, _Le Temple de J\u00e9rusalem_.\n\n[252] Fergusson, _Temples of the Jews_; E. Robbins, _Temple of Solomon_.\n\n[253] Eupolemos (Euseb., _Pr\u00e6p. Evang._, ix. 30) and Alex. Polyhistor\n(Clem. Alex., _Strom._, i. 21) idly talk of help furnished to Solomon\nin building the Temple by an Egyptian King Vaphres, and of letters\ninterchanged between them. Vaphres seems to be a mere anachronism for\nHophra.\n\n[254] The Ph\u0153nician style may, however, have been borrowed in part\nfrom Egypt.\n\n[255] I have spoken of the Temple in _Solomon and his Times_ (Men of\nthe Bible), and have there furnished some illustrations. The following\nspecial authorities may be referred to. Stade, i. 311-57, Friederich,\n_Tempel und Palast Salomo's_ (Innsbruck, 1887); Chipiez et Perrot, _Le\nTemple de J\u00e9rusalem_ (Paris, 1889); Warren, _Underground Jerusalem_;\nWilson and Warren, _Recov. of Jerusalem_ (1871).\n\n[256] _Parbarim_ (2 Kings xxiii. 11). Comp. 1 Chron. xxvi. 18 (A.V.,\n\"suburbs\"; R.V., \"precincts\" and \"Parbar\"). Descriptions of the Temple,\nimperfect, and not always accordant with each other, are found in 1\nKings v.-vii.; 2 Chron. ii.-v.; Josephus, _Antt._, VIII. iii. 7, 8.\n\n[257] As we infer from Psalms lii. 8, lxxxiv. 3, lxxvi. 2 (where\n\"tabernacle\" should be \"covert\"). Eupolemos (_ap._ Euseb., _Pr\u00e6p.\nEvang._, etc.). Scattered passages of the Talmud which refer mainly\nto Herod's Temple are full of extravagances.\n\n[258] Jer. xxxvi. 10.\n\n[259] 2 Chron. iv. 1. This could not have been the brazen altar of\nthe wilderness, the fate of which we do not know. It was far larger,\nbut probably on the same model, except that steps were forbidden as\nan approach to the altar of the Tabernacle (Exod. xx. 24-26). It is\ndifficult to reconcile the description of the brazen altar with the\ndistinct prohibition of that passage. Comp. Ezek. xliii. 17.\n\n[260] The huge stone vase of Amathus was borne on a bull (Duncker,\nii. 184). Josephus says that in making these oxen Solomon broke the\nlaw (_Antt._, VIII. vii. 5), as well as by the lions on his throne.\nThe Romans called huge vases _lacus_.\n\n[261] The descriptions of these lavers, whether in the Hebrew, the\nLXX., or Josephus, are not intelligible, and are wholly unimportant.\n\n[262] Like the palace of Ecbatana (Polyb., x. 27, 10; Herod., i.\n98), and possibly the upper stories of the great temple of Bel at\nBirs-Nimrud (Borsippa).\n\n[263] In 1 Kings x. 12 \"pillars\" should be \"a rail\" or \"balustrade.\"\nHeb., \u05de\u05b4\u05e1\u05b0\u05e2\u05b8\u05d3; LXX., \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1; Vulg., _fulcra_.\n\n[264] Lilies symbolised beauty and innocence; pomegranates good\nworks (so the Chaldee in Cant. iv. 13, vi. 11, B\u00e4hr, _Symbol._, ii.\n122). Raphael crowns his Theology with pomegranates, Giotto places a\npomegranate in the hand of his youthful Dante, and Giovanni Bellini\nin the hand of the Virgin Mary.\n\n[265] Some suppose that the words imply \"He will establish\" (Jachin)\n\"in strength\" (Boaz). \"After some favourite persons of the time,\nperhaps young sons of Solomon,\" says Ewald, very improbably. LXX. (2\nChron. iii. 17), \u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03c1\u03b8\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 and \u1f38\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03c2. See a description of these\npillars in Jer. lii. 21-23.\n\n[266] Some writers have supplied the Temple with a porch 180 feet\nhigh, misled by the astounding method of the chronicler of adding the\nfour sides into the total. Thus, he tells us that the wings of the\ncherubim were 30 feet long, meaning that each single wing was 7-1/2\nfeet long (2 Chron. iii. 11). Josephus does the same in telling us\nthe height of the Temple wall.\n\n[267] The ground plans of most ancient temples were alike.\n\n[268] 2 Sam. viii. 7; 1 Chron. xviii. 7.\n\n[269] So 2 Chron. iv. 8. But it would seem from 1 Kings vii. 48; 2\nChron. xiii. 11, xxix. 18 that only one table and one candlestick\nwere ordinarily used.\n\n[270] St. Jerome rendered _debir_ by _oraculum_, but some derive it\nfrom the Arabic root _dabar_, \"to be behind,\" not from \u05d3\u05b8\u05d1\u05b8\u05e8, \"to\nspeak\" (Munk, p. 290).\n\n[271] In Zerubbabel's and Herod's Temples there was a curtain\n(_Parocheth_) before the Holiest; but we read of no such curtain\nin Solomon's, except in 2 Chron. iii. 14. The fact that the staves\nof the Ark were _visible_ seems to show that there was not one.\nThe chronicler speaks of \"_the_ vail\" (2 Chron. iii. 14), showing,\napparently, that there was only one; and does not mention the\n_M\u0101sak_, which hung between the Porch and the Holy Place. Except in 2\nChron. iii. 14, the only mention of either is in the \"Priestly Code.\"\nSince the Oracle had a door, one hardly sees why there should also\nhave been a curtain. But the whole subject is obscure, and perhaps\nthe chronicler is sometimes thinking of the second Temple.\n\n[272] We read nothing, however, of any observance of the Day of\nAtonement till centuries later.\n\n[273] 2 Sam. xxiv. 25 (LXX.); 1 Chron. xxii. 1; 2 Chron. iii. 1;\nJosephus, _Antt._, I. xiii. 1, VII. xiii. 4; Targum of Onkelos on\nGen. xii.\n\n[274] \"The Ark of the Lord,\" or \"of the Testimony,\" or \"of the\nCovenant,\" was an oblong chest of acacia wood, overlaid with gold,\nsurmounted by a border of gold, and resting on four feet, to which\n(A. V. corners) were attached golden rings.\n\n[275] 1 Kings viii. 9. The pot of manna and the budded rod of Aaron\nwere placed before it (Exod. xvi. 34; Numb. xvii. 10), and the Book\nof the Law beside it (Deut. xxxi. 26). The Mercy-seat above was\nmore sacred than the Ark itself (Lev. xvi. 2). It was the cover\n(_Kapporeth_, \u1f10\u03c0\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03b1) of the Ark, and was partly formed of two\nwinged cherubim which gazed down upon it and faced each other.\n\n[276] Stanley, ii. 203.\n\n[277] The Tyrian adornments; the steps to the altar; the ten\ncandlesticks, and tables; the lions and oxen.\n\n[278] The Temple was finished in the eighth month of Solomon's eleventh\nyear, and dedicated in the seventh month (_Ethanim_, or Tisri) of the\ntwelfth year. The first eight days (8th to 15th) were devoted to the\nFeast of Dedication, and then from the 15th to the 22nd they kept the\nFeast of Tabernacles. On the 23rd (the eighth day from the beginning\nof the Feast of Tabernacles, called _'atsereth_, 2 Chron. 10) Solomon\ndismissed the people. The \u05e2\u05b2\u05e6\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05ea, \"solemn assembly,\" is not mentioned\nin Exodus or Deuteronomy, but in Lev. xxiii. 36.\n\n[279] It was perhaps stored away in one of the Temple chambers (2\nMacc. ii. 4). The Gibeonites (_Nethinim_) were at the same time\ntransferred to Jerusalem. The chronicler (2 Chron. v. 6) says that\n_the Levites_ took the Ark, according to the Levitic rule; but 1\nKings viii. 3 says that _the priests_ bore it, as in Deut. xxxi. 9,\nand in all the pr\u00e6-exilic histories (Josh. iii. 3, vi. 6; 2 Sam. xv.\n24-29, etc.). W. Robertson Smith, p. 144.\n\n[280] The sheykhs are heads of clans; the em\u00eers of tribes (Reuss, i.\n444).\n\n[281] The Greek \u1f18\u03c0\u03b9\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1. Solomon seems to have had some\njurisdiction there (2 Chron. viii. 6).\n\n[282] The torrent (_nachal_) of Egypt.\n\n[283] The Holiest, being an unlighted cube, must always have been\ndim; but, as we have seen, we have no proof that in Solomon's Temple\nthe entrance to it was shrouded by a curtain. In 1 Kings viii. 12,\nfor \"The Lord said that He would dwell _in the thick darkness_,\" the\nTargum had \"_In Jerusalem_.\"\n\n[284] In 1 Kings viii. 4 we read that \"the priests and the Levites\"\nbrought up to Jerusalem \"the Tabernacle of the congregation.\" But the\nLXX. only has \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2. In 2 Chron. v. 5 the Hebrew text has \"the\nLevites\" in some MSS., or \"the priests, the Levites\"--_i.e._, the\nLevitic priests. For \"the priests took up the ark\" (1 Kings viii. 3)\nthe chronicler has \"the Levites\" (comp. Numb. iii. 31, iv. 15). It is\nat least doubtful whether the distinction between priests and Levites\nis older than the Priestly Code and the days of Ezekiel. Also, the\nLXX. in 1 Kings viii. 4 puts \"witness\" for \"congregation,\" and some\ncritics maintain that \"congregation\" (_'edah_) is post-exilic. (See\nRobertson Smith, Enc. Brit., s.v. Kings). See _infra_, pp. 189, 190.\n\n[285] Some psalm, like Psalm cxxxvi., was probably sung by alternate\nchoirs, but hardly in the attitude of prostration which followed the\nsudden blaze of glory (2 Chron. vii. 3).\n\n[286] \"The prayer\" is of extreme beauty, but it belongs by its ideas to\nthe seventh and not to the eleventh or tenth centuries B.C. (Ewald).\nIt is probably added by a later editor who took the Deuteronomic\nstandpoint. It is found, sometimes almost word for word, in Lev. xxvi.\nand Deut. xxviii.; but there are many variations between the Hebrew\nand the LXX., and Kings and Chronicles. Looking only at actual facts,\nnot at _a priori_ theories, we see that, as Professor Driver says\n(_Contemporary Review_, Feb. 1890), \"the Hebrew historians used some\nfreedom in attributing speeches to historical characters.\" Thus, both\nthe syntax and vocabulary, to say nothing of the thoughts of various\nspeeches attributed to David by the chronicler, are sometimes such as\nmark the latest period in the history of the language, and are often\nquite without precedent in pr\u00e6-exilic literature. Some feelings which\ngathered round the Temple find expression in Psalms xxiv., xxvii.,\nxlii., lxxii., lxxxiv., cxxii., and in more extravagant and less\nspiritual forms throughout the Talmud. _Soteh_, f. 48; _Berachoth_, f.\n591; _Moed Qaton_, f. 261, etc.\n\n[287] The Khalif Moktader sacrificed at Mecca 40,000 camels and\n50,000 sheep (Burton's _Pilgrimage_, i. 318). Solomon offered burnt\nofferings (_oloth_) and thank offerings (_shellamim_). No mention is\nmade of sin offerings; and it may be doubted whether they had any\nseparate existence till the days of the Exile.\n\n[288] 1 Kings viii. 66, \"went unto their _tents_,\" is a reminiscence\nof earlier days. The chronicler (1) extends the feast to fourteen\ndays, according to which there is an interpolation, \"and seven days,\neven fourteen days,\" in verse 65; (2) he says that the sacrifices\nwere consumed by fire from heaven.\n\n[289] 1 Kings ix. 25. The Hebrew text seems to have been tampered\nwith, and the allusions significantly disappear from 2 Chron. viii.\n12, 13. The commentators assiduously try to clear away the difficulty.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XV.\n\n                _THE IDEAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TEMPLE._\n\n                    1 KINGS vii. 13-51, viii. 12-61.\n\n    \"The hour cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet\n    at Jerusalem, worship the Father.... But the hour cometh, and now\n    is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit\n    and in truth.\"--JOHN iv. 21, 23.\n\n\nFive long chapters of the First Book of Kings are devoted to the\ndescription of Solomon's Temple, which occupies a still larger space\nin the Books of Chronicles. The Temple was regarded as the permanent\nform of the ancient Tabernacle,[290] which is described with lengthy\nand minute detail in Exodus. It might seem, therefore, that there\nmust be some clear explanation of the idea which this sacred building\nwas intended to embody. Yet it is by no means easy to ascertain what\nthis idea was, and those who have deeply studied the question have in\nage after age been led to widely different views.\n\n1. Philo and Josephus,[291] with certain variations of detail, regard\nit as a symbol of the universe--the world of idea and the world of\nsense. Thus the seven-branched candlestick represents the seven\nplanets; the twelve cakes of shewbread are the twelve signs of the\nZodiac; the court is the earth; the sanctuary the sea; and the oracle\nthe heavens. The theory derives no importance from its authorship.\nNeither Philo nor Josephus, nor the Rabbis, nor the Fathers who adopted\ntheir views,[292] have the least authority in such matters; and Philo,\nwho led the way in mystical interpretation, abounds in fantasies which\nare ludicrously impossible, and are now universally rejected.\n\n2. The Talmudists held that the Tabernacle was the exact copy of\none in heaven,[293] and that its services reflected those of the\nheavenly hierarchy. This view went into the extreme of literalism, as\nthe other did into the extreme of spiritualisation. It was based on\nthe text, \"Look that thou make them after their pattern, which was\nshowed thee in the mount.\"[294] The Book of Chronicles goes so far in\nthis direction as to say that David received from Jehovah the exact\npattern of the Temple down to its minutest details, together with the\nentire priestly and Levitic organisation of its services. \"All this,\"\nsays David to Solomon, \"the Lord made me to understand _in writing_,\nby His hand upon me, even all the works in the pattern.\"\n\n3. Christian writers have seen in the Temple an emblem of the visible,\nthe invisible, and the triumphant Church. Such symbolic interpretation\ndepends on the most arbitrary combinations, and does not rise higher\nthan an exercise of fancy. It has not the smallest exegetic importance.\n\n4. Luther thought that the Tabernacle and Temple were emblems of\nhuman nature:--the court, the sanctuary, and the oracle corresponding\nto the body, the soul, and the spirit. Later writers have pushed this\nopinion, already sufficiently baseless, into the absurdest detail.\n\n5. The much simpler view of Maimonides[295] who is followed by our\nlearned Spencer, is that the Temple was simply the palace of Jehovah,\nwith its vestibule, its audience hall, its Presence-chamber, its\nattendant courtiers, its throne, and its offerings of food and wine\nand sacrifice. The simplicity of this conception seems to be in\naccordance with what we know of ancient forms of worship, and it\nis certain that in many heathen temples the offerings of food and\nwine were supposed to be consumed by the god. The name \"palace\" is,\nhowever, only given to the Temple in one chapter (1 Chron. xxix. 1,\n19); and the Hebrew, or rather the Persian,[296] word so rendered\n(_b\u00eerah_) may also be rendered \"fortress.\"\n\n6. In truth we cannot be sure that the idea of the Temple remained\nsingle and definite through so many ages. It was probably a composite\nand varying emblem, of which the original significance had become\nmingled with many later elements. It is, however, certain that many\nnumbers and details were symbolical, and there was a deep insight\nand magnificent completeness in the manner in which certain truths\nwere shadowed forth by its construction and its central service.\n\nThe book in which its symbolism is most thoroughly worked out is\nB\u00e4hr's _Symbolik_. He elaborates, in a simpler form, the opinion\nof Philo, that the Temple represented \"the structure which God has\nerected, the house in which God lives.\" So far the fact cannot be\ndisputed for, in Exod. xxix. 45 we are told that the Tabernacle is\ncalled the \"House of God\" because \"I will dwell in the midst of the\nchildren of Israel, and will be their God.\" But B\u00e4hr takes a great\nleap when he proceeds to explain the house of God as \"the creation\nof heaven and earth.\" If his views were true _as a whole_, it would\nindeed be strange that they are not indicated in a single passage\neither of the Old or New Testaments.\n\nThe Tabernacle was called \"the Tabernacle of the Testimony\" because\nits two tables of stone were a witness of the covenant between\nGod and man. It was also called \"the Tabernacle of Meeting,\" by\nwhich is not meant the place where Israel assembled, but the place\nwhere God met Moses and the children of Israel.[297] \"For there\nwill I meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the\nmercy-seat,\" says Jehovah to Moses;[298] and \"at the entrance of\nthe tent of meeting I will meet with you to speak there unto thee,\nand there I will meet with the children of Israel.\"[299] Thus,\nin its broadest idea, the Temple brought before the soul of every\nthoughtful Israelite the three great beliefs, (1) that God deigned\nto dwell in the midst of His people; (2) that, in His infinite mercy\nand condescension, He admitted a reciprocity between Himself and His\nhuman children; and (3) that the most absolute expression of His will\nwas the moral law, obedience to which was the condition of heavenly\nfavour and earthly happiness.\n\n\"In the Porch,\" says Bishop Hall, \"we may see the regenerate soul\nentering into the blessed society of the Church; in the Holy Place\nwe may see a figure of the Communion of the true visible Church on\nearth; in the Holy of Holies the glories of Heaven opened to us by\nour true High Priest Christ Jesus, who entered once for all to make\nan Atonement betwixt God and man.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[290] The scepticism of modern critics, who doubt whether there ever\nwas a Tabernacle in the wilderness at all, seems to be insufficiently\ngrounded.\n\n[291] _Vit. Mos._, iii.; _Antt._, III. vi. 4, vii. 7; _B. J._, VII.\nv. 5.\n\n[292] _E.g._, Origen (_Hom._, ix.), Clement of Alexandria (_Strom._,\nv.), Theodoret (_Qu._, xl. _in Exod._), Jerome (_Ep._, lxiv.), and\nothers. See Kalisch, _Exodus_, p. 495.\n\n[293] Wisdom ix. 8: \"A copy of the holy tabernacle which Thou didst\nprepare from the beginning.\"\n\n[294] Exod. xxv. 40, xxvi. 30; Acts vii. 44; Heb. viii. 5.\n\n[295] _More Nebochim_, iii, 45-49; Kalisch, _Exodus_, p. 497.\n\n[296] The three names given to the Tabernacle are _Ohel_ (\"tent\"),\n_Mishkan_ (\"tabernacle,\" \"habitation,\" or \"dwelling-place\"), and\n_Baith_ (\"house\"). It is undoubted that the Tabernacle followed the\nordinary construction of the Oriental tent, with its two divisions,\nof which the interior could not be entered by strangers.\n\n[297] Numb. xvii. 7, xviii. 2; 2 Chron. xxiv. 6; Acts vii. 44; Exod.\nxxix. 10, etc.; 1 Kings viii. 4; 2 Chron. viii. 13. The phrase \"Tent\nof Meeting\" in the R.V. removes the complete obscuring of the meaning\ninvolved by the A.V. rendering of \"Tabernacle of the Congregation.\"\n\n[298] Exod. xxv. 22.\n\n[299] Exod. xxix. 42, 43.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XVI.\n\n                      _THE ARK AND THE CHERUBIM._\n\n                     1 KINGS vi. 23-30, viii. 6-11.\n\n          \"Jehovah, thundering out of Sion, throned\n           Between the cherubim.\"\n                                       MILTON.\n\n\nThe inculcation of truths so deep as the unity, the presence, and\nthe mercy of God would alone have sufficed to give preciousness to\nthe national sanctuary, and to justify the lavish expenditure with\nwhich it was carried to completion. But as in the Tabernacle, so in\nthe Temple, which was only a more rich and permanent structure, the\nnumbers, the colours, and many details had a real significance. The\nunity of the Temple shadowed forth the unity of the Godhead; while\nthe concrete and perfect unity, resulting from the reconciliation\nof unity with difference and opposition (1 + 2), is \"the signature\nof the Deity.\" Hence, as in our English cathedrals, three was the\npredominant number. There were three divisions,--Porch, Holy Place,\nOracle. Each main division contained three expiatory objects. Three\ntimes its width (which was 3 \u00d7 10) was the measure of its length. The\nnumber ten is also prominent in the measurements. It includes all the\ncardinal numbers, and, as the completion of multiplicity, is used to\nindicate a perfect whole. The seven pillars which supported the house,\nand the seven branches of the candlestick, recalled the sacredness\nof the seventh day hallowed by the Sabbath, by circumcision, and by\nthe Passover. The number of the cakes of shewbread was twelve, \"the\nsignature of the people of Israel, a whole in the midst of which\nGod resides, a body which moves after Divine laws.\" Of the colours\npredominant in the Temple, _blue_, the colour of heaven, symbolises\nrevelation; _white_ is the colour of light and innocence; _purple_,\nof majesty and royal power; _crimson_, of life, being the colour of\nfire and blood. Every gem on the high priest's pectoral had its mystic\nsignificance, and the bells and pomegranates which fringed the edge of\nhis ephod were emblems of devotion and good works.\n\nTwo instances will suffice to indicate how deep and rich was the\nsignificance of the truths which Moses had endeavoured to engraft\nin the minds of his people, and to which Solomon, whether with full\nconsciousness or not, gave permanence in the Temple.\n\n1. Consider, first, _the Ark_.\n\nEvery step towards the Holiest was a step of deepening reverence.\nThe Holy Land was sacred, but Jerusalem was more sacred than all the\nrest. The Temple was the most sacred part of the city; the Oracle was\nthe most sacred part of the Temple; the Ark was the most sacred thing\nin the Oracle; yet the Ark was only sacred because of that which it\ncontained.\n\nAnd what did it contain? What was it which enshrined in itself this\nquintessence of all sanctitude? When we pierce to the inmost recesses\nof a pyramid, we find there only the ashes of a dead man, or even\nof an animal. Within the adytum of an Egyptian temple we might have\nfound \"an ox wallowing on purple tapestry.\" The Egyptians, too, had\ntheir arks, as the Greeks had the cyst of Cybele, and the _vannus_\nof Iacchus. What did _they_ contain? At the best phallic emblems,\nthe emblems of prolific nature. But the Ark of Jehovah contained\nnothing but the stone tablets on which were carved the Ten Words of\nthe Covenant, the briefest possible form of the moral law of God. In\nthe inmost heart of the Temple was its most inestimable treasure,--a\nprotest against all idolatry; a protest against all polytheism, or\nditheism, or atheism; a protest, too, against the formalism which\nthe Temple itself and its services might tend to produce in its\nleast spiritually minded worshippers. Thus the entire Temple was\na glorification of the truth that \"the fear of the Lord is the\nbeginning of wisdom,\" and that the one end to be produced by the fear\nof the Lord is obedience to His commandments. The Ark and its unseen\ntreasure taught that no religion can be of the least value which does\nnot result in conformity with the plain moral laws:--Be obedient; be\nkind; be pure; be honest; be truthful; be contented; and that this\nobedience can only spring from faith in the one God whom all real\nworshippers must worship in spirit and truth.\n\nObvious as this lesson might seem to be, it was entirely missed by\nthe Jews in general. The Ark, too, was degraded into a fetish, and\nJeremiah says (iii. 16) of the exiles, \"They shall say no more, The\nark of the covenant of the Lord: neither shall it come to mind:\nneither shall they miss it: neither shall it be made any more\"\n(Heb.). When a symbol has been perverted into a source of materialism\nand superstition, it becomes not only useless but positively\ndangerous. No religions have fallen so absolutely dead as those which\nhave sunk into petty formalism. The Ark, for all its quintessential\nsacredness, had been suffered to fall into the hands of uncircumcised\nPhilistines, and to be placed in their Dagon temple, to show that\nit was no mere idolatrous amulet. Ultimately it was carried away to\nBabylon, to adorn the palace of a heathen tyrant, and probably to\nperish by fire in his captured city. In the second Temple there was\nno ark. Nothing remained but the rock of Araunah's threshing-floor,\non which it once had stood.\n\n2. Consider, next, the meaning of _the Cherubim_.\n\n(1) The infinite sanctity given to the conception of the moral law\nwas enhanced by the introduction of these overshadowing figures.\nWe are never told in the entire books of Scripture what was the\nform of these cherubim; nor is their function anywhere specially\ndefined; nor, again, can we be at all certain of the derivation of\nthe name. That the cherubim over the Ark were not identical with the\nfourfold-visaged four of Ezekiel's cherub-chariot we know, because\nthey certainly had but one face. But we now know that among the\nAssyrians, Persians, Egyptians, and other nations nothing was more\ncommon than these cherubic emblems, which were introduced into their\npalaces and temples under the forms of winged lions, oxen, men, and\neagle-headed human figures. We see also that in the Tabernacle,[300]\nand to a still greater extent in the Temple, a tacit exception to\nthe stringency of the Second Commandment seems to have been made in\nfavour of the component parts of these cherubic figures. If Solomon\nwas aware (as he surely must have been) of the existence of the law,\n\"_Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image_,\" he must either\nhave laid stress on the words \"_to thyself_,\" and have excused the\nbrazen oxen which supported his great laver on the ground that they\ncould not be turned into objects of worship, or he must have held,\nas Ezekiel apparently did, that the ox was the predominant form in\nthe cherubic emblem.[301] From the Vision of Ezekiel we see that the\ncherubim--like the \"Immortalities\" (\u03b6\u1ff6\u03b1) of the Apocalypse, which had\nfaces of the ox, the eagle, the lion, and the man--were conceived of\nas \"living creatures\" upholding the sapphire Throne of God. They had\nwings, and the similitude of hands under their wings. They flashed\nto and fro like lightning in the midst of a great cloud, and an\nenfolding fire, and a rolling mass of amber-coloured flame. Of the\nform of this \"changeable hieroglyphic\" we need say no more. Perhaps\noriginally suggested by the wreathing fires and rolling stormclouds,\nwhich were regarded as immediate signs of the Divine proximity, the\ncherubim came to be regarded as the genius of the created universe in\nits richest perfection and energy, at once revealing and shrouding\nthe Presence of God.[302] Their eyes represent His omniscience, for\n\"the eyes of the Lord are in every place\"; their wings and straight\nfeet represent the speed and fiery gliding of His omnipresence;[303]\neach element of their fourfold shape indicates His love, His\npatience, His power, His sublimity. Their wheels imply that \"the\ndread magnificence of the unintelligent creation\" is under His entire\ncontrol; and, as a whole, they symbolise the dazzling beauty of the\nuniverse, alike conscious and material. They were the ideal _anima\nanimantium_--the perfection of existence emanating from and subject\nto the Divine Creator whose tender mercy is over all His works. Their\nfunction, when they are first introduced in the Book of Genesis,\nis at once vengeful and protective; vengeful of the violated law,\nprotective of the treasure of life.[304] They are here the Erinnyes\nof the Dawn, revealing and avenging the works of darkness. Their\n\"dreadful faces and fiery arms\" at the gate of Eden typify guilty\nawakenment, realised retribution, conscious alienation from God, the\nuniverse siding with His awakened anger.\n\n(2) But when next they are mentioned, God says to Moses, \"Thou shalt\nmake a mercy-seat of pure gold, and thou shalt make two cherubim of\ngold at the two ends of the mercy-seat.\" But for their presence on\nthe mercy-seat how terrible would have been the symbolism of the\nHoly of Holies--God's darkness, man's crime, a broken law! It would\nhave represented Him who hath clouds and darkness round about Him,\nand dwelleth in darkness which no man can approach unto; and the Ark\nwould only have treasured up, as a witness against man's apostasy,\nthe shattered slabs of the words of Sinai.[305] But over that Ark,\nand its saddening because dishallowed treasure, bent once more these\nmystic figures, these \"cherubim of glory.\" They bent down as though\nat once to protect with outspread wings, and to regard with awful\ncontemplation, that mystic gift of a law promulgated to all nations\nas their moral heritage and as the revealed will of God. These are\nno longer cherubim of vengeance or awakened wrath, for they stand on\nthe _Capporeth_, the \"covering,\" or \"propitiatory\" of the Ark.[306]\nThey gleamed out in the red light of the high priest's golden brazier\non the one day when human foot entered the darkness in which they\nwere shrouded; and even by him they were but dimly discerned through\nthe ascending wreaths of fragrant incense. But he stood before them,\nwhere, on their spreading wings, the light of the Divine presence\nwas deemed to dwell; and with the blood of expiation he sprinkled\nseven times the mercy-seat over which these adoring figures leaned.\nThe wrathful cherubim of the lost Eden had driven man from a\ntreasure which he had forfeited; but these, though they guard the\nten words of a law which man had broken, were cherubim of mercy and\nreconciliation. Those of Eden were armed with swords of flame; those\nof the Temple were reddened with the blood of forgiveness. Those\ntypified a covenant destroyed and ended; these a covenant broken yet\nrenewed. Those spoke of awakened wrath; these of covenanted mercy.\nThose kept men back from the Tree of Life; these guarded that which\nis a Tree of Life to them that love it.\n\nCould the whole covenant of the law and the gospel have been\nsymbolised more simply, yet with Diviner force? The Temple itself,\nwith all its sacrifices, with all its service and ceremonial and\nall the gorgeous vestments of Aaron's vestry, served but to teach\nthe infinite worth of simple righteousness. The heart of the Mosaic\nlegislation was nothing so poor, so paltry, so material as the\npromotion of liturgical Levitism, and the pomp of ritual, and the\norganisation of priestly functions--as though these in themselves had\nany value in the sight of God. It lay in the lesson that \"Obedience\nis better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.\" The\nlaw of Moses--the ten words which constituted the inmost preciousness\nof his legislation--was, alas! a violated law. For the disobedient it\nhad no message but the wrathful menace of death. But to show that God\nhas not abandoned His disobedient children, but would still enable\nthem to keep that law, and to repent for its transgression, the\ncherubim are there. Their presence on the propitiatory was meant to\nreveal the glory of the gospel. The high priest, who alone saw them\non the Great Day of Israel, was a type of Him who, not with the blood\nof bulls and goats, but in His own blood (_i.e._, in the glory of the\nlife outpoured for man), entered into God's presence within the veil.\n\n(3) In the dazzling living creatures before the throne in the\nRevelation of St. John, we see once more these cherubim of Eden, who,\nhaving indicated at the Fall an awful warning, and represented in the\nTabernacle a blessed hope, symbolise, in the last book of the Bible,\na Divine fulfilment. They are there no longer with fiery swords, in\nwrathful aspect, in repellent silence; but, gracious and beautiful,\nthey join in the new song of the redeemed multitude under the shadow\nof the Tree of Life, to which all have free access in that recovered\nEden. In the Temple--glimmering through the rising fumes of incense,\nwhich were the type of accepted prayer, their golden plumage sprinkled\nwith the blood of the atoning sacrifice--they became a type both of\nall creation, up to its most celestial beings, gazing in adoration on\nthe will of God, and of all creation, in its groaning and travailing,\nrestored through the precious blood that speaketh better things than\nthe blood of Abel. Not all, of course, of these deep meanings were\npresent to the souls of Israel's worshippers; but the best of them\nmight with joy see something of the things which we see when we say\nthat in these glorious figures are summed up the three chief images\nof all Scripture: first, the Prim\u00e6val Dispensation, \"_In the day that\nthou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die_\"; next, in the wilderness,\n\"_This do, and thou shalt live_\"; last of all, in the Gospel\nDispensation, \"_Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by Thy\nblood out of every kindred and tongue and people and nation, and hast\nmade us unto our God kings and priests._\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[300] Kuenen's notion that the cherubim had come to the Jews through\nthe Ph\u0153nicians from the Assyrians is quite improbable. The symbol was\ncommon throughout the East, whatever be the derivation of the word.\n\n[301] Compare Ezek. i. 10 with x. 14, where \"the face of an ox\" is\nidentical with \"the face of a cherub.\" Perhaps this gave rise to\nthe pagan calumnies that the Jews worshipped an ass. Josephus says\n(insincerely) that no man could tell or even conjecture the shape of\nthe cherubim.\n\n[302] B\u00e4hr, whose profound studies on symbolism command respect, says\nthat \"as standing on the highest step of created life, and uniting in\nthemselves the most perfect created life, they are the most perfect\nrevelation of God and the Divine\" (_Symbolik_, i. 340).\n\n[303] Compare the Homeric epithet \u03bd\u03ad\u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2, and Milton's\n\"smooth-gliding, without step.\"\n\n[304] One of the Scriptural functions of the cherubim was _to guard\ntreasure_ (Ezek. xxviii. 13-15). This conception, too, was widely\ndiffused throughout the East:--\n\n          \"As when a Gryphon through the wilderness\n           Pursues the Arimaspian, who, by stealth,\n           Has from his watchful custody purloined\n           The guarded gold.\"\n                                             MILTON.\n\n[305] I follow the Rabbis in saying that the first broken slabs were\nin the Ark.\n\n[306] Like the Greek images of the gods, they were made of olive, the\nleast corruptible kind of wood, and overlaid with the purest gold.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XVII.\n\n              _THE GRADUAL GROWTH OF THE LEVITIC RITUAL._\n\n                          1 KINGS viii. 1-66.\n\n    \"Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice.\"--1 SAM. xv. 22.\n\n\nBefore we enter on the subject of the Temple worship, it is necessary\nto emphasise a fact which will meet us again and again in many forms\nas we consider the history of the Chosen People: it is the amazing\nignorance which seems to have prevailed among them for centuries as\nto the most central and decisive elements of nearly the whole of the\nMosaic law as we now read it in the Pentateuch.\n\n1. Take, for instance, the law of a central sanctuary. It is strongly\nlaid down, and incessantly insisted on, throughout the Book of\nDeuteronomy.[307] Yet that law does not seem to have been so much\nas noticed by any of the earlier prophets or judges, or by Saul, or\nby David. The judges and early kings offer sacrifices at any place\nwhich they regard as sacred--Bochim, Ophrah, Mizpeh, Gilgal, Bethel,\nBethlehem, etc.[308] The rule of one place for sacrifice was not\nregarded for a moment by the kings of the Northern Kingdom. The\ntransgression of it was not made a subject of complaint by Elijah,\nElisha, or any of the earlier prophets. Not one of the kings, even\nof the most pious kings--Asa, Jehoshaphat, Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah,\nJotham--rigidly enforced it until the reign of Josiah. The law seems\nto have remained an absolutely dead letter for hundreds of years. Now\nthis would be amply accounted for if the Deuteronomic and Levitic\nCodes only belonged in reality to the days of Josiah and of the\nExile; for in \"the Book of the Covenant\" (Exod. xxiv. 7), which is\nthe most ancient part of these codes, and comprises Exod. xx.-xxviii.\n33, and is briefly repeated in Exod. xxxiv. 10-28, there is not only\nno insistence on a central shrine, but many of the regulations would\nhave been rendered impossible had such a shrine existed (_e.g._,\nExod. xxi. 6, xxii. 7, 8, where \"the judges\" should be \"God,\" as in\nthe R.V.). Indeed, so far from insistence on one Temple, we expressly\nread (Exod. xx. 24), \"An altar of earth shalt thou make Me, and shalt\nsacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings and thy peace offerings, thy\nsheep and thine oxen, _in all places where I record My name_, and I\nwill come unto thee and bless thee.\"\n\n2. Again, the Book of Leviticus lays down a singularly developed\ncode of ritual, \"extending to the minutest details of worship and of\nlife.\" Yet there is scarcely the shadow of a trace of the observance\nof even its most reiterated and important provisions during centuries\nof Israelitish history. It is emphatically a priestly book; yet from\nthe days of David down to those of Josiah, the priests, with few\nexceptions, are almost ignored in the national records. They took the\ncolour of their opinions from the reigning kings, even in matters\nwhich were contrary to the whole extent and spirit of the Mosaic Code.\nSamuel, who was not a priest, nor even a Levite, performed every\nfunction of a priest, and of a high priest, all his life long.\n\n3. Again, as we have seen, in spite of the positive distinctness of the\nSecond Commandment, not only is the \"calf-worship\" established, with\nscarcely a protest, throughout the Northern Kingdom; but Solomon even\nventures, without question or reproof, to place twelve oxen under his\nbrazen sea, and to adorn the steps of his throne with golden lions.\n\n4. Again, no ceremony was more awful, or more strikingly symbolical,\nin the later religion of Israel, than that of the Great Day of\nAtonement. It was the _only_ appointed fast in the Jewish year,[309]\na day so sacred that it acquired the name of _Yoma_, \"the Day.\" Yet\nthe Day of Atonement, with its arresting ceremonies and intense\nsignificance, is not so much as once mentioned outside the Levitical\nCode by a single prophet, or priest, or king. It is not even\nmentioned--which is exceedingly strange--in the post-exilic Books of\nChronicles. Between the Book of Leviticus (with its supposed date\nof 1491 B.C.), down to the days of Philo, Josephus, and the New\nTestament, there is not so much as a hint of the observance of this\ncentral ceremony of the whole Levitic law! What is more perplexing\nis, that, in the ideal legislation of Ezekiel, where alone anything\ndistantly resembling the Day of Atonement is alluded to (Ezek.\nxlv. 18-20), the time, manner, and circumstances are as absolutely\ndifferent as if Ezekiel had never read the Levitic law at all. How\nwould any prophet have dared to ignore or alter, without a word\nof reference or apology, a rite of Divine origin and immemorial\nsanctity, if he had been aware of its existence?\n\n5. Nor is this only the case with the Day of Atonement. It seems\ncertain that at Jerusalem there was not for centuries anything\ndistantly resembling the due Levitic observance of the three great\nyearly feasts. Nehemiah, for instance, tells us in so many words that\nsince the days of Joshua the son of Nun down to B.C. 445--perhaps for\na thousand years--the Feast of Tabernacles had never been observed in\nthe most characteristic of all its appointed rites--the dwelling in\nbooths.[310]\n\n6. Again, although there are slight allusions in some of the Prophets\nto \"laws\" and \"statutes\" and \"commandments,\" their silence about, if\nnot their absolute ignorance of, anything which resembles the Levitic\nlegislation as a whole is a startling problem. Thus, even a late\nprophet like Jeremiah alludes, without a word of reprobation, to men\ncutting and making themselves bald for the dead (Jer. xvi. 6; comp.\nxli. 5) in a way which the Levitic law (Lev. xix. 28; Deut. xiv. 1)\nstrenuously forbids.\n\n7. Again, as is well known, there is a fundamental difference between\nthe three codes as to the relative position of the priests and\nLevites. (i) In Exod. xix. 6 all Israel is regarded as \"a kingdom of\npriests and an holy nation,\" and in Exod. xxiv. 5 the young men of\nthe children of Israel \"offer burnt offerings and sacrifice peace\nofferings.\" (ii) In Numb. iii. 44-51 the Levites are set aside\nfor the service of the Tabernacle in place of the firstborn. But\nneither in \"the Book of the Covenant\" nor in Deuteronomy is there any\n_distinction_ between the services of the priests and the Levites.\n(iii) In Deut. x. 8 every Levite may become a priest. All priestly\nfunctions are open to the Levites, and the arrangements for the\nLevites are wholly different from those of Numbers. (iv) But in the\nPriestly Code only the sons of Aaron are to be priests (Numb. vi.\n22-27, xviii. 1-7; Lev. i. 5, 8). The Levites are to minister to them\nin more or less menial functions, and are permitted a share in the\ntithes, but not (as in Deut. xviii. 1) in the firstfruits. We have\nfirst identity of priests and Levites, then partial, then absolute\nseparation.[311] The earliest trace of this degradation of the\nLevites is propounded as something quite new in Ezek. xliv. 10-16,\nwhich distinctly implies (see verse 13) that up to that time the\nLevites had enjoyed full priestly rites.\n\nIt must be admitted that these facts are not capable of easy\nexplanation, nor is it strange that they have led the way to\nunexpected conclusions. We have to face the certainty that, for\nages together, the Levitic law was not only a dead letter among the\npeople for whom it was intended, but that its very existence does\nnot seem to have been known. \"For long periods,\" says Professor\nRobertson, \"the people of Israel seem to have been as ignorant of\ntheir own religion as the people of Europe were of theirs in the Dark\nAges.\"[312] But the problem, were we to pursue it into its details,\nis far more perplexing than can be accounted for by the very partial\nand misleading parallel which Professor Robertson adduces. The\nparallel would be nearer if, throughout the Dark Ages for a thousand\nyears together, scarcely a single trace were to be found, even under\nthe best popes and the most pious kings, and even in theologic and\nsacred literature, of so much as the existence of a New Testament, or\nof any observance of the most distinctive festivals and sacraments of\nChristianity. And this, as Professor Robertson knows, is infinitely\nfar from being the case. It is true that an argument _ex silentio_\nmay easily be pushed too far; but we cannot ignore it when it is\nso striking as this, and when it is also strengthened by so many\npositive and corroborative facts.\n\nA solution of this phenomenon--which becomes most salient in the\nBook of Kings--is proposed by the criticism which has received\nthe title of \"The Higher Criticism,\" because it is historic and\nconstructive, and rises above purely verbal elements. That solution\nis that the Pentateuch is not only a composite structure (which all\nwould concede), but that it was written in very different ages, and\nthat much of it is of very late origin. Critics of the latest school\nbelieve that it consists of three well-marked and entirely different\ncodes of laws--namely, \"the Book of the Covenant\" (Exod. xx.\n23-xxiii.); the \"Deuteronomic Code,\" first brought into prominence in\nthe reign of Josiah, and written shortly before that reign; and the\n\"Levitical\" or \"Priestly Code,\" which comprises most of Exodus, and\nnearly all Leviticus, and was not introduced till after the Exile.\nThis would be indeed a radical conclusion, and cannot yet be regarded\nas having been conclusively established. But so remarkable has been\nthe rapidity with which the opinion of religious critics has advanced\non the subject, that now even the strongest opponents of this extreme\nview admit that _the existence of the three separate codes_ has been\ndemonstrated, although they still think that all three may belong to\nthe Mosaic age.[313] It is obvious, however, that this view leaves\nmany of the difficulties entirely untouched. Criticism has not yet\nspoken her last word upon the subject, but we ought to take her views\ninto account in considering the judgments pronounced by the historian\nof the Kings. They were judgments which, in their details, though not\nas regards broad moral principles, were based on the standpoint of a\nlater age. The views of that later age must be discounted if we have\nto admit that some of the ritual innovations and legal transgressions\nof the kings were transgressions of laws of the very existence of\nwhich they were profoundly ignorant. That they _were_ thus ignorant\nof them is not only implied throughout, but appears from the direct\nstatements of the sacred historians.[314]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[307] See, especially, Deut. xii. 5-19. In the later Priestly Code\nthe centralisation of worship is not inculcated, but supposed to be\nalready established. In the original Book of the Covenant it is not\nrequired at all.\n\n[308] Judg. ii. 5, vi. 24, viii. 27, xx. 1, xxi. 2, 4; 1 Sam. vii. 9,\nx. 8, xi. 15, xiii. 9, xvi. 5, etc.\n\n[309] \u1f21 \u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1 (Acts xxvii. 9); Philo, _Lib. de Septenariis_.\n\n[310] Neh. viii. 17.\n\n[311] Canon Cook in the _Speaker's Commentary_ (Leviticus, p. 496)\nadmits: \"It is by no means unlikely there are insertions of a later\ndate, which were written and sanctioned by the prophets and holy men\nwho _after the captivity_ arranged and edited the Scriptures of the\nOld Testament.\"\n\n[312] _Book by Book_, p. 7.\n\n[313] See Professor Robertson, _Book by Book_, p. 56. I quote Professor\nRobertson as one of the ablest and most competent opponents of extreme\nconclusions; but it does not seem to me that he touches on some of the\narguments which constitute the main strength of the case against him.\n\n[314] See 2 Kings xxii. 11; Ezra ix. 1, 7; Neh. ix. 3.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XVIII.\n\n                         _THE TEMPLE WORSHIP._\n\n                          1 KINGS viii. 1-11.\n\n    \"Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the Lord, the\n    temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, are these.... Behold,\n    ye trust in lying words, that cannot profit.\"--JER. vii. 4, 8.\n\n\nThe actual Temple building, apart from its spacious courts, was\nneither for worshippers nor for priests, neither for sacrifice\nnor for prayer. It existed only for symbolism and, at least in\nlater days, for expiation. No prayer was offered in the sanctuary.\nThe propitiatory was the symbol of expiation, but even after the\nintroduction of the Day of Atonement the atoning blood was only\ncarried into it once a year.\n\nAll the worship was in the outer court, and consisted mainly, (1) of\npraise, and (2) of offerings. Both were prominent in the Dedication\nFestival.\n\n\"It is written,\" said our Lord, \"My house shall be called a House\nof Prayer, but ye have made it a den of robbers.\" The quotation is\nfrom the later Isaiah, and represents a happy advance in spiritual\nreligion. Among the details of the Levitic Tabernacle no mention is\nmade of prayer, though it was symbolised both in the incense and\nin the sacrifices which have been called \"unspoken prayers.\"[315]\n\"_Let my prayer be set forth as incense_,\" says the Psalmist,\n\"_and the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice_.\" In the\nNew Testament we read that \"the whole multitude of the people were\npraying without at the time of incense.\" But during the whole history\nof the first Temple we only hear--and that very incidentally--of\n_private_ prayer in the Temple. Solomon's prayer was public, and\ncombined prayer with praises and benedictions. But no fragments\nof Jewish liturgies have come down to us which we can with any\nprobability refer to the days of the kings. The Psalms which most\nclearly belong to the Temple service are mainly services of praise.\n\nIn the mind of the people the _sacrifices_ were undoubtedly the main\npart of the Temple ritual. This fact was specially emphasised by the\nscene which marked the Festival of the Dedication.\n\nIt is difficult to imagine a scene which to our unaccustomed senses\nwould have been more revolting than the holocausts of a great Jewish\nFestival like that of Solomon's Dedication. As a rule the daily\nsacrifices, exclusively of such as might be brought by private\nworshippers, were the lambs slain at morning and evening. Yet\nMaimonides gives us the very material and unpoetic suggestion that the\nincense used was to obviate the effluvium of animal sacrifice. The\nsuggestion is unworthy of the great Rabbi's ability, and is wholly\nincorrect; but it reminds us of the almost terrible fact that, often\nand often, the Temple must have been converted into one huge and\nabhorrent _abattoir_, swimming with the blood of slaughtered victims,\nand rendered intolerably repulsive by heaps of bloody skins and masses\nof offal. The smell of burning flesh, the swift putrescence caused by\nthe tropic heat, the unlovely accompaniments of swarms of flies, and\nministers with blood-drenched robes would have been inconceivably\ndisagreeable to our Western training--for no one will believe the\ncontinuous miracle invented by the Rabbis, who declare that no fly was\never seen in the Temple, and no flesh ever grew corrupt.[316] No doubt\nthe brazen sea and the movable caldrons were in incessant requisition,\nand there were provisions for vast storages of water. These could have\nproduced a very small mitigation of the accompanying pollutions during\na festival which transformed the great court of the Temple into the\nreeking shambles and charnel-house of sheep and oxen \"which could not\nbe told nor numbered for multitude.\"\n\nHad such spectacles been frequent, we should surely have had to\nsay of the people of Jerusalem as Sir Monier Williams says of the\nancient Hindus, \"The land was saturated with blood, and people became\nwearied and disgusted with slaughtered sacrifices and sacrificing\npriests.\"[317] What infinite, and what revolting labour, must have\nbeen involved in the right burning of \"the two kidneys and the fat,\"\nand the due disposition of the \"inwards\" of all these holocausts!\nThe groaning brazen altar, vast as it was, failed to meet the\nrequirements of the service, and apparently a multitude of other\naltars were extemporised for the occasion.\n\nWhen the festival was over God appeared to Solomon in vision, as He\nhad done at Gibeon. So far Solomon had not gravely or consciously\ndeflected from the ideal of a theocratic king. Anything which had\nbeen worldly or mistaken in his policy--the oppression into which he\nhad been led, the heathen alliances which he had formed, his crowded\nharem, his evident fondness for material splendour which carried with\nit the peril of selfish pride--were only signs of partial knowledge\nand human frailty. His heart was still, on the whole, right with\nGod. He was once more assured in nightly vision that his prayer and\nsupplication were accepted. The promise was renewed that if he would\nwalk in integrity and uprightness his throne should be established\nfor ever; but that if he or his children swerved into apostasy Israel\nshould be driven into exile, and, as a warning to all lands, \"this\nhouse, which I have hallowed for My name, will I cast out of My\nsight, and Israel shall be a proverb and a byword among all people.\"\n\nHere, then, we are brought face to face with problems which arise\nfrom the whole system of worship in the Old Dispensation. Whatever it\nwas, to whatever extent it was really carried out and was not merely\ntheoretical, at whatever date its separate elements originated, and\nhowever clear it is that it has utterly passed away, there must have\nbeen certain ideas underlying it which are worthy of our study.\n\n1. Of the element of praise, supported by music, we need say but\nlittle. It is a natural mode of expressing the joy and gratitude\nwhich fill the heart of man in contemplating the manifold mercies of\nGod. For this reason the pages of Scripture ring with religious music\nfrom the earliest to the latest age. We are told in the Chronicles\nthat triumphant praise was largely introduced into the great festival\nservices, and that the Temple possessed a great organisation for\nvocal and orchestral music. David was not only a poet, but an\ninventor of musical instruments.[318] Fifteen musical instruments\nare mentioned in the Bible, and five of them in the Pentateuch. Most\nimportant among them are cymbals, flutes, silver trumpets, rams'\nhorns, the harp (_Kinnor_) and the ten-stringed lute (_Nevel_).[319]\nThe remark of Josephus that Solomon provided 40,000 harps and lutes\nand 200,000 silver trumpets is marked by that disease of exaggeration\nwhich seems to infect the mind of all later Jewish writers when they\nlook back with yearning to the vanished glories of their past. There\ncan, however, be no doubt that the orchestra was amply supplied, and\nthat there was a very numerous and well-trained choir.[320] We read\nin the Psalms and elsewhere of tunes which they were trained to sing.\nSuch tunes were \"The Well,\" and \"The Bow,\" and \"The Gazelle of the\nmorning,\" and \"All my fresh springs shall be in Thee,\" and \"Die for\nthe son\" (_Muth-labben_).[321] In the second Temple female singers\nwere admitted;[322] in Herod's Temple Levite choir-boys took their\nplace.[323] The singing was often antiphonal. Some of the music\nstill used in the synagogue must date from these times, and there is\nno reason to doubt that in the so-called Gregorian _tones_ we have\npreserved to us a close approximation to the ancient hymnody of the\nTemple. This element of ancient worship calls for no remark. It is a\nreligious instinct to use music in the service of God; and perhaps\nthe imagination of St. John in the Revelation, when he describes the\nrapture of the heavenly host pouring forth the chant \"Alleluia, for\nthe Lord God omnipotent reigneth,\" was coloured by reminiscences of\ngorgeous functions in which he had taken part on the \"Mountain of the\nHouse.\"\n\n2. When we proceed to speak of _the Priesthood_ we are met by\ndifficulties, to which we have already alluded, as to the date of the\nvarying regulations respecting it. \"It would be difficult,\" says Dr.\nEdersheim, \"to conceive arrangements more thoroughly or consistently\nopposed to what are commonly called 'priestly pretensions' than those\nof the Old Testament.\"[324] According to the true ideal, Israel\nwas to be \"a kingdom of priests and an holy nation\";[325] but the\ninstitution of _ministering_ priests was of course a necessity,\nand the Jewish priesthood, which is now utterly abrogated, was,\nor gradually became, representative. Representatively they had to\nmediate between God and Israel, and typically to symbolise the\n\"holiness,\" _i.e._, the consecration of the Chosen People. Hence\nthey were required to be free from every bodily blemish. It was\nregarded as a deadly offence for any one of them to officiate without\nscrupulous safeguard against every ceremonial defilement, and they\nwere specially adorned and anointed for their office. They were an\nextremely numerous body, and from the days of David are said to have\nbeen divided into twenty-four courses. They were assisted by an army\nof attendant Levites, also divided into twenty-four courses, who\nacted as the cleansers and keepers of the Temple. But the distinction\nof priests and Levites does not seem to be older than \"the Priestly\nCode,\" and criticism has all but demonstrated that the sections of\nthe Pentateuch known by that name belong, in their present form, not\nto the age of Moses, but to the age of the successors of Ezekiel. The\nelaborate priestly and Levitic arrangements ascribed to the days of\nAaron by the chronicler, who wrote six hundred years after David's\nday, are unknown to the writers of the Book of Kings.\n\nIn daily life they wore no distinctive dress. In the Temple service,\nall the year round, their vestments were of the simplest. They were\nof white _byssus_ to typify innocence,[326] and four in number to\nindicate completeness. They consisted of a turban, breeches, and\nseamless coat of white linen, together with a girdle, symbolic of zeal\nand activity, which was assumed during actual ministrations.[327] The\nonly magnificent vestments were those worn for a few hours by the\nhigh priest once a year on the Great Day of Atonement. These \"golden\nvestments\" were eight in number. To the ordinary robes were added the\nrobe of the ephod (_Meil_) of dark blue, with seventy-two golden\nbells, and pomegranates of blue, purple, and scarlet; a jewelled\npectoral containing the Urim and Thummim; the mitre; and the golden\nfrontlet (_Ziz_), with its inscription of \"Holiness to the Lord.\" The\nideal type was fulfilled, and the poor shadows abolished for ever, by\nHim of whom it is said, \"Such an high priest became us, who is holy,\nharmless, undefiled, separate from sinners.\"\n\nThe priests were poor; they were very often entirely unlettered; they\nseem to have had for many centuries but little influence on the moral\nand spiritual life of the people. Hardly any good is recorded of them\nas a body throughout the four hundred and ten years during which the\nfirst Temple stood, as very little good had been recorded of them\nin the earlier ages, and not much in the ages which were to follow.\nWe read of scarcely a single moral protest or spiritual awakenment\nwhich had its origin in the priestly body. Their temptation was to\nbe absorbed in their elaborate ceremonials. As these differed but\nlittle from the ritual functions of surrounding heathendom they seem\nto have relapsed into apostasy with shameful readiness, and to have\nsubmitted without opposition to the idolatrous aberrations of king\nafter king, even to the extent of admitting the most monstrous idols\nand the most abhorrent pollutions into the sacred precincts of the\nTemple, which it was their work to guard. When a prophet arose out of\ntheir own supine and torpid ranks he invariably counted his brethren\namongst his deadliest antagonists. They ridiculed him as they ridiculed\nIsaiah; they smote him on the cheek as they smote Jeremiah. The only\nthing which roused them was the spirit of revolt against their vapid\nceremonialism, and their abject obedience to kings. The Presbyterate\ncould have no worse ideal, and could follow no more pernicious\nexample, than that of the Jewish priesthood. The days of their most\nrigid ritualism were the days also of their most desperate moral\nblindness. The crimes of their order culminated when they combined, as\none man, under their high priest Caiaphas and their sagan Annas[328]\nto reject Christ for Barabbas, and to hand over to the Gentiles for\ncrucifixion the Messiah of their nation, the Lord of Life.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[315] \"Sacrificia symbolic\u00e6 preces\" (Outram, _De Sacrif._, p. 108).\n\n[316] _Yoma_, f. 21, _a_.\n\n[317] On vast ancient holocausts, see Athen., _Deipnos._, i. 5;\nDiod. Sic., xi. 72; Porph., _De abstin._, ii. 60; Suet., _Calig._,\n14; Sen., _De Benef._, iii. 27; Ammian. Marcel., xxii. 4, xxv. 4;\nand other passages collected by the diligence of commentators. See,\ntoo, Josephus (_B. J._, VI. ix. 3) who reckons that at a passover in\nNero's time 256,000 sacrifices were offered.\n\n[318] Amos vi. 5; 1 Chron. xxiii. 5.\n\n[319] Edersheim, _The Temple and its Services_, p. 54.\n\n[320] The chronicler says that there were 38,000 Levites, of which\n24,000 were \"to oversee the work of the house of the Lord; and 6000\nwere officers and judges, and 4000 door-keepers; and 4000 praised the\nLord with the instruments which I made,\" _said David_, \"to praise\ntherewith.\"\n\n[321] Some of these titles of the Psalms are, however, very\nuncertain. Gesenius thinks that this last title (Psalm ix.) means\nthat the Psalm \"was to be sung by boys with virgins' voices.\" It\nis, to say the least, a very curious coincidence, that in 1 Chron.\nxxv. 4 the names of the sons of Heman, Giddalti and Romamti-ezer,\nJoshbekashah, Mallothi, Hothir, Mahazioth, mean (omitting the strange\nJoshbekashah, for which the LXX. Cod. Alex. reads \u03a3\u03b5\u03b2\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03ac\u03bd),\nconsecutively, \"I have given | great and high help: | I have spoken |\nvisions | in abundance.\" Had the names any reference to tunes?\n\n[322] Ezra ii. 65; Neh. vii. 67; Psalm lxxxvii. 7.\n\n[323] Of these, perhaps, were \"the children\" who shouted their\nhosannas to Jesus in the Temple (Matt. xxi. 15).\n\n[324] _The Temple and its Services_, p. 67.\n\n[325] Exod. xix. 5, 6.\n\n[326] Rev. xv. 6.\n\n[327] Comp. Rev. i. 13, xv. 6.\n\n[328] On this sagan, the later title for the \"second priest,\" see 2\nKings xxv. 18; Jer. lii. 24.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XIX.\n\n                        _THE TEMPLE SACRIFICES._\n\n                      1 KINGS viii. 62-66, ix. 25.\n\n    \"I have chosen this house to Myself for an house of\n    sacrifice.\"--2 Chron. vii. 12.\n\n    \"Gifts and sacrifices, that cannot, as touching the conscience,\n    make the worshipper perfect, being only ... carnal ordinances,\n    imposed until a time of reformation.\"--Heb. ix. 9, 10.\n\n\nThe whole sacrificial system with which our thoughts of Judaism are\nperhaps erroneously, and much too exclusively identified, furnishes\nus with many problems.\n\nWhether it was originally of Divine origin, or whether it was only an\ninstinctive expression, now of the gratitude, and now of the guilt\nand fear, of the human heart, we are not told. Nor is the basal idea\non which it was founded ever explained to us. Were the ideas of\n\"atonement\" or propitiation (_Kippurim_) really connected with those\nof substitution and vicarious punishment? Or was the main conception\nthat of _self_-sacrifice, which was certainly most prominent in the\nburnt offerings? Doubtless the views alike of priests and worshippers\nwere to a great extent indefinite. We are not told what led Cain and\nAbel to present their sacrifices to God; nor did Moses--if he were its\nfounder--furnish any theories to explain the elaborate system laid\ndown in the Book of Leviticus. The large majority of the Jews probably\nsacrificed simply because to do so had become a part of their religious\nobservances, and because in doing so they believed themselves to be\nobeying a Divine command. Others, doubtless, had as many divergent\ntheories as Christians have when they attempt to explain the Atonement.\nThe \"_substitution_\" theory of the \"sin offering\" finds little or no\nsupport from the Old Testament; not only is it never stated, but there\nis not a single clear allusion to it. It is emphatically asserted by\nlater Jewish authorities, such as Rashi, Aben Ezra, Moses ben-Nachman,\nand Maimonides, and is enshrined in the Jewish liturgy. Yet Dr.\nEdersheim writes: \"The common idea that the burning, either of part or\nthe whole of the sacrifice, pointed to its destruction, and symbolised\nthe wrath of God and the punishment due to sin, does not seem to accord\nwith the statements of Scripture.\"[329]\n\nSacrifices were of two kinds, bloody (_Zebach_; LXX., \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1), or\nunbloody (_minchah_, _korban_; LXX., \u03b4\u1ff6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03ac). The latter\nwere oblations. Such were the cakes of shewbread, the meal and drink\nofferings, the first sheaf at Passover, the two loaves at Pentecost.\nIn almost every instance the _minchah_ accompanied the offering of a\nsacrificial victim.\n\nThe two general rules about all victims for sacrifice were, (1)\nthat they should be without blemish and without spot, as types of\nperfectness; and (2) that every sacrifice should be salted with salt,\nas an antiseptic, and therefore a type of incorruption.[330]\n\nSacrificial victims could only be chosen from oxen, sheep, goats,\nturtle doves, and young pigeons--the latter being the offering of the\npoor who could not afford the costlier victims.\n\nSacrifices were also divided generally (1) into free, or obligatory;\n(2) public, or private; and (3) most holy or less holy, of which the\nlatter were slain at the north and the former at the east side of\nthe altar.[331] The offerer, according to the Rabbis, had to do five\nthings--to lay on hands, slay, skin, dissect, and wash the inwards.\nThe priest had also to do five things at the altar itself--to catch\nthe blood, sprinkle it, light the fire, bring up the pieces, and\ncomplete the sacrifices.\n\nSacrifices are chiefly dwelt upon in the Priestly Code; but nowhere\nin the Old Testament is their significance formally explained, nor\nfor many centuries was the Levitic ritual much regarded.[332]\n\nThe sacrifices commanded in the Pentateuch fall under four heads. (1)\nThe burnt offering (_Olah_, _Kalil_),[333] which typified complete\nself-dedication, and which even the heathen might offer; (2) the sin\noffering (_Chattath_),[334] which made atonement for the offender; (3)\nthe trespass offering (_Ash\u00e2m_),[335] which atones for some special\noffence, whether doubtful or certain, committed through ignorance; and\n(4) the thank offering, eucharistic peace offering (_Shelem_),[336] or\n\"offering of completion,\" which followed the other sacrifices, and of\nwhich the flesh was eaten by the priest and the worshippers.[337]\n\nThe oldest practice seems only to have known of burnt offerings and\nthank offerings, and the former seem only to have been offered at\ngreat sacrificial feasts. Even in Deuteronomy a common phrase for\nsacrifices is \"eating before the Lord,\" which is almost ignored\nin the Priestly Code. Of the sin offering, which in that code has\nacquired such enormous importance, there is scarcely a trace--unless\nHosea iv. 8 be one, which is doubtful--before Ezekiel, in whom the\n_Ash\u00e2m_ and _Chattath_ occur in place of the old pecuniary fines (2\nKings xii. 16). Originally sacrifice was a glad meal, and even in the\noldest part of the code (Lev. xvii.-xxvi.) sacrifices are comprised\nunder the _Olam_ and _Zebach_. The turning-point of the history of\nthe sacrificial system is Josiah's reformation, of which the Priestly\nCode is the matured result.[338]\n\nIt is easy to see that sacrifices in general were eucharistic,\ndedicatory, and expiatory.\n\nThe eucharistic sacrifices (the meal and peace offerings) and the\nburnt offerings, which indicated the entire sacrifice of self, were\nthe offerings of those who were in communion with God. They were\nrecognitions of His absolute supremacy. The sin and trespass offerings\nwere intended to recover a lost communion with God. And thus the\nsacrifices were, or ultimately came to be, the expression of the great\nideas of thanksgiving, of self-dedication, and of propitiation. But\nthe Israelites, \"while they seem always to have retained the idea\nof propitiation and of eucharistic offering, constantly ignored the\nself-dedication, which is the link between the two, and which the\nregular burnt offering should have impressed upon them as their daily\nthought and duty.\" Had they kept this in view they would have been\nsaved from the superstitions and degeneracies which made their use\nof the sacrificial system a curse and not a blessing. The expiatory\nconception, which was probably the latest of the three, expelled the\nothers, and was perverted into the notion that God was a God of wrath,\nwhose fury could be averted by gifts and His favour won by bribes.\nThere was this truth in the notion of propitiation--that God hates,\nand is alienated by, and will punish, sin; and yet that in His mercy\nHe has provided an Atonement for us. But in trying to imagine _how\nthe sacrifice affected God_, the Israelites lost sight of the truth\nthat _this_ is an inexplicable mystery, and that all which we can know\nis the effect which _it can produce on the souls of man_. If they had\ninterpreted the sacrifices as a whole to mean this only--that man is\nguilty and that God is merciful; and that though man's guilt separates\nhim from God, reunion with Him can be gained by confession, penitence,\nand self-sacrifice, by virtue of an Atonement which He had revealed\nand would accept--then the effect of them would have been spiritually\nwholesome and ennobling. But when they came to think that sacrifices\nwere presents to God, which might be put in the place of amendment and\nmoral obedience, and that the punishment due to their offences might be\nthus mechanically diverted upon the heads of innocent victims, then the\nsacrificial system was rendered not only nugatory but pernicious. Nor\nhave Christians been exempt from a similar corruption of the doctrine\nof the Atonement. In treating it as vicarious and expiatory they have\nforgotten that it is unavailing unless it be also representative. In\nlooking upon it as the atonement _for_ sin they have overlooked that\nthere can be no such atonement unless it be accompanied by redemption\n_from_ sin. They have tacitly and practically acted on the notion,\nwhich in the days of St. Paul some even avowed, that \"we may continue\nin sin that grace may abound.\" But in the great work of redemption\nthe will of man cannot be otiose. He must himself die with Christ. As\nChrist was sacrificed for him he, too, must offer his body a living\nsacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God. \"Without the sin offering of the\nCross,\" says Bishop Barry, \"our burnt offering (of self-dedication)\nwould be impossible; so also without the burnt offering the sin\noffering will, to us, be unavailing.\"[339]\n\nMany of the crudities, and even horrors, which, alike in Jewish and\nChristian times, have been mixed up with the idea of bloody sacrifices,\nwould have been removed if more attention had been paid to the\nprominence and real significance of _blood_ in the entire ritual. As\ntaught by some revivalists the doctrine of the blood adds the most\nrevolting touches to theories which assimulate God to Moloch; but the\ntrue significance of the phrase and of the symbol elevates the entire\ndoctrine of sacrifice into a purer and more spiritual atmosphere.\n\nThe central significance of the whole doctrine lies in the ancient\nopinion that \"the blood\" of the sacrifice was \"its life.\" This\nwas why an expiatory power was ascribed to the blood. There was\ncertainly no transfer of guilt to the animal, _for its blood remained\nclean and cleansing_. Nor was the animal supposed to undergo the\ntransgressor's punishment; first, because this is nowhere stated, and\nnext, because had that been the case, fine flour would certainly not\nhave been permitted (as it was) as a sin offering.[340] Moreover,\nno wilful offence, no offence \"with uplifted hand,\" _i.e._, with\nevil premeditation, _could_ be atoned for either by sin or trespass\nofferings;--though certainly so wide a latitude was given to the notion\nof sin as an _involuntary_ error as to tend to break down the notion\nof moral responsibility. The sin offering was further offered for some\npurely accidental and ceremonial offences, which could not involve\nany real consciousness of guilt.[341] \"The blood of the covenant\"\n(Exod. xxiv. 4-8) was not of the _sin_ offering, but of peace and\nburnt offerings; and though, as Canon Cook says, we read of blood in\npaganism as a propitiation to a hostile demon, \"we seem to seek in vain\nfor an instance in which the blood, as a natural symbol for the soul,\nwas offered as an atoning sacrifice.\"[342] \"The atoning virtue of the\nblood lies not in its material substance, but in the life of which it\nis the vehicle,\" says Bishop Westcott. \"The blood always includes the\nthought of the life preserved and active beyond death. It is not simply\nthe price by which the redeemed were purchased, but the power by which\nthey were quickened so as to be capable of belonging to God.\" \"To drink\nthe blood of Christ,\" says Clement of Alexandria, \"is to partake of the\nLord's incorruption.\"[343]\n\nBesides the points to which we have alluded, there is a further\ndifficulty created by the singular silence _respecting sin offerings\nof any kind_, except in that part of the Old Testament which has\nrecently acquired the name of the Priestly Code.[344]\n\nThe word _Chattath_, in the sense of sin offering, occurs in Exod.\nxxix., xxx., and many times in Leviticus and Numbers, and six times\nin Ezekiel. Otherwise in the Old Testament it is barely mentioned,\nexcept in the post-exilic Books of Chronicles (2 Chron. xxix. 24) and\nEzra (viii. 25).[345] It is not mentioned in any other historic book;\nnor in any prophet except Ezekiel. Again, as we have seen, the Day of\nAtonement leaves not a trace in any of the earlier historic records\nof Scripture, and is found only in the authorities above mentioned.\nThrough all the rest of Scripture the scape-goat is unmentioned, and\nAzazel is ignored. Dr. Kalisch goes so far as to say that \"there is\nconclusive evidence to prove that the Day of Atonement was instituted\nconsiderably more than a thousand years after the death of Moses and\nAaron.[346] For even in Ezekiel, who wrote B.C. 574, there is no Day\nof Atonement on the tenth day of the seventh month, but on the first\nand seventh of the first month (Abib, Nisan).\" He thinks it utterly\nimpossible that, had it existed in his time, Ezekiel could have blotted\nout the holiest day of the year, and substituted two of his own\narbitrary choice.[347] The rites, moreover, which he describes differ\nwholly from those laid down in Leviticus. Even in Nehemiah there is\nno notice of the Day of Atonement, though a day was observed on the\ntwenty-fourth of the month. Hence this learned writer infers that even\nin B.C. 440 the Great Day of Atonement was not yet recognised, and that\nthe pagan element of sending the scape-goat to Azazel, the demon of the\nwilderness, proves the late date of the ceremony.\n\nIt is interesting to observe how utterly the sacrificial priestly\nsystem, in the abuses which not only became involved in it, but\nseemed to be almost inseparable from it, is condemned by the loftier\nspiritual intuition which belongs to phases of revelation higher than\nthe external and the typical.\n\nThus in the Old Testament no series of inspired utterances is more\ninteresting, more eloquent, more impassioned and ennobling, than\nthose which insist upon the utter nullity of all sacrifices in\nthemselves, and their absolute insignificance in comparison with the\nlightest element of the moral law. On this subject the Prophets and\nthe Psalmists use language so sweeping and exceptionless as almost to\nrepudiate the desirability of sacrifices altogether. They speak of them\nwith a depreciation akin to scorn. It may be doubted whether they had\nthe Mosaic system with all its details, as we know it, before them.\nThey do not enter into those final elaborations which it assumed, and\nnot one of them so much as alludes to any service which resembles the\npowerfully symbolic ceremonial of the Great Day of Atonement. But they\nspeak of the ceremonial law in such fragments and aspects of it as\nwere known to them. They deal with it as priests practised it, and as\npriests taught--if they ever taught anything--respecting it. They speak\nof it as it presented itself to the minds of the people around them,\nwith whom it had become rather a substitute for moral efforts and an\nobstacle in the path of righteousness, than an aid to true religion.\nAnd this is what they say:--\n\n\"Hath the Lord as great delight in sacrifice,\" asks the indignant\nSAMUEL, \"as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is\nbetter than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.\"[348]\n\n\"I hate, I despise your feasts,\" says Jehovah by Amos, \"and I will\ntake no delight in your solemn assemblies. Yea, though ye offer Me\nyour burnt offerings and meal offerings, I will not accept them:\nneither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts. Turn\nthou away from Me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the\nmelody of thy viols. But let judgment roll down as waters, and\nrighteousness as a mighty stream.\"[349]\n\n\"Wherewith shall I come before the Lord,\" asks MICAH, \"and bow\nmyself before the most high God? Shall I come before Him with burnt\nofferings, with calves of a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with\nthousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I\ngive my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the\nsin of my soul? He hath showed thee, O man, what is good: and what\ndoth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy,\nand to walk humbly with thy God?\"[350]\n\nHOSEA again in a message of Jehovah, twice quoted on different\noccasions by our Lord, says: \"I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and\nthe knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.\"[351]\n\nISAIAH also, in the word of the Lord, gives burning expression\nto the same conviction: \"To what purpose is the multitude of your\nsacrifices unto Me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings\nof lambs, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood\nof bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats. When ye come to appear\nbefore Me, who hath required this at your hands, to trample My\ncourts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination\nunto Me; new moon and sabbath, the calling of assemblies,--I cannot\naway with iniquity and the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your\nappointed feasts My soul hateth: they are a cumbrance unto Me; I am\nweary to bear them.... Wash you, make you clean!\"[352]\n\nThe language of JEREMIAH'S message is even more startling: \"_I\nspake not unto your fathers_, nor commanded them in the day that I\nbrought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or\nsacrifices: but this thing I commanded them, saying, Obey My voice.\"\nAnd again--in the version of the LXX., given in the margin of the\nRevised Version for the unintelligible rendering of the Authorised\nVersion--he asks: \"Why hath the beloved wrought abomination in My\nhouse? Shall vows and holy flesh take away from thee thy wickedness,\nor shalt thou escape by these?\"[353]\n\nJeremiah is, in fact, the most anti-ritualistic of the prophets. So\nfar from having hid and saved the Ark, he regarded it as entirely\nobsolete (iii. 16). He cares only for the spiritual covenant written\non the heart, and very little, if at all, for Temple services and\nLevitic scrupulosities (vii. 4-15, xxxi. 31-34).[354]\n\nTHE PSALMISTS are no less clear and emphatic in putting sacrifices\nnowhere in comparison with righteousness:--\n\n          \"I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices;\n           Nor for thy burnt offerings which are continually before Me.\n           I will take no bullock out of thine house,\n           Nor he-goats out of thy folds.\n\n                 *       *       *       *       *\n\n           Will I eat the flesh of bulls,\n           Or drink the blood of goats?\n           Offer unto God thanksgiving;\n           And pay thy vows unto the Most High.\"[355]\n\nAnd again:--\n\n          \"For Thou desirest not sacrifice, else would I give it Thee:\n           Thou delightest not in burnt offering.\n           The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit:\n           A broken and contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not\n                despise.\"[356]\n\nAnd again:--\n\n          \"Sacrifice and offering Thou hast no delight in;\n           Mine ears hast thou opened:\n           Burnt offering and sin offering hast Thou not required.\"[357]\n\nAnd again:--\n\n          \"To do justice and judgment\n           Is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice.\"[358]\n\nAnd again:--\n\n          \"I will praise the name of God with a song,\n           And magnify it with thanksgiving.\n           This also shall please the Lord\n           Rather than a bullock that hath horns and hoofs.\"[359]\n\nSurely the most careless and conventional reader cannot fail to\nsee that there is a wide difference between the standpoint of the\nprophets, which is so purely spiritual, and that of the writers and\nredactors of the Priestly Code, whose whole interest centred in the\nsacrificial and ceremonial observances.\n\nNor is the intrinsic nullity of the sacrificial system less\ndistinctly pointed out in the New Testament. The better-instructed\nJews, enlightened by Christ's teaching, could give emphatic testimony\nto the immeasurable superiority of the moral to the ceremonial. The\ncandid scribe, hearing from Christ's lips the two great commandments,\nanswers, \"Of a truth, Master, Thou hast well said that He is one; and\nthere is none other but He: and to love Him with all the heart, ...\nand to love his neighbour as himself, is much more than all whole\nburnt offerings and sacrifices.\"[360]\n\nAnd our Lord quoted Hosea with the emphatic commendation, \"Go ye and\nlearn what that meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.\"[361]\nAnd on another occasion: \"But if ye had known what this meaneth, I\ndesire mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the\nguiltless.\"[362]\n\nThe presenting of our bodies, says St. Paul, as a living sacrifice\nis our reasonable service; and St. Peter calls all Christians a holy\npriesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifice.[363]\n\n\"It is impossible,\" says the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews,\n\"that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins;\" and he\nspeaks of the priests \"daily offering the same sacrifice, the which\ncan never take away sins.\"[364]\n\nAnd again:--\n\n\"To do good and to distribute forget not: for with _such_ sacrifices\nGod is well pleased.\"[365]\n\nThe wisest fathers of Jewish thought in the post-exilic epoch held\nthe same views. Thus the son of Sirach says: \"He that keepeth the law\nbringeth offerings enough.\"[366] And Philo, echoing an opinion common\namong the best heathen moralists from Socrates to Marcus Aurelius,[367]\nwrites, \"The mind, when without blemish, is itself the most holy\nsacrifice, being entirely and in all respects pleasing to God.\"[368]\n\nAnd what is very remarkable, modern Judaism now emphasises its belief\nthat \"neither sacrifices nor a Levitical system belong to the essence\nof the Old Testament.\"[369] Such was the view of the ancient Essenes,\nno less than of Maimonides or Abarbanel. Modern Rabbis even go so far\nas to argue that the whole system of Levitical sacrifice was an alien\nelement, introduced into Judaism from without, tolerated indeed by\nMoses, but only as a concession to the immaturity of his people and\ntheir hardness of heart.[370]\n\nSuch, too, was the opinion of the ancient Fathers,--of the author of\nthe Epistle of Barnabas, of Justin Martyr, Origen, Tertullian, Jerome,\nChrysostom, Epiphanius, Cyril, and Theodoret, who are followed by such\nRoman Catholic theologians as Petavius and Bellarmine.[371]\n\nThis at any rate is certain:--that the Judaic system is not only\nabrogated, but rendered impossible. Whatever were its functions, God\nhas stamped with absolute disapproval any attempt to continue them.\nThey are utterly annulled and obliterated for ever.\n\n\"I am come to repeal the sacrifices.\" Such is the \u1f04\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\nascribed to Christ; \"and unless ye desist from sacrificing, the\nwrath of God will not desist from you.\"[372] The argument of St.\nPaul in the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, and of the writer\nof the Epistle to the Hebrews, show us why this was inevitable; and\nthey were but following the initiative of Christ and the teaching\nof His Spirit. It is a mistake to imagine that our Lord merely\nrepudiated the inane pettinesses of Pharisaic formalism. He went\nmuch further. There is not the slightest trace that He personally\nobserved the requirements of the ceremonial law. It is certain that\nHe broke them when He touched the leper and the dead youth's bier.\nThe law insisted on the centralisation of worship, but Jesus said,\n\"The day cometh, and now is, when neither in Jerusalem, nor yet in\nthis mountain, shall men worship the Father. God is a Spirit, and\nthey that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.\" The\nlaw insisted, with extreme emphasis, on the burdensome distinctions\nbetween clean and unclean meats. Jesus said that it is not that\nwhich cometh from without, but that which cometh from within which\ndefileth a man, and this He said \"_making all meats clean_.\"[373]\nSt. Paul, when the types of Mosaism had been for ever fulfilled in\nChrist, and the antitype had thus become obsolete and pernicious,\nwent further still. Taking circumcision, the most ancient and most\ndistinctive rite of the Old Dispensation, he called it \"concision\"\nor mere mutilation, and said thrice over, \"Circumcision is nothing,\nand uncircumcision is nothing, but 'a new creature'\"; \"but faith\nworking by love,\" \"but the keeping of the commandment of God.\" The\nwhole system of Judaism was local, was external, was minute, was\ninferior, was transient, was a concession to infirmity, was a yoke of\nbondage: the whole system of Christianity is universal, is spiritual,\nis simple, is unsacrificial, is unsacerdotal, is perfect freedom.\nJudaism was a religion of a temple, of sacrifices, of a sacrificial\npriesthood: Christianity is a religion in which the Spirit of God\n\n                                     \"Doth prefer\n          Before all temples the upright heart and pure.\"\n\nIt is a religion in which there is no more sacrifice for sin, because\nthe one perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction,\nhas been consummated for ever. It is a religion in which there is no\naltar but the Cross; in which there is no priest but Christ, except\nso far as _every_ Christian is by metaphor a priest to offer up\nspiritual sacrifices which alone are acceptable to God.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe Temple of Solomon lasted only four centuries, and they were for\nthe most part years of dishonour, disgrace, and decadence.[374]\nSolomon was scarcely in his grave before it was plundered by Shishak.\nDuring its four centuries of existence it was again stripped of\nits precious possessions at least six times, sometimes by foreign\noppressors, sometimes by distressed kings. It was despoiled of its\ntreasure by Asa, by Jehoash of Judah, by Jehoash of Israel, by Ahaz,\nby Hezekiah, and lastly by Nebuchadnezzar. After such plunderings it\nmust have completely lost its pristine splendour. But the plunder of\nits treasures was nothing to the pollutions of its sanctity. They\nbegan as early as the reigns of Rehoboam and Abijah. Ahaz gave it a\nSyrian altar, Manasseh stained it with impurities, and Ezekiel in its\nsecret chambers surveyed \"the dark idolatries of alienated Judah.\"\n\nAnd in the days when Judaism most prized itself on ritual faithfulness,\nthe Lord of the Temple was insulted in the Temple of the Lord, and its\ncourts were turned by greedy priests and Sadducees into a cowshed, and\na dovecot, and a fair, and a usurer's mart, and a robber's den.\n\nFrom the first the centralisation of worship in the Temple must\nhave been accompanied by the danger of dissociating religious life\nfrom its daily social environments. The multitudes who lived in\nremote country places would no longer be able to join in forms of\nworship which had been carried on at local shrines. Judaism, as the\nprophets so often complain, tended to become too much a matter of\nofficialism and function, of rubric and technique, which always tend\nto substitute external service for true devotion, and to leave the\nshell of religion without its soul.[375]\n\nEven when it had been purified by Josiah's reformation, the Temple\nproved to be a source of danger and false security. It was regarded as\na sort of Palladium. The formalists began to talk and act as though it\nfurnished a mechanical protection, and gave them licence to transgress\nthe moral law. Jeremiah had sternly to warn his countrymen against this\ntrust in an idle formalism. \"Amend your ways and your doings,\" he said.\n\"Behold, ye trust in lying words which cannot profit. Will ye steal,\nmurder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto\nBaal, and walk after other gods whom ye have not known, and come and\nstand before Me in this house, which is called by My name, and say, We\nare delivered; that ye may do all these abominations?\"\n\nThe Temple of Solomon was defaced and destroyed and polluted by\nthe Babylonians, but not until it had been polluted by the Jews\nthemselves with the blood of prophets, by idolatries, by chambers of\nunclean imagery. It was rebuilt by a poor band of disheartened exiles\nto be again polluted by Antiochus Epiphanes, and ultimately to become\nthe headquarters of a narrow, arrogant, and intriguing Pharisaism.\nIt was rebuilt once more by Herod, the brutal Idumean usurper, and\nits splendour inspired such passionate enthusiasm that when it was\nwrapped in flames by Titus, it witnessed the carnage of thousands of\nmaddened and despairing combatants.\n\n          \"As 'mid the cedar courts and gates of gold\n           The trampled ranks in miry carnage rolled\n           To save their Temple every hand essayed,\n           And with cold fingers grasp'd the feeble blade;\n           Through their torn veins reviving fury ran\n           And life's last anger warm'd the dying man.\"\n\nYet that last Temple had been defiled by a worse crime than the other\ntwo. It had witnessed the priestly idols and the priestly machinations\nwhich ended in the murder of the Son of God. From the Temple sprang\nlittle or nothing of spiritual importance. Intended to teach the\nsupremacy of righteousness, it became the stronghold of mere ritual.\nFor the development of true holiness, as apart from ceremonial\nscrupulosity, its official protectors rendered it valueless.\n\nWe are not surprised that Christianity knows no temple but the hearts\nof all who love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity and truth; and\nthat the characteristic of the New Jerusalem, which descends out of\nheaven like a bride adorned for her husband, is:--\n\n\"And I saw no temple therein.\"[376]\n\nAbundantly was the menace fulfilled in which Jehovah warned Solomon\nafter the Feast of Dedication that if Israel swerved into immorality\nand idolatry, that house should be an awful warning--that its\nblessing should be exchanged into a curse, and that every one who\npassed by it should be astonished and should hiss.[377]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[329] He refers to W\u00fcnsche, _Die Leiden des Messias_.\n\n[330] Mark ix. 49.\n\n[331] Lev. vi. 17, vii. 1, xiv. 13. On this whole subject see\nEdersheim, pp. 79-111.\n\n[332] See Judg. vi. 19-21; 1 Sam. ii. 13, xiv. 35; 1 Kings xix. 21; 2\nKings v. 17.\n\n[333] LXX., \u1f41\u03bb\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1.\n\n[334] LXX., \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. _Chattath_ and _Ash\u00e2m_ both imply guilt,\ndebt, sin. \"The trespass offering affected rights of property, but no\nprecise definition of the two kinds of expiatory offerings can be based\nupon the statements made in the Pentateuch in respect to them. Perhaps\nthey cannot all be referred to the same time and to one author; for\nthey prescribe both sin and trespass offerings in cases of Levitical\nimpurity, and also for moral offences. All Levites attempting to\nestablish palpable distinctions between them must inevitably fail.\"\n(Kalisch, _Leviticus_, part ii., p. 272). The general scheme of\nsacrifices, as they now stand in the Pentateuch, is as follows:--\n\n                    Sacrifice (_Zebach_, _Minchah_).\n                          |\n         +----------------+----------------+-------------+\n         |                |                |             |\n  Burnt offering.  Peace offering.    Expiatory     Offering of\n                          |           offering.    Purification.\n                          |                |             |\n                          |                |    +-----+--+----------+\n                          |                |    |     |             |\n                          |                |  Child   Leprosy.    Issue.\n                          |                |  birth.\n                          |           +----+----------+------------+\n                          |           |               |            |\n                          |      Sin offering     Trespass      Offering\n                          |   (_Chattath_).       offering    Jealousy.\n                          |                      (_Ash\u00e2m_).\n                          |\n     +--------+---------+-+--------+--------------+\n     |        |         |          |              |\n  Thank    Praise.  Paschal     Firstborn    Firstfruits.\n  offerings.           Lamb.     of animals.\n\n[335] LXX., \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1.\n\n[336] LXX., \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n[337] The phrase \"wave offering\" indicates the ceremony used by the\npriests in presenting peace offerings to God.\n\n[338] For the full development of these views, see Wellhausen's\n_Prolegomena_.\n\n[339] See Bishop Barry's article on Sacrifice in Smith's _Dictionary\nof the Bible_, to which, in this paragraph, I am much indebted.\n\n[340] Lev. v. 11-13.\n\n[341] See Kuenen, _Rel. of Israel_, ii. pp. 259-76.\n\n[342] _Speaker's Commentary_, Leviticus, p. 508. In Lev. xvii. 11--\"For\nthe soul of the flesh is in the blood, and _I have ordained it for you\nupon the altar_ to make atonement for your souls; for the blood it is\nwhich makes atonement by means of the soul\"--Kurtz points out that the\nblood is simply _chosen as a symbol_, and the superstition that there\nis any atoning virtue in the blood itself is excluded.\n\n[343] _P\u00e6d._, ii. 2, \u00a7 19.\n\n[344] The Priestly Code is that part of the Pentateuch which is\noccupied with public worship and the function of priests--viz., most\nof Leviticus; Exod. xxv.-xl.; Numb. i.-x., xv.-xx., xxv.-xxxvi. (with\ninconsiderable exceptions)\n\n[345] In Psalm xl. 6, \"Sin offering hast Thou not required.\" The\nPsalm is perhaps of the age of Jeremiah.\n\n[346] He argues that even in Chronicles it is not mentioned; and that\nthere was no curtain (_Parocheth_) before the Holiest in Solomon's\nTemple (1 Kings vi. 31, 32. Comp. Ezek. xli. 23, 24; 1 Kings viii. 8).\nHe considers that 2 Chron. iii. 14 (the only place in the Old Testament\nwhere _Parocheth_ occurs except in the P.C.) cannot overthrow 1 Kings\nvi. 21, which speaks only of chains of gold between the Holy and the\nHoliest. (There was a curtain in Herod's Temple, Matt. xxvii. 51; Heb.\nix. 3). But if there was no _Parocheth_ in Solomon's Temple, the rule\nof Lev. xvi. 2, 12, 15 could not have been observed.\n\n[347] This caused immense perplexity to the Rabbis. _Shabbath_, xiii.\n2; _Chagigah_, xiii. 1; _Menachoth_, xlv. 1.\n\n[348] 1 Sam. xv. 22.\n\n[349] Amos v. 21-23.\n\n[350] Micah vi. 6-8. Some suppose that the words are attributed to\nBalaam (see verse 5).\n\n[351] Hosea vi. 6.\n\n[352] Isa. i. 11-16.\n\n[353] Jer. vii. 22, xi. 15.\n\n[354] Jer. xxxiii. 14-26 seems to speak in a different tone, but is\nprobably an interpolation. It is not found in the LXX.\n\n[355] Psalm l. 8-14.\n\n[356] Psalm li. 16, 17. It is difficult to believe that the two last\nverses of the Psalm are not a later addition.\n\n[357] Psalm xl. 6.\n\n[358] Prov. xxi. 3.\n\n[359] Psalm lxix. 30, 31.\n\n[360] Mark xii. 32, 33. So in the Talmud: \"Acts of justice are more\nmeritorious than all sacrifices\" (_Succoth._, lxix. 2).\n\n[361] Matt. ix. 13.\n\n[362] Matt. xii. 7.\n\n[363] Rom. xii. 1; 1 Peter ii. 5.\n\n[364] Heb. x. 4, 11.\n\n[365] Heb. xiii. 16.\n\n[366] Ecclus. xxxv. 1-15.\n\n[367] Comp. Ov., _Trist._, ii. 1, 75; Ep. xx. 81; Persius, ii. 45;\nVarro, _ap._ Arnob., _c. Natt._, vii. 1. \"Dii veri neque desiderant\nea, neque deposcunt.\"\n\n[368] Philo, _De Victimis_, 5.\n\n[369] A. Geiger, _Judenthum und seine Geschichte_, Sect. 5.\n\n[370] Vajikra R., 22 and 34 _b_. They got over Jer. xxxiii. 18 (in\nYalkuth, on the passage) by saying, \"He that doeth repentance it is\ncounted to him as if he offered all the sacrifices of the land.\" They\nheld that the place of sacrifices was taken by prayer, penitence, and\ngood works. See Edersheim, _Jesus the Messiah_, i. 275.\n\n[371] See Spencer, _De Legg. Ritual._, iii.; _Dissert._, ii., chap. 1.\n\n[372] Evang. Ebion, _ap._ Epiph., _H\u00e6r._, xxx. 16.\n\n[373] Mark vii. 19.\n\n[374] It was twice repaired--about B.C. 856 in the reign of Joash,\nand about two centuries later under Josiah.\n\n[375] See Isa. xxix. 13, 14; Ezek. xxxiii. 31; Matt. xv. 7-9; Col. i.\n20-22, etc. Comp. Wellhausen, pp. 77-79.\n\n[376] Rev. xxi. 22.\n\n[377] 1 Kings ix. 6-9. The phrase \"at this house which is high\" is\nuncertain. The Vulgate has \"domus h\u00e6c erit in exemplum\"; the Peshito\nand Arabic have \"and this house shall be destroyed.\"\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XX.\n\n                      _SOLOMON IN ALL HIS GLORY._\n\n                            1 KINGS x. 1-29.\n\n          \"O Luxury! thou curs'd by Heaven's decree!\n           How do thy potions with insidious joy\n           Diffuse their pleasures only to destroy!\n           Kingdoms by thee to sickly greatness grown\n           Boast of a florid vigour not their own.\"\n                                 GOLDSMITH, _Deserted Village_.\n\n    \"The Queen of the South shall rise up in judgment against this\n    generation, and shall condemn it. For she came from the uttermost\n    parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon.\"--MATT. xii. 42.\n\n\nThe history of the Temple is the event which gives supreme religious\nimportance to the reign of one who became in other respects a worldly\nand irreligious king. It is for this reason that I have dwelt upon\nits significance, and on the many interesting questions which its\nworship naturally suggests. Solomon gave an impulse to outward\nservice, not to spiritual life. His religion was mainly that form of\nexternalism which rose but little above the\n\n          \"Gay religions full of pomp and gold\"\n\nof the surrounding heathens. The other fragments of his story which\nhave been preserved for us are mainly of a political character. They\npoint us to Solomon in his wealth and ostentation, and contain nothing\nspecially edifying. Our Lord thought less of all this splendour than\nof the flower of the field. \"Consider the lilies of the field, how they\ngrow; they toil not, neither do they spin: yet I say unto you, that\nSolomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.\"\n\nPrinces who have once begun to build find a certain fascination\nin the task. After the seven years devoted to the Temple, Solomon\noccupied thirteen more in building \"halls of Lebanoniac cedar\" for\nhimself, for his audience-chamber, and for Pharaoh's daughter.\n\nChief of these were:--\n\n1. The house of the forest of Lebanon, a sort of arsenal so called from\nits triple rows of cedar pillars, on which hung the golden shields for\nthe king's guards when they attended his great visits to the Temple.\n\n2. The justice hall, the \"Sublime Porte\" of Jerusalem, built of gold\nand cedar. It contained the famous Lion Throne of gold and ivory, with\ntwo lions on each of its six steps.[378] It is not known whether these\nbuildings formed part of the palace and harem of Solomon, nor is it\nworth while to waste time on the impossible attempt to reconstruct them.\n\nSolomon also built the fortification of Jerusalem known as the \"Millo,\"\nand the wall of Jerusalem, and repaired the breaches of the city of\nDavid,[379] as well as the fortresses and treasure cities to which we\nhave already alluded, and the summer palaces in the region of Lebanon\nknown as \"the delights of Solomon.\"[380] Amid these records of palatial\narchitecture we hear next to nothing of the religious life.\n\nHe further dazzled his people by an extensive system of foreign\ncommerce. His land-traffic with Arabia familiarised them with spicery\n(_necoth_), gum tragacanth, frankincense, myrrh, aloes, and cassia\nand with precious stones of all kinds. From Egypt he obtained horses\nand chariots. They were brought from Tekoa, by his merchants, and\nkept by Solomon, or sold at a profit.[381]\n\nHe found a ready market for them among the Hittite and Aram\u00e6an kings.\nEmulating the Ph\u0153nicians, and apparently invading the monopoly of\nTyre, he had--if we may take the chronicler literally--a fleet of\n\"ships of Tarshish\" which sailed along the coasts of Spain.[382]\nAbove all, he made the daring attempt to establish a fleet of\nTarshish-ships at Ezion-Geber, the port of Elath, at the north of the\nGulf of Akaba. This fleet sailed down the Red Sea to Ophir--perhaps\nAbh\u00eera, at the mouth of the Indus--and amazed the simple Hebrews with\nthe sight of gorgeous iridescent peacocks, wrinkled chattering apes,\nthe red and richly scented sandal wood of India, and the large tusks\nof elephants from which cunning artificers carved the smooth ivory to\ninlay furniture, thrones, and ultimately even houses, with lustrous\nornamentation. Cinnamon came to him from Ceylon, and \"sapphires\"\n(_lapis lazuli_) from Babylon.[383] Other services which he rendered\nto his capital and kingdom were more real and permanent.\n\n1. Jerusalem may have been in part indebted to Solomon for its supply\nof water. The magnificent springs of pure gushing water at Etam are\nstill called \"Solomon's fountains,\" and it is believed that he used\ntheir rocky basins as reservoirs from which to irrigate his garden\nin the Wady Urtas (Lat., _Hortus_). Etam is two hours distant from\nJerusalem, and if Solomon built the aqueduct which once conveyed its\nwater supply to the city he proved himself a genuine benefactor.[384]\nThere was immense need of the \"fons perennis aqu\u00e6\" of which Tacitus\nspeaks for the purifications of the Temple, soiled by the reek and\noffal of so many holocausts.\n\n2. Maritime allusions now began to appear in Hebrew literature;[385]\nand maritime enterprise produced the marvellous effect it always\nproduces on the character and progress of the nation. Along the black\nbasalt roads--the king's highways--of which the construction was\nnecessitated by the outburst of commercial activity flocked hundreds\nof foreign visitors, not only merchantmen and itinerant traffickers,\nbut governors of provinces, and vassal or allied princes. The\nisolated and stationary tribes of Palestine suddenly found themselves\nface to face with a new and splendid civilisation. Admiring visitors\nflocked to see the great king's magnificence and to admire his\nforeign curiosities, bringing with them presents of gold and silver,\narmour[386] and spicery, horses and mules, the broidered garments of\nBabylon, and robes rich with the crimson, purple, and scarlet dyes\nof Tyre.[387] Instead of riding like his predecessors on a humble\nmule, the king made his royal progress to his watered garden at Etam\ndrawn by steeds magnificently caparisoned. He reclined in \"Pharaoh's\nchariot\" richly chased and brilliantly coloured. He was followed by\na train of archers riding on war-horses and clothed in purple, and\nwas escorted by a body-guard of youths tall and beautiful, whose dark\nand flowing locks glittered with gold dust. In the heat of summer,\nif we may accept the poetic picture of the Song of Songs, he would\nbe luxuriously carried to some delicious retreat amid the hills of\nmyrrh and leopard-haunted woods of Lebanon, in a palanquin of cedar\nwood with silver pillars, purple cushions, and richly embroidered\ncurtains, wearing the jewelled crown which his mother placed on his\nhead on the day of his espousals.[388] Or he would sit to do justice\non his throne of ivory and gold,[389] with its steps guarded by\ngolded lions leaning upon the golden bull of Ephraim which formed its\nback,[390] in all his princely beauty, \"anointed with the oil of\ngladness,\" his lips full of grace, his garments breathing of perfume.\nOn great occasions of state his Queen, and the virgins that bore\nher company, would stand among the crowd of inferior princesses, in\ngarments of the wrought gold of Ophir, in which she had been carried\nfrom the inner palace upon tapestries of needlework. In the pomp of\nsuch ceremonials, amid bursts of rejoicing melody, the people began\nto believe that not even the Pharaohs of Egypt, or the Tyrian kings\nwith \"every precious stone as their covering,\" could show a more\nglorious pageant of royal state.[391]\n\nThis career of magnificence culminated in the visit of Balkis, the\nQueen of Sheba,[392] who came to him across the desert with \"a very\ngreat train of her camels, bearing spices and very much gold and\nprecious stones.\" She saw his abounding prosperity, his peaceful\npeople, his houses, his vineyards at Beth-Haccerem, his parks and\ngardens, his pools and fruit trees, his herds of cattle, his horses,\nchariots, and palanquins, and all the delight of the sons of men.\nShe saw his men singers and women singers with their harps of red\nsandal wood and gold. She saw him at the banquet at his golden table\ncovered in boundless profusion with delicacies brought from every\nland. She saw his hosts of beautiful and richly dressed slaves with\nlavers, dishes, and goblets all made of the gold of Uphaz. She saw\nhim dispensing justice in his pillared hall of cedar, seated on his\nlion-throne. She saw the golden shields and targets[393] carried before\nhim as he went in state to the Temple over the Mount, across the\nvalley, and mounted from the palace to the sacred courts by the gilded\nstaircase with its balustrades of aromatic sandal wood.[394] Perhaps\nshe was present as a spectator at some great Temple festival. And when\nshe had tested his wisdom by communing with him of all that was in her\nheart, \"there was no more spirit in her.\" She confessed that the half\nof his wisdom and glory had not been reported to her. Happy were his\nservants, happy the courtiers who stood by him and heard his words!\nBlessed was the Lord his God who delighted in him, and who, out of\nlove for Israel, had given them such a king to do justice and judgment\namong them. The visit ended with an interchange of royal presents.[395]\nSolomon, we are vaguely told, \"gave unto her all her desire, whatsoever\nshe asked,\" and sent her away glad-hearted to her native land, leaving\nbehind her a trail of legends. Before her departure she opened her\ntreasures, and gave him vast stores of spicery and gold.[396]\n\nAnd to sum up the accounts, which read like a page of the story of\nHaroun al Raschid, the king made silver to be as stones in Jerusalem,\nso that it was nothing accounted of in the day of Solomon,[397] and\nthe cedars made he to be as the sycomores which are in the \"Shefelah\"\nfor multitude.\n\nIt is around this epoch of Solomon's career that the legends of the\nEast mainly cluster. They have received a larger development from the\nallusions to Mohammed in the Qur'an.[398] They take the place of the\npersonal incidents of which so few are recorded, although Solomon\noccupies so large a space in sacred history. \"That stately and\nmelancholy figure--in some respects the grandest and the saddest in\nthe Sacred Volume--is in detail little more than a mighty 'shadow.'\nYet in later Jewish records he is scarcely mentioned. Of all the\ncharacters in the sacred history he is the most purely secular; and\nmerely secular magnificence was an excrescence, not a native growth\nof the chosen people.\"[399]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[378] To form some notion of these buildings, see the excellent\nillustrations in Stade, i. 318-25.\n\n[379] The hill of Zion, the city of David, had become overcrowded,\nand the hill which lay to the north, which was called Millo, or \"the\nborder,\" had to be included in it. A narrow valley lay between them.\n\"Mount Moriah, and its offshoot Ophel, remained outside the city, and\nthe latter was inhabited by the remnant of the Jebusites\" (Gr\u00e4tz,\n_Hist. of the Jews_, E. T., i. 121); Millo, LXX., \u1f21 \u1f04\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1. See 1 Macc.\niv. 41, xiii. 49-52; Josephus, _Antt._, XIII. vi. 7.\n\n[380] 1 Kings ix. 19.\n\n[381] The \"linen yarn\" of 1 Kings x. 28 seems to be an error. The\nHebrew is \u05de\u05b4\u05e7\u05b0\u05d5\u05b5\u05d4; LXX., \u1f10\u03ba \u0398\u03b5\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03ad; Vulg., _de Co\u00e2_; R.V., \"in droves.\"\n\n[382] 2 Chron. ix. 21.\n\n[383] See Max M\u00fcller, _Lectures on Language_, i. 191. The names\n_Shen Habbim_, \"ivory\" (Sanskr. _ibhas_, \"elephant\"), _Kophim_,\n\"apes\" (Sanskr. _kapi_), _Tukkyim_, \"peacocks\" (Tamil, _togei_),\n\"algum trees\" (Sanskr. _Valgaka_, LXX. \u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03ba\u03b7\u03c4\u03ac, Alex. \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03ba\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1,\nVulg. _thyina_), all point to India. Aloes (_ahalim_, Psalm xlv.\n8) are a fragrant tree of Malacca; cassia (Ind. _koost_), cinnamon\n(_cacyn-nama_) come from Ceylon. See Stanley, ii. 185. European\nhistory here first comes into contact with Sanskrit.\n\n[384] See Eccles. ii. 4-6. See on the extensive water-works, Ewald,\niii. 252-57.\n\n[385] 2 Chron. ix. 21.\n\n[386] \u05e0\u05b6\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05e7; LXX., \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03ae, \"oil of myrrh.\"\n\n[387] 1 Kings x. 25.\n\n[388] See Cant. i. 9, iii. 6-11, iv. 8; 2 Chron. xi. 6; Josephus,\n_Antt._, VIII. vii. 3; Psalm xlv.\n\n[389] The great statue of Athene by Phidias was of this\n\"Chryselephantine\" work. Comp. \"ivory palaces\" (Psalm xlv. 8; 1 Kings\nxxii. 39; Amos iii. 15) and \"ivory couches\" (Amos vi. 4).\n\n[390] Josephus, _Antt._, VIII. v. 2; Hosea iv. 16; Jer. xxxi. 18, etc.\n\n[391] Ezek. xxvii., xxviii.; Zech. ix. 3.\n\n[392] The Abyssinian, confusing Sheba (Arabia Felix) with Seba (as do\nOrigen and Augustine), call her Makeda, Queen of Abyssinia, and say\nthat she had a son by Solomon named Melinek (Ludolphus, _\u00c6thiop._,\nii. 3), from whom all their emperors down to Theodore were descended.\nThe legend of the Queen of Sheba is related in the Qur'an, _Sura_\nxxvii. 20-40 (chapter of the Ant). The Arabs call her Balkis, whose\nlegends are narrated by D'Herbelot (_Bibl. Or._, s.v. Balki).\nJosephus identifies her with Nicaule (the Nitocris of Herod., ii.\n100), Josephus, _Antt._, VIII. vi. 2. In the New Testament she is\ncalled \"the Queen of the South\" (Matt. xii. 42).\n\n[393] He had made two hundred large shields (_tzinn\u00eem_, \u03b8\u03c5\u03c1\u03b5\u03bf\u03af,\n_scuta_) and three hundred targets (_maginn\u00eem_, \u1f00\u03c3\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2, _clypei_)\nof gold at fabulous cost (1 Kings x. 16). They were all plundered by\nShishak.\n\n[394] 1 Kings x. 5, but \"ascent\" should perhaps be \"burnt offering,\"\nas in margin of R.V. and in all the versions. Comp. 2 Chron. ix.\n4 (LXX.). A special seat or platform of brass seems to have been\nassigned to Solomon in the Temple court (2 Kings xi. 14, xvi. 18,\nxxiii. 3; 2 Chron. vi. 13).\n\n[395] Josephus says that she introduced the balsam plant into\nPalestine, which, in later years at Jericho, became a great source of\nrevenue. Jer. viii. 22, xlvi. 11; Ezek. xxvii. 17; Josephus, _Antt._;\nVIII. vi. 6, XIV. iv. 1, XV. iv. 2; Pliny, _H. N._, xii. 54, xiii. 9\n(but see Gen. xliii. 11).\n\n[396] Psalm lxxii. 15. Spices, Herod., iii. 107-113. For one hundred\nand twenty talents we should probably read twenty (comp. Josephus,\n_Antt._, VIII. vi. 6), _i.e._, twelve thousand pounds. Into the\nriddles of Balkis (1 Kings x. 1, \"hard questions\"; LXX., \u03b1\u1f30\u03bd\u03af\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1),\nand all the strange Talmudic and Arabian legends which have gathered\nround her visit, we need not enter. I may perhaps refer to my little\nmonograph on Solomon (pp. 134-37), in the Men of the Bible series.\n\n[397] The 666 gold talents of his revenue are estimated at\n\u00a33,613,500, and this is described as _his own_ revenue, exclusive\nof tolls, tributes, etc. (1 Kings x. 15). Presents reached him from\n\"kings of the mingled people\" (Jer. xxv. 24), Pachas of the country\n(\u05e4\u05b6\u05d7\u05b8\u05d4 Ezra v. 6; Neh. v. 14).\n\n[398] See Weil, _Biblische Legenden_; D'Herbelot, _Bibl. Oriental_,\ns.v. Soliman ben-Daoud; Qur'an, _Suras_ xxii., xxvii., xxviii.,\nxxxiv. \"Suleyman\" means \"Little Solomon,\" a term of affection.\n\n[399] Stanley, _Lectures_, ii. 166, 167.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XXI.\n\n                          _HOLLOW PROSPERITY._\n\n                              1 KINGS xi.\n\n    \"Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all\n    is vanity.\"--ECCLES. i. 2.\n\n          \"At every draught more large and large they grow\n           A bloated mass of rank unwieldy woe,\n           Till, sapp'd their strength, and every part unsound,\n           Down, down they sink, and spread a ruin round.\"\n                                                   GOLDSMITH.\n\n\nThere was a _ver rongeur_ at the root of all Solomon's prosperity. His\nhome was afflicted with the curse of his polygamy, his kingdom with the\ncurse of his despotism. Failure is stamped upon the issues of his life.\n\n1. His Temple was a wonder of the world; yet his own reign was\nscarcely over before it was plundered by the Egyptian king who had\noverthrown the feeble dynasty on alliance with which he had trusted.\nUnder later kings its secret chambers were sometimes desecrated,\nsometimes deserted. It failed to exercise the unique influence in\nsupport of the worship of Jehovah for which it had been designed.\nSome of Solomon's successors confronted it with a rival temple, and a\nrival high priest, of Baal, and suffered atrocious emblems of heathen\nnature-worship to profane its courts. He himself became an apostate\nfrom the high theocratic ideal which had inspired its origin.\n\n2. His long alliance and friendship with Hiram ended, to all\nappearance, in coolness and disgust, even if it be true that a\ndaughter of Hiram was one of the princesses of his harem.[400] For\nhis immense buildings had so greatly embarrassed his resources\nthat, when the day for payment came, the only way in which he could\ndischarge his obligations was by alienating a part of his dominions.\nHe gave Hiram \"twenty cities in the land of Galilee.\" The kings\nof Judah, down to the days of Hezekiah, and even of Josiah, show\nfew traces of any consciousness that there was such a book as the\nPentateuch and such a code as the Levitic law. Solomon may have\nbeen unaware that Ph\u0153nicia itself was part of the land which God\nhad promised to His people. If that gift had lapsed through their\ninertness,[401] the law still remained, which said, \"The land shall\nnot be sold for ever; for the land is Mine, for ye are strangers\nand sojourners with Me.\" It was a strong measure to resign any part\nof the soil of Jud\u00e6a, even to discharge building debts, much more\nto pay for mercenaries and courtly ostentation. The transaction,\ndubious in every particular, was the evident cause of deep-seated\ndissatisfaction. Hiram thought himself ill-paid and unworthily\ntreated. He found, by a personal visit, that these inland Galil\u00e6an\ntowns, which were probably inhabited in great measure by a wretched\nand dwindling remnant of Canaanites,[402] were useless to him,\nwhereas he had probably hoped to receive part, at least, of the Bay\nof Acco (Ptolemais).[403] They added so little to his resources, that\nhe complained to Solomon. He called the cities by the obscure, but\nevidently contemptuous name \"_Cabul_,\" and gave them back to Solomon\nin disgust as not worth having.[404] What significance lies in the\nstrange and laconic addition, \"And Hiram sent to the king six-score\ntalents of gold,\" it is impossible for us to understand. If the\nTyrian king gave as a present to Solomon a sum which was so vast as\nat least to equal \u00a3720,000--\"apparently,\" as Canon Rawlinson thinks,\n\"to show that, although disappointed, he was not offended!\"--he must\nhave been an angel in human form.\n\n3. Solomon's palatial buildings, while they flattered his pride\nand ministered to his luxury, tended directly, as we shall see,\nto undermine his power. They represented the ill-requited toil of\nhopeless bondmen, and oppressed freedmen, whose sighs rose, not in\nvain, into the ears of the Lord God of Sabaoth.\n\n4. His commerce, showy as it was, turned out to be transitory and\nuseless. If for a time it enriched the king, it did not enrich his\npeople. At Solomon's death, if not earlier, it not only languished\nbut expired. Horses and chariots might give a pompous aspect to\nstately pageants, but they were practically useless in the endless\nhills of which Palestine is mainly composed. Apes, peacocks, and\nsandal wood were curious and interesting, but they certainly did\nnot repay the expense incurred in their importation. No subsequent\nsovereign took the trouble to acquire these wonders, nor are they\nonce mentioned in the later Scriptures. Precious stones might\ngleam on the necks of the concubine, or adorn the housings of the\nsteed, but nothing was gained from their barren splendour. At one\ntime the king's annual revenue is stated to have been six hundred\nand sixty-six talents of gold; but the story of Hiram, and the\nimpoverishment to which Rehoboam succeeded, show that even this\nexchequer had been exhausted by the sumptuous prodigalities of a too\nluxurious court. And, indeed, the commerce of Solomon gave a new\nand untheocratic bias to Hebrew development. The ideal of the old\nSemitic life was the pastoral and agricultural ideal. No other is\ncontemplated in Exod. xxi.-xxix. Commerce was left to the Ph\u0153nicians\nand other races, so that the word for \"merchant\" was \"Canaanite.\" But\nafter the days of Solomon in Judah, and Ahab in Israel, the Hebrews\nfollowed eagerly in the steps of Canaan, and trade and commerce\nacting on minds materialised into worldliness brought their natural\nconsequences. \"He is a merchant,\" says Hosea (xii. 7); \"the balances\nof deceit are in his hand: he loveth to defraud.\" Here the words \"he\nis a merchant\" may equally well be rendered \"as for Canaan\"; and\nby Canaan is here meant Canaanised or commercial Ephraim. And the\nprophet continues, \"And Ephraim said, Surely I am become rich, I\nhave found me wealth: in all my labour they shall find in me none\niniquity that were sin.\" In other words, these influences of foreign\ntrade had destroyed the moral sense of Israel altogether: \"Howl, ye\ninhabitants of Maktesh\"--_i.e._, \"The Mortar,\" a bazaar of that name\nin Jerusalem--\"for all the people of Canaan\" (_i.e._, the merchants)\n\"are brought to silence.\" But the hypnotising influence of wealth\nbecame more and more a potent factor in the development of the\npeople. By an absolute reversal of their ancient characteristics they\nlearnt, in the days of the Rabbis, utterly to despise agriculture and\nextravagantly to laud the gains of commerce. Of too many of them it\nbecame true, that they\n\n          \"With dumb despair their country's wrongs behold,\n           And dead to glory, only burn for gold.\"\n\nIt was the mighty hand of Solomon which first gave them an impulse in\nthis direction, though he seems to have managed all his commerce with\nexclusive reference to his own revenues.\n\nIn the wake of commerce, and the inevitable intercourse with foreign\nnations which it involves, came as a matter of course the fondness\nfor luxuries; the taste for magnificence; the fraternisation with\nneighbouring kings; the use of cavalry; the development of a military\ncaste; the attempts at distant navigation; the total disappearance of\nthe antique simplicity. In the train of these innovations followed\nthe disastrous alterations of the old conditions of society of which\nthe prophets so grievously complain--extortions of the corn market;\nthe formation of large estates; the frequency of mortgages; the\nmisery of peasant proprietorship, unable to hold its own against the\naccumulations of wealth; the increase of the wage-receiving class;\nand the fluctuations of the labour market. These changes caused,\nby way of consequence, so much distress and starvation that even\nfreeborn Hebrews were sometimes compelled to sell themselves into\nslavery as the only way to keep themselves alive.\n\nSo that the age of Solomon can in no respect be regarded as an age of\ngold. Rather, it resembled that grim Colossus of Dante's vision, which\nnot only rested on a right foot of brittle clay, but was cracked and\nfissured through and through, while the wretchedness and torment which\nlay behind the outward splendour ever dripped and trickled downward\ntill its bitter streams swelled the rivers of hell:--\n\n          \"Abhorr\u00e8d Styx, the flood of deadly hate,\n           Sad Acheron of sorrow black and deep,\n           Corytus named of lamentation loud\n           Heard on its rueful stream, fierce Phlegethon,\n           Whose waves of torrent fire inflame with rage.\"\n\nBut there was something worse even than this. The Book of Proverbs\nshows us that, as in Rome, so in Jerusalem, foreign immoralities\nbecame fatal to the growing youth. The _picta lupa barbara mitr\u00e2_,\nwith her fatal fascinations, and her banquets of which the guests\nwere in the depths of Hades, became so common in Jerusalem that no\nadmonitions of the wise were more needful than those which warned the\n\"simple ones\" that to yield to her seductive snares was to go as an\nox to the slaughter, as a fool to the correction of the stocks.\n\n5. Even were there no disastrous sequel to Solomon's story--if we saw\nhim only in the flush of his early promise, and the noon of his highest\nprosperity--we could still readily believe that he passed through some\nof the experiences of the bitter and sated voluptuary who borrows\nhis name in the Book of Ecclesiastes. The human pathos, the fresh and\nvaried interest, which meet us at every page of the annals of David,\nare entirely lacking in the magnificent monotony of the annals of\nSolomon. The splendours of materialism, which are mainly dwelt upon,\ncould never satisfy the poorest of human souls. There are but two broad\ngleams of religious interest in his entire story--the narrative of his\nprayer for wisdom, and the prayer, in its present form of later origin,\nattributed to him at the Dedication Festival. All the rest is a story\nof gorgeous despotism, which gradually paled into\n\n          \"The dim grey life and apathetic end.\"\n\n\"There was no king like Solomon: he exceeded all the kings of the\nearth,\" we are told, \"for riches and for wisdom.\" But all that we\nknow of such kings furnishes fresh proof of the universal experience\nthat \"the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them\" are absolutely\nvalueless for all the contributions they can lend to human happiness.\nThe autocrats who have been most conspicuous for unchecked power and\nlimitless resources have also been the most conspicuous in misery.\nWe have but to recall Tiberius \"_tristissimus ut constat hominum_,\"\nwho, from the enchanted isle which he had degraded into the stye of\nhis infamies, wrote to his servile senate that \"all the gods and\ngoddesses were daily destroying him\"; or Septimius Severus, who,\nrising step by step from a Dalmatian peasant and common soldier to be\nemperor of the world, remarked with pathetic conviction, \"_Omnia fui\net nihil expedit_\"; or Abderrahman the Magnificent, who, in all his\nlife of success and prosperity, could only count fourteen happy days;\nor Charles V., over-eating himself in his monastic retreat at San\nYuste in Estremadura; or Alexander,[405] dying \"as a fool dieth\"; or\nLouis XIV., surrounded by a darkening horizon, and disillusioned into\ninfinite _ennui_ and chagrin; or Napoleon I., saying, \"I regard life\nwith horror,\" and contrasting his \"abject misery\" with the adored and\nbeloved dominion of Christ, who was meek and lowly of heart. Napoleon\nconfessed that, even in the zenith of his empire, and the fullest flush\nof his endless victories, his days were consumed in vanity and his\nyears in trouble. The cry of one and all, finding that the soul, which\nis infinite, cannot be satisfied with the transient and hollow boons of\nearth, is, and ever must be, \"Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher,\nvanity of vanities; all is vanity.\" And this is one main lesson of\nthe life of Solomon. Nothing is more certain than that, if earthly\nhappiness is to be found at all, it can only be found in righteousness\nand truth; and if even these do not bring earthly _happiness_ they\nsecurely give us a _blessedness_ which is deeper and more eternal.\n\nIf the Book of Ecclesiastes, even traditionally, is the reflection\nand echo of Solomon's disenchantment, we see that in later years his\nsoul had been sullied, his faith had grown dim, his fervour cold.\nAll was emptiness. He stood horribly alone. His one son was not a\nwise man, but a fool. Gewgaws could no longer satisfy him. His wealth\nexhausted, his fame tarnished, his dominions reduced to insignificance,\nhimself insulted by contemptible adversaries whom he could neither\ncontrol nor punish, he entered on the long course of years \"_plus\np\u00e2les et moins couronn\u00e9es_.\" The peaceful is harried by petty raids;\nthe magnificent is laden with debts; the builder of the Temple has\nsanctioned polytheism; the favourite of the nation has become a tyrant,\nscourging with whips an impatient people; the \"darling of the Lord\" has\nbuilt shrines for Moloch and Astarte. The glamour of youth, of empire,\nof gorgeous tyranny was dispelled, and the splendid boy-king is the\nweary and lonely old man. Hiram of Tyre has turned in disgust from an\nungenerous recompense. A new Pharaoh has dispossessed his Egyptian\nfather-in-law and shelters his rebel servant. His shameful harem has\ngiven him neither a real home nor a true love; his commerce has proved\nto be an expensive failure; his politic alliances a hollow sham. In\nanother and direr sense than after his youthful vision, \"Solomon awoke,\nand behold it was a dream.\"[406]\n\nThe Talmudists show some insight amid their fantasies when they\nwrite: \"At first, before he married strange wives, Solomon reigned\nover the angels (1 Chron. xxix. 23); then only over all kingdoms (1\nKings iv. 21); then only over Israel (Eccles. i. 12); then only over\nJerusalem (Eccles. i. 1). At last he reigned only over his staff--as\nit is said, 'And this was the portion of my labour'; for by the word\n'_this_,'\" says Rav, \"he meant that the only possession left to him\nwas the staff which he held in his hand.\" The staff was not \"the rod\nand staff\" of the Good Shepherd, but the earthly staff of pride and\npomp, and (as in the Arabian legend) the worm of selfishness and\nsensuality was gnawing at its base.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[400] See Euseb., _Pr\u00e6p. Evang._, x. 11.\n\n[401] Lev. xxv. 23, 24. See Judg. i. 31, 32.\n\n[402] Hence, perhaps, the name \"Galilee of the nations\" (Isa. ix. 1).\nComp. \"Harosheth of the nations\" (Judg. iv. 2, 13). Hazor was in this\ndistrict.\n\n[403] Milman, _Hist. of the Jews_, i. 321.\n\n[404] 1 Kings ix. 10-13. There was a place called Cabul in Asher\n(Josh. xix. 27). Ewald thinks that Cabul was a sort of witticism\nmeaning \"as nothing.\" Josephus (_Antt._, VIII. v. 3) says that in\nPh\u0153nician \u03c7\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u1f7c\u03bd means \"not pleasing,\" and that Hiram would not take\nthe cities. Nothing can be made of the allusion to this transaction\nin 2 Chron. viii. 1, 2. Why did Solomon re-occupy these cities? and\nwhy did Hiram give him one hundred and twenty talents of gold? The\ngloss put on the matter by late tradition cannot conceal the fact\nthat Solomon tried to diminish his embarrassments by alienating some\nof the sacred territory.\n\n[405] The later Jews chose the name \"Alexander\" as the Western\nequivalent for Solomon: hence the names \"_Alexander_ Jann\u00e6us,\" etc.\n\n[406] 1 Kings iii. 15. See Ecclus. xlvii. 12-21.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XXII.\n\n                       _THE OLD AGE OF SOLOMON._\n\n                           1 KINGS xi. 1-13.\n\n          \"That uxorious king, whose heart, though large,\n           Beguiled by fair idolatresses, fell\n           To idols foul.\"\n                                 MILTON, _Paradise Lost_.\n\n    \"Did not Solomon, king of Israel, sin by these things?\"--NEH.\n    xiii. 26.\n\n    \"That they might know, that wherewithal a man sinneth, by the\n    same also shall he be punished.\"--WISDOM xi. 16.\n\n\nSolomon had endeavoured to give a one-sided development to\nIsraelitish nationality, and a development little in accord with the\nhighest and purest traditions of the people. What he did with one\nhand by building the Temple he undid with the other by endowing and\npatronising the worship of heathen deities.[407] In point of fact,\nSolomon was hardly a genuine off-shoot of the stem of Jesse. It is\nat least doubtful whether Bathsheba was of Hebrew race, and from her\nhe may have derived an alien strain. It is at all events a striking\nfact that, so far from being regarded as an ideal Hebrew king, he\nwas rather the reverse. The chronicler, indeed, exalts him as the\nsupporter and redintegrator of the Priestly-Levitic system, which\nit is the main object of that writer to glorify; but this picture\nof theocratic purity, even if it be not altogether an anachronism,\nis only obtained by the total suppression of every incident in the\nstory of Solomon which militates against it. In the Book of Kings we\nare faithfully told of the disgust of Hiram at the reward offered to\nhim; of the alienation of a fertile district of the promised land; of\nthe apostasy, the idolatries, and the reverses which disgraced and\ndarkened his later years. The Book of Chronicles ignores every one of\nthese disturbing particulars. It does not tell us of the depths to\nwhich Solomon fell, though it tells us of the extreme scrupulosity\nwhich regarded as a profanation the residence of his Egyptian queen\non the hill once hallowed as the resting-place of Jehovah's Ark.\nYet, if we understand in their simple sense the statements of the\neditor of the Book of Kings, and the documents on which he based\nhis narrative, Solomon, even at the Dedication Festival, ignored\nall distinction between the priesthood and the laity. Nay, more\nthan this, he seems to have offered, with his own hands, both burnt\nofferings and peace offerings three times a year,[408] and, unchecked\nby priestly opposition or remonstrance, to have \"burnt incense\nbefore the altar that was before the Lord,\" though, according to the\nchronicler, it was for daring to attempt this that Uzziah was smitten\nwith the horrible scourge of leprosy.\n\nThe ideal of a good and great king is set before us in the Book of\nProverbs, and in many respects Solomon fell very far short of it.\nFurther than this, there are in Scripture two warning sketches of\neverything which a good king should _not_ be and should _not_ do, and\nthese sketches exactly describe the very things which Solomon was and\ndid. Those who take the view that the books of Scripture have undergone\nlarge later revision, see in each of these passages an unfavourable\nallusion to the king who raised Israel highest amongst the nations,\nonly to precipitate her disintegration and ruin, and who combined\nthe highest service to the centralisation of her religion with the\ndeadliest insult to its supreme claim upon the reverence of the world.\n\n1. The first of these pictures of selfish autocrats is found in 1\nSam. viii. 10-18:--\n\n\"And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that asked\nof Him a king. And he said, This will be the manner of the king that\nshall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for\nhimself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run\nbefore his chariots. And he will appoint his captains over thousands,\nand captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to\nreap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments\nof his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be perfumers, and\nto be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your\nvineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them\nto his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your\nvineyards, and give to his courtiers, and to his servants. And he will\ntake your menservants and your maidservants, and your goodliest oxen,\nand your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of\nyour sheep, and you shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that\nday because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord\nwill not hear you in that day.\"\n\n2. The other, which is still more detailed and significant, was\nperhaps written with the express intention of warning Solomon's\ndescendants from the example which Solomon had set.[409] It is found\nin Deut. xvii. 14-20. Thus, speaking of a king, the writer says:--\n\n\"Only he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people\nto return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses:\nforasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return\nno more that way. Neither shall he multiply wives to himself; that\nhis heart turn not away; neither shall he greatly multiply to himself\nsilver and gold. And it shall be that when he sitteth upon the throne\nof his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book\n... that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, ... that his heart\nbe not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from\nthe commandment, ... to the end that he may prolong his days in his\nkingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.\"\n\nIf Deuteronomy be of no older date than the days of Josiah, it is\ndifficult not to see in this passage a distinct polemic against\nSolomon; for he did not do what he is here commanded, and he most\nconspicuously did every one of the things which is here forbidden.\n\nIt is quite clear that in his foreign alliances, in his commerce,\nin his cavalry, in his standing army, in his extravagant polygamy,\nin his exaggerated and exhausting magnificence, in his despotic\nautocracy, in his palatial architecture, and in his patronage of\nalien art, in his system of enforced labour, in his perilous\nreligious syncretism, Solomon was by no means a king after the hearts\nof the old faithful and simple Israelites. They did not look with\nentire favour even on the centralisation of worship in a single\nTemple which interfered with local religious rites sanctioned by\nthe example of their greatest prophets. His ideal differed entirely\nfrom that of the older patriarchs. He gave to the life of his people\nan alien development; he obliterated some of their best national\ncharacteristics; and the example which he set was at least as\npowerful for evil as for good.\n\nWhen we read the lofty sentiments expressed by Solomon in his\ndedication prayer, we may well be amazed to hear that one who had\naspirations so sublime could sink into idolatry so deplorable. If\nit was the object of the chronicler to present Solomon in unsullied\nsplendour, he might well omit the deadly circumstance that when he\nwas old, and prematurely old, \"he loved many strange women, and _went\nafter Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom the\nabomination of the Ammonites_.[410] _And Solomon did evil in the\nsight of the Lord, and went not fully after the Lord as did David\nhis father. Then did Solomon build a high place for Chemosh the\nabomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for\nMolech the abomination of the children of Ammon._[411] _And likewise\ndid he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed\nunto their gods._\"[412]\n\nThe sacred historian not only records the shameful fact, but records\nits cause and origin. The heart of Solomon was perverted, his will\nwas weakened, his ideal was dragged into the mire by the \"strange\nwives\" who crowded his seraglio. He went the way that destroys\nkings.[413] The polygamy of Solomon sprang naturally from the false\nposition which he had created for himself. A king who puts a space\nof awful distance between himself and the mass of his subjects--a\nking whose will is so absolute that life is in his smile and death in\nhis frown--is inevitably punished by the loneliest isolation. He may\nhave favourites, he may have flatterers, but he can have no friends.\nA thronged harem becomes to him not only a matter of ostentation and\nluxury, but a necessary resource from the vacuity and _ennui_ of a\ndesolate heart. Tiberius was driven to the orgies of Capre\u00e6 by the\nintolerableness of his isolation. The weariness of the king who used\nto take his courtiers by the button-hole and say, \"_Ennuyons-nous\nensemble_,\" drove him to fill up his degraded leisure in the _Parc\naux Cerfs_. Yet even Louis XV. had more possibilities of rational\nintercourse with human beings than a Solomon or a Xerxes. It was in\nthe nature of things that Solomon, when he had imitated all the other\nsurroundings of an Oriental despot, should sink, like other Oriental\ndespots, from sensuousness into sensualism, from sensualism into\nreligious degeneracy and dishonourable enervation.\n\nTwo facts, both full of warning, are indicated as the sources of his\nruin: (1) the number of his wives; and (2) their heathen extraction.\n\n1. \"He had,\" we are told, \"seven hundred wives, princesses, and three\nhundred concubines.\"[414]\n\nThe numbers make up a thousand, and are almost incredible. We are\ntold indeed that in the monstrosities of Indian absolutism the\nGreat Mogul had a thousand wives; but even Darius, \"the king\" _par\nexcellence_, the awful autocrat of Persia, had only one wife and\nthirty-two concubines.[415] It is inconceivable that the monarch of\na country so insignificant as Palestine could have maintained so\nexorbitant a household in a small city like Jerusalem. Moreover,\nthere is, on every ground, reason to correct the statement. Saul,\nso far as we know, had only one wife, and one concubine; David,\nthough he put so little restraint on himself, had only sixteen; no\nsubsequent king of Israel or Judah appears to have had even a small\nfraction of the number which is here assigned to Solomon, either\nby the disease of exaggeration or by some corruption of the text.\nMore probably we should read seventy wives, which at least partially\nassimilates the number to the \"threescore queens\" of whom we read in\nthe Canticles.[416] Even then we have a household which must have\nled to miserable complications. The seraglio at Jerusalem must have\nbeen a burning fiery furnace of feuds, intrigues, jealousies, and\ndiscontent. It is this fact which gives additional meaning to the\nSong of Songs. That unique book of Scripture is a sweet idyll in\nhonour of pure and holy love. It sets before us in glowing imagery\nand tender rhythms how the lovely maiden of Shunem, undazzled by all\nthe splendours and luxuries of the great king's court, unseduced by\nhis gifts and his persistence, remained absolutely faithful to her\nhumble shepherd lover, and, amid the gold and purple of the palace\nat Jerusalem, sighed for her simple home amid the groves of Lebanon.\nSurely she was as wise as fair, and her chances of happiness would be\na thousandfold greater, her immunities from intolerable conditions\na thousandfold more certain, as she wandered hand in hand with her\nshepherd youth amid pure scenes and in the vernal air, than amid the\nheavy exotic perfumes of a sensual and pampered court.\n\nPerhaps in the word \"princesses\" we see some sort of excuse for that\neffeminating self-indulgence which would make the exhortations to\nsimplicity and chastity in the Book of Proverbs sound very hollow on\nthe lips of Solomon. It may have been worldly policy which originally\nled him to multiply his wives. The alliance with Pharaoh was secured\nby a marriage with his daughter, and possibly that with Hiram by the\nespousal of a Tyrian princess. The friendliness of Edom on the south,\nof Moab and Ammon on the east, of Sidon and the Hittites and Syria on\nthe north, might be enhanced by matrimonial connexions from which the\ngreater potentates might profit and of which the smaller sheykhs were\nproud.[417] Yet if this were so, the policy, like all other worldly\npolicy unsanctioned by the law of God, was very unsuccessful. Egypt as\nusual proved herself to be a broken reed. The Hittites only preserved\na dream and legend of their olden power. Edom and Moab neither forgot\nnor abandoned their implacable and immemorial hatred. Syria became a\ndangerous rival awaiting the day of future triumphs. \"It is better to\ntrust in the Lord than to put any confidence in man; it is better to\ntrust in the Lord than to put any confidence in princes.\"\n\n2. But the heathen religion of these strange women from so many\nnations \"turned away the heart of Solomon after other gods.\" It may be\ndoubted whether Solomon had ever read the stern prohibitions against\nintermarriage with the Canaanite nations which now stand on the page\nof the Pentateuch. If so he broke them, for the Hittites and the\nPh\u0153nicians were Canaanites. Marriages with Egyptians, Moabites, and\nEdomites had not been, in so many words, forbidden, but the feeling of\nlater ages applied the rule analogously to them. The result proved how\nnecessary the law was. When Solomon was old his heart was no longer\nproof against feminine wiles. He was not old in years, for this was\nsome time before his death, and when he died he was little more than\nsixty. But a polygamous despot gets old before his time.\n\nThe attempt made by Ewald and others to gloss over Solomon's apostasy\nas a sign of a large-hearted tolerance is an astonishing misreading\nof history. Tolerance for harmless divergences of opinion there\nshould always be, though it is only a growth of modern days; but\ntolerance for iniquity is a wrong to holiness.\n\nThe worship of these devils adored for deities was stained with the\nworst passions which degrade human nature. They were themselves the\npersonification of perverted instincts. The main facts respecting\nthem are collected in Selden's famous _De Dis Syris Syntagma_, and\nMilton has enshrined them in his stateliest verse:--\n\n          \"First Moloch, horrid king, besmeared with blood\n           Of human sacrifice, and parents' tears: ...\n           Next, Chemos, the obscene dread of Moab's sons,\n           Peor his other name, when he enticed\n           Israel in Sittim, on their march from Nile,\n           To do him wanton rites, which cost them woe.\n           Yet thence his lustful orgies he enlarged\n           Even to that hill of scandal, by the Grove\n           Of Moloch homicide; lust, hard by hate:\n           Till good Josiah drove them thence to hell.\n                             ... With these in troop\n           Came Ashtoreth, whom the Ph\u0153nicians call\n           Astarte, queen of heaven, with crescent horns;\n           To whose bright image nightly by the moon\n           Sidonian virgins paid their vows and songs;\n           In Sion also not unsung, where stood\n           Her temple on the offensive mountain, built\n           By that uxorious king, whose heart, though large,\n           Beguiled by fair idolatresses, fell\n           To idols foul.\"\n\nWhat tolerance should there be for idols whose service was horrible\ninfanticide and shameless lust? \"What fellowship hath righteousness\nwith unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?\nand what concord hath Christ with an infidel? and what agreement hath\nthe temple of God with idols?\" How vile the worship of Chemosh was,\nIsrael had already experienced in the wilderness where he was called\nPeor.[418] What Moloch was they were to learn thereafter by many a\nhorrible experience. Had Solomon never heard that the Lord God was a\njealous God, and would not tolerate the rivalries of gods of fire and\nof lust? At least he was not afraid to desecrate one, if not two, of\nthe summits of the Mount of Olives with shrines to these monstrous\nimages, which seem to have been left \"on that opprobrious mount\" for\nmany an age, so that they \"durst abide\"\n\n          \"Jehovah, thundering out of Sion, throned\n           Between the cherubim; yea, often placed\n           Within His sanctuary itself their shrines,\n           Abominations, and with cursed things\n           His holy rites and solemn feasts profaned,\n           And with their darkness durst affront His light.\"\n\nAnd, to crown all, Solomon not only showed this guilty complaisance\nto _all_ his strange wives, but even, sinking into the lowest abyss\nof apostasy, \"burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods.\"\n\n\"He that built a temple for himself and for Israel in Sion,\" says\nBishop Hall, \"built a temple for Chemoch in the Mount of Scandal for\nhis mistresses in the very face of God's house. Because Solomon feeds\nthem in their superstition, he draws the sin home to himself, and is\nbranded for what he should have forbidden.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[407] \"L'amour du luxe et de la nouveaut\u00e9 le conduira peu \u00e0 peu \u00e0\nd\u00e9faire l'\u0153uvre de son p\u00e8re, \u00e0 ruiner le peuple dont il pouvait faire\nle bonheur, \u00e0 detruire les institutions, et \u00e0 d\u00e9daigner le culte\nnational, auquel il avait d'abord cherch\u00e9 \u00e0 donner le plus grand\n\u00e9clat.\"--Munk, _Palestine_, p. 285.\n\n[408] 1 Kings ix. 25.\n\n[409] Modern criticism generally regards the Book of Deuteronomy, or\nsome elements of it, as \"the Book of the Law\" which was found in the\nTemple by the high priest Hilkiah in the reign of Josiah. We shall\nspeak of this in the following volume (in 2 Kings). See Deut. xvii. 18.\n\n[410] LXX., \u1f26\u03bd \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b3\u03c2. Vulg., _adamavit mulieres alienigenus_.\n\n[411] Some suppose that this clause about Milcom is an interpolation\nfrom 2 Kings xxiii. 13.\n\n[412] See Exod. xxxiv. 11-17; Deut. vii. 1-4. The Talmud makes one of\nits dishonest attempts to get rid of the fact; Shabbath, p. 56, _b_.\nSanhedrin, _ff._ 55, 56. Justin Martyr preserves a tradition (_Dial.\nc. Tryph._, 34) that Solomon in taking a Sidonian wife worshipped\nidols at Sidon. Muslim tradition attributes Solomon's idolatry to the\ntricks of demons who assumed his form (Qur'an, _Sura_ ii. 99; but see\n_Sura_ xxxviii. 30).\n\n[413] Prov. xxxi. 3.\n\n[414] The Song of Solomon (vi. 8) gives him, besides the _'alamoth_\n(\"damsels\") \"without number,\" the sixty wives (_saroth_), and the\neighty concubines, who were partly perhaps their slaves.\n\n[415] Parmen. _ap._ Athen., _Deipnos._, iii. 3. Comp. Quint. Curt.,\n_Vit. Alex._, iii. 3. Amehhate of Egypt had more than three hundred\nand seventeen wives (Brugsch, _Egypt_, iii. 607, E.T.). Rehoboam, who\nhad eighteen wives and sixty concubines, left twenty-eight sons and\nsixty daughters. Solomon, so far as we know, had only one son and two\ndaughters.\n\n[416] Cant. vi. 8.\n\n[417] The Vatican MS. of the LXX. adds Syrian and Amorite princesses\nto the number. Marriages with Sidonians and Hittites are expressly\nforbidden in Exod. xxxiv. 12-16, and with Canaanites in Deut. vii. 3\n(comp. Ezra ix. 2 and Neh. xiii. 23).\n\n[418] Numb. xxv. 3.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XXIII.\n\n                     _THE WIND AND THE WHIRLWIND._\n\n                           1 KINGS xi. 14-41.\n\n    \"He that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap\n    corruption.\"--GAL. vi. 8.\n\n\nSuch degeneracy could not show itself in the king without danger to his\npeople. \"_Delirant reges, plectuntur Achivi._\" In the disintegration\nof Solomon's power and the general disenchantment from the glamour of\nhis magnificence, the land became full of corruption and discontent.\nThe wisdom and experience of the aged were contemptuously hissed\noff the seat of judgment by the irreverent folly of the young. The\nexistence of a corrupt aristocracy is always a bad symptom of national\ndisease. These \"lisping hawthorn-buds\" of fashion only bourgeon in\ntainted soil. The advice given by the \"young men\" who had \"grown up\nwith Rehoboam and stood before him\" shows the insolence preceding doom\nwhich had been bred by the idolism of tyranny in the hearts of silly\nyouths who had ceased to care for the wrongs of the people or to know\nanything about their condition. Violence, oppression, and commercial\ndishonesty, as we see in the Book of Proverbs, had been bred by the mad\ndesire for gain; and even in the streets of holy Jerusalem, and under\nthe shadow of its Temple, \"strange women,\" introduced by the commerce\nwith heathen countries and the attendants on heathen princesses,\nlured to their destruction the souls of simple and God-forgetting\nyouths.[419] The simple and joyous agricultural prosperity in which the\nsons of the people grew up as young plants and their daughters as the\npolished corners of the Temple was replaced by struggling discontent\nand straining competition. And amid all these evils the voices of the\ncourtly priests were silent, and for a long time, under the menacing\nand irresponsible dominance of an oracular royalty, there was no\nprophet more.\n\nEarly in Solomon's reign two adversaries had declared their\nexistence, but only became of much account in the darker and later\ndays of its decline.[420]\n\nOne of these was Hadad, Prince of Edom. Upon the Edomites in the\ndays of David the prowess of Joab had inflicted an overwhelming and\nall but exterminating reverse. Joab had remained six months in the\nconquered district to bury his comrades who had been slain in the\nterrible encounter, and to extirpate as far as possible the detested\nrace. But the king's servants had been able to save Hadad, then\nbut a little child, from the indiscriminate massacre, as the sole\nsurvivor of his house.[421] The young Edomite prince was conveyed by\nthem through Midian and the desert of Paran into Egypt, and there,\nfor political reasons, had been kindly received by the Pharaoh of\nthe day, probably Pinotem I. of the Tanite dynasty, the father of\nPsinaces whose alliance Solomon had secured by marriage with his\ndaughter. Pinotem not only welcomed the fugitive Edomite as the last\nscion of a kingly race, but even deigned to bestow on him the hand\nof the sister of Tahpenes, his own _Gebira_ or queen-mother.[422]\nTheir son Genubath was brought up among the Egyptian princes. But\namid the luxurious splendours of Pharaoh's palace Hadad carried in\nhis heart an undying thirst for vengeance on the destroyer of his\nfamily and race. The names of David and Joab inspired a terror which\nmade rebellion impossible for a time; but when Hadad heard, with grim\nsatisfaction, of Joab's judicial murder, and that David had been\nsucceeded by a peaceful son, no charm of an Egyptian palace and royal\nbride could weigh in the balance against the fierce passion of an\navenger of blood. Better the wild freedom of Idumea than the sluggish\nease of Egypt. He asked the Pharaoh's leave to return to his own\ncountry, and, braving the reproach of ingratitude, made his way back\nto the desolated fields and cities of his unfortunate people.[423]\nHe developed their resources, and nursed their hopes of the coming\nday of vengeance. If he could do nothing else he could at least act\nas a desperate marauder, and prove himself a \"satan\" to the successor\nof his foe.[424] Solomon was strong enough to keep open the road to\nEzion-Gebir, but Hadad was probably master of Sela and Maon.[425]\n\nAnother enemy was Rezon, of whom but little is known. David had won\na great victory, the most remarkable of all his successes, over\nHadadezer, King of Zobah, and had then signalised his conquest by\nplacing garrisons in Syria of Damascus. On this occasion Rezon, the\nson of Eli, who is perhaps identical with Hezion, the grandfather of\nBenhadad, King of Syria in the days of Asa, fled from the host of\nHadadezer with some of the Syrian forces. With these and all whom\nhe could collect about him, he became a guerilla captain. After\na successful period of predatory warfare he found himself strong\nenough to seize Damascus, where, to all appearance, he founded\na powerful hereditary kingdom. Thus with Hadad in the south to\nplunder his commercial caravans, and Rezon on the north to threaten\nhis communication with Tiphsah, and alarm his excursions to his\npleasances in Lebanon, Solomon was made keenly to feel that his power\nwas rather an unsubstantial pageant than a solid dominion.\n\nThe enmity of these powerful Emirs of Edom and Syria was an hereditary\nlegacy from the wars of David and the ruthless savagery of Joab. A\nthird adversary was far more terrible, and he was called into existence\nby the conduct of Solomon himself. This was Jeroboam, the son of Nebat.\nIn himself he was of no account, being a man of isolated position and\nobscure origin. He was the son of a widow named Zeruah,[426] who lived\nat Zarthan in the Jordan valley. The position of a widow in the ancient\nworld was one of feebleness and difficulty; and if we may trust the\napocryphal additions to the Septuagint, Zeruah was not only a widow but\na harlot. But Jeroboam, whose name perhaps indicates that he was born\nin the golden days of Solomon's prosperity, was a youth of vigour and\ncapacity. He made his way from the wretched clay fields of Zeredah to\nJerusalem, and there became one of the vast undistinguished gang who\nwere known as \"slaves of Solomon.\" The _corv\u00e9e_ of many thousands from\nall parts of Palestine was then engaged in building the _Millo_ and the\nhuge walls and causeway in the valley between Zion and Moriah, which\nwas afterwards known as the Valley of the Cheesemongers (_Tyrop\u0153on_).\nHere the unknown youth distinguished himself by his strenuousness, and\nby the influence which he rapidly acquired. Solomon knew the value of\na man \"diligent in his business,\" and therefore worthy to stand before\nkings. Untrammelled by any rules of seniority, and able to make and\nunmake as he thought fit, Solomon promoted him while still young, and\nat one bound, to a position of great rank and influence. Jeroboam was\nan Ephraimite, and Solomon therefore \"gave him charge over all the\ncompulsory levies (_Mas_) of the tribe of the house of Joseph\"--that\nis, of the proud and powerful tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, who\npractically represented all Israel except Judah, Benjamin, and the\nalmost nominal Simeon.\n\nThe spark of ambition was now kindled in the youth's heart, and as\nhe toiled among the workmen he became aware of two secrets of deadly\nimport to the master who had lifted him out of the dust--secrets\nwhich he well knew how to use. One was that a deep undercurrent of\ntribal jealousy was setting in with the force of a tide. Solomon\nhad unduly favoured his own tribe by exemptions from the general\nrequisition, and Ephraim fretted under a sense of wrong. That proud\ntribe, the heir of Joseph's pre-eminence, had never acquiesced in\nthe loss of the hegemony which it so long had held. From Ephraim\nhad sprung Joshua, the mighty successor of Moses, the conqueror\nof the Promised Land, and his sepulchre was still among them at\nTimnath-Serah. From their kith had sprung the princely Gideon, the\ngreatest of the judges, who might, had he so chosen, have anticipated\nthe foundation of royalty in Israel. Shiloh, which God had chosen for\nHis inheritance, was in their domains. It required very little at any\ntime to make the Ephraimites second the cry of the insurgents who\nfollowed Sheba, the son of Bichri,--\n\n  \"We have no part in David,\n   Neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse.\n   Every man to his tents, O Israel.\"\n\nJeroboam, who was now by Solomon's favour a chief ruler over his\nfellow-tribesmen, had many opportunities to foment this jealousy,\nand to win for himself by personal graciousness the popularity of\nSolomon which had so long begun to wane.\n\nBut a yet deeper feeling was at work against Solomon. The men of\nEphraim and all the northern tribes had not only begun to ask why\nJudah was to monopolise the king's partiality, but the much more\ndangerous question, What right has the king to enforce on us these\ndreary and interminable labours, in making a city of palaces and an\nimpregnable fortress of a capital which is to overshadow our glory\nand command our subjection? With consummate astuteness, by a word\nhere and a word there, Jeroboam was able to pose before Solomon as\nthe enforcer of a stern yoke, and before his countrymen as one who\nhated the hard necessity and would fain be their deliverer from it.\n\nAnd while he was already in heart a rebel against the House of David,\nhe received what he regarded as a Divine sanction to his career of\nambition.\n\nThe prophets, as we have seen, had sunk to silence before the oracular\nautocrat who so frequently impressed on the people that there is \"a\nDivine sentence on the lips of kings.\" No special inspiration seemed to\nbe needed either to correct or to corroborate so infallible a wisdom.\nBut the heaven-enkindled spark of inspiration can never be permanently\nsuffocated. Priests as a body have often proved amenable to royal\nseductions, but individual prophets are irrepressible.\n\nWhat were the priests doing in the face of so fearful an apostasy?\nApparently nothing. They seem to have sunk into comfortable\nacquiescence, satisfied with the augmentation of rank and revenue\nwhich the Temple and its offerings brought to them. They offered no\nopposition to the extravagances of the king, his violations of the\ntheocratic ideal, or even his monstrous tolerance for the worship\nof idols. That prophets as a body existed in Judah during the early\nyears of this reign there is no proof. The atmosphere was ill-suited\nto their vocation. Nathan probably had died long before Solomon\nreached his zenith.[427] Of Iddo we know almost nothing. Two prophets\nare mentioned, but only towards the close of the reign--Ahijah of\nShiloh,[428] and Shemaiah; and there seems to have been some confusion\nin the _r\u00f4les_ respectively assigned to them[429] by later tradition.\n\nBut the hour had now struck for a prophet to speak the word of the\nLord. If the king, surrounded by formidable guards and a glittering\ncourt, was too exalted to be reached by a humble son of the people,\nit was time for Ahijah to follow the precedent of Samuel. He obeyed\na divine intimation in selecting the successor who should punish the\ngreat king's rebellion against God, and inaugurate a rule of purer\nobedience than now existed under the upas-shadow of the throne. He\nwas the _Mazk\u00eer_, the annalist or historiographer of Solomon's court\n(2 Chron. ix. 29); but loyalty to a backsliding king had come to\nmean disloyalty to God. There was but one man who seemed marked out\nfor the perilous honour of a throne. It was the brave, vigorous,\nambitious youth of Ephraim who had risen to high promotion and\nhad won the hearts of his people, though Solomon had made him the\ntask-master of their forced labour. On one occasion Jeroboam left\nJerusalem, perhaps to visit his native Zeredah and his widowed\nmother.[430] Ahijah intentionally met him on the road. He drew him\naside from the public path into a solitary place. There, seen by\nnone, he took off his own shoulders the new stately _abba_[431] in\nwhich he had clad himself, and proceeded to give to Jeroboam one of\nthose object-lessons in the form of an acted parable, which to the\nEastern mind are more effective than any words.[432] Rending the new\ngarment into twelve pieces, he gave ten to Jeroboam, telling him that\nJehovah would thus rend the kingdom from the hands of Solomon because\nof his unfaithfulness, leaving his son but one tribe[433] that the\nlamp of David might not be utterly extinguished. Jeroboam should\nbe king over Israel; to the House of David should be left but an\ninsignificant fragment. God would build a sure house for Jeroboam as\nHe had done for David, if he would keep His commandments, though the\nHouse of David \"should not be afflicted for ever.\"[434]\n\nA scene so memorable, a prophecy of such grave significance,\ncould hardly remain a secret. Ahijah may have hinted it among his\nsympathisers. Jeroboam would hardly be able to conceal from his\nfriends the immense hopes which it excited; and as his position\nprobably gave him the command of troops he became dangerous. His\ndesigns reached the ears of Solomon, and he sought to put Jeroboam to\ndeath. The young man, who had probably betrayed his secret ambition,\nand may even have attempted some premature and abortive insurrection,\nescaped from Jerusalem, and took refuge in Egypt. There the Bubastite\ndynasty had displaced the Tanite, and from Shishak I., the earliest\nPharaoh whose individuality eclipsed the common dynastic name, he\nreceived so warm a welcome that, according to one story, Shishak\ngave him in marriage Ano, the elder sister of his Queen Tahpanes\n(or Thekemina, LXX.) and of Hadad's wife.[435] He stayed in Egypt\ntill the death of Solomon, and then returned to Zeredah, either in\nconsequence of the summons of his countrymen, or that he might be\nready for any turn of events.\n\nUnder such melancholy circumstances the last great king of the\nunited kingdom passed away. Of the circumstances of his death we\nare told nothing, but the clouds had gathered thickly round his\ndeclining years. \"The power to which he had elevated Israel,\" says\nthe Jewish historian Gr\u00e4tz, \"resembled that of a magic world built\nup by spirits. The spell was broken at his death.\" It must not,\nhowever, be imagined that no abiding results had followed from so\nremarkable a rule. The nation which he left behind him at his death\nwas very different from the nation to whose throne he had succeeded\nas a youth. It had sprung from immature boyhood to the full-grown\nstature of manhood. If the purity of its spiritual ideal had been\nsomewhat corrupted, its intellectual growth and its material power\nhad been immensely stimulated. It had tasted the sweets of commerce,\nand never forgot the richness of that intoxicating draught which\nwas destined in later ages to transform its entire nature. Tribal\ndistinctions, if not obliterated, had been subordinated to a central\norganisation. The knowledge of writing had been more widely spread,\nand this had led to the dawn of that literature which saved Israel\nfrom oblivion, and uplifted her to a place of supreme influence among\nthe nations. Manners had been considerably softened from their old\nwild ferocity. The more childish forms of ancient superstition, such\nas the use of ephods and teraphim, had fallen into desuetude. The\nworship of Jehovah, and the sense of His unique supremacy over the\nwhole world, was fostered in many hearts, and men began to feel the\nunfitness of giving to Him that name of \"Baal\" which began henceforth\nto be confined to the Syrian sun-god.[436] Amid many aberrations the\nsense of religion was deepened among the faithful of Israel, and the\nground was prepared for the more spiritual religion which in later\nreigns found its immortal expositors in those Hebrew prophets who\nrank foremost among the teachers of mankind.[437]\n\nBut as for Solomon himself it is a melancholy thought that he is one\nof the three or four of whose salvation the Fathers and others have\nopenly ventured to doubt.[438] The discussion of such a question is,\nindeed, wholly absurd and profitless, and is only here alluded to in\norder to illustrate the completeness of Solomon's fall. As the book\nof Ecclesiastes is certainly not by him it can throw no light on the\nmoods of his latter days, unless it be conceivable that it represents\nsome faint breath of olden tradition. The early commentators\nacquitted or condemned him as though they sat on the judgment-seat of\nthe Almighty. They would have shown more wisdom if they had admitted\nthat such decisions are--fortunately for all men--beyond the scope of\nhuman judges. Happily for us God, not man, is the judge, and He looks\ndown on earth\n\n          \"With larger other eyes than ours\n           To make allowance for us all.\"\n\nOrcagna was wiser when, in his great picture in the Campo Santo at Pisa\nand in the Strozzi Chapel at Florence, he represented Solomon rising\nout of his sepulchre in robe and crown at the trump of the archangel,\nuncertain whether he is to turn to the right hand or to the left.\n\nAnd Dante, as all men know, joins Solomon in Paradise with the Four\nGreat Schoolmen. The great medi\u00e6val poet of Latin Christianity did\nnot side with St. Augustine and the Latin Fathers against the wise\nking, but with St. Chrysostom and the Greek Fathers for him. He did\nso because he accepted St. Bernard's mystical interpretation of the\nSong of Songs:--\n\n          \"La quinta luce, ch'\u00e8 tra noi pi\u00f9 bella\n             Spira di tale amor, che tutto il mondo\n             Laggi\u00f9 ne gola di saver novella.\n           Entro v'\u00e8 l'alta mente, u' s\u00ec profondo\n             Saver fu messo, che si il vero \u00e8 vero,\n             A veder tanto non surse il secondo.\"[439]\n\nThere is a famous legend in the Qur'an about the death of Solomon.[440]\n\n\"Work ye righteousness O ye family of David; for I see that which\nye do. And we made the wind subject unto Solomon.... And we made a\nfountain of molten brass to flow for him. And some of the genii were\nobliged to work in his presence by the will of his Lord. They made\nfor him whatever he pleased of palaces, and statues, and large dishes\nlike fishponds, and caldrons standing firm on their trivets; and we\nsaid, Work righteousness, O family of David, with thanksgiving; for\nfew of my servants are thankful. And when we had decreed that Solomon\nshould die, nothing discovered his death unto them, except the\ncreeping thing of the earth that gnawed his staff. And when his body\nfell down, the genii plainly perceived that if they had known that\nwhich is secret they had not continued in a vile punishment.\"[441]\n\nThe legend briefly alluded to was that Solomon employed the genii\nto build his Temple, but, foreseeing that he would die before its\ncompletion, he prayed God to conceal his death from them, so that\nthey might go on working. His prayer was heard, and the rest of the\nlegend may best be told in the words of a poet:[442]--\n\n          \"King Solomon stood in his crown of gold,\n             Between the pillars, before the altar\n           In the House of the Lord. And the king was old,\n             And his strength began to falter,\n           So that he leaned on his ebony staff,\n           Sealed with the seal of the Pentegraph.\n\n                 *       *       *       *       *\n\n           And the king stood still as a carven king,\n             The carven cedar beams below,\n           In his purple robe, with his signet-ring,\n             And his beard as white as snow.\n           And his face to the Oracle, where the hymn\n           Dies under the wings of the cherubim.\n\n                 *       *       *       *       *\n\n           And it came to pass as the king stood there,\n             And looked on the House he had built with pride,\n           That the hand of the Lord came unaware\n             And touched him, so that he died\n           In his purple robe and his signet ring\n           And the crown wherewith they had crowned him king.\n\n           And the stream of folk that came and went\n             To worship the Lord with prayer and praise,\n           Went softly ever in wonderment,\n             For the king stood there always;\n           And it was solemn and strange to behold\n           The dead king crowned with a crown of gold.\n\n                 *       *       *       *       *\n\n           So King Solomon stood up dead in the House\n             Of the Lord, held there by the Pentegraph,\n           Until out from the pillar there ran a red mouse,\n             And gnawed through his ebony staff;\n           Then flat on his face the king fell down,\n           And they picked from the dust a golden crown.\"\n\nThe legends of the East describe Solomon as tormented indeed, yet not\nwithout hope. In the romance of Vathek he is described as listening\nearnestly to the roar of a cataract, because when it ceases to roar\nhis anguish will be at an end.\n\n\"The king so renowned for his wisdom was on the loftiest elevation,\nand placed immediately beneath the Dome. 'The thunder,' he said,\n'precipitated me hither, where, however, I do not remain totally\ndestitute of hope; for an angel of light hath revealed that, in\nconsideration of the piety of my early youth, my woes shall come\nto an end. Till then I am in torments, ineffable torments; an\nunrelenting fire preys on my heart.' The caliph was ready to sink\nwith terror when he heard the groans of Solomon. Having uttered this\nexclamation, Solomon raised his hands towards heaven, in token of\nsupplication; and the caliph discerned through his bosom, which was\ntransparent as crystal, his heart enveloped in flames.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSo Solomon passed away--the last king of all Palestine till another\nking arose a thousand years later, like him in his fondness for\nmagnificence, like him in his tamperings with idolatry, like him in\nbeing the builder of the Temple, but in all other respects a far more\ngrievous sinner and a far more inexcusable tyrant--Herod, falsely\ncalled \"The Great.\"\n\nAnd in the same age arose another King of Solomon's descendants,\nwhose palace was the shop of the carpenter and His throne the cross,\nand whose mortal body was the true Temple of the Supreme--that King\nwhose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and whose dominion endureth\nthroughout all ages.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[419] See Prov. ii. 10-22, v. 1-14, vi. 24-35, etc. (contrast Psalm\ncxliv. 12-15).\n\n[420] In 1 Kings xi. 9-25 the mischief inflicted by Rezon and Hadad\nis represented as a punishment for Solomon's apostasy. It has been\nsaid that here \"the pragmatism belongs to the redactor,\" because\nthese enemies sprang into existence when he came to the throne. But,\nas I have here represented it, nothing seems more probable than that\nRezon and Hadad were practically impotent to inflict much damage\nbefore the period of Solomon's decline. (Verse 23 is omitted in some\nMSS. of the LXX.)\n\n[421] An isolated anecdote of the exterminating war is preserved in 1\nChron. xi. 22, 23, from which it would seem that Egypt had interfered\nin favour of Edom.\n\n[422] Renan conjectures that the real Egyptian name is Ahotepnes. The\nLXX. wrongly calls this Pharaoh Sheshonk (\u03a3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bc), who came later,\nand whose queen's name was Kara\u00e4ma (not Thekemina, as the LXX. says).\n\n[423] Canon Rawlinson (_Speaker's Commentary_, _ad loc._) points out\nthat fugitives once received at Eastern courts found it very difficult\nto get away, _e.g._, Democedes, Herod., iii. 132-37. Histi\u00e6us, in\nleaving the court of Persia, has expressly to say that he had lacked\nnothing--\u03c4\u03b5\u1fe6 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u1f74\u03c2 \u1f64\u03bd; Herod., v. 106; comp. 1 Kings xi. 22.\n\n[424] 1 Kings xi. 14: \"The Lord stirred up an adversary\" (\u05e9\u05b8\u05c2\u05d8\u05b8\u05df).\n\n[425] Stade, i. 302. In 1 Kings xi. 22, 25 the text is corrupt. Verse\n25 should partly be transferred to the end of verse 22, and should\nrun, \"And Hadad returned to his own land,\" _i.e._, to _Edom_. (Edom\nhas been confused with \"Aram.\")\n\n[426] The additions to the LXX. call her Sarira. But the names\n\"Sarira,\" \"Enlamite,\" \"Ano\" are all suspicious; and possibly the LXX.\nadditions may be only part of some Alexandrian Haggadah.\n\n[427] In 2 Chron. ix. 29 the LXX. reads \"Joel.\" He wrote \"visions\"\nagainst Jeroboam, a life of Ahijah, and a book \"on (or after the\nmanner of) genealogies\" (2 Chron. ix. 29, xii. 15, xiii. 22). Jerome\n(on 2 Chron. xv. 1) identifies him with Oded.\n\n[428] 2 Chron. ix. 29. Perhaps 1 Kings xi. may be borrowed from the\nhistoric records of Ahijah.\n\n[429] For in the LXX. 1 Kings xi. 29-39 is absent in some MSS., as\nwell as 1 Kings xiv. (Ahijah and Abijah), which has been added from\nthe Greek version of Aquila. In verse 29, for \"Ahijah the Shilonite\"\nwe have in some MSS. of the LXX. \"Shemaiah the Elamite\" or \"Eulamite.\"\n\n[430] 1 Kings xi. 29, addition of LXX.\n\n[431] The square cloth worn over the other dress, and now called\n_abba_, seems to represent the _salem\u00e2h_ (\u05e9\u05b7\u05c2\u05dc\u05b0\u05de\u05b8\u05d4) here mentioned.\n\n[432] The story is usually made to apply to _Jeroboam's_ new robe;\nbut in the addition to the LXX., where the action is ascribed to\nShemaiah, the word of the Lord says to him, \u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03b5 \u03c3\u03b5\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f31\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7\u03bb\u03c5\u03b8\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f55\u03b4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03ba. \u03c4. \u03bb. The method of \"acted\nparables\" was common among the Hebrew prophets (See Jer. xiii., xix.,\nxxvii.; Ezek. iii., iv., v., etc.); but this is the earliest recorded\ninstance of the kind.\n\n[433] Not \"two tribes,\" as the LXX. says. But neither the number 1\nnor the number 2 are literally exact, for certainly Jeroboam did not\ncommand the territory of Simeon, south of Judah. The adherence of\nBenjamin, or part of Benjamin, to Judah was mainly a geographical\naccident, due to the fact that Jerusalem lay in both tribes (Josh. xv.\n8, xviii. 16; Jer. xx. 2). Late in David's reign a Benjamite (Sheba,\nson of Bichri) had headed a revolt against David (2 Sam. xx. 1).\n\n[434] 1 Kings xi. 34-39.\n\n[435] The story occurs in the additions to the LXX., and is highly\nimprobable. Shishak came to the throne, according to R. S. Poole,\nabout B.C. 972; others date his accession in 975 or 988. No such name\nas Tahpanes or Thekemina is found in the Egyptian records, and the\nwife of Shishak was Kara\u00e4mat.\n\n[436] Compare the names Eshbaal, Meribaal, Jerubbaal, Baaljada, with\nIshjo (LXX. 1 Sam. xiv. 49, Heb.), Mephibosheth Eliada. In later\ndays Baal was changed into the nickname _Bosheth_, \"shame\": hence\nIshbosheth, Jerubesheth, Mephibosheth. See Kittel, ii. 87.\n\n[437] See Kittel, _Gesch. der Hebr._, ii. 169-76.\n\n[438] See Budd\u00e6us, _Hist. Eccl._, ii. 237.\n\n[439]\n\n          \"The fifth light shining with a beauty pure\n             Breathes from such love that all the world below\n             Craves to have tidings of him true and sure.\n           Within it is the lofty mind, where so\n             Deep knowledge dwelt, that, if the truth be true,\n             Such insight ne'er a second rose to know.\"\n                   _Parad._, x. 109-114, and Dean Plumtre's notes.\n\n[440] Qur'an, xxxiv. 10; Chapter of Seb\u00e2 (Palmer's translation, p. 151).\n\n[441] Sale's Koran, ii. 287; Palmer's Qur'an, ii. 152.\n\n[442] The Earl of Lytton.\n\n\n\n                               BOOK III.\n\n                         _THE DIVIDED KINGDOM._\n\n                             B.C. 937-889.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XXIV.\n\n                             _A NEW REIGN._\n\n                           1 KINGS xii. 1-5.\n\n    \"A foolish son is the calamity of his father.\"--PROV. xix. 13.\n\n    \"He left behind him Roboam, even the foolishness of the people,\n    and one that had no understanding.\"--ECCLUS. xlvii. 23.\n\n\nRehoboam, who was Solomon's only son, succeeded in Jerusalem\nwithout opposition, B.C. 937.[443] But the northern tribes were\nin no mood to regard as final the prerogative acceptance of the\nson of Solomon by the rival tribe of Judah. David had won them\nby his vivid personality; Solomon had dazzled them by his royal\nmagnificence. It did not follow that they were blindly to accept a\nking who emerged for the first time from the shadow of the harem,\nand was the son of an Ammonitess, who worshipped Chemosh. Instead of\ngoing to Rehoboam at Jerusalem as the tribes had gone to David at\nHebron, they summoned an assembly at their ancient city of Shechem,\non the site of the modern Nablus, between Mount Ebal and Gerizim.\nIn this fortress-sanctuary they determined, as \"men of Israel,\" to\nbring their grievances under the notice of the new sovereign before\nthey formally ratified his succession. According to one view they\nsummoned Jeroboam, who had already returned to Zeredah, to be their\nspokesman.[444] When the assembly met they told the king that they\nwould accept him if he would lighten the grievous service which his\nfather had put upon them.[445] Rehoboam, taken by surprise, said that\nthey should receive his answer in \"three days.\" In the interval he\nconsulted the aged counsellors of his father. Their answer was astute\nin its insight into human nature. It resembled the \"long promises,\nshort performance\" which Guido da Montefeltro recommended to Pope\nBoniface VIII. in the case of the town of Penestrino.[446] They well\nunderstood the maxim of \"_omnia serviliter pro imperio_,\" which has\npaved the way to power of many a usurper from Otho to Bolingbroke.\n\"Give the people a civil answer,\" they said; \"tell them that _you_\nare _their_ servant. Content with this they will be scattered to\ntheir homes, and you will bind them to your yoke for ever.\" In an\nanswer so deceptive, but so immoral, the corrupting influence of the\nSolomonian autocracy is as conspicuous as in that of the malapert\nyouths who made their appeal to the king's conceit.\n\n\"Who knoweth whether his son will be a wise man or a fool?\" asks\nSolomon in the Book of Proverbs. Apparently he had done little\nor nothing to save his only son from being the latter. Despots\nin polygamous households, whether in Palestine or Zululand, live\nin perpetual dread of their own sons, and generally keep them in\nabsolute subordination. If Rehoboam had received the least political\ntraining, or had been possessed of the smallest common sense, he\nwould have been able to read the signs of the times sufficiently\nwell to know that everything might be lost by blustering arrogance,\nand everything gained by temporising plausibility. Had Rehoboam been\na man like David, or even like Saul in his better day, he might\nhave grappled to himself the affections of his people as with hooks\nof steel by seizing the opportunity of abating their burdens, and\noffering them a sincere assurance that he would study their peace\nand welfare above all. Had he been a man of ordinary intelligence,\nhe would have seen that the present was not the moment to exacerbate\na discontent which was already dangerous. But the worldly-wise\ncounsel of the \"elders\" of Solomon was utterly distasteful to a man\nwho, after long insignificance, had just begun to feel the vertigo\nof autocracy. His sense of his right was strong in exact proportion\nto his own worthlessness. He turned to the young men who had grown\nup with him, and who stood before him--the _jeunesse dor\u00e9e_ of a\nluxurious and hypocritical epoch, the aristocratic idlers in whom the\ninsolent self-indulgence of an enervated society had expelled the\nold spirit of simple faithfulness.[447] Their answer was the sort of\nanswer which Buckingham and Sedley might have suggested to Charles\nII. in face of the demands of the Puritans; and it was founded on\nnotions of inherent prerogative, and \"the right Divine of kings to\ngovern wrong,\" such as the Bishops might have instilled into James I.\nat the Hampton Court Conference, or Archbishop Laud into Charles I.\nin the days of \"Thorough.\"\n\n\"Threaten this insolent canaille,\" they said, \"with your royal\nseverity. Tell them that you do not intend to give up your sacred\nright to enforced labour, such as your brother of Egypt has always\nenjoyed.[448] Tell them that your little finger shall be thicker\nthan your father's loins,[449] and that instead of his whips you\nwill chastise them with leaded thongs.[450] That is the way to show\nyourself every inch a king.\"\n\nThe insensate advice of these youths proved itself attractive to the\nempty and infatuated prince. He accepted it in the dementation which\nis a presage of ruin; for, as the pious historian says, \"the cause\nwas from the Lord.\"\n\nThe announcement of this incredibly foolish reply woke in the men\nof Israel an answering shout of rebellion. In the rhythmic war-cry\nof Sheba, the son of Bichri, which had become proverbial,[451] they\ncried:--\n\n  \"What portion have we in David?\n   Neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse.\n   To your tents, O Israel:\n   Now see to thine own house, David!\"[452]\n\nUnable to appease the wild tumult, Rehoboam again showed his want\nof sense by sending an officer to the people whose position and\npersonality were most sure to be offensive to them. He sent \"Adoram,\nwho was over the tribute\"--the man who stood, before the Ephraimites\nespecially, as the representative of everything in monarchical\ngovernment which was to them most entirely odious. Josephus says\nthat he hoped to mollify the indignant people. But it was too late.\nThey stoned the aged _Al-ham-Mas_ with stones that he died; and\nwhen the foolish king witnessed or heard of the fate of a man who\nhad grown grey as the chief agent of despotism he felt that it was\nhigh time to look after his own safety. Apparently he had come with\nno other escort than that of the men of Judah who formed a part of\nthe national militia. Of Cherethites, Pelethites, and Gittites we\nhear no more. The princeling of a despoiled and humiliated kingdom\nwas perhaps in no condition to provide the pay of these foreign\nmercenaries. The king found that the name of David was no longer\npotent, and that royalty had lost its awful glamour. He made an\neffort[453] to reach his chariot, and, barely succeeding, fled with\nheadlong speed to Jerusalem. From that day for ever the unity of\nIsrael was broken, and \"the twelve tribes\" became a name for two\nmutually antagonistic powers.[454] The men of Israel at once chose\nJeroboam for their king, and an event was accomplished which had its\neffect on the history of all succeeding times. The only Israelites\nover whom the House of David continued to rule were those who, like\nthe scattered remnant of Simeon, dwelt in the cities of Judah.[455]\n\nThus David's grandson found that his kingdom over a people had\nshrunk to the headship of a tribe, with a sort of nominal suzerainty\nover Edom and part of Philistia. He was reduced to the comparative\ninsignificance of David's own position during his first seven years,\nwhen he was only king in Hebron. This disruption was the beginning of\nendless material disasters to both kingdoms; but it was the necessary\ncondition of high spiritual blessings, for \"it was of the Lord.\"\n\nPolitically it is easy to see that one cause of the revolt lay in\nthe too great rapidity in which kings, who, as it was assumed, were\nto be elective, or at least to depend on the willing obedience of\nthe people, had transformed themselves into hereditary despots.\nJudah might still accept the sway of a king of her own tribe; but\nthe powerful and jealous Ephraimites, at the head of the Northern\nConfederation, refused to regard themselves as the destined\nfootstool for a single family. As in the case of Saul and of David,\nthey determined once more to accept no king who did not owe his\nsovereignty to their own free choice.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[443] \"Rehoboam\" means \"enlarger of the people\" (comp. Eurudemos);\nJeroboam, \"whose people is many\" (Poludemos; comp. Thiodric,\nThierry). But Cheyne makes it mean \"the kingdom contendeth\"\n(Kleinert, _Volkstreiter_).\n\n[444] So we read in the LXX. Cod. Vat., and (partly) in the Vulgate\n(see Robertson Smith, _The Old Testament_, p. 117). Unless Jeroboam had\nspontaneously returned from Egypt on hearing of the death of Solomon,\nthere would hardly have been time to summon him thence. 2 Chron. x. 2\nrepresents the matter thus. Possibly his name has crept by error into 1\nKings xii. 3. See Wellhausen-Bleek's _Einleitung_, p. 243.\n\n[445] In the LXX. the Ephraimites complain of the expensive provision\nfor Solomon's table. \"Thy father made his yoke grievous upon us, and\nmade grievous to us the meats of his table.\" LXX. (Cod. Vat.), \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n\u1f10\u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03b2\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03ad\u03b6\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\n[446] Dante, _Inferno_, Cant. xxvii.\n\n[447] They are called _yeladim_, which surely cannot apply to men\nof forty, so that Rehoboam was probably little more than a youth,\n_na'ar_ (2 Chron. xiii. 7; comp. Gen. xxxiii. 13).\n\n[448] Herod., ii. 124-28.\n\n[449] \"My little finger.\" Heb., \"my littleness\"; LXX., \u1f21 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\n\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5. But the paraphrase is perfectly correct (Vulg., Pesh., Josephus,\nand the Rabbis).\n\n[450] \"Virga si est nodosa et aculeata scorpios vocatur, quia arcuato\nvulnere in corpus infigitur\" (Isodore., _Orig._, i. 175).\n\n[451] 2 Sam. xx. 1.\n\n[452] Or, \"Now feed thine own house\" (LXX., \u03b2\u03cc\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5, reading \u05e8\u05e2\u05d4 for\n\u05e8\u05d0\u05d4); and the LXX. adds, \"For this man is not (fit) to be a ruler,\nnor to be a prince.\" Evidently the revolt was the culmination of\nthose jealousies which the haughty tribe of Ephraim had already\nmanifested in the lives of Gideon, Abimelech, and David.\n\n[453] Heb., \"strengthened himself.\"\n\n[454] In fact, the \u03b4\u03c9\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03ac\u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd became more of a reminiscence than\nanything else. Simeon, for instance, practically disappeared (1\nChron. iv. 24-43).\n\n[455] 1 Kings xii. 17.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XXV.\n\n                           _THE DISRUPTION._\n\n                           1 KINGS xii. 6-20.\n\n\n\"_It was of the Lord._\" It is no small proof of the insight and\ncourageous faithfulness of the historian that he accepts without\nquestion the verdict of ancient prophecy that the disruption was\nGod's doing; for everything which happened in the four subsequent\ncenturies, alike in Judah and in Israel, seemed to belie this pious\nconviction. We, in the light of later history, are now able to\nsee that the disseverance of Israel's unity worked out results of\neternal advantage to mankind; but in the sixth century before Christ\nno event could have seemed to be so absolutely disastrous. It must\nhave worn the aspect of an extinction of the glory of the House of\nJacob. It involved the obliteration of the great majority of the\ndescendants of the patriarchs, and the reduction of the rest to\nnational insignificance and apparently hopeless servitude. Throughout\nthose centuries of troubled history, in the struggle for existence\nwhich was the lot of both kingdoms alike, it was difficult to say\nwhether their antagonism or their friendship, their open wars or\ntheir matrimonial alliances, were productive of the greater ruin.\nEach section of the nation fatally hampered and counterpoised the\nother with a perpetual rivalry and menace. Ephraim envied Judah, and\nJudah vexed Ephraim. In extreme cases the south was ready to purchase\nthe intervention of Syria, or even of Assyria, to check and overwhelm\nits northern rival, while the north could raise up Egypt or Edom to\nharass the southern kingdom with intolerable raids.\n\nTo us the Southern Kingdom, the kingdom of Judah, seems the more\nimportant and the more interesting division of the people. It became\nthe heir of all the promises, the nurse of the Messianic hope,\nthe mother of the four greater prophets, the continuer of all the\nsubsequent history after the glory of Israel had been stamped out by\nAssyria for ever.\n\n1. But such was not the aspect presented by the kingdom of Judah to\ncontemporary observers. On the contrary, Judah seemed to be a paltry\nand accidental fragment--one tribe, dissevered from the magnificent\nunity of Israel. Nothing redeemed it from impotence and obliteration\nbut the splendid possessions of Jerusalem and the Temple, which\nguaranteed the often threatened perpetuity of the House of David.\nThe future seemed to be wholly with Israel when men compared the\nrelative size and population of the disunited tribes. Judah comprised\nlittle more than the environs of Jerusalem. Except Jerusalem, Mizpeh,\nGibeon, and Hebron, it had no famous shrines and centres of national\ntraditions. It could not even claim the southern town of Beersheba as\na secure possession.[456] The tribe of Simeon had melted away into a\nshadow, if not into non-existence, amid the surrounding populations,\nand its territory was under the kings of Judah; but they did not even\npossess the whole of Benjamin, and if that little tribe was nominally\nreckoned with them, it was only because part of their capital city\nwas in Benjamite territory, to which belonged the valley of Hinnom.\nTo Israel, on the other hand, pertained all the old local sanctuaries\nand scenes of great events. On the east of Jordan they held Mahanaim;\non the west Jericho, near as it was to Jerusalem, and Bethel with its\nsacred stone of Jacob, and Gilgal with its memorial of the conquest,\nand Shechem the national place of assembly, and Accho and Joppa on\nthe sea shore. Israel, too, inherited all the predominance over Moab\nand Ammon, and the Philistines, which had been secured by conquest in\nthe reign of David.[457]\n\n2. Then, again, the greatest heroes of tradition had been sons of\nthe northern tribes. The fame of Joshua was theirs, of Deborah and\nBarak, of fierce Jephthah, of kingly Gideon, and of bold Abimelech.\nHoly Samuel, the leader of the prophets, and heroic Saul, the first\nof the kings, had been of their kith and kin. Judah could only claim\nthe bright personality of David, and the already tarnished glories of\nSolomon, which men did not yet see through the mirage of legend but\nin the prosaic light of every day.\n\n3. Again, the Northern Kingdom was unhampered by the bad example and\nerroneous development of the preceding royalty. Jeroboam had not\nstained his career with crimes like David; nor had he sunk, as Solomon\nhad done, into polygamy and idolatry. It seemed unlikely that he, with\nso fatal an example before his eyes, could be tempted into oppressive\ntyranny, futile commerce, or luxurious ostentation. He could found a\nnew dynasty, free from the trammels of a bad commencement, and as fully\nbuilt on Divine command as that of the House of Jesse.\n\n4. Nor was it a small advantage that the new kingdom had an immense\nsuperiority over its southern compeer in richness of soil and beauty\nof scenery. To it belonged the fertile plain of Jezreel, rolling with\nharvests of golden grain. Its command of Accho gave it access to the\ntreasures of the shore and of the sea. To it belonged the purple\nheights of Carmel, of which the very name meant \"a garden of God\";\nand the silver Lake of Galilee, with its inexhaustible swarms of\nfish; and the fields of Gennesareth, which were a wonder of the world\nfor their tropical luxuriance. Theirs also were the lilied waters\nand paper-reeds of Merom, and the soft, green, park-like scenery of\nGerizim, and the roses of Sharon, and the cedars of Lebanon, and\nthe vines and fig trees and ancient terebinths of all the land of\nEphraim, and the forest glades of Zebulon and Naphtali, and the wild\nuplands beyond the Jordan--which were all far different from the\n\"awful barrenness\" of Judah, with its monotony of rounded hills.[458]\n\n5. Under these favourable conditions three great advantages were\nexceptionally developed in the Northern Kingdom.\n\n(1) It evidently enjoyed a larger freedom as well as a greater\nprosperity. How gay and bright, how festive and musical, how worldly\nand luxurious, was the life of the wealthy and the noble in the ivory\npalaces and on the gorgeous divans of Samaria and Jezreel, as we\nread of it in the pages of the contemporary prophets![459] Naboth\nand Shemer show themselves as independent of tyranny as any sturdy\ndalesman or feudal noble, and \"the great lady of Shunem, on the slopes\nof Esdraelom, in her well-known home, is a sample of Israelite life in\nthe north as true as that of the reaper Boaz in the south. She leaves\nher home under the pressure of famine, and goes down to the plains of\nPhilistia. When she returns and finds a stranger in her corn-fields,\nshe insists on restitution, even at the hand of the king himself.\"[460]\n\n(2) The Ten Tribes also developed a more brilliant literature. Some of\nthe most glowing psalms are probably of northern origin, as well as\nthe Song of Deborah, and the work of the writer who is now generally\nrecognised by critics under the name of the Deuteronomist. The\nloveliest poem produced by Jewish literature--the Song of Songs--bears\non every page the impress of the beautiful and imaginative north. The\nfair girl of Shunem loves her leopard-haunted hills, and the vernal\nfreshness of her northern home, more than the perfumed chambers of\nSolomon's seraglio; and her poet is more charmed with the lustre and\nloveliness of Tirzah than with the palaces and Temple of Jerusalem. The\nBook of Job may have originated in the Northern Kingdom, from which\nalso sprang the best historians of the Jewish race.[461]\n\n(3) But the main endowment of the new kingdom consisted in the\nmagnificent development and independence of the prophets.\n\nIt was not till after the overthrow of the Ten Tribes that the glory\nof prophecy migrated southwards, and Jerusalem produced the mighty\ntriad of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. For the two and a half\ncenturies that the Northern Kingdom lasted scarcely one prophet is\nheard of in Judah except the scarcely known Hanani, and Eliezer, the\nson of Mareshah,[462] who is little more than a _nominis umbra_. To\nthe north belongs the great herald-prophet of the Old Dispensation,\nthe mighty Elijah; the softer spirit of the statesman-prophet\nElisha; the undaunted Micaiah, son of Imlah; the picturesque Micah;\nthe historic Jonah; the plaintive Hosea; and that bold and burning\npatriot, a fragment of whose prophecy now forms part of the Book of\nZechariah. Amos, indeed, belonged by birth to Tekoa, which was in\nJudah, but his prophetic activity was confined to Bethel and Jezreel.\nThe Schools of the Prophets at Ramah, Bethel, Jericho, and Gilgal\nwere all in Israel. The passages in the third section of the Book of\nZechariah are alone sufficient to show how vast was the influence\nin the affairs of the nation of the prophets of the north, and how\nfearless their intervention. Even when they were most fiercely\npersecuted, they were not afraid to beard the most powerful kings--an\nAhab and a Jeroboam II.--in all their pride.[463] Samaria and Galilee\nwere rich in prophetic lives; and they, too, were the destined scene\nof the life of Him of whom all the prophets prophesied, and from\nwhose inspiration they drew their heavenly fire.\n\nAgainst these advantages, however, must be set two serious and\nultimately fatal drawbacks--germs of disease which lay in the very\nconstitution of the kingdom, and from the first doomed it to death.\n\nOne of these was the image-worship, of which I shall speak in\na later section; the other was the lack of one predominant and\ncontinuous dynasty.\n\nThe royalty of the north did not spring up through long years of\ngradual ascendency, and could not originally appeal to splendid\nservices and heroic memories. Jeroboam was a man of humble, and, if\ntradition says truly, of tainted origin. He was not a usurper, for\nhe was called to the throne by the voice of prophecy and the free\nspontaneous choice of his people; but in Solomon's days he had been\na potential if not an actual rebel. He set the example of successful\nrevolt, and it was eagerly followed by many a soldier and general of\nsimilar antecedents. In the short space of two hundred and forty-five\nyears there were no less than nine changes of dynasty, of which those\nof Jeroboam, Baasha, Kobolam,[464] Menahem, consisted only of a father\nand son. There were at least four isolated or partial kings: Zimri,\nTibni, Pekah, and Hosea. Only two dynasties, those of Omri and Jehu,\nsucceeded in maintaining themselves for even four or five generations,\nand they, like the others, were at last quenched in blood. The close of\nthe kingdom in its usurpations, massacres, and catastrophes reminds us\nof nothing so much as the disastrous later days of the Roman Empire,\nwhen the purple was so often rent by the dagger-thrust, and it was rare\nfor emperors to die a natural death. The kingdom which had risen from a\nsea of blood set in the same red waves.\n\nOn the other hand, whatever may have been the drawback of the small\nand hampered Southern Kingdom, it had several conspicuous advantages.\nIt had a settled and incomparable capital, which could be rendered\nimpregnable against all ordinary assaults; while the capital of the\nNorthern Kingdom shifted from Shechem to Penuel[465] and Tirzah, and\nfrom Tirzah to Samaria and Jezreel. It had the blessing of a loyal\npeople, and of the all-but-unbroken continuity of one loved and\ncherished dynasty for nearly four centuries. It had the yet greater\nblessing of producing not a few kings who more or less fully attained\nto the purity of the theocratic ideal. Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah,\nJosiah, were good and high-minded kings, and the two latter were\nreligious reformers. Whatever may have been the sins and shortcomings\nof Judah--and they were often very heinous--still the prophets bear\nwitness that her transgressions were less incurable than those of her\nsister Samaria. All good men began to look to Jerusalem as the nursing\nmother of the Promised Deliverer. \"Out of Judah,\" said the later\nZechariah, \"shall come forth the corner stone, out of him the nail,\nout of him the battle bow, out of him every governor together.\"[466]\nAmos was born in Judah; Hoshea took refuge there; the later Zechariah\nlaboured (ix., xi., xiii. 7-9) for the fusion of the two kingdoms. From\nthe unknown, or little known, seers who endeavoured to watch over the\ninfant destinies of Judah, to the mighty prophets who inspired her\nearly resistance to Assyria, or menaced her apostasy with ruin at the\nhands of Babylon, she rarely lacked for any long period the inspired\nguidance of moral teachers. If Judah was for many years behindhand\nin power, in civilisation, in literature, even in the splendour of\nprophetic inspiration, she still managed on the whole to uplift to the\nnations the standard of righteousness. That standard was often fiercely\nassaulted, but the standard-bearers did not faint. The torn remnants of\nthe old ideal were still upheld by faithful hands. Neither the heathen\ntendencies of princes nor the vapid ceremonialism of priests were\nallowed unchallenged to usurp the place of religion pure and undefiled.\nThe later Jud\u00e6an prophets, and especially the greatest of them, rose to\na spirituality which had never yet been attained, and was never again\nequalled till the rise of the Son of Righteousness with healing in His\nwings.\n\nHow clearly, then, do we see the truth of the prophetic announcement\nthat the disruption of the kingdom was \"of the Lord\"! Out of apparent\ncatastrophe was evolved infinite reparation. The abandonment of the\nDavidic dynasty of the Ten Tribes looked like earthly ruin. It did\nindeed hasten the final overthrow of all national autonomy; but that\nwould have come in any case, humanly speaking, from Assyria, or\nBabylonia, Persia, or the Seleucids, or the Ptolemies, or Rome. On\nthe other hand, it fostered a religious power and concentration which\nwere of more value to the world than any other blessings. \"On all the\npast greatness and glory of Israel,\" says Ewald,[467] \"Judah cast\nits free and cheerful gaze. Before its kings floated the vision of\ngreat ancestors; before its prophets examples like those of Nathan\nand Gad; before the whole people the memory of its lofty days. And so\nit affords us no unworthy example of the honourable part which may be\nplayed for many centuries in the history of the world, and the rich\nblessings which may be imparted, even by a little kingdom, provided\nit adheres faithfully to the eternal truth. The gain to the higher\nlife of humanity acquired under the earthly protection of this petty\nmonarchy _far outweighs all that has been attempted or accomplished\nfor the permanent good of man by many much larger states_.\" \"The\npeople of Israel goes under,\" says Stade, \"but the religion of Israel\ntriumphs over the powers of the world, while it changes its character\nfrom the religion of a people into a religion of the world.\" This\ndevelopment of religion, as he proceeds to point out, was mainly due\nto the long, slow enfeeblement of the people through many centuries,\nuntil at last it had acquired a force which enabled it to survive the\npolitical annihilation of the nationality from which it sprang.\n\nIn reality both kingdoms gained under the appearance of total loss.\n\"Every people called to high destinies,\" says Renan, \"ought to be\na small complete world, enclosing opposed poles within its bosom.\nGreece had at a few leagues from each other, Sparta and Athens, two\nantipodes to a superficial observer, but in reality rival sisters,\nnecessary the one to the other. It was the same in Palestine.\"\n\nThe high merit of the historian of the two kingdoms appears in this,\nthat, without entangling himself in details, and while he contents\nhimself with sweeping and summary judgments, he established a moral\nview of history which has been ratified by the experience of the\nworld. He shows us how the tottering and insignificant kingdom of\nJudah, secured by God's promise, and rising through many backslidings\ninto higher spirituality and faithfulness, not only out-lasted for a\ncentury the overthrow of its far more powerful rival, but kept alive\nthe torch of faith, and handed it on to the nations of many centuries\nacross the dust and darkness of intervening generations. And in\ndrawing this picture he helped to secure the fulfilment of his own\nideal, for he inspired into many a patriot and many a reformer the\nindomitable faith in God which has enabled men, in age after age, to\ndefy obloquy and opposition, to face the prison and the sword, secure\nin the ultimate victory of God's truth and God's righteousness amidst\nthe most seemingly absolute failure, and against the most apparently\noverwhelming odds.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[456] In 1 Kings xix. 3 it is reckoned as belonging to Judah (comp.\nJosh. xv. 28), being really a town of Simeon (Josh. xix. 2); but from\nAmos v. 5, viii. 14, we should infer that it was at any rate largely\nfrequented by Israelites.\n\n[457] 1 Kings xvi. 34; 2 Kings ii. 4.\n\n[458] See Stanley, _Lectures on the Jewish Church_, ii. 269-71.\n\n[459] Amos v. 11, vi. 4-6.\n\n[460] 2 Kings iv. 18, 22, viii. 1-6; Stanley, ii. 271.\n\n[461] See Ewald, iv. 9 (E. T.).\n\n[462] 2 Chron. xx. 37.\n\n[463] Zech. xi. 4-17, xiii. 7-9.\n\n[464] If we may regard Kobolam as a real person (2 Kings xv. 10,\nLXX.). Thus, in the Northern Kingdom twenty kings belong to _nine_\ndifferent dynasties in two hundred and forty-five years; and in the\nSouthern only nineteen kings of _one_ dynasty rule for three hundred\nand forty-five years.\n\n[465] Jeroboam lived for a time at Penuel, on the east of the Jordan,\nperhaps to escape all danger from Shishak's invasion. For Penuel, on\nthe eastern side of the Jabbok, see Gen. xxxii. 22, 30; Judg. viii.\n8, 17. It was important as commanding the caravan route from Damascus\nto Shechem.\n\n[466] Zech. x. 4 (R.V., \"exactors\").\n\n[467] _Hist. of Isr._, iv. 12.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XXVI.\n\n                 \"_JEROBOAM THE SON OF NEBAT, WHO MADE\n                            ISRAEL TO SIN._\"\n\n                          1 KINGS xii. 21-23.\n\n    \"For from Israel is even this; the workman made it, and it is no\n    god: yea, the calf of Samaria shall be broken in pieces.\"--HOSEA\n    viii. 6.\n\n\nThe condemnation of the first king of Israel sounds like a melancholy\nand menacing refrain through the whole history of the Northern\nKingdom.[468] Let us consider the extent and nature of his crime; for\nthough the condemnation is most true if we judge merely by the issue\nof Jeroboam's acts, a man's guilt cannot always be measured by the\nimmensity of its unforeseen consequences, nor can his actions and\nintentions be always fairly judged after the lapse of centuries. The\nmoral judgments recorded in the Book of Kings concerning legal and\nritual offences are measured by the standard of men's consciences\nnearly a century after Josiah's Reformation in B.C. 623, not by that\nwhich prevailed in B.C. 937, when Jeroboam came to the throne. It\nseems clear that, even in the opinion of his contemporaries, Jeroboam\nwas unfaithful to the duties of the call which he had received from\nGod; but it would be an error to suppose that his sin was, in itself,\nso heinous as those of which both Solomon and Rehoboam and other\nkings of Judah were guilty. \"Calf-worship,\" as it was contemptuously\ncalled in later days, did not present itself as \"calf-worship\"\nto Jeroboam or his people. To them it was only the more definite\nadoration of Jehovah under the guise of the cherubic emblem which\nSolomon had himself enshrined in the Temple and Moses himself had\nsanctioned in the Tabernacle. There is not a word to show that they\nwere cognisant of the book which had narrated the fierce reprobation\nby Moses of Aaron's \"golden calf\" in the wilderness. Jeroboam's chief\nsin was not that as a king he tolerated, or even set up, a sort of\nidolatry, but that he induced the whole body of his subjects to share\nin his evil innovations.\n\nThe charge brought against him was threefold. First, he set up the\ngolden calves at Dan and Bethel. Secondly, he \"made priests from\namong all the people, which were not of the sons of Levi.\" Thirdly,\nhe established his \"harvest feast\" not on the fifteenth day of\nthe seventh month, which was the Feast of Tabernacles, but on the\nfifteenth day of the eighth month. In estimating these sins let us\nendeavour--for it is a sacred duty--to be just.\n\n1. We read in the Authorised Version that \"he made priests of _the\nlowest_ of the people,\"[469] and this tends to increase the prejudice\nagainst him. But to have done this wilfully would have been entirely\nagainst his own interests. The more honourable his priests were,\nthe more was his new worship likely to succeed. The Hebrew only says\nthat \"he made priests of all classes of the people,\" or, as the\nRevised Version renders it, \"from among all the people.\" No doubt\nthis would appear to have been a heinous innovation, judged from the\npractice of later ages; it is not clear that it was equally so in\nthe days of Jeroboam. If David, unrebuked, made his sons priests; if\nIra the Ithrite was a priest; if Solomon, by his own fiat, altered\nthe succession of the priesthood; if Solomon (no less than Jeroboam)\narrogated to himself priestly functions on public occasions, the\nopinion as to priestly rights may not have existed in the days of\nJeroboam, or may only have existed in an infinitely weaker form than\nin the days of the post-exilic chronicler. An incidental notice in\nanother book shows us that in Dan, at any rate, he did _not_ disturb\nthe Levitic ministry. There the descendants of Jonathan, the son\nof Gershom, the grandson of Moses,[470] continued their priestly\nfunctions from the day when that unworthy descendant of the mighty\nlawgiver was seduced to conduct a grossly irregular cult for a few\nshillings a year, down to the day when the golden calf at Dan was\ncarried away by Tiglath-Pileser, King of Assyria. If the Levites\npreferred to abide by the ministrations of Jerusalem, and migrated\nin large numbers to the south, Jeroboam may have held that necessity\ncompelled him to appoint priests who were not of the House of Levi.\nNeither for this, nor for his new feast of Tabernacles, nor for the\ncalf-worship, were the kings of Israel condemned (so far as is\nrecorded) even by such mighty prophets as Elijah and Elisha.\n\nIn choosing Dan and Bethel as the seats for his new altars, the\nking was not actuated by purely arbitrary considerations. They were\nancient and venerated shrines of pilgrimage and worship (Judg. xviii.\n30, xx. 18, 26; 1 Sam. x. 3). He did not create any sacredness which\nwas not already attached to them in the popular imagination.[471]\nIn point of fact he would have served the ends of a worldly policy\nmuch better if he had chosen Shechem; for Dan and Bethel were the\ntwo farthest parts of his kingdom. Dan was in constant danger from\nthe Syrians, and Bethel, which is only twelve miles from Jerusalem,\nmore than once fell into the hands of the kings of Judah, though they\nneither retained possession of it, nor disturbed the shrines, nor\nthrew down the \"calf\" of the new worship. Jeroboam could not have\ncreated the \"calf-worship\" if he had not found everything prepared\nfor its acceptance. Dan had been, since the earliest days, the seat\nof a chapelry and ephod served by the lineal descendants of Moses in\nunbroken succession; Bethel was associated with some of the nation's\nholiest memories since the days of their forefather Israel.\n\n2. Again, if in Jeroboam's day the Priestly Code was in existence,\nhe was clearly guilty of unjustifiable wilfulness in altering the\ntime for observing the Feast of Tabernacles from the seventh to the\neighth month. But if there be little or no contemporary trace of any\nobservation of the Feast of Tabernacles--if, as Nehemiah tells us,\nit had not once been _properly_ observed from the days of Joshua to\nhis own, or if Jeroboam was unaware of any sacred legislation on\nthe subject--the writers of the tenth century may have judged too\nseverely the fixing of a date for the Feast of Ingathering, which\nmay have seemed more suitable to the conditions of the northern and\nwestern tribes. For in parts of that region the harvest ripens a\nmonth earlier than in Judah, and the festival was meant to be kept at\nthe season of harvest.[472]\n\n3. These, however, were but incidental and subordinate matters\ncompared with the setting up of the golden calves.\n\nJeroboam felt that if his people flocked to do sacrifice at the\nnew and gorgeous Temple in Jerusalem they would return to their\nold monarchy and put him to death. He wished to avoid the fate\nof Ishbosheth.[473] He believed that he should be doing both a\npopular and a politic act if he saved them from the burden of this\nlong journey and again decentralised the cult which Solomon had so\nrecently centralised. He determined, therefore, to furnish the Ten\nTribes with high places, and temples of high places, and objects\nof worship which might rival the golden cherubim of Zion, and be\nhonoured with festal music and royal pomp.\n\nHe never dreamed either of apostatising from Jehovah, or of\nestablishing the worship of idols. He broke the Second Commandment\nunder pretence of helping the people to keep the first. The images\nwhich he set up were not meant to be _substitutes_ for the one God,\nthe God of their fathers, the God who had brought them from the\nland of Egypt; they were regarded as figures of Jehovah under the\nwell understood and universally adopted emblem of a young bull, the\nsymbol of fertility and strength.[474] Some have fancied that he\nwas influenced by his Egyptian reminiscences, and perhaps by Ano,\nhis traditional Egyptian bride. That is an obvious error. In Egypt\n_living_ bulls were worshipped under the names of Apis and Mnevis,\nnot idol-figures. Egyptian gods would have been strange reminders of\nHim who delivered His people from Egyptian tyranny. It would have\nbeen insensate, by quoting the very words of Aaron, to recall to the\nminds of the people the disasters which had followed the worship\nof the golden calf in the wilderness.[475] Beyond all question,\nJeroboam neither did nor would have dreamed of bidding his whole\npeople to abandon their faith and worship Egyptian idols, which never\nfound any favour among the Israelites. He only encouraged them to\nworship Jehovah under the form of the cherubim.[476] Whatever may\nhave been the aspect of the cherubim in the Oracle of the Temple,\ncherubic emblems appeared profusely amid its ornamentation, and the\nmost conspicuous object in its courts was the molten sea, supported\non the backs of twelve bulls. It is true that later prophets and\npoets, like Hosea and the Psalmist, spoke in scorn of his images\nas mere \"calves,\" and spoke of him as likening his Maker to \"an ox\nthat eateth hay.\"[477] They even came in due time to regard them as\nfigures of Baal and Astarte,[478] but this view is falsified by the\nentire annals of the Northern Kingdom from its commencement to its\nclose. Jeroboam was, and always regarded himself as, a worshipper of\nJehovah. He named his son and destined successor Abijah (\"Jehovah is\nmy Father\"). Rehoboam himself was a far worse offender than he was,\nso far as the sanction of idolatry was concerned.\n\nAnd yet he sinned, and yet he made Israel to sin. It is true that\nhe did not sin against the full extent of the light and knowledge\nvouchsafed to men in later days. The sin of which he was guilty was\nthe sin of worldly policy. With professions of religion on his lips he\npandered to the rude and sensuous instinct which makes materialism in\nworship so much more attractive to all weak minds than spirituality.\nProclaiming as his motive the rights of the people, he accelerated\ntheir religious degeneracy. \"The means to strengthen or ruin the civil\npower,\" says Lowth, \"is either to establish or destroy the right\nworship of God. The way to destroy religion is to embase the dispenser\nof it.... This is to give the royal stamp to a piece of lead.\" If we\nmay trust to Jewish tradition, there were some families in Israel who,\nthough they clung to their old homes, and would not migrate to the\nsouth, yet refused to worship what is, not quite justly, called \"the\nheifer Baal.\"[479] The legendary Tobit (i. 4-7) boasts that \"when all\nthe tribes of Naphthali fell from the house of Jerusalem and sacrificed\nto the heifer Baal I alone went often to Jerusalem at the feasts,\" and,\nin general, observed the provisions of the Levitic law.\n\nThere seems to have been but little religion in Jeroboam's\ntemperament. In every other great national gathering at Shechem and\nother sacred places we read of religious rites.[480] No mention is\nmade of them, no allusion occurs respecting them, in the assembly\nto which Jeroboam owed his throne. He might at least have consulted\nAhijah, who had given him, when he was still a subject, the Divine\npromise and sanction of royalty. He might, had he chosen, have\nfollowed a higher and purer guidance than that of his own personal\nmisgiving and his own arbitrary will. The error which he committed\nwas this--he trusted in policy, not in the Living God. \"It was,\"\nsays Dean Stanley, \"precisely the policy of Abder-Rahman, Caliph of\nSpain, when he arrested the movement of his subjects to Mecca, by the\nerection of a Holy Place of the Zeca at Cordova, and of Abd-el-Malik\nwhen he built the Dome of the Rock at Jerusalem, because of his\nquarrel with the authorities at Mecca.\" He was not guilty of revolt,\nfor he acted under prophetic sanction; nor of idolatry, for he did\nnot abandon the worship of Jehovah; but \"he broke the unity and\ntampered with the spiritual conception of the national worship.\nFrom worshipping God under a gross material symbol, the Israelites\ngradually learnt to worship other gods altogether; and the venerable\nsanctuaries of Dan and Bethel prepared the way for the temples\nof Ashtaroth and Bethel at Samaria and Jezreel. The religion of\nthe kingdom of Israel at last sank lower than that of the kingdom\nof Judah against which it had revolted. 'The sin of Jeroboam the\nson of Nebat, who made Israel to sin,' is the sin again and again\nrepeated in the policy, half-worldly, half-religious, which has\nprevailed through large tracts of ecclesiastical history. Many are\nthe forms of worship which, with high pretensions, have been nothing\nelse but so many various and opposite ways of breaking the Second\nCommandment. Many a time has the end been held to justify the means,\nand the Divine character been degraded by the pretence, or even the\nsincere intention, of upholding His cause, for the sake of secular\naggrandisement; for the sake of binding together good systems,\nwhich it was feared would otherwise fall to pieces; for the sake of\nsupporting the faith of the multitude for fear they should otherwise\nfall away to rival sects, or lest the enemy should come and take away\ntheir place and nation. False arguments have been used in support\nof religious truths, false miracles promulgated or tolerated, false\nreadings in the sacred text defended.... And so the faith of mankind\nhas been undermined by the very means intended to preserve it. The\nwhole subsequent history is a record of the mode by which, with the\nbest intentions, Church and nation may be corrupted.\"\n\nThis view of Dean Stanley is confirmed by another wise teacher,\nProfessor F. D. Maurice. Jeroboam, he says, \"did not trust the\nLiving God. He thought, not that his kingdom stood upon a Divine\n_foundation_, but that it was to be upheld by certain Divine props\nand _sanctions_. The two doctrines seem closely akin. Many regard\nthem as identical. In truth there is a whole heaven between them. The\nking who believes that his kingdom has a Divine foundation confesses\nhis own subjection and responsibility to an actual living ruler. The\nking who desires to surround himself with Divine sanctions would fain\nmake himself supreme, knows that he cannot, and would therefore seek\nhelp from the fear men have of an invisible power in which they have\nceased to believe. He wants a God as the support of his authority.\n_What_ God he cares very little.\"\n\nAnd thus, to quote once more, \"the departure from spiritual\nprinciples out of political motives surely leads to destruction, and\nis here portrayed for all times.\"[481]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[468] It recurs twenty-three times: 1 Kings xiv. 16, xv. 26, 30, 34,\nxvi. 2, 19, 26, 31, xxi. 22, xxii. 52; 2 Kings iii. 3, x. 29, 31,\nxiii. 2, 6, xiv. 24, xv. 9, 18, 24, 28, xvii. 21, 22, xxiii, 15.\n\n[469] Literally, \"_he filled the hand_,\" because the priests were\nconsecrated by putting into their hands the parts of the sacrifice\nwhich were to be presented to God on the altar (Exod. xxviii. 41,\nxxix. 9-35; Lev. viii. 27).\n\n[470] Such is the true reading. The \"Manasseh\" of our existing\ntext is a Jewish falsification of the text timidly and tentatively\nintroduced to protect the memory of Moses (see Judg. xviii. 26 ff.).\n\n[471] For the sanctity of Bethel, \"House of God,\" where God had twice\nappeared to Jacob, see Gen. xxviii. 11-19, xxxv. 9-15. The Ark had\nonce rested there under Phinehas (Judg. xx. 26-28), and it had been\nthe home of Samuel (1 Sam. vii. 16). Dan, too, was \"a holy city\"\n(Judg. xviii. 30, 31; Tobit i. 5, 6). In 1 Kings xii. 30 (\"the people\nwent to worship before the one, even unto Dan\") some words may have\ndropped out. Klostermann adds, \"and neglected Bethel\"; but is that\nthe fact? The LXX. adds, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f32\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f07\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5. On the other\nhand, the clause has been taken to imply the opposite--_i.e._, that\neven as far as Dan some were found who went in preference to Bethel,\n\"the king's chapel\" (Amos vii. 13). In 1 Kings xii. 28 the fairer\nrendering would be, \"These are thy _God_,\" not \"gods.\"\n\n[472] Lev. xxiii. 39. There is no hint about the other two annual\nfeasts of Passover and Pentecost. Josephus implies that Jeroboam's\nfeast was in the _seventh_ month, as in Judah (_Antt._, VIII. viii. 5).\n\n[473] 2 Sam. iv. 7.\n\n[474] Conceivably there may have been a reference to the heraldic\nsign of Ephraim (Deut. xxxiii. 17), as Klostermann supposes.\n\n[475] Exod. xx. 23, xxxii. 4, 8. See Professor Paul Cassel, _K\u00f6nig\nJeroboam_, p. 6. The identity of Jeroboam's words with Exod. xxxii. 4\nmay be due to the narrator.\n\n[476] It has been considered probable that he found an additional\nsanction for these material symbols in an ancient existing image at\nGilgal, to which there may be obscure allusion in the Prophet Hosea\n(iv. 15, ix. 15).\n\n[477] See 2 Chron. xi. 15, where the chronicler in his flaming hatred\ncalls them devils (_i.e._, \"satyrs,\" _Feldt\u00e4ufel_, Isa. xiii. 21;\ncomp. Hosea viii. 5, xiii. 2). They were probably two young bulls of\nbrass overlaid with gold (see Psalm cvi. 19; Isa. xl. 19).\n\n[478] Tobit i. 5.\n\n[479] \u1f29 \u03b4\u03ac\u03bc\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 \u0392\u03ac\u03b1\u03bb. If this be the right reading, not \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2,\nthe feminine implies special scorn, either implying \u1f21 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03c7\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\n(_Bosheth_), or pointing, as Baudissin thinks, to an androgynous\ndeity. Gr\u00e4tz thinks that \"Bethel\" may be the true reading.\n\n[480] Josh. xxiv. 1; 1 Sam. x. 19; 2 Sam. v. 1-3; 1 Kings viii. 1-5, 62.\n\n[481] Vilmar.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XXVII.\n\n                    _JEROBOAM, AND THE MAN OF GOD._\n\n                          1 KINGS xiii. 1-34.\n\n    \"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether\n    they are of God.\"--1 JOHN iv. 1.\n\n    \"\u039f\u1f50 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f14\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u1fc3 \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ad\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\n    \u03c4\u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03cd\u03c3\u1fc3.\"--THEODORET.\n\n\nWe are told that Jeroboam, whose position probably made him restless\nand insecure, first built or fortified Shechem, and then went across\nthe Jordan and established another palace and stronghold at Penuel.\nAfter this he shifted his residence once more to the beautiful town\nof Tirzah,[482] where he built for himself the palace which Zimri\nafterwards burnt over his own head. Although the prophet Shemaiah\nforbade Rehoboam's attempt to crush him in a great war, Jeroboam\nremained at war with him and Abijah all his life, till his reign of\ntwo-and-twenty troubled years ended apparently by a sudden death--for\nthe chronicler says that \"the Lord struck him, and he died.\"\n\nNearly all that we know of Jeroboam apart from these incidental\nnotices is made up of two stories, both of which are believed by\ncritics to date from a long subsequent age, but which the compiler of\nthe Book of Kings introduced into his narrative from their intrinsic\nforce and religious instructiveness.\n\nThe first of these stores tells us of the only spontaneous prophetic\nprotest against his proceedings of which we read. So ancient is this\ncurious narrative that tradition had entirely forgotten the names of\nthe two prophets concerned in it. It probably assumed shape from the\ndim local reminiscences evoked in the days of Josiah's reformation,\nwhen the grave of a forgotten prophet of Judah was discovered among\nthe tombs at Bethel, three hundred and twenty years after the events\ndescribed.\n\nA nameless man of God--Josephus calls him Jadon, and some have\nidentified him with Iddo[483]--came out of Judah to atone for the\nsilence of Israel, and to protest in God's name against the new\nworship. His protest, however, is against \"the altar.\" He does\nnot say a word about the golden calves. Jeroboam, perhaps, at his\ndedication festival of the king's shrine at Bethel, was standing\non the altar-slope,[484] as Solomon had done in the Temple, to\nburn incense. Suddenly the man of God appeared, and threatened to\nthe altar the destruction and desecration which subsequently fell\nupon it. We cannot be sure that some of the details are not later\nadditions supplied from subsequent events. Josephus rationalises\nthe story very absurdly in the style of Paulus. The sign of the\ndestruction or rending of the altar, and the outpouring of the\nashes,[485] may have been first fulfilled in that memorable\nearthquake which became a date in Israel.[486] The desecration which\nit received at the hands of Josiah reminded men of the threat of\nthe unknown messenger.[487] Then we are told that Jeroboam raised\nhis hand in anger, with the order to secure the bold offender, but\nthat his arm at once \"dried up,\" and was only restored by the man\nof God[488] at the king's entreaty. The king invites the prophet to\ngo home and refresh himself and receive a reward; but he replies\nthat not half Jeroboam's house could tempt him to break the command\nwhich he had received to eat no bread neither drink water at Bethel.\nAn old Israelite prophet was living at Bethel, and his son told\nhim what had occurred. Struck with admiration by the faithfulness\nof the southern man of God, he rode after him to bring him to his\nhouse. He found him seated under \"the terebinth\"--evidently some aged\nand famous tree. When he refused the renewed invitation, the old\nman lyingly said to him that he too was a man of God, and had been\nbidden by an angel to bring him back. Deceived, perhaps too easily\ndeceived, the man of God from Judah went back. It would have been\nwell for him if he had believed that even \"an angel of God,\" or what\nmay seem to wear such a semblance, may preach a false message, and\nmay deserve nothing but an anathema.[489] With terrible swiftness\nthe delusion was dispelled. While he was eating in Bethel, the old\nprophet, overcome by an impulse of inspiration, told him that for his\ndisobedience he should perish and lie in a strange grave. Accordingly\nhe had not gone far from Bethel when a lion met and killed him, not,\nhowever, mangling or devouring him, but standing still with the ass\nbeside the carcase.[490] On hearing this the old prophet of Bethel\nwent and brought back the corpse. He mourned over his victim with the\ncry, \"Alas, my brother,\"[491] and bade his sons that when he died\nthey should bury him in the same sepulchre with the man of God, for\nall that he had prophesied should come to pass.\n\nJosephus adds many idle touches to this story. If in a tale which\nassumed its present form so long after the events imaginative details\nwere introduced, the incident of the lion subserves the moral aim of\nthe narrative (2 Kings xvii. 25; Jer. xxv. 30, xlix. 19; Wisdom xi.\n15-17, etc.). The significance of the story for us is happily neither\nhistoric nor evidential, but it is profoundly moral. It is the lesson\nnot to linger in the neighbourhood of temptation, nor to be dilatory\nin the completion of duty.[492] It is the lesson to be ever on our\nguard against the tendency to assume inspired sanction for the conduct\nand opinions which coincide with our own secret wishes. Satan finds\nit easy to secure our credence when he answers us according to our\nidols, and can quote Scripture for our purpose as well as his own; and\nGod sometimes punishes men by granting them their own desires, and\nsending leanness withal into their bones. The man of God from Judah\nhad received a distinct injunction from which the invitation of a king\nhad been insufficient to shake him. If the old prophet wilfully lied,\nhis victim was willingly seduced. We may think his sin venial, his\npunishment excessive. It will not seem so unless we unduly extenuate\nhis sin and unduly exaggerate the nature of his penalty.\n\nHis sin consisted in his ready acceptance of a sham inspiration\nwhich came to him from a tainted source, and which he ought to have\nsuspected because it conceded what he desired. God's indisputable\nintimations to our individual souls are not to be set aside except\nby intimations no less indisputable. There had been an obvious reason\nfor the command which God had given. The reason still existed; the\nprohibition had not been withdrawn. The sham revelation furnished\nhim with an excuse; it did not give him a justification. Doubtless\nJadon's first thought was that\n\n          \"He lied in every word,\n           That hoary prophet, with malicious eye,\n           Askance to watch the working of his lie.\"\n\nWhy did he yield so readily? It was for the same reason which causes\nso many to sin. \"The tempting opportunity\" did but meet, as sooner or\nlater it always _will_ meet, \"the susceptible disposition.\"\n\nYet his punishment does not justify us in branding him as a weak or a\nvicious man. We must judge him and all men, at his best, not at his\nworst; in his hours of faithfulness and splendid courage, not in his\nmoment of unworthy acquiescence.\n\nAnd his speedy punishment was his best blessing. Who knows what might\nnot have happened to him if the speck of conventionality and corruption\nhad been allowed to spread? Who can tell whether in due time he might\nnot have sunk into something no better than his miserable tempter?\nRather than that we should be in any respect false to our loftiest\nideals, or less noble than our better selves, let the lion meet us,\nlet the tower of Siloam fall on us, let our blood be mingled with our\nsacrifices. Better physical death than spiritual degeneracy.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[482] Now Talura, six miles north of Nablus.\n\n[483] So, too, Jarchi. No doubt they were guided by the remark in 2\nChron. ix. 29, \"the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam.\" But\nit is not possible, for Iddo lived to a later date (2 Chron. xiii.\n22). Ephrem Syrus and Tertullian suppose him to have been Shemaiah\n(comp. 2 Chron. xii. 5). These are untenable guesses. Epiphanius\ncalls him Joas; Clement, Abd-adonai; Tertullian, Sameas.\n\n[484] Not \"_by_ the altar,\" as in A.V. LXX., \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd;\nVulg., _super altare_.\n\n[485] The ashes of the animal offerings (\u05d3\u05b6\u05bc\u05e9\u05b6\u05c1\u05df) used to be carried\naway to a clean place (Lev. vi. 11).\n\n[486] Amos ix. 1. The Vatican LXX. distinctly makes the sign a\n_future_ one (1 Kings xiii. 3), \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u1fc3 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2.\nThe narrative seems to _suppose_, but it does not assert that the\naltar was rent _then and there_. Had these miracles immediately\nfollowed, it is difficult to imagine that no deeper impression should\nhave been made. As it was the new cult does not seem to have been\ninterrupted for a single day.\n\n[487] The mention by name of a king three centuries before he was even\nborn is wholly alien from every characteristic of Jewish prophecy,\nand, as in the case of Cyrus (Isa. xliv. 28), it would be false to say\nthat we have even a particle of evidence to show that the name was not\nadded from a marginal gloss or by the latest redactor. He also makes\nthe mistake of putting into the old prophet's mouth the phrase \"all the\ncities of Samaria\" at least fifty years before Samaria existed (1 Kings\nxvi. 24). Keil's remark that \"_Josiah_\" is only used appellatively for\none whom Jehovah will support (!) is one of the miserable expedients of\nreckless harmonists. Even B\u00e4hr, _ad loc._, admits that the narrative\nis of later date, and has received a traditional colouring. In 2 Kings\nxxiii. 15-18 there is no hint that Josiah had been prophesied of by\nname.\n\n[488] 1 Kings xiii. 6, \"Intreat now\" (_lit._, \"make soft\") \"the face\nof the Lord.\" Klostermann, \"Bes\u00e4nftige noch das Angesicht Jahve's.\"\n\n[489] Gal. i. 8.\n\n[490] Klostermann, in his _Kurzgefasster Kommentar_, gets rid of the\nlion altogether by one of his sweeping emendations of the text, p.\n352. He considers that the whole story comes from a book of edifying\nanecdotes for the use of young prophets in the schools; and that it\nmay have some connexion with the threat of another Jewish prophet\nagainst the altar at Bethel in the days of another Jeroboam (Amos\niii. 14, vii. 9).\n\n[491] Comp. Jer. xxii. 18.\n\n[492] The older expositors at any rate see in the prophet's rest\nunder the terebinth, so near Bethel, \"peccati initium; moras utique\nnectere non debuit.\" It was like Eve's lingering near the place where\ntemptation lay.\n\n\n\n\n                            CHAPTER XXVIII.\n\n                     _DOOM OF THE HOUSE OF NEBAT._\n\n                         1 KINGS xiv. 1-20.[493]\n\n          \"Whom the gods love die young.\"\n\n          \"\u03a4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd; \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03cc\u03b8\u03b7.\"--EPICTET.\n\n\nThe other story about Jeroboam is full of pathos; and though here,\ntoo, there are obvious signs that, in its present form, it could\nhardly have come from a contemporary source, it doubtless records an\nhistoric tradition. It is missing in the Septuagint, though in some\ncopies the blank is supplied from Aquila's version.\n\nJeroboam was living with his queen at Tirzah when, as a judgment on\nhim for his neglect of the Divine warning, his eldest and much loved\nson, Abijah, fell sick. Torn with anxiety the king asked his wife to\ndisguise herself that she might not be recognised on her journey,\nand to go to Shiloh, where Ahijah the prophet lived,[494] to inquire\nabout the dear youth's fate. \"Take with you,\" he said, \"as a present\nto the prophet ten loaves, and some little cakes for the prophet's\nchildren,[495] and a cruse of honey.\"\n\nJeroboam remembered that Ahijah's former prophecy had been fulfilled,\nand believed that he would again be able to reveal the future, and\nsay whether the heir to the throne would recover. The queen obeyed;\nand if she were indeed the Egyptian princess Ano, it must have been\nfor her a strange experience. Through the winding valley, she reached\nthe home of the aged prophet unrecognised. But he had received a\nDivine intimation of her errand; and though his eyes were now blind\nwith the _gutta serena_,[496] he at once addressed her by name when\nhe heard the sound of her approaching footsteps. The message which\nhe was bidden to pronounce was utterly terrible; it was unrelieved\nby a single gleam of mitigation or a single expression of pity. It\nreproached and denounced Jeroboam for faithless ingratitude in that\nhe had cast God behind his back;[497] it threatened hopeless and\nshameful extermination to all his house.[498] His dynasty should be\nswept away like dung. The corpses of his children should be left\nunburied and be devoured by vultures and wild dogs.[499] The moment\nthe feet of the queen reached her house the youth should die, and\nthis bereavement, heavy as it was, should be the sole act of mercy in\nthe tragedy, for it should take away Abijah from the dreadful days\nto come, because in him alone of the House of Jeroboam had God seen\nsomething good. The avenger should be a new king, and all this should\ncome to pass \"even now.\"[500]\n\nThis speech of the prophet is given in a rhythmical form, and has\nprobably been mingled with later touches. It falls into two strophes\n(7-11, 12-16) of 3 + 2 and 2 + 3 verses.[501] The expressions \"thou\nhast done above _all that were before thee_, for thou hast gone\nand made thee _other gods_\" (verse 9) hardly suits the case of\nJeroboam; and the omission by the LXX. of the prophecy of Israel's\nultimate captivity, together with the treatment of the prophecy by\nJosephus, throw some doubt on verses 9, 15, and 16.[502] They seem to\ncharge Jeroboam with sanctioning _Asherim_, or wooden images of the\nNature-goddess Asherah, of which we read in the history of Judah,\nbut which are never mentioned in the acts of Jeroboam, and do not\naccord with his avowed policy. These may possibly be due to the forms\nwhich the tradition assumed in later days.\n\nThe awful prophecy was fulfilled. As the hapless mother set foot on the\nthreshold of her palace at beautiful Tirzah the young prince died, and\nshe heard the wail of the mourners for him.[503] He alone was buried in\nthe grave of his fathers, and Israel mourned for him. He was evidently\na prince of much hope and promise, and the deaths of such princes have\nalways peculiarly affected the sympathy of nations. We know in Roman\nhistory the sigh which arose at the early death of Marcellus:--\n\n          \"Ostendent terris hunc tantum fata neque ultra\n           Esse sinent. Nimium vobis, Romana propago,\n           Visa potens, superi, propria h\u00e6c si dona fuissent,\n           Heu miserande puer, si qua fata aspera rumpas\n           Tu Marcellus eris.\"[504]\n\nWe know the remark of Tacitus as he contemplates the deaths of\nGermanicus, Caius, and Drusus, Piso Licinianus, Britannicus, and Titus,\n\"_breves atque infaustos Populi Romani amores_.\" We know how, when\nPrince William was drowned in the _White Ship_, Henry of England never\nsmiled again; and how the nation mourned the deaths of Prince Alfonso,\nof the Black Prince, of Prince Arthur, of Prince Henry, of the Princess\nCharlotte, of the Duke of Clarence and Avondale. But these untimely\ndeaths of youths in their early bloom, before their day,\n\n          \"Impositique rogis juvenes ante ora parentum,\"\n\nare not half so deplorable as the case of those who have grown up\nlike Nero to blight every hope which has been formed of them. When\nLouis le _Bien-Aim\u00e9_ lay ill of the fever at Metz which seemed likely\nto be fatal, all France wept and prayed for him. He recovered, and\ngrew up to be that portent of selfish boredom and callous sensuality,\nLouis XV. It was better that Abijah should die than that he should\nlive to be overwhelmed in the shameful ruin which soon overtook his\nhouse. It was better far that he should die than that he should grow\nup to frustrate the promise of his youth. He was beckoned by the\nhand of God \"because in him was found some good thing towards the\nLord God of Israel.\" We are not told wherein the goodness consisted,\nbut Rabbinic tradition guessed that in opposition to his father he\ndiscountenanced the calf-worship and encouraged and helped the people\nto continue their visits to Jerusalem. Such a king might indeed\nhave recovered the whole kingdom, and have dispossessed David's\ndegenerate line. But it was not to be. The fiat against Israel had\ngone forth, though a long space was to intervene before it was\nfulfilled. And God's fiats are irrevocable, because with Him there is\nno changeableness neither shadow of turning.\n\n          \"The moving finger writes, and, having writ,\n           Moves on; nor all thy piety nor wit\n           Shall lure it back to cancel half a line,\n           Nor all thy tears wash out a word of it.\"\n\nBut the passage about Abijah has a unique preciousness, because it\nstands alone in Scripture as an expression of the truth that early\ndeath is no sign at all of the Divine anger, and that the length or\nbrevity of life are matters of little significance to God, seeing\nthat, at the best, the longest life is but as one tick of the clock\nin the eternal silence. The promise to filial obedience, \"that thy\ndays may be long,\" in the Fifth Commandment is primarily national;\nand although undoubtedly \"length of days\" then, as now, was regarded\nas a blessing,[505] yet the blessing is purely relative, and wholly\nincommensurate with others which affect the character and the life to\ncome. This passage may be the consolation of many thousands of hearts\nthat ache for some dear lost child. \"Is it well with the child?\" \"It is\nwell!\" The story of Cleobis and Biton shows how fully the wisest of the\nancients had recognised the truth that early death may be a boon of God\nto save His children from being snared in the evil days. \"Honourable\nage,\" says the Book of Wisdom, \"is not that which standeth in length of\ntime, nor that is measured by number of years. But wisdom is the grey\nhair unto men, and an unspotted life is old age. He pleased God, and\nwas beloved of Him: so that living among sinners he was translated.\nYea, speedily was he taken away, lest that wickedness should alter his\nunderstanding, or deceit beguile his soul.... He, being made perfect\nin a short time, fulfilled a long time: for his soul pleased the Lord:\ntherefore He hastens to take him away from among the wicked.\"[506] It\nis the truth so beautifully expressed by Seneca: \"_Vita non quam diu\nsed quam bene acta refert_\"; by St. Ambrose: \"_Perfecta est \u00e6tas, ubi\nperfecta est virtus_\"; by Shakspeare:--\n\n                    \"The good die early,\n          And they whose hearts are dry as summer dust\n          Burn to the socket;\"\n\nand by Ben Jonson:--\n\n          \"It is not growing like a tree\n           In bulk, doth make man better be:\n           Or standing long an oak, three hundred year,\n           To fall, a log at last, dry, bald, and sere:\n                 A lily of a day\n                 Is fairer far in May,\n           Although it fall and die that night--\n           It was the plant and flower of Light.\n           In small proportions we just beauties see,\n           And in short measures life may perfect be.\"\n\nIt is recorded also on the tomb of a gallant youth, in Westminster\nAbbey, \"Francis Holles, who died at eighteen years of age after noble\ndeeds\":--\n\n          \"Man's life is measured by the work, not days;\n           Not aged sloth, but active youth, hath praise.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[493] \"'Whom the gods love die young' was said of yore\" (Byron). It\nwas said by Menander: \"\u1f4b\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b8\u03bd\u03ae\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bd\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2\"; and by\nPlautus: \"Quem dii diligunt, adolescens moritur\" (_Bacch._, iv. 7,\n18). A similar thought is found in Plutarch, in St. Chrysostom, and\nmany others.\n\n[494] Ahijah had not followed the example of the Levites and pious\npersons who, the chronicler says, went in numbers to the Southern\nKingdom.\n\n[495] Nikuddim (only elsewhere in Josh. ix. 5-12); LXX., \u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2;\nVulg., _crustula_; A.V., \"cracknels.\" They were some sort of cakes.\nPresents to prophets were customary (see 1 Sam. ix. 7, 8; 1 Kings\nxiii. 7; 2 Kings v. 5, viii. 8, 9).\n\n[496] Heb., \"His eyes stood\" (comp. 1 Sam. iv. 15). It seems to imply\n_amaurosis_.\n\n[497] This tremendous expression only occurs elsewhere in Ezek.\nxxiii. 35; but comp. Psalm l. 17; Neh. ix. 26.\n\n[498] The coarse expression of 1 Kings xiv. 10 (1 Sam. xxv. 22; 2\nKings ix. 8) means \"every male.\" The phrase \"him that is shut up\nand him that is left in Israel\" (Deut. xxxii. 36) is obscure and\nalliterative. It has been variously explained to mean, (1) \"bond and\nfree,\" (2) \"imprisoned or released,\" (3) \"kept in by legal impurity\nor at large\" (Jer. xxxvi. 5), (4) \"under or over age,\" (5) \"married\nor unmarried.\" (Reuss renders the paronomasia, \"qu'il soit cach\u00e9\nou l\u00e2ch\u00e9 en Israel.\") LXX. \u1f10\u03c7\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd; Vulg.\n_clausum et novissimum_.\n\n[499] In ancient days this was regarded as the most terrible of\ncalamities.\n\n          \"\u1f08\u03bb\u03bb' \u1f04\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03cc\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5 \u03ba\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f30\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03b4\u03b1\u03c8\u03b1\u03bd\n           \u039a\u03b5\u03af\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03af\u1ff3 \u1f11\u03ba\u1f70\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u03ad \u03ba\u03ad \u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b9\u03bd\n           \u039a\u03bb\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u0390\u03ac\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd\u00b7 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b1 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u03b1 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd.\"\n                                             Hom., _Od._, iii. 258.\n\nComp. Deut. xxviii. 26; 1 Sam. xvii. 44, 45. And after in Jeremiah\n(vii. 33, viii. 2, ix. 22, etc.) and Ezekiel (xxix. 5, xxxix. 17, etc.).\n\n[500] 1 Kings xiv. 14: \"That day: but what? even now.\"\n\n[501] It is almost identical with the message of doom pronounced on\nother kings, like Baasha (1 Kings xvi. 3-5) and Ahab (1 Kings xxi.\n19-23).\n\n[502] Ewald pronounces them to be clearly an addition of the\nDeuteronomist.\n\n[503] LXX., \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03b3\u1fc6\u03bd \u03a3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c1\u03ac. The additions to the LXX. have the\ntouching incident, \"\u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ad\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03a3\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c1\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03be\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f21 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c5\u03b3\u1f74 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ae\u03bd.\"\n\n[504] Verg., _\u00c6n._, vi. 870.\n\n[505] See Job xii. 12; Psalm xxi. 4; Prov. iii. 2-16.\n\n[506] Wisdom iv. 8-14.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XXIX.\n\n                         _NADAB; BAASHA; ELAH._\n\n                        1 KINGS xv. 25-xvi. 10.\n\n    \"Wheresoever the carcase is, there will the vultures be gathered\n    together.\"--MATT. xxiv. 28.\n\n\nJeroboam slept with his fathers and went to his own place, leaving\nbehind him his dreadful epitaph upon the sacred page. His son Nadab\nsucceeded him. In his reign of twenty-two years the first king of\nIsrael had outlived Rehoboam and his son Abijah. Asa, the great\ngrandson of Solomon, was already on the throne of Judah. Of Nadab we\nare told next to nothing. The appreciation of the kings of Israel\ntends to drift into the meagre formula that they did that which was\nevil in the sight of the Lord, and walked in the way of Jeroboam,\nthe son of Nebat, and in his sin wherewith he caused Israel to sin.\nIn the second year of his reign Nadab was engaged in a wearisome\nmilitary expedition against Gibbethon in the Shephelah, which\nbelonged to the Philistines. It was a Levitical city in the tribe\nof Dan, which had been assigned to the Kohathites, and its siege\ncontinued for twenty-seven years with no apparent result.[507] That\nthe Philistines, who had been so utterly crushed by David and who\nwere an insignificant power, should have thus been able to assert\nthemselves once more, is a proof of the weakness to which Israel had\nbeen reduced. While Nadab was thus occupied, an obscure conspirator,\nBaasha, son of Ahijah, of the tribe of Issachar,[508] actuated\nperhaps by tribal jealousy, or stirred up as Jeroboam had been before\nhim and as Jehu was after him by some prophetic message, conspired\nagainst him, and slew him.[509] As soon as this military revolt had\nplaced Baasha on the throne he fulfilled the frightful curse which\nAhijah had uttered against the House of Jeroboam. He absolutely\nexterminated the family of Nebat, and left him neither kinsman nor\nfriend to avenge his death. He seems to have been a powerful soldier,\nand he inflicted severe humiliation on the Southern Kingdom until\nAsa bribed Benhadad to invade his territory. He reigned at Tirzah\nfor twenty-four years, of which nothing is recorded but the ordinary\nformula. Towards the close of his reign he received from the prophet\nJehu, the son of Hanani, the message of his doom. Jehu must have\nbeen at this time a young prophet. According to the Chronicles\nhis father Hanani rebuked Asa for the alliance which (as we shall\nsee) he made with the Syrian against Baasha;[510] and he himself\nrebuked Jehoshaphat for his alliance with Ahab, and lived to be his\nannalist.[511] Like Amos, he lived in Judah, but prophesied also\nagainst a king of Israel. He told Baasha that God, who had exalted\nhim out of the dust to be king of Israel, should inflict on his\nfamily the same terrible extirpation which He had inflicted on the\nHouse of Jeroboam, whose sins he had, nevertheless, followed.\n\nBaasha \"slept with his fathers,\" and his son Elah succeeded him.\nElah seems to have been an incapable drunkard, and reigned in Tirzah\nfor less than two years. While he was drinking himself drunk, not\neven secretly in his own palace, but in the house of his chamberlain\nArza--a shamelessness which was regarded as an aggravation of his\noffence[512]--he was murdered by Zimri, the captain of half of his\nchariots, and the revolting tragedy of massacre was enacted once\nagain.[513] The fact that Baasha was a man of no distinction, but\n\"exalted _out of the dust_\" (1 Kings xvi. 2), probably added to the\nweakness of his dynasty.\n\nFrom such meagre records of horror there is not much to learn beyond\nthe general truth of the Nemesis which dogs the heels of crime; but\nthere is one significant clause which throws great light on the\njudgment which we are asked to form of these events. The prophet Jehu\nrebukes Baasha for showing himself false to the destiny to which\nGod had summoned him. He implies, therefore, that Baasha had some\nDivine sanction for the revolution which he headed; and certainly\nin his slaughter of the House of Jeroboam he was the instrument of\na Divine decree. Yet we are expressly told that \"he provoked the\nLord to anger with the work of his hands, in being like the House of\nJeroboam, _and because he killed him_,\" or, as it is rendered in the\nRevised Version margin, \"_because he smote it_.\" This is not the only\nplace where we find that a man may be in _one sense_ commissioned\nto do a deed of blood, yet in another sense may be held guilty for\nfulfilment of the commission.[514] The prophecy of extirpation had\nbeen passed, but the cruel agent of its accomplishment was not\nthereby condoned. God's decrees are carried out as part of the vast\nscheme of Providence, and He may use guilty hands to fulfil His\npurposes. King Jehu is His minister of vengeance, but the tiger-like\nferocity with which he carried out his work awoke God's anger and\nreceived God's punishment. The King of Babylon fulfils the purpose\nfor which he had been appointed, but his ruthlessness receives its\njust recompense. The wrath of man may accomplish the decrees of God,\nbut it worketh not His righteousness. Herod and Pontius Pilate, Jews\nand Gentiles, priests and Pharisees, rulers and the mob may rage\nagainst Christ, but all they can accomplish is \"whatsoever God's hand\nand God's counsel determine before to be done.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[507] Josh. xix. 44, xxi. 23; 1 Kings xv. 27, xvi. 15.\n\n[508] His father therefore could not have been Ahijah the prophet,\nwho was an Ephraimite. He was the only ruler who came from slothful\nIssachar (Gen. xlix. 14, 15) except the unknown Tola (Judg. x. 1).\n\n[509] For any other records of Nadab the writer refers to \"the\nChronicles of the Kings of Israel.\"\n\n[510] 2 Chron. xvi. 7-10.\n\n[511] 2 Chron. xx. 34.\n\n[512] Comp. Hosea vii. 3-7.\n\n[513] If Zimri was a descendant of the House of Saul, as is possible\nfrom the occurrence of the name in the number of Saul's descendants\n(1 Chron. viii. 36), we perhaps see an excuse for his ill-considered\nconspiracy. He acted, says Grotius, upon the principle, \"\u039d\u03ae\u03c0\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f43\u03c2\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c5\u03b9\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9.\"\n\n[514] Comp. 2 Kings ix. 7 with Hosea i. 4. Thus Babylon is at once\ncommissioned to punish, and condemned for ruthlessness: Isa. xlvii. 6.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XXX.\n\n                     _THE EARLIER KINGS OF JUDAH._\n\n                     1 KINGS xiv. 21-31, xv. 1-24.\n\n\nThe history of \"_the Jews_\" begins, properly speaking, from the reign\nof Rehoboam, and for four centuries it is mainly the history of the\nDavidic dynasty.\n\nThe only records of the son of Solomon are meagre records of\ndisaster and disgrace. He reigned seventeen years, and his mother,\nthe Ammonitess Naamah, occupied the position of queen-mother.[515]\nShe was, doubtless, a worshipper in the shrine which Solomon had\nbuilt for her national god, Molech of Ammon, who was the same as the\nAshtar-Chemosh of the Moabite stone--the male form of Ashtoreth.[516]\nWhether her son was twenty-one or forty-one when he succeeded to the\nthrone we do not know.[517] His attempted expedition against Jeroboam\nwas forbidden by Shemaiah;[518] but ineffectual and distressing\nwar smouldered on between the Northern and Southern Kingdoms. If\nJeroboam sinned by the erection in the old sanctuaries of the two\ngolden calves, Rehoboam surely sinned far more heinously. He not\nonly sanctioned the high places--which in him may have been very\nvenial, since they held their own unchallenged till the days of\nHezekiah--but he allowed stone obelisks (_Matstseboth_) in honour of\nBaal, and pillars (_Chammanim_) of the Nature-goddess (_Asherah_)\nto be set up on every high hill and under every green tree.[519]\nWorse than this, and a proof of the abyss of corruption into which\nthe evil example of Solomon had beguiled the nation, there were\nfound in the land the _Kedeshim_, the infamous eunuch-ministers of\na most foul worship.[520] In spite of Temple and priesthood, \"they\ndid according to all the abominations of the nations which the Lord\ndrave out before the children of Israel.\"[521] Since Rehoboam thus\nsinned so much more heinously than his northern compeer we can hardly\nadmire the conduct of the Levites, who, according to the chronicler,\nfled southward in swarms from the innovations of the son of Nebat.\nThe Scylla of calf-worship was incomparably less shameful than the\nCharybdis of these heathen abominations.\n\nSuch atrocities could not be left unpunished. Where the carcase is\nthe eagles will gather. In the fifth year of Rehoboam, Shishak, King\nof Egypt,[522] put an end to the shortlived glories of the age of\nSolomon. Of his reason for invading Palestine we know nothing. It\nwas probably mere ambition and the love of plunder, stimulated by\nstories which Jeroboam may have brought to him about the inexhaustible\nriches of Jerusalem. He is the first Pharaoh whose individuality was\nso marked as to transcend and replace the common dynastic name.[523]\nHe was astute enough to seize the opportunity of self-aggrandisement\nwhich offered itself when Jeroboam took refuge at his court; but\nthe conjecture that former friendly relations induced Jeroboam to\ninvite the services of Shishak for the destruction of his rival, is\nrendered impossible if Egyptologists have correctly deciphered the\nsplendid memorial of his achievements which he twice carved on the\ngreat Temple of Amon at Karnak. There the most conspicuous figure is\nthe colossal likeness of the king. His right hand holds a sword;[524]\nhis left grasps by the hair a long line which passes round the necks\nof a troop of thirty-eight mean and diminutive Jewish captives. The\nsmaller figure of the god Amon leads other strings of one hundred and\nthirty-three captives, and the third king from his left hand bears a\nname which Champollion deciphered _Yudeh-Malk_, which he took to mean\nKing of Judah.[525] If the interpretation were correct, we should\nhere have a picture of the son of Solomon. On the other figures are\nthe names of the cities of which they were kings or sheykhs. Among\nthese are not only the names of southern towns, like Ibleam, Gibeon,\nBethhoron, Ajalon, Mahanaim, but even of Canaanite and Levitic cities\nin the Northern Kingdom, including Taanach and Megiddo.[526] Shashonq\n(as the monuments call him) came with a huge and motley army of many\nnationalities, among whom were Libyans, Troglodytes, and Ethiopians.\nThis host was composed of twelve hundred chariots, sixty thousand\nhorsemen, and a numberless infantry of mercenaries. Such an invasion,\nthough it was little more than an insulting military parade and\npredatory incursion, rendered resistance impossible, especially to a\npeople enervated by luxury. Shishak came, saw,--and plundered. His\nchief spoil was taken from the poor dishonoured Temple and the king's\npalace.[527] Judah specially grieved for the loss of the shields of\ngold which hung on the cedar pillars of the house of the forest of\nLebanon,[528]--apparently both those which Solomon had made, and those\nwhich David had consecrated from the spoils of Hadadezer, King of\nZobah.[529] Perhaps a great soul would hardly have been consoled by\nputting mean substitutes in their place. Rehoboam, however, made bronze\nimitations of them in the guard-room,[530] and marched in pomp to the\nTemple preceded by his meanly armed runners,[531] \"as though everything\nwas the same as before.\" \"The bitter irony with which the sacred\nhistorian records the parade of these counterfeits,\" says Stanley, \"may\nbe considered as the keynote to this whole period. They well represent\nthe 'brazen shields' by which fallen churches and kingdoms have\nendeavoured to conceal from their own and their neighbours' eyes that\nthe golden shields of Solomon have passed away from them.\"[532] The age\nof pinchbeck follows the age of gold, and a Louis XV. succeeds Le Grand\nMonarque.[533]\n\nRehoboam had many sons, and he \"wisely\" (2 Chron. xi. 23) gave them,\nby way of maintenance, the governorship of his fenced cities. That \"he\nsought for them a multitude of wives\" was perhaps a stroke of worldly\npolicy, but an unwise and unworthy one. But their little courts and\ntheir little harems may have helped to keep them out of mischief. They\nmight otherwise have destroyed each other by mutual jealousies.\n\nRehoboam was succeeded by his son Abijam. There is a little doubt\nas to the exact name of this king. The Book of Chronicles calls him\nAbijah,[534] but in 1 Kings xv. 1, 7, 8, he is called Abijam.[535]\nAs the curious form Abijam seems to be unmeaning, it has been\nprecariously conjectured that dislike to his idolatries led the Jews\nto alter a name which means \"Jehovah is my Father.\"[536] Some doubt\nalso rests on the name of his mother. She is here called \"Maacha, the\ndaughter of Abishalom,\" but in Chronicles \"Michaiah, the daughter\nof Uriel of Gibeah.\" Maachah was perhaps the _granddaughter_ of\nAbsalom, whose beautiful daughter Tamar (named after his dishonoured\nsister) may have been the wife of Uriel. In that case her name,\nMaachah, was a name given her in reminiscence of her royal descent as\na great-granddaughter of the princess of Geshur, who was mother of\nAbsalom. All sorts of secrets, however, sometimes lie behind these\nchanges of names. She was the second, but favourite wife of Rehoboam;\nand Abijam, who was not the eldest son, owed his throne to his\nfather's preference for her.[537]\n\nAll that we are here told of Abijam is that \"his heart was not\nperfect with Jehovah his God,\" and that \"he walked in all the\nsins of his father\"; though \"for David's sake his God gave him a\nlamp in Jerusalem\";[538] and that, after a brief reign of three\nyears--_i.e._, of one year and parts of two others--he slept with\nhis fathers. For \"the rest of his acts and all that he did,\" the\nhistorian refers us to the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah: he does\nnot trouble himself with military details. The chronicler, referring\nto the Commentary of Iddo,[539] adds a great deal more. Jeroboam,\nhe says, went out against him with eight hundred thousand men.\nAbijam, who had only half the number, stood on Mount Zemaraim in\nthe hill country of Ephraim,[540] and made a speech to Jeroboam and\nhis army. He reproached him with rebellion against his father when\nhe was \"young and tender-hearted,\" and with his golden calves, and\nhis non-Levitical priests. He vaunted the superiority of the Temple\npriests with their holocausts and sweet incense and shewbread and\ngolden candlestick, which priests were now with the army. Jeroboam\nsets an ambuscade, but at the shout of the men of Judah is routed\nwith a loss of five hundred thousand men, after which Abijah recovers\n\"Bethel with the towns thereof,\"[541] and Jeshanah and Ephron (or\n\"Ephraim\"), completely humbling the northern king until \"the Lord\nsmote him and he died.\" After this Abijah waxes mighty, has fourteen\nwives, twenty-two sons, and sixteen daughters.\n\nIf we had read two accounts so different, and presenting such\ninsuperable difficulties to the harmonist, in secular historians,\nwe should have made no attempt to reconcile them, but merely have\nendeavoured to find which record was the more trustworthy. If\nthe pious Levitical king of 2 Chron. xiii. be a true picture of\nthe idolater of 1 Kings xv. 3, it is clear that the accounts are\ndifficult to reconcile, unless we resort to incessant and arbitrary\nhypotheses. But the earlier authority is clearly to be preferred when\nthe two obviously conflict with each other. As it is we can only\nsay that the kings of whom the chronicler approves are, as it were,\nclericalised, and seen \"through a cloud of incense,\" all their faults\nbeing omitted. The edifying speech of Abijah, and his boast about\npurity of worship, sounds most strange on the lips of a king who--if\nhe \"walked in all the sins of his father\"--suffered his people to be\nguilty of a worship grossly idolatrous, including the toleration of\n_Bamoth_, _Chammanim_, and _Asherim_ on every high hill and under\nevery green tree; and of all the abominations of the neighbouring\nidolaters,[542]--a state of things infinitely worse than the symbolic\nJehovah-worship which Jeroboam had set up. Yet such was the strange\nsyncretism of religion in Jerusalem, of which Solomon had set the\nfatal example, that (as we learn quite incidentally) Abijah seems to\nhave dedicated certain vessels--part of his warlike spoils--to the\nservice of the Temple.[543] They were perhaps intended to supply the\ngaps left by the plundering raid of Shishak.\n\nAfter this brief and perplexing, but apparently eventful reign,\nAbijah was succeeded by his son Asa, whose long reign of forty-one\nyears was contemporary with the reigns of no less than seven kings of\nIsrael--Nadab, Baasha, Elah, Zimri, Omri, Tibni, and Ahab.\n\nWe are told that--aided perhaps by such prophets as Hanani and\nAzariah, son of Oded[544] (or Iddo)--\"he did that which was right\nin the sight of the Lord.\" Of this he gave an early, decisive, and\ncourageous proof.\n\nWhen he succeeded to the throne at an early age his grandmother\nMaachah still held the high position of queen-mother.[545] This great\nlady inherited the fame and popularity of Absalom, and was a princess\nboth of the line of David and of Tolmai, King of Geshur. She was, and\nalways had been, an open idolatress.[546] Asa began his reign with a\nreformation. He took away the contemptible idols (_Gilloolim_) which\nhis fathers had made, and suppressed the odious _Kedeshim_; or he at\nleast made a serious, if an unsuccessful, effort to do so.[547] As to\nthe high places we have a direct verbal contradiction. Here we are\ntold that \"they were not removed,\" whereas the chronicler says that\n\"he took them away out of all the cities of Judah,\" but afterwards\nthat \"the high places were not taken away out of Israel,\" in spite of\nAsa's heart being perfect all his days. The explanation would seem\nto be that he made a partial attempt to anticipate the subsequent\nreformation of Hezekiah, but was defeated by the inveteracy of popular\ncustom. He did, however, take the great step of branding with infamy\nthe impure idolatry of the queen-mother, and he degraded her from her\nrank. She had made an idol, which is significantly called \"a fright\"\nor \"a horror\" (_Miphletzeth_),[548] to serve as an emblem of the\nNature-goddess. It was probably a phallic symbol which he indignantly\ncut down, and burnt it, where all pollutions were destroyed, in the\ndry wady of the Kidron.[549] In the fifteenth year of his reign he\ndedicated in the Temple \"silver and gold and vessels,\" consecrated by\nhis father and himself for this purpose. He also restored the great\naltar in the porch of the Temple, which in the course of more than\nsixty years had fallen into neglect and disrepair.\n\nFor ten years the land had rest under this pious king, though war was\nalways smouldering between him and Baasha. In the eleventh year,\nhowever, according to the chronicler, \"Zerach the Ethiopian\"[550]\nattacked him with an army of _a million_ Sushim and Lubim and three\nhundred chariots, and suffered an immense defeat in the valley of\nZephathah, \"the watch-tower\" at Mareshah.[551] It was the sole occasion\nin sacred history in which an Israelite army met and defeated one of\nthe great world powers in open battle, and it was deemed so remarkable\na proof of Divine interposition that Asa, encouraged by the prophet\nAzariah, invited his people to renew their covenant with God.\n\nMore alarming to Asa was the action of Baasha in fortifying\nRamah[552] in the thirty-sixth year of Asa's reign. This was a\nveritable \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c7\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 of the most dangerous kind, for Ramah, in\nthe heart of Benjamin, was only five miles north of Jerusalem. If\nAbijah's signal defeat of Jeroboam and capture of Bethel, Jeshanah,\nand Ephron be historical, these towns must not only have been\nspeedily recovered, but Baasha had even pushed towards Jerusalem,\nfive miles south of Bethel. Had Ramah been left undisturbed it would\nhave been a thorn in the side of Judah, as Deceleia was in Attica,\nand Pylos in Messenia. Asa saw that the demolition of this fortress\nwas a positive necessity. Since he was too weak to effect this, he\nstripped both his own palace and the Temple of the treasures with\nwhich he had himself enriched them, and sent them as a vast bribe\nto Benhadad I., King of Damascus, begging him to renew the treaty\nwhich had existed between their fathers, and to invade the kingdom of\nBaasha. This step shows to what a depth of weakness Judah had fallen,\nfor Benhadad was a son of Tabrimmon, the son of Hezion (probably\nRezon) of Damascus;[553] so that here we have the great-grandson\nof Solomon stripping Solomon's Temple of its consecrated vessels\nwherewith to bribe the grandson of the petty rebel freebooter, whose\nwhole present kingdom had once been a part of Solomon's dominions!\nThe policy was successful. It is easy for us now to condemn it as\nunpatriotic and short-sighted, but to Asa it seemed a matter of life\nor death. Benhadad invaded Israel, and mastered its territory in the\ntribe of Naphtali, from Ijon and Abel-beth-maachah on the waters\nof Merom[554] down to Chinnereth or the Lake of Gennesareth.[555]\nBaasha in alarm abandoned his attempt to blockade Jerusalem, and\nretired to Tirzah for the protection of his own kingdom. Thereupon\nAsa proclaimed a levy of all Judah to seize and dismantle Ramah, and\nwith the ample materials which Baasha had amassed he fortified Geba\nto the north of Ramah[556] and Mizpah (probably Neby Samwyl, to the\nnorth of the Mount of Olives), where he also sank a deep well for the\nuse of the garrison.[557] He thus effectually protected the frontier\nof Benjamin. He built, as Bossuet says, \"the fortresses of Judah out\nof the ruins of those of Samaria,\" and thus set us the example of\nmaking holy use of hostile and heretical materials. We should have\nthought that the invitation of Benhadad was, in a worldly point of\nview, brilliantly successful, and that it saved the kingdom of Judah\nfrom utter ruin. It involved, however, a dangerous precedent, and\nHanani rebuked Asa for having done foolishly.\n\nAfter a powerful and useful reign Asa was attacked with gout in his\nfeet two years before his death. The chronicler reproaches him for\nseeking \"not to Jehovah but to the physicians\" in his \"exceeding\ngreat disease.\" If this was a sin, it is one of which we are unable\nto estimate the sinfulness from this meagre notice. It has been\nconjectured that it may have some reference to the name Asa, which,\nif written Asjah, might mean \"whom Jehovah heals.\"[558] It belongs,\nhowever, to the theocratic standpoint of the chronicler, who condemns\neverything which bears the aspect of a worldly policy. He slept with\nhis fathers in a tomb which he had built for himself, and was buried\nwith unusual magnificence, amid the burning of many spices.\n\nWe are not surprised that the historian should not mention the\ninvasion of Zerah, since he refers us for the wars f Asa to the Jud\u00e6an\nannals. It is much more remarkable that he wholly omits all reference\nto the prophetic activity of which the chronicler speaks as exercised\nin this reign. He had evidently formed a very high estimate of Asa,\nwith none of the shadows and drawbacks which in the later annalist\nseemed to point to a marked degeneracy of character in his later days.\nOn the favourable side the historian does not mention the high and\neulogistic encouragement which the king received from Azariah, the\nson of Oded; nor the multitude which joined him out of Israel; nor\nthe cities which he took from the hill country of Ephraim; nor his\nrestoration of the altar. He even passes over the solemn league and\ncovenant which he made with Judah and Benjamin and many members of the\nTen Tribes in his fifteenth year, at a festival celebrated with an\nimmense sacrifice, and with shouting and trumpets and cornets and a\ngreat exultant oath.[559] On the unfavourable side he does not tell us\nthat Hanani the Seer rebuked him for summoning the help of the Syrians\ninstead of relying on Jehovah; and that Asa \"was in a rage because\nof this thing, and shut up Hanani in the House of the Stocks,\" and\n\"oppressed some of the people at the same time,\" apparently because\nthey took part with the prophet.[560] For none of these events does the\nchronicler refer us to any ancient authority. They came from separate\nrecords, perhaps written in prophetic commentaries and unknown to the\ncompiler of the Kings. But whatever may have been the failings or\nshortcomings of Asa it is clear that he must be ranked among the more\neminent and righteous sovereigns of Judah.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[515] According to the LXX. she was a daughter of Hanun, son of\nNaash, King of Ammon (2 Sam. x. 1).\n\n[516] Canon Rawlinson, _Kings of Israel and Judah_.\n\n[517] 1 Kings xiv. 21. \"A boy and faint-hearted\" (2 Chron. xiii. 7).\nThe additions to the LXX. say that he was sixteen, and reigned twelve\nyears.\n\n[518] In the LXX. additions it was a little before this occasion\n(after the revolt) that \"Shemaiah the Enlamite\" tore his new cloak\nand gave ten parts to Jeroboam.\n\n[519] The _Chammanim_ were, according to some, pillars to\nBaal-Hammon. For the _Asherim_, see Deut. xvi. 21; 2 Kings xxi. 3.\nThey were wooden pillars to Asherah, and were called _Asherim_ just\nas statues of the Virgin are called \"Virgins.\" _Asheroth_ seem to\nbe various forms of the Nature-goddess herself (2 Chron. xxxiii.\n3). Asherah = \u1f48\u03c1\u03b8\u03af\u03b1. Like the other kings of Judah, Rehoboam had an\nexaggerated harem, and provided for the young princes by settling\nthem in separate cities as governors.\n\n[520] Jerome compares them to the horrible _Galli_ of the Syrian\ngoddess. LXX., \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 (\"initiated\"); Aquila, \u1f10\u03bd\u03b7\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\n(\"changed\"); Theodotion, \u03ba\u03b5\u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 (\"set apart\"); Symmachus,\n\u1f11\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2. They were also called \"dogs\" (comp. Deut. xxiii. 18).\n\n[521] According to the chronicler Rehoboam's defection only began in\nthe fourth year of his reign.\n\n[522] He was the first king of the twenty-second dynasty of Bubastis\nor Pibeseth, and succeeded about B.C. 988 in the fourteenth year of\nSolomon. The Egyptians (Manetho) called him Shesonk (Sesonsochosis)\nSasychis, Herod., ii. 136; LXX., \u03a3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03ba\u03af\u03bc; Vulg., _Sesac_.\n\n[523] He was of alien, perhaps of Assyrian, race. His family had\nsettled at Bubastis, and his grandfather had married the daughter of\nthe Pharaoh. His son Osorkhon also married the Princess Keramat, a\ndaughter of the last Tanite king. Imitating the example of Hir-hor,\nhe combined many offices, and then quietly seized the crown.\n\n[524] Brugsch, _Geogr. Inschriften alt\u00e4gyptischer Denkm\u00e4ler_, ii.\n58; Lepsius, _Denkm\u00e4ler_, iii. 252; _Story of the Nations: Egypt_,\npp. 228-307; Stade, i. 354 (who reproduces the sculptures). They\nare carved on the wall of a Temple of Amon on the southern side of\na smaller temple (built by Rameses III.). Shishak is smiting with\nhis club a number of captive Jews, whom he grasps by the hair. The\nnames of the towns and districts are paraded in two long rows, each\nname being enclosed in a shield. Amon is delivering them all to his\nbeloved son \"Shashonq.\" These smitten people are described as \"the\n_Am_ of a distant land, and the Fenekh\" (Ph\u0153nicians).\n\n[525] _Lit._, \"Judah-king.\" Brugsch thinks it is the name of a town.\nIt cannot mean, as Champollion thought, \"King of Judah.\"\n\n[526] See Shishak in _Bibl. Dict._ It is extremely difficult to\nbelieve that these cities were taken by the Egyptian army in order to\nhelp Jeroboam.\n\n[527] Josephus says that Shishak did all this \u1f00\u03bc\u03b1\u03c7\u03b7\u03c4\u1f76 (_Antt._, VIII.\nx. 2, 3), but he confuses Shishak with Sesostris (Herod., ii. 102,\n106).\n\n[528] 1 Kings x. 17.\n\n[529] LXX., 2 Sam. viii. 7; 1 Kings x. 17. A timely humiliation saved\nRehoboam from extinction, but he practically became a vassal of Egypt\n(2 Chron. xii. 5).\n\n[530] \u05ea\u05b8\u05bc\u05d0 (Ezek. xl. 7).\n\n[531] Ratzim; comp. \"_Celeres_,\" Liv., i. 14. We hear no more of\nCherethites and Pelethites. The later kings could not afford to keep\nup these mercenaries.\n\n[532] _Jewish Church_, ii. 385.\n\n[533] Renan.\n\n[534] 2 Chron. xii. 16; comp. Abiel (1 Sam. ix. 1).\n\n[535] Abijam seems to mean \"father of the sea\"; _vir maritimus_,\nGesenius.\n\n[536] So perhaps, for the same reason, Jehoahaz was shortened into\nAhaz. See Canon Rawlinson on 2 Kings xv. 38 (_Speaker's Commentary_).\nBut Simonis, _Onomasticon_, regards the final _m_ as intensive.\n\n[537] 2 Chron. xi. 18-23. Rehoboam had eighteen wives, sixty\nconcubines, twenty-eight sons, and sixty daughters. A fragment of the\n_Stemma Davidis_ may make things clearer to the reader:--\n\n                           Jesse.\n                             |\n                  +----------+------------+\n                Eliab.                  David.\n                  |                       |\n                  |                +------+--------+\n              Abihial.          Solomon.        Absalom.\n                                   |               |\n                                +--+               |\n                                |                  |\n                  Abihail = Rehoboam = Maachah.  Tamar = Uriel.\n                                     |                 |\n                                   Abijah.          Maachah.\n\nThus on both sides, as a great-grandson and great-great-grandson,\nAbijah was descended from David.\n\n[538] The lamp (LXX., \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1; in xi. 36, \u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) is the sign\nof home (1 Kings xi. 36; 2 Kings viii. 19. Comp. Psalm xviii. 28,\ncxxxii. 17). There was, as the chronicler boldly expressed it, \"a\ncovenant of salt\" between God and the House of David (2 Chron. xiii.\n5; comp. Numb. xviii. 19).\n\n[539] Chron. xiii. 22.\n\n[540] Zemaraim was in Benjamin near Bethel (Josh. xviii. 22),\napparently Kirbet _el-Szomer_ in the Jordan valley, four miles north\nof Jericho.\n\n[541] 2 Chron. xiii. 3-19. So that the golden calf and its chapel and\nits priests must, if the account be true, have fallen into his power.\nBut it does not seem to have made the least difference. It is certain\nthat \"the calf\" remained undisturbed till the days of the Assyrian\ninvasion.\n\n[542] How atrocious these \"abominations were\" may be seen from the\nPentateuch (Lev. xviii. 3-25, xx. 1-23; Deut. xviii. 6-12).\n\n[543] 1 Kings xv. 15.\n\n[544] Ewald, iv. 49.\n\n[545] Comp. the _Madame M\u00e8re_ in the French court.\n\n[546] The LXX. (Vat.) calls her Ana.\n\n[547] That it was not perfectly successful we see from 1 Kings xxii.\n46.\n\n[548] The word is an \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. It is only applied to this\ngrotesque and obscene figure (1 Kings xv. 13; 2 Chron. xv. 16).\n\n[549] 2 Kings xi. 16, xxiii. 4, 6, 12; 2 Chron. xxix. 16, xxx. 14.\nVulg., _in Sacris Priapi_. Jerome (_ad Hos._, i. 4) calls Maachah's\n\"horror\" a _Simulacrum Priapi_ (see Selden, _De Dis Syris Syntagma_,\nii. 5).\n\n[550] 2 Chron. xvi. 8. Zarkh, perhaps Osorkhon I. (O-_serek_-on,\n\"Ammon's darling\"), was the feebler successor of Shesonk, Maspero,\np. 362; Ewald, iii. 470. Shishak's army also consisted of Sushim and\nLubim (2 Chron. xii. 3).\n\n[551] The defeat had important consequences. Egypt did not again\nattack Palestine till three centuries later, under Pharaoh Nechoh\n(B.C. 609). The defeat weakened the Bubastite dynasty (Rawlinson, p.\n36), though it continued to reign for two centuries. The \"invasion\"\nmay have been a mere raid. The Pharaohs always seem to have\ndegenerated from the founders of their dynasty, both in personal\nbeauty and intellectual force.\n\n[552] Josh. xviii. 25, now Er-Ram. No great importance can be\nattached to the dates, which are often self-contradictory.\n\n[553] Ben-Hadad, \"son of Hadad,\" the Sun-god (Macrob., _Saturn_,\ni. 24). Tabrimmon, \"Rimmon is good.\" According to Sayce (_Hibbert\nLectures_, p. 42), Rimmon--an Accadian name, which became, in\nSemitic, Ramm\u00e2nu, \"the exalted\"--was identified by the Syrians with\nthe Sun-god Hadad, whom Shahmanaser called _Dada_. In Assyrian _Dadu_\n(\"dear child\") is akin to David and to Dido.\n\n[554] Ijon is probably Merj Ayion, \"the meadow of the House of\nMaachah\"; called also, Abel-maim, \"the meadow of the waters\"; \"a city\nand a mother in Israel\" (2 Sam. xx. 19); now Abil in the Ard-el-Huleh.\n\n[555] See Numb. xxxiv. 11; Josh. xiii. 27.\n\n[556] Josh. xxi. 17; 2 Kings xxiii. 8.\n\n[557] LXX., \u1f21 \u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03af\u03b1. Jer. xli. 5-9. Into this well Ishmael flung the\ncorpses of the murdered adherents of Gedaliah.\n\n[558] Renan, _Hist. du Peuple Israel_, ii. 248. Comp. Rephaiah.\n\n[559] 2 Chron. xv. 1-15.\n\n[560] 2 Chron. xvi. 9, 10.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XXXI.\n\n                             _JEHOSHAPHAT._\n\n                          1 KINGS xxii. 41-50.\n\n\nBefore we leave the House of David we must speak of Jehoshaphat,\nthe last king of Judah whose reign is narrated in the First Book of\nKings. He was abler, more powerful, and more faithful to Jehovah than\nany of his predecessors, and was alone counted worthy in later ages\nto rank with Hezekiah and Josiah among the most pious rulers of the\nDavidic line. The annals of his reign are found chiefly in the Second\nBook of Chronicles, where his story occupies four long chapters. The\nFirst Book of Kings compresses all record of him into nine verses,\nexcept so far as his fortunes are commingled with the history of\nAhab. But both accounts show us a reign which contributed as greatly\nto the prosperity of Judah as that of Jeroboam II. contributed to the\nprosperity of Israel.\n\nHe ascended the throne at the age of thirty-five. He was apparently\nthe only son of Asa, by Azubah, the daughter of Shilhi; for Asa,\ngreatly to his credit, seems to have been the first king of Judah who\nset his face against the monstrous polygamy of his predecessors, and,\nso far as we know, contented himself with a single wife. He received\nthe high eulogy that \"he turned not aside from doing that which was\nright in the eyes of the Lord,\" with the customary qualification\nthat, nevertheless, the people still burnt incense and offerings\nat the _Bamoth_, which were not taken away. The chronicler says\nthat he _did_ take them away. This stock contradiction between the\ntwo authorities must be accounted for either by a contrast between\nthe effort and its failure, or by a distinction between idolatrous\n_Bamoth_ and those dedicated to the worship of Jehovah to which the\npeople clung with the deep affection which local sanctuaries inspire.\n\nTo the historians of the Book of Kings the central fact of\nJehoshaphat's history is that \"he made peace with the King of\nIsrael.\" As a piece of ordinary statesmanship no step could have been\nmore praiseworthy. The sixty-eight years or more which had elapsed\nsince the divinely-suggested choice of Jeroboam by the Northern\nKingdom had tended to soften old exasperations. The kingdom of Israel\nwas now an established fact, and nothing had become more obvious\nthan that the past could not be undone. Meanwhile the threatening\nspectre of Syria, under the dynasty of Benhadad, was beginning to\nthrow a dark shadow over both kingdoms. It had become certain that,\nif they continued to destroy each other by internecine warfare, both\nwould succumb to the foreign invader. Wisely, therefore, and kindly\nJehoshaphat determined to make peace with Ahab, in about the eighth\nyear after his accession; and this policy he consistently maintained\nto the close of his twenty-five years' reign.\n\nNo one surely could blame him for putting an end to an exhaustive\ncivil war between brethren. Indeed, in so doing he was but carrying\nout the policy which had been dictated to Rehoboam by the prophet\nShemaiah, when he forbade him to attempt the immense expedition\nwhich he had prepared to annihilate Jeroboam. Peace was necessary to\nthe development and happiness of both kingdoms, but even more so to\nthe smaller and weaker, threatened as it was not only by the more\ndistant menace of Syria, but by the might of Egypt on the south and\nthe dangerous predatory warfare of Edom and Moab on the east.\n\nBut Jehoshaphat went further than this. He cemented the new peace by\nan alliance between his young son Jehoram and Athaliah, daughter of\nAhab and Jezebel, who was then perhaps under fifteen years of age.\n\nLater chroniclers formed their moral estimates by a standard which\ndid not exist so many centuries before the date at which they wrote.\nIf we are to judge the conduct of these kings truthfully we must\ntake an unbiassed view of their conduct. We adopt this principle\nwhen we try to understand the characters of saints and patriarchs\nlike Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or judges and prophets like Gideon,\nDeborah, and Samuel; and in general we must not sweepingly condemn\nthe holy men of old because they lacked the full illumination of the\ngospel. We must be guided by a spirit of fairness if we desire to\nform a true conception of the kings who lived in the ninth century\nbefore Christ. It is probable that the religious gulf between the\nkings of Judah and Israel was not so immense as on a superficial view\nit might appear to be; indeed, the balance seems to be in favour of\nJeroboam as against Abijam, Rehoboam, or even Solomon. The worship\nof the golden symbols at Dan and Bethel did not appear half so\nheinous to the people of Judah as it does to us. Even in the Temple\nthey had cherubim and oxen. The _Bamoth_ to Chemosh, Milcom, and\nAstarte glittered before them undisturbed on the summit of Olivet,\nand abominations which they either tolerated or could not remove\nsheltered themselves in the very precincts of the Temple, under\nthe shadows of its desecrated trees. To the pious Jehoshaphat the\ntolerance of Baal-worship by Ahab could hardly appear more deadly\nthan the tolerance of Chemosh-worship by his great-great-grandfather,\nand the permission of _Asherim_ and _Chammanim_ by his grandfather,\nto say nothing of the phallic horror openly patronised by the\nqueen-mother who was a granddaughter of David. That Ahab himself\nwas a worshipper of Jehovah is sufficiently proved by the fact that\nhe had given the name of Athaliah to the young princess whose hand\nJehoshaphat sought for his son, and the name of Ahaziah (\"Jehovah\ntaketh hold\") to the prince who was to be his heir. Jehoshaphat acted\nfrom policy; but so has every king done who has ever reigned. He\ncould neither be expected to see these things with the illumination\nof a prophet, nor to read--as later writers could do in the light of\nhistory--the awful issues involved in an alliance which looked to him\nso necessary and so advantageous.\n\nAt the time of the proposed alliance there seems to have been no\nprotest--at any rate, none of which we read. Micaiah alone among the\nprophets uttered his stern warning when the expedition to Ramoth\nGilead was actually on foot, and Jehu, son of Hanani, went out to\nrebuke Jehoshaphat at the close of that disastrous enterprise. It is\nto the history attributed to this seer and embodied in the annals of\nIsrael that the chronicler refers. \"Shouldst thou help the wicked,\"\nasked the bold prophet, \"and love them that hate the Lord? For this\nthing wrath is upon thee from the Lord. Nevertheless, there are good\nthings found in thee, in that thou hast put away the Asheroth out of\nthe land, and hast set thy heart to seek God.\"\n\nThe moral principle which Jehu, son of Hanani, here enunciated is\nprofoundly true. It was terribly emphasised by the subsequent events.\nA just and wise forecast may have sanctioned the restoration of\npeace, but Jehoshaphat might at least have learnt enough to avoid\naffinity with a queen who, like Jezebel, had introduced frightful and\ntyrannous iniquities into the House of Ahab. Faithful as the King of\nJudah evidently intended to be to the law of Jehovah, he should have\nhesitated before forming such close bonds of connexion with the cruel\ndaughter of the usurping Tyrian priest. His error hardly diminished the\nwarmth of that glowing eulogy which even the chronicler pronounces upon\nhim; but it brought upon his kingdom, and upon the whole family of his\ngrandchildren, overwhelming misery and all but total extermination.\nThe rules of God's moral government are written large on the story\nof nations, and the consequences of our actions come upon us not\narbitrarily, but in accordance with universal laws. When we err, even\nthough our error be leniently judged and fully pardoned, the human\nconsequences of the deeds which we have done may still come flowing\nover us with the resistless march of the ocean tides.\n\n          \"You little fancy what rude shocks apprise us.\n           We sin: God's intimations rather fail\n           In clearness than in energy.\"\n\nJehoshaphat did not live to see the ultimate issues of massacre and\ndespotism which came in the train of his son Jehoram's marriage.[561]\nPerhaps to him it wore the golden aspect which it wears in the\nforty-fifth Psalm, which, as some have imagined, was composed on this\noccasion. But he had abundant proof that close relationship for mutual\noffence and defence with the kings of Israel brought no blessing in its\ntrain. In the expedition against Ramoth Gilead when Ahab was slain, he\ntoo very nearly lost his life. Even this did not disturb his alliance\nwith Ahab's son Ahaziah, with whom he joined in a maritime enterprise\nwhich, like its predecessors, turned out to be a total failure.\n\nJehoshaphat in his successful wars had established the supremacy\nover Edom which had been all but lost in the days of Solomon. The\nEdomite Hadad and his successors had not been able to hold their own,\nand the present kings of Edom were deputies or vassals under the\nsuzerainty of Jud\u00e6a.[562] This once more opened the path to Elath and\nEzion-Geber on the gulf of Akaba. Jehoshaphat, in his prosperity,\nfelt a desire to revive the old costly commerce of Solomon with Ophir\nfor gold, sandal wood, and curious animals. For this purpose he built\n\"ships of Tarshish,\" _i.e._, merchant ships, like those used for the\nPh\u0153nician trade between Tyre and Tartessus, to go this long voyage.\nThe ships, however, were wrecked on the reefs of Ezion-Geber, for the\nJews were timid and inexperienced mariners. Hearing of this disaster,\naccording to the Book of Kings, Ahaziah made an offer to Jehoshaphat\nto make the enterprise a joint one,--thinking, apparently, that the\nIsraelites, who, perhaps, held Joppa and some of the ports on the\ncoast, would bring more skill and knowledge to bear on the result.\nBut Jehoshaphat had had enough of an attempt which was so dangerous\nand which offered no solid advantages. He declined Ahaziah's offer.\nThe story of these circumstances in the chronicler is different. He\nspeaks as if from the first it was a joint experiment of the two\nkings, and says that, after the wreck of the fleet, a prophet of whom\nwe know nothing, \"Eliezer, the son of Dodavahu of Mareshah,\"[563]\nprophesied against Jehoshaphat, saying, \"Because thou hast joined\nthyself with Ahaziah, Jehovah hath made a breach in thy works.\" The\npassage shows that the word \"prophesied\" was constantly used in the\nsense of \"preached,\" and did not necessarily imply any prediction\nof events yet future. The chronicler, however, apparently makes the\nmistake of supposing that ships were built at Ezion-Geber on the\nRed Sea to sail to Tartessus in Spain![564] The earlier and better\nauthority says correctly that these merchantmen were built to trade\nwith Ophir, in India, or Arabia. The chronicler seems to have been\nunaware that \"ships of Tarshish,\" like our \"Indiamen,\" was a general\ntitle for vessels of a special build.[565]\n\nWe see enough in the Book of Kings to show the greatness and goodness\nof Jehoshaphat, and later on we shall hear details of his military\nexpeditions.[566] The chronicler, glorifying him still more, says that\nhe sent princes and Levites and priests to teach the Book of the Law\nthroughout all the cities of Judah; that he received large presents\nand tribute from neighbouring peoples; that he built castles and stone\ncities; and that he had a stupendous army of 160,000 troops under four\ngreat generals. He also narrates that when an immense host of Moabites,\nAmmonites, and Meunim came against him to Hazezon-Tamar or Engedi, he\ntook his stand before the people in the Temple in front of the new\ncourt and prayed. Thereupon the Spirit of the Lord came upon \"Jahaziel\nthe son of Zechariah, the son of Benaiah, the son of Jeiel, the son of\nMattaniah the Levite, of the sons of Asaph,\" who told them that the\nnext day they should go against the invader, but that they need not\nstrike a blow. The battle was God's, not theirs. All they had to do was\nto stand still and see the salvation of Jehovah. On hearing this the\nking and all his people prostrated themselves, and the Levites stood\nup to praise God. Next morning Jehoshaphat told his people to believe\nGod and His prophets and they should prosper, and bade them chant the\nverse, \"Give thanks unto the Lord, for His mercy endureth for ever,\"\nwhich now forms the refrain of Psalm cxxxvi.[567] On this Jehovah\n\"set liers in wait against the children of Ammon, Moab, and Mount\nSeir.\" Intestine struggles arose among the invaders. The inhabitants\nof Mount Seir were first destroyed, and the rest then turned their\nswords against each other until they were all \"dead bodies fallen to\nthe earth.\" The soldiers of Jehoshaphat despoiled these corpses for\nthree days, and on the fourth assembled themselves in the valley of\nBeracah (\"Blessing\"), which received its name from their tumultuous\nrejoicings.[568] After this they returned to Jerusalem with psalteries\nand harps and trumpets, and God gave Jehoshaphat rest from all his\nenemies round about. Of all this the historian of the Kings tells us\nnothing. Jehoshaphat died full of years and honours, leaving seven\nsons, of whom the eldest was Jehoram.[569] His reign marks a decisive\ntriumph of the prophetic party. The prophets not only felt a fiercely\njust abhorrence of the abominations of Canaanite idolatry, but wished\nto establish a theocracy to the exclusion on the one hand of all local\nand symbolic worship, and on the other of all reliance on worldly\npolicy. Up to this time, as Dean Stanley says in his usual strikingly\npicturesque manner, \"if there was a 'holy city,' there was also an\n'unholy city' within the walls of Sion. It was like a seething caldron\nof blood and froth 'whose scum is therein and whose scum has not gone\nout of it.' The Temple was hemmed in by dark idolatries on every\nside. Mount Olivet was covered with heathen sanctuaries, monumental\nstones, and pillars of Baal. Wooden images of Astarte under the sacred\ntrees, huge images of Molech appeared at every turn in the walks\naround Jerusalem.\"[570] Jehoshaphat introduced a decisive improvement\ninto the conditions which prevailed under Rehoboam and Abijah, but\npractically the conflict between light and darkness goes on for ever.\nIt was in days when Jerusalem had come to be regarded by herself and by\nall nations as exceptionally holy, that she, who had been for centuries\nthe murderess of the prophets, became under her priestly religionists\nthe murderess of the Christ, and--far different in God's eyes from what\nshe was in her own--deserved the dreadful stigma of being \"the great\ncity which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[561] Following the precedent set by Rehoboam, he established his six\nyounger sons in castles and fenced cities. Athaliah must have found\nit difficult to exterminate their families if she attempted this.\n\n[562] The Nitzab or Pr\u00e6fect of Edom was allowed the barren title of\nking.\n\n[563] 2 Chron. xx. 37. His name faintly recalls that of Eleazar, son\nof Dodo (2 Sam. xxiii. 9). Dodavahu means \"friend of God.\"\n\n[564] 2 Chron. xx. 36, 37. It would be monstrous to send ships to\ncircumnavigate Africa in order to reach Tartessus. The last resource of\nthe harmonists (_e.g._, Keil) to save the accuracy of the chronicler is\nto suppose that Jehoshaphat meant to drag the whole fleet across the\nIsthmus of Suez, and so to sail from one of the havens of Palestine!\n\n[565] \"Cette version,\" says Munk (_Palestine_, p. 314), \"a probablement\npris naissance dans l'esprit de rigorisme qui animait plus tard\nles \u00e9crivans Juifs.\" \"This,\" says Dr. Robertson Smith, \"is a mere\npragmatical inference from the story in Kings.\" See his further remarks\nin _The Old Testament in the Jewish Church_, chap. ii., p. 146. He\nregards parts of the Books of Chronicles as being, in fact, a Jewish\n_Midrash_. \"It is not History, but _Haggada_, moralising romance. And\nthe chronicler himself gives the name of _Midrash_ (R.V., 'story') to\ntwo of the sources from which he drew (2 Chron. xiii. 22, xxiv. 27), so\nthat there is really no mystery as to the nature of the work when it\ndeparts from the old canonical histories\" (p. 148).\n\n[566] We shall have further glimpses of Jehoshaphat in the reigns of\nAhab and even of Jehoram.\n\n[567] See 1 Chron. xvi. 34; 2 Chron. v. 13, vii. 3, xx. 21; Psalms\ncvi., cvii., cxviii., etc. The eighty-third Psalm may owe its origin\nto this deliverance, and Hengstenberg thinks Psalms xlvii. and\nxlviii. also.\n\n[568] The title \"valley of Jehoshaphat\" is thought also to have\nderived its origin from these events. Comp. Joel iii. 2.\n\n[569] 2 Chron. xxi. 2, 3.\n\n[570] There is a little exaggeration here.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XXXII.\n\n               _THE KINGS OF ISRAEL FROM ZIMRI TO AHAB._\n\n                             B.C. 889-877.\n\n                          1 KINGS xvi. 11-34.\n\n\nAs far as we can understand from our meagre authorities--and we\nhave no independent source of information--we infer that Elah, son\nof the powerful Baasha, was a self-indulgent weakling. The army\nof Israel was encamped against Gibbethon--originally a Levitical\ntown of the Kohathites, in the territory of Dan--which they hoped\nto wrest from the Philistines. It was during the interminable and\nintermittent siege of this town that Nadab, the son of Jeroboam,\nhad been murdered. Whatever may have been his sins, he was in his\nproper place leading the armies of Israel. Elah was not there, but\nin his beautiful palace at Tirzah. It was probably contempt for his\nincapacity and the bad example of Baasha's successful revolt, that\ntempted Zimri to murder him as he was drinking himself drunk in the\nhouse of his chamberlain Arza. Zimri was a commander of half the\nchariots, and probably thinking that he could secure the throne by a\n_coup de main_ he slew not only Elah, but every male member of his\nfamily. To extinguish any possibility of vengeance, he even massacred\nall who were known to be friends of the royal house.\n\nIt was a consummate crime, and it was followed by swift and condign\njudgment. Through that sea of blood Zimri only succeeded in wading\nto one week's royalty, followed by a shameful and agonising death.\nWe are told that he did evil in the sight of the Lord by following\nthe sin of Jeroboam's calf-worship. The phrase must be here something\nof a formula, for in seven days he could hardly have achieved a\nreligious revolution, and every other king of Israel, some of whom\nhave long and prosperous reigns, maintained the unauthorised worship.\nBut Zimri's atrocious revolt had been so ill-considered that it\nfurnished a proverb of the terrible fate of rebels.[571] He had not\neven attempted to secure the assent of the army at Gibbethon. No\nsooner did the news reach the camp than the soldiers tumultuously\nrefused to accept Zimri as king, and elected Omri their captain. Omri\ninstantly broke up the camp, and led them to besiege the new king in\nTirzah. Zimri saw that his cause was hopeless, and took refuge in the\nfortress (_birah_) attached to the palace.[572] When he saw that even\nthere he could not maintain himself, he preferred speedy death to\nslow starvation or falling into the hands of his rival. He set fire\nto the palace, and, like Sardanapalus, perished in the flames.[573]\n\nThe swift suppression of his treason did not save the unhappy kingdom\nfrom anarchy and civil war. However popular Omri might be with the\narmy, he was unacceptable to a large part of the people. They chose\nas their king a certain Tibni, son of Ginath, who was supported by a\npowerful brother named Joram. For four years the contest was continued.\nAt the end of that time Tibni and Joram were conquered and killed,[574]\nand Omri began his sole reign, which lasted eight years longer.\n\nHe founded the most conspicuous dynasty of Israel, and so completely\nidentified his name with the Northern Kingdom that it was known to\nthe Assyrians as Beit-Khumri, or \"the House of Omri.\"[575] They even\nspeak of Jehu the destroyer of Omri's dynasty, as \"the son of Omri.\"\n\nIncidental allusions in the annals of his son show that Omri was\nengaged in incessant wars against Syria. He was unsuccessful, and\nBenhadad robbed him of Ramoth Gilead and other cities, enforcing the\nright of Syrians to have streets of their own even in his new capital\nof Samaria.[576] On the other hand, he was greatly successful on the\nsouth-east against the Moabites and their warrior-king Chemosh-Gad,\nthe father of Mesha.\n\nFew details of either war have come down to us.[577] We learn, however,\nfrom the famous Moabite stone that he began his assault on Moab by the\ncapture of Mediba, several miles south of Heshbon, overran the country,\nmade the king a vassal, and imposed on Moab the enormous annual tribute\nof 100,000 sheep and 100,000 rams.[578] Mesha in his inscription\nrecords that Omri \"oppressed Moab many days,\" and attributed this to\nthe fact that Chemosh was angry with his chosen people.\n\nHe stamped his impress deep upon his subjects. It must have been to\nhim that the alliance with the Tyrians was due, which in his son's\nreign produced consequences so momentous. He \"did worse we are told\nthan all the kings that were before him.\"[579] Although he is only\ncharged with walking in the way of Jeroboam, the indignant manner in\nwhich the prophet Micah speaks of \"the statutes of Omri\" as still\nbeing kept,[580] seems to prove that his influence on religion was\ncondemned by the prophetic order on special grounds. It is clear that\nhe was a sovereign of far greater eminence and importance than we\nmight suppose from the meagreness of his annals as here preserved;\nindeed, for thirty-four years after his accession the history of the\nSouthern Kingdom becomes a mere appendix to that of the Northern.\n\nOne conspicuous service he rendered to his subjects by providing\nthem with the city which became their permanent and famous capital.\nThis he did in the sixth year of his reign. The burning of the\nfortress-palace of Tirzah, and the rapidity with which the town had\nsuccumbed to its besiegers, may have led him to look out for a site,\nwhich was central, strong, and beautiful. His choice was so prescient\nthat the new royal residence superseded not only Penuel and Tirzah,\nbut even Shechem. It was, says Dean Stanley, \"as though Versailles\nhad taken the place of Paris, or Windsor of London.\" He fixed his eye\non an oblong hill, with long flat summit, which rose in the midst\nof a wide valley encircled with hills, near the edge of the plain\nof Sharon, and six miles north-west of Shechem. Its beauty is still\nthe admiration of the traveller in Palestine. It gave point to the\napostrophe of Isaiah: \"Woe to the crown of pride, to the drunkards\nof Ephraim, whose glorious beauty is a fading flower, which is on\nthe head of the fat valleys of them that are overcome with wine!...\nThe crown of pride, the drunkards of Ephraim, shall be trodden under\nfoot: and the fading flower of his glorious adornment, which is on\nthe head of the fat valley, shall become as a fading flower and as an\nearly fig.\"[581] All around it the low hills and rich ravines were\nclothed with fertility. They recall more nearly than any other scene\nin Palestine the green fields and parks of England.\n\nIt commanded a full view of the sea and the plain of Sharon on the\none hand, and of the vale of Shechem on the other. The town sloped\ndown from the summit of this hill; a broad wall with a terraced\ntop ran round it. \"In front of the gates was a wide open space or\nthreshing floor, where the kings of Samaria sat on great occasions.\nThe inferior houses were built of white brick, with rafters of\nsycomore, the grandeur of hewn stones and cedar (Isa. ix. 9, 10).\nIts soft, rounded, oblong platform was, as it were, a vast luxurious\ncouch, in which the nobles securely rested, propped and cushioned up\non both sides, as in the cherished corner of a rich divan.\"[582]\n\nFar more important in the eyes of Omri than its beauty was the\nnatural strength of its position. It did not possess the impregnable\nmajesty of Jerusalem, but its height and isolation, permitting of\nstrong fortifications, enabled it to baffle the besieging hosts of\nthe Aram\u00e6ans in B.C. 901 and in B.C. 892. For three long years it\nheld out against the mighty Assyrians under Sargon and Shalmanezer.\nIts capture in B.C. 721 involved the ruin of the whole kingdom in\nits fall.[583] Nebuchadnezzar took it in B.C. 554, after a siege of\nthirteen years. In later centuries it partially recovered. Alexander\nthe Great took it, and massacred many of its inhabitants, B.C. 332.\nJohn Hyrcanus, who took it after a year's siege, tried to demolish\nit in B.C. 129. After various fortunes it was splendidly rebuilt by\nHerod the Great, who called it Sebaste, in honour of Augustus. It\nstill exists under the name of Sebast\u00efyeh.[584]\n\nWhen Omri chose it for his residence it belonged to a certain Shemer,\nwho, according to Epiphanius, was a descendant of the ancient\nPerizzites or Girgashites. The king paid for this hill the large\nsum of two talents of silver,[585] and called it Shomeron. The name\nmeans \"a watch tower,\" and was appropriate both from its commanding\nposition and because it echoed the name of its old possessor.[586]\n\nThe new capital marked a new epoch. It superseded as completely as\nJerusalem had done the old local shrines endeared by the immemorial\nsanctity of their traditions; but as its origin was purely political\nit acted unfavourably on the religion of the people. It became a city\nof idolatry and of luxurious wealth; a city in which Baal-worship\nwith its ritual pomp threw into the shade the worship of Jehovah; a\ncity in which corrupted nobles, lolling at wine feasts on rich divans\nin their palaces inlaid with ivory, sold the righteous for silver and\nthe needy for a pair of shoes. Of Omri we are told no more. After a\nreign of twelve years he slept with his fathers, and was buried in\nthe city which was to be for so many centuries a memorial of his fame.\n\nThe name of Omri marks a new epoch. He is the first Jewish king whose\nname is alluded to in Assyrian inscriptions. Assyria had emerged into\nimportance in the twelfth century before Christ under Tiglath-Pileser\nI., but during the eleventh and down to the middle of the tenth century\nit had sunk into inactivity. Assurbanipal, the father of Shalmanezer\nII. (884-860), enlarged his dominions to the Mediterranean westwards\nand to Lebanon southwards. In 870, when Ahab was king, the Assyrian\nwarriors had exacted tribute from Tyre, Sidon, and Biblos.[587] It is\nnot impossible that Omri also had paid tribute, and it has even been\nconjectured that it was to Assyrian help that he owed his throne. The\nBook of Kings only alludes to the valour of this warrior-king in the\none word \"his might\";[588] but it is evident from other indications\nthat he had a stormy and chequered reign.\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[571] 2 Kings ix. 31.\n\n[572] R.V., \"the _castle_ of the king's house.\"\n\n[573] Justin, _Hist._, i. 3; cf. Herod., i. 176, vii. 107; Liv., xxi.\n14. Ewald elaborates out of his own consciousness an extraordinary\nromance about Zimri and the queen-mother.\n\n[574] Josephus (_Antt._, VIII. xii. 5) says that Tibni was\nassassinated, as does the Rabbinic _Seder Olam Rabba_, chap. xvii.\nLXX., \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c0\u03ad\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5 \u0398\u03b1\u03b2\u03bd\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f38\u03c9\u03c1\u1f70\u03bc \u1f41 \u1f00\u03b4\u03b5\u03bb\u03c6\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\n[575] Athaliah is called \"the daughter of Omri.\"\n\n[576] The Aram\u00e6ans have come to be incorrectly called Syrians because\nthe Greeks confused them with the Assyrians.\n\n[577] 1 Kings xx. 34.\n\n[578] 2 Kings iii. 4.\n\n[579] 1 Kings xvi. 25.\n\n[580] Micah vi. 16.\n\n[581] Isa. xxviii. 1-4.\n\n[582] Stanley, _Lectures_, ii. 242.\n\n[583] 1 Kings xx. 1; 2 Kings vi. 24.\n\n[584] Josephus, _Antt._, XV. vii. 7. One of the few instances in\nPalestine where the ancient name has been superseded by a more modern\none. The early Assyrians call it Beth-Khumri, \"House of Omri\"; but\nthe name Sammerin occurs in the monument of Tiglath-Pileser II.\n\n[585] About \u00a3800 of our money.\n\n[586] LXX., \u03a3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03af\u03b1; \u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05de\u05b7\u05e8, \"to watch.\"\n\n[587] Meyer, _Gesch. d. Alt._, 331; Kittel, ii. 221; Schrader,\n_Keilinschr._, i. 165.\n\n[588] \u05e0\u05b0\u05d1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e8\u05b8\u05ea\u05b9\u05d5 (1 Kings xvi. 27).\n\n\n\n                                BOOK IV.\n\n                           _AHAB AND ELIJAH._\n\n                             B.C. 877-855.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                            CHAPTER XXXIII.\n\n                     _KING AHAB AND QUEEN JEZEBEL._\n\n          \"Besides what that grim wolf with privy paw\n           Daily devours apace, and nothing said.\"\n                                                  LYCIDAS.\n\n                          1 KINGS xvi. 29-34.\n\n\nOmri was succeeded by his son Ahab, whose eventful reign of upwards\nof twenty years[589] occupies so large a space even in these\nfragmentary records. His name means \"brother-father,\" and has\nprobably some sacred reference. He is stigmatised by the historians\nas a king more wicked than his father, though Omri had \"done worse\nthan all who were before him.\". That he was a brave warrior, and\nshowed some great qualities during a long and on the whole prosperous\ncareer; that he built cities, and added to Israel yet another\nroyal residence; that he advanced the wealth and prosperity of his\nsubjects; that he was highly successful in some of his wars against\nSyria, and died in battle against those dangerous enemies of his\ncountry; that he maintained unbroken, and strengthened by yet closer\naffinity, the recent alliance with the Southern Kingdom,--all this\ngoes for nothing with the prophetic annalists. They have no word of\neulogy for the king who added Baal-worship to the sin of Jeroboam.\nThe prominence of Ahab in their record is only due to the fact that\nhe came into dreadful collision with the prophetic order, and with\nElijah, the greatest prophet who had yet arisen. The glory and\nthe sins of the warrior-king interested the young prophets of the\nschools solely because they were interwoven with the grand and sombre\ntraditions of their mightiest reformer.\n\nThe historian traces all his ignominy and ruin to a disastrous\nalliance. The kings of Judah had followed the bad example of David\nand had been polygamists. Up to this time the kings of Israel seem to\nhave been contented with a single wife. The wealth and power of Ahab\nled him to adopt the costly luxury of a harem, and he had seventy\nsons.[590] This, however, would have been regarded in those days as\na venial offence, or as no offence at all; but just as the growing\npower of Solomon had been enhanced by marriage with a princess of\nEgypt, so Ahab was now of sufficient importance to wed a daughter\nof the King of Tyre. \"As though it had been a light thing for him\nto walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, he took to wife\nJezebel, the daughter of Ethbaal, King of the Zidonians.\"\n\nIt was an act of policy in which religious considerations went for\nnothing. There is little doubt that it flattered his pride and the\npride of his people, and that Jezebel brought riches with her and\npomp and the prestige of luxurious royalty.[591] The Ph\u0153nicians were\nof the old race of Canaan, with whom all affinity was so strongly\nforbidden. Ethbaal--more accurately, perhaps, Itto-baal (Baal is with\nhim)[592]--though he ruled all Ph\u0153nicia, both Tyre and Sidon, was a\nusurper, and had been the high priest of the great Temple of Ashtoreth\nin Tyre. Hiram, the friend of Solomon, had now been dead for half a\ncentury. The last king of his dynasty was the fratricide Phelles,\nwhom in his turn his brother Ethbaal slew. He reigned for thirty-two\nyears, and founded a dynasty which lasted for sixty-two years more.\nHe was the seventh successor to the throne of Tyre in the fifty years\nwhich had elapsed since the death of Hiram. Menander of Ephesus, as\nquoted by Josephus, shows us that in the history of this family we find\nan interesting point of contact between sacred and classic history.\nJezebel was the aunt of Virgil's Belus, and great-aunt of Pygmalion,\nand of Dido, the famous foundress of Carthage.[593]\n\nA king named after Baal, and who had named his daughter after Baal--a\nking whose descendants down to Maherbal and Hasdrubal and Hannibal\nbore the name of the Sun-god[594]--a king who had himself been at the\nhead of the cult of Ashtoreth, the female deity who was worshipped\nwith Baal--was not likely to rest content until he had founded the\nworship of his god in the realm of his son-in-law. Ahab, we are\ntold, \"went and served Baal and worshipped him.\" We must discount by\nrecorded facts the impression which might _prim\u00e2 facie_ be left by\nthese sweeping denunciations. It is certain that to his death Ahab\ncontinued to recognise Jehovah. He enshrined the name of Jehovah in the\nnames of his children.[595] He consulted the prophets of Jehovah, and\nhis continuance of the calf-worship met with no recorded reproof from\nthe many true prophets who were active during his reign. The worship\nof Baal was due to nothing more than the unwise eclecticism which had\ninduced Solomon to establish the _Bamoth_ to heathen deities on the\nmount of offence. It is exceedingly probable that the permission of\nBaal-worship had been one of the articles of the treaty between Tyre\nand Israel, which, as we know from Amos, had been made at this time.\nIt had probably been the condition on which the fanatical Ph\u0153nician\nusurper had conceded to his far less powerful neighbour the hand of his\ndaughter. It was, as we see, alike in sacred and secular history a time\nof treaties. The menacing spectre of Assyria was beginning to terrify\nthe nations. Hamath, Syria, and the Hittites had formed a league of\ndefence against the northern power, and similar motives induced the\nkings of Israel to seek alliance with Ph\u0153nicia. Perhaps neither Omri\nnor Ahab grasped all the consequences of their concession to the\nSidonian princess.[596] But such compacts were against the very essence\nof the religion of Israel, which was \"Yahveh Israel's God, and Israel\nYahveh's people.\"\n\nThe new queen inherited the fanaticism as she inherited the ferocity\nof her father. She acquired from the first a paramount sway over\nthe weak and uxorious mind of her husband. Under her influence Ahab\nbuilt in Samaria a splendid temple and altar to Baal, in which no\nless than four hundred orgiastic priests served the Ph\u0153nician idol\nin splendid vestments, and with the same pompous ritual as in the\nshrines at Tyre. In front of this temple, to the disgust and horror\nof all faithful worshippers of Jehovah, stood an _Asherah_ in honour\nof the Nature-goddess, and _Matstseboth_ pillars or obelisks which\nrepresented either sunbeams or the reproductive powers of nature.\nIn these ways Ahab \"did more to provoke the Lord God to anger than\nall the kings of Israel that were before him.\"[597] When we learn\nwhat Baal was, and how he was worshipped, we are not surprised at\nso stern a condemnation. Half Sun-god, half Bacchus, half Hercules,\nBaal was worshipped under the image of a bull, \"the symbol of the\nmale power of generation.\" In the wantonness of his rites he was\nakin to Peor; in their cruel atrocity to the kindred Moloch; in the\ndemand for victims to be sacrificed to the horrible consecration\nof lust and blood he resembled the Minotaur, the wallowing \"infamy\nof Crete,\" with its yearly tribute of youths and maidens. What\nthe combined worship of Baal and Asherah was like--and by Jezebel\nwith Ahab's connivance they were now countenanced in Samaria--we\nmay learn from the description of their temple at Apheka.[598] It\nconfirms what we are incidentally told of Jezebel's devotions. It\nabounded in wealthy gifts, and its multitude of priests, women, and\nmutilated ministers--of whom Lucian counted three hundred at one\nsacrifice--were clad in splendid vestments. Children were sacrificed\nby being put in a leathern bag and flung down from the top of the\ntemple, with the shocking expression that \"they were calves, not\nchildren.\" In the forecourt stood two gigantic phalli. The _Galli_\nwere maddened into a tumult of excitement by the uproar of drums,\nshrill pipes, and clanging cymbals, gashed themselves with knives and\npotsherds, and often ran through the city in women's dress.[599]\nSuch was the new worship with which the dark murderess insulted the\nfaith in Jehovah. Could any condemnation be too stern for the folly\nand faithlessness of the king who sanctioned it?\n\nA consequence of this tolerance of polluted forms of worship seems\nto have shown itself in defiant contempt for sacred traditions. At\nany rate, it is in this connexion that we are told how Hiel of Bethel\nset at naught an ancient curse. After the fall of Jericho Joshua had\npronounced a curse upon the site of the city. It was never to be\nrebuilt, but to remain under the ban of God. The site, indeed, had\nnot been absolutely uninhabited, for its importance near the fords\nof Jordan necessitated the existence of some sort of caravanserai\nin or near the spot.[600] At this time it belonged to the kingdom\nof Israel, though it was in the district of Benjamin and afterwards\nreverted to Judah.[601] Hiel, struck by the opportunities afforded by\nits position, laughed the old _cherem_ to scorn, and determined to\nrebuild Jericho into a fortified and important city. But men remarked\nwith a shudder that the curse had not been uttered in vain. The laying\nof the foundation was marked by the death of his firstborn Abiram, the\ncompletion of the gates by the death of Segub, his youngest son.[602]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe shadow of Queen Jezebel falls dark for many years over the\nhistory of Israel and Judah. She was one of those masterful,\nindomitable, implacable women who, when fate places them in exalted\npower, leave a terrible mark on the annals of nations. What the\nEmpress Irene was in the history of Constantinople, or the \"She-wolf\nof France\" in that of England, or Catherine de Medicis in that of\nFrance, that Jezebel was in the history of Palestine. The unhappy\nJuana of Spain left a physical trace upon her descendants in the\nperpetuation of the huge jaw which had gained her the soubriquet of\n_Maultasch_; but the trace left by Jezebel was marked in blood in\nthe fortunes of the children born to her. Already three of the six\nkings of Israel had been murdered, or had come to evil ends; but the\nfate of Ahab and his house was most disastrous of all, and it became\nso through the \"whoredoms and witchcrafts\" of his Sidonian wife. A\nthousand years later the name of Jezebel was still ominous as that\nof one who seduced others into fornication and idolatry.[603] If no\nking so completely \"sold himself to work wickedness\" as Ahab, it was\nbecause \"Jezebel his wife stirred him up.\"[604]\n\nYet, however guilty may have been the uxorious apostasies of Ahab,\nhe can hardly be held to be responsible for the marriage itself. The\ndates and ages recorded for us show decisively that the alliance\nmust have been negotiated by Omri, for it took place in his reign\nand when Ahab was too young to have much voice in the administration\nof the kingdom. He is only responsible for abdicating his proper\nauthority over Jezebel, and for permitting her a free hand in the\ncorruption of worship, while he gave himself up to his schemes of\nworldly aggrandisement. Absorbed in the strengthening of his cities\nand the embellishment of his ivory palaces, he became neglectful of\nthe worship of Jehovah, and careless of the more solemn and sacred\nduties of a theocratic king.\n\nThe temple to Baal at Samaria was built; the hateful Asherah in\nfront of it offended the eyes of all whose hearts abhorred an impure\nidolatry. Its priests and the priests of Astarte were the favourites\nof the court. Eight hundred and fifty of them fed in splendour at\nJezebel's table, and the pomp of their sensuous cult threw wholly\ninto the shade the worship of the God of Israel. Hitherto there had\nbeen no protest against, no interference with the course of evil. It\nhad been suffered to reach its meridian unchecked, and it seemed only\na question of time that the service of Jehovah would yield to that of\nBaal, to whose favour the queen probably believed that her priestly\nfather had owed his throne. There are indications that Jezebel had\ngone further still, and that Ahab, however much he may secretly have\ndisapproved, had not interfered to prevent her. For although we do\nnot know the exact period at which Jezebel began to exercise violence\nagainst the worshippers of Jehovah, it is certain that she did so.\nThis crime took place before the great famine which was appointed\nfor its punishment, and which roused from cowardly torpor the supine\nconscience of the king and of the nation. Jezebel stands out on\nthe page of sacred history as the first supporter of _religious\npersecution_. We learn from incidental notices that, not content with\ninsulting the religion of the nation by the burdensome magnificence\nof her idolatrous establishments, she made an attempt to crush\nJehovah-worship altogether. Such fanaticism is a frequent concomitant\nof guilt. She is the authentic authoress of priestly inquisitions.\n\nThe Borgian monster, Pope Alexander VI., who founded the Spanish\nInquisition, is the lineal inheritor of the traditions of Jezebel.\nHad Ahab done no more than Solomon had done in Judah, the followers\nof the true faith in Israel would have been as deeply offended as\nthose of the Southern Kingdom. They would have hated a toleration\nwhich they regarded as wicked, because it involved moral corruption\nas well as the danger of national apostasy. Their feelings would have\nbeen even more wrathful than were stirred in the hearts of English\nPuritans when they heard of the Masses in the chapel of Henrietta\nMaria, or saw Father Petre gliding about the corridors of Whitehall.\nBut their opposition was crushed with a hand of iron. Jezebel,\nstrong in her _entourage_ of no less than eight hundred and fifty\npriests, to say nothing of her other attendants, audaciously broke\ndown the altars of Jehovah--even the lonely one on Mount Carmel--and\nendeavoured so completely to extirpate all the prophets of Jehovah\nthat Elijah regarded himself as the sole prophet that was left. Those\nwho escaped her fury had to wander about in destitution, and to hide\nin dens and caves of the earth.\n\nThe apostasy of Churches always creeps on apace, when priests and\nprophets, afraid of malediction, and afraid of imperilling their\nworldly interests become cowards, opportunists, and time-servers, and\nnot daring to speak out the truth that is in them, suffer the cause of\nspirituality and righteousness to go by default. But \"when Iniquity\nhath played her part, Vengeance, leaps upon the stage. The comedy is\nshort, but the tragedy is long. The black guard shall attend upon you:\nyou shall eat at the table of sorrow, and the crown of death shall be\nupon your heads, many glittering faces looking upon you.\"[605]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[589] It is needless in each separate case to enter into the\nchronological minuti\u00e6 about which the historian is little solicitous.\nA table of the chronology so far as it can be ascertained is\nfurnished, _infra_.\n\n[590] 1 Kings xx. 5; 2 Kings x. 7.\n\n[591] Hitzig thinks that Psalm xlv. was an epithalamium on this\noccasion, from the mention of \"ivory palaces\" and \"the daughter of\nTyre.\" Had it been composed for the marriage of Solomon, or Jehoram\nand Athaliah, or any king of Judah, there would surely have been an\nallusion to Jerusalem. Moreover, the queen is called \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05e0\u05b8\u05dc, which is\na Chaldee (Dan. v. 2), or perhaps a North Palestine word. The word in\nJudah was Gebira.\n\n[592] \u1f38\u03b8\u03cc\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, Josephus, _Antt._, VIII. xiii. 1; _c. Ap._, I.\n18 (quoting the heathen historian Menander of Ephesus). It may,\nhowever, be \"Man of Baal,\" like Saul's son Ishbaal (Ishbosheth). In\nTyre the high priest was only second to the king in power (Justin,\n_Hist._, xviii. 4), and Ethbaal united both dignities. He died aged\nsixty-eight. Another Ethbaal was on the throne during the siege of\nTyre by Nebuchadnezzar (Josephus, _Antt._, X. xi. I).\n\n[593] Josephus, _c. Ap._, I. 18. The genealogy is:--\n\n                        +-----------------------+\n                        |                       |\n                     Phelles                 Ethbaal.\n                  (a usurper, whom his          |\n                  brother Ethbaal slew).        |\n                                                |\n                                     +----------+------+\n                                     |                 |\n                                  Badezon.          Jezebel.\n                                     |\n                              Matger (_Belus_).\n                                     |\n                            +---------------+\n                            |               |\n                       Pygmalion.          Dido.\n\nSee Canon Rawlinson, _Speaker's Commentary, ad loc._\n\n[594] Plaut., _P\u00e6nul._, V. ii. 6, 7. Ph\u0153nician names abound in the\nelement \"Baal.\"\n\n[595] Ahaziah (\"Jehovah supports\"), Jehoram (\"Jehovah is exalted\"),\nAthaliah (?). The word Baal merely meant \"Lord\"; and perhaps the fact\nthat at one time it had been freely applied to Jehovah Himself may\nhave helped to confuse the religious perceptions of the people. Saul,\ncertainly no idolater, called his son Eshbaal (\"the man of Baal\");\nand it was only the hatred of the name Baal in later times which led\nthe Jews to alter Baal into Bosheth (\"shame\"), as in Ishbosheth,\nMephibosheth. David himself had a son named Beeliada (\"known to\nBaal\"), which was altered into Eliada (1 Chron. xiv. 7, iii. 8; 2\nSam. v. 16; comp. 2 Chron. xvii. 17). We even find the name Bealiah\n(\"Baal is Jah\") as one of David's men (1 Chron. xii. 5). Hoshea too\nrecords that Baali (\"my Lord\") was used of Jehovah, but changed into\nIshi (\"my husband\") (Hosea ii. 16, 17). It is used simply for owner\n(\"the baal of an ox\") in \"the Book of the Covenant\" (Exod. xxi. 28).\nSee Robertson Smith, _Rel. of the Semites_, 92.\n\n[596] Ethbaal is called King of Sidon (1 Kings xvi. 31), and was also\nKing of Tyre (Menander _ap._ Josephus, _Antt._, VIII. xiii. 1).\n\n[597] 1 Kings xvi. 23; 2 Kings iii. 2, x. 27.\n\n[598] _Asherim_ seem to be upright wooden stocks of trees in honour\nof the Nature-goddess Asheroth. The Temple of Baal at Tyre had no\nimage, only two _Matstseboth_, one of gold given by Hiram, one of\n\"emerald\" (Dius and Menander _ap._ Josephus, _Antt._, VIII. v. 3; _c.\nAp._, I. 18; Herod., ii. 66).\n\n[599] D\u00f6llinger, _Judenth. u. Heidenthum_ (E. T.), i. 425-29.\n\n[600] 2 Sam. x. 5; Judg. iii. 28.\n\n[601] 2 Chron. xxviii. 15.\n\n[602] Comp. Josh. vi. 26; 2 Sam. x. 5.\n\n[603] Rev. ii. 20.\n\n[604] 1 Kings xxi. 25, 26.\n\n[605] Henry Smith, _The Trumpet of the Lord sounding to Judgment_.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XXXIV.\n\n                               _ELIJAH._\n\n                           1 KINGS xvii. 1-7.\n\n    \"And Elias the prophet stood up as fire, and his word was burning\n    as a torch.\"--ECCLUS. xlviii. 1.\n\n          \"But that two-handed engine at the door\n           Stands ready to smite once, and smite no more.\"\n                                                    _Lycidas._\n\n\nMany chapters are now occupied with narratives of the deeds of\ntwo great prophets, Elijah and Elisha, remarkable for the blaze\nand profusion of miracles and for similarity in many details.\nFor thirty-four years we hear but little of Judah, and the kings\nof Israel are overshadowed by the \"men of God.\" Both narratives,\nof which the later in sequence seems to be the earlier in date,\noriginated in the Schools of the Prophets. Both are evidently drawn\nfrom documentary sources apart from the ordinary annals of the Kings.\n\nDoubtless something of their fragmentariness is due to the\nabbreviation of the prophetic annals by the historians.\n\nSuddenly, with abrupt impetuosity, the mighty figure of Elijah\nthe Prophet bursts upon the scene like lightning on the midnight.\nSo far as the sacred page is concerned, he, like Melchizedek, is\n\"without father, without mother, without descent.\" He appears\nbefore us unannounced as \"Elijah the Tishbite of the inhabitants of\nGilead.\" Such a phenomenon as Jezebel explains and necessitates such\na phenomenon as Elijah. \"The loftiest and sternest spirit of the\ntrue faith is raised up,\" says Dean Stanley, \"face to face with the\nproudest and fiercest spirit of the old Asiatic Paganism.\"\n\nThe name Elijah, or, in its fuller and more sonorous Hebrew form,\nElijahu, means \"Jehovah is my God.\" Who he was is entirely unknown.\nSo completely is all previous trace of him lost in mystery that\nTalmudic legends confounded him with Phinehas, the son of Aaron, the\navenging and fiercely zealous priest; and even identified him with\nthe angel or messenger of Jehovah who appeared to Gideon and ascended\nin the altar flame.\n\nThe name \"Tishbite\" tells us nothing. No town of Tishbi occurs in\nScripture, and though a Thisbe in the tribe of Naphtali is mentioned\nas the birthplace of Tobit,[606] the existence of such a place is\nas doubtful as that of \"Thesbon of the Gileadite district\" to which\nJosephus assigns his birth.[607] The Hebrew may mean \"the Tishbite\nfrom Tishbi of Gilead,\" or \"_The sojourner from the sojourners of\nGilead_\"; and we know no more. Elijah's grandeur is in himself alone.\nPerhaps he was by birth an Ishmaelite. When the wild Highlander\nin Rob Roy says of himself \"I am a man,\" \"A man!\" repeated Frank\nOsbaldistone; \"that is a very brief description.\" \"It will serve,\"\nanswered the outlaw, \"for one who has no other to give. He who is\nwithout name, without friends, without coin, without country, is\nstill at least a man: and he that has all these is no more.\" So\nElijah stands alone in the towering height of his fearless manhood.\n\nSome clue to the swift mysterious movements, the rough asceticism,\nthe sheepskin robe, the unbending sternness of the Prophet may lie\nin the notice that he was a Gileadite, or at any rate among the\nsojourners of Gilead, and therefore akin to them. It might even be\nconjectured that he was of Kenite origin, like Jonadab, the son of\nRechab, in the days of Jehu.[608] The Gileadites were the Highlanders\nof Palestine, and the name of their land implies its barren\nruggedness.[609] They, like the modern Druses, were\n\n          \"Fierce, hardy, proud, in conscious freedom bold.\"\n\nWe catch a glimpse of these characteristics in the notice of the\nfour hundred Gadites who swam the Jordan in Palestine to join the\nfreebooters of David in the cave of Adullam, \"whose faces were like\nthe faces of lions, and who were as swift as the roes upon the\nmountains.\" Though of Israelitish origin they were closely akin to\nthe Bedawin, swift, strong, temperate, fond of the great solitudes of\nnature, haters of cities, scorners of the softnesses of civilisation.\nElijah shared these characteristics. Like the forerunner of Christ,\nin whom his spirit reappeared nine centuries later, he had lived\nalone with God in the glowing deserts and the mountain fastnesses. He\nfound Jehovah's presence, not in the\n\n          \"Gay religions, full of pomp and gold,\"\n\nwhich he misdoubted and despised, but in the barren hills and wild\nravines and bleak uplands where only here and there roamed a shepherd\nwith his flock. In such hallowed loneliness he had learnt to fear man\nlittle, because he feared God much, and to dwell familiarly on the\nsterner aspects of religion and morality. The one conscious fact of his\nmission, the sufficient authentication of his most imperious mandates,\nwas that \"he stood before Jehovah.\" So unexpected were his appearances\nand disappearances, that in the popular view he only seemed to flash\nto and fro, or to be swept hither and thither, by the Spirit of the\nLord. We may say of him as was said of John the Baptist, that \"in his\nmanifestation and agency he was like a burning torch; his public life\nwas quite an earthquake; the whole man was a sermon, the voice of one\ncrying in the wilderness.\" And, like the Baptist, he had been \"in the\ndeserts, till the day of his showing unto Israel.\"\n\nSomewhere--perhaps at Samaria, perhaps in the lovely summer palace at\nJezreel--he suddenly strode into the presence of Ahab. Coming to him\nas the messenger of the King of kings he does not deign to approach\nhim with the genuflexions and sounding titles which Nathan used to\nthe aged David. With scanted courtesy to one whom he does not respect\nor dread--knowing that he is in God's hands, and has no time to waste\nover courtly periphrases or personal fears--he comes before Ahab\nunknown, unintroduced. What manner of man was it by whom the king\nin his crown and Tyrian purple was thus rudely confronted? He was,\ntradition tells us, a man of short stature, of rugged countenance.\nHe was \"a lord of hair\"--the thick black locks of the Nazarite (for\nsuch he probably was) streamed over his shoulders like a lion's mane,\ngiving him a fierce and unkempt aspect. They that wear soft clothing\nare in king's houses, and doubtless under a queen who, even in old\nage, painted her face and tired her head, and was given to Sidonian\nluxuries, Ahab was accustomed to see men about him in bright apparel.\nBut Elijah had not stooped to alter his ordinary dress, which was the\ndress of the desert by which he was always known. His brown limbs,\notherwise bare, were covered with a heavy mantle, the skin of a camel\nor a sheep worn with the rough wool outside, and tightened round his\nloins by a leathern girdle. So unusual was his aspect in the cities\neast of Jordan, accustomed since the days of Solomon to all the\nrefinements of Egyptian and Ph\u0153nician culture, that it impressed and\nhaunted the imagination of his own and of subsequent ages. The dress\nof Elijah became so normally the dress of prophets who would fain\nhave assumed his authority without one spark of his inspiration, that\nthe later Zechariah has to warn his people against sham prophets who\nappeared with hairy garments, and who wounded their own hands for no\nother purpose than to deceive.[610] The robe of skin, after the long\ninterspace of centuries, was still the natural garb of \"the glorious\neremite,\" who in his spirit and power made straight in the deserts a\nhighway for our God.\n\nSuch was the man who delivered to Ahab in one sentence his tremendous\nmessage: \"As Jehovah, God of Israel, liveth, before whom I stand\"--such\nwas the introductory formula, which became proverbial, and which\nauthenticated the prophecy--\"There shall not be dew[611] nor rain\nthese years but according to my word.\" The phrase \"to stand before\nJehovah\" was used of priests: it was applicable to a prophet in a far\ndeeper and less external sense.[612] Drought was one of the recognised\nDivine punishments for idolatrous apostasy. If Israel should fall\ninto disobedience, we read in Deuteronomy, \"the Lord shall make the\nrain of thy land powder and dust; from heaven shall it come down upon\nthee--until thou be destroyed\"; and in Leviticus we read, \"If ye will\nnot hearken, I will make your heaven as iron and your earth as brass.\"\nThe threat was too significant to need any explanation. The conscience\nof Ahab could interpret only too readily that prophetic menace.\n\nThe message of Elijah marked the beginning of a three, or three\nand a half years' famine. This historic drought is also mentioned\nby Menander of Tyre, who says that after a year, at the prayer of\nEthbaal, the priest and king, there came abundant thunder showers.\nSt. James represents the famine as well as its termination as having\nbeen caused by Elijah's prayer.[613] But the expression of the\nhistorian is general. Elijah might pray for rain, but no prophet\ncould, _proprio motu_, have offered up a prayer for so awful a\ncurse upon an entire country as a famine, in which thousands of\nthe innocent would suffer no less severely than the guilty. Three\nyears' famine was a recognised penalty for apostasy. It was one of\nthe sore plagues of God. It had befallen Judah \"because of Saul and\nhis bloody house,\"[614] and had been offered to guilty David as an\nalternative for three days' pestilence, or three years' flight\nbefore his enemies.[615] We are not here told that Elijah prayed for\nit, but that he announced its commencement, and declared that only in\naccordance with his announcement should it close.\n\nHe delivered his message, and what followed we do not know.\nAhab's tolerance was great; and, however fierce may have been his\ndispleasure, he seems in most cases to have personally respected\nthe sacredness and dignity of the prophets. The king's wrath might\nprovoke an outburst of sullenness, but he contented himself with\nmenacing and reproachful words. It was otherwise with Jezebel. A\ngenuine idolatress, she hated the servants of Jehovah with implacable\nhatred, and did her utmost to suppress them by violence. It was\nprobably to save Elijah from her fury that he was bidden to fly into\nsafe hiding, while her foiled rage expended itself in the endeavour\nto extirpate the whole body of the prophets of the Lord. But, just\nas the child Christ was saved when Herod massacred the infants of\nBethlehem, so Elijah, at whom Jezebel's blow was chiefly aimed, had\nescaped beyond her reach. A hundred other imperilled prophets were\nhidden in a cave by the faithfulness of Obadiah, the king's vizier.\n\nThe word of the Lord bade Elijah to fly eastward and hide himself\n\"in the brook Cherith,[616] that is before Jordan.\" The site of this\nravine--which Josephus only calls \"a certain torrent bed\"--has not\nbeen identified. It was doubtless one of the many wadies which run\ninto the deep Gh\u00f4r or cleft of the Jordan on its eastern side. If\nit belonged to his native Gilead, Elijah would be in little fear of\nbeing discovered by the emissaries whom Ahab sent in every direction\nto seek for him. Whether it was the Wady Kelt,[617] or the Wady el\nJabis,[618] or the Ain Fusail,[619] we know the exact characteristics\nof the scene. On either side, deep, winding and precipitous, rise\nthe steep walls of rock, full of tropic foliage, among which are\nconspicuous the small dark green leaves and stiff thorns of the nubk.\nFar below the summit of the ravine, marking its almost imperceptible\nthread of water by the brighter green of the herbage, and protected\nby masses of dewy leaves from the fierce power of evaporation, the\nhidden torrent preserves its life in all but the most long-continued\nperiods of drought. In such a scene Elijah was absolutely safe.\nWhenever danger approached he could hide himself in some fissure or\ncavern of the beetling crags where the wild birds have their nest,\nor sit motionless under the dense screen of interlacing boughs. The\nwildness and almost terror of his surroundings harmonised with his\nstern and fearless spirit. A spirit like his would rejoice in the\nunapproachable solitude, communing with God alike when the sun flamed\nin the zenith and when the midnight hung over him with all its stars.\n\nThe needs of an Oriental--particularly of an ascetic Bedawy\nprophet--are small as those of the simplest hermit. Water and a few\ndates often suffice him for days together. Elijah drank of the brook,\nand God \"had commanded the ravens to feed him there.\" The shy, wild,\nunclean birds[620] \"brought him\"--so the old prophetic narrative\ntells us--\"bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and flesh in\nthe evening.\" We may remark in passing, that flesh twice a day or\neven once a day, if with Josephus we read \"bread in the morning and\nflesh in the evening,\" is no part of an Arab's ordinary food. It is\nregarded by him as wholly needless, and indeed as an exceptional\nindulgence. The double meal of flesh does not resemble the simple\ndiet of bread and water on which the Prophet lived afterwards at\nSarepta. Are we or are we not to take this as a literal fact? Here\nwe are face to face with a plain question to which I should deem it\ninfamous to give a false or a prevaricating answer.\n\nBefore giving it, let us clear the ground. First of all, it is a\nquestion which can only be answered by serious criticism. Assertion\ncan add nothing to it, and is not worth the breath with which it is\nuttered. The anathemas of obsolete and _a priori_ dogmatism against\nthose who cannot take the statement as simple fact do not weigh so\nmuch as a dead autumn leaf in the minds of any thoughtful men.\n\nSome holy but uninstructed soul may say, \"It stands on the sacred\npage: why should you not understand it literally?\" It might be\nsufficient to answer, Because there are many utterances on the sacred\npage which are purely poetic or metaphorical. \"The eye that mocketh\nat his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the\nbrook shall pick it out, and the young vultures shall eat it.\"[621]\nThe statement looks prosaic and positive enough, but what human\nbeing ever took it literally? \"Curse not the king--for a bird of\nthe air shall carry the voice, and that which hath wings shall tell\nthe matter.\" Who does not see at once that the words are poetic and\nmetaphorical? \"Where their worm dieth not, and their fire is not\nquenched.\" How many educated Christians can assert that they believe\nthat the unredeemed will be eaten for ever by literal worms in\nendless flames? The man who pretends that he is obliged to understand\nliterally the countless Scriptural metaphors involved in an Eastern\nlanguage of which nearly every word is a pictorial metaphor, only\nshows himself incompetent to pronounce an opinion on subjects\nconnected with history, literature, or religious criticism.\n\nIs it then out of dislike to the supernatural, or disbelief in its\noccurrence, that the best critics decline to take the statement\nliterally?\n\nNot at all. Most Christians have not the smallest difficulty in\naccepting the supernatural. If they believe in the stupendous\nmiracles of the Incarnation and the Resurrection, what possible\ndifficulty could they have in accepting any other event merely on\nthe ground that it is miraculous? To many Christians all life seems\nto be one incessant miracle. Disbelieving that any force less than\nthe fiat of God could have thrilled into inorganic matter the germs\nof vegetable and still more of animal life; believing that their\nown life is supernatural, and that they are preserved as they were\ncreated by endless cycles of ever-recurrent miracles; believing that\nthe whole spiritual life is supernatural in its every characteristic;\nthey have not the slightest unwillingness to believe a miracle when\nany real evidence can be adduced for it. They accept, without the\nsmallest misgiving, the miracles of Jesus Christ our Lord, radiating\nas ordinary works from His Divine nature, performed in the full blaze\nof history, attested by hundredfold contemporary evidence, leading\nto results of world-wide and eternal significance--miracles which\nwere, so to speak, natural, normal, and necessary, and of which each\nrevealed some deep moral or spiritual truth. But if miracles can only\nrest on evidence, the dullest and least instructed mind can see that\nthe evidence for this and for some other miracles in this narrative\nstands on a wholly different footing. Taken apart from dogmatic\nassertions which are themselves unproven or disproved, the evidence\nthat ravens daily fed Elijah is wholly inadequate to sustain the\nburden laid upon it.\n\nIn the first place, the story occurs in a book compiled some\ncenturies after the event which it attests; in a book solemn indeed\nand sacred, but composite, and in some of its details not exempt from\nthe accidents which have always affected all human literature.\n\nAnd this incident is unattested by any other evidence. It is, so to\nspeak, isolated. It is quite separable from the historic features of\nthe narrative, and is out of accordance with what is truly called the\nDivine economy of miracles. No miracle was wrought to supply Elijah\nwith water; and if a miracle was needed to supply him with bread\nand flesh, it is easy to imagine hundreds of forms of such direct\ninterposition which would be more normal and more in accordance\nwith all other Scripture miracles than the continuous overruling of\nthe natural instincts of ravenous birds. It has been said that this\nparticular form of miracle was needed for its evidential value; but\nthere is nothing in the narrative to imply that it had the smallest\nevidential value for any one of Elijah's contemporaries, or even that\nthey knew of it at all.\n\nFurther, we find it, not in a plain prose narrative, but in a\nnarrative differing entirely from the prosaic setting in which it\noccurs--a narrative which rises in many parts to the height of poetic\nand imaginative splendour. There is nothing to show that it was not\nintended to be a touch of imaginative poetry and nothing more. Part\nof the greatness of Hebrew literature lies in its power of conveying\neternal truth, as, for instance, in the Book of Job and in many\npassages of the prophets, in the form of imaginative narration. The\nstories of Elijah and Elisha come from the Schools of the Prophets.\nIf room was left in them for the touch of poetic fiction, or for the\nembellishment of history with moral truth, conveyed in the form of\nparable or apologue, we can at once account for the sudden multitude\nof miracles. They were founded no doubt in many instances on actual\nevents, but in the form into which the narrative is thrown they were\nrecorded to enhance the greatness of the heroic chiefs of the Schools\nof the Prophets. It is therefore uncertain whether the original\nnarrator believed, or meant his readers literally to believe, such\na statement as that Elijah was fed morning and evening by actual\nravens. It cannot be proved that he intended more than a touch of\npoetry, by which he could convey the lesson that the prophet was\nmaintained by marked interventions of that providence of God which\nis itself in all its workings supernatural. God's feeding of the\nravens in their nest was often alluded to in Hebrew poetry; and if\nthe marvellous support of the Prophet in his lonely hiding-place was\nto be represented in an imaginative form, this way of representing\nit would naturally occur to the writer's thoughts. Similarly, when\nJerome wrote the purely fictitious life of Paul the Hermit, which was\ntaken for fact even by his contemporaries, he thinks it quite natural\nto say that Paul and Antony saw a raven sitting on a tree, who flew\ngently down to them and placed a loaf on the table before them.\nRavens haunt the lonely, inaccessible cliffs among which Elijah found\nhis place of refuge. It needed but a touch of metaphor to transform\nthem into ministers of Heaven's beneficence.\n\nBut besides all this, the word rendered ravens (_Orebim_, \u05e2\u05b9\u05e8\u05b0\u05d1\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd)\nonly has that meaning if it be written with the vowel points. But\nthe vowel points are confessedly not \"inspired\" in any sense, but\nare a late Massoretic invention. Without the change of a letter the\nword may equally well mean people of the city Orbo,[622] or of the\nrock Oreb (as was suggested even in the Bereshith Rabba by Rabbi\nJudah); or \"merchants,\" as in Ezek. xxvii. 27; or Arabians. No doubt\ndifficulties might be suggested about any of these interpretations;\nbut which would be most reasonable, the acceptance of such small\ndifficulties, or the literal acceptance of a stupendous miracle,\nunlike any other in the Bible, by which we are to believe on the\nisolated authority of a nameless and long subsequent writer, that,\nfor months or weeks together, voracious and unclean birds brought\nbread and flesh to the Prophet twice a day? The old naturalistic\nattempts to explain the miracle are on the face of them absurd;\nbut it is as perfectly open to any one who chooses to say that\n\"Arabians,\" or \"Orbites,\" or \"merchants,\" or \"people of the rock\nOreb\" fed Elijah, as to say that the \"ravens\" did so. The explanation\nnow universally accepted by the Higher Criticism is different. It is\nto accept the meaning \"ravens,\" but not with wooden literalness to\ninterpret didactic and poetic symbolism as though it were bald and\nmatter-of-fact prose. The imagery of a grand religious _Haggada_ is\nnot to be understood, nor was it ever meant to be understood, like\nthe page of a dull annalist. Analogous stories are found abundantly\nalike in early pagan and early Christian literature and in medi\u00e6val\nhagiology. They are true in essence though not in fact, and the\nintention of them is often analogous to this; but no story is found\nso noble as this in its pure and quiet simplicity.\n\nLet this then suffice and render it needless to recur to similar\ndiscussions. If any think themselves bound to interpret this and all\nthe other facts in these narratives in their most literal sense; if\nthey hold that the mere mention of such things by unknown writers in\nunknown time--possibly centuries afterwards, when the event may have\nbecome magnified by the refraction of tradition--is sufficient to\nsubstantiate them, let them hold their own opinion as long as it can\nsatisfy them. But _proof_ of such an opinion they neither have nor\ncan have; and let them beware of priding themselves on the vaunt of\ntheir \"faith,\" when such \"faith\" may haply prove to be no more than a\ndistortion of the truer faith which proves all things and only holds\nfast that which will stand the test. A belief based on some _a priori_\nopinion about \"verbal dictation\" is not necessarily meritorious. It\nmay be quite the reverse. Such a dogma has never been laid down by the\nChurch in general. It has very rarely been insisted upon by any branch\nof the Church in any age. A belief which prides itself on ignorance\nof the vast horizon opened to us by the study of many forms of\nliterature, by the advance of criticism, by the science of comparative\nreligion--so far from being religious or spiritual may only be a sign\nof ignorance, or of a defective love of truth. A dogmatism which heaps\nupon intelligent faith burdens at once needless and intolerable may\nspring from sources which should tend to self-humiliation rather than\nto spiritual pride.[623] _Abundet quisque in sensu suo._ But such\nbeliefs have not the smallest connexion with true faith or sincere\nChristianity. God is a God of truth, and he who tries to force himself\ninto a view which history and literature, no less than the faithful\nfollowing of the Divine light within him, convince him to be untenable,\ndoes not rise into faith, but sins and does mischief by feebleness and\n_lack_ of faith.[624]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[606] Tobit i. 2.\n\n[607] Josephus, _Antt._, VIII. xiii. 2; Vat. (LXX.), \u0398\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f10\u03ba\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u1ff6\u03bd. The Alex. LXX. omits \u0398\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2. An immense amount has been\nwritten about Elijah. Among others, see Knobel, _Der Prophetismus_,\nii. 73; K\u00f6ster, _Der Thesbiter_; Stanley, ii., lect. xxx.; Maurice,\n_Prophets and Kings_, serm. viii.; F. W. Robertson, ii., serm. vi.;\nMilligan, _Elijah_ (Men of the Bible).\n\n[608] See 1 Chron. ii. 55.\n\n[609] See Cheyne, _The Hallowing of Criticism_, p. 9.\n\n[610] Zech. xiii. 4.\n\n[611] The word also means \"sea-mist\" (Cheyne, p. 15).\n\n[612] Lev. xxvi. 19; Psalm cxxxiv. 1; Heb. x. 11.\n\n[613] So too Ecclus. xlviii. 2, \"He _brought_ a sore famine upon\nthem, and by his zeal he diminished their number\"; but the writer\nadds, \"_By the word of the Lord he shut up the heavens._\" Deut.\nxxviii. 12; Amos iv. 7.\n\n[614] 2 Sam. xxi. 1.\n\n[615] 2 Sam. xxiv. 13. \"Three,\" not \"seven,\" is probably here the\ntrue reading.\n\n[616] Not \"by,\" as in the A.V. Cherith means \"cut off\" (1 Kings xvii.\n3). \"The Lord hid him\" (Jer. xxxvi. 26). \"In famine he shall redeem\nthee from death.... At famine and destruction thou shalt laugh\" (Job\nv. 20-22).\n\n[617] Robinson.\n\n[618] Benjamin of Tudela.\n\n[619] Marinus Sanutus (1321).\n\n[620] The ravens were unclean birds (Deut. xiv. 14), and this\nnaturally startled and offended the Rabbis.\n\n[621] Prov. xxx. 17.\n\n[622] Orbo was a small town near the Jordan and Bethshan.\n\n[623] On the other side, Bunsen (_Bibelwerk_, v. 2, 540) speaks\ntoo strongly when he says that \"nothing but boundless ignorance,\nor, where historical criticism has not died out, an hierarchical\ndilettanti reaction, foolhardy hypocrisy, and weak-hearted fanaticism\nwould wish to demand the faith of a Christian community in the\nhistoric truths of these miracles as if they had actually taken\nplace.\" He regards the whole narrative as a \"popular epic--the fruit\nof an inspiration, which he, as it were some superhuman being,\nawakened in his disciples.\"\n\n[624] I append the remarks of Professor Milligan, a theologian of\nunimpeachable orthodoxy. \"The miracle,\" he says, \"is so remarkable,\nso much out of keeping with most of the other miracles of Scripture,\nthat even pious and devout minds may well be perplexed by it, and\nwe can feel no surprise at the attempts made to explain it. Such\nattempts are not inconsistent with the most devout reverence for\nthe word of God. They are rather, not unfrequently, the result of\na just persuasion that the Eastern mind did not express itself in\nforms similar to those of the West\" (_Elijah_, p. 22). He proceeds\nto protest against the harsh condemnation of those who thus only try\nto interpret the real ideas present in the mind of the writer. He\nregards it as perhaps a highly poetic and figurative representation\nof the truth that the God of Nature was with Elijah. \"The value of\nthe Prophet's experience is neither heightened by a literal, nor\ndiminished by a figurative, interpretation of what passed\" (p. 24).\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XXXV.\n\n                          _ELIJAH AT SAREPTA._\n\n                      1 KINGS xvii. 7, xviii. 19.\n\n    \"The rain is God's compassion.\"--MOHAMMED.\n\n\nThe fierce drought continued, and \"at the end of days\"[625] even the\nthin trickling of the stream in the clefts of Cherith was dried up. In\nthe language of Job it felt the glare and vanished.[626] No miracle was\nwrought to supply the Prophet with water, but once more the providence\nof God intervened to save his life for the mighty work which still\nawaited him. He was sent to the region where, nearly a millennium\nlater, the feet of his Lord followed him on a mission of mercy to those\nother sheep of His flock who were not of the Jud\u00e6an fold.\n\nThe word of the Lord bade him make his way to the Sidonian city of\nZarephath. Zarephath, the Sarepta of St. Luke, the modern Surafend,\nlay between Tyre and Sidon, and there the waters would not be wholly\ndried up, for the fountains of Lebanon were not yet exhausted. The\ndrought had extended to Ph\u0153nicia,[627] but Elijah was told that\nthere a widow woman would sustain him. The Baal-worshipping queen who\nhad hunted for his life would be least of all likely to search for\nhim in a city of Baal-worshippers in the midst of her own people. He\nis sent among these Baal-worshippers to do them kindness, to receive\nkindness from them--perhaps to learn a wider tolerance, and to find\nthat idolaters also are human beings, children, like the orthodox,\nof the same heavenly Father. He had been taught the lesson of\n\"dependence upon God\": he was now to learn the lesson of \"fellowship\nwith man.\" Travelling probably by night both for coolness and for\nsafety, Elijah went that long journey to the heathen district. He\narrived there faint with hunger and thirst. Seeing a woman gathering\nsticks near the city gate he asked her for some water, and as she was\ngoing to fetch it he called to her and asked her also to bring him a\nmorsel of bread. The answer revealed the condition of extreme want\nto which she was reduced. Recognising that Elijah was an Israelite,\nand therefore a worshipper of Jehovah, she said, \"As Jehovah thy\nGod liveth, I have not a cake, but (only) a handful of meal in the\nbarrel, and a little oil in the cruse.\" She was gathering a couple of\nsticks to make one last meal for herself and her son, and then to lie\ndown and die.[628] For drought did not only mean universal anguish,\nbut much actual starvation. It meant, as Joel says, speaking of the\ndesolation caused by locusts, that the cattle groan and perish, and\nthe corn withers, and the seeds rot under their clods.\n\nStrong in faith Elijah told her not to fear, but first to supply his\nown more urgent needs, and then to make a meal for herself and her\nson. Till Jehovah sent rain, the barrel of meal should not waste, nor\nthe cruse of oil fail. She believed the promise, and for many days,\nperhaps for two whole years, the Prophet continued to be her guest.\n\nBut after a time her boy fell grievously sick, and at last died, or\nseemed to die.[629] So dread a calamity--the smiting of the stay\nof her home, and the son of her widowhood--filled the woman with\nterror. She longed to get rid of the presence of this terrible \"man\nof God.\"[630] He must have come, she thought, to bring her sin to\nremembrance before God, and so to cause Him to slay her son. The\nProphet was touched by the pathos of her appeal, and could not bear\nthat she should look upon him as the cause of her bereavement. \"Give\nme thy son,\" he said. Taking the dead boy from her arms, he carried\nhim to the chamber which she had set apart for him, and laid him on\nhis own bed. Then, after an earnest cry to God, he stretched himself\nthree times over the body of the youth, as though to breathe into\nhis lungs and restore his vital warmth, at the same time praying\nintensely that \"his soul might come into him again.\"[631] His prayer\nwas heard; the boy revived. Carrying him down from the chamber,\nElijah had the happiness of restoring him to his widowed mother\nwith the words, \"See, thy son liveth.\" So remarkable an event not\nonly convinced the woman that Elijah was indeed what she had called\nhim, \"a man of God,\" but also that Jehovah was the true God. It was\nnot unnatural that tradition should interest itself in the boy thus\nstrangely snatched from the jaws of death. The Jews fancied that he\ngrew up to be servant of Elijah, and afterwards to be the prophet\nJonah. The tradition at least shows an insight into the fact that\nElijah was the first missionary sent from among the Jews to the\nheathen, and that Jonah became the second.\n\nWe are not to suppose that during his stay at Zarephath Elijah\nremained immured in his chamber. Safe and unsuspected, he might, at\nleast by night, make his way to other places, and it is reasonable\nto believe that he then began to haunt the glades and heights of\nbeautiful and deserted Carmel, which was at no great distance, and\nwhere he could mourn over the ruined altar of Jehovah and take refuge\nin any of its \"more than two thousand tortuous caves.\" But what\nwas the object of his being sent to Zarephath? That it was not for\nhis own sake alone, that it had in it a purpose of conversion, is\ndistinctly implied by our Lord when He says that in those days there\nwere many widows in Israel, yet Elijah was not sent to them, but\nto this Sidonian idolatress. The prophets and saints of God do not\nalways understand the meaning of Providence or the lessons of their\nDivine training. Francis of Assisi at first entirely misunderstood\nthe real drift and meaning of the Divine intimations that he was to\nrebuild the ruined Church of God, which he afterwards so gloriously\nfulfilled. The thoughts of God are not as man's thoughts, nor His\nways as man's ways, nor does He make all His servants as it were\n\"fusile apostles,\" as He made St. Paul. The education of Elijah\nwas far from complete even long afterwards. To the very last, if\nwe are to accept the records of him as historically literal, amid\nthe revelations vouchsafed to him he had not grasped the truth that\nthe Elijah-spirit, however needful it may seem to be, differs very\nwidely from the Spirit of the Lord of Life. Yet may it not have\nbeen that Elijah was sent to learn from the kind ministrations of a\nSidonian widow, to whose care his life was due, some inkling of those\ntruths which Christ revealed so many centuries afterwards, when He\nvisited the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, and extended His mercy to the\ngreat faith of the Syro-Ph\u0153nician woman? May not Elijah have been\nmeant to learn what had to be taught by experience to the two great\nApostles of the Circumcision and the Uncircumcision, that not every\nBaal-worshipper was necessarily corrupt or wholly insincere? St.\nPeter was thus taught that God is no respecter of persons, and that\nwhether their religious belief be false or true, in every nation he\nthat feareth Him and doeth righteousness is accepted of Him. St. Paul\nlearnt at Damascus and taught at Athens that God made of one every\nnation of men to dwell on the face of the earth, that they should\nseek God if haply they might feel after Him and find Him, though He\nbe not far from every one of us.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[625] 1 Kings xvii. 7. Perhaps years (Lev. xxv. 29; 1 Sam. xxvii. 7).\n\n[626] Job vi. 17.\n\n[627] Menander, quoted by Josephus, _Antt._, VIII. xiii. 2. He says\nit lasted for a year.\n\n[628] LXX., \"My sons\"--perhaps with reference to \"her house\" in verse\n15.\n\n[629] Perhaps the language of the Hebrew is not actually decisive.\nJosephus says, \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u1f00\u03c6\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd. In any case his\nrecovery was due to Elijah's prayer.\n\n[630] The phrase \"man of God\" is characteristic of the Book of Kings,\nin which it occurs fifty-three times. It became a normal description\nof Elijah and Elisha. \"What have I to do with thee?\" Comp. 2 Sam.\nxvi. 10; Luke v. 8. It was a common superstition that death always\nfollowed the appearance of superhuman beings.\n\n[631] Compare the similar revivals of life wrought by Elisha (2 Kings\niv. 34), and by St. Paul (Acts xx. 10).\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XXXVI.\n\n                           _ELIJAH AND AHAB._\n\n                         1 KINGS, xviii. 1-19.\n\n    \"Return, oh backsliding children, and I will heal your\n    backslidings. Behold, we come unto thee; for Thou art Jehovah our\n    God. Truly in vain is salvation hoped for from the tumult (of\n    votaries) upon the mountains. Truly in Jehovah our God is the\n    salvation of Israel. And the Shame (_i.e._, Baal) hath devoured\n    the labour of our fathers.\"--JER. iii. 22-24.\n\n\nElijah stayed long with the Sidonian widow, safe in that obscure\nconcealment, and with his simple wants supplied. But at last the\nword of the Lord came to him with the conviction that the drought\nhad accomplished its appointed end in impressing the souls of king\nand people, and that the time was come for some immense and decisive\ndemonstration against the prevalent apostasy. All his sudden movements,\nall his stern incisive utterances were swayed by his allegiance to\nJehovah before whom he stood, and he now received the command, \"Go,\nshow thyself unto Ahab; and I will send rain upon the earth.\"\n\nTo obey such a mandate showed the strength of his faith. It is\nclear that even before the menace of the thought he had been known,\nand unfavourably known, to Ahab. The king saw in him a prophet who\nfearlessly opposed all the idolatrous tendencies into which he had\nled his easy and faithless people. How terribly must Ahab's hatred\nhave been now intensified! We see from all the books of the prophets\nthat they were personally identified with their predictions; that\nthey were held responsible for them, were even regarded in popular\napprehension as having actually brought about the things which they\npredicted. \"See,\" says Jehovah to the timid boy Jeremiah, \"I have\nthis day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms to root\nout, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build,\nand to plant.\" The Prophet is addressed as though he personally\neffected the ruin he denounced. Elijah, then, would be regarded by\nAhab as in one sense the author of the three years' famine. It would\nbe held--not indeed with perfect accuracy, yet with a not unnatural\nconfusion--that it was _he_ who had shut up the windows of heaven and\ncaused the misery and starvation of the suffering multitudes. With\nwhat wrath would a great and powerful king like Ahab look on this\nbold intruder, this skin-clad alien of Gilead, who had frustrated his\npolicy, defied his power, and stamped his reign with so overwhelming\na disaster. Yet he is bidden, \"Go, show thyself unto Ahab\"; and\nperhaps his immediate safety was only secured by the additional\nmessage, \"and I will send rain upon the earth.\"\n\nThings had, indeed, come to their worst. The \"sore famine\" in Samaria\nhad reached a point which, if it had not been alleviated, would have\nled to the utter ruin of the miserable kingdom.\n\nIn this crisis Ahab did all that a king could do. Most of the cattle\nhad perished, but it was essential to save if possible some of the\nhorses and mules. No grass was left on the scorched plains and bare\nbrown hills except where there were fountains and brooks which had\nnot entirely vanished under that copper sky. To these places it\nwas necessary to drive such a remnant of the cattle as it might be\nstill possible to preserve alive. But who could be trusted to rise\nentirely superior to individual selfishness in such a search? Ahab\nthought it best to trust no one but himself and his vizier Obadiah.\nThe very name of this high official, Obadjahu, like the common\nMohammedan names Abdallah, Abderrahnan, and others, implied that he\nwas \"a servant of Jehovah.\" His conduct answered to his name, for\non Jezebel's persecuting attempt to exterminate Jehovah's prophets\nin their schools or communities, he, \"the Sebastian of the Jewish\nDiocletian,\" had, at the peril of his own life, taken a hundred\nof them, concealed them in two of the great limestone caves of\nPalestine--perhaps in the recesses of Mount Carmel,[632] and fed them\nwith bread and water. It is to Ahab's credit that he retained such a\nman in office, though the touch of timidity which we trace in Obadiah\nmay have concealed the full faithfulness of his personal allegiance\nto the old worship. Yet that such a man should still hold the post of\nchamberlain (_al-hab-baith_) furnishes a fresh proof that Ahab was\nnot himself a worshipper of Baal.\n\nThe king and his vizier went in opposite directions, each of them\nunaccompanied, and Obadiah was on his way when he was startled by\nthe sudden appearance of Elijah. He had not previously seen him,\nbut recognising him by his shaggy locks, his robe of skin, and the\nawful sternness of his swarthy countenance, he was almost abjectly\nterrified. Apart from the awe-inspiring aspect and manner of the\nProphet, this seemed no mere man who stood before him, but the\nrepresentative of the Eternal, and the wielder of His power. To his\ncontemporaries he appeared like the incarnate vengeance of Jehovah\nagainst guilty times, a flash as it were of God's consuming fire. To\nthe Moslim of to-day he is still _El Khudr_, \"the eternal wanderer.\"\nSpringing from his chariot, Obadiah fell flat on his face and cried,\n\"Is it thou, my lord Elijah?\" \"It is I,\" answered the Prophet, not\nwasting words over his terror and astonishment. \"Go, tell thy lord,\nBehold, Elijah is here.\"\n\nThe message enhanced the vizier's alarm. Why had not Elijah showed\nhimself at once to Ahab? Did some terrible vindictive purpose lurk\nbehind his message? Did Elijah confuse the aims and deeds of the\nminister with those of the king? Why did he despatch him on an errand\nwhich might move Ahab to kill him? Was not Elijah aware, he asks,\nwith Eastern hyperbole, that Ahab had sent \"to every nation and\nkingdom\" to ask if Elijah was there, and when told that he was not\nthere he made them confirm the statement by an oath?[633] What would\ncome of such a message if Obadiah conveyed it? No sooner would it\nbe delivered than the wind of the Lord would sweep Elijah away into\nsome new and unknown solitude,[634] and Ahab, thinking that he had\nonly been befooled, would in his angry disappointment, put Obadiah\nto death. Had he deserved such a fate? Had not Elijah heard of his\nreverence for Jehovah from his youth, and of his saving the hundred\nprophets at the peril of his life? Why then send him on so dangerous\na mission? To these agitated appeals Elijah answered by his customary\noath, \"As Jehovah of hosts liveth, before whom I stand,[635] I will\nshow myself unto him to-day.\" Then Obadiah went and told Ahab, and\nAhab with impetuous haste hastened to meet Elijah, knowing that on\nhim depended the fate of his kingdom.\n\nYet when they met he could not check the burst of anger which sprang\nto his lips.\n\n\"Is it thou, thou troubler of Israel?\" he fiercely exclaimed.[636]\nElijah was not the man to quail before the _vultus instantis tyranni_.\n\"I have not troubled Israel,\" was the undaunted answer, \"but thou\nand thy father's house.\" The cause of the drought was not the menace\nof Elijah, but the apostasy to Baalim. It was time that the fatal\ncontroversy should be decided. There must be an appeal to the people.\nElijah was in a position to dictate, and he did dictate. \"Let all\nIsrael,\" he said, \"be summoned to Mount Carmel;\" and there he would\nsingly meet in their presence the four hundred and fifty prophets of\nBaal, and the four hundred prophets of the Asherah, all of whom ate\nat Jezebel's table.[637] Then and there a great challenge should take\nplace, and the question should be settled for ever, whether Baal or\nJehovah was to be the national god of Israel. What challenge could be\nfairer, seeing that Baal was the Sun-god, the god of fire?\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[632] Amos ix. 3: \"And though they hide themselves in the top of\nCarmel, I will search and take them out thence.\" The phrase shows the\nsecurity and seclusion of these caves and thickets, the haunt once of\nlions and bears, and still of leopards and hy\u00e6nas.\n\n[633] The LXX. adds that he inflicted vengeance because Elijah was\nnot found: \"\u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\u03ad\u03c0\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7\n\u03b5\u1f54\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03ad \u03c3\u03b5\" (1 Kings xviii. 10).\n\n[634] Obadiah seems to have believed in miraculous transference of\nthe Prophet from place to place. Comp. Ezek. iii. 12-14 (where \"the\nspirit\" may be rendered \"a spirit,\" or \"a wind\"), viii. 3; 2 Kings\nii. 16; Acts viii. 39; and the Ebionite Gospel of St. Matthew. \"My\nmother, the Holy Ghost, took me by a hair of the head, and carried me\nto Mount Tabor\" (Orig. _in Joann._, ii., \u00a7 6; and Jer. _in Mic._ vii.\n6). So in Bel and the Dragon 33-36 (Abarbanel, _Comm. in Habakkuk_)\nthe prophet Habakkuk is said to have been taken invisibly to supply\nfood to Daniel in the den of lions. \"Then the angel of the Lord took\nhim by the crown and bare him by the hair of his head, and through\nthe vehemency of his spirit\" (_Midr. Robshik Rabba, \"in the might of\nthe Holy Ghost\"_) \"set him in Babylon.\"\n\n[635] 1 Kings xviii. 15, LXX., \"The Lord God of Israel\" has now\nbecome to him more prominently \"the Lord God of Hosts.\"\n\n[636] The phrase had already been applied to Achan (Josh. vii. 25).\n\n[637] _I.e._, were maintained at Jezebel's expense. The subsequent\nnarration is silent as to the presence of the prophets of the Asherah,\nand Wellhausen thinks that the words here are an interpolation.\n\n\n\n\n                            CHAPTER XXXVII.\n\n                       _ELIJAH ON MOUNT CARMEL._\n\n                         1 KINGS xviii. 20-40.\n\n          \"O for a sculptor's hand,\n           That thou might'st take thy stand,\n           Thy wild hair floating in the eastern breeze!\"\n                                                  KEBLE.\n\n\nIt never occurred to Ahab to refuse the challenge, or to arrest the\nhated messenger. The hermit and the dervish are sacrosanct; they\nstand before kings and are not ashamed. Having nothing to desire,\nthey have nothing to fear. So Antony stalked into the streets of\nAlexandria to denounce its prefect; so Athanasius fearlessly seized\nthe bridle of Constantine in his new city; so a ragged and dwarfish\nold man--Macedonius the Barley-eater--descended from his mountain\ncave at Antioch to stop the horses of the avenging commissioners\nof Thedosius, and bade them go back and rebuke the fury of their\nEmperor,--and so far from punishing him they alighted, and fell on\ntheir knees, and begged his blessing.\n\nThe vast assembly was gathered by royal proclamation. There could\nhave been no scene in the land of Israel more strikingly suitable for\nthe purpose than Mount Carmel. It is a ridge of upper oolite, or Jura\nlimestone, which at the eastern extremity rises more than sixteen\nhundred feet above the sea, sinking down to six hundred feet at the\nwestern extremity. The \"excellency of Carmel\" of which the prophet\nspeaks[638] consists in the fruitfulness which to this day makes it\nrich in flowers of all hues, and clothes it with the impenetrable\nfoliage of oak, pine, walnut, olive, laurel, dense brushwood, and\nevergreen shrubberies thicker than in any other part in Central\nPalestine. The name means \"Garden of God,\" and travellers, delighted\nwith the rocky dells and blossoming glades, describe Carmel as \"still\nthe fragrant lovely mountain that it was of old.\"[639] It \"forms the\nsouthern extremity of the Gulf of Khaifa, and separates the great\nwestern plain of Philistia from the plain of Esdraelon, and the plain\nof Ph\u0153nicia.\" \"It is difficult,\" says Sir G. Grove, \"to find another\nsite in which every particular is so minutely fulfilled as in this.\"\nThe whole mountain is now called _Mar Elias_ from the Prophet's name.\n\nThe actual spot of the range near which took place this most memorable\nevent in the history of Israel was almost undoubtedly a little below\nthe eastern summit of the ridge. It is \"a terrace of natural rock,\"\nwhich commands a fine view of the plains and lakes and the hills of\nGalilee, and the windings of the Kishon, with Jezreel glimmering in\nthe far distance under the heights of Gilboa. The remains of an old\nand massive square structure are here visible, called _El-Muhrakkah_,\n\"the burning,\" or \"the sacrifice,\" perhaps the site of Elijah's altar.\nUnder the ancient olives still remains the round well of perennial\nwater from which, even in the drought, the Prophet could fill the\nbarrels which he poured over his sacrifice. Elijah's grotto is pointed\nout in the Church of the Convent, and another near the sea. In the\nregion known as \"the garden of Elijah\" are found the _geodes_ and\n_septaria_--stones and fossils which assume the aspect, sometimes\nof loaves of bread, sometimes of water-melons and olives, and are\nstill known as \"Elijah's fruits.\" The whole mountain murmurs with his\nname.[640] He became in local legend the oracular god Carmelus, whose\n\"altar and devotion\" drew visitors no less illustrious than Pythagoras\nand Vespasian to visit the sacred hill.[641]\n\nHere, then, at early dawn the Prophet of Jehovah, in his solitary\ngrandeur, met the four hundred and fifty idolatrous priests and their\nrabble of attendant fanatics in the presence of the half-curious\nking and the half-apostate people. He presented the oft-repeated\ntype of God's servant alone against the world.[642] Most rarely is\nit otherwise. They who speak smooth things and prophesy deceits\nmay always live at ease in amicable compromise with the world, the\nflesh, and the devil. But the Prophet has ever to set his face as a\nflint against tyrants, and mobs and false prophets, and intriguing\npriests, and all who daub tottering walls with untempered mortar,\nand all who, in days smooth and perilous, softly murmur, \"Peace,\npeace, when there is no peace.\" So it was with Noah in the days of\nthe deluge; so with Amos and Hosea and the later Zechariah; so with\nMicaiah, the son of Imlah; so with Isaiah, mocked as a babbler by the\npriests at Jerusalem, and at last sawn asunder; so with Jeremiah,\nstruck in the face by the priest Pashur, and thrust into the miry\ndungeon, and at last murdered in exile; so with Zechariah, the son\nof Jehoiada, whom they slew between the porch and the altar. Nor has\nit been less so since the earliest dawn of the New Dispensation. Of\nJohn the Baptist the priests and Pharisees said, \"He has a devil,\"\nand Herod slew him in prison. All, perhaps, of the twelve Apostles\nwere martyred. Paul, like the rest, was intrigued against, thwarted,\nhated, mobbed, imprisoned, hunted from place to place by the world,\nthe Jews, and the false Christians. Treated as the offscouring of all\nthings, he was at last contemptuously beheaded in utter obscurity.\nSimilar fates befell many of the best and greatest of the Fathers.\nIgnatius, Polycarp, Justin, were slain by wild beasts and by fire.\nOrigen's life was one long martyrdom, mostly at the hands of his\nfellow-Christians. Did not Athanasius stand against the world? What\nneeds it to summon from the prison or the stake the mighty shades\nof Savonarola, of Huss, of Jerome of Prague, of the Albigenses\nand Waldenses, of the myriad victims of the Inquisition, of those\nwho were burnt at Smithfield and Oxford, of Luther, of Whitfield?\nDid Christ mean nothing when he said, among His first beatitudes,\n\"Blessed are ye when all men shall revile you, and persecute you,\nand say all manner of evil against you falsely for My sake and the\ngospel's\"? Was it mere accident and metaphor when He said, \"Ye are\nof the world, and therefore the world cannot hate you; but Me it\nhateth\"; and, \"If they have called the Master of the house Beelzebub,\nmuch more them of His household\"? Which of His best and purest sons,\nfrom the first Good Friday down to this day, has ever passed through\nlife unpersecuted of slanderous tongues? Has the nominal Church ever\nshown any more mercy to saints than the sneering and furious world?\nWhat has sustained Christ's hated ones? What but that confidence\ntowards God which lives among those whose heart condemns them not?\nWhat but the fact that \"they could turn from the storm without to the\napproving sunshine within\"? \"See,\" it has been said, \"he who builds\non the general esteem of the world builds, not on the sand, but,\nwhich is worse, upon the wind, and writes the title-deeds of his hope\nupon the face of a river.\" But when a man knows that \"one with God\nis always in a majority,\" then his loneliness is changed into the\nconfidence that all the ten thousand times ten thousand of Heaven\nare with him. \"His banishment becomes his preferment, his rags his\ntrophies, his nakedness his ornament; and, so long as his innocence\nis his repast, he feasts and banquets upon bread and water.\"\n\nAnd so,\n\n          \"Among the faithless, faithful only he;\n           Among innumerable false, unmoved,\n           Unshaken, unseduced, unterrified,\"\n\nElijah fearlessly stood alone, while all the world confronted him with\nfrowning menace. The coward sympathies of the neutrals who face both\nways may have been with him, but the multitude of such Laodiceans\nwink at wrong, and from love of their own ease do not, and dare not,\nspeak. God only was the protector of Elijah, and in himself alone was\nall his state, as in his garment of hair he approached the people and\nconfronted the idolatrous priests in all the gorgeousness of Baal's\nvestry. He, like his great predecessor Moses, was the champion of moral\npurity, of the national faith, of religious freedom and simplicity,\nof the immediate access of man to God; they were the champions of\nfanatical and unhallowed religionism, of usurping priestcraft, of\nunnatural self-abasements, of persecuting despotism, of licentious and\ncruel rites. Elijah was the deliverer of his people from a hideous\nand polluted apostasy which, had he not prevailed that day, would\nhave obliterated their name and their memory from the annals of the\nnations. That he was a genuine historic character--a prophet of Divine\ncommission and marvellous power--cannot for a moment be doubted,\nhowever impossible it may now be in every incident to disentangle the\nliteral historic facts from the poetic and legendary emblazonment which\nthose facts not unnaturally received in the ordinary recollection of\nthe prophetic schools. Throughout the great scene which followed, his\nspirit was that of the Psalmist: \"Though an host of men should encamp\nagainst me, yet will not my heart be afraid\"; that of the \"servant of\nthe Lord\" in Isaiah: \"He hath made my mouth like a sharp sword, and in\nHis quiver hath He hid me.\"[643]\n\nHis first challenge was to the people. \"How long,\" he asked, \"do ye\ntotter between two opinions?[644] If Jehovah be God, follow Him; but\nif Baal, follow him.\"\n\nAwestruck and ashamed the multitude kept unbroken silence. Doubtless\nit was, in part, the silence of guilt. They knew that they had\nfollowed Jezebel into the cruelties of Baal-worship, and the\nforbidden lusts which polluted the temples of the Asherah. Puritanism\nsimplicity, spirituality of worship involves a strain too great and\ntoo lofty for the multitude. Like all Orientals, like the negroes of\nAmerica, like most weak minds, they loved to rely on a pompous ritual\nand a sensuous worship. It is so easy to let these stand for the\ndeeper requirements which lie in the truth that \"God is a Spirit, and\nthey that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.\"\n\nReceiving no answer to his stern question, Elijah laid down the\nconditions of the contest. \"The prophets of Baal,\" he said, \"are\nfour hundred and fifty: I stand alone as a prophet of Jehovah. Let\ntwo bullocks be provided for us; they shall slay and dress one,\nand lay it on wood, but--for there shall be no priestly trickeries\nto-day--they shall put no fire under. I, though I be no priest, will\nslay and dress the other, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under.\nThen let all of you, Baal-priests and people if you will, cry to your\nidols; I will call on the name of Jehovah. The god that answereth by\nfire let _him_ be God.\"\n\nNo challenge could be fairer, for Baal was the Sun-god; and what god\ncould be more likely to answer by fire from that blazing sky? The deep\nmurmur of the people expressed their assent. The Baal priests were\ncaught as in a snare. Their hearts must have sunk within them; his did\nnot. Perhaps some of them believed sufficiently in their idol to hope\nthat, were he demon or deity, he might save himself and his votaries\nfrom humiliation and defeat; but most of them must have been seized\nwith terrible misgiving, as they saw the assembled people prepared to\nwait with Oriental patience, seated on their abbas on the sides of that\nnatural amphitheatre, till the descending flame should prove that Baal\nhad heard the weird invocation of his worshippers. But, since they\ncould not escape the proposed ordeal, they chose, and slew, and dressed\ntheir victim. From morning till noon--many of them with wildly waving\narms, others with their foreheads in the dust--they upraised the wild\nchant of their monotonous invocation, \"Baal, hear us! Baal, hear us!\"\nIn vain the cry rose and fell, now uttered in soft appealing murmurs,\nnow rising into passionate entreaties. All was silent. There lay the\ndead bullock putrescing under the burning orb which was at once their\ndeity and the visible sign of his presence. No consuming lightning\nfell, even when the sun flamed in the zenith of that cloudless sky.\nThere was no voice nor any that answered.\n\nThen they tried still more potent incantations. They began to circle\nround the altar they had made in one of their solemn dances to the\nshrill strains of pipe and flute. The rhythmic movements ended in\ngiddy whirls and orgiastic leapings which were a common feature of\nsensuous heathen worship; dances in which, like modern dervishes,\nthey bounded and yelled and spun round and round till they fell\nfoaming and senseless to the ground.[645] The people looked on\nexpectant, but it was all in vain.\n\nHitherto the Prophet had remained silent, but now when noon came, and\nstill no fire descended, he mocked them. Now, surely, if ever, was\ntheir time! They had been crying for six long hours in their vain\nrepetitions and incantations. Surely they had not shouted loud enough!\nBaal was a god; some strange accident must have prevented him from\nhearing the prayer of his miserable priests. Perhaps he was in deep\nmeditation, so that he did not notice those frantic appeals; perhaps\nhe was too busy talking to some one else,[646] or was on a journey\nsomewhere; or was asleep and must be awaked; or, he added with yet\nmore mordant sarcasm, and in a gibe which would have sounded coarse to\nmodern ears, perhaps he has gone aside for a private purpose. He must\nbe called, he must be aroused; he must be made to hear.[647]\n\nSuch taunts, addressed to this multitude of priests in the hearing of\nthe people, whom they desired to dupe or to convince, drove them to\nfiercer frenzy. Already the westering sun began to warn them that\ntheir hour was past, and failure imminent. They would not succumb\nwithout trying the darker sorceries of blood and self-mutilation,\nwhich were only resorted to at the most dread extremities. With\nrenewed and redoubled yells they offered on their altar the blood\nof human sacrifice, stabbing and gashing themselves with swords and\nlances, till they presented a horrid spectacle. Their vestments and\ntheir naked bodies were besmeared with gore[648] as they whirled\nround and round with shriller and more frenzied screams.[649]\nThey raved in vain. The shadows began to lengthen. The hour for\nthe evening _Minchah_, the evening meal-offering, and oblation\nof flour and meal, salt and frankincense, drew near.[650] It was\nalready \"between the two evenings.\" They had continued their weird\ninvocations all through the burning day, but there was not any that\nregarded. There lay the dead bullock on the still fireless altar; and\nnow their Tyrian Sun-god, like the fabled \"Hercules,\" was but burning\nhimself to death on the flaming pyre of sunset amid the unavailing\nagony of his worshippers.\n\nThen Elijah bade the sullen and baffled fanatics to stand aside,\nand summoned the people to throng round him. There was nothing\ntumultuous or orgiastic in his proceedings. In striking contrast with\nthe four hundred and fifty frantic sun-worshippers, he proceeded in\nthe calmest and most deliberate way. First, in the name of Jehovah,\nhe repaired the old _bamah_--the mountain-altar, which probably\nJezebel had broken down. This he did with twelve stones, one for\neach of the tribes of Israel. Then he dug a broad trench.[651] Then,\nwhen he had prepared his bullock, in order to show the people the\nimpossibility of any deception, such as are common among priests, he\nbade them drench it three times over with four barrels of water,[652]\nfrom the still-existent spring, and, not content with that, he filled\nthe trench also with water.[653] Lastly at the time of the evening\noblation he briefly offered up one prayer that Jehovah would make\nit known this day to His backsliding people that He, not Baal, was\nthe Elohim of Israel. He used no \"much speaking\"; he did not adopt\nthe dervish yells and dances and gashings which were abhorrent to\nGod, though they appealed so powerfully to the sensuous imaginations\nof the multitude. He only raised his eyes to heaven,[654] and cried\naloud in the hush of expectant stillness:--\n\n  \"Jehovah, God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Israel,\n   Let it be known this day that Thou art God in Israel,\n   And that I am Thy servant,\n   And that I have done all these things at Thy word.\n   Hear me, Jehovah, hear me.\n   That this people may know that Thou, Jehovah, art God,\n   And that Thou hast turned their heart back again.\"\n\nThe prayer, with its triple invocation of Jehovah's name, and its\nseven rhythmic lines, was no sooner ended than down streamed the\nlightning, and consumed the bullock and the wood, and shattered\nthe stones, and burnt up the dust, and licked up the water in\nthe trenches;[655] and, with one terror-stricken impulse, the\npeople all prostrated themselves on their faces with the cry,\n\"_Yahweh--hoo--ha--Elohim, Yahweh--hoo--ha--Elohim!_\" \"The Lord, He\nis God; the Lord, He is God!\"--a cry which was almost identical with\nthe name of the victorious prophet Elijahu--\"Yah, He is my God.\"[656]\n\nThe magnificent narrative in which the interest has been wound up to\nso high a pitch, and expressed in so lofty a strain of imaginative\nand dramatic force, ends in a deed of blood. According to Josephus,\nthe people, by a spontaneous movement, \"seized and slew the prophets\nof Baal, Elijah exhorting them to do so.\" According to the earlier\nnarrative, Elijah said to the people: \"Take the prophets of Baal; let\nnot one of them escape. And they took them: and Elijah brought them\ndown to the brook Kishon, and slew them there with the sword.\"[657]\nIt is not necessarily meant that he slew them with his own hand,\nthough indeed he may have done so, as Phinehas sacrificed Jephthah's\ndaughter, and Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord. His moral\nresponsibility was precisely the same in either case. We are not told\nthat he had any commission from Jehovah to do this, or was bidden\nthereto by any voice of the Lord. Yet in those wild days--days of\nungovernable passions and imperfect laws, days of ignorance which\nGod winked at--it is not only perfectly probable that Elijah would\nhave acted thus, but most unlikely that his conscience reproached\nhim for doing so, or that it otherwise than approved the sanguinary\nvengeance. It was the frightful _lex talionis_, which was spoken\n\"to them of old time,\" and which inflicted on the defeated what\nthey would certainly have inflicted on Elijah had he not been the\nconqueror. The prophets of Baal indirectly, if not directly, had\nbeen the cause of Jezebel's persecution of the prophets of the\nLord. The thought of pity would not occur to Elijah any more than\nit did to the writer, or writers, of Deuteronomy, perhaps, long\nafterwards, who commanded the stoning of idolaters, whether men or\nwomen (Deut. xiii. 6-9, xvii. 2-4). The massacre of the priests\naccorded with the whole spirit of those half-anarchic times. It\naccords with that Elijah-spirit of orthodox fanaticism, which, as\nChrist Himself had to teach to the sons of thunder, is not His\nspirit, but utterly alien from it. If, perhaps two centuries later,\nthe savage deed could be recorded, and recorded with approval,\nby this narrator from the School of the Prophets in these superb\neulogies of his hero; if so many centuries later the disciple whom\nJesus loved, and the first martyr-apostle could deem it an exemplary\ndeed; if, centuries later, it could be appealed to as a precedent\nby Inquisitors with hearts made hard as the nether millstone by\nbigoted and hateful superstition; if even Puritans could be animated\nby the same false hallowing of ferocity; how can we judge Elijah\nif, in dark, unilluminated early days, he had not learnt to rise\nto a purer standpoint? To this day the names about Carmel shudder,\nas it were, with reminiscence of this religious massacre. There is\n_El-Muhrakkah_, \"the place of burning\"; there is _Tel-el-Kusis_,\n\"the hill of the priests\"; and that ancient river, the river Kishon,\nwhich had once been choked with the corpses of the host of Sisera,\nand has since then been incarnadined by the slain of many a battle,\nis--perhaps in memory of this bloodshed most of all--still known as\nthe _Nahr-el-Mokatta_, or \"the stream of slaughter.\" What wonder that\nthe Eastern Christians in their pictures of Elijah still surround\nhim with the decapitated heads of these his enemies? To this day the\nMoslim regard him as one who terrifies and slays.[658]\n\nBut though the deed of vengeance stands recorded, and recorded with no\ncensure, in the sacred history, we must--without condemning Elijah, and\nwithout measuring his days by the meting-rod of Christian mercy--still\nunhesitatingly hold fast the sound principle of early and as yet\nuncontaminated Christianity, and say, as said the early Fathers, \u0392\u03af\u03b1\n\u1f10\u03c7\u03b8\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u0398\u03b5\u1ff7. Violence is a thing hateful to the God of love.\n\nEven Christians, and that down to our own day, have abused the\nexample of Elijah, and asked, \"Did not Elijah slaughter the\npriests of Baal?\" as a proof that it is always the duty of States\nto suppress false religion by violence. Stahl asked that question\nwhen he preached before the Prussian court at the Evangelical\nConference at Berlin in 1855, adding the dreadful misrepresentation\nthat \"Christianity is the religion of intolerance, and its kernel\nis exclusiveness.\" Did these hard spirits never consider Christ's\nown warning? Did they wholly forget the prophecy that \"He shall not\nstrive nor cry, neither shall His voice be heard in the streets.\nA bruised reed shall He not break, and smoking flax shall He not\nquench, till He send forth judgment unto victory, and in His name\nshall the Gentiles hope\"?[659] Calvin reproved R\u00e9n\u00e9, Duchess of\nFerrara, for not approving of the spirit of the imprecatory psalms.\nHe said that this was \"to set ourselves up as superior to Christ\nin sweetness and humility\"; and that \"David even in his hatreds\nis an example and type of Christ.\" When Cartwright argued for the\nexecution of the heretics he said: \"If this be thought savage and\nintolerant, I am content to be so with the Holy Ghost.\" Far wiser is\nthe humble minister in _Old Mortality_, when he withstood Balfour of\nBurleigh, in the decision to put to the sword all the inhabitants\nof Tillietudlem Castle. \"By what law,\" asks Henry Morton, \"would you\njustify the atrocity you would commit?\" \"If thou art ignorant of it,\"\nsaid Balfour, \"thy companion is well aware of the law which gave\nthe men of Jericho to the sword of Joshua, the son of Nun.\" \"Yes,\"\nanswered the divine, \"but we live under a better dispensation, which\ninstructeth us to return good for evil, and to pray for those who\ndespitefully use us and persecute us.\"\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[638] Isa. xxxiii. 9, xxxv. 2; Micah vii. 14. Its beauty and\nfruitfulness are alluded to in Jer. xlvi. 18, l. 19; Amos i. 2, ix.\n3; Nahum i. 4; Cant. vii. 5.\n\n[639] Sir George Grove, to whose excellent article in Smith's\n_Dict. of Bible_ (i. 279) I am indebted, quotes Martineau (i. 317),\nPorter's _Handbook_, Van de Velde, etc. See, too, Stanley, _Sinai and\nPalestine_, pp. 353-56.\n\n[640] On these _Lapides judaici_, see my _Life of Christ_, i. 129.\nIllustrations are given in the illustrated edition.\n\n[641] Jambl., _Vit. Pythag._, iii.; Suet., _Vesp._, 5; Tac., _Hist._,\nii. 78; Reland, _Palest._, pp. 327-30.\n\n[642] Megiddo lies in the plain below, and this scene of conflict\nbetween good and the powers of evil was an anticipated Armageddon.\n\n[643] Isa. xlix. 2; Cheyne, p. 16.\n\n[644] LXX., 1 Kings xviii. 21, \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c9\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f10\u03c0'\n\u1f00\u03bc\u03c6\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b3\u03bd\u03cd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2. Vulg., _usquequo claudicatis in duas\npartes?_ Cheyne renders it: \"How long will ye go lame upon tottering\nknees?\" In Psalm cxix. 113, \u05e1\u05b5\u05e2\u05b2\u05e4\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd are \"the double-minded.\" In\nEzek. xxxi. 6, \u05e1\u05b0\u05e2\u05b7\u05e4\u05bc\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea, \"diverging branches.\" In Isa. ii. 21,\n\u05e1\u05b0\u05e2\u05b4\u05e4\u05b5\u05d9, \"clefts of rocks\" (B\u00e4hr).\n\n[645] Herodian (_Hist._, v. 3) describes the dance of Heliogabalus\nround the altar of the Emesene Sun-god, and Apuleius describes\nat length the fanatic leapings and gashings of the execrable\n_Galli_--the eunuch-mendicant priests of the Syrian goddess. From\nthese sources and from allusions in Seneca, Lucian, Statius,\nArnobius, etc., Movers (_Ph\u00f6niz._, i. 682) derives his description\n(quoted by Keil, _ad loc._, E.T., p. 281): \"A discordant howling\nopens the scene. Now they fly wildly through one another, with the\nhead sunk down to the ground, but turning round in circles, so that\nthe loose flowing hair drags through the mire. Thereupon they first\nbite themselves on the arm, and at last cut themselves with two-edged\nswords, which they are wont to carry. Then begins a new scene. One of\nthem who surpasses all the rest in frenzy, begins to prophesy with\nsighs and groans, openly accuses himself of past sins, which he now\nwishes to punish by the mortifying of the flesh, takes the knotted\nwhip which the Galli are wont to bear, lashes his back, cuts himself\nwith swords, till the blood trickles down from his mangled body.\"\n\n[646] Verse 27. Others render it \"meditating\" (De Wette Thenius) or\n\"peevish\" (B\u00e4hr). Comp. Hom., _Il._, i. 423; _Od._, i. 22, etc.\n\n[647] This instance of \"grim sarcastic humour\" is almost unique in\nScripture. It was made more mordant by the paronomasia \u05db\u05b4\u05bc\u05d9\u05be\u05e9\u05b4\u05c2\u05d9\u05d7\u05b7\n\u05dc\u05b9\u05bc\u05d5 \u05d5\u05b0\u05db\u05b4\u05d9\u05be\u05e9\u05b4\u05c2\u05d9\u05d2 (2 Sam. i. 22).\n\n[648] Plutarch (_De Superstit._, p. 170) says: \"The priests of\nBellona offered their own blood, which was deemed powerful to move\ntheir gods.\" Comp. Herod., ii. 61; Lucian, _De Dea Syra_, 50; Apul.,\n_Metam._, viii. 28.\n\n[649] \u05d4\u05b7\u05de\u05b4\u05bc\u05e0\u05d7\u05b8\u05d4 \u05dc\u05b7\u05e2\u05b2\u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u05ea \u05e2\u05b7\u05d3, \"till towards (Numb. xxviii. 4) the\noffering of the Minchah.\" LXX., \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1; Vulg., _sacrificium_ and\n_holocaustum_. In verse 39 it is omitted in the LXX. \"There is a\ngreat concurrence of evidence that the evening sacrifice of the first\nTemple was not a holocaust, but a cereal oblation\" (Robertson Smith,\np. 143, quoting 1 Kings xviii. 34; 2 Kings xvi. 15; Ezek. ix. 4, Heb).\n\n[650] Heb., \u05d5\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05ea\u05b0\u05e0\u05b7\u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d0\u05d5\u05bc; LXX., \u03b4\u03b9\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd; Vulg., _transiliebant_.\nLiterally, they acted like frantic prophets (1 Sam. xviii. 10; Jer.\nxxix. 26).\n\n[651] LXX., \u03b8\u03b1\u03bb\u03ac\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd, or \"sea\"--the name given to Solomon's molten\nlaver; but the description, \"as great as would contain two _seahs_ of\nseed,\" is curious, for a seah was only the third of an ephah.\n\n[652] Blunt (_Undesigned Coincidences_, II. xxxii.) thinks that as\nthe drought had been so intense the water must have been sea-water.\nBut Josephus says it was drawn \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c1\u03ae\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 (_Antt._, VIII. xiii.\n5); and the well still exists.\n\n[653] Priests, both pagan and medi\u00e6val, have been adepts at\ndeception. At the Reformation the mechanism of winking Madonnas,\netc., was exposed to the people. At Pompeii may still be seen the\nsecret staircase behind the altar, and the pipes let into the head\nof Isis from behind, through which the priests spoke her pretended\noracles. St. Chrysostom (_Orat. in. Petr. et Eliam_, which is of\nuncertain genuineness) tells us that he had himself seen (\u03b8\u03b5\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\n\u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2) altars with concealed hollows in the middle, into\nwhich the unsuspected operator crept, and blew up a fire which\nthe people were assured was self-kindled (see Keil, p. 282). One\nlegend says that on this occasion a man was suffocated, who had been\nconcealed by the Baal priests inside their altar.\n\n[654] 1 Kings xviii. 36.\n\n[655] Comp. Lev. ix. 24. Analogous stories existed among pagans\n(Hom., _Il._, ii. 305; _Od._, ii. 143; Verg., _Ecl._, viii. 105).\nPliny says that annals recorded the eliciting of lightning by prayers\nand incantations (_H. N._, ii. 54; Winer, _Realw\u00f6rterb._ 371).\n\n[656] It is after Elijah's time, and probably from his influence, that\nfrom this time proper names compounded with Jehovah become almost the\nrule--as in Ahaziah, Jehoram, Jehu, Jehoahaz, Joash, Pekahiah, etc.\n\n[657] 1 Kings xix. 1, \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d7\u05b8\u05e8\u05b6\u05d1; LXX., \u1f10\u03bd \u1fe5\u03bf\u03bc\u03c6\u03ac\u03b9\u1fb3.\n\n[658] Renan, _Vie de J\u00e9sus_, 100.\n\n[659] Matt. xii. 19, 20; Isa. xlii. 2, 3; Ezek. xxxiv. 16.\n\n\n\n\n                            CHAPTER XXXVIII.\n\n                              _THE RAIN._\n\n                         1 KINGS xviii. 41-46.\n\n    \"Are there any of the vanities of the nations that can cause\n    rain?\"--JER. xiv. 22.\n\n\nBut the terrible excitement of the day was not yet over, nor was the\nvictory completely won. The fire had flashed from heaven, but the\nlong-desired rain on which depended the salvation of land and people\nstill showed no signs of falling. And Elijah was pledged to this\nresult. Not until the drought ended could he reach the culmination of\nhis victory over the Sun-god of Jezebel's worship.\n\nBut his faith did not fail him. \"Get thee up,\" he said to Ahab, \"eat\nand drink, for there is a sound of the feet of the rain-storm.\"[660]\nDoubtless through all that day of feverish anxiety, neither king,\nnor people, nor prophet had eaten. As for the Prophet, but little\nsufficed him at any time, and the slaughter of the defeated priests\nwould not prevent either king or people from breaking their long\nfast. Doubtless the king's tent was pitched on one of the slopes\nover the plain. But Elijah did not join him. He heard, indeed,\nwith prophetic ear the rush of the coming rain, but he had still to\nwrestle in prayer with Jehovah for the fulfilment of His promise. So\nhe ascended towards the summit of the promontory where the purple\npeak of Carmel--still called Jebel Mar Elias (\"the hill of Lord\nElijah\")--overlooks the sea, and there he crouched low on the ground\nin intense prayer, putting his face between his knees. After his\nfirst intensity of supplication had spent itself, he said to his boy\nattendant,[661] traditionally believed to have been the son of the\nwidow of Zarephath whom he had plucked from death:--\n\n\"Go up now, look towards the sea.\"\n\nThe youth went up, and gazed out long and intently, for he well\nknew that if rain came it would sweep inland from the waters of the\nMediterranean, and to an experienced eye the signals of coming storm\nare patent long before they are noticed by others. But all was as it\nhad been for so many weary and dreadful months. The sea a sheet of\nunruffled gold glared under the setting sun, which still sank through\nan unclouded sky. Can we not imagine the accent of misgiving and\ndisappointment with which he brought back the one word:--\n\n\"Nothing.\"\n\nOnce more the Prophet bowed his face between his knees in prayer, and\nsent the youth; and again, and yet again, seven times. And each time\nhad come to him the chilling answer, \"Nothing.\" But the seventh time\nhe called out from the mountain summit his joyous cry: \"Behold, there\nariseth a cloud out of the sea, as small as a man's hand.\"\n\nAnd now, indeed, Elijah knew that his triumph was completed. He bade\nhis servant fly with winged speed to Ahab, and tell him to make ready\nhis chariot at once, lest the burst of the coming rain should flood\nthe river and the road, and prevent him from getting over the rough\nground which lay between him and his palace at Jezreel.\n\nThen the blessed storm burst on the parched soil with a sense of\ninfinite refreshfulness which only an Eastern in a thirsty land can\nfully comprehend. And Ahab mounted his chariot. He had not driven\nfar before the heaven, which had for so long been like brass over\nan iron globe, was one black mass of clouds driven by the wind, and\nthe drenching rain poured down in sheets. And through the storm\nthe chariot swept, and Elijah girded up his loins, and, filled\nwith a Divine impulse of exultation, ran before it, keeping pace\nwith the king's steeds for all those fifteen miles, even after the\noverwhelming strain of all he had gone through, apparently without\nfood, that day. And as through the rifts of rain the king saw his\nwild dark figure outrunning his swift steeds, and seeming \"to dilate\nand conspire\" with the rushing storm, can we wonder that the tears of\nremorse and gratitude streamed down his face?[662]\n\nThe chariot reached Jezreel, and at the city gate Elijah stopped.\nLike his antitype, the great forerunner, Elijah was a voice in the\nwilderness; like his Lord that was to be, he loved not cities. The\ninstinct of the Bedawin kept him far from the abodes of men, and his\nhome was never among them. He needed no roof to shelter him, nor\nchange of raiment. The hollows of Mount Gilboa were his sufficient\nresting-place, and he could find a sleeping-place in the caves near\nits abundant Eastern spring. Nor was he secure of safety. He knew, in\nspite of his superhuman victory, that a dark hour awaited Ahab when he\nwould have to tell Jezebel that the people had repudiated her idol,\nand that Elijah had slain her four hundred and fifty priests. He knew\n\"that axe-like edge unturnable\" which always smote and feared not. Ahab\nwas but as plastic clay in the strong hands of his queen, and for her\nthere existed neither mystery nor miracle except in the worship of the\ninsulted Baal. Was not Baal, she said, the real sender of the rain, on\nwhose priests this fanatic from rude Gilead had wrought his dreadful\nsacrifice? Oh that she could have been for one hour on Carmel in the\nplace of her vacillating and easily daunted husband! For was she not\nconvinced, and did not the pagan historian afterwards relate, that the\nending of the drought was due to the prayers and sacrifices, not of\nElijah, but of her own father who was Baal's priest and king?[663] Yet,\nfor all her spirit of defiance, we can hardly doubt that the feelings\nof Jezebel towards Elijah had much of dread mingled with her hatred.\nShe must have felt towards him much as Mary Queen of Scots felt towards\nJohn Knox--of whom she said that she feared his prayers more than an\narmy of one hundred thousand men.[664]\n\n\"May we really venture,\" asks Canon Cheyne, \"to _look_ out for answer\nto prayer? Did not Elijah live in the _heroic_ ages of faith? No;\nGod still works miracles. Take an instance from the early history of\nChristian Europe. You know the terror excited by the Huns, who in the\nsixth century after Christ penetrated into the very heart of Christian\nFrance. Already they had occupied the suburbs of Orleans, and the\npeople who were incapable of bearing arms lay prostrate in prayer. The\ngovernor sent a message to observe from the ramparts. Twice he looked\nin vain, but the third time he reported a small cloud on the horizon.\n'It is the aid of God,' cried the Bishop of Orleans. It was the dust\nraised by the advancing squadrons of Christian troops.\"[665]\n\nA much nearer parallel, and that a very remarkable one, may be\nquoted.[666] It records--and the fact itself, explain it how men will,\nseems to be unquestionable--how a storm of rain came to answer the\nprayer of a good leader of the Evangelical Revival--Grimshaw, rector\nof Haworth. Distressed at the horrible immoralities introduced among\nhis parishioners by some local races, and wholly failing to get them\nstopped, he went to the racecourse, and, flinging himself on his knees\nin an agony of supplication, entreated God to interpose and save his\npeople from their moral danger. He had scarcely ceased his prayer when\ndown rushed a storm of rain so violent as to turn the racecourse into a\nswamp, and render the projected races a matter of impossibility.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[660] LXX., \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1f74 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f51\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. Perhaps, with reference to\nthis reading, Josephus afterwards describes \"the little cloud\" as \"no\nbigger than a human footstep\" (\u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd \u1f34\u03c7\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5).\n\n[661] LXX., \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u1ff3 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\n[662] LXX., 1 Kings xviii. 45, \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f14\u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u1f70\u03b2 \u1f15\u03c9\u03c2\n\u0399\u03b5\u03b6\u03c1\u03ac\u03b5\u03bb.\n\n[663] Menander of Ephesus (Josephus, _Antt._, VIII. xiii. 2).\n\n[664] Eisenlohr, _Das Volk Israel_, p. 162.\n\n[665] He refers to Gibbon, iv. 232.\n\n[666] See Mrs. Gaskell's _Life of Charlotte Br\u00f6nte_.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XXXIX.\n\n                           _ELIJAH'S FLIGHT._\n\n                           1 KINGS xix. 1-4.\n\n          \"A still small voice comes through the wild,\n           Like a father consoling his fretful child,\n           Which banisheth bitterness, wrath and fear,\n           Saying, 'Man is distant, but God is near.'\"\n                                            TEMPLE.\n\n\nThe misgiving which, joined to his ascetic dislike of cities, made\nElijah stop his swift race at the entrance of Jezreel was more\nthan justified. Ahab's narrative of the splendid contest at Carmel\nproduced no effect upon Jezebel whatever, and we can imagine the\nbitter objurgations which she poured upon her cowering husband for\nhaving stood quietly by while _her_ prophets and Baal's prophets were\nbeing massacred by this dark fanatic, aided by a rebellious people.\nHad _she_ been there all should have been otherwise! In contemptuous\ndefiance of Ahab's fears or wishes, she then and there--and it\nmust now have been after nightfall--despatched a messenger to find\nElijah, wherever he might be hiding himself, and say to him in her\nname: \"As sure as thou art Elijah, and I am Jezebel,[667] may my\ngods avenge it upon me if on the morrow by this time I have not made\nthy life like the life of one of my own murdered priests.\" In the\nfurious impetuosity of the message we see the determination of the\nsorceress-queen. In her way she was as much in deadly earnest as\nElijah was. Whether Baal had been defeated or not, _she_ was not\ndefeated, and Elijah should not escape her vengeance. The oath shows\nthe intensity of her rage, like that of the forty Jews who bound\nthemselves by the _cherem_ that they would not eat or drink till\nthey had slain Paul; and the fixity of her purpose as when Richard\nIII. declared that he would not dine till the head of Buckingham\nhad fallen on the block. We cannot but notice the insignificance\nto which she reduced her husband, and the contempt with which she\ntreated the voice of her people. She presents the spectacle, so often\nreproduced in history and reflected in literature, of a strong fierce\nwoman--a Clytemnestra, a Brunhault, a Lady Macbeth, an Isabella\nof France, a Margaret of Anjou, a Joan of Naples, a Catherine de\nMedicis--completely dominating a feebler consort.\n\nThe burst of rage which led her to send the message defeated her own\nobject. The awfulness which invested Elijah, and the supernatural\npowers on which he relied, when he was engaged in the battles of the\nLord, belonged to him only in his public and prophetic capacity.\nAs a man he was but a poor, feeble, lonely subject, whose blood\nmight be shed at any moment. He knew that God works no miracles for\nthe supersession of ordinary human precautions. It was no part of\nhis duty to throw away his life, and give a counter triumph to the\nBaal-worshippers whom he had so signally humiliated. He fled, and\nwent for his life.\n\nSwift flight was easy to that hardy frame and that trained endurance,\neven after the fearful day on Carmel and the wild race of fifteen\nmiles from Carmel to Jezreel. It was still night, and cool, and\nthe haunts and byways of the land were known to the solitary and\nhunted wanderer. \"He feared, and he rose, and he went for his life,\"\nninety-five miles to Beersheba, once a town of Simeon, now the\nsouthern limit of the kingdom of Judah, thirty-one miles south of\nHebron.[668] But in the tumult of his feelings and the peril of his\nposition he could not stay in any town. At Beersheba he left his\nservant--perhaps, as legend says, the boy of Zarephath, who became\nthe prophet Jonah--but, in any case, not so much a servant as a youth\nin training for the prophetic office. It was necessary for him to\nspend his dark hour alone; for, if there are hours in which human\nsympathy is all but indispensable, there are also hours in which the\nsoul can tolerate no communion save that with God.[669] So, leaving\nall civilisation behind him, he plunged a day's journey into that\ngreat and terrible wilderness of Paran, where he too was alone with\nthe wild beasts. And then, utterly worn out, he flung himself down\nunder the woody stem of a solitary rhotem plant.[670] The plant is\nthe wild broom with \"its cloud of pink blossoms\" which often afford\nthe only shadow under the glaring sun in the waste and weary land,\nand beneath the slight but grateful shade of which the Arab to this\nday is glad to pitch his tent. And there the pent-up emotions of his\nspirit, which had gone through so tremendous a strain, broke up as in\none terrible sob, when the strong man, like a tired child, \"requested\nfor himself that he might die.\"[671]\n\nOf what use was life any longer? He had fought for Jehovah, and\nwon, and after all been humiliatingly defeated. He had prophesied\nthe drought, and it had withered and scorched up the erring,\nafflicted land. He had prayed for the rain, and it had come in a\nrush of blessing on the reviving fields. In the Wady Cherith, in\nthe house of the Ph\u0153nician widow, he had been divinely supported\nand sheltered from hot pursuit. He had snatched her boy from death.\nHe had stood before kings, and not been ashamed. He had stretched\nforth his hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people, and not in\nvain. He had confounded the rich-vested and royally maintained band\nof Baal's priests, and in spite of their orgiastic leapings and\nself-mutilations had put to shame their Sun-god under his own burning\nsun. He had kept pace with Ahab's chariot-steeds as he conducted\nhim, as it were in triumph, through the streaming downpour of that\nsweeping storm, to his summer capital. Of what use was it all? Was it\nanything but a splendid and deplorable failure? And he said: \"It is\nenough; now, O Lord, take away my life; for I am not better than my\nfathers.\" He could have cried with the poet:--\n\n          \"Let the heavens burst, and drown with deluging rain\n           The feeble vassals of lust, and anger, and wine,\n           The little hearts that know not how to forgive;\n           Arise, O God, and strike, for we count Thee just,--\n           We are not worthy to live.\"\n\nWho does not know something of this feeling of utter overwhelming\ndespondency, of bitter disillusionment concerning life and our\nfellow-men? Some great writer has said, with truth, \"that there is\nprobably no man with a soul above that of the brutes that perish,\nto whom a time has not come in his life, when, were you to tell him\nthat he would not wake to see another day, he would receive the\nmessage with something like gladness.\" There are some whose lives\nhave been so saddened by some special calamity that for long years\ntogether they have not valued them. F. W. Robertson, troubled by\nvarious sorrows, and worried (as the best men are sure to be) by the\npetty ecclesiastical persecutions of priests and formalists, wrote\nin a letter on a friend's death: \"How often have I thought of the\nevening when he left Tours, when, in our boyish friendship, we set\nour little silver watches exactly together, and made a compact to\nlook at the moon exactly at the same moment that night and think\nof each other. _I do not remember a single hour in life since then\nwhich I would have arrested, and said, 'Let this stay.'_\" Melancholy\nso deep as this is morbid and unnatural, and he himself wrote in a\nbrighter mood: \"Positively I will not walk with any one in these\ntenebrous avenues of cypress and yew. I like sunny rooms and sunny\ntruth. When I had more of spring and warmth I could afford to be\nprodigal of happiness; but now I want sunlight and sunshine. I desire\nto enter into those regions where cheerfulness and truth and health\nof heart and mind reside.\" Life has its real happiness for those who\nhave deserved, and taken the right method to attain it; but it can\nnever escape its hours of impenetrable gloom, and they sometimes\nseem to be darkest for the noblest souls. Petty souls are irritated\nby little annoyances, and the purely selfish disappointments which\navenge the exaggerated claims of our \"shivering egotism.\" But while\nlittle mean spirits are tormented by the insect-swarm of little mean\nworries, great souls are liable to be beaten down by the waves and\nstorms of immense calamities--the calamities which affect nations and\nchurches, the \"desperate currents\" of whose sins and miseries seem\nto be sometimes driven through the channels of their single hearts.\nOnly such a man as an Elijah can measure the colossal despondency of\nan Elijah's heart. In the apparently absolute failure, the seemingly\nfinal frustration of such men as these there is something nobler than\nin the highest personal exaltations of ignobler souls.\n\n\"_Now, O Lord, take away my life!_\" The prayer, however natural,\nhowever excusable, is never right. It is a sign of insufficient\nfaith, of human imperfection; but it is breathed by different persons\nin a spirit so different that in some it almost rises to nobleness,\nas in others it sinks quite beneath contempt.\n\nScripture gives us several specimens of both moods. If Jonah was,\nindeed, the servant-pupil of Elijah, the legendary story of that\nmeanest-minded of all the prophets--the meanest-minded and paltriest,\nnot perhaps as he was in reality--for of him, historically, we know\nscarcely anything--but as he is represented in the profound and noble\nallegory which bears his name--might almost seem to have been written\nin tacit antithesis to the story of Elijah. Elijah flies only when he\nhas done the mighty work of God, and only when the life is in deadly\nperil which he would fain save for future emergencies of service; Jonah\nflies that he may escape, out of timid selfishness, the work of God.\nElijah wishes himself dead because he thinks that the glorious purpose\nof his life has been thwarted, and that the effort undertaken for\nthe deliverance of his people has failed; Jonah wishes himself dead,\nfirst, because he repines at God's mercy, and would prefer that his\npersonal credit should be saved and his personal importance secured\nthan that God should spare the mighty city of Nineveh with its one\nhundred and twenty thousand little children; and then because the poor\nlittle castor-oil plant has withered, which gave him shelter from the\nnoon. Considering the traditional connexion between them, it seems to\nme impossible to overlook an allusive contrast between the noble and\nmighty Elijah under his solitary rhotem plant in the wilderness wishing\nfor death in the anguish of a heart \"which nobly loathing strongly\nbroke,\" and the selfish splenetic Jonah wishing himself dead in pettish\nvexation under his _palma Christi_ because Nineveh is forgiven and the\nsun is hot.\n\nThere are indeed times when humanity is tried beyond its capacity,\nwhen the cry for restful death is wrung from souls crushed under\naccumulations of quite intolerable anguish and calamity. In the\nfret of long-continued sleeplessness, in sick and desolate and\nhalf-starved age, in attacks of disease incurable, long-continued,\nand full of torture, God will surely look with pardoning tenderness\non those whose faith is unequal to so terrible a strain. It was\npardonable surely of Job to curse the day of his birth when--smitten\nwith elephantiasis, a horror, a hissing, an astonishment, bereaved of\nall his children, and vexed by the obtrusive orthodoxies of his petty\nPharisaic friends; unconscious, too, that it was God's hand which\nwas all the while leading him through the valley of the shadow into\nthe land of righteousness--he cried: \"Wherefore is light given to\nhim that is in misery, and life to the bitter in soul?\" In those who\nhave no hope and are without God in the world, this mood--not when\nexpressed in passing passion as by the saintly man of Uz, but when\nbrooded on and indulged--leads to suicide, and in the one instance\nrecorded in each Testament, an Ahithophel and a Judas, the despairing\nsouls of the guilty:--\n\n          \"Into the presence of their God\n               Rushed in with insult rude.\"\n\nBut Elijah's mood, little as it was justifiable in this its extreme\nform, was but the last infirmity of a noble mind. It has often\nrecurred among those grandest of the servants of God who may sink\ninto the deepest dejection from contrast with the spiritual altitudes\nto which they have soared. It is with them as with the lark which\nfloods the blue air with its passion of almost delirious rapture,\nyet suddenly, as though exhausted, drops down silent into its lowly\nnest in the brown furrows. There is but one man in the Old Testament\nwho, as a prophet, stands on the same level as Elijah,--he who\nstood with Elijah on the snowy heights of Hermon when their Lord\nwas transfigured into celestial brightness, and they spake together\nof His decease at Jerusalem. And Moses had passed through the same\ndark hour as that through which Elijah was passing now, when he saw\nthe tears, and heard the murmurs of the greedy, selfish, ungrateful\npeople, who hated their heavenly manna, and lusted for the leeks and\nfleshpots of their Egyptian bondage. Revolted by this obtrusion upon\nhim of human nature in its lowest meanness, he cried to God under\nhis intolerable burden: \"Have I conceived all this people?... I am\nnot able to bear all this people alone.... And if Thou deal thus\nwith me, kill me, I pray Thee, out of hand; and let me not see my\nwretchedness.\" In Moses, as doubtless in Elijah, so far from being\nthe clamour of whining selfishness, his anguish was part of the\nsame mood which made him offer his life for the redemption of the\npeople; which made St. Paul ready to wish himself anathema from Jesus\nChrist if thereby he could save his brethren after the flesh. Danton\nrose into heroism when he exclaimed, \"_Que mon nom soit fl\u00e9tri,\npourvu que la France soit libre_\"; and Whitefield, when he cried,\n\"Perish George Whitefield, so God's work be done\"; and the Duke of\nWellington when--remonstrated with for joining in the last charge at\nWaterloo, with the shot whistling round his head--he said, \"Never\nmind; the victory is won, and now my life is of no consequence.\" In\ngreat souls the thought of others, completely dominating the base\nman's concentration in self, may create a despondency which makes\nthem ready to give up their life, not because it is a burden to\nthemselves, but because it seems to them as if their work was over,\nand it was beyond their power to do more for others.\n\nTender natures as well as strong natures are liable to this inrush of\nhopelessness; and if it sometimes kills them by its violence, this is\nonly a part of God's training of them into perfection.\n\n          \"So unaffected, so composed a mind,\n           So firm, yet soft, so strong, yet so refined,\n           Heaven, as its purest gold, by tortures tried:--\n           The saint sustained it, but the woman died.\"![672]\n\nThe cherubim of the sanctuary had to be made of the gold of Uphaz,\nthe finest and purest gold. It was only the purest gold which could\nbe tortured by workmanship into forms of exquisite beauty. The\nmind of Jeremiah was as unlike that of Elijah's as can possibly\nbe conceived. He was a man of shrinking and delicate temperament,\nand his life is the most pathetic tragedy among the biographies of\nScripture. The mind of Elijah, like those of Dante or Luther or\nMilton, was all ardour and battle brunt; the mind of Jeremiah, like\nthat of Melancthon, was timid as that of a gentle boy. A man like\nDante or Milton, when he stands alone, hated by princes and priests\nand people, retorts scorn for scorn, and refuses to change his voice\nto hoarse or mute. Yet even Dante died of a broken heart, and in\nMilton's mighty autobiographical wail of Samson Agonistes, amid all\nits trumpet-blast of stern defiance, we read the sad notes:--\n\n          \"Nor am I in the list of them that hope;\n           Hopeless all my evils, all remediless;\n           This one prayer yet remains, might I be heard,\n           No long petition, speedy death,\n           The close of all my miseries, and the balm.\"\n\nWhen the insolent priest Pashur smote Jeremiah in the face, and put him\nfor a night and a day in the common stocks, the prophet--after telling\nPashur that, for this awful insult to God's messenger, his name, which\nmeant \"joy far and wide,\" should be changed into Magormissa-bib,\n\"terror on every side\"--utterly broke down, and passionately cursed\nthe day of his birth.[673] And yet his trials were very far from ended\nthen. Homeless, wifeless, childless, slandered, intrigued against,\nundermined--protesting apparently in vain against the hollow shams of\na self-vaunting reformation--the object of special hatred to all the\nself-satisfied religionists of his day, the lonely persecuted servant\nof the Lord ended only in exile and martyrdom the long trouble of his\neternally blessed but seemingly unfruitful life.\n\nI dwell on this incident in the life of Elijah because it is full\nof instructiveness. Scripture is not all on a dead level. There are\nmany pages of it which belong indeed to the connected history, and\ntherefore carry on the general lessons of the history, but which\nare, in themselves, almost empty of any spiritual profit. Only a\nfantastic and artificial method of sermonising can extract from them,\ntaken alone, any Divine lessons. In these Books of Kings many of the\nrecords are simply historical, and in themselves, apart from their\nplace in the whole, have no more religious significance than any\nother historic facts; but because these annals are the annals of a\nchosen people, and because these books are written for our learning,\nwe find in them again and again, and particularly in their more\nconnected and elevated narratives, facts and incidents which place\nScripture incomparably above all secular literature, and are rich in\neternal truth for all time, and for a life beyond life.\n\nIt is with such an experience that we are dealing here, and therefore\nit is worth while, if we can, to see something of its meaning. We may,\ntherefore, be permitted to linger for a brief space over the causes of\nElijah's despair, and the method in which God dealt with it.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[667] LXX., 1 Kings xix. 2.\n\n[668] The touch \"which belongeth to Judah\" shows that the\nElijah-narrative emanated from some prophet in the northern schools.\nIn later days it was much visited by pilgrims from the Northern\nKingdom (Amos v. 5, viii. 14).\n\n[669] Matt. xxvi. 36.\n\n[670] 1 Kings xix. 4, 5, \u05d0\u05b5\u05d7\u05b8\u05ea \u05e8\u05b9\u05ea\u05b6\u05dd; Vulg., _subter unam juniperum_.\nThe plant is the _Genista monosperma_, with papilionaceous flowers.\nNot \"juniper,\" as in Luther (_Wachholder_) and the A.V. LXX., \u1fe5\u03b1\u03b8\u03bc\u1f72\u03bd\n\u03c6\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd. See Robinson, _Researches_, i. 203, 205. It gave its name to the\nstation Rithmah (Numb. xxxiii. 18) and the Wadies Retem\u00eet and Ret\u00e2mah.\n\n[671] Comp. Moses (Numb. xi. 15), Jonah (Jonah iv. 3).\n\n[672] Pope's epitaph on Mrs. Elizabeth Corbet, in St. Margaret's\nWestminster.\n\n[673] Jer. xx. 1-18.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XL.\n\n                          _ELIJAH'S DESPAIR._\n\n                           1 KINGS xix. 4-8.\n\n          \"So much I feel my genial spirits droop,\n           My hopes all flat, nature within me seems\n           In all her functions weary of herself,\n           My race of glory run, and race of shame,\n           And I shall shortly be with them that rest.\"\n                                        _Samson Agonistes._\n\n\nWhat are the causes which may drive even a saint of God into a mood\nof momentary despair as he is forced to face the semblance of final\nfailure?\n\n1. Even the lowest element of such despair has its instructiveness. It\nwas due in part, doubtless, to mere physical exhaustion. Elijah had\njust gone through the most tremendous conflict of his life. During\nall that long and most exhausting day at Carmel he had had little or\nno food, and at the close of it he had run across all the plain with\nthe king's chariot. In the dead of that night, with his life in his\nhand, he had fled towards Beersheba, and now he had wandered for a\nwhole day in the glare of the famishing wilderness. It does not do to\ndespise the body. If we _are_ spirits, yet we _have_ bodies; and the\nbody wreaks a stern and humiliating vengeance on those who neglect or\ndespise it. The body reacts upon the mind. \"If you rumple the jerkin,\nyou rumple the jerkin's lining.\" If we weaken the body too much, we do\nnot make it the slave of the spirit, but rather make the spirit its\nslave. Even moderate fasting, as a simple physiological fact--if it be\n_fasting_ at all, as distinguished from healthful moderation and wise\ntemperance--tends to increase, and not by any means to decrease, the\ntemptations which come to us from the appetites of the body. Extreme\nself-maceration--as all ascetics have found from the days of St. Jerome\nto those of Cardinal Newman--only adds new fury to the lusts of the\nflesh. Many a hermit and stylite and fasting monk, many half-dazed,\nhysterical, high-wrought men have found, sometimes without knowing the\nreason of it, that by wilful and artificial devices of self-chosen\nsaintliness, they have made the path of purity and holiness not easier,\nbut more hard. The body is a temple, not a tomb. It is not permitted\nus to think ourselves wiser than God who made it, nor to fancy that\nwe can mend His purposes by torturing and crushing it. By violating\nthe laws of physical righteousness we only make moral and spiritual\nrighteousness more difficult to attain.\n\n2. Elijah's dejection was also due to forced inactivity. \"What\n_doest_ thou here, Elijah?\" said the voice of God to him in the\nheart of man. Alas! he was doing nothing: there was nothing left for\nhim to do! It was different when he hid by the brook Cherith, or in\nZarephath, or in the glades of Carmel. Then a glorious endeavour lay\nbefore him, and there was hope. But\n\n          \"Life without hope draws nectar in a sieve,\n           And hope without an object cannot live.\"\n\nThe mighty vindication of Jehovah in which all the struggle of his\nlife culminated, had been crowned with triumph, and had failed.\nIt had blazed up like fire, and had sunk back into ashes. To such\na spirit as his nothing is so fatal as to have nothing to do and\nnothing to hope for. \"What did the Mar\u00e9chal die of?\" asked a\ndistinguished Frenchman of one of his comrades. \"He died of having\nnothing to do.\" \"Ah!\" was the reply; \"that is enough to kill the best\nGeneral of us all.\"\n\n3. Again, Elijah was suffering from mental reaction. The bow had been\nbent too long, and was somewhat strained; the tense string needed to\nhave been relaxed before. It is a common experience that some great\nduty or mastering emotion uplifts us for a time above ourselves,\nmakes us even forget the body and its needs. We remember Jeremy\nTaylor's description of what he had noticed in the Civil Wars,--that\na wounded soldier, amid the heat and fury of the fight, was wholly\nunconscious of his wounds, and only began to feel the smart of them\nwhen the battle had ended and its fierce passion was entirely spent.\n\nMen, even strong men, after hours of terrible excitement, have been\nknown to break down and weep like children. Macaulay, in describing\nthe emotions which succeeded the announcement that the Reform Bill\nhad passed, says that not a few, after the first outburst of wild\nenthusiasm, were bathed in tears.\n\nAnd any one who has seen some great orator after a supreme effort of\neloquence, when his strength seems drained away, and the passion is\nexhausted, and the flame has sunk down into its embers, is aware how\npainful a reaction often follows, and how differently the man looks and\nfeels if you see him when he has passed into his retirement, pale and\nweak, and often very sad. After a time the mind can do no more.\n\n4. Further, Elijah felt his loneliness. At that moment indeed he could\nnot bear the presence of any one, but none the less his sense that none\nsympathised with him, that all hated him, that no voice was raised to\ncheer him, that no finger was uplifted to help him, weighed like lead\nupon his spirit. \"I only am left.\" There was awful desolation in that\nthought. He was alone among an apostatising people. It is the same\nkind of cry which we hear so often in the life of God's saints. It is\nthe Psalmist crying: \"I am become like a pelican in the wilderness,\nand like an owl that is in the desert. Mine enemies reproach me all\nthe day long, and they that are mad upon me are sworn together against\nme\";[674] or, \"My lovers and my neighbours did stand looking upon my\ntrouble, and my kinsmen stood afar off. They also that sought after\nmy life laid snares for me.\"[675] It is Job so smitten and afflicted\nthat he is half tempted for the moment to curse God and die. It is\nIsaiah saying of the hopeless wickedness of his people, \"The whole\nhead is sick, and the whole heart faint.\" It is Jeremiah complaining,\n\"The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their\nmeans; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end\nthereof?\"[676] It is St. Paul wailing so sadly, \"All they of Asia have\nturned from me. Only Luke is with me.\" It is the pathos of desolation\nwhich breathes through the sad sentence of the Gospels, \"Then all the\ndisciples forsook Him, and fled.\" The anticipation of desertion had\nwrung from the Lord Jesus the sad prophesy, \"Behold, the hour cometh,\nyea, is now come, when ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and\nshall leave Me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is\nwith Me.\"[677] And this heart-anguish of loneliness is, to this day, a\ncommon experience of the best men. Any man whose duty has ever called\nhim to strike out against the stream of popular opinion, to rebuke\nthe pleasant vices of the world, to plead for causes too righteous to\nbe popular, to deny the existence of vested interests in the causes\nof human ruin, to tell a corrupt society that it is corrupt, and a\nlying Church that it lies;--any man who has had to defy mere plausible\nconventions of veiled wrong-doing, to give bold utterance to forgotten\ntruths, to awake sodden and slumbering consciences, to annul agreements\nwith death and covenants with hell; every man who rises above the\ntrimmers and the facing-both-ways, and those who try to serve two\nmasters--they who swept away the rotting superstitions of a tyrannous\necclesiasticism, they who purified prisons, they who struck the fetters\noff the slave--every saint, reformer, philanthropist, and faithful\npreacher in the past, and those now living saints, who, walking in\nthe shining steps of these, endeavour to rescue the miserable out of\nthe gutter, and to preach the gospel to the poor, know the anguish of\nisolation, when, because they have been benefactors, they are cursed\nas though they were felons, and when, for the efforts of their noble\nself-sacrifice, the contempt of the world, and its pedantry, and its\nmalice can find for them no words too contemptuous or too bitterly\nfalse.\n\n5. But there was even a deeper sorrow than these which made Elijah\nlong for death. It was the sense of utter and seemingly irretrievable\nfailure. It happens often to the worldling as well as to the saint.\nMany a man, weary of life's inexorable emptiness, has exclaimed in\ndifferent ways:--\n\n          \"Know that whatever thou hast been,\n           'Tis something better not to be.\"\n\nThat sentiment is not in the least peculiar to Byron. We find it\nagain and again in the Greek tragedians. We find it alike in the\nlegendary revelation of the god Pan, and in the Book of Ecclesiastes,\nand in Schopenhauer and Von Hartmann. No true Christian, no believer\nin the mercy and justice of God, can share that sentiment, but will\nto the last thank God for His creation and preservation and all\nthe blessings of this life, as well as for the inestimable gift of\nHis redemption, for the means of grace, and for the hope of glory.\nNevertheless, it is part of God's discipline that He often requires\nHis saints as well as His sinners to face what looks like hopeless\ndiscomfiture, and to perish, as it were,\n\n          \"In the lost battle\n           Borne down by the flying,\n           Where mingles war's rattle\n           With groans of the dying.\"\n\nSuch was the fate of all the Prophets. They were tortured; they had\ntrials of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and\nimprisonment; they were stoned, were sawn asunder, were tempted, were\nslain with the sword; they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins,\nthey hid in caves and dens of the earth, being destitute, afflicted,\ntormented, though of them the world was not worthy. Such, too, was\nthe fate of all the Apostles--set forth last of all as men doomed to\ndeath; made a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men. They were\nhungry, thirsty, naked, buffeted; they had no certain dwelling-place;\nthey were treated as fools and weak, were dishonoured, defamed, treated\nas the filth of the world and the offscouring of all things. Such\nwas conspicuously the case of St. Paul in that death, so lonely and\nforsaken, that the French sceptic thinks he must have awakened with\ninfinite regret from the disillusionment of a futile life. Nay, it was\nthe earthly lot of Him who was the prototype, and consolation, known\nor unknown, of all these:--it was the lot of Him who, from that which\nseemed the infinite collapse and immeasurable abandonment of His cross\nof shame, cried out: \"My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?\" He\nwarned His true followers that they, too, would have to face the same\nfinality of earthly catastrophes, to die without the knowledge, without\neven the probable hope, that they have accomplished anything, in utter\nforsakenment, in a monotony of execration, often in dejection and\napparent hiding of God's countenance. The olden saints who prepared\nthe way for Christ, and those who since His coming have followed His\nfootsteps, have had to learn that true life involves a bearing of the\ncross.\n\nTake but one or two out of countless instances. Look at that humble\nbrown figure, kneeling drowned with tears to think of the disorders\nwhich had already begun to creep into the holy order which he had\ndesigned. It is sweet St. Francis of Assisi, to whom God said in\nvisions: \"Poor little man: thinkest thou that I, who rule the\nuniverse, cannot direct in My own way thy little order?\" Look at that\nmonk in his friars' dress, racked, tortured, gibbeted in fetters\nover the flaming pyre in the great square at Florence, stripped by\nguilty priests of his priestly robe, degraded from a guilty Church\nby its guilty representatives, pelted by wanton boys, dying amid\na roar of execration from the brutal and fickle multitude whose\nhearts he once had moved. It is Savonarola, the prophet of Florence.\nLook at that poor preacher dragged from his dungeon to the stake\nat Basle, wearing the yellow cap and sanbenito painted with flames\nand devils. It is John Huss, the preacher of Bohemia. Look at the\nlion-hearted reformer feeling how much he had striven, not knowing\nas yet how much he had achieved, appealing to God to govern His\nworld, saying that he was but a powerless man, and would be \"the\nveriest ass alive\" if he thought that he could meddle with the\nintricacies of Divine Providence. It is Luther. Look at the youth,\nstarving in an ink-stained garret, hunted through the streets by an\ninfuriated mob, thrust into the city prison as the only way to save\nhis life from those who hated his exposure of their iniquities. It is\nWilliam Lloyd Garrison. Look at that missionary, deserted, starving,\nfever-stricken, in the midst of savages, dying on his knees, in daily\nsufferings, amid frustrated hopes. It is David Livingstone, the\npioneer of Africa. They, and thousands like them, have borne squalors\nand shames and tragedies, while they looked not at the things that\nare seen, but at the things that are not seen; for the things that\nare seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.\nMight not they all have said with the disappointed Apostles, \"Master,\nwe have toiled all the night and have taken nothing\"? Might not their\nlives and deaths--the lives which fools thought madness, and their\nend to be without honour--be described as one poet has described\nthat of his disenchanted king:--\n\n          \"He walked with dreams and darkness, and he found\n           A doom that ever poised itself to fall,\n           An ever-moaning battle in the mist,\n           Death in all life, and lying in all love,\n           The meanest having power upon the highest,\n           And the high purpose broken by the worm.\"\n\n\"Yes; the smelter of Israel had now to go down himself into the\ncrucible.\"[678]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[674] Psalm cii. 6, 8.\n\n[675] Psalm xxxviii. 11, 12.\n\n[676] Jer. v. 31, xxix. 9.\n\n[677] John xvi. 32.\n\n[678] Krummacher.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XLI.\n\n                   _HOW GOD DEALS WITH DESPONDENCY._\n\n                           1 KINGS xix. 5-8.\n\n    \"Why art thou so vexed, O my soul? and why art thou so disquieted\n    within me? O put thy trust in God; for I will yet praise Him who\n    is the health of my countenance, and my God.\"--PSALM xlii. 11.\n\n\n\"It is enough; now, O Lord, take away my life; for I am not better\nthan my fathers.\"\n\nThe despondency was deeper than personal. It was despair of the\nworld; despair of the fate of the true worship; despair about the\nfuture of faith and righteousness; despair of everything. Elijah, in\nhis condition of pitiable weariness, felt himself reduced to entire\nuncertainty about all God's dealings with him and with mankind. \"I\nam not better than my fathers\": _they_ failed one by one, and died,\nand entered the darkness; and I have failed likewise. To what end did\nMoses lead this people through the wilderness? Why did the Judges\nfight and deliver them? Of what use was the wise guidance of Samuel?\nWhat has come of David's harp, and Solomon's temple and magnificence,\nand Jeroboam's heaven-directed rebellion? It ends, and my work ends,\nin the despotism of Jezebel, and a nation of apostates!\n\nGod pitied His poor suffering servant, and gently led him back to\nhope and happiness, and restored him to his true self, and to the\nnatural elasticity of his free spirit.\n\n1. First, he gave His beloved sleep. Elijah lay down and slept.\nPerhaps this was what he needed most of all. When we lose that dear\noblivion of \"nature's soft nurse, and sweet restorer, balmy sleep,\"\nthen nerve and brain give way. So God sent him\n\n                          \"The innocent sleep,\n          Sleep that knits up the ravelled sleeve of care,\n          Balm of hurt minds, great nature's second course,\n          Chief nourisher in life's feast.\"\n\nAnd doubtless, while he slept, \"his sleeping mind,\" as the Greek\ntragedian says, \"was bright with eyes,\" and He, who had thus \"steeped\nhis senses in forgetfulness,\" spoke peace to his troubled heart,\nor breathed into it the rest over which hope might brood with her\nhalcyon wings.\n\n2. Next, God provided him with food. When he awoke he saw that at\nhis head, under the rhotem-plant, God had spread him a table in the\nwilderness. It was a provision, simple indeed, but for his moderate\nwants more than sufficient--a cake baked on the coals[679] and a\ncruse of water. A _Maleakh_--a \"messenger\"--\"some one,\" as the\nSeptuagint and as Josephus both render it,[680] some one who was, to\nhim at any rate, an angel of God--touched him, and said, \"Arise and\neat.\" He ate and drank, and thus refreshed lay down again to make\nup, perhaps, for long arrears of unrest. And again God's messenger,\nhuman or angelic, touched him, and bade him rise and eat once more,\nor his strength would fail in the journey which lay before him. For\nhe meant to plunge yet farther into the wilderness. In the language\nof the narrator, \"He arose, and did eat and drink, and went in the\nstrength of that food forty days and forty nights.\"\n\n3. Next God sent him on a hallowed pilgrimage to bathe his weary\nspirit in the memories of a brighter past.\n\nIt does not require forty days and forty nights, nor anything like\nso long a period, to get from one day's journey in the wilderness to\nHoreb, the Mount of God, which was Elijah's destination. The distance\ndoes not exceed one hundred and eighty miles even from Beersheba.\nBut, as in the case of Moses and of our Lord, \"forty days\"--a\nnumber connected by many associations with the idea of penance\nand temptation--symbolises the period of Elijah's retirement and\nwanderings. No doubt, too, the number has an allusive significance,\npointing back to the forty years' wanderings of Israel in the\nwilderness. The Septuagint omits the words \"of God,\" but there can\nbe little doubt that Sinai was selected for the goal of Elijah's\npilgrimage with reference to the awful scenes connected with the\npromulgation of the law. It is well known that the Mount of the\nCommandments is as a rule called Sinai in Exodus, Leviticus, and\nNumbers, though the name Horeb occurs in Exod. iii. 1, xxxiii. 6. To\naccount for the double usage there have been, since the Middle Ages,\ntwo theories: (1) that Horeb is the name of the range, and Sinai of\nthe mountain; (2) that Horeb properly means the northern part of the\nrange, and Sinai the southern, especially Jebel Mousa. Horeb is the\nprevalent name for the mountain in Deuteronomy; Sinai is the ordinary\nname, and occurs thirty-one times in the Old Testament.\n\nAfter his wanderings Elijah reached Mount Sinai, and came to \"the\ncave,\" and took shelter there. The use of the article shows that a\nparticular cave is meant, and there can be little reason to discredit\nthe almost immemorial tradition that it is the hollow still pointed\nout to hundreds of pilgrims as the scene of the theophany which was\nhere granted to Elijah. Perhaps in the same cave the vision had been\ngranted to Moses, in the scene to which this narrative looks back.\nIt is not so much a cave as, what it is called in Exodus, a \"cleft\nof the rock.\"[681] From the foot of the mountain, the level space on\nwhich now stands the monastery of Saint Katherine, a steep and narrow\npathway through the rocks leads up to Jebel Mousa, the southernmost\npeak of Sinai, which is seven thousand feet high. Half-way up this\nmountain is a little secluded plain in the inmost heart of the\ngranite precipice, in which is an enclosed garden, and a solitary\ncypress, and a spring and pool of water, and a little chapel. Inside\nthe chapel is shown a hole, barely large enough to contain the body\nof a man. \"It is,\" says Dr. Allon, \"a temple not made with hands,\ninto which, through a stupendous granite screen, which shuts out even\nthe Bedouin world, God's priests may enter to commune with Him.\"[682]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIf, indeed, Elijah had heard by tradition the vision of Moses of which\nthis was the scene, he must have been filled with awful thoughts as he\nrested in the same narrow fissure, and recalled what had been handed\ndown respecting the manifestation of Jehovah to his mighty predecessor.\n\n4. And as God had pointed out to him the way to restore his bodily\nstrength by sleep and food, so now He opened before the Prophet the\nremedy of renewed activity. The question of the Lord came to him--it\nwas re-echoed by the voice of his own conscience--\"What doest thou\nhere, Elijah?\"\n\n\"What doest thou?\" He was doing nothing! He had, indeed, fled for his\nlife; but was all the rest of his life to be so different from its\nbeginning? Was there, indeed, no more work to be done in Israel or in\nJudah, and was he tamely to allow Jezebel to be the final mistress of\nthe situation? Was one alien and idolatrous woman to overawe God's\npeople Israel, and to snatch from God's prophet all the fruits of\nhis righteous labours? \"What doest _thou_ here, Elijah?\" Is not the\nvery significance of thy name \"Jehovah, He is my God\"? Is He to be\nthe God but of one fugitive? \"What doest thou _here_?\" This is the\nwilderness. There are no idolaters or murderers, or breakers of God's\ncommandments here; but are there not multitudes in the crowded cities\nwhere Baal's temple towers over Samaria, and his sun-pillars cast\ntheir offensive shadows? Are there not multitudes in Jezreel, where\nthe queen's Asherah-shrine amid its guilt-shrouding trees flings\nits dark protection over unhallowed orgies committed in the name of\nreligion? Should there not have been inspiration as well as reproof\nin the mere question? Should it not mean to him, \"Why art thou cast\ndown, O my soul? and why art thou so disquieted within me? Put thy\ntrust in God, for I will yet praise Him, who is the health of my\ncountenance, and my God\"?\n\n5. The question stirred the heart of Elijah, but did not yet dispel\nhis sense of hopelessness and frustration, nor did it restore his\nconfidence that God would govern the world aright. As yet it only\ncalled forth the heavy murmur of his grief. \"I have been very jealous\nfor Jehovah the God of Hosts\": I, alone among my people; \"for the\nchildren of Israel\"--not the wicked queen only, with her abominations\nand witchcrafts, but the renegade people with her--\"have forsaken\nThy covenant,\" which forbids them to have any God but Thee, and\nhave \"thrown down Thine altars,[683] and slain Thy prophets with\nthe sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to\ntake it away.\" It was as it were an appeal to Jehovah before whom he\nstood, if not almost a reproach to Him. It was as though he said,\n\"I have done my utmost; I have failed: wilt not Thou put forth Thy\npower and reign? I am but one poor hunted prophet alone against the\nworld. There is no prophet more: not one is there among them that\nunderstandeth any more. I can do no more. Of what use is my life?\nCarest Thou not that Thy people have revolted from Thee? Behold they\nperish; they perish, they all perish! Of what use is my life? My work\nhas failed: let me die!\"\n\n6. God dealt with this mood as He has done in all ages, as He had\ndone before to Jacob, as He did afterwards to David and to Hezekiah,\nand to Isaiah and Jeremiah; and as the Son of God did to the antitype\nof Elijah--the great forerunner--when his faith failed him. He let\nthe conviction steal into his mind that the ways of God are wider\nthan men, and His thoughts greater than men's. He unteaches His\nprophet the delusion that everything depends on _him_. He shows him\nthat though He works for men by men, and though\n\n          \"God cannot make best man's best\n           Without best men to help Him,\"\n\nstill no living man is necessary, nor can any man, however great,\neither hasten or understand the purposes of God.\n\nElijah had need to be taught that man is nothing--that God is all in\nall. Instead of answering his complaint, the voice said to him: \"Go\nforth to-morrow, and stand upon the mount before the Lord. Behold,\nthe Lord is passing by.\"[684]\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[679] The _coals_ (_reshaphim_) for the cake (LXX., \u1f14\u03b3\u03ba\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2\n\u1f40\u03bb\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2; Vulg., _subcinericius panis_) were the dry twigs of the\nbroom plant, still sold for that purpose in the markets of Cairo.\nComp. Psalm cxx. 4; \"_coals of juniper_.\"\n\n[680] 1 Kings xix. 5. \u05de\u05b7\u05dc\u05b0\u05d0\u05b8\u05da\u05b0 means \"a messenger,\" and in verse 2 is\nused of the messenger of Jezebel.\n\n[681] Exod. xxxiii. 22.\n\n[682] _Bible Educator_, iii. 135.\n\n[683] The use of the plural, and the absence of any objections to\nan uncentralised worship, are proofs of the northern origin of the\nElijah-episode.\n\n[684] LXX., \u03b1\u1f54\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd; Josephus, _Antt._, VIII. xiii. 7; Comp. Exod.\nxxxiv. 2. It is hardly likely that the stupendous vision would follow\ninstantly and without a moment's preparation.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XLII.\n\n                 _THE THEOPHANY AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE._\n\n                           1 KINGS xix. 9-15.\n\n    \"Who heardest the rebuke of the Lord in Sinai, and in Horeb the\n    judgment of vengeance.\"--ECCLUS. xlviii. 7.\n\n\nThroughout the Scriptures infinite care is taken to preclude every\nnotion that the Most High God can be represented in visible form. He\nmanifested Himself at Sinai to the children of Israel, but though the\nmount burned with fire, and there were clouds and thick darkness,\nand the voice of a trumpet speaking long and loud, the people were\nreminded with the utmost solemnity that \"they saw no manner of\nsimilitude.\"[685] Indeed, in later times, when there was a keener\njealousy of every anthropomorphic expression, the giving of the law\nis rather represented as a part of the ministry of angels. The word\n_Makom_, or \"Place,\" is substituted for Jehovah, so that Moses and\nthe elders and the Israelites do not see God but only His _Makom_,\nthe space which He fills;[686] the delivery of the law is ascribed\nto angelic ministers. At times the angels are almost identified with\nthe careering flames and rushing winds which a modern theologian\ndescribes to us as being \"the skirts of their garments, the waving of\ntheir robes\"; for is it not written, \"He that maketh the winds His\nangels and the flaming fires His ministers\"?[687] And in the daring\ndescription of Jehovah's visible manifestation of Himself to Moses,\nwhen He hid him in that fissure of the rock with the hollow of His\nhand, Moses only observes as it were the fringe and evanishment of\nHis glory, \"dark with excessive light.\"\n\nIt was natural that Jehovah should reveal Himself to Elijah under\nthe aspect of those awful elemental forces with which his solitary\nlife had made him familiar. No spot in the world is more suitable\nfor those powers in all their fire and magnificence than the knot of\nmountains which crowd the Sinaitic peninsula with their entangled\ncliffs. Travellers have borne witness to the overwhelming violence\nand majesty of the storms which rush and reverberate through\nthe granite gorges of those everlasting hills. It was in such\nsurroundings that Jehovah spoke to the heart of his servant.\n\nFirst \"a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in\npieces the rocks, before the Lord.\"[688] The winds of God, which\nblow where they list, and we know not whence they come nor whither\nthey go, have in them so awful and irresistible a strength, that man\nand the works of man, are reduced to impotence before them. And when\nthey rush and roar through the gullies of innumerable hills in tropic\nlands where the intense heat has rarefied the air, the sound of them\nis beyond all comparison weird and terrific. We cannot wonder that\nthis roar of the hurricane was regarded as the trump of the archangel\nand the voice of God at Sinai; or that the Lord answered Job out of\nthe whirlwind;[689] and appeared to Ezekiel in a great cloud and a\nwhirlwind out of the north;[690] or that Jeremiah compared His anger\nto a whirling and sweeping storm;[691] or that the Psalmist describes\nHim as bowing the heavens and coming down and casting darkness under\nHis feet, and flying upon a cherub, and walking upon the wings of\nthe wind;[692] or that Nahum says, \"The Lord hath His way in the\nwhirlwind and the storm, and the clouds are the dust of His feet, ...\nand the mountains quake at Him.\"[693]\n\nAnd Elijah felt the terror of the scene, as the storm dislodged huge\nmasses of the mountain granite, and sent them rolling and crashing\ndown the hills. But it did not speak to his inmost heart: for\n\n\"The Lord was not in the wind.\"\n\nAnd after the wind an earthquake shook the solid bases of the\nSinaitic range. The mountain saw God and trembled. The Lord, in\nthe language of the Psalmist, shook the wilderness of Kadesh,\nthe mountains skipped like rams and the little hills like young\nsheep.[694] And man never feels so abjectly helpless, he is never\nreduced to such absolute insignificance, as when the solid earth\nbeneath him, the very emblem of stability, trembles as with a palsy,\nand cleaves beneath his feet; and shakes his towers to the earth, and\nswallows up his cities. Once more the soul of Elijah shuddered at the\nterrific impression of this sign of Jehovah's power. But it had no\nmessage for his inmost heart: for\n\n\"The Lord was not in the earthquake.\"\n\nAnd after the earthquake a fire. Jehovah overwhelmed the Prophet's\nsenses with the dread magnificence of one of those lurid\nthunderstorms of which the terrors are never so tremendous as in such\nmountain scenes, where travellers tell us that the burning air seems\ntransfused into sheets of flame. In that awful muttering and roar of\nthe lurid clouds, that millionfold reverberation of what the Psalmist\ncalls \"the voice of the Lord,\" when the lightnings \"light the world,\nand run along the ground,\" and, in the language of Habakkuk, \"God\nsends abroad His arrows, and the light of His glittering spear, and\nburning coals go forth under His feet, the lips of man quiver at\nthe voice, and his heart sinks, and he trembles where he stands.\"\nAnd this, too, Elijah must have felt as \"the hiding-place of God's\npower:\"[695] and yet it did not speak to his inmost heart; for\n\n\"The Lord was not in the fire.\"\n\n\"And after the fire a still small voice.\"\n\nHowever the rendering may be altered into \"a gentle murmuring\nsound,\" or, as in the Revised Version, \"a sound of gentle stillness,\"\nno expression is more full of the awe and mystery of the original\nthan the phrase \"a still small voice.\"[696] It was the shock of awful\nstillness which succeeded the sudden cessation of the earthquake and\nhurricane and thunderstorm, and instantly, in it appalling hush and\ngentleness, Elijah felt that God was there; and he no sooner heard\nthat voiceful silence speaking within him than he was filled with\nfear and self-abasement. He wrapped his face in his mantle, even\nas Moses \"was afraid to look upon God.\" He came from the hollow of\nthe rock which had sheltered him amidst that turbulence of material\nforces, and stood in the entering in of the cave.\n\nAt once the silence became articulate to his conscience, and repeated\nto him the reproachful question, \"What doest thou here, Elijah?\"\n\nAmazed and overwhelmed as he is, he has not yet grasped the meaning\nof the vision. Something of it perhaps he saw and felt. It breathed\nsomething of peace into the despair and tumult of his heart, but he\nstill can only answer as before:--\n\n\"I have been very jealous for the Lord God of hosts: because the\nchildren of Israel have forsaken Thy covenant, thrown down Thine\naltars, and slain Thy prophets with the sword; and I, I only, am\nleft; and they seek my life, to take it away.\"\n\nWhatever that theophany had taught him, it had not yet fully removed\nhis perplexity. But now God, in tender forbearance, unfolds at any\nrate the practical issue of the vision. Elijah is to be inactive no\nlonger. He is to find in faithfulness and work the removal of all\ndoubts, and is to learn that man may not abandon his duties, even\nwhen they are irksome, even when they seem hopeless, even when they\nhave become intolerable and full of peril. He has to learn that it\nis only when men have finished their day's work that God sends them\nsleep, and that his own day's work was as yet unfinished. He is no\nlonger to linger in the wilderness apart from the ways of guilty and\nsuffering men. He is one with them: he may not separate his destiny\nfrom theirs; he has to feel that God has no favourites and is no\nrespecter of persons, but that all men are His children, and that\neach child of His must work for all. \"Go,\" the Lord said unto him,\n\"return on thy way by the wilderness to Damascus.\" Did the return\ninvolve unknown dangers? Still he must commit his way unto the Lord,\nand simply be doing good, regardless of all consequences. The saints\nof the Old Dispensation no less than of the New had to go forth\nbearing their cross, and on their way to Golgotha.\n\nThree missions still awaited him.\n\nFirst, he is to supersede the old dynasty of Benhadad, King of Syria,\nfounded by Solomon's enemy, and to anoint Hazael to be king over Syria.\n\nNext, he is to abolish the dynasty of Omri, and to anoint Jehu, the\nson of Nimshi, to be king over Israel.[697]\n\nThirdly--and there was deep significance in this behest, and one\nwhich must have humiliated to the dust the risings of pride and\nthe half-reproach, so to speak, for inadequate support which had\nunderlain his appeal to Jehovah--he is to anoint Elisha, the son of\nShaphat, of Abel-meholah, to be prophet in his room.\n\nElijah had thought himself necessary--an indispensable agent for the\ntask of delivering Israel from the guilty and demoralising apostasy\nof Baal-worship. God teaches him that there is no such thing as a\nnecessary man; that man at his best estate is altogether vanity; that\nGod is all in all; that \"God buries His workmen, but continues His\nwork.\"\n\nAnd something of the meaning of these tasks is explained to him. The\npeople of Israel are not yet converted. They still needed the hand\nof chastisement. The three years' drought had been ineffectual to\nwean them from their backslidings, and turn their hearts again to\nthe Lord. On the royal house and on the worshippers of Baal should\nfall the remorseless sword of Jehu. On the whole nation the ruthless\ninvasions of Hazael should press with terrible penalty. And him that\nescaped from their avenging missions should Elisha slay. The last\nclause is enigmatical. Elisha can hardly be said directly to have\nslain any. He lived, on the whole, in friendship with the kings both\nof Israel and of Aram, and in peace and honour in the cities. But\nthe general idea seems to be that he would carry on the mission of\nElijah alike for the guidance and the heaven-directed punishments\nof kings and nations, and that the famines, raids, and humiliations\nwhich rendered his nation miserable under the sons of Ahab should be\nelements of his sacred mission.[698]\n\nOne more revelation remained to lift the Prophet above his lower\nself. His cry had been, again and again: \"I, I only, am left; and\nthey seek my life, to take it away.\" He must not indulge the mistaken\nfancy that the worship of the true God would die with him, or that\nGod needed his advice, or that God was slack concerning His promise\nas some men count slackness. He was not the only faithful person\nleft, nor would truth perish when he was called away. Nor is he to\njudge only by outward appearances, nor to suppose that the arm of God\ncan be measured by the finger of man. A new prophet is soon to take\nhis place, but God has not been so neglectful as he supposes,--\"Yet,\"\nin spite of all thy murmurings of failure and a frustrated\npurpose--\"yet will I leave Me\"--not _thee, thee only_--\"but _seven\nthousand_ in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal,\nand every mouth which has not kissed him.\"[699]\n\nIt has been regarded as a difficulty that Elijah fulfilled but one\nof the three behests. But Scripture does not narrate events with the\nfinical and pragmatic accuracy of modern annals. Elisha, directly\nor indirectly, caused both Jehu to be anointed and Hazael to ascend\nthe throne of Syria, and we are left to infer that in these deeds he\ncarried out the instructions of his Master.\n\nIt is a more serious question, What was the exact meaning of the\ntheophany granted to Elijah on the Mount of God?\n\nHere, too, we are left to large and liberal applications. The\ngreatest utterances of men, the loftiest works of human genius, often\nadmit of manifold interpretations, and lend themselves to \"springing\nand germinal developments.\" Far more is this the case in the\nrevelations of God to the spirit of man. We can see the main truths\nwhich were involved in that mighty scene, even if the narrator of it\nleaves unexplained its central significance.\n\nIt is usually interpreted as a reproof to the spirit which led Elijah\nto regard the tempestuous manifestations of wrath and vengeance as\nthe normal methods of the interposition of God. He was fresh from\nthe stern challenge of Carmel; his hands were yet red with the blood\nof those four hundred and fifty priests. It was perhaps needful for\nhim to learn that God's gentler agencies are more effectual and more\nexpressive of His inmost nature, and that God is Love even though He\ncan by no means clear the guilty. Something of this lesson has been\nat all times learnt from the narrative.[700]\n\n          \"The raging fire, the roaring wind,\n               Thy boundless power display;\n           But in the gentler breeze we find\n               Thy Spirit's viewless way.\n\n          \"The dew of heaven is like Thy grace,\n               It steals in silence down;\n           But where it lights, the favoured place\n               By richest fruits is known.\"\n\nQuite naturally men have always seen in the storm, the earthquake,\nand the fire, the presence of God as manifested in His wrath. \"Then\nthe earth shook and trembled,\" says the Psalmist; \"the foundations\nalso of the hills moved and were shaken, because He was wroth. There\nwent up a smoke in His nostrils, and fire out of His mouth devoured:\ncoals burnt forth from it. He bowed the heavens also, and came\ndown: and darkness was under His feet. And He rode upon a cherub,\nand swooped down: yea, He did fly upon the wings of the wind.\"[701]\n\"I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her\nplace, at the wrath of the Lord.\"[702] \"Thou shalt be visited,\" says\nIsaiah, \"of the Lord of Hosts with thunder, and with earthquake,\nand great noise, with storm and tempest, and the flame of devouring\nfire.\"[703] On the other hand, in His mercy God \"maketh the storm a\ncalm.\" When He reveals Himself in a vision of the night to Eliphaz\nthe Temanite \"a wind passed before my face, so that the hair of my\nhead stood up, and there was silence, and I heard a voice saying,\nShall mortal man be great before God? shall a man be pure before his\nMaker?\" These passages in no small measure explain the symbolism of\nElijah's vision, and point to its essential significance. Who can\nmeasure (asks Mr. Ruskin) the total effect produced upon the minds of\nmen by the phenomenon of a single thunderstorm?--\"the questioning of\nthe forest leaves together in their terrified stillness which way the\nwind shall come--the murmuring together of the Angels of Destruction\nas they draw in the distance their swords of flame--the rattling of\nthe dome of heaven under the chariot wheels of death?\" Yet it is not\nthe thunderstorms nor the hurricanes that have been most powerful in\naltering the face or moulding the structure of the world, but rather\nthe long continuance of Nature's most gentle influences.\n\nViewing the vision thus, we may say that it pointed forward to that\ntranscendently greater than Elijah who did not strive, nor cry, nor was\nHis voice heard in the streets. \"There is already a gospel of Elijah.\nHe, the farthest removed of all the Prophets from the evangelical\nspirit and character, had yet enshrined in the heart of his story the\nmost forcible of all protests against the hardness of Judaism, the\nnoblest anticipation of the breadth and depth of Christianity.\" This\nview of the passage is taken, with slight modifications, by many, from\nIren\u00e6us down to Grotius and Calvin, and modern commentators.\n\nSimilarly it is a universal law of history that, while some mighty\nand tumultuous energy may be needed to initiate the first movement\nor upheaval, the greatest work is done by gentler agencies. As in\nthe old fable, the quiet shining of the sun effects more than the\nbluster of the storm. Love is stronger than force, and persuasion\nthan compulsion. Mr. J. S. Mill treats it not only as a platitude but\nas a falsity to assert that truth cannot be suppressed by violence.\nHe says that (for instance) the truths brought into prominence by\nthe Reformation had been again and again suppressed by the brutal\ntyrannies of the Papacy. But in all these instances has not the truth\nultimately prevailed? Is it not a fact of experience that\n\n          \"Truth, pressed to earth shall rise again,\n               The eternal years of God are hers;\n           But error, wounded, writhes in pain\n               And dies among her worshippers\"?\n\nThe truth prevails and the error dies under the slow light of\nknowledge and by the long results of time.\n\nNor is it any answer to this view of the revelation to Elijah on the\nMount of God that there is not the slightest proof of his having\nlearnt any such lesson, or of such a lesson having been deduced\nfrom it by the narrator himself. Neither Elijah, it has been said,\nnor the writer of the Book of Kings, felt the smallest regret for\nthe avenging deed of Carmel. Their consciences approved of it.\nThey looked on it with pride, not with compunction. This is shown\nby the subsequently recorded story of Elijah's calling down fire\nfrom heaven on the unfortunate captains and soldiers of Ahaziah, in\nwhatever light we regard that story which was evidently current in\nthe Schools of the Prophets. If the massacre of the priests cannot\nbe regarded as morally excusable, the destruction of these royal\nemissaries by consuming fire was certainly much less so. The vision\nmay have had a deeper significance than Elijah or the Schools of the\nProphets understood, just as the words of Jesus often had a deeper\nsignificance than was dreamt of even by the Apostles when they heard\nthem. The foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of\nGod is stronger than men. Neither Elijah nor the sacred historian\nmay have grasped all that was meant by the wind, and earthquake, and\nfire, and still small voice.\n\n          \"As little children sleep and dream of heaven,\n           So thoughts beyond their thoughts to those high bards were\n               given.\"\n\nIt is scarcely more than another aspect of the many-sided truth\nthat love is more potent and more Divine than violence, if we also\nsee in this incident a foreshadowing of the truth, so necessary for\nthe impatient souls of men that God neither hasteth nor resteth;\nthat He is patient because Eternal; that a thousand years in His\nsight are but as yesterday, seeing that it is past as a dream in the\nnight. Something of this we learn from the study of nature. It used\nto be thought that the upheaval of the continents and the rearing\nof the great mountains was due to cataclysms and conflagrations and\nvast explosions of volcanic force. It has long been known that they\nare due, on the contrary, to the inconceivably slow modifications\nproduced by the most insignificant causes. It is the age-long\naccumulation of mica-flakes which has built up the mighty bastions\nof the Alps. It is the toil of the ephemeral coral insect which has\nreared whole leagues of the American Continent and filled the Pacific\nOcean with those unnumbered isles\n\n          \"Which, like to rich and various gems, inlay\n           The unadorned bosom of the deep.\"\n\nIt is the slow silting up of the rivers which has created vast\ndeltas for the home of man. It has required the calcareous deposit\nof millions of animalcul\u00e6 to produce even one inch of the height\nof the white cliffs along the shores. Even so the thoughts of\nman have been made more merciful in the slow course of ages, and\nquiet, incommensurable influences have caused all those advances\nin civilisation and humanity which elevate our race. The \"bright\ninvisible air\" has produced effects incomparably more stupendous than\nthe wild tornadoes. \"That air, so gentle, so imperceptible, is more\npowerful, not only than all the creatures that breathe and live by\nit, not only than all the oaks of the forest which it rears in an age\nand shatters in a moment, not only than the monsters of the sea, but\nthan the sea itself, which it tosses up with foam and breaks upon\nevery rock in its vast circumference; for it carries in its bosom all\nperfect calm, and compresses the incontrollable ocean and the peopled\nearth, like an atom of a feather.\"[704]\n\n\"Thus regarded,\" says Professor Van Oort, \"the picture of Elijah\nat Mount Horeb is full of consolation to all lovers of the truth.\nSometimes they cry, All is lost! and are ready to despair. But God\nanswers, Never lose heart. Storms in which God is not, in which the\npower of darkness seems to sweep unbridled and unconquered o'er the\nearth, come before the whispering of the cooling breeze, but the\nkingdom of peace and blessedness is ever drawing nigh. Let all who\nlove God truly, work for its 'approach.'\"\n\nLet us then cling to the lesson that mercy is better than sacrifice,\nand is transcendently to be preferred to holocausts of human sacrifice,\neven when the victims are polluted and cruel idolaters. Scripture never\nhides from us the imperfections of its heroes, and St. James tells us\nthat Elijah was but a man of like passions with ourselves. The progress\nof the generations, the slow shining of the light of God, has not been\nin vain, and we can see truths and read the meaning of theophanies\nby the experience of three subsequent millenniums, of which two have\nfollowed the incarnation of the Son of God.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[685] Deut. iv. 12, 15, (comp. v. 4, 22, 23). Of Moses, on the other\nhand, it is said, \"the similitude of the Lord shall he behold\" (Numb.\nxii. 8; Exod. xxxiii. 11; Deut. xxxiv. 10).\n\n[686] \u05de\u05b8\u05e7\u05d5\u05b9\u05dd, \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, \"place,\" was a sort of recognised euphemism for\nGod in Rabbinic and Alexandrian exegesis. Thus, in Exod. xxiv. 10,\nfor \"they saw _the God of Israel_,\" the LXX. have \u03b5\u1f37\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03bf\u1f57 \u03b5\u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2. Philo says, \"God Himself is called Place\" (_De\nSomn._, i. 525). Rabbi Isaac says, \"God is not in Makom, but Makom\nis in God.\" See my Bampton Lectures on _Hist. of Interpretation_, p.\n120; _Early Days of Christianity_, i. 261.\n\n[687] Psalm civ. 4; Heb. i. 7. This intermediacy of angels is\nprominently alluded to in Acts vii. 53; Gal. iii. 19; Heb. ii. 2, 3;\nDeut. xxxiii. 2; Psalm lxviii. 17.\n\n[688] The anthropomorphism which the Targumists disliked vanishes in\nthe Chaldee: \"And before Him was a host of angels of the wind rending\nthe mountains, and breaking the rocks, before the Lord but the\nShechinah was not in the hosts of the angels of the wind, and after\nthe hosts of the angels of the wind was the host of the angel of the\nearthquake, etc.\"\n\n[689] Job xxxviii. 1, xl. 6.\n\n[690] Ezek. i. 4.\n\n[691] Jer. xxiii. 19, 20, xxv. 32, xxx. 23.\n\n[692] Psalms xviii. 10, civ. 3, 5.\n\n[693] Nahum i. 3, 5.\n\n[694] Psalm xviii. 7, lxxvii. 18, xcvii. 4; Judg. v. 4; 2 Sam. xxii. 8.\n\n[695] Hab. iii. 3-16.\n\n[696] 1 Kings xix. 12; LXX., \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u1f74 \u03b1\u1f54\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2; Vulg., _Sibilus aur\u00e6\ntenuis_; Chaldee, \"a voice of angels singing in silence.\"\n\n[697] Jehu was the grandson of Nimshi, and was the son of Jehoshaphat\n(2 Kings ix. 2).\n\n[698] Isa. xi. 4, xlix. 2; comp. Jer. i. 10, xviii. 7.\n\n[699] Comp. Rom. xii. 5. Kissing images was a sign of idolatry then\nas it is now. The foot of the statue of St. Peter in Rome is worn\naway with kisses. Hosea xiii. 2 tells us of the custom of kissing the\ncalves. Comp. Psalm ii. 12. Cicero tells us that the lovely brazen\nstatue of Hercules at Agrigentum had the mouth and chin partly worn\naway by the kisses of the devout (in _Verr._, iv. 43).\n\n[700] Herder, who was a devout poet, and therefore a true imaginative\ninterpreter of devout poetry, says: \"The vision was to show the fiery\nzeal of the Prophet that would amend everything by the storm, the\nmild process of God, and proclaim His longsuffering tender nature as\npreviously the voice did to Moses: hence the scene was so beautifully\nchanged.\" Long before him the wise Theodoret had said: \u0394\u03b9\u1f70 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n\u1f14\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03be\u03b5\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03af\u03b1 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03b7 \u0398\u03b5\u1ff7. Iren\u00e6us, still\nearlier (_c. H\u00e6r._, iv. 27), saw in the vision an emblem of the\ndifference between the law and the gospel; and Grotius, following\nhim, says, \"Evangelii figuratio, quod non venit cum vento, terr\u00e6\nmotu, et fulminibus ut lex,\" Exod. xix. 16 (see Keil, _ad loc._,\nwhose illustrations are often valuable when his exegesis is false and\nobsolete).\n\n[701] Psalm xviii. 7-9; comp. 2 Sam. xxii. 8-11.\n\n[702] Isa. xiii. 13.\n\n[703] Isa. xxix. 6; comp. Ecclus. xxxix. 28.\n\n[704] W. S. Landor.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XLIII.\n\n                         _THE CALL OF ELISHA._\n\n                          1 KINGS xix. 19-21.\n\n          \"The one remains, the many change and pass;\n           Heaven's light alone remains, earth's shadows flee.\"\n                                                     SHELLEY.\n\n\nWhether Elijah saw or saw not all that God had meant by the\nrevelation at Horeb, much at any rate was abundantly clear to him,\nand the path of new duties lay straight before him.\n\nThe first of those duties--the only one immediately possible--was\nto anoint Elisha as prophet in his room, and so prepare for the\ncontinuation of the task which he had been chosen to inaugurate. He\nhad been bidden to return across the wilderness in the direction of\nDamascus. Whether he traversed the eastern side of Jordan among his\nown familiar hills of Gilead, and then crossed over at Bethshean,\nwhere there was a ford, or whether, braving an danger from Jezebel\nand her emissaries, he passed through the territories of the western\ntribes, it is certain that we find him next at Abel-meholah, \"the\nmeadow of the dance,\" which was not far from Bethshean.[705] This, as\nhe knew, was the home of Elisha, his future successor.\n\nThe position of Elisha was wholly unlike his own. He himself was a\nhomeless Bedawy, bound to earth by no ties of family, coming like the\nwind and vanishing like the lightning. Elisha, on the other hand, whose\nhistory was to be so different and so far less stormy--Elisha, whose\nwork and whose residence was mainly to be in cities--was a child of\ncivilisation. But the civilisation was still that of a society in which\nanarchic forces were by no means tamed. Dean Stanley, in his sketch of\nElisha, seems to dwell too much on his gentleness of spirit. He, too,\nhad to carry out the anointing of Hazael and Jehu. \"He was still less\ncapable than Elijah,\" says Ewald, \"of inaugurating a purely benign and\nconstructive mode of action, since at that time the whole spirit of the\nancient religion was still unprepared for it.\"\n\nElijah found him in the heritage of his fathers, ploughing the rich\nlevel land with twelve yoke of oxen. Eleven were with his servants,\nand he himself guided the twelfth.[706] Elijah must have felt\nthat the youth would have to make a great earthly sacrifice, if\nhe left all this--father and mother and home and lands--to become\nthe disciple and attendant of a wild, wandering, and persecuted\nprophet. He would say nothing to him. He merely left the high road,\nand \"passed over unto him,\" as he plowed his fields.[707] Reaching\nhim he took off his shaggy garment of skin, which, in imitation of\nhim, became in after years the normal garb of prophets, and flung\nit over Elisha's shoulders. This apparently was all the \"anointing\"\nrequisite, save such as came from the Spirit of God. The act had a\ntwofold symbolism: it meant the adoption of Elisha by Elijah to be\nhis \"_mantelkind_,\" his spiritual son; and it meant a distinct call\nto the prophetic office.\n\nAt first Elisha seems to have stood still--amazed, almost stupefied,\nby the sudden necessity for so tremendous a decision. The thought\nof resigning all the hopes and comforts of ordinary life and of\nsevering so many dear and lifelong ties, could not be unmixed with\nanguish. Again and again we see in the call of the prophets this\nnatural shrinking, the human reluctance born of humility, frailty,\nand misgiving. It was so that Moses at the burning bush had at first\nfought to the utmost against the conviction of his destiny. It was so\nthat Gideon had pleaded that he was but the least of the children of\nAbiezer. It was thus that, in later days, Jonah fled from the face of\nthe Lord to Tarshish; and Isaiah cried, \"Woe is me, for I am a man of\nunclean lips\"; and Jeremiah wailed, \"Ah, Lord God! behold, I cannot\nspeak, for I am a child!\" And if we may allude to modern instances we\nknow the shrinking hesitations of Luther; and how Cromwell affirmed\nthat he had prayed to God not to put him to his terrible work; and\nhow Wesley hesitated long before he \"made himself vile\" by preaching\nin the open air to the Kingswood colliers; and how Father Matthew\nshrank from his great temperance efforts, till one day, rising from\nlong prayer, and at last convinced of his destined task, he uttered\nthe homely resolve, \"In the name of God here goes!\"\n\nElisha did not hesitate long. The mysterious Prophet of Carmel--he\nwhose voice was believed to have shut up the heavens, he who had\nconfounded king and priest and people at Carmel--had spoken no word. He\nhad only flung over Elisha the garment of hair, and then stridden back\nto the road, and gone on his way without once looking back. Soon he\nwould have vanished beyond recall. Elisha decided that he would obey\nthe call of God; that he would not make \"the great refusal.\" He ran\nafter Elijah, and overtook him, and, accepting the position to which\nhe had been elevated, made but the one human natural request that he\nmight be suffered first to kiss--that is, to bid final farewell to--his\nfather and mother, and then he would follow Elijah.\n\nThe request has often been compared to that of the young scribe who\nsaid to Jesus, \"Lord, suffer me first to bury my father\"; to whom\nJesus replied, \"Let the dead bury their dead: follow thou Me.\" But the\ntwo petitions are not really analogous. The scribe practically asked\nthat he might stay at home till his father died; and as that was an\nuncertain term, and the ministry of Christ was very brief, the delay\nwas incompatible with such discipleship as Christ then required. There\nwas no such indefinite postponement in Elisha's petition. It showed in\nhim a tender heart, not a reluctant purpose or a wavering will.\n\n\"Go back again,\" answered Elijah; \"for what have I done to thee?\"\n\nThe words are often explained as a veiled yet severe rebuke, as\nthough Elijah had meant to say with scorn, \"Go back; perhaps you are\nnot fit for the high call; you do not understand the significance of\nwhat I have done;\" or, at any rate, \"Go back; yet beware of being\nsoftly led away from the path of duty; for consider how deep is the\nmeaning of what I have done to thee.\"\n\nThe words involve no such disapprobation, nor does the context agree\nwith that view of them. I can detect no accent of reproof in the words.\nElijah, as is shown by several incidents in his career, had room for\ntenderness and human affection in his rugged lonely heart. I understand\nhis reply to mean, \"Go back; it is right, it is natural that thou\nshouldst thus bid a last farewell before leaving thy home. Thy coming\nto me must be purely voluntary; I have but cast my mantle over thee,\nnothing more. Thine own conscience alone can interpret the full meaning\nof the act, and God will make thy way clear before thy face.\"\n\nSuch, I believe, was Elijah's free permission. He was no hard Stoic,\nunnaturally trampling on the sweet affections of the soul. He was no\ndespotic spiritual guide full of gloomy superstition, like the grim\nSpaniard, Ignatius Loyola, who seemed to hold that God liked even our\nneedless anguish, and our voluntary self-tortures as an acceptable\nsacrifice to Himself. When St. Francis Xavier, on the journey of\nthe first Jesuits to Rome, passed quite near the castle of his\nparents and ancestors, the teachings of Loyola would not suffer the\nyoung noble to turn aside to print one last kiss upon his mother's\ncheek. Such hard exactions belong to that sphere of will-worship\nand voluntary humility which St. Paul condemns. Excessive violence\nneedlessly inflicted on our innocent affections finds no sanction\neither in ancient Judaism or genuine Christianity.\n\nAnd it was thus that Elisha understood the Prophet. He went back,\nand kissed his father and mother, and, like Matthew when he left his\ntoll-booth to follow Christ, he made a great feast to his dependents,\nkinsfolk, and friends. To mark his complete severance from the happy\npast he unyoked his pair of oxen, slew them, used the plough and goad\nand wooden yokes as fuel, boiled the flesh of the oxen, and invited the\npeople to his farewell feast. Then he arose, and went after Elijah,\nand ministered unto him. He was thenceforth recognised as a son of\nthe prophetic schools, and as their future head. For the present he\nbecame known as \"Elisha, who poured water on the hands of Elijah.\" His\nsubsequent career belongs entirely to the Second Book of Kings.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[705] 1 Kings iv. 12. It was in the north part of the Jordan valley.\n\n[706] 1 Kings xix. 19.\n\n[707] The Hebrew can hardly bear the meaning that he was finishing\nthe twelfth furrow in his field, ploughed by his single yoke of oxen.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XLIV.\n\n                          _AHAB AND BENHADAD._\n\n                           1 KINGS xx. 1-30.\n\n\nIn the Septuagint and in Josephus the events narrated in the\ntwentieth chapter of the Book of Kings are placed after the meeting\nof Elijah with Ahab at the door of Naboth's vineyard, which occupies\nthe twenty-first chapter in our version. This order of events seems\nthe more probable, but no chronological data are given us in the\nlong but fragmentary details of Ahab's reign. They are, in fact,\ncomposed of different sets of records, partly historical, partly\nprophetic, and partly taken from some special monograph on the career\nof Elijah. Here, too, we may observe that some most important details\nare altogether omitted, and that we only learn them (1) from the\ninscription of King Mesha, and (2) from the clay tablets of Assyria.\n\n1. As regards King Mesha, the monument containing his very\ninteresting annals is generally known as The Moabite Stone. It is a\nstele of black basalt, 3 feet 10 inches high, 2 feet broad, 14-1/2\ninches thick, rounded at the top and bottom almost into a semicircle.\nThe Ph\u0153nician inscription is of capital importance both for philology\nand history. It was first discovered by Mr. Klein, the German\nmissionary of an English society at Dibon, east of the Dead Sea, and\nit is now at the Louvre. Dibon is now Dibb\u00e2n.\n\nMr. Klein in 1868, at Jerusalem, informed Professor Petermann of\nBerlin of the existence of this ancient relic, and from a few\nletters of the thirty-four lines which he had copied the Professor\nat once pronounced that the language employed was Ph\u0153nician. When M.\nClermont Ganneau, the French consul at Jerusalem, endeavoured to get\npossession of it, the Bedawin discovered that it was regarded with\ndeep interest by European scholars. They immediately began to quarrel\nover its possession, and the Arab who had been sent to copy it barely\nescaped with his life. In their greed and jealousy these modern\nMoabites \"sooner than give it up, put a fire under it, and threw cold\nwater on it, and so broke it, and then distributed the bits among\nthe different families to be placed in the granaries and to serve as\nblessings upon the corn; for they said that without the stone (or\nits equivalent in hard cash) a blight would fall upon their crops.\"\nSqueezes had been previously taken from it by M. Ganneau and Captain\nWarren, from which the text has been restored.[708]\n\nIt records three great events in the reign of Mesha.\n\n(1) Lines 1-21. Wars of Mesha with Omri and his successors.\n\n(2) Lines 21-31. Public works of Mesha after his deliverance from his\nJewish oppressors.\n\n(3) Lines 31-34. His successful wars against the Edomites (or a\npeople of Horonaim), undertaken by command of his god Chemosh. The\ndate of the erection of the monolith is about B.C. 890.\n\nIt begins thus:--\n\n\"(1) I, Mesha, am son of Chemosh-Gad,[709] King of Moab, (2) the\nDibonite. My father reigned over Moab 30 years, and I reigned (3)\nafter my father. And I erected this Stone to Chemosh (a stone of\nsalvation),[710] (4) for he saved me from all despoilers, and let me\nsee my desire upon all my enemies. (5) Now Omri, King of Israel, he\noppressed Moab many days, for Chemosh was angry with his (6) land. His\nson succeeded him, and he also said, I will oppress Moab. In my days he\nsaid (Let us go) (7) and I will see my desire on him and his house, and\nIsrael said, I shall destroy it for ever. Now Omri took the land (8)\nMedeba, and (the enemy) occupied it (in his days and in) the days of\nhis sons, forty years. And Chemosh (had mercy) (9) on it in my days.\"\n\nHe goes on to tell how he built Bael Meon and Kirjathaim; captured\nAtaroth, and killed all its warriors, and devoted its spoil to\nChemosh. \"And Chemosh said to me, Go take Nebo against Israel.\" He\ntook it, slew seven thousand men, devoted the women and maidens to\nAshtar-Chemosh, and offered Jehovah's vessels to Chemosh. Then he\ntook Jahas which the king of Israel had fortified, and annexed it to\nDibon; built Korcha, its palaces, prisons, etc., Aroer, Bethbamoth,\nand other towns which he colonised with poor Moabites; and took\nHoronaim by assault.\n\nThere the inscription ends, but not until it has given us some details\nof a series of bloody wars about which the Scripture narrative is\nalmost entirely silent, though in 2 Kings iii. 4-27 it narrates Mesha's\ndesperate resistance of Israel, Judah, and Edom (B.C. 896).\n\nOn this inscription we may briefly remark that for Chemosh-Gad, Dr.\nNeubauer reads Chemosh-melech, and makes various other changes and\nsuggestions.\n\n2. From the annals of Assyria we learn the altogether unexpected fact\nthat _Ahabu Sirlai_, _i.e._, \"Ahab of Israel,\" was acting as one of\nthe allies, or more probably as one of the vassals, of Syria in the\ngreat battle fought at Karkar, B.C. 854, against Shalmanezer II.,\nby Hittites, Hamathites, and Syrians. Whether this was before the\ninvasion of Benhadad, or after his defeat, is uncertain.\n\nThe twentieth chapter of the Book of Kings tells us that Benhadad,\nthe Aram\u00e6an king, accompanied by thirty-two feudatory princes of\nHittites, Hamathites, and others, gathered together all his host\nwith his horses and chariots, and proclaimed war against Israel.\nUnable to meet this vast army in the field, Ahab shut himself up in\nSamaria, and Benhadad went up and besieged it. We do not know which\nBenhadad this was. It could not have been the grandson of Rezon,\nwhom, fourteen years earlier, King Asa had bribed to attack Baasha\nin order to divert him from building Ramah.[711] It may have been\nhis son or grandson bearing the same religious dynastic name. In\nany case the policy of attacking Israel was suicidal. If the kings\nhad possessed the prescient glance of the prophets they could not\nhave failed to see on the northern horizon the cloud of Assyrian\npower, which menaced them all with cruel extinction at the hands of\nthat atrocious people. Their true policy would have been to form an\noffensive and defensive league, instead of coveting one another's\ndominions. Although Assyria had not yet risen to the zenith of her\nempire, she was already formidable enough to convince the King of\nDamascus that he would never be able single-handed to prevent Syria\nfrom being crushed before her. Instead of inflicting ruinous losses\nand humiliations on the tribes of Israel, the dynasty of Rezon, if\nit had been wise in its day, would have insured their friendly aid\nagainst the horrible common enemy of the nations.\n\nWhen Benhadad had succeeded in reducing Ahab to hopeless straits,\nhe sent him a herald to demand the admission of ambassadors. Their\nultimatum was couched in language of the deadliest insult. Benhadad\nlaid insolent claim to everything which Ahab possessed--his silver, his\ngold, his wives, and the fairest of his children. To save his people\nfrom ruin, Ahab--it is strange that throughout the narrative we do not\nhear one word either about Jezebel or Elijah--sent an answer of the\nhumblest submission. Tyre gave him no help, nor did Judah. He seems at\nthis time to have been entirely isolated and to have sunk to the nadir\nof his degradation. \"It is true,\" he said, \"my lord, and king; I, and\nall that I possess, is thine.\" The depth of humiliation involved in\nsuch a concession is the measure of the utter straits to which Ahab was\nreduced. When an Eastern king had to give up to his conqueror even his\nseraglio--yes, even his queen--all his power must have been humbled\nto the very dust. And at the head of Ahab's seraglio was Jezebel. How\nfrenzied must have been the thoughts of that terrible woman, when she\nsaw that her Baal, and the Astarte to whom her father was a priest,\nin spite of the temple which she had built, and her eight hundred and\nfifty priests of Baal and Asherah with all their vestments and pompous\nceremonies and blood-stained invocations, had wholly failed to save\nher--a great king's daughter and a great king's wife--from drinking to\nthe very dregs this cup of shame!\n\nEncouraged by this abject demeanour into yet more outrageous\ninsolence, Benhadad sent back his ambassadors with the further menace\nthat he would himself send his messengers next day into Samaria, who\nshould search and rifle not only the palace of Ahab, but the houses\nof all his servants, from which they should take away everything that\nwas pleasant in their eyes.\n\nThe merciless demand kindled in the breast of the wretched king one\nlast spark of the courage of despair. Nothing could be worse than\nsuch a pillage. Death itself seemed preferable. He summoned together\nall the elders of the land to a great council, to which the people\nalso were invited, and he set the state of things before them. The\nfact gives us an interesting glimpse into the constitution of the\nkingdom of Israel. It greatly resembled that of the little Greek\nstates in the days of the _Iliad_. Under ordinary circumstances of\nprosperity the king was within certain limits despotic; but he might\neasily be reduced to the necessity of consulting a sort of senate\n(\u03b3\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1), composed of his greatest subjects,[712] and at these\nopen-air deliberations the people were present as assessors on whose\nwill depended the ultimate decision.\n\nAhab put before his council the desperate condition to which he had\nbeen reduced by the Syrian leaguer. He recounted the cruel terms to\nwhich he had submitted in order to save his people from destruction.\nFrom the second embassage of Benhadad it was clear that the first\ndemand had only been made in the hope that its refusal would give the\nSyrians an excuse for pressing on the siege, and delivering the city\nto ravage and slaughter. Was it their will that the insolent foreign\ntyrant should have his way, and be permitted without let or hindrance\nto rifle their houses, and carry away their goodliest sons as eunuchs\nand their fairest wives as concubines? He asked their advice how to\novercome this dire calamity;\n\n          \"What reinforcement we may gain from hope,\n           If not what resolution from despair.\"\n\nThe elders saw that even massacre and pillage could hardly be worse\nthan a tame submission to such demands. They plucked up courage and\nsaid to Ahab, \"Hearken not to him, nor consent\"; and the people\nshouted their applause to the heroic refusal.[713] The king seems\nin this instance to have been more despondent than his subjects,\nperhaps because he was better able than they to gauge the immense\nmilitary superiority of his invader. Even his second message, though\nit rejected Benhadad's demand, was almost pusillanimous in its\nsubmission. With bated breath and whispering humbleness Ahab said to\nthe Syrian ambassadors, quite in the tone of a vassal: \"Tell my lord\nthe king, I _will_ submit to his first demands; I _may_ not consent\nto his final ones.\"\n\nThe ambassadors went to Benhadad, and returned with the fierce menace\nthat in the name of his god[714] their king would shatter Samaria\ninto dust, of which the handfuls would not suffice for each of his\nsoldiers.[715] Ahab replied firmly in a happy proverb, \"Let not\nhim that girdeth on his armour boast himself as he that putteth it\noff.\"[716]\n\nThe warning proverb was reported to the Aram\u00e6an king, whilst in the\ninsolent confidence of victory he was drinking himself drunk in\nhis war-booths.[717] It nettled him to fury. \"Plant the engines,\"\nhe exclaimed. The catapults and battering-rams,[718] with all the\nengines which constituted the siege-train of the day, were at once\nset in motion, the scaling ladders brought up, and the archers set in\nposition, just as we see in the Assyrian Kouyunjik sculptures of the\nsiege of Lachish and other cities by Sennacherib.[719]\n\nAhab's heart must have sunk within him, for he knew his impotence, and\nhe knew also the horrors which befell a city taken after desperate\nresistance. But he was not left unencouraged. The characteristic of\nthe prophets was that dauntless confidence in Jehovah which so often\nmade a prophet the Tyrt\u00e6us of his native land, unless the land had sunk\ninto utter apostasy. In this extreme of peril a nameless prophet--the\nRabbis, who always guess at a name when they can, say it was Micaiah\nben Imlah--came to Ahab. As though to emphasise the supernatural\ncharacter of his communication, he pointed to the chariots and archers\nand the Syrian host--which, if the subsequent numbers be accurate, must\nhave reached the astounding total of one hundred and thirty thousand\nmen--and said, in the name of Jehovah:--\n\n  \"Hast thou seen all this great multitude?\n   Lo! I will deliver it into thine hand to-day:\n   And thou shalt know that I am the Lord.\"\n\n\"By whom?\" was the astonished and half-despairing question of the\nking; and the strange answer was:--\n\n\"By the young servants[720] of the provincial governors.\"\n\nIt was to be made clear that this was a victory due to the intervention\nof God, and not won by the power nor the might of man, lest the\nwarriors of Israel should be able to boast of the arm of flesh.\n\n\"Who shall lead the assault?\" asked the king.\n\n\"Thou!\" answered the prophet.\n\nNothing could be wiser than this counsel, now that the nation was\nbrought to the extreme edge of hazard. The veterans, perhaps, were\nintimidated. They would see more clearly the hopelessness of attempting\nto cope with that colossal host under its five-and-thirty kings.\nBut now the nation, whose veterans had been driven back, evoked the\nbattle-brunt of its youths. The two hundred and thirty-two pages of the\ndistrict governors were ready to obey orders, ready, like an army of\nDecii to devote their lives to the cause of their country. They were\nput in the forefront of the battle, and so pitiable was the depression\nof the capital that Ahab could only number a paltry army of seven\nthousand soldiers to stand behind their desperate undertaking.[721]\n\nTheir plan was well laid. They went out at noon. At that burning\nhour, under the intolerable glare and heat of the Syrian sun--and\ncampaigns were only undertaken in spring and summer--it is almost\nimpossible to bear the weight of armour, or to sit on horseback, or\nto endure the fierce heat of iron chariots. The first little army\nwhich issued from the gates of Samaria might rely on the effects\nof a surprise. Thousands of the Syrian soldiers expecting nothing\nless than a battle would be unarmed, and taking their siesta. Their\nchariots and war steeds would be unharnessed and unprepared.\n\nBenhadad was still continuing his heavy drinking bout with his vassal\nprinces, and not one of them was in a condition to give coherent\ncommands. A messenger announced to the band of royal drunkards that\n\"men\" were come out of Samaria. They were too few to call them \"an\narmy,\" and the notion of an attack from that poor handful seemed\nridiculous. Benhadad thought they were coming to sue for peace, but\nwhether peace or war were their object he gave the contemptuous order\nto \"take them alive.\"\n\nIt was easier said than done. Led by the king at the head of his\nvalorous youths the little host clashed into the midst of the\nunwieldly, unprepared, ill-handled Syrian host, and by their first\nslaughter created one of those fearful panics which have often been\nthe destruction of Eastern hosts. The Syrians, whose army was\nmade up of heterogeneous forces, and which could not be managed by\nthirty-four half-intoxicated feudatories of differing interests and\ninsecure allegiance, was doubtless afraid that internal treachery\nmust have been at work. Like the Midianites, like Zerah's Ethiopian\nhost, like the Edomites in the Valley of Salt, like the Ammonites and\nMoabites in the wilderness of Tekoa, like the army of Sennacherib,\nlike the enormous and motley hosts of Persia at Marathon, at Plat\u00e6a,\nand at Arbela, they were instantly flung into irremediable confusion\nwhich tended every moment to be more fatal to itself. The little band\nof the youths and horses of Israel had nothing to do but to slay,\nand slay, and slay.[722] No effective resistance was even attempted.\nLong before evening the hundred and thirty thousand Syrians, with\nthe entangled mass of their chariots and horsemen, were in headlong\nflight, while Ahab and the people of Israel slaughtered their flying\nrear. The defeat became an absolute rout. Benhadad himself had a most\nnarrow escape. He could not even wait for his war chariot. He had\nto fly with a few of his horsemen, and apparently, so the words may\nimply, on an inferior horse.[723]\n\nWhat effect was produced on the national mind and on the social\nreligion by this immense deliverance we are not told. Never, certainly,\nhad any nation deeper cause for gratitude to its religious teachers,\nwho alone had not despaired of the commonwealth when everything seemed\nlost. We would fain know where was Elijah at this crisis, and whether\nhe took any part in it. We cannot tell, but we know that as a rule\nthe sons of the prophets acted together under their chiefs, and that\nindividual impulses were rarely encouraged. The very meaning of the\n\"Schools of the Prophets\" was that they were all trained to adopt the\nsame principles and to move together as one body.\n\nThe service rendered by this prophet, whose very name has been buried\nin undeserved oblivion, did not end here. Perhaps he saw signs of\ncarelessness and undue exultation. He went again to the king, and\nwarned him that his victory, immense as it had been, was not final.\nIt was no time for him to settle on his lees. The Syrians would\nassuredly return the following year,[724] probably with increased\nresources, and with the burning determination to avenge their defeat.\nLet Ahab look well to his army and his fortresses, and prepare\nhimself for the coming shock!\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[708] For these particulars, and the following translations, see Dr.\nGinsburg in _Records of the Past_, xi. 163; and Dr. Neubauer, _id._,\nNew Series, ii. 194; _The Moabite Stone_, Second Edition (Reeves\n& Turner), 1871; Dr. Schlottmann, _Die Sieggessa\u00fcle Mesas_, 1870;\nN\u00f6ldeke, _Die Inschrift der K\u00f6nig Mesa_, 1870; Stade, i. 534; Kittel,\nii. 198, etc.\n\n[709] Chemosh-Gad perhaps came to the throne in the fourth year of\nOmri, about B.C. 926, and reigned till the close of Ahaziah's reign\n(B.C. 896).\n\n[710] Comp. 1 Sam. vii. 12.\n\n[711] For it is indirectly mentioned that \"_his father_\" had taken\ncities from Omri.\n\n[712] LXX., Exod. iii. 16.\n\n[713] Comp. Josh. ix. 18; Judg. xi. 11.\n\n[714] 1 Kings xx. 10. Elohim here, doubtless, means the false gods of\nBenhadad. Vat. LXX., \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2; but Chaldee, \"the terrors.\"\n\n[715] \"Fanfaronnade, qui veut dire; je r\u00e9duirai cette bicoque\nen poussi\u00e8re; j'ai avee moi plus de monde qu'il ne faudra pour\nl'emporter tout enti\u00e8re\" (Reuss). Comp. Herod., viii. 226, where\nDieneces answers the braggart vaunt of the Medes.\n\n[716] Reuss renders it, \"Ceignant n'est pas encore gaignant.\" The\nproverb resembles in different aspects the precept of Solon, \u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bc\u03b1\n\u1f41\u03c1\u1fb6\u03bd \u03b2\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf, and \"Praise a fair day at night\"; and the Italian,\n\"Capo ha cosa fatta\"; and the Latin, \"Ne triumphum canas ante\nvictoriam\"; and the French, \"Il ne faut pas vendre le peau de l'ours\navant de l'avoir tu\u00e9.\"\n\n[717] A.V., \"pavilions\"; but the word (_sukkoth_) implies that they\nwere temporary booths rather than tents. They resembled the birchwood\npavilions made for the Turkish pachas in campaigns (Keil).\n\n[718] A.V., \"Set yourselves in array.\" LXX., \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03ae\u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1;\nVulg., _circumdate civitatem_.\n\n[719] Now in the British Museum.\n\n[720] 1 Kings xx. 14 (\u05e0\u05b7\u05e2\u05b8\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd).\n\n[721] Jarchi--_more Rabbinico_--says that these were the seven\nthousand who had not bowed the knee to Baal.\n\n[722] 1 Kings xx. 20, LXX., \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b4\u03b5\u03c5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5\u03bd \u1f12\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u1fe4 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\n\n[723] Or, \"pell-mell.\" The Hebrew in 1 Kings xx. 20 is, \u05d5\u05bc\u05e4\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05e2\u05b7\u05dc\u05be\u05e1\u05d5\u05bc\u05e1, \"on a horse with (some) horsemen.\" Klostermann would supply\n\u05d4\u05d5\u05bc\u05d0. Jonathan takes \u05d5\u05bc\u05e4\u05b8\u05e8\u05b8\u05e9\u05b4\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd as a dual--\"and two riders with\nhim\"; LXX., \u1f10\u03c6' \u1f35\u03c0\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u1f31\u03c0\u03c0\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd; Vulg., _in equo cum equitibus suis_;\nLuther, \"_sammt Rossen und Reitern_.\"\n\n[724] See 2 Sam. xi. 1. The custom of all countries in the ancient\nworld was to devote the summer months only to campaigns. There were\nfew or no standing armies, and the citizen-conscripts had to look\nafter their farms, or the nation would have starved. The Assyrians,\nBabylonians, and Persians introduced a gradual revolution in these\nrespects.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XLV.\n\n                         _AHAB'S INFATUATION._\n\n                           1 KINGS xx. 31-43.\n\n    \"Quem vult Deus perire dementat prius.\"\n\n\nThe courtiers of Benhadad found it easy to flatter his pride by\nfurnishing reasons to account for such an alarming overthrow. They\nhad attacked the Israelites on their hills, and the gods of Israel\nwere hill-gods. Next time they would take Israel at a disadvantage\nby fighting only on the plain. Further, the vassal kings were only\nan element of dissension and weakness. They prevented the handling\nof the army as one strong machine worked by a single supreme will.\nLet Benhadad depose from command these incapable weaklings, and put\nin their place dependent civil officers (_pachoth_) who would have\nno thought but to obey orders.[725] And so, with good heart, let the\nking collect a fresh army with horses and chariots as powerful as the\nlast. The issue would be certain conquest and dear revenge.\n\nBenhadad followed this advice. The next year he went with his new\nhost and encamped near Aphek. There is an Aphek (now F\u00eek) which lay\non the road between Damascus on the east of Jordan on a little plain\nsouth-east of the Sea of Galilee. This may have been the town of\nIssachar, in the valley of Jezreel, where Saul was defeated by the\nPhilistines (1 Sam. xxix. 1). Israel went out to meet them duly\nprovisioned.[726] The Syrian host spread over the whole country; the\nIsraelite army looked only like two little flocks of kids.[727]\n\nTo strengthen the misgivings of the anxious king of Israel, another\nnameless prophet--probably, like Elijah, a Gileadite--came to\npromise him the victory. Jehovah would convince the Syrians that He\nwas something more than a mere local god of the hills as they had\nblasphemously said, and Israel would once more be shown that He was\nindeed the Lord.\n\nFor seven days the vast army and the little band of patriots gazed at\neach other, as the Israelites and Philistines had done in the days\nof Saul and Goliath. On the seventh day they joined battle. In what\nspecial way the aid of Jehovah seconded the desperate valour of His\npeople who were fighting for their all we do not know, but the result\nwas, once more, their stupendous victory. The army of the Syrians\nwas not only defeated, but practically annihilated. In round numbers\n100,000 Syrians fell in the slaughter of that day, and when the\nremnant took refuge in Aphek, which they had captured, they perished\nin a sudden crash--perhaps of earthquake--which buried them in the\nruins of its fortifications.[728] Rescued, we know not how, from\nthis disaster, Benhadad fled from chamber to chamber[729] to hide\nhimself from the victors in some innermost recess.\n\nBut it was impossible that he should not be discovered, and therefore\nhis servants persuaded him to throw himself on the mercy of his\nconqueror. \"The kings of Israel,\" they said, \"are, as we have heard,\ncompassionate kings; let us go before the king with sackcloth on our\nloins, and ropes round our necks, and ask if he will save thy life.\"\n\nSo they went, as the burghers of Calais went before Edward I.;\nand then Ahab heard from the ambassadors of the king who had once\ndictated terms to him with such infinite contempt, the message: \"Thy\nslave Benhadad saith, I pray thee, let me live.\"\n\nThe incident that followed is eminently characteristic of Eastern\ncustoms. In _rencontres_ between Orientals everything depends on\nthe first words which are exchanged. It is believed that superior\npowers wield the utterances of the tongue amid the chances which\nare really destiny, so that the most casual expression is caught up\nsuperstitiously as a sort of Bath Kol, or \"the daughter of a voice,\"\nwhich not only indicates but even helps to bring about the purposes\nof Heaven. A chance friendly greeting may become the termination of a\nblood feud, because something more than chance is supposed to be behind\nit![730] Once when a group of doomed gladiators gathered themselves\nunder the Imperial _podium_ of the amphitheatre with their sublimely\nmonotonous chant, \"_Ave C\u00e6sar, morituri te salutamus_,\" the half-dazed\nemperor inadvertently answered, \"_Avete vos!_\" \"He has bidden us,\n'Hail!'\" shouted the gladiators: \"the contest is remitted; we are\nfree!\" Had the Romans been Orientals the twenty thousand assembled\nspectators would have felt the force of the appeal. Even as it was the\nsignificance of the omen was felt to be so great that the gladiators\nthrew down their arms, and it was only by whips and violence that they\nwere finally driven to the combat in which they perished.[731]\n\nSo with intense eagerness the ambassadors, in their sackcloth and\ntheir halters, awaited the Bath Kol. It came far more favourably than\nthey had dared to hope. Surprised, and perhaps half-touched with pity\nfor so immense a reverse of misfortune, \"Is he yet alive?\" exclaimed\nthe careless king: \"he is my brother!\"\n\nThe Syrians snatched at the expression as a decisive omen.[732] It\nconstituted an absolute end of the feud. It became an implicit promise\nof that sacred _dakheel_, that \"protection\" to which the slightest\nand most accidental expression constitutes a recognised claim.[733]\n\"Thy _brother_ Benhadad,\" they earnestly and emphatically repeated. In\naccordance with Eastern custom and augury their whole end was gained.\nAs far as Benhadad was concerned he was now safe; as far as Ahab was\nconcerned, the mischief, if mischief it were, was irreparably done.\n\nAhab could hardly have drawn back even if he wished to do so,\nbut perhaps he was swayed by a fellow feeling for a king. This\nstrange uxorious monarch, with his easily swayed impulses, his\nfits of schoolboy sullenness and swift repentance, his want of\ninsight into existing conditions, his--if the expression may be\nexcused--happy-go-lucky way of letting questions settle themselves,\nwas, no doubt, a brave warrior, but he was a most incapable statesman.\nHis conduct was perfectly infatuated. Pity is one thing, but the\nsecurity of a nation has also to be considered. It would have been a\nworse than insensate piece of pseudo-chivalry if the Congress of Vienna\nhad not sent Napoleon to Elba, and if England had not confined him in\nSt. Helena. To set free a man endowed with passionate hatred, with\nimmense ambitions, with boundless capacities for mischief--or only to\nbind him with the packthread of insecure promises--was the conduct of\na fool.[734] If it was compassion which induced Ahab to give Benhadad\nhis life, it showed either gross incapacity or treachery against his\nown nation not to clip his wings, and hamper him from the future\ninjuries which the burden of gratitude was little likely to prevent.\nThe sequel shows that Benhadad's resentment against his royal \"brother\"\nonly became more hopelessly implacable, and in all probability it was\nlargely mingled with contempt.\n\nAnd Ahab's conduct, besides being foolish, was guilty. It showed a\nfrivolous non-recognition of his duties as a theocratic king. It\nflung away the national advantages, and even the national security,\nwhich had not been vouchsafed to any power or worth of his, but only\nto Jehovah's direct interposition to save the destinies of his people\nfrom premature extinction.\n\nWhen Benhadad came out of his hiding-place, Ahab, not content with\nsparing the life of this furious and merciless aggressor, took him\nup into his chariot, which was the highest honour he could have paid\nhim, and accepted the excessively easy terms which Benhadad himself\nproposed. The Syrians were not required to pay any indemnity for\nthe immense expenditure and unutterable misery which their wanton\ninvasions had inflicted upon Israel! They simply proposed to restore\nthe cities which Benhadad's father had taken from Omri, and to allow\nthe Israelites to have a protected bazaar in Damascus similar to\nthe one which the Syrians enjoyed in Samaria.[735] On this covenant\nBenhadad was sent home scatheless, and with a supineness which was\nnot so much magnanimous as fatuous, Ahab neglected to take hostages\nof any kind to secure the fulfilment even of these ridiculously\ninadequate terms of peace.\n\nBenhadad was not likely to throw away the chance which gave him such\nan easy-going and improvident adversary. It is certain that he did\nnot keep the covenant. He probably never even intended to keep it. If\nhe condescended to any excuse for breaking it, he would probably have\naffected to regard it as extorted by violence, and therefore invalid,\nas Francis I. defended the forfeiture of his parole after the battle\nof Pavia. The recklessness with which Ahab had reposed in Benhadad a\nconfidence, not only undeserved, but rendered reckless by all the\nantecedents of the Syrian king, cost him very dear. He had to pay the\npenalty of his dementation three years later in a new and disastrous\nwar, in the loss of his life, and the overthrow of his dynasty. The\nfact that, after so many exertions, and so much success in war, in\ncommerce, and in worldly policy, he and his house fell unpitied, and\nno one raised a finger in his defence, was doubtless due in part to\nthe alienation of his army by a carelessness which flung away in a\nmoment all the fruits of their hard-won victories.[736]\n\nThere was one aspect in which Ahab's conduct assumed an aspect more\nsupremely culpable. To whom had he owed the courage and inspiration\nwhich had rescued him from ruin, and led to the triumphs which had\ndelivered him and his people from the depths of despair? Not in the\nleast to himself, or to Jezebel, or to Baal's priests, or to any of\nhis captains or counsellors. In both instances the heroism had been\ninspired and the success promised by a prophet of Jehovah. What would\nconvince him, if this would not, that in God only was his strength? Did\nnot the most ordinary gratitude as well as the most ordinary wisdom\nrequire that he should recognise the source of these unhoped-for\nblessings? There is not the least trace that he did so. We read of no\nword of gratitude to Jehovah, no desire to follow the guidance of the\nprophets to whom he was so deeply indebted, and who had proved their\nright to be regarded as interpreters of God's will. Had he done this he\nwould not have suffered the clannishness of royalty to plunge him into\na step which was the chief cause of his final destruction.\n\nHe might ignore guidance, but he could not escape reproof. Again an\nunknown monitor from the sons of the prophets was commissioned to\nbring home to him his error. He did so by an acted parable, which gave\nconcrete force and vividness to the lesson which he desired to convey.\nSpeaking \"by the word of the Lord\"--_i.e._, as a part of the prophetic\ninspiration which dictated his acts--he went to one of his fellows in\nthe school of which the members are here first called \"the sons of the\nprophets,\" and bade him to wound him. His comrade, not unnaturally,\nshrank from obeying so strange a command. It must be borne in mind\nthat the mere appeal to an inspiration from Jehovah did not always\nauthenticate itself. Over and over again in the prophetic books, and\nin these histories which the Jews call \"the earlier prophets,\" we find\nthat men could profess to act in Jehovah's name, and even perhaps to\nbe sincere in so doing, who were mere dupes of their own wills and\nfancies. It was, in fact, possible for them to become false prophets,\nwithout always meaning to be so; and these chances of hallucination--of\nbeing misled by a lying spirit--led to fierce contentions in the\nprophetic communities. \"Since you have not obeyed Jehovah's voice,\"\nsaid the man, \"the lion shall immediately slay you.\" \"And as soon\nas he was departed from him the lion found him and slew him.\" There\nis nothing impossible in the incident, for in those days lions were\ncommon in Palestine, and they multiplied when the country had been\ndepopulated by war. But we can never feel certain how far the ethical\nand didactic and parabolic elements were allowed, for purposes of\nedification, to play a part in these ancient yet not contemporaneous\n_Acta Prophetarum_, and at any rate to dictate the interpretation of\nthings which may have actually occurred.\n\nThe prophet then bade another comrade to smite him, and he did so\neffectually, inflicting a serious wound.[737] This was a part of\nthe intended scene in which the prophet meant for a moment to play\nthe _r\u00f4le_ of a soldier who had been wounded in the Syrian war. So\nhe bound up his head with a bandage,[738] and waited for the king\nto pass by. An Eastern king is liable at any time to be appealed to\nby the humblest of his subjects, and the prophet stopped Ahab and\nstated his imaginary case. \"A captain,\" he said, \"brought me one of\nhis war captives,[739] and ordered me to keep him safe. If I failed\nto do so, I was to pay the forfeit of my life, or to pay as a fine a\nsilver talent.[740] But as I was looking here and there the captive\nescaped.\" \"Be it so,\" answered Ahab; \"you are bound by your own\nbargain.\" Thus Ahab, like David, was led to condemn himself out of\nhis own mouth. Then the prophet tore the bandage from his face, and\nsaid to Ahab: \"Thou art the man! Thus saith Jehovah, I entrusted to\nthee the man under my ban (_cherem_),[741] and thou hast let him\nescape. Thou shalt pay the forfeit. Thy life shall go for his life,\nthy people for his people.\"\n\nAnger and indignation filled the heart of the king; he went to his\nhouse \"heavy and displeased.\" The phrase, twice applied to him and\nnever used of another, shows that he was liable to characteristic\nmoods of overwhelming sullenness, the result of an uneasy conscience,\nand of a rage which was compelled to remain impotent. It is evident\nthat he did not dare to chastise the audacious offender, though the\nJews say that the prophet was Micaiah, the son of Imlah, and that he\nwas imprisoned for this offence.[742] As a rule the prophets--like\nSamuel and Nathan, and Gad and Shemaiah, and Jehu the son of\nHanani--were protected by their sacrosanct position. Now and then an\nUrijah, a Jeremiah, a Zechariah son of Berechiah, paid the penalty of\nbold denunciation, not only by hatred and persecution, but with his\nlife. This, however, was the exception. As a rule the prophets felt\nthemselves safe under the wing of a Divine protector. Not only Elijah\nin his sheepskin mantle, but even the humblest of his imitators in\nthe prophetic schools might fearlessly stride up to a king, seize his\nsteed by the bridle, as Athanasius did to Constantine, and compel him\nto listen to his rebuke or his appeal.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[725] 1 Kings xx. 24. LXX., \u03c3\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2.\n\n[726] R.V., \"and were victualled,\" not, as in A.V., \"and were all\npresent.\" Alex. LXX., \u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd; Vulg., _acceptis cibariis_.\n\n[727] Why two? No explanation is given. It has been conjectured that\nJudah had sent a separate contingent to help them in their distress.\n\n[728] Some have supposed that an earthquake occurred, and Canon\nRawlinson mentions (_Speaker's Commentary_) that the earthquake of\nLisbon is said to have destroyed sixty thousand persons in five minutes.\n\n[729] \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05d7\u05b6\u05d3\u05b6\u05e8 \u05d7\u05b6\u05d3\u05b6\u05e8. Comp. for similar phrases, (Heb.) Lev. xxv. 53;\nDeut. xv. 20; 1 Kings xxii. 25; 2 Chron. xxviii. 26. Klostermann,\nwith one of his amazing conjectures, reads \"by the spring Harod in\nHarod\"! LXX., \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd; Vulg., _in\ncubiculum quod erat intra cubiculum_. Josephus makes it a cellar (\u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03cc\u03b3\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03c1\u03cd\u03b2\u03b7), \"like the modern _serdaubs_ in which the\ninhabitants of many Eastern cities live in the summer\" (Rawlinson).\n\n[730] The accidental sigh of the engineer was sufficient to prevent\nthe colossal Egyptian statue of a Pharaoh from being moved to its\ndestination. Even Rome shared the immemorial superstition.\n\n[731] Suet., _Claud._\n\n[732] xx. 33, \u05d9\u05b2\u05e0\u05b4\u05d7\u05b2\u05e9\u05c1\u05d5\u05bc, from \u05e0\u05b7\u05d7\u05b7\u05e9\u05c1, \"an augury\"; LXX., \u1f00\u03bd\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\n\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd (\u03bf\u1f30\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf); Vulg., _quod acceperunt viri pro omine_.\n\n[733] Layard, _Nineveh_, 317-19.\n\n[734] The compact is vainly dignified with the name of a \u05d1\u05b0\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05ea, or\n\"covenant.\"\n\n[735] \u05d7\u05bb\u05e6\u05b9\u05d5\u05ea. Compare the _Lombard_ Streets, and the _Jewries_ in\nLondon and Paris.\n\n[736] Clericus says, rightly: \"Factum Ahabi, quamvis clementi\u00e6\nspeciem pr\u00e6 se ferret, non erat ver\u00e6 clementi\u00e6, qu\u00e6 non est erga\nlatrones exercenda; qui si dimittantur multo magis nocebunt.\"\n\n[737] The object and necessity of this for his purpose is by no means\napparent. Perhaps it was to figure the wound which Ahab had by his\nconduct wilfully inflicted on himself or on Israel.\n\n[738] Verse 38. This, and not \"with ashes upon his face,\" is the\nmeaning of the Hebrew \u05d0\u05b2\u05e4\u05b5\u05e8. LXX., \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b1\u03bc\u03ce\u03bd, \"a headband\"; Vulg.,\n_aspersione pulveris_; and so, too, Peshito, Aquila, and Symmachus.\n\n[739] 1 Kings xx. 39. \u05e9\u05b7\u05c2\u05e8 in the sense of \u05e1\u05b7\u05e8, according to Ewald's\nreading.\n\n[740] About \u00a3350. Evidently, therefore, the captive is supposed to be\na very important person.\n\n[741] \u05d7\u05b5\u05e8\u05b0\u05de\u05b4\u05d9 \u05d0\u05b4\u05d9\u05e9\u05c1.\n\n[742] \u05d5\u05b0\u05d6\u05b8\u05e2\u05b5\u05e3 \u05e1\u05b7\u05e8; Vulg., _indignans, et frendens_, a phrase only\nused of Ahab (xxi. 4-5). Josephus (_Antt._, XIII. xv. 5) says that\nAhab imprisoned and punished the prophet, whom, with the Rabbis, he\nidentifies with Micaiah.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XLVI.\n\n                          _NABOTH'S VINEYARD._\n\n                           1 KINGS xxi. 1-29.\n\n    \"The triumphing of the wicked is short, and the joy of the\n    godless is but for a moment.\"--JOB xx. 5.\n\n                \"If weakness may excuse,\n          What murderer, what traitor, parricide,\n          Incestuous, sacrilegious, but may plead it?\n          All wickedness is weakness.\"\n                                         _Samson Agonistes._\n\n\nThe chief glory of the institution of prophecy was that it rightly\nestimated the supremacy of the moral law. The prophets saw that\nthe enforcement of one precept of righteousness involved more\ntrue religion than hundreds of pages of Levitic ritual. It is the\ntemptation of priests and Pharisees to sink into formalism; to warp\nthe conceptions of the Almighty into that of a Deity who is jealous\nabout inconceivable pettinesses of ceremonial; to think that the\nEternal cares about niceties of rubric, rules of ablutions, varieties\nof nomenclature or organisation. In their solicitude about these\nnullities they often forget, as they did in the days of Christ,\nthe weightier matters of the law, mercy, judgment, and truth. When\nreligion has been dwarfed into these inanities the men who deem\nthemselves its only orthodox votaries, and scorn all others as \"lax\"\nand \"latitudinarian,\" are not only ready to persecute every genuine\nteacher of righteousness, but even to murder the Christ Himself. They\ncome to think that falsehood and cruelty cease to be criminal when\npractised in the cause of religious intolerance.\n\nAgainst all such dwarfing perversion of the conceptions of the\nessential service which man owes to God the prophets were called forth\nto be in age after age the energetic remonstrants. It is true that\nthey also had their own special temptations; they, too, might become\nthe slaves of shibboleths; they might sink into a sort of automatic or\nmechanical form of prophecy which contented itself with the wearing\nof garbs and the repetition of formul\u00e6 long after they had become\nevacuated of their meaning.[743] They might distort the message \"Thus\nsaith Jehovah\" to serve their own ends.[744] They might yield to\nthe temptations both of individual and of corporate ambition. They\nmight assume the hairy garb and rough locks of Elijah for the sake of\nthe awe they inspired while their heart \"was not but for their own\ncovetousness.\"[745] They might abuse their prestige to promote their\nown party or their own interests. They were assailed by the same perils\nto which in after days so many monks, hermits, and religious societies\nsuccumbed. Many a man became a nominal prophet, as many a man became a\nmonk, because the office secured to him a maintenance--\n\n          \"'Twas not for nothing the good belly-ful,\n           The warm serge and the rope that goes all round,\n           And day long blessed idleness besides;\"\n\nand also because it surrounded him with a halo of imaginary\nsanctity. The monks, we know, by their turbulence and partisanship,\nbecame the terror of the fourth century after Christ, and no men\nmore emphatically denounce their mendicancy and their impostures\nthan the very fathers who, like St. Jerome and St. Augustine, were\nmost enamoured of their ideal.[746] As for the hermits, if one of\nthem securely established a reputation for abnormal austerities he\nbecame in his way as powerful as a king. In the stories even of such\na man as St. Martin of Tours[747] we detect now and then a gleam of\nhauteur, of which traces are not lacking in the stories of these\nnameless or famous prophets in the Book of Kings.\n\nNo human institution, even if it be avowedly religious, is safe from\nthe perilous seductions of the world, the flesh, and the devil.\nPerpetually\n\n          \"The old order changeth, giving place to new,\n           And God fulfils Himself in many ways\n           Lest one good custom should corrupt the world.\"\n\nMendicant brotherhoods and ascetic communities were soon able, by\nlegal fictions, to revel in opulence, to steep themselves in luxury,\nand yet to wield a religious authority which princes envied. When\nwe read what the Benedictines and the Minorites and the Carthusians\noften became, we are the less surprised to find that even the Schools\nof the Prophets, while Elijah and Elisha yet lived, could abdicate\nas a body their best functions, and, deceiving and deceived, could\nlearn to answer erring kings according to their idols.\n\nBut the greatest and truest prophets rose superior to the influences\nwhich tended to debase the vulgar herd of their followers, in days\nwhen prophecy grew into an institution and the world became content\nto side with a church which gave it no trouble and mainly spoke in\nits own tones. True prophecy cannot be made a matter of education,\nor \"tamed out of its splendid passion.\" The greatest prophets, like\nAmos and Isaiah, did not come out of the Schools of the Prophets.\nInspiration cannot be cultivated, or trained to grow up a wall.\n\"Much learning,\" says Heraclitus very profoundly, \"does not teach;\nbut the Sibyl with maddening lips, uttering things unbeautified,\nunperfumed, and unadorned, reaches through myriads of years because\nof God.\" The man whom God has summoned forth to speak the true word\nor do the heroic deed, at the cost of all hatred, or of death itself,\nhas normally to protest not only against priests, but against his\nfellow-prophets also when they immorally acquiesced in oppression\nand wrong which custom sanctioned.[748] It was by such true prophets\nthat the Hebrews and through them the world were taught the ideal of\nrighteousness. Their greatest service was to uphold against idolatry,\nformalism, and worldliness, the simple standard of the moral law.\n\nIt was owing to such teaching that the Israelites formed a true\njudgment of Ahab's culpability. The act which was held to have\noutweighed all his other crimes, and to have precipitated his final\ndoom, was an isolated act of high-handed injustice to an ordinary\ncitizen.\n\nAhab was a builder. He had built cities and palaces, and was\nspecially attached to his palace at Jezreel, which he wished to\nmake the most delightful of summer residences. It was unique in its\nsplendour as the first palace inlaid with ivory. The nation had\nheard of Solomon's ivory throne, but never till this time of an\n\"ivory palace.\" But a palace is nothing without pleasant gardens.\nThe neighbourhood of Jezreel, as is still shown by the ancient\nwinepresses cut out of the rock in the neighbourhood of its ruins,\nwas enriched by vineyards, and one of these vineyards adjoining the\npalace belonged to a citizen named Naboth.[749] It happened that no\nother ground would so well have served the purpose of Ahab to make a\ngarden near his palace, and he made Naboth a fair offer for it. \"I\nwill give you,\" he said, \"a better vineyard for it, or I will pay you\nits full value in ingots of silver.\"[750]\n\nNaboth, however, was perfectly within his rights[751] in rejecting\nthe offer. It was the inheritance of his fathers, and considerations\nnothing short of sacred--considerations which then or afterwards\nfound a place in the written statutes of the nation--made it\nwrong in his judgment to sell it. He sturdily refused the offer of\nthe king. His case was different from that of the Jebusite prince\nAraunah, who had sold his threshing floor to David, and that of\nShemer, who sold the Hill of Samaria to Omri.[752]\n\nA sensible man would have accepted the inevitable, and done the best\nhe could to find a garden elsewhere. But Ahab, who could not bear\nto be thwarted, came into his house \"heavy and displeased.\" Like an\novergrown, sullen boy he flung himself on his divan, turned his face\nto the wall, and would not eat.\n\nNews came to Jezebel in her seraglio of her lord's ill-humour, and\nshe came to ask him, \"What mutiny in his spirit made him decline to\ntake food?\"[753]\n\nHe told her the sturdy refusal of Naboth, and she broke into a\nscornful laugh. \"Are you King of Israel?\" she asked. \"Why this is\nplaying at kinghood![754] It is not the way we do things in Tyre.\nArise, eat bread, be merry. _I_ will give thee the vineyard of Naboth\nthe Jezreelite.\"\n\nDid he admire the mannish spirit of the Syrian princess, or did he\nsecretly shrink from it? At any rate he let Jezebel take her own\ncourse. With intrepid insolence she at once wrote a letter in Ahab's\nname from Samaria, and sent it sealed with his signet to the elders\nof Jezreel.[755] She ordered them to proclaim a fast as though to\navert some public calamity, and--with a touch of dreadful malice\nas though to aggravate the horror of his ruin--to exalt Naboth to\na conspicuous position in the assembly.[756] They were to get hold\nof two \"sons of worthlessness,\" professional perjurers, and to\naccuse Naboth of blasphemy against God and the king.[757] His mode\nof refusing the vineyard might give some colourable pretext to the\ncharge. On the testimony of those two false witnesses Naboth must be\ncondemned, and then they must drag him outside the city to the pool\nor tank with his sons and stone them all.\n\nEverything was done by the subservient elders of Jezreel exactly as she\nhad directed. Their fawning readiness to carry out her vile commands is\nthe deadliest incidental proof of the corruption which she and her crew\nof alien idolaters had wrought in Israel. On that very evening Jezebel\nreceived the message, \"Naboth is stoned and is dead.\" By the savage law\nof those days his innocent sons were involved in his overthrow,[758]\nand his property, left without heirs, reverted by confiscation to\nthe crown.[759] \"Arise,\" said the triumphant sorceress, \"and take\npossession of the vineyard you wished for. I have given it to you as I\npromised. Its owner and his sons have died the deaths of blasphemers,\nand he crushed under the stones outside Jezreel.\"\n\nCaring only for the gratification of his wish, heedless of the means\nemployed, hastily and joyously at early dawn the king arose to seize\nthe coveted vineyard. The dark deed had been done at night, the king\nwas alert with the morning light.[760] He rode in his chariot from\nSamaria to Jezreel, which is but seven miles distant, and he rode in\nsomething of military state, for in separate chariots, or else riding\nin the same chariot, behind him were two war-like youths, Jehu and\nBidkar, who were destined to remember the events of that day, and to\nrefer to them four years afterwards, when one had become king and the\nother his chief commander.[761]\n\nBut the king's joy was shortlived!\n\nNews of the black crime had come to Elijah, probably in his lonely\nretreat in some cave at Carmel. He was a man who, though he flamed\nout on great occasions like a meteor portending ruin to the guilty,\nyet lived in general a hidden life. Six years had elapsed since\nthe calling of Elisha, and we have not once been reminded of his\nexistence. But now he was instantly inspired to protest against the\natrocious act of robbery and oppression, and to denounce upon it an\nawful retribution which not even Baal-worship had called forth.\n\nAhab was at the summit of his hopes. He was about to complete his\nsummer palace and to grasp the fruits of the crime which he had\nallowed the \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03cc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u1f70\u03c1 of his wife to commit. But at the gate\nof Naboth's vineyard stood the swart figure of the Prophet in his\nhairy garb. We can imagine the revulsion of feeling which drove the\nblood to the king's heart as he instantly felt that he had sinned in\nvain. The advantage of his crime was snatched from him at the instant\nof fruition. Half in anger, half in anguish, he cried, \"Hast thou\nfound me, O mine enemy?\"\n\n\"I have found thee,\" said the Prophet, speaking in Jehovah's name.\n\"Thou hast sold thyself to work evil before me, and I will requite it\nand extinguish thee before me. Surely the Lord saw yesternight the\nblood of Naboth and the blood of his sons.[762] Thy dynasty shall be\ncut off to the last man, like that of Jeroboam, like that of Baasha.\nWhere the dogs licked the blood of Naboth, the dogs shall lick thine.\nThe harlots shall wash themselves in the water which thy blood has\nstained. Him that dieth of thee in the city the dogs shall eat, and\nhim that dieth in the field shall the vultures rend, and the dogs\nshall eat Jezebel also in the moat of Jezreel.\"[763]\n\nIt is the duty of prophets to stand before kings and not be ashamed.\nSo had Abraham stood before Nimrod, and Moses before Pharaoh,\nand Samuel before Saul, and Nathan before David, and Iddo before\nJeroboam. So was Isaiah to stand hereafter before Ahaz, and Jeremiah\nbefore Jehoiachin, and John the Baptist before Herod, and Paul\nbefore Nero. Nor has it been at all otherwise in modern days. So\ndid St. Ignatius confront Trajan, and St. Ambrose brave the Empress\nJustina, and St. Martin the Usurper Maximus, and St. Chrysostom the\nfierce Eudoxia, and St. Basil the heretic Valens, and St. Columban\nthe savage Thierry, and St. Dunstan our half-barbarous Edgar. So,\ntoo, in later days, Savonarola could speak the bare bold truth to\nLorenzo the Magnificent, and Knox to Mary Queen of Scots, and Bishop\nKen to Charles II. But never was any king confronted by so awful a\ndenunciation of doom. Probably the moment that Elijah had uttered\nit he disappeared; but could not a swift arrow have reached him\nfrom Jehu's or Bidkar's bow? We know how they remembered two reigns\nlater the thunder of those awful words, but they would hardly have\ndisobeyed the mandate of their king had he bidden them to seize or\nslay the Prophet. Nothing was further from their thoughts. Elijah\nhad become to Ahab the incarnation of his own awakened conscience,\nand it spoke to him in the thunders of Sinai. He quailed before the\ntremendous imprecation. We may well doubt whether he even so much\nas entered again the vineyard of Naboth; never certainly could he\nhave enjoyed it. He had indeed sold himself to do evil, and, as\nalways happens to such colossal criminals, he had sold himself for\nnaught--as Achan did for a buried robe and a useless ingot, and Judas\nfor the thirty pieces of silver which he could only dash down on the\nTemple floor. Ahab turned away from the vineyard, which might well\nseem to him haunted by the ghosts of his murdered victims and its\nclusters full of blood. He rent his clothes, and clad himself in\nsackcloth, and slept in sackcloth, and went about barefooted with\nslow steps[764] and bent brow, a stricken man. Thenceforward as long\nas he lived he kept in penitence and humiliation the anniversary of\nNaboth's death,[765] as James IV. of Scotland kept the anniversary of\nthe death of the father against whom he had rebelled.\n\nThis penitence, though it does not seem to have been lasting, was not\nwholly in vain. Elijah received a Divine intimation that, because\nthe king troubled himself, the threatened evil should in part be\npostponed to the days of his sons. The sun of the unfortunate and\nmiserable dynasty set in blood. But though it is recorded that,\nincited by his Tyrian wife, he did very abominably in worshipping\n\"idol-blocks,\" and following the ways of the old Canaanite\ninhabitants of the land, none of his crimes left a deeper brand upon\nhis memory than the judicial seizure of the vineyard which he had\ncoveted and the judicial murder of Naboth and his sons.\n\nHow adamantine, how irreversible is the law of retribution! With\nwhat normal and natural development, apart from every arbitrary\ninfliction, is the irrevocable prophecy fulfilled: \"Be sure your sin\nwill find you out.\"\n\n          \"Yea, he loved cursing, and it came unto him;\n           Yea, he delighted not in blessing, and it is far from him;\n           Yea, he clothed himself with cursing like as with his\n               garment,\n           And it came into his bowels like water, like oil into his\n               bones.\"[766]\n\nAhab had to be taught by adversity since he refused the lesson of\nprosperity.\n\n          \"Daughter of Jove, relentless power,\n           Thou tamer of the human breast,\n           Whose iron scourge and torturing hour\n           The bad affright, afflict the best,\n           Bound in thine adamantine chain\n           The proud are taught to taste of pain,\n           And purple tyrants vainly groan\n           With woes unfelt before, unpitied and alone.\"\n\nBut as for Elijah himself, he once more vanished into the solitude of\nhis own life, and we do not hear of him again till four years later,\nwhen he sent to Ahaziah, the son of Ahab, the message of his doom.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[743] Zech. xiii. 4.\n\n[744] On this defection and imposture of prophets, see Jer. xxiii.\n21-40. Isa. xxx. 9, 10; Ezek. xiii. 7-9; Micah ii. 11; Deut. xviii. 20.\n\n[745] Jer. xxii. 17.\n\n[746] _De Gubernat. Dei._, viii.; Ambrose, _Ep._, xli.; Cassian, _De\nInstit. Monastic. passim_. See chap. xvi. of my _Lives of the Fathers_\n(St. Jerome), and Z\u00f6ckler, _Gesch. der Askese_, for many authorities.\n\n[747] See my _Lives of the Fathers_, vol. i. (St. Martin of Tours).\n\n[748] See Jer. xxiii. 20-40.\n\n[749] The Alex. LXX. throughout calls Naboth \"an Israelite,\" not \"a\nJezreelite.\"\n\n[750] Both the Hebrew text of 1 Kings xxi. 1 and Josephus (_Antt._,\nXIII. xv. 6) locate the vineyard of Naboth at Jezreel. The LXX.,\nhowever, place it apparently near the threshing-floor of Ahab in\nSamaria (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f05\u03bb\u1ff3 \u1f08\u03c7\u03b1\u1f70\u03b2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03a3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2), which is the same as\nthe \"void place\" of 1 Kings xxii. 10. At both cities Ahab's palace\nwas on the city wall, and on either supposition Naboth's vineyard was\nclose by the palace.\n\n[751] Lev. xxv. 23, \"The land shall not be sold for ever, for the\nland is Mine.\" Numb. xxxvi. 7; Ezek. xlvi. 18.\n\n[752] 2 Sam. xxiv. 24; 1 Kings xvi. 24.\n\n[753] The word rendered \"sad\" is rendered \"mutinous\" by Thenius.\n\n[754] LXX., 1 Kings xxi. 7, \u03a3\u1f7a \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f53\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03ad\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u0399\u03c3\u03c1\u03b1\u03ae\u03bb;\n\n[755] The signet was carved with the king's name. Rawlinson aptly\ncompares Lady Macbeth's \"Infirm of purpose give me the daggers!\"\n\n[756] Josephus calls it an \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1. \"Set Naboth on high\" (Heb.) \"at\nthe head of the people\"; LXX., \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bf\u1fe6; Vulg., _inter primos\npopuli_.\n\n[757] The charge was that \"he cursed God and the king.\" LXX. (by\neuphemism), \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5; Vulg., _Benedixit_. The Hebrew word has both\nmeanings (comp. Exod. xxii. 28, where some would render _Elohim_\nnot \"God,\" but \"the judges.\" See marg. of R.V.). Stoning was the\npunishment of blasphemy (Lev. xxiv. 16), and took place outside the\ncity (Acts vii. 58).\n\n[758] 2 Kings ix. 26.\n\n[759] 2 Sam. xvi. 4.\n\n[760] In 1 Kings xxi. 16 the LXX. curiously says, that \"when Ahab\nheard that Naboth was dead he rent his garments, and clothed himself\nin sackcloth; and after this he also arose,\" etc. This mourning for\nthe _means_ but acceptance of the _fact_ would not be in disaccord\nwith Ahab's moral weakness.\n\n[761] 2 Kings ix. 25, 36.\n\n[762] LXX.\n\n[763] 2 Kings ix. 36. LXX., \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c7\u03af\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9. The \u05d7\u05b5\u05dc of an\nEastern city is the desert space outside the walls where the \"pariah\ndogs prowl on the mounds.\"\n\n[764] \u05d0\u05b7\u05d8, LXX., \u03ba\u03bb\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd; Josephus, Chaldee, and Peshito, \"shoeless.\"\n\n[765] 1 Kings xxi. 27. \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03c3\u03ac\u03ba\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u1fb3 \u1f97 \u1f10\u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u03b5\n\u039d\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b1\u03af.\n\n[766] Psalm cix. 17, 18.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XLVII.\n\n                       _ALONE AGAINST THE WORLD._\n\n                          1 KINGS xxii. 1-40.\n\n    \"I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran: I have not spoken\n    to them, yet they prophesied.... I have heard what the prophets\n    said who prophesied lies in My name.\"--JER. xxiii. 21-25.\n\n          \"\u039c\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f52 \u03c0\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03c1\u03ae\u03b3\u03c5\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2\n           \u0391\u1f30\u03b5\u03af \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03ac\u03ba' \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03b1 \u03c6\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\n           \u1f18\u03c3\u03b8\u03bb\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4' \u03bf\u1f54\u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03af \u03c0\u03c9 \u03b5\u1f36\u03c0\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f12\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f52\u03b4' \u1f10\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03c3\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2.\"\n                                            HOM., _Iliad_, i. 106.\n\n\nWe now come to the last scene of Ahab's troubled and eventful life.\nHis two immense victories over the Syrians had secured for his\nharassed kingdom three years of peace, but at the end of that time he\nbegan to be convinced that the insecure conditions upon which he had\nweakly set Benhadad free would never be ratified. The town of Ramoth\nin Gilead, which was one of great importance as a frontier town of\nIsrael, had, in express defiance of the covenant, been retained\nby the Syrians, who still refused to give it up. A favourable\nopportunity, he thought, had now occurred to demand its cession.\n\nThis was the friendly visit of Jehoshaphat, King of Judah. It was\nthe first time that a king of Judah had visited the capital of the\nkings who had revolted from the dynasty of David. It was the first\nacknowledged close of the old blood-feuds, and the beginning of a\nfriendship and affinity which policy seemed to dictate. After all\nEphraim and Judah were brothers, though Ephraim had vexed Judah, and\nJudah hated Ephraim. Jehoshaphat was rich, prosperous, successful\nin war. No king since Solomon had attained to anything like his\ngreatness--the reward, it was believed, of his piety and faithfulness.\nAhab, too, had proved himself a successful warrior, and the valour\nof Israel's hosts had, with Jehovah's blessing, extricated their\nafflicted land from the terrible aggressions of Syria. But how could\nthe little kingdom of Israel hope to hold out against Syria, and\nto keep Moab in subjection? How could the still smaller and weaker\nkingdom of Judah keep itself from vassalage to Egypt and from the\nencroachments of Philistines on the west and Moabites on the east?\nCould anything but ruin be imminent, if these two nations of Israel and\nJudah--one in land, one in blood, one in language, in tradition, and\nin interests--were perpetually to destroy each other with internecine\nstrife? The kings determined to make a league with one another, and to\nbind it by mutual affinity. It was proposed that Athaliah, daughter of\nAhab and Jezebel, should marry Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat.\n\nThe dates are uncertain, but it was probably in connexion with the\nmarriage contract that Jehoshaphat now paid a ceremonial visit to\nAhab. The King of Israel received him with splendid entertainments to\nall the people.[767] Ahab had already broached to his captains the\nsubject of recovering Ramoth Gilead, and he now took occasion of the\nKing of Judah's visit to invite his co-operation. What advantages and\ncompensations he offered are not stated. It may have been enough to\npoint out that, if Syria once succeeded in crushing Israel, the fate of\nJudah would not be long postponed. Jehoshaphat, who seems to have been\ntoo ready to yield to pressure, answered in a sort of set phrase: \"I am\nas thou art; my people as thy people; my horses as thy horses.\"[768]\n\nBut it is probable that his heart misgave him. He was a truly pious\nking. He had swept the Asherahs out of Judah, and endeavoured to\ntrain his people in the principles of righteousness and the worship\nof Jehovah. In joining Ahab there must have been in his conscience\nsome unformulated murmur of the reproof which on his return to\nJerusalem was addressed to him by Jehu, the son of Hanani, \"Shouldst\nthou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? Therefore\nis wrath upon thee from the Lord.\" But at the beginning of a\nmomentous undertaking he would not be likely to imitate the godless\nindifference which had led Ahab to take the most fatal steps without\nseeking the guidance of God. He therefore said to Ahab, \"Inquire, I\npray thee, of the word of the Lord to-day.\"\n\nAhab could not refuse, and apparently the professional prophets of\nthe schools had been pretty well cajoled or drilled into accordance\nwith his wishes. A great and solemn assembly was summoned. The kings\nhad clothed themselves in their royal robes striped with laticlaves\nof Tyrian purple,[769] and sat on thrones in an open space before the\ngate of Samaria. No less than four hundred prophets of Jehovah were\nsummoned to prophesy before them. Ahab propounded for their decision\nthe formal and important question, \"Shall I go up to Ramoth Gilead to\nbattle, or shall I forbear?\"\n\nWith one voice the prophets \"philippised.\" They answered the king\naccording to his idols. Had the gold of Ahab or of Jezebel been at\nwork among them? Had they been in king's houses, and succumbed to\ncourtly influences? Or were they carried away by the interested\nenthusiasm of one or two of their leaders who saw their own account\nin the matter? Certain it is that on this occasion they became false\nprophets. They used their formula \"Thus saith Jehovah\" without\nauthority, and promised Jehovah's aid in vain.[770] Conspicuous in\nhis evil ardour was one of them named Zedekiah, son of Chenaanah.\nTo illustrate and emphasise his jubilant prophecies he had made and\naffixed to his head a pair of iron horns; and as though to symbolise\nthe bull of the House of Ephraim, he said to Ahab, \"Thus saith\nJehovah. With these shalt thou push the Assyrians until thou have\nconsumed them.\"[771] And all the prophets prophesied so.\n\nWhat could be more encouraging? Here was a patriot-king, the\nhero-victor in great battles, bound by fresh ties of kinship and\nleague with the pious descendant of David, meditating a just\nraid against a dangerous enemy to recover a frontier-fortress\nwhich was his by right; and here were four hundred prophets--not\nAsherah-prophets or Baal-prophets, but genuine prophets of\nJehovah--unanimous, and even enthusiastic, in approving his design\nand promising him the victory! The Church and the world were--as\nthey so often have been--delightfully at one.\n\n\"One with God\" is the better majority. These loud-voiced majorities\nand unanimities are rarely to be trusted. Truth and righteousness\nare far more often to be found in the causes which they denounce\nand at which they sneer. They silence opposition, but they produce\nno conviction. They can torture, but they cannot refute. There\nis something unmistakable in the accent of sincerity, and it was\nlacking in the voice of these prophets on the popular side. If Ahab\nwas deceived and even carried away by the unwonted approval of so\nmany messengers of Jehovah, Jehoshaphat was not. These four hundred\nprophets who seemed superfluously sufficient to Ahab by no means\nsatisfied the King of Judah.\n\n\"Is there not,\" he asked, with uneasy misgiving, \"one prophet of the\nLord besides, that we might inquire of him?\"\n\nOne prophet of the Lord besides?[772] Were not, then, _four hundred_\nprophets of the Lord enough? They must have felt themselves cruelly\nslighted when they heard the pious king's inquiry, and doubtless a\nmurmur of disapproval arose amongst them.\n\nAnd the King of Israel said, \"There is yet one man.\" Had Jehoshaphat\nbeen secretly thinking of Elijah? Where was Elijah? He was living,\ncertainly, for he survived even into the reign (apparently) of\nJehoram. But where was Elijah? If Jehoshaphat had thought of him,\nAhab at any rate did not care to mention him. Perhaps he was\ninaccessible, in some lonely unknown retreat of Carmel or of Gilead.\nSince his fearful message to Ahab he had not been heard of; but why\ndid he not appear at a national crisis so tremendous as this?\n\n\"There is yet one man,\" said Ahab. \"Micaiah, the son of Imlah,\nby whom we may inquire of the Lord; but\"--such was the king's\nmost singular comment--\"I hate him; for he doth not prophesy good\nconcerning me, but evil.\"[773]\n\nIt was a weak confession that he was aware of one man who was\nindisputably a true prophet of Jehovah, but whom he had purposely\nexcluded from this gathering because he knew that his was an\nundaunted spirit which would not consent to shout with the many in\nfavour of the king. Indeed, it seems probable that he was, at this\nmoment, in prison. Jewish legend says that he had been put there\nbecause he was the prophet who had reproved Ahab for his folly in\nsuffering Benhadad to escape with the mere breath of a general\npromise. Till then he had been unknown. He was not like Elijah, and\nmight safely be suppressed. And Ahab, as was universally the case in\nancient days, thought that the prophet could practically prophesy\nas he liked, and not merely prophesy, but bring about his own\nvaticinations. Hence, if a prophet said anything which he disliked,\nhe regarded him as a personal enemy, and, if he dared, he punished\nhim--just as Agamemnon punished Calchas.\n\nJehoshaphat, however, was still dissatisfied; he wanted further\nconfirmation. \"Let not the king say so,\" he said. If he is a genuine\nprophet, the king should not hate him, or fancy that he prophesies\nevil out of malice prepense. Would it not be more satisfactory to\nhear what he might have to say?\n\nHowever reluctantly, Ahab saw that he should have to send for\nMicaiah, and he despatched a eunuch to hurry him to the scene with\nall speed.[774]\n\nThe mention of a eunuch as the messenger is significant. Ahab had\nbecome the first polygamist among the kings of Israel, and a seraglio\nso large as his[775] could never be maintained without the presence\nof these degraded and odious officials, who here first appear in the\nhardier annals of the Northern Kingdom.\n\nThis eunuch, however, seems to have had a kindly disposition. He was\ngood-naturedly anxious that Micaiah should not get into trouble. He\nadvised him, with prudential regard for his own interest, to swim\nwith the stream. \"See now,\" he said, \"all the prophets with one mouth\nare prophesying good to the king. Pray agree with them. Do not spoil\neverything.\"\n\nHow often has the same base advice been given! How often has it been\nfollowed! How certain is its rejection to lead to bitter animosity!\nOne of the most difficult lessons of life is to learn to stand alone\nwhen all the prophets are prophesying falsely to please the rulers\nof the world. Micaiah rose superior to the eunuch's temptation. \"By\nJehovah,\" he said, \"I will speak only what He bids me speak.\"\n\nHe stood before the kings, the eager multitude, the unanimous and\npassionate prophets; and there was deep silence when Ahab put to\nhim the question to which the four hundred had already shouted an\naffirmative.\n\nHis answer was precisely the same as theirs: \"Go up to Ramoth Gilead\nand prosper, for the Lord shall deliver it into the hand of the\nking!\" Every one must have been astonished. But Ahab detected the\ntone of scorn which rang through the assenting words, and angrily\nadjured Micaiah to give a true answer in Jehovah's name. \"How many\ntimes,\" he cried, \"shall I adjure thee that thou tell me nothing but\nthat which is true in Jehovah's name.\" The \"how many times\" shows how\nfaithfully Micaiah must have fulfilled his duty of speaking messages\nof God to his erring king.\n\nSo adjured, Micaiah could not be silent, however much the answer\nmight cost him, or however useless it might be.\n\n\"I saw all Israel,\"[776] he said, \"scattered on the mountain like\nsheep without a shepherd. And Jehovah said, These have no master, let\nevery man return to his house in peace.\"\n\nThe vision seemed to hint at the death of the king, and Ahab turned\ntriumphantly to his ally, \"Did I not tell you that he would prophesy\nevil?\"\n\nMicaiah justified himself by a daringly anthropomorphic apologue\nwhich startles us, but would not at all have startled those who\nregarded everything as coming from the immediate action of God, and\nwho could ask, \"Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not\ndone it?\"[777] The prophets were self-deceived, but this would be\nexpressed by saying that Jehovah deceived them. Pharaoh hardens his\nheart, and God is said to have done it.\n\nHe had seen Jehovah on His throne, he said, surrounded by the host\nof heaven, and asking who would entice Ahab to his fall at Ramoth\nGilead. After various answers the spirit[778] said, \"I will go and\nbe a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets, and will entice\nhim.\" Then Jehovah sent him, so that they all spoke good to the king\nthough Jehovah had spoken evil. God had sent to them all--king,\npeople, prophets--strong delusion that they should believe a lie.\n\nThis stern reproof to all the prophets was more than their coryph\u00e6us\nZedekiah could endure. Having recourse to \"the syllogism of violence\"\nhe strode up to Micaiah and smote the defenceless, isolated, hated\nman on the cheek,[779] with the contemptuous question, \"Which way\nwent the spirit of the Lord from me, to speak unto thee?\"\n\n\"Behold thou shalt know,\" was the answer, \"on the day when thou shalt\nflee from chamber to chamber to hide thyself.\" If the hands of the\nprophet were bound as he came from the prison, there would have been\nan infinite dignity in that calm rebuke.\n\nBut as though the case was self-evident, and Micaiah's opposition to\nthe four hundred prophets proved his guilt, Ahab sent him back to\nprison. \"Issue orders,\" he said, \"to Amon, governor of the city, and\nJoash, the king's son, to feed him scantily on bread and water till\nthe king's return in peace.\"\n\n\"If thou return at all in peace,\" said Micaiah, \"Jehovah hath not\nspoken by me.\"[780]\n\nIt is a sign of the extreme fragmentariness of the narrative that\nof Micaiah and Zedekiah we hear nothing further, though the sequel\nrespecting them must have been told in the original record. But\nthe prophecy of Micaiah came true, and the unanimous four hundred\nhad prophesied lies. There are times when \"the Catholic Church\"\ndwindles down to the one man and the small handful of those who\nspeak the truth. The expedition was altogether disastrous. Ahab,\nperhaps knowing by spies how bitterly the Syrians were incensed\nagainst him, told Jehoshaphat that he would disguise himself and go\ninto the battle, but begged his ally to wear his robes as was usual\nwith kings.[781] Benhadad, with the implacable hatred of one who\nhad received a benefit, was so eager to be avenged on Ahab that he\nhad told his thirty-two captains to make his capture their special\naim.[782] Seeing a king in his robes they made a fierce onset on\nJehoshaphat and surrounded his chariot. His cries for rescue showed\nthem that he was not Ahab, and they turned away.[783] But Ahab's\ndisguise did not save him. A Syrian--the Jews say that it was\nNaaman[784]--drew a bow with no particular aim,[785] and the arrow\nsmote Ahab in the place between the upper and lower armour.[786]\nFeeling that the wound was deadly he ordered his charioteer to turn\nhis hands and drive him out of the increasing roar of the _m\u00eal\u00e9e_.\nBut he would not wholly leave the fight, and with heroic fortitude\nremained standing in his chariot in spite of agony. All day the\nblood kept flowing down into the hollow of the chariot. At evening\nthe Syrians had to retire in defeat, but Ahab died. The news of the\nking's death was proclaimed at sunset by the herald, and the cry was\nraised which bade the host disband and return home.[787]\n\nThey carried the king's body back to Samaria, and they buried it. They\nwashed the blood-stained chariot in the pool outside the city, and\nthere the dogs licked the king's blood, and the harlot-votaries of\nAsherah bathed in the blood-dyed waters, as Elijah had prophesied.[788]\n\nSo ended the reign of a king who built cities and ivory palaces,[789]\nand fought like a hero against the foes of his country, but who\nhad never known how to rule his own house. He had winked at the\natrocities committed in his name by his Tyrian queen, had connived at\nher idolatrous innovations, and put no obstacle in the way of her\npersecutions. The people who might have forgotten or condoned all\nelse never forgot the stoning and spoliation of Naboth and his sons,\nand his death was regarded as a retribution on this crime.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[767] 2 Chron. xviii. 2.\n\n[768] 2 Kings iii. 7.\n\n[769] 1 Kings xxii. 10 (Peshito).\n\n[770] The LXX. has, \"The Lord shall deliver into thy hands _even the\nking of Syria_.\" At first they all said, \"_Adonai_ shall deliver\nit\"; but afterwards, perhaps stung by the doubts of Jehoshaphat, or\nencouraged by the audacity of Zedekiah, they said, \"_Jehovah_ shall\ndeliver it.\"\n\n[771] Deut. xxxiii. 17. \"His glory is like the firstling of his\nbullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he\nshall push the people altogether to the ends of the earth.\"\n\n[772] The LXX., omitting \"besides,\" implies Jehoshaphat's opinion\nthat these were not true prophets of Jehovah. So, too, the Vulg.,\n\"Non est hic _propheta Domini quispiam_?\"\n\n[773] Compare Agamemnon's bitter complaint of Calchas.\n\n[774] 1 Kings xxii. 9. LXX., \u03b5\u1f50\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u1f14\u03bd\u03b1. And this is probably the\nmeaning of \u05e1\u05b8\u05e8\u05b4\u05d9\u05e1, not \"officer,\" as in A.V.\n\n[775] For he had seventy sons, besides daughters (2 Kings x. 7)\n\n[776] The words implied that the king would fall, though the army\nwould escape (1 Kings xxii. 17, \u05d1\u05b0\u05bc\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05dc\u05d5\u05b9\u05dd). Comp. Numb. xxvii. 16,\n17 \"Let the Lord ... set a man over the congregation, ... who may\nlead them out and in; that the _congregation of the Lord be not as\nsheep which have no shepherd_.\"\n\n[777] Theodoret explains it as anthropomorphism, and condescension to\nhuman modes of speech (\u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c0\u0390\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1 \u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd).\n\n[778] 1 Kings xxii. 21. It is \"the,\" not \"a\" spirit, _i.e._, the\nunclean spirit of deception (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, 1 John iv. 6). Comp.\nZech. xiii. 2, \"Also I will cause _the prophets and the unclean spirit_\nto pass out of the land.\" St. Paul says in 2 Thess. ii. 11: \"God shall\nsend them strong delusion that they should believe the lie.\"\n\n[779] The worst of insults (Job xvi. 10; Lam. iii. 30).\n\n[780] The words (verse 28) \"And he said, Hearken, O people, every one\nof you,\" are believed by N\u00f6ldeke, Klostermann, and others to be an\ninterpolation from Micah i. 2, by some one who confused Micaiah with\nMicah. They are omitted in the LXX.\n\n[781] We have no reason to accuse Ahab of any bad or selfish motives\nhere. No doubt Micaiah's prophecy of his approaching death had made\nhim anxious. If the LXX. reading, \"but put thou on _my_ robes,\" were\nright, the case would be different.\n\n[782] We see in this order a trace of the single combats which mark\nthe Homeric battles.\n\n[783] 2 Chron. xviii. 31: \"And the Lord helped him, and God moved\nthem from him.\"\n\n[784] So Jarchi. Josephus calls him Aman.\n\n[785] 1 Kings xxii. 34. \"At a venture\"; marg., \"in his simplicity\";\ncomp. 2 Sam. xv. 11.\n\n[786] What the French call _le d\u00e9faut de la cuirasse_ (Keil). Luther\nhas, _zwischen den Panzer und Hengel_.\n\n[787] Josephus, _Antt._, VIII. xv. 6.\n\n[788] K\u00f6ster thinks that there may be reference to the fact that the\nname \"dog\" was given to the unchaste.\n\n[789] Amos iii. 15; Psalm xlv. 8; Hom., _Od._, iv. 72.\n\n\n\n\n                            CHAPTER XLVIII.\n\n                             _CONCLUSION._\n\n\nIt will have been seen that there are two main heroes of the\nFirst Book of Kings--Solomon and Elijah. How vast is the gulf\nwhich separates those two ideals! In Solomon we see man in all\nthe adventitious splendour which he can derive from magnificent\nsurroundings and from exaltation to a dizzy height above his fellows.\nEverything that the earth can give him he possesses from earliest\nyouth, yet all turns to dust and ashes under his touch. Wealth, rank,\npower, splendour cannot ever, or under any circumstances, satisfy the\nsoul. The soul can only be sustained by heavenly food, by the manna\nwhich God sends it from heaven in the wilderness. Its divineness can\nonly be maintained by feeding on the Divine. If we think of Solomon,\neven in his most dazzling hour, we see no element of happiness or of\nreality in his lonely splendour or loveless home. It is nothing but a\nmiserable pageant. The Book of Ecclesiastes, though written centuries\nafter he had passed away, yet shows sufficiently, as the Eastern\nlegends also show, that mankind was not misled by the glamour which\nsurrounded him into the supposition that he was to be envied. It was\nfelt, whether he uttered it or not, that \"Vanity of vanities, vanity\nof vanities, all is vanity,\" is the real echo of his weariness. In\nthe famous fiction the Khaliph sees him with the other giant shades\non his golden throne at the banquet; but each and all have on their\nfaces an expression of solemn agony, and under the folds of their\npurple a little flame is ever burning at their hearts.\n\nHow different is the rough Prophet of Gilead, the ascetic, in his\nsheepskin mantle and leathern girdle, who can live for months on a\nlittle water and meal baked with oil![790] In him we see the grandeur\nof manhood reduced to its simplest elements; we see the dignity of\nman as simply man towering over all the adventitious circumstance\nof royalty. One who, like Elijah, has no earthly desires, has no\nreal fears. If he flies from Jezebel to save his life, it is only\nbecause he is not justified in flinging it away; otherwise he is as\ndauntless before the _vultus instantis tyranni_ as before the _civium\nardor prava jubentium_. Hence, Elijah in his absolute poverty, in\nhis despised isolation--Elijah, hunted and persecuted, and living in\ndens and caves of the earth--is immeasurably greater than Solomon,\nbecause he is the messenger of the living God before whom he stands.\nAnd his work is immeasurably more permanent and more valuable for\nhumanity than that of all the kings and great men among whom he\nmoved. He believed in God, he fought for righteousness, and therefore\nhe left behind him an unperishable memorial, showing that he who\nwould live for eternity rather than for time is he who best achieves\nthe high ends of his destiny. He may err as Elijah erred, but with\nthe blessing of the Lord he shall not miscarry. Though he go forth\nweeping, he shall come again with joy, bringing his sheaves with\nhim. Solomon, after his death, almost vanished from the history of\nIsrael into the legends of Arabia. In the New Testament he is but\nbarely mentioned. But Elijah still lives in, and haunts, the memory\nof his nation. A chair is placed for his invisible presence at every\ncircumcision. A cup is set aside for him at sacred banquets, and all\ndubious questions are postponed for solution \"until the day when\nElijah comes.\" He shone with Moses on the Mount of Transfiguration;\nand St. James, the Lord's brother, appeals to him as the most\nstriking example of the power of that prayer which\n\n          \"Moves the arm of Him who moves the world.\"\n\nFOOTNOTE:\n\n[790] It is supposed that Mohammed alludes to Elijah in the Qur'an,\n_Sura_ xxi. 85: \"And Ishmael, and Idris, and _Dhu'l Kifl_ (\"he of the\nportion\")--all these were of the patient; and we made them enter into\nour mercy; verily they were among the righteous\" (Palmer's Qur'an,\nii. 53).\n\n\n\n\n                     NOTE ON THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE\n                          FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.\n\n\nI have not thought it worth while to trouble the reader with\nconjectures or corrections of the text, intended to remove the\nnumerous and obvious discrepancies which the redactor of the Book\nof Kings leaves uncorrected in his references to the synchronism of\nthe reigns.[791] Many of them are removed or modified when we bear\nin mind that, _e.g._, Nadab and Elah and Ahaziah are described as\nreigning \"two years\" each (xv. 25, xvi. 8, xxii. 51), whereas the\nreign of each may not have exceeded a year, or even a few months,\nif these months came at the end of one year and the beginning of\nanother. Periods of anarchic interregnum, or of association of a son\nwith his father on the throne, may account for other confusions and\ncontradictions; but they are purely conjectural, and in some cases\nfar from probable. Jerome, as is well known, gave up all attempts to\nharmonise the chronologic data as a hopeless problem. \"Relege,\" he\nsays, \"omnes et veteris et novi Testamenti libros, et tantam annorum\nreperies dissonantiam _ut hujuscemodi h\u00e6rere qu\u00e6stionibus non tam\nstudiosi quam otiosi hominis esse videatur_.\"\n\nThe Assyrians were, for the most part (though, as Schrader shows, not\n_always_), as scrupulously exact in their chronological details as\nthe Jews were careless in theirs. The cuneiform inscriptions give us\nthe following data, which may be regarded as _points de rep\u00e8re_, and\nwhich are not reconcilable with the received dates:--\n\n                                                 B.C.\n\n  Battle of Karkar, in which Ahab and Benhadad\n    were defeated                                854\n  Jehu pays tribute to Shalmanezer II.           842\n  Menahem tributary to Assyria                   738\n  Fall of Samaria                                722\n  Sennacherib's Invasion                         701\n\nThese dates do not accord with those which we should derive from the\nBook of Kings in the ordinary system of chronology, which seem to fix\nthe Fall of Samaria in 737.\n\nThe dates of the later Kings of Assyria seem to be as follows:--\n\n                                                 B.C.\n\n  Rimmon-Nirari III.                             810\n  Shalmanezer III.                               781\n  Assur-d\u00e2n IV.                                  771\n  Tiglath-Pileser III. (Pul, a usurper)          745\n  Shalmanezer IV.                                727\n  Sargon                                         722\n  Sennacherib                                    705\n  Esar-haddon I.                                 681\n  Assur-bani-pal                                 668\n\n         *       *       *       *       *\n\n  Destruction of Nineveh                         606\n\nAdding up the separate data of this book for the kings of Israel we\nhave from Jeroboam to the death of Joram ninety-eight years seven\ndays; and for the same period of the kings of Judah from Rehoboam to\nAhaziah we have ninety-five years. Supposing that some such errors\nas we have indicated have crept into the computation, the dates of\nthe reigns may be, as reckoned by Kittel:--\n\n                                                 B.C.\n\n  Saul                                        1037-1017\n  David                                        1017-977\n  Solomon                                       977-937\n  Jeroboam I.                                   937-915\n  Nadab                                         915-914\n  Baasha                                        914-890\n  Elah                                          890-889\n  Zimri                                           889\n  Omri                                          889-877\n  Ahab                                          877-855\n  Ahaziah                                       855-854\n  Jehoram                                       854-842\n\n         *       *       *       *       *\n\n  Rehoboam                                      937-920\n  Abijah                                        920-917\n  Asa                                           917-876\n  Jehoshaphat                                   876-851\n  Joram                                         851-843\n  Ahaziah                                       843-842\n\nFrom Ph\u0153nician inscriptions (recorded in the _Corpus Inscriptionum\nSemiticarum_) little of _historical_ importance has hitherto been\nreaped.\n\nIn the Egyptian monuments there is nothing which illustrates the\nperiod of the Kings except the inscription of Sheshonk recording his\ninvasion in the days of Rehoboam, of which I have given some account\n(p. 315).\n\nThe Assyrian inscriptions, to which allusion is made in their place,\nare of extreme importance and interest, and from the lists of kings\nwe have good details of chronology. The best book on their bearing\nupon Hebrew history is that of Schrader, _Die Keilinschriften und d.\nAlte Testament_, 1883.\n\nOn the datum of four hundred and eighty years from the Exodus to the\nbuilding of the Temple, I have already touched. It does not agree\nwith Acts xiii. 20, nor with the Book of Judges. The LXX. reads \"four\nhundred and forty.\" It is almost certainly a late and erroneous\nchronological gloss derived in very simple fashion, thus:--The\nwanderings forty years, Joshua forty years, Othniel forty years, Ehud\neighty years, Jabin twenty years, Barak forty years, Gideon forty\nyears, the Philistines forty years, Samson twenty years, Samuel forty\nyears, Saul forty years, David forty years = four hundred and eighty,\nor twelve generations of forty years.\n\nBut the same result was arrived at with equal empiricism by omitting\nthe episodes of heathen dominations (Jabin and the Philistines),\nand only adding up the years assigned to the Judges, and the four\nyears of Solomon's reign before he began to build the Temple,\nthus:--Othniel forty years, Ehud eighty years, Barak forty years,\nGideon forty years, Tola twenty-three years, Jair twenty-two years,\nJephthah six years, Ibzan seven years, Elom ten years, Abdon eight\nyears, Samson twenty years = two hundred and ninety-six.\n\nEli forty years, Samuel twenty years (1 Sam. vii. 15), David forty\nyears, Solomon four = one hundred and four. Add to the four hundred\nthe two generations of the wanderings and Joshua, and we again have\nfour hundred and eighty; but quite as arbitrarily, for the period of\nSaul is omitted.[792]\n\nThe problems of early Hebrew chronology cannot yet be regarded as\neven approximately solved.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[791] See W. Robertson Smith, _Journ. of Philology_, x. 20.\n\n[792] See Reuss, _Hist. d'Israel_, i. 101-103.\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Notes:\n\n\nObvious punctuation and spelling errors have been fixed throughout.\n\nInconsistent hyphenation left as in the original text.\n\nPage 27: The reign of Josiah was listed as A.D. 621, this was\nactually B.C. 621, corrected.\n\nPage 27: The sentence beginning \"Thus from the Exodus...\" originally\nsaid \"Thus from the Exile...\". The sentence was changed to be\nhistorically accurate.\n\nFootnote 13: There was a missing verse reference for 2 Kings xvi.\nCorrected to be 2 Kings xvi. 2.\n\nFootnote 29: There was no anchor for this footnote. Left as in the\noriginal text.","title":"The Expositor's Bible: The First Book of Kings","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":142781}