_THE WIND AND THE WHIRLWIND._
1 KINGS xi. 14-41.
"He that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap
corruption."--GAL. vi. 8.
Such degeneracy could not show itself in the king without danger to his
people. "_Delirant reges, plectuntur Achivi._" In the disintegration
of Solomon's power and the general disenchantment from the glamour of
his magnificence, the land became full of corruption and discontent.
The wisdom and experience of the aged were contemptuously hissed
off the seat of judgment by the irreverent folly of the young. The
existence of a corrupt aristocracy is always a bad symptom of national
disease. These "lisping hawthorn-buds" of fashion only bourgeon in
tainted soil. The advice given by the "young men" who had "grown up
with Rehoboam and stood before him" shows the insolence preceding doom
which had been bred by the idolism of tyranny in the hearts of silly
youths who had ceased to care for the wrongs of the people or to know
anything about their condition. Violence, oppression, and commercial
dishonesty, as we see in the Book of Proverbs, had been bred by the mad
desire for gain; and even in the streets of holy Jerusalem, and under
the shadow of its Temple, "strange women," introduced by the commerce
with heathen countries and the attendants on heathen princesses,
lured to their destruction the souls of simple and God-forgetting
youths.[419] The simple and joyous agricultural prosperity in which the
sons of the people grew up as young plants and their daughters as the
polished corners of the Temple was replaced by struggling discontent
and straining competition. And amid all these evils the voices of the
courtly priests were silent, and for a long time, under the menacing
and irresponsible dominance of an oracular royalty, there was no
prophet more.
Early in Solomon's reign two adversaries had declared their
existence, but only became of much account in the darker and later
days of its decline.[420]
One of these was Hadad, Prince of Edom. Upon the Edomites in the
days of David the prowess of Joab had inflicted an overwhelming and
all but exterminating reverse. Joab had remained six months in the
conquered district to bury his comrades who had been slain in the
terrible encounter, and to extirpate as far as possible the detested
race. But the king's servants had been able to save Hadad, then
but a little child, from the indiscriminate massacre, as the sole
survivor of his house.[421] The young Edomite prince was conveyed by
them through Midian and the desert of Paran into Egypt, and there,
for political reasons, had been kindly received by the Pharaoh of
the day, probably Pinotem I. of the Tanite dynasty, the father of
Psinaces whose alliance Solomon had secured by marriage with his
daughter. Pinotem not only welcomed the fugitive Edomite as the last
scion of a kingly race, but even deigned to bestow on him the hand
of the sister of Tahpenes, his own _Gebira_ or queen-mother.[422]
Their son Genubath was brought up among the Egyptian princes. But
amid the luxurious splendours of Pharaoh's palace Hadad carried in
his heart an undying thirst for vengeance on the destroyer of his
family and race. The names of David and Joab inspired a terror which
made rebellion impossible for a time; but when Hadad heard, with grim
satisfaction, of Joab's judicial murder, and that David had been
succeeded by a peaceful son, no charm of an Egyptian palace and royal
bride could weigh in the balance against the fierce passion of an
avenger of blood. Better the wild freedom of Idumea than the sluggish
ease of Egypt. He asked the Pharaoh's leave to return to his own
country, and, braving the reproach of ingratitude, made his way back
to the desolated fields and cities of his unfortunate people.[423]
He developed their resources, and nursed their hopes of the coming
day of vengeance. If he could do nothing else he could at least act
as a desperate marauder, and prove himself a "satan" to the successor
of his foe.[424] Solomon was strong enough to keep open the road to
Ezion-Gebir, but Hadad was probably master of Sela and Maon.[425]
Another enemy was Rezon, of whom but little is known. David had won
a great victory, the most remarkable of all his successes, over
Hadadezer, King of Zobah, and had then signalised his conquest by
placing garrisons in Syria of Damascus. On this occasion Rezon, the
son of Eli, who is perhaps identical with Hezion, the grandfather of
Benhadad, King of Syria in the days of Asa, fled from the host of
Hadadezer with some of the Syrian forces. With these and all whom
he could collect about him, he became a guerilla captain. After
a successful period of predatory warfare he found himself strong
enough to seize Damascus, where, to all appearance, he founded
a powerful hereditary kingdom. Thus with Hadad in the south to
plunder his commercial caravans, and Rezon on the north to threaten
his communication with Tiphsah, and alarm his excursions to his
pleasances in Lebanon, Solomon was made keenly to feel that his power
was rather an unsubstantial pageant than a solid dominion.
The enmity of these powerful Emirs of Edom and Syria was an hereditary
legacy from the wars of David and the ruthless savagery of Joab. A
third adversary was far more terrible, and he was called into existence
by the conduct of Solomon himself. This was Jeroboam, the son of Nebat.
In himself he was of no account, being a man of isolated position and
obscure origin. He was the son of a widow named Zeruah,[426] who lived
at Zarthan in the Jordan valley. The position of a widow in the ancient
world was one of feebleness and difficulty; and if we may trust the
apocryphal additions to the Septuagint, Zeruah was not only a widow but
a harlot. But Jeroboam, whose name perhaps indicates that he was born
in the golden days of Solomon's prosperity, was a youth of vigour and
capacity. He made his way from the wretched clay fields of Zeredah to
Jerusalem, and there became one of the vast undistinguished gang who
were known as "slaves of Solomon." The _corvée_ of many thousands from
all parts of Palestine was then engaged in building the _Millo_ and the
huge walls and causeway in the valley between Zion and Moriah, which
was afterwards known as the Valley of the Cheesemongers (_Tyropœon_).
Here the unknown youth distinguished himself by his strenuousness, and
by the influence which he rapidly acquired. Solomon knew the value of
a man "diligent in his business," and therefore worthy to stand before
kings. Untrammelled by any rules of seniority, and able to make and
unmake as he thought fit, Solomon promoted him while still young, and
at one bound, to a position of great rank and influence. Jeroboam was
an Ephraimite, and Solomon therefore "gave him charge over all the
compulsory levies (_Mas_) of the tribe of the house of Joseph"--that
is, of the proud and powerful tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, who
practically represented all Israel except Judah, Benjamin, and the
almost nominal Simeon.
The spark of ambition was now kindled in the youth's heart, and as
he toiled among the workmen he became aware of two secrets of deadly
import to the master who had lifted him out of the dust--secrets
which he well knew how to use. One was that a deep undercurrent of
tribal jealousy was setting in with the force of a tide. Solomon
had unduly favoured his own tribe by exemptions from the general
requisition, and Ephraim fretted under a sense of wrong. That proud
tribe, the heir of Joseph's pre-eminence, had never acquiesced in
the loss of the hegemony which it so long had held. From Ephraim
had sprung Joshua, the mighty successor of Moses, the conqueror
of the Promised Land, and his sepulchre was still among them at
Timnath-Serah. From their kith had sprung the princely Gideon, the
greatest of the judges, who might, had he so chosen, have anticipated
the foundation of royalty in Israel. Shiloh, which God had chosen for
His inheritance, was in their domains. It required very little at any
time to make the Ephraimites second the cry of the insurgents who
followed Sheba, the son of Bichri,--
"We have no part in David,
Neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse.
Every man to his tents, O Israel."
Jeroboam, who was now by Solomon's favour a chief ruler over his
fellow-tribesmen, had many opportunities to foment this jealousy,
and to win for himself by personal graciousness the popularity of
Solomon which had so long begun to wane.
But a yet deeper feeling was at work against Solomon. The men of
Ephraim and all the northern tribes had not only begun to ask why
Judah was to monopolise the king's partiality, but the much more
dangerous question, What right has the king to enforce on us these
dreary and interminable labours, in making a city of palaces and an
impregnable fortress of a capital which is to overshadow our glory
and command our subjection? With consummate astuteness, by a word
here and a word there, Jeroboam was able to pose before Solomon as
the enforcer of a stern yoke, and before his countrymen as one who
hated the hard necessity and would fain be their deliverer from it.
And while he was already in heart a rebel against the House of David,
he received what he regarded as a Divine sanction to his career of
ambition.
The prophets, as we have seen, had sunk to silence before the oracular
autocrat who so frequently impressed on the people that there is "a
Divine sentence on the lips of kings." No special inspiration seemed to
be needed either to correct or to corroborate so infallible a wisdom.
But the heaven-enkindled spark of inspiration can never be permanently
suffocated. Priests as a body have often proved amenable to royal
seductions, but individual prophets are irrepressible.
What were the priests doing in the face of so fearful an apostasy?
Apparently nothing. They seem to have sunk into comfortable
acquiescence, satisfied with the augmentation of rank and revenue
which the Temple and its offerings brought to them. They offered no
opposition to the extravagances of the king, his violations of the
theocratic ideal, or even his monstrous tolerance for the worship
of idols. That prophets as a body existed in Judah during the early
years of this reign there is no proof. The atmosphere was ill-suited
to their vocation. Nathan probably had died long before Solomon
reached his zenith.[427] Of Iddo we know almost nothing. Two prophets
are mentioned, but only towards the close of the reign--Ahijah of
Shiloh,[428] and Shemaiah; and there seems to have been some confusion
in the _rôles_ respectively assigned to them[429] by later tradition.
But the hour had now struck for a prophet to speak the word of the
Lord. If the king, surrounded by formidable guards and a glittering
court, was too exalted to be reached by a humble son of the people,
it was time for Ahijah to follow the precedent of Samuel. He obeyed
a divine intimation in selecting the successor who should punish the
great king's rebellion against God, and inaugurate a rule of purer
obedience than now existed under the upas-shadow of the throne. He
was the _Mazkîr_, the annalist or historiographer of Solomon's court
(2 Chron. ix. 29); but loyalty to a backsliding king had come to
mean disloyalty to God. There was but one man who seemed marked out
for the perilous honour of a throne. It was the brave, vigorous,
ambitious youth of Ephraim who had risen to high promotion and
had won the hearts of his people, though Solomon had made him the
task-master of their forced labour. On one occasion Jeroboam left
Jerusalem, perhaps to visit his native Zeredah and his widowed
mother.[430] Ahijah intentionally met him on the road. He drew him
aside from the public path into a solitary place. There, seen by
none, he took off his own shoulders the new stately _abba_[431] in
which he had clad himself, and proceeded to give to Jeroboam one of
those object-lessons in the form of an acted parable, which to the
Eastern mind are more effective than any words.[432] Rending the new
garment into twelve pieces, he gave ten to Jeroboam, telling him that
Jehovah would thus rend the kingdom from the hands of Solomon because
of his unfaithfulness, leaving his son but one tribe[433] that the
lamp of David might not be utterly extinguished. Jeroboam should
be king over Israel; to the House of David should be left but an
insignificant fragment. God would build a sure house for Jeroboam as
He had done for David, if he would keep His commandments, though the
House of David "should not be afflicted for ever."[434]
A scene so memorable, a prophecy of such grave significance,
could hardly remain a secret. Ahijah may have hinted it among his
sympathisers. Jeroboam would hardly be able to conceal from his
friends the immense hopes which it excited; and as his position
probably gave him the command of troops he became dangerous. His
designs reached the ears of Solomon, and he sought to put Jeroboam to
death. The young man, who had probably betrayed his secret ambition,
and may even have attempted some premature and abortive insurrection,
escaped from Jerusalem, and took refuge in Egypt. There the Bubastite
dynasty had displaced the Tanite, and from Shishak I., the earliest
Pharaoh whose individuality eclipsed the common dynastic name, he
received so warm a welcome that, according to one story, Shishak
gave him in marriage Ano, the elder sister of his Queen Tahpanes
(or Thekemina, LXX.) and of Hadad's wife.[435] He stayed in Egypt
till the death of Solomon, and then returned to Zeredah, either in
consequence of the summons of his countrymen, or that he might be
ready for any turn of events.
Under such melancholy circumstances the last great king of the
united kingdom passed away. Of the circumstances of his death we
are told nothing, but the clouds had gathered thickly round his
declining years. "The power to which he had elevated Israel," says
the Jewish historian Grätz, "resembled that of a magic world built
up by spirits. The spell was broken at his death." It must not,
however, be imagined that no abiding results had followed from so
remarkable a rule. The nation which he left behind him at his death
was very different from the nation to whose throne he had succeeded
as a youth. It had sprung from immature boyhood to the full-grown
stature of manhood. If the purity of its spiritual ideal had been
somewhat corrupted, its intellectual growth and its material power
had been immensely stimulated. It had tasted the sweets of commerce,
and never forgot the richness of that intoxicating draught which
was destined in later ages to transform its entire nature. Tribal
distinctions, if not obliterated, had been subordinated to a central
organisation. The knowledge of writing had been more widely spread,
and this had led to the dawn of that literature which saved Israel
from oblivion, and uplifted her to a place of supreme influence among
the nations. Manners had been considerably softened from their old
wild ferocity. The more childish forms of ancient superstition, such
as the use of ephods and teraphim, had fallen into desuetude. The
worship of Jehovah, and the sense of His unique supremacy over the
whole world, was fostered in many hearts, and men began to feel the
unfitness of giving to Him that name of "Baal" which began henceforth
to be confined to the Syrian sun-god.[436] Amid many aberrations the
sense of religion was deepened among the faithful of Israel, and the
ground was prepared for the more spiritual religion which in later
reigns found its immortal expositors in those Hebrew prophets who
rank foremost among the teachers of mankind.[437]
But as for Solomon himself it is a melancholy thought that he is one
of the three or four of whose salvation the Fathers and others have
openly ventured to doubt.[438] The discussion of such a question is,
indeed, wholly absurd and profitless, and is only here alluded to in
order to illustrate the completeness of Solomon's fall. As the book
of Ecclesiastes is certainly not by him it can throw no light on the
moods of his latter days, unless it be conceivable that it represents
some faint breath of olden tradition. The early commentators
acquitted or condemned him as though they sat on the judgment-seat of
the Almighty. They would have shown more wisdom if they had admitted
that such decisions are--fortunately for all men--beyond the scope of
human judges. Happily for us God, not man, is the judge, and He looks
down on earth
"With larger other eyes than ours
To make allowance for us all."
Orcagna was wiser when, in his great picture in the Campo Santo at Pisa
and in the Strozzi Chapel at Florence, he represented Solomon rising
out of his sepulchre in robe and crown at the trump of the archangel,
uncertain whether he is to turn to the right hand or to the left.
And Dante, as all men know, joins Solomon in Paradise with the Four
Great Schoolmen. The great mediæval poet of Latin Christianity did
not side with St. Augustine and the Latin Fathers against the wise
king, but with St. Chrysostom and the Greek Fathers for him. He did
so because he accepted St. Bernard's mystical interpretation of the
Song of Songs:--
"La quinta luce, ch'è tra noi più bella
Spira di tale amor, che tutto il mondo
Laggiù ne gola di saver novella.
Entro v'è l'alta mente, u' sì profondo
Saver fu messo, che si il vero è vero,
A veder tanto non surse il secondo."[439]
There is a famous legend in the Qur'an about the death of Solomon.[440]
"Work ye righteousness O ye family of David; for I see that which
ye do. And we made the wind subject unto Solomon.... And we made a
fountain of molten brass to flow for him. And some of the genii were
obliged to work in his presence by the will of his Lord. They made
for him whatever he pleased of palaces, and statues, and large dishes
like fishponds, and caldrons standing firm on their trivets; and we
said, Work righteousness, O family of David, with thanksgiving; for
few of my servants are thankful. And when we had decreed that Solomon
should die, nothing discovered his death unto them, except the
creeping thing of the earth that gnawed his staff. And when his body
fell down, the genii plainly perceived that if they had known that
which is secret they had not continued in a vile punishment."[441]
The legend briefly alluded to was that Solomon employed the genii
to build his Temple, but, foreseeing that he would die before its
completion, he prayed God to conceal his death from them, so that
they might go on working. His prayer was heard, and the rest of the
legend may best be told in the words of a poet:[442]--
"King Solomon stood in his crown of gold,
Between the pillars, before the altar
In the House of the Lord. And the king was old,
And his strength began to falter,
So that he leaned on his ebony staff,
Sealed with the seal of the Pentegraph.
* * * * *
And the king stood still as a carven king,
The carven cedar beams below,
In his purple robe, with his signet-ring,
And his beard as white as snow.
And his face to the Oracle, where the hymn
Dies under the wings of the cherubim.
* * * * *
And it came to pass as the king stood there,
And looked on the House he had built with pride,
That the hand of the Lord came unaware
And touched him, so that he died
In his purple robe and his signet ring
And the crown wherewith they had crowned him king.
And the stream of folk that came and went
To worship the Lord with prayer and praise,
Went softly ever in wonderment,
For the king stood there always;
And it was solemn and strange to behold
The dead king crowned with a crown of gold.
* * * * *
So King Solomon stood up dead in the House
Of the Lord, held there by the Pentegraph,
Until out from the pillar there ran a red mouse,
And gnawed through his ebony staff;
Then flat on his face the king fell down,
And they picked from the dust a golden crown."
The legends of the East describe Solomon as tormented indeed, yet not
without hope. In the romance of Vathek he is described as listening
earnestly to the roar of a cataract, because when it ceases to roar
his anguish will be at an end.
"The king so renowned for his wisdom was on the loftiest elevation,
and placed immediately beneath the Dome. 'The thunder,' he said,
'precipitated me hither, where, however, I do not remain totally
destitute of hope; for an angel of light hath revealed that, in
consideration of the piety of my early youth, my woes shall come
to an end. Till then I am in torments, ineffable torments; an
unrelenting fire preys on my heart.' The caliph was ready to sink
with terror when he heard the groans of Solomon. Having uttered this
exclamation, Solomon raised his hands towards heaven, in token of
supplication; and the caliph discerned through his bosom, which was
transparent as crystal, his heart enveloped in flames."
* * * * *
So Solomon passed away--the last king of all Palestine till another
king arose a thousand years later, like him in his fondness for
magnificence, like him in his tamperings with idolatry, like him in
being the builder of the Temple, but in all other respects a far more
grievous sinner and a far more inexcusable tyrant--Herod, falsely
called "The Great."
And in the same age arose another King of Solomon's descendants,
whose palace was the shop of the carpenter and His throne the cross,
and whose mortal body was the true Temple of the Supreme--that King
whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and whose dominion endureth
throughout all ages.
FOOTNOTES:
[419] See Prov. ii. 10-22, v. 1-14, vi. 24-35, etc. (contrast Psalm
cxliv. 12-15).
[420] In 1 Kings xi. 9-25 the mischief inflicted by Rezon and Hadad
is represented as a punishment for Solomon's apostasy. It has been
said that here "the pragmatism belongs to the redactor," because
these enemies sprang into existence when he came to the throne. But,
as I have here represented it, nothing seems more probable than that
Rezon and Hadad were practically impotent to inflict much damage
before the period of Solomon's decline. (Verse 23 is omitted in some
MSS. of the LXX.)
[421] An isolated anecdote of the exterminating war is preserved in 1
Chron. xi. 22, 23, from which it would seem that Egypt had interfered
in favour of Edom.
[422] Renan conjectures that the real Egyptian name is Ahotepnes. The
LXX. wrongly calls this Pharaoh Sheshonk (Σουσακείμ), who came later,
and whose queen's name was Karaäma (not Thekemina, as the LXX. says).
[423] Canon Rawlinson (_Speaker's Commentary_, _ad loc._) points out
that fugitives once received at Eastern courts found it very difficult
to get away, _e.g._, Democedes, Herod., iii. 132-37. Histiæus, in
leaving the court of Persia, has expressly to say that he had lacked
nothing--τεῦ δὲ ἐνδεὴς ὤν; Herod., v. 106; comp. 1 Kings xi. 22.
[424] 1 Kings xi. 14: "The Lord stirred up an adversary" (שָׂטָן).
[425] Stade, i. 302. In 1 Kings xi. 22, 25 the text is corrupt. Verse
25 should partly be transferred to the end of verse 22, and should
run, "And Hadad returned to his own land," _i.e._, to _Edom_. (Edom
has been confused with "Aram.")
[426] The additions to the LXX. call her Sarira. But the names
"Sarira," "Enlamite," "Ano" are all suspicious; and possibly the LXX.
additions may be only part of some Alexandrian Haggadah.
[427] In 2 Chron. ix. 29 the LXX. reads "Joel." He wrote "visions"
against Jeroboam, a life of Ahijah, and a book "on (or after the
manner of) genealogies" (2 Chron. ix. 29, xii. 15, xiii. 22). Jerome
(on 2 Chron. xv. 1) identifies him with Oded.
[428] 2 Chron. ix. 29. Perhaps 1 Kings xi. may be borrowed from the
historic records of Ahijah.
[429] For in the LXX. 1 Kings xi. 29-39 is absent in some MSS., as
well as 1 Kings xiv. (Ahijah and Abijah), which has been added from
the Greek version of Aquila. In verse 29, for "Ahijah the Shilonite"
we have in some MSS. of the LXX. "Shemaiah the Elamite" or "Eulamite."
[430] 1 Kings xi. 29, addition of LXX.
[431] The square cloth worn over the other dress, and now called
_abba_, seems to represent the _salemâh_ (שַׂלְמָה) here mentioned.
[432] The story is usually made to apply to _Jeroboam's_ new robe;
but in the addition to the LXX., where the action is ascribed to
Shemaiah, the word of the Lord says to him, λάβε σεαυτῷ ἱμάτιον
καινὸν τὸ οὐκ εἰσεληλυθὸς εἰς ὕδωρ κ. τ. λ. The method of "acted
parables" was common among the Hebrew prophets (See Jer. xiii., xix.,
xxvii.; Ezek. iii., iv., v., etc.); but this is the earliest recorded
instance of the kind.
[433] Not "two tribes," as the LXX. says. But neither the number 1
nor the number 2 are literally exact, for certainly Jeroboam did not
command the territory of Simeon, south of Judah. The adherence of
Benjamin, or part of Benjamin, to Judah was mainly a geographical
accident, due to the fact that Jerusalem lay in both tribes (Josh. xv.
8, xviii. 16; Jer. xx. 2). Late in David's reign a Benjamite (Sheba,
son of Bichri) had headed a revolt against David (2 Sam. xx. 1).
[434] 1 Kings xi. 34-39.
[435] The story occurs in the additions to the LXX., and is highly
improbable. Shishak came to the throne, according to R. S. Poole,
about B.C. 972; others date his accession in 975 or 988. No such name
as Tahpanes or Thekemina is found in the Egyptian records, and the
wife of Shishak was Karaämat.
[436] Compare the names Eshbaal, Meribaal, Jerubbaal, Baaljada, with
Ishjo (LXX. 1 Sam. xiv. 49, Heb.), Mephibosheth Eliada. In later
days Baal was changed into the nickname _Bosheth_, "shame": hence
Ishbosheth, Jerubesheth, Mephibosheth. See Kittel, ii. 87.
[437] See Kittel, _Gesch. der Hebr._, ii. 169-76.
[438] See Buddæus, _Hist. Eccl._, ii. 237.
[439]
"The fifth light shining with a beauty pure
Breathes from such love that all the world below
Craves to have tidings of him true and sure.
Within it is the lofty mind, where so
Deep knowledge dwelt, that, if the truth be true,
Such insight ne'er a second rose to know."
_Parad._, x. 109-114, and Dean Plumtre's notes.
[440] Qur'an, xxxiv. 10; Chapter of Sebâ (Palmer's translation, p. 151).
[441] Sale's Koran, ii. 287; Palmer's Qur'an, ii. 152.
[442] The Earl of Lytton.
BOOK III.
_THE DIVIDED KINGDOM._
B.C. 937-889.
CHAPTER XXIV.
_A NEW REIGN._
1 KINGS xii. 1-5.
"A foolish son is the calamity of his father."--PROV. xix. 13.
"He left behind him Roboam, even the foolishness of the people,
and one that had no understanding."--ECCLUS. xlvii. 23.
Rehoboam, who was Solomon's only son, succeeded in Jerusalem
without opposition, B.C. 937.[443] But the northern tribes were
in no mood to regard as final the prerogative acceptance of the
son of Solomon by the rival tribe of Judah. David had won them
by his vivid personality; Solomon had dazzled them by his royal
magnificence. It did not follow that they were blindly to accept a
king who emerged for the first time from the shadow of the harem,
and was the son of an Ammonitess, who worshipped Chemosh. Instead of
going to Rehoboam at Jerusalem as the tribes had gone to David at
Hebron, they summoned an assembly at their ancient city of Shechem,
on the site of the modern Nablus, between Mount Ebal and Gerizim.
In this fortress-sanctuary they determined, as "men of Israel," to
bring their grievances under the notice of the new sovereign before
they formally ratified his succession. According to one view they
summoned Jeroboam, who had already returned to Zeredah, to be their
spokesman.[444] When the assembly met they told the king that they
would accept him if he would lighten the grievous service which his
father had put upon them.[445] Rehoboam, taken by surprise, said that
they should receive his answer in "three days." In the interval he
consulted the aged counsellors of his father. Their answer was astute
in its insight into human nature. It resembled the "long promises,
short performance" which Guido da Montefeltro recommended to Pope
Boniface VIII. in the case of the town of Penestrino.[446] They well
understood the maxim of "_omnia serviliter pro imperio_," which has
paved the way to power of many a usurper from Otho to Bolingbroke.
"Give the people a civil answer," they said; "tell them that _you_
are _their_ servant. Content with this they will be scattered to
their homes, and you will bind them to your yoke for ever." In an
answer so deceptive, but so immoral, the corrupting influence of the
Solomonian autocracy is as conspicuous as in that of the malapert
youths who made their appeal to the king's conceit.
"Who knoweth whether his son will be a wise man or a fool?" asks
Solomon in the Book of Proverbs. Apparently he had done little
or nothing to save his only son from being the latter. Despots
in polygamous households, whether in Palestine or Zululand, live
in perpetual dread of their own sons, and generally keep them in
absolute subordination. If Rehoboam had received the least political
training, or had been possessed of the smallest common sense, he
would have been able to read the signs of the times sufficiently
well to know that everything might be lost by blustering arrogance,
and everything gained by temporising plausibility. Had Rehoboam been
a man like David, or even like Saul in his better day, he might
have grappled to himself the affections of his people as with hooks
of steel by seizing the opportunity of abating their burdens, and
offering them a sincere assurance that he would study their peace
and welfare above all. Had he been a man of ordinary intelligence,
he would have seen that the present was not the moment to exacerbate
a discontent which was already dangerous. But the worldly-wise
counsel of the "elders" of Solomon was utterly distasteful to a man
who, after long insignificance, had just begun to feel the vertigo
of autocracy. His sense of his right was strong in exact proportion
to his own worthlessness. He turned to the young men who had grown
up with him, and who stood before him--the _jeunesse dorée_ of a
luxurious and hypocritical epoch, the aristocratic idlers in whom the
insolent self-indulgence of an enervated society had expelled the
old spirit of simple faithfulness.[447] Their answer was the sort of
answer which Buckingham and Sedley might have suggested to Charles
II. in face of the demands of the Puritans; and it was founded on
notions of inherent prerogative, and "the right Divine of kings to
govern wrong," such as the Bishops might have instilled into James I.
at the Hampton Court Conference, or Archbishop Laud into Charles I.
in the days of "Thorough."
"Threaten this insolent canaille," they said, "with your royal
severity. Tell them that you do not intend to give up your sacred
right to enforced labour, such as your brother of Egypt has always
enjoyed.[448] Tell them that your little finger shall be thicker
than your father's loins,[449] and that instead of his whips you
will chastise them with leaded thongs.[450] That is the way to show
yourself every inch a king."
The insensate advice of these youths proved itself attractive to the
empty and infatuated prince. He accepted it in the dementation which
is a presage of ruin; for, as the pious historian says, "the cause
was from the Lord."
The announcement of this incredibly foolish reply woke in the men
of Israel an answering shout of rebellion. In the rhythmic war-cry
of Sheba, the son of Bichri, which had become proverbial,[451] they
cried:--
"What portion have we in David?
Neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse.
To your tents, O Israel:
Now see to thine own house, David!"[452]
Unable to appease the wild tumult, Rehoboam again showed his want
of sense by sending an officer to the people whose position and
personality were most sure to be offensive to them. He sent "Adoram,
who was over the tribute"--the man who stood, before the Ephraimites
especially, as the representative of everything in monarchical
government which was to them most entirely odious. Josephus says
that he hoped to mollify the indignant people. But it was too late.
They stoned the aged _Al-ham-Mas_ with stones that he died; and
when the foolish king witnessed or heard of the fate of a man who
had grown grey as the chief agent of despotism he felt that it was
high time to look after his own safety. Apparently he had come with
no other escort than that of the men of Judah who formed a part of
the national militia. Of Cherethites, Pelethites, and Gittites we
hear no more. The princeling of a despoiled and humiliated kingdom
was perhaps in no condition to provide the pay of these foreign
mercenaries. The king found that the name of David was no longer
potent, and that royalty had lost its awful glamour. He made an
effort[453] to reach his chariot, and, barely succeeding, fled with
headlong speed to Jerusalem. From that day for ever the unity of
Israel was broken, and "the twelve tribes" became a name for two
mutually antagonistic powers.[454] The men of Israel at once chose
Jeroboam for their king, and an event was accomplished which had its
effect on the history of all succeeding times. The only Israelites
over whom the House of David continued to rule were those who, like
the scattered remnant of Simeon, dwelt in the cities of Judah.[455]
Thus David's grandson found that his kingdom over a people had
shrunk to the headship of a tribe, with a sort of nominal suzerainty
over Edom and part of Philistia. He was reduced to the comparative
insignificance of David's own position during his first seven years,
when he was only king in Hebron. This disruption was the beginning of
endless material disasters to both kingdoms; but it was the necessary
condition of high spiritual blessings, for "it was of the Lord."
Politically it is easy to see that one cause of the revolt lay in
the too great rapidity in which kings, who, as it was assumed, were
to be elective, or at least to depend on the willing obedience of
the people, had transformed themselves into hereditary despots.
Judah might still accept the sway of a king of her own tribe; but
the powerful and jealous Ephraimites, at the head of the Northern
Confederation, refused to regard themselves as the destined
footstool for a single family. As in the case of Saul and of David,
they determined once more to accept no king who did not owe his
sovereignty to their own free choice.
FOOTNOTES:
[443] "Rehoboam" means "enlarger of the people" (comp. Eurudemos);
Jeroboam, "whose people is many" (Poludemos; comp. Thiodric,
Thierry). But Cheyne makes it mean "the kingdom contendeth"
(Kleinert, _Volkstreiter_).
[444] So we read in the LXX. Cod. Vat., and (partly) in the Vulgate
(see Robertson Smith, _The Old Testament_, p. 117). Unless Jeroboam had
spontaneously returned from Egypt on hearing of the death of Solomon,
there would hardly have been time to summon him thence. 2 Chron. x. 2
represents the matter thus. Possibly his name has crept by error into 1
Kings xii. 3. See Wellhausen-Bleek's _Einleitung_, p. 243.
[445] In the LXX. the Ephraimites complain of the expensive provision
for Solomon's table. "Thy father made his yoke grievous upon us, and
made grievous to us the meats of his table." LXX. (Cod. Vat.), καὶ
ἐβάρυνε τὰ βρώματα τῆς τραπέζης αὐτοῦ.
[446] Dante, _Inferno_, Cant. xxvii.
[447] They are called _yeladim_, which surely cannot apply to men
of forty, so that Rehoboam was probably little more than a youth,
_na'ar_ (2 Chron. xiii. 7; comp. Gen. xxxiii. 13).
[448] Herod., ii. 124-28.
[449] "My little finger." Heb., "my littleness"; LXX., ἡ μικρότης
μου. But the paraphrase is perfectly correct (Vulg., Pesh., Josephus,
and the Rabbis).
[450] "Virga si est nodosa et aculeata scorpios vocatur, quia arcuato
vulnere in corpus infigitur" (Isodore., _Orig._, i. 175).
[451] 2 Sam. xx. 1.
[452] Or, "Now feed thine own house" (LXX., βόσκε, reading רעה for
ראה); and the LXX. adds, "For this man is not (fit) to be a ruler,
nor to be a prince." Evidently the revolt was the culmination of
those jealousies which the haughty tribe of Ephraim had already
manifested in the lives of Gideon, Abimelech, and David.
[453] Heb., "strengthened himself."
[454] In fact, the δωδεκάφυλον became more of a reminiscence than
anything else. Simeon, for instance, practically disappeared (1
Chron. iv. 24-43).
[455] 1 Kings xii. 17.
CHAPTER XXV.
_THE DISRUPTION._
1 KINGS xii. 6-20.
"_It was of the Lord._" It is no small proof of the insight and
courageous faithfulness of the historian that he accepts without
question the verdict of ancient prophecy that the disruption was
God's doing; for everything which happened in the four subsequent
centuries, alike in Judah and in Israel, seemed to belie this pious
conviction. We, in the light of later history, are now able to
see that the disseverance of Israel's unity worked out results of
eternal advantage to mankind; but in the sixth century before Christ
no event could have seemed to be so absolutely disastrous. It must
have worn the aspect of an extinction of the glory of the House of
Jacob. It involved the obliteration of the great majority of the
descendants of the patriarchs, and the reduction of the rest to
national insignificance and apparently hopeless servitude. Throughout
those centuries of troubled history, in the struggle for existence
which was the lot of both kingdoms alike, it was difficult to say
whether their antagonism or their friendship, their open wars or
their matrimonial alliances, were productive of the greater ruin.
Each section of the nation fatally hampered and counterpoised the
other with a perpetual rivalry and menace. Ephraim envied Judah, and
Judah vexed Ephraim. In extreme cases the south was ready to purchase
the intervention of Syria, or even of Assyria, to check and overwhelm
its northern rival, while the north could raise up Egypt or Edom to
harass the southern kingdom with intolerable raids.
To us the Southern Kingdom, the kingdom of Judah, seems the more
important and the more interesting division of the people. It became
the heir of all the promises, the nurse of the Messianic hope,
the mother of the four greater prophets, the continuer of all the
subsequent history after the glory of Israel had been stamped out by
Assyria for ever.
1. But such was not the aspect presented by the kingdom of Judah to
contemporary observers. On the contrary, Judah seemed to be a paltry
and accidental fragment--one tribe, dissevered from the magnificent
unity of Israel. Nothing redeemed it from impotence and obliteration
but the splendid possessions of Jerusalem and the Temple, which
guaranteed the often threatened perpetuity of the House of David.
The future seemed to be wholly with Israel when men compared the
relative size and population of the disunited tribes. Judah comprised
little more than the environs of Jerusalem. Except Jerusalem, Mizpeh,
Gibeon, and Hebron, it had no famous shrines and centres of national
traditions. It could not even claim the southern town of Beersheba as
a secure possession.[456] The tribe of Simeon had melted away into a
shadow, if not into non-existence, amid the surrounding populations,
and its territory was under the kings of Judah; but they did not even
possess the whole of Benjamin, and if that little tribe was nominally
reckoned with them, it was only because part of their capital city
was in Benjamite territory, to which belonged the valley of Hinnom.
To Israel, on the other hand, pertained all the old local sanctuaries
and scenes of great events. On the east of Jordan they held Mahanaim;
on the west Jericho, near as it was to Jerusalem, and Bethel with its
sacred stone of Jacob, and Gilgal with its memorial of the conquest,
and Shechem the national place of assembly, and Accho and Joppa on
the sea shore. Israel, too, inherited all the predominance over Moab
and Ammon, and the Philistines, which had been secured by conquest in
the reign of David.[457]
2. Then, again, the greatest heroes of tradition had been sons of
the northern tribes. The fame of Joshua was theirs, of Deborah and
Barak, of fierce Jephthah, of kingly Gideon, and of bold Abimelech.
Holy Samuel, the leader of the prophets, and heroic Saul, the first
of the kings, had been of their kith and kin. Judah could only claim
the bright personality of David, and the already tarnished glories of
Solomon, which men did not yet see through the mirage of legend but
in the prosaic light of every day.
3. Again, the Northern Kingdom was unhampered by the bad example and
erroneous development of the preceding royalty. Jeroboam had not
stained his career with crimes like David; nor had he sunk, as Solomon
had done, into polygamy and idolatry. It seemed unlikely that he, with
so fatal an example before his eyes, could be tempted into oppressive
tyranny, futile commerce, or luxurious ostentation. He could found a
new dynasty, free from the trammels of a bad commencement, and as fully
built on Divine command as that of the House of Jesse.
4. Nor was it a small advantage that the new kingdom had an immense
superiority over its southern compeer in richness of soil and beauty
of scenery. To it belonged the fertile plain of Jezreel, rolling with
harvests of golden grain. Its command of Accho gave it access to the
treasures of the shore and of the sea. To it belonged the purple
heights of Carmel, of which the very name meant "a garden of God";
and the silver Lake of Galilee, with its inexhaustible swarms of
fish; and the fields of Gennesareth, which were a wonder of the world
for their tropical luxuriance. Theirs also were the lilied waters
and paper-reeds of Merom, and the soft, green, park-like scenery of
Gerizim, and the roses of Sharon, and the cedars of Lebanon, and
the vines and fig trees and ancient terebinths of all the land of
Ephraim, and the forest glades of Zebulon and Naphtali, and the wild
uplands beyond the Jordan--which were all far different from the
"awful barrenness" of Judah, with its monotony of rounded hills.[458]
5. Under these favourable conditions three great advantages were
exceptionally developed in the Northern Kingdom.
(1) It evidently enjoyed a larger freedom as well as a greater
prosperity. How gay and bright, how festive and musical, how worldly
and luxurious, was the life of the wealthy and the noble in the ivory
palaces and on the gorgeous divans of Samaria and Jezreel, as we
read of it in the pages of the contemporary prophets![459] Naboth
and Shemer show themselves as independent of tyranny as any sturdy
dalesman or feudal noble, and "the great lady of Shunem, on the slopes
of Esdraelom, in her well-known home, is a sample of Israelite life in
the north as true as that of the reaper Boaz in the south. She leaves
her home under the pressure of famine, and goes down to the plains of
Philistia. When she returns and finds a stranger in her corn-fields,
she insists on restitution, even at the hand of the king himself."[460]
(2) The Ten Tribes also developed a more brilliant literature. Some of
the most glowing psalms are probably of northern origin, as well as
the Song of Deborah, and the work of the writer who is now generally
recognised by critics under the name of the Deuteronomist. The
loveliest poem produced by Jewish literature--the Song of Songs--bears
on every page the impress of the beautiful and imaginative north. The
fair girl of Shunem loves her leopard-haunted hills, and the vernal
freshness of her northern home, more than the perfumed chambers of
Solomon's seraglio; and her poet is more charmed with the lustre and
loveliness of Tirzah than with the palaces and Temple of Jerusalem. The
Book of Job may have originated in the Northern Kingdom, from which
also sprang the best historians of the Jewish race.[461]
(3) But the main endowment of the new kingdom consisted in the
magnificent development and independence of the prophets.
It was not till after the overthrow of the Ten Tribes that the glory
of prophecy migrated southwards, and Jerusalem produced the mighty
triad of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. For the two and a half
centuries that the Northern Kingdom lasted scarcely one prophet is
heard of in Judah except the scarcely known Hanani, and Eliezer, the
son of Mareshah,[462] who is little more than a _nominis umbra_. To
the north belongs the great herald-prophet of the Old Dispensation,
the mighty Elijah; the softer spirit of the statesman-prophet
Elisha; the undaunted Micaiah, son of Imlah; the picturesque Micah;
the historic Jonah; the plaintive Hosea; and that bold and burning
patriot, a fragment of whose prophecy now forms part of the Book of
Zechariah. Amos, indeed, belonged by birth to Tekoa, which was in
Judah, but his prophetic activity was confined to Bethel and Jezreel.
The Schools of the Prophets at Ramah, Bethel, Jericho, and Gilgal
were all in Israel. The passages in the third section of the Book of
Zechariah are alone sufficient to show how vast was the influence
in the affairs of the nation of the prophets of the north, and how
fearless their intervention. Even when they were most fiercely
persecuted, they were not afraid to beard the most powerful kings--an
Ahab and a Jeroboam II.--in all their pride.[463] Samaria and Galilee
were rich in prophetic lives; and they, too, were the destined scene
of the life of Him of whom all the prophets prophesied, and from
whose inspiration they drew their heavenly fire.
Against these advantages, however, must be set two serious and
ultimately fatal drawbacks--germs of disease which lay in the very
constitution of the kingdom, and from the first doomed it to death.
One of these was the image-worship, of which I shall speak in
a later section; the other was the lack of one predominant and
continuous dynasty.
The royalty of the north did not spring up through long years of
gradual ascendency, and could not originally appeal to splendid
services and heroic memories. Jeroboam was a man of humble, and, if
tradition says truly, of tainted origin. He was not a usurper, for
he was called to the throne by the voice of prophecy and the free
spontaneous choice of his people; but in Solomon's days he had been
a potential if not an actual rebel. He set the example of successful
revolt, and it was eagerly followed by many a soldier and general of
similar antecedents. In the short space of two hundred and forty-five
years there were no less than nine changes of dynasty, of which those
of Jeroboam, Baasha, Kobolam,[464] Menahem, consisted only of a father
and son. There were at least four isolated or partial kings: Zimri,
Tibni, Pekah, and Hosea. Only two dynasties, those of Omri and Jehu,
succeeded in maintaining themselves for even four or five generations,
and they, like the others, were at last quenched in blood. The close of
the kingdom in its usurpations, massacres, and catastrophes reminds us
of nothing so much as the disastrous later days of the Roman Empire,
when the purple was so often rent by the dagger-thrust, and it was rare
for emperors to die a natural death. The kingdom which had risen from a
sea of blood set in the same red waves.
On the other hand, whatever may have been the drawback of the small
and hampered Southern Kingdom, it had several conspicuous advantages.
It had a settled and incomparable capital, which could be rendered
impregnable against all ordinary assaults; while the capital of the
Northern Kingdom shifted from Shechem to Penuel[465] and Tirzah, and
from Tirzah to Samaria and Jezreel. It had the blessing of a loyal
people, and of the all-but-unbroken continuity of one loved and
cherished dynasty for nearly four centuries. It had the yet greater
blessing of producing not a few kings who more or less fully attained
to the purity of the theocratic ideal. Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah,
Josiah, were good and high-minded kings, and the two latter were
religious reformers. Whatever may have been the sins and shortcomings
of Judah--and they were often very heinous--still the prophets bear
witness that her transgressions were less incurable than those of her
sister Samaria. All good men began to look to Jerusalem as the nursing
mother of the Promised Deliverer. "Out of Judah," said the later
Zechariah, "shall come forth the corner stone, out of him the nail,
out of him the battle bow, out of him every governor together."[466]
Amos was born in Judah; Hoshea took refuge there; the later Zechariah
laboured (ix., xi., xiii. 7-9) for the fusion of the two kingdoms. From
the unknown, or little known, seers who endeavoured to watch over the
infant destinies of Judah, to the mighty prophets who inspired her
early resistance to Assyria, or menaced her apostasy with ruin at the
hands of Babylon, she rarely lacked for any long period the inspired
guidance of moral teachers. If Judah was for many years behindhand
in power, in civilisation, in literature, even in the splendour of
prophetic inspiration, she still managed on the whole to uplift to the
nations the standard of righteousness. That standard was often fiercely
assaulted, but the standard-bearers did not faint. The torn remnants of
the old ideal were still upheld by faithful hands. Neither the heathen
tendencies of princes nor the vapid ceremonialism of priests were
allowed unchallenged to usurp the place of religion pure and undefiled.
The later Judæan prophets, and especially the greatest of them, rose to
a spirituality which had never yet been attained, and was never again
equalled till the rise of the Son of Righteousness with healing in His
wings.
How clearly, then, do we see the truth of the prophetic announcement
that the disruption of the kingdom was "of the Lord"! Out of apparent
catastrophe was evolved infinite reparation. The abandonment of the
Davidic dynasty of the Ten Tribes looked like earthly ruin. It did
indeed hasten the final overthrow of all national autonomy; but that
would have come in any case, humanly speaking, from Assyria, or
Babylonia, Persia, or the Seleucids, or the Ptolemies, or Rome. On
the other hand, it fostered a religious power and concentration which
were of more value to the world than any other blessings. "On all the
past greatness and glory of Israel," says Ewald,[467] "Judah cast
its free and cheerful gaze. Before its kings floated the vision of
great ancestors; before its prophets examples like those of Nathan
and Gad; before the whole people the memory of its lofty days. And so
it affords us no unworthy example of the honourable part which may be
played for many centuries in the history of the world, and the rich
blessings which may be imparted, even by a little kingdom, provided
it adheres faithfully to the eternal truth. The gain to the higher
life of humanity acquired under the earthly protection of this petty
monarchy _far outweighs all that has been attempted or accomplished
for the permanent good of man by many much larger states_." "The
people of Israel goes under," says Stade, "but the religion of Israel
triumphs over the powers of the world, while it changes its character
from the religion of a people into a religion of the world." This
development of religion, as he proceeds to point out, was mainly due
to the long, slow enfeeblement of the people through many centuries,
until at last it had acquired a force which enabled it to survive the
political annihilation of the nationality from which it sprang.
In reality both kingdoms gained under the appearance of total loss.
"Every people called to high destinies," says Renan, "ought to be
a small complete world, enclosing opposed poles within its bosom.
Greece had at a few leagues from each other, Sparta and Athens, two
antipodes to a superficial observer, but in reality rival sisters,
necessary the one to the other. It was the same in Palestine."
The high merit of the historian of the two kingdoms appears in this,
that, without entangling himself in details, and while he contents
himself with sweeping and summary judgments, he established a moral
view of history which has been ratified by the experience of the
world. He shows us how the tottering and insignificant kingdom of
Judah, secured by God's promise, and rising through many backslidings
into higher spirituality and faithfulness, not only out-lasted for a
century the overthrow of its far more powerful rival, but kept alive
the torch of faith, and handed it on to the nations of many centuries
across the dust and darkness of intervening generations. And in
drawing this picture he helped to secure the fulfilment of his own
ideal, for he inspired into many a patriot and many a reformer the
indomitable faith in God which has enabled men, in age after age, to
defy obloquy and opposition, to face the prison and the sword, secure
in the ultimate victory of God's truth and God's righteousness amidst
the most seemingly absolute failure, and against the most apparently
overwhelming odds.
FOOTNOTES:
[456] In 1 Kings xix. 3 it is reckoned as belonging to Judah (comp.
Josh. xv. 28), being really a town of Simeon (Josh. xix. 2); but from
Amos v. 5, viii. 14, we should infer that it was at any rate largely
frequented by Israelites.
[457] 1 Kings xvi. 34; 2 Kings ii. 4.
[458] See Stanley, _Lectures on the Jewish Church_, ii. 269-71.
[459] Amos v. 11, vi. 4-6.
[460] 2 Kings iv. 18, 22, viii. 1-6; Stanley, ii. 271.
[461] See Ewald, iv. 9 (E. T.).
[462] 2 Chron. xx. 37.
[463] Zech. xi. 4-17, xiii. 7-9.
[464] If we may regard Kobolam as a real person (2 Kings xv. 10,
LXX.). Thus, in the Northern Kingdom twenty kings belong to _nine_
different dynasties in two hundred and forty-five years; and in the
Southern only nineteen kings of _one_ dynasty rule for three hundred
and forty-five years.
[465] Jeroboam lived for a time at Penuel, on the east of the Jordan,
perhaps to escape all danger from Shishak's invasion. For Penuel, on
the eastern side of the Jabbok, see Gen. xxxii. 22, 30; Judg. viii.
8, 17. It was important as commanding the caravan route from Damascus
to Shechem.
[466] Zech. x. 4 (R.V., "exactors").
[467] _Hist. of Isr._, iv. 12.
CHAPTER XXVI.
"_JEROBOAM THE SON OF NEBAT, WHO MADE
ISRAEL TO SIN._"
1 KINGS xii. 21-23.
"For from Israel is even this; the workman made it, and it is no
god: yea, the calf of Samaria shall be broken in pieces."--HOSEA
viii. 6.
The condemnation of the first king of Israel sounds like a melancholy
and menacing refrain through the whole history of the Northern
Kingdom.[468] Let us consider the extent and nature of his crime; for
though the condemnation is most true if we judge merely by the issue
of Jeroboam's acts, a man's guilt cannot always be measured by the
immensity of its unforeseen consequences, nor can his actions and
intentions be always fairly judged after the lapse of centuries. The
moral judgments recorded in the Book of Kings concerning legal and
ritual offences are measured by the standard of men's consciences
nearly a century after Josiah's Reformation in B.C. 623, not by that
which prevailed in B.C. 937, when Jeroboam came to the throne. It
seems clear that, even in the opinion of his contemporaries, Jeroboam
was unfaithful to the duties of the call which he had received from
God; but it would be an error to suppose that his sin was, in itself,
so heinous as those of which both Solomon and Rehoboam and other
kings of Judah were guilty. "Calf-worship," as it was contemptuously
called in later days, did not present itself as "calf-worship"
to Jeroboam or his people. To them it was only the more definite
adoration of Jehovah under the guise of the cherubic emblem which
Solomon had himself enshrined in the Temple and Moses himself had
sanctioned in the Tabernacle. There is not a word to show that they
were cognisant of the book which had narrated the fierce reprobation
by Moses of Aaron's "golden calf" in the wilderness. Jeroboam's chief
sin was not that as a king he tolerated, or even set up, a sort of
idolatry, but that he induced the whole body of his subjects to share
in his evil innovations.
The charge brought against him was threefold. First, he set up the
golden calves at Dan and Bethel. Secondly, he "made priests from
among all the people, which were not of the sons of Levi." Thirdly,
he established his "harvest feast" not on the fifteenth day of
the seventh month, which was the Feast of Tabernacles, but on the
fifteenth day of the eighth month. In estimating these sins let us
endeavour--for it is a sacred duty--to be just.
1. We read in the Authorised Version that "he made priests of _the
lowest_ of the people,"[469] and this tends to increase the prejudice
against him. But to have done this wilfully would have been entirely
against his own interests. The more honourable his priests were,
the more was his new worship likely to succeed. The Hebrew only says
that "he made priests of all classes of the people," or, as the
Revised Version renders it, "from among all the people." No doubt
this would appear to have been a heinous innovation, judged from the
practice of later ages; it is not clear that it was equally so in
the days of Jeroboam. If David, unrebuked, made his sons priests; if
Ira the Ithrite was a priest; if Solomon, by his own fiat, altered
the succession of the priesthood; if Solomon (no less than Jeroboam)
arrogated to himself priestly functions on public occasions, the
opinion as to priestly rights may not have existed in the days of
Jeroboam, or may only have existed in an infinitely weaker form than
in the days of the post-exilic chronicler. An incidental notice in
another book shows us that in Dan, at any rate, he did _not_ disturb
the Levitic ministry. There the descendants of Jonathan, the son
of Gershom, the grandson of Moses,[470] continued their priestly
functions from the day when that unworthy descendant of the mighty
lawgiver was seduced to conduct a grossly irregular cult for a few
shillings a year, down to the day when the golden calf at Dan was
carried away by Tiglath-Pileser, King of Assyria. If the Levites
preferred to abide by the ministrations of Jerusalem, and migrated
in large numbers to the south, Jeroboam may have held that necessity
compelled him to appoint priests who were not of the House of Levi.
Neither for this, nor for his new feast of Tabernacles, nor for the
calf-worship, were the kings of Israel condemned (so far as is
recorded) even by such mighty prophets as Elijah and Elisha.
In choosing Dan and Bethel as the seats for his new altars, the
king was not actuated by purely arbitrary considerations. They were
ancient and venerated shrines of pilgrimage and worship (Judg. xviii.
30, xx. 18, 26; 1 Sam. x. 3). He did not create any sacredness which
was not already attached to them in the popular imagination.[471]
In point of fact he would have served the ends of a worldly policy
much better if he had chosen Shechem; for Dan and Bethel were the
two farthest parts of his kingdom. Dan was in constant danger from
the Syrians, and Bethel, which is only twelve miles from Jerusalem,
more than once fell into the hands of the kings of Judah, though they
neither retained possession of it, nor disturbed the shrines, nor
threw down the "calf" of the new worship. Jeroboam could not have
created the "calf-worship" if he had not found everything prepared
for its acceptance. Dan had been, since the earliest days, the seat
of a chapelry and ephod served by the lineal descendants of Moses in
unbroken succession; Bethel was associated with some of the nation's
holiest memories since the days of their forefather Israel.
2. Again, if in Jeroboam's day the Priestly Code was in existence,
he was clearly guilty of unjustifiable wilfulness in altering the
time for observing the Feast of Tabernacles from the seventh to the
eighth month. But if there be little or no contemporary trace of any
observation of the Feast of Tabernacles--if, as Nehemiah tells us,
it had not once been _properly_ observed from the days of Joshua to
his own, or if Jeroboam was unaware of any sacred legislation on
the subject--the writers of the tenth century may have judged too
severely the fixing of a date for the Feast of Ingathering, which
may have seemed more suitable to the conditions of the northern and
western tribes. For in parts of that region the harvest ripens a
month earlier than in Judah, and the festival was meant to be kept at
the season of harvest.[472]
3. These, however, were but incidental and subordinate matters
compared with the setting up of the golden calves.
Jeroboam felt that if his people flocked to do sacrifice at the
new and gorgeous Temple in Jerusalem they would return to their
old monarchy and put him to death. He wished to avoid the fate
of Ishbosheth.[473] He believed that he should be doing both a
popular and a politic act if he saved them from the burden of this
long journey and again decentralised the cult which Solomon had so
recently centralised. He determined, therefore, to furnish the Ten
Tribes with high places, and temples of high places, and objects
of worship which might rival the golden cherubim of Zion, and be
honoured with festal music and royal pomp.
He never dreamed either of apostatising from Jehovah, or of
establishing the worship of idols. He broke the Second Commandment
under pretence of helping the people to keep the first. The images
which he set up were not meant to be _substitutes_ for the one God,
the God of their fathers, the God who had brought them from the
land of Egypt; they were regarded as figures of Jehovah under the
well understood and universally adopted emblem of a young bull, the
symbol of fertility and strength.[474] Some have fancied that he
was influenced by his Egyptian reminiscences, and perhaps by Ano,
his traditional Egyptian bride. That is an obvious error. In Egypt
_living_ bulls were worshipped under the names of Apis and Mnevis,
not idol-figures. Egyptian gods would have been strange reminders of
Him who delivered His people from Egyptian tyranny. It would have
been insensate, by quoting the very words of Aaron, to recall to the
minds of the people the disasters which had followed the worship
of the golden calf in the wilderness.[475] Beyond all question,
Jeroboam neither did nor would have dreamed of bidding his whole
people to abandon their faith and worship Egyptian idols, which never
found any favour among the Israelites. He only encouraged them to
worship Jehovah under the form of the cherubim.[476] Whatever may
have been the aspect of the cherubim in the Oracle of the Temple,
cherubic emblems appeared profusely amid its ornamentation, and the
most conspicuous object in its courts was the molten sea, supported
on the backs of twelve bulls. It is true that later prophets and
poets, like Hosea and the Psalmist, spoke in scorn of his images
as mere "calves," and spoke of him as likening his Maker to "an ox
that eateth hay."[477] They even came in due time to regard them as
figures of Baal and Astarte,[478] but this view is falsified by the
entire annals of the Northern Kingdom from its commencement to its
close. Jeroboam was, and always regarded himself as, a worshipper of
Jehovah. He named his son and destined successor Abijah ("Jehovah is
my Father"). Rehoboam himself was a far worse offender than he was,
so far as the sanction of idolatry was concerned.
And yet he sinned, and yet he made Israel to sin. It is true that
he did not sin against the full extent of the light and knowledge
vouchsafed to men in later days. The sin of which he was guilty was
the sin of worldly policy. With professions of religion on his lips he
pandered to the rude and sensuous instinct which makes materialism in
worship so much more attractive to all weak minds than spirituality.
Proclaiming as his motive the rights of the people, he accelerated
their religious degeneracy. "The means to strengthen or ruin the civil
power," says Lowth, "is either to establish or destroy the right
worship of God. The way to destroy religion is to embase the dispenser
of it.... This is to give the royal stamp to a piece of lead." If we
may trust to Jewish tradition, there were some families in Israel who,
though they clung to their old homes, and would not migrate to the
south, yet refused to worship what is, not quite justly, called "the
heifer Baal."[479] The legendary Tobit (i. 4-7) boasts that "when all
the tribes of Naphthali fell from the house of Jerusalem and sacrificed
to the heifer Baal I alone went often to Jerusalem at the feasts," and,
in general, observed the provisions of the Levitic law.
There seems to have been but little religion in Jeroboam's
temperament. In every other great national gathering at Shechem and
other sacred places we read of religious rites.[480] No mention is
made of them, no allusion occurs respecting them, in the assembly
to which Jeroboam owed his throne. He might at least have consulted
Ahijah, who had given him, when he was still a subject, the Divine
promise and sanction of royalty. He might, had he chosen, have
followed a higher and purer guidance than that of his own personal
misgiving and his own arbitrary will. The error which he committed
was this--he trusted in policy, not in the Living God. "It was,"
says Dean Stanley, "precisely the policy of Abder-Rahman, Caliph of
Spain, when he arrested the movement of his subjects to Mecca, by the
erection of a Holy Place of the Zeca at Cordova, and of Abd-el-Malik
when he built the Dome of the Rock at Jerusalem, because of his
quarrel with the authorities at Mecca." He was not guilty of revolt,
for he acted under prophetic sanction; nor of idolatry, for he did
not abandon the worship of Jehovah; but "he broke the unity and
tampered with the spiritual conception of the national worship.
From worshipping God under a gross material symbol, the Israelites
gradually learnt to worship other gods altogether; and the venerable
sanctuaries of Dan and Bethel prepared the way for the temples
of Ashtaroth and Bethel at Samaria and Jezreel. The religion of
the kingdom of Israel at last sank lower than that of the kingdom
of Judah against which it had revolted. 'The sin of Jeroboam the
son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin,' is the sin again and again
repeated in the policy, half-worldly, half-religious, which has
prevailed through large tracts of ecclesiastical history. Many are
the forms of worship which, with high pretensions, have been nothing
else but so many various and opposite ways of breaking the Second
Commandment. Many a time has the end been held to justify the means,
and the Divine character been degraded by the pretence, or even the
sincere intention, of upholding His cause, for the sake of secular
aggrandisement; for the sake of binding together good systems,
which it was feared would otherwise fall to pieces; for the sake of
supporting the faith of the multitude for fear they should otherwise
fall away to rival sects, or lest the enemy should come and take away
their place and nation. False arguments have been used in support
of religious truths, false miracles promulgated or tolerated, false
readings in the sacred text defended.... And so the faith of mankind
has been undermined by the very means intended to preserve it. The
whole subsequent history is a record of the mode by which, with the
best intentions, Church and nation may be corrupted."
This view of Dean Stanley is confirmed by another wise teacher,
Professor F. D. Maurice. Jeroboam, he says, "did not trust the
Living God. He thought, not that his kingdom stood upon a Divine
_foundation_, but that it was to be upheld by certain Divine props
and _sanctions_. The two doctrines seem closely akin. Many regard
them as identical. In truth there is a whole heaven between them. The
king who believes that his kingdom has a Divine foundation confesses
his own subjection and responsibility to an actual living ruler. The
king who desires to surround himself with Divine sanctions would fain
make himself supreme, knows that he cannot, and would therefore seek
help from the fear men have of an invisible power in which they have
ceased to believe. He wants a God as the support of his authority.
_What_ God he cares very little."
And thus, to quote once more, "the departure from spiritual
principles out of political motives surely leads to destruction, and
is here portrayed for all times."[481]
FOOTNOTES:
[468] It recurs twenty-three times: 1 Kings xiv. 16, xv. 26, 30, 34,
xvi. 2, 19, 26, 31, xxi. 22, xxii. 52; 2 Kings iii. 3, x. 29, 31,
xiii. 2, 6, xiv. 24, xv. 9, 18, 24, 28, xvii. 21, 22, xxiii, 15.
[469] Literally, "_he filled the hand_," because the priests were
consecrated by putting into their hands the parts of the sacrifice
which were to be presented to God on the altar (Exod. xxviii. 41,
xxix. 9-35; Lev. viii. 27).
[470] Such is the true reading. The "Manasseh" of our existing
text is a Jewish falsification of the text timidly and tentatively
introduced to protect the memory of Moses (see Judg. xviii. 26 ff.).
[471] For the sanctity of Bethel, "House of God," where God had twice
appeared to Jacob, see Gen. xxviii. 11-19, xxxv. 9-15. The Ark had
once rested there under Phinehas (Judg. xx. 26-28), and it had been
the home of Samuel (1 Sam. vii. 16). Dan, too, was "a holy city"
(Judg. xviii. 30, 31; Tobit i. 5, 6). In 1 Kings xii. 30 ("the people
went to worship before the one, even unto Dan") some words may have
dropped out. Klostermann adds, "and neglected Bethel"; but is that
the fact? The LXX. adds, καὶ εἲασαν τὸν ἇκον Κυρίου. On the other
hand, the clause has been taken to imply the opposite--_i.e._, that
even as far as Dan some were found who went in preference to Bethel,
"the king's chapel" (Amos vii. 13). In 1 Kings xii. 28 the fairer
rendering would be, "These are thy _God_," not "gods."
[472] Lev. xxiii. 39. There is no hint about the other two annual
feasts of Passover and Pentecost. Josephus implies that Jeroboam's
feast was in the _seventh_ month, as in Judah (_Antt._, VIII. viii. 5).
[473] 2 Sam. iv. 7.
[474] Conceivably there may have been a reference to the heraldic
sign of Ephraim (Deut. xxxiii. 17), as Klostermann supposes.
[475] Exod. xx. 23, xxxii. 4, 8. See Professor Paul Cassel, _König
Jeroboam_, p. 6. The identity of Jeroboam's words with Exod. xxxii. 4
may be due to the narrator.
[476] It has been considered probable that he found an additional
sanction for these material symbols in an ancient existing image at
Gilgal, to which there may be obscure allusion in the Prophet Hosea
(iv. 15, ix. 15).
[477] See 2 Chron. xi. 15, where the chronicler in his flaming hatred
calls them devils (_i.e._, "satyrs," _Feldtäufel_, Isa. xiii. 21;
comp. Hosea viii. 5, xiii. 2). They were probably two young bulls of
brass overlaid with gold (see Psalm cvi. 19; Isa. xl. 19).
[478] Tobit i. 5.
[479] Ἡ δάμαλις Βάαλ. If this be the right reading, not δύναμις,
the feminine implies special scorn, either implying ἡ αἰσχύνη
(_Bosheth_), or pointing, as Baudissin thinks, to an androgynous
deity. Grätz thinks that "Bethel" may be the true reading.
[480] Josh. xxiv. 1; 1 Sam. x. 19; 2 Sam. v. 1-3; 1 Kings viii. 1-5, 62.
[481] Vilmar.
CHAPTER XXVII.
_JEROBOAM, AND THE MAN OF GOD._
1 KINGS xiii. 1-34.
"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether
they are of God."--1 JOHN iv. 1.
"Οὐ γὰρ ἔδει τὸν τῆς θείας ἀκηκοότα φωνῆς ἀνθρωπίνῃ πιστέυσαι
τἀνάντια λεγούσῃ."--THEODORET.
We are told that Jeroboam, whose position probably made him restless
and insecure, first built or fortified Shechem, and then went across
the Jordan and established another palace and stronghold at Penuel.
After this he shifted his residence once more to the beautiful town
of Tirzah,[482] where he built for himself the palace which Zimri
afterwards burnt over his own head. Although the prophet Shemaiah
forbade Rehoboam's attempt to crush him in a great war, Jeroboam
remained at war with him and Abijah all his life, till his reign of
two-and-twenty troubled years ended apparently by a sudden death--for
the chronicler says that "the Lord struck him, and he died."
Nearly all that we know of Jeroboam apart from these incidental
notices is made up of two stories, both of which are believed by
critics to date from a long subsequent age, but which the compiler of
the Book of Kings introduced into his narrative from their intrinsic
force and religious instructiveness.
The first of these stores tells us of the only spontaneous prophetic
protest against his proceedings of which we read. So ancient is this
curious narrative that tradition had entirely forgotten the names of
the two prophets concerned in it. It probably assumed shape from the
dim local reminiscences evoked in the days of Josiah's reformation,
when the grave of a forgotten prophet of Judah was discovered among
the tombs at Bethel, three hundred and twenty years after the events
described.
A nameless man of God--Josephus calls him Jadon, and some have
identified him with Iddo[483]--came out of Judah to atone for the
silence of Israel, and to protest in God's name against the new
worship. His protest, however, is against "the altar." He does
not say a word about the golden calves. Jeroboam, perhaps, at his
dedication festival of the king's shrine at Bethel, was standing
on the altar-slope,[484] as Solomon had done in the Temple, to
burn incense. Suddenly the man of God appeared, and threatened to
the altar the destruction and desecration which subsequently fell
upon it. We cannot be sure that some of the details are not later
additions supplied from subsequent events. Josephus rationalises
the story very absurdly in the style of Paulus. The sign of the
destruction or rending of the altar, and the outpouring of the
ashes,[485] may have been first fulfilled in that memorable
earthquake which became a date in Israel.[486] The desecration which
it received at the hands of Josiah reminded men of the threat of
the unknown messenger.[487] Then we are told that Jeroboam raised
his hand in anger, with the order to secure the bold offender, but
that his arm at once "dried up," and was only restored by the man
of God[488] at the king's entreaty. The king invites the prophet to
go home and refresh himself and receive a reward; but he replies
that not half Jeroboam's house could tempt him to break the command
which he had received to eat no bread neither drink water at Bethel.
An old Israelite prophet was living at Bethel, and his son told
him what had occurred. Struck with admiration by the faithfulness
of the southern man of God, he rode after him to bring him to his
house. He found him seated under "the terebinth"--evidently some aged
and famous tree. When he refused the renewed invitation, the old
man lyingly said to him that he too was a man of God, and had been
bidden by an angel to bring him back. Deceived, perhaps too easily
deceived, the man of God from Judah went back. It would have been
well for him if he had believed that even "an angel of God," or what
may seem to wear such a semblance, may preach a false message, and
may deserve nothing but an anathema.[489] With terrible swiftness
the delusion was dispelled. While he was eating in Bethel, the old
prophet, overcome by an impulse of inspiration, told him that for his
disobedience he should perish and lie in a strange grave. Accordingly
he had not gone far from Bethel when a lion met and killed him, not,
however, mangling or devouring him, but standing still with the ass
beside the carcase.[490] On hearing this the old prophet of Bethel
went and brought back the corpse. He mourned over his victim with the
cry, "Alas, my brother,"[491] and bade his sons that when he died
they should bury him in the same sepulchre with the man of God, for
all that he had prophesied should come to pass.
Josephus adds many idle touches to this story. If in a tale which
assumed its present form so long after the events imaginative details
were introduced, the incident of the lion subserves the moral aim of
the narrative (2 Kings xvii. 25; Jer. xxv. 30, xlix. 19; Wisdom xi.
15-17, etc.). The significance of the story for us is happily neither
historic nor evidential, but it is profoundly moral. It is the lesson
not to linger in the neighbourhood of temptation, nor to be dilatory
in the completion of duty.[492] It is the lesson to be ever on our
guard against the tendency to assume inspired sanction for the conduct
and opinions which coincide with our own secret wishes. Satan finds
it easy to secure our credence when he answers us according to our
idols, and can quote Scripture for our purpose as well as his own; and
God sometimes punishes men by granting them their own desires, and
sending leanness withal into their bones. The man of God from Judah
had received a distinct injunction from which the invitation of a king
had been insufficient to shake him. If the old prophet wilfully lied,
his victim was willingly seduced. We may think his sin venial, his
punishment excessive. It will not seem so unless we unduly extenuate
his sin and unduly exaggerate the nature of his penalty.
His sin consisted in his ready acceptance of a sham inspiration
which came to him from a tainted source, and which he ought to have
suspected because it conceded what he desired. God's indisputable
intimations to our individual souls are not to be set aside except
by intimations no less indisputable. There had been an obvious reason
for the command which God had given. The reason still existed; the
prohibition had not been withdrawn. The sham revelation furnished
him with an excuse; it did not give him a justification. Doubtless
Jadon's first thought was that
"He lied in every word,
That hoary prophet, with malicious eye,
Askance to watch the working of his lie."
Why did he yield so readily? It was for the same reason which causes
so many to sin. "The tempting opportunity" did but meet, as sooner or
later it always _will_ meet, "the susceptible disposition."
Yet his punishment does not justify us in branding him as a weak or a
vicious man. We must judge him and all men, at his best, not at his
worst; in his hours of faithfulness and splendid courage, not in his
moment of unworthy acquiescence.
And his speedy punishment was his best blessing. Who knows what might
not have happened to him if the speck of conventionality and corruption
had been allowed to spread? Who can tell whether in due time he might
not have sunk into something no better than his miserable tempter?
Rather than that we should be in any respect false to our loftiest
ideals, or less noble than our better selves, let the lion meet us,
let the tower of Siloam fall on us, let our blood be mingled with our
sacrifices. Better physical death than spiritual degeneracy.
FOOTNOTES:
[482] Now Talura, six miles north of Nablus.
[483] So, too, Jarchi. No doubt they were guided by the remark in 2
Chron. ix. 29, "the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam." But
it is not possible, for Iddo lived to a later date (2 Chron. xiii.
22). Ephrem Syrus and Tertullian suppose him to have been Shemaiah
(comp. 2 Chron. xii. 5). These are untenable guesses. Epiphanius
calls him Joas; Clement, Abd-adonai; Tertullian, Sameas.
[484] Not "_by_ the altar," as in A.V. LXX., ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον;
Vulg., _super altare_.
[485] The ashes of the animal offerings (דֶּשֶׁן) used to be carried
away to a clean place (Lev. vi. 11).
[486] Amos ix. 1. The Vatican LXX. distinctly makes the sign a
_future_ one (1 Kings xiii. 3), καὶ δώσει ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ τέρας.
The narrative seems to _suppose_, but it does not assert that the
altar was rent _then and there_. Had these miracles immediately
followed, it is difficult to imagine that no deeper impression should
have been made. As it was the new cult does not seem to have been
interrupted for a single day.
[487] The mention by name of a king three centuries before he was even
born is wholly alien from every characteristic of Jewish prophecy,
and, as in the case of Cyrus (Isa. xliv. 28), it would be false to say
that we have even a particle of evidence to show that the name was not
added from a marginal gloss or by the latest redactor. He also makes
the mistake of putting into the old prophet's mouth the phrase "all the
cities of Samaria" at least fifty years before Samaria existed (1 Kings
xvi. 24). Keil's remark that "_Josiah_" is only used appellatively for
one whom Jehovah will support (!) is one of the miserable expedients of
reckless harmonists. Even Bähr, _ad loc._, admits that the narrative
is of later date, and has received a traditional colouring. In 2 Kings
xxiii. 15-18 there is no hint that Josiah had been prophesied of by
name.
[488] 1 Kings xiii. 6, "Intreat now" (_lit._, "make soft") "the face
of the Lord." Klostermann, "Besänftige noch das Angesicht Jahve's."
[489] Gal. i. 8.
[490] Klostermann, in his _Kurzgefasster Kommentar_, gets rid of the
lion altogether by one of his sweeping emendations of the text, p.
352. He considers that the whole story comes from a book of edifying
anecdotes for the use of young prophets in the schools; and that it
may have some connexion with the threat of another Jewish prophet
against the altar at Bethel in the days of another Jeroboam (Amos
iii. 14, vii. 9).
[491] Comp. Jer. xxii. 18.
[492] The older expositors at any rate see in the prophet's rest
under the terebinth, so near Bethel, "peccati initium; moras utique
nectere non debuit." It was like Eve's lingering near the place where
temptation lay.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
_DOOM OF THE HOUSE OF NEBAT._
1 KINGS xiv. 1-20.[493]
"Whom the gods love die young."
"Τὸ παιδίον ἀπέθανεν; ἀπεδόθη."--EPICTET.
The other story about Jeroboam is full of pathos; and though here,
too, there are obvious signs that, in its present form, it could
hardly have come from a contemporary source, it doubtless records an
historic tradition. It is missing in the Septuagint, though in some
copies the blank is supplied from Aquila's version.
Jeroboam was living with his queen at Tirzah when, as a judgment on
him for his neglect of the Divine warning, his eldest and much loved
son, Abijah, fell sick. Torn with anxiety the king asked his wife to
disguise herself that she might not be recognised on her journey,
and to go to Shiloh, where Ahijah the prophet lived,[494] to inquire
about the dear youth's fate. "Take with you," he said, "as a present
to the prophet ten loaves, and some little cakes for the prophet's
children,[495] and a cruse of honey."
Jeroboam remembered that Ahijah's former prophecy had been fulfilled,
and believed that he would again be able to reveal the future, and
say whether the heir to the throne would recover. The queen obeyed;
and if she were indeed the Egyptian princess Ano, it must have been
for her a strange experience. Through the winding valley, she reached
the home of the aged prophet unrecognised. But he had received a
Divine intimation of her errand; and though his eyes were now blind
with the _gutta serena_,[496] he at once addressed her by name when
he heard the sound of her approaching footsteps. The message which
he was bidden to pronounce was utterly terrible; it was unrelieved
by a single gleam of mitigation or a single expression of pity. It
reproached and denounced Jeroboam for faithless ingratitude in that
he had cast God behind his back;[497] it threatened hopeless and
shameful extermination to all his house.[498] His dynasty should be
swept away like dung. The corpses of his children should be left
unburied and be devoured by vultures and wild dogs.[499] The moment
the feet of the queen reached her house the youth should die, and
this bereavement, heavy as it was, should be the sole act of mercy in
the tragedy, for it should take away Abijah from the dreadful days
to come, because in him alone of the House of Jeroboam had God seen
something good. The avenger should be a new king, and all this should
come to pass "even now."[500]
This speech of the prophet is given in a rhythmical form, and has
probably been mingled with later touches. It falls into two strophes
(7-11, 12-16) of 3 + 2 and 2 + 3 verses.[501] The expressions "thou
hast done above _all that were before thee_, for thou hast gone
and made thee _other gods_" (verse 9) hardly suits the case of
Jeroboam; and the omission by the LXX. of the prophecy of Israel's
ultimate captivity, together with the treatment of the prophecy by
Josephus, throw some doubt on verses 9, 15, and 16.[502] They seem to
charge Jeroboam with sanctioning _Asherim_, or wooden images of the
Nature-goddess Asherah, of which we read in the history of Judah,
but which are never mentioned in the acts of Jeroboam, and do not
accord with his avowed policy. These may possibly be due to the forms
which the tradition assumed in later days.
The awful prophecy was fulfilled. As the hapless mother set foot on the
threshold of her palace at beautiful Tirzah the young prince died, and
she heard the wail of the mourners for him.[503] He alone was buried in
the grave of his fathers, and Israel mourned for him. He was evidently
a prince of much hope and promise, and the deaths of such princes have
always peculiarly affected the sympathy of nations. We know in Roman
history the sigh which arose at the early death of Marcellus:--
"Ostendent terris hunc tantum fata neque ultra
Esse sinent. Nimium vobis, Romana propago,
Visa potens, superi, propria hæc si dona fuissent,
Heu miserande puer, si qua fata aspera rumpas
Tu Marcellus eris."[504]
We know the remark of Tacitus as he contemplates the deaths of
Germanicus, Caius, and Drusus, Piso Licinianus, Britannicus, and Titus,
"_breves atque infaustos Populi Romani amores_." We know how, when
Prince William was drowned in the _White Ship_, Henry of England never
smiled again; and how the nation mourned the deaths of Prince Alfonso,
of the Black Prince, of Prince Arthur, of Prince Henry, of the Princess
Charlotte, of the Duke of Clarence and Avondale. But these untimely
deaths of youths in their early bloom, before their day,
"Impositique rogis juvenes ante ora parentum,"
are not half so deplorable as the case of those who have grown up
like Nero to blight every hope which has been formed of them. When
Louis le _Bien-Aimé_ lay ill of the fever at Metz which seemed likely
to be fatal, all France wept and prayed for him. He recovered, and
grew up to be that portent of selfish boredom and callous sensuality,
Louis XV. It was better that Abijah should die than that he should
live to be overwhelmed in the shameful ruin which soon overtook his
house. It was better far that he should die than that he should grow
up to frustrate the promise of his youth. He was beckoned by the
hand of God "because in him was found some good thing towards the
Lord God of Israel." We are not told wherein the goodness consisted,
but Rabbinic tradition guessed that in opposition to his father he
discountenanced the calf-worship and encouraged and helped the people
to continue their visits to Jerusalem. Such a king might indeed
have recovered the whole kingdom, and have dispossessed David's
degenerate line. But it was not to be. The fiat against Israel had
gone forth, though a long space was to intervene before it was
fulfilled. And God's fiats are irrevocable, because with Him there is
no changeableness neither shadow of turning.
"The moving finger writes, and, having writ,
Moves on; nor all thy piety nor wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a line,
Nor all thy tears wash out a word of it."
But the passage about Abijah has a unique preciousness, because it
stands alone in Scripture as an expression of the truth that early
death is no sign at all of the Divine anger, and that the length or
brevity of life are matters of little significance to God, seeing
that, at the best, the longest life is but as one tick of the clock
in the eternal silence. The promise to filial obedience, "that thy
days may be long," in the Fifth Commandment is primarily national;
and although undoubtedly "length of days" then, as now, was regarded
as a blessing,[505] yet the blessing is purely relative, and wholly
incommensurate with others which affect the character and the life to
come. This passage may be the consolation of many thousands of hearts
that ache for some dear lost child. "Is it well with the child?" "It is
well!" The story of Cleobis and Biton shows how fully the wisest of the
ancients had recognised the truth that early death may be a boon of God
to save His children from being snared in the evil days. "Honourable
age," says the Book of Wisdom, "is not that which standeth in length of
time, nor that is measured by number of years. But wisdom is the grey
hair unto men, and an unspotted life is old age. He pleased God, and
was beloved of Him: so that living among sinners he was translated.
Yea, speedily was he taken away, lest that wickedness should alter his
understanding, or deceit beguile his soul.... He, being made perfect
in a short time, fulfilled a long time: for his soul pleased the Lord:
therefore He hastens to take him away from among the wicked."[506] It
is the truth so beautifully expressed by Seneca: "_Vita non quam diu
sed quam bene acta refert_"; by St. Ambrose: "_Perfecta est ætas, ubi
perfecta est virtus_"; by Shakspeare:--
"The good die early,
And they whose hearts are dry as summer dust
Burn to the socket;"
and by Ben Jonson:--
"It is not growing like a tree
In bulk, doth make man better be:
Or standing long an oak, three hundred year,
To fall, a log at last, dry, bald, and sere:
A lily of a day
Is fairer far in May,
Although it fall and die that night--
It was the plant and flower of Light.
In small proportions we just beauties see,
And in short measures life may perfect be."
It is recorded also on the tomb of a gallant youth, in Westminster
Abbey, "Francis Holles, who died at eighteen years of age after noble
deeds":--
"Man's life is measured by the work, not days;
Not aged sloth, but active youth, hath praise."
FOOTNOTES:
[493] "'Whom the gods love die young' was said of yore" (Byron). It
was said by Menander: "Ὃν γὰρ θεοὶ φιλοῦσιν ἀποθνήσκει νεὸς"; and by
Plautus: "Quem dii diligunt, adolescens moritur" (_Bacch._, iv. 7,
18). A similar thought is found in Plutarch, in St. Chrysostom, and
many others.
[494] Ahijah had not followed the example of the Levites and pious
persons who, the chronicler says, went in numbers to the Southern
Kingdom.
[495] Nikuddim (only elsewhere in Josh. ix. 5-12); LXX., κολλυρίδες;
Vulg., _crustula_; A.V., "cracknels." They were some sort of cakes.
Presents to prophets were customary (see 1 Sam. ix. 7, 8; 1 Kings
xiii. 7; 2 Kings v. 5, viii. 8, 9).
[496] Heb., "His eyes stood" (comp. 1 Sam. iv. 15). It seems to imply
_amaurosis_.
[497] This tremendous expression only occurs elsewhere in Ezek.
xxiii. 35; but comp. Psalm l. 17; Neh. ix. 26.
[498] The coarse expression of 1 Kings xiv. 10 (1 Sam. xxv. 22; 2
Kings ix. 8) means "every male." The phrase "him that is shut up
and him that is left in Israel" (Deut. xxxii. 36) is obscure and
alliterative. It has been variously explained to mean, (1) "bond and
free," (2) "imprisoned or released," (3) "kept in by legal impurity
or at large" (Jer. xxxvi. 5), (4) "under or over age," (5) "married
or unmarried." (Reuss renders the paronomasia, "qu'il soit caché
ou lâché en Israel.") LXX. ἐχόμενον καὶ ἐγκαταλελειμμένον; Vulg.
_clausum et novissimum_.
[499] In ancient days this was regarded as the most terrible of
calamities.
"Ἀλλ' ἄρα τόγγε κύνες τε καὶ οἰωνοὶ κατέδαψαν
Κείμενον ἐν πεδίῳ ἑκὰς ἄστεος, οὐδέ κέ τίς μιν
Κλαῦσεν Ἀχαιΐάδων· μάλα γὰρ μέγα μήσατο ἔργον."
Hom., _Od._, iii. 258.
Comp. Deut. xxviii. 26; 1 Sam. xvii. 44, 45. And after in Jeremiah
(vii. 33, viii. 2, ix. 22, etc.) and Ezekiel (xxix. 5, xxxix. 17, etc.).
[500] 1 Kings xiv. 14: "That day: but what? even now."
[501] It is almost identical with the message of doom pronounced on
other kings, like Baasha (1 Kings xvi. 3-5) and Ahab (1 Kings xxi.
19-23).
[502] Ewald pronounces them to be clearly an addition of the
Deuteronomist.
[503] LXX., εἰς γῆν Σαριρά. The additions to the LXX. have the
touching incident, "Καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὴν Σαριρὰ καὶ τὸ
παιδάειον ἀπέθανεν, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἡ κραυγὴ εἰς ἀπαντήν."
[504] Verg., _Æn._, vi. 870.
[505] See Job xii. 12; Psalm xxi. 4; Prov. iii. 2-16.
[506] Wisdom iv. 8-14.
CHAPTER XXIX.
_NADAB; BAASHA; ELAH._
1 KINGS xv. 25-xvi. 10.
"Wheresoever the carcase is, there will the vultures be gathered
together."--MATT. xxiv. 28.
Jeroboam slept with his fathers and went to his own place, leaving
behind him his dreadful epitaph upon the sacred page. His son Nadab
succeeded him. In his reign of twenty-two years the first king of
Israel had outlived Rehoboam and his son Abijah. Asa, the great
grandson of Solomon, was already on the throne of Judah. Of Nadab we
are told next to nothing. The appreciation of the kings of Israel
tends to drift into the meagre formula that they did that which was
evil in the sight of the Lord, and walked in the way of Jeroboam,
the son of Nebat, and in his sin wherewith he caused Israel to sin.
In the second year of his reign Nadab was engaged in a wearisome
military expedition against Gibbethon in the Shephelah, which
belonged to the Philistines. It was a Levitical city in the tribe
of Dan, which had been assigned to the Kohathites, and its siege
continued for twenty-seven years with no apparent result.[507] That
the Philistines, who had been so utterly crushed by David and who
were an insignificant power, should have thus been able to assert
themselves once more, is a proof of the weakness to which Israel had
been reduced. While Nadab was thus occupied, an obscure conspirator,
Baasha, son of Ahijah, of the tribe of Issachar,[508] actuated
perhaps by tribal jealousy, or stirred up as Jeroboam had been before
him and as Jehu was after him by some prophetic message, conspired
against him, and slew him.[509] As soon as this military revolt had
placed Baasha on the throne he fulfilled the frightful curse which
Ahijah had uttered against the House of Jeroboam. He absolutely
exterminated the family of Nebat, and left him neither kinsman nor
friend to avenge his death. He seems to have been a powerful soldier,
and he inflicted severe humiliation on the Southern Kingdom until
Asa bribed Benhadad to invade his territory. He reigned at Tirzah
for twenty-four years, of which nothing is recorded but the ordinary
formula. Towards the close of his reign he received from the prophet
Jehu, the son of Hanani, the message of his doom. Jehu must have
been at this time a young prophet. According to the Chronicles
his father Hanani rebuked Asa for the alliance which (as we shall
see) he made with the Syrian against Baasha;[510] and he himself
rebuked Jehoshaphat for his alliance with Ahab, and lived to be his
annalist.[511] Like Amos, he lived in Judah, but prophesied also
against a king of Israel. He told Baasha that God, who had exalted
him out of the dust to be king of Israel, should inflict on his
family the same terrible extirpation which He had inflicted on the
House of Jeroboam, whose sins he had, nevertheless, followed.
Baasha "slept with his fathers," and his son Elah succeeded him.
Elah seems to have been an incapable drunkard, and reigned in Tirzah
for less than two years. While he was drinking himself drunk, not
even secretly in his own palace, but in the house of his chamberlain
Arza--a shamelessness which was regarded as an aggravation of his
offence[512]--he was murdered by Zimri, the captain of half of his
chariots, and the revolting tragedy of massacre was enacted once
again.[513] The fact that Baasha was a man of no distinction, but
"exalted _out of the dust_" (1 Kings xvi. 2), probably added to the
weakness of his dynasty.
From such meagre records of horror there is not much to learn beyond
the general truth of the Nemesis which dogs the heels of crime; but
there is one significant clause which throws great light on the
judgment which we are asked to form of these events. The prophet Jehu
rebukes Baasha for showing himself false to the destiny to which
God had summoned him. He implies, therefore, that Baasha had some
Divine sanction for the revolution which he headed; and certainly
in his slaughter of the House of Jeroboam he was the instrument of
a Divine decree. Yet we are expressly told that "he provoked the
Lord to anger with the work of his hands, in being like the House of
Jeroboam, _and because he killed him_," or, as it is rendered in the
Revised Version margin, "_because he smote it_." This is not the only
place where we find that a man may be in _one sense_ commissioned
to do a deed of blood, yet in another sense may be held guilty for
fulfilment of the commission.[514] The prophecy of extirpation had
been passed, but the cruel agent of its accomplishment was not
thereby condoned. God's decrees are carried out as part of the vast
scheme of Providence, and He may use guilty hands to fulfil His
purposes. King Jehu is His minister of vengeance, but the tiger-like
ferocity with which he carried out his work awoke God's anger and
received God's punishment. The King of Babylon fulfils the purpose
for which he had been appointed, but his ruthlessness receives its
just recompense. The wrath of man may accomplish the decrees of God,
but it worketh not His righteousness. Herod and Pontius Pilate, Jews
and Gentiles, priests and Pharisees, rulers and the mob may rage
against Christ, but all they can accomplish is "whatsoever God's hand
and God's counsel determine before to be done."
FOOTNOTES:
[507] Josh. xix. 44, xxi. 23; 1 Kings xv. 27, xvi. 15.
[508] His father therefore could not have been Ahijah the prophet,
who was an Ephraimite. He was the only ruler who came from slothful
Issachar (Gen. xlix. 14, 15) except the unknown Tola (Judg. x. 1).
[509] For any other records of Nadab the writer refers to "the
Chronicles of the Kings of Israel."
[510] 2 Chron. xvi. 7-10.
[511] 2 Chron. xx. 34.
[512] Comp. Hosea vii. 3-7.
[513] If Zimri was a descendant of the House of Saul, as is possible
from the occurrence of the name in the number of Saul's descendants
(1 Chron. viii. 36), we perhaps see an excuse for his ill-considered
conspiracy. He acted, says Grotius, upon the principle, "Νήπιος ὃς
πατέρα κτείνας υιοὺς καταλείπει."
[514] Comp. 2 Kings ix. 7 with Hosea i. 4. Thus Babylon is at once
commissioned to punish, and condemned for ruthlessness: Isa. xlvii. 6.
CHAPTER XXX.
_THE EARLIER KINGS OF JUDAH._
1 KINGS xiv. 21-31, xv. 1-24.
The history of "_the Jews_" begins, properly speaking, from the reign
of Rehoboam, and for four centuries it is mainly the history of the
Davidic dynasty.
The only records of the son of Solomon are meagre records of
disaster and disgrace. He reigned seventeen years, and his mother,
the Ammonitess Naamah, occupied the position of queen-mother.[515]
She was, doubtless, a worshipper in the shrine which Solomon had
built for her national god, Molech of Ammon, who was the same as the
Ashtar-Chemosh of the Moabite stone--the male form of Ashtoreth.[516]
Whether her son was twenty-one or forty-one when he succeeded to the
throne we do not know.[517] His attempted expedition against Jeroboam
was forbidden by Shemaiah;[518] but ineffectual and distressing
war smouldered on between the Northern and Southern Kingdoms. If
Jeroboam sinned by the erection in the old sanctuaries of the two
golden calves, Rehoboam surely sinned far more heinously. He not
only sanctioned the high places--which in him may have been very
venial, since they held their own unchallenged till the days of
Hezekiah--but he allowed stone obelisks (_Matstseboth_) in honour of
Baal, and pillars (_Chammanim_) of the Nature-goddess (_Asherah_)
to be set up on every high hill and under every green tree.[519]
Worse than this, and a proof of the abyss of corruption into which
the evil example of Solomon had beguiled the nation, there were
found in the land the _Kedeshim_, the infamous eunuch-ministers of
a most foul worship.[520] In spite of Temple and priesthood, "they
did according to all the abominations of the nations which the Lord
drave out before the children of Israel."[521] Since Rehoboam thus
sinned so much more heinously than his northern compeer we can hardly
admire the conduct of the Levites, who, according to the chronicler,
fled southward in swarms from the innovations of the son of Nebat.
The Scylla of calf-worship was incomparably less shameful than the
Charybdis of these heathen abominations.