THE REVOLT OF AND THE OF SOLOMON.—The first chapter of this book is occupied with the accession of Solomon and with the circumstances which preceded, marked, and followed that event. The author, or compiler, evidently considered that his work properly began with the reign of Israel’s third king, and David’s illness and death are only introduced into the narrative because they necessitated a hasty and premature coronation of Solomon, and exercised an important influence on the beginning of his reign (1 Kings 2:1-46). In the natural order of events, Solomon would not have succeeded until his father’s death, but Adonijah’s attempt to possess himself of the kingdom required the immediate elevation of Solomon to the throne, and this attempt having been suggested by David’s extreme feebleness, the author is compelled to begin his history with an account of David’s decay and death. In the opening verses, consequently, he introduces us into the chamber of sickness. His materials for this part of the history were no doubt derived from the "Book of Nathan the prophet" (1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29). The date of these events is B.C. 1015. 1 Kings 1:1 Now [Hebrews and, but "now" more nearly expresses the import of the original, for å has here little or no connecting force. It is commonly found at the beginning of a book (as in Exodus, Leviticus, Joshua, Judges, 2 Samuel, Ruth, etc.), and that where there is no connection whatever with any earlier writing (as in Esther, Ezekiel, Jonah, etc.) It can hardly imply, therefore, "that the historian regards his work as a continuation of a preceding history" (Rawlinson), nor is there any need to suppose that it has been taken from a writing containing the earlier history of David." Keil] King [Hebrews the king. The frequent use of this title, "King David," "King Solomon," "King Asa," etc; is characteristic of our author. The expression is not unknown in 2 Samuel, but it occurs so rarely as to constitute a distinction (not a link, as Wordsworth) between that book and the Kings.] David was old [yet 2 Samuel 5:4, 2 Samuel 5:5, shows that he cannot have been more than seventy. (He was thirty at his accession; his reign at Hebron lasted seven years and a half; at Jerusalem thirty-three years.) Rawlinson says, "the Jews at this time were not long lived." Certainly, the Jewish kings were not. Only David, Solomon, and Manasses exceeded threescore] and stricken [Hebrews gone, i.e; advanced] in years. [A common expression, only found with זָקֵןas in Genesis 18:11; Genesis 24:1; Joshua 13:1, etc.] And they covered him with clothes [lit. coverings. בֶּגֶד is used of any covering, whether of the person (Genesis 39:12; 1 Kings 22:10), or the bed (1 Samuel 19:13), or even a table (Numbers 4:6). Indeed, the outer garment was used, at least by the poor, for a covering at night (Exodus 22:27). The context (verse 47) shows that bedclothes are intended here] but he gat no heat. [A common experience of the aged. David’s early hardships and later sorrows and anxieties appear to have aged him prematurely. Possibly he was also afflicted with disease.] 1 Kings 1:2 Wherefore [Heb. and] his servants [according to Josephus (Antiq. 7.14, 3), his physicians] said unto him, Let there be sought [lit. as marg; "let them seek"] for my lord the king [the singular pronoun is used as representing the servant who was spokesman for the rest] a young virgin [marg; "a damsel, a virgin." She must be young, to impart heat, and a virgin, as befitted a king. Though she was recommended as a nurse, they would naturally suppose she might be taken as a concubine] and let her stand before the king [i.e; as servant (Verse 4). Cf. 1 Kings 12:6, 1 Kings 12:8; Genesis 41:46; Daniel 1:5; Deuteronomy 1:38 (with Joshua 1:1) 1 Kings 10:8. In the East, servants still stand and wait their masters’ pleasure. Cf. 2 Kings 5:25], and let her cherish him [So also the LXX; καὶἔσταιαὐτὸνθάλπουσα. But Gesenius, al, "be a companion to him"] and let her lie in thy [or "his," LXX. αυτοῦ, Vulg. sue] bosom [the expression is generally, but not invariably (see 1 Kings 3:20; Rth 4:16) used de complexu venereo] that my lord the king may get heat. [This close embrace of youth was an obvious way of imparting animal heat to age ("Color a corpore juvenili ac sane maxime prodest senibus." Grotius), and was the more favoured because other and internal remedies were not then known. It is recognized by Galen, and is said to have been prescribed by a Jewish physician to the Emperor Frederick Bar-baressa (Bähr). It is stated by Roberts that it is still largely followed in the East.] 1 Kings 1:3 So [Heb. and] they sought (cf. Esther 2:2), for a fair [this word points to the same conclusion as "virgin" in per. 2] damsel throughout all the coasts [i.e; borders (costa = rib, side). An old writer speaks of the "coasts and quarters of heaven"] of Israel, and found Abishag [= "Father of error." Names compounded with Ab, "father," were and are very common in the East. We have, e.g; Ab-salom in Per. 6, and Abi-athar in Per. 7] a [Heb. the] Shunammite [Shunem, a town of Issachar (Joshua 19:18), now called Solam, "a flourishing village encompassed by gardens" (Porter), and "in the midst of the finest cornfields in the,world" (Grove), lies on the lower slope of "Little Hermon," and has before it the wide plain of Esdraelon. Another Shunammite appears in the sacred history (2 Kings 4:8)] and brought her to the king. 1 Kings 1:4 And the damsel was very fair [lit. ,fair to exceeding] and cherished [see on 1 Kings 1:2] the king, and ministered to him; but the king knew her not. [This is mentioned to explain the history of 1 Kings 2:13-25. Had it been otherwise, Adonijah could never have presumed to seek her in marriage, and Bathsheba would never have promised her help in his suit. Such an incestuous alliance would not only have been contrary to the law (Leviticus 1 Kings 18:8), but abhorrent to all true Israelites (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:1). In this fact, which the court knew, and which the nation at large did not know—they could only suppose that such a "search" for one so exceeding "fair" meant the increase of the seraglio—Adonijah found his point d’appui for a second attempt on the throne. The older expositors and some of the modern, notably Wordsworth, assume that Abishag was David’s wife, in the sense of being legally married to him. (Corn. A Lap. discusses the question at considerable length, and with needless pruriency.) But this idea finds no support in Scripture, which represents her as simply an attendant. It is idle to remark, consequently, that "the Jewish law allowed polygamy" (Rawlinson). 1 Kings 1:5 Then Adonijah [="Jehovah is my Lord." The fourth son of David, and now apparently the eldest surviving. It seems probable that Chileab, or Daniel (1 Chronicles 3:1), David’s second son, died in infancy. For Amnon’s death, see 2 Samuel 13:29; for Absalom’s, 2 Samuel 18:14. He must now have been between thirty-three and forty years of age (having been born in Hebron)] the son of Haggith [= "Festive" (Gesen.) "the dancer" (Stanley)] exalted himself, saying [to him self and his confederates], I will be king. [It is not difficult to trace this resolve to its sources. They were (1) his seniority (1 Kings 2:22). It is true there was no "right of primogeniture" in the Hebrew monarchy. "The God King had reserved to Himself the choice of the earthly king" (Keil). David himself was not the eldest, but the youngest brother. At the same time primogeniture, ceteris paribus, would have, and as a matter of fact had, considerable weight. The firstborn had the birthright; can we doubt he would expect the crown, and think it hard if he were passed over? (see 2 Chronicles 21:3). (2) His personal attractions. Adonijah would think that his beauty and stature (Josephus mentions the latter) marked him out, as similar gifts had done Saul (1 Samuel 9:2),. for the throne. (3) He was encouraged in his pretensions, if indeed they were not suggested to him, by others, by Joab, for example (see on 2 Samuel 18:7). (4) Possibly love for the beautiful Shunammite and the desire to gain possession of her may have strengthened his resolves. It is noteworthy that he and his beauty are mentioned just after her and hers]: and he prepared [Hebrews made] him chariots and horsemen [rather horses, as in 1 Samuel 8:11; 1 Kings 5:6, Hebrews The former passage almost settles the meaning here. Keil assumes that a mounted escort is meant], and fifty men to run before him [as Absalom before him (2 Samuel 15:1). Adonijah seems in every way to have imitated Absalom. Josephus says he resembled him in disposition. Chariots, horses, and outrunners are mentioned (1 Samuel 8:11) as the very first of the king’s insigina. Horses were such natural and familiar tokens of royal state (not being employed in agriculture or for travelling), that the Hebrew kings were warned (Deuteronomy 17:16) against multiplying them. Outrunners again, such as the Roman emperors had (called by them cursores), and such as we find at the present day in Egypt, footmen who precede the chariot at full speed, and by their shrill cries clear the way, are admirably calculated to impress the public mind. According to Morier, "runners before the king’s horse in Persia are indispensable to the royal state." Adonijah hoped by this display of regal pomp to win the suffrages of the people.] 1 Kings 1:6 And his father had not displeased [or pained, afflicted. The LXX. has ἀπεκώλυσεν] him at any time [Hebrews from his days, i.e; all his days, LXX. οὐδέποτε, Vulg. a diebus ejus. Sein Lebtage (Bähr). Some (Seb. Schmiat, e.g.) would understand since the days of his ambition and display"] in saying, Why hast thou done so? and he also [i.e; he also, as well as Absalom, mentioned presently; or, possibly, he as well as Abishag just mentioned. Bähr’s rendering, "Und dazu war er sehr schon," etc. "And moreover he" was, etc. will not stand] was a very goodly man [cf. 2 Samuel 14:25. This accounted in part not only for his ambition, but also for his following]; and his mother [the two last words are not in the original, which simply has "and she bare," יָלְדָה. There is no need, Thenius, to read, יָלַד genuit, or with others, הוֹלִיד. We have a similar ellipsis in Numbers 26:59. The meaning is quite clear, viz; that Haggith bare Adonijah to David next after Maachah bore him Absalom. This fact is mentioned to show that he was the eldest surviving son; and it shows therefore that seniority counted for something (cf. 1 Kings if. 25)] bare him after Absalom. 1 Kings 1:7 And he conferred [Hebrews "his words were" (2 Samuel 3:17, Hebrews)] with Joab [Joab’s share in this conspiracy, despite his hitherto unwavering fidelity to David, is easily accounted for. He must have known that he was under David’s displeasure, and he must have feared, too, that he would be an object of dislike and distrust to a successor trained, as Solomon had been, under David’s and Nathan’s immediate influence. He could hardly be unconscious that under a new reign his position—unless he took measures to assure it—would be a precarious one. He resolved, therefore, to secure himself by helping Adonijah to his throne. It is also highly probable that Adonijah’s ambitious character was much more to his liking than that of the pious and pacific Solomon. Adonijah’s physical qualities, again, would no doubt commend him to this rough soldier, who may also have sympathised with him as the eldest son. And there may have been other circumstances (such, e.g; as close personal friendship), of which we know nothing] the son of Zeruiah, and with Abiathar [in 2 Samuel 8:17, we read that "Ahimelech son of Abiathar" was priest. Similarly, 1 Chronicles 24:6. An obvious transposition] the priest. ["Abiathar’s defection is still more surprising" than Joab’s (Rawlinson). It is certainly remarkable, when we consider the close ties which subsisted between Abiathar and David, ties which were cemented by the blood of eighty-five persons (1 Samuel 22:18), and strengthened by the many afflictions which they had shared in common (ibid. 1 Chronicles 24:23 to 1 Kings 28.; 2 Samuel 15:24-29), that he should have joined in a plot to defeat David’s cherished hopes and plans—plans, too, which he must surely have known, had the sanction of religion (1 Chronicles 28:5), and there must have been some powerful motive to account for this. May we not find one in jealousy of Zadok, who had for some time been associated with him in the priesthood, who is generally mentioned first (2 Samuel 8:17; 2 Samuel 15:29, 2 Samuel 15:35, 2 Samuel 15:36; 2 Samuel 20:25). as if he were the more important and influential, and whose advancement, after the prophecy of 1 Samuel 2:33-36, Abiathar could not contemplate without suspicion and dread. Is it not highly probable that among the "words" Adonijah had with him was a promise to restore the priesthood to his family exclusively, as the reward of his allegiance]: and they following Adonijah helped him. 1 Kings 1:8 But Zadok the priest [2 Samuel 8:17. It is generally said to be difficult to explain "how Zadok and Abiathar came both to be "priests at this time." Rawlinson, who adds that "the best explanation is that Abiathar was the real high priest," officiating in Zion, while Zadok acted as chief priest at the tabernacle at Gibeon. (Bהhr, by a strange oversight, assigns to Zadok the care of the ark on Mount Zion, whereas 1 Chronicles 16:39, distinctly connects his ministry with the tabernacle of witness at Gibeon.) But the precedence (see on 2 Samuel 8:7) generally assigned to Zadok is hardly consistent with the idea that Abiathar was "the real high priest." The fact is that a duality of high priests, associated, apparently, on pretty equal terms, was not unknown in Jewish history. The cases of Eleazer and Ithamar, Hophni and Phinehas, Annas and Caiaphas, will occur to all. 2 Kings 25:18, speaks of "the chief priest" and "the second priest;" 2 Chronicles 31:10, of the "chief priest of the house of Zadok." And a dual priesthood would be the more necessary in David’s days, because of the two sanctuaries, Zion and Gibeon. We find, however, from 1 Chronicles 15:11, that Zadok was already priest at the time of the bringing up of the ark. And the true explanation, no doubt, is that Zadok had succeeded some member of his family, in all probability Jehoiada, called in 1 Chronicles 12:27, "the leader of Aaron" (Hebrews), who had certainly been high priest in the time of Saul (1 Chronicles 27:5), and who would hardly be degraded when, with 3700 followers, he joined David at Hebron. On his decease, or cession of orifice, Zadok, who had joined at the same time with a large contingent,was associated with Abiathar in the priest’s office. This dual arrangement, consequently, was the result of David’s having taken over a high priest from Saul, together with the kingdom, when he had Abiathar as priest already,] and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, [i.e; Jehoiada the high priest (1 Chronicles 27:5). Benaiah was consequently a Levite, and of the family of Aaron; set, however, by David, because of his prowess (2 Samuel 23:20, 2 Samuel 23:21; 1 Chronicles 11:22) over the bodyguard (2 Samuel 8:18; 1 Chronicles 18:17). Probably he was a near relative of Zadok.], and Nathan the prophet [a Jewish tradition makes Nathan the eighth son of Jesse. He comes before us 2 Samuel 7:2, 2 Samuel 7:3, 2 Samuel 7:17; 2 Samuel 12:1-12, 2 Samuel 12:25] and Shimei [by Ewald identified with Shammah (1 Samuel 16:9), or Shimeah, David’s brother (2 Samuel 13:3; 2 Samuel 21:21). Others suppose him to be the Shimei of 1 Kings 4:18. But see note on 1 Kings 2:8. Josephus calls Shimei (not Rei, as Bהhr states) ὁΔαυίδουφίλος], and Rei [this name occurs here only. Ewald would identify him with Raddai (1 Chronicles 2:14), another brother of David, but on very slender grounds], and the mighty men [or heroes. Gesen. "chiefs." Not the 600 men who formed David’s band in his wanderings (1 Samuel 25:13; 1 Samuel 27:2) (Rawlinson), but the 30 (or 37) to whom this name of Gibborim is expressly given, 2 Samuel 23:8; 1 Chronicles 11:15, 1 Chronicles 11:25; 1 Chronicles 29:24. Comp. 2 Kings 10:25, Hebrews] which belonged to David [same expression as in 2 Samuel 23:8] were not with Adonijah. 1 Kings 1:9 And Adonijah slew [or sacrificed, LXX. ἐθυσίασεν. It was a sacrificial feast, like Absalom’s, 2 Samuel 15:12 (where see Speaker’s note). Religious festivity, i.e; was the apparent object of their assembling: religion was invoked, not merely to cloke their designs, but to cement them together] sheep and oxen and fat cattle by [Hebrews with; same expression, 2 Samuel 20:8] the stone of Zoheleth, [i.e.,"the serpent" (Gesen.) "No satisfactory explanation has been given of this name" (Rawlinson). See Smith’s "Dict. Bible" sub voc; where the various interpretations are given. The stone, which served as "a natural altar for the sacrificial feast," the spring, which afforded "water for the necessary ablutions," and the situation with respect to the adjoining city recommended this place as a rendezvous] which is by En-Rogel [Joshua 15:7; Joshua 18:16; 2 Samuel 17:17. Perhaps "the spring of the spy." The Chald; Arab; and Syr. render "the spring, of the fuller"—the Orientals wash clothes, etc; by treading (rogel) them. Josephus says it was without the city, in the royal garden (ἐνβασιλικῷπαραδείσῳ). The authorities are divided between the "Fountain of the virgin" (Ain um ed-Deraj), and the "Well of Job" (Bir Eyub.) See the arguments in Bonar’s "Land of Promise," App. 5; Thomson’s "Land and Book," vol. 2 p. 528; and Mr. Grove’s Art. in Smith’s "Dict. Bib." Porter ("Handbook of Palestine ") identifies En-Rogel with Bir Eyub without remark. There is much to be said on either side. The pool of Siloam ("Bib. Museum") has nothing in its favour] and called all his brethren the king’s sons [including, it would seem, even the elder sons of David and Bathsheba, who would bring up the number to fifteen (1 Chronicles 3:5). They too, if living, would naturally resent the preference of the youngest brother], and all the men of Judah, the king’s servants ["all the Judeans who were serving at court, as being members of his own tribe" (Keil). The fierce jealousy between Ephraim and Judah would almost compel the king to surround himself with soldiers and attendants of the latter tribe. Some of the invited guests, no doubt, like Absalom’s two hundred, "went in their simplicity and knew not anything" (2 Samuel 15:11). 1 Kings 1:10 But Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah, and the mighty men, and Solomon his brother, he called not. [It is clear from this verse that Adonijah perfectly understood that he had in Solomon a rival. The intentions and promises (1 Kings 1:13) of his father can hardly have been unknown to him. The name "Jedidiah, too, bestowed upon Solomon by Nathan (2 Samuel 12:25), taken in connexion with the prophecy of Nathan (ibid. 1 Kings 7:12; cf. 1 Chronicles 22:9, 1 Chronicles 22:10), must have proved to him that Solomon was marked out for David’s successor. He seems to have been well aware also who were Solomon’s supporters. To some of them he may have made indirect overtures. The historian having recorded Adonijah’s preparations for a coup d’etat, now relates the manner in which the plot was frustrated. The prophet, who had been the guardian and preceptor of Solomon’s youth, and who knew the Divine will respecting the succession (1 Chronicles 22:9, 1 Chronicles 22:10), takes prompt and energetic measures to defeat the conspiracy. 1 Kings 1:11 Wherefore Nathan spake unto Bathsheba the mother of Solomon [the person after Solomon most directly concerned and also best fitted to approach the king] saying, Hast thou not heard that Adonijah tile son of Haggith [possibly there is a touch of worldly wisdom here, as Rawlinson suggests, "Haggith, thy rival." We may be sure David’s harem was not without its fierce jealousies. But (see 1 Kings 1:5, and 1 Kings 2:13) the patronymic is so common in Hebrews that we cannot safely found an argument upon it. See on Hebrews 2:5] doth reign [Hebrews did reign. LXX. ἐβασίλευσαεν, aor. = "succeeded." "Schon so gut wie Konig geworden ist." Bähr and Keil] and David our Lord knoweth it not. 1 Kings 1:12 Now therefore come, let me give [Hebrews counsel] thee counsel, that thou mayest save [Hebrews and save, i.e; by acting upon it] thine own life, and the life of thy son Solomon. The custom of Eastern kings—to secure their thrones by a massacre of their rivals—has received many illustrations, notably among the Ottomans, and is receiving one in Burmah at the present moment. We have Scripture instances in Judges 9:5; 1 Kings 15:29; 2 Kings 10:7, 2 Kings 10:14; 2 Kings 11:1 (cf. 1 Samuel 24:21). To put a royal mother to death, along with her offspring, though perhaps unusual, was not unknown. Rawlinson cites the instances of Cleopatra, widow of Philip of Macedon, who was murdered with her infant son Caranus by Olympias; and Roxana, widow of Alexander the Great, who, with her son, was put to death by Cassander. Nathan does not say this will be, but may be, Bathsheba’s fate. 1 Kings 1:13 Go and get thee in [Hebrews come] unto king David, and say unto him, Didst not thou, my lord, O king swear unto thine handmaid [this oath of David’s to Bathsheba (see verses 17, 30) is not elsewhere recorded, but it was evidently well known to Nathan, and probably, therefore, to others also] saying, Assuredly [Hebrews that, כִי, recitantis] Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he [emphatic] shall sit upon my throne? why therefore doth Adonijah reign? 1 Kings 1:14 Behold, while thou yet talkest there [the original is more graphic, "thou art yet talking… and I"] with the king, I also win come after thee and confirm [marg; "fill up," of. πληρώσω, LXX. Still an idiom of the East. Roberts (quoted in the "Biblical Museum") cites many illustrations. The meaning is, not to add to, amplify, but to corroborate. See 1 Kings 2:27; 1 Kings 8:15, 1 Kings 8:24) thy words. 1 Kings 1:15 And Bathsheba went In unto the king into the chamber [lit. inner chamber, θάλαμος, cubiculum penetrale, Buxtorf. Same word 2 Samuel 4:7; 2 Samuel 13:1-39:0] and the king was very old [the repetition (see 2 Samuel 13:1) is not idle or unmeaning. Here the word refers to feebleness rather than age. It is mentioned to explain David’s confinement to his chamber] and Abishag the Shunammite ministered unto the king. [This is introduced to show the king’s helplessness. It does not prove that "there was a disinterested witness present" (Rawlinson), for she may have withdrawn, as Bathsheba did presently (2 Samuel 13:23), and Nathan (2 Samuel 13:32). It is a graphic touch, painted probably from the life, and by the hand of Nathan, from whom this narrative is derived. 1 Kings 1:16 And Bathsheba bowed, and did obeisance [cf. 2 Samuel 14:4. But we are hardly justified in seeing here "more than the ordinary Eastern salutation" (Rawlinson). The Jewish court seems to have been very ceremonious and stately (1 Samuel 24:8; 2 Samuel 19:24). The king was the representative of Heaven]. And the king said, What wouldest thou [marg; What to thee? Not necessarily, What thy supplication? (as Rawlinson). It rather means generally, "What thy business?" Quid tibi, not quid petis. 1 Kings 1:17 And she said unto him, My Lord, thou swarest by the Lord thy God unto thine handmaid, saying, Assuredly Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne. 1 Kings 1:18 And now, behold, Adonijah reigneth; and now my Lord the king, thou knowest it not. 1 Kings 1:19 And he hath slain oxen and fat cattle and sheep in abundance, and hath called all the sons of the king, and Abiathar the priest, and Joab the captain of the host; but Solomon thy servant hath he not called. [Said, not to "show that Solomon had reason to fear the worst if Adonijah should succeed" (Keil), but to prove that there was a plot. It showed the cloven foot.] 1 Kings 1:20 And thou [instead of וְאַתָּה, the Chald; Syr; and Vulg; with many MSS, read וְעַתָּה "and now;" but this looks like an emendation, and "proclivi lectioni praestat ardua." Similarly, the second "now" in 1 Kings 1:18 appears as "thou" in 200 MSS. These variations are of very little consequence, but the received text, in both cases, is somewhat the more spirited] my lord, O king [the repetition (see 1 Kings 1:18, 1 Kings 1:21, 1 Kings 1:24, 1 Kings 1:27) illustrates the profound deference and court paid to the Hebrew monarch (see on 1 Kings 1:16), especially when we remember that these are the words of a wife], the eyes of all Israel are upon thee (cf. 1 Kings 2:15) that thou shouldest ten them who shall sit on the throne of my lord the king after him. This shows that there was no "right of primogeniture." The kings of the East have always designated their successor amongst their sons. "Alyattes designated Croesus; Cyrus designated Cambyses, and Darius designated Xerxes" (Rawlinson). "The Shah of Persia, at the eginning of this century, had sixty sons, all brought up by their mothers, with the hope of succeeding" (Holier, quoted by Stanley). And the kings of Israel claimed and exercised a similar right (2 Chronicles 11:22; 2 Chronicles 21:3). 1 Kings 1:21 Otherwise [there is no corresponding word in the Hebrews] it shall come to pass, when my lord the king shall sleep [strictly, "lie down:" see on 1 Kings 2:10] with his fathers [this phrase, so common in the books of Kings and Chronicles, only occurs "once in the Pentateuch (Deuteronomy 31:16) and once in the historical books before Kings" (Rawlinson). It was evidently the product of an age when the nation was settled, and men had their family sepulchres] that I and my son Solomon shall be counted [Hebrews be] offenders [Hebrews as marg; sinners. The primary meaning of חָטָא is "to miss the mark." Like ἁμαρτάνειν, it came to be used of all erring and transgression. Bathsheba and Solomon would be obnoxious to Adonijah, as representing a rival cause; possibly also as guilty of high treason (Clericus, Bähr, al.) 1 Kings 1:22 And lo, while she yet talked with the king, Nathan the prophet also came in. [Heb. came, i.e; to the palace. "Came in" almost implies that he entered the room, which he did not till summoned (verse 23). Observe, Nathan’s words convey no suggestio falsi. He does not deny a previous interview with Bathsheba, nor does he confess it. If there is an appearance of artifice, there was no intention to deceive. And the artifice, such as it was, was not only harmless, but for the public good. 1 Kings 1:23 And they told the king, saying, Behold Nathan the prophet [we are scarcely justified in seeing in this "solemn announcement of his approach" an "indication of the consideration in which he was held" (Stanley). It is difficult to see how otherwise he could be announced. It is clear that he was constantly spoken of as "the prophet" (1 Kings 1:10, 1 Kings 1:22, 1 Kings 1:34, 1 Kings 1:38, etc. Cf. 2 Samuel 7:2; 2 Samuel 12:25]. And when he was come in before [Hebrews and he came before—three words instead of six] the king, he bowed himself before the king with his face to the ground [see on verses 16, 20; and cf. verse 31, where we have a similar expression. "In the Assyrian sculptures, ambassadors are represented with their faces actually touching the earth before the feet of the monarch" (Rawlinson). This profound reverence on the part of Nathan is the more remarkable, when we remember how he had once denounced David to his face (Samuel Hebrews 12:7)]. 1 Kings 1:24 And Nathan said, My Lord, O king, hast thou said [the Hebrews has no question, but a strong affirmation: "thou hast said," i.e; "thou must have said (Du hast wohl gesagt." Bähr). Nathan puts it thus forcibly, in order to draw from the king a disclaimer], Adonijah shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne? [Same words as in 1 Kings 1:13, 1 Kings 1:17, and possibly designedly so. The coincidence conveys the meaning, "Thou hast sworn Solomon shall reign," etc. "Thou hast said, Adonijah shall reign," etc.] 1 Kings 1:25 For [proof that the king must have decreed that Adonijah should succeed him. There appears to be an undertone of reproof in these words. Nathan assumes that Adonijah cannot have done all this without David’s knowledge and sanction, because "his father had not displeased him at any time" (1 Kings 1:6). This uprising was the result of David’s over indulgence and. want of firmness] he is gone down this day, and hath slain [see on 1 Kings 1:9] oxen and fat cattle and sheep in abundance, and hath called all the king’s sons, and the captains of the host [Joab was the captain (1 Kings 1:19). The plural shows that other high officers had followed his lead. "Under the captains of the host (1 Kings 1:25), the servants of the king (1 Kings 1:10) are included" (Bähr). Bähr’s accidental miscitation (1 Kings 1:10 for 1 Kings 1:9) has apparently led his American translator to the serious mistake of identifying these "captains of the host" with "the mighty men" (Gibborim) of 1 Kings 1:10, who, it is distinctly said, "were not with Adonijah] and Abtathar the priest, and behold, they eat and drink before him [convivia apta conjurationibus. Grotius] and say, God save king Adonijah. [Hebrews "let the king Adonijah live," or better, "live the king," etc. (comp. the vivat rex, and the vives and vivas of later days.) This was the customary acclamation wherewith the Jews greeted their kings (cf. verse 39; 1 Samuel 10:24; 2 Samuel 16:16: 2 Kings 11:12; 2 Chronicles 23:11). 1 Kings 1:26 But me, even me [Heb. I] thy servant [to Nathan this omission was most significant. He seems to say that he had not been called because he had been concerned in the appointment of a successor 2 Samuel 7:13] and Zadok the priest, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and thy servant Solomon [Bähr thinks that "we have in the order of these names a climax, in which Solomon, as the highest personage, is named last"] hath he not called. 1 Kings 1:27 Is this thing done [אִם = an, or perhaps, num, "Is it then the ease that," etc.] by [lit; from with] my lord the king [i.e; with his privity and by his appointment], and thou hast not showed it unto thy servant [Hebrews "made thy servant know." Nathan submits that he has a strong claim (2 Samuel 12:25) to be informed, should there be any change in the king’s plans], who should sit upon the throne of my lord the king after him? [Same expression as in verse 20. The repetition was well calculated to impress upon the king the importance of nominating a successor at once. 1 Kings 1:28 Then king David [see on verse I] answered and said, Call me Bathsheba [she evidently left the chamber when Nathan entered it. "This was done, not to avoid the appearance of a mutual arrangement (Cler; Then. al.), but for reasons of propriety, inasmuch as in audiences granted by the king to his wife or one of his counsellors, no third person ought to be present unless the king required his assistance." Keil.] And she came into the king’s presence, and stood before the king. [Here, as in numberless other instances, our translators have disregarded literalness in favour of euphony. The Hebrew has here an exact repetition, "came before the king, and stood before the king." The Authorized Version rendering was adopted as the more spirited and rhythmical. 1 Kings 1:29 And the king sware [see on 1 Kings 1:51] and said, As the Lord liveth [or "by the life of Jehovah." Cf. "by the life of Pharaoh" (Genesis 42:15). This was the common form of oath. See, e.g; 1 Kings 2:24; Judges 8:19; Rth 3:13; 1 Samuel 14:39; 1 Samuel 19:6; 1 Samuel 20:24; 1 Samuel 29:6; and especially Jeremiah 4:2; Jeremiah 5:2; Hosea 4:15. It is characteristic of David to introduce into the formula some such clause as the following], that hath redeemed my soul [i.e; life] out of all distress. Same expression as in 2 Samuel 4:9. Similar expressions are found in Psalms 25:22, and Psalms 34:22. The repeated deliverance out of straits and danger—"out of the hand of all his enemies, and out of the hand of Saul"—was one of the most remarkable features of David’s life, and it is no wonder that he repeatedly commemorates it, converting every adjuration into an act of thanksgiving. Similarly, Jacob (Genesis 48:16.) 1 Kings 1:30 Even as I sware unto thee by the Lord God of Israel, saying, Assuredly [Heb. כי that, often prefixed to the oratio directa; not lending any emphasis ( = immo), as Keil says the first and third כי of this verse do, but in English simply redundant. See on verses 13, 17] Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and he shall sit upon my throne [same words as in verses 13, 17, 24. These close repetitions are the habit of the East] in my stead, even so [Heb. that so] will I , suggested to David by the usus loquendi of the court. This expression seems at first a strange periphrasis for "my servants." But David naturally adopts the language those around him were always using. See verse 43; also 2 Samuel 11:11, and 2 Samuel 20:6. Note: The latter passage, which refers to the king, has the plur.; the former, referring to Joab, the sing.] and cause Solomon my son to ride upon mine own mule, [lit; "the she mule" (the most prized in the East. Cf. Judges 5:10, Hebrews) "which is mine." This was not merely a mark of honour (cf. Genesis 41:43; Esther 6:8, Esther 6:9), but a public and very significant indication of David’s will respecting his successor. The populace would perceive at once who was destined to sit in David’s seat. "The Rabbins tell us that it was death to ride on the king’s mule without his permission" (Rawlinson). פִרְדָּה, the fem. form is only found here and in verses 38, 44. The mule would seem to have been a recent importation into Palestine—we never read of them before the time of David—and the Israelites were forbidden to breed them (Leviticus 2 Samuel 19:19). Their use, consequently, was naturally restricted to royal or distinguished personages (2 Samuel 13:29). Wordsworth sees in the word a proof that David had not disobeyed God by multiplying horses to himself], and bring him down to Gihon. [Not Gibeon, which Thenius most arbitrarily would substitute for the received text. Where was Gihon? The popular belief (accepted by Bהhr and Keil, as well as by some geographers) is that it was in the valley of the Son of Hinnom, a part of which still bears the name of Gihon, i.e; to the west of Jerusalem, and not far from the Jaffa gate. By many indeed the present Birket-es-Sultan is identified with the Lower Pool of Gihon. But others (Ferguson, Rawlinson, etc.) see in it the ancient name of the Tyropaeon. Scripture does not speak of it as a spring, though the "source of the waters of Gihon" is mentioned 2 Chronicles 32:30, Hebrews The text shows that it was below the city ("bring him down upon Gihon," verse 33. Cf. also verse 40). 2 Chronicles 33:14, speaks of "Gihon in the valley," where it is very noticeable that the word used is Nachal (i.e. Wady, watercourse). But this "is the word always employed for the valley of the Kedron, east of Jerusalem, the so called valley of Jehoshaphat; ge (ravine or glen) being as constantly employed for the valley of Hinnom, south and west of the town" (Grove," Dict. Bible," art. Gihon). It is also to be noticed that the text last cited mentions Gihon in connection with Ophel, which lies southeast of Jerusalem.. The Chald; Arab; and Syr. are probably right, therefore, in identifying Gihon here with Siloam (which lies at the foot of Ophel), in favour of which it may further be said that it would be admirably suited for David’s purpose—of a counter demonstration—and that whether En-Rogel is to be found at the Well of the Virgin or the Well of Job. Siloam is at no great distance from either, and quite within earshot, whereas the traditional Gihon is altogether out of the way. It must be borne in mind that this procession to and from Gihon was ordained, not because there was any special reason for anointing Solomon there ― for it was not a holy place—but purely as a demonstration to the populace, and to checkmate the conspirators. It was probably a public place, and would accommodate a large concourse (Poole). 1 Kings 1:34 And let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet [Bähr sees in the fact that Nathan was associated with Zadok in the anointing, "the high significance David attributed to the prophetic office in Israel" But the prophets constantly performed this ceremony. Samuel anointed both Saul and David; Elisha anointed Jehu (2 Kings 9:1), and was commissioned to anoint Hazael (1 Kings 19:15, 1 Kings 19:16) ] anoint him [the king, being a sacred personage, was set apart to the office, like the priest and prophet, by anointing. Saul was probably anointed twice (1 Samuel 10:1; 1 Samuel 11:15. Cf. 1 Samuel 12:3). David was anointed thrice (1 Samuel 16:13; 2 Samuel 2:4; 2 Samuel 5:3. Solomon was anointed twice (verse 39; 1 Chronicles 29:22). The Rabbins have always held that subsequent kings were not anointed, where the succession was regular. But this opinion must be taken quantum valet. It is true that we only read of the anointing of Jehu (2 Kings 9:6), Joash (2 Kings 11:12), and Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:30), and that in these three cases the accession was irregular. But it is obvious that other kings may have been anointed as well, though the fact is not recorded. There would be no reason for recording it in ordinary cases It seems hardly likely, too, that any king would readily dispense with an ordinance which would so much strengthen his title] there king over Israel: and blow ye with the trumpet [the sound of the trumpet would almost seem to have been a necessary accompaniment of coronations, or the proclamation of a new king. See 2 Samuel 15:10; 2 Kings 9:13; 2 Kings 11:14], and say, God cave king Solomon. [See on verse 25. 1 Kings 1:35 Then ye shall come up. Besides, we can hardly suppose that the historian has in every case, though he probably has in this, preserved the exact words of the speaker; and it need cause us no surprise had he put into David’s mouth the phraseology of a later age. In the nature of things he can only give us the substance of conversations such as these. 1 Kings 1:36 And Benaiah the son of Johoiada [probably he spoke, not because the execution of the order depended upon him (Bähr); for both Zadok and Nathan had a much more important part to perform, but as a blunt soldier who was accustomed to speak his mind] answered the king and said, Amen: the Lord God [lit; "Jehovah, he God," etc.] of my lord the king say so too. 1 Kings 1:37 As the Lord hath been with my lord the king [cf. 1 Samuel 20:13. "This phrase expresses a very high degree of the Divine favour" (Rawlinson). See Genesis 26:3, Genesis 26:4; Genesis 28:15; Genesis 39:2,Genesis 39:21; Exodus 3:12; Joshua 1:5; 1 Chronicles 22:11, etc.], even so be he with Solomon, and make has throne greater than the throne of my lord king David. [This was said from a full and honest heart, not to flatter David’s vanity (Thenius). It is thoroughly characteristic of the man so far as we know him. And the prayer was fulfilled (1 Kings 3:11,1 Kings 3:12).] 1 Kings 1:38 So Zadok the priest, and Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and the Cherethites, and the Pelethites [these were the royal bodyguard—Σωματοφύλακες Josephus calls them—who were commanded by Benaiah (2 Samuel 8:18; 2 Samuel 15:18; 2 Samuel 20:23; 2 Samuel 23:28). But while their functions are pretty well understood, great difference of opinion exists as to the origin or meaning of the words. By some they are supposed to be Gentile names. A tribe of Cherethites is mentioned 1 Samuel 30:14. (Cf. Ezekiel 25:16; Zephaniah 2:5), and in close connexion with the Philistines (1 Samuel 30:16). Hence Cherethite has been thought to be another name for Philistine; and as the LXX. and Syr. render the word "Cretans," it has been conjectured that the Philistines had their origin from Crete. They did come from Caphtor, and that is probably Crete (see Genesis 10:14; Jeremiah 47:4; Amos 9:7; Deuteronomy 2:23). פְּלֵתִי again, is not unlike פְּלִשְּׁתִי In favor of this view is the fact that David certainly had a bodyguard of foreign mercenaries (2 Samuel 15:18, where the "Gittites" are connected with the Cherethites). Nor does it make against it that "two designations" would thus "be employed side by side for one and the same people"—as if we should speak of Britons and Englishmen (Bהhr). For the names look like a paronomasia—of which the Jews were very fond—and a trick of this kind would at once account for the tautology. [Since writing this, I find the same idea has already occurred to Ewald.] But the other view, adopted by Gesenius, is that the names are names of office and function. Cherethite he would derive from תָרַך, cut, slay; and by Cherethites he would understand "executioners," which the royal bodyguard were in ancient despotisms (Genesis 39:1, Hebrews; Daniel 2:14, etc. See on 1 Kings 2:25). In the Pelethites (פֶּלֶת, swiftness) he would see the public couriers (ἄγγαροι) of Eastern men. archies (see Herod. 8:98 and 2 Chronicles 30:6). We see the guard discharging the function first named in 2 Kings 10:25; 2 Kings 11:4, 2 Kings 11:8; and the latter in 1 Kings 14:27 (marg.)] went down [i.e; from the palace on Mount Zion] and caused Solomon to ride upon King David’s mule, and brought him to [עַל: cf. 1 Kings 2:26] Gihon [Chald; Syr; Arab; Shiloha]. 1 Kings 1:39 And Zadok the priest took an horn of oil [Hebrews the oil. The "holy anointing oil," Exodus 30:25, Exodus 30:31, compounded as directed in Exodus 30:23-25, was evidently part of the furniture of the tabernacle (Exodus 31:11; Exodus 39:38). Eleazer was charged with its preservation (Numbers 4:16), and the Rabbins say it lasted till the captivity] out of the tabernacle [the tabernacle on Mount Zion, containing the ark (2 Samuel 6:17; 1 Chronicles 15:1) must be meant here. There was not time to have gone to the tabernacle at Gihon (Stanley), which was three hours distance from Jerusalem (Keil). Though Abiathar had charge of this sanctuary, yet Zadok would readily gain access to it, especially in the king’s name] and anointed Solomon. And they blew the trumpet [cf. 2 Samuel 15:10; 2 Kings 9:13; 2 Kings 11:14]; and all the people said, God save king Solomon. [Notice the exact fulfilment of the threefold charge of verse 34 and its result. Solomon was confirmed in his office by the suffrages of the people.] 1 Kings 1:40 And all the people came up after him [same expression as 1 Kings 1:35. The procession, the sound of the trumpets, etc; had collected a large crowd, which followed Solomon on his return], and the people piped [Heb. were piping] with pipes [pipes or flutes were used on occasions of rejoicing (Isaiah 5:12; Isaiah 30:29. Cf. 1 Samuel 10:5), and so of mourning (Jeremiah 48:36; Matthew 9:23). It is true that a very slight change (מְחֹלְלִיף בְּחלִים instead of מִחַלְּלִים בַּחֲלִלִים) will give the meaning, "dancing with dances," which Ewald prefers, on the ground that "all the people" could not have produced their pipes at a moment’s notice. But the objection loses its force when it is observed (Rawlinson) that the text implies that only some of the people piped. "All the people came up … and the people," etc. Besides, even if it were not so, some allowance is surely to be made for Eastern hyperbole. And the received text is to be preferred on other grounds. The LXX; however, has ἐχόρευονἐνχοροῖς], and rejoiced with great joy [Hebrews "were rejoicing a great joy"], and the earth rent [this is certainly a strangly hyperbolical expression. For בָּקַע strictly means to cleave asunder, tear open (see, e.g; Numbers 16:31; Amos 1:13; 2 Chronicles 25:12). And Thenius suggests a slight emendation of the text, viz; וַתִּתָּקַע (i.e; "resounded") for וַתִּבָּקַע which would obviate this difficulty. He points out that while the LXX. Cod. Vat. has ἐρράγη, some versions have ἤχησεν, and the Vulg. insonuit. But perhaps it is safer to keep to the lectio ardua] with the sound of them [Heb. "with their voices"]. 1 Kings 1:41 And Adonijah and all the guests that were with him heard it [it is probable they "were listening with some anxiety to hear if anything would occur." Rawlinson] as they had made an end [Heb. "and they had finished"] of eating, And when Joab heard the sound of the trumpet [the original almost implies that Joab’s practised ear was the first to catch the note of the trumpet. He seems to have been the first to suspect its significance], he said, Wherefore is this noise of the city being in an uproar? [More exactly, "in commotion." הוֹמָה, an onomatopoetic word, like our English "hum." We speak of the "hum of the city," "the buzz of business," etc.] 1 Kings 1:42 And while he yet spake, behold, Jonathan the son of Abiathar the priest [Cf. 2 Samuel 15:36; 2 Samuel 17:17. His experience had marked him out for the post of watchman] came [That he bad not arrived before shows how prompt, and even hurried, had been the measures taken by Solomon’s party] and Adonijah said unto him [Hebrews and LXX. omit "unto him"] Come in [Heb. come. See on verse 22. "Come in" suggests the idea of a house or tent, whereas the feast was al fresco]; for thou art a valiant man [it is Adonijah (not Joab, as Bהhr—of course by an oversight—says) who speaks thus. Perhaps "able," "honest," or "worthy man" (cf. verse 52; same word in Hebrews; also Proverbs 12:4) would be nearer the mark. "Valiant" is clearly out of place] and bringest good tidings. [A similar expression 2 Samuel 18:27. It was evidently a familiar saying. The idea, "a good man will bring good news" corresponds with that of the proverb of 1 Samuel 24:13. Adonijah’s misgivings reveal themselves in these words. He fears the worst, but strives to put on a cheerful face and to encourage his guests.] 1 Kings 1:43 And Jonathan answered and said to Adonijah, Verily [Rather, "nay but," "on the contrary" (immo vero). See Genesis 17:19, Heb; "Nay, but Sarah thy wife," etc; and Gesen; Thesaurus, sub voce אֲבָל. This particle has not "always an objecting force" (Rawlinson)—see Genesis 42:21, and especially 2 Samuel 14:5; 2 Kings 4:14—but only in the later Hebrew, e.g; 2 Chronicles 19:3; 2 Chronicles 33:17] our Lord king David hath made Solomon king. 1 Kings 1:44 And the king hath sent with Zadok the priest, and Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and the Cherethites, and the Pelethites [see on 1 Kings 1:38], and they have caused him to ride upon the king’s mule. 1 Kings 1:45 And Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet have anointed him king in Gihon: and they are come up from thence rejoicing, so that the city [קִרְיָה same word as in 1 Kings 1:41. Elsewhere almost exclusively found in poetry] rang again [rather, "is in commotion." Same expression in 1 Kings 1:41 and Rth 1:19, where it is translated, "the city was moved"]. This is the noise [Heb. voice] that ye have heard. 1 Kings 1:46 And also [the same two words are found at the beginning of 1 Kings 1:47, 68. They accord well with the breathless and excited state of the speaker, and suggest how each successive detail told on the hearers] Solomon sitteth [rather, "sate, took his seat," ἐκαθισε (LXX.) aorist. See 1 Kings 1:35] on the throne of the kingdom [rather, "the royal throne." So Gesen. All David’s directions were now fulfilled]. 1 Kings 1:47 And moreover [וְגַם as before] the king’s servants [see on 1 Kings 1:33] came to bless our lord king David [Jonathan here refers in all probability to the words of Benaiah, 1 Kings 1:36, 1 Kings 1:37. He does not know the exact particulars, and ascribes to the "servants" the words of their commander. Of course it is possible that "the bodyguard took up the words of Jehoiada (Benaiah?) their captain and repeated them with some slight alteration." Rawlinson] saying, God [so the Keri. The Cethib has "thy God"] make the name of Solomon better than thy name and make his throne greater than thy throne [This prayer was fulfilled (1 Kings 3:12; 1 Kings 4:21-24]. And the king bowed himself [in worship. Cf. Genesis 47:31] upon the bed. 1 Kings 1:48 And also thus saith the king, Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, which hath given one to sit on my throne this day, mine eyes even seeing it. [These last words are added because it is quite an exceptional thing for a king to see his successor on the throne.] 1 Kings 1:49 And all the guests [Heb. called, LXX. κλητοὶ] that were with [Heb. to] Adonijah were afraid [Heb. trembled] and rose up [LXX. omits] and went every man his way. [This fear and flight betray a consciousness of guilt. They cannot have believed in the right of primogeniture.] 1 Kings 1:50 And Adonijah feared because of Solomon and he arose and went and caught hold of the horns of the altar. [Cf. 1 Kings 2:28. Probably the altar of Mount Zion, 1 Kings 3:15; 2 Samuel 6:17. Though it is impossible to say positively whether this or the altar at Gibeon (2 Samuel 3:4) or that recently erected on the threshing floor of Araunah (2 Samuel 24:25) is meant. For the "horns," see Exodus 27:2; Exodus 38:2; and compare Exodus 30:2. They were of shittim (i.e; acacia) wood overlaid with brass, and served a double purpose. Victims were bound to them (Psalms 118:27), and blood was put upon them, Exodus 29:12. As to the altar as a place of sanctuary, see on 1 Kings 2:28. Evidently a right of sanctuary existed amongst both Jews and Gentiles at the time of the Exodus, and probably from time immemorial. It is referred to in Exodus 21:14, but it was much circumscribed by the appointment of the cities of refuge (Numbers 35:10 sqq.) By "laying hold of the horns the offender thereby placed himself under the protection of the saving and helping grace of God" (Bähr, "Symbolik," 1:474) 1 Kings 1:51 And it was told Solomon, saying, Behold Adonijah feareth King Solomon, for lo, he hath caught hold on the horns of the altar, saying, let king Solomon [this repetition of the title is striking. Both courtiers and criminals hasten to give the young king his new honours. In Adonijah’s mouth it is also a virtual abdication of his claim to the throne and a direct acknowledgment of the new monarch. But see on 1 Kings 1:1 and 1 Kings 1:35. swear unto me today [Cf. 2 Samuel 19:23. This is one of many passages which show how lightly the Jews esteemed promises in comparison with oaths. The sentiment possibly took its rise in the oaths sworn by the Divine Being (Genesis 22:16; Genesis 24:7; Exodus 16:16, etc.), though it is possible, on the other hand, that these asseverations were made in deference to the popular sentiment. Be that as it may, the oath held a much more conspicuous and important place in the Jewish than the Christian economy. See Genesis 21:23; Genesis 31:23; Numbers 14:2; Numbers 30:2; Judges 15:12; Judges 21:1; 1 Samuel 14:28; Jeremiah 5:2, and, to omit other passages, 1 Kings 1:13; 1 Kings 2:8, 1 Kings 2:23, 1 Kings 2:42. Even our Lord, who rebuked the habit (Matthew 5:34-37; Matthew 23:16-22) respected the adjuration of Caiaphas, and St. Paul frequently appeals to God (Acts 26:29; 2 Corinthians 1:23; 2 Corinthians 11:31; Philippians 1:8.) The Christian religion, as it has gradually begotten a reverence for truth, has made the simple word into a bond] that he will not slay his servant [Cf. "I will be King," 1 Kings 2:5. with the sword [the usual form of capital punishment, 1 Kings if. 8, 25, 31, 46. Adonijah indirectly confesses that he had merited death]. 1 Kings 1:51 And Solomon said [i.e; he refused to swear], If he will shew himself a worthy man [בֶּן־חַיִל, cf. אִיש־חַיִל, 1 Kings 1:42], there shall not an hair of him fall to the earth [i.e; not a single hair shall be injured. Same expression 1 Samuel 14:45; 2 Samuel 14:11; Acts 27:34. It was evidently a familiar saying] but if wickedness shall be found in him, [i.e; if he shall commit any fresh crime] he shall die [Hebrew וָמֵת, "then he shall die," emphatic.] 1 Kings 1:53 So King Solomon sent and they brought him down [The altar was elevated: probably a slope, not steps (Exodus 20:26) led to it] from [Hebrew from upon. He was still clinging to it] the altar. And he came and bowed himself to king Solomon [i.e; made obeisance to him as king. Cf. 1 Kings 1:16, 1 Kings 1:23, 1 Kings 1:31] and Solomon said unto him, Go to thine house. This was not a sentence of banishment from court, but merely a dismissal to a private life, involving a tacit admonition to live quietly and be thankful that his life was spared him. "Vade in domum tuam, ibi quiesce et res tuas age, nec te publicis regni mei negotiis immisceas" (Corn. A Lapide). 1 Kings 1:1 The chamber of sickness. This opening chapter of 1 Kings introduces us into the privacy of a sick room. Stretched upon a couch, covered with many folds of rich Eastern drapery, we see a feeble, decrepit, attenuated man. At his side stands a fair young girl, assiduously ministering to his wants. From time to time the door opens, and prophet, priest, and warrior enter to receive his instructions; for happily the mind is not a wreck like the body. Its vigour is hardly abated, though the bodily strength is well nigh exhausted. He has but reached the appointed threescore years and ten, and yet—such have been the hardships of his life—the vital force is spent. They cover him with clothes, but he gets no heat. The flame of life is slowly but surely expiring. But we see at once that this is no ordinary room; that this is no common patient. The gorgeous apparel, the purple and fine linen, the "attendance of ministers, the standing of servants," proclaim it a king’s court. And the insignia, the pomp, the profound homage proclaim that this sick man is a king. Yes, it is David, second king of Israel, but second to none in goodness and true greatness, who lies here. His chequered life, so full of romance, of chivalry, of piety, is drawing near its close. But the hour of death is preceded by a period of feebleness and decay. For sickness is no respecter of persons. It, too, like death, "thunders at the palace gates of kings and the dwellings of the poor." There is no release in that war, "Sceptre and crown must tumble down, And in the dust be equal made With the poor common scythe and spade." The sickness of David, then, may fittingly suggest some thoughts as to sickness in general. What, let us ask, is its purpose, what its uses? Why is it that, as a rule, a period of gradual decay precedes death? For it is worthy of remark that man alone, of all the animals, dies of disease. Among all the myriad forms of life, that is, he alone dies gradually. The lower animals, as a rule, prey upon each other. Beasts, birds, fishes, insects, all die a violent death. No sooner is one of them attacked by sickness, or enfeebled by old age, than it is dispatched and devoured by its fellows. It is thus the balance of the species is preserved. But in the case of men, sudden death is the exception. For them there remains, as a rule, a discipline of pain prior to dissolution. It is well to ask why this is. The general answer is, of course, obvious. It is because of that other life, that future reckoning which awaits men after death. Let us consider, however, in what ways sickness and pain are a preparation for the life and the judgment to come. I. IS GOD’S NOTICE TO QUIT. We should think it hard to be ejected from our home and turned into the street without due notice. We want a little time to make preparations. Especially is this the case when we are leaving our earthly tabernacle—leaving not a home, but a world. Now God has given us abundant and repeated notice in the various accidents and occurrences of life. Too often, however, both the lessons of Providence and the warnings of the preacher are unheeded. So the Lover of souls will give men a final warning, and one that they cannot mistake, cannot well disregard. They shall feel it in their own persons. Sickness shall bid them set their house in order and prepare to meet their God. A German fable tells us that once upon a time Death promised a young man that he would not summon him until he had first sent several messengers to apprize him of his coming. So the youth took his fill of pleasure, and wasted health and strength in riotous living. Presently, a fever laid him low. But as no messenger had appeared, he had no apprehensions; and when he recovered, he returned forthwith to his former sins. He then fell a prey to other maladies, but, remembering his covenant with Death, made light of them. "I am not going to die," he cried; "the first messenger has not yet come." But one day some one tapped him on the shoulder. He turned, and saw Death standing at his elbow. "Follow me." said the King of Terrors; "the hour of thy departure is come." "How is this?" exclaimed the youth; "thou art false to thy word! Thou didst promise to send me messengers, and I have seen none." "Silence!" sternly answered the Destroyer. "I have sent thee messenger after messenger. What was the fever? What was the apoplexy? What was each sickness that befel thee? Each was my herald; each was my messenger." Yes, the first use of sickness is to remind men of death. And how much they need that reminder we may learn from the case of David. He had long been familiar with death, lie was no stranger to "th’ imminent deadly breach," had known many "hairbreadth ’scapes," and often there had been "but a step between his soul and death." Nay, he had once seen the Destroyer himself, seen him standing with his drawn sword ready to smite. And yet the man who had faced death, who had long carried his life in his hand, receives a final warning ere its close. That sickness, perhaps, first brought home to him his mortality, first cried to him, "Thus saith the LORD GOD, Remove the diadem and take off the crown" (Ezekiel 21:26). But II. IS GOD’S WAY OF WEANING MEN FROM THE WORLD. It is natural to cling to life; but it is necessary we should be made willing to leave it. The wrench is felt the less when some of the ties which bind us to earth have been sundered: when life loses its attractions. It is the office of pain and sickness to make life valueless, to make men anxious to depart. How often it happens that men who at the beginning of illness will not hear of death are presently found praying for their release. Such are the "uses of adversity." An old writer compares affliction to the bitter unguent which nursing mothers who would wean their offspring sometimes put upon their breast. A few weeks on the couch of pain, and we soon cry out that life is not worth the living. III. IS GOD’S FOR . True it is that all "earthly care is a heavenly discipline." All the ills that flesh is heir to are designed to be the instruments of our perfection. Like the Captain of our salvation, we are "made perfect through sufferings." For us, as for Him, "the cross is the ladder to heaven." Those are two suggestive words, which only differ by one letter—παθήματα, μαθήματα, "afflictions, instructions." But while all affliction is a school, the last illness should be the finishing school. At the last assay the furnace must he heated more than it has been wont to be. "I have learnt more," said Mr. Cecil, "within these curtains in six weeks than I have learnt in all my life before." The chamber of sickness is an enforced Retreat. There, ears "that the preacher could not school" are compelled to listen. There, "lips say ’God be pitiful’ which ne’er said ’God be praised.’ There, many have learnt for the first time to know themselves. And how necessary is this last discipline David’s sick chamber may teach us; for he had already had his share of troubles. His life had been largely spent in. the school of adversity." In journeyings often, in peril of robbers," etc. (2 Corinthians 11:25, 2 Corinthians 11:26), these words aptly describe his early career. And even since he ascended the throne, how often has the sword gone through his soul. Amnon, Absalom, Tamer, Abner, Amasa, what tragedies are connected with these names. Few men have experienced such a long and bitter discipline as he; and it would seem, too, to have accomplished its world. If we may judge by some of his later Psalms, full of contrition, of humility, of devout breathings after God, that sweet and sanctified soul had "learned obedience by the things which he suffered." But he is not spared the final chastening. The sweet singer of Israel, the man after God’s own heart, must go awhile into the gloom and the silence of the sick room, there to be made fully "meet for the inheritance of the saints in light." Men often pray to be spared a long sickness, often commiserate those who experience one. But we have learned that it has its uses. We see that it is a last chance given to men: a last solemn warning, a final chastening to prepare them for the beatific vision. The Neapolitans call one of the wards of their hospital L’Antecamera della Motre—the ante chamber of death. It is thus that we should regard every "chamber of sickness." 1 Kings 1:5 sqq. with 1 Kings 2:13 sqq Adonijah’s history and its lessons. I. HE WAS A SPOILT CHILD.—"His father had not displeased him at any time." (1 Kings 1:7). There is no greater unkindness and injustice to a child than over indulgence. The child is the father of the man. The boy who has all his own way will certainly want it in after life, and will not get it, to his own disappointment and the unhappiness of all around him. He that loveth his son chasteneth him betimes. David was probably so engrossed with public cares and duties that his first care, after God—his family—was neglected. How unwise are those parents who devolve the care of their children at the most critical and impressionable time of life on domestics, who are often ill suited or unequal to the charge. One of the first duties a child demands of its parents is that it should be corrected and conquered. The will must be broken in youth. The sapling may be bent, not so the trunk. David’s unwise indulgence, his sparing the rod, prepared a rod for his own and Adonijah’s back. It was the sin of Eli that "his sons made themselves vile and he restrained them not." And one sin of David was that he had not checked and "displeased" this wilful son. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ THE LAST WORDS AND DEATH OF DAVID.—The death of David, and of course the charge which preceded it, did not follow immediately (as the casual reader might be tempted to suppose) on the events related in 1 Kings 1:1-53. We find from 1 Chronicles 23-29:23, that the aged king recovered sufficient strength to leave his sick room, to gather round him the princes of Israel (1 Chronicles 23:9), to make a number of fresh arrangements respecting the priests and Levites and the services of the sanctuary, and even to "stand up upon his feet" (1 Chronicles 28:2) and address a large assembly respecting the erection and adornment of the Temple. And once more, in strains which are among the noblest and sweetest which the sweet singer of Israel ever penned, he "blessed the Lord before all the congregation" (1 Chronicles 29:10. sqq.); he also instituted festal sacrifices on a scale of great magnificence, and witnessed a second and probably more formal and public consecration of his son to the kingly office (1 Chronicles 29:21, 1 Chronicles 29:22; cf. 1 Samuel 11:15; 2 Samuel 5:3). But the recovery cannot have been otherwise than transient—it was but the sudden brightening of the flame before it dies out in the socket—and we see him in this second chapter, once more in the ante-chamber of death. Now, he has already given his parting charge to the princes of the realm, and has publicly exhorted Solomon to discharge his duties faithfully (2 Chronicles 28:9, 2 Chronicles 28:10); but as he feels the end approaching, he summons him to his side to impart to him his last and private instructions, and addresses him thus: 1 Kings 2:1 I go the way [lit; I am walking (same word as in 1 Kings 2:3) in the way] of all the earth [i.e; of all the sons of earth, all mankind (of. 1 Samuel 17:46; 1 Kings 10:24; Psalms 66:4, etc.) The path to Sheol, the path which all his forefathers, and untold millions more, have trod, he is treading it now. The words sound like a reminiscence of Jos 23:1-16:24. Perhaps, too, the thought of Joshua suggested to his mind the next words]: but be thou strong, and be a man. [Similar, though not identical, words were four times addressed to Joshua (Joshua 1:6, Joshua 1:7, Joshua 1:9, Joshua 1:18), and David may well have thought that his son, in entering upon his difficult duties, was not at all unlike Joshua when he succeeded Moses in the leadership of Israel, and that he needed similar encouragement. It is not necessary to suppose, as Canon Rawlinson does, that in the words, "show thyself a man," we have a reference to Solomon’s youth; for words precisely similar were addressed to each other by the Philistines at Aphek (1 Samuel 4:9). The age of Solomon at his accession is very doubtful. David said, "Solomon my son is young and tender" (1 Chronicles 22:5; 1 Chronicles 29:1); and Solomon says of himself, "I am a little child" נַעַר קָטֹן (1 Kings 3:7). Josephus, probably reflecting the tradition of his time, fixes his age at fourteen; Eupolemus at twelve. I incline to think that the words "young and tender" almost forbid the favourite opinion that he was about twenty.] 1 Kings 2:3 And keep the charge [lit; "watch the watch" (custodies custodiam Jehovae), or, "serve the service." Bהhr paraphrases, "be a true watcher in the service of Jehovah." The words are constantly employed to denote a strict performance of the service of the tabernacle or of the duties of the priests and Levites (Leviticus 1 Kings 8:35; 1 Kings 18:30; Numbers 1:53; Numbers 3:7, Numbers 3:8, Numbers 3:25, Numbers 3:28, Numbers 3:32, Numbers 3:38; Numbers 31:30; 1 Chronicles 23:32, etc.; also Genesis 26:5). "The reference," says Rawlinson, "is to the charge given to all the kings in Deuteronomy 17:18-20." But there is no necessity for restricting it to that one injunction. What the charge is is explained presently] of the Lord thy God to walk in His ways, to keep [same word] His statutes, and His commandments, and His judgments, and His testimonies [it is impossible to draw any clear and sharp distinction between these four words, as the older expositors do. "The phrase is derived from the Pentateuch" (Wordsworth). The force of the accumulation of practically synonymous terms is to represent the law in its entirety ("Die Totalitat des Gesetzes," Keil); cf. Deuteronomy 5:31, Deuteronomy 8:11, and especially Psalms 119:1-176., that thou mayest prosper. [The marginal rendering, "do wisely," is preferred by some (Keil, e.g.); but the translation of the text has the authority of Gesenius and others on its side, and gives a better meaning. "The context evidently requires ’prosper’ here, as in Joshua 1:7" (Rawlinson). "That thou mayest … do wisely" is a very lame and impotent conclusion to Joshua 1:3. We have here an evident reminiscence of Jos 1:7; possibly also of Deu 29:9. David was unquestionably well versed in the Scriptures of that age, of which every king was commanded to make a copy. 1 Kings 2:4 That the Lord may continue [rather, "establish" (ut confirmet), as it is rendered in 2 Samuel 7:25, where this same word of promise is spoken of. Cf. 1 Kings 8:26] His word which He spake concerning me [by the mouth of Nathan, 2 Samuel 7:12-17 (cf. Psalms 89:4); or David may refer to some subsequent promise made to him directly. In the promise of 2 Samuel 7:1-29. there is no mention of any stipulations, "If thy children," etc. But both here and in Psalms 122:1-9:12, and in 1 Kings 8:25, special prominence is given to the condition (dum se bene gesserint), which no doubt was understood, if not expressed, when the promise was first made], saying, If thy children take heed to [lit; "keep," same word as in 1 Kings 8:2, 1 Kings 8:3] their way, to walk before me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul there shall not fail thee [lit; "be cut off to thee," as marg. (cf. 1 Samuel 2:29; Joshua 9:23). This word does not occur in the original promise made through Nathan. But it does occur in subsequent versions of the promise, 1 Kings 8:25, 1 Kings 9:5, as well as here—a strong presumption that the promise must have been repeated to David in another shape], said he, a man on the throne of Israel. But this thought—that the permanence of his dynasty depended on the faithful observance of the law as it is written in the book of Moses (i.e; in all its details), seems to have reminded the dying man that he himself had not always kept the statutes he was urging his successor to keep. It had been his duty as king, as the power ordained of God, to visit all violations of the law of God with their appropriate penalties; and this duty, in some instances at least, had been neglected. For the law of Moses, reaffirming the primaeval law which formed part of the so called "precepts of Noah" (Genesis 6:1-22)—that ix. blood must be expiated by blood—enjoined, with singular emphasis and distinctness, the death of the murderer (Numbers 35:16, Numbers 35:17, Numbers 35:18, Numbers 35:19, Numbers 35:30-33; Exodus 21:14). It declared that so long as murder remained unpunished, the whole land was defiled and under a curse (Numbers 35:33). And it gave the king no power to pardon, no discretion in the matter. Until the red stain of blood was washed out "by the blood of him that shed it" the Divine Justice was not satisfied, and a famine or pestilence or sword might smite the land. Now, David knew all this: he could not fail to know it, for he had seen his country, a few years before, visited by a famine because of the unavenged blood of the Gibeonites (2 Samuel 21:1). And yet, one notorious and infamous murderer had not been put to death. The assassin of Abner and of Amasa still polluted the earth, still occupied a distinguished position, and defied punishment. But if the law of Moses was to be kept, then, whatever it might cost, and however painful it might be (Deuteronomy 19:13), he must die; and David, for the welfare of his kingdom, the stability of his throne, and above all, the honour of God, must require his death. No doubt it had often burdened his mind, especially during these last days of feebleness, the thought that punishment had been so long delayed; and therefore, as he sees the end approaching, he feels that he must enjoin upon his successor the fulfilment of that duty which he had been too "weak" to discharge (2 Samuel 3:39). Hence he proceeds, 1 Kings 2:5 "Moreover, thou knowest also what Joab, the son of Zeruiah [there is no "emphasis on these words: he who was mine own sister’s son," as Wordsworth, see on 1:113, did to me and [this last word has no place in the original, and should be left out, as it is misleading. It makes David demand the death of Joab partly because of the private injuries he had suffered at his hands, and partly because of his two brutal murders mentioned presently. But this is just what David did not do; for he is careful to exclude all mention of his private wrongs. It is true, he says, "what Job did to me," but that is because "the sovereign is smitten in the subject" (Bp. Hall), and because the first of these murders had caused David to be suspected of complicity, while each had deprived him of an able officer. And the words that follow] what he did to the two captains of the hosts of Israel [these words are clearly explicative of the "what he did to me." Only thus can we explain the absence of the "and"] unto Abner the son of Jether [2 Samuel 3:27. This was one of those foul murders to which the law expressly denied any right of sanctuary, for it was "with guile" (Exodus 21:14). Joab "took Abner aside in the gate to speak with him peaceably, and smote him there in the abdomen"], and unto Amasa the son of Jether [or Ithra. In 2 Samuel 27:24, Ithra is called "an Israelite," an obvious mistake for "Ishmaelite," as indeed it stands in 1 Chronicles 2:17. Amasa’s mother, Abigail, was sister of David and Zeruiah; Amasa, consequently, was Joab’s first cousin. This murder was even fouler than that of Abner. Here there were ties of blood; they were companions in arms, and there was no pretence of a vendetta], whom he slew and shed [lit; "put," a somewhat strange expression. It almost looks as if עָלָיו, "upon him," had dropped out. The meaning "make," which Keil assigns to שִׂים is not borne out by his references, Deuteronomy 14:1; Exodus 10:2. "Showed," "displayed," is nearer the original], the blood of war in peace [the meaning is obvious. Blood might lawfully be shed in time of war, in fair fight; and Joab might have slain the two captains in battle without guilt. But he slew them when they were at peace with him and unprepared, by treachery], and put the blood of war [the LXX. has αἷμαἀθῶον, "innocent blood"] upon his girdle that was about his loins, and in his shoes that were on his feet [we are not to suppose that the girdle and sandal are mentioned as "die Zeichen des Kriegerstandes" (Bähr), i.e; military insignia; nor yet that the idea is "from the girdle to the sandal" (Ewald), i.e; copiously. These are, usual (hardly "principal," as Keil) articles of Eastern dress, of the civilian’s as well as of the soldier’s, and these two are mentioned because, no doubt, the horrible details of the two murders, and especially of the last (see 2 Samuel 20:8), had been reported to David. He had been told at the time how the blood of Amasa had spurted on to the girdle of Joab, and streamed down into his sandals, and these details, which no doubt made a deep impression upon his mind, are recited here to show how dastardly and treacherous was the deed, and how thoroughly Joab was stained with innocent blood, blood which cried to heaven for vengeance (Genesis 4:10)]. 1 Kings 2:6 Do therefore according to thy wisdom [cf. Proverbs 20:26. It needed great discretion in exacting the punishment of death in the ease of one who was so powerful, who had such influence with the army and the people, whose crimes had been passed over for so long a time, to whom David was so much indebted—Joab had partly won and had twice preserved for him his crown—and to whom he was allied by ties of blood. To act precipitately or unwisely might provoke a revolution], and let not his hoar head [see on Proverbs 20:9. Joab, though David’s nephew, could not have been much his junior, and David was now seventy] go down to the grave in peace. [He must die a violent, not a natural death, as Corn. a Lap. This expression, no doubt, looks vindictive, but that is solely because we forget the character of the Old Testament dispensation, the position of David as king (as the authorized dispenser of punishments, and as responsible to God for dispensing them without fear or favour), and the principles of the Mosaic code (as a lex talionis, demanding blood for blood, and requiring the magistrates and people to purge themselves of the guilt of blood by demanding "the blood of him that shed it"). Let these considerations be borne in mind, and there is absolutely no warrant for charging David with malevolence. Wordsworth lays stress on the fact that Joab had not repented of his crimes. But we need have recourse to no such suppositions. The Jewish law afforded no place of repentance to the murderer. No amount of contrition would cleanse the land of blood. The temporal penalty must be paid. In the case of David himself, it was only commuted by special revelation (2 Samuel 12:10, 2 Samuel 12:13, 2 Samuel 12:14), not remitted. 1 Kings 2:7 And to the sons of Barzillai [the "Beni-Barzillai" would include son, or sons, and all other descendants. It is highly probable, though it is not expressly stated, that Chimham was the son of Bar-zillai (2 Samuel 19:37). Rawlinson says, "Who the other sons were is not known." It would be more correct to say that we do not know whether there were any other sons. The family was still existing temp. Ezra (Ezra 2:61), where, it is worth noticing, we read of the daughters of Barzillai (cf. Nehemiah 7:63). In Jeremiah 41:17, we read of the "habitation (גֵּדוּת, caravanserai, khan) of Chemoham," where the Keri has Chimham. It has been argued from the mention of this name, and the fact that their khan was near Bethlehem, that David or Solomon gave the family land there], and let them be of those that eat at thy table [i.e; of those who have their sustenance from the royal table, not necessarily at it (Keil); cf. Daniel 1:5; 2 Kings 25:29. Presence at the table is expressed by עַל שֻׂלְחָן (2 Samuel 11:1-27, 2 Samuel 12:1-31). It was esteemed an essential part of royal munificence throughout the East that the king should feed a large number of retainers and dependants. Cf. the account of Solomon’s daffy provision in 1 Kings 4:22, 1 Kings 4:23; also 2 Samuel 19:28; Judges 1:7]; for so [i.e; in like manner, with food]; they came to me [lit; "came near." The Hebrew קָרַב often includes, as here, the idea of succour. Cf. Psalms 69:19; Lamentations 3:57. Barzillai certainly came (2 Samuel 17:27), and probably Chimham, but the Speaker’s Commentary is mistaken when it says that "Chimham is mentioned as present." He was present at the return of David (2 Samuel 19:31, 2 Samuel 19:38, but not necessarily before] when I fled because of [lit; "from the face of "] Absalom thy brother. The mention of Absalom, and those terrible days of revolt and anarchy, when he was constrained to flee for his life, seems to have reminded the dying king of one of the bitterest ingredients of that bitter cup of shame and suffering—the cruel curses of Shimei. He remembers that the sin of Shimei, which was nothing else than treason and blasphemy, has so far escaped punishment. In a moment of generous enthusiasm, he had included Shimei in the general amnesty which he proclaimed on his return (2 Samuel 19:23). He had thought, no doubt, at the time only of the offence against himself; he had forgotten his sacred and representative character as "the Lord’s anointed;" or if he had remembered it (2 Samuel 19:21) the emotions of that memorable day had obscured or perverted his sense of justice and duty. But he has since realized—and the thought weighs upon his conscience in the chamber of death—that he then pardoned what he had no power to pardon, viz; a sin to which the Mosaic law attached the penalty of death. For blasphemy, as for murder, there was no expiation short of the death of the blasphemer (Leviticus 2 Samuel 24:14-16; cf. 1 Kings 21:10, 1 Kings 21:13); and blasphemy, like murder, though not perhaps to the same extent, involved those who heard it in its guilt, until they had discharged themselves of their sin upon the head of the guilty (Leviticus 2 Samuel 14:14; cf. Leviticus 2 Samuel 5:1). But Shimei, so far from having suffered the penalty of the law, had been twice protected against it; twice preserved alive, in defiance of law, by the supreme magistrate, the executor of law. And David, who has been charging his son to keep the law, now realizes that he himself has been a law breaker. He has kept his oath, sworn to his own or his people’s hurt, and he will keep it to the end. But Solomon is under no such obligation. He can demand the long arrears of justice, none the less due because of the time that has elapsed and the royal laches ("nullum tempus occurrit regi"); he can deal with the blasphemer as the law directs, and this David now charges him to do. 1 Kings 2:8 And, behold, thou hast with thee [Bהhr understands by עִמְּךָ, "near thee," (in deiner Nahe) because Bahurim was near Jerusalem. Keil gathers from this word that Shimei "was living at that time in Jerusalem," and refers to 1 Kings 2:36, which, if anything, implies that he was not. But it is worth suggesting whether Shimei may not be the Shimei to whom reference is made in 1 Kings 1:8. We there find Shimei and Rei mentioned as firm adherents of Solomon at the time of Adonijah’s rising, and in these words, they "were not with Adonijah." Surely it is not an unfair presumption—if there is nothing to rebut it—that the Shimei subsequently mentioned as "with" Solomon is the same person. But it has been objected (e.g; by Kitto) that the false part that Shimei played at the time of Absalom’s revolt would have forever prevented his being recognized and mentioned as one of Solomon’s supporters. I very much doubt it. The great influence which Shimei possessed must be taken into account. Nothing shows that influence more clearly than the fact that on the day of David’s restoration, despite the part he had taken, and the possible disgrace and danger that awaited him, he could still command the attendance of one thousand men of Benjamin (2 Samuel 19:17). Probably the secret of his influence lay in the fact that he was "of the family of the house of Saul," and possibly, owing to the insignificance of Saul’s descendants, was the mainstay and chief representative of that house. And if so, there is nothing at all surprising in the mention of the fact that he was "not with Adonijah," and was subsequently "with" Solomon. It may have been a matter of great consequence at that critical time, which side Shimei—and the thousand or more Benjamites at his back—espoused. And if he did then declare for Solomon, it could hardly fail to procure him some amount of favour and consideration. He would thenceforward rank amongst the friends of the young king, and the words "thou hast with thee" would accurately describe his position] Shimei, the son of Gera [another Shimei, the son of Elah, is mentioned (1 Kings 4:11) as Solomon’s officer in Benjamin. Gera must not be thought of as the "father" of Shimei, except in the sense of ancestor. He was removed from him by many generations, being the son of Bela and the grandson of Benjamin (Genesis 46:21; cf. 1 Chronicles 7:6). Ehud, three hundred years earlier, is also described as "a son of Gera," Judges 3:15], a Benjamite [lit; the Benjamite, meaning that Gera, not Shimei, was the Benjamite. He was well known as the son of Benjamin’s firstborn (1 Chronicles 8:1-40:l), and the head of a house in Benjamin. Professor Gardiner, following the LXX. and Vulg; insists that, בֶּן־הַיְּמִינִי (with the article) can only mean "son of the Jaminite, i.e; of the descendants of Jamin, a son of Simeon." But this is directly contrary to what we read 9 Samuel 16; viz; that Shimei was of "a family of the house of Saul," i.e; a Benjamite. And to this the grammar agrees. Judges 3:15 is an exact parallel, and compare בֵּית־הַלַּחְמִי, 1 Samuel 6:14, 1 Samuel 6:18, and בֵּית־הַלַּחְמִי, 1 Samuel 16:1, 1 Samuel 16:18; 1 Samuel 17:58] of Bahurim [the name means "The young men." It was some six miles distant from Jerusalem, in Benjamin, and on (or off, as Josephus, Ant. 7.9, 7, implies) the main road to Jericho and the Jordan valley. It may have lain in one of the waddies branching out from the ravine which runs continuously alongside the steep descent to Jericho. The event narrated in 2 Samuel 3:16 as happening at Bahurim may well have served to inflame Shimei’s hatred. In spite of his rancorous hostility, however, we gather from 2 Samuel 17:18, that David had some faithful adherents there], which [lit; "and he"] cursed me with a grievous [acc. to Gesenius, al; "strong," i.e; sweeping; Keil, vehement; Thenius, "heillos," flagitious. LXX; κατάρανὀδυνηρὰν. Vulg; maledictio pessima] curse in the day when I went to Mahanaim [2 Samuel 16:5]; but he came down to meet me at Jordan [lit; the Jordan, i.e; the descender, so called from the rapidity of the stream or from the steep descents which lead to it. The word always has the defin. art.], and I sware to him by the Lord, saying, I will not put thee to death with the sword [2 Samuel 19:23]. 1 Kings 2:9 Now therefore [lit; "and now." Possibly the "now" is a note of time in apposition to the "day" of 1 Kings 2:8, or rather the time of David’s oath. "I then unadvisedly swam unto him, but now the law must have its course." Probably it is merely inferential,—quae cum ita sint] hold him not guiltless [rather, thou shalt not leave him unpunished (Vatablus, Gesen; Bähr, al.); cf. Exodus 20:7; Jeremiah 30:11]; for thou art a wise man [φρόνιμος rather than σοφός (LXX.) Gesen. renders here, "endued with ability to judge." David clearly desires that wisdom and justice, not malice or passion, should be Solomon’s guide], and knowest what thou oughtest to [lit; shalt or shouldest] do to him; but [Heb. and] his hoar head [mentioned, not maliciously, but with the idea that punishment, which had been long delayed, must overtake him nevertheless. The age of Joab and Shimei would make the Divine Nemesis the more conspicuous. Men would "see that there was a God that judgeth in the earth"] bring thou down to the grave with blood. The Auth. Version here needlessly alters the order of the original, which should be followed wherever it can be (and it generally can) without sacrifice of idiom and elegance. In this case the alteration, by the slight prominence it gives to "hoar head" and to "blood," gives a factitious harshness to the sentence. The Hebrew stands thus: "And thou shalt bring down his hoar head with blood to Sheol." This order of the words also exhibits somewhat more clearly the sequence of thought, which is this: "Thou art wise, therefore thou knowest what by law thou shouldest do. What thou shalt do is, thou shalt bring down," etc. It is clear from these words that if David was actuated by malice, by a "passionate desire to punish those who had wronged him" (Plumptre, Dict. Bib; art. "Solomon"), or by "fierce and profound vindictiveness", he was profoundly unconscious of it. If it was "a dark legacy of hate" (ibid.) he was bequeathing to Solomon, then he stands before us in these last hours either as an unctuous hypocrite, or as infatuated and inconsistent to the last degree. That the man who, in his opening words (verse 3), enjoined upon his son, in the most emphatic manner, a strict and literal obedience to the law of Heaven, should in these subsequent words, delivered almost in the same breath, require him to satiate a long-cherished and cruel revenge upon Joab and Shimei (the latter of whom he had twice delivered from death), is an instance of self contradiction which is almost, if not quite, without parallel. But as I have showed elsewhere, at some length, it is a superficial and entirely erroneous view of David’s last words, which supposes them to have been inspired by malice or cruelty. His absorbing idea was clearly this, that he had not "kept the charge of the Lord;" that he, the chief magistrate, the "revenger to execute wrath," by sparing Joab and Shimei, the murderer and the blasphemer, both of whose lives were forfeited to justice, had failed in his duty, had weakened the sanctions of law, and compromised the honour of the Most High. He is too old and too weak to execute the sentence of the law now, but for the safety of his people, for the security of his throne, it must be done, and therefore Solomon, who was under no obligation to spare the criminals his father had spared, must be required to do it. Of the Jewish king it might be said with a special propriety, "Rex est lex loquens," and seldom has the voice of law spoken with greater dignity and fidelity than by David in this dying charge. To say, as Harwood does, that "nothing but sophistry can justify his [David’s] charge to Solomon, not to let the unfortunate man [Shimei] die in peace," merely shows how imperfectly the writer has entered into the spirit of the theocratic law, that law under which David lived, and by which alone he could be governed and govern others. 1 Kings 2:10 So [Heb. and] David slept [Heb. lay down]. The idea of שָכַב is not that of sleep so much as of the recumbent posture of the dead. It points to the grave rather than to Sheol (Gesen.), though the latter idea is not excluded. Wordsworth (after a Lapide) finds here "an assertion of the doctrine of the existence of the soul after death, and of the resurrection of the body," but it is not in the text] with his fathers, but down to the age of the apostles (Acts 2:29). Probably owing to a misunderstanding of St. Peter’s words, "his sepulchre is with us," etc; the Coenaculum is now shown as David’s tomb. Josephus says Solomon placed a vast quantity of treasure with the body, three thousand talents of which were taken out by Hyrcanus (Ant. 13.8. 4). He has also a curious story of an attempted plunder of the tomb by Herod (Ant. 16.7. 1) 1 Kings 2:11 And the days that David reigned over Israel were forty years: seven years reigned he in Hebron, and thirty and three years reigned he in Jerusalem [as elsewhere (1 Chronicles 29:27), the historian has disregarded the fraction of a year in giving the length of David’s reign. He reigned at Hebron, according to 2 Samuel 5:5, "seven years and six months." 1 Kings 2:1-11 A Jewish deathbed. A brilliant poet and essayist once summoned his stepson, the young Earl of Warwick, to his bedside, and with perfect dignity and composure bade him mark "how a Christian man can die." In this section, one far greater, and yet in one sense far less, than Addison,—greater as a poet, as a statesman, as a patriot; less, inasmuch as "he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he,"—beckons us to the chamber of death, and bids us witness the departure of a pious Jew—of a typical Hebrew of the Hebrews. In one sense, David is the greatest figure in the Old Testament. He alone, of all that are born of women, has been called a "man after God’s own heart." And more: If Solomon is of all Old Testament characters the most secular, certainly David is by far the most spiritual. Proof: His songs are still chanted in church as well as synagogue, and Christian souls find no fitter expression for their devout longings and aspirations than in the language of his exquisite Psalms. Let us hear his last recorded words. The last utterances of great men are allowed to have a special interest. They have often been intensely characteristic. Let us listen to "the last words of David." Let us carefully notice (1) What he does say, and no less carefully (2) What he does not say. I.. WHAT HE DOES SAY. 1. He says he is not afraid to meet death. His conduct, his demeanour says this. See how calmly he looks it in the face. "I go the way," etc. He hardly knows what death means; knows but little of the life beyond; his hopes and fears are bounded by the pale and shadowy realm of Sheol, but he can trust the living God, and he thinks—he believes—"they cannot cease to live whom God does not cease to love." And so he goes into the gloom and the shadows with the trust of a child that holds the father’s hand; he approaches the grave "As one who wraps the drapery of his couch About him, and lies down to pleasant dreams." We have a far nobler creed—a livelier hope than his. Jesus Christ has "brought life and immortality to light." We have heard of the rest of Paradise; of the resurrection; of the beatific vision. Shall we then dread to die? Shall we be put to shame by a Jew? The Mohammedan calls death the "terminator of delights and the separator of companions." Socrates said, "Whether it is best to live or die, the gods only know." Shall we act as if we had no better belief? Surely our beneficent religion, and its gospel of immortality, should make us brave to die. 2. He bids us be mindful of our mortality. There are Christians who will not think, will not speak of death. Not so David. He saw the end approaching, and he faced it. It is well we should have from time to time, as we constantly have in daily life, in the dispensations of God’s providence, a memento mori. Pagan and Moslem monarchs have had their heralds daily and publicly remind them of their frailty. The ancient Egyptians would bring a mummy to their feasts. The Kaffars ever keep the boards for their coffins in their houses. With their dismal and often hopeless creeds, they yet remember death. Shall we, who know that death is but the gate of life, ostrich like, shut our eyes to it, and all "think all men to be mortal but ourselves?" 3. He teaches us in death to think of duty; to remember those who will come after us—our friends, enemies, church, and country. He leaves a son "young and tender." He is concerned for his piety, for his prosperity; and through him, for the piety and prosperity of the nation. He knows that the words of the dying have weight. He will not depart without a solemn dying charge. It is the last best gift he can bestow. The Christian must not die selfishly. Even in pain and feebleness, he must care for others. If he can, he ought to charge his children and connexions; to warn them, to bless them. Should he be less jealous for their present and eternal welfare, or less concerned for the honour and glory of God, than was this dying Jew? 4. He reminds us that men die as they have lived. David has kept the law, "save in the matter of Uriah," etc. His death is of a piece with his life—it is the natural outcome, the good fruit from a good tree. During life, he has been very zealous for the Lord God of Israel. The ruling passion displays itself in death. The great desire of the man who has kept the law is that his son may keep it. To die well, one must live well. The last struggle works no change in the character. Deathbed repentance is generally delusive. They deceive themselves, who, "Dying, put on the weeds of Dominic, Or as Franciscans think to pass disguised." 5. He warns us to set our house in order, to pay our debts and square our accounts before we die. David, we read, "prepared abundantly (for the temple) before his death." He has made royal provision for the house that should be built. But he remembers at last that three debts of his are still undischarged; a debt of gratitude to the sons of Barzillai, a debt of retribution to Joab, and another to Shimei. "Due punishment of malefactors is the debt of authority" (Bp. Hall). He will not, like some, "go on sinning in his grave;" he will have these debts discharged. He cannot depart in peace while they burden his conscience. And we, too, go where "there is neither work, nor device, nor knowledge," where wrongs cannot be redressed, where accounts cannot be settled. Have we any crime unconfessed, or injury unrepaired, any enemy unforgiven? "What thou doest, do quickly." But let us now consider— II. WHAT DAVID DOES NOT SAY. The silence of Scripture is often golden, is sometimes as instructive as its voices. Here is a case in point. The most spiritual of Old Testament saints—the man after God’s own heart—is dying, and he knows it. He gives his son his parting counsels, and what are they? They are all of this world. Observe— 1. There is no mention of a future life; no "hope full of immortality," no talk of reunion, but rather a sad "vale, vale in aeternum vale." The most remarkable feature in David’s last words is, that there is not one word about another ]fie. The Christian could not die thus. Even "half-inspired heathens" have expressed a livelier hope—witness Cicero’s "O praeclarum diem cum ad illud divimun animorum concilium coetumque proficisear"—and how immeasurably higher than this, again, is St. Paul’s desire to depart and be with Christ! "I go the way of all the earth"—it is like the sound of the clods upon the coffin, without the faintest whisper of a "Resurgam." What a contrast between this and the apostle’s exultant cry, "Death is swallowed up in victory!" And the very humblest Christian could hardly depart as David did, with absolutely no reference to the realm of the future. There would assuredly be some comforting word about the many mansions, the rest for the weary, the gates of pearl, the streets of fine gold. Of all this David said nothing, neither in life nor death, because he knew nothing. He had hopes, anticipations, convictions almost, as some of the Psalms show, but he had not what the Christian has, the "full assurance of faith," the "sure and certain hope of a resurrection to eternal life." In this respect how much greater was Addison, how much more "full of all blessed conditions" his death. In this respect, every Christian deathbed has a glory and a consecration and a triumph which we miss in the death chamber of the sweet Psalmist of Israel, the most saintly and spiritual of an the Jews. As Coleridge, "Is that a deathbed where the Christian lies? Yes, but not his; ’tis death itself there dies." 2. There is no idea of a future recompense. Hence, partly, his urgent demand for the punishment of Joab and Shimei. He does not know of a "judgment to come;" of any distribution of rewards and punishments after death. He has been taught that the righteous and the wicked alike are to be "recompensed in the earth," and therefore Joab and Shimei, albeit old and greyheaded, must not die in peace. If they do, justice, he thinks, will be robbed of its due. How different the conception of the Christian! He views with calmness the miscarriage of justice; he sees the wicked in great prosperity; he "bears the whips and scorns of time," "suffers the stings and arrows of outrageous fortune," knowing that this world is not all; that "God is patient because he is eternal," and that "the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain," at the judgment seat of Christ. 3. There was no hope of a kingdom and a crown. David’s idea was that he was leaving a kingdom; St. Paul’s that he was going to one. "Remove the diadem and take off the crown"—this was the message of death to the Hebrew kings. And to us death brings a crown (Revelation 2:10, Revelation 3:11; 2 Timothy 4:8; James 1:12, etc.), a throne (Romans 3:21), a sceptre (Revelation 2:27), a kingdom (Daniel 7:18; Luke 22:29; Hebrews 12:28, etc.) To the Jew death was practically the end of life and of glory; to the Christian it is the beginning of both. 1 Kings 2:1-11 Eikon Basilike. The king, the close of whose chequered and romantic career is narrated in this section, was the pattern king of the Hebrew people, and is in many respects a model for all kings. The portrait drawn here and in the Psalms is a veritable Eikon Basilike, both truer and worthier of regard than that "Portraiture of his sacred Majesty," so famous and so influential in the history of our own country. We see him gathered to his fathers. Let us honestly frame his eulogium. I. HE WAS ONE OF NATURE’S KINGS. The first king of Israel seems to have been chosen because of his physical, the second because of his moral, qualifications. His was a kingly soul. "Kind hearts are more than coronets"—yes, and more than crowns. Few nobler and greater men have ever lived. Witness his magnanimity, his chivalry, his loyalty, his bravery, his tenderness, his forgiveness of wrongs. See the records of 1 Samuel 16:12, 1 Samuel 16:21; 1 Samuel 27:1-12:32-37, 50; 1 Samuel 18:14-16; 1 Samuel 22:23; 1 Samuel 24:5, 1 Samuel 24:22; 1 Samuel 25:16; 1 Samuel 26:9-25; 2 Samuel 1:11-15; 2 Samuel 2:5, 2 Samuel 2:6; 2 Samuel 3:31-39; 2 Samuel 4:9-12; 2 Samuel 9:1; 2 Samuel 16:10, 2 Samuel 16:12; 2 Samuel 18:33; 2 Samuel 19:22. Such a man, had he lived and died among the sheepfolds, would have been "king of men for all that." II. HE WAS ONE OF HEAVEN’S KINGS. "The powers that be are ordained of God." All legitimate monarchs reign de jure divino. But not all equally so. He was expressly chosen of God (1 Samuel 16:1; Psalms 89:20), was taken from the sheepfolds and from perilous watches against the lion and the bear to be the viceroy of Heaven. And he proved himself a king after God’s own heart. He is the standard with which subsequent monarchs are compared, and by which they are judged, (2 Kings 11:4, 33; 2 Kings 15:3-5, 2 Kings 15:11; 2 Kings 14:3, etc.) III. HE WAS TO THE KING OF KINGS. "He did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from anything that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only," etc. (1 Kings 15:5). "His heart was perfect with the Lord his God" (1 Kings 11:4). He kept God’s commandments and statutes (2 Samuel 19:34). He was qualified to govern by having learnt to obey. He required nothing from his subjects which he did not himself render to his sovereign Lord. IV. HE THE OF A KING. The powers that be are appointed "to execute wrath on him that doeth evil." The Church at her altar prays "that they may truly and indifferently minister justice, to the punishment of wickedness and vice." "A wise king scattereth the wicked and bringeth the wheel over them." "The execution of justice on the guilty is essential even to the exercise of mercy to those whose safety depends on the maintenance of the law" (Wordsworth). David was never more kingly than when he "cut off all wicked doers from the city of the LORD" (Psalms 101:8). V. HE WAS A KING TO THE LAST. "David did never so wisely and carefully marshal the affairs of God as when he was fixed to the bed of his age and death" (Bp. Hall). It is the king speaks in this dying charge. It was because he was king, and as such owed obedience to the King of kings, and owed protection and the vindication of law to his subjects, that he could not pardon Joab and Shimei. A private person can forgive private wrongs; a king may not forgive public injuries, for he may not give away what is not his to give. It is true the son of David prayed for the forgiveness of his murderers. It is true that we are to forgive those who have wronged us. But we are not to defeat the ends of justice, and bid the malefactor go free. Nor will the Son of David forgive conscious and inveterate rebellion. He it is, the fount of all mercy, who will say, "Those mine enemies, who would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me" (Luke 19:27). VI. HE SOUGHT AND FOUND MERCY FROM THE KING OF KINGS. He was not perfect, not sinless. "Save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite." It is not the "fierce light that beats upon a throne" discloses David’s imperfections; it is his own confessions. In Psalms 51:1-19. he has himself recorded his sin and his profound penitence; in Psalms 32:1-11, he tells us of his pardon. The king of Israel tells us how the King of Heaven forgives. And here most of all, perhaps, is he a pattern for all kings, for all men, to the end of time. This Eikon Basilike has many goodly and noble features, but the fairest lineament of all is the story of his sin and its forgiveness (2 Samuel 12:1-18). BY E. Deuteronomy 1 Kings 2:1-11 Holy Scripture gives us many a touching and pathetic description of the death of the father of a family, showing how it at once sanctions and sanctifies natural affection. The farewells of David remind us of those of Jacob. Death sometimes seems to fill the men of God of the old covenant with the spirit of prophecy, as if the summit of the earthly life was illuminated with a purer radiance falling upon it from a higher sphere. Death is indeed to all the messenger of God to reveal to us great truths; it is a great prophet. I. Death shows to us WHERE ENDS THE WAY OF ALL THE EARTH (1 Kings 2:2). Pascal says, "However brilliant the tragedy may have been, the end is always death. From every grave which is dug comes a voice crying, Memento mori." II. DEATH TEACHES US TO LOOK AT OUR PAST AS A WHOLE, as from a height we look down on the plain below. It brings out the great object of life, the essential truth too often drowned in the busy hum of the world. David thinks no more at this hour of the glory or of the pleasures of life. Its one great end stands out more clearly before him to walk in the ways of the Lord, to keep His statutes and His commandments. This is wisdom and prudence. III. DEATH REMINDS THE OF GOD THAT THEIR WORK DOES NOT PERISH WITH THEM; that none of them, not even the greatest, is an indispensable instrument of the work; that they are only links in the chain. Thus the torch which is to enlighten the world is passed from hand to hand. IV. THE OF A HOLY WORK TO BE CARRIED ON is the best of those blessings which, according to God’s promise, are to rest upon His people to the third and fourth generations (Exodus 20:6). A great responsibility rests upon a Christian family, and their education ought to be conducted with a view to it. This succession in piety, in living and acting faith, is more important and more real than the succession by means of official ordination. V. Every servant of God, in his death, may say with Jesus Christ, "IT IS FOR YOU THAT I GO AWAY;" "YE SHALL DO GREATER THINGS THAN THESE." It is well to know, when our work is done, that it will be carried on by another. With Solomon, the Jewish theocracy received a new development, such as it had never known in the time of David. It is well for us to die, even for the sake of the work of God, which we are called to accomplish up to a certain point, but no further. VI. How much BETTER STILL IS IT FOR US TO DIE, when we look at it in the light of eternity. "David slept with his fathers (1 Kings 2:10), but only like them to be carried home to God, to rest in Abraham’s bosom" (Luke 16:22). For ourselves, we may say with St. Paul, "To depart, and be with Christ is far better" (Philippians 1:18).—E. DE P. 1 Kings 2:2 Show thyself a man. The religion of God is the religion of man. True religion is the perfecting of our humanity. I. MAN WAS MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. This is His essential characteristic. The more He reflects this image, the more truly manly He is. The religion of the Bible restores His manhood. II. THERE IS NO FACULTY IN MAN WHICH DOES NOT FIND ITS AND ITS IN GOD. His reason finds in God alone the truth which it seeks. His heart only finds an object adequate to its power of loving in the God who is Love. His conscience has for its ideal and its law the Divine holiness. "Be ye perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect" (Matthew 5:48). His will derives its power alone from God. 1. The Son of God was the Son of man, and realized the true idea of humanity in His holy life. 2. The religion of God honours and exalts man, even as falsehood and error degrade and debase him. 3. The Divine morality is in profound harmony with true human morality, that law which is written in the natural conscience. The petty religiousness which says, "Touch not, taste not, handle not" (Colossians 2:21), and creates all sorts of artificial duties, is not in accordance with true piety, the one great commandment of which—love to God and man—approves itself at once to the gospel and to the conscience. 4. Be a man means, finally, Do thy duty like a man. Be one of the violent who take the kingdom by force. Let us be careful not to effeminate our Christianity by a soft sentimentalism. Let us learn from the Son of God to be truly men "after God’s own heart."—E. DE P. BY J. WAITE 1 Kings 2:1-4 A royal father’s last words. David’s eventful life is drawing to a close. He has proved himself to be "a man after God’s own heart." Not perfect man, for he had grievous defects. But, in the main, he recognized the grandeur of his position as "the Lord’s anointed." He lived by the inspiration of a Divine purpose. He "served his own generation by the will of God" (Acts 13:36). His very faults bore witness to the native force of his character. The height of the precipice measures the depth that frowns beneath it. Great natures are most capable of great temptations, great sorrows, and great sins. But now great David dies, and the sovereignty of Israel must pass into other hands. I. THE OF A GOOD MAN IN THE FACE OF DEATH. "I go the way of all the earth." There is a tone of quiet composure and satisfaction in these words—remarkable feature of the way in which most of the Old Testament saints confronted death. More than mere Oriental courage, mere passive submission to the inevitable,—faith in the Unseen and Eternal—fortitude of a soul that has found nobler inheritance than earth supplies—peaceful self surrender into the hands of the Living God. Yet not like the clear and certain vision of Christian faith. Compare this, "I go the way," etc; with St. Paul’s "I have fought a good fight," etc. (2 Timothy 4:7, 2 Timothy 4:8). He who has a living hold on Christ can say, not merely "I go the way of all the earth," but "I go my way to the eternal home of the redeemed." "Absent from the body; present with the Lord." Composure in the face of death very much a matter of natural temperament—dependent on physical conditions—to be distinguished from the higher, triumph of faith. Men of faith sometimes in "bondage through fear of death." Live much with Christ, and when the fatal hour comes the sting and the terror shall be taken away. II. THE CARE OF A GODLY FATHER FOR THE WELL BEING OF HIS SON. Often in the life of David we see, through the garb of his kingly character, the throbbing of the true fatherly heart. The spirit of fatherhood here takes the form of wise and solemn counsel befitting the time. Fine touch of nature in this. The true father desires that his sons should be nobler, better, happier than himself. He lives over again in their life, and would have them to avoid the errors and evils into which he has fallen. David’s yearning for Solomon is at once intensified and hallowed by the remembrance of his own wrong doing. "Be strong and shew thyself a man." Solomon’s youth, gentle disposition, heavy responsibilities, alike demanded such counsel. Supreme lesson of life for the young—the path of obedience to the Divine law is that of safety and prosperity. The wisdom and strength God gives will enable the "little child" in the noblest sense to "play the man." Each generation on a vantage ground as compared with those that went before it—children "heirs of all the ages," Best legacy the fathers leave them—the great principles of truth and righteousness, as illustrated by their own living history. Chart of the ocean of life in the children’s hands; rocks and shoals and hidden currents traced by the care and toil and suffering of those who sailed before them. Let them use it wisely if they would have a safe and prosperous voyage. III. THE OF GOD’S PURPOSE AMID ALL THE CHANGES OF HUMAN HISTORY. David dies in the faith that "the Lord will continue His word." The "everlasting covenant ordered in all things and sure" is not fluctuating and perishable as the things and beings of earth. Steadfast order of the heavenly bodies and of the seasons a symbol of the sure covenant (Jeremiah 33:20). The frailty of man often serves to deepen our impression of the eternity of God. Human life a tale soon told, but "the counsel of the Lord standeth fast," etc. This is our security for the triumph of the cause of truth and righteousness in the world, "All flesh is grass," etc. (1 Peter 1:24). Man dies, but God lives; and the hope that stays itself upon His word can never be put to shame. IV. THE NATURE OF DIVINE . "If thy children take heed," etc. All Divine promises are thus conditional. Faith and practical submission needed to place us in the line of their fulfilment. God "continues His word" to those who continue in His ways. The promises are "Yea and amen" in Christ. Be "in Him" if you would realize them.—W. BY A. ROWLAND 1 Kings 2:2, 1 Kings 2:3 A charge from a dying king. The utterances of dying men naturally have weight. Those who stand on the border line between time and eternity have less temptation to disguise the truth, and are more likely than others to see things in their true relations. When those who speak to us thence are men who have long loved us, and who have ever proved worthy of our love, we must be callous indeed if their words are powerless. Exemplify by the mention of any whose whole future destiny turned upon the wish and the counsel of a dying father or friend. David’s counsel to Solomon had this double value. He spoke as a dying man, and as a wise and loving father. Happy would it have been for the son had this counsel always been the law of his life. 1. The anxiety of David for the moral and spiritual welfare of his son. Some parents deem their duty done if they see their sons and daughters fairly "settled in life," without much consideration for character. David cared first for character, and next for circumstances. He believed that if the heart were right with God, things would of themselves go right with men. 2. The willingness of Solomon to receive such counsels. How different was his spirit from that of Adonijah (1 Kings 1:5). Though young, high spirited, of princely rank, and already anointed king, he bows to listen to his aged father. Lessons of reverence for age, and respect to parents, to be drawn from this. In his charge to Solomon, David inculcates— I. THE OF TO GOD. He had seen the terrible effects of partial obedience in Saul, his own predecessor. (Illustrate from Saul’s life.) 1. This implies the recognition of God as King. He is King of kings, and Lord of lords, and even princely Solomon was to remember that he had a Master in heaven. This would be net only for his own good, but for the welfare of his kingdom. The tyrannies, the exactions, the cruelties of an ordinary Eastern despot would be impossible to one who habitually acknowledged that he was responsible to God, and that wrongs which no human court could avenge would receive just retribution from "the Judge of all the earth." The wishes of his dying father might somewhat restrain him, but these could not have the abiding power of the law of the ever-living and ever-present God. What safety belongs to him who, like Joseph, says in the hour of temptation, "How can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?" That thought may be ours in the darkness as well as in the light, amid strangers as well as in the precincts of home. To the lad setting out from his father’s house, to the man undertaking new responsibilities, the message comes, "Keep the charge of the Lord thy God, to walk in His ways." 2. This Involves thoroughness in obedience. David uses no vain repetitions when he speaks of "statutes, commandments, judgments, and testimonies." The whole, law, not part of it only, was to be remembered. We are all tempted to partial obedience. It is easy, natural, profitable to obey some commands. Disobedience will bring disease, or shame, or loss of reputation, and, fearing such penalties, some refrain from transgression. But there are other laws of God, obedience to which brings dishonour rather than glory, impoverishment and not advantage; and these also are to be obeyed if we would "walk before God in truth, with all our heart." Again there are some precepts which seem of trifling value, and we are tempted to say we need not be too precise. But we forget that God’s laws, even the least of them, are terribly precise. Science is proving this in every department of nature. The tide, for example, will not stop short a foot in space, nor a moment in time, to save the life of the helpless man penned in between the rocks. And are moral laws less inexorable? Besides, the crucial test of obedience is found in relation to little things. If your child obeys your important command, because he sees its importance, you are glad; but you are much more pleased when he does something you told him to do, merely because you wished it, for this is a higher proof of genuine obedience than that. II. THE OF . "Be thou strong, therefore, and show thyself a man." This sounds like an echo of God’s own words to Joshua (Joshua 1:7). The occasions too were similar. Joshua was entering on his leadership, and Solomon was on the steps of his throne. David would evoke the manly resolution of his son. There was the more necessity for this, because his honoured and heroic father could no longer stand beside him. One of God’s reasons for taking away our parents by death is to develope and strengthen our character. When the saplings grow under the shelter of the parent tree, they are weakly; but when the giant of the forest falls, and the winds of heaven begin to buffet those which have had its protection, their strength becomes greater, and their roots strike deeper. "Show thyself a man," says David to Solomon. Some suppose they show their manhood by aping the airs of the elders (smoking, swearing, etc.) But in David’s sense, to show yourself a man is to prove yourself wise, valorous, virtuous, and above all, loyal of heart to God. This exhortation then implies the manifestation of moral courage and strength. These are required in order to the obedience we have described, for such obedience implies struggle. 1. There is conflict with self. We have to cheek the uprising of passion, to fight against the pride which would make us refuse to submit to the revelation, and to the righteousness of God, etc. 2. There is resistance to the evil influences of others. When Solomon was misled by his wives, and began to worship their gods, he was forgetting the command, "Be strong and show thyself a man." Point out the necessity for moral courage, and for the renewal of strength, by waiting on God, to those surrounded by evil associates. 3. There is antagonism to popular customs. In school, in business, in national policy, in church routine, it is easier to float with the stream than to contend against it. He must needs "be strong, and show himself a man," who would say, "We must obey God rather than man!" Show where Solomon found this strength, and where he lost it. Give examples of both from sacred history. E.g; the disciples were cowards when Christ was away, but they became heroes when the promise was fulfilled at Pentecost: "They were endued with power from on high." III. THE OF . "That thou mayest prosper," etc. As an historical fact, this promise was fulfilled. The kingdom of Solomon prospered as long as he was faithful to the God of his father. His apostasy sowed the seeds of its decay. God’s promises are contingent, not absolute. They have attached to them implied conditions. This, which was shown in material blessings under the covenant of the old economy, is abidingly true. It is not that man merits the blessings of God by his obedience, but that he unfits himself to receive them by disobedience. This is yet more clearly seen under the light of the new dispensation. God gives a man that which he is fit for, on earth and in heaven. In and through Jesus Christ He has broadened our views of recompense. Beyond death the fulfilment of this promise extends, and he who is faithful with the few things shall be at last a ruler over many. In a spirit of humble obedience and prayerful dependence, let us seek to keep the charge and win the blessedness revealed in these dying words of the sweet Singer of Israel.—A. R. ’S . 1 Kings 2:12 And Solomon sate on the throne of David his father, and his kingdom [i.e; dominion, sway] was established greatly. [Cf. 2 Chronicles 1:1, 2 Chronicles 1:2. This verse serves as a kind of heading or introduction to the rest of the chapter. It was principally by the removal of rivals and disaffected persons that his sway was established. 1 Kings 2:13 And Adonijah, the son of Haggith, came to Bathsheba, the mother of Solomon. [The LXX. adds καὶπροσεκύνησεναὐτη, but the words are probably inserted from 1 Kings 2:19. The historian now relates the plot of Adonijah and its defeat. Foiled in his purpose to mount the throne by direct means, Adonijah and his advisers have recourse to intrigue and subtlety. By the aid of Abishag, he hopes to accomplish what his chariots and horsemen (1 Kings 1:5) had failed to effect. And he first addresses himself to the queen mother ("Aggreditur mulierem, ut regnandi ignaram ira amoribus facilem." Grotius). The position of the queen dowager m the Hebrew kingdom was an influential one; not unlike that of the Valide sultana amongst the Ottomans. Hence the constant mention of each king’s mother (1 Kings 14:31; 1 Kings 15:10, where notice 1 Kings 15:13; 2 Kings 11:1; 2 Kings 12:1; 2 Kings 14:2; 2 Kings 15:2, etc.; hence, too, the part which such a queen mother as Athaliah found it possible to take. This pre-eminence was a natural result of the polygamy of Eastern sovereigns (and the consequent intrigues of the harem), coupled with the high estimation in which the mother was held in the East.] And she said, Comest thou peaceably. [Heb. Is it peace thy coming! Bathsheba was evidently surprised by his visit. Owing to the part he had taken against her son, there would naturally have been but few dealings, if not positive alienation, between them. Her first thought, consequently, is, "What can this coming mean?" The prominence of the idea of peace in all Eastern salutations has often been noticed. Cf. 1 Samuel 16:4; 2 Kings 9:22; 2 Kings 4:26; 2 Kings 5:21; Luke 10:5; John 20:19-21, etc.] And he said, Peaceably [Heb. peace.] 1 Kings 2:14 He said moreover [Heb. And he said] I have somewhat to say unto thee [lit; "a word to me (cf. est mihi) for thee." This expression throws some light on the New Testament phrase, τίἐμοικαὶσοί, John 2:4, etc.] And she said, Say on. 1 Kings 2:15 And he said, Thou knowest that the kingdom was mine [schon so gut wie mein (Bähr). Adonijah evidently made much of the right of primogeniture (cf. 1 Kings 2:22), which was not unrecognized amongst the Jews. There is possibly in these words, too, a hint at the part Bathsheba had taken in defeating his claims] and that all Israel set their faces [i.e; eyes] upon me that I should reign [Heb. upon me all Israel set, etc. The "me" is emphatic by its position. So is the "mine" just before used. Several commentators remark that Adonijah’s words were not strictly true. But we hardly expect to find truth on such an occasion. Adonijah was adroit and diplomatic, and puts the case as it best serves his purpose. In order to propitiate Bathsheba, he exaggerates his loss and disappointment, just as in the next words, in order to put her off her guard, he plays the saint and obtrudes his piety and resignation ]: howbeit [lit; and], the kingdom is turned about and is become my brother’s, for it was his from the Lord. [This verse shows pretty clearly that Adoni-jah had not renounced his pretensions to the throne. Despite the pitiful failure of his first conspiracy, and notwithstanding Solomon’s generous condonation of his treason, he cannot forget that he was, and is, the eldest surviving son, and had been very near the throne. And as to the kingdom being his brother’s by Divine appointment, he cannot have been ignorant of that long ago (2 Samuel 12:25), yet he conspired all the same. And it is not difficult to read here between the lines, that he has not relinquished his hopes, and does not acquiesce in Solomon’s supremacy.] 1 Kings 2:16 And now I ask one petition of thee [Heb. request one request] deny me not [marg; "turn not away my face." Better, Turn not back, i.e; repulse not. Rawlinson paraphrases, "Make me not to hide my face through shame at being refused;" but this is not the idea of the original, which means, Reject me not; send me not away. In the Heb. "face" often stands for "person," for eyes (verse 15), looks, mien]. And she said unto him, Say on. 1 Kings 2:17 And he said, Speak, I pray thee, unto Solomon the ring; for he will not say thee nay, [will not repulse thee. Same words as 1 Kings 2:16. There is a spice of flattery in these words. He now exaggerates her influence with the king] that he may give me Abishag the Shunammite to wife. [We are hardly justified in concluding, as some commentators have done, that love had nothing to do with this request. It is not improbable, on the contrary, that a passion for the beautiful Shunamnite, perhaps the fairest woman of her time, may have first given a powerful impulse to Adonijah’s ambition (see on 1 Kings 1:5). At the same time, he must have had ulterior motives (see on 1 Kings 2:22). 1 Kings 2:18 And Bathsheba said, Well [there is no reason why the strict rendering "good," should not be preserved here. The A.V. follows the LXX. καλῶς. Similarly Luther, wohl; but Bähr, gut], I will speak for thee [LXX. περὶσοῦ] unto the king. 1 Kings 2:19 Bathsheba therefore [lit; And Bathsheba] went unto king [Heb. the king] Solomon, to speak unto him for Adonijah. And the king rose up to meet her, and bowed himself unto her, [the LXX. reads, "and kissed" her (καὶκατεφίλησεναὐτὴν). There is not necessarily a pregnant construction, as Keil insists: "rose up and went down to meet her." We get here a glimpse of the stateliness of Solomon’s court] and sat down on his throne, and caused a seat [lit; throne, same word] to be set [most probably the servants of Solomon placed the seat for the queen mother, as the LXX. (ἐτέθηθρόνος) and most translators. The reception was clearly a public one, if the interview was private. But the original is simply, "and he set," etc; suggesting that Solomon may have done it, as a mark of respect, with his own hands. He "received his mother as גְּבִירָה" (1 Kings 15:13). Bהhr] for the mother of the king, and she sat on his right hand. [The place of honour. Cf. Psalms 110:1; Matthew 20:21; Matthew 25:33; Acts 7:56; Romans 8:34; Hebrews 1:3; Hebrews 8:1, etc. It was also the place of honour amongst Arabians (Keil), Greeks, and Romans, as the very names εὐώνυμος—an euphemism for ἀριστερός—and sinistra, show. 1 Kings 2:20 Then she said, I desire one small petition of thee. [So it seemed, no doubt, to her, in her inexperience and ignorance of Adonijah’s real motives. She thought she held the threads of a love story in her hands, and that it would be a small thing for Solomon to make these handsome lovers happy]: I pray thee, say me not nay. And the king said unto her, Ask on, my mother: for I will not say thee nay. [The readiness of the king to grant whatever she asked proves that the reasons which induced him to deny her request must have been weighty; i.e; Adonijah’s suit cannot have been devoid of political consequences. 1 Kings 2:21 And she said, Let Abishag the Shunammite be given to Adonijah thy brother to wife. [For the construction (אֵת with a nominative, or, as some think, יֻתַּן used impersonally—man gebe), cf. Genesis 27:42; Exodus 10:8; and especially Numbers 32:5; and see Gesen; Lex. s.v. אֵת, and Ewald, Syntax, 295 b.] 1 Kings 2:22 And king Solomon answered and said unto his mother, And why dost thou ask Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? [Professor Plumptre (Dict. Bib; art. "Solomon") says this "narrative is not a little perplexing." He then specially remarks on the strangeness of Bathsheba’s interceding for Adonijah, and also on Solomon’s "flashing into fiercest wrath" at her request. He explains the facts, however, by "Mr. Grove’s ingenious theory identifying Abishag with the Shulamite (Son 6:13), the heroine of the Song of Songs." It is "the passionate love of Solomon for the fairest among women’ that has made Bathsheba, "hitherto supreme, to fear a rival influence, and to join in any scheme for its removal." The king’s vehement abruptness is in like manner accounted for. He sees in the request at once an attempt to deprive him of the woman he loves and a plot to keep him still in the tutelage of childhood. Of the ingenuity of this theory no one can doubt, nor yet that it may possibly represent the actual facts. But it is not necessary, nor does it help much to the explanation of the narrative. Bathsheba’s intervention may easily be accounted for by (1) her desire to conciliate her son’s most formidable rival; (2) her feminine interest in a love match; and (3) her pride, which could not but be flattered, on being assured that her influence with the king was so great. Nor is it any more difficult to assign a reason for Solomon’s sudden outburst of anger. This request is evidence to him of a fresh plot against his throne, a plot so skilfully laid that its abettors have been able to deceive his own mother, and have made her a tool for its advancement. Surely this is quite enough to account for Solomon’s indignation. And the theory of a love story has this disadvantage, that the young king completely ignores it in what follows, all his concern being about the kingdom, and not one word being said about the woman; and again—and this is almost fatal—his mention of Joab and Abiathar, and his subsequent dealings with them, prove conclusively that he suspected a conspiracy against his crown, not a scheme, in which these latter could have had no interest, and therefore no part, to rob him of a mistress] ask for him the kingdom also [Heb. and ask for him = and (you will next) ask for him; or, Aye, ask for him, etc. It was quite natural that Solomon should see in Adonijah’s suit for Abishag an indirect, but none the less real or dangerous, attempt to compass his own downfall. For it was one of the customs of Oriental monarchies that the harem of a sovereign descended to his successor. Thus the impostor Smerdis took possession of the harem of Cambyses (Herod. 3:68), while Darius in turn had some of the wives of Smerdis (3:88). And what is much more to the point, a similar custom obtained amongst the Jews. David, for example, succeeded to the wives, along with the kingdom, of Saul (2 Samuel 12:8). And we see from the case of Abner and Rizpah (2 Samuel 3:8), and still more from that of Absalom (ch. 16:22), that to "take possession of the harem was the most decided act of sovereignty" (Lord A. Hervey, Speak. Com. on 2 Samuel 16:21). Now all these instances were of too recent a date, and had attracted far too much attention at the time, to have made it possible for them to have escaped either Solomon’s or Adonijah’s observation. They manifest "such a close connection in public opinion between the title to the crown and the possession of the deceased monarch’s wives, that to have granted Adonijah’s request would have been the strongest encouragement to his pretensions" (Rawlinson in loco). It may be said that Abishag had not really been the concubine of David (Hebrews 1:4), which is true, and which explains what would otherwise have been the astonishing impiety of Adonijah (Leviticus 18:8, 20:11; cf. 1 Corinthians 5:1), and the wonderful complaisance of Bathsheba. There is no warrant for charging Adonijah (as is done by a Lapide, Wordsworth, al.) with defying the Divine law and seeking an incestuous alliance, for the historian is careful to represent Abishag as David’s attendant, and not as his wife. But it is hardly probable that the nation at large knew this. People generally could only suppose that this fair young girl, chosen out of all the thousands of Israel because of her beauty, had become to all intents and purposes one of the royal seraglio. It is almost a certainty, therefore, that Adonijah’s request concealed a plot for using Abishag as a stepping stone to the throne, and Solomon certainly is not to be blamed if he interpreted it by the light of contemporaneous history, and by the usages of his time and country. He knew that his brother had made one deliberate effort to supplant him, and therefore he could only conclude that this was a second, though veiled, attempt to deprive him of his kingdom]; even for him and for Abiathar the priest, and for Joab the son of Zeruiah. [The LXX. and other translators appear to have had a slightly different text before them. The LXX. renders, καὶαὐτῷ̓Αβιάθαρκαὶαὐτῷ, κ.τ.λ.; the Vulgate, "et habet Abiathar," etc. The Chald. paraphrases, "nonne in cansilio fuerunt ille et Abiathar," etc. Keil well remarks that "the repetition of answers entirely to the emotional character of the words." We can hardly believe, however, that in these conversations we have the ipsissima verba of the speakers If so, how were they preserved and handed down to the author? Even a "court scribe" would hardly catch every turn of expression. And possibly this interview with Bathsheba was private. It would almost seem, from the immediate mention of Joab and Abiathar, as if Solomon had received some prior intimation of this second conspiracy. Possibly his remarkable penetration had divined that mischief was brewing from the bearing of the three, who no doubt would be narrowly watched. Or he may have heard of frequent meetings on their part. Anyhow, Adonijah’s suit is to him conclusive proof of a plot]. 1 Kings 2:23 Then king Solomon sware by the Lord, saying, God do so to me, and more also [a common form of adjuration (Rth 1:17; 1 Samuel 14:44; 1 Samuel 20:13; 2 Samuel 3:9; 2 Samuel 19:13, etc.) = Gott soil mich fort und fort strafen. Bähr], if [or "that." כִי constantly follows formulae of swearing, as in all the passages just cited. Cf. the use of ὅτι in New Testament. The order of the next words in the Hebrew is noticeable] against his life spake Adonijah this word. [בְּנַפְשׁו, "at the peril or cost of his life." Cf. 2 Samuel 23:17; Joshua 23:11. 1 Kings 2:24 Now therefore [Heb. and now], as the Lord liveth, which hath established me, and set me [a éhas here crept into the text; obviously owing to the fact that this same letter both precedes and follows] on the throne of David my father, and who hath made me an house [Keil and Wordsworth understand by this expression, "hath given me issue." "Solomon," says Keil, "had already one son, viz; Rehoboam, about a year old." But some doubt seems to attach to the "forty and one years" mentioned as the age of Rehoboam at his accession. Bהhr says Solomon’s "marriage did not occur till afterwards (Hebrews 3:1). And we find from 1 Kings 11:38; 2 Samuel 7:11, 2 Samuel 7:27, that to ’make,’ or ’build an house,’ means to found a lasting dynasty"], as he promised [Heb. spake, i.e; at 2 Samuel 7:11-13], Adonijah shall be put to death this day. 1 Kings 2:25 And King Solomon sent by the hand [i.e; the instrumentality; not necessarily eigenhandig, as Thenius. Cf. Exodus 4:13; 1 Samuel 16:20, Hebrews; 1 Kings 12:15; 1 Kings 14:18; Jeremiah 37:2 ("which he spake by the hand of Jeremiah"), etc. The same expression is found in verse 46 of this chapter] of Benaiah [in the East the captain of the king’s bodyguard has always been the "chief of the executioners," the title given to Potiphar, Genesis 37:36, Hebrews; in 2 Kings 25:8 to Nebuzar-Adan; and in Daniel 2:14 to Arioch "the captain of the king’s guard, which was gone forth to slay the wise men, etc.] and he fell upon him so that he died. [Solomon has been accused of "a coldblooded vengeance" and of "that jealous cruelty so common in Oriental despots," in ordering the execution of his brother. But unjustly. It is to be remembered that on the occasion of Adonijah’s first rebellion the young monarch had displayed the greatest magnanimity towards him. He might then have justly decreed against him the death which no doubt the conspirators had designed against him (1 Kings 1:12.) Adonijah, by fleeing to the altar, showed that he had good grounds for fearing the avenging sword. He was clearly conscious that he had merited the death of the traitor. But Solomon spared him, during good behaviour. He warned him that "if wickedness were found in him" he should die (1 Kings 1:52.) His first treason, consequently, was not to be lost sight of, in case he were guilty of a fresh offence. And now that he is found conspiring again; now that he abuses the royal clemency, and seeks by chicanery and intrigue to snatch his brother’s crown, the sentence of death takes effect. This renewed attempt, after failure and forgiveness, must have convinced the king that Adonijah’s pretensions would be a standing menace to the peace and prosperity of his empire, and therefore he owed it to himself, to his subjects, and above all to God, who had entrusted him with the crown, to put this restless and dangerous plotter out of the way. To pass over a second offence would be a virtual encouragement of sedition, for it would show that the king was weak and might be trifled with. Adonijah therefore must die, not only in expiation of his treason, but as an example to the subjects of Solomon, that the disaffected, including all Adonijah’s partizans, might be awed into obedience. 1 Kings 2:22-25 The Brothers. It may be instructive if, after the manner of ancient writers, we draw out a comparison between the two brothers whose history is recorded in part in this section, and who here appear as rivals. Their careers were very different. The one reigned with almost unparalleled magnificence for forty years; the other fell in the very May-morn of his life by the sword of the executioner. What were the causes which produced such different results? Let us consider some few of them. I. WAS ENDUED WITH BEAUTY, SOLOMON WITH WISDOM. The first had goodliness; the second goodness. Men admired Adonijah; the Lord loved Solomon (2 Samuel 12:24). To the elder brother the Allwise Providence allotted the gifts of face and form—exterior advantages—to the latter He gave "wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart"—the quiet, unobtrusive adornment of the spirit. Wisdom is better than rubies; yes, and better than beauties. II. WAS ; SOLOMON WAS PIOUS. The first loved self, and sought his own advancement. The second "loved the LORD" (1 Kings 3:3). The first, by his own showing, resisted and defied the will of Heaven (1 Kings 2:15); the latter "walked in the statutes of David his father." Adonijah desired riches, honours, the life of his enemies; Solomon asked for none of these things, but for an understanding heart (1 Kings 3:9, 1 Kings 3:11). Their lives consequently were regulated on totally different principles. The first acted as if he were master (1 Kings 1:5); the second remembered he was but a servant (1 Kings 2:9). And Adonijah lost everything, even his life, while Solomon gained everything—the wisdom for which he asked; the "richest honour" for which he did not ask. Verily "godliness is profitable unto all things (1 Timothy 4:8). III. SOUGHT TO FORCE EVENTS; SOLOMON WAITED FOR THE LORD. Adonijah would not wait till his father was dead; he would snatch the sceptre from the old man’s feeble grasp; he would be king at any cost, and at once. It is worth noticing that Solomon on the other hand took no part in the measures which placed him on the throne. "He that believeth shall not make haste." The one sought to frustrate the designs of Providence, the other "committed himself to him that judgeth righteously." And he was crowned and Adonijah was executed. IV. AGAINST HIS FATHER; SOLOMON HIS MOTHER. Treatment of parents is a test of character. To honour father and mother is "the first commandment with promise." Adonijah repaid his father’s indulgence with treason against his throne; Solomon, when seated on his throne, had a throne set for his mother. If he were king, his mother should be queen. He received her with the profoundest respect, though she was his subject; for he "counted her uncrowned womanhood to be the royal thing." The fortunes of these two brothers were not more diverse than their characters, as revealed by their treatment of their eiders. And their histories accorded with their principles; their lives and deaths illustrated the commandment. V. GOD CHOSE SOLOMON AND REFUSED . As in the case of Esau and Jacob, as in the case of Manasseh and Ephraim, the younger is preferred to the elder. And yet the elder was apparently the popular favourite. "Man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Load looketh on the heart." It is the case of David and his brethren over again. In all these cases "the Lord hath set apart him that’s godly for himself." The meek, pacific Solomon, the rejected of Joab and Abiathar, is the accepted of Jehovah. And the brilliant and beautiful Adonijah, his advantages, his influence, his efforts, all these avail him nothing, for "the proud"—and we may add, the selfish, the disobedient—"the LORD knoweth afar off" (Psalms 138:6), while "the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth" (Psalms 11:5). THE OF AND THE DEATH OF JOAB. 1 Kings 2:26 And unto Abiathar the priest [see note on 1 Kings 1:8. The historian now relates the end of Adonijah’s confederates] said the king, get thee to Anathoth [The Heb. is extremely curt and authoritative, corresponding well with the anger and determination of the speaker. Anathoth, the home of Abiathar, was also the residence of another high priest, Hilkiah (Jeremiah 1:1). It was in Benjamin, a priests’ city, and had suburbs (Jeremiah 21:1-14:18, 17, 18). It has been identified by Robinson with Anita, a village 1.25 hrs. N.N.E, of Jerns. The name (= Answers) according to Gesenius, means, "answers to prayer," but according to the Talmud, "echoes"], unto [עַל is here almost the equivalent of אֶל. Cf. 2 Samuel 15:4, 2 Samuel 15:20, Hebrews etc.] thine own fields [the patrimony of his family] for thou art worthy of death; [Heb. a man of death; LXX. ἀνὴρθανάτου, i.e; ἔνοχοςθανάτου, Matthew 26:66. but I will not at this time [Heb. in this day] put thee to death [i.e; the sentence of death was deferred during good behaviour. It is hardly correct to say that Abiathar was "spared for a time, but only for a time" (Stanley). More correctly Corn. a Lapide: "Misit eum in patriam ut ibi vitam, quam ei condonabat, quiete traduceret." For aught we know, he died in peace because thou barest the ark of the Lord God before David my father [Thenius, quite needlessly would read for "ark," .... "ephod" (1 Samuel 23:6). Zadok and Abiathar had borne the ark (not of course in person, but per altos, viz; the Levites Uriel, Joel, etc.: 1 Chronicles 15:11), when David brought it up to Jerusalem, and also during his flight from Absalom (2 Samuel 15:24-29). Abiathar had thus been associated both with David’s joys and sorrows] and because thou hast been afflicted in all wherein my father was afflicted. [See 1 Samuel 22:17-23; 2 Samuel 15:24, etc.] 1 Kings 2:27 So Solomon thrust out Abtathar from being priest unto the Lord, that he might fulfil [Heb. to fulfil "An addition of the narrator, not the intention of Solomon. It is the ἵναπληρωθῇ of the New Testament." Bähr] the word of the Lord, which he spake concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh [1 Samuel 2:31-35. Abiathar was the last descendant of the house of Ithamar. With his deposition the high priesthood reverted to the house of Eleazar, and so another "word of the Lord" had its fulfilment (Numbers 25:15).] No one can justly accuse Solomon of unnecessary severity or of cruelty in his treatment of Abiathar. On the occasion of his first conspiracy, Abiathar seems to have escaped even censure. And yet that conspiracy, had it succeeded, would almost certainly have involved Solomon’s death (1 Samuel 1:12). He is now found plotting again, for the action of Solomon proves that there had been a second plot. Oriental usages would have justified his death. He is simply warned and banished. 1 Kings 2:28 Then tidings [Heb. And the report, etc. Not necessarily of Abiathar’s deposition, but certainly of Adonijah’s death] came to Joab, for Joab had turned after [same expression as in Exodus 23:2; Judges 9:3] Adonijah, though [lit; and] he turned not after Absalom. [The LXX. (Cod. Vat.), Vulg; and all ancient versions except the Chald; here read Solomon, which Ewald and Thenius adopt. This reading is perhaps too summarily dismissed by most commentators, as involving a statement which would be self evident and superfluous. But it is not so. The meaning would then be that Joab had inclined to Adonijah, and had not, subsequently, gone over to the side of Solomon—information which is much less obvious than that he had not "gone after Absalom." The Arabic version may thus be nearest the truth, which reads, "Neither did he love Solomon." Somewhat similarly Josephus.] And Joab fled unto the tabernacle of the Lord, and caught hold of the horns of the altar. [As Adonijah had done before him (1 Kings 1:50). His flight is almost certain evidence of his guilt. ("Joab vero seipsum prodidit." Munster.) Why should he flee, if conscious of innocence? Solomon had acted generously before, and Joab would not be aware of David’s dying instructions. His two assassinations had remained so long unpunished that he would hardly expect to be called to an account for them now. We have here, therefore, another indication of a second conspiracy, and it is an old belief (Theodorot, al.) that Joab had suggested to Adonijah the plan of marriage with Abishag. Some have asked why Joab should flee to the altar when his crimes deprived him of the right of the sanctuary. But a drowning man grasps at a straw. It is probable that he never thought of his murders, but only of his treason. According to the Rabbis, death at the altar ensured him burial amongst his fathers (Munster). But, if this were so, it would hardly enter into his calculations. 1 Kings 2:29 And it was told king Solomon that Joab was fled unto the tabernacle of the Lord; and, behold, he is by the altar. [The LXX. here inserts, "And Solomon the king sent to Joab, saying, What has happened thee, that thou art fled to the altar? And Joab said, Because I feared before thee, and I fled to the Lord." This is only a gloss, but it is an instructive one. It shows that the author regarded Joab’s flight as betraying a guilty conscience.] Then Solomon sent Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada, saying, Go, fall upon him. [The LXX. adds, "and bury him."] 1 Kings 2:30 And Benaiah came to the tabernacle of the Lord, and said unto him [Benaiah evidently "hesitated to stain the altar with blood." It was only the sanctity of the altar which made it an asylum. There was strictly no "right of sanctuary"], Thus saith the king, Come forth. [Probably Solomon bad directed that Joab should, if possible, be induced to leave the altar. Every Jew would dread its profanation by strife and bloodshed.] And he said, Nay; but I will die here. [Heb. "here will I die." Joab may possibly have thought that Solomon would hardly venture to put him to death there, and that so he might somehow escape with his life. But it is more probable that he counted on death, and that a feeling of superstition, or of defiance, had decided him to meet his doom there. It should be borne in mind that gross superstition not uncommonly accompanies irreligion and brutality; and it is quite conceivable that Joab hoped for some indefinable benefit from the shadow of the altar, much as the poor Polish Jew expects from burial in Jerusalem. Or his motive may have been defiance, thinking he would "render Solomon odious to the people, as a profaner of the Holy Place" (M. Henry). It can hardly have been to put off forever so short a time the execution, as Bishop Hall imagines.] 1 Kings 2:31 And the king said unto him do as he hath said, and fall upon him [the law decreed (Exodus 21:14) that, if a man had slain his neighbour with guile, he should be taken from the altar to die. Possibly the desperate character of Joab made literal compliance with this command well nigh impossible. The attempt to drag him from his place of refuge might have led to a bloody encounter. And the king evidently felt that Joab’s crimes justified exceptional measures], and bury him [why this injunction? Possibly because the spirit of Deu 21:23 seemed to Solomon to require it. Both Bähr and Keil think it was that Joab’s services to the kingdom might be requited with an honourable sepulture. Was it not rather that the corpse might be removed with all possible haste from the sanctuary, which it defiled, and hidden from view, as one accursed of God, in the earth? So Bishop Hall: "He sends Benaiah to take away the offender both from God and men, from the altar and the world"]; that thou mayest take away [LXX. "today," σήμερον] the innocent blood [for the construction cf. 1 Samuel 25:31; Nehemiah 2:12; and Ewald, 287d. Innocent blood, i.e; blood not shed in war, or forfeited to justice, rested upon the community, or the authorities responsible for its punishment (Numbers 35:33; Deuteronomy 19:10, Deuteronomy 19:13; Deuteronomy 21:9. Cf. Genesis 4:10) until satisfaction was made. See on Nehemiah 2:5], which Joab shed, from me, and from the house of my father. [Heb. "from upon me." Solomon evidently believed that the guilt of blood was upon him and his house so long as Abner’s and Amasa’s blood remained unavenged ("The blood that is not required from the murderer will be required from the magistrate." Henry), and that he and his seed might have to answer for it, as Saul’s seed had done (2 Samuel 21:1, 2 Samuel 21:9). This is one of the many considerations which show that both David and Solomon were actuated not by "cold-blooded vengeance" or "long-cherished resentment" (Stanley), but by a sense of duty. In fact, Jewish law imperatively demanded the death of Joab, and to spare him was to violate all law, and to imperil the throne and the people. "Only a superficial observer," says Ewald, "can here reproach Solomon with needless severity."] 1 Kings 2:32 And the Lord shall return [LXX. ἐπέστρεψε, returns, or returned] his blood [LXX. τὸαἷματῆςἀδικίαςαὐτοῦ, i.e; the blood he had shed. Cf. 1 Kings 2:33, 1 Kings 2:44] upon his own head, who fell upon [same word as in 1 Kings 2:29, 1 Kings 2:31. So that it was strictly a retaliation. The lex talionis was carried out to the letter] two men more righteous and better than he, and slew them with the sword, my father David not knowing. [Heb. "and my father David knew not," i.e; was not privy thereto. Solomon thinks of the unjust suspicions which these crimes cast upon his father.] 1 Kings 2:33 Their blood shall therefore return upon the head of Josh, and upon the head of his seed [according to Exodus 20:5; Exodus 34:7; Le Exodus 20:5; Exodus 26:1-37:39. There is an obvious reference to David’s curse 2 Samuel 3:29, which thoroughly agreed with the spirit of the Old Testament in comprehending the children in its sweep. And it is to be noticed that the sins of the fathers are still, by the operation of natural laws, and by the constitution and laws of society, visited upon the children, to the third and fourth generation] forever: but upon [Heb. to] David, and upon his seed, and upon his house, and upon his throne, shall there be [or "be," optative; LXX. γένοιτο] peace [i.e; prosperity] forever from the Lord. [So persuaded is Solomon that he is fulfilling a religious duty in decreeing the execution of Joab; so little thought has he of malice, revenge, or any baser motive, that he counts on the Divine blessing m perpetuity for the deed.] 1 Kings 2:34 So Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada, went up [not because the altar" stood higher up Mount Zion than Solomon’s house" (Keil), but because Gibeon, where the tabernacle and brazen altar then were, stood higher than Jerusalem. It is remarkable that retribution thus overtook Joab on the very scene of his last murder, for it was "at the great stone which is in Gibeon" (2 Samuel 20:8), that he slew Amasa. Cf. 2 Kings 9:26: "I will requite thee in this plat, saith the Lord"], and fell upon him, and slew him: and he was buried in his own house [possibly in the courtyard: hardly in the garden. The same is recorded of Samuel (1 Samuel 25:1). It was evidently an exceptional occurrence. Remembering the estimation in which the Jew held the corpse and the grave (Numbers 19:11, Numbers 19:16, Numbers 19:22; cf. Matthew 23:27), it must have been a singular honour to make of the house a mausoleum. No doubt it was designed to be such in Joab’s case. Whatever his crimes, his services had deserved well of his country. Possibly his friends were led to pay him this special honour as a kind of counterpoise to the ignominy of his death] in the wilderness [i.e; of Judah. Joab’s mother was of Bethlehem, which was on the border of the desert. The "wilderness of Tekoah" (2 Chronicles 20:20), according to Jerome, was visible from Bethlehem, being but six Roman miles distant. 1 Kings 2:35 And the king put Benaiah the son of Jehoiada in his room over the host: and Zadok the priest did the king put in the room of Abiathar. [It is hardly likely that Joab would be retained in command of the army after the conspiracy of 1 Kings 1:1-53; nor is this implied in this verse, the meaning of which is that Benaiah took the place of Josh, and that Zadok henceforward was sole high priest.] 1 Kings 2:26, 1 Kings 2:27 The Degraded High Priest. We may find in this section a sermon on Caesarism. The relations of the world power to the Church; the province of the State and the prerogatives of the clergy; what are the proper limits of the temporal power and what is the exclusive domain of the spiritual; these have been vexed questions for many centuries. They are prominent topics at the present day. We may perhaps find in this history a few principles to guide us. For we learn I. THAT PRIESTS HAD BETTER NOT MEDDLE WITH . No one can deny their abstract right to do so. They are men, if they are clergymen, and "nihil humani," etc. As citizens, they may have convictions. Having convictions, they may surely give effect to them. No one can deny again that they have often interfered to good purpose. Witness the case of Jehoiada. It may sometimes be a duty to interfere. But all the same, their plane is not the plane of politics. Their πολίτευμα is the Church. And what is lawful, is not always expedient. Their meddling has often cost not only them, but the Church, dear. Well had it been for Abiathar; well for the Wolseys, Richelieus, and many more, had they never given up "to party what was meant for mankind." There are questions—imperial questions of right and wrong—where the clergy must speak out; there are other questions—party questions -- where, for their own and their flocks’ sake, they had better hold their peace. II. THAT PRIESTS ARE MEN OF LIKE WITH OTHER MEN. Abiathar apparently was not free from that "last infirmity of noble minds." It was probably jealousy of Zadok impelled him to conspire against Solomon, and to join hands with the murderer Josh against the prophet Nathan. Neither the holy anointing oil nor the discharge of the priest’s office destroys the phronema sarkos (see Art. IX.) It is worthy of note that the first high priest was guilty of idolatry, envy, and murmurings; that the sons of Eli committed abominable crimes; and that the high priests Annas and Caiaphas condemned the Lord of Glory. Every high priest needed to "make atonement for his own sins (Leviticus 1 Kings 16:6, 1 Kings 16:11). Abiathar, the minister of God, was a traitor against God and His anointed. Having the frailties, temptations, and passions of other men, priests often commit sins, sometimes commit crimes. III. THAT PRIESTS MAY BE FOR THEIR CRIMES BY THE SECULAR POWER. For centuries the Latin Church contended with our forefathers for the exemption of ecclesiastics front the authority of civil tribunals. But the Jewish priests enjoyed no such exemption. Abiathar was threatened by Solomon with death, and was thrust out of his office. Our Great High Priest respected the tribunal of Pontius Pilate. And His apostle answered for himself before Felix and Festus, and before great Caesar himself. (Cf. Art. 37, of the "Articles of Religion.") But IV. PRIESTS ARE TO BE TREATED WITH THE DUE TO THEIR OFFICE. "Because thou barest the ark of the LORD GOD." Criminous clergy are not to be so punished as to bring their sacred calling into contempt (not, e.g; to be set to sweep the streets, as General Butler forced one of the American bishops to do in New Orleans). If the man is entitled to no consideration, the office is. He wears the livery of the Great King. The vessel is "earthen," but the treasure "heavenly" (2 Corinthians 4:7). "As men are to God’s ministers, they will find Him to them." V. PRIESTS MAY BE FROM THEIR , BUT CANNOT BE OF THEIR . They did not derive their authority from the civil power. It did not give, and it cannot take away. David did not make Abiathar priest, and Solomon could not unmake him. We find from 1 Kings 4:4 that he was still called "priest." He that is "called of God, as was Aaron," can only be recalled of God. When Solomon "thrust out Abiathar," he "deprived him of his dignity, but did not strip him of his priesthood" (Theodoret). The state may fine, imprison, banish, put to death Christ’s ambassadors according to their deserts, but it may not alter their message, tamper with their creeds, confer their orders, or prescribe their ordinances. "To Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s." VI. IN THE PRIEST THE CIVIL POWER IS THE WILL OF THE LORD. The "sure word of prophecy"—indeed a double prophecy—had its fulfilment when Solomon banished Ahiathar. The secular power thereby accomplished the good pleasure of God declared four hundred years before (Numbers 25:13). And the magistrate who, in the exercise of the authority conferred on him by God for the punishment of evil doers, degrades the criminous priest, silences him, visits him with appropriate pains and penalties, is doing God service; is fulfilling the will of God, who would have evil ministers above all others brought to justice and chastised; the more influential their example, the more need of conspicuous and exemplary punishment. 1 Kings 2:26-35 The Death of Joab. "Know ye not that there is a prince and great man fallen this day in Israel"—so might men say as they heard, so may we say as we read, the history of Joab’s death. After David, he was by far the greatest man—the ablest general, the bravest soldier, the most capable statesman—of that age. He was "the Marlborough, the Belisarius of the Jewish empire." He had fought David’s battles, won his conquests, captured his citadel, and twice preserved for him his crown. It is a sad and tragic ending of such a brilliant career. The idol of the army, the man who was first in the deadly breach (2 Chronicles 11:6),the ever victorious hero, dies miserably, by the thrust of an old comrade. For him the sanctuary of God has no protection. Though he clings to the horns of the altar, it avails him nothing. No, the blood of the white-headed warrior, winner of a hundred well-fought fields, streams round the consecrated structure and stains the place of the Divine Presence. What are the lessons, let us ask, of such a death? And, first— I. WHY IS HE HERE? It is (1) because his conscience has made him a coward. He who never turned his back on the foe, has fled before a breath, a mere rumour. He has not been attacked, not even threatened; but the secret is out, the conspiracy is discovered, his head is forfeited. He betrays his guilt by his flight. Time was when he would have faced almost any danger, when he would have died rather than fled. But then he had a support and stay, in the consciousness of rectitude, which he has not now. Now, his own heart denounces him. "None have accused thee; ’tis thy conscience cries." The man whose conscience is burdened with crime has an enemy, a traitor, within the camp. But why has he fled to the sanctuary; why chosen the tabernacle of God for his refuge? For Joab has not loved the habitation of God’s house. The tabernacle of the Lord could not be "amiable" to that guilty heart. His choice would be "the congregation of evildoers." A stranger to the tabernacle and its services, why is he here? It is (2) because men often betake themselves in adversity to the religion they despised in prosperity. Yes, Joab’s is no solitary case. It is too common. Witness the so called deathbed repentances; witness the cries and prayers which go up in the hour of peril from lips which never prayed before. Men who have neglected God and contemned the ordinances of religion in health often turn to Him and to them in sickness. "It is the fashion of our foolish presumption to look for protection where we have not cared to yield obedience." But (3) the altar of God is for sacrifice, not for sanctuary. The purpose of the altar, its raison d’etre, was that sacrifices, i.e; that worship, might be offered thereon. It was an accident, so to speak, that made of it a sanctuary; the accident of its sacredness. Because it was ordained of God, fashioned after a Divine pattern and employed in the Divine service, it was naturally and rightly regarded as holy, as a structure not to be profaned, and hence the manslayer fled thither for protection. But this use of the altar was quite beside its original intention. It was made for worship, for the service of God, not for the defence of man. Joab disregarded its proper use; he used it for his own convenience. And have we not seen something like this in our own days? Religion is ordained for man to live by. Its primary purpose is the glory of God. It exists that man may offer "spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God;" that man may be himself "a living sacrifice." But there are those who would use it only as a sanctuary, as a place to flee to when they can sin no longer. They want the benefits of religion without its obligations; they pervert it from its proper and holy, to a purely selfish purpose; they want it for death and it was meant for life. They act, i.e; much as Joab did, and it is to be feared their last end will not be unlike his. The altar they have slighted will not shelter them in the day of evil. II. But let us now ask, secondly, WHY IS HE PUT TO DEATH HERE? The altar was never meant to be stained with human blood. If it was not for sanctuary, still less was it for slaughter. And it has sheltered many; why may it afford him no asylum? It is (1) Because he has come to it too late. Had he come before, and come as a worshipper, he would not have needed to come now as a fugitive. Had he even come, after his great crimes, as a sincere penitent, he might, perchance, have found forgiveness. David was delivered from blood guiltiness, and why not Joab? But he only comes to the altar because he is driven to it; because he can do nothing else. Yes, "it is too late to cry for mercy when it is the time of justice." Those who put off repentance fill they can sin no longer find that such feigned repentance profits them nothing. There is a time when "the door is shut." 2. Because "he shall have judgment without mercy that shewed no mercy." Joab’s murders could not have been more treacherous, more cruel. "The blood of wax in peace." "Took him aside in the gate to speak with him peaceably". "Took Amasa by the beard with the right hand to kiss him" (2 Samuel 20:9). There is a lex talionis which governs the dealings of God with transgressors. The cruel murderer shall be cruelly murdered. The assassin shall be executed at the altar. He that "showed no pity" shall receive none. 3. Because God pays sure, even if he pays slowly. It was thirty-four years—an entire generation—since Abner’s blood first cried from the ground. Eight years had elapsed since Amasa’s death. And Joab, meanwhile, had maintained his position. Still "over all the host of Israel," still second only to the king. If ever he or others had dreamed of punishment, they must by this time have given up all fear, or all hope. David had died and Joab stir lived. Joab had conspired once and yet he was spared. Is there, men would ask, a retributive Justice? is there a "God that judgeth the earth"? Yes, though Joab has "hoar hairs," though he has all but gone down to the grave in peace, his sin has found him out. And the blood which reddens those gray hairs, the blood which crimsons the sanctuary, proves that there is a Nemesis for crime: that if Justice has a halting foot, she nevertheless overtakes the fleetest offender; that "if the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceedingly small." 4. Because "without shedding of blood there is no remission." Only the blood of Joab could expiate the bloodshed he had wrought. Nothing else could cleanse the land. For innocent blood guilty blood; this was the law. How different is the gospel. The blood of Christ speaketh better things than the blood of Abel, ay, than the blood of Joab. The blood of Joab made an atonement for the land. There the guilty died because of the innocent. The blood of JESUS made an atonement for the world. Here the innocent dies because of the guilty. The blood of Joab tells of vengeance, of retribution, of death. The blood of JESUS speaks of mercy, of restitution, of life and love and peace. Yes, the death of Joab may surely speak to us, but it speaks to little purpose, unless it tells us of "the precious blood of Christ." THE END OF SHIMEL.—This fresh intrigue of Adonijah’s warns the king that he must be on his guard and keep a watch over suspected persons. Prominent among these, from his antecedents and connexions, would be Shimei. 1 Kings 2:36 And the king sent and called for Shimei [probably from Bahurim. But see on 1 Kings 2:8] [Not necessarily as "a guarantee for his residence there" (Wordsworth). Jewish law would make a purchase difficult. Leviticus 25:23. Cf. 1 Kings 21:3] an house in Jerusalem and dwell there [where he would be under surveillance and where his sinister influence with the men of Benjamin would be neutralized] and go not forth thence any whither [or, "hither and thither." Weder dahin noch dorthin. Bähr.] 1 Kings 2:37 For it shall be, on the day thou goest out and passest over the brook [lit; watercourse, wady. The Kidron is quite dry, except during and for a short time after the winter rains] Kidron [The Kidron is mentioned specially because that was the direction which, it might be presumed, Shimei would take, his old home being at Bahurim], thou shalt know for certain that thou shalt surely die [The Hebrew is, if possible, still more striking and emphatic, "To know thou shalt know that to die thou shalt die." Shimei could not say that he had not been plainly warned]: thy blood shall be upon thine own head. Cf. Leviticus 1 Kings 20:9, and especially Joshua 2:19; also verse 31 of this chapter. 1 Kings 2:38 And Shimei said to the king, The saying [or thing, matter, דָּבָר, like λόγος̈́́ῥῆμα, in Greek (cf. Sache, in Germ; from sagen) means (1) word and (2) deed] is good [Shimei cannot complain of the condition, remembering what he had done (2 Samuel 15:5-7) and that Solomon was not bound by his father’s oath (2 Samuel 19:23)] as my lord the king hath said, so will thy servant do. And Shimei dwelt [in obedience to this behest] in Jerusalem many days. 1 Kings 2:39 And it came to pass at the of three years that two of the servants of Shimei ran away [it has been thought by some that their flight was preconcerted with their master. But the narrative does not favour this supposition] to Achish, son of Maachah, king of Gath. [This may well have been the "Achish, son of Maoch" (1 Samuel 21:11; 1 Samuel 27:2), to whom David fled fifty years before. Longer reigns than this are not unknown to history. Or it may have been his grandson]. And they told Shimei, saying, Behold, thy servants be in Gath. 1 Kings 2:40 And Shimei arose and saddled his ass [not necessarily himself. Qui facit per alium, facit per se. Matthew Henry thinks Shimei did it himself for the sake of secresy. Many expositors also think that he went by night. The text rather suggests the idea that both the going and the return were perfectly open and undisguised] and went to Gath. [It is impossible to avoid the question, What can have led to this infatuated disregard of his oath and life? Now his perversity may of course have been judicial—quos Dens vult perdere, prius dementat—but as to the means which led to this issue, it is enough if we may believe he had been dared to it either by his servants or others. The fierce Benjamite would naturally be galled to the quick by the thought that his slaves could thus openly set him at defiance; he may have heard from those who came from Gath that they were exulting over him; and he may have resolved at all hazards to teach them a lesson. He cannot have forgotten either Solomon’s explicit warning or his own solemn oath (verse 42); he must have gone to Gath with his eyes open, and nothing but a great provocation, such as mockery and defiance, will account for his going.] And Shimei went and brought his servants from Gath. 1 Kings 2:41 And it was told Solomon that Shimei had gone from Jerusalem to Gath and was come again. [He, no doubt, persuaded himself that his immediate return, especially when taken in connexion with the object of his journey, would excuse him to the king. He would perhaps argue that a magnanimous sovereign like Solomon could never deal hardly with one who thus placed his life in his hands. He can hardly have built his hopes on his not having crossed the Kidron, for he must have perfectly understood that he was to go "no whither." 1 Kings 2:42 And the king sent and called for Shimel, and said unto him, Did I not make thee swear by the Lord [it thus comes out quite incidentally that Solomon had bound Shimei by an oath. The LXX: embodies this information as a direct statement in the text of 1 Kings 2:37, κὰιὥρκισεναὐτὸνὁβασιλεὺςἐντῇἡμέρᾳἐκείνῃ, but it is obviously a gloss] and protested unto thee, saying, Know for a certain, on the day that thou goest but and walkest abroad any whither, that thou shalt surely die? and thou saidst unto me, The word that I have heard is good. [The LXX. (Vat.) omits "And thou saidst," etc. This last sentence has been punctuated thus: "Good is the word. I have heard." Probably אֲשֶׁר, "which," is to be understood. 1 Kings 2:43 ― Why them halt thou not kept the oath of the Lord and the commandment that I have charged [Heb. commanded] thee with. ["Shimei ought to have been warned against trifling with Solomon’s forbearance by the punishment already inflicted on Adonijah and Joab." Wordsworth.] 1 Kings 2:44 -- The king said, moreover [Heb. And the king said] Thou knowest all the wickedness which thine heart is privy to [Heb. knoweth] that thou didst to David my father [Solomon brings a threefold charge against Shimei. He has violated a solemn oath, "by the life of Jehovah," and so has "profaned the name of his God" (Leviticus 19:12). He has broken his parole and set at naught the king’s commandment. He has defied and blasphemed the Lord’s anointed. He must die] therefore the Lord shall return ["hath returned," or "returns." LXX. ἀνταπέδωκε, aor. The king regards himself as merely the instrument and dispenser of the Divine Justice. According to him, it is God, not spite, demands and has brought about Shimei’s execution] thy wickedness upon thine own head [Every Jew, taught to expect that "every transgression and disobedience" would receive its "just recompense of reward" in this life present would see in Shimei’s almost unaccountable infatuation the finger of God. To them he would seem delivered up to destruction. 1 Kings 2:45 And king Solomon shall be blessed, and the throne of David shall be established before the Lord forever. [It is inconceivable that Solomon could have spoken thus if he had been conscious either of sharp practice, or spite, or cruelty. The words are those of one who is sure that he is doing God service.] 1 Kings 2:46 So the king commanded Ben-aiah the son of Jehoiada, which went out and fell upon him that he died. [The execution of Shimei has, perhaps, on the whole given more offence than that of Joab or even Adonijah. He, at any rate, was not "a murderer whom vengeance suffereth not to live," nor had he taken any part in recent conspiracies. On the contrary, he seems to have lived quietly enough under the eye of the king. And it consequently has the appearance of cruelty and malevolence that Solomon should "press the letter of a compact against him," especially when, by returning to Jerusalem, he placed his life at Solomon’s mercy. But it is not difficult to offer a complete justification of Solomon’s action in this matter. In the first place, it is to be remembered that cruelty had no part in his character. In his long reign of forty years there are absolutely no evidences of a brutal and tyrannical disposition. There is a strong presumption, consequently, that he was not actuated by cruelty on this occasion, a presumption which finds support in the consideration that Solomon was much too sagacious to prejudice himself in popular estimation at the commencement of his reign by proceedings which would have the least suspicion of vindictiveness. And (2) with this probability the facts of the case entirely agree. Shimei’s life, as we have seen, was forfeited to Jewish law. As he had so long been spared, however, the king gave him a gracious respite. The conditions imposed were not onerous. Shimei had but to keep his parole and he would live; to break it and he would assuredly die. He did break it; not without provocation, it may be, but he broke it, and broke too his solemn oath. It may be said it was hard he should lose his slaves, but better, surely, lose them than his life. Besides, there were other ways of recovering them; or, if he must pursue them in person, his proper course was evidently to ask the king’s permission. That he did not do so is in itself a suspicious circumstance, and Solomon might reasonably think that the flight of the slaves was but a feint, and that Shimei’s visit to a foreign court had really a political object. But, be that as it may, the king had protested unto him that if he went any whither, he should most certainly die. When he went, when he despised the royal command and disregarded his sacred oath, how was it possible for Solomon to break his word? To do so would have been inevitably to compromise himself with his subjects, and to forfeit their reverence and trust. Besides, there was a duty he owed to his dead father, and above all, one which he owed to the living God. He had now the opportunity for which his father bade him wait, of putting into force the provisions of the Mosaic law, of requiring the death of the blasphemer, of showing his subjects that the law could not be defied with impunity, that though vengeance was not executed speedily against evil works, still retribution was certain in the long run, and so of teaching them a much needed lesson of obedience and respect of authority. Every consideration, therefore, of justice, morality, filial piety, and religion warranted him in putting Shimei to death. Every imputation of weakness, irresolution, disregard of his plighted word, compromise of his royal dignity, and indifference to religion might justly have been levelled against him, had he interfered between Shimei and the sword of Justice. 1 Kings 2:44-46 The End of the Transgressor. Such was the end of Shimei—violent, sanguinary, shameful. Old man as he is, he may not die in peace: his hoar hairs must be crimsoned with his blood. What does this teach? what its message to Christian men? It is twofold. It speaks (1) OF THE SIN, (2) OF THE . I. It teaches (1) The sin of treason. He had offered insult and defiance to his lawful king. Rebellion against constituted authority can only be justified by intolerable tyranny and outrage. He who "dares to wield The regicidal steel" must answer to Him by whom kings govern. We are to "honour the king," to "be subject to the higher powers." "They that resist shall receive to themselves damnation," as did this rebel Benjamite. 2. The sin of blasphemy. "A grievous curse." Aimed at the king, it reached the King of kings. It was not only destructive of authority; not only an affront offered to the majesty of law; it was an indirect blow at the Majesty of Heaven. Men cannot "speak evil of dignities" without sin. Those who "curse God" will "die" (Job 2:9). How little do men make of blasphemy! But Shimei had to pay for it with his life. 3. The sin of perjury. It was this in the strict sense of the word. He broke through his oath. Though he said, "the Lord liveth," he swore falsely. He thus profaned the awful incommunicable name, and incurred the Divine curse (Zechariah 5:4). Perjuries are plentiful in our days, our police courts being witness. (Some kiss the thumb, and not the book.) "The Lord will not hold him guiltless," etc. 4. The sin of disobedience. The king had adjured him, had "protested," had said "know for certain," etc.; and even if the Kidron were mentioned arbitrarily, still it served to test his obedience. The prohibition, therefore, could not have been plainer. He disregarded it, and died. "Fool," does any one say? Stay! The great King has said, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." He has solemnly testified what will be the doom of disobedience, and yet how often have we crossed our Kidron—the bound of His law—have gone after our own lusts and pleasures, and it is only because He is God and not man, only because "the heart of the Eternal Is most wonderfully kind," that we have not died. 5. The sin and folly of presumption. Whatever may have led Shimei to go after his slaves, it was certainly presumption brought him back. He would hardly have returned had he not counted on forgiveness. No doubt he had persuaded himself either that Solomon would never know, or that, if he did, he would be magnanimous. "Allowance will be made for me," he had said; "my return will disarm suspicion and ensure clemency." But the sword of Benaiah soon undeceived him. And such will be the end—death, shame, everlasting contempt—of those who presume on the mercy of God. How many say, "God is so good, He will never be hard upon us," etc. But is God true? Can He deny Himself? Even Solomon could not go back from his word; and can the Holy One? Alas, if despair has slain its thousands, presumption has slain its ten thousands. It is a significant fact that since the invention of the safety lamp there have been more accidents in mines than there were before. II. As to the , we are reminded, 1. That curses commonly come home to roost. The "grievous curse" of Shimei did not hurt David. But it was his own destruction. The poisoned arrow missed its mark, but it recoiled on the archer. The engineer is hoist by his own petard. A curse rests on those who curse the king (cf. Ecclesiastes 10:20). 2. That respite does not mean release. When David "sware" to him, Shimei thought himself safe. Surely the bitterness of death was past. We would die in his nest. We often mistake God’s forbearance for forgetfulness. He is long suffering, and men ask, "Where is the promise of His coming?" Because "He does not settle His accounts once a week" (Goethe) the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. But the day of retribution comes as a thief, as the flood, as the sword, as the snare. 3. That if we die, it is our own fault. Shimei had his life in his own hands. It rested with him. alone whether he lived or died. He should live, if he would but live at Jerusalem. But he chose death. Men cause their own destruction. God has no pleasure in their death. "Thou hast destroyed thyself." 4. That warnings are commonly lost on the wicked. "How could Shimei be so infatuated?" we ask. What, have we not seen his infatuation paralleled? Have we never seen repeated warnings repeatedly neglected? Yes, souls, sins, warnings, results, are the same in all ages. 5. That when God reckons, He reckons for all. The sword avenged the sin of eight years before. And in the Great Assize, everything—both cup of cold water and idle word—will receive its just recompense of reward. BY J. WAITE 1 Kings 2:41-46 Retributions. This is one example of the way in which Solomon carried out David’s dying command, as given in 1 Kings 2:5-9. Shimei’s violation of his promise in reference to not leaving Jerusalem, though the immediate occasion, was thus not the real reason of his punishment. He had been all along a doomed man. A great deal in David’s command in reference to these men that we cannot regard with complacency; so far as there was anything of personal vindictiveness in it, our moral sense condemns it. Would it not have been more magnanimous if with his dying breath he had freely forgiven these old offenders? Solomon’s conduct, however, wears a different aspect. A father’s word would be to him an imperious authority; to vindicate a father’s honour the instinctive impulse of filial affection; to avenge the innocent blood a sacred obligation. Moreover, these men deserved their fate. Joab had been a traitor and murderer; Abiathar had abused the sanctity of his priestly office by helping the cause of the usurper; Shimei had "cursed the Lord’s anointed." This incident suggests— I. THE ETERNAL LAW THAT WRONG DOING MUST BE BY ITS DUE . Recognise the Divine element in this act of human retribution. There is a Nemesis that tracks the steps of the transgressor, and sooner or later overtakes him; not a natural law merely, but an intelligent Divine will and power. The superstition of the Melitans had a deep and solemn truth in it (Acts 28:4). Striking correspondence often between the sin and the penalty. Men suffer in forms resembling the injury they inflict. "Whoso sheddeth man’s blood," etc. "All they that take the sword," etc. The weapon used wrongfully recoils upon the head of him who wielded it. "Curses, like birds, come home to roost." In the teaching of Christ and His apostles, however, the law of retribution appears, not in its old Bare, crude form, but in a more vital and spiritual form. New Testament idea—sin bears within itself the germ of its own punishment. The penalty is a development rather than an arbitrary infliction. "Sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." Sin may be divinely forgiven, and yet go on to produce in this world all sorts of bitter fruits. "May one be pardoned and retain the offence?" No; but the pardoned ruin may retain in himself the evil effects of what he has done, and see, with infinite remorse, the evil effects in others. The sin, as a "finished" fact, takes its place in the general procession of cause and effect, independently of God’s mercy to the transgressor. On the other hand, the worst retribution is in the moral nature of the sinner himself. "There is no future pang Can deal that justice on the self condemn’d He deals on his own soul." (Manfred.) (E.g; ’S Macbeth; MILTON’S Satan.) No escape from this retribution but in "the cross." "The blood of Jesus Christ his Son," etc. It will not wipe out all the effects of transgression, but it will arrest the eternal penalty, and perfectly cleanse the fountain from which the evil springs. II. THE OF A AND OF DUTY. Solomon’s deed a homage to the sense of duty. Magnanimity blended with severity. He spares Abiathar, but has no mercy on Joab and Shimei. Note the reasons of this distinction. As a "man of peace" he had no love for this retributive work. It might involve him in trouble. But he shrinks not from doing the thing he conceives to be right. Men often constrained by force of circumstances, or persuasion of a Divine voice within them, to do what they have no natural inclination for doing. Essence of all moral nobleness to make duty rather than inclination or policy the law of one’s life. In men of highest nature conscience is the ruling power. However it may appear, that Life is the most blessed which is the most perfect homage to the law of right II. THE OF ETHICS ABOVE THE MORAL OF OLDEN TIMES. In following the chronicles of these old Hebrew kings we feel that we are moving in a moral region of somewhat dim light and low level. It must needs be so if there is a real law of development in Scripture and the dispensations of God. We may recognise the working of Divine principles of truth and righteousness amid the confusions of the time, and yet feel that we have in the law of Christ a far higher rule of conduct. We admit what is good in David and Solomon, but HE is our model who, on the cross of sacrifice, prayed, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."—W. THE OF SOLOMON’S REIGN.—In the preceding chapter we have seen the establishment of Solomon’s rule (verse 46) by the removal of internal foes, i.e; of disaffected and rebellious subjects. In this we see him strengthening his position by an external alliance, by a marriage with an Egyptian princess. This event, however, is related here, not because the historian had this connexion of ideas in his mind, but probably because the marriage came next in order of time. 1 Kings 3:1 And Solomon made affinity [Not "alliance" (as some have supposed) but relationship. Lit; made himself son-in-law] with Pharaoh king of Egypt [which of the Pharaohs this was, it is impossible to say with certainty. As, however, Shishak (1 Kings 11:40; 1 Kings 14:25) is undoubtedly the Sheshonk who succeeded to the throne of Egypt in the 26th year of Solomon (Poole), and who was the first king of the 22nd dynasty of Manetho, we may safely identify this Pharaoh with "a late king of the 21st dynasty." It has been assumed (Bunsen, Ewald, Brugsch, al.) that it was Psusennes II; the last king of that house, on the supposition that he reigned 35 years, (as stated by Eusebius), but according to Africanus, his reign was limited to 14 years. It is wiser to say, therefore, with Mr. Poole (Dict. Bib; "Pharaoh") that this Pharaoh "cannot yet be identified on Manetho’s list." It is also impossible to decide whether the alliance was first sought by Solomon with a view to win over a powerful and dangerous neighbour (Thenius), to whose inroads his northern border was exposed, and especially to counteract the influence (1 Kings 11:21) of Hadad (Plumptre), or whether the marriage was proposed by Pharaoh because the 21st dynasty "had then become very weak" (Rawlinson) and its head desired "friendly relations with the kingdom of Israel, which had grown into a power to be dreaded" (Keil). But we may reasonably suppose that the alliance "must have been to most Israelites a very startling one" (Plumptre.) Egypt (Rahab, Psalms 89:10; Isaiah 51:9) was to every Israelite a name both of triumph and dread. The Pharaohs were their ancestral foes], and took Pharaoh’s daughter [A marriage such as this was not without precedent (Genesis 41:45; Exodus 2:21; Numbers 12:1; Matthew 1:5; Rth 4:13), nor was it condemned by the Law, which only forbade intermarriage with the nations of Canaan (Exodus 34:16; Deuteronomy 7:3), and sanctioned the union of an Israelite with a captive taken in war (Deuteronomy 21:13; cf. Deuteronomy 20:14). "At the same time, it was only when the foreign wives renounced idolatry, that such marriages were in accordance with the spirit of the law" (Keil). As Solomon at this period of his life faithfully observed the law, as he is never blamed for this marriage, and as there is no trace whatever of the introduction of Egyptian rites into Israel, it is a fair presumption that the Egyptian princess conformed to the religion of her adopted country], and brought her into the city of David [2 Chronicles 8:11 speaks of her dwelling in "the house of David," i.e; it would seem, the palace which David had occupied] until he had made an end [this hardly shows that he had begun to build, as Keil infers. He did not begin building the Temple until the fourth (1 Kings 6:1), nor his own house until the eleventh year (1 Kings 7:1) after his accession, and the marriage, though not at the very commencement of his reign, can hardly have been delayed to the eleventh year, and may have taken place before the death of Shimei] of building his own house [cf. 1 Kings 7:7] and the house of the Lord [cf. 1 Kings 6:1-38.; 1 Kings 7:51] and the wall of Jerusalem round about. [Probably, he both strengthened and extended the city walls, as Josephus (Ant. 8.6. 1) affirms. Acc. to the LXX. addition to 1 Kings 12:1-33; it was on this task that Jeroboam was employed (1 Kings 11:27; cf. 1 Kings 9:15). David had fortified a part of the city (2 Samuel 5:9). 1 Kings 3:2 Only [The word perhaps signifies "that there was one exception to the flourishing condition of things which the writer has been describing" (Rawlinson), though the people are nowhere blamed for sacrificing on the high places, and Solomon’s sacrifice at "the great high place "was full of blessing. The idea rather is that just as he was obliged to bring his Egyptian wife into the city of David, because his palace was not yet finished, so the people were compelled to sacrifice on the high places, because the temple was not yet built (Keil), and "the place" where God would put His name had only just been chosen (1 Chronicles 22:1)] the people sacrificed [Heb. were sacrificing, i.e; habitually, constantly] in high places [All nations have chosen hill tops for act of worship, perhaps as being nearer heaven. "Even Abraham built an altar to the Lord on a mountain near Bethel (Genesis 12:7, Genesis 12:8; cf. Genesis 22:2, Genesis 22:9; Genesis 31:54)." And the use of high places for this purpose was not distinctly condemned in the Law. It is true the Hebrews were commanded to have but one place of sacrifice (Leviticus 17:9; Deuteronomy 12:5, Deuteronomy 12:11, Deuteronomy 12:13, Deuteronomy 12:26, Deuteronomy 12:27; cf. Joshua 22:29), and this no doubt was, if not an indirect prohibition, a discouragement of such sanctuaries. It has been held, however, that this command was purely prospective, and it is certainly remarkable that even when the Israelites were settled in the promised land, and the tabernacle was set up (Joshua 18:1), altars were constantly built and sacrifices offered on high places, and sometimes, as in the case of Gideon (Judges 6:26), and Manoah (Judges 13:19, Judges 13:20), by express Divine command. Later on we find Samuel (1 Samuel 7:9, 1 Samuel 7:10; 1 Samuel 11:15; 1 Samuel 16:5), Saul (Hebrews 13:9; 14:35), David (1 Chronicles 21:26), Solomon and Elijah (1 Kings 18:30), offering sacrifices in various places, which they could not possibly have done had it seemed to them that this was condemned beforehand by the Law. It is highly probable, therefore, that though the contemporaries of Joshua took a different view (as Joshua 22:15-31 proves), the men of a later age excused themselves on the ground stated in the text, that "there was no house built unto the name of the Lord." It has been held by some that "had they not sacrificed and burnt incense on high places, they could not have sacrificed or burnt incense at all" (Bp. Horsley); but this seems to overlook the fact that there was one place provided for sacrifices—the door of the tabernacle -- and that for some reason or other they sacrificed elsewhere. And the reason, no doubt, was the one assigned by the historian. It should be added that this term "high place" (בָּמָה) came to be used of all places of worship, not only on heights, but even those in valleys (2 Kings 17:9; Jeremiah 7:31; Jeremiah 32:35). The Bamah sometimes consisted of an altar only, but as a rule, there was a shrine or sanctuary, erected hard by (1 Kings 13:32; 2 Kings 17:29; 2 Kings 23:19), the Beth-Bamah, for which the word Bamah is sometimes loosely employed (1 Kings 11:7; 1 Kings 14:23; 2 Kings 21:3)], because there was no house built unto the name of the Lord until those days. 1 Kings 3:3 And Solomon loved the Lord [thus keeping the first and great commandment, the "Shema Israel" (Deuteronomy 6:5; cf. Deuteronomy 30:16; Matthew 22:1-46:87; Luke 10:27], walking in the statutes of David his father [i.e; those which David had kept (Luke 10:6,Luke 10:14) and commanded him to keep (Luke 2:4)]: only he sacrificed and burnt incense in high places. [These words clearly show that the worship of the high places, although condoned, and indeed accepted, by God (Luke 10:5) was not strictly lawful and right. It was an ignorance that God winked at. The historian, remembering what the worship of the high places became, notices this as an imperfection of Solomon’s early reign, though he does not say that such worship was sinful. 1 Kings 3:4 And the king went to Gibeon [Joshua 9:3; Joshua 10:2; Joshua 18:25; Joshua 21:17; 2 Samuel 21:1. Now known as El-Jib, a commanding eminence (as the name implies) some six miles north of Jerusalem. Strictly, it consists of two heights, on one of which, it is conjectured, the town stood, while the other was the high place. Solomon was accompanied to Gibeon by "all the congregation," including the captains, judges, governors, etc., after the precedent of 1 Samuel 11:15; cf. 2 Samuel 6:2. His object was also to supplicate the Divine blessing on his undertakings. If his visit served at the same time as a farewell, or "honourable funeral to the tabernacle" (Wordsw.) this was an accident]; for that was the great high place [being the place of the tabernacle and brazen altar. In 1 Samuel 21:6 we find the tabernacle at Nob, though without the ark (1 Samuel 4:2). After the massacre of the priests it lost the ephod (1 Samuel 22:20; 1 Samuel 23:6). It could hardly remain in a spot stained by so much blood; but how or when it found its way to Gibeon, we do not know. See 1 Chronicles 16:37, 1 Chronicles 16:39; 2 Chronicles 1:3-6]: a thousand burnt offerings [such numbers were not infrequent at festivals. See on 1 Kings 8:62, and cf. 2 Chronicles 29:33, 2 Chronicles 29:34. Rawlinson reminds us that "Xerxes offered 1000 oxen at Troy" (Herod. 7:43).] did Solomon offer [not, of course, personally, as some (Ewald. e.g.) have sup. posed. He is said to have "offered" them, because he (together with the congregation, perhaps) provided them. The immense number alone shows that he cannot have offered in person. The festival probably lasted for seven or eight days,but even then a thousand victims can hardly have been offered whole (עֹלוֹת) unless the altar was greatly enlarged, or additional temporary altars were erected. This latter supposition is not negatived by the next words. See on 1 Kings 8:63, 1 Kings 8:64. upon that altar. 1 Kings 3:5 In Glbeon the Lord appeared unto Solomon in a dream [cf. Numbers 12:6. A vision is not necessarily implied (as in Genesis 28:12; cf. Genesis 15:12), though he may have seen some angelic form (angelus in Dei nomine ei apparuit loquens. Grotius)—of course, only in his dream. Cf. Matthew 1:20; Matthew 2:12. Probably "appeared" is the equivalent of "revealed Himself." Bהhr] by night; and God said, Ask what I shall give thee [cf. Matthew 7:7. This was the answer to the sacrifices. The night was probably that which followed the last day on which they were offered (Matthew 7:15).] 1 Kings 3:6 And Solomon said, Thou hast shewed unto [Heb. wrought with] thy servant David my father great mercy [marg; favour] according as he walked Before thee in truth, and in righteousness, and in uprightness of heart with thee [cf. 2 Kings 20:3, where Hezekiah uses much the same language of himself. Also 2 Kings 11:4], and thou hast kept for him this great kindness [Heb. favour; same word as above. David himself had regarded this as a singular mercy (1 Kings 1:48)], that thou hast given him a son to sit [Heb. sitting] upon his throne, as it is this day. [Same expression Deuteronomy 6:24; Deuteronomy 8:18; 1 Samuel 22:8.; Ezra 9:7. 1 Kings 3:7 And now, O Lord my Cod, thou hast made thy servant king instead of David my father; and I am but [Heb. and I … ] a little child: [These words are generally understood as indicating Solomon’s humility rather than his age. No doubt, there is some exaggeration in the expression, which manifestly is not to be taken au pied de la lettre; at the same time it is questionable whether such words would be used of himself by a young man of twenty, which Solomon is commonly supposed to have been. See on 1 Kings 2:2, and 1 Kings 12:8] I know not how to go out or come in. [The same phrase is found in the Pentateuch, Deuteronomy 28:6; Deuteronomy 31:2. Also in 1 Samuel 18:13; 2 Samuel 3:25; Psalms 121:8. It is the formula for expressing behaviour, conduct, the outward life of man.] 1 Kings 3:8 And thy servant is in the midst of thy people which thou hast chosen [see Deuteronomy 7:6], a great people, that cannot be numbered nor counted for multitude. [The promises of Gen 13:16; Genesis 15:5, lived in the thoughts and language of the Jews, and were doubtless the original of this expression. Cf. also Numbers 23:10. 1 Kings 3:9 Give therefore thy servant an understanding [Heb. hearing. Cf. verse 11 (Heb. "to hear judgment.") The idea is not docility, as the Vulg. (cor docile), but discrimination, penetration. Cf. 2 Samuel 14:17 (Heb.); Philippians 1:9, Philippians 1:10 (marg.)] heart [i.e; a judicial mind. The "hearing heart" was desired, not that it might "give heed to the law" (Keil), but to qualify him] to Judge thy people [The Hebrew king, like most ancient monarchs, was supreme judge as well as governor ("prince and judge," Exodus 5:14; and cf. Exodus 18:16). The Jews desired a king that he might judge them (1 Samuel 8:5). Their rulers so far had been purely "Judges" (שֹׁפְטִים; compare the Carthaginian name, suffetes.) When they desired one who should, lead their armies, they still put his judicial functions in the first place (loc. cit. verse 20). And what were the duties of a king in this respect, Absalom’s words (2 Samuel 15:4) show. In verses 16-28 we see Solomon sitting as Chief Justice], that I may discern between good and bad [i.e; right and wrong, true and false; cf. Hebrews 5:14): for who is able to judge this thy so great [Heb. heavy, i.e; numerous; compare graves greges] a people. [The number of the Israelites at this period is referred to in 1 Kings 4:20. 1 Kings 3:10 And the speech [Heb. thing; same word as below] pleased the Lord, that Solomon had asked this thing, [Though in a dream the judgment and will were not suspended. Our dreams accord with our waking thoughts. This would have been Solomon’s choice at any time.] 1 Kings 3:11 And God said unto him. Because thou hast asked this thing and hast not asked for thyself long life [Heb. many days]; neither hast asked riches for thyself, nor hast asked the life [i.e; destruction in battle] of thine enemies [not so much personal enemies, like Hadad and Rezon, (Rawlinson) as military foes. The meaning is explained by the corresponding word, "honour" (כָבוֹד glory) in verse 13]; but hast asked [The word is repeated, according to Hebrew usage, now for the sixth time] for thyself understanding to discern [Heb. hear; see on verse 9] Judgment. 1 Kings 3:12 Behold, I have done according to thy words [i.e; granted thy prayer, as the next words show]: lo [Heb. behold] I have given thee a wise and an understanding heart, so that there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee. [Cf. 1 Chronicles 29:25; 2 Chronicles 9:22. But there is no need to restrict the reference to kings and princes.] 1 Kings 3:13 And I have also given thee that which thou hast not asked, both riches and honour [Heb. glory]; so that there shall not be any among the kings lure unto thee all thy days. 1 Kings 3:14 And if thou wilt walk in my ways, to keep my statutes and my commandments, as thy father David did walk [1 Kings 3:6; 1 Kings 15:4. This is the Divine confirmation of David’s words to his son (1 Kings 2:3, 1 Kings 2:4) and of the son’s description of his father’s piety (1 Kings 15:6 supra)], then I will lengthen thy days [Solomon’s days were not of an unusual length, as he can hardly have been more than sixty (if so much), although called זִקֵן. 1 Kings 3:15 And Solomon awoke; and, behold, it was a dream [That is to say, this passed while Solomon slept; but it was more than a dream. The same words are used of Pharaoh (Genesis 41:7) when God showed him what He was about to do (1 Kings 3:25, 1 Kings 3:28, cf. Genesis 40:8), and this was such a dream as Pharaoh’s and as Joseph’s (Matthew 1:20; Matthew 2:19). It was a dream, i.e; in which a Divine revelation was made to him. Wordsw. refers to Solomon’s words, "I sleep, but my heart waketh" (Son 5:2), and "He giveth to his beloved (Jedidiah) in sleep" (Psalms 127:2)]. And he came to Jerusalem, and stood before the ark of the covenant [the other sanctuary of that period (2 Samuel 6:17; 1 Chronicles 16:37-40)] and offered up burnt offerings [probably in continuation of the sacrifices of Gibeon, 1 Kings 3:4], and offered peace offerings [in testimony of his thankfulness for the signal favour recently vouchsafed to him] and made a feast [lit; a drinking. After the example of David, 1 Chronicles 16:3. Cf. 1 Kings 8:65. It was not exclusively a symposium. The flesh of the animals offered in sacrifice was eaten by the worshippers and their guests (Leviticus 1 Kings 7:15, 1 Kings 7:31; 1 Samuel 2:16; 1 Corinthians 8:13). This was "a sacrificial meal of the שְׁלָמִים" (Keil). See on ch. 1 Kings 8:63] to all his servants. 1 Kings 3:3 The Grace and Place of Love. "And Solomon loved the Lord, walking in all the statutes of David his father, only… sacrificed," etc. Of how many men, as well as of the wisest of men, may some such words be used. Of some few it may perhaps be averred that they have loved the Lord "with a perfect heart," of fewer still, if any, that they have loved Him with all the heart, and all the mind, and all the soul, and all the strength. But in the case of most, a qualifying clause must be added, an "only." Along with sincere piety, with devout love to Him who first loved us, how often are there found imperfections, infirmities, sins. Sometimes, e.g; the loved is tinged with superstition, as in the case of St. Theresa, Lacordaire, and many Romanists; sometimes, as in the case of Calvin and many Protestants, it is marked by harshness and intolerance; sometimes, as in the case of Schleiermacher and Bunsen, it is infected with rationalism. The love, that is to say, is not without alloy; it is not the pure refined gold. In some of the blessed saints we find narrowness and bigotry, in others fanaticism; in others, again, Pharisaism and presumption. Now all these "love the Lord only .... But observe. Solomon was loved of God; blessed, enriched, and prospered of God, despite this "only;" notwithstanding, i.e; that his sacrifice and service were marked by imperfection. Hence learn— I. THAT GOD LOVES THOSE WHO LOVE HIM, DESPITE THEIR . Of course God loves men who do not love Him. "God commendeth His love towards us in that while we were yet sinners," etc. We often say to children, "God doesn’t love you when you are naughty," but this is vicious theology. If this were so, there had been no hope for our world. But He is good to the unthankful and evil. Yes, the love must begin with God. "We love Him because He first loved us." And the love that bore with our sins, in the days of our impenitence, now bears also with our infirmities and ignorances. Neither superstition nor narrowness nor fanaticism "nor any other creature can separate us from the love of God," etc. II. THAT GOD THOSE WHO LOVE HIM, THEIR . It is not meant here that our love can make any atonement or reparation for our sins. We know of no merits or mediation but His. "Your sins are forgiven you for His name’s sake." But where there is love, there is forgiveness (Luke 7:47). Why, love involves penitence and faith, and ensures obedience. (Observe the next words, "Walking in all the statutes," etc.) Thus, the three conditions of forgiveness are all comprehended in love. III. THAT GOD WILL RECEIVE THOSE WHO LOVE HIM, DESPITE THEIR . The gate of heaven is never shut against love, and only love will open it. "O merchant, at heaven’s gate, for heavenly ware Love is the only coin that passes there." It must be so, for "love is heaven, and heaven is love" IV. THAT WE OUGHT TO LOVE THOSE WHO LOVE GOD, DESPITE THEIR , , AND . If the Eternal Love overlooks our "only," surely we ought to overlook the "only" of others. We may regret their views, we may think them unsound in the faith, we may lament their superstition, their lack of "sweetness and light," their vulgarity, or fanaticism, but if God loves them, and receives them notwithstanding, what right have we to do otherwise? If they love our Lord, then they are entitled to our love. "Grace be unto all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity." We find, consequently, in the religion both of the Old Testament and of the New— V. THAT LOVE IS . It Isaiah 1. The fulfilling of the law (Romans 13:8, Romans 13:10; Matthew 22:37-40). We cannot break the law if we love. "Habe caritatem et fac quicquid vis," said St. Augustine. 2. The stamp and seal royal of the Christian. "He that loveth, is born of God." "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love," etc. It has been said, "Pectus est quod theologum facit." It is equally true that the heart makes the Christian. 3. The glory of the man. It was the greatest glory of Solomon. The highest praise recorded of him is, not that "he was wiser than all men" (1 Kings 4:31), nor yet that he "exceeded all the kings of the earth for riches and wisdom" (1 Kings 10:1-29:33), but that he loved the Lord. "The best thing that can be said of a man is that he loves God." Solomon in all his glory is not greater than the poorest of the saints. 4. The one thing needful. The one thing God demands is the heart. (Adelaide Proeter’s beautiful poem," Give me thy heart," affords a fine illustration here.) It is the mainspring of the man. The life depends on the heart. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth, when the Roman Catholics were commanded to attend Church under pains and penalties, some of their leaders applied to the Pope for guidance. "Let the Catholics of England," was the astute reply, "give me their hearts, and the Queen may do what she likes with the rest." 1 Kings 3:5-15 God’s Gifts and Solomon’s Choice. "And God said, Ask what I shall give thee," etc. "Happy Solomon!" we exclaim, as we read these words. He had all that earth could give already—youth, wealth, prosperity. glory, greatness. He stood already on the topmost pinnacle of human felicity. And now Heaven offers him his choice of blessings; now the treasure house of the infinite God is opened, and he is bidden to take what he will. Behold the favourite of Heaven! It is indeed true "there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee" (1 Kings 3:12). But stay! Solomon’s is not an exceptional case. If we have not his temporal advantages, we may share his spiritual blessings. For to us—to all, that is, who, like Solomon, "love the Lord"—does the same voice speak, saying, "Ask what I shall give thee." Yes; He who spake to this new crowned king in the night visions hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son, saying, "Ask, and it shall be given you." Let us consider— I. LIKE SOLOMON, WE ARE TO ASK. It is not that we are permitted so to do: it is made a positive duty. If we do not ask, we sin. "Ask," "seek," "knock"—these are the injunctions of our Lord and Master. Asking is an essential part of our religion. "Prayer is the Christian’s vital breath." II. LIKE SOLOMON, WE HAVE BUT TO ASK, AND GOD WILL GIVE. Solomon was not a favourite of Heaven. God has no favourites—that would argue imperfection in the Deity. "Every one that asketh receiveth," etc. "Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord," etc. "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God ....and it shall be given him." If we have not wisdom, blessing, pardon, peace, it is all for want of asking. God is "more ready to hear than we to pray." And observe here: we are commanded to ask, and God is sure to give, because He loves to give; it is His nature and property to give. Not only (as has been beautifully said) is "the greatest Being in the world the greatest giver." but it is an essential part of His perfections to give. We often say "It is more blessed to give than to receive," but God acts on this principle. It is the nature of man to take. The first lesson the child learns is to grasp. Covetousness, the desire to have, is a part of our being. It is a part of His being to desire to impart. He abhors a vacuum. III. LIKE AHAZ, MANY SAY, "I WILL NOT ASK." They will not believe in the wonderful charity of God. To some it seems too good to be true. But many have no room for God’s gifts. Their heart is full already. "No room for Him in the inn." IV. LIKE SOLOMON, LET US ASK THE BEST GIFTS. That is an instructive fable which tells how Hercules, on attaining manhood, went out into solitude, and sitting down there, deliberated long and anxiously with himself which of the two ways before him it were better to take—the way of pleasure, or the way of virtue. Such a crisis, involving such a choice, happens in every life. Solomon must now make his choice, and it really lies between pleasure and duty, between temporal and eternal blessings. He may choose glory, wealth, renown—in a word, earthly pleasure and prosperity—or he may choose character, wisdom, goodness; in other words, heavenly and abiding treasure. We know which he chose. So each one of us has to choose in turn between the showy and the solid, between the higher and the lower, between God and Mammon. "Once to every man and nation, comes the moment to decide In the strife of Truth with Falsehood, for the good or evil side. Then it is the brave man chooses, while the coward stands aside, Doubting in his abject spirit, till his Lord is crucified." V. IF, LIKE SOLOMON, WE CHOOSE THE BEST GIFTS, THE OTHER AND ARE THROWN IN WITH THEM. Consider: God gave Solomon wisdom because he asked for it, and at the same time gave him wealth because he did not ask for it. His choice of the higher showed he was fit to be entrusted with the lower. The gifts men covet most, viz; "riches and honour," are of so little account with God that He adds them as a make weight. Just as when we buy a jewel the case is thrown in as part of the purchase, so those who choose the better part receive at the same time all that is necessary for them. "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you." And here again observe, that not only is it God’s nature to give, but to give "exceeding abundantly, above all that we ask or think." He is "wont to do more than either we desire or deserve." Thus the disciples asked for a form of prayer (Luke 11:1). Our blessed Lord gave them their desire, and gave at the same time what they never dreamed of asking for—some precious directions as to the spirit of prayer, as to perseverance in prayer, etc. (ib. 1 Kings 3:5-18). The same idea is embodied in a stanza of Wordsworth’s— "I knelt before Thy gracious throne, And asked for peace with suppliant knee; And peace was given; not peace alone, But love and joy and ecstasy." It was in the night visions that God spoke to Solomon. It is in no dream, no vision, but in His own written word, He says to us, "Ask what I shall give thee." Which shall we imitate, Solomon or Ahaz? Shall we have all or none? But it may be said, Solomon’s wisdom did him no great service after all. His prayer did not keep him from falling. But why was this? It was just because he ceased to care for wisdom and piety, and ceased to ask for it. Learn, then, in conclusion— VI. IF, LIKE SOLOMON, WE CEASE TO COVET THE BEST GIFTS, AND CARE ONLY FOR THE LOWER, WE SHALL LOSE THE FORMER, AND MAY LOSE BOTH. So that Solomon’s prayer may teach us this last lesson, that "men ought always to pray, and not to faint." Yes, it seems, as we think of the beginning and then of the end of this puissant prince—it seems as if his father’s last words must have been prophetic—"If thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off forever" (1 Chronicles 28:9); and Solomon’s fall solemnly echoes and emphasizes the words which follow—O that he had laid them to heart!—"Take heed now" (1 Kings 3:10). BY J. WAITE 1 Kings 3:5-16 A wise prayer. Gibeon, the scene of this incident, was one of the "high places" of the land. Worship in high places had been forbidden. Law against it not rigidly enforced until the place was chosen "where the Lord would cause his name to dwell." That Solomon’s act in sacrificing at Gibeon was not condemned is proved by his being favoured with this direct Divine communication. Every scene of real worship may become the scene of special Divine manifestation. "The Lord appeared unto Solomon in a dream of the night." Whatever our theory of these dreams of the olden times, it was evidently an articulate and intelligible Divine communication that Solomon had, and his spirit was intensely active. His choice of wisdom rather than riches, etc; was an act of judgment, a decision of the will, and therefore indicative of moral character. The whole spirit of his prayer most honourable to him. The prayer is, in a sense, answered before it is presented. Every holy yearning of the pious soul contains within itself the pledge of its own fulfilment. I. THE NATURE OF TRUE WISDOM. A power of moral discernment. "An understanding heart to judge," etc. This was the virtue of Solomon’s prayer—it craved a moral rather than mere circumstantial, or even intellectual, endowment. He had the wisdom of the man of science, the "minute philosopher" (see 1 Kings 4:33). But higher wisdom was wanted for higher work—for guiding and governing the people—and this is what he prayed for. Little trace in Solomon of the pure, fervent spirit of devotion that glowed in his father David. The yearning of David’s heart was not so much for wisdom as for holiness. But Solomon has a lofty ideal of kingly rule before him, and this is how he seeks to realize it. 1. Wisdom is a practical quality; not merely theoretical; consists less in true ideas than in the ability to embody them in a real and living form; not knowledge or insight, but power to turn what is known and understood to highest account. In common affairs of life—in matters of business, science, art—how many clever theoretical men are there whose cleverness never takes a tangible, practical form! You can point to nothing that they have ever done as a worthy expression of their native capacity. Only in a qualified sense are such men "wise." How much more in the higher sphere of moral and religious life. Here also a science and an art, the ideal and the practical. Wisdom is the combination of the two. It is thought and it is life—the science of spiritual truth and reality married to the divine art of living under the influence of what is real and true. 2. Wisdom deals with those eternal principles that underlie the surface appearances of life. The judgment of Solomon in the dispute between the two women about the child (1 Kings 3:16 to end) is suggestive here. Its peculiarity is, that instead of trusting to appearances to decide the doubt, he leaves the decision to the deep instinct of the mother’s nature, i.e; his wisdom is seen in calling to its aid a principle profounder and less fallible than itself. Apply this to the higher conduct of life. We want something more reliable than our own observation or reason as a guide. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." Lay hold on God. Walk by faith. Let there be a divine element in your life: "There is more wisdom in a whisper’d prayer Than in the ancient lore of all the schools." How great the wisdom of him whose whole daily life is a heaven ascending prayer! II. THE DIVINE ORIGIN OF WISDOM. "Ask what I shall give thee." God is the infinite Fount of Wisdom, and He "gives" from His exhaustless fulness. "The Father of Lights." What a world of wonders is the book of Nature! What creative thought, constructive skill, wise adaptation are here! A world of profounder wonders is the Book of Truth. "O the depth of the riches," etc. But this is revelation; we have to think of impartation. God will give wisdom, "Ask what I shall give thee." "If any man lack wisdom let him ask of God," etc. All true light that guides man in any right path is His gift. Most of all those right thoughts, high aspirations, holy energies, which are the very life of men. Man can only disclose his mental riches. The philosopher cannot "give" the rustic wisdom, nor the father or teacher the child. God sheds the light of His Spirit into the soul. "If ye being evil," etc. III. THE REWARD OF WISDOM. "And I have also given thee," etc. (1 Kings 3:13). God’s beneficence exceeds the expectations of His children. "Able to do exceeding abundantly," etc. (Ephesians 3:20). "Seek ye first the kingdom of God," etc. (Matthew 6:33).—W. BY A. ROWLAND 1 Kings 3:5 SERMON FOR . Waiting for God’s voice. Little children are sometimes intended to do great things. God has a special place foreveryone to fill. Sometimes the child who is least thought of in the home or in the class is to have the noblest destiny. Two brothers once lived in the same tent. One was brave and manly, a great hunter, and a popular, generous man, but his younger and feebler brother, Jacob, became greater than he. In Jesse’s family at Bethlehem there were young men, tall, comely, and heroic, yet their shepherd brother, whom they despised, was chosen to be their king. Now in David’s own family God made His choice; and overlooking the beautiful Absalom, and the ambitious Adonijah, he selected Solomon, their youngest and gentlest brother, to be king over one of the richest kingdoms in the world, and to rule His own people in the time of their greatest prosperity. It may be that some lads here, who are little thought of, may become the leaders of a nation to a nobler life, the teachers of their age, to whom the world will gladly listen. But whatever sphere you have to fill, you will only be ready to fill it well when you begin, as Solomon began his reign, by listening to the voice of God. This was the most interesting part of Solomon’s life. He was now at his best. Ascending his father’s throne, he was conscious of his responsibility, and asked God to give him wisdom (James 1:5, James 1:6). In youth our future is generally decided. If we go wrong then, it is not easy to be set right. An injury done to a living thing during its growing time is irreparable. The man who was crippled when he was a child, the tree blasted when it was a sapling, cannot by any subsequent care be made straight and whole. Solomon, however, started well—going up to the ancient tabernacle in Gibeon, to offer sacrifice to the Lord. Let us see what preparation Solomon had for the dream spoken of here. Many a child says, "I wish God would come to me, and tell me I might ask for whatever I liked. I often say my prayers, but God does not seem real to me. I never see Him or hear Him." You will not see Him as did Solomon, nor hear Him as did Samuel. But you may feel Him in your thoughts—in the prompting to do right, or to speak the truth when doing this may get you into trouble; and in the relief and rest you know after telling God about the sorrow you have. [Quote part of Faber’s hymn: "Dear Jesus, ever at my side." Tell some story of a child who has found help, relief, and rest in prayer. This will bring the old story of Solomon near to the experience of children.] Three things prepared Solomon for listening to God. I. SOLOMON HAD COME FROM WORSHIP. Describe the old tabernacle, now pitched on the top of the hill at Gibeon; the coming of the procession of nobles, soldiers, priests, etc; to the sacred festival; the offering of the thousand victims; the song of praise, the united prayers, etc. This worship prepared the young king for his dream. Children go to Sunday schools who are seldom found in God’s house. Trace the lads and girls leaving the senior classes to spend their Sundays in pleasure and sin—their forced merriment, their aching hearts. Trying to forget God, they are not prepared to see Him as Solomon did. Contrast with this the day spent in worship. The children whose hearts are uplifted by songs of praise, who have been hearing of the love of God in Christ, who have been reminded of those who knew the Lord, are prepared to say, as Samuel said, "Speak, Lord, for thy servant heareth!" II. SOLOMON WAS ALONE WITH GOD. The crowd had dispersed. The shouts, and songs, and music were silent. The stars shone down on the camp, and in his own royal tent the young king had retired to rest. As he slept he dreamed, and a happy night followed a holy day. Dreams were often used by God in olden days. Give examples. These were overruled, but they were natural. A dream is the product of familiar thoughts. Boys don’t dream of protoplasm, of which they know nothing, but of cricket, lessons, companions, etc. The elements of a dream are in the mind before sleep; e.g; the Midianitish soldier dreamt of a barley cake, which was his ordinary food; the Egyptian butler, of Pharaoh’s cup; the baker, of his white baskets of bakemeats, etc. So Solomon had been thinking about his kingdom—the greatness of his father, the overruling providence of God; he had been filled with a desire to rule wisely, had been fired with devotion during the day, and all these things re-appeared in his dream. If you have never had such dream, you have had quiet times when you were ill, or before going to rest, when God seemed real to you. Recall the first time when the old form of prayer had a new meaning, when God seemed close, and loving, and gracious. An example from child life may be readily found. III. SOLOMON WAS TO GOD, who said, "Ask what I shall give thee." Sometimes children wish that the fairies, of whom they read, actually existed; that one, with her fair form and beautiful wand, would come and say, "Ask what I shall give thee." Many, like Cinderella, would exchange drudgery for glitter. God does not do this. If He did, many of us would ignorantly ask for foolish things. We do not know what we shall be doing or wanting even tomorrow. If you were going abroad and did not know for what country you were destined, nor even whether it was hot or cold, civilized or uncivilized, it would not be wise to provide things on the chance they might be useful. You might get weapons of defence for a country where they would not be wanted, and have to wear in the tropics clothing only suited to the polar seas. It would not be really kind for your father to say, "Now go into that shop, and get whatever you like." You would say, "No, thank you; as you know where I am going, and I don’t, I would rather trust you; though if you think it would be good, I should like this, or that." So we are taught to pray to our Heavenly Father. Give examples. Sometimes God does give us what we foolishly choose, as the father did to the prodigal, and then sorrow teaches us the folly of our self will The freedom to ask anything can only be given safely to those who are like Solomon. He had just given himself up to God as a living sacrifice, and had asked God to accept him and use him for His service; for it was this which he expressed by his offering of a thousand burnt sacrifices. (Romans 12:1.) If you can say in your heart, "Lord, I want to become like Jesus Christ, and always to be obedient to Thy will;! long to be earnest and humble, and pure, and loving, and to live altogether for Thee;" then He says, of all that will keep you toward that, "Ask and ye shall receive, and your joy shall be full." Show the necessity of prayer to children; point out their special temptations to neglect it; and close by the story of Esther going into the king’s presence with trembling, only to see the golden sceptre extended, and to hear the gracious encouragement, "What is thy petition, and what is thy request? and it shall be done unto thee!" "When thou saidst, ’Seek ye my face,’ my heart said unto Thee, ’Thy face, Lord, will I seek.’"—A.R. 1 Kings 3:6, 1 Kings 3:7 The reverent prayer of a royal petitioner. Solomon had a more peaceful reign and greater outward glory than David. Yet much is said in Scripture about the father, and little about the son. This revelation of God’s truth about men and things is less concerned with splendid surroundings than with secret struggles. Few, if any, are made great by splendour. Hence a few verses suffice to tell of Solomon’s ships and palaces, and gold and ivory; but many chapters are devoted to accounts of David’s temptations, deliverances, and prayers. We have God’s estimate of Solomon’s magnificence in the memorable words of Christ, "Consider the lilies of the field how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: and yet I say unto you, that even Solomon, in all his glory, was not arrayed like one of these." From these words we infer that human greatness does not claim God’s regard, but that He cares for lilies as well as for kings; so that from none of us, however lowly our lot, is the privilege of prayer, granted to Solomon, withheld. The prayer before us was characterized by the following excellences:— I. . (1 Kings 3:6.) Solomon thanked God for what his father had been. David was far from being a sinless man, but his son loyally veiled his faults, and praised God for what he had been to himself and others. What reasons for gratitude many have in this respect. Loving care during the feebleness of infancy; provision for education, etc; often the result of habitual self denial; protection of the home not only from physical, but from moral evils, in the shape of bad literature, companions, etc. These are the ordinary blessings from parenthood, but often there are more than these, e.g; the moral heritage of wholesome tendencies; the good name, to be chosen rather than great riches; the repression of evil, and encouragement of good habits of thought and action; the counsels and warnings to the inexperienced; the Christian truth revealed in the holy life, proclaimed by the loving lips. Few blessings are greater than these; but few are less thankfully recognized. Gratitude should reveal itself in tender consideration, in graceful courtesies, in prompt obedience, etc; in the home, and should express itself in praise to the Giver of all good gifts. [This is but an example of subjects for graft. tude: others may be suggested.] II. . The young king seemed overwhelmed with a sense of responsibility. He was about to succeed a father renowned as a warrior, as a statesman, as a poet, as a ruler of men. He was about to rule a numerous and prosperous people, who had been specially declared to be the Lord’s, so that he would be henceforth the representative of Jehovah. He foresaw that there would be snares not easy to avoid, difficulties hard to surmount; and therefore he dared not go forward without the prayer, "O God of my father, stand by me." Contrast this with the light spirit in which life work is often undertaken. Describe a father about to vacate his plan in business, or in the Church, whose honour has been unstained, who has been a king amongst men, and urge on any who are about to succeed to such an inheritance the responsibility incurred, that they may feel "who is sufficient for these things?" To go on to unknown temptations, to unattempted duties, in a flippant, godless spirit, is to show the foolhardiness of the captain who, in strange waters, wrecks his vessel on the hidden shoal, because he scorns to employ a pilot. III. . In 1 Kings 3:4 he tacitly refers to what God had done for his father, as an example and pledge of what God could do for him. He implies that the promise, like the throne, came by inheritance. This was the teaching of the patriarchal dispensation. It was not withdrawn by Christ, who came "not to destroy, but to fulfil." Hence, in the first sermon preached after the baptism of the Church by the Holy Spirit, Peter refers to, and endorses for this dispensation, the declaration of Joel, "The promise is unto you, and to your children." Show how the privileges of Christian parentage keep pace with its responsibilities. What God had been to David was a sign to Solomon, his son, of what God would do for him; and therefore he prayed with eager hope. IV. . "I am but a little child." Solomon had enough to make him proud. He was immensely rich, was flattered by courtiers, was obeyed by a disciplined army, was strikingly handsome (Psalms 45:1-17.), and was at an age (twenty years old) when no one thinks least of himself. But he recognized that God made him what he was ("Thou hast made Thy servant king"), and that, so far as wisdom and ability were concerned, he was "but a little child." Such has been the spirit of all truly great men, e.g; Moses, when called in Midian (Exodus 3:11); Isaiah, when he saw the Lord in the temple (Isaiah 6:1-13.); Jeremiah, when invested with prophetic office (Jeremiah 1:1-19.) This humility should characterize all who approach God. Refer to the Pharisee and publican (Luke 18:10-14); also to declaration that except we become as little children we cannot enter the kingdom. Contrast Solomon with his brothers, Absalom and Adonijah. He was content to wait God’s time, and so was prepared for the place prepared for him. The chrysalis waits—is kept back—in its inactive stage, till both the wings are ready for the sunshine, and the sunshine ready for the wings. Humbly let us wait for the higher spheres of earth and the highest spheres of heaven.—A.R. 1 Kings 3:9-13 The wisdom of Solomon’s choice. Solomon was never more kingly than when he made this choice. Subsequently he became enervated by prosperity, corrupted by heathen associations, etc; but now he ruled as a king over himself. The bright promise of life is often gradually overcast, till it ends in the gloom of a hopeless night. Examples from Scripture, e.g; Saul the King, Esau. It is well to know the kind of choice that "pleased the Lord." In Solomon’s there was true wisdom, for it had these elements— I. THE CHOICE WAS FOR THE GOOD OF OTHERS RATHER THAN FOR THE OF HIMSELF. It was not like asking for knowledge and wisdom that he might himself be admired as a sage. This followed, but this he did not seek. He wished to rule God’s people well for their good, and asked that he might do what was just in judgment, what was equitable in law. Such equity establishes any rule on a sure foundation. Our hold on India is chiefly due to the righteousness of our magistrates, and the trustworthiness of men like the Lawrences, Lord Mayo, etc. Natives would not hesitate to bring an action in one of our English law courts against an Englishman, so certain are they of even-handed justice. This Solomon sought, and the peace and prosperity of his kingdom (1 Kings 4:25) arose from the fact that God gave it him. To ask God to make us wise and capable for the sake of others, is a prayer consonant with His will. Unselfishness is commended and exalted under the new dispensation as it never was under the old. Christ Himself came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life "a ransom for many." The prayer of selfishness, greed, avarice, can never be put up in Christ’s name. II. THE CHOICE WAS MADE OF INWARD WORTH AND NOT OF OUTWARD SHOW. He did not ask for himself riches and honour. What will make us noble is always more readily given by God than what will make us wealthy. A wise father would rather that his son should be truthful than that he should win popularity among his schoolfellows by anything surreptitious and deceitful. So our heavenly Father cares little that we should make money, or win applause; but He cares much that we should be wise, and true, and loving; and these graces He will in no wise withhold from those who seek. Sometimes He answers our prayers for these inward blessings in modes we resent. The illness that throws us back upon Him, the failure that proves a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of things that he possesseth, etc; may work in us the peaceable fruits of righteousness. The Lord Jesus, who was at once the King of Glory and the village carpenter, showed us this; and in the inward gladness His disciples experienced amid their outward woes, we have confirmation of it. Show how, in New Testament history, and in the lives of the saints, the words which begin the Sermon on the Mount have been fulfilled. Blessedness of the highest kind comes to the poor in spirit, to them that mourn, to the meek, to them which do hunger and thirst after righteousness, to the merciful, to the pure in heart, to the peacemakers, and even to those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake. III. THE CHOICE MADE OF THE HIGHER BROUGHT WITH IT THE LOWER , (1 Kings 3:11-13) Because Solomon asked wisdom God gave him that, but added to it wealth and honour. If we ask grace to fulfil our mission, and rightly do our life work, our heavenly Father will see that we do not want for life’s necessities. "Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you." The teaching of Christ (Matthew 6:24-34) goes to show that a man who is chiefly concerned to please God need have no anxiety or care about lower things. If God feeds the birds, He will feed you; if He clothes the lilies, He will clothe you; if He gives the life, He will give the "meat" that is less than life. Ask God for the higher blessings: pardon, righteousness, reverence, wisdom, etc; and He will give you not only these, but all things necessary for us, and all the riches and honours that are good for us. Solomon’s wisdom was great, but there has come into the world one greater than Solomon, more worthy far of our adoration and love. As the child in Nazareth, Jesus grew in wisdom, and in stature, and in favour with God and man. His wisdom was purer, deeper, truer than Solomon’s, because it was united with purity of life, with victory over sin, and with sacrifice of self. He is the true Shelomoh, "the Prince of Peace;" the true Jedidiah, "the well beloved of the Father;" and to Him now let us humbly bow the knee, as to One worthy to be exalted both as Prince and Saviour.—A.R. IN this section we see how remarkably the gracious promise of Gibeon (1 Kings 3:12) was fulfilled. The "understanding to discern judgment" has been richly bestowed. And this, no doubt, is the reason why the story is related here. Ἐπιδεῖξαίτὴντοῦβασιλεωςἐβουλήθησοφίαν (Theodoret). It is just possible, as Thenius maintains, that the narrative was handed down to a succeeding age by tradition, and was not incorporated into any of the documents from which our historian compiled his narrative; but this argues nothing against its authenticity or its inspiration. It is, as Bähr observes, a thoroughly Oriental story. 1 Kings 3:16 Then came there two women that were harlots [The Jewish writers here, as in the case of Rahab (Joshua 2:1), would understand "hostess," "innkeeper" (פונדקיתא, not פונדקן, as Bהhr, which=, πανδοκεῖον, "inn"). In support of which it is alleged that prostitutes never have children, or if they have are not solicitous about them. The meaning "hostess," however (as if from זוּן, to feed), is not to be entertained for a moment, but we may readily admit that these children, though born out of wedlock, were not necessarily the offspring of professed harlots, though the fact that their mothers dwelt together and alone (1 Kings 3:17) is certainly suspicious; and see Gesen. s.v. זָנָה. Grotius, from Deuteronomy 23:17, concludes that they must have been foreigners. But it is equally probable that the law was constantly violated] unto the king [as supreme judge] and stood before him. 1 Kings 3:17 And the one woman said, O my lord, I and this woman dwell in one house; and I was delivered of a child with her in the house. 1 Kings 3:18 And it came to pass the third day after that I was delivered, that this woman was delivered also: and we were together; there was no stranger with us in the house, save we two in the house. [Emphasis is laid on this fact, as showing the possibility of the fraud and the impossibility of producing proof. Hebrew women have always required but little assistance in childbearing. That which is written in Exodus 1:19 is true to this day. 1 Kings 3:19 And this woman’s child died in the night; because she overlaid it. 1 Kings 3:20 And she arose at midnight [rather, in the middle, i.e; dead of the night. The sleeper could not know it was midnight], and took my son from beside me, while thine handmaid slept, and laid it in her bosom, and laid her dead child in my besom. 1 Kings 3:21 And when I rose in the morning [while it was still dusk] to give my child suck, behold it was dead: but when I had considered it in the morning [i.e; in broad daylight; Vulg. clara luce] behold [this second "behold" marks a second discovery] it was not my son which I did bear. 1 Kings 3:22 And the other woman said, Nay, but the living is my son and the dead is thy son. And this said, No, but the dead is thy son and the living is my son. [It is somewhat difficult to account for the pertinacious claim to the child, preferred even before the king by the pretended mother. The most probable explanation is, that having taken the child in the first instance on the spur of the moment, in order to avoid the reproach of having killed her offspring by her clumsiness and neglect, she found it difficult to draw back from her false position—which indeed she could not do without owning herself both child stealer and liar—and so she put on a bold face and maintained the imposture even before the monarch himself. That she did not really care for the child is evident from 1 Kings 3:26. Thus they spake [Heb. "And they spake," i.e; affirmed and contradicted] before the king. 1 Kings 3:23 Then [promptly, without hesitation] said the king, The one saith [Heb. "this is saying," i.e; keeps saying] This is my son that liveth, and thy son is the dead; and the other saith, Nay, but thy son is the dead and my son is the living. 1 Kings 3:24 And the king said, Bring me a sword. And they brought a [Heb. the; the sword, i.e; of the executioner, or the sword for which he asked] sword before the king. 1 Kings 3:25 And the king said, Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one and half to the other [Heb. one]. 1 Kings 3:26 Then spake the woman whose the living child was unto the king, for her bowels [thought by most of the ancients to be the seat of the affections, probably because of the sensations which strong emotions excite there. Cf. τὰσπλάγχνα in the New Testament 1 Kings 3:27 Then the king answered and said [He simply echoes the exact words of the mother. This is clear from the fact that the word יָלוּד—natus, "the one born," here and in 1 Kings 3:26 rendered "child," is a very unusual one], Give her the living child, and in no wise slay it [The LXX; which reads "Give the child to her who said, Give it to her," etc; obscures the evidently designed repetition] she is the mother thereof [Heb. she, his mother]. 1 Kings 3:28 And an Israel heard of the judgment which the king had judged, and they feared the king [i.e; were impressed and awed by his almost supernatural penetration. Bהhr refers to Luke 4:36; Luke 8:25], for they saw that the wisdom of God [for which he asked (Luke 8:9) and which God gave ; before him the two harlots and the helpless child—carries our thoughts to a day of storm and cloud, a day of darkness and dread, when the "Son of Man shall sit upon the throne of His glory," with "the holy angels" around Him and "all nations" before Him (St. Matthew 25:31). Let us see in this first judgment, then, an outline of the last. Observe: I. THE JUDGE. It is (1) the Son of David. We do not read of David’s judgments. This a duty which he was apparently remiss in discharging (2 Samuel 15:1-37.) He devolved the duty of judging and punishing upon his son (1 Kings 2:1-10). Even so, the "Eternal Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son." Because He is the Son of David, i.e; the Son of Man, our Lord will judge the sons of men. The Judge is, therefore, one who knows us, one who feels for us. It is (2) the wisest of men. "He was wiser than all men" (1 Kings 4:31). The wisdom of God was in him to do judgment (1 Kings 3:28). But the Judge of men and angels not only has, but is the Wisdom of God (Proverbs 9:1-18; 1 Corinthians 1:24). The Supreme, the Essential Wisdom will sit upon the great white throne. His judgments, therefore, must be "just and true." Now consider II. THE JUDGED. They were (1) of two classes. There was the innocent babe and the impure women. And of the latter one was true, the other false; one right, the other wrong. There will be two classes, and only two, in the judgment to come: sheep and goats, wheat and tares, good fish and bad, the righteous and the sinner. (2) Both were harlots. "Whoremongers and adulterers GOD will judge." Men cannot, or do not. Our pleasant vices are often undetected; or, if known, are not reprobated. But see 1 Corinthians 5:11; 1 Corinthians 6:9-19; Galatians 5:19-21. III. THE . Thereby (1) a sin was brought to light. No eye saw that midnight theft. They two were alone. But the deed is now dragged to the light of day. And the Lord "will bring to light the hidden things of darkness." What was "whispered in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops." (2) A wrong was redressed. The pretended mother probably held the child when they came before the king. The true mother carried it in her arms when they left the judgement seat. Restitution, i.e; was enforced. And the judgement seat of Christ shall accomplish the restitution of all things. There every wrong shall have its remedy. Now the "foundations of the earth are out of course." Might stands for right. Possession is nine points of the law. But in that day "suum cuique." It is related of one of the Wesleys that on paying an account which was a gross imposition, he wrote upon the bill, "To be readjusted in that day." (3) Character was revealed. The true mother and the pretended alike proclaim themselves. A word from each decides the question, and reveals their inmost thoughts. So shall it be at the end of the world. "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee." "By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." The Son of Man shall "make manifest the counsels of the heart." IV. THE REWARD AND . To the one the tribunal brought justification, joy, peace. To the other, condemnation, shame, contempt. But notice especially (1) the difference it made in their emotions and (2) the difference in their reputations. (1) The joy of the mother who had received her child again may be better imagined than described. The same may be said of the vexation, confusion, remorse, of the pretender when her villainy was made manifest. And in these emotions we may see a faint image of the unspeakable joy of the saved: of the weeping and gnashing of teeth of the lost. (2) The true mother would have the sympathy of bystanders, the congratulations of her friends, etc.; the other would be pointed at with scorn and reproach. Here, too, we have a picture, albeit an imperfect one, of the issues of the day of judgment. To the saint, the "Come ye blessed" of the Judge will lead to "pleasures forevermore;" to the sinner, "Depart ye cursed" will be the beginning of "shame and everlasting contempt." 1 Kings 3:26 Let it be neither mine nor thine, but divide it. "The Word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." The judgment of Solomon is a striking commentary on this passage; indeed, it is possible that the writer had this incident in his mind when he penned these words. For assuredly the word of Solomon, "Divide," etc; was sharper than the sword they had just brought him£ in wounding the mother’s heart (Cf. Luke 2:35); while not more surely would the king’s sword, had it not been stayed, have pierced to the "dividing asunder of the joints and marrow" of the child, than did the king’s word distinguish between the true and the false, revealing both the tenderness and yearning love of the real mother, and also the thoughts and intents and workings of heart of the pretender. It is probably, in part at least, because of their revelation of character that they are recorded here. Let us now, therefore, consider the character and motives of the pseudo mother, as disclosed to us in her words and conduct. And first, let us ask, what can have led to this cruel and unnatural speech? Here is a woman who has recently become a mother, and who claims to be the mother of the child, having no pity on a helpless babe. At one moment, she strenuously contends before the king for its possession, and at the next she connives at, and indeed clamours for, its murder. She has surreptitiously taken it from one who would have guarded and cherished it; she loudly protests that it is hers; she is so anxious to have it that she will plead for it before the royal tribunal, and yet, when it is gravely proposed to cut the hapless child in two, she is loud in her approval of the plan. How can we account for such strange inconsistency? The usual explanation is that she was impelled to do and say what she did by spite, by jealousy. And, without doubt, there was an element of spite in her conduct. If she was to be denied the child, she was resolved that none else should have it. She would never submit to the humiliation of leaving the judgement seat with the character of an impostor, while that other one carried off the babe in her arms in triumph. But while the feeling of "dog in the manger" explains much, it does not explain all. It does not account, for example, for her having cumbered herself with the care of the child in the first instance; and it hardly explains her proceeding to the extremity of judicial murder. Nor even if we combine with spite the desire to flatter the youthful king, do we find a sufficient explanation of her inconsistency. No doubt she thought it would be a compliment to her prince readily to acquiesce in his proposal. It is not the first time or the last that men have readily assented to wrong-doing because a crowned head suggested it. We see in her cry, "Divide it," a cringing, fawning desire to ingratiate herself into Solomon’s favour, or if not that, at least to play the courtier; but we do not see in this desire alone a sufficient explanation of this clamour for the life of a puling and innocent babe. No, if we are to get at the very root of her strange and shameful conduct, we must first ask another question, viz; What led her to steal this child from its mother’s arms and to claim it for her own? What induced her when she woke in the night and found her own child dead, to creep in the darkness to her companion’s couch and take a changeling for her son. For this was surely a strange thing to do. We could more readily understand her rejoicing in the death of her own child of shame than this eager desire to burden herself with a bastard that she had not borne. Now, it is quite possible that there were special circumstances connected with this case, which, if we knew them, would offer a complete and certain explanation of her conduct. For example, to pass by other possibilities, hers may have been such case as Tamar’s (Genesis 38:1-30.) But as we do not and cannot know what these peculiar circumstances were, if there were any, we can only collect her motives, as best we may, from the record of facts which we possess. It is clear, then, that she was not actuated by love for the child. It is unlikely that a woman such as she was could have love for a child such as this was; while it is inconceivable that if she really loved it, she would have consented to and counselled its death. Nor can it have been the pride and joy of having a man child to call her son (1 John 16:21). For the child was not hers, and no one knew this better than herself. No doubt the Jewish mother had special reasons for desiring offspring and for cherishing her children, but this was the child of stranger. What then were her motives? Were they not these? First, the fear of reproach, and secondly, jealousy of her more fortunate companion. Fear of reproach; for no woman, in any age of the world, or under any circumstances, can fail to be mortified and humbled and ashamed at having occasioned, by her maladroitness, the death of her child. She knew what the tongues of the neighbours would say: she could see them, perhaps, even mocking her as a murderess. For they could not know that the death was accidental and some of them, she feared, might think, if they did not say, that there had been foul play on her part. These thoughts, as they rushed through her mind in the black and dark night, would be accentuated and made well nigh intolerable by the thought that her companion had been more careful or more fortunate. What may have passed between these two women we cannot say. For aught we know, each may have boasted of her child, or the one may have disparaged the child of the other. There must almost have been something of the kind—and it may have been something extremely simple—to account for this act of child stealing. It is quite possible, of course, that this woman, had she been interrogated after the fraud was detected, would have found it difficult to say what led her to play this false part. For we may rest assured she did not argue about it, did not stop to parley with herself or to weigh the consequences. She acted on a blind, hasty, unreasoning impulse. But all the same it is not difficult for us to see that these must have been among the springs of her conduct. And when the fatal move was once made, the rest of her sin is easily explained. There was then nothing for her to do but to brazen it out. It was impossible for her to stop, without proclaiming herself both liar and thief. As she had lied to her companion, so she must lie to the neighbours, and as she had lied to the neighbours, so she must lie even before the king. There was no help for it. Vestigia nulla retrorsum! She must go on to the bitter end. But it is easy to see how terribly trying and painful her position would at last become. The constant fear of detection, or the fear lest she should betray herself, must have made it almost insupportable. Any moment something might ooze out which would reveal the deceit and cover her with infamy. Bitterly must she have regretted that she had ever embarked on this course of fraud; eagerly must she have cast about for any chance of escape. And so when the king proposed to cut the Gordian knot; when he proposed, that is, to extricate her from the toils which she had woven round herself, is there any wonder that she caught eagerly at the first chance that offered, and that without a moment’s reflection as to the morality of the remedy, and without the least perception of the snare that was spread for her. All she thought was that it promised an honourable retreat from ground which was every moment becoming more insecure; that it opened to her, in her despair and dread of detection, a door of escape. It is this accounts for the cry, "Divide it." The murder would cover her multitude of lies, the blood of the innocent would efface the traces of her guilt. The lessons taught by this history must be very briefly indicated. Among them are these: 1. Impurity almost inevitably leads to deceit. The root of all the mischief here was the unchastity. The sin against the body makes other sins comparatively easy. "It is only the first step that costs." And what a step is that! 2. Moral cowardice may lead to murder. The fear which prompted the hasty resolve to possess herself of the living child, led this miserable woman to stealing, lying, persistent falseness, and to murder, in thought and will. Facilis descensus Averni, etc. 3. Falsehood leads to falsehood. The proverb says, "If we tell one lie we must tell twenty more to bury it." "One lie must be thatched with another or it will soon rain through." "O what a tangled web we weave When once we venture to deceive." 4. Jealousy dries up the milk of human kindness. It is "cruel as the grave." "Fiercer than famine, war, or spotted pestilence; Baneful as death, and horrible as hell." It led this woman to act like a fiend; to desire the butchery of an innocent babe. 5. Sin overreaches itself. The pretender was caught in her own toils. She had no sooner said, "Divide it," than she saw she was undone. She had proclaimed her own falseness. "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee." 6. When the sinner is most secure, then sudden destruction comes upon him. This woman had never breathed freely till Solomon said, "Divide it." That seemed such a certain deliverance that she echoed the cry. Now she began to feel safe. The next moment she was disgraced, condemned, ruined. Cf. Matthew 24:50; Matthew 25:44; 1 Thessalonians 5:8, etc. SOLOMON’S STATE AND COURT .—The account of Solomon’s marriage and entry upon his religious and judicious functions is appropriately followed by a description of his court, of the great functionaries of the realm, of his royal state and magnificence, and, lastly, of his varied and unprecedented wisdom. It must not be supposed, however, from the occurrence of the lists in this particular place, that they necessarily represent the appointments of the early part of Solomon’s reign. The mention of two of the married daughters of the king (1 Kings 4:11, 1 Kings 4:15) has been generally thought to prove that the record belongs to a much later period, and it certainly affords a powerful presumption in favour of a later date. Too much stress, however, must not be laid on this consideration, as the girls of the East marry early, and these may well have been given to officers much their seniors, who had long been in office, and who had merited this distinction (cf. Joshua 15:16; 1 Samuel 17:25; 1 Samuel 18:17) by the important services they had rendered to the State. Ewald sees in these lists unmistakeable evidence of compilation from the public archives. But see Introduction, sect. 6. If the historians of Israel were the prophets, nothing is more natural than that they should record such details of the Augustan age of their race. 1 Kings 4:1 So King Solomon was king over all Israel [All later kings ruled but a part of the land of Israel, as also did David at first.] 1 Kings 4:2 And these were the princes [i.e. ministers, officers. Cf. 2 Samuel 8:15-18, and 2 Samuel 20:23-26] which he had, Azariah the son [i.e; descendant, probably grandson. See on 1 Chronicles 6:10] of Zadok the priest. [We are here confronted by two questions of considerable difficulty. First, to whom does the title "priest" here belong, to Azariah or to Zadok? Second, what are we to understand by the term, a spiritual, or a more or less secular person—ἱερεύς or βουλευτής? As to 1. the Vulgate (sacerdotis) and apparently the Authorized Version, with the Rabbins, Luther, and many later expounders, connect the title with Zadok (who is mentioned as priest in verse 4), and understand that Azariah, the son of the high priest Zadok, was, together with the sons of Shisha, one of the scribes (verse 3). It is true that this view obviates some difficulties, but against it are these considerations. (1) The accents. (2) The Chaldee and LXX. (ὁἱερεύς Cod. Alex.; Cod. Vat. omits the words) Versions. (3) Hebrew usage, according to which the patronymic is regarded as almost parenthetical. (4) The fact that in every other case in this list the title is predicate nominative (verses 3-6). (5) The position of Azariah’s name, first in the list—a position which would hardly be assigned to a scribe. (6) The absence of any copula å, which, it is submitted, would be required if Azariah and the sons of Shisha alike were scribes. The question is one of some nicety, but the balance of evidence is distinctly in favour of connecting the title with Azariah, i.e; "Azariah son of Zadok was the priest." This brings us to 2. What are we to understand by "the priest "—הַכֹהֵן? It is urged by Keil, Bהhr, al. that this cannot mean "priest" in the ordinary sense of the word, still less "high priest," for the following reasons: (1) Because the high priests of Solomon are mentioned presently, viz; Abiathar and Zadok, and the Jews never had three high priests. (2) Because the Azariah who was high priest under Solomon for the words of 1 Chronicles 6:10, "He it is that executed the priest’s office," etc, must belong to the Azariah of verse 9, and have got accidentally misplaced—was the son of Ahimaaz, not of Zadok. (3) Because no grandson of Zadok could then be old enough to sustain the office of high priest. (4) Because in one passage (2 Samuel 8:18, compared with 1 Chronicles 18:17) כֹהֲנִים is used of privy councillors and of the sons of David, who cannot have been sacrificing priests. Keil consequently would understand that Azariah was "administrator of the kingdom, or prime minister." Similarly Bהhr. But in favour of the ordinary meaning of the word are these powerful considerations: (1) All the versions translate the word by "priest," i.e; they understand by the term a spiritual person. (2) Whatever may be the case with כֹהֵן, הַכֹהֵן, "the priest" (par excellence) can only be understood of the high priest. (3) It is extremely doubtful whether כֹהֵן is ever used except in the sense of ἱερεύς, Rawlinson, who says it sometimes indicates "a civil officer, with perhaps a semi-priestly character," refers to Gesenius sub hac voce, who, however, distinctly affirms that the word only means priest, and accounts for the application of the term to the sons of David (2 Samuel 8:18) on the supposition that the Jews had priests who were not of the tribe of Levi. The question is discussed with great learning by Professor Plumptre (Dict. Bib; art. "Priest"), who suggests that "David and his sons may have been admitted, not to distinctively priestly functions, such as burning incense (Numbers 16:40; 2 Chronicles 26:18), but to an honorary, titular priesthood. To wear the ephod in processions (2 Samuel 6:14) at the time when this was the special badge of the order (1 Samuel 22:18), to join the priests and Levites in their songs and dances, might have been conceded, with no deviation from the Law, to the members of the royal house." There is one difficulty however in the way of accepting this ingenious and otherwise sufficient explanation, namely, that it seems hardly likely that the title of priest would be freely accorded by Hebrew writers to men who were expressly excluded from all "distinctively priestly functions," especially after the use of the same word in the preceding verse (17) to designate the high priest. And I venture to suggest that the discharge by David’s sons of the semi-priestly functions just referred to occasioned so much remark as to head to the application of the term "priest" to them in a special conventional sense; in fact, that it became a sort of soubriquet, which rather implied that they were not priests than that they were. (Notice the order of 2 Samuel 8:18, Hebrews) And observe (4) if we are to understand by "the priest" in verse 2, "prime minister;" by "priests" in verse 4, "high priests," and by "priest" in verse 5, "principal officer," language has no certain meaning. (5) The mention of Azariah as "the priest" in the same list with Zadok and Abiathar is easily accounted for. We know that Abiathar was deposed at the beginning of Solomon’s reign (1 Kings 2:27), and Zadok must then have been an old man. Their names consequently are recorded (verse 4) because they were high priests for a brief period of the reign, but Azariah is mentioned first as "the priest" because he was high priest during most of the time. (6) "Azariah the son of Zadok" is quite compatible with the fact that Azariah was really the son of Ahimaaz. בֵּן is constantly used in the sense of "descendant," and especially "grandson." (Genesis 29:5: Genesis 31:28, Genesis 31:55: and see on Genesis 2:8,"the son of Gera.") Zadok is no doubt mentioned as better known than Ahimaaz, and probably because Azariah succeeded him directly in the office. (7) The age of Azariah must be uncertain, and Solomon’s reign was a long one. (8) The position of his name—first—accords well with the idea that he was high priest, which I conclude that he was. It is worthy of remark that in the lists of David the military officers of the kingdom occupy the first place; in those of Solomon, the civil and religious dignitaries. "The princes of Solomon are, with one exception (verse 4) ministers of peace."—Wordsworth. 1 Kings 4:3 Elihoreph and Ahiah, the sons of Shisha [probably the same person who is mentioned in 2 Samuel 20:25 as Sheva; in 2 Samuel 8:17, as Seraiah; and in 1 Chronicles 18:16, as Shavsha, David’s scribe. The office thus descended from father to sons. The variations in this name are instructive. Compare Kishi and Kushaiah, Abijah and Abijam, Michaiah and Maachah, Absalom and Abishalom, etc. Names written ex ore dictantis are sure to differ. See below on 1 Chronicles 18:12], scribes [the scribes, סֹפְדִים, were Secretaries of State: they wrote letters and proclamations, drew up edicts, and apparently kept the accounts (2 Kings 12:10). Their position in the list indicates their importance]; Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud, the recorder. [He held the same office under David, and is mentioned in all three lists (2 Samuel 8:17; 2 Samuel 20:25; 1 Chronicles 18:15). The recorder or "remembrancer" (marg.) was, perhaps, "chancellor" (Keil), or keeper of the king’s conscience, rather than, as is generally supposed, chronicler of public events, and keeper of the archives. See Introduction, sect. 6. 1 Kings 4:4 And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada [see on 1 Kings 1:32] was [the A. V. supplies was and were quite needlessly in this and succeeding verses. This is simply a list of Solomon’s princes and of the offices they discharged] over the host [cf. 1 Kings 2:35]: and Zadok and Abiathar were the priests [the mention of Abiathar’s name after his deposition (1 Kings 2:27, 1 Kings 2:35) has occasioned much remark, and has even led to the belief that he was subsequently pardoned and restored to office (Clericus). Theodoret remarks quite truly, τὴνἀρχὴνἀφείλατοοὐτῆςἱερωσύνηςἐγύμνωσεν, and similarly Grotius. But a simpler explanation is that his name is put down here because he had been high priest, though for a brief period only, under Solomon. See above on 1 Kings 2:2. 1 Kings 4:5 And Azariah the son of Nathan [Azariah was clearly not an uncommon name (verse. 2, and cf. 1 Chronicles 2:39; 1 Chronicles 5:1-26:36-40 Hebrews; A.Hebrews 6:9-14), especially in the high priest’s family. Keil and Bähr pronounce somewhat positively that this Nathan is not the prophet of that name, but Nathan the son of David (2 Samuel 5:14; Luke 3:31). It is quite impossible to decide with certainty which is meant, if either, though Zechariah 12:12 undoubtedly favours the supposition that the latter is here intended] was over the officers [the twelve prefects mentioned in Zechariah 12:7 sqq.]: and Zabud the son of Nathan was principal officer [Heb. priest, Vulg. sacerdos. Singularly, as before, the LXX. (Vat.) omits the word. The expression can hardly mean "the son of Nathan the priest," but it may either signify that "Zabud ben Nathan, a priest, was king’s friend," or that (as in the A. V.) he was a priest and king’s friend. But the former is every way preferable. I find it easier to believe that the true import of 2 Samuel 8:18 the passage which is cited (sometimes along with 2 Samuel 20:26, where the LXX; however, has ἱερεύς) to prove that there were secular "priests"—is not yet understood, than to hold (with Gesenius, Ewald, etc.), that there were sacrificing priests who were not of the sons of Aaron (cf. 2 Chronicles 26:18), or that the word כהֵן, the meaning of which was thoroughly fixed and understood, can have been familiarly applied, except in the strictly conventional way already indicated, to lay persons], and [omit] the king’s friend. ["This appears to have been now a recognized office (2 Samuel 15:37; 2 Samuel 16:16; 1 Chronicles 27:33)," Rawlinson.] 1 Kings 4:6 And Ahishar was over the household [steward and manager of the palace. We meet this office here for the first time, an evidence of the growing size and magnificence of the court (cf. 1 Kings 18:3; 2 Kings 18:18; Isaiah 22:15). That such an officer was needed, the fact mentioned below (on 1 Kings 4:23) as to the enormous size of the royal household will prove]: and Adoniram [see on 1 Kings 12:18] the son of Abda was over the tribute. [Marg. "levy," i.e; the forced labour (1 Kings 5:13, 1 Kings 5:14). See on 1 Kings 12:3. 1 Kings 4:7 And Solomon had twelve officers [lit; persons "placed" or "set over" others, i.e; superintendents. The term is used of Doeg (1 Samuel 22:9). They were twelve, not because of the twelve tribes, but the twelve months] over all Israel, which provided victuals for [Heb. nourished] the king and his household: each man his month in a year made provision [lit; a month in the year it was (i.e; devolved) upon each to nourish. It has been thought by some that these superintendents were also governors of provinces (ἡγενισισόνεςκαὶσταηγοί, Jos. Ant. 8.2, 3), as well as purveyors. But of this nothing is said in the text. Their principal function was to collect the royal dues or taxes which were evidently paid, as they still are in the East, in kind]. 1 Kings 4:8 And these are their names [the order is not geographical, nor do the districts correspond, except roughly, with the territories of the tribes. The order is probably that of the months for which they were severally responsible, and the districts were marked out according to the capabilities of the country.]: The son of Hur [Heb. as marg; Ben Hur. Of the twelve prefects, five are only known by their patronymics, for it is hardly likely that these are proper names, like Ben-hanan and Ben-zoheth (1 Chronicles 4:20). No satisfactory explanation of this curious circumstance has hitherto been given. The most probable is that in the document from which this list was compiled, the part of the page containing the missing names had been accidentally destroyed], in mount Ephraim. [See on 1 Kings 12:25. This district, which practically coincided with the territory of Ephraim, was one of the most fertile in Palestine. Hence, possibly, it stands first.] 1 Kings 4:9 The son of Dekar [Ben. Dekar], in Makaz [unknown otherwise], and in Shaalbim [Joshua 19:42; Judges 1:35] and Beth-shemesh [called Irshemesh, Joshua 19:41. Now ’Ain Shemes], and Elon-beth-hanan. [Elon, Joshua 19:43. Probably Beth-hanan is a different place, the "and" å having accidentally dropped out of the text. The LXX. (ἕωςΒηθανὰν) favours this view. It has been identified by Robinson with Beit Hunun. This second district embraces Daniel] 1 Kings 4:10 The son of Hesed [Ben. Hosed], in Aruboth (Heb. Arubboth, unknown]; to him pertained Sochoh [there were two cities of this name, one in the mountain (Joshua 15:48), and one in the "valley" (the Shefelah, Joshua 15:33, Joshua 15:35), and both in the tribe of Judah, from which, therefore, this third district was taken], and all the land of Hepher. [Joshua 12:17. Ewald holds that this place was in Manasseh, and that "it is impossible in the twelve districts to find any portion of… Judah." But see above.] 1 Kings 4:11 The son of Abinadab [Ben Abinadab. Possibly the Abinadab of 1 Samuel 16:8; 1 Samuel 17:13. If so, this officer, who married Solomon’s daughter, was also his cousin], in [Heb. omits] all the region [נָפָה, height; the term is only used in connection with Dor] of Dor [Joshua 11:2; Joshua 12:23; Joshua 17:11. Dor, now represented by the miserable village of Tantura, lies on the strand of the Mediterranean, north of Caesarea. A "spur of Mount Camel, steep and partially wooded, runs parallel to the coastline, at the distance of about a mile and a half" (Porter). This is the "height of Dor." Thenius supposes this fourth district embraced the plain of Sharon. Josephus (8. 2. 3.) limits this prefecture to the sea coast, which may well include Sharon. Indeed, without it, this district would have been destitute of cornlands] which had Taphath, the daughter of Solomon, to wife. ["It has always been a practice amongst Oriental potentates to attach to themselves the more important of their officers by giving them for wives princesses of the royal house .... The practice of polygamy has generally enabled them to carry out this system to a very wide extent" (Rawlinson). 1 Kings 4:12 Baana, the son of Ahilud [cf. 1 Kings 4:3. Probably the recorder’s brother], to him pertained [the original, true to its character as a list, omits these words, simply giving the name of the officer and then the towns of his district or province] Taanach and Megiddo [similarly associated, Joshua 12:21; Judges 5:19; Judges 1:27. These towns, which became famous in later Jewish history (2 Kings 23:29; 2 Chronicles 35:22), lay at the foot of the E. spurs of Carmel, on the margin of the plain of Esdraelon. See Conder’s "Tent Work in Palestine," p. 67] and all Bethshean [Joshua 17:11, Joshua 17:16; Judges 1:27. Otherwise Bethshan (1 Samuel 31:10, 1 Samuel 31:12; 2 Samuel 21:12), now Beisan. The LXX. here translate the word ὁοῖκοςΣὰν; elsewhere they write βαιθσὰν or βαιθσὰμ, and in Judges 1:27 explain ἥἐστιΣκυθῶνπόλις, hence its later name Scythopolis. Rawlinson, by an oversight, interprets the name to mean "house of the sun," which is the translation of Bethshemesh. Bethshan prob. means "house of rest." "The site of the town is on the brow of the descent by which the great plain of Esdraelon drops down to the level of the Ghor." The present writer was much struck by its situation. See Conder, pp. 233, 234. The text shows that it gave its name to the adjoining district], which is by Zartanah [probably the Zaretan of Jos 3:16 and the Zarthan (same word in the Heb.) of 1 Kings 7:46, which place is called Zeredathah in 2 Chronicles 4:17, and is probably the Zererath of Jdg 7:22. (The variations in spelling are again to be noticed). Here Solomon cast the Temple vessels. By some it is identified with Kurn Sartabeh, a few miles below Bethshan. It is noticeable (in connexion with Joshua 3:1-17.16) that at this point the Jordan valley narrows (Keil). It occupies high ground and commands an extensive view (Robinson)] beneath [or below] Jezreel [Wordsworth remarks that "Jezreel, now Zerin, is a lofty site." But the idea of "beneath" is not that of depression, but of geographical position = the district southeast of Jezreel] from [LXX. and from) Bethshean to Abelmeholah [lit. meadow of the dance. It lay ten miles south of Bethshean. It is mentioned in connexion with Zererath (Zaretan) in Judges 7:22, but is best known as the home of Elisha (1 Kings 19:16)] even unto the place that is beyond [Heb. unto the other side of] Jokneam. [Properly, Jokmeam. Identified by the Survey with Tell Keimun. A Levitical town (1 Chronicles 6:68) probably the same as Kibzaim (cf. Joshua 21:22). This district coincided practically with the tribe of Manasseh. It embraced a part (see verse 17) of the fertile plain of Esdraelon and of the Jordan valley.] 1 Kings 4:13 The son of Geber [possibly son of the Geber mentioned in 1 Kings 4:19] in Ramothgilead [two districts east of the Jordan are now enumerated. And first, the territory of Gad. Bamoth-gilead was a Levitical city (Deuteronomy 4:43; Joshua 21:38). Its selection as a city of refuge (Joshua 20:8), and as the seat of Bengeber’s prefecture, together with the constant wars waged for its possession (1 Kings 22:3; 2 Kings 8:28; 2 Kings 9:14) show that it was a position of great strength and importance]; to him pertained the towns of Jair [the Havoth Jair are strictly the lives (i.e; villages, because men live there) of Jair. So Gesenius, who cites Eisleben and similar names] the son Manasseh [it is doubtful whether the judge of that name (Judges 10:3) or Jair, the son of Segub (called a "son of Manasseh" in Numbers 32:41, because his grandmother was a daughter of the great Machir, though his father belonged to Judah, 1 Chronicles 2:21), is intended. Probably it is the latter. (They can hardly be one and the same person, though they are often identified, as, e.g; in the Speaker’s Comm. on Judges 10:3. But they belong to different periods.) Curiously enough, the Havoth Jair are mentioned in connexion with each (see Numbers 32:41; Deuteronomy 3:4, Deuteronomy 3:5, Deuteronomy 3:14; Joshua 13:30; 1 Chronicles 2:22; Judges 10:4), but in every ease except the last the reference is to the son of Segub. As the judge was probably one of his descendants, it is not surprising that the judge’s sons should possess some of the villages of Jair], which are in Gilead; to him also pertained the region [חֶבֶל, lit; measuring cord, came to signify the region measured] of Argob [elsewhere "the Argob," i.e; the stony. This is the region subsequently known as Trachonitis, now called the Lejah. It is distinguished here and in Joshua 13:30, and 1 Chronicles 2:22 from the Gileadite district just mentioned, with which it is sometimes confounded. Both seem to have been conquered by Jair, but the towns of the former bore the name of Havoth Jair and these of Bashan Havoth Jair. Cf. Deuteronomy 3:4, Deuteronomy 3:5,Deuteronomy 3:14 with Numbers 32:41. The latter consisted of threescore cities, with walls, gates, and bars. This remarkable district, twenty-two miles in length by fourteen in breadth, is "wholly composed of black basalt, which appears to have issued from innumerable pores in the earth in a liquid state .... Before cooling, its surface was violently agitated, and it was afterwards shattered and rent by convulsions .... Strange as it may seem, this ungainly and forbidding region is thickly studded with deserted cities and villages"] which is in Bashan, threescore great cities with walls and brazen bars. [These words are a reminiscence of Deu 3:4, Deuteronomy 3:5. 1 Kings 4:14 Ahinadab the son of Iddo [probably the seer of that name, 2 Chronicles 9:29] had Mahanaim [Heb. to Mahanaim, as marg. That is, went, or was appointed, to Mahanaim. Rawlinson understands that his district was "from the places last mentioned to Mahanaim," but for this the usus loquendi of the writer would lead us to expect עַד. For Mahanaim, see Genesis 32:2; Joshua 13:26]. 1 Kings 4:15 Ahimaaz [probably the son of Zadok, 2 Samuel 15:27; 2 Samuel 17:17] was in Naphtali; he also [like Ben-Abinadab, 2 Samuel 17:11] took Basmath the daughter of Solomon to wife. 1 Kings 4:16 Banaah [or Baana, the second prefect of that name (1 Kings 4:12). The names are identical in the Hebrew. In 2 Samuel 4:2 the name is Baanah] the son of Hushai [the Archite, David’s friend. Cf. 2 Samuel 15:32] was in Asher and Aloth. [No town or district of this name is known. Probably the word should be Bealoth, as in the LXX; Syr; and Vulg. Our translators have taken the initial בְּ for a prefix, but it is almost certainly part of the name. There was a Baaloth in Judah (Joshua 15:24) and a Baaloth in Dan (ibid. 19:44), but neither of these can be meant here.] 1 Kings 4:17 Jehoshaphat the son of Paruah, in Issachar. [He had consequently the plain of Esdraelon, with the exception mentioned above, 1 Kings 4:12. 1 Kings 4:18 Shimei the son of Elah [by some identified with the Shimei of 1 Kings 1:8. But see note there], in Benjamin. [It is noteworthy that Shimei was a Benjamite name, 2 Samuel 16:5, 2 Samuel 16:11. 1 Kings 4:19 Geber the son of Uri was in the country of Gilead [i.e; he presided over the parts not already assigned to Bengeber (perhaps his son) and Ahinadab. Gilead is often used (see Deuteronomy 34:1; Judges 20:1) to designate all the country east of the Jordan. And so apparently here, for] the country of Sihon king of, the Amorites, and of Og king of Bashan] embraced the whole trans-Jordanic region, Deuteronomy 3:8; Numbers 21:24-35: cf. Psalms 135:11; Psalms 136:19, Psalms 136:20]; and he was the only officer which was in the land. [This cannot mean "the only officer in Gilead," notwithstanding the great extent of territory—the usual interpretation—for that would contradict Psalms 136:13, Psalms 136:14. Nor can can it mean the only officer in his district, or portion, of Gilead, for that is self-evident, and the remark would apply equally to all the other prefects. And we are hardly justified in translating נְצִיב אֶחָד "he was the first (i.e; superior), officer" (set over those mentioned above, Psalms 136:13, Psalms 136:14), as Schulze. אֶחָד is used as an ordinal number, but it is only in connexion with days and years (Gesen. s.v.) Some, following the LXX. (εἷςἐνγῇ̓Ιούδα) would detach Judah from Psalms 136:20, where it must be allowed it occurs with a suspicious abruptness, and where the absence of the copula, so usual in the Hebrew, suggests a corruption of the text, and would connect it with this verse, which would then yield the sense, "and he was," (or "there was") "one officer which purveyed in the land of Judah." it is to be observed, however, that though no mention has as yet been made of Judah in any of the districts, yet the prefecture of Ben Hesed (Psalms 136:10) appears to have extended over this tribe, and the remark consequently seems superfluous. (Can it be the object of the writer to show that the royal tribe was not favoured or exempted from contributing its share?) On the whole, the difficulty would seem still to await a solution. We can hardly, in the teeth of Psa 136:7, suppose with Ewald, al. that a thirteenth officer is here intended. 1 Kings 4:2 The Servants of Solomon. "These were the princes which he had." "All Scripture is… profitable for instruction," etc. A bare list of names may teach some lessons. We shall find in this list, first, some proofs of Solomon’s wisdom, and secondly, some principles to guide our own conduct. First, however, let us remember that to select faithful and efficient servants is one of the most difficult tasks of rulers. The welfare of the whole State depends very largely on the choice. (Cf. Psalms 101:5-7.) Now observe that here— I. THE FIRST PLACE IS FILLED BY GOD’S PRIEST (1 Kings 4:2). The minister of religion takes precedence of the ministers of state. The universal tendency is to put man first and God second. Solomon—if this list preserves the order of his arrangenments—put God first, in the person of His high priest. Under the theocracy the king was a sort of summus episcopus. It was meet that next to the anointed Prince should stand the anointed Pontiff. II. IS GIVEN TO THE OF PEACE (1 Kings 4:3, 1 Kings 4:4). Scribes come before warriors. In David’s day it was otherwise. But there has been an advance, and here is the proof of it. War is essentially barbarous. Among savage tribes warfare is chronic. As men become wiser and more civilized, the appeal to brute force is less frequent. Wiser, for war means unwisdom somewhere. More civilized, for the history of civilization tells how the wager of battle, which is now confined to nations, was once employed by tribes, provinces, and private persons. So that, in this particular, the wise son was greater than the pious father. For this reason Solomon may build the temple which his father’s blood-red hand may not touch. For this reason the son, not the father, is the favourite type of the Prince of Peace. One of the world’s greatest generals (Napoleon) said there were but two great powers, the sword and the pen, and that, in the long run, the former was sure to be overcome by the latter. Solomon would seem to have been of the same opinion. The "scribes" and the "recorder" precede the "captain of the host." III. MANY PLACES ARE FILLED BY THE OF HIS FATHER (1 Kings 4:3, 1 Kings 4:4, 1 Kings 4:6, and cf. 1 Kings 4:16). An Eastern autocrat generally appoints his associates of the harem (1 Kings 12:10), his personal favourites, to positions of trust. Solomon showed his wisdom in retaining the faithful servants of his predecessor (compare the folly of Rehoboam, 1 Kings 12:8), and his example thus confirms his precept (Proverbs 27:10), "Thine own friend and thy father’s friend forsake not." IV. SOME PLACES ARE FILLED BY HIS OWN SONS-IN-LAW (1 Kings 4:11, 1 Kings 4:15). This does not argue nepotism, or favouritism as the hand of the king’s daughter was often bestowed as the reward of distinguished services (1 Samuel 17:25; 1 Samuel 18:17, 1 Samuel 18:27). It may have been the due recognition of fidelity and ability. In any case the alliances would strengthen Solomon’s throne. "The friends thou hast, and their adoption, tried, Grapple them to thy heart with hooks of steel." Alien princes would, no doubt, have been proud to espouse Solomon’s daughters, but he preferred to marry them to faithful subjects. Blood is thicker than water. V. ALL PLACES OF TRUST WERE FILLED BY PERSONS OF PIETY. The number of priests’ or prophets’ sons employed by Solomon is very remarkable (1 Kings 4:4, 1 Kings 4:5, 1 Kings 4:14, and possibly 15). He knew that those who were taught in the law of the Lord would best keep and best enforce the law of the realm. Those who "fear God" are those who "honour the king" (1 Peter 2:17). Witness Joseph, Obadiah, Daniel, and the three Hebrew children. Even irreligious masters know the value of God-fearing servants. God blesses the house of Potiphar for the sake of its pious steward. Piety involves probity and excludes peculation and malfeasance. VI. EVERY OFFICER HAD HIS PLACE AND KEPT IT. There were definite duties, definite districts. The prefectures were so many parishes. Each was responsible for his own and for that only. Order is Heaven’s first law. The prosperity of Solomon’s reign may have been largely due to his system and method. There is a hierarchy and a due order in heaven. The angels would almost seem to have their districts (Deuteronomy 32:8, LXX.) The great King gives "to every man according to his work" (Mark 13:34). 1 Kings 4:7-19 The Twelve Prefects and the Twelve Apostles. "And Solomon had twelve officers over all Israel." Considering how closely he foreshadows our blessed Lord, the twelve officers of Solomon can hardly fail to remind us of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb. It may be instructive to compare their dignities, functions, etc. Observe— I. THEIR . The officers of Solomon were princes (1 Kings 4:2); the officers of Jesus were peasants and fishermen. Ability, energy, etc; dictated Solomon’s choice; humility, dependence, weakness, our] Blessed Lord’s (Matthew 18:3, Matthew 18:4; Matthew 23:11; and cf. Matthew 11:11). "Not many mighty, not many noble are called," etc. (1 Corinthians 1:26). "Unlearned and ignorant men" (Acts 4:13). II. THEIR . The officers of Solomon were reverenced and feared; the apostles of our Lord ,were despised and defamed. Each of the twelve prefects was, no doubt, a little potentate. The court of Abinadab in Mahanaim, or Shimei in Benjamin, would be a copy in miniature of that of the king in Jerusalem. And we know what the Eastern tax-gatherer is like, what despotic powers he wields, etc. Witness the Pashas and Valis of Turkey. How different were the twelve apostles. The contrast could not well be greater. "Hated of all men," esteemed "the filth and offscouring of all things; .... a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men" (1 Corinthians 4:9-13). What the life of an apostle was like we may learn from 2 Corinthians 11:24-29. "Behold, they which are gorgeously apparelled and live delicately are in king’s courts" (1 Luk 7:25). "Behold, we have forsaken all and followed thee" (Matthew 19:27). III. THEIR . The twelve officers presided over tribes; the twelve apostles ministered to continents. The whole of Palestine is about the size of Wales, and this strip of territory was divided into twelve parts. Compare with this the apostolic commission, "GO ye into all the world," etc. "Ye shall be witnesses unto me .... unto the uttermost part of the earth" Judaism was tribal religion; the faith of Christ is for humanity. IV. THEIR . 1. The twelve officers were receivers-general; the twelve apostles were general givers. The first took from the people to give to the king: the latter received from their King to bestow on the people. To the former, the subjects of Solomon brought taxes or tribute; the latter have obtained blessings and gifts from their Lord for men. (Cf. Acts 1:8; Acts 2:18; Acts 8:18; 1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6, etc.) "It is more blessed to give," etc. 2. The officers nourished the king (2 Corinthians 11:27, Heb.) and his armies: the apostles fed the Church. (Cf. Acts 20:28.) The 14,000 dependants of the court, the 4000 charioteers, the 12,000 horsemen, all were maintained by the twelve purveyors. Through the apostles, the Lord fed, now 4000, now 7000, and through them, their doctrine and their successors, He still feeds, with word and sacrament, the millions of the Church. So far the comparison is largely in favour of the prefects. As regards this world’s gifts and dignities, they bear away the palm. In their lifetime they received their good things and the apostles evil things. But an old authority—it is the dictum of Solon to Croesus (Herod. 1:30-38)—warns us to pronounce on no man’s fortune or happiness until we have seen the end. And the real end is not in this world. Let us therefore consider (1) What is the verdict of posterity? And (2) What will be the issue of futurity as to these two classes? Here we observe - I. THE NAMES OF SOME OF THE ARE ; THE NAMES OF THE ARE IN . The fame of Solomon’s twelve was shortlived. Several of them are now known to us only by their patronymics. Those much dreaded satraps, before whom subjects trembled, their very names are in some cases lost in oblivion. But the apostolic college, every member is still famed, reverenced, loved throughout the whole round world. Their names are heard, Sunday by Sunday, in the Holy Gospel (cf. Matthew 26:18). Better still, their "names are written in heaven" (Luke 10:20; cf. Philippians 4:3). As to II. THE TWELVE WILL JUDGE THE TWELVE . In their time, the latter sate on twelve thrones, each in his capital city, ruling the twelve tribes of Israel. But their glory, like that of the Roman general’s pageant, "lacked continuance." In the midst of their brief authority "Comes the blind Fury with the abhorred shears And slits the thin-spun life." The dominion of the apostles is in the future. It belongs to the "regeneration." "When the Son of Man"—the true Son of David—"shall sit on the throne of his glory," then shall they "sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes," etc. (Matthew 19:28). The despised fishermen shall judge the high and mighty officers—yes, and magnificent Solomon himself. Even now, it may be, their glory is in part begun. "Lo, the twelve, majestic princes In the court of Jesus sit, Calmly watching all the conflict Raging still beneath their feet." Shall we follow the officers of Solomon, or the twelve apostles of the Lamb? Shall we, that is, desire earthly advancement, high position, contemporary fame, or shall we count all as dross that we may "win Christ and be found in Him" (Philippians 3:8-11). "What shall it profit a man, if he gain," etc. We cannot all be ἡγενισισόνεςκαὶστρατήγοι, still less can we all wed kings’ daughters. But we may all sit with Christ upon His throne (Revelation 3:21); may all receive the crown of life (Romans 2:10); may all be "called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb" (Revelation 19:7-9). SOLOMON’S RULE, STATE, AND WISDOM.—The remainder of this chapter, which de-scribes to us the extent and character of Solomon’s sway (1 Kings 4:20, 1 Kings 4:21, 1 Kings 4:24, 1 Kings 4:25), the pomp and provision of his household (1 Kings 4:22, 1 Kings 4:23, 1 Kings 4:26-28), and his profound and varied wisdom (1 Kings 4:29-34), has every appearance of a compilation from different sources. It scarcely has the order and coherence which we should find in the narrative of a single writer. 1 Kings 4:20 Judah and Israel were many, as the sand which is by the sea in multitude [a reminiscence of Gen 13:16; Genesis 22:17; Genesis 32:12 (cf. Genesis 3:8). In the reign of Solomon these promises had their fulfilment], eating and drinking, and making merry. [Cf. 1 Samuel 30:16. The Hebrew here begins a new chapter. The LXX. omits 1 Samuel 30:20, 1 Samuel 30:21, 1 Samuel 30:25, 1 Samuel 30:26, and places 1 Samuel 30:27, 1 Samuel 30:28, "and those officers," etc; after the list of prefects, 1 Samuel 30:19. 1 Kings 4:21 And Solomon reigned [Heb. was reigning] over all kingdoms [Heb. the kingdoms. That is, as suzerain, as is explained presently. So that Psalms 72:10, Psalms 72:11 had its fulfilment] from the river [i.e; the Euphrates, the river of that region: so called Genesis 31:21; Exodus 23:1-33:81; 2 Samuel 10:16. In Genesis 15:18 it is called "the great river, the river Euphrates." Similarly Joshua 1:4] unto [not in the Hebrew. It is found in the parallel passage, 2 Chronicles 9:26, and perhaps we may safely supply it here. Its omission may have been occasioned by the recurrence of the same word (עַד) presently. Some would render, "reigned… over the land," etc; supplying בְּ in thought from above. But "unto" seems to be required after "from." Cf. 2 Chronicles 9:24] the land of the Philistines [this, i.e; the Mediterranean shore, was the western border of his realm], and unto the border of Egypt [this was his southern boundary. We have here a reference to Genisis 2 Chronicles 15:18, the promise which now first received its fulfilment]: they brought presents [i.e; tribute. Similar expressions, 2 Samuel 8:2; 2 Kings 17:3, 2 Kings 17:4, and especially Psalms 72:10. What the presents were we are told 1 Kings 10:25, where, however, see note], and served Solomon all the days of his life. The daily consumption of the royal household is now related to show the grandeur and luxury of the court. And it agreed well with the greatness of the kingdom. The lavish provision of Oriental palaces was evidently a subject of wonder and of boasting to the ancients, as the inscriptions and monuments show. 1 Kings 4:22 And Solomon’s provision [marg. bread, but לֶחֶם, strictly signifies any kind of food] for one day was thirty measures [Heb. cots. The כֹר was both a liquid and a dry measure (Hebrews 5:11) and was the equivalent to the homer (Ezekiel 45:14), but its precise capacity is doubtful. According to Josephus, it contained eighty-six gallons; according to the Rabbins, forty-four] of fine flour and threescore measures of meal. [Thenius calculates that this amount of flour would yield 28,000 lbs. of bread, which (allowing 2 lbs. to each person) would give 14,000 as the number of Solomon’s retainers. This computation, however, could have but little value did not his calculations, based on the consumption of flesh, mentioned presently (allowing 1.5 lbs. per head), lead to the same result. 1 Kings 4:23 Ten fat [Heb. fatted, i.e; for table] oxen, and twenty fat oxen out of the pastures, and an hundred sheep, beside harts and roebucks [or gazelles] and fallowdeer [Roebucks. The name Yahmur is still current in Palestine in this sense], and fatted fowl [This word (בַּרְבֻּדִים) occurs nowhere else. The meaning most in favour is geese.] 1 Kings 4:24 For [the connexion seems to be: Solomon could well support such lavish expenditure, because] he had dominion over all the region on this side [בְּעֵבֶר strictly means, on the other side, beyond (עָבַר, transiit). But here it must obviously mean on the west side, for Solomon’s rule did not extend east of the Euphrates. The use of this word in this sense (Joshua 5:1; Joshua 9:1; Joshua 12:7; 1 Chronicles 26:30; Ezra 8:36; Nehemiah 2:7) is generally accounted for on the supposition that the writers were living in Babylon in the time of the captivity; but this appears to be by no means certain. (See, e.g; Ezra 4:10, Ezra 4:11.) The truth seems to be, not that "the expression belonged to the time of the captivity, but was retained after the return anti without regard to its geographical signification, just, for instance, like the expression, Gallia Trans-alpina" (Bהhr), but that from the first it was employed, now of one side, now of the other, of the Jordan; of the west in Genesis 1:10, Genesis 1:11; Joshua 9:1, etc.; of the east in Numbers 22:1; Numbers 32:32; "and even in the same chapter is used first of one and then of the other Deuteronomy 3:8, Deuteronomy 3:20, Deuteronomy 3:25" (Spk. Comm. on Deuteronomy 1:1), and that it was subsequently applied, with similar variations of meaning, to the Euphrates. See Introduction, sect. 5. from Tiphsah [cf. 2 Kings 15:16, apparently the town on the west bank of the Euphrates, known to the Greeks as Thapsacus. It derived its name from the fact that the river at that point was fordable פָּסַח = pass over; תִּפְסַה = crossing. A bridge of boats was maintained here by the Persians. It was here that the river was forded by Cyrus and the Ten Thousand, and was crossed by the armies of Darius Codomannus and Alexander] to Azzah [i.e; Gaza, now called Guzzeh, the southernmost city of Philistia, ten miles from the Mediterranean, and the last town in Palestine on the Egyptian frontier. Cf. 2 Kings 15:21], over an the kings on this side the river ["Petty kings were numerous at this time in all the countries dependent upon Judaea" (Rawlinson). Cf. 1 Samuel 6:16; 2 Samuel 8:3-10; I Kings 2 Samuel 20:1. The "kings on this side the river" were those of Syria (2 Samuel 8:6. Cf. 2 Samuel 10:19) conquered by David, and of Philistia, 2 Samuel 8:1]: and he had peace on all sides [Heb. from all his servants] round about him [in fulfilment of 1 Chronicles 22:9. The objection of Thenius that this statement contradicts that of 1 Chronicles 11:23, sqq; is hardly deserving of serious notice. The reign of Solomon, on the whole, was undoubtedly a peaceful one. 1 Kings 4:25 And Judah and Israel [here we have the copula, the absence of which in 1 Kings 4:20 suggests a corruption or confusion of the text] dwelt safely [Heb. confidently. Cf. Judges 8:11; 1 Samuel 12:11], every man under his vine and under his fig tree. [A proverbial expression (see 2 Kings 18:31, where it is used by Rabshakeh; Micah 4:4; Zechariah 3:10) to denote rest and the undisturbed enjoyment of the fruits of the earth, not necessarily, as Keil, "the most costly products of the land." In invasions, raids, etc; it is still the custom of the East to cut and carry off all the crops, and fruits. Wordsworth notices that the vine often" clustered on the walls of houses (Psalms 128:3), or around and over the courtyards", from Dan even to Beersheba [i.e; from the extreme northern to the extreme southern (not eastern, as the American translator of Bהhr) boundary, Judges 20:1; 1 Samuel 3:20; 2 Samuel 3:10]. 1 Kings 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses [40,000 is certainly a clerical error, probably for 4000 (i.e; אַרְבָּיעים for אַרְבָּעָה). For (1) in the parallel passage in Chronicles the number is stated as 4000. (2) 4000 agrees, and 40,000 does not, with the other numbers here given. The chariots, e.g; numbered 1400; the horsemen 12,000. Now for 1400 chariots the proper allowance of horses would be about 4000. We see from the monuments that it was customary to yoke two horses (seldom three) to a chariot; but a third or supernumerary horse was provided to meet emergencies or accidents. 4000 horses would hence be a liberal provision for Solomon’s chariots, and it would also agree well with the number of his cavalry. 12,000 cavalry and 40,000 chariot horses are out of all proportion. As to stalls, it seems clear that in ancient, as in modern times, each horse had a separate crib (Vegetins in Bochart, quoted by Keil). Gesenius, however, understands by אֻרְוֹת, not stalls, but teams, or pairs] for his chariots [or chariotry: the word is singular and collective] and twelve hundred horsemen [rather, horses, i.e; riding or cavalry, as distinguished from chariot horses above. See note on 1 Kings 1:5. It has been supposed that this warlike provision is mentioned to account for the peace ("si vis pacem, para bellum") of Solomon’s reign, and was designed to overawe the tributary kings. But it is more probable that the idea of the historian was, partly to exhibit the pomp and circumstance of Israel’s greatest king, and partly to record a contravention of the law (Deuteronomy 17:16), which was one of the precursors of his fall]. 1 Kings 4:27 And those [rather, these, i.e; the officers mentioned 1 Kings 4:7-19] officers provided victual for [Heb. nourished] king Solomon and for all that came unto king Solomon’s table [we can hardly see here (with Keil) "a further proof of the blessings of peace." The words were probably suggested by the mental wonder how the cavalry, etc; could be maintained, and so the author states that this great number of horses and horsemen depended on the twelve purveyors for their food] every man in his month; they lacked nothing [rather, suffered nothing to be lacking. So Gesen.; and the context seems to require it]. 1 Kings 4:28 Barley also [the food of horses at the present day in the East, where oats are not grown. (Cf. Hom. II. 5:196)] and straw for the horses and dromedaries [marg. mules or swift beasts. Coursers, or fleet horses of superior breed are intended. רֶכֶשׁ = Germ. Renner. These coursers were for the use of the king’s messengers or posts. See Esther 8:10, Esther 8:14] brought they unto the place where the officers were ["officers" is not in the Hebrew. The LXX. and Vulg. supply "king "(the verb is singular, "was"). But the true meaning is to be gathered from Esther 10:1-3:26. There we learn that the horses were distributed in different towns throughout the land. To these different depots, therefore, the purveyors must forward the provender, "unto the place where it should be" (יִהְיֶה), not, as Rawlinson, "where the horses were."] every man according to his charge. 1 Kings 4:29 And God gave Solomon [in fulfilment of the promise of 1 Kings 3:12] wisdom and understanding (חָכְמָה, wisdom, knowledge; תְּבוּנָה, discernment, penetration. The historian, after describing the prosperity of the realm, proceeds to speak of the personal endowments of its head] and largeness of heart exceeding much [the Easterns speak of the heart where we should talk of head or intellect (1 Kings 3:9, 1 Kings 3:12; 1 Kings 10:24. Cf. Matthew 15:19; Ephesians 1:18 (Greek); Hebrews 4:12). The "large heart" is the ingenium capax, as Thenius. These different words indicate the variety and scope of his talents, in agreement with verse 33] as the sand that is on the seashore. [Same expression in Genesis 22:17; Genesis 32:12; Genesis 41:49; Joshua 11:4; Judges 7:12, etc.] 1 Kings 4:30 And Solomon’s wisdom excelled [or exceeded; same word as in 1 Kings 4:29] the wisdom of all the children of the east country [By the Beni-Kedem we are hardly to understand (with Rawlinson) a distinct tribe on the banks of the Euphrates. It is true that the land of the Beni-Kedem is identified with Haran or Mesopotamia (Genesis 29:1), and the mountains of Kedem (Numbers 23:7) are evidently those of Aram. It is also true that "the children of the East" are apparently distinguished from the Amalekites and Midianites (Judges 6:8, Judges 6:33; Judges 7:12; Judges 8:10). It is probable, nevertheless, $hat the name is here employed to designate all the Arabian tribes east and southeast of Palestine—Sabaeans, Idumeans, Temanites, Chaldeans. What their wisdom was like, we may see in the Book of Job. Cf. Jeremiah 49:7; Obadiah 1:8] and all the wisdom of Egypt. [The learning of Egypt was of great repute in the Old World. It differed very considerably from the wisdom of Kedem, being scientific rather than gnomic (Isaiah 19:11, Isaiah 19:12; Isaiah 31:2, Isaiah 31:8; Acts 7:22) and including geometry, astronomy, magic, and medicine. See Jos; Ant. 8.2.5; Herod. 2.109. 160. Wilkinson, "Ancient Egyptians" vol. 2. pp. 316-465. 1 Kings 4:31 For (Heb. and) he was wiser than all men [Keil adds "of his time," but we have no right to restrict the words to his contemporaries (see note on 1 Kings 3:12). It is very doubtful whether the names mentioned presently are those of contemporaries] than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, and Chalcol, and Darda [It is impossible to say whether these are the same persons as the Ethan and Heman and Chalcol and Dara of 1 Chronicles 2:6, or the Ethan and Heman who were David’s singers. The resemblance is certainly remarkable. Not only are the names practically the same, but they occur in the same order. Our first impression, consequently, is that the two lists represent the same persons, and if so, these four sages were the "sons" of Zerah, the son of Judah (Genesis 38:30). But against this it is urged that Ethan is here called the Ezrahite, as are both Ethan and Heman in the titles of Psa 89:1-52, and Psalms 88:1-18. respectively. The resemblance, however, of Ezrahite (אֶזְרָתִי) to Zerahite (זַרְתִי) is so close as to suggest identity rather than difference. There is, perhaps, more weight in the objection that Chalcol and Darda are here distinctly said to be "the sons of Mahol," though here again it has been observed that Mahol (מָחוֹל) means pipe or dance, and the "sons of Mahol," consequently, may merely be a synonym, agreeably to Eastern idiom (Ecclesiastes 12:4, with which cf. 2 Samuel 19:35), for "musicians." We may therefore allow that the four names may be those of sons (i.e; descendants) of Zerah. But the question now presents itself: Are Ethan and Heman to be identified with the well known precentors of David? Against their identity are these facts: 1. That Ethan the singer (1 Chronicles 6:31) is described as the son of Kishi (1 Chronicles 6:44), elsewhere called Kushaiah (1 Chronicles 15:17), and of the family of Merari; as a Levite that is, instead of a descendant of Judah, and that Heman, who is called the singer, or musician (1 Chronicles 6:33), and the "king’s seer" (1 Chronicles 25:5) is said to be a son of Joel, a grandson of the prophet Samuel, and one of the Kohathite Levites (1 Chronicles 15:17). The first impression in this case, therefore, is that they must be distinct. But it should be remembered (1) that the sons—in the strict sense—of Zerah are nowhere else named for their wisdom, whereas the royal singer and seer probably owed their appointments to their genius, and (2) that though Levites, they may have been incorporated into the tribe of Judah. The Levite in Judges 17:7 is spoken of as belonging to the family of Judah, because he dwelt in Bethlehem of Judah, and Elkanah the Levite is called an Ephraimite in 1 Samuel 1:1, because in his civil capacity he was incorporated into the tribe of Ephraim" (Keil). It must be admitted, however, that the natural interpretation of 1 Chronicles 2:6 is that the "sons" of Zerah there mentioned were his immediate and actual descendants, and not Levites who long centuries afterwards were somehow incorporated into his family. But the question is one of so much nicety that it is hardly possible to come to a positive conclusion] and his fame [Heb. name] was in all [Heb. all the] nations round about. [Cf. Hebrews 10:24, etc.] 1 Kings 4:32 And he spake three thousand proverbs: and his songs were a thousand and five. [Of the former, less than one-third are preserved in the Book of Proverbs (see Proverbs 1:1; Proverbs 25:1); the rest are lost to us. The Book of Ecclesiastes, even if the composition of Solomon, can hardly be described as proverbs. Of his songs all have perished, except the Song of Solomon, and possibly Psalms 72:1-20; Psalms 127:1-5. (see the titles), and, according to some, 128. 1 Kings 4:33 And he spare of [i.e; discoursed, treated, not necessarily wrote] trees [In his proverbs and songs he exceeded the children of the East. But his knowledge was not only speculative, but scientific. In his acquaintance with natural history he outshone the Egyptians, 1 Kings 4:20], from the cedar tree that is in Lebanon [A favourite illustration. The Jews had a profound admiration for all trees, and of these they justly regarded the cedar as king. Cf. Judges 9:15; Psalms 80:10; Psalms 104:16; Son 5:15; Ezekiel 31:3] unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall [His knowledge, i.e; embraced the least productions of nature as well as the greatest. The common hyssop (Exodus 12:22; Le Exodus 14:4) can hardly be intended here, as that often attains a considerable height (two feet), but a miniature variety or moss like hyssop in appearance, probably Orthotrichura saxatile]: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes. ["The usual Biblical division of the animal kingdom" (Rawlinson). The arrangment is hardly according to manner of motion (Bהhr). If anything, it is according to elements—earth, sky, sea. Both Jewish and Mohammedan writers abound in exaggerated or purely fabulous accounts of Solomon’s attainments and gifts. We may see the beginning of these in Jos; Ant. 8.2.5. 1 Kings 4:34 And there came of all people [Heb. the peoples, nations] to hear the wisdom of Solomon [1 Kings 10:1], from all the kings of the earth [i.e; messengers, ambassadors, as in the next chapter], which had heard of his wisdom. 1 Kings 4:20-25 The Golden Age. It has been cynically said that men always place the golden age in the past or in the future. Possibly they are not so far wrong after all. For, if our historian is true, there has been such a period in the history of the world. And if the Holy Gospel is true, there will be such a period hereafter. The reign of Solomon was the Augustan, the golden age, of Israel. The reign of Jesus, of which Solomon’s empire was a foreshadowing, will be the golden age of the world. Let us then consider what light the first period—the past—throws upon the future; in what respects, that is to say, the sway of Solomon is a type and prefigurement of the holy and beneficent rule of our Redeemer. Observe— I. THE MONARCH. 1. He was the wisest of men. This was the root of the universal prosperity. He was capax imperii; he had the understanding to judge that great people (1 Kings 3:9). From a throne stablished in equity and intelligence (Psalms 72:2) flowed a tide of blessing through the land. But "Messiah the Prince" is the Incarnation of Wisdom. He is "made unto us wisdom" (1 Corinthians 1:30). In Him "are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Colossians 2:3). He is "the wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:24). 2. He ruled in the fear of the Lord. The precept of his father (2 Samuel 23:3) was not forgotten (1 Kings 3:6-9). Compare the account of Messiah’s reign—the reign of the Branch of the root of Jesse in Isaiah 2:2-5. This "King shall reign in righteousness" (Isaiah 32:1). II. THE EMPIRE. 1. Its extent. He had dominion from "the river to the border of Egypt," "from Tiphsali even to Azzah." The petty kings brought presents and did fealty. Now observe how Psalms 72:1-20; descriptive or prophetic of the reign of Solomon, is also prophetic of the reign of our blessed Lord. Of Him alone is it strictly true that "He shall have dominion from sea to sea," etc. (Psalms 72:8), that "all kings shall fall down before Him," etc. True, His enemies do not yet "lick the dust" (Psalms 72:9), for "we see not yet all things put under Him," but we know that all power is given to Him in heaven and in earth (Matthew 28:18), and that "the kingdoms of this world" shall "become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ" (Revelation 11:15). 2. Its duration. Solomon’s was a long reign, and would have been much longer (1 Kings 3:14) had he been faithful But He who shall possess "the throne of his father David shall reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end" (Luke 1:32, Luke 1:33; cf. Daniel 2:44; Daniel 7:14, Daniel 7:27; Psalms 145:13; Micah 4:7). III. THE . 1. Their number. They were "many," "as the sand which is by the sea in multitude." Compare Daniel 7:10, "ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him," and Revelation 5:11; Revelation 7:9, "a great multitude which no man could number." 2. Their character. Solomon’s sway extended over Gentiles as well as Jews (verses 21, 24). A foreshadowing of the inclusion of Gentiles in the kingdom of Christ. In the one fold, two flocks (John 10:16). Compare Acts 26:23; Acts 28:28; Romans 11:15; Ephesians 3:6; Ephesians 2:14, etc. There are three particulars, however, in which the subjects of our Lord will differ from those of Solomon. (1) There will be no bondage, no forced labour, none to bear burdens. (2) The free labour of love will require no rest (1 Kings 5:14). The servants who serve Him "rest not day and night" (Revelation 4:8), yet keep perpetual sabbath (Hebrews 4:9.) (3) All shall be holy. No Jeroboam shall "lift up his hand" against the Lord. He shall be all and in all. IV. THE REIGN. 1. It was peaceful (verse 24; cf. 1 Kings 5:4 and 1 Chronicles 32:9). In Messiah’s reign they shall "beat theft swords into ploughshares," etc. (Isaiah 2:4). Into His court "neither foe entereth nor friend departeth." He is the King and Prince of Peace (Hebrews 7:2). 2. It was joyous and prosperous. "Eating and drinking and making merry." "Ibi festivitas sine fine". And Athanasius speaks τῶνἁγίωνκαὶτῶνἀγγέλωνἀείἑορταζοντων. The vine and the fig tree may remind us of the tree of life with its twelve manner of fruits; the security (verse 25) of the pillars in the temple of God (Revelation 3:12). "In his days Israel shall dwell safely" (Jeremiah 23:6; cf. Isaiah 11:6-9). That golden age lasted "all the days of Solomon" (verse 23). That which is to come shall be coeternal with the endless life of the Son of God (Hebrews 7:16; John 14:19; Psalms 16:11). 1 Kings 4:31 The greatest, wisest, meanest of mankind. It is a spirited and glowing description which the historian here gives of Solomon’s wisdom. We may believe that it was not without a pardonable pride that he recounted the rich endowments and the widespread fame of Israel’s greatest monarch. But it is really one of the saddest chapters in the whole of Scripture—and one of the most instrucfive. Manifold as were his gifts, marvellous as was his wisdom, they did not preserve him from falling. It is a strange, shuddering contrast, the record of his singular powers and faculties (1 Kings 4:29-34), and the story of his shameful end (1 Kings 11:1-14) How came it to pass that a man so highly gifted and blessed of God made such complete shipwreck of faith and good conscience; that over the grave of the very greatest and wisest of men must be written, "Fallen, fallen, fallen, fallen from his high estate"? Let us consider (1) The character of his wisdom; and (2) The causes of his fall. As to (1), observe— I. IT WAS AND HAS SINCE BEEN . The sages of Hebrew antiquity, the shrewd Arabians, the sagacious Egyptians, he has eclipsed them all. "Wiser than all men," such was the judgment of his contemporaries. And such is also the verdict of posterity. At the present day, among Jews, Christians, and Mohammedans, no fame equals his. Among the wise men of the world Solomon stands facile princeps. II. IT WAS . To the writer it seemed inexhaustible, illimitable. He can only compare it to "the sand that is on the sea shore;" and he could hardly use a more forcible illustration of its boundless and infinite extent. III. IT WAS VARIED AND . It was both scientific and sententious. He was at once philosopher and poet. Nothing was too great and nothing too small for him. It is seldom that a man excels in more than one or two branches of knowledge, but Solomon was distinguished in all. He could discourse with equal profundity of the cedar and the hyssop, of beast and bird. It was lofty, it was wide, it was deep. IV. IT WAS TRUE WISDOM. Not superficial, and not mere book learning. Book. worms are often mere pedants. Students often know little of the world and know less of themselves. But Solomon knew man ("The proper study of mankind is man") knew himself. He needed not the charge, γνῶθισεαυτὸν. He was not one of the μετεωροσοφισται whom the Attic poet justly ridicules. His writings proved that he had studied the world, and was familiar with the heart. V. IT WAS GOD GIVEN WISDOM (1 Kings 4:29; cf. 3, 12, 28; Daniel 2:21). Not "the wisdom of this world which is foolishness with God" (1 Corinthians 3:8), and which "descendeth not from above" (James 3:15), but that which the Supreme wisdom teacheth. (Cf. Proverbs 2:6.) Solomon was truly θεοδίδακτος. VI. IT WAS GOD-FEARING WISDOM. "The fear of the Lord," he says, "is the beginning of wisdom." (Cf. Proverbs 1:7; Proverbs 9:10.) There is a wisdom (falsely so called) which dishonours and despises God. This did not Solomon’s. The Proverbs point men to the Lord. VII. HIS WISDOM STILL WARNS AND TEACHES THE WORLD. Some of the thousand and five songs (Psalms 72:1-20:126.) are still chanted by the Catholic Church. (It is significant, though, how few of this vast number remain to us. David was not as wise as Solomon, nor so prolific a writer, but his songs have survived in considerable numbers. They are among the greatest treasures of Christendom. Piety is before wisdom. "Knowledge shall vanish away," but "charity never faileth.") Some of his Proverbs are still read to the congregation. Pie still warns the young and the sensual (chs. 2-7.) He is fallen, but his words stand. Now turn we to (2) The causes of his fall. How came this wisest of men, without fellow before or since, whose wisdom was so profound, so real, so boundless, whose wisdom came from God and led to God, and who though dead yet speaketh, how came he of all men to go astray? Was it not— II. BECAUSE THE HEART WAS NOT KEPT. The intellect, i.e; was developed and cultivated at the expense or to the neglect of the spiritual life. "His wives turned away his heart." But how came one of so much wisdom to let his wives turn it away? Because the wisdom had dwarfed and overshadowed the soul; because the moral did not keep pace with the intellectual growth, and it became flaccid and yielding. It is dangerous for wisdom to increase unless piety increases with it. The higher the tower, the broader should be its foundations. If all the weight and width is at the top, it will come to the ground with a crash. Even so, if wisdom is not to destroy its possessor, the basis of love and piety must be broadened. "Knowledge bloweth up, but charity buildeth up." The head of a colossus needs the trunk of a colossus to sustain it. II. BECAUSE HIS OWN WERE NOT KEPT. It was because he leaned to his own understanding that this giant form fell prostrate. It was because he forgot his warnings against the strange woman that he fell a prey to strange women. The keeper of the vineyards did not keep his own (Son 1:6). He was not true to himself, and he soon proved false to his God. After preaching to others, he himself became a castaway. A solemn warning this to every preacher and teacher that he should not do "As some ungracious pastors do, Show men the steep and thorny road to heaven, While, like a puffed and reckless libertine, Himself the primrose path of dalliance tread And recks not his own rede." III. BECAUSE PRIDE HIS WISDOM AND HIS GIFTS. There was no decay of mental power; the force was unabated, but it was misdirected. Pride took her place at the helm. It is pride, not sensuality, accounts for his army of wives and concubines. But if pride brought them, pleasure kept them. And when he put his heart into their keeping, they turned him about at their will (c.f. James 3:3, James 3:4). The heart carries the intellect along with it. (Here again compare his own words, Proverbs 16:18, and Proverbs 4:23; cf. Daniel 5:20.) Magnificent Solomon, unequalled in wisdom, how art thou fallen from heaven! Aye, and if we could but draw aside the veil; if we could but visit the spirits in prison (1 Peter 3:19), we might perchance find among them one clothed of yore "in purple and fine linen" (Luke 16:19; cf. Luke 12:27), and who "fared sumptuously every day," and looking into the anguished face might find it was none other than the brilliant and illustrious son of David, the chosen type of the Messiah, the very wisest and greatest of mankind. "The wisest, greatest, meanest of mankind." We know of whom these words were spoken. But their true application is not to England’s greatest chancellor, but to Israel’s greatest king. BY J. WAITE 1 Kings 4:20-25 A Prosperous Reign. This chapter presents a general view of the prosperity of Solomon’s reign, much of which was owing to the extraordinary, glory of the reign of David. Such a rule as David’s sowed seeds of blessing m the land which it was Solomon’s privilege to reap. David united the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, and Solomon came into quiet possession of the completed commonwealth. David laid the foundation, Solomon developed the fabric and adorned it. Each succeeding generation inherits the good stored up for it by those that went before. Happy they who are the descendants of a noble ancestry. If it is true that "the sins of the fathers are visited on the children," etc; equally true is it that "the good men do lives after them." We all reap the fruits of the care and toll and suffering of our fathers. "Other men labour and we enter into their labours." The text suggests— I. THE OF A PEOPLE. "Judah and Israel were many, etc. What is the secret of the feeling of solemnity akin to awe with which we gaze upon a vast concourse of human beings? It is the fulness of life—not mere physical force, but thinking, emotional life, with all its latent capacities that impresses us. But think of a great nation—what a world of busy, many-sided life is here! What complex relations; what slumbering energies; what rich resources; what mines of undeveloped thought; what tides of feeling; what boundless possibilities of good or evil, of glory or of shame! Consider the mutual action and reaction of the individual and corporate life in such a nation; the conditions of its well being; the tremendous responsibility of those who are set to guide its forces, to guard its interests, to control its destinies. We can understand the trembling of spirit Moses felt when he looked on the thronging host of Israel in the wilderness. "Wherefore layest thou the burden of all this people upon me?" etc. (Numbers 11:11). So with Solomon—"Who is able to judge this thy so great a people?" (1 Kings 3:9). Rulers who show that they are alive to the dread significance of their position claim our deepest sympathy. Well may we pray for them (1 Timothy 2:2) that they may be inspired by the right spirit, prompted by purest motives, never allowed to fall into the sin "Of making their high place the lawless perch Of winged ambitions." II. THE FAR OF A WISE AND RULE. "And Solomon reigned over all kingdoms," etc. (1 Kings 4:21). These were tributary kingdoms. It was not the division of one great empire into many provinces, but the recognition by outlying principalities of the superior sovereignty of the Hebrew monarch. What was the cause of this widespread influence? Won by force of arms in David’s reign, it was retained, probably, by force of good government and beneficent policy. Israel presented an example of a well-ordered state—entered, under Solomon, On a remarkable career as a commercial people—Solomon himself a royal merchant. Note his sagacity in "making affinity" with the king of Egypt (1 Kings 3:1), and in his treaty with Hiram, king of Tyre (1 Kings 5:1-18.) This was the secret of Solomon’s influence. As far as we can judge, it was not so much the result of overmastering force, but of a policy by which the bonds of mutual confidence and helpfulness were strengthened. We are reminded that this is the real stability of any nation—the spirit of justice, integrity, beneficence that inspires it, coupled with the disposition to form friendly and helpful relations. The influence that arises from the display of military strength not worthy to be compared with this. "Righteousness exalteth a nation" (Proverbs 14:1-35:84). "The throne is established by righteousness" (Proverbs 16:12). Every nation is strong and influential just in proportion as its internal order and external relations are conformed to the law of righteousness. III. THE PEACE THAT IS THE RESULT OF . "He had peace on all sides round about him" (1 Kings 4:24). This was the fulfilment of a prophecy that attended his very birth. David, the "man of war," yearned for a time of peace, and the yearning expressed itself in the names he gave his sons—Absalom, "the father of peace;" Shelomoh, Solomon, "the peaceful one." The peacefulness of Solomon’s reign was the natural outcome of his own personal characteristics, and of the policy he adopted. "When a man’s ways please the Lord, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him" (Proverbs 16:7). False maxim of international life, "If you want peace prepare for war"—multiply the means and provocations of strife! Maintain an attitude of distrust, defiance, menace! Men have strange confidence in the pacifying effect of desolating force. They "make a solitude and call it peace," forgetting that tranquillity thus gained does but cover with a deceptive veil the latent seeds of hostility and revenge. How much better the Scripture idea, "The work of righteousness shall be peace," etc . (Isaiah 32:17); "The fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace" (James 3:18). IV. THE THAT SPRINGS FROM PEACE (1 Kings 4:25). "And Judah and Israel dwelt safely," etc.—this became almost a proverbial expression (2 Kings 18:1-37:81; Micah 4:4; Zechariah 3:10). Suggests the quiet enjoyment of the good of life, the fruit of honest labour, under the protection of impartial law. This is the result of peace. Often urged that war is an education in some of the nobler elements of national character; safeguard against luxury and indolent self indulgence, etc. But may not these good results be bought at too terrible a price? Are there no other fields for the healthy development of a nation’s energies?—no foes of ignorance, and vice, and social wrong, to say nothing of forms of beneficent world wide enterprise, that call them forth in manly exercise? It is the reign of peace that fosters the industries that enrich the life of a people, and the beneficent activities that beautify it. ’Tis this that "makes the country flourish and the city smile." The happy condition of things here described is said to have lasted through "all the days of Solomon;" chiefly true of the earlier part of his reign. Sins and disasters involved the latter part in gloom. So far, however, we have in it a prophecy of the reign of David’s "greater Son." Psalms 72:1-20. has its partial fulfilment in the days of Solomon; but the grandeur of its prophetic meaning is realized only in the surpassing glory of His kingdom who is the true "Prince of righteousness and peace."—W. BY A. ROWLAND 1 Kings 4:33 The voice of Nature speaking for God. This is given as an example of the wisdom for which Solomon was justly famed. His information was at once accurate and far reaching. Nothing escaped the notice of his observant eye, nothing was too insignificant to deserve his attention. The" hyssop" which was remarkable neither for size nor beauty, neither for fragrance nor utility, as well as the noble "cedar," was the subject of his research and discourse. I. THE GERM OF HIS WAS FROM GOD. He was enriched with natural capacities above the average, as the preceding chapter shows. Men do differ widely in keenness of perception, in retentiveness of memory, in power of imagination, in love or dislike for the studies of natural science. A remembrance of this is of peculiar value to us in the training of children. The dullard in mathematics may prove the scholar in classics, etc. The wisdom of the Divine arrangement which makes differences between us in our natural tastes and capacities is seen in this, that it is on the one hand a blessing to society, enabling all spheres of life to be filled, and on the other a means of culture to character, by calling forth our sympathy, our forbearance, and our generosity in rejoicing over the triumphs of others. II. THE GROWTH OF HIS WAS FROM STUDY. Solomon did not have all the mysteries of nature unveiled to him by revelation. No "royal road to learning" existed then, or ever. His studiousness as a youth may be fairly inferred from his strenuous exhortations to diligence and his frequent rebukes of sloth. Out of the depths of personal experience he declared that the "hand of the diligent maketh rich"—in thought, as well as in purse. See also Proverbs 10:5; Proverbs 19:24; Proverbs 26:13, etc. Press home on the young the value of habits of diligence. Illustrate by examples from biography. It would be interesting to know with certainty the substance of Solomon’s discourses. Probably he knew more than any other of his own day of horticulture, physiology, and kindred topics. But the reference is not so much to scientific treatises and orderly classifications as to the ethical use he made of the phenomena of nature. This may be inferred, partly from the fact that in those days, and in Eastern lands, this rather than that would be accounted "wisdom;" and partly from such writings of his as are still extant—certain of the Psalms, the Song of Solomon, and the Proverbs. Study the text in the light thrown by these books, and it will be seen that through Solomon’s wisdom the voice of Nature spoke to his people for God, in the same fashion as in far nobler tones it spoke afterwards through Him who made the lilies whisper of God’s care, and the fallow fields speak of Christian duty. Inanimate things and dumb creatures spoke to Solomon’s people through him, and should speak to us. I. THE OF GOD SPEAK TO US OF DIVINE CARE. Solomon, like his father, could say, "The heavens declare the glory of God;" or like One greater than himself, "Consider the lilies of the field," etc. See how he speaks (Proverbs 16:15) of the cloud of the latter rain that rifled out the ears of corn; of the dew upon the grass (Proverbs 19:12); of the gladness of nature, when the winter is past and the rain is over and gone (Son 2:11-13). To see God’s hand in all this is true wisdom. The phenomena are visible to pure intellect, but He who is behind them can only he "spiritually discerned." Many now are losing sight of God because the mental perception only is employed, and believed to be necessary. Once the world appeared to men as the expression of God’s thought, the outcome of His will. Now some look on it as you may look on a friend who is not dead so far as natural life is concerned, but is worse than dead, because intelligence and will are gone, and he is an idiot! May we be aroused by the Divine Spirit to yearn for the lost Father, for the vanished heaven. II. THE OF GOD SPEAK TO US OF HUMAN . Neither "hyssop" nor "cedar" can grow without Heaven’s benediction, and of every "beast," and "fowl," and "creeping thing," and "fish," it may be said, "these all wait upon Thee." Man, with all his attainments and powers, cannot create a single element required by his life. He can use God’s gifts, but they are God’s gifts still; and because He is good, our Lord bids us learn the lessons of content and trust (Matthew 6:25-34). We depend on these creatures in the natural world for food, clothing, shelter, etc; and they only live because God cares for them. III. THE OF GOD SPEAK TO US OF DAILY DUTIES. How often in Proverbs we are reminded of that. Agur, who had wisdom similar to that of Solomon, speaks of the diligence of the ant, of the perseverance of the spider, of the strength in union of the locusts, of the conscious weakness and provided shelter of the conies. Solomon speaks of the blessing that came to the keeper of the fig tree (Proverbs 27:18) as an encourament to servants to be faithful and diligent. Adduce similar examples. IV. THE OF GOD SPEAK TO US OF MORAL DANGERS. Take three examples of this. 1. In Son 2:15 Solomon alludes to "the little foxes who so stealthily approach and spoil the vines and their tender grapes" as illustrations of the small evils which desolate men’s hearts and homes. Apply this. 2. Then in Proverbs 24:30-34 he draws a picture of a neglected garden, grown over with thorns and nettles, and shows how looking on it he "received instruction," and warning against sloth. 3. Again turn to Proverbs 23:32, where, speaking of intoxicating drink, he says, "at last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder." It was in this way he referred to the animals and plants around him. V. THE OF GOD SPEAK TO US OF SOCIAL EVILS. In those days, as in other days, foolish favourites, and unworthy.men, were exalted to places of trust and honour. Seeing it Solomon draws again on his observance of nature; and having noted the disorder and injury caused by untimely storms, says, "As snow in summer, and as rain in harvest, so honor is not seemly in a fool" (Proverbs 26:1). Another example of this teaching occurs in Proverbs 28:3. A heavy rain after long drought, raising the streamlets to floods, would sweep away the mud-built dwellings of the poor and the harvest already reaped; and to those who had seen that the wise king said, "A poor man that oppresseth the poor is like a sweeping rain which leaveth no food." VI. THE OF GOD SPEAK TO US OF NOBLE . Solomon saw growth around him on every side. The seed dropped in the crevice of a wall was not forgotten, but appeared in the "hyssop;" and the sapling, which a child could break, at last became the great "cedar of Lebanon." God’s benediction and man’s toil developed life; and the feeblest was not forgotten, the smallest not despised. We can imagine how from such facts Solomon would draw lessons of trust and hope. IN let us learn from the subject the following lessons— 1. Never be afraid of the teachings of natural science. Show how geology, botany, astronomy, etc; are regarded by some Christians with terror, as if their influence would affect the spiritual truths revealed of God. Demonstrate the folly of this. Let theology recognize the sisterhood of science. 2. Never become absorbed in pursuits which are merely intellectual. The soul of man needs more than his intellect can win. The "hunger and thirst after righteousness" only a living God can satisfy. Use the suggestions of nature as the witnesses of God. 3. Never neglect the wonderful works of God. Many a frivolous life would be redeemed from vacuity and ennui if young people were trained to observe and take interest in the habits of animal life and the marvels of inanimate existence. Show the wholesomeness of such studies, as those of Charles Kingsley and others. But let us walk through this fair world as those who follow Christ, and then from the fragrant lilies and golden harvest fields He will speak to us of our Father in heaven.—A.R. SOLOMON AND HIRAM—The somewhat detailed description which we have had in 1 Kings 4:1-34. of Solomon’s pomp and power and wisdom, is followed in 1 Kings 5:1-18. sqq. by an account of what, in Jewish eyes, was the great undertaking of his reign, and, indeed, the great glory of Hebrew history—the erection and adornment of the Temple. And as this was largely due to the assistance he received both in the shape of materials and labourers—from the Tyrian king, we have in the first place an account of his alliance with Hiram. 1 Kings 5:1 And Hiram (In 1 Kings 5:10, 1 Kings 5:18, the name is spelled Hirom (חִירוֹם), whilst in Chronicles, with one exception (1 Chronicles 14:1, where the Keri, however, follows the prevailing usage), the name appears as Huram (חוּרָם). In Josephus it is Εἰρωμος. This prince and his friendly relations with the Jews are referred to by the Tyrian historians, of whose materials the Greek writers Dins and Menander of Ephesus (temp. Alexander the Great) availed themselves. According to Dins (quoted by Josephus contr. Apion, 1.17) Hiram was the son of Abibaal. Menander states that the building of the temple was commenced in the twelfth year of Hiram’s reign, which lasted 34 years. Hiram is further said to have married his daughter to Solomon and to have engaged with him in an intellectual encounter which took the shape of riddles] king of Tyre [Heb. צוֹר, rock, so called because of the rocky island on which old Tyro was built, sometimes called מִבְצַר צֹר, the fortress of, or fortified Tyro (Joshua 19:29; 2 Samuel 24:7, etc.) The capital of Phoenicia. In earlier times, Sidon would seem to have been the more important town; hence the Canaanites who inhabited this region were generally called Zidonians, as in verse 6] sent his servants [legatos, Vatablus] unto Solomon [The Vat. LXX. has here a strange reading, "To anoint Solomon," etc. The object of this embassy was evidently to recognize and congratulate the youthful king (the Syriac has a gloss, "and he blessed him," which well represents one object of the embassy) and at the same time to make overtures of friendship. An alliance, or good understanding, with Israel was then, as at a later period (Acts 12:20) of great importance to them of Tyre and Sidon. Their narrow strip of seaboard furnished no corn lands, so that their country depended upon Israel for its nourishment]; for he had heard that they had anointed him king in the room of David his father [i.e; he had heard of the death of David and the accession of Solomon; possibly of the events narrated in Hebrews 1:1-14.: for Hiram was ever [Heb. all the days: i.e; of their reigns; so long as they were contemporary sovereigns] a lover of David. 1 Kings 5:2 And Solomon sent to Hiram. [According to Josephus (Ant. 8.2. 6), he wrote a letter, which together with Hiram’s reply (1 Kings 5:8) was preserved among the public archives of Tyro. The account of 2 Chronicles 2:1-18; which as a rule is more detailed than that of the Kings, begins here. It does not notice, that is to say, the prior embassy of the Phoenician king, as the object of the chronicler is merely to narrate the measures taken for the erection of the temple], saying [The return embassy gave Solomon the opportunity to ask for the timber, etc; that he desired.] 1 Kings 5:3 Thou knowest how that David my father could not build an house [Hiram could not fail to know this, as his relations with David had been close and intimate. Not only had he "sent cedar trees and carpenters and masons" to build David’s house (2 Samuel 5:11), but "they of Tyro brought much cedar wood to David" (1 Chronicles 22:4) for the house of the Lord] unto the name of the Lord [i.e; to be dedicated to the Lord as His shrine and habitation (cf. Deuteronomy 12:5, Deuteronomy 12:11; and Deuteronomy 8:18, Deuteronomy 8:19, Deuteronomy 8:20, etc.)] for the wars [Heb; war. As we have singular noun and plural verb, Ewald, Rawlinson, al. assume that war stands for adversaries, as the next clause seems to imply. Bהhr and Keil, however, with greater reason, interpret, "for the war with which they surrounded him;" a construction (סָבַב with double accusative) which is justified by Psalms 109:3] until the Lord put them under the soles of his feet [until, i.e; He trampled them down. The same image is found in some of David’s psalms, e.g; Psalms 7:5; Psalms 60:12; cf. Psalms 8:6; Psalms 91:13; Isaiah 63:3; Romans 16:20; Ephesians 1:22; Hebrews 2:8. 1 Kings 5:4 But now the Lord my God hath given me rest [In fulfilment of the promise of 1 Chronicles 22:9. David had had a brief rest (2 Samuel 7:1), Solomon’s was permanent. He was "a man of rest"] on every side [Heb. round about, same word as in verse 3, and in 1 Chronicles 22:9], so that there is neither adversary [Hadad and Rezon, of whom this word is used (1 Kings 11:14, 1 Kings 11:23), apparently belonged to a somewhat later period of his reign] nor evil occurrent [Rather, "occurrence," or "plague" (פֶגֵע), i.e; "rebellion, famine, pestilence, or other suffering" (Bהhr). David had had many such "occurrences" (2 Samuel 15:14; 2 Samuel 20:1; 2 Samuel 21:1; 2 Samuel 24:15).] 1 Kings 5:5 And, behold, I purpose [Heb. behold me saying (אָמַר, with infin, expresses purpose. Cf. Exodus 2:14; 2 Samuel 21:16)] to build an house unto the name of the Lord my God, as the Lord spake unto David my father, saying [2 Samuel 7:12, 2 Samuel 7:13. He thus gives Hiram to understand that he is carrying out his father’s plans, and plans which had the Divine sanction, and that this is no fanciful project of a young prince], Thy son whom I will set upon thy throne in thy room, he shall build an [Heb. the] house unto my name. 1 Kings 5:6 Now therefore command thou that they hew me cedar trees out of Lebanon [Heb. the Lebanon, i.e; the White (so. mountain). "It is the Merit Blanc of Palestine" (Porter); but whether it is so called because of its summits of snow or because of the colour of its limestone is uncertain. Practically, the cedars are now found in one place only, though Ehrenberg is said to have found them in considerable numbers to the north of the road between Baalbek and Tripoli. "At the head of Wady Kadisha there is a vast recess in the central ridge of Lebanon, some eight miles in diameter. Above it rise the loftiest summits in Syria, streaked with perpetual snow… In the very centre of this recess, on a little irregular knoll, stands the clump of cedars", over 6,000 feet above the level of the sea. It would seem as if that part of Lebanon where the cedars grew belonged to Hiram’s dominion. "The northern frontier of Canaan did not reach as far as Bjerrsh" (Keil), where the cedar grove is now. The idea of some older writers that the cedars belonged to Solomon, and that he only asked Hiram for artificers ("that they hew me cedar trees," etc.) is negatived by verse 10. It is true that "all Lebanon" was given to Israel (Joshua 13:5), but they did not take it. They did not drive out the Zidonians (verse 6; Judges 1:31) or possess" the land of the Giblites" (verse 5; Judges 3:3). It should be stated here, however, that the cedar of Scripture probably included other varieties than that which now, alone bears the name (see on verse 8)], and my servants shall be with Shy servants [i.e; sharing and lightening the work]: and unto thee will I give hire for thy servants [Solomon engaged to pay and did pay both Hiram and his subjects for the services of the latter, and he paid both in kind. See below, on verse 11] according to all that thou shalt appoint [This would seem to have been 20,000 measures of wheat and 20 measures of pure oil annually, verse 11]: for thou knowest that there is not among us any that can skill [Heb. knoweth, same word as before] to hew timber like unto the Zidonlans [Propter vicina nemora. Grotius, Sidou (Heb. צִידוֹן), means "fishing." See note on verse 18. By profane, as well as sacred writers, the Phoenicians are often described by the name Zidonians, no doubt for the reason mentioned in the note on verse 1. See Homer, Iliad 6:290; 23. 743; Odys. 4:84, 618; 17:4.24. Cf. Virg. AEn. 1. 677, 678; 4:545, etc. Genesis 10:15; Judges 1:31; Judges 3:3; 1 Kings 11:1, 1 Kings 11:33, etc. "The mechanical skill of the Phoenicians generally, and of the Zidonians in particular, is noticed by many ancient writers," Rawlinson, who cites instances in his note. But what deserves especial notice here is the fact that the Zidonians constructed their houses of wood, and were celebrated from the earliest times as skilful builders. The fleets which the Phoenicians constructed for purposes of commerce would ensure them a supply of clever workmen. Wordsworth aptly remarks on the part the heathen thus took in rearing a temple for the God of Jacob. Cf. Isaiah 60:10, Isaiah 60:13. 1 Kings 5:7 And It came to pass, when Hiram heard the words of Solomon [reported by his ambassadors], that he rejoiced greatly [see note on 1 Kings 5:1. The continuance of the entente cordiale was ensured], and said, Blessed be the Lord [In 2 Chronicles 2:12, "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel that made heaven and earth." We are not warranted by the expression of the text in concluding that Hiram believed in the exclusive divinity of the God of Israel, or "identified Jehovah with Melkarth his god" (Rawlinson), much less that he was proselyte to the faith of David and Solomon. All that is certain is that he believed the Jehovah as God was quite compatible with the retention of a firm faith in Baa1 and Astarte. It is also possible that he here adopts a language which he knew would be acceptable to Solomon, or the historian may have given us his thoughts in a Hebrew dread It is noticeable that the LXX. has simply εὐλογητὸςὁθεὸς] which hath given unto David a wise son [Compare 1 Kings 1:48; 1 Kings 2:9. The proof of wisdom lay in Solomon’s fulfilling his wise father’s purposes, and in his care for the worship of God. "Wise," however, is not used here in the sense of "pious," as Bähr affirms. In Hiram’s lips the word meant discreet, sagacious. He would hardly recognize the fear of the Lord as the beginning of wisdom] over this great people. 1 Kings 5:8 And Hiram sent to Solomon [in writing, 2 Chronicles 2:11. It is instructive to remember in connexion with this fact that, according to the universal belief of antiquity, the use of letters, i.e; the art of writing, was communicated to the Greeks by the Phoenicians. Gesenius, indeed, holds that the invention of letters is also due to them. See the interesting remarks of Mr. Twisleton, Dict. Bib. 2. pp. 866-868], saying, I have considered the things which thou sentest unto me for [Heb. heard the things (i.e; message) which thou sentest unto me]: and I will do all thy desire concerning [Heb. in, i.e; as to] timber [or trees] of cedar [Heb. cedars] and timber of fir [Heb. trees of cypresses. This is, perhaps, the proper place to inquire what. trees are intended by the words אֶרֶז, and בְּרושׁ, here respectively translated" cedar" and "fir." As to the first, it is impossible to restrict the word to the one species (Pinus cedrus or Cedrus Libani) which is now known as the cedar of Lebanon, or, indeed, to any single plant. That the Cedrus Libani, one of the most magnificent of trees, is meant in such passages as Ezekiel 31:1-18; Psalms 92:12, etc; admits of no manner of doubt. It is equally clear, however, that in other passages the term "cedar" must refer to some other tree. In Numbers 19:6, and Le Numbers 14:6, e.g; the juniper would seem to be meant. "The cedar could not have been procured in the desert without great difficulty, but the juniper (Juniperus oxycedrus) is most plentiful there." In Ezekiel 27:5, "they have taken cedars of Lebanon to make masts for thee," it is probable that the Pinus Halepensis, not, as was formerly thought, the Scotch fir (Pinus sylvestris), is intended. The Cedrus Libani appears to be indifferently adapted to any such purpose, for which, however, the Pinus Halepensis is eminently fitted. But in the text, as throughout ch. 5-8; the reference, it can hardly be doubted, is to the Cedrus Libani. It is true the wood of this species is neither beautiful nor remarkably durable. Dr. Lindley calls it the "worthless, though magnificent cedar," but the former adjective, however true it may be of English-grown cedar, cannot justly be applied to the tree of the Lebanon mountain. The writer has some wood in his possession, brought by him from the Lebanon, and though it has neither fragrance nor veining, it is unmistakably a hard and resinous wood. And it should be remembered that it was only employed by Solomon in the interior of the temple, and was there, for the most part, overlaid with gold, and that the climate of Palestine is much less destructive than our own. There seems to be no sufficient reason, therefore, for rejecting the traditional and till recently universal belief that the Cedrus Libani was the timber chosen for the temple use. Mr. Houghton, in Smith’s Dict. Bib; vol. 3. App. A. p. 40; who speaks of it "as being κατἐξοχὴν, the firmest and grandest of the conifers," says at the same time that "it has no particular quality to recommend it for building purposes; it was probably therefore not very extensively used in the construction of the temple." But no other tree can be suggested which better suits the conditions of the sacred narrative. The deodara, which has found favour with some writers, it is now positively stated, does not grow near the Lebanon. It may be added that, under the name of Eres, the yew was probably included. The timber used in the palaces of Nineveh, which was long believed to be cedar, is now proved to be yew (Dict. Bib; art. "Cedar"). However it is certain that אֶרֶז is a nomen generale which includes, at any rate, the pine, the cedar, and the juniper, in confirmation of which it may be mentioned that at the present day, "the name arz is applied by the Arabs to all three" (Royle, in Kitto’s Cyclop; art. "Eres"). The Grove of Cedars now numbers about 450 trees, great and small. Of these about a dozen are of prodigious size and considerable antiquity, possibly carrying us back (as the natives think) to the time of Solomon. Their precise age, however, can only be a matter of conjecture. The identification of the "fir" is even more precarious than that of the cedar. Celsius would see in this the true cedar of Lebanon. Others identify it with the juniper (Juniperus excelsa) or with the Pinus Halepensis, but most writers (among whom are Keil and Bהhr) believe the evergreen cypress (Cupressus sempervirens) to be intended. Very probably the name Berosh comprehended two or three different species, as the cypress, the juniper, and the savine. The first named grows even near the summits of the mountain. Bהhr says it is inferior to cedar (but see above). According to Winer, it is well fitted for building purposes, as" it is not eaten by worms, and is almost imperishable and very light." It is certainly of a harder and closer grain, and more durable than the Cedrus Libani. It shows the brevity of our account that Solomon has not mentioned his desire for "fir" as well as" cedar." This is disclosed in Hiram’s reply, and in the parallel passage of the chronicler. It is also to be noticed that in the text the request for materials is more prominently brought to view, while in Chronicles the petition is for workmen. 1 Kings 5:9 My servants shall bring them [No word in the Hebrew; "Timber of Cedar," etc; must be supplied or understood from the preceding verse] down [It is generally a steep descent from the cedar grove, and indeed all the Lebanon district, to the coast] from Lebanon unto the sea [This must have been a great undertaking. The cedars are ten hours distant from Tripoli, and the road must always have been a bad one. To the writer it appeared to be the most rugged and dangerous road in Palestine. It is possible that the timber was collected and floated at Gebal (Biblus. See note on 1 Kings 5:18). Beyrout, the present port of the Lebanon, Isaiah 27 hours distant via Tripoli. But cedars would then, no doubt, be found nearer the sea. And the ancients (as the stones of Baalbek, etc; prove) were not altogether deficient in mechanical appliances. The transport of cedars to the Mediterranean would be an easy undertaking compared with the carriage of them to Nineveh, and we know from the inscriptions that they were imported by the Assyrian kings] and I will convey them by sea in floats [Heb. "I will make (or put) them rafts in the sea." This was the primitive, as it was the obvious, way, of conveying timber, among Greeks and Romans, as well as among Eastern races. The reader will probably have seen such rafts on the Rhine or other river] unto the place which thou shalt appoint [Heb. send] me [In 2 Chronicles 2:16, Hiram assumes that this place will be Joppa, now Yafo, the port of Jerusalem, and 40 miles distant from the Holy City. The transport over these 40 miles, also of most rugged and trying road, must have involved, if possible, a still greater toil than that from Lebanon to the sea] and will cause them to be discharged there, and thou shalt receive them: and thou shalt accomplish [Heb. do, same word as in verse 8, and probably used designedly—"I will perform thy desire.; and thou shalt perform my desire." There shall be a strict quid pro quo] my desire, in giving food for my household [Hiram states in his reply in what shape he would prefer the hire promised by Solomon (verse 6). The food for the royal household must be carefully distinguished from the food given to the workmen (2 Chronicles 2:10). The fact that 20,000 ears of wheat formed a part of each has led to their being confounded. It is noticeable that when the second temple was built, cedar wood was again brought to Jerusalem, rid Joppa, in return for "meat and drink and oil unto them of Zidon" (Ezra 3:7). The selection of food as the hire of his servants by Hiram almost amounts to an undesigned coincidence. Their narrow strip of cornland, between the roots of Lebanon and the coast—Phoenicia proper ("the great plain of the city of Sidon," Josephus. Ant. 5.3, 1) is only 28 miles long, with an average breadth of one mile-compelled the importation of corn and oil. Ezekiel (Ezekiel 27:17) mentions wheat, honey, oil, and balm as exported from Palestine to the markets of Tyre. It has been justly remarked that the fact that Phoenicia was thus dependent upon Palestine for its breadstuffs explains the unbroken peace that prevailed between the two countries. 1 Kings 5:10 So Hiram gave [Heb. kept giving, supplied] Solomon cedar trees and fir [or cypress] trees, according to all his desire. 1 Kings 5:11 And Solomon gave Hiram twenty thousand measures [Heb. cots. See 1 Kings 4:22] of wheat for food [מכלת for מאכלת] to his household [Rawlinson remarks that this was much less than Solomon’s own consumption (1 Kings 4:22). But he did not undertake to feed Hiram’s entire court, but merely to make an adequate return for the timber and labour he received. And the consumption of fine flour in Solomon’s household was only about 11,000 cors per annum] and twenty measures of pure oil [lit; beaten oil, i.e; such as was obtained by pounding the olives, when not quite ripe, in a mortar. This was both of whiter colour and purer flavour, and also gave a clearer light, than that furnished by the ripe olives in the press. See the authorities quoted in Bהhr’s Symbolik, 1. p. 419]: thus gave Solomon to Hiram year by year [probably so long as the building lasted or timber was furnished. But the agreement may have been for a still longer period.] 1 Kings 5:12 And the Lord gave [Can there be any reference to the repeated "gave" of the two preceding verses?] to Solomon wisdom, as he promised him (1 Kings 3:12) and there was peace [one fruit of the gift. Cf. James 3:17] between Hiram and Solomon, and they two made a league together [Heb. "cut a covenant." Cf. ὅρκιατέμνειν. Covenants were ratified by the slaughter of victims, between the parts of which the contracting parties passed (Genesis 15:18; Jeremiah 34:8, Jeremiah 34:18, Jeremiah 34:19). Similarly σπονδή, "libation," in the plural, means "league, truce," and σπονδὰςτέμνειν is found in classic Greek.] 1 Kings 5:13 And King Solomon raised a levy [Marg; tribute of men, i.e; conscription] out of all Israel [i.e; the people, not the land—Ewald] and the levy was thirty thousand men. [That is, if we may trust the figures of the census given in 2 Samuel 24:9 (which do not agree, however, with those of 1 Chronicles 21:5), the conscription only affected one in forty of the male population. But even the lower estimate of Samuel is regarded with some suspicion. Such a levy was predicted (1 Samuel 8:16). 1 Kings 5:14 And he sent them to Lebanon ten thousand a month, by courses [Heb. changes]: a month they were in Lebanon, and two months at home [they had to serve, that is to say, four months out of the twelve—no very great hardship], and Adoniram [see on 1 Kings 4:6; 1 Kings 12:18] was over the levy. 1 Kings 5:15 And Solomon had threescore and ten thousand that bare burdens, and fourscore thousand hewers in the mountains. [These 150,000, destined for the more laborious and menial works, were not Israelites, but Canaanites. We learn from 2 Chronicles 2:17, 2 Chronicles 2:18 that "all the strangers that were in the land of Israel" were subjected to forced labour by Solomon—there were, that is to say, but 150,000 of them remaining. They occupied a very different position from that of the 30,000 Hebrews. None of the latter were reduced to bondage (1 Kings 9:22), while the former had long been employed in servile work. The Gibeonites were reduced to serfdom by Joshua (Joshua 9:27), and the rest of the Canaanites as they were conquered (Joshua 6:10; Joshua 17:13; Judges 1:29, Judges 1:30). In 1 Chronicles 22:2, we find some of them employed on public works by David. By the "hewers" many commentators have supposed that stonecutters alone are intended (so Jos; Ant; 1 Chronicles 8:2. 9) partly because stone is mentioned presently, and partly because חָצַב is mostly used of the quarrying or cutting of stone, as in Deuteronomy 6:11; Deuteronomy 8:9; 2 Kings 12:12, etc. Gesenius understands the word both of stone and wood cutters. But is it not probable that the latter alone are indicated? That the word is sometimes used of woodcutting Isaiah 10:15 shows. And the words, "in the mountain" (בָּהָר) almost compel us so to understand it here. "The mountain" must be Lebanon. But surely the stone was not transported, to any great extent, like the wood, so great a distance over land and sea, especially when it abounded on the spot. It is true the number of wood cutters would thus appear to be very great, but it is to be remembered how few comparatively were the appliances or machines of those days: almost everything must be done by manual labour. And Pliny tells us that no less than 360,000 men were employed for twenty years on one of the pyramids. It is possible, however, that the huge foundations mentioned below (Isaiah 10:17) were brought from Lebanon.] 1 Kings 5:16 Beside [without counting] the chief of Solomon’s officers [Heb. the princes of the overseers, i.e; the princes who acted as overseers, principes qui praefecti erant (Vatabl.)] which were over the work three thousand and three hundred [This large number proves that the "chiefs of the overseers" cannot be meant. Were all the 3,300 superior officers, there must have been quite an army of subalterns. But we read of none. In 1 Kings 9:23, an additional number of 550 "princes of the overseers" (same expression) is mentioned, making a total of 3,850 superintendents, which agrees with the total stated in the Book of Chronicles. It is noteworthy, however, that the details differ from those of the Kings. In 2 Chronicles 2:17 we read of a body of 3,600 "overseers to set the people a work," whilst in 1 Kings 8:10 mention is made of 250 "princes of the overseers." These differences result, no doubt, from difference of classification and arrangement (J.H. Michaelis). In Chronicles the arrangement is one of race, i.e; 3,600 aliens גּרֵים; cf. 2 Chronicles 2:18) and 250 Israelites, whilst in Kings it is one of status, i.e; 3,300 inferior and 550 superior officers. It follows consequently that all the inferior and 300 of the superior overseers were Canaanites] which ruled over the people that wrought in the work. 1 Kings 5:17 And the king commanded and they brought [or cut out, quarried (Gesen.), as in Ecclesiastes 10:9; see also Ecclesiastes 6:7 (Heb.) ] great stones, costly [precious, not heavy, as Thenius. Cf. Psalms 36:8; Psalms 45:9; Esther 1:4 in the Heb.], stones and [omit and. The hewed stones were the great and costly stones] hewed stones [or squared (Isaiah 9:10; cf. 1 Kings 6:36; 1 Kings 7:9; 1 Kings 11:12). We learn from 1 Kings 7:10 that the stones of the foundation of the palace were squared to 8 cubits and 10 cubits] to lay the foundation of the house. [Some of these great squared stones, we can hardly doubt, are found in situ at the present day. The stones at the south-east angle of the walls of the Haram (Mosque of Omar) are "unquestionably of Jewish masonry". "One Isaiah 23 1 Kings 2:9 in. long; whilst others vary from 17 to 20 feet in length. Five courses of them are nearly entire" (ib.) As Herod, in rebuilding the edifice, would seem to have had nothing to do with the foundations, we may safely connect these huge blocks with the time of Solomon. It is also probable that some at least of the square pillars, ranged in fifteen rows, and measuring five feet each side, which form the foundations of the Mosque El Aksa, and the supports of the area of the Haram, are of the same date and origin (cf. Ewald, Hist. Israel, 3:233). Porter holds that they are "coeval with the oldest part of the external walls." Many of them, the writer observed, were monoliths. The extensive vaults which they enclose are unquestionably "the subterranean vaults of the temple area" mentioned by Josephus (B.J. 1 Kings 5:3. 1), and the "cavati sub terra montes" of Tacitus. It may be added here that the recent explorations in Jerusalem have brought to light many evidences of Phoenician handiwork.] 1 Kings 5:18 And Solomon’s builders and Hiram’s builders did hew them, and the stone squarers: [the marg. Giblites, i.e; people of Gebal, is to be preferred. For Gebal (= mountain) see Joshua 13:5 ("the land of the Giblites and Lebanon"); Psalms 83:7 ("Gebal and they of Tyro"); and Ezekiel 27:9, where the LXX. translate the word Biblus, which was the Greek name of the city and district north of the famous river Adonis, on the extreme border of Phoenicia. It is now known as Jebeil. It has been already remarked that Tyre and Sidon, as well as Gebal, have Hebrew meanings. These are among the proofs of the practical identity of the Hebrew and Phoenician tongues. The Aramaean immigrants (Deuteronomy 26:5; Genesis 12:5) no doubt adopted the language of Canaan (Dict. Bib; art. "Phoenicians"). Keil renders, "even the Giblites." He would understand, i.e; that the Zidonian workmen were Giblites; but this is doubtful. The Giblites are selected, no doubt, for special mention because of the prominent part they took in the work. Gebal, as its ancient and extensive ruins prove, was a place of much importance, and lying as it did on the coast, and near the cedar forests, would naturally have an important share in the cutting and shipping of the timber. Indeed, it is not improbable that it was at this port that the land transport ended, and the rafts were made. A road ran anciently from Gebal to Baalbak, so that the transport was not impracticable. But as the forests were probably of great extent, there may have been two or three depots at which the timber was floated] so they prepared timber [Heb. the timber] and stones [Heb. the stones] to build the house. [The LXX. (Vat. and Alex. alike) add here, "three years." It is barely possible that these words may have dropped out of the text, but they look more like a gloss, the inference from the chronological statement of 1 Kings 6:1. 1 Kings 5:7-12 compared with 1 Kings 16:1-34:81 and 1 Kings 18:4. Tyre and Israel—a lesson on personal influence. Twice in the history of Israel were its relations with the neighbouring kingdom of Tyre close and intimate. Twice did the Phoenician race exercise an important influence on the Hebrew people. In the days of Solomon the subjects of Hiram furnished men and materials to build a house to the name of the Lord. The Phoenicians were not only idolaters, but they belonged to the accursed races of Canaan, yet we see them here assisting the holy people, and furthering the interests of the true religion. But in the days of Ahab these relations were reversed. Then the kingdom of Ethbaal furnished Israel with a princess who destroyed the prophets of the Lord and sought to exterminate the religion of which the temple was the shrine and centre. In the first case, that is to say, we see Israel influencing Tyre for good; we hear from the lips of the Tyrian king an acknowledgment of the goodness of the Hebrew God; we see the two races combining to bring glory to God and to diffuse the blessings of peace and civilization amongst men. In the second case, we see Tyre influencing Israel for evil. No longer do the skilled artificers of Zidon prepare timber and stones for the Lord’s house, but the prophets and votaries of Phoenician deities would fain break down the carved work thereof with axes and hammers. So tar from rearing a sanctuary to Jehovah, they would root up His worship and enthrone a foul idol in the place of the Divine Presence. Such have been at different times the relations of Tyre and Sidon to the chosen race and the true religion. Now why was this fatal difference? Why was the influence in one age so wholesome, in another so baleful? It may be instructive to mark the causes of this change. But observe, first— I. IT WAS NOT THAT THE CREED WAS CHANGED. In its essential features that was the same B.C. 1000 (temp. Solomon) and B.C. 900 (temp. Ahab). It was always idolatrous, always immoral, always an infamous cultus of the reproductive powers. The gods of Hiram were the gods of Ethbaal, and the rites of the latter age were also the rites of the former. II. IT WAS NOT THAT THE LAW OF THE LORD WAS CHANGED. The idolatry which it forbade at the first period, it forbade at the second. It never tolerated a rival religion; it always condemned the Phoenician superstition. That is, semper eadem. III. IT WAS NOT THAT HIRAM WAS A . This was the belief of the divines of a past age, but there is no evidence in its favour. We see then that it was no change in either of the religious systems. No; it was a change of persons made this difference. It was brought about by the personal influence of three or four kings—of Solomon, Jeroboam, Omri, Ahab. But before we trace the influence they respectively exercised, observe— I. THE BETWEEN HIRAM AND SOLOMON, BETWEEN TYRE AND ISRAEL, i.e; WERE DUE TO THE PIETY OF DAVID. "Hiram was ever a lover of David." The timber he supplied for the temple was not the first he had sent (2 Samuel 5:11). The league between the two kings (1 Kings 5:12), and their joint undertakings (1 Kings 5:18; 1 Kings 9:27), were the fruits of David’s righteous dealings. II. THE AND SO LONG AS THE LAW OF THE LORD WAS KEPT. During David’s reign, and the earlier part of Solomon’s, the commerce of the two nations was to their mutual advantage. Then the Jew came into contact with idolatry unhurt. The soil was not ready for the baleful seed. At a later period (see Homily on 1 Kings 10:22) it was otherwise. III. THE LAW WAS NO SOONER THAN THE OF TYRE BECAME HURTFUL. The Zidonian women in Solomon’s harem were a distinct violation of the law (1 Kings 11:1), and that trespass bore its bitter fruit forthwith (1 Kings 11:7, 1 Kings 11:8). The principal factors, consequently, in the change were these— I. THE OF SOLOMON. If he built altars for his Tyrian consorts, what wonder if the people learnt first to tolerate, then to admire, and at last to practise idolatry. Who can tell how much the frightful abominations of Ahab’s days are due to the example of wise Solomon, to the influence of the builder of the temple? II. THE OF . The cultus of the calves, though it was not idolatry, paved the way for it. That violation of the law opened the door for departures greater still. It was no great step from the calves to the groves, from schism to utter apostasy. III. THE OF OMRI. Nations, like individuals, do not become infamous all at once (Nemo repente turpissimus fuit). They have their periods and pro. cesses of depravation. Omri carried Jeroboam’s evil work a step further; possibly he organized and formulated his system (Micah 6:16). He exceeded all his predecessors in wickedness, and so prepared the way for his son’s consummation of impiety. IV. THE OF AHAB. A second violation of the Jewish marriage law opened wide the gates to the pestilent flood of idolatries. The son of Omri weds the daughter of a priest of Astarte; and Phoenicia, once the handmaid of Israel, Becomes its snare. Now the ancestral religion is proscribed, and the elect people lends itself to unspeakable abominations (1 Kings 16:32; cf. 2 Kings 10:26, 2 Kings 10:27; Revelation 2:20). It may be said, however, that all this was the work of Jezebel, and due to her influence alone (1 Kings 21:25; cf. 1 Kings 18:13; 1 Kings 19:2, etc.) That may be so, hut it was only the example of Solomon, the schism of Jeroboam, and the apostasy of Omri made this marriage possible, or enabled Jezebel, when queen, to do these things with impunity. Hence learn— I. THE POWER AND OF . An idle word may destroy a kingdom. The Crimean war sprung out of the squabbles of a few monks over a cupboard and a bunch of keys. "There is not a child… whoso existence does not stir a ripple gyrating onward and on, until it shall have moved across and spanned the whole ocean of God’s eternity, stirring even the river of life and the fountains at which His angels drink" And our responsibility is increased by the fact that— II. THE EVIL THAT MEN DO LIVES AFTER THEM. They go on sinning in their graves. Though dead, their example speaks. Witness Solomon and Jeroboam. III. THE EVIL THAT KINGS DO AFFECTS WHOLE . Their own kingdoms, of course, and neighbouring kingdoms too. It has been said that "the influence of one good man extends over an area of sixteen square miles." But who shall assign any limits to the influence of a wicked prince? It may plunge a continent into wars, and wars that shall last for generations, or it may steep it for ages in sensuality and superstition. Its issues, too, are in eternity. It is because of the influence of kings that we are so plainly commanded to pray for them (1 Timothy 2:2; cf. Ezra 6:10; Jeremiah 29:7). IV. IN KEEPING OF GOD’S IS GREAT REWARD. The perfect piety of David procured the friendship and help of Tyre. The disobedience of Solomon, Jeroboam, and Ahab led to the decay and dispersion of the nation and the destruction of their families. V. THE SOUL, BUT THE SINNER. David took no harm from his commerce with Hiram, nor did Solomon in the days of his piety. A good man will choose the good and refuse the evil in a corrupt system. But the wicked will choose the evil and refuse the good. Ahab’s relations with Tyre were altogether to his hurt. In David’s loyal heart the evil seed found no lodgment; in Ahab’s it found a congenial soft, and took root downwards and bare fruit upwards. 1 Kings 5:17 Sure Foundations. No city in the world has experienced so many vicissitudes as "the city of the Great King." The place of the "vision of peace" (or, "foundation of peace") has known no peace. It has been sixteen times taken by siege since our blessed Lord’s day, and conqueror after conqueror has cried, "Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof" (Psalms 137:7). It has been the carcase round which the Roman "eagles" have repeatedly gathered; it has been the battlefield of Saracen and Crusader; now the Christian has wrested it from the Moslem, and now the Moslem has torn it back from the Christian. The consequence is that it is a mound of ruins, a heap of debris. When the Anglican church was built, it was necessary to dig down some forty feet, through the accumulated rubbish of ages, to get a foundation. The Jerusalem of the past can only be reached by deep shafts. It is literally true that not one stone of the ancient city is "left upon another" (Matthew 24:2). With ONE exception. Amid the wreck and havoc of wax, amid the changes and chances of the world, the colossal foundations of Solomon remain undisturbed. His "great stones" are to be seen at the present day at the southeast angle and underneath the temple area (see on 1 Kings 5:17). Everything built upon them has perished. Not a trace of tower or temple remains; nay, their very sites are doubtful. But "through all these great and various demolitions and restorations on the surface, its foundations, with their gigantic walls, have been indestructibly preserved" (Ewald). After the lapse of nearly three thousand years, "The foundation standeth sure." Let us learn a lesson hence as to— I. Christ. II. The Church of Christ. III. The doctrine of Christ and His Church. We may see, then, in the Solomonic foundations of the Temple— I. A PICTURE OF CHRIST. He compared Himself to the Temple (John 2:19), and to the foundations of the Temple (Matthew 21:42). Yes, to these very corner stones which are still visible. It is remarkable that Psalms 118:22—"The stone which the builders refused is become the head of the corner"—is cited by our Lord of Himself (Matthew 21:42), and is applied to Him by St. Peter (Acts 4:11), while Isaiah 28:16, "Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone," etc.—words which were no doubt suggested by the great and precious stones of Solomon’s building—are interpreted of Him both by St. Peter (1 Peter 2:6) and St. Paul (Romans 9:1-33:38). We have consequently "most certain warrants of Holy Scripture" for seeing in these venerable relics an image of the Eternal Son. He is the one foundation (1 Corinthians 3:11); the chief corner stone (ἀκρογιονιαίος, Ephesians 2:20); He "abideth ever;" "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and for ever" (Hebrews 13:8, Gr.) That "sure foundation" can never fail. How many systems of philosophy, how many "oppositions of science" have "had their day and ceased to be"? How many proud empires have tottered to their fall; how many dynasties are extinct and forgotten? But the carpenter’s Son still rules in the hearts of men, and the cross of Christ "towers above the wreck of time." II. A PICTURE OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. As surely as the great cornerstone images our Lord, so surely do the huge and strong foundations pourtray the Church of which He is the Founder. It is to the Church (ἐκκλησίαὑποθεοῦτεθεμελιωμένη) those words refer, "The firm foundation of God standeth" (2 Timothy 2:19, Gk.) The Church is "the pillar and ground of the truth;" it is" built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets" (Ephesians 2:20; cf. Revelation 21:14). And, like the foundations of the Temple, its base shall be stable and permanent. "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18). It is founded on a rock (ibid.) "Crowns and thrones may perish, Kingdoms rise and wane, But the Church of Jesus Constant will remain." It was the boast of Voltaire that what it took twelve men to build one man should suffice to break down. But the Church is stronger in the hearts of men now than it was in the eighteenth century. And Voltaire’s cry of impotent rage, Ecrasez l’infame, seems farther than ever from its realization. Its enemies assert that Christianity has "destroyed two civilizations"—a striking admission of its strength and vitality. True, the Church has a legion of foes. But let us take courage. There is at Jerusalem a pledge and picture of her stability. Her fashions, her excrescences, her sects and schisms, like the buildings of the Holy City, shall pass away. But her foundation is sure. III. A PICTURE OF THE OF CHRIST AND THE CHURCH. As there are twelve foundations of the Church, so are there six foundation truths, six "principles of the doctrine of Christ" (Hebrews 6:2). And of these it may justly be said, "Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid." Some of these doctrines may have been, or may hereafter be, more or less obscured—the "doctrines of baptism and of the laying on of hands" are often ignored or repudiated even now—but for long centuries the foundations of the Temple area have been hidden. Obscured or not, they shall never be shaken or removed. This "firm foundation standeth." The monoliths beneath the Mosque El Aksa, standing where Solomon and Hiram’s builders placed them, are silent but eloquent pictures of the eternal and unchangeable truth of God. And if men build on the foundations of Christian doctrine, or on the one foundation of "the personal historical Christ" (Alford on 1 Corinthians 3:11), "wood, hay, stubble," i.e; systems, more or less worthless, of their own, like the Temple of Jerusalem, these shall be destroyed by fire in the "day of visitation;" but the foundation shall remain unscathed, strong and sure and eternal as the God who laid it. BY J. WAITE 1 Kings 5:2-6 The Temple. Read also 2 Chronicles 2:1-10, where additional light is thrown on this transaction. It marks a period of extreme interest and importance in Hebrew history. It introduces us, by anticipation, to that which was the crowning glory of the reign of Solomon, for his name must ever stand connected with the magnificence of the first Temple, though it be but as a gorgeous dream of the far distant past, which imagination strives in vain to reproduce with distinctness and certainty. Whether the Hiram who entered into this treaty with Solomon is the same as the Hiram who was the friend of David is a matter of doubt. Menander of Ephesus (quoted by Josephus) describes him as a man of great enterprize, a lover of architecture, noted for his skill in building and adorning the temples of the gods. And in this we have a valuable indirect confirmation of the Biblical history. Look at this purpose of Solomon to build a splendid temple to the Lord in two or three different lights. I. IT HIS DESIRE TO CARRY OUT THE GOOD DESIGNS OF HIS FATHER DAVID. Filial feeling prompted it. It drew the inspiration of its enthusiasm from the warmth of a filial heart. "Thou knowest how that David my father could not," etc. We are told why he "could not" (1 Chronicles 22:7, 1 Chronicles 22:8; 1 Chronicles 28:5). He had been "a man of war," and had "shed much blood." Noble purposes may be conceived in a time of discord and confusion; they can be actualized only in a time of rest. The hands must be free from the blood of men that would build a worthy dwelling-place for a righteous God. Nothing was more natural than that Solomon, under happier auspices, should resolve to do what his father had the "heart to do," but "could not." To how large an extent is human life a record of thwarted purposes! A tale cut short before it is half told; a laying of plans that are never worked out; a reaching forth towards fair ideals that men have not the power or the time to turn into realities. What can the high mission of each succeeding generation be but just to take up the good purposes that a previous generation failed to accomplish and develop them to their ripe issues? This is the real law of human progress. All honour to the son who, knowing what was truest and deepest in his father’s heart, endeavours worthily to fulfil it. II. IT IS THE OUTCOME OF HIS OWN DEVOUT FEELING. Solomon never had the pure and lofty spirit of devotion that inspired the soul of David; but as yet, at least, his religious sentiment is deep and true. A "house great and wonderful," dedicated to the Lord, in the royal city, will give it fitting public expression. All religious feeling instinctively seeks to body itself forth in appropriate forms. Forbidden as the Jews were to "make any likeness or image" of the great Object of worship (Exodus 20:4), it was quite in harmony with the Divine dispensation of the time that the spirit of worship should robe itself in a grand symbolic garb. Solomon only sought to develop the service of the tabernacle into a system more imposing and enduring (2 Chronicles 2:4, 2 Chronicles 2:5). In every age symbolism has its place as the spontaneous and natural expression of religious thought and feeling. Let it be relied on as the means of awakening such thought and feeling, as the prescribed form in which it shall move—an artificial substitute for it—and it becomes a mockery and a snare. The magnificence of Solomon’s design for the Temple indicated not only the fervour of his devotion, but the breadth of his view as regards the essential sacredness of all natural things. "The earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof." All things beautiful and precious are turned to their true use when dedicated to Him. We cannot be too careful to give Him our richest and best. The true heart says," I will not offer burnt offering to the Lord of that which doth cost me nothing." Let us not be more concerned for our own houses than we are for the Lord’s. The history of the Temple, however, and of all ecclesiology, shows how easily the wealth of outward adornment in worship may become the grave of the spiritual and the veil of the Divine. In proportion as care for the symbolic form—the mere shrine of worship—has increased, the living reality—the worship of the Father "in spirit and in truth"—has passed away. III. IT HIS SENSE OF THE FACT THAT THE OF GOD IS THE HEAL AND GLORY OF A NATION. The Temple was to be dedicated "to the name of Jehovah"—the visible sign and symbol of the sovereignty of that name over the whole life of the people. There was worth in the sign just so far as that sovereignty was real. The Jewish commonwealth was a theocracy—the Temple the palace and throne of the great invisible King. Judaism was not the union of Church and State as two separate or separable powers, but their identification. No distinction between the political and ecclesiastical, the secular and spiritual spheres. The two were one. The ideal Christian nation is a theocracy in which Christ is king. Not made so by its institutions, but by the spiritual life that pervades it. True to its name only so far as the law of Christ is honoured in the homes of the people, moulds the form and habit of their social life, controls commerce, rules in Parliament, strengthens, ennobles, glorifies the Throne. Its Christian Churches are thus the very flower of a country’s highest life. "Those temples of His grace, How beautiful they stand! The honour of our native place And bulwark of our land." As the graveyard—where "the rude forefathers of the hamlet sleep"—tells of the vanity of all earthly things, how the pride and glory of man must one day moulder down to dust, so the church is the memorial of the unfading inheritance of truth and purity and love—the blessed fellowship of the redeemed—the "House of God, not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." IV. IT HIS DESIRE THAT ISRAEL SHOULD HAVE A CENTRE OF AND BOND OF UNITY. The tabernacle had been the movable sanctuary, of a wandering people, the Temple should be the resting place of the Divine presence (Psalms 132:14). Hitherto there had been a divided worship, connected both with the tabernacle at Gideon and the ark in the city of David (1 Chronicles 16:37-39). But in future all sacred associations are to be gathered up in the central glory of the Temple. One nation, one faith, one God, one sanctuary. But this localization of the highest forms of worship had its dangers. Men came to think of" the Holy Presence as belonging to the building, instead of the building as being hallowed and glorified by the Presence." Christ proclaims the infinite Presence, the impartial Love. "The hour cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain," etc. (John 4:21). "One greater than the Temple is here"—in whom all its sacred symbols are fulfilled—the attractive centre and bond of union for redeemed souls of every age and nation. Our thoughts are led on to the glorious vision of the holy city of which it is written, "I saw no temple therein, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it" (Revelation 21:22).—W. BY E. Deuteronomy 1 Kings 5:5 The building of the Temple. "Behold I purpose to build an house unto the name of the Lord my God." Every man has some special work given him by God. It is of the utmost importance that he should find out what that work is, if he would not make his life a failure and come short of the purpose of God for him. In the ease of Solomon the great work given him to do was not to extend the boundaries of his kingdom, but to build the temple of the Lord. This he clearly understood, as is evident from his saying, "I purpose to build an house to the name of the Lord." This was to him the work of paramount importance. The building of the Temple was to give a religious centre to the theocracy. This was part of the Divine plan, a branch of the education of the people, by which God would prepare the way for the new covenant. The old covenant was essentially preparatory; it was "the shadow of good things to come" (Hebrews 10:1). The Temple was to form a part of this preparation. I. IT WAS A VISIBLE SYMBOL OF THE OF GOD WITH HIS PEOPLE. This was the only way in which such an idea could be brought home to men in the state of rude infancy in which they then were, and with their incapacity to apprehend directly spiritual graces. The material was thus the necessary medium of the spiritual. II. The erection of a holy place for worship MEN THAT THE EARTH WHICH THEY WAS DEFILED; it developed in them the sense of sin. III. THE OF DRAWING NEAR TO GOD IN THIS HOLY PLACE pointed to the time of reconciliation, when every spot of a redeemed earth might be a place of prayer; when there should be no longer one sanctuary for one nation alone, but when all the nations should have free access to God as worshippers in spirit and in truth. The fact that Solomon sought out workmen for the Temple, not only among the Israelites, but among the Gentiles, is prophetic, and prefigures the time when the multitude of worshippers shall be "of every kindred, and nation, and people, and tongue" (Revelation 5:9). IV. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE LIVING WHO HAS NOT A TASK LIKE THAT OF SOLOMON TO FULFIL. Every Christian ought to say, "I purpose to build an house to the name of the Lord." (a) He must first become himself a living stone of the spiritual temple (2 Peter 2:1-22:51). (b) His body must be the temple of the Holy Ghost (1 Corinthians 6:19), his whole being a sanctuary (1 Corinthians 3:1-23.) His house should be a house of prayer (Joshua 24:15). Are not these human temples themselves the stones elect, precious, to be used by and by in that great heavenly temple which the Lord shall build and not man? (2 Corinthians 5:1.)—E. DE P. BY A. ROWLAND 1 Kings 5:7-12 Lessons from the conduct of a heathen prince. Describe the condition of Type at this period, alluding to its commerce, its religious beliefs, its proximity to the kingdom of Solomon, its monarchical institutions, as opposed to the usual republican government of Phoenician settlements—as exemplified in Carthage, the splendid daughter of Type, founded about 140 years after the building of Solomon’s temple. Point out some of the effects of the intercourse between these two states, as suggested by Old Testament history. Suggest from this the responsibilities and the perils accruing to us as a Christian people, from the fact that our own destinies are so interwoven with distant and heathen nations. Allude to the fearlessness of Scripture in ascribing what is good and commendable to those whom the Jews generally scorned. Various examples may be given, e.g; Abimelech king of Egypt, Cyrus, Hiram; and in the New Testament, Cornelius, Publius, etc. Compare the words of our Lord (Matthew 8:11, Matthew 8:12). The conduct of Hiram teaches us the following lessons. I. THAT WE SHOULD REJOICE IN THE OF OTHERS (1 Kings 5:7). Hiram was moved to joy, partly because of his love and admiration for David. It is an unspeakable advantage to have the position won by a father’s toil, the affection and confidence deserved by a father’s worth. In our material possessions, in our worldly occupation, in our ecclesiastical and, above all, our Christian relationships, how much of good has come from parentage! Contrast the possibilities of a lad, born of honoured parents, and therefore trusted till he proves untrustworthy, whose path in life is smoothed by the loving hands of those who care for him, for his father’s sake, with the terrible disadvantages of the child of a convict, who is distrusted and ill treated from his birth. Hiram was well disposed to Solomon for his father’s sake. There were many reasons for jealousy. The two kingdoms adjoined each other, and national pride would be fostered by religious differences. It is easier to rejoice over the success of a distant trader than over the prosperity of a neighbour who is our competitor. Nor is it common for a heathen to be glad over the welfare of a Christian. Hiram was large hearted enough to overlook barriers which were erected by the hands of rivalry and religious distinction. II. THAT WE SHOULD FAIRLY THE DEMANDS OF OTHERS. "I have considered the things which thou sentest to me for" (1 Kings 5:8). The request of Solomon was bold. It would require sacrifice on the part of the Tyrians. They were asked to help in building a temple for another nation, and for the worship of One who was to them a strange deity. No prejudice, however, interfered with Hiram’s fair consideration of Solomon’s request; and as it was more fully understood, it seemed more and more feasible. How often prejudice prevents men from looking at a novel scheme for work, from welcoming a new expression of old truth, etc. A false patriotism sometimes refuses to see any excellency in another people. Sectarianism checks Christians in learning from each other. There is much presented to us which we cannot at once welcome, but at least it should be fairly considered. "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good." III. THAT WHEN WE DO A , IT SHOULD BE DONE WITHOUT . "I will do all thy desire." It is not right to ask another for what is unreasonable, or to give to another what is unreasonable for him to expect. Sometimes to grant a request is easier than to refuse it, and we do what is asked to save ourselves trouble. Every demand should be weighed in the balance of equity. But if, after the test, it seems right to accede to it, we should not do it reluctantly, or partially, or murmuringly, lest we should mar the beauty of the act to others, and rob ourselves of the bliss of ministering to others in Christ’s spirit. "Whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men," etc. (Colossians 3:23, Colossians 3:24). "Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure," etc. (Luke 6:38). IV. THAT WE SHOULD AND THE OF THE . In 2 Chronicles 2:13 we read that Hiram chose from amongst his subjects a skilful man, to be set over this business. Christians can serve their Lord in this way amidst their ordinary occupations. In the counting house, or office, or factory the recognition and encouragement of diligence and skill may be a means of grace to employer and employe. We should devoutly recognize that knowledge, skill, capacity of any sort, are the gifts of God; and while we employ our own faithfully, we should, as opportunity serves, aid our fellow servants in the use of theirs. V. THAT WE SHOULD OUR MUTUAL . Solomon and Hiram were not independent of each other. It was for the good of these kings and of their peoples that they should be associated in this holy work. Solomon confessed, "There is not among us any that can skill to hew timber like unto the Sidonians" (2 Chronicles 2:6). Each nation, each individual has his own sphere to fill in the economy of God. No one of these can serve well in isolation. See St. Paul’s teaching about the body and its members. Show how nations are mutually dependent, commercially and in their political relations. Point out the special responsibility of God’s people when they are associated with heathen nations. Suggest the possibility that each section of Christ’s Church may be doing its own appointed service, though all must feel that they are mutually dependent if the prayer of our Lord is to be fulfilled (John 17:21). Apply the principle to the association of Christians in Church fellowship, in evangelistic enterprize, in religious worship, etc; and show the benefits arising to the individual from the fact that he is one of many. VI. THAT EACH SHOULD LOYALLY ACCEPT, AND DO, HIS OWN SHARE IN THE TEMPLE OF THE LORD. (2 Chronicles 2:16.) Christians are likened to labourers in a vineyard, to servants in a household, to builders of a temple by our Lord and His apostles. In none of these spheres of activity is the work of all the servants alike in its publicity, in its honour, in its immediate effects, in its pleasant. ness, etc. Yet to every "good and faithful servant" the recompense will come; and he who shaped the stone in the quarry, or bore the burdens for more distinguished builders, will, in the great day, not lose his reward.—A.R. SOLOMON’S TEMPLE.—The preparations for the building of the Temple having been related in the preceding chapter, the historian now proceeds to describe the edifice. He begins his narrative with a precise statement of the date of its erection (1 Kings 6:1); then follows (1) a description of the shape, size, and arrangement of the exterior (1 Kings 6:2-10), and (2) a detailed account of its internal fittings and adornments (1 Kings 6:15-35). The promise made to Solomon during its erection finds a place in 1 Kings 6:11-13; while the vessels, etc; used in the Temple service are described in 1 Kings 7:1-51. A parallel though briefer account, and one differing considerably in its arrangement, is found in 2 Chronicles 3:4. The erection of this splendid sanctuary was no doubt the greatest event, both in Jewish and Gentile eyes, in the history of the Holy City. It made Jerusalem what it had not been till then, the religious capital. The stronghold of the Jebusites now became the shrine and centre of the Jewish system. We are not warranted, however, in believing that it shaped the name by which the city was known to the Greeks, Ἱεροσολυμὰ (Jos; B. J. 6. 10) and ἹερὸνΣαλομῶνος, being probably mere attempts to "twist Jerushalaim into a shape which should be intelligible to Greek ears" (Dict. Bib. 1:983). We find a sufficient indication, however, of the profound importance which this undertaking assumed in Jewish eyes in the fact that four chapters of our history—and three of them of considerable length—are occupied with an account of the materials, proportions, arrangements, and consecration of this great sanctuary. To the historiographers of Israel it seemed meet that every measurement of the holy and beautiful house should be recorded with the greatest exactness, while the very vessels of service, "the pots and the shovels and the basons," were judged worthy of a place in the sacred page. But these careful and detailed dimensions are not only proofs of the tender veneration with which the Jew regarded the Temple and its appointments; they are also indications and expressions of the belief that this house, so "exceeding magnifical," was for the Lord, and not for man. These exact measurements, these precise and symbolic numbers all]point to a place for the Divine Presence; they are "the first requisite for every space and structure which has a higher and Divine destination, and they impart thereto the signature of the Divine" (Bähr). Indeed the very names templum and τέμενος (= a space measured off) are in themselves in some sort attestations to the ancient belief that the dignity of a temple of the Most High God required that the length and breadth and height, both of the whole and of its component parts, should be carefully recorded. It is this consideration explains a peculiarity of Scripture which would otherwise cause some difficulty; viz; the detailed and repeated measurements, and the almost rabbinical minuteness, not only of our author, but of Ezekiel and of the Apocalypse. When a "man with a measuring reed" (Ezekiel 40:8, Ezekiel 40:5; Revelation 11:1; Revelation 21:15) appears upon the scene, we are to understand at once that the place is sacred ground, and that we are in the precincts of the temple and shrine of Jehovah. At the same time it must be added here that, exact and detailed as is the description of this edifice, it is nevertheless so partial, and the account is, perhaps necessarily, so obscure as to leave us in considerable doubt as to what Solomon’s Temple was really like. In fact, though "more has been written regarding the temple at Jerusalem than in respect to any other building in the known world" (Fergusson), the authorities are not agreed as to its broad features, while as to matters of detail they are hopelessly divided. On one point, indeed, until recently, there was a pretty general agreement, viz; that the house was "rectilinear and of box form." But it is now contended that this primary and fundamental conception of its shape is entirely at fault, and that its sloping or ridged roof would give it a resemblance to the ark or to a tent. Nor have we the materials to decide between these conflicting views; in fact, nothing perhaps but drawings would enable us to restore the temple with any approach to accuracy. "It is just as easy to pourtray a living man from a tolerably well preserved skeleton as to reproduce a building in a way which shall correspond with reality when we have only a few uncertain remains of its style of architecture in our possession". And the difficulty is enhanced by the fact that the temple was sui generis. It was purely Jewish, so that no information as to its structure and arrangements can be derived from the contemporary architecture of Egyptians or Assyrians. In the absence of all analogies restoration is hopeless. It is well known that all the many and varied representations of different artists, based though they all were on the Scripture account (Exodus 25:31-37) of the seven-branched candlestick, were found to be exceedingly unlike the original, when the true shape of that original was disclosed to the world on the Arch of Titus. It is equally certain that, were s true representation of the temple ever to be placed in our hands, we should find that it differed just as widely from all attempted "restorations" of the edifice, based on the scanty and imperfect notices of our historian and Ezekiel. The mention of Ezekiel suggests a brief reference to the temple, which he describes with so much precision and fulness in his fortieth and following chapters. What is its bearing on the description we have now to consider? Is it an account of the temple as it actually existed in or before his time; is it a plan or suggestion for its restoration (Grotius), or is it wholly ideal and imaginary? The first view, which long found favour with commentators, and which has still some advocates, is now pretty generally abandoned. For while many of Ezekiel’s measurements, etc; correspond exactly with those of our historian, and while it may be conceded, therefore, that this delineation has a historical basis, there are features in the narrative which can never have been realized in any building, and which prove the account to be more or less ideal. For example. The outer court of his temple (Ezekiel 42:16-20) would cover not only the whole of Mount Moriah, but more than the whole space occupied by the entire city of Jerusalem, He speaks again of "waters issuing out from under the threshold" (Ezekiel 47:1), and flowing down eastward to heal the pestilent waters of the Dead Sea, where a literal interpretation is manifestly impossible. And it is to be remembered that the prophet himself speaks of his temple as seen in vision (Ezekiel 40:2; Ezekiel 43:2, Ezekiel 43:8). The true account of this portraiture would therefore seem to be that, while it borrowed largely from the plan and proportions of Solomon’s Temple, it was designed to serve as "the beau ideal of what a Semitic temple should be" Two other authorities, whose accounts have a direct bearing on the sacred narrative, must be mentioned here Josephus and the Talmudic tract on the temple, called Middoth (i.e; measures). Unfortunately, neither is of much avail for the illustration of the text we have now to consider. Josephus, too often unreliable, would seem to be especially so here. "Templum aedificat," says Clericus, "quale animo conceperat non quale legerat a Salomone conditum." "Inconsistency, inaccuracy, and exaggeration are plainly discoverable in the measurements given by Josephus". "Wherever the Mishna is not in accord with Josephus the measurements of the latter are untrustworthy". The writers of the Mishna, again, refer generally, as might be expected, to the temple of Herod, or confuse in their accounts the three temples of Solomon, Herod, and Ezekiel (Bähr). The student of temple architecture consequently derives but scant assistance in his work from the writings of uninspired historians. Perhaps this is the proper place to remark on the close correspondence between temple and tabernacle.. In the first place, in plan and arrangement the two structures were identical. Each faced the east; each had three parts, viz; porch, holy place, and holy of holies, while the side chambers of the temple (verse 5) were analogous to the verandah formed by the projecting roof, or curtains, which ran round three sides of the tabernacle. Secondly, the measurements both of the whole edifice and of its component parts were exactly double those of the tabernacle, as the following table will show:— Tabernacle cubits Temple Cubits. Entire length 40 80 Entire width 20 40 Entire height 15 30 Length of Holy Place 20 40 Width 10 20 Height 10 20 Length of Holy of Holies 10 20 Width 10 20 Height 10 20 Width of Porch 10 20 Depth 5 10 The only exception to this rule is that of the side chambers, which (on the lowest story) were but five cubits wide, i.e; they were identical in width with the verandah. It is held by some, however, that with the enclosing walls, they were ten cubits. If this were so, it follows that here again the same proportions are exactly preserved. It will be clear from this comparison that the temple was constructed, not after any Egyptian or Assyrian model, but that it preserved the features and arrangement of the consecrated structure, the pattern of which was showed to Moses in the Mount (Exodus 25:9, Exodus 25:40; cf. Acts 7:44; Hebrews 8:5), so that when "David gave to Solomon his son the pattern of the porch," etc; "and the pattern of all that he had by the spirit" (1 Chronicles 28:11, 1 Chronicles 28:12), the same arrangement and similar proportions were consciously or unconsciously preserved. The temple differed from the tabernacle only so far as a large house necessarily differs from a small tent. It is also to be observed that every dimension of the temple was either ten cubits—the holy of holies was a cube of ten cubits—or a multiple of ten, just as the dimensions of the tabernacle are either five cubits or multiples of five. Now this decimal arrangement can hardly have been accidental. Not only had the Jews ten fingers, but they had ten commandments, and a system of tenths or tithes, and this number, therefore, was to them, no doubt, the symbol of completeness, just as five was the sign of imperfection. The very dimensions, consequently, of the house are a testimony to the perfections of the Being to whose service it was dedicated. Nor is the recurrence of the number three, though by no means so marked, to be altogether overlooked. Considering its Divine original—that it was made after the pattern of things in the heavens—it is not wholly unworthy of notice that the building "had three compartments.… Each of the three sides was flanked by an aisle formed of three stories, and the holy of holies was of three equal dimensions" (Wordsworth). And if we cannot follow him further and see any significance in the fact that the "length was 3 x 30 cubits, and the height 3 x 10," we may still remember that this house was built, though Solomon knew it not, to the glory of the Triune God. Bähr, however, who also shows at some length how "the number three is everywhere conspicuous in the building", accounts for it on the ground that "three is in the Old Testament the signature of every true and complete unit" (Was drei Mal geschieht ist das rechte Einmal; was in drei getheilt ist ist eine wahre Einheit), so that practically three would signify here much the same as ten—it would stand as "the signature of the perfect unit, and so also of the Divine Being." One remark more may be made here, viz; that in the temple or tabernacle we have the archetype of the Christian Church. The correspondence is so obvious as to strike the most casual observer. Porch, or steeple, nave, chancel, altar, side aisles, these have succeeded to, as they were suggested by, porch, temple of the house, oracle, mercy seat, side structure, of the Jewish sanctuary. Just as Christianity is built on the foundations of Judaism (see Homiletics), so has the Jewish temple furnished a model for the Christian; for, considering how closely the early Church fashioned itself after the pattern of Judaism, the resemblance can hardly be accidental. 1 Kings 6:1 And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt [This date has been the subject of much controversy, which cannot even now be considered as closed. Grave doubts are entertained as to its genuineness. Lord A. Hervey says it is "manifestly erroneous." Rawlinson considers it to be "an interpolation into the sacred text". And it is to he observed, 1. that the LXX. reads 440 instead of 480 years—a discrepancy which is suspicious, and argues some amount of incertitude. 2. Origen quotes this verse without these words (Comm. in S. Johann 1 Kings 2:20). 3. They would seem to have been unknown to Josephus, Clem. Alex; and others. 4. It is not the manner of Old Testament writers thus to date events from an era, an idea which appears to have first occurred to the Greeks temp. Thucydides (Rawlinson). It is admitted that we have no other instance in the Old Testament where this is done. 5. It is difficult to reconcile this statement with other chronological notices both of the Old and New Testaments. For taking the numbers which we find in the Hebrew text of the books which refer to this period, they sum up to considerably more than 480 years. The time of the Judges alone comprises 410 years at the least. It should be stated, however, with regard to the chronology of the period last mentioned (1) that it only pretends to furnish round numbers—20, 40, and the like—and evidently does not aim at exactitude; (2) that there is good ground for suspecting that the periods are not always consecutive; that in some cases, i.e; they overlap. We are not justified, therefore, because of the dates of the Judges in rejecting this statement. The question of New Testament chronology is somewhat more complicated. In Acts 13:20, St. Paul states the period between the division of Canaan, by Joshua (Joshua 14:1, Joshua 14:2), and the time of Samuel the prophet as 450 years (καίμετὰταῦταὢςἔτεσιτετρακοσίοιςκαὶπεντήκονταἔδωκενκριτὰςκ.τ.λ.) But Lachmann, on the authority of A, B, C à, considers the received text to be corrupt, and would place καὶμετὰταῦτα after πεντήκοντα. Alford, however, treats this reading as "an attempt at correcting the difficult chronology of the verse," and says that "all attempts to reconcile" it with 1 Kings 6:1 "are arbitrary and forced." If, then, the received text is to stand—and it is to be noticed that the reigns of the Judges, including Samuel, sum up exactly to the period mentioned by St. Paul, 450 years—the interval between the Exodus and the erection of the temple cannot well have been less than 99 or 100 years longer, i.e; 580—Josephus makes it 592—instead of 480 years. 6. The chronology of Josephus—to which by itself, perhaps, no great weight is to be attached, agrees with St. Paul’s estimate, and of course contradicts that of the text. 7. Nor does it seem to be a valid argument for the retention of the suspected words, that "the precision of the statement is a voucher for its accuracy." (Bähr, who adds, "Not only is the whole number of the years given, but also the year of the reign of the king, and even the month itself," for the genuineness of the later date, "In the fourth year," etc; is not questioned.) The remark of Keil that the building of the temple marked a new and important epoch in the history of the chosen people, and so justified an exceptional reference to the birth or emancipation of the nation, though undoubtedly true, will hardly avail much against the considerations alleged above. On the whole, therefore, I confess to the belief that these words are the interpolation of a later hand (of which we shall find traces elsewhere), though it would, perhaps, be premature, with only the evidence now before us, to exclude them from the text. It is certainly noteworthy that such destructive critics as Ewald and Thenius are satisfied as to their genuineness], in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel [according to the chronology of Ussher, this was A.M. 3000], in the month Zif [i.e; May. The word signifies splendour. The month was probably so called because of the brilliancy of its flowers (Gesen; Keil, al.)], which is the second month [This explanation is added because before the captivity the months (with the exception of Abib) appear to have had no regular names, but were almost always designated by numbers. (See, e.g; Genesis 7:11; 2 Kings 25:1). Only four pre-captivity names are recorded, and of these three are mentioned in connexion with the building of the temple, viz; Zif here and in verse 37, Bul in verse 38, and Ethanim in 1 Kings 8:2. It has hence been inferred that these names were not in general use, but were restricted to public documents, etc., a supposition which, if correct, would account for the facility with which the old appellations were superseded by post-captivity names. The later name for this month was Iyar (Targum on 2 Chronicles 30:2)], that he began [not in Heb.] to build the house of [Heb. to] the Lord. [The chronicler mentions the site (2 Chronicles 3:1), "In Mount Moriah ....in the threshing floor of Ornan," etc. We know from the extensive foundations yet remaining that the preparation of the platform on which the temple should stand must have been a work of considerable time and labour, and see Jos; Ant. 8.3. 9, and Bell. Jud. 5.5.1. We can hardly be wrong in identifying the remarkable rock known as the Sakrah, over which the mosque of Omar (Kubbet-es-Sakrah) is built—the "pierced rock" of the Jerusalem Itinerary—with the threshing floor of Ornan. The reader will find an interesting paper on the site of the temple in "Scribner’s Monthly," vol. 11. pp. 257-272. According to Mr. Beswick, whose measurements and conclusions it gives, the porch stood on the Sakrah. Mr. Conder, however, urges strong reasons for placing the Holy of Holies on the rock. We should then "see the Holy House in its natural and traditional position on the top of the mountain; we see the courts descending on either side, according to the present slopes of the hill; we find the great rock galleries dropping naturally into their right places; and finally, we see the temple, by the immutability of Oriental custom, still a temple, and the site of the great altar still consecrated [?] by the beautiful little chapel of the chain." But see Porteri. p. 125; Pal. Explor. p. 4, also pp. 342, 343; "Our Work in Palestine," chs. 8. and 9.; "Recovery of Jerusalem," Hebrews 12:1-29; etc. Quot viatores, tot sententiae.] 1 Kings 6:2 And the house [i.e; not the whole structure, but the main building, exclusive of porch (1 Kings 6:3) and side chambers (1 Kings 6:5)] which king Solomon built for the Lord, the length thereof was threescore cubits [But what was the length of the cubit? (אָמָהֹ) This unfortunately is by no means certain, as the Jews would seem to have had three different cubits. All the ancient measures, both Jewish and Gentile, were taken from parts of the body. Thus we find a "finger-breadth" (Jeremiah 52:21), "hand-breadth" (1 Kings 7:26), "span" (1 Samuel 17:24), and the Greeks had their δάκτυλοςπούς and τῆχυς, and the Romans their cubitus, pes, digitus, etc. אָמָה is used in its proper sense (ulna) Deuteronomy 3:11. Probably at first it signified, like πῆχυς, the length from point of elbow to tip of little or middle finger. But it is obvious that this was an uncertain measure, and hence perhaps arose cubits of different length. According to Gesen. the cubit here mentioned, which was the older or sacred Mosaic cubit (2 Chronicles 3:3), was six palms, while that of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 40:5; Ezekiel 43:13), the royal Babylonian cubit, was seven, but on this as well as other points the authorities are very far from agreed. "The length of the cubit is one of the most knotty points of Hebrew archaeology". There is a general consensus of opinion, however in favour of understanding the cubit here mentioned as measuring 18 inches. Fergusson considers this to be beyond question. It is certainly noteworthy that the measurements of Kings and Chronicles, of Ezra and Ezekiel, of Josephus and the Talmud, all agree, and we know that Josephus always uses the Greek cubit of 18 inches. Mr. Conder, however, maintains that the Hebrew cubit amounts to no more than sixteen inches. He says, "Maimonides tells us that the temple cubit was of 48 barleycorns, and any one who will take the trouble to measure barleycorns, will find that three go to the inch"—which gives 16 inches for the cubit. To this argument, which is not perhaps of much weight, he adds, what is of much greater moment, that "the Galilean synagogues, measured by it, give round numbers"] and the breadth thereof twenty cubits, and the height thereof thirty cubits. [It thus appears that the temple was but a small—compared with many churches, a very small—building. But its purpose and object must be considered. It was not for assemblies of the people. The congregation never met within it, but the worship was offered towards it. It was a place for the Holy Presence, and for the priests who ministered before it.] 1 Kings 6:3 And the porch [אוּלָם, forepart, projection (Vorhalle, Gesenius). The porch was not a colonnade—that is called a "porch of pillars" (1 Kings 7:6), but was formed By simply prolonging the side walls, and possibly the roof (see below). Bהhr holds that it had only side walls and cieling (sic), and was entirely open in front; and the fact that no mention is made of any door or opening, though the doors of the other parts of the edifies are all referred to (1 Kings 6:8, 1 Kings 6:31, 1 Kings 6:33), certainly favours this view, as also does the position of the pillars of 1 Kings 7:21] before the temple of the house [The house, or main building (1 Kings 7:2), had two parts. (1) "The temple of the house" (הֵיכָל = "spacious," hence "magnificent building," "palace," as in Proverbs 30:28; Daniel 1:4. Gesen; Thes. 1:375). The same word is used of the tabernacle (1 Samuel 1:9), of the royal palace (1 Kings 21:1; 2 Kings 20:18; Psalms 45:8, Psalms 45:15), and of heaven (2 Samuel 22:7, etc.) This was the ναὸς par excellence, and is called "the great house," because of its superior size and height, in 2 Chronicles 3:5. (2) The oracle (דְּבִיר) see on 2 Chronicles 3:5. The two bore a rough resemblance to the nave and chancel of a Gothic church], twenty cubits was the length thereof according to the breadth of the house [The porch, i.e; extended across the entire front, or east end of the temple] and ten cubits was the breadth [i.e; depth] thereof before the house. [The height of the porch, of which no mention is made here, is stated in 2 Chronicles 3:4 as 120 cubits, but there is surely some mistake in the figures. For (1) This is "unlike anything we know of in ancient architecture" (Fergusson). (2) A porch of such dimensions would surely have been called מִגְדָּל, not אוּלָם (Thenius, Keil). (3) It is doubtful whether an erection of so great a height, with such a slender basis, would stand. It would certainly be out of all proportion. Towers are generally built about three times the height of the adjoining nave, but this would be six times as high, and moreover the porch did not taper to a point like a Gothic spire. It is much more probable, therefore, that there is a corruption of the text of Chronicles (see on 2 Chronicles 3:4)—errors in numbers are by no means infrequent—than that such a column could be erected to serve as a porch, or if erected—and this consideration appears to me to be decisive—could have been passed over by our author without notice. It is impossible, however, to say positively what the height of the porch was. Probably 30 cubits, the height of the house. Stanley characteristically puts it down as "more than 200 feet." It may be remarked here that Fergusson, following Josephus and the Talmud, contends that the temple had another building of the same height above it. See Dict. Bib. 3 p. 1456, and note on verse 20. 1 Kings 6:4 And for the house he made windows of narrow lights. [There has been much disputation over these words. The older expositors generally follow the Chaldee and Rabbins: "windows broad within and narrow without;" windows, i.e. somewhat like the loopholes of ancient castles. The windows of the temple would then have resembled those of Egyptian sacred buildings. (It is not implied that there was any conscious imitation of Egypt, though Fergusson surely forgets the affinity with Pharaoh (1 Kings 3:1), the trade with Egypt (1 Kings 10:28), and the favour with which some Egyptian fashions were regarded (Son 1:9), when he contends that the chosen people would never take the buildings of their ancestral enemy for a model.) But this meaning is not supported by the original (שְׁקֻפִים אֲטֻמִים), the literal interpretation of which is "closed beams" (cf. 1 Kings 7:4, 1 Kings 7:5), and which the most competent scholars now understand to mean "closed or fixed lattices, i.e; the lattices or the temple windows were not movable, as in domestic architecture (2 Kings 1:2; 2 Kings 13:1-25, 2 Kings 17:1-41; Daniel 6:10). So Gesenius, De Wette, Keil, Bהhr, al.] 1 Kings 6:5 And against [or upon, עַל; they rested on the wall] the wall of the house [here meaning both temple and oracle: see below] he built chambers [Marg. floors. The Orig. is יָצוּעַ (Keri, יָצִיעַ) singular = stratum (יָצַע stravit, spread out). Symm. translates κατάστρωμα. Gesenius remarks that the word is used here and in 1 Kings 6:10 in the masculine of the whole of the side structure, while in 1 Kings 6:6 it is used in the feminine of the single stories. The floors bore this name, יָצוּע, because they were spread upon, not inserted into the walls. Rawlinson has evidently confounded this word with צֵלָע (see below) when he says, "The Hebrew word here used would be best translated a lean to." Both words are translated alike "chambers" in the Authorized Version, but the first means stories or floors; the second may, perhaps, signify lean tos] round about, against [It is doubtful whether אֶת is here, as commonly, merely the sign of the accusative, or is the preposition "with," meaning "in connexion with," cum parietibus (Seb. Schmidt), in which case its meaning would approach very closely to that of עַל above. Bהhr remarks that עַל and אֶת are used elsewhere as almost synonymous, and refers to Psalms 4:7 in connexion with Psalms 67:2. Keil translates, "As for the walls" (Anlangend die Wande), but this gives us an unfinished sentence. It is probably an accusative, explicative of the preceding clause = "I mean the walls," etc; the singular, wall, having being used above. This additional clause] the walls of the house round about [would then mean that the term "house" is to be understood as including both temple and oracle (and excluding porch), as the next words define it], both of the temple and of the oracle [The floors, i.e; ran round the south, west, and north sides of the building. Stanley aptly compares them to the little shops which nestle under the continental cathedrals; though the side aisles of some Gothic churches, viewed externally, would perhaps better represent their proportions] and he made chambers [צְלָעעוֹת, literally, ribs, beams, (Gesenius); Rippen (Bהhr). The design of the word is clearly to convey that the floors were "divided by partitions into distinct compartments" (Merz). According to Ezekiel 41:6 (where, however, the reading is doubtful) there were thirty-three of these side chambers; according to Josephus (Ant. 8.8. 2) thirty. Thenius is probably not so far wrong when he sees in these chambers bedrooms. A sort of monastery would seem to have been attached to the temple. So many chambers could hardly have been required for the "preservation of temple stores and utensils" (Keil), or of offerings (Ewald). Whatever their use, we can hardly suppose that they were wholly without light, though nothing is said about windows. They may have had "fixed lattices." It is to be re. membered that the priests and Levites ministered "by night in the house of the Lord" (Psalms 134:1)] round about. 1 Kings 6:6 The nethermost chamber [Heb. floor; cf. Ezekiel 41:6] was five cubits broad [It must be remembered that all the measurements are those of the interior], and the middle was six cubits broad, and the third was seven cubits broad: for [Explanation how these differences of size arose] without [i.e; on the outside] in the wall of [Heb. omits] the house [main building—nave, and chancel] he made [Heb. put] narrowed rests [marg. "narrowings or rebatements," The word מִגְרָעות means lessenings, deductions; Absatze, Gesen. (Thesaurus, 1:804), Bהhr. PICTURE OF CHAMBER The outside of the temple wall took the shape of three (or four) steps, and presented three ledges for the beams to rest upon. See below] round about [same word as in verse 5. The recesses in the wall ran round the north, west, and south sides of the building; they were co-extensive, i.e; with the flats or side chambers], that the beams should not be fastened [Heb. that no fastening] into the walls of the house. [The meaning is perfectly clear, viz; that the timbers should not be let into the walls, ("they had not hold in the wall of the house," Ezekiel 41:6); but why this was forbidden is not quite so certain. According to Bהhr, it was in order to preserve the great and costly stones of the temple intact; but others, with greater probability, hold that it was because it appeared unseemly to have the side chambers, which were for semi-secular purposes (cubicles, perhaps), made an actual part of the sacred edifice. Anyhow, it is clear that the beams rested on ledges made in the walls; but whether in the temple wall only, or in the outer wall of the side structure also, is uncertain. The preceding sketch will not only illustrate the difference, but will help the reader to understand the description preceding. In drawing (1) rebatements are showed only in the temple or inner wall, In (2) they are showed in both walls. In (1) the edifice is represented with a fiat; in (2) with a span roof. Keil decides in favour of the first arrangement (1), and Bהhr says somewhat positively, "The outer wall of the structure had no rests." In fact, he suggests that the whole of this side building may have been of wood. It must be admitted that we do know that there were rebatements in the wall A, whereas nothing is said as to the outer wall B. It may also be reasonably alleged that the considerations of fitness and sacredness which forbade the insertion of the beams into the sanctuary wall would not apply to the outer wall, which was a part of the side structure only. Against this view, however, may be urged the extreme thickness of wall which this method of building would necessitate. For unless we suppose that the floor of the ground story rested on the rock, and so was quite detached from the building, we must suppose four rebatements, so that if the wall at the top were two cubits wide, it would be no less than six cubits (or nine feet) at the bottom. It is true that the walls of ancient buildings were of extraordinary thickness, but it must also be remembered that the temple was not fifty feet high. However, Ezekiel 41:9 suggests that the outside wall (B) may have been five cubits in thickness, and, if so, the inner wall would hardly be less. Fergusson, therefore, has some justification for putting each wall down as five cubits wide; but on the whole, perhaps, the plan represented in (1) appears the more probable. The historian here digresses for a moment to speak of the remarkable and, indeed, unprecedented way in which the temple was built, The stories were shaped and prepared beforehand in the quarry, so that there was nothing to do on their arrival in the temple area but to fit them into their place in the building.] 1 Kings 6:7 And the house, when it was in building, was built of stone made ready [Heb. perfect. This does not mean unhewn, though אֵבָנִים שְׁלְמוֹת is undoubtedly used in Deuteronomy 27:6 (cf. Exodus 20:25) of unhewn or virgin stone; and Gesenius would so understand the expression here, But the context seems rather to convey the idea that the stones were not shaped on the spot. It was apparently the belief of the ancients that stones of proper shape and size were provided in their bed by God (so Theodoret and Procopius,) It is inconceivable, however, that no dressing or preparation of any kind would be required; an idea, moreover, which is contradicted by 1 Kings 5:18. When Gardiner (in Bהhr, American edition) quotes Keil (in his earlier work) as understanding "all unviolated stones of the quarry," he hardly does justice to that author, who straightway adds, "that is, not altogether unhewn stones… but stones that were so hewn and wrought in the quarry that neither hammer," etc. (see below). Similarly Thehius and Bהhr] before it was brought thither [so the Authorized Version renders מַסָּע but mistakenly. It means, the quarry The verb נָסַע is used of quarrying in 1 Kings 5:1-18:31 (Heb.) Where was this quarry? The general idea is that it was in the Lebanon. And it is not to be denied that some of the massive substructions and cornerstones of the temple may have been brought from the mountain, along with the wood; but the bulk of the stone, there can be no doubt, was found much nearer home. Some of it, according to the Mishna (Middoth, 3.4), came from Bethlehem; but we can hardly be mistaken in believing that for the most part it was quarried in Jerusalem itself, under the very temple rock, and out of the vast caverns recovered some years ago by Dr. Barclay (see his "City of the Great King"), the "Royal Caverns" of Josephus. See "Quart. Journal," Pal. Explor. Fund (No. 7.), pp, 373, 374, and cf. p. 34. There are unmistakable evidences of these extensive caverns having served as a quarry. Not only are the walls cut straight, but rude masses are left here and there to support the roof, and, what is still more convincing, there are stones more or less cut out of the rock, and incisions are made where stones are to be quarried. There was no reason why the workmen should go far afield for stone when they had it, and of very excellent quality, at their own doors]: so that there was neither hammer [Heb. and hammers. Keil understands "finished stones of the quarry, and hammer, and axe." But the word "was built" (נִבְנֶה), coming as it does between "quarry" and "hammers," almost forbids this connexion] nor axe [Heb. the axe] nor any tool [Heb. every tool] of iron heard in the house, while it was building. [The historian remarks on this, not only because it was so unusual, but with the evident idea that it was a fulfilment of the spirit of the law (Deuteronomy 27:5, Deuteronomy 27:6), which required the altar to be of virgin stones, untouched by tool of iron. If the quarries are to be identified with the "Royal Caverns," it is easy to understand how the temple rose up in silence. 1 Kings 6:8 After recording this interesting and singular fact, the historian resumes his description of the side building. The door [or entrance, doorway, פֶתַח, as in 1 Kings 6:31] for [Heb. of] the middle chamber [generally understood to mean "the middle side chamber of the lower story." But this is by no means necessary, for (1) צֵלָע may signify the suite of rooms, i.e; the entire story or flat, as well as a single lean to or compartment, and (2) הַתִּי כֹנָה is used in the next clause of the middle story. This has led Thenius, Keil, Ewald, Bהhr, al. to substitute הַתַּחֲתּנָח (following the LXX. and Targum), which would give the sense of "lower story" (as in Ezekiel 41:7). Bהhr says this "must necessarily be read." That this emendation has much in its favour must be allowed, but it seems also certain that we get a perfectly clear meaning from the text as it stands, viz; that "the door (leading to) the middle floor was (on the ground floor) on the right side," etc. It is hardly likely that all the compartments on the ground floor had only one approach, and the doors which communicated with them may well have been passed over as requiring no special notice. But the historian feels it necessary to state how the second and third stories were reached, and the staircase which led to them causes him to speak of the position of the door which opened upon it] was in the right side [Heb. shoulder. This word (כֶתֶף) almost implies that the door was in the external wall of the side structure, not in the wall of the holy place (as Bottcher, al.) The fact that the floor joists were not inserted into the temple walls, as being inconsistent with the dignity of the sanctuary, makes it almost a certainty that there was no direct communication between the building and its dependance. It is very improbable that the walls of the house were anywhere broken through. The "right side" was the south side (1 Kings 7:39), i.e; the right, not as one faced the oracle, but, like the building, faced east. What was the exact position of the door, whether in the centre, or at either angle, it is impossible to say] of the house: and they went up with winding stairs [לוּלִים is only found here and in 2 Chronicles 3:1-17. The staircase was obviously unlike those of most Eastern buildings, within the side structure. Even if the outer wall was five cubits thick, of which we have no proof, it is very doubtful whether the staircase would or could be constructed within it] into [Heb. upon] the middle Chamber [or story], and out of the middle into the third. 1 Kings 6:9 So he built the house and finished it [i.e; the exterior (see on 1 Kings 6:14)] and covered [i.e; roofed, same word Deuteronomy 33:21; Jeremiah 22:14; Haggai 1:4. There is no reference to the lining of cedar which was applied to the interior. That is described in Haggai 1:15] the house with beams and boards [Heb. rows, ranks. The same word is used of soldiers 2 Kings 11:8, 2 Kings 11:15] of cedar. [It has been universally held till quite lately that the roof was either vaulted (Thenius) or flat (Bהhr, Keil). But Mr. Fergussen has alleged some reasons for believing that it was a span or gable roof. It is true that Oriental buildings almost invariably have externally flat(internally arched) roofs. In Palestine, because of the scarcity of timber, no other form is possible. But the temple, as we have seen, was constructed after the model of the tabernacle, and the latter, as the name almost implies, and as necessity would require, had a ridged roof. It does not necessarily follow, however, as Fergusson assumes, that the temple followed the tabernacle in this respect. It is obvious that when a "house was built unto the name of the Lord," the form of the tent might be abandoned as inappropriate. It is true that this shape would be consecrated to them by many centuries of use, but it is also possible that in a house it would strike them as altogether bizarre.] 1 Kings 6:10 And then [Heb. omits] he built chambers [Heb. the floor (הַיָּצִועַ). The word (masculine) is here again used of the entire side structure] against all the house, five cubits high [i.e; each story was five cubits (7.5 feet). The three stories would altogether measure fifteen cubits, and of course something must be allowed for joists, floors, etc. The entire height of the side structure (exterior) would consequently be about 18 or 20 cubits. And as the house was internally 30 cubits high, the exterior measurement would probably be about 32 cubits. It has hence been inferred that between the side structure and the top of temple wall there would be a clear space of 12 or 14 cubits, in which the windows were inserted. But this is based on the assumption that the side structure had a flat roof, which is by no means certain. If the roof leaned against the walls of the house, with a low pitch, there would still be space amply sufficient for the clerestory windows. Rawlinson’s diagram, which gives 80 cubits as the height from basement to ridge of roof, and only allows 20 cubits for height of walls, practically makes the house 20 instead of 30 cubits high, for it is hardly likely that it had an open roof. In fact, we know that it had a cieling (verse 14), which must have been at the height of 30 cubits house and side structure are represented with flat, in (2) with ridged or sloping roofs), unless there was an upper chamber above the house, as to which see verse 20. Rawlinson’s diagram has this further defect, that he allows nothing for thickness of joists, floors, and cielings. If we allow one cubit for each floor, then, on his plan, there would be little or no room left for the windows. This verse is hardly to be considered as a repetition of verse 5, the side structure being here mentioned in connexion with its height and the materials used in its construction] and they rested on [the meaning of the Heb. וַיֶּאֶחֹז has been much disputed. It is uncertain what is the nominative, Solomon (as in וַיִּבֶן), or the "floor" (just referred to in קוֹמָתוֹ). Gesenius understands the former, and renders, "he covered the house," etc. Thenius, "he fastened the floor," etc. Keil adopts the latter alternative, "it held to the house with cedar beams." It may be urged against this rendering (as also against Thenius’s) that beams which merely rested on the walls would hardly bind or hold the side structure to the main building. But it is almost impossible to decide between these interpretations. We may either render "he covered," etc. (with Chald; Vulg.) in which case verse 10 would agree with verse 9; or we may take the words to mean "it laid hold of, i.e; rested on] the house with timber of cedar. At this point the historian interrupts his description of the building to record the gracious promise made to the king during its erection. It should, perhaps, be stated that this (verses 11-14) is omitted in the Vat. LXX. But it has every mark of genuineness.] 1 Kings 6:11 And the word of the Lord came to Solomon [probably through the prophet Nathan. It cannot well have been a direct communication, for the second direct revelation is mentioned in 1 Kings 9:2 (cf. 1 Kings 3:5). The original promise was made by Nathan (2 Samuel 7:12). It seems exceedingly probable that the promise would be renewed through him if he were still alive] saying, 1 Kings 6:12 Concerning [or, as to. There is nothing, however, in the Hebrew] this house which thou art in building [כֹנֶה Cf. וַיִּבֶן, 1 Kings 6:5, 1 Kings 6:9, 1 Kings 6:10] if thou wilt walk in my statutes [the connexion of ideas seems to be this, "Thou art doing well to build the house; thou art fulfilling my good pleasure (2 Samuel 7:13); if thou wilt go on and in other matters wilt keep," etc. It is to be observed that this promise contains a faint note of warning. Possibly Solomon had already betrayed some slight tokens of declension], and execute my Judgments, and keep all my commandments to walk in them; then will I perform [literally, confirm. Same word as in 1 Kings 2:3. The "word of the Lord" is the echo of the word of David] my word with thee, which I spake unto David thy father [i.e; the word mentioned 1 Kings 2:4 and found 2 Samuel 7:12 sqq.]. 1 Kings 6:13 And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will not forsake my people Israel [cf. Deuteronomy 31:6. A fresh element is here introduced into the promise, arising out of the erection of the temple. God had pledged His presence to the tabernacle (Exodus 25:8; Exodus 29:45; cf. Le Exodus 26:11). And the temple was reared to be His dwelling place (1 Kings 8:13; 2 Chronicles 6:2). He now assures the royal builder that he will occupy it. "Jehovah Shammah" (Ezekiel 48:35). The covenant relation shall be more firmly established. 1 Kings 6:14 So Solomon built the house and finished it [though these words are a repetition of 1 Kings 6:9, yet they are not without significance. Encouraged by the promise just made, he proceeded with the interior, of which the narrative henceforth treats. 1 Kings 6:9 speaks of the finishing of the shell. 1 Kings 6:15 And he built [i.e; constructed, covered] the walls of the house within [but not without also, as Stanley affirms, "Its massive stonewalls were entirely cased in cedar, so as to give it the appearance of a rough log house"] with boards [or beams (צְלָעוֹת): same word as in 1 Kings 6:5-8] of cedar [Heb. cedars. The practice of covering stone walls with a lining of wood, which in turn was ornamented with gold or colour (Jeremiah 22:14), seems to have had its origin in Phoenicia (Bהhr), and may have been suggested to Solomon by his Zidonian workmen (Cf. 2 Chronicles 2:14), both the floor of the house and the walls of the cieling [This gives no sense and is against the Hebrew, which is as the marg.—"from the floor… unto the walls," etc. The expression walls of the cieling," though it may be taken to mean "the walls where they join the cieling," is peculiar, and the suggestion that for קִירוֹת walls, we should read קורות beams—the word of the parallel verse in 2 Chronicles—has everything in its favour. The LXX. reads εὥςτῶνδοκῶν]: and [omit] he covered them on the inside with wood [This is apparently a mere repetition. The A.V. would lead us to suppose that a fresh particular was stated. We learn from 2 Chronicles 3:6 that not only were the walls, or their wooden lining, covered with plates of gold, "gold of Parvaim," but they were likewise ornamented with precious stones], and he covered the floor of the house with planks of fir [see on 1 Kings 5:8]. 1 Kings 6:16 And he built twenty cubits on [Heb. from] the sides of the house both the floor and the walls [Heb. as in verse 15, "from the floor to the walls" (or beams). If קִירוֹת is a copyist’s error, it is repeated here] with boards of cedar [He is now speaking of the wooden partition which separated the oracle from the temple of the house. At a distance of 20 cubits, measured along the sides from the west end of the house, he erected a cedar wall which reached from the floor to the cieling] he even built them [i.e; the 20 cubits] for it [the house] within [The meaning is clear, though the construction is somewhat involved, viz; that he reared this partition inside the house to separate a portion for the oracle] even for the oracle [Heb. an oracle] even for the most holy place [Heb. for the holy of holies]. 1 Kings 6:17 And the house, that is, the temple before it [or, the anterior temple. The portion of the structure before the oracle is sometimes called, as here, "the house;" sometimes (as in ver, 5) "the temple; sometimes (as in 1 Kings 6:4) "the temple of the house;" or, as here again, "the front temple," לִפְנַי is supposed to be an adjective formed from לִפְנֵי. Thenius, however, supposes that דְּבִיר (oracle) has fallen out of the text. Our author now describes the division of the building into holy and most holy place] was forty cubits long. 1 Kings 6:18 And the cedar of the house within [lit. cedar (wood) was placed against the house inside] was carved with knops [Heb. sculpture of gourds. The sculpture is in apposition to cedar. The authorities are divided as to the kind of sculpture intended. Keil thinks they were bassi relievi; Bהhr contends that, like those of the Egyptian monuments, they were sunken, פְּקָעִים is generally assumed to be synonymous with פְּקֻעֹת "squirting cucumbers" (2 Kings 4:39, note). Bהhr, however, justly observes that a deadly fruit, such as this is described to have been, was hardly likely to be employed in the decoration of the sanctuary, and he would render the word "buds." Keil thinks the gourds were oval ornaments, something like the wild gourd, which ran in rows along the walls. See the illustration, "Slab from Kouyunjik," Dict. Bib. 2 p. 49] and open flowers [lit. burstings of flowers. These words again are very variously interpreted. Thenius: festoons of flowers; Keil: open flower buds; Gesen.: expanded flowers]: all was cedar; there was no stone seen. [Really, the cedar was no more seen than the stone, for this in turn was overlaid with gold (verse 22.)] 1 Kings 6:19 And the oracle [Heb. an oracle. Heb. דְּבִיר probably from דָּבַר speak. Sc Jerome,oraculum; and Aquila and Symm. χρηματιστήριον. Gesenius, Bähr, al; however, interpret the word to mean the hinder part, adytum] he prepared in the house within [lit. in the midst of the house within, i.e; between the Holy Place and the end structure] to set there [the principal purpose which the oracle served. תִתֵּן = תֵּת with repeated syllable. Cf. 1 Kings 17:14, Ken] the ark of the covenant of the Lord. 1 Kings 6:20 And the oracle in the forepart [or, the interior of the oracle. Keil, after Kimchi, maintains that לִפְנֵי is the construct of the noun לִפְנִים. See 1 Kings 6:29, where it clearly means interior, as its opposition to "without" shows. The A.V. yields no sense] was twenty cubits in length, and twenty cubits in breadth, and twenty cubits in the height thereof [that is to say, it was a perfect cube. When we consider that the oracle of the tabernacle was a cube of ten cubits and the Holy City (Revelation 21:16; cf. Ezekiel 48:8-35, especially Ezekiel 48:20) is a cube of 12,000 furlongs, we cannot but regard these measurements as significant. To the ancients the square seemed the most appropriate shape to express the idea of moral perfection. The idea of the cube consequently was that of entire completeness, of absolute perfection. A little light is thrown on this subject by the use of τετράγωνος among the Greeks. See the quotation from Simonides in Plat. Protag. 334 A; Arist. Rhet. 1 Kings 3:11; Eth. Nic. 1 Kings 1:10, 1 Kings 1:11, and compare the familiar "totus teres atque rotundus." The height of the oracle (internally) being only twenty cubits, while that of the house was thirty (1 Kings 1:2), several questions of some interest suggest themselves for consideration. It is perhaps impossible in the present state of our knowledge to arrive at any very positive conclusions, but it may be well, nevertheless, if only to show in how much uncertainty the architecture of the temple is involved, to state them. First among them is this: Was the roof of the temple flat or ridged? (See above on 1 Kings 1:9). (2) In either case, was the height of thirty cubits, or any uniform height, maintained throughout, or was the roof of the oracle some ten cubits lower than that of the house? The analogy of the tabernacle, of which the temple was a copy, would lead us to suppose that the ridge—if there was a ridge—of the entire building was level and unbroken, though the analogy of the Gothic church, which, we have already seen, is almost a reproduction of the temple, suggests that the oracle may possibly have had a lower roof. But (3) supposing the same height was maintained from end to end, to what use, if any, was the vacant space of ten cubits (15 feet) between cieling and roof of oracle applied? It has been held by some that there was a chamber here, but that it was empty, being formed, in fact, not for use, but in order to procure the cubical shape of the oracle. Others contend that this upper room, or one which ran the entire length of the building, was designed to serve as a receptacle for the reliques of the tabernacle, and they would identify it with the עֲלִיות. (LXX, τὸὑπερῷον) of 2 Chronicles 3:9. And untrustworthy as Josephus is when not supported by independent evidence, it is worth mentioning here that beth he and the Talmud "persistently assert that there was a superstructure on the temple equal in height to the lower part", and that it was used for worship (2 Kings 23:12), where see note). Bähr, however, argues forcibly against this idea. He says, inter alia, that there was no approach provided to these chambers; but our account is so manifestly imperfect that this argument is at the best a precarious one. He sees in the "upper chambers" (the Hebrew word is plural) the upper stories of the side structure. He agrees, however, with Ewald that there was a chamber over the oracle, but thinks it was unoccupied. Keil identifies this space with the "upper chambers" of 2 Chronicles 3:9, and upon the whole this appears to be the most feasible view. (4) How was the cieling, whether with or without this upper chamber, and whether at the height of twenty or thirty cubits—how was it supported? For "no cedar beam could be laid across a space of twenty cubits without sinking in the centre by its own weight." Fergusson hence argues that the roof must have been carried on pillars—four in the sanctuary and ten in the hall. He remarks that they were used in the house of the Forest of Lebanon, where they were less suitable than here]: and he overlaid it [lit. made it shine] with pure gold [marg. shut up (from סָגַר clausit). Cf. Job 28:15 (Heb.) The same gold is described as טָהוֹר (Exodus 25:11) and טוֹב (2 Chronicles 3:8). It is called "shut up gold," not because it was concealed (κειμέλιον), but because of the exclusion of impure ingredients (Vulg. aurum purissimum). The lavish use of gold in the interior of the temple—its weight 600 talents, its value almost incalculable—was not for mere display (for most of it was never seen except by the priests), but was symbolical of light and purity (Job 37:22, Job 37:23; Revelation 21:18), and stamped the place as the abode of Him who dwelleth in light (1 Timothy 6:16). See Bähr in loc. The palace of the Lord must be "exceeding magnifical." The overlaying was not gilding, but laminae of gold were attached to the woodwork with nails. This art was probably derived from Egypt (Exodus 25:11, Exodus 25:13). Egyptian figures ornamented with gold plates are found both in the Louvre and British Museum. See Wilkinson, "Ancient Egyptians," 2. p. 233 sqq.) Rawlinson remarks that "such ornamentation was common in Babylon, in Assyria, and in Media." See Isaiah 46:6; Herod. 1:98; Layard, 2:264. In addition to the gold, the house was garnished with precious stones (2 Chronicles 3:6). Cf. 1 Chronicles 29:2, 1 Chronicles 29:8]; and so covered the [Heb. an] altar which was of cedar. [The italics in the A.V. lead us to suspect a mistranslation, and such it proves to be. What the writer means, supposing the present text to be retained, is, not that Solomon covered the cedar altar with gold, but that he overlaid the (stone?) altar with cedar. It is true the article is wanting, but this may perhaps be accounted for by the fact that the altar is now mentioned for the first time (Keil). It is much more probable, however, that the text has been slightly corrupted. The LXX. reads, καὶἐποίησεθυσιαστήριον (Cod. Alex. adds κέδρου,), which proves that the Seventy had וַיַּעַשׂ instead of וַיְּצַף in their text. If so, the absence of the article is at once explained, and an unmeaning repetition in verse 22 avoided. The mention of the altar—of course it is the altar of incense that is meant: the altar of burnt sacrifice was outside the building—in connexion with the oracle is significant. In verse 22 it is called the "altar that (belonged) to the oracle," because it stood just outside it. In the tabernacle it was placed "before the vail" (Exodus 30:6; Exodus 40:5, Exodus 40:26; Le Exodus 16:12-18), and it occupied this position because the incense burned upon it was offered before the Invisible Presence within. It is an argument in favour of the textual emendation suggested above that the altar in the tabernacle was of wood (Exodus 30:1), and that Ezekiel speaks of the "altar of wood" (Ezekiel 41:22), the altar of sacrifice being of earth stones (Exodus 20:24, Exodus 20:25), or brass (2 Chronicles 4:1) If we retain the Received Text we are almost compelled to believe that this altar was also of stone, as they would hardly cover a wooden altar with wood. 1 Kings 6:21 So [Heb. And. The ornamentation of the holy place is next mentioned] Solomon overlaid the house [as well as the oracle] within with pure gold: and he made a partition by the chains of gold before the oracle [These words are extremely obscure. The prevailing view is that of Gesenius, al; that יַעֲבֵּר = "he bolted," etc. But, if so, what did the chains bolt? Bהhr says, the boards of the cedar partition, just as the bars fastened together the boards of the tabornacle (Exodus 26:26-29). Gesen. himself understands the doors, "he bolted the doors of the oracle," so as to keep them closed, except on the day of atonement. But the literal rendering is, "he carried over with chains of gold before the oracle," where nothing is said of either boards or doors. The more natural interpretation, therefore, would perhaps be: he carried on the gold plates of the house in chains of gold across the partition, and so fastened it to the side walls. Perhaps this was done to avoid any fracture of, or insertion into, the stonework]; and he overlaid it [What? Keil says, the cedar altar last mentioned at the end of verse 20. But the altar has now dropped out of the reader’s, and therefore presumably out of the writer’s mind. It would be more natural to understand the words of the oracle just mentioned, but the adornment of the oracle has already been related (verse 20), and it is hardly likely that having stated that it was covered with pure gold in one verse, he would mention that it was overlaid with gold in the next. It looks as if the cedar partition were referred to, the boards "before the oracle"] with gold. 1 Kings 6:22 And the whole house he overlaid with gold [This no mere repetition, more Hebraico, as Bהhr and Keil would have us think. Something additional must surely be referred to, and 2 Chronicles 3:4 warrants us in understanding this statement to include the porch, the interior of which was gilded. Because the porch is elsewhere (2 Chronicles 3:3) distinguished from the "house," it does not follow that it can never be comprehended under that term] until he had finished all the house: also [Heb. and]. the altar that was by [Heb. to. See on verse 20] the oracle he overlaid with gold. 1 Kings 6:23 And within the oracle [The description now passes on to the mysterious symbolic figures which were placed in the holy of holies] he made two cherubims [As to the nature, composition, and significance of the cherubim, see notes on Exodus 25:19; Exodus 37:7. The only particulars which will require notice here are those in which the cherub of the temple differed from that of the tabernacle] of olive tree [Heb. trees or wood of oil. The oleaster (wild olive) is supposed to be intended, the proper name for the olive tree being זַיִת (Nehemiah 8:15). The wood of the oleaster, which is firm, fine grained, and durable, was used by the Greeks for the images of their gods (Winer). The cherubim of the tabernacle were of solid gold; those of the temple, on account of their great size (fifteen feet high) were necessarily of less costly material. But though of wood, yet the most durable and beautiful of wood, the olive, was employed in their construction. It is noticeable how olive wood is employed for the cherubim and doors of oracle, and for the posts of the temple doorway; the less precious cedar was used for lining the walls and for Beams, etc; while for the floor and doors of house, the commoner cypress sufficed], each ten cubits high. [Half the height of the oracle. They occupied its entire width (verse 24). 1 Kings 6:24 And five cubits was the one wing of the cherub, and five cubits the other wing of the cherub: from the uttermost part of the one wing unto the uttermost part of the other were ten cubits. [As the four wings alone covered the whole extent of the oracle, each pair must clearly have been in contact on the body of the cherub.] 1 Kings 6:25 And the other cherub was ten cubits; both the cherubims were of . We also learn that they "stood on their feet" and, unlike the cherubim of the tabernacle, which faced each other (Exodus 27:9), faced the throne, i.e; the cedar partition, and the east. The object of this arrangement probably was to enable the wings to be stretched out across the sanctuary. In the tabernacle the wings were "spread out on high" (Exodus 25:20; Exodus 27:9). In both cases the ark and mercy seat were placed under the overshadowing wings (2 Chronicles 8:6). There would be a clear space of eight or nine cubits between the bodies of the cherubim, and the ark only measured 2.5 cubits (Exodus 25:10) in length and 1.5 cubits in breadth. Unlike Ezekiel’s cherubim (Ezekiel Ezekiel 1:1-28, Ezekiel 10:1-22; cf. Revelation 4:7), these had apparently but one face. The cherub was not a simple, but a complex being, having no unalterable and fixed form. See Bהhr, Symbolik, 1. pp. 313, 314; Dict. Bib. vol. 1. pp. 301-303. 1 Kings 6:28 And he overlaid the cherubims with gold. 1 Kings 6:29 And he carved all the walls of the house round about with carved figures of cherubims [lit. openings, i.e; gravings or indentations of cherubim, פִּתּוּחִים is used of gravings in stone, Exodus 28:11; Exodus 39:6: in metal, Exodus 28:36; Exodus 39:30] and palm trees and open flowers [The open flowers may well have been lilies (1 Kings 7:19, 1 Kings 7:22, 1 Kings 7:26). It is uncertain whether there were one or more rows of cherubim and palms. Keil, arguing from the analogy of Egyptian temples, contends for two or three rows, but it is doubtful how far the Israelites, notwithstanding their new and intimate relations with the country, would take Egypt and its idolatrous shrines for a model. Ezekiel 41:18 tends to show that the palm trees alternated with the cherubs. The cherubim may have had two faces, such as he describes (Ezekiel 41:19), the face of a man on the one side, and the face of a young lion on the other side; but if so, they must have differed in form from those of the oracle. Possibly the open flowers formed a border, or were sculptured in festoons, above, and the gourds (or buds) formed a border below (as in the Kouyunjik slab). But as to this the text is silent. But while we are ignorant of the precise form and of the arrangement of these ornamental carvings, we are not wholly in the dark as to their symbolism. For everything in the temple, we may be sure, had a meaning. Let us inquire, then, into the significance of the cherubim, the palms and the flowers. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ SOLOMON’S PALACES AND THE OF THE TEMPLE VESSELS.—The first twelve verses of this chapter constitute a break in the long account of the Temple, its furniture and its consecration. The historian having described the Temple buildings, before he passes on to speak of their contents pauses for a moment to record a few particulars as to the building of the suite of palaces which next occupied Solomon’s attention. The LXX; possibly following an older arrangement, but more probably (see next note) adopting an apparently more logical and methodical order, relegates this section to the end of the chapter. 1 Kings 7:1 But Solomon was building his own house thirteen years [There is no contrast implied between the time spent upon the temple and that occupied in the building of the palace, as the word "but" seems to suggest. The close connexion which exists in the original is interrupted by the division of chapters. In 1 Kings 6:38 we read, "So was he seven years in building it." 1 Kings 7:1 then proceeds, "And he was building his own house thirteen years." The much longer period occupied in the erection of the royal palace is easily accounted for. In the first place, the buildings were much larger, and the undertaking altogether was a much more extensive one (1 Kings 7:2). Then, though seven years only were consumed in the actual building of the temple, yet preparations for the work had been made, both by David and Solomon, for a long time beforehand. Lastly, a special force of labourers would appear to have been employed on the temple, while it is probable that they wrought at the palaces in greatly diminished numbers. So that the longer period spent over his own house does not argue selfishness or worldliness on Solomon’s part. On the contrary, it speaks well for his piety that he built the temple first and urged on that sacred work with so much vigour. The thirteen years date from the completion of the seven years of 1 Kings 6:38. That is to say, the building of the temple and palace together occupied twenty years, as is expressly stated in 1 Kings 9:10. It is therefore one of Stanley’s reckless statements that the palace "was commenced at the same time as the temple, but not finished till eight years afterwards"], and he finished all his house. [By Solomon’s "house" we are not to understand his private palace, or residence proper, alone (see 1 Kings 9:8), but a range of palaces, more or less connected including the "house of the forest of Lebanon" (1 Kings 9:2), "the porch of pillars" (1 Kings 9:6), the throne-room or judgment hall (1 Kings 9:7), his own house and the house of Pharaoh’s daughter (1 Kings 9:8). That all these are comprehended under the term "house" is evident from 1 Kings 9:1, 1 Kings 9:10, 1 Kings 9:15; 1 Kings 10:12, where Solomon’s buildings are always spoken of as two, viz; "the house of the Lord" and the "king’s house." The situation of this string of palaces is by no means certain. Josephus says it stood over against (or opposite) the temple, which is highly probable; but this still leaves the question of site open, for the palace would be justly described as ἄντικρυςἔχωνναὸν, whether it stood west or south of the sanctuary. Ewald places it on the opposite ridge of Ophel, i.e; on the south prolongation of the temple mount; while Fergusson, Bähr, etc; locate it on the northeast side of Zion, on the opposite side of the Tyropoean valley, and overlooking it and the whole city of David. Recent explorations seem to favour Ewald’s view. See "Recovery of Jerusalem," pp. 319 sqq, and "Our Work in Palestine," p. 159 sqq. When we remember that the very site of Zion is disputed, it will not surprise the reader that questions of this kind should be involved in uncertainty. And when it is further considered that the accumulated debris of Jerusalem at one point reaches a depth of 120 feet, it will be readily understood what obstacles stand in the way of their settlement.] 1 Kings 7:2 He built also [Heb. and he built. The A.V. rendering almost contradicts the view just advanced, viz; that the house of the forest of Lebanon was part of "all the house" (verse 1)] the house of the forest of Lebanon [so called, not because it was a summer residence in Lebanon, as some have supposed, nor yet merely because it was built of Lebanon cedar, but because it displayed, a perfect thicket or forest (יַעַר) of cedar pillars]; the length thereof was one hundred cubits [the temple proper was 60], and the breadth thereof fifty cubits [The temple was but 20. It does not follow that this space of 100 x 50 cubits was all roofed in, for it would seem as if the house was built round a courtyard. Rawlinson remarks that a roof of 75 feet is "much greater than is ever found in Assyria." But it is by no means certain that there was any such roof here], and the height thereof thirty cubits [the same as the temple], upon four rows of cedar pillars [How these were disposed of, or what was their number, it is impossible to say. Thenius says they were 400, but this is pure conjecture. The description is so meagre and partial that it is impossible to form a correct idea of the building. The remark made above (Hebrews 6:1-20. Introd. Note) as to the temple applies with still greater force to the palaces. "There are few tasks more difficult or puzzling than the attempt to restore an ancient building of which we possess nothing but two verbal descriptions; and these difficulties are very much enhanced when one account is written in a language like Hebrew, the scientific terms in which are, from our ignorance, capable of the widest latitude of interpretation, and the other, though written in a language of which we have a more definite knowledge, was composed by a person who could never have seen the building he was describing"], with cedar beams [כְרֻתוֹת, cut or hewn beams] upon the pillars. [This palace, according to Fergusson, was "the great hall of state and audience" and the principal building of the range. But if it was this, which is very doubtful, for the throne was in the hall of judgment (1 Kings 5:7), it would seem to have served other purposes besides that of an audience-chamber. Among other things, it was certainly an armoury (1 Kings 10:17. cf. Isaiah 22:8). The Arab. Verses calls it "the house of his arms." Possibly it was also the residence of the bodyguard (cf. 1 Kings 14:28 with 1 Kings 10:17). Bהhr observes that the arrangement of the palaces accords with the Jewish conceptions of the kingly office. The first, the armoury, represents him in his militant character (1 Samuel 8:20), the second in his judicial function (1 Samuel 8:5, 1 Samuel 8:6; 2 Samuel 15:4; 1 Kings 3:9), while the third shows him in his private capacity.] 1 Kings 7:3 And it was covered [or roofed] with cedar above [cf. 1 Kings 6:9, 1 Kings 6:15] upon the beams [צְלָעוֹת lit; ribs, the word used in 1 Kings 6:5 of the side chambers, and in 1 Kings 6:34 (in the masculine) of the leaves of the doors], that lay on forty-five pillars, fifteen in a row. [Rawlinson, al. are much exercised to reconcile this statement with that of 1 Kings 6:2, which speaks of four rows, But the explanation is very simple, viz; that the "forty-five, fifteen in a row" does not refer to the pillars but to the side chambers or compartments (A.V; "beams"). The description is so very loose and general that positive statements are out of place, but the meaning certainly appears to be this, that there was a roofing of cedar over the side chambers (which rested upon the pillars mentioned in 1 Kings 6:2) forty-five in number, fifteen in a row. It is true the Masoretic punctuation is against this view. It is also clear that the LXX. understood the numbers forty-five and fifteen to refer to the pillars, for they have essayed to cut the knot by reading three rows instead of "four rows," in 1 Kings 6:2. Similarly the Arab. in 1 Kings 6:3 reads sixty instead of forty-five; obviously another desperate attempt to solve the difficulty by a corruption of the text. But the solution suggested above is so simple and natural that we can hardly be wrong in adopting it. Bהhr says positively that forty-five pillars could not have supported a structure 100 cubits by 50 cubits, "nor could the building have been named ’ forest of Lebanon’ from forty-five scattered pillars." It would follow hence, that there were side chambers only on three sides of the building, as was the case in the temple. And if (as has been inferred from 1 Kings 6:4, 1 Kings 6:5) a three-storied structure is here described; if, that is to say, the forty-five chambers were divided fifteen to a tier or story, it is highly probable that they would be distributed six to each long side and three to the rear (Bהhr). This arrangement—a court surrounded by a colonnade and galleries—is still found in the East; as all travellers know. And in its favour it may be said that it is such as to have been suggested by the plan of the temple. The ground plan is the same, with this difference, that a courtyard occupies the place of the temple proper.] 1 Kings 7:4 And there were windows [שְׁקֻפִים same word as in 1 Kings 6:4, i.e; beams or lattices. Keil understands, beam layers; and Bהhr, ubergelegte Balken. The LXX. has πλευρῶν] in three rows [or tiers. All we can say is that there is a possible reference to three stories formed by the three rows of beams], and light [lit; outlook. מֶחְזָה probably means a wide outlook. LXX. χῶρα, aspectus, prospectus] was against light in three ranks [Heb. three times. The meaning is that the side chambers were so built and arranged that the rooms had their windows exactly vis-a-vis in each of the three stories. Josephus explains, θυρώμασιτριγλύφοις, windows in three divisions, but this is no explanation of the words "light against light," etc. Fergusson understands the three outlooks to mean, first, the clerestory windows (that there was a clerestory he infers from Josephus Ant; 7.5. 2), who describes this palace as "in the Corinthian manner," which cannot mean, he says, "the Corinthian order, which was not then invented, but after the fashion of a Corinthian oecus, which was a hall with a clerestory"); (2) a range of openings under the cornice of the walls; and (3) a range of open doorways. But all this is conjecture. 1 Kings 7:5 And all the doors and posts [For מְזוּזֹת roF[ s posts, Thenius would read מֶהְזוֹת outlooks, after 1 Kings 7:4, which seems a natural emendation, especially as the LXX. has χῶραι. We should then get the sense of "doors and windows "] were square of beam. [The word translated "windows" in 1 Kings 7:4; the proper rendering is beam, and the meaning apparently is that all these openings were square in shape. Nothing is said about the height of the rooms, and as the commentators are not agreed whether there was one story or three, that can obviously be only matter of conjecture. Rawlinson, who thinks of but one hall, with three rows of windows, supposes, after Houbigant, that one row was placed in a wall which ran down the middle of the apartment. Such an arrangement, he observes, was found by Layard at Nimrud.] 1 Kings 7:6 And he made a porch of pillars [Heb. the porch of pillars. This was no doubt a covered colonnade, i.e; it had a roof but no sides. The pillars were its only walls. But here the question presents itself, Was this porch the vestibule of the house of the forest of Lebanon, just described? From the correspondence between its width and that of this palace, Rawlinson infers that it was (cf. 1 Kings 6:2, 1 Kings 6:3). Bähr believes it to have been the porch or entrance to the hall of judgment mentioned in the next verse, while Fergusson again assigns it an independent position, separate from either. The term porch (אוּלָם), the meaning of which is surely determined by its use in Hebrews 6:1-20; almost implies that it must have served as the entrance or vestibule to some building. But the size, and the fact that it had itself a porch (see below), favour the idea that it was an independent structure, though Rawlinson shows that "most of the Persepolitan porches had small pillared chambers at some little distance in front of them," and refers to the Egyptian propylaea. Keil argues that this pillar hall, as he calls it, stood between the house of the forest of Lebanon and the judgment hall. Bהhr, as remarked above, sees in it the anterior part of the judgment hall, which latter, he adds, bore to it the same relation that the oracle did to the temple house. He observes that as the ark was in the oracle, so the throne (1 Kings 10:18) found a place in the hall of judgment. This structure, therefore, with its porch, mentioned presently, would reproduce the main features of the temple arrangement. We see, consequently, that both the house of the forest of Lebanon and the porch of pillars followed in their outline the ground plan of the temple. Nor is this at all surprising, considering that all these edifices probably had the same architect or designer]; the length thereof was fifty cubits [the length, i.e; according to the view last advanced of the two divisions of the building, viz; the porch of pillars and the porch of judgment. But the correspondence of the length (or width—the same word is used of the width of the temple porch 1 Kings 6:3) of this porch with the width of the house of the forest of Lebanon is, to say the least, remarkable, and suggests that after all it may have been the porch of that building. If so, the resemblance to the temple would be still more striking], and the breadth [depth?] thereof thirty cubits: and the porch [Heb. a porch] was before them [i.e; the pillars. The words can only mean that a smaller porch stood before the porch of pillars, or colonnade]: and the other [omit] pillars [i.e; the pillars of the minor vestibule or fore porch] and the thick beam [Heb. threshold] were before them. [The broad threshold, approached by steps, and the pillars which it supported, together with the roof which covered them, formed the front part and approach to the larger porch or colonnade.] 1 Kings 7:7 Then he made a porch [or the porch] for the throne where he might Judge [i.e; it was at once audience chamber (throne room, 1 Kings 10:18) and court of justice], even the porch of judgment [Stanley remarks that this "porch, or gate of justice, still kept alive the likeness of the old patriarchal custom of sitting in judgment at the gate." He then refers to the "gate of justice" at Granada and the "Sublime Porte "at Constantinople. It is, perhaps, not quite so certain that "this porch was the gem and centre of the whole empire," or that because it was so much thought of a similar but smaller porch was erected for the queen (1 Kings 7:8)]: and it was covered with cedar from one side of the floor to the other. [Heb. from the floor to the floor, as marg. Gesenius understands these words to mean, "from one floor to the other," i.e; to the cieling (the floor of the other story); in other words, the walls from bottom to top. So the Vulg; a pavimento usque ad summitatem, and Syr; a fundamento ad coelum ejus usque, which have led Thenius to suggest the reading עַד קּוֹרוֹת (unto the beams) instead of עַדהַקַּרְקַע. Keil thinks the ceiling served as the floor of an upper story, built over the porch of judgment, but, as Bהhr observes, no such upper story is even hinted at elsewhere. It seems to me that, on the whole, the A.V. rendering is to be retained, the meaning being that the whole space, both of wall and cieling, from one side of the floor to the opposite side, was covered with cedar.] 1 Kings 7:8 And his house where he dwelt [i.e; his private residence. Not to be identified with the" house" of 1 Kings 7:1. The term is here expressly restricted to his dwelling house. There it as clearly includes all the several palaces] had [or was. The "court" is apparently in apposition to "his house." The words in italics, here as elsewhere, merely darken the sense] another [Heb. the hinder] court within [For the use of מִבֵּית לְ = within, compare 1 Kings 6:16; Numbers 18:7, and see Gesen; Thesaur. 1:193] the porch, which was of the like work [i.e; the walls were covered with cedar. The reference is clearly to materials, adornment, etc; not to size]. Solomon made also an house for Pharaoh’s daughter, whom he had taken to wife [Heb. he made also a house for … whom Solomon had taken, i.e; married], like unto this porch. [This would seem to have been the private residence of the queen, not the harem where all the wives and concubines (1 Kings 11:3) were collected. It was evidently distinct from and behind the residence of the king, an arrangement which still prevails in Eastern palaces.] 1 Kings 7:9 All these [i.e.buildings ,palaces] were of costly [or precious; cf. 1 Kings 5:1-18:31 and 1 Kings 5:10, 1 Kings 5:11] stones, according to the measures of hewed stones [lit; of squaring or hewing, same word in 1 Kings 5:1-18:31 (Hebrews), 1 Kings 6:36, and Isaiah 9:9, etc. All the stones in these several buildings were shaped to certain specified dimensions], sawed with saws [גָּרַר is obviously an onomatopoetic word, like our saw. Gesenius cites σαίρω, serro, etc. The Egyptians, whose saws were apparently all single handed, do not seem to have applied this instrument to stone, but part of a double-handed saw was found at Nimrud. That saws were in common use and were made of iron is implied in 2 Samuel 12:31], within and without [It is not quite clear whether the meaning is that the two surfaces exposed to view, one within and the other without, the building were shaped with saws, or that the inner and hidden surface of the stone was thus smoothed as well as the exposed parts], even from the foundation unto the coping [or corbels. It is generally agreed (Gesen; Keil, Bight) that the reference is to the "projecting stones on which the beams rest," though Thenius would understand battlements (Deuteronomy 22:8) to be intended. But for these a different word is always used, and the LXX γεῖσος signifies the projection of the roof, not an erection upon it], and so on the outside toward the great court [i.e; the pavement of the court was of sawed stones (see 2 Samuel 12:12).] 1 Kings 7:10 And the foundation was of costly stones, even great stones [Bähr says, "Even the foundations which from without were not seen, were composed of these great stones." But the meaning evidently is that the foundation stones were larger than those reared upon them], stones of ten cubits [i.e; ten cubits long, and of proportionate width, etc.], and stones of eight cubits. [The foundations of the palaces, consequently, were much less than those of the temple platform, some of which would measure 16 cubits. See note on 1 Kings 5:17. 1 Kings 7:11 And above [i.e; upon the foundation stones just described] were costly stones, after the measures of hewed stones [It is implied here that the stones of the superstructure were less than those of the foundation. It is also implied that the former were more carefully smoothed and. faced than the latter] and cedars. [Heb. cedar.] 1 Kings 7:12 And the great court round about [The palace, again like the temple, had two courts. The lesser is referred to in 1 Kings 7:8, and was enclosed among the buildings. The great court probably surrounded the entire structure] was [enclosed by a wall] with three rows of hewed stones, and a row of cedar beams [The latter formed the coping. The wall of the court of the palace thus resembled that of the temple. See on 1 Kings 6:36. In all these coincidences we have tokens of the same designing hand], both for the inner court of the house of the Lord. [This sudden digression from the court of the palace to the temple is suspicious, and suggests either a mistranslation or corruption of the text. The historian evidently meant to say that the wall of the court, in its three rows of stones and its cedar coping, resembled the inner court of the temple; and, according to some grammarians (Gesen; Ewald), this meaning may well be conveyed by the text as it stands, åin Hebrew serving sometimes to institute a comparison (Proverbs 25:3, Proverbs 25:12, Proverbs 25:20; Proverbs 26:14, etc.) "As in the court," etc. But the instances just cited, being proverbs or apophthegms, are not strictly parallel with our text. It seems better, on the whole, however, to retain the text in this sense than to replace. åby ,ë reading כלחצר or כחצר for ולחצר. כהחצר (Horsley) is quite inadmissible, as the constr, case never has the art.], and for the porch of the house. [It is almost impossible to decide whether the porch of judgment (1 Kings 6:7) or the porch of the temple is here meant. The immediate context favours the latter. But this does not seem to have had any court or enclosing wall other than the inner court. Rawlinson decides for the porch of judgment, "which," he says, "had a planking of cedar over the stone pavement" (1 Kings 6:7). But 1 Kings 6:7 (where see note) rather excludes than in-eludes the pavement. The reference is probably to the "court within the porch," mentioned in 1 Kings 6:8. After this brief account of the royal palaces, the author proceeds to mention the vessels, etc; used in the temple service, prefacing his description by a few words respecting the great Tyrian artist, by whom they were for the most part cast, and possibly designed also. 1 Kings 7:13 And king Solomon sent [rather, had sent (2 Chronicles 2:13)] and fetched Hiram out of Tyre. [This is our historian’s brief version of the transaction which is recorded in 2 Chronicles 2:7-14. He has not mentioned before (1 Kings 5:6) Solomon’s request for a master builder. Hiram, like his namesake the king, is elsewhere (2 Chronicles 2:18; 2 Chronicles 4:11, 2 Chronicles 4:16) called Huram or Hirom (verse 40). See note on 1 Kings 5:1. In the first of these passages the king calls him "Huram my father" (see note there); in the last he is designated "Huram his father." The title "Ab" (cf. Genesis 45:8, 41, 43; 2 Kings 2:12; 2 Kings 5:13; 2 Kings 6:21; cf. 1 Kings 8:9) shows the high esteem in which he was held. It can hardly be, as some have supposed, a proper name. It may signify "counsellor," or master, i.e; master builder. The Tyrians evidently regarded him with some pride.] 1 Kings 7:14 He was a widow’s son of the tribe of Naphtali [In 2 Chronicles 2:14 he is described as the "son of a woman of the daughters of Daniel" The discrepancy is only apparent. For in the first place it is not absolutely necessary to understand by Dan the tribe of that name. It may well refer to the town, formerly Leshem (Joshua 19:47), or Laish (Judges 18:7, Judges 18:27), colonised by the Danites, and thenceforward bearing their name (verse 29), which was situated within the borders of Naphtali. If, however, it is preferred to see in the "daughters of Dan" a tribal reference, we may suppose (with Keil, al.) that the woman was originally a Danite, but became, through her first husband, "of the tribe of Naphtali." But the first explanation is the more simple and obvious], and his father was a man of Tyre [i.e; Hiram was the son (not stepson, or adopted son, as the Rabbins) of a mixed marriage. In earlier times Laish had but little intercourse with the Zidonians (Judges 18:28). It is nowhere stated that the inhabitants were of Phoenician extraction; nor can it be justly inferred from this passage], a worker in brass [or copper. Brass is a compound of copper and zinc; but נְחשֶׁת originally and strictly signifies a pure metal (Deuteronomy 8:9; Deuteronomy 33:25, etc.; Job 28:2). There were copper mines in Palestine, and the art of working this metal was known at a very remote period. In later times the word sometimes denoted brass (χαλκός), or copper-bronze Ca mixture of copper and tin). Cf. Jeremiah 6:28. From 2 Chronicles 2:14 we learn that Hiram was "skilful to work in gold and in silver in brass, in iron, in stone, and in timber," etc. From the mention of brass only in this passage, and in verse 45, it has been somewhat hastily concluded that "the work that he personally did for Solomon" was "limited to works in brass" (Rawlinson). It is, perhaps, safer to say that brass only is mentioned here, because the following section treats exclusively of the brazen ornaments, etc; of the sanctuary (Keil). It would almost seem, however (see note on verse 48), as if he was not employed to make the vessels of gold. Nor does this supposition really contradict the statement made below, viz; that he wrought all Solomon’s work]: and he was filled with wisdom, and understanding, and cunning [or knowledge, as the same word is rendered Exodus 31:3, where similar language is used of Bezaleel. It is noticeable, however, that the words "filled with the spirit of God," used of the Hebrew, are not applied to the Tyrian workman] to work all works in brass. And he came to king Solomon [probably with a considerable number of assistants], and wrought all his work. 1 Kings 7:15 For he cast two pillars of brass [The process of casting, as practised by the ancients, receives considerable illustration from the paintings of Thebes], of eighteen cubits high apiece [Heb. eighteen cubits was the height of the one column. This was the height of the shaft (cf. 2 Kings 25:17; Jeremiah 52:21). To this must be added the capital (verses 16, 19), which measured five (or, according to some, nine) cubits, and probably the pedestal. The pillars were hollow, the metal being four finger breadths thick (Jeremiah 52:21). In 2 Chronicles 3:15 the height is given as thirty-five cubits—a discrepancy which has been variously explained. According to some writers (e.g; Abravanel, Movers, Wordsworth), this represents the total length of the two pillars (each pillar consequently being 17.5 cubits)—an idea which, perhaps, finds some slight support in the word employed ארֶךְ length. Here it is קוֹמָה height. By others it has been supposed that the total height of base, column, and capital was thirty-five cubits, which, if not incredible, is very improbable. Others think it a part of that systematic reduplication of the heights of edifices by the chronicler, of which we have already had an instance in 2 Chronicles 6:1-42. (where see note). But the true explanation would seem to be that, by a clerical error, thirty-five (לה) has been substituted in the text for eighteen (יח). So Keil and Bהhr]: and a line [or thread] of twelve cubits did compass either of them [Heb. the second column] about. [It must not be supposed, from the fact that the height of the one column is given, and the circumference of the other, that they were dissimilar in height and breadth or girth. There has probably been an accidental abbreviation of the full expression, "Eighteen cubits was the height of the one pillar, and eighteen cubits was the height of the other pillar; and a line of twelve cubits compassed the one pillar, and a line of twelve cubits compassed the other pillar." It is just possible, however, that the peculiarity results from the actual system of measurement employed in this case. As they were castings, it would be needless to measure both pillars, and so the length may have been ascertained from the first, and the breadth from the second. The columns would thus be about twenty-seven feet high, and about six feet in diameter.] 1 Kings 7:16 And he made two chapiters [or capitals] of molten [Heb. poured] brass, to put upon the tops [Heb. heads] of the pillars: the height of the one chapiter was five cubits, and the height of the other chapiter was five cubits [In 2 Kings 25:17 the height is given as three cubits; but this is obviously a clerical error. See 2 Chronicles 3:15; Jeremiah 52:22. A much more important question is whether the chapiter (כֹתֶרֶת same word, akin to כֶתֶר, crown) of four cubits mentioned in Jeremiah 52:19 is to be understood as a part of this chapiter, or something additional and superposed, the entablature, e.g. The former appears the more probable. See note on Jeremiah 52:19. But it is not a fatal objection to the latter view that it would make the entire chapiter, or both members, nine cubits high; no less, that is, than one-half the length of the shaft. No doubt to modern ideas this appears wholly disproportionate; but a double chapiter, bearing the same proportion to the shaft, is found in some of the buildings of Persepolis. From the expression of verses 41, 42, "the bowls of the chapiters" (cf. 2 Chronicles 4:12, 2 Chronicles 4:13; Jeremiah 52:23), and the word "belly" (בֶּטֶן) in Jeremiah 52:20, we gather that the chapiters were bowl shaped, or bellied out something like the so called "cushion capital" in Norman architecture. 1 Kings 7:17 And nets [Gesen; lattice; Keil, plait. "It seems almost in vain to try and speculate on what was the exact form of the decoration of these celebrated pillars. The nets of checker work, and wreaths of chain work, etc; are all features applicable to metal architecture; and though we know that the old Tartar races did use metal architecture everywhere, and especially in bronze, from the very nature of the material, every specimen has perished, and we have now no representations from which we can restore them" (Fergusson, Dict. Bib. l.c.)] of checker work [the Hebrew repeats the word: nets of network, or plaits of work of plait], and wreaths [or cords, twisted work, i.e; festoons] of chain work [the wreathed or twisted festoon probably resembled a chain], for [or, to, i.e; were on] the chapiters which were upon the top of the pillars; seven for the one chapiter, and seven for the other chapiter [The LXX. having hero δίκτυον, it is clear that the text they had read שבכה "a net," and not שבעה "seven." Some, accordingly, would read, "a net for the one chapiter, and a net," etc. But there is no sufficient reason for the change. "This decoration consisted of seven twists arranged as festoons, which were hung round the capitals of the pillars" (Keil). The comparison with "chain work" was probably suggestd by the fact that the intertwined threads, which crossed and recrossed each other, bore a rough resemblance to the links of a chain. 1 Kings 7:18 And he made the pillars [There is evidently a confusion of the text here. Probably we should read, with some MSS. הרמנים, the pomegranates (so LXX.), instead of העמודים, or rather, we should transpose the two words, reading pomegranates where the Masoretic text has pillars, and vice versa. "The pomegranate was one of the commonest ornaments of Assyria.… It is doubtful whether a symbolical meaning was attached to it, or whether it was merely selected as a beautiful natural form" (Rawlinson). Wordsworth characteristically sees in its many ripe seeds, "an expressive emblem of fruitfulness in good works." According to Bהhr, it is an image of the law or covenant of Jehovah, and the seeds represent the separate commands. In the tabernacle it was pourtrayed in works of divers colours on the hem of the robe of the ephod (Exodus 28:33, Exodus 28:34; Exodus 39:24). All the Scripture notices of this fruit prove its great abundance in Palestine (Numbers 13:23; Joshua 15:32; Joshua 21:25 ;—in the two last passages it appears as the name of a town—Son 4:3, Son 4:13; Son 8:2; Joe 1:12; Haggai 2:9, etc.) It was also well known to the Egyptians (Numbers 20:5)], and [or even] two rows round about upon the one network ["The relation between the two rows of pomegranates and the plaited work is not clearly defined, but it is generally and correctly assumed that one row ran round the pillars below the plaited work and the other above" (Keil). The pomegranates, one hundred in number in each row (2 Chronicles 3:16), four hundred in all (2 Chronicles 4:13; Jeremiah 52:23), would thus form a double border to the chain work], to cover the chapiters that were upon the top, with pomegranates [rather, on the top of the pillars, as the transposition mentioned above and the sense require]; and so did he for the other chapiter. 1 Kings 7:19 And the chapiters that were upon the top of the pillars [It is difficult to believe that these words, which are identical with those in 1 Kings 7:16, 1 Kings 7:17,1 Kings 7:18, can refer to a different—a second and superposed capital (Rawlinson), or to the entablature (Fergusson)] were of lily work [i.e; bassirelievi in imitation of flowering lilies. Probably the bowl-shaped chapiter was treated as a fullblown lily, just as the capitals of Egyptian pillars took the form of the lotus. The molten sea was similarly treated (1 Kings 7:26). The lily (שׁוּשַׁן), from שׁוּשׁ), to be white), was undoubtedly an emblem of purity. Bהhr observes that it may justly be named "the flower of the promised land," and that as the lotus was the religious flower of the Indian and Egyptian religions, so was the lily of the Jewish] in the porch [These words, בָּאוּלָם, are very obscure. Keil understands" as in the hall" (cf. κατὰτὸαὐλὰμ, LXX.) But that idea would have been expressed by כָאוּלָם, and nothing is said elsewhere about any lily work in the porch (Bהhr). Ewald, too, thinks the decoration of the porch is referred to, and holds that a description of this lily work must once have preceded this statement, though it is now wanting. Thenius, al. suppose them to refer to the position of the pillars within the porch, and the "four cubits" mentioned presently, they take to indicate the diameter of the capitals. Wordsworth would render "inside or toward the porch," and understands that the lily work was only on the inside of the pillars. It is, perhaps, impossible to arrive at any certain conclusion], four cubits. [This may either mean that of five cubits (which was the height of the entire capital), four, and these the upper four (1 Kings 7:22), were covered with lily work, while one cubit at the bottom of the capital was ornamented with chain-work or festeons—we can hardly believe that nets, chains, and lily work were all combined in the same space, or it may refer to the position of the pillars in the portico.] 1 Kings 7:20 And the chapiters upon the two pillars had pomegranates [Instead of the italics, Keil would supply Hiram made, but it is doubtful whether this is any improvement. We have already heard more than once that he made the chapiters. It is better to supply projected or were, as in the preceding verse. This verse is extremely obscure; but its design appears to be to explain how the bowl of the chapiter projected above its base] also above [i.e; above the neck, or lowest cubit, on which was the net and chain work], over against [מִלְּעֻמַּת with two prefixes is a rare form] the belly [or "bowl" (1 Kings 7:41)] which was by [Heb. beyond, on the other side of, i.e; as it appeared to a spectator standing below] the network: and the pomegranates were two hundred in rows [This agrees with the total of four hundred, as given in verse 42, and in 2 Chronicles, and with the "hundred round about" (i.e; the number in each row) mentioned in Jeremiah 52:23. We gather from this latter passage that ninety-six out of the hundred faced the four quarters, for this is apparently the meaning of רוּחָה, windwards; see Ezekiel 42:16-18, not that the pomegranates could be "set in motion by the play of the wind," as Ewald confidently affirms. The remaining four pomegranates, of course, occupied the four corners. The necessary inference from this statement, viz; that this part of the capital was foursquare, seems to have escaped the notice of the commentators] round about upon the other chapiter. [Some words have evidently dropped out of the Hebrew here, as in Ezekiel 42:15. The text, no doubt, originally stood "two hundred in rows round about the one chapiter, and two hundred in rows round about upon the other chapiter." There has been no intentional compression that is not the genius of the Semitic languages—but an accidental omission, occasioned by the recurrence of almost identical words. 1 Kings 7:21 And he set up the pillars in the porch [We are now confronted by the much vexed questions, (1) What was the position, and (2) what the purpose, of these two columns? Were they in the porch, or before it? And were they architectural or monumental? Did they support the roof of the porch, or were they isolated and detached, after the manner of obelisks? I incline to the opinion of Bהhr, that they stood in the porch, but that they formed no part of the building, i.e; that they were not for any structural use, but simply for ornament. This appears to me, on the whole, to result from the following considerations: (1) The language used favours a position within the porch. We have here לְאֻלָם (="at or in the porch," perhaps for the porch, as Bהhr), and in 1 Kings 7:19 (where see note) בָּאוּלָם. And with this agree the expression of the Chronicles "before (לִפְגֵי) the house," and "before (עַל־פְּנֵי) the temple" (2 Chronicles 3:15, 2 Chronicles 3:17). The pillars would, however, be "before the temple," whether they stood within or in front of the porch, and it may be safely allowed that the language of the historian is not decisive one way or the other. The prepositions of the text, however, seem to lend some support to Bהhr’s view. (2) We know that the Phoenicians used isolated metal columns as sacred ornaments, so that Hiram would be familiar with such a mode of ornamentation" (Rawlinson). "Whenever in coins or histories we get a representation of a Phoenician temple, it always has a pillar or pillars standing within or before it" (Stanley). (3) It is extremely doubtful whether these columns, twenty-three feet in height, were adapted to serve as supports to the roof of the porch. The height of the latter has been variously estimated at twenty, thirty, and sixty cubits, and whichever estimate is preferred, the columns would appear to be of an unsuitable altitude. Fergusson says they were "appropriate to support the roof of the porch," but then he conceives the columns to be in all twenty-seven cubits high (see on 1 Kings 7:19), and allows the remaining three cubits for the slope of the roof). But, as we cannot be certain either of the height of the porch or of the column, this is an argument of which very little can be made. (4) If the pillars were part of the building, they would almost certainly have been of the same material, i.e; wood or stone. Their metallic composition is certainly an argument for their monumental character. It can hardly be alleged in favour of this view, however, that they are mentioned amongst the vessels or articles of furniture, for the historian might fittingly describe the pillars here, as being the principal of the "works in brass" which Hiram wrought, even if they did form the supports of the roof of the porch. Nor are we justified, considering the extreme brevity and the partial character of the description of the temple, in affirming that they would have been mentioned in connexion with the building, had they formed part of the edifice. (5) The remark of Stieglitz (cited by Bהhr) that "it was their separate position alone which gave these pillars the impressive aspect they were designed to wear," lends some little support to this view. So also does (6) The fact that these columns and these alone, received special names. "No architectural portion of the building received a name" (Keil). But this argument, again, is not too unduly pressed, for to some it may seem that the names they bore would have a special propriety and an enhanced significance, if the columns contributed to the strength and stability of the edifice. The question, therefore, is one of considerable complexity, the more so, as it is maintained that it would be almost impossible to construct a roof thirty feet in width without some such pillars to support the beam (Fergusson); but the balance of evidence appears to favour the view that Jachin and Boaz were monuments erected in the porch, to dignify the sanctuary, and to symbolize the power and eternity of the Being to whom it was dedicated]: and he set up the right pillar, and called the name thereof Jachin [i.e; he shall establish, as marg. The name expressed the belief that God would preserve and protect the new lane. It is true that a Jachin is mentioned (1 Chronicles 9:10; 1 Chronicles 24:17), as head of the 21st course of priests in the reign of David, while a Boaz was one of Solomon’s ancestors, but the columns could hardly be named after them, or an private persons. Ewald suggests that they were named after "some favourites of the time, perhaps young sons of Solon on." The idea of Thenius that these names were engraved upon the pillars is not wholly improbable, though of course it finds no support in the text] and he set up the left pillar [the left as one faced them from the house. The right hand is identified with the south in 1 Kings 7:39], and called the name thereof Boaz. [Marg. in it is strength. Probably "in Him, i.e; God, is its strength" (cf. Isaiah 45:24). The thought of Jachin, "He will establish," is thus continued; and the two pillars pointed alike to the God of Israel as the true support and upholder of His sanctuary. The LXX. interpretation of these two names, Κατόρθωσις and Ἰσχός (2 Chronicles 3:17), success and strength, though very far from literal, preserves their fundamental ideas. 1 Kings 7:22 And upon the top of the pillars was lily work [a repetition, in the Hebrew manner, of 1 Kings 7:19. The "lily work," which probably involved two things, (1) that the capital had a rude resemblance to a "full blown lily cup" (Bähr), and (2) that representations of the leaf of the lily ere pourtrayed upon it, was a not unfitting finial to the column, as it formed a sort of crown or chaplet upon it. The two pillars would thus resemble two giant plants, the column answering to the stalk, the capital to the flower. The ideas of architecture, it is well known, have very frequently been derived from the vegetable kingdom. 1 Kings 7:23 The writer now passes on to describe the brazen vessels made by Hiram for the temple use. And he made a [Heb. the] molten sea [so called on account of its unprecedented size and capacity. It was designed, like the laver of brass in the tabernacle (Exodus 30:18-20), to contain the water necessary for the ablutions of the priests. For its size and shape see below], ten cubits from the one brim to the other [Heb. from his lip to his lip] round all about [i.e; circular], and his height was five cubits [this was the depth of the vessel, exclusive of its foot or base]: and a line of thirty cubits did compass It round about. [The historian obviously uses round numbers when he speaks of the diameter as ten and the circumference as thirty cubits. If the diameter was exactly ten, the circumference would of course be about 31.5 cubits. But the sacred writers seldom aim at precision. 1 Kings 7:24 And under the brim of it round about [The edge of the laver was curved outwards (1 Kings 7:26)] there were knops [see note on 1 Kings 6:18. The text of 2 Chronicles 4:3, בקרים ("the similitude of oxen"), is obviously a clerical error for פקעים (Keil), hut whether דמות is an interpolation may well be doubted. Keil thinks it was introduced to explain the mention of oxen] compassing [Heb. surrounding, some word] it, ten in a cubit [It does not follow from this that each gourd or knop was "a little over two inches in diameter " (Keil), for they may not have been in close contact, and, moreover the cubit was probably 18 inches], compassing the sea round about : the ]mops were cast in two rows, when it was cast. [Lit; two rows; the knops were cast in its casting. The "brass," of which the laver was composed, had been taken by David from the cities of Hadarezer (1 Chronicles 18:8; 1 Samuel 8:8, LXX.)] 1 Kings 7:25 It stood [Heb. standing] upon twelve oxen [The import of the number twelve is well explained by. Bהhr, Symbolik, 1:201 sqq. Like seven, it is compounded out of three and four. But the primary reference here is to the twelve tribes], three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east [So the tribes in the camp formed a square round the tabernacle, three on each side—east, south, west, and north (Numbers 2:1-34.)]: and the sea was set above upon them, and all their hinder parts were inward. [.The same regard of the cardinal points has been noticed in the pomegranates on the capitals of the two columns. See note on verse 20. Keil says the feet of the oxen no doubt rested on a metal plate, so that they were fixed and immoveable; but this lacks proof. The oxen would be immovable in any case, owing to the weight of the metal and the water. All conjectures as to the height and size of the oxen are necessarily of little value. 1 Kings 7:26 And it was a handbreadth thick [i.e; three inches], and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup [Heb. and his lip like the work of the lip of a cup, i.e; curved outwards], with flowers of lilies [lit; "a blossom of lily." Keil understands "ornamented with lily flowers," but the strict interpretation the "lily blossom" being in apposition to "cup"—requires us to refer the words to the shape rather than to the ornamentation of the laver. The lip was curved like a lily]: it contained two thousand [In Chronicles and by Josephus the number is given as 3000. This may have resulted, as Keil thinks, from confounding âand ábut it is suspicious that so many of the numbers of the Chronicles are exaggerations. The common explanation of the discrepancy, viz; that it held 2000 baths "when filled to its ordinary height, but when filled to the brim 3000" (Wordsworth), appears to me hardly ingenuous] baths. ["The data for determining the value of the bath or ephah are both scanty and conflicting". Josephus, the only authority on the subject, says that it equalled the Attic metretes (about 8.5 gals.), but it is very doubtful whether he was "really familiar with the Greek measures" (ib.) At any rate, if this statement is correct, his other statement as to the shape of the laver must be altogether erroneous, since 2000 baths would equal 17,000 gals; and a hemispherical laver could not possibly have contained more than 10,000. The attempt has been made, on the assumption that the sea was a hemisphere, as Josephus affirms, to calculate from its capacity the value of the bath, which in that case would be about four gallons. But there is good reason for doubting whether the laver was hemispherical—such a shape would be ill adapted to its position on the backs of oxen—and some have maintained that it was cylindrical, others that, like the laver of the tabernacle, it had a foot (Exodus 30:18) or basin. The prevailing opinion of scholars, however, appears to be that it was 30 cubits in circumference only at the lip, and that it bellied out considerably below. While the shape, however, must remain a matter of uncertainty, we are left in no doubt as to its purpose. It was "for the priests to wash in" (2 Chronicles 4:6)—not, of course, for immersing their whole persons, but their hands and feet (Exodus 30:19, Exodus 30:21). The priests (after Exodus 3:5; Joshua 5:15, etc.) ministered barefoot. It was, according to Rabbinical tradition, provided with taps or faucets (Bähr). It has, however, been held by some that the water issued forth (as in the Alhambra) from the lions’ mouths. It is probable that a basin of some sort was attached to it. Whether the laver was filled by the hand or by some special contrivance, it is quite impossible to say. We know that provision was made for storing water hard by. The present writer was privileged in 1861 to explore the great reservoir, the Bähr el Khebir, still existing underneath the Haram area, at a time when very few Europeans had seen it. The water was probably brought from Solomon’s pools at Bethlehem, though "a fountain of water exists in the city and is running unto this day, far below the surface". Tacitus mentions the fens perennis aquae and the piscinae cisternaeque servandis imbribus. 1 Kings 7:27 And he made ten bases [or stands, מְכוֹנוֹת, from כוּן, erectus stetit. The description of both the bases and the layers which they supported (1 Kings 7:27-39) is extremely obscure. We know, however, that the bases (as the name implies) were simply stands or pediments for the lavers] of brass; four cubits was the length of one base and four cubits the breadth thereof; and three cubits the height of it [they were rectangular, or box shaped, six feet square and four and a half feet high. 1 Kings 7:28 And the work of the bases was on this manner [Heb. and this the work of the base]: they had borders [מִסְגְּרֹת (from סָגַר, clausit) means strictly enclosings, i.e; sides, forming the stand. They were panels, because of the borders or ledges [mentioned presently, but this was the accident of their construction. The translation "border" gives a totally wrong impression], and the borders were between the ledges [Heb. the sides were between the borders, i.e; were enclosed by ledges or frames. 1 Kings 7:29 And on the borders [panels] that were between the ledges were lions [i.e; figures or bas-reliefs of lions], oxen, and cherubims ["The lion and the ox are the two animal forms which occur most frequently in Assyrian decoration" (Rawlinson). They have also found a place through the cherubim, in the symbolism of Christianity]: and upon the ledges there was a base above [i.e; there was a pedestal or stand (כֵן; see 1 Kings 7:31) of some sort for the laver upon the square basis]: and beneath the lions and oxen were certain additions [Heb. wreaths, festoons, לִוְיָה. (cf. Proverbs 1:9), corona] made of thin work. [Heb. pensile or hanging work, מוֹרָד from יָרַד descendit; Vulgate, dependentia. It would seem that on the panel, beneath the figures of animals, etc; were sculptured hanging festoons of flowers. 1 Kings 7:30 And every base had four brazen wheels [As the lavers were used for washing "such things as they offered for burnt offering" (2 Chronicles 4:6), and consequently would require to be continually emptied and refilled, they must of necessity be moveable, so that they could be taken, now to the sea, or other reservoir, now to the altar], and plates [Heb. axles] of brass: and the four corners [Heb. feet; פַּעַם signifies step, thence foot, and is here used of artificial feet. These were, no doubt, at the four corners, and served to raise the stand above the wheels, so that the foliage, etc; was not hidden] thereof had undersetters [Heb. shoulders. "The bearings of the axle" (Gesen.) must be meant. The bases had four feet, which apparently terminated in a sort of socket or fork, into which the axletrees were inserted]: under the laver were under setters [Heb. the shoulders] molten [or cast], at the side of every addition. [Lit; opposite to a man (i.e; each) were wreaths. The explanation of Keil is that "from the feet; there ascended shoulder pieces, which ran along the outside of the chest and reached to the lower part of the basin, which was upon the lid of the chest, and, as shoulders, either supported or helped to support it." He thus understands the "shoulder" to extend from the foot, or axletree, to the bottom of the laver. But it seems quite as likely that these shoulders were within the stand; that they started from its upper corners, i.e; "from under the laver" (as in the Hebrew), passed down along its inner angles, and emerged below—the stand may well have had no bottom—in the shape of feet or forks, which rested on the axletrees, and supported both stand and ]aver. Over against this internal shoulder blade or support was placed externally a wreath. But Bהhr despairs of arriving at any just and adequate understanding of this arrangement, and, in the absence of drawings, it is perhaps hopeless that we shall ever interpret the words with certainty.] 1 Kings 7:31 And the mouth of it [Heb. his mouth. I incline, with Keil, to think the mouth of the laver just mentioned (כִיֹר masc.) is referred to rather than the stand (Thenius), which would require a fern. suffix] within the chapiter [By this we are, perhaps, to understand a round ornament, resembling the capital of a pillar, which stood in the centre of the dome-shaped covering (see verse 35) of the stand, and on which the laver rested (so Keil, Bהhr). Rawlinson says, "No commentator has given a satisfactory explanation of this passage "]: and above [Heb. upwards] was a cubit [i.e; the neck or foot of the laver measured uniformly one cubit, in width apparently]: but the mouth [Heb. and her mouth, fern. This last mentioned mouth is probably the mouth of the capital (fern.) The neck or mouth of the laver would appear to have been fitted into the mouth of the crown-shaped pedestal] was round after the work of the base [Heb. stand work, כֵן here fixes the meaning of the word in verse 29, i.e; it decides it to be the substantive (Keil, after Chald.), not the adverb (as Thenius, Bהhr, al.) a cubit and a half [so that the first mouth would fit easily into the second], and also upon the mouth of it [Heb. her mouth, that of the capital, which was external. The mouth of the laver was partially concealed] were gravings [Keil understands this of the carving of the stand already mentioned, verse 29. But a mouth is mentioned, which the square stand lacked. Besides the word "also" points to additional carvings. I understand the chapiter which formed the mouth of the stand to be meant] with [Heb. and] their borders, foursquare, not round. [i.e; the capital had panels like the stand, and the former, like those of the latter, were square.] 1 Kings 7:32 And under the borders [i.e; panels] were four [Heb. the four i.e; those mentioned in verse 30] wheels ["The wheels reached no higher than that portion of the sides of the base which was ornamented with garlands" (Rawlinson). It would be more correct to say that the wheels did not cover any portion of the sides; they were under them]; and the axletrees [Heb. hands, as holding the wheel to the base or stand. Axletrees is altogether misleading. The hands were the parts connecting the wheels and axles] of the wheels were joined to [Heb. in, as marg.] the base: and the height of a wheel was a cubit and half a cubit. [i.e; 27 inches.] 1 Kings 7:33 And the work of the wheels was like the work of a chariot wheel [Heb. the chariot, i.e; the ordinary chariot]: their axletrees [Heb. hands], and their naves [Gesenius understands rims. He derives גַּב, gibbus, from גָּבַב, curvatus est] , and their felloes [or fellies, as the word is now written. These axe the parts which compose the circumference of the wheel; but Gesen. translates spokes, because they are the joinings (חָשַק conjunxit) of nave and rim] and their spokes [חִשֻּׁרִים Gesen. would render naves, because the spokes collect at that part], were all molten. 1 Kings 7:34 And there were four under setters [it seems probable that this is not a repetition of 1 Kings 7:30 (Rawlinson), but that the reference is to the upper part (cf. 1 Kings 7:35) of the shoulder pieces, which, according to Keil’s view, supported the laver] to the four corners of one base: and the undersetters were of the very base itself. [Heb. from the base, its shoulders. Whether these words mean that the shoulders projected from the base, that "they rose above the corners with a slight curve" (Keil), or that they were cast with the base, i.e; from the same mould, as in the next verse, it is impossible to say.] 1 Kings 7:35 And in the top [Heb. head] of the base was there a round compass [Probably "the base above" (verse 29)or stand for the laver. This was apparently arched to the height of nine inches above the top of the base] of half a cubit high: and on the top of the base the ledges [Heb. hands. These can hardly be either "the hands of the wheels" (verse 32) or the "shoulders" of verse 30 or verse 34, but what they were it is difficult to say. They may have been arms or projections supporting the laver] thereof and the borders thereof were of the same. [Heb. from it, sc; of one piece or casting.] 1 Kings 7:36 For on the plates of the ledges [hands] thereof; and on the borders [sides, panels] thereof, he graved cherubims, lions, and palm trees, according to the proportion [Heb. nakedness, hence naked space, void. The meaning is that he filled all the spaces with carvings] of every one, and additions [wreaths, festoons] round about. 1 Kings 7:37 After this manner he made the ten bases: all of them had one casting, one measure, and one size. 1 Kings 7:38 Then made he ten layers of brass: one laver contained forty baths [i.e; about 340 gals; if we accept the account of Josephus, Ant 1 Kings 8:2.9. But see on 1 Kings 8:26]: and every laver was four cubits. [It is uncertain whether the height or the diameter is meant. Keil decides for the latter—and four cubits, the width of the sides of the stand, may well have been also the diameter of the basin—on the ground that as" the basins were set upon (עַל) the stands," it can hardly refer to the height. But it is worthy of remark that "the height of all the ether parts has been mentioned" (Rawlinson). See 1 Kings 8:27, 1 Kings 8:32, 1 Kings 8:35, and without this particular we could not calculate the entire height, which, if the laver were four cubits, would be about thirteen feet. This surprising size is accounted for by remembering the height of the altar, to which the fat and other sacrificial portions had to be transferred from the laver]: and upon every one of the ten bases one laver. [Ten layers would not be at all too many when we remember the prodigious number of victims which were occasionally offered.] 1 Kings 7:39 And he put five bases on the right side [Heb. shoulder] of the house, and five on the left side of the house [i.e; on the south and north sides of the court of the priests]: and he set the sea on the right side of the house eastward over against the south. [This passage is decisive as to which was the right and which the left. The right side was the south. It was probably for convenience that the sea did not stand due east of the house, i.e; between the porch and altar.] 1 Kings 7:40 And Hiram made the layers [So the Rec. Text. But perhaps we ought to read סִירוֹת, i.e; pots, here, as in 1 Kings 7:45 and 2 Chronicles 4:11. This word is joined with shovels and basons, not only in these two passages, but also in Exodus 27:3, 2 Kings 25:14, Jeremiah 52:18; in other words, the appropriate term in this connexion would be "pots," while "layers," having been just mentioned in verse 38, would involve an idle repetition. Altogether, therefore, there can be little doubt that we should here read הסירות for הכירות. It is apparently the reading of the Chald; LXX; and some MSS. These" pots "were used, not for carrying away the ashes (Keil), but, as the name implies (סִיר, effervescere), for boiling the flesh of the peace offering (1 Samuel 2:13, 1 Samuel 2:14), and the shovels [these, again, as the name implies, were used for taking away the ashes from the altar (Exodus 27:3; Numbers 4:14), and the basons. [The sacrificial bowls for receiving the blood of the victims (Exodus 38:3; Numbers 4:14).] So Hiram made an end of doing all the work [the writer now recapitulates the work of Hiram. The repetition may be due to the fact that the history was compiled from various lists and documents] that he made king Solomon for [Heb. omits the prep.] the house of the Lord. 1 Kings 7:41 The [Heb. omits the art. and reads pillars, two] two pillars, and the two bowls of the chapiters that were on the top of the two pillars; and the two networks to cover the two bowls of the chapiters which were upon the top of the pillars. [See on verses 16-20. 1 Kings 7:42 And four hundred pomegranates [Heb. the pomegranates, 400] for the two networks, even two rows of pomegranates for one network, to cover the two bowls of the chapiters that were upon the pillars [Heb. upon the face of the pillars]. A chapiter could hardly be correctly described as עַל־פְּנֵי הע. It is probable that this is a clerical error, and that we should read עַל־פְּנֵי הע (Bהhr, Keil), "upon the two pillars." So LXX. ἐπἀμφοτέροιςκ.τ.λ. This is a more likely emendation than עַל ראֹשׁ. It is true thin latter is the reading of some MSS; and is followed by the Syr. and Vulg; but it can easily be accounted for, being a repetition of the last words of verse 41, while it fails to account, as the first named emendation does, for the עַל־פְנֵי. 1 Kings 7:43 And the ten bases and the ten lavers [Heb. "the bases, ten and the lavers, ten "] on the bases. [See on verses 27-37. 1 Kings 7:44 And one [Heb. the one] sea and twelve oxen [Heb. the oxen twelve] under the sea frets. 23-26]. 1 Kings 7:45 And the pots [see on 1 Kings 7:40], and the shovels, and the basons, and all these vessels [according to the Keri] which Hiram made [There is no mention of the altar, as in 2 Chronicles 4:1, possibly because it was not made by Hiram (Bהhr)] to [rather, for] king Solomon for [Heb. omits] the house of the Lord, were of bright brass. [Marg. made bright, i.e; polished after casting.] 1 Kings 7:46 In the plain [Heb. Ciccar, i.e; circle or circuit, the word used only of the Ghor or Jordan valley. This tract is called "The Ciccar" Genesis 13:11, Genesis 19:17, etc. See Stanley, "Sinai and Palestine," App; § 12] of Jordan [in the Heb. this river ("the descender") always takes the art.] did the king cast them, in the clay ground [Heb. as marg. in the thickness of the ground. Whether the soil was made thick by stamping (Keil) it is impossible to say. It looks as if this site had been chosen because the soil was suitable] between Succoth [Genesis 33:17. It appears from Judges 8:5 that it lay east of the Jordan (cf. Joshua 13:27, where it allotted to the tribe of Gad); "and indeed it has been recovered, under its later name Tarala, at Tell Dar’ala, northeast of the Damieh ford". As Zarthan was almost certainly west of the Jordan, and as the casting—from the nature of the country—must as certainly have been done to the west of the river it is somewhat surprising to find a trans-Jordanie town mentioned as one of the landmarks defining the site. It is possible that there was a western Succoth—a place named Sakut was discovered by Robinson and Van de velde, a few miles south of Bethshean; but this name is radically different (Conder). It is, therefore, more probable that, being near the ford of the river this place was so well known that it would serve better than any of the less familiar western towns to identify the site of the foundry] and Zarthan. [See note on 1 Kings 4:12. 1 Kings 7:47 And Solomon left all the vessels unweighed [the interpretation of the A.V. italics is justified by the next clauses] because they were exceeding many: neither was the weight of the brass found out. [Marg. searched. So Gesen. al. This does not mean that the "brass for each vessel was not weighed out" (Bהhr), but that the total weight of the metal was not, perhaps could not, be ascertained.] This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ THE OF THE TEMPLE.—The stately and impressive service with which the Temple, the character and contents of which have now been described, was dedicated, is related in this chapter, and divides itself into four sections. We have (1) the removal of the ark and Solomon’s ascription of praise on the occasion (1 Kings 8:1-22). (2) The prayer of consecration (1 Kings 8:23-54). (3) The benediction of the congregation (1 Kings 8:55-61), and (4) the festal sacrifices which followed on and completed the dedication (1 Kings 8:62-66). The inaugural rites, it is clear, were on a scale corresponding with the magnitude and renown of the undertaking (1 Chronicles 22:5). SECTION I.—The Removal of the Ark. 1 Kings 8:1 Then [i.e; when the work of the house of the Lord was practically ended, as stated in 1 Kings 7:51. But the precise date of the dedication is a matter of dispute and uncertainty. We know that it took place in the seventh month of the year, but of what year we cannot be so sure. Was it the same year in the eighth month of which (1 Kings 6:38) the house was finished (Ewald)? Was the dedication, that is to say, one month anterior to the completion of the house and its appointments? Or are we to understand "the seventh month" to mean the Ethanim of the following year (Bähr)? are we to assign the dedication, that is, to a date eleven months after completion? Or, finally, are we to believe with the Vat. LXX. μετὰἔικοσιἔτη (the LXX. text is here, however, in great confusion), that the temple was not dedicated until the palaces were also built (see 1 Kings 9:1-9); are we to hold, i.e; that though finished and ready for use, it remained unused for a period of thirteen years (Thenius, Keil)? These are questions which we cannot perhaps answer with absolute certainty, but, to my mind, every consideration is in favour of the date first mentioned, i.e; the seventh month of the eleventh year of Solomon’s reign. It is true Bähr says that this opinion "needs no refutation," while Keil pronounces it directly at variance with 1 Kings 7:51." But it is worth while to inquire whether this is so? And, first, as to the bearing of the passage just cited, "So was ended all the work which," etc; taken in connexion with 1 Kings 8:1, "Then Solomon assembled," etc. To the cursory reader it appears no doubt as it this "then" must refer to the completion of the work of which we have just heard, and which was not effected until the eighth month of the year (1 Kings 6:38). But (1) אָז though probably a mark of time (= tune), is clearly a word of great latitude of meaning, and may apply as well to one month before completion (the time specified in 1 Kings 7:51) as to eleven months after; and (2) it would be quite consistent with the usus loquendi of the sacred writers to describe the temple as finished, when in reality it was incomplete in a few minor particulars (De minimis non curat scriptura). Further more, if the temple was finished in every detail, and in all its furniture and appointments, in the eighth month, as we learn from 1 Kings 6:38, we may be perfectly sure it would or could be practically finished—finished so as to be ready for consecration—by the seventh month. Indeed, it is not an unreasonable presumption, that it hardly would be perfect and complete on the day of dedication. Those who have built or restored churches, not to speak of cathedrals, which would perhaps afford a closer analogy to the temple, know how extremely difficult, if not impossible, it is to have every detail finished and arranged for the day of consecration. Some few accidental omissions will have to be supplied afterwards, or experience will suggest certain alterations and improvements which have to be made. There is no inherent improbability, therefore, that the temple should be dedicated in the seventh month, though it was not finished לְכָל דְּבָרָיו until the eighth month, i.e; three or four weeks later. And there was a strong reason why the dedication should take place at the earliest possible date. There had been a long period of preparation, extending back into the preceding reign (1 Chronicles 28:1-21; 1 Chronicles 29:1-30.); the dedication consequently had long been eagerly looked for; moreover the erection had evidently been hurried forward, a prodigious number of labourers having been employed in order to expedite the work. It is almost inconceivable, therefore, that, after these energetic measures had been taken, either the king or the nation should have been content to wait thirteen years—nearly twice the time it had taken to build the temple—until the palaces, which were entirely independent and secular buildings, were also completed. If the great national sanctuary, which was the glory of the land, was ready for use, as we know it was, we can hardly believe, considering the natural eagerness and impatience of men, that the tribes of Israel, or their ambitious monarch, would, of their own choice, defer the consecration for an indefinite number of years. It would appear consequently that it is the view that the dedication was postponed for thirteen years "hardly needs discussion" (see below on 1 Kings 9:1). And the same considerations apply, though perhaps with diminished force, to their waiting one year. For if it be said that the delay was occasioned by the desire to connect the dedication with the feast of tabernacles, which was par excellence the feast of the year (הֶחָג) the answer is that it is more likely that the work would be hurried on by the employment of additional hands, if need be, or that the edifice would be consecrated, though not complete in all its details, at the feast of the eleventh year, than that, for the sake of one month, they should wait eleven months. And if the objection be raised that a feeling of religious awe would forbid the dedication of an imperfect building, or of a perfect building with imperfect arrangements, it is easy to reply that both building and furniture may have been practically complete, and may have been believed at the time to be perfect, but that the experience of the first few days suggested a few alterations or additions which threw the completion of the work in all its particulars into the eighth month. It is worthy of notice that Josephus distinctly states that the dedication was in the seventh month of the eighth year (Ant. 8.4. 1) ] Solomon assembled [יַקְהֵל. See Ewald, 233 b] the elders of Israel and all the heads of the tribes, the chief [Heb. princes] of the fathers of the children of Israel. [This great assembly (compare Daniel 3:2) can hardly be said to have been suggested to Solomon by the precedent afforded by David (Keil), when bringing up the ark (2 Samuel 6:1), for it was only natural that he should summon the representatives of the people to witness an event of such profound importance in the national history, as the dedication, after years of waiting (2 Samuel 7:6-13), of a national sanctuary intended to supersede the tabernacle, at which for five centuries their forefathers had worshipped. And the more so, as they had been called together by David to con-salt about the erection (1 Chronicles 28:1), and had offered willingly of their treasures (1 Chronicles 29:6-9) towards its decoration. It is inconceivable, therefore, that the temple of the Jews could have been formally opened, except in the presence of the "elders and heads of the tribes." Nor can we (with Rawlinson) see a contrast between the more popular proceedings of David, who "gathered together all the chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand (2 Samuel 6:1), and the statelier, more aristocratic system of his son, who merely summons the chief men;" for Solomon’s "eiders," etc. (Deuteronomy 16:18; 1 Samuel 16:4; 1 Samuel 30:26-31), may well have equalled David’s "chosen men" in number. It is quite likely that there was more formality and stateliness in this latter ease, but it was practically the same class of persons, i.e; the leading men by birth, talents, or prowess, that were present on both occasions. In fact, it was the Jewish Church by representation] unto King Solomon in Jerusalem, that they might bring up [Heb. to bring up] the ark of the covenant of the Lord [so called because it contained the tables of the covenant which the Lord made with the children of Israel (verse 9). The temple being really, or principally, a receptacle for the ark, the removal of this venerated relic to its place in the oracle is narrated first, as being of the first importance] out of the city of David, which is Zion. [Cf. 2 Samuel 6:12, 2 Samuel 6:17. 1 Kings 8:2 And all the men of Israel [not all the heads of the tribes just mentioned (1 Kings 8:1), as Keil, but all who came to the feast, as every male Israelite was under obligation to do (Deuteronomy 16:16) ] assembled themselves unto King Solomon at the feast [the Heb. word הֶחָג (with the art.) always means the feast of tabernacles. The same word is used of the feast of passover (Exodus 23:15) and pentecost (ib. verse 16), but "the feast" here can only mean that of tabernacles. As the "feast of ingathering" (Exodus 23:16), as commemorating the deliverance from Egypt (Leviticus 23:43), and as peculiarly a social festival (ib. verses 40-42; Numbers 29:12 sqq.), it was the most joyous as well as the greatest (ἑορτὴἁψιωτάτνκαὶμεγίστν. Jos; Ant. 8.4. 1) gathering of the year. (Compare the Jewish saying of a later date: "He who has never seen the rejoicing at the pouring out of the water of Siloam, has never seen rejoicing in his life.") It was doubtless for this reason that tabernacles was selected for the dedication. A special feast of dedication, however, was held for seven days before the feast of tabernacles proper commenced (see on verse 65). It did not displace that great feast, however (Stanley), but simply preceded it. It is worthy of notice that Jeroboam selected the same feast (1 Kings 12:32) for the inauguration of his new cultus. The idea of Josephus, that the feast of tabernacles "happened to coincide with the dedication" hardly seems probable] in the month Ethanim [variously interpreted to mean gifts, i.e; fruits (Thenius), flowing streams (Gesenius)—it falls about the time of the early rains—and equinox (Bottcher) ], which is the seventh month. [This is added because the month was subsequently known as Tisri (see on 1 Kings 6:1), or to show that "the feast" was the feast of tabernacles.] 1 Kings 8:3 And all the elders of Israel came [Not a mere repetition. The men who were summoned to Jerusalem (1 Kings 8:1) were all present, of their own accord, to witness the removal], and the priests took up the ark. tin the parallel account in 2 Chronicles 5:4, we read that "the Levites took up the ark." But there is no contradiction, as has been too readily supposed. For 2 Chronicles 5:7 of the Chronicles," the priests brought in the ark," etc; confirms the statement of the text. And the explanation is suggested in 2 Chronicles 5:5 of the same chapter, "These did the priests, the Levites (so the Heb.) bring up." Same expression in Joshua 3:3. All the priests were Levites—Keil translates, "the Levitical priests"—and this somewhat singular expression is no doubt used to remind us that such was the ease. Nor need it cause us any surprise to find the priests employed in this service. It is true that the ark was given into the charge of the Kohathite Levites (Numbers 3:30, Numbers 3:31); and it was their duty to bear it (Numbers 4:15; Numbers 7:9; Numbers 10:21; cf. 1 Chronicles 15:2, 1 Chronicles 15:11, 1 Chronicles 15:12). But the real care and supervision of the ark always belonged to the sons of Aaron. It was their office, e.g; to put on or take off the covering of the ark and of the vessels, which the Levites were forbidden directly to touch (Numbers 4:5-15). It was quite in accordance with the spirit of these provisions that Solomon now entrusted the carriage of the ark to the superior order. But more than that, Solomon was not without precedent to justify his choice, indeed, we may see in his selection of the priests a minute mark of truth, amounting almost to an undo-signed coincidence. For we find that on occasions of extraordinary solemnity—at the crossing of the Jordan, e.g. (Joshua 3:6, Joshua 3:15, Joshua 3:17), and at the siege of Jericho (Joshua 6:6), the priests had borne the ark (of. 1 Samuel 4:4; 1 Chronicles 15:11, 1 Chronicles 15:12). It was no doubt these familiar precedents guided Solomon, or the ecclesiastical authorities, in their selection of the priests on this occasion. A "settled place," a "house of cedars" (2 Samuel 7:7), "having now been found for the ark" to abide in, after it had "dwelt in curtains" for 500 years, it was taking its last journey, and in order to mark this journey as exceptional, in order to show both the ark and the house the greater reverence, it was determined that it should be borne for the last time by the priests. Keil suggests that the ark may have been uncovered, but this is very improbable. Why, we may ask, were coverings provided, and their use prescribed (Numbers 4:5-15), if they were to be arbitrarily dispensed with? He also adds that Levites were not allowed to enter the most holy place. But neither, it may be added, was this lawful for the priests. Levites and priests might enter that day, because the house was not then dedicated. The cloud (Joshua 3:10) claimed it for God. 1 Kings 8:4 And they brought up the ark of the Lord [which had now been for nearly 40 years "in the tabernacle that David had pitched for it" on the Mount Zion (2 Samuel 6:17) ], and the tabernacle of the congregation [Heb, "the tabernacle of meeting". This had been for many years at Gibeon. (Cf. 1 Kings 3:4; 2 Chronicles 1:8; 1 Chronicles 16:1-43:89. See note on 1 Chronicles 3:4.) The tabernacle of Mount Zion is never called "the tabernacle of the congregation"—indeed, it is expressly dis-tingnished from it, 2 Chronicles 1:3, 2 Chronicles 1:4. The ark and the tabernacle were now reunited in the temple of Solomon, thus "marking the identity and continuity of the life and ritual of the Hebrew Church" (Wordsworth) ], and all the holy vessels that were in the tabernacle [Perhaps the brazen altar. Certainly the altar of incense, the table of shewbread, the candlestick, and also the brazen serpent (Stanley) ], even those did the priests and Levites bring up. [We are hardly justified in saying (as Keil, al.) that the Levites carried all but the ark. The text rather favours the view that the priests assisted in bringing up the tabernacle and its furniture. So 2 Chronicles 5:5. Neither the tabernacle nor its vessels were designed for further use in the temple; the latter had been replaced by vessels better suited to the enlarged sanctuary—they were simply preserved, so far as we know, as relics of the past. in the treasury or side chambers. 1 Kings 8:5 And king Solomon, and all the congregation of Israel, that were assembled unto him were with him; before the ark [Prayers and sacrifices alike were offered toward the mercy seat (Psalms 28:2; cf. Exodus 25:22) ], sacrificing sheep and oxen [apparently the ark festal en route (cf. 2 Samuel 6:18) whilst the sacrifices were offered. The object of the sacrifice was to testify the grateful joy of the people at the proximate realization of their hopes. There may have been also in the background the idea of averting the Divine anger, of making a propitiation for possible errors and imperfections in their service. There were tragedies connected with the removal of the ark in time past (1 Samuel 4:17; 1 Samuel 6:19; 2 Samuel 6:7) which, we may be sure, were not altogether forgotten on this occasion] that could not be told or numbered for multitude. [Cf. 2 Samuel 6:13. But the sacrifices on that occasion were on a much smaller scale (1 Chronicles 15:26). Josephus adds (Ant. 8.4. 1), that a vast quantity of incense was burnt, and that men preceded the ark, singing and dancing, until it reached its destination]. 1 Kings 8:6 And the priests brought in the ark of the covenant unto his [i.e; its. But this word is never found in the A.V. It has come into use since the date of our translation] place [cf. 1 Kings 6:19] into the oracle of the house, to the most holy place [Heb. holy of holies], even under the wings of the cherubims [1 Kings 6:27. Whether the ark stood with its length east and west, or north and south, it is somewhat difficult to decide. But see on 1 Kings 6:8]. 1 Kings 8:7 For the cherubims spread forth their two wings over the place of the ark, and the cherubims covered [יָסֹכוּ from סָכַךְ, texit; hence, סֻכָה, booth; LXX. περιεκάλυπτον, i.e; overshadowed and concealed. This word is of some importance as showing that the ark would thenceforward and always be in complete darkness, under the outstretched wings of the cherubim—a fact which suggests the true explanation of the following verse] the ark and the staves thereof above [Heb. from above]. 1 Kings 8:8 And they drew out [It is uncertain whether יַאֲרִכוּ is transitive, as our A.V. renders it, and as in 1 Kings 3:14 = lengthen, in which case, however, it should almost be followed by אֵת, or intransitive, as in Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16; Deuteronomy 25:15, when the meaning would be, "The staves were long," but the latter rendering has the support of most scholars. As the oracle in the tabernacle was a cube of ten cubits, they cannot have been more than eight or nine cubits, and it is doubtful whether, the ark being only 2.5 cubits, they would be so long. Their length is mentioned in order to account for the ends being seen. It is immaterial to the meaning of the passage, however, which interpretation we put upon this verb. If we adhere to the A.V. then we must understand that, as it was forbidden to remove the staves from the rings at the corners of the ark (Exodus 25:12-15), they drew the staves forward towards one end of the ark; that they removed the staves altogether from the ark (Stanley) is a view to which the text lends no support] the staves, that the ends [Heb. heads. It is possible the ends of the staves were fitted with knobs. This would prevent their removal] of the staves were seen out in [Heb. from] the holy place [Marg. ark, the word found in the Chronicles Hebrews 5:9. It is questionable, however, whether הַקֹּדֶשׁ is ever used, by itself, of the ark (Gesen; Thesaurus, s.v.) It may be used of the most holy place (see on Hebrews 5:10), but here it would appear to designate the הֵיכָל (1 Kings 6:17), the body or "temple of the house" (Exodus 26:33; Hebrews 9:2). Its meaning appears to be so defined by the next words] before the oracle [i.e; a person standing in the holy place, but at the west end, near the entrance to the oracle (1 Kings 6:31), could see the ends of the staves. Several questions of considerable nicety suggest themselves here. 1. What was the position of the ark? Did it stand, that is to say, east and west, or north and south under the wings of the cherubim? 2. What was the position of the staves? Were they attached to the ends or to the sides of the ark? 3. How could the ends of the staves be seen, and by whom and when—on the occasion of the dedication only or in later years? 4. Why has our author recorded this circumstance? As to 1. the balance of evidence is in favour of the ark having stood north and south, in a line, that is, with the wings of the cherubim. For (1) only thus apparently could the cherubim have "covered the ark and the staves thereof." (2) If it had been otherwise, the "cherubim overshadowing the mercy seat," presuming that they were retained in the temple, would have had an unequal and one-sided position, for instead of being equally prominent, they would have stood, one with the back, the other with the face to the entrance and the holy place. (3) Had the ark stood east and west the projecting staves would surely have been in the high priest’s way in the performance of his solemn functions (Leviticus 16:12-15). That they served to guide him to the mercy seat is of course mere conjecture, and as such of no weight. 2. As to the staves, Josephus states (Ant. 3.7. 5) that they ran along the sides of the ark, and this would appear to be the natural and proper arrangement. It follows hence again that they cannot have been more than eight or nine cubits long, inasmuch as they found a place between the bodies of the cherubim, which cannot have been more than nine cubits apart. 3. The explanation of the Rabbins is that the ends of the staves were not really seen, but that they projected into the curtain and so made two visible protrusions or prominences. But this view hardly satisfies the requirements of the text, and it assumes that the ark stood east and west, which we have found good reason to doubt. But even if this were so, it is doubtful whether the staves, so long as they remained in the rings, could be made to reach to the door of the oracle, unless indeed they were lengthened for the purpose. How then were they seen? The following considerations may assist us to answer this question. (1) The oracle, of course, in its normal state was in perfect darkness (Hebrews 5:12). Once a year, however, a gleam of light was admitted, when the curtain was drawn partially aside to permit of the high priest’s entrance. (2) When the curtain was drawn to one (probably the left) side, the light would fall, not on the ark, but on the ends of the staves projecting from the right or north end of the ark, which would thus be distinctly visible to the high priest. But (3) at this time the high priest was not alone in the holy place. It was not required that "there should be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation," except when the high priest went in to make an atonement for the holy place (Leviticus 16:17). At an earlier stage of the service he would seem to have required assistance. According to the Mishna (Yoma), a priest held the basin of blood and stirred it to prevent coagulation, at the time of his first entry. Moreover (4) his extremely doubtful whether the high priest can have drawn aside the curtain himself. Whether he entered three or four times on that day, at his first entry his hands were certainly full. If he carried "a censer full of burning coals of fire".. "and his hands (חָפְנָיו, both fits) full of sweet incense beaten small" (ib. Hebrews 5:12), it is clear that some other person must have drawn aside the veil for him. It is to this person, I take it, the priest who was privileged to draw aside the curtain, and possibly to others standing near—certainly to the high priest—that the ends of the staves were visible. Nor would a reverent look directed towards these objects—made originally for the Levites to handle—involve unhallowed curiosity. And if this were so, it would help to explain (4) the mention of this circumstance by our author. If it were a fact that year by year a gleam of light fell upon the staves, and if priest after priest testified of what he had seen, up to the time of writing ("unto this day;" see below), we can readily understand why a circumstance of so much interest should be recorded. And we have not an adequate explanation of its mention here, if we are to understand that the staves were seen on the day of dedication, when of course they must have been visible, and never afterwards, or that the staves were partially drawn out of their rings in order to show that the ark was now at rest], and there they are unto this day. [Same expression 1 Kings 9:21; 1 Kings 12:19; 2 Kings 8:22. At the date of the publication of this book, the temple was of course destroyed (2 Kings 25:9), so that at that day the staves were not there. But the explanation is very simple. Our historian has copied the words he found in the MS. he was using.] 1 Kings 8:9 There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone which Moses put there [Exodus 25:16; Exodus 40:20; Deuteronomy 10:5. This statement appears to be at variance with Hebrews 9:4, which mentions "the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded," as in the ark, along with "the tables of the covenant." And it is to be observed that, while our text excludes these relics from the ark (temp. Solomon), no other scripture save that just cited expressly includes them. In Exodus 16:34 and Numbers 17:1-13:25 (Heb. A.V; 17:10) they are commanded to be laid up "before the testimony," words which no doubt may mean, as they were long interpreted to mean, "before the tables of testimony in the ark"—observe, the words are "before the testimony," not "before the ark"—but which are now generally thought to import "in front of the ark which con-rained the testimony." We know the book of the law was put "at the side (מִחַּד) of the ark" (Deuteronomy 31:26), and hence it is held by some that the golden pot, etc; occupied a similar position. It seems preferable, however, considering the distinct statement of St. Paul, or the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which, to say the least, embodies Jewish tradition, to adhere to the ancient interpretation that the golden pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were in the ark. And this in no wise conflicts with the statement of the text, for these treasures might well have been removed by the Philistines, whose first thought, we may be sure, would be to open their new acquisition. It is not improbable, indeed, that the object of the men of Bethshemesh in looking into the ark was to see whether these treasures were still there. For if the golden pot ever was in the ark, we can hardly suppose it would escape the rapacity of the Philistines, who would leave the two tables of stone as things of no value. Indeed, it is just possible that the trespass offering, the golden mice, etc; were designed as a return for the golden pot which had been removed. And the statement of the text, "there was nothing," etc; almost implies that there had been something there at one time (see Alford on Hebrews 9:4). It seem probable, therefore, that the golden pot and Aaron’s rod were originally deposited "before the testimony" in the ark; that they were removed during its captivity (1 Samuel 5:6.); and that the sacrilege was discovered at Bethshemesh (1 Samuel 6:19). This last mentioned episode explains how it came to be known that "there was nothing," etc. It is hardly likely after that memorable visitation that Solomon could have opened the ark and taken out the two relics, as Rawlinson suggests. Nor have we any warrant for the view that the mercy seat, with the cherubs, was removed to make way for a new lid without them, and so the interior of the ark was disclosed to view (Stanley) ] at Horeb [See Exodus 3:1; Exodus 17:6; Exodus 33:6; 1 Kings 19:8. This name, which means dry ground, desert, would appear to have belonged to two or three different places in the wilderness. But as the name of the place where the law was given and the covenant with God made (Deuteronomy 4:10, Deuteronomy 4:13) it became subsequently a nomen generale for the whole of the Sinaitic region. Here the mount of the law is clearly meant] when [Heb. which, אֲשֶׁר is occasionally found in the sense of quum, as in Deuteronomy 11:6; Psalms 139:15; 2 Chronicles 35:20; of. 1 Kings 9:10 (Gesen; Thessalonians, s.v.) ] the Lord made a covenant [Heb. cut; see note on 1 Kings 5:12. בְּרִית is to be understood. Same ellipsis in 1 Samuel 20:16; 1 Samuel 22:8] with the children of Israel when they came [Heb. in their coming] out of the land of Egypt. [Exodus 34:27, Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 4:13. 1 Kings 8:10 And it came to pass, when the priests were come out [Rather, as the priests came out] of the holy place [It has been supposed that "the holy" (הַקֹּדֶשׁ) is here put for the most holy place, as in Ezekiel 41:23. But this is not by any means the necessary interpretation. The cloud may obviously have filled the entire building only as the priests left it. It would seem, however, from Ezekiel 41:11 as if the priests, having left the oracle, were about to min later in the holy place], that the cloud [Observe the article; the well known cloud which betokened the Divine presence. It had rested upon the tabernacle on the day that it was dedicated (Exodus 40:34), had ac companied it in its journeys (ib. verse 38), and had apparently been specially displayed at certain junctures in the history of Israel (Numbers 12:5, Numbers 12:10; Numbers 16:42; Deuteronomy 31:15). ]t was thus the acknowledged symbol of God’s presence, and as such was a visible sign that He now accepted the temple, as He had formerly accepted the tabernacle, as His shrine and dwelling place. It is hardly correct to identify the cloud with the Shechinah of the Targums (Rawlinson), for it is noticeable that the Targums never render "the cloud" or "the glory" by "the Shechinah." In fact, as regards the use of the word by Jewish writers, it would seem to be a periphrasis for God. We may see in the cloud, however, the seat of the Shechinah filled the house of the Lord. 1 Kings 8:11 So that the priests could not stand to rainwater because of the cloud [They were overpowered by the manifestation, precisely as Moses had been before (Exodus 40:35). It was at the moment when the singers and trumpeters, standing at the east end of the altar, began their service of praise—and the reappearance of the priests may well have been the signal for them to begin (2 Chronicles 5:13)—that "the house was filled with a cloud." Possibly the priests were about to burn incense. Evidently ministrations of some sort were intended and were interrupted. The exact correspondence with Exodus 40:35 (cf. Ezekiel 44:4) is not to be overlooked. The idea obviously is that the Divine approval vouchsafed to the tabernacle was now in turn granted to the temple], for the glory of the Lord had filled the house of the Lord. [Is the "glory of the Lord" identical with the cloud, or is something additional intended by these words? It is certainly noticeable that what Exodus 40:10 says of the cloud—that it "filled the house"—Exodus 40:11 says of the glory. It is also true that there is no mention of any light or fire. And the "darkness" of Exodus 40:12 might naturally seem to refer to the cloud, and therefore to exclude the idea of light. But surely the words כְבוֹד יְיָ are to be interpreted here by their signification and use elsewhere, and we find "the glory of the Lord elsewhere mentioned as something distinct from the cloud. We must remember that what by day was a pillar of cloud, by night was a pillar of fire (Exodus 13:21, Exodus 13:22). In Exodus 19:9, Exodus 19:16, the mention of the "thick cloud" is followed by the statement that "Mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke because the Lord descended upon it in fire" (Exodus 19:18). Similarly, in Exodus 24:1-18; we are told that "the glory of the Lord appeared upon Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it (the glory?) six days; and the seventh day He called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud. And the sight of the glory of the Lord was like devouring fire " (Exodus 24:16, Exodus 24:17). But perhaps the most decisive passage in this connexion is Exodus 40:34, where we are told that "the cloud abode upon" the tent of meeting, while "the glory of the Lord filled the (interior of the) tabernacle." Compare Exodus 16:7, Exodus 16:10; Le Exodus 9:6, Exodus 9:23; Numbers 14:10; Numbers 16:19, Numbers 16:42. It would appear, therefore, that "the glory of the Lord" was not the cloud, but, as the word almost seems to imply, a "light from heaven above the brightness of the sun" (Acts 26:13; cf. Revelation 1:14, Revelation 1:16). It is hardly necessary to add that the glory, though apparently resident in the cloud, was not always luminous; the cloud veiled it from the eyes of men. 1 Kings 8:12 Then spake Solomon [in a transport of emotion at the sight. The cloud and the glory proved that his pious work was accepted. These blessed tokens assured him that "the Lord was there" (Ezekiel 48:35); that the incomprehensible Godhead had entered the earthly shrine he had prepared, and would dwell there], The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness. [Heb. עֲרָפֶל, lit; darkness of clouds. When did God speak of dwelling in dark cloud? The reference, probably, is to Exodus 19:9; Exodus 20:21, Deuteronomy 4:11; Deuteronomy 5:22 (note that, in the three last cited passages, this same word is used, and in the last two in connexion with cloud, which would appear to be a practically synonymous term), but especially to Le Deuteronomy 16:2, "I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat." Solomon had thus every warrant for connecting a theophany with the thick dark cloud. Cf. Psalms 18:11; Psalms 97:2. The words cannot refer to "the holy of holies not lighted by windows" (Wordsworth). 1 Kings 8:13 I have surely built [Heb. to build, I have built] thee a house to dwell in, a settled place for thee to abide in forever. [The temple was primarily, as already remarked, a shrine for the ark, between the cherubim of the mercy seat of which God dwelt. This was a מָכוֹן (from כוּן, statuit), a settled place. The tabernacle was but a poor and transitory abode, partaking of the frailty of the shepherd’s tent (Isaiah 38:12). For עוֹלָמִים (αἰῶνες), cf. Isaiah 26:4; Isaiah 51:9; Daniel 9:24; Psalms 145:13. 1 Kings 8:14 And the king turned his face about [He had been earnestly gazing toward the house where the cloud appeared. He now faced the congregation] and blessed [This word here, and in 1 Kings 8:55, is used somewhat loosely. The blessing was in both cases addressed to God. The Hebrew king was not authorized to bless the people—that was the prerogative of the priests (Numbers 6:23; cf. Le Numbers 9:22), and he is only said to bless here as felicitating, as wishing them a blessing. Dean Stanley ] "Jewish Ch.," vol. 2. p 218) characteristically asserts that Solomon "performed the highest sacerdotal act of solemn benediction." But the same word is used in 1 Kings 8:66, of the people blessing the king. "Did the people," as Wordsworth pertinently asks, "also perform a priestly act?" The word is elsewhere used of saluting. See note on 1 Kings 8:66, and Gesen. s.v.] all the congregation of Israel: (and all the congregation of Israel stood); [Heb. were standing (עֹמֵד); "stood" conveys the idea that the congregation rose as Solomon spoke, whereas they were standing already in the temple courts. 1 Kings 8:15 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Israel [1 Kings 1:48], which spake with his mouth unto [or, concerning; אֵל after verbs of speaking has the force of de (Genesis 20:2; Jeremiah 40:16; Psalms 69:27). David my father [The words were really spoken to Nathan], and hath with his hand [i.e; power; cf. Job 34:20; Acts 4:28; Acts 13:11; Ezra 7:6] fulfilled it [the spoken word He has fulfilled in deed], saying, [The reference is to 2 Samuel 7:1-29; of which Solomon merely gives the substance. Much of what he says here is not recorded there.] 1 Kings 8:16 Since the day that I brought forth my people Israel out of Egypt, I chose no city out of all the tribes of Israel, to build a house, that my name might be therein [The chronicler adds here, "Neither chose I any man to be ruler," etc. Probably our account comes nearer to the words actually spoken. The speech in the Chronicles looks as if it had been somewhat amplified, though it only completes the sense (Rawlinson)], but I chose David to be over my people Israel. [Cf. Psalms 78:70. This psalm pursues much the same line of thought as this address.] 1 Kings 8:17 And it was in the heart of David my father [2 Samuel 7:2; 1 Chronicles 17:1] to build an house for the name of the Lord God of Israel. 1 Kings 8:18 And the Lord said unto David my father [Not, perhaps, totidem verbis. The Divine approval was implied in 2 Samuel 7:11-16, and it may have been expressed at the same time. The narratives of Scripture are necessarily greatly condensed], Whereas it was in thine heart to build an house unto my name, thou didst well that it was in thine heart. 1 Kings 8:19 Nevertheless thou shalt not build the house [Wordsworth observes that it was filial reverence prevented Solomon’s mentioning the cause of this prohibition which, however, is mentioned with appropriate humility by David himself (1 Chronicles 22:8) ]; but thy son that shall come forth out of thy loins, he shall build the house unto my name. [2 Samuel 7:11, 2 Samuel 7:12. The recurrence of "the name" of the Lord is to be noticed (see 2 Samuel 7:16, 2 Samuel 7:17, 2 Samuel 7:18, 2 Samuel 7:29, 48, etc.) The name of God is the expression to man of Has nature, attributes, etc.] 1 Kings 8:20 And the Lord hath performed [Same word as in 1 Kings 2:4. Lit; "hath raised up" (LXX. ἀνέστησε). Also same word as "risen up" (LXX. ἀνέστην) below, and as "set up" in 2 Samuel 7:12. We might translate "established" throughout] his word that he spake, and I am risen up in the room of David my father, and sit on the throne of Israel [2 Samuel 1:1-27:48], as the Lord promised [2 Samuel 7:12], and have built an house for the name of the Lord God of Israel [ib. 2 Samuel 7:13]. 1 Kings 8:21 And I have set there a place for the ark, wherein is the covenant of the Lord [Hence its name, "the ark of the covenant" (Exodus 34:28; cf. Deuteronomy 9:11)] which he made with our forefathers when he brought them out of the land of Egypt [1 Kings 8:9, 1 Kings 8:16]. SECTION II.—The Prayer. The prayer of dedication, properly so called, now begins. This solemn and beautiful composition was probably copied by our author from the "Book of the Acts of Solomon" (1 Kings 11:41), possibly from the "Book of Nathan the prophet" (2 Chronicles 9:29). It was evidently committed to writing beforehand, and would, no doubt, as a matter of course, be religiously preserved. The later criticism objects to its authenticity that the many references to the Pentateuch prove it to be of a later date. Ewald assigns it to the seventh century B.C.; but this is simply to beg the question of the date of the Pentateuch. It is obviously open to reply that these references only prove that the king was acquainted, as he was bound to be (Deuteronomy 17:18), with the words of the law. It divides itself into three parts. The first (verses 22-30) is general; the second (verses 31-53) consists of seven special petitions; the last (verses 50-53) consists of a general conclusion and appeal to God’s covenant mercy. 1 Kings 8:22 And Solomon stood [i.e; took his stand (LXX. ἀνέστη). Not "was standing." It was but for a moment, however, for we find him presently kneeling (1 Kings 8:54; 2 Chronicles 6:13). The latter passage informs us that he both stood and knelt upon a "brazen scaffold," three cubits high] before the altar of the Lord [i.e; the brazen altar of sacrifice. The platform or scaffold was "set in the midst of the court" (2 Chronicles l.c.) All these rites took place in the open air. The king bad no place within the edifice] in the presence [the word is not to be pressed to mean "facing the people." It is hardly likely he would pray towards the people—he was their προφήτης, i.e; he spoke for them to God—or turn his back on the sacred Presence just manifested], and spread forth his hands towards heaven: [one attitude of earnest prayer thoughout the East, as may be seen at the present day amongst the Mohammedans. (See Lane’s "Modern Egyptians," ch. 3; "Religion and Laws.") So completely was this posture identified with supplication that to "lift up the hands" came to be a synonym for prayer (Exodus 9:29, Exodus 9:33; Psalms 44:20; Psalms 143:6; Isaiah 1:15; Isaiah 65:2.) ] 1 Kings 8:23 And he said, Lord God of Israel, there is no God like thee [Similar words are found in Exodus 15:11; Psalms 86:8, etc. They do not at all imply the existence of other gods, but are explained by other passages (e.g; verse 60; Deuteronomy 4:39, "the Lord He is God and none else;" 2 Samuel 7:22; 2 Samuel 22:32) as meaning that the God of Israel stands alone, and alone is God. It would be strange, indeed, if the people whose great peculium was the unity of the Godhead (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 42:8) recognized other deities. Observe: Solomon begins his prayer with an act of praise; with a recognition at once grateful and graceful of God’s past mercies (cf. Psalms 65:1, Psalms 65:2; Philippians 4:6). Exandit Dominus invocantem, quem laudantem vidit" ], in heaven above, or on earth beneath [Joshua 2:11], who keepest covenant and mercy [same words in Deuteronomy 7:9] with thy servants that walk before thee with all their heart. [cf. Deuteronomy 2:4. 1 Kings 8:24 Who hast kept with thy servant David my father [Solomon sees in this a special pledge of God’s faithfulness and truth] that thou promisedst [Heb. spakest, same word as below. The alteration in the A.V. obscures the connexion]: thou spakest also [Heb. and thou spakest, i.e; "yea," or "for thou spakest"] with thy mouth and hast fulfilled it with thine hand [verse 15, and Hebrews 3:6. The completion of the house, following the establishment of Solomon upon the throne, was to him proof conclusive that the promise of 2 Samuel 7:1-29. had received its fulfilment], as it is this day. 1 Kings 8:25 Therefore now [Heb. And now. The promise has been but partially fulfilled. The house is built; he now prays that the succession may be continued in David’s line] keep [cf. verse 24, "thou hast kept"] with thy servant David my father that thou promisedst [Heb. spakest to, as above] him, saying [The reference is of course to the great promise of 2 Samuel 7:12-16], There shall not fall thee a man in my sight to sit on the throne of Israel [cf. 1 Kings 2:4], so that [marg; if only. As to the condition, see note on 1 Kings 2:4, and cf. 1 Kings 6:12, 1 Kings 6:13] thy children take heed to [Heb. keep. Same word as above. The repetition is suggestive. God’s keeping His promise was contingent on their keeping His commandments] their way, that they walk before me as thou hast walked before me. 1 Kings 8:26 And now, O God [The LXX; Vulg; Syr; and Arab. read, O Lord God, as do many MSS. But the word is more likely to have been inserted (in conformity with 1 Kings 8:23, 1 Kings 8:25) than to have been left out] let thy word [The Keri has thy words. Keil sees here a reference to "all the words" of 2 Samuel 7:17; but this, especially when the reading is doubtful, is somewhat too remote], I pray thee, be verified [יֵאָמֵן optative form. Gesen; Gram. 126. 2] which thou spakest [Psalms 132:14] unto thy servant David my father. 1 Kings 8:27 But [כִי. Bהhr refers for this use of the word to 1 Samuel 29:8; 1 Kings 11:22; 2 Kings 8:13; Jeremiah 23:18] will God indeed [Web. verily; same root as that of preceding verb, "verified." The repetition shows the connexion of thought. "But can these words be verified? Will God verily," etc.] dwell on the earth? behold the heaven and heaven of heavens [Same expression Deuteronomy 10:14. Cf. Psalms 115:16; Psalms 148:4; Isaiah 66:1. The Jewish belief respecting the seven heavens (see Wetstein on 2 Corinthians 12:2; Stanley, "Corinthians," l.c.) is of much later date, and a reference to it, or to the belief of some Rabbins in two heavens (after Deuteronomy 10:14), is altogether out of the question. The "heaven of heavens" ="all the spaces of heaven, however vast and infinite" (Gesen; cf. Psalms 148:4). The analogy of "holy of holies" would, however, suggest that not all the heavens, but the highest heavens are intended] cannot contain thee; how much less [אַף כִי: Ewald, 354 c] this house that I have builded? [Two points are to be noticed here. (1) Solomon never denies for a moment that the temple was a real habitation of Jehovah, or that a real presence was manifested there. He only denies that the Deity is contained in earthly temples (2) He had no unworthy ideas—such as were prevalent in that age—of God as a local deity, limited to space. The words clearly prove his grasp of the omnipresence and infinity of God. With this passage compare Psalms 139:7-10; Isaiah 66:1 (quoted in Acts 7:49), and Acts 17:24. 1 Kings 8:28 Yet have thou respect unto the prayer of thy servant [=the prayer I now offer, which is that thou wilt hear all future prayers offered here, mine and my people’s] and to his supplication, O Lord my God, to hearken unto the cry and to the prayer [Three words are used here, תְּחִנָּה תְּפִלָה, and רנָּה. The first (from הִתְפָלַל, precatus est; see 1 Kings 8:29) is apparently a general term for prayer; the second (from חָנַן, propitius fuit) is properly a cry for mercy; hence an earnest prayer or supplication; while the third signifies a joyful cry; hence a mournful cry or prayer] which thy servant prayeth before thee today. 1 Kings 8:29 That thine eyes may be open [This anthropomorphism does not conflict with what was said under 1 Kings 8:27] toward this house night and day [not so much to watch over it as to see the worship and prayer offered there], even toward the place of which thou hast said, My name shall be there [cf. Ezekiel 48:35, and Ezekiel 48:18, Ezekiel 48:19, Ezekiel 48:20, etc. When had God said this? Never perhaps, in so many words. Keil says the reference is to 2 Samuel 7:13 implicite ("He shall build an house for my name"), while Rawlinson thinks the "reference is not to any single text, but to the many passages in Deuteronomy where God speaks of a place which He will choose to ’set his name’ there (Deuteronomy 12:5, Deuteronomy 12:11, Deuteronomy 12:18, etc.; Deuteronomy 14:23; Deuteronomy 15:20; Deuteronomy 16:2, etc.) " But it is very probable that a revelation was made to David respecting the sanctuary, the terms of which are not preserved to us. This is almost implied by Psalms 78:68; Psalms 132:10; 1 Chronicles 22:1—passages which prove that David claimed to have Divine sanction for placing the temple on "Mount Zion." Psalms 132:1-18, is unmistakeably Davidic, and embodies some features of the message of God (e.g; the condition, Psalms 132:12) not preserved in 2 Samuel 7:1-29.: that thou mayest hearken unto the prayer which thy servant shall make toward [Marg. in, but Heb. אֵל. supports the A.V. rendering. Now that God had revealed His presence in the temple, the Jew, wherever he might be, would, and as a matter of fact did, pray towards it (Daniel 6:10; Psalms 5:7; Jonah 2:4), just as the Mohammedan has his Kibleh in Mecca] this place. 1 Kings 8:30 And hearken thou to the supplication of thy servant, and of thy people Israel, when they shall pray toward this place: and hear thou in heaven [Heb. unto heaven, אֶל־הַשָּׁמַיִם a pregnant censtruction hear the prayer that ascends unto heaven. The chronicler here, as elsewhere, simplifies the meaning by reading "from heaven," מִן־הַשּׁ] thy dwelling place [Here, and in verses 39, 43, and 49, heaven is described as the true dwelling place of Deity. Confidently as Solomon believes that he has built a habitation for the Lord, he never dreams that the "Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands" (Acts 7:48; Acts 17:4) ]: and when thou hearest, forgive. [There is possibly a play of words here—שָׁמַיִם שָׁמַעְתָּ]. With the next verse the special or particular supplications begin. Like those of the Lord’s prayer, they are seven in number, and no doubt for the same reason, viz; because seven was the number of covenant, the number which expressed the relationship between the Lord and His people In fact, to the Jew the number "seven" was something like the sign of the cross to a large portion of Catholic Christendom, for it spoke to him of God’s covenant of mercy and peace. And the first of the seven concerns oaths. The king implores the covenant-keeping God to watch over the covenants of words made in the now consecrated sanctuary, and to protect their sanctity by punishing the false swearer. There were cases in which the Mosaic law provided that an oath should be administered to suspected persons (Exodus 22:11; Le Exodus 5:1, Exodus 5:4, etc.) And there were other cases in which men of their own accord, for "an end of all strife," would make oath. Now every oath, whatever its form (Matthew 23:16-22), is in reality an affirmation" by the God of truth" (Isaiah 65:16); it is an appeal to the knowledge and power and justice of the Most High (Leviticus 19:12; Deuteronomy 6:13; Deuteronomy 10:20; Isaiah 48:1; Jeremiah 12:16; Jeremiah 44:26). A false oath, consequently, dishonoured the Divine name, and polluted the sanctuary dedicated to that name, and if it went unpunished, contradicted the principles and provisions of the dispensation Of temporal punishments, and so encouraged falsehood and impiety. God is here entreated, consequently, to take cognizance of the oaths sworn before His altar (verse 31), and to be a swift witness against the false swearers (Malachi 3:5). It is, perhaps, because of the direct dishonour which perjury offers to the Divine name that, as Bהhr suggests, this prayer stands first among the seven, thus corresponding to the "Hallowed be Thy name" in the Lord’s prayer, and to the third among the ten commandments. 1 Kings 8:31 If any man trespass [The force of the Hebrew (which begins somewhat abruptly) אֵת אֲשֶׁר (LXX. ὅσαἂνἁμάρτη) is probably, As for that which, or in all cases in which, i.e; when. The chronicler, as usual, simplifies by reading אֵם] against his neighbour, and an oath be laid [Heb. and he (the neighbour) lay an oath, i.e; prescribe a form of adjuration, such as that in Deuteronomy 21:7] upon him to cause him to swear, and the oath come [This translation cannot be maintained. For in the Heb. there is no def. art; as there would be if אָלָה were noun and nominative; and, moreover in that case the verb, to agree with the feminine noun, would be בָּאָה. And as no other meaning can be extracted from the words as they stand, we are driven to suspect a slight corruption of the text, either (1) the omission of åbetween the words, which in that case would have stood ובא ואלה, and would mean, "and he (the accused) come and swear"—a conjecture which is supported by the LXX; καὶἔλθῃκαὶἐξαγορεύση, or (2) the omission of the preposition ,á which would yield ובא באלה = and he (the accused) enters into the oath, an expression found in Nehemiah 10:29 and Ezekiel 17:13] before thine altar in this house. [Despite the last words, the altar of sacrifice before the house is probably meant. This was the altar of the Jewish layman, and, moreover it was one visible sign of the covenant. Psalms 1:5; Exodus 24:6-8; cf. Exodus 20:24. The altar which afforded shelter to the manslayer, in the same way lent sanctity to the oath. The practice of swearing by the altar (Matthew 23:18) is of later date. 1 Kings 8:32 Then hear thou in heaven [Heb. and thou, thou wilt hear the heavens. The same expression, תּשְׁמַע הַשָּׁמַיִם, is found in verses 34, 36, 39. See Ewald, 300 a. Keil sees in it the adverbial use of the accusative. Most of the versions read "from heaven," as does the Chronicles and one MS.], and do [i.e; act] and judge thy servants, condemning [Heb. to make (i.e; prove) wicked] the wicked, to bring [Heb. give, same word as below] his way [i.e; works, fruits] upon his head [cf. Ezekiel 9:10; Ezekiel 11:21; same expression] and justifying [Heb. to make righteous. Cf. δικαιοῦν in N.T. and justum facere] the righteous [cognate words are used in both cases], to give him according to his righteousness. The second special petition contemplates the case, which was morally certain to occur, of Hebrews taken captive in war and carried to a foreign land. To be separated from the commonwealth, the rites and the blessings of Israel, was one of the greatest calamities which could befal a Jew (Deuteronomy 4:27, Deuteronomy 4:28; Leviticus 26:33; Psalms 137:1-9.), and as such Solomon gives it a prominent place in his prayer. The connexion, how. ever which some have imagined to exist between this prayer and the preceding, viz; that that referred to internal, this to external dangers, is too artificial to have found a place in Solomon’s thoughts. 1 Kings 8:33 When thy people Israel be smitten down before the enemy [cf. Leviticus 26:7, 17; Deuteronomy 28:25. There is a constant reference to these two chapters throughout this prayer, or, if no direct reference to them, there are unmistakeable reminiscences of them], because they have sinned against thee, and shall turn again to thee, and confess [or praise. Psalms 54:8 Hebrews; 106:47; 122:4] thy name, and pray, and make supplication unto thee in this house. [The marg. towards is a mistaken attempt at avoiding the difficulty which lies on the surface of the text, viz; that persons in a foreign land could not pray in the temple. But the king obviously is speaking here, not of those taken captive, but of the nation at large ("thy people Israel") by its representatives (cf. Joe 2:17), supplicating after its defeat. The idea of captives does not come in until the next verse. Under the term house the courts are obviously included (Acts 2:46; Luke 18:10). Into the edifice the priests alone were admitted. 1 Kings 8:34 Then hear thou in heaven, and forgive the sin of thy people Israel, and bring them [i.e; the captives of Israel, those carried off by the enemy. There is no thought here of the captivity of the nation—that is referred to in 1 Kings 8:46-50—as the prayers to be offered in the temple prove. This petition is in exact accordance with the promises and threatenings of the law, for the former of which see Leviticus 26:40-44; Deuteronomy 30:1-5; for the latter, Leviticus 26:33; Deuteronomy 4:27; Deuteronomy 28:64 sqq.] again unto the land which thou gavest unto their fathers. The third petition concerns the plague of drought. Just as rain, in the thirsty and sunburnt East, has ever been accounted one of the best gifts of God (Le Deuteronomy 26:4; Deuteronomy 11:11; Job 5:10, and passim; Psalms 68:9; Psalms 147:8; Acts 14:17), so was drought denounced as one of His severest scourges (Le Deuteronomy 26:19; Deuteronomy 11:17; Deuteronomy 28:23, Deuteronomy 28:24, etc.) This petition finds an illustration in the public supplications which are still offered in the East, and by men of all creeds, for rain. 1 Kings 8:35 When heaven is shut up, and there is no rain, because they have sinned against thee; if they pray toward this place [toward, because the inhabitants of the land everywhere would direct their prayers toward the holy oracle in Jerusalem (Psalms 28:2) ], and confess [praise] thy name, and turn from their sin, when [or because, כִי] thou afflictest them. [LXX. ὅτανταπεινώσηςαὐτοὺς—Humbling should be the result of affliction.] 1 Kings 8:36 Then hear thou in heaven [see on 1 Kings 8:32], and forgive the sin of thy servants, and of thy people Israel that thou teach them [rather, because thou art teaching them, etc. The thought is, "Forgive, because they have learned the lessen Thy discipline of drought was meant to teach;" because the chastisement has fulfilled its purpose] the good way [1 Samuel 12:23] wherein they should walk, and give rain upon thy land, which thou hast given to thy people for an inheritance. The fourth petition refers to the various plagues mentioned in the law (Leviticus 26:1-46.; Deuteronomy 28:1-68.), as the punishment of apostasy or infidelity. 1 Kings 8:37 If there be in the land famine [Heb. Famine should there be, etc. The word is emphatic by position. Famine is denounced, Leviticus 26:20, 26; Deuteronomy 28:33], if there be pestilence [Leviticus 26:25; Jeremiah 14:12; Jeremiah 24:10; Amos 4:10; Ezekiel 6:12, etc.], blasting [same word Genesis 41:6; Amos 4:9; Deuteronomy 28:22], mildew [lit. paleness, χλωρότης, Deuteronomy l.c.], locust, or if there be caterpillar [It is uncertain whether חָסִיל, lit; devourer, here rendered "caterpillar," is not an adjective and an appellation of the locust = devouring locust. Deuteronomy 28:38 (יַאֲסְלֶנוּ חָאַרְבֶּה "the locust shall consume it") certainly favours this view. But the Chronicles and the Verss. distinguish it here (by the introduction of "and" between the two words) as a separate plague. It is also similarly distinguished, Joe 1:4; Psalms 78:46. Gesen. considers it to be a species of locust]; if their enemy besiege them in the land of their cities [Heb. his gates, but "the land of his gates" hardly yields sense. It is noteworthy that the LXX. (with most of the Verss.) reads ἐνμιᾷτῶνπόλεωναὐτοῦ. Thenius, consequently, to bring the Hebrew text into harmony, would substitute באחת עיריו for בארץ שעריו. Another suggested emendation is בארץ בשעריו, "in the land, even in their gates." But it is doubtful whether any alteration is really required. "The land of their gates" (cf. "land of their captivity," 2 Chronicles 6:37; Jeremiah 30:10, etc.) may perhaps be interpreted the land where their gates (i.e; fortified cities) are. The marg. "Jurisdiction"—the gate being the place of judgment (Rth 4:11; Proverbs 22:22; 2 Samuel 15:2)—is altogether out of the question]; whatsoever plague, whatsoever [Heb. every plague, etc.] sickness there be. 1 Kings 8:38 What prayer and supplication soever [There is here a studied reference to the preceding words. Lit; every prayer, etc. We might render in 1 Kings 8:37, "Whatsoever the plague," etc; and here, "Whatsoever the prayer," etc.] be made by any man, or by all thy people Israel, which shall know every man the plague of his own heart [Here again there is an unmistakeable reference to the "plague" (same word) of 1 Kings 8:37. The plague of the heart is the inner smart of the conscience corresponding with and perhaps more painful than the smiting of the person. The meaning obviously is that the prayers will vary. according to the various mental and physical sufferings of men], and spread forth his hands [see on 1 Kings 8:22] toward this house. 1 Kings 8:39 Then hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place, and forgive, and do, and give to every man according to his ways, whose heart thou knowest; (for thou, even thou only, knowest the hearts of all the children of men;) [Jeremiah 17:10. Cf. ὁπαρδιογνώστηςθεὸς (Acts 15:8; also ib. Acts 1:24). 1 Kings 8:40 That they may fear thee all the days that they live in the land which thou gavest unto their fathers. [Solomon anticipates that a godly fear will be the result of forgiveness and restoration. We find the same thought in Psalms 130:4. The mercy and goodness of God should lead to repentance, but unhappily it not unseldom fails to do so.] The fifth petition contemplates the prayers which foreigners, attracted by the fame of Jerusalem, of its religion and sanctuary could offer towards the house. The Gentiles who should visit Jerusalem would assuredly, with their polytheistic ideas and their belief in local or tribal deities, invoke the aid and blessing of the mighty God of Jacob. This mention of aliens from the commonwealth of Israel in the prayer of dedication, especially when viewed in the light of the exclusiveness and bigotry which characterized the Jews of later days, is especially to be noticed. As Rawlinson (in loco) observes, "Nothing is more remarkable in the Mosaic law than its liberality with regard to strangers." He then quotes Exodus 22:21; Le Exodus 25:35; Deuteronomy 10:19; Deuteronomy 31:12; Numbers 15:14-16; and adds: "It is quite in the spirit of these enactments that Solomon, having first prayed God on behalf of his fellow countrymen, should next go on to intercede for the strangers," etc. The intercourse of the Hebrews at this period with foreign nations, and the influence they exercised on the Jewish thought and manners (see Stanley, "Jewish Ch." 2. Leer. 26.), are also to be remembered. These new relations with the stranger would no doubt have widened Solomon’s views. 1 Kings 8:41 Moreover concerning a stranger, that is not of thy people Israel, but cometh out of a far country for thy name’s sake; [Solomon takes it for granted that such will come, and not without good reason, for the house was "exceeding magnifical" and destined to be "of fame and glory throughout all countries" (1 Chronicles 22:5). And we can hardly doubt that in the visit of the Queen of Sheba we are to see one fulfilment of this anticipation. (Note the expression of 1 Kings 10:1 "concerning the name of the Lord.") One who blessed God, as she did (1 Kings 8:9), would certainly pray towards the house. In the time of the second temple there were several instances of strangers (e.g; Alexander the Great, Ptolemy Philadelphus, and Seleucus; see Keil in loc.) worshipping the God of Jacob in Jerusalem. 1 Kings 8:42 (For they shall hear of thy great name [Cf. Joshua 7:9; Psalms 76:1; Psalms 99:3], and of thy strong hand [cf. Exodus 6:6; Exodus 13:9; Deuteronomy 9:26, Deuteronomy 9:29; cf. Deuteronomy 7:19. They had heard at a much earlier date (Exodus 15:14; Exodus 18:1; Joshua 5:1). The reference is not so much to the marvels of the Exodus—that was long past—as to the wondrous works which Solomon assumes will hereafter be wrought], and of thy stretched out arm;) when he shall come and pray toward this house. 1 Kings 8:43 Hear thou in heaven thy dwell-lug place, and do according to an that the stranger calleth to thee for: that all people of the earth may know thy name [It is interesting to notice this foreshadowing of the inclusion of the Gentiles in the one fold. The same thought is found in some of the Psalms and in Isaiah, as St. Paul witnesses (Romans 15:9 sqq.) Cf. Psalms 22:27; Psalms 72:11; Psalms 86:9; Psalms 98:3; Psalms 102:15; Psalms 117:1; Isaiah 49:6; Isaiah 52:10] to fear thee, as do thy people Israel; and that they may know that this house, which I have builded, is called by thy name. [Heb. that thy name is called (or, has been called, נִקְרָא. LXX. ἐπικέκληται) upon this house, i.e; that God has taken this house for His habitation: that He dwells there, works, hears, answers there. Same expression, Jeremiah 7:10, Jeremiah 7:11, Jeremiah 7:14; Jeremiah 25:29; Deuteronomy 28:10; Isaiah 4:1. In Numbers 6:27 we have, "they shall put my name upon the children of Israel." In Deuteronomy 12:5, and Deuteronomy 16:6 (cf. 1 Kings 11:36), we read of the place God has "chosen to put his name there." So far the royal suppliant has spoken of prayers offered in or at the temple. He now mentions two eases where supplications will be offered by penitents far distant from the holy city or even from the Holy Land. And first, he speaks of the armies of Israel on a campaign. 1 Kings 8:44 If thy people go out to battle against their enemy, whithersoever [Heb. in the way which] thou shalt send them [These words clearly imply that the war, whether defensive or offensive (i.e; for the chastisement of other nations), is one which had God’s sanction, and indeed was waged by His appointment], and shall pray unto the Lord toward [Heb. in the way of. Same expression as above. The repetition is significant. "They have gone in God’s way. They may therefore look the way of God’s house for help." Executing God’s commission, they might justly expect His blessing] the city which thou hast chosen, and toward the house that I have built for thy name. 1 Kings 8:45 This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ THE ANSWER TO SOLOMON’S PRAYER.—This chapter opens with an account of God’s second appearance to Solomon. It must not be supposed, however, from the apparent close connexion of this relation with the preceding narrative, that it stands to it in equally close chronological order. It probably finds a place here because the historian has grouped together all the suitable materials in his possession which related to the temple. But see on 1 Kings 9:1. 1 Kings 9:1 And it came to pass when Solomon had finished the building of the house of the Lord, and the king’s house [1 Kings 7:1], and all Solomon’s desire which he was pleased to do [By "desire" we are not to understand "pleasure buildings" (cf. 1 Kings 7:10, 1 Kings 7:19). The chronicler gives the true meaning: "all that came into Solomon’s heart." It is, however, somewhat doubtful what works are comprehended under this term. 2 Chronicles 7:11 limits it to the two great erections already described—"all that came into his heart to make in the house of the Lord and in his own house." But it is by no means certain that our author intended the word to be thus restricted; it is quite possible, e.g; that some of the buildings mentioned below (2 Chronicles 7:15-19) are to be included. But another question of much greater importance presents itself here. In the Divine communication of 2 Chronicles 7:3-9 there is constant and unmistakeable reference to the prayer of dedication (see especially 2 Chronicles 7:3); in fact, this message is the answer to that prayer. It has been held, consequently, that the answer must have followed, if not immediately, yet soon after the petitions were uttered; if so, the dedication must clearly have taken place, not on the completion of the temple (1 Kings 6:38), but on the completion of the palace, etc.; in other words, the temple must have been finished fully thirteen years before it was consecrated and occupied. Rawlinson suggests that the delay was perhaps occasioned by the circumstance that the furniture of the temple was not till then ready; but 1 Kings 6:38, Hebrews, seems to state distinctly that all the vessels and appointments of the sanctuary were finished at the date there given. Reasons have been given elsewhere (see note on 1 Kings 8:1) in support of the position that the dedication possibly have been delayed for so long a period, especially after the strenuous efforts which had been made to hurry on the undertaking. Nor does the text, when carefully examined, really require this hypothesis; indeed, it suggests some reasons for thinking that a considerable period must have intervened between the prayer and the response. For the tone of this response is unmistakeably foreboding, if not minatory. Verses 6-9 contain a stern warning. But there was nothing, so far as we know, in the attitude of Solomon or of Israel at the time of the dedication to call for any such denunciation. At that time, as the prayer surely proves, Solomon’s heart was perfect with the Lord his God. But the response has unmistakeably the appearance of having been elicited by signs of defection. The wide difference, consequently, between the spirit of the prayer and the tone of the answer suggests that some time must have elapsed between them, and so far supports the view that the dedication was not delayed until the palace, etc; was completed. And it is also to be remembered that the prayer of dedication had not been without acknowledgment at the time. The excellent glory which filled and took possession of the house was itself a significant and sufficient response. No voice or vision could have said more plainly, "I have heard thy prayer, I have hallowed this house." But when, some thirteen years later—about the very time, that is, when he was at the height of his prosperity, and when, owing to the completion of his undertakings, we might fear lest his heart should be lifted up with pride—when Solomon and his court began to decline in piety and to go after other gods, then this merciful message opportunely refers him to the prayer which he was in danger of forgetting, and warns him of the consequences of the apostasy to which he was tending.] 1 Kings 9:2 That the Lord appeared to Solomon the second time [see on 1 Kings 6:11, and 1 Kings 11:9; Solomon had received a message during the building of the temple], as he had appeared unto him at Gibeon [i.e; in a dream (1 Kings 3:5) ]. 1 Kings 9:3 And the Lord said unto him [This message is given at greater length in 2 Chronicles 7:12-22. 2 Chronicles 7:13, 2 Chronicles 7:14, e.g; contain a reference to that part of the prayer which related to drought and rain], I have heard thy prayer and thy supplication [These two words are found similarly united in Solomon’s prayer, verses 38, 45, 54], that thou hast made [Heb. supplicated] before me; I have hallowed this house which thou hast built [sc. by the manifestation described 1 Kings 8:11. Cf. Exodus 29:43: "the tabernacle shall be sanctified" (same word) "by my glory." In 2 Chronicles we read, "I have chosen this place to myself for a house of sacrifice," where, however, it is worth considering whether instead of the somewhat singular בית זבח the original text may not have been בית זבל, as in 1 Kings 8:13] to put my name there [1 Kings 8:29; cf. 1 Kings 8:16, 1 Kings 8:17, 1 Kings 8:18, 1 Kings 8:19; also Deuteronomy 12:11; Luke 11:12] forever [1 Kings 8:13. As Solomon offered it, so God accepted it, in perpetuity. That the house was subsequently "left desolate" and destroyed (2 Kings 25:9) was because of the national apostasy (1 Kings 8:8, 1 Kings 8:9) ], and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually. [In 1 Kings 8:29 Solomon asked that God’s "eyes may be open… towards the house." The answer is that not only His eyes shall be open, but eyes and heart shall be there [Ephesians 3:20; see Homiletics on 1 Kings 3:5);—the eye to watch, the heart to cherish it.] 1 Kings 9:4 And [Heb. And thou, emphatic] if thou wilt walk before me as David thy father walked, in integrity of heart before me and in uprightness [cf. 1 Kings 3:6, 1 Kings 3:14; 1 Kings 11:34. David was not perfect, as our author tells us elsewhere (1 Kings 15:5; cf. 1 Kings 1:6; 2 Samuel 24:10). His integrity consisted in his unvarying loyalty to the true God. Even when overcome by that fierce temptation (2 Samuel 11:1-27.) he never faltered in his allegiance to the truth. There was no coquetting with idolatrous practices; cf. Psalms 18:20-24], to do according to all that I have commanded thee, and wilt keep my statutes and my judgments [the echo of David’s last words, 1 Kings 2:3, 1 Kings 2:4. It is probable, however, that the historian has only preserved the substance of the message. It is doubtful whether Solomon himself would remember the exact words]: 1 Kings 9:5 Then I will establish [same word as in ch. 1 Kings 2:4, where see note. Surely he would remember this word as it would recall his father’s charge to his mind] the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel forever [this is the answer to the prayer of 1 Kings 8:26] as I promised to David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man upon the throne of Israel. [2 Samuel 7:12, 2 Samuel 7:16; 1 Kings 2:4; 1 Kings 6:12; Psalms 132:12. But the primary reference is to 1 Kings 8:25; see Introduction, sect. III.] 1 Kings 9:6 But if ye shall at all [rather altogether, or assuredly] turn from following me [The A.V. entirely misrepresents the force of the Hebraism, If to turn, ye shall turn, which must mean complete, not partial, apostasy. Cf. 2 Chronicles 7:19, and 2 Samuel 7:14, 2 Samuel 7:15], ye or your children [as the promises of God are to us and our children (Acts 2:39), so are His threatenings], and will not keep my commandments and my statutes which I [LXX. Μωυσῆς; Qui facit per allure, etc.] have set before you, but go and serve other gods and worship them [Exodus 20:5; Deuteronomy 5:9; Deuteronomy 13:2]: 1 Kings 9:7 Then will I cut off Israel out of the land which I have given them [Cf. Deuteronomy 4:26, Deuteronomy 4:27; and for the fulfilment see 2 Kings 25:11, 2 Kings 25:21;] and this house which I have hallowed for my name [Jeremiah 7:14] will I cast out of my sight [same expression, 2 Kings 24:20]; and Israel shall be a proverb and a byword among all people [the exact words of Deu 28:37. Similar words in Isaiah 14:4; Micah 6:16. Much the same punishment is denounced in Leviticus 26:14-38, and Deuteronomy 4:45, 63]: 1 Kings 9:8 And at this house, which is high [Heb; And this house shall be high, עֶלְיוֹן יִהְיֶה. Our translators were probably influenced by 2 Chronicles 7:21, the text of which is אֲשֶׁר הָיהָ עֶלְיוֹן which would seem to be an emendation, designed to clear up the difficulty rather than an accidental variation of the text. But here the literal rendering is probably the truer, the meaning being "this house shall be conspicuous, as an example"—so the Vulg. domus haec erit in exemplum. The LXX. accords with the Hebrew text, ὁοἷκοςοὗτοςἔσταιὁὐψηλὸς, but the Syriac and Arabic read, "this house shall be destroyed." Keil sees in the words an allusion implicite to Deuteronomy 26:19, and Deuteronomy 28:1, where God promises to make Israel עֶלְיוֹן, and says "the blessing will be turned into a curse." The temple should indeed be "high," should be what Israel would have been, but it shall be as a warning, etc.; but this connexion is somewhat far fetched and artificial. Thenius would read for, עִיִּין עֶלְיוֹן. "ruins," after Micah 3:12; Jeremiah 26:18; Psalms 79:1; but it is hardly right to resort to conjectures, unsupported by a single version or MS; so long as any sufficient meaning can be extracted from the words as they stand, and no one can deny that "high" may surely signify "conspicuous." Cf. Matthew 11:23], every one that passeth by it shall be astonished. [שָׁמֵם primarily means to be dumb with astonishment, Gesen; Thessalonians 3. p. 1435] and shall hiss [שָׁרַק, like "hiss," is an onomatopoetic word. It does not denote the hissing of terror (Bהhr) but of derision; of. Jeremiah 19:8; Jeremiah 49:17; Job 27:23; Lamentations 2:15, Lamentations 2:16. Rawlinson aptly remarks, as bearing on the authorship of the Kings, that this is a familiar word in Jeremiah (see 1 Kings 18:16; 25:9; 29:18; 50:13; 51:37, in addition to the passages cited above), and that the other prophets rarely use it. The fact that much of this charge is in Jeremiah’s style, confirms the view taken above (note on verse 4), that the ipsissima verba of the dream are not preserved to us. The author indeed could hardly do more than preserve its leading ideas, which he would naturally present in his own dress]; and they shall say, Why hath the Lord done thus unto this land and to this house? [Similar words Deuteronomy 29:24, Deuteronomy 29:25; Jeremiah 22:8. 1 Kings 9:9 And they shall answer, Because they forsook the Lord their God who brought forth their fathers out of the land of Egypt [Based on Deuteronomy 29:25. Solomon in his prayer referred repeatedly to this great deliverance, Deuteronomy 29:16, Deuteronomy 29:21, 51, 53], and have taken hold upon other gods and have worshipped them and served them; therefore hath the Lord brought upon them all this evil. 1 Kings 9:1-9 The Second Appearance to Solomon. "Behold the goodness and severity of God" (Romans 11:22). To Solomon goodness, to Israel severity. I. The OF GOD is manifested— 1. In revealing Himself to Solomon. The greatest favour God can show us is to show us Himself; the greatest gift is to give us Himself. "Give what Thou wilt, without Thee I am poor, And with Thee rich, take what Thou wilt away." "I will love him and will manifest myself unto him" (John 14:21). "I will come in to him and sup with him" (Revelation 3:20). "We will make our abode with him" (John 14:23). There are no richer promises than these. Well may we exclaim, "O altitudo!" (Romans 11:33.) "O why should heavenly God to men have such regard!" Yes, the riches, honour, glory, etc; given to Solomon were of small account compared with the good thoughts and high aspirations bestowed upon him. Riches are such third-rate blessings that God bestows them indiscriminately on the evil and the good. But noble resolves and high purposes—"courtliness and the desire of (true) fame, and love of truth, and all that makes a man"—these He reserves for His children. Solomon’s riches and glory proved his ruin; the revelations he received were the true source of his greatness. 2. In warning Solomon. The very kindest thing a friend can do for us is to admonish us when we are going wrong. "Thou mayest be sure that he that will in private tell thee of thy faults is thy friend, for he adventureth thy dislike and doth hazard thy hatred" (Sir W. Raleigh). God showed this proof of love to Solomon. In the night watches, in the darkness and silence, away from the glamour and flattery of the court, the Divine voice was heard in his secret soul. And the plainness of the warning was a part of its mercifulness. The trumpet gave no uncertain sound (1 Kings 9:5-8). God set before him that day "life and good, death and evil" (Deuteronomy 30:15). By one to whom such wisdom had been vouchsafed, warnings should have been unneeded. But they were needed—and they were mercifully granted. The good Shepherd goes "o’er moor and fell, o’er crag and torrent" to bring back the straying sheep. II. The OF GOD is exhibited - 1. In the punishment denounced against Israel. "Cut off;" "cast out of my sight;" "a proverb and a byword;" "shall be astonished and shall hiss"—these are its terms. But observe: (1) None of these things needed to have befallen them. God had no pleasure in the death or dispersion of His elect people. It was their own fault if they were cut off. (2) These things were denounced inkindness to stay them in their sin and so to prevent their dispersion. These were the sanctions of that dispensation. "The law is not made for a righteous man, but," etc. (1 Timothy 1:9). (3) There was no disproportion or undue rigour in these penalties. What seems to us severity is really exact justice, or rather mercy, to the world. As Israel had been favoured above all peoples, so, in strict equity, should it be punished above all. "The glory, and the adoption, and the covenants," etc. (Romans 9:4), could not appertain to them without bringing with them "many stripes" for the disobedient. Those exalted to heaven shall be brought down to hell (Matthew 11:28). It was necessary for our admonition that the chosen people should not afford the world the spectacle of a nation sinning unpunished (1 Corinthians 10:11). 2. In the punishment inflicted. For how literally have these words been fulfilled! What an evidence of the truth of God the history of Israel supplies! This, at any rate, is no vaticinium ex eventu. "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears" (Luke 4:21). "A proverb and a byword"—eighteen centuries at least testify to the truth of these words. "Cast out of my sight;" let the horrors of the siege of Jerusalem (see Joshua, B.J. 5. ch. 10-13, Joshua 6:1-27. passim. "Never" he says, "did any other city suffer such miseries") explain to us these words. And there is not a country of Europe, there is hardly a city, in which the history of the Jew is not traced in blood, written within and without in" mourning and lamentation and woe." Claudius expelled them from Borne (Acts 18:2); our Edward I. drove them out of Guienne and England. "Ivanhoe" gives some idea of their treatment in this country; but a romance could not record a tithe of the horrors of which Clifford’s Tower in York or the Jews’ house in Lincoln could tell. And yet it is allowed that they have always been treated more tenderly in England than in the rest of Europe. But even here, and down to the present day, the word "Jew" is too often a name of hate. In Servia, in Moldavia and Wallachia, they are still the objects of fierce, persecution and.not always unmerited obloquy. Even the "Anti-Semitic League, now being organized in Germany, is a part of the "severity" of God, a proof of the "sure word of prophecy." In Jerusalem, again, the metropolis of their race, they are accounted the filth and offscouring of all things. At the Greek Easter the refrain is often heard in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, "O Jews, O Jews, your feast is a feast of apes." What a commentary, too, is the Jews’ "place of wailing" on this scripture I The "holy and beautiful house" a desolation, the temple precincts trodden under foot of the Gentiles I Conqueror after conqueror, pilgrim after pilgrim, has asked the question, "Wherefore hath the Lord done thus?" etc; while the "ever extending miles of gravestones and the ever lengthening pavement of tombs and sepulchres" answer, "Because they have forsaken the Lord their God," etc. (1 Kings 9:9; Jeremiah 22:8, Jeremiah 22:9). "Tribes of the wandering foot and weary breast, When will ye fly away and be at rest? The wild dove hath its nest, the fox its cave, Mankind their country—Israel but the grave." Application. Romans 2:21. In the history of the Israelitish nation we may see the principle of God’s dealing with individual souls But we may also read in it a warning for the Christian Church (Revelation 2:5). BY J. WAITE 1 Kings 9:1-9 The Reviewed Covenant. This Divine manifestation was probably similar in form to that with which Solomon was favoured at the beginning of his reign, of which it is said, "In Gibeon the Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream by night "(1 Kings 3:1-28:50). We have no means of judging as to the precise time of this occurrence; but the close connection of thought between what God here says to Solomon and the prayer at the dedication (seen most clearly in 2 Chronicles 7:14, 2 Chronicles 7:15) leads us to suppose that it took place immediately after that event. It illustrates: I. THE OF GOD AND THE BLESSED RESULTS THAT ATTEND IT. God’s faithfulness is seen (1) in the answering of the prayer—"I have heard thy prayer," etc. The vision was itself an instant and very gracious Divine response. All true prayer is heard. No pure breath of supplication, the incense of the heart, ever ascends to Heaven in yam. God does not disappoint the hopes and longings He has Himself awakened. As the vapours that rise from land and sea sooner or later return again, distilling in the silent dew, descending in fruitful showers upon the earth—not one fluid particle is lost—so every cry of filial faith that goes up to the great Father of all comes back in due time in some form of heavenly benediction. And more, the answer is often far larger and richer than our expectations. He "doeth exceeding abundantly," etc. (Ephesians 3:20). Solomon had prayed "That thine eyes may be open towards this house." God answers, "Mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually." The very heart of God dwells where His suppliant people are. This anthropopathic mode of speech is a gracious Divine accommodation to our human wants and weaknesses. God condescends to us that we may the better rise to Him. It is the necessarily imperfect yet most welcome expression of a sublime reality that we could not otherwise know. God has a tender "heart" towards us as well as an observant "eye." And wherever we seek Him with all our hearts there His heart responds to the throbbing of ours—a sympathetic personal Presence, meeting our approach, pitying our necessities, giving love for love. Note, too, the constancy of this grace—"forever." "perpetually." "The gifts and calling of God are without repentance." Wherever He records His name there He "dwells." When He blesses, when He gives or forgives, it is "forever." If the grace is cancelled, if the benediction is withdrawn, the fault is ours, not His. "Though we believe not, yet He abideth faithful; He cannot deny Himself" (2 Timothy 2:18). (2) In the repetition of the promise, "If thou wilt walk before me," etc. (1 Kings 9:4, 1 Kings 9:5). The promise is reiterated as a sacred and inviolable engagement which God on His part will never break. "The sure mercies of David." All Divine promises are sure. We have but to place ourselves in the line of their fulfilment and all is well with us. They are steadfast as the ordinances of heaven and earth. Natural laws are God’s promises in the material realm. Obedience to them is the sure path to physical well being. Are His counsels in the moral and spiritual sphere likely to be less steadfast and reliable? Heaven and earth shall pass away, but the promises of His grace can never fail. "They stand fast forever and ever and are done in truth and uprightness" (Psalms 111:8). II. THE OF MAN AND THE FATAL THAT FOLLOW IT. "But if ye shall at all turn from following me," etc. Here is a solemn note of warning, the presage of that guilty apostasy by which the Jewish people became in after years the most signal example to men and nations of the waywardness of human nature and the retributive justice of God. We are reminded that the faithfulness of God has a dark as well as a bright side to it. As the cloud that guided the march of the Israelites out of Egypt was light to them, but a source of blinding confusion and miserable discomfiture to their adversaries, so this and every other attribute of God bears a different aspect towards us according to the relation in which we stand to it, the side on which we place ourselves. Be true to Him, and every perfection of His being is a joy to you, a guide, a glory, a defence; forsake Him, and they become at once ministers of vengeance. Even His love, in its infinite rectitude and purity, dooms you to the penalty from which there can be no escape. Whether in the physical or the spiritual realms, one feature of the very beneficence of God’s laws is that they must avenge themselves. Learn here (1) that all human loss and misery spring from forsaking God. "If ye shall at all turn from following me, ye or your children," then shall all these woes come upon you. All sin is a departure from the living God. "My people have committed two evils, they have forsaken me," etc. (Jeremiah 2:13). Adam cast off his allegiance to God when He listened to the voice of the tempter. Idolatry in its deepest root has this meaning (see Romans 1:21-28). Every sinful life is a more or less intentional and deliberate renunciation of God, and its natural results are shame, and degradation, and death. The course of the prodigal in Christ’s parable is a picture of the hopeless destitution of every soul that forsakes its home in God. "They that are far from thee shall perish" (Psalms 73:27). (2) That according to the height of privilege so is the depth of the condemnation when that privilege is abused. The very height of the "hallowed house" shall make the ruin the more conspicuous and the more terrible. There is no heavier judgment that God pronounces upon men than when He says, "I will curse thy blessings." The best things are capable of the worst abuse. And when the highest sanctities of life are violated they become the worst grounds of reproach and sources of bitterness. The greater the elevation, the deeper and more dreadful the fall. "Thou Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven," etc. (Luke 10:15). (3) That one inevitable penalty of transgression is contempt and scorn. "Israel shall be a proverb and a byword among all people." "He that passeth by shall be astonished and shall hiss." "When the salt has lost its savour it is henceforth good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men" (Matthew 5:13). The wicked may be in honour now, but the time is coming when they "shall awake to shame and everlasting contempt."—W. SOLOMON’S AND .—So far the historian has spoken exclusively of the two greatest works of Solomon’s reign, the Temple and the Palace, and principally of the former. Even the message just related was, as we have seen, the response to the prayer offered when the temple was consecrated. But he now proceeds to mention other proofs of Solomon’s greatness, and of the prosperity of his reign—doubtless because the glory of Israel then reached its climax, and the author would be tempted to linger over these details because of the dark contrast which his own time supplied—and this leads him to speak of the means by which all these enterprises were accomplished. The particulars here given are but fragmentary, and are grouped together in a somewhat irregular manner. It would seem as if both this account and that of the chronicler had been compiled from much more copious histories, each writer having cited those particulars which appeared to him to be the most interesting and important. But the design of the historian in either case is evident, viz., (1) to recount the principal undertakings of this illustrious king, and (2) to indicate the resources which enabled him to accomplish such ambitious and extensive designs. These latter were (1) the alliance with Hiram, which secured him the necessary materials (1 Kings 9:11-14); (2) the forced labour of the subject races (1 Kings 9:20-23); and (3) the voyages of his fleet (1 Kings 9:26-28). 1 Kings 9:10 And it came to pass at the end of twenty years [seven of which were occupied on the temple and thirteen on the palace (1 Kings 7:1) ], when [or, during which. LXX. ἐνοἷςὠκοδομὴσε. This may well be the meaning of אֲשׁר בָּנָה, though אֲשֶׁר, qui, undoubtedly sometimes has the sense of quum] Solomon had built the two houses, the house of the Lord and the king’s house. [Observe how all the palaces are regarded as one house. Note on 1 Kings 7:1. 1 Kings 9:11 (Now Hiram the king of Tyre [Here we have a parenthesis referring us back to 1 Kings 5:8-10] had furnished Solomon with cedar trees and with fir trees and with gold [The gold is here mentioned for the first time, No doubt Hiram’s shipping had brought it in Before the Jewish navy was built. It was this probably that led to the construction of a fleet] according to all his desire), that then [this is the apodosis to 1 Kings 9:10] king Solomon gave Hiram twenty cities [really they were mere villages. "It is a genuine Eastern trick to dignify a small present with a pompous name" (Thomson). But עִיר is a word of very wide meaning] in the land of Galilee. גּלִיל lit; circuit, region (like Ciccar, 1 Kings 7:46), hence often found as here with the art. = the region of the Gentiles (Isaiah 9:1; 1 Macc. 5:15; Matthew 4:15), so called because it was inhabited by Phoenicians, originally designated but a small part of the considerable tract of country later known as the province of "Galilee," viz; the northern part in the tribe of Naphtali (Joshua 20:7; 2 Kings 15:29; Isaiah 9:1. Cf. Jos; Ant. 5.1.18). It is easy to see why this particular region was surrendered to Hiram. (1) It was near his country (2 Samuel 24:7); (2) the people were Phoenicians, allied to Hiram, but strangers to Solomon, both in race and religion; (3) Solomon could not with propriety alienate any part of Immanuel’s land, or convey to a foreigner the dominion over the people of the Lord. Leviticus 25:23 forbade the alienation of the land; Deuteronomy 17:15 the rule of a stranger. 1 Kings 9:12 And Hiram came out from Tyre to see the cities which Solomon had given him; and they pleased him not. [Heb. were not right in his eyes. It has been conjectured that Hiram had hoped for the noble bay of Acco or Ptolemais (Milman, Rawlinson), but surely he had seaboard enough already. It was rather corn lands he would most need and desire. His disappointment is amply accounted for by the fact that the country assigned him was a hungry and mountainous, and therefore comparatively useless, tract. "The region lay on the summit of a broad mountain ridge" (Porter).] 1 Kings 9:13 And he said, What cities are these which thou hast given me, my brother? [Cf. 1 Kings 20:32. It would seem, at first sight, as if this form of speech was then, as now, the usage of courts. But the Fellahin of Palestine, the "modern Canaanites," still address each other as "my father" or "my brother." See Conder, "Tent-work," p. 332]. And he called them the land of Cabul [The meaning of this word is quite uncertain. The LXX. reads Οριον, which shows that they must have read גבול instead of כבול; indeed, it is possible that the words have the same meaning (Gesen.) Stanley thinks these cities formed the boundary between the two kingdoms, and refers to the use of ὅρια in Matthew 15:21; Luke 6:17, etc. According to Josephus, Χαβαλὼν, is a Phoenician word, meaning displeasing; but his etymologies are to be received with caution, and Gesenius justly pronounces this a mere conjecture from the context. Thenius and Ewald regard the word as compounded of ëand בל = as nothing; Keil connects it with the root חבל, which would yield the meaning pawned or pledged, and hence concludes that, this strip of territory was merely given to Hiram as a security for the repayment of a loan (see below on Luke 6:14); while Bהhr derives it from כבל, an unused root, akin to the preceding—vinxit, constrinxit, and would see in it a name bestowed on the region because of its confined geographical position. He does not understand the word, however, as a term of contempt. "How," he asks, "could Hiram give the district a permanent name which contained a mockery of himself rather than of the land?" But the word was obviously an expression of disparagement, if not disgust, which, falling from Hiram’s lips, was caught up and repeated with a view to mark not so much his displeasure as Solomon’s meanness. But it is not necessary to find a meaning for the word, for it is to be considered that a city Bearing this name existed at that time and in this neighbourhood (Joshua 19:27), the site of which, in all probability, is marked by the modern Kabul, eight miles east of Accho. It is possible, indeed, that it may have been one of the "twenty cities" (Luke 6:11) given to Hiram. And if this city, whether within or without the district of Galilee, were notorious for its poverty or meanness, or conspicuous by its bleak situation, we can at once understand why Hiram should transfer the name to the adjoining region, even if that name, in itself, had no special significance] unto this day. [See on 1 Kings 8:8. 1 Kings 9:14 And Hiram sent וַיִּשְלַח must be understood as pluperfect, "Now Hiram had sent," referring to 1 Kings 9:11. This fact is mentioned to explain the gift of the cities, viz; that they were in payment for the gold he had furnished. The timber and stone and labour had been paid for in corn and wine and oil See on 1 Kings 5:11] to the king sixscore talents of gold. [This sum is variously estimated at from half a million to a million and a quarter of our money.. Keil, who, as we have seen, interprets Cabul to mean pledged, says somewhat positively that these 120 talents were merely lent to Solomon to enable him to prosecute his undertakings, and that the twenty cities were Hiram’s security for its repayment. He further sees in the restoration of these cities (2 Chronicles 8:2, where see note) a proof that Solomon must have repaid the amount lent him. The "sixscore talents "should be compared with the 120 talents of 1 Kings 10:10, and the 666 talents of 1 Kings 10:14. 1 Kings 9:15 And this is the reason [or manner, account, דָּבָר. Keil: "This is the case with regard to," etc. The historian now proceeds to speak of the forced labour. The LXX. inserts this and the next nine verses after 1 Kings 10:22] of the levy [see on 1 Kings 5:13, and 1 Kings 12:18] which Solomon raised; for to build [The punctuation of the A.V. is misleading. The Hebrew has no break—"which Solomon raised for building," etc.] the house of the Lord and his own house and Millo [Heb. invariably, the Millo, as in 2 Samuel 5:9; 1 Kings 11:27; 2 Kings 12:20; 2 Chronicles 32:5; LXX. ἡἄκρα. The import of the word is much disputed, but Wordsworth has but slight warrant for say. ing that it means fortress. According to some it is an archaic Canaanitish term, "adopted by the Israelites when they took the town and incorporated into their own nomenclature", an idea which finds some support in Judges 9:6, Judges 9:20. Mr. Grove would further see in it a name for Mount Zion, ἀκρα being the invariable designation of that part of the city in the Maccabees. But see Joshua, B. J. 5.4. 1; Ant. 15.11. 5; and Porter, 1. pp. 96, 109. Lewin identifies it with the great platform on which temple and palace alike were built. But the word yields a definite meaning in the (= מְלוֹא, "the filling in"). Gesenius Hebrew consequently understands it to mean, a rampart (agger) because this is built up and filled in with stones, earth, etc. And the name would have a special fitness if we might suppose that it was applied to that part of the wall of Jerusalem which crossed the Tyropaeon valley. This ravine, which practically divided the city into two parts, would have been the weakest spot in the line of circumvallation, unless it were partly filled in—it is now completely choked up by debris, etc.—and protected by special fortifications; and, if this were done, and we can hardly doubt it was done (see on 1 Kings 11:27), Hammillo, "the filling in," would be its natural and appropriate name. And its mention, here and elsewhere, in connexion with the wall, lends some support to this view] and the wall of Jerusalem [We learn from 2 Samuel 5:9 that David had already built Millo and the wall. Rawlinson argues from 1 Kings 11:27 that these repairs had been "hasty, and had now—fifty years later—fallen into decay," and that Solomon renewed them. More probably the words indicate an enlargement of the Tyropaeon rampart, and an extension of the walls. See note there and on 1 Kings 3:1. Solomon, no doubt, wished to strengthen the defences of the capital, on which he had expended so much labour, and where there was so much to tempt the rapacity of predatory neighbours] and Hazor [For the defence of the kingdom he built a chain of fortresses "to form a sort of girdle round the land" (Ewald). The first mentioned, Hazor, was a place of great importance in earlier times, being the "head of all those (the northern) kingdoms" (Joshua 11:10). It stood on an eminence—as indeed, for the sake of security, did all the cities of that lawless age—overlooking Lake Merom. It was at no great distance from the north boundary of Palestine, in Naphtali (Joshua 19:36), and being favoured by position, it was strongly fortified—Hazor means fortress—and hence Joshua made a point of destroying it. It appears, however, to have speedily regained its importance, for in Judges 4:2, Judges 4:17 we find it as the capital of Jabin, king of Canaan. It was selected by Solomon as the best site for a stronghold, which should protect his northern border, dud as commanding the approach from Syria. As it is not mentioned in 1 Kings 15:20, it would appear to have escaped in the invasion of Benhadad. Possibly it was too strong for him] and Megiddo [Joshua 12:21; Joshua 17:11; Judges 5:19. This place was chosen partly because of its central position—it stood on the margin of the plain of Esdraelon, the battlefield of Palestine, and the battles fought there prove its strategical importance, Judges 5:19 (cf. 1 Samuel 31:1); 2 Kings 23:29; Judith 3:9, 10—and partly, perhaps, because the high road from Egypt to Damascus passed through it. It dominated the passes of Ephraim (see Judith 4:7). It has till recently been identified with el-Lejjun (from Legio. Compare our Chester, etc.); but Conder gives good reasons for fixing the site at the "large ruins between Jezreel and Bethshean, which still bears the name of Mujedd’a, i.e; on the eastern side of the plain] and Gezer [This commanded the approach from Egypt, and would protect the southern frontier of Solomon’s kingdom. See Joshua 10:33; Joshua 12:12; Joshua 21:21; Judges 1:29; 2 Samuel 5:25; 1 Chronicles 20:4. It stands on the great maritime plain, and is also on the coast road between Egypt and Jerusalem. The site was identified by M. Clermont Ganneau with Tell Jezer. The name means "cut off," "isolated" (Gesen.) "The origin of the title is at once clear, for the site is an out-lier—to use a geological term—of the main line of hills and the position commands one of the important passes to Jerusalem". The mention of Gezer leads to a parenthesis of considerable length (verses 16-19). The question of the levy is put aside for the time, whilst the historian explains how it was that the king came to build Gezer. He then proceeds to mention the other towns built during the same reign. 1 Kings 9:16 For Pharaoh king of Egypt had gone up and taken Gezer and burnt it with fire [The total destruction of the place and its inhabitants by fire and sword looks more like an act of vengeance for some grave offence than like ordinary warfare], and slain the Canaanites that dwelt in the city [Though Gezer was allotted to Ephraim (Joshua 16:3) and designated as a Levitical city (ib; 1 Kings 21:21), the Canaanite inhabitants had never been dispossessed (Joshua 16:10; LXX. "Canaanites and Perizzites;" cf. Judges 1:29), and they would seem to have enjoyed a sort of independence], and given it for a present [שִׁלֻחִים, dotatio, dowry. It is the custom of the East for the husband to purchase his wife by a present (Genesis 29:18; 2 Samuel 3:14, etc.); but in royal marriages a dowry was often given. "Sargon gave Cilicia as a dowry with his daughter .... Antiochus Soter gave his claims on Macedonia as a dowry to his step-daughter Phila, when she married Antigonus Gonatas. Coele-Syria and Palestine were promised as a dowry to Ptolemy Epiphanes, when he married Cleopatra, sister of Antiochus the Great," etc. (Rawlinson). Gezer being a wedding present, its conquest must have taken place years before the date to which the history is now brought down] unto his daughter, Solomon’s wife. 1 Kings 9:17 And Solomon built Gezer [In the case of Gezer it was an actual rebuilding. But as applied to Beth-boron, etc; "built" probably means enlarged, strengthened] and Beth-horon the nether [mentioned in connexion with Gezer, Joshua 16:3 (cf. Joshua 10:10). It is deserving of mention that the two cities of Beth-horon still survive in the modern villages of Beitur el-tahta and el-fok," names which are "clearly corruptions of Beth-horon "the Nether" and "the Upper": One lies at the foot of the ravine, on an eminence, the other at the summit of the pass. Like Megiddo and Gezer, this town, too, lay on a high road, viz; that between Jerusalem and the sea coast. The selection of Beth-horon for fortification by Solomon is also justified by history—three decisive battles having been fought here ] and Tadmor in the wilderness, in the land. [Whether this is (1) the famous Palmyra, or (2) Tamar, an obscure town of south Judah, is a question which has been much disputed. It should be stated in the first place that the Cethib has תמר, but the Keri, after 2 Chronicles 8:4, reads תדמר, as do all the versions; and secondly that a Tarnar is mentioned Ezekiel 47:19 and Ezekiel 48:28 a place which may well be identical with "Hazazon Tamar, which is Engedi" (2 Chronicles 20:2; cf. Genesis 14:7. In favour of (1) are the following considerations: (1) the statement of the chronicler that Solomon did build Palmyra. (2) The probability that Solomon, with his wide views of commerce, would seize upon and fortify the one oasis in the great Syrian desert in order to establish an entrepot there (see on Genesis 14:19). (3) The words "in the wilderness," which, of course, are eminently true of Palmyra. Against it, however, may be urged (1) that Tamar was much more likely to be changed into Tadmor than Tadmor into Tamar. (2) That this place is distinctly described as "in the land," which, strictly, Palmyra was not. But here it is to be observed that the chronicler omits these words, and that the Syriac, Arabic, and Vulgate render, "in the land of the wilderness." Keil says our text is manifestly corrupt, and certainly the expression is a singular one. Some would, therefore, alter בארץ into באדם, or into בחמת (after 2 Chronicles 8:4). Both of the emendations, however, while undoubtedly plausible, are purely conjectural. Wordsworth, who thinks Palmyra is meant, says it is described as "in the land" to indicate that God had fulfilled his promise to extend the land of Solomon far eastward into the wilderness (Psalms 72:9). And a Jewish historian, especially in the time of his country s decadence, might well recount how this great city had once been comprised within the boundaries of Israel. In favour of (2) are these facts: (1) That it is the reading of the text. It is said, however, that the ancient name of Tadmor was Tamar, and the place clearly owed its name to the Palm trees. But the name is always Tadmor in the Palmyrene inscriptions. (2) That this place was "in the wilderness," i.e; of Judah. (3) That it was "in the land," and (4) that it was in close proximity to the places just mentioned. The evidence is thus so evenly balanced that it is impossible to decide positively between the two. 1 Kings 9:19 And all the cities of store that Solomon had [cities where the produce of the land was stored for the use of the troops or household, or against a season of scarcity (Genesis 41:35; Exodus 1:11), or possibly (Ewald) they were emporiums for the development of trade. The fact that these store cities are mentioned in the same breath with Tadmor, is an argument for the identification of that place with Palmyra, which Solomon could only have built as a means of gaining or retaining control over the caravan trade between the East and the Mediterranean. Cf. 2 Chronicles 17:12; 2 Chronicles 32:28, and Genesis 41:48. They would seem to have been chiefly on the northern frontier, 2 Chronicles 8:4 ("in Hamath"), ib. 2 Chronicles 16:4 speaks of "the store cities of Napthali." It should be remembered that Solomon had an adversary in Damascus], and cities for his chariots, and cities for his horsemen [Cf. 1 Kings 4:26. These were not so much fortresses (1 Kings 4:15-18) as places adapted to accommodate his cavalry, etc. For horsemen we should perhaps read horses. See note on 1 Kings 5:6], and that which Solomon desired to build [Heb. and the desire of Solomon which he desired; cf. ver. 1. The use of the cognate verb refutes the idea that Solomon’s "desire" is another name for pleasure buildings or pleasaunces, as does also "desire" in verse 11. It is certain, however, that such buildings were erected, and it is probable that they are referred to here] in Jerusalem and in Lebanon [It is highly probable that pleasure houses were built in Lebanon (So Hebrews 7:4, passim), for which Solomon may well have had a strong affection, and pleasure gardens in Jerusalem (Ecclesiastes 2:4-7). See Stanley, pp. 197-199); and we may reasonably imagine (with Ewald) that in these latter he sought to grow specimens of the plants, etc; about which he "spoke" (Hebrews 4:1-16:33; cf. Ecclesiastes 2:5). "It is a curious fact that in the ground hard by the ’fountains of Solomon’ near Bethlehem, which exhibit manifest traces of an ancient garden, and where the intimations of Josephus would lead us to suppose that Solomon had a rural retreat, are still to be found a number of plants self sown from age to age, which do not exist in any other part of the Holy Land". Some of Solomon’s journeys to these favourite resorts, we can hardly doubt, are referred to in So Hebrews 3:6-10; Hebrews 4:8 sqq.; Hebrews 6:11] and in all the land of his dominion. 1 Kings 9:20 And all the people that were left of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites [Judges 1:21-36; Judges 3:5; 1 Chronicles 22:2] which were not of the children of Israel. 1 Kings 9:21 Their children that were left after them in the land [this is explicative of 1 Kings 9:20], whom the children of Israel also [also is not in the Hebrew, and is meaningless] were not able utterly to destroy, upon those did Solomon levy a tribute of bond service [see on 1 Kings 5:13, and cf. Judges 1:1-36; passim, and 1 Chronicles 22:2] unto this day. 1 Kings 9:22 But of the children of Israel did Solomon make no bondmen [see however 1 Kings 5:13, 1 Kings 5:18. This service, though compulsory, was not servile. Bondage was forbidden Leviticus 25:39. The levy were treated as hired servants and had wages]; but they were men of war, and his servants [cf. 1 Kings 1:9. Not only "officials of the war department" (Bהhr) but officers of every kind], and his princes [these were the heads both of the military and civil services], and his captains [Heb. שָׁלִשָׁיו. LXX. τρωτάται. Exodus 14:7; Exodus 15:4; 2 Samuel 23:8; 2 Kings 9:25; 2 Kings 10:25, etc. These third men were really "a noble rank of soldiers who fought from chariots" (Gesen.), each of which would seem to have held three men, one of whom drove, while two fought: thence used of the bodyguard of kings. That they formed a corps, and were not literally "captains," is clear from 1 Samuel 23:8, etc.] and rulers of his chariots, and his horsemen. 1 Kings 9:23 These were the chief of the Officers that were over Solomon’s work; five hundred and fifty, which bare rule over the people that wrought in the work [see on 1 Kings 5:16]. 1 Kings 9:24 But [אַךְ, lit. only. Keil rightly connects the word with אַז below. "So soon as.. then." Cf. Genesis 27:30. This and Genesis 27:25 are not interposed arbitrarily, as might at first sight appear, but refer to 1 Kings 3:1-4. The completion of the palaces rendered it no longer necessary or proper that Solomon’s daughter should dwell in a separate house. The chronicler tells us that she had dwelt in David’s palace on Mount Zion, and that Solomon was constrained to remove her, because he looked upon all the precinct as now consecrated (2 Chronicles 8:11) ]. Pharaoh’s daughter came up [עָלְתָה. Keil hence argues that the palace stood on higher ground than David’s house. But this conclusion is somewhat precarious. The approach to the palace involved an ascent, but Zion was certainly as high as Ophel] out of the city of David unto her house which Solomon [Heb. he] had built for her: then did he build Millo. [Thenius infers from these words that Mille was a fort or castle for the protection of the harem. But there is no warrant for any such conjecture. In the first place, this wife would seem to have been lodged in her own palace apart from the other wives. 2. We can offer a better explanation of the word Mille (see verse 15). 3. The word "then" may mean either (1), that when her palace was completed, Solomon then had workmen who were liberated and were employed on Mille (Keil), or (2), that when she vacated David’s house, the building of Mille could be proceeded with. 1 Kings 9:25 And three times in a year [i.e; no doubt at the three feasts, the times of greatest solemnity, and when there was the largest concourse of people. See 2 Chronicles 8:12. The design of this verse may be to show that there was no longer any offering on high places. It would thus refer to 1 Kings 3:2, as 1 Kings 3:24 to 1 Kings 3:1] did Solomon offer burnt offerings and peace offerings upon the altar which he built unto the Lord [the chronicler adds, "before the porch"], and he burnt incense. [It has been supposed by some that Solomon sacrificed and burnt incense propria manu. According to Dean Stanley, "he solemnly entered, not only the temple courts with sacrifices, but penetrated into the Holy Place itself, where in later years none but the priests were allowed to enter, and offered incense on the altar of incense." But this positive statement is absolutely destitute of all basis. For, in the first place, there is nothing in the text to support it. If Solomon ordered, or defrayed the cost of, the sacrifices, etc; as no doubt he did, the historian would properly and naturally describe him as offering burnt offerings. Qui facit per alium facit per se, and priests are expressly mentioned as present at these sacrifices (1 Kings 8:6; 2 Chronicles 5:7-14; 2 Chronicles 7:2, 2 Chronicles 7:5). We have just as much reason, and no more, for believing that the king built Mille (1 Kings 3:24) with his own hands, and with his own hands "made a navy of ships" (1 Kings 3:26), as that he sacrificed, etc; in propria persona. And, secondly, it is simply inconceivable, if he had so acted, that it should have attracted no more notice, and that our historian should have passed it over thus lightly. We know what is recorded by our author as having happened when, less than two centuries afterwards, King Uzziah presumed to intrude on the functions of the priests (2 Chronicles 26:17-20); cf. 1 Kings 13:1), and we know what had happened some five centuries before (Numbers 16:35), when men who were not of the seed of Aaron came near to offer incense before the Lord. It is impossible that Solomon could have disregarded that solemn warning without some protest, or without a syllable of blame on the part of our author. And the true account of these sacrifices is that they were offered by the king as the builder of the temple, and probably throughout his life, by the hands of the ministering priests (2 Chronicles 8:14). Thrice in the year he showed his piety by a great function, at which he offered liberally] upon the altar [Heb. upon that, sc. altar אתּוֹ. See Gesen. Lex; p. 94; Ewald, Syntax, 332a (3) ] that was before the Lord. [The altar of incense stood before the entrance to the oracle, the place of the Divine presence. See on 1 Kings 6:22-23. So he finished the house. [Same word, but in the Kal form in 1 Kings 7:51. The Piel form, used here, may convey the deeper meaning, "he perfected," i.e; by devoting it to its proper use. It was to be "a house of sacrifice" (2 Chronicles 7:12). 1 Kings 9:26 And king Solomon made a navy of ships [Heb. אֱנִי, a collective noun, classis. The chronicler paraphrases by אֱנִיוֹת, plural. This fact finds a record here, probably because it was to the voyages of this fleet that the king was indebted for the gold which enabled him to erect and adorn the buildings recently described.. But no historian could pass over without notice an event of such profound importance to Israel as the construction of its first ships, which, next to the temple, was the great event of Solomon’s reign] in Ezion-geber [lit; the backbone of a man (or giant). Cf. Numbers 33:35; Deuteronomy 2:8; 2 Kings 4:22; 2 Chronicles 8:17. The name is probably due, like Shechem (see note on 1 Kings 12:25) to a real or fancied resemblance in the physical geography of the country to that part of the human body. Stanley speaks of "the jagged ranges on each side of the gulf." Akaba, the modern name, also means back. 2 Chronicles l.c. says Solomon went to Ezion-geber, which it is highly probable he would do], which is beside [Heb. אֵת =aloud (Gesen; Lex. s.v.)] Eloth [lit; trees akin to Elim, where were palm trees (Exodus 15:27; Exodus 16:1). The name is interesting as suggesting that Solomon may have found some of the timber for the construction of his fleet here. A grove of palm trees "still exists at the head of the gulf of Akaba". Palms, it is true, are not adapted to shipbuilding, but other timber may have grown there in a past age. But see note on verse 27. For Elath, see Porter, p. 40; Deuteronomy 2:8; 2 Samuel 8:14 (which shows how it passed into the hand of Israel); 2 Kings 8:20; 2 Kings 14:22; 2 Kings 16:6. It gave a name to the Elanitic Gulf, now the Gulf of Akaba], on the shore [Heb. lip] of the Red sea [Heb. Sea of Rushes. LXX. ἡἐρυθρὰθάλασσα. The redness is due to subaqueous vegetation. "Fragments of red coral are forever being thrown up from the stores below, and it is these coral-line forests which form the true ’weeds’ of this fantastic sea". There is also apparently a bottom of red sandstone. It is divided by the Sinaitic peninsula into two arms or gulfs, the western being the Gulf of Suez, and the eastern the Gulf of Akabah. The former Isaiah 130 miles, the latter 90 miles long], in the land of Edom. [The subjugation of Edom is mentioned 2 Samuel 8:14. 1 Kings 9:27 And Hiram sent in the navy his servants, shipmen that had knowledge of the sea with the servants of Solomon. [The chronicler states (2 Chronicles 8:18) that he sent ships as well as servants, and it has been thought that ships were transported, in parts or entire, by land across the Isthmus of Suez, and there are certainly instances on record of the land transport of fleets. the Peloponnesians conveyed 60 ships from Corcyra across the Leucadian Isthmus, etc.) But this, especially when the state of engineering science, etc; among the Hebrews is taken into account, is hardly to be thought of. It is quite possible, however, that timber for shipbuilding was floated on the Mediterranean down to the river of Egypt, or some such place, and then transported either to Suez or to Akaba. Probably all that the chronicler means is that Hiram provided the materials and had the ships built. The Israelites, having hitherto had no fleet, and little or no experience of the sea, were unable to construct ships for themselves. And the Tyrians may have seen in the construction of a fleet for eastern voyages, an opening for the extension of their own maritime trade. Possibly in the first voyages Tyriaus and Jews were copartners.] 1 Kings 9:28 And they came to Ophir [It is perhaps impossible to identify this place with any degree of precision. The opinions of scholars may, however, be practically reduced to two, The first would place Ophir in India; the second in southern Arabia. In favour of India is (1) the three years’ voyage (but see on 1 Kings 10:22); (2) most of the other treasures brought back by the fleet, exclusive of gold, are Indian products. But against it is urged the important fact that no gold is now found there, south of Cashmere, whilst south Arabia was famed for its abundant gold (Psalms 72:15; Ezekiel 27:22). On the other hand, it is alleged that in ancient times India was rich in gold, and that there are no traces of gold mines in Arabia. The question is discussed at considerable length and with great learning by Mr. Twisleton (Dict. Bib. art. "Ophir"). He shows that it is reasonably certain (1) that the Ophir of Gen 10:29 is the name of some city, region, or tribe in Arabia, and (2) that the Ophir of Genesis is the Ophir of the Book of Kings. And Gesenius, Bähr, Keil, al. agree with him in locating Ophir in the latter country. Ewald, however, sees in Ophir "the most distant coasts of India," and it is probable that the Hebrews used the word somewhat loosely, as they did the corresponding word Tarshish, and as we do the words East and West Indies. They were not geographers, and Ophir may have been merely an emporium where the products of different countries were collected, or a nomen generale for "all the countries lying on the African, Arabian, or Indian seas, so far as at that time known" (Heeren). See on 1 Kings 10:5], and fetched from thence gold, four hundred and twenty talents [The chronicler says 450. The discrepancy is easily accounted for, 20 being expressed by ; 50 by .ð Wordsworth suggests that "perhaps thirty were assigned to Hiram for his help"] and brought it to king Solomon. 1 Kings 9:25 The Two Altars of Judaism. This text is somewhat remarkable as brining before us at the same moment the two altars of the Jewish Church—the great brazen altar of sacrifice and the golden altar of incense. The present is therefore, perhaps, a fitting place to study their use and significance. For it is with good reason that they are here joined together. Though the ritual of the first was quite distinct from that of the second, yet each was an essential part of the same religious system; each was a centre of Hebrew worship. Moreover the second was the complement of the first. Incense was the appropriate adjunct of sacrifice. And the two together formed practically the sum of the ordinary ceremonial of the children of the old covenant. The altars themselves, however, will require but little notice, for they both alike derived their interest and importance from the purposes they served. The altar of sacrifice is not even mentioned by our historian in his account of the temple arrangements; while the chronicler dismisses it in a single verse. And neither the Kings nor the Chronicles describe the size, structure, etc; of the altar of incense. It is true the altar "sanctified the gift" (Matthew 23:19; Exodus 29:1-46:87, 44), perhaps sanctified the incense also (but see Exodus 30:1-38:85-37), but all the same, the sacrifice and the incense, not the brazen or the golden altars, are the important and significant things. The two altars, that is to say, really bring before us the two questions of Sacrifice and Incense. I. THE ALTAR OF . But before we turn our thoughts to the sacrifices smoking on the altar, let us glance for a moment at the altar itself. Observe— 1. Its position. Outside the temple, the "house of sacrifice" (2 Chronicles 7:12; Matthew 23:35), but in the court of the priests, and, therefore, exclusively for the service of the priests. 2. Its dimensions. It was fifteen feet high, and its top was a square of thirty feet (2 Chronicles 4:1). It was designedly high—the altar of the tabernacle was but four and a half feet high. It was high, despite the inconveniences resulting therefrom. The height required that a ledge or platform should be constructed round it; that a long slope or flight of steps should be ascended in order to reach it; and that the layers and sea should be high in proportion (1 Kings 7:23, 1 Kings 7:25, 1 Kings 7:27, 1 Kings 7:38). Its great size and capacity—it presented a superficies of 900 square feet—was because of the great number of victims which were occasionally offered upon it at one time. 3. Its horns. These were no freak of the architect, but were of the essence of the structure, and of Divine obligation (Exodus 27:2). The blood was put upon them (Exodus 29:12; Le Exodus 4:7,Exodus 4:18, Exodus 4:30, 34; Exodus 8:15; Exodus 9:9, etc.); the sacrifice, at least in early times, was bound to them (Psalms 118:27); the suppliant for life clung to them (1 Kings 1:50; 1 Kings 2:28, etc.) The altar was designed, that is to say, for sacrifice; but it also served at the same time for sanctuary. And now let us look at the sacrifice, at "the gift upon the altar." Observe— 1. It is an offering. Whatever the character of the sacrifice, burnt offering, sin offering, peace offering, meat offering, it was an offering, a gift. Whether whole bullocks were consumed, or only the fat, kidneys, etc; it had been first consecrated, devoted, given, to God. This is, perhaps, the primary idea of sacrifice. The victim must be presented before it could be immolated. 2. It was ordinarily an offering made by fire (1 Samuel 2:28). The holy fire kindled by God (Leviticus 1 Kings 9:24), and which for long centuries was never suffered to go out (Leviticus 1 Kings 6:13), the element which at that time, and ever since, has been regarded in the East as an image of the Godhead, if not a sign of His presence, this consumed everything. The tongues of flame not only carried the smoke and smell of the sacrifice—hecatomb, holocaust, whatever it was—up into the blue sky and to the throne of God, but they, so to speak, devoured the victim; they feasted on the sacrifice. 3. It was an offering of life. Not only was this a matter of fact—that the victim was first slain, then offered on the altar, but this idea was expressed in the ritual of the sacrifice. The blood was poured out at the foot of the altar, or sprinkled on its horns, or borne into the most holy place. But the blood is the life of the flesh (Leviticus 1 Kings 17:11), and hence the sprinkling of the blood was the core and centre of all sacrifice. The very separation of the elements again—the blood poured in one place, the flesh or fat burnt at another—pictured death; for when the blood is withdrawn from the body death ensues. The consuming fire, too, spoke of death. So that in sacrifice men offered to God the most mysterious and precious of man’s possessions and of God’s gifts, the life, the ψυχή, which came from God and went back to God. It was an old and reasonable belief that the gods would have our nearest and dearest—see Tennyson’s beautiful poem, "The Victim"—hence the gift to the altar was the life. 4. It was an offering for life. The full significance of sacrifice, we may readily believe, the Jew did not know. It is doubtful whether even the high priest comprehended the blessed meaning of those solemn rites in which he bore a part. But this they did know, that the life offered at the altar was an atonement for their life. The lex talionis, "an eye for an eye," etc. (Exodus 21:24), had taught them this. So had much of their expressive ceremonial, e.g; the laying of the hands on the head of the victim, etc. (Leviticus 1 Kings 3:2; 1 Kings 4:4, etc.) So above all had the express words of Scripture, "The life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar for an atonement for your souls (Heb. lives, same word as above), for it is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul" (Heb. through the life, sc. of the blood) Leviticus 1 Kings 17:11. They understood, that is, that sacrifice was not only eucharistic, but that it was also deprecatory and in some way expiatory. They hoped that it would somehow reconcile them and restore them to communion with God, the Life, the Anima animantium. More than this, however, the Jewish worshipper did not see in the sacrifice. But for us who turn our gaze to Mount Moriah from the hill of Calvary, it has an additional significance. We may see in it— 5. A picture of the offering of Jesus Christ. An imperfect picture, no doubt—a shadow, a type, a parable, but still the outline is clear and distinct. We see here the priest, the victim, the altar, the mactation, the blood pouring, the elevation, the death. As a picture, indeed, all sacrifice "showed the Lord’s death" (1 Corinthians 11:26) much more vividly and touchingly than the Holy Communion does. 6. A pleading of the death of Christ. This is the crown and blossom of sacrifice. It was an ἀνάμνησις, a silent but eloquent memorial before God. Only thus can we adequately explain the elaborate sacrificial system of Moses. From any other point of view sacrifices are, as Coleridge confessed, an enigma. But see in them tokens, memorials, pleadings of the one vicarious death, and all is clear. Then we can comprehend why they should have offered thousands of victims "year by year continually." Every bullock, every sheep, was, though the worshippers knew it not, a mute reminder of the one sacrifice for sin. Each was a foreshadowing of the death; the death of Him who is "the life" (John 14:6); each spoke to the heart of God of the precious blood of Christ. Let us trace the parallel a little more in detail. 1. The Altar prefigured the Cross. (1) In its position. The true altar of incense is in heaven. The altar of sacrifice was altogether of this world; it was in the truest sense "an altar of earth." But while outside the temple of heaven, the cross was yet in the court of the priests for "Immanuel’s land" was a sort of precinct or forecourt of the eternal sanctuary, and it was the home of a nation of priests (Exodus 19:6). Hence we may learn (1) that sacrifice is only offered where there is sin, and (2) that the cross goes together with the kingdom (Revelation 1:5, Revelation 1:6); it is the altar of the Holy Catholic Church. (2) In its elevation. Probably the altar was made high to give it due honour and prominence, or there may have been the thought of elevating the sacrifice towards heaven. But, whatever the reason, it struck the eye; everyone saw that it was the centre and ornament and distinguishing mark of the court of the priests. Now the cross itself was probably raised but two or three feet above the ground—pictures generally represent it incorrectly—but it was planted on a hill. Conder identifies Calvary with a rounded knoll, above a cliff or precipice some thirty feet high, near the Damascus gate), and it still—and this is the important thing—"towers above the wreck of time." It is still the glory and badge and attraction of Christ’s people of priests. It was fitting, too, that He should be raised above earth who was from above (John 3:1-36:81); that He should be suspended between earth and heaven who should reconcile earth to heaven. (3) The cross had no horns, but it had arms—arms to which the victim was bound, arms which were stained with His blood, arms which offer shelter and sanctuary to the world. "Lord, on the cross Thine arms were stretched, To draw Thy people nigh," etc. 2. The Sacrifice prefigured the Crucifixion. It is hardly needful or possible here to point out in what manifold ways the various sacrifices of the Law foreshadowed the oblation of Calvary. It must suffice to say here that this too was a voluntary offering (Hebrews 9:14), a whole offering (כָלִיל—cf. Hebrews 10:10, etc.), the grateful savour of which ascended (the idea of the word עֹלָה) to heaven (Genesis 8:21; Ephesians 5:2); that the life was given (Matthew 20:28) and blood poured (1 Peter 1:2); that the blood was poured for the remission of sins (Matthew 26:28; Hebrews 9:22), and the life given for the life of the world (John 6:51). It is for us to lay our hands on the head of the sacrifice, and the analogy is complete. We must bring no offering of our own merits, but must take refuge under the arms of the Cross— "Nothing in my hand I bring, Simply to thy Cross I cling." It must not be supposed, however, that because sacrifices, properly so called, have ceased, because they have found their blessed fulfilment in "the one offering," "once for all" (Hebrews 10:10, Hebrews 10:14), therefore the pictures and pleadings of that offering have ceased also. On the contrary, the death of Calvary, which cannot be repeated, is forever pleaded (Revelation 5:6) in the heavenly temple. In this sense it is a continual offering (Exodus 29:42). And it is also pleaded by the Church on earth. For the holy sacrament, like the sacrifice, tells of death, and of the same vicarious and victorious death. The sacrifice pleaded the merits of Him who should come; the sacrament the merits of One who has come. The first was, the second is, an ἀνάμνησις of the death which won our life. II. THE ALTAR OF INCENSE. It is often forgotten that Judaism had two altars. But who shall say that the altar of incense was less important or less gracious than that of sacrifice. A few simple questions will perhaps best bring this subject of incense before us. Let us therefore ask— 1. What was the incense! It was (see Exodus 30:34 sqq.) (1) a confection of sweet spices; a compound of the most fragrant and grateful products of the earth, which when burned emitted a pleasing odour. (2) A perfume ordained of God. Its constituents and their proportions were alike prescribed (ib. verses 34, 35). These were to be "tempered (Heb. salted) together." Hence the scrupulous care with which it was prepared and preserved in the "house of Abtines." And hence the probability that the story of thirteen ingredients (Joshua; B. J. 5.5. 5) of the addition of cassia, cinnamon, etc; to the elements mentioned in the Law, is a Rabbinical fable. Such a confection would have been "strange incense." (3) It was a perfume reserved for God (Exodus 30:37, Exodus 30:38). None might be made for private use under pain of death (Exodus 30:38). Hence it was called "most holy" (Heb. holy of holies). 2. Where was it offered? In two places. Occasionally in the most holy place; usually on the golden altar which stood before that place. Hence this altar is spoken of as "before the Lord," and is called "the altar that belongeth to the oracle" (1 Kings 6:22). It was clearly, therefore, and peculiarly an offering to God, whose throne was in the sanctuary, and whose palace was the temple. It was burnt before the Presence, whose seat was between the cherubim. Indeed, it is not improbable that it was only burnt outside the oracle, because the priests must not enter the most holy place. (The golden altar, as we have just seen, really "belonged to the oracle.") When the high priest did enter, on the day of atonement, the incense was burnt within the veil. And the Sadducees were accounted heretical because they contended that the incense might be kindled outside and then carried inside the holy of holies. 3. When was it burned? It was burned (1) morning and evening. When the lamps were trimmed at the break of day; when the lamps were lighted at the approach of night. Thus every little life—for our days are "lives in miniature"—was rounded off with incense. There was not a day for many hundred years but began and ended with this sweet service. (2) With the morning and evening sacrifice. It was bound up with the offerings of the great altar. "Mane, inter sanguinem et membra suffiebat, vesperi, inter membra et libamina" (Talmud, quoted by Lightfoot). "When the incense and prayers were finished, the parts of the victim were laid on the altar." So that the incense and the sacrifice were really parts of the same service. The two altars of Judaism presented their offerings to heaven at the same time. (3) It was a "perpetual incense" (Exodus 30:8), just as the sacrifice is called a continual burnt offering (Exodus 29:42). The sweet perfume, we may remember here, never died out in the holy place. There was an everlasting fragrance, year in, year out, in the earthly abode of the heavenly King. (4) It was offered together with prayer. See Luke 1:10; Revelation 5:8; Revelation 8:1-4; and Lightfoot, "Hebrews and Talm. Exerc. on Luke 1:10." 4. By whom was it offered? (1) By the priests. Originally, it is believed, by the high priest exclusively, but subsequently a priest was chosen by lot (Luke 1:9) to perform this office each morning and each evening. And we are told that as this was esteemed the most honourable of all the functions of the priests, and as a blessing was thought to be attached to its performance, the lot was cast among those who were "new to the incense," i.e; among those who had not offered it already. (2) By the priests alone. No function was more jealously guarded than this. On two memorable occasions (Numbers 16:35-40; 2 Chronicles 26:16 sqq.) a terrible dispensation proclaimed that "no stranger, who was not of the seed of Aaron, should come near to offer incense before the Lord." 5. Why was it offered? Maimonides held that it was merely, or principally, designed to counteract the stench which would arise from the victims slain for the morning and evening sacrifice. Others have beheld in it merely a recognition of the majesty and sovereignty of God, and have seen its counterpart in the perfumes which were offered before the monarchs of the East (cf. Matthew 2:11). But a moment’s reflection will show that both these conceptions are miserably inadequate and unworthy. It is inconceivable that so prominent and essential a part of the Jewish system can have had no higher meaning or have no analogue in Christianity. It is universally admitted that the brazen altar and its sacrifices were fall of symbolism. How can we think that while these prefigured Christ’s death the golden altar and its incense foreshadowed nothing. No, they must have typified something, and something connected with the work of the eternal Son of God. For observe, just as there is an altar raised on Calvary, just as there is a sacrificial altar of which we Christians eat (Hebrews 13:10), so is there an altar in heaven (Revelation 8:3). Nor will this surprise us if we bear in mind that the Mosaic worship was fashioned after the mode of the heavenly, and that the tabernacle and its furniture were made according to the pattern showed in the Mount. What, then, did incense symbolize? Was it prayer? It has been very. generally supposed (after Psalms 141:2) to be an emblem of prayer. But this is a view which reflection hardly justifies. For (1) prayer was offered at the time of incense; it was an invariable adjunct thereto, and we should hardly have the type and anti-type, the shadow and the substance, together. The type is only needed until the antitype takes its place. (2) Incense is said to be offered with prayers (Revelation 5:8), where the "which" (αἵ) would seem to refer to the "vials" (φιάλας) rather than to The θυμιαμάτων (1 Kings 8:1-4). In the passage last cited, this is beyond doubt. The incense was to be added to (A.V. "offered"), and was therefore distinct from, the prayers of all saints. No, the incense offered day by day, and century after century, prefigured the gracious intercession of Christ, that intercession through which alone our prayers are presented, which alone ensures their acceptance, and without which sinful man cannot draw near to God. When the high priest entered the oracle, as the representative of the congregation, the cloud of incense must cover him lest he should die. We have but to notice how close is the correspondence between type and antitype to be convinced that this is its true meaning. (1) His prayers are like the fragrant incense. In Him the Father is well pleased. And they are ordained of God. He is the "Anointed," the "Advocate with the Father," "the one Mediator." (There is a "strange incense," too—the mediation of saints and angels.) (2) He stands "before the throne," "at the right hand of God," "in heaven itself." (3) He "ever liveth to make intercession for us." The incense never dies out of the heavenly courts. When we pray, morning and evening, our Intercessor prays also. When we offer our sacrifices, He offers the incense at the same time. And He is also (4) our High Priest. When He passed through the heavens with His own blood to make atonement, the incense, to make intercession, was not forgotten. And if it be objected that in heaven the incense was offered by the elders (Romans 5:8), or angels (Romans 8:3), we may remember that the ministry at the golden altar, which strictly appertained to the high priest alone, was also shared by other ministers of the congregation, and the angels are "ministering spirits." So that both the altars of Judaism speak to us of Christ: the one of His death, the other of His "endless life;" the first of the "one offering," the second of the ceaseless intercession. And between them they shadowed forth the fulness and completeness of our salvation. "We have an Advocate with the Father"—this is the gospel of the incense. "We have a great High Priest"—this is the evangel of incense and sacrifice alike. BY A. ROWLAND 1 Kings 9:25 Solomon’s Worship. Our text appears at first sight to be introduced into this chapter in a superfluous and arbitrary manner. It is not without good reason, however, that this record of Solomon’s religious worship stands between statements about his fortifications and his fleet. We have much to learn from the Old Testament method of blending the earthly with the spiritual, and of suffusing national enterprise with religion. The verse before us, read in connexion with the statement made in 1 Kings 3:2, indicates that, after finishing the temple, Solomon swept away the abuses, and remedied the defects which had prevailed. He had built the temple, and now would be the leader of his people in using it. He did not consider that the erection of an altar excused him from sacrificing on it. He was not one of those who will encourage others to devotion, while they neglect their own personal responsibility. Apply this to any who contribute to a society, but withold all personal service; or aid in the celebration of worship, while their own hearts are never engaged in it. If we compare the text with 2 Chronicles 8:12, 2 Chronicles 8:13, we see that it was not only on the national festivals (Passover Pentecost, and Feast of Tabernacles), but on all occasions appointed by Mosaic law, that Solomon, through the priests, presented offerings before the Lord. No allusion is made here to expiatory sacrifices (the sin offering and the trespass offering) but these, of necessity, preceded those mentioned here. All the more fitly does the text represent what we should offer when we draw near to God, through the merits of the expiation already made for us by Him who became, on our behalf, a sin offering. This verse will answer the question of conscience, "What shall I render unto the Lord!" I. THE OF SELF. Burnt offerings were representative and not vicarious. They represented the dedication of himself to God on the part of the worshipper. St. Paul shows us this (Romans 12:1), "I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice," etc. The appropriateness of the type can be easily shown by alluding to such points as these:— 1. The sequence of the burnt offering on the expiatory sacrifice. No burnt offering was made until a previous sin offering had been presented. The worshipper must first be brought into covenant with God. Were the burnt offering presented first, the barrier of sin between man and God would be ignored, and the idea of an atonement would be denied. Our offering of ourselves is only acceptable through the previous sacrifice of Christ. 2. The completeness of the burnt offering. The sacrificer laid his hands on the victim, and then it was placed whole on the altar, its death signifying the completeness of the presentation of the man, body and soul, to the Lord. Show that God has the right to demand our whole selves; not a share in affection and thought simply. 3. The occasions for presenting the burnt offering. (1) Daily (Exodus 29:33-42) to show that at no time are we "our own." (2) Doubly on the sabbath (Numbers 28:9, Numbers 28:10). The seventh day a time for special consideration and self consecration. (3) On great festivals (Numbers 28:11; Numbers 29:1-40:89). Times of exceptional deliverance, enrichment, etc; are seasons for renewed self dedication. Press home the entreaty of Rom 12:1. II. THE GIVING OF THANKS. Peace offerings were of various kinds, but had the same meaning. They were a presentation to God of his best gifts, a sign of grateful homage, and at the same time afforded means for the support of God’s service and His servants. Flour, oil, and wine were offered with the daily burnt offering. The shew bread was renewed each sabbath day. Special offerings were made on the sabbath and other festivals. The first fruits were presented, and corn from the threshing floor at the annual feasts, etc. (1) All these were of a Eucharistic nature, and teach us to render thanks and praise to God (Hebrews 13:15). (2) They betokened communion with God, for in part they were eaten by the people in His presence. (3) They aided in the sustenance of public worship. The priests had the breast and shoulder. See the lesson Paul draws Philippians 4:18. (4) They ministered to the necessities of the poor. Peace offerings constituted great national feasts. Give examples. Show Christ’s care for the poor. Allude to such verses as Hebrews 13:16. We express thankfulness to the Lord, and acknowledgment of His goodness, by distributing to others as they have need. "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto me." III. THE OF ]PRAYER. "He burnt incense upon the altar." Incense was offered morning and evening (Exodus 30:7, Exodus 30:8), and on the great day of atonement (Leviticus 16:12). The altar of incense stood before the holy of holies in the holy place, where only the priests could stand. Sacredness and sweetness were suggested by the incense, so carefully and secretly compounded, so exclusively used in the service of God. As a symbol it denoted prayer; taken in its broadest sense, as the outflowing of the soul in adoration, prayer, praise toward God. Refer to Psalms 141:2, where prayer and incense are blended as reality and symbol; to the smoke in the temple (Isaiah 6:3 4); to the people praying while Zacharias was burning incense (Luke 1:10); to the prayers of the saints before the throne (Revelation 5:8; Revelation 8:8, Revelation 8:4). 1. Prayer should be reverent. (The incense altar was close to the holy of holies, under the immediate eye of God.) 2. Prayer should be constant. (Incense was perpetual. "Pray without ceasing.") 3. Prayer should be the outcome of self dedication. (Incense was kindled by a live coal from the altar of burnt offering.) 4. Prayer is accepted through the merits of the atonement. (The horns of the altar of incense were sprinkled with blood.)—A.R. THE VISIT OF THE QUEEN OF SHEBA.—The last words of the preceding chapter spoke of Solomon’s fleet, of its voyages, and the treasures it brought home. The historian now proceeds to tell of one result to which these voyages led. The fame of the king and his great undertakings was so widely diffused, and excited so much wonder and curiosity, that a queen of Arabia came, among others, to see the temple and the palaces and the many marvels of Solomon’s city and court. The prediction of Solomon’s prayer (1 Kings 8:42) has soon had a fulfilment. 1 Kings 10:1 And when the queen of Sheba [There is no good ground for doubting that by שְׁבָא we are to understand the kingdom of Southern Arabia (Yemen). It is true that while Genesis 25:3 (cf. 1 Chronicles 1:32) speaks of Sheba, the son of Joktan, one of the colonists of southern Arabia, Genesis 10:7 and 1 Chronicles 1:9 mention another Sheba, the son of Cush, and a doubt has arisen whether this was an Arabian or an Ethiopian princess, and it is alleged that she was the latter by Josephus, who calls her "queen of Egypt and Ethopia," and by some Rabbinical writers, and in the traditions of the Abyssinian church. But the kingdoms of Sheba (שְׁבָא) and Saba (סְבָא) are entirely distinct (Psalms 72:10), the latter being the name both of the capital and country of Meroe, a province of Ethopia (Joshua, Ant. 2.10. 2); while the former in like manner designates both the chief city and also the kingdom of the Sabeans (Job 1:15). This tribe would seem to have grown richer and stronger than all the other Arabian peoples by means of its commercial enterprise, and it was especially famed for its gold, gems, and spices (Ezekiel 27:22; Jeremiah 6:20; Isaiah 60:6; Joe 3:8; Job 6:19; Psalms 72:10). It is noticeable that in both kingdoms government by female sovereigns was not uncommon (cf. Acts 8:27); but it is very remarkable to find any country under the rule of a queen at this early date. (The idea that either of these lands was always governed by queens has no real basis.) The name of this princess, according to the Koran, was Balkis, according to Abyssinian belief, Maqueda. Whether she was a widow or virgin is unknown] heard [Heb. hearing. Doubtless through the Arab traders. The record of this visit, following immediately upon the mention of the voyages (1 Kings 9:26), is a grain of evidence in favour of locating Ophir in Arabia] of the fame (Heb. hearing; cf. ἀκοή, which also means the thing heard, report. Compare ἀποκάλυψιςκαύχησις, etc.] of Solomon concerning the name [Heb. לְשְׁם, i.e; "in relation to, in connexion with, the name," etc. No doubt it was the house he had built לְשֵׁם יְיָ (cf. 1 Kings 3:2; 1 Kings 5:17, 1 Kings 5:18; 1 Kings 8:17, 1 Kings 8:18, 1 Kings 8:19, 1 Kings 8:20, etc.) had made him famous. But the expression is somewhat unusual, and these words are omitted by the chronicler. Gesenius and Ewald, however, regard the ìas instrumental, "the fame given him by the name," etc; as Judges 7:18; Ezekiel 12:12, etc; and Wordsworth compares the use of ἐν in Greek. The LXX. and other versions read "the name of Solomon and the name of the Lord." But the text is on every ground to be retained. The alliteration in this verse (probably accidental) is to be noticed. There is also a slight paronomasia] of the Lord, she came to prove (LXX. πειράσαι, to test)] him with hard questions [Heb. in riddles; LXX. ἐναἰνίγμασι. The Arabian mind has ever delighted in dark sayings, enigmas, etc; and extensive collections of these have been made by Burckhardt and others (see Keil in loc.) According to Dius Solomon also had dialectical encounters with Hiram and with Abdemon, or, according to Menander, a younger son of Abdemon, a man of Tyre.] 1 Kings 10:2 And she came to Jerusalem [a great undertaking in those days. Our Lord lays stress on this long journey, ἐκτῶνπεράτωντῆςγῆς, Matthew 12:42; Luke 11:31] with a very great train [Heb. with a very heavy force or host (חַיִל). Thenius understands the words of an armed escort, which may well have been necessary considering the countries through which she passed, and the treasures she carried. It would also be quite in the spirit of the age that the queen should be escorted by a band of her soldiers. But it is not so certain that this idea was in the historian’s mind], with [not in Hebrews] camels [2 Chronicles 9:1 has "and camels." But the word is here explicative of the חַיִל preceding (Keil). It does not, however, decide against an armed force, as camels would be in any ease required. The camel was a familiar object to the Jews (Exodus 9:3; Le Exodus 11:4; Deuteronomy 14:7, etc.); but such a procession as this would create great astonishment in Jerusalem, and we may imagine how the people would line the bazaars as she passed, and the acclamations with which they would greet the queen (cf. 1:40; Matthew 21:9) and her swart attendants] that bare spices [Heb. balsams; hence spices generally; LXX. ἡδύσματα. Exodus 25:6; Exodus 35:28; Ezekiel 27:22. The perfumes of Arabia are proverbial (see Herod. 3:107-113), and Yemen is the chief spice country. It is quite possible, however, that much of the "gold of Arabia" came to its emporiums from other lands. This particular present was doubtless brought by the queen because she had heard of the extensive use made of it by Solomon, and of the enormous quantities he required. "Strabo relates that the Sabeans were enormously wealthy, and used gold and silver in a most lavish manner in their furniture, their utensils, and even on the walls, doors, and roofs of their houses" (Rawlinson)] and precious stones [the onyx, emerald, and turquoise are still found in Arabia, and in former times the variety was apparently much greater (Plin; Nat. Hist. 37.)]; and when she was come to Solomon, she communed with him of [Heb. spake to him] all that was in her heart. [The words are not to be restricted, as by Keil, to riddles. There may well have been, as the earlier interpreters supposed, religious discourse—gravissimas et sacras quaestiones. 1 Kings 10:3 And Solomon told her [הַגִּיד is used of solving riddles in Judges 14:13 (Bהhr), and interpreting dreams Genesis 41:24; Daniel 5:12] all her questions [Heb. words]; there was not anything hid from the king, which he told her not. 1 Kings 10:4 And when the queen of Sheba had seen all Solomon’s wisdom, and the house he had built [1 Kings 10:5 compels us to understand this of the palace, not of the temple. Josephus says she was especially astonished at the house of the forest of Lebanon], 1 Kings 10:5 And the meat of his table [1 Kings 4:22, 1 Kings 4:23], and the sitting ["The rooms of the courtiers in attendance" (Keil). But מוֹשָב may mean an assembly (Psalms 1:1), and possibly the queen saw them when gathered together for a meal] of his servants, and the attendance [Heb. standing. According to Keil, "the rooms of the inferior servants." But verse 8 appears to be decisive against this view] of his ministers [i.e; those who ministered to him. The word "servants" is, perhaps, to be understood of state officers; the word "ministers" of personal attendants (as in Acts 13:5, etc.) That the latter were an inferior class, the "standing" shows], and their apparel [cf. Matthew 6:29. The rich and costly dress of Eastern courtiers and attendants is sometimes furnished by the king (Genesis 45:22; 1 Samuel 18:4; 2 Kings 5:5; Daniel 5:7; Esther 5:8; 1 Macc. 10:20. Cf. Chardin, "Voyage en Perse," 3:230], and his cupbearers [By this word Keil would understand "drinking arrangements." But see 2 Chronicles 9:4, "cupbearers (same word) and their apparel"], and his ascent [עֹלָתוֹ. It is somewhat doubtful whether we are to interpret this word, ascent, or burnt offering. 2 Kings 16:18, 1 Chronicles 26:16, Ezekiel 40:26 make for the former, and the chronicler has עֲלִיָּתוֹ. which undoubtedly means "ascent." But all the translations understand the word of burnt offerings—the LXX. has καὶτὴνὀλοκαύτωσιν—and the word, "which occurs at least 300 times in the Bible," always (with one exception) signifies burnt offering. It is objected against this interpretation (1) that we should require the plural, i.e; "burnt offerings;" but this is by no means certain, as the historian may refer to one particular holocaust (see 1 Kings 9:25) which the queen witnessed; and (2) that the sight of burnt offerings could not have caused her any astonishment (Keil). But their prodigious number may surely have done so; and we are certainly to understand that Solomon was remarkable for the scale of his sacrifices. Considering, however, that the word undoubtedly means "ascent" in Ezekiel 40:26, and that it is so paraphrased by the chronicler, it is perhaps safer to retain this rendering here]; there was no more spirit in her [same expression Joshua 5:1, and cf. Joshua 2:11. For various legends as to this queen, see Stanley, "Jewish Ch." 2. pp. 234-236]. 1 Kings 10:6 And she said to the king, It was a true report [Heb. Truth was the word] that I heard in mine own land of thy act [or words. Same word as above and in the next verse] and of thy wisdom. 1 Kings 10:7 Howbeit, I believed not the words ["Fame, as it is always a blab, so ofttimes a liar" (Bp. Hall)] until I came, and mine eyes had seen it: and behold, the half was not told me; thy wisdom and prosperity exceeded the fame [Heb. thou hast added wisdom and good to the report] which I heard. 1 Kings 10:8 Happy [Heb. O the happiness, as in Psalms 1:1; Psalms 2:12; Psalms 33:12, etc.] are thy men [LXX. wives, γυνᾶικες]; happy are thy servants, which stand continually before thee [see on 1 Kings 1:2], and that hear thy wisdom. 1 Kings 10:9 Blessed be the Lord thy God [From this mention of the name of Jehovah, taken in connexion with Matthew 12:42, it has been concluded that the queen became a convert to the faith of Israel. But this inference is unwarranted. Polytheism permitted, and, indeed, encouraged, a full recognition of the gods many of the different races and regions. See on 1 Kings 5:7, and cf. 2 Chronicles 2:12 and Ezra 1:3. Observe, too, it is "Jehovah, thy God." And it is very significant that all her gifts and treasures were for the king; none were offerings to the temple] which delighted in thee [cf. 1 Kings 5:7], to set thee on the throne of Israel; because the Lord loved Israel forever [a graceful and thoroughly Oriental compliment. This visit was as flattering to the pride of the chosen people as to their king], therefore made he thee king, to do judgment and justice. 1 Kings 10:10 And she gave the king an hundred and twenty [Josephus says twenty] talents of gold [Psalms 72:15. "The rivers still run into the sea; to him that hath shall be given" (Bp. Hall). As to the talent, see on 1 Kings 9:14], and of spices very great store [Heb. much exceedingly "The immense abundance of spices in Arabia.. is noted by many writers. Herodotus says that the whole tract exhaled an odour marvellously sweet (3:113). Diodorus relates that the odour was carried out to sea to a considerable distance from the shore (3:46). According to Strabo the spice trade of Arabia was in the hands of two nations, the Sabeans and Gerrhaeans, whose profits from it were so enormous that in his time they were the two wealthiest nations on the face of the earth (16:4, 19)," Rawlinson], and precious stones; there came no more such abundance of spices as these which the queen of Sheba gave to king Solomon. [Josephus states (Ant. 8. 6. 6) that the cultivation of the balsam in Palestine dates from this visit; the plant having been one of the queen’s gifts. The two following verses form a sort of parenthesis. In speaking of the gold and gems brought by the Arabian queen, it occurs to the historian to state that both of these commodities were also brought in by the fleet. Possibly, too, the mention of the spices reminded him of the fragrant almug trees brought from Ophir (Bähr). But it would rather seem that they are included as one of the chief products of the voyage. 1 Kings 10:11 And the navy of Hiram also [i.e; built and equipped by him, 1 Kings 9:26-28], that brought gold from Ophir, brought in from Ophir great plenty of almug trees [In 2 Chronicles 2:8; 2 Chronicles 9:10, called "algum trees." The origin and meaning of the word are alike uncertain. By some the Al is supposed to be the Arabic article, as found in Al-coran, Al-cohol, Ad-miral, etc; but later authorities lend no support to this view. "Celsius enumerates fifteen different trees, each of which has been supposed to have a claim to represent the almug tree of Scripture" Dict. Bib. 3. Appendix, p. 6.) It is now, however pretty generally agreed that the red sandalwood (pterocarpus sandaliorus, Linn.; or, according to others, santalum album, the white species) is intended—a tree which grows in India and on the coast of Malabar. It is said that in India sandalwood is called valguha (same root); and Stanley sees in almug the "Hebraized form of the Deccan word for sandal." Dr. Hooker, however, (Dict. Bib. l.c.) regards the question as still undecided], and precious stones. [Stanley remarks on the frequent references to gold and silver and precious stones in the Book of Proverbs (Proverbs 1:9.; Proverbs 3:14, Proverbs 3:15; Proverbs 8:10, Proverbs 8:11; Proverbs 10:20; Proverbs 16:16, etc.), as one indication that it belongs to the age of Solomon.] 1 Kings 10:12 And the king made of the almug trees pillars [lit; props. In 2 Chronicles 9:11 we have a different word, מְסִלוֹת (cf. Judges 20:31, Judges 20:32; 1 Samuel 6:12, etc.), there translated stairs. The word in the text מִסְעָד is ἅπαξλεγ. Keil understands "steps with bannisters;" Bähr (after Jarchi) "tesselated pavements;" Gesenius, "balusters;" Thenius, "divans;" Bottcher, "benches and similar moveables." But was not the pavement already laid, and of cedar; and would the sanctuary have divans, etc.?] for the house of the Lord, and for the king’s house, harps also and psalteries [also mentioned together (Psalms 71:22; Psalms 108:2; cf. 3). They were stringed instruments, but their precise shape and character is quite uncertain. One species of sandalwood, or of wood closely allied to it, is said to have been much sought after for musical instruments] for the singers: there came no such almug trees, nor were seen unto this day. 1 Kings 10:13 And king Solomon gave unto the queen of Sheba an her desire, whatsoever she asked, beside that which Solomon gave her of his royal bounty. [Heb. according to the hand of king Solomon. The chronicler has, "beside that which she had brought unto the king." That is to say, in addition to the fitting presents which he made in return for her gifts, he freely gave her whatsoever she asked for. To ask for a coveted thing is no breach of Oriental propriety. The Ethiopian Christians find in these words (and considering the character of Solomon and the license of that age, perhaps not altogether without reason) a basis for their belief that she bore Solomon a son, Melimelek by name, from whom, indeed, the present sovereigns of Abyssinia claim to derive their descent.] So she turned and went to her own country, she and her servants. Bishop Wordsworth has remarked that the record of this visit disappoints us. He says, "He (Solomon) answered her hard questions. He showed her his palace … but we do not hear that he invited her to go up with him into the house of the Lord," etc. Again: "The visit of the queen of Sheba seem to have been without any spiritual result." "In like manner," he adds, "we hear nothing of any attempt on Solomon’s part to improve his friendship and commercial relations with Hiram into an occasion for communicating the better merchandise of Divine truth to the Sidonians." But surely this criticism overlooks the fact that Judaism was not a missionary religion, and that the chosen people had no sort of commission to convert the heathen, It is, no doubt, a mystery; but it is a fact, that for 2,000 years the light of God’s truth was, by the counsel and purpose of God, restricted within the extremely narrow confines of Israel, and that the "fulness of the time," when the Gentiles should be "fellow heirs," was distant from Solomon’s day by a whole millennium., 1 Kings 10:1-13 The Queen of Sheba. Well may the journey of this Eastern queen have a triple mention in the sacred page (1 Kings 10:1-29.; 2 Chronicles 9:1-31.; St. Matthew 12:1-50.; St. Luke 11:1-54.), for it is almost, if not altogether, sui generis. We are so familiar with the story from our infancy that we often fail to realize its true character and proportions. A woman, a princess, an Arab queen, travels some three thousand miles in search of wisdom. We have read of long voyages undertaken and of great hardships endured by men who were in search of gold. Fable tells of the search for a golden fleece; history tells of many voyages to a fancied El Dorado, but here only, and in the case of the Magi, do we read of a traveller who brought gold and sought wisdom. And our Lord has honoured this history—this almost romantic story—by drawing one of its lessons with His own hand (Matthew 12:42). But though He has there furnished the outline, He has left it for us to fill in the colouring. And the rest of the story He has left untouched; the other lessons we have to gather for ourselves. We have, therefore, to consider, I. The journey of the queen. II. Her rich offerings to Solomon. III. Solomon’s royal presents to her. I. As to the JOURNEY—the one point noticed by our blessed Lord. He has reminded us (1) of its character. She came "from the ends of the earth." (2) Of its purpose. It was to "hear the wisdom of Solomon." Let us collect our thoughts round these two centres, the nature and object of this enterprise. I. THE NATURE OF THIS JOURNEY. Four particulars must be borne in mind. (1) The length of the way. Presuming that Sheba was Yemen (see note on 1 Kings 10:1), her capital would be at no great distance from Mocha or Aden, i.e; it would be some fifteen hundred miles distant from Jerusalem. But ancient journeys are not to be measured by miles, but by hours. Now both the queen and her company travelled by camels, and the camel can only go, with any degree of comfort, at a walking pace, and, like other beasts of burden, must have occasional rests. Even if they had some "swift dromedaries" for the queen, the pace must have been regulated by the sumpter camels. We may be pretty sure, therefore that the party would not travel, on the average, more than twenty miles a day, which would give something like seventy-five days for the journey to Jerusalem, and the same for the return. (2) Its fatigues and hardships. Eastern queens, even of the Sabeans, were not unacquainted with luxury (note on 1 Kings 10:2), and the journey through the "great and terrible wilderness" would subject this lady to many discomforts. Camel riding is very tiring; desert travel profoundly wearisome. Whatever comforts her "very great train" might be able to procure her, nothing could alter the blazing sun overhead, the burning sands beneath, or the utter desolation and monotony of the desert. Those who have made the journey to Sinai will have some idea what the dally life of this party was like. (3) Its perils. "Perils of the wilderness" (cf. Psalms 91:1-16.; Deuteronomy 8:15), and "perils of robbers" alike. Her course lay through the land of Ishmael, whose "hand was against every man," and she carried with her large treasure—a tempting bait to the rapacious Bedouin. True, she had an armed escort, but that would not exempt her from dangers. Nor were these "perils by the way" all. She had left her kingdom without its head. An insurrection might be fomented against her (Luke 19:14), or a usurper might snatch her crown. And all this was (4) undertaken by a woman. True, she was an Arabian, and therefore presumably hardy and patient, but all the same the sex of the traveller increases our admiration, especially when we consider the estimation in which women have generally been held in the East. And she was a queen, and left a court, left her fragrant country, "Araby the blest," to plod painfully and slowly over the desert reaches, till she came to the "city of the vision of peace." II. THE PURPOSE OF THIS . Many sovereigns have left their homes at the head of "a very great train" both before and since her day, but with what different objects in view. They have swept across continents—the Rameses, the Shishaks, the Alexanders, the Tamerlanes of history, but not for wisdom. Theirs was no peaceful or kindly mission. Some, like Peter the Great, have visited foreign courts for the sake of advancing the commerce, etc; of their country. Some, like the Persian Shah recently, have travelled far to see the wonders of the world, and to taste of its pleasures; but she came to "prove Solomon with hard questions," to "commune with him of all that was in her heart," to "reason high Of providence, foreknowledge, will, and fate, Fixed fate, freewill, foreknowledge absolute." It is clear that to her "wisdom" was "the principal thing," and she brought gold and rubies (Job 28:18; Proverbs 3:15; Proverbs 8:11) to obtain it. She is like the "merchantman seeking goodly pearls." She has found one pearl of great price, and she will give all that she has to possess it. True, she saw the wonders of Solomon’s court, but she came to hear his wisdom. She envied his courtiers, not because of their places, palaces, etc; but because they stood before him (1 Kings 10:8) and heard his words. And our Saviour has said that this conduct will condemn the men of His generation. It were easy to show how. But it will be more to the point if we consider how it may condemn the men of our own time. 1. Christ is "more (πλεῖον) than Solomon." Solomon was the wisest of men; Christ was "the wisdom of God." Solomon, a great king; Christ," King of kings and Lord of lords" (Revelation 17:4). Compare the Song of Solomon with the Beatitudes; the Proverbs with the Sermon on the Mount; Solomon’s end and Christ’s death. We should not dare to compare them had not He done it before. 2. Christ is here. No need to cross deserts or continents to find Him. "Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above)," etc. (Romans 10:6, Romans 10:7). And say not, "True, He was present in those Galilean synagogues, in those streets of Jerusalem, but He is not here." His own words affirm the contrary (Matthew 28:20; Matthew 18:20, etc.) He is present everywhere. "One Spirit, His Who wore the platted crown with bleeding brows, Fills universal nature." But more especially is he present in His Church, His word, His sacraments. 3. Christ has come from the uttermost parts of the world to us. It is not we who have to leave a kingdom. He has left His that he may "appoint unto us a kingdom." "Thy Father’s home of light; Thy rainbow-circled throne, Were left for earthly night, For wanderings sad and lone." And yet men will not listen to Him, will not learn of Him. It is said that ninety-five per cent of our labouring classes do not statedly attend any place of Christian worship. And of those who do, how many do His bidding? In the great assize all these will meet the Queen of the South. She will witness of the journey she took, of the sacrifices she made, of the risks she incurred, to sit at the feet of Solomon. She will tell of Solomon’s "ascent," etc; and she will put to shame and everlasting contempt those to whom the words and wisdom, the sacrifice and ascension of the Lord were unholy or indifferent things (Hebrews 10:29). And not the Queen of the South alone. The kings of the East, Melchior, Jasper, Balthasar—so tradition calls them they too came a long journey to see the child Christ. And how many pagans in Africa, in India, in the islands of the sea, have gone long miles just to hear one sermon from the passing missionary? Will not all these condemn the men of this generation? III. HER TO SOLOMON. It was the custom of those days to approach king, seer, etc; with a present (verse 25; Psalms 72:10; 1 Samuel 9:7; Judges 6:18). And she did not come empty. We read of "camels bearing spices," of 120 talents of gold, etc. (verse 10). Now observe: (1) She gave of what she had. Her country produced or imported gold; it produced spices and precious stones (note on verse 2). Other visitors to Solomon gave garments, horses, etc. (verse 25). These she had not, but she gave what she could (2 Corinthians 8:12). (2) She gave what Solomon needed. We know how much gold he required; not for the temple only—that was apparently completed—but for his great and varied undertakings. She brought 120 talents of the "gold of Arabia"—literally the ransom of a province (1 Kings 9:14). She brought spices—in verse 15, we read of "the traffick of the spice merchants"—and precious stones—in 2 Chronicles 3:6 we find that Solomon garnished the house with these. So that, like Hiram, she helped to prepare a shrine for the Holy One of Israel. (3) She gave generously. Her munificence was unexampled—"very much gold" (2 Chronicles 3:2). "There came no more such abundance of spices," etc. (2 Chronicles 3:10). And shall not her gifts, too, condemn our parsimony? For Christ, the Divine Solomon, has need of our spices and silver and gold. He too is building a temple (1 Peter 2:5). He too plants store cities and treasures in His realm. He would have the whole round world girdled with Christian temples. He would make it one vast "Paradise" (Ecclesiastes 2:4, Ecclesiastes 2:5). And He needs our agency and our offerings. He wants the perfume of sacrifice on our part (Philippians 4:18; Ephesians 5:2; 2 Corinthians 2:15). The Queen of the South did not offer to Solomon of that which cost her nothing. But how seldom is the widow’s mite offered to our king. "All these of their abundance have cast in," etc. (Luke 21:8). Compared with her gift how miserable are our subscriptions and offertories. Note: There is a striking similarity between her gifts and those of the Magi. Both too were offered to a king. IV. SOLOMON’S GIFTS TO HER. She was not the loser either by her long journey or her costly presents. A prince like Solomon could not permit her to make sacrifices, Noblesse oblige. His generosity must exceed hers. So he gave her "all her desire," "whatsoever she asked" "according to the hand of the king" (2 Chronicles 3:13, Heb.) We see here a picture of the recompenses of our God. "According to his riches in glory" (Philippians 4:19). "Exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think" (Ephesians 3:20). "Ask and it shall be given you" (Matthew 7:7). His gifts too are "according to the hand of a king," and what a king! He cannot remain in any man’s debt. "A cup of cold water only" He will abundantly recompense. BY J. WAITE 1 Kings 10:1-3 The Queen of the South. This incident is remarkable as the only one in the reign of Solomon to which reference is made in the New Testament. Solomon is twice spoken of by our Lord in His recorded discourses. In one case his royal magnificence is declared inferior to the beauty with which God has clothed the "lilies of the field." "Even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these" (Matthew 6:29). Art can never vie with nature. What loveliness of form or hue that human skill can produce is comparable with that of the petals of a flower? What is all the glory with which man may robe himself to that which is the product of the creative finger of God? In the other case, it is the wisdom of Solomon that our Lord refers to, as having its widespread fame illustrated by the visit of the Queen of Sheba, and as being surpassed by the higher revelation of truth in Himself. "The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment," etc. (Matthew 12:42). The interest and importance of this incident is greatly heightened by its thus finding a place in the discourses of Christ. In itself there is no very deep meaning in it. It supplies few materials for high moral or spiritual teaching. The interchange of civilities between two Oriental monarchs is related by the historian with innocent pride, as setting forth the surpassing grandeur of the king whose reign was to him the golden age of his own nation’s life. There is something of a romantic charm in it, too, that naturally gave rise to fanciful traditions being added to the biblical story. But beyond this it is an event of no great moment. This use of it, however, by our Lord lifts it out of the region of the commonplace, gives it other than a mere secular meaning, makes it an important channel of Divine instruction. Every name is honoured by association with His. Every incident becomes clothed with sacred interest when made to illustrate the relation of human souls to Him. Let us look at these two persons, then, in the light of the New Testament reference to their interview. I. SOLOMON, IN HIS WISDOM, A TYPE OF THE "GREATER" CHRIST. The distinctive personal characteristic of Solomon was his "wisdom." The fame of it is regarded by some as marking the uprising of a new and hitherto unknown power in Israel. Whence came this new phenomenon? We trace it to a Divine source. "The Lord gave unto David this wise son" (1 Kings 5:7). "God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much" (1 Kings 4:29). No doubt the extended intercourse with surrounding nations that he established was the beginning of a new life to Israel, bringing in a flood of new ideas and interests. This supplied materials for his wisdom but did not create it. It was not learnt from Egypt, or the "children of the East." It was a Divine gift, that came in response to his own prayer (1 Kings 3:9). 1. One broad feature that strikes us in Solomon’s wisdom is its remarkable versatility, the variety of its phases, the way in which its light played freely on all sorts of subjects. It dealt with the objects and processes of nature. It was a kind of natural science. He has been called "the founder of Hebrew science," the "first of the world’s great naturalists." "He spake of trees, from the cedar tree," etc. (1 Kings 4:33). One would like to know what the range and quality of his science really was; but the Bible, existing as it does for far other than scientific purposes, does not satisfy our curiosity in this respect. It dealt with moral facts and problems—a true practical philosophy of life; its proper ends and aims, its governing principles, the meaning of its experiences, its besetting dangers and possible rewards. It dealt with the administration of national affairs. This is seen in his assertion of the principle of eternal righteousness as the law by which the ruler of men must himself be ruled. His wisdom lay in the gift of "an understanding heart to judge the people and discern between good and evil," and the people "feared the king, for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him to do judgment" (1 Kings 4:29). We are thus reminded of the unity of nature and of human life. Truth is one, whether in thought, feeling, or conduct, in things private or public, secular or spiritual. Wisdom is the power that discerns and utilizes the innermost truth of all things, finds out and practically applies whatever is essentially Divine. 2. Solomon’s wisdom assumed various forms of expression: the Proverbial form, as in the "Book of Proverbs;" the Poetic form, as in his "Songs" and "Psalms;" the Socratic form, by question and answer, riddles—"dark sayings"—and the interpretation thereof. It is in this latter form that his wisdom here appears. Tradition says that Hiram engaged with him in this "cross questioning," and was worsted in the encounter; so here the queen of Sheba came "to prove him with hard questions," and "communing with him of all that was in her heart she found that he could tell her all her questions," etc. By all this we are led to think of "One greater than Solomon." (1) "Greater," inasmuch as He leads men to wisdom of a higher order. Solomon is the most secular of the inspired writers of the Old Testament. Divine things are approached by him, as it were, on the lower, earthly side. A prudential tone is given to the counsels of religion, and vice is set forth not so much as wickedness but as "folly." Think of the marked difference between the utterances of Solomon’s wisdom and the sublime spiritual elevation of David’s psalms. And when we come to Christ’s teaching, what immeasurably loftier heights and deeper depths of Divine truth are here! Redemption, holiness, immortality, are His themes—the deeper "mysteries of the kingdom of heaven; .... in him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Colossians 2:8). (2) "Greater," inasmuch as the Divine fount of wisdom must needs be infinitely superior to any mere human channel through which it flows. Solomon was after all but a learner, not a master. His were but guesses at truth. Christ’s were the authoritative utterances of the incarnate "Word." Solomon spoke according to the limited measure of the spirit of truth in him. Christ spoke out of His own infinite fulness. "God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto Him" (John 3:34). Whence, indeed, did Solomon’s wisdom come but from Him, the true fontal "Light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world"? The words that the wise in every age have spoken were but dim, dawning rays of the light that broke in a glorious day upon the world when He, the Sun of Righteousness, arose. II. THE QUEEN OF SHEBA, IN HER SEARCH AFTER WISDOM, AS AN EXAMPLE FOR . All the motives that actuated herin this long pilgrimage from the far off corner of Arabia we know not. Mere curiosity, commercial interest, personal vanity may have had something to do with it. But the words of the narrative suggest that it was mainly an honest thirst for knowledge, and specially for clearer light on highest matters of human interest. Learn (1) The nobility of a simple, earnest, restless search after truth. (2) The grateful respect which a teachable spirit will feel towards one who can unveil the truth to it. (3) The joyous satisfaction of soul that springs from the discovery of the highest truth. How much does such an example as this in the realms of heathen darkness rebuke the spiritual dulness and indifference of those who with the Light of Life shining gloriously upon them in the person of Christ refuse to welcome it, and walk in it! "Many shall come from the east and the west," etc. (Matthew 8:11, Matthew 8:12).—W. BY A. ROWLAND 1 Kings 10:1-18 The Queen of Sheba. The suggestiveness of Solomon’s intercourse with surrounding nations. His magnanimity was as remarkable as his magnificence. His broad policy stood out in striking contrast with the narrowness of some of his contemporaries and successors. It was one evidence of his divinely inspired wisdom. In some respects his enlightenment puts to shame modern diplomacy. Trace his relations with the king of Tyre and the queen of Sheba. These were not exceptionally treated by the wise-hearted ruler. His country was open to the commerce of surrounding peoples, and his court free to all who would live in amity with him. Indicate the typical nature of his kingdom—the golden age of God’s people. Apply to the reign of Him who said, "A greater than Solomon is here!" Remarks on the position and the commerce of the land from which this great queen came. Her conduct is full of suggestions for us— I. HER COMING SHOWS THE PAINS THOSE SHOULD TAKE WHO ARE FOR TRUE WISDOM. The journey was long, arduous, costly. It may have raised opposition amongst the people she ruled. In spite of all she came. Give examples of men who in old time travelled far in search of wisdom, visiting schools of philosophy, astrologers, and sages, consulting oracles like that at Delphi. Not less is demanded of men in our days who investigate natural phenomena. Instances abound of travellers who have laid down life, as did Franklin and Livingstone, in journeys of discovery; of surgeons and physicians who have run personal risk to learn by crucial experiment a means of cure; of scientific discoverers who have sacrificed time and effort to make sure of one fact, or establish one law, etc. In contrast with all this how small the effort to win true riches, to know essential truth. Many are content with hearsay evidence. The queen of Sheba was not. At any cost she would see and know for herself. Perhaps it was with some remembrance of her visit that Solomon wrote Proverbs 2:3-5: "If thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; if thou seekest her as silver and searchest for her as for hid treasures; then thou shalt understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God." Compare this with the parable of the merchant seeking goodly pearls (Matthew 13:45, Matthew 13:46). See also Colossians 2:8. II. HER THE FEELING OF THOSE WHO HAVE COME TO ONE GREATER THAN SOLOMON. "The half was not told me" (Colossians 2:6, Colossians 2:7). St. Paul speaks of "the unsearchable riches of Christ;" of "the excellency of the knowledge of Christ," etc. In proportion as men really know Him, and live near Him, does He appear more winsome and worthy. Cite the utterances of such men as Bernard, Wesley, etc. Their words fall from our lips in song, yet they seem extravagant to us on our low level of religious life, and at our sad distance from Christ. Such bursts of praise we may use as tests of our devotion. Christ has not changed, but too often His people see Him from afar. Any one who is living near the Lord can say, "The half was not told me" of Thy love and glory. III. HER THE WE SHOULD MAKE TO OUR KING Read Colossians 2:10. Draw out the parallel between this and the coming of the Magi (Matthew 2:1-23.), when they fell down and worshipped the child Jesus, and opened their treasures and presented to Him gifts—gold and frankincense and myrrh. "Say, shall we yield Him, in costly devotion, Odours of Edom and offerings Divine; Gems of the mountain, and pearls of the ocean, Myrrh from the forest, or gold from the mine? "Vainly we offer each ample oblation; Vainly with gifts would his favour secure; Richer, by far, is the heart’s adoration; Dearer to God are the prayers of the poor." See Isaiah 1:12; Psalms 40:6, etc. IV. HER REMINDS US OF THE WELCOME GIVEN BY OUR LORD. 1. Like Solomon (Psalms 40:3) Christ answers our questions. He knew His disciples "were desirous to ask Him," so they needed not even to frame their questions. Unspoken prayers are heard. 2. Like Solomon (Psalms 40:5) Christ reveals His glory. The transfiguration, the last talk with the apostles, the apocalypse, etc. 3. Like Solomon (Psalms 40:13) Christ loads us with benefits. Pardon, peace, strength, joy, etc.—of greater worth than gold and precious stones. These material, those imperishable. Let the earnestness of this queen rebuke own sloth and unbelief. "The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, a greater than Solomon is here" (Matthew 12:42).—A.R. SOLOMON’S WEALTH, POMP, AND POWER. The visit of the Queen of Sheba, in itself a striking proof of the fame and greatness of Solomon, is followed by a description of his revenues, his throne, and various other particulars of his wealth and magnificence, some of which are related here because they were the products of the voyages of that same fleet which had been the means of acquainting the queen with Solomon and his glory. 1 Kings 10:14 Now the weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year [probably one particular and exceptional year, probably also the year of the queen’s visit, not year by year (Wordsworth, al.), as the Vulgate (per singulos annos). One fleet only came home from its voyage after three years, and the gold would hardly weigh precisely 666 talents year by year] was six hundred threescore and six talents of gold. [The correspondence with the number of the Beast (Revelation 13:18; cf. Ezra 2:13) is in all probability not altogether accidental. It is possible, i.e; that the number of the beast is a reminiscence of this number of talents. For we may surely see in this statement of Solomon’s prodigious wealth an indication of his worldliness, the turning point, perhaps, in his estrangement from God. "The love of money" may have been the root of all his evil. It is certainly remarkable that from this time forward his career is one of steady declension. It is also remarkable that while he is here represented to us as a "royal merchant," the mark of the beast is on the buyers and sellers (Revelation 13:17). But see "Expositor," May, 1881. It is, of course, possible that the number has been corrupted, but, on the other hand, it may have been recorded, partly because of the singularity of the sum total. The 666 talents include the receipts from all sources—taxes, tribute, and voyages—with the exception made presently (1 Kings 10:15). Rawlinson quotes Keil (in his earlier edition) as estimating this amount at £3,646,350. But in his later work, Keil puts it in round numbers at two and a half millions, while Mr. Peele calculates it at about £8,000,000. These widely varying figures are instructive, as showing that both estimates are little more than guesswork. We do not know the value of the Hebrew talent, nor, indeed, can it ever be rightly appraised until we know its purchasing power. The denarius, e.g; is generally valued at 8½ d. (or 7½ d.) because it contained some 58 grains of pure silver but its real value was nearer three shillings, inasmuch as it was a fair wage for a day’s work on the land (Matthew 20:2). In any case, it is clear that this sum should hardly be compared with the annual revenue of other Oriental empires, as by Rawlinson (see above). 1 Kings 10:15 Beside that he had of the marchantmen [The root תּוּר signifies to wander or travel about. In Numbers 13:16, Numbers 13:17, it is used of spies. It may here be applied to persons who travelled for purposes of trade; but the versions differ very materially in their rendering of the word; the LXX. understanding it of tribute (τῶνφόρωντῶνὑποτεταγμένων); the Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic of artizans; the Vulgate of ambassadors. And the word is nowhere else used of traders. For the construction, see Ewald 287e], and of the traffick [it is noteworthy that no such word is used before הַתָּרִים above] of the spice [not in Hebrews] merchants רָכַל is akin to רָגַל Like the preceding word, the primary meaning is to go about (רֶגֶל foot); hence, to trade. It is probable that Solomon’s great commercial enterprises were conducted for his own benefit, i.e; that the merchants were little more than agents, who bought and sold for the king. Such is the custom of Eastern kings (Kitto)], and of all the kings of Arabia [הָעֶרֶב is very variously interpreted. According to Gesenius it means foreigners, and he would understand "foreign kings who made an alliance with the Israelites," and so the Chaldee. Keil: "the kings of the mixed population" (mentioned Exodus 12:38. Cf. Jeremiah 50:37; Nehemiah 13:3). Perhaps the words are best explained by Jeremiah 25:24: "The kings of Arabia (עֲרָב) and … of the mingled people (עֶרֶב) that dwell in the desert," i.e; the desert of Arabia deserta, bordering on Palestine. The chronicler here gives us עֲרָב, i.e; not the Arabia of the geographers, but the tract of country south and east of Palestine, as far as the Red Sea (Gesenius). No doubt these kings, who were great sheepmasters, paid their tribute in flocks of sheep and goats (2 Chronicles 17:11; 2 Kings 3:4], and of the governors of the country. [The word פַחוֹת (cf. 2 Kings 20:1-21:24) is a foreign word, perhaps Sanskrit, apparently borrowed by the Jews from the Persians. It is used of Tatnai (Ezra 5:6), of Zerubbabel (Haggai 1:1), and of Nehemiah (Nehemiah 5:14). Probably our author, in whose day it was a familiar and well understood word, substituted it for some older Hebrew designation. But the office and character of these "governors" is more difficult to define than the name. Rawlinson thinks that, in some parts of the empire, the kings—the "empire of Solomon," he observes, "was in the main a congeries of small kingdoms"—"had been superseded by governors." But it seems as natural to understand the term of the twelve prefects mentioned in Nehemiah 4:1-23; who were "the governors of the land," or of similar officers in the different outposts of the kingdom. We know that the contributions which passed through their hands were furnished in kind; hence, perhaps, it is that this income is distinguished from the gold of Neh 4:14. 1 Kings 10:16 And king Solomon made two hundred targets [צִנָּה, from a root which signifies protect, a large oblong shield, which covered the entire person (Psalms 5:12), θυρεός, scutum. See 1 Samuel 17:7, 1 Samuel 17:41. The LXX. here reads δόρατα, i.e; spears] of beaten gold [The authorities are divided as to the meaning of שָׁחוּט, here translated beaten. This rendering is supported by Bהhr and Keil (after Kimchi), but Gesenius understands mixed gold. Rawlinson infers from the weight that the shields were only plated (shields were commonly made of wood, covered with leather). But whether they were solid or not does not decide the question whether the gold was pure or alloyed. "Shields of gold" are mentioned 2 Samuel 8:7; 1 Macc. 6:39]: six hundred shekels [Heb. omits shekels, as elsewhere, Genesis 24:22; Genesis 37:28; Judges 8:26, etc. There were apparently two kinds of shekel, the Mosaic and the royal (for the latter see 2 Samuel 14:26). The former was twice as much as the latter, but there is no agreement amongst commentators as to the weight or value of either. Nor can we be certain which is indicated here. Thenius decides for the former, and estimates the weight of the gold on each target to be 17 ½ lbs; and the value to be 6000 thalers (£900), or, according to Keil, 5000 thalers (£750). Keil, however, inclines to the belief that the royal shekel is meant, in which case the weight would be 9 lbs; and the value about £400. Bהhr, however, estimates the gold at no more than £78] of gold went to one target. 1 Kings 10:17 And he made three hundred shields [portable shields (peltas, Vulgate) adapted for use in hand to hand encounters (2 Chronicles 12:9, 2 Chronicles 12:10; cf. 2 Samuel 1:21). That these were much smaller shields is clear from the text. These shields were borne by the royal bodyguard on great occasions (1 Kings 14:27). They were taken away by Shishak (ib. 1 Kings 10:26)] of beaten gold; three pound [מָגֶה μνᾶ, mina. As 2 Chronicles 9:16 has here 300 shekels, it follows that the maneh = 100 shekels. From Ezekiel 45:12, however, it would seem that there were manehs of different value] of gold went to one shield [i.e; half as much as to the target]; and the king put them in [Heb. gave them to] the house of the forest of Lebanon [1 Kings 7:2. They would certainly be suspended on the walls, but whether on the inside or the outside is not quite certain, and the text affords us no means of deciding. We know that elsewhere shields were suspended outside the walls of armouries, etc. "At Tyre the beauty of the place was thought to consist in the splendour and variety of the shields of all nations hung on its walls (Ezekiel 27:10, Ezekiel 27:11). In Rome the temple of Bellona was studded with them. In Athens, the round marks where they hung can still be traced on the walls of the Parthenon. There were also arms hung round the wails of the second temple (Joshua, Ant. 15.11. 3)," Stanley. It is supposed that along with those made by Solomon were hung the shields taken by David from the Syrians, as according to 2 Samuel 8:7, LXX; these latter also were carried off by Shishak. It has been inferred from Son 4:4 that these also were 500 in number, and that the entire thousand were suspended on a part of the house of the forest of Lebanon known as the Tower of David; cf. Isaiah 22:8; Psalms 47:9]. The historian now proceeds to describe the great feature of another of Solomon’s palaces. As the house of the forest of Lebanon was distinguished by the golden shields which emblazoned and glorified its walls, so was "the porch of judgment" (1 Kings 7:7) by the chryselephantine throne. 1 Kings 10:18 Moreover the ling made a great throne [Heb. seat. The use of a chair where the custom of the country is to squat on the ground, or to recline on a divan, is always a mark of dignity. See 2 Kings 4:10; Proverbs 9:14] of ivory [Heb. tooth. Below in verse 22 we have elephant’s tooth. It is generally thought that this "throne of the house of David" (Psalms 122:5) was of wood, veneered with ivory, as was the practice in Assyria, and in the chryselephantine statues of the Greeks (Paus. 2.4.1; 6.25. 4, etc.) Bähr says there is no more necessity for believing this throne to have been of solid ivory than the "ivory house" mentioned in 1 Kings 22:39. Cf. Psalms 45:8; Amos 3:15; Amos 6:4. But there is surely this difference between them, that the palace could not possibly be constructed entirely of ivory, whereas the throne might be, and some of the thrones of India have been (Rawlinson)], and overlaid it with the best [מוּפָז, from the root פָּזַז, separavit = aurum depuratum. The chronicler explains the word by טָהוֹר (2 Chronicles 9:17)] gold. [It is very unlikely that the gold entirely covered and concealed the ivory, especially if the latter was merely a veneer. Keil and Bהhr consider that the gold was laid on the wood and the ivory inserted between the plates, but the text does not speak of overlaying with ivory, but of overlaying ivory with gold. And the presumption is that the ivory was solid. In the Greek statues both ivory and gold were applied in laminae, the former representing the flesh, the latter the drapery.] 1 Kings 10:19 The throne had six steps ["The characteristic feature in the royal throne was its elevation"; cf. Isaiah 6:1], and the top [Heb. head] of the throne was round behind [same word Hebrews 7:23, Hebrews 7:24. Thenius and Bהhr understand it of an arched or rounded canopy attached to the back; Keil supposes that the back was arched or rounded in form]: and there were stays [Heb. hands, i.e; arms] on either side on the place of the seat [see drawing of Assyrian throne in Layard’s "Nineveh," 2:301; Dict. Bib. 52. p. 1494], and two liens [probably of wood overlaid with gold. Cf. Jeremiah 10:3, Jeremiah 10:4] stood beside the stays. 1 Kings 10:20 And twelve lions stood there on the one side and on the other, upon the six steps [It is somewhat doubtful whether there were twelve or fourteen lions in all. Most commentators assume that there were fourteen, and the text will certainly bear that construction. But it is altogether more likely that there were twelve; that is to say, that the two lions on the topmost step are the two mentioned in the preceding verse as "standing beside the stays," otherwise there would have been four lions on that step. And we all know that twelve had a significance such as could not attach to any other number. It would signify that all the tribes had an interest in the royal house (cf. 1 Kings 12:16; 2 Samuel 20:1); and a right of approach to the throne (cf. 1 Kings 18:31). The lion, a familiar emblem of sovereignty among many nations, had an especial appropriateness in this case, as being the symbol of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:9; cf. Numbers 23:24; Numbers 24:9). We are to see in them partly "symbols of the ruler’s authority" (Keil), and partly, perhaps, they represented the twelve tribes as guardians of the throne. "The king mounted between figures of lions to his seat on the throne, and sat between figures of lions upon it" (Wordsworth). Thrones somewhat similar to this in character, but much less magnificent, are represented on the Assyrian monuments. The historian might justly add]: there was not the like made [Heb. not made so] in any kingdom. 1 Kings 10:21 And an king Solomon’s drinking vessels were of gold [as were those of Assyria and Babylon. This lavish display of wealth was characteristic of Oriental courts. Rawlinson quotes Chardin’s description of the splendour of the court of Persia, "Tout est d’or massif," etc; and adds, "Both Symes and Yule note a similar use of gold utensils by the king of Ava"], and all the vessels of the house of the forest of Lebanon were of pure gold [סָגוּר; see on 1 Kings 6:20. LXX. χρυσίῳσυγκεκλεισμένα. This immense quantity of gold is quite paralleled in the accounts of profane writers. "Sardanapalus, when Nineveh was besieged, had 150 golden bedsteads, 150 golden tables, a million talents of gold, ten times as much silver, etc.. No less than 7170 talents of gold were used for the vessels and statues of the temple of Bel in Babylon.. Alexander’s pillage of Ectabana was estimated at 120,000 talents of gold," etc. (Bähr, in loc.)]; none were of silver [Heb. none silver. The Marg; "there was no silver in them," i.e; they were unalloyed, is a misapprehension of the true meaning]: it was nothing accounted of in the days of Solomon. 1 Kings 10:22 For [Reason why silver was so lightly esteemed. It was because of the prodigious quantity both of gold and silver brought in by the fleet] the king had at sea a navy of Tarshish [It has been much disputed (1) whether this was a second fleet, or the same as that mentioned 1 Kings 9:26-28, as trading to Ophir, and (2) whether this fleet, if it were not the same, went to Ophir or to Tartessus in Spain. Keil and Bähr contend that there was Out one fleet, first, because there is no mention of a second fleet at 1 Kings 9:28, and, secondly, because the cargoes were practically the same. I incline (with Rawlinson, al.) to think there were two separate navies, for the following reasons: (1) The expression "navy of Tarshish" (in 2 Chronicles 9:21 expanded into "ships going to Tarshish," which Keil and Bähr are compelled to set aside as a mistake on the part of the writer), taken in connexion with the following words, "with (עִם, together with, as well as) the navy of Hiram" points to a separate fleet; (2) the cargoes, so far from being the same, strike me as being altogether diverse. The Ophir fleet brought in "gold, almug trees, and precious stones." The navy of Tarshish "gold and silver ivory, apes, and peacocks." See below. (3) Even if we understand here by the "navy of Hiram" a Phoenician fleet, still a second fleet is indicated. But this leads us to consider the destination of these ships. The term, "fleet of Tarshish," does not in itself prove anything, for the expression, "ships of Tarshish," is almost a synonym for "merchant vessels." In 1 Kings 22:48 we read, "Jehoshaphat made ships of Tarshish to go to Ophir," and they "were broken at Ezion-geber" (cf. Psalms 48:7; Jonah 1:3). It is probable that in Jewish lips the words were a nomen generale for all vessels going long voyages (Isaiah 2:16; Psalms 48:7; compare our "East Indiaman," "Greenlander"). But the words "in the sea," בַּיָּם, are most naturally understood of that ocean which the Jews called par excellence "the sea," or "the great sea" (Numbers 34:6, Numbers 34:7), i.e; the Mediterranean, though the term הַיָּם is undoubtedly used of the Red Sea, the Sea of Galilee, and the Dead Sea. And the more so as we know that the Tyrians had an extensive commerce with Tartessus, which was a great emporium of trade from the earliest times. Bהhr objects that "no gold is found in Spain, but few peacocks, and little ivory;" but Rawlinson, on the other hand, affirms that "Spain had the richest silver mines known in the ancient world, and had a good deal of gold also" (Plin; Nat. Hist. 1 Kings 3:4), while "apes and ivory were produced by the opposite coast of Africa" (Herod. 4:191. As to peacocks see below). And it is a powerful argument in favour of Tartessus that it is the plentifulness of silver in Solomon’s days has suggested this reference to the fleet. For though silver "was found in the land of the Nabataeans, according to Strabo, 16:784" (Keil), yet it was to Tartessus that the ancient world was chiefly indebted for its supplies of that metal. On the whole, therefore, it seems probable that second fleet, trading with the Mediterranean seaports, is here described. And Psalms 72:10 is distinctly in favour of this conclusion. When Ewald says ("Hist. Israel," 3:263) that the Phoenicians would hardly tolerate a rival in the Mediterranean, he surely forgets that they had been admitted by the Jews to share the trade of Ophir] with the navy of Hiram; once in three years [This period agrees better with a voyage to Spain than to Southern Arabia. And if we understand it of Spanish voyages, it removes one difficulty in the way of placing Ophir in Arabia. It has also been urged that "the Hebrews reckoned parts of years and days as whole ones" (Kitte); but this hardly would apply to the expression "once in three years"] came the navy of Tarshish, bringing gold and silver ivory [Heb. tooth of elephants, LXX. ὀδόντεςἐλεφάντινοι. It is noteworthy that the name for elephant used here is derived from the Sanskrit (Gesen.), and an argument has been drawn hence in favour of placing Ophir in India, and of identifying the Tarshish fleet with the navy of Ophir. But such conclusions are extremely precarious. The name may have first come to the Jews from India, in which case it would be retained, from whatever quarter the commodity was subsequently derived. See Rawlinson, p. 546], and apes [קוֹף is in like manner identified by Gesenius, al; with the Sanskrit kapi. Sir J. Emerson Tennant says "the terms by which these articles (ivory, apes, and peacocks) are designated in the Hebrew Scriptures are identical with the Tamil names by which some of them are called in Ceylon to the present day"], and peacocks. [So the the ancients interpret the original word, though some of the moderns would understand "parrots." But the root תכי appears in several Aryan tongues (cf. ταῶς, from ταρως, and pavo) as indicating the peacock (Gesen; Max Muller, al.) which originally came from India. Whether it was also found in Africa is uncertain. Aristophanes says, καλεῖταιΠερσικὸςὄρνις. Wordsworth very justly sees in the mention of these curious beasts and birds a symptom of declension in simplicity and piety, a token that "wealth had brought with it luxury and effeminacy, and a frivolous, vainglorious love for novel and outlandish objects.’ 1 Kings 10:23 So King Solomon exceeded all the kings of the earth for riches and wisdom [Cf. 1 Kings 3:13. "There is something ominous of evil here. Riches are put before wisdom. This was not the case in the beginning of Solomon’s reign (1 Kings 3:11)"—Wordsworth. 1 Kings 10:24 And all the earth sought to [Heb. sought the face of] Solomon, to hear his wisdom which God had put in his heart [i.e; mind. Cf. 1 Kings 4:34]. 1 Kings 10:25 And they brought [Heb. and these (visitors were) bringing] every man his present [It is doubtful whether we are to understand by this word tribute, or gifts. The succeeding words, "a rate year by year," would seem to imply the former; the fact that the visitors came not as subjects, but to "hear the wisdom," etc; the latter. Bähr understands that the presents "were repeated year by year, so highly had Solomon risen in estimation." But even this supposition does not explain the "rate"] vessels of silver and vessels of gold, and garments [cf. Genesis 45:22; 2 Kings 5:26; Ezra 2:69], and armour [rather, "arms, weapons" (Gesen.) Ewald understands perfume; LXX. στακτὴν, i.e; oil of myrrh], and spices [cf. Ezra 2:10], horses and mules [see on 1 Kings 1:33], a rate year by year [Heb. the matter of a year in his year] . The remaining verses of this chapter, which, in the account of the chronicler, find a place at the end of the first chapter of his second book, repeat some of the information already given in 1 Kings 4:26 and 1 Kings 9:19, and furnish a few additional particulars as to the wealth and commerce of the king. 1 Kings 10:26 And Solomon gathered together his chariots and horsemen, and he had a thousand and four hundred chariots [these words have an important bearing on 1 Kings 4:26, where see note], and twelve thousand horsemen. [The question may suggest itself here, why did Solomon, who was a "man of peace," maintain such a formidable array of chariots and horsemen? For not only was it in contravention of Deu 17:16 (cf. 1 Samuel 8:11), but it was entirely unnecessary, especially for a nation inhabiting a hilly country like that of Israel. We find, consequently, that David, when he took a thousand chariots from Hadarezer (1 Chronicles 18:4), only reserved for his own use one hundred of them, though he was at the time engaged in war. It may perhaps be said that this force was necessary to keep the tributary kings in due subjection. But it seems quite as likely that it was maintained largely for the sake of pomp and display. Solomon seems to have determined in every way, and at any cost, to rival and surpass all contemporary kings. The maintenance of this large force of cavalry is another token of declension], whom he bestowed in the cities for chariots (1 Kings 9:19), and with the king at Jerusalem. 1 Kings 10:27 And the king made silver to be in Jerusalem as stones [an obviously hyperbolical expression], and cedar trees made he to be as the sycamore trees [the שִׁקְמָה is the συκομωρέα of the New Testament (Luke 19:4), i.e; as the name imports, the fig mulberry—the "sycamine tree" of Luke 17:6 would seem to denote the mulberry proper. Though now but comparatively rare in Palestine, it is clear that formerly it was very common (see, e.g; Isaiah 9:10, whence it appears that it was used for building purposes, and where it is also contrasted with the cedars). It was esteemed both for its fruit and its wood, so much so that David appointed a steward to have the supervision both of "the olive trees and the sycamore trees in the Shefelah" (1 Chronicles 27:28). The sycamores of Egypt, which were used for the coffins of mummies, are referred to in Psalms 78:47, in a way which bespeaks their great value. There is a good description of the tree in Thomson, "Land and Book," 1:23-25] that are in the vale [Same word as in 1 Chronicles l.c. The Shefelah is a "broad swelling tract of many hundred miles in area, which sweeps gently down from the mountains of Judah ’to mingle with the bounding main’ of the Mediterranean". This "Low Country" extended from Joppa to Gaza. The translation "vale" is altogether misleading. Conder describes it as "consisting of low hills, about five hundred feet above the sea, of white soft limestone," and adds that "the broad valleys among these hills… produce fine crops of corn, and on the hills the long olive groves flourish better than in other districts"—an incidental and valuable confirmation of the text. "The name Sifia, or Shephelah, still exists in four or five places round Beit Jibrin" (Eleutheropolis), ib. p. 276] for abundance. 1 Kings 10:28 And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt, and linen yarn: the king’s merchants received the linen yarn at a price. [This is a difficult passage, and the difficulty lies in the word מִקְוֶה, here rendered "linen yarn." Elsewhere the word signifies, a congregation, or gathering, as of water (Genesis 1:10; Exodus 7:19; Leviticus 11:36). Consequently, Gesenius (with Vatablus, al.) would here interpret, "company." "And the company of kings’ merchants took the company (of horses) at a price." The great difficulty in the way of this interpretation is perhaps the paronomasia, which, though not altogether without precedent, would be formal and unusual in grave history. Somewhat similarly Bהhr: "and as to horses … and their collection, the merchants of the king made a collection for a certain price," but this again is strained and artificial. Perhaps it is safer to see in the word the name of a place. The LXX. (similarly the Vulgate) renders, "from Egypt and from Thekoa," καὶἐκθεκουὲ, which Keil, however, contends is manifestly a variation of an older reading, καὶἐκΚουὲ, "and from Κουα." As to Koa or Kova, it is objected that no such place is mentioned elsewhere, and it is alleged that if it were a market for horses, or even if it were a frontier station, where the duties on horses were collected, we should surely have heard of it again. But this is by no means certain. Koa may well have been an in. significant post on the frontier which it was only necessary to mention in this connexion. Θεκουὲ certainly looks like an emendation, but it is to be remembered that although Tekoa (Amos 1:1; 2 Chronicles 11:6; 2 Chronicles 20:20) was apparently an insignificant village, still it gave its name to a district; it was no great distance from the Egyptian frontier—it was some six Roman miles south of Bethlehem, according to Jerome (in Amos, Proem.), and it may have been the rendezvous of the Egyptian and Hebrew horse dealers. The text would thus yield the following meaning: "And as for the expert of Solomon’s horses from Egypt and from Koa (or Tekoa), the king’s merchants took them from Koa (or Tekoa) at a price." 1 Kings 10:29 And a chariot [including perhaps the two or three horses (see note on 1 Kings 5:6) usually attached to a chariot, and the harness. רֶכֶב is used (2 Samuel 8:4; 2 Samuel 10:18; Ezekiel 39:20) for chariot and horses] came up and went out of Egypt for six hundred shekels of silver [about £80 (Wordsworth, £35), but, as these figures show, the precise value cannot be ascertained with certainty. But it is quite clear that these amounts cannot have been the custom duty, or the profits after reckoning all expenses (Ewald) paid on chariots and horses, but must represent the actual price], and an horse for an hundred and fifty: and so for all the kings of the Hittites. [We can hardly see in these Hittites representatives of the seven nations of Canaan (Wordsworth, al.), though the term "Hittite" is sometimes undoubtedly used as a nomen generale for Canaanites (Joshua 1:4; Ezekiel 16:3), for the Canaanitish bes had been reduced to bond service, the Hittites amongst them (1 Kings 9:20). The word is probably used somewhat loosely of the semi-independent tribes bordering on Palestine, the Khatti of the Assyrian inscriptions (Dict. Bib. 1:819), with whom Solomon had a sort of alliance. It is a curious coincidence that we find horses and chariots associated in popular estimation with the Hittites, at a later period of the history (2 Kings 7:6). Nor are we justified in supposing that these horses and chariots were furnished as cavalry to "Solomon’s vassals, whose armies were at his disposal, if he required their aid" (Rawlinson), for the kings of Syria are mentioned presently, and some of these at least were enemies to Solomon. Probably all we are to understand is that neighbouring nations received their supply of horses from Egypt—the home of horses and chariots (Exodus 14:6; Exodus 15:1; Deuteronomy 17:16; Isaiah 31:1; Jeremiah 46:2-4)—largely through the instrumentality of Solomon’s merchants], and for the kings of Syria ["who became the bitterest enemies of Israel" (Wordsworth): one fruit of a worldly policy], did they bring them out by their means. [Heb. by their hand they brought them out, i.e; they exported them through Solomon’s traders. 1 Kings 10:14-29 The Decline and Fall of Solomon. The fall of Solomon, in itself one of the most portentous facts in Scripture history, is rendered doubly suggestive and admonitory by a consideration of the way in which it was brought about. It was not that he succumbed to some fierce onslaught of temptation; it was no terrible rush of passion—no sudden guilty love of "fair idolatresses," as some have held—wrought his ruin; on the contrary, his decline in piety was so gradual and slow as to be almost imperceptible. It is almost impossible—and this consideration alone is most instructive—to trace with certainty the steps which led to his downfall. The Arab tradition teaches that a little worm—no more—was, silently and unseen, gnawing at the staff on which this Colossus leaned, and that it was only when it broke and he fell that men discovered he was dead—an instructive parable of his moral and spiritual decay. We may well cry here— "O fall’n at length that tower of strength Which stood foursquare to all the winds that blew." But it is much more pertinent to ask what brought that proud fortress to the ground. It would have sustained unshaken the blows of engines of war; it would have defied the hurtling storm and tempest, but it could not resist the gradual subsidence of its foundations, and so, while preserving a fair appearance almost to the last, it settled and settled, and at the last became a heap of ruins. Let us trace, then, as best we can, that downward course which ended in the builder of the temple building altars to Baal; let us lay bare, if we can, this worm that was noiselessly but ceaselessly eating out his inner life. Perhaps we cannot discover all its hidden workings, but we can surely see some. Up to the date of the dedication of the temple all would seem to have gone well. Unless the dedication prayer is, as some have affirmed, the composition of a later age, the prince who poured out his soul before God in those earnest and gracious words cannot have erred very far from the right way. And the message he received during the building of the temple confirms this view. It is a message not of warning but of encouragement. It is at the completion of the palaces that we discover the first certain token of defection. For it was then that the Lord appeared unto him the second time, and the communication then made was undeniably minatory. Its tone of threatening is inexplicable, except on the supposition that Solomon’s "heart was not right with the Lord," etc. At this period, then, about the twenty-fourth year of his reign, the destroying worm was already at work. Nor is it difficult to conjecture what was the first beginning of declension on Solomon’s part. We find it in the erection of the palaces, or rather in the carnal mind and the self love and the desire for ostentation which led to their erection. It is just possible that the building of these palaces was not, in itself, to be condemned. It is suspicious, no doubt, and argues selfishness and heartlessness, when, as in Russia, Turkey, etc; the huge and costly residences of the Crown contrast everywhere with the wretched hovels of the peasantry. And one would naturally expect the theocratic king to attain a higher level and to devote himself more to the advancement of his people’s good than ordinary rulers. But it must be remembered that under Solomon the Jewish people enjoyed an unprecedented prosperity (1 Kings 4:20, 1 Kings 4:21). The entire nation shared in the wealth and abundance of the court. We cannot be certain, consequently, that the palaces, per se, involved a departure from the law, the more so as some of them were necessary, for purposes of state and justice (see on 1 Kings 7:7). But the matter appears in a very different light when we come to consider the way in which they were reared. Forced labour, on the part of the subject races at least, can no doubt be justified from Scripture (Joshua 9:21 sqq.), at any rate, for the house of God (1 Kings 10:23), but not for the pleasure or aggrandisement of the monarch (1 Samuel 8:11, 1 Samuel 8:16). "It is not of the Lord of Hosts that the people shall weary themselves for very vanity" (Habakkuk 2:13). And when we remember that Jeroboam was probably encouraged to rebel by seeing and hearing the murmurings of the house of Joseph (1 Kings 11:28) of whose labours he was the overseer, and that this and similar burdens laid upon the people (1 Kings 12:4) resulted in the revolt of the ten tribes, we can hardly suppose that Solomon completed his great undertakings (1 Kings 9:15-19) without inflicting positive hardship and grave injustice on large numbers of his subjects. It is probable, indeed, that the woe pronounced against a later monarch (Jeremiah 22:13, Jeremiah 22:14) had not been unmerited by him. He had "used his neighbour’s service without wages," etc. Possibly he had raised his forest of cedar pillars, etc; by the sweat and groans of his serfs. It was a common thing for Eastern autocrats to do, but when "Jedidiah" did it, the cries of the oppressed labourer went up "into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth." But whether the erection of the palaces was in itself wrong or not, and whether the raising of the "levy" (1 Kings 9:15) was oppressive or not, there can be little doubt that the "proud look and high stomach" (Psalms 101:5; Psalms 131:1, Psalms 131:2)—the very spirit which David had disclaimed—which prompted some of these understandings was altogether sinful. Solomon is now no longer the "little child" he once was (1 Kings 3:7). Now that he has "strengthened himself," like his son after him, he begins to forget his God and to forsake His law (2 Chronicles 12:1). It has been promised him that he shall exceed all other kings in wisdom and riches and honour (1 Kings 3:12, 1 Kings 3:18); but this is not enough for him, he must surpass them also in the outward tokens of wealth and power. His palaces, to begin with, must be greater than theirs, he no longer covets the best gifts. The fine gold is become dim. Still, so far, there has been no deliberate, or perhaps even conscious, infraction of the law—only the worldly and selfish mind. He may well have argued that his state required this show of magnificence; that the Canaanites were ordained of God to hew wood and draw water at his pleasure. But this only shows how slight are the beginnings of evil; how fine sometimes is the line which divides right from wrong, and how easily our judgment is warped by our inclinations. It is the old story, Homo vult decipi et decipiatur. It is impossible to say in what precise order the records of Solomon’s reign are to be arranged, but it is probable that the next downward step is to be traced in the alliance in which he engaged with the Tyrians. We cannot blame him, of course, for the "league" of 1 Kings 5:12. But for that, he could hardly have built the temple, to say nothing of the palaces. Whether he was justified, however, in hang at sea "a navy of Tarshish with the navy of Hiram" (1 Kings 10:22) may well be doubted. For it was part of God’s plan that the Jewish people should "dwell alone and not be reckoned among the nations" (Numbers 23:9). Their geographical position was one of almost complete isolation. They were not destined to be a great commercial country. Their land was to be the theatre of our redemption. Theirs were "those holy fields Over whose acres walked those blessed feet, Which eighteen hundred years ago were nailed For our salvation, to the bitter cross;" and it was no preparation for the Incarnation that it should become the home of "gripple merchants." Contact and copartnership with idolaters could hardly be for the advantage of the faith. Nor is it difficult to see that Solomon’s commerce grew at the expense of his religion. Riches, proverbially a dangerous possession, were with him—wise though he was—a step towards utter ruin. All the time that his fleets were ploughing the main, that caravans of merchants were filling his store cities, that he was driving bargains with the Syrians and Hittites (verse 29), leanness was spreading in his soul—he was becoming more and more a secular prince. It has been justly remarked that the mention of "apes and peacocks" (verse 22), is a significant indication of the moral and mental deterioration which he was undergoing. To think that the wisest of men should find his pleasure in the antics of the one or the plumage of the other; or that he, the viceroy of Jehovah, should import jibbering baboons and strutting fowls, if not for himself, for the outlandish women of his court. No, these "wide views of commerce," this partnership with the Tyrians, this influx of prosperity, has not been for Solomon’s or Israel’s good. Indeed, if we study the character of the average nineteenth century Jew, we may form a fair idea of what commercial enterprise and lust of gold did for Solomon, the first of Hebrew chapmen. And yet this commerce, it is easy to see, may have been in its commencement unexceptionable. Possibly it was in part undertaken to provide gold for the embellishment of the temple. But it soon engendered, if indeed it was not engendered by, that "love of money which is the root of all evil." As Solomon grew richer he loved riches more. Verse 28 is full of significance. "So Solomon exceeded all the kings of the earth for riches and wisdom." Time was when wisdom held the first place (1 Kings 3:11). And so it came to pass that he who at first was "rich toward God," and who, like David his father, had only accumulated gold for the glory of the sanctuary, proceeded to "multiply silver and gold to himself" (Deuteronomy 17:17). Even his drinking vessels were of pure gold (1 Kings 10:21). So that his commerce and its prodigious gains led at last to a distinct violation of the law. He has not ceased to serve God. He still sacrifices and burns incense three times a year (1 Kings 9:25). But he is trying to serve God and mammon, and mammon has gained the mastery. It is probably mentioned as a circumstance full of significance, that the weight of gold that came to him in one year was six hundred and sixty-six talents (1 Kings 5:14). For as seven is the number of the covenant, so six marks a falling short of that covenant, and the first distinct violation of the covenant consisted in the multiplication of silver and gold. And when a breach in the law was once made we are not surprised to hear presently that it was widened. Facilis descensus Averni. From the multiplication of the precious metals it was an easy step to the multiplication of horses. And here we see at once how Solomon’s conscience has become seared, or he has learnt to disregard its warnings. He knew perfectly well that his "twelve thousand horsemen" were a violation of the law. And he could hardly excuse himself on the ground that they were required for purposes of defence. The hilly country of Palestine does not admit of their being deployed therein. It was partly because they could only be employed in aggressive warfare that they were forbidden. Whatever unction, therefore, he might lay to his soul as to his accumulation of gold, he could hardly think, if he thought at all, that his horses and chariots involved no sin. But they were necessary, he persuaded himself, to the state of so great and puissant a monarch, and he would have them. And so hardened was he, so careless of the commandment, that he actually established a market for horses on his southern frontier and supplied them to neighbouring kings, who presently employed them against the people of the Lord. And yet, grave as was this disregard of law, it was but a worm that was at work in his soul—only self love and self confidence (cf. Isaiah 30:1); only the lust of the eye and the pride of life. He is still the Lord’s anointed: his tips distil knowledge; he still offers hecatombs, but his "heart is not right," etc. And so the years passed by. To all outward appearance his glory and magnificence increased. It is very suggestive to consider how hollow was that prosperity which was the marvel of the world, and how that wisdom which was so renowned was foolishness with God. The court became more splendid, more voluptuous, more dazzling, but the man became year by year poorer and meaner and baser. It only needed one step more—and apparently he was not long in taking that—to complete his defection. The other monarchs of his time had their seraglios. It was necessary that he too should have an establishment of this kind, and he must have it even greater than theirs. He knew that the law forebade the multiplication of wives, but what of that? He had violated the law already: he might just as well do it again. An obsolete precept, he may have argued, suited to primitive times, must not stand in the way of his pomp or his pleasures. And so the Lord’s anointed gathered round him in the holy city a thousand strange, immodest women. His fleets and merchants brought him mistresses from every land. And they brought with them their foreign rites, and the effeminate king was taken captive by their charms, and they had their way, and nothing would suffice them but he must tolerate their religion, and what he did for one he must do for all, and—and so the end of sin and shame is reached, and the decline becomes a fall, and "the darling of Jehovah," the wisest of men, the representative of Heaven, the builder of the temple, the type of our Lord, builds altars to the "abominations" of Moab and Ammon "in the hill that is before Jerusalem" (1 Kings 11:7). This mournful history is full of admonition and instruction. It must suffice to indicate the following lessons:— 1. A man may preach to others and yet be a castaway (1 Corinthians 9:27). Solomon’s Prayer (1 Kings 8:1-66.), Psalm (Psalms 127:1-5.), and Proverbs should be studied in the light of his fall. "Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself?" (Romans 2:21). Compare verses 22, 23 with Proverbs 5-7.; and remember the constant references to the "law" in the dedication prayer. 2. "Nemo repente turpissimus fuit." "He that despiseth little things shall fall by little and little." "It is the little rift within the lute That by and by shall make its music mute." 3. "Out of the heart of men proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications," etc. (Mark 7:21). It was not to an assault from without, it was to treachery within that Solomon yielded—Solomon who had said, "Keep thy bears with all diligence," etc. 4. "The love of money is the root of all evil" (1 Timothy 6:10). May we not say," Behold two kings stood not before him: how then shall we stand?" (2 Kings 10:4). "Children, how hard it is for them that trust in riches," etc. (Mark 10:24). "Take heed, and beware of covetousness" (Luke 12:15), "which is idolatry" (Colossians 3:5). 5. The course of sin is downhill. Vires acquirit eundo. The sinner is on an inclined plane; and the gradient at first is almost imperceptible. Let us learn, too, "the deceitfulness of sin." 6. Woman, made to be man’s helpmeet, too often becomes his snare. It is seldom that a man is ruined but a woman has had a share in it. 7. Solomon was old at the time of his fall, etc. (1 Kings 11:4). Hot youth has its dangers and temptations; but mature age has them also. David was not less than fifty when he fell. See p. 225. SOLOMON’S .—The observant reader will have already remarked in this history some intimations of Solomon’s approaching fall. Among these are, first, the repeated warnings which are addressed to him, especially in 1 Kings 9:6-9, and, second, his repeated transgressions of the law by which he ruled. We have already heard of the multiplication of silver and gold (1 Kings 10:14-25), in defiance of Deu 17:17, and of the multiplication of horses (1 Kings 10:27-29), in disregard of Deu 17:16 of the same chapter. We now read how the rain of this great prince was completed by the multiplication of wives. The historian obviously had the words of Deu 17:1-20. in his mind as he wrote. It is remarkable that the chronicler is altogether silent as to Solomon’s fall, as he is also as to David’s sin. 1 Kings 11:1 But [Heb. And. This chapter is a direct continuation of the preceding. LXX. κὰιὁβασιλεὺςκ.τ.λ. The polygamy was but a part of his worldliness, like the chariots, gold, etc.] king Solomon loved [The LXX. ἦνφιλογόνης. is misleading. It is perfectly clear that it cannot have been mere sensuality led to this enormous harem. This is evident from (1) his time of life. It was "when he was old"—i.e; when passions are not at their strongest—that his wives turned away his heart. (2) The number—if the numbers are to be trusted—of his wives. A thousand concubines cannot be kept for mere purposes of passion. (3) The large number of princesses, which shows that the object of this array of mistresses was to enhance his state and renown. As he exceeded other kings in glory, wisdom, and power, so must he excel them not only in armies, chariots, and horses, but also in the number of his wives. It is clear, therefore, that the "lust of the eye" and "the pride of life" had their part in this huge establishment. "The same consideration of state which leads a Western prince or noble to multiply horses, leads an Eastern prince to multiply wives, with often as little personal consideration in the one ease as in the other" (Kitto) ] many [He is blamed for their number. This was against Deuteronomy 17:17] strange [not merely foreign, though that is the primary meaning of the word, but strange as opposed to a lawful wife. Cf. Proverbs 5:20; Proverbs 6:24; Proverbs 7:5, etc. No doubt the harlots in Israel were principally aliens] women, together with [וְאֵת־בַּת־כי i.e; praeter filiam Ph. (Maurer). Pharaoh’s daughter is regarded as his lawful wife] the daughter of Pharaoh [see note on 1 Kings 3:1], women of the Moabites, Ammonites [Heb. Moabitesses, etc. Perhaps these two nations are mentioned first because such alliances as these, though not forbidden in terms by the law, would nevertheless, from its spirit and bearing towards these races, be looked upon with especial disfavour. If the Ammonite or Moabite was not to be received into the congregation until the tenth generation (Deuteronomy 23:3); if the Israelite was not to seek their peace or prosperity all the days of his life (verse 6), then the idea of intermarriage with them must have been altogether repugnant to the Hebrew polity, as indeed we may gather from the book of Ruth], Edomites [Favourably distinguished (Deuteronomy 23:7) from the two preceding races. The Edomite was a "brother." His children of the third generation might enter into the congregation], Zidonians [Rawlinson thinks this word lends "some countenance to the tradition recorded by Menander, that Solomon married a daughter of Hiram, king of Tyre." But such tradition was sure to arise; the uxorious character of Solomon and his close relations with Hiram are quite sufficient to account for its growth. And a daughter of Hiram would hardly have been passed over without special mention], and Hittites [see on 1 Kings 10:29]. 1 Kings 11:2 Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel [Of the nations just enumerated, the law expressly forbade marriage with the Hittites alone (Exodus 34:11-16; Deuteronomy 7:1-4), though the Zidonians are probably to be included, as being Canaanites (Genesis 10:15). But the principle which applied in the ease of the seven nations of Canaan applied equally to all other idolaters. "They will turn away thy son from following me," etc. (Deuteronomy 7:4). The spirit of the law, consequently, was as much violated by an Edomite or Ammonite as by a Hittite alliance], Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you [much the same expression Joshua 23:12. The historian does not cite any special Scripture, however, but gives the substance of several warnings], for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods [cf. Exodus 34:16]: Solomon clave [same word Genesis 2:4] unto these [emphatic in Heb. "even to these," instead of cleaving to God (Deuteronomy 4:4; Deuteronomy 10:20; Deuteronomy 30:20, each of which has the same word as here), and despite the prohibitions of the law, etc.] in love. 1 Kings 11:3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses [These may have been members of royal or princely houses of neighbouring nations. Evidently they enjoyed a distinguished rank], and three hundred concubines [Though not committed to a defence of the accuracy of the figures 700 and 300 (which are clearly round numbers), it must be said that the reasons alleged for reducing them are not of much weight. It is hardly correct, e.g; to say (as Rawlinson) that the numbers are given in Son 6:8 as "threescore queens and fourscore concubines," for it is obvious that too much importance must not be attached to an obiter statement ("there are threescore," etc.) in a poetical book, too, and one descriptive of Solomon’s youth. The view of Ewald and Keil, again, that these numbers represent the sum total of the inmates of the harem at different periods of Solomon’s long reign, rather than the number present at any one time—they would see in the numbers of Song of Solomon l.c. a statement of the average strength of the seraglio—though not to be described as evasive, is certainly not the natural interpretation of the words. And these numbers, when we compare them with the establishments of other Eastern potentates, are not found to be at all incredible. The commentators all remind us that Dareius Codomannus, e.g; took with him on his expedition against Alexander 360 pellices. Or if ancient history, as Rawlinson affirms, furnishes no strict parallel to these figures, the harems of modern Persia and Turkey at any rate have quite equalled that of Solomon. (See Bהhr in loc.) It is true that Rehoboam had only 18 wives and 60 concubines (2 Chronicles 11:21), but then Rehoboam was not Solomon. If his harem was but a tithe of his father’s, so also were his wealth and his power]: and his wives turned away his heart. ["Satan hath found this bait to take so well that he never changed since he crept into Paradise" (Bp. Hall).] 1 Kings 11:4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old [As he was but sixty at the time of his death, "old" is here a relative term, and must mean "toward the close of his life," i.e; when he was about 50 or 55], that his wives turned away his heart after other gods [The text does not limit Solomon’s polygamy to the time of old age, but his idolatrous leanings. I say leanings, for it is doubtful to what extent Solomon himself took part in actual idolatry. Both Bהhr and Keil—the latter in opposition to the views he held in 1846—not to speak of others, deny that he shared the idolatries of his wives, and the former labours hard, and on the whole, it seems to me, successfully, to prove that he was only guilty of sanctioning idolatrous worship in the vicinity of Jerusalem. His arguments, briefly stated, are these: (1) It is nowhere said that he "served" (עָבַד) other gods—the expression constantly used of the idolatrous kings; cf. 1 Kings 16:31; 1 Kings 22:53; 2 Kings 16:3, etc. (2) Neither the son of Sirach nor the Talmud nor the Rabbins know anything of his personal idolatry. (3) Had he formally worshipped idols, his sin would have been greater than that of Jeroboam as to which, however, see on 1 Kings 12:29 sqq. (The "sin of Jeroboam" lay in "making Israel to sin," i.e; in forcing his people into schismatic and unauthorized worship, rather than in any practices of his own.) (4) The expressions "his heart was not perfect," below, and "he went not fully" (1 Kings 12:6) are inconsistent with the idea of idolatry. Similarly Ewald says, "There is no evidence from ancient authorities that Solomon, even in advanced life, ever left the religion of Jahveh, and with his own hand sacrificed to heathen gods. All traces of contemporary history extant testify to the contrary". See, however, on 1 Kings 12:5]: and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God [It is instructive to compare with this the words of 1 Kings 8:61, "Let your heart be perfect," etc. Wordsworth remarks that "the defection even of Solomon from God through the influence of his strange wives is one of the best justifications" of the commands of Exo 34:12-16; Deuteronomy 7:2-4, etc.], as was the heart of David his father. 1 Kings 11:5 For Solomon went after [Rawlinson observes that this expression, which is "common in the Pentateuch, always signifies actual idolatry." He cites Deuteronomy 11:28; Deuteronomy 13:2; Deuteronomy 28:14; but it should be considered that in the two passages last cited the words are added, "and served them." And the true explanation would seem to be that, though "it is not stated that Solomon himself offered sacrifice to these idols," yet "even the building of altars for idols was a participation in idolatry, which was irreconcilable with true fidelity to the Lord" (Keil). Bהhr contends that the words "went after Ashtoreth," etc; no more involve personal service than the word "built" in Deuteronomy 28:7 involves personal labour; but both expressions show that he regarded these idolatries not only without disfavour, but with positive approval and practical encouragement. "It is not likely he could be so insensate as to adore such deities, but so far was the uxorious king blinded with affection, that he gave not passage only to the idolatry of his heathenish wives, but furtherance" (Bp. Hall). And the distinction, so far as the sin is concerned, between this and actual idolatry is a fine one. It is not implied, however, that Solomon ever discarded the worship of Jehovah. To the end of his reign he would seem to have offered his solemn sacrifices on the great altar thrice a year. But his heart was elsewhere (Deuteronomy 28:9).] Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians [עַשְׁתֹּרֶת , Ἀστάρτη, probably connected with ἀστήρ, stella, and star, by some identified with the planet Venus, by others with the moon, is here mentioned for the first time in the singular (Ashtaroth, plural, is found in Genesis 14:5; Judges 2:13; Judges 10:6; 1 Samuel 7:4; 1 Samuel 12:10, etc.) With Baal, she divided the worship of the Phoenicians, the antiquity of which is evident from Genesis 14:5; Numbers 22:41. It was really an impure cultus of the reproductive powers (see below on Numbers 14:23). Interesting proof of the existence of a temple of this goddess at Sidon is supplied by an inscription discovered there in 1855 (see Dict. Bib. 1:123) ], and after Milcom [In Jeremiah 49:13; Amos 1:15, "Malcam," i.e; their king. According to Gesenius, the same as Molech (i.e; the king) in Amos 1:7, though Ewald, Movers, Keil regard them as different deities. But it seems more probable that it was the same deity, worshipped (2 Kings 23:10, 2 Kings 23:13) under different attributes. This is "the first direct historical allusion" to his worship in the Old Testament. A warning against it is found Leviticus 20:2-5. He was the fire god, as Baal was the sun god, and the sacrifices offered to him were those of children, who would seem to have not only "passed through the fire," but to have been burnt therein. Psalms 106:37, Psalms 106:38; Jeremiah 7:31; Jeremiah 19:5; Ezekiel 23:39, etc. See Dict. Bib. 2:403] the abomination [i.e; the hateful, detestable idol] of the Ammonites. [It has been suggested (Speaker’s Commentary on Le Ezekiel 20:2) that the children offered to Molech were children of incest or adultery; and we are reminded that Ammon was the child of incest. It must he remembered, however, that we have no record of Jewish children passing through the fire to Molech before the time of Ahaz (Bähr, Keil).] 1 Kings 11:6 And Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord [cf. Judges 2:11; Judges 3:7, etc.], and went not fully [לאֹ מִלֵא s.c. לֶלֶכֶת. A pregnant expression found also Numbers 14:24; Numbers 32:11, Numbers 32:12; Deuteronomy 1:36] after the Lord, as did David his father. 1 Kings 11:7 Then did Solomon build an high place [see on 1 Kings 3:2] for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab [The meaning of "Chemosh" is uncertain. Gesenius suggests "Vanquisher"—Chemosh was the god of war. The mention of Ashtar-Chemosh on the Moabite stone "connects the Moabite religion with the Phoenician," where Ashtar is the masculine form of Astarte, and suggests that "Chemosh was connected with the androgynous deities of Phoenicia" (Speaker’s Comm. on Numbers 21:29). It is probable, in fact, that Chemosh, Baal, Ashtoreth, Molech, etc; were originally so many names of the one supreme God, worshipped under different attributes, and with various rites in different countries], in the hill that is before Jerusalem [see 2 Kings 23:13. The hill is of course the mount of Olives. The altar would seem to have stood on the south peak, which is now known, as it has been for centuries past, as the Mons Scandali, or the Mons Offensionis (the Vulg. rendering of 2 Kings l.c.) See Robinson, 1:565, 566], and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon. [Ewald sees in these altars a wise religious tolerance.] 1 Kings 11:8 And likewise did he for all [having done it for one, he must needs do it for all. "No hill about Jerusalem was free from a chapel of devils" (Hall) ] his strange wives, which burnt [Heb. burning, Ewald, 335 a] incense and sacrificed unto their gods. [Observe, as bearing on the question of Solomon’s apostasy, that Solomon built the altars; his wives sacrificed, etc. According to Keil, incense is here mentioned before sacrifice, because vegetable took precedence of animal offerings in the nature worship of Western Asia But it is very doubtful whether this idea was in the mind of the writer.] 1 Kings 11:9 And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the Lord God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice. [cf. 1 Kings 3:5 and 1 Kings 9:2. The anger arose partly from the exceptional favours which had been shown to him; cf. Amos 3:2; Luke 10:12-15. 1 Kings 11:10 And had commanded him concerning this thing [1 Kings 9:6] that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the Lord commanded. 1 Kings 11:11 Wherefore the Lord said unto Solomon [probably by a prophet, Ahijah or Iddo. There would hardly be a third appearance], Forasmuch as this is done of thee [Heb. this was with thee], and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend [i.e; despite thy great power and magnificence, thy fortifications and munitions of war] the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant. [Not merely subject, but officer, employe. This made the decree the more bitter. A "servant" should be heir to his glory. For a hireling Solomon’s vast treasures had been prepared. This verse should be read in the light of Ecc 2:18. 1 Kings 11:12 Notwithstanding in thy days I will not do it [The threatening had two gracious and merciful limitations, (1) The blow should not fall until after his death (cf. 1 Kings 11:34; 1 Kings 21:29; 2 Kings 22:20), and (2) the disruption should be but partial. There should be a "remnant" Romans 9:27; Romans 11:5, etc.] for David thy father’s sake [i.e; because both of David’s piety and God’s promise to him (2 Samuel 7:13) ]: but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son. 1 Kings 11:13 Howbeit I win not rend away all the kingdom; but will give one tribe [viz; Judah (1 Kings 12:20, "the tribe of Judah only"). "Even the reservation of one tribe is called a gift" (Wordsworth) to thy son for David my servant’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake which I have chosen. [But for this provision, Jerusalem would have ceased to be the religious capital. When the sceptre departed from Judah, we may be sure that the "envy of Ephraim" would have demanded that the city of their solemnities should be placed elsewhere—at Shiloh, which for 400 years had been God’s "bright sanctuary," or at Bethel, which from far earlier times had been a holy place. See on 1 Kings 12:29, 1 Kings 12:32. 1 Kings 11:4-8 The Sin of Solomon. Three questions will suffice to bring this subject before us. First, what was this sin? secondly, by whom was it committed? thirdly, when, and under what circumstances? But first, it is well we should understand what this sin was not. (1) It was not actual idolatry. True, Solomon built the altars, but he built them for his wives (1 Kings 11:7, 1 Kings 11:8). The wisest of men never stooped so low as to "project his person" to dumb idols (note on 1 Kings 11:4). To him, an idol was "nothing in the world" (1 Corinthians 8:4). That, of all things, was "vanity of vanities;" (2) Nor was it the outcome of simple sensuality. The wives who "turned away his heart," and to whom he "clave in love"—it was not passion but pride had collected them in such numbers under his palace roof. "His crowded seraglio was but one instance more of the sort of ambition which made him seek to surpass all men in his gardening, his agriculture, his treasures of gold," etc. (Keble). See on 1 Kings 11:1. But when he had them, he must humour them, even in their idolatries. He was very far, we may be sure, from thinking that all religions were alike, which has been "the disease of some great wits;" but he flattered himself that he was tolerant and liberal, and as he claimed liberty of conscience, so he must concede it to others. We see, then, that the essence of this sin was that having permitted himself, or purposes of state and pride and ostentation, the love of many strange women, he permitted them, and possibly some of his subjects also, to worship their false gods. And by so doing— 1. He gave a direct sanction to superstition. He may have argued, like some in later times and some who bear the Christian name, that these things, though nothing in themselves, were all very well for women, that the ignorant must have material objects of worship, etc. But it was not thus that the God of his fathers viewed the deed. This philosophic tolerance of other creeds, He called the teaching of falsehood. This liberality, in His sight, was "damnable uncharitableness"—the expression is Jeremy Taylor’s—for it was leading poor souls away from the light and changing the truth of God into a lie (Romans 1:25). It was "making the blind to wander out of the way" (Deuteronomy 27:18) in the worst possible sense of the words. 2. He encouraged immorality and cruelty. For it must never be forgotten what the "abominations" of these Semitic divinities were like. The idolatry of the East always involved impurity; hence its powerful hold on a nation like the Jews, for whom the worship of "silver and gold, the works of men’s hands," could have had but little charm. Its "vile affections" (Romans 1:26) were its chief attractions. And Solomon, who knew what the worship of Baal and Ashtoreth meant, who knew how unclean were their rites, and what painful and shameful sacrifices Molech and Chemosh demanded of their votaries, nevertheless gave the word, and presently the hills about Jerusalem were crowned with chapels of devils. 3. He dishonoured the one true God. For if "Polytheism is not exclusive," Monotheism, in the very nature of things, is and must be. Its basis, its fundamental conception, is that there are not "gods many and lords many." Its keynote is the Shema Israel (Deuteronomy 6:4), "the Lord our God is one Lord." It proclaims a "jealous God" who will not give His glory to another, nor His praise to graven images (Isaiah 42:8). But Solomon robbed Him of His rights; of the exclusive sovereignty and the undivided authority which belonged to Him alone. By building idol altars he claimed homage for idol deities; before the eyes of the Lord’s people, he thrust rivals and pretenders on to the Lord’s throne, and degraded "the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man." (Romans 1:23). 4. He defied the Holy One of Israel. For these altars of lust and cruelty were not built in a corner. They did not shrink from the light as in a past age; they were not frequented by pagani. They rose "on the hill that is before Jerusalem;" they fronted the altar of Jehovah; their priests were visible to the priests in the temple court; their smoke ascended to the sky along with the smoke of the daily sacrifice. If insult had been designed, it could hardly have been more open or obtrusive. II. And by WHOSE permission, at whose bidding were these shrines of infamy erected? They were built by - 1. The wisest of men. In science (1 Kings 4:33), in philosophy (ib. 1 Kings 11:29-32), in self knowledge. Cf. 1 Kings 3:12, 1 Kings 3:28. 2. The most favoured and enlightened of men. The Lord "appeared unto him twice" (1 Kings 3:9). His was "abundance of revelations" (cf. 2 Corinthians 12:7). To him it was said, "Ask what I shall give thee" (1 Kings 3:5). This was Jedidiah. "There was no king like Solomon, who was beloved of his God, yet even him did outlandish women cause to sin" (Nehemiah 13:26). 3. The builder of the temple. To him had been granted the high honour which was denied to pious David. He had "found a place for the Lord, a habitation for the mighty God of Jacob" (Psalms 132:5). The golden altar, the brazen altar; he had planned and reared them both. And now he builds altars to "horrors" (see note on 1 Kings 15:13). "He that burneth incense, he blessed an idol" (Isaiah 66:3, Hebrews) 4. The teacher of the Church. He was "that deep sea of wisdom which God ordained to send forth rivers and fountains of all Divine and human knowledge to all nations, to all ages;" he was "one of those select secretaries whose hand it pleased the Almighty to employ in three pieces of the Divine monuments of sacred Scriptures" (Bp. Hall). He is fallen, but his writings stand. He still preaches to others, though himself a castaway. There have been authors whose pestilent writings go on corrupting and destroying souls for ages after they have ceased to speak. But Solomon’s is in some respects a sadder case than theirs. His writings have taught and blessed the world for nigh three thousand years after he himself fell into "utter wretchlessness of most unclean living." 5. A man who warned others. It is only when we study his fall in the light of his prayer and proverbs, with their many admonitions, that we realize how great a wreck he became and how appalling is the lesson of his fall "Since the first man, Adam, the world hath not yielded either so great an example of wisdom or so fearful an example of apostasy, as Solomon" (Hall). III. But WHEN was it, let us now ask, that Solomon fell into this deadly sin? At what period of his reign, and under what circumstances, did he sink to such depths of degradation? Observe ― 1. It was not after sudden or special temptation. We may truly say of him, "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man." No Delilah, no Bathsheba wrought his ruin. It is instructive to compare 1 Kings 4:20-24 with the account of our Lord’s temptation (Matthew 4:3-11). Solomon was not tempted by hunger; his "provision for one day was," etc. The enemy could not offer him "the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them:" he had them already (1 Kings 4:21, 1 Kings 4:24; 1 Kings 10:1-29. passim); he could only use the common weapon of presumption, of spiritual pride, and it was by this that Solomon was slain. 2. It was not after great trials or adversity. His career, how unlike David’s! "Rest on every side." "Neither adversary nor evil occurrence" (1 Kings 5:4). "Eating, drinking, and making merry" (1 Kings 4:20). Compare 1 Samuel chs. 18-30. And yet David stood and Solomon fell. What we call adversity (compare Jacob’s "all these things are against me," Genesis 42:36) is often spiritual prosperity. "Tribulation" is a significant word. The tribulum was the threshing sledge which separated the chaff from the grain. It is said by some that wax is necessary for nations to preserve them from corruption and decay; it is certain that peace is not always good for princes. The man of peace and rest, who was "not plagued like other men," has furnished the world with the most terrible example of apostasy. Well may the apostle bid us to "rejoice in tribulation also," to "count it all joy when," etc. (James 1:2). 3. It was "when he was old." St. Paul speaks of "youthful lusts," but old age has its special dangers and temptations. It was in the time of mature experience, when the hot blood of youth should have cooled, when he should have known the world and his wisdom should have been ripest, that his wives turned away his heart. Perhaps he presumed upon his exalted gifts and revelations. With age came selfconfidence. It is thus that many strong cities have been taken. "Praeruptum eoque neglectum" discloses the secret of their fall 4. It was when his riches had increased. The greater his store, the leaner his soul. "It is easier for a camel," etc. (Matthew 19:24). "The deceitfulness of riches" choked the word (Matthew 13:22). The Latin proverb which says that "every rich man is either a knave or the son of a knave" has some truth in it. Happy are those who have "neither poverty nor riches" (Proverbs 30:8); happiest those who can say, "My riches consist, not in the abundance of my possessions, but in the fewness of my wants." 5. It was when his prosperity was at its highest. It was when he "waxed fat" that "Jeshurun kicked." It is when men "have eaten and are full" that they most need to "beware that they forget not the Lord their God" (Deuteronomy 8:10, Deuteronomy 8:11). Observe, it was not until he had reached the very pinnacle of greatness and felicity that Solomon fell. "His prosperity, which even wise men find a constant wear and trial to the spirit, did him more harm than even his wisdom did him good". How appropriate that prayer, "In all time of our wealth good Lord, deliver us." "The food convenient which Agur prayed for is safer than the food abundant which even Solomon was surfeited with" (M. Henry). 6. It was after his wives were multiplied. Polygamy has ever been a snare to rulers. It is said that Scripture nowhere condemns it. If the letter does not, the spirit does. Scripture tells of the misery it has occasioned. Witness the families of Abraham, Jacob, Elkanah, and David. It was the immediate cause of Solomon’s ruin. There are few partnerships which are so lightly entered into as the one which lasts for all life. And yet how completely is a man’s honour, prosperity, and peace in his wife’s keeping. "How many have we known whose heads have been broken by their own rib" (Bp. Hall). It is a quaint but true saying, "If a man would thrive, he must ask his wife." How strange that he who knew the priceless value of one true woman’s love (Proverbs 31:10-31) should surrender himself to immodest and forbidden attachments. Can there be a reference to his thousand wives and concubines in those pessimist words of Ecc 7:26-28? "If one woman undid all mankind, what marvel is it if many women undid one?" (Hall.) "Thou didst bow thy loins unto women, and by thy body wast thou brought into subjection" (Ecclus. 47:19). 7. It was after repeated warnings. He had had (1) the standing warning of Scripture (Deuteronomy 17:16 sqq.), (2) the special warnings of his father David (1 Kings 2:8, 1 Kings 2:4, and especially 1 Chronicles 28:9), (3) the supernatural warnings of God. (1 Kings 3:14; 1 Kings 6:12, 1 Kings 6:13; 1 Kings 9:6, 1 Kings 9:7). And to these may surely be added (4) the repeated and emphatic warnings which he had himself addressed to others. But all these went for nothing. And so it is too probable his own words (Proverbs 29:1) found a fulfilment in his own person. The saddest consideration of all is that this great preacher has unconsciously predicted his own fall, and passed sentence on himself. "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee," etc. (Luke 19:22). BY J.A. 1 Kings 11:1-8 The Fall of a King. Solomon was a king of men. Not only was he supreme civil ruler of his nation, he was also chief in wisdom and knowledge, and distinguished in the favour of God (Nehemiah 13:26). This moral royalty is open to all. The prize is nobler than that of the most glittering "corruptible crown." From this kingship Solomon fell, though he retained the throne of the nation. The rascal often lurks in the heart that is under an anointed face. Let us consider— I. THE OF THIS . 1. Solomon had many wives. (1) This was an invasion of God’s order. That order was exhibited in Eden, when Eve stood singly by the side of Adam. Lamech was the first polygamist (Genesis 4:19). He was, ominously, the fifth in descent from the fratricide Cain. (2) Moses tolerated polygamy, as he also suffered divorcements, not with approval of these customs, but rather in judgment upon the people for the hardness of their hearts (see Matthew 19:8-9). (3) This principle will explain many Mosaic ordinations the observance of which was a burdensome yoke, and from which, by the mercy of Christ, we are happily released (Acts 15:10, Acts 15:11). Note: God’s order cannot be invaded with impunity. It is our duty carefully to ascertain it, and faithfully to keep it. 2. His wives were strange women. (1) Not only were they foreigners, they. were also idolaters. There is no proof that even Pharaoh’s daughter was a proselyte. Solomon could have no spiritual sympathy with these without compromising his loyalty to Jehovah. (2) They were idolaters of those very nations against alliances with which the law of God was express (see 1 Kings 11:2; Exodus 34:12-16; Deuteronomy 7:8, Deuteronomy 7:4). The sin was therefore most flagrant. (3) The spirit of this inhibition still binds (see 1 Corinthians 7:39; 2 Corinthians 6:14). The reason for it is in the nature of things and must abide. Note: Many a man has had his heart pierced and his head broken by his own rib. 3. David had too many wives. (1) The example of David may have injuriously influenced Solomon. A large harem may have been a sign of grandeur; but these kings ought to have been superior to such fashions (see Deuteronomy 17:17). (2) The evils in the examples of good men are especially mischievous, for they are liable to be condoned into harmlessness; the more readily so when to follow them is agreeable to natural inclination. (3) They are liable to be carried farther. If David had many wives, Solomon had very many. David’s wives were chiefly daughters of Israel, but Solomon’s were daughters of foreign idolaters. Amongst his 700 wives and 300 concubines, not one was good (see Ecclesiastes 7:28). Note: Good men should be especially watchful over their influence—parents, ministers, Sunday school teachers, professors of religion. II. THE OF THE EVIL. 1. First the heart is set against the head. (1) The earliest record here is that Solomon’s heart was turned away. His head at first seems to have been clear, as Adam’s also was, who, though in the transgression, yet was "not deceived" (1 Timothy 2:14). But his heart, like that of Adam, was fatally susceptible to female influence. (2) It is a foolish thing in a wise man to trust his head when he gives his heart to evil. "Man at his best is vanity." 2. Then the heart rules the head. (1) This is the next stage and inevitable. This may be disputed long, but will assert itself in time. Observe well that when Solomon was "old" he so far yielded to the influence of his wives as to encourage and join in their idolatry. (2) Probably his vices made him prematurely old. Calmer supposes him to have been eighteen years old when he came to the throne, and he reigned forty years (1 Kings 11:42). Thus he could be only fifty-eight at his death. 3. Finally the wise man becomes a fool. (1) Behold this wisest of men trying to solve the impossible problem of serving Jehovah and Ashtaroth! He went not fully after the Lord his God as did David his father. (2) David indeed fell into grievous sin, but his offence was more directly against man; indirectly against God. Even then the offence as against God was the venom of his crimes (Psalms 51:4). But the sin of Solomon was against God directly. Note: Offences against society are denounced without mercy by men, while the mental rebellion of the unbeliever against God is even glorified as "honest doubt!" but the Bible is explicit that "He that believeth not shall be damned." (3) Behold this wise man further building a temple to Molech, the murderer, the devil, on the Mount of Olives, over against the temple of the Lord, the glorious work of his royal youth! Could folly go farther? (4) The mischief of Solomon’s idolatry remained to the times of Josiah (see 2 Kings 23:13). Who can say that it terminated even then? Eternity will declare.—M. 1 Kings 11:9-13 The Anger of God. This is the inevitable consequence of sin. Had God expressed no displeasure against Solomon, what mischief might not his example have wrought? The terrible judgments of the great day will have a most salutary effect upon the order and stability of the whole moral universe. If men sufficiently considered these things they would hesitate before they plunged into vices. Let us be admonished from this history as to— I. How THE ANGER OF GOD IS . It is provoked— 1. By the turning, away of the heart from Him. (1) And justly so, for to do this is to outrage the highest propriety. God is everything that should engage the affections of an intelligent creature—"the perfection of beauty;" "the altogether lovely." (2) For to do this is the straight road to the deepest demoralization. Man is made in the image of God expressly that his nature may have its perfection in union and communion with Him. To turn away from God must lead to depravation evermore. This, in other words, is everlasting damnation. (3) Then let us keep our hearts (Proverbs 4:23). No diligence should be spared. Our life is in it. 2. By doing this wantonly. (1) It was an aggravation of Solomon’s sin that God had appeared to him. Review the circumstances of the vision he witnessed before he set about the building of the temple (see 1 Kings 3:5-15). He could not have been wholly ignorant of the glorious character of God. (2) It was a further aggravation that God had appeared to him twice (1 Kings 11:9). Review the circumstances of the vision after the work of the temple was finished (see 1 Kings 9:1-9). Note: Privileges imply corresponding responsibilities. Note further: God keeps account of His favours conferred upon us, though we may forget them. He will remind us of them all in the great day of judgment. (3) It was an additional aggravation that he had been forewarned of the very evils into which he fell. And the promises of God to him had been so remarkably verified that he had the best reason to accept the truth of His admonitions. How slow of heart are the men to believe the inflexibility of Divine justice! (4) A king who exacts obedience from subjects, or a master who claims the obedience of servants, should be the last to forget his duty to God. Consider— II. How THE ANGER OF GOD IS . It is expressed— 1. In the severity of justice. (1) The kingdom of Solomon was now doomed to be rent. He had divided his affections (between Jehovah and Molech), so are the affections of his subjects now to be divided. (2) A considerable portion of his kingdom is to be turned over to one of his servants. What a fitness there is in this judgment also! Solomon, the servant of God, rebelled against God; Jeroboam, the servant of Solomon, rebels against Solomon. (3) What a melancholy reversal! Time was when God loved Solomon (see 2 Samuel 12:24; 1 Kings 10:9; Nehemiah 13:26). Severe is the fall from the height of a throne. From a vastly greater elevation is the fall of one east from the bosom of God. (4) Behold how sin works ruin! It ruins individuals, families, nations. The anger of God is expressed— 2. With the mitigations of mercy. (1) For the sake of David his father these judgments were not to come upon Solomon in his day. We little know the benefits or the evils entailed upon us by our forefathers. We should see that we entail not evils but benefits upon our descendants. (2) "For David’s sake!" David, the beloved, was a type of Christ, for whose sake the entail of infinite mischief is cut off from his sons, and they are made heirs of inestimable blessings. (3) Even Rehoboam was to reap the benefit of the faithfulness of David. One tribe, the most important, was to be retained to him. The promises respecting the true son of David must be fulfilled. (4) "For Jerusalem’s sake," also, mercy must rejoice upon judgment (1 Kings 11:13). The temple was there. The shechinah was there. Kingdoms are spared the severity of judgments in respect to the interests of religion in many ways little dreamed of by statesmen and rulers.—M. BY J. 1 Kings 11:1-8 Solomon’s Sin. I. THE SIN. 1. Its nature. He not only aided his wives to continue their idolatrous worship, he himself participated in it. He went after strange gods, seeking their favour and observing their ordinances. The worship of Jehovah was not discarded, but delight in the true God was gone, and the flame of that loving zeal for God’s commandments died away: his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God. The worship now offered in the temple was the lingering tradition of a brighter past, a thing of custom and outward necessity, and the heart was given to baser worships, sensuous and sensual The soul had ceased to drink at the fountain of living waters, and was drinking at the fountain of death. Is our heart perfect with the Lord, our delight in His love, our hunger after His righteousness as deep as in the past? Do we offer a cold and formal worship to Him, while our heart warms into living interest and strong desire only at the world’s shrines? 2. Its guilt. (1) God had given Solomon unparalleled wisdom, wealth, and power, and all were now turned against his Benefactor. All that fame and influence were used to glorify idolatry and lessen zeal for God’s service. How often are God’s gifts thus turned against Him! (2) The sin of Solomon became the sin of Israel (1 Kings 11:33). The responsibility of parents in regard to their children’s attitude toward God—the responsibility of the leaders of thought and of society, of all of us, as to how we influence men in their attitude toward the things unseen and eternal. 3. Its sadness. It was his last work, the sin not of youth but of old age. The light which God had kindled did not flame out into eternal glory, but went out in eternal night. The seeds of sin and disaster were sown among his people, his life a wreck, his memory not a star to guide the wanderer in the darkness, but a warning beacon on the waste of death! The story of many a life besides: will it be the story of thine? II. WHAT LED TO IT. 1. Unregulated affections. The wisdom of marrying only in the Lord. The danger of worldly alliances and worldly friendships. 2. The despising of God’s commandments (see 1 Kings 11:2, and Deuteronomy 17:16, Deuteronomy 17:17). The counsels of God were lightly esteemed. Many commands of God are today held to be antiquated and are quietly ignored. The directions of Scripture in regard to what are deemed minor things are set aside. The spirit of unbelief is there. For individuals and for churches it must prove a seed of sin and spiritual disaster. 3. The human love displaced the Divine. The spirit of disloyalty needed only a strong enough inducement to go further, and it found it here. To please his wives, altars to their gods were built on Mount Olivet, and then his own soul was taken in the snare of their abominations. The testimony which we are called to lift up in the face of all life away from God is safety for our own soul. It is hard to do it, but there is life in it for ourselves and, it may be, for others also.—U. 1 Kings 11:9-13 God’s Anger. I. SINS ARE SET IN THE LIGHT OF PAST MERCIES. 1. Solomon’s idolatry is contrasted with the advantages conferred upon him, The Lord had appeared to him twice. The reality of God’s existence and His personality had been engraven upon Solomon’s soul. 2. With the commandment given. The Lord "had commanded him concerning this thing." The rebellion and ingratitude are both marked. Our sins are judged not only in themselves and their effects, but also in the light of what God has done and said to us. There is a baseness and an enmity in sin that will yet crush the sinful heart. Do we weigh sins in this way? Does our repentance read them thus? God’s judgment will: "Forasmuch as this is done of thee," etc. II. THE DIVINE . 1. Hopes frustrated. Solomon may have excused his sin to himself because it conciliated neighbouring princes and nations and so strengthened his kingdom. But while he fancied himself building up, he was in reality casting down. Forgetfulness of God is forgetfulness of one’s own good. 2. Pride abased. The dominion is given to a servant. There is not only loss but shame. There are first that will be last, and last first. 3. Punishment reflects sin. Solomon’s rebellion and ingratitude are punished by rebellion and ingratitude. The kingdom is rent from him by a subject, and by one whom he had trusted and advanced (1 Kings 11:28). "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." As the wicked have shut out God, God will shut out them. III. THE DIVINE MERCY. In God’s chastisements there is ever a gateway of kindness through which we may pass up into His forgiveness and love. 1. The judgment is delayed. It was a heavy judgment that the kingdom should be rent from his son, but it would have been an added bitterness had his own day set in disaster and shame. 2. The whole will not be taken even from his son. His seed will still reign in Jerusalem. 3. There is humbling even in the mercy. It is done for David’s sake and for Jerusalem’s sake. Pride is crushed beneath God’s mercy as well as beneath His judgment. We are pardoned for Christ’s sake and His name’s sake. In the midst of rebuke for iniquity there is mercy and life for lowly faith.—U. BY A. ROWLAND 1 Kings 11:9, 1 Kings 11:10 The Downfall of Solomon. The fall of Solomon has appeared to some commentators incredible. As to the fact itself, however, there can be no doubt. Nor is his fall so exceptional as many suppose. Others beside this king have had pious parentage, a religious education, a promising youth, extraordinary intellectual endowments, frequent warnings of their danger, and yet have failed and come short of the glory of God. Give examples. It is noteworthy that God saw Solomon’s danger and warned him of it on the evening of that day upon which his religious devotion appeared most intense. The dedication of the temple was at once the zenith of the nation’s glory, and of their king’s highest attainments. Describe the Feast of Dedication; the song of the people—"Lift up your heads, O ye gates, etc.;" the prayer of Solomon that this might be so; and the manifestation of the Divine Presence. Contrast this scene with the silence of the following night, in which the message of the Lord came, bidding him beware lest the emotion and resolve of the day should be evanescent (1 Kings 9:2). Our times of religious excitement are not our safest hours. Enthusiasm has its perils as well as its powers. Refer to Peter’s eager protestation, and the Lord’s word of caution, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have," etc. (Luke 22:31). The sins which constituted Solomon’s decadence—against which, through him, we are warned—appear to have been these: I. . His base self indulgence grew upon him, as it does on any man. The life he lived was degrading to his manhood. Love became debased to lust, because it was divorced from purity. Physically, as well as morally, he became a wreck, and though not 60 years of age when he died, he was already weary, broken, and old (1 Kings 11:4). Some light may be thrown upon his downward progress by the books which bear his name, and which, if not written by him, were declarations of the experience he knew. If the Song of Solomon represents his bright youth, when love, though passionate, was undefiled, the book of Ecclesiastes is the outcry of his age, when all seemed "vanity and vexation of spirit," and when he tried once more painfully to lay the old foundation of the shattered fabric of his life (Ecclesiastes 12:13). Compare him with Samson; show how the indulgence of passion destroys kingliness. Even such sin was not beyond pardon. It would have been well for Solomon had he returned to God, as his father had done (see Psalms 51:1-19.) II. EVIL (verse 2). The Israelites were often warned against marriage with the heathen. At times ordinary international intercourse was forbidden. Instances are given in which disobedience to this law of severance brought terrible effects. Some companionship is essential to man. The hermit must be a very imperfect Christian. John the Baptist was in the wilderness, but Christ, whom we follow, was ever found in the haunts and homes of men. Yet under the new dispensation the wise choice of companionship is insisted on, and provided for. The twelve apostles were associated together, as well as separated from others; and in their work they went forth by two and two. The Apostolic Church presents a beautiful picture of fellowship (Acts 2:1-47.) It is amongst the wise hearted and devout that we are to find our friends. "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers." The importance of this to the young, whose characters are not yet formed. Hence responsibility rests on parents, who can encourage or hinder acquaintances, and on young people themselves. He must have something of Christ’s wisdom and strength, and must be animated by His motives, who, like Him, would be safe and useful amongst "the publicans and sinners." III. . The wealth of Solomon was enormous. The treasure saved for him by David seemed inexhaustible, and the tribute from other peoples (1 Kings 10:25), the monopolies granted by the king (1 Kings 10:28, 1 Kings 10:29), the importation of gold from Ophir (1 Kings 9:28), etc; brought immense revenues. The king was proportionately extravagant. See the account given of his palaces, his gardens, and his retinue. No country could long bear such a strain. Increased taxation was necessary, and this was one of the causes of the break up of the kingdom under Rehoboam. Show in modern life the temptations to extravagance and ostentation; the injury caused by these sins to a nation; the moral perils to which the extravagant are exposed; the diminution of help to God’s cause and to God’s poor. IV. . He appears to have copied the Pharaohs not only in magnificence, but in disregard for human suffering. The Canaanites were reduced to the position of helots; multitudes were torn from their homes to fell timber in the forests, or hew stone in the quarries. Even the Israelites had to do forced labour. Kings have responsibility to their people, as well as the people to their kings. God’s laws were violated by Solomon (Exodus 22:21; Exodus 23:9). Show from history the Nemesis of oppression. Indicate manifestations of the spirit of tyranny in business, in homes, schools, etc. V. . Solomon erected temples to Ashtoreth, Milcom, and Chemosh. Describe the idolatries specified. All idolatry, sternly forbidden. The cultus of these deities hideously cruel, dark, impure. Heathenism degrades man and dis-honours God. Show the steps which led Solomon to the commission of such egregious sin. (1) He was broad in his views, far advanced from the traditional knowledge of the age, and often conversed with wise men of other creeds. Slowly he lost his sense of the pre-eminence of the truth revealed to him. He saw what was true in other systems, but meantime lost his horror at what was false in them. This one of the special perils of our age; point it out. (2) He wished all that was connected with him to reflect his own magnificence. It was not enough that his wives and concubines should be at liberty to worship their idols; they must do it splendidly, if at all, for his glory was concerned in their Ac. (3) He would please and attract surrounding nations. This partly for commercial ends, chiefly for personal glory. Base motives lead to fake policy, and false policy prepares for national ruin. .— 1. The possibility of ruin to those whose religious advantages are greatest. 2. The retribution heavier in proportion as the offence is aggravated by neglected warning.—A.R. BY J. WAITE 1 Kings 11:9-13 Solomon’s Fall. The dark omen that marred the brightness of Solomon’s second vision (1 Kings 9:6) has come to be fulfilled. He was forewarned of danger and yet has fallen into it. The splendour of royal circumstance remained the same, but how completely has his true glory departed! "How is the gold become dim and the fine gold changed!" The smile of God that rested as glad sunshine on his head, has turned to "anger." The cause of the change is in the secresy of his own soul. The Scripture narrative is silent about the course of his tuner life, the phases of thought and feeling through which he may have passed; so that this sudden note of discord in the midst of the harmony strikes us with something of sad surprise. Enough, however, is said to show that it was a moral change in the man himself. The Lord God of Israel had not changed in His purpose or method; it is Solomon whose "heart is turned from him." How far this was a fatal change, a real apostasy, we know not. We need not attempt to solve the purely speculative question as to whether he ever recovered from his fall; his later writings suggest at least the hope that it was so. Enough for us now to note the facts, to trace the causes, and learn the lessons. Certain broad principles of moral life are here strikingly illustrated. I. THE OF HUMAN NATURE. Beneath the fairest exterior there may be latent germs of evil that only need outward incentives to develop themselves into disastrous issues. Even the inspirations of the highest wisdom and the raptures of religious emotion may have underlying them tendencies to the grossest forms of folly and the lowest deeps of sin and shame. Solomon was sincere enough in his earlier piety, but too little alive to the slumbering forces of evil that he bore within him. His moral history confirmed the truth of his own proverb: "He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool" (Proverbs 28:26). An Arab tradition says that in the staff on which he leaned there was a worm which was secretly gnawing it asunder. That worm was the hidden corruption of his moral nature. It is a solemn lesson: "Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall." We can look upon no form of wrong doing in others without being reminded that there is something akin to it in ourselves. Concealed in our own bosoms there is that which might possibly develop into similar issues. Our only security lies in the triumph of that gracious Divine power that can thoroughly purge the fountain of the heart, and destroy there the very germs of evil. II. THE BASE USES TO WHICH THE HIGHEST OF LIFE MAY BE BY THE WAYWARD HEART. Solomon’s greatness became the occasion and aggravation of his fall. His royal magnificence fostered "the lust of the eye and the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life." His consciousness of power degenerated into tyranny (1 Kings 12:4; 1 Samuel 8:11). The wealth of his emotional nature took the form of illicit love and boundless self indulgence. His studious interest in Nature induced the dream of occult mysterious powers in material things, and the practice of magic arts. His intercourse with men of other nations led to his catching the infection of their idolatries, until at last the rival temples of Moloch, Chemosh, and Ashtaroth, with all their cruel and abominable rites, frowned darkly upon Olivet, over against the glorious house of the Lord on Mount Moriah. So fatally may the noblest personal endowments and the richest advantages of life foster the evil tendencies of the heart when once it has surrendered itself to their control If it be true that "there is a soul of goodness in things evil," it is equally true that nothing is so good but that the spirit of evil may transform it into an instrument of moral injury. The fascinations of outward life are full of danger when that spirit lurks within. The wealth of a man’s intellectual resources, the multitude of his possessions, the range of his influence, do but put into his hands the more abundant means of wrong doing when his heart is not loyal to the good and true. "The fairest things below the sky Give but a flattering light; We must suspect some danger nigh, Where we possess delight." This idea is not to be carried too far. Life would be intolerable on the principle of universal suspicion and distrust. The great Father of all would have His children use and enjoy freely the good of every kind that falls to their lot. But let them beware lest the spirit of evil, in some form of outward charm, through some secret avenue of soul or sense, should gain an entrance to the citadel of their heart, and "turn it away" from Him. III. THE OF DIVINE . Solomon cannot sin with impunity. His personal defection involves the throne in dishonour and the whole nation in discord and sorrow. He had been forewarned that it should be so, and the threatenings of God are as sure as His promises. What is God’s "anger" but just the reverse side of that faithfulness that secures the purposes of His grace? What are His judgments but the severer methods of His holy love? An inexorable Nemesis tracks the path of the transgressor; not a mere blind fate—not a mere impersonal law of moral sequence—but a Divine will and power, pledged to vindicate the cause of eternal righteousness. It may follow him slowly, as with "leaden foot," but sooner or later it overtakes him. "Whatsoever a man soweth," etc. (Galatians 6:7, Galatians 6:8). And though one only may sow the evil seed, how many, often, are the reapers! "The sins of the fathers are visited on the children," etc. No man can "perish alone in his iniquity." According to the range of his social relations so is the mischief his wrong doing works. When the king falls, how many fall with him! The laws of God "must work their will, Whatever human heart may bleed; And more than they who do the ill Must suffer for the evil deed." IV. THE MERCY THAT TEMPERS DIVINE . The execution of the sentence is both delayed and modified. Not in Solomon’s own reign shall the thing be done; "nor shall the kingdom be wholly torn from his house" (1 Kings 11:12, 1 Kings 11:18). This is partly from tender regard for the sacred memory of David his father, and partly, we may believe, in mercy to himself, that space may be given him for repentance (see Psalms 89:30-37). We have here a type and example of the general method of God’s ways. "In wrath he remembers mercy." Something of gracious forbearance is seen in the severest of His judgments. His chastisements are fatherly. And beneath the darkest providences and the sternest retributions there is the steady flow of a loving kindness that endures throughout all generations, the strength of a covenant that shall never be broken.—W. BY E. Deuteronomy 1 Kings 11:9-13 After the consecration of the temple Solomon reached the culminating point of his reign, both in a spiritual and temporal point of view. His fame and his dominion continued to increase. The Queen of Sheba came from the far East to pay him homage. From this summit of glory he had a sudden and shameful fall, and became all but an apostate. This son of David, whose high honour it was to have built and consecrated the temple of Jehovah, this heir of the promises on which hung the salvation of mankind, sank into idolatry. The causes of his fall were—1st, PRIDE: he forgot to give glory to God. 2nd, LUST: strange women enticed him after strange gods (1 Kings 11:8). The fall of Solomon repeats in a manner the features of the first transgression. It began in the desire to be as God, and was consummated in the gratification of the flesh. Its emphatic warning to all God’s people is, "Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall" (1 Corinthians 10:12). Chastisement from God is the consequence of this fall. God had already warned Solomon that His most glorious promises were contingent on obedience to His commands. "If thou walk in my ways," etc. (1 Kings 3:18, 1 Kings 3:14). God chastens Solomon because He loves him, and does not altogether take His mercy from him, since He still leaves the kingdom of Judah to his descendants. The book of Ecclesiastes, with its blending of bitterness and repentance, is perhaps the ripening fruit of this merciful severity.—E.deP. SOLOMON’S .—As the historian has collected together in 1 Kings 6:1-38; 1 Kings 7:1-51; 1 Kings 8:1-66, all the information he can convey respecting the temple, and in 1 Kings 9:1-28; 1 Kings 10:1-29. all the scattered notices respecting Solomon’s power and greatness, so here he arranges in one section the history of Solomon’s adversaries. It must not be supposed that the following records stand in due chronological order. The enmities here mentioned did not date from the delivery of the message of which we have just heard; on the contrary, the hatred and opposition of Hadad and Rezon began at an early period, though not the earliest (1 Kings 5:4), of Solomon’s reign. It was only in his later life, however, that they materially affected his position and rule; hence it is that they are brought before us at this stage of the history, and also because they are manifestly regarded as chastisements for Solomon’s sin. 1 Kings 11:14 And the Lord stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad [in 1 Kings 11:17 written Adad, אֲדַד. Apparently this, like Pharaoh, was a title rather than a name. And, like Pharaoh, it is said to mean the sun. It was borne by a king of Edom in very early times, Genesis 25:15; Genesis 36:35, Genesis 36:39 (in the latter verse, as in Genesis 25:15, Hadar is probably a clerical error for Hadad, as the name stands in 1 Chronicles 1:30, 1 Chronicles 1:50, and øbeing so very much alike. Gesenius, however, contends that Hadar is the true reading), and was also a favourite name with the kings of Syria, especially in the forms Benhadad, Hadadezer] the Edomite: he was of the king’s seed in Edom. 1 Kings 11:15 For it came to pass, when David was in Edom [2 Samuel 8:14. But the text is peculiar. Instead of "in Edom" we have "with Edom," את־אדם, unless we take את to be the mark of the accusative, which, however, there is no verb to govern. Keil interprets, "When David had to do with Edom." Bהhr refers to 1 Chronicles 20:5, and Genesis 19:4, but they are not strictly parallel, and it is possible that the text is slightly corrupt, as the LXX; Syr; and Arab. must have had בהכות instead of בהיות before them "when David smote Edom." The LXX; e.g; reads ἐντῷἐξολοθρεῦσαικ.τ.λ. It was only vicariously, however, that David smote Edom, or was in Edom. According to 1 Chronicles 18:12, Abishai slew 18,000 Edomites, while Psalms 60:1-12. (title) represents Joab as having slain 12,000 at the same time and place. The two brothers were both in high command, or Abishal may have been detailed by Joab to this service], and Joab the captain of the host was gone up to bury the slain [The commentators generally are agreed that these are the Israelites slain by the Edomites during an invasion of Israel, and not either the Edomites or Israelites slain in the valley of Salt], after he had smitten [rather, that he smote. This is the apodosis] every male in Edom. [This is, of course, hyperbolical (cf. "all Israel" below). It is clear that the whole Edomite nation did not perish. The words point to a terrible slaughter (cf. 1 Chronicles 18:13) among the men of war. Possibly the cruelties of the Edomites (compare Psalms 137:7; Obadiah 1:10-14) had provoked this act of retribution, as to which see Deuteronomy 20:13. 1 Kings 11:16 For six months did Joab remain there with all Israel [i.e; the entire army, as in 1 Kings 16:16, 1 Kings 16:17], until he had cut off every male in Edom. 1 Kings 11:17 That Hadad fled [This word excludes the idea that he was carried off in infancy by servants, something like Joash, 2 Kings 11:2], he and certain Edomites of his father’s servants with him, to go into Egypt [cf. Matthew 2:13]; Hadad being yet a little child. [The words used of Solomon 1 Kings 3:7. 1 Kings 11:18 And they arose out of Midian [a name of wide and somewhat varied significance. Midian embraces the eastern portion of the peninsula of Sinai (Exodus 2:15, Exodus 2:21; Exodus 3:1), and stretches along the eastern border of Palestine. The term has been compared with our "Arabia." And the indefiniteness arises in both instances from the same cause, viz; that the country was almost entirely desert. Midian would thus extend along the back or east of Edom. There is no need, consequently (with Thenius), to read מָעוֹן i.e; their dwelling. It is noticeable, however, that the LXX. reads ἐκτῆςπόλεωςΜαδμὶμ, and some of the geographers do mention a city of that name on the eastern shore of the Elanitic gulf], and came to Paran [Elsewhere Mount Paran, Habakkuk 3:3; Deuteronomy 33:2; a desert and mountainous tract lying between Arabia Petraea, Palestine, and Idumaea (see Numbers 10:12; Numbers 13:3, Numbers 13:27; 1 Samuel 25:1; Deuteronomy 1:1), and comprehending the desert of Et Tih. It is difficult to identify it with greater precision, but it has been connected with the beautiful Wady Feiran, near Mount Serbal, in the Sinaitic range, which would agree fairly well with our narrative]: and they took men with them out of Pavan [as guides through the desert, and possibly as a protection also], and came to Egypt [The direct route from Edom to Egypt would be across the desert of Et Tih—practically the route of the caravan of pilgrims from Mecca. But this does not settle the position of Paran, as the text seems to hint that the fugitives did not proceed direct from Edom. They may have taken refuge in the first instance amongst the tribes of Midian; or they may have diverged from the straight course through fear], unto Pharaoh king of Egypt [This cannot have been the Pharaoh who was Solomon’s father-in-law, for in the first place, the flight was in the time of David, and secondly, a prince who had aided and abetted these fugitives would hardly be likely to form an alliance with their great enemy. It may have been Psusennes II.]; which gave him an house, and appointed him victuals [i.e; certain cities or officers were charged with his maintenance, though, as his relations with the royal family were so extremely intimate (Deuteronomy 33:19-22), he may have been fed from the royal table], and gave him land. 1 Kings 11:19 And Hadad found great favour in the sight of Pharaoh, so that he gave him to wife the sister of his own wife, the sister of Tahpenes [LXX. θεκεμίνα. "No name that has any near resemblance to either Tahpenes or Thekemina has yet been found among those of the period". Rawlinson adds that the monuments of that age are extremely scanty] the queen. [Heb. גְּבִירָה the word generally used of the queen mother (as in 1 Kings 15:13). Here, and in 2 Kings 10:13, however, it is used of the queen consort.] 1 Kings 11:20 And the sister of Tahpenes bare him Genubath his son [otherwise unknown], whom Tahpenes weaned in Pharaoh’s house [A significant token of his adoption into the royal family. The weaning, which generally took place in the second, sometimes third, (2 Macc. 7:27) year,was clearly a much more marked occasion in the ancient East than it is among ourselves (Genesis 21:8; 1 Samuel 1:24) ]: and Genubath was in Pharaoh’s household among the sons of Pharaoh. [i.e. he was brought up in the Egyptian harem.] 1 Kings 11:21 And when Hadad heard in Egypt that David slept with his fathers, and that Joab the captain of the host was dead [It comes out very significantly here what a name of terror Joab’s had been in Edom and how deep was the impression which his bloody vengeance of a quarter of a century before had made] Hadad said to Pharaoh, Let me depart [Heb. send me away], that I may go to mine own country. [Rawlinson cites Herod. 3:132-137; 5:25, 35, 106, 107, to show that refugees at Oriental courts must obtain permission to leave them.] 1 Kings 11:22 Then Pharaoh said unto him, But what hast thou lacked with me, that, behold, thou seekest to go to thine own country? [The natural inquiry of Eastern courtesy.] And he answered, Nothing: howbeit let me go in any wise. [Heb. thou shalt surely send me away. Rawlinson says, "There is a remarkable abruptness in this termination." But we must remember how unfinished, to our eyes, Scripture narratives constantly seem. There is no need, consequently, to suspect any accidental omission from the Hebrew text. The LXX; it is true, adds, "and Ader departed," etc; but this may be inferred from verses 14, 25. And Hadad’s persistent desire to depart, for which he assigns no reason, is suggestive of the thoughts which were stirring in his soul. "The keen remembrance of his native land, his lost kingdom, and the slaughter of all his house, gathered strength within him; and all the ease and princely honour which he enjoyed in Egypt availed not against the claims of ambition, vengeance, and patriotism" (Kitto).] 1 Kings 11:23 And God stirred him up another adversary [almost identical with 1 Kings 11:14], Rezon the son of Eliadah [Often identified with the Hezion of 1 Kings 15:18, but on insufficient grounds. Whether he was a usurper, who had dethroned Hadad (see Jos; Ant; 6.5. 2), or an officer of Hadadezer’s, who escaped either before or after the battle of 2 Samuel 8:3-5, is uncertain. The following words agree equally well with either supposition], which fled from his lord Hadadezer king of Zobah. 1 Kings 11:24 And he gathered men unto him and became captain over a band [either of rebels before or of fugitives after the defeat], when David slew them of Zobah [Of Zobah, not in Hebrews "Them" must mean the Syrian army]: and they went to Damascus, and dwelt therein [As David put garrisons in Syria of Damascus (2 Samuel 8:6), this must have been some time after the defeat of the Syrians. But Keil argues that it cannot have been in the middle or later part of Solomon’s reign, inasmuch as Solomon must have been lord of Damascus, or he could not have built Palmyra. But it is not so incontrovertibly settled that Solomon did build Palmyra (see on 1 Kings 9:18) as to make this argument of much weight. And even if it were, we might still fix the reign of Rezon at an earlier period of Solomon’s sway. See below], and reigned. [i.e; the band or troop of Rezon, either in the confusion of the defeat, or in some subsequent time of anarchy, took possession of Damascus, and he, it would seem, usurped the crown. The word "reigned," however (plural), is somewhat remarkable. It may perhaps be accounted for by the plurals which precede it. The insertion of one "yod" (וימליכו for וימלכו) gives the sense "they made him king," which would certainly be preferable, if the emendation were not purely conjectural. 1 Kings 11:25 And he was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon [We are not compelled, however, to believe that his reign lasted "all the days of Solomon." This last expression is to be taken with considerable latitude. It is an Orientalism. At the time of 1 Kings 5:4, neither Hadad nor Rezon was giving Solomon any trouble], beside the mischief which Hadad did [Heb. omits did. The construction of the Hebrew, 292b, note) is difficult. Literally, and with the evil which Hadad," etc. (comp. verse 1 of this chapter, "and with the daughter," etc; with Exodus 1:14, Hebrews) The LXX. reconstructs the text, making the following words, "and he abhorred," etc; apply to Hadad; and altering Syria (ארם) into Eden (אסם) to suit. But it is far better to understand עשָה (with our Authorized Version); i.e; beside the mischief which Hadad did (or, "beside the mischief of Hadad," Ewald). "And he (Rezon) abhorred," etc. Hadad’s enmity has already been described (verses 17-22), and the historian has passed on to the case of Rezon. It is extremely unlikely that he should now suddenly recur exclusively to Hadad. It is very natural for him, on the other hand, in his account of Rezon, to remind us that all this was in addition to the mischief wrought by Hadad]: and he abhorred [Heb. loathed] Israel, and reigned over Syria. 1 Kings 11:26 And Jeroboam [Viewed in the light of their history, the names Jeroboam and Rehoboam are both instructive. The first means, "Whose people are many;" the second, "Enlarger of the people." The latter might almost have been bestowed in irony, the former by way of parody] the son of Nebat [The case of Jeroboam is now related at much greater length, not so much because of the importance of the rebellion at the time, as because of its bearing on the later history of Israel. It led to the disruption of the kingdom and the schism in the Church. It was the first great symptom of the decadence of the power of Solomon; of his decline in piety we have had many indications. We see in it an indication that the Hebrew commonwealth has passed its zenith], an Ephrathite [i.e; Ephraimite; cf. Judges 12:5; 1 Samuel 1:1. Ephraim was the ancient rival of Judah, and by reason of its numbers, position, etc; might well aspire to the headship of the tribes (Genesis 49:26; Genesis 48:19; Deuteronomy 33:17; Joshua 17:17) ] of Zereda [Mentioned here only, unless it is identical with Zeredathah (2 Chronicles 4:17) or Zarthan (Joshua 3:16; 1 Kings 4:12) in the Jordan valley. That this place was apparently situate in the tribe of Manasseh, is no argument against the identification (Bהhr), for an Ephrathite might surely be born out of Ephraim. It is, however, observable that Zereda has the definite article (similarly ἡΣαρείρα in the LXX; but this place is located in Mount Ephraim), which Zarthan, etc; have not. Hence it is probably the same as the Zererath of Jdg 7:22. In fact, some MSS. read צְרֵדָה there instead of צְרֵרָה and ø dna צְand ãare not only etymologically interchangeable, but are also extremely liable to be confused (see above on Judges 7:14) ], Solomon’s servant [i.e; officer; cf. verse 28], whose mother’s name was Zeruah [i.e; leprous. His mother’s name is recorded, probably because his father, having died early, was comparatively unknown. But it is not impossible that the similarity either with Zeruiah (cf. 1 Kings 1:7) or Zererah had something to do with its preservation. The people would not readily forget that Solomon’s other great adversary was the son of Zeruiah. And we have many proofs how much the Jews affected the jingle of similar words], even he lifted up his [Heb. a] hand [i.e; rebelled. Synonymous expression 2 Samuel 18:28; 2 Samuel 20:21. Observe, we have no history or account of this rebellion except in the LXX; but merely of the circumstances which led to it] against the king. 1 Kings 11:27 And this was the cause [or, this is the account; this is how it came about. Same words Joshua 5:4, and 1 Kings 9:15. We have here a long parenthesis, explaining the origin, etc; of Jeroboam’s disaffection] that he lifted up his hand [Heb. a hand] against the king. Solomon built Millo [see on 1 Kings 9:15], and repaired the breaches [These words convey the impression that Solomon renewed the decayed or destroyed parts of the wall. But (1) סָגַר does not mean repair, except indirectly. It means he closed, shut. And (2) פֶּרֶץ sing, refers to one breach or opening. Moreover (3) it was not so long since the wall was built (2 Samuel 5:9). It could hardly, therefore, have decayed, and there had been no siege to cause a breach. We must understand the word, consequently, not of a part broken down, but of a portion unbuilt. We have elsewhere suggested that this was the breach in the line of circumvallation, caused by the Tyropsson valley, and that the Millo was the bank, or rampart which closed it. And to this view the words of the text lend some confirmation] of the city of David his father. [As Millo was built about the 25th year of Solomon’s reign (1 Kings 9:15), we are enabled to fix approximately the date of Jeroboam’s rebellion. It was apparently about ten or twelve years before Solomon’s death. 1 Kings 11:28 And the man Jeroboam was a mighty man of valour [same expression Judges 6:12; Judges 11:1; 1 Samuel 9:1; 2 Kings 15:20. In Ruth if. 1 it hardly seems to imply valour so much as wealth (as A.V.): and Solomon seeing the young man that he was industrious [Heb. doing fwork], he made him ruler over all the charge [Heb. appointed him to all the burden] of the house of Joseph. [The tribe of Ephraim, with its constant envy of Judah, must have been mortified to find themselves employed—though it was but in the modified service of Israelites—on the fortifications of Jerusalem. Their murmurings revealed to Jeroboam the unpopularity of Solomon, and perhaps suggested thoughts of overt rebellion to his mind.] 1 Kings 11:29 And it came to pass at that time [a general expression = "when he was thus employed"] when [Heb. that] Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem that [Heb. and], the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite [i.e; of Shiloh, as is expressed 1 Kings 14:2-4, where see notes. He too, therefore, was an Ephraimite (Joshua 16:5). This portion of the history is probably derived from his writings (2 Chronicles 9:29). We may be pretty sure that Nathan was now dead] found him in the way; and he [i.e; Ahijah. Ewald understands Jeroboam to be meant, and would see in the new garment his "splendid robe of office"] had clad himself with a new garment [שַׂלְמָה same word as שְׂמְלָה such transpositions of letters being common. The simlah was the outer garment (Genesis 9:23; 1 Samuel 21:10, etc.), which served at night as a covering (Deuteronomy 22:17). It was probably identical in shape, etc; with the camel’s-hair burnous, or abba, worn by the Arabs at the present day, and being almost a square would lend itself well to division into twelve parts]; and they two were alone in the field [i.e; open country.] 1 Kings 11:30 And Ahijah caught [This English word almost implies that it was Jeroboam’s garment (cf. Genesis 39:12); but the original simply means "laid hold of."] the new garment that was on him, and rent [same word as in 1 Kings 11:11, 1 Kings 11:12, 1 Kings 11:13] it in twelve pieces. [The first instance of an "acted parable" (Rawlinson).] 1 Kings 11:31 And he said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten pieces: for thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes [Keil insists that "ten" is here mentioned merely as the number of completeness; that, in fact, it is to be understood symbolically and not arithmetically. He further states that in point of fact the kingdom of Jeroboam only consisted of nine tribes, that of Simeon being practically surrounded by the territory of Judah, and so becoming incorporated in the southern kingdom. But surely, if that had been the idea in the prophet’s mind, it would have been better expressed had he torn off one piece from the garment and given the rest, undivided, to Jeroboam (Bהhr). And the reference to the number of the tribes is unmistakable. As to Simeon, we have no means of knowing what part that tribe, if it still existed, took at the division of the kingdom. See on 1 Kings 19:3. Its members had long been scattered (Genesis 49:7), and it gradually dwindled away, and has already disappeared from the history. But even if it had a corporate existence and did follow the lead of Judah, still that is not con. clusive on the question, for we know not only that the historian uses round numbers, but also that we are not to look for exact statements, as the next verse proves] to thee. 1 Kings 11:32 But he shall have one tribe [LXX. δύοσκῆπτρα. Some would understand "one tribe, in addition to Judah," but compare 1 Kings 12:20, "tribe of Judah only," and see note on 1 Kings 12:13. Possibly neither Judah nor Benjamin is here to be thought of separately. In 1 Kings 12:21, and 2 Chronicles 11:3, 2 Chronicles 11:23, they are both reckoned to Rehoboam. They might be regarded as in some sense one, inasmuch as they enclosed the Holy City (Seb. Schmidt), the line of division passing right through the temple platform. But it is perhaps safer, in view of 1 Kings 12:20, to understand the term of Judah, compared with which large and influential tribe "little Benjamin" was hardly deserving of separate mention) for my servant David’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake [see on 1 Kings 12:12, 1 Kings 12:13], the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel. 1 Kings 11:33 Because that they [The LXX. has the singular throughout, and so have all the translations, except the Chaldee. But the plural is to be retained, the import being that Solomon was not alone in his idolatrous leanings; or it may turn our thoughts to the actual idolaters—his wives—whose guilt he shared. The singular looks as if an alteration had been made to bring the words into harmony with the context, and especially with the concluding words of this verse, "David his father."] have forsaken me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians [צדנין a Chaldee form. But many MSS. read צדנים], Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom [the LXX. has "their king the abomination," etc; καὶτῷβασιλεῖαὐτῶν. See note on 1 Kings 11:5], the god of the children of Ammon, and have not walked in my ways, to do that which is right in mine eyes, and to keep my statutes and my Judgments, as did David his father. 1 Kings 11:34 Howbeit I will not take the whole kingdom [Rawlinson says the context requires "aught of the kingdom," and affirms that the Hebrew will bear this rendering. But he surely forgets that the Hebrew has the def. art. אֶת־כָל־חַמַּמְלָכָה can only represent "all the kingdom, τὴν, βασιλείανὅλην (LXX.) See Gesen; Thesau. s.v. כֹל d. It would certainly seem as if this verse should speak of Solomon’s retaining the sceptre during his lifetime, and not of his retaining a part of the empire. But we may not go against the grammar] out of his hand: but I will make him prince all the days of his life for David my servant’s sake, whom I chose, because he kept my commandments and my statutes. ["If Solomon break his covenant with God, God will not break his covenant with the father of Solomon" (Hall).] 1 Kings 11:35 But I will take the kingdom out of his son’s hand, and will give it unto thee, even ten tribes. 1 Kings 11:36 And unto his son will I give one tribe [cf. 1 Kings 11:32, note], that David my servant may have a light alway before me [The same expression is found in 1 Kings 15:4; 2 Kings 8:19; 2 Chronicles 21:7; and compare Psalms 132:17. Keil would explain it by 2 Samuel 21:17; but 2 Samuel 14:7, "my coal which is left," appears to be a closer parallel. The idea is not that of a home (Rawlinson), but family, issue. We speak of the extinction of a family (Bהhr) ] in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen me to put my name there. 1 Kings 11:37 And I will take thee, and thou shalt reign according to all that thy soul desireth [We are not justified in concluding from these words that Jeroboam then had ambitious designs upon the throne (Keil). They rather mean, "as king, all thy desires shall be gratified" (cf. Deuteronomy 12:20; Deuteronomy 14:26; 1 Samuel 2:16; 2 Samuel 3:21). Bהhr paraphrases "thou shalt have the dominion thou now strivest for," but we have absolutely no proof that Jeroboam at that time had ever meditated rebellion. It is quite possible that the idea was inspired by this interview], and shalt be king over Israel. 1 Kings 11:38 And it shall be, if thou writ hearken unto all that I command thee [cf. 1 Kings 3:14; 1 Kings 6:12; 1 Kings 9:4], and wilt walk in my ways, and do that is right in my sight, to keep my statutes and my commandments, as David my servant did; that I will be with thee [cf. 1 Kings 1:37, note], and build thee a sure house [cf. 2 Samuel 7:11, 2 Samuel 7:16; i.e; a family, perhaps dynasty. Observe, however, there was no promise to Jeroboam, as there was to David, of an enduring kingdom. It was not God’s design to take away the kingdom from David in perpetuity (verse 39) ], as I built for David, and will give Israel unto thee. 1 Kings 11:39 And I will for this [i.e; the defection just described] afflict the seed of David, but not forever [Heb. all the days. Cf. Psalms 89:28, Psalms 89:33, Psalms 89:36. This limitation, "not forever." would seem to apply to the kingdom, for it was through the loss of their kingdom that the seed of David was afflicted. And if so, it promises, if not a restoration of the kingdom to the house of David, at any rate a renewal or continuance of God’s favour. We may perhaps regard the promise as fulfilled in the subsequent history of the kings of Judah. Not only did the kingdom last for nearly 500 years, but the royal house of David maintained its position to the time of Zerubbabel. Nor is it to be overlooked that He "of whose kingdom there shall be no end" (Luke 1:33) was the son of David]. 1 Kings 11:40 Solomon sought the efore to kill Jeroboam. [It is often assumed that Solomon’s attempt on Jeroboam’s life was the result of the prophecy of Ahijah. And our translation with its "therefore" favours this view. The Hebrews, however, has simply "and Solomon sought," etc. And these words connect themselves with 1 Kings 11:26, "even he lifted up his hand," etc. With 1 Kings 11:27 a parenthesis begins, explaining how it came about that Jeroboam rebelled. It is implied distinctly that it was because of Ahijah’s prophecy. That prophecy, however, was in no sense a justification of treason or attack on Jeroboam’s part. The fact that God had revealed His purposes was no reason why Jeroboam should forestall them. David knew and others knew that he was destined to be king, but he piously left it for God, in His own time and way, to place him on the throne. And Jeroboam’s rebellion is the more inexcusable, because Ahijah had expressly stated that Solomon was to retain the kingdom during his lifetime. However "he lifted up his hand;" there was some overt act of rebellion, and Solomon, because of this, and not because of the prophecy, sought to slay him. Nor was the king without justification in so doing. Treason must be promptly suppressed, and treason against a benefactor (see 1 Kings 11:28) is doubly hateful.] And Jeroboam arose, and fled into Egypt [cf. 1 Kings 11:17, and Matthew 2:13. It was the natural place of refuge], unto Shishak, king of Egypt [Shishak is beyond doubt the Sheshonk I. of the monuments, and is the first of the Pharaohs who can be identified with certainty. The date of his accession appears to be somewhere between 988 and 980 B.C. As to his invasion of Palestine, see on 1 Kings 14:25. His reception of Jeroboam almost proves that there has been a change of dynasty, and that the new Pharaoh was no friend to Solomon], and was in Egypt until the death of Solomon. [Compare again Matthew 2:15. 1 Kings 11:41 And the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the book of the Acts of Solomon? [The sources of this history are mentioned more specifically in 2 Chronicles 9:29. 1 Kings 11:42 And the time [Heb. days] that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was forty years. [Josephus, here as elsewhere, doubles the figure, making his reign to have lasted eighty years. It is somewhat remarkable, but affords no just ground for suspicion, that each of the first three kings of Israel should have reigned just forty years. "Such numerical coincidences occur in exact history. Saosduchinus, Chiniladanus, and Nabopolassar, three consecutive kings of Babylon, reigned each twenty-one years" (Rawlinson).] 1 Kings 11:43 ― And Solomon slept with his fathers [see note on 1 Kings 2:10. For the later and often mythical accounts of Solomon, see Ewald, 3. pp. 318, 319. The question of his repentance is discussed by Keble, "Occasional Papers," pp. 416-434], and was hurled in the city of David his father; and Rehoboam his son [So far as appears his only son. "Solomon hath but one son, and he no miracle of wisdom." "Many a poor man hath a houseful of children by one wife, whilst this great king hath but one son by any housefuls of wives" (Bp. Hall). It is worth remembering in this connection that Psalms 127:1-5; which speaks of children as God’s reward (Psalms 127:3), is with good reason ascribed to Solomon] reigned in his stead. 1 Kings 11:31-35 The Punishment of Solomon’s Sin. We have lately traced the gradual declension in piety of this most puissant prince; we have seen him steadily sowing to the wind. The next thing Scripture records concerning him is the retribution which befel him. It is now for us to see him reaping to the whirlwind. But in considering the recompenses of his sin, it is essential to remember— 1. That we can only speak, because we only know, of the temporal punishment which attended him. It may be that was all. Possibly the flesh was destroyed that the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord (1 Corinthians 6:5). It may be that, foully as he fell, he did not fail finally, but of this no man can be certain. There is every reason to think that the question has been "left in designed obscurity", that no one might presume. It may be, therefore, that he still awaits the just recompense of wrath in the day of wrath (Romans 2:5). 2. That if this temporal punishment does not strike us as severe—considering the enormity of his sin and the greatness of the gifts and privileges he had abused—it is partly because the temporal punishment was mitigated for his father’s sake. The avenging hand could not smite Solomon without at the same time hurting David. We are expressly told that Solomon was maintained on the throne all his life, and that one tribe was given—the word implies that the gift was unmerited—to his son, for David’s sake (1 Kings 11:34-36). If, therefore, we are tempted to think that the punishment was not exemplary, let us see in it an instance of God’s "showing mercy unto thousands" (sc; of generations, Exodus 20:6)—a proof of the Infinite Love which "remembered David and all his afflictions" (Psalms 132:1). But such as it was, it was sufficient to teach us these two lessons at least. 1. "Be sure your sin will find you out" (Numbers 32:23). 2. "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap" (Galatians 6:7). For this retribution was of two kinds. There was— I. THAT WHICH SOLOMON IN HIS OWN PERSON; and, II. THAT WHICH HE IN HIS FAMILY AND KINGDOM. Under the first of these categories the following penalties are to be ranked: 1. His life was shortened. Probably by the operation of natural laws. It is not suggested that he was directly smitten of God; it is quite possible that his rank voluptuousness destroyed his energies and induced premature decay. But all the same his days were cut short. Not only was long life the principal sanction of the dispensation under which he lived, but it had been expressly promised him as the reward of piety (1 Kings 3:14). But his sun went down while it was yet noon. He was not sixty when the mandate went forth, "Remove the diadem, and take off the crown" (Ezekiel 21:26). And if it be true, what Dr. Johnson said to David Garrick when the latter showed him his elegant house at Richmond, that great and rare earthly possessions "make deathbeds miserable," it must have cost Solomon a sharp pang to leave so soon his cedar palace and his chryselephantine throne. 2. His life was embittered. If, as is most probable, we have in the book of Ecclesiastes a chapter of his autobiography, it is clear that his glory brought him little satisfaction (Ecclesiastes 3:1-22. passim; Ecclesiastes 5:13; Ecclesiastes 6:12; Ecclesiastes 7:26); there was a worm at the root of all his pleasures. Of what avail were his houses, his gardens, his pools of water, etc; so long as he had not the heart to enjoy them? "It is the mind that maketh good or ill, That maketh wretch’d or happy, rich or poor, For some, that hath abundance at his will, Hath not enough, but seeks a greater store." He knew nothing of "the royalty of inward happiness." How different St. Paul, "Having nothing, yet possessing all things," etc. (2 Corinthians 6:10). What a commentary on the "confessions" of Solomon, as they have been called, with their everlasting refrain, their vanitas vanitatum, is that confession of a man who suffered one long martyrdom of pain—the Baptist minister, Robert Hall—"I enjoy everything." 3. He was tortured by remorse. This is not expressly stated, but surely it may with good reason be inferred. For the wisest of men could not be so insensate, when he heard the message of doom (1 Kings 12:2), as not to reflect how different his end was to be from his beginning; how fair the flower, and how bitter the fruit. Surely the cry he has put into others’ lips would often rise from his own, "How have I hated instruction," etc. (Proverbs 5:12). 4. He was haunted by forebodings. "This great Babylon" which he had builded, how soon should it be destroyed. The empire which he had consolidated should barely last his life. "One tribe"—how those words would ring in his ears! Then he had good reason, too, to fear that his son was one of the class he had himself described (Proverbs 10:1; Proverbs 15:20; Proverbs 17:25; Proverbs 19:18. Cf. Ecclesiastes 2:19), and no match for Jeroboam, of whose designs upon the throne he cannot have been ignorant (1 Kings 11:26, 1 Kings 11:27). He had the mortification of knowing that his "servant" would enter into his labours. And to the prospect of dissensions within, was added the certainty of disaffection without. Hadad and Rezon were already on his border, and were only biding their time. The political horizon was indeed black and lowering. 5. He was harassed by adversaries. For it is clear from verses 14, 28, 26, that Solomon’s enemies were not content to wait for his death. Damascus was a thorn in his side. Egypt was a hotbed of intrigues. The profound peace which he once enjoyed he had lost. The clouds of war were not only gathering, but some of them had burst. His throne of ivory and gold can have been but an insecure and uncomfortable seat for some time before he vacated it. II. But men like Solomon think of posterity and of posthumous fame as much as of themselves. If every father has "given hostages to fortune," how much more vulnerable is a king in the person of his successor. Let us now trace the calamities which betel Solomon’s house and kingdom. 1. In the infatuation of his son. Was there ever a political crisis so wofully mismanaged as that which marked Rehoboam’s accession? A few pacific words, a graceful concession, and all would have gone well. But his brutal non possumus precipitated his downfall. It was enough to make Solomon turn in his grave. But it is for us to remember that "his mother’s name was Naamah, an Ammonitess" (1 Kings 14:21, 1 Kings 14:31). And this is the result of multiplying wives. 2. In the dismemberment of his kingdom. The vast empire which Solomon had founded with so much care and pains, how short a time sufficed to tear it asunder. What a contrast between the "one tribe" with its barren territory, and the description of 1 Kings 4:20, 1 Kings 4:21. How had he spent his strength for naught, or rather for his slave Jeroboam, who inherited all the fairest and wealthiest portions of the realm. And this was the end of his land hunger—that he was left with the desert of Judah. 3. In the invasion of Shishak. For he had not long slept with his fathers when the vast treasures which he had lavished on the palace of the Lord and his own palaces were carried away to Egypt. All the precious metals which David had accumulated, all the acquisitions of Solomon’s fleets, all the royal offerings of the queen of Sheba and of tributary kings—gone to the sons of the stranger, to the swart children of Ham. He had amassed prodigious wealth, but it was for aliens and enemies. Not only the shields and drinking vessels, but the candlesticks, bowls, and the very laminae which had glorified the sanctuary, all fell to the invader. What a case of Sic vos non vobis! What would Solomon have said could he have foreseen Rehoboam’s "Brummagem" shields, and the punctilious ceremony with which they were paraded and preserved? And this was the end of multiplying silver and gold to himself. He had put it all into a bag with holes (Haggai 1:6). 4. In the demoralization of his people. For the idolatries of Judah, the images, the groves, the Sodomites (1 Kings 14:23), were but the continuation and development of the idolatries which Solomon had inaugurated. His son did but reap the crop which himself had sown. Nay, so exact is the lex talionis that we presently find a queen of Judah erecting a "horror" for the most shameful of rites (see note on 1 Kings 15:13). And this was the result of building altars for his queens and princesses "on the hill that is before Jerusalem," that within a few years the Lord’s people, whose was the law and the temple, etc; built them high places, etc; "on every high hill and under every green tree" (1 Kings 14:23). 5. In the captivity of the nation. For the dispersion and enslavement of the Jewish people, though only consummated some four centuries later, and though it was the retribution of a long series of sins, was nevertheless, in a sense, the result of Solomon’s sin. That is to say, his sin was (as 1 Kings 9:1-28. 1 Kings 9:6, 1 Kings 9:7 show) the first beginning of that ever deepening apostasy from the Lord, of which the captivity was, from the first, denounced as the punishment. Other princes no doubt followed in his steps and filled up the measure of iniquity, but the Grand Monarque of their race had first showed them the way. And so the people who had held sway even to the Euphrates were carried beyond the Euphrates, and those who had seen subject kings in their land became subjects in a foreign land (cf. Jeremiah 5:19). How full of instruction and warning is it that the captivity which Solomon foretold (1 Kings 8:46) he should have done so much to precipitate. He predicted, i.e; both his own and his nation’s downfall. 6. But the multiplication of horses, that too, like the other sins, seems to have brought its own peculiar Nemesis. For whence, let us ask, came the army that pillaged Jerusalem, and carried off the treasures of the temple? It came in the footprints of the horses. First, the invasion of Solomon, and then the invasion of Shishak, "with twelve hundred chariots and threescore thousand horsemen" (2 Chronicles 12:8). And what came of the horses supplied to the Tyrians and Hittites? See 1 Kings 20:1 ("horses and chariots;" cf. 1 Kings 20:25); 1 Kings 22:31; 2 Kings 6:15; 2 Kings 7:6, etc. It is extremely probable that the cavalry he supplied to foreign kings became an instrument in their hands to scourge his own people. Nor is it wholly unworthy of notice that the murderer Zimri was "captain of half the chariots" (1 Kings 16:9). Assuredly, that unhallowed trade did not go unpunished. Such, then, is the principal moral of this history: "Their sorrows shall be multiplied that hasten after another god" (Psalms 16:4). And among the additional lessons which this subject teaches are these: (1) That where much is given, much will be required; (2) That judgment begins at the house of God; (3) "He that knew his lord’s will and did it not shall be beaten with many stripes;" (4) "Every transgression and disobedience shall receive its just recompense of reward;" (5) "If God spared not the natural branches," etc. BY J.A. 1 Kings 11:14-25 Premonitions of Wrath. Though the full weight of the judgment of God upon the sin of Solomon was not to come upon him in his lifetime, yet did he not, in this world, go altogether without punishment. The foreknowledge of the evils to come upon his family and people was in itself a heavy affliction. But in addition to this, the evening of his days was doomed to be disturbed. To this end— I. GOD STIRRED UP AGAINST HIM. 1. In themselves these were inconsiderable. (1) Hadad the Edomite! What can he do? He is indeed of the seed royal of Edom, but then Edom is tributary to Solomon, and Hadad in an exile in Egypt. (2) Rezon the Syrian! What can he do? He was only a captain under Hadadezer, king of Zobah, whom David defeated, and who fled with his men, over whom he seems to have acted as a chief of banditti. 2. But they have been quietly acquiring influence. (1) Hadad, who was a lad when he fled from David, has now attained to man’s estate; is in high favour with Pharaoh, and has become brother-in-law to the monarch of the Nile. (2) Rezon also, taking advantage of the apathy of Solomon, who is too much engaged in the seraglio to pay close attention to the affairs of his distant provinces, is already in Damascus and on the throne of Syria. 3. With God behind them they are now formidable. (1) The fly is a feeble creature, but let God send it forth as a plague, and Egypt is in agony. So Hadad, again amongst his Edomites, is by a competent Providence enabled to work "mischief" even to Solomon! (2) Rezon also is in a position to gratify his abhorrence of Israel "all the days of Solomon," or to the end of those days. (3) Let us see the hand of God in all the events of life. Let the discernment of symptoms of His displeasure lead us to repentance and reformation. Let us never despise the day of small things, for the great hand of God may be in it. It is difficult to distinguish the trifling from the momentous. II. HE STIRRED UP THOSE BY MEANS. 1. They were reminded of the sufferings of their people. (1) When David conquered Edom there was a fearful carnage. For six months Joab was engaged in cutting off all the males, until, no natives surviving, Israel had to bury the slain (1 Kings 11:15, 1 Kings 11:16). This slaughter was sufficiently dreadful, though it may only have extended to those old enough to bear arms. Hadad was not an infant then, but (נער קטן) a little boy—of sufficient age to see what was going on and make his escape with the servants. Rezon was of an age and in a position to estimate the miseries which the Syrians suffered when "David slew" them, which sufficiently accounts for the manner in which he "abhorred Israel." Wars are the cradles of resentments. (2) These terrible massacres have their justification in the sins of the people who suffered them. In executing the wrath of God upon Edom, David fulfilled the famous prophecy of Balaam (see Numbers 24:17-19). But in this David was the type of Christ, the true Star of Jacob and Prince of Israel, whose anger will sweep His enemies to extermination. 2. They were persuaded that the opportunity was ripe for revenge. (1) They heard that the warriors were dead (1 Kings 11:21). They were no longer paralyzed by the sound of the once terrible names of David and Joab. (2) As for Solomon, he never was a warrior. And now he is stupefied by idolatry, and enervated in the harem. (3) Consequently they put on a bold front, and from different points harassed and distracted Solomon, apparently with impunity. For the king of Israel knew that God was angry, and "conscience makes cowards of us all." Who can afford to have God for his enemy? Solomon could not afford it. Can we? Who would not make peace with such an antagonist? He proposes His own terms. Why do we not repent and believe the gospel?—M. 1 Kings 11:26-28 Jeroboam. The words before us are interesting as the earliest notice of a character who made a considerable figure in Hebrew history. They bring before us— I. THE OF HIS ORIGIN. 1. He was an Ephrathite of Zereda. (1) The tribe of Ephraim was not obscure; on the contrary, it was next in importance to Judah. But that importance was collective—arose from the multitude of its people. An individual Ephrathite would rather be lost in the multitude. (2) As to Zereda, so little was this place among the thousands of Ephraim that it is mentioned only here, and would have been forgotten but for Jeroboam. Note: Places derive notoriety from men. Men are greater than places. 2. He was the son of Nebat and Zeruah. (1) Of these persons we should not have heard bat for the part their son played in history. How much of our reputation is adventitious! Unenviable is the notoriety gained through relationship with the devil. How truly glorious is that man who rejoices in the imputed righteousness of Christ! (2) Yet Nebat and Zeruah founded the reputation of Jeroboam. They had the moulding of the child which became the father of the man. This is the true reason for the association of their names with his. (3) In this view there is something judicial in this association of the names of parents and child. Their influence, though obscure, was sure, and now finds expression. What an expression will there be of obscure influences when the momentous resultants come out in the disclosures of the great judgment! 3. He was the son of a widow. (1) Why is this noted, but to suggest that through the death of Nebat the responsibilities of the home at Zereda early devolved upon Jeroboam? Thus, those executive powers which brought him under the notice of Solomon had early scope. How little we know of the purposes of Providence in the bereavements and afflictions of famine. (2) Private afflictions are suffered for public uses. In suffering, let us not murmur but listen to the voice of God, and pray that the dispensation may be sanctified. II. HIS TO POWER. 1. He became a mighty man of valour. (1) This fact is recorded, but not the stages by which he became so known. Many a struggle occurred which had no other record than in this resultant. The value of circumstances is expressed in resultants. Let us attempt to weave all the circumstances of our lives into a character of goodness that will endure forever. (2) Jeroboam had an energetic spirit and probably a robust physique. These he inherited. Neither for genius nor good constitutions are we indebted to ourselves. We owe much to our ancestors. (3) But he cultivated his natural parts. Many are richly endowed by nature, but waste their endowments as an idle spendthrift wastes an inheritance. Our very faculties may become obliterated by disuse (Matthew 25:28). 2. His abilities were discerned by Solomon. (1) This is noted to have occurred in connection with the building of Mille, and the closing of, or to close, the breaches in the city of David (1 Kings 11:27). Possibly Jeroboam distinguished himself against Jebusites, or some other malcontents, or in closing those breaches in the face of the enemy. (2) Possibly the industry that attracted the notice of Solomon may have been simply in superintendence of improvements in the buildings at Millo and the fortifications. Providence finds opportunities for those who are ready to enter the opening door (Proverbs 22:29). 3. He was promoted to the charge over the house of Joseph. (1) From an individual once lost in the multitude of this great house, he is now conspicuous before the multitude. His being an Ephrathite is now of importance to him. Let us never quarrel with circumstances, for we never know what may prove of service. (2) Being found diligent in a minor charge he is promoted to a major responsibility. So does God deal with His people (Matthew 13:12; Matthew 25:29). What is worth doing is worth doing well. 4. Now he lifts his hang against his patron. (1) Prosperity brings out the character. He is moved by ambition. Much would have more. He aspires to a throne. His success had encouraged this desire before he met Ahijah (see 1 Kings 11:37). (2) He rebels against the author of his prosperity. Ambition smothers gratitude. How human! Is not this the case with all rebels against God? (3) How plainly we can see baseness when manifested by man toward his fellow; but how slow we are to see this when ingratitude is toward God! The obscurity of our origin is no bar to our advancement in the religious service of God. "Not many noble are called."—M. 1 Kings 11:29-39 The Message of Ahijah. As Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem with his commission from Solomon to rule as his lieutenant over the house of Joseph, meditating how he might use his fortune to construct a throne, he was met by Ahijah the Shilonite, who accosted him in a manner agreeable to his ambition. In the message of Ahijah we have— I. A . 1. This was expressed in sign. (1) The Shilonite provided himself with a new garment. This was intended to symbolize the kingdom. The same sign had been similarly used before (see 1 Samuel 15:27; 1 Samuel 24:5). Note: His people are the honourable clothing of a prince (see Proverbs 14:28). (2) The garment was new. The kingdom of Israel was as yet young. Solomon was but the third monarch in succession. The garment was whole. So was the kingdom, as yet, unbroken. Note: The robe of Christ was seamless and woven throughout, which suggests the perfect unity which will appear in the subjects of His heavenly kingdom. Note further: That in His transfiguration, which symbolized His kingdom (see Matthew 16:28; Matthew 17:1), His raiment shined "as no fuller on earth could white it," suggesting the purity and glory in which the subjects of that kingdom are to shine (Matthew 13:43). (3) But the robe in the hands of the prophet, the messenger and representative of God, is now rent into twelve pieces, according to the number of tribes composing the kingdom, ten of which were given into the hand of Jeroboam. Note: God disposes. In its militant state the kingdom of Christ is subject to revolutions, but not so in its triumphant and heavenly state. 2. The prophecy also is expressed in words (1 Kings 11:31-39). (1) Thus the testimony is twofold. It appeals to the eye, also to the ear. (2) History verified the predictions to the letter. What a testimony to the truth of God is the harmony and correspondence of prophecy and history! II. ITS REASONS. These are expressed and implied. 1. The sin of Solomon is specified (1 Kings 11:31, 1 Kings 11:33). (1) Solomon forsook the Lord. God never forsakes us unless we first forsake Him. Let us be admonished. (2) He worshipped idols. Ashtoreth, the impure Venus of the Zidonians; Chemosh, the abomination of the Moabites; and Milcom, or Molech, the devil of the Ammonites,are put into competition with the God of Israel! Whoever is so foolish as to forsake God will surely become the dupe of devils. (3) We notice the plural pronoun, "they have forsaken Me," etc. Not Solomon and his wives, for these heathen women had never known God but Solomon and the Israelites drawn away by his influence and example. Men seldom sin alone. Accomplices are involved with their leaders in a common retribution. (4) He forgat the good example of his father David. This is mentioned to his discredit. We are accountable to God for our advantages. For godly parents, godly ministers, opportunities. 2. The piety of David is remembered. (1) It is remembered in the mind of God. Let sincere Christians who are apt to be discouraged at their failures take comfort from the fact that God is more willing to remember our good endeavours than our failures. David in glory would know the blessedness of this. (2) It is remembered to the advantage of his offspring on the earth. The temporal judgments upon Solomon’s sins were mitigated in consequence of David’s piety. Would not David, in glory, have satisfaction in this? 3. The Scriptures must be fulfilled. (1) David was to have a light always before God in Jerusalem (Psalms 132:16, Psalms 132:17). The family of David mast be preserved until Messiah comes to be the Light of the Gentiles. (2) As David was a type of Christ, so was Jerusalem, with its temple and shekinah, a type of His Church. Of this Church, Christ is the everlasting Light (see Isaiah 24:23; Isaiah 60:19, Isaiah 60:20; Revelation 21:23). 4. No mention is made of any goodness in Jeroboam. (1) This omission is significant. It suggests that the Ephrathite was used only as the instrument of Providence for the punishment of sinners; and for this service had the reward of his ambition. Therefore the success of our desires in this world is no certain proof either of our goodness or of God’s favour. (2) But in respect to his service God gave Jeroboam a glorious opportunity by goodness to make himself great like David (see 1 Kings 11:38). What opportunities does God graciously vouchsafe to us! Let us utilize them to the best possible account.—M. 1 Kings 11:40-43 Solomon’s End. There is peculiar interest attaching to the earlier and later days of men who have made a figure in history. Here we have the brief record of the end of a character famed for wisdom above all mere men, upon which we have sadly to meditate that— I. HE SANK UNDER A DENSE CLOUD. 1. His morning was very bright. (1) From his youth he was beloved of God. In token of this he received from God the name Jedidiah (2 Samuel 12:24, 2 Samuel 12:25). Could any distinction be more glorious? Let the young among us aspire to this distinction. (2) When he came to the throne this name was changed to Solomon, the Peaceable. The wars of his father David were everywhere so triumphant, that no adversary now appeared (1 Kings 5:4). The love of God brings peace. (3) He was zealous and faithful in building the temple of the Lord, which he devoted to God in a noble dedicatory prayer, and had an answer in the descent of the holy fire upon the sacrifices, and in the Shekinah taking possession of the house. Those who are beloved of God and rejoice in His peace are fit agents for the building of the spiritual temple of the Lord. (4) He was blessed by God with extraordinary wisdom, not only in the arts of government, but also in various walks of learning (1 Kings 3:8-10; 1 Kings 4:33). The profoundest philosophers have been godly men. The boast of sceptics to the contrary is not sustained by fact. (5) He was inspired by God to contribute books to the sacred Scriptures. The Chaldaisms which occur in the Ecclesiastes are not sufficient to wrest the authorship of that book from Solomon, to whom the Jews have ever ascribed it; for these it may have acquired in passing through the hands of Ezra. 2. But his evening was very black. (1) His reign extended over forty years, and a considerable portion of that period he was under bad influences. Pharaoh’s daughter is though[ to have been a proselyte to Judaism, but of this there is no proof. (2) This foreign marriage was followed by about seven hundred more. These were distinguished as princesses (verse 3). Not that they were daughters of kings, but wives of Solomon, of the second order, Pharaoh’s daughter being queen. Beside these were the three hundred concubines. Such a harem, in its number alone, was a plain violation of the law (Deuteronomy 17:17). But he was still further guilty in making alliances with heathen women (Exodus 34:16; Deuteronomy 7:3, Deuteronomy 7:4). (3) The very evils predicted happened to Solomon; through these he was drawn into the grossest idolatry (verses 5-8). (4) The last act recorded of him was that of seeking to kill Jeroboam, who to avoid his resentment took refuge with Shishak, king of Egypt. Shishak was brother-in-law to Hadad, the Edomite adversary of Solomon, but not the father of Solomon’s wife, as some have supposed. If, as the narrative suggests, this design upon the life of Jeroboam was in consequence of his knowledge of the prophecy of Ahijah, it was an evidence of extreme wickedness, for it was fighting against God. It was the very sin of Saul against his father David. And in this purpose he seems to have persisted to his death; for Jeroboam remained in Egypt until that event. How fearful are the evils of apostasy! How admonitory! II. BUT IS THERE NO IN THE CLOUD? Some think they see it— 1. In the promise of God to David. (1) The promise referred to is recorded 2 Samuel 7:12-17. But was not Solomon, who was chastened with the rod of men by Hadad, Rezon, and Jeroboam, the subject of the mercy of God, in that his family was continued in the throne of Judah? In this he was distinguished from Saul, whose succession was cut off. (2) Unless this answer can be shown to be insufficient, the Calvinistic argument based upon this text for the infallible final perseverance of the saints is simply a begging of the question. 2. In the Divine approval of the reign of Solomon. (1) The passage relied upon in this statement Isaiah 2 Chronicles 11:17. But when the commencement of the rule of Rehoboam in Judah, for three years, is commended as according to the example of David and Solomon, the allusion, as far as Solomon is concerned at least, was to the manner in which he commenced his reign. (2) This is sufficient for the consistency of the text. To make it prove more would make it prove too much by committing God to the approval of what He has elsewhere explicitly condemned. (3) Rehoboam, who as king of Judah, like his father Solomon, began his reign well, fell into the snare of Solomon in multiplying wives (see 2 Chronicles 11:21). 3. In his authorship of the Ecclesiastes. (1) The argument is that upon the message of God, by Ahijah, as is supposed (verses 9-13), Solomon repented, and afterwards wrote this book, in which he confesses the vanity of his past life. (2) But the theory of his repentance upon that occasion ill consorts with the history of his seeking the life of Jeroboam, because he was destined to give effect to the burden of that message. True repentance will bear meet fruit (Matthew 3:8). (3) The Ecclesiastes was more probably written before than after the apostasy of Solomon. The allusions to his experiences as "king over Israel in Jerusalem" may have been prophetic anticipations, which may explain the past tense, "was king," which is agreeable to the prophetic style. When all has been said that can be alleged to encourage hope in Solomon’s end, the doubt is grave enough to instruct us that we must not presume upon God’s mercy, and sin. Let us rather hope in His mercy, repent, and sin no more. Praise God for the Great Atonement!—M. BY J. 1 Kings 11:14-25 The Divine Chastisements. I. IS MERCY. Though the judgment was kept back, Solomon was meanwhile made to feel the rod of correction. We may be forgiven and yet chastised—yea, chastised because we are forgiven. "Whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth," etc. This, too, was mercy, for— 1. It was fitted to lead him to seek God in truth. It is easier to feel and confess our folly and sin in adversity than when all is well with us, 2. It revealed to him the kind of harvest he had prepared for his child. He was now reaping the fruits of his father’s fierce vengeance (see 1 Kings 11:15). The story recorded on the page of Scripture was then on Israel’s lips and in Solomon’s thoughts. When God visits for sin, the iniquity of the past is remembered. Sins are seeds that produce harvests of trouble for those who come after us; and Solomon’s reaping the fruit of his father’s deeds must have set before him the legacy of judgment he was bequeathing to his own son. And yet Solomon does not seem to have been benefited. Are we reading the lessons of our chastisements? II. OUR ENEMIES ARE GOD’S . 1. When they assail us it is of Him. The Lord stirred them up. They had been adversaries before, but they had hitherto been powerless to harm Israel (see 1 Kings 11:4). But now in Solomon’s fall the day of their opportunity came. Our foes are held as in a leash by God. Without His permission they can attempt nothing: when they are loosed it is of Him. They serve Him and in the truest sense serve us. In the midst of evil deeds and evil speech let us look past all to Him. 2. God’s restraining hand is still upon them. Though Hadad and Rezon attempted more, they were not permitted to succeed. So far as they may serve us they are allowed to go, but no further.—U. 1 Kings 11:26-43 The call to Jeroboam. I. THE EFFORTS OF GOD TO WIN MEN FOR . This is the beginning of the story of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin. 1. He is met by mercy. The widow’s son is made king of Israel. 2. By counsel and promise (1 Kings 11:38). The seed is east upon the stony ground and among the thorns, as well as upon the good soil. Learn— 1. That, like the great husbandman, we should sow the seed of the kingdom everywhere; though men may not hear, God is served and glorified in that offered mercy. 2. It is no proof that all is well with us, that we have been the recipients of God’s goodness, or that His Word has touched and searched our heart: is there any fruit? II. THE SPIRIT IN ORDER TO REAP LASTING BENEFIT FROM OTHERS’ . 1. Sympathy with them in their suffering. The judgment which is to fall upon Solomon and Israel is laid upon Jeroboam’s heart. He went out clothed with a new garment, he returned with a handful of fragments, the symbol of the new kingdom and the effect of God’s judgment. We cannot rightly enter into blessing springing from another’s loss if we pass in with a light heart. 2. Recognition of them as still objects of Divine mercy (1 Kings 11:34, 1 Kings 11:36). The house of David was not to be utterly cast out. The love that smiles on us is still round them. 3. Recognition that the gift we receive is from the hand of the same Master. Blessing and judgment hang for him upon the same issues (1 Kings 11:33, 1 Kings 11:38). Only in lowliness and brotherliness can we rightly receive the gifts God sends us. III. THE OF THE DIVINE PURPOSE (1 Kings 11:40). 1. Solomon’s attempt to remove the danger by slaying Jeroboam is defeated. His life is guarded till his work is done. 2. It only serves the Divine purpose. Jeroboam’s enmity is secured. He is sent down to Egypt and strengthened by alliance with a power unfriendly to Israel. Fighting against God, we only bind our cords the more firmly, we kick against the pricks. To humble ourselves under the mighty hand of God will bring us into the light of mercy: to contend with Him is destruction.—U. BY A. ROWLAND 1 Kings 11:28 The Successful Man. Among the "adversaries" of Solomon, Jeroboam was the most active. He raised sedition, or, in the words of Scripture, "lifted up his hand," against the king. He was of humble birth, but belonged to the most powerful tribe - Ephraim. His rise is described here. The fortifications of Millo underneath the citadel of Zion were being erected. Amongst those employed Jeroboam was noticed by the king as strong, skilful, and industrious. Ever on the outlook for talent, and with wisdom to discern it, Solomon made him superintendent of the tribute required in money and service of the tribe of Ephraim; a place of trust and profit. Jeroboam is a good example of WORLDLY SUCCESS, the subject for our consideration. I. THE OF WORLDLY SUCCESS. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ THE REVOLT OF THE TEN TRIBES.—With the reign of Rehoboam, on which our historian now enters, we begin the second great period in the history of the Hebrew monarchy, so far as it is related in these Books of KINGS. The first, which comprises the Augustan age of Israel, the short-lived maturity of the race in the reign of Solomon, has extended over forty years, from B.C. 1015 to B.C. 975. The second, which is the period of the existence of the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah side by side—that is to say, from the disruption to the carrying away of Israel into captivity—extends over two centuries and a half, viz; from B.C. 975 to B.C. 722, and is, with few exceptions, a period of steady and shameful decline. And in giving his account of the division of the kingdom, our historian, more suo, confines himself to the recital of actual facts, and hardly speaks of their hidden causes. Yet the sixteenth verse of this chapter reveals to us very clearly one of the secret springs of the dissatisfaction which existed at the date of Rehoboam’s accession, one of the influences which ultimately led to the disruption of Israel. Jealousy on the part of Ephraim of the powerful tribe of Judah had undoubtedly something to do with the revolution of which we now read. The discontent occasioned by Solomon’s levies and the headstrong folly of Rehoboam were the immediate causes, but influences much deeper and of longer standing were also at work. The tribe of Ephraim had clearly never thoroughly acquiesced in the superiority which its rival, the tribe of Judah, by furnishing to the nation its sovereigns, its seat of government, and its sanctuary, had attained. During the two former reigns the envy of Ephraim had been held in check, but it was there, and it only needed an occasion, such as Rehoboam afforded it, to blaze forth. That proud tribe could not forget the glowing words in which both Jacob (Genesis 49:22-26, "the strength of my head") and Moses (Deuteronomy 33:13-17) had foretold their future eminence. They remembered, too, that their position—in the very centre of the land was also the richest in all natural advantages. Compared with their picturesque and fertile possessions, the territory of Judah was as a stony wilderness. And for a long time they had enjoyed a certain superiority in the nation. In the time of Joshua we find them fully conscious of their strength and numbers (Joshua 17:14), and the leader himself admits their power (verse 17). When the tabernacle was first set up, it was at Shiloh, in the territory of Ephraim (Joshua 18:1), and there the ark remained for more than three hundred years. And the pre-eminence of Ephraim amongst the northern tribes is curiously evidenced by the way in which it twice resented (Judges 8:1; Judges 12:1) campaigns undertaken without its sanction and cooperation. It and its sister tribe of Manasseh had furnished, down to the time of David, the leaders and commanders of the people—Joshua, Deborah, Gideon, Abimelech, and Samuel—and when the kingdom was established it was from the allied tribe of Benjamin that the first monarch was selected. "It was natural that, with such an inheritance of glory, Ephraim always chafed under any rival supremacy". It was natural, too, that for seven years it should refuse allegiance to a prince of the rival house of Judah. Even when, at the end of that time, the elders of Israel recognized David as "king over Israel" (2 Samuel 5:8), the fires of jealousy, as the revolt of Sheba and the curses of Shimei alike show, were not wholly extinguished. And the transference of the sanctuary, as well as the sceptre, to Judah—for Jerusalem, whilst mainly in the territory of Benjamin, was also on the border of Judah—would occasion fresh heart burnings. It has been supposed by some that Psalms 78:1-72, was penned as a warning to Ephraim against rebellion, and to reconcile them to their loss of place and power; that, if so, it was not effectual, and that the jealousy endured at a much later date Isaiah 11:13 shows. There had probably been an attempt on the part of Jeroboam the Ephraimite to stir up his and the neighbouring tribes against the ascendancy of Judah in the person of Solomon. That first attempt proved abortive. But now that their magnificent king was dead, now that the reins of government were held by his weak and foolish son, the men of Ephraim resolved unless they could wrest from him very great concessions, to brook the rule of Judah no longer and to have a king of their own house. 1 Kings 12:1 And Rehoboam [see on 1 Kings 11:26, and compare the name Εὐρύδημος. The name possibly indicates Solomon’s ambitious hopes respecting him. The irony of history alone emphasizes it. Ecclesiastes 2:18, Ecclesiastes 2:19 would seem to show that Solomon himself had misgivings as to his son’s abilities. "As the greatest persons cannot give themselves children, so the wisest cannot give their children wisdom" (Hall). His mother was Naamah, an Ammonitess (1 Kings 14:31). It would appear from 1 Kings 14:21, and 2 Chronicles 12:13, that he was 41 years of age at his accession. But this is, to say the least, doubtful. For (1) he is described in 2 Chronicles 13:7 as being "young (נַעַר) and tender hearted." (2) The LXX. addition to 1 Kings 12:24 says he was sixteen; υἱὸςὢνἑκκαίδεκαἐτῶνἐντῶβασιλεύειναὐτὸν. (3) It is hardly probable that Solomon, who was himself "young and tender" at his father’s death, should then have had a son a year old. (4) Rehoboam’s counsellors, who had "grown up with him," and were therefore of the same age as himself, are called "lads" (יְלָדִים, LXX. παισάρια). To these reasons Rawlinson adds a fifth, viz. "that it is hardly likely that David would have permitted his son to marry an Ammonitess, which of course he must have done, if Rehoboam was born in his lifetime. But it should be remembered that David had himself married a foreign princess, Maachah, daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur (1 Chronicles 3:2). There is greater force in the remark that Solomon’s marriages with Ammonite and Moabite women belong apparently to a later period of his life (1 Kings 11:1). Altogether the evidence seems to point to a corruption of the text of 1 Kings 14:21, etc; and it has been suggested that "forty-one" is there an error of transcription for "twenty-one," a mistake easily made, if, as is extremely probable, the ancient Hebrews, like the later, used the letters of the alphabet as numerals. Twenty-one would then be כא; forty-one מא] went to [This journey was probably made soon after a prior coronation at Jerusalem. According to the LXX. addition, it was at least a year after his accession] Shechem [An old gathering place of the northern tribes (Joshua 24:1). Its position, in the very centre of Palestine, fitted it for this purpose. But it was perhaps primarily selected because it was the capital of Ephraim, not because it was a "national sanctuary of Israel" (Wordsworth), a title to which it has but little claim. It had once before furnished Ephraim with a king (Judges 9:2). We learn from Joshua 20:7 that it was "in Mount Ephraim;" from Judges 9:7 that it was under Mount Gerizim. To its position the place was, no doubt, indebted for its name. It is often said to be doubtful whether the place was named after Shechem, the son of Hamor (Genesis 33:18), or whether this prince took his name from the place. The latter is, no doubt, the correct view. For Shechem means strictly, not, as it is often translated, the "shoulder," but dorsi pars superior, or perhaps the space between the shoulder blades (as is proved by Job 31:22, "Let my shoulder fall," משִּׁכְמָה). Hence the word is found only in the singular. Now any one who has seen the vale of Shechem (Nablus) will hardly doubt that its name is due to its resemblance to this part of the body (compare "Ezion-geber," 1 Kings 9:26). The town lies in a valley between the two ridges of Ebal and Gerizim; cf. Jos; Ant. 4.8. 44. "The feet of these mountains where they rise from the town [to the height of 1000 feet] are not more than 500 yards apart." It is consequently one of the most striking and beautiful spots in Palestine, and the more so as its perennial supply of water clothes it with perpetual verdure. For its history see Genesis 12:6; Genesis 33:18; Genesis 34:1-31.; Genesis 48:22; Deuteronomy 27:4-12; Joshua 20:7; Joshua 21:20; Joshua 24:1, Joshua 24:25, Joshua 24:32; Judges 9:1-57.; etc. In the New Testament it has been supposed to appear under the form Sychar (John 4:5), and this variation has been universally accounted for as a paronomasia, שֶקֶר meaning "a lie." But the recent survey has given us good reasons for identifying the place last named with ’Askar, a little village on the slope of Ebal, half a mile from Jacob’s well and a little over a mile from Nablus ]: for [This word suggests that Rehoboam had not "selected the capital of Ephraim to be the scene" of his coronation (Rawl.) but that he went thither because the northern tribes claimed this concession. They demanded apparently that he should meet them to receive their homage in the territory of Ephraim. It was a recognition of the importance of the tribe, and there they could the better urge their demands] all Israel [That is, not the twelve tribes (Ewald), but the ten, or their representatives. The name of Israel was already identified with the ten, or rather eleven, tribes (see 2 Samuel 2:9, 2 Samuel 2:10, 2 Samuel 2:17, 2 Samuel 2:28). It is highly probable that the comparative isolation of Judah from the rest of the tribes had led to this result. Indeed, this fact—that the term "Israel" was used of the whole nation, exclusive of the tribe of Judah—shows in a very significant way the alienation of Judah from the rest] were come to Shoehorn to make him king. [It would certainly seem from these words as if the ten tribes had then no settled idea of revolting. Kimchi sees in the very selection of Shechem a proof that they were only "seeking an opportunity for transferring the government to Jeroboam." Similarly Keil. But the glories of Solomon’s reign and the traditions of the house of David would surely make them hesitate, even if they had heard of the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite (1 Kings 11:29), before they wantonly broke away from Rehoboam. And the text says expressly that they had assembled to "make him king," i.e; to accept him as such, to anoint him (1 Chronicles 12:38 compared with 2 Samuel 2:4; 2 Samuel 5:8 shows that הִמְלִיךְ is synonymous with מָשַׁךְ לְמֶלֶךְ, Keil), after the example of Saul (1 Samuel 2:15), David (2 Samuel 2:4; 2 Samuel 5:3), and Solomon (Judges 1:1-36:39; 1 Chronicles 29:22). No doubt, as the context shows, they intended to stipulate for an alleviation of burdens, etc; and their selection of Shechem as the place where they would render their allegiance was a "significant hint" (Ewald. "The very place puts Israel in mind of a rebellion," Bp. Hall) to Rehoboam. Their putting forward Jeroboam as their spokesman—presuming for the present that the received text of Jdg 9:3 is to be retained, as to which, however, see below—was a further hint, or rather a plain indication, that they did not mean to be trifled with. It is not a proof, however, as Keil maintains, that they had already determined to make the latter king, for they distinctly said to Rehoboam (Judges 9:4), "Grant our petition and we will serve thee." (Ewald, who says "they had the fullest intentions of confirming his power as king if their wishes were granted," points out how this fact makes against the received text, according to which they had already summoned Jeroboam from Egypt.) It is clear from this and the passages cited above that the Jewish people at this period of their history were accustomed, not indeed to choose their king, but to confirm him in his office by public acclamation.] 1 Kings 12:2 And it came to pass, when Jeroboam the son of Nebat [see on 1 Kings 11:26], who was yet in Egypt [The usual, and indeed the necessary, interpretation, if we retain our present Hebrew text, is that these words refer, not as the context would lead us to suppose, to the time indicated in 1 Kings 11:1, 1 Kings 11:3, etc; but to the time of Solomon’s death. But see below], heard of it [The words "of it," though not in the original, are a fair and legitimate interpretation of its meaning. Whether they are retained or not, the natural and grammatical interpretation is that it was the visit to Shechem, just before mentioned, of which Jeroboam heard. But according to our received text, Jeroboam was one of the deputation which met king Rehoboam at Shechem. It has been found necessary, consequently, to understand the words of the death of Solomon, which has been related in 1 Kings 11:43. So the Vulgate, Audita morte ejus. Similarly the LXX. Cod. Vat. inserts the substance of this verse as part of 1 Kings 11:43. (The Cod. Alex. follows the Hebrew.) But this interpretation is surely strained and unnatural] (for he was fled from the presence of king Solomon, and Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt;) [The parallel passage in 2 Chronicles 10:1-19. has here, "And Jeroboam returned from Egypt" (ויַּשָבָ יר ממץ instead of וַיֵּשֶׁב יר במץ). And as some copies of the LXX. have καὶἐπέστρεψενἹεροβοὰμἐξΑἰγύπτου and the Vulgate has "Reversus est de Aegypto," Dathe, Bähr, al. would adopt this reading here. It is true it involves but a slight change, and it may simplify the construction. But no change is really required, Bähr’s objection, that in the text, as it stands, we have an unmeaning repetition, "He was still in Egypt… and Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt," loses all its force if we understand Jeroboam to have continued his residence in Egypt (as the LXX. says he did) after hearing of Solomon’s death. until summoned by the tribes to be their leader. In any case the repetition accords with Hebrew usage.] 1 Kings 12:3 That [Heb. and] they sent and called him. And Jeroboam and all the congregation of Israel came [It has been held that this verse is largely an interpolation. The LXX. Cod. Vat. has simply, "And the people spake unto king Rehoboam, saying." Of more importance, however, is the fact that it is at direct variance with verse 20, which places the appearance of Jeroboam on the scene after the revolt of the tribes. Indeed, these two verses can only be brought into agreement by the questionable device of understanding the "all Israel" of verse 20 very differently from the same expression in verse 1. If, however, we follow in this instance the LXX; which omits the name of Jeroboam both here and in verse 12 (and which thereby implies that he was not one of the deputation to Rehoboam, but, as verse 2 states, was at that time still in Egypt), the difficulty vanishes. Verse 20 then becomes the natural and logical continuation of verses 2, 3. "And Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt. And they sent and called him [to the country.]… And when all Israel heard that Jeroboam was come again [at their summons] they sent and called him unto the congregation," etc. And in favour of the omission of Jeroboam’s name is the fact that the Hebrew text, both in verse 3 and in verse 12, betrays some little confusion. In verse 3, the Cethib has וַיָּבֹאוּ and וַיָּבֹוּ in verse 12, whereas the Keri has וַיָּבֹא in both cases. The words look, that is to say, as if a singular nominative had been subsequently introduced], and spake unto Rehoboam, saying. 1 Kings 12:4 Thy father made our yoke [see for the literal sense of the word, Numbers 19:2; Deuteronomy 21:3, etc.; for its tropical use, Le Deuteronomy 26:13; Deuteronomy 28:48, etc.] grievous [Heb. heavy. Was this complaint a just one? It is one which occasions us some surprise, as the reign of Solomon had not only been glorious, but the people had apparently enjoyed the greatest plenty and prosperity (1 Kings 4:20, 1 Kings 4:25; cf. 1 Kings 8:66). Bishop Hall, Bהhr, and other writers, consequently, who see in the fact that the ten tribes had chosen Jeroboam for their mouthpiece a settled determination on their part to revolt, affirm that their grievances were purely factitious. But we must not forget that, despite the unbroken peace (see Hall, "Contempl." 2:136) and general prosperity and affluence, the people had had one burden at least to bear which is always galling and vexatious, the burden of a conscription. It is by no means certain, though it is constantly assumed, and is not in itself improbable, that the taxes and imposts had been heavy, the passages alleged in support of that view (1 Kings 10:15, 1 Kings 10:25; 1 Kings 12:4, LXX.) being quite inconclusive. But while we have no right to speak of the, enormous exactions of the late king" (Stanley), we may be perfectly sure that such an establishment as his (1 Kings 4:22, 1 Kings 4:26) and such undertakings (1 Kings 6:14, 1 Kings 6:22; 1 Kings 3:1; 1 Kings 7:1-51.; 1 Kings 9:26, 1 Kings 9:17, 1 Kings 9:18) would be extremely costly, and that their cost was not altogether defrayed by the presents of subject princes (1 Kings 4:21; cf. 1 Kings 10:10, 1 Kings 10:14), the profits of the king’s merchants (1 Kings 10:28), or the imports of the fleet (1 Kings 5:1-18:21). But the people had certainly had to pay a more odious tribute, that of forced labour, of servile work (1 Kings 4:6, Hebrews; Hebrews 5:14; cf. 1 Kings 9:21. מַס is almost always used of a tribute rendered by labour, Gesen.) It is quite true that Solomon was not the first to institute this; that David had exacted it before him (2 Samuel 20:24); that the burden was one with which all subjects of the old-world monarchies, especially in the East, were familiar; and that in this case it had been imposed with peculiar considerateness (1 Kings 5:14). But it is none the less certain, when we consider the magnitude of Solomon’s undertakings, and the number of men necessarily employed in executing them, that it must have involved some hardships and created much dissatisfaction; such results are inevitable in all conscriptions. "Forced labour has been amongst the causes leading to insurrection in many ages and countries. It alienated the people of Rome from the last Tarquin; it helped to bring about the French Revolution; and it was for many years one of the principal grievances of the Russian serfs" (Rawlinson). But we may find instances of its working perhaps as more Eastern, more closely illustrative of the text amongst the Fellahin of Egypt. "According to Pliny, 360,000 men had to work 20 years long at one pyramid" (Bהhr). In the construction of the great Mahmoudieh canal, by Mehemet All, over 300,000 labourers were employed. They worked under the lash, and such were the fatigues and hardships of their life that many thousands died in the space of a few months (cf; too, Exodus 1:11 sqq.; Exodus 2:23]: now therefore make thou the grievous [Heb. hard, heavy] service of thy father, and his heavy yoke which he put upon us, lighter [lit; "lighten somewhat from," etc.], and we will serve thee. [Their stipulations seem reasonable enough. Bהhr, who says, "We cannot admit the complaint of too hard tribute work to be well founded," and Keil, who maintains that "there cannot have been any well-grounded occasion for complaint," surely forget that both the aged counsellors (verse 7) and also the writer of this book (verses 13-15) manifest some degree of sympathy with the complainants.] 1 Kings 12:5 And he said unto them, Depart yet for three days [so as to afford time for counsel and deliberation. It has been assumed that both the old and young advisers of Rehoboam had been taken by him, as part of his retinue, to Shechem (Bהhr). But it is quite as likely that some of them were summoned from Jerusalem to advise him, and that the three days’ delay was in order to give time for their attendance. It is a long day’s journey (12 hours) from Nablus to Jerusalem. Three days, consequently, would just afford sufficient time for the purpose] then come again to me, And the people departed. [The peaceable departure, like the respect-tiff demand, contradicts the idea of a settled purpose to rebel.] 1 Kings 12:6 And king Rehoboam consulted with the old men [According to Bהhr," the זְקֵנִים are not old people, but the elders." No doubt the word is constantly used, as in the expressions, "elders of Israel," "elders of the city," etc. (cf. πρεσβυτέροι, senatores (from senex), aldermen=elder men), without any reference to age; but this is not the case here, as the strong contrast with "young men" (1 Kings 12:8, 1 Kings 12:13, 1 Kings 12:14) proves] that stood before [see on 1 Kings 1:2] Solomon his father [among them, perhaps, were some of the "princes" of 1 Kings 4:2 sqq.] while he yet lived, and said, How do ye advise that I may answer this people? 1 Kings 12:7 And they spake unto him, saying, If thou wilt be a servant unto this people this day, and wilt serve them [Keil questions the propriety and expediency of this advice. He says, "The king could not become the עֶבֶד of the people without prejudicing the authority entrusted to him by God." But they do not propose that he should become their servant, except for one clay, and then only in the sense of making reasonable concessions. What they mean is this: "If thou wilt brook for once to accede to their terms instead of dictating thine own," etc. The form of their answer was probably suggested by the temper of the king. They saw what was passing in his mind, viz; that he would fain play the autocrat, and that he resented it exceedingly that his subjects, just as he had begun to taste the sweets of royalty, should presume to parley with him; and they say in effect, "You think that they are reversing your relations, that they are making you, their sovereign, their servant. Be it so. It is but for one day. Then they will be your slaves forever"], and answer them [i.e; favourably; grant their request; cf. Psalms 22:22; Psalms 65:6], and speak good words to them, then will they be thy servants forever. ["Thy servants," in opposition to "a servant" above; "forever" in opposition to "this day."] 1 Kings 12:8 But he forsook the counsel of the old men which they had given [Heb. counselled] him ["We can easily imagine that their proposal was not very agreeable to the rash and imperious young king, in whose veins Ammonite blood flowed" (Bהhr) ], and consulted with the young men [see on verse 1. "The very change argues weakness.. Green wood is ever shrinking" (Hall)] that were grown up with him [possibly his companions in the harem], and which stood before him [i.e; as his courtiers and counsellors (of. verse 6). The old men were the counsellors of Solomon; the young men alone are spoken of as the ministers of Rehoboam. 1 Kings 12:9 And he said unto them, What counsel give ye [emphatic in the original] that we [it is noticeable how Rehoboam identifies these young men with himself. He employs a different expression when addressing the old men (1 Kings 12:6). The A.V. perhaps gives its force by the translation, "that I may answer," etc.; lit; "to answer"] may answer this people who have spoken to me, saying, Make the yoke which thy father did put upon us lighter? 1 Kings 12:10 And the young men that were grown up with him spake unto him, saying, Thus shalt thou speak unto this people [There is a certain amount of contemptuousness in the expression (cf. St. John 7:49) ] that spake unto thee [The repetition, "speak, spake," is probably not undesigned. It suggests the idea of retaliation, or that it was a piece of presumption on their part to have spoken at all], saying, Thy father made our yoke heavy, but make thou it lighter unto us [lit; from upon us]; thus shalt thou say unto them [This iteration is expressive of determination and resentment. We may read between the lines, "I would make short work with them, and teach them a lesson they will not forget"], My little finger ["Finger" is not in the original, but the meaning is indisputable] shall be [or is, עָבָה, strictly, was thicker. The LXX. has simply παχυτέρα] thicker than my father’s loins. [A figurative and perhaps proverbial expression. The sense is clear. "My hand shall be heavier than my father’s, my force greater than his, my weakness even stronger than his strength." The counsel of the young men is full of flattery, which would be acceptable to a young king. 1 Kings 12:11 And now whereas my father did lade you with [or, lay upon you] a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke: my father chastised you with whips [It is probable that the expression is not entirely figurative. It is quite possible that the levies of Amorites, Hittites (1 Kings 9:20), etc; had been kept at their toils by the lash], but I will chastise you with scorpions. ["The very words have stings" (Hall). It is generally held that there is here "no allusion whatever to the animal, but to some instrument of scourging—unless, indeed, the expression is a mere figure". Perhaps it is safer to understand it as a figure of speech, although the scorpion, unlike the serpent, is little like, or adapted to use as, a lash. Probably it was in the pain the whip caused that the resemblance lay (Romans 9:5). All the commentators mention that the later Romans used a whip called a "scorpio," and cite Isidore (Orig. 5, 27) in proof. Gesenius, Keil, al. understand "whips with barbed points, like the point of a scorpion’s sting;" the Rabbins, Virgae spinis instructae; others, the thorny stem of the eggplant, by some called the "scorpion plant." Compare our use of the word "cat." "The yoke and whips go together, and are the signs of labouring service (Ecclus. 30:26, or 33:27)" Bähr.] 1 Kings 12:12 So Jeroboam and [LXX. omits] all the people came to Rehoboam the third day ["Three days’ expectation had warmed these smoking Israelites" (Hall) ], as the king had appointed, saying, Come to me again the third day. 1 Kings 12:13 And the king answered the people [the omission of Jeroboam’s name, though perhaps it cannot he pressed in argument, is noticeable] roughly, and forsook the old men’s counsel that they gave him. 1 Kings 12:14 And spake to them after the counsel of the young men, saying, My father made your yoke heavy, and I will add to your yoke: my father also chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions. 1 Kings 12:15 Wherefore the king hearkened not unto the people, for the cause [or course of events; lit; turn] was from the Lord ["Quem Deus vult perdere, prius dementat." God did not inspire Rehoboam’s proud and despotic reply, but used it for the accomplishment of His purpose, the partition of the kingdom (cf. Exodus 14:4; Matthew 26:24). God makes the wrath of man to praise Him], that [Heb. in order that] he might perform his saying, which the Lord spake by [Heb. in the hand of; cf. 1 Kings 14:18; 1 Kings 2:25, note] Ahijah the Shilonite [see on 1 Kings 11:11] unto Jeroboam the son of Nebat. 1 Kings 12:16 So when all Israel saw that the king hearkened not unto them, the people answered [Heb. brought back word to; probably after some consultation amongst themselves] the king, saying, What portion have we in David? [Same expression as 2 Samuel 20:1. The words, interpreted by this passage and 2 Samuel 19:43, mean, "Since we have no kindness or fairness from David’s seed, what is his house to us? Why render homage to his son? We receive nought from him, why yield aught to him?"] neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse [i.e; "his tribe is not ours; his interests are not ours." Bähr sees in the expression "son of Jesse" "an allusion to David’s humbler descent," but surely without reason. It is simply a periphrasis for the sake of the parallelism. The rhythm almost elevates the words to the rank of poetry]: to your tents, O Israel [lit; thy tents, Or dwellings; i.e; "Disperse to your homes (see 1 Kings 8:66; and cf. 2 Samuel 18:17; 2 Samuel 19:8; 2 Samuel 20:1), and prepare for war." אֹהֶל, which means primarily a "tent," has for its secondary meaning, "habitation," "home." This cry—the Marseillaise of Israel—probably had its origin at a time when the people dwelt in tents, viz; in the march through the desert (see Joshua 22:4; Numbers 1:52; Numbers 9:18; Numbers 16:26) ]. Now see to thine own house, David [i.e; let the seed of David henceforth reign over the tribe of Judah, if it can. It shall govern the other tribes no longer. "It is not a threat of war, but a warning against interference" (Rawlinson). רָאָה has the meaning of "look after," "care for." "David, the tribe father, is mentioned in place of his family" (Keil) ]. So Israel departed unto their [lit; his] tents [see note on 2 Samuel 8:1-18:66]. 1 Kings 12:17 But as for the children of Israel which dwelt In the cities of Judah [i.e; "the Israelites proper or members of other tribes, who happened to be settled within the limits of the land of Judah" (cf. 1 Kings 12:23). A number of Simeonites were (Rawlinson) certainly among them (Joshua 19:1-9). The term "children of Israel" is henceforward to be understood in its restricted sense (see on 1 Kings 12:1). It cannot include the men of Judah], Rehoboam reigned over them. 1 Kings 12:18 Then king Rehoboam sent Adoram, who was over the tribute [Probably the same officer as the Adoniram of ch. 1 Kings 4:6. For "Adoram," the LXX. and other versions read "Adoniram" here. It is curious that a person of the same name, Adoram (LXX. Adoniram), was over David’s levy (2 Samuel 20:24). That there was a relationship, and that the office had descended from father to son, can hardly be doubted, but whether two persons or three are indicated it is impossible to say. It is of course just possible, though hardly likely that one and the same person (Ewald) can have been superintendent of servile work under David, Solomon, and Rehoboam. It is generally assumed that the young king sent this officer "to treat with the rebels and to appease them, as Josephus expressly says" (Bהhr). It seems quite as likely that he was sent to coerce them, or to collect the taxes, as a summary way of showing that the king meant to enforce his rights and was not moved by their words. For it is hardly probable that such a proud and headstrong prince as Rehoboam would stoop, especially after the confident threats which he had just uttered, to parley with rebels. Such a man, guided by such counsellors, and inflated with a sense of his own power and importance, would naturally think of force rather than of conciliation or concessions. He would be for trying his whips of scorpions. And if conciliation had been his object, it is hardly likely that he would have employed Adoram, the superintendent of the levy, a man who would naturally be obnoxious to the people, to effect it. Moreover the sequel—Adoram’s tragical end—also favours the supposition that he was sent, not "to arrange some alleviation of their burdens" (Rawlinson), but to carry out the high-handed policy Of the king]; and all Israel stoned him with stones ["With one exception, this was a bloodless revolution" (Stanley). It has been remarked that the practice of stoning is first heard of in the stony desert (Arabia Petraea). But in reality it is older than the date of the Exodus, as Exodus 8:26 shows. And it is an obvious and ready and summary way of despatching obnoxious persons (cf. Exodus 17:4; 1 Samuel 30:6; 1 Kings 21:10). It is to this day a favourite method of the East for testifying hatred and intolerance], that he died. Therefore king Rehoboam made speed [So the LXX; ἔφθασεν. The Hebrew literally means, as margin, "strengthened himeself." But the A.V. gives the practical force of the word. He bestirred himself; he lost no time; the death of Adoram showed him the danger of a moment’s delay. "He saw those stones were thrown at him in his Adoram" (Hall).] to get him up to his chariot, to flee to Jerusalem. 1 Kings 12:19 So Israel rebelled [lit; fell away (marg.) The common secondary meaning of the word is to transgress. Its use here may perhaps suggest that their rebellion was not without sin] against the house of David unto this day (see on 1 Kings 8:8)]. 1 Kings 12:20 And it came to pass, when all Israel heard that Jeroboam was come again [These words are hardly consistent with the idea that Jeroboam had been from the first the spokesman of "all Israel" in their interviews with Rehoboam. If, however, the received text of 1 Kings 12:8, 1 Kings 12:12 is retained (see on 1 Kings 12:3), then we must understand the "all Israel" in 1 Kings 12:1 of the representatives of the different tribes, and here, of the entire nation who had heard from its representatives, on their return to their homes (1 Kings 12:16), of the presence of Jeroboam in the country], that they sent and called him unto the congregation [Where and when this gathering was held we are not informed. Probably it was at Shechem, and soon after Rehoboam’s flight. After the open and irreparable breach which they had made (1 Kings 12:18), the leaders of the tribes would naturally assemble at once to concert measures for their defence and future government], and made him king [by anointing. Note on 1 Kings 12:1] over all Israel [This public and formal consecration of Jeroboam completed the secession of the northern tribes. Was this secession sinful? Bähr, Keil, and others, who start from the assumption that secession was determined upon even before Rehoboam came to Shechem, and that the complaints of the people respecting the grievous service to which they had been subjected by Solomon were groundless, naturally conclude that it was altogether treasonable and unjustifiable. But is this conclusion borne out by the facts? We may readily admit that the schism was not accomplished without sin: we cannot but allow that Israel acted with undue precipitation, and that Rehoboam, who was "young and tenderhearted," was entitled, for David’s and Solomon’s sake, as well as his own, to greater forbearance and consideration, and it is almost certain that both the "envy of Ephraim" and the ambition of Jeroboam largely influenced the result. At the same time, it is to be remembered that the division of the kingdom was ordained of God, and that the people had just cause of complaint, if not, indeed, sufficient warrant for resistance, in the arbitrary and insolent rejection of their petition by the young king. No law of God requires men to yield themselves up without a struggle to such cruel and abject slavery as Rehoboam threatened these men with. They judged—and who shall say unreasonably?—from his words that they had only tyranny and cruelty to expect at his hands, and what wonder if they stood on their defence? They are only to be blamed because they did more. But lawful resistance not uncommonly ripens into unlawful rebellion]: there was none that followed the house of David, but the tribe of Judah only. [This general statement is qualified immediately afterwards (1 Kings 12:21). The tribe of Benjamin, "the smallest of the tribes of Israel" (1 Samuel 9:21), "little Benjamin" (Psalms 68:27), is here omitted as of comparatively small account. Exact precision has never characterized Oriental writers. There is no suspicion of untruth: it is the genius of the people to "disdain the lore, Of nicely calculated less and more." It may be added here that Edom remained under the sway of Judah until the reign of Jehoram (2 Kings 8:20), just as Moab and other portions of Solomon’s empire for a considerable period formed part of the new kingdom of Israel (2 Kings 1:1; 2 Kings 3:4, 2 Kings 3:5).] 1 Kings 12:21 And when Rehoboam was come to Jerusalem, he assembled all the house of Judah with [Heb. and] the tribe of Benjamin, [It is at first sight somewhat surprising that Benjamin, so long the rival of Judah, and which had so long resisted the rule of David, should on this occasion have detached itself from the leadership of Ephraim, its near and powerful neighbour, and a tribe, too, with which it had a sort of hereditary connexion. That a sort of jealousy existed at one time between the tribes of Benjamin and Judah, consequent, no doubt, on the transference of the sceptre from the house of Saul to that of David, is very evident. A thousand men of Benjamin constituted the following of the rebel Shimei, (2 Samuel 19:17). The rising of Sheba the Benjamite, again (2 Samuel 20:1), proves that the enmity and discontent were not even then subdued. But when the ten tribes fell away, Benjamin seems never to have faltered in its allegiance. The change is easily accounted for. It was the glory of Benjamin that Jerusalem, the joy of the whole earth, the civil and religious capital of the nation, was largely within its border. "The city of the Jebusite" was in the lot of Benjamin (Joshua 18:28). But it was also on the boundary line of Judah. This fact had, no doubt, brought the two tribes into close contact, and had given them interests in common, in fact had "riveted them together as by a cramp"; and now Benjamin could not fail to see that separation from Judah would mean the loss of Jerusalem (which would be largely peopled by the men of Judah, David’s tribe, and would be practically in their hands), while adhesion to Ephraim would not prevent the establishment of another sanctuary further north. The traditions of fifty years, consequently, and the common interest in the capital, prevailed over hereditary ties and ancient feuds, and decided Benjamin to cast in its lot with Judah;the more so, as the heads of this tribe may have felt, after once furnishing Israel with its king, as jealous of Ephraim as they had once been of Judah. It must not be forgotten, however, that some portions of Benjamin, including Bethel, Gilgal, and Jericho, were incorporated in the northern kingdom (Ewald) ], an hundred and fourscore thousand chosen men [the LXX. has ἑκατὸνκαὶἐὶκοσι=120,000, but the larger number need create no astonishment. At the time of David’s census, the men of Judah numbered—if the figures can be depended on—500,000, while Abijah could muster some 18 years afterwards an army of 400,000 (2 Chronicles 13:3) ], which were warriors [lit; making war], to fight against the house of Israel, to bring the kingdom again to Rehoboam, the son of Solomon. [It is characteristic of Rehoboam that he proposes forthwith to subdue the rebellious tribes by force. Probably he had no idea to what extent the tribes would prove disloyal.] 1 Kings 12:22 But the word of God came unto Shemaiah [This part of the history is probably derived from the "book" which this prophet wrote (2 Chronicles 12:15). When Keil describes him as "a prophet who is not mentioned again," he has surely overlooked 2 Chronicles 12:7, 2 Chronicles 12:8, where we find him prophesying with reference to the army of Shishak], the man of God [a common expression in the books of Kings. It rarely occurs in the other Scriptures. This designation is not altogether synonymous with "prophet." It is used, for example, of angels (Judges 13:6, Judges 13:8), of Moses (Deuteronomy 33:1), and of David (2 Chronicles 8:14), and would embrace any minister or servant of God, while נָבִיא is restricted to the teaching order. There were false prophets, but no false men of God. It is also worth considering whether the name of prophet may not have been practically restricted to, or bestowed by preference on, those who had received a prophetic training, the "sons of the prophets" who had been taught in the schools. Cf. 1 Samuel 10:5-12; 1 Samuel 19:20; Amos 7:14], saying. 1 Kings 12:23 Speak unto Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, king of Judah, and unto all the house of Judah and Benjamin; and to the remnant of the people ["the children of Israel" mentioned in 1 Kings 12:17, where see note], saying. 1 Kings 12:24 Thus saith the Lord, Ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren [a timely reminder of the unity of the race, notwithstanding the division of the kingdom] the children of Israel: return every man to his house: for this thing [i.e; the division, rupture] is [lit; was] from me. [A prophet of Judah now confirms what a prophet of Israel had already announced]. They hearkened therefore unto the word of the Lord, and returned [not "because they probably saw that a war with the numerically greater, and just now bitterly excited, ten tribes would bring them into a worse condition still" (Bהhr), but because of the "word of the Lord." It was the remonstrance of the prophet alone restrained them. They knew their numerical inferiority before, but they nevertheless mustered for battle] to depart [a common Hebraism. The phrase in 2 Chronicles 11:4, יָשׁוּבוּ מִלֶּכֶת "they returned from going," was probably designed as an explanation], according to the word of the Lord. At this point the Vat. LXX. inserts along addition, which differs from, and indeed contradicts, the Hebrew text in some important particulars. Rehoboam is represented as 16 years of age (Hebrews 40), as reigning 12 years (Hebrews 17); his mother is Naanan (Heb. Naamah), and is the daughter of Ana, son of Nahash, king of Ammon. Jeroboam is described as son of Sarira, a harlot. He is appointed by Solomon superintendent of the levy of Ephraim, and builds for him a city Sarira, and also completes the circumvallation of Jerusalem. He has 300 chariots and aims at royalty. Solomon seeking to slay him, he flees to Shishak, king of Egypt, who treats him with distinction, giving him the sister of his own wife in marriage. Here his son Abijah is born, when Rehoboam has been, something like a year upon the throne. After his birth, Jeroboam asks a second time to be released: he returns to his own country, takes up his abode at Sarira, fortifies it, and gathers the tribe of Ephraim round him. Here Abijah falls sick, and the visit to the prophet, narrated in 2 Chronicles 14:1-15; takes place. The child dies; there is general mourning, after which Jeroboam goes to Shechem, and collects the tribes. Here the prophet Shemaiah (not Ahijah) tears a new garment in twelve pieces, gives him ten, and promises him the dominion over ten tribes. After which follow the events of 2 Chronicles 14:5 -24 of this chapter. The great circumstantiality of this narrative has led some scholars—Dean Stanley among them—to prefer it before the Hebrew version. But its details will not bear careful examination, and there is little doubt that it is a compilation of later date. Its untrustworthiness has been well shown among others by Rawlinson, Speaker’s Commentary in loc. But he omits to notice what is perhaps its strongest condemnation, viz; that this LXX. addition is in conflict with the LXX. (and Hebrews) text of 2 Chronicles 11:1-23. The account of Jeroboam’s marriage with the sister of the queen, e.g; is manifestly a variation of the history of Hadad (2 Chronicles 11:1-23. 2 Chronicles 11:19; see also 2 Chronicles 11:22). Nor does it harmonize with the preceding history of this chapter, as given by the LXX. 1 Kings 12:13-15 Judicial Infatuation. It is impossible to read this history of the great rebellion, even at the present day, without a certain feeling of sadness. We see here a young prince, heir to one of the greatest empires of antiquity, the inheritor of an illustrious and unequalled name, with all the advantages which the glory and greatness of his father could give him, reaping the benefits of a long peace, his coffers full of money, his cities filled with all manner of store, his fleets ploughing the sea, his army guarding his frontier; we see him wantonly flinging these singular advantages away from him, and absolutely courting his own destruction and the dismemberment of his kingdom. We see a position which has had but few, if any, parallels recklessly sacrificed for the lack of a few conciliatory words. It needed but the slenderest modicum of common sense and all would have gone well. He had but to stoop for one day in order to conquer forever (1 Kings 12:7). But no; we hear him instead hurling opprobrious words at the spokesmen of the ten tribes, and forthwith the land is ablaze with insurrection. He madly talks of the might of his little finger, of whips and scorpions, and from that hour his kingdom is divided; the holy people are ranged under hostile banners, and the way is opened for the schism in the Church. We talk sometimes of men who dance on the edge of a volcano, and we have read of Nero fiddling while Rome was burning, but it may be questioned whether history affords a more pitiable instance of folly and infatuation than this. And it was such infatuation that we can hardly resist the conclusion that it was, somehow, retributive and judicial. "Who would not have looked any whither for the cause of this evil, rather than to heaven? Yet the holy God challenges it to Himself" (Bp. Hall). "The cause was from the Lord." It is well that we should understand, however, that this gross infatuation was only one out of many factors which produced the disruption. The division of the kingdom—the first act in the long drama of retribution for the sin of Solomon—was to a large extent the natural result of the rule and policy of Solomon. No doubt of all the causes of revolt the prophecy of Ahijah was the most influential. It was that "beginning" which, as Aristotle sagely remarks, is often the larger half. Possibly but for that, Israel’s "winter of discontent" would have been "made glorious by the summer sun" of the accession of a young prince. Probably but for that, Jeroboam would never have "lifted up his hand against the king." But we must not shut our eyes to the fact that the people had had a "heavy yoke" to hear. Rehoboam himself confessed to this (1 Kings 12:14). It is idle to say that their demands betray a foregone conclusion to revolt. The contrary is distinctly implied in 1 Kings 12:4, 1 Kings 12:7. Nor is it the fact that the rebellion was wholly due to the jealousy of Ephraim, for that proud tribe had readily acquiesced in the supremacy of Judah during the reign of David. Indeed, the rebellion is almost inexplicable, except on the supposition that, the people had suffered real hardships, and carried heavy burdens during Solomon s reign. Men do not soon forget the glories of such an empire as his, and do not wantonly tear it asunder, and reduce it to impotence, unless they have had substantial grievances. But in this case, so many were their grounds of disaffection that, remembering that Jeroboam, who no doubt appeared to them in the light of a champion and tribune of the people, was in reserve, should they need his services, it only needed the infatuation of Rehoboam to kindle the smouldering embers of discontent into a flame. And when we see in this inconceivable infatuation the immediate cause of the disruption, we must still remember how it was that Rehoboam came to be capable of such egregious folly. Are we to suppose that he was expressly blinded for the occasion? Is it implied that, like Saul, an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him, or that, like Ahab, he was the victim of heaven-sent delusions? Is it not rather enough to believe that he was simply left to himself, to be the sport of his own folly and pride? His infatuation would still be judicial, if we saw in it, not the strange perversity of a moment, but the spontaneous outcome of his birth and education. Indeed, in that case, it would be still more conspicuously the just and appropriate retribution for his father’s sin. It was because of Solomon’s foreign wives, and the idolatries which, with his sanction, they practised, that Solomon’s empire was to be torn from his son (1 Kings 11:33). And now we find that the dismemberment of this empire was brought about by the son of one of these strange women—the child of an unregenerate Ammonitess. It has been said that "every great man is the son of his mother."£ The same remark might be made of every great fool. It was probably because Naamah was what she was that Rehoboam was what he was. "The two worst men in my parish," said a clergyman, "are what their mothers have made them." We could not expect much character, not to speak of wisdom, in Solomon’s mistresses, who were chosen for their charms, and whoso cloistered life, amid the intrigues, and follies, and pettinesses of the harem, did not fit them to be the mothers of kings. What knowledge of the world or of men, what honour, what common sense could we hope to find in one brought up under such influences? The hearing of Rehoboam is precisely the bearing we should expect as the result of the training of an Eastern harem. It appears, consequently, that we may justly regard his infatuation as judicial, not so much in the sense of being inspired for the moment, but as being the natural consequence of his parents’ folly and sin. But let us now consider what shape this same infatuation took: let us separate it into its constituent parts, that we may the better understand Rehoboam’s character, and see the workings of his mind. Observe— I. HIS ENTIRE OF DANGER. There were not wanting, to those who could read the signs of the times, many indications of peril. It was a "significant hint" that Shechem had been selected for his coronation; that the tribes insisted on a conference; that instead of acclamations he was met with stipulations. It was a presage of danger that their first words to Solomon’s son, to David’s grandson, were of a "heavy yoke" and a grievous burden. It was still more ominous that Jeroboam had already raised the standard of revolt, and that this arch rebel—according to the received text, but see on 1 Kings 12:3, 1 Kings 12:20—was present among the malcontents. Even if he had not at that time been recalled from Egypt, still Rehoboam knew full well that he was there, and ready to rebel again if opportunity offered. All these were mutterings of the coming storm, and no one who was not a fool could have failed to perceive their import. II. HIS AND . Bishop Hall observes that his stipulating top three days in which to consider their demand was the only word he spoke which argued wisdom. Matthew Henry, on the other hand, thinks that it was "impolitic to take time to consider," and it may well be doubted whether this was not really a false and dangerous move. Had he bluntly refused all concessions and laid hands on the ringleaders, it is very probable that such a display of energy would have quelled the spirit of insurrection. Or had he graciously and instantly promised a redress of their grievances, he would have preserved his crown. But this delay was dangerous. It set them a-thinking what they would do in case of a refusal. A Fabian policy has saved some states, no doubt; but how many has it destroyed? And if, as has been suggested (on verse 5), the object of the three days’ delay was that he might summon his young companions to his side, its unwisdom is still more apparent. III. HIS PRIDE AND . It was pride, not mental incapacity, led him to reject the counsel of the old men and seek for further advice. It was because it went against the grain to be a "servant," even for one day. That they should have presumed to ask concessions, or to parley with him at all, was an offence in his eyes. It is easy to read his vexation between the lines. With his high-flown notions of Divine right, with the characteristic contempt of an autocrat for the masses, it was mortifying to find his subjects bandying words with him. We may be pretty sure that, had the old men advised "whips of scorpions," etc; we should have heard of no further consultation. The pride of Solomon and the pretensions of Naamah reappear in their son. IV. HIS FOLLY. This, which is conspicuous all the way through, is especially manifest in (1) his turning to the young men for advice, and (2) in his taking it in preference to that of the old men. We might also instance the threats to which he stooped, and the mission of Adoram, but these come more appropriately under— V. HIS AND . Had he wished to provoke a rebellion, he could not have taken more effectual means to secure the end. "I will add to your yoke." "I will chastise you with scorpions." What cry could he possibly expect in return, except a war cry, such as he presently heard? If he had meant to punish, he should surely have held his tongue and used his hands. To boast of what he would do is like the Chinese warrior, who thinks to disperse his enemies by a ferocious shout. And to send Adoram, not to make overtures of peace—Rehoboam’s folly would hardly go so far as to select him for such a mission—but, as it would seem, to collect tribute or to make a show of his authority, why, if he had designed to make the breach irreparable, and to stamp out the last faint hope of reconciliation, he could not have done more. It was the act of a spoilt child, it was the coming out in the flesh of what was bred in the bone. Amongst the lessons this history teaches are these: (1) The sins of the fathers are visited upon the children, and that by the operation of so called natural laws. (2) That God uses the folly, as well as the wrath, of man to praise Him. (3) That if a fool be brayed in a mortar with a pestle, yet will not his foolishness depart from him, (4) That the mother has the marring or the making of her child in her hands. (5) That, "A pebble in the streamlet’s source, Hath turned the course of many a river; A dewdrop on the baby plant, Hath warped the giant oak forever." BY J.A. 1 Kings 12:1-5 The Dead and the Living. "The king is dead; long live the king!" This paradox expresses an important truth. Bathsheba recognized it when David on his deathbed promised her that Solomon, her son, should succeed him on the throne, and she said, "Let my lord king David live forever" (1 Kings 1:31). I. SOLOMON IS DEAD. 1. His active form is no longer seen. (1) He "slept with his fathers" (1 Kings 11:43). He has stiffened into a corpse. Perfectly passive now! What a moral! The doom of all Work while it is day. (2) He was "buried in the city of David his father." He had a royal funeral. But all this state was simply to bury him—to put him out of sight. Much wisdom is buried alive in state display. (3) Jeroboam may now return from Egypt. The protection of Shishak is no longer needed. Human wrath has its limitations. Not so Divine wrath (see Matthew 10:28). 2. Where is the disembodied spirit? (1) Not extinct. Not in stupor. The term "sleep" relates to the body. It anticipates for it an awaking—a resurrection. (2) Stirring in the world of spirits as it stirred when embodied in this world of matter. (3) What a world is that! How populous! How darkly veiled! yet how interesting to us who are on our way thither! II. BUT HE IN . This fact is the ground of— 1. Rehoboam’s claim to the throne. (1) He is Solomon’s representative. This is more than a law phrase. Had he not been the son of Solomon he would not have been invited to Shechem. We inherit responsibilities. (2) Solomon lives in Rehoboam with a potency to move "all Israel." See the nation from Dan to Beersheba, under this influence, streaming down to Shechem. 2. The nation’s suit to the claimant. (1) In this they recognise the claim of Solomon’s representative to the crown. (2) Also that he may likewise oppress them as Solomon had done (see 1 Kings 4:7, 1 Kings 4:22; 1 Kings 9:15). From Solomon’s oppressions they seek of Solomon, in Rehoboam, relief. (3) How history verifies prophecy (see 1 Samuel 8:10-18). III. SO , HIS IS . 1. A new individual appears. (1) Rehoboam is not the facsimile of Solomon. He is indeed the son of a wise man; but the son, not of his wisdom, but of his folly. His mother was an Ammonitess. This fact is emphasised, according to the Hebrew style, by being stated and restated (1 Kings 14:21, 1 Kings 14:31). (2) His character is the resultant of the influences of Solomon, of Naamah, and of those which also flowed into the current of his life during the apostasy of his father. He became the impersonation of these various moral forces. (3) The influence of Solomon in Rehoboam, therefore, is considerably modified. Parents are to a large extent responsible not only for their own direct influence upon the character of their children, but also for the contemporary influences to which they allow them to be exposed. 2. New relationships have therefore to be formed. (1) The people suffered the imposts of Solomon while he lived. They grew upon them by degrees, and brought with them a system of vested interests. The whole system became so crystallized around the person of the king that it was difficult to obtain relief. (2) Now Solomon is dead all this is loosened, and the opportunity is given for the nation to remonstrate. They are prompt to improve it. (3) Jeroboam is not only present now, which he would not have been had Solomon lived, but is made the spokesman of the people. (4) Rehoboam confesses the force of these altered circumstances in listening to the suit, and taking time to deliberate upon the nature of his reply. The value of influences is a most profitable subject for Christian consideration; present—posthumous (see 2 Peter 1:15).—M. 1 Kings 12:6-11 Israel’s Magna Charta. The question submitted to Rehoboam at Shechem concerned the constitution of the monarchy. Hitherto there had been no constitution defining the rights of the people and limiting the power of the crown. Rehoboam took three days to deliberate upon the people’s Bill of Rights, and in that interval took counsel. The old men who stood before Solomon advised concession, while the young ones, who had grown up with him, recommended resistance. Wisdom was with the ancients. I. LIMITED IS BEST FOR THE PEOPLE. 1. Because it recognises their rights. (1) The people do not exist for the king. They may be governed as republic without a king. (2) But the king exists for the people. Where no people are there can be no king. (3) For a king, therefore, to use the people simply for his own aggrandisement and ignore their rights is preposterous (Jeremiah 2:14). 2. respects their happiness. (1) Since the people collectively are of more importance than an individual monarch, the haughty bearing of a monarch is out of place. So the sages counselled Rehoboam to "serve" the people and "speak good words to them." (2) The interests of a good king will be bound up with the happiness of his subjects, and he cannot reasonably object to a constitution that will recognise this community of interests. II. IT IS BEST ALSO FOR THE PRINCE. 1. It encourages his virtues. (1) It does this by limiting his extravagance. Solomon would have been far happier had his people been saved the charge of building palaces for, and sustaining in state, seven hundred princesses and three hundred concubines. (2) For what would be necessary to sustain his rank a constitutional king might trust the good sense of his people. At Shechem they did not seek exemption from taxation, but relief from its excesses. They knew that it would not be to the credit of a great people to pauperise their prince. 2. It gives stability to his throne. (1) "They will be thy servants forever." Such was the manner in which this was expressed by the sages. It will be their interest to be so. Gratitude also will bind them. The loyalty of love is stronger and more enduring than that of fear. This is the loyalty which the gospel claims, and the constancy of the subjects of the kingdom of Christ is witnessed in s million martyrdoms. (2) Who rules over a loving people may be tranquil. He need not fear the poniard of the assassin. (This is the paradise of tyrants!) He will have the joy of ruling over a happy nation. The typical constitutional monarch is the father of his people. III. OF TYRANNY SCORN TO REASON. 1. The young counsellors give no reasons. (1) This method they leave to the ancients. For reasons they substitute smart speech. "Thus shalt thou say unto them, My little finger shall be thicker than my father’s loins." Pertness too often has displaced reason. (2) Why should reasons be given by one who claims a Divine right to act as he pleases? 2. But may there not be a benevolant autocracy? (1) Certainly. And if this can be guaranteed, together with competent wisdom, then there is no better government. For is not this the very idea of the government of God? (2) But who can guarantee this in human kingdoms? The people certainly are as likely to know what is for their welfare as the majority of their kings. (3) What if the autocrat should prove a fool? What if he should prove a devil? Would not a kingdom in this case be a hell upon earth? (4) Rehoboam seems to have combined the satanic and the foolish. Lost the greater part of his kingdom; reigned over the remnant wickedly. Christians should pray for their rulers. They should bless God for their liberties.—M. 1 Kings 12:12-15 Infatuation. "Whom the gods mean to destroy they first infatuate." Such was the observation of a heathen philosopher; and it is true, only that the infatuators are devils, and God permits. The text furnishes a case in point. What but infatuation could have prompted Rehoboam to have acted so insanely? It is seen— I. IN HIS REFUSAL TO HEARKEN TO THE PEOPLE. 1. They assembled to honour him. (1) He was invited to Shechem to meet them that they might crown him. (2) They promised to serve him as they had served his father. They had a reservation, but— 2. Their reservation was not unreasonable. (1) They had suffered what they called a "grievous yoke" of taxation and servitude, of which they desired a relaxation. Had they not a right to demand this? Did the people exist to be the slaves of their kings? (2) They did not ask to be released from all taxation and service. They acknowledged the duty of sustaining the legitimate burdens of the state. Why, then, did he not hearken? II. IN THE ANSWER HE GAVE THEM. 1. Respecting his father’s administration. (1) He owned that his father had ruled with rigour; that he had made their yoke heavy. He put it even stronger than the complainants; that he had "chastised them with whips." (2) Might he not rather have softened it to them? He could have reminded them that Solomon had created their commerce; that their commerce had so enriched them that they might hear the taxes; that his wisdom had made the nation great and respected; that he had built their temple; that they had something for their taxes in great public works. (3) But he lacked, not only the wisdom of his father, but also the feelings of a good son. 2. Respecting his own. (1) He declares that he will rule them more oppressively than his father did; that he will increase their burdens and sting them with "scorpions"—knotted whips armed with iron points. (2) These rough and hard words were paraded and rendered more offensive by the rough and hard manner (1 Kings 12:18). (3) How gratuitous was this insolence! What but infatuation could have prompted it? It is seen— III. IN THE THE ANSWER. 1. It was deliberately given. (1) It could not claim the excuse of being uttered thoughtlessly in haste, for he had taken three days to consider it. (2) In taking these three days the tyrant betrayed the fool. It gave the people time to confer and agree upon a policy. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ THE OF THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL, AND THE SCHISM IN THE CHURCH.—The historian, after describing the great rebellion of the Jewish people, proceeds, in the rest of this chapter, to relate the measures which the new king took to secure his position. These were both external and internal. The external means were the erection of fortresses; the internal, the provision of new sanctuaries, priests, and ordinances. 1 Kings 12:25 Then Jeroboam built [i.e; rebuilt or fortified, בָּנָה naturally has both meanings] Shechem [see on 1 Kings 12:1 and on 1 Kings 14:1] in Mount Ephraim [The Har-Ephraim, or mountain district of Ephraim (in Joshua 11:16 called the "Mountain of Israel;" cf. Joshua 17:15-18; Judges 4:5; Judges 10:1; 1 Samuel 1:1), is "the central mass of the hills of Palestine, nearly equidistant from the northern and southern boundary of the whole country", and the richest and most beautiful part of the land. "The tower of Sichem had been burnt down by Abimelech and the tower of Penuel had been destroyed by Gideon, Judges 8:17" (Keil). The city of Shechem had been destroyed at the same time as the tower, but had no doubt been rebuilt, at least in part, otherwise it could hardly have been selected for Rehoboam’s coronation. It was naturally Jeroboam’s first care to strengthen his position by fortitying his capital, and the more so as this city would be particularly obnoxious to Rehoboam as the scene of the revolution; but why he should at the same time have rebuilt Penuel—Ewald thinks the seat of government was placed here—is not at first eight so obvious, as it lay beyond the Jordan (Genesis 32:22, Genesis 32:30; Genesis 33:17) and was therefore presumably outside the circle of hostilities, should such arise. Probably it was because this was the gate to his Trans-Jordanic territory. A tower commanding the fords of the Jordan would secure Reuben, Gad, etc; against invasion from Judah. It is also not unlikely that Jeroboam. who was the great castle builder of that age, had some fears of "hostile attacks from the north and northeast" (Keil), or thought of "the caravan road which led over Gilead to Damascus" (Wordsworth), and of which he would wish, for the sake of his revenue, to retain the control], and dwelt therein [He made it his first residence and capital]; and went out from thence [i.e; when he had secured one fortified city. He could hardly be certain as yet which side some of the tribes would take. It is also possible that some of the workmen who had built Shechem were afterwards employed on the fortification of Penuel], and built Penuel. [Bהhr says, "There is no doubt that he built these fortifications by tribute labour, like Solomon." But is this quite so certain? The people after the revolt would naturally conclude that Rehoboam, of whose proud temper they had had such proof, would want to wreak his vengeance on the city which had rejected him, and the instinct of self-defence would lead them at once to rebuild their walls. And the newborn kingdom would also earnestly desire to possess a suitable capital. Thus their self-interest and enthusiasm alike would obviate the necessity for a conscription.] 1 Kings 12:26 And Jeroboam said in his heart, Now shall the kingdom return to the house of David [It needed much less prescience than Jeroboam seems to have possessed to perceive that fortresses and armies would be of no avail for the defence of his realm, so long as Jerusalem remained the one sanctuary of the land. He clearly foresaw that if the people went up thither, as in time past, three times a year, to keep the feasts, the religious sentiment would in time reassert itself and sweep him and his new dynasty away. With one religion, one sanctuary, one priesthood, there could not long be two kingdoms. People who had so much in common would, sooner or later, complete the unity of their national life under a common sovereign. And we find, indeed, that so powerful were the attractions of the temple, and the religious system of which it was the centre, that "the priests and Levites that were in all Israel," together with the more devout laity, fell away to Rehoboam (2 Chronicles 11:13, 2 Chronicles 11:16), while the speech of Abijah on Mount Zemaraim (2 Chronicles 13:11), proves that others as well as Jeroboam were well aware that the old religion and the new kingdom could hardly coexist.] 1 Kings 12:27 If this people go up to do sacrifice [Heb. sacrifices] in the house of the Lord at Jerusalem [as the law of Moses ordained (Deuteronomy 12:11, Deuteronomy 12:14; Deuteronomy 16:6, Deuteronomy 16:11)], then shall the heart of this people turn again unto their lord [The Syriac omits this word. The LXX. has πρὸςΚύριονκὰικύριοναὐτῶν], even unto Rehoboam king of Judah [When Wordsworth remarks that Jeroboam "here acknowledges Rehoboam as the ’lord’ of the people," he surely forgets that these are not the actual words of Jeroboam, but the thoughts which the historian supposes him to have had (verse 26) ], and they shall kill me [as they would do, if they wished to return to Rehoboam’s rule. Their first offering would be the head of the usurper, 2 Samuel 20:20, 2 Samuel 20:21; cf. 2 Samuel 4:7], and go again [lit; turn again, same word as above] to Rehoboam king of Judah. 1 Kings 12:28 Whereupon the king took counsel ["With his counsellors, or the heads of the nation who had helped him to the throne" (Keil). Bähr understands, "he reflected about it alone" (et excogitato consilio, Vulgate), alleging that so important a circumstance as the concurrence of the heads of the people in changing the system of worship would not have been passed over in silence. But while the text does not perhaps imply any formal deliberation with the elders, it is reasonable to suppose that Jeroboam, who owed his position to popular election, and who was far too sagacious not to follow the example of Rehoboam (1 Kings 12:6, 1 Kings 12:9), would summon others to advise him as to this critical and momentous step. Wordsworth refers to Isaiah 30:1, and says that "Jeroboam is the image and pattern of Machiavellian politicians." "Next to Ahithophel, I do not find that Israel yielded a craftier head than Jeroboam’s" (Hall)], and made two calves [It is generally held that these were in imitation of, or were suggested by, the "golden calf" of Aaron (Exodus 32:2), and the close resemblance of Jeroboam’s words (below), in inaugurating this new cultus, to Aaron’s have been thought to prove it. But surely it has been overlooked that Jeroboam could hardly be so shortsighted and unwise as deliberately to reintroduce a worship which had provoked the "fierce wrath" (Isaiah 30:12) of God, and had nearly resulted in the extermination of the Jewish race. For of course neither Jeroboam nor his people could have forgotten the stern condemnation which Aaron’s calf worship had received. The molten image ground to powder, the ashes mixed in the drink of the people, the slaughter of three thousand worshippers, etc; would assuredly have lived in the memories of the nation. A more impolitic step, consequently—one more certain to precipitate his ruin, by driving the whole nation into the arms of Judah—Jeroboam could not have taken, than to attempt any revival or imitation of the forbidden cultus of the desert. And it is as little likely that the worship of the calves was derived from the worship of Apis, as practised at Memphis, or of "Mnevis, the sacred calf of Heliopolis" (Stanley), though with both of these Jeroboam had recently been in contact. It would have been but a sorry recommendation in the eyes of Israel that the first act of the new king should be to introduce the hateful idolatry of Egypt into the land; and every consideration tends to show that the calf worship was not, and was not intended to be, idolatry, such as the worship of Egypt undoubtedly was. It is always carefully distinguished from idol worship by the historians and prophets. And the idea which Jeroboam wished to give his subjects was clearly this that, so far from introducing new gods or new sanctuaries, he was merely accommodating the old worship to the new state of things. He evidently felt that what he and his house had most to fear was, not the armies of Rehoboam but the ritual and religious associations of Jerusalem. His object, if he were wise, must therefore be to provide a substitute, a counterfeit worship. "I will give you," he virtually says, "at Bethel and Dan, old sanctuaries of our race long before Jerusalem usurped their place, those visible emblems of the heavenly powers such as are now found only in the temple. You too shall possess those mysterious forms which symbolize the Invisible, but you shall have them nearer home and easier of access." There can be little doubt, consequently, that the "calves" were imitations of the colossal cherubim of Solomon’s temple, in which the ox or calf was probably the forma praecipua (1 Kings 6:23).] of gold [Hardly of solid gold. Possibly of. wood covered with gold plates, i.e; similar to the cherubim (1 Kings 6:23-28); probably of molten brass (see 1 Kings 14:9, and cf. Psalms 106:19), overlaid with gold; such images, in fact, as are described in Isaiah 40:19], and said unto them, It is too much for you [This translation, pace Keil, cannot be maintained. Nor can it be said that "the exact meaning of the original is doubtful" (Rawlinson), for a study of the passages where this phrase, רַב־לָכֶם occurs (see, e.g; Deuteronomy 1:6; Deuteronomy 2:8; Deuteronomy 3:26; and cf. Genesis 45:28; Exodus 9:28; 2 Samuel 24:16; 1 Kings 19:4) will convince the reader that it must be rendered here, "It is enough"—i.e; "you have gone long enough to a city which only owes its present position to the ambition of the tribe of Judah, and which is a standing testimony to your own inferiority; henceforth, desist." We have an exact parallel in Ezekiel 44:6; where the Authorized Version renders, "Let it suffice you." The LXX. supports this view by rendering ἱκανόυσθωὑμῖν throughout. Vulgate, nolite ultra ascendere, etc.] to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods [rather "god," for Jeroboam had no idea of introducing polytheism. It is true he made two calves because of his two sanctuaries, but each was designed to represent the same object—the one God of Israel. The word is translated, gods" in Exodus 32:1, Exodus 32:4, Exodus 32:8, Exodus 32:23, Exodus 32:31; but as the reference is in every case to the one calf, it should be translated "god" there also. In Nehemiah’s citation of the words (Nehemiah 9:18), the word is unmistakably singular. "This is thy god," etc. The words are not "exactly the same as the people used when setting up the golden calf" (Bähr). Jeroboam says, "Behold," etc.], O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. [It is at first sight somewhat difficult to resist the view, which is generally entertained, that Jeroboam, of set purpose, cited the ipsissima verba of the Israelites in the desert (Exodus 32:4). But a little reflection will show that it is much more difficult to believe that a monarch, circumstanced as Jeroboam was, could at the very outset of his career have acted in the teeth of history, and have committed the gross blunder, not to say wanton outrage, of deliberately connecting his new cult with the calf worship of the desert. He can hardly have dared, that is, to say, "This is no new religion, for this very form of worship our fathers used formerly in the desert, under the guidance of Aaron himself" (Seb. Schmidt, followed by Keil, al.) unless both he and his people alike—which is inconceivable—were ignorant of their nation’s history recorded in Exodus 32:19-35. It has been argued by some that this action of Jeroboam and the ready compliance of the ten tribes, prove that the Pentateuch cannot then have been written. But, as Hengstenberg (cited by Wordsworth) rejoins, the same argument would lead to the conclusion that the Bible could not have been written in the dark ages, or, we might add, even at the present day. He can hardly have claimed, that is to say, to be reintroducing the calf worship, which God had so emphatically reprobated, unless he designed an open defiance of the Most High, and wished to shock all the religious instincts and convictions of his people. It is much more natural, consequently, to suppose, considering the very frequent recurrence, though sometimes in slightly different shapes, of the formula "the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt" (Exodus 20:2; Exodus 29:45, Exodus 29:46; Leviticus 19:36; 23:43; Exodus 25:38; Exodus 26:13, 45; Numbers 15:41; Numbers 16:13; Numbers 20:16; Deuteronomy 5:6, Deuteronomy 5:15; Deuteronomy 6:12; Deuteronomy 8:14; Deuteronomy 9:26; Joshua 24:6, Joshua 24:17; Judges 6:8; 1 Samuel 8:8; 1 Samuel 10:18; 1 Kings 8:21, etc.) that the correspondence is accidental, the more so as Jeroboam does not quote the exact words, and that he has used a phrase which was constantly in their ears, insisting thereby that his calves were emblems of the God of their race, the God whose great glory it was that He had taken their nation out of the midst of another nation, etc. (Deuteronomy 4:34), and delivered them from a thraldom with which, perhaps, the tyranny of Rehoboam is indirectly compared. Or it there was any reference to the golden calf, it must have been depreciatory, as if to say," That was rank idolatry, and as such it was punished. That calf was an image of Apis. My calves are cherubic symbols, symbols such as He has Himself appointed, of the Great Deliverer of our race. Behold thy God, which really brought thee up," etc.] 1 Kings 12:29 And he set the one in Bethel, and the other put he in Daniel [Two considerations seem to have influenced Jeroboam in his choice of these sites. First, both these places were in some sort sanctuaries already. Bethel was already a makom, or holy place, in the days of Abraham; was consecrated by the visions and altar of Jacob (Genesis 28:11-19; Genesis 31:13; Genesis 35:1, Genesis 35:7, Genesis 35:15), and by the ark having been there (Judges 20:26-28, Hebrews; cf. Jos; Ant; 5.2. 10). And though Dan (Joshua 19:47; Judges 18:29; Judges 20:1) can hardly have had as sacred a character as the "house of God and the gate of heaven" (Genesis 28:17) had, still it had its shrine and its schismatic priesthood. A grandson of Moses (Judges 18:13, true reading) had ministered there, and his sons were the priests of Dan still. Secondly, these localities would suit the convenience of his subjects, being respectively at the southern and northern extremities of the kingdom. And this, no doubt, was one reason why Dan was chosen in preference to other places, such as Shiloh, which, though more sacred, were less conveniently situated. A sanctuary at Dan would save the northern tribes many tedious journeys. It should be remarked that Bethel properly belonged to Benjamin (Joshua 18:13, Joshua 18:22), though it was also on the border of Ephraim; and it has been suggested that it was Jeroboam’s selection of this place as a seat of the calf worship decided the tribe of Benjamin to follow the lead of Judah. But the narrative seems to imply that their choice had been made at an earlier period (verse 21), and the city would seem to have been long in the possession of the house of Joseph (Judges 1:22). It is now known as Beitin, and is one of the most naked and dreary spots in Palestine. "The place seems, as it were, turned to stone; and we can well imagine that the patriarch found nothing softer than a stone for his pillow." Conder, p. 252, who suggests that from the time of Abraham Bethel was a מָקוֹם, a sacred place merely (Genesis 28:11), and distinct from the adjoining city of Luz (verse 19).] 1 Kings 12:30 And this thing became a sin [It was in itself sinful, for it both set at nought the express prohibition of the Decalogue (Exodus 20:4), and also disregarded the one sanctuary of God’s choice (Deuteronomy 12:5). And it led to other sins, e.g; the intrusion of a schismatic and irregular priesthood, and the performance of unauthorized rites, and to "an ever-deepening corruption of the national faith" (Ewald). Cf. Hosea 8:5; Hosea 13:2. But the meaning is, it became an occasion of sin to the people ("Quod fuit postea causa gravissimi peccati"—Vatab.) Jeroboam "made Israel to sin" (1 Kings 14:16; 1 Kings 15:26, etc.) It is difficult to conceive, in the face of these and similar words, how any one can seriously maintain that "the church of Israel was the national church" (Stanley, 2:264) ]: for the people went to worship before the one even unto Dan. [The people frequented both sanctuaries; why, then, is that at Dan especially mentioned? Some (Rawlinson, e.g.) have suggested that the text is here corrupt, and that we should read, "before the one to Bethel, and before the other to Dan." According to others, "the one" (הָאֶחַד) refers to the double הָאֶחַד ("the one," "the other"); cf. verse 29. They would interpret, that is, "the people went to both, even to the distant Dan" (Bהhr, Thenius). Keil would force the text and understand, "the people, even unto Dan," i.e; the people throughout the whole kingdom. Similarly, Wordsworth. Ewald understands "before the one" to mean כְזֶחַד i.e; "as one," sc. man. On the whole it is better to take the words as they stand, literally. It is quite conceivable that, at first, the people resorted almost exclusively to the Danite sanctuary. Having been for long years a seat of worship, and having probably its "house of high places," or temple (see below), already built, it would naturally be in a position to receive worshippers some time before Bethel was prepared for that purpose. Jeroboam’s offering in person at Bethel (verse 32) which marks the inauguration of his new ritual there, may have been partly designed to attract worshippers to a shrine, which, as being nearer Jerusalem, or for some other reason, was neglected. But the verse is patient of another interpretation. It may intend to convey that the rebellious tribes, in their defiant disregard of the old order of things, the order now represented by a hostile kingdom, went en masse to the opposite point of the compass, even to the unhallowed and hitherto despised sanctuary of the Danites. The LXX. (Vat.) addition here is noticeable, "And they forsook the house of the Lord."] 1 Kings 12:31 And he made an house of high places [See on 1 Kings 3:2, and cf. 2 Kings 17:29. It is often assumed (Keil, Rawlinson, al. after Josephus) that Jeroboam built two temples for his cherubim, and the statement of the text, that he built one, is explained on the ground that the historian contrasts the "house of high places" with the "house of the Lord." Ewald, too, after 2 Kings 17:29, 2 Kings 17:32, understands the words as plural. But is it not more probable that a chapel or sanctuary already existed at Dan, where an irregular priesthood had ministered for more than four hundred years? This verse would then refer exclusively to Jeroboam’s procedure at Bethel (see next verse). There he built a temple and ordained a number of priests, but Dan had both already. We know that the Danite priests carried on the calf worship to the time of the captivity (Judges 18:30). This "house of high places" has grown in Ewald’s pages into "a splendid temple in Canaanite style"], and made priests of the lowest of the people [Heb. מִקְצוֹת "from the ends," i.e; from all classes, ex universe populo (Gesen.), and not, as the writer explains presently, from the tribe of Levi alone. Genesis 19:4, Judges 18:2, Ezekiel 33:2, prove this to be the correct interpretation of the word. Rawlinson, who remarks that "Jeroboam could have no motive for specially selecting persons of low condition," does not thereby dispose of the A.V. rendering, for the historian might mean that some of Jeroboam’s priests were of the lowest stamp, because he could find no others, or because he was so little scrupulous as to take them. "Leaden priests are well fitted to folder. deities" (Hall)], which were not of the sons of Levi. [Jeroboam would doubtless have been only too glad to have retained the services of the Levitical priests, but they went over in a body to Rehoboam (2 Chronicles 11:13). The statement of Eze 33:14, that, "Jeroboam and his sons" had "cast them out," suggests that they had refused to take part in his new cult and that thereupon he banished them, and, no doubt, confiscated their possessions. The idea of Stanley, that "following the precedent of the deposition of Abiathar by Solomon, he removed from their places the whole of the sacerdotal order," is a wild conjecture for which Scripture affords not the slightest warrant.] 1 Kings 12:32 And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah [i.e; the Feast of Tabernacles, which was held on the 15th of the seventh month (of. 1 Kings 8:2). This was the great feast of the year, and, as the feast of harvest or ingathering, the most joyous. See on 1 Kings 8:1. Had Jeroboam provided no counter attraction to this great festive gathering in Judah he might have found it a formidable temptation to his subjects. The reason usually given for the alteration of the time—in defiance of the law, which expressly fixed it in the seventh month (Leviticus 23:34, 39, 41)—is that the eighth would be more generally convenient in the north, where the harvest or vintage was a month later (Then; Keil), as affording more time for the ingathering. In favour of this view is the consideration that the Jews not unfrequently had to intercalate a month—a second Adar—into their year, because of the season being a late one. Some of the older commentators, e.g; Vatab; think this time was chosen as the anniversary of his secession, but this is pure conjecture, and such an association would be contrary to the genius of the Hebrew people. Keil maintains that Jeroboam’s design was to "make the separation, in a religious point of view, as complete as possible." But we can hardly be expected to believe that he altered the month, for the sake of creating a distinction, but "retained the day of the month, the fifteenth, for the sake of the weak who took offence at his innovations" (Keil). The day was retained, as Bהhr points out, because, the months being lunar, the fifteenth was the day of the full moon], and he offered [Heb. as marg; "and he went up," i.e; ascended the altar; LXX. ἀνέβη. the altar was always raised. It was probably approached by s slope, as Exodus 20:26 forbade steps, though it is by no means certain that they were not used even in Solomon’s temple, and Jeroboam probably would have no scruples on such a minute point of ritual. It has been thought (Kitto, 4:147) that he was moved to officiate in person by the precedent of the Egyptian kings, who exercised priestly functions; but it is much more probable that he was guided by the example of Solomon at the dedication of the temple] upon [i.e; he stood upon the ledge or platform (called in the A.V. "compass," Exodus 27:5) in the middle of the altar] the altar. So did he in Bethel [i.e; the feast was held at one centre only, and at Bethel alone the king offered in person. But I venture to suggest that instead of כֵן, "so did he," etc; we should read כִי. The LXX. seem to have had this word before them—ἐπὶτὸθυσιαστήριονὃεποίησενἐνβαιθὴλ. And not only does this slight change bring the Hebrew into harmony with the LXX; but it also simplifies the construction. "He went up upon the altar which he made to sacrifice unto the calves which he made." The very tautology is instructive, as suggesting that altar, calves, and priests were all of Jeroboam’s making, not of God’s ordaining. The use of כי as a relative (= אֲשֶׁר) is strictly grammatical], sacrificing [marg; to sacrifice] unto the calves that he had made: and he placed in Bethel [Dan being already provided with its priesthood] the priests of the high places [i.e; of "the house of high places" (verse 31). Or it may be a contemptuous designation of Jeroboam’s irregular priests] which he had made. 1 Kings 12:33 So he offered [Heb. went up, as before. This verse is really the introduction to the history of the next chapter] upon the altar which he had made in Bethel the fifteenth day of the eighth month, even in the month which he had devised [Josephus (Ant. 7.8. 5) seems unaware that this new feast was kept at a different date from the true Feast of Tabernacles. But these words are decisive] of his own heart [The Cethib has מִלְּבֹּד by which Maurer and Keil understand מִלְּבַד ("seoreum." But qu.) But the Keri מִלּבּוֹ is every way to be preferred, So LXX; ἀπὸκαρδίαςαὑτοῦ. Similarly, Nehemiah 6:8]; and ordered [rather, kept, celebrated] a feast unto [Heb. for] the children of Israel: and he offered [went up] upon the altar, and burnt incense [Heb. to burn, etc. The context seems to imply that it was not incense, or not incense only, but the sacrifice, or sacrificial parts of the victim, that the king burned. See on 1 Kings 13:3 (דֶּשֶׁן). And this meaning is justified by Leviticus 1 Kings 1:9, 1 Kings 1:17; 1 Samuel 2:16; Amos 4:5, where the same word is used. It cannot be denied, however, that the word is generally used of incense, and it is very probable that both this and sacrifices were offered by Jeroboam on the same altar (cf. 1 Kings 11:8). We may perhaps see in Jeroboam’s ministering in person, not only the design to invest the new ordinance with exceptional interest and splendour, but also the idea of encouraging his new priests to enter on their unauthorized functions with. out fear. The history, or even the traditions, of Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10:1-20.) and of Korah and his company (Numbers 16:40), and the threatenings of the law (Numbers 18:7, Numbers 18:22, cf. 2 Chronicles 26:20), may well have made them hesitate. To allay their fears the king undertakes to offer the first of the sacrifices. And that their fears of a Divine interposition were not groundless the sequel shows.] 1 Kings 12:30 The Sin of Jeroboam. What was this sin, of which, from this time forward, the historian has so much to say? It is mentioned more than twenty times in Scripture. It casts its dark shadow across fifteen reigns of the kings of Israel. Its baleful influences were felt for more than two and a half centuries. It was the prime cause (2 Kings 17:21-28) of that captivity from which the ten tribes have never returned. Surely we ought to know what it was. And as one help to a right conclusion, let us first clearly understand what it was not. I. IT WAS NOT THE SIN OF . There may have been sin in the way which the rupture with Judah was brought about (see 2 Chronicles 13:6, 2 Chronicles 13:7), though that is by no means certain (notes on 1 Kings 12:19, 1 Kings 12:20). But even if Israel was set upon rebellion, and even if Jeroboam had rudely and wickedly precipitated the revolt, that cannot be "the sin" of which he is here and elsewhere accused. For, in the first place, later kings could not be held responsible for Jeroboam’s conduct at the time of the disruption, i.e; they could not commit that sin of Jeroboam; and, secondly, the disruption itself was ordained of God (1 Kings 11:31 sqq.; 1 Kings 12:15; 2 Chronicles 11:4). 1 Kings 12:15, too, is decisive. "The cause was from the Lord." Those who sate on Jeroboam’s throne, consequently, no less than the successors of Solomon, reigned de jure Divino. The former equally with the latter were the anointed of Heaven (2 Kings 9:3, 2 Kings 9:6). It was the Lord "raised up" (1 Kings 14:14) Baasha (1 Kings 15:28, 1 Kings 15:29), Zimri (1 Kings 16:12), Jehu (2 Kings 9:6), and the rest. II. IT WAS NOT THE SIN OF GOING AFTER OTHER GODS. If this were the sin referred to here it would probably have been called "the sin of Solomon," for Solomon is twice charged with that sin (1 Kings 11:4, 1 Kings 11:10), whereas Jeroboam never went after Baal, or Ashtoreth, or Milcom. It is true the calves are once called "other gods" (1 Kings 14:9), but they are only so called in derision, and in 1 Kings 16:31 the sin of Jeroboam is expressly distinguished from the worship of other gods. It was probably Jeroboam’s boast (see note on 1 Kings 16:28), not that he was instituting a new religion, or setting up a rival Deity, but that he was worshipping the one true God in a more rational and primitive way. See Jos; Ant. 8. 8.4. And that the calf. worship was not idolatry, properly so called, is clear from this consideration, that "the sin of Jeroboam" is confined to the kingdom of Israel. Not one of the kings of Judah is ever taxed with it. And yet it was in Judah, and not in Israel, that idolatry prevailed. Of the kings of Israel, only Ahab and his two sons were guilty of idolatry; whereas of the kings of Judah only five set their faces against it. Yet the non-idolatrous kings of Israel are constantly charged with Jeroboam’s sin, and the idolatrous kings of Judah never. Polytheism, therefore, it cannot have been. III. IT WAS NOT THE SIN OF IMAGE WORSHIP. The calves were not made to be worshipped, any more than the cherubim of Solomon’s temple. Nor do we read that they received Divine worship. "The people went to worship before the one," etc. The Scripture, it is true, calls them "molten images," but Jeroboam doubtless said they were symbols of the heavenly powers, designed (like the images of the Roman Communion) to be helps to devotion, and they are nowhere called "idols," or "horrors," or "statues." We entirely misconceive Jeroboam’s purpose, and discredit his sagacity, if we think that he had the worship of Apis or Mnevis or any similar idol in his mind. The last thing that would occur to him would be to set up a purely pagan system amongst such a people as the Jews. His was not the sin of idol worship. What, then, was it? I. IT WAS THE SIN OF HERESY. For "heresy" in the original meaning of the word simply implied an arbitrary selection of doctrines or practices—αἵρεσις = a choosing—instead of dutifully accepting those which God has enjoined. This is precisely what Jeroboam did. Instead of taking and handing down to his successors, whole and undefiled, the "faith once delivered," he presumed to modify it; to adapt it, as he thought, to the new order of things, etc. His heresy was threefold. 1. He chose his own places of worship. God had ordained that there should be one sanctuary for the whole nation. Both the law of Moses and the history of Israel alike taught that the religious centre of the nation should be one. From an early age it was predicted that God would choose Himself a place to put His name there (Deuteronomy 12:13, Deuteronomy 12:14; Deuteronomy 14:23). And this Divine choice had been recently and unmistakably made. He "chose not the tribe of Ephraim, but chose the tribe of Judah, the Mount Zion which He loved." And He built His "sanctuary," etc. (Psalms 78:67-69; cf. Psalms 132:18, Psalms 132:14). At the dedication of this sanctuary this choice had been publicly proclaimed (1 Kings 8:10, 1 Kings 8:11; 2 Chronicles 7:2, 2 Chronicles 7:12, 2 Chronicles 7:16). The whole nation then understood that God had "chosen Jerusalem to put His name there." And Jeroboam was aware of this, and was also aware that the division of the kingdom was to make no difference as to the oneness or the position of the sanctuary. To prevent misconception he was twice reminded in the message of Ahijah, his charter to the crown, that Jerusalem was "the city which God had chosen out of all the tribes of Israel" (1 Kings 11:32, 1 Kings 11:33). It was to be in the future, as it had been in the past, the one place of incense and sacrifice. And that Jeroboam knew it, his own thoughts (1 Kings 12:26, 1 Kings 12:27) reveal to us. "If this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of the Lord at Jerusalem." He is quite clear, then—indeed, he could not be otherwise—as to the place of God’s choice. But that place, he argues, will not do for him. Political considerations demand that he shall find a religious centre elsewhere. So he "takes counsel," and decrees ex mero arbitrio that Israel shall have three holy places instead of one, and that Bethel and Dan shall henceforward divide the honours hitherto enjoyed by Jerusalem. 2. He chose his own modes of worship. Though the way in which God should be approached had been prescribed, though every detail of the Divine service had been ordered beforehand, and though he had been warned against adding aught to it or diminishing aught from it (Deuteronomy 4:2; Deuteronomy 12:1-32:382), yet he decided otherwise. Perhaps he persuaded himself that he had good reasons for it; but all the same he chose otherwise than God had chosen. Though Exodus 20:4, etc; forbade the making of graven images, yet he "made molten images" (1 Kings 14:9). Though the law decreed that the sons of Aaron alone should offer sacrifice and burn incense, yet he determined to play the priest himself, and also "made him priests of the lowest of the people." Sic volo, sic jubeo, etc. 3. He chose his own times of worship. Nothing could have been more positively fixed than the date of the Feast of the Tabernacles. It was to be "the fifteenth day of the seventh month" (Leviticus 23:34, 39). But this was not the day of Jeroboam’s "choice." He "devised" a month "of his own heart;" he consulted, perhaps he thought, his people’s convenience; but was there ever heretic yet that was not full of arguments, when all God asks is obedience? "In religion What dangerous error, but some sober brow Will bless it and approve it with a text, Hiding the grossness with fair ornament." II. IT WAS THE SIN OF SCHISM. It is not without reason that in the Litany heresy and schism are coupled together, for the latter springs out of the former. Jeroboam’s arbitrary choice led to a division in the Jewish Church. Let us briefly consider in what way the breach in the national unity, hitherto so close and conspicuous, was effected. 1. The one centre of unity gave place to three centres of division. Hitherto, three times a year (cf. 1 Kings 9:25) all the males of Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, had gathered round one altar. Thither, "the tribes went up, the tribes of the Lord." Now, instead of going, even from Dan, the people went to worship before the calves "even unto Daniel" The ten tribes turned their backs on Jerusalem, and sought, some of them, a sanctuary at the opposite point of the compass. Nor did those who worshipped at Bethel afford a less striking proof of disintegration, for that sanctuary was within sight of the temple mount. The two pillars of smoke ascending day by day from rival altars, but twelve miles apart, proclaimed to all that there was a "schism in the body." 2. The one priesthood of Aaron shared its ministry with the priests of Jeroboam. No longer were offerings brought exclusively to the sons of Levi, but "whosoever would" might burn the incense and sprinkle the blood. The schism was accentuated by the appointment of a new order of men, with vested interests in the perpetuation of division. 3. The one ritual of Divine obligation was travestied by rites and ceremonies of human appointment. If the breach was widened by the intrusive priesthood, it was deepened by the unauthorized and forbidden cultus of the calves. The stranger, who came out of a far country for God’s name’s sake (1 Kings 8:41, 1 Kings 8:42), to pray toward the house, found himself in the presence of rival systems, each claiming to be primitive and true, but differing so widely that he would go home to his own land, doubting whether both were not false. He would say, as others have said since, that before men compassed sea and land to make proselytes, they had better agree among themselves. 4. The one Feast of Tabernacles appointed of God was parodied by a Feast devised of man. That feast, the most joyous of the year, had once been the greatest manifestation of religious unity which Israel afforded. It was the very "dissidence of dissent" when the feast of the seventh month was straightway and ostentatiously followed by a feast of the eighth month, celebrated but a few miles distant. It was the culminating proof of διχο—στασία. III. THE SIN OF KORAH (Numbers 16:1-50.) This has been already twice referred to, as a part of the heresy and as a factor in the schism. But it may well stand by itself as a substantive part of the sin. It was just as great a violation of the Divine law to use the ministry of unauthorized persons as to worship at shrines of man’s choosing or with ordinances of man’s devising. This, then, was "the sin of Jeroboam." It was not rebellion, not idolatry, but the worship of the true God in unauthorized places, with unauthorized rites, and by unauthorized ministers. Nor did it make it less a sin that it seemed to prosper. The church of Jeroboam straightway became the church of the majority. At the time of the captivity it could boast of some antiquity (Judges 18:30; 2 Kings 17:16). But all the same God put His brand upon it. Three miracles (1 Kings 13:1-34.) were wrought as a testimony against it. The voices of the prophets were raised to condemn it (Hosea, passim; Micah 6:16, etc.) But from year to year and reign to reign it flourished, and bore its baleful fruit, and then, after the schism had lasted two hundred and fifty years, while the kingdom of Judah, despite its idolatries, still retained for 185 years longer its place in the covenant land, the ten tribes were carried away to the cities of the Medes, were "scattered beyond the river" and disappeared from the page of history. And has this sin no lessons? has its punishment no warnings for ourselves? If, as some seem to think, we may pick and choose our doctrines at pleasure; if the Scripture is of private interpretation; if we are at liberty each one to set up his own dogmas against the quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus of the Catholic Church; or if there is no such thing as schism: if it is never mentioned or never reprobated in the New Testament; if the Babel of sects—there are over one hundred of them in this England of ours—is according to the plan and purpose of our Lord; or if, again, the "form of sound words," the depositum fidei, the creeds of the undivided Church, have no authority: if they can be added to by the autocrat of Rome, or diminished from by any state, or sect, or teacher; or, finally, if there is no such thing as a "mission" of Christ’s ministers; if any man may take this honour to himself; if those who have never been sent themselves may nevertheless send others—then this history is void of all meaning. But if, on the other hand, Christianity is the child of Judaism, and the Christian Church the inheritor of the principles of the Jewish; if that church is One and Catholic and Apostolic; if the faith was once for all (ἅπαξ) delivered to the saints; if our Lord Christ sent His apostles even as the Father had seat Him (John 20:21), if they in turn "ordained elders in every city" (Titus 1:5; cf. 2 Timothy 2:2), and by laying on of hands (Acts 13:8); if the tactual succession is not a mere piece of priestly assumption—then assuredly the history of Jeroboam’s sin is full of meaning, and "very necessary for these times." And the prominence accorded to it in Scripture, the twenty references to its working—we can understand it all when we remember that "whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning," and that the Spirit that moved the prophets foresaw the manifold heresies and schisms of Christendom. BY J.A. 1 Kings 12:25-27 Jeroboam’s Despondency. "Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown." Jeroboam’s ambition was to be a king, and God gave him his desire. This was to punish Solomon and his house for their apostasy, and the men of Israel who had been led away in it. The sequel proved that the ambition of Jeroboam also brought its punishment, for he soon found his throne the reverse of a comfortable seat. I. HIS FAITH IN HIS PEOPLE WAS SHAKEN. 1. They seem to have become resistive under his rule. (1) This was likely to be the case. Their complaint against the house of David was the pressure of their burdens. But these could not be lightened when two kings had to be maintained instead of one; when a court had to be supported by a greatly diminished constituency. (2) They had to create a capital worthy of the kingdom. So Jeroboam set about building Shechem, which was a ruin; for, two centuries before, it had been demolished by Abimelech (Judges 9:45). The cost of this, including that of the palace there, appears to have been so disagreeable, that Jeroboam, for his tranquillity, shifted his court to Penuel, on the east of the Jordan. (3) Penuel now stood in need of improvements. It had suffered at the hands of Gideon nearly three centuries before, when the tower was destroyed (Judges 8:17). A second palace here was not likely to ease their burdens. (4) Then their ability to pay taxes was reduced; for their commerce, created in the days of Solomon, seems to have declined. This would not improve their temper. 2. He therefore became gloomily apprehensive. (1) He feared that, having now discovered that their burdens were no lighter, they might reflect that they had done wrong in throwing off allegiance to their legitimate sovereign, and that the "kingdom would return to the house of David." (2) Further, that this disposition must be encouraged by their visits to Jerusalem for religious purposes (Deuteronomy 16:16, Deuteronomy 16:17). They would then see that neither Shechem nor Penuel, as capitals, could compare with Jerusalem. (3) And he feared that a counter revolution must imperil his life, for Rehoboam would demand this as a condition of their reconciliation. But the true cause of his despondency was that— II. HE HAD TO TRUST IN GOD. 1. Had he no assurance in the words of Ahijah? (1) Did not Ahijah give him ten pieces of the rent garment? Did he not accompany the sign with assuring words? (Chronicles 1 Kings 11:37.) Has not this part of the prophecy been fulfilled? (2) Is it not, therefore, in the power of Jeroboam to perpetuate his throne by faithfully serving God? (1 Chronicles 11:38.) The fulfilment of the former part of the prophecy surely pledges the latter. (3) Ah, but this promise is conditional! So are all God’s promises. If we comply not with the conditions we shall infallibly forfeit the kingdom of heaven. 2. But he was moved by ambition feather than piety. (1) Had he complied with the holy conditions, instead of apprehending mischief to his throne from the visits of his subjects to Jerusalem, it would be the other way. For the more they learnt to love and serve God, the more loyal must they be to a godly king. (2) But he felt in his soul that he had not so complied: nor had he any disposition to repent; therefore, instead of seeking help in God, as he should have done, he trusted to his own wicked policy. There is no real happiness without God. The very pinnacle of human ambition is a throne: yet without God is there no happiness here. "What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul?"—M. 1 Kings 12:28 Jeroboam’s Calves. Unbelief is the root of all mischief. Had the king of Israel believed God, he would have obeyed Him; then he would have been under no temptation to set up a spurious religion to the confusion of his family and people. But what did he mean by these calves? I. THEY WERE TO BE IMAGES OF THE GOD OF ISRAEL. 1. So he describes them in the text. (1) "These are thy Elohim, O Israel." Our English Bibles give the word "God" without the capital G, as though the purpose of Jeroboam were to lead the people away from the true God. This, indeed, was the effect, but that it was the design may well be doubted. (2) He farther identifies the Elohim represented in them as having brought them up out of the land of Egypt. This expression is equivalent to saying that the Elohim he would remind them of in these figures was the same who wrought all the miracles of the Exodus. (3) We must not be misled by the words, "Behold thy Elohim," or "These airs thy Elohim," as though he wished to impose these calves upon them as the very Elohim who wrought all the wonders of their miraculous history. For this is a Hebraism for similitudes (see Genesis 41:27; Daniel 2:38; 1 Corinthians 10:4). Note: Romanists impose their monstrous transubstantiation upon those who have not discerned this. 2. His error was a reproduction of Aaron’s. (1) This will be clear from a comparison of the text with Exodus 32:4. (2) Aaron could not, under the very shadow of the Shekinah, and within hearing of the voice of thunder from Sinai, have intended to substitute his calf for the very Elohim. (3) But that he only intended it as an emblem of the true God is placed very clearly before us in the words following (Exodus 32:5, Exodus 32:6), in which the feast celebrated before his calf is called a "feast of Jehovah" 3. Yet this was idolatry. (1) Idolatry may consist of worshipping the creature instead of the Creator. This the Romanist does when he worships the wafer. (2) Or it may be substituting some imagination of his heart for the God who has miraculously revealed Himself, and whose revelations concerning Himself are written in Holy Scripture. Such were the idealizations of the ancient (and also modern) heathen. (3) Or it may consist in attempting to worship the true God through unauthorised images (see Exodus 20:4). This was the case with Aaron, also with Jeroboam. It is likewise the case with the Romanist, who uses crucifixes, and images and pictures of the Persons of the Trinity. II. BUT WHY DID HE MAKE CALVES? 1. He had the cherubim in his mind. (1) These had the visage of a calf. They had, indeed, also the visages of a lion, of a man, and of an eagle. But the whole figure terminated in the foot of a calf (Ezekiel 1:7). (2) Jeroboam’s calf probably had also associated with it the other visages of the cherubim; so probably had Aaron’s, for they respectively call their image by the plural name Elohim (אלהים). The single image at Bethel is also called calves (עלגים) in the plural, which suggests a plurality of visages, though not necessarily visages of calves, for the whole emblem appears to have been designated by this name. 2. But the cherubim were emblems of the Holy Trinity. (1) The calf or young bull, which by the ancients was taken for an emblem of fire, stood here for the first Person of the Godhead. (See Bato’s "Critica Hebraea," under עגל and כרוב; also his learned "Inquiry into the Occasional and Standing Similitudes of the Lord God in the Old and New Testaments.") (2) The lion was the symbol of light, and stood for the second Person. With the face of the lion that of the man was constantly associated, foreshadowing the assumption of the manhood into the Godhead by that blessed Person. (3) And the eagle, the emblem of air, stood for the Holy Spirit. (4) These, therefore, are called the cherubim, or similitudes of the Great Ones, from רבים Great Ones, and ëlike. 3. Micah’s teraphim were like Jeroboam’s calves. (1) They were a compound or plural image like the cherubim, and used like them (see Judges 17:5, Judges 18:5). (2) Michael was a worshipper of the true God, and so was Laban, who also used teraphim (see Genesis 31:19, Genesis 31:30, Genesis 31:37, Genesis 31:49), (3) Compare also 1 Samuel 19:13; Ezekiel 21:21; Hosea 3:4. (4) The cerberus of the pagans, with its plurality of heads, was a corruption, and the name of that monster keeps up the sound, of the original Hebrew cherubim. How subtle is the spirit of idolatry! We cannot keep too close to God’s Word.—M. 1 Kings 12:28-33 Jeroboam’s Sin. The king of Israel, moved by personal ambition instead of zeal for God, fearing lest his people, in going to Jerusalem to worship, should see reason to regret having rent the kingdom, took counsel to prevent this. The result was the development of the policy described in the text. It was cunning— I. IN THE KIND OF WORSHIP IMPOSED. 1. As to its objects. (1) It purported to be the worship of the God of Israel Essentially the same with the worship at Jerusalem. Thus it conciliated favour. Had it been the worship of any god of the nations, opposition would have been provoked. (2) Yet was it idolatry. So in like manner is much of the worship of modern times which passes under the name of Christianity. Satan does not lose his identity by transforming himself into an angel of light. 2. As to its modes. (2) Its images were imitations of the cherubim. Such also were the teraphim. And as God was said to dwell in, not "between" (ישב is to inhabit), the cherubim, so Jeroboam directed his dupes to seek the God of Israel in his calves. (2) With these were associated altars, for sacrifice and incense, like those in the temple; and the victims would be clean animals proper for sacrifice; the incense also would be similar to that burnt in Jerusalem. (3) He had a Feast of Tabernacles, which is described in the text as "like unto the feast that is in Judah." Only that he altered the date as well as the place from the fifteenth day of the seventh month to the corresponding day of the month following. It is significantly noted, "which he had devised of his own heart" (see Numbers 15:1-41:89). He was a forerunner of another character who has not hesitated to "change times and laws" (Daniel 7:25). 3. As to its ministers. (1) His priests were Levites, where he could get them. In this he seems to have succeeded at Daniel For the descendants of Jonathan, who was of the family of Aaron, appear to have fallen in with his designs (see Judges 18:30). (2) But it was different at Bethel. Here the Levites, it is to be hoped, had too much principle to serve his calves. So "he made priests of the lowest of the people." (3) Amongst these he officiated himself. Morally he was indeed amongst the lowest of the people, notwithstanding his position as king. This, unhappily, was not sufficiently discerned. The wicked do not understand (Daniel 12:10). II. IN THE PLACES CHOSEN FOR THAT WORSHIP. 1. Dan was chosen with sagacity. (1) This was a city in the north, whose Canaanitish name was Laish, but which, when conquered by the Danites, received the name of their father (Judges 18:29-31). This would be convenient to the people living so distant from Jerusalem. (2) Besides, from its founding, this city was sacred to the worship of God through the medium of teraphim. This was about the time of Joshua’s death when Phinehas ministered at the tabernacle at Shiloh (compare Judges 20:27, Judges 20:28). From these very teraphim, when they were in the house of Micah, God gave responses to Jonathan the priest. (3) For the teraphim of Micah, which were carved blocks covered with silver Jeroboam substituted one of his calves, which was covered with gold; otherwise there does not appear to have been any material change in the worship there. So the prejudices of the people would not be shocked. 2. Bethel also was chosen with sagacity. (1) This was in the southern part of the kingdom, to accommodate those who might otherwise go to Jerusalem through convenience of distance. How adroitly do the wicked place their snares! (2) This place, too, had a memorable history. It was the scene of the vision of the ladder and renewal of the covenant with Jacob, in token of which the patriarch vowed to the Lord, anointed a pillar, and built an altar (Genesis 28:19, Genesis 28:20; Genesis 31:13; Genesis 35:1, Genesis 35:7). It was one of the stations of Samuel, and a place to which, in his days, the people were accustomed to go up to worship (1 Samuel 7:16; 1 Samuel 10:3). (3) Here, accordingly, Jeroboam fixed his headquarters, and built a pretentious temple, or "house of high places" (verse 31). Thus practically did Jeroboam say, with another purpose in his heart, "It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem." Beware of religion made easy; it may laud you in perdition. Beware of imitations of Divine things. Keep rigidly to the Word of God.—M. BY A. ROWLAND 1 Kings 12:26-28 The Sin of Jeroboam. This passage describes the act which is so often referred to with horror, in the books of Kings and Chronicles, as "the sin of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat." To an irreligious man like himself, nothing would appear more natural or politic than this conduct. He had been driven into Egypt by Solomon, had there married Pharaoh’s daughter, and become familiar with the worship of Apis and Mnevis. Now he had returned, and found himself the ruler of the ten tribes, the first king of the separate "kingdom of Israel." Recognizing as he did the religious tendencies and memories of his people, he saw that the national assemblies for worship in the temple at Jerusalem would, sooner or later, unite the tribes again under one king. Hence his action. Looking at his conduct (1) from the earthward, and (2) from the heavenward side, we see that his policy was at once shrewd and sinful. I. THE OF ’S POLICY. (1) It was an appeal to tribal independence. In effect he said, "Why should you men of Ephraim be dependent for your worship on Judah? Why should your tribute go to support their temple? Let us have a place of our own." This argument has been repeated by demagogues in every land and age. Class has been set against class, nation against nation, Church against Church, by this spirit. Show some of the advantages of recognizing our interdependence. (2) It was an appeal to self-indulgence. "It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem." Point out instances in which religious teachers have condescended to such base suggestions as this; e.g; the theology that declares self-conquest nothing, that makes faith the executioner, instead of the sustainer of morality; the teaching that will offer "indulgences" to those of sinful habit; the worship that pleases a sensuous taste, but demands no intelligent thought, etc. 3. It was an appeal to former memories. He made Shechem his capital, a place associated with Abraham and Jacob, and afterwards assigned to the Levites, and made a free city. He erected one of the calves at Bethel, a holy place on the borders of Benjamin and Ephraim (see Genesis 32:1-32.). No doubt his design was to conciliate those who were proud of past history. 4. It was a bold attempt to deceive the devout. He pretended that it was the old worship reestablished; that Jehovah was really represented by the calves: "These be thy gods (the old gods) that brought thee out of the land of Egypt." Not the first or last time in which the prince of darkness has appeared as an angel of light Shrewd as was the policy, it was not perfectly successful even during his reign. The best people emigrated to Judah (like the Huguenots to England), to enrich another kingdom by work and wealth; and the prophets and many of the priests were roused to hostility. Even had it succeeded, however, such policy deserved to be branded with infamy. Principle must never be sacrificed to expediency. Success never condones wrong doing with God. II. THE OF ’S POLICY. 1. It revealed his utter distrust of God. See the promise that had been given him (1 Kings 11:38): "I will build thee a sure house." He could not believe it. He would trust his own skill rather than God’s favour. So had it been with Saul and Solomon. The path of simple obedience is strait and narrow, and few there be that find it." "Do My will and trust Me," is the lesson of life, but we are slow to learn it. Many professing Christians consider religion inappropriate to business competition and to political movements. In this they resemble the son of Nebat. 2. It violated the fundamental law of the Decalogue. If the first command was not actually broken, the second was, necessarily. Had these calves merely been the outward symbols of Jehovah, they were amongst the forbidden "images." Jeroboam knew this. He remembered the calf Aaron made, for his words were an echo of those of the first high priest. He knew that only the intercession of Moses then saved the people from destruction, yet again he defiantly disobeyed. Show the peril of allowing images, crucifixes, banners, the elements in the sacrament, etc; to take a false position in Christian worship. Even if the initiated worship God through these, they break (in spirit) the second command; while the more ignorant are with equal certainty led to the violation of the first. 3. It involved and necessitated other sins. (1) The people worshipped in the place God had not chosen, as He had chosen the temple. (2) They had no ark of the covenant on which rested, and because of which was promised, the real presence of God. (3) The priests were chosen by the king in opposition to the ordinance of God (1 Kings 12:31, etc; ex universo populo. (4) The national feast of tabernacles was changed from the seventh month (Leviticus 23:34) to the eighth, not only because the harvest was later in the north than in the south of Judah, but to widen insidiously the breach between the kingdoms. So in all ages and in all spheres one sin leads to another. It would be better to die as Abigail (1 Kings 14:13) than to reign as Jeroboam.—A.R. BY J. WAITE 1 Kings 12:26-30 The Golden Calves. Jeroboam here earns for himself that name of evil repute—"the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin." As the leader in the revolt of the ten tribes he was simply fulfilling a Divine purpose. "The thing was from the Lord,"—the ordained penalty of Solomon’s transgression (1 Kings 11:31, 1 Kings 11:38). But this setting up of the golden calves, this only too successful attempt to sever the sacred bond that bound the people of the whole land in one common allegiance to the temple and the great invisible King who sat enthroned there, bore a widely different character. This was not "from the Lord." It was wholly evil. "The thing became a sin," and the sin of Jeroboam Became the prolific source of sin in Israel through all succeeding generations (see 1 Kings 14:7-16). This transaction illustrates— I. THE FATAL OF A LAWLESS . This was Jeroboam’s ruin. God, by the prophet Ahijah, had promised to establish him in the kingdom on certain conditions (1 Kings 11:38). There was no wrong in the mere fact of his seeking to verify this prediction. His sin lay in the nature of the means he adopted. He thought it needful in order to his having a "sure house" that the people should be kept from going up to sacrifice at Jerusalem. In other words, he would strengthen his house at the expense of doing deep dishonour to the "House of the Lord." His own petty kingship was more to him than the infinite Majesty of Jehovah. Thus we see how a carnal ambition (1) is subject to needless fears; (2) trifles with or defies a power that it finds to be infinitely stronger than itself; (3) thinks to secure its ends by means that actually defeat them; (4) is deceived by its seeming successes. History is full of examples of the way in which men have sought power for themselves, either by the abuse or the degradation of things sacred, or have thought to serve ends right in themselves by unrighteous means. This was one form of Satanic temptation to which our blessed Lord was subject. "All these things will I give thee," etc. (Matthew 4:8, Matthew 4:9), and his professed followers have too often fallen before it, II. THE OF A WICKED PURPOSE. This is seen in the way in which Jeroboam practised craftily, upon the religious sentiment of the people in the service of his own ambitious designs. (1) He pandered to their idolatrous propensities. The "golden calves" may have been intended as a memorial rather than a representation of the Deity. But they were too suggestive of the base, sensuous worship of Egypt, and violated the second commandment if not the first. (2) He made pretence of consulting their ease and convenience. "It is too much for you," etc. (3) He took advantage of the sacred associations of Bethel and Dan, as if the place would hallow the proceeding. (4) He instituted a priestly order as a substitute for the Levites. (5) He ordained festivals that should rival those of Judah and Jerusalem. In all this, while affecting to do honour to the traditions of religion, he struck a fatal blow at the religious unity and integrity of the nation, turning the highest sanctities of its life into an occasion of sin. How forcibly are we reminded that iniquity assumes its most hateful form when it prostitutes to its own ends things sacred and Divine. Satan is never so Satanic as when he wears the garb of "an angel of light." The most detestable of all vices is hypocrisy. More deadly injury has been done to the cause of religion by its false friends than its bitterest enemies could ever inflict. III. THE EFFECTS OF IN HIGH PLACES. Jeroboam’s wicked policy perpetuated and multiplied in Israel the evils of which the rending of the kingdom at first had been the penalty. With few exceptions all the kings that followed him "did evil in the sight of the Lord," and the record of their reigns is little else than a story of crime and bloodshed and misery. Moreover the leprosy of idolatry spread from the throne down through all classes of the people until the kingdom of Israel was completely overthrown and the ten tribes were carried captive into Assyria. Such are the woes that fall on a land when its princes are corrupt and reprobate. So true is it that "they that sow to the wind shall reap the whirlwind."—W. THE OF GOD AGAINST THE CALF WORSHIP.—We have in this chapter, which some commentators consider to be derived from a different source from the narratives which precede and follow it—the expression of 1 Kings 13:32, "the cities of Samaria," according to them, proving it to be of a later date, while the style and colouring of the story suggest that it embodies a tradition current in the time of the compiler—an account of certain circumstances of profound significance which marked the inauguration of Jeroboam’s first great feast—for the close connexion with 1 Kings 12:1-33. shows that it is "the fifteenth day of the eighth month" that is here described. The Chapter divides itself into two sections, the first (1 Kings 12:1-10) containing the public testimony of the prophet of Judah against the schismatic worship, the second (1 Kings 12:11-32) his subsequent perversion and his tragical death. 1 Kings 13:1 And, behold, there came a man of God [see on 1 Kings 12:22. The "man of God" is throughout carefully distinguished from the "prophet." Josephus calls the former Jadon, probably the Grecized form of Iddo, עִדּוֹ, which appears as יֶעְדוֹ Ia’do in the Keri of 2 Chronicles 9:29. Iddo, however, notwithstanding his "visions against Jeroboam the son of Nebat" (2 Chronicles 9:29), it cannot have been, for he survived to the reign of Abijah, and indeed wrote a "story" (Heb. Midrash, i.e; Commentary) of that reign, whereas this man of God died forthwith. For a similar reason, we cannot believe it to have been Shemaiah, the historian of the reign of Rehoboam (2 Chronicles 12:5, 2 Chronicles 12:15)] out of Judah [whither, as a rule, both priests and prophets would seem to have retreated (2 Chronicles 11:14, 2 Chronicles 11:16). It is clear, however, that the migration of the latter was not so general as that of the former. In 2 Chronicles 9:11 we find a prophet at Bethel; in 2 Chronicles 14:1-15. Ahijah is still at Shiloh, and at a later day we find schools of the prophets at Bethel, Jericho, etc. (2 Kings 2:8, 2 Kings 2:5). Stanley says with truth that "the prophetical activity of the time… is to be found in the kingdom, not of Judah, but of Israel," but omits to add that it was because the northern kingdom more especially needed their ministry. It was just for this reason that Ahijah and others remained at their posts.] by [Heb. in, same word as in verses 2, 9, 17, 20, 32, etc. Similarly, 1 Samuel 3:21. The áis not merely instrumental, but, like the ἐν, of the N.T; denotes the sphere or element. "By the word" would imply that he had received a Divine communication; "in the word," that his message possessed him, inspired him, was "in his heart as a burning fire shut up in his bones" (Jeremiah 20:9)] the word of the Lord unto Bethel [It is worth remembering that the new sanctuary at Bethel would probably be visible from the temple, so that this function was an act of open defiance]: and Jeroboam stood by [Heb. upon. See on 1 Kings 12:32, 1 Kings 12:33. It is the same occasion] the altar to burn incense [or to burn the fat, etc; of the sacrifice. See on 1 Kings 12:33. This altar was clearly, pro hac vice, an altar of burnt offering; not an altar of incense, as is proved by the next verse.] 1 Kings 13:2 And he cried against the altar in the word of the Lord, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the Lord [This apostrophe of the altar is very striking and significant. It is as if the prophet disdained to notice the royal but self-constituted priest; as if it were useless to appeal to him; as if his person was of little consequence compared with the religious system he was inaugurating, the system of which the altar was the centre and embodiment]; Behold a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name [This particular mention of the Reformer by name was formerly regarded, as by many it is still, as a remarkable instance of prophetic foresight. But the tendency of late, even amongst orthodox theologians, has been to doubt the authenticity of these two words, on the ground that it is unlike Scripture prophecy in general to descend to such details, which rather belong to soothsaying than prediction. Prophecy concerns itself not with names, times, and similar particulars, but with the "progressive development of the kingdom of God in its general features" (Keil). It is not for a moment denied that the prophet could just as easily, speaking "in the word of the Lord," have mentioned the name of Josiah, as the circumstance that a son of the house of David would utterly destroy the worship of calves. But it is alleged that the latter prediction is quite in accordance with Scripture usage, and the former altogether contrarient thereto. The case of Cyrus (Isaiah 44:28; Isaiah 45:1), it is true, is an exception to the rule, unless כֹרֶשׁ (which means the sun) is, like Pharaoh and Hadad, a name of office, a title of the Persian kings. The instances of Isaac (Genesis 17:19) and Solomon (1 Chronicles 22:9) are not parallels, as in both these cases the name was highly significant, and each was mentioned, not by way of prophecy, but as a direction to bestow that name on a child shortly about to be born. And it is certainly noticeable—though the argument e silentio is necessarily a precarious one—"that where this narrative is again referred to (2 Kings 23:15-18) there is no allusion to the fact that the man of God had prophesied of Josiah by name" (Rawlinson). On the whole, therefore, it seems probable that the two words יֹאשׁיָּהוּ שְׁמוֹ were no part of the original prophecy, but a marginal note which in course of time found its way accidentally into the text. The idea of Keil, that "Josiah" is mentioned here not as a proper name, but as an appellation, "he whom Jehovah sustains," is hardly worthy of serious consideration. It may be allowed, however, that the meaning of the name affords some slender reason for its mention]; and upon thee shall he offer [lit; sacrifice] the priests of the high places [see on 1 Kings 12:32] that burn incense upon thee, and men’s bones [Heb. bones of man, i.e; human bones. Nothing could more completely foreshadow the future desecration of the altar. The presence in the congregation of a living man who had merely touched a dead body and had not been purified, defiled the tabernacle (Numbers 19:13), how much more the dead body itself, burnt on the very altar. The Samaritan who once strewed the temple with human ashes (Jos; Ant. 18.2. 2) knew that he took the most effectual way to pollute it] shall be burnt [Heb. shall they burn] upon thee. [For the fulfilment, see 2 Kings 23:20, "At the ground of this judgment, as of the whole theocratic law, lies the jus talionis".] It is worthy of note how completely this brief protest proclaimed to Jeroboam the utter and shameful overthrow, both of his political and religious systems. A child of the rival house of David should stand where he then stood, his successors extinct or powerless to prevent him, and should cover this new cultus with disgrace and contempt. The man of God, he must have felt, has proclaimed in few words the fall of his dynasty, the triumph of his rival, and the failure of all his schemes. 1 Kings 13:3 And he gave a sign [The Heb. מוֹפֵת rather signifies a portent (τέρας, miraculum, prodigium) than a sign, the proper word for which is אוֹת. The word occurs repeatedly in the Pentateuch, where it is rendered wonder, or miracle, by our translators (Wordsworth). Signs had, of course, been given before (Exodus 4:30; Exodus 7:9; 1 Samuel 12:17; etc.) but hardly in such immediate attestation of a special message. From this time forward such signs are not infrequent (Isaiah 7:14; Isaiah 38:8; 2 Kings 19:29). They mark the decline of faith (Matthew 12:39). As to the need at this crisis for some miraculous token, see Homiletics. The fitness of this particular sign is obvious] the same day, saying, This is the sign which [Rather that; אֲשֶר = quod. The A.V. rendering hardly makes sense. Nor does it agree, as Rawlinson seems to think, with the LXX; which reads τοῦτοτὸῥῆμαὃἐλάησεκύριος, etc.] the Lord hath spoken [i.e; by me. "This is the proof that my message is from Him, and is no idle threat." Wordsworth sees in this sign "a proof vouchsafed by God Himself to the man of Judah, as well as to Jeroboam, that he was really sent by God," etc. But surely a man who came "in the word of the Lord," and cried, "Thus saith the Lord," wanted no proof that "he was doing God’s bidding" (see 1 Corinthians 14:22)]; Behold, the altar shall be rent and the ashes [strictly, fat ashes. דֶּשֶׁן; properly, "fatness" (see Judges 9:9; Psalms 63:5. πιότης, LXX.), is the fat of the sacrifice, which was burnt upon the altar, mixed with the ashes that consumed it] that are upon it shall be poured out. [The sign, a partial destruction of the altar, and the scattering of the sacrifice, was admirably calculated to presage its ultimate and final and ignominious overthrow. The idea favoured by Stanley ("Jewish Ch." 2:280) that this prediction was fulfilled "if not before, at least" in the time of Amos, when the altar was destroyed by an earthquake shock (Amos 9:1; cf. Amos 3:14), does not seem to take account of verse 5. 1 Kings 13:4 And it came to pass when king Jeroboam [The A.V. follows the LXX. The Heb. omits "Jeroboam"] heard the saying of the man of God, which had cried against the altar in Bethel, that he put forth his hand [instinctively. His first thought was, not to wait and see whether the promised sign was given, but to seize and punish the man who had dared thus to denounce and thwart him. And we may imagine how extremely mortifying this interruption must have been to him. It threatened the complete frustration of his policy at the very moment when it seemed certain of suceess] from the altar [the ledge or platform, i.e; where he stood. He did not leave it, but shouted his commands to his servants], saying, Lay hold on him. ["Arrest him," "let him not escape." One word in the Heb.] And his hand, which he put forth against him, dried up [Possibly the result of paralysis or tetanus (Ackermann in Bähr). It was like the "withered hand" of the New Testament (Matthew 12:10, etc.) deprived of feeling and vital force, as the next words show], so that he could not pull it in again to him. [It was not only powerless to punish, it was punished. "Now stands the king of Israel, like some antique statue, in a posture of impotent endeavour" (Hall). This was a warning to the king, not so much against his unauthorized and schismatical rites, as against his attempt to avenge himself on the messenger of God (Psalms 105:14, Psalms 105:15).] 1 Kings 13:5 The altar also was rent [by the same invisible power, and probably at the same moment], and the ashes poured out from the altar, according to the sign which the man of God had given by the word of the Lord. 1 Kings 13:6 And the king [humbled and alarmed by the judgment he had experienced in his own person] answered and said unto the man of God, Intreat now [The Heb. is very expressive—"Smooth or stroke the face." It is an expression which occurs several times. See especially Exodus 32:11; 2 Kings 13:4; 2 Chronicles 33:12; Proverbs 19:6] of the Lord thy God [i.e; whose messenger thou art. "Jeroboam, conscience stricken, does not dare to call Jehovah his own God" (Wordsworth). This was probably the case, yet surely it is an inference not warranted by the text. The expression, "The Lord thy God," is of constant occurrence, especially when a "man of God" is addressed; cf. 1 Kings 17:12; 1 Kings 18:10], and pray for me [This sudden change in his bearing shows how much Jeroboam was frightened. The sight, too, of the king humbly supplicating the prophet who a moment before had protested against the calf worship was calculated to make an impression on the minds of the people], that my hand may be restored me again. And the man of God besought [lit; stroked the face of] the Lord, and the king’s hand was restored him, and became as it was before. 1 Kings 13:7 And the king said unto the man of God, Come home with me, and refresh thyself [with food, ablutions, etc. We are hardly justified in seeing in these words (with Bähr and Keil) an attempt to "gain the prophet over to his side by friendliness," and to render his threat harmless in the eyes of the people. The king doubtless may have hoped that it would "blunt the edge of the prophet’s denunciation of his schismatical altar" (Wordsworth); but this was not the object, or not the sole object, with which the invitation was given. Jeroboam could not possibly have clone less, after the signal service the man of God had rendered him, than invite him to his palace. Eastern courtesy alone (Genesis 18:4; Genesis 19:2; Genesis 43:24, etc.) would require him to offer hospitality to his benefactor. And he could scarcely hope that any hospitalities would either neutralize the impression which the recent miracles had made, or win over to his side one who had a direct commission from the Most High to oppose him. With more reason, Wordsworth cites 1 Samuel 15:30, "Honour me now, I pray thee, before the elders of my people." A feeling of gratitude may have prompted the invitation, while the king at the same time was very sensible of the advantages which would accrue to himself if it were accepted], and I will give thee a reward. [The services, especially of seers and prophets, were invariably requited in the East with presents, as are those of Judges, Kadis, Kaimakams, and other officers at the present day (see 1 Kings 14:3; Genesis 24:53; Genesis 33:11; Genesis 43:11; Numbers 22:17; Judges 3:17; Judges 6:18; Judges 13:15; 1 Samuel 9:7, 1 Samuel 9:8; 1 Samuel 12:3; 2 Kings 5:5, 2 Kings 5:15; 2 Kings 8:8, 2 Kings 8:9).] 1 Kings 13:8 And the man of God said unto the king, If thou wilt give me half thine house [cf. Numbers 22:18, of which, however, there is hardly a reminiscence. Obviously, half the contents or wealth of thy house], I will not go in with thee, neither will I eat bread nor drink water in this place. 1 Kings 13:9 For so was it charged [Heb. he, sc. the Lord, charged me] me by [Heb. in] the word of the Lord, saying, Fat no bread, nor drinkwater [Participation in food—the "eating salt"—is in the East a token of friendship and affinity; a sign of close communion and fellowship. The prophet’s refusal to participate was consequently a practical and forcible disclaimer of all fellowship, a virtual excommunication, a public repudiation of the calf worshippers. Cf. 1 Corinthians 5:11," With such an one, no, not to eat." As Corn. à Lapide, "Ut ipso facto ostenderet, Bethelitas idololatras adeo esse detestabiles, et a Deo quasi excommunicates, ut nullum fidelium cum iis cibi vel potus communionem habere velit"], nor turn again by the same way that thou camest. [ the object of this command was not "simply to test the obedience of the prophet" (Rawlinson), nor yet that no one might "force him to a delay which was irreconcilable with his commission" (Keil), for that was practically executed, but to avoid as far as possible—what, indeed, happened in spite of these precautions—his being traced and followed. Because of this provision, the old prophet (1 Corinthians 5:10) was reduced to ask, "What way went he?" But the charge, we can hardly doubt,was also designed to serve another purpose, viz; to warn the prophet against doing what he did presently—against returning to Bethel. When he was followed, and when he was told of a revelation commanding his return, he should have remembered, among other things, that it had clearly been part of God’s purpose, as evidenced by the explicit instructions given him, that he should not be followed. This alone should have led him to suspect this old prophet of deceit.] 1 Kings 13:10 So he went another way, and returned not by the way that he came to Bethel. 1 Kings 13:2, 1 Kings 13:3, 1 Kings 13:8 Protest and Excommunication. The sin of Jeroboam, the schism which he inaugurated in person at the first feast of tabernacles held in Bethel, was not consummated without protest. When the king, possibly in the "golden garments" of the priesthood, mounted the altar platform and stood before the vast multitude assembled to witness this first great function of the new regime, a messenger of God, sent from Judah, the seat of the true religion, lifted up his voice and witnessed against these irregular and impious proceedings, against the unsanctified altar, the unhallowed sacrifice, and the intrusive priesthood. It must have been pretty clear beforehand that any protest addressed to Jeroboam, who had devised and elaborated this corruption of Mosaic worship, would be unavailing, but nevertheless it must be made. It was probably in part because Jeroboam was beyond the reach of remonstrance that the warning was addressed to the altar itself In other words, it was made for the sake of the people rather than of their king. They should be mercifully, and therefore distinctly, taught that this calf worship had not and could not have the sanction of the Most High. Whether they would hear, or whether they would forbear, they should see that God had not left Himself without witness; they should know that at this crisis there had been a prophet amongst them. The breach should not be made without due warning of its sinfulness and its consequences. "For a testimony unto them" the man of God addresses the dumb altar, the sign and centre of the new system, and proclaims not only its overthrow but the destruction of Jeroboam’s house and the defeat of all his schemes. And as, under such circumstances, mere threats, of whatsoever character and by whomsoever spoken, would have had but little weight without "signs following," the message straightway receives the confirmation of a miracle. That the man of God "came from Judah" was in itself reason enough why the men of Israel should not listen to him, unless he compelled their attention by prodigies. "A partizan," they would say, "perhaps a hireling of Rehoboam, it was natural such a one would prophecy evil of the Northern Church and kingdom," and so his words would have been unheeded, even if his life had been spared. Besides, one who professed to come as he did, "in the word of the Lord," they had a right to ask for his credentials, and those credentials could only be miraculous. Had not Moses and Aaron "wrought signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, before Pharaoh and all his servants?" Had not Samuel, too, supported his message by a portent? (1 Samuel 12:18.) If the denunciation of the schism, consequently, was not to be inoperative, he must "give a sign" the same day. And to these "two witnesses"—"the "sure word of prophecy" and the "sign following"—the rashness and impiety of Jeroboam procured the addition of a third, or rather of two more—silent, but eloquent attestations, each of them, that the prophet had not spoken in his own name. For, enraged at this bold, this most unwelcome and sinister interruption of his ritual, and fearing the effect of this brave protest on his audience and the thousands of Israel to whom the news would ultimately come, and forgetting at the moment the sacred character of the speaker and the unseen panoply which protected him, he stretches forth his hand intuitively, as if to detain the prophet, and thunders his commands to the attendant soldiery to arrest him. But that hand, really raised against the Most High, suddenly becomes rigid and powerless, and he must needs stoop to beg the prophet’s prayers that it may be restored to him again. And so it came to pass that the heretic king furnished in his own person, much against his will, two powerful proofs that the "man of God" did indeed speak the word of God and was supported by the power of God. It is thus that God makes the wrath of man to praise Him. Such, then, was the PROTEST, in word and deed, which marked the first great service of the schismatic Church. But that was not all. The protest was to be followed by an . The man of God was commissioned at the same time to put the city and inhabitants of Bethel under a ban. He was to treat them as lepers, as so tainted with heresy, so polluted and unclean in the sight of God, that he could neither eat of their bread nor drink of their cup. For this was clearly the object of the injunction, "Eat no bread nor drink water there;" it was to show that all who participated in this unhallowed worship were thenceforward to be treated by Divine command as heathens and publicans. And to the children of the East this public disclaimer of fellowship, this practical excommunication, would have a significance such as with our altered conditions of society we can hardly conceive, though the "Boycotting" of our own time may help us to understand its operation. Every citizen of Bethel, every worshipper of the calves, would feel himself branded as unclean. The "scarlet letter" which the Puritans of New England printed on the bosom of the adulteress hardly involved a greater stigma. It was for this reason, therefore, that when the king bade the man of God to his palace and promised him a royal recompense for the service he had rendered him, the latter flung back his invitation in his face, and swore that half the king’s house would not tempt him to eat of his dainties. Jeroboam, and his people through him, should learn that if they would persist in their wanton defiance of Divine law; if they would have two churches and three sanctuaries where God had decreed there should in either case be but one; if they would sacrifice before the works of their own hands, and by ministers of man’s ordaining, and at times of man’s devising, then the pious Hebrews who preserved inviolate the ancient faith should wipe their hands of them, and treat them as renegades and aliens from the commonwealth of Israel The lessons of this history are manifold. Two, however, occupy a position of pre-eminence above the rest. 1. That corruptions of religion are not to be consummated without PROTEST on the part of the Church. That Christianity, as well as Judaism, should have its heresies and schisms was distinctly foretold by St. Paul himself (1 Corinthians 11:19; Acts 20:29, Acts 20:30). But if they are inevitable, because of the frailty of our nature and the hardnesss of our hearts, they are none the less sinful, and it is none the less our duty to strive and to witness against them. If God did not suffer that first great schism to pass unreproved, can we do better, or do less, than follow His example? It may be said that we cannot always distinguish between heresy and orthodoxy—that we "call our doxy orthodoxy, and other people’s doxy heterodoxy," and this is quite true. But individual opinion is one thing and the teaching of the Church another. Has the Church, then, no teaching office? Is she or is she not "the pillar and ground of the truth"? Has she or has she not the promise of our Lord’s guidance and illumination? (Matthew 18:17, Matthew 18:18; Matthew 28:20.) Or can the Church universal err? (Matthew 16:18.) Is her "Quod semper, quod ubique," etc; no test of truth? It is not for the private Christian to claim any infallibility, but it is for the Church to say what is in and what is against her depositum fidei. And furthermore it is her duty, in her synods and by her officers, to protest against all corruptions of the faith. "A man that is a heretic … reject," Titus 3:10; cf. Titus 1:9-11; 1 Timothy 6:3-5 ("From such withdraw thyself"); Romans 16:17; Matthew 18:17; Matthew 8:1-34 John 9:1-41, John 10:1-42; Galatians 1:8; Galatians 2:11. The Christian verity is not less dear to God than was the teaching of Hoses. The preacher is as much bound to preserve the faith whole and undefiled as was the prophet. And it is idle to say, as it sometimes is said, that mere protests are worse than useless. They may not avert a schism—this protest did not—but they may have their use nevertheless, as this had. Or if they are entirely futile as regards others, they are not forgotten of God. Besides, who shall say that success or non success is to alter the standard of Christian duty? It is surely something to be able to say, whatever the issue, Liberavi animam meam. It is to be remembered that God knew beforehand that this His protest, though enforced by signs and wonders, would be comparatively unavailing. 2. That certain crimes against morality and religion are still to be visited by . Not the excommunication of bell and book and candle—that finds no place in Holy Scripture—but social excommunication such as that described to us in this history. Indeed, there is also an ecclesiastical excommunication which must sometimes be wielded. There are persons with whom we have no right to eat and to drink at the Table of our Blessed Lord—persons who must be repelled at any cost from Holy Communion, lest we should indirectly make ourselves "partakers of other men’s sins" (1 Timothy 5:22). When Jn Wesley once proposed to give a note of admission to the Lord’s Table to a man of dubious character, Henry Moore, one of his preachers, bluntly said that if that man were admitted he should refuse to attend. "Sir," said Wesley, "I should attend even if the devil came to Holy Communion." "So should I," was the answer; "but not if John Wesley gave him a note of admission." For it is obvious that the Eucharist, the closest rite of fellowship—the rite which makes and proclaims us members one of another (Romans 12:4, Romans 12:5)—if knowingly administered to the "notorious evil liver" is a virtual condoning of his sin; it is equivalent to bidding him God speed (2 John 1:10, 2 John 1:11), and so it makes the Church "partaker of his evil deeds." "Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person" (1 Corinthians 5:1-13:15). But our history points rather to social than ecclesiastical interdict. And it must be distinctly understood that the refusal to eat and drink with notorious and incorrigible evil livers is a part of Christian duty (see 1 Corinthians 5:9-11; 2 Thessalonians 3:14, 2 Thessalonians 3:15; Matthew 18:17). We are not permitted to know them and to treat them like other men. The story of St. John’s hurriedly leaving the bath because of the presence there of the heretic Cerinthus, is one for which the so called tolerance of the age can only afford a contemptuous smile; but the age is often wiser in its own conceit than Christ and His apostles. Only let us remember, if we must treat any as heathens and publicans, how Christ treated the penitent publicans (cf. Luke 15:1, Luke 15:2); and then let us not shrink from discharging this painful duty both to our country, our Church, and our God. Among the secondary lessons of our story are these: 1. That right shall triumph in the long run. The schism throve for 250 years, but the altar was ultimately dishonoured and overthrown. The Reformer who should desecrate it with bones of men was already appointed in the counsels of God. Even so, sooner or later, "every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up" (Matthew 15:18). "If this work be of men, it will come to nought" (Acts 5:38). "Our little systems have their day, They have their day and cease to be." Magma est veritas, etc. The Babel of sects cannot last forever. 2. The ministers of God are secure so long as they do their duty. Jeroboam, with the ten tribes at his back, was powerless against the unprotected missionary. "He reproved kings for their sakes, saying… Do my prophets no harm" (Psalms 105:14, Psalms 105:15). The stars shall fall from their courses before a hair of their heads shall be injured. Cf. Daniel 3:27; Daniel 6:22; 2 Kings 1:10, etc. But it may be objected, "The saints and messengers of God have often been brutally outraged and murdered" (Hebrews 11:35-37). True, but who shall say that they were not then most secure? "Through much tribulation we must enter into the kingdom of God" (Acts 14:22). It was when Stephen was martyred that he saw "Jesus standing"—i.e; to help—"at the right hand of God." It has been suggested that it was when St. Paul was stoned and taken up for dead (Acts 14:19) that he was caught up into Paradise (2 Corinthians 12:4). Sic iter ad astra. 3. The wicked cannot dispense with the prayers of the saints. "Entreat the face of the Lord thy God and pray for me" (cf. Exodus 9:28; Numbers 12:2, Numbers 12:13; Acts 8:24). How often has this history repeated itself; and what a foreshadowing of the world to come! Here was one of the synagogue of Satan worshipping at the prophet’s feet, etc. (Revelation 3:9). Observe, too, it is the part of a man of God to answer threats with prayers. "They are mine adversaries, but I, prayer" (Psalms 109:4, Heb.; cf. Psalms 35:13 sqq.) It is the very best way of overcoming evil with good. 4. Men are often more concerned about their sufferings than about their sins. Jeroboam’s entreaty is, not that his sin may be forgiven, but that his hand may be restored. How many pray, "Heal my body;" how few, "Heal my soul, for I have sinned against thee" (Psalms 41:4). The plague of head or hand extorts more cries for mercy than the plague of the heart (1 Kings 8:38). 5. "Law and order cannot be violated with impunity by any ruler under any religious pretext" (Maurice). The rent altar teaches the lesson of Psa 2:2-5: "Those betray themselves that think by any sin to support themselves."… "He promised himself that the calves would secure the crown to his family, but it proved they lost it" (M. Henry). 6. Let the ministers of God beware of bribery. "Come home with me and I will give," etc. The device of Jeroboam for silencing and conciliating the prophet has often been tried since, and with fatal success. How many men’s mouths have been stopped by a sop—by place or pension, nay, by an insignificant present. Men know well—the enemy of man knows well—that the preacher finds it hard to reprove a benefactor. The writer once heard an influential person boasting that he had silenced his clergyman’s remonstrances and appeals by a present of game! The world has a shrewd suspicion that the clergy are not incorruptible; that they, like others, have their price. Let us be on our guard against social corruption. How sinister the influence of some homes on the younger clergy. The cordial "Come home with me" was to them a snare of Satan. With the State clergy how strong the temptation to sacrifice independence for a benefice; with Nonconformists, to speak smooth words lest the congregation should "stop the supplies." The man of God thus speaks to all ministers of God. BY J.A. 1 Kings 13:1-3 The Fire of Jehovah. Jeroboam went to inaugurate his feast of tabernacles at his principal temple in Bethel, and to give effect to the ceremonies officiated in person as high priest. Then, as he stood by the altar, censer in hand, he was confronted by the word of the Lord. A man of God from Judah denounced the altar in the words before us, which contain a very remarkable prophecy; and he authenticated his message by a miraculous sign. The subject teaches— I. THAT GOD SEES THE END FROM THE . 1. This is evinced in His works of creation. (1) There is foresight in the constitution and adjustments of the framework, and in the motions, of the orbs. (2) Also in the anticipatory instincts of animals—storing of food, provisions for young. Moths deposit their eggs upon leaves, not used by themselves as food, but proper to sustain the larvae. (3) And in the anticipatory faculties of man. Intelligent foresight in business, in politics, in science, in religion. 2. It is evinced in prophecy. (1) Great outlines of the world’s history pre-written there (see Genesis 9:25-27; Daniel 7:1-28.). (2) Particular example here. (Compare this with 2 Kings 23:15-20.) The facts here were attested—By the Jews, on whose behalf they were ordered—By the Ephrathites, who would have impugned their authority if they could. 3. This example is too circumstantial to have been accidental. (1) The child was to be of the house of David. Who but God could foresee that the house of David should occupy the throne of Judah at a distance of 856 years? (2) Who but God could foresee that Bethel would then have passed from the kings of Israel under the dominion of Judah? (See 2 Chronicles 13:19.) (3) Who but God could foresee that at a distance of 840 years a child should be born to the house of David, bearing the name of Josiah, who should in due time do these things? (4) Who else could anticipate, even when Josiah received his name, that the grandson of the wicked Manasseh, and son of the no less wicked Amen, should come to the throne, and with pious zeal bring these things to pass? Note: Such prescience as God displayed in this prophecy, and such providence as He evinced in its accomplishment, encourage faith. They assure us that our very names are in His book (Philippians 4:8). They encourage prayer. II. THAT HE WILL THE SINNER IN . 1. The message to Jeroboam was to this very effect. (1) He bore His testimony against the altar. It had been consecrated, after a fashion, by the king, but God would desecrate it. The bodies of its priests were to be sacrificed upon it, and the bones of men were to be burnt upon it (1 Kings 13:2). God will accept no will worship—no worship ordered after the policy of statesmen. (2) In the demolition of the altar, not only is the religion connected with it doomed to be overthrown, but the judgment involves its votaries—the king, his priests, his people. (3) The testimony was strong. The man of God cried aloud. He did not quail in the presence of the king amidst his friends. God’s messengers should never cringe nor quail God’s word can never fail. 2. These things were an allegory. (1) Many of the wonderful narratives of Holy Scripture may be thus understood. We have the famous example, Galatians 4:21-31. (2) Here Jeroboam, like all other leaders in apostasy, was a forerunner of the Antichrist. As the religion of the "man of sin" is a caricature of the religion of Christ, so was that of Jeroboam a parody upon the Mosaic. (3) Josiah was a type of Christ, the true Son of David. (Compare Isaiah 7:14.) Warning and mercy come before destruction. The army of Judah was stayed from crushing Jeroboam (1 Kings 12:24), and in the mission of the man of God there was mercy in the warning. Let the sinner be admonished not to refuse the gospel.—J.A.M. 1 Kings 13:4-6 The Man of Sin. When the man of God predicted the confusion of the political religion of Jeroboam, and gave the sign that the altar at Bethel should be rent and its ashes poured out, the pride of the king who stood there as a priest was mortified, and his resentment was manifested as described in the text. I. WAS A TYPICAL SINNER. 1. He transgressed God’s law— (1) In making images. The law forbad this (Exodus 20:4, Exodus 20:5). But he made two golden calves. Note: Images of God must be caricatures, and God will not be mocked, solemnly or otherwise, with impunity. How many frightful caricatures of Deity has the "man of sin" perpetrated! (2 Thessalonians 2:3-12.) (2) In multiplying altars. Legal worship was limited to one altar "in the place which the Lord should choose" (Deuteronomy 16:16). This was to keep before men the one only Mediator (John 14:6; 1 Timothy 2:5). Therefore other altars than that at Jerusalem were "altars unto sin" (Hosea 8:11). (3) In creating priests. According to the law, none but sons of Aaron had a Divine vocation to the priesthood (Exodus 30:7, Exodus 30:8; 2 Chronicles 26:18; Hebrews 5:4). According to the gospel, Christ is sole Priest. Jeroboam, an Ephrathite, invaded the law principle, making himself high priest, and making subordinate priests of the lowest of the people. 2. He did so impudently. (1) His sin was not of ignorance, for he had access to the Scriptures; but it did not serve his purpose to refer to them. (2) Prophecy was particularly distasteful to him, for his doom is written there. Jeroboam had this from the lips of Ahijah, and now has it from the man of God from Judah. Beware of the spirit that would discourage a study upon which God has pronounced a blessing (Revelation 1:3). (3) The spirit of his religion was political. He would not have troubled himself with it had he not political ends to serve (1 Kings 12:26-29). And to carry out these he dissembled: "It is too much for you to go to Jerusalem!" II. HIS DOOM ALSO WAS TYPICAL. 1. He was confronted by the word of God. (1) With this the man of God from Judah withstood him at his altar. So by the word of the Lord, and especially with the spirit of prophecy, has the man of sin been confronted by Waldenses, Paulikiaus, Hussites, Lutherans, and such like men "from Judah." (2) But against this testimony he invoked the civil power under his usurped control (1 Kings 13:4). The spirit of persecution was there. The modern Jeroboam carried it further (Daniel 12:1-13:21; Revelation 13:7; Revelation 17:6). 2. He was humbled by the power of God. (1) His hand was withered; his power to persecute was paralyzed. How powerless is the hand of man when arrested by the hand of God! Behind the political restraints which now hold the persecuting hand of our enemies we must discern the invisible hand of God. (3) The altar, then, was cloven, and the ashes of the spurious sacrifices poured out as with contempt. This also was effected by the same invisible hand. Who can resist the might of God? (4) Constrained by these judgments, he confessed the finger of God, and entreated the man of God to pray for the restoration of his hand (see Exodus 10:16, Exodus 10:17; Numbers 21:7; Matthew 5:23, Matthew 5:24). 3. Yet he persisted in his sin. (1) His humiliation was selfish. It was the creature of his terror and suffering, so it was transient. (2) True repentance is of a loftier principle, and is enduring. It is a life, as faith also is a life. (3) Instead of using his restored hand to demolish his high places, he used it to repair the altar at Bethel, and persisted in his sin (1 Kings 13:33, 1 Kings 13:34; 2 Chronicles 13:20). But Josiah executed the judgments of prophecy in due time, So will the modern Jeroboam and his monstrous organization of sin perish in the fires of the judgment (Daniel 7:10, Daniel 7:11; 2 Thessalonians 2:8). Note: Let those come out of Babylon who would escape her plagues.—J.A.M. 1 Kings 13:7-10 The Man of God. We may view "Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin," as the "man of sin" of his time, and a forerunner of the Antichrist of more modern times (2 Thessalonians 2:3). In contrast to him we have to consider the "man of God," in which character this prophet who confronted Jeroboam at Bethel, is described. The instructions under which he acted teach us how a saint should behave amongst workers of iniquity. I. HE MUST HOLD NO WITH THEM. 1. He must not eat and drink with them. (1) For this was anciently a profession of fellowship. Hence the Hebrews in Egypt would not eat with the Egyptians (Genesis 43:32). The Jews would not eat with the Samaritans (John 4:9); and they were shocked to see Jesus eating with publicans and sinners (Matthew 9:11). For the same reason Christians were forbidden to eat with ungodly persons (1 Corinthians 5:11; see also Romans 16:17; 2 Thessalonians 3:6,2 Thessalonians 3:14; 2 Timothy 3:5; James 4:4; 2 John 1:10). (2) The law of distinction between clean and unclean meats set forth not only the duty of avoiding fellowship with moral uncleanness, but also with those who are morally unclean; for the unclean animals represented "sinners of the Gentiles" while the clean stood for the "holy people" of Israel (Acts 10:14, 84, 85). (3) The eating of the forbidden fruit in Eden at the instigation of the serpent, who also seems to have eaten of it first, expressed fellowship with Satan! As the trees of Eden were sacramental, it may have expressed a covenant with the Evil One! Those who ate together were understood to stand to each other in a covenant relationship (Genesis 31:43-46). (4) In this light the Christian Eucharist sets forth the covenant fellowship, that we have, first, with Christ, and secondly, with those who are in such fellowship with Him (see, in this light, John 6:53-56). 2. He must refuse their presents. (1) Some think Jeroboam’s offer to "reward" the man of God was to give him a bribe. This is not evident. Yet good men are liable to be tempted with bribes, but should stoutly refuse them (1 Samuel 12:3; Job 15:34). (2) The king’s intention was to do honour to the man of God, according to a constant custom in the East (see 1 Samuel 9:7; 2 Kings 5:15). The word מתת here translated "reward," would have been better rendered "gift," as in many other places it is. But such a gift or present, if accepted, would express friendship, and therefore, coming from the hand of an arch idolator and schismatic, it must be declined, (3) Good men must be careful how they accept favours from the wicked, lest in doing so they may compromise to them their independence, or come unduly under their influence (see Genesis 14:1-24:28; Genesis 23:13-16; 2 Kings 5:16). II. HIS WITH THEM SHOULD BE BRIEF. 1. While serving God he is safe. (1) His very testimony for God commits him to a course of conduct consistent with it. This element of moral strength is lost to those who hide their light under a bushel. (2) He has a right to claim God’s help (Matthew 10:19, Matthew 10:20; Matthew 28:20). 2. But it is perilous longer to remain. (1) The very disposition to remain amidst circumstances with which we should have no sympathy argues weakness which should alarm. (2) He lays himself open to temptation. He may find the "king" disposed to honour him. Some are foolishly susceptible to flattery from the great ones of this world. The man of God should be proof against this (1 Kings 13:8). (3) He may be taken at a disadvantage. Being away from the influence of godly friends. Having now no claim to special help from God. 3. But why must he return by another way? (1) Not only did the man of God give a sign, but he was also himself a sign. As Jeroboam was the sign of the man of sin, this prophet was, at least in his instructions, a typical "man of God." (2) In coming from Judah, where God was purely worshipped in His temple, to Ephraim, where "altars were made unto sin," he would personate that moral lapse into which Ephraim had fallen. (3) In his speedy return from Ephraim to Judah, after deprecating the sin of the place, he would represent to the Ephrathites what God expected from them, viz; repentance and reformation. (4) But the way hack to God is not precisely the reversal of the way from Him. Adam fell by sin of his own and was turned out of Eden, but must return by the righteousness of another (Genesis 3:24). Our way hack to God is the "new and living way opened in the blood of Jesus."—J.A.M. BY A. ROWLAND 1 Kings 13:1, 1 Kings 13:2 The Nameless Prophet. Jeroboam’s inauguration of the high place at Bethel was an imitation of Solomon’s dedication of the temple at Jerusalem. Like Solomon, he chose the feast of tabernacles as the season for this ceremony, although he daringly altered the date of the feast from the seventh month to the eighth. Describe the scene: the crowds of people, the new-made priests, the gorgeous shrine, the conflicting feelings of the worshippers. None dared to oppose the king, and at the expected moment he stepped forward to burn incense before the calf. Just then one, who had been till then unnoticed, pressed to the front of the crowd. He came from the neighboring kingdom of Judah. In words of terrible invective he delivered the message of the Lord. Who was he? Josephus (Ant; 1 Kings 8:8. § 5) identifies him with Iddo the seer. There is no proof of this. He was one of the many servants of Jehovah who have done their work without emblazoning on it their name. Like John the Baptist, he was content to be "a voice crying" out a testimony for God. In considering the service rendered in his day by this PROPHET let us look at the following: I. HIS MESSAGE. 1. Its Divine origin. "He cried… in the word of the Lord." A remarkable expression. It represents the word as the sphere in which he lived, the atmosphere he breathed. A sense of the Divine presence, a confidence in the Divine call, a certainty of the Divine message, characterized him. This was a sign of the true prophet. Compare with this the call of Samuel, the announcements of Elijah, the commission of Isaiah, etc. To some the declarations of God’s will came fitfully. Prophecy was never a constant possession of a servant of God. There was a tidal flow of inspiration, the law of which we know not. So was it with the miraculous powers of the Apostles. 2. Its definite nature (verse 2). The very name of the coming avenger is mentioned more than three hundred years before Josiah’s birth. It was foretold that the priests would be sacrified on the altar at which they had insulted God. The lex talionis is the ground of this, as of other theocratic laws. It reminds us that the sinner is destroyed by his own sin; that punishments are not arbitrary, but are the legitimate issues of crime against God. It was further announced that the bones of the dead would be taken from the graves and burnt on the altar, so that the place of idolatry might be defiled and dishonoured. See Numbers 19:16. For fulfilment of prophecy read 2 Kings 23:15-20. 3. Its merciful design. In 1 Kings 12:24 we read that God forbade the advance of the army of Judah on Jeroboam. Instead of carnage he sends this message. He willeth not the death of a sinner, but would rather he should turn from his wickedness and live. Suggest the warnings God now sends to rouse us to thought and penitence. II. HIS COURAGE. It was a bold thing to venture amongst the people at a time when they were full of hatred to Judah, and of unwillingness to be reminded of Jehovah; and to face the king, who was a man of despotic and resolute temper, in the very pride of his royal strength. But in the presence of them all the prophet’s cry arose, "O altar, altar, thus saith Jehovah," etc; as if the stones would listen more readily than the people. Give examples of similar courage being displayed by men who have had the Consciousness they were speaking for God; e.g; Moses before Pharaoh, Elijah before Ahab, John the Baptist before Herod, Peter and John before the Sanhedrim, Paul before Felix. From church history, too, such examples as that of Ambrose, John Knox, etc; may be cited. Show how requisite courage is now to genuine fidelity to conviction, amongst sceptical or sinful associations. III. HIS . A sign was given there and then. The altar was cleft in twain, and the ashes were poured out. For the significance of the latter see Le John 16:3, John 16:4. Point out the credibility of supernatural signs as attesting supernatural revelations. Refer to the miracles of Christ, of which He said, "Believe me for the very works’ sake." See also Mark 16:20; Acts 2:1-47:48. Indicate the nature of the credentials which the world may fairly demand of Christian men in the present day; and show how far we fail in giving these, and the causes of our failure. IV. HIS SAFETY. Amidst all the perils encircling him he was "kept by the power of God." The hand that would have slain him was withered; the man who cursed his message besought his prayers. "Man is immortal till his work is done." When God’s servants die, it is because they have fulfilled the purpose of their lives. They have many enemies, but God can disable all their foes. The path of duty is the path of safety. Illustrate this from the records of the Christian Church; Luther at Worms, etc. 1. Learn to listen for God’s message. He would make you His "voice." 2. Learn to dare anything in God’s name. The rarity of Christian chivalry. 3. Learn to trust in God’s protection. "He that dwelleth in the secret place of the Most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty." 4. Learn to pray even for your persecutors. Compare Acts 2:6 with Matthew 5:44.—A.R. BY J. WAITE 1 Kings 13:6 The King confronted by the Prophet. Jeroboam is not allowed to pursue his iniquitous career without solemn Divine rebuke and warning. Though Rehoboam has been forbidden to attempt forcibly to suppress the revolt of the tribes (1 Kings 12:24), a "man of God out of Judah" is sent sternly to denounce the rival altar, and to give the sacrilegious king something like a symbolic forewarning of the disasters that should surely befall him. The scene, described here with so much simplicity and dramatic force, is full of moral instruction. I. In the person of the king we see THE OF A WICKED MAN IN THE HANDS OF AN GOD. The physical associations and the mental conditions here presented are alike suggestive of this. It is a striking picture of restrained infatuation and impotent rage. 1. The king’s withered arm tells how God can in a moment turn the strength that is used against Him to weakness. "When thou with rebukes dost correct man for iniquity," etc. (Psalms 39:11). 2. The rent altar suggests the certain frustration, sooner or later, of the purposes and plans of those that are at enmity with God. "The Lord bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought," etc. (Psalms 33:10). "If this counsel or this work be of man," etc. (Acts 5:38). 3. The king’s inability to pray for himself reminds us how God sometimes forsakes those who forsake Him, so that it seems utterly vain for them to call upon Him. Many a man has felt like Saul, "I am sore distressed, and God is departed from me," etc. (1 Samuel 28:15). 4. His appeal to the prophet to intercede for him is typical of the way in which ungodly men are often contrained by force of circumstance to seek succour from those whom they have despised. "The wheel of fortune turns and lowers the proud," and they are placed, perhaps, at the mercy of the very men whom they once scorned and injured. Such are the penalties that God often inflicts on those who trifle with His authority and defy His power. Such is the curse that falls upon "presumptuous sin." II. The behaviour of the prophet presents A FINE EXAMPLE OF MORAL DIGNITY AND . See here— (1) The courage of a man who knows that God is on his side. The prophets of old, conscious of a more majestic Presence and a higher Sovereignty, never trembled before the face of wicked kings. The fear of God casts out all other fear. "Be not afraid of them that kill the body," etc. (Luke 12:4, Luke 12:5). "If God be for us," etc. (Romans 8:31). (2) The magnanimity of one who feels that he is called to witness for God among men. The prophet will not take advantage of the king’s helpnessness; rather responds at once to his appeal. He who is inspired by God’s Spirit will not return scorn for scorn, or retaliate an attempted injury, but rather use for beneficent ends the power that he possesses. "Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven and consume them? Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of," etc. (Luke 9:54, Luke 9:56). (3) The efficacy of the prayer of a righteous man. The withered arm is restored, and though this had no happy moral effect, as might have been expected, on Jeroboam, the whole transaction, in which mercy was thus blended with judgment, vindicated the honour of Jehovah, and established afresh His sovereign claim to the allegiance alike of king and people.—W. BY J. 1 Kings 13:1-10 I. THE OF ERROR DEEPEN ITS SHAME. The idolatrous altar was being solemnly consecrated. The people’s eyes were dazzled with the splendour of the priestly and regal display. Jeroboam himself stood by the altar to offer incense. And then the cry arose which arrested every ear and thrilled through every soul. 1. The attempt to give importance to the new idolatry only broadened the mark for God’s rebuke: it simply lent emphasis to His condemnation. They had come to consecrate, and had really come to attend upon God while He desecrated the work of their hands. Heathenism in its splendour thus rebuked by the preaching of the cross, Rome by the light of the Reformation. 2. The agent by whom God’s glory was vindicated. The insignificance of the poor, weary, travel-stained man deepened their disgrace. "God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty." II. THE DOOM OF WORSHIP. 1. The altar will be desecrated. The place will be made an abomination and horror. Sin’s judgment will in the end be sin’s destruction. 2. The sin will be wiped out in the blood and shame of those who have wrought it. The priests will be offered upon the altar, the bones of its worshippers burned upon it. The world’s sin will be ended in God’s fiery judgment upon the sinful. 3. The certainty of God’s purpose. Centuries intervened between the prediction and the fulfilment, but all was arranged. The time was fixed, the avenger named. There is no uncertainty in God’s mind regarding the end of iniquity. The decree has been recorded, the time fixed, THE MAN named by whom He will judge the world in righteousness. 4. The sign meanwhile given. The altar was rent and its ashes poured out. The wrath revealed from heaven now is proof that all God’s purpose shall be fulfilled. III. MAN’S TO CONTEND WITH GOD. 1. The withered arm. The arm outstretched in eager, wrathful command to arrest the man of God, withered in the very attitude. It was the emblem of his house and of his people; they were withered in the attitude of rebellion against God. 2. The prophet’s safety. He needed none to shield him. God protects all those who serve Him. 3. Jeroboam’s humiliation. He turns from idol and altar and priests, and requests the prophet’s intercession with Jehovah. 4. His arm is restored at the prophet’s request, and he thus bears in his person another token that the word he has heard is from God. It is the story of God’s contest with darkness and wrong today. IV. FOR . Jeroboam’s hospitality and reward were alike refused. The prophet was even forbidden to return by the same way: he was not to enter even into acquaintance with men who were sinning so deeply against God. Unless there be separation our testimony is a sham. Our life unsays our speech. If we will speak God’s word to the sinful, our attitude must reveal their distance from God and the peril in which they stand. If our own heart be filled with holy fear it may pass item us to them.—J.U. THE AND DEATH OF THE MAN OF GOD.—The seduction of the man of God, who has borne such fearless witness against Jeroboam’s ecclesiastical policy, and his tragical end, are now narrated, partly because of the deep impression the story made at the time, but principally because these events were in themselves an eloquent testimony against the worship of the calves and the whole ecclesiastical policy of Jeroboam, and a solemn warning for all time against any, the slightest, departure from the commandments of God. The very unfaithfulness of this accredited messenger of the Most High, and the instant punishment it provoked, became part of the Divine protest against the new regime, against the unfaithfulness of Israel; whilst the remarkable manner in which these occurrences were recalled to the nation’s memory in the reign of Josiah (2 Kings 23:17, 2 Kings 23:18) made it impossible for the historian of the theocracy to pass them over without notice. 1 Kings 13:11 Now there dwelt an old prophet [Heb. a certain (lit. one) old prophet. For this use of אֶחָד (= τις) of. 1 Kings 20:13; 1 Kings 19:4] at Bethel [It is at first somewhat surprising to find one of the prophetic order residing here, at the very seat and stronghold of the apostasy, especially after what we read in 2 Chronicles 11:13-16, that the priests and Levites, and it would seem all devout worshippers of the Lord God of Israel, had left the country, and had gone over to Rehoboam. For we cannot suppose that a sense of duty had kept this prophet at his post (see note on 2 Chronicles 11:1). The fact that he remained, not only in the kingdom, but at its ecclesiastical capital; that he stood by without protest when the schism was being effected, and that, though not present himself at the sacrifice, he permitted his sons to be there, is a sufficient index to his character. It is quite possible that strong political sympathies had warped his judgment, and that he had persuaded himself that the policy of Jeroboam was necessitated by the division of the kingdom, which he knew to be from the Lord, and which one of his own order had foretold. Or it may be that, despite his better judgment, he had gone with his tribe and the majority of the nation, and now felt it difficult to withdraw from a false position. Or, finally, he may have taken the side of Jeroboam because of the greater honours and rewards that prince had to bestow (see on 2 Chronicles 11:18). There is a striking similarity between his position and action and that of Balaam]; and his sons [The Heb. has son; The LXX; Syr; and Vulg; sons. It is quite true that a "very slight change in the Hebrew text would bring it into accordance with the Septuagint here" (Rawlinson, similarly Ewald), but it would be against sound principles of textual criticism to make it. It is much more likely that the LXX. and other versions have been altered already, and that the plural has been introduced here because it is uniformly found in the later narrative. "His son" (בִּנו), as the lectio ardua, is therefore to he retained. The use of the singular indicates that one of them was at first the principal speaker. Perhaps one hastened home with the news before the rest. The sons of the prophet are not to be confounded with "the sons (i.e; disciples) of the prophets" (2 Kings 2:3, 2 Kings 2:4, passim); not merely because "the latter would scarcely have witnessed the golden calf worship" (Bהhr), but also because they would have been differently designated] came and told him all the works [Heb. work] that the man of God had done that day in Bethel: the words which he had spoken unto the king, them they [observe the plural] told also to their father. [It is quite clear that the virtual excommunication which the man of God had pronounced had made as great an impression as the signs which he had showed. The interdict was a matter which came home to the Bethelites, as an affront to the whole community.] 1 Kings 13:12 And their father said unto them, What way went he? [The question shows that the old prophet throughly understood the import of those "words," and that his first thought was that the interdict must be removed at any cost.] For his sons had seen [Heb. and his sons saw, or showed. LXX. δεικνύουσιν. Similarly most of the versions. A very slight change in the vowel points ויּרַאְוּ for ויּרִאוַּ would give this sense] what way the man of God went which came from Judah. 1 Kings 13:13 And he said unto his sons, Saddle me the ass. [This prompt and seemingly abrupt command—though we cannot be sure that all the conversation is here reported—shows his instant resolve to follow. These are the words of one who had made up his mind, coute que coute, to bring the man of God back.] So they saddled him the ass: and he rode thereon. 1 Kings 13:14 And he went after the man of God and found him sitting under an oak [Heb. the oak; i.e; the well-known oak. Possibly there was but one, or one of great size, in the neighbourhood—such trees are comparatively rare in Palestine. Possibly also this tree became well known from these events. It is singular that in another place (Genesis 35:8) we read of "the oak" (אַלּוֹן) of Bethel, whilst in Judges 4:5 we read of the "palm tree" (תֹּמֶר) of Deborah, between Ramah and Bethel." And it is not at all improbable, seeing that in 1 Samuel 10:3 we read of the terebinth (אֵלוֹן) of Tabor—in the A.V. rendered "plain of Tabor"—which Ewald ("Hist. Israel," 1 Samuel 3:21; 1 Samuel 4:1-22:31) considers to be only a dialectic variation of Deborah, and remembering the great age to which these trees attain, that the same tree is referred to throughout. The word here used, it is true, is אֵלָה (which is generally supposed to indicate the terebinth, but is also "used of any large tree" (Gesenius), and which, therefore, may be used of the אַלּוֹן of Bethel. Both names are derived from the same root (אוּל fortis. Cf. Amos 2:9), and both indicate varieties—what varieties it is not quite clear—of the oak. Some expositors have seen in this brief rest the beginning of his sin, and certainly it would seem against the spirit of his instructions to remain so near a place (see note on 1 Samuel 10:16) from which he was to vanish speedily, and, if possible, unperceived. In any case the action betrays his fatigue and exhaustion], and he said unto him, Art thou the man of God that camest from Judah? And he said, I am. 1 Kings 13:15 Then he said unto him, Come home with me [Heb. Come with me to the house] and eat bread. The sting was in the tail of this invitation. If he would partake of food, he would thereby remove the ban and so neutralize one part of his mission.] 1 Kings 13:16 And he said, I may not [Heb. am not able to] return with thee, nor go in with thee: neither will I eat bread nor drink water with thee in this place. [The translation "in that place" adopted by Wordsworth (after the Vulgate, in loco isto) does not agree with the Hebrew. And it is not required by the context. The tree was probably at no great distance from the town.] 1 Kings 13:17 For it was said to me [Heb. a word to me] by [Heb. in] the word of the Lord, Thou shalt eat no bread, nor drink water there, nor turn again to go by the way that thou camest. 1 Kings 13:18 He said unto him; I am a prophet also as thou art; and an angel Some, including Josephus and most Jewish commentators, have supposed him to be altogether a false and lying prophet, such as are found plentifully later on in the history (1 Kings 22:6; Jeremiah 28:1); but against this is the fact that he was undoubtedly the channel of a Divine communication (verse 21). The real difficulty, no doubt, lies in the fact that one by whom the Spirit of God spake to man should have acted so base a part as he did. But it must be remembered (1) that he did not know what a terrible judgment his lie would bring upon "the man of God;" (2) that truth had not the place in the Jewish scheme which it has in Christian morals; (3) that the gift of prophecy is compatible with much moral imperfection on the part of the prophet—the cases of Balaam and Caiaphas will occur to all—and (4) that this man was constrained to prophesy almost in spite of himself; he was compelled, i.e; to proclaim his own falseness, and to announce the punishment of the man he had himself deceived. It is also to be considered that this lying prophet, like those of 1 Kings 22:22, accomplished the purpose of God, which was to make the man of God a sign to the men of that generation. Cf. Isaiah 20:3; Ezekiel 12:6; Ezekiel 24:24. In this latter consideration, indeed, lies the key to the history, The object the old prophet had in view it is not so difficult to divine. He hears that the prophet of Judah has refused the hospitality of King Jeroboam, and has put the city of Bethel and the new cultus under a virtual ban by refusing to eat bread in the place, or to hold any communication with the inhabitants, himself among the rest, although he has taken no part, even by his presence, in the ceremonial of the day. He naturally feels himself condemned and aggrieved by this conduct. A prophet would feel the interdict much more keenly than the people, and there can be little doubt that this man, who had been trying to serve two masters, was deeply mortified by the excommunication pronounced against him. He resolves, therefore, to rehabilitate himself in his own estimation and that of his neighbours, by bringing back the man of God to eat and to drink, and so in effect to remove the interdict, at any cost. If he succeeds, he win make the whole city, and especially the sovereign, whose policy has been so emphatically condemned, his debtor; while by accomplishing what the king had failed to effect, he will at once heal his wounded pride and secure a position of influence in the new kingdom. If it was the hope of temporal advancement had detained him at Bethel, he now sees, as he thinks, an easy way to its attainment; if it was an ardent sympathy with the new state of things, he sees before him an opportunity of expressing it in a most practical and serviceable way.] 1 Kings 13:19 So he went back with him, and did eat bread in his house, and drank water [cf. 1 Kings 13:10]. 1 Kings 13:20 And it came to pass, as they sat at the table [cf. Psalms 78:30. He is taken in the act, "even in the blossoms of his sin"], that the word of the Lord came unto the prophet that brought him back. 1 Kings 13:21 And he cried [same word as in 1 Kings 13:2. He who denounced the "sin of Jeroboam" is now denounced in turn] unto the man of God that came from Judah, saying, Thus saith the Lord, Forasmuch as thou hast disobeyed the mouth of the Lord, and hast not kept the commandment which the Lord thy God commanded thee. 1 Kings 13:22 But camest back, and hast eaten bread and drunk water in the place, of the which the Lord did say to thee, flat no bread, and drink no water; thy carcase [rather corpse; "carcase" is now a term of disparagement, of which, however, there is no idea in the Hebrew] shall not come unto the sepulchre of thy fathers. [The desire, common in a greater or less degree to all mankind, to rest after death amongst kindred dust, was especially strong in the Jew. It is evidenced by the common euphemism "he was gathered unto his fathers," and by the provisions of Abraham (Genesis 23:4), Jacob (Genesis 47:29; Genesis 49:29-31), and Joseph (Genesis 1:25). See also the words of Barzillai (2 Samuel 19:37; and compare 2 Samuel 2:32). This denunciation did not necessarily imply a violent death (as Keil, al.) or even a speedy death, but it prepared the man of God for some untimely end.] 1 Kings 13:23 And it came to pass, after he had eaten bread, and after he had drunk, that he saddled [i.e; the prophet of Bethel; the "man of God" would seem to have come on foot. See below] for him the ass, to wit, for the prophet whom he had brought back. This translation is inadmissible. For not only is the term "prophet" throughout this narrative restricted to the prophet of Bethel (the prophet of Judah being always spoken of as "the man of God,") but the expression here used הַנָּבִיא à ä is also twice used (1 Kings 13:20, 1 Kings 13:26) of the same prophet. He is characterized there, that is to say, as "the prophet which brought him back;" it is hardly likely, therefore, that the same words are here to be interpreted, "the prophet whom he brought back." The mistake has arisen from the proximity of לוֹ ("for him") to לַנָּבִיּא ("to" or "for the prophet"). But the לוֹis here indicative of possession (the dative of the possessor), as in 1 Samuel 14:16, "the watchmen to," i.e; of, "Saul," and 1 Samuel 16:18, "a son to Jesse" (cf. Genesis 14:18 Heb.; 1 Kings 5:1-18:29 Heb.; Rth 2:3 Heb.) We must therefore render "He saddled for him (the man of God) the ass of the prophet which brought him back." The man of God had been delayed by his return to Bethel, and the prophet, out of pity, lends or gives him his ass. Not merely, it is probable, for the sake of speeding him on his way, but that he might have some living thing with him on a journey which he had so much cause to dread. 1 Kings 13:24 And when he was gone [Heb. and he went], a lion (Lions were evidently numerous in Palestine in former days, though they are now extinct. This is proved by the names of places, such as Laish, Lebaoth, etc; and by the constant reference to them in Scripture. They had their lairs in the forests, one of which existed near Bethel (2 Kings 2:24), and especially in the thickets of the Jordan valley (Jeremiah 49:19; Zechariah 11:3).] met [Heb. found. The primary meaning of מָצָא is, no doubt, "found accidentally," "came upon" (εὗρεν, invenit), but it is often used of finding after a search (1 Samuel 9:4, etc.), and it should be remembered that this is the word used in verses 14, 28] him by [in, as below] the way, and slew him: and his carcase was cast in the way [road, highway, verse 25], and the ass stood [Heb. standing] by it, the lion also stood [standing] by the carcase. [These particulars are mentioned to show that his death was no accident, or chance, but a visitation of God. There are probably but few persons who have not felt that this summary punishment was marked by extreme severity; the more so, as the prophet was cruelly deceived, and that by a brother prophet, who claimed to have received a subsequent revelation, and whom, consequently, it appeared to be a duty to obey. And when it is observed that the really guilty person, the prophet of Bethel, so far as appears, escaped all punishment, and by his lie secured for himself respect for his remains, we seem to have a case of positive hardship and injustice. As I have discussed the question at some length elsewhere, it must suffice to say here that the difficulty is at once removed if we remember that although the Jewish dispensation was one of temporal recompenses, yet all the same there is a judgment hereafter. No doubt the man of God was punished for his disobedience, for inexcusable disobedience it was. It is quite true that he was solemnly assured that an angel had appeared to revoke his commission, but for this he had only the word of a stranger, of one, too, with whom he had been commanded "not even to eat." He had "the word of the Lord;" that is to say, the voice of God, borne in upon his soul, forbidding his return, and the word of an irreligious stranger, who gave no "sign the same day" in proof of his mission, authorizing it. There can be no doubt which he ought to have followed, the more so as the command he had himself received was so remarkably explicit and decisive (verse 9); so decisive that we can hardly suppose he would have deviated from it, had not the pains of hunger and thirst pleaded powerfully in favour of the pretended revelation of the Bethelite prophet. Indeed, it is hardly too much to say that he eagerly welcomed this cause for returning. It is impossible, therefore, to acquit him of disobedience. Nor is it difficult to see that the consequences of this disobedience were serious. It was not as if he had disregarded a mere positive obligation, the only object of which was to test his obedience (Rawlinson); he had acted in a way calculated to destroy the moral effect of his mission. He had been employed not only to testify publicly against the calf worship, but also to lay the city and the new sanctuary of Jeroboam under an interdict, and by his return that interdict lost much of its force. His eating and drinking, small matters in themselves, were full of significance. Indeed, he did in one way precisely what Jeroboam and his people were doing in another he forsook the plain commands of God for the ordinances of men; he listened to the tempter and ate the forbidden fruit; and so it came to pass flint, instead of witnessing against disobedience, he himself set them the example of disobedience. It is the story of the Fall over again; and therefore death, the punishment of the Fall, befell him. But before we say that his punishment was too severe, let us remember what, by the mercy of God, that primal punishment has become. It has been turned into a blessing. It has given us the incarnation, redemption, eternal life. We forget that death is not necessarily an evil—is in reality a blessing. One of the heathen has said that if we only knew what the future life was like, we should not be content to live. To this "man of God" it must surely have been gain to die. If the flesh was destroyed, it was that the spirit might be saved (1 Corinthians 5:5). Only because we forget that death is the gate of life do we complain of the severity of his doom. And as to the lying prophet who wrought all this mischief escaping retribution—which, by the way, he did not do, for assuredly he must have had a life-long remorse—it is overlooked that the day of retribution has not yet arrived. There is for him a judgment to come. It may he said that the Jew did not know of this—that the future life had not then been revealed. That is quite true, and for that very reason this visitation would make all the deeper impression on their minds. To this must be added that the man of God did not die merely or principally because of his sin, but "that the works of God might be made manifest in him." His death was necessary in order that his mission might not be altogether invalidated. His miserable end—as it must have seemed to them—would surely speak to the inhabitants of Bethel and to all Israel and Judah, for long years to come, as to the sure vengeance awaiting the disobedient, whether king, prophet, priest, or people. Though dead "he cried against the altar of Bethel." And the sacred narrative (verses 26-32) affords us some ground for hoping that the "old prophet" became penitent for his sin. It is noteworthy that he joins his testimony to that of the man of God. Thus, this tragedy extorted even from him a warning against disobedience (verse 26), and a confirmation of the prophecy against the altar of Bethel (verse 32).] 1 Kings 13:25 And, behold, men passed by, and saw the carcase cast in the way, and the lion standing by the carcase: and they came and told it in the city where the old prophet dwelt. [This was precisely what God had designed. By this means, the very disobedience and death of the man of God became a part of the protest against the new rites. "For if the partaking of food against the commandment of God, though the result not of indulgence, but of deceit, brought so great a punishment upon a righteous man, what sort of chastisements would befall those who had left God their Maker and were worshipping senseless images" (Theodoret.)] 1 Kings 13:26 And when the prophet that brought him back from the way heard thereof, he said, It is the man of God, who was disobedient [Heb. rebelled; same word as in verse 21] unto the word [Heb. "mouth," as in verse 21] of the Lord: therefore the Lord hath delivered him unto the lion, which hath torn [Heb. as marg; broken. The word "is very expressive, for the lion kills with one blow" (Thenius)] and slain him, according to the word of the Lord, which he spake unto him. 1 Kings 13:27 And he spake to his sons, saying, Saddle me the ass. And they saddled him. 1 Kings 13:28 And he went and found his carcase cast in the way, and the ass and the lion standing by the carcase: the lion had not eaten the carcase nor torn [Heb. broken, as in verse 26] the ass. 1 Kings 13:29 And the prophet took up the carcase of the man of God, and laid it upon the ass [i.e; the one standing by], and brought it back: and the old prophet came to the city, to mourn and to bury him. [The mourning is specially mentioned, because in the East professional wailers were and are employed at funerals. The Jew, no less than the Greek and Roman, esteemed it a great misfortune and disgrace to be deprived of decent burial: Isaiah 14:19; Jeremiah 22:19; and especially 2 Kings 9:10. 1 Kings 13:30 And he laid his carcase in his own grave [Matthew 27:60. This was a mark of profound respect (Rth 1:17; Genesis 23:6)]; and they mourned over him, saying, Alas, my brother. [A customary formula in lamentation (Jeremiah 22:18). It hardly implies that "he was mourned and buried as a relative of the family" (Bähr). Seeing that the old prophet was responsible for his death, he could hardly have done less. "It is a cruel courtesy to kill a man and then help him to his grave" (Hall).] 1 Kings 13:31 And it came to pass, after he had buried him, that he spake to his sons, saying, When I am dead, then bury me in the sepulchre [Palestine, being of limestone formation, has a large number of caves. These, enlarged and adapted, were everywhere used for interments. ("The whole cliffs on its southern side [Hinnom] are honeycombed with tombs," Porter). In three sides of the cave vaults (loculi), each large enough to hold a body, were recessed in the rock, the entrance being closed by a slab of stone In the so called "tombs of the kings" and "prophets" we have such sepulchres on a large scale. A Paper on the Tombs of Palestine will be found in the Quarterly Statement of the Palestine Exploration Fund, p. 66 sqq. It appears from 2 Kings 23:17 that a pillar was erected to mark this prophet’s resting place] wherein the man of God is buried; lay my bones beside his bones. [That is to say, "Bury me in the cell next to his" (Rawlinson). But it is not absolutely certain that this arrangement (of loculi) obtained at this early period. The bodies may have been in much closer contact. See 2 Kings 13:21. The LXX. adds here, "That my bones may be saved with his bones;" an obvious gloss, founded on 2 Kings 23:18. This request throws some light on the yearning desire of the modern Jew to rest as near as possible to the bodies of the saints. See Porter, 1. p. 145. 1 Kings 13:32 For the saying which he cried by the word of the Lord against the altar in Bethel; and against all the houses of the high places [At that time there would seem to have been but two "high places." Keil sees "a prophetic element in these words." He thinks the old prophet foresaw that such sanctuaries would be multiplied. Rawlinson gathers, "from the mention of the great high place in 1 Kings 3:4, that there were many lesser high places in the land," which, no doubt, was the case at the date of Solomon’s accession. It is probable, however, that many of these, if not all, would be deserted when the temple was built. And it is most reasonable to suppose that in these, as in the following words, the historian has represented the prediction or affirmation of the old prophet in the language of his own time] which are in the cities of Samaria. [Obviously, these exact words cannot have been used by the prophet of Bethel, for Samaria dates its existence and name from the reign of Omri (1 Kings 16:24). The compiler of the Kings probably found the term in the documents which he used, or possibly, as already suggested, translated the prophet’s meaning into the language of a later day] shall surely come to pass. 1 Kings 13:33 After this thing [calculated though it was to make a deep impression and to furnish a solemn warning] Jeroboam turned not from his evil way. "Some hand was found that durst repair the altar God had rent" (Matthew Henry). According to Josephus, the old prophet now explained away the miracles of the prophet of Judah, alleging that the altar had fallen because it was new and the king’s hand had become powerless from fatigue (Ant; 1 Kings 8:9, § 1)], but made again [Heb. "returned and made." The tautology is significant. He returned not from his sin, but returned to it] of the lowest [see on 1 Kings 12:11] of the people priests of the high places: whosoever would [Heb. pleased], he consecrated [Heb. filled his hand. In the consecration of Aaron and his sons, and possibly of their successors also, the portions of the victim which were usually burned upon the altar, together with the right shoulder or leg, which was the priest’s portion, and three cakes of unleavened Bread, were put into the hands of the candidates for the priesthood, and waved before the Lord before they were offered on the altar (Exodus 29:22-26; Le Exodus 8:25-28). To "fill the hand" consequently Became a synonym for consecration] him [It would almost appear, from the extreme readiness with which Jeroboam ordained his priests, that few candidates offered themselves for the office. In one respect, however, he exacted more from the candidate than did the law. For whereas the latter required "one bullock and two rams" (Exodus 29:1, etc.), he demanded one Bullock and seven rams as the offering on consecration (2 Chronicles 13:9], and he became one of the priests [Heb. and he became priests, etc. So the Chaldee. LXX. καὶἐγένετοἱερεύς] of the high places. 1 Kings 13:34 And this thing [Heb. "in this thing:" בַּדָּבָר. Cf. 1 Chronicles 7:23; 1 Chronicles 9:33] became sin unto the house of Jeroboam, even to cut it off, and to destroy it from off the face of the earth [1 Kings 15:29. The forfeiture of the crown would bring in its train, almost as a matter of course, the destruction of his family (1 Kings 14:10-14). And we are taught here that both events are to be regarded, under the dispensation of temporal rewards and punishments, as the recompenses of his impiety; of that daring schismatic policy which, in all its branches, betrayed a complete disregard of the terms of the covenant, and which was persevered in contemptuous defiance of the repeated warnings of God.] 1 Kings 13:21 sqq.-The Man of God and the People of God. The morning of that fifteenth day of the eighth month, that black day in the Hebrew Kalendar, that birthday of division, was hardly more memorable or eventful than the evening. In the morning the Bethelites saw the signs of the man of God; in the evening they saw in him a sign, a parable, and a terrible warning. The lesson of the rent altar and the rigid hand was followed by the lesson of the lion and the ass and the rigid corpse. Truly, of that day it might be truly said, "The evening and the morning were one day." For we may be sure, when the old prophet came back from his quest of the body, and brought with him that melancholy burden, swinging across the ass, the men of Bethel, who had already heard from wayfarers of the tragedy, would crowd the streets or lanes—for Bethel was probably little more than a village—to meet him, and would gaze, hushed and awestruck, into the dumb and helpless face of the man whose words and deeds bad that day been so full of power. There was not a child that night but would leave his play to stare in silent wonder, or with whispered question, on the corpse. Of that sad funereal procession, the words which, near a thousand years later, described the entry of a living Prophet into an adjoining city, might justly be used, "All the city was moved, saying, Who is this?" (Matthew 21:10.) Nor would the language which described the effect of that same Prophet’s death a few days later be less applicable here, "All the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things which were done, smote their breasts and returned" (Luke 23:48). Let us now suppose, however, for the sake of bringing out the lessons of this narrative, that there were some in the crowd—as on the first feast day there may well have been—strangers in Bethel (cf. John 12:20; Acts 2:5-11), who did not understand the things which were come to pass there that day. Let us join them, as they go, carried by the stream, to meet the body; let us listen to their questions, and to the answers they receive. We shall not gather all the truth from the discourse we overhear, but we shall learn at all events one lesson which this tragedy had for the men of that time. Now the first question which would rise to these strangers’ lips, as they came upon the body, borne by the patient ass, which was the one terrified witness of the catastrophe, would be, "Who is this?" They think, perhaps, it is some peasant who has been slain as he tilled his fields, or some itinerant; chapman who has been murdered on his journey. But the bystanders speedily undeceive them. They tell them that this is "a man of God who came from Judah." His name, it may be, is unknown to them, but not his deeds. They relate, with breathless excitement, not unmixed with fear, how a few short hours ago he was amongst them; how on the morning of that very day he had confronted their king as he was in the act of sacrificing, had denounced his innovations, had foretold the overthrow of his policy and dynasty, and had then wrought wonderful works in attestation of his mission. The strangers listen with steadily increasing wonderment. Had this man been "a murderer whom vengeance suffered not to live," or a sinner above all men that dwelt in Bethel, they could have understood it. Such a one, however he might have met his end, would only have received the just reward of his deeds, but "a man of God," a man who wrought miracles, a favourite of Heaven!—they cannot comprehend it, and they, as excited as their informants, hurriedly ask how he has come by his death. "A lion slew him," is the answer. It is true no human eye saw the deed, but there can be no doubt as to the manner of his death. Then they tell how wayfaring men that afternoon had seen a strange sight, a corpse cast in the way—whose corpse they knew not—and an ass and a lion standing as joint sentinels over it, etc. And then the strangers would understand that this man of God had died by the visitation of God. They would remember that the "teeth of evil beasts" were one of the plagues denounced in the law, and they would wonder, and they would ask, what this messenger of the Most High, this miracle worker, could have done between morning and evening to bring this terrible judgment down upon his head. And this was a question which only the old prophet could rightly answer, and he had answered it already. He had told his sons and neighbours that afternoon, when first he heard of this tragedy, that it was the punishment of disobedience (1 Kings 13:26). Not improbably he proclaimed it again to the crowd which awaited his return. "He had been charged," he would say, as they stood gazing on the helpless corpse, "to lay our city under a ban; he had been commanded to eat no bread, to drink no water here. And he came back, and he ate bread and he drank water in my house; therefore it is that ’the lion hath torn him and slain him, according to the word of the Lord’" (1 Kings 13:26). And so the men of Bethel, and the strangers among them—and thousands of strangers would be present in Bethel at that time—would understand that this man, albeit a prophet, and a doer of wondrous works, had paid the penalty of his partial disobedience with his life. They would perceive that God had not spared His own elect messenger. They would see that the man who had been commissioned to protest against Jeroboam’s will worship, who had courageously faced the king in his might, and had stood like an Athanase against the world, had received judgment without mercy when he overstepped the commandment of his God. And they would assuredly be reminded, some of them at least, how sinful and how dangerous must be that departure from the law which they had that day seen instituted amongst themselves. And as one by one they dropped off, and, deeply awed and impressed, returned to their tents or booths, the one thought which above all others filled their minds would be this—how sure and swift and terrible was the recompense of disobedience. But if these strangers, in their perplexity, proceeded to make further inquiries, as they may well have done; if they asked what could have led such a man as this to set at nought the plain commandment of God: if they discovered from the old prophet, or his sons, or others, the circumstances of his sin; if they learned that this man of God had resisted the entreaties of the king, had obeyed his own instructions to the letter, and had only come back and eaten bread on the solemn assurance of this old prophet himself that an angel from heaven had distinctly reversed his commission; if they understood that it was because he had taken this man at his word and trusted to his good faith, as they themselves would have done in like circumstances, that he had been induced to return; and that because of this, and nothing else, this ambassador of the Most Merciful had died by the stroke of a wild beast, we may imagine what their astonishment and horror would be like. "Who shall deliver us," they would cry, "out of the hand of this mighty God?" And it is probable that at first they would find it difficult to see wherein his sin lay, and to disentangle the right and the wrong in his conduct. They would say, and rightly, that he was much more sinned against than sinning. It would seem to them that the really guilty party escaped unpunished, whilst his innocent victim paid to the uttermost farthing. And it is possible that some found, at least for a time, in this episode, as some in later days have done, a riddle which they could not read. But its meaning could not be lost upon them all; if it had been, the Divine purpose in this visitation would have been defeated. It may be the old prophet himself expounded its lessons; it may be that "such as set their heart to seek the Lord"—and we may be sure that Jeroboam’s innovations had occasioned the gravest misgivings and fears in many minds—found them out for themselves. But in any case some would not be long in discovering that these things were an allegory. "As hieroglyphics," says Lord Bacon, "preceded letters, so parables were more ancient than arguments." May we not add that acted parables were still more ancient than spoken ones. A Tarquin, striking off the heads of the tallest poppies, belongs to the beginnings of history. This was the age when men not only gave signs, but were such themselves (Isaiah 20:3; Ezekiel 24:24; Matthew 12:1-50:89, 40). The death of the "man of God" accordingly was a parable, an object lesson of the most impressive kind as to the doom of the unfaithful people of God. In his end, men might see a foreshadowing of their nation’s, if it should persevere in the worship of the calves. For they would assuredly remember, as they pondered this history, that as this prophet of Judah was a man of God, precisely so was Israel the people of God (1 Kings 8:43, 1 Kings 8:52, 1 Kings 8:66; 1 Kings 14:7; Leviticus 26:12; Deuteronomy 26:18). As he was to other men, so was Israel to other nations. Was he elect of God and precious? So were they. Had he a mission? So had they. Had God spoken to him? He had also spoken to them, and moreover had given them a charge not unlike his. For it is to be also considered that God had plainly spoken to Israel on this very subject of Divine worship. At the very threshold of the Decalogue, at the head of "the words of the covenant," stood the charge, "Thou shalt have none other gods but me. Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image," etc. And it is to be noted here that these words stand side by side with the formula," I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt"—the very words which Jeroboam had cited in instituting his new mode of worship; the very cry which had been raised before when Israel made its first golden calf (Exodus 32:8). It is almost certain, therefore, that these initial words of the covenant had been lately and forcibly recalled to their minds. But in any case they could not be ignorant that their forefathers had been expressly charged to make no similitude, no graven or molten image (Leviticus 26:1; Deuteronomy 4:16, Deuteronomy 4:25; Deuteronomy 5:8; Deuteronomy 27:15, etc.) And this commandment. too, like the message of that morning, had been confirmed with signs following. The blackness, darkness, tempest, trumpet, fire, all these had attested that revelation of God’s will. It might possibly occur to some of their minds, therefore, that when the first protest against a corrupt following of the true God was raised, He "gave a sign the same day." Such, then, was the commandment given to Israel. It was as explicit, as authoritative as that which this dead prophet had recently received. But of late a new teacher had appeared amongst them, in the person of their king, who presumed to countermand this law of the Almighty. We are not told, indeed, that Jeroboam claimed to be prophet as well as priest, but we find him acting as one, and received as one. It is hardly likely that he laid claim to any revelation from on high. He was not the man to pretend to visions of angels. It was his contention that he was re-vetting to the old form of religion, but that was all. At the same time, he was the great false prophet of the Old Testament. Just as Moses was the giver of the law, just as Elias was its restorer, so was Jeroboam its depraver. Precisely what the lying prophet taught the man of God, that had he taught the people of God, viz; that God’s command was somehow abrogated. Prophet of Bethel and priest king of Bethel were alike in this, that each met the Divine, "Thou shalt not," with the human, "Thou shalt." There was this difference between them, that the first inculcated disobedience to but one command, whilst the second contravened a whole system; but this very divergence would make the parallel all the more impressive. "If," they would argue, "if a prophet, a doer of signs and wonders, died without mercy because he listened to the voice of a brother prophet—who swore that he had received a revelation concerning him—and so was betrayed into breaking one commandment, of how much sorer punishment shall those be thought worthy who at the mere word of their king, albeit he claimed no spiritual authority, and acted from political motives only, reject the gracious covenant of heaven, confirmed by many signs, and go after false gods," etc. There were some, no doubt, would see in the corpse borne to its burial that day a foreshadowing of the more terrible judgment then hanging over their own heads. And so we find this prophet of Judah has not lived or suffered in vain. His death, like that of Samson, wrought even more effectually than his life. He was set forth as it were appointed to death (1 Corinthians 4:9). He silently and unconsciously mirrored forth the sin and the punishment of a disobedient people. It now only remains for us to indicate briefly how the analogy between man of God and people of God received its completion in the punishment which befell the latter. The punishment of the prophet was death; of the people, whose sin was much greater, death and superadded infamy. We see this— 1. In the case of Jeroboam’s house. For the family of the deceiver was the first to suffer. As in the case of the man of God, "swift retribution" followed upon sin. And what retribution! The death and destruction of the race. He himself was smitten of God. His seed was suddenly cut off. The sword of Baasha was as swift as the lion’s paw. Only one of his children "came to the grave." The rest were devoured of beasts and birds. (cf. 1 Kings 14:11 with 1 Kings 13:28.) 2. In the case of his intrusive priests. If they escaped a violent death, their remains experienced disgrace worse than death (1 Kings 13:2). Here prophet and priests stand in contrast. The respect accorded to his ashes was denied to theirs. 3. In the case of the entire people. For the captivity, foretold in 1 Kings 14:15, was the death of the kingdom, and the death knell of the people. The ten tribes soon lost their corporate existence. And what agonies preceded that dissolution! (See Jeremiah 52:1-34; Lamentations passim; Psalms 74:1-23; Psalms 137:1-9.) The people to death, the land to lions! (2 Kings 17:25.) Could the analogy be much closer? But indeed the analogy does not end there. De te fabula narratur. The Christian Church has inherited the place, the privileges, the responsibilities of the Jewish people. If that Church, or if the individual Christian be unfaithful or disobedient, let them see their own fate glassed and pourtrayed in that of the disobedient prophet. "If God spared not the natural branches," etc. "I will remove thy candlestick out of his place." "Shame and everlasting contempt." The Two Prophets. We have already considered the principal lesson which this strange history had for that time. Let us now indicate some of the lessons which it has for all time. The text, to borrow Bishop Ridley’s phrase, "shall lead us by the hand;" we will record them as we find them set down in the story. And first let us contemplate the OLD PROPHET. Observe— 1. It was the false prophet that was old. Age should bring wisdom (Job 32:7; 1 Kings 12:7), and piety. But see Homiletics, p. 225. The old king (1 Kings 11:4) and the old prophet alike remind us that there is "no sinner like an old sinner." 2. It was only the false teacher that was styled a prophet. Probably because he alone had been taught in the schools. He was, so to speak, in the prophetical succession. The man of God was an irregular, though not self-constituted messenger. But observe, when God employs an irregular, He authenticates his mission with a sign. And consider, too, the unworthiness of ministers argues nothing against the office or the succession. See Art. XXVI. 3. The old prophet was in Bethel. "Where Satan’s seat is" (Revelation 2:8). But God had not fixed the bounds of his habitation. What wonder if, like him who "pitched his tent toward Sodom" (Genesis 13:12), he fell into temptation and sin? The old prophet, in his way, has "lifted up his eyes and beheld the plain of the Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere." He has remained here to worship the rising sun. Conscience bade him go. Convenience made him stay. 4. The old prophet tries to serve two masters. Though Jeroboam sets up molten images, a sanctuary, a priesthood, he raises no protest. But when Jeroboam burns incense and sacrifices, he does not sanction the proceeding by his presence, But he compromises the matter by sending his sons. "Video meliora proboque, Deteriora sequor." "He that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed (James 1:6). The temporiser soon finds difficulties in his path. Those who try to gain both worlds generally contrive to lose both. After the conduct of 1 Kings 14:18, he could not respect himself; and after the prophecy of verse 32, he could expect no advancement from the king. 5. The old prophet stoops to lies. And yet he was a true prophet. A preacher of righteousness, yet he practised deceit. Bedlam has been called "a strange mixture of a man." This prophet’s character and conduct were equally strange. But, alas! it is a common thing to find men’s example differing widely from their precept; to find insight without holiness, light without love. Prophetic gifts do not imply piety. It is no new thing for God’s ministers to fall into sin. 6. The old prophet slays a man of God. It was his tongue, not the lion’s paw, really slew a man more righteous and better than he. A prophet is the instrument of a murder (cf. John 8:44). "What shall be given unto thee, or what shall be done unto thee, thou false tongue?" (Psalms 120:3.) Let us take care lest we destroy with our meat one for whom Christ died (Romans 14:15). Let us remember— "What guilt, what grief may be incurred By one incautious, hasty word." Now let us turn to the MAN OF GOD. Observe— 1. The man of God believes every word. He was not altogether without excuse. False prophets were not as plentiful as they afterwards became. He was unprepared for such unblushing deceit. We should probably have done the same. Yet we have had manifold warnings (Matthew 7:15; Matthew 24:11.; Acts 20:29; 1 John 4:1; 1 Timothy 4:1, etc.) We have been taught that if "an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto us," it is at our peril we listen (Galatians 1:8). We have been reminded that "Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light" (2 Corinthians 11:14). 2. The man of God is deceived by lies. It is a favourite device of the enemy. He is the "father of lies" (John 8:44). It was thus he deceived our first parents. That weapon has answered so well that he plies it again and again (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:11). 3. The man of God goes back to Bethel. This faithful and courageous servant, who had defied the king, who had refused his dainties and rewards, etc; does not endure to the end. "Let him that thinketh he standeth," etc. "Whosoever shall keep the whole law and offend in one point he is guilty of all," because he is guilty of disobedience. "Evil is wrought by want of thought." The commands of God must be kept in their entirety. 4. The man of God is denounced by the prophet. Those who lead us into sin are the first to tax us with it afterwards. The deceiver turns upon his victim. We get scant comfort from companions in sin. "What is that to us? See thou to that" (Matthew 27:4). 5. The man of God hears his doom in silence. "He was speechless." "I became dumb and opened not my mouth, for it was thy doing." "Being convicted by their own conscience" (John 8:9). 6. The man of God dies without mercy. Though a prophet, the teeth of an evil beast avenge his disobedience. Judgment begins at the house of God (1 Peter 4:17). The teacher shall receive the greater condemnation (James 3:1). "Many stripes" are for those who knew and did not. "The wages of sin is death." 7. Yet his corpse is not mangled or dishonoured. It was partly for our admonition that he died. He was ordained to be a sign to that generation. Therefore, though deceived, he was not forsaken. The lion and the ass keep watch over his remains. "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints." "A bone of him shall not be broken." "Let no man move his bones" (2 Kings 23:18), His honourable funeral (cf. Isaiah 53:9; Matthew 27:60) and the respect subsequently paid him show that he was no castaway. And now that we have considered the prophet of Bethel and the prophet of Judah separated by deceit and death, let us see them for a moment reunited. 1. In their testimony. For to the witness of the man of God against the altar of Bethel was added the unwilling, and therefore powerful, witness of the old prophet (verse 32). Jeroboam has gained nothing by the death of the man who had denounced him and his rites. Though dead, he speaks, and speaks as he could never have done in life. And now "one of themselves, even a prophet of their own," has been constrained to echo and enforce his testimony. The king has now the testimony of two unimpeachable witnesses against his impious proceedings. 2. In their grave. "Lay my bones beside his bones." Like Balaam, this old prophet would "die the death of the righteous." "Gather not my soul with sinners" (Psalms 26:9) is his cry. "Sit anima mea cum illo." He will take his chance with the man of God rather than with the king. "I had rather be," says one, "with Origen wherever he is than with Justinian and Theodora wherever they are," "In death they were not divided." But how different their lot in life. The deceived dies; the deceiver lives. The lion which slew the comparatively innocent man of God would not touch the lying prophet. Though old, he is spared to grow older, while the other’s sun went down at noon. What an illustration this of the strange confusion of this present life (cf. Psalms 69:1-36; Psalms 73:1-28; etc.); what a proof of a life to come, where each shall receive his just recompense of reward! To the Jew, suckled in a creed of temporal rewards, etc; this history would present some anxious problems, all of which are clear since our Prophet, Priest, and King "brought life and immortality to light." BY J.A. 1 Kings 13:11-19 The Old Serpent again. As the ways of the serpent are tortuous so are those of Satan. If he cannot effect his purposes by moving in one direction he will move in another, and thus by crooked ways he advances (Isaiah 27:1; Psalms 125:5). He had already tempted the man of God by means of the schismatic king, and failed; his next work is to see what influence an old prophet may have upon him. So versatile are his devices that it is our wisdom to be ever on the alert. Observe the adroitness with which he lays his plans. His astuteness is seen— I. IN HIS . These were— 1. "The sons of the old prophet." (1) They were near the altar. Whether by the contrivance of Satan, or that, finding them there, he made them his tools, is not revealed. Or whether they were there out of curiosity, or sympathy with the apostasy, is not revealed. But they were there—on the devil’s ground. We must keep from that if we would escape mischief. (2) They were witnesses of the words and works of God. So, might have been rebuked for sympathy with evil and admonished to separate themselves from it. They also saw the way the man of God took in returning to Judah. (3) They lost no time in reporting to their father, urged, unconsciously to themselves, by Satan. We cannot always tell when we are prompted by the devil, or when he uses for his purposes our natural promptings. We should pray God to spare us the humiliation of serving Satan’s purposes. 2. The old prophet himself. (1) He was an "old" prophet, or had been a prophet in the old time before the apostasy of Jeroboam. Probably he had backslidden from God; for, though he did not appear at Bethel, he allowed his sons to be there. Had he not lost his old fire would he not have lifted his voice against the national sin? Backsliders from God become the devil’s dupes. (2) The energy of Satan is seen in the promptness of this old prophet’s action. He quickly got information. He lost no time in the pursuit. The sluggishness of age was shaken off under the excitement of the devil’s spur. (3) But what was the old man’s motive? Probably the desire to display that hospitality which the Easterns cultivated so carefully, mingled with a curiosity to know more about the wonders the man of God was commissioned to discover. But Satan’s motive was very different. Beware that your motives become not subservient to those of the devil. Let your motives be pure and godly. II. IN USING THEM. 1. See the stratagem in Eden, repeated. (1) Had Satan tempted Eve in his proper character he would have failed (1 Timothy 11:14). So the man of God was proof against the solicitations of the king whom he discerned to be the "man of sin" of his time. (2) Satan therefore concealed himself under the sleek, lustrous form of a serpent, and deceived our mother. Then transferring himself to the fallen Eve, under her lovely disguise, overcame Adam. So, enshrining himself in the old prophet, he vanquished the "man of God." Beware of Satan’s disguises. Especially beware of the religious devil. (3) The offence, again, was eating. In Eden it was eating the forbidden thing. Note: The place may be right, the thing wrong. At Bethel it was eating in the forbidden place. Note: The thing may be right, the place wrong. 2. See the spirit of the devil. (1) The spirit of cruelty. The old prophet knew that the man of God was forbidden to eat in Bethel, yet he importuned him to eat bread with him. Cruelty is no less real because sheathed in professions of kindness. Over-indulgent parents are their children’s cruelest enemies. (2) The spirit of treachery. The man of God had refused a king: will he withstand a prophet? (Jeremiah 23:18; Amos 2:11.) (3) The spirit of lies (1 Kings 13:18). Now is Satan transformed into an angel of light. Could the old prophet have been himself thus deceived? He deceived the man of God. Beware of the devil of hospitality. Perhaps the man of God the more readily yielded being weak with fatigue and fasting (compare Matthew 4:2-4). No example, save that of Jesus, may be followed implicitly.—J.A.M. 1 Kings 13:20-22 The Voice of Reproof. No man of God will deliberately sin against God (John 8:44; 1 John 3:9; 1 John 5:18). But the good are liable to be surprised or deceived into transgression (James 1:13-15; 1 John 2:1, 1 John 2:2). We must be ever on our guard against the "wiles" and "depths" of Satan. For lack of vigilance this man of God fell into the snare, and we see here how he was reproved. I. HE SINNED AGAINST THE WORD OF JEHOVAH. 1. This is evident upon the face of the narrative. (1) He came out of Judah "by the word of Jehovah." Cried against the altar at Bethel "in the word of Jehovah." Gave the sign upon the altar "by the word of Jehovah" (1 Kings 13:1, 1 Kings 13:2, 1 Kings 13:5). (2) He professed that .his instructions not to eat in Mount Ephraim, but to return to Judah by another road, were by the same word. Professed to the king (1 Kings 13:9); to the old prophet (1 Kings 13:17). 2. But could not God revoke or modify His word? (1) Certainly. He did so to Abraham (see Genesis 22:11, Genesis 22:12). What had been might be. (2) Upon the recognition of this principle the old prophet proceeded, and so far was the man of God from disputing it that he was taken in the snare (1 Kings 13:18, 1 Kings 13:19). 3. Wherein, then, was his fault? The revocation here came not with the evidence of the command. The command was immediately from "the mouth of the Lord" (per. 21). The revocation came immediately from the mouth of the old prophet. Note: We are responsible for the proper use of reason in religion. (2) Faith in the word of the Lord must be implicit. The Bible is that word. The evidence that it is such is conclusive—external, internal, collateral. (3) Other voices must not be allowed to replace this. The voice of "nature," of "reason," of the "Church." We listen implicitly to these at our peril. II. BY THE WORD OF JEHOVAH HE WAS . 1. This came to the man of God himself. (1) The reading of the text would lead us to conclude that it came to the old prophet. The words אשר השיבו here rendered, "who brought him back," are in 1 Kings 13:23 construed, "whom he had brought back," and might be so construed here. Josephus asserts that the word of the Lord here came to the man of God; and so does the Arabic. In the 26th verse we are assured by the old prophet that this word of the Lord came to the man of God. (2) According to this view it was "Jehovah" who "cried unto the man of God," viz; from heaven as He called to Abraham (Genesis 22:11). So, coming to himself, as the command did in the first instance, he had not to weigh contradictory testimonies from the old prophet, but was left without a doubt. God brings home sin with demonstration. 2. It came to him in the ripeness of his transgression. (1) "As they sat at table." Conscience reproves the sinner in the very act of sin. This is the voice of God in the soul. But here was an external voice to which the internal voice responded. Conscience responds to the word or law of God. (2) It came to all who were at the table. To the old prophet as well as to the man of God. His conscience, too, would respond to the voice of God. To the sons of the old prophet, if present, there would also be a voice. What will our emotions be when in the day of judgment all the mischief to which we have been accessories will be discovered? 3. It was terribly severe. (1) He is doomed to dis. "Sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." We all die in consequence of sin entailed. But here is an actual "sin unto death" (1 John 5:16). (2) He is doomed to die abroad. The mention of his carcase not coming to the sepulchre of his fathers implied a violent death away from home. Possibly the manner of his death may have been made known to him (compare 1 Kings 13:26; 1 Kings 20:36). The word of God is not violated with impunity. What will be the case of those who seldom take pains to consult it?—J.A.M. 1 Kings 13:28-29 The Visitation of Judgment. The man of God from Judah, deceived by the old prophet of Ephraim, ate and drank in that land of apostasy. This was a disobedience to the word of the Lord, and a complicity in the abominations he was sent to denounce. For this he heard the Divine voice of reproof, and went forth to suffer accordingly, as detailed in the text. I. THE SEQUEL A . 1. Review the prophecy. (1) 1 Kings 13:22. He was, therefore, doomed to die away from his home; and, presumably, by violence. (2) With what solemn feelings would he see his ass saddled with the prospect of such a journey! Ought not our feelings also to be solemn to whom death is certain, though the moment and the manner be unknown? 2. Note the fulfilment. (1) 1 Kings 13:29, 1 Kings 13:30. He was met and slain by a lion, and his corpse was cast in the way. There was a spectacle for all passengers! What an evil thing is sin! (2) Thus suffered for disobedience a "man of God." The sanctity of his profession did not protect him from sin, neither can it protect him from punishment. So neither, the dignity of his office. So neither, the service he had rendered to God (see 1 Corinthians 9:27; 2 Corinthians 13:5, 2 Corinthians 13:6). (3) Judgment begins at the house of God, but falls more terribly upon the wicked (1 Peter 4:17, 1 Peter 4:18). They may well tremble before "Him that can destroy both soul and body in hell." (4) The man of God came not to the sepulchre of his fathers, yet was mourned over by one who had been a snare to him, but to whom he had been made a blessing. There are strange reciprocities. II. THE WAS BY SIGNS. 1. Miracle controlled the instincts of animals. (1) The lion was moved, not by thirst for prey, but by revenge. But this revenge was the Lord’s. The animal had suffered nothing from the hand of the man of God. (2) Instinct was otherwise controlled. For here were the lion and the ass together watching the carcase. The ass did not fly from the face of the lion; neither did the lion molest the ass. (3) Nor was this strange witnessing the accident of a momentary surprise. It was maintained while certain passengers, who first observed it, journeyed to the city and reported it; and until, in consequence, the old prophet, divining its import, came upon the scene. 2. Here let us admire the Divine resources. (1) He that moved upon the instincts of the lion and the ass was the same who made the representatives of the animal creation defile before Adam to receive their names; who brought them into the ark of Noah; restrained the lions from injuring Daniel; the same who, in the days of His flesh, dwelt among the wild beasts in the wilderness, and who controlled the movements of fishes in the depths (Mark 1:13; Matthew 17:27; Luke 5:4-7). This power over the instincts of the lion and ass is but a sample of corresponding dominion over every department of nature. And the resources of this power are the resources of justice and mercy. 3. But what is the mystical meaning of the signs? (1) The death of the man of God was judgment for his complicity with the sin of Ephraim in eating and drinking in that polluted place. So it was the last of the series of warnings to Jeroboam before the abandonment of his house to destruction (see verse 33). (2) The lion that inflicted the penalty was the symbol of Judah, of its royalty, and especially of Shiloh, in whom that royalty culminated. Hence Messiah is described as the "Lion of the tribe of Judah" (see Genesis 49:9,Genesis 49:10; Revelation 5:5). Of this glorious Lion, Josiah was to be a type. Messiah visits the sin of Ephraim in the apostasy of the son of Nebat, and the sin of Judah for complicity in its abominations (see Hosea 5:14). So in like manner will He strike down the forms of apostasy extant in these latter times. (3) The ass was the symbol of Issachar (Genesis 49:14, Genesis 49:15); but not of Judah; for it is difficult to justify the translation in verse 11, which is better rendered, "and him shall the peoples obey; binding up the shoots of the vine, and the branches of the choice vine." (4) As the ass stood as a witness of this judgment of God upon the sin of Jeroboam, and then carried the carcase away to be buried, so "Baasha, the son of Ahijah, of the house of Issachar," destroyed and put out of sight the house of Jeroboam, fulfilling the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite (ch. 15:27-30). How manifold is the wisdom of God! How deep are His judgments!—J.A.M. 1 Kings 13:30-34 The Law of Extremity. God has made us free to choose or refuse good or evil Will cannot be coerced and yet be free; coercion here, therefore, would be destruction. But while God does not compel us to choose the right, He induces by gracious promises, and admonishes by alternative penalties. Still we remain free to elect the good with its blessings, or the evil with its entailments of misery. But so loth is He to see His creatures wretched that He has opened a way of repentance and reformation for sinners. In this, mercy is carried to the extreme limit which consists with the welfare of the universe, which must ever depend upon the order and harmony of righteousness. At this point there comes in the law of extremity; and the sinner passing it has to encounter "judgment without mercy." I. THE OLD PROPHET SOUGHT MERCY. 1. His conduct expressed repentance. (1) He went out for the corpse of the man of God, and brought it to his home, discerning the hand of God in the judgment. Looking now upon that ghastly form of death he saw his own sad work. He had caused a mischief he could not now repair. How inadequately men estimate beforehand the consequences of their wrong doing! (9.) He decently interred the body in his own grave. This was the only reparation now within his power for the injury he had caused, But how inadequate! What a bitter thought! (3) He "mourned over him, saying, Alas, my brother!" This exclamation (הוי אחי) was the refrain of a lamentation (see Jeremiah 22:18). Ward, in his "Manners and Customs of the Hindoos," gives two specimens of such lamentations. There are frequent allusions to these in the prophets (see Jeremiah 30:7; Ezekiel 6:11; Joe 1:15; Amos 5:16,Amos 5:17; Revelation 18:10-19). With the old prophet this was more than a conventional mourning, he mourned for himself before God. 2. His conduct also expressed faith. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ THE DEATH OF ’S SON.—The protest of the prophet of Judah, the signs which supported it, and above all the solemn visitation, with its strange portents, which straightway followed it, having alike failed to arrest Jeroboam (1 Kings 13:33) in his high-handed and shameless depravation of the true religion, we now read of the retribution which came upon his family, and which began with the sickness and death of his firstborn. We can hardly regard this as a part of the discipline designed to reform the king, and so avert the schism, for the narrative distinctly conveys the impression that Jeroboam’s day of grace was past, and that judgment was already begun. Moreover these events would seem to belong to a much later period than that of which the preceding chapter treats—a period, indeed, not far distant from the close of Jeroboam’s reign. He then heard, as was fitting, from the venerable prophet who had been God’s messenger to announce to him his future reign over the ten tribes, that the death of the youth whom he had destined to succeed him was but the beginning of sorrows, and foreshadowed the Speedy and shameful extinction of his family (1 Kings 14:14). He too, like Solomon, has sown to the wind and now reaps to the whirlwind. This section is omitted in the Vat. LXX. 1 Kings 14:1 At that time [or about (ךְ) that time. The king is now settled at Tirzah (1 Kings 14:17). In 1 Kings 12:25 we left him residing at Shechem. The time referred to is that somewhat indefinite period mentioned in 1 Kings 13:33, 1 Kings 13:34. These opening words clearly connect the sickness with Jeroboam’s impenitence. What led the king to move his Court to Tirzah, Shechem being, as we have already seen, not only the capital of Ephraim, but "the natural capital of Palestine," "its central situation, its accessibility, and its wonderfully fine water supply" giving it "advantages not enjoyed by any other city in the land" (Conder), we are not told; but it is interesting and instructive to find that it has one conspicuous disadvantage as a capital, viz; that it is "commanded by a hill on either side so close to the town, that the old geographer, Marino Sanuto, in the fourteenth century, considers the place to be untenable by any military force, because stones might be rolled clown upon the houses, from either Ebal or Gerizim". It is very probable that this consideration suggested the transfer, of which Ewald despaired of discovering the cause ("Hist. Israel," 1 Kings 4:23)] Abijah [Rawlinson sees in the name, which means "Jehovah is his father," an indication that Jeroboam "did not intend to desert the worship of Jehovah." But the name was probably bestowed long before the schism possibly in Egypt. It is more likely that it connects itself, if with anything, with the message of Jehovah to him (1 Kings 11:28). But the name was not uncommon—it was borne by a son of Rehoboam (1 Kings 13:31; compare Ahijah, below), and inferences from names must necessarily be precarious] the son of Jeroboam fell sick. [The historian undoubtedly means us to see the finger of God in this sickness. This was one of the penalties of disobedience . Jeroboam evidently suspected that this sickness was punitive, and he would not have others think so too], Arise, I pray thee, and disguise [lit; change. The word suggests that the disguise was to be effected by a change of garments. "She must put off her robes and put on a russet coat" (ib.) Possibly the queen was not unknown to the prophet (1 Kings 14:4)] thyself, that thou [Observe the archaic form אַתִּי for אַתְּ, which latter the Keri would substitute, quite needlessly, here] be not known [Heb. and they (i.e; those whom she met, not the prophet only) shall not know that thou art, etc.] to be the wife of Jeroboam; and get thee to Shiloh [the modern Seilun. "There is no site in the country fixed with greater certainty than that of Shiloh". The identification, however, was only effected in 1838. Conder gives some interesting particulars which lead him to believe that we can identify the very site of the tabernacle. For its history, see Joshua 16:5; Joshua 18:1-10; Judges 18:31; Judges 21:19; 1 Samuel 4:3; Jeremiah 41:5. Presuming that Tirzah is to be identified with Teiasir (see on Jeremiah 41:17) Shiloh would be over thirty miles’ distant—more than a day’s journey to the queen, as the road involves some toilsome climbing]: behold, there is Ahijah the prophet [see on 1 Kings 11:29. Shiloh was probably the birthplace, as well as the residence, of Ahijah. It was in the territory of Ephraim (Joshua 16:6), and at no great distance from Bethel. We can only explain Ahijah’s continued residence there, after the migration of the God-fearing Israelites to the southern kingdom, not by his great age, but by the supposition that, having been concerned in the transfer of the kingdom to Jeroboam, he felt it a duty to stay and watch his career. And the time has now come when he can be useful. His relations with Jeroboam had apparently so far been good. He had not protested, so far as we know, against the calf worship, but then God had sent another prophet to do that], which told me that I should be king [Heb. he spake of me for king] over this people. [So that he had already proved himself a true prophet, and so far a prophet of good.] 1 Kings 14:3 And take with thee [Heb. in thine hand] ten loaves [Ten would seem to have been a usual number (1 Samuel 17:18). On the subject of gifts or fees to prophets, judges, etc; see on Hebrews 13:7], and cracknels [or cakes, as marg. The original word נִקֻּדִּים (נָקַד pupugit) means "pricked," or "spotted." It is the word translated "mouldy" in Joshua 9:5, Joshua 9:12, where Gesenius would render "crumbs." Mouldy bread would hardly be taken as a present. These cakes, according to the LXX; Cod. Alex; were for the prophet’s children] and a cruse [i.e; leather bottle, בַּקְבֻּק Bakbuk, is clearly an onomatopoetic word, suggested by the bubbling noise of liquids in emptying] of honey [Spices and other delicacies were often given as presents, and honey was a special product of the country (Exodus 3:8; Deuteronomy 8:8; 2 Samuel 17:29. The honey sent by Jacob to Joseph was probably "honey of grapes"). The present was purposely a poor one, for the sake of maintaining the deception; i.e; it was a part of the disguise], and go to him: he shall tell thee what shall become of [Heb. be to] the child. [At first it strikes us as strange that Jeroboam merely asks what the result will be. He does not petition, that is to say, as in 1 Kings 13:6, for a cure. But we find the same peculiarity, which some would explain by the fatalism of the East, in 2 Kings 1:2, and 2 Kings 8:9, In the present instance, however, no such explanation is needed. For (1) Jeroboam could hardly ask a favour of a prophet of Jehovah, or hope that it would be granted if he did, and (2) if, as he feared, the sickness was judicial, it would be useless to ask for healing. The infatuation which insisted on a disguise for the purpose of deceiving the prophet, who nevertheless was believed to be able to divine the issue of the sickness, is very characteristic, and has had many parallels since. 1 Kings 14:4 And Jeroboam’s wife did so, and arose, and went to Shiloh, and came [probably on the second day] to the house of Ahijah. But [rather Now] Ahijah could not see; for his eyes were set [Heb. stood. Same word as in 1 Samuel 4:15. Cf. Genesis 27:1. In amaurosis the pupil is set, and does not contract with the light. A partial paralysis of the optic nerve is common in extreme old age] by reason of his age. [Heb. for hoariness, i.e. old age.] 1 Kings 14:5 And the Lord said unto Ahijah [the attempted deceit was frustrated by a direct revelation, the same which disclosed the fate of the child. "God laughs in heaven at the frivolous fetches of crafty politicians" (Hall)]. Behold, the wife of Jeroboam cometh to ask a thing of thee for her son [or concerning אֶל, properly "to," ad, has the meaning of de, after verbs of speaking. Cf. Genesis 20:2; 1 Samuel 4:19, etc.; Jeremiah 40:16. Gesenius remarks on the similar use of εἰς in the New Testament: Acts 2:25; Ephesians 5:32]; for he is sick: thus and thus [cf. Judges 18:4; 2 Samuel 11:25. זֹה is a form of זאֹת] shalt thou say unto her, for it shall be, when she cometh in, that she shall feign herself to be another woman [Heb. make herself strange]. 1 Kings 14:6 And it was so, when Ahijah heard the sound [Heb. voice] of her feet as she came in [בָּאָה should strictly be plural, in agreement with רַגְלֶיהָ feet. It is in the singular, probably because the writer is thinking of the woman. But see Ewald, 317 a, and cf. 1 Samuel 4:15] at [Heb. in] the door, that he said, Come in, thou wife of Jeroboam; why feignest thou thyself to be another? [Heb. makest thyself strange, as in verse 5] for [the Heb. "and" brings out the meaning much better, which is, "Thou art cleverly playing a part, and I all the while have a message," etc.] I am sent to thee with heavy [same word as in 1 Kings 12:13; there translated rough] tidings. [Heb. omits. For the construction see Ewald, 284 c.] 1 Kings 14:7 Go, tell Jeroboam, Thus saith the Lord Cod of Israel, Forasmuch as I exalted thee from among the people [compare 2 Samuel 12:8; Psalms 78:70; 1 Kings 16:2], and made thee prince over my people Israel. [God still claims dominion over Israel, despite the schism. They are still His people, and He is still their God], 1 Kings 14:8 And rent [same word as in the former prophecy of Ahijah, 1 Kings 11:30, 1 Kings 11:31] the kingdom away from the house of David, and gave it thee: and yet thou hast not been as my servant David [who had been proposed to Jeroboam as his example, 1 Kings 11:38. This name, as that of a prince of the rival house, would now be almost hateful to Jeroboam], who kept my commandments, and who followed me with all his heart [cf. 1 Kings 11:33, 1 Kings 11:38; 1 Kings 15:5], to do that only which was right in mine eyes; 1 Kings 14:9 But hast done evil above all that were before thee [perhaps preceding kings are not meant, so much as judges—judices et duces Israelis (Le Clerc). Kings, however, are not excluded. Both Saul and Solomon had sinned (1 Samuel passim; 1 Kings 11:5, 1 Kings 11:6), though neither had set up an organized idolism and "made Israel to sin"]: for thou hast gone and made thee other gods [in defiance of the decalogue (Exodus 20:4). Jeroboam, no doubt, insisted that his calves were not idols, but cherubic symbols. But God does not recognize this distinction. Practically they were "other gods," and so they are here called derisively], and molten images [the word is used of the golden calf, Exodus 32:4, Exodus 32:8. See also Exodus 34:17; Deuteronomy 9:12; Judges 17:3, Judges 17:4. The "other gods" and the "molten images" are but two names for the same thing, viz; the calves of Bethel and Dan], to provoke me to anger [This was the result, not, of course, the object of Jeroboam’s idolatrous worship], and hast cast me [The order of the Hebrew stamps the "me" as emphatic, "and ME hast thou cast, etc.] behind thy back [This strong expression only occurs here and in Ezekiel 23:35. It forcibly expresses Jeroboam’s, contemptuous disregard of God’s revealed will. In Psalms 1:1-6:17, Nehemiah 9:26, we have somewhat similar phrases]: 1 Kings 14:10 Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house [The punishment fell on the house (1 Kings 15:29), not, however, to the exclusion of the prime offender (2 Chronicles 13:20; cf. 1 Kings 21:29). The reader will observe that the judgments denounced against Jeroboam’s sin, like all those of the Old Testament, are temporal. The recompense to come is completely ignored. These severe retributions are calculated and proportioned precisely as if there were no hereafter] of Jeroboam, and win cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall [This phrase, which Rawlinson observes is confined to the period from David to Jehu, is by him, and generally, understood to mean "every male." (It is found in 1 Samuel 25:22; 1 Kings 16:11; 1 Kings 21:21; and 2 Kings 9:8.) But it is noteworthy, as Gesenius has remarked, that this is not a habit of Eastern men. Every traveller in Egypt will confirm the remark of Herodotus (1 Kings 2:35) on this subject, and the same applies to Palestine; i.e; the men sit down for this purpose, covered with their garments (Judges 3:24; 1 Samuel 24:3). Some, consequently, have been led to suppose that the reference is to the dog, but animals would hardly share in the destruction of the royal house. Gesenius is probably right when he interprets it of boys. Thus understood, it lends additional meaning to the passages where it occurs. It expresses extermination, root and branch, man and boy], and him that is shut up and left in Israel [A proverbial expression (Deuteronomy 32:36; 1 Kings 21:21; 2 Kings 9:8), and involving some play upon words. It evidently means "men of all kinds," but as to the precise signification of the terms "shut up" and "left," there has been much difference of opinion, some (1) interpreting them to mean respectively married and single also Keil, al.); others (2) bond and free Gesen, al.); others (3) precious and vile; and others again (4) minors and those of age. (so Bהhr, "All the male descendants, even the minors, were threatened with destruction.") On the whole perhaps (2) is preferable], and will take away the remnant [Heb. "exterminate after" (Gesen.) or "sweep after" (Keil). The first rendering is the more literal. The "after" is explained, not as Bהhr ("as often as a new scion arises I will take it away"), but by the fact that one who expels another follows after him (Gesen.)] of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung [cf. 2 Kings 9:1-37:87; Job 20:7; Jeremiah 8:2; Jeremiah 9:22; Jeremiah 16:4. This word expresses the loathing and contempt with which they would be treated], till it be an gone. 1 Kings 14:11 Him that dieth of Jeroboam [Heb. to Jeroboam, i.e; belonging to, of the house of. "Of Jeroboam," conveys the idea of his seed. It is possible that his wife shared in the general doom], in the city shall the dogs eat; and him that dieth in the field shall the fowls of the air [Heb. heavens, as in Genesis 1:26; Genesis 2:19; Genesis 7:23, etc.] eat [This was a terrible threat to a Jew—that the dead body should fall a prey to dogs and wild beasts. Cf. Psalms 79:2; Jeremiah 7:33; Jeremiah 16:4; Jeremiah 34:20; Ezekiel 29:5, etc. For him it had a factitious horror, because of the threatening of Deu 28:26; cf. Revelation 19:17, Revelation 19:18. It was, therefore, the climax of disgrace and misfortune; the greatest dishonour that could be offered to the dust and to the memory. Hence the threat of David (1 Samuel 17:46; cf. 1 Samuel 17:44); hence the devotion of Rizpah (2 Samuel 21:10), and the complaint of the Psalmist (Psalms 79:2). Cf. Homer, Iliad Revelation 1:4, Revelation 1:5. "Whose limbs, unburied on the naked shore, Devouring dogs and hungry vultures tore." Dogs, it is well known, are the scavengers of Eastern cities. They exist there in great numbers, and in a semi-savage state, and the carcases of animals and carrion of all sorts are left for them to consume, which they do most effectually, roaming the streets all night (Psalms 59:6, Psalms 59:14) in search of garbage. Vultures and other birds of prey perform a similar office in the open country (Job 39:29, Job 39:30; Matthew 24:28)]: for the Lord hath spoken it. 1 Kings 14:12 Arise thou therefore, get thee to thine own house: and when thy feet enter into the city, the child [Heb. then the child. This is the force of the ]å shall die. [This was "the sign that the Lord hath spoken" (Hebrews 13:3). The death of the child at the precise moment of the return should serve as an earnest and foretaste of the doom just denounced.] 1 Kings 14:13 And an Israel shall mourn for him [no doubt he was heir to the throne] and bury him [mentioned to heighten the contrast. He should be the one exception to the rule of 1 Kings 14:11]: for he [Heb. this] only of Jeroboam shall come to the grave, because in him there is found [Heb, was found] some [Heb. a] good thing [The idea is not merely that he was an amiable youth, but the words imply some degree of piety, and almost suggest that he dissented from his father’s ecclesiastical policy. "The Rabbins have a fable that he disobeyed his father’s command to hinder people travelling to Jerusalem to keep the feasts, and that he even removed obstructions in the road" (Bהhr)] toward the Lord God of Israel in the house of Jeroboam. 1 Kings 14:14 Moreover [Heb. and] the Lord shall raise him up a king over Israel, who shall cut off the house of Jeroboam [for the fulfilment, see 1 Kings 15:29] that day: but what? even now. [Rawlinson only expresses a general feeling when he says that "no satisfactory sense can be obtained from the Hebrew text," and suggests that it is corrupt or defective. The passage, no doubt, is one of extreme difficulty, and inasmuch as the MSS. and Versions lend us no aid to its interpretation, affords scope for conjecture. The explanation I venture to submit may, I hope, contribute—it can hardly do more—to the elucidation of the text. I observe that in 1 Kings 15:13 זֶה is used of Abijah, "this one alone," etc. I assume that it has the same import here, viz; "this one today," i.e; "this one dies or is cut off today," הַיּוֹם being understood as constantly, adverbially,—hodie (see, e.g; Genesis 4:14; Genesis 22:14; 1 Kings 2:24). It would be a natural reflection to the prophet who had just been speaking of the excision of the house of Jeroboam, "one perishes today, judgment is already begun," i.e. As to the rest, for עָתָּה I would read אָתָּה, which has practically the same sound, and for which, consequently, עַתָּה is sometimes substituted by the transcriber, as in 1 Kings 1:18, 1 Kings 1:20, and understand "And what wilt thou also do?" i.e; what will become of thee also? It is quite possible (1 Kings 1:11) that Jeroboam’s wife perished in the wholesale destruction of his house, as it is clear from the severe punishment assigned to her (1 Kings 1:12) that she must have shared in his sin. The readiness with which she lent herself to this deceit (1 Kings 1:4) also favours the supposition that she had approved his policy. She would then have survived her husband only two years. Keil’s explanation, "cut off the house of Jeroboam this day," appears contrary to actual fact, while to interpret "that day" (with the A.V.) is contrary to Hebrew grammar.] 1 Kings 14:15 For [Heb. And. The prophet now proceeds to state the share of the people in the punishment. They had acquiesced in the wicked innovations of Jeroboam and had joined in the worship of the calves] the Lord shall smite Israel, as a reed [קָנֶה κάννα, canna, cane] is shaken [The construction is pregnant, viz; "shall smite Israel so that it shall be shaken as a reed," etc. (cf. Luke 7:24). "The image is very striking, for Israel was brought so low that every political influence bore it along" (Thenius)] in the water, and he shall root up [same word as in Deuteronomy 29:28; Jeremiah 24:6] Israel out of this good land, which he gave to their fathers, and shall scatter them beyond the river [i.e; the Euphrates; see on 1 Kings 4:24. This is the first clear prophecy of the captivity foreshadowed by Moses (Deuteronomy 4:27; Deuteronomy 28:25, Deuteronomy 28:36, Deuteronomy 28:63, Deuteronomy 28:64), and by Solomon (1 Kings 8:46-50). For its fulfilment, see 2 Kings 17:6; 2 Kings 18:11, etc.], because they have made their groves [Heb. their Asherahs, i.e; images of Astarte. The translation "grove" after the LXX. ἄλσος, Vulg. lucus, is now abandoned. It is clear some sort of idol is intended by the term. This is evident from verse 23, where it is said the Asherahs (A.V. groves) were built "under every green tree" (cf. 2 Kings 17:10); from 1 Kings 15:13 (where see note); from 2 Kings 23:6, which tells how Josiah "brought out the Asherahs out of the house of the Lord," and from the connexion in which the word is found with "molten images, carved images," etc. (2 Kings 23:23; 2 Chronicles 33:19; 2 Chronicles 34:3, 2 Chronicles 34:4; cf. also Judges 3:7; 1 Kings 18:19). They were doubtless effigies of Ashtoreth, made of wood (Deuteronomy 7:5; cf. 2 Kings 23:6), planted erect in the ground (Deuteronomy 16:21), and were consecrated to her impure and revolting worship. It is clear from this passage that the frightful impurities of the Canaanitish races had subsisted in the new kingdom by the side of the new sacra. They had probably revived under Jeroboam’s rule, having apparently been in abeyance since the time of Gideon], provoking the Lord to anger. [1 Kings 14:22; 1 Kings 15:30; 1 Kings 21:22; 2 Kings 17:11, 2 Kings 17:17; 2 Kings 22:17; Deuteronomy 4:25; Deuteronomy 32:16, Deuteronomy 32:21; Judges 2:12; Psalms 78:58. 1 Kings 14:16 And he shall [or, that he should] give Israel up because of the sins of Jeroboam, who did sin, and who made Israel to sin. [These words became almost a formula (1 Kings 15:33, 1 Kings 15:34; 1 Kings 16:2, 1 Kings 16:19, etc.)] 1 Kings 14:17 And Jeroboam’s wife arose, and departed, and came [possibly she lingered for some time on the road, dreading to return] to Tirzah [Identified by Robinson and Van de Velds, with Telluzah, or Taluse, a place in the mountains, six miles north of Shechem. See Joshua 12:24. Both these writers admit, however, that if this is indeed Tirzah, "all traces of royalty have disappeared." "With the exception of a few sepulchral caves, subterranean granaries, wells, and old hewn stones, nothing of ancient Tirzah remains in Taluse." Condor recognizes the name in the modern Teiasir—a village near Jezreel, in the Great Plain which "contains the exact letters of the Hebrew word, though the two last radicals are interchanged in position." "The beauty of the position… the ancient remains, and the old main road from the place to Shechem seem to agree well with the idea of its having once been a capital". Some of its "numerous rock-cut sepulchres," he thinks, may be the tombs of the early kings of Israel. It was famed for its beauty (Son 6:4), and for this reason, perhaps, among others (see on Joshua 12:1) was selected by Jeroboam for his residence. It is not certain that it had taken the place of Shechem as the political capital]: and when she came [the Hebrew is much more graphic. "She came to… and the child died"] to the threshold of the door [Heb. house], the child died. [This statement seems at first sight to contradict that of verse 12, which says the child should die as she entered the city. But the palace may have been on the edge of the city (Rawl.), or the "city" may have been little more than the palace.] 1 Kings 14:18 And they buried him [see on 1 Kings 14:13]; and all Israel mourned for him, according to the word of the Lord, which he spake by the hand [see on 1 Kings 2:25] of his servant Ahijah the prophet, [it was a token of the righteous judgment of God that the same prophet who announced Jeroboam’s exaltation predicted his fall.] 1 Kings 14:19 And the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, how he warred [see 1 Kings 14:30; 2 Chronicles 13:2], and how he reigned, behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel. [As to this work, see Introduction, Section VI. The exact title is "the book of the words (or matters) of the days," i.e; the record of daily occurrences.] 1 Kings 14:20 And the days which Jeroboam reigned were two and twenty years [Bähr remarks that the exploits of this long reign find no mention in Scripture; the historian dwells exclusively on the sin, the consequences of which were of so much greater moment]: and he slept with his fathers [Jeroboam’s end would appear to have been untimely. After his defeat by Abijah, we are told, "the Lord struck him, and he died," which may either mean that he died by a lingering disease (2 Chronicles 21:18, 2 Chronicles 21:19) or more suddenly (2 Samuel 12:15), but which certainly implies that he died "by the visitation of God." I have suggested elsewhere that the "stroke" was not improbably his son’s death, which was at once so tragical and such a bitter foretaste of judgment to come. He may have "warred and reigned" (1 Kings 14:19) after this event. He may also have steadily drooped to his grave], and Nadab his son reigned in his stead. 1 Kings 14:1-20 Abijah and Ahijah. Perhaps there is no single section of this book more full of lessons, and lessons of the most varied kind, than this. Let us try to gather something of what God has strawed with so liberal a hand. 1. "At that time (1 Kings 14:1)"—the time of 1 Kings 13:33. The sickness of the child distinctly connects itself with the father’s persistence in sin (see Deuteronomy 7:15; Deuteronomy 28:22, Deuteronomy 28:61). The hard and impenitent heart treasures to itself wrath (Romans 2:5). Warnings (1 Kings 13:1-34.) have been unheeded: it is now the time for judgment. "If we sin wilfully," etc. (Hebrews 10:26, Hebrews 10:27). Deus kabet suas horas et moras. As "the fulness of time" gave us a Redeemer, so it will give us a Judge. 2. "Abijah, the son of Jeroboam, fell sick" (ib.) Observe— (1) The pious son sickened, and died; the impenitent father and the worthless brother lived." Then sickness is no invariable proof of God’s displeasure. "Behold, he whom thou lovest is sick" (John 11:3; cf. Hebrews 12:6). "Whom the gods love, die young." The fable of Ganymede is full of significance. "Te rapuit coelum, tales nam gaudet habere Illustres animas degeneresque fugit." "Tis ever thus, ’tis ever thus with all that’s best below, The dearest, noblest, loveliest are always first to go; The bird that sings the sweetest, the pine that crowns the rock, The glory of the garden, the flower of the flock. "’Tis ever thus, ’tis ever thus with creatures heavenly fair, Too finely framed to bide the brunt more earthly creatures bear; A little while they dwell with us, blest ministers of love, Then spread their wings we had not seen, and seek their home above." See also Longfellow’s poem of "The Reaper and the Flowers." (2) Sickness spares none. "Neither his dignity as a prince, nor his age as a young prince, nor his interest with heaven as a pious prince could exempt him from sickness" (M. Henry). As to the purpose of sickness, see Homiletics, pp. 12, 13. Perhaps this child, in whom was some good thing, only needed the discipline of sickness to make him fruitful in every good work. "After ye have suffered awhile, make you perfect," etc. (1 Peter 5:10). (3) The sickness of his son, while it was a judgment on Jeroboam, was a warning to Israel. "A cloud and darkness" to the one; it gave light to the other (Exodus 14:20). "Let us be patient! These severe afflictions Not from the ground arise, But oftentimes celestial benedictions Assume this dark disguise." 3. "Get thee to Shiloh" (1 Kings 13:2). But Shiloh was not one of his sanctuaries. Why not to Bethel? There were his priests and prophets (see on 1 Kings 22:6). But Jeroboam only does what many more have clone since. He has one religion for health, another for sickness. Like Joab, he turns in adversity to the altar which he scorned in prosperity. He would fain share the consolations of those to whose admonitions he never listened. This sending to Ahijah is one result of the sickness of Abijah. "’There is no God,’ the foolish saith, But none, ’there is no sorrow;’ And nature oft, in time of need, The cry of faith will borrow. Eyes that the preacher could not school By wayside graves are raised, And lips say, ’God be pitiful,’ Which ne’er said, ’God be praised.’" 4. "There is Ahijah the prophet" (ib.) Whom he has never troubled since the day when "he spake of him for king" (1 Kings 11:31). "Yet did not the chief butler remember Joseph, but forgat him" (Genesis 40:1-23:31). The ministers of Christ may well be content if they are sent for in times of sorrow and sickness. "Lord, in trouble have they visited thee" (Isaiah 26:16). We think scorn of those who only come near us when they want something. But how often do we serve God thus? 5. "Disguise thyself, that thou be not known to be the wife of Jeroboam" (ib.) Was ever grosser infatuation than this? Jeroboam, the most astute of politicians, the Machiavelli of the Old World, thinks that a prophet who can peer into futurity cannot penetrate his flimsy disguises. It never occurs to him that "the seer" can see through a woman’s veil. Ahithophel is not the only statesman whose wisdom has been turned into foolishess (2 Samuel 15:31). What an illustration does this history afford of that saying of the Temanite, "He taketh the wise in their own craftiness" (Job 5:13; 1 Corinthians 3:19). 6. "He shall tell thee what shall become of the child" (1 Kings 13:3). A strange object for such a journey. It is not, "what to do for the child;" still less, "what to do for the sin;" but simply, what should be the issue of the sickness. But that, time would show. It needed no ghost, no prophet to declare that. Che sara sara. Probably Jeroboam despaired of obtaining more. There are petitions "which for our unworthiness we dare not ask." Despair is not uncommonly the end of presumption. "Sin makes such a strangeness between God and man, that the guilty heart either thinks not of suing to God, or fears it" (Bp. Hall). Or was it fatalism prompted this inquiry? It has often been remarked that unbelief and superstition are very near of kin. Man cannot divest himself of all belief. Head and heart alike "abhor a vacuum." Those who will not believe in one God shall be the victims of strong delusions, and shall believe a lie (2 Thessalonians 2:11). "Hear the just law, the judgment of the skies, He that hates truth shall be the dupe of lies; And he that will be cheated to the last, Delusions strong as hell shall bind him fast." Witness Julian the Apostate, Lord Herbert of Cherbury, Robert Owen, and many more. The Chinese people the air with demons and spirits of the dead. Infidel France thinks it unlucky to travel on a Friday. "There was never wicked man that was not infatuate" (Hall). 7. "His eyes were set" (1 Kings 13:4). Yet "having his eyes open" (Numbers 24:4). Reason is "the candle of the Lord." Revelation is a "light to the feet, and a lamp to the path." Inspiration is as "eyes to the blind." "Visions of the Almighty need not bodily eyes, but are rather favoured by the want of them" (Henry). The eye is but the instrument of vision. Eyes of flesh are not the organs of the spirit. 8. "I am sent to thee with heavy tidings" (verse 6). Compare Ezekiel 14:4. "I the Lord will answer him that cometh according to the multitude of his idols." Heavy tidings for heavy transgression. The sentence should be proportionate to the sin. "Whatsoever a man soweth," etc. 9. "I exalted thee from among the people" (Ezekiel 14:7). It was Jeroboam’s abuse of the singular favours he had received, and his forgetfulness of Divine benefits, that so much enhanced his sin. Cf. 1 Kings 11:9; 1 Samuel 15:17 ("When thou wast little in thine own sight"); 2 Samuel 12:8, 2 Samuel 12:9; Psalms 73:10 ("Took him from the sheepfolds," etc.); Luke 12:48 ("Unto whomsoever much is given," etc.); Luke 10:15 ("Exalted to heaven, thrust down to hell"). It is well to remember the rock whence we were hewn, and the hole of the pit whence we were digged (Isaiah 51:1). 10. "Other gods and molten images" (Luke 10:9). Men often disguise their sins under specious names. "Cherubic symbols" was perhaps Jeroboam’s name for his calves. He would not allow that they were images or idols. Josephus happily reproduces the language he held to his subjects: "I suppose, my countrymen, you know that every place hath God in it," etc. (Ant. 8.8. 4). But God calls things as they really are. Longfellow truly says that "things are not what they seem." But they are what they seem to the Omniscient. 11. "And rent the kingdom away from the house of David," etc. Note the contrast between this language and the discourse which Ahijah held with Jeroboam once before. That meeting was full of promises; this message is fall of upbraidings. Then God declared that He would rend the kingdom; here He complains that He has done so, and done so in vain. Then He proposed David as Jeroboam’s pattern—his name is mentioned six times—here He accuses the king of contemning that example. There He speaks of a "sure house;" here, of "taking away the remnant of the house," "as a man taketh away dung." Yet "the gifts and calling of God are without repentance." It is Jeroboam’s sin has made this difference. 12. "I will bring evil on the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off," etc. Compare 1 Kings 12:27. "And they shall kill me." So the very means which Jeroboam took to secure his throne procured its overthrow. "The engineer is hoist with his own petard." If he could but have trusted God his kingdom would have lasted. But he must needs prop it up himself, with rotten supports, and leaning on these he brought it speedily to the ground. 13. "When thy feet enter into the city the child shall die" (1 Kings 12:12). For the second time does a prophet give Jeroboam a sign the same day. And the second sign was hardly less significant than the first. For the mother was, in some sense, the cause of her child’s death. Her step on the threshold was the signal for the severance of his "thin-spun life." It was not only a foretaste, consequently, of the doom awaiting the entire house; it was also a shadowing forth of the cause of that destruction. The sins of the father were visited upon the children, 14. "And all Israel shall mourn for him" (1 Kings 12:13). The most, and the most genuine, tears are shed over the graves of children. (Is it that many of us, as we grow older, become less lovely and engaging, less desirable as companions?) Yet of this child it might justly have been said, "Weep ye not for the dead, neither bemoan him" (Jeremiah 22:10). For (1) be was taken away from the evil to come (1 Kings 12:11). (2) He escaped the butchery of Baasha. And he escaped, too, the danger of contamination and moral ruin. His life was not unduly shortened. Life is to be measured not by the beats of the pulse, but by the life work we have accomplished. "He being made perfect in a short time fulfilled a long time." "It may be by the calendar of years You are the elder man; but ’tis the sun Of knowledge on the mind’s dial shining bright And chronicling deeds and thoughts that makes true time." (3) The "good thing toward the Lord God of Israel" was an earnest of better things to come. "Little faith can enter heaven." "A little grace goes a great way with great people." Those that are good in bad times and places shine very bright in the eyes of God. A good child in the house of Jeroboam is a miracle of Divine grace" (Henry). 15. "For the Lord shall smite Israel" (1 Kings 12:15). For if Jeroboam had "made Israel to sin," Israel had loved to have it so (1 Kings 12:30). He could not have had his calves and sanctuaries without priests; and calves, sanctuaries, and priests would have been useless without worshippers. But as the king, so the people. Jeroboam was but a sample of many thousands of his subjects. As the chief offender, he was the first to suffer, and suffered most. But the nation that had shared his sin must suffer in its measure and turn. 16. "Beyond the river" (ib.) The judgments of God are governed by a lex talionis. Not only "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," but, "Like as ye have forsaken me, and served strange gods in your land, so shall ye serve strangers in a land that is not yours" (Jeremiah 5:19). 17. "And Jeroboam’s wife arose, and departed, and came to Tirzah" (1 Kings 12:17). It is hardly possible to realize the horror with which the princess, still wearing her disguise, heard the doom of her house, and who shall attempt to describe the agonies of that journey home. Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah (2 Samuel 21:10 sqq.), has been called the Mater Dolorosa of the Old Testament, but the title equally belongs to Jeroboam’s wife. But why, let us ask, does she suffer such things? Why must this sword pierce her soul? Was it not because of her share in the sin? As she is included in the sentence against the house (1 Kings 12:11, Heb.), it is probable that she had aided and abetted her husband in his irreligious and schismatic policy. And now she must drink of his cup: she must be the first to taste its bitterness; she must bring death to one child and tell of disgrace worse than death to the rest. 18. "And they buried him" (1 Kings 12:18). In Tirzah the beautiful (Son 6:4), great lamentation was made over him. And indeed his seemed to be a case for tears. The heir to the throne, he was never to ascend it. The possessor of singular gifts and advantages, he was never to exercise the former or enjoy the latter. Had he lived, he might have effected a reformation, and suppressed the calf worship. But now the grave closes over him, and he is no more seen. What a proof this of a life to come! Otherwise there would be injustice with God, inequality in His dealings with men. "But the righteous live forevermore, their reward also is with the Lord." "We fools counted his life madness and his end to be without honour. How is he numbered among the children of God, and his lot is among the saints" (Wis. 5:4, 5, 15). BY J.A. 1 Kings 14:1-3 The Impenitent Seeker. The day of judgment will come at the end of the world, when the heavens and earth shall be burnt up (2 Thessalonians 2:7-10; 2 Peter 3:7). But this has its prelude in a season of judgments which overtakes the sinner in this life. Jeroboam, having sinned away his day of grace, had now entered into such a season. But of this he seems to have been doubtful. Hence learn— I. THAT THE SINNER MAY BE IN HIS SEASON OF . 1. That there are such seasons is evident. (1) Witness the great deluge (Genesis 6:11-13). Also the rain of fire on the cities of the plain (Genesis 19:13). The overthrow of nations. Signal visitations upon notorious sinners (Exodus 9:13-15; 1 Samuel 28:15-19). (2) Such were presages of the awful judgment to come (Matthew 24:37 -89; 2 Peter 2:4-6; Jude 1:5-7; Revelation 18:4). 2. But all afflictions are not such retributions. (1) Some are entailed upon us through the fall, and alike affect the penitent and impenitent (Genesis 3:16-18; Job 5:17; 1 Corinthians 10:13). (2) Some come to us through the wickedness and blundering of those around us. Many suffer, irrespective of their character, as when a ship is wrecked through the drunkenness of the master. (3) Some are appointed or permitted for disciplinary and educational purposes. These are often amongst our greatest blessings. (4) Sometimes we suffer for the benefit of others—vicariously. When this is voluntary it is very Christ like (see Psalms 22:11; Colossians 1:24). (5) Under all these we have a refuge in God (Psalms 9:9, Psalms 9:13; Psalms 46:1). 3. These may be confounded. (1) Had Jeroboam known that the mercy of God had reached its limit, and that the season of retribution had set in, he might have spared his queen her journey to Shiloh. (2) But what else could he have expected? Was he not obstinately wedded to his sins? Had he not before him the history of Saul? (1 Samuel 28:15-19.) (3) Men still, in our day, presume upon the mercy of God to their destruction. Eminently the ease with those who defer repentance. Learn further— II. THAT A SINNER MAY SEEK THE LORD TO NO GOOD PURPOSE. This happens— 1. When the end sought is unprofitable. (1) Such was the case with Jeroboam. His inquiry should have been, not, "What shall become of the child?" but, "How may the anger of God be averted?" (Compare 2 Samuel 12:16, 2 Samuel 12:17.) But he was not prepared to repent of his sin. (9) His inquiry was one of curiosity as to the future. Similar curiosity was manifested by Saul under similar circumstances. It is unseemly for a sinner to pry into Divine mysteries rather than seek the salvation of his soul 2. When the spirit of the seeker is improper. (1) He did not, indeed, seek his calves (compare 2 Kings 1:2). He rather sought Ahijah, because the spirit of prophecy was with him (1 Kings 14:2). But he had no such faith in his calves. (2) Why, then, did he not renounce them? He had reasons of worldly policy against this (see 1 Kings 12:20-28). He was therefore a deceiver of the people. Hence he would have his queen disguise herself. So several of the Popes were known to have been infidels. (3) So were he and his dupes doomed to perish together (see Matthew 15:14; 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12; 1 Timothy 4:1, 1 Timothy 4:2). 3. When the manner of the search is unworthy. (1) He paid a respect to the man of God. This was the meaning of his present (see 1 Samuel 9:7, 1 Samuel 9:8). Hence such gifts are caned blessings. (2) Even Jacob would eat of his son’s venison before he proceeded to bless him (see Genesis 27:4, Genesis 27:19, Genesis 27:25, Genesis 27:31; see also 1 Kings 17:11). (3) So are God’s blessings and sacrifices offered to Him commonly associated (see Genesis 8:20-22; Genesis 9:1-17). All His blessings come to us through the sacrifice of Christ; and especially so when we, by faith, present Christ to Him. (4) But here was no sacrifice; and the value of the gift was small What were a few loaves, a few cakes, and a cruse of honey as a gift from a king! (Compare 2 Kings 5:5; 2 Kings 8:9.) The meanness of his present was another reason why he would have his queen disguised. What an argument for early piety is here! Surrender to Christ before you are overtaken by a season of judgments. How admonitory is this subject to the effect that prayer should be true; that we should seek the right thing, in the right spirit, and in the right manner!—J.A.M. 1 Kings 14:4-6 Spiritual Vision. When the season of retributions set in upon Jeroboam, and his son Abijah was smitten with sickness, he sent to the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite to inquire of the word of Jehovah, what should become of the child. He was unwilling it should be publicly known that, in such an emergency, he had recourse to the prophet of the Lord rather than to his calves (compare 2 Kings 1:2). He accordingly entrusted this delicate business to his wife, and enjoined that she should disguise herself. The text evinces how futile were these expedients. Note— I. SIN SEEKS . 1. Truth needs none. (1) It is naturally open. "He that doeth truth cometh to the light." (2) It has nothing to be ashamed of. It is self-consistent, harmonious, lovely. (3) It ought to be displayed; its influence is elevating (Philippians 2:15, Philippians 2:16). The saint who hides his light wrongs his race. (4) Churches are constituted that Christians should, to the best advantage, witness for Christ. They are the candlesticks (see Matthew 5:14-16; Revelation 1:20). Note: Christians should discourage the eccentricity that would lead them away from the Churches. 2. It is otherwise with sin. (1) It is naturally close. The sinner has as instinctive an aversion to the light as the owl and the bat, his types. (2) It has everything to be ashamed of. It is self-contradictory, discordant, frightfully and monstrously ugly. (3) It ought, by the impenitent sinner, to be concealed. For he could only desire to disclose it in order to infect and demoralize others. (4) But the true should drag it to the light, that its deformity might be seen, abhorred, and execrated. II. GOD SEES THROUGH ALL . 1. Nature itself teaches this. (1) He that formed the eye, can He not see? (Exodus 4:10-12; Psalms 94:9.) (2) He that formed the mind, can He not perceive? (1 Chronicles 28:9; Psalms 7:9; Proverbs 15:11; Revelation 2:23.) 2. It is evinced in the visions of prophecy. (1) How far-reaching are those visions! The end was seen from the beginning. The instalments fulfilled certify the remainder. (2) How deep their insight into the secret workings of the heart! The secret ambition of Jeroboam, when he was yet the servant of Solomon, was read by Ahijah (1 Kings 11:37). Now he sees through the disguise of the queen and reads its motives. 3. This should be considered. (1) How foolish are disguises where God is concerned! And where is God not concerned? (2) Those who would deceive God only deceive themselves. (3) What disclosures will the day of judgment make! (1 Corinthians 3:13; 1 Corinthians 4:5.) What a day of trembling to the hypocrite! III. GOD CAN OPEN THE EYES OF THE BLIND. 1. Literally. (1) Miracles upon the sight were occasionally wrought in ancient times (Genesis 19:11; 2 Kings 6:18). (2) Many such were wrought by Christ. 2. Spiritually. (1) The prophets were gifted with spiritual vision. They were therefore called seers. Their prophecies were called visions. (2) Such vision had Ahijah. His natural sight had now failed him (1 Kings 14:4), yet he saw Jeroboam’s queen before she came into his presence, saw through her disguises, and discerned the purpose of her visit. (3) Spiritual vision is not exclusively the privilege of prophets. (a) God gives this to the sinner when He discovers to him the exceeding sinfulness of sin. God strips him of the disguises by which he would deceive himself, and exhibits his own life likeness to his conscience. (b) God gives it to believers, when He witnesses His pardon and their adoption, to their spirits. (See Acts 26:17, Acts 26:18; Ephesians 1:18.) Have your eyes been opened? Pray God that Satan may never succeed in throwing his dust into them.—J.A.M. 1 Kings 14:7-11 Hard Tidings. Such is the character given by the prophet to the matter of the text (1 Kings 14:6). What we translate "heavy tidings" is, in the Hebrew, as in the margin, hard. The uses of the word (קשה) in several places suggest that it should be here taken as indicating retributive judgments merited by one who had hardened his heart in sin. Observe— I. INVOLVE . Thus— 1. Special favour calls for special gratitude. (1) Jeroboam was "exalted from among the people." He was "an Ephrathite of Zereda," an obscure place, mentioned once, and that only in connection with his birth (ch1 Kings 11:26). The names of his parents also had remained in obscurity but for the figure he cut in history. (2) He was made "prince" over the "people of God." This was a splendid distinction. A people is great, not through its number or the extent of its territories, but from its virtues (see Deuteronomy 7:6; Deuteronomy 14:2; Deuteronomy 26:18, Deuteronomy 26:19). What an influence has that people exerted upon human destinies! (3) The kingdom rent from the house of David was given to him. Jeroboam, then, was placed in succession to that David who had led the armies of Israel to victory! Also to that Solomon who had built the temple, and who, in the earlier part of his career, fined the world with the fame of surpassing wisdom! 2. The favored are compared with their peers. (1) Jeroboam was a compeer to David. Both were need from humble station—David from the sheep, Jeroboam from the army (1 Kings 11:28). Both ascended the throne of Israel—founded dynasties. (2) But how do they compare? "David kept the commandments of God"—followed Him "with all his heart." This did not Jeroboam. Melancholy record, he did nothing for God! 3. They are contrasted with their peers. (1) Jeroboam "had done evil above all that were before him." More than Saul, who never worshipped idols. More than Solomon, who did not make Israel to sin. (2) Jeroboam made "other gods; and" (or even) "molten images." Note: He intended his calves to represent the God of Israel; but the God of Israel Himself calls them "other gods." So are the images of Antichrist other gods though baptized with Christian names. This was worse than the idolatry of Solomon. The caricaturing of the true God is more offensive to Him than the worshipping of His creatures. Let the worshippers of barbarous pictures of the Holy Trinity, in which the Almighty is pourtrayed as a decrepit old man, and such like, seriously consider this. (3) Jeroboam is described as having "cast" the God of Israel "behind his back." What a startling figure! How descriptive of the sin of those who now neglect God! II. ABUSED PROVOKE . Amongst these may he mentioned— 1. The bitter sense of wasted opportunity. (1) Jeroboam is reminded that he once had the grand chance of making for himself a "sure house like David" (see 1 Kings 11:38). What golden opportunities may we not have wasted! (2) That though the more glorious chance was missed and lost, he had then a gracious season of warnings, which also he let slip. (See events recorded 1 Kings 13:1-34.) This respite improved might have averted, and would have mitigated, the severity of the judgments impending (compare 1 Kings 21:29). 2. The knowledge that the day of vengeance has set in. (1) An admonition of such a day was implied in the earlier prophecy of Ahijah, in the judgments then denounced against the house of David for the sin of Solomon (1 Kings 11:30-38). (2) This admonition was declared explicitly in the message of the man of God from Judah, and solemnly impressed by the signs attending and following (1 Kings 13:1-34.) (3) Now Ahijah announces that these judgments are taking effect. But even now, had Jeroboam come to God in the spirit of repentance, though his sin is "unto death," yet might he save his soul. It is hard now to break a chain so riveted as that is by which he has bound himself. No repentante being evinced, the knell of doom sounds forth like the echoes of the closing door of Noah’s ark, which announced mercy fled and wrath begun. 3. The severity of the sentence. (1) The honour of the house of Jeroboam is to be brought down to ignominy. (2) The carcases of members of this family are to be consumed by carrion feeders. Such are the swords of the wicked (compare Genesis 15:11; Jeremiah 34:18-20). Whether by the sword of Baasha, or literally, after that sword had done its part, the words of Ahijah came true (see 1 Kings 15:29). "The doom of the house of Jeroboam was a figure of that of the house of this man of sin (see Revelation 19:17, Revelation 19:18). God knows the proud afar off. But He gives grace to the humble.—J.A.M. 1 Kings 14:12-14 The Reprobate’s Doom. In the queen of Jeroboam we see a remarkable messenger. For she went as messenger from a king and returned as messenger from a prophet. Her message in the first instance was simple, but in her return twofold. She brings a message to the king, and with it a message also to the nation. The message to the king brings— I. HEAVY TIDINGS ABIJAH. 1. As to the issue of his illness. (1) "The child shall die." This is a direct answer to the question with which the royal messenger was charged (1 Kings 14:3). Here was the withering of a limb of Jeroboam’s family answering to the sign of the withering of his arm (see 1 Kings 13:4). (2) The king does not now ask for the restoration of the child as he had done for the restoration of his arm (1 Kings 13:6). He did not even ask, in time, that the judgment might be averted. How could he, without repenting of his sin? Note: The descents of depravity, like those of natural gravitation, are in accelerating degrees. (3) This judgment is the signal that the season of retributions has now fairly set in. What a horror to wake up to such a conviction! "Be sure your sin will find you out." 2. As to the near approach of his death. (1) "When thy feet enter into the city." Every step of the queen’s advance over that twelve miles from Shiloh to Tirzah measured a stride of death towards his victim. Do we sufficiently realize the fact that this is the case with us in passing through the journey of life? (2) What must have been the conflict in the heart of the queen? Maternal affection would urge her steps with speed that she might see her son alive. Yet was it a race with death; and death was first at the palace. That monster overtakes the swiftest. If he passes one it is to strike another, and so that the recoil of his sting may wound the trembling heart. 3. As to the circumstances attending. "All Israel shall mourn for him and bury him;" but for him only of the royal family, "because in him there is found some good thing towards the Lord God of Israel." Hence learns (1) God’s punishments are discriminative. He does not overlook the good in the evil. (2) Yet the good suffer with the evil. Abijah dies for the sin of his father. Christ dies for the sin of the world. But in His death is life to the believer. (3) Still the good suffer for their good. They are taken away from evil to come. Had Abijah lived he might have been drawn into his father’s sin. God often takes them soonest whom He loves best. (4) The evil suffer in the good, Jeroboam had reason to mourn the loss of the best of his family. So had Israel, since the succession would now open to a wicked prince. Note: We should pray for the preservation of virtuous and useful lives. Especially so when such are found in seats of power and influence. II. HEAVY TIDINGS HIS . 1. They are devoted to extermination. (1) This as a general fact was already known. (2) It is now published with additional circumstance. The agent that shall effect it is one who shall himself mount the throne of Israel. (3) This was fulfilled to the letter (see 1 Kings 15:27-30). 2. Judgment will come speedily. (1) Some think this exclamation of the prophet, "But what? Even now" arose from his having seen that this would be the case. (2) So it proved. Within two years Jeroboam died. He was succeeded by Nadab, who two years later was slain by Baasha. In that time also, and by the same hand, the predicted extermination was completed. (3) "The wicked do not live out half their days." This is true of dynasties as of individuals. The dynasty of Jeroboam lasted only four and twenty years.—J.A.M. 1 Kings 14:15-16 The Future of Israel. The vision of the Shilonite concerning the house of Israel, now before us, seems to have come upon him suddenly. We think the exclamation, "But what? Even now!" was the half-involuntary expression of the surprise of this new revelation. This utterance should, then, have stood at the beginning of 1 Kings 14:15 rather than at the end of the verse preceding. The connecting particle "For," with which 1 Kings 14:15 now opens, favours this view. The new vision describes the then future calamities of Israel, together with their provoking causes. I. HE WAS TO BE IN HIS OWN LAND. He is there to stagger and tremble under the stroke of God— 1. "As a reed is shaken in the water." (1) The reed is a figure of frailty. Rabshakeh, in describing the inability of the Egyptians to support Hezekiah against the Assyrians, compares them to a bruised reed (2 Kings 18:21; Isaiah 36:6; see also Ezekiel 39:6). Contrariwise, our Lord, asserting the stability and vigour of John Baptist, said that he was no "reed shaken with the wind" (Matthew 11:7). In derision of the royalty of Jesus the soldiers put a reed in His hand for a sceptre (Matthew 27:29). Subsequent history bore emphatic testimony to the instability and feebleness of Ephraim. (2) The reed is "shaken in the water." This element is at once a symbol of trouble and of people (see Psalms 69:17; Revelation 17:15). So disquiet, arising from popular tumults and civil war, is suggested. And did not this become fact? The frequent changes of dynasty kept the nation in perpetual broils. These evils were aggravated by wars with their brethren of Judah. 2. As a reed shaken by the wind. (1) This is not asserted, but implied, since reeds shake in water when moved by winds. And foreign influences had much to do with the troubles of Israel. (2) Foreign idolatries introduced by Solomon’s wives were at the root of the troubles. (3) The wars between Israel and Judah brought foreign armies upon the scene Egyptians, Syrians, and Assyrians. By these rough winds the troubles were aggravated. II. THEN TO BE IN THE LANDS OF . 1. A captivity of Israel is foretold. (1) The settlement of the people in Canaan is frequently described in Scripture under the figure of the planting of a vine there (see Psalms 64:2; Psalms 80:8; Jeremiah 2:21; Jeremiah 11:17). (2) This is now to be reversed. "He shall root up Israel out of this good land which he gave to their fathers." Suppose the vine had feeling; what a painful process! 2. Also the region of their dispersion. (1) "I will scatter them beyond the river" i.e; the Euphrates, for thus, by emphasis, this river is ever distinguished in Scripture (see Genesis 15:18; compare Deuteronomy 11:24 with 1 Kings 4:21 and Psalms 72:8). (2) This river also stands for the Assyrians, through whose territory it flowed. Their armies invading Israel are likened to the Euphrates rising and overflowing its western bank (see Isaiah 8:7). (3) How literally was all this accomplished (see 2 Kings 15:29; 2 Kings 17:6, 2 Kings 17:18). III. THESE WERE TO EXPRESS THE ANGER OF GOD. 1. First provoked by their Canaanitish idolatries. (1) These are represented here by "their groves." The word Asherah (אשירה אשרת) occurs thirty-nine times, and is everywhere translated groves, yet it may well be doubted whether this is its meaning. For take the next occurrence after that in our text, viz; verse 28 of this chapter: How could a grove be built under a green tree? How could a grove be made in the house of the Lord? (See 2 Kings 21:7; 2 Kings 23:6, 2 Kings 23:18) (2) These Asheroth, or Asherim, appear to have been images made of wood, cased in metal, perhaps fashioned like goats, which were worshipped with abominable rites. They were popular Canaanitish divinities, and for this reason to be execrated by Israelites (see Exodus 34:18; Deuteronomy 16:21). (3) But for all this they fell into the snare of worshipping together with the Baalim, or Bulls, and other Canaanitish idols (Judges 3:7; Judges 6:25; 1 Kings 18:19). 2. Then by their complicity in the sin of Jeroboam. (1) This addition to their earlier idolatries filled up the measure of their iniquity. For it completely alienated them from the worship of Jehovah in His temple. (2) They forsook the Lord, so He threatens to "give up Israel for the sin of Jeroboam," as He had also given up the house of Jeroboam to judgment.—J.A.M. 1 Kings 14:17-18 Death and Mourning. With a heavy heart the queen of Jeroboam moved along the road from Shiloh to Tirzah, and received the salute of death at the threshold of the palace. This sad event was soon followed by a state funeral and by a public mourning. In all this note how— I. SORROW HUMAN . 1. Survey this palace of Tirzah. (1) This is not the only palace of Jeroboam. Soon alter his promotion to the crown of Israel we find him building a palace at Shechem. That commemorated the event of his elevation; for there those circumstances occurred which gave rise to it (see 1 Kings 12:1-33.) (2) But this palace did not long satisfy the royal ambition. We find the king presently engaged in building a second at Penuel, in the tribe of Gad, eastward of Jordan (1 Kings 12:25). Those who come suddenly to fortune commonly affect great splendour. (3) Now we find him occupying a third. This probably was the most magnificent. It is situated in a place famous for its beauty in the days of Solomon (see Son 6:4). From this it had its name (תרצה), which signifies pleasantness. Doubtless the palace was in keeping with the place, for it was preferred as the royal residence until its destruction by fire (1 Kings 16:18). 2. Behold in this paradise a corpse! (1) Death has smitten Abijah, the best and most promising of the royal family. What a scene of grief when the mother, arrived from Shiloh, entered that chamber! What a dense gloom would rest on the household! In that solemn moment how vain must earthly splendour have appeared! (2) And does not sorrow still mingle with all earthly scenes! Why, then, should we not rather set our affections upon things above? (3) Wealth cannot bribe death. The King of Terrors enters the palace of royalty as certainly as he enters the cottage of poverty. To the great this enemy is even more formidable than to the humble, for they have more to leave. The acquisitions of the worldling, therefore, are only giving point and venom to the sting of death. II. IT HAS RELIEFS AND . 1. The reliefs are the fruits of virtue. (1) The public mourning would be a solace to the royal family. A king might provide a pompous funeral for his son, but he could not command the heart of the nation to mourn (2) This public mourning was a tribute to the virtues of the prince (see 1 Kings 14:13). (3) There was pure comfort in the reflection that the spirit of the pious youth is away from a world of sin, in the companionship of saints and holy angels. 2. The aggravations are the fruits of sin. (1) How the grief of Jeroboam must have been embittered by the fact that this bereavement came not as a messenger of mercy to him, but as a visitation of judgment! (2) How it must have alarmed him to know that it was but the first of a series of judgments destined to issue in the extermination of his house! (3) The very virtues of the prince first taken, in this view, became an aggravation, for he is removed as too good a prince for so wicked a people, and to make way for the succession of a wicked prince to punish them.—J.A.M. 1 Kings 14:19, 1 Kings 14:20 The Review. The text reminds us— I. THAT THE SEASON OF DEATH IS A TIME FOR . 1. In presence of a corpse the giddiest pause. (1) This is seen when an ordinary funeral passes along the streets, in the sombre countenances of the bystanders, if not in more special tokens of respect. It is more evident still when the deceased may have been an acquaintance or a relative. But most so in the very house of mourning, where the relies are seen shrouded in their pallor and immobility. (2) What trains of thought are started! (a) What a mystery is death! (b) What a mystery is life! (c) What a mystery is futurity!—the spirit world—the resurrection—the judgment—heaven—hell. (d) Are we prepared to encounter the inevitable? Who can forecast the moment? (e) Why should we defer the needful preparation? 2. When a monarch dies a nation thinks. (1) This is so under ordinary conditions. The social position occupied is so elevated that the event is conspicuous to all. What a leveller is death! In this article all claim kindred, the prince and the beggar (Proverbs 22:2). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ THE REIGN OF .— 1 Kings 14:21 And Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, reigned in Judah. Rehoboam was forty [or twenty. See on 1 Kings 12:1] and one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned [this reign is related at greater length in 2 Chronicles 11:1-23; 2 Chronicles 12:1-16. seventeen years [cf. 1 Kings 15:1] in Jerusalem, the city which the Lord did choose [cf. 1 Kings 11:36; Psalms 78:68; Nehemiah 1:9] out of all the tribes of Israel [cf. 2 Chronicles 6:6; 2 Kings 21:7] to put his name there. The historian reminds us that Jerusalem was by God’s appointment the religious centre of the land; that Bethel and Dan were no sanctuaries of His choosing; and that, however much the realm of Rehoboam was restricted, he still reigned in the capital of God’s choice. It is possible the words have some reference to the next verse, and imply that, though it was the holy city, yet even there they fell away from God (Bähr). And his mother’s name was Naamah [or, according to the LXX; Naanan. See on 1 Kings 12:24], an [Heb. the, i.e; the well-known] Ammonitess. [The name of the mother is given with every king of Judah, principally because of the position of influence she occupied in the kingdom. See on 1 Kings 2:13, and 1 Kings 2:31 below.] 1 Kings 14:22 And Judah did evil in the sight of the Lord [not, however, before the fourth year of Rehoboam’s reign. For the first three Fears the nation remained steadfast in the faith, and the kingdom was greatly strengthened and consolidated. The defection commenced when Rehoboam began to feel himself secure (2 Chronicles 12:1). It is to be observed, however, that the historian says "Judah" (not Rehoboam) "did evil," etc. It is probable that a considerable section of the people approved of the idolatrous practices introduced in the preceding reign, and that Rehoboam was unable to repress them. It was his misfortune to have to reap the bitter fruits of Solomon’s unfaithfulness], and they provoked him to jealousy [Heb. made him jealous. Same word, Exodus 20:5; Exodus 34:14; Numbers 5:14. The words of the covenant proclaimed the Lord a,’ jealous God." This is of course anthropomorphic language. The nation was regarded as the bride of Jehovah, and God is said to be made jealous, because idolatry was unfaithfulness to Him. The worship of Baal and Ashtoreth, it must be remembered, involved unutterable immoralities, hence the special fitness of the word, which is only used of idolatry of one kind or other] with their sins which they had committed [Heb. sinned] above all that their fathers had done. 1 Kings 14:23 For they also [i.e; they as well as the ten tribes] built them high places [i.e; houses of high places. See on 1 Kings 3:2 and 1 Kings 13:32] and images [Heb. pillars or statues (מַחֵּבוֹת; LXX; στήλας). These were, no doubt, originally memorial pillars or stones, erected to commemorate some Divine manifestation, and with no thought of idolatry (see Genesis 31:13; Genesis 35:14, Genesis 35:20; Genesis 28:18). But the Canaanites erected pillars, which were also statues or images, to their god, Baal. Hence we read of the "image" (מַחֵּבָה) of Baal (2 Kings 3:2; 2 Kings 10:26, 2 Kings 10:27; cf. 2 Kings 18:4; 2 Kings 23:14); and hence also we find such images frequently mentioned side by side with the so-called "groves," i.e; the "Asherahs" (verse 15; Exodus 34:13; Deuteronomy 7:5; Deuteronomy 12:3; Deuteronomy 16:21, etc.) Both the Mazzebah and the Asherah, consequently, was an upright pillar or post, but the former was of stone, the latter of wood; the former dedicated to Baal, the god of nature, of generation; the latter to Ashtoreth, the goddess of nature and productive power. The gradual transition of the memorial pillar into the Baal statue is hinted at in Leviticus 26:1. It is observable that these idolatrous and immoral rites seem to have found a home in Judah before they were introduced into Israel] and groves [Asherahs, idols; see on verse 15. This verse proves conclusively that the translation "grove" is a mistaken one] on every high hill, and under every green tree. [The phrase is from the Pentateuch, Deuteronomy 12:2; cf. Jeremiah 2:20; Jeremiah 3:6; Hosea 4:13. "Probably the evil example of Maachah, his favourite wife (2 Chronicles 11:20-22), whose idolatrous tastes were displayed under Asa (2 Chronicles 15:16), was not without a pernicious effect on Rehoboam" (Wordsworth).] 1 Kings 14:24 And there were also Sodomites [קָדֵשׁ, a collective noun = הַקְּדֵשִׁים (1 Kings 15:12) = consecrated persons or devotees, because they were set apart to the service of Astarte, the Dea Syria. It is clear from Deuteronomy 23:18 (Heb.) that male prostitutes are here spoken of, the name of the female being קְדֵשָׁה. The former is described in Deuteronomy 23:19 50.c. as a dog, the latter as a whore] in the land [cf. 1 Kings 15:12. It is highly probable that these infamous persons were of Canaanite or Phoenician origin (this being a Phoenician superstition, Movers, "Phoniz." 1:671), but it is somewhat precarious to found an assertion to that effect on these last words (as Bהhr)], and [Heb. omits and] they did according to all the abominations of the nations [see Leviticus 18:20.; Deuteronomy 18:9-12] which the Lord cast out before the children of Israel. ["Here we see a reason for God’s command, requiring the extirpation of the Canaanites" (Wordsworth).] 1 Kings 14:25 And it came to pass in the fifth year [that is, two years after king and people forsook the law of the Lord (2 Chronicles 12:11). Retribution seems to have overtaken Judah sooner than Israel. They had the less excuse, and they seem to have plunged deeper into idolatry and immorality] of King Rehoboam, that Shishak king of Egypt [to whom Jeroboam had fled (1 Kings 11:26, 1 Kings 11:40)] came up against Jerusalem. [This expedition is related with somewhat more of detail in 2 Chronicles 12:2-4. For Shishak, see 1 Kings 11:40. It was in the twentieth year of his reign that Shishak, once Jeroboam’s protector and friend, invaded Palestine. It has been conjectured (Ewald, al.) that he was incited so to do by Jeroboam, and that the two kings waged war against Judah in concert (see on 1 Kings 11:30). But as to this Scripture is silent; and moreover if Jeroboam summoned Shishak to his assistance, it is certain that his own kingdom did not altogether escape invasion; and it is perhaps more probable that the divided and weakened state of the country seemed to promise the Egyptian king an easy capture of Jerusalem, of the treasures of which he had doubtless heard. It is well known that a record of this expedition exists in the sculptures and inscriptions of the great temple at Karnak. The bassi relievi of the temple wall contain over 130 figures, representatives, as the names on the shields show, of so many conquered cities. Amongst these are found three of the "cities for defence" which Rehoboam had built, viz; Shoco, Adoraim, and Aijalon (2 Chronicles 11:7-10), while many other towns of Palestine, such as Gibeon, Taanach, Shunem, Megiddo, etc; are identified with more or less of probability. One feature in the list is remarkable, viz; the number of Levitical and Canaanite ciies—cities of Israel—which Shishak is said to have conquered. The usual inference is that such cities, although in Jeroboam’s dominions, had nevertheless held out against his rule—the former for religious reasons; the latter, perhaps, in the effort to recover their independence. Mr. Peele, however , accounts for the names on the supposition that Shishak directed, his forces against the northern as well as the southern kingdom, and certainly this seems to agree better with the facts. It is hardly likely that Jeroboam, with the army at his command, would tolerate so many centres of disaffection in his midst. Besides, the Levites, we are told, had migrated in a body to Judah; and the Canaanites at this period can hardly have been in a position to defy any Hebrew monarch. The silence alike of our historian and of the chronicler as to the invasion of Israel is easily accounted for by the fact that Judah bore the brunt of the war.] 1 Kings 14:26 And he took away the treasures of the house of the Lord [The historian omits to mention the interposition of Shemaiah (2 Chronicles 12:5-8). The account of the Chronicles is altogether much fuller], and the treasures of the king’s house; he even took away all [rather, "and everything (sc. that he could lay his hands on) he took away." The spoil must have been enormous]: and he took away all the shields of gold [cf. 1 Kings 10:17] which Solomon had made. 1 Kings 14:27 And king Rehoboam made in their stead brazen shields [lit; shields of brass or copper; a striking token of the decadence of the kingdom; cf. 1 Kings 9:28; 1 Kings 10:22. "He changed his father’s religion, as his shields, from gold to brass" (Hall) I, and comttted [Heb. appointed] them unto the hands of the chief of the guard [Heb. commanders of the runners (see on 1 Kings 1:38)], which kept the door of the king’s house. [Cf. 2 Kings 11:6. The functions of the bodyguard were very varied. A primary duty was, obviously, to supply sentinels and attendants for the palace.] 1 Kings 14:28 And it was so, when the king went unto the house of the Lord, that the guards [runners] bare them [Whatever idolatries Rehoboam tolerated or encouraged, it is clear that he maintained the temple worship with great pomp and circumstance. The state visits of the Sultan to the Mosque may perhaps be best compared with these processions. Ewald sees in this circumstance a proof of Rehoboam’s vanity. The brazen shields were "borne before him in solemn procession, as if everything were the same as before"], and brought them back into the guard chamber [Heb." chamber of the runners." Solomon’s golden shields were kept "in the house of the forest of Lebanon" (1 Kings 10:17). These shields of Brass were of so little value that the guard chamber sufficed for their custody. 1 Kings 14:29 Now the rest of the acts of Rehoboam, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? [See on 1 Kings 14:19. 1 Kings 14:30 And there was war [cf. 2 Chronicles 12:15, "wars." Keil argues from the prohibition of war by Shemaiah (1 Kings 12:23) that this must mean "hostility, enmity." But מִלְחָמָה surely implies more than angry feelings or a hostile attitude; and it is highly probable that, even if there were no organized campaigns, a desultory warfare was constantly carried on on the borders of the two kingdoms. It is also possible that Jeroboam took a part in the war of Shishak] between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all their days. 1 Kings 14:31 And Rehoboam slept with his fathers [The same formula as in 1 Kings 2:10; 1 Kings 11:43; 1 Kings 15:8, 1 Kings 15:24, etc. It is used of nearly all the kings of Judah], and was buried with his fathers [These words go to prove, against Gesenius, that the phrase "slept (lit. lay down) with his fathers" is not to be interpreted of Sheol, but of the grave; see on 1 Kings 2:10] in the city of David. And his mother’s name was Naamah, an Ammonitess. [Same words as in 1 Kings 2:21. The repetition can hardly be, as Bהhr, Wordsworth, al; imagine, designed, in order to show that the worship of Moloch was brought by her to Jerusalem (1 Kings 11:7), and that she exercised a sinister influence upon her son. As she is twice called "the Ammonitess" it can hardly be doubted that she was one of the "Ammonitesses" (1 Kings 11:1, Hebrews) who turned away Solomon’s heart; and it is also certain that Rehoboam did not inherit his folly from his father. At the same time these words are more easily accounted for on the supposition that the historian found them in this position in one or more of the documents from which he compiled his history. It is also to be remembered that some of these chronological statements are manifestly by a later hand, and have been transferred from the margin to the text. See on 1 Kings 6:1. And Abijam [elsewhere called Abijah (2 Chronicles 12:16; 2 Chronicles 13:1), or Abijahu (2 Chronicles 13:21, Hebrews) Some MSS. have Abijah here. The variation is not easily accounted for except as a clerical error. The supposition of Lightfoot that the name was designedly altered by the historian to avoid the incorporation of the sacred JAH into the name of a bad man is too fanciful, the more so as Abijam was by no means an exceptionally bad king. It is, however, approved by Bהhr and Rawlinson. But it is as little probable that Abijam is the original form of the name (Keil). The form Abijahu, the LXX. Ἀβιού, and the analogy of Abiel (1 Samuel 9:1) all make against this idea. On the whole, it is more likely that Abijam results from an error of transcription, äand the final íbeing easily confounded] his son reigned in his stead. 1 Kings 14:25 The Invasion of Shishak. Three years after the death of David, the foundations of the temple, the glory of that age—some have called it orbis miraculum, the marvel of every age—were laid. Four years after the death of Solomon his son—some forty years, that is to say, after its foundation, three and thirty years after its completion, according to some only twenty years after its dedication—the treasures of that temple, its gold and gems, were carried off by an invader. A short time after his accession, again, Solomon made alliance with the strongest and proudest of the empires of that age, with Egypt, and a Hebrew, one whose forefathers were Pharaoh’s bondmen, was gladly recognized as great Pharaoh’s son-in-law. A short time after his death, this same Egyptian kingdom is become an assailant of Solomon’s son, and Pharaoh is turned to be the oppressor and plunderer of his realm. For a great part of Solomon’s reign it was the boast of the people that an Egyptian princess occupied one of his splendid palaces in Jerusalem, but he has not been long dead before those same palaces are rifled by Egyptian princes, and Jerusalem is environed by the legions of Shishak. And yet that temple, the magnificence of which has been so short-lived, which was hardly completed ere it was despoiled, was built to the name of the Lord, and as a habitation for the mighty God of Jacob. And as such it was accepted by Him. That house had had a greater glory and consecration than of gold and precious stones, for "the glory of the Lord had filled the house of the Lord" (1 Kings 8:11). Why, then, is it, we may well ask, as the men of that age would ask, that it is so soon left comparatively desolate? Cannot the Deity to whom it was dedicated protect it against spoliation. Or have His worshippers provoked Him to anger, so that He has "abhorred his sanctuary," and "delivered his glory into the enemies’ hand"? For we may be quite sure that there was a profound reason for this profound dishonour and disgrace. We cannot account for the fact that the temple of the Lord, the "house of the great God" (Ezra 5:8), was stripped bare and left a wreck within a few years of its erection, on the supposition that a chance happened to it, and that it only suffered as other shrines have done from the vicissitudes of fortune and the impartial, inevitable havoc of war. "In rebus bellicis," it has been said, "maxime dominatur Fortuna." But if we feel at liberty to interpret other histories by a theory of chance, that idea must be excluded in thinking of God’s people. If their history was fortuitous, then the Old Testament is a delusion. No; we may not be able always to trace the finger of God in profane history, but it will be passing strange if we cannot recognize it here. Now the immediate cause of the invasion was, no doubt, the divided and therefore weakened state of the kingdom. We might have been tempted to think that Jeroboam had summoned his patron Shishak to his aid, had we not proof that Israel as well as Judah suffered from this campaign. And of course it is possible that Jeroboam instigated a war which ultimately extended to his own kingdom. But it is obvious that Shishak would need no invitation to attack Jerusalem. The fame of its immense treasure is quite sufficient of itself to account for his advance. So long as it was guarded by the armies of Solomon it was secure. But Rehoboam, whose troops would not number a third of his father’s, and who was paralyzed by the hostility of Israel crouching like a wild beast on his northern border, offered an easy prey to a general with 1,200 chariots and 60,000 horsemen, and "people without number" under his command. We see, then, that it was the treasures of the Holy City—the vast accumulation of the precious metals—which excited the cupidity of the Egyptians, while theft defenceless state suggested the idea of seizing them. Observe here— I. THE OF SOLOMON’S SIN. 1. Of his greed and pride. He has "multiplied silver and gold to himself" only to provoke an invasion of his territory and the humiliation of his people. If he had obeyed the law; if he had been content to embellish the house of the Lord and leave the palaces alone; if his overweening pride and his insatiable thirst for fame had not prompted him to amass treasures which excited universal attention, it is probable that Judah would have escaped invasion. In this case "pride has gone before destruction." The very magnitude of his treasures led to their dispersion. 2. Of his idolatry. We have already seen how this sin (1 Kings 11:5-8) was punished by the partition of his realm. In the plunder of his palaces, provoked and made possible by that division, we see a further recompense of his outrage and defiance of the almighty. The hills on which his idol altars were erected now swarmed with idolaters, assembled not to sacrifice, but to slay. We are reminded here of the retribution which befell the Jerusalem of a later day. On one of the hills before Jerusalem the Jews raised a cross—they crucified the Prince of Life. On all the hills that are round about Jerusalem, the Romans raised crosses, the crosses of His murderers (Jos; Bell. Jud. Romans 5:11.1). 3. Of his multiplication of horses. For it is to be remembered from what quarter the retribution came. There is an exquisite judicial propriety in an invasion from Egypt, and an invasion of chariots and horses. This was retaliation in the proper sense of the word; it was like for like. Why, there was almost a beaten track made for those same chariots by the horses and chariots which Solomon had imported in such prodigious numbers. Literally the trade horses paved the way for the horses of war. This illegal traffic had long since familiarized Egyptian charioteers with the shortest way to the Holy City. 4. Of his multiplication of wives. Solomon’s lawful wife came from Egypt. Had he been true to her, he would probably have been true to his Lord God (1 Kings 11:3), and so his realm would have escaped invasion. It is a kind of Nemesis for the wrong done to his Egyptian consort that his harem was plundered by Egyptians. There are those who connect Napoleon’s fall with the repudiation of Josephine. The "judge of the widow" (Psalms 68:5) is also the avenger of the injured and dishonoured wife (Hebrews 13:4). Human laws seldom take cognizance of these, the deepest of wrongs, but the cry of the heart-broken woman goes up into the ears of One who has said, "I will repay." II. THE OF ’S FOLLY AND SIN. 1. Of his obstinacy. For in the first place, but for his infatuation, humanly speaking, the kingdom would have escaped division, and the land would have escaped invasion. That infatuation, it is true, was the product of his breeding and his training, but that consideration does not wholly exonerate him from blame. No man can charge his parents or surroundings with his sin. The law does not excuse the thief on the ground that from infancy he has been taught to steal. Rehoboam was a free agent, and ought to have acted otherwise, and doubtless he knew it when it was too late. 2. Of his pride. It was his pride had rejected all compromise, and had prated of scorpions, etc. It had been humbled once in the dismemberment of his realm. It must be humbled again in the spoliation of his palaces. For observe, it was when he "had strengthened himself" (2 Chronicles 12:1) that Shishak came to prove his weakness. St. Paul is not the only one who has had to learn the lesson, "When I am weak, then am I strong." It is extremely probable that this vainglorious prince, after losing most of his realm, still piqued himself on the abundance of his treasures. His trust was in his shields of gold. So he must be reduced to shields of pinchbeck. 3. Of his infidelity. "He forsook the law of the Lord" (2 Chronicles l.c.) Much as his father had done before him. "What the old sing," says the German proverb, "the young chirp." That is to say, he still worshipped Jehovah (verse 28; cf. 1 Kings 9:25), but he sanctioned, or did not suppress, idolatry. The son of an Ammonitess, he would find it difficult to trample on the gods of his mother (1 Kings 11:5), and he was probably too much afraid of another insurrection to stamp out the abominations of verses 28, 24. III. THE OF ISRAEL’S . Though the chronicler informs us that Rehoboam "forsook the law and all Israel with him," yet it seems probable from verses 22, 24, "And Judah did evil," etc; that he rather followed than led his people. He could hardly fail, at first, to see that his strength lay in a rigid adherence to the law; that his policy was one of piety. The Levites and others who streamed into Judah, shocked by the innovations of Jeroboam, cannot fail to have suggested that his role was orthodoxy. It is probable, therefore, that it was not until a large section of his people, infected with the superstitions and vices they had learned in Solomon’s reign, clamoured for the tolerance of shameful shrines, that he yielded to idolatry. Verse 25 seems to connect the invasion directly with the people’s sin. But for the high places and images. etc; the land would have been spared this humiliation. It is to be carefully noted that, so long as king and people served the Lord, Shishak was held back from attacking them. Hence we understand why Judah receives earlier and greater stripes than Israel It was Jeroboam made Israel to sin. It was Judah made Rehoboam to sin. The guilty people, accordingly, are punished by the invasion of their land and the spoliation of their treasure; the guilty king by the destruction of his house. And here again, let us observe, how significant that the chastisement should come from Egypt. Time was when God had punished the idolatries of Egypt through the instrumentality of the Jewish people (Exodus 7-14.) Now the tables are turned, and Egypt is employed to avenge the idolatries of Judah. This was the first time that an Egyptian army had crossed their border—the first time, indeed, that the land had sustained the brunt of any invasion. It was the Sodomites and the like had drawn forth those swords from their scabbards. What a contrast between Exodus 14:1-31. and 1 Kings 14:1-31. Israel, who then "saw the Egyptians dead upon the seashore," now feels the grip of Pharaoh at his throat, and the iron of Pharaoh in his soul. BY J.A. 1 Kings 14:21-24 The Sin of Judah. Having discoursed of Jeroboam and the kingdom of Israel, the sacred historian now returns to Rehoboam and the sister kingdom of Judah. To have found a better state of things here would have been refreshing, but in this we are disappointed. How fearful was the moral state of the whole world in those days! I. JUDAH HAD FALLEN INTO THE . 1. He had multiplied high places. (1) High places were not necessarily for idolatry. They were proper to the worship of the true God in patriarchal times. (2) Even after God had chosen Jerusalem to put His name there, the patriarchal use of high places was upon special occasions sanctioned by Him (see 1 Kings 18:38). (3) In Judah there was little need for these, since the extremity of the kingdom was not very remote from Jerusalem. The distance to Beersheba would be about forty British statute miles. (4) But the high places of Judah were mainly designed for idolatry. Hence their association in the text with" images-and groves" and rites of Sodomites and other Canaanitish abominations. 2. He had built many temples. (1) The term (מצבות) here translated "images" is elsewhere commonly rendered pillars (see Genesis 28:18; Genesis 31:51; Genesis 35:20; Exodus 24:4; Isaiah 19:19). It is far from evident that this word is ever used for any image or figured thing. In places where it is construed "images," pillars would give as good sense (see Exodus 23:24; 2 Kings 10:26, 2 Kings 10:27). Marginal readings bear this out (see Deuteronomy 7:5; Deuteronomy 16:22). (2) It is probable these pillars were distributed in ranks, as those of the Druids at Stonehenge and Abiry, to serve as temples in which the powers of the material heavens were worshipped. 3. He had enshrined idols in these. (1) The Asherim (אשרים) are here evidently misrendered "groves;" for how could groves be planted under every green tree? (See Homily on 1 Kings 14:15, 1 Kings 14:16, supra.) (2) They were idols apparently in figure like goats. For Jeroboam "ordained him priests for the high places and for the devils (שעדים goats), and for the calves which he had made" (2 Chronicles 11:15). Here we have no mention of Ashorim; of goats, however, we have mention. But when Josiah destroyed these things, there is mention of the Ashorah, but no mention of the goat (compare 2 Kings 23:15). The Asherah destroyed by Josiah appears, then, to be the goat which Jeroboam had set up. (3) These Asherim, or Asheroth—for they appear to have been male and female idols—were supposed to convey blessings to their worshippers, and hence their name (from אשר to proceed, to bless). 4. His idolatry was attended with shocking cites. (1) They were the very abominations for which the land had spewed out the Canaanites as with abhorrence (see Leviticus 1 Kings 18:28; 1 Kings 20:22, and contexts). (2) Conspicuous amongst these were the Sodomites, whose orgies were intimately connected with the Asherim, and to encourage which the women wove hangings (see 2 Kings 23:7). How fruitful in inventions is the wickedness of the heart! (Ecclesiastes 7:29.) II. FOR HIS HE WAS WITHOUT EXCUSE. 1. He had Jerusalem for his capital. (1) This was the city chosen of God out of all the tribes of Israel to put His name there. The temple of Jehovah was there, and the Shekinah of Jehovah was in it. (2) Every appliance for acceptable worship was there at hand. The altars were there; the priesthood was there; the appointed assemblies, festival and ferial, were there. (3) They sinned, therefore, "before the face of the Lord," as in His very presence. Even more so than Israel, who could not now claim Jerusalem for his capital, though he was still bound to go there to worship. Let us remember that God is ever near us; this thought will restrain our truancy. 2. He had a son of David for his king. (1) The mother of Rehoboam, indeed, was an Ammonitess. This is emphatically (twice) mentioned. She was one of those strange women who had turned the heart of Solomon from the right way. The abomination of her country was Milcom or Molech, whose rites were most ferocious and demoralizing. (2) But against these influences were noble traditions on the other side. His father, in the beginning of his reign, was illustrious in wisdom and zeal for the God of Israel. The memories of his grandfather were glorious. To this must be added the most material circumstance that the Covenant was with his house; for Messiah Himself was to be the Son of David. (3) These things were not without their influence. For three years after the revolution under Jeroboam, Rehoboam governed Judah in the fear of God, and so established his throne (see 2 Chronicles 11:17). (4) When, after this, Rehoboam "forsook the law of the Lord," his subjects should have dissuaded him and, if necessary, resisted him. But they went "with him" (2 Chronicles 12:2). (5) To such excesses,did they go that they "sinned above their fathers in provoking the Lord to jealousy."—J.A.M. 1 Kings 14:25-31 The Entailments of Sin. During the three first years of his reign in Judah, Rehoboam walked in the steps of Solomon and David, enjoyed peace, and became established in his throne. Afterwards he gave himself up to idolatrous abominations, and brought evil upon himself and upon his people. The entailments of their sin were— I. TROUBLE. 1. There was continual war between the kingdoms. (1) While they remained faithful to God they had peace. God interposed to preserve peace by the hand of Shemaiah (1 Kings 12:21-24). (2) But when they forsook the Lord, they soon got to strife, which continued as long as the kings lived (verse 80). This strife was also handed down to their successors, (3) Thus sinners become God’s instruments to punish one another. So it is seen to this day in the contentions and litigations of individuals. Men are slow to see the hand of God. 2. Shishak aggravated the mischief. (1) The influences which brought him upon the scene may be discerned. Hadad, who occasioned so much trouble to Solomon, was Shishak’s brother-in-law. Shishak was thus disposed to give asylum to Jeroboam when he fled for his life from Solomon. Shishak now conspires with Jeroboam to ruin Rehoboam. (2) The array brought against Judah by Shishak was formidable (see 2 Chronicles 12:3). It would have been crushing had not Rehoboam and his people, in their extremity, humbled themselves before God (2 Chronicles 12:7). (3) But they still had to feel the smart of their sins. II. . 1. In war there is always loss. (1) Necessarily there is the forfeiture of peace. Who can estimate the value of peace? Perfect peace is the resultant of perfect harmony as the white light is composed of all the colours in the iris. (2) There is the loss of property. Labour is the source of wealth: the labour withdrawn from industry to wage war is so much loss of wealth. The soldier also is a consumer. When he does not provide for his own sustenance, the labour of others must be taxed to feed him. (3) There is the loss of life. War is seldom bloodless. Often the slaughter is fearful. Wellington is reported to have said that the calamity next in severity to a defeat is a victory. 2. Shishak despoiled the temple of its treasure. (1) The booty here was enormous. The spoils of David’s victories were there; also the accumulations of Solomon’s peaceful commerce. (2) The shields of gold that Solomon had made are particularly mentioned. It is added that Rehoboam had brazen shields made to replace them. How sin reduces the fine gold to brass! 3. Shishak also rifled the palace. (1) The treasures here also were immense. Perhaps there never was such plunder as this in human annals. (2) Rehoboam handed down a diminished inheritance to his son. By his folly he alienated ten tribes of his nation from his kingdom. Abijam likewise succeeded to a kingdom greatly impoverished. He became heir also to embroilments. The entailments of sin pursue the spirit into the invisible world. Forfeiture. Trouble:—J.A.M. BY J. 1 Kings 14:21-31 Unfaithfulness and its rebuke. I. JUDAH’S SIN. 1. The nature of the transgression. The grossest idolatry was set side by side with the pure worship of God. The temple and its services were still HIS (1 Kings 14:28), but on every high hill and under every green tree were the images and altars of the false gods. The preservation of the pure worship of God is no proof that all is yielded which God demands. The heart may be full of the world’s idolatries, of its covetousness and lust and manifold sin. 2. Its enormity. (1) It was wrought in Jerusalem, "the city which the Lord did choose," etc; and this, too, in the face of the defection of the ten tribes. It is high treason against Jehovah when those whom He has called and honoured are faithless to the trust committed to them. It is the darkest crime against God and man to betray the last earthly refuge of the truth. (2) It was done after an interval of repentance and religious zeal (2 Chronicles 11:17; 2 Chronicles 12:1). They had known and yet forsaken the better way. (3) Their idolatry was more unrestrained and daring than any that Israel had ever known (1 Kings 14:22). 3. Its fruits (1 Kings 14:24). Errors in worship become vices in life. The soul that is cut off from the fountain of life must needs break out into corruption. II. JUDAH’S . It inflicted deep humiliation and loudly proclaimed God’s indignation. 1. It was inflicted by an old and beaten foe. Their temple songs, celebrating the ancient triumph over "Rahab," must have deepened their shame. 2. The holy city and the temple itself were spoiled. God loathed their holy things. We need not marvel that rationalism and infidelity are rampant in a faithless, worldly Church. It is God’s way. Israel’s idolatry is punished by Egypt’s triumph. 3. It left its mark in enduring poverty (1 Kings 14:26-28). The splendour passed away from the royal pomp, and doubtless also from the temple service. The nation and Church which Egypt has spoiled, whose faith has been shaken by doubt, or swallowed up in unbelief, have lost their strength and glory. They are but the shadows of what a true and pure faith once made them.—J.U. THE REIGNS OF ABIJAM AND ASA, KINGS OF JUDAH. The Reign of Abijam. 1 Kings 15:1 Now in the eighteenth year of king Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, reigned Abijam [see note on 1 Kings 14:31. It is implied in 2 Chronicles 11:20-22 that he was not the firstborn among Rehoboam’s twenty-eight sons, but the eldest son of the favourite wife. As he left behind him thirty-eight children (2 Chronicles 13:21) at his decease, some three years later, he must have been of considerable age at his accession. This consideration rather favours the idea that Rehoboam was "forty and one years old when he began to reign" (2 Chronicles 12:13)] over Judah. 1 Kings 15:2 Three years [The Alex. LXX. says δεκὰεξ, sixteen. The" three years" are not to be interpreted strictly. As he ascended the throne in the eighteenth and died in the twentieth year of Jeroboam’s reign, he cannot have completed three years. But it does not follow that "he cannot have reigned much more than two years" (Rawlinson, and similarly Keil). He may have reigned all but three] reigned he in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Maachah [in 2 Chronicles 13:2 called Michaiah, Heb. Michajahu. That the same person is meant is proved as well by the context as by 2 Chronicles 11:21, where the name is given as here. Keil (cf. Dict. Bib. 2:162) ascribes the discrepancy to an error of the copyist; but the names are so unlike in the original as to discountenance this assumption. I venture to suggest that Michajahu was the significant form—the word means "Who is like Jehovah?"—which the name Maachah, "oppression," borne by the Geshurite princess who married David (2 Samuel 3:3) assumed when she joined the Lord’s people, and embraced, as no doubt she would do, the religion of Jehovah. Such a change would be quite in accordance with the genius and traditions of the Semitic races (Genesis 17:5, Genesis 17:15; Genesis 30:1-43. passim; Genesis 32:28; Genesis 41:45; Exodus 6:3, etc. Cf. 2 Kings 23:34; 2 Kings 24:17; Hosea 1:4, Hosea 1:6), and there may well have been special reasons in this case, apart from the piety of David, why it should be made. For the name Maachah appears to have been taken Iron the town and district of that name near Geshur—a part of Syria was called Syria Maachah (1 Chronicles 19:6; cf. 2 Samuel 10:6-8). In 2 Samuel 20:14, 2 Samuel 20:15 we read of a district of Beth Maachah—and it not improbably witnessed to unhappy memories. How natural it would be that David’s bride should take a name of better omen and of a religious import, and how natural that the grand-daughter who bore her name should be called by that name in both its forms. Since writing the above, I find that a somewhat similar idea has occurred long since to others. Both Kimchi and Jarchi hold that she had two names. It is supposed by some that she assumed the name Michaiah, as more dignified, on becoming queen. Wordsworth thinks that Michaiah was her real name, and that it was degraded into Maachah when she was deposed for idolatry. This latter view dovetails with the one suggested above. It would be quite in accordance with Jewish usages and habits of thought that the name which had been changed into Michaiah when the grandmother became a proselyte, should be changed back into Maachah when this princess apostatized], the daughter [rather, grand-daughter. בַּת includes all female descendants, as אֵם (see 2 Samuel 20:10) all anxestresses] of Abishalom. We can hardly doubt that Absalom, the son of David, is meant here. We have (1) the express statement of 2 Chronicles 11:21, "Rehoboam loved Maachah, the daughter of Absalom," etc. (2) The fact that two of Rehoboam’s other wives were of the family of David, which shows that it was part of his policy to marry the daughters of that house. (3) The mother of Absalom was named Maachah (2 Samuel 3:3). (4) The name is so uncommon—in fact, it is ἅπαξλεγ—that another person can hardly be intended. Moreover the variation in spelling is extremely slight. It has been held, however, that a different person is designated by the name, principally because Absalom had hut one daughter whose name was Tamar (2 Samuel 14:27), whereas Abijah’s mother is said to have been the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah (2 Chronicles 13:2). But this difficulty admits of an easy solution. Tamar was doubtless married to Uriel, and Maachah was the fruit of this marriage. And with this explanation agrees the account of Josephus (Ant. 8.10, 1). 1 Kings 15:3 And he walked in all the sins of his father, which he had done before him [sins, i.e; from the theocratic standpoint. See 1 Kings 14:22, 1 Kings 14:25. It does not appear that either Abijah or Rehoboam was a vicious man, and from his pious language on Mount Zemaraim (2 Chronicles 13:10-12) we should certainly have thought that Abijah was a god-fearing prince. But 1 Kings 14:13 proves that he had sanctioned idolatry, and this was no doubt his principal sin, as the next words explain]: and his heart was not perfect with the Lord and his God, as the heart of David his father [the words used of Solomon. 1 Kings 2:4]. 1 Kings 15:4 Nevertheless [כִי but, sed, sondern, Gesen. 393] for David’s sake did the Lord his God give him a lamp [Better than margin, candle. The word is "always used figuratively of progeny." See note on 1 Kings 2:26; and of 2 Samuel 21:17; Job 18:5, Job 18:6; Psalms 132:17] in Jerusalem, to set up his son after him, and to establish Jerusalem [But for David’s piety, that is to say, his family would have been dethroned, if not destroyed, as was that of Jeroboam (1 Kings 14:10), of Baasha (1 Kings 16:2), of Ahab (2 Kings 10:11), etc. Abijah was the third prince of that line who had permitted idolatrous worship, so that that dynasty had richly deserved to forfeit its position. The stability of the family of David on the throne for nearly 400 years, amid all the changes and chances of that period, and whilst in Israel there were "nine changes of dynasty within 250 years" is, as Rawlinson remarks, very "difficult to account for on mere grounds of human reason"]: 1 Kings 15:5 Because [אֲשֶר, here causative for יַעַן אי. Comp. quod] David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from anything that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. [2 Samuel 2:4. But this last clause is not found in the LXX; and such a statement was more likely to be inserted by transcribers, having first appeared in the margin as a gloss, than to be omitted, had it ever formed part of the text. And in support of this view it may be alleged that (1) the matter of Uriah was by no means David’s only sin, and (2) it is not the manner of our writer thus to qualify his words. See next verse.] 1 Kings 15:6 And there was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all the days of his life. [Practically identical with 1 Kings 14:30, where see note. Thenius thinks the insertion of the words were due to the carelessness of some copyist, and Bהhr admits that our present text is possibly not the original one. For Rehoboam, some MSS; with the Syriac and Arabic, read Abijah, but this is clearly an emendation, which in turn begets another repetition (1 Kings 14:7), and there is really no need either to alter or suspect the text. Such repetitions are quite in accordance with Eastern usage, and Rehoboam here stands for the house of Rehoboam, or the cause and kingdom which Rehoboam represented. The object of mentioning his name can hardly be "to remind the reader that Abijam inherited this war from his father" (Rawlinson), for it was only on Rehoboam’s death that the slumbering hostility blazed out into actual war. That there was warfare between Abi-jam and Jeroboam we know not only from 1 Kings 14:7, but from 2 Chronicles 13:3-20 also. 1 Kings 15:7 Now the rest of the acts of Abijam and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles [see note on 1 Kings 14:29. The marginal reference to 2 Chronicles 13:1-22. misleads the casual reader] of the kings of Judah? And there was war [not only hostility, but open war (Vulgate, praelium), hence the repetition] between Abijam and Jeroboam. 1 Kings 15:8 And Abijam slept with his fathers; and they buried him in the city of David [This fact alone should negative Lightfoot’s theory as to his name; see note on 1 Kings 14:31]: and Ass his son reigned in his stead. The Reign of Asa. 1 Kings 15:9 And in the twentieth year of Jeroboam king of Israel reigned Ass [Gesen. interprets the name to mean "physician"] over Judah. [This reign is related at much greater length in 2 Chronicles 14:1-15.—16. We are there told of the Ethiopian invasion, of the prophecies of Azariah and Hanani, of the league with Syria, etc.] 1 Kings 15:10 And forty and one years reigned he in Jerusalem [Corn. a Lapide points out that Ass saw eight kings of Israel on the throne, Jeroboam, Nadab, Baasha, Elah, Zimri, Tibni, Omri, and Ahab]. And his mother’s [or grandmother’s, as margin] name was Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom. [The same words as in 1 Kings 15:2, and the reference can hardly be to a different person. Bהhr indeed questions whether אֵם can here stand for grandmother, (1) because in every other case it designates the king’s mother, (2) Because the mother of the king, and not the grandmother, enjoyed the dignity and position of Gebirah (1 Kings 15:13; 2 Chronicles 15:16). Some would read for Abishalom, Uriel of Gibeah; others, strengthened by the Michaiah of 2 Chronicles 13:2, think the historian mistaken in mentioning the name of Abijam’s mother (2 Chronicles 13:2; 2 Chronicles 11:21) as Maachah. The difficulty by no means admits of a ready solution, but perhaps the best explanation is that the grandmother, Maachah, Rehoboam’s favourite wife, retained her position, possibly by force of character, or because Asa’s mother was dead. It is not certain, however, that if the latter had lived she would have displaced Maashah, of whose influence and imperious temper we have several indications; e.g; in the appointment of her son, though not the firstborn, to succeed his father, and in her open maintenance of idol worship, and above all in the fact that she was publicly deposed by Asa. 1 Kings 15:11 And Ass did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, as did David his father. ["It is a wonder how Ass should be good, of the seed of Abijam, of the son of Maachah" (Hall).] 1 Kings 15:12 And he took away the Sodomites [see on 1 Kings 14:24, and Romans 1:23-27. It appears from 1 Kings 22:46 that this abomination was not wholly suppressed] out of the land, and removed all the idols [גִּלֻּלִים from גָּלַל volvit A term of contempt (see Deuteronomy 29:17, where it is coupled with "abominations; "Ezekiel 23:37); but whether the word is to be interpreted by גֵּלֶל a ball of dung, in which case these idols (Dei stereorei) would have a designation like Beelzebul ("the lord of dung"), or with גַּל a heap of stones (Genesis 31:46, Genesis 31:48), Dei lapidei, is uncertain. Keil would translate logs, Gesenius trunks, stocks, which from being rolled might well bear this name] that his fathers had made. 1 Kings 15:13 And also Maachah his mother, oven her he removed from being queen [Rather, queen-mother. Gebiruh, as already pointed out on 1 Kings 2:19, answers to the Sultana Valide. The Vulgate reads, Ne esset princeps in sacris Priapi. Wordsworth reminds us of the position which the queen-mother Atossa holds in the Persae. A queen consort is hardly possible in a polygamous household; see Kitto, 4:177] because [Heb. which, as in verse 5] she had made all idol [מִפְלֶצֶת from פָמלץ terruit, signifies an object of fear, formido—not pudendum, a thing of shame, as the Rabbis and others have held, i.e; a phallic image (simulacrum obscoenum, Jerome), but horrendum. The devout Jew could not but regard such objects with horror] in a grove [Heb. for (i.e; to serve as) an Asherah. See note on 1 Kings 14:15, 1 Kings 14:23. Asherah is not the name of the goddess (= Astarte), as Wordsworth thinks, but of the image], and Asa destroyed [Marg. cut off, Heb. simply cut, which here must mean cut down. The image was, no doubt, planted erect in the ground] her idol [horror, as above], and burnt it [this shows that it was made of wood] by the brook Kidron. [Cf. Exodus 32:20. Here, as in 1 Kings 17:3 (where see note), our translators have been unable to adhere strictly to the original "in the brook," etc; from not knowing that נַחַל, which primarily means "brook," also means" watercourse," wady. It is probable that the brook was at this time flowing, and that the ashes of the wooden Asherah were cast into it; but the burning also took place in the Wady, or valley. We read of another similar burning in 2 Kings 23:4, 2 Kings 23:6; but in this ease the ashes were either carried to Bethel or cast upon the graves, to defile them. It is a fair inference that on this latter occasion the Kedron was dry. The valley, "the fields of the Kedron" (2 Kings 23:4 l.c.), is conveniently placed for such a purpose.] 1 Kings 15:14 But the high places [evidently such as are referred to in 1 Kings 3:1-28, i.e; unauthorized shrines of Jehovah; cf. 2 Kings 14:4] were not taken away [lit; departed not. Yet we read in 2 Chronicles 45:3, that Asa "took away the high places (cf. verse 5). But it is clear, even from 2 Chronicles 15:17, that all of them were not re moved, and the discrepancy arises from the well-known Eastern idiom of putting the whole for the part, of which we have in stances in Genesis 7:19; Exodus 9:25, etc. Cf. Exodus 9:32; 2 Kings 9:35, and see below. Asa probably aimed at removing all, and he may have removed all out of the cities (2 Chronicles 14:5), but some remained in the country districts or in remote places. Or he may have swept them away for a short time, and they may have been stealthily and gradually reintroduced. It may be interesting to remark here that down to the present day the cultus of the high places exists—under a modified form, it is true—in Palestine. Every traveller will remember the Mukama which crown almost every hill. The religion of the Fellahin, though nominally Mohammedan, is really, like that of China, a worship of the dead. "In almost every village of the country a small building, surmounted by a whitewashed dome, is observable, being the sacred chapel of the place; it is variously called Kubbeh, "dome," Mazor, "shrine," or Mukam, "station," the latter being a Hebrew word, used in the Bible for the places of the Canaanites (Deuteronomy 2:2)… Just as in the time of Moses, so now the position chosen for the Mukam is generally conspicuous This Mukam represents the real religion of the peasant"]: nevertheless Asa’s heart was perfect with the Lord all his days. [We have here a notable instance of the Oriental exaggeration just referred to. For the very same expression is used by the chronicler (2 Chronicles 15:17), who in the next chapter (2 Chronic;es 2 Kings 16:7-12) tells us of Asa’s unfaithfulness in his old age.] 1 Kings 15:15 And he brought in the things which his gather had dedicated [Heb. the holy things of his father. These were probably the spoils Abijah had taken in his war with Jeroboam (2 Chronicles 13:18)], and the things which himself had dedicated [These were probably the spoils of the Ethiopians (2 Chronicles 14:15; cf. 2 Chronicles 15:11)], into [the Hebrew omits this word. Keil says that "house" is an accusative governed by "brought"], the house of the Lord, silver and gold, and vessels. 1 Kings 15:16 And there was war between Asa and Baasha king of Israel all their days [This statement must be compared with 2 Chronicles 14:1, 2 Chronicles 14:6, from which we gather that during the first ten years of Asa’s reign there cannot have been war, properly so called, between them. Indeed, it would seem from 2 Chronicles 15:19, 2 Chronicles 16:1, that it was not until the 36th year of Asa’s reign that it first broke out. But these numbers have clearly not escaped corruption (see note there), as at the date last mentioned Baasha must have been dead. It is probable that war is to be taken here, as elsewhere (1 Kings 14:30), in the sense of hostility, and in any case we have here another instance of the hyperbolical habit of the Eastern mind.] 1 Kings 15:17 And Baasha, king of Israel, went up against Judah [This statement probably refers to the reconquest of the three cities which Abijah had taken from Jeroboam (2 Chronicles 13:19), as Ramah could hardly have been rebuilt whilst Bethel remained in the hands of Judah], and built Ramah [Heb. the Ramah, i.e; "the elevation," or "high place." Now er Ram (= the height), in Benjamin (Joshua 18:25; Judges 19:18, Judges 19:14), five miles distant from Jerusalem, near the frontier of the two territories, and also then, as now, on the great north road. It was the key, consequently, to both kingdoms. Hence the struggles to possess it, vers, 21, 22; 2 Chronicles 16:1, etc.], that he might not suffer any to go out [Heb. not to give any going out, etc.] or come in to Asa, king of Judah. [The object of Baasha in fortifying this place is evident. It was not merely to have an advanced post as a menace to Jerusalem (Rawlinson), but primarily, by its command of the high road, to prevent his subjects from falling away to the kingdom of Judah, or even from going up to Jerusalem to worship; in fact, to isolate Judah and to blockade its capital. That there was a great defection to Ass at this time we know from 2 Chronicles 15:9. This was an exodus which Baasha felt must be checked. Blunt has happily shown from 2 Chronicles 16:6, etc; how the primary object must have been to "stop the alarming drainage of all that was virtuous out of their borders." Rawlinson sees in the fortification of this place "the first step towards a conquest of the southern kingdom." But as to this the text is silent, or rather it assigns an entirely different reason.] 1 Kings 15:18 Then Asa took all the silver and the gold that were left [LXX. τὸσὑρεθὲν, which Rawlinson thinks points to a corruption of our text. He says, "The Jewish treasuries should now have been tolerably full," because (1) of the long peace (2 Chronicles 14:1-6), and (2) the "very much spoil" they had taken from the Ethiopians (ib; 1 Kings 15:13). Compare 1 Kings 15:15 above. But the historian has in mind the depletion of the treasury by Shishak (1 Kings 14:26). It is true there was nothing "left" on that occasion, but the treasures since accumulated are referred to under this term. It may be the phrase is not strictly accurate, but the LXX. reading looks suspiciously like an emendation] in the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king’s house, and delivered them into the hand of his servants: and king Asa sent them [cf. 2 Kings 16:8. For this act of faithlessness he was reproved by Hanani the seer (2 Chronicles 16:7): "O Asa, where was thy piety, while thou robbedst God to corrupt an infidel for the slaughter of the Israelites?" (Hall)] to Ben-hadad ["the son of the sun" (see note on 1 Kings 11:23). Three kings of Damascus at least bore this name, viz; this king, his son (1 Kings 20:1), and the son of Hazael (2 Kings . 24)], the son of Tabrimon [the name means, Good is Rimmon, as to which deity see note on 2 Kings 5:18], the son of Hezion [by some identified with Rezin (1 Kings 11:23), but on insufficient grounds] king of Syria, that dwelt at Damascus ["The centre of the Aramaean power west of the Euphrates" (Ewald)], saying, 1 Kings 15:19 There is a league [Rawlinson would render, "Let there be a league… as there was," but the A.V. is equally good. Asa claims that a league does exist, and, in fact, has never been broken] between me and thee, and between my father and thy father [Syria would seem to have been the first of the possessions of Solomon to regain its independence (1 Kings 11:24). Its friendship would naturally be sought by Judah, as a counterpoise, perhaps, to the alliance between Israel and Egypt (Ewald)]: behold, I have sent unto thee a present [elsewhere a bribe. Psalms 15:5; Psalms 26:10; 1 Samuel 8:3] of silver and gold; come and break [Heb. come, break now, עַל cohortative] thy league with Baasha king of Israel, that he may depart from me. [Heb. go up from upon me.] 1 Kings 15:20 So [Heb. and] Ben-hadad hearkened unto king Asa, and sent the captains [or princes; same word as in 1 Kings 22:31; cf. 1 Kings 20:24] of the hosts which he had against the cities of Israel, and smote Ijon [now represented by Tell Dibbin, a mound near the north end of the Merj ’Ayun (which probably preserves the name), a "meadow of fountains," a few miles northwest of Daniel This hill would offer a commanding site for a stronghold, and traces are found there of a large and ancient city Now certainly identified with Tell el Kadi the "hill of the Judge" (which preserves the meaning of the name), near the main source of the Jordan. The Tell, apparently an extinct crater, is covered with ruins. Stanley, S. and P; p. 395-6. Thomson, "Land and Book," 1. p. 320. Van de Velde, if. p. 420. The situation is described as superb, and the country as extremely fertile. This is the last mention of the place in Scripture. Retribution has soon fallen on one of the centres of Jeroboam’s schism], and Abel-beth-maachah [now known as Abil el Kamh All these towns are in the neighbourhood of Lake Huleh (Merom), and all being in the extreme north, bore the brunt of the invasion. The name Maachah is to be noticed in connection with 2 Chronicles 16:2], and all Cinneroth [in Numbers 34:11; Deuteronomy 3:17, Cinnereth; in the New Testament, Gennesaret." "The expression ’all Cinneroth’ is unusual, and may be compared with ’all Bithron,’ probably like this, a district and not a town". It is the district on the western shore of the lake of Galilee, north of Tiberias, which gave its name to the adjoining sheet of water. A city Chinnereth, perhaps the capital of the district is mentioned Joshua 19:1-51:85], with [עַל not uncommonly has this meaning. Cf. Genesis 32:12 (Hebrews), "the mother with the children;" Exodus 35:22, "men with women."] all the land of Naphtali [Not only were the fortresses of Naphtali just mentioned smitten by the Syrians, but they laid waste all the surrounding district.] 1 Kings 15:21 And it came to pasta, when Baaaha heard thereof, that he left off building of Ramah [He could not prosecute it when he had enemies on every side. He at once assumes the defensive], and dwelt in Tirzah. [1 Kings 14:17. He retired to his capital It is not implied that he had entertained the idea of dwelling at Ramah.] 1 Kings 15:22 Then king Asa made a proclamation [Heb. made all to hear] throughout all Judah; none was exempted [Heb. none free], and they took away [Heb. took up] the stones of Ramah, and the timber thereof, wherewith Baasha [It is noticeable that it is generally "king Asa," but never "king Baasha"] had bullded; and king Asa built with them Geba of Benjamin [Sometimes "the Geba," i.e; height; in Joshua 18:24, Gaba; now Jeba, only 45’ northeast of Ramah. This was the northern limit of the southern kingdom (2 Kings 23:8). It occupied a striking position, standing on a rocky knoll on the south side of the great gorge of Michmash (now known as the Wady Suweinit), a "great crack or fissure in the country, with vertical precipices some 800 feet high". As Geba would command the pass, it is easy to understand why Asa fortified it, the more so as this defile "appears to have been more than once the meeting place between the Jews and their enemies" (Conder)], and Mizpah. [Heb. the Mizpah, i.e; watch tower (Genesis 31:49). The name points to an eminence, but it is remarkable that while so many sites of minor importance have been recovered, this old gathering place of the tribes (Judges 21:1; 1 Samuel 7:5; 1 Samuel 10:17-25), and the seat of Gedaliah’s government (Jeremiah 40:6), cannot be identified with certainty. It has been conjectured that it is now represented by the commanding eminence of Nebi Samwil,but Stanley and Grove argue in favour of Seopus, and "the survey has done little to throw light on this question". It is to be hoped that the "pit," or well, which Asa made (Jeremiah 41:9), probably "to provide Mizpah with a plentiful supply of water in ease of a siege" (Ewald), may yet be brought to light. 1 Kings 15:23 And the rest of all the acts of Asa, and all his might [see 2 Chronicles 14:1-15; 2 Chronicles 15:1-19., and all that he did, and the cities which he built [during the peace in the earlier part of his reign (2 Chronicles 14:5, 2 Chronicles 14:6)], are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? Nevertheless [Heb. only. There was one exception to his otherwise happy and prosperous reign] in the time of his old age [see notes on 1 Kings 1:1; 1 Kings 11:4. "Old age" means here, as them, the end of life. Asa cannot well have been more than fifty. It was in the 39th year of his reign (2 Chronicles 16:12) that this disease attacked him] he was diseased in his feet. [It is generally supposed that this disease was the gout. In the Chronicles (l.c.) he is reproached for seeking "not to the Lord but to the physicians." We must remember what the art of medicine at that day was like, and that the Jews regarded sickness and healing as alike the immediate acts of God. 1 Kings 15:24 And Asa slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers ["in his own sepulchre which he had made for himself" (2 Chronicles 16:14, which also notices "the bed filled with sweet odours," in which he was laid and the "very great burning" made for him)] in the city of David his father: and Jehoshaphat his son reigned in his stead. 1 Kings 15:11-26 The Reign of Asa. Though this prince reigned forty and one years—a longer period than any of his predecessors, and, with two exceptions, a longer period than any of the kings who came after him—yet his reign, so far as it is recorded here, may be summed up in few words. "Happy is the nation," it has been said, "which has no history." But happier still the nation whose history, like that of Judah in the time of Asa, may be comprehended under these two heads—internal reforms, and external discipline. I. REFORMS. Two questions present themselves for consideration here. First, What were Asa’s reforms? Secondly, In what way were they accomplished? 1. His reforms were practically of two kinds: (a) Moral, and (b) Religious. It is not implied that he either put morality before religion, or believed that the one could be separated from the other. It may be a question in these days—it is at least hotly disputed—whether morality can long support itself without a religious basis and religious sanctions; but it was no question in that dark age, or for many hundred years afterwards. Then it was a choice between the one true religion and the most shameful immoralities practised under the name of religion. All that is meant here, therefore, is that Asa’s reforms resulted in purging and raising the tone of public morality by suppressing the idolatry which sanctioned and consecrated impurity. (1) The moral reformation is suggested, to our minds by the words "He took away the Sodomites out of the land (1 Kings 15:12). What an abyss of corruption does this one brief sentence reveal to us. "It is a shame even to speak of those things which" were "done of them in secret" (Ephesians 5:12). And this among the holy people, the bride of the Lord! No wonder that Asa’s first effort was directed against these horrible enormities. This suppression of the Sodomites was a first step towards— (2) The religious reformation. He next "removed all the idols that his fathers had made." "His fathers." Solomon, as well as Rehoboam and Abijah. Probably none of the three had himself reared idol shrines. But all the three had, to say the least, permitted idolatry, and connived at it. It was sin enough that they had not vigorously and promptly suppressed it. They were, each in his turn, the representative of the mighty God of Jacob. What were they doing that they permitted any rivalry between the bestial gods of the heathen and the Holy One of Israel? But probably we see here the bitter fruits of Solomon’s sin—so true it is that "the evil that men do lives after them." When that powerful prince had once granted to foreign deities and shameful superstitions a footing in Tmmanuel’s land, it was more than his comparatively feeble successors could do to dislodge them. The people loved to have it so, and neither Rehoboam nor Abijah was strong enough to say them nay. Thus did Solomon, down to Asa’s days, yes, and down to the time of the captivity (2 Chronicles 36:14), go on sinning in his grave. And let us notice here an instructive contrast between Asa and Solomon. It was the wise king, the most magnificent of the monarchs of the earth, at the height of his prosperity; and towards the end of a long and peaceful reign, built altars for the abominations of neighbouring nations. It was a young prince, unknown to fame, with no special gifts or endowments, with a restricted dominion, and encompassed with difficulties, who was the first to stem this tide of sin and shame with which his great ancestor had flooded the land. "The first last, and the last first." Compare 1 Corinthians 1:27-29. Wealth has greater dangers than adversity. 2. But let us now consider the way in which these great reforms were brought about. (1) He began at the right place. "Even Maachah his mother he removed," etc. The Gebirah, the first lady in the land, whose conduct would of course be an example to all the women of his realm (Esther 1:17, Esther 1:18), was deposed from her lofty station. The history of Israel shows repeatedly how the country took its tone, as indeed every country must do, more or less, from the court. It is not only in dress that the queen sets the fashion. The Japanese have a striking proverb, "Fish begin to stink at the head." If the court be corrupt, profligate, irreligious, the commonalty will soon follow suit, for we all imitate our superiors. In this sense is that word true, corruptio optimi pessima. It would consequently have been of little use for Asa to put down idols elsewhere had he tolerated them in the harem, the nursery of his successors. This hydra could not be slain by hewing its feet, or piercing its body; it was only mortal in its head. Maachah’s "horror" must be destroyed or idolatry will live and flourish. Moreover in beginning with her, Asa shows that he appraised aright the power of female influence. He might have realized that those who "rock the cradle, rule the world." The sinister influence of the harem had ruined Rehoboam; it should not ruin Jehoshaphat. Here, again, let us mark the contrast between the conduct of Asa and that of Solomon; between the cases of Maachah and Naamah. Solomon built idol altars for his wives: Asa burnt the idol of his mother. The strong king was brought into subjection by weak and foolish women; the weak king humbled and degraded the proudest and strongest woman of her time. The former could not resist the blandishments of one of his many foreign mistresses when she petitioned for the gods and rites of her native country; the latter was deaf to the entreaties of his mother when she prayed to retain, not her idol, but her place. It must have cost him an effort to deal with the queen-mother who had exercised so great an influence in former reigns. It has been said that the devil often "comes to a man in the shape of his wife and children" (J. Hinton), and truly a man’s real foes are not unfrequently those of his own household. Just as their flattery is the most insidious and mischievous (Whately), so are their faults too often considered venial, and their sins, when manifest, are the hardest to reprove (cf. 1 Kings 1:6; 1 Samuel 3:13). These are the "hand" and the "eye," which cause men to offend, and which they must cut off or pluck out and cast from them (Matthew 5:29 sqq.) Hence the charge of Deu 13:6 sqq.; cf. Matthew 10:37. And the moral effect of this act, the public deposition of the queen-mother, can hardly be overestimated. It showed the country that the king was in real earnest; that he was no respecter of persons; that no idolatry could expect tolerance at his hands. Probably but for this he could neither have taken away the Sodomites nor removed the idols. Possibly it was because neither Rehoboam (see 2 Chronicles 11:21) nor Abijam dared to deal with the idolatries of Maachah, who would seem to have been a woman of imperious will, that these foreign superstitions had defiled the land so long. Asa struck at their root in removing her from being queen. (2) He did not stop halfway. He destroyed "with both hands earnestly" (Micah 7:3). He not only cut down her idol, he burnt it in the valley of the Kedron. There was no place left her for repentance. He had burnt his ships behind him; had destroyed the nests, so that the rooks might not return. This public burning, witnessed, no doubt, by crowds of spectators, spoke louder than any words or ordinances could do. When they saw the "horror" reduced to ashes, and the ashes cast into the brook, they could have no doubt as to the purpose of their king. They would remember how Moses had acted before (Exodus 32:20). (3) He did what he could. It is no reproach to him that "the high places were not removed" (Matthew 10:14), for the chronicler (1 Kings 14:5; 1 Kings 15:12, 1 Kings 15:18, 1 Kings 15:17), as well as our author, testifies that this was no fault of his. "His heart was perfect all his days." He did what in him lay, and his service was accepted accordingly (2 Corinthians 8:12). "The fleetest horse cannot escape from its tail." (4) His reformation was followed by a restitution. It was not merely destructive, as too many so-called reforms have been. (1) He gave up to the sacristy of God the silver and gold he had taken from the Ethiopians. It was his happiness to restore to it some of the treasure of which it had been denuded in the reign of Rehoboam. (Observe: When idolatry came in, the treasures went out of the land. When idolatry was expelled, prosperity returned. Godliness has the promise of the life that now is.) His, consequently, was no cheap reform. He offered of that which cost him something (2 Samuel 24:24). He might have converted his spoil into drinking vessels of pure gold (1 Kings 10:21), but he surrendered it to the service and keeping of the Most High. (2) He induced his people to dedicate themselves anew to the Lord (2 Chronicles 15:12 sqq.; cf. 2 Corinthians 8:5). This was the crown and blossom of his reformation. "They sware unto the Lord with a loud voice." And, as the fruit of this righteous policy, we find that he enjoyed, for a part of his reign at least, (1) quietness (2 Chronicles 14:1)," The Lord gave him rest" (Matthew 10:6)—the effect of righteousness is quietness and assurance (Isaiah 32:17); (2) prosperity (Matthew 10:7), and (3) growth, in the shape of a large accession of God-fearing, law-abiding subjects. "They fell to him out of Israel in abundance when they saw that the Lord his God was with him." Not all the numerical superiority of Israel, not all its fruitful territory, availed against the attraction of a realm, in one sense a rival kingdom, where respect for God’s law promised security, liberty, and peace. But let us now observe that these reforms and this courageous piety did not exempt him from— II. . The quiet only lasted ten years His fenced cities did not save him from invasion. He had to encounter, first, the invasion of Zerah (2 Chronicles 14:9), and secondly, the aggression of Baasha (1 Kings 15:17). He may have been tempted to think when that overwhelming host of swart barbarians marched against him that his piety profited him nothing. He may have argued, when he saw the fortress of Ramah threatening his very capital—the city God had chosen to put His name there—that God made no difference between the righteous and the wicked, between His faithful people and the calf-worshipping Israelites. But observe: both these troubles were really blessings in disguise. Afflictions and adversities may be either punitive or disciplinary. Solomon’s were of the former, Asa’s of the latter class. For (1) when Asa had learned his own weakness, and learnt whither to look for help (2 Chronicles 14:11)—lessons both of them of singular blessedness—the Lord smote the Ethiopians. This invasion resulted in the enrichment of the country. The spoil was enormous. And the victory ministered, not to pride, but to piety (2 Chronicles 15:8). (2) The only result, so far as we know, of the menaces of Baasha was that that king drew upon himself an invasion of Syrians (in which it is to be observed, Dan, one of the seats of the calf worship, was smitten), and Asa gained two fortresses as a protection against future inroads (Matthew 10:22). It is true that Asa betrayed a want of faith in taking the consecrated gold and silver wherewith to bribe the northern barbarians (2 Chronicles 16:7, 2 Chronicles 16:8), and that he was chastised for the deed (Matthew 10:9), but, all the same, his generally "perfect heart" was rewarded by more than deliverance. If he ever cried with Jacob, "All these things are against me," he must have subsequently exclaimed with Joseph, "Ye thought evil against me, but God meant it unto good" (Genesis 1:20). His troubles must have taught him this lesson, "Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the Lord delivereth him out of them all" (Psalms 34:19). And so we see in the dangers and assaults which this reformer underwent proofs of the loving discipline of God—trials intended for his reformation and for the chastening of his country. It is difficult at first sight to see how so brutal and hateful a thing as war can ever be for the good of any people, especially when we remember that a "victory is the next worst thing to a defeat." But those have some reason on their side who tell us that war is the purgatory of nations, and that battles in the moral are something like thunderstorms in the physical world. There are victims in either case—what hecatombs of victims in some cases—but the atmosphere is all the clearer afterwards. The campaign of Zerah probably taught him and his people to bridle their ambition, and to leave their neighbours alone; it certainly taught Asa and Israel to trust in the Lord and to cling closer to Him. They learned that "Providence does" not "always help the biggest battalions"—that everything turns on the blessing of God.£ They proved the truth of that promise," Five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight," etc. (Le Matthew 26:8). Psalms 20:1-9. might have been penned with reference to this war. It certainly breathes the spirit of that time. "Deo adjuvante"—this is its keynote. And this, too, is the burden of Asa’s prayer (2 Chronicles 14:11), of Azariah’s prophecy (2 Chronicles 15:2 sqq.), of Judah’s praises (verses 12, 14, 15). It has been remarked that in the history of the covenant people we may see pourtrayed the trials, deliverances, etc; of the covenant soul (Keble). And certainly the prosperous reign of Asa is a picture of what a truly Christian life involves. Happy are those whose lives, in their main features, may be thus characterized: "Internal reforms," "external discipline." The three things which, Luther said, made the minister also make the man, "Prayer, meditation, and temptation." The idols must be utterly abolished by "the expulsive force of a new affection;" "the horror," the fear and horrible dread that possesses the unreconciled, must be cast out by perfect love; "everything that defileth" must be consumed by its ardent flames; the heart must be "dedicated," and then the loving correction of God will do the rest, and after we have suffered awhile, in the battle of life, in the chamber of sickness (1 Kings 15:28), will make us perfect (1 Peter 5:10), and grant us "quietness and assurance forever." 1 Kings 15:22 Church and Dissent. The building and subsequent demolition of Ramah—its building by Baasha to check the defection of his subjects to the southern kingdom and the Jewish Church; its removal by Asa in order that the highway to Judah and the temple of Jerusalem might be open to returning schismatics—this incident may serve to introduce a comparison between the kingdom of Asa and the kingdom of Christ; or rather, the history and relations of the two kingdoms of Palestine after the schism may suggest some thoughts as to the proper attitude and relations of the Catholic Church towards her separated children. And that our view of those relations, so far as it is disclosed to us by this history, may not be partial and incomplete, it is proper that we should begin the survey, not with the accession of Asa, but some two decades earlier; in fact, with the commencement of the schism. And we may learn— I. THAT IT IS NOT TO BE AT THAT HERESY SHOULD BE STRONG AND . Ten tribes worshipped the calves; only two were faithful to the Lord. Jeroboam’s novelties carried "all Israel" away after them. Even so "the churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome have erred" (Art. 19.) Donatists, Montanists, Arians, Apollinarians—how many were the sects of the first days! And now, out of the two hundred millions of Christendom, how many are there whom with the profoundest sorrow we must pronounce either heretical or schismatical. And no wonder, for "The search for truth is not one half so pleasant, As sticking to the views we hold at present." Most of our schisms have had their origin in pride and emulation; most of our heresies spring out of our corrupt human nature. It is every way pleasanter to choose among doctrines than to take them as revealed by God. II. THAT THERE MUST, , BE NO AMONGST . The armies of Judah were solemnly forbidden to attack those of Jeroboam (1 Kings 12:24). Though a host of near two hundred thousand armed men had mustered for battle, yet they must "return every man to his house." They were reminded that the children of Israel were their "brethren," and that the division in the kingdom—not that in the Church—was ordained of God. A special messenger is entrusted with a special revelation (1 Kings 15:22) to prevent the unseemly spectacle of brethren, the children of the same Father, meeting in the shock of battle. And observe that, though there was undoubtedly war at a later period between the divided branches of the Hebrew family (1 Kings 14:30; 1 Kings 15:6, 1 Kings 15:16, etc.; 2 Chronicles 13:8), yet it is by no means certain that these wars ever had the Divine sanction. Observe, too, that hostility and antagonism, short of actual organized warfare, is here described as "war" (1 Kings 14:30, note). Now may we not justly infer—what, indeed, is certain on other grounds—that, whatever their heresies, there must be no hostilities between the divided sections of the Christian family? There have been "wars and fightings" amongst them, it is true, but this is against the will and prayer of their head (John 17:21; John 13:35; cf. 1 Corinthians 1:11; 1 Corinthians 11:18; James 4:1). For they are "brethren" (Matthew 23:8) by a much closer bond than were the Jews. Spiritual ties are far more real and binding than those of flesh, of mere matter (Matthew 12:48, Matthew 12:49; Romans 16:13; Titus 1:4; Phmon Titus 1:10). And if it was unseemly and unnatural for Jew to lift up hand against Jew, how much more for members of the same body (Ephesians 5:30; Romans 12:5), professors of the same gospel of love? And not only the hand, but the tongue. There must be no stabbing and wounding of brethren by words any more than by swords. "There is nothing," says Whichcote, "more unnatural to religion than contentions about it." Christians have fighting enough to do without falling upon each other. There are the common enemies of the Christian life—the world, the flesh, and the devil. There are the enemies of the faith, the hosts of devilry, and uncleanness, and unbelief, and indifference. It is well when disputing about "modes of faith" that we should remember that there are untold millions of men still worshipping cows and even demons. It is well, too, that we should consider that we are none of us infallible, and may easily confound friends and foes. It has been justly said that many of our disputes are like that midnight conflict at Syracuse, where each party mistook the watchword of the other, and all was hopeless confusion (Stanley.) We must "contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered," etc; it is true, but there are two ways of doing that. "It is not the actual differences of Christians that do the mischief, but the mismanagement of those differences" (P. Henry). "Nous avons eu assez de polemique," said a French ecclesiastic; "il nous reste a avoir un peu d’irenique." III. THAT THERE MUST BE NO OF TRUTH OR OF FOR THE SAKE OF . Asa, like Rehoboam, was only too glad to welcome deserters from Jeroboam’s Church and kingdom; his action with respect to Ramah proves that. But neither of them ever thought of accommodating the worship or polity of Jerusalem to suit the wishes or prejudices of the schismatic Israelites. To neither of them did it occur to allow that calf worship was right worship; neither would admit that there was any true Church but that of Judah, or any sanctuary but that of Jerusalem; neither could or would recognize the orders or ministrations of Jeroboam’s man-made priests. In fact, it would have been impolitic, as well as unfaithful, to have done so. It was because Judah was true to its convictions, and consistently repudiated the schism, and stood resolutely on the old paths, that such numbers of pious Israelites came over to its side. Even so now, nothing but harm can come of sacrificing one iota of principle for the sake of the union of Christendom. We may be branded as illiberal and bigots if we ask for the credentials of every soi-disant minister of Christ; if we deny the name of "Church" to each of the manifold sects and societies of human origin; if we repudiate an unorganic Christianity, a religion of mere emotionalism. But all the same, we have no right to exercise a spurious charity and to give what is not ours; we have no right to surrender one jot of Catholic truth for the sake of conciliating outsiders. That would be indeed to "make a solitude and call it a peace." In that way our religion might soon be watered down so that truth and life and efficacy would all be gone, and the thin residuum would be stale, fiat, and unprofitable. Only the infidel could ultimately gain by such a process. Our answer, then, to the separatist must be his: "All that thou desirest of me I will do, but this thing I may not do." Deeply as we desire unity, we dare not purchase it at such a price. "Amicus Plato, amiens Socrates, sed magis amica veritas." IV. THAT THERE MUST RE NO CALLING IN THE AID OF AGAINST . This was done more than once in Jewish history, but the result was always disastrous. If Jeroboam called in the aid of Shishak against Rehoboam, he suffered himself, as we have seen (note on 1 Kings 14:25), from the Egyptian invasion. Nor was Asa’s appeal to Ben-hadad less ill-advised. In the first place, it betrayed a lack of faith in God; then (2) he had to rob the Lord’s treasury of the gifts he had recently dedicated thereto; and (3) the bands of Syria, having once tasted the sweets of conquest, were ever afterwards threatening or ravaging (1 Kings 20:1-43; 1 Kings 22:1-53.; 2 Kings 5:2; 2 Kings 6:8, etc.) the Holy Land. Asa’s son, Jehoshaphat, found it necessary, as he thought, to join forces with those of Israel against this very power which Asa invoked. And how often have Christians pursued the same policy. How often have the armies of the Ottomans, e.g; been employed by Christians against Christians. The cannon by means of which Constantinople was taken were cast by Christian engineers. For four centuries have Mussulman legions been largely officered by Christian renegades, and recruited from Christian lands—Albania, Wallachia, etc. The "unspeakable Turk" has only been tolerated in Europe because of the divisions of Christendom. And is not the same thing being done in another way at the present time? There are Christians who think it right to make common cause with atheists, secularists, etc; against their brethren. If the example of Asa (2 Chronicles 16:7-9) is not decisive against such a proceeding, surely that of Jehoshaphat (2 Chronicles 19:2) and Amaziah (2 Chronicles 25:6-10) prove that we should neither help, nor seek help from, the ungodly. The result of such alliances, as Asa found to his cost, will be, "From henceforth thou shalt have wars." The mercenaries we have hired against one another will end by doing battle against all who bear the Christian name. The Britons who called in the Saxons to their aid presently found their new allies settled in their homes and themselves driven forth into the wilderness. V. THAT NO MUST BE RAISED IN THE PATH OF REUNION. That this should be done by the separatists need cause us no surprise. Baasha could not afford to have the highway to Judah open. His occupation would be gone if the breach were healed and the nation or the Church again became one. And, alas! there are similar "vested interests" in the perpetuation of division amongst Christians. But just as it was Asa’s care to pull down the frontier fortress of Ramah, just as the stones and timber were carried away bodily by the labour of all his subjects, so should it be the great concern of the Church and of every Christian to remove the barriers which separate those for whom Christ died. The national Church, for example, should be as wide and comprehensive as possible. Sects must of necessity have narrow and restricted boundaries; for their raison d’etre is almost invariably to he found, not in the propagation of error, but in the assertion of some forgotten or neglected truth, which they have made their peculium, and treat as if it were the sum total of revelation to the neglect of the "proportion of faith." But why should we multiply our tests and articles of membership? The Apostles’ Creed was thought to embody everything of necessity to salvation in the first age of the Church; and when at a later period truth had become mixed with error, the Nicene symbol was still the only test of the Christian layman. Why should it not be a sufficient test of Catholicity now? Why must we refine and define, and so make intercommunion almost impossible? "Must it be Calvin, and not Christ? Must it be Athanasian Creeds, Or holy water, books, and beads? Must struggling souls remain content With councils and decrees of Trent?" It is partly because we have built Ramahs round our Zion that our schisms are so many. We have insisted on forcing our shibboleths on those who could not receive them, forgetting that, however true any dogma may be in itself, still, if it is not of necessity to be believed, and we make it an essential part of our system of doctrine, it may straightway become a source of discord and division. There are many such barriers and obstacles of our own creation—sometimes in the shape of practical abuses—which require to be removed, and no Christian should be "exempt" from the work of "building silver bridges for flying enemies and golden bridges for returning friends." VI. THAT, INSTEAD OF RAISING BETWEEN , WE SHOULD OUR AGAINST THE COMMON ENEMY. The stones and timber of Ramah, Asa used to build Geba of Benjamin and Mizpah. Thereby the road to Jerusalem was left open to friends, whilst these two fortresses commanded it against foes. Against Baasha, if he would wage war against his kinsmen; against the Assyrian at a later date (Isaiah 10:28, Isaiah 10:29). And is there no lesson for Christians here? Too often they are fighting amongst themselves about the "infinitely little"—about the date of Easter, about unleavened bread, about the "five points," about lights and vestments, about wafer bread, or about unfermented wine in the Holy Communion—while the enemy is marshalling his forces. Intemperance, sensuality, devilry in every form, are destroying the Church’s children by thousands, and her watchmen the while are fencing with each other. The siege of Jerusalem (Jos; Bell. Jud. 1 Kings 5:1) is reproduced amongst ourselves. The enemy is thundering at our gates, and the Church is paralyzed by factions. We keep raising barricades in the streets of Zion whilst hostile legions are swarming on the adjoining heights. We have our Geba, our Mizpah to build, and we perversely build Ramahs instead. VII. THAT A HOUSE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND. First Samaria, then Jerusalem fell before the enemy. Christianity is now comparatively powerless for aggressive purposes; indeed, it hardly keeps pace with the population; and its enemies are asking how much longer it can stand on its defence. Divide et impera, thus have many empires fallen. True, the Catholic Church cannot perish, but national Churches have fallen again and again. There has been some talk amongst the Brahmins of sending a mission to England. And we may see in France, in Germany, a foreshadowing of what is in store for us here. "The class which has recently attained supreme political power is alienated from Christianity in its present forms." Are the Church and the seers alike to be broken up one by one? Or shall we lay aside our "fratricidal dissensions," and combine against the legion of foes—Atheism, Agnosticism, Socialism, and the rest? Of one thing we may be sure, that as long as our "unhappy divisions" last we shall never win England, much less the world, for Christ. BY J.A. 1 Kings 15:1-8 The succession of Abijam to the throne of Judah appears to have had one limiting principle, viz; that the successor should be of the house and lineage of David (see 2 Chronicles 13:8). Within this limit it seems— I. IT WAS BY THE WILL OF THE KING. 1. The principle of primogeniture was not considered. (1) Else Abijam could not have ascended the throne: for he had elder brothers, sons of Mahalath and Abihail, and we know not how many besides (see 2 Chronicles 11:18-21). (2) These were deliberately set aside by the choice of the king. The reason given for that choice is arbitrary. Rehoboam "loved Maachah, the daughter of Absalom, above all his wives," and therefore he "made Abijah, the son of Maachah, the chief ruler among his brethren: for he thought to make him king" (2 Chronicles 11:22, 2 Chronicles 11:23). (3) For this he had precedent. We have no proof that Rehoboam was not the only son of Solomon; but Solomon was a younger son of David (see 2 Samuel 3:2-5; 2 Samuel 13:13, 2 Samuel 13:14), and was preferred before his elder brethren upon the designation of his father (see 2 Chronicles 1:1-17 13, 32-35). 2. Abijam represented Rehoboam by walking in his sins. (1) He recognized the God of Israel. This he did formally in his address to Jeroboam before engaging him in battle (see 2 Chronicles 13:4-12). So did Rehoboam recognize the God of Israel (see 2 Chronicles 12:10-12. (2) "But his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father." David never followed idols; but Rehoboam forsook not the sins of Solomon, and Abijam forsook not the sins of Rehoboam. (3) Their mixed worship was like that of the Samaritans of later times, who "feared the Lord and served their own gods" (2 Kings 17:32). If this was not worshipping other gods "before the Lord," it was worshipping them "beside Him" (see 2 Corinthians 6:16). Yet— II. THE CHOICE OF HAD THE DIVINE (2 Chronicles 12:4). 1. Primogeniture, therefore, cannot plead Divine right. (1) Else would not God have set aside the choice of Rehoboam in favour of his elder son, or rather, of the representative of the elder son of David? (2) David himself was a younger son in the family of Jesse. And if we go back to earlier times, Judah, a younger son, was preferred before Reuben, in the family of Jacob. Jacob himself was chosen to the prejudice of Esau, and Isaac before him to the prejudice of Ishmael. (3) God had His own reasons for confirming the election of Rehoboam, which, however, were different from those which moved the king. 3. God had respect to His servant David. (1) "Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord." He had no complicity with idolatry, but worshipped the one true God with pure delight. When away from the courts of the Lord he longed for them with vehement desire. What a worthy example! How it rebukes the half day worshippers of modem times! (2) He failed only "in the matter of Uriah." That was a foul blot. How sad so grand a life should have been so darkly blurred! (3) Yet "his heart was perfect with the Lord his God." For he heartily repented of that sin, and was forgiven (see 2 Samuel 12:18; Psalms 32:1-5; Psalms 51:1-19.) God giveth liberally and upbraideth not. 3. Therefore for David’s sake Abijam reigned. (1) "That he might always have a lamp"—a man of his line. Abijam was a son of David by an unbroken male descent, and also by a female descent. "His mother’s name was Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom." Abishalom is written "Absalom" in 2 Chronicles 11:21. Maachah was the daughter of Absalom as Abijam was the son of David, viz; as being descended from him. Her father’s name was "Uriel of Gibeah," who appeared to have married a daughter of Absalom, who left no son (2 Chronicles 13:2). She bore the name of her grandmother, who was" Maacah, the daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur" (2 Samuel 3:3). (2) Christ is the true lamp of David (see Psalms 132:17). For His sake the line of David must be preserved. (3) The lamp, too, must shine in Jerusalem. "God gave him a lamp in Jerusalem, to set up a son after him, and to establish Jerusalem." The Redeemer must come to Zion, there to turn away iniquity from Jacob. So before the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, and the family of David had lost their genealogies, Jesus came and became an expiatory sacrifice for sin.—J.A.M. 1 Kings 15:9-15 Reformation. The moral condition of Judah was fearful when Asa came to the throne. The apostasy of Solomon had inaugurated a retrogression which was aggravated in the reigns following, so that for three generations the abominations of the heathens were increasing. The condition of Israel was even worse, under the system introduced by Jeroboam, to which the successors of that monarch tenaciously held. When the Holy Land was in such a state of degeneracy, what was the condition of the world at large! There was, therefore, the greatest need for reformation. I. OF THIS ASA BECAME THE SUBJECT AND . Reformations have ever been inaugurated by individuals who have embodied and exemplified their principles. Witness Luther in Germany, Knox in Scotland, etc. Such also was Asa. 1. He "did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord." (1) To do right in the eyes of the world is praiseworthy. For wicked men "know better;" and they have keen vision to discover inconsistencies in professors of religion (see Philippians 2:15: 1 Peter 2:11-15). (2) To do right in the eyes of good men is a higher commendation. They have a purer light, and consequently a finer appreciation of moral qualities. Things which the world will allow they. cannot approve. (3) But to do right in the "eyes of the Lord" is the highest praise. He reads the heart—surveys the motives—requires "truth in the inward parts." What a searching vision shall we pass under in the day of judgment I If that vision approve us now we shall then have nothing to fear. 2. In this he is compared with David. (1) David never followed idols. The one blur of his life was the matter of Uriah, of which he heartily repented. Who amongst us has nothing to repent of? (2) David’s loyalty to God was sincere and fervent. What a warm spirit of piety breathes in the Psalms I are they not, even in our gospel age, a fine vehicle for spiritual worship? (3) David was a prophet. This Asa was not. He had the grace, not the gifts, of the founder of his house. Gifts are not equally within the reach of all; graces are. 3. Such commendation was eminently creditable to Asa. (1) He stands out in remarkable contrast to his father. Abijam was wicked; Asa was good. The influence of the father was vicious; the son resisted it and was virtuous. (2) Asa’s mother seems to have died early, for Maachah, the daughter of Absalom, who was his grandmother, is here mentioned as his mother. Under the influence of Maachah, Abijah developed badly; notwithstanding that evil influence Asa developed well. (3) We must not ignore, but fully recognize, individual moral responsibility. The will cannot be compared to a pair of scales which is mechanically moved by weights. II. OF THIS ALSO HE BECAME THE . This is God’s order (1 John 1:3). What he felt he tried to promote. 1. Beginning with his own house. (1) He removed the idols which his father had made. He felt especially bound to do this in order to cut off the entail of sin from his house. (2) He frowned also upon the idolatry of his grandmother. "She made an idol in a grove" (מפלצת לאשרה) a glory for an Ashere. The word is used for terribleness or majestic glory Jeremiah 49:16. Setting an image in the cloud of glory was setting it on an ark or chariot of cherubim to be worshipped. (See Psalms 50:3, where נשערה is used for the cloud of glory about Jehovah.) Asa demolished this nimbus, or glory, together with the Ashere, or idol, and probably threw the ashes into the Kedron in contempt (compare Deuteronomy 9:21; 2 Kings 23:12; 2 Chronicles 15:16). (3) Furthermore, he removed Maachah from being queen (dowager). He thus merited the commendation of Levi (see Deuteronomy 33:9; see also Matthew 10:37). 2. Then influencing the nation. (1) He removed the Sodomites out of the land. What prosperity can there be in any state where public immorality is tolerated by the magistrates? (2) He destroyed the high places of idolatry with their altars and idols, in the country and in the cities (see 2 Chronicles 14:3, 2 Chronicles 14:5). (3) The high places used in the worship of Jehovah after the fashion of the patriarchs, he spared. For this he is but lightly censured; to have limited the ordinances of public worship to the temple would have been the more excellent way. (4) He encouraged the worship of Jehovah (see 2 Chronicles 14:4). Not by precept only, but by example also. He dedicated to the Lord the things which his father had vowed, but either neglected to pay or died before he could carry his purpose into effect. Also the spoil which he himself had taken from the Ethiopians (see 2 Chronicles 15:11, 2 Chronicles 15:12). Where the heart of God’s people is loyal the treasuries of His house will be full.—J.A.M. 1 Kings 15:16-24 The War Policy of Asa. "Forty and one years reigned he in Jerusalem" (1 Kings 15:10). The evil kings of Judah were about as numerous as the good, but their reigns were shorter. "The wicked do not live out half their days." But though the reign of Asa was long and glorious, his war policy with Baasha was not creditable. I. THE OBJECT WAS RIGHT. 1. The war was provoked by the enemy. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ THE REIGNS OF NADAB, BAASHA, ELAH, ZIMRI, AND OMRI, KINGS OF ISRAEL.—After bringing up the history of the kings of Judah, which has engaged his pen since 1 Kings 14:21, to the date of the death of Asa, our author goes back some forty years to record the contemporary history of the kingdom of Israel, with which the rest of this book, the last thirteen verses alone excepted, is occupied. On the other hand, none of these reigns are even noticed by the chronicler, who only refers to the history of Israel, so far as it is inextricably connected with the object of his work; in other words, so far as is necessary to explain or illustrate the reigns of the kings of Judah. 1 Kings 15:25 And Nadab [= liberal] the son of Jeroboam began to reign [Heb. reigned] over Israel in the second year of Asa king of Judah and reigned over Israel two years. [The reigns of these five kings of Israel are related with great brevity. It was not the object of the author to chronicle secular history—for this he refers us to "the books of the days"—he is only concerned with the events of their reigns in so far as they relate to the kingdom of God.] 1 Kings 15:26 And he did evil in the sight of the Lord, and walked in the way of his father [Jeroboam begat all his sons, save one, "in his own likeness"], and in his sin wherewith he made Israel to sin. [I.e; not the rebellion, but the schism. All the successors of Jeroboam it is clear, either thought themselves compelled, by the exigencies of their position, to adhere to his ecclesiastical policy, or found themselves more and more entangled in its toils.] 1 Kings 15:27 And Baasha the son of Ahijah [not the prophet of that name (1 Kings 14:2), who was an Ephraimite, whereas this Ahijah was], of the house of Issachar [This fact is perhaps mentioned to distinguish the father of Baasha from the prophet. Or it may owe its insertion to the insignificance of this tribe (Genesis 49:14, Genesis 49:15) up to this date. This change of dynasty, unlike the last, was in no way connected with tribal jealousies. Baasha owed his elevation to his own abilities or to his unscrupulous daring], conspired [The word implies associates. There was a plot formed fur Nadab’s assassination] against him: and Baasha smote him at Gibbethon [= eminence. In the tribe of Dan (Joshua 19:44) and a Levitical city: one of the four assigned to the Levites in the territory of that tribe (ib; 1 Kings 21:23). It has not been identified. Evidently it was on the border of Philistia. Some would connect it with the modern Mejdel, a little to the north of Ascalon. The reader will observe how large a number of the names of towns indicate their elevation. The cities of those days were set on a hill. It was dangerous to build in the plain], which belonged to the Philistines [Blunt suggests that it was because the place had been deserted by the Levites, in the general exodus to Judah, that the Philistines availed themselves of the opportunity to seize and fortify it. But the divided and consequently weakened state of the kingdom would of itself have encouraged them to throw off the yoke of Israel (Ewald)]; for Nadab and all Israel laid siege to Gibbethon. 1 Kings 15:28 Even in the third year of Asa [We have here (as in 1 Kings 16:8, 1 Kings 16:23) a conspicuous instance of the Hebrew habit of counting parts of years as entire years. It is obvious that if Nadab succeeded to the throne in the second (1 Kings 15:25) and died in the third year of Asa, he cannot have reigned two full years] king of Judah did Baasha slay him [As the assassination took place during the siege, it is extremely probable that Baasha, like Omri, was the captain of the host], and reigned in his stead. [Probably Nadab had showed himself quite unequal to the task of governing, of which reading the army was in that age a principal function (1 Samuel 8:20). It is just possible that in the occupation of Gibbethon by Philistines we have a proof of his feebleness and incapacity. Anyhow, when the strong hand of Jeroboam is removed, the fruits of the rebellion at once begin to appear. The contempt and defiance which Jeroboam had showed towards constituted authority are now manifested towards his successor. Baasha only takes a leaf out of Jeroboam’s book (1 Kings 11:26).] 1 Kings 15:29 And it cams to pass, when he reigned, that he smote all the house of Jeroboam; he left not to Jeroboam any that breathed [Same expression in Joshua 11:14; cf. Deuteronomy 20:16. Males and females alike were destroyed; see 1 Kings 14:11], until he had destroyed him according unto the saying of the Lord, which he spake by his servant AhiJah the Shilonite [1 Kings 14:10. It is not implied that it was because of this prophecy that Baasha exterminated the house of Jeroboam. It is probable that, so far from setting himself to fulfil it, he knew nothing about it, and, as he thought, merely took effectual measures for his own security. His seat could never be safe, so long as one of Jeroboam’s house survived. Grotius aptly cites, with reference to these wholesale murders, the saying, ὃςπατέρακτείναςυἱοὺςκατέλιπε]: 1 Kings 15:30 Because of the sins of Jeroboam which he sinned, and which he made Israel to sin, by his provocation wherewith he provoked the Lord God of Israel to anger. [Cf. 1 Kings 16:2, 1 Kings 16:7, 1 Kings 13:26. etc.] 1 Kings 15:31 Now the rest of the acts of Nadab, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? 1 Kings 15:32 And there was war between Asa and Baasha king of Israel all their days. [Verbatim as 1 Kings 15:16, where see note. Several commentators suggest that this latter statement was copied from the chronicles of Israel, and that of 1 Kings 15:16 from those of Judah. It is held by others, however, that for Baasha we should here read Nadab, and in favour of this view is the fact that the reign of Nadab is still under consideration, the history of Baasha only beginning with the following verse.] 1 Kings 15:33 In the third year of Asa king of Judah began Baasha the son of Ahijah to reign [Practically a repetition of 1 Kings 15:28. These iterations are thoroughly in accord with Eastern usage (cf. 1 Kings 15:26, 1 Kings 15:30, 1 Kings 15:34; 1 Kings 16:1, 1 Kings 16:7, etc.)] over all Israel in Tirzah, twenty and four years. 1 Kings 15:34 And he did evil in the sight of the Lord, and he walked in the way of Jeroboam, and in his sin wherewith he made Israel to sin. This division of chapters, immediately after the commencement of the narrative of the reign of Baasha, is somewhat unfortunate, inasmuch as it obscures the close connexion between the sin of Baasha and the prophecy which it provoked. The idea the historian would convey is clearly this—the analogy between the dynasty of Jeroboam and that which supplanted it, (1) in their sin, (2) in the denunciation of each by a prophet, and (3) in the punishments which followed their sins an analogy so close that the prophet Jehu almost employs the ipsissima verba of his predecessor, Ahijah. 1 Kings 16:1 Then the word of the Lord came to Jehu, the son of Hanani [Hanani is mentioned in 2 Chronicles 16:7-10 as having admonished Asa, and as having been thrown into prison for so doing. Both he and his son would seem to have belonged to the kingdom of Judah. We find the latter in 2 Chronicles 19:2 a resident in Jerusalem, and protesting against the alliance between Jehoshaphat, whose historian he became, and whom, consequently, he must have survived (2 Chronicles 20:34), and Ahab. He is mentioned in the verse last cited as "made to ascend on the book of the kings of Israel" His prophetic career must have extended over at least half a century] against Baasha, saying, 1 Kings 16:2 Forasmuch as I exalted thee out of the dust [cf. 1 Kings 14:7; 2 Samuel 7:8; Psalms 78:70. These words assuredly point to a lowly origin. He may well have risen from the ranks], and made thee prince [The original word is used of leaders of various degrees, comprehending even the king: 1 Kings 1:35; 1 Samuel 9:16; 1 Samuel 10:1; cf. Daniel 9:25] over my people Israel [There is no approval implied here of the means by which Baasha had raised himself to the throne. All that is said is that he had been an instrument in God’s hands, and owed his throne to God’s sanction and ordering. Even his conspiracy and cruelties had been overruled to the furtherance of the Divine purpose], and thou hast walked in the way of Jeroboam, and hast made my people Israel to sin, to provoke me to anger [better vex, one word] with their sins; 1 Kings 16:3 Behold, I will take away [Heb. exterminate; same word as in 1 Kings 14:10 (where see note); 1 Kings 21:21; 1 Kings 22:47, etc.] the posterity of [Heb. after] Baasha, and the posterity of [after] his house, and will make thy house like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat. [Cf. 1 Kings 15:29; 1 Kings 21:22, etc.] 1 Kings 16:4 Him that dieth of [Heb. to; see note on 1 Kings 14:11] Baasha in the city shall the dogs eat; and him that dieth of his in the fields shall the fowls of the air eat. [It may be these words, like those of the next two verses, were almost a formula, but if so, it is noticeable that precisely the same formula was used of Jeroboam a few years before, and Baasha knew well how it had been accomplished. "All the prophets in succession have the same message from God for the same sins" (Wordsworth).] 1 Kings 16:5 Now the rest of the acts of Baasha, and what he did, and his might [as to which see 1 Kings 15:17-21. He could hardly have given a stronger proof of his might than by fortifying a post but five miles distant from Jerusalem. Keil, however, would interpret the word, both here and in 1 Kings 15:23, of his energy and strength in government. Better Bähr, tapfere Thaten. Ewald hence infers that Baasha was "a man of distinguished bravery"], are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? 1 Kings 16:6 So Baasha slept with his fathers, and was buried in Tizrzah [cf. 1 Kings 15:21, 1 Kings 15:33. This place is twice mentioned as his residence], and Elah his son reigned in his stead. [It is perhaps more than a mere coincidence that this uncommon name, Elah ("terebinth," see note on 1 Kings 13:14), is also the name of the great valley (1 Samuel 17:2, 1 Samuel 17:19; 1 Samuel 21:9) near to Gibbethon, where Baasha was proclaimed king.] 1 Kings 16:7 And also by the hand of the prophet Jehu, the son of Hanani, came the word of the Lord against Baasha [This does not refer, as some have thought, to a second prophecy on Jehu’s part, but is rather explicative of 1 Kings 16:2. Rawlinson thinks the object of the historian herein was to point out that Baasha was punished for the "murder of Jeroboam [?] and his family," as well as for the calf worship. Keil and Bähr hold that it is designed to guard against a perversion of 1 Kings 16:2, "I made thee prince," etc; from which it might be inferred that he was commissioned of God to murder Nadab. But it is simpler to suppose that his primary idea was to convey, by this repetition, which no doubt is derived from a different source from the statement of 1 Kings 16:2, that Baasha was visited by God for his various sins. It was no chance that happened to him. The excision of his house, like that of Jeroboam, was distinctly foretold], and against his house, even for all the evil that he did in the sight of the Lord, in provoking him to anger with the work of his hands [1 Kings 16:2; note the coincidence with 1 Kings 15:30, in connexion with the next words. Bähr explains "the works of his hands "as idols, Dii factitii, after Deuteronomy 4:28, but this appears somewhat far fetched], in being like the house of Jeroboam, and because he killed him [i.e; Nadab]. The Reign of Elah. 1 Kings 16:8 In the twenty and sixth year of Asa, king of Judah, began Elah, son of Baasha, to reign over Israel, two years [cf. 1 Kings 15:1-34. and see note on 1 Kings 15:28]. 1 Kings 16:9 And his servant [Not only "subject," as Rawlinson, but officer. The same word is used of Jeroboam; 1 Kings 11:26, note. We may almost trace here a lex talionis. Baasha was Nadab’s "servant," as Jeroboam was Solomon’s] Zimri [From the occurrence of this name among those of the descendants of Jonathan (1 Chronicles 8:36), it has been supposed (Stanley) that this was a last effort of the house of Saul to regain the throne], captain of half his chariots [רֶכֶב as in 1 Kings 9:19; 1 Kings 10:26. The violation of the law of Deu 17:16 brings its own retribution], conspired against him [precisely as Elah’s father had "conspired "(1 Kings 15:27) against Nadab], as he was in Tirzah drinking himself drunk in the house of Arza, steward of [Heb. which was over; cf. 1 Kings 4:6; 1 Kings 18:3; 2 Kings 10:5; 2 Kings 18:37] his house in Tirzah. [Several points present themselves for notice here. (1) the example of Jeroboam has clearly had its full influence on the nation. "The Lord’s anointed "is no longer had in reverence, as in the days of David (1 Samuel 24:6, 1 Samuel 24:10; 1 Samuel 26:9, 1 Samuel 26:16; 2 Samuel 1:14), nor is it accounted a sin to grasp at the crown. (2) Zimri only does what Baasha had done before him. That prince was "hoist with his own petard." (3) Elah would seem to have been a dissolute and pusillanimous prince. His place was clearly with his army at Gibbethon (2 Kings 18:15; cf. Joshua 8:1-35.12. 4). And as clearly it was not in the house of one of his subjects, even the intendant of his palace. "An Oriental monarch … is precluded by etiquette from accepting the hospitality of his subjects"—Rawlinson, who further remarks that the low tastes which we here find Elah indulging" had probably been formed before his father was exalted out of the dust." As probably they were inherited direct from his father. Anyhow, they led to his destruction. It is clear that Elah’s want of character, like Nadab’s, suggested the conspiracy of Zimri. (4) It is extremely probable, though not absolutely certain, as Bהhr affirms, that Arza was one of the conspirators, and that the wretched prince had been decoyed to his house and made drunk, with a view to his murder there.] 1 Kings 16:10 And Zimri went in [cf. Judges 3:20; 2 Samuel 4:7] and smote him and killed him in the twenty and seventh year of Asa king of Judah, and reigned in his stead. [Cf. 1 Kings 15:28 and 2 Kings 15:1-38:93. It is curious how it happened three times in the history of Israel that "the only powerful prince in a new dynasty was its founder, and after his son and successor reigned two years, the power passed into other hands" (Ewald).] The Reign of Zimri. 1 Kings 16:11 And it came to pass when he began to reign, as soon as he sate on his throne, that he slew all the house of Baasha [see note on 1 Kings 15:29. The LXX. Vat. omits the rest of this verse and the first clause of 1 Kings 15:12]: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall [i.e; not a boy. See 1 Kings 14:10 note], neither of [Heb. and] his kinsfolks [The גֹּאֵל is strictly the person to whom (1) the right of redemption (Leviticus 25:26; Ruth, passim) and (2) the duty of avenging blood (Numbers 35:19) belonged. And this being the next of kin (Rth 2:12, Rth 2:13), the word came to mean near relative, kinsman, as here; cf. Rth 2:20. All the same, it discloses to us Zimri’s object, which was to destroy the avenger of blood. And it shows (in connexion with Rth 2:16) that none of Baasha’s children, if he had other children, had gone to the war], nor of his friends. [Zimri went a step farther than Baasha had gone. He was not content with extirpating the royal family, but put to death the partizans of the house, all who would be likely to sympathize with Elah or to resent his murder.] 1 Kings 16:12 Thus did Zimri destroy an the house of Baasha, according to the word of the Lord which he spake against Baasha, by [Heb. in the hand of] Jehu the prophet [Verses 1, 7; cf. 1 Kings 15:29. The analogy is now complete], 1 Kings 16:13 For [אֶל corresponds with the עַל of 1 Kings 16:7 = propter; cf. 1 Kings 14:5; 1 Kings 21:22] all the sins of Baasha, and the sins of Elah his son, by which they sinned, and by which they made Israel to sin, in provoking the Lord God of Israel to anger [the formula of 1 Kings 15:30, etc.] with their vanities. [The calves, not idols, are referred to here. Cf. Deuteronomy 32:21; 1 Corinthians 8:4. The same idea is embodied in the word Bethaven; Hosea 4:15; Hosea 5:8. 1 Kings 16:14 Now the rest of the acts of Elah, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? 1 Kings 16:15 In the twenty and seventh year of Asa king of Judah did Zimri reign [The same word elsewhere translated in A.V. began to reign. It is really an aorist = succeeded to the throne] seven days in Tirzah. And the people were encamped [Heb. encamping] against Gibbethon, which belonged to the Phistines. [It has at first sight a suspicious look that two kings of Israel, within an interval of about twenty-five years, should have been slain by conspirators during a siege of this place. But when the narrative is examined, its probability and consistency become at once apparent. Stanley assumes that the siege lasted over the whole of this period, but it is more likely that when Baasha found himself king, he discovered that he had domestic matters enough upon his hands, without a foreign war, and so he raised the siege. It is very probable that he feared opposition such as Zimri and Omri subsequently experienced. And his wars with Asa and with Syria may well have prevented his renewing the undertaking. On the accession of Elah, however, with the usual ambition and impetuosity of youth, it was decided to recommence the siege and to win this city back for Israel. But the fate of Nadab, and the consequent ill omen attaching to the place would not be forgotten, and this, as well as his voluptuous habits, may have deterred the fainיant Elah from besieging it in person, while the conspiracy which marked the former siege may at the same time have suggested to Zimri and others the thought of conspiring against Elah.] 1 Kings 16:16 And the people that were encamped heard say, Zimri hath conspired, and hath also slain the king: wherefore all Israel [obviously, all the army. Cf. 1 Kings 12:1, 1 Kings 12:16, 1 Kings 12:18] made Omri, the captain of the host, king over Israel that day in the camp. It was hardly likely they would submit to the usurpation of Zimri. Not only had he occupied a subordinate position, but his murder of all Elah’s friends must have made him a host of enemies in the camp. It was the natural thing for them, therefore, to turn to Omri. He had the advantage of being in possession. The captain of the host stood next to the king (2 Kings 4:13; 2 Samuel 5:8; 2 Samuel 19:13; 2 Samuel 20:23), and twice stepped into his place (2 Kings 9:5). This history has many parallels in that of the Roman empire.] 1 Kings 16:17 And Omri went up from Gibbethon ["The expression, ’went up,’ accurately marks the ascent of the army from the Shephelah, where Gibbethon was situated, to the hill country of Israel, on the edge of which Tirzah stood" (Rawlinson)], and all Israel [see on 1 Kings 16:16] with him, and they besieged Tirzah. [It is probable that they arrived before the city on the sixth or seventh day after the assassination of Elah. This period would just allow sufficient time for the news of the conspiracy to travel to Gibbethon and for the march of the army.] 1 Kings 16:18 And it came to pass, when Zimri saw that the city was taken [the meaning is probably that which Josephus gives: "When he saw that the city had none to defend it," or possibly, "when he saw that a breach was made"], that he went into the palace [אַרְמוֹן citadel, fortress, from אָרַם altus fuit. So Gesen; Keil, Bight, al. The palace, no doubt, consisted of a string of buildings (1 Kings 7:2-9) of which this was the highest and strongest part. Ewald thinks that the harem—a word which has almost the same radicals―or women’s apartment, is meant—the most secluded portion of the great palace (Josephus understands it to mean "the inmost part"), and hence infers, as also from 2 Kings 9:31, that the women of the palace had willingly submitted to the effeminate murderer of their lord, and that even the queen-mother had made advances towards him. But, as Bight remarks there is nothing of this in the text, and Zimri’s desperate act rather shows daring and contempt of death than effeminacy or sensuality. And 2 Kings 15:25 (cf. Psalms 122:7) seems to point to a stronghold rather than a seraglio] of the king’s house, and burnt the king’s house [probably the palace which Jereboam had built. Ewald thinks it was this structure gave Tirzah its reputation for beauty; Son 6:4] over him with fire [According to the Syriac, the besiegers set fire to the palace. Similarly Jarchi. But the text is decisive. The parallel deed of Sardanapalus will occur to all readers. Rawlinson also refers to Herod. 1:176, and 7:107], and died. [This word is intimately connected with the verse following. But there is no need to rearrange the verses. The text, as it stands, conveys clearly enough that Zimri’s tragical death was a retribution for his sins. Bähr remarks that of Elah and Zimri we learn nothing, apart from the fact that they held to the sin of Jeroboam, except how they died.] 1 Kings 16:19 For his sins which he sinned in doing evil in the sight of the Lord, in walking in the way of Jeroboam, and in his sin which he did, to make Israel to sin. [It is quite clear that in his reign of one week Zimri cannot have done much to show his complicity in the schism of Jeroboam, and it is probable that the sacred writer means that his character and antecedents were such as to prove that all his sympathies were with the irreligious party. Bähr thinks that he had "formerly displayed much partiality for the calf worship." But it is quite as likely that the idea in the historian’s mind was that all these events were the bitter fruits of Jeroboam’s misguided and impious policy, into the spirit of which, Zimri, like his predecessors, had been baptized. It is interesting to remember here the aspect these repeated revolutions and assassinations would wear to the kingdom of Judah, then enjoying quietness and prosperity under Asa. We cannot doubt for a moment that they were regarded as so many manifestations of the righteous judgment of God, and as the outcomes of that spirit of insubordination and impiety which, in their eyes, had brought about both the division of the kingdom and the schism in the church.] 1 Kings 16:20 Now the rest of the acts of Zimri [We see here the tendency of the historian to express himself in formulae. He checks himself, however, and does not add "and all that he did," etc.], and his treason that he wrought [Heb. his conspiracy which he conspired. Though this was all there was to tell of him, yet no doubt it would be recorded at greater length by the historians of the day. We can hardly suppose that the "books of the words of the days" would dismiss so striking an event in a few sentences], are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? The Interregnum. 1 Kings 16:21 Then were the people of Israel divided into two parts: halt of the people followed [lit; was after. Same expression 2 Samuel 2:10; cf. 1 Kings 1:7] Tibni the son of Ginath [Who he was, or why he was set up in opposition to Omri, it is impossible to say. It has been supposed that the army was divided in its preferences, and that part of the soldiery wished to make Tibni king, and this is perhaps the most probable conjecture. It is to be considered that the entire army was not encamped before Gibbethon. Nor are 1 Kings 1:16, 1 Kings 1:17 fatal to this view, as Bähr maintains, because "all Israel" there clearly means all the army under the command of Omri. It is hardly likely that Tibni was set up by the people of Tirzah, after the death of Zimri, to continue the struggle. The only thing that is certain is that,the hereditary principle being overthrown, the crown appeared to be the legitimate prize of the strongest; and Tibni, who may have occupied a position of importance, or have had, somehow, a considerable following, resolved that Omri should not wear it without a fierce contest], to make him king [Omri had been already made king, i.e; anointed, 1 Kings 1:16]; and half renewed Omri. 1 Kings 16:22 But the people that followed Omri prevailed against the people that followed Tibni the son of Ginath [It appears, however, from the following verse that the struggle lasted four years]: so Tibni died [According to Jos; Ant. 8.12. § 5, he was slain by the conqueror. The LXX. has here a curious and probably genuine addition. "And Thabni died, and Joram his brother at that time], and Omri reigned. [The jingle of the Hebrew words is probably designed.] The Reign of Omri. 1 Kings 16:23 In the thirty and first year of Asa, king of Judah began Omri to reign over Israel, twelve years [As Omri was proclaimed king in the twenty-seventh and died in the thirty-eighth year of Asa (cf. 1 Kings 16:15, 1 Kings 16:29), he cannot in any case have reigned twelve full years; whereas if his reign is to be dated, as it is here, from the thirty-first year of Asa, it is obvious that he would only have reigned seven, or, according to the Jewish mode of reckoning, eight years. Rawlinson proposes to get over the difficulty by rearranging the text. He would attach the first clause of this verse to 1 Kings 16:22, and read, "And Omri reigned in the thirty-first," etc. But to this there are two serious objections. First, that 1 Kings 16:23, as it now stands, only follows the usual formula with which a new reign is announced (cf. 1 Kings 16:8, 1 Kings 16:15, 1 Kings 16:29); and, second, it is extremely doubtful whether any prose sentence in the Hebrew ever begins as 1 Kings 16:23 would then do, "Reigned Omri over Israel twelve years." Such a sentence would certainly be quite alien to the usus loquendi of our author. We are therefore reduced to the conclusion either (1) that the text here, as in some other instances (1 Kings 6:1; 2 Kings 1:17; cf. 2 Kings 3:1; 2 Kings 13:1, 2 Kings 13:10, etc.), has suffered at the hands of a reviser, or (2) that the numbers have been corrupted in transcription; or (3) that the historian expresses himself in a somewhat confused way. Of these suppositions perhaps (1) is the most likely. Anyhow, it is clear that the twelve years of Omri’s reign are to be counted not from the thirty-first, but from the twenty-seventh year of Asa, i.e; from the date of Zimri’s death (see 1 Kings 16:10, 1 Kings 16:15, 1 Kings 16:29). The confusion has arisen from the fact that it was not until Tibni was slain, after four years of conflict, that Omri became sole ruler]: six years reigned he in Tirzah. 1 Kings 16:24 And he bought [i.e; after the six years just mentioned. During the four years of anarchy Omri would seem to have retained possession of the capital which he had taken (1 Kings 16:18) on Zimri’s death. But the palace being burnt and the defences perhaps weakened by the siege, he determined, rather than rebuild it, to found a capital elsewhere] the hill Samaria [Heb. Shomeron, called by Herod Sebaste, whence its modern name Sebustieh. In his selection of Samaria for the seat of government, Omri acted with singular judgment. It has been said that "Shechem is the natural capital of Palestine," and no doubt it enjoys a commanding position and great advantages, but Samaria has even superior recommendations. It is a site with which no traveller can fail to be deeply impressed. Even Van de Velde, who says, "I do not agree with Dr. Robinson and other writers who follow him that the mountain of Samaria presents so admirable a combination of strength, fertility, and beauty, that the like is hardly to be found in Palestine", nevertheless readily allows its superiority to Tirzah, and remarks on the strength of its position. "Many travellers have expressed a conviction that the spot was in most respects much preferable to the site of Jerusalem" (Kitto). It is a large oval or oblong mound, with a level surface, adapted for buildings, with steep sides to make its position impregnable, and surrounded by an amphitheatre of hills. "Samaria is in a position of great strength; and must before the invention of gunpowder have been almost impregnable. It stands some 400 feet above the valley, the sides of the hill being steep and terraced in every direction for cultivation, or perhaps for defensive purposes.. broad and open valleys stretch north and south, and the hill is thus almost isolated," Conder, p. 47, who adds, "Strategical reasons may be supposed to have dictated the choice of the capital of Omri, for on the north the hill commands the main road to Jezreel over a steep pass, on the west it dominates the road to the coast, and on the east that to the Jordan". Grove speaks of "the singular beauty of the spot," and Stanley justly sees in the selection of this spot a proof of Omri’s sagacity. But perhaps the best proof is that which the subsequent history supplies. Shechem and Tirzah had each been tried, and each in turn had been abandoned. But Samaria continued to be the capital so long as the kingdom lasted] of Shemer for two talents of silver [variously estimated at £500 and £800. This purchase, obviously of the freehold, i.e; in perpetuity, was in contravention of the law of Le 25:23. David had bought the threshing floor of Ornan, but that was (1) from a Jebusite, and (2) for a high religious purpose (2 Samuel 24:24). It has been suggested that this purchase may have inspired Ahab with the idea of buying the vineyard of Naboth], and built on [Heb. built] the hill and called the name of the city which he built, after the name of Shemer, owner of the hill, Samaria. [It is not improbable that the vendor bargained that the land should retain his name (cf. Psalms 49:11). The reluctance of the Israelite to part with his patrimony, even to the king, is brought out very strikingly in ch. 21. Shemer, in selling his choice parcel of land for a capital, might well wish to connect his name with it. The fact that שֹׁמְרוֹן means watch mountain (Gesen.), and that we should have expected a name formed from Shemer to take the form Shimron—Shomeron would strictly imply an original Shomer—is not by any means a proof that our historian is at fault in his derivation. For, in the first place, the names Shomer and Shemer are used of the same person in 1 Chronicles 7:32, 1 Chronicles 7:34. And secondly, nothing would be more in accordance with Jewish ideas than that Omri, in naming the hill after its owner, should give a turn to the word which would also express at the same time its characteristic feature. A pun, or play upon word, was the form which wit assumed amongst the Semitic races, and the form Shomeron would at once perpetuate the memory of Shemer, and express the hope and purpose of Omri. It is a curious fact that the later Samaritans did play upon this very word, representing themselves as guardians (שֹּׁמְרִים) of the law (Ewald). The Greek form of the name, Σαμάρεια, would seem to have been derived through the Chaldee שִׁמְרָיִן as found in Ezra 4:10, Ezra 4:17. 1 Kings 16:25 But Omri wrought evil in the eyes of the Lord, and did worse than all that were before him. [It has been thought that Micah 6:16 ("the statutes of Omri, etc.") points to a fresh departure from the Jewish faith; to the organization of the calf worship into a regular formal system, or to "measures for more competely isolating the people of Israel from the services of the house of the Lord at Jerusalem" (Kitto). 1 Kings 16:26 For he walked in all the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and in his sin wherewith he made Israel to sin, to provoke the Lord God of Israel to anger with their vanities. 1 Kings 16:27 Now the rest of the acts of Omri which he did, and his might that he showed [Not only in the war with Tibni, but certainly in the subjugation of the Moabites, of which mention is made in the recently discovered Moabite stone. He may well have had other wars, which, like this, have escaped notice in Scripture. If the king of Syria spoke truly (1 Kings 20:34), the war with that power had been extremely disastrous. Yet the Assyrian inscriptions prove that Omri’s name was more widely and permanently known in the East than those of his predecessors or successors. Samaria, for example, down to the time of Tiglath-Pileser, appears as Beth Khumri, the "house of Omri;" Athaliah,the daughter of Ahab, is called a daughter of Omri; and Jehu appears in the Black Obelisk Inscription as "the son of Omri". It is perhaps an evidence of "his might" that his dynasty retained the throne to the third generation], are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? [1 Kings 16:26, 1 Kings 16:27 are an exact repetition, mutatis mutandis, of 1 Kings 13:14; cf. 15:80. 1 Kings 16:28 So Omri slept with his fathers, and was buried in Samaria [After the example of earlier kings, he found a grave in his capital city; cf. 1 Kings 2:10; 1 Kings 11:43; 1 Kings 14:31; 1 Kings 16:16]: and Ahab his son reigned In his stead. 1 Kings 16:29 The Punishment of Jeroboam’s Sin. We have already considered the true character of Jeroboam’s sin It now remains for us to observe, first, the punishment which it provoked, and secondly, its workings in later generations. And its punishment was so great and so varied that it will of itself occupy the rest of this homily. But let us remember, in the first place, that there were two parties to this sin. Jeroboam sinned himself and also "made Israel to sin." King and people alike were involved in the schism. If the one suggested it, the other embraced it. Originating with the former, it was approved and perpetuated by the latter. There were two parties, consequently, to the punishment. That was impartially shared between sovereign and subjects. We have to consider, therefore— I. THE WHICH BEFELL THE ROYAL HOUSE. II. THE WHICH THE PEOPLE AT LARGE. I. And in considering the pain and loss in which this sin involved those who sate upon the throne of Israel, we must discriminate between Jeroboam and his successors. Jeroboam was the prime, but not the only offender. If he was the author, subsequent kings were continuators of the schism. And as he had his punishment, so they had theirs. Let us therefore take account first of the sorrows and sufferings of the heresiarch, Jeroboam. Amongst these were the following: 1. The foreknowledge that his kingdom would be overthrown. This dismal foreboding must have clouded all his reign, for it dated from the day of that first sacrifice at Bethel. Then he learnt that a child of David’s house should cover his schemes and memory with disgrace. He knew that the dynasty he had founded should not endure, and moreover that he was the author of its ruin, and he knew that others knew it too. "Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown." What shall we say of the crowned head disquieted by such forebodings as these? 2. The foretaste of the destruction of his family. As he had learnt from the man of God of the triumph of his rival and the dishonour of his priesthood, so he learnt from Ahijah of the excision of his family. This ambitious prince knew that his posterity would be swept away like dung, would be devoured like carrion. And he was assured of this, not only by prophetic word and by signs following, but he had an earnest thereof in the death of his firstborn. He knew that that was but "the beginning of the end." It was a sharp pang, but it was the lightest part of his punishment (1 Kings 14:13). 3. Remorse and vexation. He could not fail to compare the two messages of Ahijah (1 Kings 11:31-39; 1 Kings 14:7-16). The first gave him dominion over ten tribes. The second left him neither subject nor survivor. God had promised to "build him a sure house." God now threatens him and his with annihilation. And why this change? He knew why it was. "The gifts and calling of God are without repentance." It was because of the calves (1 Kings 14:9). How he must have repented that piece of folly and faithlessness: how he must have cursed his infatuation—the more inexcusable, as he had the example of Solomon before him. It is possible that this remorse was so poignant that it shortened his days; that it was thus "the Lord struck him, and he died" (2 Chronicles 13:20). 4. The shameful murder of his family. We can readily believe that a parvenu like Jeroboam, a servant who had raised himself to the throne, would have been content to suffer for the rest of his days, if thereby he could have averted the dishonour of his name and the destruction of his posterity—of all evils the greatest in the eyes of a Jew. But no; he foresaw that butchery awaited his nearest and dearest, and he had not slept long in his grave before the knife of Baasha was at his children’s throats. And this murder of his posterity, though after the manner of Eastern despotisms, would seem to have been marked by circumstances of peculiar cruelty (1 Kings 16:7). It was so truculent that it brought down vengeance on the instrument. Our history gives no details, but it is easy to picture the divans dripping with blood, the corridors choked with the corpses of Jeroboam’s wife and children. The annals of Turkey and other Eastern kingdoms would supply many illustrations of this deed. 5. His own untimely end. For he died by the visitation of God—by a stroke of some kind or other. He may have perished like Antiochus Epiphanes, like Sylla, like Herod, like Philip of Spain. Or, like our Henry the First, he may have never smiled again after his son’s death, but steadily drooped to his grave. Somehow his life was cut short. "The wicked shall be silent in darkness." Such, then, was the fourfold penalty which Jeroboam paid for his sin. Let us now consider the punishment which befell his successors, who "walked in his way" and "departed not" from his heresy. We may trace it— 1. In the shortness of their reigns. Nadab, Elah, Ahaziah, all reigned two years. Zimri one week. None of the kings of Israel reigned like David and Solomon, or like Asa and other kings of Judah. In the 250 years that the kingdom of Israel lasted, nineteen kings occupied the throne, as against eleven kings of Judah. Asa saw seven kings in turn rise and fall during his reign; Uzziah saw six; and we have but to remember that long life was one of the principal sanctions of the Mosaic dispensation to be assured that these brief reigns were a manifestation of the righteous judgment of God. 2. In the revolution and assassination which often closed them. In these 250 years the dynasty was changed no less than seven times, and we know what a change of dynasty meant, in that and a later age. It was one of its traditions that "the man was a fool who when he slew the father spared the children." Six times this tragedy of Tirzah was repeated. Once an unhappy prince, to escape the butchery awaiting him, devoted himself and his household to the flames. Once seventy ghastly heads, in two heaps at the city gate, witnessed to the work of extermination. II. But now let us note the share of the people in this dispensation of suffering. What befell the priests who ministered at Dan and Bethel—what the worshippers who resorted thither? They or their children suffered these six penalties at least. 1. Misgovernment. Of the kings of Israel there was not one who did not "do evil" in the sight of the Lord. By which we are not only to understand that he worshipped the calves; oppression, exactions, intolerable cruelties may be comprehended under the words. The case of Naboth (1 Kings 21:1-29.) was probably not the only one of its kind. We may be sure, too, that when Elah was drinking himself drunk, injustice was being practised in his name. Incapacity—on the part of the king—may have been the cause of some insurrections, but oppression is a much more .probable reason. We know what Rome was like when the purple fell to military adventurers. Probably Israel fared no better at the hands of its Baashas, Omris, and Menahems. What suffering a change of dynasty involved on the people we may gather from 2 Kings 15:16. An Eastern kingdom at the best was a despotism, at the worst a devildom. 2. Civil war. The four years’ struggle between Omri and Tibni and their respective partisans, which was a war to the death (1 Kings 16:22), entailed no less miseries on the country than civil war always does. Lands ravaged, homesteads fired, women violated—these were some of its incidents. It has been said that no one can give any adequate description of a battle. What shall be said of a battle lasting over four years? for in a country not so large as Yorkshire civil strife would mean unceasing conflict. 3. Invasion. (1) By Abijah (2 Chronicles 13:4), (2) by Shishak, (3) by Syria, (4) by Assyria. Shishak was primarily appointed to chastise Judah, Syria was the lash of Israel. Observe that in the invasion of 2 Kings 13:4, 2 Kings 13:19, Bethel was captured by the men of Judah, whilst in that of 2 Kings 15:20, Dan—Jeroboam’s other shrine—was among the first to suffer. The priests of Dan and the inhabitants of the surrounding territory, the worshippers at its temple, bore the brunt of Benhadad’s invasion. But the bands of Syria were always invading the land (ch. 20; 2 Kings 6:1-33.) And many a "little maid" (2 Kings 5:2) was carried off to dishonour. "Many a childing mother then And newborn baby died." What a picture of the horrors of war have we in 2 Kings 8:12. Yet such horrors must have been of common occurrence in Israel. And they culminated in the sack of Samaria and the captivity of the nation. 4. Loss of territory. Israel was "cut short" (2 Kings 10:1-36:82). In 2 Kings 1:1 (cf. 1 Kings 3:5) Moab rebels. Syria, its great adversary, was once an appanage of Israel. Now Israel is made a dependency of Assyria (2 Kings 15:19, 2 Kings 15:20). 5. Famine. It was the Lord called for this (2 Kings 8:1). It was one of His "sore judgments" (Ezekiel 14:13, Ezekiel 14:21). And it would seem to have been almost chronic in Israel (cf. 1 Kings 17:1, 1 Kings 17:12; 1 Kings 18:2; 2 Kings 4:38; 2 Kings 6:25 sqq.; 7.; 2 Kings 8:1). And the terrible straits to which the people were reduced thereby may be inferred from 2 Kings 6:25, 2 Kings 6:29; cf. Deuteronomy 28:56, Deuteronomy 28:57. 6. Captivity. For the carrying away beyond Babylon into the cities of the Modes was part of the reckoning for Jeroboam’s sin, and for the allied sin of idolatry (1 Kings 14:15; 2 Kings 17:22, 2 Kings 17:23). The "carrying into captivity"—these are familiar words on our lips. But which of us can form any conception of the untold, unspeakable miseries which they cover? The gangs of prisoners tramping to Siberia give us but a faint idea. "Hermann and Dorothea" is a tale of modern times, and the flight it pictures conveys no just impression of the horrors of a wholesale transportation. When the land was swept as with a drag net (cf. 2 Kings 21:13, and compare Herod. 3:149, 2 Kings 6:31, where the manner in which the Persians carried away the population of some of the Greek islands is described), and the entire population marched in gangs across the burning plains, under brutal and lustful overseers—men in comparison with whom a "Legree" would be mildness itself—we may imagine some of the horrors of that journey, Nor did those sufferings end in the land of their captivity. Before the people was absorbed amongst the neighbouring nations, and so effaced from the page of later history, we may be pretty sure they paid a constant tribute of suffering for their sin. Vae victis, this was the unvarying law of ancient warfare, and the exiles of Assyria proved it in their own persons. Two hundred and fifty years after the schism, the seed sown by Jeroboam was still reaped in cruelty and agony and blood. 1 Kings 16:2 The Working of Jeroboam’s Sin. The punishment which Jeroboam’s sin brought down upon himself, his successors, and his people, was not its worst part. Its influences upon others, the lessons of disobedience and defiance taught by that malign example, were even more disastrous. Let us now trace, as far as we can, its workings; let us see how the leaven of the calves leavened the whole lump. 1. He begat a son in his own likeness. "The evil that men do lives after them"—it lives in their children; it is inwrought into their constitution. As a rule, the child reproduces the character of the parent, the moral traits, quite as closely as the physical. There are exceptions—Abijah was one—but they help to prove the rule. He was the only exception in the house of Jeroboam (1 Kings 14:8). Fortes creantur fortibus et bonis, and the converse is equally true. Nabab, and the other children of that house, not only practised the lessons they had learned in Jeroboam’s school, but they reproduced in their own persons the self will, the impatience of control, and the other faults and vices of their father. What wonder if "Nadab did evil in the sight of the Lord"? he only "walked," as the next words remind us, "in the way of his father" (1 Kings 15:26). 2. He begat a spirit of lawlessness and insubordination among his people. There are not a few indications of demoralization and corruption in Israel, corresponding with the depravation of religion. The very revolutions, which followed one afar another, are in themselves a proof of this. The chronic disaffection and the periodical upheavings of society in the northern kingdom, especially when contrasted with the quietness and security of Judah, can only be accounted for by the influences of the court. North and south were of one blood, and lived under one sky. It was because the former had been taught disobedience and disregard of constituted authority, it was because the sense of reverence and duty had been weakened by the action of Jeroboam, that it became like a reed shaken in the water—so often rebelled against its sovereigns. Jeroboam had accustomed them to play fast and loose with the commandments of Heaven; what wonder if they made small account of their obligations to their earthly king? 3. He taught Baasha, Zimri, and Omri to lift up their hands against the king. Just as David’s religious veneration for the person of the "Lord’s anointed" tended to make his throne and that of his successors the more secure, so did Jeroboam’s rebellion (1 Kings 11:26) afford an example of aggression to later ages. His subjects were not likely to believe in the "divinity that doth hedge a king." Why should they scruple to grasp at the crown if it came within their reach? Why was Nadab more sacred than Rehoboam? Why should the son of Baasha, again, have more respect than the son of Solomon? 4. He taught his subjects, indirectly, to hold life cheap. There had been two changes of dynasty before Baasha had learned from him to attack the king and to exterminate his family, but both of these had been, so far as the royal family was concerned, bloodless. David never thought of slaying the children of Saul. His inquiry was, "Is there not yet any of the house of Saul that I may show the kindness of God unto him?" (2 Samuel 9:3.) And when "Israel rebelled against the house of David," they never contemplated a massacre of Solomon’s harem, or even of insolent Rehoboam. But observe the change in succeeding revolutions. "He left not to Jeroboam any that breathed" (1 Kings 15:29; cf. 1 Kings 16:11; 2 Kings 10:11). Why this thirst of blood? It is because Jeroboam has returned from Egypt, and his godless proceedings have depraved public morality, and the restraints of law have been enfeebled, and men have grown more reckless and desperate (1 Kings 16:18, 1 Kings 16:24). It is clear to the most cursory reader that a daring impiety characterizes the whole period from Jeroboam to Hoshea, and for this "the sin of Jeroboam" is mainly responsible. That was the "first step" which makes the rest of the road easy. 5. He entailed his sin upon his successors. Of each of the kings of Israel do we read that he "walked in the way of Jeroboam, and in his sin which he did," and we wonder, perhaps, how it was that not one of these nineteen kings, sprung as many of them were from different lineages, had the courage and the piety to retrace his steps, and revert to the primitive faith and mode of worship. But a little reflection will show that this, under the circumstances, was well nigh an impossibility. For Jeroboam had made the calf worship an integral part of the national life. It was so intertwined with the existence of Israel as a separate people, that to abandon it would be to repudiate all the traditions of the kingdom, and tacitly to acknowledge the superiority of Judah. Any king attempting such a reformation would appear to be a traitor to his country. The attempt would have provoked a second schism. No, it was clear to each monarch at his accession, if he reflected on the subject at all, that the calf worship must go on. The damnosa hereditas which he had received he must transmit. There was no place for repentance. 6. He paved the way for idolatry. Already, in 1 Kings 14:15, we find the "groves" following directly upon the calves, the images of Asherah upon the images of Jehovah. Ahab and Jezebel are not wholly responsible for the abominations of Baal and Ashtaroth. It was the daring innovations of Jeroboam had prepared the minds of men for this last and greatest violation of the law. "Man does not become base all at once." The plunge into wholesale idolatry would have been impossible, had not the deep descent to the calf worship been traversed first. Pecati poena peccatum. That, too, begets children in its own likeness. Those who despised the "tabernacle of witness" in the wilderness were given up to take up "the tabernacle of Moloch and the star of the god Remphan" (Acts 7:42, Acts 7:43). If men will not have God in their thoughts, He gives them over to a reprobate mind (Romans 1:28). 7. We see his hand in the building of Jericho. It was Hiel, a Bethelite, braved the curse and rebuilt the walls and reared the gates of the city of palm trees. Here we see the influence of a prior violation of law. Whether he acted in ignorance of law, or defiance of law, it is to Jeroboam’s sin the deed owed its perpetration. The law might well be forgotten which had been so completely ignored. And the subject had been encouraged to violate it by his sovereign. 8. We hear his voice in the curses of the children of Bethel. Where but at Bethel would children have dared thus to revile a prophet of the Lord? The children only reflected the impiety and hatred of their parents. And from whom had these latter learned their hatred but from the king, who "made an house of high places" there, and inaugurated the schismatic worship with his own hands? From the day when a man of God laid the city under an interdict, the prophets of Jehovah must have been unpopular at Bethel, and as the time passed by, and the breach was widened, passive dislike ripened into open scorn and hatred, and a new prophet, of whose powers they had had no experience, could not pass by without insult and defiance. The Jews have a saying, that in all the scourgings, plagues, and chastisements which they have endured, there is not one but has in it an ounce of the dust of the golden calf which Aaron made. The saying holds equally good of the calves which Jeroboam made. There is not one of the troubles which befell both the crown and the kingdom, not one of the bitter sufferings which the ten tribes endured, but had its starting-point in the sin of Jeroboam. BY J.A. 1 Kings 16:25-34 The Seed of Evil doers. The subject before us furnishes illustration of the following propositions, viz.: I. WICKED ARE THE SEED OF THE WICKED. 1. There is a sense in which this is generally true. (1) Jeroboam "made Israel to sin." Nadab "did evil in the sight of the Lord and walked in the way of his father, and in his sin whereby he made Israel to sin." (2) Baasha murdered Nadab and usurped his throne. Then he exterminated the whole house of Jeroboam. In this he fulfilled the words of Ahijah the Shilonite. Yet was it not out of zeal for God, but to serve his own selfish ambition. So under the same evil promptings he continued in the sin of Jeroboam (1 Kings 16:34). And his son after him walked in his steps. (3) Do we not still find that those who loyally serve God are children or grandchildren of godly persons? "The seed of the righteous is blessed." (4) This is the rule, but not without its exceptions; else missions to the heathen, abroad and at home, would be hopeless, which, thank God, they are not. 2. There is a sense in which this is universally true. (1) "Seed" is not always reckoned according to the flesh. "The children of the promise are counted for the seed" (Romans 9:8; see also the reasoning, Romans 9:13-18). (2) Thus God can, out of the very stones, raise up children to Abraham. Gentile believers in Christ are such (see Matthew 3:9; Galatians 3:26, Galatians 3:29). (3) In this sense all are not Israel who are of Israel. Descendants of Abraham who follow not his true faith and good works are not his seed (see John 8:37, John 8:40; Romans 2:28; Romans 9:7; Galatians 6:15). (4) As the good, whether sprung from evil or good ancestors, are the seed of God; so are the wicked, whether sprung from evil or good ancestors, the seed of the devil (see Genesis 3:15; John 8:44; 1 John 3:8). So are the wicked, without exception, the seed of the wicked. II. THE OF THE WICKED IS SHORT. 1. How brief was the reign of these kings! (1) "The days which Jeroboam reigned were two and twenty years" (1 Kings 14:20). But this was little more than half the term of Asa’s reign (1 Kings 16:10). (2) Nadab "reigned over Israel two years." This was really but a portion of two years, for, according to the usage of Scripture, a year entered is reckoned as if completed. He "began to reign over Israel in the second year of Asa," and "in the third year of Asa" did Baasha slay him (1 Kings 16:25, 1 Kings 16:28). (3) Baasha reigned "twenty and four years," still little more than half the time of Asa’s reign. This son of David sat upon the throne of Judah long enough to see eight kings upon the throne of Israel, viz; Jeroboam, Nadab, Baasha, Elah, Zimri, Tibni, Omri, and Ahab. In these he witnessed no less than five dynasties! 2. How little happiness had they in their rule! (1) Sin brings the vexation of an evil conscience, with its attendant disquiet, suspicion, and fear. (2) Also the vexation of an angry Providence. They that take the sword take the blade with the haft. The wars of these ever changing dynasties left little room for repose. (3) How difficult for men to learn that worldly ambition and vexation are sisters; that abiding happiness is found only in the ways of God! III. THE END OF THE WICKED IS . 1. This is written in history. (1) It is recorded in the history of these kings. Jeroboam in person died upon his bed, but in his family his light was extinguished in blood. Baasha in like manner died on his bed, but in his family he too perished by the sword. (2) These examples are but samples of history at large—sacred, secular. 2. It is also written in prophecy. (1) We meet with it in the alternatives to the conditions of salvation. (2) This destruction follows the spirit into the invisible world, and is a "much sorer punishment" than that which terminates in natural death. (3) The judgments upon the wicked recorded in history are but figures of the more terrible doom threatened in prophecy.—J.A.M. BY J. 1 Kings 16:25-34 God’s threatenings find at last a complete fulfilment. I. THE LAST STEP IN A CAREER OF AND FOLLY. Nadab might have been warned. His way to the throne was opened up by God’s judgment in the removal of Abijah. He must have heard of the Divine threatenings; he might have seen the evil results of his father’s sin. But in the face of all these things he adopted the sinful policy of his father. 1. "He did evil in the sight of the Lord." His heart and life were estranged from God and righteousness. This is the explanation of all that follows. Contempt of the claims of revelation, and rebellion against God are but the revelation to men of a heart and life which have already grieved and provoked God. 2. He continued in a path already dark with the frown of God: "and walked in the way of his father." The son who continues in his father’s sin may incur thereby a deeper guilt than his. The iniquity of it may not have been at first so fully manifested. It might have been considered and abandoned in the shadow of the father’s death. As the ages roll on sins manifest themselves, and the nation which will not turn from them seals itself for destruction. Are there sins with us the evil of which we know today as we did not know before? Then the guilt of their retention is greater than that of their first commission. 3. He resolutely pursued a path which meant destruction, not .for himself only, but for an entire people: "and in his sin wherewith he made Israel to sin." It was nothing less than an attempt to rob God of His chosen people, and them of Him, in order that the house of Jeroboam might reign in safety. The terrible selfishness and the murderous heart of sin! II. THE . 1. He was smitten in the midst of his army. The host of his warriors could not save him. There is no place where God’s hand cannot reach us. 2. He was slain, not by the Philistines, but by one of his own servants. Treachery and rebellion were visited with fitting punishment. The strict justice of the Divine vengeance. His judgments are repayments: "I will repay." 3. The Divine threatening literally fulfilled (1 Kings 16:29). God’s words against sin are not lightly spoken. The end is hid from us, but His eye is resting, while He speaks, upon the woe.—J.U. Ch. 15:33-16:7 Unrighteous Zeal. I. SMITERS OF THE SINFUL ARE NOT (1 Kings 15:33, 44). 1. Baasha’s crime. Behind the slaughter of his master and his master’s house lay the threatening of God. The Divine decree seemed to legalize the crime. But God’s command did not come to him, nor was he moved by righteous indignation against the sins of the house of Jeroboam. He served his own passions, and it was sin to him before God, "because he killed him." The iniquity of those who rush in to smite wrong and hypocritically veil their hatred and spite and greed under the plea of zeal for God and righteousness (Romans 2:1). 2. His evil life. "He did evil in the sight of the Lord." State reforms are impossible for men whose own heart refuses God’s yoke. Our work can never rise higher than the level of our life. There is also a spiritual law of gravitation: the streams of our influence can only flow downward. 3. His hurtful reign. He "walked in the way of Jeroboam," etc. He may have condemned Jeroboam’s sin in regard to the calves, etc.; but when begirt with the same state exigencies he continued the course he himself had punished with death. It is easy to condemn the sins of others. God has nobler work for us: it is, when surrounded by their temptations to triumph over them, and to serve not by words only but by deeds. II. GOD’S MESSAGE TO BAASHA (1 Kings 16:1-7). 1. His exaltation was of God. "I exalted thee out of the dust." The throne was not secured by his wickedness. The Lord had stilled opposition and given him success. 2. It was great and unlooked for. His tribe had no claim to the throne, and his own place among his people was a mean one. But God had, step by step, advanced him, and was now enabling him to reign in peace. The Lord’s help is not withheld from those who do not know and do not serve Him. "Despisest thou the riches of His goodness and forbearance and long suffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?" (Romans 2:4.) 3. The return made to God. He had changed nothing. Israel was still being led down the path of darkness and judgment, "to provoke Me to anger with their sins." Every higher interest was sacrificed to the policy of keeping the ten tribes separated from the other two. Statesmen out of office condemn that which, when in office, they are afraid to change. And how many are there who are neglecting the trusts God has committed to them. Once they said, "If we had only place or wealth, etc; God would be served and men blessed." These have been given and what has been done? Has the vow been performed? 4. Baasha’s punishment worse than Jeroboam’s. "I will take away the posterity of Baasha and the posterity of his house" (see 1 Kings 16:11, "Neither of his kindred nor of his friends"). The Divine justice is shown in the differing penalties of sin.—J.U. BY J.A. 1 Kings 16:1-7 Jehu’s Prophecy. Jehu was a prophet and the son of a prophet. Of his father Hanani we read in 2 Chronicles 16:7-10, where it is recorded to his honour that he suffered imprisonment for the fidelity of his testimony against Asa. This son was worthy of such a father. His testimony before Baasha, a man of desperate resolution and unscrupulous irreligion, was admirably courageous. We hear of him again after an interval of forty years (see 2 Chronicles 19:2; 2 Chronicles 20:1-37:84). In his prophecy here I. HE RECITES THE CRIMES OF BAASHA. These were— 1. That he "walked in the way of Jeroboam." This implies (1) that he was influenced by a like ambition. An ambition to be great in the eyes of men—to be a king. (See 1 Kings 11:37.) (2) That to compass this he resorted to unscrupulous measures. He rebelled against his king. He rebelled against his God. 2. That he made the people of the Lord to sin. (1) To make any people, or person, to sin is a great crime. And who can sin only to himself? Directly or indirectly sin must exert an influence beyond. (2) To make God’s covenanted people to sin is a higher crime. The oath upon them is violated. The salt of the earth, too, loses its savour, and the world is left to putrefy. (3) To make God’s people to sin, not as by accident, but of set purpose, is the highest crime. This Baasha did in upholding Jeroboam’s calves—the "work" of men’s "hands" (2 Chronicles 16:7). He did this fearing, as Jeroboam had feared, that if the people went to Jerusalem to worship they might repent of their rebellion against the house of David. For the same reason Baasha opposed the reformation under Asa, and to this end set about the building of Ramah (see 2 Chronicles 16:1). 3. That he thereby provoked the anger of the Lord against them. (1) This expressed itself in the incessant wars by which they were shaken "as a reed is shaken in the water" (1 Kings 14:15). (2) This is laid at He door of Baasha. His house is implicated with him. Jehu, therefore, had a message also to his house (2 Chronicles 16:7). 4. And because he killed Jeroboam. (1) This, however, he did not, in person. Jeroboam died on his bed (1 Kings 14:20). (2) But, in his house, he slew him (1 Kings 15:27-29). A man lives in his posterity; when his posterity are destroyed or exterminated, he is extinct. (3) Perhaps the words "because he killed him" might be fairly rendered "because he killed it," viz; the house of Jeroboam. This any. how is the meaning (see 1 Kings 15:27, 1 Kings 15:29). The notion that he killed Jehu is inconsistent with the records of history, which bring Jehu upon the scene again in the days of Jehoshaphat. II. HE UTTERS THE OF THE LORD. 1. The posterity of Baasha was to be taken away. (1) His own. He was to have no male representative. (2) That of his house. His female as well as male issue was to be destroyed. He was to be utterly rooted out. 2. History repeats itself. (1) It does this because crime must provoke appropriate punishment. God recognizes the lex talionis—eye for eye, tooth for tooth. (2) The house of Baasha being like to that of Jeroboam, the doom is.similar. As Baasha executed the judgment of the Lord upon the house of Jeroboam, another aspirant to royalty is to execute the judgment of the Lord upon the house of Baasha. Note 3. There are posthumous punishments. (1) Baasha was as great a criminal as any of his house, yet he came to his grave in peace and honour. He died on his bed and was buried in state. Must there not be future reckoning and retribution? (2) Baasha is punished in the extermination of his house. But this judgment came upon him after his decease. How could that affect Aim unless there be a future state? (3) The same inference follows from the judgment upon the bodies of his posterity after their decease. What matter would it be to him or them to have their bodies eaten by dogs or by vultures when the life was gone, unless the spirits survived? (4) How such things react Upon the disembodied spirit is a mystery. "There are many things in heaven and earth that do not enter into our philosophy."—J.A.M. 1 Kings 16:8-14 The House of Baasha. The character of Baasha is drawn in the paragraphs immediately preceding, which also contain an account of his end, which was better than he deserved, and suggests the reality of a future retribution. His family so fully followed in his steps that we have no mention of an Abijah amongst them, "in whom was found some good thing towards the Lord God of Israel" (see 1 Kings 14:18). The judgment of God upon this wicked house is written in the words before us. We have to reflect upon— I. THE OF THE HOUSE OF BAASHA. 1. The prophecy of Jehu came to them as a warning. (1) Such is the nature of this class of prophecies. The threatenings of God, like His promises, are conditional. So, had they repented, the judgments denounced would have been removed or moderated. (2) Of this principle the Scriptures furnish many illustrations. Take, e.g; the argument of Abraham’s prayer for Sodom and its success (Genesis 18:23-32). See the effect of. the contrition of Ahab (1 Kings 21:27-29). How the judgment of the Lord upon Nineveh was averted through their humiliation before God (Jonah 3:4.). (3) This prophecy, therefore, came in mercy, as a respite, to give space for repentance. Else judgment might have fallen without remonstrance, as it did in the issue. By timely repentance and reformation let us seek to avert all threatened judgments. 2. But here was no repentance. (1) Elah walked in the steps of his father. He followed the sin of Jeroboam. Their idolatries are called "vanities." The gods they worshipped could neither profit nor help them. "Happy is that people whose God is the Lord." Miserable, those whose gods are vanities! (2) Moreover Elah abandoned himself to sensuality. See him in Tirzah, a palace beautifully situated (Son 6:4), where he might have found innocent and rational enjoyment. But there he is in the apartments of Arza, his major domo, drunk! What a condition for a king! (3) What a condition for a nation, to be ruled by such a king! The Ephrathites had reason to repent of their revolution. They did not improve upon the house of David. Revolutionists have generally found their dreams of a political Paradise illusory. (4) The wisdom of Christians would be to make the best of the political system they may inherit, and pray for the speedy coming of the kingdom of Christ. This was the spirit of Paul’s exhortations, even when such a monster as Nero ruled the kingdoms of the world (see Romans 13:1; 1 Timothy 2:1, 1 Timothy 2:2; Titus 3:1; also 1 Peter 2:18, 1 Peter 2:17). II. THE OF THE OF GOD. 1. The wicked follow their own devices. (1) Zimri had an ambition to reign. Such an ambition is not uncommon. Few can ascend the throne of a kingdom. But there are tyrants on the magisterial bench, in the factory, in the shop, in the mansion, in the college. (2) Zimri had also a desperate resolution to bend circumstances to his object. His rank as a cavalry officer, commanding half the chariots of Elah, gave him access to the palace. There, finding his lord helplessly drunk, he sacrificed gratitude and duty, and struck the fatal blow. What a warning to drunkards! Death is especially terrible when it surprises the sinner in his sin (see Luke 21:34). (3) With infernal promptitude Zimri proceeded to slaughter the whole of the seed royal. In the massacre he involved also the "kinsfolk and friends," so as to leave no rival to contest the throne. (4) But how little did he dream, after wading through this sea of blood, that his reign should be limited to a single week! How disproportionate was the end to the means! If men could duly estimate the end, how it would lead them to hesitate over the employment of the means! 2. But the providence of God is over all. (1) God foresaw everything. This is evident in the word of prophecy. And He so controlled the actors that the results answered the ends of justice. This also is evident in the same word. (2) But this did not excuse the wickedness of the executioners. God allows the wicked to punish each other for Him. So makes He the wrath of man to praise Him (see 2 Kings 9:31). (3) He has better work for His saints. To bless is more congenial to them than to destroy. The ambition of the spiritual is too noble to be satisfied with an earthly crown, or to pay its price.—J.A.M. BY J. 1 Kings 16:8-20 A Divine judgment and its instrument. I. THE . This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ THE REIGN OF AHAB.—With the accession of Ahab a new main section of our history begins—the section which has its close in the destruction of the house of Omri by Jehu, as related in 2 Kings 10:1-36. And this reign is recorded at unusual length; in fact, it occupies nearly all the remaining portion of this volume, whereas the reigns of preceding kings have in several instances been dismissed in a few verses. It owes this distinction to the ministry of the great prophet Elijah by which it was marked, and, indeed, was profoundly influenced; but this ministry, it must be remembered, was necessitated by the critical circumstances of the time. It may be that "every age thinks itself a crisis," but no one can fail to see that this was one of the veritable turning points of Jewish history. One of the real "decisive battles of the world"—that between the Lord and Baal—was then fought out. No wonder that our historian felt constrained to chronicle at length the transactions of a reign so pregnant both with good and evil for the people of the Lord and for the faith with which they had been put in trust. Indeed, the same guiding principle which led him to devote so many of his pages to the reign of Solomon, when the theocratic kingdom was at its highest, impelled him to linger over the reign of Ahab when religion was at its lowest ebb. The secular historian, too often like the sundial which "counts no hours save those serene," draws a veil over the time of his country’s decadence, or touches its misfortunes with a light hand. It is only in the inspired records that we have an impartial register both of the glory and shame of a common. wealth. 1 Kings 16:29 And in the thirty and eighth year of Asa king of Judah [see notes on 1 Kings 16:23] began Ahab ["Father’s brother." The name is apposite. He was Omri’s alter ego in impiety] the son of Omri to reign over Israel: and Ahab the son of Omri reigned over Israel in Samaria twenty and two years. 1 Kings 16:30 And Ahab the son of Omri [The repetition is noticeable. It is possible that the preceding verse has been revised by a chronologer. The LXX. text is much more condensed] did evil in the sight of the Lord above all that were before him. [The same words are used of his father in 1 Kings 16:25. It is not difficult to see in what way Ahab’s rule was worse even than Omri’s. The latter had gone beyond his predecessors in the matter of the calf worship. See note on 1 Kings 16:25. But the calf worship, however it may have deteriorated in process of time—and it is the tendency of such systems to wax worse and worse—was nevertheless a cult, though a corrupt, and unauthorized, and illicit cultus, of the one true God. Under Ahab, however, positive idolatry was established and fostered the worship of foreign and shameful deities.] 1 Kings 16:31 And it came to pass, as if it had been a light thing for him [Heb. as marg. was it a light thing? Ewald explains this to mean "because it was." But it seems better to understand, "was it such a light thing… that he must needs also?" etc.] to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat [i.e; the sins of heresy and schism], that he took to wife Jezebel [= "Without cohabitation," "chaste," Gesenius, who compares it with Agnes. It is hardly the original of Isabella] the daughter of Ethbaal [= "With Baal." The Greek form Ἰθόβαλος or Εἰθώβαλος, found in Jos; Ant. 8.13.1; cf. Contr. Ap. 1.18, suggests as its original אִתּוֹ בַּעַל i.e; "with him is Baal." In either case the name well became him, for, according to Menander (apud Jos. l.c.), he was the priest of Astarte, who gained for himself the throne of the Zidonians by the assassination of Pheles. He is further said to have reigned thirty-two years, and to have lived sixty-eight years. He would therefore be thirty-six years old at the time of his accession. It does not appear that (Keil) he was the brother of Pheles. Pheles, however, was certainly a fratricide. (Rawlinson reminds us that Jezebel was great-aunt to Pygmalion and Dido.) This statement helps to explain Jezebel’s fierce and sanguinary character, and at the same time accounts for her great devotion to the gods of her country, and for her determined efforts to establish their impure rites in her husband’s kingdom. It was only what one would expect from the child of such a parent] king of the Zidonians [This alliance, it is extremely probable, was made for purely political reasons, as a counterpoise against the active, ambitious, and encroaching power which had arisen in Damascene Syria. The army which had already humbled Omri (ch. 20:34) could not fail to be a source of danger to Tyre], and went and served Baal [Heb. the Baal, i.e; the lord or master; cf. ὁκύριος. The name appears among the Babylonians as Bel (Isaiah 46:1)—Greek βῆλος. Reference has already been made to the frequent recurrence of the word in different compound names, and in different parts of Palestine, as showing how widespread must have been his worship at an earlier age. We are also familiar with the word in the names Hannibal, Hasdrubal, etc. Baal was the supreme male god of the Canaanitish races, as Ashtoreth was their great female divinity. The former was regarded, not only as the possessor, but as the generator, of all], worshipped him 1 Kings 16:32 And he reared up an altar for Baal in [Heb. omits in; cf. 1 Kings 15:15, etc.] the house of Baal [A temple, we can hardly doubt, of considerable splendour. Jezebel would not be satisfied with less], which he had built in Samaria [According to 2 Kings 3:2, 2 Kings 10:27, he also raised a pillar (A.V. image) in the house of Baal. We learn from Dius and Menander that Hiram had raised a golden pillar to Baal in Tyre. Perhaps Ahab may have copied this. But it is probable that this image, which represented the generative powers of nature, was an essential part of the impure worship of Baal. The house and its contents alike were destroyed by Jehu (2 Kings 10:27). 1 Kings 16:33 And Ahab made a grove [Heb. an Asherah, i.e; image of Astarte, a female figure corresponding to the male effigy just described. See note on 1 Kings 14:23]; and Ahab did more to provoke the Lord God of Israel to anger than all the kings of Israel that were before him. 1 Kings 16:34 In his days did Hiel the Bethelite [Observe the form בֵּית הָאֱלִי, and see note on 1 Kings 2:8. It is noticeable that it was reserved for a man of Bethel to commit this act of impiety. It was to such results the worship of the calves contributed] build [i.e; rebuild, fortify, as in 1 Kings 12:25; cf. 1 Kings 9:17. It is clear from Judges 3:13 and 2 Samuel 10:5 that it had not been entirely uninhabited. But the Arab village was now converted into a town with gates and bars] Jericho [We learn from Joshua 18:21 that Jericho then belonged to Benjamin. It had evidently passed, however, at this date into the possession of Israel. It has been suggested that the transference took place in the reign of Baasha (Rawlinson). But it would seem that from the very first, parts of Benjamin (notably Bethel, Joshua 18:13) belonged to the northern kingdom. See Ewald, "Hist. Israel," Joshua 4:2, Joshua 4:3. It is not quite clear whether the rebuilding of Jericho is mentioned as a proof of the daring impiety of that age and of the utter contempt with which the warnings of the law were treated, or as showing the ignorance and consequent disregard of law which prevailed. But, on the whole, it seems to be implied that Hiel knew of the threatening of Joshua, and treated it with defiance. It has been suggested that the rebuilding had really been instigated by Ahab, and for his own purposes, hoping thereby to "secure to himself the passage across the Jordan" (Keil), but the text affords but slight warrant for this conjecture]: he laid the foundation thereof in Abiram his firstborn [i.e; at the cost of, in the life of, Abiram], and set up the gates thereof in his youngest son Segub, according to the word of the Lord [Joshua 6:26], which he spake by Joshua the son of Nun. [The exact fulfilment of the prophecy is mentioned, as showing that even in those dark and troublous times God did not leave Himself without witness, and that law could never be violated with impunity.] BY J.A. 1 Kings 16:23-28 Omri’s Reign. After a four years’ contest with Tibni, the son of Ginath, for the crown of Israel, the followers of Omri prevailed over the adherents of his rival. The issue, then, was that "Tibni died and Omri reigned." Whether Tibni died in battle, or whether, when his followers were overcome, he was taken and put to death, is not written; but the record illustrates how in the revolutions of the wheel of fortune the fall of one makes way for the rise of another. Let us now view this new monarch— I. IN HIS PALACES. 1. "Six years reigned he in Tirzah." (1) This was once a lovely palace. Beautiful for its situation like Jerusalem (Son 6:4), and beautified during the reign in it of all the earlier kings of Israel. For it was the third and last palace built by Jeroboam, the first of these kings, to which he removed from his palace at Penuel. (2) But it was now damaged by fire. When Zimri shut himself up in it as his defences were driven in by the forces of Omri in the siege of the city, he set it on fire and perished in the conflagration. Thus in a moment the labour of years was demolished. Destruction is easier than construction. This principle also holds in morals. (3) Still for six years Omri held his court in this city. Whether he occupied a portion of the palace which escaped the flames, or resided temporarily elsewhere in the city, is not revealed. The omissions of Scripture are instructive. Things of minor importance must not be allowed to divert attention from momentous things. 2. Six years he reigned in Samaria. (1) The origin of this new capital is here recorded (1 Kings 16:24). Seven hundred pounds of our money seems a small price for a hill considerable enough to be the site for the capital of a kingdom. Perhaps Shemei was animated by public spirit when he disposed of his hill for so trifling a sum. Perhaps he did so to perpetuate his name. His motive is withheld from us. Herein also is instruction. We are not judges of the motives of our fellows. God surveys the motives of all hearts. (2) Henceforth Samaria figures prominently in the history of Israel. It gives its name to the middle portion of Canaan. Tirzah, Penuel, Shechem, are henceforth little heard off Men give importance to places rather than places to men. The importance even of heaven will be rather that of its inhabitants than of its situation. Learn the paramount value of spiritual qualities, II. AT THE ALTAR. 1. "He walked in all the ways of Jeroboam." (1) This means that he encouraged the worship of the calves, if not that he even appeared at the altar as high priest (see 1 Kings 12:33; 1 Kings 13:1). (2) It means further that he was moved by the same state policy. He desired to keep his people from Jerusalem lest they should repent of their revolution from the house of David. (3) Note: Satan has his opportunities. While the pride of Israel smarted under the insolence of Rehoboam, Jeroboam could impose his calves upon them. Had he missed that opportunity, it might have been impossible afterwards to have effected his purpose. Omri could not have done it. We should be wise as serpents, viz; in avoiding the snare of the devil, in availing ourselves of our opportunities for good. 2. He "did worse than all that were before him." (1) He "made Israel to sin" as Jeroboam did, persuading them to halt at Bethel or visit Dan, for that Jerusalem was too far from them. Persuading them also that his calves were images of the true God (see 1 Kings 12:28). (2) He bound them by statute to worship the calves (compare Micah 6:16). In this he went farther than Baasha, who had set about building Ramah to prevent the people from going to Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 16:1). III. IN HIS EXIT. 1. He "was buried." (1) He had a state funeral. Money might procure that. He left a son to succeed him on the throne who would pay this public respect to his remains. (2) How variously is the same subject viewed by men in the flesh, and by the inhabitants of the spiritual world! The funeral of the corpse is the event upon earth; the destiny of the spirit is the event yonder. 2. He "slept with his fathers." (1) This expression does not mean that he was buried with them in their sepulchre, for Omri was buried in Samaria, a city which had no existence in the days of his fathers. Of Baasha also it is said that he "slept with his fathers, and was buried in Tirzah" (1 Kings 16:6), though there is no evidence that any of his fathers were buried in Tirzah. (2) It seems to import that he died upon his bed, as the generality of mankind finish their course. This expression does not appear to be used when any die by the hand of violence as a judgment of the Lord upon their sin. (3) Yet a violent death was deserved by Omri, as it was also by Baasha and Jeroboam, who, like him, came peacefully to the grave. They laid up sin for their posterity (see Job 21:19). But are they thus to escape the punishment of their own iniquity 2 Surely there must be a "judgment to come!"—J.A.M. 1 Kings 16:29-34 THE REIGN OF AHAB.—With the accession of Ahab a new main section of our history begins—the section which has its close in the destruction of the house of Omri by Jehu, as related in 2 Kings 10:1-36. And this reign is recorded at unusual length; in fact, it occupies nearly all the remaining portion of this volume, whereas the reigns of preceding kings have in several instances been dismissed in a few verses. It owes this distinction to the ministry of the great prophet Elijah by which it was marked, and, indeed, was profoundly influenced; but this ministry, it must be remembered, was necessitated by the critical circumstances of the time. It may be that "every age thinks itself a crisis," but no one can fail to see that this was one of the veritable turning points of Jewish history. One of the real "decisive battles of the world"—that between the Lord and Baal—was then fought out. No wonder that our historian felt constrained to chronicle at length the transactions of a reign so pregnant both with good and evil for the people of the Lord and for the faith with which they had been put in trust. Indeed, the same guiding principle which led him to devote so many of his pages to the reign of Solomon, when the theocratic kingdom was at its highest, impelled him to linger over the reign of Ahab when religion was at its lowest ebb. The secular historian, too often like the sundial which "counts no hours save those serene," draws a veil over the time of his country’s decadence, or touches its misfortunes with a light hand. It is only in the inspired records that we have an impartial register both of the glory and shame of a common. wealth. 1 Kings 16:29 And in the thirty and eighth year of Asa king of Judah [see notes on 1 Kings 16:23] began Ahab ["Father’s brother." The name is apposite. He was Omri’s alter ego in impiety] the son of Omri to reign over Israel: and Ahab the son of Omri reigned over Israel in Samaria twenty and two years. 1 Kings 16:30 And Ahab the son of Omri [The repetition is noticeable. It is possible that the preceding verse has been revised by a chronologer. The LXX. text is much more condensed] did evil in the sight of the Lord above all that were before him. [The same words are used of his father in 1 Kings 16:25. It is not difficult to see in what way Ahab’s rule was worse even than Omri’s. The latter had gone beyond his predecessors in the matter of the calf worship. See note on 1 Kings 16:25. But the calf worship, however it may have deteriorated in process of time—and it is the tendency of such systems to wax worse and worse—was nevertheless a cult, though a corrupt, and unauthorized, and illicit cultus, of the one true God. Under Ahab, however, positive idolatry was established and fostered the worship of foreign and shameful deities.] 1 Kings 16:31 And it came to pass, as if it had been a light thing for him [Heb. as marg. was it a light thing? Ewald explains this to mean "because it was." But it seems better to understand, "was it such a light thing… that he must needs also?" etc.] to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat [i.e; the sins of heresy and schism], that he took to wife Jezebel [= "Without cohabitation," "chaste," Gesenius, who compares it with Agnes. It is hardly the original of Isabella] the daughter of Ethbaal [= "With Baal." The Greek form Ἰθόβαλος or Εἰθώβαλος, found in Jos; Ant. 8.13.1; cf. Contr. Ap. 1.18, suggests as its original אִתּוֹ בַּעַל i.e; "with him is Baal." In either case the name well became him, for, according to Menander (apud Jos. l.c.), he was the priest of Astarte, who gained for himself the throne of the Zidonians by the assassination of Pheles. He is further said to have reigned thirty-two years, and to have lived sixty-eight years. He would therefore be thirty-six years old at the time of his accession. It does not appear that (Keil) he was the brother of Pheles. Pheles, however, was certainly a fratricide. (Rawlinson reminds us that Jezebel was great-aunt to Pygmalion and Dido.) This statement helps to explain Jezebel’s fierce and sanguinary character, and at the same time accounts for her great devotion to the gods of her country, and for her determined efforts to establish their impure rites in her husband’s kingdom. It was only what one would expect from the child of such a parent] king of the Zidonians [This alliance, it is extremely probable, was made for purely political reasons, as a counterpoise against the active, ambitious, and encroaching power which had arisen in Damascene Syria. The army which had already humbled Omri (ch. 20:34) could not fail to be a source of danger to Tyre], and went and served Baal [Heb. the Baal, i.e; the lord or master; cf. ὁκύριος. The name appears among the Babylonians as Bel (Isaiah 46:1)—Greek βῆλος. Reference has already been made to the frequent recurrence of the word in different compound names, and in different parts of Palestine, as showing how widespread must have been his worship at an earlier age. We are also familiar with the word in the names Hannibal, Hasdrubal, etc. Baal was the supreme male god of the Canaanitish races, as Ashtoreth was their great female divinity. The former was regarded, not only as the possessor, but as the generator, of all], worshipped him 1 Kings 16:32 And he reared up an altar for Baal in [Heb. omits in; cf. 1 Kings 15:15, etc.] the house of Baal [A temple, we can hardly doubt, of considerable splendour. Jezebel would not be satisfied with less], which he had built in Samaria [According to 2 Kings 3:2, 2 Kings 10:27, he also raised a pillar (A.V. image) in the house of Baal. We learn from Dius and Menander that Hiram had raised a golden pillar to Baal in Tyre. Perhaps Ahab may have copied this. But it is probable that this image, which represented the generative powers of nature, was an essential part of the impure worship of Baal. The house and its contents alike were destroyed by Jehu (2 Kings 10:27). 1 Kings 16:33 And Ahab made a grove [Heb. an Asherah, i.e; image of Astarte, a female figure corresponding to the male effigy just described. See note on 1 Kings 14:23]; and Ahab did more to provoke the Lord God of Israel to anger than all the kings of Israel that were before him. 1 Kings 16:34 In his days did Hiel the Bethelite [Observe the form בֵּית הָאֱלִי, and see note on 1 Kings 2:8. It is noticeable that it was reserved for a man of Bethel to commit this act of impiety. It was to such results the worship of the calves contributed] build [i.e; rebuild, fortify, as in 1 Kings 12:25; cf. 1 Kings 9:17. It is clear from Judges 3:13 and 2 Samuel 10:5 that it had not been entirely uninhabited. But the Arab village was now converted into a town with gates and bars] Jericho [We learn from Joshua 18:21 that Jericho then belonged to Benjamin. It had evidently passed, however, at this date into the possession of Israel. It has been suggested that the transference took place in the reign of Baasha (Rawlinson). But it would seem that from the very first, parts of Benjamin (notably Bethel, Joshua 18:13) belonged to the northern kingdom. See Ewald, "Hist. Israel," Joshua 4:2, Joshua 4:3. It is not quite clear whether the rebuilding of Jericho is mentioned as a proof of the daring impiety of that age and of the utter contempt with which the warnings of the law were treated, or as showing the ignorance and consequent disregard of law which prevailed. But, on the whole, it seems to be implied that Hiel knew of the threatening of Joshua, and treated it with defiance. It has been suggested that the rebuilding had really been instigated by Ahab, and for his own purposes, hoping thereby to "secure to himself the passage across the Jordan" (Keil), but the text affords but slight warrant for this conjecture]: he laid the foundation thereof in Abiram his firstborn [i.e; at the cost of, in the life of, Abiram], and set up the gates thereof in his youngest son Segub, according to the word of the Lord [Joshua 6:26], which he spake by Joshua the son of Nun. [The exact fulfilment of the prophecy is mentioned, as showing that even in those dark and troublous times God did not leave Himself without witness, and that law could never be violated with impunity.] BY E. Deuteronomy 1 Kings 16:29-33; 1 Kings 17:1 Ahab represents the culminating point of the perversity of the kingdom of Israel. At once more able and more profane than his predecessors, he fostered to an unprecedented degree the corruption of morals, private and public injustice, and idolatrous practices. Ahab, prompted by Jezebel, became the more dangerous enemy of the cause of God. At this period of the national history arose the greatest of the prophets, Elijah, who well bore out his name—the strength of God—and who was the faithful type of John the Baptist, the immediate forerunner of Christ. In the coming of Elijah at such a crisis, we have an illustration of a general and permanent rule of God’s kingdom. The excess of evil calls out the strongest manifestations of good. Never was the power of Satan more rampant than at the time when the Son of God appeared upon earth. So in the end of time, the day of Antichrist will be also the day in which Christ will intervene most directly in the great drama of history. Let us not, then, yield to a hopeless pessimism when the powers of darkness seem to be let loose, for the two following reasons: I. THE LETTING LOOSE OF EVIL BRINGS ITS OWN . By showing its true nature it passes sentence on itself, and brings to maturity all the seeds of death latent within it. Ahab, casting off all restraints and rushing recklessly on his ruin, writes his own condemnation. II. AN AHAB ALWAYS CALLS FORTH AN ELIJAH. Whenever the army of God seems on the verge of defeat, its Divine leader takes the direct command. Reflections like these may reinforce our courage in view of the giant evils of our own day.—E. de P. BY A. ROWLAND 1 Kings 16:30-33 Moral Ruin through Moral Weakness. This was the turning-point in the history of the kingdom of Israel. Till now the people had professedly worshipped Jehovah under the symbol of the calf. Now idolatry of a grosser kind was avowedly set up as the national religion, on a scale of great magnificence. The text, therefore, is worthy of our study as the record of an event of deep historic significance, but we propose to consider it as a suggestive example of the way in which a man of moral weakness may be betrayed into the worst depravity, to the undoing of himself and others. We learn the following lessons from Ahab s life, of which a summary is given here: I. THAT A FOOLISH CHOICE MAY RESULT IN LASTING . Ahab’s marriage was the cause of his ruin. Jezebel, his wife, was the daughter of Ethbaal, who had Been the high priest of Astarte, but was led by his ambition and unscrupulousness to usurp his brother’s throne. Her parentage and her surroundings would have been a sufficient warning to a prudent king. But besides these Ahab had the Divine law before him (Exodus 34:16), which distinctly forbade union with the Canaanites. Such a marriage was unprecedented in the kingdom of Israel, and was the more fatal because of the character of the queen, the Lady Macbeth of Scripture. She was reckless and licentious, fanatical and cruel, with a temper as vindictive as her will was resolute. Her husband became a mere tool in her hands. He could not foresee all the issues of his choice, but he knew the choice was sinful. Show from this—illustrating by example— 1. How one wrong step leads to another. This marriage to the establishment of idolatry. Indicate the nature of the false religion set up. 2. How companionship influences character. The stronger moulding the weaker. "A companion of fools shall be destroyed." 3. How personal fascination may cause men to swerve from rectitude. Jezebel’s fascinating power was regarded as witchery and became proverbial (Revelation 2:20). 4. How young people should be warned against unholy alliances. Marriage makes or mars character, hope, and blessedness (2 Corinthians 6:14). "Be ye net unequally yoked together with unbelieverses" II. THAT EASY GOOD NATURE MAY PROVE THE SOURCE OF DEEP . Ahab was not destitute of good feelings and right impulses. Had he been firm instead o! pliable, and resolutely refused to gratify the queen by the establishment of idolatry, he might, with God’s help, have neutralized the effect of the false step he had taken. But he was of a yielding nature, while she was resolute; and so, like Samson, he lost his kingliness. Point out the special dangers of those who are kindly and genial. Their unwillingness to disoblige, their wish to be popular, their dread of derision, their love of ease and pleasure, etc; may have fatal issues. III. THAT TALENTS WILL NOT FOR MORAL . This king was gifted with military skill, with artistic taste, etc; but these could net help him in the hour of spiritual conflict. Give examples from history of the careers of clever but unprincipled men, their meteoric success, their future punishment, here or hereafter; e.g; Napoleon I. Many men of genius have been ruined by drunkenness, and often high education has served only to alter the form and increase the influence of the sin. The clever forger is worse than the common thief; the viciousness of a leader of society does more injury than the licentiousness of an ignorant peasant. IV. THAT AND ARE NOT PROOFS OF . Describe Ahab’s magnificent buildings, his ivory house, his daring restoration and fortification of Jericho, his palace and park in Jezreel, which became to Samaria what Versailles once was to Paris. Show how often in history such costly expenditure has been a sign of decay. Extravagance and luxuriousness are omens of ruin to a people. "The Decline and Fall" of the Roman Empire is an abiding illustration of this. Nor will successful wars give stability to a kingdom. Ahab’s victories were great military achievements, but of what avail to him and to his house? "The throne must be established in righteousness." V. THAT AMPLE DO NOT CONTENT AN UNQUIET HEART. In Jezreel, the perfection of taste, Ahab was wretched, because he wanted Naboth’s vineyard. (Read that story.) It is not in the power of earthly things to satisfy a hungering soul. The richest man is not content if he has only his riches, nor will any addition to them give him satisfaction. "Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth" (Luke 12:15). "Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled." God "satisfieth the longing soul, and filleth the hungry soul with goodness." VI. THAT PARTIAL DOES NOT AVERT GOD’S OF SIN. Ahab "put sackcloth upon his flesh, and fasted, and lay in sackcloth, and went softly," when he heard Elijah’s final threat; but, though this first sign of penitence was graciously encouraged by a promise, the change went no further He dreaded punishment, but his heart did not turn from sin, and therefore, though he disguised himself in the battle, the arrow "shot at a venture" was winged by Divine retribution to his heart. God is our Judge, as well as our King. For the impenitent there will be no escape. In vain will they "call on mountains and rocks to fall on them, and hide them from the wrath of God." Now in this day of mercy, God calls on all to repent, and find pardon and hope in Him, who has come "to seek and to save that which was lost."—A.R. BY J.A. 1 Kings 16:29-33 Ahab’s wickedness. The evil genius of the son of Omri appeared— I. IN HIS WALKING IN THE SINS OF . 1. In this, probably, he encouraged his father. (1) He appears to have been associated with Omri in the kingdom. Omri reigned twelve years—viz; six in Tirzah, and six in Samaria; but his reign commenced "in the thirty-first year of Asa" (1 Kings 16:23). This would bring the close of his reign to the second year of Jehoshaphat, whereas in the text we read that "in the thirty and eighth year of Asa, king of Judah, began Ahab, the son of Omri, to reign over Israel." Hence it is evident Ahah must have been four or five years associated with his father in the throne. (2) The extreme wickedness with which Omri is charged was probably owing to Ahab’s evil influence; for the "statutes of Omri" seem to have been inspired by the "counsels of Ahab" (see Micah 6:16). So the note that "he sinned above all that were before him" is alike applied to the father and son (see 1 Kings 16:25, 1 Kings 16:30). And the leading influence of Ahab may explain why we commonly read of the "house of Ahab" rather than of the house of Omri. Parents are often demoralized by wicked children. 2. He did not alter his course after his father’s death. (1) The sin of Jeroboam was perpetuated in Israel down to the time of their captivity. The captivity seemed necessary to break its power over them. Judgment is the last resource of mercy. (2) The same reasons of state continued to influence the successive rulers of the nation. Reasons of state are too often more potent than reasons of piety and righteousness. Else we had been spared the discredit of wicked wars, wicked laws, wicked trading. II. IN HIS WITH JEZEBEL. 1. She was a pronounced idolater. (1) She was a Zidonian, and for any Israelite to marry one of that nation were a violation of the law of God (Exodus 34:11-16; Deuteronomy 7:3; Joshua 23:11-13). For a king of Israel to do this was the more reprehensible. Office brings responsibilities. (2) These people were worshippers of strange gods, and in particular of Baal. Hence the name of this queen (איזבל), which may be derived from איזה, where? and בל, a contraction of בעל, Baal, thus: Where is Baal? q.d; a seeker of Baal. Hence also her father’s name (אתבעל), Ethbaal, which Gesenius construes to denote, "Living with Baal, i.e; enjoying the favour and help of Baal." 2. Such alliances have ever proved demoralizing. (1) The giants (נפליס), monsters, viz; in wickedness, perhaps, rather than in stature, whose violence provoked the judgment of the deluge, were the issue of marriages between the "sons of God," or holy race of Seth, and the "daughters of men," or profane descendants of Cain (Genesis 6:1-4). (2) Solomon’s heathen wives and concubines made a fool of the wisest of men, and brought his house and nation into infinite trouble (1 Kings 11:1-13). (3) The history of this alliance also was most disastrous. 3. For typical reasons also they were forbidden. (1) The marriage union should represent the union between Christ and His Church (Ephesians 5:32). Therefore a husband, that he may justly represent Christ, is bound to be holy; and so is his wife, that she may suitably represent the Church. (2) Should the reverse happen, then is the woman an emblem of an apostate Church, of which the husband represents the Antichristian head (see 1 Corinthians 6:15, 1 Corinthians 6:16). Jezebel, accordingly, is viewed in this light in the imagery of the Apocalypse (see Revelation 2:20). III. IN HIS GIVEN TO BAAL AND ASHERE. 1. To Baal. (1) To this god he built a temple in Samaria. This was the more audacious since, being placed in his capital, it seemed to vie with the temple of the Lord in the capital of Judah. (2) To Baal also he reared an altar there. This, of course, meant a service of priests and sacrifices. (3) Furthermore he himself worshipped Baal. Thus he gave the influence of his position to the encouragement of this idolatry. That influence was therefore also given to discourage the pure worship of the God of Israel. 2. To Ashsere. (1) This word is construed "grove" in the text as elsewhere. But a little reflection will teach us that groves do not spring up in a day. Beside, it is not here said that Ahab planted (נטע), but that he made (עשה) the Ashere. (2) The Ashere was a Canaanitish idol, probably of the figure of a goat, in the worship of which there appear to have been very abominable rites. No wonder, then, the anger of the Lord should be provoked. If we would not provoke it we must avoid the spirit of idolatry. This spirit is shown in the love of illicit things. Also in excessive love of lawful things.—J.A.M. 1 Kings 16:34 The Temerity of Hiel. In discussing this subject we have to consider— I. "THE WORD OF THE LORD WHICH HE SPAKE BY JOSHUA. THE SON OF NUN." The record of this word is found in Joshua 6:26. And the questions now arise— 1. Why did God thus curse Jericho? (1) That its desolate condition might be a standing testimony to His abhorrence of the wickedness of the place. So abandoned were that people to idolatry that Rahab the hostess alone was accounted worthy of being saved. And "all her kindred"—(כל־משפחותיה)—all her families—the word is plural; families, viz; on her father’s and mother’s side, both were given to her (Joshua 6:23). Note: The faith of an individual is not only a personal blessing, but also a blessing to his family, to his nation, to the world, in time, in eternity. (2) That it might he a standing sign prophetic of judgments to come. (a) Jericho was the first city which offered resistance to the people of God; and it was proper it should stand forth as a figure of the last city that shall offer resistance, viz; Great Babylon. (b) As Jericho was compassed about six days before it fell, so is Great Babylon destined to last until the beginning of the seventh age of prophetic chronology. (c) As Jericho fell at the seventh blast of the trumpet, so at the sounding of the seventh Apocalyptic thumper will Great Babylon come into remembrance before God. (d) As Rahab, through the righteousness of faith, escaped the plagues of war and fire which destroyed the city, so are the people of God urged to come out of Babylon lest they partake her plagues also of war and fire. 2. Why did God thus curse the rebuilder of Jericho? (1) Consider the import of the curse. His eldest son was to perish by a judgment of Heaven as soon as the work commenced; and if, notwithstanding the judgment, he persisted in the undertaking, he should see the death of his youngest son. lit is thought the intermediate members of his family would also perish as the work advanced. That the curse involved the penalty of death is evident, since the curse upon the city meant the death of its inhabitants (see Joshua 6:17). The law of God also expresses that devoted things must die (see Leviticus 27:29). (2) The curse, then, came to keep up the testimony for God against sin; also to be a public sign of the judgment upon Babylon to come. Whoever would remove such a testimony must be a man of determined wickedness, and therefore deserving execration. Let us beware how we oppose or discredit any faithful testimony for Christ. II. THE OF HIEL TO THIS . 1. The historical fact is before us. (1) He did build Jericho. Not only did he lay the foundation, but he also set up the gates. Resolution and persistency are fine qualities when they are concerned with truth and goodness. But it was otherwise here. (2) He paid the penalty accordingly. When he laid the foundation his firstborn Abiram perished. This did not deter him. So when he set up the gates "his youngest son Segub" was smitten. 2. But what could have possessed him? (1) The general answer to this question is, that the spirit of wickedness possessed him. No godly man could be so rashly defiant. Even reputable men of the world would shrink from such an audacious undertaking. The respect for sacred things manifested by such unconverted men encourages the hope that they may yet seek His grace and mercy. Hiel must have been a hardened sinner to have attempted this. (2) A more particular answer is suggested. (a) He was a "Bethelite." This expression may mean that he was born in Bethel, though this is not clear. It suggests rather that he was wedded to the sin of Jeroboam; for Bethel was the head-quarters of that apostasy. There Jeroboam placed one of his famous calves. There he built an altar. There also he built a temple. There his priests congregated, and there he, in person, officiated as high priest. The service of the calves would so harden the heart of Hiel as to prepare him to disregard the curse of Jehovah. (b) Then, he lived in the days of Ahab. These were days of fearful degeneracy. For Ahab provoked the Lord by wickedness more than all that had been before him. Hiel might argue that if Ahab could thus outrage the law of the God of Israel and survive, so might his own children survive, though he should transgress the adjuration of Joshua. It is dangerous to do evil because others have done it, apparently, with impunity. (c) The curse was denounced a long time ago. Since then five centuries and a half had passed away. Time weakens memory with men, and when man has a purpose to serve, he may argue that this also is the case with God. But He that remembers mercy forever also remembers justice and judgment. Let us not deceive ourselves. Let us pray God to bring our sins to our remembrance, that we may repent of them before Him, for with Him they are never forgotten till forgiven.—J.A.M. ELIJAH AND THE GREAT DROUGHT.—The picture which the historian has just drawn of the shameless idolatry and the gross degeneracy of the earlier part of Ahab’s reign forms a fit prelude to an account of the ministry of the great prophet Elijah, which occupies this and several succeeding chapters; for the two stand together in the closest connexion. It was only the unprecedented corruption of that age which necessitated such a mission, and a mission armed with such credentials as his. It will be obvious to the most cursory reader that the narratives comprised in the remaining portion of this book and the earlier part of 2 Kings are of a very different character from those which have so far been before us. The ministry of Elijah and Elisha alike is little more than a series of miracles. Of their words comparatively few are recorded; we hear of little but the signs and wonders that they wrought. And on this ground—because it is miraculous—this portion of our history is summarily discarded by many recent writers, not as wholly unhistorical, but as mythical; as containing, indeed, many germs of truth, and as having a basis of fact, which, however, has been distorted into its present legendary shape by the credulity and fancy of a later age, or by the half-unconscious exaggeration of some poetico-prephetic writer. But without entering upon the question of miracles generally, for which this is not the place, two remarks may be hazarded here. First, that the narrative is so sober, so circumstantial, so full of touches which have every appearance of having been painted from the life, that were it not for its supernatural element, the most destructive critic would never have thought of questioning its veracity. Secondly, that if miracles are ever allowable or conceivable, if there ever have been occasions in the history of our race when we might concede to the Necessary Being the liberty which we ourselves possess, of varying the so-called order of nature, or of impressing a visible purpose upon its forces, then assuredly the time at which we have now arrived, the beginning of Ahab’s reign, was such an occasion. It is quite true that no new revelation was then given to the world. Neither Elijah nor Elisha, as Ewald has observed, "originated anything essentially new," but the task assigned them was one which needed supernatural support and attestation, no less than the promulgation of a new law or gospel. It was their work, at the very darkest hour in the spiritual history of Israel, when a determined effort was being made to stamp out the faith of God’s elect, when the nation chosen of God to be the depositary of His truth was fast lapsing into heathenism, and more, into unutterable abominations, it was their work to witness for God and truth and purity. If God’s purposes of grace to our world, which had been ripening from age to age, were not now to be frustrated; if the one lamp which cast a ray on the world’s thick darkness was not to be utterly extinguished, then, as far as we can see, God must send special messengers, and arm them, in token of their mission and authority, with superhuman powers. The age demanded the messenger; the messenger must have credentials; the credentials could only be miraculous. If it is objected, therefore, against our history that it contains a mass of miracles, our answer is that the crisis necessitated them, and that only miracles would have availed to accomplish the moral and religious reformation which Elijah is allowed on all hands (see, e.g; Ewald, "Hist. Israel," 4.68) to have wrought; that only signs such as he was commissioned to show would have sufficed, in that age, to counteract the influences of such a princess as Jezebel and of such a propaganda as her eight hundred and fifty priests; to rescue the world from corruption, and to preserve to distant generations the treasury of truth and hope with which the Jewish people had been entrusted by the Most High. "The times," says Bishop Hall, were fit for Elijah, and Elijah for the times. The greatest prophet is reserved for the worst age. Israel had never such an impious king as Ahab, nor such a miraculous prophet as Elijah." "The profusion of God’s miraculous working in Elijah was due to the exorbitant wickedness of the rulers of Israel at that time, which required an extraordinary maul-festation of God’s Divine power, in order to recover His people from the ruin and misery into which they had fallen" (Bishop Wordsworth). The grandeur of the character of Elijah, however, has been universally recognized, and not least by those who have disputed his miracles. Indeed, it may well be questioned whether the intellect and conceptions of that or a much later age were adequate to create such a character and personality as his, a character which has profoundly impressed men of all ages and of all creeds. The glowing panegyric of the son of Sirach (Ecclus. 48.) need only be hinted at here. The colossal proportions he assumes in the traditions and belief of the Mohammedans is well known. "Omnium suae aetatis prophetarum facile princeps; et si a Mose discesseris, nulii secundus," is the testimony of an illustrious Jew (Abravanel). "The grandest and most romantic character that Israel ever produced "is the verdict of a brilliant writer amongst ourselves (Stanley). His highest praise, however, is that "in the New Testament no prophet is mentioned and extolled so frequently as Elijah" (Bähr). Nor must it be forgotten here that he it was who was chosen to appear with Moses in glory at our Lord’s transfiguration, and to speak of the exodus He should accomplish in Jerusalem (Luke 9:31). The chapter divides itself into four parts. In ver. I we see Elijah standing before Ahab and denouncing the drought; in verses 2-7 we find him hiding in the Wady Cherith and fed by the "Orebim;" in verses 8-19 he is resident at Zarephath, feeding the widow and her house; in verses 17-24 he restores the widow’s son to life and health. 1 Kings 17:1 And Elijah [This name, which appears both as אֵלִיָּהוּ, and, less frequently, אֵלִיָּה, means my God is Jehovah. It is so singularly appropriate to the man who bore it, and so exactly expresses the idea of his life and the chapter of his work (see especially 1 Kings 18:39), that it is difficult to resist the belief that it was assumed by him. This is certainly more probable than that it was due to the prescience of his parents. It may, however, mark their piety and hopes, and may have influenced the life of their son. Cf. 1 Chronicles 4:10], the Tishbite [So he is called without any further designation in 1 Kings 21:17; 2 Kings 1:8, 2 Kings 1:8, etc. The presumption is altogether in favour of תשבי being the name of his birthplace. (Cf. 1 Kings 11:29], who was of the inhabitants of Gilead [The interpretation of these words is much disputed. The Heb. stands גִלְעָד הַתִּשְׁבִּי מִתּשָׁבֵי It will be the first and second words have the same radicals, and it hits been inferred that they cannot mean "two entirely distinct things" (Rawlinson cf.) and that either the Masoretic pointing must be set aside, when the words would yield the meaning, "Elijah, the Tishbite of Tishbe of Gilead" or they must be interpreted "Elijah the stranger of the strangers of Gilead." But it is by no certain that the current interpretation not the best. Such a play upon words as it involves is not at all uncommon in Hebrew. The meaning would then be that Elijah , who was, if not by birth, by domicile, of Tishbe, was one of the strangers—תּוֹשִׁב is found in the sense of πάροικος, inquilinus, in Genesis 23:4; Exodus 12:45; Le Exodus 22:10; Exodus 25:35, 47, etc.—or immigrants who had settled in Gilead. The only objection to this rendering—apart from the identity of radicals just mentioned—is that we should have expected to find תּשָׁבֵי written plene, as the word always is elsewhere. It is alleged by Keil, Bהhr, al; however, that the stat. constr. plur. may well be an exception to the rule, and in support of this view it may be mentioned that the cognate word, יוֹשֵׁב, is constantly found in the constr, plural as ישְׁבֵי. It is clear, then, that the usual interpretation is by no means to be lightly set aside. It is certainly preferable to the rendering, "Elijah the stranger," etc; for we have no proof that הַתִּשְׁבִּי can bear this meaning. In favour of the alternative rendering "the Tishbite of Tishbe," it may be said that it has the support of the LXX; ὁἐκΘεσβῶν, and of Josephus (Ant. 8.13. 2), ἐκπόλεωςΘεσδώνηςτῆςΓαλααδίτιδοςχώρας. Nor is it any weighty objection to this view that we now here read of a Tishbe in Gilead: as for the matter of that, we have no undoubted traces of any such place west of the Jordan; the passage in Tobit (ch. 1:2, LXX.), which is often alleged as proving that there was a Tishbe in Galilee, and from which Gesenius, Bähr, Keil, etc; conclude that this must be the Tishbi here referred to, being too uncertain to permit us to build any positive conclusions thereupon. See Dict. Bib. 3. pp. 1489, 1516. In any case—and it is perhaps impossible to decide positively between this and the rendering of the A.V.—it is clear that Elijah, even if born in Galilee (but see John 7:52, for the belief of the Jews), was trained for his work in Gilead. It was, therefore, a rugged, unsettled, half-civilized, trans-Jordanic region gave to the world the greatest of its prophets. In this respect he was like Moses (Exodus 3:1), and his antitype the Baptist (Luke 1:80). "The fact that this mission was entrusted not to a dweller in royal city or prophetic school, but to a genuine child of the deserts and forests of Gilead, is in exact accordance with the dispensations of Providence in other times" (Stanley)] said unto Ahab [The abrupt way in which Elijah appears upon the scene without a word of introduction or explanation is certainly remarkable. Ewald observes that "his first entry within the province of the history seems almost as unique and inexplicable as his final disappearance." "Elijah comes in with a tempest, and goes out with a whirlwind" (Hall). But there is no sufficient ground for believing (Thenius, al.) that a part of our history which described some of his antecedents has been lost to us, or that our text merely recites the issue of a long conference which Elijah had held with Ahab, for other prophets of this period, Ahijah, Shemaiah, Jehu, are introduced to us in a similar manner, though it must be allowed that their respective ministries were of very different proportions and importance from Elijah’s. This sudden appearance, however, is thoroughly characteristic of the man. He presently disappears just as suddenly (verse 5. Cf. 19:3; 2 Kings 1:8). It was thought by some in that age that he was borne hither and thither by the Spirit of God! 1 Kings 18:12), and men of a later time caught this as one of his prominent characteristics (Ecclus. 48:1-12). Hence, too, the traditions of a still later period, according to which he was "the fiery Phinehas returned to earth, or an angel hovering on the outskirts of the world," Stanley], As the Lord God of Israel liveth [This formula here occurs for the first time, and it is full of meaning. It asserts first that Jehovah, not Baal, is the God of Israel, and it suggests, in the second place, that he is the living God, such as Baal was not, and that though ordinarily He keeps silence, He is one who can make His power felt], before whom I stand [i.e; "Whose I am and whom I serve" (Acts 27:23). Cf. 1 Kings 18:15. The slaves of the East stood before their masters. See note on 1 Kings 1:28, and cf. 1 Samuel 3:1; Luke 1:19. Elijah claims to speak in God’s name, and as His ambassador], there shall not be dew nor rain [Observe the order of the words. Dew is perhaps put first as more essential to vegetable life. Elijah only denounces a plague already threatened in the law as the punishment of idolatry (Deuteronomy 11:16, Deuteronomy 11:17; Deuteronomy 28:23; Le Deuteronomy 26:19). He came forward as the vindicator and restorer of the law] these years [An indefinite period. Its duration depended on Elijah’s word, and that again on the penitence, etc; of the people. It was because of the obduracy of king and people that it lasted so long] but according to my word. [The idolatrous priests no doubt claimed for Baal the dominion over nature and absolute control over the clouds and rain—a power which, it may be worth observing, the monks of the convent of St. Katherine at Sinai, where Elijah was, are thought to possess by the Arabs of the Sinaitic peninsula. Elijah directly challenges them to a trial of strength. It was as if he had said, "The God that answereth by rain, let him be God." On the fitness of this miracle, both as a sign and as a punishment, see "Homil. Quart." 5:100,101. "To Eastern and Southern nations, where life and water go always together, where vegetation gathers round the slightest particle of moisture and dies the moment it is withdrawn…the withholding of rain is the withholding of pleasure, of sustenance, of life itself " (Stanley). "My word" is somewhat emphatic, "Nisi ego, et non alius vir … dixero" (Seb. Schmidt). No doubt there is a special reference to the prophets of Baal. Their inability to remove the ban would prove the impotency of their god. Elijah had asked for the supernatural powers which he here claims (James 5:17, James 5:18).] 1 Kings 17:2 And the word of the Lord came unto him, saying [cf. 1 Kings 17:8; 1 Kings 18:1; 1 Kings 21:17; 2 Kings 1:3], 1 Kings 17:3 Get thee hence, and turn thee [for the construction (dat. commodi) cf. Genesis 12:2; Genesis 22:2; Son 2:11] eastward [This he must do, whichever side of the Jordan, east or west, the brook Cherith was, for his interview with Ahab had probably taken place at Samaria. But the word would be specially appropriate, if the Cherith was beyond Jordan. Ewald, indeed, holds that our text is decisive on this point], and hide thyself [Heb. be hid, i.e; lie hid, Niphal. It does not seem to have occurred to the prophet that such a calamity as he had denounced against the country almost made his disappearance from the scene a necessity, or if it did, he still waited for instructions. Cf. verse 9; 1 Kings 18:1, etc. Not merely was his flight necessary in order to escape persecution or punishment—the search which Ahab instituted for him in part explains his disappearance—but to avoid importunity. It would have been morally impossible for him, though a man of inflexible will (Bähr) to dwell among the people, while the land groaned under the terrible burden which he had laid upon it, and which he alone was able to remove. His life would not have been safe—see 1 Kings 18:4—and the ordeal would have been intolerable. And 1 Kings 19:2 shows that the prophet’s nature had its weaker side. Wordsworth observes that Elijah’s escapes and departures into unknown places are "faint resemblances of the mysterious vanishings of our blessed Lord, after He had delivered some of His Divine messages which excited the anger of the people;" Luke 4:29; John 8:59; John 10:39] by [Heb. in] the brook [Heb. נַחַל; i.e; watercourse, wady. This word has two meanings. Its primary meaning is torrent; its secondary and, from the fact that the torrents of the East are for the most part dried up during the greater part of the year, its common meaning is torrent-bed, or ravine, valley. Both meanings are brought out here. Elijah should dwell in and drink of the נַחַל. Cf. 1 Kings 15:3] Cherith [The word means separation, a name which may possibly indicate that it was extremely secluded, or it may have been a boundary line of some sort. Tradition identifies the brook Cherith with the Wady-et-kelt, i.e; the great valley, west of the Jordan, which debouches into the Ghor, half a mile south of Jericho, and Robinson and Porter pronounce in its favour. Van de Velde suggests the Wady Fasael, a few miles to the north. But it is much more probable that it is to be sought in the region east of the Jordan, where, indeed, Eusebius and Jerome place it. It is extremely doubtful whether the Wady-el-kelt, or any Cis-Jordanic ravine, would afford sufficient privacy. Probably Jericho was already rebuilt. As we cannot decide with certainty, we may reasonably conjecture that it is to be sought in Elijah’s own country of Gilead, and probably in the Waddy Alias, i.e; at no great distance from ’Abara, the Jordan ford nearly opposite Bethshan, where, indeed, an old tradition places it] that is before [Nothing positive can be concluded from עַל פְנֵי. In Genesis 16:12; Genesis 23:19; Genesis 25:18; Joshua 18:14, etc; it means eastward. But this meaning is gathered from the context] Jordan. [The Cherith was clearly one of the lateral valleys which run into the Ghor. It is just possible that the name may be recovered by the survey of the country east of the Jordan, which is now being organized.] 1 Kings 17:4 And it shall be that thou shalt drink of the brook [There was clearly nothing miraculous about the supply of water. No miracle was wrought even to continue the supply, 1 Kings 17:7]; and I have commanded [of. 1 Kings 17:9; Isaiah 5:1-30; Isaiah 6:1-13; Amos 9:3, etc.] the ravens to feed thee there. [Despite the general agreement of scholars that by ערבים we must understand "ravens," I think probability favours the meaning Orbites, i.e; inhabitants of Orbo. In support of the received rendering is the very powerful consideration, that it is the interpretation of all the versions (except the Arabic) and of Josephus, who, beyond all question, represented the belief current in his own time (Ant. 8.13. 2). It is also certain that elsewhere in Scripture we find some of the inferior animals supernaturally constrained to effect God’s purposes, both of mercy and of judgment (1 Kings 13:24; 2 Kings 2:24; Daniel 6:22; 2 Peter 2:16), though never it must be said, in so rational and methodical a way. Nor can it rightly be contended that the words "I have commanded," צִוִתִי, imply human agency, for elsewhere we find the Almighty commanding (same word) the serpent (Amos 9:3) and the clouds (Isaiah 5:6; Psalms 78:23). It is not, however, a sufficient account of this narrative to say that the prophet merely helped himself to the food which the ravens, whose habitat was in the Wady Cherith, brought, day by day, to their nests and their young. For, not to insist on the words, מְבִיאִים לוֹ, bringing to him (Amos 9:6), the expressions ’" bread (or food, לֶחֶם) and flesh," and "morning and evening" certainly point to something more than such a fortuitous supply. Whether the Orebim were "ravens" or not, they certainly acted in an intelligent and rational way: they brought food, that is to say, to the prophet, and they brought it for months together with unfailing regularity. But against this view the following considerations may be urged. 1. It is hardly in accord with God’s usual way of working, that he should employ birds of the air and those unclean (Leviticus 11:15; Deuteronomy 14:14) and ravenous birds, to feed and succour His saints, rather than men or angels. Of course, no one who does not altogether repudiate the supernatural will deny for a moment that the Almighty could, had it seemed good to Him, have sustained His prophet by the instrumentality of ravens, just as easily as by any other means. But it appears to be almost a fixed principle of His dealings with men, not to resort to miracles when ordinary means will suffice; or if He does employ miracles, they are never bizarre or fantastic; they are not such as to suggest the idea of fable or legend; they are invariably the simplest and directest means to the end. And it is submitted that this prolonged and methodical ministry of ravens is altogether unlike God’s method of procedure on other occasions. It was an angel succoured Hagar and Ishmael in their need (Genesis 16:7). It was an angel fed Elijah himself, a few years later (1 Kings 19:5, 1 Kings 19:6). They were angels who ministered to our blessed Lord after His long fast (Matthew 4:11). But God’s,’ chief means," it is always to be remembered, "is man." And it is to be carefully observed that when, about this very time, not one, but one hundred prophets were threatened, just as Elijah was, with death, no miracle was wrought to save their lives or to supply their wants, but they were fed by human agency, with bread and water (1 Kings 18:13). But it is still more significant that elsewhere in this narrative, which is characterized by the profoundest sobriety and reticence, there is what we may almost call a studied absence of the miraculous element. No miracle is wrought to protect Elijah against Jezebel, but he must consult for his own safety by flight. He is sent to the brook Cherith, because there is water there; in other words, God chose that hiding place in order to obviate the necessity for a miracle. And when the water of the brook dries up, no miracle is wrought to prolong the supply, but the prophet, at the risk of detection, must go forth and seek it elsewhere. And at Zarephath he is fed, not by ravens, but by human agency—by a widow woman. It is true a miracle appears to have been wrought, but the narrative has so little idea of effect and gives so little prominence to the supernatural that even that is doubted. To put the interpretation of "ravens," consequently, on the word ערבים, provided it will yield any other meaning, appears to be to do violence to the spirit of the context, and to the tenour of Scripture generally. 2. It is somewhat difficult to believe that such a prodigy as this, so altogether unique and irregular, would not have been mentioned, had it really happened, elsewhere in Scripture. The absence of all reference thereto is remarkable, when we consider how constantly the ministry of Elijah and its lessons (Luke 4:25, Luke 4:26; Luke 9:54; James 5:17; Revelation 11:5, Revelation 11:6) are referred to in the New Testament; but when we observe what an admirable and unequalled illustration of God’s providential care this incident would have supplied to some of our Lord’s discourses, and notably to that of Luk 12:22 sqq; this silence becomes almost suspicious. 3. Despite the practical unanimity of the versions, the interpretation "ravens" has been disputed from very early times. St. Jerome among Christians, Rabbi Judah Hakkodesh and Kimchi amongst Jews—these are but some of those who have repudiated this rendering. 4. A very slight change in the vowel points—עַרְבִּים instead of ערְבִים—yields the meaning "Arabians." That a fugitive would readily find, not only shelter but sustenance among the Bedouin, whose generous hospitality and loyalty to strangers is proverbial, is obvious, and we knew that about this time some Arab tribes had dealings with the Jews (2 Chronicles 17:11); but without any change at all, a sufficient meaning may be extracted from the word. For we find that somewhere in the Ciccar, or plain of the Jordan, off which the Wady Cherith lay, was a rock Oreb (עוֹרֵב, Judges 7:25), apparently east of the Jordan (Judges 8:1), but in any case, at no great distance from Bethabara (John 1:28). Now Beth-abara has been identified, almost to a certainty with the modern ’Abarah (i.e; passage or ferry), "one of the main fords of the Jordan just above the place where the Jalud river flowing down the valley of Jezreel and by Beisan, debouches into Jordan." But we learn from an ancient and independent source, the Bereshith Rabba, that in the neighbourhood of Beisan, i.e; Bethshean, there was anciently a town named Orbo, עַרְבוֹ—a word, it is to be observed, which preserves the radicals of עוֹרֵב transposed. We may safely assume that these two places, Orbo and Oreb, were identical; that the former was the representative at a later day of the latter, or was the shape which the name assumed when bestowed on the hamlet, as distinct from the rock. The inhabitants of this place would, of course, be called עֹרְבִים, just as the in. habitants of Ziph were known as Ziphim (1 Samuel 26:1), or the men of Zidon as Zidonim (1 Kings 5:6). We find, consequently, that this word, which means "ravens," also designates the inhabitants of a village near Bethshean, and probably east of the Jordan; that is to say, in or near Elijah’s native country of Gilead. And with this agree the testimonies of Rabbi Judah and Jerome already referred to. The former held that the Orebim were not ravens at all, but inhabitants of Orbo or the rock Oreb, while the latter says, with equal positiveness, Orbim, accolae villae in fini-bus Arabum, Eliae dederunt alimenta. It only remains for us to notice the perfect naturalness and consistency of the narrative thus interpreted. Elijah is bidden to go eastward; to hide in the Wady Cherith, where he would be among tribesmen or friends. For water, there is the brook; for food, the Orbites, whose name would be familiar to him, and whom he may have known, are commanded to feed him. He goes; he is received with Arab hospitality; the Eastern law of Dakheel, by which any man at any time is entitled to throw himself upon the mercy and protection of another, ensures his safety. The Orebim minister assiduously to his wants. Every morning before the dawn, every evening after dark, they bring him bread and flesh.] 1 Kings 17:5 So he went and did according unto the word of the Lord: for [Heb. and] he went and dwelt by [Heb. in] the brook Cherith, that is before Jordan. 1 Kings 17:6 And the ravens brought [Heb. bringing] him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and flesh in the evening [the Vat. LXX. has" bread in the morning and flesh in the evening." It has been objected that this verse is fatal to the view advanced above—that the ערבים were not birds but men—that no men would have "come regularly twice a day,; thus giving themselves needless trouble and increasing the chance of detection, when they might easily have left him a supply for several days" (Rawlinson). But if we may believe that the prophet was, if not among kinsmen or friends, yet among the pastoral, semi-nomadic people of Gilead, a people, that is to say, like the Bedawin in their instincts and customs, it is easy to understand that having taken him under their protection, they would make a point of visiting him regularly, not only to show him all possible honour, as a person endued with supernatural powers (cf. 1 Kings 18:7, 1 Kings 18:13), but to afford him some measure of sympathy and companionship. And we can then see a reason for the morning and evening being mentioned. Their visits would be made in the twilight, which is really longer in the East than is generally supposed]; and he drank [Hebrew drinks. The Heb. future often has the force of an imperfect, and expresses continued or repeated action] of the brook. 1 Kings 17:7 and it came to pass after awhile, [Heb. at the end of days. Not necessarily post annum. The words no doubt have this force elsewhere, Leviticus 25:29; Judges 11:40; Judges 17:10; 1 Samuel 27:7, etc.; but in all these cases, the meaning is not resident in the words themselves, but in the context. It is impossible to say how long Elijah remained in the Wady. All we can be sure of is that he must have been more than two rears, out of the three and a haft, at Zare-phath. See on 1 Kings 18:1] that the brook dried up, because there had been no rain in the land. [גֶּשֶׁם, imber, signifies heavy rain. The word used in 1 Kings 18:1 is מָטָר, rain of any kind.] 1 Kings 17:8 And the word of the Lord came unto him, saying, 1 Kings 17:9 Arise, get thee to Zarephath [Cf. Obadiah 1:20. The name points to furnaces or workshops for the refining of metals, צָרַף, liquavit. LXX. Σαρεπτὰ; cf. Luke 4:26. It is now represented by an insignificant village, Surafend, which, however, preserves the original name. It lies still, as no doubt it did then, on the high road between Tyre and Sidon, and on the shore. The prophet would thus be in the lion’s den, in the very heart of the dominions of Ethbaal. See Porter, 2:397. Stanley shows how the memory of this visit still lingers in the traditions of the neighbourhood], which belongeth to Zidon [Sidon is visible from a spot a quarter of an hour distant. "The dependence of Sarepta on Sidon is indicated in the inscriptions of Sennacherib, where it is mentioned as belonging to Luliya, king of Sidon," Rawlinson], and dwell there: behold, I have commanded a widow woman there to sustain thee [In considering these words the generally destitute condition of the widow of the East should be borne in mind (Acts 6:1; 1 Timothy 5:3-5, etc.) We gather from Luke 4:25, Luke 4:26, that it was for her sake as well as his that the prophet was sent thither. Matthew 15:21-28 tells of another Syro-Phoenician woman.] 1 Kings 17:10 So he arose and went to Zarephath [It does not follow that his route lay over the "White Promontory," or Ladder of Tyre, the way our Lord took when He "departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon" (Matthew 15:21). If his place of concealment was anywhere near ’Abara, or Bethshean, it is probable he would keep east of the Jordan, as far as Banias or Dan, where the river is fordable, and whence a road leads direct to Sidon. He would thus avoid Tyro]. And when he came to the gate of the city [the ruins of Surafend are still very considerable (see Thomson,"Land and Book," 1:235) and prove it to have been a place of importance, a town with gates and walls. "Gate," however, is used somewhat loosely in the O.T.—of the entrance to a village, or even of the place of concourse and of judgment], behold, the [Heb. a. He did not yet know that this was the widow to whom he was sent. Her replies to his requests first informed him that this was the object of his search] widow woman was there [Heb. behold there, a widow woman] gathering of sticks [This was not a promising sign. It only proved her poverty]: and he called to her, and said, Fetch me, I pray thee, a little water in a vessel [Heb. the vessel. Bähr understands the drinking-cup that Elijah had brought with him from the Wady Cherith; but surely it is extremely improbable that he would carry either cup or bottle with him. "The vessel" probably imports the ordinary vessel used for the purpose—the "potter’s earthen bottle" Jeremiah 19:1). That this was used for fetching water, we know from Isaiah 30:14], that I may drink. 1 Kings 17:11 And as she was going to fetch it [The gift of water to the thirsty is always regarded as a sacred duty in the East. "Never yet during many years’ residence in Syria and many a long day’s travel, have I been refused a draught of water by a single individual of any sect or race. The Bedawy in the desert has shared with me the last drop in his waterskin" (Porter). It is clear that the water supply of Phoenicia had not entirely failed. "The fresh streams of Lebanon would retain their life giving power long after the scantier springs of Palestine had been dried up," Stanley] he called to her, and said, Bring me, I pray thee, a morsel of bread [The request for food will soon reveal to him whether this is the widow woman who is to sustain him] in thine hand. [Bähr would understand here, "Give me a morsel of the bread which thou hast in thine hand"—einen Bissen des Brodes das du besitzest—and he has the LXX; ψωμὸνἄρτουτοῦἐντῇχειρίσου, to support him. But it is fatal to this view (1) that the verb is לִקְחִי—the same as already used in the request for water (1 Kings 17:10), and (2) that there is no article before bread. "The bread in thine hand" would have been clear, but the words as they stand can only mean, "Bring me, together with the water in the vessel, a morsel of bread in thine hand." Besides, "in thy possession" would probably have been expressed by "under thine hand," as in 1 Samuel 21:3, 1 Samuel 21:4, 1 Samuel 21:8, though "in the hand" is found in Ecclesiastes 5:13; Ezra 7:25, in a somewhat similar sense.] 1 Kings 17:12 And she said, As the Lord thy God liveth [Bהhr, Keil, al. conclude from this formula that the woman was a worshipper of the God of Israel. Bהhr is extremely positive on this point, affirming that, had she been a heathen, the words would have been positively hypocritical, and more, that Elijah would never have been sent (Luke 4:26) to an idolater. He further suggests that possibly she was an Israelite by birth, who had been married to a Phoenician. But all this is extremely doubtful. In the first place, it is noteworthy that the words are, "Jehovah thy God," words which show that she recognized Elijah, perhaps by his Jewish face, probably by his prophetic dress (2 Kings 1:8) as a worshipper of Jehovah. But had she also been the same, it is probable that she would have said "my God," for that form would not only have given greater force to her obtestation, but would have established a bond of sympathy—such as Jews in a foreign land were only too glad to recognize—between them. And the remark that it is hypocrisy to swear by a god in whom one does not believe is disposed of by the consideration that she may well have believed in the Lord as well as in Baal. See note on 1 Kings 5:7. The Tyrians knew nothing of monotheism], I have not a cake [מָעוןֹ, the synonym of עֻגָּה (1 Kings 5:13), the smallest kind of bread. It was baked in the ashes; hence the LXX. ἐγρυφίας. We gather from this pitiful disclosure that the famine had already extended to Phoenicia, as it naturally would do, considering how dependent that country was on Israel for its breadstuffs; see note on 1 Kings 5:9,1 Kings 5:11. Josephus (Ant. 8.13, 2) cites Menander as attesting to a year’s drought in the reign of Ethbaal], but an handful of meal in a [Heb. the] barrel [כַד, probably connected with cadus, cadeau, etc.; bucket, pail], and a little oil in a cruse: and, behold, I am gathering two sticks [i.e; a few sticks (Gesenius). We may compare the German idiom ein Paar and our "two or three." But "two" in this sense occurs nowhere else in the Bible—"two or three" is found in 2 Kings 9:32; Isaiah 17:6; Amos 4:8. According to Roberts, the word is constantly used for "few" by the natives of India. This widow was evidently reduced to the greatest extremities], that I may go in and dress it for me and my son [The LXX. has τέκνοις here and in Amos 4:13, and τὰτέκνα in verse 15. Bähr contends that Elijah first learnt from these words—the mention of a son and the absence of any mention of her husband—that he was addressing a "widow woman." But we read Genesis 38:14, Genesis 38:19, of "garments of widowhood" (cf. Deuteronomy 24:17), and Genesis 38:10, "a widow woman," etc; almost implies that Elijah from the first recognized her as such], that we may eat it, and die. 1 Kings 17:13 And Elijah said unto her [This looks at first like a further test. But it is pretty clear that the prophet now knew that the widow of whom God had spoken was before him], Fear not; go and do as thou hast said [Heb. according to thy word] but [Heb. only, however]: make me thereof [Heb. thence, i.e; of the oil as well as the meal. The former took the place of butter. Bread was sometimes baked in oil] a little cake first, and bring it unto me, and after make for thee and thy son. [The "first" and "afterwards" are emphatic by position. When Bähr says that Elijah would never have made this demand, and that still less would the widow have paid any attention to it, had she been a heathen, he appears to forget the words that followed (verse 14). When one in the garb of a prophet swore, as this man did, by the sacred name, a heathen, with the belief of the heathen in miracles, might well be persuaded that the word was truth. Elijah’s manner alone would carry conviction with it.] 1 Kings 17:14 For thus saith the Lord God of Israel [The words, "God of Israel," if anything, favour the supposition that he was speaking to one who was not of Israel. See on 1 Kings 17:1. There the words were addressed to one who was denying the God of Israel] The barrel of meal shall not waste, neither shall the cruse of oil fall, until the day that the Lord sendeth [Heb. giveth. For תִּתֵן see note on 1 Kings 6:19] rain upon the earth. [Heb. on the face of the ground. Like expression 1 Kings 18:1; Genesis 2:5. It has been said that there is not a syllable here to imply a miracle, and it has been contended that this Sareptan household was sustained for over two years simply by the blessing of God on the use of natural means. But clearly, if there was nothing else, there was supernatural knowledge on Elijah’s part. And it cannot be denied that the literal construction of the words points to a "supernatural and inexplicable multiplication of food" (Rawlinson), similar to those of which the Gospels tell. It is just possible that this was a figure of speech, which practically meant no more than the necessaries of life should somehow be provided, directly or indirectly, by God. Nor is this view effectually negatived, as Bהhr contends, by Luke 4:26; but, in view of 2 Kings 4:44, Matthew 14:15-21, Matthew 15:32-38, it is extremely improbable. It is curious how many miracles of Elijah and Elisha foreshadowed those of our blessed Lord. 1 Kings 17:15 And she went and did according to the saying of Elijah [the echo of 1 Kings 17:13, "Go and do according to thy saying"]: and she, and he, [or he and she, according to Chethib] and her house [probably her friends or poor relatives who came to partake of her plenty (Bהhr)], did eat many days. [Heb. days, i.e; an indefinite period. See note on verse 7. The word does not refer to the first baking (verse 13), but it is to be explained by the next verse. 1 Kings 17:16 And [Omit. This verse is explicative, not additional] the barrel of meal wasted not, neither did the cruse of oil fall, according to the word of the Lord, which He spake by [Heb. by the hand of] Elijah. [Having received a prophet in the name of a prophet, she received a prophet’s reward. (Matthew 10:41, Matthew 10:42). Stanley suggests that our Lord, when He spoke of the "cup of cold water," may have had this incident in his mind. 1 Kings 17:17 And it came to pass after these things, that the son of the woman, the mistress of the house, fell sick; and his sickness was so sore, that there was no breath left in him. [Does this mean that he was dead? Keil thinks it perfectly clear that it does. Bהhr is as firmly persuaded that it does not. He justly remarks (1) that the same expression occurs in Daniel 10:17 (cf. 1 Kings 10:5) where it does not imply death. (2) That as the text does not say, "and he died," we must conclude that it did not mean to say it. (3) Daniel 10:18, Daniel 10:20 do not necessitate the belief that he was dead (see below). (4) Josephus, who was not afraid of the miraculous, has interpreted the words thus: ὡςκαὶτὴνψυχὴνἀφεῖναικαὶδόξαινεκρον. To this it may be added that נְשָׁמָה simply means breath, and that where it is desired to convey the idea of rife, additional words are used (as in Genesis 2:7, "the breath of life; Genesis 7:22, "the breath of the spirit of life." Cf. Job 27:3, Proverbs 20:27 (where the intelligence or reason appears to be meant), Ecclesiastes 3:21. It must be confessed also that the statement, "his sickness was so sore," etc; is quite apropos and intelligible, if we may understand that he lay in a state of coma, but would be an extremely roundabout way of affirming that he was dead. 1 Kings 17:18 And she said unto Elijah, What have I to do with thee [Heb. what to me and thee. Same formula, Judges 11:12; 2 Samuel 16:10; 2 Kings 3:13; Matthew 8:29; John 2:4. It means, "What is there between us?" or practically, "What have I done?" "Is this the result of my association with thee? Must such sorrow befal me because thou art with me?" Bהhr], O thou man of God? [This woman, if a Phoenician, was evidently familiar with the titles borne by the Hebrew prophets (1 Kings 12:22; 1 Kings 13:1-34. passim; Judges 13:6, Judges 13:8). Nor is this to be wondered at. The intercourse between the two nations had been very considerable] art thou come unto me to call my sin [not necessarily any "special sin in her past life,"] to remembrance [her idea evidently is that the prophet by residing with her, seeing her life, etc; had become acquainted with her sinfulness, and had called it to the remembrance of the Almighty. She does not mean that he had recalled it to her mind, but that he had been the מִזְכִיר or remembrancer of God. Cf. Genesis 40:14; Ezekiel 21:28; Jeremiah 4:16] and to slay my son? [Observe, she does not speak of him as slain.] 1 Kings 17:19 And he said unto her, Give me thy son. And he took him out Of her bosom, [the age of the child may hence be roughly inferred] and carried him up into a loft [Heb. הָעֲלִיָּה the upper chamber. LXX. τὸὑπερῷον. Loft is most misleading. The upper room, was often [rather, always] the best apartment in an Eastern house" (Rawlinson). It was sometimes the guest chamber (Luke 22:11, Luke 22:12), and, from the uses to which it was put, must have been large (Acts 1:13; Acts 9:39; Acts 20:8; 2 Kings 1:2). Thomson (L. &B. 1:235) infers from the fact that the widow’s house had an upper room, "that the mode of building in Elijah’s time and the custom of giving the ’alliyeh to the guest were the same as now; also that this poor widow was not originally among the poorest classes (who bare no ’alliyeh), but that her extreme destitution was owing to the famine"], and laid him upon his own bed. [It may be doubted whether the verb יַשְׁכִבֵהוּ lit; made him to lie down, would be used of a corpse.] 1 Kings 17:20 And he cried unto the Lord, and said, O Lord my God, hast Thou also [i.e. in addition to the misery and suffering brought through me upon my country] brought evil upon the widow with whom I sojourn, by slaying [Heb. to slay. Words. worth partly bases his conclusion that the child was dead on the inexact translation of the A.V.] her son? 1 Kings 17:21 And he stretched himself [marg. measured himself, but Gesenius holds that stretch out is the primary meaning of the root] upon the child [cf. 2 Kings 4:34. The commentators are again at variance as to whether these words imply the use of natural means or not. Those who hold that the child was dead naturally adopt the negative, and some (Keil, Rawlinson, al.) compare with it the action of our Lord in the case of the blind, deaf and dumb (Matthew 9:35; Luke 7:14; John 9:6, John 9:7). But surely the circumstances and the purpose alike, in these latter eases, were entirely different. The object of the touch, of anointing the eyes, etc; in these cases of healing, appears to have been to awaken a sufficient faith—without which "He could do no miracle" (Matthew 13:58)—in men whose infirmities of blindness, deafness, etc; prevented their attaining faith through the ordinary channels of seeing and hearing the merciful and gracious Son of man. But here the child, if not dead, was senseless. We are driven, therefore, to the belief that the prophet "used rational means for warming and revivifying" the child, "not with the hope that of themselves they would prove effectual, but in the sure confidence that God, in answer to his weeping supplication, would impart supernatural force to the natural human agencies," Bהhr] three times [Not only in his prayer but also in this triple repetition do we recognize Elijah’s profound conviction that only by the Almighty power of God could the child be restored, and that whatever means were used, God alone could make them effectual. For three is the number and signature of the Godheads" die eigentlieh gottliche Zahl, die Signatur des gottlichen Wesens" (Bהhr, Symb. 1:143). Hence it is, inter alia, that "the calling upon the name of Jehovah in the old covenant"—he might have added, "and in the new;" cf. Mark 14:39, Mark 14:41; 2 Corinthians 12:8—"was a threefold act:" Psalms 55:17; Daniel 6:10, Daniel 6:13; Numbers 6:24-26; Isaiah 6:3 (Bהhr). The correspondence with 2 Corinthians 12:8 is very striking] and cried unto the Lord, and said, O Lord my God, I pray Thee [Heb. now] let this child’s soul come into him [Heb. upon his inside עַל is here, as elsewhere, used for אֵל] again. [Though נֶפֶשׁ, here translated "soul," constantly means "life," yet it by no means settles the question whether the child was really living or dead. For, (1) the, primary meaning of the word is breath (Gesen; Thesaurus, s.v.), and (2) the words might with perfect propriety, even if we interpret "life" or "soul," be used of one who lay in a lifeless and inanimate condition. Massillon’s graphic language, showing the contrast between Elijah’s procedure and that of our blessed Lord (Luke 7:14; Luke 8:54; John 11:43), is worth citing here: "Elie ressuscite des morts, il est vrai; mais il est oblige de se coucher plusieurs fois sur le corps de l’enfant qu’il ressuscite; il souffle, il se retrecit, it s’agite; on voit bien qu’il invoque une puissance etrangere; qu’il rappelle de l’empire de ta mort une ame qui n’est pas soumise a savoix, et qu’il n’est pas lui-meme le maitre de la mort et de la vie: Jesus-Christ ressuscite les morts comme il fait les actions les plus communes; il parle en maitre a ceux qui dorment d’un sommeil eternel, et l’on sent bien qu’il est le Dieu des morts comme des vivants, jamais plus tranquille que lorsqu’il opere les plus grandes choses."] 1 Kings 17:22 And the Lord heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again and he revived [or recovered. Cf. 2 Kings 1:2; 2 Kings 8:8]. 1 Kings 17:23 And Elijah took the child, and brought him down out of the chamber into the house [Probably the עֲלִיָּה. was reached by an outside staircase, and did not directly communicate with the lower rooms. Cf. Matthew 24:17; Mark 2:4; 2 Kings 9:13] and delivered him unto his mother: and Elijah said, See, thy son liveth. 1 Kings 17:24 And the woman said to Elijah, Now by this [Heb. this. Gesenius interprets עַתָּה זֶה just now. Similarly Bהhr, nunmehr] I know that thou art a man of God [not that she had doubted it before. See verse 18. In the face of what Elijah had done for her, she could not doubt it. All that she means is that this is a great fresh proof of his mission], and that the word of the Lord in thy mouth is truth. [This last word אֱמֶת from which Amittai (Jonah 1:1) is formed, perhaps gave rise to the tradition that this boy was afterwards known as the prophet Jonah. Amiitai was held to have been this widow’s husband. 1 Kings 17:1 The Mission and Ministry of Elijah. The appearance on the arena of Israel’s history of such a champion as Elijah, armed with such high credentials, wielding such supernatural powers, marks a crisis in the history of God’s ancient Church. We have but to see him, to hear him for one moment, to know that a great struggle is impending. God, like Nature, which is but a name for God, "does nothing in vain." Such high powers as his foreshadow great issues. Four points consequently may well engage our attention, viz; the man, his mission, his message, his ministry. I. THE MAN. 1. He was a wild man (Genesis 16:12; Heb. a wild ass man). Abraham has been called an "Arab sheykh." We have in Elijah a veritable Bedawy, if not by birth or tribe, by training and in character. The rough sheepskin (1 Kings 19:13), the shaggy hair (2 Kings 1:18), the marvellous bodily endurance (1 Kings 18:46), the careful avoidance of the city, the flight into the desert (1 Kings 19:4), the whole bearing of the man suggests to us the child of the wilderness. He, the greatest of the prophets, one of the "first three" of those born of women, has the exterior, the instincts, the heart of an Ishmaelite. He was thus a fit successor of Moses, the shepherd of Horeb, who in the very haunt and home of the Bedawin, was trained for his high vocation; he was meet to be the forerunner and pattern of the Baptist who was bred in the desert, clad in Arab dress, and fed with Arab food (Matthew 3:1, Matthew 3:4). It is impossible to understand the man and his work unless this be borne in mind. The gaunt dervish who one day strode into the presence of the king and lifted up his sinewy arm and denounced the great drought; the shaggy, long haired sheykh, who single-handed faced the hierarchy of Baal, and knew no fear, his were the asperities, the privations, the scant fare, the primitive, semi-nomadic life of a Gileadite. The sweet uses of adversity had moulded this man for the crisis. Our great chancellors, it has been said, come to us from the garret: the desert has ever been the school of the greatest prophets. The rugged, unsettled pasturages of Bashan were a meet nurse for a prophetic child. This champion was cast "in the clay ground". 2. He was a man of like passions with ourselves (James 5:17). An "earthen vessel" (2 Corinthians 4:7). "In all points tempted like as we are," and not "without sin" (Hebrew 1 Kings 3:15). The Bible never pictures men as perfect. The phronema Sarkos remains even in the regenerate. II. HIS MISSION. Consider— 1. Whence it was derived. He was not taught of men (Galatians 1:12, Galatians 1:17). He was ἰδιώτηςκαὶἀγράμματος. The God who separated him from his mother’s womb called him by His grace (Galatians 5:15). He was an extraordinary messenger for a great emergency. But observe; when God employs such messengers, men whose mission is derived directly from on high, the "signs of an apostle" are wrought by them. We are not to listen to an angel from heaven, unless he shows us his credentials. We have a right to ask of those who run without being sent to show us a sign. When the missionary Dr. Wolff told one of the Eastern bishops that the "Lord had sent him," the prelate not unreasonably asked him for a display of his powers. If God should send us an Elias again, He will give us at the same time a sign from heaven. 2. When it was conferred. It was (1) When iniquity abounded. When Hiel had built Jericho; when Ahab had raised a temple for Baal; when Jezebel had gathered round her an army of false prophets; when the faith of God’s elect was in jeopardy. The darkest hour is ever before the dawn. Cum duplicantur lateres, venit Moses. "Man’s extremity is," etc. "Israel was sore wounded when God sent them this balm from Gilead" (Henry). (2) When ordinary means were insufficient. There were "sons of the prophets," it is probable, in Bethel and Samaria; There were seven thousand faithful ones in Israel; but what were these against such a queen as Jezebel, against such a propaganda and such a system as hers? It was then no longer a question of heresy or schism, of calves or cherubim, of Jeroboam’s or Jehovah’s priests; the very existence of the Church was at stake. Elijah was summoned to the court; he was armed with "power to shut heaven that it rained not in the days of his prophecy "(Revelation 11:6), with power to call down fire to devour his enemies, and the like, because only thus could the elect people be stayed from throwing themselves into the arms of an organized prostitution; from yielding themselves, body and soul, to the whoredoms and witchcrafts of "that woman Jezebel;" because only thus could the light of truth, the one lamp which illumined the world’s darkness, be preserved from utter extinction. III. HIS MESSAGE. It was a denunciation of immediate drought, one of the most terrible calamities that can befal an Eastern land. In Palestine, animal as well as vegetable life is directly dependent on the rain. Not only do the showers which irrigate the laud feed the springs, but they are carefully stored up in cisterns for daily use. It is only as compared with the arid wastes of Egypt that the Holy Land could be called "a land of brooks and waters, of fountains and depths," etc. (Deuteronomy 8:7). And it is also described by the same writer as a land that "drinketh water of the rain of heaven" (Deuteronomy 9:11). Consequently rain, everywhere a prime necessity of existence, is doubly indispensable in Palestine. The rainfall of Jerusalem is on the average three times as great as that of London. It is clear, consequently, that this message threatened a terrible plague, that it portended long and protracted suffering. There are some who will not hear of the "terrors of the Lord," who would never have them mentioned in the pulpit. Yet pain and privation are among the first sanctions of God’s law, and we have the authority of many eminent divines for saying that more men are won to God and right by fear than by love. It sounds fine and philosophic to speak of fear as an unworthy motive, but men forget what an unworthy animal is man. Besides, this drought was a part of the punishment, and was admirably adapted to serve as a punishment for apostasy. It was meet that men who practically denied the living God should be practically reminded of their dependence on Him. It was well that those who held Baal to be lord of nature, should be left to discover his impotence (cf. Judges 10:14; Jeremiah 14:22). "Are there any of the vanities of the heathen that can give rain?" And it was a punishment this, which penitence might avert. Moreover it was the penalty foretold in the law (Deuteronomy 28:23). Elijah was not left to scatter plagues at his pleasure. Like an earlier prophet, he could not "go beyond the word of the Lord to do less or more" (Numbers 22:18). Of himself, he could do nothing (Numbers 5:1-31:33). His message was, "As the Lord liveth." If the rain should only come "according to his word," it was because his word was God’s word. If his prayer for the drought had been answered (James 5:17), it had first been inspired. He speaks here as the minister, not the master. He is the willing, patient slave of Jehovah. "Before whom I stand." IV. His . From this initial message let us turn to his ministry as whole. And it presents to our view these broad features— 1. It was exercised in silence. How few are Elijah’s recorded words, and those few are the utterances of but five or six occasions. He was not "mighty in word." He had no sooner delivered his first brief message than he disappears, and for three years and a half Israel hears him no more. He speaks for a moment: he is dumb for a triennium. And when he reappears, it is but for a day. That one day’s ministry ended, he is again hidden from our view. Thrice more he reappears in the history, but each time it is but for a day, and then he goes into the silent heavens, and save on the night of transfiguration, speaks to men no more. How like to the revelations of God to man. He "keepeth silence (Psalms 1:3). He too hideth Himself. "He spake and it was done." How unlike the everlasting chatter of some of our later prophets. "Ministers," it is sometimes said, "are mere talkers." Elijah proclaims the dignity, if not "the eternal duty, of silence.’" "All real work," some one has said, "is quiet work." How many of our sermons, full of sound and fury, leave not a trace behind them. But the silent Elias accomplished the regeneration of his country. 2. It was a ministry of deed. There was no need for him to speak. The works that he did bore witness of him. Declamation, argument, remonstrance, would have been absurd. The time for that was past. And he had actions to speak for him. Surely there is a lesson for Christ’s ministers here. It is true they cannot work wonders like Elijah; and it is also true that they are sent to "preach the Word," to reprove, rebuke, exhort, etc.; but we are reminded here that a fruitful ministry must be one of action. Words, however eloquent, in the long turn count for less than a holy life. The age, however it may hanker after sensationalism, is nevertheless suspicious of all talk. Why is it that our holy religion has but such an indifferent hold on the masses of our countrymen? One reason is that while we "point to heaven," we do not always "lead the way." "Cujus vita contemnitur, ejus praedicatio despicitur." The life of their parish priest is the only Bible many Englishmen ever read, and alas, what a smeared and blotted page that sometimes is. And those who do hear our sermons have learned to discount them. They know full well that words are cheap, and that emotion, and even unction, can be simulated. They often wonder how much of our discourse we really believe and practise ourselves, and they turn to our lives for an answer. That familiar paradox, consequently, is full of truth and meaning, that, "in preaching, the thing of least importance is the sermon.’ It was well said that actio—action in the truest sense of the word, not gesture or manner, but conduct—is the first, second, and third great essential of eloquence A French ecclesiastic, the Abbe Mullois, has laid it down, as one of the canons if preaching, that "to address men successfully, they must be loved much." "Nothing influences others so much as character. Few people are capable of reasoning, and fewer still like the trouble of it; and besides, men have hearts as well as heads. Hence, consistency, reality, everpresent principle, shining through the person in whom they dwell, and making themselves perceptible, have more weight than many arguments, than much preaching" (Heygate, "Ember Hours"). It is Baxter who speaks of clergymen who "cut the throats of their sermons by their lives;" but there are many who, without doing this, invalidate their words by their actions. It is well for us to remember that personal character is the best preparation for the pulpit. "Facta, non verba;" this is, and will be increasingly, the demand of the age upon the prophetic order. "Non magna eloquimur sed vivimus." This must be more and more the response of the ministry. 3. It was brave and fearless. On three occasions this court preacher took his life in his hand (1 Kings 17:1; 1 Kings 18:2; 1 Kings 21:19). On one occasion he seems to have quailed (1 Kings 19:3), but even then it does not appear that he fled from any present duty, or, like Jonah, declined any commission. His ministry as a whole was boldly discharged as in the presence of the Eternal, "Before whom I stand." He saw none other than his Master. Like another preacher before royalty, Massillon, he spoke as if he saw Death standing at his elbow. Like Daniel, he knew that his God could deliver him. The fear of man is cast out when we realize the presence of God (Isaiah 51:12, Isaiah 51:13). 4. It was seemingly a failure. If others did not think so, he did. We know that no work, really and truly done for God, can be wasted (Isaiah 55:11); but we are often tempted to think it is. But it must be such work as will stand the trial by fire (1 Corinthians 3:13). It has been strikingly said, "If any man’s work is a failure, the probability is that it is because he is a failure himself." Still, it is for our comfort to remember, in times of depression, that the greatest of the prophets saw little or no fruit of his labours. He was persuaded that even the unexampled miracles that he wrought were of little or no avail (1 Kings 19:10). We find that when there were seven thousand secret followers of the Lord God, Elijah thought himself left alone. And indeed the state of Israel, even after the ordeal of Carmel, might well lead him to take the gloomiest and most despairing view of the situation. Jezebel pursues her infamous way. The son of Ahab sends to consult a foreign oracle, and ignores the God of Israel. The fire must come down a second time and burn up the idolaters instead of the bullock and the altar. But all the same, we know that his work was not in vain. Nor can ours be, if done like his. We have nothing to do with immediate successes. "One man soweth, another reapeth." Nor is success in any shape mentioned in our instructions. That is God’s part, not ours. We have but to sow the seed, He must make it grow. The world worships success—or what it calls success—and the greatest of ministries—Elijah’s, Jeremiah’s, Ezekiel’s, our blessed Lord’s—were all failures from a worldly point of view. 1 Kings 17:3-7 The Solitary Place. We have just seen that it was from the wilderness that Elijah went forth into the busy, wicked world, and to the anxious, dangerous work of a prophet. He, like his antitype, was in the desert "until the time of his showing unto Israel" (Luke 1:80). There, in secret communion with God, he had gained strength for the encounter; there he had meditated over the grievous apostasy of his people, and had "vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their evil deeds" (2 Peter 2:8). And there, as he "prayed earnestly that it might not rain," the word of the Lord came to him and burned in his bones (Jeremiah 20:9), and bore him into the presence of the king (Amos 3:8). But it is now for us to observe that no sooner had he entered upon his ministry, and delivered his first brief message, than he was sent into the desert—it may be, the same desert—again. The word of the Lord straightway bids him turn eastward and hide in the brook Cherith. Now the word Cherith means separation. This section consequently may fittingly speak to us of the need of separation, of the uses of solitude and retirement in the discipline of the saints. From Elijah’s separation from his work and the world we may glean some lessons as to our own. Observe— 1. Solitude was necessary to Elijah’s safety. He must hide or lose his head. When Jezebel cut off the prophets of the Lord (1 Kings 18:18), we may be sure he would not be spared. Was it not because of him indeed that the others were attacked? Had his dwelling been with men, the messengers of Ahab would assuredly have found him and slain him (1 Kings 18:10). So it is sometimes necessary, for the life of our souls, that we should flee into the desert. It is at our peril that we stay in Sodom. We must "escape to the mountain." It may be from some enchantress, whose whoredoms and witchcrafts are as cruel as Jezebel’s; it may be from companions whose snares are more perilous than Ahab’s sword; it may be from a society hardly less pestilent than that of Israel. There are times when our only safety is in flight. Those hermits who buried themselves in the Thebaid, or who burrowed in the rocks of the Wady Feiran, the world has only a smile for their folly, and it is no doubt true that God wound have us leaven the world, not leave it, But it would have been well if some had, for a time at least, followed their example. How many souls have perished because they would not enter into their chambers and shut their doors and hide themselves until the indignation be overpast (Isaiah 26:20); because they had not the courage to disappear for a while, if only into their closets. "He that wilfully stands still to catch dangers, tempteth God instead of trusting him." This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ ELIJAH’S RETURN AND THE ORDEAL OF MOUNT CARMEL.—The preceding chapter having been exclusively occupied with the fortunes of Elijah during his enforced absence of three and a half years from the land of Israel, we are left to conjecture what the course of events in the northern kingdom during this period of drought and suffering must have been. But it is not difficult to picture in our minds the steadily increasing alarm and distress which the solemn ban he had pronounced must have occasioned. At one time, it may be, especially if the prophet up to that period had been unknown, both king and people, under the malign influence of Jezebel, professed to regard his threatening with contempt, the more so as the priests of Baal would not fail to assure them of the protection and blessing of "the Lord" of nature. But as the months and years passed by, and neither dew nor rain fell—as the heavens were brass and the earth iron—and the pastures languished, and the fruits of the earth failed, and the cisterns became dry, and man and child and beast began to suffer the extremities of thirst, we cannot doubt that the tone and temper of the country underwent a great change. At first, threats had been freely uttered against Elijah, who was perversely regarded as the author of all this misery, and that and the neighbouring countries were scoured to find him. Moreover reprisals were made on the system which he represented, by a fierce persecution of the prophetic order, of which he was recognized as the head. But it is probable that when the drought lasted into the third and fourth year, and when absolute ruin and death stared the country in the face, that then defiance had given place to dread and regret in every bosom, save, perhaps, that of the queen and the sycophants who ate of her table. The conviction was steadily gaining possession of the minds of all Israel that Baal and Ashtoreth were vanities, and that the Lord alone made the heavens and covered them with clouds. The great drought, and the manifold sufferings which it entailed—sufferings which the animated description of the prophet Joel (Joe 1:1-20.) enables us to realize—were doing their work. The heart of the people was being slowly turned backward, and in the third year of his sojourn at Zarephath the time was ripe for Elijah’e return, which our author now describes, together with the striking results which followed it. In the first fifteen verses, we have the meeting of Elijah and Obadiah; in Obadiah 1:16-20, the meeting of Elijah and Ahab; Obadiah 1:21 -38 describe the ordeal of Mount Carmel; verses 39, 40, its immediate results; while the remainder of the chapter depicts Elijah’s prayer for rain, the bursting of the storm, and the return to Jezreel. 1 Kings 18:1 And it came to pass after [This word is wanting in the Heb. except in a few MSS.] many days that the word of the Lord came to Elijah in the third year [From what date is this "third year" to be counted? The prima facie view is that the words refer to "these years" mentioned in 1 Kings 17:1, i.e; to the date of the announcement of the drought, and this is the interpretation of the Rabbins and some of the modems. But it is almost fatal to this view that the duration of the drought is distinctly stated in the New Testament to have been "three years and six months" (Luke 4:25; James 5:17). It is every way better, therefore, to connect the words with 1 Kings 17:7, i.e; with the date of the sojourn at Zarephath. It follows hence that the prophet spent about one year in the Wady Cherith, and two and a half in the house of the widow], saying, Go, show thyself [Heb. be seen] unto Ahab; and I will send [Heb. give] rain upon the earth. [Heb. on the face of the ground. Cf. 1 Kings 17:14. 1 Kings 18:2 And Elijah went to show himself unto Ahab. And [or Now. It would, perhaps, have been better to begin a new verse here, as this is the beginning of a parenthesis, explanatory of the circumstances under which king and prophet met. It was the famine led to Obadiah’s encountering Elijah on the road] there was a sore famine in Samaria. [The effect of a three years’ drought would be to reduce the entire people to the verge of starvation. The severity of the famine was no doubt mitigated, as on a former occasion (Genesis 41:57), by the importation of corn from Egypt.] 1 Kings 18:3 And Ahab called [Rather, had called. "The verbs וַיְּהִי וַיּקְרָא etc. (1 Kings 18:3, 1 Kings 18:4, 1 Kings 18:5, 1 Kings 18:6), carry on the circumstantial clauses" (Keil).] Obadiah [This name is almost as remarkable as Elijah’s, or would be, if it were not more common. It means "servant of Jehovah." Compare the modern Arabic Abdallah. Although borne by one who "feared the Lord greatly" (Obadiah 1:3), and "from his youth" (Obadiah 1:12), it occurs too frequently (1 Chronicles 3:21; 1 Chronicles 7:3; 1 Chronicles 8:38; 1 Chronicles 9:16; 2 Chronicles 17:7; 2 Chronicles 34:12; Ezra 8:9; Obadiah 1:1; etc.) to justify the belief that it was assumed or bestowed as an indication of his character (Rawlinson)], which was the governor of his [Heb. over the] house. [See note on 1 Kings 4:6, and cf. 1 Kings 16:9. Rawlinson says it "tells in favour of the monarch’s tolerance that he should have maintained an adherent of the old religion in so important an office." But it is just as probable that it was because of his religion that he occupied this post of trust. Ahab could depend on his fidelity and conscientiousness]. (Now Obadiah [here begins a second parenthesis within the first] feared [Heb. was fearing] the Lord greatly. 1 Kings 18:4 For it was so, when Jezebel cut off the prophets of the Lord [Our author now instances a proof of Obadiah’s devotion. The incident to which he refers is otherwise unknown to us, nor can we refer it with certainty to its proper place in the history. But it is extremely probable that this work of extermination was begun as an act of reprisals for the drought denounced by Elijah. Obadiah 1:13 almost implies that it had taken place during his absence. We see here, consequently, an additional reason for his flight (cf. 1 Kings 19:2). These "prophets" are the same as those elsewhere called the "sons of the prophets, i.e; members of the prophetic schools; cf. 2 Kings 2:3, 2 Kings 2:5, 2 Kings 2:7, etc.] that Obadiah took an hundred prophets [This would lead us to suppose that the great majority escaped. But see Obadiah 1:19 and 1 Kings 22:6. That we find so large a number still in the land, notwithstanding the exodus (2 Chronicles 11:16), and the steady growth of impiety, shows that God had not left Himself without witnesses], and hid them by fifty [Keil would insert a second הֲחמִשִׁים as do some MSS. (Gardiner), and as in 1 Kings 22:13. Such a word might easily be omitted in transcription, it is true. But "proclivi lectioni," etc.] in a cave [Heb. the cave; but LXX. ἐνσπηλαὶῳ. Similarly in verse 13. What is the force of the article here it is somewhat difficult to say. It has been suggested that these caves were in the sides of Mount Carmel; there are large caves under the western cliffs (Stanley); more than two thousand, according to others; "often of great length and extremely tortuous"; but this is mere guesswork, as Palestine, being of limestone formation, abounds in caverns. See Stanley, S. and P. pp. 151, 52. From the earliest times we find men—outlaws and the like—taking up their abode therein. Of. Joshua 10:17; Judges 6:2; 1 Samuel 22:1; Ezekiel 33:27; Hebrews 11:38. Probably the division into two companies was partly for the sake of security (see Genesis 22:8), and partly for the sake of convenience. The greater the number to be fed, the greater the chance of detection. Compare also Jacob’s precautions Genesis 32:8], and fed them with bread [or, food] and water.) [It is to be observed, as bearing on 1 Kings 17:3-6, that these hundred prophets, though preserved by the special providence of God, were nevertheless maintained through human agency and by natural means. 1 Kings 18:5 And Ahab said [had said] unto Obadiah, Go into [Heb. in] the land, unto all fountains [Heb. places of fountains. Cf. with מַעְיָן from מָאוֹר עַיִן from אוֹר etc.] of water, and unto all brooks [wadies; see on 1 Kings 17:3]: peradventure we may find grass to save the horses and mules alive [It has been inferred from Ahab’s concern for his stud that he viewed the sufferings of his subjects with comparative indifference, or at least regarded them as of altogether secondary importance. But this is a too hasty conclusion. His subjects were, for the most part, as well able to find water for themselves as he was for them, and he might safely trust to their instinct of self preservation to do their best to meet the emergency. But the dumb cattle, con. fined to the stall, could not act for themselves. Hence this expedition in search of fodder], that we lose not all the beasts. [Marg. that we cut not ourselves off from, etc. But this rendering, and still more that of the text, misinterprets the force of the Hiphil נַקְרִית. The literal translation is, "That we may not have to cut off from (i.e; a portion of, מִן partitive, as in 1 Kings 17:13 below, מגְּבִיאֵי). What Ahab means is that, unless they soon find fodder, they will have to slaughter a portion of their animals. So Bהhr, Und nicht von dem Vieh (einen Theil) umbringen mussen. Similarly Keil.] 1 Kings 18:6 So they divided the land between them to pass throughout it ["This personal inspection by the king and one of his chief officers marks the extreme straits to which the Israelites were now reduced" (Rawlinson). The difference, however, between an Eastern and an European monarch must not be overlooked. "None (of the emirs of Arabia or the chiefs of central Asia) think it beneath them to lead an expedition in search of grass or water" (Kitto)]: Ahab went one way by himself [Heb. alone. Rawlinson says, "This does not mean that either Ahab or Obadiah was unaccompanied by a retinue," but it may very well mean that (לבַד, solus; LXX. μόνος; Bähr allein. Cf. verse 22), if, indeed, it must not necessarily mean it; and Obadiah 1:14 certainly implies that Obadiah at least was unattended], and Obadiah went another way by himself. 1 Kings 18:7 And as Obadiah Was in the way, behold, Elijah met him [Heb. to meet him]: and he knew [i.e; recognized. Same word, Genesis 27:23; Genesis 43:7, etc.] him, and fell on his face, and said, Art thou that [Heb. this, probably used adverbially (like hic) for here = בָּזֶה] my lord Elijah? [The humble obeisance and the terms in which he addresses him alike show the profound reverence with which Obadiah regarded him, as well he might do, considering the terrible power he wielded. The whole land was, so to speak, at his mercy.] 1 Kings 18:8 And he answered him; I am [Heb. I]: go, tell thy lord, Behold, Elijah is here. [The last two words are not in the Hebrew, and the sentence is much more graphic without them.] 1 Kings 18:9 And he said, What have I sinned, that thou wouldst deliver [Heb. that thou art giving] thy servant into the hand of Ahab, to slay me? 1 Kings 18:10 As the Lord thy God liveth [Obadiah uses precisely the same adjuration as the widow of Zarephath, 1 Kings 17:12. But then, though Jehovah was undoubtedly his God, He was in a more special and intimate manner Elijah’s God. The oath corresponds well with the prophet’s name], there is no nation or kingdom, whither my lord hath not sent to seek thee [Keil says the hyperbole is to be explained by the "inward excitement and fear" of the speaker. But the Orientals use similar exaggerations in their calmest moments. All that is meant is that all neighbouring and accessible courts had been communicated with. This search for Elijah shows that Ahab regarded him as the author of the drought, and did not recognize it as sent by God. The belief in occult and magical powers has always held possession of the Eastern mind]: and when they said, He is not there [Heb. Not, and he, etc.]; he took an oath [LXX. ἐνέπρησε, which has been thought by some to point to acts of vengeance. But more probably it is a clerical error, perhaps for ὥρκισε, or ἐνώρκισε. On the frequency of oaths in that age see on 1 Kings 1:51] of the kingdom and nation, that they found thee not. 1 Kings 18:11 And now thou sayest, Go, tell thy lord, Behold, Elijah is here. [Heb. Behold, Elijah. Obadiah echoes the words of Oba 1:8. 1 Kings 18:12 And it shall come to pass, as soon as I am gone from thee, that [Heb. I shall go from thee, and] the Spirit of the Lord shall carry thee whither I know not [These words, which literally translated are "shall lift thee up upon where," etc; are to be explained by 2 Kings 2:16, "lest the Spirit of the Lord hath taken him up" (same word) "and cast him upon some mountain," etc. Seb. Schmidt, Wordsworth, al. think that such a transportation must have already occurred in the history of Elijah, but the sudden, mysterious disappearance and the long concealment of the prophet is quite sufficient to account for Obadiah’s fear. Compare Acts 8:39. The words do suggest, however, that it had been believed by some that the Lord had hid Elijah, and it is not improbable that during his long absence rumours had often gained credence that he had been seen and had suddenly disappeared, just as later Jews have held that he "has appeared again and again as an Arabian merchant to wise and good Rabbis at their prayers or in their journeys" (Stanley)]; and so when I come and tell [Heb. and I come to tell] Ahab, and he cannot find thee, he shall slay me [This is just what a prince like Ahab, or any prince who was under the guidance of a Jezebel, would do, out of sheer vexation at losing his prey when so nearly in his grasp]: but [Heb. and] I thy servant fear the Lord from my youth. [Obadiah’s meaning clearly is not that he, "as a God-fearing man and a protector of the prophets, cannot have any special favour to expect from Ahab" (Keil; similarly Ewald), but that it was hard that one who was a steadfast worshipper of Elijah’s God should be slain for his sake. It is extremely unlikely that Ahab knew of Obadiah’s having protected the prophets. He could hardly have maintained him in his post had he known that the steward of the palace had thwarted the designs of his queen.] 1 Kings 18:13 Was it not told my lord what I did when Jezebel slew the prophets of the Lord how I hid an hundred men of [Heb. from] the Lord’s prophets by fifty in a cave, and fed them with bread and water? [Stanley happily calls Obadiah "the Sebastian of this Jewish Diocletian."] 1 Kings 18:14 And now thou sayest [="This is to be the reward of my devotion, is it?"], GO, tell thy lord, Behold, Elijah Is here: and he shall slay me. 1 Kings 18:15 And Elijah said, As the Lord of hosts liveth, before whom I stand [This formula should be compared with that of 1 Kings 17:1. The repetition is suggestive as exhibiting the habit of the man. He was the ready and patient slave of Jehovah. The צְבָאוֹתis apparently introduced not so much to "elevate the solemnity of the oath" (Keil, Bהhr)—for surely Elijah would wish to make the affirmation of 1 Kings 17:1 as strong and solemn as possible—nor yet to convey the meaning that "it is not Baal or Ashtaroth who are the rulers of the heavenly bodies" (Wordsworth), for Obadiah knew that perfectly well, but because it was thus better adapted for a believer. In addressing Ahab it suited Elijah’s purpose better to give prominence to the idea that Jehovah was "the God of Israel"], I will surely show myself unto him today. 1 Kings 18:16 So Obadiah went to meet Ahab, and told him: and Ahab went [Very readily, it would seem. Anything was better than suspense and famine. And Elijah’s very return contained in it a promise of rain] to meet Elijah. 1 Kings 18:17 And it came to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto him Art thou he [Rather, here: same words as in 1 Kings 18:7. "Do I at last see thee again? Hast thou ventured into my presence?"] that troubleth Israel? [Heb. thou troubler of Israel. For the word (עָכַר) see Genesis 24:30; Joshua 6:18; Joshua 7:25; Proverbs 11:17; 1 Samuel 14:29. When Rawlinson says that this charge of troubling Israel has "never been before brought against any one but Achan," he apparently forgets the passage last cited. "My father hath troubled the land." Wordsworth paraphrases, "Art thou the Achan of Israel?" but it is very doubtful whether this thought was in Ahab’s mind.] 1 Kings 18:18 And he answered, I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy fathers house [It has been supposed that Ahab "hoped to abash the Tishbite, perhaps to have him at his feet suing for pardon" (Rawlinson). If so, he must have completely misjudged his man. And why the prophet should sue for pardon, when he was so clearly master of the situation, it is difficult to imagine. It is quite as likely that Ahab expected denunciation and defiance such as he now provokes], in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and thou [The change from plural to singular is instructive. Preceding kings and the people at large had broken God’s commandments by the calf-worship, but Ahab alone had introduced the Baal-cultus into the land] hast followed [Heb. goest after] Baalim. [The plural may either refer to the various names and forms under which Baal was worshipped—Baal-Berith, Baal-Zebub, etc. (Bהhr, al.)—or more probably to the various images or statues of this god set up in the land (Gesenius). "This boldness, this high tone, this absence of the slightest indication of alarm, seems to have completely discomfited Ahab, who ventured on no reply," etc. (Rawlinson). It is probable that, though he put on a bold front, he was from the first thoroughly cowed. 1 Kings 18:19 Now therefore send, and gather to me all Israel [i.e; by representation, the heads of the people, elders, etc. Cf. 1 Kings 8:2, 1 Kings 8:65; 1 Kings 12:16, 1 Kings 12:18; 1 Kings 16:16, 1 Kings 16:17] unto Mount Carmel [Heb; as almost always, the Carmel, i.e; the park. Cf. 1 Samuel 25:1-5. It is "the park of Palestine." It is indebted for this name to the luxuriant vegetation—"the excellency of Carmel" (Isaiah 35:2)—which clothes its southern slopes. It is now generally called Mar (i.e; Lord or Saint) Elyas, after the great prophet. No one who has seen the locality can have any doubts as to which part of the mountain was the scene of the sacrifice, or can fail to be struck with the singular fitness of the place to be the theatre of this thrilling history. Carmel is rather a ridge than a mountain, some twelve miles in length. Its western (or strictly N.N.W.) extremity is a bold headland, some 600 feet in height, which dips almost directly into the waters of the Mediterranean. Its highest point, 1728 feet above the sea level, is about four miles from its eastern extremity, which, at an elevation of 1600 feet, rises like a wall from the great plain of Esdraelon. It is at this point, there can be no question, we are to place the scene of the burnt sacrifice. The identification has only been effected in comparatively recent days, but it is beyond dispute. Not only does the Arab name which it bears—El Murahkah, "the Burning," or "Sacrifice"—afford striking witness to the identity, but the situation and surroundings adapt themselves with such wonderful precision to the requirements of the narrative as to leave no reasonable doubt in the mind. For (1) it is a sort of natural platform, or pulpit, raised 1000 feet above the adjoining plain, and therefore well calculated to afford a view of the proceedings, or at least of the descent of the Holy Fire, to spectators of all Israel. The flame would probably be seen by Jezebel in her palace at Jezreel. This eminence is visible from Nazareth, some twenty miles away. "There is not a more conspicuous spot on all Carmel than the abrupt, rocky height of El Murahkah, shooting up so suddenly on the east". "The summit… commands the last view of the sea behind and the first view of the great plain in front" (Stanley). In fact, it was in its way just as well adapted for the solemn vindication of the law which took place there as Jebel Sufsafeh was for the giving of the law. (2) A sort of plateau near the summit—the table land where the altars were built, etc.—would accommodate a vast number of spectators (1 Samuel 25:21). (3) There is a spring of water close at hand—less than 100 yards distant—and a spring which is said to flow even in the driest seasons, which would supply the water of which we read in 1 Samuel 25:4, 1 Samuel 25:33-35. Josephus (Ant. 8.13, 5) says it came from the fountain. (4) The sea, though not visible from the plateau itself, is seen from a point some 300 feet higher, a detail which accords admirably with the account of 1 Samuel 25:42-44. It may be added that the place is still held sacred by the Druses, and reverenced by "Jews, Christians, Moslems, and Bedouin as the site of these miracles of Elijah" (Thomson). The traveller, consequently, cannot doubt for a moment, as he stands on the table-land of El Murahkah and looks across the great plain to Jezreel and the heights of Galilee and Samaria, that he is on the very spot sanctified by the descent of the heavenly fire. It should be added, as explaining the selection of Carmel by Elijah, that its situation is central end convenient; that it is near the sea, from whence the rain clouds would come; that it is easy of access from Jezreel; and that it was not only a holy place from earlier times (cf. 2 Kings 4:23), but also had its altar of Jehovah, an altar, no doubt, in constant use when the people "sacrificed and burnt incense on the high places," but which had in later days fallen into neglect, and was now broken down. It was every way, therefore, a most appropriate locality for the public vindication of the despised and outraged law of God. "No place could be conceived more fitted by nature to be that wondrous battlefield of truth" (Tristram in Wordsworth)], and the prophets of Baal [so called not because they were Weissager und Verkunder (Bהhr) of the god, nor yet because they were teachers and emissaries of his religion, but because of the prophetic frenzy (1 Samuel 25:28) into which they worked themselves (Keil)] four hundred and fifty, and the prophets of the groves [Heb. of the Asherah, i.e; of Astarte, not "grove," as ’Rawlinson. See note on 1 Kings 14:15] four hundred [Rawlinson remarks that "the number 400 seems to have been one especially affected by Ahab." He reminds us that we find 400 prophets at the close of his reign (1 Kings 22:6), and also remarks on "the prevalence of the number 40 in the religious systems of the Jews (Exodus 36:24, Exodus 36:26; Deuteronomy 25:1-19:"3, etc.) " But when it is remembered that Baal’s prophets were 450, and the prophets of 1 Kings 22:6 were about 400 men, the solitary instance of the 400 prophets of Astarte—who, by the way, were Jezebel’s rather than Ahab’s ministers—affords but a slender basis for his conclusion], which eat at Jezebel’s table. [Heb. eaters of. There is nothing in the Hebrew to imply that they sat with her at the same board; and it is certain that this would be altogether repugnant to Eastern ideas of propriety. All that is meant is that they were fed by her bounty. See note on 1 Kings 2:7. 1 Kings 18:20 So Ahab sent unto all the children of Israel, and gathered the prophets together unto Mount Carmel, ["The persecuting king became a passive instrument in the hand of the persecuted prophet" (Stanley). His ready compliance with Elijah’s request, notwithstanding the bitter hatred of the man which he had just betrayed, is easily explained. It was not so much that "he bowed before the spiritual supremacy of the prophet, which impressed him" (Bהhr), as that he hoped, from his reappearance, that he was now about to speak the word (1 Kings 17:1) and give rain upon the earth, and Ahab was willing to take any measures which would conduce w that result. It would take some days to collect the representatives of the tribes.] 1 Kings 18:21 And Elijah came unto all the people [He is concerned not so much with the king as the people of the Lord. His object was not "to prove that Ahab and not he had troubled Israel," but to prove that Jehovah and not Baal was God. There is abundant room on the plateau, or "wide upland sweep" (Stanley), above referred to, to accommodate a large concourse of people], and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? [This is a faithful and felicitous rendering. But it must be remembered that "halt" is used in the sense of "limp." Vulg. Usquequo claudicatis in duas partes. The same word is used in 1 Kings 18:26 of the swaying, tottering dance of the Baal prophets.] If the Lord be God [Heb. if Jehovah the God], follow him [Heb. go (i.e; walk straight) after him]: but if Baal, then follow him And the people answered him not a word. [Not only were they awed by the presence of the king and the priests of Baal on the one side, and of Elijah on the other, but they were "convicted by their own consciences," and so were speechless (Matthew 22:12).] 1 Kings 18:22 Then said Elijah unto the people, l, even I only, remain [Heb. I, I am left alone. Cf. Genesis 32:24; μονώτατος] a prophet of the Lord [Thenius hence concludes that the "hundred prophets" of whom we read in Genesis 32:4, Genesis 32:13 had been discovered in their hiding place and had been put to death. But this by no means follows from Elijah’s statement here or in Genesis 19:10 (where see note); and we know that the schools of the prophets had not ceased to exist (2 Kings 2:3, 2 Kings 2:5, 2 Kings 2:7; cf. 1 Kings 22:8). All that Elijah says is that he stood that day alone as a prophet of Jehovah. "I only remain in the exercise of the office of a prophet" (Rawlinson). The rest might well hesitate, after me fierce persecution which they had undergone, to face the king and their bitter enemies, the Baal prophets. It must be remembered that Elijah had had no opportunity of communicating with them, and he may have been quite ignorant as to what number had remained steadfast and true. One thing he knew, that he alone was left to prophesy, and to confront the whole hierarchy of the false God]; but Baal’s prophets are four hundred and fifty men. [It is clear, not only from the silence of this verse and of Gen 19:25, respecting them, but still more from the fact that they escaped in the general slaughter (verse 40), that the prophets of Astarte were not present, and the natural inference is that either Jezebel had forbidden their presence or that they shrank from the ordeal. The LXX. inserts "and the prophets of the grove, four hundred," but the words are evidently added from Genesis 19:19. The Baal prophets would doubtless have been only too glad to do the same, but they were under the immediate command of the king. It is not certain that they had any forebodings of evil, or dreaded reprisals on Elijah’s part, but they had had proof conclusive of his power and of their impo-fence. We must remember that all through the triennium prayers and sacrifices had, no doubt, been constantly offered with a view to procure rain. We learn from Menander (Jos; Joshua 8:1-35.13. 2) that even in Phoenicia supplication had been made for rain by Ethabaal. 1 Kings 18:23 Let them therefore give us two bullocks; and let them choose one bullock for themselves, and cut it in pieces [same word Exodus 29:17; Le Exodus 1:6, Exodus 1:12; Judges 20:6], and lay it on wood [Heb. the woods], and put no fire under [Heb. and fire they shall not set to]: and I win dress [Heb. make, עָשָׂה, like ποιεῖν in the LXX; is constantly used in a sacrificial sense = offer. Cf. Exodus 29:36, Exodus 29:38, Exodus 29:41; Le Exodus 9:7; Exodus 15:15; Judges 6:19, etc. This is to be remembered in interpreting our Lord’s τοῦτοποιεῖτεκ.τ.λ. (Luke 22:19)] the other bullock, and lay it on wood [the wood], and put no fire under [and fire I will not set to]: 1 Kings 18:24 And call ye on the name of your gods [As Elijah is still addressing the people, not the prophets of Baal (see 1 Kings 18:25), this change of person is significant. He sorrowfully assumes that they have taken Baal and Astarte for their gods], and I will call on the name of the Lord: and the Clod that answereth by fire, let him be God. [Heb. he shall be the God, i.e; the true God and their God. Cf. verse 39. Not only was a "sign from heaven" (Mark 8:11) ever esteemed a more powerful and direct proof of Divine energy—perhaps as being less liable to be counterfeited, and as excluding the idea of the operation of infernal powers (Matthew 12:24)—but it must be remembered that Baal claimed to be the Sun god and Lord of the elements and forces of nature; while Jehovah bad already, according to the law, identified Himself with this token (Le Hebrews 9:24; 1 Chronicles 21:26; 2 Chronicles 7:1). Indeed, this sign had a double fit. ness as a test of the true religion. It would not only put the powers of the rival deities to the proof; it would also at the same time decide which of the rival systems of worship was acceptable to the Supreme Being. It is observable that there is no mention of rain. We might have expected, after the long drought, that this would be the test. But that could not be promised until the Lord had first been recognized as God.] And all the people answered and said, Is well spoken. [Heb. Good the word. They accepted Elijah’s proposition, but whether eagerly or reluctantly it is difficult to say. The Hebrew merely conveys that they admitted its fairness and reasonableness. Having gained the assent of the people, for whose verdict he and the Baal prophets were now contending, and who were, consequently, entitled to be consulted as to the sign which would satisfy them, he turns to the band of 400 prophets, who, probably in all the bravery of their sacrificial vestments (2 Kings 10:22), occupied a separate position on the hill top, between the king and the people, and repeats his proposal to them. 1 Kings 18:25 And Elijah said unto the prophets of Baal, Choose you one bullock for yourselves, and dress [or offer, as in 1 Kings 18:23] it first; for ye are many [Heb. the many. Every pre-eminence and advantage which he gives to them will make his triumph, when it comes, all the greater. It is quite possible that he meant again to hint at their immense superiority in point of numbers. But no doubt he was only too glad to find a reason for their taking the lead. "He is anxious that their inability shall be fully manifested before he shows his own power" (Rawlinson). Whether the idea was also present in his mind that they "could prepare their victim in a much shorter time than he could prepare his" (ib.) is by no means so certain]; and call on the name of your gods [or god, i.e; Baal], but put no fire under. [The repetition (cf. verse 24) shows that the ordeal was proposed separately to the people and the prophets.] 1 Kings 18:26 And they took the bullock which was given them [Heb. which he (or one) gave; i.e; they declined to choose], and they dressed it, and called on the name of from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us [Heb. answer us. Same word as below. They thought they would be heard for their much speaking]. But there was no voice [Heb. and not a voice], nor any that answered. And they leaped [or limped. Same word as that translated "halt" in verse 21. Gesenius thinks the word is "used scornfully of the awkward dancing of the priests of Baal." But it seems more natural to understand it as descriptive of what actually occurred, i.e; of the reeling, swaying, bacchantie dance of the priests, which was probably not unlike that of the dancing dervishes or the Indian devil worshippers of our own time] upon [or near, i.e; around] the altar which was made, [Heb. he, that is, one made, עָשָׂה impersonal. But some MSS. and most versions read עָשׁוּ]. 1 Kings 18:27 And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked [or deceived] them, and said, Cry aloud [Heb. with a great voice]: for he is a god [i.e; in your estimation. "Here is one of the few examples of irony in Scripture" (Wordsworth)]; either he is talking [the marg. he meditateth is preferable. Cf. 1 Samuel 1:16; Psalms 142:3. But the word has both meanings (see 2 Kings 9:11), fairly preserved in the LXX; ἀδολεσχίααὐτῷἐστι], or he is pursuing [Heb. for he hath a withdrawal, i.e; for the purpose of relieving himself. A euphemism. Cf. Judges 3:24; 2 Samuel 24:3. Stanley attempts to preserve the paronomasia, שִׂיג שִׂיח, by the translation, "he has his head full" and "he has his stomach full"], or he is in a Journey [the thrice repeated כִי must be noticed. It heightens the effect of the mockery], or peradventure he sleepeth [Though it was noon, it is not clear that there is a reference to the usual midday siesta of the East], and must be awaked. 1 Kings 18:28 And they cried aloud [Heb. in a great voice, as above. It was not that they took Elijah’s words au serieux, but his scorn led them to redouble their efforts, if only to testify their faith in their god. The frantic cries of the Greek Easter in Jerusalem, the prayers of the pilgrims for the descent of the holy fire, may help us to realize the scene here described], and cut themselves [cf. Deuteronomy 14:1; Jeremiah 16:6; Jeremiah 41:5; Jeremiah 47:5] after their manner [Keil quotes from Movers, Phoniz. 1. pp. 682-83, a description of the religious dances offered to the Dea Syria. "A discordant howling opens the scene. Then they rush wildly about in perfect confusion, with their heads bowed down to the ground, but always revolving in circles, so that the loosened hair drags through the mire; then they begin to bite their arms, and end with cutting themselves with the two-edged swords which they are in the habit of carrying. A new scene then opens. One of them, who surpasses all the rest in frenzy, begins to prophesy with sighs and groans," etc. In the "Contemporary Review," vol. 27, pp. 371 sqq; Bishop Caldwell has graphically described the devil dances of Southern India—a description which may be read with profit in this connexion. One sentence may be transcribed here: "He cuts and hacks and hews himself, and not unfrequently kills himself there and then." Kitto mentions "the furious gashes which the Persians inflict upon themselves in their frantic annual lamentation for Hossein." Rawlinson says this was also common among the Carians and Phrygians] with knives [Heb. swords] and lancets [Heb. lances, spears. The A.V. is misleading. The instruments they used were weapons of heavy-armed troops. For רְמָחִים, see Numbers 25:7; Judges 5:8; Jeremiah 46:4], till the blood gushed out upon them. [Heb. until the shedding of blood upon them. It is perfectly clear that their faith in Baal was sincere and profound. Making due allowance for the fact that they were under the eyes of their king and patron, and of representatives of the entire people, it is still impossible to doubt their sincerity. Some of them, it is probable, were Phoenicians. "Of one thing I am assured—the devil dancer never shams excitement" (Caldwell).] 1 Kings 18:29 And it came to pass, when midday was past [Elijah allowed them all the time he could, consistently with the great work he had himself to do, which would absorb all the rest of the day], and they prophesied [Notice the striking coincidence with the description of the worship of Ashtoreth given above. We are not to think of vaticinations, but of frenzied cries, etc. It is not clear, however, that any fresh element in their worship is intended, as Keil imagines. Their service as a whole, seeing they were prophets, would be called a "prophesying," and the word, consequently, may merely mean "they pursued their calling," "they cried and prayed," etc.] until the time of the offering [Keil and Rawlinson would translate, "until towards the time," etc. There is certainly some indefiniteness in the words עַד לַעֲלוֹת, until [the hour] for placing, etc; but we may well believe that their dances and cries continued up to the moment of Elijah’s prayer (1 Kings 18:36)] of the evening sacrifice [Heb. the Minchah, i.e; the meat offering or unbloody sacrifice. In Genesis 4:3-6 the word would appear to be used of any offering; but at a later day it was restricted to bloodless offerings, and was opposed to זֶבַח Cf. Psalms 40:7; Jeremiah 17:26. Directions as to the offering of the Minchah are given, Exodus 29:38-41; Numbers 28:3-8. The evening sacrifice was probably offered then, as it certainly was at a later day, at the ninth hour. Cf. Acts 3:1; Acts 10:3, Acts 10:30, and see Jos; Ant. 14.4. 3. Wordsworth think, this synchronism very significant, as suggesting that the true worship of God was that of the temple in Jerusalem], that there was neither voice, nor any to answer [as in Acts 10:26], nor any that regarded. [Heb. and not attention. The LXX has a curious variation and addition here: "And Elijah the Tishbite said to the prophets of the idols, Stand back; I will now make ready my offering."] 1 Kings 18:30 And Elijah said unto all the people [He has now done with the priests. They have had their opportunity; his turn is come], Come dear unto me. [Hitherto they had gathered round the altar of Baal, and some, it may he, had joined their prayers to those of the priests (1 Kings 18:24). In 1 Kings 18:21, he "drew near"—same word—to them. Now they must stand round the altar he is about to build. He will have "eyewitnesses and ear-witnesses" (Keil). There must be no suspicion of imposture.] And all the people came near unto him And he repaired the altar of the Lord that was broken down. [It has been already suggested that this altar may have dated from the time when there was no house built unto the name of the Lord. But it is just as likely that it had been restored, if not raised, by some of the "seven thousand who had not bowed their knees unto Baal," or by some of the faithful remaining in Israel after the calf-worship and the hostility between the two kingdoms had made worship at Jerusalem an impossibility. Anyhow we can hardly be mistaken in holding that this was one of the "altars" (1 Kings 19:10), thrown down" by command of Ahab or Jezebel. Elijah’s repairing it wag an act of profound significance. It showed him as the restorer of the law and the true religion.] 1 Kings 18:31 And Elijah took twelve stones [This number, too, was full of significance. Not only would it carry back their thoughts to the giving of the law (Exodus 24:4; Exodus 28:21), and to their fathers’ entrance into the promised land (Joshua 4:3, Joshua 4:9), but it would remind them of the essential unity of the people, notwithstanding the division of the kingdom. The act was thus a protest against the schism. We cannot hold with Keil, Wordsworth, al. that it was "a practical declaration on the part of the prophet that the division of the nation into two kingdoms was at variance with the will of God," because we are distinctly told that that division was "from the Lord" (1 Kings 12:15). But it was certainly a witness against a divided Church, and a reminder of the unity of the race], according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, unto whom the word of the Lord came [Genesis 32:28], saying, Israel shall be thy name. [He thus protests against the exclusive assumption of the name of Israel, and the exception of the southern kingdom from the glorious heritage and calling of Israel, by the ten tribes. But we cannot follow Bהhr in the belief that Jacob received "from Jehovah the name of Israel," i.e; the "soldier of God," because he commanded his house to "put away the strange gods" (Genesis 35:2, Genesis 35:10 sqq.), or that Elijah would teach that "only those who did as Jacob did had a claim to his name." The great idea is that the people are one, and are the Lord’s.] 1 Kings 18:32 And with the stones [the twelve he had chosen out of the ruins. Cf. Exodus 20:25] he built an altar in the name of the Lord [not "by the command of Jehovah" (Bהhr), but rather as the minister and for the service of Jehovah, or, as Keil. "by the authority and for the glory of Jehovah." Nor is it certain that "he called, as he Built it, on the name of Jehovah, and so dedicated it to His service" (Rawl.) See Genesis 12:8; Genesis 13:4; Genesis 33:20; Genesis 35:7]: and he made a trench [or channel, 2 Kings 18:17; Isaiah 7:3; Isaiah 36:2; Ezekiel 31:4. The word implies that it was for holding the water, not for keeping off the people] about the altar, as great as would contain two measures of seed [Heb. as the inside (lit; house) of two seahs of seed. These words have been variously interpreted. Keil, with Thenius and Wordsworth, understands that "the trench was so large that you could sow two seahs of seed upon the ground which it covered." But apart from the fact that בַּיִת must refer to capacity rather than superficial extent, one does not measure a trench, as Bהhr observes, by the ground which it covers, but by its depth. He would follow Gesenius in understanding that the trench was so deep as to hold two seahs of seed; i.e; as deep as the grain measure containing two seahs. The סְאָה was the third of an ephah. Cf. Jos; Ant. 9.4. 5, and the σάτατρία of Matthew 13:33. 1 Kings 18:33 And he put the wood in order, and cut the bullock in pieces, and laid him on the wood [Rawlinson says "He obeyed, that is, all the injunctions of the law with respect to the offering of a burnt sacrifice (see Leviticus 1 Kings 1:3-9), and adds, "He thus publicly taught that all the ordinances of the law were binding on the kingdom of Israel." But it is very probable that the priests of Baal had done the same things. All sacrifice involved such manual acts. Cf. Genesis 22:9, where the same word עָרַךְ is used. No doubt the prophet did everything in an orderly and regular way; but the people could hardly learn a lesson of obedience from such elementary acts as these, and the less so as the law provided, that the sacrifice should be offered only "by the priests, the sons of Aaron" (Le Genesis 1:8), and Elijah’s ministrations, consequently, might seem to warrant or condone the ministrations of Jeroboam’s intrusive priesthood. That they did not lend any real sanction to those irregularities is clear, however, to us. For, in the first place, priests were not to be had, all having long since left the kingdom. In the second place, the higher commission of the prophet embraced within itself the authority for all necessary priestly Ac. Cf. 1 Samuel 16:2. Elijah acted, as Grotius well observes, jure prophetico, minoribus legibus exsolutus, ut majores servaret], and said, Fill four barrels [Heb. כַדּים. Cf. 1 Kings 17:12. It designates the ordinary water-pitcher, generally carried then, as now, by women: Genesis 24:14-20; Judges 7:16; Ecclesiastes 12:6] with water, and pour it on the burnt sacrifice, and on the wood. [The water, as already remarked, was doubtless brought from the adjoining spring. "In such springs the water remains always cool, under the shade of a vaulted roof, and with no hot atmosphere to evaporate it. While all other fountains were dried up, I can well understand that there might have been found here that superabundance of water which Elijah poured so profusely over the altar".] 1 Kings 18:34 And he said, Do it the second time. And they did it the second time. [Heb. Repeat, and they repeated.] And he said, Do it the third time. And they did it the third time. [See note on 1 Kings 17:21. 1 Kings 18:35 And the water ran round [Heb. the waters went round] about the altar, and he filled the trench also [i.e; the trench, which was only partially filled with the water of the twelve כַדִּים, he now filled to the brim] with water. [The object of these repeated drenchings of the victim and altar was to exclude all suspicion of fraud. It would almost seem as if tricks not unlike that practised year by year at the Greek Easter at Jerusalem were familiar to that age. Some of the fathers expressly state that the idolatrous priests of an earlier time were accustomed to set fire to the sacrifice from hollow places concealed beneath the altar, and it was an old tradition (found in Ephrem Syrus, and Chrysostom) that the Baal prophets had concealed a man for that purpose beneath their altar, but that he had died from suffocation (Stanley). Bהhr, however, sees in these 3 x 4 vessels of water a symbolical act. The significance of this combination, he says, is unmistakable, though we cannot be certain as to the precise meaning of the prophetic act. His only suggestion is that it points to abundance of rain as the reward of keeping the covenant (Deuteronomy 28:12, Deuteronomy 28:23). But all this is extremely precarious, and the more so as the pitchers may have been filled any number of times before the trench was full.] 1 Kings 18:36 And it came to pass at the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice [see note on 1 Kings 18:29], that Elijah the prophet [this designation of Elijah is unusual. Cf. Malachi 4:5. Elsewhere he is "the Tishbite," or the "man of God"] came near, and said, Lord [Heb. Jehovah. Not only does the sacred name stand at the head of his prayer, it is also mentioned thrice (LXX. four times)] God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel [Two things are to be noticed here: first, that this formula had only once before been used, and that by God Himself, before the giving of law, at the burning bush. It was when God revealed Himself in flaming fire that He had proclaimed Himself the God of Abraham, etc. Secondly, that the variation "Israel" is made designedly (cf. verse 31), not only to proclaim the Lord as the "God of Israel" (cf. 1 Kings 17:1), but also to suggest that the name and privileges of Israel belonged to all the sons of Jacob. The LXX. adds, "Hear me, O Lord, hear me this day by fire"—most of which is clearly borrowed from the next verse], let it be known this day that thou art God in Israel [according to verse 24, "the God that answereth by fire, etc.], and that I am thy servant, and that I have done all these things according to thy word. [LXX. διὰσε. Not only the earlier proceedings of the day, but the three years’ drought, etc. Keil would include the miracle about to be performed, but the people could hardly doubt that that, when done, was done according to the Divine word. It is interesting to compare with these words 1 Kings 17:2, 1 Kings 17:3, 1 Kings 17:8, 1 Kings 17:16, 1 Kings 17:24, and 1 Kings 18:1, all of which mention the "word of the Lord."] 1 Kings 18:37 Hear me, O Lord [Jehovah], hear me [or answer me; same word as in 1 Kings 18:24, 1 Kings 18:26, and 1 Kings 18:29], that this people may know that thou art the Lord God [Rather, "that thou, Jehovah, art the God." Same expression as in 1 Kings 18:24, "let him be the God"], and that thou hast turned their heart back again. [Cf. Malachi 4:5, Malachi 4:6: "He "Elijah the prophet") shall turn the heart of the fathers," etc. He speaks as if the miracle were already wrought (cf. John 11:41), and the people already repentant. His prayer is that they may understand that the prodigy about to be performed was wrought for their conversion.] 1 Kings 18:38 Then the fire of the Lord [Jehovah. Not lightning, but supernatural light and heat emanating from God Himself. Cf. Leviticus 1 Kings 9:24; 1 Chronicles 21:26; 2 Chronicles 7:1; Hebrews 12:29] fell, and consumed [Heb. ate up, devoured] the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones [in calcem redigit, Cler.], and the dust [Bähr translates die Erde, and understands this to be the earth with which the altar of twelve stones had been packed. Similarly Rawlinson. But it is very doubtful whether עָפָר pulvis, could be used in this sense. It may mean dry earth, but this altar had been deluged with water], and licked up [לָחַךְ is clearly onomatopoetic, like our lick; Germ. lecken; Gr. λείχω, etc. It expresses well the action of tongues of flame] the water that was in the trench. 1 Kings 18:39 And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces [As in Leviticus 1 Kings 9:24; 2 Chronicles 7:3; cf. Numbers 22:31; Joshua 5:14; Revelation 11:16. They recognized in the fire, that is to say, the token of the Divine Presence]: and they said, The Lord [Jehovah. The connexion of this verse with the three verses preceding is obscured by our translation], he is the God; the Lord, he is the God. [The echo of verse 24. The Hebrew words are the same. Stanley remarks that it is as if (by a slight inversion) they turned "the name of the prophet himself into a war-cry, ’Eli-Jah-hu.’"] 1 Kings 18:40 And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. [Elijah’s promptitude is extremely striking. The people had hardly recovered from their terror and awe before he proceeds to judgment. The narrative has the air of truth, and was doubtless reduced to writing by an eye-witness.] And they took them: and Elijah brought them down [Heb. caused them to go down, i.e; had them brought down. He could but lead the way, as they numbered 450] to the brook [Wady. "Like most of the so called ’ rivers of Palestine,’ the perennial stream forms but a small part of the Kishon" (Grove)] Kishon ["Tortuous," now called Nahr el Mukatta, the "river of slaughter." See Thomson, L. and B. 2. pp. 140, 141; Porter, pp. 383-4; Dict. Bib. 2.p.45. It flows directly under Carmel], and slew them there. [Obviously, he merely superintended the slaughter. That he slew them all with his own hand is altogether out of the question. Nor is it clear that" sword in hand he stood over them" (Stanley). Josephus rightly explains: "they slew the prophets at Elijah’s instigation." It is almost certain, from their resorting to the Kishon for this purpose, that it was not quite dry at the time. Their blood would mingle with its waters, and the flood which the "great rain" would presently produce (cf. Judges 5:21) would carry their corpses down to the sea. It has often been supposed that the mound near the Kishon, known as Tell el Cassis, "the mound of the priests," derives its name from this slaughter of the prophets of Baal. But Conder remarks that "Kassis is the word applied to a Christian priest, and the word Kohen or Kamir would more naturally be expected if there was any real connexion with the idolatrous priests of Baal."] This action of the prophet Elijah in instituting this wholesale slaughter in the hour of his triumph has been repeatedly arraigned and denounced, but most unjustly. According to some, it was an act of gross fanaticism and cruelty; others have seen it in a wild and terrible vendetta for the murder of the Lord’s prophets. By some, indeed, it has been justified on the principles of the lex talionis (Exodus 21:24, etc.); on the ground, that is to say, that the men who had instigated Jezebel in her attempted extermination of the prophetic schools had merited extermination in their turn. But it is a fatal objection to their view, first, that we not only have no proof, but no reason for thinking, that it was at their instigation that the queen "cut off the prophets of the Lord;" and, secondly, that it is not clear that she succeeded in her sanguinary purpose, or that many lives were sacrificed to her fury. And Elljah’s action needs no such lame apologies. As the Lord’s prophet, as the vindicator and restorer of the law, there was no other course open to him. If the Mosaic law was then written, and this very incident is one of the proofs that it was then written; if, however it had fallen into contempt or desuetude, it was still binding upon Israel; and if Elijah was justified in executing its provisions, and was required to execute them, however repugnant they might be to his inclinations (Deuteronomy 27:26; Galatians 3:10), then he could not have done otherwise than he did. For it was an essential part of that law, it was an obligation that was laid, not once or twice, but on three separate occasions (Exodus 22:20; Deuteronomy 13:1-18.; Deuteronomy 17:2-7), on the Jewish people, it was a duty they were to perform, however distressing and harrowing it might be (Deuteronomy 13:6-9), to provide that the worshipper of false gods, and especially the teacher of such worship, should be put to death. It was primarily, of course, the duty of the authorities, of the theocratic king and his subordinates, to execute these injunctions. But the king of that age was corrupt and powerless—nay, was himself idolatrous. So great was the depravity of the time that the false prophet enjoyed the favour and protection of the court, and the true prophet was everywhere being hunted to death. The execution of this law, consequently, could not be expected from the king. It must be executed, if at all, in spite of him, and in disregard of his protests. It was only Elijah, therefore, could put it into force, and Elijah only in the hour of his triumph. And the jus zelotyparum, the right claimed by every faithful Jew to execute vengeance, after the example of Phinehas (Numbers 25:11), upon any gross breach of the Divine law committed in his presence, was not his only warranty; he held a commission, higher than the king’s, as the prophet of the Most High. He had just proved that the Lord He was God. It was now for him to prove that God’s law was no dead letter. It was for him to cut off the men—some of them renegades from the faith of Israel, some of them foreign emissaries introduced into the land who had corrupted his countrymen, and threatened the very existence of the true religion. It is necessary, therefore, for those who challenge his conduct in this respect, who call him sanguinary, vindictive, etc; to settle their account with the law which he obeyed, and, indeed, with Him who has approved this deed, and has forewarned us that He too will act in like manner (Luke 19:27). For this terrible retribution is by no means an exceptional or isolated act, in contrast to the general spirit of that dispensation; on the contrary, it is in thorough accord with the system out of which it sprung. We gain nothing, therefore, by repudiating this one transaction. For clearly, in the first place, it was allowed and approved of God, who otherwise would hardly have answered the prayer which Elijah presently offered, and (2) other similar acts have distinctly received Divine commendation (Exodus 32:25-28; Numbers 25:7-13; 2 Kings 1:9 sqq.) It is true that the spirit of Elias was not the spirit of Christianity (Luke 9:56), but it is forgotten how different was the dispensation of Elijah from that of the New Covenant. In that age idolaters must receive their just recompense of reward, because the judgment to come had not then been revealed; because justice must be measured out to men in this life. We do not avenge idolatry or irreligion now with fire and sword, not because the thing is any the less sinful, but because the duty has been taken out of our hands; because our religion instructs us to leave it to Him who has said, "Vengeance is Mine," etc. It is perhaps worth remarking here that there is nothing in this history half so dreadful as might be seen on a thousand battlefields—and those not battlefields for truth and right—on which, nevertheless, Elijah’s critics have learned to look with complacency. It may, however, be objected to this view that the punishment denounced by the law was stoning (Deuteronomy 13:10; Deuteronomy 17:5). But surely it is easy to see why, in this particular, the law was not kept. It was simply that the exigency of the occasion did not permit of its being kept. It was because the 450 traitors to God and their country could not be stoned within the few hours that remained before the night closed in and the multitude dispersed, that a more speedy punishment, that of the sword, was adopted. And it would have been a sacrifice of the spirit of the law to the letter had some few false prophets been stoned and the rest thereby been afforded the opportunity to escape, and, under Jezebel’s protection, to renew their efforts against truth and morality and religion. 1 Kings 18:41 And Elijah said unto Ahab, Get thee up [It is clear from the word עֲלֵה that the king had gone clown with the crowd to the Kishon. Curiosity had perhaps impelled him to witness the slaughter which he was powerless to prevent. And no doubt he had been profoundly awed by the portent he had just witnessed], eat and drink [It is hardly likely that there was aught of derision in these words. It is extremely probable that the excitement of the ordeal was so intense that the king had barely tasted food all day long. Elijah now bids him eat if he can, after what he has witnessed. There is now, he suggests, no further cause for anxiety or alarm. The people being repentant (1 Kings 18:39, 1 Kings 18:40), and the men who have brought a curse on the land being cut off, the drought can now be abated (cf. 2 Samuel 21:1, 2 Samuel 21:6, 2 Samuel 21:14). The next words assign the reason why he should eat and drink. It is a mistake, however (Ewald, Rawlinson), to suppose that he was bidden to "eat of the feast which always followed a sacrifice," for this was a whole burnt offering and had been entirely consumed (1 Kings 18:38). It is probable that the attendants of the king had spread a tent for him upon the plateau, and had brought food for the day along with them]; for there is a sound of abundance of rain [Heb. for a voice of a noise—הָמוֹן; cf. hum, an onomatopoetic word—of rain. Gesenius and Keil think that the prophet could already hear the sound of the drops of rain, but if so, it was only in spirit (cf. verse 45). The words may refer to the rise of the wind which so often precedes a storm, but it is more probable that Elijah speaks of signs and intimations understood only by himself. This was the "word" of 1 Kings 17:1. 1 Kings 18:42 So Ahab went up to eat and to drink. And Elijah went up to the top [Heb. head] of Carmel [It is clear from Verse 43 that this was not the actual summit, nor can it have been, as Bהhr supposes, the outermost promontory towards the sea, unless he means the foot or slope of that ridge or promontory, for from this רֹאשׁ the sea was not visible. It also appears from the עֲלֵה of verse 44 that this point must have been at a lower elevation than the plateau where the altar had stood and where Ahab’s tent was]; and he cast himself down upon the earth [Same word 2 Kings 4:34, 2 Kings 4:35, of Elisha’s prostration upon the dead child. But if Elijah "stretched himself full length" upon the earth, as the Easterns constantly do in prayer (see Thomson, 1:26, 27) it was but for a moment, as we presently find him kneeling], and put his face between his knees. ["The Oriental attitude of entire abstraction" (Stanley). The posture witnessed to the intensity of his supplication.] 1 Kings 18:43 And said to his servant [of whom we now hear for the first time. It is an old tradition that this was none other than the son of the Sareptan, who was afterwards known as the prophet Jonah (Jerome, Praef. in Jonam). See note on 1 Kings 17:24], Go up now, look toward [Heb. the way of] the sea. [It is a striking confirmation of the theory which identifies El Murahkah with the scene of Elijah’s sacrifice that the sea, though not visible from the plateau itself, is from the crest of the hill, a few feet higher. Van de Velde writes, "On its west and northwest sides the view of the sea is quite intercepted by an adjacent height. That height may be ascended, however, in a few minutes and a full view of the sea obtained from the top." Similarly the latest authority, Mr. Condor: "The peak is a semi-isolated knoll with a cliff some forty feet high, looking southeast .... The sea is invisible, except from the summit, and thus it was only by climbing to the top of Carmel, from the plateau where the altar may have stood, that the prophet’s servant could have seen the little cloud," etc.] And he went up, and looked, and said, There is nothing. And he said, Go again seven times. [Cf. Joshua 6:15-20; 2 Kings 5:14; Matthew 18:21; Psalms 119:164. The idea here is that of sufficiency, of completion, rather than, as elsewhere, of covenant. And yet it must be remembered that Elijah was only praying for what God had already promised to grant (Psalms 119:1). This earnest prayer for rain under these circumstances suggests that the former prayer "that it might not rain" (James 5:17) had also been inspired of God. But it is worth considering whether Elijah’s attitude was not one of reverent and assured expectation, as much as of prayer. When Rawlinson says that "the faithfulness and patience shown [by the servant] in executing this order without a murmur, imply devotedness of no common kind," he surely forgets that the drought had lasted for three years and a half, and that the servant had that day seen the fires of God descend at Elijah’s prayer. It is inconceivable, under such circumstances, that any man could murmur.] 1 Kings 18:44 And it came to pus at the seventh time, that he said, Behold, there ariseth a little cloud out of the sea, like a man’s hand. [כַף lit; palm, hollow of hand. Cf. Luke 12:54, "When ye see the cloud (Gr. τὴννεφέλην) arise out of the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is." "Still in autumn the Utile cloud comes up like a man’s hand and swells till huge thunder pillars are piled black and high above the mountains" (Condor). But it is not in Palestine alone that a little cloud on the horizon is frequently the harbinger of rain]. And he said, Go up [see note on Luke 12:42], say unto Ahab, Prepare thy chariot [Heb. bind], and get thee down [Keil, Stanley, and others assume that Ahab’s chariot was waiting at the foot of the mountain. But it is to be noticed that the command to harness the horses precedes that to "go down." The writer rode down from El Murahkah to the plain, and it is quite conceivable that the royal chariot may have conveyed Ahab to the plateau of sacrifice and have waited for him there], that the rain stop thee not, [After heavy rain (גֶּשֶׁם) the Kishon, which "collects the whole drainage of this large basin" (Conder), the Great Plain, soon becomes an impassable swamp.(Judg, 5:21), "I can tell you from experience that in wet seasons it (the Wady) is extremely muddy, and then the Kishon causes great tribulation to the muleteers. Rarely indeed do they get over it without some of their animals sticking fast in its oozy bottom".] 1 Kings 18:45 And it came to pass in the meanwhile [Heb. unto thus and unto thus, i.e; till now and then (cf. Exodus 7:16; Joshua 17:14). Gesen; Bהhr, al. support the rendering of the A.V. Ewald, Keil, al. understand "while the hand is being moved hither and thither," i.e; very speedily. The practical difference is not great], that the heaven was black with clouds and wind, and there was a great rain. ["The cry of the boy from his mountain watch had hardly been uttered when the storm broke upon the plain" (Stanley). "The storm" [over "the dark slate-coloured ridge of Carmel," witnessed by Conder in 1872] "burst suddenly, the rain descending with violence, hissing on the ground, as if not able to come down fast enough, and accompanied with gusts of wind, thunder, and lightning."] And Ahab rode, and went to Jezreel. 1 Kings 18:46 This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ ELIJAH’S FLIGHT THE OF HOREB AND THE CALLING OF ELISHA.—We can readily understand with what a sense of humiliation and shame the weak and excited king, who must have been awed and impressed by the strange portent he had witnessed, would recount the day’s proceedings to his imperious and headstrong consort, and with what intense mortification and rage she must have heard of the triumph of the proscribed religion and of the defeat and death of the priests of Baal. One might almost have expected that the testimony of an eyewitness, and that her husband, to the greatness and completeness of Elijah’s victory; that his unprejudiced, and indeed unwilling, account of the sacrifices, of the descent of the heavenly fire, of the cries it wrung from the people, etc; would have brought conviction to her mind and taught her how useless it was to kick against the pricks. But there are eyes so blinded (2 Corinthians 4:4) and hearts so steeled against the truth that no evidence can reach them, and this fierce persecutor of the prophets had long been given over to a reprobate mind. She listens to his story, but her one thought is of revenge. 1 Kings 19:1 And Ahab told Jezebel all that Elijah had done, and withal how he had slain [Heb. and all which he had slain. The construction, if it were not for the כָל would be usual enough. As that word is omitted in some MSS. and versions, it is possible it has been inserted by a transcriber, mechanically, from the אֵת כָל־אֲשֶׁר preceding] all the prophets, [sc; of Baal, all who were present] with the sword. 1 Kings 19:2 Then Jezebel sent a messenger unto Elijah [The prophet, wrapped in his abba, was seemingly about to spend the night in the open air, possibly at the gate, or in the plain. There, in the darkness, the messenger found him, Bהhr assumes that this message had Ahab’s sanction; i.e; that he must have known of it and was too weak to prevent it. But it is just as likely that it was sent without his privity. On the evening of that day he would be afraid to threaten one vested with such tremendous powers as Elijah had just proved himself to possess], saying [Here the LXX. inserts "If thou art Eliou and I Jezebel"], So let gods [As אֱלֹהִים is here found with a the plural verb, it is rightly assumed that the reference is to the divinities of Phoenicia or of paganism generally. Besides, Jezebel would hardly swear by the one God of Elijah and of Israel. The LXX; however, has ὁθεὸς], do to me, and more also [Heb. and so let them add. See on 1 Kings 2:23. Stanley appositely recalls to our minds "the tremendous vows which mark the history of the Semitic race, both within and without the Jewish pale, the vow of Jephthah, the vow of Saul, the vow of Hannibal." Rawlinson remarks that this oath was "familiar in the mouths of kings about this time" (1 Kings 20:10; 2 Kings 6:31). But it was a standing formula in Israel at all times. See Rth 1:17; 1 Samuel 3:17; etc.], if I make not thy life as the life of one of them by tomorrow about this time. ["That queen consort, it seems, was, in effect, queen regent" (Henry). What induced the queen to send this message? For it is obvious that if she really meant to slay Elijah, she took the very means to defeat her purpose by thus forewarning him of her intentions. Some of the older expositors have seen in the act a proof of her blind infatuation, of that infatuation which God often employs to defeat the machinations of wicked men, and this view is not to be lightly rejected. That she fully meant what she said is hardly to be doubted. But later writers, including Keil, Bähr, and Wordsworth, see in the threat nothing more than a scheme for ridding herself of the presence of Elijah. They argue that, finding herself unable to put him to death, partly because of the impression he had made upon the people, and partly, too, because of the ascendancy he had just gained over the king, she resolved, by threatening him with instant death, to give him an opportunity for flight. But this view hardly takes sufficiently into account the exasperation, the blind unreasoning hate, or the reckless and desperate character of the queen. It must be remembered that this message was despatched, not after she had had time for thought and calculation, but on the spur of the moment, as soon as she had heard of the massacre of the priests of Baal. That night she could do nothing, nor perhaps could she see her way clearly to compass his death on the morrow. But she will have him know that he is not going to escape her, and that, whatever the effect on her husband, she is unconquered and unrelenting. She does not stop to argue that he may take the alarm and flee. But she must gratify her impotent rage forthwith by threatening him with death the next day.] 1 Kings 19:3 And when he saw that [Heb. and he saw and arose, etc. But the LXX. has καὶἐφοβήθη, and the Vulgate timuit, and it is to be observed that this meaning, "and he feared," can be extracted from this word וירא without any change of radicals, for the full form יִירָא is occasionally abbreviated into יִרָא; see 1 Samuel 18:12; 1 Samuel 21:13; 2 Kings 17:28. A few MSS. have here וייּרא and it certainly suits the context better. Bהhr, who interprets, "he saw how matters stood," i.e; that she meant him to flee, is not justified in asserting that this expression would require an accusative of the person feared. (See, e.g; Genesis 3:10; Genesis 15:1; Genesis 18:15.) Both he and Keil furthermore object to this interpretation that it is contrary to actual fact, neither of them being willing to allow that Elijah was afraid. Bהhr says it is inconceivable that the man who had that day faced alone king and priests and the entire people should have become all at once afraid of a bad woman, and he explains Elijah’s flight as caused by the discovery that he could not carryon his work of reformation, and by the absence of any intimation (like that of 1 Kings 18:1) that he was to stay and hazard his life. But apart from the fact that we are distinctly told that he "went for his life" (cf. 2 Kings 17:4, 2 Kings 17:10), and that his flight seems to have been instant and hurried, history tells of many great souls, hardly less brave than Elijah’s, which have succumbed to a sudden panic. Anyhow, it is evident that for the moment Elijah had lost faith in God, otherwise he would certainly have waited for the "word of the Lord," which had hitherto invariably guided his movements (1 Kings 17:2, 1 Kings 17:8; 1 Kings 18:1). No doubt other emotions besides that of fear were struggling in his breast, and prominent among these was the feeling of profound disappointment and mortification. It is clear that he had hoped that the "day of Carmel" would turn the heart of the entire nation back again (1 Kings 18:37), and the great shout of 2 Kings 17:39, and the subsequent execution, at his command, of the men who had deceived and depraved the people, might well justify the most sanguine expectations. We can readily imagine, consequently, how, especially after the excitement and fatigues of that day, the threatening and defiant message of the queen would seem the death blow of his hopes, and how, utterly dispirited and broken down, he lost all trust, all faith, and, while fleeing for his life, "requested for himself that he might die" (2 Kings 17:4)], he arose, and went for his life [Keil is compelled, by his refusal to allow that Elijah was actuated by fear, to render these words, "went to commit his soul to God in the solitude of the desert." But the men meaning is settled for us by the like expression in 2 Kings 7:7; nor does Jeremiah 44:7 lend any support to Keil’s view. Gesenius compares τρέχεινπερὶψυχῆς. Od. 9:423. The A.V. exactly represents the meaning], and came to Beer-sheba [Genesis 21:31; Genesis 26:33. The southern boundary of Palestine (Joshua 15:28; 2 Samuel 24:7; Judges 20:1; 1 Chronicles 21:2, etc.), allotted to the tribe of Simeon (Joshua 19:2), which tribe, we gather from this passage (see also 2 Chronicles 19:4), was now absorbed in the southern kingdom. (See note on Genesis 11:31.) Wordsworth suggests that "perhaps he resorted to Beer-sheba in order to strengthen his faith with the recollection of the patriarchs who had dwelt there," etc. But if that had been his object, a journey to the place was hardly necessary, and it is clear that he only passed through it on his way to Mount Sinai. "Beer-sheba was about 95 miles from Jezreel"—Rawlinson, who adds that Elijah cannot have reached it till the close of the second day. But we must remember that his pace would be regulated by the powers of his servant, probably a mere lad (LXX. παιδάριον), so that it is hardly likely he could travel day and night without stopping to rest], which belongeth to Judah [It is part of Keil’s argument in proof that Elijah did not flee from fear of Jezebel, that, had such been the case, he would have remained in the kingdom of Judah, where he would have enjoyed the protection of Jehoshaphat. But it is by no means certain that this prince, considering his close alliance with Ahab (1 Kings 22:4; cf. 1 Kings 18:10; 2 Kings 8:18; 2 Chronicles 18:1), would have sheltered the prophet. Indeed, it is remarkable, as Blunt has well pointed out, that the prophet never took refuge in the southern kingdom. At one time he found a sanctuary beyond the Jordan; at another in the kingdom of Tyre, but never in the realm of Jehoshaphat. When he does come in haste to Beer-sheba, "it is after a manner which bespeaks his reluctance to set foot within that territory, even more than if he had evaded it altogether." The reason partly was, no doubt, as Wordsworth says, that his mission was to idolatrous Israel. Judah had both priests and prophets of its own], and left his servant [There is no warrant for the assertion (Stanley) that "one only of that vast assembly remained faithful to him, the Zidonian boy of Zarephath." The identity of this boy with the servant is by no means certain; nor is the defection of the people at all proven] there. [Probably because he wished to be alone with God; possibly because the boy was then too exhausted to go further, and there was no reason why he should be subjected to the uncertainties and privations of desert life; hardly for the security of both (Blunt). It is perhaps implied, however, that the kingdom of Judah, though not a safe abode for him, would be for his servant. When we remember that this servant never rejoined him, but that presently Elisha took his place, we can scarcely help wondering whether he was afraid to accompany Elijah any longer (cf. Acts 15:38).] 1 Kings 19:4 But he himself went a day’s journey into the wilderness [Cf. Genesis 21:14, Genesis 21:21; Jeremiah 9:2; Revelation 12:6. Beer-sheba stands on the fringe of the desert of Et-Tih. It was not for the sake of security alone that the prophet plunged into the "great and terrible wilderness." It is probable that from the first, "Horeb, the mount of God," was in his thoughts. He may well have seen that he was destined to be a second Moses; that he was raised up to assert and enforce the covenant of which Moses was the mediator. We have seen already that he cites the words spoken to Moses at the bush (1 Kings 18:36); that to him as to Moses there was granted an apparition of fire; we now find him rejected as Moses had been before him (Acts 7:25, Acts 7:35). How natural that, like Moses, he should flee into the land of Midian, to the place where God had spoken With Moses face to face. Wordsworth reminds us that the Jewish Church, by its cycle of lessons, suggests a comparison between the Law Giver and the Law Restorer], and came and sat down under a [Heb. one; see note on 1 Kings 13:11] juniper tree [The רֹתֶם, here found with a feminine numeral (Keri, masculine), in 1 Kings 13:5 with a masculine, is not the juniper, but the plant now known to the Arabs as retem, i.e; the broom (genista monosperma, or G. raetam), "the most longed for and most welcome bush of the desert, abundant in beds of streams and valleys, where spots for camping are selected, and men sit clown and sleep in order to be protected against wind and sun". It does not, however, afford a complete protection. Every traveller remarks on its abundance in the desert; it gave a name, Rithmah, to one of the stations of the Israelites. Its roots are still used by the Bedouin, for the manufacture of charcoal (cf. Psalms 120:4, "coals of rethern"), which they carry to Cairo]: and he requested for himself [Heb. asked as to his life, accusative of reference] that he might die [Again like Moses, Numbers 11:15; Exodus 32:32]; and said, It Is enough [or, Let it be enough. LXX. ἱκανούσθω. See note on 1 Kings 12:28]; now, O Lord, take away my life ["Strange contradiction! Here the man who was destined not to taste of death, flees from death on the one hand and seeks it on the other." Kitto]; for I am not better than my fathers. [These words clearly reveal the great hopes Elijah had formed as to the result of his mission, and the terrible disappointment his banishment had occasioned him. Time was when he had thought himself a most special messenger of Heaven, raised up to effect the regeneration of his country. He now thinks his work is fruitless, and he has nothing to live for longer. Keil concludes from these words that Elijah was already of a great age, but this is extremely doubtful.] 1 Kings 19:5 And as he lay and slept ["While death was called for, the cousin of death comes unbidden" (Hall)] under a [Heb. one] Juniper tree, behold, then [Heb. זֶה this; "behold here," siehe da, Gesen.], an angel [Heb. messenger; the same word as in verse 2, but explained in verse 7 to be a messenger of God. Cf. Genesis 16:9; Genesis 21:17] touched [Heb. touching] him and said unto him, Arise and eat. [Probably he had eaten little or nothing since leaving Jezreel. Food was now what he most needed. This circumstance suggests that the profound depression betrayed in his prayer (verse 4) was largely the result of physical weakness.] 1 Kings 19:6 And he looked, and, behold, there was a cake [same word as in 1 Kings 17:13] baken on the coals [Heb. a cake of stones, or coals. LXX. ἐγκρυφίας. The thin, flat bread of the East, especially among the nomadic desert tribes, is constantly baked in a rude oven, constructed in the sand or soft. A little hollow is made; sometimes it is lined with stones to retain the heat; fuel, often the root of the genista, is placed upon it and kindled, and when the sand or stones are sufficiently hot, the embers are raked to one side, and the dough is placed in the oven, where it is sometimes covered with the ashes. Hence the Vulgate calls it sub-cinericius panis], and a cruse of water at his head [i.e; the place of his head. Marg. bolster. The word is almost used as a preposition. Cf. 1 Samuel 19:13; 1 Samuel 26:7]. And he did eat and drink, and laid him down again. [Heb. returned and laid down.] 1 Kings 19:7 And the angel of the Lord came again the second time, and touched him [i.e; to awaken him. It was the food was to strengthen him], and said, Arise and eat [Probably he had eaten but little the first time, for sorrow and weariness]; because the journey is too great for thee. [The LXX. ὅτιπολλὴἀπὸσοῦἡὁδός and the Vulgate grandis enim tibi restat via, which Bähr follows, seem hardly so true to the Hebrew idiom as the A.V. rendering. Keil cites Vatablus, iter est majus quam pro viribus tuis. It is very improbable that (Rawlinson al.) the journey to Horeb was now suggested to him for the first time by the angel.] 1 Kings 19:8 And he arose, and did eat and drink, and went in the strength of that meat forty days and forty nights [Cf. Exodus 24:18; Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 9:9, Deuteronomy 9:25; Jonah 3:4; Matthew 4:2; Acts 1:3. But the primary reference is perhaps to the "forty days and forty nights" which Moses spent in Horeb, during which he "neither did eat bread nor drink water" (Deuteronomy 9:9), or to the forty years during which Israel was sustained in this same desert with "angels’ food" (Psalms 78:25). It is noteworthy how both Moses and Elias were precursors of our Lord in a forty days’ fast. "The three great rasters met gloriously on Tabor" (Hall). It is not implied that it took the prophet the whole of this time to reach Horeb, which is only distant from Beer-sheba some 130 miles. "There are eleven days’ journey from Horeb, by the way of Mount Seir to Kadesh Barnes" (Deuteronomy 1:2). It is of course possible that he wandered aimlessly hither and thither during this period, but it seems better to understand the words of the whole of his desert sojourn] unto Horeb the mount of God. [See note on 1 Kings 8:9. It is just possible that Horeb was already known as "the mount of God" at the time God appeared to Moses there—the whole of the Sinaitic peninsula was sacred in the eyes of the Egyptians; but it is more probable that this designation is used in Exodus 3:1 prophetically, and that it was Bestowed on the Mount of the Law because of the special revelation of the Godhead there (Exodus 3:6; Exodus 19:3, Exodus 19:11, Exodus 19:18; Deuteronomy 1:6; Deuteronomy 4:10; Deuteronomy 5:2, etc.)] 1 Kings 19:9 And he came thither unto a cave [Heb. the cave. LXX. τὸσπήλαιον. Many commentators identify this with "the cliff of the rock" where Moses was concealed while the Lord "passed by" (Exodus 33:22), and the use of the same word, עבֵר in verse 11 certainly favours this view. But is it clear that the clift (נִקְרָה fissure) was a cave? Ewald understands "the cave in which at that time travellers to Sinai commonly rested." It is perhaps worth remembering that a part of the desert, though at some distance from Horeb; boars at this day the name of Magharah, or cave. But there is a "narrow fret" pointed out by tradition as the abode of Elijah, on the side of Jebol Muss. "There is nothing to confirm, but there is nothing to contradict, the belief that it may have been in that secluded basin, which has long been pointed out as the spot No scene could be more suitable for the vision which follows" (Stanley). There is, however, one formidable difficulty in the way of this identification, viz; that the cave is only just large enough for a man’s body, which does not agree with verse 18], and lodged [לוּן means strictly to pass the night. It is possibly connected radically with לַיְלָה] there; and, behold, the word of the Lord came to him [Not "in vision as he slept" (Rawlinson). He could not "go forth" in his sleep. That he was to go forth "on the morrow" is equally unlikely see verse 11, note], and he said unto him, What doest thou here, Elijah? [Many writers, Bהhr and Keil among them, will not allow that there is aught of reproof in this question, or that Elijah had in any way erred in his hasty flight. The former asks how it comes to pass that the angel, instead of reproving him, succoured and strengthened him (verses 6, 7), if he was acting in faithlessness or disobedience. But surely it does not follow that God denies all grace and sustenance to His elect servants even if they do, in a moment of despair, forget or distrust Him. Elijah may have been strengthened for this very journey, Because God would meet with him and teach him the lessons of patience and trust he needed to learn, at the "mount of God" itself. And his answer, especially when contrasted with that of verse 14 (where see note), certainly betrays, not only irritation and despair, but a "carnal zeal which would gladly have called down the vengeance of the Almighty upon all idolaters" (Keil). The question in itself, it is true, does not necessarily impart censure—it might merely mean, "What wouldst thou learn of me?" But when it is remembered that the prophet had been sent to every other destination by the "word of the Lord," and that he had left Jezreel without any such word—left it in terror and bitter disappointment and sheer distrust of God—it does look as if the words conveyed a gentle reminder that he had deserted the post of duty, and had no right to be there. So Clerieus, "Quasi Deus diceret nihil esse Eliae negotii in solitudine, sed potius in locis habitatis, ut illic homies ad veri Dei cultum adduceret."] 1 Kings 19:10 And he said, I have been very jealous [Cf. Numbers 25:11, which the prophet may have had in his mind. But the jealousy of Phinehas was in harmony with that of God (Numbers 25:13)] for the Lord God of hosts ["The title of Lord God of hosts is first heard in the mouth of Elijah the prophet, who had been very jealous for Jehovah in opposition to Baal and Ashtaroth [Ash-toreth?] the Phoenician deifies; of. 2 Kings 23:5, ’Baal, the sun, and moon, and planets, and all the host of heaven’" (Wordsworth)]: for the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant [he had memories of the covenant all around him], thrown down thine altars [cf. 1 Kings 18:30, note. It is clear that many altars, similar to that on Carmel, had been built, and had been overturned], and slain thy prophets with the sword [If the "hundred prophets" of 1 Kings 18:15 escaped, of which we cannot be certain, others did not]; and I, even I only, am left [See note on 1 Kings 18:22. It must be confessed that the prima facie view is that the prophets had been well nigh exterminated. But we must take into account the deep despondency with which Elijah spoke, and remember the correction which his words received (1 Kings 18:18)]; they seek my life, to take it away. [The commentators are hopelessly divided as to the spirit and temper with which these words were spoken. Bהhr, as before, is very positive that there is no complaint or murmuring against God on Elijah’s part. He contends that the prophet has been led to Sinai simply by the earnest longing for a disclosure concerning the dealings of God, and for instructions as to his future conduct; and this view has the support of other weighty authorities. But it is extremely difficult to resist the conclusion that we have here at the least a "tacit reproof that God had looked on so quietly for such a length of time, and had suffered things to come to such an extremity" (Keil). St. Paul speaks of him as pleading with God against Israel (ἐντυγχάνειτῷθεῷκατὰτοῦἸσραὴλ. Romans 11:2), said certainly represents the χρηματισμός he received as a connection. And the ides which this verse, taken in connexion with the prophet’s flight (1 Kings 18:3) and his prayer (1 Kings 18:4), leaves on the unbiassed mind certainly is that in his zeal for God he resented not only the growing corruption of the age, but above all the frustration of his efforts to stay it. What burdened and vexed his righteous soul was that in the very hour of victory, when the people had confessed that Jehovah alone was God, he, the one solitary witness for the truth, should be driven from his post to escape as best he might, and to leave the covenant people to the baneful influence of Jezebel and her army of false prophets. It is the cry which we hear over and over again in the Old Testament, the complaint of the silence and apparent indifference of God, of the persecution of the righteous, and the impunity of evil doers.] 1 Kings 19:11 And he said, Go forth [The LXX. inserts αὔριον, which, however, is destitute of authority, and was probably inserted from Exodus 34:2, to explain the difficulty which the prophet’s apparent disregard of this command creates], and stand upon the mount before the Lord. And, behold, the Lord passed, by [Heb. passeth by. Only used here and in Exodus 33:22; Exodus 34:6 of the Divine Being. The beatific vision must be transient. An abiding presence, a שֹׁכֵן, was more than man could bear. So Bהhr. As Elijah does not seem to have gone forth from the cave until he heard the still small voice (Exodus 34:13), some would take the participle עבֵר which is probably employed as more graphic, as a future, i.e; "the Lord will pass by," and this is the interpretation of the LXX.; ἰδοὺπαρελεύσιταικύριοςκαὶἰδοὺπνεῦμαμέγακ.τ.λ. The effect of this rearrangement of the text would be that the words, "And behold the Lord passing by," must be taken as a part of the message, "Go forth," etc; and not as a statement of what happened. That statement would then begin with the next words, "And a great and strong wind," etc. But in that case we might have expected "For behold," etc; or the "And behold" would have come before "a great and strong wind," etc. It is also to be considered—and this seems to me decisive—that the words "rent," "break," etc; are also participles, which it would be unnatural to divorce from the participle preceding], and a great and strong wind [Such as was net uncommon in that region. The approach to Sinai from the west is known as Nukb-Hawy, "the pass of the winds." Elsewhere we find the Wady-el-Burk, or "valley of lightning." These phenomena—the tempest, fire, etc.—would be all the more awful and impressive because of the surrounding desolation and the utter solitude] rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind [Heb. not in the wind Jehovah]: and after the wind an earthquake [Once before (Exodus 19:18) an earthquake accompanied the descent of God upon the same mountain. The desert of Sinai, with the exception of the Hammam Pharoun and other hot springs, affords no traces of volcanic action. "Everywhere there are signs of the action of water, nowhere of fire" (Stanley). But רַעַשׁ properly means (compare rauschen, rush) a crashing noise (Job 39:24; Isaiah 9:4), and the mysterious sounds of Jebel Musa have often been remarked]; but the Lord was not in the earthquake: 1 Kings 19:12 And after the earthquake a fire [For the association of tempest, earthquake, fire, etc; as punishments of God, see Isaiah 29:6, and Psalms 18:7, Psalms 18:8. "Fire" may well signify lightning (Job 1:16; Exodus 9:23). For a vivid description era thunderstorm at Sinai, see Stewart’s "Tent and Khan," pp. 139, 140; ap. Stanley, "Jew. Ch.," vol. 1. p. 149]: but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice. [Heb. a voice of gentle silence. דְּמָמָה an onomatopoetic word, is allied to our word dumb. Very similar expression Job 4:16. What was the object and meaning of this succession of signs? First, let us remember that Elijah was the prophet of deeds. He taught his contemporaries not by word but by set. He is here taught in turn by signs. There passes before him in the mountain hollow, in the black and dark night, a procession of natural terrors-of storm, and earthquake, and fire. But none of these things move him; none speak to his soul and tell of a present God. It is the hushed voice, the awful stillness, overpowers and enchains him. He is to learn hence, first, that the Lord is a God "merciful and gracious, long suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth" (Exodus 34:6); and secondly, that as it has been with himself, so it will be with others; the name of the Lord will be proclaimed in a voice of gentle silence (ib; Job 4:5). The weapons of His warfare, the instruments of religious progress, must be spiritual, not carnal. Not in fire and sword and slaughter, but by a secret voice speaking to the conscience, will God regain His sway over the hearts of Israel. (See Homiletics.) The striking similarity between this theophany and that which Moses saw in the same place, or at no great distance from it, must not be overlooked, for this constitutes another link between law giver and law restorer. The proclamation of Exo 34:3, Exodus 34:7 is the best exponent of the parable of Exo 34:11, Exodus 34:12. To each was the vision of God granted after a faithful witness against idolatry, and after a slaughter of idolaters; each was in a clift of the rock; in either case the Lord passed by; the one was taught by words, the other rather by signs, but the message in each case was the same—that judgment is God’s strange work, but that He will by no means clear the guilty (cf. Exodus 34:17).] 1 Kings 19:13 And it was so, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle [Like Moses, Exodus 3:6.; cf. Exodus 33:20; Exodus 34:33; 2 Corinthians 3:13; Isaiah 6:1, Isaiah 6:2. This mantle (see note on 1 Kings 18:46) was probably a sheepskin. The LXX. calls it νηλωτή (cf. Hebrews 11:37). In Zechariah 13:4 we find that the prophets wore a mantle of hair], and went out, and stood [Same words as in verse 11. It was the still small voice, apparently, that first brought him to obey the command there given. He would perhaps be afraid to issue from the shelter of his cave during the tempest and the earthquake, which may have followed directly after the instruction to go forth was given. Possibly there was a lesson for him here also, viz; that amid the din and excitement and torture of drought and famine and fire and blood the commands of God are less likely to be heard in the soul and obeyed, than in the hour of peace and stillness. The drought and famine and sword have their work to do, even as the tempest and the earthquake have theirs; but it is by the voice of mercy and love that the hearts of men are turned back again. "Not in the strong east wind that parted the Red Sea, or the fire that swept the top of Sinai, or the earthquake that shook down the walls of Jericho would God be brought so near to man as in the still small voice of the child of Bethlehem" (Stanley)] in the entering in of the cave. [He hardly obeyed the letter of the command of verse 11 even then. Does not this point to a rebellious and unsubdued heart? Is it not a confirmation of the view taken above, that he fled to Horeb, full of bitter disappointment and murmuring against God; and that the purpose of this revelation was not only to teach him as to God’s dealings with men, but also to school and subdue his own rebellious heart?] And, behold, there came a voice unto him [The expression is different from that of Zec 13:9. There we read of the "word of the Lord," here of a "voice." But this is not to be identified with the "still small voice" of verse 12], and said, What doest, thou here, Elijah? [As in Zechariah 13:9. 1 Kings 19:14 And he said, I have been very jealous for the Lord God of hosts: because the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away. [Verbatim as in 1 Kings 19:10. What are we to understand from this repetition of the former answer? Has the lesson of this theophany been lost upon him? Has he failed to grasp its significance? It is probable that he only partially understood its meaning, and it certainly looks as if he still felt himself an injured and disappointed man; as if the recollection of the way in which his work had been frustrated still rankled in his soul. But though the words are the same, it is possible, and indeed probable, that the tone was entirely different; that instead of speaking, as he had spoken before, querulously and almost defiantly, he now, catching his inspiration from the still small voice, speaks with bated breath and profound self humiliation. The facts are the same. He repeats them, because they and they alone explain why he is there, and because he cannot see as yet how they are to be remedied. But he is now conscious of a misgiving as to the wisdom and piety of his course. He feels he has acted hastily and faithlessly, and has wanted to do God’s work in his own rough way. He will go back, if it be God’s will; he will be content to wait God’s time, and to follow His leading. The commission which is straightway given him almost proves that he had experienced a change. It implies that he is now fitted for his high ministry.] 1 Kings 19:15 And the Lord said unto him, Go, return on thy way [Heb. to thy way, as in Genesis 19:2; Genesis 32:2; Numbers 24:25, etc.] to the wilderness of Damacus [The construct case with älocal. Keil refers to Deuteronomy 4:41; Joshua 12:1; and Ewald 216 b. This cannot mean "through the desert to Damascus," for he could not possibly go any other way, nor yet "to the desert (through which he had just come) to Damascus," for he was then in the heart of the desert. He was to find a hiding place—we find the king of Damascus at war with Ahab, Joshua 20:1-9.—or possibly a sphere for work,—he would be near Hazael—in the rugged desert which stretches south and east of the Syrian capital. Here, too, the prophet would be at no great distance from his own country. See on 1 Kings 17:3]: and When thou comest, anoint [Heb. and thou shalt come and anoint. LXX. καὶἥξειςκαὶχρίσεις. The A.V. increases the difficulty. In the Hebrew the time of the anointing is indefinite. This commission has long been a crux interpretum. For neither Hazael, nor Jehu, nor Elisha, so far as we have any record, was ever anointed by Elijah. Elisha was called by him to the prophetic office. Hazael, it is barely possible, may have been anointed secretly, like David (1 Samuel 16:2, 1 Samuel 16:13), but all that we gather from Scripture is, that he was called in an indirect way, and certainly not anointed, by Elisha (2 Kings 8:12-15). Jehu was certainly anointed, but it was neither by Elisha nor Elijah (2 Kings 9:1, 2 Kings 9:6), but by one of the sons of the prophets.All we can say, consequently, is that the command was obeyed in the spirit, and no doubt in the best possible time and way. There may have been good reasons, of which we know nothing, why Elijah should devolve the appointment of the two kings upon his successor, and we can readily understand that the word "anoint" was, as in Judges 9:8, Isaiah 61:1, never meant to be construed literally. For in the first place, we have no record elsewhere of the anointing of any prophet; and secondly, it is remarkable that when Elijah might so easily have anointed Elisha, he did nothing of the kind. It is clear, therefore, that he understood the word to mean "appoint." And the root idea of anointing, it must be remembered, was the setting apart for the service of God (Exodus 29:6). Hence it was (Bähr) that vessels (Exodus 30:26 sqq.), and even stones (Genesis 28:18), were anointed. And when we find that these three persons were set apart sooner or later, and in different ways, to fulfil the high purposes of God, that ought to suffice us. The author of this history clearly found no difficulty in reconciling this account and that of 2 Kings 8:9. It has also been objected to this charge (Rawlinson) that it is no "explanation or application of the preceding parable." But this is precisely what it appears to have been intended to be. The prophet is here taught by word much the same lesson that had been conveyed by signs, in the preceding vision. 1% doubt there are additional particulars—the vision dealt only with principles, the charge descends to &tans and prescribes duties—but still the great lesson that souls are to be won, that God’s kingdom is to be advanced, not by wrath and vengeance, by fire and sword, but by meekness and gentleness, through the reason and the conscience, is proclaimed. Hazael and Jehu, each was God’s instrument to punish; each was like the sweeping siena or the devouring fire, each was an engine of destruction; but by neither of these were the hearts Of men turned to the Lord. It was the sword of Elisha, the sword of his mouth (cf. Isaiah 11:4; Isaiah 49:2; Revelation 1:16; Revelation 2:16), should constrain men to hide their faces and humble themselves before God] Hazael [the seer of God. This name, viewed in connection with Elijah’s vision of God, is noticeable] to be king over Syria: 1 Kings 19:16 And Jehu [Jehovah is he. The name was as appropriate as Elijah’s] the son [i.e; descendant, probably grandson (2 Kings 9:2, 2 Kings 9:14). Nimshi may have been a person of more importance than Jehoshaphat] of Nimshi shalt thou anoint to be king over Israel [The prophet thus learns that the house of Omri is to share the fate of the dynasties which had preceded it. Jezebel’s triumph is not to endure]: and Elisha [My God is salvation. This name, berne by the successor of Elijah, "My God is the Lord," looks like a fresh revelation of God’s nature and purpose of grace] the son of Shaphat [Judge] of Abel-meholah [The mention of his abode, Abel-meholah, "the meadow of the dance" (cf. 1 Kings 4:12; Judges 7:22), a town in the Jordan valley, at no great distance from Beth-shean, almost implies that he was hitherto unknown to Elijah. It is to be observed that no such addition follows the mention of Hazael or Jehu] shalt thou anoint to be prophet in thy room [So far from Elijah’s work being fruitless, or from the prophetic order being extinguished, provision is now made for his successor.] 1 Kings 19:17 And it Shall come to pass, that him that escapeth the sword of Hazael [See 2 Kings 8:12, 2 Kings 8:28; 2 Kings 10:32; 2 Kings 13:3, 2 Kings 13:22] shall Jehu slay [2 Kings 9:24-33; 2 Kings 10:1-36. passim. Cf. Isaiah 66:16]: and him that escapeth from the sword of Jehu shall Elisha slay. [Elijah might reasonably interpret the commission to "anoint" Hazael, etc; as a figure, seeing there is an undoubted figure of speech here. Elisha was a man of peace. His sword was the "sword of the Spirit, the word of God." It was by "the breath of his lips he slew the wicked" (Isaiah 2:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:8; Hosea 6:5). Not only are Isaiah 66:16, Isaiah 66:17 an interpretation, in some sort, of the vision, but they are an answer to Elijah’s complaint (Isaiah 66:10, Isaiah 66:14). The "children of Israel" who had forsaken the covenant should be punished by Hazael (cf. 2 Kings 8:12, "I know what thou wilt do unto the children of Israel," and cf. 1 Kings:32); the king and queen who had thrown down the altars and slain the prophets should be slain, one by the sword of Syria, the other at the command of Jehu; while to his allegation that the prophets were extinct and he was left alone is opposed the ordination of a successor, and the mention of the "seven thousand" in Isaiah 66:18. 1 Kings 19:18 Yet I have left me [So St. Paul, Romans 11:4, κατέλιπον; but the LXX. (καταλείψεις) and all the versions translate the word as future, as in the margin, 1 will leave, and so the åconversive seems to require. See Gesen; Gram. § 124-26] seven thousand [not so much a round as a symbolical number—"the ἐκλογή of the godly" (Keil). "The remnant according to the election of grace" (Romans 11:5). It is like the 144,000 and the 12,000 of Revelation 7:4-8. The prominent idea is perhaps this: Though the children of Israel have forsaken My covenant, yet I have kept and will keep it. It also suggests how the still small voice had been speaking in the silence] in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him. [We gather from Job 31:26, Job 31:27 that it was customary to kiss the hand to the idol, or object of worship, and from Hosea 13:2 to kiss the image itself. Most of the commentators adduce Cicero in Verrem 4:43, where he speaks of the statue of Hercules at Agrigentum, the lips and chin of which were a little worn by the kisses of devotees.] 1 Kings 19:19 So he departed thence, and found [Nothing can be concluded from this word as to previous acquaintance] Elisha the son of Shaphat, who was ploughing [It was in the winter, consequently. "Elisha is found not in his study, but in the field: not with a book in his hand, but the plough" (Hall). with twelve yoke of oxen [Heb. ploughing twelve yoke, from which Ewald gathers that he was ploughing twelve yoke of land—צֶמֶד like jugum, is used as a measure of land in 1 Samuel 14:14, Isaiah 5:10—and was then at work on the twelfth and last. But the meaning of the "twelve yoke" here is surely settled by the "yoke of oxen;" cf. Isaiah 5:21 and see below] before him [This word also points to animals, not land. The twelve pair of oxen, it is generally thought, are mentioned to show that Elisha was a man of substance. It is not certain, however, that all the twelve belonged to him. See next note], and he with the twelfth ["I have seen more than a dozen ploughs thus at work. To understand the reason of this, several things must be taken into account. First, that the arable land of nearly all villages is cultivated in common; then that Arab farmers delight to work together, partly for mutual protection, and partly from their love of gossip," etc. Thomson, L. and B. 1:208]: and Elijah passed by him [Heb. to him. The idea that he may have "crossed the stream of the Jordan" (Rawlinson) is extremely improbable. The current is strong, and it is not everywhere fordable, especially in winter], and cast his mantle upon him. [Heb. to him אֱלָיו. But LXX. ἐπαὐτόν. Already, it would seem, the rough hairy mantle had come to be recognized as the garb of a prophet (of. Zechariah 13:4). "The prophet’s cloak was a sign of the prophet’s vocation" (Keil). To cast the cloak to or upon Elisha was therefore an appropriate and significant way of designating him to the prophetic office. "When Elijah went to heaven Elisha had the mantle entire" 2 Kings 2:13 (Henry). The Germans use the word mantel-kind of an adopted child.] 1 Kings 19:20 And he left the oxen [As, being the last in the line, he could do, without stopping the others. It is probable too that, Elisha being the last, Elijah’s action would not have been observed by the rest], and ran after Elijah [It is clear that Elisha both understood the act, and made up his mind at once. No doubt he too had long sighed and prayed over the demoralization of his country and the dishonour done to his God. Elijah, after casting the mantle, strode on, leaving it for Elisha to take or reject it. The latter soon showed his choice by running after him], and said, Let me, I pray thee, kiss my father and my mother, and then I will follow thee. And he said unto him; Go back again [Heb. go, return]: for what have I done to thee? [There is not a word of reproof here, as Wordsworth and Rawlinson imagine. Indeed, it would have been strange if there had been. A greater readiness to obey the prophetic summons, Elisha could not well have showed. Forthwith, as soon as he realized his call, "he left the oxen and ran after" his newmaster. True, he asks permission—and why should he not? for "grace is no enemy to good nature"—to give a parting embrace to the father and mother to whom he owed his life, and whom he had been required by God to honour. But there is no proof of "a divided heart" here. If he had begged to be allowed to stay and bury his mother and father (St. Luke 9:59-61) it might have been otherwise. But he suggests nothing of the kind. He says: "One kiss, one farewell, and then I will follow thee." It is a complete mistake, consequently, to interpret Elijah’s words to mean, "Go, return to thy ploughing, for why shouldst thou quit it?… Thou canst remain as thou art" (Rawlinson). Their true meaning, as evidenced by the sequel (verse 21), clearly was, "Go back and kiss them; why shouldst thou not? For what have I done to thee? I have summoned thee to follow me. But I have not required thee to repudiate thine own flesh and blood."] 1 Kings 19:21 And he returned back from him [Wordsworth is not warranted in affirming that Elisha "did not go back and kiss," etc. The text rather implies that he did], and took a yoke [Heb. the yoke; Cf. verse 19] of oxen, and slew them [Heb. sacrificed; LXX. ἔθυσε. But the word, though generally restricted to sacrificial Ac, primarily means, to slay" simply, as here, and in Genesis 31:54; 1 Samuel 28:24; 2 Chronicles 18:2; Ezekiel 39:17. There was no altar there, and the flesh of a sacrifice was never boiled], and boiled their flesh [Heb. boiled them, the flesh] with the Instruments of the oxen [the plough, yoke, etc. The plough of the East is extremely rude and slender, but the yoke, shaft, etc; would afford a fair supply of wood. The scarcity of timber may have had something to do with this application of the "instruments of the oxen;" but it is much more important to see it in a symbolical act, expressive of Elisha’s entire renunciation of his secular calling. He would henceforth need them no longer. Cf. 1 Samuel 6:14; 2 Samuel 24:22], and gave unto the people [Not only the servants or peasants who had been ploughing with him, but possibly his neighbours and friends. This was a farewell, not a religious feast. Cf. Luke 5:29, where Levi makes a "great feast" on the occasion of his call], and they did eat. Then he arose, and went after Elijah, and ministered unto him [i.e; became his attendant, as Joshua had been the minister of Moses (Exodus 24:13; Joshua 1:1), and as Gehazi subsequently became servant to him. See 2 Kings 3:11: "Elisha… which poured water on the hands of Elijah;" and cf. Acts 13:5. God and the Man of God. This chapter lends itself more readily to textual than to topical treatment. 1 Kings 19:1 "And Ahab told Jezebel all that Elijah had done." Was there no word, then, of what God had done? Did he think that Elijah, by his own power or holiness, had brought down fire from heaven? Or if Elijah brought it, was there no thought of Him who sent it? But it is an everyday experience that men will think of anything, talk of anything but their Maker. They do not "like to retain God in their thoughts" (Romans 1:28). Perhaps Ahab was afraid in the presence of Jezebel to connect the awful portent with the name of the Lord. That would be tantamount to confessing before her that the Lord He was God (1 Kings 18:24). Jezebel, therefore, may think it was magic if she will Men are not unseldom cowards in religion, even before their own wives and children. How blessed it is when husband and wife rehearse to each other the righteous sets of the Lord; how doubly blessed when the believing husband wins and saves the unbelieving wife (1 Corinthians 7:14, 1 Corinthians 7:16). Then marriage is a sacrament indeed. "And … how he had slain all the prophets," etc. There was no need to tell her that, at least that night. This communication shows that Ahab’s heart was unchanged, otherwise he would have practised a discreet reserve. He must have known full well what the effect of those dark tidings would be. Had he wished for her conversion, he would surely have waited till the morning light. That would have given the other tidings he had brought a chance to work repentance. To speak of the death of the prophets would be to fill her with ungovernable rage. It was charity to hold his peace. That was "a time to keep silence." 1 Kings 19:2 "Then Jezebel sent a messenger." Not, as we might have expected, to sue for forgiveness, but to threaten reprisals. "She swears and stamps at that whereat she should have trembled" (Hall). There is no hate like’s woman’s, no wickedness like hers. They never do things by halves. "Men differ at most as heaven and earth, But women, best and worst, as heaven and hell." This woman will not be persuaded though one rose from the dead (Luke 16:1). The fiery sign was lost upon her ("Faith cometh by hearing, not by apparitions"). Ahab witnessed the execution of the priests and was too much awed to prevent it. Jezebel only hears of it, and straightway vows vengeance against its author. "Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (1 Timothy 2:14). "The gods do so," etc. This is like much of the profane swearing that we hear, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." It costs very little to invoke factitious deities. "The gods she sware by could do her no harm." They had not been able to save their own prophets. Cf. Judges 6:31. "If I make not thy life," etc. The enemies of God’s Church and prophets are always chained, and sometimes are infatuate too. They cannot "go beyond the word of the Lord to do less or more" (Numbers 22:18). "The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord he turneth it whithersoever he will" (Proverbs 21:1). "He taketh the wise in their own craftiness" (1 Corinthians 3:19), and turns the counsel of an Ahithophel into foolishness (2 Samuel 15:31). The wrath of man is made to praise Him (Psalms 76:10). "Her threat preserved him whom she meant to kill." "It were no living for godly men if the hands of tyrants were allowed to be as bloody as their hearts" (Hall). 1 Kings 19:3 "He arose and went for his life." Elijah, the intrepid apostle of Carmel, who had met the king without fear and faced the four hundred Baal prophets, and stood alone contra mundum, is seized with panic fear. The champion of the morning becomes the coward of the evening. We may well exclaim here, Quantum mutatus ab illo! well ask, "Lord, what is man?" Some have called man a demigod; have seen in him "the peer of the angels." "What a piece of work," says Hamlet, "is man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god!" In Elijah we see man at his best. He was one of the "first three." He is distinguished even from his brother prophets by the work he was called to do, by the powers with which he was entrusted, by the grace given to him, the care taken of him, the triumphant end granted to him. But how weak and unworthy does this elect messenger of God now appear. "Should such a man as I am flee?" (Nehemiah 6:11.) "How are the mighty fallen 1" How completely he is the sport of circumstances; how full of contradictions his conduct. At one moment he flees for his life; at the next he requests for himself that he may die. "Doth be wish to be rid of his life because he feared to lose it?" (Hall.) Yesterday strong in faith, fearing neither man nor devil; today trembling before a woman, wretched and despairing. But more than that, we find him impatient, petulant, proud, arraigning the providence and wisdom of God. "Take away my life," this is the cry of a mortified ambition; of one who cannot trust himself in God’s hands any longer. "I am not better than my fathers." What do these words reveal, but that he had thought himself better than they; that he had been "exalted above measure through the abundance of revelations"? (2 Corinthians 12:7.) And this is Elijah, the restorer of the law, the express ambassador of heaven. It is well said that he was "a man subject to like passions as we are" (James 5:18). "I have seen an end of all perfection." Here is humanity at its best, and how poor and weak it is. If man is "the glory" he is also "the scandal of the universe." "Chaos of passions, passions all confused, Still by himself abused or disabused, Created half to rise and half to fall, Great lord of all things, yet a prey to all: Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurled, The glory, jest, and riddle of the world." 1 Kings 19:5 "Behold, an angel touched him." So that he was watched and guarded, even while he slept. His impatience and faithlessness have not diminished the loving care and tenderness of God. "He knoweth our frame." His very sleep was ordained in mercy. Observe the contrast between the pity and love of God and the childish repining and discontent of the man of God! Observe, too, how God uses the ministry of angels! Compare Matthew 4:11; Luke 22:43; Acts 27:23; Acts 5:19; Acts 12:8. "Are they not all ministering spirits?" (Hebrews 1:14.) "No wilderness is too solitary for the attendance of those blessed spirits." "While he slept, his breakfast is made ready for him by those spiritual hands." "How oft do they their silver bowers leave To come to succour us that succour want! How oft do they with golden pinions cleave The flitting skyes, like flying pursuivant, Against fowle fiendes to ayd us militant! They for us fight, they watch, and dewly ward, And their bright squadrons round about us plant; And all for love and nothing for reward. O why should heavenly God to men have such regard?" 1 Kings 19:6 "A cake baken on the coals," etc. Not only was the prophet protected, he was provided for by the angel. What a commentary on that verse, "He giveth it to his beloved while they sleep "(Psalms 127:2, Hebrews) And does not God give us all food in like manner? While the farmer sleeps, the seed springs and grows up, he knoweth not how (Mark 4:27). Our Keeper neither slumbers nor sleeps (Psalms 121:4). Observe also how God prepares a table in the wilderness. It is not the first time He has given angels’ food in the desert (Psalms 78:25; Nehemiah 9:21; Deuteronomy 8:16). 1 Kings 19:7 "Arise and eat." Though this was supernatural food, so far as we can see miraculously provided, and in any case of preternatural efficacy, yet it must be taken and eaten in the ordinary way. Elijah might have been endued with strength for his desert journey without the aid of any material elements. The angel’s touch or even the word of the Lord would surely have sufficed (Judges 6:21; Ezekiel 2:2; Ezekiel 3:24; Luke 7:7). Instead of which a cake is baken on the coals, and he must rise and eat thereof, eat thereof twice. God works by means, and it is for man to use them. It is presumption to expect God to dispense with them because He can do so. 1 Kings 19:8 "Went in the strength of that meat," etc. It is very noticeable how many miraculous feedings we have in Holy Scripture. Not only does the New Testament record a feeding, now of five thousand with five loaves, now of four thousand with seven loaves (Matthew 15:9, Matthew 15:10); not only is one or other of these mentioned by all four evangelists; but the Old Testament, in addition to such narratives as those of 1 Kings 17:14 sqq.; 2 Kings 4:1-6, 2 Kings 4:42 sqq; tells of a miraculous supply of food which extended over forty years (Exodus 16:14 -85; Deuteronomy 8:3, Deuteronomy 8:4, Deuteronomy 8:16). Is not all this to teach us that man doth not live by bread alone? (Deuteronomy 8:3.) Are they not rehearsals, adumbrations of the great mystery of our religion, of the true "bread from heaven which giveth life unto the world"? (John 6:32 sqq.) We too are journeying to Horeb, the mount of God. The home of our souls is the "mountain of myrrh and the hill of frankincense" (Son 4:6). And the journey is too great for us. Without Divine aid, without soul food, we shall "faint by the way." But God has provided for us a gracious viaticum, a meat which the world knows not of, flesh which is meat indeed, blood which is drink indeed (John 6:55). 1 Kings 19:9 "The word of the Lord came to him." Though he had not merited such a favour, for he had acted without that word when he fled. True, he fled to the desert, so far as we can see, that he might hear what God would say concerning him, but he had no right to presume that He who had not spoken at Jezreel would speak at Sinai. But God never deals with us as we deserve, or as we deal with one another. "If thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?" (Psalms 130:8.) "If they break my statues… then will I visit their transgression with the rod… nevertheless, my loving kindness will I not utterly take from him," etc. (Psalms 89:31-38). "Thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the Lord" (Jeremiah 3:1). If the word did not come to us when we stray, how could we be reclaimed? God must take the first step (John 6:44). "What doest thou here, Elijah?" It is more than doubtful whether there was any audible voice (see 1 Kings 19:12). God spoke through the conscience. And this is still the organ used by the Holy Ghost. Have we never heard this question in our secret souls? perhaps when we stood in the way of sinners, or sat in the seat of the scornful. We should do well to put it repeatedly to our own hearts. "Bernarde, ad quid venisti?"—it was thus that the greatest saint of the Middle Ages often tried his motives and conduct. 1 Kings 19:10 "I have been very jealous." We often confound zeal for our own ends and purposes with zeal for God; often misread our own motives. Jehu cried, "Come and see my zeal for the Lord" (2 Kings 10:16); "but Jehu took no heed to walk in the law of the Lord God of Israel," etc. (verses 29, 81). Saul’s "zeal for the children of Israel and Judah" (2 Samuel 21:2) procured the impalemant of seven of his sons. St. Paul bears witness of the Jews, that" they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge," and testifies of himself," concerning zeal, persecuting the Church" (Philippians 3:6; cf. Acts 26:9, Acts 26:11). We can understand the cynical warning. Surtout, point de zele, when we remember what crimes have been committed in its name. The spirit of Elias, the spirit of fire and sword (2 Kings 1:10; 1 Kings 19:1), is not the spirit of our Lord or His Church (Luke 9:55, Luke 9:56). There was not improbably in this complaint something of the resentment which James and John felt when the Samaritans did not receive them. Was it not in part pique at his rejection by Israel led to Elijah’s intercession against them? (Romans 11:2.) It is true, he begins, "They have rejected thee," but he ends, "They have rejected me" (1 Samuel 8:7). And our lamentations over the non-success of our ministry, are they inspired by the dishonour done to God, or the indifference manifested towards ourselves? There may be both pride and temper in the complaint, "He followeth not us" (Mark 9:1-50:88). 1 Kings 19:11 "Stand… before the Lord." Only thus can we know ourselves, and self-knowledge must be our first aim. "E caelo descendit, γνῶθισεαυτόν." "In thy light shall we see light." We compare ourselves with pigmies when we compare ourselves with others (2 Corinthians 10:12). It is only in the presence of our Maker that we learn our nothingness and sinfulness. "Now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes" (Job 42:6, Job 42:6). "Beholding the glory of the Lord, we are changed into the same image" (2 Corinthians 3:18). 1 Kings 19:12 "A still small voice." The terrors of the Lord awe the soul; His love melts and wins it. What the law could not do, the gospel has done (Rein 1 Kings 8:8). Christ draws men unto Him by the sweet attraction of His cross (John 12:32). The lightnings and thunders, the trumpet and the voices of Sinai, do not move the world as do the seven last words of the Crucified. "Not in the wind that parted the Red Sea, or the fire that swept the top of Sinai," was God brought so near to man, "as in the ministrations of Him whose cry was not heard in the streets, as in the still small voice of the child at Bethlehem" (Stanley). This parable may be compared with the familiar fable which tells how storm and sun strove together for the mastery. The former made the traveller wrap his garments more closely about him; the latter made him cast them aside. Love is more powerful than fear, and that because "love is of God." Judgment is His strange work. "God loves to make a way for Himself by terror, but He conveys Himself to us in sweetness" (Bp. Hall)—a truth well brought out in Theodore Monod’s exquisite hymn— "Yet He found me: I beheld Him Bleeding on the cursed tree; Heard Him pray, ’Forgive them, Father;’ And my wistful heart said faintly, ’Some of self, and some of Thee.’ "Day by day His tender mercy Healing, helping, full and free; Sweet and strong, and, ah I so patient, Brought me lower, whilst I whispered, ’Less of self, and more of Thee.’ "Higher than the highest heavens, Deeper than the deepest sea, Lord, Thy love at last hath conquered; Grant me now my spirit’s longing, ’None of self, and all of Thee.’" 1 Kings 19:13 "Wrapped his face in his mantle." He was afraid to look upon God (Exodus 3:6; cf. Genesis 3:10, "I hid myself"). "Conscience makes cowards of us all." Besides, no man can see His face and live (Exodus 33:20). The beatific vision is too much for our poor mortality, too much for the angelic powers (Isaiah 6:2). It is in mercy that God is veiled from our view. The seeing God as He is belongs to the times of restitution (Matthew 5:8; Hebrews 12:14; Revelation 1:7; Revelation 22:4; 1 Corinthians 13:12). 1 Kings 19:14 "I have been very jealous," etc. The same question, and precisely the same words in reply. But everything was not the same. The man and the manner wore alike changed (cf. 1 Samuel 10:6). He has heard the "still small voice," and it has hushed his own. How true it is, "It is not the words we say, but the manner and spirit in which we say them, gives them their force and significance." 1 Kings 19:15 "Go, return." This is God’s answer to the question, "What doest thou here?" "Thou hast now no business here. Thou hast a work to do elsewhere. Thou art not left alone, nor has God ceased to watch over and care for His Church. His ministers of wrath are already nominated; it is for thee to call them to their work." Which of God’s servants has not desponded like Elijah? Who has not been tempted to think his work a failure? Who has not had to complain of a gainsaying and disobedient people? How many have been induced to desert their posts? But no man’s work can be a failure unless he is a failure himself. Our work is to witness, whether men will hear or whether they will forbear. If they forbear, who shall say that that work is not successful? And it may be suggested here that work is often the very best remedy for despondency and doubt. The diligent sour has no time for self. torture. Its eye is fixed on others. There is a quaint legend which tells how, some years after the event, St. Thomas was again troubled with agonizing doubts as to our Lord’s resurrection. He sought the apostles, and began to pour his soul’s troubles into their ears. But first one, then the other, looked at him in astonishment, and told the unhappy doubter that he was sorry for him, but really he had so much to do he had no time to listen to his tale. Then he was fain to impart his woes to some devout women. But they, as busy as Dorcas and in like employment, soon made him understand that they had no leisure for such thoughts as these. At last it dawned upon him that perhaps it was because they were so busy that they were free from the doubts by which he was tortured. He took the hint; he went to Parthia; occupied himself in preaching Christ’s gospel, and was never troubled with doubts any more. 1 Kings 19:18 "Yet have I left me seven thousand." There is always a remnant (Romans 11:4, Romans 11:5). The gates of hell cannot prevail against the Church. God has His secret ones, unknown to men. The number of the elect must be accomplished. (Revelation 7:4). The prophets have been too much given to pessimist views. "God’s faithful ones are often his hidden ones" (Psalms 83:8). "Yet in fall’n Israel are there hearts and eyes, That day by day in prayer like thine arise, Thou know’st them not, but their Creator knows." Archbishop Ussher used to say to say that in the great Assize, if the King should set him on His right hand, three things would surprise him. First, to find himself there; secondly, to find that numbers of whose salvation he had always been confident were not there; thirdly, to find that thousands of whose salvation he had always despaired were there after all. 1 Kings 19:19 This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ THE OF ISRAEL BY THE SYRIANS AND THEIR RESULTS.—The insertion of this chapter, which contains an account of two invasions of Israel by the hosts of Syria, and of the utter defeat of the latter, and which therefore constitutes a break in the history of Elijah, which has occupied the historian up to the end of 1 Kings 19:1-21; and which is resumed with 1 Kings 21:1-29.—the insertion of this twentieth chapter in this place is apparently due to the compiler of these records, who seems to have adopted this arrangement as the more chronological. It is not absolutely certain, however, that we owe this disposition of his materials to the original compiler, as the Vatican LXX; which sometimes appears to represent an older and purer text, places 1 Kings 20:1-43. after 1 Kings 21:1-29; thereby concluding the history of Elijah—so far as it was comprehended in the reign of Ahab—before entering on the subject of the Syrian wars. It is not improbable, consequently, that this latter was the original order; and it is quite certain that the account of Elijah’s ministry, of which 1 Kings 21:1-29. forms a part, is of a piece with 1 Kings 19:1-21; and by the same hand, and is by a different hand from the author, or authors, of chaps, 20. and 22. 1 Kings 22:1 also supplies a reason why that chapter should follow 1 Kings 20:1-43. There seems, moreover to be a close connexion between 1 Kings 22:1-53. and the denunciation of 1 Kings 20:42. But the present arrangement evidently dates from very early times. 1 Kings 20:1 And Ben-hadad [See on 1 Kings 11:14 and 1 Kings 15:18. The LXX. uniformly spells the name Ader (υἱὸσἌδερ). The form אֲדַד is found in 1 Kings 11:17, and ãand øare frequently interchanged; cf. Genesis 25:15, Genesis 36:39 with 1 Chronicles 1:30, 1 Chronicles 1:46. We learn from 1 Chronicles 1:34 that this prince was the son of a Syrian king who had conquered some of the cities of Israel, but we cannot nevertheless be certain that he was the son of that Ben-hadad (1 Kings 15:18) who invaded Israel in the reign of Baasha (Ewald), See on 1 Chronicles 1:34. the king of Syria gathered all his host [See note on 1 Kings 10:2, where we have same word] together: and there were thirty and two kings with him [Evidently these were vassals, not allied powers. The number alone proves that they must have been petty princes or chieftains of Hittite tribes, ruling over very limited districts’ and all acknowledging the suzerainty of the king of Damascus, all paying tribute (1 Kings 10:25) and furnishing a contingent in time of war "The Assyrian inscriptions show that this country was, about the period in question, parcelled out into a number of petty kingdoms," etc.], and horses, and chariots [Heb. horse and chariot; cf. verse 21 and 1 Kings 1:5; 1 Kings 10:26; 1 Kings 16:9, etc. Both are collective nouns. We see here the fruit and retribution of Solomon’s irreligious policy. "A king who has been probably identified with this Ben-hadad brought into the field against Assyria nearly 4000 chariots" (Rawlinson)]: and he went up and besieged Samaria, and warred against it. [The object of this expedition was clearly to humble and to plunder the kingdom of Samaria. It would almost appear, from the animus of the Syrian king and the studied offensiveness of his messages, as if Ahab or Israel must have given him dire offence. But Ben-hadad was clearly a vain and overbearing and tyrannical prince, and the only crime of Israel may have been that it was independent of him, or had refused to do him homage.] 1 Kings 20:2 And he sent messengers to Ahab king of Israel into [Heb. to. It is not clear that they entered the city. They may have delivered their message to the king, or to his representatives at the gates or to the people on the walls (2 Kings 18:18, 2 Kings 18:27)] the city, and said unto him, Thus saith Ben-hadad, 1 Kings 20:3 Thy silver and thy gold is mine [Heb. mine it is]; thy wives also and thy children [Nothing reveals Ben-hadad’s object more clearly than the mention of Ahab’s wives. When we consider how jealously the seraglio of an Eastern prince is guarded, and how the surrender of the harem is a virtual surrender of the throne (2 Samuel 16:21, 2 Samuel 16:22; note on 1 Kings 2:22), and certainly a surrender of all manhood and self-respect, we see that his aim was to wound Ahab in his tenderest point, to humble him to the lowest depths of degradation, and possibly to force a quarrel upon him], even the goodliest [The LXX. omits this. Bהhr says the word can only apply to the sons, and that it must mean the most eminent young men of the city—not Ahab’s children—whom Ben-hadad demanded as hostages. But against this is (1) Ahab’s answer, "All that I have," etc.; (2) the fact that Ben-hadad obviously meant insult and plunder; and (3) the language of verse 7, where see note], are mine. [Heb. mine are they. Rawlinson would explain this excessive demand of the Syrian king by the assumption that when it was made the siege had already lasted a long time, and that the people were now reduced to the greatest straits, circumstances which the historian, with the characteristic brevity of the sacred writers, omits to mention. But really no such supposition is needed. The overwhelming force which Ben-hadad had at his back would, in his eyes, justify any demands. And the prima facie view of verse 2 is that the messengers were sent on the first approach of the army, or rather at the beginning of the siege.] 1 Kings 20:4 And the king of Israel answered and said, My lord, O king, according to thy saying, I am thine, and all that I have. [Much has been written about Ahab’s pusillanimous acquiescence in these disgraceful terms, etc. But it is not absolutely clear that he ever meant to surrender either wives or children to the invader. All that is certain is that he judged it wise, in the presence of the enormous force arrayed against him, to make every possible concession, to adopt the most subservient tone, and to cringe at the feet of Ben-hadad. But all the time he may have hoped that his soft answer would turn away wrath. It is very far from certain that had Ben-hadad sent to demand the wives and children which Ahab here seems willing to yield to him they would have been sent. When Ben-hadad threatens (1 Kings 20:6) a measure which involved much less indignity than the surrender of the entire seraglio to his lusts, Ahab stands at bay. Allowance must be made for the exaggerations of Eastern courtesy. The writer was entertained in 1861 by Jacob esh Shellabi, then sheykh of the Samaritans, who repeatedly used words very similar to these. "This house is yours," he would say; never meaning, however, that he should be taken at his word.] 1 Kings 20:5 And the messengers came again, and said, Thus speaketh Ben-hadad, saying, Although [Heb. כִי. According to some of the grammarians, this is merely the Hebrew equivalent of the ὅτι recitantis. But the כִי אִם of the next verse suggests that there must be a connexion between the two, and that the second emphasizes the first, much as in the A.V.] I have sent unto thee, saying, Thou shalt deliver me thy silver and thy gold, and thy wives, and thy children [Our translators have often sacrificed force to elegance by disregarding the order of the Hebrew, which here, e.g; is "Thy silver and thy gold … to me thou shalt give them."] 1 Kings 20:6 Yet I will send my servants unto thee tomorrow about this time [This proposal was definite and immediate, the first demand was vague and general. "In the first Ahab was to send what he thought fit to give; in the second, Ben-hadad’s servants were to take into their own hands whatsoever they thought fit to sieze" (Wordsworth)], and they shall search thine house, and the houses of thy servants; and it shall be, that whatsoever is pleasant in [Heb. the desire of] thine eyes [The LXX. and some other versions have a plural suffix—their eyes. But the Hebrew text is to be preferred. The object of Ben-hadad was to couch his message in the most oftensive and humiliating terms, and "the desire of thine eyes" would be likely to cut deeper and wound more than "the desire of their eyes"], they shall put it in their hand, and take it away. [If Ahab ever hoped by his abject submission to conciliate the Syrian king, he now finds that his words have had just the opposite effect. For all that the latter concluded from it was that Ahab was one upon whom he might trample at pleasure, and this servility encouraged Ben-hadad to renew his demands in a still more galling and vexatious form. This second message discloses to us still more plainly the royal bully and braggart, and shows us what the "comity of nations" in the old world was often like.] 1 Kings 20:7 Then the king of Israel called all the elders of the land [Bהhr remarks that this expression, compared with "the elders of the city" (1 Kings 21:8, etc.), suggests either that these nobles, as the highest officials, had their residences at the court, or upon the approach of Ben-hadad had betaken themselves thither with their treasures. Rawlinson builds on this slender basis the conclusion that the council of elders which, he says, belonged to the undivided kingdom, had been continued among the ten tribes, had an important place in the government, and held regular sittings at the capital] and said, Mark, I pray you, and see how this man [or fellow. The זֶה expresses either hatred or contempt. Cf. 1 Kings 22:27; Luke 23:2, Luke 23:18, etc.] seeketh mischief [the purport of Ahab’s address is not, "Ben-hadad is not satisfied with my treasures; he wants yours also" (Bהhr), for there is no reference whatsoever to their property, but, "See how he is determined on our ruin. Nothing short of our destruction will suffice him. He is bent on provoking an encounter, that he may plunder the city at pleasure." The salient word is the רָעָה]: far he sent unto me for my wives, and for my children [LXX. περιτῶνυἱῶνμου. This shows clearly that "the most eminent young men "cannot be meant in Luke 23:3], and for my silver and for my gold: and I dented him not. [What these words mean depends on what Luke 23:4 (where see note) means. It is difficult to conceive that any monarch could gravely proclaim his own shame to his counsellors; could confess, that is, that he had consented to surrender his children and concubines without a struggle.] 1 Kings 20:8 And an the eiders and an the people [not only, i.e; the inhabitants of Samaria (Keil), but also those who had flea thither for refuge. It is not implied that they were formally consulted, but at such a crisis, when nothing could be done, humanly speaking, without their support, it was natural that they should express their opinion] said unto him Hearken not unto him nor consent. [Lit; thou shalt not consent. אַל is the equivalent of μὴ, ne, and לא of οὐ, non. Cf. Amos 5:5, and Ewald 350 a.] 1 Kings 20:9 Wherefore [Heb. and] he said unto the mcaeengers of Ben-hadad, Tell my lord the king [He still employs the same obsequious language as in verse 4], All that thou didst send for to thy servant at the first I will do: but this thing I may [Heb. can] not do [At first sight it appears as if Ahab objected to the search (verse 6), i.e; plunder, of his house and capital much more than to the surrender of his wives to shame and of his children to slavery. But we must remember that a man is ready to promise almost anything in his extremity, and that we do not know what construction he put, or would have claimed to put, upon Ben-hadad’s first demand, had that monarch consented to revert to these conditions, or by what means he hoped to evade it]. And the messengers departed, and brought him [Ben-hadad, not Ahab, as Rawlinson imagines] word again. [Not the "word related in the next verse" (Rawlinson), but the message just recorded.] 1 Kings 20:10 And Ben-hadad sent unto him, and said [These words would be quite superfluous, if the oaths of which we now hear were the "word" of 1 Kings 20:9], The gods do so unto me, and more also [see notes on 1 Kings 2:23; 1 Kings 19:2], if the dust of Samaria shall suffice for handfuls [The meaning of שְׁעָלִים pugilli, is fixed by Isaiah 40:12, and Ezekiel 13:19] for all the people that follow me. [Heb. that are in my feet. Same expression Judges 4:16; Judges 5:15; 1 Samuel 25:27; 2 Samuel 15:17, etc. This thoroughly Oriental piece of bluster and boasting, which was intended, no doubt, to strike terror into the hearts of king and people, has been variously interpreted, but the meaning appears to be sufficiently clear. Ben-bahad vows that he will make Samaria a heap of dust, and at the same time affirms that so overwhelming is his host, that this dust will be insufficient to fill the hands of his soldiers. Rawlinson compares with it the well-known saying of the Trachinian to Dieneces, that the Median arrows would obscure the sun (Herod. 7:226), but 2 Samuel 17:18 is still more apposite.] 1 Kings 20:11 And the king of Israel answered and said, Tell him Let not him that girdeth on his harness bout himself as he that putteth it off. [This proverb consists of four words in the Hebrew. The commentators cite the Latin, Ne triumphum canas ante victoriam, but proverbs to the same effect are found in most languages. 1 Kings 20:12 And it came to pass, when Ben-hadad [Heb. he] heard this message [Heb. word], as he was drinking, he and the kings in the pavilions [Heb. booths. The word shows that, in lieu of tents, kings and generals on an expedition sometimes used leafy huts, like those of Israel (Leviticus 23:34, Leviticus 23:42). Such booths, it is said, are still erected on military expeditions in the East], that he said unto his servants, Set yourselves in array [Heb. שִׂימוּ one short, decisive word. His indignation and astonishment were too great for more. We might perhaps render "Form." Cf. 1 Samuel 11:11; Joshua 8:2, Joshua 8:13; Job 1:17; Ezekiel 23:24. It cannot mean οἰκοδομήσατεχάρακα (LXX.)] And they set themselves in array [or formed. Again one word, which is more spirited and graphic, and conveys that the command was instantly obeyed] against the city. 1 Kings 20:13 And, behold, there came a prophet [Heb. one prophet. Cf. 1 Kings 13:11. According to Jewish writers, this was Micaiah, son of Imlah, but 1 Kings 22:8 negatives this supposition, This is another proof that all the prophets had not been exterminated. Where Elijah was at this time, or why he was not employed, we have no means of determining. Bähr says that he was "least of all suited for such a message," but not if he had learned the lesson of 1 Kings 19:12. At the same time, it is to be remembered that he invariably appears as the minister of wrath. It may also be reasonably asked why this gracious interposition was granted to the kingdom of Samaria at all. Was not this invasion, and would not the sack of the city have been, a just recompense for the gross corruption of the age, for the persecution of the prophets, etc.? But to this it may be replied that Ben-hadad was not then the instrument which God had designed for the correction of Israel (see 1 Kings 19:17; 1 Kings 22:31; 2 Kings 10:32), and furthermore that by his brutal tyranny and despotic demands, he had himself merited a chastisement. The city, too, may have been delivered for the sake of the seven thousand (1 Kings 19:18; 2 Kings 19:34. Cf. Genesis 18:26 sqq.) But this gracious help in the time of extremity was primarily designed as a proof of Jehovah’s power over the gods of Syria (cf. 1 Kings 19:13, 28; 1 Kings 18:39; 2 Kings 19:22 sqq.), and so as an instrument for the conversion of Israel. His supremacy over the idols of Phoenicia had already been established] unto Ahab king of Israel, saying, Thus saith the Lord, Hast thou seen all this great multitude? [cf. 1 Kings 19:10. "In Ben-hadad’s wars with the Assyrians, we sometimes find him at the head of nearly 100,000 men" (Rawlinson).] Behold, I will deliver it into thine hand this day; and thou shalt know that I am the Lord. [This explains to us the motif of this great deliverance.] 1 Kings 20:14 And Ahab said, By whom? And he said, Thus saith the Lord [Observe the repetition. He is careful to give special prominence to the sacred name, as the only help in trouble (Psalms 20:1, Psalms 20:5, Psalms 20:7, etc.)], Even by the young men [or servants—נַעַר, has both meanings, corresponding with παῖς (cf. Genesis 37:2; 2 Kings 5:20; 2 Kings 8:4] of the princes of the provinces. [The local governors (cf. 1 Kings 4:7; 1 Kings 10:15), on the approach of Ben hadad, had apparently fled to the capital. Whether these "young men" were their "pages" (Thenius), or even were "young lads" (Ewald) at all, or, on the contrary, a "select body of strong young men" (Bähr), the bodyguard of the various governors (2 Samuel 18:15) (Von Gerlach), may be doubtful; but when Bähr says that Ahab would not have consented to appoint weak boys to lead the van, at least without remonstrance, he must have forgotten that all the ordinary means at Ahab’s disposal were equally insufficient, and that in themselves 200 or 2000 tried veterans would have been just as inadequate a force as 200 pages. The agency by which the victory was won was purposely weak and feeble (per turbam imbellem), in order that the work might be seen to be of God (cf. Judges 7:2; 1 Corinthians 1:27, 1 Corinthians 1:29). And this consideration makes against the supposition that the attacking body was composed of tried and skilful warriors.] Then he said, Who shall order [Heb. bind; we speak of "joining battle"] the battle? [The meaning is—not, "who shall command this force," but, "which side shall begin the fray?"] And he answered, Thou [i.e; thy band of young men shall make the attack.] 1 Kings 20:15 Then he numbered [or reviewed (cf. Numbers 1:44 sqq.; Numbers 3:39-43)] the young men of the princes of the provinces, and they were two hundred and thirty-two [cf. 2 Chronicles 14:11; Psalms 33:16; Deuteronomy 32:30, etc. LXX. διακόσιατριάκοντα. Theodoret remarks that by this band—230, as he understood it—Almighty God would destroy the hosts of thirty and two kings. The numbers may have been recorded because of the correspondency]: and after them he numbered all the people, even all the children of Israel, being seven thousand. [This number is of course to be understood, unlike that of Deu 19:18, literally. And the context (cf. Deuteronomy 19:19) shows that this was the number of fighting men. But this small army can hardly fail to create surprise, especially if we compare it with the statistics of the soldiery of an earlier age (2 Samuel 24:9; 1 Chronicles 21:5; 2 Chronicles 13:3; 2 Chronicles 14:8). It is true this was not strictly an army, but a garrison for the defence of the capital. But it looks very much as if, under the feeble rule of Ahab, the kingdom of Israel had become thoroughly disorganized. "The position of Jarchi is that of a true Rabbi, viz; that the 7000 were those who had not bowed the knee unto Baal (1 Kings 19:18)," Bähr.] 1 Kings 20:16 And they went out at noon. ["At the time when Ben-hadad, haughty and confident, had given himself up with his vassals, to the table, news of which had probably been received in the city" (Bähr). But it seems at least equally probable that the noon hour was selected either in obedience to the unrecorded directions of the prophet, or as being a time for rest and sleep, as it still is in the East.] But Ben-hadad was drinking himself drunk in the pavilions, he and the kings, the thirty and two kings that helped him. [Strong drink would seem to have been a besetment of the monarchs of that age (of. 1 Kings 16:9; Proverbs 31:4; Daniel 5:1 sqq.; Esther 1:10; Esther 7:2; Habakkuk 2:5). It can hardly have been to "mark his utter contempt of the foe," Rawlinson, who compares Belshazzar’s feast (Daniel 5:1-4) when besieged by Cyrus. But Ben-hadad was the besieger. We are rather reminded of Alexander’s carouse at Babylon.] 1 Kings 20:17 And the young men of the princes of the provinces went out first; and Ben-hadad sent out [Or had sent out. Possibly, the unusual stir in the city, the mustering of the troops, etc; had led to his sending out scouts before the young men issued from the gates. The LXX; however, has "And they send and tell the king of Syria," which Rawlinson thinks represents a purer text. But it looks like an emendation to avoid the difficulty, which is removed by translating וַיִּשְׁלַח as pluperfect], and they told him saying, There are men come out of Samaria. [Heb. men went forth, etc.] 1 Kings 20:18 And he said, Whether they be come out for peace [i.e; to negociate or to submit], take them alive; or whether they be come out for war, take them alive. [We may trace in these words, possibly the influence of wine, but certainly the exasperation which Ahab’s last message had occasioned the king. So incensed is he that he will not respect the rights of ambassadors, and he is afraid lest belligerents should be slain before he can arraign them before him. Possibly he meant that they should be tortured or slain before his face.] 1 Kings 20:19 So these young men of the princes of the provinces came out of the city, and the army which followed them. [i.e; the 7000. They "came out" after the young men.] 1 Kings 20:20 And they slew every one his man [The LXX; which differs here considerably from the Hebrew, inserts at this point καὶἐδευτέρωσενἕκαστοςτὸνπαραὐτοῦ. Ewald thinks the Hebrew text ought to be made to correspond, and would read וַיּשְׁנוּ אישׁ אישׁוֹ i.e; each repeatedly killed his man, as in 1 Samuel 14:16]: and the Syrians fled [When a few had fallen, utter panic seized the rest. The separate kings, with their divided interests, thought only of their own safety. It was a sauve qui pout. "The hasty and disordered flight of a vast Oriental army before an enemy contemptible in numbers is no uncommon occurrence. Above 1,000,000 of Persians fled before 47,000 Greeks at Arbela" (Rawlinson). The very size of such hosts, especially where the command is divided and where the generals are drunk or incapable, contributes to their defeat]; and Israel pursued them: and Ben-hadad the king of Syria escaped on an horse [Thenius suggests that this was a chariot horse, the first that presented] with the horsemen. [Heb. and horsemen; sc; escaped with him Keil). He had an escort in some of his fugitive cavalry.] 1 Kings 20:21 And the king of Israel went out [It looks as if Ahab had remained within the city until the defeat of the Syrians was assured], and smote [LXX. καὶἐλαβε, and captured] the horses and chariots [i.e; the cavalry and chariotry; cf. 1 Kings 20:1], and slew the Syrians with a great slaughter. [Heb. in Syria a great, etc.] 1 Kings 20:22 And the prophet [obviously the same prophet] came to the king of Israel, and said unto him, Go, strengthen thyself [both as to army and to city], and mark, and see what thou doest ["Take every precaution. Don’t think that the danger is past"]: for at the return of the year [in the following spring. There was a favourite time for campaigns (2 Samuel 11:1), viz; when the rainy season was past. Several late wars, notably those of our own armies in Africa and Afghanistan, have been considerably influenced by the seasons. And the wars of ancient times were almost universally summer raids. "Sustained invasions, lasting over the winter, are not found until the time of Shalmaneser" (2 Kings 17:5; 2 Kings 18:9 10, Rawlinson)] the king of Syria will come [Heb. cometh] up against thee. 1 Kings 20:23 And the servants of the king of Syria said unto him [naturally anxious to retrieve their character and obliterate their disgrace], Their gods are gods of the hills [All pagan nations have believed in local deities, Dii montium, dii nemorum, etc. (see 2 Kings 18:33-35; 2 Kings 19:12, 2 Kings 19:13). Keil accounts for this belief—that the gods of Israel were mountain divinities, by the consideration that the temple was built on Mount Moriah, and that worship was always offered on "high places." Kitto reminds us that the law was given from Mount Sinai, and that fire had recently descended on Mount Carmel. "In Syrophoenicia, even mountains themselves had Divine honours paid to them" But it is enough to remember that Samaria was a hilly district, and that the courtiers must find some excuse for the defeat]; therefore they were stronger than we; but [Heb. (וְאוּלָם often well rendered but not in this instance) by the LXX. οὐμὴνδὲἀλλά] let us fight against them in the plain, and surely we shall be stronger than they. [This counsel, which apparently rests on religious grounds alone, was, it is probable, really dictated by the practical consideration that in the plain the Syrians would be able to deploy their chariots a most important arm of their service in a way which they could not do in the valleys round Samaria. See 1 Kings 16:24, note. Moreover the Israelites would lose the advantage of a strong position and the cover of their fortifications if they could be induced to meet them in the "great plain," or on any similar battlefield.] 1 Kings 20:24 And do this thing. Take the kings away, every man out of his place, and put captains [Same word as in 1 Kings 10:15, where see note] in their rooms. [Not so much because (Bähr) the kings only fought through compulsion, for they appear to have been in complete accord with Ben-hadad (1 Kings 10:1, 1 Kings 10:12, 1 Kings 10:16), as because of their incapacity and divided interests and plans. The captains would presumably be selected because of their valour, military skill, etc.; the kings would owe their command to the accident of birth, etc. Moreover an army with thirty-three leaders could not have the necessary solidarity. Bähr assumes that the removal of the kings would involve the withdrawal of the auxiliaries which they contributed. But this does not appear to have occurred to Ben-ha ], horse for [Heb. as] horse, and chariot for chariot: and we will fight against them in the plain, and surely we shall be stronger than they. And he hearkened unto their voice, and did so. 1 Kings 20:26 And it came to pass at the return of the year, that Ben-hadad numbered the Syrians [Heb. Syria], and went up to Aphek [As the word signifies "fortress," it is only natural that several different places should bear this name, and the commentators are not agreed as to which of them is here intended. Keil and Bähr identify it with the Aphek hard by Shunem (1 Samuels 29:1; cf. 28:4), and therefore in the plain of Esdraelon, while Gesenius and Grove the latter because of its connection with הַמִּישׁוֹר the plain, a word applied, κατἐξοχὴν to the plain in the tribe of Reuben (Deuteronomy 3:10; Deuteronomy 4:43; Joshua 13:9, Joshua 13:16, Joshua 13:17, Joshua 13:21, etc.)—would see in it the Aphek east of the Jordan, the Apheca of Eusebius, and perhaps the place mentioned 2 Kings 13:17 (where, however, see note). This trans-Jordanic Aphek is new represented by the village of Fik, six miles east of the sea of Galilee, and standing, as Aphek must have then stood, on the high road between Damascus and Jerusalem. On the whole, the balance of probability inclines to the latter. It would follow hence that the Israelites, emboldened by their victory of the preceding year, had crossed the river to meet the enemy], to fight against Israel. [Heb. to the war with Israel.] 1 Kings 20:27 And the children of Israel were numbered [lit; numbered themselves. Hith-pael], and were all present [Rather, and were provided with food, כוּל = to nourish. The Alex. LXX. inserts καὶδιοικήθησαν. Vulgate accepetis cibariis. Marg. were victualled. This word of itself suggests that they were at a distance from their capital or other city], and went against them [Heb. to meet them]: and the children of Israel pitched before them like two little flocks חֲשִׂיף strictly means separated. It is rightly translated "little flocks" , because the idea is that of two bands of stragglers separated from the main body of the flock. So the Vulgate, duo parvi greges caprarum; but LXX; δύοποίμνιαάγῶν. Ewald thinks the "two flocks" points to an an auxiliary fores furnished by Jehoshaphat, fighting with Israel. He also thinks goats are mentioned to convey the exalted position of the camp upon the hills. Flocks of goats as a rule are smaller than those of sheep, the former being more given to straying] of kids [lit; she-goats. "These flocks pasture mostly on the cliffs, and are smaller than the flocks of sheep" (Bähr)]; but the Syrians filled the country. [The whole plain swarmed with their legions in striking contrast to the two insignificant Bodies of Israelites.] 1 Kings 20:28 And there came a man of God [Whether this is the same person as the "prophet" of 1 Kings 20:13, 1 Kings 20:22, is not quite clear. The difference in the designation would lead us to suppose that a different messenger was meant. It is true the Hebrew has the article "the man of God" (LXX. ὁἄνθρωποςτοῦθεοῦ), but אִיּשׁ הֶאֱלהִים (see Judges 13:6; Deuteronomy 33:1) is often hardly distinguishable from the same words without the article], and spake [Heb. said, same word as below] unto the king of Israel, and said, Thus saith the Lord, Because the Syrians [Heb. Syria, but with a plural verb] have said, The Lord is Cod of the hills, but he is not God of the valleys, therefore will I deliver all this great multitude into thine hand, and ye shall know that I am the Lord. [It was partly for the instruction of Israel, and to confirm their wavering faith in Jehovah (see verse 13), that this deliverance was wrought. But it was also that neighbouring nations might learn His power, and that His name might be magnified among the heathen.] 1 Kings 20:29 And they pitched one over against the other [Heb. these opposite these] seven days. [The Syrians, despite their overwhelming numbers, appear to have been afraid to attack, and the Israelites were naturally reluctant, despite the promise they had received, to join battle with so great a host]. And so it was, that in the seventh day the battle was Joined [Heb. the war drew near. It may have been by the direction of the man of God that the Israelites attacked on the seventh day, or the precedent of Jericho (Joshua 6:15) may have influenced their leaders; or the number seven, properly the mark and signature of the covenant, may have come to be regarded superstitiously—in fact, as a lucky number And the Hebrew at first sight seems to favour this idea, for it may be rendered literally, they smote Syria, a hundred thousand, etc. The 100,000 would then represent the entire strength of the Syrian infantry. But the mention of the "footmen" and of "one day" alike suggests that it is of slaughter, not dispersion, that the historian speaks.] 1 Kings 20:30 But the rest [Plainly those not claim It cannot mean those not defeated] fled to Aphek [It is clear that this fortress was then in the possession of the Syrians, as they took refuge within its walls], into the city; and there a wall [Heb. the wall, i.e; the city wall] fell upon twenty and seven thousand of the men that were left. [The Hebrew implies that these were practically all who survived the battle, הַנּוֹתָרִים is the word translated above, "the rest." We have here surely an exaggeration, even more obvious than that of verse 39. For even if we suppose an earthquake, it is difficult to believe that the walls of a place like Aphek could bury so large a number in their ruins. Rawlinson suggests that the Syrians at the time were "manning the defences in full force," and that the earthquake "threw down the wall where they were most thickly crowded upon it;" hut the question arises whether it is possible to mass 27,000 men upon any part of a wall, or all the walls, especially of an ancient village fortress. Thenius hints that the fall of the wall may have been occasioned by the Israelites undermining it during the night, but it seems hardly likely that so small a force could undertake operations of that kind against so formidable a body of troops. Keil objects to this view on another ground, viz; that its object is to negative the idea of a Divine interposition. But the text does not ascribe the fall of the wall to any such interposition, and we know that the sacred writers are not slow to recognize the finger of God whenever it is exerted.] And Ben-hadad fled, and came into [Heb. to] the city [i.e; Aphek. Rawlinson interprets this statement to mean that he "fled from the wall, where he had been at the time of the disaster, into the inner parts of the city," but this is extremely doubtful. Observe the words, "fled and cane to the city"—words almost identical with those used of the fugitives above], into an inner chamber. [Heb. into a chamber within a chamber, as in 1 Kings 22:25. This cannot mean from chamber to chamber," as marg. It is to be observed that חֶדֶר alone signifies properly an inner chamber. See Genesis 43:30; Judges 16:9, Judges 16:12. Rawlinson thinks that a secret chamber may be meant "a chamber in the wall, or one beneath the floor of another."] 1 Kings 20:31 And his servants [Possibly the very same men who (1 Kings 20:23) had counselled this second expedition] said unto him, Behold now, we have heard that the kings of the house of Israel are merciful kings [As no doubt they were when compared with contemporary pagan sovereigns]: let us, I pray thee, put sackcloth on our loins [in token of humiliation and contrition, שַׂק is identical, radically, with σάκκος, saccus, and our sack], and ropes upon our heads [i.e; round our necks. To show how completely they were at Ahab’s mercy. Bähr shows that this custom still exists in China hut the well-known story of the citizens of Calais, after its siege by Edward III; supplies a closer illustration], and go out [Heb. go] to the king of Israel [It would appear from the language of verse 33 am if Ahab’s army was now besieging the place. He himself may have kept at a safe distance from it]: peradventure he will save thy life. [LXX. our lives, τὰςψυχὰςἡμῶν.] 1 Kings 20:32 So they girded sackcloth on their loins, and put ropes on their heads, and came to the king of Israel, and said, Thy servant Ben-hadad saith, I pray thee, let me live. [Compare with this abject petition for life the arrogant insolence of 1 Kings 20:6, 1 Kings 20:10. The tables are indeed turned.] And he said, Is he yet alive? he is my brother. 1 Kings 20:33 Now the men did diligently observe whether anything would come from him and did hastily catch it [Heb. and the men augured—נִחֵשׁ divinavit. Cf. Genesis 44:15; Le Genesis 19:26; 2 Kings 17:17. LXX. οἰωνίσαντο. Vulgate acceperunt pro omine—and hasted and made him declare whether from him, the meaning of which is sufficiently clear, viz; that the men took Ahab’s words,"He is my brother," as a speech of good omen, and immediately laid hold of it, and contrived that the king should be held to it and made to confirm it. The only difficulty is in the word וַיַּחְלְטוּ which is ἄπαξ My. The Talmud, however, interprets it to mean, declare, confirm; in the Kal conjugation and the Hiphil would therefore mean, made him declare. The LXX. and Vulgate, however, have understood it otherwise, taking חָלַט as the equivalent of חָלָץ rapuit. The former has ἀνελέξαντοτὸνλόγονἐκτοῦοτόματοςαὐτοῦ, and the latter rapuerunt verbum ex ore ejus. They would seem also to have read instead of הַדָּבָר î חֲמֵמֶּנוּ (Ewald). The law of dakheet, by which Rawlinson would explain this incident, seems to be rather an usage of the Bedouin than of any civilized nations]: and they said, Thy brother Ben-hadad. Then said he, Go ye, bring him. Then Ben-hadad came forth to him [out of his hiding-place and out of the city]: and he caused him to come up into the chariot. [A mark of great favour (compare Genesis 41:43), and of reconciliation and concord (cf. 2 Kings 10:15).] 1 Kings 20:34 And Ben-hadad said unto him The cities, which my father took from thy father, I will restore [We can hardly see in these words "the terms of peace which he is willing to offer as the price of his freedom" (Rawlinson), because he was absolutely at Ahab’s mercy, and was not in a position to make any stipulations; but they express Ben-hadad’s idea of the results which must follow the conquest. His utter defeat would necessitate this reconstruction of their respective territories, etc. We cannot be quite certain that the cities here referred to are those enumerated in 1 Kings 15:20, as taken by Ben-hadad’s armies from Baasha. For Baasha was not the father, nor even was he the "ancestor" (as Keil, later edition) of Ahab, but belonged to a different dynasty. At the same time it is quite conceivable that a prince in Ben-hadad’s position, in his ignorance or forgetfulness of the history of Israel, might use the word "father" improperly, or even in the sense of "predecessor." We know that אָב had a very extended signification.] Keil and Bהhr, however, think that we have a reference to some war in the reign of Omri (cf. 1 Kings 16:27), which is not recorded in Scripture. And the words which follow make this extremely probable, inasmuch as in Baasha’s days Samaria had no existence]; and thou shalt make streets [חצוֹת lit; whatever is without; hence streets, spaces, quarters] for thee in Damascus, as my father made in Samaria. [The commentators are agreed that a permission to establish bazaars or quarters, in which the Hebrews might live and trade, is here conceded]. Then said Ahab [These words are rightly supplied by our translators. The meaning would have been quite clear had the Hebrews been familiar with the use of quotation marks. For lack of these, all the versions ascribe the words to Ben-hadad], I will send thee away with this covenant. So he made a covenant with him and sent him away. 1 Kings 20:35 And a certain man [Heb. one man; of. 1 Kings 13:11, note] of the sons of the prophets [Here mentioned for the first time, though the prophetic schools probably owed their existence, certainly their development, to Samuel. The בּנֵי הָןּ are of course not the children, but the pupils of the prophets. For this use of "son," cf. 1 Samuel 20:1-42:81 ("a son of death"); 2 Samuel 12:5; Deuteronomy 25:2; Matthew 23:15; 1 Kings 4:30; Ezra 2:1; John 17:12, and Amos 7:14. Gesenius refers to the Greek ἱατρῶνυἱοίῥητόρωνυἱοί, etc; and says that among the Persians "the disciples of the Magi are called, "Sons of Magi." The word, again, does not necessarily imply youth. That they were sometimes married men appears from 2 Kings 6:1, though this was probably after their collegiate life was ended. As they were called "sons," so their instructor, or head, was called "father" (1 Samuel 10:12)] said unto his neighbour [or companion. Another prophet is implied. It was because this "neighbour" was a prophet that his disregard of the word of the Lord was so sinful, and received such severe punishment], in the word of the Lord [see on 1 Kings 13:1], Smite me, I pray thee. [Why the prophet, in order to the accomplishment of his mission—which was to obtain from Ahab’s own lips a confession of his deserts—why he should have been smitten, i.e; bruised and wounded, is not quite clear. For it is obvious that he might have sustained his part, told his story, and obtained a judgment from the king, without proceeding to such painful extremities. It is quite true that a person thus wounded would perhaps sustain the part of one who had been in battle better, but the wounds were in no way necessary to his disguise, and men do not court pain without imperious reasons. Besides, it was "in the word of the Lord" that these wounds were sought and received. It is quite clear, therefore, that it cannot have been merely to give him a claim to an audience with the king (Ewald)—he could easily have simulated wounds by means of bandages, which would at the same time have helped to disguise him—or that he might foreshadow in his own person the wounding which Ahab would receive (1 Kings 22:11), for of that he says nothing, or for any similar reason. The wounding, we may be quite sure, and the tragical circumstances connected therewith, are essential parts of the parable this prophet had to act, of the lesson he had to teach. 1%w the great lesson he had to convey, not to the king alone, but to the prophetic order and to the whole country, the lesson most necessary in that lawless age, was that of implicit unquestioning obedience to the Divine law. Ahab had just transgressed that law. He had "let go a man whom God had appointed to utter destruction;" he had heaped honours on the oppressor of his country, and in gratifying benevolent impulses had ignored the will and counsel of God (see on verse 42). No doubt it seemed to him, as it has seemed to others since, that he had acted with rare magnanimity, and that his generosity in that age, an age which showed no mercy to the fallen, was unexampled. But he must be taught that he has no right to be generous at the expense of others; that God’s will must be done even when it goes against the grain, when it contradicts impulses of kindness, and demands painful sacrifices. He is taught this by the prophetic word (verse 42), but much more effectively by the actions which preceded it. A prophet required to smite a brother prophet, and that for no apparent reason, would no doubt find it repugnant to his feelings to do so; it would seem to him hard and cruel and shameful to smite a companion. But the prophet who refused to do this, who followed his benevolent impulses in preference to the word of the Lord, died for his sin—died forthwith by the visitation of God. What a lesson was this to king and country—for no doubt the incident would be bruited abroad, and the very strangeness of the whole proceeding would heighten the impression it made. Indeed, it is hardly possible to conceive a way in which the duty of unquestioning obedience could be more emphatically taught. When this prophet appeared before the king, a man had smitten and wounded him, disagreeable and painful as the task must have been, because of the word of the Lord; whilst a brother prophet, who declined the office because it was painful, had been slain by a wild beast. It is easy to see that there was here a solemn lesson for the king, and that the wounding gave it its edge.] And the man refused to smite him. 1 Kings 20:36 Then said he unto him, Because thou hast not obeyed the voice of the Lord, behold, as soon as thou art departed from me, a lion [Heb. the lion, perhaps the lion appointed already to this office, or one that had lately been seen in the neighbourhood] shall slay thee. And as soon as he was departed from him, a [Heb. the] lion found him [same word as in 1 Kings 13:24, where see note], and slew him [For the same sin as that of "the man of God (1 Kings 13:21, 1 Kings 13:26), viz; disobedience (Deuteronomy 32:24; Jeremiah 5:6), and disobedience, too, under circumstances remarkably similar to those. In fact, the two histories run on almost parallel lines. In each case it is a prophet who disobeys, and disobeys the "word of the Lord;" in each case the disobedience appears almost excusable; in each case the prophet appears to be hardly dealt with, and suffers instant punishment, whilst the king escapes; in each case the punishment is foretold by a prophet; in each case it is effected by the instrumentality of a lion. And in each case the lesson is the same—that God’s commands must be kept, whatever the cost, or that stern retribution will inevitably follow.] 1 Kings 20:37 Then he found another man, and said, Smite me, I pray thee. And the man smote him, so that in smiting he wounded him [Heb. smiting and wounding. This last particular is apparently recorded to show how promptly and thoroughly this "other man," who is not said to have been a prophet, obeyed the charge. Probably he had the fate of the other before his eyes.] 1 Kings 20:38 So the prophet departed, and waited for the king by the way, and disguised himself with ashes upon his face. [Rather, a bandage upon his eyes. אֲפֵר there can be no doubt, denotes some sort of covering (LXX. τελαμών), and is probably the equivalent of עֲפֵר. Ashes cannot be put on the eyes, and even on the head would be but a poor disguise. This bandage was at the same time in keeping with the prophet’s role as a wounded man, and an effective means of concealment. It would almost seem as if this prophet was personally known to the king.] 1 Kings 20:39 And as the king passed by, he cried unto the king [in his capacity of supreme judge; see on 1 Kings 3:9]: and he said, Thy servant went out into the midst of the battle [i.e; the recent battle]; and, behold, a man turned aside [סָר; cf. 1 Kings 22:43; Exodus 3:3; Exodus 32:8. But Ewald, al. would read, סַר prince or captain (properly שַׂר), a change which certainly lends force to the apologue, and makes the analogy more complete. Only such an officer was entitled to give such an order. Moreover just as a common soldier ought to obey his captain, so should Ahab have obeyed God. But as our present text yields a good and sufficient meaning, we are hardly warranted in making any change], and brought a man unto me, and said, Keep this man: if by any means he be missing, then shall thy life be for his life, or else thou shalt pay [Heb. weigh. There was then no coinage. Payments were made by means of bars of silver or gold] a talent of silver. [A considerable sum—about £400. "The prisoner is thus represented to be a very important personage" (Thenius). There is a hint at Ben-hadad. Ewald holds that the wounds represented the penalty inflicted instead of the talent which a common soldier naturally could not pay.] 1 Kings 20:40 And as thy servant was busy [Heb. doing. The LXX. περιεβλέψατοὁδοῦλόςσου, and the Vulgate dum ego turbatus hue illucque me verterem, have led some critics to urge the substitution of פֹּגֶה turning, or שֹׁעֶה looking, for עֹשֵׂה doing, in the text. But no alteration is needed] here and there [or hither and thither—the äis generally local—as in Joshua 8:20. But sometimes it is merely demonstrative, "here and there," as in Genesis 21:29, Daniel 12:5, and so it may be understood here (Gesenius)], he was gone [Heb. he is not]. And the king of Israel said unto him, So shall thy judgment be; thyself hast decided it. [Cf. 2 Samuel 12:5-7, Ahab has himself pronounced that his judgment is just, and what it shall be.] 1 Kings 20:41 And he hasted, and took the ashes away from his face [Heb. removed the covering from upon his eyes]; and the king of Israel discerned him that he was of the prophets. [That is, he was one of the prophets who were known to him The face alone would hardly have proclaimed him a prophet. And the prophet’s dress would of course have been laid aside when the disguise was assumed.] 1 Kings 20:42 And he said onto him. Thus saith the lord, Because thou hast let go [Heb. sent away; same word as in ver; 34. This is an in direct proof that those were the words of Ahab] out of thy hand [Heb. out of hand—same idiom in 1 Samuel 26:23—i.e; power, possession. Cf. Genesis 32:12; Exodus 18:9; Numbers 35:25] a man whom I appointed to utter destruction [Heb. a man of my devoting. Cf. Isaiah 34:5; Zechariah 14:11. It is the word used of the Canaanites and their cities, Deuteronomy 2:34; Deuteronomy 7:2; Joshua 8:26; Joshua 10:28; and it gave a name to the city Hormah, Numbers 21:3; Numbers 14:45. Ben-hadad, therefore, was doomed of God], therefore thy life shall go for [Heb. be instead of] his life, and thy people for his people. [By the lex talionis. It was probably because of this denunciation (cf. 1 Kings 22:8) that Josephus identifies this prophet with Micaiah, the son of Imlah, "whom Ahab appears to have imprisoned on account of some threatening prophecy (Rawlinson). See 1 Kings 22:9, 1 Kings 22:26. For the fulfilment o! this prediction see 1 Kings 22:1-53. It has seemed to some writers as if Ahab were here very hardly dealt with for merely gratifying s generous impulse, and dealing magnanimously with a conquered foe. Indeed, there are commentators who see in his release of the cruel and insolent tyrant s "trait which does honour to the heart of Ahab." But it is to be remembered, first, that Ahab was not free to do as he liked in this matter. His victories had been won, not by his prowess, by the skill of his generals, or the valour of his soldiers, but by the power of God alone. The war, that is to say, was God’s war: it was begun and continued, and should therefore have been ended, in Him. When even the details of the attack had been ordered of God (1 Kings 22:14), surely He should have been consulted as to the disposal of the prisoners. The prophet who promised Divine aid might at any rate have been asked—as prophets constantly were in that age (1 Kings 22:5, 1 Kings 22:8)—what was the "word of the Lord" concerning Israel’s overbearing and inveterate enemy. But Ahab, who had himself played so craven a part (1 Kings 22:21, 1 Kings 22:31), and who had contributed nothing to these great and unhoped-for victories, nevertheless arrogated to himself their fruits, and thereby ignored and dishonoured God. Secondly, if he had so little regard for his own private interests as to liberate such a man as Ben-hadad, he ought, as trustee for the peace and welfare of Israel, to have acted differently. The demand of 1 Kings 22:6 should have revealed to him the character of the man he had to deal with. And lastly, he was acting in defiance of all the principles and precedents of the Old Testament dispensation. For one great principle of that dispensation was the lex talionis. The king was the authorized dispenser of rewards and punishments, not only to wicked subjects but to aggressive nations. It was his duty to mete out to them the measure they had served to Israel. And the precedents were all in favour of putting such wretches as this Ben-hadad to the sword (Joshua 10:26; Judges 7:25; 1 Samuel 15:33). If he had been the first oppressor who fell into the hands of Israel, Ahab might have had some excuse. But with the fate of Agog, of Adonibezek, of Oreb and Zeeb, in his memory, he ought at any rate to have paused and asked counsel of God before taking Ben-hadad into his chariot and sending him away with a covenant of peace, to reappear at no distant period on the scene as the scourge of the Lord’s people.] 1 Kings 20:43 And the king of Israel went to his house heavy and displeased [Heb. sullen and angry; same words 1 Kings 21:4], and came to Samaria. [The order of verse suggests that the house was one in or near Aphek, in which the king was lodged after the battle—on which this interview, therefore, followed closely—and that shortly afterwards he left it for his capital.] 1 Kings 20:1-43 The Purgatory of Nations and Kings. The two invasions of Israel by the armies of Syria, and their defeat by the finger of God, may suggest some lessons as to God’s dealings with nations, and with oppressive and tyrannical kings. Two considerations must, however, be borne in mind here. First, that the present age, unlike the Mosaic, is not a dispensation of temporal rewards and punishments. It is true that even now men do receive a rough sort of retribution, according to their deserts, from the operation of natural laws; but that retribution is uncertain and indirect. Sometimes vengeance overtakes the wrong doer, but as often as not he escapes scathless. The Jewish economy, however, had absolutely none but temporal sanctions. A "judgment to come" formed no part of its system. It dealt with men as if there were no hereafter. It taught them to expect an exact and proportionate and immediate recompense; an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. It preached an ever-present Deity, the true King of the country, visiting every transgression and disobedience with its just recompense of reward (Hebrews 2:2). And so long as that economy was practised in its integrity, so long, either through the immediate dispensations of God, or the mediate action of the authorities who represented Him, did vice and crime, extortion and oppression, infidelity and apostasy, receive their just deserts. But with the advent of our Lord, and His apocalypse of life and immortality, all this was changed. We no longer look for temporal judgments because we are taught to wait for the judgement seat of Christ. It is only within very narrow limits that we expect to see vice punished or virtue rewarded. It causes us no surprise, consequently, to find even the tyrant and oppressor escaping all the whips and stings of vengeance. We know that he will not always escape; that though "the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small;" and that he and all such as he will surely satisfy the inexorable claims of Justice hereafter. But there is apparently one exception—and this is the second consideration—to this general rule. If the individual is not judged here, the nation is. For nations, as such, have no existence apart from this life present. In the kingdom of the future, nationalities have no place (Colossians 2:11). "Mortals have many tongues, immortals have but one." If, then, men are ever to be dealt with in their corporate capacity, they must, and as a matter of fact they do, receive their reckoning here. It surely is not difficult to trace the finger of God in the history of Europe as well as of Israel, of modern as of ancient times. In our own generation have not both Austria and Prussia paid in blood for the spoliation of Denmark? Have not the United States suffered for their overweening pride and greed and reckless speculation? Has not France paid a heavy forfeit for the corruption, the profligacy, the secularity which marked the latter years of the Empire? Has not England, too, had to lament her intermeddling? have not her late reverses suggested to many minds the painful thought that the hand of the Lord is gone out against her? Is she not suffering at this moment for her past misgovernment of Ireland? Is not Turkey, by the agonies of dissolution, expiating the uncleanness and injustice of the last four centuries? Yes, it should be clear that whatever arraignment awaits the individual hereafter, the community, the nation, receives its requital and acquittance here. And if this be so, it is obvious that the king, the representative of the country, or the sovereign power, who is responsible primarily for the action of the community, will have a share, and by far the largest share, in whatever good or evil befalls it. On him primarily does the disgrace and blow of a disaster fall. It is not always true that "the kings make war and their subjects have to pay for it," for the king, in case of defeat, pays the heaviest toll of all. And though there is no one to call him to an account for internal misgovernment, yet even that does not go unrecompensed, as the history of Rome, of Russia, of Turkey, of England shows. We are warranted in looking, consequently, for the punishment of aggressive nations and tyrannical kings in this present age. Now this chapter describes two invasions of the territory of Israel, and two successive defeats of the invaders. In the invasions we see the punishment of Israel and of Ahab; in the defeats the punishment of Syria and Ben-hadad. Let us inquire, in the first place, what each had done to provoke and deserve his respective chastisement. I. THE . That these were punishments hardly needs proof. For can any land be overrun with a horde of barbarians, such as the Syrians and their confederates, the Hittite chieftains, were, without widespread and profound suffering? We know what invasion means in modern times, when warfare is conducted with some approach to humanity, but what it meant in the Old World and the Orient, we are quite unable to realize. It is idle to say that the Syrians were defeated in the end. Who shall picture to us what the thousands of Israel suffered during the advance, possibly during the retreat, of that unwieldy and rapacious host, certainly during the occupation of the country? "Before them the garden of Eden, behind them a desolate wilderness" (Joe 2:3). Fire, rapine, famine, these three fell sisters marched in their train. The invasions, then, though repelled, would entail prodigious loss and suffering on the people. It would not compensate the Jewish farmer for the loss of his corn and oil and wine, still less the Jewish father for the dishonour of his daughters, to know that the siege was raised, that the king had fled to an inner chamber, that thousands of their enemies lay buried under the walls of Aphek. No, each invasion was nothing short of a national calamity, and we do well to ask what it was had provoked this chastisement. It was— 1. The sin of the people at large. The sin of Israel at this epoch was idolatry. The sin of Jeroboam had already received, in part at least, its recompense. A Syrian invasion in a preceding generation (1 Kings 15:20) had wasted the territory of Daniel But the calf worship was continued, and vile idolatry was now associated with it. It is true this had been fostered, if not introduced, by Jezebel, but it is impossible to acquit the people of blame. The pleasant vices of the Phoenician ritual were sweet to their taste. They loved to have it so. Justice demanded, consequently, that they should share in the punishment. Idolatry had already procured the investment and spoliation of Jerusalem; it now accounts for the march of the Syrians and the siege of Samaris, the centre of the Baal-worship. This is the third time that a foreign army has appeared before a polluted shrine. "How can they expect peace from the earth who do wilfully fight against heaven?" 2. The sin of its rulers. We have just seen that Ahab and Jezebel were primarily responsible for this last great apostasy. It was Jezebel really who "reared up an altar for Baal," etc. (1 Kings 16:32), though Ahab was a facile instrument in her hands. We find, consequently, that king and queen were the first to suffer, and suffered most. It is easy to picture the abject wretchedness and despair to which Ahab was reduced by the insolent messages of the northern barbarian. Those were indeed days of trouble and rebuke and blasphemy. The iron must have entered into his soul as he found himself utterly without resources, at the mercy of one who showed no mercy, but absolutely gloated over his misery. Nor did Jezebel escape her share of torture. She had to face the prospect of being handed over with the other ladies of the harem, to the will of the brutal, sensual, drunken despot who was thundering at their gates. Had her hair turned white, like that of another queen, in one night, we could not have wondered at it. Strong-willed, desperate woman that she was (2 Kings 9:31), she must have known too well how cruel are the tender mercies of the wicked not to have trembled. It is clear, therefore, that that prince and princess reaped some fruit of their doings in this life. But it may be said that this reign of terror did not last long, and that despair was speedily succeeded by the joy and triumph of victory. But the victory was not one which could afford unmixed satisfaction, either to king or people. It was not won by their prowess. It was Of such a kind that all boasting was excluded. In the first place, they owed it to a prophet of the Lord—one of the order whom Jezebel had persecuted. It Would therefore heap coals of fire upon Ahab’s head. Secondly, it was achieved by a handful of boys. His trained veterans had to follow their lead and enter into their labours. It was therefore more of a humiliation than a glory for his arms. It left him, in the presence of his people, a helpless debtor to that God whose altars he had overthrown; to that prophet whose companions he had slain. Such were the immediate causes of the invasion. Two others, which were more remote, must be briefly indicated. 3. The unwisdom and unbelief of Asa. He it was who first taught the Syrians that the way to Samaria lay open to them, and that the spoils of the country repaid the cost and trouble of invasion (1 Kings 15:18, 1 Kings 15:19). 4. The impiety of Solomon. The horses and chariots furnished by that great prince to the "kings of the Hittites and the kings of Syria" (1 Kings 10:29) now overrun the great plain and stream into the valleys of Samaria. The Syrians owed the most important arm of their service (verses 1, 25) to the disobedience of the Lord’s anointed. The two-and-thirty subject princes had once been the vassals of Solomon (1 Kings 4:21). We now turn to— II. THE DEFEATS. If this prodigious host was really called together to chastise the idolatries of Israel, it seems strange that it was not allowed to effect its purpose; that in the very hour of victory it was utterly and irretrievably defeated. But the explanation is not far to seek. Its advance was the punishment of Ahab’s sin; its dispersion the punishment of Ben-hadad’s. "Well may God plague each with other who means vengeance to them both." And Ben-hadad’s sin consisted in— 1. Defiance of God. The Battles of the Old World, as this chapter shows, were regarded as the contests of national deities. The defeat of Pharaoh was a judgment upon the gods of Egypt (Exodus 12:12). It was to altars, hecatombs, incantations that Balak looked for help (Numbers 22:23.) It was the mighty gods of Israel that the Philistines feared (1 Samuel 4:7, 1 Samuel 4:8). And we know how Goliath (1 Samuel 17:45) and Sennacherib alike (Isaiah 37:23) defied the living God. And when we see Ben-hadad swearing by his gods (verse 10), when we find his courtiers accounting for their first defeat by the belief that the gods of their adversaries were gods of the hills only, we perceive at once that this war was regarded on Syria’s and Israel’s part alike (verse 28) as a trial of strength between the deities whom they respectively worshipped. The defeat, consequently, was primarily the punishment of Ben-hadad’s blasphemy (Isaiah 37:29). 2. Wanton insolence and cruelty. We constantly find the instruments used of God for the punishment of Israel, punished in their turn for their oppression of Israel. We have instances in Judges 3:1-31.; Judges 4:8, Judges 4:22; Judges 6:1; cf. Judges 7:25; 2 Chronicles 32:21; Isaiah 10:5-12, Isaiah 10:24 sqq.; Isaiah 14:4 sqq.; Obadiah 1:1:28. When king or army exceeded their commission, when they trampled on the foe, they straightway provoked the vengeance which they were employed to minister. It would have been strange of such overbearing brutality as Ben-hadad’s (Obadiah 1:8, Obadiah 1:6, Obadiah 1:10) had gone unreproved. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ THE STORY OF NABOTH. THE DOOM OF AHAB’S HOUSE. HIS .— 1 Kings 21:1 And it came to pass after these things [These words are omitted in the Vat. LXX; which, as before remarked, transposes 1 Kings 20:1-43. and 21. See introductory note, 1 Kings 20:1-43., that Naboth ["Fruit," "produce" (Gesen). Wordsworth sees in him a type of Christ, cast out of the vineyard (Matthew 21:39) and slain] the Jezreelite [The Alex. LXX. here, and throughout the chapter, reads ὁἸσραηλίτης. Josephus (Ant. 8.13. 8) says that Naboth was of illustrious family] had a vineyard, which was in Jezreel [See note on 1 Kings 18:46], hard by the palace [LXX. threshing-floor. Stanley, arguing from this word, would reject the Hebrew text of this narrative, which places both the vineyard and the plot of ground (2 Kings 9:25, 2 Kings 9:26) in Jezreel, and would locate the vineyard on the hill of Samaria, in the "void place" of 1 Kings 22:10] of Ahab king of Samaria. [It is clear from these last words that Jezreel had not replaced Samaria as the capital. It was a "palace" only that Ahab had there. No doubt the beauty of the situation had led to its purchase or erection. As Jezreel is only twenty-five miles distant from Samaria, it is obvious that it might be readily visited by the court.] 1 Kings 21:2 And Ahab spake unto Naboth, saying, Give me thy vineyard [The prediction of Samuel (1 Samuel 8:14) is being realized], that I may have it for a garden of herbs [as in Deuteronomy 11:10; Romans 15:17], because it is near unto [Heb. beside] my house: and I will give thee for it a better vineyard than it: or [Heb. omits or], if it seem good to thee [Heb. if good in thine eyes], I will give thee the worth of it in money. [Heb. I will give to thee silver the price of it. See note on 1 Kings 20:39. Whatever Ahab’s moral weakness, he was certainly a prince of some enterprize. 1 Kings 22:39 speaks of the "cities "which he built. And the palace of Jezreel would seem to have been erected by him. This vineyard was to be one of his improvements.] 1 Kings 21:3 And Naboth said to Ahab, The Lord forbid it me [Heb. Far be it to me from Jehovah. These words reveal to us, first, that Naboth was a worshipper of the Lord—otherwise he would hardly have used the sacred name, and that to Ahab, with whom the servants of the true God had found but scant favour; and, secondly, that he looked upon the alienation of his patrimony as an act displeasing to the Lord, and as violating the law of Moses (Leviticus 25:93 sqq.; Numbers 36:7 sqq.) We have instances of the sale of land to the king in 2 Samuel 24:24—but that was by a Jebusite—and in 1 Kings 16:24], that I should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee. ["The preservation of the נַחֲלָה was for every covenant keeping Israelite a matter not merely of piety towards his family and his tribe but a religious duty" (Bהhr). It is clear, however, that the restraints of the old Mosaic law began to be irksome in that latitudinarian age. Many of its provisions were already regarded as obsolete.] 1 Kings 21:4 And Ahab came into his house [At Samaria, as we gather from 1 Kings 21:18, 1 Kings 21:14, 1 Kings 21:16, etc.] heavy and displeased [Heb. sullen and angry; same words as in 1 Kings 20:43. Ewald thinks that we have here a clear reference to that passage] because of the word which Naboth the Jezreellte had spoken to him: for [Heb. and] he had said, I will not give thee the inheritance of my fathers. And he laid him down upon his bed [Rawlinson understands this to mean the couch on which the Orientals recline at meals. And מִטָּה is used with this meaning in Esther 1:6 Ezekiel 23:41, and elsewhere. But "his bed" seems rather to point to his private chamber; see on Ezekiel 23:5], and turned away his face [The Vulgate adds ad parietem. Cf. 2 Kings 20:2; from which place it may have been unconsciously introduced here], and would eat no bread. [Keil contends that" this childish mode of giving expression to his displeasure shows very clearly that Ahab was a man sold under sin (2 Kings 20:20), who only wanted the requisite energy to display the wickedness of his heart in vigorous action;" but whether this is a just inference from these words may well be questioned. It rather shows that so little did he meditate evil that he accepted the refusal of Naboth as conclusive, and gave way to childish grief. 1 Kings 21:5 But Jezebel his wife came to him, and said unto him, Why is thy spirit so sad [same word as in 1 Kings 21:4], that thou eatest no bread? [It would seem that the queen missed him from the banqueting hall—he can hardly, therefore, have lain down on one of the divans or couches therein—and went to his bedroom to inquire the reason.] 1 Kings 21:6 And he said unto her, Because I spake unto Naboth the Jezreelite, and said unto him; Give me thy vineyard for money [Heb. silver]; or else, if it please [Heb. delight] thee, I will give thee another vineyard for it: and he answered [Heb. said], I will not give thee my vineyard. [Ahab does not mention the reason which Naboth assigned for his refusal. But Naboth’s reasons were nothing to him, and he had hardly given them a second thought.] 1 Kings 21:7 And Jezebel his wife said unto him. Dost thou now govern [Heb. make; LXX: ποιεῖς [βασιλέα] the kingdom of Israel? [There is no question expressed in the Hebrew which stands, "Thou now makest the kingdom over Israel." The commentators generally, however, understand the words—as the LXX. and the A.V.—as an ironical question, "Art thou ruler in aught but name?" though some take it as an imperative: "Do thou now exert authority over the kingdom of Israel," And on the whole, this latter interpretation appears to be preferable. "Do thou now play the king. Make thy power felt. Give me the requisite authority. I will," etc.] Arise, and eat bread [or food], and let thine heart be merry [Heb. good; same words 1 Samuel 25:36]: I [This word is emphatic. "If thou wilt do thy part, I will do mine."] will give thee [no need to buy it] the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite. 1 Kings 21:8 So she wrote letters [Heb. writings] in Ahab’s name, and sealed them with his seal [The use of the seal, for the purpose of authentication, is of great antiquity. Some of the Egyptian signets are more than 4,000 years old. Their use in the age of the patriarchs is attested by Genesis 38:15 and Genesis 41:42; their importance is proved by the text, by Esther 3:10; Esther 8:2, Esther 8:8, Esther 8:10 (cf. "Herod," 3:128); Daniel 6:17; Jeremiah 32:10, 54; Haggai 2:23, etc. Whether this seal—which does not necessarily prove that those who used it could not write—was impressed upon the writings themselves according to the modern practice of the East, or upon a piece of clay (Job 38:14), which was then attached to the letter by strings, we have no means of knowing. The use of Ahab’s seal affords a strong presumption that he was privy to her designs (Bähr), but of this we cannot be absolutely certain], and sent the letters unto the elders [see Deuteronomy 16:18] and to the nobles [same word Nehemiah 2:16; Nehemiah 4:13; Ecclesiastes 10:17] that were in his city, dwelling [or inhabitants, as in Ecclesiastes 10:11] with Naboth. 1 Kings 21:9 And she wrote in the letters, saying Proclaim a fast [The object of this ordinance was to give the impression that the city was labouring under, or threatened with, a curse, because of some undiscovered sin (2 Samuel 21:1; Joshua 9:11; Deuteronomy 21:9), which must be removed or averted by public humiliation. Cf. Joe 1:14; Joe 2:12; 1 Samuel 7:6; 2 Chronicles 20:3)], and set Naboth on high among the people. [Heb. at the head of the people. Keil, al. interpret, bring him into the court of justice, as defendant before all the people." And certainly הוֹשִׁיבוּ here, and in the next verse—where it is used of the witnesses (cf. verse 13)—means, make to sit; which looks as if judicial procedure were intended. But "at the head of the people "rather suggests that in the public assembly, which marked the fast (Joe 2:15), Naboth was assigned the most distinguished place. The reason for this is obvious, viz; to give a colour of impartiality to the proceedings. As Grotius, Ne odio damnasse crederentur, quem ipsi honoraverunt. It would also accord with the popular idea of retributive justice that Naboth should be denounced in the very hour of his triumph and exaltation. Josephus, however, says that it was because of his high birth that this position was assigned him.] 1 Kings 21:10 And set two men [according to the previsions of the law (Deuteronomy 17:6, Deuteronomy 17:7; Deuteronomy 19:5; Numbers 35:30). "Even Jezebel bears witness to the Pentateuch" (Wordsworth). Josephus speaks of three witnesses], sons of Belial [i.e; worthless men. This use of the word "son" (cf. Psalms 89:22, "son of wickedness"), which is one of the commonest idioms of the East, throws some light on the expression "sons of the prophets" (see 1 Kings 20:35, note; cf. Deuteronomy 13:13; Matthew 26:60)], before him [confronting him], to bear witness against him, saying, Thou didst blaspheme [Heb. bless; cf. Job 1:5, Job 1:11; Job 2:5; LXX. εὐλόγησε. The Lexicographers are not agreed as to how this word, the primary meaning of which is to kneel, hence to pray, to bless, came to signify curse or blaspheme. According to some, it is an euphemism, the idea of cursing God being altogether too horrible for the Jew to express in words; whilst others derive this signification from the fact that a curse is really a prayer addressed to God; and others, again, account for it by the consideration that a person who bids farewell to another sometimes does so in the sense of dismissing and cursing him. Anyhow, it is noticeable that the word "blessing" is sometimes used with a similar meaning amongst ourselves] God and the king [God and the representative of God in Israel are here coupled together, as in Exodus 22:28. To curse the king was practically to curse Him whose vicegerent he was (cf. Matthew 23:18-22). Hence such cursing is called blasphemy and was punishable with death (Deuteronomy 13:11; Deuteronomy 17:5; 2 Samuel 16:9; 2 Samuel 19:21; and see on 1 Kings 2:43, 1 Kings 2:44)]. And then carry him out [i.e; out of the city (cf. Le Exodus 24:14; Acts 7:58; Luke 4:29; Hebrews 13:12). "Locus lapidationis erat extra urbem, omnes enim civitates muris cinctae paritatem habent ad castra Israelis" (Babyl. Sanh.)], and stone him [the legal punishment for blasphemy (Le Exodus 24:16)], that he may die. [The terrible power accorded to "two or three witnesses," of denouncing a man to death, accounts for the prominence given to the sin of bearing false witness (Exodus 20:16; Exodus 23:1; Deuteronomy 19:16). It found a mention in the Decalogue.] 1 Kings 21:11 And the men of his city, even the elders and the nobles who were the inhabitants in his city, did as Jezebel had sent unto them [Their ready compliance shows not merely the "deep moral degradation of the Israelites" at that period, but also the terror which the name of Jezebel inspired], and as it was written in the letters which she had sent unto them. [That she did not hesitate to put her infamous command into writing shows the character of the woman.] 1 Kings 21:12 They proclaimed a fast, and set Naboth on high among the people. 1 Kings 21:13 And there came in [Heb. came. The assembly was probably held al fresco. From the word אֶמֶשׁ, A.V. yesterday, but strictly, yesternight, Stanley suggests that the trial took place by night. But the word is often used in the wider sense of "yesterday" (Gesenius)] two men, children of Belial, and sat before him: and the men of Belial witnessed against him, even against Naboth, in the presence of the people [The whole congregation was interested in a charge of blasphemy. If unpunished, the guilt rested on the congregation. Hence the provision of Deu 24:14. By the imposition of hands they testified that the guilt of the blasphemer thenceforth rested upon his own head], saying, Naboth did blaspheme God and the king. Then they carried him forth [Heb. made him to go forth] out of the city, and stoned him with stones, that he died. [It appears from 2 Kings 9:26 that the children of Naboth, who otherwise might have laid claim to their patrimony, were put to death at the same time, and probably in the same way; cf. Joshua 7:24, Joshua 7:25; Numbers 16:27. This was the rule of the East (Daniel 6:24). The principle of visiting the sins of the parents upon the children seems to have been carried to an excess, as we find Joash (2 Kings 14:6) instituting a more merciful rule.] 1 Kings 21:14 Then they sent to Jezebel [clearly she was not at Jezreel], saying, Naboth is stoned, and is dead. [Stanley observes that it is significant that this announcement was made to her and not to Ahab. It appears from 1 Kings 21:19 that the corpses both of Naboth and his children were left to be devoured of dogs.] 1 Kings 21:15 And it came to pass, when Jezebel heard that Naboth was stoned, and was dead, that Jezebel said to Ahab, Arise, take possession [or inherit, succeed to; same word Genesis 21:10; Deuteronomy 2:24; Jeremiah 49:1. The possessions of a person executed for treason were ipso facto forfeited to the crown. There was no law prescribing this, but it followed the principles of the Mosaic code. Just as the goods of the idolater were devoted as cherem to the Lord (Deut, Jeremiah 13:16), so those of the traitor reverted to the king. So Keil] of the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, which he refused to give to thee for money [there is a proud malicious triumph in these words. "He refused, simple fool, to sell it. Now thou canst have it for nothing. I have discovered a better plan than buying it"]: for Naboth is not alive, but dead. 1 Kings 21:16 And it came to pass, when Ahab heard that Naboth was dead, that Ahab arose up [According to the LXX; his first act was to rend his clothes and put on sackcloth. Afterwards "he rose up," etc.] to go down [The "Great Plain, on the margin of which Jezreel stands, is at a much lower level than Samaria, which is in the mountain district of Ephraim"] to the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, to take possession of it. ["Behind him—probably in the back part of his chariot—ride his two pages, Jehu and Bidkar (2 Kings 9:26)," Stanley. But the expression "riding in pairs after Ahab" (A.V. "rode together after") does not make it certain that they were in the same chariot. Indeed, they may have been on horseback. This was apparently (2 Kings 9:26) on the day after the murder.] 1 Kings 21:17 And the word of the Lord came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying [As in 1 Kings 17:1, 1 Kings 17:8; 1 Kings 18:1], 1 Kings 21:18 Arise, go down [Bähr hence concludes that Elijah was at this time in a mountain district. But wherever he might be, this word would probably be used of journey to the plain of Esdraelon] to meet ["The word used 1 Samuel 17:48 of David going out to meet Goliath (Stanley). But the same word is used (1 Samuel 18:6) of the women going out to meet Saul, and indeed it is the usual word for all meetings. We cannot hence infer, consequently, that Elijah went forth as if to encounter a foe] Ahab king of Israel, which is in Samaria [i.e; whose seat is in Samaria; who rules there. There is no need to understand the word of the territory of Samaria]: behold, he is in the vineyard of Naboth, whither he is gone down to possess it. [The words imply that Elijah found Ahab—strode into his presence—in the vineyard; not that he was there already when the royal chariot entered it (Stanley).] 1 Kings 21:19 And thou shalt speak unto him;. saying, Thus saith the Lord, Hast thou killed [הֲרָצַחְתָּ, a rare and expressive word. We might render, slaughtered], and also [this word suggests that Jezebel’s programme, which he had accepted, was fast being accomplished. But in the very hour of its completion it should be interrupted] taken possession? And thou shalt speak unto him, saying, Thus saith the Lord [For the repetition, see on 1 Kings 20:13, 1 Kings 20:14], In the place where dogs [LXX. αἱὗεςκαὶοἱκύνες] licked the blood of Naboth shall dogs lick thy blood [according to the lex talionis, as in 1 Kings 20:42], even thine. [Heb. even thou. The LXX. adds, "And the harlots shall bathe in thy blood." For the construction see Gesen; Gram. § 119. 3; and cf. Genesis 27:34; Proverbs 23:15; Psalms 9:7. Thenius contends that there is a contradiction between this ver. and 1 Kings 22:38 (together with 2 Kings 9:25) which is absolutely insuperable. But as Bähr observes, "How thoughtless our author must have been if in two consecutive chapters—i.e; on the same leaf, as it were—he had inadvertently inserted direct contradictions." And the following considerations will show that the discrepancy is only apparent. (1) The sentence here pronounced against Ahab was, on his repentance, stayed in its execution. God said distinctly, "I will not bring the evil in his days," and as distinctly added that He would "bring the evil in his son’s days, upon his house" (1 Kings 22:29). And (2) with the prophecy, as thus modified, the facts exactly record. The body of Jehoram was "cast into the portion of the field of Naboth the Jezreelite" (2 Kings l.c.). And if it be objected (3) that our historian sees in the death of Ahab in Samaria (1 Kings 20:1-43. l.c.) a fulfilment of this prophecy, the answer is that that death was a partial fulfilment of Elijah’s words. The repentance of Ahab, having secured him immunity from this sentence, his subsequent folly and sin (cf. 1 Kings 22:27) nevertheless brought down upon him a judgment of God strikingly similar, as we might expect it would be, to that originally denounced against him, which was now reserved for his son. In ether words, the prophecy was fulfilled to the letter in the person of his son, but it had a secondary fulfilment in its spirit on himself]. 1 Kings 21:20 And Ahab said to Elijah, Hast thou found me [Not merely, "Hast thou found me out? hast thou surprised me in the very act?" though this meaning is not to be excluded, but also, "Has thy vengeance overtaken me?" מָאָץ is used in this sense 1 Samuel 23:17; Isaiah 10:10; Psalms 21:9. Ahab is so conscience stricken by the sudden apparition of Elijah, whom in all probability he had not seen or heard of since "the day of Carmel," and by his appearance on the scene at the very moment when he was entering on the fruit of his misdoing," in the very blossom of his sin," that he feels that judgment is already begun], O mine enemy? [No doubt the thought was present in Ahab’s mind that Elijah had ever been opposed to him and thwarting him, but he does not dream (Von Gerlach, in Bהhr) of justifying himself by ascribing Elijah’s intervention to personal hatred towards himself. The sequel shows that he was thoroughly conscious of wrong-doing.] And he answered, I have found thee: because [not because I am thine enemy, but because] thou has sold thyself [or sellest thyself, i.e; surrenderest thyself wholly. The idea is clearly derived from the institutions of slavery, according to which the bondservant was wholly at his master’s disposal and was bound to accomplish his will. Whether "the practice of men selling themselves into slavery" (Rawlinson) existed in that age may perhaps be doubted. We have the same thought in 2 Kings 17:17, and Romans 7:14] to work evil in the sight of the Lord. [We can readily gather from these words why the doom was denounced against Ahab, who had but a secondary share in the crime, rather than against Jezebel, its real perpetrator. It was because Ahab was the representative of God, God’s minister of justice, etc. If he had not himself devised the death of Naboth; if he had, which is possible, remained in ignorance of the means by which Jezebel proposed to procure him the vineyard, he had nevertheless readily and gladly acquiesced in her infamous crime after its accomplishment, and was then reaping its fruits. And because he was the king, the judge, who, instead of punishing the evil doer, sanctioned and approved the deed, and who crowned a reign of idolatries and abominations with this shameful murder, the prophetic sentence is directed primarily against him.] 1 Kings 21:21 Behold, I will bring evil upon thee, and will take away thy posterity [Heb. exterminate after thee. See note on 1 Kings 14:10. Ahab knew well the meaning of these words. He had before him the examples of Baasha and Zimri], and will cut off from Ahab [Heb. to Ahab] him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel [see on 1 Kings 14:10]. 1 Kings 21:22 And will make thine house like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat [cf. 1 Kings 15:29], and like the house of Baasha the son of Ahijah [1 Kings 16:3, 1 Kings 16:11], for—[אֶל used in the sense of עַל, as elsewhere] the provocation wherewith thou hast provoked me to anger [1 Kings 14:9; 1 Kings 16:7, etc.], and made Israel to sin. 1 Kings 21:23 And of Jezebel [Heb. to Jezebel. LXX. τῇ̓Ιεζάβελ. But we cannot be sure that she also received a message of doom Elijah, as לְ: like אֶל after verbs of from speaking sometimes has the meaning of, concerning. Cf. Genesis 20:13; Psalms 3:3; Judges 9:54; 2 Kings 19:32. Moreover if the denunciation had been direct, it would have run, "The dogs shall eat thee," etc. See also 2 Kings 19:27] also spake the Lord [Probably at the same time. Certainly by the same prophet (2 Kings 9:1-37:86). Elijah’s words to Ahab appear to he only partially recorded (ib; 2 Kings 19:26)], saying, The dogs shall eat Jezebel [see on 1 Kings 14:11] by the wall [חֵל. same word as חַיל, is used of the strength and defences of a town, sc. its fortifications, and especially of the ditch or moat before them. Cf. 2 Samuel 20:15. The LXX. render by προτείχισμα or περίτειχος, the Vulgate by antemurale. "There is always in Oriental towns a space outside the walls which lies uncultivated and which is naturally used for the deposit of refuse of every kind. Here the dogs prowl, and the kites and vultures find many a feast" (Rawlinson). In 2 Samuel 21:12 we find the bodies of Saul and Jonathan impaled in the open space (A.V. "street") of Bethshean. This heap of refuse—for such the place soon be-comes—is called in the Arabian Nights "the mounds" (Stanley)] of Jezreel. [Retribution should overtake her near the scene of her latest crime (2 Kings 9:36). By this the just judgment of God would be made the more conspicuous. 1 Kings 21:24 Him that dieth of Ahab in the city the dogs shall eat; and him that dieth in the fields shall the fowls of the air eat. [See on 1 Kings 14:11; 1 Kings 16:4. Stanley, forgetting that the phrase is almost a formula, thinks that "the large vultures which in Eastern climes are always wheeling aloft under the clear blue sky doubtless suggested the expression to the prophet." "The horizon was darkened with the visions of vultures glutting on the carcases of the dead, and the packs of savage dogs feeding on their remains, or lapping up their blood."] 1 Kings 21:25 But [Heb. Only] there was none like unto Ahab, which did sell himself to work wickedness in the sight of the Lord [as in verse 20], whom Jezebel his wife stirred up [or as Marg; incited, instigated and urged to sin. Cf. Deuteronomy 13:7 Hebrews; Job 36:18]. 1 Kings 21:26 And he did very abominably in following idols [Heb. to go after the idols. For the last word see on 1 Kings 15:12], according to an things as did the Amorites. [Heb. the Amorite—the word is always singular—here put as a nomen generale for the seven nations of Canaan. Cf. Genesis 15:16; 2 Kings 21:11; Ezekiel 16:8; Amos 2:9, Amos 2:10. Strictly the term Amorite, i.e; Highlander, is in contrast with Canaanite, i.e; dwellers in the lowlands; see Numbers 13:29; Joshua 5:1. But the word is used interchangeably with Canaanite (cf. Deuteronomy 1:44 with Numbers 14:45, and Judges 1:10 with Genesis 13:8), Hittites (Judges 1:10 with Genesis 23:2, Genesis 23:3, Genesis 23:10), Hivites (Genesis 48:22 with Genesis 34:2), and Jebusites (Joshua 10:5, Joshua 10:6, with Joshua 17:1-18:63, etc.) The ethnical and geographical ideas of the Jews were never very precise. The idolatries of the seven nations had lingered, as we might expect, amongst the Zidonians, whence they were reintroduced into the kingdom of Samaria—one fruit of disobedience to the command of Deu 7:1-5, etc.], whom the Lord cast out before the children of Israel [Deuteronomy 2:34; Deuteronomy 3:8, Deuteronomy 3:8, etc.] 1 Kings 21:27 And it came to pass, when Ahab heard those [Heb. these] words [verses 21-24, and others not recorded], that he rent his clothes [cf. 2 Samuel 13:19; Job 1:20; Job 2:12; Jeremiah 36:24, etc.], and put sackcloth upon his flesh [1 Kings 20:31; 2 Kings 6:1-33:80; Joe 1:8; 2 Samuel 21:10, Heb.], and fasted, and lay [i.e; slept] in sackcloth, and went softly. [All these were signs of contrition and humiliation (verse 29). The "going softly"—Josephus says he went barefoot—is especially characteristic of the subdued and chastened mind.] 1 Kings 21:28 And the word of the Lord came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying, [It is not clear that this mitigation of the sentence was announced to Ahab], 1 Kings 21:29 Seest thou how Ahab humbleth himself before me? [The repentance, if it was not profound, or enduring, was nevertheless, while it lasted, sincere. The Searcher of hearts saw in it a genuine self-abasement. And "He will not break the bruised reed nor quench the smoking flax;" Isaiah 42:3; Matthew 12:20. Because he humbleth himself before me, I will not bring the evil [There is a manifest reference to Matthew 12:21, where the same words are used] in his days; but in his son’s days [There is no injustice here—no threat of punishment against the innocent instead of the guilty—as might at first sight appear. For in the first place, God knew well what the son would be, and in the second place, if the son had departed from his father’s sins he would have been spared (Ezekiel 18:14 sqq.); the sentence would have been revoked. Judgment was deferred to give the house of Ahab another chance. When Ahab lapsed into sin, he suffered in his own person: when his sons persisted in sin, excision befell the family] will I bring the evil [Matthew 12:19] upon his house [Matthew 12:22], 1 Kings 21:1-15 The Martyrdom of Naboth. History tells of few crimes of its kind more flagitious, more cruel and cold-blooded than this. Here we see that spectacle which one of the ancients said was dear to the gods—a just man suffering shameful wrongs with dignity and patience: we see a man because of his fidelity to God and His law judicially done to death by the representative of God, by the authority appointed to execute the Law. And just as the crime has few parallels, so has the history few equals in point of graphic force and quiet pathos. It is like one of those sketches by the hand of a master, which set us wondering to see how much effect can be produced, and how much meaning conveyed, by a few broad lines and touches. We see in the first place the king, from his palace lattices, or from his garden slopes, casting hungry, envious eyes on the rich vineyard of his neighbour. He must have it at any cost. The residence is incomplete without it. We then hear him making overtures to the sturdy owner. There is a smile upon his face. His words are smoother than butter. Nothing could be fairer, as it seems at first, than his proposals. Surely Naboth will do well to sell or exchange on such liberal terms as these. But we find him straightway shrinking in pious horror from the idea. There is nothing to soften or modify his blunt and abrupt refusal. He cannot, he will not, do this thing and sin against God. We see a cloud of vexation gather on the king’s brow. He is foiled. The project on which he has set his heart he cannot realize. With a mortified scowl, a look in which suppressed rage and bitter disappointment are equally blended, he terminates the interview and hurries to his palace, while Naboth, strong in the consciousness of right, but not without misgivings as to the issue, goes to tell his story to his wife and children at home. And now the scene changes. We are admitted to a room, a bedroom of the palace of Samaria. We see on an ivory couch, in an ivory house (1 Kings 22:29), or in a chamber celled with cedar, and painted with vermilion (Jeremiah 22:14), a man whose soul is so vexed and troubled that he can eat no bread, that he has a word for no one, but turns his face sullenly to the wall. Can this be the king of Israel? can this be Ahab, whose recent victories over the Syrians have rung through many lands? It is Ahab indeed. The great conqueror is a slave to himself. By his side there stands his dark, malignant, Phoenician consort. We hear his pitiful, almost childish, complaint, that he cannot have the vineyard he so much covets, and we straightway see a look of something like scorn upon her face. We hear her almost contemptuous rejoinder, "Art thou, then, so helpless, so utterly without resources, as to lie here and grieve like a spoilt child? Is it for nothing that thou art a king, or art thou king in name only? If thou art baffled, I am not. Arise, and eat bread. Banish dull care and give thyself up to feasting. I will give thee the vineyard of this wretched peasant." The next tableau introduces us to another chamber of this same royal residence. The king may keep his bed if he will, but the queen is up and doing. The scribes are now writing at her command. She it is who dictates the words, who stamps the writings with the king’s seal. The scribe’s hand may well tremble as he pens the infamous decree, for the letter consigns Naboth to death; but she knows no fear, has no scruples. The letters are despatched, the royal posts carry their sealed orders to Jezreel, and the murderess sits down to eat and drink, and rises up to play. Again the scene changes. We find ourselves in s village convocation. The elders of Jezreel, the officers of the royal borough, have proclaimed a fast. Their town has incurred the wrath of God, and they must find out and expiate the sin. Naboth is there. He fears this meeting bodes him no good, but he is compelled to attend. He finds himself, to his great surprise, set "at the head of the people." But who shall picture the astonishment and pain in this man’s face, when there rise up in that assembly, two miserable varlets who swear that he, Naboth, the humble servant of the Lord, the man who has honestly striven to keep the law, even against his king, has committed a horrible breach of law, has blasphemed God and the anointed of God. He thinks, perchance, at the first, that the charge is so utterly reckless and improbable, that none of these his neighbours, who know him so well, and have known him from his youth up, will entertain it for a moment. But he is speedily undeceived. He finds that he has not a chance with them, that all steel their faces and hearts against him. He perceives that there is a conspiracy against him. In vain he protests his innocence; in vain he appeals to his blameless life. His cries and those of his wife and children are alike unheeded. In a trice he is condemned to die the death of the blasphemer. And now we find ourselves hurried along by a tumultuous crowd. We pass through the city gate, we reach the open space outside the walls. So far, Naboth has hardly realized that they are in earnest, so suddenly has the thing come upon him. Surely it is some grim jest that his neighbours play upon him. It cannot be that he is to die, to look for the last time on the faces of those he loves, on his native fields, on the blessed light of the sun. But if he has any lingering hopes of deliverance they are rapidly dispelled. He sees them making preparations for his execution. They are going to stone him on the spot. "O God in heaven!" he thinks, "is it for this I have kept Thy law? Is this agony and death the reward of mine integrity? Must I then die, when life is so sweet! Is there no power to rescue me out of the jaws of the lion? Has God forgotten me? or will He look on it and require it?" (2 Chronicles 24:22.) It is true the history says nothing of any such thoughts, of any prayers, appeals, entreaties, threatenings; but the history, it must be remembered, is but an outline, and that outline it is left for us to fill up. And we cannot doubt that Naboth had some such thoughts as these. But whatever they were, they were speedily brought to a close. "The king’s business required haste." Time for reflection would mean time for repentance. The witnesses speedily divest themselves of their abbas; they lay them down at the feet of the elders; they take up stones and rush upon him. At the first blow he quivers from head to foot with a great throb of pain, but blow follows fast upon blow; he sinks senseless; the blood streams from his wounds; the dear life is crushed out of him, and Naboth’s name and the names of his sons are added to those on the glory roll of the noble army of martyrs. But it is now for us to ask what led to this shameful deed. There were five parties to this tragedy—Naboth, the king, the queen, the elders, the witnesses. Let us see how each of these contributed, though in very different ways, to diabolical result. We shall thus see how Naboth, who was murdered in the name of law and religion, was a martyr to law and religion. And let us consider— 1. The piety of Naboth. For it was his religion brought this doom upon his head. He had but to comply with the request of the king—and what loyal subject would not wish to gratify the Lord’s anointed?—and all would have gone well. So far from being stoned, he would have been honoured and rewarded. And that request seemed so reasonable. There was no attempt at robbery or confiscation. The king offered an ample equivalent; a better vineyard than it, or bars of silver which could buy a better. Was he not perverse and wrong headed to let a scruple stand in the way? We should not have done so. No; but is not that precisely because we have not the steadfast piety of Naboth? There is no reason to think that he was not loyal. Doubtless he would have been glad to oblige his king. But there were two considerations stood in the way. First, his duty to God; secondly, his duty to his forefathers and to his posterity. His duty to God. For God’s law said, "The land shall not be sold forever" (Leviticus 25:2-3); it laid down that every child of Israel should "cleave to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers" (Numbers 36:7). And Naboth knew this, and Ahab knew it. But to the latter the law was a dead letter; to the former it was a living reality. To him there was no God but one, no will to be considered in comparison with His. If Naboth could but have consented to do as others had done (1 Kings 16:24), he would have kept his life. But he could not. He "did not fear loss, but sin." It was a crime against Jehovah, and he would not consent. Moreover it was—though perhaps this thought had comparatively little influence with him—a wrong to his ancestors and to his posterity. For generations past, ever since it was allotted to his first father, had that vineyard been in his family. It had been transmitted through a long line to him. It was his duty to transmit it intact to those who came after him, and he would do it. It was for these reasons—sentimental reasons some would call them—that Naboth died, because of his belief in a living God, and because he kept His law, and especially the first and fifth commandments of the Decalogue. 2. The impiety of Ahab. Just as the action of Naboth arose out of his belief, so did that of Ahab spring out of his practical unbelief—an apt illustration of the close connexion between our faith and our practice. This crime had its beginning, its fons et origo, in idolatry. It was because Ahab worshipped gods many and lords many that his allegiance to the Divine law was shaken. The law of Baal, he argued, did not forbid the alienation of land—why should the law of Jehovah? The root of this sin, therefore, like the root of all sin, was unbelief. And its blossom was a direct violation of the Decalogue. Out of the breach of the first commandment sprang violations of the sixth, eighth, ninth, and tenth. Just as Naboth, the believer in the one true God, stands out conspicuously as a keeper of the ten words, so do all the other parties in the tragedy stand convicted of violating them. It was primarily the tenth commandment that Ahab set at nought. He had no right to set his heart upon that vineyard, which the great King had given to another. And a breach of law was the less excusable in his ease, insomuch as he was the guardian of law and was acquainted with its provisions (Deuteronomy 17:18). Of all men, he should have been the last to defy or disregard it. But it is only when we consider that when his subject, to whom he should have been an example, set him an example, and refused to participate in his sin, that then, so far from repenting and praying that the thought of his heart might be forgiven him, he mourns and repines that he was not allowed to consummate it—it is only when we consider this that we realize its hue character. His was a sin against light and knowledge; a sin against his helper and benefactor (1 Kings 20:13, 1 Kings 20:28); a sin in spite of manifold warnings; a sin which led to blacker sin still. He coveted an evil covetousness to his house. That "love of money" was a root of false witness, of foul murder. And in this estimate of Ahab’s sin it is assumed that he neither knew nor sanctioned Jezebel’s designs. If he gave her the royal seal with the least idea of the malignant purpose to which she would apply it, he was virtually an accessory before the fact, and so was guilty of murder and robbery. And even if he was ignorant of her intentions, still the readiness with which he reaped the fruits of her crime makes him a partaker in her sin. It is a common saying that the "receiver is as bad as the thief." And he must have known that "Jezebel could not give this vineyard with dry hands." 3. The depravity of Jezebel. Great as Ahab’s guilt was, it was altogether eclipsed by that of his wife. At her door lies the real sin of the murder. The hands that accomplished it were not so guilty as the heart that suggested it and the mind that planned it. Ahab broke the tenth, Jezebel the sixth, eighth, ninth, and tenth commandments. Covetousness, false witness, murder, confiscation, she stands convicted of them all. But what lends its most hideous feature to her sin is the consideration that she, the sworn foe of the law of Jehovah, availed herself of its forms to compass Naboth’s death. Was ever such black-hearted ingenuity as hers? We can fancy her laughing in her sleeve at the crafty use she made of the hated system of the Jews. We can see her shaking her finger at Naboth and saying "Simple fool! thou hast stood out for the law; thou shalt have a surfeit of it this time." It is possible that she rejoiced at the base part to which she commits the elders of Jezreel. If they will cling to their austere and gloomy creed, she will make them carry out its provisions. To this shameful murderess it added zest to her sin that she scored a triumph against the followers and the law of the God of Israel. We must also observe the evident satisfaction, the malicious triumph, with which she hears of Naboth’s death. So far from feeling the least compunction, she hurries with the good news to her husband. Her part, so far as we know, is absolutely without a parallel of all the daughters of our first mother. What name is there so deservedly infamous as hers? 4. The corruption of the elders. We may readily acquit them of liking the task entailed upon them. They could not embark on that course of crime without many qualms of conscience and secret self upbraidings. But the name of Jezebel inspired so much terror that they dared not resist her will. Their sin was, first, that they feared man more than God. It was unbelief at bottom; they had more faith in the finger of the queen than in the arm of the Almighty. They argued, as the Turkish peasant does, that the queen was near and God was a long way off. It was, secondly, that they abused their office. In defiance of law (Exodus 23:2, Exodus 23:6; Deuteronomy 16:19), they wrested judgment and condemned the innocent (Deuteronomy 27:19, Deuteronomy 27:25), and so they share with Jezebel the guilt of the murder. It is idle to plead the constraint put upon them, to say that they would have died had they resisted her; they should have died rather than slay the innocent. But for their complaisance, the queen might have been baffled. One might reasonably expect elders—the "judges and officers" of the land (Deuteronomy 16:18)—to answer, "We ought to obey God rather than man." History tells of many judges who have withstood the corrupt commands of their sovereign. During the Mohammedan rule in Spain one of the caliphs took forcible possession of a field belonging to one of his subjects. This man, as a forlorn hope, stated his grievance before the kadi, a man renowned for his integrity, and the kadi promised to bring his case before the king. Loading his mule with a sack of earth which he had taken from the stolen field, he strode into the presence of the prince, and asked him to be so good as to lift the sack of earth to his shoulders. The caliph tried to comply with his request, but the burden proved too heavy for him; he could not move, still less carry, it. "Wretched man!" cried the judge, "see what thou hast done. Thou canst not carry one mule’s burden of the earth of this field of which thou hast deprived thy subject. How, then, canst thou hope to sustain the whole field on thy shoulders in the dreadful day of judgment?" The appeal was successful; the prince made immediate restitution and rewarded the judge. But nothing of this kind did the elders of Jezreel. They only feared for their skins. They argued that one or the other must die, and if so it must be Naboth. And so he died, and they bore the stain of blood upon their souls. 5. The perjury of the witnesses. It is hardly correct to describe their sin as perjury. It was much more than that. It was actual murder also. As witnesses, they had to cast the first stone—to take the principal part in the execution. Even without this they were guilty of murder, for it was upon their testimony that Naboth was condemned to die. They share with the elders, consequently, the guilt of violating the sixth and ninth commandments. But they were "sons of Belial" to begin with. They were not ministers of God; still less were they the "Lord’s anointed." And they were but instruments in the hand of others. The elders were the hand; the queen was the head. It is clear, then, that Naboth’s death was a true martyrdom. He died a victim to his faith in God and his obedience to law. He was a witness (μάρτυς), consequently, for God no less than Elijah or Elisha. Like Elijah, he was a public vindicator of the law, and he sealed his witness with his blood. He died because he would not deny it; because others, its guardians and executors, violated and abused it. But if any deny his right to be enrolled in the army of martyrs, it only needs to compare his end with that of the protomartyr Stephen, and indeed with that of our blessed Lord. The analogy could not well be closer. 1. The same passions and influences were at work in each case. It was unbelief and pride and covetousness occasioned the death of Naboth. These were the forces arrayed against our Lord and against Stephen. Was there a coveted vineyard in one case? so there was in the other (Luke 20:14, Luke 20:15). 2. The tribunals were equally corrupt. The Sanhedrim was the counterpart of the elders; the council of Jerusalem of that of Jezreel (Matthew 26:59; Acts 6:12). 3. The princes of this world occasioned the death of Naboth; the princes of this world took counsel against the Christ (Acts 4:26, Acts 4:27), and crucified the Lord of glory (1 Corinthians 2:8). 4. The charge was the same in every case, viz; blasphemy (Matthew 26:65; Acts 6:13). The variation is extremely slight: "God and the king" in one case; "against Moses and God" in another (Acts 6:11). 5. The charge was made in each instance by men who were conspicuously law-breakers (John 17:19; Acts 7:58), and it was made in the name of law (John 19:7; Acts 6:14). 6. The means used to compass the death were alike in every case, viz; false witness (Matthew 26:59, Matthew 26:60; Acts 6:11, 18). 7. Each of these three martyrs suffered without the gate (Acts 7:58: Hebrews 13:12). Like Naboth, Stephen was stoned; like Naboth, our Lord would have been stoned if the Jews had had the power (John 18:31), and if the counsel of God had not willed otherwise (Acts 4:28). 8. There is indeed one difference, and that is suggestive. The martyrs of our religion prayed for their murderers (Luke 23:34; Acts 7:60); the martyrs of Judaism could only cry, "The Lord look on it and require it" (2 Chronicles 24:22). The blood of the covenant speaks better things than the blood of Naboth. 1 Kings 21:17-24 Divine Retaliation. We have just seen Naboth martyred because of his fidelity to law; we have seen him murdered by men who in the name of law violated all the laws of God and man. Now the dispensation under which these men lived promised a present recompense, a temporal reward, to obedience, and it denounced temporal punishment against "every transgression and disobedience." We may imagine, consequently, how this tragedy would strike the men of that age. They would see in it a direct failure of justice. They would ask whether there was a God that judgeth in the earth. They would look, and especially the God-fearing amongst them, in utter perplexity and distress on this conspicuous instance of the triumph of force and wrong. "What is the Almighty," they would be tempted to ask," that we should serve him? and what profit should we have if we pray unto him?" (Job 21:15.) They would be tempted to think that "in keeping of his commandments there was no reward; yes, even tempted to say in their hearts, "There is no God" (Psalms 53:1). It would have been strange, therefore, if such a red-handed, cold-blooded murder had passed unnoticed and unavenged; if the dogs had been left to feast on the remains of Naboth, and Ahab had been suffered to enter on his vineyard without protest. But this was not to be. The men of Jezreel had not seen the last act in the tragedy. They must learn that "no reckoning is brought in the midst of the meal; the end pays for all;" they must be taught to count no man happy before his death. They must be reminded that there is a prophet in Israel, and a God of Israel who will by no means clear the guilty. And so Elijah, the great restorer of the law, stands forth to avenge the death of Naboth, the law-keeper, at the hands of law-breakers. "Arise, take possession of the vineyard of Naboth, which he refused to give thee for money, for Naboth is not alive, but dead. Did the king stop. to ask how this death had been brought about? Did he know the shameful crime that had been committed in his name, and under his palace walls? He must have known something of it, if not all. Even if he thought it prudent to ask no questions, still he would remember the significant promise of 1 Kings 21:7; he would have some suspicions of the purpose for which the royal seal was required; and it would be clear to him, even if he did not know the exact circumstances, that somehow Jezebel had compassed Naboth’s death. It was clear to him that this vineyard was bought at the price of blood. But he will not let such considerations as these hinder his enjoyment of it. All he thinks of or cares for is this, that the vineyard is his and he can enter upon it at once. He will enter upon it at once. His chariot shall bear him to the spot. He will view his new property that day; he will begin his garden of herbs forthwith. The citizens of Jezreel, the "elders," and "children of Belial" amongst them, see the royal chariot crossing the plain, breasting the hill, entering the city. They know full well what is its destination. There is hardly a child in the city but guesses the king’s errand. It causes them no surprise when the chariot and its escort pass on to the vineyard of Naboth. But they shall learn, and through them all Israel shall learn, that there is a just God in heaven, and that even the king is responsible to a Higher Power; and they shall know that God Himself is against the evildoer, and shall render to every man according to his works (Proverbs 24:12; Matthew 16:27; 2 Timothy 4:14). For who is this that strides up to the king as he stands in the coveted vineyard, and shapes his projects concerning it? It is a prophet—the dress proves that; a glance shows that it is the dreaded, mysterious prophet Elijah. "Behold Elijah" (1 Kings 18:8, 1 Kings 18:11) is on their lips. Whence has he come? Since the day of Carmel he has been hidden from their view. They had often wondered why he had so suddenly disappeared; whether he was still alive; whether the Spirit had cast him upon some mountain or into some valley (2 Kings 2:16); whether he was hiding among foreigners as he had done before. And now he is amongst them again. And Jehu and Bidkar at least (2 Kings 9:25), and probably others with them, presently understand the reason of his sudden reappearance. "Hast thou killed," he thunders forth, "and also taken possession?" They see the guilty look on Ahab’s face; they note his ashy paleness; they observe how he trembles helplessly from head to foot. Then they hear the terrible doom—and their ears tingle, as Elijah’s impassioned words fall upon them—"Thus saith the Lord, In the place where dogs licked the blood of Jezebel shall dogs lick thy blood, even thine." They hear, and Ahab hears, that for him a death as cruel and shameful as Naboth’s is reserved; that, king though he is, he shall come to the dogs at the last. But more: they presently learn that for his children, born in the purple and delicately nurtured, there remains a reckoning; that their blood must be shed, their bodies torn of beasts, like those of Naboth’s sons. Nor shall proud Jezebel, the prime mover in this murder, escape. In the open space before the city wall the dogs which devoured the flesh of Naboth shall feast upon her dead body. All this was spoken in the broad day, before king and retinue, by a prophet whose words had never fallen to the ground. The king is found out; he is taken red-handed in the blossoms of his sin, Yesterday the crime, today the sentence. We may compare the feelings of that group standing in the vineyard with those of that surging crowd who saw Robespierre standing under the guillotine to which he had consigned so many. hundreds of Frenchmen. "Aye, Robespierre, there is a God." We may imagine how they stood for a while transfixed to the spot; how, when Elijah had hurled his words at the king, he strode away and left them to rankle in his mind. But the thing was not done in a corner, and it could not be kept secret. As the chariot returns to Samaria the townsman in the street, the peasant in the field, perceive that something untoward has happened. The news of Elijah’s reappearance spreads like wildfire; his scathing words are passed from lip to lip; every town and hamlet soon knows that Naboth is avenged; it knows that with what measure king and queen meted to him it shall be measured to them again. The lessons which this public manifestation of the righteous judgment of God had for the men of that age, and some of which it has still, may be briefly stated in the words of Scripture. Among them are these: 1. "The eyes of the Lord are in every place beholding the evil and the good" (Proverbs 15:3); God doth know, and there is knowledge in the Most High (Psalms 73:11; cf. Psalms 11:4). 2. "Verily there is a reward for the righteous; verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth" (Psalms 58:11). "Thou beholdest mischief and spite, to requite it with thy hand" (Psalms 10:14). 3. "Be sure your sin will find you out" (Numbers 32:23). 4. "Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished" (Proverbs 11:21). 5. "I will come near to you in judgment, and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the Lord" (Malachi 3:5). 6. "Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed" (Genesis 9:6). 7. "Life for life, eye for eye, tooth, for tooth, hand or hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" (Exodus 21:23-25). "God loves to punish by retaliation" (Hall), 1 Kings 21:28, 1 Kings 21:29 Divine Relentings. If we were to seek the Scriptures through for a proof that God’s "property is always to have mercy," and that judgment is His strange work, where should we find a more striking and eminent one than in this relenting towards Ahab? Consider - I. AHAB’S SIN. In this respect" there was none like him." He "sold himself to work wickedness." It was not because of Naboth’s murder alone that the sentence of 1 Kings 21:19-22 was pronounced against him; it was for the varied and accumulated sins of a reign of twenty years. Among these were - 1. The sin of schism. He continued the calf worship (1 Kings 16:1-34:81). He kept "the statutes of Omri." Despite the warnings of prophets and of history, he maintained the shrines, sacrifices, priests, of Bethel and Daniel 2. The sin of his marriage. "Was it a light thing to walk in the way of Jeroboam that he must take to wife Jezebel" (1 Kings 15:31 Hebrews), in direct violation of the law (Deuteronomy 7:1-3), in disregard of the example of Solomon? To place such a woman, daughter of such a house, on the throne of Israel was to insult the true religion, and to court its overthrow. 3. The sin of idolatry. (1 Kings 16:32.) Samaria had its house of Baal, its altar for Baal. He did very abominably in following idols (1 Kings 21:26). 4. The sin of impurity. This was involved, as we have already remarked, in the idolatry of that age. "Ahab made an Asherah" (1 Kings 16:32). Indeed, it is to the impurities of Canaanitish worship that the words just cited (verse 26) refer. The abominations of the Amorites are not to be named amongst Christians. 5. The sin of persecuting the prophets. It is very possible that Ahab himself was no persecutor, but Jezebel was, and he should have restrained her (1 Samuel 3:18). He was directly responsible for her deeds. She owed her power, place, and influence to him. 6. The sin of releasing the persecutor of God’s people. The pardon and favour he accorded to Ben-hadad are mentioned as a part of the provocation wherewith he provoked the Lord (1 Kings 20:42). It sprang out of his forgetting God. He ignored altogether God’s will and pleasure in the matter. See p. 492. 7. The sin of slaying Naboth and his sons. For with this crime Ahab is charged. "Hast thou killed?" I have seen yesterday the blood of Naboth; and I will requite thee" (2 Kings 9:26). Perhaps he flattered himself that that sin lay at Jezebel’s door. If so, he is soon undeceived. Such was Ahab’s sevenfold sin. Consider— II. ITS . It enhanced his guilt that— 1. He was the Lord’s anointed. He was the head of the Jewish Church. Fidei Defensor—this was the highest function of a true king of Israel. His very position reminded him of the gracious and marvellous history of his fathers. To him it was granted to be the representative of heaven to the chosen people. How great the sin when the champion of the faith became its oppressor, when the "nursing father" of the Church depraved and prostituted it. 2. He had witnessed miracles. The drought, the fire, the rain, all these signs and tokens had been wrought in his presence. Unto him they were showed that he might know that the Lord He was God (Deuteronomy 4:35, Deuteronomy 4:36; cf. 1 Kings 18:39). Did ever king hear the voice of God as he had done? 3. He had been miraculously helped and delivered. Cf. 2 Chronicles 26:15. If he gave no heed to the signs, he should have been moved by the victories God had granted him. These were plain proofs that the Lord alone was God (1 Kings 20:13, 1 Kings 20:28). But neither plagues, nor signs, nor victories moved that rebellious heart. He is scarce home from his Syrian compaigns, to enjoy the fruit of his success, than he lends himself to fresh sin, to murder and oppression, He, the executor and guardian of law, connives at the murder of a law-abiding subject. Let us now consider— III. HIS . Now that he is found out and denounced, like Felix, he trembles. As Elijah stands over him, and announces the doom of his house, he sees a horrible vision of blood and slaughter. The garden of herbs he has pictured dies away from his view. He sees in its stead his own mangled body cast into the plot of ground where he was then standing. He sees his hands, his feet, his face gnawed by the curs of the adjoining city. He sees his proud consort stripped of her silk attire, suffering a like indignity in the neighbouring ditch. He sees his children, the fruit of his body, stretched in the streets of the town, or in the open champaign, a feast for the jackal and the carrion crow. "Like the house of Jeroboam," "like the house of Baasha," he knew the horrors involved in these words. A horrible dread overwhelms him. He is smitten by sudden compunction. He must get away from this cursed spot at once. He might then have justly said to his charioteer, "Turn thine hand and carry me away, for I am wounded" (1 Kings 22:34). An arrow from Elijah’s lips has pierced his harness through. He mounts his chariot, it bears him through the plain, bears him to his palace—no longer "heavy and displeased," but utterly crushed and terrified. Again he steals to his bedchamber, and turns his face to the wall and eats no bread. In vain the queen assays to laugh him out of his fears. No instruments of music can charm his melancholy, no physicians can minister to that mind diseased. He cannot banish that vision from his thoughts. It haunts him like a nightmare. Can he not avert the doom? Can he not make his peace with Heaven? He has but lately forgiven cruel and persistent enemy; is there no forgiveness for him? He will make the effort. He too will "gird sackcloth on his loins, and put a rope on his head," and go to the great king of Israel. He rises from his couch a sadder and a wiser man. He rends his kingly robes and casts them from him; he assumes the garment of humiliation, he fasts, he prays, he goes softly. It is true his penitence was neither profound nor enduring (1 Kings 22:8, 1 Kings 22:26), but it was undoubtedly— 1. Sincere while it lasted. It is a mistake to call it the "shadow of a repentance." There was real contrition—not only fear of punishment, but also sorrow for his sin. We may be sure that, like a former king of Israel, his cry was, "I have sinned against the Lord" (2 Samuel 12:13). 2. Open and public. His queen, his courtiers, saw the sackcloth, marked the hushed voice, the downcast eye, and knew what it meant (verse 29). "Seest thou how Ahab?" etc; implies that it was notorious. The crime was known of all men; the sorrow and humiliation must be the same. 3. Marked by restitution. The Scripture does not say so, but it does not need to say so. There could be no real repentance, certainly no relenting, on God’s part so long as Ahab kept the vineyard. His prayers would have been unheeded so long as there was a lie in his right hand. A "penitent thief" has always restored the theft. Ahab could not recall Naboth to life. But he could surrender the vineyard to the widow, and we may be sure he did so. But this repentance, this self abasement was observed, was carefully watched outside the palace. As day by day, with contrite heart and bowed head and soft footstep, the miserable king moved among his retainers, the merciful God and Father of the spirits of all flesh beheld his returning prodigal, yearned over him, ran to meet him. He who will not break the bruised reed nor quench the smoking wick welcomed the first faint tokens of contrition. The sentence of doom shall be deferred. The same voice which just now thundered, "Hast thou killed?" etc; is now hushed into tenderness. "Seest thou," it says, "seest thou how Ahab humbleth himself before me? Because," etc. (verse 29). Ahab receives— IV. PARDON. And this pardon, it is to be observed, was— 1. Instant. The rebellion had lasted for years. The forgiveness follows on the heels of repentance. While he was speaking God heard. Cf. Daniel 10:12. 2. Free and full. If Ahab’s repentance, that is to say, had been lasting, the sentence would have been reversed so far as he was concerned. It was not finally reversed because of his subsequent sin and that of his sons. The guilt of innocent blood, no doubt, could only be purged by the blood of him that shed it (Numbers 35:33), and it is to be remembered that Jezebel was never included in the pardon. But it is probable that God, to "show forth all long-suffering," would have spared the king and his sons, if they had turned from their evil way. 3. Conditional. "Dum se bere gesserit." This provision is always understood, if not expressed. 4. Forfeited. When Ahab turned like a dog to his vomit, then the sword which had been sheathed awhile leapt again from its scabbard, and he was suddenly destroyed, and that without remedy. BY J.A. 1 Kings 21:1-4 Covetousness. Amongst the arguments used by Samuel to discourage the people of Israel from desiring a king, he said, "He will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your olive yards, even the best of them." We have in the verses before us a notable example of the truth of this forecast, understanding covetousness in a bad sense. I. DESIRE, IN THE , IS NOT . 1. It is the principle of exchanges. (1) If persons had no desire to possess anything beyond what they have acquired, there would be no motive to trade. Of the virtuous woman it is said, "She considereth a field and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard" (Proverbs 31:16). (2) All commerce is founded upon the desire to make exchanges. 2. But commerce is fruitful in blessings. (1) There are evils connected with trading, viz; where dishonest practices come into it. But these are intrusions; and they are denounced as "illegitimate" and "uncommercial." (2) Genuine commerce gives profitable employment to thought and labour. (3) It brings the countries and peoples of the wide world into correspondence. Thereby it enlarges our knowledge of those countries, their peoples and products, and other. wise stimulates science. (4) It encourages philanthropy. Relief is afforded for distresses through famines, floods, fires, earthquakes; and religious missions are organized. 3. Desire, well directed, should be encouraged. (1) To be absolutely without desire for things evil would be a happy state. Therefore this state should be earnestly desired. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/ THE OF AHAB AND AGAINST HRAMOTH-GILEAD. THE DEATH OF AHAB. THE REIGNS OF AND AHAZIAH. 1 Kings 22:1 And they continued [rather, rested. Heb. sate, dwelt. Cf. Judges 5:17. The LXX. has ἐκάθισε, sing.] three years without war [The Hebrew explains the "rested"—there was not war, etc. See Ewald, 286 g. The three years (not full years, as the next verse shows) are to be counted from the second defeat of Ben-hadad; the history, that is to say, is resumed from 1 Kings 20:34-43. Rawlinson conjectures that it was during this period that the Assyrian invasion, under Shalmaneser II; took place. The Black Obelisk tells us that Ahab of Jezreel joined a league of kings, of whom Ben-hadad was one, against the Assyrians, furnishing a force of 10,000 footmen and 2000 chariots; see "Hist. Illust." pp. 113, 114. The common danger might well compel a cessation of hostilities] between Syria and Israel. 1 Kings 22:2 And it came to pass in the third year [Of the peace; not after the death of Naboth, as Stanley], that Jehoshaphat the king of Judah came down [The journey to Jerusalem being invariably described as a "going up," one from Jerusalem to the provinces would naturally be spoken of as a "going down"] to the king of Israel. [For aught that appears, this was the first time that the monarchs of the sister kingdoms had met, except in battle, since the disruption, though the marriage of Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat, with Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, had taken place some years before this date (2 Chronicles 18:1, 2 Chronicles 18:2). It is probable that it was the growing power of Syria had led to this affinity and alliance.] 1 Kings 22:3 And the king of Israel said unto his servants [During the visit. It seems likely that Jehoshaphat went down to Samaria by Ahab’s invitation, and that the latter then had this campaign in view. The chronicler says that Ahab "incited," or "stirred him up" (same word as in 1 Kings 21:25) to go with him to battle. Ahab was unable to contend single-handed, and without Divine assistance—which he could not now look for—against Syria; and saw no means of compelling the execution of the treaty which Ben-hadad had made with him (1 Kings 20:34), and which he appears to have shamelessly broken, except by the help of Jehoshaphat, whose military organizetion at this time must have been great, and, indeed, complete (2 Chronicles 17:10-19). It is in favour of this view that Ahab entertained him and his large retinue with such profuse hospitality. The chronicler, who dwells on the number of sheep and oxen slain for the feast, intimates that it was this generous reception "persuaded" Jehoshaphat to join in the war], Know ye that Ramoth in Gilead [Generally, as below (1 Kings 22:4, 1 Kings 22:6, etc.), "Ramoth-Gilead," i.e; of Gilead. See note on 1 Kings 4:13. This "great frontier fortress was, in the hands of Syria, even after many reverses, a constant menace against Israel" (Stanley)] is ours [i.e; it was one of the cities which Ben-hadad had promised to restore (1 Kings 20:34). This shows that, as we might expect from a man of Ben-hadad’s overbearing yet pusillanimous character, he had not kept good faith. Though so long a time had elapsed, it was still in his hands], and we be still [חָשָׁה is onomatopoetic, like our "hush." Marg. rightly, silent from taking it. The word conveys very expressively that they had been afraid of making any movement to assert their rights, lest they should attract the attention and anger of their powerful and incensed neighbour], and take it not out of the hand of the king of Syria? [It is hardly likely that Ahab could have forgotten the warning of 1 Kings 20:42. It is probable that Ben-hadad’s flagrant disregard of his treaty engagements determined him to run all risks, especially if he could secure the help of the then powerful king of Judah.] 1 Kings 22:4 And he said unto Jehoshaphat, Wilt thou go with me to battle to Ramoth-Gilead? [It is probable this question was asked with some misgivings. Such an alliance was altogether new, and Ahab might well wonder how the idea would strike a pious prince like Jehoshaphat. That the latter ought to have refused his help, we know from 2 Chronicles 19:2. And Jehoshaphat said to the king of Israel, I am as thou art [Heb. as I as thou], my people as thy people, my horses as thy horses. [From the ready and unreserved way in which he at once engages in this war, we may safely conclude that he, too, had reason to fear the power of Syria. Probably Ben-hadad, when he besieged Samaria (1 Kings 20:1), had formed the idea of reducing the whole of Palestine to subjection. And Jehoshaphat would remember that Ramoth-Gilead, where the Syrian king was still entrenched, was but forty miles distant from Jerusalem. Bהhr holds that horses are specially mentioned "because they formed an essential part of the military power" (Psalms 33:16, Psalms 33:17; Proverbs 21:31). It is true that in a campaign against the Syrians they would be especially useful (see on 1 Kings 20:1.); but they receive no mention at the hands of the chronicler, who reads instead of this last clause, "And we (or I) will be with thee in the war."] 1 Kings 22:5 And Jehoshaphat said unto the king of Israel, Inquire, I pray thee, at [This word is redundant] the word of the Lord today. [כַּיוֹם hardly conveys that "he asks to have the prophets called in at once," "lest Ahab should consent in word and put off the inquiry in act" (Rawlinson); but rather means, "at this crisis," "under these circumstances." This request agrees well with what we learn elsewhere as to Jehoshaphat’s piety (2 Chronicles 17:4-9; 2 Chronicles 19:5-7, etc.) And, remembering how Ahab’s late victories had been foretold by a prophet, and had been won by the help of Jehovah, Jehoshaphat might well suppose that his new ally would be eager to know the word of the Lord.] 1 Kings 22:6 Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets [Called by Micaiah "his prophets" (1 Kings 22:22), and "thy prophets" (1 Kings 22:23)] together, about four hundred men [From the number (cf. 1 Kings 18:19) it has been concluded that these were "the prophets of the groves," i.e; of Astarte, who escaped the massacre of the Baal prophets (1 Kings 18:40). Others have supposed that they were prophets of Baal. But both these suppositions are negatived (1) by the fact that Jehoshaphat asks Ahab to "inquire at the word of Jehovah," and (2) that these prophets profess to speak in the name and by the Spirit of Jehovah (1 Kings 22:11, 1 Kings 22:12, 1 Kings 22:24). Moreover (3) Ahab would hardly have insulted Jehoshaphat by bringing the prophets of Baal or Astarte before him (Waterland in Wordsworth). And yet that they were not true prophets of the Lord, or of the" sons of the prophets," appears (1) from 1 Kings 22:7, where Jehoshaphat asks for a "prophet of the Lord;" and (2) from 1 Kings 22:20 sqq; where Micaiah disclaims them, and is found in direct opposition to them. The only conclusion open to us, consequently—and it is now generally adopted—is that they were the priests of the high places of Bethel and Dan, the successors of those whom Jeroboam had introduced into the priestly office. It need cause us no surprise to find these priests here described as "prophets" (of. Jeremiah 22:13; Ezekiel 13:1), and as claiming prophetic gifts, for the priests of Baal bore the same name (1 Kings 18:19, 1 Kings 18:22, etc.), and apparently pretended to similar powers. "No ancient people considered any cultus complete without a class of men through whom the god might be questioned" (Bהhr). The existence of so large a number of prophets of the calves proves that the inroads of idolatry had by no means destroyed the calf worship. If its priests were so many, its worshippers cannot have been few], and said unto them, Shall I go against Ramoth-Gilead to battle, or shall I forbear? And they said, Go up; for the Lord [אֲדֹנָי It is very significant that at first they hesitate to use the ineffable name. It was probably this circumstance excited Jehoshaphat’s suspicions. It has been said that the reason why he was dissatisfied with this answer is unexplained; hut when we remember how careful the true prophet was to speak in the name of Jehovah (1 Kings 14:7; 1 Kings 17:1,1 Kings 17:14; 1 Kings 20:13, 1 Kings 20:14, 1 Kings 20:28), we can hardly doubt that it was their mention of "Adonai "occasioned his misgivings. The chronicler gives the word as Elohim] shall deliver it [LXX. διδοὺςδώσει, shall surely give it] into the hand of the king. 1 Kings 22:7 And Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here a prophet of the Lord [Heb. Jehovah] besides [i.e; in addition to these soi-disant prophets. He hardly likes to say bluntly that he cannot regard them as inspired, but at the same time hints clearly that he cannot be satisfied as to their mission and authority], that we might inquire of him? 1 Kings 22:8 And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, There is yet one man [Cf. 1 Kings 18:22], Micaiah [The name ( = Who is like Jehovah?) is as appropriate to the man who bore it as Elijah’s name was to him (1 Kings 17:1; cf. 1 Kings 18:39). But it is not an uncommon name in the Old Testament—it is borne by eight different persons. Compare Michael, "Who is like God?"] the son of Imlah [The chronicler writes the name Imla, יִמְלָא], by whom we may inquire of the Lord [Ahab evidently had wished Jehoshaphat to understand that the prophets already consulted were prophets of Jehovah, as no doubt they claimed to be. One of them bore a name in which the sacred Jah formed a part]: but I hate [שְׂנֵאתִי (cf. odi), have learned to hate] him [Ahab had good reasons for not caring to consult a man whom he had put into prison (see 1 Kings 18:26, and compare Matthew 14:3), because of his reproofs or unwelcome predictions. Josephus, and Jewish writers generally, identify Micaiah with the nameless prophet of 1 Kings 21:1-29:42]; for he doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil [The chronicler adds כָל־יָמָיו; i.e; persistently, throughout his whole career. Ahab insinuates that Micaiah is actuated by personal dislike. The commentators refer to Homer. I1. 4; 106-108. And Jehoshaphat said, Let not the king say so. [He does not mean that the prophet cannot say just what he will, but suggests that Ahab is prejudiced against him. Perhaps he suspected that there might be a very different reason for Micaiah’s sinister predictions.] 1 Kings 22:9 Then the king of Israel caned an officer [Heb. one eunuch. So the LXX; εὐνοῦχονἕνα. So that Samuel’s forebodings have been realized Probably, like Ebed Melech, the Ethiopian (Jeremiah 38:7), he was a foreigner; possibly a prisoner of war (Herod. 3:49; 6:32). Deuteronomy 23:1 suggests that even such a king as Ahab would hardly inflict this humiliation upon an Israelite. From 1 Chronicles 28:1, Hebrews, we gather that even David’s court had its eunuchs, and we may be sure that Solomon’s enormous harem could not be maintained without them. In later days we find them prominent in the history, and occupying important positions under the king (2 Kings 8:6; 2 Kings 9:32; 2 Kings 23:11; 2 Kings 25:19; Jeremiah 29:2; Jeremiah 34:19; Jeremiah 52:25, etc. Cf. Genesis 37:36)], and said, Hasten hither Micaiah the son of. 1 Kings 22:10 And the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat the king of Judah sat each on his throne ["Oriental kings had portable thrones, which they took with them upon their journeys" Rawlinson], having put on their robes [As a council of state was to be held, the kings put on their official vestments. בְּגָדִים simply means "coverings," "clothes," but that the special royal dress is here intended is clear, as Bהhr observes, from Leviticus 1 Kings 21:10. This gathering of prophets and counsellors seems to have followed the banquet. When Jehoshaphat expressed his readiness to go to war, Ahab appears to have forthwith convened this assembly, in order that the matter might be put in train at once. Ewald says a review of the troops was designed, but of this the text knows nothing] in a void place [Heb. a threshing-floor. See note on 1 Kings 21:1. The "floor" implies not only a vacant space, but an exalted position. Ordinarily, it would not be enclosed within the city walls, nor does it appear that this floor was] in the entrance [The Hebrew has no preposition; simply פֶּתַח which would be more correctly rendered "at the entrance." The town gate was the great place of concourse (2 Kings 7:1). Here, too, justice was dispensed. See Rth 4:1; 2 Samuel 15:2; 2 Samuel 19:8; Psalms 69:12; Psalms 127:5; Deuteronomy 21:19; Genesis 19:1; Genesis 23:10; Amos 5:12, Amos 5:15, etc.] of the gate of Samaria; and all the prophets prophesied before them. [They continued their prophesyings even whilst Micah was being summoned. Or the reference may be to the prophesyings of verse 6. 1 Kings 22:11 And Zedekiah [This name = "Justice of Jehovah," is one of the proofs that these cannot have been prophets of Baal, as Stanley and others suppose] the son of Chenaanah [= "Canaanitess." But we gather from 1 Chronicles 7:10 that this, like Shelomith, was a man’s name. The Benjamite there mentioned may be identical with the father (or ancestor) of Zedekiah] made him [Rawlinson would translate, had made him," He says that the horns must have "been made previously, in expectation of some such occasion as that now afforded him." But it is quite conceivable that during the prophesyings, which clearly lasted some time, the idea occurred to Zedekiah, and it would not take long to put it into execution] horns of Iron [Thenius understands that these were iron spikes held on the forehead. But the reference is clearly to the horns of a bullock, and the appropriateness of the prophetic act is only manifest when we remember that Ephraim is compared to a bullock (Deuteronomy 33:17), and more, that Moses spake beforehand of the strength of his horns, and predicted that with them he should "push the people together to the ends of the earth." Not only, that is to say, was the horn a familiar Oriental symbol of power (1 Samuel 2:1, 1 Samuel 2:10; 2 Samuel 22:3; Psalms 89:24; Psalms 92:10; Daniel 7:21; Daniel 8:8, etc.), but it was identified in a peculiar manner with the powerful tribe of Ephraim; in ether words, with the kingdom of Israel This symbolical act was not necessarily an imitation of the action of Ahijah (1 Kings 11:30). Such acted parables were not uncommon among the prophets (2 Kings 13:15; Isaiah 20:2; Jeremiah 13:1; Jeremiah 19:10; Jeremiah 32:9 sqq.; Ezekiel 4:5.; Acts 21:11)]: and he said, Thus saith the Lord [Heb. Jehovah. He now uses the sacred name; no doubt because of Jehoshaphat’s demand, verse 7], With these shalt thou push [the word of Deu 33:17] the Syrians, until thou have consumed then. 1 Kings 22:12 And all the prophets prophesied [Heb. were prophesying] so, saying, Go up to Ramoth-Gilead, and prosper [a Hebraism for "thou wilt prosper." Gesenius, Gram. § 127. 2, cites parallels in Genesis 42:18; Proverbs 20:13; Psalms 37:27; Job 22:21; Isaiah 8:9; Isaiah 29:9, and reminds us that in the Latin divide et impera we have the same idiom]: for the Lord tall speak in His name now, hoping thus to satisfy the king of Judah] shall deliver it into the king’s hand. 1 Kings 22:13 And the messenger that was gone [or went] to call Micaiah, spake unto him, saying, Behold now, the words of the prophets declare good unto the king with one mouth [Heb. one mouth good to the king. The messenger may possibly have had instructions to seek to conciliate Micaiah. In any case he thinks it well to tell him of the unanimity of the prophets. His testimony, he suggests, will surely agree with theirs]: let thy word, I pray thee, be like the word of one of them, and speak that which is good of the [Heb. speak good.] 1 Kings 22:14 And Micaiah said, As the Lord liveth, what the Lord saith unto me, that will I speak. [We are forcibly reminded of the answer of Balaam, Numbers 22:18, Numbers 22:38. And we may see not only in the suggestion of this messenger, but also in Ahab’s belief (Numbers 22:8), that Micaiah could prophesy at pleasure, a striking correspondence with the ideas of Balak (ib. Numbers 5:6, Numbers 5:17). Instead of regarding the prophet as being merely the mouthpiece of Deity, he was believed in that age to have a supernatural influence with God, and to be entrusted with magical powers to shape the future, as well as to foretell it.] 1 Kings 22:15 So he came to the king. And the king said unto him, Micaiah, shall we go against Ramoth-Gilead to battle, or shall we forbear? [Same words as in 1 Kings 22:6. There is an apparent studied fairness in this repetition. It is as if Ahab said, "Despite his prejudice against me, I will not attempt to influence his mind. I only deal with him as with the rest."] And he answered him, Go, and prosper: for the Lord shall deliver it into the hand of the king. [As Ahab’s inquiry is the echo of the question of 1 Kings 22:6, so is Micaiah’s response identical with the answer of the prophets. He simply echoes their words, of which, perhaps, he has been informed by the eunuch. There was an exquisite propriety in this. The question was insincere; the reply was ironical (cf. 1 Kings 18:27). Ahab is answered "according to the multitude of his idols" (Ezekiel 14:4). He wishes to be deceived, and he is deceived. No doubt Micaiah’s mocking tone showed that his words were ironical; but Ahab’s hollow tone had already proved to Micaiah that he was insincere; that he did not care to know the will of the Lord, and wanted prophets who would speak to him smooth things and prophesy deceits (Isaiah 30:10).] 1 Kings 22:16 And the king said unto him How many times shall I adjure thee that thou tell me nothing but that which is true in the name of the Lord? [Rawlinson concludes from these words that "this mocking manner was familiar to Micaiah, who had used it in some former dealing with the Israelite monarch." But we must remember that Ahab’s words were really addressed to Jehoshaphat. He is so manifestly playing a part, that we need not assume that he is strictly truthful. His great desire evidently is to discredit Micah’s predictions, which he clearly perceives, from the bitter and ironical tone of the latter, will be adverse to him.] 1 Kings 22:17 And he said [We may imagine how entire was the change of tone. He now speaks with profound seriousness. Thenius sees in the peculiarity and originality of this vision a proof of the historical truth of this history. "We feel that we are gradually drawing nearer to the times of the later prophets. It is a vision which might rank amongst those of Isaiah or Ezekiel" (Stanley)], I saw all Israel scattered upon the hills, as sheep that have not a shepherd: and the Lord said, These have no master: let them return every man to his house in peace. [The last words are illustrated by the command of verse 31; compare verse 36. We may also picture the effect these words would have on the assembly at the city gate. For, however much they might be inclined to discredit Micaiah’s words, and however much the reckless, unreasoning war spirit might possess them, there were none who did not understand that this vision portended the dispersion of the Israelite army and the death of its leader. King and people had been constantly represented under the figure of shepherd and sheep, and notably by Moses himself, who had used these very words, "sheep without a shepherd" (Numbers 27:17; cf. Psalms 78:70, Psalms 78:71; Isaiah 44:28; Jeremiah 23:1, Jeremiah 23:2; Ezekiel 34:1-31, passim). It is observable that Micaiah’s vision, like Zedekiah’s parable, borrows the language of the Pentateuch. Coincidences of this remote character are the most powerful proofs that the Pentateuch was then written.] 1 Kings 22:18 And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, Did I not tell thee that he would [Heb. say to thee, He will, etc.] prophesy no good concerning me but evil? [It is clear that Ahab had understood perfectly the purport of Micaiah’s words. He now appeals to them as a proof of the latter’s malice.] 1 Kings 22:19 And he said, Hear thou [in 2 Chronicles 18:18, Hear ye] therefore [The LXX. has οὐχοὕτως, whence it would almost appear that they had the text לא כֵן before them (Bהhr). But לָכֵן is every way to be preferred. It is emphatic by position, and the meaning is, "Since you will have it that my words are prompted by malice, hear the message I have for you," etc.] the word of the Lord. I saw the Lord [It is not implied (Wordsworth) that he had any direct and objective vision of God, such as Moses (Exodus 34:5), Elijah, or St. Stephen. He here declares what he may have seen in dream or trance. (Cf. Revelation 1:10; Revelation 4:2; Isaiah 6:1; Ezekiel 1:1.) It was a real but inner vision (Keil). In its interpretation the caution of Peter Martyr is carefully to be borne in mind; Omnia haec dicuntur ἀνθρωποπαθῶς] sitting on his throne [It was natural for some of the commentators to see in these words a reference to the two kings then sitting in their royal apparel, each upon his throne. But it is very doubtful whether any such thought was present in the mind of the speaker, who, imply relates a vision of the past], and all the host of heaven [The celestial powers, cherubim, angels, archangels, who surround the Lord of glory. That there can be no reference to the sun, moon, and stars, notwithstanding that these are called "the host of heaven" in Deuteronomy 4:19, Deuteronomy 17:3, is clear from the next words. The expression is to be explained by Genesis 32:1, Genesis 32:2] standing by him [עָלָיו; for the meaning, see Genesis 18:8] on his right hand and on his left. [The resemblance of this vision to that of Isaiah (1 Kings 6:1-8) must not be overlooked.] 1 Kings 22:20 And the Lord said, Who shall persuade [Same word in Exodus 22:16, Hebrews; Judges 14:15; Judges 16:5; Proverbs 1:10, etc.; in all of which instances it is translated "entice." Compare with this question that of Isa 6:8. Ahab, that he may go up and fan at Ramoth-Gilead? [The meaning is that Ahab’s death in battle had been decreed in the counsels of God, and that the Divine Wisdom had devised means for accomplishing His purpose.] And one said on this manner, and another said [Heb. saying] on that manner. [Bהhr again quotes from Peter Martyr: "Innuit varies providentiae Dei modos, quibus decreta sua ad exitum perducit," and adds that in this vision "inner and spiritual processes are regarded as real phenomena, nay, even as persons."] 1 Kings 22:21 And there came forth a spirit [Heb. the spirit. By some, especially of the earlier commentators, understood of the evil spirit. But the view now generally adopted (Thenius, Keil, Bהhr) is that "the spirit of prophecy" is meant, "the power which, going forth from God and taking possession of a man, makes him a prophet (1 Samuel 10:6, 1 Samuel 10:10; 1 Samuel 19:20, 1 Samuel 19:23). The נָביא is the אִישׁ הָרוּחַ (Hosea 9:7)" Bהhr. This power is here personified], and stood before the Lord, and said, I [emphatic in the Hebrew] will persuade [or entice] him. 1 Kings 22:22 And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? [Heb. By what?] And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit [Heb. a spirit of a lie. Cf. Zechariah 13:2; 1 John 4:6] in the mouth of all his prophets. [His prophets, not God’s. Cf. 2 Kings 3:13. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him. and prevail also: go forth, and do so. 1 Kings 22:23 Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth Of all these thy [Cf. ὁοἷκοςὑμῶν, Matthew 23:38] prophets [This statement, especially to those who have taken the narrative literally, and who have seen in "the spirit" either one of the angels of God, or Satan himself, has presented almost insuperable difficulties. The main difficulty lies in the fact that the Almighty and All Holy is here made to give His sanction to deceit and lying, for the purpose of tempting Ahab to his death. We have precisely the same difficulty, though, if possible, more directly expressed in Ezekiel 14:9: "If the prophet be deceived… I the Lord have deceived that prophet." Cf. Jeremiah 20:7; 1 Samuel 16:15. But this difficulty vanishes if we remember that this is euthropopathic language, and is merely meant to convey that God had "taken the house of Israel in their own heart," because they were "estranged from Him through their idols" (Ezekiel 14:5). Ahab wished to be guided by false prophets, and the justice of God decreed that he should be guided by them to his ruin. Sin is punished by sin. "God proves His holiness most of all by this, that He punishes evil by evil, and destroys it by itself" (Bähr). Ahab had chosen lying instead of truth: by lying—according to the lex talionis—he should be destroyed. The difficulty, in fact, is that of the permission of evil in the world; of the use of existent evil by God to accomplish His purposes of good], and the Lord [not I alone, 1 Samuel 16:18] hath spoken [i.e; decreed] evil concerning thee. 1 Kings 22:24 But Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah [Rawlinson holds that he was a sort of coryphaeus of the false prophets. It is more probable that, having put himself forward on a former occasion (1 Kings 22:11), he now feels specially aggrieved at Micaiah’s blunt assertion, that he and the rest have been possessed by a spirit of lies] went near, and smote Micaiah [A thoroughly natural touch. But the whole narrative has every mark of naturalness and veracity. It is easy to see how enraged Zedekiah would be at the slight cast upon his prophetic powers. Apparently this gross indignity elicited no protest or word of displeasure from either of the kings. Micaiah, like Elijah, was left alone], on the cheek [cf. Job 16:10; Lamentations 3:30; Luke 6:29; and above all Matthew 26:67; Luke 22:64; Acts 23:2. Herein Micaiah had "the fellowship of sufferings" (Philippians 3:10) with our blessed Lord. Rawlinson thinks that his hands would be bound, but this is extremely improbable. In that case Ahab could hardly have asked him to prophesy (Acts 23:15), or if he did, Jehoshaphat would know beforehand what to expect], and said, Which way [Heb. What, or where. The chronicler supplies "way," thereby bringing the expression into unison with 1 Kings 13:12; 2 Kings 3:8; Job 38:24] went [Heb. passed, crossed, עָבַר] the Spirit of the Lord [These words are important, as showing that the speaker had not identified "the spirit" of verse 21 with the evil spirit: Job 1:6 sqq.] from me to speak unto thee? [It is pretty clear from these words, in connexion with verse 23, that Zedekiah had been conscious of an inspiration, of a spirit not his own, which impelled him to speak and act as he did. We must not attach too much import-ante to a taunting and passionate speech, but its meaning appears to be: I have spoken in the name and by the spirit of Jehovah. Thou claimest to have done the same. How is it that the Spirit of God speaks one thing by me, another by thee? Thou hast seen (Job 1:19) the secret counsels of Heaven. Tell us, then, which way, etc. 1 Kings 22:25 And Micaiah said, Behold, thou shalt see [Keil understands, "that the Spirit of the Lord had departed from thee." But the meaning rather appears to be, "Thou shalt see which was a true prophet." He does not answer the insolent question, but says," Thou wilt alter thy mind in the day," etc. With this may be compared our Lord’s words, Matthew 26:64. He also manifests our Lord’s spirit (1 Peter 2:22 sqq.) "as if the Great Example had already appeared before him" (Bהhr)] in that day when thou shalt go into an inner chamber [see note on 1 Kings 20:30] to hide thyself. [When was this prediction fulfilled? Probably when the news of the defeat reached Samaria, or on the day after Ahab’s death. Jezebel would almost certainly take summary vengeance upon the false prophets who were responsible for her husband’s death and the reverses of the army. Or if she did not, the prophets had good reason to fear that she would, and would hide accordingly. 1 Kings 22:26 And the king of Israel said, Take [Sing. Take thou. This command was probably addressed to the eunuch mentioned in 1 Kings 22:9] Micaiah and carry him back [Heb. make him return. This shows clearly that he had come from prison] unto Amon the governor [שַׂר chief; same word in 1 Kings 4:2; 1 Kings 11:24; 1 Kings 16:9; Genesis 37:36; Genesis 40:9, Genesis 40:22, etc. The "chief of the city" is also mentioned 2 Kings 23:8; cf. Nehemiah 11:9] of the city [who would naturally have charge of the town prison. Probably the prison was in his house. Cf. Genesis 40:3; Jeremiah 37:20], and to Joash the king’s son. [Thenius supposes that this prince had been entrusted to Amon for his military education, and refers to 2 Kings 10:1. But in that case he would hardly have been mentioned as associated with him in the charge of so important a prisoner. Whoever Joash was, he was a man in authority. It is curious that we find another prophet, Jeremiah, put into the prison of Malchiah, the son of the king (A.V. the son of Hammelech; same expression as here), Jeremiah 38:6; cf. Jeremiah 36:26. Some have seen in this designation a name of office, and Bהhr thinks that "Joash was not probably a son of Ahab, but a prince of the blood." But when we remember what a number of sons Ahab had (2 Kings 10:1), no valid reason can be assigned why Joash should not have been one of them. He may have been billeted upon Amon, and yet associated with him in the government of the city.] 1 Kings 22:27 And say [Heb. thou shalt say], Thus saith the king, Put this fellow in the prison [Heb. house of the prison. Bהhr thinks that Micaiah had formerly been in arrest under Amon’s charge, and now was to be committed to the prison proper. But more probably the words mean, "put him in the prison again." His superadded punishment was to be in the shape of prison diet. It is probable that it was owing to the presence of Jehoshaphat that Micaiah escaped with no severer sentence], and feed him with bread of affliction [or oppression, לָחַץ pressit; cf. Exodus 3:9; Numbers 22:25; 2 Kings 6:32], and with water of affliction [Josephus (Ant. 8.15. 4) relates that after Micaiah’s prediction the king was in great suspense and fear, until Zedekiah deliberately smote him, in order to show that he was powerless to avenge an injury as the man of God did (1 Kings 13:4), and therefore no true prophet. This may be an "empty Rabbinical tradition" (Bהhr), but we may be sure that Ahab did not hear Micaiah’s words unmoved. He had had such convincing proofs of the foresight and powers of the Lord’s prophets that he may well have trembled, even as he put on a bold front, and sent Micaiah back to the prison house], until I come in peace. [This looks like an effort to encourage himself and those around him. But it almost betrays his misgivings. He would have them think he had no fears. 1 Kings 22:28 And Micaiah said, If thou return at all in peace, the Lord hath not spoken by me. And he said, Hearken, O people [Rather, O nations. Audite, populi crones, Vulgate. He appeals, so to speak, to the world], every one of you. [It is a curious circumstance that these same words are found at the beginning of the prophecy of Micah (1 Kings 1:2). The coincidence may be purely accidental, or the words may have been borrowed by the prophet, not, indeed, from our historian, but from some record, the substance of which is embodied in this history. Micah lived about a century and a half after Micaiah; about a century before the Book of Kings was given to the world. 1 Kings 22:29 So the king of Israel and Jehoshapat the king of Judah went up to Ramoth-Gilead to battle. ["By the very network of evil counsel which he has woven for himself is the king of Israel led to his ruin" (Stanley). We can hardly doubt that Jehoshaphat at least would have been well content to abandon the expedition. After the solicitude he had manifested for the sanction of one of the prophets of Jehovah, and after that the one who had been consulted had predicted the defeat of the army, the king of Judah must have had re,my misgivings. But it is not difficult to understand why, notwithstanding his fears, he did not draw back. For, in the first place, he had committed himself to the war by the rash and positive promise of 1 Kings 22:4. In the next place, he was Ahab’s guest, and had been sumptuously entertained by him, and it would therefore require some moral courage to extricate himself from the toils in which he was entangled. Moreover he would have subjected himself to the imputation of cowardice had he deserted his ally because of a prophecy which threatened the latter with death. The people around him, again, including perhaps his own retinue, were possessed with the spirit of battle, and treated the prophecy of Micaiah with contempt, and it would be difficult for him to swim alone against the current. It is probable, too, that he discounted the portentous words of Micaiah on account of the long. standing quarrel between him and Ahab. And, finally, we must remember that his own interests were threatened by Syria, and he may well have feared trouble from that quarter in case this war were abandoned. Rawlinson suggests that he may have conceived a personal affection for Ahab; but 2 Chronicles 19:2 affords but slender ground for this conclusion.] 1 Kings 22:30 And the king of Israel said unto Jehoahaphat [At Ramoth-Gilead, on the eve of the battle], I will disguise himself." [same word 1 Kings 20:38] and enter [The margin," when he was to disguise himself," etc; is quite mistaken. The Hebrew has two infinitives; lit; to disguise oneself and enter; a construction which is frequently employed to indicate an absolute command. Cf. Genesis 17:10; Exodus 20:8; Isaiah 14:31; and see Ewald, 828 c. "The infinitive absolute is the plainest and simplest form of the voluntative for exclamations" (Bהhr). It agrees well with the excitement under which Ahab was doubtless labouring] into the battle. [It is not necessary to suppose with Ewald, Rawlinson, el; that he had heard of Ben-hadad’s command to his captain, (verse 81). It is hardly likely that such intelligence could be brought by spies, and there would be no deserters from the Syrian army to that of the Jews. It is enough to remember that Micaiah’s words, "these have no master," could not fail to awaken come alarm in his bosom, especially when connected with the prophecy of 1 Kings 20:42. He will not betray his fear by keeping out of the fray—which, indeed, he could not do without abdicating one of the principal functions of the king (1 Samuel 8:20), and without exposing himself to the charge of cowardice; but under the circumstances he thinks it imprudent to take the lead of the army, as kings were wont to do (2 Samuel 1:10), in his royal robes. He hopes by his disguise to escape all clanger]: but put thou on thy robes [LXX. τὸνἱματισμόνμου. "My robed" "We can neither imagine Ahab’s asking nor Jehoshaphat’s consenting to such a procedure. Jehoshaphat had his own royal robes with him, as appears from 1 Kings 20:10" (Rawlinson). If this LXX. interpretation could be maintained it would lend some colour to the supposition, otherwise destitute of basis, that Ahab by this arrangement was plotting the death of Jehoshaphat in order that he might incorporate Judah into his own kingdom. It is clear, however, that Ahab then had other work on his hands, and it is doubtful whether even he was capable of such a pitch of villainy. What he means is, either (1) that the Syrians have a personal enmity against himself (verse 81), whereas they could have none against the king of Judah; or (2) that Jehoshaphat’s life had not been threatened as his own had. "These words וְאַתָּה לְּבשׁ are not to be taken as a command, but simply in this sense: Thou canst put on thy royal dress, since there is no necessity for thee to take any such precautions as I have to take" (Keil). Do they not rather mean that Jehoshaphat should be the recognized leader of the army in which Ahab would serve in a more private capacity?] And the king of Israel disguised himself and went into the battle. 1 Kings 22:31 But the king of Syria commanded [rather, had commanded. These words are of the nature of a parenthesis. "Now the king," etc. צִוָּה is so rendered in 2 Chronicles 18:30] his thirty and two captains [mentioned in 1 Kings 20:24. It does not follow, however (Wordsworth), that these very men had been spared by Ahab] that had rule over his chariots [Heb. chariotry. Another indication that the chariots were regarded as the most important arm of the Syrian service], saying, Fight neither with small nor great, save only with the king of Israel. [This Orientalism, translated into Western ideas, means, "Direct your weapons against the king." What Ahab had done to provoke such resentment is not quite clear. Rawlinson supposes that Ben-hadad’s "defeat and captivity were still rankling in his mind, and he wished to retaliate on Ahab the humiliation which he considered himself to have suffered." But it is impossible to see in Ahab’s generous conduct towards him a sufficient reason for the fierce hatred which these words disclose. It is much more probable that some affront had subsequently been offered to the Syrian monarch, possibly in the shape of the reproaches which Ahab may have addressed to him on account of his retention of Ramoth-Gilead, and the gross violation of the treaty of 1 Kings 20:34. It is also possible that he hoped that the death of Ahab would terminate the war (Bהhr).] 1 Kings 22:32 And it came to pass when the captains of the chariots saw Jehoshaphat, that they said, Surely [אַךְ, not only (Bהhr, Keil), but certainly; cf. Genesis 44:28; Judges 3:24; 2 Kings 24:3] it [Heb. he] is the king of Israel. And they turned aside [Cf. 1 Kings 20:39, same word. The Hebrew inserts עָלָיו. The chronicler reads יָסֹבוּ they surrounded him, instead of יָסֻרוּ; and the LXX. has ἐκύκλωσεν, in both places. But the Syrians can hardly have actually closed round the king, and the alteration might easily be made in the course of transcription] to fight against him [according to their instructions]: and Jehoshaphat cried out. [This cry has been very variously interpreted. According to some, it was his own name that he ejaculated, which is possible, if the command of 1 Kings 20:31 was known in the allied army. According to others, it was the battle cry of Judah, which, it is said, would be familiar to the Syrians, and which would rally his own soldiers round him. The Vulgate, no doubt influenced by the words of 2 Chronicles 18:31, "And the Lord helped him, and God moved them to depart from him," interprets, clamavit ad Dominum. That it was a cry for Divine help is the most probable, because it is almost an instinct, especially with a pious soul like Jehoshaphat, to cry to God in the moment of danger. That he had doubts as to whether the course he was pursuing was pleasing to God, would make him all the more ready to cry aloud for mercy the moment he found himself in peril. But it may have been merely a cry of terror. It must be carefully observed that the Scripture does not say that it was this cry led to his being recognized and spared.] 1 Kings 22:33 And it came to pass, when the captains of the chariots perceived [in what way we are not told. But Ahab would be known to some of them, 1 Kings 20:1-43:81] that it was not the king of Israel, that they turned back from pursuing him 1 Kings 22:34 And a certain man [Heb. a man. It was natural for some of the Rabbins to identify this archer with Naaman—the tradition is found in Josephus. But it is directly contrary to the spirit of the narrative to attempt to identify him. As it was a chance arrow, so it was by an unknown archer] drew a bow at a venture [Heb. in his simplicity, i.e; with no intention of shooting Ahab: not knowing what he was doing. That this is the meaning is clear from the use of the words in 2 Samuel 15:11], and smote the king of Israel between the Joints of the harness [The marg; joints and the breastplate, comes nearer the Hebrew. But it is clear that the rendering joints, notwithstanding that it has the support of Gesenius and others, is a mistaken one. "In the joints" we can understand, but "between the joints and the coat of mail," gives no sense. It is obvious that הַדְּבָקִים like הַשִּׁרְיָן following, must signify, some portion of the armour, and the meaning of the verb דָבַק, adhaesit, leads us to conclude that "the hanging skirt of parallel metal plates—hence the plural"—(Bהhr) is intended. The coat of mail only covered the breast and ribs. To this a fringe of movable plates of steel was attached or fastened, hence called דְבָקִים. So Luther, Zwischen den Panzer und Hengel. One is reminded here of the Parthian arrow which wrung from Julian the Apostate the dying confession, "Thou hast conquered, O Galilean." Cf. Psalms 7:13, Psalms 7:14]: wherefore he said unto the driver of his chariot, Turn thine hand [or, according to the Chethib, hands. The charioteers of Palestine, like those of Egypt and Assyria, or those of modern Russia, held a rein in each hand. Same expression 2 Kings 9:23. The meaning is "turn round"] and carry me Out of the host; for I am wounded, [Heb. made sick. The king probably felt his wound to be mortal, as a wound in such a part, the abdomen (cf. 2 Samuel 2:23; 2 Samuel 3:27; 2 Samuel 20:10), would be Vulgate, graviter vulneratus sum. How far an arrow in such a place could penetrate, we may gather from 2 Kings 9:24; cf. Job 16:13. And he was seemingly anxious that the army should not know it, lest would soon discover it if he remained with the host; he can fight no longer; his wound needs attention; hence this command. It is quite possible that the charioteer, in the din and confusion of battle, may not have observed that his master was wounded. The arrow had not struck any part of the armour.] 1 Kings 22:35 And the battle increased [Heb. went up. Marg. ascended. The tide of warfare rose higher and higher. Both Keil and Bהhr think that the image is taken from a swelling river and cite Isaiah 8:7. The object of this verse is to explain how it was that the king’s request was not complied with] that day: and the king was stayed up in his chariot [Heb. made to stand. LXX. ἠνἐστηκώς. He was supported in his chariot by some of his servants, and maintained in an erect posture. Chariots were destitute of seats. According to Thenius and Keil, he maintained himself erect, by his own strength. But the word is passive] against the Syrians [Heb. in the face of the Syrians. נֹכַח, coram. His back was not turned to them, as he had desired. The idea that he was in any way fighting against the Syrians is altogether foreign to the text. It is at first sight somewhat difficult to reconcile this statement with the direction given to the charioteer in the preceding verse, and some have been led, though without sufficient warrant, to conclude that Ahab left the field, had he wound bound up, and then returned to take his part in the battle. But the explanation is very simple. As the battle increased, it became impossible to comply with the king’s desire. So thick was the fight that retreat was impossible. Hence the wounded king, who would otherwise have sunk down to the bottom of the chariot, had to be "stayed up in the presence of the Syrians." This circumstance may also account for the fact that he died at even. Had it been possible to remove him and staunch his wounds, he might have lingered for some time. As it was, he bled to death. It is not clear, therefore, that "his death was kingly" (Kitto), or that we must concede to Ahab "the credit of right princely fortitude on this occasion" (Rawlinson). He would have left the host could he have done so. It was his set-rants propped up the dying man in his chariot, to encourage the army. What a picture for an artist—the king with the pallor of death spreading over his face, the anxious faces of the attendants, the pool of blood, the sun sinking to the horizon, etc.], and died at even: and the blood ran out of the wound [Heb. the blood of the wound poured] into the midst [Heb. bosom; LXX. κόλπον, the hollow part, or "well." The same word is used of the concave part of the altar] of the chariot. 1 Kings 22:36 And there went a proclamation throughout the host [Heb. And the shouting passed over in the camp. Gesenius will have it that רִנָּה must mean a "joyful cry," and would see the cause of joy in the cessation of hostilities and the permission to return home] about the going down of the sun [According to the chronicler (1 Kings 18:34), it was at sunset that the king died. It seems natural, therefore, to connect this shout with his death. But the approach of night would of itself put an end to the battle. It does not appear that Israel had been utterly defeated, or had suffered great loss. But "they had no master"], saying, Every man to his city, and every man to his own country [or land]. 1 Kings 22:37 So the king died [The LXX. makes this to be a part of the proclamation ἕκαστοςεἰςτὴν… γῆνὅτιτέθνηκενὁβασιλεύς, which involves a very slight change in the Hebrew text, כי מת המלךְ instead of וימת המלךְ and gives a better sense. It has already been stated that the king died. Such repetitions however are common in Hebrew, and this reading has almost the look of an emendation] and was brought [Heb. came. The A.V. is against the grammar. As "came" would be a strange word to use of a dead man, it is highly probable that instead of ויבזא we should read ויבואו with the LXX. καὶἧλθον] to Samaria; and they buried the king in Samaria ["with his father," 1 Kings 16:28]. 1 Kings 22:38 And one washed the chariot in [or at; Heb. עַל] the pool of Samaria. [Nearly all Eastern cities had their tanks or pools, often outside the city gate. Jerusalem has several of these, and we read of one at Hebron (2 Samuel 14:12) and Gibeon (2 Samuel 2:13). Cf. Son 7:4. The Hebrew word בְּרֵכָה is preserved in the modern Arabic Birkeh]; and the dogs [The LXX. has the swine and the dogs. The mention of swine is hardly likely to have been omitted, had it formed part of the original text] licked up his blood [cf. 1 Kings 21:19, note. According to Josephus, the chariot was washed "in the fountain of Jezreel." The alteration would appear to have been made to avoid the difficulty occasioned by the discrepancy between the statement of the text, and that of 1 Kings 21:19], and they washed his armour [So the Chaldaic and the Syriac. But this translation is now abandoned, (1) because it is contrary .to the usage of the language to make זנֹוֹת the object; and (2) because that word occurs in the Old Testament only in the sense of harlots (Bהhr). The true meaning is that given by the LXX; καὶαἱπόρναιἐλούσαντο. רָחַץdoes not require any object such as "chariot," or "corpse," for it is found in the sense of bathe (intrans.) in Exodus 2:5; Numbers 19:19; Rth 3:1-18:21; 2 Kings 5:10. Bהhr reminds us that harlots are elsewhere associated with dogs (Deuteronomy 23:19; Revelation 22:15). This fact is mentioned as a proof of the just judgment of God. Even if these harlots were not prostitutes devoted to the service of the Phoenician deities, whose cultus Ahab had sought to establish in Israel, still the result of his religious policy had been the spread of prostitution. It is a fine example of the lex tolionis. "He which is filthy, let him be filthy still"]; according unto the word of the Lord which he spake [the reference is to 1 Kings 21:19]. 1 Kings 22:39 Now the rest of the acts of Ahab, and all that he did, and the ivory house which he made [So called because it was adorned with ivory. See on 1 Kings 11:1-43.; and cf. Amos 3:15; Psalms 45:8; Son 7:5. Rawlinson cites several passages from Greek and Latin authors to prove that ivory was anciently applied, not only to furniture, but to the doors and walls of houses], and an the cities that he built [Probably Jezreel was one, but we have no information concerning them. The fact that he did build cities, however, is one proof of Ahab’s enterprize. He was not weak in all particulars], are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? 1 Kings 22:40 So Ahab slept with his fathers; and Ahaziah ["Whom Jehovah upholds." The name suggests that, notwithstanding his idolatries, Ahab cannot have completely abandoned the worship of the Lord] his son reigned in his stead. Reign of Jehoshaphat. 1 Kings 22:41 And Jehoahaphat ["Whom Jehovah judges"] the son of Asa began to reign over Judah in the fourth year of Ahab king of Israel. [The historian now resumes for a moment the history of Judah, which has dropped out of notice since 1 Kings 15:24, where the accession of Jehoshaphat was mentioned. His reign, which is here described in the briefest possible way, occupies four chapters (17-20.) of 2 Chronicles] 1 Kings 22:42 Jehoshaphat was thirty and five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and five years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Azubah the daughter of Shilhi. 1 Kings 22:43 And he walked in an the ways of Asa his father [Apart from his alliance with the house of Ahab, and the troubles in which it involved him, his reign was alike pious and prosperous. Like Asa’s, it was distinguished by internal reforms, and By signal deliverances from foreign enemies]; he turned not aside from it [as Asa was tempted to do in his old age], doing [Heb. to do] that which was right in the eyes of the Lord: nevertheless the high places were not taken away [Heb. departed not, as in 1 Kings 15:14; 2 Chronicles 15:17; 2 Kings 12:4, Hebrews; 14:4, Hebrews But see 2 Chronicles 18:6. The discrepancy is the exact parallel of that between 1 Kings 15:14 and 2 Chronicles 14:3; or between this latter passage and 2 Chronicles 15:17. And the explanation is the same, viz; that an effort was made to remove the high places, which was partially, and only partially, successful]; for the people offered and burnt incense yet in the high places [cf. 1 Kings 3:2]. 1 Kings 22:44 And Jehoshaphat made peace with the king of Israel. [One great feature of his reign was this: that the hostility which had lasted, even if it sometimes slumbered, between the two kingdoms for seventy years, from the date of their separation to the time of Asa’s death, gave way to peace and even alliance. Judah now recognized the division of the kingdom as an accomplished fact, and no longer treated Israel, even theoretically, as in rebellion. It is probable that the marriage of Jehoram and Athaliah was at once the fruit of, and was intended to cement, this good understanding (2 Chronicles 18:1). It is hardly likely (Bהhr) that the peace was the result of the union of the two families. From the analogy of 2 Chronicles 19:2; 2 Chronicles 20:37; cf. 1 Kings 16:31; 2 Kings 3:14, we should conclude that the marriage at any rate was ill advised and displeasing to God. Bהhr sees in it a step on the part of Jehoshaphat towards realizing the union of the two kingdoms under the supremacy of Judah. He thinks that we cannot otherwise account for this complete change of front.] 1 Kings 22:45 Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, and his might [as in 1 Kings 15:23, 1 Kings 16:27, etc. It is noticeable that this word is not used of Ahab, notwithstanding his wars and victories] that he showed [see 2 Kings 3:9 sqq.; 2 Chronicles 17:12 sqq. His judicial reforms are hardly referred to here], and how he warred [2 Chronicles 18:1-34; 2 Chronicles 20:1-37., are they not written in the book of he chronicles of the kings of Judah? 1 Kings 22:46 And the remnant of the Sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa [It appears hence that Asa’s removal of the religious prostitutes (1 Kings 15:12), like that of the high places, had been but partial], he took [Heb. exterminated] out of the land. 1 Kings 22:47 There was then no king in Edom: a deputy [נִצָב, same word as in 1 Kings 4:7. It is implied that this officer was appointed by the king of Judah (Wordsworth)] was king. [This fact is mentioned to show how it was that Jehoshaphat was able to build a fleet at Ezion-Geber, in the territory of Edom (1 Kings 9:26). That country would seem to have regained its independence very soon after Solomon’s death (1 Kings 11:14), but would also appear from the text, and from 2 Kings 8:20, 2 Kings 8:22, to have been again made subject to Judah, probably by Jehoshaphat himself; see 2 Chronicles 17:10, 2 Chronicles 17:11. 1 Kings 22:48 Jehoshaphat made [The Chethib has עשר ten, obviously a clerical error for עשה made] ships of Tharshish [see note on 1 Kings 10:22] to go to Ophir [In 2 Chronicles 20:36, Tharshish is read for Ophir. Wordsworth holds that two separate fleets are intended, but this is most improbable] for gold [Evidently the great prosperity of his reign had suggested to him the idea of emulating Solomon’s naval exploits, and of reviving the commerce of his people with the East]: but they went not [Heb. it went not]: for the ships were broken [Probably they were dashed by a storm against the rocks which "lie in jagged ranges on each side," Stanley] at Ezion-Geber. 1 Kings 22:49 Then said Ahaziah the son of Ahab unto Jehoshaphat, Let my servants go with thy servants In the ships. But Jehoshaphat would not. [But we are told in 2 Chronicles 20:37 that the ships were broken, according to a prophecy of Eliezer, the son of Dodavah, because Jehoshaphat had joined himself with Ahaziah. The explanation is that the fleet had been built by the two kings conjointly, and manned by the subjects of Jehoshaphat exclusively; and that, after the disaster, Ahaziah proposed either to repair the injured vessels, or to construct a second fleet, which should then be partly manned by sailors of the northern kingdom, "men probably accustomed to the sea, perhaps trained at Tyre" (Rawlinson). This proposal was declined by the king of Judah, not so much on account of the "reflection on his subjects’ skill contained in it," as because of the prophecy of Eliezer, and the evidently judicial disaster which had befallen the fleet already built.] 1 Kings 22:50 And Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David his father: and Jehoram his son reigned in his stead [2 Chronicles 21:1-20. Reign of Ahaziah. 1 Kings 22:51 Ahaziah the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned two years over Israel. [Parts of two years; 2 Kings 3:1; and of. 2 Kings 1:17 and 2 Kings 8:16. It is suggested that Jehoram was associated with his father in the government of Judah from the date of the expedition against Ramoth-Gilead, and this is not improbable. But it has been already remarked that these chronological notices appear to have undergone a revision which has sometimes resulted in confusion.] 1 Kings 22:52 And he did evil in the sight of the Lord, and walked in the way of his father [1 Kings 16:30-33; cf. 2 Kings 3:2] and in the way of his mother [The powerful influence of Jezebel, even after Ahab’s death, is hinted at here. It was to her that idolatry owed its position in Israel], and in the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat [the calf worship and idolatry existed side by side], who made Israel to sin. 1 Kings 22:53 For he served Baal, and worshipped him, and provoked to anger [or vexed] the Lord God of Israel, according to all that his father had done. [The termination of this book at this point could hardly be more arbitrary if it had been made by accident. These verses are closely connected with 2 Kings 2 Kings 1:1-18. The division here obscures the connexion between the sin of Ahaziah and the judgments which it provoked.] 1 Kings 22:1-40 The Death of Ahab and the Defeat of Israel. This chapter is almost entirely occupied with an account of the death of Ahab, and of the circumstances which preceded and attended it. The earlier portion of the chapter, which contains the prophesyings of the false prophets and the vision of Micaiah, is only recorded because of its bearing on the death of the king, and the dispersion of his army. And the prominence accorded to Ahab’s end only corresponds with the space assigned to his reign. That reign was so full of evil for Israel that it occupies a fourth part of this entire book. It was meet, therefore, that the death which avenged it should be recorded with proportionate detail. For the battle of Ramoth-Gilead was the final payment—so far as this world is concerned—for the sins of two and twenty years. But it is to be observed in the first place that Ahab’s repentance (1 Kings 21:29), as the penitence begotten of fear often is, was but shortlived. Had it lasted, we had not read of this tragical death. How soon the king shook off his impressions we know not, but we do know that—thanks to the natural weakness of his character, still further enfeebled by years of self indulgence and submission to a stronger will than his own; thanks to the evil genius (1 Kings 21:25) ever at his side to stifle good resolves and to steel his heart against the true religion; thanks to the impious system to which he found himself committed, and the toils of which he found it impossible to break, this unhappy king steadily lapsed into his old sins. It "happened unto him according to the true proverb, "The dog is turned to his vomit again" (2 Peter 2:22). And it is also to be considered here that Israel had gone hand in hand with him in his downward course. Had the king’s career been one of steadily increasing demoralization? so had that of the people. The death of Naboth affords sufficient proof of this. The ready compliance of the elders, the alacrity with which they perpetrated that judicial murder, shows to what a moral depth the example of the court and the idolatry around them had plunged the holy nation. No; king and queen had not sinned alone, and justice required they should not suffer alone. Nations and their rulers, as we have already seen, receive a reckoning in this life; how much more the covenant people and the Lord’s anointed? Placed as they were under a direct law of temporal punishments and rewards, it would have been strange, indeed, if such a reign as this had gone unrecompensed. But so far from that, they have already received part reckoning for their sin. The three years drought, the famine, the terrible Syrian invasions, have avenged a part of their idolatries and immoralities; but there still remains a long score of guilt to be expiated in shame and suffering and blood. And here it may be well to remind ourselves what were the sins which awaited a settlement under the walls of Ramoth-Gilead. They were five in number. (1) The calf worship—the hereditary sin of the northern kingdom, the sin of Jeroboam; (2) the worship of Baal with the prostitution which accompanied it—the sin primarily of Jezebel and her Phoenician following, but shared in by almost the entire nation; (3) the determined persecution of the prophets and the virtual proscription of the ancient faith; (4) the release of the Syrian king in disregard of God’s will the sin of Ahab and his captains; and (5) the murder of Naboth in defiance of all law—the sin of the rulers and elders. It may be thought that the two last were peculiarly Ahab’s or Jezebel’s sins, and that the people had no part in them; but this is a mistaken view. No doubt he and his infamous consort had by far the largest share in all the four, and therefore they received, as we shall see presently, by far the severer punishment. But just as the people worshipped at the shrines which the king supported, just as they practised the abominations which he had introduced, so had they approved his policy towards Ben-hadad—see the words of 1 Kings 19:1-21:42, "thy people for his people"—and the guilt of innocent blood, as we know (Numbers 35:33; Deuteronomy 21:7; 2 Samuel 21:1-22.) rested on the community until it had been cleansed in blood. It is clear, then, that at the time when this chapter opens, king and people, though in very different degrees, were chargeable with the sins of schism, of idolatry, of unfaithfulness to God, of murder. It is now for us to observe how these things were expiated. Now there are two principles which underlie all God’s retributive dealings with his ancient people. First, that sin is left, or made to bring its own penalties. Per quod quis peccat per idem quoque plectitur idem. Secondly, that the penalty is ever correspondent with the sin. This latter is what we commonly call the lex talionis. We have had instances of the working of both of these laws, but especially of the latter, in the earlier portions of this history. We shall find the same laws in operation here. For consider— I. By what means Ahab was led to death and Israel to defeat. II. By what instruments these punishments were inflicted. III. In what way they were signalized as the chastisements of sin. I. In considering the which moved Ahab to war, and which led to his destruction, we must assign the first place to— 1. The perfidy of Ben-hadad. No doubt it rankled in Ahab’s breast that, after he had dealt so magnanimously with a prostrate foe, after he had treated an insolent invader with unexampled generosity, and after a solemn covenant had been made betwixt them, it rankled in his soul that a Syrian garrison, in spits of all embassies and remonstrances, should hold the Jewish fortress of Ramoth-Gilead and thus offer a standing menace to Israel and Judah alike. But did it never occur to him that the conduct of Ben-hadad was but the counterpart of his own? He too had forgotten his benefactor and deliverer, to whom he was bound by solemn covenant; he still maintained a garrison of idolatrous priests in the heart of Immanuel’s land. Ben-hadad’s breach of faith was no greater than his own. Probably, he never thought of this when he debated whether he should go up against Ramoth-Gilead. He would remember, however, that he had only himself to blame for this act of perfidy, and he would devoutly wish he had dealt with the oppressor as he had deserved; he would perhaps think that it only served him right for his weakness and sin. We see, however, that he is paid back in his own coin, that the measure he has meted to God is measured to him again. The sin of three years before gave the first impulse to war and death. 2. The lies of the false prophets. It is hardly likely that Ahab would have engaged in this war but for the unanimous verdict of the four hundred prophets in its favour. We see in Micaiah’s vision that a "lying spirit" was the principal means employed to procure his fall (verse 22). But what were these prophets, and how came they to prophesy thus? One thing is certain, that they were not prophets of Jehovah, and another thing is also clear, that whether they were prophets of Baal, or, as is most probable, prophets of the calves, the false system which Ahab had supported became through them a means of his destruction. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/pulpit-commentary/