CaF

eetVERS

ii

030809191Bee

SK

miesDEVS: MAGNVS- VINCENS SCIEN TT.

‘AN

 

-EX: LIBRIS: HASLET T-M KIM: |I 9 le hey, A

a
te
ie
ba
Bs

es
=

ee ae eePULPIT COMMENTARY,

EDITED BY THE

me CATON BW. BD. M. SPENCE MA.

VICAR AND RURAL DEAN OF ST. PANCRAS, AND EXAMINING CHAPLAIN TO THE LORD
BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL ;5

AND BY THE
WeW. JOSEPH S&S EX ELE.
WITH

INTRODUCTIONS

BY THE

REV. CANON F. W. FARRAR, D.D., F.R.S.—RIGHT REV. H. COTTERILL, D.D., F.R.S.E.
VERY REV. PRINCIPAL J. TULLOCH, D.D.—REV. CANON G. RAWLINSON, M.A.
REV. A. PLUMMER, M.A.

NEW YORK:
Anson DD. F. RANDOLPH & COMPANY,
goo BROADWAY, COR. 20th STREET.

LONDON :
KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH & CO., 1 PATERNOSTER SQUARE.a

Lf Rting ye in 8 BMT,
f 0 a DA 8

%,THE

PULPIT COMMENTARY.

EDITED BY THE

REY. CANON H. D. M. SPENCE. ]

UY e is lt ah e i M, SI ENCE, M.A,
VICAR AND RURAL DEAN OF pod be PANCRAS, AND EXAMINING CHAPLAIN TO THE LORD
BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL ;

AND BY THE

REY, JOSEPH & EXELL,

EDITOR OF ‘‘THE HOMILETIC QUARTERLY.”

Exposition and Homiletics:
REV. JOSEPH HAMMOND, LL.B., B.A.,

VICAR OF ST, AUSTELL,

Homilies bn Varions Authors:
REV. E. DE PRESSENSE, D.D. REV. A. ROWLAND, M.A., LL.B,

REY: Ju WAITE, BUA. REV? Jo A; MACDONALD.
REV. J... URQUHART.

THIRD EDITION.

NEW YORK:
BNSON Dir, KAN EOL Yih ce ©€0) MPA NY.
g00 BROADWAY, COR. 20th STREET.

LONDON :
KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH & CO., 4 PATERNOSTER SQUARE.THE

BOOKS OF THE KINGS.

INTRODUCTION.

T. Unrry or tHe Work.

Tue Books now known to us as the First and Second Books of the Kings,
like 1 and 2 Samuel, were originally and are really but one work, by one
writer or compiler, and it is only for convenience of reference and because
of long established usage that we here treat them as two. In all Hebrew
MSS. down to the time of Jerome certainly, and probably down to
a.D. 1518, when the Hebrew text was first printed by D. Bomberg at Venice,
the division into two books was unknown. It was first made in the Greek
version by the Septuagint translators, who followed a prevailing custom of
the Alexandrine Greeks of dividing ancient works for facility of reference.
The division thus introduced was perpetuated in the Latin version of

the essential unity of the work;* and the authority of the Septuagint im
the Eastern, aud of the Vulgate in the Western Church, has ensured the
continuance of this bipartite arrangement in all later time.

That the two books, however, are really one is proved by the strongest
internal evidence. Not only is there no break bejween them—the separation
at 1 Kings xxii. 58 being so purely arbitrary and artificial that it is actually
made haphazard in the middle both of the reign of Ahaziah and of the ministry
of Elijah—but the unity of purpose is conspicuous throughout. Together they
afford us a continuous and complete history of the kings and langdoms of
the chosen people. And the language of the two books points conclusively

z u 2 eee ° a < > moth al
* “Quartus Melachim, 1.é., Regum, qui 111. et ly. Regum volumine continetur (Ezoleg:
Galeat.) Similarly Origen in Euseb. ‘* Eccles. Hist.” vi. 25: BaowWtiwy Tpitn, TEeTAPTH ew EVE

raupérey Aafsiod, oné tort Baowrsia Aaio.
Ovapperex Aapuo, omep 07 3if INTRODUCTION TO

 

 

 

 

 

 

e no indications of the manner of speech
fusions such as would arise from
of expression,

to a single writer. While there ar
of a later period, no contradictions or Col
are many phrases and formule, tricks
hand and mind throughout the
ivided authorship.

these two portions of

different writers, there
and turns of thought, which show the same
entire work, and effectually exclude the idea ofad

While. however, it is indisputable that we have in
Holy Scripture the production of a single writer, we have no sufficient
(Eichhorn, Jahn, al.) have done, that the

warrant for concluding as some
division between them and the Books of Samuel is equally artificial, and
Ywald ‘the Great

that they are parts of a much greater work (called by Ew
Book of the Kings”)—a work which comprised along with them Judges,
Ruth, and 1 and 2 Samuel. The arguments in support of this view are
stated at considerable length by Lord Arthur Hervey in Smith’s ‘‘ Dictionary
of the Bible” (vol. ii. p. 21), but to my thinking they are entirely incon-
clusive, and have been effectually disposed of by, among others, Bahr,*
Keil.+ and Rawlinson, { each of whom cites a number of peculiarities not
only of diction, but of manner, arrangement, materials, &c.,§ which clearly
distinguish the Books of Kings from those which precede them in the sacred
Canon.

Tl, Trrue.

The name Ktves (oy251) requires but little notice. Whether these
scriptures bore this name from the first or not—and it is hardly likely that
they did, the probability being that the Book was originally cited, like those
of the Pentateuch, &c., by its initial words, 7° 721m), and was only called
“Kings” from its contents (like the Book of «« Samuel”) ata later period—
this one word aptly describes the character and subject-matter of this
composition and sufficiently distinguishes it from the rest of itsclass. It is
simply a history of the kings of Israel and Judah, in the order of their
A POR ENTE Te Se . ms )
cman The LXX. Title, Baoredr. y. 6. (i.e. “ Kingdoms’ y expresses the same
idea, || for in Eastern despotisms, and especially under the Hebrew
theocracy, the history of the kingdom was practically that of its kings.

* “Tie Konige,’’ Hinleitung, § 3.

rice f  Ranita B AGas he ec ie a ealaicel ne ‘ 7

1 The Books of the Kings.” English Translation. Introduction, pp. 9,10. Compare
his ‘‘ Introduction to the Old Testament,”’ vol. i. pp. 254—260

t ‘Speaker’s Commentary,” vol. ii. p. 468.

For ex dle A) shronology of a Kin is preci i i

; § hae ape The chronology of the Kings is precise and detailed, whilst that of

and 2} amuel is extremely vague and general; the Kings abound in references to thi
Mosaic law, which are nowhere found in Samuel; the author of the former constantly
6 a we ery: . e
refers to his authorities, the writer of the latter never.
i kek ee questions the fitness of this title, but with
insufficient reason. The books contain the history

: s cont istory of two kingdoms, thoi
ugh of but

nation. : : -

|| Jerome, in his “ Prologus Galeatus,”’THE BOOKS OF THE KINGS.

 

 

IIY. Contents anp Purposs.

It must be remembered, however, that the history of the kings of the
chosen people will necessarily have a different character and a different
design from the chronicles of all other reigns and dynasties ; it will, in fact,
be such history as a pious Jew would naturally write. Such a one, even
without the guidance of Inspiration, would inevital oly view all the events i
the history both of his own and of neighbouring nations, not so much i
their secular or purely historical as in their religious aspect. His firm
belief in a particular Providence superintending the affairs of men, and re-
quiting them according to their deserts by temporal rewards and punishments,
would alone give a stamp and colour to his narrative very different from

oO

1 ies. Sat. ht £ : :
that of the profane historian. But when we remember that the historians

of Israel were in every case te that is, that they were the advocates

¢v

and spokesmen ™* of the t High, we may be quite sure ee history in their
hands will have a ‘“ beat and that they will write with a distinctly

religious aim. Such was assuredly the case with the author of the Kies.

His is an ecclesiastical or theocratic rather than a civil his tory. Indeed,
as Bahr well observes, ‘‘ Hebrew antiquity does not know the secular
historian.” + The different kings, consequently, are pourtrayed not so
much in their relations to their subjects, or to other nations, as to the
Invisible Ruler of Israel, whose representatives they were, whose religion
they were charged to uphold, and of whose holy law they were the ae
It is this Fe ciderntion accounts, as Rawlinson remarks, for the great length
at which certain reigns are recorded as compared with ee It is this
again, and not any “ prophetico-didactic tendency,” or any idea of advancing

the prophetic order, accounts for the prominence given to the ministries of
Elijah and Elisha, and to the interpositions of various prophets at different
crises of the nation’s life (see 1 Kings i. 45; xi. 29—40; xin. 12, 21—24 ;
xiv. 5—16; xxii. 8; 2 Kings xix. 20; xx. 16; xxii. 14, &c.) It explains
too the Dini references to the antenen and to the previous history
of the race (1 Kings ii. 3; i. 14; vi 11, 12% vii. 56, &e.;. 2) Kanes. x. ok;

is properly one who speaks for another, as 3 advocate or interpreter. It
ain the word of predic tion or foretelling. Lhe zpo has no reference to
f Jove” (Aesch. Kumen. 19).
It is true that the term N'2)

* The xpo-¢nTn¢
is a mistake to exp
time. Apollo is cal a Awe xpognrng— the interpreter
And Plato calls poets Movowdy moogijrat (Phaedr. 262 D).
conyeys primarily the idea of ins piration, or possession (NJ, ebuillivit, Gesenius,
ef. ae from uaivopat), but this word also, at an early period, had
asin Exod. vii. 1,‘ Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.”
xiv. passim),.it is well known, were
formerly used in our

Thesaurus, li. 838
the meaning of “'s pokesman,”
The “prophets” of the New Testament (1 Cor, x1. 4, 5;
preachers rather than predicters, and the term ‘“‘ prophesying ” was
own language of expounding.

+ In the American translation of Lange’s “ Bi ibelwerk’
secular historian does not know Hebrew antiquity.”

’ unfortunately rendered, ‘ TheINTRODUCTION TO
xiv. 6: xvii. 13, 15, 87; xvill. 4—6, &e.), and the constant comparison of
ing “after God’s own heart” (1 Kings
ir judgment by the standard of
&e.) The object of
the historian clearly was, not to chronicle the naked facts of Jewish history,
; . . ts 4 uo aad ale leas
but to show how the rise, the glories, the decline ana the fall of the Hebrew
were respectively the results of the piety and faithfulness or of
atry of the different kings and their subjects. Writing

iv

 

the suecessive monarchs with the k
m4, 693 x1v..93. xv..9,, 11, &c.), and the
the Mosaic law (1 Kings iii. 14; vi 11, 12>, yi. 0;

kingdoms
the irreligion and idol
ptivity, he would teach his countrymen how all the miseries

during the ca
1d culminated in the destruction

which had come upon them, miseries which he
of their temple, the overthrow of their monarchy, and their own transporta-
tion from the land of their forefathers, were the judgments of God upon
their sins and the fruits of the national apostasy, He would trace, too, the
fulfilment, through successive generations, of the great promise of 2 Sam.
vii. 12—16, the charter of the house of David, on which promise indeed
the history is a continuous and striking commentary. True to his mission
as the Divine ambassador, he would teach them everywhere to see the finger
of God in their nation’s history, and by the record of incontrovertible facts,
and especially by showing the fulfilment of the promises and threatenings
of the Law, he would preach a return to the faith and morals of a purer age,
and would urge ‘“‘his contemporaries, living in exile with him, to cling
faithfully to the covenant made by God through Moses, and to honour
steadfastly the one true God.” *

The two Books embrace a period of four and a half centuries ; viz. from
the accession of Solomon in 3.2. 1015 to the close of the captivity of
Jehoiachin in B.c. 562,

TV. Darr.

The date of the composition of the Kings can be fixed, with much greater
facility and certainty than that of many portions of Seripture, from the
contents of the Books themselves. It must lie somewhere between
B.c. 561 and z.c. 538; that is to say, 1s must kave been in the latter part
of the Babylonian captivity. It cannot have been before z.c. 561, for that
is the year of the accession of Tivil-Merodach, whose kindly treatment of

17

Jehoiachin, ‘‘in the year that he began to reign,” is the last event men-
1c 17 tI ¢ ratapry 1a = » the -ljaqa qa 144

tioned in the history. Assuming that this is not an addition by a later
‘ Ap eS a) ra haw : ‘ -}47 1

hand, which we have no reason to think is the case,+ we have thus one

limit

 

a maximum of antiquity—fixed with certainty. And it cannot have
been after B.c. 538, the date of the return under Zerubbabel, as it is quite
inconceivable that the historian should have omitted to notice an event of
such profound importance, and one too which had such a direct bearing on

* M5 andi . aj 1
Thenius. + See Keil, Introduction to Kings, p. 9.THE BOOKS OF THE KINGS. v

 

the purpose for which the history was penned—which was partly, as we
have already remarked, to trace the fulfilment of 2 Sam. vil. 12—16, in
the fortunes of David’s house—had that event occurred at the time when he
wrote. We may safely assign this year, consequently, as the minimum date
for the composition of the work,

And with this conclusion, that the Books of Kings were written during
the captivity, the style and diction of the Books themselves agree. “The
language of Kings belongs unmistakably to the period of the captivity ”
(Rawlinson, “ Speaker’s Commentary,” pp. 469, 470).* Lord A. Hervey,
indeed, contends that ‘ the general character of the language is that of the
time before the Babylonish captivity ”—elsewhere he mentions “the age of
Jeremiah ”—but even if we allow this, it does not in the least invalidate the
conclusion that the work was given to the world between zc. 460 and
B.o. 440, and probably about s.c. 460.

V. Tae Avurnorsurpe

is a question of much greater difficulty. + It was lone held, and it is still
maintained by many scholars, that the Kings are the work of the prophet
Jeremiah. And in support of this view may be alleged—1. Jewish tradition.
The Talmud (Baba Bathra, f. 15.1) unhesitatingly ascribes the work to
him. Jeremias scripsit ibrum swum et librum regum et threnos. 2. The last
chapter of 2 Kings agrees, except in some few particulars, with Jer. i. The
spelling in the latter is more archaic and the facts recorded in vers. 28—80
differ from those of 2 Kings xxv. 2226, but the general agreement is very
striking. It is alleged, accordingly, and not without reason, that the two

narratives must have had a common origin, and more, that the final page of
Jeremiah’s history of the Kings, with a few alterations and additions made by
a later hand, was appended to his collection of prophecies, as forming a
fitting conclusion to those writings. And certainly this arrangement, though
it does not prove Jeremiah’s authorship of the Kines, does afford evidence
of a very ancient belief that he was the writer. 8, There is in many cases a
marked resemblance between the language of Kings and that of Jeremiah.
Havernick, perhaps the most powerful and energetic advocate of this view,
has furnished a striking list of pa and expressions common to both.t
And so marked are the correspondences between them that even Bahr, who
summarily rejects this hypothesis, 1s Aeadindnell to allow that ‘the mode of

 

* Rawlinson gives, loc. cit., an interesting list of the words and phrases which substan-
tiate this assertion. And see Dict. Bib. vol. ii. p. 26.

+ * As regards the authorship of these Books, but little difficulty presents itself” (Lord
A. Hervey, who ascribes them to Jeremiah), But Bihr, Keil, al. reject this idea with equal
positiveness.

+ Hinleitung, vol.si. pp. 171 sqq. This list is accessible to the English reader in the

‘ Speaker’s Commentary,” ii. p. 471.vi INTRUDUCTION TO

 

 

 

 

thinking and expression resembles that of Jeremiah,” and he accounts for
the similarity by the conjecture that our author had before him the writings
of the prophet or was, perhaps, his pupil,* while Stihelin is driven to the
conclusion that the writer was an imitator of Jeremiah. But the resem-
lance is not confined to words and phrases: there ig in both writings the
same tone, the same air of despondency and hopelessness, + while many of
again are more or less common to the history and
ation which is equally striking is the
an

the facts and narratives
the prophecy. t 4. Another consider , :
f the prophet Jeremiah in the Books of Kings
omission easily accounted for if he was the author of those Books, but
difficult to explain on any other supposition. Modesty would very naturally
lead the historian to omit all mention of the share he himself had taken

 

omission of all mention o

‘n the transactions of his time, especially as 1t was recorded at length else-
But the part Jeremiah sustained in the closing scenes of the history

where.
ah was one of so much importance that it is hard to

of the kingdom of Jud
conceive any impartial, not to say pious or theocratic historian, completely
ignoring both his name and his work.§

But a string of arguments, equally numerous and equally influential, can
be adduced against the authorship of Jeremiah, prominent among which are
the following: 1. That if Jeremiah did compile these histories, he must
have been at the time about eighty-six or eighty-seven years of age. Bahr
regards this one consideration as conclusive. He, like Keil and others,
points out that Jevemiah’s ministry began in the thirteenth year of the
reion of Josiah (Jer. i. 2), when, it is urged, he must have been at least
twenty years of age. But the Book of Kines, as we have just seen, cannot
have been penned earlier than s.o. 562; that is to say, at least sixty-six
years afterwards. In reply to this, however, it may fairly be remarked (1)
that it is quite ~possible that Jeremiah’s entrance upon the prophetic ohice
took place before he was twenty years old. He calls himself a child (Wi Jer.

s to be taken literally, or as furnish-
ing any definite chronological datum,|| yet the tradition that he was but a
boy of fourteen is not wholly irrational or incredible. (2) It is quite within
the bounds of possibility that the work may have been written by an
octogenarian. We have had conspicuous instances amongst our own con-

i. 6), and though the word is not alway

temporaries of men far advanced in years retaining all their mental vigour

* This latter supposition is also the view of Thenius. Bleek suggests Baruch.

+ Compare 2 Kings xvii. 14 with Jer. vii. 26; 1 Kings ix. 8 with Jer. xxii. 8; and
2 Kings xxi. 12 with Jer. xix. 3. These parallels are the more striking since they disclose
at the same time a similarity of tone and of language.

t For a list of these, see “ Dictionary of the Bible,” vol. ii. pp. 28—30.

§ It is true Jeremiah is only mentioned twice by the Chronicler, but this is easily
accounted for by the brevity and incompleteness of his work.
|| Nagelsbach, ‘‘ Jeremias,” in Lange's “ Bibelwerk,” p. 2,THE BOOKS OF THE KINGS. vii

and engaging in arduous literary labours. And (3) it does not absolutely
follow, because the last paragraph of the Kings carries us down to B.c. 562
that that is also the date of the composition or compilation of the rest. Tt
is quite obvious that the bulk of the work might have been written by
Jeremiah some years before, and that these concluding sentences might
have been added by him in extreme old age. There is much greater force,
however, in a second objection, viz., that the Kixes must have been written
or completed in Babylon, whilst Jeremiah spent the concluding years of
his life and died in Egypt. For, though it is not absolutely certain, it is
extremely probable that the work was finished and published in Babylon.
There is not much weight perhaps in Bahr’s remark that it cannot have
been composed for the handful of fugitives who accompanied Jeremiah to
Kigypt, but must have been designed for the kernel of the people in cap-
tivity, for the prophet may have composed the work in Tahpenes, and have
at the same time hoped, perhaps even provided, for its transmission to
Babylon. But it cannot be denied that while the writer was evidently
familiar with what transpired in the court of Evil-Merodach, and was
acquainted with details which could hardly have been known to a resident
in Egypt, there is an absence of all reference to the latter country and
the fortunes of the remnant there. The last chapter of the work, that is to
say, points to Babylon as the place where it was written. So also, prima
facie, does the expression of 1 Kings iv. 24, ‘‘ beyond the river ”’ (Auth. Vers.
‘‘on this side the river”). The ‘region beyond the river” can only mean
that west of the Kuphrates, and therefore the natural conclusion is that the
writer must have dwelt east of the Euphrates, z.e., in Babylon. It is
alleged, however, that this expression, which is also found in Ezra and
Nehemiah, had come at this time to have a meaning different from its strict
geographical signification, and was used by Jews, wherever they might
happen to reside, of the provinces of the Babylonian Empire (including
Palestine), west of the Great River, just as a Roman, even after residing
in the country, might speak of Gallia Transalpina, and it cannot be denied
that the expression is used indifferently of either side of the Jordan, and
therefore presumably it may designate either side of the Euphrates.* But
it is to be observed—1. that in the majority of instances where the expres-
gion is used of the Euphrates (Ezra vi. 6; vil. 21, 25; Neh. 1. 7), it is
found in the lips of persons residing in Babylonia or Media; 2. that in
other instances (Ezra iv. 10, 11, 16) it is used in letters of state by Persian
officers, who would naturally adapt their language to the usages of the
Persian court and of their own country, even when resident abroad, and
lastly, that in the one instance (Ezra vill. 36) where the words are employed

* See note on ch, iv. 24INTRODUCTION TO

Vill

 

 

 

 

of Jews resident in Palestine, it is by a Jew who had just returned from
Persia. While therefore 1t is perhaps impossible to arrive at any positive
conclusion from the use of this formula, it 1s difficult to resist the impres-
sion that on the whole it suggests that the Book was written in Babylon,
and therefore not by Jeremiah. 3. A third consideration alleged by Keil
‘n his earlier edition,* viz., that the variations of style and diction between
2 Kines xxv. and Jer. lu. are such as to negative the supposition of their
proceeded from the same pen, or Ta ther such as to compel the belief
|

J

having
that “this section has been extracted by the author or editor in the two

eases from a common or more copious source,
much notice, the more so, as (1) these variations, when carefully examined,
prove to be inconsiderable, and (2) even if the distinct authorship of these
two portions, or their having been copied from a common authority, were
established, it would by no means necessarily follow that Jeremiah had not
copied them, or had had no share in the rest of the work.

It would seem, therefore, that the arguments for and against Jeremiah’s
authorship of the Kines are so evenly balanced that it is impossible to
speak positively one way or the other. Professor Rawlinson has stated the
conclusion to which an impartial survey conducts us with great fairness
and caution. “Though Jeremiah’s authorship appears, all things cone
sidered, to be highly probable, we must admit that it has not been proved,

and is, therefore, to some extent, uncertain.” T

’ is too precarious to require

VI. Sources or THE WorK.

The Books of Kings being obviously and necessarily, from their historical
character, to a very large extent, a compilation from other sources, the
question now presents itself, What and of what sort were the records from
which this narrative was constructed ?

What they were the writer himself informsus. He mentions three
books” from which his information must have been largely derived‘ the
book of the acts of Solomon” (1 Kings xi. 41); ‘‘ the book of the Chronicles of
(lit. of the words [ ov events] of the days to) the kings of Judah” (1 Kings xiv. 29;
xv. 7, 22; xxi 45; 2 Kings passim); and ‘‘ the book of the Chronicles (‘* the
words of the days”) of the kings of Israel” (1 Kings xiv. 19; xv. 31, &e.)
That he made abundant use of these authorities is evident from the fact
that he refers to them more than thirty times ; that he constantly quoted from
them verbatim is clear from the fact that passages agreeing almost verbatim
with those of the Kings are found in the Books of Chronicles, and also from

* Professor Rawlinson appears to have only had the edition of 1846 before him. But
the Kinas of K ell and Delitzsch’s Commentary is practically a new work, and differs very
materially from its predecessor.
+ ‘*Speaker’s Commentary,” 11, 472,THE BOOKS OF THE KINGS. ix

 

the use of expressions which manifestly belong, not to our author, but to
some document which he cites.* It is consequently more than ‘a reason-
able supposition that” this “ history was, in part at least, derived from the
works in question.”’t And there is a strong presumption that these were
his only authorities, with the exception perhaps of a narrative of the
ministry of the prophets Elijah and Elisha, for though he refers to them so
constantly, he never once refers to any other. What, however, was the
precise character of these writings is a matter of considerable uncertainty.
We are warranted in the belief, from the way in which they are cited, that
they were three separate and independent works, and that they contained
fuller and more extended accounts of the reigns of the several kings than
any which we now possess, for the invariable formula in which they are
referred to is this, «‘ And the rest of the acts of .... are they not written
in the Book of the Chronicles,” &c. It hardly follows, however, as Bahr
thinks, that this formula implies that the works, at the time our history was
written, were “‘in general circulation,” or “in the hands of many,” for our
author surely might reasonably refer to them, even if they were not eenerally
known or readily accessible. But the great question in dispute is this:
Were ‘the books of the words of the days to the kings,” as their name at
first sight seems to imply, state papers; %.e., public archives prepared by
appointed officers, or were they private memoirs of the different prophets.
The former opinion has the support of many great names.t It is alleged
in its favour that there was, at any rate in the kingdom of Judah, a state
functionary, ‘‘ the recorder,” whose business it was to chronicle events and
prepare memoirs of the different reigns, a “court historian,” as he has
been called; § that such memoirs were certainly prepared in the kingdom
orized officer, and were afterwards preserved as state
at such public documents appear to be sufficiently
indicated by the very name they bear, “ The book of the chronicles to the
kings.” There is no question, however, despite these allegations, that the

second view is the correct one, and that the ‘‘ Chronicles”’ were the com-

pilations, not of state officials, but of various members of the schools of the
os are known,

For, to begin with, the name by which these writin

* The expression “unto this day,” in the great majority of cases, cannot refer to the
date of authorship—the time of the captivity—but belongs to a period when as southern
kingdom was still in existence, and the temple was still standing. ‘See 1 Kings vi. 8;
ix. 13; x. 12 ; 2 Kingsii. 22; x. 97; xiv. 7; xvi. 6; Xx. 17, &e.

+ Rawlinson.

t+ Among others,

§ Ewald, ‘‘ History of Israel,”’
with the Mazkir or Remembrancer
Art. ‘ King.”

|| A similar institutio
Persia,’’ ch. xxiii.

of Persia by an auth
annals,|| and, lastly, th

prophets.

Berthold, Hivernick, Movers, and Ewald.
ili. p. 270. Ewald, however,
(see p. 267) as many writers do.

does not identify this officer
See, e.g., Dict. Bible,

n is said to exist in modern Persia. Vide Malcolm’s “ History ofx INTRODUCTION TO

 

 

and which has been thought to imply a civil origin, really means no more
than this, “the Book of the history of the times of the Eings,” &e., a8 Keil
interprets it, and by no means indicates any official archives. And, in the
second place, we have no evidence in support of the view that the recorder or
any other officer was charged with the preparation of the history of his time.
The word D1) properly means ‘remendbrancer,” and he was no doubt so
called, not “ because he kept the memory of events alive,” * but because he
reminded the king of the state affairs which required his attention, It is
generally admitted + that he was ‘“‘more than an annalist,” but is not 50
well understood that in no case in which he figures in the history is he in
any way connected with the public records, but always appears as the king’s
adviser or chancellor (cf. 2 Kings xviii. 18, 87; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 8). More-
over, there are almost re difficulties in the way of believing that
the “books of the Chronicles” can have been compiled by this remem-
brancer. For example, (1) there is no trace of the existence of any such
functionary in the kingdom of Jsrael; (2) David is said to have instituted
the office of ‘‘ court and state scribe,’’ but we find that David's history was
recorded, not in any state annals prepared by this functionary, but in ‘‘ the
book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the
book of Gad the seer” (1 Chron. xxix. 29). Now, surely, if any such officer
charged with such a duty had existed, the record of David’s life would
have been composed by him, and not by unofficial and irresponsible persons.

But (8) the state archives of the two kingdoms, including the memoirs—if
such there were—of the different kings, can hardly have escaped the sack
of Samaria and the burning of Jerusalem. It has been conjectured, indeed,

that the Assyrian and Babylonian monarchs preserved the records of con-
quered nations in their respective capitals, and permitted such of the
exiles as had acquired their favour to have access to them,t but this, as
Bahr observes, is obviously a supposition “‘ as unfounded as it is arbitrary,”
and is beset with difficulties. Seeing that not only the royal palace, but
also ‘‘all the great houses were burned”? (2 Kings xxv. 9), the conclusion is
almost inevitable that all the public records must have perished. And such
records—in the kingdom of Israel, at least — had also had to run the
gauntlet of intestine warfare and dissension. A dynasty cannot be changed
mine times, and each time be destroyed, root and branch, without the
greatest danger to the archives of sharing the same fate. That amid all the
changes and chances of the two kingdoms, changes which culminated in
the transportation of the two entire nations to distant Jands, the state
annals had been preserved and were accessible to a historian of the time of

* Dict. Bib., Art, “ King.”
t See Dict. Bib., Art. “ Recorder.”
{ Stihelin, Hinleitung, s. 129, cited by Bahr,THE BOOKS OF THE KINGS. xi
the captivity, seems almost incredible. But our author manifestly refers to
the “ Books of the Chronicles,” &c., as still existent in his time, and, if not
generally circulated, yet guarded and accessible somewhere. But a still
more conclusive argument against the “ state paper” origin of our histories
is found in their contents. Their tone and language absolutely forbid the
supposition that they were based on the records of any court historio-
grapher. ‘They are to a very large extent histories of the sins, idolatries,
and enormities of the respective sovereigns whose reigns they describe,
“The history of the reign of each of the nineteen kings of Israel begins
with the formula, ‘He did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord.’
The same formula occurs again with respect to twelve out of the twenty
kings of Judah. ... Even of the greatest and most glorious king,
Solomon, it is related at length how deeply he fell. ‘The sin of Jeroboam
who made Israel to sin’ is represented as the source of all the evils of the
kingdom: the conspiracies and murders of a Baasha, a Shallum, a
Menahem ; the shameful acts of an Ahab, a Jezebel, and a Manasseh are
recorded without any indulgence.” * And these are the deeds and the reigns
with respect to which we are referred for fuller information ‘to the Books
of the Chronicles.” For that these ‘‘ Chronicles” contained accounts of
the impieties and abominations of the various kings is clear from 2 Chron.
xxxvl. 8, where we read (of Jehoiakim), ‘‘ His abominations which he did
and that which was found in him, behold they are written in the book
of the kings of Israel and Judah.” Now, it is altogether out of the ques-
tion that any court scribe can have described his late master’s reign in
such terms as these; indeed no one could or would have used such
language, but men who lived at a later period, and those, courageous and
high-minded prophets, who were perfectly independent of the court and
regardless of its favours. And, lastly, the constant change of dynasty on
the throne of Israel is fatal to the supposition. We have already mentioned
those changes as endangering the preservation of the state papers, but they
are equally an argument against the memoirs of the different royal houses
having been written by the “recorder,” for the object of each successive
dynasty would be, not to preserve a faithful record of the Pete its
predecessor, but to stamp them with infamy, or consign them to oe
We find, therefore, that the prevailing opinicn as to the character of the
‘books ot the words of the days” is encompassed with difficulties. But
these vanish at once, if we see in these records the compilations of the
schools of the prophets. We have incontrovertible ou een toe prophets
did act as historians. Samuel, Nathan, Gad, Iddo, Ahijah, Shemaiah,
Jehu the son of Hanani, Isaiah the son of Amoz, are all mentioned by

® Bibr (Hinleitung, p. 12), whom I have largely followed in this note,pen)

 

‘F INTRODUCTION TO

 

We know, too, that for portions of
this very history we must be indebted to members, probably unknown
x e bi <2 oe ee q .
members, of the prophetic order. The histories ob aula and Elisha
never formed part of the ‘books of the Chronicles,” and they contain

matters which, in the nature of things, can only have been contributed by
by their scholars. or servants. The history

name as the compilers of memoirs.

these prophets themselves, or Eke ae
of Elisha, especially, has several marks of a separate ao It is dis-
tincuished by a number of peculiarities—“ provincialisms they have
been called—which betray a different hand, while the narratives are such
as can only have proceeded, originally, from an eye-witness. But perhaps
it is hardly necessary to mention these particulars, ag it is “ universally
allowed that prophets generally were the historians of the Israelitish
people.”* Tt was almost as essential a part of their office to trace the hand
of God in the past history of the Hebrew race as to predict future visita-
tions, or to promise deliverances. They were preachers of righteousness,
spokesmen for God, interpreters of his just laws and dealings, and to be
this they only needed to be faithful and impartial historians. It is not
without sienificance, in this connexion, that the historical books of the Old
Testament were known to the Jewish fathers by the name o'N’a3 ‘and are
distinguished from the books strictly prophetical only m this, that the
adjective DWN priores, is applied to them, and to the latter o17nK
posteriores.” t

But we have evidence of the most positive and conclusive kind, evidence
almost amounting to demonstration, that the three authorities to which our
historian so repeatedly refers, were in their original form the works of
different prophets, and not of the public annalist. For we find that where
the author of Krves, after transcribing a string of passages, which agree
almost word for word with a series in the Books of Chronicles,+ and which
must therefore have been derived from acommon source, refers to ‘‘ the book
of the acts of Solomon (1 Kings xi. 41), the chronicler indicates as the
documents upon which he has drawn, ‘the book of Nathan the prophet, and
the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and the visions of Jddo the scer.
The conclusion, therefore, is irresistible (2 Chron. ix. 29), that the “book
of the words of the days to Solomon,” if not identical with the writings of
the three prophets who were the historians of that reign, was nevertheless
based on those writings, and to a large extent composed of extracts from

* Bahr, who cites Knobel, “ Der Prophet. der Hebr.” i, 58 sqq. Josephus (Contra Apion,
1.8) expressly says, ‘‘ The prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in
their time in thirteen books.”

+ Bahr,

{ Compare 1 Kings viii. 12—50 with 2 Chron. vi. 1—40; 1 Kings villi. 64—ix. 9 with
? Chron. vii. 7—22; 1 Kings x. 1—28, with 2 Chron. ix. 1—28, &e,THE BOOKS OF THE KINGS. xij

 

them. It is possible, and indeed probable, that in the one “book of the
Chronicles,” the memoirs of the three historians had been condensed,
arranged, and harmonized; but it hardly admits of doubt that the latter
were the originals of the former. And the same remarks apply, mutatis
mutandis, to the “book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah.” The
history of Rehoboam in 1 Kings xii. 1—19 is identical with the account of
that monarch in 2 Chron, x. 1—4; the words of 1 Kings xii, 20—24 are
the same that are found in 2 Chron. xi, 1—4; while 2 Chron. xii. 13 is
practically a repetition of 1 Kings xiv. 21. But the authority to which
our author refers is the “book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah,”
whereas that mentioned by the Chronicler is “the book of Shematah t
prophet, and of I ldo the seer.” Now itis clear that these parallel passages
are derived from the same source, and that source must be the book or
books of these two prophets.*

5
];

Le

Nor does it invalid etl oe <. Be Le coe i. ae
Nor does it invalidate this contention that the Chronicler, in addition to

the prophetic writings just named, also cites occasionally the ‘‘ book of the

ro

kings of Israel and Judah” (2 Chron. xvi. 11; xxv. 26; xxvil. 7; xxvii.
26; xxxul. 32; xxxv. 27, &.); in one place ippadenthy called ‘‘ the book of
the kings of Israel” (2 Chron. xx. 84), together with a ‘‘ Midrash of the
book of the Kings ” (2 Chron. xxiv. 27). For we have no evidence whatso-
ever that any of these authorities were of a public and civil character. On
the contrary, we have ground for believing that they were composed of the
memoirs of the prophets. It is not quite clear what the Midrash just
referred to was, but the two works first cited were probably identical with
“the Books of the Chronicles” so often mentioned by our historian.
And in one case (2 Chron. xx. 84), we have distinct mention of a prophetie
book or writing—that of Jehu, the son of Hanani—which was embodied in
he book of the kings of Israel.t
We can hardly be mistaken, Ui in concluding from these dat
that the prime “ sources of this work” were really the prophetic memoirs
mentioned by the Chronicler (1 Chron. xxvil. 24; xxix. 20; 2 Chron.

ee Sut Bie te te entre
ie, 29> x 15 = xii, 20’; xx) 845 xxiv, 275 Revi. 22 5 SxxU. Of; KRU 4 3)

 

which, together, perhaps, with other writings, the authors of which are

: o . 4 . (Fen e ee Be y 4 of + :
unknown to us, furnish the materials for the ‘ Books of the Words of the
Days,” &e.

a Tt iT 7 77] ha Ve:
The relation of the Krvas to the Books of the CrHRoniIcLes will be more
appropriately discussed in the Introduction to that volume.

* The fact that the Chronicler alleges his authority, and that a different one from the

n 3 he result of
authority given by the Krnas, forbids the assumption that the agreement is t] U

copying on the part of the former from the latter. '
by C he
+ MYM, literally was made to ascend upon, i,e., was introduced or incorporated into

history of the kings of Israel.INTRODUCTION TO
VII. Creprpiuiry.

But the question may possibly arise, Are these writings, whatever their
origin, to be accepted as authentic, sober history ? |

t is a question, happily, which may be dismissed with few words, for
their veracity has never been seriously doubted. If we except the miract ulous
portions of the history—to which the only serious objection is that they are
miraculous, and therefore in the nature of things must be mythical—there
is absolutely no reason for challenging i Behe pa and honesty of the
narrative. Not only has it throughout the air of sober history; not only is
it accepted as such—including the supernatural por ee our Lord and
His apostles (Matt. vi. 29; x1. aa. Luke iv. 25-27; ix. 8,54; Mark1.6; Acts
yii. 47,48; Rom. xi. 8,4; Heb. xi. 85; James v. ") 18; Rev.11..20 ; 529).
but it is everywhere confirmed by the monuments of antiquity and the

records of profane historians, whensoever it and they happen to have points

 

 

 

‘ Sian rt at IT]
ol COLvUaACL. Ly

Hiram, his Temple, and his wisdom are mentioned by the Tyrian historians,

e reign of Solomon, for example, his friendly relations with

from whom Dius and Menander of E;phesus derived their information (Jos.,
Contra Apion. i. sectt. 17, 18). The proficiency of the Zidonians in the

tested both by Homer
1e invasion of Judah by Shishak in the reign of Reho-

mechanical arts and their knowledge of the sea is at
and Herodotus.* Tl

~

ee and the conquest of many of the cities of Palestine, is proved by the

inscription of Karnak.t The name and the importance of Omri are pro-
claimed by the inscriptions of Assyria, which also tell of the defeat of
iE Ahab of Jezreel” by the Assyrian armies, of the defeat of Azariah, and the

ee of Samaria and Damascus by Tiglath Pileser.t And, to pass by
later matters and points of ‘es moment, the recently discovered Moabite
stone bears its silent but most striking witness to. the conquest of Moab by
Omri, and its oppression by him, a a by his son and successor, for forty
years,§ and to the successful rebellion of Moab against Israel,|| and also
mentions Dies name Mesha, Omri, Chemosh, and Jehovah. In the face of
such remarkable and minute corroborations of the statements of our historian,
and in the absence of any well-founded instances of misstatement on his
part, and, indeed, of any solid grounds for impeaching his historical accuracy,
it would be the very wantonness of criticism to deny the credibility and
truthfulness of these records.

VIII. Crrononoey.

There is one particular, however, in which our text, as it now stands, is
open to some ae 4 that is the matter of dates. Some of these, it

* See note on ch. v. 6. T See note on ch. xiv. 25,
} See notes on 2 Kings xvi. 7—16,
§ See note on 2 Kings i. 1, and iii. 4, 5,

[| See note on 2 Kings iii, 8THE BOOKS OF THE KINGS. XV

 

would appear, have been accidentally altered in the course of transcription
—a result which need cause us no surprise, if we remember that anciently
numbers were represented by letters, and that the Assyrian, or square
characters, in which the Scriptures of the Old Testament have been handed
down to us, are extremely liable to be confounded. The reader will see at a
glance that the difference between 3 and 3 (which represent respectively
two and twenty), between 4 and 1 (fow and two hundred), between mn and
n (eight and four hundred), is extremely slight. But other dates would
appear to have been altered, or inserted—probably from the margin—by
some reviser of the text. We have nothing more than what we find else-
where in Scripture, and even in the text of the New Testament—the marginal
gloss finding its way, almost unconsciously, into the body of the work.* It
will be sufficient to mention here as instances of such imperfect or erroneous
chronologies, 1 Kings vi. 1; xiv. 21; xvi. 23; 2 Kings i. 17 (cf ur. T= xin.
£O (ef. xin. 1) 5 wy. 1 (of. xiv.. 28); xvi. 1 (cf. xv. 30, 33). But this fact,
though it has occasioned no little difficulty to the commentator, in no way
detracts, it need hardly be said, from the value of our history. And it does
this less because these corrections or interpolations are as a rule sufficiently
conspicuous, and because, as has been justly remarked, ‘‘the chief difficulties
oi the chronology aud almost all the actual contradictions disappear, if we
subtract from the work those portions which are generally parenthetic.’’+

TX. Literature.

Amongst the works available for the exposition and illustration of the
text, and to which reference is most frequently made in this Commentary,
are the following :—

1. Commentar iiber der Biicher der Konige. Von Dy. Karl Fried. Kiel. Moskau, 1846.

2, Biblischer Commentar tiber die prophetischen-Geschichts-biicher des A. T. Dritter
Band: Die Biicher der Konige. Leipzig, 1874. By the same author. Both these works
are accessible to the English reader in translations published by Messrs. Clark of Edin-
burgh (1857 and 1877). I have thought it well to refer to both volumes, as though the
latter, no doubt, represents Keil’s matured judgment, still the former occasionally contains
valuable materials not included in the latter work.

3. Die Biicher der Kinige. Von Dr. Karl C. W. F. Bahr. Bielefeld, 1873. This is one of the
most valuable volumes of Lange’s Theologisch Homiletisches Bibelwerk. It has been trans-
lated, under the editorship of Dr. Philip Schaff, by Dr. Harwood, of New Haven, Conn.
(Edinb., Clark) ; and as the translation, especially in its ‘* Textual and Grammatical”
section, contains additional and occasionally useful matter, I have referred both to it and
to the original.

4, Symbolik des Mosaischen Cultus. By the same author, Heidelberg, 1837. For all
that concerns the Temple and its ritual, this work is indispensable, and though
occasionally somewhat fanciful, is a monument of Bahr’s profound and varied learning.

® Scrivener, “Introduction to New Testament Criticism,” pp. 12, 13.
+ Rawlinson, “ Speaker’s Commentary,” p. 476.XVI NTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF THE KINGS.

 

 

 

5. Die Biicher der Kénige. Von Otto Thenius. Leipzig, 1849. This work, I regret to say,
I only know indirectly. But some proofs of its suggestiveness, and some of its destructive
tendencies, will be found in the Exposition.

6. Holy Bible with Commentary. (“ Speaker’s Commentary.”) The 300ks of Kings,
London, 1872. This, though perhaps somewhat meagre
ly rich, as might be expected from the
IT have also occasionally cited

by the Rey. Canon Rawlinson.
in its textual criticism and exegesis, is especial
well-known learning of its author, in historical references.
his ‘Historical Illustrations of the Old Testament” (8. P. C. K.), and his ‘“ Bampton
Lectures.”

7. The History of Israel. By Heinrich Ewald. English Translation. London, 1878.
Vols. III. and IV.

8. Syntax of the Hebrew Language. By the same author. London, 1879. The citations
from this latter work are distinguished from those from the ‘‘ History of Israel’? by the
sectional number and letter, thus: 280 0.

9. The Holy Bible. Vol. III. By Bishop Wordsworth. Oxford, 1877. The great
feature of this commentary, it is hardly necessary to say, in addition to the patristie
learning which it reveals, and the piety which breathes through it, is the moral and
spiritual teaching which the author never fails to draw from the text. There is perhaps a
tendency to over-spiritualize, and I have been unable to follow the writer in many of hig
mystical interpretations.

10. Lectures on the Jewish Church. Vol. II. By Dean Stanley. London, 1865.
Though differing repeatedly and very widely from his conclusions, I am very sensible of
the great charm of picturesqueness and the graphic power which marks everything that
this highly gifted author touches.

11. Sinai and Palestine. By the same. Fifth Edition. London, 1858.

12. Biblical Researches in the Holy Land. By the Rey. Dr. Robinson. 3 vols. London,
1856.

13. Handbook for Travellers in Syria and Palestine. By the Rey. J. L. Porter. London,
Murray, 1858.

14. The Land and the Book. By the Rev. Dr. Thomson. 2 vols. London, 1859

15. Tent-work in Palestine. By Lieut. Conder, R.E. This is by far the most readable
and valuable work which the recent Exploration of Palestine has produced. New Edition,
London, 1880.

16. Handbook to the Bible. By F. BR. Conder and C. R. Conder, R.E. London, 1879.
This is cited as ‘* Conder, Handbook.” ‘ Conder” alone always refers to the ‘* Tent-work.”

17. Narrative of a Journey through Syria and Palestine. By Lieut. C. W. M. Van de
Velde. 2-vols. Edinburgh and London, 1854.

18. Contemplations on the Historical Passages of the Old Testament. By Bishop Hall.
BVO. Dob. C.K,

19. Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians. By Sir J. Gardner Wilkinson,
New Edition. London, 1880.

20. Elias der Thisbiter. Von F. W. Krummacher. Elberfeld, 1835,

21. Gesenit Thesaurus Philologicus Criticus Linguae Hebraeae Veteris Testamentte
Lipsiae, 1835.

22. Gesenius’s Hebrew Grammar. Fourteenth Edition, enlarged and improved by LE.
Roediger. London, 1840.BOOK OF

TEE TR eT
THE KINGS.

    
  
 

EXPOSITION

CHAPTER I.

JHE REVOLT OF ADONIJAH AND THE ACCES-
SION 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 (ch. ii). 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 in-
troduces 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 Chron, xxix. 29;
2 Chron. ix. 29). The date of these events
is B.c. 1015.

Ver. 1.—Now [Heb. and, but ‘‘now”’
more nearly expresses the import of the
original, for } has here little or no connect-

1 KINGS.

 

ing force. It is commonly found at the be-
ginning of a book (as in Exod., Levit., Josh.,
Judges, 2 Sam., Ruth, &c.), and that where
there is no connection whatever with any
earlier writing (as in Esther, Ezek., Jonah,
&e.) It can hardly imply, therefore, ‘‘ that
the historian regards his work as a con-
tinuation of a preceding history’’ (Rawlin-
son), nor is there any need to suppose that
it ‘* has been taken from a writing contain-
ing the earlier history of David.” Keil]
{ing [Heb. the king. The frequent use of
this title, ‘‘ King David,” ‘‘ King Solomon,”’
‘‘King Asa,’ &c., is characteristic of our
author. The expression is not unknown in
2 Sam., but it occurs so rarely as to con-
stitute a distinction (not a link, as Words-
worth) between that book and the Kings. ]

avid was old [yet 2 Sam. v. 4, 5, shows
that he cannot have been more than seventy.
(He was thirty at his accession; his reign
at Hebron lasted seven years and ahalf; 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 [Heb.
gone, i.e., advanced] in years. [A common
expression, only found with {?} as in Gen.
KVili. 11 ; xxiv. 1; Josh: x11, &e.|] And
they covered him with clothes [lit. cover-
ings. ‘112 is used of any covering, whether
of the person (Gen. xxxix.12; 1 Kings eae
10), or the bed (1 Sam. xix. 13), or even a
table (Num. iy. 6). Indeed, the outer gar-
ment was used, at least by the poor, for a
covering at night (Exod. xxii. 27). The
context (ver. 47) shows that bedclothes are

BTHE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

   

cH. 1. 1—538.

 

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 pre-
maturely. Possibly he was also afflicted
with disease. |

Ver. 2.—Wherefore [Heb. and] his ser-
vants [according to Josephus (Antiq. vil. 14,
3), his physicians] said unto him, Let there
be sought [lit.as marg., ‘let them seek’’]
for my lord the king [the singular pro-
noun 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 recom-
mended as a nurse, they would naturally
suppose she might be taken as a concubine]
and let her stand before the king [?.e., as
servant (ver. 4). Cf. ch. xii. 6, 8; Gen.
xli. 46; Dan. 1. 5; Deut. i. 38 (with Josh.
i. 1) 1 Kings x. 8. In the East, servants
still stand and wait their masters’ plea-
sure. Cf. 2 Kings v. 25], and let her cherish
him [So also the LXX., nai éorat atdroy
Oarrovoa. But Gesenius, al. ‘be a com-
panion to him’’] and let her lie in thy [or
‘‘ his,” LXX. avrov, Vulg. suo] bosom [the
expression is generally, but not invariably
(see 1 Kings iii. 20; Ruth iv. 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 (‘*Calor a corpore
juvenili ac sano 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-
barossa (Bahr). It is stated by Roberts
that it is still largely followed in the Kast. |

Ver. 3.—80 [Heb. and] they sought (cf.
Esth. ii. 2), for a fair [this word points to
the same conclusion as “ virgin” in ver, 2 |
damsel throughout all the coasts Gay
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 com-
mon in the Kast. We have, é.g., Ab-salom
in ver. 6, and Abi-athar in ver. 7] a (Heb.
the| Shunammite [Shunem, a town of
Issachar (Josh. xix. 18), now called Sdlam,
“a flourishing village encompassed by gar-
dens” (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 Esdrae-
lon, Another Shunammite appears in the
sacred history (2 Kings iy. 8) ] and brought
her to the king,

 

Ver. 4.—And the damsel was very fair
[lit., fair to exceeding | and cherished [see on
ver. 2] the king, and ministered to him;
put the king knew her not. [This is men-
tioned to explain the history of chap. i.
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 (Levit. xu. 8),
but abhorrent to all true Israelices (ef.
1 Cor. v. 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—Adoni-
jah found his point @appui for a second
attempt on the throne. The older expositorg
and some of the modern, notably Words-
worth, assume that Abishag was David’s
wife, in the sense of being legally married
to him. (Corn. 4 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, conse-
quently, that “the Jewish law allowed
polygamy ” (Rawlinson),

Ver. 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 Chron.
ii. 1), Davic’s second son, died in infancy,
For Amnou ~ death, see 2 Sam. xiii. 29;
for Absalom’s, ibid. xviii. 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 him-
self, saying [to himself and his confederates],
I will be king. ([Itis not difficult to trace
this resolve to its sources. They were (1)
his seniority (ch. ii. 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 fa:t 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 Chron. xxi, 3). (2)
His personal attractions. Adonijah woul
think that his beauty and stature (Josephus
mentions the latter) marked him out, as
similar gifts had done Saul (1 Sam. ix. 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 yer. 7). (4) PossiblycH. I. 1—53.]

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS: 3

 

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 [Heb.
made | him chariots and horsemen [rather
horses, a8 in 1 Sam. viii. 11; 1 Kings v. 6,
Heb. 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 Sam.
xv. 1). Adonijah seems in every way to
have imitated Absalom. Josephus says he
resembled him in disposition. Chariots,
horses, and outrunners arementioned(1 Sam.
viii. 11) as the very first of the king’s in-
signia, Horses were such natural and
familiar tokens of royal state (not being
employed in agriculture or for travelling),
that the Hebrew kings were warned (Deut.
xvii. 16) against multiplying them. Out-
runners again, such as the Roman emperors
had (called by them cursores), and such as we
find at the present day in Egypt, foot-men
who precede the chariot at full speed, and
by their shrill cries clear the way, are ad-
mirably calculated to impress the public
mind. According to Morier, “runners
before the king’s horse in Persia are indis-
pensable to the royal state.” Adonijah
hoped by this display of regal pomp to win
the suffrages of the people. ]

Ver. 6.—And his father had not dis-
pleased [or pained, afflicted. The LXX.
has dazexw\ucev] him at any time (Heb.
from his days, i.e., all his days, LXX. ovdé-
wore, Vulg. a diebus ejus. Sein Lebtage
(Bir): Some (Seb. Schmidt, e.g.) would
understand ‘‘ since the days of his ambition
and display’’] in saying, Why hast thou
done so? and healso {i.¢., healso, as well as
Absalom, mentioned presently; or, possibly,
he as well as Abishag just mentioned.
Bihr’s rendering, ‘‘ Und dazu war er sehr
schon,” &e. ‘* And moreover he” was, &¢.
will not stand] was a very goodly man ez.
2 Sam. xiv. 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,” m2. There is no
need, with Thenius, to read, 12) genutt, or
with others, 7210. We have a similar
ellipsis in Num, xxvi. 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. ch. ii. 25)] bare him

after Absalom. :
Ver. 7.—And he conferred Heb. ‘his

 

 

ote "2 Sam. tii. 17, Heb. )] 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 suc-
cessor trained, as Solomon had been, under
Dayid’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 preca-
rious 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 sou.
And there may have been other circum-
stances (such, e.g., as close personal friend-
ship), of which we know nothing] the son
of Zeruiah, and with Abiathar [in 2 Sam.
vill. 17, we read that ‘‘ Ahimelech son of
Abiathar”’ was priest. Similarly, 1 Chron.
xxly. 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 Sam.
xxli. 18), and strengthened by the many
afflictions which they had shared in com-
mon (ibid. ver. 23 toch. Xxvili.; 2 Sam. xv,
2429), that he should have joined in a
plot to defeat David’s cherished hopes and
plans—plans, too, which ke must surely
have known, had the sanction of religion
(1 Chron. xxviii. 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 asso-
ciated with him in the priesthood, who is
generally mentioned first (2 Sam. Vie Le
xv. 29, 35, 36; xx. 25), as if he were the
more important and influential, and whose
advancement, after the prophecy of 1 Sam.
ii, 3336, 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 exclu-
sively, as the reward of his allegiance}: and
they following Adonijah helped him (lit., as
marg., ‘ helped after Adonijah.” It 1s a
pregnant construction, “ they aided having
followed the side of Adonijah”’ (Gesenius).

Ver. 8.—But Zadok the priest [2 Sam,
viii. 17. It is generally said to be difficult to
explain “‘how Zadok and Abiathar came4 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

both to be ‘priests at this time.” Raw-
linson, who adds that ‘‘the best expla-
nation is that Abiathar was the real high
priest,” officiating in Zion, while Zadok
acted as chief priest at the tabernacle at
Gibeon. (Biabr, by a strange oversight,
assigns to Zadok the care of the ark on
Mount Zion, whereas 1 Chron. xvi. 39,
distinctly connects his ministry with the
tabernacle of witness at Gibeon.) Bui the
precedence (see on ver. 7) generally assigned
to Zadok is hardly consistent with the idea
that Ahiathar 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 xxv. 18, speaks of “ the
chief priest’? and ‘the second priest; ”’
2 Chron. xxxi. 10, of the “ chief priest of
the house of Zadok.’ And a dual priest-
hood would be the more necessary in
David's days, because of the two sanctu-
aries, Zion and Gibeon. We find, however,
from 1 Chron. xv. 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 Chron. xii. 27, ‘‘ the
leader of Aaron” (Heb.), who had certainly
been hich priest in the time of Saul (1 Chron.
xxvii. 5), and who would hardly be degraded
when, with 3700 followers, he joined David
at Hebron. On his decease, or cession of
office, Zadok, who had joined at the same
time with a large coutingent, 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 Chron. xxvii. 5).
Benaiah was consequently a Levite, and of
the family of Aaron; set, however, by
David, because of his prowess (2 Sam. xxiii.
20, 21; 1 Chron. xi. 22) over the body-
guard (2 Sam. villi. 18; 1 Chron. xviii. 17).
Probably he was a near relative of Zadok.},
and Nathan the prophet [a Jewish tradi-
tion makes Nathan the eighth son of Jesse.
He comes before us 2. Sam. vii. 2, 3, 17;
xii. 1—12, 25] and Shimei [by Ewald iden-
tified with Shammah (1 Sam. xvi. 9), or
Shimeah, David’s brother (2 Sam. xiii. 3;
xxi. 21). Others suppose him to be the
Shimei of 1 Kingsiv. 18. But see note on
chap. li. 8. Josephus calls Shimei (not
Kei, as Bahr states) 6 Aavidov ¢itoc], and
Rei [this name occurs here only. Ewald
would identify him with Raddai (1 Chron,

 

    
 
   
   
   
   
  
   
  
   
 
  
  
 
   
  
   
  
 
  
   
   
     
   
   
   
     
  
  
   
   
  
  
   
   
  
  
  
   
  
   
  
   

[cu. 1. 1—53.

 

ii. 14), another brother of David, but on
very slender grounds], and the mighty men
for heroes. Gesen. ‘‘ chieis.” Not the 600
men who formed David’s band in his wan-
derings (1 Sam, xxv. 13; xxvii. 2) (Rawlin-
son), but the 30 (or 37) to whom this name
of Gibborim is expressly given, 2 Sam. xxi,
8; 1 Chron, xi. 15, 25; xxix. 24. Comp.
2 Kings x. 25, Heb.] which belonged to
David [same expression as in 2 Sam. xxi.
8] were not with Adonijah.

Ver. 9,—And Adonijah slew [or sacrificed,
LXX. 2@vciacer. It was a sacrificial feast,
like Absalom’s, 2 Sam. xv. 12 (where see
Spyeaker’s note). Religious festivity, 1.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 [Hcb.
with ; same expression, 2 Sam. xx. 8] the
stone of Zoheleth, [i.e., ‘theserpent’ (Gesen.)
‘No satisfactory explanation has been given
of this name” (Rawlinson). See Smitn’s
‘‘ Dict. Bible”? sub voe., 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 situa-
tion with respect to the adjoining city
recommended this place as a rendezvous]
which is by En-Rogel [Josh. xv. 73; xXvill.
16; 2Sam.xvii. 17. Perhaps ‘' the spring
of the spy.” The Chald., Arab., and Syr.
render ‘the spring, of the fuller’’—the
Orientals wash clothes, &c., by treading
(rogel) them. Josephus says it was without
the city, in theroyal garden (év Bacup Tapa-
dciow). 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. ii. p. 528; and Mr. Grove’s Art.
in Smith’s ‘‘ Dict. Bib.”” Porter (‘‘ Hand-
book of Palestine ’’) identifies Hn-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 calied 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
Chron. ui. 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
bemmg members of his own tribe” (Keil).
The fierce jealousy between Ephraim and
Judah would almost compel the king to
surround himself with soldiers and attend-
ants of the latter tribe. Some of the invited
guests, no doubt, hke Absalom’s two hun-cH. 1. 1—53.]

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 5

 

dred, ‘‘ went in their simplicity and knew
not anything ” (2 Sam. xv. 11).

Ver. 10.—Bui 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 (ver. 13) of his
father can hardly have been unknown to
him. The name “Jedidiah,” too, bestowed
upon Solomon by Nathan (2 Sam. xii. 25),
taken in connexion with the prophecy of
Nathan (ibid. vii. 12; ef. 1 Chron. xxii. 9,
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 haying recorded Adonijah’s
preparations for a coup détat, 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 succes-
sion (1 Chron. xxii. 9, 10), takes prompt and
energetic measures to defeat the conspiracy.

Ver. 11.—Wherefore Nathan spake unto
Bathsheba the mother of Solomon [the per-
son after Solomon most directly concerned
and also best fitted to approach the king]
saying, Hast thou not heard that Adonijah
the son of Haggith [possibly there is a touch
of worldly wisdom here, as Rawlinson sug-
gests, ‘‘ Hageith, thy rival.” We may be
sure David’s harem was not without its fierce
jealousies. But (see ver. 5, and ch. il. 13)
the patronymic is so common in Heb. that
we cannot safely found an argument upon it,
See on chap. ii. 5] doth reign [Heb. did
reign. ULXX. &Baottevoey, aor. = “ suc-
ceeded.” ‘* Schon so gut wie Konig geworden
ist.” Bahr and Keil] and David our Lord
knoweth it not.

Ver. 12.—Now therefore come, let me
give [Heb. counsel] thee counsel, that thou
mayest save [Heb. and save, i.e., by acting
upon it} thine own life, and the life of thy
son Solomon. ‘The custom of Hastern
kings—to secure their thrones by a massacre
of their rivals—has received many illustra-
tions, notably among the Ottomans, and is
receiving one in Burmah at the present
moment (May, 1879). We have Scripture
instances in Judges ix. 5; 1 Kings xv. 29;
2 Kings x. 7,14; xi. 1 (ef. 1 Sam. xxiv. 21).
To put a royal mother to death, along with
her offspring, though perhaps unusual, was
notunknown. 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.

Ver. 13.—Go and get thee in [Heb. come]
unto king David, and say unto him, Didst
not thou, my lord, 0 king, swear unto thine
handmaid [this oath of David’s to Bathsheba
(see vers. 17, 30) is not elsewhere recorded,
but it was evidently well known to Nathan,
and probably, therefore, to others also|
saying, Assuredly [Heb. that, ‘3, recitantis]|
Solomon thy son shall reign after me, and
he [emphatic] shall sit upon my throne?
why therefore doth Adonijah reign ?

Ver. 14.—Behold, while thou yet talkest
there [the original is more graphic, ‘‘thou
art yet talking . . . and 1”] with the king,
I also will come after thee and confirm
[marg., ‘‘ fill up,” cf. rAnowow, LXX. Stillan
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 ch. ii. 27; viii. 15, 24)
thy words.

Ver. 15.—And Bathsheba went in unto
the king into the chamber ([lit., inner cham-
ber, O@a\apoc, cubiculum penetrale, Buxtorf.
Same word 2 Sam. iv. 7; xiii. 10] and the
king was very old [the repetition (see ver. 1)
is not idle or unmeaning. Here the word
refers to feebleness rather than age. It is
mentioned to explain Davyid’s confinement
to his chamber] and Abishag the Shunam-
mite ministered unto the king. [This is
introduced to show the king’s helplessness.
It does not prove that ‘there was a dis-
interested witness present” (Rawlinson), for
she may have withdrawn, as Bathsheba did
presently (ver. 23), and Nathan (ver. 32).
It is a graphic touch, painted probably from
the life, and by the hand of Nathan, from
whom this narrative is derived.

Ver. 16.—And Bathsheba bowed, and did
obeisance [cf. 2 Sam. xiv. 4. But we are
hardly justified in seeing here ‘‘ more than
the ordinary Eastern salutation ” (Rawlin-
son). The Jewish court seems to have been
very ceremonious and stately (1 Sam. xxiy.
8; 2 Sam. xix. 24). The king was the repre-
sentative 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.

Ver. 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.

Ver. 18.— And now, bebold, Adonijah6 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

reigneta ; and now my Lord the king, thou

knowest 7¢ not.

Ver. 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 servans 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. ]

Ver. 20.—And thou [instead of NAN}, the
Chald., Syr.,and Vulg., with many MSS. read
nA) “and now;” but this looks like an
emendation, and “ proclivi lectioni pre-
stat ardua.” Similarly, the second ‘‘ now”
in yer. 18 appears as ‘‘ thou” in 200 MSS.
These variations are of very little conse-
quence, but the received text, in both cases,
is somewhat the more spirited] my lord, 0
king [the repetition (see vers. 18, 21, 24,
27) illustrates the profound deference and
court paid to the Hebrew monarch (see on
ver. 16), especially when we remember that
these are the words of a wife], the eyes of all
Israel are upon thee (cf. ch. 11.15) that thou
shouldest tell them who shail sit on the
throne of my lord the king after him.
This shows that there was no “right
of primogeniture.” The kings of the Kast
have always designated their successor
amongst their sons. ‘‘Alyattes desig-
nated Croesus; Cyrus designated Cam-
byses, and Darius designated Xerxes”
(Rawlinson). ‘* The Shah of Persia, at the
beginning of this century, had sixty sons,
all brought up by their mothers, with the
hope of succeeding” (Morier, quoted by
Stanley). And the kings of Israel claimed
and exercised a similar right (2 Chron. xi. 22:
Eis).

Ver. 21.—Otherwise {there is no corre-
sponding word in the Heb.]} it shall come to
pass, when my lord the king shall sleep
(strictly, ‘‘ lie down :” see on ch. 1.10] with
his fathers [this phrase,.so common in the
books of Kings and Chronicles, only occurs
‘once in the Pentateuch (Deut. xxxi. 16)
and once in the historical books before
Kings” (Rawlinson). It was evidently the
produet of an age when the nation was set-
tied, and men had their family sepulchres]
that ITand my son Solomon shall be counted
(Heb. be] ofenders [Heb. as marg., sinners.
Ihe primary meaning of NM 1s “to miss the
mark.” Like awapravew, it came to be used
of all err-ing and transgression. Bathsheba
and Solomon would be obnoxious to Adoni-
jah, as representing a rival cause; possibly
also as guilty of high treason (Clericus,
Bahr, al.)

 

 

 

      

fou. 1. 1—53.

 

Ver. 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
(ver. 23). Observe, Nathan’s words convey
no suggestio falst. He does not deny a pre-
vious interview with Bathsheba, nor does he
confess it. If there is an appearance of arti-
fice, there was no intention to deceive. And
the artifice, such as it was, was not. only
harmless, but for the public good.

Ver. 22.—And they told the king, say-
ing, Behold Nathan the prophet [we are
scarcely justified in seeing in this “ solemn
announcement of his approach” an “ indi-
cation 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 ” (vers. 10, 22, 84, 38, &e.
Cf. 2 Sam. vii. 2; xii. 25]. And when he
was come in before [Heb. and he came before
—three words instead of six] the king, he
powed himself before the king with his
face to the ground [see on vers. 16, 20;
and cf. ver. 81, 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 pro-
found reverence on the part of Nathan is
the more remarkable, when we remember
how he had once denounced David to his
face (2 Sam. xii. 7)].

Ver. 24.—And Nathan said, My Lord, 0
king, hast thou said [the Heb. has no
question, but a strong affirmation: ‘thou
hast said,” i.e., ‘thou must have said (Du
hast wohl gesagt.” Bahr). Nathan puts it
thus forcibly, in order to draw from the king
a disclaimer], Adonijah shall reign afier
me, and he shall sit upon my throne?
[Same words as in vers. 13, 17, and possibly
designedly so. The coincidence conveys the
meaning, “ Thou hast sworn Solomon shall
reign,” &c. ‘Thou hast said, Adonijah shall
reign,” &c, |

Ver. 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 assuines
that Adonijah cannot have done all this
without. David’s knowledge and sanction,
because ‘‘his father had not displeased
him at any time” (ver. 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 ver. 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 cap-
tain (ver. 19). The plural shows that otheron. 1 t5s

 

  
  

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 7

 

high officers had followed his lead. «< Under
the captains of the host (ver. 25), the ser-
vants of the king (ver.10) are included”
(Bahr). Bihr’s accidental miscitation (ver,
10 for ver. 9) has apparently led his American
translator (p. 24) to the serious mistake of
identifying these ‘‘ captains of the host” with
“the mighty men” (Gibborim) of ver. 10,
who, it is distinctly said, ‘* were not with
Adonijah} and Abiathar the priest, and
behold, they eat and drink before him [con-
vivia apta conjurationibus. Grotiusjand say,
God save king Adonijah. [Heb. ‘let the
king (not ‘‘ king,” as marg.) Adonijah live,”
or better, ‘‘live the king,’ &. (comp.
the vivat rex, and the vives and vivas of
later days.) This was the customary ac-
clamation wherewith the Jews greeted their
kings (cf. ver. 39; 1 Sam. x. 24; 2 Sam.
xvi 163 2 Kines xi. 12+ 2 Chron, xii:
1B},

Ver. 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 con-
cerned in the appointment of a successor
2 Sam. vii. 13] and Zadok the priest, and
Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, and thy ser-
vant Solomon [Bahr 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.

Ver, 27.—Isthis thing done [ON =an, or
perhaps, num, ‘‘Isit then the case that,” &c. ]
by [lit., from with} my lord the king [i.e.,
with his privity and by his appointment],
and thou hast not shewed it unto thy servant
(Heb. ‘‘ made thy servant know.” Nathan
submits that he has a strong claim (2 Sam.
Xli. 25) to be informed, should there be any
change in the king’s plans}, who should sit
upon tke throne of my lord the king after
him ? {Same expression as in ver. 20. The
repetition was well calculated to impress
upon the king the importance of nominating
a successor at once.

Ver. 28.—Then king David [see on ver. 1]
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 pro-
priety, inasmuch as in audiences granted
by the king to his wife or one of his coun-
sellors, 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,

Ver. 29.—And the king sware [see on
ver. 51] and said, As the Lord liveth [or
“by the life of Jehovah.” Cf. ‘“by the
life of Pharaoh” (Gen. xlii. 15), This was the
common form of oath. See, 6.94 CHa, 2»
Judges vill. 19; Ruth iii. 13; 1 Sam. xiv.
oD; xix. 6; xx. 21; xxix, 6: and especially
Jer. IVs 22 Va BON, c Iv, fb... lh 18, Glin
racteristic 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 Sam. iv. 9. Similar expressions are found
in Psa. xxv. 22, and xxxiv. 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 commemo.
rates it, converting every adjuration into
an act of thanksgiving. Similarly, Jacob
(Gen. xlviii. 16.)

Ver. 30.—Even as I sware unto thee by
the Lord God of Israel, saying, Assuredly
(Heb. °3 that, often prefixed to the oratio
directa ; not lending any emphasis (=immo),
as Keil says the first and third 'D of this
verse do, but in English simply redundant.
See on vers. 13, 17} Solomon thy son shall
reign after me, and he shall sit upon my
throne [same words as in vers. 13, 17, 24.
These close repetitions are the habit of the
East) in my stead, even so [Heb. that so]
will I (certainly [not in Heb.] do this day.

Ver, 31.—Then Bathsheba bowed with
her face to the earth, and did reverence
to the king [see on vers. 16, 23], and
said, Let my lord king David live for
ever. [This hyperbolical expression is here
only used of a Hebrew monarch. It was
constantly addressed to the Babylonian and
Persian kings. See Dan, ii. 4; 11, 9; y. 10;
vi. 21; Nehem. ii. 3.

Ver. 32.—And king David said [this
prompt and vigorous action shows that
David’s force of character and mental power
were unimpaired}, Call me Zadok the priest,
and Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah the
son of Jehoiada. [‘‘ the order of the names
marks the position of the persons with
respect to the matter in hand.” Rawlinson].
And they came before the king.

Ver. 33.—The king also said [Heb.
‘‘ And the king said,’’ which is everyway
preferable. The ‘‘also” is somewhat con-
fusing], Take with you the servants [1.c.,
the Cherethites and Pelethites, ver. 38] of
your lord, [Heb. lords; probably a pluralis
majestatis (cf Gen. xxxix. 2; xlii. 30;
2 Kings ii. 8, 5, 16), suggested to David by
the usus loguendi of the court. This ex-8 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

    

[cHu. 1. 1—58,

 

 

 

———,

 

pression seems at first a strange periphrasis
for ‘my servants.” But David naturally
adopts ‘the language those around him
were always using. See ver. 43; also2 Sam.
xi. 11,andxx.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 v. 10, Heb.)
“whichis mine.” ‘’his wasnot merely amark
of honour (cf. Gen. xli. 43 ; Ksth. V1. 8, 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). T3, the fem. form is only
found here and in vers. 38, 44. The mule
would seem to have been a recent importa-
‘ion into Palestine—we never read of them
sefore the time of David—and the Israelites
re forbidden to breed them (Levit. xix.
ly). Their use, consequently, was naturally
r.,.tricted to royal or distinguished person-
agos (2 Sam. xiil. 29). Wordsworth sees in
t:e word a proof that David had not dis-
ckeyed 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 Bahr and Keil, as well as by
some geographers) is that it was in the
yalley of the Son of Hinnom, a part of
which still bears. the name of Gihon, 7.e., to
the west. of Jerusalem, and not far from the
Jaffa gate. By many indeed the present
Birket-es-Suliam is identified with the
Lower Pool of Gihon. But others (Fergu-
son, Rawlinson, &c.) see in it the ancient
name of the Tyropron. Seripture does
not speak of it as a spring, though the
‘“source of the waters of Gihon”’ is men-
tioned 2 Chron, xxxii. 830, Heb. The text
shows that it was below the city (‘‘ bring
him down upon Gihon,” ver. 33. Cf. also
ver. 40). 2 Chron. xxxili. 14, speaks of
‘‘ Gihon in the valley,” where it is very
noticeable that the word used is Nachal
(i.e. Wady, watercourse). But this ‘isthe
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 men-
tions Gihon in connection with Ophel, which
lies south-east of Jerusalem. The Chald.,
Arab., and Syr. are probably right, there-
fore, 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 pur-
pose—of a counter demoustration—and
that whether En-Rogelis 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 tle
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 if was not
a holy place—but purely asa demonstration
to the populace, and to checkmate the con-
spirators. It was probably a public place,
and would accommodate a large concourse
(Poole).

Ver. 34.—And let Zadok the priest and
Nathan the prophet [Bahr sees in the fact
that Nathan was associated with Zadok in
the anointing, ‘‘the high significance
David attributed to the prophetie office in
Israel’? But the prophets constantly per-
formed this eeremony. Samuel anointed
both Saul and David; Elishaanointed Jehu
(2 Kings ix. 1), and was commissioned to
anoint Hazael (1 Kings xix. 15, 16) ] anoint
him [the king, being a sacred personage,
was set apart to the office, like the priest
and prophef, by anointing. Saul was
probably anointed twice (1 Sam. x. 1; xi.
15, Cf xii. 8). David was anointed
thrice (1 Sam. xvi. 13; 2 Sam. ii. 4; v. 3.
Solomon was anointed twice (ver. 39; 1 Chron.
xxix, 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 ix. 6), Joash (ibid. xi. 12),
and Jehoahaz (ibid. xxiii. 80), 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 inordinary cases Itseems
hardly likely, too, that any king would
readily dispense with an ordinanee which
would so much strengthen his title] thcre
king over Israel: and blow ye with the
trumpet [the sound of the trumpet would
almost seem to have been a necessary ac-
companiment, of coronations, or the procla-
mation of a new king. See 2 Sam. xv. 10;
2 Kings ix. 13; xi. 14], and say, God save
king Solomon. [See on ver. 25.]

Ver, 35,—Then ye shall come up (after
him [not in the LXX. Cod, Vat.] that he
may [Heb, and he shall} come and sit upon
my theene [in cvery possible way his acces-
sion was to be proclaimed and confirmed],
for he shall be king in my stead [David i,e,,cH. 1. 1—53.]

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

virtually abdicates in Solomon’s favour, Cf.
vers. 46,51, 53; 1 Chron. xxix. 23, 26], and
I have appointed him [he and him are em-
phasised in the original] to be ruler over
Israel and over Judah. It is possible, as
Bahr thinks, that Israel and Judah were
severally mentioned because David had
once been king over Judah only, and be-
ause Israel had gone over to the side of
Absalom. It is more probable, however,
that ‘Israel and Judah” was even then the
current designation of the two component
parts of the realm (see 2 Sam. ii. 9,10; xix.
11, 41, &c.). Besides, we can hardly sup-
pose 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.

Ver.36.—And Benaiah the son of Johoiada
[probably he spoke, not because the execu-
tion of the order depended upon him
(Bahr); 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] vered the king and
said, Amen: the Lord God [lit., ‘‘ Jehovah,
he God,” &c.] of my lord the king say so
too.

Ver. 37.—As the Lord hath been with my
fora the kine [cf. 1 Sam. xx. 13. ‘This
phrase expresses a very high degree of the
Divine favour” (Rawlinson). See Gen. xxvi.
eo xeviie 15s xxix. 3, 21% Bxodsni 12;
Josh. i. 5; 1 Chron. xxii. 11, &c.], even so
be he with Solomon, and make his throne
greater than the throne of my lord
king David. [This was said from a fall
and honest heart, not to flatter David’s
vanity (Thenius). It is thoroughly charac-
teristic of the man so far as we know him.
And the prayer was fulfilled (ch. i. 11,12). |

Ver. 38.—So Zadok the priest, and Nathan
the prophet, and Benaiah the son of Je-
hoiada, and the Cherethites, and the Pele-
thites [these were the royal body-guard
—Swparogdtdaxec Josephus calls them—who
were commanded by Benaiah (2 Sam. vi.
18; xv. 18; xx. 23; xxiii. 23). 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 Sam.
xxx. 14, (Cf. Ezek. xxv. 16; Zeph. die 5),
and in close connexion with the Philistines
(ver. 16). Hence Cherethite has been
thought to be another name for Philistine :
and as the LXX. and Syr. render the woru
‘“Cretans,” it has been conjectured that the
Philistines had their origin from Crete.

eee
ails

 

 

 

They did come from Caphtor, and that ig
probably Crete (see Gen. x. 14; Jer. xlvii,
4; Amos ix. 7; Deut. ii, 23). mba»
avain, is not unlike WB. In favour of
this view is the fact that David certainly
had a body-guard of foreign mercenaries (2
Sam, xy. 18, where the “ Gittites” are
connected with the Cherethites), Nor does
it make against it that ‘‘two designatious ”
would thus ‘‘ be employed side by side for
one and the same people ’’—as if we should
speak of Britons and Englishmen (Bahr).
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 319), cut, slay; and by Chere-
thites he would understand ‘‘ executioners,”
which the royal body-guard were in ancient
despotisms (Gen. xxxix.1, Heb.; Dan. u.
14, &. See on ch. ii, 25). In the Pele-
thites (N22; swiftness) he would see the
public couriers (éyyaoor) of Eastern mon-
archies (see Herod. villi. 98 and 2 Chron.
xxx. 6). We see the guard discharging the
function first named in 2 Kings x. 25; x1.
4,8; and the latter in 1 Kings xiv. 27
(marg.)| went down [i.c., from the palace on
Mount Zion] and caused Solomon to ride
upon King David’s mule, brought him
to [2Y. cf. ii. 26] Gihon [Chald., Syr., Arab.,
Shiloha].

Ver. 39.—And Zadok the priest took an
horn of oil [Heb. the oil. The ‘holy avoint-
ing oil,” Exod. xxx. 25, 31, compounded as
directed in vers. 23-25, was evidently part
of the furniture of the tabernacle (Exod.
xxxi. 11; xxxix. 38). Eleazer was charged
with its preservation (Num. iv. 16), and the

Rabbins say it lasted till the captivity] out
of the tabernacle [the tabernacle on Mount
Zion, containing the ark (2 Sam. as whips th
Chron. xv. 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, es-
pecially in the king’s name} and anointed
Solomon. And they blew the trumpet [cf.
2 Sam. xv. 10; 2 Kings ix.15; xi. 14}; and
all the people said, God save king Solomon,
[Notice the exact fulfilment of the threefold
charge of ver. 34 and its esult. Solomon
was confirmed in his office by the suffrages
of the people. |

Ver. 40.—And all the people came up after

a

 

7

is
alu10 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

      

[cu. 1. 1—53.

 

 

him fsame expression as ver, 35. The pro-
cession, the sound of the trumpets, &c., 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
(Isa. v. 12; xxx. 29, Cf. 1 Sam. x. 5), and
also of mourning (Jer. xlvili. 36; Matt. 1x.
23), It is true that a very slight change

(Dyna Bb) 22M) instead of DY? 773 D227!)
will give the meaning, ‘‘daucing 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,” &e, Lcsides, even if it were
not so, some allowance is surely to be made
for Kastern hyperbole. And the received
text is to be preferred on other grounds,
The LXX., however, has tydpsvov tv yoootc],
and rojoiced with great joy [Heb. ‘‘ were
rejoicing a great jov”], and the earth rent
[this is certainly a strangly hyperbolical
expression. For YP strictly means to
cleave asunder, tear open (see, e.g., Num.
X¥il. ol? Amos 3. 13:2 Chron, xxv. 12).
And Thenius suggests a slight emendation
of the text, viz., YPAN) (t.e., ‘‘ resounded”’)
for PPA} which would obviate this diffi-
culty. He points out that while the LXX.
Cod. Vat. has éopayn, some versions have
nxynsev, and the Vulg. insonuit. But per-
haps it is safer to keep to the lectio ardua]
with the sound of them [Heb. ‘‘ with their
voices ’’].

Ver, 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.”
fiawlinson] as they had made an end{ Heb.
“andthey had finished” | ofeating, And when
Joab heard the sound of the trumpet [the
original almost iniplies that Joab’s practised
ear was the first to catch the note of the
trumpet. He seems tc have been the first
to suspect its significance, , he said, Where-
fore is this noise of the city being in an
uproar? [More exactly, ‘‘in commotion.”
Md, an onomatopoetie word, like our
English “hum.” We speak of the “ hum
of the city,” ‘the buzz of business,” &e, |

Ver, 42.—And while he yet spake, be-
hold, Jonathan the son of Abiathar the
priest (Cf. 2 Sam. xv. 86; xvii. 17. His
experience had marked him out for the post
of watchman} came [That he had not
arrived before shows how prompt, and even
hurried, had been the measures taken by

 

Solomon’s party] and Adonijah said unto
him!Heb. aud LXX. omit “unto him” } Come
in (Heb. come. See on ver. 22. ‘Come
in” susgests 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 Balhhr—of course by an oversight—
says) who speaks thus, Perhaps “ able,”
“hone st,”? or ‘* worthy man” (cl. ver. 52 ;
same word in Heb.; also Prov. xu. 4) would
be nearer the mark. ‘ Valiant” is clearly
out of place] and bringest good tidings. [A
similar expression 2 Sam. xvii. 27. It was
evidently a familiar saying. The idea, ‘‘a
good man will bring good news ” corresponds
with that of the proverb of 1 Sam. xxiv. 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 enests.]

Ver. 43.—And Jonathan answered and
said to Adonijah, Verily [Rather, “nay
but,” “on the contrary” (immo vero). See
Gen. xvii, 19, Heb., ‘‘ Nay, but Sarah thy
wife,” &c., and Gesen., Thesaurus, swb voce
Day. This particle has not ‘ always an ob-
jecting force” (Rawlinson)—see Gen. xlii.21,
and especially 2 Sam. xiv. 5; 2 Kings iy. 14
—but only in the later Hebrew, e.g., 2
Chron. xix. 3; xxx. 17] our Lord king
David hath made Solomon king,

Ver, 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 ver.
38]|,and they have caused him to ride upon
the king’s mule.

Ver. 45.—And Zadok the priest and
Nathan the prophet have anointed him
king in Gihon: and they are come up from
thence rejoicing, sothat the city [PIP
same word as in ver. 41. Elsewhere almost
exclusively found in poetry] rang again
(rather, ‘is in commotion.” Same expres-
sion in ver, 41 and Ruth i. 19, where it is
translated, ‘the city was moved”]. This
is the noise {[Heb. voice] that ye have heard.

Ver. 46.—And also [the same two words
are found at the beginning of vers. 47, 48.
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,” éea@ice (LXX.) aorist. See ver. 35]
on the throne of the kingdom [rather, “the
royal throne.” So Gesen. Ail David’s
directions were now fulfilled],

Ver. 47.—And moreover [D3 as before]
the king’s servants [see on ver. 33] came
to bless our lord king David [Jonathan
here refers in all probability to the words
of Benaiah, vers. 36, 87, He does not knowCH. I. 1—53,]

 

the exact particulars, and ascribes to the
“servants” the words of their commander.
Of course it is possible that ‘the body-
guard took up the words of Jehoiada
(Benaiah ?) their captain andrepeated them
with some slight alteration.” tawlinson ]
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 (chap. iii. 12; iv. 21-24),
And the king bowed himself [in worship.
Cf. Gen. xlvii. 31] upon the bed,

Ver. 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 suc-
cessor on the throne. ]

Ver. 49.—And all the guests [Heb. called,
LXX. «dnroi} that were with [Heb. to]
Adonijah were afraid [Heb. trembled] aud
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.]

Ver. 50.—And Adonijah feared because
of Solomon and he arose and went and
caught hold of the horus of the altar. [Cf.
chap. ii. 28. Probably the altar of Mount
Zion, chap. iii. 15; 2 Sam. vi. 17. Though
it is impossible to say positively whether
this or the altar at Gibeon (chap. iii. 4) or
that recently erected on the threshing floor
of Araunah (2 Sam. xxiy. 25) is meant. For
the “ horns,’ see Hixod. xxvil. 2; xxxviii. 2;
and compare xxx. 2. They were of shittim
(i.c., acacia) wood overlaid with brass, and
served a double purpose. Victims were
bound to them (Psa. cxvili. 27), and blood
was put upon them, Exod. xxix. 12. As to
the altar as a place of sanctuary, see on
chap. i. 28. Evidently aright of sanctuary
existed amongst both Jews and Gentiles at
the time of the Exodus, and probably from
time immemorial. It is referred to in Exod.
xx1. 14, but 1t was much circumscribed by
the appointment of the cities of refuge
(Num. xxxy. 10 sqq.) By ‘‘ laying hold of
the horns the offender thereby placed him-
self under the protection of the saving and
helping grace of God” (Bahr, “ Symbolik,”
i. 474)

Ver, 51.—And it was told Solomon, say-
ing, 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

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

 

 

 

  
  
   
    
     
    
    
  
 
   
  
 
 
  
   
  
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
   
  
   
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 

1

young king his new honours. In Adonijah’g
mouth it is also a virtual abdication of hig
claim to the throne and a direct acknow.
ledgment of the new monarch, But see
on vers. 1 and 35.] swear unto me to-day
[Cf. 2 Sam. xix. 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
(Gen. xxii. 16; xxiv. (2 Yecods sya, 16. &e.),
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 conspicu-
ous and important place in the Jewish than
the Christian economy. See Gen. xxi. 23 ;
Xxxl, 23; Num. xiv. 2; xxx. 2; Judges xv.
12; xxi. 1; 1 Sam. xiv. 28; Jer. v. 2, and,
to omit other passages, 1 Kings i. 18; ii. 8,
23, 42. Even our Lord, who rebuked the
habit (Matt. v. 34—87; xxiii. 16—22) re-
spected the adjuration of Caiaphas, and
St. Paul frequently appeals to God (Acts
Revi. 295° 2 Cori. 2o; xi. 3; Pit. 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,”
ver. 5.) with the sword [the usual form of
capital punishment, ch. i. €

 

8, 25, 31, 46.
Adonijah indirectly confesses that he had
merited death].

Ver, 51.—And Solomon said [%.e., he re-
fused to swear], If he will shew himself a
worthy man [OMN}A, cf. 27°WS, ver. 42],
there shall not an hair of him fall to the
earth [i.e., not a single hair shall be injured.
Same expression 1 Sam. xiv. 45; 2 Sam.
xiy. 11; Acts xxvii. 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 (Heb. Nip}, ‘‘then
he shall die,” emphatic. }

Ver. 53.—So King Solomon sent and they
brought him down [The altar was elevated:
probably a slope, not steps (Exod. xx. 26)
led to it] from [Heb. from upon. He was
still clinging toit] the altar. And he came
and bowed himself to king Solomon [i.c.,
made obeisance to him as king. Cf. vers.
16, 23, 31] and Solomon said un:zo him,
Go to thine house. This was not a sen-
tence 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 wm
domum tuam, ibi quiesce et res tuas age, mea
te publicis regni met negotiis imumscec

(Corn. a Lapide).12 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. (cH. 1. 1—63.

 

 

 

HOMILETICS.

Ver. 1.—The chamber of sickness. This opening chapter of 1 Kings ue
duces us into the privacy of a sick room. Stretched upon a couch, coverec
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 re ; Eee
time to time the door opens, and prophet, priest, and warrior enter to Oe us
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 hard-
ships 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 1s 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, 10 1s 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 sick-
ness 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 itis 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 ts 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 renains, as a rule, a dis-
cipline 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. SICKNESS 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, remem-
bering 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.”on, r. 1—53,] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 13

 

 

 

said the King of Terrors; ‘the hour of thy departure is come.”
exclaimed the youth ; ‘“ thou art false to thy word! Thou didst promise to send
me messengers, and I have seen none.” « Silence t ” 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? Hach 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. He was no strancer 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 Lorp Gop. Remove tha
diadem and take off the crown” (Ezek. xxi, 26). But

Il. Sickness 1s Gop’s WAY OF WEANING MEN FROM THR 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 wea
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, SickNEss Is GoD’S DISCIPLINE FOR PARADISE. 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—za0ipara,
paPnuara, ‘ afflictions, instructions.’ But while all affliction is a school, the last
illness should be the finishing school. At the last assay the furnace must be
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 them-
selves. And how necessary is this last discipline David's sick-chamber may teach
us; for he had already had his share of troubles. Fis life had been largely spent
in the school of adversity. ‘In journeyings often, in peril of robbers,” &c. (2 Cor.
xi. 25, 26), these words aptly describe his early career. Aud even since he ascended
the throne, how often has the sword gone through his soul, Amnon, Absalom,
Tamar, Abner, Amasa, what tragedies are connected with these names. Few mien.
have experienced such a long and bitter discipline as he ; and it would aot .
have accomplished its work. If we may judge by some of his later I salms, ne me
contrition, of humility, of devout breathings after God, that sweet and sancti eC
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 nike cee
heart, must go awhile into the gloom and the silence of the sick-room, t He 9 is
made fully ‘‘ meet for the inheritance of the saints in light.” Men often pray Oo
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 pee a
last solemn warning, a final chastening to prepare them for the beatific ee ips
Neapolitans call one of the wards of their hospital L Anvecamera della a on ae
ante-chamber of death. It is thus that we should regard every ‘‘ chamber of sickness.

** How is this?”

 

sqq. with ch. ii. 18 sqq.—Adonyah’s history and tts lessons.
L He ei Me SPOILT hth eas father had not displeased him at any time.”14 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu. 1. 1—53.

 

 

 

 

 

Iness and injustice to a child than over-in-

dulgence. The child is the father of the man. The boy who has er On ne
will certainly want it in after life, and will not get it, to his fown ane BOM : i
and the unhappiness of all around him. He that loveth bis son ‘ ee 1 a n
betimes. David was probably so engrossed with public cares ane ct Les: Gh as
first care, after God—his family—was neglected. How unwise are ines ba S
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. ae of the
first duties a child demands of its parents 1s that it should be coma and
conquered. The will must be broken in youth, The sapling may be ema as 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 them-
selves vile and he restrained them not.” And one sin of David was that he had
not checked and “‘ displeased ” this wilful son. é

IL Hx wis ENDOWED BY NATURE WITH A DANGEROUS PROPERTY. eo also was
a very goodly man.” Gifts of form and feature, much as all admire them, and
much as some covet them, are frequently a snare to their possessor. I erhaps, upon
the whole, personal beauty has oftener proved a curse than blessing. “ Tor the
most part,” says Lord Bacon, “itmaketh a dissolute youth. Oftener still it spoils
the character. The conceit of the Platonists, that a beautiful body loves to have a
beautiful soul to inhabit it,is unhappily not borne out by facts. ae pretty woman,”
it has been said, and it is often true, ‘‘ adores herself” (Kugenie de Guérin). The
natural tendency of this possession is to engender pride, selfishness, conceit,
ambition. A striking exterior has often cost its possessor dear. It did both
Absalom and Adonijah no good. It is worthy of notice that it was David’s
“qvodly” sons conspired against him, and it was his “ faur ’ daughter Tamar was
dishonoured. Adonijah’s face was animportant factor in his history: it contributed
to his ruin. It favoured, perhaps it suggested, his pretensions to the throne. He
thoucht, no doubt, “the first in beauty should be first in might.” Had he been
blessed with an insignificant appearance he would probably have saved his head.
As it was, courted and admired, he thought the fairest woman of her time was
alone a fit maich for him; and pride whispered that a man of such a presence was
marked out for a king, and so urged him to his ruin. Let us teach our children to
covet only “the beauty of the soul.”

Ill. He was CURSED WITH AN INoRDINATE AmpBiTIon. ‘TI will be king.”
‘‘ Cursed,” for it has cursed and blighted many lives. Like the zgnis fatwus, it has
lured men to their destruction. It has been well called ‘‘a deadly tyrant, an
inexorable master.” ‘ Ambition,” says the most eloquent of divines, ‘‘is the most
troublesome and vexatious passion that can afflict the sons of men. It is full of
distractions, it teems with stratagems, and is swelled with expectations as with a
tympany. .. . It is an infinite labour to make a man’s self miserable; he makes
his days full of sorrow to acquire a three years’ reign.” What a striking illustra-
tion of these words. does Adonijah’s history supply. If he could but have been
content to fill the second place he might have lived honoured, happy, and useful.
But ambition soured and then cut short his life. How much of the misery of the
world is caused by despising ‘‘that state of life unto which it has pleased God to
call us” and stretching out after another for which we are not fitted. Adonijah’s
history teaches this lesson—Solomon may have partly drawn it from his life and
death—-‘* Pride goeth before destruction,” &c.

IV. HE STOOPED TO UNWORTHY MEANS TO ATTAIN HIS OBJECT. ‘ Chariots,” “horses,
fifty men to run before him.” It is much like the Roman device, ‘‘ Panem et
circenses.” History repeats itself. But these things were almost innocen’ compared
with the measures he took when these failed. The smooth intrigue of a marriage,
the employment of the king’s mother as his tool, the plausible words, the semblance
of resignation to the Divine will—and all this to overthrow a brother who had
generously spared his life. And all this was the outcome of ambition—ambition
which makes men trample on the living and the dead. Alas! we never know to
what base courses we may be reduced if we once embark in immoral enterprises.

(ch. i. 7). There is no greater unkin¢CH. I. 1—53.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS, 15

ee oe maa
Adonijah’s “I will be king” led to conspiracy,
defiance of a father, of a brother, of God.
Pee ee BUT If WAS: VAIN. (The failure of hig: frst
nsp Y; ject terror which followed, the flig]
clinging to the horns of the altar, the piteous entreaty for life—these things shoul
have been remembered, should have “ changed his hand and checked his ne " ee
more, his brother’s magnaninity, “there shall not an hair of him fall fate e: ths?
or, if not that, his message, “If wickedness be found in him he shall dis ” Al *
of no avail. The passion for empire, like the passion for play, is almost oer
Adonijah was playing for a throne: he staked honour, safety, piety and lost ; Ho
played again—and this time a drawn sword was suspended over i hes 1 f,
staked his life, and lost it. eee
fle He WAS SUDDENLY CUT OFF, AND THAT WITHOUT REMEDY. And this was the
end of the spoiled child, of the “curled darling ;” this the end of his pomp and
circumstance, of his flattery and intrigue, of his steadfast resistance of the will of
heaven—that the sword of the headsman smote him that he died. Instead of the
throne, the tomb ; instead of the sceptre, the sword. Chariots and horses visions
of empire, visions of love—one fell thrust of the steel put an end to all that Died
Adonijah as a fool dieth, ingloriously, ignobly. ‘* When we are dead, all the world
sees who was the fool.’ Adonijah’s death was the fitting and natural conclusion
of his life. He has sowed to the wind: what wonder if he reaps to the whirlwind.

 

 

 

 

 

rebellion, intrigue, ingratitude; to

it to the sanctuary, the terrified

 

_ Ver. 5.—Adonijah and the Lord’s Anointed. The conspiracy of Adonijah and
its issue may suggest some lessons as to the kingdom of Christ and those who
oppose His reign. For consider—

I. SoLoMON Is A TYPE OF OUR BLESSED Lorp. This is universally allowed. The
true “‘son of David” is the Son of God. Heisthe Divine Wisdom, the true Anointed
One, the eternal King of Israel. Solomon “the peaceful” prefigured the great
**Prince of Peace.”

II. Tue xincpom oF SoLomon FORESHADOWED CuRIst’s REIGN. This is taught
‘*by most certain warrants of Holy Seripture’’ (see e.g., Luke i. 82, 88, and cf. 2
Sam. vil. 11, 12; Ps. lxxii. 11, sqq.; Isa. ix. 7; xvi. 53 Jer. xxiii. 5).

Tif. THE OPPOSITION TO SOLOMON’S RULE PREFIGURED THE RESISTANCE OF THE
POWERS OF THIS WORLD TO Curist. The second Psalm, the primary reference of
which is to Solomon, has its absolute fulfilment in our Lord (Acts iv. 25-27). Note
here (1) As against Solomon were leagued princes, priest, and general, so against
the Christ were gathered tetrarch, priests, and proconsul. (2) As the aid of religion
was invoked against Solomon by Adonijah and Abiathar (note on ver. 9), so it was
invoked against our blessed Lorp by Annas and Caiaphas (St. Matt. xxvi. 65; St.
John xix. 7). In both cases, religion was used as a cloke. Now observe—

IV. THE courRsSE oF ADONIJAH’S CONSPIRACY FORESHADOWS (1) THE BRIEF
SUCCESS, AND (2) THE SUDDEN OVERTHROW, OF THE POWERS OF EVIL. (1) The brief
success. As for a time everything seemed to favour the conspirators— David's in-
decision, Adonijah’s following, &.—so now the powers of this world seem to have
their own way. ‘The silence of God, a corrupt priesthood, physical force, the
chariots and horses of the world, the pomp and glitter of wealth—all seem to
promise success. The cause of Christ, like that of Solomon, seems to be desperate.
But (2) The sudden overthrow. In the very hour of apparent success, amid cries
of ‘God save King Adonijah,” the trumpet blast proclaimed the destruction of their
hopes, and the trembling and terrified guests hurriedly dispersed to their homes.
So, at the trump of the archangel, if not before, the ‘‘ gates of hell” shall be over-
come and the enemies of our Lord shall be put to confusion, and flee to the moun-
tains and hills to cover them (St. Luke xxiii. 80). Meanwhile the Church and her
ministers, like Bathsheba and Nathan, must ery to the Eternal Father, ‘‘ Lord,
how long” (Rev. vi. 10) ?

V. THE DURATION OF THE CONSPIRACY PREFIGURES (1) THE BRIEF REJECTION AND
(2) THE ETERNAL REIGN or Curist. The conspiracy lasted at the longest a few
weeks; the peaceful reign of Solomon extended over forty years. The conspiracy16 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [ox. 1. 1—53.

ee

 

 

 

e see not yet all things put under

against Christ has lasted over 1800 years—for ‘tw
‘He shall reign for ever and

him ”—but what is this compared with eternity, anc
ever” (Rev. xi. 15; cf. Dan. vi. 26).

VI. THE END OF THE CONSPIRATORS FORESHADOWS (1) THE JUDGMENT AND (2) THE
DOOM OF THE ENEMIES OF CHRIST. (1) The judgment. No sooner was Solomon
anointed king than he sate in judgment upon Adonijah (ver. 52), and no long time
afterwards upon Joab and Abiathar. (2) The doom. He condemned Abiathar to
banishment (ch. ii. 26), and appointed Adonijah and Joab to be slain. liven so our
Lord will presently sit upon the judgment throne and will in like manner banish
(“ Depart, ye cursed’) and deliver to death (‘‘ These mine enemies, which would
not that I should reign over them, bring hither and slay them before me’’) the

opposers of His glorious reign.

Ver. 11 sqq.—The Jewish prophet: an example to the Christian pastor. The
dealings of Nathan with David may suggest some thoughts as to (1) the office,
and (2) the duties of the Christian minister. For observe—

Tne CHRISTIAN MINISTER OCCUPIES IN THE NEW DISPENSATION A POSITION SOME-
WHAT ANALOGOUS TO THAT OF THE PROPHET IN THE OLD. Prophecy, that is to
say, is one of his functions. For prophecy does not, strictly and properly, mean
prediction (or foretelling), but preaching (or forthtelling). The prophetés was the
spokesman or interpreter of God. (See Introduction, note.) The ‘* prophesyings ” of
the New Testament (1 Cor. xi. xiv) were preachings or expositions ; and in this
sense the word is used by Lord Bacon, and others. So the prophet was, and the
preacher is, an ambassador for God, an expounder of his laws, a herald of his
kingdom. The former, therefore, may well serve as a pattern to the latter. Now
the dealings of the prophet Nathan with King David were of two kinds: 1. He
admonished him in health; 2. He counselled him in sickness. Hence let us
learn that we owe doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness ; in
other words, ‘‘ both public and private monitions and exhortations, as well to the
sick as to the whole within our cures.” (See “ The Ordering of Priests,” Book of
Common Prayer.) ‘The latter are liable to be overlooked. But the prophet
further suggests to us (1) what are the ministrations or admonitions the pastor
owes to his flock, and (2) what is the spirit in which he should offer them. He
teaches the former by his dealings with David in health, and the latter by his
dealings with David in sickness.

I. Under the first head, observe that, 1. He boldly denounced David's sin (2 Sam.
xii. 7) at the risk, perhaps, of his life, and fearlessly threatened him with shame
(ver. 11) and sword (ver. 10). 2. He proclaimed forgiveness on David's repentance
(ver. 13). 3. He ministered comfort im David’s sorrow (ver. 25). 4. He en-
couraged and advised David wn his undertakings (2 Sam. vii.8B—17. Behold here,
the principal duties of the pastoral office—to rebuke sin, to pronounce absolution, to
comfort the sorrowing, to guide the conscience. And note: in all these functions,
Nathan merely echoed the word the Lord had given him. We must take care
not to “go beyond the word of the Lord, to do more or less.”

II. Under the second category, we find that, 1. He wus faithful to his God. He
had been employed by God to declare Solomon the heir to the throne. He would
have been unfaithful had he permitted another to usurp the crown. 2. He was
faithful and deferential to his king. As keeper of the king’s conscience, as
trusted adviser and counsellor, he owed it to the king to apprize him of Adonijah’s
plot. It is a sacred duty to speak, and he speaks—speaks with the profound
reverence which even the Lord’s prophet owes to the Lord’s anointed (ver. 23).
(A great churchman confessed that he had not served his God as faithfully as he
had served his king. Nathan was true to both.) 38. He was disinterested. He
asks no favours for himself. It is for the Hebrew commonwealth, for the Jewish
Church, that he acts and speaks. He does not abuse his position to extort gifts
from a dying man. (Compare Savonarola dictating the terms of absolution to
Lorenzo de’ Medici.) 4. He was discreet. “Wise as serpent, but harmless as
dove.” He approaches Bathsheba (ver. 11), excites her alarm (ver. 12), uses hercH. I. 1—53.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 17

 

 

 

 

 

as the most likely agent to prevail with the king, instructs her (ver. 13), follows her
(ver. 22). “he policy of Nathan was of use as well as his prophecy ” (Bp. Hall)
Thus the prophet teaches the pastor to use all fidelity,
courtesy, to act purely and unselfishly, to use the mean

reach with consideration and discretion.

to show true loyalty and
s Gud has put within hig

The Benedictus of the Old Testament, and the Benedictus of the New (V
48; Luke i. 68).

On two memorable occasions this doxology has been found on the lips of the
saints. No doubt the formula, “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel,” was a
favourite one with the people of Israel; no doubt the words were often used (cf.
Ps, xli. 13; lxxii.18). But there are two occasions of pre-eminent interest and im-
portance when this thanksgiving broke from joyful lips. Let us consider them,
1. It was used (as we see) by the aged King David on the day that he saw his son
Solomon (Peace) @ forerunner of the Messiah, seated on the throne of Israel. 2. It
was used by the aged priest Zacharias on the day that he saw hisson John (Grace),
the forerunner of Messiah, brought into the commoxwealth of Israel. Tt is just
possible, but hardly probable, that the words, as used by the latter (under the
guidance of the Holy Ghost, Luke i. 67) had a reference to their use by the
former. But it may be instructive, nevertheless, to compare these two ascriptions
of praise, for they are more or less characteristic, the one of the old dispensation,
the other of the new. Let us observe,

I. THEIR POINTS oF contact. II. THEIR POINTS OF CONTRAST.

I. They are alike in three particulars. 1. Each Benedictus was in some sort
the “« Nune Dimittis” of an aged saint. Each proceeded from a man “old and
stricken in years” (1 Kingsi.1; Lukei. 7); each from a man of fervent piety
(1 Kings xi. 4; Luke i. 6); each was suggested by the speaker’s son rising up
to take his place, and to carry on his and God’s work. 2. Each Benedictus was
connected with a son of David. The first was a grateful acknowledgment of the
anointing of a Son of David to be King; the second was in thankful anticipation of
the coming of the Son of David to be Prophet, Priest, and King. Note: all the
praises of Scripture connect themselves directly or indirectly with Christ. 38. Each
Benedictus was elicited by God’s gracious fulfilment of His promise. The first
commemorated the realization of the promise of a successor made through the prophet
Nathan (2 Sam. vii. 12); the second, the (proximate) fulfilment of the promises of
a Saviour, made by “all the holy prophets since the world began” (Luke i. 70),
and of which the promise of 2 Sam. vil., was a foretaste and pledge. Note: in all
ages the faithfulness of God has elicited the thankfulness of his people. —

II. But let us now consider their points of contrast. These are four in number,
and show how the thanksgiving of David was for temporal, and that of Zacharias
for spiritual benefits. 1. The Benedictus of David celebrated the ascent of the
throne of Israel by his Son; that of Zacharias, the leaving of the throne of Heaven
by the Son of God. Solomon was beginning his glory: Jesus had laid His aside.
Solomon was going to be ministered unto: Jesus to minister to others. 2. The
Benedictus of David commemorated the gift of a son to rule His people: that of
Zacharias, the gift of a Saviour to redeem the world (vers. (0G, Livero)o. , 2 The
Benedictus of David proclaimed that the succession to the throne was preserved in
his house: that of Zacharias, that through the ‘* house of David” a ‘ horn of salva:
tion” was raised up for men. ‘The aged king, doubtless, thought that in Solomon
God had ‘“‘ made the horn of David to bud” (Ps. exxxii, 17); but Zacharias cele-
brated the true fulfilment of that promise—its blossoming into salvation. 4. The
Benedictus of David celebrated the reign of a son who should be a man of peace
(1 Chron. xxii. 9): that of Zacharias, the coming of one who should guide ee
‘feet into the way of peace” (ver. 79). We said each Benedictus was a sort 0
Nunc Dimittis. That last sentence of David’s—“ Mine eyes also seeing it anak
our thoughts to another of the Evangelical Hymns, the Nune Dumais of ae
—‘ Mine eyes have seen Thy salvation.” Zacharias was not a 3 De we
David. And David, as well as he, spake by the Holy Ghost (2 Sam. xxii. 2). Ye

Cc
1 KINGS.

er.18 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. (on... 1—58,

 

how much grander, and every way nobler, is the Benedictus of the latter than that
of the former; of the New Testament than the Old. It is because the theme is so
much higher, and the benefits are so much greater, because ‘“‘a greater than
Solomon is here.”

The two triumphal entries—Twice in the history of Jerusalem has a Son
of David ridden through her streets, sitting on ass or mule, amid the shouts and
praises of the people. Let us compare the two occasions. They will furnish a
further proof and illustration of the typical character of Solomon; a further proof
that a ‘‘ greater than Solomon is here.’? Observe—

J. THE TRIUMPHAL RIDE THROUGH THE CITY WAS IN EACH CASE AFTER AN
ANOINTING.—Solomon had been anointed by prophet and priest : Jesus, the Divine
Solomon, by God himself. Solomon’sanointing was with holy oil out of the tabernacle
(ver. 39); that of Jesus with the Holy Ghost (Luke iv. 18; Acts iv. 27; x. 88).
Solomon was anointed to be king: Jesus to be King, and Priest, and Prophet.

II. Hacu RODE THROUGH THE CITY AS KING (vers. 384, 35).—‘God save King
Solomon,” eried the populace. ‘‘ Biessed is the king that comcth in the name of
the Lord” (Luke xix. 38). In each case the words were true, “ Behold thy King
cometh ” (Matt. xxi.5; John xii, 15). And

III. Kacu Ropg as THE Son or Davin (1 Kings i. 43; Matt. xxi. 9) —Did the
populace remember the triumphal progress of Solomon, one thousand years
betore, through those same streets, as they cried, “Hosanna to the Son of David”
(Matt. xxi. 9—15).

IV. Each RODE AMID THE ACCLAMATIONS OF THE PEOPLE.—LHach, that is to say,
was acknowledged as king by popular acclaim. In each case, a curious Oriental
hyperbole expresses the enthusiastic rejoicing and the deafening cries of the
throng. “The earth rent” (1 Kings i. 40). ‘The stones would immediately cry
out” (Luke xix. 40; cf. Matt. xxi. 10). But here the resemblance ends. Hence-
forward how great and striking is the contrast.

I. ALL THE GREAT PEOPLE SURROUNDED SoLomon: ouR LoRD WAS PRECEDED AND
FOLLOWED BY THE poor. ‘The dignitaries of the realm, both in church and state,
prophet and priest, soldier and civilian, all assembled to do Solomon honour. But
our Lord had none of these to do Him reverence. ‘‘ Master, rebuke Thy diseiples ”
(Luke xix. 39). The pomp and grandeur were all on the side of Solomon.

I]. SOLOMON WENT TO SIT ON HIS THRONE: JESUS TO SUFFER AND REIGN ON THE
cross, The former rode to ease and glory and pomp and unparalleled magnifi-
cence ; the latter to shame and spitting, to denial and death. But, crwascala caelt.

IIT. SoLoMON RODE TO GLORY: JESUS TO BRING OTHERS TO GLORY. The triumphal
entry of Solomon was an ordinary thing. Such royal progresses have often beer
before and since. But never has the world seen such an entry as that of our
Redeemer. He might have reigned as a king, but He chose to sufier as a felon:
He might have lived for self, He chose to die for others. Shall we deny Him our
hosannas? Shall not earth and heaven ring with His praises ?

HOMILIES BY VARIOUS AUTHORS.

Ver. 5.—The sin. of ambition. Ambition is not always wrong. It is a
common inspiration; and when the desire for distinction is associated with fitness
for it, the call to effort and advance is from God. But for.such ambition the -world
would stagnate. When the schoolboy is working for a prize, when the writer or
speaker resolves to be amongst the foremost men of his age, when the man of busi-
ness presses on towards the front ranks in the commercial world, we see what
should be applauded and not condemned, so long as lawful objects are sought by
lawful means. Let us, in all our pursuits, remember God’s laws for exaltation.
Men are to go higher, when they have fulfilled the duties of the lower sphere. They
are to rise on performances, and not on discontent. Hence, if ambition be con-
scientious, it will prompt. to the minutely faithful performance. of trivial duties.
With a tireless hand crooked things will be made straight, and rough places plain,
etore the glory is revealed. If, however, ambition. be not ruled by xighteousness,...CH. 1. 1—53.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 19

 

 

 

 

or modified by love, if it is regardless of the rights of others and of the will of God
then it is a sin; the sin which was the herald of disobedience and death, the source
of the tyranny and bloodshed which have desolated the world. It was this sin
of which Adonijah was guilty when he “ exalted himself, saying, I will be kine |?

Let us see wherein the sinfulness of. his sin lay. oe

I. THIS AMBITION PROMPTED ADONIJAH TO AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE DIVINE
ORDINANCE. It has been said that his act was natural, though foolishly precipitate ;
for, according to the usual law of primogeniture, he hada right to expect the throne.
But the law of primogeniture was never.the law of the kingdom of Israel, which in
spirit was a theocracy throughout. The invisible King distinctly reserved to him-
self the right of appointment (Deut. xvii. 14, 15). True, seniority was a tacit indi-
cation of the Divine will, but this was always overruled by any special revelation
of God’s choice. He who had chosen David from amongst his brothers, chose
Solomon, and there was fitness in the choice; not only because as a man of peace
he was qualified to build the Temple (1 Chron. xxii, 8, 9), but also because his
succession was a pledge to his parents, and to all the people, that after the death of
their first child the sin of David and Bathsheba was buried in oblivion (comp. Psa.
i. 2, 7, 9, with Isa. xliij, 25, &c.), This Divine choice was publicly known.
Nathan sided with Solomon not as “ the leader of a court cabal,” but as the pro-
phet of the Lord; and Adonijah himself was well aware of the election of his
brother (ch. ii. 15).. When Adonijah said “I will be king,” he deliberately set
up his willagainst God’s. A deep significance underlies God’s choice of men. He
elects according to fitness and fits according to election, so that there is ultimate
harmony between circumstances and character. The two sons of Zebedee were
taught this. They had as much seeming right to the place of honour which they
sought as had Adonijah to the throne. They belonged to “the twelve,” were
personally beloved of their Lord, and their mother was related. to the Virgin Mary,
and was of those who ministered to Jesus. But Jesus said, “to sit on my right
hand and on my left is not mine to give, but it shall be given to those for whom it is
prepared of my Father.” In other words, honours would be given by law and not
by favour ; not from arbitrary impulse, but from a knowledge of what was right and
fitting. Draw lessons of contentment frorm the assurance that our lot is appointed
by God. Show the necessity for our own sakes of submissiveness in prayer, lest
God should give us our request and send leanness into our soul.

If. THIS AMBITION WAS. A CRAVING FOR OUTWARD HONOUR, AND NOT FOR INWARD
wortH. ‘ He prepwred him chariots and. horsemen and fifty men to run before
him.” His ambition was to have these for their own sakes, not to increase his
influence for good. Nor was he the last man who cared for glitter and show. The
candidate for a competitive examination, who seeks only for honours, and cares
nothing for the learning and studious habits which may be acquired, will never be
a true student. So with the professional man who works for money only, &e.
Honours thus.won are unsatisfying and transient. Their worth is fitly represented
in the ceremonies observed at the coronation of a Pope.- The M. G. holds in
one hand a lighted taper, and in the other a reed surmounted by a piece of flax.
The flax is ignited and flashes up into light, but in a few moments the flame dies
out and the thin ashes fall at the Pontitf’s feet, while a sonorous voice chants the
words, “ Pater sanctus, sic transit gloria mundi.” The pagans understood to some
extent the lesson we seek to enforce. Their temple of honour had only one entrance,
and that was through the temple of virtue. Over the gates of the kingdom ol
Christ these words are written, ‘‘ He that humbleth himself shall be exalted, and he
that exalteth himself shall be abased.” In the day when spiritual realities shall be
revealed there shall be not the glorification, but the “ manifestation of the sons ot
God,” and in the outcome of character inwrought by God’s Spirit true and lasting

e found.
eee tans AMBITION ASSERTED ITSELF WITH A COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR THE
RIGHTS OF OTHERS.—David still reigned; Solomon was his appointed successor ;
but Adonijah trampled their rights beneath his feet as he mounted the throne.
Selfishness is the chief of those elements in ambition which constitute its sinfulness.20 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [on. 1. 1—53.

 

 

Hence we may test ambition, by asking ourselves how we regard our competitors.
If a man envies others; if, without compunction, he will crush another to the wall
that he may pass him by; if he refuses to help another in sore straits, who is within
his reach, on the ground that every man is for himself; then his ambition 18 a sin.
This is more clearly revealed by our Lord than by the old dispensation. He has
taught us not only to love our neighbours, but our competitors, and even our foes.
He has urged us to * bear one another’s burdens,” to deny ourselves, and take up
our cross to follow Him. The Christian Church has a sacrifice for its basis, and a
cross for its banner.

IV. THIS AMBITION WAS NURTURED IN DEFIANCE OF SIGNIFICANT WARNING.
Adonijah repeated his brotier's offence. (Comp. 2 Sam. xv.) He knew how that
bright young life had closed in darkness, when Absalom died helpless and unpitied
by the hand of Joab. He had often seen his father sitting looking at himself with a
far-off look in his eyes, asif he still were saying, ‘‘O, Absalom, would God I had died
for thee, O Absalom, my son, myson!” Yet the same sin which had been 80
signally punished he resolved to commit. History is crowded with illustrations of
the fact that men who have lived as Adonijah did have found their honours
unsatisfying, and have died in disappointment and despair. Alexander, who con-
quered the world, died, after setting fire to a city, in a scene of awful debauchery.
Hannibal, who at one time could fill three bushels with the gold rings of fallen
knights, died by poison, administered by his own hand, unwept in a foreign land.
Ceesar, who conquered eight hundred cities, fell stabbed to the heart by his friends,
in the place of his noblest triumph. Napoleon, the conqueror of Europe, died a
heart-broken captive. It has been writ large, in letters of blood, so that he who
runs may read, “ the expectation of the wicked shall be cut off!”

Conclusion.—Will you, with the nobler possibilities set before you in the gospel,
whom angel voices are calling to higher things, whose conscience is whispering of
duty and love, to whom Christ, the suffering Saviour, the Kine of Glory, says,
‘Follow Me!” will you, like Adonijah, turn to the ways of self-indulgence and
vainglory, to prove as he did that “ the wages of sin is death.”—A, R.

Ver. 6.—Moral ruin in a religious home. Tt is a notorious fact that the sons

of devout men sometimes prove a curse to their parents, and bring dishonour on
the cause of God. When sin entered the world, it caused the earth, on which
flowers had aforetime blossomed, to bring forth thorns and briars. This is a picture of
asad truth, known in the first home, and in many another since. Eve rejoiced
over the fair child she had “gotten from the Lord,” and did not suspect that
passions were sleeping within him which would nerve his arm to strike the fatal
blow which slew his brother and destroyed his mother’s peace. Such sorrow has
been experienced in subsequent history. Isaac's heart wag rent by the deceit of
Jacob and the self-will of Esau. Jacob found his own sin repeated against himself,
for he who had deceived his father when he was old and blind, suffered
of grief for years, because he was falsely told by his sons that Joseph was dead.
Probably few have had more domestic sorrow'than David. He experienced, in its
bitterest form, the grief of a parent who has wished that before his son had brought
such dishonour on the home, he had been, in the innocence of his childhood, laid to
rest beneath the daisies. Of David's sons, Amnon, the eldest, after committing
a hideous sin, had been assassinaied by the order of Absalom, his brother. Absalom
himself had rebelled against his father, and had been killed by Joab, as he hung
helpless in the oak. Chileab (or Daniel) was dead. And now of the fourth gon,
the eldest surviving, Adonijah, this sad story is told. Adonijah’s sin seems so
unnatural at first sight that we must try and discover the sources whence so bitter
and desolating a stream flowed. We shal] find them in THREE ADVERSE INFLUENCES
AROUND HIM AT HOME, which are hinted at in our text.

I. ADONIJAH INHERITED A CONSTITUTIONAL TENDENCY TO AMBITION AND SELF-
CONCHIT. His association with Absalom is not without significance. The two

brothers were alike in their sin and in the tendencies which led to it. These were
inherited.

an agonycu. I. 1—53.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 21

 

(1) The law that “like produces like,” which is
in the breeding of lower animals (illustrations from horses bred for speed or en-
durance, dogs for fleetness or scent, pigeons for swiftness or beauty, &c.), asserts
itself in man. Not only are physical qualities inherited, so that we recognise a
« family likeness” between children of the same parents; but mental qualities are
inherited too ; statesmanship, heroism, or artistic gift, reappearing in the same
family for generations. Moral tendencies are transmitted too; and Scripture
exemplifies it. If Isaac is so luxurious that he must have his savoury dish, we do
not so much wonder that Esau, his gon. sells his birthright for a mess of pottage.
If Rebekah, like Laban her brother, ig greedy and cunning, her son Jacob inherits
her tendency, and must live a life of suffering, and present many an agonising
prayer before he is set free from his besetting sin. So is it still. The drunkard
gives to his offspring a craving for drink, which is a disease. In more senses than
one, ‘‘ The evil that men do lives after them.” Surely, then, when not only future
happiness, but the destiny of children depends on the choice of a life partner, there
should be regard paid not merely to physical beauty, or mental endowment, or
social position, but, above all these, to moral and spiritual worth.

(2) It is argued that this law of moral heritage affects personal responsi-
bility; that it is hardly fair to condemn a man for a sin to which he is natu-
rally prone. But “shall not the Judge of all the earth do right ?’’ Whatever
your parentage, you are not ‘‘ committed to do these abominations.” Tf the dispo-
sition be evil, it need never become the habit of life. It is something you may
yield to, but it is something you may resist; for “He is faithful who will not
suffer you to be tempted above what you are able to bear.” Rather should any
tendencies to evil be recognised as God’s voice calling attention to the weak places
of character, that there we may keep most eager watch and ward. And becduse
we are weak, He has sent His Son to bring deliverance to the captives, that through
Him we may be inspired with hope, and fitted with strength, and rejoice in the
liberty wherewith Christ makes His people free.

II. ADONIJAH WAS MISLED BY ADULATION. “He was also a very goodly man.”
Physically, as well as morally, he was a repetition of Absalom. His parents were
guilty of partiality. David loved him the more because (like the lost boy) Adonijah
was so fair, so noble in mien, so princely in stature. Courtiers and soldiers (who
looked, as they did in Saul’s time, for a noble-looking king) flattered him. Joab
and Abiathar joined the adulators. Intoxicated with vanity, Adonijah set up a
royal court, as Absalom had done (see ver. 5). Every position in life has its own
temptations. The ill-favoured child who is the butt at school and the scapegoat at
home is tempted to bitterness and revenge. His character is likely to be unsightly,
as a plant would be, which grows in a damp, dark vault. There can be little beauty
if there is no sunshine. On the other hand, if the gift of physical beauty attracts
attention and wins admiration, or if conversational power be brilliant, &e., it is a
source of peril. Many a one has thus been befooledinto sin and misery, or entrapped
into an unhappy marriage, and by lifelong sadness paid the penalty of folly, or
venturing too far, prompted by ambition, has fallen, like Icarus when his Se
wings melted in the sunshine. When that time of disappointment and oe Rea 4
ment comes, happy is it when ee 2 one like the prodigal, comes to himself, an

7s, ‘* 1 will arise, and go to my father!
goa oe WAS cuisaeuean aT HoME. “ His father had not displeased
him at any time in saying, Why hast thou done so?” This refers Bou a ae ihe
special act of rebellion, but to the tendencies and habits leading up aah eh ;
David had not checked, for fear of vexing the high-spirited lad. The Wi < Inc we
gence of children (such as that which Eli exhibited) is the aoe ee
Not many parents blazon abroad the story of their domestic ome ities ean ot i
draw down the veil over the discord at home, and that agony o ae er V ages
heard by “‘ the Father who seeth in secret.” You do not see the girl a ae
beauty of her early womanhood by a flippant disregard of ae Pee slatd le
own pleasure seems to be the only law of her life. ae ead ena: hohe
hasty passion and uncontrolled temper are the dread of the ' ;

proved to demonstration22 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cn. 1. 1—53.

 

his ebullitions of rage, gets what he wishes, till authority is disregarded and oggen
underfoot. You do not see the son who thinks it manly to be callous to a mother’s
anxiety and a father’s counsels, who likes to forget home ee a eee A
ing in haunts of evil, where you may weep over him as a wreck. rat, ee 1 _
see them not, they exist. Far otherwise, in some of these sad oT
might have been. Suppose there had been firm resolution RoreweRKKS. : ua
indulgence ; suppose that authority had been asserted and used in days e | : 1e86
evil habits were formed; suppose that, instead of leaving the future tor'e ae
counsels and prayers had moulded character during ee tens
not have been joy where now there is grief? Heavy are our responsi ities as
parents. Yet splendid are our possibilities! These children who eS es
eurses may, with God’s blessing on our fidelity, grow up to be wise, pure-hearted,
courageous men of God, who will sweeten the atmosphere of the home, and purge
tis nation of its sins, and make the name of “‘ the King of saints honoured and
praised throughont the world! ‘Train them up in the nurture and admonition of
the Lord.”—A. R.

Vers. 89-41.—The dethronement of the false by the enthronement of the true,
When Bathsheba and Nathan brought David news of Adonijah’s revolt, and
told him that Joab and Abiathar were at the coronation feast at Hin-rogel, it is note-
worthy that the king made no direct attack on the conspirators. He merely com-
manded that Solomon should be seated on the royal mule, that he should ride in
state to Gihon, and that there Zadok should anoint him king, and proclaim by the
sound of trumpet that he was appointed ruler. It was this which paralysed the traitor-
ous assembly. ‘The sound of the trumpet was to their scheme what the blast of the
rams’ horns was to the walls of Jericho, when they fell in irreparable ruin. David’s
method was the wisest, the surest ; for it not only removed a present evil, but pro-
vided a future good. The lesson is obvious, and is susceptible of wide application 3
that the false ismost surely dethroned by the enthronement of the true. The strong
man armed keeps his goods in peace, until a stronger than he shall come. (See
Luke xi. 21,22.) Suggest: applications of this principle.

I. VAIN THOUGHTS ARE TO BE EXPELLED BY THE INCOMING OF WHAT IS WISE AND
Goop. The Psalmist hated “vain thoughts,” because he loved God’s law (Psa.
exix. 113). Whenthe heart is empty, swept, and garnished, there is room for worse
evils to come (Matt. xii. 44). The fullmind and heart are safe. Apply to the con-
quest of wandering thoughts in worship, of vanity in children, &c.

I]. SELF-WILL IS TO BE CONQUERED BY A NOBLER AND STRONGER WILL. We are
early taught this. Every child carries out his own wishes without regard to others,
till he recognizes that the parent’s will is authoritative. Sooner or later there is a
struggle, and only when it is decided in one way is there rest. Similarly we have to
learn to subordinate our thoughts to God’s revelation, our wishes to His will, and
this lesson is more painfully learnt as the years pass by and the habit of self-rule
grows stronger.

III. UNWoRTHY AFFECTIONS ARE TO BE OVERCOME BY A WORTHY LOVE. When love
is set on the unworthy, force is useless, argument is vain. But if the love is diverted
to a nobler object, it naturally disentangles its tendrils from the unworthy. In the
highest sphere it may be said of love to our Lord, ** that love’ shall all vain love expel.”

IV. ERRoR Is TO BE SUBDUED BY TRUTH. The hatred of artizans to machinery
when first introduced was not conquered by dragoons, nor by prisons, but by the
discovery on their part of the mistake they had ignorantly made. So with all
errors. We shall not destroy heathenism by the abuse of the idols, but by the
presentation of Christ.

V. CARE IS TO BE EXTIRPATED BY PRAYER. In many hearts care is enthroned.
To many a one our Lord might say, “ Thou art careful and troubled about many
things.” We cannot reason away our anxieties, nor force them from our minds,
but we can have the rest our children have, who never trouble about the morrow,
because they trust inus. It would be vain to say, ‘‘ Be careful for nothing,” unless
the apostle could add the alternative, “dwt in everything, by prayer and supplica-CH. 1. 1—53.]

   

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 23

 

tion, with thanksgiving, make your requests known unto God; and

 

the peace of

God which passeth all understanding sh: Tour i

eS eR ee es cage iding shall “oe yous hearts and minds.”

ETY ARE TO BE OVERTHROWN BY WHAT IS NOBLER THAN
THEY.—Apply this broadly, e.g., wholesome literature must defeat per icious
Low amusements, intoxicating drinks, &e., will pass away when yee ae
establishment of nobler substitutes for these. f oe

The whole subject is summed up in Christ—the true King of humanity

manity,

the incarnati bei
ation of all that is worthy of being loved and enthroned,

Draw

fd pa ae Solomon the anointed king, as he rides on the mule into
Jerusalem ami amati igen
a the acclamations of the people, and the entry of our Lord into

Jerusalem as described Matt. xxi.

Tf worldliness, or selfishness, or ambition, or

ust has ‘elening in your hear rped wi
pe peur? reigning in , our heart, the usurped will be dethroned when you wel-
a aE {ing an say, ‘‘ QO Lord our God, other lords besides thee have
TOY + A ¥
¢ 1 over us, but now we acknowledge Thee to be our Lord, to the glory

of God the Father.”

Descend to Thy Jerusalem, O Lord,

Her faithful children cry with one accord:
Come, ride in triumph on; behold, we lay
Our guilty lusts and proud wills in Thy way.

Thy road is ready, Lord ; Thy paths, made straight,
In longing expectation seem to wait ee
The consecration of T'hy beauteous feet,

And, hark, hosannas loud Thy footsteps greet.—A. Ry

EXPOSITION.

CHAPTER Ji, 1—t11,
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 chap. i. We find from 1 Chron. xxii.—
xxix, 23, that the aged king recovered suffi-
cient strength to leave his sick room, to
gather round him the princes of Israel
(1 Chron. xxiii. 2), to make a number of
fresh arrangements respecting the priests
and Levites and the services of the sanc-
tuary, and even to ‘‘stand up upon his
feet”? (1 Chron. xxviii. 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” (ch. xxix. 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 (vers. 21, 22; cf 1 Sam. xi. 15;
2 Sam. vy. 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 Chron. xxviii. 9, 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:

Ver. 1.—I go the way [lit., I am walking
(same word as in ver. 3) in the way] of all
the earth [i.c., of all the sons of earth, all
mankind (cf 1 Sam. 17,46; 1 Kings x., 24;
Psa. lxvi. 4, &c.) 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 Josh. xxiii, 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 (Josh. 1.
6, 7, 9, 18), and David may well have
thougbt 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 en-
couragement. It is not necessary to sup-24 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[cu. 11. 1—11.

 

pose, as Canon Rawlinson does (‘‘ Speaker's
Com.,”’ vol. ii. p, 489), 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 Sam. iv. 9). The
age of Solomon at his accession is very
doubtful. David said, ‘‘ Solomon my son
is young and tender” (1 Chron. xxii. 5;

xxix. 1); and Solomon says of himself, ‘“ [
am a little child”’ jO/2 WI (1 Kings iii. 7).
Josephus, probably reflecting the tradition
of his time, fixes his age at fourteen;
Kupolemus at twelve. I incline to think
that the words ‘‘ young and tender” almost
forbid the favourite opinion that he was
about twenty. ]

Ver. 3.—And keep the charge ([lit.,
‘‘watch the watch” (custodies custodiam
Jehovae), or, “serve the service.” Bihr
paraphrases, ‘‘be a true watcher in the
service of Jehovah.’”’ The words are con-
stantly employed to denote a strict per-
formauce of the service of the tabernacle or
of the duties of the priests and Levites
(Lev. vill. 835; xviii, 30; Numb. i. 53;
ii. 7, 8, 25, 28, 32, 38; xxxi. 830; 1 Chron.
Kxill, 32, &c.; also Gen. xxvi. 5). ‘‘The
reference,’ says Rawlinson, “is to the
charge given to all the kings in Deut.
xvii. 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 be-
tween these four words, as the older ex-
positors do. ‘The phrase is derived from
the Pentateuch”’ (Wordsworth). The force
of the accumulation of practically synony-
mous terms is to represent the law in
its entirety (“Die Totalitdt des Gesetzes,”
Keil) ; ef. Deut. v. 31, viii. 11, and espe-
cially Psa. cxix.], that thou mayest prosper.
[The marginal rendering, ‘‘ do wisely,’’ is
preferred by sume (Keil, ¢.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
Josh. i. 7” (Rawlinson). ‘That thou
mayest ... « do wisely” ig a very lame
and impotent conclusion to ver. 3. We
have here an evident reminiscence of Josh.
i. 7; possibly also of Deut. xxix. 9, David
was unquestionably well versed in the
Scriptures of that age, of which every king
was commanded to make a copy.

Ver. 4.—That the Lord may continue
[rather, ‘* establish ” (ut confirmet), as »t is
rendered in 2 Sam, vii. 25, where this same

 

 

 

 

 

word of promise is spoken of. Cf. 1 Kings
Vili. 26] His word which He spal.e con-
cerning me [by the mouth of Nuathan,
2 Sam, vii. 12—17 (cf. Psa. Ixxxix. 4); or
David may refer to some subsequent pro-
mise made to him directly. In the promise
of 2 Sam. vii. there is no mention of any
stipulations, ‘‘Zf thy children,’’ &c. But
both here and in Psa. exxxil. 12, and in
1 Kings vill. 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 [hi., “keep,” same word as in vers.
2, 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 Sam ii. 29; Josh. ix. 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 villi. 25, ix. 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 primeval law
which formed part of the so-called “ precepts
of Noah” (Gen. 6)—that ix. blood must be
expiated by blood—enjoined, with singular
emphasis and distinctness, the death of the
murderer (Numb. xxxv. 16) 17) 16) "19,
30—83 ; Exod. xxi. 14). It declared that
so long as murder remained unpunished,
the whole land was defiled and under a
curse (Numb. xxxv. 83). 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 satis-
fied, 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 un-avenged blood of the Gibeonites (2 Sam.
xxl. 1). And yet, one notorious and in-
famous murderer had not been put to
death. The assassin of Abner and of
Amasa still polluted the earth, still occu-
pied 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 (Deut.
xix. 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 appzoach-
ing, he feels that he must enjoin upon his
successor the fulfilment of that duty which
he had been too ‘‘ weak” to discharge
(2 Sam. iii. 39). Hence he proceeds,

Ver. 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 i. 11], did to me and [this ‘ast 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 mur-
ders 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 thuscan
we explain the absence of the ‘‘and”’] unto
Abner the son of Ner [2 Sam. iil. 27. This
was one of those foul murders to which the
law expressly denied any right of sanctuary,
for it was ‘with guile” (Exod. xxi.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 Sam. xxvii. 24,
Ithra is called ‘‘an Israelite,’ an obvious
mistake for ‘ Ishmaelite,’ as indeed it
stands in 1 Chron. ii. 17. Amasa’s mother,
Abigail, was sister of David and Zeruiah ;
Amasa, consequently, was Joab’s first

 

 

 

cH. m1. 1—11.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 25
Se

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 ag if
YOY, ‘‘upon him,” had dropped out. The
meaning ‘‘make,” which Keil assigns to
Oe is not borne out by his references,
Deut. xiv. 1; Exod. x, 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 with-
out 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 aia aQadov, “ 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” (Bihr), i.e., military
insignia; nor yet that the idea is ‘‘from
the girdle to the sandal’? (Hwald), 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 Sam. xx. 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 hig
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 (Gen. iv. 10)].

Ver. 6.—Do therefore according to thy
wisdom [cf. Prov. xx. 26. It needed great
discretion in exacting the punisiment ot
death in the case of one who was so power-
ful, 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 onver.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. 4 Lap. Thisexpression, no doubt,
looks vindictive, but that is solely because26

we forget the character of the Old Testa-
ment dispensation (as one of temporal re-
wards and punishments. See the ‘ Exposi-
tor,” vol. iii, p. 114), the position of David as
king (as the authorized dispenser of punish-
ments, 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. Words-
worth 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
ease of David himself, it was only commuted
by special revelation (2 Sam xu, 10, 13,
14), not remitted.

Ver. 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 Sam. xix. 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 ii. 61), where, it is worth notic-
ing, we read of the daughters of Barzillai
(cf. Nehem. vii. 63). In Jeremiah xli. 17,
we read of the ‘habitation (N73, cara-
vanserai, 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 [7.e., of those who have their sus-
tenance from the royal table, not necessarily
atit (Keil); cf. Dan. i. 5; 2 Kings xxv. 29,
Presence at the table is expressed by
new by (2 Sam. ix. 11, 12). It was es-
teemed an essential part of royal munifi-
cence throughout the East that the king
should feed a large number of retainers and
dependants. Cf. the account of Solomon’s
daily provision in 1 Kings iv. 22, 23; also
2Sam, xix. 28; Judges i. 7]; for so [2.e.,
in hke manner, with food]; they came to
me [lit., ‘came near.” The Hebrew 22
often includes, as here, the idea of succour.
Cf. Ps. Ixix. 19; Lam. iii. 57. Barzillai
ertainly came (2 Sam. xvii. 27), and pro-

bably Chimham, but the Speaker's Com-

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

 

 

 

  

[cu. u. 1—11.

mentary is mistaken when it says that
‘“ Chimham is mentioned as present.” He
was present at the return of David (2 Sam.
xix. 31, 88, 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 punish-
ment. In amoment of generous enthusiasm,
he had inveluded Shimei in the general
amnesty which he proclaimed on his return
(2 Sam. xix. 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 remem-
bered it (ver. 21) the emotions of that
memorable day had obscured or perverted
his sense of justice and duty. But he has
since realized—and the thoucht 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 (Lev. xxiv. 14—16; ef.
1 Kangs xxi. 10, 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 gnilty (Ley.
xiv. 14; cf. Lev. v.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 Dayid, who has been charging
his son to keep the law, now realizes that
he himself has beenalaw-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 obli-
gation. He can demand the long arrears
of justice, none the less due because of the
time that has elapsed and the royal lachescH. 11. 1—11.]

(“nullum tempus occurrit regi ”\ ; he can
deal with the blasphemer as the law directs,
and this David now charges him to do.

Ver. 8.—And, behold, thou hast with thee
[Bahr understands by 7D, ‘near thee,” (in
deiner Néhe) because Bahtrim was near
Jerusalem, Keil gathers from this word
that Shimei “was living at that time in
Jerusalem,” and refers to ver. 36, which, if
anything, implies that he was not. But it
is worth sugsesting whether Shimei may
not be the Shimei to whom reference is
made in ch. i. 8. (Dean Stanley notices
this as a possibility, but alleges nothing in
support of it: ‘‘ Jewish Church,” vol. ii. p.
171, note.) 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 ob-
jected (e.g., by Kitto) that the false part
that Shimei played at the time of Absalom’s
revolt would have for ever prevented his
being recognized and mentioned as one of
Solomon’s supporters. I very much doubt
it. The great influence which Shimei pos-
sessed 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 Sam.
xix. 17). Probably the secret of his in.
fiuence lay in the fact that he was ‘‘of the
family of the house of Saul,” and possibly,
owing to the insignificance of Saul’s de-
scendants, was the mainstay and chief re-
presentative 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 con-
sequence at that critical time, which side
Shimei—and the thousand or more Ben-
jamites 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 thence-
forward rank amongst the friends of the
young king, and the words “ thou hast with
thee” would accurately describe. his po-
sition] Shimei, the son of Gera [another
Shimei, the son of Elah, is mentioned (1
Kings iv. 11) as Solomon’s officer in Ben-
jamin. 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, keing the son of Bela

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. OT

 

     
   
 
 
 
  
  
    
 
   
  
   
   
 
  
   
  
 
 
 
 
   
 
  
  
   
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
   
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
   
 

a

—$__

and the grandson of Benjamin (Gen. xlvi.
21; cf. 1 Chron. vii. 6). Ehud, three
hundred years earlier, is also described as
‘a son of Gera,” Judg. iii. 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 Chron. viii. 1), and the head of a house
in Benjamin. Professor Gardiner (American
translation of Lange, textual note, p. 29),
following the LXX. and Vulg., insists that,
*JYD*1"}3 (with the article) can only mean
**son of the Jaminite, 7.e., of the descen-
dants of Jamin, a son of Simeon.” But
this is directly contrary to what we read
2 Sam. xvi., viz., that Shimei was of ‘‘a
family of the house of Saul,” i.c., a Ben-
jamite. And to this the grammar agrees.
Judges iii. 15 is an exact parallel, and com-
pare *WOwiain’a, 1 Sam. vi. 14, 18, and
‘OMPH-Ma, 1 Sam. xvi. 1, 18; xvii. 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. vii. 9, 7, implies) the matin
road to Jericho and the Jordan valley. It
may have lain in one of the wadies branch-
ing out from the ravine which runs con-
tinuously alongside the steep descent to
Jericho. The event narrated in 2 Sam. iii.
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 Sam. xvii. 18, that David had
some faithful adherents there], which [lit.,
‘‘and he”’] cursed me with a grievous [acc.
to Gesenius, al., ‘‘ strong,” 7.e., sweeping ;
Keil, vehement; Thenius, ‘‘ heillos,’”’ flagi-
tious. LXX., cardpay ddvrnoay. Vulg., male-
dictio pessima] curse in the day when I
went to Mahanaim [2 Sam. xvi. 5] ; but he
came down to meet me at Jordan [lit., the
Jordan, 7.e., the descender, so called from
the rapidity of the stream (it has a fall of
1400 feet in about 100 miles) 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 Sam. xix. 23].

Ver. 9.—Now therefore [lit., ‘and now.”
Possibly the ‘‘now” is a note of time in
apposition to the ‘‘ day” of ver. 8, or rather
the time of David’s oath. ‘‘I then un-
advisedly sware unto him, but now the law
must have its course.’’ Probably itis merely
inferential,— quae cum ita sint] hold him
not guiltless {rather, thow shalt not leave
himunpunished (Vatablus, Gesen., Bahr, al.);
ef. Exod. xx. 7; Jer. xxx. 11]; for thou art
a wise man [@pdvuoe rather than copog
(LXX.) Gesen, renders here, ‘‘ endued with
ability to judge.” Dayid clearly desixes28

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

fc. 11. I—11.

 

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 biocod.
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. T'he 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,” &c. It is
clear from these words that if David was
actuated by malice, bya “ passionate desire
to punish those who had wronged him”
(Plumptre, Dict. Bib., art.‘‘ Solomon ”), or by
‘‘ fierce and profound vindictiveness ” (Stan-
ley, “ Jewish Church,” vol. ii. p. 135), he was
profoundly unconscious of it. Ifit was “a
dark legacy of hate” (ibid.) he was be-
queathing to Solomon, then he stands before
us in these last hours eitheras an unctuous
hypocrite, or as infatuated and inconsistent
to the last degree. That the man who, in
his opening words (ver. 3), enjoined upon
his son, in the most emphatic manner, a
strict and literal obedience to the law of
eaven, should in these subsequent words,
delivered almost in the same breath, re-
quire 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 isa 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 oid 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 there-
fore Solomon, who was under no obligation
to spare the criminals his father had spared,
must be requifed to do it. Of the Jewish
king it might be said with a special pro-
priety, ‘‘ 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,
(Lange, American Trans., p. 32) that ‘*no-
thing but sophistry can justify his [David’s]
charge to Solomon, not to let the unfortu-
nate man [Shimei] die in peace,” merely
shows how imperfectly the writer has en-
tered into the spirit of the theocratic law,
that law under which David lived, and by
which alone he could be governed and
govern others.

Ver. 10.—So [Heb. and] David slept
[Heb. lay down]. The idea of DY 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
(aiter & 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 (cf. the Latin expression abiit ad
plures, and the Greek é¢ z\edvwr ixéoOat],
and was buried in the city of David [i.e.
the hill of Zion, which he had fortified,
His citadel became his scpulchre, and
thenceforward bore his name. Intramural
interment was permitted only to prophets
and kings, Jerusalem is completely under-
mined by caves and eaverns, and Zion is
no exception to the rule, One of these,
possibly enlarged, probably became the
burying-place of the kings. It was known,
not only in Nehemiah’s day (Nehem. iii.
15, 16), but down to the age of the apostles
(Acts 11. 29). Probably owing to a mis-
understanding of St. Peter’s words, ‘his
sepulchre is with us,” &c., 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. xiii. 8. 4). He has also a curious
story of an attempted plunder of the tomb
by Herod (Ant. xvi. 7. 1)

Ver. 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 Chron. xxix. 27), the historian has dis-
regarded the fraction of a year in giving
the length of David’s reign, He reigned
at Hebron, according to 2 Sam. v. 5, ‘* seven
vears and six months,”CH. 11. 1—11.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 29

HOMILETICS.

Vers. 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,—ereater as a poet, as a
statesman, as a patriot; less, inasmuch as “he that is least in the kinedom of
heaven is greater than he,”—beckons us to the chamber of death, and bids us wit-
ness 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.” Md more? TE
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 ag 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 legs care-
fully (2) What he does not say.

I. WaT HE DOES say. 1. He says he is not afraid to meet death. Wis con-
duct, his demeanour says this. See how calmly he looks it in the face. “I go the
way,’ &¢c. 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 the 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 **orought
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? Shaii 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 bene-
ficent religion, and its gospel of immortality, should make us brave to die. 2, He
bids us be mindful of our mortaiity. There are Christians who will not think,
will not speak of death. Notso 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 Kaffirs 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 our-
selves?” 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 ie
best gift he can bestow. The Christian must not die selfishly. Even in pain fe
feebleness, he must care for others. If he can, he ought to charge his children anc
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, han eit
dying Jew? 4. He reminds us that men die as they have lied. eae ee
the law, ‘‘save in the matter of Uriah,” &c, His death is of a piece with his life30 THE FIRST BOOK OF KING». [cH. 1. 1—11.

 

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. hey deceive themselves, who,

“ Dying, put on the weeds of Dominic, | i
Or as Franciscans think to pass disguised.

5. He warns us to set our house wn 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 hig grave;” he will have these debts dis-
charged. 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 uncon-
fessed, or injury unrepaired, any enemy unforgiven? ‘What thou doest, do
quickly.” But let us now consider—

II. Wuat Davin bors nor say. The silence of Scripture is often golden, is some-
times 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—l. 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
lite. The Christian could not die thus, Even “ half-inspired heathens” have
expressed a livelier hope—witness Cicero’s ‘*O preclarum diem cum ad illud divi.
num animorum concilium coetumque proficiscar ”—and how immeasurably higher
than this, again, is St. Paul’s desire to depart and be with Christ! “I co the way
of all the earth ”—it is like the sound of the clods upon the coffin, without the
faintest whisper of a“ Reswrgam.” Whata contrast between this and the apostle’s
exultant cry, ‘“‘ Death is swallowed up in victory!” And the very humblest Chris-
tian 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 man-
sions, 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
which we miss in the death chamber of the sweet Psalmist of I
saintly and spiritual of all the Jews. As Coleridge,

and a triumph
srael, the most

“Ts 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 ureent demand
for the punishment of Joab and Shimei. He does not know of a © rudement if
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 isCH. 11. I—11.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 31

 

os

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 judement-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 kines. And to
us death brings a crown (Rev. ii. 10, iii. 11; 2 Tim. iv. 8; James i. 12, &e.), a
throne (Rev. iii. 21), a sceptre (Rev. ii. 27), a kingdom (Dan. vii.18; Luke xxii. 29 «
Heb. xii. 28, &.) To the Jew death was practically the end of life and of glory ;
to the Christian it is the beginning of both. ;

Vers. 1—11.—EHikon Basiliké. 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 Hikon Basiliké, 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 ewlogiwm.

I. H&E 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. lew nobler and greater men have ever lived. Witness his magnanimnity,
his chivalry, his loyalty, his bravery, his tenderness, his forgiveness of wrongs. See
the records of 1 Sam. xvi, 12, 21; xvii, 82—87, 00; xvill. 14—16; xxii. 23; xxiy.
0,22; xxv.16; xxvi.9—25;: 2 Sam,i. 11—15-> ii.5, 6 ; iii. 831—39 5 iv. O-= sds, 1
xvi. 10,125; xviil. 83; xix. 22. Such a man, had he lived and died among the
sheepfolds, would have been ‘‘ king of men for all that.”

Il. Hr was one or Heaven’s xines. ‘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 Sam. xvi.1; Psa. Ixxxix. 20), was taken from the sheep-
folds 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 xi. 4, 83; xv. 8—5, 11; 2 Kings xiv. 3, &.)

Ill. He wAs FAITHFUL TO THE Kine oF kines. ‘‘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,” &c. (1 Kings xv. 5). ‘‘ His heart was perfect
with the Lord his God” (1 Kings xi. 4). He kept God’s commandments and
statutes (ver. 84). He was qualified to govern by having learnt to obey. He re-
quired nothing from his subjects which he did not himself render to his sovereign
Lord.

IV. Hk FAITHFULLY EXECUTED THE JUDGMENTS 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” (Words-
worth). David was never more kingly than when he ‘cut off all wicked doers
from the city of the Lorp”’ (Psa. ci. 8). cys

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). Itis the king speaks in this dying charge. It was aa he —
king, and as such owed obedience to the King of kings, and owed protection an
the vindication of law to his subjects, that he could not pardon Joab and ae
A private person can forgive private wrongs ; a king may not oe publi rst
for he may not give away what is not his to give. y is true a oo ae
prayed for the forgiveness of his murderers: It is true ai ac O ee te
who have wronged us. But we are not to defeat the ends of justice, we Oa
malefactor go free. Nor will the Son of David forgive conscious and inveterate32 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. (on. 11. 1—11.

 

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 xix. 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 > bb AS
his own confessions. In Psalm li. he has himself recorded his sin and his profound
penitence; in Psalm xxxii. 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 Kikon Basiliké has many
goodly and noble features, but the fairest lineament of all is the story of his sin
and its forgiveness (2 Sam. xii. 1-18).

HOMILIES BY VARIOUS AUTHORS.

Vers. 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 sancti-
fies 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 ii. 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 EXISTENCE 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.

Ill. DrarH REMINDS THE SERVANTS 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 INHERITANCE 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 (Exod. xx. 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, “Ir 1s
EXPEDIENT 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 accomphsh up to a certain

point, but no further.

VI. How much BETTER sTILL Ig IT FOR Us TO DIE, when we look at it in
the light of eternity. “ David slept with his fathers (ver. 10), but only like them
to be carried home to God, to rest in Abraham’s bosom” (Luke xvi. 22). For
ourselves, we may say with St. Paul, “* To depart, and be with Christ is far better ”
(Phil. i. 18).—E. pz P.

?

Ver. 2.—‘ Show thyself a man.” The religion of God is the religion of man.
True religion is the pertecting of our humanity.

I. MAN WAS MADE IN THE IMAGE OF Gop. This is His essential characteristic.CH, 11. 1—1].] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

oo

Th or "e s this i
1@ More He reflects this image, the more truly manly He ig,
the Bible restores His manhood.

m a : ae

a Taye Quan or MAS finds in God alone the eg ENE AND
eeD : S reas od. 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 idea] and its law the Divine holiness
Be ye perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matt. v. 48).
His will derives its power alone from God, 1. The Son of God was she Sor bida
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 sa v5
¢ Touch not, taste not, handle not” (Col. ii. 21), and creates all sorts of irtiGelal
duties, is not in accordance with true piety, the one great commandment of which
—love to God and mMan—approves itself at once to the gospel and to the conscience
4, Be a man means, finally, Do thy duty likea man. Be one of the violent who
take the kingdom by force. Tet us be careful not to effeminate our Christianity by

a soft sentimentalism. Tet us learn from the Son of God to be truly men “ ft
God’s own heart.”—E. pr P : cer

The religion of

Vers. 1—4.—A royal. father’s last words.» D
close. He has proved himself to be “a man after God’s own heart.” Not a
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
xi. 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 CALMNESS 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 con-
fronted 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 a
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,” &c., with St. Paul’s “I have fought a good fight,” &e.
(2 Tim. iv. 7, 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.

Il. 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—

1 KINGS. 2

avid’s eventful life ig drawing to aot THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

    

[cox. tm Lead.

 

 

the great principles of truth and righteousness, as illustrated by tl

1eir 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 wl

10 sailed before

them. Let them use it wisely if they would have a safe and prosperous voyage.

Tll. THE STEADFASTNESS OF Gop's PURPOSE AMID ALL THE CHAN

GES OF HUMAN

‘i : - oe : : ape ene.) G

nistory. 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 perish-
able as the things and beings of earth. Steadfast order of the heavenly bodies

and of the seasons a symbol of the sure covenant (Jer. XXxiil. 20).
man often serves to deepen our impression of the eternity of God.

; E 2 pee r
tale soon told, but “the counsel of the Lord standeth fast,” &e. Thi

The frailty of
Human life a
s is our security

for the triumph of the cause of truth and righteousness in the world, ‘‘ All flesh is

grass,” &c, (1 Peter i. 24). Man dies, but God lives; and the hope
upon His word can never be put to shame.

that stays itself

TV. THE CONDITIONAL NATURE OF DIVINE PROMISES. “Tf thy children take heed,”
&c. 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.

Vers. 2, 8.—A charge from a dying king. The utterances

of dying men

naturally Lave 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. Exemplity by the mention of any

whose whole future destiny turned upon the wish and the counsel o
or friend. David’s counsel to Solomon had this double value.

f a dying father
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 anmvety 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 consider-

ation 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—

L Tue IMPORTANCE OF COMPLETE OBEDIENCE TO Gop. He had seen the terrible
effects of partial obedience in Saul, his own predecessor. (Ulustrate from Saul’s life.)

1. This implies the recognition of God as King. He is King
Lord of lords, and even princely Solomon was to remember that h

of kings, and
e had a Master

in heaven. This would be not only for his own good, but for the welfare of his
kingdom. The tyrannies, the exactions, the cruelties of an ordinary Hastern 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
yetribution 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
Joseph, says in the hour of temptation, ‘‘ How can I do this great
sin against God?” That thought may be ours in the darkness

to him who, lke
wickedness, and
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 mess wwe
comes, ‘“‘ Keep the charge of the Lord thy God, to walk in His ways.” 2. U'his
involves thoroughness in obedience. David uses no vain repetitions when he speaks
of ‘statutes, commandments, judgements, and testimonies.” The whole law, not

a part of it only, was to be remembered. We are all tempted to partial obedience.CH. 11. 1—11.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

85

It is easy, natural, profitable to obey some commands,
disease, or shame, or loss of reputation, and, fe
ae a EOD. But there

aisnonour rather than g 14 als
are to be obeyed if we would « walk before God in truth with aoa
Again there are some precepts which seem of trifling value and we are tem sted
Say we need not be too precise. But we forget that God’s laws even the i | + f
them, are terribly precise. altts

Science is proving this in ever

' Q very department of nature

2 : : ? : c °

Lhe tide, for example, will not stop short a foot in Space, nor a moment in time. to
ort

save the life of the helpless man penned in between the rocks. And are mora] 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 import-
ance, 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 Penuine
obedience than that. ‘i
Ii. Tue NECESSITY OF PERSONAL RESOLUTION. ‘Be thon strong, therefore, and
show thyself a man.” This sounds like an echo of God’s Own words to Joshua (i. 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 heroie
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, &e.) Butin 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 check the uprising of passion, to fight against the pride which would make
us refuse to submit to the revelation, and to the righteousness ofGod, &e. 2. There
as 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,’
IlI. THE ASSURANCE OF RESULTING BLESSEDNESS, “ That thou mayest prosper,”
&c. Asan 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 pray erful
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.

: Disobedience wil] bring
aring such penalties, some refrain

© are other laws of God, obedience to which brings
lory, impoverishment and not advantage ; S36 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

[cu. 1. 12—26.

 

 

 

ADONIJAH’S INTRIGUE
EXPOSITION.

CHAPTER II. 12—25.

Ver. 12._And Solomon sate on the throne
of David his father, and his kingdom [?.¢.,
dominion, sway] was established greatly.
rf. 2 Chron. i. 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.

Ver. 13.—And Adonijah, the son of Hag-
gith, came to Bathsheba, the mother of Solo-
mon. [The LXX. adds kai TPUTEKVYNOEV QUuTy,
but the words are probably inserted from ver.
19. The historian now relates the plot of
Adonijah and its defeat. Foiled in his pur-
pose 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 (ch. i. 5) had failed to effect.
And he first addresses himself to the queen
mother (‘‘Aggreditur mulierem, ut regnandt
ignaram ita amoribus facilem.”’ Grotius).
The position of the queen dowager in the
Hebrew kingdom was an influential one;
not unlike that of the Validé sultana
amongst the Ottomans. Hence the con-
stant mention of each king’s mother (1
Kings xiv. 31; xv. 10, where notice ver.
13: 2 Kings xi. 1; xu. 1; xiv. Paley.  D,
&c.; hence, too, the part which such a
queen mother as Athaliah found it pos-
sible to take. This pre-eminence was a
natural result of the polygamy of Hastern
sovereigns (and the consequent intrigues of
the harem), coupled with the high estima-
tion in which the mother was held in the
East.) And she said, Comest thou peace-
ably. (Heb. Is it peace thy coming ? Bath-
sheba 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, conse-
quently, is, ‘* What can this coming mean ?”
The prominence of the idea of peace in all
Eastern salutations has often been noticed.
Cf, 1 Sam. xvi. 4; 2, Kings ix, 22; 1v. 26;
y. 21: Lukex.5; John xx. 19—21, &e.] And
he said, Peaceably [Heb. peace.)

Ver. 14.—He said moreover [Heb. And
he said] Ihave 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, ri ¢uoe cat
cot, John ii. 4, &e.] And she said, Say on.

Ver. 15.-And he said, Thou knowest that

eg a eee

 

 

the kingdom was mine [schon so gut wie
mein (Dibr). Adonijah evidently made
much of the right of primogeniture (cf. ver.
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,
&e. 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 findtruth 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 euard, he
plays the saint and obtrudes his piety and
resignation |: howbeit (lit., and] the king-
dom is turned about and is become my
prother’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 king-
dom being his brother’s by Divine appoint-
ment, he cannot have been ignorant of that
long ago (2 Sam. xii. 25), yet he conspired all
the same, And it is not difficult to read
here between the lines, that he has not re-
linquished his hopes, and does not acqui-
esce in Solomon’s supremacy. |

Ver. 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 ‘*per-
son,” for eyes (ver. 15), looks, mien]. And
she said unto him, Say on.

Ver. 17.—And he said, Speak, I pray thee,
unto Solomon the king; for he will not say
thee nay, [will not repulse thee. Same words
as ver. 16. There isa spice of flattery in
these words. He now exaggerates her in-
fluence with the king] that he may give me
Abishag the Shunammite to wife. [We are
hardly justified in concluding, as some com-
mentators have done, that love had nothingCH. I. 12—25.]

to do with this request. It is not improb-
able, on the contrary, that a passion for the
beautiful Shunamnite, perhaps the fairest
woman of her time, may hava first elyen a
powerful impulse to Adonijah’s ambition
(see on ch.i.5). At the same time, he must
have had ulterior motives (see on ver, 22),
Ver. 18. — And Bathsheba said, Well
[there is no reason why the strict render-
ing ‘‘ good,” should not be preserved here.
The A.V. follows the LXX. carée. Similarly
Luther, wohl ; but Bihr, gut), I will speak
for thee [LXX. zepi cot] unto the king.

Ver. 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 (Kal kaTepiAnoev aurny). 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.
(éré0n Opdvoc) and most translators. The
reception was clearly a public one, if the in-
terview was private. But the original is
simply, ‘‘ and he set,” &., suggesting that
Solomon may have done it, as a mark of
respect, with his own hands. He “ received
his mother as 11.33” (ch. xv. 13). Bahr]
for the mother of the king, and she sat on
his right hand. [The place of honour. Cf.
Pee. Pex t Matt. xx, 212° xxv. 33 - Acts
Vil. 06 >"Rom. vill. 34; Heb.’ t. 3+ viii. 1,
&¢c. It was also the place of honour amongst
Arabians (Keil), Greeks, and Romans, as
the very names evwrvjtoc —an euphemism for
aptoreodc—and sinistra, show.

Ver. 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; t.c.,
Adonijah’s suit cannot have been devoid of
political consequences.

Ver. 21.—And she said, Let Abishag the
Shunammite be given to Adonijah thy
brother to wife. [For the construction (NS

with a nominative, or, as some think, Ay
used impersonally — man gebe), cf. Gen.

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

   
     
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
   
  
  
  
 
   
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
   
  
 
  
  
 
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
   
  
   
 

oT

Cee oe etn en ees

and especially Num.
-, Lex. s. v. DS and

XXxvii. 42; Exod. x, 8 .
Xxxll. 5; and see Gesen
Ewald, Syntax, 295 b.]
Ver. 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. * Solo-
mon’) says this “ narrative ig not a little
perplexing.” He then specially remar
the strangeness of Bathsheba’s interceding
for Adonijah, and also on Solomon’s “ flash.
ing into fiercest wrath” at her request. He
explains the facts, however, by ‘* Mr. Grove’s
ingenious theory identifying Abishag with
the Shulamite (Cant. vi. 13), the heroine of
the Song of Songs.” It is “the passion-
ate love of Solomon for ‘the fairesi among
women’ that has made Bathsheba, * hither-
to 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 re-
quest 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 Solo-
mon’s sudden outburst of anger, This re-
quest 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 indigna-
tion. Aud the theory of a love story has
this disadvantage, that the young king com-
pletely 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, &c. 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

ks onOriental monarchies that the harem of a
sovereign descended to his successor. Thus
the impostor Smerdis took possession of the
harem of Cambyses (Herod. iii. 68), while
Darius in turn had some of the wives of
Smerdis (iii. 88), And what is much more
to the point, a similar custom obtained
amongst the Jews. David, for example,
sueceeded to the wives, along with the king-
dom, of Saul (2 Sam. xi. 8). And we see
from the case of Abner and Rizpah (Ibid,
iii. 8), and still more from that of Absalom
(ch. xvi. 22), that to “take possession of
the harem was the most decided act of
sovereignty” (Lord A. Hervey, Speak. Com.
on 2 Sam. xvi. 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 Ado-
nijah’s request would have been the strongest
encouragement to his pretensions” (Rawlin-
son in loco). It may be said that Abishag
had not really been the concubine of David
(ch. i. 4), which is true, and which explains
what would otherwise have been the aston-
ishing impiety of Adonijah (Lev. xviii. 8,
xx. 11; ef, 1 Cor. v. 1), and the wonderful
complaisance of Bathsheba, There is no
warrant for charging Adonijah (as is done
by & Lapide, Wordsworth, al.) with defy-
ing the Divine law and seeking an inces-
tuous alliance, for the historian is careful
to represent Abishag as Davyid’s attendant,
and not as his wife. But it is hardly prob-
able 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 cer-
tainty, 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 inter-
preted it by the light of contemporaneous
luistory, 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. [‘ihe LXX. and
other translators appear to have had a
slightly different text before them. The LXX.
renders, cai adr ’ABiabap Kai abr “Lwaf,
ck. 7. AX; the Vulgate, ‘et habet Abiathar,”’
ae. The Chald. paraphrases, ‘‘nonne in

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

(cH. mm. 12-26,

 

 

constlio fuerunt ille et Abiathar,” &c. Keil
well remarks that ‘‘the repetition of ry)
answers entirely to the emotional character
of the words.” We can hardly believ®,
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 seribe”’
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 Abia-
thar, as if Solomon had received some prior
intimation of this second conspiracy. Pos-
sibly his reriarkable penetration had di-
vined 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 conclu-
sive proof of a plot].

Ver. 23.—Then king Solomon sware by
the Lord, saying, God doso to me, and more
also [a common form of adjuration (Ruth
i 17: 1 Sam, xiv. 44; xx. 13; 2 Samco:
xix, 18, &e.)=Gott soll mich fort und fort
strafen, Bahr], if [or ‘‘ that.” 3 constantly
follows formule of swearing, as in all the
passages just cited. Cf. the use of ov: in
New Testament. The order of the next
words in the Hebrew is noticeable] against
his life spake Adonijah this word. [iW5j2;
‘‘at the peril or cost of his life.” Cf. 2 Sam.
XH. 17s WOSh. Kea bas

Ver. 24.—Now therefore [THeb. and now},
as the Lord liveth, which hath established
me, and set me [a ’ has here erept 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 Words-
worth understand by this expression, ‘ hath
given me issue.” ‘*Solomon,” says Keil,
‘had already one son, viz., Rehoboam, about
a year old (comp. xi. 42 with xiy. 21, and 2
Chron. xii. 13).” But some doubt seems to
attach to the ‘‘ forty and one years” men-
tioned as the age of Rehoboam at his acces-
sion. Bihr says Solomon’s ‘* marriage did
not occur till afterwards (iii. 1). And we
find from 1 Kings xi. 38; 2 Sam. vii. 11, 27,
that to ‘make,’ or ‘ build an house,’ means
to found a lasting dynasty”) ,as he promised
(Heb. spake, i.e., at 2 Sam. vii. 11—13],
Adonijah shall be put to death this day.

Ver, 25.—And King Solomon sent by the
hand [i.e., the instrumentality ; not neces-
sarily eigenhdndig, as Thenius. Cf. Exod.
iv. 13% I Sam. xvi. 20, Heb.< 1 Kinks si to.
xiv. 18; Jer. xxxvil.2 (‘‘which he spake by the
hand of Jeremiah’’), &e. The same expression
is found in ver. 46 of this chapter] of BenaiahcH. 11. 12—25.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 89

{in the East the captain of the king’s body-
guard has always been the ‘chief of the
executioners,” the title given to Potiphar,
Gen. xxxvii. 36, Heb. ; in 2 Kings xxy. 8 to
Nebuzar-Adan ; and. in «Den... te: 1A to
Arioch ‘ the captain of the king’s guard, | royal clemency, and seeks by chicanery and
which was gone forth to slay the wise men, intrigue to snatch his brother’s crown. the
&c.] and he fell upon him so that he died. sentence of death takes effect This
[Solomon has been accused of “a cold- | renewed attempt, after failure and forcive-
blooded vengeance i and of ‘‘that jealous | ness, must have convinced the kine ‘that
cruelty so common in Oriental despots,” in | Adonijah’s pretensions would be a stand:n
ordering the execution of his brother. But | menace to the pe y of |
unjustly. It is to be remembered that on empire, and therefore he owed it to himseli
the occasion of Adonijah’s first rebellion the | to his subjects, and above all to God, who
young monarch had displayed the greatest | had entrusted him with the crown, to put
magnanimity towards him. He might then | this restless and dangerous plotter out of
have justly decreed against him the death | the way. To pass over a second offence
which no doubt the conspirators had de- | would beavirtual encouragement of sedition
signed against him (1 Kingsi. 12.) Adonijah, | for it would show that the king was weak
by fleeing to the altar, showed that he had | and might be trifled with. Adonijah there-
good grounds for fearing the avenging | fore must die, not only in expiation of hig
sword. He was clearly conscious that he | treason, but as an example to the subjects
had merited the death of the traitor. But | of Solomon, that the disaffected, including
Solomon spared him, during good behaviour. | all Adonijah’s partizans, might be awed into
He warned him that ‘if wickedness were | obedience,

found in him” he should die (1 Kings i, 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

oO
oO

ace and prosperity of his

 

HOMILETICS.

Vers. 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 execu-
tioner. What were the causes which produced such different results? Let us
consider some few of them.

I. ADONIJAH WAS ENDUED WITH BEAUTY, SOLOMON WITH WIspom. The first had
goodliness; the second goodness. Men admired Adonijah; the Lord loved Solomon
(2 Sam. xii, 24). To the elder brother the Allwise Providence allotted the gifts of
face and form—exterior advantages—to the latter He gave ‘‘ wisdom and under-
standing exceeding much, and largeness of heart’’—the quiet, unobtrusive adorn-
ment of the spirit. Wisdom is better than rubies; yes, and better than beauties.

If. ADONIJAH WAS AMBITIOUS; SoLomMoN was Prous. ‘The first loved self, and
sought his own advancement. The second ‘‘ loved the Lorn” (1 Kings iii. 8). The
first, by his own showing, resisted and defied the will of Heaven (1 Kings ii. 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 (chap. 11. 9,11). Their lives consequently were regulated
on totally different principles. The first acted as if he were master (chap. 1. 0); the
second remembered he was but a servant (ver. 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 Tim. iv. 8).

III. ADoNIJAH SOUGHT TO FORCE EVENTS; SOLOMON WAITED PATIENTLY FOR THE
Lorp. 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
him that judgeth righteously.” And he was crowned and Adonijah was executed.40 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cH. 1. 26—85.

 

TV. AponiyAH REBELLED AGAINST HIS FATHER; SOLOMON REVERENCED 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 elders. And their histories accorded with their principles; thei lives and
deaths illustrated the commandment.

V. Gop cHosr SOLOMON AND REFUSED AponwaH. As in the case of Esau and
Jacob, as in the case of Manasseh and Ephraim, the younger 1s preferred to the
elder. And yet the elder was apparently the popular favourite. ‘‘ Man looketh on
the outward appearance, but the Lorp 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 is godly for himself.” The meek, pacific Solomon, the rejected of Joab
and Abiathar, is the accepted of Jehovah. And the brilliant and beautiful Adoni-
jah, his advantages, his influence, his efforts, all these avail him nothing, for “ the
proud”—and we may add, the selfish, the disobedient—* the Lorp knoweth afar
of.” (Psa. exxxviii. 6), while ‘the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul
hateth ” (Psa. xi. 5).

 

EXPOSITION.

xxili. 6). Zadok and Abiathar had borne

 

CHAPTER II. 26—35.

THE DEPOSITION OF ABIATHAR AND THE
DEATH OF JOAB.

Ver. 26.—And unto Abiathar the priest
[see note on 1 Kings i. 8. The historian
now relates the end of Adonijah’s confeder-
ates] said the king, get thee to Anathoth
[The Heb. is extremely curt and authorita-
tive, corresponding well with the anger and
determination of the speaker. Anathoth,
the home of Abiathar, was also the residence
of another high priest, Hilkiah (Jer. 1. 1).
It was in Benjamin, a priests’ city, and had
suburbs (Jos. xxi. 18, 17,18). It has been
identified by Robinson with Anata, a village
1+ hrs. N.N.E. of Jerus. The name (=
Answers) according to Gesenius, means,
“answers to prayer,’ but according to the
Talmud, ‘‘ echoes ’’], unto (by is here almost
the equivalent of Sy. Cf. 2 Sam. xv. 4, 20,Heb.
&c.] thine own fields [the patrimony of his
family] for thou art worthy ofdeath; [{Heb.
a man of death; LXX. avijp Gavdrov, 1.e.,
évoyoc Pavarov, Matt. xxvi. 66.] but I will not
at this time [Heb. in this day] put thee to
death [7.¢., the sentence of death was deferred
during good bebaviour. It is hardly correct
to say that Abiathar was ‘‘ spared for a time,
but only for a time” (Stanley). More correctly
Corn. & Lapide: ‘‘ Wisit ewm in patriam ut
ibi vitam, quam et condonabat, quicte tradu-
ceret.” For aught we know, he died in peace
[because thou barest the ark of the Lord God
before David my father [‘Thenius, quite need-
lessly would read for ‘‘ ark,” ‘‘ephod” (1Sam.

 

the ark (not of course in person, but per
alios, viz., the Levites Uriel, Joel, &e.: 1
Chron. xv. 11), when Dayid brought it up to
Jerusalem, and also during his flight from
Absalom (2 Sam. xv. 24—29). Abiathar had
thus been associated both with David’s joys
and sorrows] and because thou hast been
affiicted in all wherein my father was
afflicted. [See 1 Sam. xxii. 17—23 ; 2 Sam.
xv. 24, &.]

Ver. 27.—So Solomo: thrust out Abiathar
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 twa wAnpwby of the New Testament.”
Bahr] the word of the Lord, which he spake
concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh [1
Sam. ii, 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
(Num. xxv. 15).]

No one can justly accuse Solomon of un-
necessary severity or of cruelty in his treat-
ment of Abiathar. On the occasion of his-
first conspiracy, Abiathar seems to have
escaped even censure. And yet that con-
spiracy, had it succeeded, would almost cer-
tainly have involved Solomon’s death (ch. i.
12). Heis 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.

Ver. 28.—Then tidings [Heb. And the re«CH. 11. 26—35.]

 

port, &e. Not necessarily of Abiathar’s
deposition, but certainly of Adonijah’s
death) came to Joab, for Joab had turned
after [same expression as in Exod, xxiti. 2 :
Judges ix. 3] Adonijah, though [lit., and]
he turned not after Absalom. [The LXxX.
(Cod. Vat.), Vulg., and all ancient versions
except the Chald., here read Solomon, which
Ewald and Tnenius adopt. This reading is
perhaps too summarily dismissed by most
commentators, as involving a statement
which would be self-evident and superfluous.
But itis 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 (ch. i. 50). His flight is
almost certain evidence of his guilt. (‘ Joab
vero seipsum prodidit.” Miinster.) 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 (Theodoret, 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 de-
prived him of the right of the sanctuary. But
a drowning man grasps at a straw. It is
probable that he never thought of his mur-
ders, but only of his treason. According to
the Rabbis, death at the altar ensured him
burial amongst his fathers (Minster). But,
if this were so, it would hardly enter into
his calculations.

Ver. 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,
fallupon him. [The LXX. adds, ‘‘ and bury
him.’”]

Ver. 30.—And Benaiah came to the taber-
nacle of the Lord, and said unto him
[Benaiah evidently “ hesitated to stain the

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

   
   
   
  
 
  
    
   
  
   
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
   
 
 
  
  
   
  
   
    
  
 
  
  
  
   
  
    
  
  
  
  
  
 
   
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
   
 

41

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 had directed that Joab should, if
possible, be induced to leave the altar,
Fivery Jew would dread its profanation by
strife and bloodshed.] And he said, Nay ;
but I will diehere. [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 some-
how escape with his hfe. 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 sbould be borne in mind that gross super-
stition not uncommonly accompanies irre-
ligion and brutality ; and it is quite con-
ceivable 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 for ever so short a time
the execution, as Bishop Hall imagines. ]

Ver. 31.—And the king said unto him, Do
as he hath said, and fall upon him [the
law decreed (Exod, xxi, 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 Deut. xxi. 23 seemed to Solomon to re-
quire it. Both Bahr and Keil think it was
that Joab’s services to the kingdom might
be requited with an honourable sepu ture.
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. ‘‘ to-day,”
onjpeoov| the innocent blood [for the con.
struction cf. 1 Sam. xxv. 31; Neh. i. 12;
and Ewald,287d. Innocent blood, 7.e., blood
not shed in war, or forfeited to justice, rested
upon the community, or the authorities
responsible for its punishment (Num.
xxxv. 83; Deut. xix. 10, 13; xxi. 9. -Cf.
Gen. iv. 10) until satisfaction was made,
See on ver. 5], which Joab shed, from me,
and from the house of my father. (Heb.42 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

“from upon me.” Solomon evidently be-
lieved that the guilt of blood was upon him
and his house so iong as Abner’s and
Amasa’s blood remained unavenged (‘‘ The
blood that is not required from the mur-
derer 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 Sam. xxi. 1, 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 im-
peratively demanded the death of Joab,
und to spare him was to violate all law,
and to imperil the throne and the people.
‘Only a superficial observer,” says Ewald,
‘scan here reproach Solomon with needless
severity.”’]

Ver. 32.—And the Lord shall return
([LXX. éwéorpefe, returns, or returned |
his blood [LXX. 76 aia rije adixiac avrov,
i.e., the blood he had shed. Cf. vers. 30,
44] upon his own head, who fell upon [same
word as in vers. 29, 31. So that it was
strictly a re-taliation. 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. ]

Ver. 33.—Their blood shail therefore re-
turn upon the head of Joab, and upon the
head of his seed [according to Exod. xx. 5;
xxxiv. 7; Lev. xx. 5; xxvi. 39. There is
an obvious reference to David’s curse
2 Sam. iii. 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} for ever: but
upon (Heb. to] David, and upon his seed,
and upon ‘his house, and upon his throne,
suall there be [or ‘‘be,” optative; LXX.

 

[cH. 11. 26—d0.

 

yévotro] peace (ave., prosperity] for ever
from the Lord. [So persuaded is Solomon
that he is fulfilling a religious duty in d¢
creeing the execution of Joab; so little
thought has he of malice, revenge, or any
baser motive, that he counts on the Divine
blessing in perpetuity for the deed]

Ver. 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 taber-
nacle 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 isin Gibeon ” (2 Sam.
xx, 8), that he slew Amasa. Cf. 2 Kings
ix. 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 Sam. xxv. 1). It was evidently
an exceptional occurrence. Remembering
the estimation in which the Jew held the
corpse and the grave (Num. xix. ll, 16,
22: cf. Matt. xxili. 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 Chron. xx. 20), according to
Jerome, was visible from Bethlehem, being
but six Roman miles distant.

Ver. 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 chap. i.,
nor is this implied in this verse, the mean-
ing of which is that Benaiah took the place
of Joab, and that Zadok henceforward was
sole high priest. ]

HOMILETICS.

Vers, 26, 27.—The Degraded High Priest. We may find in this section a sermon
on Cesarism. 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.

nany turies. They are prominent topics at the present day. We
may perhaps find in this history a few principl+s to guide us.

For we learn

J, THAT PRIESTS HAD BETTER NOT MEDDLE WITH POLITICS. No one can deny their
abstract right to do so. They are men, if they are clergymen, and ‘‘nihil hwmunt,”
e, rad ‘ : ae = . Me . .

&e. As citizens, they may have convictions. Having convictions, they may surelyCH. 11. 26—35.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 48

give effect to them. No one can deny again that they h
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 roNirevpa ig 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 richt and
wrong—where the clergy must speak out; there are other questions—party ques-
tions—where, for their own and their flocks’ sake, they had better hold their peace,

Il. THAT PRIESTS ARE MEN OF LIKE PASSIONS WITH OTHER MEN. Abiathar appa-
rently 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 Joab against the prophet Nathan. Neither the holy anointing oil nor
the discharge of the priest’s office destroys the phronema sarkos (see Art. LX Jeu Tt
is worthy of note that the first high priest was guilty of idolatry, envy, and murmur-
ings; 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” (Lev. xvi. 6, 11). Abiathar, the minister of
God, was a traitor against God and His anointed. Having the frailties, temptations,
aud passions of other men, priests often commit sins, sometimes commit crimes.

Il{. ‘THAT PRIESTS MAY BE PUNISHED FOR THEIR CRIMES BY THE SECULAR POWER,
For centuries the Latin Church contended with our forefathers for the exemption
of ecclesiastics from 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 Ceesar himself. (Cf. Art. xxxvut. of the “ Articles of Religion.”) But

IV. PRiesTs ARE TO BE TREATED WITH THE REVERENCE DUE TO THEIR OFFICE.
“Because thou barest the ark of the Lorp Gop.” Criminous clergy are not to be
so punished as to bring their sacred calling into contempt (not, ¢.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 Cor. iv. 7). ‘*As men are to God’s ministers, they will find Him to them.”

VY. PRIESTS MAY BE DEGRADED FROM THEIR POSITION, BUT CANNOT BE DEPRIVED OF
THEIR PRIESTHOOD. 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 chapter iv. 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 Cesar the things which are Cesar’s, and unto God the things
that are God's.”

VI. IN REMOVING THE UNWORTHY PRIEST THE CIVIL POWER IS FULFILLING THE WILL
OF THE Lorp. The “sure word of prophecy ’—indeed a double prophecy—had its
fulfilment when Solomon banished Abiathar. The secular Der ee Unereey accom-
plished the good pleasure of God declared four hundred years before (Num. xxv

ave often interfered to good

13). And the magistrate who, in the exercise of the authority ee on pre by
God for the punishment of evil doers, degrades the criminous priest, sl pnaee ae
visits him with appropriate pains and penalties, is doing God semice , a ul ae
the will of God, who would have evil ministers above all others nrOUs it to jus ce
and chastised; the more influential their example, the more need of conspicuou

and exemplary punishment.

 

Vers. 26—35.—The Death of Joab. ‘Know ye not that there is a REnee and a
nan falle is in Israel” ight men say 7 heard, s0 may we
great man fallen this day in Israel”—so might men say as they heard, yAd THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cH. 11. 26—80.

 

 

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—ol that
age. He was ‘the Marlborouch, the Belisarius of the Jewish ernpire. He had
foucht David’s battles, won his conquests, captured his citadel, ana twice preserved
for him his crown. Itis asad and tragic ending ol such a brilliant career. I'he
idol of the army, the man who was first in the deadly breach (2 Chron. xd. 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 otf the altar, it
avails him nothing. No, the blood of the white-headed warrior, winner of a hun-
dred 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. Way 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 con-
spiracy 1s discovered, his head is forfeited. He betrays his guilt by his fight. 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 euilty heart. His choice would be
‘the congregation of evildoers.” A stranger to the tabernacle and its services, why
is he here? It is (2) becawse men often betake themselves in adversity to the
religion they despised wm 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 lps which never prayed before. Men
who have neelected God and contemned the ordinances of religion in health often
turn to Him and to themin sickness. “ It is the fashion of our foolish presumption
to look for protection where we have not cared to yield obedience.” But (8) the altar
of God is for sucrifice, not for sanctuary. ‘The purpose of the altar, its raison @eétre,
was that sacrifices, z.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
i+ 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 pro-
faned, 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 lke 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 1) was
meant for life. They act, z.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 hwman 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 ?CH. Il. 86—46. | THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 45

But he only comes to the altar because he is driven to it; because he ce
nothing else. Yes, ‘‘1t 1s too late to ery for mercy when it is the time of justice 2
onde ie ce repentance till they can sin no longer find that such feioned
! o guagment without mercy that showed no mercy.” Joab’s
murders could not have been more treacherous, more cruel. ‘“ The blscd f se n
peace.” ‘Took him aside in the gate to speak with him peaceably ” (2 Sia iii. 27,
marg.). Took Amasa by the beard with the right hand to kiss him” Hee XX. 9)”
There is a lex talionis which governs the dealings of God with transgressors. The dena!
murderer shall be cruelly murdered. The assassin shall be executed at ie altar He
that. * showed no pity ” shall receive none. 8. Because God pays sual aoe ne
pays slowly. It was thirty-four years—an entire generation—since Abner’s blood fir r
cried from the ground. Hight years had elapsed since Amasa’s death ‘And ” \
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
still 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 arth” ? 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.”

in do

EXPOSITION.

CHAPTER II. 36—46.

THE END oF Surmet.—This fresh intrigue
of Adonijah’s warns the king that he must
be on his guard and keep a watch over sus-
pected persons. Prominent among these,
from his antecedents and connexions, would
be Shimei.

Ver. 36.—And the king sent and called
for Shimei [probably from Bahurim, but
see on ver. 8) and said unto him, Build
thee {Not necessarily as ‘‘a guarantee for
his residence there” (Wordsworth). Jew-
ish law would make a purchase difficult.
Lev. xxv. 23. Cf.1 Kings xxi. 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 | pjya, in Greek (cf. Sache, in Germ., from
be neutralized} and go not forth thence any sagen) means (1) word and (2) deed] is
whither for, ‘“ hither and thither.” Weder | good [Shimei cannot complain of the con-
dahin noch dorthin. Bihr.} dition, remembering what he had done (2

Ver. 37.—For it shall be, on the day thou Sam. xv. 5-7) and that Solomon was not
goest out and passest over the brook [lit., bound by his father’s oath (2 Sam, x1x. 23) }s

watercourse, widy. 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 em-
phatic, “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. Lev. xx. 9, and especially Joshua u. 19;
also ver. 31 of this chapter.

Ver. 38.—And Shimei said to the king,
The saying [or thing, matter, 127, like \oyo¢46 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

   

[cu. 11. 86—46.

 

as my lord the king hath said, so will thy
servant do. And Shimei dwelt [in obedience
to this behest] in Jerusalem many days.

Ver. 39.—And it came to pass at the end
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 Sam. xxi. 11; xxvii. 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.

Ver. 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 in-
fatuated disregard of his oath and life? Now
his perversity may of course have been
judicial—quos Deus vult perdere, prius de-
mentat—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 (ver, 42); he must have gone
to Gath with his eyes open, and nothing
but a great provocation, such as mockery
and defiance, willaccount for his going] And
Shimei went and brought his servants from
Gath.

Ver. 41.—And it was told Solomon that
Shimei had gone from Jerusalem to Gath
and was come again. [He, no doubt, per-
suaded 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 hishands. He can hardly
have built his hopes on his not having
crossed the Kidron, for he must have per-
fectly understood that he was to go ‘*no
whither.”

Ver. 42.—And the king sent and called

 

 

for Shimei, 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. em-
bodies this information asa direct statement
in the text of ver. 37, kat WoKxisey avdroy Oo
Baoirede ty TH Hep éxeivy, but itis obviously
a gloss] and protested unto thee, saying,
Know for a certain, on the day that thou
goest out 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,” &c. This last sentence has been
punctuated thus: ‘‘Goodis the word. I have
heard.” Probably WS, ‘‘ which,” is to be
understood.

Ver. 43.—Why then hast 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.” Words-
worth. |]

Ver. 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”
(Lev. xix. 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 ‘‘re-
turns.” LXX. dvramédwee, aor. The king
regards himself as merely the instrument
and dispenser of the Divine Justice. Accord-
ing 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 trans-
gression and disobedience’? would receive
its ‘‘ just recompense of reward ” in this life
present would see in Shimei’s almost un-
accountable infatuation the finger of God.
To them he would seem delivered up to
destruction.

Ver. 45.—And king Solomon shall be
blessed, and the throne of David shall be
established before the Lord for ever. [It
is inconceivable that Solomon could have
spoken thus if he had been conscious either
of sharp practice, or spite, or cruelty. The
words ae those of one who is sure that he
is doing God service.]

Ver. 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 theCH. 11. 86—46.]

 

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

  
 
 

47

 

 

 

 

 

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 malevyo-
lence 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 pre-
sumption which finds support in the con-
sideration that Solomou 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 Jewishlaw. 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. JBesides, there

 

were other ways of recovering them sored
he must pursue them in person, his proper
course was evidently to ask the king’s per-
mission. That he did not do g0 is in itself
a suspicious circumstance, and Solomon
might reasonably think that the flicht 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 im-
punity, that though vengeance was not
executed speedily against evil works, still
retribution was certain in the longrun, and
so of teaching them a much needed lesson
of obedience and respect of authority.
Kivery consideration, therefore, of justice,
morality, filial piety, and religion warranted
him in putting Shimei to death. Every
imputation of weakness, irresolution, dis-
regard of his plighted word, compromise of
hisroyal dignity, and indifference to religion
might justly have been levelled against him,
had he interfered between Shimei and the
sword of Justice.

HOMILETICS.

Vers. 44—46.—The End of the Transgressor.

Old man as he is, he may not die in peace: his

violent, sanguinary, shameful.

hoar hairs must be crimsoned with his blood.
It is twofold.

message to Christian men?
RETRIBUTION.

I. It teaches (1) The sin of treason.
lawful king.
tolerable tyranny and outrage.

Such was the end of Shimei—

What does this teach ? what its
It speaks (1) OF THE SIN, (2) OF THE

He had offered insult and defiance to his
Rebellion against constituted authority can only be justihed by in-
He who

‘¢dares to wield
The regicidal steel ”

st answer to Him by whom kings govern. ( a
see 3 ‘They that resist shall receive to themselves

2. The sin of blasphemy.

- . aera
“be subject to the higher powers.

damnation,” as did this rebel Benjamite. T
Aimed at the king, it reached the King of kings.

curse.” g

We are to “honour the king,” to

“A grievous
It was not only de-

structive of authority ; not only an affront offered to the majesty of law ; 1t was an

indirect blow at the Majesty of Heaven. | ca i
aailioi Those a “eurse God” will ‘‘die” (Job 1. 9).

without sin.

 

Men cannot ‘speak evil of dignities ”’
How little do men48 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu. 11. 86—46,

 

 

ae dade ee epuae :
make of blasphemy! But Shimei had to pay for it with his life. 8. The sin of
perjury. lt 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 (Zech. v. 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 cuiltless,”’ we. A. ‘Phe sin of disobe-
dience. The king had adjured him, had ‘ protested,” had said ‘ know for Geriaan
&e.; and even if the Kidron were mentioned arbitrarily, still it served to test his
obedience. The prohibition, therefore, could not have been plainer. He disre-
garded it, and died. ‘‘ Fool,” does any one say? Stay! The great King has saad,
“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
Ts 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, ever-
lasting contempt—of those who presume on the mercy of God. How many say,
“God is so good, He will never be hard upon us,” &. But is God trwe? Can
Te 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 RETRIBUTION, we are reminded, 1. T'hat 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. Hiccles. x. 20). 2. That respite does not mean release. When David
‘“sware’’ to him, Shimei thought himself safe. Surely the bitterness of death
was past. He would die in his nest. We often mistake God’s forbearance for
forgetfulness. He is long-sufferig, 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 retri-
bution comes as a thief, as the flood, as the sword, as the snare. 3. That uf we
die, it is owr 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 lis 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.

HOMILIES BY VARIOUS AUTHORS.

Vers. 41—46.—Retributions. This is one example of the way in which Solomon
carried out David’s dying command, as given in verses 5—9. Shimei’s vislatieeee
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 doomedCH. 11. 36—46,] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 49
22 Oe Sane

peyote he oe
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
im it, our moral sense condemns it. Would it not have been more mMaguauimous if
with his dying breath he had freely forgiven these old offenders ? Solomon’s ccn-
duct, 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 FOLLOWED BY ITS DUE RECOM-
PENSE. 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 xxviii. 4),
Striking correspondence often between the sin and the penalty. Men suffer in
forms resembling the injury they inflict. “* Whoso sheddeth man’s blood,” &e, ‘All
they that take the sword,” &c. “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, crule 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 man 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. )

(Z.g., Suaxesprarn’s Macbeth; Mrron’s Satan.)

No escape from this retribution but in “ the cross.” “The blood of Jesus Christ his
Son,” &c. 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.

IJ. THE NOBLENESS OF A TRUTHFUL AND FEARLESS DISCHARGE 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 con-
ceives 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.

Il. THE SUPERIORITY OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS ABOVE THE MORAL STANDARD 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 Hz is our
model who, on the cross of sacrifice, prayed, ‘‘ Father, forgive them, for they know
not what they do.” —W. -

1 KINGS.50 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

(on. m1. 1—15.

 

 

 

 

 

EXPOSITION.

CHAPTER II. 1—15.

Tar Brarnntnc or Sotomon’s RricN.—
In the preceding chapter we have seen
the establishment of Solomon’s rule (ver.
46) by the removal of internal foes, 1.é.,
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.

Ver. 1.—And Solomon made affinity [Not
‘Calliance” (as some have supposed) but
relationship. Lit., made h imself son-in-law]
with Pharaoh king of Egypt [which of
the Pharaohs this was, it is impossible to
say with certainty. As, however, Shishak
(ch. xi. 40; xiv. 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
(or Janite) dynasty.” It has been assumed
(Bunsen, Ewald, 3rugsch, al.) that it was
Psusennes II., the last king of that house,
on the supposition that he reigned 30 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
‘gannot 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 (ch.
xi. 21) of Hadad (Plumptre), or whether the
marriage was prorused 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 jover 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, Psa. Ixxxix.
10; Isa. li. 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 (Gen. xli.
45; Exod. ii. 21; Num. xii. 1; Matt. i. 5;

 

 

Ruth iv. 13), nor was it condemned by the
Law, which only forbade intermarriage with
the nations of Canaan (Exod. xxxiv. 16;
Deut. vii. 3), and sanctioned the union of
an Israelite with a captive taken in war
(Deut. xxi. 138; cf. xx. 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
ig no trace whatever of the introduction of
Egyptian rites into Israel, it is a fair pre-
sumption that the Egyptian princess con-
formed to the religion of her adopted
country], and brought her into the city of
David [2 Chron. viii. 11 speaks of her
dwelling in “the house of David,” %e., ib
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 vi. 1), nor
his own house until the eleventh year (2b.
vii. 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. ch. vii. 7] and the house of
the Lord (cf. ch. vi. ; vii. 51] and the wall of
Jerusalem round about. ([Probably, he
both strengthened and extended the city
walls, as Josephus (Ant. viii. 6. 1) affirms.
Acc. to the LXX. addition to ch. x., it was
on this task that Jeroboam was employed
(ch. xi. 27; ef. ix. 15). David had fortified
a part of the city (2 Sam, v. 9).

Ver, 2.—Only [The word perhaps signifies
‘‘ that there was one exception to the flourish-
ing condition of things which the writer
has been describing” (Rawlinson), though
the people are nowhere blamed for sacri-
ficing on the high places, and Solomon's sac-
rifice 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 com-
pelled to sacrifice on the high places, be-
cause the temple was not yet built (Keil),
and ‘‘the place’ where God would put His
name had only just been chosen (1 Chron.
xxii. 1)] the people sacrificed (Heb. were
sacrificing, i.¢e., habitually, constantly] in
high places [All nations haye chosen hill tops
for acts of worship, perhaps as being nearer
heaven, ‘‘ Even Abraham built an altar to
the Lord on a mountain near Bethel (Gen.cH. mr. 1—15.]

 

 

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

    

51

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

samt. 7°85) cf. -xkii. 2. Os key 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 (Levy. xvii. 9 :
Deut. xii. 5,11, 13,26, 27- cf. Jos. xxl, 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 pro-
mised land, and the tabernacle was set up
(Josh. xvii. 1), altars were constantly built
and sacrifices offered on high places, and
sometimes, asin the case of Gideon (Judg. vi.
26), and Manoah (7b. xiii. 19, 20), by express
Divine command. Later on we find Samuel
Gebpet yu. 9.010. xi: 1b: xu. 5), Saul
(xii. 9; xiv. 35), David (1 Chron. xxi. 26),
Solomon and Elijah (1 Kings xviii. 30), offer-
ing sacrifices in various places, which they
could not possibly have done had it seemed
to them that this was condemned before-
hand by the Law. It is highly probable,
therefore, that though the contemporaries of
Joshua took a different view (as Josh. xxii.
15—31 proves), the men of a later age ex-
cused 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 over-
look the fact that there was one place pro-
vided for sacrifices—the door of the taber-
nacle—and that for some reason or other
they sacrificed elsewhere. And the reason,
no doubt, was the one assigned by the his-
torian. It should be added that this term
‘‘high place” (M1D3) came to be used of all
places of worship, not only on heights, but
even those in valleys (2 Kings xvii. 9; Jer.
vil. 31; xxxii. 35). The Bamah sometimes
consisted of an altar only, but as a rule,
there was a shrine or sanctuary erected hard
by (ch. xiii. 32; 2 Kings xvii. 29; xxiii. 19),
the Beth-Bamah, for which the word Bamah
is sometimes loosely employed (ch. xi. 7;
xiv. 23 ; 2 Kings xxi. 3)], because there was
no house built unto the name of the Lord
notil those days.

Ver. 3.—And Solomon loved the Lord
[thus keeping the first and great command-
ment, the ‘‘ Shema Israel” (Deut. vi. 5; cf.
xxx. 16; Matt. xxii.37; Luke x. 27], walk-
ing in the statutes of David his father [7.e.,
those which David had kept (verses 6, 14) and
commanded him to keep (ch. ii. 4)} : only he
sacrificed and burnt incense in high places.
(Lhese words clearly show that the worship
of the high places, although condoned, and

 

 

 

indecd accepted, by God (ver. 5) was not
strictly lawful and right. It was an igno-
rance that God winked at. The historian,
remembering what the worship of the hich
places became, notices this as an imperfec-
tion of Solomon’s early reion, though he
does not say that such worship was sinful.

Ver. 4.—And the king went to Gibeon
(Josh. ix. 3; x. 2; xviii. Dots Ree ta
2 Sam. xxi. 1. Now known ag 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 1s conjectured, the town stood, while the
other was the high place. Solomon was
accompanied to Gibeon by ‘all the congre-
gation,” including the captains, judges, so-
vernors, &c, (2 Chron. i. 2, 3] to sacrifice
there [This religious service was designed
to inaugurate his reign (2 Chron. i. 13),
after the precedent of 1 Sam. xi. 15: cf. 2
Sam. vi. 2. His object was also to suppli.
cate 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 Sam. xxi. 6 we find the taber-
nacle at Nob, though without the ark (1
Sam. iv. 2). After the massacre of the priests
it lost the ephod (1 Sam. xxii. 20; xxiii. 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 Chron.
xv1.37, 39; 2 Chron, i. 3-6] :a thousand burnt
offerings [such numbers were not infrequent
at festivals. See on ch. viii. 62, and cf. 2 Chron.
xxix. 83, 84. Rawlinson reminds us that
“Xerxes offered 1000 oxen at Troy” (Herod.
vu. 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 probakly
lasted for seven or eight days, but even then
a thousand victims can hardly have been
offered whole (py>y) unless the altar was
greatly enlarged, or additional temporary
altars were erected. This latter supposition
is not negatived by the next words. See
on ch. vill. 63, 64,] upon that altar.

Ver. 5.—In Gibeon the Lord appeared
unto Solomon in a dream [cf. Num. xu. 6.
A vision is not necessarily implied (as in
Gen. xxviii. 12; cf. xv. 12), though he may
have seen some angelic form (angelus in
Dei nomine et apparurt loquens. Grotius)—
of course, only in his dream. Cf. Matt.
i. 20; ii. 12. Probably ‘ appeared ”’ is the
equivalent of ‘revealed Himself.” Bahr]on
bo

 

by night; and God said, Ask what I shall
give thee (cf. Matt. vii. 7. This was the
answer to the sacrifices. The night was
probably that which followed the last day
on which they were offered (ver. 15).]

Ver. 6.—And Solomon said, Thou hast
showed unto [Heb. wrought with] thy ser-
vant David my father great mercy [marg.,
yavour)] according as he walked before thee
in truth, and in rightecusness, and in up-
rightness of heart with thee (ef. 2 Kings
xx. 3, where Hezekiah uses much the same
lancuage of himself. Also ch. xt. 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 (ch. i. 48)], that thou hast given him
a son to sit {Heb. sitting] upon his throne,
asit is this day. [Same expression Deut.
vi. 24; viii. 18; 1 Sam. xxii. 8.; Ezra

rz

1. fail

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

Ver. 7.— And now, O Lord my God, thou |

hast made thy servant king insteaa of
David my father; and Iam but [Heb. and
I... ] a little child: [These words are
generally understood as indicating Solo-
mon’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 :uan of
twenty, which Solomon is commonly sup-
posed to have been. Seeonch. ii. 2, and xii.
8] I know not how to go out or come in,
(The same phrase is found in the Penta-
teuch, Deut. xxviii. 6; xxxi. 2. Also in l
Sams vill. dos oem, il, 254.Ps;, exxi.8.
It is the formula for expressing behaviour,
conduct, the outward life of man. |

Ver. 8,—And thy servant is in the midst
of thy people which thou hast chosen [see
Deut. vil. 6], a great people, that cannot be
numbered nor counted for multitude. [The
promises of Gen. xii. 16; xv. 5, lived in the
thoughts and language of the Jews, and were
doubtless the original of this expression. Cf.
also Num, xxi. 10.]

Ver. 9.—Give therefore thy servant an
understanding [Heb. hearing. Ct. ver. 11
(Heb. “to hear judgment.”) The idea is
not docility, as the Vulg. (cor docile), but
discrimination, penetration. Cf. 2 Sam.
xiv. 17 (Heb.) ; Phil. i. 9, 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,” Exod.
li. 14; and cf. Exod. xvisi. 16), The Jews
desired a king that he might judge them
(1 Sam, vill, 5). Their rulers so far had

 

 

[ CH. tty Load:

been purely ‘‘ Judges” (D*DDtY’; 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. ver. 20). And
what were the duties of a king in this
respect, Absalom’s words (2 Sam, xv. 4)
show. In vers. 16—28 we see Solomon sit-
ting as Chief Justice], that Imay discern
between good and bad [i.e., right and
wrong, true and false; cf. Heb. v. 14): for
who is able to judge this thy so great
(Heb. heavy, i.e., numerous ; sompare graves
greges} a people. [The number of the
Israelites at this period is referred to in ch.
iv. 20. |

Ver. 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 sus-
pended. Our dreams accord with our waking
thoughts. This would have been Solomon’s
choice at any time. |

Ver. 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 mean-
ing is explained by the corresponding
word, ‘‘ honour” (123 glory) in ver. 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 ver. 9] judgment ,

Ver. 12.—Behold, I have done according
to thy words [7.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 be-
fore thee, neither after thee shall any arise
like unto thee. [Cf. 1 Chron. xxix. 25; 2
Chron. ix. 22. But there is no need to re-
strict the reference to kings and princes. |

Ver. 13.—And I have also given thee that
which thou hast not asked, both riches and
honour [| Heb. glory]; so that there siall not
be any amoung the kings like unto thee all
thy days.

Ver. 14.—And if thou wilt walk in my
ways, to keep my statutes and my com-
mandments, as thy father David did walk
{ver.6; xv. 4. This is the Divine confirm-
ation of David’s words to his son (ch. ii. 3, 4)
and of the son’s description of his father’s
piety (ver. 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 }pt (ch. xi, 4) at the time of hiscn, nt. 1—15.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 53

 

decease, But he had not fulfilled the con- | the ark of the covenant {the other sanctu-
dition (ch. x1, 9—12). ary of that period (2 Sam. vi. 17; 1 Chron.

Ver. 15.—And Solomon awoke; and, be- | xvi. 37-40)] and offered up burnt offerings
hold, it was a dream [That is to say, this [probably in continuation of the sacrifices
passed while Solomon slept ; butit was more | of Gibeon, ver. 4|, and offered peace offer-
than a dream. The same words are used | ings [in testimony of his thankfulness for
of Pharaoh (Gen. xli. 7) when God showed | the signal favour recently vouchsafed to
him what He was about to do (vers. 25, 28, | him] and made a feast [lit.. a drinking
ef. ch. xl. 8), and this was such a dream as | Afterthe example of David, 1 Chron. xvi. .
Pharaoh’s and as Joseph’s (Matt. i. 20; ii. | Cf. 1 Kings viii. 65. It was not exclusively
19). Itwasa dream, i.e.,in which a Divine | a symposium. The flesh of the animals
revelation was made to him. Wordsw. refers | offered in sacrifice was eaten by the wor-
to Solomon’s words, “I sleep, but my heart shippers and their guests (Lev. vii, 15, 31:
waketh” (Cant. v. 2), and ‘‘He giveth tohis | 1 Sam. ii. 16; 1 Cor. viii. 13). This was
beloved (Jedidiah) in sleep” (Ps. exxvii. 2)]- | “a sacrificial meal of the DDOW ” (Keil)
And he came to Jerusalem, and stood before | gog on ch. viii, 63] to all his servants.

 

 

HOMILETICS.

Ver. 3.—The Grace and Place of Love. ‘And Solomon loved the Lord, walk-
ing in all the statutes of David his father, only . . . . he sacrificed,” &c.

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 per-
fect 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 impertections, infir-
mities, 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, 7.é., that his sacrifice and service were marked
by imperfection. Hence learn—

I. THAT GOD LOVES THOSE WHO LOVE HIM, DESPITE THEIR IMPERFECTIONS. Of
course God loves men who do not love Him. ‘‘God commendeth His love towards
us in that while we were yet sinners,” &c. 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 musi 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,” &e.

II. Toat GoD FORGIVES THOSE WHO LOVE HIM, NOTWITHSTANDING THEIR INFIR-
MITIES. 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 for-
given you for His name’s sake.” But where there is love, there is forgiveness
(Luke vii. 47). Why, love involves penitence and faith, and ensures obedience.
(Observe the next words, ‘‘ Walking in all the statutes,” &c.) Thus, the three
conditions of forgiveness are all comprehended in love.

III. Tuat Gop WILL RECEIVE THOSE WHO LOVE HIM, DESPITE THEIR IGNORANCES.
The gate of heaven is never shut against love, and only love will open it.

“© 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.”o4 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [ou. m1. 1—16.

 

 

IV. THAT WE OUGHT TO LOVE THOSE WHO LOVE GOD, DESPITE THEIR TaN RANE
INFIRMITIES, AND IMPERFECTIONS. If the Eternal Love overlooks ote Wms ete y
we ought to overlook the “ only” of others. We may regret them views, ae ae
think them unsound in the faith, we may lament tneir superstition, their lack o
“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, n the religion both
of the Old Testament and of the New— ne

V. THAT LOVE IS EVERYTHING. Itis1. The fulfilling of the law (Rom, xu. 8.
10; Matt. xxii. 87—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,” &c. It has been said, ‘‘ Pectus est quod theolog wm facet,
It is equally true that the heart makes he 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 ”’ (ch. iv. 81), nor yet that he ** exceeded all the kings
of the earth for riches and wisdom” (ch. x. 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 Procter's beautiful poem, ** Guve. 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.”

Vers. 5—15.—God’s Gifts and: Solomon’s Choice. ‘And God said, Ask what
I shall give thee,” &e. ‘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 tho
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” (ver. 12). But stay! Solomon’s is not an ex-
ceptional 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 COMMANDED TO ASK. It is not that. we are per-
mitted so to do: itis 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.”

IJ. 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. ‘ Hvery one that asketh receiveth,” &c. ‘‘ Whosoever shall call on
tue name of the Lord,’ &. “ Ifany of you lack wisdom, let lum ask of:God;.. .
and it shall be given him.” If we have not wisdom, blessing, pardon, peace, itis
all for want-of asking. God is ‘‘more ready to hear than we io 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 re-
ceive,” but God acts.on this principle. lt 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.CH. 11. 1—15.] THH FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 55

HH rT 66 T r . 7

EL shay dy oa NT Th tO ee eee te
erful Bees > It § k 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 sti
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 hes 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. 5

“ Once to every man and nation, comes the moment to decide
Jn the strife of Truth with Falsehood, for the good or evil side.

** 3 a * x & * *

Then it is the brave man chooses, while the coward stands aside,
Doubting in his abject spirit, till his Lord is crucified,”’

VY. If, LIKE SOLOMON, WE CHOOSE THE BEST GIFTS, THE OTHER AND INFERIOR
BLESSINGS 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 xi. 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, &c. (ib. vers. 5—13). ‘The same idea is embodied in a
stanza of Wordsworth’s—

‘¢T 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 ee
not keep him from falling. but why was this? It was just because he ceasec O
care for wisdom and piety, and ceased to ask for it. Learn, then, n conclusion—

VI. Ir. LIke SOLOMON, WE CEASE TO COVET THE BEST GIFTS, AND CARE ONLY
FOR THE LOWER, WE SHALL CERTAINLY LOSE THE FORMER, AND MAY POSSIBLY oe
notu. §o that Solomon’s prayer may teach us this last lesson, that “men Cus 3
always to pray, and not to faint.” Yes, 1t seems, as we think of the oe a ae
then of the end of this puissant prince—it seems as if his father’s last We oge ee
have. been prophetic—“If thou seek him, he will be found of es : a
forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever”? (1 Chron, xxvul. 9) ees ates fe
fall solemnly echoes and emphasizes the words which follow—O that he ha

them to heart !—“ Take heed now” (ver. 10).56 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu. ar. 115.

 

 

HOMILIES BY VARIOUS AUTHORS.

Vers. 83—16; iv. 2—84.—The prayer of Solomon and tts fulfilment. ‘Ask
vhat I shall give thee.” ;

Tae PRAYER OF SOLOMON IS THE TYPE OF TRUE PRAYER. We learn from it (1)
The power of prayer; (2) The condition on which it is granted; (3) Its result.

I. Tur Power. ‘“ Prayer,” said Adolphe Monod, ‘sets in motion the whole
power of God.” The words of God to Solomon show us this Almighty power,
placing itself, as it were, at the disposition of human weakness. When the Son of God
came to earth, taking upon Himself our frail humanity, that He might perfectly
sympathize with all its woes, He spoke in the same way to the poor blind Barti-
meus: ‘What wilt thou that I should do unto thee ?” (Mark x. 51). Before going
back to heaven He addressed the same language to His disciples: ‘*‘ Whatsoever ye
shall ask the Father in my name, He will give it you” (John xvi. 23). Let us then
ask all that we need with holy boldness, for it is God Himself who bids us do so.
Like the father of the prodigal son, He always comes to meet us. Our hopes and
desires can never be so large as His promises. We truly honour Him when we make
His love the measure of our trust.

Il. THE CONDITIONS ON WHICH OUR PRAYERS ARE GRANTED ARE: (a) Full trust in
this infinite love, and grateful remembrance of favours received: ‘* Thou hast
showed unto David my father great mercy .... and hast given him a son to sit
on his throne” (ver. 6). (b) The consciousness of our own helplessness and
weakness: “Fam but as a little child, and know not how to go out or come wn’
(ver. 7). (c) The precedence given to spiritual over temporal gifts: “* Give thy
servant an understanding heart” (ver. 9). Prayer is not intended to bring to us
at once all material prosperity. Such an answer to prayer might be often injurious,
hardening the heart, and depriving us of the salutary discipline of trial. If the
thing we sought beyond all else was material prosperity, we should be mere mer-
cenaries. We are always heard, but not always in the way we desire, so far as our
earthly life is concerned. But when we ask of God a new and understanding heart,
we are asking that which He is pledged to grant, for it is written: ‘“‘ If any man lack
wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not.”

III. THe RESULT OF THE PRAYER OF SOLOMON was not only the spiritual grace he
sought, but also the prosperity and glory of his reign. ‘‘I have also given thee
that which thou hast not asked” (ver. 18). There is 4 general application both to
individuals and nations of the words of Christ: ‘‘Seek first the kingdom of God
and His righteousness, and all other things shall be added unto you” (Matt. vi. 88),
with the exception of afflictions, which may be necessary as discipline, and on the
condition that we walk in the ways of the Lord (ver. 14), for the mercy of God,
free as itis, is still bound up with His holiness, and cannot suffer the violation of
His laws.—E, pr P.

Vers. 5—16.—A wise prayer. Guibeon, 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, &¢., 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.
eae ey. yearning of the pious soul contains within itself the pledge of its own

ulfilment.

I. THE NATURE OF TRUE WisDom. <A power of moral discernment. “An under-cH. m1. 1—15.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 57

 

 

standing heart to judge,” &e. _ 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 chap. iv.
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 lfe—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. Onlyin 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. a

2. Wisdom deals with those eternal principles that underlie the surface ap-
pearances of life. The judgment of Solomon in the dispute between the two
women about the child (verse 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, 7.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,” &. 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,” &. 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,” &c.

III. THe ABUNDANT REWARD OF wispom. ‘And I have also given thee,” &c.
(ver. 13). God’s beneficence exceeds the expectations of His children. “ Able
to do exceeding abundantly,” &c. (Eph. iii. 20). ‘Seek ye first the kingdom
of God,” &c. (Matt. vi. 33). -W.

Ver. 5.—SERMon For CuitpRreN. Waiting for God’s voice. Little children are
sometimes intended to do great things. God has a special place for everyone 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,58 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [ous 1. 1-15,

 

 

 

 

 

he selected Solomon, their youngest and gentlest brother, to be king over amensiine
richest kingdoms in the world, and to rule His own eam - bee _ ae
ereatest prosperity. It may be that some lads here, who are little ee: babe; ay
become the leaders of a nation to a nobler life, the teachers of then age: nL bas
the world will gladly listen. But whatever sphere you have to fill, yee an
be ready to fill it well when you begin, as Solomon began his reign, by istening. O
the voice of God. This was the most interesting part of Solomon s lite. He was
now at his best. Ascending his fatler’s throne, he was conscious aa his ae ae
bility, and asked God to give him wisdom (James 1. 9, 6). vont aH uture is
generally decided. If we go wrong then, it 1s not easy to be set righ iM L a ey
done to a living thing durmg its growing time 1s irreparable. The Sen be Weg
crippled when he was.a child, the tree blasted when it: Was: & sapling, pies y sii
subsequent care be made straight and whole. Solomon, howey er, ie uss well—
going up to the ancient tabernacle in Gibeon, to oller sacrifice to the ones

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 what-
ever 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 im 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. SonoMoN 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, &c., to the sacred festival; the offering of the thousand victims ; the song of
praise, the united prayers, &c. 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 !” .

IJ. SoLomon Was ALONE witH Gop. ‘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, &. ‘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 hig
white baskets of bakemeats, &e. 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 lis.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: LISTENING TO Gop, 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, weald come and say, “Ask what
I shall. give thee.” Many, lke Cinderella, would exchange drudgery for glitter.cH. mr. 1—15.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 59

 

 

 

ee ieee ct If He did, many of us would ignorantly ask for foolish
g not know what we shall be doing or wantine ‘ev 5-1
If you were going abroad and did not know for ele ee of aes
tined, nor even whether it was hot or cold, civilized an Sdeae _ es
be wise to provide things on the chance they might be useful You ae na
weapons of defence for a country where they would not be wanted and i . =
He ey in the tropics clothing only suited to the polar seas. It Would, Bet ei
ies see: ’ sy 66 NT : nee
wa cad he i Now go into that shop, and get whatever you like,”
yt Nay you; as you know where I am going, and I don’ I
would rather trust you; though if yow think it would be good. I should lee ace
that.” So we are taught to pray to our Heavenly Father. Give exam a Sox a
times God does give us what we foolishly choose, as the father did es ao
and then sorrow teaches us the folly of our self-will. The freedom to ask kee
can only be given safely to those. who are like Solomon. He had just ane Feel
up to God as a living sacrifice, and had asked God to accept him and use him ‘f L
His service ; for it was this which he expressed by his offerine of a titesieaad baer
sacrifices. (Romans xii. 1.) If you can say in your heart, “ Lord, I want to. become
like Jesus Christ, and always to be obedient to Thy will; I lee to be earnest and
humble, and pure, and loving, and to live altogether for Thee ;?. then Eosaagis
of all that will keep you toward that, ‘‘Ask and ye shall receive, and see se
shall be full.” | oe
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.

Vers. 6, 7.—The reverent prayer of @ 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 Davyid’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 excellencés :—

I. Gratirupe. (Ver. 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 gratis
tude many have in this respect. Loving care during the ieebleness of intancy ;
provision for education, &c., often the result of habitual self-denial; protection of
the home not only from physical, but from morgl evils, in the shape ot bad litera-
ture, companions, &¢. These are the ordinary blessings from parenthood, but often
there are more than these, ¢.g., the moral heritage of wholesome tendencies ; the
good name, to be chosen. rather than. great riches ; the repression of evil, and en=
couragement 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 thanktully re
cognized. Gratitude should reveal itself in tender. consideration, 1m graceful
courtesies, in prompt obedience, &e¢., 1n the home, and: should express itseli in
praise to the Giver of all good gifts. [This is but-an example of subjects lor gratis

tude: others may be suggested. ]60 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. (cx. mr. 1—15.

 

II. Souemnity. The young king seemed overwhelmed with a sense of respon-
sibility. He was about to succeed a father renowned as @ watTior, as & statesman,
as a poet, as a ruler of men. He was about to rule ay numerous oe rag
people, who had been specially declared to be the Lord’s, so that he would be ne
forth the representative of Jehovah. He foresaw that there would be snares No
easy to avoid, difficulties hard to surmount; and therefore he dared not go for ward
without the prayer, ‘‘O God of my father, stand by me. Contrast this eh the
light spirit in which life-work is often undertaken. Describe a father about -
vacate his plan in business, or in the Church, whose honour has been uvstained,
who has beena 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 suffi-
cient for these things?” To go on to unknown temptations, to unattempted duties,
in a flippant, godless spirit, 1s to show the foolhardiness of the captain who, in
strange waters, wrecks his vessel on the hidden shoal, because he scorus to employ

lot.

: 1 Hoprrrutness. In ver. 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. Humiuiry. “Iam but a little child.” Solomon had enough to make him
proud. He was immensely rich, was flattered by courtiers, was obeyed by a dis-
ciplined army, was strikingly handsome (Psalm xlv.), and wes 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, ¢.g., Moses, when called in Midian (Exod. iil. 11); Isaiah,
when he saw the Lord in the temple (Isa. vi.) ; Jeremiah, when invested with pro-
phetic office (Jer. i.) This humility should characterize all who approach God.
Refer to the Pharisee and publican (Luke xviii. 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.

Vers. 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, &c., 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 ADVANTAGE
OF HIMSELF. It was not like asking for knowledge and wisdom that he might him-
self 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, &e.
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 SolomonCH. In. 16—28.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 61

sought, and the peace and prosperity of his kingdom (
that God gave it him. To ask God to make us wise
others, is a prayer consonant with His will.
exalted under the new dispensation as it ney
came not to be ministered unto, but to minis
many.” The prayer of selfishness, greed,
name,

ae 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, &c., 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.

Til. Tuk CHOICE MADE OF THE HIGHER BROUGHT WITH IT THE LOWER BLESSINGS.
(Vers. 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 (Matt. vi. 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
jihes, 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, &c., 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 Shelémoh,
“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.

ch. iv. 25) arose from the fact

and capable for the sake of
Unselfishness is commended and
er was under the old. Christ Himself
ter, and to give His life “a ransom for
avarice, can never be put up in Christ’s

EXPOSITION.

CHAPTER III. 16—28.

In this section we see how remarkably
the gracious promise of Gibeon (ver. 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. ’Emu.deigat rv Tov

Basirtewe éBovdyOn copiay (Theodoret). Tt

is just possible, as Thenius maintains,
that the narrative was handed down toa
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
Bibr observes, a thoroughly Oriental story.62 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

Ver. 16.—Then came there two women
that were harlots ‘The Jewish writers here,
as in the case of Rahab (Josh. ii. 1),
would understand ‘ hostess,” ‘‘inn-keeper ’’
(NPIS, not PIIIH, as Bahr, which=
maveoxeiov, “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,” how-
ever (as if from j', to feed), is not to be en-
tertained for a moment, but we may readily
admit that these children, though born out
of wedlock, were not necessarily the off-
spring of professed harlots, though the fact
that their mothers dwelt together and alone
(ver. 17) is certainly suspicious; and see
Gesen, s, v. I. Grotius, from Deut. xxiii.
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.

Ver. 17.—And the one woman said, 0 my
lord, I and this woman dweil in one house;
and I was delivered of a child with her in
the house.

Ver. 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.
[Hmphasis is laid on this fact, as showing
the possibility of the fraud and the im-
possibility of producing proof. Hebrew
women have always required but little
assistance in child-bearing. That which is
written in Exodus i. 19 is true to this day.

Ver. 19.—And this woman’s child died in
the night ; because she overlaid it.

Ver. 20.—And she arose at midnight
[rather, in the middle, i.e., dead of the
nicht. 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
bosom.

Ver. 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 [7.e., in broad
daylight; Vulg. clara luce] behold {this
second ‘‘ behold” marks a second discovery]
it was not my son which I did bear.

Ver. 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

 

fou.-111. 16—28.

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 ver. 26.]
Thus they spake [Heb. ‘ And they spake,”’
i.e., affirmed and contradicted] before the
king,

Ver. 23.—Then [promptly, without hesi-
tation] said the king, The one saith [Heb.
“‘ this is saying,” t.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.

Ver. 24.—And the King said, Bring mea
sword. And they brought a [Heb. the;
the sword, z.e., of the executioner, or the
sword for which he asked] sword before the
king,

Ver. 25.—And the king said, Divide the
living chili in two, and give half to the
one and half to the other {Heb. one].

Ver. 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 be-
cause of the sensations which strong
emotions excite there. Cf. ra omdayxva
in the New Testament (2 Cor. vi. 12; Phil.
li. 1; Philem. 7, 20, &c.] yearned [Heb.
glowed. We speak of “ glowing with pity,”
&c.| upon her son, and she said, O my
lord, give her the living child, and in no
wise slay it. But the other [Heb. this]
said [Heb. saying] Let it be neither mine
nor thine, but divide it. [The Hebrew is
strikingly concise, ‘divide.’ We have
here by far the greatest difficulty in the
story. When the pretender, who has
clamoured for the child, is at last offered it
by its mother, she refuses the eift and
heartlessly urges that it shall be cut in two.
We can only account for her strange con-
duct on the supposition that she caught
eagerly at any way of escape from the
dilemma in which she had placed herself,
and thought, no doubt, that to accept his
decision would be to flatter and please the
king. (See Homiletices.)

Ver. 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 15) =natus, “the one born,”

here and in ver. 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, GiveCH. I. 16—28.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 63

 

it to her,’ &e.., obscures the evidently de-
signed repetition] she is the mother thereof
[Heb. she, his mother}.

Ver. 28.—And all Israel heard of the

gave (ver. 12] was in him [Heb. within } im)
to do judgment. [Most of the commentators
ae pom eves the familiar story found in
" “An lodorus Siculus, of Ariopharnes. king

quiement ideas ee me had Judged, and Thrace. Three youths a a
they feared the king [i.c., were impressed king each to be the sc Ld
and awed by his almost supernatural pene- ioddemal Wate ort
tration. Bahr refers to Luke iv. 36 ; Vii.
25), for they saw that the wisdom of God
‘for which he asked (ver. 9) and which God

ey 1erefore
successor, of a deceased king of the Cim-
merians. He decided that that one was the
real son who refused to cast a javelin at his
father’s corpse. ]

 

HOMILETICS.,

Ver. 28. — Solomon's Judgment a Foreshadowing of the Judgment to come.
Again we see in Solomon a type of the true “ Son of David.” The arraignment of
the two harlots is an adumbration of the ‘‘ great assize.” This strikine scene
the young king sitting on his throne, probably in a void place at the sate of the
city, in the bright clear Eastern morning; around him his euards, counsellors. snd
munisters of state (ch. xii. 6); 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. Matt. xxv. 31). Let us see
in this first judgment, then, an outline of the last Observe ,

Tas JI~OGE. Itis (1) the Son of David. We do not read of David's judg-
ments. ‘This a duty which he was apparently remiss in discharging (2 Sam, xv.)
He devolved the duty of judging and punishing upon his son (1 Kings ii. 1—10),
Even so, the ‘‘ Eternal Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all jndement
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” (ch. iv. ol).
The wisdom of God was in him to do judgment (ch. iii. 28). But the Judge of men
and angels not only has, but is the Wisdom of God (Proy. ix.; 1 Cor. i. 24). The
Supreme, the Essential Wisdom will sit upon the great white throne. His
judgments, therefore, must be ‘‘ just and true.” Now consider

Il. THe Jupaep. 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 had, the righteous and
the sinner. (2) Both were harlots. ‘* Whoremongers and adulterers Gop will
judge.” Men cannot, or do not. Our pleasant vices are often undetected; or, if
known, are not reprobated. But see 1 Cor. v.11; vi. 9—19; Gal. v 19—21.

lil. Tue Jupcment. 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.” VM hat
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 judgment-seat. Restitution, 7.e., was enforced. And the judgment-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.’ _ ment
stands for right. Possession is nine points of the law. But in that day “suum
cuique.” Itis related of one of the Wesleys that on paying an co by gic
a gross imposition, he wrote upon the bill, ‘To be re-adjusted ae ie
3) Character was revealed. The true mother and the pretended alike proc aim.
themselves. A word from each decides the question, and reveals their inmost
thoughts. So shall it be at the end of the world. “ Out ee
judge thee.” ‘By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words !64 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu. 111. 16—28.

 

 

\Tan chall “make manifest the counsels of the
be condemned.” The Son of Man shall make 1

heart.” et
IV. Tue Rewarp AND PunrsHMEeNT. To the one the tribunal brought justifi

5
cation, joy, peace. To the other, condemnation, shame, pases ee Bee
especially (1) the difference it made in their emotions ci ae ee ee
their reputations. (1) The joy of the mother who had recelvec ai oe : gan ee
be better imagined than described. The same may be sad 0 t ue ee a a
fusion, remorse, of the pretender when her villainy was made Se a. ; oa i
these emotions we may see a faint image of the unspeakable joy $ b 21€ ei c

the weeping and gnashing of teeth of the lost. (2) The me ae ie w oF ae
the sympathy of bystanders, the congratulations of hex a S mas : ne
would be pointed at with scorn and reproach. Here, too, we = Rar ee a sia

an imperfect one, of the issues of the day of judgment. To the saint, the ; niche
blessed”? of the Judge will lead to “ pleasures for evermore; oe t a sinner,
‘Depart ye cursed” will be the beginning of ‘‘ shame and everlasting contempt.

Ver. 26.—“ Let it be neither mine nor thine, but divide vt.” ‘ The Word of
God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged Sword seu : and 1s a
discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” The judgment of Solomon is
« 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,” &c., was sharper than the sword they had just brought him *
in wounding the mother’s heart (Cf. Luke ii. 35); while not more surely would
the king’s sword, had it not been stayed, have pierced to the ‘“ dividing aswnder 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 con-
nives 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 con-
duct. 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 judement-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 ery, ‘“‘ 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

 

 

 

***A blow with a word strikes deeper than a blow with a sword.’’—WHICcHCOTE.CH. 111. 16—28.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 65
sciiieiiaicammcrmamene e

clamour for the life of a puling and innocent babe. No, if we
root of her strange and shameful conduct, we must first

 

are to get at the very

reful ask another question, vi:
What led her to steal this child from its mother’s arms and to claim bier ke ee
7 : : “ z % A: 7 OW

What induced her when she woke in the night 1 ;

| 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 ¢ | burde
herself with a bastard that she had not borne, : : gee

Now, it is quite possible that there were special circumst
case, which, if we knew them, would offer
conduct. For example, to pass by other possibilities, hers may have been such a
case as Tamar's (Gen. xxxviii.) But as we do not and cannot know te fees
peculiar circumstances were, if there were any, we can only collect her motives a
best we may, from the record of facts which we possess. 4

Tt is clear, then, that she was not actuated by love for the child.
that a woman such as she was could have love for a child such
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 +o call her son (1 John xvi. 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 a
stranger.

What then were her motives? Were they not these? First, the fear of reproach,

ances connected with this
a complete and certain explanation of her

Tt is unlikely
as this was; while

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 morti-
fied 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 some-
thing 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. oh

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. sighed

And so when the king proposed to cut the Gordian knot; when ee nat;
is, to extricate her from the toils which she had woven round herself, 1s Dee
wonder that she caught eagerly at the first chance that offered, and that witho

1 KINGS.66 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

a moment’s reflection as to the morality of th
ception of the snare that was spread for her.

‘able retreat fr eround which
an honourable retreat from grot : P ;
despair and dread of detection, a door of

insecure; that it opened to her, in her
escape.

Cet et Screg
It is this accounts for the ery, ‘‘ Divide it.

[on. 11. 16—28.

 

 

e remedy, and without the least per-
All she thought was that it promised
vas every moment becoming more

The murder would cover her

: : : np Baw 2 > y “7
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.

are these:
1. Impurity almost inevitably le
was the unchastity.

easy. ‘It is only the first step that costs.”
2. Moral cowardice may lead to murder.

Among them

ads to decett. The root of all the mischief here
The sin against the body makes other sims comparatively

And what a step is that!
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.

Averni, &e.

8. Falsehood leads to falsehood.
tell twenty more to bury it.”
soon rain through.”

Facilis descensus

The proverb says, * Tf we tell one lie we must
‘‘One lie must be thatched with another or 1t will

‘¢O what a tangled web we weave

When once we venture to deceive

39

a I ; ; : ®
4, Jealousy drics up the milk of human kindness. It 1s “ 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 iwtself.

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 wpon him.

This woman had never breathed freely till Solomon said, ‘‘ Divide it.”
such a certain deliverance that she echoed the cry.
The next moment she was disgraced, condemned, ruined.

xxy. 44; 1 Thess. v. 3, &c.

That seemed
Now she began to feel safe.
Cf. Matt. xxiv. 50;

EXPOSITION.

CHAPTER IV. 1—19.

Sonomon’s STATE AND COURT OFFICIALS.—
The account ef Solomon’s marriage and
entry upon his religious and judicious func-
tions is appropriately followed by a descrip-
tion of his court, of the great functionaries
of the realm, of his royal state and magni-
ficence, and, lastly, of his varied and unpre-
cedented 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 (vers,
11, 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 Kast
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. Josh. xv. 16; 1 Sam. xvii.
25; xvill.17) by the important services they
had rendered to the State. Ewald sees in
these lists unmistakeable evidence of compila-
tion from the public archives. But see Intro-
duction, sect. vi. 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.

Ver. 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. |

Ver, 2.—-And these were the princes [i.¢.,cH. Iv. 1—19.]

 

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

  
 

67

2 i

9

ministers, officers. Cf, 2 Sam. vili. 15-18,
and xx. 23-26] which he had, Azariah the
son [t.¢., descendant, probably grandson.
See on 1 Chron. vi. 10] of
[We are here confronted
of considerable difficulty.
does the title “priest” here belong, to
Azariah or to Zadok ? Second, what are
we to understand by the term, a spiritual,
or @ more or less secular person —tepeve or
BovreuTHc? As to 1, the Vulgate (sacerdotis)
ent apparently the Authorized Version, with
the Rabbins, Luther, and many later ex-
pounders, connect the title with Zadok (who
is mentioned as priest in ver. 4), and under-
stand that Azariah, the son of the high
priest Zadok, was, together with the sons of
Shisha, one of the geribes (ver: 3) Ths
true that this view obviates some difficulties,
but against it are these considerations, (1)
Tne accents. (2) The Chaldee and LXX.
(0 teoesc Cod, Alex.; Cod. Vat. omits the
words) Versions. (3) Hebrew usage, accord-
ing to which the patronymic is regarded
as almost parenthetical. (4) The fact that
in every other case in this list the title ig
predicate nominative (vers. 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
(1), which, itis submitted, would be required
if Azariah and the sons of Shisha alike were
scribes. ‘he question is one of some nicety,
but the balance of evidence is distinctly in fav-
our of connecting the title with Azariah, 7.e.,
‘“ Azariah son of Zadok was the priest.”
This brings us to2. What are we to under-
stand by “the priest”—}3? It is urged
by Keil, Bahr, 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 Solo-
mon—for the words of 1 Chron. vi. 10, ‘‘He
it is that executed the priest’s office,” &c,,
must belong to the Azariah of ver. 9, and
have got accidentally misplaced—was the
son of Ahimaaz, not of Zadok. (3) Be-
cause no grandson of Zadok could then be old
enough to sustain the office of high priest.
(4) Because in one passage (2 Sam. viii. 18,
compared with 1 Chron. xviii. 17) 0°73 is
used of privy councillors and of the sons of
David, who cannot have been sacrificing
priests. Keil consequently would under-
stand that Azariah was ‘administrator of
the kingdom, or prime minister.’’ Simi-
larly Bahr. But in favour of the ordinary
meaning of the word are these powerful

>

Zadok the priest,
by two questions
eat 7]

Lirst, tO whom

66

 

 

|

|

 

eee
considerations: (1) All the versio1
late the word by “priest,” i.e, tl
stand by the term a spiritu
Whatever may be the case with 3
}1317, “ the priest ” (par excellence) can only
be understood of the high | ?

is trans-
ley under-
al person. (2)

be un L of priest (ch. i. 8,
38; Exod. xxix. 80: Lev. xxi. 21; 2 Kings
xl. Oe 41S 3 xxi, “4.798: 1O} 112. aby Comp.
2 Chron. xxvi.

17). (3) It is extremely
doubtful whether (13 is ever used except in
the sense of tepede. tawlinson, who says it
sometimes indicates “a civil officer, with
perhaps a semi-priestly character,” refers to
Gesenius sub hac voce, who, however, dis-
tinctly affirms that the word only means
priest, and accounts for the application of the
term to the sons of David (2

Sam. viii. 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 ay
who suggests that ‘‘ David and his sons may
1ave been admitted, not to distinctively
priestly functions, such as burning incense
(Numb, xvi. 40; 2 Chron. xxvi. 18), but to
an honorary, titular priesthood. To wear
the ephod in processions (2 Sam. vi. 14) at
the time when this was the special badge of
the order (1 Sam. xxii, 18), to join the
priests and Levites in their songs and
dances, might have been conceded, with
no deviation from the Law, to the mem-
bers of the royal house.” There is one
difficulty however in the way of accepting
this ingenious and otherwise sufficient ex-
planation, 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 ‘“ distine-
tively 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 jead 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 Sam. viii. 18, Heb.) And
observe (4), if we are to understand by “‘ the
priest” in ver. 2, “‘prime minister;” by
‘‘ priests” in ver. 4, ‘high priests,” and
by ‘‘priest” in ver 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
(ch. i. 27), and Zadok must then have been
an old man, Their names consequently are

a68 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

recorded (ver. 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” 18
quite compatible with the fact that Azariah
was really the son of Ahimaaz, ]2 18 con-
stantly used in the sense of ‘‘ descendant,”
and especially “grandson.” (Gen. xxix. 0:
xxxi. 28, 55: and see on ch. ii. 8, ‘the
son of Gera.”) Zadok is no doubt men-
tioned 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 kinedom occupy the first place; in those
of Solomon, the civil and religious digni-
taries. ‘‘The princes of Solomon are, with
one exception (ver. 4) ministers of peace.”’—
Wordsworth.

Ver. 3.—Elihoreph and Ahiah, the sons
of Shisha [probably the same person who is
mentioned in 2 Sam. xx. 25 as Sheva; in
2 Sam. viii. 17, as Seraiah ; and in 1 Chron.
xviii. 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, &c. Names written ex ore
dictantis are sure to differ. See below on
ver. 12], scribes [the scribes, ODD, were
Secretaries of State: they wrote letters and
proclamations, drew up edicts, and apparently
kept the accounts (2 Kings xi. 10). Their
position in the list indicates their im-
portance]; Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud,
the recorder. {He held the same office under

david, and is mentioned in all three lsts
(2 Sam. vill. 17; xx. 25; 1 Chron. xviii. 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. vi.]

Ver. 4.—And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada
[see on ch. i. 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 ofiices they
discharged] ever the host (cf. ii. 35]: and
Zadok and Abiathar were the priests [the
mention of Abiathar’s name after his depo-
sition (ch. ii. 27, 85) has occasioned much
remark, and has even led to the belief that
he was subsequently pardoned and restored

[OH. IV. 1—19.

 

 

to office (Clericus). Theodoret remarks
quite truly, rv apxny GPENATO, OD THC lepw-
obyne tyhprvwoey, 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 ver. 2.]

Ver. 5.—And Azariah the son of Nathan
(Azariah was clearly not an uncommon
name (ver. 2, and cf. 1 Chron. i. 39 ;
vy. 36—40 Heb.; A. V. vi. 9—14), especially in
the high priest’s family. Keil and Bahr pro-
nounce somewhat positively that this Nathan
is not the prophet of that name, but Nathan
the son of David (2 Sam. v. 14; Luke ii,
31). It is quite impossible to decide with
certainty which is meant, if either, though
Zech. xii. 12 undoubtedly favours the sup-
position that the latter is here intended]
was over the officers {the twelve prefects
mentioned in vers. 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 ex-
pression 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 Sam. viii. 18—the passage which is cited
(sometimes along with ib. xx. 26, where the
LXX., however, has ispe’d¢) to prove that
there were secular ‘ priests’”’—is not yet
understood, than to hold (with Gesenius,
Ewald, &c.), that there were sacrificing
priests who were not of the sons of Aaron
(cf. 2 Chron. xxvi. 18), or that the word }3,
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 b»en now a recognized office (2 Sam.
xv. 37; xvi. 163.1 Chron. xxvm, 33)... ava
linson. | .

Ver. 6.—And Ahishar was over the house-
hold [steward and manager of the palace.
We meet this office here for the first time,
an evidence of the growing size and mag-
nificence of the court (cf. 1 Kings xvii. 35
2 Kings xvill. 18; Isa. xxii, 15). That such
an officer was needed, the fact mentioned
below (on ver. 23) as to the enormous size
of the royal household will prove]: and
Adoniram [see on ch. xii. 18] the son of
Abda was over the tribute. [Mare. ‘‘levy,”
i.e., the forced labour (ch. vy. 13, 14). See
On: Gh. Sao

Ver. 7.—And Solomon had twelve officers
[lit., persons “placed” or ‘set over.”cu. tv. 1—19.]

 

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

69

 

others, i.e., superintendents. The term is
used of Doeg (1 Sam. xxii. 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 househoid: each man his
month in a year made provision [lit., a
month in the year it was (i.., devolved)
upon each to nourish. It has been thought
by some that these superintendents were
also governors of provinces (jyeudvec Kai
crarnyot, Jos. Ant. vill. 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).

Ver. 8.—And these are their names [the
order is not geographical, nor do the dis-
tricts 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 capa-
bilities of the country]: The son of Hur
[Heb. as marg., Ben Hur. Of the twelve
prefects, five are only known by their patro-
nymics, for it is hardly likely that these are
proper names, like Ben-hanan and Ben-
zoheth (1 Chron. iv. 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 contain-
ing the missing names had been accident-
ally destroyed], in mount Ephraim. [See
on ch. xii. 25. ‘This district, which prac-
tically coincided with the territory of
Ephraim, was one of the most fertile in
Palestine. Hence, possibly, it stands first. ]

Ver. 9.—The son of Dekar [Ben-Dekar],
in Makaz {unknown otherwise], and in
Shaalbim [Josh. xix. 42; Judg. i. 35] and
Beth-shemesh [called Irshemesh, Josh. xix.
41. Now’ Ain Shemes]}, and Elon-beth-hanan.
[Flon, Josh. xix. 43. Probably Beth-hanan is
a different place, the “and” (1) having acci-
dentally dropped out of the text. The LXX.
(wc BnOavav) favours this view. It has
been identified by Robinson with Beit Hunan.
This second district embraces Dan. |

Ver. 10.—The son of Hesed [Ben-Hesed],
in Aruboth (Heb. Arubboth, unknown}; to
him pertained Sochoh [there were two cities
of this name, one in the mountain (Josh.
xv. 48), and one in the “valley” (the
Shefelah, Josh. xv. 33, 35), and both in the
tribe of Judah, from which, therefore, this
third district was taken], and all the land
of Hester. [Josh. xii. 17. Ewald holds
that this place was in Manasseh, and that
“it is impossible in the tweive districts to
yet any portion of .... Judah.” But
gee au0re.|

 

 

|

 

 

V er. 11.—The son of Abinadap 'Ben
Abinadab. Possibly the Abinadab of 1 Sam.
xv. 8; xv. 18. If so, this officer, who
married Solomon’s daughter, was also his
cousin], in [Heb. omits] all the region
[192, height; the term is only used in
connection with Dor] of Dor [Josh. xi. 2;
xu. 23; xvii. 11. Dor, now represented by
the miserable village of Tantura, lies on the
strand of the Mediterranean, north of
Ceesarea, A “spur of Mount Carmel, steep
and partially wooded, runs parallel to the
coast-line, at the distance of about a mile
and a half” (Porter). This is the “height
of Dor.” Thenius supposes this fourth dis-
trict embraced the plain of Sharon. Josephus
(vill. 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 rcyal
house. .. . The practice of polygamy has
generally enabled them to carry out this
system to a very wide extent’ (Rawlinson).

Ver. 12.—Baana, the son of Ahilud (cf. ver.
3. Probably the recorder’s brother], to him
pertained [the original, true to its charac-
ter 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, Josh. xii. 21;
Judg. v.19; 1.27. These towns, which be-
came famous in later Jewish history (2 Kings
xxiii. 29; 2 Chron. xxxy. 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
(Josh. xvii. 11, 16; Judg. i. 27. Otherwise
Bethshan (1 Sam. xxxi. 10, 12; 2 Sam. xxi.
12), now Beisan. The LXX. here translate
the word 6 oikoc Sav; elsewhere they write
Babcdy or Baloau, and in Judges i. 27
explain # ove Xxv@Gv médduc, hence its later
name Scythopolis. Rawlinson, by an over-
sight, 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 (in 1861) 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 Zaretvan
of Josh. iii, 16 and the Zarthan (same word in
the Heb.) of 1 Kings vii. 46, which place is
called Zeredathah in 2 Chron. iv. 17, and is
probably the Zererath of Judg. vil. 22. (The70 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

variations in spelling are again to be noticed).
Here Solomon cast the Temple vessels. By
some it is identified with Kurn Sartabeh (but
see Quart. Stat. of Pal. Explor. Fund, July,
1874, and Conder, pp. 233, 234), a few miles
below Bethshan. It is noticeable (in con-
nexion with Josh. 11.16) that at this point
the Jordan valley narrows (Keil). It occupies
ugh ground and commands an extensive
view (Robinson)] beneath [or below] Jez-
reel | Wordsworth remarks that “ Jezreel,
now erin, is a lofty site.” But the idea
of ‘‘beneath” is not that of depression,
but of geographical position=the district
south-east of Jezreel] from [LXX. and jrom)
Bethshean to Abelmeholah [lit. meadow

\ . ieee 7 :
of the dance. It lay ten miles south of
Bethshean. It is mentioned in connexion
with Zerer: ath (Zaretan) in Judg. vu. 22, but

is best known as the home of Elisha (1 Kings
xix. 16)] even unto the place that is beyond
[Heb. wnto the other side of] Jokneam. [Pro-
perly, Joumeam. Identified by the Survey
(Conder, p. 68) with Vell Ketmin. A Levitical
town (1 Chron. vi. 68) probably the same as
Kibzaim (cf. Josh. xxi. 22). This district
coincided practically with Ba tribe of Man-
asseh. It embraced a part (see ver. 17) of
the fertile plain of Hsdr san and of the
Jordan valley. ]

Ver. 13.—The son of Geber[p ossibly son of
the Geber mentioned in ver. 19] in Ramoth-
gilead [two districts east of the Jordan are
now enumerated. And first, the territory of
Gad. Ramoth-gilead was a Levitical city
(Deut. iv. 43; Josh. xxi. 38). Its selection
as a city of refuge (Josh. xx. 8), and as the
seat of Bengeber’s prefecture, together with
the constant wars waged for its possession
(tekines xx. 3: 2 Kines wit, 28: ix. 14)
show that it wasa position of great strength
and importance]; to him pertained the
towns of Jair [the Havoth Jair are strictly
the /ives (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 (Judg. x. 3) or Jair, the son of
Segub (called a ‘son of Manasseh” in Numb.
Xxx. 41, because his grandmother was a
daughter of the great Machir, though ue
father belonged to Judah, 1 Chron. ii. 21), 1
intended. Probably itis the] latter. (They can
hardly be one and the same person, though
they are often identified, as, oe in the
Speaker’s Comm. on Jude. ze But they
belong to different Beebte). Cancuet
enough, the Havoth Jair are mentioned in
connexion with each (see Numb. xxxii. 41;
Deut. iii. 4, 5,14; Josh. xiii. 830; 1 Chron.
i, 22 | Jide. x. 4), but in every case except
the last the: reference is to the son of oa
As the judge was probably one of his de-

 

 

fou. rv. 1—19.

$a,

scendants, itis not surprising that the judge’s
sons should possess some of the villages of
Jair], which are in Gilead ; to him also per-
tained the region (>2n, lt., measuring cord,
came to signify the region measured] of
Argob [elsewhere ‘‘the Argob,‘’ @.e., the
stony. This is the region subsequently
known as ‘l'rachonitis, now called the Lejah.
It is distinguished here and in Josh. xiii,
30, and 1 Chron. 11. 22 from the Gileadite
district jusi mentioned, with which it is
sometimes confuunded. Both seem to have

een conquered by Jair, but the towns of the
former bore the name of Havoth Jair and
these of Bashan Havoth Jair. Cf. Deut. iii,
4. 5,14 with Numb. xxxui. 41. The latter con-
sisted 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. . . . Be-
fore 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”? (Porter, ‘‘ Giant Cities of Bashan,”
also in Kitto’s Cyel. iii. p. 1032; Dict. Bib.
i. 104)] which is in Bashan, threescore great
cities with walls and brazen bars.  ['I'hese
words are a reminiscence of Deut. iii. 4, 5.]

Ver. 14.— Ahinadab the son of Iddo [prob-
ably the seer of that name, 2 Chron, ix. 29]
had Mahanaim [Heb. to Maha naim, asmarg.
That is, went, or was appointed, to Maha-
naim. 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 Y ex rier "iM. or

Gen.

Mahanaim, see ; Joshua xiii.

26).

Ver. 15.—Ahimaaz [probably the son of
Zadok, 2 Sam. xv. 27; xvii. 17] was in
Naphtali; he also [like Ben-Abinadab, ver.
11] Ue Basmath the daughier of Solomon
to %

ve “6. —Banaah [or Baana, the second
preiect of that name (Vv er. 12). The names
are identical in the Hebrew. In 2 Sam. iy.
2 the name is Basnah] the son of Hushai
poe Archite, David’s friend. Cf. 2 Sam. xv.
02] was in Asher and Aloth. [No town or
district of this name is known. Prob: ably
the word should be Bealoth, as in the I RX sy
Syr., and Vulg. Our translators have taken
the initial 3 for a prefix, but it is almost
certainly part of the name. There was a
Baaloth in Judah (Josh. xy, 24) and a
Baaloth in Dan (ibid. xix. 44), but neither
of these can be meant here. ]

Ver. 17.— Jehoshavhai the son of Paruah,

MRR,CH. Iv. 1—19.}

    

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 71

 

 

in Issachar. (He had consequently the
plain of Esdraelon, with the exception men-
tioned above, ver. 12.]

Ver. 18.—Shimei the son of Elah [by some
identified with the Shimei of chapter i. 8.
But see note there], in Benjamin. [It is
noteworthy that Shimei was a Benjamite
name, 2 Sam. xvi. 5, 11.]

Ver. 19.—G2ber the son of Uri was in the
country of Gilead [7.e., he presided over the
parts not already assigned to Bengeber
(perhaps his son) and Ahinadab, Gilead 1s
often used (see Deut. xxxiv.1; Judg. xx. 1)
to designate all the country east of the
Jordan. And so apparently here, for] the
country of Sihon king o% the Amorites, and
of Og king of Bashan] embraced the whole
trans-Jordanic region, Deut. iii. 8; Num. xxi.
24—35: ef. Psa. cxxxv. 11; cxxxvi. 19, 20]:
and he was the only officer which was in the
land. {This cannot mean “the only officer
in Gilead,” notwithstanding the creat extent
of territory—the usual interpretation—for
that would contradict vers. 13, 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 TOS 283 “he was the
first (i.e. superior), officer” (set over those
mentioned above, vers. 13, 14), as Schulze
THN is used as an ordinal number, but it is
only in connexion with days and years
(Gesen. s. v.) Some, following the LXX.
(etc év yp ‘Iodda) would detach Judah from
ver. 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 (ver. 10)
appears to have extended over this tribe,
and the remark consequently seems super-
fluous. (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 ver. 7, suppose with
Ewald, al. that a thirteenth officer is here
intended,

HOMILETICS.

Vers. 2 sqq.—The Servants of Solomon.

.... profitable for instruction,” &ce.

We shall find in this list, first, some proofs of
; : I

had.” ‘* All Scripture is
names may teach some lessons.

*¢These were the princes which he
A bare list 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.
on the choice. (Cf. Ps. ci. 5

 

first and God gecond.

—put God first, inthe person of His high priest.
It was meet that next to the anointed Prince

was a sort of summus episcopus.
should stand the anointed Pontiff.

Il. PRIORITY IS GIVEN TO THE OFFICERS OF PEACE (vers. 3,4).
In David’s day it was otherwise.
War is essentially barbarous.
Ags men become wiser and more civilized, the appeal to brute
Wiser, for war means unwisdom somewhere. More

warriors.
here is the proof of it.
fare is chronic.
force is less frequent.

The welfare of the whole State depends very largely
7.) Now observe that here
I. Tue FIRST PLACE IS FILLED BY GOD’S PRIEST (ver. 2).
takes precedence of the ministers of state.
Solomon—if this list preserves the order of his arrangements

 

The minister of religion
The universal tendency is to put man

Under the theocracy the king
Scribes come before

But there has been an advance, and
Among savage tribes war-

civilized, for the history of civilization tells how the wager of battle, which 1s 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.
Prince of Peace.

For this reason the son, not the father, is the favourite type of the
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.
opinion.

Solomon would seem to have been of the same
: ze :
The “ geribes ” and the “recorder” precede the “ captain ol the host.72 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. (cu. rv. 1—19.

 

IIT. Many PLACES ARE FILLED BY THE FUNCTIONARIES OF HIS FATHER (vers. 3, 4,6,
and cf. ver. 16). An Eastern autocrat generally appoints his associates of the
harem (ch. xii. 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, ch. xi. 8), and his example thus confirms his precept (Prov. xxvii.
10), ‘‘ Thine own friend and thy father’s friend forsake not.”

TV. SOME PLACES ARE FILLED BY HIS OWN SONS-IN-LAW (vers. 11, 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 Sam. xv. 255; xvii. 17, 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 (vers. 4, 5, 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 ii. 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,
définite 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 (Deut. xxxii. 8, LXX.) The great King gives “to every man according to
his work” (Mark xiii. 84).

Vers. 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, &&. Observe—

I. THEIR RESPECTIVE PostTions. The officers of Solomon were princes (ver. 2);
the officers of Jesus were persants and jishermen. Ability, energy, &c., dictated
Solomon’s choice ; humility, dependence, weakness, our Blessed Lord’s (Matt.
Xvi. 8,4; xxiii. 11; and ef. xi. 11). ‘Not many mighty, not many noble are
called,” &e. (1 Cor. i. 26). “‘ Unlearned and ignorant men” (Acts iv. 13).

Il. THEIR RESPECTIVE REPUTATIONS. The officers of Solomon were reverenced
and feared ; the apostles of owr 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, &. 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 ofiscouring of all things;” “a
spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men”’ (1 Cor. iv. 9-18). What the
life of an apostle was like we may learn from 2 Cor. xi. 24—99, “ Behold, they
which are gorgeously apparelled and live delicately are in king’s courts”’ (1 Luke
vil. 25). ‘* Behold, we have forsaken all and followed thee ”’ (Matt. xix. 27).

III. THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS. The twelve officers presided over tribes ;
the twelve apostles ministered to continents. The whole of Palestine is about the
e1ze of Wales, and this strip of territory was divided into twelve parts. Compare
with this the apostolic commission, “ Go ye into all the world,’ &e. “Ye shall beoH. Iv. 1—19.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS, 73

 

 

 

 

witnesses untome.... unto the uttermost part of the earth”
tn panei the faith of Christ is for humanity.

- 1HEIR RESPECTIVE FUNCTIONS. 1. The twelve officers were receivers-qeneral :
the twelve apostles were general givers. The first took from the people cee
the king: the latter received fr ir Ki : e people to give to
; g le eceived from their King to bestow on the people. To the
Ort, wre subjects of Solomon brought taxes or tribute; the latter have abinned
blessings and gifts from their Lord for men. (Cf. Acts i. 8; ii. 18: viii. 18: i Tim
+7 Hie mm: : > bs : : Se ry : ’ : 1.
iv. 14; 2 Tim. i. 6, &&.) “It is more blessed to give,” &. 2. The officers

Judaism was a

now iehed the king (ver. 27, Heb.) and his armies: the apostles fed the Church
(Cf. Acts xx. 28.) The 14,000 dependants of the court, the 4000 charioteers. the
12,000 horsemen, all were maintained by the twelve purveyors. ileloeet fte
; - 5 yors. hrough the
apostles, the Lord fed, now 4000; now 7000, and through them, their ieee
and their successors, He still feeds, with word and sacrament, the milli ree
ee - ullions of the

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 dictwm of Solon to Croesus (Herod. i. 80—83)—warns us to pronounce faa
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
(1) What will be the isswe of futwrity as to these two classes ?- Here we
observe—

I. THE NAMES OF SOME OF THE PREFECTS ARE FORGOTTEN; THE NAMES OF THE
APOSTLES ARE IN EVERLASTING REMEMBRANCE. ‘The fame of Solomon’s twelve was
shortlived. Several of them are now known to us only by their patronymies.
‘hose 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. Matt. xxvi. 13). Better still,
their ‘‘names are written in heaven” (Luke x. 20; ef. Phil. iv. 3). As to

Il. THE TWELVE APOSTLES WILL JUDGE THE TWELVE PREFECTS. In their time,
the latter sate on twelve thrones, each in his capital city, ruling the twelve tribes
of Israel. But their glory, ike that of the Roman general’s pageant, ‘ lacked
continuance.” In the midst of their brief authority

s¢ Comes the blind Fury with the abhorréd shears
And slits the thin-spun life.”

The dominion of the apostles is in the future. It belongs to the ‘‘receneration.”
‘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,” &e.
(Matt. xix. 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.
«To, the twelve, majestic princes
In the court of Jesus sit,
Caimly watching all the conflict
Raging still bencath 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”
(Phil. iii. 8—11). ‘* What shall it profit a man, if he gain,” &e. We cannot all be
iyepdvec kai orparnyoi, Still less can we all wed kings’ daughters. But we may te
sit with Christ upon His throne (Rev. iii. 21) ; may all receive the crown ol life
(Rey. ii. 10) ; may all be “ called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev.

11%. ‘(-d) e44 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[oa. Iv. 20—84,

EXPOSITION.

CHAPTER IV. 20—34.

SoLoMon’s RULE, STATE, AND WISDOM.—
The remainder of this chapter, which de-
scribes to us the extent and character of
Solomon’s sway (vv. 20, 21, 24, 25), the pomp
and provision of his household (vv. 22, 23,
26—28), and his profound and varied wisdom
(vv. 29—34), has every appearance of a com-
pilation from different sources. It scarcely
has the order and coherence which we should
find in the narrative of a single writer.

Ver. 20.—Judah and Israel were many, as
the sand which is by the sea in multitude
[a reminiscence of Gen. xili, 16; xxu. 17;
Xxxli: 12 (cf. ch. ii. 8). “In the reign of
Solomon these promises had their fulfil-
ment], eating and drinking, and making
merry. [Cf.1 Sam. xxx. 16. The Hebrew
here begins a new chapter. The LXX. omits
vers. 20, 21, 25, 25, and places vers. 27, 28,
‘‘and those officers,” &c., after the list of
prefects, ver. 19.]

Ver. 21.—And Solomon reigned [Heb. was
reigning] over all kingdoms [Heb. the
kingdoms. That is, as suzerain, as 1S ex-
plained presently. So that Psa. Ixxu. 10,
11 had its fulfilment] from the river [i.c.,
the Euphrates, the river of that region: so
called’ Gen, xxx. 216 hieod: xxii, 81> 2
Sam. x. 16. In Gen. xy. 18 it is called ‘“ the
ereat river, the river Kuphrates.”’ Similarly
Josh. i. 4] unto [not in the Hebrew. It is
found in the parallel passage, 2 Chron. ix.
26, and perhaps we may safely supply it
here. Its omission may have been occasioned
by the recurrence of the same word (1) pre-
sently. Some would render, ‘‘reigned ...
over the land,” &c., supplying 3 in thought
from above. But ‘unto’ seems to be re-
quired after ‘‘from.” Cf. ver. 24] the land
of the Philistines {this, 7.e., the Mediterra-
nean 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 Gen. xv. 18, the promise
which now first received its fulfilment]:
they brought presents [7.e., tribute. Similar
expressions, 2 Sam. vii. 2; 2 Kings xvii.
3, 4, and especially Psa. Ixxii. 10. What the
presents were we are told ch. x. 25, where,
however, see note], and served Solomon all
the days of his life.

The daily consumption of the royal house-
hold is now related to show the grandeur

and lusury 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 boast-
ing to the ancients, as the inscriptions and
monuments show.

Ver. 22.— And Solomon’s provision [marg.
bread, but Dn?, strictly signifies any kind
of food] for one day was thirty measures
(Heb. cors. The 43 was both a liquid and
a dry meesure (ch. v. 11) and was the equi-
valent to the homer (Ezek. xly. 14), but itg
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 Ibs. of bread, which
(allowing 2 lbs. to each person) would give
14,000 as the number of Solomon’s re-
tainers. This computation, however, could
have but little value did not his calcula-
tions, based on the consumption of flesh,
mentioned presently (allowing 14 Ibs. per
head), lead to the same result.

Ver. 23.—Ten fat [Heb. fatted, 7.e., for
table] oxen, and twenty fat oxen out of the
pastures, and an hundred sheep, beside
harts and roebucks. [or gazelles] and
allowdeer [Roehbucks. The name Yahmir ig
still current in Palestine in this sense (Con-
der, p. 91)], and fatted fowl. [This word
(0°73 2) occurs nowhere else. The meaning
most in favour is geese. |

Ver. 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 [124 strictly
means, on the other side, beyond (22,
transtit). 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 (Josh. v. 1;
ix, Ty xu.°7:; 1 Chron, xxv Sle barn
vill. 36; Neh. ii. 7) is generally accounted
for on the supposition that the writers were
living in Babylon in the time of the cap-
tivity ; but this appears to be by no means cer-
tain, (See, e.g., lizraiv. 10,11.) The truth
seems to be, not that ‘‘the expression be-
longed to the time of the captivity, but was
retuined after the return and without regard
to its geographical signification, just, for
instance, like the expression, Gallia Trans-
alpina” (Bahr), but that from the first it
was employed, now of one side, now of the
other, of the Jordan; of the west in Gen.cH. Iv. 20—84.]

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

75

 

 

1. 10, 11; Josh. ix. 1, &c.; of the east in
Num, xxil. 1; xxxii. 32; “and even in the
same chapter is used first of one ee then
of the other Deut. iii. 8, 20, 25” (Spk.
Comm. on Deut. 1. 1), and that 2 was sub-
sequently applied, with similar variations of
meaning, to the Euphrates. See Introduc-
tion, sect. v.] from Tiphsah [cf. 2 Kings
xv. 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 MDA — pass over; NDDM = crossing.

A bridge of ‘boats was maint ained 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 souther nmost
city of Philistia, ten miles from the Medi-
terranean, and the last town in Palestine
on the Egyptian frontier. Cf. ver, 21], over
all the kings on this side the river [‘ Petty
kings were numerous at this time in all the
countries de} vendent upon Judea’”’ (Rawhn-
soni, Ci. I ‘Sara v1.16; 2 Sam. viii. 3-10;
{ Wines xx J. “Phe ‘lings on pe side the
river” were those of Syria (2 Sam. viii. 6.
Cf. x. 19) conquered by Davin and of
Philistia, 2 Sam. viii. alt and he had
peace on all sides [Heb. from all his
servants] round about him [in fulfilment
of 1 Chron. xxii. 9. The objection of
Thenius that this statement contradicts
that of ch. xi. 23, sqq.,is hardly deserving
of serious notice. The reign of Solomon, on
the whole, was undoubtedly a peaceful one.

Ver. 25.—And Judah and Israel | here we
have the copula, the absence of which in
ver. 20 suggests a corruption or confusion of
the text] dwelt safely [Heb. confidently.
Cf. Judges viii. 11; 1 Sam. xii. 11], every
man under his vine and under his fig tree.
(A proverbial expression (see 2 Kings xvii.
31, where it is used by Rabshakeh ; Micah
iv. 4; Zech. iii. 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, &c., 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 (Psa.
CXXViil. 3), or around and over the court-
yards”’|, from Dan even to Beersheba |7.¢.,
from the extreme northern to the extreme
southern (not eastern, as the American
translator of Bihr) boundary, Judg. xx. 1; 1
Sam. ili. 20; 2 Sam. i, 10].

Ver. 26.—And Solomon had forty thou-
sand stalls of horses [40,000 is certainly a
clerical error, probably for 4000 (2.¢.,

 

 

D'VAIN for nays). 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 nitaaaen of horseg
would be about 4000. We see from the
monuments that it was customary to yoke
two horses (seldom three) to a chariot: bat
a third or supernumerary horse was pro-
vided to meet emergencies or accidents.
4000 horses would hence be a liberal pro-
vision for Solomon’s chariots, and it would
also agree well with the number of his
cav alry. 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 (Vege-
tius in Bochart, ae oy Keil). Gesenius,
however, understands by ny MS, not stalls,
but teams, or pairs] for his chariots [or
chariotry : the word is singular and col-
lective] and twelve hundred horsemen
(rather, horses, i.e., riding or cavalry, as
distinguished from chariot-horses above.
See note on ch.i. 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 de-
signed 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 (Deut. xvii, 16), which was one of the
precursors of his fall].

Ver. 27._And those [rather, these, i.e., the
officers mentioned vy. 7-19] officers provided
victual for [Heb. nowrished| king Solomon
and for all that came unto king Solomon’s
table [we can hardly see here (with Keil)
‘Ca further proof of the blessings of peace.”
The words were probably suggested by the
mental wonder how the cavalry, &c., 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 lack-
ing. So Gesen.; and the context seems to
require it].

Ver. 28.—Barley also [the food of horses
at the present day in the Kast, where oats
are not grown. (Cf. Hom. Il. v. 196)] and
straw for the horses and dromedaries

rmarg. mules or swift beasts. Coursers, or
fleet horses of superior breed are intended.
ws i= Germ. Renner. These coursers were
for the use of the king’s messengers or posts.
See Esther viii. 10, 14] brought they untc
the place were the officers were [“ oflicers”76 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

fou, Iv. 20—84,

 

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
chap. x. 26. There we learn that the horses
were distributed in different towns through-
out the land. To these different depots,
therefore, the purveyors must forward the
provender, ‘‘ unto the place where it should
De.” (707), not, as Rawlinson, ‘‘ where the
horses were.”] every man according to his
charge.

Ver. 29.—And God gave Solomon [in ful-
filment of the promise of chap. iii. 12] wis-
dom and understanding (M950, wisdom,
knowledge, NJIAM, discernment, penetration.
The historian, after describing the prosperity
of the realm, proceeds to speak of the per-
sonal endowments of its head] and largeness
of heart exceeding much [the Easterns
speak of the heart where we should talk of
head or intellect (chap. iii. 9, 12; x. 24.
Cf. Matt. xv. 19; Ephes. i. 18 (Greek) ; Heb.
iy. 12). The ‘large heart” is the ingenium
capax,as Thenius. These different words
indicate the variety and scope of his talents,
in agreement with ver. 33] as the sand that
is on the seashore. [Same expression in
Cen. sett. 17s soa, 12's 2, 49% Josh. xi
4; Judg. vii. 12, &.]

Ver. 30.—And Solomon’s wisdom excelled
for exceeded ; same word as in ver. 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 (Gen.
xxix, 1), andthe mountains of Kedem (Num.
xxiii. 7) are evidently those of Aram. It is
also true that “the children of the East”
are apparently distinguished from the
Amalekites and Midianites (Judg. vi. 3, 33;
vil.12; viii. 10). Itis probable, nevertheless,
that the name is here employed to designate
all the Arabian tribes east and south-east
of Palestine—Sabeans, Idumeans, Teman-
ites, Chaldeans, What their wisdom was
like, we may see in the Book of Job. Cf.
Jer. xlix. 7; Obad. 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 genomic
(Isa. xix. 11, 12; xxxi. 2, 3; Acts vii. 22) and
including geometry, astronomy, magic, and
medicine. See Jos., Ant. viii. 2.5: Herod. ii.
109. 160. Wilkinson, “Ancient Hgyptians”’
vol. ii. pp. 316—465.

Ver. 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 chap. iii. 12)

 

 

 

 

It is very doubtful whether the names men-
tioned 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 Chron. ii. 6, or the Ethan and Heman
who were David's singers. ‘I'he resemblance
is certainly remarkable. Not only are the
names practically the same (Dara may well
be a clerical error: many MSS., together
with the Syr. and Arab., read Darda), 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 ‘‘ sous” of Zerah,
the son of Judah (Gen, xxxvill. 30). But
against this itis urged that Ethan is here
ealled the Ezrahite, as are both Hihan and
Heman in the titles of Psalms lxxxix. and
Ixxxvill. respectively. The resemblance,
however, of Ezrahite (‘N38) to Zerahite
(NW) is so close as to suggest identity
rather than difference. There is, perhaps,
more weight in the objection that Chaleol
and Darda are here distinctly said to be “the
sons of Mahol,” though here again it has
been observed that Mahol (21719) means pipe
or dance, and the ‘‘sons of Mahol,” con-
sequently, may merely be a synonym, agree-
ably to Eastern idiom (Eccles. xii. 4, with
which cf. 2 Sam. xix. 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 Chron. vi. 31) is
described as the son of Kishi (1 Chron. vi.
44), elsewhere called Kushaiah (éd. xy. 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 (ib. vi. 33), and the “ kine’s seer ”
tb. xxy. 5) is said to be a son of Joel, a
grandson of the prophet Samuel, and one of
the Kohathite Levites (ib. XV. 17 \ Theta
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 (possibly
like Jair, through marriage—see note on
ver. 13 above, and cf. Ezra ii. 61) into the
tribe of Judah. “The Levite in Judg. xvii.
7 1s spoken of as belonging to the family of
Judah, because he dwelt in Bethlehem of
Judah,and Elkanah the Levite is called ancH. Iv. 20—34.]

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. V7

6

 

 

Ephraimite in 1 Sam. i. 1, because in his
civil capacity he was incorporated into the
tribe of Ephraim” (Keil). It must be ad-
mitted, however, that the natural imterpre-
tation of 1 Chron. il. 6 is that the “sons”
of Zerah there mentioned were his im-
mediate 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
[CE x. 24, &e.]

Ver. 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 i. 1; xxv. 1); the rest are lost to us.
The Book of Ecclesiastes, even if the com-
position of Solomon, can hardly be de-
scribed as proverbs. Of his songs all have
perished, except the Canticles, and possibly
Psalms Ixxii., cxxvil. (see the titles), and,
according to some, CxxvViil.

Ver. 33.—And he spake 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 ac-
quaintance with natural history he outshone

 

the Egyptians, ver. 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 asking. Cf. Judg. ix. 15; Ps. lxxx, 10:
civ. 16.; Cant. vy. 15: Ezek. xxxi., 3 | unto
the hyssop that springeth out of the wall
[His knowledge, 7.e., embraced the least pro-
ductions of nature as well as the ereatest.
The common hyssop (Exod. xii, 22: Ley,
xiv. 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 Orthotrichum
saratile]: he spake also of beasts, and of
fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes,
[‘‘ I'he usual Biblical division of the animal
kingdom” (Rawlinscn). The arrangement
is hardly according to manner of motion
(Bahr). 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 be-
ginning of these in Jos., Ant. viii. 2. 5.

Ver. 34.—And there came of all people
[Heb. the peoples, nations} to hear the
wisdom of Solomon [ch. x. 1], from all the
kings of the earth [i.e., messengers, am-
bassadors, as in the next chapter], which
had heard of his wisdom.

HOMILETICS.

Vers. 20—25.—The Golden Age.
place the golden age in the past or in
wrong after ail.
history of the world.
hereafter.

It has been cynically said that men always

the future. Possibly they are not so far

For, if our historian is true, there has been such a period in the
And if the Holy Gospel is true, there wiil be such a period
The reien 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.
upon the future ;
and prefigurement of the holy

I. THE MONARCH.

1. He was the wisest of men.

Let us then consider what light the first period—ithe past—throws
in what respects, that is to say, the sway of Solomon 1s a type
and beneficent rule of our Redeemer.

Observe—
This was the root of the uni-

versal prosperity. He was capax imperit ; he had the understanding to judge that

great people (ch. i. 9).

Ixxii. 2) flowed a tide of blessing through the land. essialt Prin
He is ‘‘made unto us wisdom” (1 Cor. 1. 380).

the Incarnation of Wisdom.

From a throne stablished in equity and intelligence (Psa.

18

In

But ‘“* Messiah the Prince ”’

Him “ are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. u. 8). He is “ the

wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1. 24).

of his father (2 Sam. xxii,

9. Heruled in the fear of the Lord.
3) was not forgotten (ch. 11. 6—9).

The precept
Compare the account

of Messiah's reign—the reign of the Branch of the root of Jesse—in Isaiah u. 2—6.

This ‘‘ King shall reign in righteousness
II. Tue empire. 1. Its extent.

border of Egypt,” “‘ from Tiphsah even to Azzah.”

Now observe how Psalm Ixxu..,
‘0 prophetic of the reign of our blessed Lord. i
‘He shall have dominion from sea to sea,” &¢. (ver. 8), that

sents and did fealty.
reign of Solomon, is #1
is it strictly true that °

‘Call kings shall fall down before Him,”

”» (Isa. XXX A),
He had dominion from “the river to the

The petty kings brought pre-
descriptive or prophetic of the
Of Him alone

&e. True, His enemies do not yet “lick78 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. (cx. tv. 20—84,

 

 

 

the dust” (ver. 9), for “we see not yet all things put under Him,” but i mee
that all power is given to Him in heaven and in earth (Matt. pS vill te ) aan
that ‘‘the kingdoms of this world ” shall ‘‘ become the kingdoms of our Lord and o
his Christ” (Rev. xi. 15). 2. Its duration. Solomon’s was a jong FeIBD) and
would have been much longer (ch. ii. 14) had he been faithful. But Tle w ho shall
possess ‘‘ the throne of his father David” ‘“ shall reign over ose of erg. Joe
ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end” (Luke 1. 82, 83; cf. Dan. ii. 44;
vu. 14, 27; Psa. exlv. 18; Micah iv. 7). nn .

III. Tur svupsecrs. 1. Their number. They were “ many,” “as the sand which
is by the sea in multitude.” Compare Dan. vii. 10°“ ten thousand times ten thou-
sand stood before him,” and Rey. v. 11; vii. 9, ‘a great multitude which no man
could number.” 2 Their character. Solomon's sway extended over Gentiles a
well as Jews (vers. 21, 24). A foreshadowing of the inclusion of Gentiles in the
kingdom of Christ. In the one fold, two flocks (John x. 16). Compare Acts
XXVi. 23; xxvill, 28; Rom. xi. 15; Ephes. i. 6; 1. 14, we. 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 (ch. v. 14). The servants who serve
Him ‘‘rest not day and night” (Rev. iv. 8), yet keep perpetual sabbath (Heb. -iv. 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 reicn. 1. It was peaceful (ver. 24; cf. ch. v. 4 and 1 Chron.xxi. 9).
In Messiah’s reign they shall “ beat their swords into ploughshares,” &e. (Isa. u. 4).
Into His court “neither foe entereth nor friend departeth.” He is the King and
Prince of Peace (Heb. vii. 2). 2. It was joyous and prosperous. “‘ Hating and
drinking and making merry.” “ Jd7 Jestwitas sine fine” (Augustine). And
Athanasius speaks rév dyiwy cai roy ayyihwy ast éopraZovrwy, The vine and the fig-
tree may remind us of the tree of life with its twelve manner of fruits; the security
(ver. 25) of the pillars in the temple of God (Rey. iii. 12). “In his days Israel
shall dwell safely” (Jer. xxiii. 6; cf. Isa. xi. 6—9). That golden age lasted “ all the
days of Solomon” (ver. 23). That which is to come shall be coeternal with the

endless life of the Son of God (Heb. vii. 16; John xiv. 19; Psa. xvi. 11):

Ver. 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 Seripture—and one of the most instruc-
tive. Manifold as were his gifts, marvellous as was his wisdom, they did not preserve
him from falling. It isa strange, shuddering contrast, the record of his singular
powers and faculties (ch. iv. 29—84), and the story of his shameful end (ch. xi. 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 UNPRECEDENTED AND HAS SINCE BEEN UNEQUALLED. 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, Chris-

)

tians, and Mohammedans, no fame equals his. Among the wise men of the world
Solomon stands facile princeps.

II. Ir was proprarous. 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.

ITI. Iv was varrep AnD COMPREHENSIVE. It was both scientific and sententious.
He was at once philosopher and poet. Nothing was too creat and nothing too
small for him. It is seldom that a man excels in more than one or two branches ofCH. Iv. 20—84.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 79

SE

 

knowledge, but S ras distineuil .
ee and an ai i mig ie ee aa eae oe
Me ake dasp. yssop, east and bird. It was lofty, it was
pec ncn teas coe ata ee Nk nny Sas
less of themselves. But § i: ee etre hitle of the world and know
oe ves. but Solomon knew man (‘‘ The proper study of mankind is
man’”’) knew himself. He needed not the charge, yy@u ceavriv, ° He sate A hens
eee ae oe pig poet justly ridicules (Aristoph. Nub. 360). His
tings proved that he hac studied the world, and was familiar with the heart

V. It was Gop-GIVEN wispom (ver. 29; cf. 3, 12,28; Dan. ii. 21). Not “the

aes ae a panetg eon a dts God” (t Cor. i. 8), and which
eLn Hot irom above — (James iu. 15), but that which the Supreme wisdom
teacheth. (Cf. Prov. 1.6.) Solomon was truly Oeodidaxroe.

Nes Up Was GOD-FEARING | wispom. ‘‘'The fear of the Lord,” he says, “is the
beginning of wisdom.” (Cf. Prov. i. 7; ix. 10.) There is a wisdom (falsely so
called) which dishonours and despisesGod. 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 (Pss. lxxui., exxvi.) are still chanted by the Catholic Church. (lt is
significant, though, how lew 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 congreg...n. He still warns the young and
the sensual (chs. ii.—vii.) 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—

I. BecAUsE THE HEART WAS NOT KEPT. The intellect, 7.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 mcreases 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.

Il. BECAUSE HIS OWN PRECEPTS 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 (Cant. i. 6). He was not true to
himself, and he soon proved false to his God. After preaching to others, he him-
self became a castaway. A solemn warning this to every preacher and teacher

that he should not do

s¢ 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.”

TIT. Because PRIDE POISONED HIS WISDOM AND PERVERTED 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 ae
of wives and concubines. But if pride brought them, pleasure kept them, An80 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cH. 1v. 20—84.

 

when he put his heart into their keeping, they tamed nena anges uf neh eae
ds! ++ carries > intellect along with It. : age
James iii. 8, 4). The heart carries the inte LOS * ae
compare his own words, Prov. xvi. 18, and iv. 23; cf. Dan. v. a purr
Solomon, unequalled in wisdom, how art thou fallen from heaven 2) a3 io a
could but draw aside the veil; if we could but visit the spirits i pron | : re .
19), we might perchance find among them one clothed of yore ‘‘in purple and fine
inen” (Luke xvi - ef, xii. 27), and who ‘fared sumptuously every day,” and
linen” (Luke xvi. 19; cf. xu. 27), and who "la I oY Grebe Sie ae
looking into the anguished face might find it was none other than the bri ae an
illustrious son of David, the chosen type of the Messiah, 18. Tae eae
C r7 IAC 7O¢ LTAaT 27, 2 ¢ v 2 - e xv 7
greatest of mankind. ‘The wisest, greatest, meanest of mankinc ie a -
whom these words were spoken. But their true application 1s not to iungland’s
ae d 7. ‘ a
sreatest chancellor, but to Israel’s greatest king.

HOMILIES BY VARIOUS AUTHORS.

Vers. 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 in 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. Hach 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,” &c., equally
true is it that ‘‘ the good men do lives after them.’ We all reap the fruits of the
care and toil and suffering of our fathers. ‘‘Other men labour and we enter into
their labours.” The text suggests—

I. THE GRANDEUR OF A MULTITUDINOUS PEOPLE. ‘Judah and Israel were many,
&e. 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 lite, with all its latent capacities that im-
presses us. But think of a great nation—what a world of busy, many-sided life ig
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 al! this people upon me?”
&e. (Numbers xi. 11). So with Solomon—‘ Who is able to judge this thy so
great a people?” (ch. i. 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 Tim. i. 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-REACHING INFLUENCE OF A WISE AND RIGHTEOUS RULE. * And
Solomon reigned over all kingdoms,” &e. (ver. 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 wide-spread 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 (ch. tii.CH. I¥. Z0—34. ] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 81

 

 

1), and in his treaty with Hiram, king of Tyre (ch. v.)
ae al gon = oe as we can judge, it was nob so much the result of

g torce, 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
eases from the display of military strength not worthy to be compared with this.
_ Righteousness exalteth a nation” (Prov. xiy. 34). ‘The throne is established by
righteousness” (Prov. xvi. 12). Every nation is strong and influential just in
proportion as its internal order and external relations are conformed to the law of
righteousness.

Ij]. THE PEACE THAT IS THE RESULT OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. “He had peace on
all sides round about him” (ver. 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” (Prov. xvi. 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,” &c. (Isa. xxxii. 17); ‘The fruit of
righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace” (James iii. 18).

IV. THE SECURITY THAT SPRINGS FROM PEACE (ver. 25). ‘‘ And Judah and Israel
dwelt safely,’ &¢.—this became almost a proverbial expression (2 Kings xviii.
81; Micah iv. 4; Zechariah 11.10). 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-indul-
gence, &e. 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 bene-
ficent 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.” Psa. Ixxii. has its partial
fulfilment in the days of Solomon; but the grandeur of its prophetic mean_ng 1s
realized only in the surpassing glory of His kingdom who is the true “ Prince of

righteousness and peace.’’—W.

This was the secret of

Ver. 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 utilty, as well as
the noble “ cedar,” was the subject of his research and discourse. .

I. THE GERM OF HIS KNOWLEDGE WAS From Gop. He was enriched with Ce
capacities above the average, as the preceding chapter shows. Men do ae en
in keenness of perception, in retentiveness of memory, in power of ee Boss x
love or dislike for the studies of natural science. A remembrance ol ie is O
peculiar value to us in the training of children. The dullard in mathematics pe
prove the scholar in classics, &c. The wisdom of the Divine arrangement wiic

G
1 KINGS.82 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. fou. rv. 20—84,

 

 

 

makes differences between us in our natural tastes and capacities 1s seen in this,
that it is on the one band a blessing to society, enabling all spheres of life to be
filled, and on the other a means af culture to character, by calling forth our sym-
pathy, our forbearance, and our generosity in rejoicing over the eee a oe

II. ‘ue GROWTH OF HIS KNOWLEDGE WAS FROM STUDY. Solomon did not lave 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 ae
depths of personal experience he declared that the ‘‘ hand of the eye os pe q 1
rich ”—in thought, as well as in purse. See also Proverbs x. 5; xix. 24; eAVi. 3,
&e. Press home on the young the value of habits of chligence, ee ny
examples from biography. It would be interesting to know with certainty the sub-
stance of Solomon’s discourses. Probably he knew more than ee 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 faet that in
those days, and in Eastern lands, this rather than that would be aceounted
“wisdom ;” and partly from such writings of his as are still extant—certain of the
Psalms, the Canticles, 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. Tue cREATURES OF Gop sPEAK TO US OF DrvinE caRE. Solomon, like hig
father, could say, ‘“‘ The heavens declare the glory of God ;” or like One greater than
himself, ‘‘ Consider the lilies of the field,” &&. See how he speaks (Prov. xvi. 15)
of the cloud of the latter rain that filled out the ears of corn ; of the dew upon the
grass (Prov. xix. 12); of the gladness of nature, when the winter is past and the rain
is over and gone (Cant. ii. 11—18). 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
be “ 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 outeome 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 con-
cerned, 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.

Il, THE CREATURES OF GOD SPEAK TO US OF HUMAN DEPENDENCH. 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 ail

ait upon Thee.” Man, with all his attainments and powers, cannot ereate 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 (Matt. vi. 25—34). We depend on these creatures in the natural world for food,
clothing, shelter, &c., and they only live because God cares for them.

III. Tae cREATURES OF GOD SPEAK TO US OF DAILY DUTIES. How often m
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
(Prov. xxvii. 18) as an encouragement to servants to be faithful and diligent.
Adduce similar examples.

IV. Tue creatures or Gop SPEAK TO Us oF MORAL DANGERS. ‘Take three ex-
amples of this. 1. In Canticles ii. 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 xxiv. 830—84 he draws a picture of a neglected

garden, grown over withcH. v. 1—18.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 83

 

gee ene nel pens ae re on oe "received instruction,” and

intoxicating drink, he cae at eee bit th lik : Cire a where, speaking of

Sigs as 2 eee Ss Pee oiteth ike @ serpent, and stingeth like an
7 é us way he referred to the animals and plants around him.

V. Tar CREATURFS 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
ee ea peeeeets oeay oes is not seemly in a fool” (Prov. xxv. 1).
! er example « Ss tes g occurs In Proverbs xxviii. 8. 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 cREATURES OF GOD SPEAK TO US OF NOBLE posstBinitins. 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 de-
spised. We can imagine how from such facts Solomon would draw lessons of trust
and hope.

In concLuston let us learn from the subject the following lessons—1. Never be
afraid of the teachings of natural science. Show how geology, botany, astro-
nomy, &c., 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. 38. Never neglect the wonderful
works of God. Many a frivolous life would be redeemed from vacuity and ennut
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.

EXPOSITION.

CHAPTER V. 1—18. xiv. 1, where the Keri, however, follows the
prevailing usage), the name appears as
Sotomon anp Hrram.—The somewhat de- Huram (ON). In Josephus it is Etpwpoe.
tailed description which we have had in | mj, prince and his friendly relations with
chapter iv. of Solomon’s pomp and power | the Jews are referred to by the Tyrian his-
and wisdom, is followed in chapters v. sqq. | torians, of whose materials the Greek ee
hate i fish eyes, was | Dius and Menander of Ephesus (temp. Alex-
x es: Be i. hoe meee dean: ander the Great) availed themselves. Ac-
ee ee : cording to Dius (quoted by Josephus contr.
deed, the great glory of Hebrew history—the Apion, i. 17) Hiram was the son of Abibaal.
erection and adornment of the Temple. And | Menander states that the building of the
as this was largely due to the assistance he temple was commenced in the twelfth yen of
receiyed—both in the shape of materials and ae 8 eee Nae ee bi ee Ae
ee -: : ; nt. vill. 3.1; , Ap. 1. 18) é
Isbourers—from the Tynan ae ‘ ae further said to have married his daughter
in the first place an account of his alliance | t9 golomon and to have engaged with him
with Hiram, in an intellectual encounter ieee aa
7 3 s] ki f Tyre (Hep. 1%,
Ver. 1.—And Hiram [In vers. 10, 18, the | shape of riddles} king o re [H

name is spelled Hirom (O11), whilst in rock, so called because of the rocky en

Chronicles, with one exception (1 Chron. which old Tyre was built, sometimes calle84 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

¥ IS, the fortress of, or fortified Tyre
(Josh. xix. 29; 2 Sam, xxiv. 7, &ec.) The
capital of Pheenicia. In earlier times, Sidon
would seem to have been the more import-
ant town: hence the Canaanites who in-
habited this region were generally called
Zidonians, as in ver. 6] sent his servants
(leqatos, Vatablus] unto Solomon [The Vat.
LXX. has here a strange reading, ‘ T'o
anoint Solomon,” &c. 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 under-
standing, with Israel was then, as at a later
period (Acts xii. 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 Solo-
mon; possibly of the events narrated in
chap. i.]: for Hiram was ever [Heb. all the
days: t.e., of their reigns; so long as they
were contemporary sovereigns] a lover of
David,

Ver. 2.—And Solomon sent to Hiram.
[According to Josephus (Ant. viii. 2. 6), he
wrote a letter, which together with Hiram’s
reply (ver. 8) was preserved among the pub-
lic archives of Tyre. The account of 2
Chronicles ii., which as a rule is more de-
tailed than that of the Kings, begins here.
It does not notice, that is to say, the prior
embassy of the Phenician 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, &c., that he desired.]

Ver. 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 ear-
penters and masons ” to build David's house
(2 Sam. v. 11), but “they of Tyre brought
much cedar wood to David” (1 Chron. xxii.
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. Deut.
xil, 5,11; and ch. viii. 18, 19, 20, &c.)] 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. Bihr and
Keil, however, with greater reason, inter-
pret, ‘‘for the war with which they sur-
rounded him ;’’ a construction (220 with

 

[cu. v. 1—18.

double accusative) which is justified by Psa.
cix. 83] until the Lord put them under the
soles of his feet [until, i.c., He trampled
them down. ‘The same image is found in
some of Dayid’s psalms, e.g., vil. 5; lx. 12;
cf, Psa. viii. 6; xci. 13; Isa. lx. 3; Rom.
xvi. 20; Eph. i. 22; Heb. 11. 8.]

Ver. 4.—But now the Lord my God hath
given me rest [In fulfilment of the promise
of 1 Chron. xxii. 9. David had had a brief
rest (2 Sam. vii. 1), Solomon’s was perma-
nent. He was ‘‘a man of rest’’] on every
side [Heb. round about, same word as in
ver. 3,and in 1 Chron. xxii. 9], so that there
is neither adversary [Hadad and Rezon, of
whom this word is used (1 Kings xi. 14, 23),
apparently belonged to a somewhat later
period of his reign] nor evil cccurrent
(Rather, ‘‘ occurrence,” or ‘‘ plague” (}33),
i.e., ‘* rebellion, famine, pestilence, or other
suffering’ (Bahr). David had had many such
‘occurrences’ (2 Sam. xv. 14; xx. 1; xxi.
Ls xxiy,, 15).]

Ver. 5.—And, behold, I purpose [Heb. ¥e-
hold me saying (ION, with infin. expresses
purpose. Cf. Exod. il. 14; 2 Sam. xxi. 16)] to
build an house unto the name of the Lord my
God, as the Lord spake unto David my
father, saying [2 Sam. vil. 12,13. He thus
gives Hiram to understand that he is earry-
ing 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.

Ver. 6.—Now therefore command thou
that they hew me cedar trees out of
Lebanon [Heb. the Lebanon, i.e., the White
(sc. mountain). ‘‘It is the Mont Blane of
Palestine” (Porter) ; but whether it is so
called because of its summits of snow or be-
cause of the colour of its limestone is uncer-
tain. 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 thehead of Wady Kadisha
there is a vast recess in the central ridge of
Lebanon, some cight 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 irregu-
lar knoll, stands the clump of cedars” (Ibid.,
Handbook, ii. p. 584), 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 Bjerreh ’’ (Keil), where the cedar grove
is now. The idea of some older writers
that the cedars belonged to Solomon, andcH. v. i—18.]

that he only asked Hiram for artificers
( that they hew me cedar trees,” &e.) is
negatived by ver. 10. It is true that “all
Lebanon i was given to Israel (Josh. xiii. 5),
but they did not take it. They did not drive
out the Zidonians (ver. 6; Judg. i. 31) or
possess ‘‘-the land of the Giblites” (ver. 5;
Judg. ui. 3). It should be stated here, how-
ever, that the cedar of Scripture probably
included other varieties than that which
now alone bears the name (see on ver. 8)],
and my servants shall be with thy ser-
vants [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 ver. 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, ver.
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 Zidonians [Propter vicina nemora.
Grotius, Sidon (Heb. })7°¥), means “ fish-
ing.” See note on ver. 18. By profane, as
well as sacred writers, the Phcenicians are
often described by the name Zidonians, no
doubt for the reason mentioned in the note
on ver. 1. See Homer, Iliad vi. 290 ; xxii.
743 ; Odys. iv. 84, 618; xvii. 424. Cf. Virg.
mee 1 O77. O10. iV. 545, &e. Gen. &. 15’;
dace. 1. ot; 1. 3; f Kings xi. 1, 33, Ke,
‘“The mechanical skill of the Phenicians
generally, and of the Zidonians in particular,
is noticed by many ancient writers,’’ Rawlin-
gon, 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 Phenicians 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. Isa. lx. 10, 13.]

Ver. 7.—And it came to pass, when Hiram
heard the words of Solomon [reported by
his ambassadors], that he rejoiced greatly
[see note on ver. 1. The continuance of
the entente cordiale was ensured], and said,
Blessed be the Lord {In 2 Chron. u. 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
“‘jdentified Jehovah with Melkarth his god”
(Rawlinson), much less that he was @
proselyte to the faith of David and Solomon.

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

 

 

85

All that is certain is that he believed the
Be as did most ancient nations (“ Der

olytheismus ist nicht ausschiesslich. Biihr)
to be one of the gods many. A belief in
Jehovah as God was quite compatible with
the retention of a firm faith in Baal 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
dress. It is noticeable that the LXX. hag
simply edAoynroc¢ 6 Oed¢] which hath given
unto David a wise son [Compare 1 Kings
1,48; 11.9. The proof of wisdom lay in
Solomon’s fulfilling his wise father’s ‘pur-
poses, and in his care for the worship of
God. ‘‘ Wise,” however, is not used here in
the sense of ‘‘ pious,” as Bahr affirms. In
Hiram’s lips the word meant discreet, saga-
cious. He would hardly recognize the fear of
the Lord as the beginning of wisdom] over
this great people.

Ver. 8.—And Hiram sent to Solomon
[in writing, 2 Chron.ii.11. Itis 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 Pheenicians. Gesenius, indeed, holds
that the invention of letters is also due to
them. See the interesting remarks of Mr.
Twisleton, Dict. Bib. 1. pp. 866—868], say-
ing, I have considered the things which
thou sentest unto me for [Heb. heard the
things (50.5 message) which thou sentest unto
me]: and I will doall 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 1}8, and W/2, 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, 18
meant in such passages as Ezekiel xxxi.,
Psa. xcil. 12, &c., 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 Num. xix. 6,
and Lev. xiv. 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.” (The
‘cedar’ of our pencils, it may be re-
marked, is a kind of juniper—Juniperus
Bermudiana.) In Ezekiel xxvii. 5, ‘“‘ they
have taken cedars of Lebanon to make masts
for thee,” it is probable that the Jus86 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[cH. v. 1—18.

 

Halepensis, not, as was formerly thought,
the Scotch fir (Pinus sylvestris), is intended.
The Cedrus Libani appears to be indiffer-
ently adapted to any such purpose, for
which, however, the Pinus Halepensis is
eminently fitted. But in the text, as
throughout ch. v.—vyiii., 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 unmis-
takably 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 tradi-
tional 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. iii. App. A. p. xl,
who speaks of it ‘as being car’ ‘Eoyiy, the
firmest and grandest of the conifers,” says
at the same time that “it has no particular
quality to recommend it for building pur-
poses; it was probably therefore not very
extensively used in the construction of the
temple.” But no other tree can be sug-
gested 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
TIS is a nomen generale which includes, at
any rate, the pine, the cedar, and the juniper,
in confirmation of which it may be men-
tioned that at the present day, ‘the name
arz is applied by the Arabs to all three”
(Royle, in Kitto’s Cyclop., art. ‘ Eres a

The Grove of Cedars now numbers about
450 trees, great and small. Of these about
a dozen are of prodigious size and consid-
erable 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” ig even
more precarious than that of the cedar.
Celsius would see in this the true cedar of

 

Lebanon. Others identify it with the juni-
per (Juniperus excelsa) or with the Pinus
Hulepensis, but most writers (among whom
are Keil and Bahr) believe the evergreen
cypress (Cupressus sempervirens) to be in-
tended. 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. Bahr says it is
inferior to cedar (but see above). According
to Winer, it is well fitted for building pur-
poses, as ‘it is not eaten by worms, and ig
almost imperishable and very light.” It ig
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 wellas‘‘ 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.

Ver. 9.—My servants shall bring them
[No word in the Hebrew; ‘Timber of Cedar,”
&c., 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. (‘‘ What a road it is for mortals. In
some spots it seems to have been intended
for mountain goats only ..... It winds
up sublime glens, and zigzags up rocky
acclivities, and passes over stone-strewn
terraces,” &c. (Porter, Handbook, p- 583.)
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
ver. 18). Beyrout, the present port of the
Lebanon, is 27 hours distant vid Tripoli.
But cedars would then, no doubt, be found
nearer the sea. And the ancients (as the
stones of Baalbek, &c., prove) were not
altogether deficient in mechanical apph-
ances. The transport of cedars to the
Mediterranean would be an easy undertak-
ing compared with the carriage of them to
Nineveh, and we know from the inscrip-
tions 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 con-
veying timber, among Greeks and Romans,
aswell as among Hastern races. The reader
will probably have seen such rafts on the
Rhine or other river] unto the place whichcn. v. i—18.]

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

   

87

 

thou shalt appoint (Heb. send] me [In 2
Chron. ii. 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
asin ver. 8, and probably used designedly
= ‘*] 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 (ver. 6). The
food for the royal household must be care-
fully distinguished from the food given to
the workmen (2 Chron. ii. 10). The fact
that 20,000 cors of wheat formed a part of
each has led to their being confounded (e.g.
in the marginal references). Itis noticeable
that when the second temple was built,
cedar wood was again brought to Jerusalem,
via Joppa, in return for ‘‘ meat and drink
and oil unto them of Zidon” (Ezra iii. 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—Phcenicia proper (“the
great plain of the city of Sidon,” Josephus,
Ant. vy. 3, 1) is only 28 miles long, with an
average breadth of one mile—compelled the
importation of corn and oil. Ezekiel
(xxvii. 17) mentions wheat, honey, oil, and
balm as exported from Palestine to the
markets of Tyre. It has been justly re-
marked that the fact that Phcenicia was
thus dependent upon Palestine for its
breadstuffs explains the unbroken peace
that prevailed between the two countries
(Heeren. See Dict. Bib. ii. p. 865).

Ver. 10.—So Hiram gave [Heb. kept
giving, supplied] Solomon cedar trees and
fir [or cypress] trees, according to all his
desire.

Ver. 11.—And Solomon gave Hiram
twenty thousand measures (Heb. cors. See

ch. iv. 22] of wheat for food (N23) for

nbs) to his household [Rawlinson re-
marks that this was much less than
Solomon’s own consuniption (ch. iv. 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, 1.¢., such as was

 

 

 

obtained by pounding the olives, when not
quite ripe, in @ 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 Bihr’s Symbolik, i.
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. |}

Ver. 12.—And the Lord gave [Can there
be any reference to the repeated “gave” of
the two preceding verses?) to Solomon wis-
dom, as he promised him (ch. iii. 12) and
there was peace [oue fruit of the gift. Cf,
James ili. 17] between Hiram and Solomon,
and they two made a league together
[Heb. ‘cut a covenant.” Cf. Spa réprerv.
Covenants were ratified by the slaughter of
victims, between the parts of which the
contracting parties passed (Gen. xv. 18;
Jer. xxxiv. 8, 18, 19). Similarly ozovén,
‘¢libation,” in the plural, means “league,
truce,” and ozovddc réuvew is found in
classic Greek. ]

Ver. 13.—And King Solomon raised a
levy {(Marg., tribute of men, 7.e., conscrip-
tion] out of all Israel [7.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 Sam.
xxiv. 9 (which do not agree, however, with
those of 1 Chron. xxi. 5), the conscription
only affected one in forty of the male popu-
lation. But even the lower estimate of
Samuel is regarded with some suspicion.
Such a levy was predicted (1 Sam. vii. 16).

Ver. 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 ch. iv. 6; xil. 18] was over the levy.

Ver. 15.—And Solomon had threescore
and ten thousand that bare burdens, and
fourscore thousand hewers in the moun-
tains. [These 150,000, destined for the
more laborious and menial works, were not
Israelites, but Canaanites. We learn from
2 Chron. ii. 17, 18 that ‘‘ all the strangers
that were in the land of Israel” were sub-
jected 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 bond-
age (ch. ix. 22), while the former had
long been employed in servile work, The
Gibeonites were reduced to serfdom by
Joshua (Josh. ix. 27), and the rest of the
Canaanites as they were conquered (J osh.XVle88 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

10; xvii. 13; Judg. i. 29, 30), In.1 Chron.
Xxli. 2, we find some of them employed on
public works by Dayid. By the ‘“ hewers”
many commentators have supposed that
stone-cutters alone are intended (so Jos.,
Ant., viii. 2. 9) partly because stone is men-
tioned presently, and partly because 13M
is mostly used of the quarrying or cutting
of stone, as in Deut. vi. 11; vill. 9; 2 Kings
xii. 12, &c. 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 wood-cutting Isa. x.15 shows, And
the words, ‘‘in the mountain” (12) 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
overland and sea, especially when it abounded
on the spot. (The tradition that the stone
was quarried at Baalbek is quite unworthy
of credence. It has no doubt sprung from
the huge stones found there. ‘The temple
was built of the beautiful white stone of the
country, the hard missal”’? (Warren, p. 60.)
Jt 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 : al-
most 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 men-
tioned below (ver. 17) were brought from
Lebanon. |

Ver. 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 pracfecti erant
(Vatabl.) ] which were over the work three
thousand and three hundred [This large
number proves that the ‘chiefs of the over-
seers” cannot be meant. Were all the
3,300 superior officers, there must have been
quite an army of subalterns. But we read
ofnone. Inch. ix. 23, an additional num.
ber 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 Chron.
li. 17 we read of a body of 3,600 “ overseers
to set the people a work,” whilst in ch. viii.
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 Chron.
the arrangement is one of race, t.e., 3,600
aliens O°93; ef. 2 Chron. ii. 18) and 250

 

 

 

[cu. v. 1—18.

Israelites, whilst in Kings it is one of status,
z.é., 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.

Ver. 17.— And the king commanded and
they brought [or cut out, quarried (Gesen.),
as in Eccles. x. 9; see also ch. vi. 7 (Heb.) ]
great stones, costly [precious, not hea vy, as
Thenius. Cf. Psa. xxxvi, S- sly Oe Bena.
i. 4 in the Heb.], stones and [omit and.
The hewed stones were the great and costly
stones] hewed stones [ or squared (Isa. ix. 10 ;
cf, ch, vi. 36;-vin. 9; xi..12). We learn trom
ch. vii. 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 ma-
sonry ’’ (Porter, Handbook, p. 115). ‘One
is 23 ft. 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 (ef. Ewald, Hist. Israel, iii. 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. v. 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
Pheenician handiwork.]

Ver. 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 Josh. xiii. 5 (‘the
land of the Giblites and Lebanon ’’) ; Psa.
Ixxxili. 7 (‘‘Gebal and they of Tyre ")'; and
Hizek. xxvii. 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
Phenicia. 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 practicalcH. v. 1—18.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 89

identity of the Hebrew and Pheenician | port that the land transport ended, and tl
tongues. The Aramean immierants (Deut rafts were made \ road re aa =
Rie fe saeee oF oy ¢ aac. «ATroad ran anciently fror
Baviv 5: Gen. xil. 5) no doubt adopted the | Gebalto Baalbak. so that the transport ie
language of Canaan (Dict. Bib., art. ““Pheeni- | not impracticable "But as tl f Re
ciaus”). Keil renders, ‘even the Giblites.” | ee oe
rs, xiblites. probably of great ex
xtent, there may hav
He would understand, i.e., that the Zidonian | been Cn he three aR whiel ae
a¥l1z 5. rey a itec: + ee : ee, re He rae ie
workmen were Giblites ; but this is doubtful. | timber was floated) go they prepara
The Giblites are selected, no doubt, for | timber [Heb. the timber] and Stites. ‘Heb
‘istage mention because of the prominent | the stones] to build the house [The LXX.
cn ef : aAL AE 3 : T 7 eke ae
part they oe in the work. Gebal, as its | (Vat. and Alex. alike) add here, “ three
ancient and extensive ruins prove, was a | years.” It is barely possible that thes
place of much importance, and lyine as it | w e dropped che saat:
ts i I : ance, and lying as it | words may have dropped out of the text
id on the coast, and near - for 7 c e hike infer.
ee ana nt sas near the cedar forests, | but they look more like a gloss, the infer-
aturally have an important share in | ence from the chronological statement of
the cutting and shipping of the timber. In- | ch. vi. 1.]
deed, it is not improbable that it was at this

HOMILETICS.

Vers. 7—12 compared with ch. xvi. 81 and ch. xviii. 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 Pheni-
cian race exercise an important influence on the Hebrew people. In the days ot
Solomon the subjects of Hiram furnished men and materials to build a honse to the
name of the Lord. The Phenicians 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 acknow-
ledgment 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 Pheenician deities would fain break down the carved
work thereof with axes and hammers. So far from rearing a sanctuary to Jehovah,
they would root up His worship and enthrone a foul idol in the place ot 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 whole-
some, in another so baleful? It may be instructive to mark the causes of this
change. But observe, first—

I. [rf was NoT THAT THE PH@NICIAN CREED WAS CHANGED. In its essential fea-
tures 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 ol the reproduc-
tive powers. The gods of Hiram were the gods of Ethbaal, and the rites of the
latter age were also the rites of the former.

Il. 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 r val
religion; it always condemned the Phenician superstition. That 1s, semper eadem,

Ill. Iv was not THar Hiram was A ProseLyTe. This was the beliet ot the
divines of a past age, but there is no evidence in its favour. — see

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 per-
sonal influence of three or four kings—of Solomon, Jeroboam, Omri, Ahab. But
before we trace the influence they respectively exercised, observe—

I. THE WHOLESOME RELATIONS BETWEEN HiraM AND SOLOMON, BETWEEN TyRE ANDwt”

90 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu. v. 1—18.

ISRAEL, 7.€., WERE DUE TO THE PIETY OF Davip. “ Hiram was ae oa a
David.” The timber he supplied for the temple was not the ae ne oe Ben -
Sam. v.11). The league between the two kings (1 eee NA me 1 me gore.
undertakings (ch. v. 18; ix. 27), were the fruits of David's righteous ¢ a mgs.

II. THE RELATIONS CONTINUED WHOLESOME AND BENEFICIAL SO LONG AS THE LAW
OF THE LoRD WAS KEPT. During David’s reign, and the earlier part ol 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. Ata later period (see Homily on ch. x. 22) it was otherwise.

III. THE LAW WAS NO SOONER VIOLATED THAN THE INFLUENCE OF TYRE BECAME
HURTFUL. The Zidonian women in Solomon’s harem were a distinct violation of
the law (ch. xi. 1), and that trespass bore its bitter fruit forthwith (ch. xi. 7, 8).

The principal factors, consequently, in the change were these—

I. THE INFLUENCE oF Sotomon. [If he built altars for his T'yrian consorts, what
wonder if the people learnt tirst 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 INFLUENCE OF JEROBOAM. The cultus of the calves, though it was not
idolatry, paved the way for it. That violation of the law opened the door for de-
partures greater still. It was no great step from the calves to the groves, from
schism to utter apostasy. k

III. Tur INFLUENCE 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 vi. 16). He exceeded all his pre-
decessors in wickedness, and so prepared the way for his son’s consummation of
impiety.

IV. THE INFLUENCE OF Anas. 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 Pheenicia, 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 xvi. 82; ef. 2 Kings x. 26, Quins
Rev. i. 20). It may be said, however, that all this was the work of Jezebel, and
due to her influence alone (1 Kings xxi. 25; cf. xviii. 18; xix. 2, &e.) That may
be so, but 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 RESPONSIBILITY OF PERSONAL INFLUENCE. 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 . .. whose
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—

It. THE EVIL THAT MEN DO LIVES AFTER THEM, They go on sinning in their
graves. ‘Though dead, their example speaks. Witness Solomon and Jeroboam,

Ill. THe "VIL THAT KINGS DO AFFECTS WHOLE counTRIES. Their own king-
doms, of course, and neighbouring kingdoms too. It has been said that ‘‘ the in-
fluence 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 con-
tinent 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
inflwence of kings that we are so plainly commanded to pray for them (1. Time aig
ef, Ezra vi. 10; Jer. xxix. 7).

LV. IN KEEPING OF GopD’s COMMANDMENTS 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 destruc.
tion ot their families.CH. V. 1—18.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 91

 

 

V. TEMPTATION DISCIPLINES THE FAITHFUL SOUL, BUT DESTROYS 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 soil, and took root downwards and
bare fruit upwards.

Ver. 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’’ (Psa. exxxvii. 7). It has been
the carcase round which the Roman ‘“‘ eagles”? have repeatedJy gathered; it has
been the battle-field 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 débris. 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”’ (Matt. xxiv. 2). With onE exception. Amid the
wreck and havoc of war, aiid 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 south-east angle and underneath the temple area (see on
ver. 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

ndations of the Temple—
y A PICTURE OF Gunist He compared Himself to the Temple (John ii. 19),
and to the foundations of the Temple (Matt. xxi. 42). Yes, to these very corner
stones which are still visible. It is remarkable that Psalm exviu. 22—‘ The stone
which the builders refused is become the head of the corner ’’—is cited by our Lord
of Himself (Matt. xxi. 42), and is applied to Him by St. Peter (Acts iv. 11), while Isa.
xxviii. 16, “ Behold, I lay in Zion fora foundation a stone, &e.—words which were
no doubt suggested by the great and precious stones of Solomon S eee
interpreted of Him both by St. Peter (1 Pet. i. 6) and St. Paul (Rom. 1x. 88). c 6
have consequently “ most certain warrants of Holy Scripture ” for seeing in EEO
venerable relics an image of the Eternal Son. He is the one foundation (1 a
iii. 11); the chief corner stone (dxpoywrtaios, Eph. i. 20) 5 He abideth Seat
“ Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever”’ (Heb. xii. 8, Gr.) iha
‘ sure foundation” can never fail. How many systems of See a
‘‘ oppositions of science” have “ had their day and oe See [ a
proud empires have tottered to their fall ; how many aynae ies are ih a oa
forgotten? But the carpenter’s ee rules in the hearts of men, and the cros
‘hrist “‘ towers above the wreck of time. =

, Sante beac oF THE CHURCH OF CurisT. As surely as the as eee
images our Lord, so surely do the huge and strong ek eas i se
of which He is the Founder. It 1S to the Chureh apenlh waad et ea 19, Gk)
those words refer, ‘‘ The - a a a idee a a a. ipsa
The Church is “the pillar and ground ol the truth, = 1 ry Foca ciate nace
tion of apostles and prophets”’ (Eph. ii. 20; cf. Rev. at ) x ae anceee
tions of the Temple, its base shall be stable and permanent, ae

shall not prevail petivist it”? (Matt. xvi. 18). It is founded on a rock (ibid.)92 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cH. v. 1—18,

 

‘¢Crowns and thrones may perish,
Kingdoms rise and wane,
But the Church of Jesus
Constant will remain.”

Tt was the boast of Voltaire that what it took twelve men to build one man should
-eak But the Church is stronger in the hearts of men now than
suffice to break down. roltaize's ery of im pee Heleae ata ae
it was in the eighteenth century. And N oltaire’s cry 0 ae ae am an
Vinfdime, seems farther than ever from its realization. tis eet a ee
Christianity has ‘‘ destroyed two clvilizations ——B, striking a: ‘A sion e Se nee
and vitality. True, the Church has a legion of foes. But aaa a a co ee.
There is at Jerusalem a pledge and picture of her stability. er fas eae 1er
excrescences, her sects and schisms, like the buildings of the Holy City, shall pass
LV. 1er foundation is sure.
ener: i lotta OF THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST AND THE CuurcH. As there are
twelve foundations of the Church, so are there six foundation-truths, six “ prin-
ciples of the doctrine of Christ ’’ (Heb. vi. 2). And of these it may ra be said,
“Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid.’ Some of these iat
may have been, or may hereafter be, more or less nea et ae Oo
baptism and of the laying on of hands” are often ignored or era ie earae
—but for long centuries the foundations of the Temple area have een 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 Cor. 111. 11), “‘ wood, hay, stubble,” 7.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.

HOMILIES BY VARIOUS AUTHORS.

Vers. 2—6.—The Temple. Read also 2 Chron. ii. 1—10, where additional light is
thrown on this transaction. Itmarks 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 mag-
nificence of the first Temple, though it be butas 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 archi-
tecture, 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. Iv EXPRESSES HIS DESIRE TO CARRY OUT THE GOOD DESIGNS OF HIS FATHER
Davip. 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,’ &. We are told why he ‘could not” (1 Chron. xxii. 7, 8; xxviii. 5). He
had been “a man of war,” and had « shed much blood.” Noble purposes may be
conceived in a time of discord and contusion ; they can be actualized only in a
tine 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
Svlomon, 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 ; @ laying of plans that
are never worked out; a reaching forth towards fair ideals that men have not theCH. v. 1—18.]} THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 93

 

 

power or the time to turn into realities. What can the hich mission of eacl
succeeding generation be but just to take up the good purposes that os en
generation failed to accomplish and develop them to their ripe isinive > This ig
the real law of human progress. All honour to the son who, knowing what as
truest and deepest in his father’s heart, endeavours worthily to fulfil it.

Il. Ir 1s tus SPONTANEOUS 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 Se
wonderful,” dedicated to the Lord, in the royal city, will give it fitting publie
expression. All religious feeling instinctively seeks to body itself forth in appro-
priate forms. Forbidden as the Jews were to “‘ make any likeness or image” of the
great Object of worship (Exod. xx. 4), it was quite in harmony with the Divine
dispensation of the time that the spirit of worship should robe itself in a orand
symbolic garb. — Solomon only sought to develop the service of the tabernacle into
a system more imposing and enduring (2 Chron. ii. 4, 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 willnot 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. Iv EXPRESSES HIS SENSE OF THE FACT THAT THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF
Gop IS THE REAL STRENGTH 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
uvion of Church and State as two separate or separable powers, but their identi-
fication. “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 lite,

‘““house great and

‘¢ 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 ee
and purity and love—the blessed fellowship of the redeemed—the ‘‘ House of God,
not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.”
IV. Iv EXPRESSES HIS DESIRE THAT ISRAEL SHOULD HAVE A CENTRE OF RELI-
GIOUS ATTRACTION AND BOND OF RELIGIOUS UNITY. The tabernacle had been the
movable sanctuary of a wandering people, the Temple should be the Bray
place of the Divine presence (Psa. cxxxl. 14). Hitherto there had been a aivide94 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cx. v. 1—18,

 

worship, connected both with the tabernacle at Gideon and the ark in the city of
David (1 Chron. xvi. 37—89). 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,” &c. (John iv. 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 (Rev. xxi.
22).—W.

Ver. 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. Itis 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 case 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 ” (Heb. x. 1). The Temple was to form a
part of this preparation.

I. Ir was A VISIBLE SYMBOL OF THE PRESENCE OF Gop 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.

Il. The erection of a holy place for worship REMINDED MEN THAT THE EARTH
WHICH THEY INHABITED WAS DEFILED ; it developed in them the sense of sin.

III. Tue possiBILiry oF DRAWING NEAR TO Gop 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 ail 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 ”’ (Rev. v. 9).

IV. THERE Is NoT A SINGLE CHRISTIAN 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 namo of the Lord,” (z) He must first become himself a living stone of the spiri-
tual temple (2 Pet, ii. 51). (b) His body must be the temple of the Holy Ghost (1
Cor. vi. 19), his whole being a sanctuary (1 Cor. li.) His house should be a house
of prayer (Josh. xxiv. 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 9 (2 Cor. v. 1.)—E. de P.

Vers. 7—12.—Lessons from the conduct of a heathen prince. Describe the cons
dition of Tyre at this period, alluding to its commerce, its religious beliefs, itg
proximity to the kingdom of Solomon (the capitals being distant from each other
about 122 miles), its monarchical institutions, as opposed to the usual republican
government of Pheenician settlements—as exemplified in Carthage, the splendid
daughter of Tyre, 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 suggestedcH. v. 1—18.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

by Old Testament history. Suggest from this the responsibilities and tl] ‘i
aceruing to us as a Christian people, from the fact that our Sten) desis a ie
interwoven with distant and heathen nations. Allude to the fonslascheds of S. ai -
in ascribing what is good and commendable to those whom the Jews ae
oo oe examples may be given, ¢.g., Abimelech kine arta
n . - Taate 1 A , ; A ss le 5
a a 2 agen anes deal Cornelius, Publius, &c. Compare the words
The conduct of Hiram teaches us the following lessons.
I. THAT WE SHOULD REJOICE IN THE PROSPERITY OF OTHERS (ver. ay

moved to joy, partly because of his love and admiration for Coe
unspeakable advantage to have the position won by a father’s toil. the affection ud
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 eare 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 1s 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.

Il. THAT WE SHOULD FAIRLY CONSIDER THE DEMANDS OF OTHERS. ‘I have con-
sidered the things which thou sentest to me for’ (ver. 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, &. A
false patriotism sometimes refuses to see any excellency in another people. Sec-
tarianism 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.”

Ill. THAT WHEN WE DO A KINDNESS, IT SHOULD BE DONE WITHOUT GRUDGING. “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,” &c. (Col. i. 25, 24). © Give, and it
shall be given unto you; good measure,” Xe. (Luke vi. 88).

TV. THAT WE SHOULD RECOGNIZE AND RECOMPENSE THE ABILITIES OF THE
HUMBLEST. In 2 Chron. ii. 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 employé. 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. ae

V. THAT WE SHOULD ACKNOWLEDGE OUR MUTUAL DEPENDENCE, 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 con-96 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu. v1. 1—38.

fessed, ‘‘ There is not among us any that can skill to hew timber like unto the
Sidonians ” (ver. 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 xvu. 21). Apply, the principle to the
association of Christians in Church fellowship, in evangelistic enterprize, in reli-
gious worship, &c., and show the benefits arising to the imdividual from the fact
that he is one of many.

VI. THAT EACH SHOULD LOYALLY ACCEPT, AND HEARTILY DO, HIS OWN SHARE IN
BUILDING THE TEMPLE OF THE Lorp. (2 Chron. 1.16.) 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, &c. 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 distin-
guished builders, will, in the great day, not lose his reward.—A. R.

EXPOSITION.

CHAPTER VI. 1—38. ix. 34; see Stanley, ‘ Jewish Church,” ii.

p. 193), being probably mere attempts to

Sonomon’s rEmpLe.—The preparationsfor | “twist Jerushalaim into a shape which
the building of the Temple having been | should be intelligible to Greek ears ” (Dict.

related in the preceding chapter, the his- | Bib. i. 983).
torian nov proceeds to describe the edifice. We find a sufficient indication, however,
He begins his narrative with a precise state- | of the profound importance which this

ment of the date of its erection (ver. 1); | undertaking assumed in Jewish eyes in the
then follows (1) a description of the shape, | fact that four chapters of our history—and
size, and arrangement of the exterior (vers. | three of them of considerable length—are
2—10), and (2) a detailed account of its | occupied with an account of the materials,
internal fittings and adornments (vers. proportions, arrangements, and consecration
15—35). The promise made to Solomon | of this great sanctuary, To the historio-
during its erection finds a place in vers. graphers of Israel it seemed meet that every
11—13 ; while the vessels, &c., used in the | measurement of the holy and beautiful
Temple service are described in ch. vii. A | house should be recorded with the greatest
parallel though briefer account, and one | exactness. while the very vessels of service,
differing considerably in its arrangement, | ‘the pots and the shovels and the basons,”

 

is pou in 2 Chron, il. iv. were judged worthy of a place in the sacred
The erection of this splendid sanctuary page.
was no doubt the greatest event, both in But these careful and detailed dimensions

Jewish and Gentile eyes, in the history of | are not only proofs of the tender veneration
the Holy City. It made Jerusalem whatit | with which the Jew regarded the Temple
had not been till then, the religious capital. | and its appointments; they are also (as
The stronghold of the Jebusites now be- | Bihr has well shown, Symbolik, i. pp. 127,
came the shrine and centre of the Jewish 128) indications and expressions of the
system, We are not warranted, however, | belief that this house, so ‘‘exeeeding mag-
in believing that it shaped the name by | nifical,” was for the Lord, and not for nhs
which the city was known to the Greeks, | These exact Measurements, these nrceiNa
Tsnemohnjast (Jos., B. J. 6. 10) and ‘Iepdy | and symbolic numbers all point to a place
~ahopevog (Fupolemus in Euseb. Prep, Ev. | for the Divine Presence; they are “theCH, VI. 1—38.]

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

   

97

 

first requisite for every space and structure
which has a higher and Divine destination,
and they impart thereto the sionature of
the Divine” (Biuhr). Indeed the very names
templum and réuevoc (=a space measured
off) are in themselves in some gort attesta-
tions 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” (Ezek. xl.
3, 8; Rev. xi. 1; xxi. 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 descrip-
tion of this edifice, it is nevertheless so
partial, and the account is, perhaps neces-
sarily, so obscure as to leave us in consider-
able doubt as to what Solomon’s Temple
was really like. In fact, though ‘‘ more has
been written regarding the temple at Jeru-
salem 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, in-
deed, until recently, there was a preity
general agreement, viz., that the house was
‘rectilinear and of box-form.” But it is
now contended that this primary and funda-
mental 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
tc accuracy. ‘‘It,is just as easy to pour-
tray a living man from a tolerably well-
preserved skeleton as to reproduce a building
in @ way which shall correspond with reality
when we have only a few uncertain remains
of its style of architecture in our posses-
1 KiNGS,

 

 

 

sion” (Romberg and Steger, quoted in Bahr,
‘* Bibelwerk,”’ p. 49). And the difficulty ig
enhanced by the fact that the temple Sv as
sut generis. It was purely Jewish, so that
no information as to its structure and
arrangements can be derived from the con.
temporary architecture of Kigyptians 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 (Exod. xxv.
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 a 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 hig
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 ima-
ginary? The first view, which long found
favour with commentators, and which has
still some advoeates, is now pretty generally
abandoned. For while many of Ezekiel’s
measurements, &c., correspond exactly wita
those of our historian, and while it may be
conceded, therefore, that this delineatior:
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
(Ezek. xlii. 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”
(ch. xlvii. 1), and flowing down eastward
to heal the pestilent waters of the Dead
Sea, where a literal interpretation is mani.
festly impossible. And it is to be remwems-

H98 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[cu. vi. 1—88.

 

 

bered that the prophet himself speaks of
his temple as seen in vision (ch. xl. 2; xlill.
2,3). The true account of this portraiture
would therefore seem to be that, while it
borrowed largely from the plan and propor-
tions of Solomon’s Temple, it was designea
to serve as ‘the beaw ideal of what a Se-
mitic temple should be” (Fergusson, Dict.
Bib. iii. p. 1460. In a paper in the ‘* Contem-
porary Review,” vol. xxvii. p. 978, Fergus-
son adopts the idea that it was designed to
serve as a basis for the future restoration of
the temple.)

Two other authorities, whose accounts
have a direct bearing on the sacred narra-
tive, 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 aedifi-
cat,” savs Clericus, ‘*‘ quale animo conceperat
mon quale legerat a Salomone conditum.”
“Tnconsistency, inaccuracy, and exaggera-
tion are plainly discoverable in the measure-
ments given by Josephus ” (Conder, ‘‘ Hand-
book to Bible,” p. 368). ‘*‘ Wherever the
Mishna is not in accord with Josephus the
measurements of the latter are untrust-
worthy ” (ib. p. 369). 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]
(Bihr). The student of temple archi-
tecture consequently 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. (See Fergusson, Dict. Bib.
iii. p. 1455). In the first place, in plan and

derives but

arrangement the two structures were identi-
cal Each faced the east; each had three
parts, viz., porch, holy place, and holy of
holies, while the side chambers of the temple
(ver. &) were analogous to the verandah
formed -by the projecting roof, or curtains,
which ran round three sides of the taber-
nacle. Secondly, the measurements both of
the whoie.edifice and of its component parts

 

were exactly double those of the tabernacle,
as the following table will show :—

TABERNACLE. TEMPLE.

cubits. cubits.
Entire lenoth osec seca CO osc eee
SWGLUEL’ «<5, ons ud cn eiesdel esse ame eee
a fT ONY Gl scree ta id wpa 6 Dace pete leparee ee
Liensth of Holy Place... 20..0s seen 40
Wildl Hiiise. ccaltesdbd o-s.'sCas esate viola UD eee eee eee
PT GUO Gal dies os seer atone LO). colts, wre pian
Length, of Holy of Holies, 10 .. os 20
Width. a5 2

LOI couse as « en in a0 orn, LO on wee eee ee
WidthvoL orc, acs step 0 2

DGD EN co stain ues

The only exception to this rule is that of
the side chambers, which (on the lowest
story) were but five cubits wide, 7.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
(Exod. xxv. 9, 40; cf. Acts vu. 44; Heb.
vill. 5), so that when ‘‘ David gave to Solo-
mon his son the pattern of the porch,” &e:,
‘and the pattern of all that he had by the
spirit” (1 Chron. xxviii. 11, 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 deci-
mal 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 donbt,
the symbol of completeness (‘‘ Symboi der
Vollendung und Vollkommenheit.” Bahr,

9°

So

5 ead ie ere ae

Or

eoece@oce eee ecH. vr. 1—38.]

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

$9

 

 

Symbolik, i. p. 175), just as five was the
sign of imperfection (ib. pp. 183—187). 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 alto-
gether 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. Bihr, however,
who also shows at some length how ‘the
number three is everywhere conspicuous in
the building ” (p. 54), accounts for it on the
ground that ‘‘three is in the Old Testa-
ment the signature of every true and com-
plete unit” (Was dret Mal geschicht ist das
rechte Hinmal; 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 founda-
tions 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.

Ver. 1.—And it came to pass in the four
hundred and eightieth year after the chil-
dren of Israel were come out of the land
of Egypt [This date has been the subject of

|

|

 

 

 

much controversy, which cannot ev
be considered (pace Keil:
of the number 480 is now pretty generally
admitted ’”) as closed. Grave doubts are
entertained as to its genuineness. Lord A.
Horeey (Dict. Bib. vol. ii. p. 22) says it is
anifestly erroneous.” Rawlinson con-
Siders it to be “an interpolation into the
sacred text” (p. 515). And it is to be ob-
served, 1. that the LXX. readg 440 instead
of 480 years—a discrepancy which is sus-
picious, and argues some amount of incer-
titude. 2. Origen quotesthis verse without
these words (Comm. in S. Johann ii. 20).
3. They would seem to have been un-
known 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 in-
stance 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 fur-
nish 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 state-
ment. The question of New Testament
chronology is somewhat more complicated.
In Acts xill. 20, St. Paul states the period
between the division of Canaan, by Joshua
(Josh. xiv. 1, 2), and the time of Samuel
the prophet as 450 years (kat pera raita we
ETEOL TETPAKOLOLC KAi TEVTNKOVTA EOWKEY KpITAC
x.7.\.) But Lachmann, on the authority
of A, B, C (and we may add &), considers the
received text to be corrupt, and would place
kat pera tavra after wevrncovra. Alford,
however, treats this reading as ‘‘ an attempt
at correcting the difficult chronology of the
verse,” and says that ‘‘all attempts to re-
concile”’ it with 1 Kings vi.1 “are arbitrary
and forced.” If, then, the received text is
to stand—and it is to be noticed that the
réigns 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.¢., 580—Josephus makes it

en now
‘The correctness100

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

{cu. v1. 1—88.

 

 

592—instead of 480 years. 6. The chrono-
logy of Josephus — to which by itself,
perhaps, no great weight 1s 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.” (Bihr, 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,” &e.,
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 ex-
ceptional reference to the birth or emancl-
pation 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 Solo-
mow’s reign over Israel [according to the
chronology of Ussher, this was a.m. 3000],
in the month Zif [i.e., May. The word sig-
nifies splendour, The month was pro-
bably 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.9.,
Gen. vil. 11; 2 Kings xxv. 1). Oniy 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 ver. 37, Bul in ver. 38, and Hthanim
in ch. viii. 2. It has hence been inferred
that these names were not in general use,
but were restricted to public documents,
&e. (Dict. Bib. ii. 416), a supposition which,
if correct, would account for the facility
with which the old appellations were super-
seded by post-captivity names. The later
name for this month was Iyar (Targum on
2 Chron. xxx. 2)], that he began [not in
Heb.] to build the house of [Heb. to] the
Lord, [The chronicler mentions the site
(2;cbrom tu .1).'* In Mount Monah,, . .
in the threshing-floor of Ornan,” &c. We
know from the extensive foundations yet
remaining that the preparation of the plat-
form on which the temple should stand
must haye been a work of considerable time

 

and labour, and see Jos., Ant. vili. 3. 9, and
Bell. Jud. v. 5.1. We can hardly be wrong
in identifying the remarkable rock known as
the Sakrah, over which the mosque of Omar
(Kubbet-es-Sakréh) 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. xi.
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
(«Tent Work,” pp. 187—9) 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 im-
mutability of Oriental custom, still a temple,
and the site of the great altar still conse-
crated [?] by the beautiful little chapel of
the chain.” But see Porter i. p. 125: Pal.
Explor. p. 4, a so pp. 342, 343; ‘*Our Work
in Palestine,” chs. vii, and ix.; ‘‘ Recovery
of Jerusalem,” ch. xu., &e. Quot viatores,
tot sententia '. |

Ver. 2.—-And the house [i.e., not the
whole structure, but the main building, ex-
clusive of porch (ver. 8) and side chambers
(ver. 5)] which king Solomon built for the
Lord, the length thereof was threescore
cubits [But what was the length of the
cubit? (M8) 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” (Jer. lii. 21),
‘ hand-breadth” (1 Kings vil. 26), ‘*span”
(1 Sam. xvu. 24), and the Greeks had their
Oaxtudog rove and wiyve, and the Romans
their cubitus, pes, digitus, &e. MS is used
inits proper sense (ulna) Deuteronomy iii. 11.
Probably at first it signified, like zjyue, the
length from point of elbow to tip of little or
middle finger. But itis 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 eubit (2 Chron.
111. 3), was six palms, while that of Ezekiel
(luzek. xl. 5; xiii. 13), the royal Babylonian
cnbit, was seven, but on this as well ag
other points the authorities are very far
from agreed. ‘The length of the cubit 1s
one of the most knotty points of Hebrew
archeology” (Dict. Bib. iii, p. 1736). There
is a general consensus of opinion, however,cH. vi. 1—88.|

in favour of understanding the cubit here
mentioned as measuring 18 inches. Fer-
gusson (Dict. Bib. i. 1451) considers this to
be beyond question. It is certainly note-
worthy that the measurements of Kings and
Chronicles, of Ezra and Ezekiel, of Jose-
phus 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. Fle 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” (pp. 187—8)]
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. ]

Ver. 3.—And the porch codas, forepart,
projection (Vorhalle, Gesenius). The porch
was not a colonnade—that is called a
“porch of pillars’’ (ch. vii.6), but was formed
by simply prolonging the side walls, and
possibly the roof (see below). Bahr holds
that it had only side walls and cieling, and
was entirely open in front; and the fact that
no mention is made of any door or opening,
thongh the doors of the other parts of the
edifice are all referred to (vers. 8, 31, 33),
certainly favours this view, as also does the
position of the pillars of ch. vil. 21] before
the temple of the house [The house, ormain
building (ver. 2), had two parts. (1) “The

temple of tke house” (5357 = “ spacious,”

hence “magnificent building,” ‘‘palace,” as
in Prov. xxx. 28; Dan. i. 4. Gesen., Thes.
i. 375). The same word is used of the taber-
nacle (1 Sam. i. 9), of the royal palace (1
Kings xxi. 1 ; 2 Kings xx. 18; Psa. xlv. 8, 15),
and of heaven (2 Sam. xxii. 7, &¢.) This was
the vade par excellence, and is called “ the
great house,” because of its superior size and
neight, in 2 Chr. iii.5. (2) T'he oracle (271)
see on ver. 5. The two bore arough resem-
blance to the nave and chancel of a Gothic
church], twenty cubits was the length
thereof according to the breadth of the
house [The porch, 1.¢., extended across the

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

 

 

 

101

entire front, or east end of the temple] and
ten cubits was the breadth [i.c., depth)
thereof before the house. [The height of
the porch, of which no mention is made
here, is stated in 2 Chron. iii. 4 as 120
cubits (say 180 feet), 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 271319 not D4 (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 pro-
portion. 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 corrup-
tion of the text of Chronicles (see on 2 Chron.
ili. 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 isimpossible,
however, to say positively what the height
of the porch was. Probably 30 cubits, the
height of the house, Stanley character-
istically puts it down as “more than 200
feet.””> It may be remarked here that Fer-
gusson, following Josephus and the Talmud,
contends that the temple had another build-
ing of the same height above it. See Dict.
Bib. i. p. 1456, and note on ver. 20.]

Ver. 4.—And for the house he made win-
dows of narrow lights. [There has been
much disputation over these words. The
older expositors generally follow (as does
the marg.) the Chaldee and Rabbins: “ win-
dows broad within and narrow without ;”
windows, 7.e,, somewhat like the loopholes
of ancient castles. The windows of ihe
temple would then have resembled those of
Egyptian sacred buildings. (It is not im-
plied that there was any conscious imitation
of Egypt, though Fergusson surely forgets
the affinity with Pharaoh (ch. iii. 1),the trade
with Egypt (ch. x. 28), and the favour with
which some Egyptian fashions were re-
garded (Cant. i. 9), when he contends that
the chosen people would never take the
buildings of their ancestral encmy for &
model.) But this meaning is not supported
by the original (DINOS DDPY), the litera}
interpretation of which is ‘‘closed beams”
(cf. chap. vii. 4, 5), and which the most
competent scholars now understand to mean
“closed or fixed lattices, t.e., the lattices oF
the temple windows were not movable, as
in domestic architecture (2 Kings i. 2; xili.102 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

17; Dan. vi. 10). So Gesenius, De Wette,
Keil, Baar, al.)

Ver. 5.—And against [or wpon, by, 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 PIS) (Keri, Y"$%) singular=
stratum (Y¥" stravit, spread out). Symm.
translates kardorpwua. Gesenius remarks
that the word is used here and in ver. 10 in
the masculine of the whole of the side struc-
ture, while in ver. 6 it is used in the femi-
mine of the single stories. The floors bore
this name, Yi¥', because they were spread
upon, not inserted into the walls. Rawlinson
has evidently confounded this word with
YON (see below) when he says, ‘‘ The
Hebrew word here used would be best trans-
lated a lean-to.”” Bothwords are translated
alike ‘‘chambers” in the Authorized Ver-
sion, but the first means stories or floor ;
the second may, perhaps, signify lean-tos]
round about, against [It is doubtful
whether NN is here, as commonly, merely the
sign of the accusative, or is the preposition
“ with,’ meaning ‘in connexion with,” cum
partetibus (Seb. Schmidt), in which case its
meaning would approach very closely to
that of by above. Baihrremarks that by and
MS are used elsewhere as almost synony-
mous, and refers to Psa. iv. 7 in connexion
with Psa. Ixvii. 2. Keil translates, ‘* As for
the walls” (Anlangend die Wende), but
this gives us an unfinished sentence. It is
probably an accusative, explicative of the
preceding clause=‘‘ J mean the walls,” &c.,
the singular, wall, having being used above.
This additional clanse] 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 ex.
cluding porch), as the next words define it],
both of the temple and of the oracle [lhe
floors, 7.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 extern: ly, would perhaps
better represent their proportions] and he
made chambers [niy2y, literally, ribs,
beams, (Gesenius) ; Rippe nm (Bahr). The de-
sign of the word is Sie to convey that
the floors were “ divided 1 Dy partitions into
distinct compartments” (Merz). According
to Hizek. xl. 6 (where, however, the reading is
doubtful) there were thirty-three of these side
chambers ; according to Josephus (Ant. viii.
8. 2) thirty. Thenius is probably not so far
Wrong when he sees in these chambers bed-

 

 

[cu. v1. 1—88.

rooms. 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 (Hwald).
Whatever their use, we can hardly suppose
that they were wholly without hight, though
nothing is said about windows. ‘They may
have had ‘ fixed lattices.” Itis to be re-
membered that the priests and Levites min-
istered ‘‘ by night in the house of the Lord”
(Psa, exxxiv. 1)] round about.

Ver. 6.—The nethermost chamber [Heb.

floor; cf. Ezek. xl. 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 [ Eix-
planation how these differences of size
arose] without [7.e., on the outside] in the

Loop

\ RY LO.OF
Ceitina

i
|
Window] || |
|
!
|

 

 

 

~-——=—-—~~-00§€ ------_--_-_

 

(1) | (2) '
Prepared by Capt. Knocker R.E.

Scale =.
450

wall of [Heb. omits] the house [main build-
ing—nave, ee chancel] he made [ Heb. put]
narrowed rests [marg. ‘‘narrowings or re-
batements.”’ The word MYA) means lessen-
ings, deductions; Absdtze, Gesen. (Thesaurus,
1. 304), Biihr. 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 ver. 5. The recesses in the wall
ran round the north, west, and south sides
of the building; they were co-extensive, 7.e.,
with the flats or side-chambers], that the
beams should not be fastened [LHeb. that no
fastening] into the walls of the house. ['lhe
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,” Ezek. xli. 6) ; but why this was for-
bidden is not quite so certain. According to
Bahr, it was in order to preserve the great
and costly stones of the te ae intact; but
others, with greater probability, hold that it
was becaus se it appeared unseemly to have
the side-chambers, which were for semiscH. vi. 1—38.}

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

103

 

 

 

secular purposes (cubicles, perhaps), made
an actual part of the sacred edifice. Any-
how, 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 flat; in (2) with a span
roof.

Keil decides in favour of the first arrange-
ment (1), and Bahr says somewhat posi-
tively, ‘‘ 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, how-
ever, may be urged the extreme thickness of
wail which this method of building would
necessitate. Jor 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 eubits
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 extra-
ordinary thickness, buf it must also be re-
membered that the temple was not fifty fect
high. However, Ezek. xli. 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. ]

Ver. 7.—And the house, when it was in
puilding, was built of stone made ready
[Heb. perfect. This does not mean unhewn,

though nip ou DJ2N is undoubtedly used

 

 

In Deut. xxvii. 6 (cf. Exod. xx. 25) of un-
hewn 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
Pheodoret and Procopius.) It is incon-
ceivable, however, that no dressing or pre-
paration of any kind would be required: an
idea, moreover, which is contradicted by ch.
v. 18. When Gardiner (in Bahr, American
edition) quotes Keil (in his earlier work) 2s
understanding “all unviolated stones of the
quarry,” he hardly does justice to that
author, who Straightway adds, ‘ that is, nov
altogether unhewn stones . . . but stones
that were so hewn and wrought in the quarry
that neither hammer,” &e. (see below).
Similarly Thenius and Bihr] before it was
brought thither {so the Authorized Version
renders UD!) but mistakenly. It means, the
quarry (Gesenius, Keil. For the construc-
tion, see Ewald, 289a, and Gesenius, Gram.
ed, Rodiger, p. 170.) The verb UDI is
used of quarrying in ch, y. 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 substruc-
tions and corner-stones 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, iu. 4), came from Bethle-
hem; but we can hardly be mistaken in
bHieving 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. vii.), pp.
373, 374, and cf. p. 34. There are un-
mistakable evidences of these extensive
caverns haying 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 [Hebd. and hammers.
Keil understands “ finished stones of the
quarry, and hammer, and axe.” But the
word “was built” (7323), coming as it
does between “quarry” and ‘ hammers,”’
almost forbids this connexion] nor axe104

(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 ful-
filment of the spirit of the law (Deut. xxvu.
5, 6), which required the altar to be of
virgin stones, untouched by tool of iron. If
the quarries are to be identified with the
Ae Royal Caverns,” it is easy to understand
how the temple rose up in silence.

Ver. 8.—After recording this interesting
and singular fact, the historian resumes his
description of the side-building. The door
[or entrance, doorway. MI), as in ver. 31]
for [Heb. of] the middle chamber (|gene-
rally understood to mean ‘‘the middle side
chamber of the lower story.” But this is
by no means necessary, for (1) poy may
signify the suite of rooms, i.e., the entire
story or flat, as well as a single lean-to or
compartment, and (2) DAI is used in the
next clause of the middle story. This has
led Thenius, Keil, Ewald, Bahr, al. to sub-
stitute MANA (folowing the LXX. and
Targum), which would give the sense of
“lower story” (as in Ezek. xli. 7). Bahr
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 mean-
ing from the text as it stands, viz., that ‘‘ the
door (leading to) the middle floor was (on
the ground floor) on the right side,” &e. 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 haye been passed over as
requiring no special notice. But the his-
torian feels it necessary to state how the
second and third stories were reached, and
the staircase which led to them vauses him
to speak of the position of the door which
opened upon it] was in the right side
[Heb. shoulder. This word (M3) almost

implies that the door was in the ezternal
wall of the side structure, not in the wall of
the holy place (as Béttcher, 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 com-
munication 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 (chap. vil. 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

 

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

[ou. vr. 1—88.

house: and they went up with winding
stairs corpad is only found here and in
9 Chron. iti. 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.

Ver. 9—So he built the house and
finished it [i.e., the exterior (see on ver.
14)] and covered [i.e., roofed, same word
Deut. xxxiii. 21; Jer. xxl. 14; Hag. i. 4,
There is no reference to the lining of cedar
which was applied to the interior. That is
described in ver. 15] the house with beams
and boards [Heb. rows, ranks. The same
word is used of soldiers 2 Kings xi. 8, 15]
of cedar. [It has been universally held till
quite lately that the roof was either vaulted
(Thenius) or flat (Bahr, Keil), But Mr,
Fergusson has alleged some reasons for
believing that it was a span or gable roof.
Tt 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 con-
structed after the model of the tabernacle,
and the latter, as the name almost implies,
and as necessity would require, had a ridged
roof (see Dict. Bib. ili. p. 1453). It does
not necessarily follow, however, as Fergus-
son assumes, that the temple followed the
tabernacle in this respect. Ht 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 eonsecrated to
them by many centuries of use, but it is
also possible that in a house it would strike
them as altogether bizarre. ]

Ver. 10.—And then [Heb. omits] he built
chambers (Heb. the floor (Y)¥$%q). 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 (74 feet). The three stories would
altogether measure fifteen cubits, and of
course something must be allowed for joists,
floors, &c. 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 assump.CH. vi. 1—88.]

tion 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 (p. 511), which gives
30 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 (ver. 14), which
must have been at the height of 30 cubits
(see the diagrams on p. 102. In (1) house
and side structure are represented with flat,
in (2) with ridged or sloping roofs), un-
less there was an upper chamber above the
house, as to. which see ver.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
ver. 5, the side structure being here men-
tioned in connexion with its height and
the materials used in its construction] and
they rested on [the meaning of the Heb.
Tass") has been much disputed. It is un-
certain what is the nominative, Solomon
(as in }?), or the ‘‘floor” (just referred to in
inpDip). Gesenius understands the former,
and renders, ‘*he covered the house,” &c.
Thenius, ‘‘ he fastened the floor,” &c. Keil
sxdopts 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,” &c. (with Chald., Vulg.) in which
case ver. 10 would agree with ver. 9 (each,
i.e., would refer to the roofing; ver. 9 to
roof of temple; ver. 10 to roof of side
structure and its stories); or we may take
the words to mean “‘it laid hold of, we,
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 (vers. 11—14) is omitted in the
Vat. LXX. But it has every mark of genuine-
ness. |

Ver. 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 revela-
tion is mentioned in chap. ix. 2 (ef, i. 5).

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

}

|
|

 

 

    
   
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
   
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
   
 
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
    

105

The original promise was made by Nathan
(2 Sam. vii. 12). It seems exceedingly
probable that the promise would be renewed
through him if he were still alive] saying,

_ Ver. 12.—Concerning [or, as to. There
is nothing, however, in the Hebrew] this
house which thou art in building [)5.
Cf. J2%\, vers. 5, 9, 10] if thou wilt walk in
my statutes [the connexion of ideas seems
to be this, ‘‘ Thou art doing well to build
tae house; thou art fulfilling my good
pleasure (2 Sam. vii. 13) ; if thou wilt go on
and in other matters wilt keep,” &c. 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, con-
jirm. Same word as in ch. ii. 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.c., the word
mentioned ch. ii. 4 and found 2 Sam. vii.
12 sqq.].

Ver. 13.—And I will dwell among the
children of Israel, and will not forsake my
people Israel [cf. Deut. xxxi, 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 taber-
nacle (Exod. xxy. 8; xxix. 45; cf. Levit.
xxvi. 11). And the temple was reared to
be His dwelling-place (ch. viii. 13 ; 2 Chron,
vi. 2). He now assures the royal builder
that he will occupy it. ‘‘ Jehovah Shammah”
(Ezek. xlviii, 85). The covenant relation
shall be more firmly established.

Ver. 14.—So Solomon built the house and
finished it {though these words are a repe-
tition of ver. 9, yet they are not without
significance. Encouraged by the promise
just made, he proceeded with the interior,
of which the narrative henceforth treats.
Ver. 9 speaks of the finishing of the shell.

Ver 15.—And he built [i.e., constructed,
covered] the walls of the house within
[but not without also, as Stanley affirms,
‘“Tts massive stone walls were entirely cased
in cedar, so as to give it the appearance of
a rough log-house”’} with boards [or beams
(ni?) : same word as in vers. 5—8] of
cedar (Heb. cedars. The practice of cover-
ing stone walls with a lining of wood, which
in turn was ornamented with gold or colour
(Jer. xxii. 14), seems to have had its origin
in Pheenicia (Bahr), and may have been
suggested to Solomon by his Zidonian work-
men (Cf. 2 Chron. ii. 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 » » «106

unto the walls,” &e. 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 NP walls, we should read N)1)p

beams—the word of the parallel verse in
2 Chron.—has everything in its favour.
The LXX. reads ewe rv CoxnGy]: and [omit]
ne 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. Ve learn from
2 Chron. iii. 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 ch. v. 8].

Ver. 16.—And he built twenty cubits on
(Heb. from] the sides of the house both the
floor and the walls [Heb. as in ver. 15,
‘from the floor to the walls” (or beams).
If Nip is a copyist’s error, it is repeated
here] with boards of cedar[He is now speak-
ing of the wooden partition which separated
the oraclefrom 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 ]7.e.,
the 20 cubits] for it [the house] within
[The meanivg is clear, though the construc-
tion 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).

Ver. 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 ver. 4) ‘ the
temple of the house;” or, as here again,
“the front temple,” sy) is supposed to be
an adjective formed from 5999, Thenius,
however, supposes that WA (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.

Ver. 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 in-
tended. Keil thinks they were bassi relievi;
Bahr contends that, like those of the Eeyp-
Wan Mouuments, they were sunken. DPS

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

flower buds ;

 

 

(cH. v1. 1—88.

is generally assumed to be synonymous with
Hyp} “squirling cucumbers” (2 Kings iy.
39, note). Biihr, 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. ii. p. 49] and open
flowers [lit. burstings of flowers. These
words again are very variously interpreted.
Thenius: festoons of flowers; Keil: open
Gesen.: expanded flowers]:
all was cedar; there was no stone seen.
(Iteally, the cedar was no more seen than
the stone, for this in turn was overlaid with
gold (ver. 22.)]

Ver. 19.—And the oracle [Heb. an oracle.
Heb. V3 prubabiy from VAI speak. Se
Jerome, oracuium; and Aquila and Symm.
yonporiorijpiuyv. Geneias, Bahr, al., how-
eyer, interpret the word to mean the hinder
part, axgyium, he prepared in the house
within [lit. in the nidst of the house within,
t.c., between the Hiv Flace and the end
structure] to set there {the principal purpose
which the oracle served. jAM=NNA with re-
peated syllable. Cf. 1 Kings xvii. 14, Keri]
the ark of the covevant of the Lord.

Ver. 20.—And the oracle in the forepart
for, the interior of the oracle. Keil, after
Kimchi, maintains that D> is the con-
struct of the noun op See ver. 29,
where it clearly means interior, as its oppo-
sition to “without” shows. “Whe A. ve
yields no sense] was twenty cubits in length,
and twenty cubits in breadth, and twenty
cubits in the heighi 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 (Rev. xxi.
16; cf. Ezek. xlviii. 8—35, especially ver. 20)
is a cube of 12,000 furlongs, we cannot but
regard these measurements ag 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 complete-
ness, of absolute perfection. A little light
is thrown on this subject by the use of
TeTpGywr'oc among the Greeks, See the
quotation from Simonides in Plat. Protag.
3344; Arist. Rhet. iii. 11; Eth. Nic. i. 10,
11, and compare the familiar “totus teres
cique rotundus.” The height of the oracle
(internally) being only twenty cubits, while
that of the house was thirty (ver. 2), several
questions of some interest suecest them-

selves for consideration. It is perhapsCH. vi. 1—38.]

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

107

 

 

impossible in the present state of our know-
ledge to arrive at any very positive conclu-
sions, 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 tas
Was the roof of the temple flat or ridged ?
(See above on ver. 9). (2) In either case
was the height of thirty cubits, or any uni-
form height, maintained throughout, or
was the roof of the oracle some ten cubits
lower than that of the honse? 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 (like
the chancel, and, it may be added, like the
adytum of Egyptian temples) may possibly
have had a lower roof. But (3), supposing
the same height was maintained from end
to end, to what use, if anv, 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 iu 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 NPOY (LXX. rd drepgor)

of 2 Chron. ii. 9. And untrustworthy as
Josephus is when not supported by inde-
pendent evidence, it is worth mentioning
here that both he and the Talmud ‘“ per-
sistently assert that there was a superstruc-
ture on the temple equal in height to the
lower part”’ (Fergusson, who, consequently, is
of opinion that there undoubtedly was some
such superstructure, as in the tomb of
Darius, near Persepolis (see Dict. Bib. iii.
pp. 1456, 1457), and that it was used for
worship (2 Kings xxiii. 12), where see note).
Bahr, 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 agvees,
however, with Ewald that there wus a
chamber over the oracle, but thinks it was
unoccupied. Keil identifies this space with
the “upper chambers” of 2 Chron. iii, 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,

 

ee Ss

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 arsueg
that the roof must have been carried. on
pulars—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 “3D clausit),
Cf. Job XXvili. 15 (Heb.) The sawe gold ig
described as “Wh (Exod. xxv. 11) and 39
(2 Chron. iii. 8). It is called “ shut up gold,”
not because it was concealed (keswéAtov), but
because of the exclusion of impure ingre-
dients (Vulg.aurwm purissimum). The lavish
use of gold in the interior of the temple—its
weight 600 talents (75,000 lbs.), its value
almost incaleulable—was not for mere dis-
play (for most of it was never seen except by
the priests), but was symbolical of light and
purity (Job xxxvii. 22, 23; Rev. xxi. 18),
and stamped the place as the abode of Him
who dwelleth in light (1 Tim. vi. 16). See
Bahr 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 (Exod. xxv. 11,
13). Egyptian figures ornamented with gold
plates are found bothin the Louvreand British
Museum. See Wilkinson, ‘‘ Ancient Egyp-
tians,”’ ii, p. 233 sqq.) Rawlinson remarks
that ‘‘ such ornamentation was commou in
Babylon, in Assyria, and in Media.” See Isa.
xlvi. 6; Herod. i. 98; Layard, u. 264. In
addition to the gold, the house was garnished
with precious stones (2 Chron. iii. 6). Cf.
1 Chron. xxix. 2, 8]; and so covered the
[Heb. an] altar which was of cedar. (The
italics in the A. V. lead us to suspect a mis-
translation, 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, kai émoinoe Ovovaorijpiov (Cod. Alex.
adds «éépov), which proves that the Seventy
had WY) instead of A$} in their text. If
so, the absence of the article is at once ex-
plained, and an unmeaning repetition in
ver. 22 avoided. The mention of the altar
—of course it is the altar of incense that is
meant: the altar of burnt sacrifice was out-
side the building—in connexion with the108

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[on. v1. 1—88.

 

oracle is significant. In ver. 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”
(Exod. xxx. 6; xl. 5, 26; Levit. xvi. 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 emenda-
tion suggested above that the altar in the
tabernacle was of wood (Exod. xxx. 1), and
that Ezekiel speaks of the ‘‘ altar of wood”
(ch. xli. 22), the altar of sacrifice being of
earth, stones (Exod. xx. 24, 25), or brass
(2 Chron. iv. 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.

Ver. 21.—S0 [Heb. And. The ornamen-
tation 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
oracie [These words are extremely obscure.
The prevailing view is that of Gesenius, al.,
that AY’=‘'he bolted,” &c. But, if so,
what did the chains bolt? Bihr says, the
boards of the cedar partition, just as the
bars fastened together the boards of the taber-
nacle (Exod. xxvi. 26—29). Gesen. himself
(together with Keil, marg., al.) 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 per-
haps 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. Per-
haps 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 ver. 20.
But the altar has now dropped out of the
reader’s, and therefore presumably out of
the writer’smind. It would be more natural
to understand the words of the oracle just
mentioned, but the adornment of the oracle
bas already been related (ver. 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.

Ver. 22.—And the whole house he over-
laid with gold [This no mere repetition,
more Hebraico,as Bahr and Keil would have
us think. Something additional must surely
be referred to, and 2 Chron. iii. 4 warrants
us in understanding this statement to in-

 

 

clude the porch, the interior of which was
gilded. Because the porch is elsewhere (ver.
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 ver. 20] the oracle
he overlaid with gold.

Ver. 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 signifi-
cance of the cherubim, see notes on Exod.
xxv. 19; xxxyu. 7,. Lhe. 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
(Geb. trees or wood of oil. ‘The oleaster
(wild olive) is supposed to be intended, the
proper name for the olive tree being N't
(Neh. vii. 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 construc-
tion. It is noticeable how olive wood is
employed for the eherubim 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, &c.,
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 (ver. 24).

Ver 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. ]}

Ver, 25.—And the other cherub was ten
cubits ; both the cherubims were of one
measure and one size {or shape].

Ver. 26.—The height of the one cherub
was ten cubits, and so it was of the other
cherub. [The constant recurrence of the
number ten, the symbol of completeness
and perfection, is not to be overlooked. ]

Ver. 27.—And he set the cherubims
within the inner house: and they stretched
forth the wings of the cherubims [The
marg, reading, the cherubim stretched forth
their wings, is altogether inadmissible], so
that the wing of the one touched the one
wall, and the wing of the other cherubCH. vi. 1—38_]

 

touched the other wall, and their wings
touched one another in the midst of the
house. [In 2 Chron. iii. 10 we are told
that the cherubim were of ‘“‘ image work ”
(the meaning of the Heb. word is unknown).
We also learn that they ‘‘stood on their
feet’ and, unlike the cherubim of the taber-
nacle, which faced each other (Exod. xxvii,
9), faced the throne, 7.e., the cedar partition,
and the east. The object of this arrange-
ment probably was to enable the wings to
be stretched out across the sanctuary. In
the tabernacle the wings were ‘‘spread out
on high” (Exod. xxv. 20; xxvii. 9). In
both cases the ark and mercy-seat were
placed under the overshadowing wings (ch.
vill. 6). There would be a clear space of
eight or nine cubits between the bodies of
the cherubim, and the ark only measured
24 cubits (Hxod, xxv. 10) in length and 14
cubits in breadth. Unlike Ezekiel’s cherubim
(Ezek. chs. i. x; cf. Rev. iv. 7), these had
apparently but one face. The cherub was
not a simple, but a complex being, having
no unalterable and fixed form. See Bahr,
Symbolik, i. pp. 313, 314; Dict. Bib. vol. i.
pp. 301—303. |

Ver. 28.—And he overlaid the cherubims
with gold.

Ver. 29.—And he carved all the walls of
the house round about with carved figures
of cherubims [lit. openings, t.e., gravings
or indentations of cherubim, O'IAS is
used of gravings in stone, Exod. xxvii. 11;
xxxix. 6: in metal, xxvili. 36; xxxix. 30]
and palm trees and open flowers [The open
flowers may well have been lilies (ch. vii.
19,22, 26). Itis 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 Israel-
ites, notwithstanding their new and inti-
mate relations with the country, would take
Egypt and its idolatrous shrines for a
model. Ezek. xli. 18 tends to show that
the palm-trees alternated with the cherubs.
The cherubim may have had two faces, such
as he describes (ver. 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 every-
thing in the temple, we may be sure, hada
meaning. Let us inquire, then, into the

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

 

 

 

109

eee ee

Significance of the cherubim, the palms
and the tlowers. ;

1. The Cherubim have been regarded by
some as symbols of the invisible Godhead,
by others as ‘‘representations of the heavenly
spirits which surround the Lord of clory
and set forth psychical life at its highest
stage’’ (Keil); but it seems best to view
them as symbols of all animal life, includ-
ing the highest and perhaps not excluding
the thought of Him who is the source and
spring of life, the Anima animantium (cf.
ch. xii, 28), Hence they are spoken of as
POO (Ezek. i. 5, 13, 15, &.) ** the living
things” (compare ra fa, Rev. iv. 6, 8, 9),
and even as 70 “the life” (Ezek. x. 14,
15, &c.) The cherubim consequently speak
of the great animal kingdom before its
Creator. ‘*Creaturely being reaches its
highest degree in those which have an
anima, and among these, the lion, the bull,
the eagle, and the man are the highest and
most complete’? (Bahr). These shapes,
accordingly, were not inappropriate or un-
meaning in a temple raised by the creature
to the glory of the Creator.

2. Just as the cherubim speak of animal,
so do the Palms of vegetable life. They are
“the princes of the vegetable kingdom ”’
(Linneus). ‘ Amongst trees there is none
so lofty und towering, none which has such
a fair majestic growth, which is so ever-
green, and which affords so grateful a shade
and such noble fruits—fruits which are
said to be the food of the blessed in
paradise—as the palm” (Bahr), who also
adds that it is said to have as many ex-
cellent properties as there are days in the
year, and cites Humboldt as designating it
the ‘‘noblest of plants-forms to which the
nations have always accorded the meed of
beauty.” Judea, he further remarks, 1s
the fatherland of the palm, so much so that
the palm in later days became the symbol of
Palestine (as on the well-known coin with
the legend Judea capta). The palms,
therefore, tell of the vegetable world, and of
Him who fashioned its noble aud graceful
forms.

3. And very similar was the testimony of
the Flowers. ‘‘ Flowers and bloom have
been, from ancient times to our own, the
usual symbols of life-fulness. So then
by the flower-work, as well as by the cheru-
bim and the palm-trees, was the dwelling of
Jehovah, which was adorned therewith, de-
signated as an abode of life” (Babr). On
the earthly dwelling-place of the Eternal,
that is to say, were everywhere pourtrayed
the various tokens of His Almighty power
and goodness. And the significance of
each is the same. “Thou hast created all
things, and for thy pleasure they are, and110

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[cH. vr. 1—88,

 

were created.” They were graved] within
and without. {These words, here and in ver.
30, are generally taken to mean ‘in the
oracle and in the house.” But it is worthy of
consideration whether they do not rather
signify, ‘‘in the house and in the porch.”
The latter was overlaid with gold (2 Chron.

iii, 4). It is doubtful whether }}yynd on

the outside, can be applied to any part of
the interior, and here its application would
be to the oracle (Thenius)].

Ver. 30.—And the floor of the house he
overlaid with gold, within and without.

Ver. 31.—And for the entering of the
oracle, he made doors [which hung on
golden hinges (ch. vii. 50] of olive tree
[see on ver. 23)], the lintel and side
posts were a fifth part of the wall.[The
meaning of the Hebrew words has been
much disputed. See Gesen. Thesaur, i.
pp. 483—45. Gesen. himself interprets as
A. V.: crepido cum postibus erat quinta
pars, t.€., quintam parietis partem occu-
pabat. The Rabbins: the “ entablature
with side posts and threshold formed a
pentagon.” But a pentagonal doorway is
without example in Eastern architecture.

Thenius: ‘the strength (dx is generally
taken as an architectural term = crepido
portae, or entablature) of the posts was
a fifth.” Rawlinson : ‘‘the lintel was one-
fifth of wall, and each door post one-fifth
of its height ;” in which case the doorway
would of course be a square of four cubits.
But perhaps the rendering of A. V. (with
which Keil and Bihr also agree) is more
natural. The meaning, consequently,
would be that the entrance to the oracle,
inclusive of the side posts which helped to
form it, occupied one-fifth of the extent of
the cedar partition. The entrance to the
house (ver. 33) was one-fourth of the wall
of the house.]

Ver. 32.— The two doors also were
[Rather, perhaps, “ And he made” is to be
supplied from ver. 31, as Keil. Rawlinson
remarks that such doors as these are cha-
racteristic of Assyrian gateways] of olive
tree: and he carved upon them carvings of
cherubims id palm trees and open flowers,
and overlafd them with gold, and spread
[1.°) Hiph. of TI] gold [Heb. the gold]
upon the cherubims and upon the palm
trees [The writer means, not that the carv-
ing alone was gilded—as Thenius thinks, who
remarks on the effective contrast which the
dark red cedar and the bright gold would
furnish)—but that the gilding did not con-
ceal the character of the carvings. It is
clear from ver. 22 that “all the house”
blazed with gold in every part. If the Jioors

 

 

were covered with gold, we.may be sure both
walls and doors would not be without their
coating of the precious metal. Our author
does not mention the curtain—it is clear that
the doors would not dispense with the neces:
sity for a vail—but the chronicler does (2
Chron. ili.14). It was necessary in order
to cover the ark (Exod. xl. 3, 21); hence
it was sometimes called ‘the vail of the
covering.” But for this, when the doors
were opened on the day of atonement, the
priest in the holy place might have gazed
into the oracle. See on ch. viii. 8. The doors
opened outwardly (into the house), The
vail was suspended within the oracle. ]

Ver. 33.—So also [i.e., similarly] made
he for the door [or entrance, doorway] of
the temple posts of olive tree, a fourth
[Heb. from a fourth] part of the wall. It
is uncertain whether we are to understand
the “fourth part” of the height -or of the
breadth of the doorway, though the latter ig
probably meant. The height of the wall is
variously estimated ; generally at 30 (ver. 2),
but by Rawlinson at 20 cubits. But the
breadth is beyond dispute. It was 20 cubits.
The doorway, consequently, would be five
cubits wide. The effect of the preposition,
“from a fourth,” is probably this: The
entrance with the side posts subtracted
one-fourth from the space of the wall.

Ver. 34.And the two doors were [As in
ver. 32, the verb is to be supplied from the
verse preceding. ‘ And he made two doors,
&c.] of fir tree [W}12 see note on ch. vy. 8]:
the two leaves [lit. ribs, same word as in
vers. 5, 8, 10] of the one door were folding

(Heb, rolling], and the two leaves coop
is probably a clerical error for DyoN arising
out of the yop in vers. 32, 35] of the other

[Heb. second] door were folding. [It seems
more natural to suppose that the leaves
were formed by a vertical than by a hori-
zontal division. Indeed, it is deubtful]

whether the word bibs would be applied tc

the latter arrangement. Keil objects to the
former on the ground that the leaves would
thus be only one cubit broad each, and the
opening of one leaf, consequently, would
be insufficient to admit of any person’s pass-
ing through. But to this it may be replied
(1) that the opening of two leaves would in
any case form a snfficiently wide entrance,
and (2) that it is not said that all the leaves
were of uniform width. Besides, the other
arrangement is without precedent in the
public buildings of the Kast. ]

_ Ver. 35.—And he carved thereon cheru-
bims and palm trees and open flowers [The
constant recurrence of the Same forms is inCH. VI. 1—88.]

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

  
  

111

tee or ee

itself a proof that they must have been sig-
min and covered sem with gold fa
L & (Heb. made straight
upon the engraved work. That is to say. the
gold fitted closely to all the uneven and in-
dented surface of the figures. Elsewhere,
laminae were simply laid upon the level
walls, &c. ]

Ver. 36.—The description of the buildings
concludes with a brief reference to the en-
ceinte or court. And he built the inner court
[The mention of an inner court, called in
2 Chron, iv. 9 the “court of the priests,”
presupposes, of course, the existence of an
outer court. Our author does not mention
this, but the chronicler does, under thename
of ‘‘the great court.” In Jer. xxxvi. 10, the
former is called the “ hicher court,” because
it occupied a higher level] with three rows
of hewed stone and a row of cedar beams,
(These, it is thought, formed the enclosing
wall of the court (the LXX. adds KucddOer),
The cedar beams were instead of coping-
stones. It has been supposed, however (J.
D. Michaelis), that these three rows of stone,
boarded with cedar, formed the pavement of
thecourt. But the question at once suggests
itself, Why pile three rows of stones one
upon another merely to form a payement,
and why hew and shape them if they were
to be concealed beneath a stratum of wood?
It is a fair inference from 2 Chron. vii. 3,
that the wall was low enough to permit men
to look over it. Fergusson, on the contrary,
argues that it must have been twice the height
of the enclosure of the tabernacle, which
would give us an elevation of ten cubits
(Exod. xxvii. 18). It is worth suggesting,
however, whether, the inner court being
raised above the outer, which surrounded
it, these stones may not have formed the
retaining wall or sides of the platform. As
the outer court had gates (2 Kings xi. 6;
mae 2S 2 Chron. ty. 95. xxiu. b;, xxiv. 8),
it also must have had walls. From 2 Kings
oe ee er, XEKV. 2; XXXVI. 10, we
gather that there were various chambers
in the forecourt. Such were certainly
contemplated by David (1 Chron. xxviii.
12) ; but it is not recorded that Solomon
built them. Nor have we any warrant,
except the bare assertion of Josephus,
for the belief that he built a colonnade
or cloister on the east side, such as was

 

known to later ages by the name of ** Solo-
mon’s Porch” (John x. 23; Acts iii, 11-
v. 12). As to the dimensions of these
spaces, we are left to conjecture. If, ag in
everything else, the dimensions of the
tabernacle were doubled, then the court of
the priests would measure 200 cubits from
east to west, and 100 cubits from north
to south. It should be stated, howevor.
that in the temple of Ezekiel, the propor-
tions of which, in the present instance.
may well be historical, both courts are re-
presented as perfect squares. Rawlinson
inadvertently puts down the length (alon

ri
Vile

the side of temple) at 100 cubits, and the
breadth (ends of temple) at 200. The outer
court would probably be twice as large as
the inner, i.e., 400x200 cubits. But all
this is necessarily uncertain. ]

Ver. 37.—In the fourth year was the
foundation of the house of the Lord laic
in the month Zif [see on ver. 1].

Ver. 38.—And in the eleventh year, in the

month Bul p24) hin, Hence Bul would
be the month of rain (Gesen.) Keil under-
stands it to signify produce (proventus), and
sees in it the month of fruits. It extended
from the November to the December full
moon], which is the eighth month, was the
house finished throughout all the parts
thereof (Heb. 1°01], and according to all

the fashion of it [Heb. MDW).

he seven years in building it. [As Bul was
the eighth month, and Zif the second, the
house was precisely seven and a half years
in building—a short period, 1f we consider
the magnitude of the undertaking, but long
enough, if we remember the enormous
number of hands employed upon it, the
preparations made by David, and the modest
dimensions of the edifice (ver. 2). The
commentators all cite Pliny’s statement that
all Asia was building the temple of Diana
at Ephesus 200 years, but the cases are not
at all parallel. We learn from 2 Chron,
iii. 2, tla it was on the second day of the
month that the building was commenced.
Bishop Wordsworth, who assigns seven
years and seven months as the time occu-
pied in this work, sees in this hebdomatic
period an analogy to the seven days of the
creation. ]

’

So was

HOMILETICS.

Vers. 2, 8, 20.—Christianity built on the Foundations of Judaism. The

Jewish temple in its resemblance to the Gothic
tration of the relations of Christianity to Judaism.
not only architecturally the exact reproduction on a larger scale, and in &

church is a not inapt illus-
The tempie of Solomon was112 THE FIRST DOOK OF KINGS. [cu. vr. 1—88.

more permanent form, of the tabernacle of witness (see Pp: 98), it was also the
model and archetype of the sacred buildings of the Christian faith. In appearance,
no doubt, it was somewhat different—the purposes for which the two edifices were
designed were different (p. 101), but the ground-plan and general arrangement
were the same (p. 99). The porch, ‘‘ temple of house,” oracle, side chambers of
the one, correspond with the porch (or tower), nave, chancel, and side aisles of
the other. Nor was this resemblance accidental. The architects of earlier times—
times when men had not come to think that they most honoured Christianity by
going as far as possible away from Judaism, times when the first dispensation
was regarded as full of significance and guidance for the children of the second—
the architects of those days thought they would best serve the God of Jews
and Christians by adhering as closely as possible to the Divine “ pattern which was
shewed in the mount,” the pattern which had served for tabernacle and temple
alike. : :

Now this fact, that the place of Divine worship has been, in nearly all ages, built
after one model, may suggest the thought that the principles of Divine worship,
and indeed of religion, have been in all ages the same. And for the good reason
that God and man, the worshipped and the worshipper, are in all ages the same.
If the successive generations of men who ‘‘ went up to the temple to pray” went up
to an edifice something like ours, they also carried with them hearts, sins, sorrows,
needs, infirmities, altogether like ours. The Gothie church, then, was modelled
‘after the Jewish temple. Even so the Christian religion has been cast in the
mould of Judaism. It is not a brand-new religion, utterly diverse from the dispen-
sation which preceded it, but it is built on the old foundations. Its proportions are
much statelier, its uses are much nobler, but still the Christian Church is the copy
of the Jewish, and Christianity is the child of Judaism. There are some of our
cathedrals—York Minster, e.g.—which occupy the site, and parts of which follow
the outlines, of the old Saxon church of wood—another illustration of the relations
of our holy religion to the religion which it has replaced. And that Christianity
was never designed to be destructive of Judaism, but was meant to be a develop-
ment, an outgrowth and expansion of it, our Lord’s words (Matt. v. 17) and His
apostle’s (Rom. iii. 81; Col. ii. 17) clearly show. The law, z.c., was the outline of
which Christianity is the filling up and completion. But observe: the filling up, if
it be true to its name, must keep within the lines of the sketch.

It is one of the tendencies of the age to throw over Judaism and its teaching (see,
e.g., ‘‘Scribner’s Magazine,” vol. xii. pp. 724 sqq., and the letters of Charles Dickens).
Men say they want ‘“ Christianity without Judaism. ” They speak of the latter as
a dead letter. But surely it is an unworthy conception of the Supreme Wisdom
— the idea that a faith which was adapted to the men of one age has absolutely no
lessons or no guiding principles for the men of a later age, but must be cast aside
as wholly antiquated and effete. A principle of continuity can be distinctly
traced operating in the kingdom of nature; are we forbidden to believe that there
is any such law in the kingdom of grace? Let us now consider, then, in what
ways Christianity is built on the foundations of Judaism, and how the religion of
the New Testament follows the lines laid down in the Old.

I. ‘The fundamental idea of Judaism was that of a VISIBLE CuurcH. It was that
God had “ taken a nation from the midst of another nation” (Deut. iv. 32—84) to
bea peculiar people to Himself, a ‘‘kingdom of priests, a holy nation” (Exod. xix.
5,6). His purposes of grace, ¢.e., were to be manifested to the world through a
society. Here, then, was a rdjoic and an éexkAnoia. Precisely similar is the root
idea of our religion. The Son of God came to found a Church (Matt. xvi. 18;
Ephes. ii. 20), to regenerate humanity through a brotherhood. Behold the prin-
ciple of continuity in this “great Church truth of God’s word.”’ The very words
used of the Jewish people are transferred to the Christian Church (1 Peter
ll. 9; Rev. i. 6; v.10). The composition of the two societies was different (one
nation, all nations), the rites of admission were different (circumcision, baptism),

but the principle—a visible Church—was the game. Every Jew was a priest.
duvery Christian is the same,cH vi. 1-- 88.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

—-

118

 

 

 

 

 

IT. The orricers of the Jewish Chureh corres
Laid 2 ‘ shure espond with t officer
Christian Church. ‘It is an apostolic BE Gh hate oes ee

al tradition that what Aaron ¢ ig g
and the Levites were in the temple, that our bishops, oe Pear eanalees
to be in the Church”? (Jerome). No society can exist without at least (1) nee
and (2) ollicers. The Jewish Church had as its officers, high priest, priests ‘ant
Levites. Ihe Christian Church has a great High Priest in the heavens (Heb.
lv. 14), and its earthly officers are bishops, priests, and deacons. The analogy is
not imperfect, for just as the high priest was of the order of the priests, Scans
bishops but superintending presbyters. The bishop is primus presbyter; the high
priest was sunimus sacerdos. ‘The Jewish Church had also its prophets (see
Introduction, Sect. III., note), corresponding with the preachers of the Christian
economy. <A prophet need not be a priest; a preacher need not be a presbyter.
Of course, the nature and functions of these officers of the two dispensations
diifer, as do the dispensations themselves, but the same outlines are preserved,

III. The services of the Christian Church are derived from the service of the
Jewish synagogue. ‘* Widely divergent as the two words and the things they
represented afterwards became, the Ecclesia had its starting point in the Syna-
gogue” (Plumptre). The earliest assemblies of Christians were composed of men
who had worshipped in the synagogue (Acts xiii. TAs sive Ds wey 426 sox
19. Cf. Luke iv. 16; John xvii. 20, &.), and who, in default of directions to the
contrary, naturally preserved under the new dispensation the form of worship to
which they had been accustomed under the old. St. James, indeed (ch. ii Ts
speaks of the Christian assembly as a “synagogue.” The use of fixed forms of
prayer, the reading of the two lessons (Luke iv. 18; Acts xiii. 15, 27; xy. 21), and
the cycle of lessons; the sermon or exposition (Acts xiii, 15; Luke iv. 21s
the chanting of the Psalms of David; the very prayers for the departed which
“have found a place in every early liturgy in the world” (Ellicott), all these
have come to us from the synagogues of the Jews. The Catholic Church has not
disregarded the principle of continuity. She has not thought fit to devise a liturgy
of her own heart, or to disregard liturgical forms altogether. She has simply per-
petuated, or adapted to its new and more blessed conditions, the form of service
delivered unto her by the Jew.

IV. The principtes of Christian worship are the principles of Jewish worship.
It has been said that the true idea of worship as a Divine service, as the seif-
forgetting adoration of the ever-blessed God, was obscured, if not altogether lost,
in the Church of Engiand at least, during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
Men went to church—too often they go still—not for the service, but for the
sermon; not for the glory of God, but for their own edification and instruction.
It must not be supposed that it is here intended to depreciate edification. If men
were perfect, the sermon might indeed be dispensed with. But so long as they are
what they are, then those who have “any word of exhortation for the people ”
must ‘‘say on.” But all the same, edification is not the primary reason for our
assembling. The first Christians ‘‘ came together to break bread” (Acts xx. 7), to
‘show the Lord’s death” upon the Lord’s day (Rev. i. 10). And God surely
should ever come before man. Praise must take precedence either of prayer or
preaching. The true idea of worship is the glory of God, not the profit of men.
And if this idea was lost, or was obscured, it was because men ignored or despised
the lessons and principles of Judaism. The worship of the temple, its psalms and
sacrifices, its holocausts and hecatombs, all were designed for the glory and honour
and worship of Jehovah—all were primarily to exalt and magnify the Incommuni-
cable Name. And such should be the aim of all Christian worship. Our holy
religion was never meant to dethrone the Deity, nor can Christians owe ne ae
or less profound, adoration, than did Jews. Was theur service solemn oo 8 i he
so should be ours. Did they never come before Him empty ? neither sl ou q sy
Was the altar, not the pulpit, the centre of their worship ? the meee er 8g a
pulpit, should be the centre of ours. The principles of Divine service kno
break. They are governed by the same law of continuity. big bataus

V. The sacraments of Christianity are founded upon the a oe

] KINGS.114 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cx. vi. 13s.

Baptism (practised among the Jews before our Lord's time) takes the place of
circumcision; the Lord’s Supper of the Paschal Supper. Just as the rite of
circumcision brought the Jewish child into the bond of the covenant, into the
visible Church, so does baptism the Christian child ; otherwise our chidren would
be worse off than the children of the Hebrews. And as for the Lord’s Supper, it
was instituted in the very midst of the Passover (Luke xxii. 1, 7, 15—20), and was
clearly designed to take its place. The rites of Judaism warrant our belief in a
sacramental relicion; they help to explain how it was that our Lord incorporated
into His new and spiritual dispensation two outward and visible signs. The Law
was full of these: the Gospel could hardly d‘scard them altogether.

VI. The precepts and COMMANDMENTS of Judaism, again, ‘the law and the
prophets,” are not abolished, but fulfilled (Matt. v. 17; Kom. 11. 81) in vhristianity.
The Sermon on the Mount has given a new meaning to the covenant of Mount
Sinai, even the ten commandments (Deut. iv. 13). Out of the law of the two
tables has been developed the Christian law of love (Matt. xxii. 836—40 ; Luke x. 27 5
Rom. xiii. 8—10). The ‘new commandment ” of Christ (John xii. 34) 1s practi-
cally “the old commandment’’ which we had from the beginning (1 John iui. 7, &c.)

VII. And—to descend to minor matters—we might show how even the FESTIVALS
of Christendom follow the lines of the Jewish feasts. True, Christianity has one
blessed festival peculiar to itself—Christmastide, the feast of the Holy Incarnation—
but the rest—Easter, Whitsuntide, Harvest Festival—correspond severally with the
Jewish Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. ‘The times themselves are, perhaps,
of no great moment—though the synchronism is remarkable—but the principles
on which they are based, the principle, e.g., of setting apart certain seasons for the
commemoration of certain facts, or the acknowledgment of certain gifts, these are
common to both dispensations. It is this principle which gave the Jew his
sabbath : it is the same principle justifies, and indeed requires, the observance of
the Lord’s day. Christianity has not discarded the day of rest, though it observes
the sabbath no longer. It has changed the day of rest into a day of worship, the
seventh day into the first, the memorial of the creation into a memorial of the
resurrection and redemption.

VIII. But it will be said, Surely Christianity is utterly unlike Judaism in one
cardinal point, viz., it hasno SACRIFICE. Butis itso? Truly, we offer no longer either
bullocks or goats. The Christian priest neither pours the blood nor burns the fat,
but all the same he offers sacrifice (1 Peter ii. 5), the sacrifice of praise and
thanksgiving (Heb. xiii. 15), the sacrifice of alms and oblations (Phil. iv. 18), the
sacrifice of soul and body (Rom. xu. 1). Nor is that all. For observe: The Holy
Supper in the Christian scheme, both as an offering, as a feast, and as a memorial,
corresponds with the sacrifices of the law. For what, let us ask, was the meaning
of all those sacrifices which the Jews “ offered year by year continually”? They
could not take away sin. They could not make the comers thereunto perfect.
Why then were they offered? One reason was, that they might serve as memorials
before God of the death of Christ. They were silent, but eloquent, reminders of
Him who should put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. Perhaps the Jew knew
it not. Perhaps the high priest himself did not realize it, but we know that all
those countless thousands of victims, offered year after year and century after
century, were somany mute pleadings of the one priceless death. And as they
spoke to the eternal Father of the Lamb who should die, precisely so do the bread
and the wine of Christ’s sacrament of love speak of the Lamb who has died. The fat
and the blood were, the bread and the wine are, all avaprvnoac (Num. x. 10; ef.
Levit. xxiv. 7; Luke xxii. 19; 1 Cor. xi. 25: ef. Heb. x. 3). Our Lord Himself
calls the wine ‘‘my blood of the new covenant” (ré aipd pov rijc Kaivic dvaOyxne), and
we are surely justified, with many divines—John Wesley among them—in calling
the Holy Eucharist ‘“ the Christian sacrifice.”

But sacrifice and sacrament have another point of contact. For some atleast of
the Jewish sacrifices, the peace offerings (see on ch. viii. 63—65) afforded a feast to
the worshippers. In like manner, the sacramental species serve not only as a
memorial of Christ’s death (1 Cor. xi. 26), but they are also food to the faithfulCH. vi. 1—38.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 115

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

soul (1 Cor. #. 16,17; Heb. xi. 10; Matt. xxvi. 26; John vi. 54, 55). Tf, there-
fore, the Holy Communion is not a sacrifice, properly so called (inasmuch ae there
is no death), it has these marks of a sacrifice, that it is an oblation, a memorial nd
afeast. And when we consider these remarkable analogies, we can hardly inane
that even the sacrifices of Judaism have their counterpart in the institutions of
Christianity. i

It was said by one of the Reformers that the man who can rightly distineuish
between the Law and the Gospel should thank God and be assured that he is a true
theologian. But theologians too often treat them as if they were antagonistic or
irreconcilable, and one of the dangers to which the Reformed Churches are
specially obnoxious is to forget the continuity of gospel and law: to forcet that th
Church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Ephes. ii, 20). If
itis true that ‘‘ Vetus Testamentum in Novo patet,” it is also true “ Novum Testa-
mentum in Vetere latet.”

: Ver. 19.—The Ark of the Covenant of the Lord. This temple of Solomon, so

exceeding magnifical,” this ‘‘ holy and beautiful house,” “of fame and glory
throughout all lands”—why was it built? what its primary purpose? It was
above everything else a home for the ark (ch. vill. 1, 6), a place for the Divine
Glory which hovered over it.

In this temple, unlike the shrines of Paganism, there was no statue, no simili-
tude of a God. Here was no “image which fell down from Jupiter,” no Baal or
Asherah, no Apis or Osiris. We may imagine how this would impress the Pheeni-
cian workmen. We know how it impressed Pompeius and the Romans. There
is deep significance in those words of the Roman historian: Inania arcana, vacua
sedes. Nothing but the ark. And this ark, what was it? It was a coffer, a chest.
It was nothing in itself; but it was meant to contain something. It was the casket
of arare jewel. ‘There was nothing in the ark, save the two tables of stone,” &e.
(ch. vill. 9). It was the ‘“‘ ark of the testimony.” So that the temple was properly
and primarily the shrine and depository of the tables of the law graven with the
‘‘ten words,” ‘‘the words of the covenant” (Deut. iv. 18).

Now we have just seen that the temple was the archetype of the Church: we
have seen, too, that everything in Judaism has its analogue in Christianity. What,
then, let us ask, was the significance of the ark? To what does it correspond in
the new dispensation ?

In the Church, to nothing. The ‘‘ words of the covenant” are no longer kept in
the dark. No; we now inscribe them on our chancel walls. In the “‘ sanctuary”’
of the Gothic church the ten commandments are ‘‘ writ large” for men to see.

But if Judaism was really the outline of Christianity, then there must be some-
thing in Christianity answering to that ark which was the core and centre of the
Mosaic system. Certainly. But it is to be found, not in “ temples made with
hands,” but in those other ‘“‘ temples” of the Christian faith, the bodies of believers,
the temples of the Holy Ghost (1 Cor, ii. 165 vi. 19). The ark was the soul of
Judaism. It may fittingly represent the souls which Christ has redeemed. Temple,
ark, tables of the law—these severally correspond to the “‘ body, soul, spirit of the
Christian man. Within the temple was the ark; within the ark the tables. Within
the cép is the dwyh; within the duyy the rveipa.

Nor is this so fanciful as it seems. For are not our bodies the “‘ temples of the
Holy Ghost”? And are not our hearts—t.e., our inmost being, our spiritual part
(1. Peter iti. 4)—the fleshy tables on which He writes His law? Yes, in the ‘‘ new
covenant’? God writes His law in the heart, and puts 1t in the inward parts (see
Jer. xxxi. 83; ef. Ezek. xi. 19, 20; 2 Cor. 1. 3). In the face of these ae
who can deny that the ark and its tables have their analogues in the New ‘esta-

ent ?
» Bush, then, being the symbolism and significance of temple, ark, and tables of
law, what are theirlessons? Among others these:

1. That God dwells within us. 1

No longer in temples made with hands, but
“with him that is of a contrite and humble spirit” (Isa. lvii. 15). Did the She-116 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. (cu. vz. 1—38.

chinah brood over the mercy seat? Not less truly does God's Spirit dwell (Rom.
viii. 9) and witness (ver. 16) with our spirit. Men say the Shechinah has left the
world. On the contrary, It has enshrined Itself in the soul. ‘“ Christ im you
(Col. i. 27); God dwelling in ws (1 John iv, 12); this is the last best gospel of our
religion. The Old Testament, Neander says, tells of a God who 1s forman. In
the Gospels we hear of Emmanuel, God with man. But the Epistles speak to us
of God 7m man.

9. That God writes His law upon us. We have seen that in the Church there
+s neither ark nor tables of stone. Itis because there is no need of either. ‘This
is the age of that “new covenant” of which the prophet spoke, when the finger of
God should write the law upon the spirit, and when the Bath Kol should speak
within. The laws of our country are so voluminous that no man can hope to know
or to remember them, and their “glorious uncertainty” is proverbial. But God’s
law is but one (Rom. xiii. 9, 10; Heb. viii. 10; x. 16); and that sweet and blessed
statute the Spirit graves within us. Now observe—

3. The ark,led by God, conducted Israel to victory and rest. In the journeyings
of Israel the ark went before them (Num. x. 33). At the Jordan it opened a way
for them (Josh. iii. 14—17). Before Jericho it led them on to victory (Josh. vi.
9—11). Hven so the soul, guided and taught of God, passes safely through its pil-
erimage, conquers its foes, and gains its heavenly rest. Let us yield ourselves to
be ‘led by the Spirit of God” (Rom. vii. 14).

4. The ark, led by man, conducted Israel to disaster and defeat. When the
Israelites, instead of following the ark, would lead it (1 Sam. iv. 3), it landed them
in a ‘‘ very great slaughter.” It proved to be no fetish, as they had hoped; it only
led them to a shameful death. ‘‘It is one thing to want to have truth on our side ;
another to want to be on the side of truth” (Whately). It is of no avail to have
the commandments of God, unless we keep them; to know His will, unless we do
it. And if we lean to our own understandings, the soul will make shipwreck.
Reason, it is true, is “‘ the candle of the Lord;” but revelation is the ‘‘ damp to our
feet and the light to our path” (Psa. exix. 105; ef. Prov. 111. 5; 6).

5. The ark, the pride of Israel, on two occasions became its plaque. The men
of Bethshemesh looked into it, and died. Uzzah put forth his hand to steady it,
and was smitten for his error (2 Sam. vi. 7). So the ark teaches the much-needed
lesson of reverence—reverence for God and the things of God. It also suggests
that dishonour done to God, or disregard of His law, has a sure retribution. If
we stifle our convictions or quench the Spirit’s hght, the law written within may
hereafter become the ‘‘ instrument to scourge us.”

6. In the second temple there was no ark. A stone is said to have taken its
place. The venerable relic of the wilderness life, the sacred chest, and its still
more sacred contents, both perished in the sack of Jerusalem (2 Kings xxv. 9 sqq.)
May we not see here a lesson against impenitence? Over how many souls may
‘Tchabod”’ be written? The ark of God is taken! The soul is led captive of the
devil. The heart of flesh, the ‘‘ fleshy tables” on which the Spirit loves to write,
has given place to a heart of stone—a heart as cold, as hard, as senseless, as void
of all grace and blessing as this stone which stood in the oracle in the room of the
ark of the covenant of the Lord.

HOMILIES BY VARIOUS AUTHORS.

Ver. 1.--The Purposes of the Temple. The three chapters thus introduced
describe the erection and dedication of Solomon’s temple. Magnificent as the
building was, architecturally and artistically, it deserves more consideration as that
which was the divinely appointed centre of true worship. Its significance to
Christians can hardly be overrated. This the Epistle to the Hebrews clearly shows.
Whule it stood it was for all nations a witness for Jehovah; and now that in sub-
stance it has passed away, the spiritual truths it embodied are a heritaze for us.
Essentially it was one with the tabernacle, the erection and ritual of which wereCH. vi. 1—88.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 117

 

 

 

directly revealed by God on Sinai. Neither in principle nor even in minute deta;
were thie directions of Jehovah about its construction to be disobeved Fre Sid
ark of the covenant down to the hooks for the curtains the sod oa fe
ae thou <a all things according to the pattern showed thee in the meant
oo . een sin ate ee A smallest details of Divine law.
ea aaa ae od in tri Ing things. (Give examples of this.)

g Superseding the tabernacle by the temple. The tent way
suitable for the wandering life of an unformed nation, but the stately and stable
“ade habe pL pee tee le be piugrimage had ended, God’s utterances

( , an presence of the Shechinah on the day of con-
secration, prove that the erection of the temple was according to the will of God
a temple had meanings which no other building subsequently erected could have.
it was ‘“‘a shadow of good things to come.” It symbolized much that was revealed
in the person of Christ (Heb. ix. 11, &c.), and much that is now existing. not on
earth, but in heaven (Heb. ix. 24, &.) But, though its symbolism is a thing of
the past, some of its purposes and uses are things of the present, known in “the
places set apart by Christian men for the worship of God. To some of those we
now refer.

I. THE TEMPLE WAS A PLACE OF SACRIFICE (2 Chron. vii. 12). The sin-offering
typified the atonement made by the Lamb of God, who once was offered for the
sins of the world. This is the fact made known by the ministry of the Word and
represented by the broken bread and outpoured wine of the Eucharistic feast. No
time and no place can be more suitable than the sanctuary for the acknowledement
of sin, and the expression of faith. There each Christian sings— i

‘<My faith would lay her hand
On that dear head of Thine.”

IT. THE TEMPLE WAS A PLACE FOR PRAYER AND PRAISE. Solomon used it thus
(ch. vii.) Incense typified it. In Isaiah lvi. 7 we read, “‘ My house shall be called
a house of prayer, for all people.” The Lord Jesus referred to this when the temple
was used for other purposes (Matt. xxi. 18). Describe the praise of the temple.
Many there understood the words, ‘‘ Praise ye the Lord; for it is good to sing
praises unto our God; for it is pleasant, and praise is comely.” Show the advan-
tages of wnited praise, the promises given to combination in prayer, e.g., sympathies
enlarged, weak faith invigorated by contact with stronger faith, &c.

Iii. THE TEMPLE WAS A PLACE FOR THE CONSECRATION OF PERSONS AND THINGS.
There priests were set apart; there sometimes prophets were called (Isa. vi.) ; there
dedicated things were laid before the Lord (2 Chron. v. 1). Show how in modern
days this is still true of the assembly of God’s people. Men are there roused to a
sense of responsibility, and there consecrate themselves to the service of God.
Resolutions and vows are made there which carry with them the impress of Divine
approval. The cares of life, its purposes, its companionships are there made to
appear in their Godward aspect. Through the worship of the sanctuary heavenly
light falls on daily toil, and men learn to call nothing that God has cleansed com-
mon or unclean.

IV. THE TEMPLE WAS A PLACE FOR REMEMBERING THE LAW OF THE Lorp. The
temple was incomplete until the ark of the covenant was brought in; and ‘‘ there
was nothing im the ark save the two tables of stone which Moses put there at Horeb,
when the Lord made a covenant with the children of Israel ” (1 Kings viii. 9).
Show the importance of organized Christian worship as a perpetual witness for the
law of God. [n the busy week there are temptations to forget it; to put expediency
in the place of righteousness, &e. The whole tone of English society is raised by
the faithful exhibition of God’s requirements each sabbath day.

VY. THE TEMPLE WAS A PLACE FOR THE UNION OF THE PEOPLE. The Psalms of
the Ascents (Songs of Degrees) show this. The people overlooked their social dis-
tinctions and the tribes ignored their tribal jealousies when they ascended the sacred
bill to unite as a nation in the worship of the one true God. Jeroboam was shrewd118 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu. vi. 1—88.

sible for two separate kingdoms to exist while

all the people met in the one temple. Hence the calves at char a imc —
hence in our Lord’s day the temple on Gerizim. Show how in the ristian ) me

the rich and the poor meet together, and how essential Christian principle i oO
fuse togvether the various classes of society. There are many disintegrating forces
at work—the capitalists and the working classes, for example, are seriously divided.

Common meeting-ground cannot be found in the home, but in the Church. The
recognition of the one Fatherhood precedes the realization of the one brotherhood.
. Sectarianism has increased

Christians are, unhappily, divided amongst themselves. } aun =
the division of society. Relief is to be found not in form, but in spirit; not in
union, but in unity. As we worship together and work together, the oneness of
which we dream may become'a reality.

VI. THe TEMPLE WAS A PLACE FOR THE REVELATION OF Gop (see vers. 10, 11;
1 Chron. v. 13; vii. 2). His presence is not coufined to any temple made with
hands ; but wherever His people meet, there He reveals Himself as he does not do
unto the world. ‘ Where two or three are gathered together in My name there am
Tin the midst of them.” It was when the disciples were assembled with one
accord for prayer that the Holy Spirit came. So may our assemblies be blessed ;
and sinners will find pardon, the careworn will find rest, the doubters will find
faith, the weakly will find strength, and the despondent will find hope in the house

of the Lord our God.—A. R.

enough to see that it would be impos

Ver. 7.—Building in silence. This was due partly to the reverential feelings of
those eneaged in so holy a work. ‘The Lord is in his holy temple, let all the
earth keep silence before him.” If we are upbuilding Christian character 1n our-
selves, or in our children; if we are helping to rear the spiritual temple of God,
such reverence, 2s opposed to thoughtlessness, flippancy, &c., should characterize
us. The silence of the building was not only the outcome of devout feeling, but it
was (like the temple itself) symbolical of spiritual truth ; as we propose to show.
A noble temple is being reared (1 Cor. iii. 16,17; Eph. 11. 22; 1 Peter i. 5). This
temple is imperishable and unassailable ; that of Solomon’s was pillaged (1 Kings
xiv. 25; 2 Kings xii. 17), polluted by the unworthy (2 Kings xxi, 4—7), burnt by the
enemy (2 Kings xxv. 9). The erection described in our text teaches us something
of the work which is still carried on by the builders of the true temple.

I. THE BUILDERS OF GOD’S HOUSE ARE OFTEN DOING A SECRET WORK. Picture
the workmen in the quarries, the moulders in the clay, the artist with his graving
tool, &c. Their names were unknown, they were unrecognized by the multitudes
who would worship in the temple they were helping to build. Illustrate from this
the work of mothers influencing their children; of visitors to haunts of sin and
sorrow, whose ministry of love is not known to their nearest friends; of literary
men in obscure rooms who are influencing the destinies of a people, &. Draw
encouragement from this, ¢.g., that we do not see all the good that is going on in
England and abroad, in the Churches and outside them. So Elijah was cheered
by the revelation that there were seven thousand in Israel who had not bowed the
knee to Baal, when he thought he alone was left to witness for Jehovah. Refer to
the Lord’s teaching about the secret progress of His kingdom; the leaven hid in
three measures of meal; tle seed cast into the earth and left buried by the man
who sleeps and rises, unconscious that it is spriu, ug and growing up he knows not
how.

IJ. THE BUILDERS OF GOD’S HOUSE DO VARIED work. Enumerate some of the
different kinds of labour and of skill which were required for the temple. Show
that the work varied in dignity, in arduousness, in remunerativeness, &e. None of
it, however, was without its value or final effect. Describe the multitudinous forms
of Christian activity, and the advantages of such diversity. It demands self:
abnegation, it calls forth all graces and gifts, it makes one Christian dependent on
another, and so evokes sympathy and gives place for co-operation, &e. Let none
despise his own work, nor envy another his.

Ill. THE BUILDERS OF GOD'S HOUSE DO THEIR WORK WITH CAREFUL COMPLETEscH. Vi. 1—38.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 119

 

NESS. How exact th
. XE en n :
a ita ko Ge be 1easurements, how perfect the finish of work, whi
required to be brought together in order to mak ee work, which only
piece in the woodwork, and every separat ae en compete whole. Piece joined
Nothing but painstaking accuracy edila Haver i cue its appropriate niche.
kay Wonceian lstew He so nsla’ Adee # surec such aresult. Yet probably
appointed work sign; he was only intent on finishing his
appointed work. Observe the carefulness of God in li : vee oe
‘; tee a CE uness of God in little things, whether in ere
ion or in moral law. Small infringements of Divine ordi Sd ea ca
results. Illustrate from the ash aant steak bat Ricans ordinances bring lamentable
disease, &ce. Arcue from this to the ] ‘of a: ae teas oe to natural law in pain,
lessness is not tolerated te i ne ley in mental and moral spheres. Care
i ae : rated. tiow much less in concerns of the g TER ate
sin. ‘* How shall we es s of the soul. Negligence is
VY slic scape jag we neglect so vere; Ei eeepc ey i
ey Aa - eat salvation ? ” are “Mn dar ie
care in laying the foundations of heavenly hopes (see Matt. vii. 24 at Vee
a a = * 3 e - c % Vil. 25-—-—GZ 97a ale
is required in doing work for our Lord. ‘But let every 1 ). Vare a'so
buildeth thereupon ”’ Gas | Bite ; ut let every man take heed how he
ulldeth thereupon ” (1 Cor. iii. 10—15) gas
IV. THE BU ens OF Cébn’s Agent”:
BUILDERS OF GOD’S HOUSE ARE MORE ANXIOUS FOR THOROUGHNESS THAN
FOR NOISE. No sound of hammer or axe was heard to call t] ; t filicn ‘of aHaete
4 : as c 0 Call the 0 r passers
Py. to the noble work going on; but all the inhabitants of he kes ae ‘the
effects of the quiet labour. Quietude is ha mre Bee” Gitar aioe een.
) LE » Quietude is hard to obts t ivities of ¢]
aes d 5 he obtain in the activities of the pre-
sent day, yet God’s servants must have it. Christ saw His disciples ee fae ited
ee tod ee : St Sa S disciples were excite:
and said, Come ye yourselves apart into the desert and rest awhile.” Moe
arers ae solitude of Midian and of Sinai; Elijah the loneliness of Horeb &a.
reat souls are fashioned in sile Ne ee "¢ 2 aloe
ee ee pee aoe in silence. Our lonely times are our growing times
oy reterence ¢ a4 oI f = Nets J aes a
a fee OS ee laid aside by illness, to a mother or wife who
is for a time absorbed in ministry to some invalid. The busy workers need quiet
most. They wait on the Lord, and so renew their streneth. Some of the best
work done for Christ is silent. It is not proclaimed by large organization, or
2 ‘ inc ay ~ . “Atte ° neg ° Die ie ae
Rene crowds, but lies in the whispered counsel. the interceding prayer ke
7. THE BUILDERS OF GOD’S HOUSE Gee Mice cin IRS Meee dedeegeaaes | tne aes
ween fi ea Pee S OF as : Pais SEE THEIR LABOUR ISSUE IN THE DIVINE
UP « eC i YK Tas y 7 T ; F 2 SeCYe T ( » Re TO ae 5
pegs ie a : a oY widely str ute To a done, &c., but all was tending
Os Re ee oe 8 he temple. The building existed in the mind of the master
buil i eae iH 1ad material pe So with God’s work. A Divine purpose
. no ay r * oY \f rit x me 5 TEE. zm :
is controlling all, ¢ ppointing all; and out of what seems confusion and contradic-
tion He will bring forth “the new heaven and the new earth.” Faithfully
‘alate each one what lies to his hand, we shall all find that what we have done has
its place and results ; that our “‘ labour is not in vain in the Lord.” Forgotten and
obscure workers will have their reward from Him who noticed the widow’s mite,
and gratefully accepted Mary’s offering. We shall do more than we expect, if ws
do what we can.
T ee ; : 7
VI. TH BUILDERS OF Gop’s HOUSE FIND THEIR REWARD IN THE GLORY OF THEIR
Gop. Describe the temple—complete at last—resounding with songs of praise,
crowded with worshippers, overwhelmed by the Divine presence—and use it as a
type of the temple not made with hands, where the redeemed serve God day and
night. The wish of God’s noblest servant is that God may be glorified whether by
life or by death.
Apply the idea of silent working to what God is doing in each Christian heart
by the discipline of life and the influence of the Holy Spuit. It is felt within, but
it is not known or heard without.—A. KR.

Ver. 23.—The Mystery of the Cherubim. That the cherubim were symbolic
no one denies. They are so often mentioned in Scripture that their meaning has
been frequently discussed. Hnumerate some of the opinions held. The view we
accept is that they were symbolic representations of redeemed humanity. They
were intended to inspire men with hope of redemption, from the day when the
Lord placed them at the east of the garden of Iden, till the vision of John (Rev.
xxi.) is fulfilled in the ‘‘ new heavens and new earth,” wherein the cherubim are no
longer seen, having vanished before the reality they symbolically represented. In
the cherubim we are reminded of the following—

I. THE PERFECTING OF HUMANITY. Some obscurity lingers about the forms of120 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu. v1. 1—88.

these beings. They are introduced in Genesis without a word of description ; and
in Exodus (xxv. and xxxvii.) little is said beyond this, that they had “ wings and
faces.” Turning to their visionary appearances—to Ezekiel and to John—there is
variety inform. But whatever latitude there may be in detail, the leading form
was always that of a man—e.g., Ezekiel says (ch. 1. 5), ‘‘ they had the likeness of a
man.” With this, other creature forms were combined, viz., the lion, the ox, and
eagle. These were selected for special reasons. They belonged to the noblest king-
dom, that of animal life, as distinguished from that which was vegetable or mineral,
They were amongst the highest after man in the nature of their life ; very different,
for example, from sea-anemones, &c. They had loftier attributes than those of
other creatures; greater powers or wider usefulness. Hence, combined with the
image of man to form the cherubim, they suggested the addition to him of the
powers they specially represented. The lion, especially to the Hebrews, was a type
of kingly majesty and glorious strength. Give quotations from Scripture. The
eagle, with its keen vision and swift flight, was a type of rapidity of thought and
movement (Deut. xxviii. 49; Job ix. 26; Prov. xxii. 5). The ox, used in plough-
ing, harrowing, carrying home the sheaves, and treading out the corn, represented
patient and productive activity. In the cherubim all these were grafted on
man—an ideal combination, to show that, though man was the highest creature
of God (he alone having a moral and a rational nature), he could be, aud would be,
ennobled by having hereafter the powers bestowed, of which in creature life these
animals were representatives. Show the Scripture evidence for expecting in
heaven the faculties for knowing, for serving, for enjoying, which we have not
here.

Il. THe FULNESS OF LIFE. In Ezekiel and Revelation the cherubim are fre-
quently spoken of as ‘‘the living ones” (animantia, Cwa). This expression is obscured
in our translation by the unhappy rendering ‘“‘ beasts” (Rev. iv. 6), &. The
expression denotes life in its highest and most active form. In harmony with
this, Ezekiel speaks of their ‘‘running and returning.” John says, ‘‘ they rest not
day nor night.” Though the cherubim in the temple and tabernacle were of
necessity stationary, the same idea was there expressed by the outspread wings. The
cherubim pointed on to the plenitude of life, Divine and spiritual, over which weari-
ness should have no power, and towards which death would never approach.
““T give unto them eternal life,’ &e. ‘Tam come that they might have life, and
that they might have it more abundantly,” &c.

II. THE DWELLING with Gop. The cherubim were always associated with the
Divine Presence. After man was driven from Eden, the cherubim was placed
there to occupy the place he had forfeited ; where life was full, and where holiness
was a necessity. When the tabernacle was constructed, all the inner curtains
were inwoven with cherubic figures, and images of cherubim appeared on the
sacred ark, which was the throne of Jehovah. This was repeated in the temple, as
the passage before us shows; for the magnificent cherubim, each ten cubits hich,
were stationed in the ‘‘ oracle,” the place where the Shechinah proclaimed God’s
presence. We must add, therefore, to the ideas we have dwelt on—this thought,
that the life represented was life essentially connected with God Himself. Not
only will the life of the future be full, but it will be holy. Holiness will be its
essence. ‘The pure in heart shallsee God.’ ‘* Without holiness no man shall see
the Lord.” ‘Neither shall there enter into it anything that defileth,” &e.

IV. THE BLISS OF THE FUTURE. A careful reading of Genesis iii. 24 shows that
the “sword” and the “‘cherubim” were not only distinct, but had different functions.
The sword ‘‘ kept” the way to the tree of life, so that it was more accessible to fallen
man. tt was a symbol of repulsion and alarm. The cherubim “kept” the garden
in a different sense. They did not defend it against man, but occupied it for man,
and therefore gave to those who were shut out the hope of that which the promise
of Jehovah had already announced. The presence of the cherubim said to fallen
man: ‘‘ This region of life is not destroyed, it is not given over to other creatures,
but it is occupied and kept provisionally for you by a being in whom your nature
predominates; and hereafter, you yourself changed, enriched with new powers,CH. v1. 1—38.]

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

  

121

 

 

restored by redemptive love to holiness, shall share Par
means of realiziug this became more clear as the
ideal humanity would inherit bliss did not
was unfolded in the Mosaic institutions.
witness, as the cherubim in Eden h
as the representative of the people,
presence of Jehovah. He entered n
been made for the sins of the people.
Epistle to the Hebrews.

has entered

azes rolled
die out, but the met}

Ver. 2.—The temple is described as “ the house which King

the Lord.”

‘This idea of consecration ran through the wl

Without having recourse to a minute and fanciful symbolism,

everything is so disposed as to convey the idea of the holiness of God.
ALTAR

CENTRE IS THE

OF SACRIFICE.

adise regained.”

Not only did the cherubim in the
ad done, but once a year the high priest,
went in, and stood with the cherubim in the
ot “ without blood,” but after atonement had
Apply this to the truth revealed in the
Show how Christ, who has atoned for the world’s
as our High Priest into the holiest of all, and how He h |
kingdom of heaven to all believers.

that was sluin”’ is depicted as bein
man’s guilt and God’s mercy.

[For justification of this use of the cherubi
Scripture.” |—A. R.

The
by. The hope that
10d of its fulfilment
oracle

sin,
as opened the

No wonder that in the Revelation “ the Lamb
g the object of heaven’s praise; the link between

m, see Fairbairn’s “ Typology of

Solomon built for

i0le plan of the building.

we see clearly that
IN THE

The holy of holies, hidden from gaze by its

impenetrable veil, strikes with awe the man of unclean heart and lips, who hears

the seraphim cry from
God Almighty!” (Isa. vi. 8.)

The temple of holiness is not tl

beneath their shadowing wings, ‘“ Holy, holy, holy, Lord

1e temple of nature

of colossal proportions, as in the East, nor is it the temple of esthetic beauty, as in

Greece.

Hence its peculiar character.

It is the dwelling place of Him who is invisible, and of purer eyes than
to behold evil (Hab. i. 18.)

It answers thus

to the true condition of religious art, which never sacrifices the idea and sense
of the Divine to mere form, but makes the form instinet with the Divine idea.

Let us freely recognize the claims of religious art.

The extreme Puritanism

which thinks it honours God by a contemptuous disregard of the esthetic, is
scarcely less mistaken than the idolatrous materialism which makes beauty of

form the primary consideration.

It was not for nothing that God made the earth

so fair, the sky so glorious; and it was under Divine inspiration that the temple
of Jerusalem was reared in such magnificence and majesty as to strike all

beholders.
the form.

Only let us never forget to seek the Divine idea beneath the beauty of
When we admire merely the beautiful, whether in a temple, as did the

disciples, or in the great world of nature, the warning words of Christ fall upon
upon our ear: ‘‘ As for these things which ye behold, the days will come in the

which there shall not be left one stone upon another” (Luke xxi. 6).
° ’ Aap:
cieux et lewr splendewr ne valent pas le soupir dun seul coeur.

crowning beauty.

broke over the feet of Christ.

It is like the precious vase of ointment whic
Beauty is the fit associate of wo

CG fia

ous les
Love is the
h Mary of Bethany
rship, so long as it

is kept subordinate, and does not distract our minds from the higher spiritual

realities of which it is but symbolic. | n the Mee
high and holy God, of whom it is said, that “the invisible things of Him

Let us seek in the temple of nature the

are

clearly seen from the creation of the world, being understood by the things that
are made” (Rom. i. 19). Let us recognize His presence beneath the arches of the

medieval cathedral, among the memorl

als of a worship which we ourselves have

left behind. Let us seek Him in the great monuments of Christian art, whether

reared by poet, musician, painter, or sculptor.

Let it be our

aim to glorify Him

in the forms of our worship, while we sedulously guard against the worship of the

form, which is sheer idolatry. Such a
are one branch of Christian morals. :
When one corner of the veil which hides heav
forth in all its radiance of purity and beauty.—H. de P.

Plato.
Divine life shines

re the principles of Christian esthetics, which
‘‘ The beautiful is the glory of the true," says
en from us is lifted, the

Vers. 37, 38.— The Glorious House of the Lord. In comparison with other122 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu. vi. 1—88.

 

sacred shrines of antiquity the temple of Solomon was small in Ag Teena
and brief in the time of its building. Nor will the mere fact of its Je Wee
splendour account for the extraordinary interest with which it has Oye eon
regarded —an interest in which Jew, Mohammedan, and Fae eh me Petia
pate. The place it occupied, the part it performed in a a se
of the world, will alone account for this. If it is necessary to eau ee any
pre-existing model as suggesting the plan of its Seah ae ug Jee ane
not to Egypt, as some have thought, that we should ook yy ny a ype.
But however this may be, it has a deep Divine meaning ee neat etme a oe
comparison with any other temple that the hand of man has ever reared. Let
us look on it now as the ancient symbol of the Chureh of the living God, that
fellowship of new-born souls of whom St. Peter says, “‘ Ye also as ee a ae
built up a spiritual house,” &¢. (1 Peter 11. 5). Note certaim points of specia
interest in this analogy—those features of the temple which are suggestive of
similar features in the spiritual fabrie of the redeemed Church. ;

I. THE FIRMNESS OF ITS FOUNDATION. The threshing-floor of Araunah, the site
of the temple, was part of the plateau on the top of Mount Moriah (2 Chron. 11. 1).
Solomon, as we are told by Josephus, in order to enlarge the area, built massive
walls on the sloping sides of the mountain, filling in the spaces with earth ; and
the foundations of these walls were composed of huge stones bedded and, as it
were, mortised in the solid rock. How forcibly are we reminded of the word of
Christ to Peter, ‘* Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it” (Matt. xvi.18). Whatever the bearing of this word on
the disciple himself may be, it is certain that it cannot refer to him apart from the
grand confession he has just made—‘‘ Thou art the Christ, the son of the living
God.’ Peter may be one of the great foundation stones, but Christ Himself is the
solid, primary, unhewn Rock on which the fabric rests. Not so much any truth
about Him, but the personal Christ in the grandeur of His being, the integrity of
His righteousness, the strength and &#elity o¥ &is wondrous love, is the Church’s
firm foundation.

IJ. THE SILENT PROCESS OF ITS srRucTURE. “There was neither hammer, nor
axe, nor any tool of iron heard in the house while it was in building (ver. 7). This
was probably in obedience to the prohibition recorded in Exodus xx. 26 and
Deuteronomy xxvii. 5. It expressed the king’s sense of the sanctity of the work.
The tranquillity of the scene must not be broken by the clang of inharmonious
sounds. ‘‘ Like some tall palm, the noiseless fabric grew.’ The fact is suggestive.
The building up of the Church of God is a sflent, hidden process. Outward visible
agencies must be employed, but the real constructive forces are out of sight. Truth
works secretly and silently in the souls of men. ‘The kingdom of God cometh
not with observation.” Noise and show are out of harmony with the sanctity of it.
Clamour and violence only hinder the work. Let us not mistake a restless, busy,
fussy zea] for the externalities of Church life for true Spiritual service. This is often
in inverse ratio to the amount of real edification. The best machinery works with
least friction and noise. The quiet, thoughtful workers, who move on steadily by
the inspiration of their holy purpose, without much public recognition, may after
all be the most efficient builders ofthe temple of God.

III. THE VARIETY OF THE AGENCIES BY WHICH THE WORK WAS DONE. Foreign
power was enlisted in the service— Hiram and his artificers. Cedars from Lebanon,
gold and silver and precious stones from Ophir and Parvaim, brass “ without
weight” from the foundries of Succoth and Zarethan—all were consecrated to
it. So also with the spiritual fabric. The resources of the world are at the
command of Him who rears it. “ All things serve His might.” All beings, with
all their faculties, are at His disposal, All streams of human interest, and thought,
and speech, and activity may be made tributary to the great river of His purpose.
Our faith rests in the assurance that it is so—that just as our physieal life is
nourished by all sorts of ministries, near and remote, so the kinedom of truth and
righteousness in the world is being built up by a vast variety of agencies which it
is beyond our power to trace. Al human afiairs are but as the Scaholding withincH. vir. 1—51,} THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 123

 

which the structure of God’s great house is slowl
ee it is that the prophetic word, i
epee eee of strangers shall build up thy walls” (Isa. lx. 10). And in
summation shall be fulfilled the apocalyptic picture, “* The kings of th
earth do bring their glory and honour into it,” (Rev. xxi. 22), : :

IV. THE MINGLED STRENGTH AND BEAUTY OF THE FABRIC. The blocks of stone
were lined with cedar planks, and the cedar overlaid with plates of gold; the
walls covered with carved “cherubims and palm trees and open flowers ;” the
brazen pillars crowned with ‘“ lily-work.” The building was not of laree dinion.
eal pon eevay ae its combination of solidity and adornment, partaking of
mness Of the rocky mount on which it stood, glittering in the sunlight, the
crowning glory of the royal city. How much more truly may we say of the
spiritual temple, ‘ Strength and beauty are in His sanctuary.” There is no strength
like that of truth and righteousness ; no beauty like that of holy character ok
strength drawn from Christ, the living Foundation, the reflected ‘beauty of that
purer heaven which is the eternal home of God.

V. THE ORDERLY ARRANGEMENT OF ITS PARTS AND APPURTENANCES. The temple
was framed apparently after the model of the tabernacle, but with doubled dimen-
slons and more enduring materials, and that was “after the pattern shown to
Moses in the mount ”—all regulated with regard to the due administration of the
service of God. Courts, chambers, galleries, altars, lavers, utensils—all consecrated
to some sacred use, or meant to enshrine some high symbolic meaning. The
gathering up of a complex variety of parts in one grand structural unity. Such
is the Church—an aggregate of various but harmonious and mutually helpful
parts. ‘‘Thereare diversities of gifts and administrations and operations, but the
same Spirit” (1 Cor. xii. 4). All the building fitly framed together,” &c. (Ephes.
li. 13). ‘The whole body fitly jomed together and compacted by that which every
joint supplieth,” &c. (Ephes. iv. 16). It would seem necessary that the social
religious life should assume some visible organized form; and though there may
be no such form or forms ecclesiastical that can claim to have the stamp of distinct
Divine approval, yet all are Divine so far as they minister to the general edifica-
tion and preserve “the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.” They each and
all have their place in the Divine order, if they help to fulfil the holy uses, and to
heighten the glory of the great temple of the Lord.

VI. Irs SUBLIME DISTINCTION AS THE HABITATION OF Gop (see vers. 12, 18, &c.)
This was but the repetition of a more ancient promise (Exod. xxv. 8; xxix. 45).
And what are all these promises, with all the marvellous manifestations that veri-
fied them, but typical foreshadowings of the richer grace by virtue of which the
Church becomes ‘‘ the habitation of God through the Spirit”? ‘ The Most High
dwells not in temples made with hands;” His dwelling-place is the fellowship of
redeemed souls.—W.

y rising to its completion. To
n its deepest meaning, may be

EXPOSITION.

CHAPTER VII. 1—51. older arrangement, but more probably (see
next note) adopting an apparently more
SoLoMON’s PALACES AND THE PREPARATION logical and methodical order, relegates this
OF THE TEMPLE VESSELS.—The first twelve | .ootion to the end of the chapter.
verses of this chapter constitute a break in Ver, 1.—But Solomon was building his
the long account of the Temple, its furni- | own house thirteen years [here is no con-
ture and its consecration. The historian | trast implied between the time spent upon
having described the Temple buildings, be- the temple and that occupied in the building

7 jalace, as the word ‘‘ but’’ seems to
; ‘contents | of the 1 , 5 Be
fore Bopaares OF 2 Speak, Ot Vee 6 suggest. The close connexion which exists

pauses for a moment to record a few par | in ‘the original is interrupted by the division
ticulars as to the building of the suite of | of chapters. In ch. vi. 38 we read, “So
palaces which next occupied Solomon’s at- | was he seven years in building it.” Ch. sae
tention. The LXX., possibly following an then proceeds, ‘“‘And he was building his124

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

fox. vir. 1—51,

 

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 (ver. 2). Then, though
Seven years only were consumed in the
actual building of the temple, yet prepara-
tions for the work had been made, both by
David and Solomon, for a long time before-
hand. 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 selfish-
ness 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 ch. vi. 38. That is to
say, the building of the temple and palace
together occupied twenty years, as is ex-
pressly stated in ch. ix. 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 undersiand his private palace, or
residence proper, alone (see yer. 8), but a
range of palaces, more or less connected,
including the ‘‘house of the forest of Le-
banon” (ver 2), ‘*the porch of pillars ”’
(ver. 6), the throne-room or judgment ball
(ver. 7), his own house and the house of
Pharaoh’s daughter (ver. 8), That all
these are comprehended under the term
‘‘house’”’ is evident from ch. ix. Je OR AARSy =
x. 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 itstood
over against (or opposite) the temple, which
is highly probable; but this stil] leaves the
question of site open, for the palace would
be justly described as ayvrikpue EXwWY VaoV,
whether it stood west or south of the
sanctuary. LHwald places it on the opposite
ridge of Ophel, i.c., on the south prolonga-
tion of the temple mount; while Fergusson,
Bahr, &c., locate it on the north-east 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 remem-
ber that the very site of Zion is disputed, it
Will not surprise the reader that questions
of this kind should be involved in uncer-

 

 

 

 

tainty. And when it is further considered
that the accumulated débris of Jerusalem
at one point reaches a depth of 120 fect, it
will be readily understood what . bstacles
stand in the way of their settlement. ]

Ver. 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” (ver. 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 wag
built of Lebanon cedar, but because it dis-
played a perfect thicket or forest (WW) 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 x50 cubits was all roofed
in, for it would seem as if the house wag
built round a courtyard. Rawlinson re-
marks that a roof of 75 feet is ‘* much greater
than is ever found in Assyria.” But itis 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 de-
scription is so meagre and partial that it is
impossible to form a correct idea of the
building. The remark made above (ch. vi,
Introd. Note) as to the temple apples 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 difficultics 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 interpreta-
tion, 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 wag
describing” (Fergusson, Dict. Bib. ii. p.658)],

with cedar beams [NINID, cut or hewn
beams] upon the pillars. [This palace,
according to Fergusson, was “ the creat

hall of state and audience” and the princi-
pal building of the range. But if it was
this, which is very doubtful, for the throne
was in the hall of judgment (ch. y. ¥)5, 4%
would seem to have served other purposes
besides that of an audience-chamber, Among
other things, it was certainly an armoury
(ch. x..17. Cf. Isa, xxii. 8). The Arab.
Vers. calls it “the house of his arms.”
Possibly it was also the residence of theCH. vir, 1—51.]

————

   

THE FIRST BOOK oF KINGS.

125

). Bahr
arrangement of the palaces
accords with the Jewish conceptions of the
kingly office. The first, the armoury, re-
presents him in his militant character (1
Sam. viii. 20), the second in his judicial
function (1 Sam. viii. 5, 6; 2 Sam. xy. 4;
1 Kings ili. 9), while the third shows him in
his private capacity.)

observes that the

Ver. 3.—And it was covered [or roofed]
with cedar above (cf, vi. 9, 15] upon the

beams (niyey lit., ribs, the word used in

ch. vi. 5 of the side chambers, and in vi. 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 ver. 2,
which speaks of four rows, But the ex-
planation 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 de-
scription 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 ver. 2) forty-five in number,
fifteen in a row. Itis 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 ver. 2. Similarly the Arab. in ver. 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.
sahr 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 vers. 4,5) 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 prob-
able that they would be distributed six to
each long side and three to the rear (Bahr).
This arrancement—a court surrounded by a
colonnade and galleries—is still found in
the East; as all travellers know. And in
its favonr 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. ]

 

Ver. 4._-And there were windows [D'p pw
Same word as in ch. vi. 4, 4.0; beams ‘or
lattices, Keil understands, beam lu yers and
Bahr, dibergelegte Balken. The LXX, has
7™evp@y} 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. mins)
probably means a wide outlook. Tex
Xuipa, aspectus, prospectus] was against
light in three ranks [Heb. three times.
lhe 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 ex-
plains, @upcipac ToryAvgote, windows in three
divisions, but this is no explanation of
the words ‘light against light,” &e. Fer-
gusson understands the three outlooks to
mean, first, the clerestory windows (that
there wasa clerestory he infers from Jos

is ephus
(Ant., vii. 5. 2),

who describes this palace ag
‘fin the Corii*thian 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 ball with
a clerestory’’) ; (2) a range of openings
under the cornice of the walls; and (3) a
range of open doorways. But ali this is
conjecture,

Ver. 5.—And all the doors and posts
[For NttD posts, Thenius would read Nip
outlooks, after ver. 4, which seems a natural
emendation, especially as the LXX. has
xwoa. We should then get the sense of
‘‘ doors and windows ”] were square of beam.
[The word translated ‘‘ windows ” in ver. 4;
the proper rendering is beam, and the mean-
ing 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. tawlinson,
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.]

Ver. 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, W:s
this porch the vestibule of the house of tiie
forest of Lebanon, just described? From
the correspondence between its width and
that of this palace, Rawlinson infers that it
was (cf. ch. vi. 2, 3). Bahr believes it to
have been the porch or entrance to the hall
of judgment mentioned in the next verse,126

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[cx. vir. 1—51.

 

while Fergusson again assigns it an inde-
pendent position, separate from either. The
term porch (DPN), the meaning of which is
surely determined by its use in ch. vi., 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 Raw-
linson 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, Bihr, 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 (el x.
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 sur-
prising, 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 ad-
vanced 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 ch, vi. 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.c.,
the pillars. The words can only mean that
a smaller porch stood before the porch of
pillars, or colonnade]: and the other [omit]
pillars [7.e., the pillars of the minor vesti-
bule 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.]

Ver. 7.—Then he ‘made a porch [or the
porch] for the throne where he might judge
[v.e., it was at once audience-chamber
(throne-room, ch. x. 18) and court of justice],
even the porch of judgment [Stanley re-

 

 

marks 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 (ver. 8) (“‘ Jewish Ch.,” ii. Dy LoS) ) =
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 under-
stands these words to mean, ‘‘ from one
floor to the other,” z.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
ninp.. TW. . (ante ybhe beams) instead of
UP PI W. Keil thinks the cieling served
as the floor of an upper story, built over
the porch of judgment, but, as Bahr
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. ]

Ver. 8.—And his house where he dwelt
[t.e., his private residence. Not to be
identified with the “house” ofver. 1. The
term is here expressly restricted to hig
dwelling-house, There it as clearly includes
all the several palaces] had [or was. The
“court” is apparently in apposition to ‘hig
house.” The words in italics, here as else-
where, merely darken the sense] another
[Heb. the hinder] court within [For the

use of 2 121). = within, compare ch. vi.

16; Num. xviii. 7, and see Gesen., Thesaur.
i, 193] the porch, which was of the like
work [i.e., the walls were covered with
cedar. The reference is clearly to materials,
adornment, &c., not to size]. Solomon
made also an house for Pharaoh’s daughter,
whom he had taken to wife [Heb. he made
also @ 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 (Gh. kh.
3) were collected. It was evidently distinct
from and behind the residence of the king,
an arrangement which still prevails in
Kastern palaces. ]

Ver. 9.—All these [t.e., buildings, palaces]

- Were of costly [or precious ; ef. ch. v. 8lCH. vil. 1—51.]

and vers. 10, 11] stones, according to the
measures of hewed stones (fie Ge squaring
or hewing, same word in cls. vy, 3] (Heb.), vi.
36, and Isa.ix.9,&ce. All the stones in these
several buildings were shaped to certain
specified dimensions] , sawed with saws
[14 is obviously an onomatopoetic word,
like our saw. Gesenius cites Taiow, serro, Ke.
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 Nim-
rud (Layard, p. 195, and Dict. Bib., art.
‘“Saw”’). That saws were in common use
and were made of iron is implied in 2 Sam.
xil. 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 smvothed as
well as the exposed parts], even from the
foundation unto the coping [or corbels. It
is generally agreed (Gesen., Keil, Bahr) that
the reference is to the ‘“ projecting stones
on which the beams rest,” though Thenius
would understand battlements (Deut. xxii. 8)
to be intended. But for these a different
word is always used, and the LXX. yetooc
signifies the projection of the roof, not an
erection upon it], and so on the outside
toward the great court [t.e., the pavement
of the court was of sawed stones (see ver. 12).]

Ver. 10.—And the foundation was of
costly stones, even great stones [Bihr Says,
‘‘ Hven 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
[t.e., ten cubits long, and of proportionate
width, &¢.],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 ch. v. 17.]

Ver. 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. |]

Ver. 12.—And the great court round
about [The palace, again like the temple,
had two courts. The lesser is referred to
in ver. 8, and was enclosed among the
buildings. The great court probably. sur-
rounded the entire structure] was [enclosed
by a wall] with three rows of hewed
stones, and a row of cedar beams. [The

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

 

   
   
 
   
   
   
   
     
   
    
  
 
   
  
 
 
   
   
  
   
   
  
  
 
    
  
 
 
   
   
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
   
   
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 

127

——_

 

 

latter formed the coping. T}
court of the palace thus resembled that of
the temple. See on ch. vi, 36; Th 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 g1
a mistranslation or corrupticr of the text.
The historian evidently meant 1 say that
the wall of the coart, 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, } in Hebrew serving sometimes
to institute a comparison (Prov. xxv. 3, 12,
20; xxvi. 14, &c.) “Asin the court,” &e.
But the instances just cited, being proverbs or
apophthegms, are not strictly parallel wiih
our text, It seems better, on the whole,
however, to retain the text in this sense than
to replace } by 5, reading synb> Ores
for WSM2}. ANAND (Horsley) is quite inad-
missible. 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 (ver. 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” (ver. 7). But ver. 7
(where see note) rather excludes than. in-
cludes the pavement. The reference is
probably to the “court within the porch,”
mentioned in ver. 8.]

After this brief account of the royal
palaces, the author proceeds to mention the
vessels, &c., used in the temple service, pre-
facing his description by a few words re-
specting the great Tyrian artist, by whom
they were for the most part cast, and pos-
sibly designed also.

Ver. 13.—And king Solomon sent [rather,
had sent (2 Chron. ii. 13)] and fetched Hiram
out of Tyre. [This is our historian’s brief
version of the transaction which is recorded
in 2 Chron. il. 7—14. He has not men-
tioned before (ch. v. 6) Solomon’s request
for a master-builder. Hiram, like his
namesake the king, is elsewhere (2 Chron,
ii. 13; iv. 11, 16) called Huram or Hirom
(ver. 40). See note on ch, vy. 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. Gen. xlv. 8,
41, 43; 2 Kings ii. 12; v. 13; vi. 21; cf.

1€ well of the

iggests eitherTHE FIRST BCOK OF KINGS.

[cn. vir. 1— 51.

—_——

 

vill. 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, |

Ver. 14.—He was a widow’s son of the
tribe of Naphtali [In 2 Chron. ii. 14 he is
described as the **son of a woman of the
daughters of Dan.’ The discrepancy is
only apparent or 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 (Josh.
xix. 47), or Laish (Judg. xviii. 7, 27), colo-
nised by the Danites, and thenceforward
bearing their name (ver. 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 Naph-
tali.” 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 Zido-
nians (Judg, xviii. 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 zine; but NN) originally and strictly

signifies a pure metal (Deut. vill. 9; xxxiii,
25, &c.; Job xxviii. 2). There were copper
mines in Palestine, and the art of working
this metal was known at a very remote
period (Gen. iv. 22, Heb., and see Wilkin-
son’s ‘Ancient Egypt,” vol. iii. p. 243;
and De Rougemont, “ Age du Bronze,” p.
180). In later times the word sometimes
denoted brass (yaAkdc), or copper-bronze
(a mixture of copper and iE a ie, Jer,
vi. 28. From 2 Chron. ii. 14 we learn that
Hiram was ‘skilful to work in gold and in
silver, in brass, in iron, in stone, and in
timber,” &c. From the mention of brass
only in this passage, and in ver. 45, it has
been somewhat hastily concluded that ‘« the
work that he personally did for Solomon”
was ‘‘limited to works in brass” (Rawlin-
son). It is, perhaps, safer to say that brass
only is mentioned here, because the follow-
ing section treats exclusively of the brazen
ornaments, &c., of the sanctuary (Keil).
It would almost seem, however (see note on
ver. 48), as if he was not employed to make
the vessels of gold. Nor does this suppo-
sition 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 Exod. xxxi, 3,
where similar language is used of Bezalecl.
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.

Ver. 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 (see Wilkinson,
“Ane. Keypt.’ ii. pp. 234, 256; Kitto, ‘* Daily
Bib. Llus.” Sol. and Kings, pp. 72, 73)], of
eighteen cubits high apiece [Heb. eighteen
cubits was the height of the one column.
This was the height of the shaft (ef, 2 Kings
xxv. 17; Jer. lii.21). To this must be added
the capital (vers. 16, 19), which measured five
(or, according to some, nine) cubits, and prob-
ably the pedestal. The pillars were hollow,
the metal being four finger breadths thick
(Jer. lii. 21). In 2 Chron, iii. 15 the height
is given as thirty-five cubits—a discrepancy
which has been variously explained. Ac-
cording to some writers (e.9., Abravanel,
Movers, Wordsworth), this represents the
total length of the two pillars (each pillar
consequently being 174 cubits)—an idea
which, perhaps, finds some slight support
in the word employed WIN length. Here it

 

ig midip height. By others it has been sup-

posed 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 reduplica-
tion of the heiglits of edifices by the
chronicler, of which we have already had
an instance in ch. vi. (where see note). But
the true explanation would seem te be that,

by a clerical error, thirty-five (72) has been
substituted in the text for eighteen (M).
So Keil and Bahr] : 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 acci-
dental abbreviation of the full expression,
“ Highteen 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 pecu-
liarity results from the actual system ofcH.-vir. 1—51.]

 

THE. FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

  
 
 

129

 

 

 

 

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. ]

Ver, 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 xxy.
17 the height is given as three cubits; but
this is obviously a clerical error. See
ee EO oe LO el Asc lll.s 22... A. MUuGh
more important question is whether the
chapiter (N)J}2 same word, akin to 13,
crown) of four cubits mentioned in yer. 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 ver. 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 propor-
tion to the shaft, is found in some of the
buildings of Persepolis (Fergusson, Dict.
Bib. 11. p. 1457). From the expression of
vers. 41, 42, ‘‘the bowls of the chapiters ”
(cf. 2 Chron. iv. 12, 13; Jer. li. 23), and
the word ‘‘belly”’ (j}3) in ver. 20, we gather
that. the chapiters were bowl-shaped, or
bellied out something like the so-called
‘¢ cushion capital’? in Norman architecture.

Ver. 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, &c., 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 mate-
rial, 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 : netsof net-work, 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 cha-
piters which were upon the top of the
pillars; seven for the one chapiter, and
seven for the other chapiter [The LXX.
having here dicrvoy, it is clear that the text
they had read ND AW “anet,” and not Nya”
1 KINGS.

 

 

‘“seven.” Some, accordingly, would read, ‘a
net for the one chapiter, and a net,” &,
But there is no sufficient reason for the
change. oe 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 suggested by the fact that the
intertwined threads, which crossed and re-
crossed each other, bore a rough resemblance
to the links of a chain.

’ Ver. 18.—And he made the pillars [There
is evidently a confusion of the text here,
Probably we should read, with some M&S.
D300, the pomegranates (so LXX.), in-
stead of OD )9DpN, or rather, we should
transpose the two words, reading pome-
granates where the Masoretic text has pillars,
and vice versd. ‘‘ 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 charac-
teristically sees in its many ripe seeds, ‘an
expressive emblem of fruitfulness in good
works.’? According to Bahr, it is an image
of the law or covenant of Jehovah, and the
seeds represent the separate commands
(Symbolik, ii, 122, 123). In the tabernacle it
was pourtrayed in works of divers colours on
the hem of the robe of the ephod (Exod,
XxXvill, 33, 34; xxxix. 24). All the Scrip-
ture notices of this fruit prove its great
abundance in Palestine (Num. xiii. 238;
Josh. xv. 32; xxi. 25;—in the two. last
passages it appears as the name of a
town—Cant. iv. 3, 13; vil. 2; Joel 1. 12;
Haggai ii. 9, &c.) It was also well known
to the Egyptians (Num. xx. 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 gene-
rally 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 Chron, iii. 16), four hundred in
all (2 Chron. iv. 13; Jer. li. 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.

Ver. 19.—And the chapiters that were
wpon the top of the pillars [It is difficult to
believe that these words, which are iden-
tical with those in vers. 16, 17, 18, can refer
to a different—a second and superposed
capital (Rawlinson), or to the entablature
(Fergusson)] were of lily work [i.¢., basst-

K130

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[ou. viz. 1—51.

 

relievi in imitation of flowering lilies. Prob-
ably the bowl-shaped chapiter was treated
as a full-blown lily, just as the capitals of
Egyptian pillars took the form of the lotus.
The molten sea was similarly treated (ver.
26). Thelily (wiv, from WW, to be white),
was undoubtedly an emblem of purity.
Bahr 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, pois, are very obscure. Keil
7 T

understands “ as in the hall” (cf. cara ro
av\ap, LXX.) But that idea would have
been expressed by DOIND, and nothing is
said elsewhere about any lily-work in the
porch (Bihr), 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 to-
ward 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 capi-
tal), four, and these the upper four (ver.
22), were covered with lily-work, while one
cubit at the bottom of the capital was orna-
mented with chain-work or festoons—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.]

Ver, 20.—And the chapiters upon the two
pillars had pomegranates [Instead of the
italics, Keil would supply Hiram made, but
itis doubtful whether this is any improve-
ment, 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 ex-
plain how the bowl of the chapiter projected
above its base] also above [7.c., above the
neck, or lowest cubit, on which was the net
and chain-work], over against [niyo with
two prefixes is a rare form] the belly {or
“bowl” (ver. 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 ver. 42, and in
2 Chronicles, and with the *“* hundred round
about”? (i.e., the number in each row) men-
tioned in Jer. lii. 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 NM, wind-

wards; see Ezek, xlii. 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 four-
square, 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 ver.
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.

Ver. 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 be-
fore 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 Bahr, 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 poxd (— “at, Or iW
the porch,” perhaps for the porch, as Bihr),
and in ver. 19 (where see note) DPIND. And
with this agree the expression of the Chron.
“before (935?) the house,” and “before
(B->y) the temple ’’ (2 Chron. iii. 15, 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 pre-
positions of the text, however, seem to lend
some support to Bahr’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 representa-CH. viz. 1—51.]

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

181

 

tion of a Pheenician temple, it always hag
a pillar or pillars stauding within or before
it” (Stanley). (3) It is extremely doubt-
ful 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 ‘ appro-
priate to support the roof of the porch,” but
then he conceives the columns to be in all
twenty-seven cubits high (see on ver. 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 com-
position is certainly an argument fcr 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 his-
torian 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, consider-
ing the extreme brevity and the partial cha-
racter of the description of the temple, in
affirming that they would have been men-
tioned in connexion with the building, had
they formed part of the edifice. (5) The
remark of Stieglitz (cited by Bahr) tbat “ 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, 1s not to
be unduly pressed, for to some it may seem
that the names they bore would have a
special propriety and an enhanced signi-
ficance, 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 con-
struct a roof thirty feet in width without
some such pillars to support the beam (Fer-
gusson); 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

 

[t.e., he shall establish, as marg. The name
expressed the belief that God would preserve
and protect the new fane. It is true that a,
Jachin is mentioned (1 Chron. ix. 10; XXIV,
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 th ey
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 whol'y im-
probable, though of course it finds no sup-
port in the text] and he set up the left
pillar [the left as one faced them from
the house. The right hand is iden ified with
the south in ver, 89], and called the name
thereof Boaz. |Marg. init is strength. Prob-
ably ‘in Him, i.e., God, is its strength”
(cf. Isa. xlv. 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, KardpOware and "Ioyic
(2 Chron. iii. 17), success and strength,
though very far from literal, preserves their
fundamental ideas.

Ver. 22.—And upon the top of the pillars
was lily work [a repetition, in the Hebrew
manner, of ver. 19. The ‘ lily work,” which
probably involved two things, (1) that the
capital had a rude resemblance to a “ full
blown lily-cup”’ (Bahr), and (2) that repre-
sentations of the leaf of the lily were pour-
trayed upon it (as in the cornice of I ersepolis,
an illustration of which will be found Dict.
Bib. ii. p. 1457), was a not unfitting finialio
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.

Ver, 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 (Exod, xxx. 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 itsfoot or base] : and a line of
thirty cubits did compass it round about.
(The historian obviously uses round num-
bers when he speaks of the diameter as ten132

and the circumference as thirty cubits. If
the diameter was exactly ten, the circumfer-
ence would of course be about 314 cubits.
But the sacred writers seldom aim at pre-
cision.

Ver. 24.—And under the brim of it round
about [The edge of the laver was curved
outwards (ver. 26)] there were knops [see
note on ch. vi. 18. The text of 2 Chron.
iy. 38, O72 (‘* the similitude of oxen’), is
obviously a clerical error for D'YPD (Keil),
but whether Ni57 is an interpolation may
well be doubted. Keil thinks it was intro-
duced 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 indiameter’’ (Keil), for they
may not have been in close contact, and,
moreover, the cubit was probably 18 inches],
compassing the sea round about : the
knops 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 Chron.
xvill. 8; 1 Sam. viii. 8, LXX.)]

Ver. 25.—It stood [Heb. standing] upon
twelve oxen [lhe import of the number
twelve is well explained by Bahr, Symbolik,
i. 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 (Num. ii.)]: and
the sea was set above upon them, and all
their hinder parts were inward. [Thesame
regard of the cardinal points (see Biihr,
Symbolik, 1. 210 sqq.) has been noticed in
the pomegranates on the capitals of the two
columns. See note on ver. 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 immoveable 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.

Ver. 26.—And it wasa 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.¢., 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 {n apposition to ‘‘ cup ’—requires us
to refer. the words to the shape rather than

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

fox. vir. 1—51.

ey

to the omamentation of the laver. The hp
was curved like a lily]: it contained two
thousand [In Chron. and by Josephus the
number is given as 3000. This may have
resulted, as Keil thinks, from confounding
j} and 2 but it is suspicious that so many of
the numbers of the Chronicles are exagge-
rations. 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 con-
flicting ” (Dict. Bib. iii, p. 1741). Josephus,
the only authority on the subject, says that
it equalled the Attic metrétés (about 83 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 (Exod. xxx.
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 Chron. iv. 6)—not, of
course, for immersing their whole persons,
but their hands and feet (Exod. xxx. 19, 21).
The priests (after Exod. iii. 5; Josh. v, 15,
&c.) ministered barefoot. Jt was, accord-
ing to Rabbinical tradition, provided with
taps or faucets (Bahr). 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 privi-
leged in 1861 to explore the great reservoir,
the Bahr el Khebir, still existing underneath
the Haram area, at a time when very few
Kuropeans had seen it (see Pal. Explor.

Fund, No. vii.; Barclay, “City of the GreatcH. vi. 1—51.]

King ;” Porter, Handbook, i. pp. 134, 138).
The water was. probably brought. from Solo-
mon’s pools at Bethlehem, though ‘a
fountain of water exists in the city and is
running unto this day, far below the sur-
face” (‘‘Our Work in Palestine,” p. 1038).
Tacitus mentions the fons perennis aquae
and the piscinae cisternaeque servandis im-
bribus.

Ver. 27.—And he made ten bases [or
stands, N\J\DiD, from j5, erectus stetit. The
description of both the bases and the lavers
which they supported (vers. 27—39) is ex-
tremely 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
sectare and four and a half feet high,

Ver. 28.—And the work of the bases was
on this manner {Heb. and this the work of

the base]: they had borders [N14D))- (from
71D, 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 bcrders, t.€., were
enclosed by ledges or frames.

Ver. 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 fre-
quently in Assyrian decoration” (. tawlinson).
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 (JD; see
ver. 31) of some sort for the laver, upon the
square basis]: and beneath the lions and
oxen were certain additions [Heb. wreaths,
festoons, mM? (cf. Prov. i. 9), corona] made
of thin work. [Heb. pensile or hanging
work, 17} from 1) descendit ; Vulgate,
dependentia, It would seem that on the
panel, beneath the figures of animals, &c.,
were sculptured hanging festoons of flowers.

Ver. 30.—And every base had four brazen
wheels [As the lavers were used for washing
“such things as they offered for burnt
offering ” (2 Chron. iv. 6), and consequently
would require to be continually emptied and
refilled, they must of necessity be move-
able, 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

THE FIRST BOOK OF- KINGS.

 

 

| his mouth.

 

    
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
   
  
  
  
   
 
   
 
  
  
  
  
 
   
 
  
   
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
 
   
  
    

138

four corners [Heb. feet ; OVS signifies step,
bs sage te here used of artificial
bs eh s e, no doubt, at the four
fee a i eae the stand above
eels, so the e Iohage, &e., 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 for
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 sup-
ported both stand and laver. Over against
this internal shoulder-blade or support was
placed externally a wreath. But Bahr de-
spairs 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. ]

Ver. 81.—And the mouth of it (Heb.
I incline, with Keil, to think
the mouth of the laver just mentioned
(1°D masc.) is referred to rather than the
stand (Thenius), which would require a fem.
suffix] within the chapiter (By this we
are, perhaps, to understand a round orna-
ment, resembling the capital of a pillar,
which stood in the centre of the dome-
shaped covering (see ver. 35) of the stand,
and on which the laver rested (so Keil,
Bihr). Rawlinson says, ‘‘ No commentator
has given a satisfactory explanation of this
passage”]: and above (Heb. upwards]
was a cubit [i.c., the neck or foot of the
laver measured uniformly one cubit, in
width apparently]: but the mouth [Heb.
and her mouth, fem. This last-mentioned
mouth is probably the mouth of the capital
(fem.) 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.134

 

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[ou. vit. 1—5l.

 

 

stand-work, Jd here fixes the meaning of the

word in ver. 29, 7.e., it decides it to be the
substantive (Keil, after Chald.), not the ad-
verb (as Thenius, Bahr, 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, ver.
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. .[z.c., the capital had panels like the
stand, and the former, like those of the
latter, were square. ]

Ver. 32.—And under the borders [i.e.,
panels| were four [Heb. the foun, i.c., those
mentioned in ver. 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
eubit. [i.e., 27 inches. ]

Ver. 33.—And the work of the wheels
was like the work of a chariot wheel [Heb.
the chariot, z.e., the ordinary chariot]: their
axletrees [Heb. hands], and their naves
[Gesenius understands rims. He derives
14, gibbus, from AAA, curvatus est], and
their felloes [or fellies, as the word is now
written. These are the parts which com-
pose the circumference of the wheel; but
Gesen. translates spokes, because they are
the joinings (PWN conjunzxit) of nave and
rim], and their spokes [DWN Gesen. would
render naves, because the spokes collect at
that part], were all molten.

Ver. 34.—And there were four under-
setters [It seems probable that this is not
a repetition of ver. 30 (Rawlinson ), but that
the reference is to the upper part (cf. ver.
30) of the shoulder pieces, which, accord-
ing 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 pro-
jected 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 ig
impossible to say.]

Ver. 35.—And in the top [Heb. head] of
the base was there a round compass
[Probably ‘‘the base above” (ver. 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” (ver. 32) or the
“ shoulders”’ of ver. 30 or ver. 34, but whag
they were it is difficult to say. They may
have been arms or projections supporting
the laver} thereof and the borders thereof
were of thesame. [Heb. from it, sc., of one
piece or casting. }

Ver. 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 propor-
tion (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.

Ver. 37.—After this manner he made the
ten bases: all of them had one casting, one
measure, and one size.

Ver. 38.—Then made he ten lavers of
brass ; one laver contained forty baths [i.e.,
about 340 gals., if we accept the account
of Josephus, Ant. viii. 2.9. But see on ver.
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 (dy) the
stands,” it can hardly refer to the height.
But it is worthy of remark that “ the height
of all the other parts has been mentioned ”
(Rawlinson). See vers. 27, 32,35, and with-
out 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 remem-
bering 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. [T'en lavers
would not be at all too many when we re-
member the prodigious number of victims
which were occasionally offered .]

Ver. 39.—And he put five bases on the
right side [Heb. shoulder] of the house,
and five on the left side of the house
[t.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 deci-CH. vit. 1—51.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

   

136

 

 

sive 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.¢.,
between the porch and altar.

Ver. 40.—And Hiram made the lavers
[So the Rec. Text. But perhaps we ought
to read 1111"D, i.e., pots, here, as in ver. 45
and 2 Chron. iv. 11. This word is joined with
shovels and basons, not only in these two
passages, but also in Exod. xxvii. 3,
2 Kings xxv. 14, Jer. lii. 18; in other
words, the appropriate term in this con-
nexion would be ‘pots,’ while “lavers,”
having been just mentioned in ver, 38, would
involve an idle repetition. Altogether,
therefore, there can be little doubt that we
should here read NYDN for NyWDN. 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 (1D, effervescere), for boil-
ing the flesh of the peace offering (1 Sam.
ii. 13, 14), and the shovels [these, again, as
the name implies (UV? from A) abstulit; see
Gesen., Thesaurus, p. 607), were used for
taking away the ashes from the altar (Exod.
xxvil. 3; Num. iv. 14), and the basons. [The
sacrificial bowls for receiving the blood of
the victims (Exod. xxxviil. 3 ; Num. iy, 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.

Ver. 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 net-
works to cover the two bowls of the
chapiters which were upon the top of the
pillars. [See on verses 16—20.]

Ver. 42.—And four hundred pome-
granates [Heb. the pomegranates, 400) for
the two networks, even two rows of pome-
granates 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 de-

scribed as ‘Yn B-OY. It is probable that
this is a clerical error, and that we should
read ‘Yn savi-by (Bihr, Keil), ‘‘ upon the two
pillars.” So LXX. ia’ apoortpoc «x.7.A. This
is amore likely emendation than wN7 by, It

is true this 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 ver. 41, while

 

it fails to account, ag the first-named
emendation does, for the p-by.

Ver. 43. And the ten bases and the ten
lavers [Heb. “ the bases, ten and the lavers,
ten”’| on the bases. [See on vers. 27—37.]

Ver. 44.And one [Heb, the one] sea and
twelve oxen [Heb. the oxen twelve} under
the sea [vers. 23—26].

Ver. 45.—And the pots [see on ver. 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 Chron. iv. 1, possibly because
it was not made by Hiram (Bihr)] 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. |

Ver. 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
“Lhe Ciceat’” Gen, axa ell. xix. 17, &c.
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 stamp-
ing (Keil) it is impossible to say. It looks
as if this site had been chosen because the
soil was suitable] between Succoth [Gen.
xxxlll. 17. It appears from Judg. viii. 5
that it lay east of the Jordan (cf. Josh. xiii.
27, where it allotted to the tribe of Gad);
‘and indeed it has been recovered, under its
later name Tayrala, at Tell Dar’ala, north-
east of the Damieh ford” (Conder, p. 229).
As Zarthan was almost certainly west of the
Jordan, and as the casting—from the na-
ture of the country—must as certainly
have been done to the west of the river, it
is somewhat surprising to find a trans-
Jordanic town mentioned as one of the
landmarks defining the site. It is possible
that there was a western Succoth—a place
named Sdakit was discovered by Robinson
and Van de velde, a few miles south of
Bethshean ; but this name is radically dif-
ferent (Conder). It is, therefore, more prob-
able 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 chap.
iv. 12.]

Ver. 47.—-And Solomon left all the ves-
sels unweighed [the interpretation of the
A. VY. 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 each186°

vessel was not weighed out” (Bahr), but
that the total weight of the metal was not,
perhaps could not, be ascertained. |

The sacred record now proceeds to enu-
merate the vessels, &c., used inside the
temple—those hitherto described having
been for external use. ‘These latter, as
became the furniture of a house which
blazed in gold, were all of gold, while the
former were of brass. It would seem to be
a fair inference, from the omission of
Hiram’s name, that he was not employed
on the manufacture of these latter vessels.

Ver. 48.—And Solomon made all the ves-
sels which pertained unto [neither word in
Heb.] the house of the Lord: the altar of
gold [the altar of incense. See on chap.
vi. 20, 22] and the table of gold [The Heb.
shows the meaning to be, He made the
table out of gold, not ‘‘ He made the golden
table,” as” Keil, 2 Chron. iy. 8 (cf. ver.
19 and 1 Chron. xxviii. 16) spéaks of ten
tables} whereupon the shewbread was.

Ver. 49.—And the candlesticks [Exod.
xxv. 31—37 ; xxxvil. 17—24. According
to Jewish tradition, the seven-branched
candlestick was preserved in the temple in
addition to the ten named here] of pure
[Heb. shut] gold, five on the right side
and five on the left, before the oracle
[‘‘ These are said to have formed a sort
of railing before the vail, and to have
been connected by golden chains under
which, on the day of atonement, the
high priest crept” (Dict. Bib. i, 249).
The idea that the ten candlesticks rested
on the ten tables mentioned in the Chro-
nicles is entirely groundless. Eleven tables
would in that case have been necessary
(Bahr). Besides we are distinctly told
that the tables were for the shewbread
(2 Chron, iv. 19), not for the candlesticks] ,
with the flowers [ornaments of the candle-
stick (Exod. xxv. 31)], and the lamps [the
seven extremities of the candlestick which
held the oil anil the wicks (ver. 37). It is
highly probable that the temple candle-
sticks were fashioned after that of the taber-
nacle], and the tongs [ib. ver. 38. Heb. two
takers] of gold.

Ver. 50.—And the bowls [same word in

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

 

 

|

fon. vir. I—bd4.

Exod. xii. 22. The ‘‘ dishes” of Exod. xxv.
29, and xxxvii. 16, with which Rawlinson
identifies them, are expressed by a different
word. He thinks they were for the oil—
which the connexion would seem to imply
—but they may have been for the blood],
and the snuffers (Heb. knives, WO!, carpsit.
The word is used of the pruning-hook in
Isa. ii. 4; cf. Levit. xxv. 3. They served
the purpose though they had not the shape
of our snuffers], and the basons [same word
as in vers. 40, 45. These latter, however,
were of brass, while those of the text were
of pure gold. According to 2 Chron. iv. 8,
they were a hundred in number. As the
root (P31) signifies to sprinkle, they were
probably either for the water or the biood
of sprinkling. Keil thinks they were for the
wine of the libations], and the spoons
(MyY5d, lit., palms (of hands), hence used
of shallow vessels (Exod. xxv. 29; Num.
vil. 84, 86. The last cited pasage (cf.
vers. 14, 20, 26) shows that they were used
for the incense (Ley. xxiv. 7, &c.), LXX.
Qviokat], and the censers [or snwuffers, ex-
tinguishers ; marg. ash-pans. In Exod. xxv.
88 the word is translated snwjf-dishes. In
Num. iv. 14, xvi. 6, it signifies censers,
which may well be the meaning here] of
pure gold; and the hinges [or sockets of
the hinges (Gesen., Keil)] of gold, both
for the doors of the inner house, the
most holy place [Heb. for the holy of
holies}, and for the doors of the house, to
wit, of the temple. [These were evidently
of inferior (not pure) metal. ]

Ver. 51.—So was ended all the work
that king Solomon made for the house
of the Lord. And Solomon brought in the
things which David his father had dedi-
cated [marg. holy things of David (2 Sam.
vir, 8) 20,21 sy DoChRent’ xk 8 Sais
xxvili. 14—18). Cf. xxvi. 26—28] ; even the
silver, and the gold, and the vessels, did
he put among the treasures of the house
of the Lord. [So that all the store of pre-
cious metal and the brass that David had
prepared was not absorbed in the decora-
tion and furniture of the temple. There
would seem to have been a considerable
overplus, which was stored in the temple
treasury. ]

HOMILETICS.

Vers. 15—22.— The Pillars of Brass.

If, as some think, the importance of any

Scripture subject is to be gauged by the space assigned to it in the sacred page, then
surely the fact that eight long verses of this chapter are occupied with the descrip-
tion of these two columns and their capitals proves, first, their importance in the
eyes of Jewish writers, and, secondly, that they must have a significance’ for the

minds of Christian readers.cH. vil. 1—51-] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 137

 

But the importance of these monuments (which is also attested (1) by. their
position—in the very forefront of the temple—the first objects that would strike the
eye of the beholder and (2) by their isolation—they were apparently unconnected
with the edifice and served a purpose of their own) is not due to what they were ae
themselves. No doubt they were regarded in that age as wonderful works of art
Probably they were the largest castings either accomplished or attempted up to thiert
date. And from the minute details of their capitals, the chequer-work, sieitueaul:
net-work, hily-work—details evidently recorded with some degree of pride and
wonderment on the part of the historian—we may reasonably infer that there “ were
not the like made in any kingdom” (ch. x. 20). But it is not because of this that
so much prominence is accorded to them in Scripture; it is because of their con-
nexion with the temple. Their glory is reflected on them from the sanctuary. They
are mentioned ‘‘ because of the house of the Lord our God,” of which they were the
handmaids and ornaments. We are led, therefore, to inquire—

I. WHAT MEANING THEY HAD FOR THE JEW?

IJ. WHAT LESSONS THEY HAVE FOR OURSELVES ?

I. But in order to arrive at their meaning, we must first consider their purpose.
We have seen that they were not structural, but monumental (note on ver. 21); in
fact they served instead of an inscription upon the building. The Western world,
with its love of the concrete, often stampsits great edifices with appropriate legends.
But the children of the Easthave ever preferred the mystical teaching of symbolism.
For them there has always been a charm in “the view of things half seen.” And
so the Jewish temple bore no letters on its front, but its representative pillars stood
forth, embodiments in themselves of the ideas of the building, and silently pro-
claimed its object and character. And this is the teaching they had for the wise—

1. That the temple was strong and firm and lasting. Their very materials
proclaimed this. They were not of perishing wood or stone, but of enduring bronze.
Then, they were of unusual girth in proportion to their height, for whereas the
shaft was 12 cubits in circumference, it was but 18 cubits high (Jer. lu. 21). The
first impression they gave, consequently, would be that of strength, of fixity, and
so they spoke, by their very character as well as by their names, of the stability of
the house. It was no longer a tent (cf. Isa. xxxviii. 12), it was a house of cedar
(2 Sam. vil. 2), it was a krijpia é¢ det. The two columns, that is to say, served mstead
of these two inscriptions, “I have surely built thee a howse to dwell in, a settled
place for thee to abide in for ever” (ch. vil. 18), and ‘‘ This ws my rest for ever,
here will I dwell, for I have desired it” (Psa. cxxxil. 14).

2. That its strength and stability were in God. Of course this is an idea
which symbolism could only express imperfectly. And yet it may be (as some
have thought) that the brazen pillars would recall to some minds the pillar of cloud,
the token of God’s presence. And if we may see in the steeple a “silent finger
pointing to the sky,” then surely these erect columns may have carried men’s
thoughts upwards to the throne of God. But if not, the names, Jachin, Boaz, at
any rate, witnessed for Him and proclaimed Him to all as the hope and stay of the
new sanctuary. It was, therefore, as if in the place of pillars these superscriptions
also had been conspicuous on the temple: for Jachin—* Godis in the midst of
her; she shall not be removed ;” and for Boaz—* Hacept the Lord build the house,
they labour in vain that build it” (Psa. exxvii. 1. Note. This psalm is ascribed to
Solomon. And these words were inscribed on the late Eddystone lighthouse).

3 That it was the shrine of a holy God. The two columns, standing as

sentinels over the house, confronted all who came into its courts with the idea of

consecration. We have seen that column and chapiter together bore a rough
resemblance to a lily—the column the stalk, the chapiter the flower. Now the lily 18
the emblem of purity (see on ch. vu. 19). The “ lily-work in the porch Dae
the house as belonging to the All-Holy One of Israel. The columns, there a =
their esoteric symbolic language, spoke to the same effect as if these words Bs oe
blazoned on the temple’s front (as on the high priest’s mitre) : Holiness ie : ve
Lord” (Exod. xxviii. 86; xxx1x. 30), or these, “I the Lord your God anv hovy

(Levit. xix. 2; xxi. 8).138 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cH. vit. 1-—51.

 

4. That it was for the worship of a holy people. The chapiters were
fashioned after a lily-cup. The columns, 7.e., blossomed into purity under the
shelter of the sanctuary, and so proclaimed that holiness was to be the product of
the temple services and ritual. They served accordingly as memoranda both to
priests and worshippers. Itis said that on the front of the second temple words
were inscribed, viz., these: ‘‘ Know before whom thou art going to stand.” In
this first temple the two columns spoke to the same purport. To the priests they
cried, ‘‘ Be ye clean that bear the vessels of the Lord’ (Isa. lu. 11); to the people
they spoke, like the “fringe with the ribband of blue,” “Be ye holy unto your
God” (Num. xv. 88, 40).

5. That it was for a people zealous of good works. On the columns were
400 pomegranates. Pomegranates are said to be emblems of frurtfulness. If SO,
they taught the Hebrew worshipper this last lesson—they served instead of this
inscription, ‘“‘ Thow shalt not delay to ‘offer the first of thy ripe fruits (Exod. MX
29); or this, ‘‘He looked that his vineyard should bring forth grapes” (Isa. v. 2).

II. But what lessons have Jachin and Boaz for ourselves? Do they not speak to
us (1) of the Church, the “ pillar and ground of the truth 4 (1 Tim. iil. 15): (2): of
the Christian, who shall be ‘‘a pillar in the temple of God ?”’ (Rev. ui. 12.)

1. Of the Church. The lessons these brazen columns had for the Hebrew
people, the same they have for ourselves, with this difference, that they also speak
to us by their fal. They image forth the stability of the Church—that the gates
of hell shall not prevail againstit; that its strength 1s in God—its weapons are not
carnal, but spiritual (2 Cor. x. 4; Matt. xxvi. 20; John xv. 4); that its object is
holiness (Ephes. v. 27; 1. 4; Titus ii. 12) and fruitfulness (John xv. 8; 2 Cor. ix.
10; Phil.i.11). But they have an additional lesson for us, derived from their de-
struction. For why were these splendid works of art removed out of their place, broken
up, and carried to Babylon ? (Jer. li. 17, 21.) It was because their lessons were un-
heeded, because the people were not pure and holy (Jer. xxi. 8, 9 5 v.31; Acts vi.
43). And so we learn—not that the Catholic Church will “ likewise perish :” that
can never be (Matt. xvi. 18); of that it might be said, with a propriety of which the
Latin poet was all unconscious, ‘‘ Exegi monumentum aere perennius”—the
columns lasted 423 years, the Church 1800 already—but that particular churches,
if unfaithful, shall have their candlesticks removed out of their places (Rev. ii. 5).
‘“* If God spared not the natural branches,” &c. (Rom. xi. 21).

2. Of the Christian. He may learn hence—(1) To be rooted and grounded in
faith and love (Eph. iii. 17; Col. i. 28). (2) Not to be carried about by every wind
of doctrine (Eph. iv. 14; James i. 6; note on ver. 20). (8) That “God is our
refuge and strength”’ (Phil. iv. 18; Col. i. 11; 1 Peter v.10). (4) That we are to
“wear the white lily of a blameless life” (cf. 2 Peter iii. 14). (5) And to “ bring
forth much fruit,’ and (6) that if we overcome, we shall be pillars in the heavenly
temple, not to be broken, or cast into the fire, or to share in the destruction of
Babylon (Rev. xviii. 2), but to ‘ go out no more for ever” (Rev. iii. 12).

Vers. 23, 24.— The Molten Sea and the Brazen Lavers. If the two pillars teach
the lesson of purity, of personal holiness, how much more the sea and bases! For
observe—

1. Sea and bases had the same end in view, viz., purification. The first was
for the cleansing of the priests. The second for the cleansing of the sacrifices
offered by the priests.

2. ‘The extraordinary provision of water for the service of the temple. Under-
neath the temple area was a great reservoir (it is said to be some fifty feet deep),
no doubt the same which exists at the present day, near the Mosque el Aksa (note on
ver. 26). This was connected by an aqueduct (which ean still be traced) with Solo-
mon’s Pools at Etham, near Bethlehem. Whether these great works were purely
for the use of the temple, or whether the city also shared in their benefits, may be
doubtful, but that the temple occupied the first place in the scheme is beyond all
question. From this subterranean sea—whether by pipes or by the labours of the
Nethinim, we cannot be certain—both molten sea and brazen lavers were filled.CH. vil. 1—51.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 139

 

 

 

 

But here a distinction must be made. The priests were commanded to wash
under pain of death (Exod. xxx. 19 Sqq-; xxix. 4; xl. 30—82), but there was no
such command with respect to the victims. No; the sacrifices would seem to have
been washed because the Jewish mind instinctively felt that this was richt and
fitting. And that it was right and fitting is proved by the fact that the service was
accepted, and here enjoys the Divine sanction. We should hardly have had twelve
verses of Scripture devoted to the description of the lavers and their bases. had not

God Himself approved of the washing of ‘the work of the burnt offering” (2 Chron.
iv. 6, Heb.) r

Hence we may learn—

I. That Christian priests must be washed.

II. That Christian sacrifices should be cleansed.

I. CHRISTIAN PRIESTS MUST BE WASHED. Here two questions arise. (1) Who are
Christian PRIESTS? (2) What is this wasHING ?

_1. By Christian priests we may understand here all Christians. For all Chris-
tans are priests, precisely as all Jews were priests (cf. 1 Peter ii. 5, 9, with Exod.
xix. 6). Of course, there is a priesthood among Christians, just as there was a priest-
hood among the Jews (see page 113). It is often said, and said truly, that the word
lepevc, sacerdos, is nowhere applied to the ministers of the New Testament; but the
answer 1s that it cowld not have been so applied, so long as the Levitical priesthood
existed, without risk of confusion. It is also true that the functions of the Christian
presbyterate are very, very different from those of the Jewish priesthood; but all
the same, if Christianity is filling up, and not the reversal or the negation of
Judaism (Col. ii. 17; Matt. v. 17), then, assuredly, it must not only have its altar,
(Heb. xii. 10), but its priesthood. But let us understand the word here of the body
of believers: for clearly, if we can prove that all Christians must be washed, how
much more those who minister in holy things, and bear the vessels of the Lord?
(Isa. Ini; 11.)

2. By Christian washing we may understand, primarily, THe washing (kaz’
éEoxijv) of the New Testament, ‘the washing of regeneration” (Titus iii. 5; cf.
(1 Cor vi. 11; Eph. v. 26; Heb. x. 22; cf. vi. 2). For to all Christians is the com-
mand addressed, ‘‘ Arise, and be baptized,and wash away thy sins ” (Acts xxii. 16;
ef. ch. 11. 88). Of all may our holy Lord be heard to say, “If I wash thee not,
thou hast no part with me” (John xiii. 8; cf. iii. 5; Mark xvi. 16).

But is this all? Are we only to find here a lesson as to Christian baptism ?
Certainly not. For observe, (1) by baptism, the initial rite of our religion, men are
made priests (Rev. 1. 5, 6). (2) The washing of the priests was a washing of the
hands and the feet (Exod. xxx. 19); and (8) it was to be repeated as often as they
“went into the tabernacle of the congregation or” came near unto the altar (ver. 20;
ch. xl. 82). Clearly, then, the ‘‘one baptism” of Christianity cannot respond to
this exclusively. No; that rather corresponds to the washing of the whole person
(Levit. xvi. 4, 24), which the Rabbins say was performed in the molten sea, or 1n its
basin; but which may possibly have been performed in private. _That there was
such complete ablution on the part of the priests needs no proof; 1t 1s presuppose
in the directions about the hands and feet. It would have been mockery to wash
the extremities of the body, while the body itself remain unclean. but the prion
who went to the temple pure might, perhaps, contract some pellement on the Wags
the exposed parts, the hands and the feet, might be stained and apibecome ae a
the service of the All-Holy. It was for this the molten sea was provided, anc Ag
helps to illustrate our Lord’s words, ‘* He that is washed needeth nob save i
his feet” (John xiii. 10). Even so we, though, as St. Paulsays, we ‘were Wee u

; , ~) 66] aver of regeneration,” have sullied our baptismal robes
(azedotvoaobe, aor.) ‘in the laver ot! regenera p oe iii, 2), and need day by
in our passage through and contact with the world ( at a )s a hee
day. cleansing and forgiveness (Matt. v1. 12). The text teac WER a " a8 Fock

fit for the service of the Most Pure until we have washed our hands ani nigh GED 2
Oe : soils and stains of this wicked world. Not only
until, i.e., we are purged from the soils and ste ii0 pe ae nee
must ‘our bodies be washed with pure BaD sie near with acceptance to
‘sprinkled from an evil conscience,’’ before we ca140 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. fou. vir. 1—51.

 

God‘(Heb. x. 22). ‘I cannot pray, but I sin; I cannot hear, or preach a sermon,
but I sin; I cannot give an almsor receive the sacrament, but I'sin; nay, I cannot
so much as confess my sins, but my very confessions are still aggravations of them ;
my repentance needs to be repented of, my tears want washing, and the very wash-
ing of my tears needs still to be washed over again in the blood of my Redeemer
. Beveridge). ;

blog pee us now ask, is the “‘sea,”? what the “aver,” for the washing
away of these daily sins-and defilements ? It is a fountain of blood (‘* Not by water
only, but by water and blood,” I John v. 6); it 1s the other sacrament of our
religion, the ‘blood of the new covenant shed for many for the remission of sins

(Matt. xxvi. 28). ‘The one baptism forthe remission of sins” (Nicene Creed) can-
not apply to the sins of later life. or this, other provision 1s needed, and in the
mercy of God other provision 1s: made in the sacrament of love and the munistry
of reconciliation. (Cf. also Matt. xvi. 19; xvii. 18; John xx. 23; Matt. xxviii. 20.)

But here one word of caution may possibly be needful. It must not be supposed
for a moment that there is any other source or ground of cleansing and forgive-
ness than the free, unmerited mercy of God in Christ; that there is any hope for
the sinner except in the ‘‘full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfac-
tion’’ oace made by the one Saviour “for the sins of the whole world;” or that
any rites or ordinances can have any virtue or efficacy apart from His meritorious
death and His now victorious life. The sacraments are not, cannot be, the
sources or the grounds of forgiveness, nor do they work like a charm—ew opere
operato. But in the all-wise appointment of God, they are the means of grace, the
channels through which His infinite mercy ordinarily flows (gratia non ligatur
mediis) to the penitent and believing soul.

Nor must it be supposed that the generous provision made by God for the
cleansing of all sin obviates the need for striving: against sin (Heb. xii. 4). We are
to “cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of flesh and spirit” (2 Cor. vii. 1). We
are to “purify ourselves, even as He is pure” (1 John 11. 8). The priests of the
Holy God must ‘‘live a clean life” (Wyclif).

IJ. CHRISTIAN SACRIFICES SHOULD BE CLEANSED. Here again two questions
arise. (1) What are Christian sacrifices? (2) How can they be cleansed ?

1. Christian sacrifices. Those which all Christian men are ordained to offer
(1 Peter ii. 8) are these—(1) The living sacrifice of body and soul (Rom. xii. 1:
(2) The sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving (Heb. xiii. 15). (3) The sacrifice of
alms and oblations (Heb. xiii. 16; Phil. iv. 18).

2. The Cleansing of these sacrifices is that which takes place in a “pure heart
and good conscience.” It is a matter of motive, of intention. The quality of the
sacrifice depends on the spirit of the sacrificer. It is a sacrifice, howsoever offered
—there is such a thing as “the sacrifice of fools” (Eccles. v. 1)—but it may be, and
often is, a maimed, or unclean, or unworthy saeritice. If our praise, for example,
be prompted by the love of music rather than the love of God; if our alms be
offered for the praise of men (Matt. vi. 1) and not ‘for His name’s sake,”’ then the
sacrifice is unclean. The Christian priest, conseqrently, should ‘ interrogate his
heart’ —“ Interroge viscera tua”’ (Augustine)—betore he enters on Divine service.
It has been well said that we ought to wash our prayers and praises in our hearts
before we put them into our lips. The customary “ prayer before service’’ and
the self-examination before communion (1 Cor. xi. 28), if made more real, would
ensure the cleansing of the <aciifice. (Compare James i. 27.)

Ver. 46.—The Clay Ground in the cirewit of the Jordan. These things are an
allegory. These words suggest some thoughts as to the soil in which the King of
Heaven moulds the vessels for His service (2"Tim. ii. 20, 21; Acts ix.15; Rom. ix.
21, 23). ‘They, too, are prepared in the plain: they are cast in the clay ground.

Observe (1) that both pillars and vessels, v.e., Jachin and Boaz, as well as “ the
pots and the shovels and the Lasins,” were cast in this same clay ground. In the
two pillars we may fitly see for our present purpose emblems of those two ‘pillars
and basements of the truth” (1 Tim. iii. 15), the Jewish and Christian churches;CH. vi—6
H. vit. 1—51.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 14]

 

 

 

in the vessels, emblems of those ‘“ vessel t dic
churches,” Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs ce honour, the ‘messengers of the
caalls Paaiiihed. the eet Nie Bun a se ee Cor. Vili. 23 ; Acts ix. Dye Me
wa Ree pave san sh net eee ae ae 1a8 prepared them all in the pla in ; that

s to the plain, the figure j Wadia
expound it. ee Ms amc cab ee a a few words will suffice to
the Jewish people, down to the penseait Eee eene Palestine, the first fathers of
: ra 4 asants ani fishermen of Galilee; ave. a rs
poor monk, Luther, and the poor servitor Wl “+f, al init Ce, aye, and to the
same lesson—that not many wise men sis 5 ae 4 eect constantly teaches the
vessels chosen of Heaven to do God’s Door habe ite ars (1 Vor. 1. 26) are the
issue forth from ‘“kine’s nena (Matt oa s ye Ros The apostles did not
heaven”’ leaves the mountains and dominate Q pee ag He gentle rain from
God ever condescend to men of low degre . N ae so ‘does the grace of
(1 Cor. lis 8), not its rich men (James ii Gy. a - on the princes of this world”
chosen (ib. ver.5). ‘Have anyae ise cele te Phan . a ne ae
eb al. 84g) ee oe aii °r8 Or OF the Fharisees be 1eved on him?”’
( ee ee yi ee 6 common people ”—the despised amhaaretz—
gladly’ (Mark xii. 37). The early adversaries of Christianity us

sneer at the humble origin and occupations of its: ch; + suanity used: to
would Be id in) dontticechaxee ammpions, and the apologists

Now as to the “‘ cla ound,” eoaeitTin ti abit . .
the margin as i (. ero ie "> weriatiies cath See
difference, for the latter rendering would cepa chat a eee ae ek e
Na the ee of casting, by stamping or shdaline eSB foe a
ions is the true one; whether, i.e., the soil was natt Paice aan eae
overflow of the Fardan (Josh. iii. cba ba ark ee ize
much of the Jordan valley into a swamp (Oo chee, ee: 226-219) —-or airmen:
artificially prepared for castings, it is perhaps impossible to say. Nor arilege
wish to decide, since for our purpose both meanings are true. ‘Whatever Hiram
did, God easts His vessels, some in the clay, 2.¢., 1n the most unpromising soil sity
or most ungenial surroundings; some “in the thickness of the eround,”” ime a
er os : ee cps oe ae ase ae of | one persecutor ; and some in both.

He see , s UHURCHES—Wwe regard them as two for our present
purpose, though strictly the Christian écrcAjoia is but the development of the Jewish
(see p- 112) —and (2) THEIR MESSENGERS have both been prepared in the clay ground.
But first, let us carry our thoughts to that foundry in the Jordan valley. We now
assume that it was a bed of clay in which the eastings were made. If s0, it is
probable this tract of land had hitherto laid waste. ‘Che ox had not drawn the
plough through it; it had yielded neither seed to the sower, nor bread to the eater ;
the farmer had not planted it with olive or vine. Andinaland so small—Palestine
is about the same size as Wales—and so densely populated as the Holy Land; in a
country where every available yard was cultivated, and where even the steep hill
sides were laid out in terraces to increase the acreage; in a land, too, of great
fertility (Deut. viii. 7-9)—for the whole realm was remarkably prolific, and ‘the
plain of the Jordan”’ was the garden of the whole (Gen. xii. 10)—this barren tract
could not fail to be noticed. It had long been an eyesore, we may well believe, to
the fellahin who tilled the neighbouring fields. The traveller who passed it on his
way to the fords of the Jordan (Judg. viii. 5; xii. 6; Gen. xxxiii. 17) pronounced it
unprofitable, and altogether 1t was “nigh unto cursing’? (Heb. vi. 8).

And-so it lay, century after century, a marsh, or piece of scrub, a blot on the
landscape. Men thought it was irreclaimable. But now the temple is being built,
the vessels of brass have to be cast, and through the length and breadth of Palestine
they find no spot so suited to the purpose as the ‘clay ground between Succoth
and Zarthan.” Here shall the foundry be. And so from this despised and desolate
tract the burnished brass went forth to adorn the-temple of the Lord. Even so—

1. The Jewish Church was moulded in the clay. Where was it constituted ?
In the desert of Sinai, in the “ great and terrible wilderness.’ In the Red Sea was
its baptism (1 Cor. x. 2); at Horeb (lit., dry ground) 1 entered into the covenant.
From the ‘backside of the desert,” from the plain of Ruhah, where “ desolation149 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [ou. vir. 1—51

keeps unbroken sabbath; ”’ from a “frozen tempest of black, weather-worn, rugged
mountain peaks,” the Hebrew Church went forth to witness for God. Nowhere,
perhaps, under the whole heaven is there a more arid and rugged and desolate and
uninhabitable land. Yet God chose it to be the school and training-ground of His
shurch. :

: 0, The Christian Church was cast in the clay. Not in Greece, amid the schools
of philosophy, not in Rome, among senates, and armies, and subject kings, but
in Palestine, a despised corner of the empire, among Jews, who were hated of
allmen. And in what part of Palestine ? Not in Jerusalem, among the scribes
and doctors, but in the provinces, in “Galilee of the Goim. The question was
often asked, Can any good thing come out of Nazareth ? (John i. 46.) The answer
was often given, ‘ Out of Galilee ariseth no prophet” (John vii. 52). Surely this
was clay ground. Yet there it pleased God to found the Holy Catholic Church.
And this, which is true of the Church, is equally true of its vessels. Hor :

8. The lawgivers and prophets of the Jewish Church were shaped an the clay.
Moses, it is true, was bred in the court, but he was not prepared there for his work.
No, it was necessary for him to leave the court in order to become a ‘‘ vessel meet
for the Master’s use.” It was in this same desert of Sinai, amid the Bedouin,
while keeping an Arab’s flock, and leading a nomadic life, after forty years of soli-
tude, that God appeared unto him. The lawgiver himself came from the clay.
So did Elijah, the restorer of the law. He was a Gileadite. It was a wild, un-
settled, semi-civilized, trans-Jordanic region gave to the world the greatest of the
prophets. And he too must go into the desert, and must be trained for his work
at Horeb—the “dry ground” (1 Kings xix. 8). And the same remark applies to
nearly all the prophets, judges, &c. Occasionally we have a Jeremiah, the son of
a high priest (Jer. i. 1), or a Daniel of the royal seed (Dan. i. 3), but more fre-
quently a herdman, a gatherer of sycamore fruit (Amos vil. 14; 1 Kings xix. 19),
or a captive by the river Chebar (Ezek. i. 8), rises up to speak for God.

4. The apostles and preachers of Christianity were fashioned and prepared in
clay ground. (1) The founder of Christianity was well called a “root out of a dry
ground” (Isa. li. 2). ‘Is not this the carpenter’s son?” (Matt. xiii. 55). “Jesus
of Nazareth, the son of Joseph” (John i. 45). ‘How knoweth this man letters,
having never learned?” (ib. vii. 15.) (2) The apostles, too, came from the fisher-
man’s boat at Bethsaida (John i. 44), and from the receipt of custom (Matt. ix. 9) in
Capernaum. Only one out of the entire college had studied in the schools (Acts
xxl. 3). They were justly described as ‘“Ggnorant and unlearned men” (26. iv. 18).
(3) And the same may be said of nearly all the early Christians and confessors.
It was a most unpromising and unlikely soil in which the Church first took root.
‘‘ Publicans and sinners.”” M. Renan has given a graphic description of the early
Christians of Rome—a “longshore population,” sleeping on the straw, “clad in
malodorous stable slops,”’ “smelling of garlic,” ‘with fetid breath like that of
ill-fed people,” &e. It is not improbable that the bulk of the early Christians were
men of this sort, tentmakers like Aquila, slaves like Onesimus, gaolers ike him of
Philippi, soldiers like those of Cexsar’s household. And eighteen centuries have
only served to establish more firmly the truth that “not many mighty,” &. It is
curious and suggestive that go many of the saints of the Roman calendar are said to
have been of noble birth. It is easy thus to glorify dead saints, but if, with
Chateaubriand, we ask to see liv img ones, we frequently find them in the homes of
the poor, and almost invariably amid cares, worries, temptations, hindrances, per-
secutions of every kind. The saints are still fashioned in the clay.

IT. But let us now assume that this foundry of the Jordan valley was not a bed
of natural clay, but that the soil had been prepared by stamping. We shall find
that both (1) the Churches and (2) the messengers of the Churches have been pre-
pared “in the thickness of the ground,” under the heel of persecution and oppres-
sion. And first of the Churches.

1. The Jewish Church came out of the house of bondage. “ Out of the iron
furnace” (Deut. iv. 20; 1 Kings viii. 51: ef. Exod. v-) ‘Dealt subtilly with our
Kindred, and evil entreated our fathers” (Acts vii. 19). It was among the brick-CH. vit. 1—51.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 148

 

 

 

fields—the thick Nile mud—of Egypt, and their hardshi
oo disciplined and prepared His people.

2. The Christian Church has come out of great tribulation.

tae oe ee BAe Sey written in blood, a history of ‘* stripes”

Xv: é or. vl. »), beatings (Acts v. 40), stonings (ib. vii. 59: xiv. 19) the
sword (7b. xu. 2), ‘great persecution” (tb. viii. 1), and the like. Nero Decius
Aurelian, Diocletian—what tragedies are connected with these names! Yet “the
blood of the martyrs has been the seed of the Church,” and in the reign of Con-
stantine the empire awoke to find itself Christian. Persecution only evolved
progress (Phil. i. 12, 13). And what is true of the pillars is also true of the vessels.
Bia: oe De

3. The heroes of the Jewish Church passed through fire and sword. Moses
must flee his country, must learn obedience by the things which he suffered.
Elijah—they sought his life (1 Kings xix.10). Jezebel soucht to slay the prophets
of the Lord. Daniel is cast into the lions’ den ; the Hebrew children into the fire:
Jeremiah into the mire and clay (Jer. xxxviii. 6). Isaiah is sawn asunder (Heb.
x1. 87). Zechariah is slain between the temple and the altar, &e. See Heb. xi.
34—38. What evidences of stamping are here! Surely the ground bears the
marks of a struggle!

4. The saints of the new dispensation have been made perfect through sufferiny.
For St. Paul, see 2 Cor. xi. 23—83, and remember that this list only extends, at the
latest, to A.D. 58. That ‘chosen vessel” was first showed “ what creat thines he
must suffer” (Acts ix. 16). For the early Christians see Rev. ii. 10. 13; vi. 10; vii. 14,
&e.; 1 Cor. iv. 18; 2 Cor. vi. 5—10. Polycarp, Augustine, Cyprian, Chrysostom—
the time would fail me to tell of those bright vessels of grace, some in the dark
ages, some in our own time, who were prepared for the ministry and the inherit-
ance of the saints in ‘‘ the thickness of the ground,” and who, “ after they had suf-
fered awhile,” were made perfect.

ps and oppressions, that

Its history begins

HOMILIES BY VARIOUS AUTHORS.

Ver. 21.—Jachin and Boaz. No features in Solomon’s temple have. given
rise to so much controversy as these two famous pillars; the beauty of which
Jewish writers are never tired of recounting. They were marvels of the glyptic
skill for which the Phceenician workmen were distinguished. Homer speaks of
such metallic work. In Il. xxii, 741—744, he thus describes the prize assigned
by Achilles for the foot-race at the funeral of Patroclus—

6‘ A bowl of solid silver, deftly wrought,
That held six measures, and in beauty far
Surpassed whatever else the world could boast $
Since men of Sidon, skilled in glyptic art,
Had made it, and Phawnician mariners
Had brought it with them over the dark sea.”

(See also his description of Menelaus’ gift to Telemachus, Od. iv. 614—618.)
Hiram, the Pheenician artificer, lent by the king of Tyre to Solomon, was specially
skilled in such work (2 Chron. u. 14). ‘In the plain of Jordan, in the clay
ground between Succoth and Zarthan,” he cast these two great bronze pillars,
each 173 cubits high, with capitals five cubits high, adorned with pomegranates,
and ‘nets of checker-work, and wreaths of chain-work.” They were placed on the
right and left of the porch of the temple, and probably were not obelisks, but mate
necessary as “pillars” to support the roof, which was thirty feet in width. That
a ; ; 1 fs Sloe Clie
these were symbolic is evident from their names, which may be rendered, Sta-
bility” and “Strength.” The reference 1s not so much to the material pullin ne
to the kingdom of God in Israel, which was embodied in the pee 1ey
pointed then, and now, to the beauty and strength of the dwelling of God.
I. THE FASHIONING OF THE PILLARS. Made of bronze cast in the earth. None144 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu. vit. 1—51.

 

 

 

 

but the initiated would expect such an issue from such a process. Picture the
anxiety of those in charge when the mould was constructed, when the metal was
molten, ke. Apply to the anxiety and care of those rearing the spiritual temple.
1. They were the product of human skill. This skal was devoutly recognized as the
sift of God. Compare ver. 14 with the description of Bezaleel s artistic ‘‘ gifts.” If
wisdom of that kind is from God, how much more is the highest wisdom needed
for the unbuilding of the true temple (1 Cor. ili. 12—17). ‘Turn to the promises of
the Holy Spirit to the apostles, and of wisdom to all-who seek. _ Refer to times of
; n which only this heavenly help could avail the teachers and °
rulers of the Church. Observe such expressions as that in which Paul speaks of
himself as ‘a wise master builder.” Indicate special gifts stall required by those
who succeed to this work. ‘If any. man. lack wisdom let him, ask of God,” &e.
2. They were the result of marvellous diligence. Years and generations of effort
had made these artificers what they were, and now daily they appled themselves
to their toil, nor was it without reward. Nothing great can be attamed in this
world without work. God has not made things pleasant by ordaining that the way
to them should be easy, but He has made them precious by ordaining that the way
should be hard. The hardships endured by miners, pearl divers, agricultural
labourers. &c. The strenuous toil of the student, the man of business, the explorer,
the scientist, &e. No wonder that in the highest sphere diligence is essential. It
is required for the upbuilding of our Christian character; ¢.g., “ Give diligence to
to make your calling... sure,” &c. ‘Work out your own salvation,” .&c.,
‘Not as though I had already attained,” &c. Similar diligence is required by the
Church for the evangelization of the world. Contrast the diligence shown in other
pursuits with the indolence in this. 8. They were the product of combined effort.
The wealth of Solomon was added to the skill of Hiram. Observe the diversity of
workmen essential for the designing, moulding, fashioning, uprearing of these
pillars. Hach did his own work, did it heartily, completely. All was not equally
honourable, easy, remunerative; yet none neglected his share of the toil. Speak
of the millions now constructing God’s spiritual temple; how the various races of
men, how the differing sects of Christians, how the pecular tastes and gifts of
individuals, are rearing “the house not made with hands,” ‘‘ the habitation of God,
through the Spirit.”

II. THE SYMBOLISM OF THE PILLARS. 1. Stability (Jachin). In. this. the
temple was a contrast to the tabernacle. Yet even the temple and all that was
material of the old worship passed away to make room for the spiritual realities
which abide eternally. In Hebrews (xu. 27) we read of ‘‘the removing of those

difficulty and anxiety 1

(
things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot
be shaken may remain.” Show how, amidst the fall of empires, the Church has
lived, in spite of all that evil powers could do (Matt. xvi. 18). Speak of the safety,
for time and eternity, of those who are in Christ (John x. 28), &e. 2. Strength.
The Church needs more than endurance, it wants vigour. Resistance must be
supplemented by aggression. Far more than the Jewish Church the Christian
Church is to be characterized by this. The apostles were not merely to hold their
own, but to go ‘‘ into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.”” Only
the active Church, only the active Christian, has a robust and wholesome life. - Let
‘Boaz’ stand beside‘ Jachin.” 8. Beauty. The lihes and pomegranates adorning
the pillars not only showed that there should be beauty in the worship. of God, and
that the noblest art should be consecrated to Him, but symbolized the truth de-
clared in Psa. xcvi. 6, ‘Strength and beauty are in His sanctuary.” Strength needs
beauty to adorn it. Beauty needs strength to support it. Illustration: the ivy
clustering round the oak. Let the courageous man be gentle; the stalwart man
tender ; the sweet girl morally strong, &c. If we would have it so, we shall find
those graces in the holy place of God, the sacred place of prayer, whether. public
or secret, for strength and beauty are in His sanctuary. Emblems of stability and
strength, yet exquisite in their beauty, let Jachin and Boaz, in the porch of the
temple, remind us of what God would see in the Christian Church, and in eyery
Christian character.—A. R.CH. VIII. 1—66.]

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS,

145

EXPOSITION.

CHAPTER VIII. 1—66,

THE DEDICATION OF THE TEMPLE. — The
stately and impressive service with which
the Temple, the character and contents of
which lave now been described, was dedi-
cated, is related in this chapter, and divides
itself into four sections. We have (1) the
removal of the ark and Solomon’s ascrip-
tion of praise on the occasion (vers. 1—22).
(2) The prayer of consecration (vers. 2: fd).
(3) The benediction of the congregation
(vers. 55—61), and (4) the festal sacrifices
which followed on and completed the dedi-
eation (vers. 62—66). The inaugural rites,
it is clear, were on a scale corresponding
with the magnitude and renown of the
undertaking (1 Chron. xxii, 5).

 

Secrion I1.—The Removal of the Ark.

Ver. 1.--Then [i.e., when the work of the
house of the Lord was practically ended,
as stated 1in.ch. vil. 51. But the precise
date of the dedication isa 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
(ch, vi. 38) the house was finished (Kwald) ?
Was the dedication, that 1s to say, one
month anterior to the completion of the
house and its appointments? Or are we to
undersiauvd ‘‘ the seventh month” to mean
the Hthanim of the following year (Bahr) ?
are we to assign the dedication, that is, to
a date eleven months after cowpletion?
Or, finally, are we to believe with the Vat,
LXX. pera fiwoot try (the LXX. text is
here, however, in great confusion), that the
temple was not dedicated until the palaces
were also built (see ch. ix. 1—9); are we to
hold, i.c., that though finished and ready
for use, it remained unused for a period of
thirteen years (T'henius, 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 Bihr says that this opinion “needs no
refutation,” while Keil pronouncesit ‘directly
at variance with chap. vii. 51,” But if is
worth while to inquire whether this is so?
And, first, as to the bearing of the passage
inst cited, ‘*So was ended all the work
which,” &¢c., taken in connexion with ch.

1 KINGS.

 

vil. 1, ‘Then Solomon assembled,” &. To
the cursory reader it appears no doubt as if
this ‘‘then” must refer to the completion
of the work of which we have just heard,
and which was not effected until the eichth
month of the year (ch. vi. 38). But (1) NS
though probably a mark of time (=tunc),
is clearly a word of great latitude of mean-
ing, and may apply as well to one month
before completion (the time specified in ch.
vil. 51) as to eleven months after ; and (2)
it would be quite consistent with the wsus
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 appoint.
ments, in the eighth month, aswe learn from
ch. vi. 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 un-
reasonable presumption, that it hardly would
be perfect and complete on the day of dedi-
cation. 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 improve-
ments 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 1°24 232

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 Chron, xxviil., Xx1x.) ;
the dedication consequently had long been
eagerly looked for; moreover, the erection
had evidently been hurried forward, a pro-
digious 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
Lees

146

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

(cu. vir. 1—66.

 

 

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 con-
secration 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 ”’
(sce below on ch. ix. 1). And the same con-
siderations apply, though perhaps with
diminished force, to their waiting one year.
For if it be said that the delay was occa-
sioned by the desire to connect the dedica-
tion with the feast of tabernacles, which was
par excellence the feast of the year (4M)
the answer is that it is more likely that the
work would be hurried on by the employ-
ment of additional hands, if need be, or that
the edifice would be consecrated, thongh 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 fur-
niture 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. Itis worthy of notice that Josephus
distinctly states that the dedication was in
the seventh month of the eighth year (Ant.

vill. 4. 1)] Solomon assembled (mp. 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 Dan. iii. 2)
ean hardly be said to have been suggested
to Solomon by the precedent afforded by
David (Keil), when bringing up the ark
(2 Sam. vi. 1), for it was only natural that
he should summon the representatives of
the people to witness an event of such pro-
found importance in the national history,
as the dedication, after years of waiting
(2 Sam. vii. 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-
sult about the erection (1 Chron. xxviii. 1),
and had offered willingly of their treasures
(ib. xxix, 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 Sam. vi, 1), and
the statelier, more aristocratic system of his
son, who merely summons the chief men ;’’
for Solomon’s ‘“ elders,” &c. (Deut. xvi. 18;
1 Sam. xvi. 4; xxx. 26—31), may well have
equalled David's “chosen men”’ in number.
It is quite likely that there was more for-
mality and stateliness in this latter ease,
but it was practically the same class of
persons, i.¢., the leading men by birth,
talents, or prowess, that were present on both
occasions. In fact, it was the Jewish Chureh
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 (ver. 9). The
temple being really, or principally, a re-
ceptacle for the ark, the removal of this
venerated relic to its place in the oracle is
narrated first, as being of the first import-
ance] out of the city of David, which is
Zion. [Cf. 2 Sam. vi. 12, 17.]

Ver. 2.—And all the men of Israel [not
all the heads of the tribes just mentioned
(ver. 1), as Keil, but all who came to the feast,
as every male Israelite was under obligation
to do (Deut. xvi. 16)] assembled themselves
unto King Solomon at the feast [the Heb.
word AMr (with the art.) always means the
feast of tabernacles. The same word is used
of the feast of passover (ixod. xxiii. 15)
and pentecost (ib. ver. 16), but ‘the feast”
here can only mean that of tabernacles. As
the ‘‘feast of ingathering”” (Exod. xxiii. 16),
as commemorating the deliverance from
Egypt (Levit. xxiii. 43), and as peculiarly a
social festival (ib. vers. 40—42; Num. xxix.
12 sqq.), it was the most joyous as well as
the greatest (0977) aytwrTaTn Kai peyton.
Jos., Ant. viii. 4. 1) gathering of the year.
(Compare the Jewish saying of a later
date : ‘‘He who has never seen the rejoic-
ing at the pouring out of the water of
Siloam, has never seen rejoicing in his life. ””)
It was doubtless for this reason that taber-
nacles was selected for the dedication. A
special feast of dedication, however, was
held for seven days before the feast of taber-
nacles proper commenced (see on ver. 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 (ch. xii. 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.c., fruits
([henius), flowing streams (Gesenius)—itcH. vil. 1—66.]

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

    

147

 

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 ag Tisri (see on
ch. vi. 1), or to show that “the feast” was
the feast of tabernacles, ]

Ver. 3.—And all the elders of Israel came
[Not a mere repetition. ‘Themen who were
summoned to Jerusalem (ver. 1) were all
present, of their own accord, to witness the
removal}, and the priests took up the ark.
[In the parallel account in 2 Chron. y. 4,
we read that “the Levites took up the ark.”
But there is no contradiction, as hag been
too readily supposed. For ver. 7 of the
Chronicles, ‘‘ the priests brought in the ark,”
&c., confirms the statement of the text.
And the explanation is suggested in ver. 5
of the same chapter, ‘‘ These did the priests,
the Levites (so the Heb.) bring up:” Same
expression in Josh. iii. 3. All the priests
were Levites—Keil translates, “the Leviti-
cal priests” —and this somewhat singular
expression is no doubt used to remind us
that such was the case. 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 (Num. iii. 30, 31) ; and it was their
duty to bear it (ib. iv. 15; vii. 9; x. 21;
gi. 1 Chron’ xv. 2, 11,12). 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
(Num. iv. 5—15). It was quite in accord-
ance 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 unde-
signed coincidence. For we find that on
occasions of extraordinary solemnity — at
the crossing of the Jordan, e.g. (Josh. iii.
6, 15, 17), and at the siege of Jericho (Josh.
vi. 6), the priests had borne the ark (ef.
Pu pee, Wee ees Outen. xv. 11, 12): It
was no doubt these familiar precedents
guided Solomon, or the ecclesiastical au-
thorities, in their selection of the priests on
this occasion. A ‘‘ settled place,” a ‘* house
of cedars” (2 Sam. vii. 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 y
probable. Why, we may ask, were cover-
ings provided, and their use prescribed
(Num. iv. 5—15), if they were to be arbi-
trarily 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
(ver. 10) claimed it for God.

Ver. 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 Sam.
v1. 17)|, and the tabernacle of the congre-
gation [Heb. ‘“ the tabernacle of meeting”?

See Dict. Bib. ii. p.

ery im-

(Hxod. xxix. 42, 46.
1414; Bahr, Symbolik, i. 80, 81). This had
been for many years at Gibeon. (Cf. ch. iii.
4; 2 Chron, 1,.3.° 1 Chron, xvi 89 See
note on ch. ili. 4.) The tabernacle of Mount
Zion is never called ‘‘ the tabernacle of the
congregation” —indeed, it is expressly dis-
tinguished from it, 2 Chron. i. 3,4. The
ark and the tabernacle were now reunited
in the temple of Solomon, thus “ mark-
ing the identity and continuity of the life
and ritual of the Hebrew Church” (Words-
worth)}], 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 Chron. v. 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.
Ver. 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 (Psa. xxviii. 2 ; cf.
Exod, xxv. 22) ], sacrificing sheep and oxen
[apparently the ark rested en route (cf.
2 Sam. vi. 13) 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 imper-
fections in their service. There were trage-
dies connected with the removal of the ark
in time past (1 Sam. iv. 17; vi.19 ; 2 Sam.eer er oa

148

 

vi. 7) which, we may be sure, were not
altogether forgotten on this occasion] that
could not be told or numbered for multi-
tude. (Cf. 2 Sam. vi. 13. But the sacrifices
on that occasion were on @ much smaller
scale (1 Chron. xv. 26). Josephus adds
(Ant. viii. 4. 1), that a vast quantity of in-
cense was burnt, and that men preceded the
ark, singing and dancing, until it reached its
destinution |.

Ver. 6.—And the priests brought in the
ark of the covenant unto his [i.¢., its.
But this word is never found in the A. V.
It has come into use since the date of our
translation] place (ef. ch. vi. 19] into the
oracle of the house, to the most holy place
(Heb. holy of holies}, even under the wings
of the cherubims (ch. vi. 27. Whether the
ark stood with its length east and west, Or
north and south, it is somewhat difficult to
decide. But see on ver. 8].

Ver 7.—For the cherubims spread forth
their two wings over the place of the
ark, and the cherubims covered [JDD) from
ADD, texit ; hence 15D, booth ; LXX. zepr-
EKCAUTTOY, 1.0, overshadowed and concealed.
This word is of some importance as show-
ing 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
followiag verse] the ark and the staves
thereof above [Heb. from above].

Ver. 8.—And they drew out [It is uncer-
tain whether 13°) is transitive, as our A. Y.
renders it, and as in ch. iii. 14 = lengthen,
in which case, however, it should almost
be followed by MN, or intransitive, as in
Exod. xx. 12: Deut. v. 16; xxv. 15, when
the meaning would be, ‘‘ The staves were
long,” but the latter rendering has the sup-
port 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 24 cubits, they would be so long.
Their length is mentioned in order to ac-
count for the ends being seen. it is im-
material to the meaning of the passage,
boweyer, which interpretation we put upon
this verb. If we adhere to the A. V. then
we must understand that, as it was for-
bidden to remove the staves from the rings
at the corners of the ark (Exod. xxv. 12—
15). they drew the staves forward towards
one end of the ark ; that they removed the
staves altogether from the ark (Stanley) isa
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

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

|
|
|
|
|

 

 

 

Re, epee foe Se ey

[cu. virr. 1—66.

(Heb. from] the holy place (Marg. ark,
the word found in the Chron. v. 9. It is
questionable, however, whether WIP) is
ever used, by itself, of the ark (Gesen.,
Thesaurus, s.v.) It may be used of the
most holy place (see on ver. 10), but here

it would appear to designate the bo (ch.

vi. 17), the body or “ temple of the house”
(Exod. xxvi. 33 ; Heb. ix. 2). Its meaning
appears to be so defined by the next words]
before the oracle [1.e., a person standing in
the holy place, but at the west end, near
the entrance to the oracle (ch. vi. 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 posi-
tion of the staves? Were they attached to
the ends or to the sides of theark? 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 cheru-
bim. 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 onesided 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 pro-
jecting staves would surely have been in the
high priest’s way in the performance of his
solemn functions (Levit. xvi. 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. iii. 7. 5) that they ran
along the sides of the ark, and this would
appear to be the natural and proper ar-
rangement. It follows hence again that
they cannot have been more than eight or
nine cubits long, inasmuch as they fuund a
place between the bodies of the cherubim,
which cannot haye been more than nine
cubits apart. 38. 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 protru-
sions 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 doubtfuloH. viz. 1—66.]

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
Jengthened for the purpose. How then were
they seen? The following considerations
may assist us to answer this question. (1)
‘he oracle, of course, in its normal state
was in perfect darkness (ver.12). Once a
year, however, a gleam of light was ad-
miilted, when the curtain was drawn par-
tially 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 taber-
nacle of the congregation,” except when the
high priest went in to make an atonement

for the holy place (Levit. xvi. 17). Atan
earlier stage of the service he would
seem to have required assistance. Accord-

ing 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) itis 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
“9 censer full of burning coals of fire”...
‘“‘and his hands (VJDM, both fists) full of

sweet incense beaten small” (ib. ver. 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 privi-
leged 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 towurds these objects—made origin-
ally 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 dedica-
tion, 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 ch, ix. 21 ; xu. 19; 2 Kings

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

149

 

vill. 22, At the date of the publication of
this book, the temple was of course de-
stroyed (2 Kings xxv. 9), so that at that
day the staves were not there. But the ex-
planation is very simple. Our historian
has copied the words he found in the MS.
he was using. ]

Ver, 9.—There was nothing in the arr
Save the two tables of stone which Moses
put there [lixod. xxv. 16; xl. 20; Deut. x.
5. This statement appears to be at vari-
ance with Hebrews ix. 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 Exod.
xvi. 34 and Num. xvii. 25 (Heb. A.V., xvii.
10) they are commanded to be laid up
‘before the testimony,’’ words which no
doubt may mean, as they were long inter-
preted to mean, ‘‘ before the tables of testi-
mony 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-
tained the testimony.” We know the book
of the law was put ‘‘at the side (71¥19) of
the ark” (Deut, xxxi. 26), and hence it is
held by some that the golden pot, &c., occu-
pied a similar position. It seems prefer-
able, 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 Philis-
tines, 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 pos-
sible that the trespass offering, the golden
mice, &c., were designed as a return for the
golden pot which had been removed. And
the statement of the text, ‘‘there was
nothing,” &c., almost implies that there
had been something there at one time (see
Alford on Heb. ix. 4). It seems 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 Sam. v., Vl.)THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

ee eg Rey

(cH. vi1r. 1—66.

 

and that the sacrilege was discovered at
Bethshemesh (1 Sam. vi. 19). 'l'his last-
mentioned episode explains how it came to
be known that ‘ there was nothing,” &e. It
is hardly likely after that memorable visita-
tion that Solomon could have opened the
ark and taken out the two relies, as Rawlin-
Nor have we any warrant for
ihe view that the mercy seat, with the
cherubs, was removed to make way for a
new hd without them, and so the interior of
the ark was disclosed to view (Stanley)]
at Horeb [See Exod. 111.1; xvii. 6; xxxiu. 6;
1 Kings xix. 8. This name, which means
dry ground, desert, would appear to have
belunged to two or three different places in
the wilderness. But as the name of the
place where the law was given and the cove-
nant with God made (Deut. iv. 10, 13) it
became subsequently a nomen generale for
the whole of the Sinaitie region (Dict. Bib.
lili. p. 1526). Here the mount of the law
is clearly meant] when [Heb. which, 12'S
is occasionally found in the sense of quum,
again Dent, x16); Psaxcexmx..15:; 2)Chron.
xxxv. 20; cf. ch. ix. 10 (Gesen., Thes., s.v.)]
the Lord made a cevenant {Heb. cut; sée
note on ch. v.12. N13 is to be understood.
Same ellipsis in 1 Sam. xx. 16; xxii. 8] with
the children of Israel when they came
(Heb. in their Cog on of the land of
ieypt. [Exod. xxxiv. 27, 28; Dent. iv. 13.]
Ver. 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” (¢J}/1) is
here put for the most holy place, as in
iizek. xli. 23. But this is not by any means
the necessary interpretation. The cloud
may obviously have tilled the entire building
ouly as the priests left it. It would seem,
however, from verse 11 as if the priests,
having left the oracle, were about to min-
ister 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 (Exod. xl. 84), had ac-
companied it in its journeys (ib. ver. 38),
and hadapparently been specially displayed
at certain junctures in the history of Israel
(Num. xii. 5,10; xvi. 42; Deut. xxxi. 15).
Jt was thus the acknowledged symbol of
God’s presence, and as such was a visible
sisn 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”’ (Rawlin-
son), for it is noticeable that the Targums
never render ‘‘the cloud” or ‘‘ the glory” by
“the Shechinah.” In fact, as regards the

son suggests.

tr

 

use of the word by Jewish writers, 1t would
seem to be a periphrasis for God (Dict.
Bib. ii. p. 1241). We may see in the cloud,
however, the seat of the Shechinah (Kitto,
Cyclopedia, 111. p. 821) filled the house of
the Lord,

Ver. 11.—So that the priests could not
stand to miinister because of the cloud
(They were overpowered by the manifesta-
tion, precisely as Moses had been before
(Exod. xl. 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 re-appearance of the priests
may well have been the signal for them to
begin (2 Chron, v. 13)—that ‘‘ the house was
filled with a cloud.” Possibly the priests were
about to burn incense. Jividently ministra-
tions of some sort were intended and were
interrupted, The exact correspondence with
Fixod. xl. 35 (cf. Ezek. xliv. 4) is not to be
overlooked. The idea obviously is that the
Divine approval vouchsafed to the taber-
nacle 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 ver. 10 says of the cloud—that it
‘filled the house—ver. 11 says of the glory.
It is also true that there is no mention of
any light or fire. And the ‘ darkness” of
ver. 12 might naturally seem to refer to the
cloud, and therefore to exelude the idea cf

light. But surely the words 3)35D are to
be interpreted here by their signification and
use e'sewhere, and we find “the glory of the
Lord clsewhere mentioned as something
distinct from the cloud. We must remem-
ber that what by day was a pillar of cloud, by
night was a pillar of fire (ixod. xii, 21, 22).

In Exod. xix. 9, 16, the mention of the
“thick cloud” is follow ed by the statement
that “Mount Sinai was altogether on a
smoke because the Lord descended upon it
in fire” (ver. 18). Similarly, in Exod. xxiv.,

we are told that ‘‘the clory of the Lord
appeared upon Mount Sinai, and the cloud
covered it (the glory?) six days s; 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 devour ing fire”
(vers. 16, 17). But perhaps the most de-
cisive passage in this connexion is Exod.
xl. 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) a, Compare Kxod. xvi.
7,10; Levit. ix. 6,23; Num. xiv. 10; xvi. 19,
49, Tt would appear, therefore, that “ the
glory of the Lord” was not the cloud, but,cH. vil. 1—66.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

as the word almost seems to imply, a “light
from heaven above the brightness of the
sun” (Acts xxvi. 13; ef. Rev. i. 14, 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.

Ver. 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”
(Ezek. xlviili. 35); that the incomprehen-
sible 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. ODI, lit., dark-

mess of clouds. When did God speak of
dwelling in dark cloud? The reference,
probably, is to Exod. xix. 9; xx. 21; Deut.
iv. 11; v. 22 (note that, in the three last
cited passages, this same word 1s used, and
in the last two in connexion with clowd,
which would appear to be a practically
synonymous term), but especially to Levit.
xvi. 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. Psa. xviii. 11;
xevii. 2. The words cannot refer to ‘ the
holy of holies not lighted by windows ”
(Wordsworth).

Ver. 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 for
ever. [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 })D/) (from 15, statuiz),

a settled place. The tabernacle was but a
poor and transitory abode, partaking of the
frailty of the shepherd’s tent (Isa. xxxvul.

12). For peppy (aidvec), cf. Isa. xxvi. 4;
li, 9; Dan. ix. 24; Psa. cxiv. 13.

Ver. 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 ver. 50, 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
(Num. vi. 23; cf. Levit. ix. 22), and he is
only said tc bless here as felicitating, as
wishing them a blessing. ‘Dean Stanley
(* Jewish Ch.,” vol. ii. p 218) characteristi-
cally asserts that Solomon * performed the
highest sacerdotal act of solemn benedic-
tion.” But the same word is used in ver.
66, of the peuple blessing the king. “ Did

 

 

 

 

151

sea cee Fevtigos aeons
_ als a priestly act?” The
word is elsewhere used of saluting. See
note on ver. 66, and Gesen. s.v.] all the
congregation of Israel: (and all the con-
gregation of Israel stood); [Heb. were
standing (TIDY); ‘ stood” conveys the idea
that the congregation rose as Solomon
spoke, whereas they were standing already
in the temple courts. 4

Ver. 15.—And he said, Blessed be the
Lord God of Israel [ch. i. 48], which spaie
with his mouth unto (or, concerning ; Oe
after verbs of speaking was the force of de
(Gentex Fe) Jer. xl 16: “Psat Ixix 07),
David my father [The words were really
spoken to Nathan], and hath with his hand
[7.e., power ; cf. Job xxxiv. 20; Acts iv. 28;
xl. 11; Ezra vii. 6} fulfilled it [the spoken
word He has fulfilled in deed], saying,
[The reference is to 2 Sam. vii., of whicu
Solomon merely gives the substance. Much
of what he says here is not recorded there. ]

Ver. 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,’ &c. Prob-
ably our account comes nearer to the words
actually spoken. ‘The speech in the Chron.
looks as if it had been somewhat amplified,
though it only completes the sense (Raw-
linson)], but I chose David to be over my
people Israel. ([Cf. Psa. lxxvili. 70. This
psalm pursues much the same line of
thought as this address. ]

Ver. 17.—And it was in the heart of
David my father [2 Sam. vil. 2; 1 Chron.
xvii. 1] to build an house for the name of
the Lord God of Israel.

Ver. 18.—And the Lord said unto David
my father [Not, perhaps, totidem verbis.
The Divine approval was implied in 2 Sam.
vii. 11—16, and it may have been expressed
at thesame time. The narratives of Scrip-
ture 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.

Ver. 19.—Nevertheless thou shalt not
puild the house [Wordsworth observes that
it was filial reverence prevented Solomon's
mentioning the cause of this prohibition,
which, however, is mentioned with appro-
priate humility by David himself (1 Chron.
xxii. 8)]; but thy son that shall come
forth out of thy loins, he shall build the
house unto my name. (2 Sam. vil 11, 12.
The recurrence of “the name” of the Lord
is to be noticed (see vers. 16, 17, 18, 29, 43,152

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[cx. virr. 1—66.

 

&c.) The name of God is the expression to
man of His nature, attributes, &c. |

Ver. 20.—And the Lord hath performed
[Same word as in ch. ii. 4, Lit., “ hath
raised up” (UXX. dvéornoe). Also same word
as “risen up” (UXX. dvéorny) below, and
as “set up” in 2 Sam. vii. 12. We might
translate ‘established’? throughout] his
word that he spake, and Iam risen up in
the room of David my father, and sit on
the throne of Israel [ch. i. 48], as the Lord
promised [2 Sam. vii. 12], and have built
an house for the name of the Lord God of
Israel [ib. ver. 13].

Ver. 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 ” (Exod. xxxiv. 28; cf. Deut. ix.
11)] which he made with our forefathers
when he brought them out of the land of
Egypt [vers. 9, 16].

Srcrion Il.—The Prayer.

The prayer of dedication, properly so
called, now begins. This solemn and beau-
tiful composition was probably copied by our
author from the “ Book of the Acts of Solo-
mon” (1 Kings xi. 41), possibly from the
‘‘Book of Nathan the prophet” (2 Chron.
ix. 29). It was evidently committed to
writing beforehand, and would, no doubt,
as a matter of course, be religiously pre-
served. The later criticism objects to its
authenticity that the many references to
the Pentateuch (compare ver. 12 with Exod.
xix. 9; ver. 31 with Exod. xxii. 11, Levit.
v. 1; ver. 33 with Levit. xxvi. 17, Deut.
xxvui.:25; ver. 36 with Levit. xxvi. 25;
ver. 50 with Levit. xxvi. 40, 42 ; ver. 51 with
Deut. iv. 20, &c.) prove it to be of a later
date. Ewald assigns it to the seventh cen-
tury 3B.c.; but this is simply to beg the
question of the date of the Pentateuch. It
is obviously open to reply that these re-
ferences only prove that the king was
acquainted, as he was bound to be (Deut.
xvii. 18), with the words of the law. It
divides itself into three parts. The first
(vers. 22—30) is general; the second (vers.
31— 53) consists of seven special petitions ;
the last (vers. 50—53) consists of a general
conclusion and appeal to God’s covenant
mercy.

Ver. 22.—And Solomon stood [i.c., took
his stand (LXX. avéorn). Not ‘‘ was stand-
ing.” It was but for a moment, however,
for we find him presently kneeling (ver. 54;

 

 

2 Chron. vi.13). The latter passage informs
us that he both stood and knelt upon a
“brazen scaffold,” three cubits high] be-
fore the altar of the Lord [i.c., the brazen
altar of sacrifice. The platform or scaffold
was “set in the midst of the court” (2
Chron. l.c.) All these rites took place in
the open air, The king had no place with-
in the edifice] in the presence [ihe word is
not to be pressed to mean ‘facing the
people.” It is hardly likely he would pray
towards the people—he was their zpo-
gnrne, t.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 Mohamme-
dans. (See Lane’s *‘ Modern Egyptians,”
ch. iii., ‘Religion and Laws.) So com-
pletely was this posture identified with sup-
plication that to ‘lift up the hands” came
to be a synonym for prayer (Hxod. ix.
29. 83; Psa.xliv. 20 ;,exhii. 65 Isa. 1¢d6%
xv. 2.)]

Ver. 23.—<And he said, Lord God of Israel,
there is no God like thee [Similar words
are found in Exod. xv. 11; Psa. lxxxvi. 8,
&c. They do not at all imply the existence
of other gods, but are explained by other
passages (¢.g., ver. 60; Deut. iv. 39, ‘the
Lord He is God and none else ;”? 2 Sam. vii.
22; xxii. 32) as meaning that the God of
Israel stands alone, and alone is God. It
would be strange, indeed, if the people
whose great peculiwm was the unity of the
Godhead (Deut. vi. 4; Isa. xlii. 8) recog-
nized other deities. Observe: Solomon be-
gins his prayer with an act of praise; witha
recognition at once grateful and graceful of
God’s past mercies (cf. Psa. lxv. 1, 2; Phil.
iv. 6). Haaudit Dominus invocantem, quem
laudantem vidit”? (Augustine)|, in heaven
above, or on earth beneath [Josh. u. 11),
who keepest covenant and mercy [same
words in Deut. vu. 9} with thy servants
that walk before thee with all their heart,
(Cf. ch. u1. 4.)

Ver. 24.—Who hast kept with thy ser-
vant 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 thow spakest, 7.e.,
‘‘vea,” or “for thou spakest’’] with thy
mouth and hast fulfilled it with thine hand
(ver. 15, and ch. ili. 6. The completion
of the house, following the establishment of
Solomon upon the throne, was to him proof
conclusive that the promise of 2 Sam vii.
had received its fulfilment], as it is this
day.cH. vit1. 1—66.]

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

153

 

Ver. 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. ver. 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 Sam. vii. 12—16],
There shall not failthee a man in my sight
to sit on the throne of Israel {cf. ch. il. 4],
so that [marg.,if only. As to the condition,
see note on ch. ii. 4, and ef. ch. vi. 12, 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 command-
ments} their way, that they walk before me
as thou hast walked before me.

Ver. 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
vers. 23, 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 Sam. vil. 17; but this, especially when
the reading is doubtful, is somewhat too
remote], I pray thee, be verified [{IS
optative form. Gesen., areal. tau. (21
which thou syakest [Psa. cxxxul. 14] unto
thy servant David my father.

Ver. 27.—But ['D. Bahr refers for this
use of the word to 1 Sam. xxix. 8; 1 Kings
xi. 22; 2 Kings viii. 13; Jer. xxiii. 18] will
God indeed [Heb. verily ; same root as that
of preceding verb, “verified.” The repeti-
tion shows the connexion of thought. ‘“ But
can these words be verified? Will God
verily,” &c.] dwell on the earth? behoid
the heaven and heaven of heavens [Same
expression Deut. x. 14. Cf. Psa. exv. 16;
exlviii, 4; Isa, Ixvi. 1. The Jewish belief
respecting the seven heavens (see Vetstein
on 2 Cor. xii. 2; Stanley, ‘‘ Corinthians,”
l.c.) is of much later date, and a reference
to it, orto the belief of some Rabbins in two
heavens (after Deut. x. 14), is altogether out
of the question. The ‘‘ heaven of heavens "

—‘‘all the spaces of heaven, however vast
and infinite” (Gesen., cf. Psa. cxlviii. 4). The
analogy of ‘‘ holy of holies” would, however,
sugsest that not all the heavens, but the
highest heavens are intended] cannot con-
tain thee; how much less ['D AN: Ewald,
354 c] this house that I have builded ?
[Two points are to be noticed here. (1)
Sulomon never denies for a moment that
the temple was a real habitation of Jehovah,
or thata real presence was manifested there.
He only denies that the Deity is contained
in earthly temples (2) He had no un-

 

 

———____,

worthy 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 Psa. exxxix,
¢—10 ; Isa, lxvi. 1 (quoted in Acts vii. 49)
and Acts xvii. 24.]

Ver. 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, Pan, nanny,

and 30. The first (from 222MM, precatus
est ; see ver. 29) is apparently a general term
for prayer; the second (from 13M, propitius
juit) 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 to-day.

Ver. 29.—That thine eyes may be open
[This anthropomorohism does not conflict
with what was said under ver. 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 shail be
there (cf. Ezek. xviii. 35, and vers. 18. 19,
20, &c. When had God said this? Never,
perhaps, in so many words. Keil says the
reference is to 2 Sam. vii. 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 (Deut. xii. 5, 11, 18, &.; xiv. 235
xv. 20; xvi. 2, &¢.)” But it is very prob-
able that a revelation was made to David
respecting the sanctuary, the terms of which
are not preserved to us. ‘This is almost
implied by Psa. Ixxviii. 68; cxxxii. 10; L
Chron, xxii. 1—passages which prove that
David claimed to have Divine sanction for
placing the temple on ** Mount Zion.” Psa.
exxxii. is unmistakeably Dayidic, and em-
bodies some features of the message of God
(e.g., the condition, ver. 12) not preserved
in 2 Sam. vii.]: that thou mayest hearken
unto the prayer which thy servant shall

make toward [Marg. in, but Heb. 28 sup-

ports 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
(Dan. vi. 10; Psa. v. 7; Jonah ii, 4), just
as the Mohammedan has his Kibleh in

Mecca] this place.
Ver, 30.—And hearken thou to the sup154

plication of thy servant, and of thy people
Israel, when they shall pray toward this
place : and hear thou in heaven [Heb. unto
heaven, Dw ON, a pregnant construction
= hear the prayer that ascends unto heaven.
The chronicler here, as elsewhere, simplifies
the meaning by reading ‘from heaven,”
WA] thy dwelling place {Here, and in
vers, 39, 43, and 49, heaven is described as
the true dwelling place of Deity. Con-
fidently as Solomon believes that he has
built a habitation for the Lord, he never
dreams that the ‘‘ Most High dwellcth not
in temples made with hands” (Acts vil. 48;
xvii. 4)] : and when thou hearest, forgive,
(There is possibly a play of words here—
my, DDB).

With the next verse the special or par-
ticular supplications begin. Like those of
the Lord’s prayer, they are seven in num-
ber, and no doubt for the same reason, viz.,
because seven was the number of covenant,
the number which expressed the relation-
ship between the Lord and His people (‘‘ die
Signatur der Verbindung Gottes wnd der
Welt ”»—Bihr, Symbolik, i. 187 sqq.) 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 per-
sons (Exod, xxii. 11; Levit. v. 1, 4, &c.)
And there were other cases in which men of
their own accord, for “an end of all strife,”
would make oath. Now every oath, what-
ever its form (Matt. xxiii. 16—22), is: in
reality an affirmation ‘‘ by the God of truth”
(Isa. lxv. 16); it is an appeal to the know-
ledge and power and justice of the Most
High (Levit. xix. 12; Deut. vi. 18; x. 20;
Isa. xlvili. 1; Jer. xii. 16; xliv. 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,

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

oe

[ou. vit, i—66.

and so encouraged falsehood and impiety.
God is here entreated, consequen'!y. to take
cognizance of the oaths sworn bef re His
altar (ver. 31), and to be a swift witness
against the false swearcrs (Mal. 1u. 5). It
is, perhaps, because of the direct dishonour
which perjury offers to the Divine name
that, as Bihr 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.

Ver. 31.—If any man trespass [The force
of the Hebrew (which begins somewhat
abruptly) W'S Ns (LXX. doa ay apdpry) is
probably, As for that which, or in all cases in
which, ie., when (as Ewald, 333 a). The
chronicler, as usual, simplifies by reading
DOs] 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 Deut. xxi. 7] upon him to
cause him to swear, and the oath come
[(Lhis translation cannot be maintained.
For in the Heb. there is no def. art., as there

would be if nN were noun and nominative ;
and, moreover, in that case the verb, to
agree with the feminine noun, would be risa.
And as no other meaning can be extracted
from the words as they stand, weare driven
to suspect a slight corruption of the text,
either (1) the omission of } between the
words, which in that case would have stood

mbys} 833, and would mean, “and he (the
accused) come and swear”—a conjecture
which is supported by the LXX., cai ep
kai iEayopevoy, or (2) the omission of the
preposition 3, which would yield nos N24
=and he (the accused) enters into the oath,
an expression found in Neh. x. 29 and Ezek.
Xvli. 13] before thine altar in this house.
[Despite the last words, the altar of sacri-
fice before the house is probably meant.
This was the altar of the Jewish layman,
and, moreover, it was one visible sign of the
covenant. Psa. 1.5; Exod. xxiv. 6—8; cf.
xx. 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 (Matt. xxiii. 18) is of later date.
Ver. 32.—Then hear thou in heaven
(Heb. and thou, thow wilt hear the heavens.
The same expression, DY2WO YDOWA, is
found in vers. 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 thyCH. vill. 1—66.]

servants, condemning (Heb. to make (i.e.,
prove) wicked] the wicked, to bring (Heb.
give, same word as below] his way [tube
works, fruits] upon his head (cf. Ezek. ix.
10; xi. 21; same expression] and justify-
ing (Heb. to make righteous. Cf. dicauvr
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 blesg-
ings of Israel, was one of the greatest
calamities which could befal a Jew (Deut.
iv. 27, 28; Levit. xxvi. 33; Psa. exxxvii.),
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 exter-
nal dangers, is too artificial to have found
a place in Solomon’s thoughts,

Ver. 33.—When thy people Israel be
smitten down before the enemy (cf. Levit.
Raves 17; Deut. xxvii. 25. There is a
constant reference to these two chapters
throughout this prayer, or, if no direct re-
ference to them, there are unmistakeable
reminiscences of them], because they have
sinned against thee, and shall turn again
to thee, and confess [or praise. Psa. liv.
8 Heb.; cvi. 47; cxxu. 4] thy name, and
pray, and make supplication unto thee in
this house. [The marg. towards is a mis-
taken 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. Joel ii.
ii. 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 ii, 46;
Luke xviii. 10). Into the edifice the priests
alone were admitted.

Ver. 34.—Then hear thouin 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 vers. 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 Levit. xxvl.

40—44; Deut. xxx. 1—5; for the latter,

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

155

| Levit. xxvi. 33; Deut. iv. 27; xxviii. 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 (Levit. xxvi. 4; Deut.
xi, 11; Job y. 10, and passim; Psa. lxviii,
9; exlviil. 8; Acts xiv. 17), so was drought
denounced as one of His severest scourges
(Levit. xxvi. 19; Deut. xi. 17; xxviii. 23, 24,
&c.) This petition finds an illustration in
the public supplications which are still
offered in the East, and by men of all
creeds, for rain.

Ver. 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
(Psa. xxvill. 2)], and confess [praise] thy
name, and turn from their sin, when [or
because, 'D| thou affiictest them. [LXX.
Orayv TaTrewwone avrovc—Humbling should
be the result of affliction. ]

Ver. 36.—Then hear thou in heaven [see
on ver. 32], and forgive the sin of thy
servants, aud of thy people Israel, that
thou teach them [rather, because thou art
teaching them, &c. The thought is, ‘* For-
give, because they have learned the lesson
Thy discipline of drought was meant to
teach ;’’ because the chastisement has ful-
filled its purpose] the good way [1 Sam.
xl, 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 (Levit. xxvi. ;
Deut. xxviii.), as the punishment of apos.
tasy or infidelity.

Ver. 37.—If there be in the land famine
[Heb. Famine should there be, &c. The
word is emphatic by position. Famine
is denounced, Levit. xxvi. 20, 26; Deut.
XXvili. 83], if there be pestilence [Levit.
xxvi. 25; Jer xiv. 12; xxiv. 10; Amos iv.
10; Ezek. vi. 12, &c.], blasting [same
word ‘Gen, ‘xii. 6; Amos’ iv; 9; Deut.
Xxviii. 22], mildew [lit. paleness, yw-
oétnc, Deut. 1. ¢.], locust, or if there be

 

caterpillar [It is uncertain whether Sypn,

. ?
lit., devourer, here rendered ‘ caterpillar,’
is not an adjective and an appellation of
the locust = devouring locust. Deut. xxvii.
88 (NAINA s>pn? “the locust shall

asl aaa Maso e i :

consume it”) certainly fayours this view.156

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

fou. vir. 1—66.

 

 

But the Chron. and the Verss. distinguish
it here (by the introduction of ‘‘and”’ be-
tween the two words) as a separate plague.
It is also similarly distinguished, Joeli. 43
Psa. Ixxviii. 46. Gesen. considers it to be a
species of locust] ; if their enemy besiege
them in the land of their cities [Heb. jis
gates, but “the land of his gates” hardly
yields sense. It is noteworthy that the
LXX. (with most of the Verss.) reads iv pug
ray Todkewy adrov. Thenius, consequently,
to bring the Hebrew text into harmony,
would substitute YY MANIA for wwe
yox3. Another suggested emendation is
wwa, PIXa, ‘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.Chron.. vi. 37; Jer. xxx. 10, &¢.) may
perhaps be interpreted the land where their
gates (i.e., fortified cities) are. The marg.
“ Jurisdiction”’—the gate being the place
of judgment (Ruth iv. 11; Prov. Mie
2 Sam. xy. 2)—is altogether out of the
question] ; whatsoever plague, whatsoever
[Heb. every plague, &c.] sickness there he.

Ver. 38.—What prayer and supplication
soever [Thee is here a studied reference to
the preceding words. Lit., every prayer,
&c. We might render in ver. 37, ‘‘ What-
soever the plague,” &c., and here, ‘* What-
soever the prayer,’ &c.] 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 unmis-
takeable reference to the ‘‘ plague” (same
word) of ver. 87. The plague of the heart
is the inner smart of the conscience corre-
sponding with and perhaps more painful
than the smiting of the person. The mean-
ing obviously is that the prayers will vary
according to the various mental ané physi-
cal sufferings of men], and spread forth his
hands [se2 on ver. 22] toward this house.

Ver. 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;) [Jer. xvii. 10. Cf. 0 rap-
Svoyvworne Occ (Acts xv. 8; also ib. 1. 24).

Ver. 40.—That they may fear thee al
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 Psa. cxxx. 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 be-
lief in local or tribal deities, invoke the aid
and blessing of the mighty God of Jacob,
This mention of aliens from the common-
wealth of Israel in the prayer of dedication,
especially when viewed in the light of the
exclusiveness and bigotry which character-
ized 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 Exod. xxi. 21;
LGvit. xxv. oo > Deut, x. 19s xxx. 1 sega.
xy. 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 in-
tercede for the strangers,’’ &c. The inter-
course of the Hebrews at this period with
foreign nations, and the influence they
exercised on the Jewish thought and
manners (see Stanley, ‘‘Jewish Ch.” ii. Lect.
XXvi.), are also to be remembered. These
new relations with the stranger would no
doubt have widened Solomon’s views.

Ver. 41.—Moreover concerning a stranger,
that is not of thy people Israei, but cometh
out of afar 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 Chron. xxii. 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 ch. x. 1 ‘‘ concerning the name
of the Lord.’) One who blessed God, as
she did (ver. 9), would certainly pray towards
the house. In the time of the second
temple there were several instances of
straugers(e.g., Alexander the Great, Ptolemy
Phiiadelphus, and Seleucus; see Keil in loc.)
worshipping the God of Jacob in Jerusalem,

Ver. 42.--(For they shall hear of. thy.
great name [Cf. Josh. vil. 9; Psa. lxxvi. 1;
xeix. 3], and, of thy stroxg hand. [cf. Exod.
vay ’6 ; )xlib. 9; Deutyix. 26,294 efix vaig 19,
They had heard at a much earlier date
(Exod. xy..1453 xvui.1; Josh. v. 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 thyCH. VIII. 1—66. }

stretched out arm;) when he shall come
and pray toward this house.

Ver. 43.—Hear thou in heaven thy dwell-
ing place, and do according to all 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 (Rom. xv. 9 sqq.) Cf. Psa. xxii,
Oy ii, EP lxxxyi..9 ; xevill, 3,; cil.15 :
exvil. 1; Isa. xlix. 6; li. 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, ®4)23,
LXX. éaucékAnrar) upon this house, i.e., that
God has taken this house for His habita-
tion: that He dwells there, works, hears,
answers there. Same expression, Jer. vil.
40;-41, 34 < xxv. 29; Deut. xxvii. 10 ;' Isa.
ie | ee ams yb 27 weshave, ‘they
shall put my name upon the children of
Iewiele? ene ent, a... and, xvi. 6, (ef.
1 Kings xi. 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 cases 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.

Ver. 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 sig-
nificant. ‘‘ They have gone in God’s way.
They may therefore look the way of God’s
house for help.” Executing God’s commis-
sion, they might justly expect His blessing]
the city which thou hast chosen, and toward
the house that I have buiit for thy name.

Ver. 45.—Then hear thou in heaven their
prayer and their supplication, and main-
tain their cause. [Heb. do their judgments,
i.e., secure them justice, defend the right.
Same words, Deut. x. 18; cf. Psa.ix.5, Heb. ]

The last petition—the second of those
which speak of prayers addressed towards
the temple, or the Holy Presence which
dwelt there, from a foreign land—contem-

plates as possible the captivity of the

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

 

 

 

Hebrew nation. It has hence been too
readily inferred that this portion of the
prayer, at least, if not the preceding peti-
tion also, has been interpolated by a post-
captivity writer. But there is really no
solid reason for doubting its genuineness.
Wot only is it the seventh petition (see on
ver. 31), but the captivity of Israel had
been denounced as the punishment of per-
sistent disobedience long before by Moses,
and in the chapters to which such constant
reference is made (Levit. xxvi. 33, 44;
Deut. xxvill. 25, 36, 64; cf. iv. 27)—a fact
which is in itself an indirect proof of
genuineness, as showing that this petition
is of a piece with the rest of the prayer.
And when to this we add that the carrying
of a conquered and refractory race into cap-
tivity was an established custom of the
East, we shall be inclined to agree with
Bahr, that ‘‘it would have been more re-
markable if Solomon had not mentioned it.”

Ver. 46.—If they sin against thee (for
there is no man that sinneth not), and thou
be angry with them, and deliver them to
the enemy [Heb. give them before anenemy] ,
so that they carry them away captives unto
the land of the enemy, far or near ;

Ver, 47. — Yet if they shall bethink
themselves (Heb. as marg., bring back to

their heart. Same phrase, Deut. iv. 39;
xxx. 1, The latter passage, it should be

noticed, treats of the captivity, so that
Solomon, consciously or unconsciously, em-
ploys some of the very words used by
Moses in contemplating this contingency.
These repeated coincidences lead to the
belief that the prayer was based upon and
compiled from the Pentateuch] in the land
whither they were carried captives, and
repent, and make supplication unto thee
in the land of them that carried them cap-
tives, saying, We have sinned, and have
done perversely, we have committed wicked-
ness. [This verse is full of paronomasia,
yawn, Dw), 12Y, &e. Words almost
identical with this confession were used
(Dan. ix.5; Psa. evi. 6) by tke Jews in
their captivity at Babylon, from which it
has been concluded that this part of the
prayer must belong to the time of the cap-
tivity. But surely it is, to say the least,
just as likely that the Jews, when the cap-
tivity of which Solomon spoke befel them,
borrowed the phrase in which their great
king by anticipation expressed their peni-
tence. Seeing in the captivity a fulfilment
of his prediction, they would naturally seeE Sars 7 re - a * ye ¥ 3 ze =
Serpe WSs <7 ae

158

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[cH. vir. 1—66.

 

in this formula, which no doubt had been
preserved in the writings of the prophets,
a confession specially appropriate to their
case, and indeed provided for their use.

Ver. 48.—And so return unto thee with
all their heart [almost the words of Deut.
Xxx. ver. 2, as those in ver. 47 are of ver. 1],
and with all their soul, in the land of their
enemies, which led them away captive
[observe the paronomasia—\lW’ is here
used in two senses], and pray unto thee to-
ward [Heb. the way of] their land [see
Dan. vi. 10] which thou gavest unto their
fathers, the city which thou hast chosen,
and the house which I have built for thy
name. [There is apparently a climax here,
land,” ‘city,’ ** house,’’]

Ver. 49.—Then hear thou their prayer
and their supplication in heaven thy dweil-
ing place, and maintain their cause. [Heb.
do their judgments, as in ver, 45. |

Ver. 50.—And forgive thy people that
have sinned against thee, and all their
transgressions wherein they have trans-
gressed against thee, and give them com-
passion [Heb. to compassion or bowels
D'ONI=ra omdayyva, 2 Cor. vi. 12; Phil.
1.8; i1.1, &c.] before them who carried them
captive, that they may have compassion
on them. [For the fulfilment of this
prayer, see Ezrai. 3, 7; vi. 13; Neh. ii. 6.
Compare Psa. cvi. 46. ]

In the three following verses we have a
sort of general conclusion to the dedication
prayer. It is hardly correct to say that
these last words apply to all the preceding
petitions—the plea ‘‘ they are thy people”
manifestly cannot apply in the case of vers.
41—43. On the other hand, as little are
they to be limited to the persons last men-
tioned in vers. 46—50, though it is highly
probable they were suggested by the thought
of the captives. They are manifestly in
close connection with the preceding verses.

Ver. 51.—For they be thy people [a cita-
tion or reminiscence of Deut. iv. 10], and
thine inheritance, which thou broughtest
forth out of Egypt [cf. vers. 21,53. ‘There
is a constant recurrence throughout the Old
Testament to this great deliverance, and
with good reason, for it was the real birth-
day of the nation, and was also a pledge of
future help and favour. God who had
‘‘wrought such great things for them in
Egypt” could not well forsake them. Solo-
mon’s constant plea is that they are the
elect and covenant race] from the midst of
the furnace of iron [7.¢., a furnace for iron,
heated and fierce as for smelting. Same
phrase, Deut. iv. 20].

 

 

Ver. 52.—That thine eyes may be open
(ef. ver. 29] unto the supplication of thy
servant, and unto the supplication of thy
people Israel [cf. vers. 28, 30], to hearken
unto them in all that they call for unto thee.

Ver, 53.—For thou didst separate them
from [Levit. xx. 24, 26; cf. Exod. xix. 5, 6]
among all the people of the earth, to be
thine inheritance [same expression, Deut.
iv. 20; ix. 26, 29. This is no idle repetition
of ver. 51. The idea of that verse is de-
liverance, of this election. Cf. Num. xvi. 9;
vul. 14], as thou spakest by the hand [see
note on ch. ii. 25] of Moses thy servant
(Exod, xix! 5,6; Deut-ix, 26; 205 -xiye2),,
when thou broughtest ovr fathers out of
Egypt, O Lord God.

In Chron. (ch. vi. 41, 42) the prayer ends
somewhat differently. ‘*Now therefore
arise, O Lord God,” &ce.—words which are
found in substance in Psa. cxxxiil, 8—10.
These two verses look like an addition, and
were probably inserted by the chronicler to
form a connecting link with ch. vii. 1
(Bahr). The LXX. has an extremely
curious addition, said to be taken from the
**Book of the Song.” Stanley sees in its
very abruptness and obscurity an evidence
of its genuineness (‘‘ Jewish Ch,”’ ii, 218).

92
oO

 

Srcrion IlI.—The Concluding Blessing.

The service of dedication concludes, as
it commenced, with a benediction (ver. 14).

Ver. 54.—And it was so, that when Solo-
mon had made an end of praying all this
prayer and supplication unto the Lord, he
arose from before [see note on ver. 22] the
altar of the Lord, from kneeling on his
knees [the first mention of this posture in
the sacred history (Stanley), The Jews
usually stood in prayer (Luke xviii. 11, 13)]
with (Heb. and] his hands spread up to
heaven.

Ver. 55.—And he stood [this does not
necessarily imply that he drew nearer to
the congregation, as Keil}, and blessed [cf.
2Sam vi. 18, and see note on ver. 14, The
words of blessing, which are presently
given (vers. 56—61), prove that he did not
assume priestly functions and put any
blessing upon the people, Num. vi. 27] all
the congregation of Israel with a loud
[Heb. great] voice, saying,

Ver. 56.—Blessed be the Lord, that hath
given rest unto his people Israel, according
to all that he promised [a distinct reference
to Deut. xu. 9, 10 (cf. iii. 20), where we
read that when the Lord should have given
rest to Israel, then a place for sacrifice, &e.,CH. Vil. 1—66.|

should be appointed (ver. 11). That place
is now dedicated, and the king sees in this
circumstance a proof that the rest is now
at last fully attained. The permanent
sanctuary is a ‘pledge of settlement in the
land. The rest hitherto enjoyed (Josh.
xxl. 44) had been but partial. Only under
Solomon were the Philistines brought into
complete subjection (1 Kings ix. 16), and
hitherto the ark had dwelt in curtains) :
there hath not failed [Heb. fallen; cf.
1 Sam. iu. 19] one word [a clear reference
to Josh, xxi. 45, as the preceding words are
to ver. 44] of all his good promise, which
he promised by the hand (cf. ver. 53] of
Moses his servant [viz.,in Levit. xxvi.3—13,
and in Deut, xxvii: 1—14, i.e, in’ the
chapters which are the sources of this
prayer, &c.

Ver. 57.—The Lord our God be with us,
as he was with our fathers: let him not
leave us, nor forsake us. [Solomon in-
sensibly glides again into prayer; here for
the presence of God, in ver. 59 for Hig
help. There is probably a reference to
Deut. xxxi. 6,8; Josh. 1.5, where, however,
‘‘ forsake” is represented by a different word.

Ver. 58.—That he may incline our hearts
unto him [Psa. cxix. 26; exli. 4], to walk in
all his ways [ver. 25; ch. 1.4. The condi-
tion on which God’s blessing was insured
was at this time printed on Solomon’s mind],
and to keep his commandments, and his
statutes, and his judgments [see note on
ch. 11. 3, to which ver. there is not improbably
a reference], which he commanded our
fathers.

Ver. 59.—And let these my words, where-
with I have made supplication before the
Lord, be nigh unto the Lord our God day
and night, that he maintain the cause of
[Heb. to do the judgment of | his servant,
and the cause of his people Israel at all
times, as the matter shall require [Heb.
the thing of a day in his day. Same phrase
Bxod.\y. 13; xvi. '4):

Ver. 60.—That all the people of the earth
may know that the Lord is God, and that
there is none else. [Seever. 22. We have
here a recurrence to the thought of ver. 43,
which was evidently prominent in Solomon’s
mind. He hopes the house now dedicated
will be fraught with blessing for the world,
and that the Gentiles will come to its light.
Oe leasiaire 2,735.)

Ver. 61.—Let your heart therefore be
perfect with the Lord our God {An instruc-
tive commentary on these words is found in
ch. xi. 4, where it is said of this Solomon,
‘His heart was not perfect,” &c.—same
words. Similarly, ib. vers. 3,9 are a com-
ment on the prayer of ver. 58. Having
preached to others, he himself became a

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

 

199

 

castaway], to walk in his statutes, and +o
OED his commandments, as at this day
[That day the nation proved its piety by the
dedication of the house, [

At the close of this prayer (omitted in
Chron.), according to 2 Chron. vii. 1, ‘‘ fire
came down from heaven and consumed the
burnt offering and the sacrifices, and the
glory of the Lord filled the house.” but
Bahr rejects these words as an interpo-
lation. He maintains, indeed, that the
chronicler contradicts himself, for we can
hardly think that the glory which we are
told (ch. v. 14) had already filled the house,
left it and then returned. It is certainly
suspicious, and a much stronger argument
against the words in question, that no men-
tion of the fire is made by our author, for,
brief as this history is, it is difficult to
believe that so signal an interposition could
have remained unnoticed, if it really oc-
curred.

Section JV.—The Festal Sacrifices.

The ceremonial of dedication was fol-
lowed, as would naturally be the case, by
sacrifices on a scale of unusual grandeur,
Apart from their religious use and signifi-
cance, the sacrifices testified to the devotion
of the giver, who on this of all days must
not appear before the Lord empty, and they
also afforded materials for the great and
prolonged feast by which this auspicious
event in the history of Israel must be com-
memorated.

Ver. 62.—And the king, and all Israel
with him [Another indication (see on ver. 2)
that practically the whole Israelitish nation
(i.e., its males) assembled to witness this
great function (ver. 65. But see on ch. xvi.
17). The words also prove that the sacri-
fices mentioned presently were offered by the
people as well as by the king], offered sacri-
fice before the Lord. [See note on ch. ix. 25.]

Ver. 63.—And Solomon offered a sacrifice
[Solomon is mentioned as chief donor, and
as the executive. But others shared in the
sift] of peace offerings [Levit. vii. 11 sqq.
This was especially the sacrifice of praise—it
is called ‘‘the sacrifice of thanksgiving of
his peace offerings,” 7b. vers. 13,15. Ses
Bahr, Symb.ii.368sqq. In the peace offer-
ing, the fat was burnt on the altar, but the
flesh was eaten (ver. 15; ef. Deut. xii. 7), so
that this form of offering was, in every way,
adapted to a festival. The idea that ‘ox
after ox, to the number of 22,000, and sheep
after sheep, to the number of 120,000, were
consumed,” sc. by fire (Stanley), is expressly
excluded], which he offered unto the Lord,160

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[cu. vit. 1—66.

 

two and twenty thousand oxen, and an
hundred and twenty thousand sheep, [It
is very possible that these numbers have
been altered in course of transcription, as
is the case with numbers elsewhere, but
there is no ground for suspecting exaggera-
tion or mistuke. For, in the first place, the
Chronicles and all the Versions agree with
the text, and, secondly, the numbers, com-
pared with what we know of the sacrifices
offered on other occasions, are not unduly
large, nor were they such that (as has been
alleged) it would be impossible to offer them
within the time specitied. If, at an ordi-
nary Passover, a quarter of a million of
lambs could be sacrificed within the space
of two or three hours (Jos., Bell. Jud.
vi. 9. 3), there can obviously have been ‘‘no
difficulty in sacrificing 38000 oxen and
18,000 sheep on each of the seven days of
the festival ‘’ (Keil). (But were not the sacri-
fices spread over fourteen days? ver. 65.)
And it is to be remembered (1) that ‘‘ pro-
fusion was a usual feature of the sacrifices
of antiquity. Sacrifices of a thousand
oxen (yAwuPat) were not infrequent. Ac-
cording to an Arabian historian (Koto-
beddyn), the Caliph Moktader sacrificed
during his pilgrimage to Mecca . . . 40,000
camels and cows and 50,000 sheep. Taver-
nier speaks of 100,000 victims as offered by
the King of Tonquin ”’ (Rawlinson, Stanley);
and (2) that the context insists on the ex-
traordinary number of victims. They were
so numerous, we are told, that the brazen
altar was quite inadequate to receive them
(ver. 64). It has been already pointed out
(note on ver. 62) that the people joined the
king in the sacrifices. Indeed it is against
not only ver. 62, but vers. 63, 65, to suppose
that all the victims were offered by Sulomon
alone (Ewald, Stanley). If these numbers,
therefore, include those offered by the
people, we can the more readily understand
them. For, by the lowest computation,
there could hardly be less than 100,000
heads of houses present at the feast (Bahr,
Keil), and if the numbers of David’s census
(2 Sam. xxiv. 9) may be trusted, there may
very well have been four or five times that
number, and on such an occasion as that,
an occasion altogether without precedent,
every Israelite would doubtless offer his
sacrifice of thanksgiving—the more so as a
large number of victims would be required
for the purposes of the subsequent feast.
And as to the impossibility of the priests
offering so prodigious a number within the
specified time (ihenius, al.), we have only
to remember (1) that if there were 38,000
Levites (men over thirty years of age) in the
time of David (1 Chron. xxiii. 3), or any-
thing like that number, there must have

 

been at the very least at this period two or
three thousand priests (Keil), and we can
hardly think that at the dedication of so
glorious a temple, in which they were so
profoundly interested, many of them would
be absent from Jerusalem. But if there
were only one thousand present, that num-
ber would have been amplv sufficient to
perform all the priestly functions. For it
was no necessary part of the priests’ office
either to slay the victim, or to prepare it
for sacrifice—that anv Israelite might do
(Levit. i. 5, 6,11; ii. 2, 8, &e.); the duty of
the priest was strictly lmited to “ sprink-
ling the blood round about upon the altar”
(Levit. iii. 2,8; cf. i. 5), and burning the fat,
the ‘kidneys, &c., upon the altar (7b. ili. 5).
It is clear, consequently, that there is no
difficulty whatsoever as to the manual acts
required of the priests. It only remains to
notice one other objection, viz., that the
people could not possibly have eaten all the
flesh of these peace offerings. But here
again the answer is conclusive, viz. (1) that
it was not necessary that all should be eaten,
for the law expressly provided that if any of
the flesh remained over until the third day,
it should be burnt with fire (Levit. vii. 15;
xix. 6), and (2) no one can say what the
number of people may not have been (see
below on ver. 65), and (3) the sacrifices were
spread over fourteen days.] So the king
and all the children of Israel dedicated the
house of the Lord.

Ver. 64.—The same day did the king
hallow the middle of the court [iv.e., the
entire area of the court of the priests (ch.
vi. 36). Ewald (287 g) translates “ the
inner conrt.”” The whole space may have
been regarded as ‘one huge altar” (Rawlin-
eon). or temporary altars may have been
erected all over the area. As already ob-
served, this fact alone points to an enor-
mous number of victims] that was before
the house of the Lord: for there he offered
burnt offerings [Heb. the burnt offerings,
i.e., either the usual daily burnt offerings
(Num. xxvill. 3), or more probably, those
appropriate to such a special function (Num.
xxix. 13 sqq.; cf. 1 Kings i. 4)], and meat
offerings | Heb. the meat offering. Both this

 

and the preceding word (TY) are singular
(generic) in the original], and the fat of the
peace offerings: because the brazen altar
that was before the Lord [i.e., house of the
Lord] was too little to receive the burnt
offerings, and meat offerings, and the fat
of the peace offerings [and yet it was 20
cubits (30 feet) square, and so would offer
a surface of 100 (Keil 144) square yards].
Ver. 65.—And at that time Solomon held
a feast [the mecessary sequel to such acH. vill. 1—66.]

 

number of peace offerings (cf. ch. iii, 15),
All the flesh that could be, must be eaten
(Levit. xix. 5, 6)], and all Israel with him,
a great congregation [see note on ver. 64,
‘‘ All Israel” would hardly be an exaggera-
tion], from the entering in of Hamath [the
northern boundary of Palestine (Num,
xxxlv. 8; ef. xill. 31; Josh. xiii. 5 ; Judg. iii.
3; Ezek. xlvii. 16; Stanley, S. and P. p.
407; Dict. Bib. i. p. 644; Porter, pp. 620,
621] unto the river {| Heb. Ono, 1.€., torrent
bed, watercourse, wady (river is 113). See
Stanley, S. and P. pp. 14, 505, 506] of Egypt
[t.e., the southern limit of the Holy Land.
See Num. xxxiv.5; Josh. xv. 4,47; 2 Kings
xxlv. 7; Gen. xv. 18, where the word is 773
refers to the Nile. The Wady el Arish must
be intended (Dict. Bib, vol. iii. p. 1046, 1047,
and Gesen., Thesaurus, vol. ii. p. 872, Porter,
p. 267)], before the Lord our God, seven
days and seven days, even fourteen days
[The two periods are thus distinguished,
because they were properly distinct, the first
being the feast of dedication, the second
the feast of tabernacles. This is more
clearly explained in 2 Chron. vii. 9, 10.]
Ver. 66.—On the eighth day he sent the

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

   
 
   
  
  
 
  
   
  
   
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
   
   
  
 

161

ee

people away [i.e., on the eighth day of the
second feast, the “three and twentieth day
of the month”’ (id., ver. 10). The first im.
pression is that the eighth day of the period
of fourteen days is meant, but the context,
to say nothing of the Chron., contradicts
this. The feast of dedication began on the
eighth day of the month Ethanim (ver. 2),
and lasted until the fourteenth. The feast
of tabernacles began on the fifteenth and
lasted till the twenty-first. On the even.
ing of the twenty-second, the ‘day of re-
straint” (Levit. xxiii. 36 marg.), he dismissed
the people, who would depart to their homes
next morning]: and they blessed [t.6 5
felicitated, saluted (on taking leave). Cf.
Prov. xxvii. 14; 2 Kings iv. 29; 1 Sam.
xxv. 6,14. Marg. thanked. See note on
ver, 14] the king, and went unto their
tents [7.c., homes—an archaic expression,
dating from the times of the desert wander-
ings. Josh. xxii.4; Judg. vii. 8; 2 Sam. xx.
1; 1 Kings xii. 16] joyful and glad of heart
for all the goodness that the Lord had done
for David his servant [the real founder of
the temple. Solomon had but carried out
his ideas and had entered into his labours],
and for Israel his people,

HOMILETICS.

Vers. 8—11.—The Dedication of the Temple and its Teaching. The eighth
day of the seventh month of the year 1004 B.c., or, according to some, B.c. 1000,
was one of the brightest days of Jewish history—

‘*a day in golden letters to be set
Among the high tides of the calendar ; ”

   
  

for on that day the holy and beautiful house, which had been seven and a half years
in building, tor which preparations had been made for a much longer period
(1 Chron. xxii. 5), and on which a force of some one hundred and sixty thousand
workmen had been in different ways employed; on that day of days this house of
houses was solemnly dedicated to the service of Almighty God. Let us carry our
thoughts back to that day; let us join the procession; let us try to realize the scene,
for we may learn a lesson thence, first, as to the consecration of our churches,
and secondly, as to the dedication of our souls and bodies to God.

It is an enormous concourse that is gathered in and about the holy city. From
“the entering in of Hamath to the river of Egypt” (ver. 65) every town and hamlet
had sent up its taleof men. No Israelite who cowld be present—and in the seventh
month the labours of the field were well-nigh over—would be absent. We must
not think of the heads of the tribes alone; it is a nation keeps festival to-day. And
such a nation, with such ahistory! And its glory culminates to-day in the dedica-
tion of its temple. What child of Israel, then, but would be there ?

With early morning all Jerusalem, and its neighbouring hills and valleys (Psa.
exxy. 2), was instinct with life, ‘The Hasterns always rise early, and that day was
a high day. Itis still early when the great procession 1s marshalled. At its head
is “‘ Solomon in all his glory.” The dignitaries of the State, of the Church (ch. iv.
1—19) ; all are there. Their rendezvous is the Mount Zion; their object to escort
the ark of God, with all the honour they can render it, on its last journey, to ita
last resting-place. And so the white-robed priests (2 Chron. A 12) take up the
1 KINGS,ciate asa

162 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS [cn. virr. 1—66.

ad

 

 

 

 

consecrated structure and bear it tenderly, yet proudly, to its home. To-day the
Levites may not carry it. Asat the Jordan (Josh. iv. 10), as at Jericho (Josh. vi. 4),
as in Mount Ebal (Josh. vill. 83), so on its last journey it must be borne on the
shoulders of priests. ‘The procession—we cannot follow its course, for it is probable
that, for the sake of effect, it would make a considerable détowr, perhaps a circuit
of the city; nor can we speak of its psalms—and we may be sure if psalms (Pss.
xy., xxiv; 1 Chron. xvii. 7-36) were chanted at the removal of the ark, they would
not be wanting at the dedication of the temple—or its sacrifices (ver. 5)—the pro-
cession (cf. 1 Kings i. 88) at last reaches the temple precinct; 1t passes through the
gate; here the crowd is checked, but the priests and princes pass 0n ; they reach
the inner court; here the princes stop, but the priests pass on. The whole temple
platform is now choked with worshippers, while thousands who cannot gain
admittance witness the august ceremonial from without, many, no doubt, having
found a coien of vantage on the Mount of Olives. The priests, with their precious
burden, pass through the porch, pass through the holy place, pass through the veil
into the thick darkness of the oracle. There they lay down the ark, the outward
and visible sien of the covenant, under the overshadowing wings of the colossal
cherubim. They leave it wrapped in darkness; they leave it to begin at once their
ministrations before the new shrine. At this point of the ceremonial 1t had been
arranged that priests and Levites, singers, trumpeters, and harpists should burst into
a song of praise (2 Chron. v. 12, 13). But ere they can fully accomplish their
purpose, the dedication has become a true consecration, for the awful cloud, the
token of the Divine presence, the cloud which veiled “ the glory of the Lord” has
filled the house, and the priests cannot stand to minister. As at the dedication of
the tabernacle (Exod. xl. 84) so now, the incommunicable Godhead has ‘‘ come in a
thick cloud” (Exod. xix. 3), and has driven them, as it drove Moses, from the
sanctuary. The king, who sees the portent from without, recognizes at once that
his and his father’s hope is realized; that his and his people’s offering is accepted ;
that his and their projects and labours are now crowned; and, overcome with joy,
he cries, “I have surely built thee a house to dwell in, a settled place,” &e.

s Majestic silence! then the harp awoke,
The cymbal clanged, the deep-voiced trumpet spoke,
And Salem spread her suppliant hands abroad,
Viewed the descending flame, and blessed the present God.”

Such, in brief, was the dedication of this house. It 1s true prayers and sacrifices
followed, but of these we cannot now speak particularly. The essential parts of
the consecration were (1) the solemn and formal setting apart of the edifice by
the king and the representatives of the people, to be the house of God, and (2) the
formal entry—to use the language of men—by the Godhead, concealed under the
thick cloud, upon His new shrine.

Qo that in this service, as in all true services, there were two parts, man’s and
God’s. It was man’s part to offer the house with appropriate ceremonial to the
Most High ; it was God’s part to accept it with appropriate signs. Now both of
these are commonly and correctly called consecration. It will be for our con-
venience, however, if we now call the first of these dedication and restrict the term
consecration to the second. And, using the words in these senses, let us see in
thisimposing ceremonial a lesson, first, as to our churches. As to which, we learn :

I. THAT CHURCHES SHOULD BE FORMALLY-DEDICATED To Gop. For if a formal ser-
vice of dedication was fitting in the case of the temple, how can it be inappropriate in
the case of the church? Is the latter less worthy of care and reverent regard than
the former? Is it built for objects of less importance, or objects less Divine ? Is it
less dear to God, or less truly “‘God’s house,” because man is admitted to a place
therein? Or may men build houses for God and retain the ownership for them-
selves? ‘Can we judge it a thing seemly for any man to go about the building of
an house to the God of heaven with no other appearances than if his end were to
rear up a kitchen or parlour for his own use? Or, when a work of such a nature isCH. vil. 1—66.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 168

finished, remaineth there nothing but presently touse it and go an end?” (Hooker.)
Alas, that churches and chapels should ever have been offered—sometimes by
public auction—to the pewholders, or dedicated by brass plates, &c., to the service
of opulent parishioners. Too often have they become congeries of petty freeholds,
temples of exclusiveness, God’s house in nothing but name. But this could not
have been if the true idea of dedication had not been obscured or lost.

II. How CHURCHES SHOULD BE DEDICATED To Gop. This history tells us that it
should be with all possible solemnity and stateliness. There may surely be a pro-
cession. If this was right for the Jew, it cannot be wrong forus. There may be pro-
cessional hymns—the psalm which was acceptable in their lips cannot be unbecoming
in ours; the dignitaries of the State may join the ranks, even ‘“ kings of the earth”
may “bring their glory and honour into it” (Rev. xxi. 24) ; in fact, it cannot be too
stately, provided it be done not for self-glorification but for the glory of God. For
is not God the same now as then; is He not still a great king? And is not man
the same? Does he not still owe the profoundest homage he can render to hig
Maker? And if it be heartfelt, why may it not be public? The history teaches
that an august ritual befits the dedication of a church, and that, inter alia, there
should be sacrifices (vers. 5, 62; cf. 2 Sam. xxiv. 24—we should not come before
the Lord empty), music (2 Chron. y. 12, 13—the language of heaven, the one
tongue that escaped confusion at the building of Babel), and that the book of the
covenant should be borne (as it is in Germany, and as the ark was) In procession
to its place. ‘‘ ‘These things the wisdom of Solomon did not account guperfluous ”
(Hooker).

It is to be remembered here that our Lord by His presence sanctioned the
observance of a feast of dedication (John x. 22).

IJ. THAT CHURCHES MUST BE CONSECRATED BY GoD. The bishop, or other officer,
can only consecrate in the sense of dedicating—of setting apart from profane uses,
And this is what the ‘‘ consecration” of churches and churchyards really means—no
more and no less (see Hooker, Eccles. Pol. v.12. 6), If either is to be “* hallowed”
(ch. ix. 2), it must be by the Divine presence. The Moslems say that wherever
their great Caliph Omar prayed is consecrated ground. We hold that holy ground
(Exod. iii. 5) must derive its sanctity from the All-Holy. The God who filled the
temple must also hallow the church.

LY. THAT CHURCHES SINCERELY DEDICATED TO GOD WILL BE CONSECRATED By Gop.
Was the Ineffable Presence granted to the temple? Then why not to the church
also? God has no favourites, nor is His arm shortened. The Presence will not be
revealed, but it will be there; none the less real, all the more real, because it is
spiritual. It would be strange if,in the dispensation of-the Spirit, we disbelieved in
the presence of Him who fills heaven and earth, who is “in the midst of the seven
candlesticks ” (Rev. i. 18), and who has promised His presence to companies of
“‘two.or three” sincere souls (Matt. xviii. 20, Ubi tres, ibt ecclesia). Our churches
1 ss ; , rord of God and prayer ”’ (1 Tim. iv. 5), and if there
indeed are ‘‘ sanctified by the word o pray a a aed
is no cloud, yet we may “‘ behold the glory of the Lord” (2 Cor. ul. 18) ; a a
receive their full and perfect consecration in the cowwvia of Christ’s body anc Bue
(1 Cor. x. 16), Men forget that if there is not a Real Presence then there ae ae
real absence. Some will allow God to be present everywhere—except in His chure
and sacraments,

As to the Christian life, this dedication of the temple reminds us— Mee faqs

I. THAT OUR BODIES ARE TEMPLES OF THE HoLy GHOST (1 Cor. vi, 19; iu. : ; pat
2'Cor. vi. 16). “God has built” the “ peu ee in body” (John ii. 21) to be His

rine (Rom. viii. 9,11; 2 Cor. vi. 16; Eph. 1. Se py ere Nhe
on a WE SHOULD ‘DEDICATE THEM TO Gop (Rom. vi. 135,195 xu ie as
18—29 ; Matt. xxii. 21). ‘This is i in PCR be done in confirmation,

d must be done in conversion (the turning to Goa). ‘
is THAT IF WE DEDICATE aa — hi CON ae eS one

, . ti. 20; John xiv. 23) He wul en ;
Bi Etat heart—the innermost recess of the Hoa ae adytum—to Him,
and He will possess and glorify the whole body (Luke x1. 84, 36).164 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [ox. vim. 1—66.

 

Chap. vi. ver. 7, and chap. viii. ver. 12.—The Silence and the Darkness. In the
first of these passages we are told that the house, built for the habitation of the
Most High, was reared in profound silence ; in the second, that the Most High
Himself dwelleth in the thick darkness. ; ;

Now observe, first, that darkness stands in the same relation to sight that
silence does to hearing. In the one, nothing is seen; In the other, nothing 19
heard. And, secondly, that the cloud and the house were alike the shrine and the
dwelling-place of Deity: the cloud the inner, the temple the outer abode. We
learn, therefore, that the God who appears in the cloud (Levit. xvi. 2), and dwells in
the thick gloom of the oracle, is One who shrouds Himself in silence and darkness.
Hence, let us learn—

I. Tuar He 1g a Gop THAT HIDETH Hrusetr (Isa. xlv. 15). “* No man hath seen
God at any time” (John i. 18; Matt. xi. 27; Deut. iv. 12). ‘* Thick darkness is
under his feet’? (Psa. xvili. 9, Heb.) ‘‘ Darkness 1s his secret place; dark waters
and thick clouds his pavilion” (ch. vill. 11; ef. Psa. XCVil. 2). And He hides Tim:
self, not as Eastern kings have done (comp. Jisther 1. 14, and Herod. ii. 84),
to enhance their renown and dignity, and to increase the awe and reverence of
their subjects—omne ignotum pro magn ifico—but because we cannot see His
face and live (Exod. xxxiii. 20). ‘‘ Whom no man hath seen or can see”
(1 Tim. vi. 16). ‘‘ Dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto” (7b.)
Cf. Acts xxii. 11.

Il. THAT WE CANNOT BY SEARCHING FIND ouT Gop (Job xi. 7). In one sense
those are not so far wrong who speak of Him as “the Unknowable.” The
Quicunque vult describes Him as ‘Incomprehensible” (Latin, wmmensus, 7.€.,
immeasureable). Man cannot understand the mysteries of his own existence, how
much less the being of the Godhead. If we could understand God, we should be
intellectually equal with God (Gen. iii. 22). It isno argument against the doctrine
of the Trinity, or the eternal generation of the Son, or the procession of the Holy
Ghost, that each is a mystery. How could it be otherwise? We have ‘ nothing to
draw with, and the well is deep.”

III. THat His ways ARE WRAPPED IN DARKNESS. See Rom. ii. 33; Deut. xxix.
99; Eccles. xi. 5. His judgments are an abyss of which we cannot see the bottom
(Psa. xxxvi. 6). His footsteps are not known (Psa. Ixxvii. 19). As He dwells in the
thick cloud, so are His judgments far above out of sight (Psa. x. 5). “It is the
glory of God to conceal a thing’’ (Prov. xxv. 2). Hence it is that His dealings are
often so mysterious and painful, because what He does we know not now (John
xiii. 7). The disciples “ feared when they entered into the cloud” (Luke ix. 34).
‘‘Now we know in part.’? We only see, it has been said, as it were, the under-
side of the carpet, and so life is a confused and meaningless mixture. It is not
God’s will that we should see the plan and pattern yet. (Cf. Col.i. 26; Ephes.
lil. 9.)

TV. THar His works ARE WROUGHT IN SILENCE. He is Himself a God that
keepeth silence ; Psalm 1. 8, 21 recognizes this. If silence be golden, the Kternal
has observed this golden rule. Men blaspheme Him, defy Him, challenge Him to
smite them dead—as a well-known atheist is said to have done—dc., and He keeps
silence. Amid ‘‘ earth’s many voices,” amid its everlasting Babel, His voice is never
heard. Similarly, He works in the silence. At the creation, ‘‘ He spake and it was
done.” ‘‘God said, Let there be light, and there was light.” Creation moves in
silence. We speak of ‘“‘the music of the spheres; but it is buta beautiful conceit.
On the contrary, ‘‘ there is no speech, no language; their voice is not heard” (Psa.
xix. 3, Heb.) Much truer is that exquisite conception—

 

« And nightly to the listening earth
Repeats the story of her birth.”

The fact is that,

“*Tn solemn silence, all
Moye round this dark terrestrial ball.’’CH. vil. 1-—66.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 165

And in silence, too, is this planet sustained and ordered. How

‘silently the springtime

Her crown of verdure weaves,
And all the trees on all the hills

Open their thousand leaves,”

Or as another, not less beautifully, puts it—

‘* Soundless as chariots on the snow
The saplings of the forest grow
To trees of mighty girth :
Fach nightly star in silence burns,
And every day in silence turns
The axle of the earth.

*“ The silent frost, with mighty hand,
Fetters the rivers and the land
With universal chain ;
And, smitten by the silent sun, é
The chain is loosed, the rivers run,
Lhe lands are free again.”

But for the discordant din of men, and but for the voices of beasts and birds, this
earth would be a temple of silence. And it is in the silence that God reveals
Himself. Not in the great and strong wind, not in the earthquake, not in the
fire, but in the still small voice (1 Kings xix. 12, 13). “ Let us be silent,” says
one, that we may hear the whispers of the gods.” In the silence, too, His Church
has grown. His kingdom “cometh not with observation”’ (Luke xvii. 20). As
silently as the seed grows, day and night, in the soil; as silently as the leaven works
in the meal. And in the silence our Holy Lord will come again—as a thief in the
night, as a snare, as the lightning.

V. THAT ALL THE EARTH SHOULD KEEP SILENCE BEFORE Him (Hab. ii. 20). It
is not meant to preach here ‘‘the eternal duty of silence,” nor that all worship
should be ‘‘of the silent sort; but that, in realizing the awful presence of God,
men should be hushed into the profoundest awe. When we do ‘ take upon our-
selves to speak unto our Lord,” we should remember that ‘“‘we are but dust and
ashes ’’ (Gen. xvili. 27). Our finger on our lips, our lips in the dust. It was this
feeling, in part, led Solomon to build the temple in silence. And the feeling which
found this expression in act he has elsewhere translated in words (see Eccles. v.
1,2). It was with a similar feeling that our Lord acted (Mark xi. 16). And it is
significant that we read of “silence in heaven” (Rey. viii. 1).

VI. Tuat Gop’s WORK MUST BE DONE IN SILENCE. ‘“ All real work is quiet work.
Tt must be unobtrusive if it is to be fruitful. “ The temple was thrown down with
axes and hammers, and they that did it roared in the midst of the congregation
(Psa. lxxiv. 4, 6), but it was built up in silence’? (M. Henry). A temple of the Lord,
a temple of “ living stones,” is now being built. “ O God, that the axes of schism or
the hammers of furious contention should be heard within Thy sanctuary ”’ (Hall).
It is because of our unseemly cries and wranglings, because of the clash of contro-
versy and the shouts of heated partizans, that this temple has made such poor
progress. Not until we have been first hushed into szlence can the headstone be

brought forth with shouting (Zech. iv. 7).

Ver. 2: cf. vi. 16—The Holy of Holies and the Heaven of Heavens. Else-
where (pp. 99, 112) we have spoken of the correspondence of the Jewish temple
with the Christian Church. But let us now trace a truer and higher resemblance.
For the Epistle to the Hebrews tells us that the “holy places made with hands”
are ‘the figures (avriruma, 7.€., copres) of the true’ (Heb. ix. 24). The temple of
Solomon, therefore, must correspond to things in the heavens. It does this,
first, in its structure; secondly, in its furniture ; thirdly, in its services.166 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. fou. vir. 1—66.,

I. In rvs structure. The temple, we have seen, was a reproduction, on an
enlarged scale, and in a more permanent form, of the tabernacle. And _ the
tabernacle was fashioned after a heavenly pattern (Hxod. xxv. 40; xxvi. 80; xxvil. 8;
Heb. vii. 5). Thrice was Moses admonished to make it ‘* according to the fashion
which was showed him in the mount.” It has been well said that earthis

“ But the shadow of heaven, and things therein
Are to each other like.”

But this is true in a special sense of the earthly and heavenly temples. Their
resemblance is recognized in the very language used of the temple. “ Heaven thy
dwelling-place’’ is constantly found in close connexion with ‘* this house (ch. viii.
30, 34, 39, 48). The same word—Zebul—used of the temple in ch. viii. 18 is used
of heaven in Isa. Ixiii. 15. Compare also ver. 18, “asettled place for thee to dwell
in,” &c., with vers. 80, 39, 48, &e. (Heb.) The same word—Haycal—again, used
of the temple in ch. vi. 5,33; vii. 50; 2 Kings xxiv. 13, iselsewhere used of heaven
(Psa, x1.4; xvi. 7; xxix. 9, &e.) But ean we trace the resemblance? Can we
suggest any points of contact? Let us try, premising, frst, that a ‘‘ general analogy
is all that we can look for” (Alford on Rev. viii. 8).

1. The temple was tripartite (see ch. vi. Introduction). It was composed of porch,
holy place, and oracle (the side chambers were hardly integral parts of the structure ;
see note on ch. vi. 6), Now it is remarkable that though the Jewish fathers spoke
of ‘‘seven heavens”—some held that there were two—Holy Scripture speaks of
three, and three only. When St. Paul would describe the very dwelling-place of
Deity, he calls it ‘the third heaven” (2 Cor. xii. 2). What are the three heavens—
whether atmospherie (nwbhiferwm), sidereal (astriferwm), and angelic (angeliferum),
or what—it does not concern us to say; it is enough for our purpose that there
are three. And three, it must be remembered, is the number and signature of God.

2. Ali the temple was God's dwelling-place. It is a mistake to suppose that the
oracle was the abode of God, the holy place the abode of the people. In the temple
the people had no place. It was the “‘house of the great God” (Ezra v. 8) ; a palace
for God, and not for man (1 Chron. xxix. 1). “As the whole house, so also each
compartment .. . is called ‘ the dwelling-place’” (Bahr). Again, the holy place, as
well as the entire sanctuary, is called the palace (ch. vi. 5 with 2 Kings xxiv. 138).
The primary design of the temple, as of the tabernacle, was to afford a habitation
for the ark and for Him whose covenant it contained.

8. But the inner temple was God's shrine. In the holy of holies, He was
revealed. He dwelt *‘ between the cherubim ”’ (Iixod, xxv. 22; 1 Sam. iy. 4: 2
Kings xix. 15, &¢.) The word Shechinah, which is used to denote the Presence, is
derived from shachan, ‘he dwelt.” So itis in heaven, Heaven is God’s throne
(isa. Ixvi, 1; Acts vil. 49); but ‘there is a “heaven of heavens,” where He is
revealed. True “the heaven and heaven of heavens” cannot contain Him, any
more than the holy and the holy of holies, but in each He has His special habi-
tation. Here again temple and temple not built with hands are alike.

4. The temple blazed with gold and gems. It was “ exceeding magnifical ” as
the palace of the Godhead. Everything was appropriate to a great king. ‘Pure
gold,” “ gold of Uphaz,” cedar, olive wood, all was “for glory and beauty ” (Exod,
Xxvil. 2). Compare the description of heaven in Rev. xxi. 9 sqq. Like a jasper
Stone (ver. 11); pure gold (vers. 18, 21) ; precious stones (vers. 19, 20); twelve
pearls (ver. 21).

II. In rvs Furniture. Observe: the furniture and appointments outside the
house, in the court of the priests—brazen altar, molten sea, layers, &c.—have no
counterparts in heaven. They are “of the earth, earthy.” In the holy place were
the altar of incense, the table of shewbread, the ten candlesticks, &c. (cl. “Vil.
48—50). In the most holy place were the mercy-seat, the cherubim of glory,
the ark, the golden censer, &e. And heaven has its golden altar (Rey. vi. 9; vill,
°5 = 13), its incense (Rev. viii. 3, 4), its seven lamps (Rev. iv. 5; cf. Exod. xxvii.
23 , Zech iv.2). And for the table of shewbread, see Rey. xxii. 2. Or if it be saidCH. vii1. 1—66.]| THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 167

 

 

that the ‘“ table of the face” has no counterpart in heaven, w :
not needed, because His servants ‘“‘ see his face” 18 we may reply that it is
Weg ect 0). Sicallawly heaven Hae ity shew Dien es upon His presence
there—its cherubim and seraphim (Isa. vi. 2 pee ae a e, Hount of Mercy dwells
golden censer (Rey. viii. 8, 5). It has no salon ek 3 ot. Ezelc. i, 10), and its
the Eternal, as He now writes it on the hearts of me eb Tee ee eee
its throne (Rev. iv. 2 et passim), and the ark was fis th 16 of G a Bue ona
III. In irs services. Here we must distinouish i stie oh God (cf, Isa. vi. 2),
holy place, and (2) the service of the Holiest of all. As to th @ ine Bye Uh ie
suffice to say that it centred round the altar of incense M nae ae ae
year in, year out, incense was burnt upon the golden altar A oe Taba ninee
seen that incense is offered in heaven. As to its aed A ee arate
spoken elsewhere (pp. 199,200). Let us turn, ther Bee lessons, &c., we have
holy place. And here we observe— RIESE ESD Ber MBB GR YRS pet
1. The cherubim of glory overshadowed the mercy-seat (Heb. ix. 5). They
were, as it were, choirs on either side of the place of the Presence. Now i
cherubim were symbolical representations of all created existences (s aya
ch. vl. 29) from the highest to the lowest. But especially did they Syadow forth the
highest forms of intelligence, the celestial beings who surround the Lord of ee
they were earthly counterparts of the heavenly seraphim (Isa. vi. 2) and so they
pourtrayed, as far as was possible, the worship of the heavenly hosts It is true tl iq
were silent—they could not be otherwise—but still they conveyed Mabe wok
ceaseless contemplation, of the most profound and reverent homage, of ao eaitiek
adoration. Indeed, we only understand what they symbolized by comparing the
shadow with the substance. For we find that heaven has its cherubim. The “four
beasts (6a) round about the throne, full of eyes before and behind” (Rev. iv. 6-—8)
are clearly the “ very substance” of those things of which Isaiah’s and Ezekiel’s
winged creatures (Isa. vi. 2; Ezek. i. 10; x. 14) were the likeness, and of which
Solomon’s cherubim were the copies. The silent, stately cherubim consequently
were adumbrations of the mysterious hierarchy who ceaselessly praise the Un-
ereated Light and lead the worship of the skies (Rev. iy. S01; 8,
‘raising their Trisagion ever and aye.” 1 he
2. The high priest entered the most holy place once a year. The ceremonial of
the day of atonement (Levit. xvi.) foreshadowed, as we are expressly told in Heb. ix.,
the entry of our great High Priest into heaven itself. The Jewish high priest,
robed in spotless white vestments, passed through the veil of blue and purple aud
scarlet (Exod. xxvi. 31) into the holy oracle, with the blood of calves and goats, &e.
Even so our unspotted Lord, ‘‘ the High Priest of our profession” (Heb. u. 1),
passed through (not ¢znto, SueXnvO6ra) the blue heavens (Heb. iv. 14) into the
presence of the Eternal, with His own blood (ch. ix. 12). And as the high priest
presented the tokens of death—as he sprinkled the blood (which is the life of the
flesh) seven times before the mercy-seat eastward (Levit. xvi. 15), and so in figure
pleaded the meritorious death of Him who should come to put away sin, so does
our great High Priest present his pierced and wounded form—He stands before the
throne as a “Lamb as it had been slain” (Rev. v. 6)—and pleads His passion, the
death of One who has come, for the salvation and life of the world. It may be
that, like the high priest, He utters no articulate words ; it may be that, like him,
He simply appears as the representative of man to show the tokens and pledges of
atonement; or it may be that as the incense was burned when the blood was
sprinkled, so His powerful intercession, of which the incense was a type, is joined to
the silent pleading of His wounds. But whichever way it 1s, 1t 1s clear that the
ritual of the holy of holies hag its blessed counterpart in the ritual of the heaven

of heavens.

In how many and varied ways is
Son of David (see pp. 63, 77, &¢.)
“taught us how to pray ” (Luke

Vers, 23—-53.—The Prayer of Dedication.
Solomon a type of the Divine Solomon, the true
Even in this respect they are alike—that each has

xi. 1 sqq.)168 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. cu. vir. 1—66.

 

For we may be sure that the Prayer of Dedication is for our instruction and
imitation, otherwise it would hardly have been recorded, and recorded at such
length, in Seripture. ‘* After this manner therefore pray ye” (Matt. vi. 9).

I. LAYMEN MAY OFFER PUBLIC PRAYER. ‘This is no monopoly of priests. The
Hebrew king might not sacrifice or burn incense (2 Chron. xxvi. 18), but he might
lead the prayers both of priests and people, and that on the greatest day in the
history of Israel. Even so, though ‘‘ we give not to our princes the ministering
either of God’s word or of the sacraments’ (Art. xxxvii.), still we do not deny them
any ‘‘ prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly princes in
Holy Scripture ” (¢b.), and least of all the prerogative of prayer exercised by David,
Solomon, Asa (2 Chron. xiv. 11), Jehoshaphat (2d., xx. 5—12), and Hezekiah
(ib., xxx. 18—20). It was Constantine, a layman, presided at the Council of Nice.

II. KtnGs SHOULD BE PROUD TO TAKE PART IN RELIGIOUS FUNCTIONS. Whatever
divinity doth hedge them about, they are not greater or wiser than Solomon, and
the proudest moment of his life was when he led the ark to its resting-place; the
happiest, when he “blessed all the congregation of Israel” (ver. 14). Never is
king so great as when he takes his proper place before God. Alas! that religion
should have ever been brought into such contempt that kings should be ashamed
or atraid to be the “nursing fathers”? of the Church (Isa. xlix. 28). Solomon’s
prayer is ‘‘a testimony that a wisdom which can no longer pray is folly” (Bahr).

TII. PRAYER SHOULD BE PRECEDED BY PRAISE. It was not until Solomon had
‘blessed God ”’ (ver. 15) that he prayed to God (vers. 28—53). ‘* Praemissa laude,
énvocatio sequt solet.” This was the rule of the early Church (see Psa. lxy. 1, 2 for
the scriptural order; cf. Phil. i. 8, 4 ; iv. 6, and see Howson’s Hulsean Lectures,
No. iv., for the combination of thanksgiving and prayer in St. Paul’s Hpistles). And
Solomon not only began but ended with blessing (ver. 56).

IV. TRUE PRAYER IS ASKING GOD FOR WHAT WE NEED. Not rhetorical display,
not sesqucpedalia verba, not a mere string of texts and hymns, but the simplest,
humblest cry of the heart. Which of us has not heard prayers like the Pharisee’s—
without one word of prayer (2.e., petition) in them? And how many prayers are
made painful by their pretentiousness. Perhaps a child has been ordained our
pattern (Matt. xviii. 2—4), that from it we should learn to pray. ‘‘ In prayer it is
better to have a heart without words than words without a heart”? (Bunyan).

V. PRAYER SHOULD BE OFFERED FOR ALL SORTS AND CONDITIONS OF MEN. Not for
self only. It is not ‘my Father,” but ‘our Father.’’ Perhaps selfishness is
nowhere more conspicuous or more hateful than in our prayers. We are members
one of another. It is in the Pharisee’s prayer that we find so much “I.” Notice
how varied were Solomon’s petitions, and cf. 1 Tim.u.1, 2,8. Tennyson says—

** For what are men better than sheep or goats
That nourish a blind life within the brain,
If, knowing God, they lft not hands in prayer
Both for themselves and those who call them friend?”

And he does not stop there, but adds that thus

“the whole round world
Is bound by golden chains around the feet of God.”

This prayer of dedication was a veritable Litany (vers. 81, 88,87, 41, 44, &e.)

VI. PRAYER SHOULD BE SCRIPTURAL, 2.¢., conceived in the spirit and expressed in
the words of Scripture. This prayer was pre-eminently so (see notes on vers. 22 sqq.)
What St. Cyprian says of the Lord’s prayer, ** Quanto efficacius impetramus quod
petimus mm Christi nomine, st petamus ipsius oratione,” may suggest to us that
that prayer is most likely to move God’s hand which is based on God’s Word.
Supplication should be shaped by revelation.

VII. PRAYERS MAY BE LiturGicaL. ‘The Scripture references, its artificial
structure, aud indeed. its very preservation, prove that this prayer was a pre-cH. vit. 1—66.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 169

 

 

 

 

composed form. A form need not involve formalism. Al] Christians use f f
praise ; why not forms of prayer? (See Hooker, V. xxvi. 2. 3.) oS Nee

OPEL. OUTWARD BONMS ARE NOT TO BE DESPISED. Solomon “kneeled upon his
knees, with his hands stretched out towards heaven ”’ (cf. Dan. vi. 10: Acts vii. 60:
ix. 40; xx. 36; xxi. 5; Ephes. iii. 14, and, above all, Luke xxii. 41 ‘and xxiv 50.
Also Psa. XXVlll. 2; lxiil. 4; cxxxiv. 2). Ritualism is a question of deeree for ous ‘all
use some rites. So long as we have bodies, we can never have a purely spiritual
religion, but must “ glorify God in our bodies and spirits ’’ (1 Cor. vie 20) That
forms have their foundation in human nature, and may be impressive and edit ring
is proved by the fact that “‘no nation under heaven either doth or ever did caffe
public actions which are of weight to pass without some visible solemnity ’’ (Hooker
LY. i. 3), and for this reason, that

‘¢Sounds which address the ear are lost and die
In one short hour; while that which strikes the eye
Lives long upon the mind: the faithful sight
Graves on the memory with » beam of light.”

Tt is only when forms usurp the place, or mar the reality, of spiritual worship (John
iv. 24) that they are really reprehensible.

Vers. 62—66.—The Feast on the Sacrifices. In this prodigious number of
sacrifices—in round numbers 150,000 victims—3,000 oxen and 18,000 sheep for every
day of the festival (Keil); five oxen and twenty-five sheep for every minute of each
day (Thenius)—in this wholesale slaughter, which converted the court of the
priests into one great shambles, and almost choked the sewers of the temple with
blood, one feature is liable to be overlooked (note on ver. 64), namely, that all these
sacrifices were ‘‘ peace offerings,” with the exception, of course, of the usual burnt
offerings. In all these—and king and princes and people alike brought their
thousands— all was first given to God, but the bulk was given back by God to
the sacrificers. With the exception of the fat, &., burnt on the altar, and the
blood (which was the life), poured out at its base, and the customary portion of the
priests (Levit. vii. 14, 21; 1 Cor. ix. 13), all the rest was carried home by the offerer
to provide a feast for him and his family. The peace offering was thus a social
festival (die yeierliche und formliche Mahizeit (Bahr, see his Symbolik, i1. 868 sqq.)
And the same remark applies to the still greater number—a quarter of a million—of
paschal lambs offered year by year in later times. The blood was sprinkled as
a memorial before God, but the lamb was roasted entire to provide a supper for the
household (Deut. xvi. 1—7). In all these sacrifices God graciously entertained
those who offered them with their own oblations—which He had first given them—
at His own table. And herein we have an illustration of God’s gracious way of
dealing with our gifts and offerings. He accepts them at our hands, but gives them
back for our use and enjoyment. We present our sacrifice, and He spreads a
banquet for our souls. It is a curious circumstance, and one that shows how
entirely this principle has been overlooked, that “ sacrifice,” which properly means
‘‘something made sacred,” ‘‘ consecrated,” has come to bea synonym for “ loss,”
‘privation.” But this a true sacrifice can never be. There is no such thing as
giving at a loss to the Lord of all. He insists on paying us back a hundred fold.
All our offerings are in this sense peace offerings. He sends us away laden with
our own gifts, ‘joyful and glad of heart for all the goodness of the Lord”’ (ver.
66). Let us now see how this holds good.

I. OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST. This is the one veritable sacri-
fice of the world. - Of all others it may be said, ‘ Of thine own have we given
thee.” He alone ‘offered himself” (Heb. ix. 14). “ With his own blood” (ver. 12).
Behold how this oblation comes back to us charged with blessing. ‘* Once offered
to bear the sins of many” (ver. 28); ‘* Having obtained eternal redemption for us
(ver. 12). “By the obedience of one many are made righteous ’’ (Hom. v. 19).
Compare Heb. ii. 9,10; xii. 2; Phil. u. 6—11 ; and especially John x. 11, 17, and

vi. 51.170 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. Lom. Vir. 1-66.

 

II. OF THE SACRIFICE OF OUR BODIES (Rom. xii. 1). If in separating the body
from common uses and yielding our bodies instruments of righteousness to God
(Rom. vi. 18), we seem to suffer inconvenience, privation, &e., 16 18 not really SO.
This sacrifice brings ‘‘ joy and gladness of heart.” Not unseldom are we conscious
of the present gain. “Virtue is its own reward.” ‘The ‘“testumony of the con-
science” ig uo slight recompense. How great, for example, is the gucrdon of
purity!

66 So dear to Heaven is saintly chastity
~ That when a soul is found sincerely so
A thousand liveried angels lacquey her,
Driving far off each thing of sin and guilt,
And in clear dream and solemn vision
Tell her of things that no gross ear can hear,” &,

There is a story told of George Herbert which shows how little sacrifices become
great feasts. On his way to a musical gathering, he stopped by the way to help
a poor waggoner out of the ruts. Arriving late and bespattered with mud, he was
commiserated for the loss and inconvenience he had sustained. But he would n ot
allow that it was loss. ‘‘ The remembrance,” he said, ‘‘will bring music into the
heart at midnight.”

Ill. OF THE SACRIFICE OF OUR ALMS. ‘True, they are loss when given to serve
self, or for the praise of men. “ Verily I say unto you, they have (i.¢., exhaust,
axéyovow) their reward”? (Matt. vi. 2). Such givers get what they bargained for;
they receive “ their good things” (Luke xvi. 25). But then there was no ob lation to
God. A Scottish laird having put a crown piece by mistake into the plate, asked
for it back again. On being told that he might put what he chose in, but take
nothing out, he said, ‘‘ Well, well, I suppose T’ll get credit for it in heaven.”
‘“‘Na, na,” was the just reply, ‘‘ye’ll only get credit for the penny.” But if the alms
be true offerings to God, then they have both a present and an eternal reward.
Present, in hearing the widow’s heart sing for joy, and in the blessing of him that
was ready to perish” (Job xxix. 18); eternal, in that ‘‘God is not unrighteous to
forget,”’ &c. (Heb. vi. 10), and that a ‘‘ cup of cold water only” shall inno wise lose
its reward (Matt. x. 42). Such gifts are the truest and safest investments (Prov.
xix. 17).

‘* We lose what on ourselves we spend,
We have as treasure without end
Whatever, Lord, to Thee we lend.”

There is on record an admirable prayer of Thomas Sutton, the pious fo under of
the Charterhouse, ‘“‘O Lord, Thou hast given me a large estate, give me a large
heart.” We cannot lose what we give away.

IV. OF THE SACRIFICE OF OUR OBLATIONS. We use “oblations’”’ here in the
liturgical sense of the word, z.e., of the oblations of bread and wine in the Holy
Communion. For these were anciently, and should be still, solemnly offer ed to
God, as our thank-offerings, as a sort of first-fruits of His creatures. And now con-
sider how they are given back to us. ‘‘ The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not
the communion («cowwvia, the joint participation in) of the blood of Christ? the brea d
which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?’ (1 Cor, x. 16.)
We have presented to the Divine Majesty bread and wine, and He gives us in
return the body and blood of our Lord (ibd., xi. 24, 25).

VY. OF THE SACRIFICE OF WORLDLY PRosPECTS, &c. Men often speak of the
sucrijices they have had to make for the sake of their religion. And time was
when great sacrifices were demanded; these are sometimes demanded still. But
they involve no loss, no real and abiding injury. On the eontrary, they aré
actually, and in the long run, a gain. ‘There is no man that hath left houses,
or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my
sake and the gospel’s, but he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time,
houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with per-
secutions; and in the world to come eternal life” (Mark x. 29, 30). On whichCH. vill. 1—66.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 171

 

Bengel beautifully remarks that nature gives us each but one father and one
mother, but the Church gives us many. (Cf. Rom. xvi. 18.) ‘ What shall I do.”
said Amaziah, ‘‘for the hundred talents which I have given to the army of
{srael?*’ “And the man of God answered, The Lord is able to give thee much
more than this”’ (2 Chron. xxy. 9). Who had made more sacrifices than St.
Paul? And yet who was it wrote of * having nothing, yet possessing all things?”
(2 Cor. vi. 10). The man who had such loved and loving friends as Rom. xvi,
proves him to have had, cannot be called poor. Well might he write, “I have
all and abound” (Phil. iv. 18). The sacrifices he had made procured him a con-
tinual feast. It is the same with all our sacrifices. The Great King cannot receive
gifts, but he must return them “according to his royal bounty”’ (1 Kings x. 18).
The Greatest Giver in the world will never be outdone in ‘generosity by king
Sclomon. (A beautiful illustration of the leading thought of this homily will be
found in one of Mrs. Gatty’s ‘‘ Parables from Nature,” called ‘‘ The Circle of Bless-
ing,” 2nd series, 6th ed., pp. 5 sqq.)

HOMILIES BY VARIOUS AUTHORS.

Ver. 6.—The Ark of the Covenant. The ark was the heart of the temple. For
it the shrine was erected. It was regarded as the throne of Jehovah. Hence
the reverence with which it was approached. In itself the ark was not very re-
markable. It was a chest 23 cubits long, and 13 cubits deep and broad, made of
wood covered with gold; the lid, called “the mercy-seat,” being of pure gold,
having the cherubim at its ends. For its construction see Exod. xxv., where it is
placed first as the most important of all the furniture of the tabernacle. Describe
its connection with the people’s entrance to Canaan, leading them through the
Jordan, and heading the procession round Jericho. A superstitious sanctity was
attached to it later. The outward symbol was supposed to have the efficacy which
belonged only to that which it symbolized. It was carried into battle (1 Sam. iv.)
under this delusion, but the ark could not save a people from whom God had
withdrawn. ‘Their superstition was rebuked by the defeat of the army, and the
capture by the Philistines of the ark itself. Show how often in Church history the
sign has been substituted for the thing signified, to the injury of God’s cause.
Though the superstitious belief in the ark was always rebuked, its sanctity was
vindicated: by its avenging progress through the cities of Philistia, and by the
punishment of Uzzah. Moreover, a blessing came with it to those who received it
aright, e.g., to the house of Obed-Edom. ‘The ark had been brought up to Jerusalem
by David amid national rejoicing and placed in a tent prepared for it; now it
found its abiding place in Solomon’s temple. Throwing on the ark the light of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, let us remind ourselves of certain religious truths to which
it bore silent witness. ‘These will be suggested by the contents of the ark, by its
covering, by the mode of approaching it, and by its uses in worship.

I. THE ARK SUGGESTED THAT THE COVENANT RESTED ON LAW. The safe custody of
the material tables of stone implied the moral observance of the precepts inscribed
on them. ‘There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone,” &e. (If
we are to understand Heb. ix. 4 as asserting that Aaron’s rod and the pot of
manna were actually inside the ark, they had probably disappeared by Solomon's
time.) The term “a covenant” is only used by way of accommodation, when applied
to the relation between man and God. Sucha “ covenant” 1s merely & promise,
which God makes dependent on the fulfilment of certain conditions ; eJes the
promise after the flood is called a “covenant.” So the covenant of Brat hae
promise on God’s part, conditioned by the observance of the ten Cena m mew
man’s part. This was proclaimed by the presence of the tables of the law ix 2
ark of the covenant. Show from Scripture and experience that bliss is conditione
by obedience. There is nothing lawless either in morals or in nature.

II. THE ARK PROCLAIMED THAT MERCY CAME BETWEEN MAN AND THE BROKEN LAW,
‘The mercy-seat ” covered “ the tables.” ‘The value of mercy was typified by the172 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cH. vir. 1—66.

 

pure gold of the capporeth. Exhibit the necessity of mercy to men who are prone
to evil and forgetful of good. Illustrate 1t from God’s dealings with Israel, and
Christ's goodness to His disciples. The publican struck the keynote of true prayer
when he exclaimed, ‘God be merciful to me, a sinner!” Compare Psalm li,
Show how the sense of our want of mercy grows with our sensibility to the sinful-
ness of sin. Paul the apostle an example of this: ‘ of sinners I am the chief.”

III. THE ARK DECLARED THAT AN ATONEMENT MADE MERCY POSSIBLE. Describe
the day of atonement; the sacrifice offered; the high priest entering the holy of
holies with the blood which he sprinkled on the mercy-seat. Even he could only
draw near to the mercy-seat after the sacrifice (compare Heb. ix.) ‘* Without the
shedding of blood there is no remission.” Apply this to the sacrifice of ‘ the Lamb
of God,” who was ‘‘ wounded for our transgressions,’ whose “ blood cleanseth from
all sin.” Describe him as the High Priest in the Holiest of all, having opened the
way for all sinners to the abounding mercy of God.

IV. THE ARK ENCOURAGED MEN TO DRAW NEAR TO Gop. The law (represented by
the tables) was broken; but the mercy of God (represented by the capporeth) was
revealed; and the atonement (represented by the sprinkled blood) was provided ;
so that God fulfilled His promise about the mercy-seat. ‘There will I commune
with thee.”’

Apply the teaching of this subject to those conscious of euilt, burdened by
sorrow, &c. ‘Let us, therefore, come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we
may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.”—A. Rh.

Vers. 10, 11.—The Presence of the Lord in the House of the Lord. The Shechinah,
which is here referred to, was a most brilliant and glorious light, usually concealed
by a cloud; a fit emblem, therefore, of Jehovah, the God of light and of glory,
who is veiled from His creatures. As the visible symbol of the Divine presence,
“the pillar of cloud and fire,” had gone before Israel in the wilderness, proving their
guide and defence. Suddenly and mysteriously it appeared in the new temple of
Solomon, at the festival of dedication, giving Divine sanction to the work, and
assuring all beholders that Jehovah had made that His dwelling-place. Not only
was the holy of holies filled with the cloud, but the holy place also, indeed, the
whole building was permeated by it, so that all the building was henceforth holy.
The signs of the Divine presence are different now, but the reality of it may be con-
sciously felt. ‘‘ Where two or three are met together in my name, there am I in the
midst of them.’ The New Testament counterpart of this manifestation is found in
the upper room on the day of Pentecost, when ‘‘ suddenly there came a sound from
heaven as of a rushing mighty. wind, and it filled all the house where they were
sitting’? (Acts ii. 2). Compare these two manifestations: the splendour of the
temple, with the poverty of the upper room; the narrowness of national rejoicing,
with the breadth of world-wide preaching, &. Let us seek the changeless inward
truth underlying the changeful outward form which embodies it.

T. THE PREPARATION FOR THE DIVINE PRESENCE. Read the account of that
which, on the part of the people, had preceded this display. 1. Sacred memories
were recalled. ‘The worn tent, the ark, the holy vessels, had just been brought in
(ver. 4), and glorious yet tender associations were connected with each. The
revival of old impressions made in youth, &c., makes the heart sensitive to the
Spirit of God. Give examples. 2. Divine law was enthroned. ‘‘ Nothing in the
ark save the two tables of stone” (ver. 9). Disobedience to God’s commands, for-
getfulness of them, unfits us for seeing Him. It deteriorates character, debases the
heart. ‘‘Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? he that hath clean hands
and a pure heart,” &. 38. God’s claims were recognized. By the completion of
the temple, by the multitudinous sacrifices (ver. 5). The willingness to give our-
selves up to God prepares us to see Him as owr God. Not the intellectual research,
but the rey erent submission discovers Him. ‘“ Except ye be converted and become
as little children, ye shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.’ ‘He that doeth
the will of my Father shall know of the doctrine.” ‘We beseech you, there-
fore, brethr 60, by the mercies of God, that ye present yourselves a living sacrifice,”CH. vilI. 1—66.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 173

dies fee. Magness prayers were offered. Solomon’s prayer, which follows, was but
ana public utterance of many secret prayers on the part of himself

and others. See how often he spoke to God about this building, and how ofte :
God spoke to him. He and his people prayed above all things that the s rasta
glory of the tabernacle might be granted to the temple. Now the Be ott
answered. “Ask and ye shall receive,” &. The apostles expected the Hol
Spirit ; but in order to receive the fulfilment of the Lord’s promise, ‘they contin : rf
nae pa accord, in prayer and supplication.” et eeraain
_ il. THE EFFECTS OF THE DIVINE PRESENCE. We do not refer specia
immediate effects of the cloud, but to the moral and religious Tee Hag Peanaand
thus symbolized. 1. It restored significance to old symbols. The ark Had lost
much of its sanctity in the eyes of the people, as the conduct of Uzzah showed
This naturally arose from its frequent removals, its uncovering, its capture by the
Philistines, and most of all from the absence of the Shechinah. Now the old
veneration was restored to it, because its real significance was re-established
Apply this thought to churches, to their organizations, to their sacraments, éc.
How often these are like the cloudless ark. They want the realized presence of
God to make them vivid with life. 2. It testified to God’s acceptance of the new
building. everence and awe fell on all the worshippers. True “ consecration ”
arises from the signs of the Divine presence given to the faithful. The conversion
of a sinner, the uplifting of a fallen disciple, &c., these are the evidences we look
for that worship and work, place and people, are accepted of God. 8. It confirmed
the faith of some, and inspired faith in others. From childhood they had been
told of the appearance of the glory of the Lord in olden days. Now, for the first
time, they saw it, and doubt vanished before the ight. A great turning to God on
the part of the unrighteous, or some similar spiritual evidence of the Divine power
amongst us, would do more than all controversy to destroy scepticism. 4. It pro-
claimed God’s readiness to hear prayer. With what confidence Solomon could
pray after this! The realization that God is near us is our highest encourage-
ment to speak to Him. ‘‘ Because he hath heard me in time past, therefore will I
call upon him as long as I live.”

If such be the glory and bliss of God’s presence on earth, what will it be to
stand before His throne in heaven ?—A. hk.

Vers. 10, 11.—The Glory-clouwd.—Never did Solomon appear so much “in
all his glory’? as on this memorial day of the dedication of the temple. The
solemnities of the service, the procession of the sacred ark from the city of David
into its resting-place, the robed priests, the rapturous multitude, the unnumbered
sacrifices, the music and the songs, must have formed altogether a marvellous
spectacle. But of all the incidents of the day none could be compared with that
of the sudden appearance of the Shechinah—the glory-cloud. This introduced a
new supernatural element. The rest was human—man’s handiwork, man’s wor-
ship, man’s glory; this was Divine— the miraculous sien of the present and
approving God. Itraises the scene above comparison with any similar scene in the
history of any other nation. Other peoples have reared their gorgeous temples, and
kings and priests have gone in solemn pomp and circumstance to consecrate them.
But what shrine has ever been honoured like this? Altars to false gods innumer-
able have been reared, but where has been the fire from heaven to kindle their
sacrifices? Idol temples dedicated—where the radiant cloud of the Divine pre-
sence? The priests were too much dazzled by the shining splendour to continue
their ministrations. Solomon might well be filled with adoring wonder. “ Dut
will God indeed ?”’ &c. (ver. 27). Many Scripture examples of the way in which
miraculous revelations of the presence of God overawe the spirits of men: Jacob
at Bethel, Moses before the burning bush, Elijah at the mouth of the cave, the
disciples of Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration, &. Solomon’s, however, was
not so much an emotion of fear, but of sacred reverence and glad surprise. The
appearance of the cloud set the seal of Divine acceptance on the temple and its
service, linking it with all the glorious associations of the past—the climax and174 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. fou. vir. 1—66,

 

crown of a long series (900 years long, perhaps) of miraculous Divine manifesta-
tions. But look on it now as prophetic of a more glorious future, as imaging forth
to the men of that age higher forms of Divine manifestation that in the fulness of
time should come to pass.

I. THE INCARNATION OF Curist. When the eternal Son of the Father laid
aside the “form of God,” and took upon Him “the likeness of sinful flesh,” He
filled the temple of a human body with the Divine glory. God came to dwell in
very deed “amongst men upon the earth.” The Infinite Unseen submitted to the
conditions of a finite visible personality. The Light insufferable, ‘‘ which no man
can approach unto,” veiled itself in a cloud of mortal flesh. ‘‘ We beheld his
glory,” &c. (John i. 14). When the second temple was being built, many of the
people were troubled at the thought that it would be so inferior to the first. The
old men who had “seen the first house’? wept (Ezra iii. 12; Haggaiil. 3). But
the prophets of the time were commissioned to comfort them with the assurance
that, though the old symbolic grandeur was gone, the glory of the latter house
should be greater than that of the former. It would contain no ark, no mercy
seat, no Shechinah, no heaven-kindled fire, no Urim and Thummim, no prophetic
spirit; ‘‘ Ichabod” would be written on its walls. Buta nobler Presence than had
ever been seen on earth before would irradiate it in the coming time: ‘‘ Behold I
will send my messenger,” &c. (Mal. iii. 1); ‘“‘Yet once, it is a while, and I will
shake the heavens,” &c. (Haggaiii. 6, 7). Every time the Lord Jesus, “ the bright-
ness of the Father’s glory,” entered the temple—as a babe in His mother’s arms,
as a boy girding Himself for His ‘‘ Father’s business,” as a man in the fulness of
His Divine authority, purging it from defilement, expounding in it the law of
acceptable worship, making it the centre of His beneficent healing ministry—He
verified in some new form these prophetic words. The manifestations of the
present Deity in the olden times “have no glory in this respect by reason of the
glory that excelleth,” even “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the
face of Jesus Christ.” Do we ask, ‘‘ Will God in very deed dwell?” &c., the answer
comes back to us, ‘‘ Great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest,” &c.
(1 Tim, iii. 16), “Immanuel, God with us” (Matt. i. 23). That outshining
radiance in the temple was dazzling, almost repellent, deepening the sense of
distance, creating fear; this Divine apocalypse is infinitely attractive, gives un-
mistakable proof of sympathetic personal nearness, awakens grateful, trustful, and
adoring love.

Ij. Tue Girt oF THE Spirit. The manifestation of God in the person of His
Son was preparatory to the richer grace—the actual impartation of Himself by
His Spirit to the individual souls of men (see Eph. iv. 8 sqq.; 2 Cor. vi. 16),
The dispensation of the Spirit is the ultimate fact. In this God communicates
Himself in the highest form of revelation, and the most intimate fellowship of
which man is capable. The “dwelling” of the Holy Ghost in every new-born
soul, in every assembly of true spiritual worshippers, in the ‘one body” of the
universal Church, is prefigured in the scene before us. The day of the dedication
of the temple finds its antitype in the ‘day of Pentecost.” Place these manifesta-
tions side by side. As you trace the lines of comparison between them, how
glorious does the Christian fact appear! The one was material in its nature—a
bright and beautiful vision for the eye, appealing indirectly through the senses to
the soul; the other intensely spiritual—a blessed overpowering influence, seizing at
once on the minds and hearts of the people, the flowing in of a Divine life. And
though there was something for the eye and ear, its form was such as to suggest
most strikingly that living word of truth and holy fire of love which the heart
alone can know. The one was diffuse, general, indiscriminate—a bright, scattered
cloud filling the place ;—the other was distinct and personal. The Spirit of God
deals not with companies of men, but with isolated souls.. There was a separate
tongue of flame on the head of each. Not the place merely, but the men, each
according to his own. individuality, was “filled with the Holy Ghost.” The one
manifestation concealed. more than it revealed. It was the sign of God’s presence,
but it made the people feel that He is indeed a “ God that hideth himself.” They

 

 

LdCH. vill. I—66.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 175

could not really “behold hi “y,”? r
daa alcie” TI Page d his glory. They saw through a glass ’—a, cloud—
darkly. le dispensation of the Spirit,” though it did not remove flesh]
restrictions, brought in that blessed condition of things in which the soul fic i
a thrilling sens Divine communi 4 e Sere He as such
ae e : of Divine communion as scarcely to need any material help to the
apprehension of it, and almost to forget the intervening veil. The one manifesta
Hon Ww ap seal ee exclusive, confined to the central shrine of Jewish worship, dis-
1 AVATIG ¥ ts ° x 5 Utbs
Inguishing the Jewish people from all the world besides; “to them belonged the
lory.”’ The grace of the Spirit is God’ : 78 eG
ee J: Pai ee pirit 1s God’s free gift to all mankind, “shed on us
abundantly © (Joel 1,28; Acts x. 45; Titus iii.5). The Spirit is the exclusive
possession of none of the churches, owns no human creed, or ritual, or ecclesi-
astical boundary rather than another, dwells with all who call upon the same
redeeming Lord, The one manifestation was transitory, served a temporary pur-
pose. The glory soon departed again, and returned to the heaven from whence
if came. ‘The other is an enduring reality. The Comforter, the Spirit of Truth
66 arital Bie Bee Site 9 pate se p Be ele ; co ak v L 9
abides with us for ever,” the spring of an imperishable life, the pledge and pro-
ae) a : : o
phecy of the unfading glory of God’s unveiled presence.—W.

Vers. 17—19.—The Unfulfilled Purposes of Life. Men often take credit to
themselves for the designs of others. An inventor is forgotten, having died in
obscurity, while others make fortunes from that secret which he won by the sacri-
fices of ease, strength, and time. [Give other examples of the non-recognition by
men of purposes and schemes which were unfulfilled by their originators.}| Solomon
showed himself to be truthful and magnanimous when, in the presence of his
people, he ascribed to his father the inception of the building which now stood
before them in its splendour. How much more ready is God, who knows the
hearts of all men, to recognize and reward the unfulfilled longings of men to serve
Him! Briefly indicate the reasons which made it unsuitable that David should
personally do this special service (compare 2 Sam. vu. with 1 Chron. xxii. 8). He
stood not alone in his disappointment, therefore the following thoughts which arise
from considering it may help others to bear the unfulfilled purposes of their lives.

I. DAVID PROPOSED TO DO SOME GREAT THING FOR HIS Gop. We too often seek to
effect great things for ourselves, or for our children, rather than for God. David
wished.to erect the temple. It was to be (1) an expression of his own gratitude for his
election, protection, and exaltation. (2) A memorial to the people of the Divine
goodness which had so wondrously constituted them as a nation. (3) A recognition
that God was the centre of the nationality, as His temple was of the city. As to
it all the tribes should repair, so to Him should all their hearts be turned. Suggest
some of the tendencies which hinder men from indulging and accomplishing great
purposes for God ; ¢.g., the love of money, self-indulgence, materialism, scepticism.

Il. DAVID HAD IT IN HIS HEART TO DO MUCH FOR THE BENEFIT OF OTHERS. He
lived for his people. He shrunk neither from the perils of war nor the anxieties of
rule that they might become a strong and noble nation, He did not wish to build
the temple for himself, but for them and their children. Had he been allowed to
begin it (when alone he was able to do so) in extreme old age, he would probably
never have seen its completion; but he was content that generations yet to come
should have that as their place of worship. Rebuke the tendency of men to ignore
their responsibility to posterity. Sometimes in national finance, in ecclesiastical
arrangements, &c., the fact that the benefit would only he in the future and not in
the present, is enough to check effort and sacrifice. Who has not heard the
question, ‘‘ What has posterity done for us ?” Show the fallacy of this reasoning,
and its sinfulness, because of the selfishness and ingratitude it reveals. Indicate
some of the blessings we enjoy as a nation, and as churches, from the labours and
sacrifices of our predecessors who did not count even life dear to them.

Ill. Davip WAS PREVENTED BY CIRCUMSTANCES FROM FULFILLING HIS PURPOSE.

ork ; ba Pleo ayor ART
Wars, unsettlement, infirmities of age, &c., were some of these. They were beyond
Still the purpose was, as we have said, a right

his control, but not beyond God's. urp. va ae
one. Give examples from modern life : ¢.g., (1) The young man who longs to be-
come a minister of God’s truth, but is compelled to labour for the support of himself176 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. cu. vir. 1—66.

and others. (2) The Christian whose heart goes out with yearning over the lost,
who lies a helpless invalid in some solitary room. (3) The child-disciple, stirred
with noble enthusiasm, with splendid promise of future power In the Lord’s
kingdom, taken away in youth from the home and the world which seemed so
sorely to want him, Xe.

TV. DAVID MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR OTHERS TO DO WHAT HE COULD NOT DO. See
an account civen of the treasures he accumulated for the house of the Lord, the
musicrl service he prepared, the plans for the building, &e. Tow unlike those who
say, ‘‘if J cannot do this no one else shall;”’ or, with less selfishness, ‘*‘ J cannot do
it, let others take all the burden if they are to have all the honour. ”’ how how
we can help others in doing their work, and so indirectly serve our God. It may not
be possible for you to go abroad amongst the heathen ; but you can support those
to whom it is possible. Perhaps you cannot, from want of time, or suitability, teach
the children or visit the sick; but you can invite others to do this, or encourage
and sustain them in it.

VY. DAvin’s NOBLE PURPOSE WAS FULFILLED BY HIS SON. This was God’s design
and promise (ver. 19). (1) Hneowragement to parents. We live again in our
children. ‘ Instead of the fathers shall be the children,” &e. By training a child
for God, we may carry out, through him, the wish we could not execute. Parents
multiply vhus the possibilities of their own lives. Special encouragement here for
weak and overburdened mothers. They cannot do public work for Christ, but
through their children they can, e.g., Hunice and Monica moved the world through
Timothy and Augustine. (2) Lesson to children. What your parents used to do
for God, you are to continue; what they could not do, you are to fulfil.

VI. Davip’S UNACCOMPLISHED PURPOSE WAS RECOGNIZED AND RECOMPENSED BY
tHE Lorp. ‘Thou didst well that it was in thine heart.” God knows what is in
us of good as well as of evil. He approves the motive even when the effort fails.
He sees the issue of every right purpose in all its width and depth. When Mary
anointed her Lord she did more than she imagined; for she was the high priest
anointing the Priest and King of Israel. In the day of judgment the righteous will
be amazed at theissues and the rewards of their humble services, and with
astonishment will ask, ‘‘ Lord, when saw we thee?’’ &. ‘‘And the king shall
answer, and say unto them, Verily, I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it
unto one of the least of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto me.’’—A. R.

Vers. 28.—The Prayer of Dedication. Describe the scene at the dedication of
the temple. Note the fact that it is a king who leads his people to God’s footstool.
Show the influence of earthly rulers, who not only affect surrounding nations by
their policy, but degrade or exalt the moral life of their people by their personal
character, and by the tone of their court. Our reasons for thankfulness in the present
reign. Contrast the influence of Victoria with that of Charles II. or George IV.
Apply the same principle to other kings of men, 7.e., to rulers of thought in litera-
ture and science. How heavy the responsibility of those who use their kingliness
to lead men from God into the dreariness of scepticism ; how glorious the powers
they may employ to exalt the Lord our God. Solomon is a proof that wisdom
is better than knowledge. On this occasion he prayed as the representative and
leader of others. A prayer so prominent in Scripture, so remarkable in circum-
stances, so acceptable to God, deserves consideration, that we may see its elements.
It presents the following characteristics :

I, GRATEFUL ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE PAST. ‘In everything give thanks”?
(1 Thess. v. 18). ‘“ By prayer and suppheation, with thanksgiving, make your
requests known” (Phil. iv. 6). ‘It is a good thing to give thanks unto the Lord”
(Psa. xc. 1). ‘‘ Biess the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits”
(Psa. cill. 2.) Notice the causes of Solomon’s thanksgiving: (1) God’s goodness to
his father (ver. 24). Home blessings so wholly unmerited, so richly beneficial.
(2) Davine deliverance from bondage (ver. 51). Egypt a type of sorrow, slavery to
evil habit, &e. (8) Separation and consecration for God’s purposes (ver. 58). The
honour of this. Its responsibilities. Its signs. (4) Rest and quietude (ver. 56).

beCH. vii. 1—66.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS, 177

 

‘‘ fe hath given rest unto his people Israel.” The blessedness of peace to a county
exemplified by the contrast between Solomon’s and David’s reiens. The feadtlons
from harassing anxieties experienced by many is from God. The rest of heart mien
may be ours amidst the distresses of life, is from Him. “Peace I leave with you”’
(John xiv. 27). ‘‘ Heart quiet from the fear of evil”’ (Prov. 1. 83). See also 2 Cor. iy
8. For all such blessings we should give God thanks. a
IJ. CoNFIDENCE IN THE PROMISES. (See ver. 29 as example.)

. : é oe ) Show how the
patriarchs ever reminded God of His promises. Illustrate also from the pleadings
or

of Moses and the prophets. Prove from Christ’s own words that the promises are
renewed and enlarged for us, and that only on them can our expectancy of blessing
be founded. ‘The utility of prayer cannot be demonstrated by reason, but by reve-
lation. In the spiritual realm we know Divine laws by Divine declaration, the truth
of which is confirmed by the experience of those who, fulfilling the required condi-
tions, test them. “ Ask and it shall be given you”’ (Matt. vii. 7) is a promise. But
appended to itis the requirement of faith. ‘ Without faith it is impossible to
please God” (Heb. x1. 6). ‘‘ According to your faith, so be it unto you.” See also
James 1. 5—7 ; Matt. xxi. 22, &e.

Itt. ENLARGEMENT OF HEART (ver. 41, “‘ moreover concerning a stranger,” &c.)
The prayer is remarkable on the part of a Jewish king. Give evidences of the
narrowness and selfishness of the nation. We might expect this feeling in all its
intensity on such an occasion as the consecration of this temple. But Solomon’s
sympathies overflowed national prejudices. The tendency of prayer is to enlarge
the heart. Christians pray together who never work together. They who are
nearest to God’s throne are nearest to each other. As we pray, our yearnings go
further afield, and we think kindly of the erring, pitifully of the lost, forgivingly of
the wrong-doers.

IV. LONGING FOR THE GLORY OF Gop. Solomon’s chief wish in regard to the
temple is expressed in verse 60, ‘ that all the people of the earth may know that
the Lord is God, and that there is none else.” Our Lord’s prayer is like Solomon’s
in this, that 1t ends in an ascription of ‘‘the kingdom, and the power, and the
glory,” to God. So with all true prayer. It ends in praise. See how David, in
the Psalms, prayed himself out of sadness into joy; out of confession into thank-
fulness and praise. If we ask something for ourselves, or for others, it should be
with the implied wish that it may be granted or withheld, as may be, for our wel-
fare and God’s glory. The yearning of each Christian should be that of the Lord
Jesus, ‘‘ Father, glorify thy name.’—A. R.

Vers. 38, 39.—The Praying King. One of the most remarkable features of this
scene of the dedication of the temple is the place occupied, the part performed, in
it by Solomon himself. He is the central figure, the chief actor. Both priest and
prophet give place to him. The dedicatory prayer is a spontaneous effusion of his
own deyout feeling, and it is he who pronounces afterwards the benedicticn on the
people. He stands before us here as a true type of that greater “ Son of David,
who is our Prophet, Priest, and King. There is a great deal in the tone of this
prayer that betokens a soul fully alive to the solemn and momentous meaning of
what was taking place in Jerusalem that day. It is not, indeed, to the service of the
ancient Jewish temple that we should look for the most perfect models of devotion.
New Testament revelations multiply and strengthen immeasurably our motives to
prayer, enlarge its scope, open to us new grounds of assurance in it.“ One greater
than Solomon ” has taught us how to pray, and revealed to us the path to accept-
ance in the merit of His own mediation. But as the life of religion in the soul of
man is essentially the same in all ages, so the principles involved in prayer as the
expression of it are the same. ‘'wo such rudimentary principles appear in this
passage, viz., the sense of need prompting the suppliant to look heavenwards, and
the recognition of something out of himself as the ground of hope for acceptance.

I. Tue sense or NEED, &c. It is the “ plague of the heart”—the burden teste
ing heavy there, the haunting sense of want or sadness in the secret soul, couple
with some kind of faith in Divine power—that moves men to pray. AU true
1 KINGS. N178 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. fom. vir. 1—66.

 

 

prayer is the utterance of these inward impressions. If much of our so-called pray-
ing were subjected to this test, it 1s to be feared that it would be found very hollow
and unreal, mere ‘‘ words,’ a mere formal homage to custom—no deep, earnest,
irrepressible longing of the soul inspiring it. Solomon begins to enumerate dif-
ferent calamities that may impel the people to pray, and then, as if overpowered
by the mere vague, distant imagination of these possibilities, he says, “ Whatsoever
plague, whatsoever sickness,’’ &c. How soon are we lost in the attempt to realize
the manifold troubles of human life. We ean understand and sympathize with
individual griefs, but who can comprehend at all adequately the general sum of
human woe, and take the weight of it sympathetically upon himself ? Every man,
however, knows where the universal evil specially touches himself. ‘‘ Every heart
knows its own bitterness.” And with God there is both an infinite acquaintance
with the whole and a special sympathy with each. There are some griefs that you
lock up in your own bosom as secrets that none else must look upon.

‘‘ Not e’en the dearest heart, and next our own,
"di Q . y + . QF 9
Knows half the reasons why we smile or sigh.

But there is no erief you can conceal from Him. He became in the person of His
Son “the man of sorrows and acquainted with grief,” that we might feel how He
follows us, or rather, goes before us, in every path of suffering. There is room in
the great fatherly heart of God for us all, with all our burdens, and we can never
measure the uplifting and sustaining power thatecomes to us by casting ourselves
and them upon it—‘‘ In everything by prayer and supplication,’’ &. (Phil. iv. 6, 7);
‘‘Cast thy burden upon the Lord,” &e. (Psa. lv. 22). But this expression, ‘ the
plague of his own heart,” has a deeper meaning. It opens to us all the dark sad
mystery of personal sinfulness, the moral disease that lurks within. There are
times when the most careless, reckless spirit has glimpses of the unweleome truth
{hat this, after all, is the deepest cause of its disquietude. The multiform, mys-
terious evil of the world has its central root in the world’s heart. Something of
that ‘‘root of all bitterness’’ is in every human heart. Here lies. the fatal mischief.
It is not the tribulations of outward life, it is yourself you have most reason to
mourn over. Not so mueh from them, but from something in yourself you have
need to pray to be delivered. Christ always taught, by word and deed, the vital
connection between the external calamities and the internal “plague.” He took
upon Him our sicknesses and sorrows, not only to show us how they may be nobly
borne, but that He might bring His power as the Great Physician of souls to bear
upon the seat of our deadly disease, and by the efficacy of His blood might. heal
and save us all. Go penitently in His name to the mercy-seat with the ‘“ plague of
your heart,’ and you shall be redeemed from it. :

Tl. THE RECOGNITION OF SOMETHING OUT OF ONE’S SELF AS THE GROUND OF HOPE.
This essential element in true prayer is suggested by the words, “‘ And shall stretch
forth his hands towards this place.” An interesting view 1s here given us of the
relation of the temple to the individual religious life of the people. It was intended
to be a witness to the unseen, a help to faith, an incentive to all holy thought and
feeling. It stood through all the changes of time, the shifting lights and shadows
of the world around it, as an impressive symbol of the “‘ everlasting covenant.” It
enshrined the “‘sure mercies of David.” Within its hallowed enclosure were
gathered the saered historic records and relics, and the types and shadows of
“better things to come.” It told both of what God had done and what He had
promised—the monument of the glorious past, the prophecy of the brighter future.
There was deep meaning, then, in the suppliant. ‘‘stretching forth his hands
towards that house,” as expressive of the attitude of his soul towards that which. it
symbolized. When some lonely worshipper in a distant corner of the land, some
patient sufferer, some soldier in his agony on the field of battle, some captive, like
Daniel, in a strange country, directed his eyes towards the holy place, it was a
sort of pathetic appeal to God's own faithfulness, a silent but eloquent plea that He
would not forget His covenant, would fulfil the hopes. that He Himself had

aCH, vir. I—66.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 179

 

 

awakened, and not for their sales alone, but for His own truth and mercy’s sak

would hear and save. In all this the temple was a type of somethihs t sBlee
diviner than itself. The temple was the shadow, the substance is in Christ a "
him are hid all the treasures,” &e. The cross of Christ, in which all the re 1 és
are confirmed and sealed; the cross, which is both the altar of the Rates iat
sacrifice and the throne of His sovereignty, is the shrine of “truth and Baanete
men. The glory alike of the past and of the future is centred, focussed there, ‘

* All the light of sacred story
Gathers round its head sublime,”

and from it there streams forth an ever-brightening radiance into the otherwise
dark futurity. It stands the connecting link between heaven and earth. the meet-
ing-place of God and man, the key to all human history, the basis of our immortal
hope. Here, then, on this central object alike of Divine and human interest, must
the eye of the suppliant be fixed. It is that pledge of Divine love and faithfulness
external to ourselves, embodied in the cross of Christ, that we must plead if we
would find acceptance in our prayer. When God has thoroughly taught us what
the ‘‘ plague of our own heart’’ means, and has unveiled to us the blessed mystery
of His mode of curing it, it will be the sustained habit of our life to stand as
suppliants before Him “in the name of Jesus.” Thus alone can we so link our-
selves with the sanctities of a higher world as to make our common life Divine.—W.

Ver. 38.—The consecration of the temple was the grandest religious ceremony of
the old covenant. It is important—

I. BECAUSE IT CENTRALIZES THE WORSHIP OF THE THEOGRACY.

IJ. BECAUSE IT SUPPLIES A TYPE OF THE SPIRITUAL TEMPLE which is to be
reared in the Church and in every Christian soul. Solomon, as the king chosen of
God, represents in this service of consecration the entire theocracy. The temple
is essentially a house of prayer, as is manifest from the words of the consecration.
“What prayer and supplication soever be made by any man, or by all thy people
Israel, which shall know every man the plague of his own heart . .. hear
thou in heaven.” It is the sanctuary of the invisible God, and its gates stand
open to the multitude, who come to worship and to offer sacrifice. Instead
of a statue, such as was found in the idol temples, the priests of the true God place
in their sanctuary the ark of the covenant, containing the law, the Divine expression
of the holy will of God. The altar of sacrifice, placed in front of the sanctuary,
reminds the people of their transgressions, while at the same time the sacrifice of
the victims is prophetic of the future redemption. The consecrating prayer opens
and closes with adoration. It spreads before God all the wants of the people, and
asks from Him deliverance in every time of need (ch. ix. 3). It enumerates first
temporal distresses, but the whole petition culminates in the ever-recurring plead-
ing for forgiveness. This is the burden of the whole temple service, and thus
character is reproduced in Christian worship. In the time of its highest spiritu-
ality there were no properly consecrated Christian temples. Aras non habemus
said Minutius Felix. A temple is nevertheless a necessity of worship ; and we are
free to recognize this apart from any superstitious notion, and remembering that
while the heaven of heavens cannot contain the Most High, He yet condescends to
dwell in the humble and contrite heart. There has been no longer a sanctuary in
the old exclusive sense, since the blood was shed which has redeemed the whole
éarth to God. Our houses of prayer are not now more holy in themselves than our
homes. Let us consecrate them by consecrating ourselves to God, and rendering
to Him the worship which is His due—the sacrifice of our whole being. Let our
prayers, like that of Solomon, begin and end with adoration, and let the burden of
them be the expression of our repentance for sin. Let them have, like the prayer
of the theocratic king, a breadth of intercession for the whole people of God, and
let them lay at the foot of the cross the burden of the woes of humanity and the

needs of the Church.—E. de P.180 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu. vir. 1—66.

 

 

 

Vers. 4143.— The Stranger’s Interest in_ the Temple. Kindly human
sympathy is one of the most marked characteristics of this prayer of Solomon.
This is seen in the way in which he enters into various supposed conditions of
need and suffering among his people; takes the burden and the “plague ” upon
himself as if it were his own; a true intercessor on their behalf. His royalty
assumes here the aspect of fatherhood. The model king is one in heart and
interest with those over whom he rules. We are reminded, too, that before
the “merey-seat”’ of God all human distinctions are lost. All suppliants stand
on one common level, subject to the same dangers and necessities. All true
prayer, therefore, is thus broad in its sympathies. But in this passage the king’s
supplications take a wider range than the needs of his own people. He pleads for
the “stranger,” the foreigner from a ‘“ far country.” This is strictly in harmony
with the Divine economy of the time, however much it may seem to be otherwise.
It is remarkable how much there was in the Mosaic law that was expressly intended
to enforce on the people a generous regard for those who were beyond their pale.
They were commanded not to “vex a stranger” (Exod. xxii. 21), to relieve his
poverty (Levit. xxv. 85), even to “love ” him as “ God loveth him in giving him
food and raiment’’ (Deut. x. 18, 19), and all this in memory of the fact that they
themselves were once “strangers in the land of Egypt.” Strangers, moreover,
were to be permitted to hear the solemn reading of the law in the ‘‘ year of release ”’
(Deut. xxxi. 12), and to offer sacrifices on the same conditions as themselves.
“One law and one manner shall be for you and for the stranger that sojourneth with
you”’ (Num. xv. 16). So that Solomon gave expression to the spirit of the dispen-
sation to which he belonged when he thus prayed. Certain broad truths underlie
this prayer—

I. JEHOVAH’S UNIVERSAL SOVEREIGNTY. He is the “ God of the whole earth,”
and not merely of any particular portion of it (Isa. liv. 5). “ Is he the God of the
Jews only and not of the Gentiles?”’ (Rom. iii. 29.) ‘The God of the spirits of all
flesh’? (Num. xvi. 22). The whole Mosaic economy was built on the grand truth of
the unity and absolute world-wide supremacy of Jehovah. The heathen, according
to their principle of local deities, might acknowledge the God of the Hebrews as
having authority over his own, but a Hebrew who should in any way recognize the
gods of other nations and think of Jehovah merely as a national deity would be a
traitor to the commonwealth. The only living and true God can have no rival. The
gods of the nations are idols, and ‘‘an idol is nothing in the world’’—-“‘ a lying
vanity,” a vile “‘ abomination.” ‘The things which the Gentiles sacrifice they
sacrifice to demons and not to God” (1 Cor. viii. 4, 5; x. 20). To ‘‘ know God,”
to have ‘him whom they ignorantly worship” declared to them, is ‘‘ eternal life”
tomen. The absence of this knowledge is death. The curse and misery of the
world is that it “knows not its God.” Solomon here dimly recognizes this truth ;
and the case he contemplates is that of some child of the Universal Father in whom
the sense of need has been awakened, ‘‘ coming from a far country”’ to ‘‘ seek the
Lord, if haply he may feel after him and find him”’ (Acts xvii. 27, 28).

TI, THE REPRESENTATIVE CHARACTER OF IsRaEL. They were a representative
people in two respects. (1) Inasmuch as they were called to bear witness to the
glory of the “ great name” of Jehovah. His name is the symbol of His personality,
the attributes of His being and character—spirituality, purity, righteousvess, love,
&e. Their mission was to make known to mankind the God who had revealed
Himself in wondrous forms to them. How they failed to rise to the heigut of this
mission their national history only too sadly tells. The utterances of the psalmists
and prophets are full of the spirit of it, but all this was far above the comprehension
of the great mass of the people. They utterly mistook the meaning of the distine-
tion conferred upon them, and God taught them by the discipline of subjection and
eaptivity the lesson that in the day of their national glory they failed to learn. In
this mission as a witness Israel was a type of the Christian Church. Christ declared
the Father’s name to His disciples and He sent them forth on an errand like His
own (John xvii. 18—26).. How grand a vocation, to reflect the glory of His ‘‘ great
name’’ onthe world’s darkness, to say to the nations, ‘‘ Behold your God!” (2) TheyCH. vi. 1—66.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 181

 

were & representative people also in the sense that in their history God illustrated tl

general method and the uniform laws of His moral government. The “strone naa
and the stretched cut arm” here suggests the marvellous manifestation of Divin

power that marked the career of the people from the beginning, the whole cours if
providential training and moral discipline through which they passed Bidath
principles on which God deals with one nation are the principles on which He 1 ie
with all. He is no “‘respecter of persons.” The history of the “ chosen an: Te ,
unfolds His universal purpose and plan, illustrates unvarying laws, the conditile : f
all personal, social, and national life. And so it comes fo pass that after pee
Oa agile ie ‘“ Now all these things happened unto

III. THE ATTRACTION OF THE TEMPLE FOR ALL LONGING HUMAN HEARTS AS THE
SCENE OF GRACIOUS DIVINE MaNIrestaTion. That which made it the centre of
interest to pious Jews made it so also to earnest souls of other lands. The truth
and merey symbolized and enshrined there—promises, atoning sacrifices, benedic-
tions—answered to universal needs of humanity. Solomon supposes a case in
which the vague sense of this should lead the “stranger in a far-off land” to look
with longing eyes, or to bend his steps, towards “the house over which God’s name
is called.”’ We have no historical record of strangers actually worshipping in the
first temple as they did in that built after the captivity ; but God said, “ My house
shall be called a house of prayer for all people” (Isa. lvi. 6, 7; Mark xi. 17); and
there may have been many who, with a far-reaching hand of faith, ‘‘ took hold of
His covenant” as established there.

IY. THE RESPONSE GOD GAVE TO EVERY TRUE SUPPLIANT, WHOEVER HE MIGHT
BE. ‘ Hear thou in heaven thy dwelling-place,”’ &c. This intercessory prayer, we
may be sure, was answered. God does not awaken holy yearnings in any soul that
He will not satisfy. ‘‘In every nation, he that feareth him,” &c. ' The sovereignty
that reigns over all lands is that of Almighty Love. There is room in the infinite
Father’s heart for all, even the far-off “stranger,” and ‘‘the same Lord over all
is rich unto all that call upon him,.”—W.

Ver. 49.—Occasions for Prayer. In the prayer of dedication Solomon suggests
occasions on which it would be natural for men to turn to their God. The Divine
Presence is constant, but our realization of it is not. Many require the shock of
some unexpected or lamentable occurrence to rouse them to prayer. This effect,
however, will only be seen in those who have, underlying their forgetfulness and
sensuousness, an abiding (though sometimes inoperative) belief in God. This
Israel for the most part had. Hence Solomon’s belief that in their future times
of distress and difficulty they would turn to Him who dwelt between the cherubims.
Analyze the prayer, and see the following occasions suggested as those in which
supplication would be natural.

IL. WHEN MEN MAKE VOWS AND PROMISES. Compare ver. 31 with the ordinances
of Moses (Exod. xxii. 7—9). The oath was taken in the presence of God, because
the thought of Him as the Searcher of hearts would induce serious consideration
and careful exactitude, and because He was tacitly invited by His providence to
confirm or to punish the spoken word. Show how the principle, right in itself,
became abused and vitiated, so that Christ condemned the practices of His day
(Matt. v. 33—87). Learn from the ancient practice (1) that owr utterances should
be made as by men conscious of the nearness of the God of truth. Apply this to
the immoralities of some business transactions, to the prevalence of slander in
society, &. (2) That our resolutions should be formed in @ spirit of prayer.
How vain the pledge and promise of amendment, unless there be added to the
human resolve the help of God’s providence in circumstances, and the grace of
His Spirit in the heart! Give examples of each. :

IL WHEN MEN ARE INJURED OR DEFEATED BY THEIR ADVERSARIES, “When thy
people Israel be smitten down before the enemy ” (ver. 53). National defeat in war
should lead to self-examination on the part of those smitten. Too often the investi-
gation is applied only to material resources: incompetent officials are dismissed,

     
  
  
 
 
   
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 

ey182 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [ou. v1. 1—66.

 

 

weakened regiments are strengthened, new alliances are formed, &c. The mischief
may lie deeper. Sometimes God is calling the people not to redeem national
honour, but to seek national righteousness. The teaching of the verse may be
applied figuratively to defeats suffered by Christian controversialists or by philan:
thropie workers, &. Every check in onward progress is & summons to thought
and prayer. ‘In the day of adversity consider. Illustrate by examples in
Scripture, e.g., by the defeat of Israel at Ai, and its issues. ;

Ill. WHEN MEN ARE TREMBLING UNDER NATURAL CALAMITIES. Reference 1s
made in ver. 35 to the withholding of rain; in ver. 387 to ‘‘famine, pestilence,
blasting, mildew, locust, and caterpillar.” Such troubles were sent in vain to bring
the Egyptians to repentance. Compare those plagues with Eliyjah’'s message to
Ahab, and with the threats of other prophets. Such statements as Deut. xi. 17
enshrine an abiding truth. In the long run the violation of God’s laws do bring
disasters of the very kind specified here. If the law of industry be violated, the
harvests fail; if the law of mutual dependence be ignored by nations, commerce
is crippled, and impoverishment comes; if the laws against self-indulgence, pride,
ambition, &., be defied, the spendthrift has the result in poverty, the proud nation
in the miseries of war, &c. Even the disasters which are accounted ‘natural
phenomena,” then, should lead the wise-hearted to prayer, the sinful to penitence;
and God will hear in heaven His dwelling-place, and answer and forgive. Show
how, during the ministry of our Lord, the cripples, the blind, the diseased came to
Him. Their misery made them feel their need of. what He alone could give, and
many of them became conscious of their spiritual wants from considering first the
want that was physical. As they were thus led, so the Church has been which in
the Old Testament was oppressed most by the earthly wants, and in the New by
the spiritual. Those in the far country learn, by beginning to “‘ be in want,” that
God is calling them to arise and return to Him.

IV. WHEN MEN ARE CONSCIOUS OF THEIR SIN. All through this prayer reference
is made to sin and to the consequent necessity for pardon (vers. 88, 46—50). Point
out the climax in ver. 47: (1) ‘‘We have sinned”—have not kept in the ways of
God—sin in its negative aspect; (2) ‘‘ have done perversely ’’—acts of perversity ;
(3) “have committed wickedness”—the overwhelming passion which drives into
corruption. The necessity of humble confession as an integral part of prayer from
the lips of fallen man can readily be shown from Scripture. Examples of con-
science of sin impelling to prayer seen in David (Psa. li.), the publican (Luke
xvili. 13). ‘‘ If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins,
and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1. 9).

V. WHEN MEN ARE GOING FORTH TO CONFLICT IN Gop’s NamE. “If thy people
shall go out to battle against their enemy whithersoever thow shalt send them,” &c.
(ver. 44). We must not forget that Israel was a theocracy. David, for example,
spoke of his foes as being God’s foes. So had it been with Moses, Joshua, &e.
The consciousness of that gives almost superhuman power. ‘ Man, being linked
with Omnipotency, is a kind of omnipotent creature,’ says Bacon. Even when
the belief that one is on God’s side 3s false, the belief itself is an inspiration.
Examples from history of such belief well or ill founded—Joan of Are, the
Puritans, &c, In actual war no nation can fairly put up this prayer unless the
cause of war is that of which we can say, ‘‘whithersoever thow shalt send.” No
mistake need exist in reference to foes whom Christ came to destroy. The promise,
“Lo! Iam with you,” was the inspiration of the apostles as they confronted false
philosophies, crass ignorance, brutal customs, degrading superstitions. Hence, if
they were going forth to battle with such evils, the prayers of the Church went up
on their behalf. Men were set apart for their Christian mission by prayer (give
examples), and in their work they often turned to their intercessors, saying,
‘“ Brethren, pray for us!” Feeling our insufficiency to overcome the adversaries
of the gospel, let us, like the apostles, ‘‘ continue in prayer and supplication” till
we are ‘‘endued with power from on high.”—A. R.

Ver, 61.—A Royal Benediction. The prayer of Solomon is followed by a183

SO ee

benediction. ‘‘ He stood and blessed all the congregation,” &c. (vers. 54, 55). F

though he assumed for the time the priestly function his utter 8. 04, 90). But
into the usual form of priestly benediction. It was meh de Saaciet a. a CEES
to the God who had fulfilled His promises and given rest t His iption of praise
exhortation to them that they on their part should es that Loe er
which alone they could hope to realize the further fulfilment of siiods prostis . or
enjoy the heritage of blessing that was theirs. Lessons are sugg at Th aes ten
of force and value for all time. pee ae

I. THE RELATION BETWEEN TRUE PRAYER AND PERSONAL RIGHTEOUSNESS. Sol

felt that all the impassioned supplications that he had been pourin hut a ath tea
Lord, and all the sympathetic enthusiasm of the people in these temple arya
would be but a, mockery unless he and they were prepared to walk with all ff le] ie
in the way of God’s commandments. They would soon be leaving tl aed
shrine of worship. They could not always be amid the ausiutie aa ptt ts
associations of the temple. They must go back to the matter-of-fact, prosaic
world, to their posts of honour and responsibility, to the privacy of their hones to
their haunts of busy life, to their paths of commerce and of labour. Let the

worship there. Let them dwell with God there. Let them embody there in all
the forms of practical virtue, the spirit of devotion that has inspired them amid
these hallowed scenes. The ‘statutes and commandments” of the Lord had
reference in great part to the due observance of the ritual of temple worship but
they also claimed, as much then as now, to control the whole spirit and cond oe: of
human life in all its aspects. The relation between prayer and conduct is of a
twofold character. They act and react the one on the other. True prayer sheds
a hallowing influence over the entire field of a man’s daily activity. When his
soul has been face to face with God, absorbed in Divine communion, the inspiration
of holy thought and feeling of which he has been conscious will inevitably betray
itself in the way in which he aets when he mingles with the things and the beings
of earth. The glory of heaven that has shone upon him cannot fail to be reflected
in the beauty of his character and deed. A prayerful spirit is an earnest, pure,
upright, loving spirit, and such a spirit will govern the whole form and method and
aim of a man’s life. Prayer solves difficulties, clears one’s vision of the path of
duty, draws strength from Divine sources for all toil and suffering, raises the tone
and level of moral action, fortifies the spirit for any emergency, fills the heart with
the peaceful joy of a better world. On the other hand, the conduct of life neces-
sarily affects for good or ill the spirit and efficacy of prayer. If it is needful to
pray in order that we may live as Christians, it is equally needful that we should
live as Christians in order rightly to pray. The importance of prayer as one chief
function of spiritual life doubles the importance of all our actions, because our
prayers are so much as our doings are. According as we stund towards the world,
with all the social relationships and duties that belong to our place in it, so do we
stand before the mercy-seat. Think, for instance, how the beneficial effect of family
prayer may be nullified by the prevailing spirit of family life. By the discord that
may be allowed to reign in it, by its lack of the graces of mutual respect and loving
self-sacrifice, by the worldliness of its associations, the meanness of its ambitions,
the frivolity of its pleasures, the vanity of its cherished societies—how completely
may the soul of domestic devotion be destroyed. Let a man be morally reckless in
the intercourse and transactions of daily life, and all freedom, “ boldness,” gladness
in prayer is at an end. Anything like loving, confiding converse with the * Father
who seeth in secret’”’ is impossible to him. If he cannot look without fear and shame
in the face of his fellow man, how shall he dare to look in the face of God? The
‘jyeavens become as brass ” above his head which no voice of prayer cun penetrate.
When Saul’s heart is thoroughly set in him to do evil it is vain for him to inquire
of the Lord. ‘The Lord answers him no more, neither by Urim, nor by prophet,
Let there be a Divine unity and harmony in our life. Let our
s show us to be what, in our hours of devotion,
bition every day “ to live more nearly

cH. vit1. 1—66.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

nor by dream.”
conduct in all human relationship
we seem to ourselves to be. Let it be our am

as we pray.”: ee oe eee
pe he

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. |cH. 1x. 1—9.

184

TI. Tue RELATION BETWEEN PRACTICAL VIRTUE AND THE STATE OF THE SECRET
HEART. A man’s heart must be “perfect with the Lord” before he can walk
acceptably in the path of His commandments. The old legal economy was not
after all so superficial as it seemed to be. God’s commandment was “ exceeding
broad.” literal as the moral laws were, and formal as the ceremonial precepts,
they touched at every point the life of the spirit within. ‘‘ Moses describeth the
righteousness which is of the law, That the man who doeth these things shall live
by them” (Rom. x. 5), but the righteousness was not in the mere doing. David,
the noblest representative of the spirit of the law, well knew that as it is from the
fountain of the evil heart that all transgression proceeds, so from the purified
heart springs all practical righteousness. ‘‘ Create. in me a clean heart, O God,’
&c. (Psa. li. 10). The glory of Christianity is that 1t not only recognizes this prin-
ciple, but actually brings to bear on the heart the renewing, healing power. It
cleanses the fountain of life within. The law could disclose the secret evil, convince
of sin, rebuke, restrain, but it could not make men righteous. The gospel does.
‘Christ is the end of the law for righteousness,” &¢. (Rom. x. 4). “ What the law
could not do,” &¢. (Rom. viii. 3, 4). Keep your heart in habitual contact with
the highest sources of spiritual inspiration—in familiar converse with Him who
is the fountain of truth and purity and love. Watch over its most secret thoughts
and impulses. Guard its sensibilities from the contaminations of the world and
the hardening influences of life. Seek to preserve the freshness of its Divine
affections and the integrity of its allegiance to Christ, if you would walk as He
did, ‘‘ in loveliness of perfect deeds.” i

III. THe BENEFICIAL INFLUENCE OF A SACRED MEMORY. “As it is this day.”
Solomon would have that day to dwell in their memories and hallow all their days.
Times of special Divine manifestation and highest religious consciousness show us
what we may be, what God would have us to be, what is the true level of our
spirit’s life.x—W.

EXPOSITION.

CHAPTER IX. 1—9. Lord and in his own house.” But it is by

 

THE ANSWER To SoOLOMON’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 ver 1.

Ver. 1.—And it came to pass when
Solomon had finished the building of the
house of the Lord, and the king’s house
[ch. vii. 1], and all Solomon’s desire
which he was pleased to do [By “ desire ”’
we are not to understand “ pleasure build-
ings” (cf. vers. 10, 19). The chronicler
gives the true meaning; ‘all that came
into Solomon’s heart.” It is, however,
somewhat doubtful what works are com-
prehended under this term. 2 Chron.
vii. 11 limits it to the two great erec-
tions already described—‘“all that came
into his heart to make in the house of the

 

no means certain that our author intended
the word to be thus restricted; it is quite
possible, e.g., that some of the buildings men-
tioned below (vers. 15—19) are to be included.
But another question of much greater import-
ance presents itself here. In the Divine
communication of vers.3—9 there is constant
and unmistakeable reference to the prayer
of dedication (see especially ver. 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
(chap. vi. 38), but on the completion of the
palace, &c. ; 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 occa-
sioned by the circumstance that the furni-
ture of the temple was not till then ready;
but ch. vi. 38, Heb., 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 ch. viii. 1) in support
of the position that the dedication cannotcH. 1x. 1—9.]

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

   

185

 

 

possibly have been delayed for so long a
period, especially after the strenuous efforts
which had been made to hurry on the under-
taking. Nor does the text, when carefully
examined, really require this hypothesis ;
indeed, it suggests some reasons for thinking
that a considerable period must have inter-
vened between the prayer and the response.
For the tone of this response is unmistake-
ably foreboding, if not minatory. Vers. 6—9
contain a stern warning. But there was
nothing, so far as we know, in the attitude
of Solomon orof 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 unmis-
takeably 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, &c., was completed. And it is
also to be remembered that the prayer of
dedication had not been without acknow-
ledgment 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 com-
pletion of his undertakings, we might fear
lest his heart should be lifted up with pride—
when Solomon and his court began to de-
cline in piety and to go after other gods, then
this merciful message opportunely refers him
to the prayer which he was in danger of for-
getting, and warns him of the consequences
of the apostasy to which he was tending. |

Ver. 2.—That the Lord appeared to
Solomon the second time [see on ch. vi. 11,
and cf. xi. 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 (ch. iu. 5)}.

Ver. 3.—And the Lord said unto him
[This message is given at greater length in
® Chron. vii. 12—22. . Vers. 13, 14, ¢.9.,
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, vers. 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 ch. viii. 11. Cf. Exod. xxix. 43:
_ the tabernacle shall be sanctified” (same

 

C 66 ’
oan ee

€ z S place to myself for a
house of sacrifice,” where, however, it is
worth considering whether instead of the
somewhat singular Nt 1A the original text
ae have been at ry; as in ch. viii.
d | put my name there [ch. viii. 29:
ef. vers. 16, 17, 18, 19; also Deut. xii. 11:
Luke xi. 12] for ever (ch. viii, 13. As
Solomon offered it, so God accepted it, in
perpetuity. That the house was sgubse-
quently ‘left desolate” and destroyed (2
Kings xxv. 9) was because of the national
apostasy (vers. 8, 9)], and mine eyes and
mine heart shall be there perpetually. [In
ch. vili. 29 Solomon asked that God’s ‘‘eveg
may be open... towards the house.” The
answer is that not only His eyes shall be open,
but eyes and heart shall be there (Ephes.
i. 20; see Homiletics on ch. iii. 5) ;—the
eye to watch, the heart to cherish it. ]

Ver. 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. ch. i. 6,14; xi.
34. David was not perfect, as our author
tells us elsewhere (ch. xv. 5; cf. ch.i. 6;
2 Sam. xxiv. 10). His integrity consisted
in his unvarying loyalty to the true God.
Even when overcome by that fierce tempta-
tion (2 Sam. xi.) he never faltered in his
allegiance to the truth. There was no
coquetting with idolatrous practices ; ef. Psa.
Xvill. 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, ch. ii. 3,4. Itis prob-
uble, however, that the historian has only
preserved the substance of the message. It
is doubtful whether Solomon himself would
remember the exact words]:

Ver. 5.—Then I will establish [same
word as in ch. ii. 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 for
ever [this is the answer to the prayer of
ch. viii. 26] as I promised to David thy
father, suying, There shall not fail thee
aman upon the throne of Israel. [2 Sam.
vii. 12, 16; 1 Kings ii. 4; vi. 12; Psa. cxxxil.
12. But the primary reference is to ch. vii.
25; see Introduction, sect. II.]

Ver. 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 Chron. vii. 19, and 2 Sam.
vii. 14, 15], ye or your children [as the
promises of God are to us and our children
(Acts ii. 39), So are His threatenings], and

| will not keep my commandments and my186

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

ere aoe

[cH. Ix. 1—9.

 

statutes whichI [LXX. Mwvoijec ; Qui facit
per alium, &c.] have set before you, but
go and serve other gods and worship
them [Nxod. xx. 5; Deut. v. 9; xii. 2):

Ver. 7.—Then will I cut off Israel out of
the land which I have given them [Cf.
Deut. iv. 26, 27; and for the fulfilment see
2 Kings xxv. 11,21;] and this house which
I have hallowed for my name (Jer. vu. 14]
will I cast out of my sight [same expres-
sion, 2 Kings xxiv. 20]; and Israel shall be a
proverb and a byword among all people
[the exact words of Deut, xxvill. 37. Similar
words in Isa. xiv.4; Micah vi 16. Much
the same punishiwent is denounced in Levit.
xxvi. 14—38, and Deut. iv. 45, 63]:

Ver. 8.—And at this house, whichis high
[Heb. And this house shall be high, )i3}

aby, Our translators were probably in-
fluenced by 2 Chron. vii. 21, the text of

which ig yoy mn TS which would seem
to be an emendation, designed to clear up
the difficulty rather than an accidental vari-
ation 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, 6 oikoe otvrog tora 6 vpndrOe,
but the Syriac and Arabic read, ‘‘ this
house shall be destroyed.” Keil sees in the
words an allusion implicite to Deut. xxvi. 19,
and xxviii. 1, where God promises to make
Israel roy 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, &e.; but this connexion is some-

oD)
what far-fetched and artificial. Thenius

would read for HOY, Oy “ruins,” after

 

Micah iii. 12; Jer, xxvi. 18; Psa. lxxix. 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 ex-
tracted from the words as they stand, and
no one can deny that ‘high ’’ may surely
signify “conspicuous.” Cf. Matt. xi. 23],
every one that passeth by it shall be

astonished. [ DY primarily means to be

dumb with astonishment, Gesen., Thes. 111.
p. 1435] and shall hiss [P7¥, like ‘‘hiss,”

is an onomatopoetic word. It does not
denote the hissing of terror (Bahr) but of
derision; ef. Jer. xix. 8; xlix.17; Job xxvil.
93: Lam.ii.15,16. Rawlinson aptly remarks,
as bearing on the authorship of the Kings,
that this is a familiar word in Jeremiah (see
gh. xviii, LG. xxy. Ja (oe. te Fl eas
37, in addition to the passages cited above),
and that the other prophets rarely use if.
The fact that much of this charge is in
Jeremiah’s style, confirms the view taken
above (note on yer. 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 Deut. xxix. 24, 25; Jer.
Ree Sil

Ver. 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 Deut. xxix. 25. Solomon
in his prayer referred repeatedly to this
great deliverance, vers. 16, 21,51, 53], and
have taken hold upon other gods and have
worshipped them and served trem; there-
fore hath the Lord brought upon them all
this evi

HOMILETICS.

Vers. 1—9.—The Second Appearance to Solomon.
To Solomon goodness, to Israel severity.

severity of God” (Rom. xi. 22).

“Behold the goodness and

I. The GoopNESs oF Gop 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.”

“Twill love him and will manifest myself unto him” (John xiv. 21).
come in to him and sup with him ” (Rev. 11. 20).

him ”’ (John xiv. 28).

have such regard !”’

There are no richer promises than these.
exclaim, ‘“O altitudo!/’’ (Rom. xi. 33.)

<oEarel
“We will make our abode with
Well may we
‘“Q why should heavenly God to men

Yes, the riches, honour, glory, &c., given to Solomon were of small account
compared with the good thoughts and high aspirations bestowed upon him. RichesOH. Ix. 1—9.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 187

i

 

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 ae
of (true) fame, and love of truth, and all that makes a man ”—these He Toner vos
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 (vers. 5—8). God set before him that day “life and good
death and evil’’ (Deut. xxx. 15). By one to whom such wisdom had been vouch.
safed, 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 erag
and torrent” to bring back the straying sheep. e

Ij. The severity oF Gop is exhibited—

1. In the punishinent 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 in kindness to stay
them in their sin and so to prevent their dispersion. These were the sanctions of
that dispensation. ‘* ‘The law isnot made for a righteous man, but,” &c. (1 Tim. i. 9).
(3) There was no disproportion or undue rigour in these penalties. What seems to
us severity is really exact justice, orrather 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,” &c. (Rom. ix. 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 (Matt. xi. 23). Tt was
necessary for owr admonition that the chosen people should not afford the world
the spectacle of a nation sinning unpunished (1 Cor. x. 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 vaticiniwm ex eventu. “This day is this seripture
fulfilled in your ears” (Luke iv. 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 Jos., B. J. v. ch. x.—xill., vi. passum.
““ 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 Rome (Acts xviul. 2) ; our
Edward I. drove them out of Guienne and England. ‘‘ Ivanhoe” gives some idea of
their treatment in this country ; but aromance could not record a tithe of the horrors
of which Cliffurd’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 ee oh
in the rest of Europe. But even here, and down to the present day, the wor
“‘ Jew” is too often a name of hate. In Servia, in Moldavia and W allachia, they
are still the objects of fierce persecution and not always unmerited obloquy. oh?
the ‘* Anti-Semitic League,” now (1880) being organized in Germany, - 2 iy 0
the ‘‘ severity ” of God, a proof of the ‘sure word of peepee in ea teeee
again, the metropolis of their race, they are accounted ee fi a art ie i
of allthings. At the Greek Easter the refrain is often ay in t ne a - a -Oorte.
Holy Sepulchre, ‘‘O Jews, O Jews, your feast 1s a so . erase The fie me?
mentary, too, is the Jews’ “place of wailing on this serlp ae ‘acon e ae
beautiful house’’ a desolation, the temple precincts trodden unc oa 00 he
Gentiles! Conqueror after conqueror, pilgrim alter pilgrim, has asked the question,188 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [ou. x. 19.

 

 

‘Wherefore hath the Lord done thus?” &c., 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,” &e. (ver. 9; Jer, xxu. Bia):

‘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. Rom. ii. 21. In the history of the Israelitish nation we may see
the principle of God’s dealing with individual souls (see Keble’s Occasional Papers,
&e., pp. 435 sqq.) But we may also read in it a warning for the Christian Church
(Rev. u. 5).

HOMILIES BY VARIOUS AUTHORS.

Vers. 1—9.—The Renewed 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 ” (ch. iii. 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 Chron. vil. 14, 16)
leads us to suppose that it took place immediately after that event. It illustrates:

I. Tur FIDELITY 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,”
&e. he 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 vain. God does not disappoint the hopes and longings He
has Himself awakened. Asthe 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 ery 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 expecta-
tions. He “ doeth exceeding abundantly,” &c. (Eph. iii. 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 observaut ‘‘ 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 oi this grace—‘‘ for ever,’ ‘ per-
petually.” ‘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 “for ever.” If the grace is cancelled, if the benediction is with-
drawn, the fault is ours, not His. ‘Though we believe not, yet He abideth faith-
ful; He cannot deny Himself” (2 Tim. ii. 13). (2) In the repetition of the
promise, “If thou wilt walk before me,” &ec. (vers. 4, 5). The promise is reite-
rated 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 pro-
mises 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 for ever and ever, and are done in
truth and uprightness’’ (Psa. cxi. 8).CH. 1x. 10—28.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 189

 

 

II. THE INFIDELITY OF MAN AND THE FATAL CONSEQUENCES THAT FOLLOW It.
“But if ye shall at all turn from following me,” &. 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 way wardness of
human nature and the retributive justice of God. We arereminded that the faith-
fulness 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. ‘Tf ye shall at all
turn from following me, ye or your children,” then shall all these woes come upon
you. All sinis a departure from the living God. ‘My people have committed
two evils, they have forsaken me,” &c. (Jer. ii. 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 Rom. i. 21—28). Every sinful life is a more or less in-
tentional 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 ” (Psa. Ixxiii. 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 Caper-
naum, which art exalted to heaven,” &c. (Luke x. 15). (3) That one inevitable
penalty of trangression is contempt and scorn. ‘‘ Israel shall be a proverb and f
byword among all people.” “He that passeth by shall be astonished and sha
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” (Matt. v.13). ‘The wicked may be in
honour now, but the time is coming when they ‘shall awake to shame and ever-
lasting contempt.” —W.

EXPOSITION.

of the dark contrast which his own time
CHAPTER IX. 10—28, supplied—and this leads him to speak of the

qT sans by which all these enterprises were
SoLOMON’S BUILDINGS AND UNDERTAKINGS. | means by which |

—So far the historian has spoken exclu- | accomplished. The particulars here given
, 10n’ : ary, and are grouped to-

sively of the two greatest works of Solomon’s | are but fragmentary, e é grout em

reign the Temple and the Palace, and prin- gether in a somewhat irregular eoren

‘ } ; fi iaqene 1 9 ‘

SSa 7 eem as if both this account and tha

1 cf ren the message | would seer

cipally of the former. LHve g ke | : S :

j _ sae was. as we have seen, the re- | of the chronicler had been compiled from

just relate Bae

sponse to the prayer offered when the temple much more sieve oe eles ae
was consecrated. But he now proceeds to | having cited ae et are is
mention other proofs of Solomon’s great- peared to him to ee ae ae
ness, and of the prosperity of his reign— important. But ee c oo i bi ee
- 288 se the glory of Israel then | 10 either case is evident, Oe Haina tere
ey Hi a ae author would be | the principal undertakings of this vee
pee jae onde these details because | king, and (2) to indicate the resources whic190

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[ox. rx. 10—28,

 

enabled him to accomplish such ambitious
and extensive designs. These latter were
(1) the alliance with Hiram, which secured
him the necessary materials (vers. 11—14) ;
(2) the forced labour of the subject races
(vers, 20—23); and (3) the voyages of his
fleet (vers. 26—28).

Ver. 10.—And it came to pass at the end
of twenty years [seven of which were occu-
pied on the temple and thirteen on the
palace (ch. vii. 1)], when [or, during which.
LXX. éy oic wxodopjoce. This may well be
the meaning of 1J3 Wk, though WW, qut,
undoubtedly sometimes has the sense of
guum] 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 ch. vii. 1.]

Ver. 11.—(Now Hiram the king of Tyre
[Here we have a parenthesis referring us
back to ch.vy. 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 ver, 10] king Solomon gave Hiram
twenty cities [really they were mere vil-
lages. ‘‘It is a genuine Eastern trick to
dignify a small present with a pompous
name” (Thomson), But 1) is a word of

very wile meaning] in the land of Galilee,

bibs lit., circuit, region (like Ciccar, ch.

vii. 46), hence often found as here with the
art. = the region of the Gentiles (Isa. ix.
1-; 1 Mace. v.15; Matt. iv. 16), so called
because it was inhabited by Pheenicians (see
2 Sam.xxiv.7,and Strabo, xvi. n %&*’ origin-
ally designated but a small part vc: -e con-
siderable tract of country later known as the
province of ‘‘ Galilee,” viz., the northern
part in the tribe of Naphtali (Josh. xx. 7;
2 Kings xv. 29; Isa. ix. 1. Cf. Jos., Ant. v.
1. 18). Itis easy to see why this particu-
lar region was surrendered to Hiram. ( \
It was near his country (2 Sam. xxiv. 7); (4)
the people were Pheenicians, allied to Hiram,
but strangers to Solomon, both in race and
religion ; (3) Solomon could not with pro-
priety alienate any part of Immanuel's land,
or convey to a foreigner the dominion over
the people of the Lord. Levit. xxv. 23 for-
bade the alienation of the land; Deut. x\11.
15 the rule of a stranger.

Ver. 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 con-

 

jectured that Hiram had hoped for the noble
bay of Acco or Ptolemais (Milman, Raw-
linson), 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).]

Ver. 13.—And he said, What cities are
these which thou hast given me, my
brother ? [Cf. chap. xx. 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 Canaan-
ites,” 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 wordis
quite uncertain. The LXX. reads “@por,

which shows that they must have read Oya

instead of Sya9 ; indeed, it is possible that
the words have the same meaning (Gesen.)
Stanley (S. and P. p. 364) thinks these cities
formed the boundary between the two king-
doms, and refers to the use of dpra in Matt.
xv. 21; Luke vi. 17, &e, According. to
Josephus, XaBadwyv 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 re-

gard the word as compounded of 5 and b3
= as nothing; Keil connects it with the

root ban, 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 ver. 14); while Bahr de-

rives it from S55, an unused root, akin to
the preceding = vinait, constrinzit, 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, fall-
ing 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 (Josh, xix. 27), the
site of which, in all probability, is marked by
the modern Kabil, eight miles east of Acchooa. 1x. 10—28. |

 

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 
  
 

19f

 

(Robinson, iii. 87, 88; Dict. Bib. i. 237; |

Thomson, ‘“Land and Book,” i. 281, 511),
Itis possible, indeed, that it may have been
one of the ‘twenty cities” (ver. 11) given
to Hiram. And if this city, whether within
or without the district of Galilee, were no-
torlous for its poverty or meannegs, or con-
spicuous 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 signifi-
cance] unto this day. [See on ch, viii, 8.]

Ver. 14.—And Hiram sent [M>") must be
understood as pluperfect, ‘‘ Now Hiram
had sent,” referring to verse 11. This
fact is mentioned to explain the gift of the
cities, viz., that they were in payment for
the gold he hadfurnished. The timber and
stone and labour had been paid for in corn
and wine and oil. See on ch. v. 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, in loc., and Dict. Bib. iii. 1734. It
equalled 3000 shekels of the sanctuary
(Exod. xxxvili. 24—26). 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 se-
curity for its repayment. He further sees
in the restoration of these cities (2 Chron.
viii. 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 ch. x. 10, and the
666 talents of ch. x. 14.]

Ver. 15.—And this is the reason [or man-
ner, account, 1A. Keil: ‘‘ This is the case
with regard to,” &c. The historian now
proceeds to speak of the forced labour. ‘T'he
LXX. inserts this and the next nine verses
after ch. x. 22] of the levy [see on ch.
y. 13, and xii. 18] which Solomon raised ;
for to build [The punctuation of the A.V.
is misleading. The Hebrew hasno break—
‘* which Solomon raised for building,” &c.]
the house of the Lord and his own house
and Millo [ Heb. invariably, the Millo, as in
2 Sam. v. 9; 1 Kings xi. 27; 2 Kings xii.
20; 2 Chron. xxxii. 5; LXX. 7 dxpa. 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 igs an archaic Canaanitish term,
‘adopted by the Israelites when they took
the town and incorporated into their own
nomenclature” (Dict. Bib. i. p. 367), an
idea which finds some support in Judges
ix. 6,20. Mr. Grove would further see in
it a name for Mount Zion, dxpa being the

filled in with stones, earth, &e.

 

 

invariable designation of that part of. the
city in the Maccabees. But see Jos.. B. J. v
4.1; Ant. xv. 11.5; and Porter. i, pp. 96,
109. Lewin (‘ Siege of Jerusalem,” D. 256)
identifies it with the great plat form on which
temple and palace alike were built. But
the word yields a definite meaning in the

Hebrew (=3219, ‘the filling in”), Gesenius

consequently understands it to mean, a
rampart (agger) because this is built up and
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
débris, &e.—and protected by special fortifi-
cations; and, if this were done, and we can
hardly doubt it was done (see on ch. xi,
27), Hammilio, ‘‘ 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 Sam. v. 9 that David had already
built Millo and the wall. Rawlinson argues
from chap. xi. 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 chap. iit. 1l
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 pre-
datory 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” (Josh. xi. 10). It
stood on an eminence—as indeed, for the
sake of security, did all the cities of that
lawless age (ib., ver. 13 marg.)—overlooking
Lake Merom. It was at no great distance
from the north boundary of Palestine, in
Naphtali (Josh. xix. 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 Judg. iv. 2,17 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,
aud ag commanding the approach fromi
ht
a

192

Syria. As it is not mentioned in ch. xy.
20, it would appear to have escaped in the
invasion of Benhadad. Possibly it was too
strong for him} and Megiddo [Josh. xu. 21;
xvii. 11; Judg. v. 19. This place was chosen
partly because of itscentral position—it stood
on the margin of the plain of Esdraelon,
the battle-field of Palestine, and the battles
fought there prove its strategical importance,
Judg, v. 19-(cf, 1 Sam, xxxi. 1); 2-Kings
xxiii. 29; Judith iii. 9, 10O—and partly, per-
haps, because the high road from Egypt to
Damascus passed through it. It dominated
the passes of Ephraim (see Judith iv. 7). It
has till recently been identified with el-Lejjan
(from Legio. Compare our Chester, &c.)
(Robinson, ii. 116 sqq.; Stanley, S. and P.,
p. 347; Porter, 286, 287); but Conder (‘‘ Tent-
work, ’’ p. 67) 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 ap-
proach from Egypt, and would protect the
southern frontier of Solomon’s kingdom. See
Joshi weer L2 yma. Pie Judsesa.. 29%
8Sameyv, 25 slChron, xxe4. . Tthistands on
the great maritime plain, and isalso on the
coast road between Egypt and Jerusalem.
The site was identified (in 1874) 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 ”’ (Conder, p. 6).

The mention of Gezer leads to a paren-
thesis of considerable length (vers. 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,

Ver. 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 graye
offence than like ordinary warfare], and
Slain the Canaanites that dwelt in the city
[Though Gezer was allotted to Ephraim
(Josh. xvi. 3) and designated as a Levitical
city (b., xxi. 21), the Canaanite inhabitants
had never been dispossessed (Josh. xvi. 10;
LXX. ‘“Canaanites and Perizzites ;” cf. Judg.
i. 29), and they would seem to have enjoyed
a sort of independence], and given it fora

present (one, dotatio, dowry. It is the
custom of the East for the husband to pur-
chase his wife by a present (Gen. xxix. 18;

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

[cu. x. 10—-28.

2 Sam. iii. 14, &c.); but in royal marriages
a dowry was often given. ‘‘Sargon gave
Cilicia as a dowry with his daughter... .
Antiochus Soter gave his claims on Mace-
donia 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,”
&c, (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.

Ver. 17.—And Solomon built Gezer [In
the case of Gezer it was an actual rebuild-
ing. But as applied to Beth-horon, &c.,
‘built ”’ probably means enlarged, strength-
encd | and Beth-horon the nether [mentioned
in connexion with Gezer, Josh. xvi. 3 (cf. x.
10). It is deserving of mention that the
two cities of Beth-horon still survive in the
modern villages of Beitér el-tahta and
el-fok,’ names which are “ clearly corrup-
tions of Beth-horon ‘‘the Nether” and ‘‘the
Upper” (Stanley, 8. and P., p. 208). 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 (see Josh. x. 10; 1 Mace.
li, 13—24, and Jos., Bell. Jud. 1. , 19.
8. The object of the king in fortifying
this place was to protect the uplands of
Judah, Benjamin, and Ephraim against in-
vasion from the Philistine plain. Itis per-
haps not unnoteworthy that, according to our
author, it was Beth-horon the nether that
Solomon ‘‘built,’’ as this would naturally
have suffered more than its loftier neighbour
from war. According to 2 Chron. viii. 5,
however, Solomon built Beth-horon the
upper also.

Ver. 18.—And Baalath [probably the
place mentioned in Josh. xix. 44, and there-
fore a town of Dan. By some it has been
identified, but on wholly insufficient grounds
—the mention of Tadmor immediately after-
wards being the chief—-with Baalbek. This
is one of the names which prove how
ancient and widespread was the worship.of
Baal (Gesen., Thesaurus, 225; Dict. Bib., i.
147, 148) ] 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 WN, but the
Keri, after 2 Chron, vili. 4, reads WON, as do
all the versions; and secondly that a Tamar iscu. 1x. 10—28.]

 

 

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

   

193

 

mentioned Ezek, xlvii.19 and xlviii. 28.4 place
which may well be identical with « Hazazon
Tamar, which is Engedi” (2 Chron. xx, 2;
ef. Gen. xiv. 7. In favour of (1) are the
following considerations: (1) the statement
of the chronicler that Solomon did build
Palmyra (for of the identity of “Tadmor”
with Palmyra there can be no reasonable
doubt; see Dict. Bib. iii. 1428), (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 ver. 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 Tadmorinto 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 chro-
nicler omits these words, and that the Syriac,
Arabic, and Vulgate render, ‘in the land of
the wilderness.” Keil says our text is mani-
festly corrupt, and certainly the expression
isa singular one. Some would, therefore,
alter (IS2 into DANI, or into NN (after
2 Chron. vill. 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
(Psa. lxxii. 9). And a Jewish historian, espe-
cially 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,” z.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.

Ver. 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 (Gen. xli. 35; Exod. i. 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
1 KINGS,

 

 

ae

only have built as a means of gaining or
retaining control over the caravan trade
between the East and the Mediterranean,
Cf. 2 Chron. xvii. 12; xxxii. 28, and Gen.
xli. 48. They would seem to have been
chiefly on the northern frontier, 2 Chron.
vill. 4 (*¢in Hamath”); ib. ch. xvi. 4 speaks
of ‘the store cities of Napthali.” It should
be remembered that Solomon had an ad.
versary in Damascus], and cities for his
chariots, and cities for his horsemen [Cf.
ch. iv. 26. These were not so much fortresses
(vers. 15—18) as places adapted to accommo-
date his cavalry, &c. For horsemen we should
perhaps read horses. See note on ch. y. 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 ver. 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 plea-
sure-houses were built in Lebanon (Cant,
vii, 4, passim), for which Solomon may well
have had a strong affection, and pleasure-
gardens in Jerusalem (Hccles. ii. 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,
&e¢,, about which he “ spoke’ (ch. iv. 33;
cf. Hecles. ii. 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 re-
treat, 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”
(Kitto, ‘* Bib, Illus.” vol.iv. p. 101). Some of
Solomou’s journeys to these favourite re-
sorts, we can hardly doubt, are referred to
in Cant. in. 6—10-; iv. 8 sqq.:; vi. 11]
and in all the land of his dominion,

Ver. 20.—And all the people that were
left of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites,
Hivites, and Jebusites [Judges i. 21—36;
ii. 5; 1 Chron. xxii. 2] which were not
of the children of Israel.

Ver. 21.—Their children that were left
after them in the land [this is explicative
of ver, 20], whom the caildren of Israel also
[also is not in the Hebrew, and is meaning-
less} were not able utterly to destroy,
upon those did Solomon levy a tribute of
bond service [see on ch. vy. 13, and ef. Judges
i., passim, and 1 Chron. xxii. 2] unto this
day.

Ver. 22.—But of the children of Israel did
Solomon make no bondmen [see however

0RO one eee sae ee es Sele

194

 

ch. v. 13,18. This service, though compul-
sory,was not servile. Bondage was forbidden,
Levit. xxv. 89. The levy were treated as
hired servants and had wages]; but they
were men of war, and his servants (cf. ch.
i. 9. Not only “ officials of the war depart-
ment” (Biihr) but officers of every kind],
and his princes [these were the heads both
of the military and civil services], and his
captains [Heb. ww. LXX. rpwrarar.
Exod. xiv. 7; xv.4; 2Sam. xxiii. 8; 2 Kings
ifn /D5* xe 25, &e: “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
body-guard of kings. That they formed a
corps, and were not literally ‘‘ captains,”
is clear from 1 Sam. xxiii. 8, &c.] and rulers
of his chariots, and his horsemen.

Ver. 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 ch. vy. 16].

Ver. 24.—But [JS, lit. only. Keil rightly
connects the word with t& below. ‘So
goon as... then.” Cf. Gen. xxvil. 30.
This and ver. 25 are not interposed arbi-
trarily, as might at first sight appear, but
refer to ch. iii. 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 con-
strained to remove her, because he looked
upon all the precinct as now consecrated
(2 Chron. viii. 11)]. Pharaoh’s daughter

game up cnney. 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
puild Millo. [Thenius infers from these
words that Millo 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
expl nation of the word Millo (see ver. 15).
8. The word “then” may mean either (1),
that when her palace was completed, Solo-
mon then had workmen who were liberated
and were employed on Millo (Keil), or (2),
that when she vacated David’s house, the
building ef Millo could be proceeded with.

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

eer sere 4

fon. rx. 10—28.

 

 

 

Ver. 25.—And three times in a year [7.e.,
no doubt at the three feasts, the times
of greatest solemnity, and when there was the
largest concourse of people. See 2 Chron.
viii. 12. The design of this verse may be
to show that there was no longer any offer-
ing on high places. It would thus refer to
ch. iii. 2, as ver. 24 to ch. i. 1] did Solo-
mon offer burnt offerings and peace offer-
ings 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 burntincense propriamanu. According to
Dean Stanley (‘‘ Jewish Ch.” ii. pp. 220, 221),
“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, &c., 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 (ch. viii. 6; 2 Chron. v. 7—14;
vii. 2, 5). We have just as much reason,
and no more, for believing that the king
built Millo (ver. 24) with his own hands,
and with his own hands ‘‘made a navy of
ships”’ (ver. 26), as that he sacrificed, &c.,
in propria persona. And, secondly, it is
simply inconceivable, if he had so acted,
that it should have attracted mo more
notice, and that our historian should have
passed it over thus lightly. We know what
is recorded by our author as having hap-
pened when, less than two centuries after-
wards, King Uzziah presumed to intrude on
the functions of the priests (2 Chron. xxvi.
17—20) ; ef. 1 Kings xiii, 1), and we know
what had happened some five centuries be-
fore (Num. xvi. 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 through-
out his life, by the hands of the ministering
priests (2 Chron. viii. 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 IFN. See
Gesen. Lex., p. 94; Ewald, Syntax, 332a (3)]
that was before the Lord. [The altar of
incense stood before the entrance to the' CH. 1x. 10—28.]

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGs.

  
  
 

195

 

 

oracle, the place of the Divine presence,
See on ch. vi. 22]. So he finished the
house. [Same word, but in the Kal form
in ch. vil. 51. The Piel form, used here,
may convey the deeper meaning, “he per-
fected,” i.e., by devoting it to its proper
use. It was to be “a house of sacrifice”
(2 Chron. vii. 12).

Ver, 26.—And king Solomon made a navy
ofships [Heb. 938, acollective noun, classis.
The chronicler paraphrases by NVI, plural.
This fact finds a record here, probably be-
cause 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. (As to form, &c., of the
ships, see Dict. Bib. ii. p. 1014). 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. Num.
xxii. 35; Deut. u. 8; 2 Kmmes xiv; 22;
2 Chron, viii. 17. The name is probably
due, like Shechem (see note on ch. xii. 25)
to a real or fancied resemblance in the
physical geography of the country to that
part of the human body. Stanley (S. and P.
p. 84) speaks of ‘‘ the Jagged ranges on each
side of the gulf.”” Akaba, the modern name,
also means back. 2 Chron. l.c. says Solo-
mon went to Ezion-geber, which itis highly
probable he would do], which is beside
(Heb. NN=apud (Gesen., hex. s.v.)] Eloth

[lit., trees akin to Elim, where were palm
trees (Iixod, xv. 27; xvi. 1). The name is
interesting as suggesting that Solomon may
have found some of the timber for the con-
struction of his fleet here. A grove of palm
trees ‘‘ still exists at the head of the gulf of
Akaba” (Stanley 8. and P. p. 20). Palms,
it is true, are not adapted to shipbuilding,
but other timber may have grown there ina
past age. But see note on ver. 27. For
Elath, see Porter, p. 40; Deut. 11. 8; 2 Sam.
yili. 14 (which shows how it passed into the
hand of Israel); 2 Kings vili. 20; xiv. 22 ;
xvi. 6. It gave aname to the Hlanitic Gulf,
now the Gulf of Akaba], on the shore [Heb.
lip] of the Red sea [Heb. Sea of Rushes.
LXX. 7 épvOoa Oaddacca. The redness is
due to subaqueous vegetation. ‘‘ Fragments
of red coral are for ever being thrown up
from the stores below, and it is these coral-
line forests which form the true ‘ weeds’ of
this fantastic sea” (Stanley, S. and P. p.
83). There is aiso apparently a bottom of
red sandstone (ib. p. 6, note). 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

 

is 130 miles, the latter 90 miles long], inthe
land of Edom. [The subjcgation of Edom
1s mentioned 2 Sam. viii. 14. |

Ver. 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 Chron. viii. 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. (Keil
reminds us that Alexander the Great, accord-
ing to Arrian, had ships transported—in
pieces—from Pheenicia to the Kuphrates,
and that, according to Thucydides (Bell.
Pelop. iv. 8) the Peloponnesians conveyed
60 ships from Corcyra across the Leucadia
Isthmus, &c.) But this, especially when the
state of engineering science, &c., 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 trans-
ported 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 them-
selves. 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 Tyrians and Jews were co-
partners. |

Ver. 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 ch. x. 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 (Psa. Ixxii. 15; Hzek.
xXvii. 22). Onthe other hand, it is alleged
that in ancient times India was rich in gold
(Ewald, iii. p. 264), and that there are no
traces of gold mines in Arabia. The ques-
tion is discussed at considerable length and
with great learning by Mr. Twisleton (Dict.
Bib. art. ‘‘Ophir”). He shows that it 1s
reasonably certain (1) that the Ophir of
Gen. x. 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, Bahr, Keil, al.196 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu. rx. 10—28.

 

agree with him in locating Ophir in the generale for ‘ all the countries lying on the
latter country. Ewald, however, sees in African, Arabian, or Indian seas, so far as
Ophir “the most distant coasts of India,” at that time known” (Heeren). See on ch.
and it is probable that the Hebrews used | x. 5], and fetched from thence gold, four
the word somewhat loosely, as they did the hundred and twenty talents [The chronicler
corresponding worl Varshish, and as we do | says 450. The discrepancy is easily accoun-
the words Kast and West Indies. They were | ted for, 20 being expressed by 3; 50 by ae
not geovraphers, and Ophir may have been | Wordsworth suggests that ** perhaps thirty
merely an emporium where the products of | were as igned to Hiram for his help ”’] and
different countries were collected, or a nomen | brought it to king Solomon.

HOMILETICS.

Ver. 25.—The Two Altars of Judaism. This text is somewhat remarkable as
bringing before us at the same moment the two altars of the Jewish Church—the
sreat brazen altar of sacrifice and the golden altar of incense. The present is there-
fore, 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. More-
over, 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, &e., of the altar of incense.
It is true the altar“ sanctified the gift” (Matt. xxiii. 19; Exod. xxix. 37, 44), perhaps
sanctified the incense also (but see Exod. xxx. 35—387), 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 1s to say, really bring before us the two
questions of Sacrifice and Incense.

I. THE ALTAR OF SACRIFICE. 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 Chron: yuu 12;
Matt. xxiii. 35), but in the court of the priests, and, therefore, exclusively for the
service of the priests.

9. Its dimensions. It was fifteen feet high, and its top was a square of thirty
feet (2 Chron. iv. 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 there-
from. The heighi 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 lavers and sea should be high in proportion (ch. vii. 23, 25, 27, 38). Its great
size and capacity—it presented a snperficies of 900 square feet—was because of the
oveat number of victims which were occasionally offered upon it at one time.

8 Tis horns. These were no freak of the architect, but were of the essence
of the structure, and of Divine obligation (Exod. xxvii. 2). The blood was put upon
them (ib. xxix.12; Levit. iv. 7,18, 80, 84; vin. 15; ix. 9, &c.); the sacrifice, at least
in early times, was bound to them (Psa. exviii. 27); the suppliant for life clung
to them (ch. i. 50; i, 28, &c.) 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, &c., 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.CH. Ix. 10—28.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 197

 

2. It was ordinarily an offering made by fire (1 Sam. ii. 28). The holy fire
kindled by God (Levit. ix. 24), and which for long centuries was never suffered to go
out (Levit. vi. 13), the element which at that time, and ever since, has been re-
garded 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
(Levit. xvii. 11), and hence the sprinkling of the blood was the core and centre of
all sacrifice. (See Bahr, Symbolik, ii. pp. 199 sqq.) 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 pos-essions and of God’s gifts, the life,
the dvyn, which came from God and went back to God. It was an old and reason-
able 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 com-
prehended 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,” &c. (iixod. xxi. 24), had taught them this. Se
had much of their expressive ceremonial, ¢.g., the laying of the hands on the
head of the victim, &c. (Levit. ili. 2; iv. 4, &e.) 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) Levit. xvii. 11. They understood, that is, that sacrifice was not only euchar-
istic, 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 trom the hill of Calvary, 1t has an
additional significance. We may see in 1t— ;

5. A picture of the offering of Jesus Christ. — An imperfect picture, no doubt—a
shadow, a type, a parable, but still the outline 1s clear and distinct. We see here
the priest, tiie victim, the altar, the mactation, the blood-pouring, the elevation, the
death. Asa picture, indeed, all sacrifice “ showed the Lord’s death” (1 Cor. x1.
26) much more vividly and touchingly than the Holy Communion does. a

6. A pleading of the death of Christ. This is the crown and blossom of sacri ce.
It was an d@vdprqoc, a silent but eloquent memorial before God. Deane can 1
adequately explain the elaborate sacrificial system of Moses. Aen other Doe
of view sacrifices are, as Coleridge confessed, an enigma. But see in them Bo cons,
memorials, pleadings of the one vicarious death, and all is oe ae cee
comprehend why they should have offered thousands of te : he DY hae [
tinually.”’ Every bullock, every sheep, was, though the wors ippers mew ot,

Hd : ; rifie : Each was a foreshadowing of the
mute reminder of the one sacrifice for sin. 1 wa Byer ioe
4 ¢ tho is ‘‘ the life’”’ (John xiv. 6); each spoke to the heart
death; the death of Him who ab fel A Ma GiRe RES SN aE Ae Et
of God of the precious blood of Christ. Let us trace the parailel a 1tt
detail.

1. The Aliar prefigured the Cross. cen ;
(1) In its cn. The true altar of incense is in heaven. The altar of sacri

‘uest § eS tar of earth.”
fice was altogether of this world; it was in the truest ee an ae rk
But while outside the temple of heaven, the cross was yet in the court of the |198 VHE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu. rx. 10—28.

for “ Immanuel’s land ” was a sort of precinct or forecourt of the eternal sanctuary,
andit was the home of anation of priests (Exod. xix. 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 (Rey. i. 5, 6); itis 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; every one 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 1t was planted on a hill. Conder
(“« Tent-work,” pp. 196, 198) 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 iti. 31) ; that He should be
suspended between earth and heaven who should reconcile earth to heaven. —

(3) Lhe 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.

“Tord, on the cross Thine arms were stretched,
To draw Thy people nigh,” &c.

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 fore-
shadowed the oblation of Calvary. It must suffice to say here that this too was a

voluntary offering (Heb. ix. 14), a whole offering (?3—cf. Heb. x. 10, &c.), the

grateful savour of which ascended (the idea of the word ney) to heaven (Gen. viil,
91; Ephes. v. 2); that the life was given (Matt. xx. 28) and blood poured (1 Peter
i. 2) ; that the blood was poured for the remission of sins (Matt. xxvi. 28; Heb. Im.
22), and the life given for the life of the world (John vi. 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” (Heb. x. 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 for ever pleaded (Rev. v. 6) in the heavenly temple. In this sense it is a con-
tinual offering (Iixod. xxix. 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
avauynoe of the death which won our life. (See Homiletics on ch. vi. pp. 114, 115.)

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 sumple questions will perhaps best bring this subject of incense before us.
Let us therefore ask—

1. What was the incense ? It was (see Exod. xxx. 34 sqq.) (1) aconfection 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. vers. 84, 85). 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 thecu. rx. 10—28.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 199

 

probability that the story of thirteen ingredients (Jos., B. J. v. 5. 5) of the addition
of cassia, cinnamon, &c., to the elements mentioned in the Law, is a Rabbinical
fable. Such a confection would have been ‘‘strange incense.” (8) It was a@ per-
fume reserved for God (Exod. xxx. 87, 88). None might bemade for private use under
pain of death (vd. ver. 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”
(ch. vi. 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 improb-
able that it was only burnt owtside 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—tfor 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” GHixod. xxx. 8),
just as the sacrifice is called a continual burnt offering (ib. xxix. 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 Lukei. 10; Rev.v. 8; viii. 14; and
Lightfoot, ‘‘ Heb. and Talm. Exerc. on Tike 1, 10s,

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 i. 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,” ?.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 (Num. xv1. 35—40; 2 Chron. xxvi. 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.” ere

5. Why was tt 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 10 the perfumes
which were offered before the monarchs of the East (cf. Matt. u. Li Burs

moment’s reflection will show that both these conceptions are miserably inadequate
nent and essential a part of the

and unworthy. It is inconceivable that so prom1 | rt of
Jewish system can have had no higher meaning or have no analogue in aa:
It is universally admitted that the brazen altar and its sacrifices were full of symbol-
ism. 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 et ek gum

For observe, just as there is an altar raised on Calvary, just as t 16re Hi a sacri cia,
altar of which we Christians eat (Heb. xi. 10), so is there an altar in peuTGh ev.
viii. 3). Nor will this surprise us if we bear in mind that the Mosaic worship wasBoa a sei aaa eS

Ce ee eee a ee eee

200 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. fou, rx. 10—28.

 

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 Psa. exli. 2) to be an emblem of prayer. But this 1s a view which
reflection hardly justifies. For (1) prayer was offered at the tume 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 (Rev. v. 8),
where the “ which” (a’) would seem to refer to the ‘ vials” (gtahac) rather than to
the Ovpuapdrwy (ch. viii. 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 repre-
sentative 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.”’ (8)
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 (Rev.
v. 8), or angels (vb. vill. 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.

HOMILIES BY VARIOUS AUTHORS.

Ver. 25.—Solomon’s Worship. Our text appears at first sight to be introduced
into this chapter in a superfluous and arbitrary manner. Ti 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 con-
nexion with the statement made in ch. ii. 2, indicates that, after finishing the
temple, Solomon swept away the abuses, and remedied the defects which had pre-
vailed. 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 con-
tribute te a society, but withold all personal service ; or aid in the celebration of
worship, while their own hearts are never engaged in it. Ifwe compare the text
with 2 Chron. viii. 12, 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.CH. Ix. 10—28.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 201

 

 

 

 

No allusion is made here to explatory sacrifices (

: (the sin offering and the trespass
offering) but these, of necessity, preceded those mentioned here. Al] the more fitly

does the text represent what we should offer when we draw hear 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 [
render unto the Lord ?”

I. THE DEDICATION OF SELF, Burnt offerings were representative and not vica-
rious. They represented the dedication of himself to God on the part of the wor-
shipper. St. Paul shows us this (Romans xii. 1), ‘I beseech you, therefore, brethren,
by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice,” &¢. 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. 8. The occasions jor presenting the
burnt offering. (1) Daily (Exod. xxix. 88—42) to show that at no time are we
‘our own.” (2) Doubly on the sabbath (Num. xxviii. 9,10). The seventh day a
time for special consideration and self-consecration. (3) On great festivals (Num.
xxvill. 11; xxix. 39). Times of exceptional deliverance, enrichment, &c., are seasons
for renewed self-dedication. Press home the entreaty of Rom. xii. 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 grate-
ful 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, &e. (1) All these were of a Eucharistic
nature, and teach us to render thanks and praise to God (Heb. xiii. 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 Phil. We A85) (A) They
ministered to the necessities of the poor. Peace ofterings constituted great national
feasts. Give examples. Show Christ’s care for the poor. Allude to such verses as
Heb. xiii. 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 OFFERING OF PRAYER. ‘‘He burnt incense upon the altar.’’ Incense
was offered morning and evening (Exod. xxx. 7, 8), and on the great day of aes
ment (Levit. xvi. 12). The altar of incense stood before the holy ie ho Ke in
the holy place, where only the priests could stand. Pagan anc Broa
were suggested by the incense, so carefully and secretly compoundec ee pave y
used in tue service of God. As a symbol it denoted prayer ; pean wets: toe a
sense, as the outflowing of the soul in adoration, prayer, praise towa - oc a e a
to Psalm exli. 2, where prayer and incense are blended as reality a orien » ;, to
the smoke in the temple (Isaiah vi. 3 4); to the people praying while Zacharias

; ca j \s vers of the saints before the throne
was burning incense (Luke i. 10); to the praye ‘hss liga alee
(Rev. v. 8; viii. 3,4). 1. Prayer should be reverent. (The incense a — S :
to the holy of holies, under the immediate eye of God.) © 2. See -
constant. (Incense was perpetual. ‘‘ Pray without Een. 3. A Poche fh aeaite
the outcome of self-dedication. (Incense was Pee a me Oe Pho a Eien
of burnt offering.) 4. Prayer is accepted through Pee its a i .
(The horns of the altar of incense were sprinkled with blood.)—A. h.202

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

len, xs l=-12.

 

 

 

EXPOSITION.

CHAPTER X. 1—13.

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 (ch. vili. 42) has soon had a fulfil-
ment.

Ver. 1.—And when the queen of Sheba
(There is no good ground for doubting that
by 8a t) we are to understand the kingdom

of Southern Arabia (Yemen). It is true that
while Gen. xxv. 3 (cf. 1 Chron. i. 32) speaks
of Sheba, the son of Joktan, one of the
colonists of southern Arabia, Gen. x. 7 and
1 Chron. i. 9 mention another Sheba, the
son of Cush, and a doubt has arisen w hether
this was an Arabian or an Ethiopian prin-
cess, and it is alleged that she was the
latter by Josephus, who ealls her ‘‘ queen of
Egypt and Ethopia,” and by some Rabbinical
writers, and in the traditions of the Abys-
sinian church. But the kingdoms of Sheba
(sv) and : vba (NID) are entirely distinct

(Psa. lxxii. 10), the latter being the name
both of: the capital and country of Meroé,
a province of Ethopia (Jos., Ant. 11. 10. 2) ;
while the former in like manner designates
both the chief city and also the kingdom of
the Sabeans (Job i. 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 (Hizek.
Revd. 22s) ser vi. 202 (sa. ix, 6s Joel 121.76 +
Job vi. 19; ; Psa. Ixxii. 10). It is noticeable
thatin both kingdoms government by female
sovereigns was not unvommon (ef. Acts vill.
27); but itis 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 [Ueb. hearing. Doubtless through
the Arab traders. The record of this visit,

 

following immediately upon the mention of
the voyages (ch, ix. 26), isa grain of evidence
in favour of locating Ophir in Arabia] of
the fame (Heb. hearing ; ef. axon, Which also
means the thing heard, report. Compare
arokaduyec, Kadvynotc, &e.] of Solomon con-

cerning thename [Heb. DL ai in rela-

tion to, in connexion with, at name,’’ &c¢.
No doubt it was the house he had built

” ny? (cf. chs. iii. 2; v. 17, 18; viii. 17,
18, 19, 20, &c.) had made him famous. But
the expression is somewhat unusual, and
these words are omitted by the chronicler.

Gesenius and Ewald, however, regard thed as
instrumental, ‘‘ the fame given him by the
name,” &c., as Judg. vil. 18; Ezek. xii. 12

&e., and Wordsworth compares the use of
éy 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 beretained. The alliteration in
this verse (probably accidental) is to be

noticed. Thereisalsoa slight paronomasia]
of the Lord, she came to prove (LXX.

mepacat, to test)| him with hard questions
(Heb. in riddles; LXX. ey aivitywan. The
Arabian mind has ever delighted in dark
sayings, enigmas, &c., and extensive collec-
tions of these have been made by Burck-
hardt and others (see Keil in loc.) Accord-
ing to Dius (cited in Josephus, Contra
Ap. i. 17. 18) Solomon also had dialectical
encounters with Hiram and with Abdemon,
or, according to Menander, a younger son of
Abdemon, a man of T'yre.]

Ver. 2.—And she came to Jerusalem [a
great undertaking in those days. Our Lord
lays stress on this long journey, ék Twv
mepdtrwy the yc, Matt. xi. 42; Luke xi. 31]
with a very great train [Heb. with a very

heavy force or host (b9n). Thenius under-
stands 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 Heb.]
camels [2 Chron. ix. 1 has ‘‘and camels.”
But the word is here explicative of the Os
preceding (Keil). It does not, however, decide
against an armed force, as camels would be
in any case required. The camel was a
famihar object to the Jews (Exod. ix. 3;
Levit. xi.4; Deut. xiv. 7, &.); but suchacH. x, 1—13.]

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

  

203

 

procession as this would create great as-
tonishment in Jerusalem, and we may
imagine how the people would line the
bazaars as she passed, and the acclama-
tions with which they would greet the queen
(cf. 1.40; Matt. xxi. 9) and her swart at-
tendants] that bare spices (Heb. bulsams ;
hence spices generally; LXX. novopara.
Hixod. xxv. 6; xxxv. 28; Ezek. xxvii, 29.
The perfumes of Arabia are proverbial (see
Herod. ili. 107—113), aid Yemen is the
chief spice country (Dict. Bib. i. p. 91], and
very much gold [Psa. lxxii. 15. Gold is not
now found in Arabia, nor are there any
traces of gold mines; but Strabo and Dio.
dorus both state that it was found there,
and, according to the latter, in nuggets of
considerable size (Dict. Bib. i. p. 707).
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 quan-
tities 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. xxxvii.)]; 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.

Ver. 3.—And Solomon told her [7537 is
used of solving riddles in Judges xiv. 13
(Bahr), and interpreting dreams Gen. xli.
24; Dan. v. 12] all her questions [Heb.
words] ; there was not anything hid from
the king, which he told her not.

Ver. 4.—And when the queen of Sheba
had seen all Solomon’s wisdom, and the
house he had built [ver. 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],

Ver. 5.—And the meat of his table [ch.
iv. 22, 23], and the sitting [“‘ The rooms of
the courtiers in attendance” (Keil). But
awn may mean an assembly (Psa. i. 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 ver. 8 appears to be decisive against this

 

 

Ser reo

view] of his ministers
ministered to him. The word « Servants”?
1s, perhaps, to be understood of state
officers ; the word “ ministers” of personal
attendants (as in Acts xiii. Do, &.) That
the latter were an inferior class, the ‘* stand-
ing” shows], and their apparel [cf. Matt
vi. 29. The rich and costly dress of Eastern

sometimes fur-

[i.e., those who

courtiers and attendants is
nished by the king (Gen. xly. 22: 1 Sam.
xvill. 4; 2 Kings y. 5; Dan. vy. 7; Esther
¥. 331 Mace. x. 20: 'G£. Chardin, ‘* Voyage
en Perse,” iii. 230], and his cupbearers [By

a s - r . Ss > 4 © a x
this word Keil would understand « drinking
arrangements.” But see 2 Chron. ix 4
$6 ‘ pA ‘ ; i Cab

cupbearers (same word) and their ap-

parel”}, and hisascent [\N2. It is some-
what doubtful whether we are to interpret
this word, ascent, or burnt offering. 2 Kings
xvl. 18, 1 Chron. xxyi. 16, Ezek. xl. 26
make for the former, and the chronicler hag

insoy which undoubtedly means ‘ ascent.”

But all the translations understand the
word of burnt offerings—the LXX. has xa}
THY OXoka’Twov—and the word, ‘* which
occurs at least 300 times in the Bible,”
always (with one exception) signifies burnt
offering. Itis objected against this inter-
pretation (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 ch. ix,
25) which the queen witnessed; and (2)
that the sight of burnt offerings could not
have caused her any astonishment (Keil).
But their prodigious nwmber may surely
have done so ; and we are certainly to under-
stand that Solomon was remarkable for the
scale of his sacrifices. Considering, how-
ever, that the word undoubtedly means
“ascent” in Ezek. xl. 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
Josh. v. 1, and cf. 11, 11. For various legends
as to this queen, see Stanley, ‘‘ Jewish Ch.”
ll. pp. 234—236].

Ver. 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 acts
[or words. Same word as above and in tha
next verse] and of thy wisdom.

Ver. 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. thow
hast added wisdom and good to the report}
which I heard.

Ver. 8.—Happy [Heb. O the happiness,Te oe Te

ii i SPs So ae

204

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[cu. x. 1—18.

 

 

 

as in Psa. i. 1; ii. 12; xxxiii. 12, &c.] are
thy men [LXX. wives, yurvaxec}; happy are
thy servants, which stand continually be-
fore thee [see on ch. i. 2], and that hear
thy wisdom.

Ver. 9.—Blessed be the Lord thy God
[From this mention of the name of Jehovah,
taken in connexion with Matt. xii. 42, it has
been concluded that the queen became a
convert to the faith of Israel. But this
inference is unwarranted. Polytheism per-
mitted, and, indeed, encouraged, a full
recognition of the gods many of the dif-
ferent races and regions. See on ch. v. 7,
and cf. 2 Chron. ii. 12 and Ezra i. 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. ch. v. 7], to set thee on the
throne of Israel; because the Lord loved
Israel for ever [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.

Ver. 10.—And she gave the king an
hundred and twenty [Josephus says twenty]
talents of gold [Psa. lxxii.15. ‘‘ The rivers
still run into the sea; to him that hath
shall be given” (Bp. Hall). As to the talent,
see on ch. ix. 14], and of spices very great
store [Heb. much exceedingly (Ewald, 287 c.)
“The immense abundance of spices in
Arabia. . . isnoted by many writers. Hero-
dotus says that the whole tract exhaled an
odour maryellously sweet (iii. 113). Dio-
dorus relates that the odour was carried out
to sea to a considerable distance from the
shore (iii. 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 se enormous that
in his time they were the two wealthiest
nations on the face of the earth (xvi. 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.
viii. 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.
spices reminded him of the fragrant almug
trees brought from Ophir (Bahr). But it

Possibly, too, the mention of the

 

 

would rather seem that they are included as
one of the chief products of the voyage.

Ver. 11.—And the navy of Hiram also
[i.e., built and equipped by him, ch. ix.
26—28], that brought gold from Ophir,
prought in from Ophir great plenty of
almug trees [In 2 Chron. 11. 8; ix. 10, called
‘‘aloum-trees.”” The origin anil meaning
of the word are alike uncertiuin By some
(see Gesen., Thes. i. p. 93) the Al is supposed
to be the Arabic article, as found in Al-coran,
Al-cohol, Ad-miral, &¢., but later authorities
(see, €.9-, Max Miiller, ‘Science of Language,”
p. 214) lend no support to this view. ‘ Cel-
sius enumerates fifteen different trees, each
of which has been supposed to have a claim
to represent the almug tree of Scripture”
(Dict. Bib. iii. Appendix, p. vi.) Itis now,
however, pretty generally agreed that the
red sandal-wood (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 sandal-
wood 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 pre-
cious stones. [Stanley remarks on the fre-
quent references to gold and silver and
precious stones in the Book of Proverbs
(ehscic, Qe 141416 soni. Oss ex 205
xvi. 16, &c.), as one indication that it be-
longs to the age of Solomon. }

Ver. 12.—And the king made of the almug
trees pillars [lit., props. In 2 Chron. ix,
11 we have a different word, M)2D% (ef.
Judg. xx. 31, 82; 1 Sam. vi. 12, &c.), there
translated stairs. The word in the text
IYD!) is Graf dey. Keil understands
“steps with bannisters;” Bahr (after
Jarchi) ‘* tesselated pavements ;”’ Gesenius,
‘“balusters;’? Thenius, ‘‘divans;” Bott-
cher, “‘ benches and similar moveables,.’”’
But was not the pavement already laid, and
of cedar; and would the sanctuary have
divans, &c.?] for the house of the Lord, and
for the king’s house, harps also and psal-
teries [also mentioned together (Psa. xxi.
22 ; evill. 2; cl. 3). They were stringed
instruments, but their precise shape and
character is quite uncertain. One species
of sandal-wood, 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.

Ver. 13.—And king Solomon gave unto
the queen of Sheba all her desire, whatso-
ever she asked, beside that which Solomon
gave her of his royal bounty. (Heb. ac-on. x. 1—18.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 205

 

 

 

 

cording to the hand of king Solomon. The | & ae ae a
chronicler has, “‘ beside that which she had | Rae PA Pit he visit of othe GReehps

brought unto the king.” That is to aay Sheba Begin to have been without any spi-
in addition to the fitting presents which he ritual result.” * In like manner,’’ he adds,

6 "0 , , = <i cs 7 4 {
made in return for her gifts, be freely gave me ent nothing of any attempt on Solo-
her whatsoever she asked for. To ask fora | mon’s part to improve his friendship and
coveted thing is no breach of Orient

; b 0 bi 1 of O fal pro- | commercial relations with Hir
opriety. The Ethiopi: hristians fi ate
of Solomon and the license of that age, per- eens of Divine truth to the Sidonians,
haps not altogether without reason) a basis | PUt surely this criticism overlooks the
for their belief that she bore Solomon | fact that Judaism was not a missi
a son, Melimelek by name, from whom,
seeiomaee ten cen Bes aya commission to convert the heathen,
turned and went to her own country, she Rs Di pe qOWD Ppa yebery 5 wm ie is a thet,
aiid tdi Searearate: or 2,000 years the light of God’s truth
Bishop Wordsworth has remarked (p. 44) was, by the counsel and purpose of God,
that the record of this visit disappoints us. restricted within the extremely narrow con-
He says, ‘‘He (Solomon) answered her hard fines ss Israel, and that the “ fulness of the
questions, He showed her his palace . , . time, ie the Gentiles should be “ fellow-
but we do not hear that he invited her to go | ae ee A enttom Bolomonis day by
up with him into the house of the Lord,” | & waole millennium.

am into an

’

os onary
religion, and that the chosen people had no

 

HOMILETICS,

Vers. 1—13.—The Queen of Sheba. Well may the journey of this Eastern queen
have a triple mention in the sacred page (1 Kings x.; 2 Chron. ix. ; St. Matt. xii. ;
St. Luke xi.), for it is almost, if not altogether, sut 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 agolden 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 (Matt. xii. 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 lessous 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.

J. As to the JournEy—the one point noticed by our blessed Lord. He has
reminded us (1) of tts character. She came ‘‘ from the ends of the earth.” (2) Of
its purpose. It was to “‘ hear the wisdom of Solomon.” Letus collect our thoughts
round these two cenires, the nature and object of this enterprise.

I, Toe 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
ver. 1), her capital would be at no great distance from Mocha or Aden, 7.¢., 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 some-
thing 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,206 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. fon. x. 1—138.

 

were not unacquainted with luxury (note on ver. 2), and the journey through the
‘“oreat 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 daily life of this party was like. (3) Its perils. * Perils of the
wilderness’? (cf. Psa. xci.; Deut. viii. 15), and ‘‘ perils of robbers alike. Her
course lay through the land of Ishmael, whose ts 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 xix. 14), or a usurper might
snatch her crown. And all this was (4) wndertaken 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 estima-
tion in which women have generally been held in the Hast. 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.”

Il. THE PURPOSE OF THIS UNDERTAKING. 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. §ome, like Peter the Great,
have visited foreign courts for the sake of advancing the commerce, &c., of their
country. Some, lke 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,” t

; ‘‘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 xxviii. 18; Prov. iii. 15; vii. 11) to obtaim 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, &c., but because they stood before him (ver. 8) and
heard his words.

And our Saviour has said that this conduct will condemn the men of His gener-
ation. 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 (mXeiov) 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” (Rev. xvii. 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 ),” &. (Rom. x. 6, 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 (Matt. xxviii. 20; xviii. 20, &c.) 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. 8.
Christ has. come from the uttermost parts of the world to us. It isnot we whocH. x. 1—13.] THE FIRST BOOK oF KINGS. 207
ee i

have to leave a kingdom. He has left His that he may
kingdom.

 

‘appoint unto us g

“« Thy Father’s home of light ;
m , : ~ . x
Thy rainbow-circled throne,
Were left for earthly night,
a i ee :
For wanderings sad and lone,

And yet men will not listen to Him, will not learn of Him. Tt 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,” &c., 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 thines (Heb. x. 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 orrerines to Sonomon. It was the custom of those days to approach
king, seer, &c., with a present (ver. 25 ; Psa. Ixxii. 10; 1 Sam. ix. 7; Judy. vi. 18).
And she did not come empty. We read of “ camels bearing spices,” of 120 talents
of gold, &e. (ver. 10). Now observe: (1) She gave of what she had. Her country
produced or imported gold; it produced spices and precious stones (note on ver. 2).
Other visitors to Solomon gave garments, horses, &c. (ver. 25). These she had not,
but she gave what she could (2 Cor. viii. 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 broucht 120 talents of
the ‘* gold of Arabia ”—literally the ransom of a province (ch. ix. 14). She brought
spices—in ver. 15, we read of “ the traffick of the spice merchants ”—and precious
stones—in 2 Chron. iii. 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. (8) She
gave generously. Her munificence was unexampled—* very much gold” (ver. 2).
‘There came no more such abundance of spices,” &c. (ver. 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 ii. 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’’ (Kccles. 11. 4, 5). And He needs ouragency and our offerings.
He wants the perfume of sacrifice on our part (Phil. iv. 18; Bpn- Vv. 2; 2 wor. WW. toy.
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,” &c. (Luke xxi. 3). 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. ;

LV. 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 sacri-
fices. Noblesse oblige. His generosity must exceed hers. So he gave her “ all her
desire,” ‘‘ whatsoever she asked” “according to the hand of the king” (ver. 13, Heb.)
We see here a picture of the recompenses of our God. ‘‘ According to his riches in
glory”* (Phil. iv. 19). ‘‘ Exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think
(Eph, ii. 20). “Ask and it shall be given you” (Matt. vil. 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 wil) abundantly recompense.

©208 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu. x. 1—13.

 

HOMILIES BY VARIOUS AUTHORS.

Vers. 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
lis roval macnificence is declared inferior to the beauty with which God has clothed
the ‘ lities of the field.” ‘Even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one
of these” (Matt. vi. 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 2? 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, 1t 1s the wisdom of
Solomon that our Lord refers to, as having its wide-spread 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,” &c. (Matt. xii.
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 1s no very deep meaning
init. 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 instructioa. Every name is
honoured by association with His. Every incident becomes clothed with sacred in-
terest 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 theirinterview.

I. SoLoMoN, IN HIS WISDOM, A TYPE OF THE ‘‘ GREATER” CurRist, 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” (ch. v. 7). “ God gave Solomon wisdom and
understanding exceeding much” (ch. iv. 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 (ch.
iii. 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 witn 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,”
&c. (ch. iv. 83). 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, ifs 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 todo judgment”
(ch. iv. 29), We arethus reminded ofthe 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, ascu. x. 1—13.} THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 209

ee

 

in the “‘ Book of Proverbs;”’ the Poetic form, as in hi
the Socratic form, by question and answer, riddles—
terpretation thereof. It is in this latter form th
Tradition says that Hiram engaged with him in this ‘
worsted in the encounter; so here the queen of Sh
hard questions,” and “ communing with him of all ¢]
Be eeeie uk Sone ae Le yy all this we are led to think of

( é _ the 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 1s given to the counsels of religion. and
vice 1s 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 ial
elevation of David’s psalms. And when we come to Christ’s teaching, what im-
measurably 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 knowledse ” (Col. ii. 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 iii. 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
OURSELVES. All the motives that actuated her in 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. (8) The joyous satisfac-
tion 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,” &c. (Matt. viii. 11, 12).— W.

S 6 or »” we ee eee
2 meg eanes and ‘bEsalma,

: ying and the in-
at his wisdom here appears,
‘cross questioning,” and wag
eba came “ to prove him with
nat was in her heart she found

Vers. 1—13.—The Queen of Sheba. The suggestiveness of Solomon’s intercourse
with surrounding nations. His magnanimity was as remarkable as his magnifi-
cence. 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 com-
merce 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 camp.

Her conduct is full of suggestions for us—

1. HeR COMING SHOWS THE PAINS THOSE SHOULD TAKE WHO ARE SEARCHING FOR
TRUE WIsDoM. The journey was long, arduous, costly. It may have raised oppo-
sition 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 philo-
sophy, astrologers, and sages, consulting oracles like that :at. Delphi.. .Not. less.is

1 KINGS. 25 zs ee en a We ee ees Bee reer
Pe ee ee Se eee ee ao sea

210 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [om. x. 14—29.

 

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, &¢. 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 remem-
brance of her visit that Solomon wrote Prov. ii. 3—5: ‘If thou criest after know-
ledge, 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 (Matt. xiii. 45, 46). See also Col. 11. 3.

Il. Her CONFESSION EXPRESSES THE FEELING OF THOSE WHO HAVE COME TO ONE
GREATER THAN Sotomon. ‘The half was not told me” (vers. 6, 7). St. Paul
speaks of “the unsearchable riches of Christ; ’’ of “‘ the excellency of the knowledge
of Christ,” &c. 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, &c. 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 OFFERING SUGGESTS THE PRESENTATION WE SHOULD MAKE TO OUR Kina.
Read verse 10. Draw out the parallel between this and the coming of the Magi
(Matt. ii.), 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?

6 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 Isa. 1. 12; Psa. xl. 6, &e.

IV. HER ENTERTAINMENT REMINDS US OF THE WELCOME GIVEN BY OUR Lorp.
1. Like Solomon (ver. 8) Christ answers our questions. He knew His disciples
‘‘ were desirous to ask Him,” so they needed not even to frame their questions. Un-
spoken prayers are heard. 2. Like Solomon (ver. 5) Christ reveals His glory. The
transfiguration, the last talk with the apostles, the apocalypse, &c. 8. Like Solomon
(ver. 13) Christ loads us with benefits. Pardon, peace, strength, joy, &c.—of
greater worth than gold and precious stones. These material, those imperishable.

Let the earnestness of this queen rebuke our sloth and unbelief. ‘‘ The queen
of ‘the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall con-
demn 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’”’ (Matt. xii. 42).—A,. R.

EXPOSITION.
CHAPTER X. 14—29. ticulars of his wealth and magnificence,
SSotoMon’s WEALTH, POMP, AND POWER.— | some of which are related here because they

‘The visit of the Queen of Sheba, in itself a | were the products of the voyages of that same
striking proof of the fame and greatness of | fleet which had been the means of acquaint-
Solomon, is followed by a description of his | ing the queen with Solomon and his glory.
wevenues, his throne, and various other par- Ver. 14.—Now the weight of gold thatcH. x. 14—29.]

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

     

211

 

came to Solomon in one year [probably one
particular and exce) tional year, probably
also the year of the queen’s visit, not vear
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 (Rev. xiii. 18; ef. Ezra ii. 13) is in all
probability not altogether accidental. It is
possible, t.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, per-
haps, 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
‘“‘yoyal merchant,” the mark of the beast is
on the buyers and sellers (Rev. xiii. 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 re-
corded, 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
(ver. 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 (17,000,000 thalers), while Mr. Poole
calculates 1t 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 84d. (or 73d.) 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 (Matt. xx. 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).

Ver 15.—Beside that he had of the mer-
chantmen [The root 1\F signifies to wander
or travel about. In Num. xiii. 16, 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 (rév ddpwr Trav
vrcreraypévwy); the Chaldee, Syriac, and
Arabic of artizans; the Vulgate of ambas-
sadors. And the word is nowhere else used

 

 

28Te) and ar the construction, see Ewald
2} e trafiick (16 1s note-
worthy that no such word is used before
DF above] of the spice [not in Heb.]
merchants P23 is akin to O20. Like the
preceding word, the primary meaning is to
go about (229 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 [AV 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 Exod. xii. 38.
Cf. Jer. 1. 87; Neh. xiii. 3). Perhaps the
words are best explained by Jer. xxv, 24:
‘“‘ The kings of Arabia (A7Y) and... of the
mingled people (1¥) that dwell in the
desert,” i.e., the desert of Arabia deserta,
bordering on Palestine, The chronicler
here gives us JY, 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 Chron.
Xvi. 11; 2 Kingsiii. 4], and of the governors
of the country. [The word NjN5 (cf. ch.
xx, 24) is a foreign word, perhaps Sanskrit,
appirently borrowed by the Jews from the
Persians. It is used of Tatnai (Ezra v. 6),
of Zerubbabel (Haggaii.1), and of Nehemiah
(Neh. v. 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 chap. iv., 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 s
hence, perhaps, it is that this income is
distinguished from the gold of ver. 14.

Ver. 16.—And king Solomon made two
hundred targets [13¥, from a root which

signifies protect, a large oblong shield,
which covered the entire person (Psa. v. 12},ee ne ee fo aks oe ee

212

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[cu. x. 14—29.

 

 

 

Gupede. scutum. See 1 Sam. xvii. 7, 41.
The L.XX. here reads Copara, t.é., spears] of
beaten gold [The authorities are divided as
to the meaning of iNv’, here translated

beaten. This rendering is supported by
Bahr and Keil (.fter 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
9 Sam. viii. 7; 1 Mace. vi. 39] : six hundred
shekels [Heb. omits shekels, as elsewhere,
Gen. xxiv. 22; xxxvii. 28; Judg. vill. 26, &c.
There were apparently two kinds of shekel,
the Mosaic and the royal (for the latter see
2 Sam. xiv. 26). The former was twice as
mul as the latter, but there is no agree
ment amongst commentators as to the
weicht 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 174

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 ease the weight would be 9 ]bs., and
the value about £400. Bahr, however,
estimates the gold at. no more than £78
(523 thalers)] of gold went to one target.

Ver. 17.—And he made three hundred
shields [portable shields (peltas, Vulgate)
adapted for use in hand-to-hand encounters
(2 Chron. xii. 9,10; cf. 2 Sam. i. 21). That
these were much smaller shields is clear
from the text. These shields were borne
by the royal body-guard on great occasions
(ch. xiv. 27). They were taken away by
Shishak (ib. ver. 26)] of beaten gold; three
pound (113), uva, mina. As 2 Chron. ix. 16
has here 300 shekels, it follows that the
maneh == 100 shekels. From Ezek. xlv. 12,
however, it would seem that there were
manehs of different value] of gold went to
one sbield fi.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 [ch. vii. 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,
&e. ‘ At Tyre the beauty of the place was
thonght to consist in the splendour and
variety of the shields of all nations hung on
its walls (Ezek. xxvii. 10, 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 walls of the second temple
(Jos., Ant. xv. 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
9 Sam. vill. 7, LXX., these latter also were
carried off by Shishak. It has been inferred
from Cant. iv. 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. Isa. xxii. 8; Psa. xlvu. 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 ” (ch.
vii. 7) by the chryselephantine throne.

Ver. 18.—Moreover the king 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 iv.
10; Prov. ix. 14] of ivory [Heb. tooth.
Below in ver. 22 we have elephant’s tooth.
It is generally thought that this ‘“ throne of
the house of David” (Psa. exxii. 5) was of
wood, veneered with ivory, as was the
practice in Assyria (Rawlinson, ‘ Ancient
Monarchies,”’ i. p. 463), and in the chrysele-
phantine statues of the Greeks (Paus. i. 4.
1; vi. 25. 4, &c.) Biéihr says there is no
more necessity for believing this throne to
have been of solid ivory than the “ivory
house” mentioned in ch. xxii. 39. Cf. Psa.
xlv. 8; Amos iii. 15; vi. 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
pest [1Di, from the reot 118, separavit =
aurum depuratum. The chronicler explains
the word by WN (2 Chron. ix. 17)] gold.
[It is very unlikely that the gold entirely
covered and concealed the ivory, especially
if the latter was merely a veneer. Keiland
Bahr consider that the gold was laid on the
wood and the ivory inserted between the
plates, but the text does not speak of over-
laying 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. |

Ver. 19.—The throne had six. steps [‘‘ The
characteristic feature in the royal thronecH. x. 14—29.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 913

~

 

was its elevation ’’ (Dict. Bib. iii. p. 1493) ;
ef. Isa. vi. 1], and the top [Heb. head] of
the throne was round behind [same word
ch. vii. 23, 24. ‘Thenius' and Bahr under-
stand 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, 1.e.,
arms] on either side on the place of the
seat {see drawing of Assyrian throne in
Liayard’s ‘‘ Nineveh,” ii. 301; Dict. Bib. iii.
p. 1494], and two lions [probably of wood
overlaid with gold. Cf. Jer. x. 3, 4] stood
beside the stays.

Ver. 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 hada
significance such as could not attach to any
other number (Bahr, Symbolik, i. 201—205 ;
ii. 133, 423). It would signify that all the
tribes had an interest in the royal house (cf.
en. xn, 16;,2.5am. xx.,1); and a rght of
approach to the throne (cf. ch. xviii. 31).
‘he lion, a familiar emblem of sovereignty
among many nations, had an especial ap-
propriateness in this case, as being the
symbol of the tribe of Judah (Gen. xlix. 9 ;
cf. Num. xxiii. 24; xxiv. 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 magnifi-
cent, are represented on the Assyrian monu-
ments. The historian might justly add] :
there was not the like made [Heb. not
made so| in any kingdom.

Ver. 21.—And all king Solomon’s drink-
ing 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 de-
eription of the splendour of the court of
Persia, “ Tout est dor massif,” &c., and
adds, ‘‘ Both Symes and Yule note a sintl-
lar use of gold utensils by the king of Ava
(Symes, p. 372; Yule, p. 84) ”), and all the
vessels of the house of the forest of Lebanon
were of pure gold [11D ; see on ch. vi. 20.

 

LXX. yousip cvycerdeouiva, This immense
quantity of gold is quite paralleled in the
accounts of profane writers. ‘* Sardana-
palus, when Nineveh was besieged, had 150
golden bedsteads, 150 golden tables, a
million talents of gold, ten times as muc!,
silver, &c. (Ctesias, ap. Athenaeus, xii. p. 29).
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
Ketabana was estimated at 120,000 talents
of gold,” &c. (Bahr, in loc.)]; none were of
silver [Heb. none silver. The Marg., ‘‘ there
was no silver in them,”’ z.e., they were un-
alloyed, is a misapprehension of the true
meaning]: it was nothing accounted of in
the days of Solomon.

Ver. 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 ch.
ix. 26—28, as trading to Ophir, and (2)
whether this fleet, if it were not the same,
went to Ophir or to Tartessusin Spain. Keil
and Bahr contend that there was but one
fleet, first, because there is no mention of a
second fleet at ch. ix. 28, and, secondly, be-
cause 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 Chron, ix. 21 expanded
into “ ships going to Tarshish,” which Keil
and Bihr are compelled to set aside asa
mistake on the part of the writer), taken in
connexion with the following words, ‘ with
(DY, together with, as well as) the navy of

Hiram ”’ (i.e., as we conclude from ver. 11,
the navy manned, or, it may be, owned, by
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
‘sold and silver, ivory, apes, and pea-
cocks.” See below. (3) Even if we under-
stand here by the ‘navy of Hiram ” a Phceni-
cian fleet, still a second. fleet is indicated.
But this leads us to consider the destina-
tion of these ships. The term, ‘‘ fleet of Tar-
shish,” does not in itself prove anything, for
the expression, ‘“‘ships of Tarshish,”’ 1s
almost a synonym for “merchant vessels.”
In ch. xxii. 48 we read, ‘‘ Jehoshaphat m ide
ships of Tarshish to go to Ophir,” and they
‘were broken at Ezion-geber” (cf. Psa.
xlviii. 7; Jonah i. 3). It is probable that 1m
Jewish lips the words were a nomen gene-
rale for all vessels going long voyages (Isa.ee

214

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[cu. x. 14—29,

 

ti. 16; Psa. xlviii. 7; compare our ‘‘ Kast
Indiaman,” ‘Greenlander”). But the
words ‘in the sea,” D'2, are most naturally

understood of that ocean which the Jews
called par excellence ‘‘ the sea,” or ‘ the
great sea” (Num. xxxiv. 6, 7), 2.¢., the

Mediterranean, though the term D4 is un-

doubtedly 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 exten-
sive commerce with Tartessus, which was a
great emporium of trade from the earliest
times. Bihr 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 gooddeal of gold also” (Plin., Nat. Hist.
iii. 4), while “‘apes and ivory were produced
by the opposite coast of Africa” (Herod. iv.
191. As to peacocks see below). And it
is a powerful argument in favour of Tar-
tessus that it is the plentifulness of silver
in Solomon’s days has suggested this refer-
ence to the fleet. For though silver ‘‘ was
found in the land of the Nabateans, accord-
ing to Strabo, xvi. 784” (Keil), yet it was to
Tartessus that the ancient world was chiefly
indebted for its supplies of that metal. On
the whole, therefure, it seems probable that
¢; second fleet, trading with the Mediter-
ranean seaports, is here described. And
Psa. lxxii. 10 is distinctly in favour of this
conclusion. When Ewald says (‘ Hist.
Israel,” iii. 263) that the Pheenicians 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’ (Kitto) ; 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. dddvrec thepayvrwor. It is noteworthy
that the name for elephant used here is de-
rived from the Sanskrit (Gesen.), and an
argument has been drawn hence in favour of
placing Ophir in In lia, 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 re-
tained, from whatever quarter the com-
modity was subsequently derived. See
Rawlinson, p. 546], and apes [)) is in like

 

manner identified by Gesenius, al., with the
Sanskrit kapi. Sir J. Emerson Tennant
(‘* Ceylon,” ii. p 102) says “the terms by
which these articles (ivory, apes, and pea-
cocks) are designated in the Hebrew Serip-
tures 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 under-
stand ‘‘parrots.”” But the root '3N appears
in several Aryan tongues (cf. rade, from
raF we, and pavo) as indicating the peacock
(Gesen., Max Miiller, al.) which originally
came from India. Whether it was also
found in Africa is uncertain. Aristophanes
(Birds, 485) says, kadetrat Tepoude opve.
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.”

Ver. 23.—So King Solomon exceeded all
the kings of the earth for riches and
wisdom [Cf. ch. 111.18. ‘“‘ There is something
ominous of evil here. Riches are put before
wisdom. This was not the case in the
beginning of Solomon’s reign (ch. i. 11)”
— Wordsworth.

Ver. 24.—And all the earth sought to
(Heb. sought the face of] Solomon, to hear
his wisdom which God had put in his heart
[ese., tind. VOr. Ch. Ty. ae

Ver, 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 sub-
jects, but to ‘‘ hear the wisdom,” &c., the
latter. Bahr 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. Gen. xlv. 22; 2 Kings v. 26;
lizra 11.69], and armour [rather, ‘arms,
weapons’? (Gesen.) Ewald understands
perfume; LXX. oraxrijy, t.e., oll of myrrh],
and spices [cf. ver. 10], horses and mules
[see on ch. i. 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 informa-
tion already given in chs. iv. 26 and ix. 19,
and furnish a few additional particulars as
to the wealth and commerce of the king.cu. x. 14—29.]

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

215

 

Ver. 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 ch.
iv. 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 Deut. xvii. 16 (cf.
1 Sam. viii. 11), but it was entirely un-
necessary, 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 Chron.
xvill. 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 foree 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.
Solonron 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 (ch. ix. 19), and with
the king at Jerusalem.

Ver. 27.—And the king made silver to be
in Jerusalem as stones [an obviously Lyper-
bolical expression], and cedar trees made
he to be as the sycamore trees [the Nip
is the oveouwpea of the New Testament
{Luke xix. 4), i.e., as the name imports,
the fig-mulberry—the ‘‘ sycamine tree”’ of
Luke xvii. 6 would seem to denote the mul-
berry proper. Though now but compara-
tively rare in Palestine, it is clear that
formerly it was very common (see, e.g., Isa.
ix. 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 Chron. xxvii. 28). The sycamores of Egypt,
which were used for the coffins of mummies
(Dict. Bib. iii. p. 1394), are referred to in
Psa. Ixxviii. 47, in a way which bcespeaks
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 Chron. 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”
(Grove, Dict. Bib. iii. p. 1611). This ‘‘ Low
Country” extended from Joppa to Gaza.
The translation ‘‘vale” is altogether mis-
leading. Conder (‘‘Tent-work,” p. 5) de-

 

 

scribes 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 con-
firmation of the text. ‘“ The name Sifla,
or Shephelah, still exists in four or five
places round Beit Jibrin ” (Eleutheropolis),
wb. p. 276] for abundance.

Ver. 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 7})), here ren-
dered ‘“‘linen yarn.” Elsewhere the word
signifies, a congregation, or gathering, as of
water (Gen. i. 10; Exod. vii. 19; Levit. xi.
36). Consequently, Gesenius (with Vata-
blus, 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 inter-
pretation is perhaps the paronomasia,
which, though not altogether without pre-
cedent, would be formal and unusual in
grave history. Somewhat similarly Bihr:
‘Cand as to horses... and their collection,
the merchants of the king made a collec-
tion 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,” kai éx
Qexove, Which Keil, however, contends 1s
manifestly a variation of an older reading,
Kai é« Kové, “Sand from Kova.” As to Koa
or Kova, it is objected that no such place is
mentioned elsewhere, aud 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 con-
nexion. Oexové certainly looks like an emen-
dation, but it is to ke remembered that
although Tekoa (Amos i. 1; 2 Chron. xi. 6;
xx. 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
export of Solomon’s horses from Egypt and
from Koa (or Tekoa), the king’s merchants
took them from Koa (or Tekoa) at a price.”

Ver. 29, — And a chariot [including216

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[cu. x. 14—29.

 

perhaps the two or three horses (see note
on ch. v. 6) usually attached. to a chariot,
and the harness. 137) is used (2 Sam. vill. 4;
x. 18; Ezek. xxxix. 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

scriptions (Dict. Bib. i. 819), with whom
Solomon had a sort of alliance. It is a
curious coincidence that we find horses
and chariots associated in popular estima:
tion with the Hittites, at a later period of
the history (2 Kings vii. 6). Nor are we
justified in supposing that these horses
and chariots were furnished as cavalry to

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 reckon-
ing 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
(Josh. i. 4; Ezek. xvi. 3), for the Canaanitish
tribes had been reduced to bond-service, the
Hittites amongst them (ch. ix. 20). The
word is probably used somewhat loosely of
the semi-independent tribes bordering on
Palestine, the Khatti of the Assyrian in-

‘‘Qolomon’s vassals, whose armies were at
his disposal, if he required their aid”
(Rawlinson), for the kings of Syria sare
mentioned presently, and some of these at
least were enemies to Solomon. Probably
all we are to understand is that neighbour-
ing nations received their suppiy of horses
from Egypt—the home of horses and chariots
(Exod. xiv. 6; xv. 1; Deut. xyvu. 16 ; Isa.
xxxi, 1; Jer. xlvi. 2—4)—largely through
the instrumentality of Solomon’s mer-
chants], 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.

 

HOMILETICS.

Vers. 14--29.—The Decline and Fall of Solomon. The fall of Solomon, in itself
one of the most portentous facts in Scripture history (see Homileties, pp. 78—80),
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 flerce
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 imperceptibie. 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 dis-
covered he was dead—an instructive parable of his moral and spiritual decay. We
may well cry here—

 

* © 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 temp‘e all would seem to have gone
well. Unless the dedication prayer is, as some have «ffirmed, 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 messagecH. x. 14—-29.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 217

 

he received during the building of the temple confirms this view. It is a messag

not of warning but of encouragement. It is at the completion of the bAlenas hak
we discover the first certain token of defection. For it was then that tics Era
appeared unto him the second time, and the communication then made was
undeniably minatory. Its tone of threatening is inexplicable, except on the sup.
position that Solomon’s “ heart was not right with the Lord,” &e. At this p: se
then, about the twenty-fourth year of his reign, the destroying worm was alread ;
at work. 2 y spb

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 con-
demned. It is suspicious, no doubt, and argues selfishness and heartlessness
when, asin Russia, Turkey, &c., the huge and costly residences of the Crown con-
trast everywhere with the wretched hovels of the peasantry. And one would
naturally expect the theocratic king to attain a higher level and to devote him-
self 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 unprece-
dented prosperity (ch. iv. 20, 21). The entire nation shared in the wealth and
abundance of the court. We cannot be certain, consequently, that the palaces,
per. sé, involved a departure from the law, the more so as some of them were
necessary for purposes of state and justice (see on ch. vii. 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 (Josh. ix. 21 sqq.), at any rate, for the house of
God (ver. 23), but not for the pleasure or acorandisement of the monarch
(1 Sam. viii. 11,16). “It is not of the Lord of Hosts that the people shall weary
themselves for very vanity” (Hab. ii.18). And when we remember that Jeroboam
was probably encouraged to rebel by seeing and hearing the murmurings of the
house of Joseph (ch. xi. 28) of whose labours he was the overseer, and that this
and similar burdens laid upon the people (ch. xii. 4) resulted im the revolt of the
ten tribes, we can hardly suppose that Solomon completed his great undertakings
(ch. ix. 15—19) without inflicting positive hardship and grave injustice on large
numbers of his subjects. Itis probable, indeed, that the woe pronounced against
a later monarch (Jer. xxii. 13, 14) had not been unmerited by him. He had
‘used his neighbour’s service without wages,” &e. Possibly he had raised his
forest of cedar pillars, &c., 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” (ch. 1x. 15) was oppressive or not, there can be little
doubt that the “ proud look and high stomach » (Psa. ci. 5.; cxxxl. 1, 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
(ch. iii. 7). Now that he has “ strengthened himself,” like his son after him,
he begins to forget his God and to forsake His law (2 Chron. xii. 1). It has been
promised him that he shall exceed all other kings in wisdom and riches and
honour (ch. iii. 12, 13) ; 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 (see Homiletics, p. 5D), Lue
fine gold is become dim. ;

Still, so far, there has been no deliberate, or perhaps even conscious, inirachon of
the law—only the worldly and selfish mind. He may well have argued ia ue
state required this show of magnificence ; that the Canaanites were erdaune tog
God to hew wood and draw water at his pleasure. But this only shows how ag it
are the beginnings of evil; how fine sometimes 18 the line whieh divides nett rom
wrong, and how easily our judgment is warped by our inclinations. is the o

story, Hood cull deci pa et etce (pi alur— oe sg I ES ee ree ae ee ae
. ™ _ a 2 Tar ee ee eR rte as orn ae wee ee pee 2 ee ete”
ee ee ee ee ee ee : age j ees ;

218 TIE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. fou. x. 14—29,

 

 

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 ch. v. 12. But for that, he could hardly have built the temple,
to say nothing of the palaces. Whether he was justified, however, in having at sea
“a navy of Tarshish with the navy of Hiram” (ch. x. 22) may well be doubted.
For it was part of God’s plan that the Jewish people shoulc dwell alone and not
be reckoned among the nations’? (Num. xxul. 9); Sher geographical position
was one of almost complete isolation. They were not destined to be a great com-
mercial 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
‘© oripple 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 tov rards 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 (ver. 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 ” (ver.
99), 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 en-
gendered by, that ‘‘love of money which is the root of all evil.” As Solomon
grew richer he loved riches more. Ver. 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 (ch. 11.11). And soit 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 him-
self” (Deut. xvii.17). Even his drinking vessels were of pure gold (ch. x. 21). So
that his comm:>rce 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 (ch. ix. 25). But heis trying to serve God and mammon, and mammon
has gained the mastery. It is probably mentioned as a circumstance full of signi-
ficanee, that the weight of gold that came to him in one year was six hundred and
siaty-stx talents (ver. 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 Avernt. 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 thecH. x. 14—29.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 219

 

 

 

 

round that th
g 1 th they were required for purposes of defence. The hilly country of
Palestine does not admit of their being deployed therein. It was partly because

: J Ve Y eC

they could only be employed In aggresswe warfare that they were forbidden
Whatever unction, therefore, he might lay to hi l as

hat ) re, he g y 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 go
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. Isa. xxx. 1); only the lust of
the eye and the pride of life. He is still the Lord’s anointed: his lips distil know-
ledge ; he still offers hecatombs, but his ‘ heart is not right,” &e.

And SO the years passed bya+ TG all outward appearance his glory and magni-
ficence 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 seraglos. It
was necessary that he too should have an establishment of this kind, and he must
have it even greater than theirs. He knew thatthe 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 Jiis 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” (ch. xi. 7).

This mournful history is full of admonition and instruction. I must suffice to
indicate the following lessons :—

1. A man may preach to others and yet be a castaway (1 Cor, ix. 27). Solomon’s
Prayer (ch. viii.), Psalm (Psa. exxvii.), and Proverbs should be studied in the light
of his fall. ‘‘ Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself?”
(Rom. ii. 21). Compare vers. 22, 23 with Prov. v.—vil.; and remember the eon-
stant references to the ‘‘law” in the dedication prayer.

2. “ Nemo repente turpissimus fuit.” ‘ He thatdespiseth little things shall falf

by little and little.”

 

‘‘Tt 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,”
&c. (Mark vu. 21). It was not to an assault from without, it was to treachery
within that Solomon yielded—Solomon who had saad, ‘Keep thy heart with all
diligence,” &c.

4. “ The love of money is the root of all evil” (1 Tim. vi. 10). May we not
say, ‘‘ Behold two kings stood not before him: how then shall we stand?” (2 Kings
x. 4). ‘Children, how hard it is for them that trust in riches, &e. (Mark x. 24).
“Take heed, and beware of covetousness” (Luke xu. 15), “‘ which is idolatry
(Col. 11. 5).

5. The course of sin is d
inclined plane; and the gra
* the deceitfulness of sin.”

ownhill. Vires acquirit eundo. _The sinner 1S on an
dient at first ig almost imperceptible. Let us learn, too,Ee ee ee eee ea

220 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

ee ee ee ee Re aa eS ae

(cu. x1. 1—18.

 

6. Woman, made to be man’s helpmeet, too often becomes his snare. Tt 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, &c. (ch. xi. 4).
but mature age has them also.

dangers and temptations ;

fifty when he fell. See p. 220.

Hot youth has its
David was not less than

EXPOSITION.

CHAPTER XI. 1—13.

Sonomon’s DEFECTION. —The observant
reader will have already remarked in this
history some intimations of Solomon’s ap-
proaching fall. Among these are, first, the
repeated warnings which are addressed to
him, especially in ch. ix. 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
(ch. x. 14—25), in defiance of Deut. xvu.
17, and of the multiplication of horses
(ch. x. 27—29), in disregard of ver. 16 of the
same chapter. We now read how the ruin
of this great prince was completed by the
multiplication of wives. The historian
obviously had the words of Deut. xvii. 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.

Ver. 1.—But eb And. This chapter is a
direct continuation of the preceding, LXX.
Kio Baoier iG Rr A. The polygamy was ‘but
a part of his worldliness, like the chariots
gost, &c.| king Solomon loved [The L XX.
HY diroytarj¢ 18 Misleading. It - perfectly
clear that it cannot have been mere sensu-
ality led to this enormous harem. This is
evident from (1) his time of hfe. 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, there-
fore, 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 case
as in the other” (Kitto)]many [He is blamed
for their number. This was against Deut.
xvii. 17] strange [not merely foreign,
though that is the primary meaning of
the w vord, but strange as opposed to a law-
full witem: Cl. perOV,.¥. 20s Vi ok Bil,
&e. No doubt the harlots in Israel were
principally aliens] women, together with
PD NAN ie., praeter filiam Ph, (Maurer).
Pharaoh’s daughter is regarded as his
lawful wife] the daughter of Pharaoh [see
note on ch. 11. 1], women of the Moabites,
Ammonites [Heb. Moabitesses, &c.  Per-
haps 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 con-
eregation until the tenth generation (Deut.
xxlil. 3); if the Israelite was not to seek
their peace or prosperity all the days of
his lite (ver. 6), then tne idea of inter-
marriage with them must have been alto-
cether repugnant to the Hebrew polity, as
indeed we may gather from the book of Ruth],
Edomites [Favourably distinguished (Deut.
xxii. 7) from the two preceding races. The
Kdomite 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 (ap. Clem.
Alex. ‘Strom.’ i, p. 386), 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 [sce
on ch. x. 29].

Ver, 2.—Of the nations concerning which
the Lord said unto the children of Israel
[Of the nations just ennmerated, the law
expressly forbade marriage with the Hittites
alone (ixod. xxxiv. 11—16; Deut. vii. 1—4),
though the Zidonians are probably to be
included, as being Canaanites (Gen, x. 15).
But the pr inciple which applied in the case
of the seven nations of Canaan applied
equally to all other idolaters, ‘‘ They willcH, x1. 1—13.]

turn away thy son from following me,” &c.
(Deut. vil. 4). The spirit of the law, conse-
quently, was as much violated byan 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 ex-
pression Josh. xxiu.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. Exod. xxxiv. 16]: Solo-
mon clave [same word Gen. ii. 4] unto
these [emphatic in Heb. ‘‘even to these,”
instead of cleaving to God (Deut. iv. 4; x.
20; xxx. 20, each of which has the same
word as here), and despite the prohibitions
of the law, &c.] in love,

Ver. 3.—And he had seven hundred
wives, princesses [These may have been
members of royal or princely houses of
neighbouring nations. Evidently they en-
joyed a distinguished rank], and three hun-
dred concubines [Though not committed to
a defence of the accuracy of the figures
700 and 300 (which are clearly round num-
bers), it must be said that the reasons alleged
for reducing them (as from 700 to 70) are
not of much weight. It is hardly correct, e.g.,
to say (as Rawlinson) that the numbers are
given in Cant. vi. 8 as ‘‘threescore queens
aud fourscore concubines,” for it is obvious
that too much importance must not be at-
tached to an obiter statement (‘there are
threescore,” &c.) 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 in-
mates of the harem at different periods of
Solomon’s long reign, rather than the num-
ber present at any one time—they would see
in the numbers of Cant. 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 incre-
dible. 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 Biihr in loc.) It is true that Rehoboam
had only 18 wivesand 60 concubines (2 Chron.
xi. 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).]

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS,

 

221

Ver. 4.—For it came to pass, when Solo-
men 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 Solo-
mon’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
Bahr 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 wor-
ship in the vicinity of Jerusalem. His
arguments, briefly statel, are these: (1)
It is nowhere said that he “served” (72)
other gods—the expression constantly used:
of the ilolatrous kings; cf, xvi. 31; xxii. 53;
2 Kings xvi. 8, &c. (2) Neither the son of
Sirach nor the Talmud nor the Rabbins:
know anything of his personal idolatry. (8)
Had he formally worshipped idols, his sin
would have been greater than that of Jero-
boaiu—as to which, however, see on ch.
xii. 29 sqq. (The “sin of Jeroboam” lay
in ‘making Israel to sin,” 7@.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”
(ver. 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 Jabveh, and with his own
hand sacrificed to heathen gods. All traces.
of contemporary history extant testify to the
contrary ” (vol. iii. p. 297). See, however, on
ver. 5]: and his heart was not periect with
the Lord his God [it is instructive to com-
pare with this the words of ch. vil. 61,
‘Let your heart be perfect,” &e. Words-
worth remarks that ‘the deicction even of
Solomon from God through the influence
of his strange wives is one of the best justi-
fications”’ of the commands of Hsod. xxxlyv.
12—-16; Deut. vii. 2—4, &¢,], as was tae
heart of David his father.

Ver. 5.—For Solomon went after [Raw-
linson observes that this expression, which
is “common in the Pentateuch, always
signifies actual idolatry.” He cites Deut,
Ki, (285) xild. 2; Ravi. 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,” yetee ee eee ee eee

222

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[cu. x1, 1—13.

 

“even the building of altars for idols was
& participation in idolatry, which was irre-
concilable with true fidelity to the Lord”
(Keil). Bahr contends that the words ‘‘ went
after Ashtoreth,” &c., no more involve
personal service than the word ‘ built” in
ver. 7 involves personal labour; but both
expressions show that he regarded these
idolatries not only without disfavour, but
with positive approval and practical en-
fcouragement. ‘“Itis not likely he could be so
Ansensate 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 theend of his reign
he would seem to have offered his solemn
sacrifices on the great altar thrice a year.
But his heart was elsewhere (ver. 9).]
Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians
(NIAWY, ‘Aoraprn, probably connected with
dernp, 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 Gen. xiv. 5; Judg. ii. 13; x. 6; 1
Sam. vii. 4; xii. 10, &c.) With Baal, she
divided the worship of the Pheenicians, the
antiquity of which is evident from Gen. xiv.
5; Num. xxii 41. It was really an impure
cultus of the reproductive powers (sce be.
low on xiv. 23). Interesting proof of the
existence of a temple of this goddess at
Sidon is supplied by an inscription dis-
covered there in 1855 (see Dict. Bib. i. 123)],
and after Milcom [In Jer. xlix. 13; Amos
1.15,“Malcam,” i.e, their king. According to
Gesenius, the same as Molech (i.e., the king)
in ver. 7, though Ewald, Movers, Keil regard
them as different deities. But it seems
more probable that it was the same deity,
worshipped (2 Kings xxiii, 10, 13) under dif-
ferent attributes. This is ‘the first direct
historical allusion” to his worship in the
Old Testament. A warning against it is
found Levit. xx. 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. Psa. evi. 37,38; Jer. vii. 31; xix. 5 ;
Hzek, xxiii. 39,&c. See Dict. Bib. ii. 403]
the abomination [i.e., the hateful, detest-
able idol] of the Ammonites, [It has been
suggested (Speaker’s Commentary on Levit.
xx. 2) that the children offered to Molech
were children of incest or adultery, and we
&re reminded that Ammon was the child of
tncest. It must be remembered, however,

 

that we have no record of Jewish children
passing through the fire to Molech before
the time of Ahaz (Bahr, Keil).]

Ver. 6.—And Solomon did evil in the
sight of the Lord [cf. Judg. ii. 11; iii. 7,

&.], and went not fally (N21) ND, sc. N05
A pregnant expression found also Num.
Riv. 245 axxt.d),94125 Deut. i. 86): after
the Lord, as did David his father.

Ver. 7.—Then did Solomon build an high
place [see on ch, ii. 2] for Chemosh, the
abomination of Moab [The meaning of
‘‘Chemosh”’ is uncertain. Gesenius suggests
‘**Vanquisher’’—Chemosh was the gud of
war, The mention of Ashtar-Chemosh on the
Moabite stone ‘‘ connects the Moabite religion
with the Phenician,’’ where Ashtar is the
masculine form of Astarte, and suggests
that “ Chemosh was connected with the an-
drogynous deities of Phcenicia’’ (Speaker’s
Comm. on Num. xxi. 29). It is probable,
in fact, that Chemosh, Baal, Ashtoreth,
Molech, &c., 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 xxiii. 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, asthe Mons Scandal,
or the Mons Offensionis (the Vulg. rendering
of 2 Kings l.c.) See Robinson, i. 565,566],
and for Molech, the abomination of the
children of Ammon. [Ewald sees in these
altars a wise religious tolerance (* Hist.
Israel,” iii. pp. 297, 298).]

Ver. 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 Solo-
mon built the altars; his wives sacrificed,
&c, According to Keil, incense is here men-
tioned before sacrifice, because vegetable
took precedence of animal offerings in the
nature-worship of Western Asia (Bahr,
Symbolik, ii. pp. 237 sqq.) But it is very
doubtful whether this idea was in the mind
of the writer. ]

Ver. 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. (ef. iii. 5 and
ix, 2. The anger arose partly from the ex-
ceptional favours which had been shown to
him ; cf. Amos iii. 2; Luke x. 12—15.]

Ver. 10.—And had commanded him con-
cerning this thing (ch. ix. 6] that hecH. x1. 1—13.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 228

 

acta, Bini Bode but he 20), and (2) the disruption should be but
yee é Lord commanded, | partial. There should be a ‘* remnant”
er. 11.Wherefore the Lord said unto | Kom.ix.27; xi.5,&c.] for David thy father’
Solomon [probably by a prophet, Ahijal vit agit, Wie es
= prophet, Ahijah or | sake [i.e., because both of David’s piety
a oe would peal be a third ap- | and God’s promise to him (2 Sam. vii iain
ance], Forasmuch as this is d i ear te
thee [Heb. this was with thee], a ee oe oH td da a aig ib Wes i 2
hast not kept my covenant and my sta- Ver. 13.—Howhbeit I wi away
tutes, which I have commanded thee, I will all the kingdom; but ue Lae ae
surely rend [i.c., despite thy great power [viz., Judah (ch. xii. 20, ‘‘ the tribe of Judah
and magnificence, thy fortifications and | only *), ‘ven the reservation of one pia
munitions of war] the kingdom from thee, | is called a gift’? (Wordsworth) to thy son for
and will give it to thy servant. [Not | David my servant’s sake, and for Jerusa-
merely subject, but officer, employé. This | lem’s sake which I have chosen, (But for
made the decree the more bitter. A ‘ser- | this provision, Jerusalem would have ceased
vant’ should be heir to his glory, For a | tobe thereligiouscapital. When the sceptre
hireling Solomon’s vast treasures had been | departed from Judah, we may be sure that
prepared. This verse should be read in the | the “envy of Ephraim” would have de-
light of Eccles. i1. 18.} manded that the city of their solemnities
Ver. 12.—Notwithstanding in thy days | should be placed elsewhere —at Shiloh
I will not do it (Lhe threatening had two | which for 400 years had been God’s ‘ bricht
gracious and merciful limitations, (1) The | sanctuary,” or at Bethel, which from far
blow should not fall until after his death | earlier times had been a holy place. See
(cf. ver. 34; ch. xxi, 29; 2 Kings xxii. | on ch. xii. 29, 32.]

 

IOMILETICS.

Vers. 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
(vers. 7, 8). The wisest of men never stooped so low as to “‘ project his person ” to
dumb idols (note on ver. 4). To him, an idol was ‘‘ nothing in the world” (1 Cor.
viii. 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 agricul-
ture, his treasures of gold,” &c. (Keble). See onver.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
sn Jater 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, &c. 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 un-
charitableness ”—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 (Rom. i. 25). It was

“© making the blind to wander out of the way ” (Deut. xxvii. 18) in the worst possible

sense of the words,ee se et rape ee Pir aee eee

Pee ee ee

224 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. fe. .xr. 1—]6,

 

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’ (Rom. i. 26) were its chief attrac-
tions. 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 Isracl (Deut. vi. 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 (Isa. xlii. 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.” (Rom.
i. 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 pagant. 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
obirusive.

II. And by WHOSE permission, at whose bidding were these shrines of infamy
erected 2? They were built by—

\ 1. Vhe wisest of men. In science (ch. iv. 83), in philosophy (2b. vers. 29—82),
in self-knowledge (see Homiletics, pp. 78, 79). Cf. ch. 13. 12, 28.

2. The most favoured and enlightened of men. The Lord ‘ appeared unto him
twice” (ver. 9). His was ‘‘abundance of revelations” (cf. 2 Cor. xu. 7). To him it
was said, ‘‘ Ask what Ishall give thee” (ch. 111. 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” (Neh. xii. 26).

3 The builder of the temple. To him had been granted the high honour which
was denied to pious David. He had “founda place for the Lord, a habitation
for the mighty God of Jacob” (Psa. exxxii. 5). The golden altar, the brazen altar ;
he had planned and reared them both. And now he builds altars to ‘horrors ”
(see note on ch. xv. 18). ‘He that burneth incense, he blessed an idol” (Isa.
lxvi. 8, Heb.)

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 tanght 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. Itis 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).

ITI. But wHEN was it, let us now ask, that Solomon fell into this deadly sin? AtcH. x1. 1—13.] THE FIRST BOOK oF KINGS. 295
eS

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 (see Homiletics p. 216)
We may truly say of him, “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is
common to man.” No Delilah, no Bathsheba w rought his ruin. It is instructive
to compare ch. iv. 20—24 with the account of our Lord’s temptation (Matt. iv.
38—11). Solomon was not tempted by hunger; his “ provision for one day was,”
ke. The enemy could not offer him “ the kingdoms of the world and th
glory of them :” he had them already (ch. iv. 21, 24; ch. x.
only use the common weapon of presumption, of spir
that Solomon was slain.

2. [t was not after great trials or adversity. His career, how unlike David’s!
** Rest on every side.” ‘Neither adversary nor evil occurrence ” (ch. v. 4). “ Eating,
drinking, and making merry” (ch. iv. 20). Compare 1 Sam. chs. XVilii—xxx, And
yet David stood and Solomon fell. What we call adversity (compare Jacob’s “ all
these things are against me,’ Gen. xlii, 36) is often spiritual prosperity. ‘ Tribn-
lation” is a significant word. The tribuluwm was the threshing-sledge which separ-
ated the chaff from the grain. It is said by some that war 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,” &c. (James i. 2).

3. [twas ‘when he was old.” St. Paul speaks of “ youthful lusts,” but old ace
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 self-
confidence. Itis thus that many strong cities have been taken.
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,” &c. (Matt. xix. 24). ‘The deceitfulness of riches ”
choked the word (Matt. xiii. 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” (Prov. xxx. 8); happiest those who
can say, “ My riches consist, not in the abundance of my possessions, but in the
fewness of my wants.” :

5. Lt 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” (Deut. viii. 10, 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” (Au-
gustine). How appropriate that prayer, “In all time of our wealth, = ss 2OOE
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 Stee
of Abraham, Jacob, Elkanah, and David. It was the immediate cause of So Ge ie
ruin. ‘here are few partnerships which are so lightly entered into as the ae = 1
lasts for all life. And yet how completely is a man’s honour, aii a peas
in his wife’s keeping. ‘‘ How many have we known whose heads ee oe ee
by their own rib” (Bp. Hall). It is a quaint but true saying, ; Sea ae
thrive, ne must ask his wife.” How strange that he who knew t ie Ded .
of one true woman’s love (Prov. xxxi. 10—81) should surrender himse a ae e :
and forbidden attachments. Can there be a reference to his thousan Wives an

i ssimi ords of Eccles. vil. 26—28? ‘If one woman undid
concubines in those pessimist words o
1 KINGS. Q

 

1e
passim); he could
itual pride, and it was by this

“ Praeruptumee ee

226 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [Gry x1. hades

 

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”
(Eeclus. xlvi. 19).

7. It was after repeated warnings. He had had (1) the standing warning of
Scripture (Deut. xvii. 16 sqq.), (2) the special warnings of his father David (1 Kings
ii. 8, 4, and especially 1 Chron. xxviii. 9), (8) the supernatural warnings of God.
(1 Kings iii. 14; vi. 12, 13; ix. 6, 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 (Prov. xxix. 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,” &¢. (Luke xix. 22).

HOMILIES BY VARIOUS AUTHORS.

Vers, 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 know-
ledge, and distinguished in the favour of God (Neh. xiii. 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 OCCASION OF THIS DELINQUENCY. 1. Solomon had many wwes. (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 (Gen. iv. 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 Matt. XIX.
8—9). (8) 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 xv. 10, 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 ver. 2; Exod. xxxiv. 12—16; Deut.
vii. 8, 4). The sin was therefore most flagrant. (8) The spirit of this inhibition
still binds (see 1 Cor. vii. 89; 2 Cor. vi. 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. 8. 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 Deut. xvii. 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 800 concubines, not one was good (see
Eccles. vii.28). Note: Good men should be especially watchful over their influence
—parents, ministers, Sunday-school teachers, professors of religion.

Il. THE PROGRESS OF THE EVIL. 1. First the heart is set against the head.
(1) The earliest record here is that Sclomon’s heart was turned away. His head
at first seems to have been clear, as Adam’s also was, who, though in the trans-
gression, yet was “not deceived ” (1 Tim. 1.14). But his heart, like that of Adam,
was fatally susceptible to female influence. (2) It is a foolish thing in a wise mar
to trust his head when he gives his heart to evil. ‘‘ Man at his best is vanity.”cH. x1. 1—13.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS, 227

 

 

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
Calmet supposes him to have been eighteen years old when he came to the throne.
aud he reigned forty years (ver. 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 agaist God was the venom of his crimes
(Psa. li. 4). But the sin of Solomon wag against God directly. Note: Offences
against society are denounéed without mercy by men, while the mental rebellion
of the unbeliever against God is even glorified as “ honest doubt!” but the Bible ig
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 xxiii. 13). Who can say that it terminated even then 2
Eternity will declare.—M.

Vers. 9—13.—The Anger of God. This iy 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 Gop IS PROVOKED. It is provoked—l. 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. (8) Then let us keep our hearts (Prov.
iv. 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 ch. iii. 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 (ver. 9). Review the circumstances of the vision
after the work of the temple was finished (see ch. ix. 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. (8) 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— se

iI. How THE ANGER OF GOD IS EXPRESSED. Itis expressed—l. In the severity of
justice. (1) The kingdom of Solomon was now doomed to be rent. epi ag
divided his affections (between Jehovah and Molech), so are the affections 0! 7
subjects now to be divided. (2) A considerable portion Or his kingdom is to :
turned over to one of his servants. What a fitness there is in this yA gro
Solomon, the servant of God, rebelled against God; Jeroboam, the servant 0
Solomon, rebels against Solomon. (3) What a melancholy reversal! ‘Time was228 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. fon, x1. 1—Id.

 

 

 

 

 

when God loved Solomon (see 2 Sam. xii. 24; 1 Kings x. 9; Neh. xiii. 26). Severe
is the fall from the height of a throne. From a vastly greater elevation is the fall
of one cast 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. (8) Even Rehoboam
was to reap the benefit of the faithfulness of David. One tribe, the most im-
portant, 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 (ver.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.

Vers. 1—8.—Solomon’s Sin. I. Tue stn. 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

ras the lingering tradition of a brighter past, a thing of eustom 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 (ver. 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 ?

Il. Wuaruxp torr. 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 ver. 2, and. Deut. xvii. 16, 17). The
counse!s of God were lightly esteemed. Many commands of God are to-day 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 aud spiritual disaster. 3.
The human love displaced the Divine. The spirit of disloyalty needed only @
strong enough inducement io 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.

Vers. 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.cH. x1. 1—13.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 229

The Lord had appeared to him twice. The reality of God’s existence and Hi
personality had been engraven upon Solomon’s soul. 2. With the commandme i
gwen. The Lord “had commanded him concerning this thing.’ The sebellin
and ingratitude are both marked. Our sins are judged not only in themselves ae
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 weich
sins in this way? Does our repentance read them thus? God’s judgment aie
‘*Forasmuch as this is done of thee,” &c. ; 7

Ai. Tue Divine JUDGMENT. 1. Hopes frustrated. Solomon may have excused
his sin to himself because it conciliated neighbouring princes and nations and go
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. 8. 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 (ver. 28). ‘* Whatsoever a man soweth, that shali he also reap.”’ As the
wicked have shut out God, God will shut out them.

Ili. 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
gudgment 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. 38. There is humbling even in the mercy. Itis done
for David’s sake and for Jerusalem’s sake. Pride is crushed beneath God’s merey
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.

Vers. 9, 10.—The Downfall of Solomon. The fall of Solomon has appeared to
some commentatorsincredible. Asto the factitself, however, there can be no doubt.
Nor is his fall so exceptional as many suppose. Others beside this king have had
pions 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 Solo-
mon’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, &c.; 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 (ix. 2). Our times of religious excitement
are not our gafest 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,” &c. (Luke xxu. 81). The sins which consti-
tuted Solomon’s decadence—against which, through him, we are warned—appear
to have been these: ;

I. Sensuatrry. 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 @
wreck, and though not 60 years of age when he died, he was already weary, broken,
and old (ver. 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 oh ee a is ie oe
ery of his age, when all seemed “ vanity and vexation of spirit, ane si 48 ie
once more painfully to lay the old foundation of the shattered fabric of his liteSar ee ea

230 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. fou. x1. 1—19.

 

(Eccles. xii.18). Compare him with Samson ; show how the indulgence of passion
destroys kingliness. Hen such sin was not beyond pardon. It would have been
wel for Solomon had he returned to God, as his father had done (see Psa. li.) _

II. Evin companronsurp (ver. 2). The Israelites were often warned against
marriage with the heathen. At times ordinary international intercourse was for-
bidden. 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 ii.) 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.”

Ill. Extravacance. The wealth of Solomon was enormous. The treasure
saved for him by David seemed inexhaustible, and the tribute from other peoples
(x. 25), the monopolies granted by the king (x. 28, 29), the importation of gold from
Ophir (ix. 28), &c., brought immense revenues. The king was proportionately ex-
travagant. See the account given of his palaces, his gardens, and his retinue. No
eountry 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 tury
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. Oppresston. He appears to have copied the Pharaohs not only in magnifi-
cence, 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 (Iixod. xxii. 21; xxii. 9). Show from history
the Nemesis of oppression. Indicate manifestations of the spirit of tyranny in
business, in homes, schools, &e.

VY. Ipotarry. Solomon erected temples to Ashtoreth, Mileom, 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 acts. (8) He would please
and atiract surrounding nations. This partly for commercial ends, chiefly for
personal glory. Base motives lead to false policy, and false policy prepares for
national ruin,

ConcLusion.—l. The possibility of ruin to those whose religious advantages are
greatest.

2. The retribution heavier in proportion as the offence is aggravated by neg-
lected warning.—A. R.

Vers. 9—13.—Solomon’s Fall. The dark omen that marred the brightness ofCH. x1. 1—13.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 231

Solomon’s second vision (ch. ix. 6) has come to be fulfilled,

He was forewarned

Y of
Oo a , a n 7 . a .

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 chance is in the
secresy of his own soul. The Scripture narrative is silent about the course of his
inner life, the phases of thought and feeling through which he may haye 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 TREACHERY 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. ven the inspirations of the highest wisdom and the raptures of
religious emotion may have underlying them tendencies to the grossest forms cf
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” (Prov. xxviii. 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.

Il. TuE BASE USES TO WHICH THE HIGHEST ADVANTAGES OF LIFE MAY BE PER-
VERTED BY THE WAYWARD HEART. Solomon’s greatness became the occasion and
ageravation 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 xii.4; 1 Sam. viii. 11). The wealth of his emotional nature
took the form of illicit love and boundless self-indulgence. His studious interest 1n
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 1 a an
instrument of moral injury. The fascinations of outward lite are full of sane Ww a
that spiritlurks within. The wealth of a man’s intellectual resources, the mu titu le
of his possessions, the range of his influence, do but put into his hands Le eae
abundant means of wrong-doing when his heart 1s 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.”

is j i ‘able on the principle
Tl lea is not to be carried too far. Life would be intolera » prir
pi hdivetual suspicion and distrust. The great Father of all would have His children232 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cn. x1. 1—18

 

 

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.

Ill. Tue certainty or Divine RETRIBUTIONS. 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 threat-
enings 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,” &c. (Gal. vi. 7, 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,” &. 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. Tor mercy THAT TEMPERS Divine gupemEents. 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”’ (vers, 12, 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 re-
pentance (see Psa. Ixxxix, 830—87). 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 Hisjudgments. Huis 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.

Vers. 9—13.—After the consecration of the temple Solomon reached the culmi-
nating 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
Kast to pay him homage. From this summit of glory he had a sudden and shame-
ful 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—Ist, PripE: he forgot to give glory to God. 2nd, Lust: strange women enticed
him after strange gods (ch. xi. 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 ail God’s people is, ‘** Let
him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor. x.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,” &c. (ch. iii. 18, 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 blend-
ing of bitterness and repentance, is perhaps the ripening fruit of this merciful
severity.—H. de P.cH. x1. 14—43.]

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

   
 

238

EXPOSITION.

CHAPTER XI. 14—43,

SOLOMON’S ADVERSARIES.— As the _ his-
torian has collected together in chs. vi.,
viul., vill. all the information he can con-
vey respecting the temple, and in chs. ix.,
x. all the scattered notices respecting Solo-
mon’s power and greatness, so here he
arranges in one section the history of
Solomon’s adversaries. It must not be sup-
posed that the following records stand in
due chronological order. The enmities here
mentioned did not date from the deli-
very of the message of which we have just
heard ; on the contrary, the hatred and oppo-
sition of Hadad and Rezon began at an early
period, though not the earliest (ch, v. 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 ag chastisements for Svlomon’s

sin.

Ver. 14.—And the Lord stirred up an
adversary unto Solomon, Hadad [In ver. 17
written Adad, 138%. 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, Gen. xxv. 15; xxxvi. 35, 39 (in
the latter verse, as in ch. xxv. 15, Hadar is
probably a clerical error for Hadad, as the
name stands in 1 Chron. i. 80, 50, 1 and
"being 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,

Ver. 15.—For it came to pass, when David
was in Edom [2 Sam. viii. 14. But the text
is peculiar. Instead of ‘‘in Edom” we have
‘‘with Edom,” DIN NS, unless we take NN
to be the mark of the accusative, which, how-
ever, there is no verb to govern. Keil inter-
prets, ‘‘ When David had to do with Edom.”
Bahr refers to 1 Chron. xx. 5, and Gen. xix.
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
NDN3 instead of NN before them ‘ when
David smote Edom.” The LXX., e.g., reads
iv ry tEodoOpsvom. x.7.d. It was only vica-
riously, however, that David smote Eidom, or

 

Was in Edom. According to1 Chron. xviii,
12, Abishai slew 18,000 Edomites, while
Psa: ole (title) represents Joab as havine
slain 12,000 at the same time and place.
The two brothers were both in high command,
or Abishai 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
hesmote, Thisistheapodosis] every malein
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
Chron. xviii. 13) among the men of war.
Possibly the cruelties of the Edomites (com-
pare Psa. exxxvii. 7; Obad. 10—14) had pro-
voked this act of retribution, as to which sea
Deut. xx.133]

Ver. 16.—For six months did Joab remain
there with all Israel [i.e., the entire army,
as in ch. xvi. 16, 17], until he had cut off
every male in Edom.

Ver. 17.—That Hadad fled [This word
excludes the idea that he was carried off in
infancy by servants, something like Joash,
2 Kings xi. 2], he and certain Edomiies of
his father’s servants with him, to go into
Egypt [cf. Matt. 1. 13] ; Hadad being yet
a little child. [The words used of Solomon
ehy iit: .|

Ver. 18.—And they arose out of Midian
[a name of wide and somewhat varied sig-
nificance. Midian embraces the eastern por-
tion of the peninsula of Sinai (Exod. il. 15,
21; iii. 1), and stretches along the eastern
border of Palestine. The term has been com-
pared with our “‘ Arabia.” And the indefinite-
ness arises in both instances from the same
cause, viz., that the country was almost en-
tirely desert. Midian would thusextend along
the back or east of Edom. There is no need,
consequently (with Thenius), to read }\WID
i.c., their dwelling. It is noticeable, how-
ever, that the LXX. reads ik rij¢ modewe
Madu, 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, Hab. iil. a
Deut. xxxili. 2; a desert and mountainous
tract lying between Arabia Petrea, Pales-
tine, and Idum@a (see Num. x. 12; xu.
3, 27; 1 Sam. xxv. 1; Deut. i. 1), and
comprehending the desert of Et Tih. Itis
difficult to identify it with greater precision,234

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[cu. x1. 14—43.

 

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 Paran [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 cara-
yan 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 wlth 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 rela-
tions with the royal family were so extremely
intimate (vers. 19-22), he may have been fed
from the royal table], and gave him land.
Ver. 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. @exeyiva. ‘*‘No
name that has any near resemblance to
either Tahpenes or Thekemina has yet been
found among those of the period” (Poole,
Dict. Bib. iii. 1431). Rawlinson adds that
the monuments of that age are extremely
scanty] the queen. (Heb. 7°34 the word
generally used of the queen mother (as in
ch, xy. 15), Here, and in\2‘'Kings x. 13)
however, it is used of the queen consort. |
Ver. 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 Mace. vii. 27) year,was clearly amuch more
marked occasion in the ancient East than
it is among ourselves (Gen. xxi.8; 1 Sam.
i, 24)]: and Genubath was in Pharaoh's
household among the sons of Pharaoh. [i.e.
ne was brought up in the Egyptian harem. ]
Ver. 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. [lawlin-
son cites Herod. ili. 132—137; v. 25, 35,
106, 107, to show that refugees at Oriental
courts must obtain permission to leave
them. |

Ver. 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 Hastern
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, conrse-
quently, to suspect any accidental omission
from the Hebrew text. The LXX., it is
true, adds, ‘‘and Ader departed,” &c., but
this may be inferred from vers. 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, ven-
geance, and patriotism ” (Kitto).]

Ver. 23.—And God stirred him up another
adversary [almost identical with ver. 14},
Rezon the son of Eliadah [Often identified
with the Hezion of ch. xv. 18, but on insuf-
ficient grounds. Whether he was a usurper,
who had dethroned Hadad (see Jos., Ant.,
vi. 5. 2), or an officer of Hadadezer’s, who
escaped either before or after the battle of
2 Sam. vii. 3—5, is uncertain. The follow-
ing words agree equally well with either sup-
position], which fied from his lord Hadad-
ezer king of Zobah.

Ver. 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,
notin Heb. ‘* Them” must mean the Syrian
army]: and they went to Damascus, and
dwelt therein [As David put garrisons in
Syria of Damascus (2 Sam. viii. 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 Solo-
mon’s reign, inasmuch as Solomon must
have been lord of Damascus, or he could not
have built Palmyra. But it is not so incon-
trovertibly settled that Solomon did build
Palmyra (see on ch. ix. 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 troopcH. x1. 14—43.]

of Rezon, either in the confusion of the doe-
feat, 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” (19°12) for 19515)
gives the sense “‘ they made him king,” which
would certainly be preferable, if the emen-
dation were not purely conjectural.

Ver. 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 con-
siderable latitude. It is an Orientalism.
At the time of ch. v. 4, neither Hadad nor
Rezon was giving Solomon any trouble},
beside the mischief which Hadad did [Heb.
omits did. The construction of the Hebrew
(see Ewald, 277d (2), 2920, note) is difficult.
Literally, ‘‘ and with the evil which Hadad,”
&c. (comp. ver. 1 of this chapter, ‘‘and with
the daughter,” &c., with Mxod. i. 14, Heb.)
The LXX. reconstructs the text, making
the following words, ‘‘and he abhorred,”
&e., apply to Hadad; and altering Syria

(O08) into Edom (D718) to suit. But it
is far better to understand MWY (with

our Authorized Version); i.e., beside the
mischief which Hadad did (or, ‘‘ beside the
mischief of Hadad,” Ewald). “And he
(Rezon) abhorred,” &c. Hadad’s enmity
has already been described (vers. 17—22),
and the historian has passed on to the case
of Rezon. Itis extremely unlikely that he
should now suddenly recur exclusively to
Hadad. Itis very naturalfor him, on the
other hand, in his account of Rezon, to re-
mind us that all this was in addition to the
mischief wrought by Hadad}: and he ab-
horred [Heb. loathed] Israel, and reigned
over Syria.

Ver. 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 disrup-
tion 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 indi-
cations. We see in it an indication that
the Hebrew commonwealth has passed its

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    
  
  
   
 
  
   
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
   
  
  
   
 
   
  
   
    
   
  
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
   
 

235

zenith], an Ephrathite [i.e., Ephraimite:
ef. Judg. xii. 5; 1 Sam. i, 1. Ephraim
was the ancient rival of Judah, and by
reason of its numbers, position, &¢c., might
well aspire to the headship of the tribeg
(Gen. xlix. 26; xlviii. 19; Deut. xxxiii. 17;
Josh. xvii. 17)] of Zereda [Mentioned here
only, unless it is identical with Zeredathah
(2 Chron, iv. 17) or Zarthan (Josh. iii. 16;
1 Kings iv. 12) in the Jordan valley.
That this place was apparently situate
in the tribe of Manasseh, is no argument
against the identification (Bahr), for an
Ephrathite might surely be born out of
Ephraim. It is, however, observable that
Zereda has the definite article (similarly
7) Zaosioa in the LXX., but this place is lo-
cated in Mount Ephraim), which Zarthan,
&c., have not. Henceit is probably the same
as the Zererath of Judg. vii. 22. In fact,
some MSS. read 7) there instead of nw
and and 7 are not only etymologically
interchangeable, but are also extremely
liable to be confused (see above on ver. 14)],
Solomon’s servant [i.c., officer; ef. ver. 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. Butitis
not impossible that the similarity either
with Zeruiah (cf. ch. i. 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 ex-
pression 2 Sam. xviil. 28; xx. 21. Observe,
we have no history or account of this rebel-
lion except in the LXX., but merely of the
circumstances which led to it] against the
king,

Ver. 27.—And this was the cause (or,
this is the account; thisis how it came about.
Same words Josh. v. 4, and ch. ix. 15. We
have here a long parenthesis, explaining the
origin, &c., of Jeroboam’s disafiection}] that
he lifted up his hand (Heb. a hand] against
the king. Solomon built Millo [see on ch.
ix. 15], and repaired the breaches (‘These
words convey the impression that Solomon
renewed the decayed or destroyed parts of
the wall. But (1) 13D does not mean re-
pair, except indirectly. It means he closed,
shut. And (2) / 2 sing, refers to one breach
or opening. Moreover (3) it was not so
long since the wall was built (2 Sam, yv. 9).
It could hardly, therefore, have decayed,
and there had been no siege to cause @
breach. We must understand the word, con-
sequently, not of a part broken down, but236

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[cu. x1. 14—43,

 

of a portion unbuilt. We have elsewhere
suggested that this was the breach in the line
of circumvallation, caused by the Tyropzon
valley, and that the Millo was the bank, or
rampart which closed it. And to this view
the words of the text lend some confirma-
tion] of the city of David his father. [As
Millo was built about the 25th year of
Solomon’s reign (ch. ix. 15), we are en-
abled to fix ‘approximately the date of
Jeroboam’s rebellion. It was apparently
about ten or twelve years before Solomon’s
death.

Ver. 28.—And the man Jeroboam was a
mig eer ae of valour [same expression Judg.
Vi, GD 8 x ~ 1 Sam. ix. 1 + 2 Kings xv.:20.
In Ruth i il. $ it hardly seems to imply valour
so much as wealth (as A. V.): and Solomon
seeing the young man that he was indus-
trious [Heb. doing work], 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 Jeru-
salem. Their murmurings revealed to Jero-
boam the unpopularity of Solomon, and
perhaps suggested thoughts of overt rebel-
lion to his mind. ]

Ver. 29..—-And it came to pass at that
time [a general expression=‘“‘ when he was
thus employed ”] when [Heb. that] Jero-
boam weut out of Jerusalem that [Eleb.
and], the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite | [t.e.,
of Shiloh, as is expressed ch. xiv. 2—4,
where see notes. He too, therefore, was an
Hphraimite (Josh. xvi. 5). This portion of
the history is probably derived from his writ-
ings (2 Chron. ix. 29). We may be pretty
sure that Nuthan 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”’] hed clad himself with a

new garment inne same word'as nny
such transpositions of letters being common.
Lhe simlah was the outer garment (Gen.
ix. 23; 1 Sam. xxi. 10, &.), which served at
night as a covering (Deut. xxii. 17). It
was probably identical in shape, &¢e., with
the camel’s-hair burnous, or abba, worn by
the Arabs at the present day (ef. Conder, pp.
318, 342), and being almost a square w ould
lend itself well to division into twelve
parts}; and they two were alone in the
field [i.e., open country. |

Ver. 30.—And Ahijah caught [This
English word almost implies that it was
Jeroboam’s garment (cf. Gen. xxxix. 12);
but the original simply means “laid hold

 

of,”’] the new garment that was on him,
and rent (same word as in vers. 11, 12, 13}
it in twelve pieces. [The first instanve of
an ‘‘ acted parable ’’ (Rawlinscn).]

Ver. 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
(Bahr). 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 divi-
sion of the kingdom. See onch.xix.3. Its
members had long been scattered (Gen. xlix.
7), and it gy radually 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 state-
ments, as the next verse proves] to thee.

Ver. 32.—But he shall have one tribe
[LXX. dbo oxija7pa, Some would understand
‘“‘one tribe, in addition to Judah,” but
compare ch. xii. 20, “tribe of Judah only,”
and see note on ver. 13. Possibly neither
Judah nor Benjamin is here to be thought
of separately In ‘ch. xii 21,.and 2 Chron.

xi. 3, 23, they are both reckoned to Reho-
boam. They might be regarded as in some

sense one, inasmuch as they enclosed the
Holy City (Seb. Schmidt), the line of divi-
sion passing right through the temple
platform. Butit is perhaps safer, in view
of ch. xi. 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 Jerusa-
lein’s. sake [see on vers. 12, 13], the city
which I have chosen out of all the tribes of
Israel.

Ver. 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 ouroH. x1. 14—43.]

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
[pjtS a Chaldee form. But many MSS.
read DI 7S), Chemosh the god of the
Moabites, and Milcom [the LXX. has
‘their king the abomination,” &¢., cai rp
Bacirtst avréy. Seenote on ver, 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.

Ver. 34.—Howhbeit 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. n2200" 2a7ns

can only represent ‘all the kingdom, rj»
Baovrciay OAnv (UXX.) See Gesen., ‘Thesau.

S.v. b5 d. It would certainly seem as if
this verse should speak of Solomon's re-
taining 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).

Ver. 35.—But I will take the kingdom
out of his son’s hand, and will give it unto
thee, even ten tribes.

Ver. 36.—And unto his son will I give
one tribe [cf. ver. 32, note}, that David my
servant may have a light alway before me
[The same expression is found in ch. xv.
4; 2 Kings viii. 19; 2 Chron. xxi. 7 ; and
compare Psa. exxxii. 17. Keil would ex-
plain it by 2 Sam. xxi. 17; but 2 Sam. xiv.
7, ‘*my coal which is left,” appears to bea
closer parallel. ‘he idea is not that of a
home (Rawlinson), but family, issue. We
speak of the extinction of a family (Bahr)]
in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen
me to put my name there.

Ver. 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. Deut. xii. 20; xiv.

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS,

 

   
   
   
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
    
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
   
   
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 

237

26; 1 Sam. ii. 16; 2 Sam. iii. 21). Bahr
paraphrases “ thou shalt have the dominion
thou now strivest for,” but we have abso-
lutely 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.

Ver. 38.—And it shall be, if thou wilt
hearken unto all that I command thee [cf.
ch. in. 14; vi. 12; ix. 4], and wilt walk in
my ways, and do that is right in my sight,
to keep my statutes and my command-
ments, as David my servant did; that I
will be with thee [cf. ch. i. 37, note], and
build thee a sure house [cf. 2 Sam. vii.
11, 16; 7.¢., a family, perhaps dynasty. Ob-
serve, however, there was no promise to
Jeroboam, as there was to David, of an en-
during kingdom. It was not God’s design
to take away the kingdom from David in
perpetuity (ver. 39)], as I built for David,
and will give Israel unto thee.

Ver. 39.—And I will for this [i.e., the
defection just described] afflict the seed of

avid, but not for ever [Heb. all the days.
Cf. Psa. Ixxxix. 28, 33, 36. This limitation,
“not for ever,” 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 his-
tory 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 king-
dom there shall be no end” (Luke i. 33)
was the son of David].

Ver. 40.—Solomon sought therefore 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 Heb., however, has simply
‘and Solomon sought,” &c. And these
words connect themselves with ver. 26,
‘even he lifted up his hand,” &c. With
ver. 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, how-
ever, 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, because238

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

Te ee ee

{on. xr. 14—48.

 

Ahijah had expressly stated that Solomon
was to retain the kingdom during his life-
time. However, ‘‘he lifted up his hand;”’
there was some oyert act of rebellion, and
Solomon, because of this, and not because
of the prophecy (of which, indeed, he may
never have heard), sought to slay him. Nor
was the king without justification in so doing.
Treason must be promptly suppressed, and
treason against a benefactor (see ver. 28)
is doubly hateful.} And Jeroboam arose,
and fled into Egypt [cf. verse 17, and Matt.
iil. 13. It was the natural place of refuge],
unto Shishak, king of Egypt [Shishak is
beyond doubt the Sheshonk I. of the monu-
ments, and is the first of the Pharaohs who
can be identified with certainty (see Dict.
Bib. iii. p. 1288). The date of his accession
appears to be somewhere between 988 and
980 s.c. As to his invasion of Palestine,
see on ch. xiv. 25. His reception of Jero-
boam 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
Matt. ii. 15.]

Ver. 41.—And the rest of the acts of
Solomon, and all that he did, and his wis-
dom, are they not written in the book of
the acts of Solomon? [The sources of this
history are mentioned more specifically in
2 Chron. ix, 29,]

 

Ver. 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 some-
what 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, Chinila-
danus, and Nabopolassar, three consecutive
kings of Babylon, reigned each twenty-one
years” (Rawlinson).]

Ver. 43.—And Solomon slept with his
fathers [see note on ch. ii. 10. For the
later and often mythical accounts of Solo-
mon, see Ewald, ili. pp. 318,319. The ques-
tion of his repentance is discussed by Keble,
‘‘ Occasional Papers,” pp. 416 —434] ,and was
buried 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 Psa. exxvil., which speaks of chil-
dren as God’s reward (ver. 3), is with good
reason ascribed to Solomon] reigned in his
stead.

 

HOMILETICS.

Vers. 81—85.— 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 Cor. vi. 5). It may be that, foully
as he fell, he did not fall finally, but of this no man can be certain. There is every
reason to think that the question has been “left in designed obscurity” (Keble,
‘‘ Occasional Papers,” pp. 892—434, where the subject is discussed at considerable
length), that no one might presume. It may be, therefore, that he still awaits the
just recompense of wrath in the day of wrath (Rom. ii. 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 (vers. 34—86).
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 gene-
rations, Exod. xx. 6)—a preot of the Infinite Love which ‘remembered David and
all his afflictions ” (Psa. cxxxii. 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” (Num. xxxii,
23), 2. ‘* Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap ” (Gal. vi. 7).OH. x1. 14—43.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

239

For this retribution was of + i
SUFFERED IN HIS OWN PERSON; onde TE lai ee Ere it a
AND KINGDOM. Under the first of these categories the fallbadnel oe al ale S46 Te
cP g penalties are to be
1. His life wa: i
sate arise ea Eeobably by the operation of natural laws. Itis not
go was directly smitten of God; it is quite possible that his rank
voluptuousness destroyed his energies and induced premature decay But “IL th :
same his days were cut short. Not only was long life the principal Baridtior i i hs
dispensation under which he lived, but it had been expressly promised ten’ ; the
reward of piety (ch. 111.14). But his sun went down while it was yet ae Ho
was not sixty when the mandate went forth, “Remove the diadem. and take off the
crown ” (Eizek. xxi. 26). And if it be true, what Dr. Johnson said io David ane k
when the latter showed him his elegant house at Richmond, that preat and ba
earthly possessions ‘‘ make deathbeds miserable,” it must have cost Salomon a air
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 (ch. il. passim ; v. 18; vi. 12; vii. 26); there was a worm at the root
of all his pleasures. Of what avail were his houses, his gardens, his pools of water
&¢., so long as he had not the heart to enjoy them ? 7

“Tt 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,” &¢. (2 Cor. vi. 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 aman 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 (ch. xii. 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,” &c. (Prov. v. 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 (Prov. x. 1; xv. 20; xvii. 25; xix. 13. Cf. Eccles. ii. 19), and no
match for Jeroboam, of whose designs upon the throne he cannot have been ignorant
(1 Kings xi. 26, 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, 23, 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 befel Solomon’s house and kingdom,en A as Ss 2 Se ca

240 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. fou. x1. 14—43.

 

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”’
(ch. xiv. 21,81). 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.
Whata contrast between the “ one tribe” with its barren territory, and the descrip-
tion of ch. iv. 20, 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.

8. 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 g'or fied 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 i. 6).

4, In the demoralization of his people. For the idolatries of Judah, the images,
the groves, the Sodomites (ch. xiv. 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 ia talionis that we presently find
a queen of Judah erecting a ‘‘ horror” for the most shameful of rites (see note on
eh. xv.13). And this was the result of building altars for his queens and princesses
‘fon the hill that is before Jerusalem,” that within a few years the Lord’s people,
whose was the law and the temple, &c., built them high places, &c., ‘on every high
hill and under every green tree” (ch. xiv. 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 ch, ix. vers. 6, 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 (ef, Jer. v.19). How full of
instruction and warning is it that the captivity which Solomon foretold (ch. viii.
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
Chron. xii. 3). And what came of the horses supplied to the Tyrians and Hittites ?
See ch. xx. 1 (‘horses and chariots;” ef. ver. ZO) o¢ CR. XK. 83° 12 Kings" ya. be
vii. 6, &. 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”
(ch. xvi. 9). Assuredly, that unhallowed trade did not go unpunished.

Such, then, is the principal moral of this history: ‘‘ Their sorrows shall be mul-CH. x1. 14—43.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 241

 

 

 

tiplied that hasten after another god” (Psa. xvi. 4).
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; (8) “He that
knew his lord’s will and did it not shall be beaten with many stripes ;”’ (4) Every

transgression and disobedience shal] receive its just recompense of reward ; ” (0) “TF
God spared not the natural branches,” &e,

And among the additional

HOMILIES BY VARIOUS AUTHORS.

Vers. 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 ADVERSARIES AGAINST HIM. 1. In themselves these were
wmconsiderable. (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 is 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 cf 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 discern-
ment 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 ADVERSARIES BY MEANS. 1. They were reminded of ae
sufferings of their people. (1) When David conquered Edom there was a ere
carnage. Tor six months Joab was engaged In cutting off all the males, until, uo
natives surviving, Israel had to bury the slain (vers. 15, 16). This slaughter a
sufficiently dreadful, though it may only have extended to those old enough to our
arms. Hadad was not an infant then, but (jp W3) a little boy—ot cet fee
to see what was going on and make his escape with the servants. poner - a
an age and in a position to estimate the miseries which the Syrians oi ae Ww 2
“ David slew ” them, which sufficiently accounts for the manner in we hese ;
horred Israel.” Wars are the cradles of resentments. (2) These terri : Dee ages
have their justification in the sins of the people who suffered ew pee
the wrath of God upon Edom, David fulfilled the famous prep. Sey ae aa
(see Num. xxiv. 17—19). But in this David was the type of C irist, the ime Bite

7 g ll sweep His enemies to extermina-
of Jacob and Prince of Israel, whose anger wi ee ie (1) They
tion. 2. They were persuaded that the opportunity was ripe ve ht ene is fe
heard that the warriors were dead (ver. 21). They vee ae Be iene re
the sound of the once terrible names of David and Joab. (2) 7 Bie eae ane
never was a warrior. And now he is stupefied by dont Ba os ee pec
harem. (3) Consequently they put on a bold front, and ons u Fe) eo -
harassed and distracted Solomon, apparently with eee os eed

i r ery, and ‘*‘ conscience makes cowards o us a .
poe aad Dee ee ery i ha ny ? Solomon could not afford it. Can
Who can afford to have God for his enemy Piahortia( eee an
we? Who would not make peace with such an ar a8 ony
own terms. Why do we not repent and believe the gospel ?—M. 2
1 KINGS.ee ee a ee eee

242 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu. x1. 1443.

 

 

Vers. 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. Tue opscuRITY OF HIS ORIGIN. 1. He was an Ephrathite of Zereda. (1) The
tribe of Ephraim was not obscure ; on the contrary, 1t 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 “ereda, so little was this place among the thousands of Ephraim that it 1s
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 but
for the part their son played in history. How much of our reputation 1s ad-
ventitious! 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. (8) In this view there is
something judicial in this association of the names of parents and child. Their in-
fluence, 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! 38. 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 families!
(2) Private a:fictions 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.

Il. His ADVANCEMENT TO FOWER. 1. He became a mighty man of valour. (1)

his 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 for ever.
(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. (8) 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
(Matt. xxv. 28). 2. His abilrtves were discerned by Solomon. (1) This is noted
to have occurred in connection with the building of Millo, and the closing of, or to
close, the breaches in the city of David (ver. 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 (Prov. xxii, 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 isnow 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 (Matt. xiii, 12; xxv. 29), What is worth doing is worth doing well. 4.
Now he lifts his hand 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 ver. 87). (2) He
rebels against the author of his prosperity. Ambition smothers gratitude. How
human! Is not this the case with all rebels against God? (8) 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!cH. x1, 14—43.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

248

 

 

 

The obscurity of our origin is no bar to our advancement in the: religious service
of God. “ Not many noble are called.”—M.

Vers. 29—39.—The Message of Ahijah.
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 propHecy. 1. This was expressed in stgn. (1) The Shilonite provided him-
self with a new garment. This was intended to symbolize the kingdom. The
same sign had been similarly used before (see 1 Sam. xv. 27; xxiv. 5). Note: Hig
people are the honourable clothing of a prince (see Proy. xiv. 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
Matt. xvi. 28; xvii. 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
(Matt. xiii. 48). (8) But the robe in the hands of the prophet, the messenger and
representative of God, is now rent into twelve pleces, 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 (vers. 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

‘ophecy and history! .
sl Saitane These are expressed and implied. %. The sin of Solomon is
specified (vers. 81, 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 comer
tition with the God of Israel! Whoever isso foolish as to forsake God will aun y
become the dupe of devils. (3) We notice the plural pronoun, “they have ka en
Me,” &e. Not Solomon and his wives, for these heathen women had never ow
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 came
retribution. (4) He forgat the good example of his father David. This is it sore
to his diseredit. We are accountable to God for our advantages. | a godly
parents, godly ministers, opportunities. 2. The prety of David w erat ef fo
1) It is remembered in the mind of God. Let sincere Christians who are ap
() ‘iter rt from the fact that God is more willing to
discouraged at their epnaPs it Haren eee a a eee

ber our good endeavours than our failures. a, OnE WOU SS
Gh hans of this. (2) It is peer’ ba the RARER Ae bis veering ome
earth. The temporal judgments upon Solomons s1 : 8 ee ee
David’s piety. Would not David, in glory, have satisfac LS us,
5. The =. ied be fulfilled. (1) David was to nates Lghh steeper
God in Jerusalem (Psa. exxxii. 16,17). The family of David mus p use:
ight of the Gentiles. (2) As David was a type o

until Messiah comes to be the Ligl eee we ee
Christ, so was Jerusalem, with its temple and shekinah, iy ee
this Church, Christ is the everlasting Light (see Isa. i LO 5 ty he ee
28). 4. Mementiontemade of oe ey sere na as the instrument of
significant. It suggests that the Hanna = a for this service had the reward of
Providence for the punishment of sinners Tatu. Hla Fras auneanecae ee
bis gmbitions: ‘Therefore:the able — ‘Q) But in respect to his service God
either of our goodness or of God’s favour. | dness to make himself great like
gave Jeroboam a glorious opportunity by goo

As Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem. . , EL — ee
ee eee ae

944 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. (cx. xr. 14—43:

David (see ver. 38). What opportunities does God graciously vouchsafe to us!
Let us utilize them to the best possible account.—M.

Vers. 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 vouth he was beloved of God. In token of this he received from God the name
Jedidiah (2 Sam. xii. 24, 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 (ch. v. 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 pos-
session of the house. Those who are beloved of God and rejoice in His peace are fit
acents 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 iii. 8—10; iv. 83). 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 1s thought
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 (ver. 8). 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, wasa plain violation of
the law (Deut. xvii. 17). But he was still further guilty in making alliances with
heathen women (Exod. xxxiv. 16; Deut. vii. 8, 4). (38) The very evils predicted
happened to Solomon ; through these he was drawn into the grossest idolatry (vers.
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!

Il. Bur IS THERE NO SUNSHINE IN THE CLOUD? Some think they see it—1l. In
the promise of God to David. (1) The promise referred to is recorded 2 Sam. vii.
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 con-
tinued 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 is 2 Chron. xi. 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 hascH. x1. 14—43.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 945

 

elsewhere explicitly condemned. (3) Rehoboam, who as kine of Jndah. |;
father Solomon, began his reign well, fell into thé snare of Sloan eee
wives (see 2 Chron. xi. 21). 3. In his authorship of the Ecclesiastes : a) The
argument is that upon the message of God, by Ahijah, as is supposed eune 8 cae
Solomon repented, and afterwards wrote this book, in which he patifeon ie én e
of his past life. (2) But the theory of his repentance upon that acebeion all Gantt
with the history of his seeking the life of Jeroboam, because he was destined to ave
effect to the burden of that message. True repentance will bear meet fruit (Me th
ii. 8). (8) The Ecclesiastes was more probably written before than after tI
apostasy of Solomon. The allusions to his experiences as “‘ king over ae if
Jerusalem” may have been prophetic anticipations, which may explain the past
tense, “‘ was king,” which is agreeable to the prophetic style. When all has Men
said that can be alleged to encourage hope in Solomon’s end, the doubt - 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.

Vers. 14—25.— The Dwine Chastisements. I. CHASTISEMENT IS MERCY. Though
the judgment was kept back, Solomon was meanwhile made to feel the rod of cor-
rection. We may be forgiven and yet chastised—yea, chastised because we are
forgiven. ‘‘ Whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth,” &. 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 lus child. He was
now reaping the fruits of his father’s fierce vengeance (see ver. 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 befvre 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 Gop’s INSTRUMENTS. 1. When they assail us vt is of Him.
The Lord stirred them up. They had been adversaries before, but they had
hitherto been powerless to harm Israel (see ver. 4). But now in Solom on’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 itisof Him. They
serve Him and in the truest sense serve us. In the midst of evil deads and evil
speech let us look past all to Him. 2. God’s restraining hand is still wpon 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.

Vers. 26—43.—The call to Jeroboam. I. THE UNWEARIFI EFFORTS oF GoD TO
WIN MEN FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS. ‘This is the beginning of the story of J eroboam the
son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin. 1. He ts met by mercy. The widow's son
is made king of Israel. 2. By counsel and promise (ver. 88). The seed is cast
upon the stony ground and among the thorns, as well as upon the good soil.
Learn—1l. 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. Itis 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 ? 1

iL THE SPIRIT REQUIRED IN ORDER TO REAP LASTING BENEFIT FROM OTHERS DIS-
AsTERS. 1. Sympathy with them in ther suffering. The judgment which is to
fall upon Solomon and Israel 1s laid upon Jeroboam s heart. He went out clothed
with a new garment, he returned with a handfui of fragments, the Ss} mbol of the
new kingdom and the effect of God's judgment. | We cere ee enter into
blessing springing from another’s loss if we pass In with a light heart. a fiecege pa
of them as still objects of Divine mercy (vers. 34, 36). The house ot David was not246 THE FIRST BOOK .OF KINGS. [cu. x1. 14—48.

 

to be utterly cast out. The love that smiles on us is still round them. 8. Recognition
that the gift we receive is from the hand of the same Master. Blessing and judg-
ment hang for him upon the same issues (vers. 33, 38). Only in lowliness and
brotherliness can we rightly receive the gifts God sends us.

III. THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF THWARTING THE DIVINE PURPOSE (ver. 40). 1 Solo-
mon’s attempt to remove the danger by slaying Jeroboam is defeated. His life is
guarded till his work is done. 2. L¢ only serves the Divine purpose. Jeroboam’s
enmity is secured. Heis sent down to Egypt and strengihened by alliance with
a power unfriendly to Israel. Fighting against God, we only bind our cords the
mere 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.

Ver. 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 Jero-
boam was noticed by the king as strong, skilful, and industrious. Liver on the out-
look 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 ELEMENTS OF WORLDLY succESS. 1%. Natural ability. This belonged to
the son of Nebat in large measure, as his subsequent history shows. Shrewdness,
courage, self-reliance were his. These, and similar gifts, are unevenly distributed
amongst men. Children at school are by no means equal in powers of attainment.
In business, one man will make a fortune where another would not suspect a chance.
Amongst the advantages of such inequality are these: that the higher and lower
grades of work required by the world are alike done; and that room is given for
the exercise of generosity, self-conquest, &c., in our social relations,

2. Personal diligence. With all Jeroboam’s faults he was not idle. He did
thoroughly and well what came to hand. ‘This is the secret of success, both in
student and business life. It rectifies the balance sometimes between men of un-
equal ability. The tortoise wins the race against the hare. The student conquers
the genius. Where it is added to ability, success in life is certain. ‘‘Seest thou a
man diligent in his business? he shall stand before kings: he shall not stand before
mean men” (Prov. xxi. 29). ‘The hand of the diligent shall bear rule” (Prov.
xil. 24). Examples: Abraham’s servant; Joseph in Egypt, &. Show how this is
true in the higher sphere of the Christian life. ‘‘To him that hath to him shall be
given,” &c. He that is faithful with few things will become ruler over many.

3. Kindly interest. ‘‘ Solomon saw the young man.” This added an element of
uncertainty to his prospects. It seemed a chance, but was under the rule of God, as
the history shows. Diligence and fidelity should be ours, whether or no we have
the notice of the earthly master, for the unseen King is ever watching us. We are
to work with singleness of heart, as unto the Lord; to serve others “not with eye
service as men pleasers,’’&e. Show the responsibility which rests on employers to
develop, and encourage, and put to the best use the gifts of their employés. Pro-
motion should follow merit.

Il. THE POSSIBILITIES OF WORLDLY succuss. 1. It is possible to defend others.
Jeroboam was known in future times of danger as the man who “enclosed the city
of David.” Higher possibilities than that belong to successful men. How they can
guard those employed by them from disease, from moral contamination, from
ignorance, &c. ‘The responsibilities of landowners, manufacturers, &c.

2. lt is possible to lighten the burdens of others. As ruler over the tribute,
Jeroboam could alleviate or aggravate the burdens of the tribe. Point out what
could be done by far-seeing, right-hearted statesmen to lessen the troubles of the
poor, the miseries of subject races, the burdens of taxation, &c.

3. Lt ts possible to become ready for loftier rule. He who was the overseer ofcH. x1. 14—43,] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 247

 

one tribe became the king of Israel. The disch
office made those of the latter , ply thi
ee et ates “ae arduous. Apply this to the preparation of men
= ole eaven, by the exercise of powers for God in the earthly sphere
; a THE PERILS OF WORLDLY sucorss. 1. Ingratitude. Teroboam fostered ill.
ling against S¢ re ‘aim ti chs : voce
fee eae in Ephraim till he was expelled the kingdom. Men often
: ae Vy Si adc PE y which they rose to fortune. Give examples. The wish to
amie é 1e PBs ” Aare 1 they wanted help, and to attribute to their own skill what
ame Irom the k1 : 0 | :
ont m the kindness of others, tempts to this. Even poor parents have been
eft uncared for by prosperous children.

i n Og ee ae oboam was to have the kingdom, as Ahijah told him, but he
could not wait for Solomon’s death. His first exaltation and the words ot the
pas aroused greed and ambition which would not be stayed. A man who has

ce wag but success is more impatient than are others at a disappointment
or diffien ty. Itis harder for him than for one trained in the school of adversity to
66 7 s . ° Sara
say, ‘* Not my will, but Thine be done.” His is seldom the‘ meek and quiet spirit”
which is, in the sight of God, of great price.
3. Liebellion against God. We heard from Ahijah’s lips these words of God
about Solomon—‘‘T will make him prince all the days of his life ;”’ yet during his
. is a8 x . ~~ ° * 2 .
life Jeroboam tried to dethrone him. Compare this conduct with that of David
towards Saul. The contrast is the more remarkable because of the provocation
David received, and because the son of Jesse, unlike the son of Nebat, had been
actually anointed king. He had no right to seize what God had promised to give.
Jacob learnt this lesson in the house of Laban. In this disregard, or defiance, of
God was the germ of Jeroboam’s ruin. His rule was (like Solomon’s) conditional
on obedience to the Divine will (compare ver. 88 with ix. 4—6). Stability depends
on God; the seen on the unseen. No cleverness, no diligence, no human help can
bring lasting prosperity to a soul, or to a nation, which forsakes righteousness and
forgets God.—A. BR.

arge of the duties of the former

Vers. 29—36; chs. xiv. 21—81; xvi. 1, 2, 25, 26—The judgments of God on
Judah and Israel from the death of Solomon to the time of Ahab. The separation
of the people of God into two kingdoms was a punishment for the idolatry of
Solomon ; but from this punishment God brought forth good, for it was well that
the pride of the Jews should not be fostered by unmixed prosperity. It would have
formed a far stronger barrier to the gospel in after times if it had not been thus
early broken.

After the separation of the two kingdoms, idolatry more or less gross prevailed
in both, with brief intervals of return to the worship of the true God. This fearful
moral declension is traceable to a great extent to the fall of Solomon. Sin is thus
always the parent of after evil. He who rebels against God leaves behind him the
influence of his example, and gives fresh force to the current of evil. God made
both kingdoms feel, during this period, repeated strokes of His chastising hand.
Their history is a history of tears and blood. Every fresh sin, the bitter outgrowth
of former transgressions, becomes a source of new calamities. The hard Asiatic
tyranny of Rehoboam leads to the rending of the kingdom. The erection of a
half-pagan sanctuary entails upon Jeroboam and his race the catastrophes which
issue in their ruin.

The history of the Jews during this period, therefore, presents the aspect of one
long judgment of God, in which sin brings forth death and thus becomes its own
punishment (James i. 15). This is true also in the history of individuals; and we
have in this fact one of the strongest evidences that we are under the government
of a holy God. Let us never forget that His holiness is at the same time love, and
that through all the dark and sorrowful vicissitudes. of our life He is carrying out
His plau of mercy. In spite of all its falls, its wanderings, and its woes, Tsrael did
fulfil its preparatory mission. If in the end the theocracy tottered to its fall, this
failure also entered into the conditions of the Divine plan. Israel was never treated
by God, however, as # mere passive instrument. God gave it repeated Warnings,
as, for example, by the mouth of the unknown prophet who was sent to Jeroboar
to deciare to him the judgments of God (ch. xiii.) —E. de P.248

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[on. x1. 1—24,

EXPOSITION.

CHAPTER XII. 1—24.

THE REVOLT OF THE TEN TRIBES.—With
the reign of Rehoboam, on which our his-
torian 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 Kinas. The first, which com-
prises the Augustan age of Israel, the short-
lived maturity of the race in the reign of
Solomon, has extended over forty years,
from s.c. 1015 to s.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 revo-
lution of which we now read. ‘The discon-
tent occasioned by Solomon’s levies and the
headstrong folly of Rehoboam were the im-
mediate 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 occa-
sion, such as Rehoboam afforded it, to blaze
forth. That proud tribe could not forget
the glowing words in which both Jacob
(Gen. xlix. 22—26, ‘‘the strength of my
head”) and Moses (Deut. xxxiii. 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 (Josh. xvii.
14), and the leader himself admits their
power (ver. 17). When the tabernacle was
first set up, it was at Shiloh, in the territory
of Ephraim (Josh. xviii. 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
(Judg. viii. 1; xii. 1) campaigns undertaken
without its sanction and co-operation. It
and its sister tribe of Manasseh had fur-
nished, down to the time of David, the
leaders and commanders of the people—
Joshua, Deborah, Gideon, Abimelech, and
Samuel— and when the kingdom was estab-
lished it was from the allied tribe of Benja-
min that the first monarch was selected.
‘‘ Tt was natural that, with such an inherit-
ance of glory, Ephraim always chafed under
any rival supremacy ” (Stanley, Jew. Ch.” i.
p. 272). 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 Sam. v. 3), the fires of jealousy, as
the revolt of Sheba and the curses of
Shimei alike show, were not wholly extin-
guished. 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 Psa. lxxvili. 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 xi, 13 shows. There had prob-CH. x11. 1—24,]

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

249

 

 

ably 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. (The reader will find a
very suggestive chapter on this subject in
Prof. Blunt’s “‘ Undesigned Coincidences,”
pp. 162—174.)

Ver. 1.—And Rehoboam [see on ch. xi. 26,
and compare the name Ev’pidnpog. The name
possibly indicates Solomon’s ambitious
hopes respecting him. The irony of history
alone emphasizes it. Eccles. i. 18, 19
would seem to show that Solomon himself
had misgivings as to his son’s abilities.
“As the greatest persons cannot give them-
selves children, so the wisest cannot give

heir children wisdom” (Hall). His mother
was Naamah, an Ammonitess (ch. xiy. 31),
It would appear from ch. xiv. 21, and 2
Chron. xii. 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 Chron. xiii. 7 as being “ young (NJ)
and tender-hearted.” (2) The LXX. addi-
tion to 1 Kings xii. 24 says he was sixteen ;
vidc Wy Exkaideka era tv TH Paorevey avdTov.
(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 there-
fore of the same age as himself, are called
“lads” (op, LXX. zawdpia). 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, Maachaa,
daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur (1
Chron. iii. 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 (ch.
xi. 1). Altogether the evidence seems to
point to a corruption of the text of ch.
xiv. 21, &c., and it has been suggested that
‘“ forty-one” is there an error of transcrip-
tion for ‘twenty-one,’ a mistake easily

 

 

 

 

made, if, as is extremely probal

ancient Hebrews, like the eae ee fe
letters of the alphabet as numerals. Twenty.
one would then be &3; forty-one ND) went
to [This journey was probably made soon
after & prior coronation at Jerusalem.
According to the LXX. addition, it was at
least & year after his accession] Shechem
(An old gathering place of the northern
tribes (Josh. xxiv. 1). Its position, in the
very centre of Palestine, fitted it for this
purpose. (‘‘Shechem may be considered
the natural capital of Palestine,” Conder,
p. 16.) 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 (Judg. ix. 2). We learn from Joshua
xx, 7 that it was “in Mount Ephraim,”
from Judges ix. 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
(Gen. xxxilil. 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 xxxi. 22,
“Let my shoulder fall,” MID3W1D). Hence
the word is found only in the singular
(see Gesen., Thes. iii. p. 1407). Now any
one who has seen the vale of Shechem
(Nablis) will hardly doubt that its name
is due to its resemblance to this part of the
body (compare ‘‘ Ezion-geber,”’ ch. ix. 26).
The town hes in a valley between the two
ridges of Ebaland Gerizim ; ef. Jos., Ant. iv,
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 spotsin Palestine, and the more
so as its perennial supply of water clothes
it with perpetual verdure. For its history
see Gen. xii. 6; xxxiii. 18; xxxiv.; xlviil.
22: Deut. xxvii. 4—12 ; Josh. xx. 7; xxi. 20;
xxiv. 1, 25, 32; Judg.ix.; &c. In the New
Testament it has been supposed to appear
under the form Sychar (John iv. 5), and
this variation has been universally accounted
for as a paronomasia, 1? 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 4
little over a mile from Nabltis (Conder, pp. 40,
41)}: for [This word suggests that Rehoboam250

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[con. xu. 1—24,

 

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 de-
manded apparently that he should meet
them to receive their homage in the terri-
tory of Ephraim. It was a recognition of
the importance of the tribe, and there they
could the better urge their demands] all
Israel [Thatis, 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 Sam.
ii. 9,10, 17, 28). It is highly probable that
the comparative isolation of Judah from
the rest of the tribes (see Dict. Bib. vol. 1.
p. 1157) 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 Shechem to make him king. [It
would certainly seem from these words as if
the ten tribes had then no settled idea of re-
yolting. Kimchi sees in the very selection of
Shechem a proof that they were only ‘‘seek-
ing 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 (ch. xi. 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 Chron. xii. 38 com-
pared with 2 Sam. ii. 4; v. 3 shows that

pon is synonymous with o> WD, Keil),
after the example of Saul (1 Sam. u. 15),
David (2 Sam. ii. 4; v. 3), and Solomon
(ch. i. 39; 1 Chron. xxix. 22), No doubt,
as the context shows, they intended to
stipulate for an alleviation of burdens, &c.,
and their selection of Shechem as the place
where they would render their allegiance
was a ‘significant hint” (Hwald. ‘“ The
very place puts Israel in mind of a re-
bellion,” Bp. Hall) to Rehoboam, Their
putting forward Jeroboam as their spokes-
man—presuming for the present that the
received text of ver. 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 main-
tains, that they had already determined to
make the latter king, for they distinctly
said to Rehoboam (ver. 4), “Grant our
petition and we will serve thee.’ (iwald,
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 sum-
moned 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. ]

Ver. 2.—And it came to pass, when Jero-
boam the son of Nebat [see on ch. xi. 26],
who was yet in Egypt [The usual, and in-
deed 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 vers.
1, 3, &e., 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 inter-
pretation 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 ch.
xi. 43. So the Vulgate, Audita morte ejus.
Similarly the LXX. Cod. Vat. inserts the
substance of this verse as part of ch. xi. 43.
(The Cod. Alex. follows the Hebrew.) But
this interpretation is surely strained and
unnatural} (for he was fied from the pre-
sence of king Solomon, and Jercboam dwelt
in Egypt;) [The parallel passage in 2
Chron. x. ‘has here, ‘‘And Jeroboam re-
turned from Egypt” (yin’ W aw) instead
of ’y19°7) 1¥'}). And as some copies of the
LXX. have kat éréorpeder ‘lepoBodp t& Atyiz-
rov and the Vulgate has “ Reversus est de
Aegypto,” Dathe, Bahr, al. would adopt this
reading here. It is true it involves but a
slight change, and it may-simplify the con-
struction. But no change is really required,
Bahr’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. |

Ver. 3.—That [Heb. and] they sent ana
called him. And Jeroboam and all the
congregation of Israel came [It has been
held that this verse is largely an interpola-
tion. The LGXX. Cod. Vat. has simply,CH. XII, 1—24.]

 

 

“* And the people spake unto king Reho-
boam, saying.’’ Of more importance, how-
ever, is the fact that it is at direct variance
with ver. 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 ver. 20 very differently from
the same expression in ver.1. If. however,
we follow in this instance the LXX., which
omits the name of Jeroboam both here and
in ver. 12 (and which thereby implies that
he was not one of the deputation to Reho-
boam, but, as ver. 2 states, was at that time
still in Egypt), the difficulty vanishes.
Ver. 20 then becomes the natural and
logical continuation of vers. 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,” &e.
And in favour of the omission of Jeroboam’s
name is the fact that the Hebrew text, both
in ver. 3 and in ver. 12, betrays some little
confusion. In ver. 3, the Cethib has INI}
and 13°) in ver. 12, whereas the Keri has
83") in both cases. The words look, that
is to say, as if a singular nominative had
been subsequently introduced], and spake
unto Rehoboam, saying.

Ver. 4.—Thy father made our yoke [see
for the lteral sense of the word, Num.
me 2 Dent, seer. 4S; dec. for ‘ite ‘tropr-
cal use, Levit. xxvi. 138; Deut. xxviii. 48,
&c.| grievous [Heb. heavy. Was this com-
plaint a just one? It is one which occa-
sions us some surprise, us the reign of
Solomon had not only been glorious, but
the people had apparently enjoyed the
greatest plenty and prosperity (ch. iv. 20,
25; cf. vill. 66). Bishop Hall, Bahr, and
other writers, consequently, who see in the
fact that the ten tribes had chosen Jeroboam
for their mouthpiece a settled determiuation
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.” ii. 136) and
general prosperity and afiluence, 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 im-
posts had been heavy, the passages alleged
in support of that view (ch. x. 15, 25; xu.
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

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

    
   
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
   
  
  
 
  
  
  
   
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
  
 
 
   
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 

251

ae an establishment as his (ch. iv. 22,
26) and such undertakings (ch.vi. 14, 22: iii,
1; vii.; ix. 26, 17, 18) would be extremely
costly, and that their cost was not alto-
gether defrayed by the presents of subject
princes (ch. iv. 21; ef. x.10, 14), the profits
of the king’s merchants (ch. x. 28), or the
imports of the fleet (ib., v. 21). But the
people had certainly had to pay a more
odious tribute, that of forced labour, of
servile work (ch. iv.6, Heb. ; v.14; ef. ch.
1x. 21. D’} is almost always used of a tri-
bute 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 Sam. xx. 24); that the bur-
den was one with which all subjects of the
old-world monarchies, especially in the
Hast, were familiar; and that in this case it
had been imposed with peculiar considerate-
ness (ch. v.14). But it is none the less cer-
tain, 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 conscrip-
tions. ‘‘ 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
erievances of the Russian serfs ” (Rawlin-
son). But we may find instances of its
working perhaps as more Iiastern, more
closely illustrative of the text amongst the
Fellahin of Egypt. ‘ According to Pliny,
360,000 men had to work 20 years Jong at
one pyramid” (Balr), In the construction of
the great Mahmoudieh caval, by Mehemet
Ali, over 309,000 labourers were employed.
They worked under the lash, and such were
the fatigues and hardships of their life that
many tuousands died in the spave ef a few
mouths (cf., too,.Exod. i. 11 sqq.; H. 23):
now therefore make thou the gricvous
(Heb. hard, heavy} service of thy father,
and his heavy yoke which he put upon us,
lighter [lit.,‘‘ lighten somewhat from,” &c.},
and we will serve thee. [Their stipnla-
tions seem reasonable enough. Bahr, who
says, ‘* We cannot admit the complaint of
too hard tribute-work to be well founded,”
and Keil, who maintains that ‘‘there can-
not have been any well-grounded occasion
for complaint,” surely forget that both the
aged counsellors (ver. 7) and also tha
writer of this book (vers. 13—15) manifest
some degree of sympathy with the com-
plainants. ]

Ver. 5.—And he said unto them, Depart
| yet for three days [so as to afford time for252

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

fou. x11. 1—24.

 

counsel and deliberation. It has been
assumed that both the old and young ad-
visers of Rehboboam had been taken by
him, as part of his retinue, to Shechem
(Bahr). But itis quite as likely that some
of them were summoned from Jerusalem
to advise him, and that the three days’ de-
lay was in order to give time for their
attendance. It is a long day’s journey
(12 hours) from Nablis 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-
ful demand, contradicts the idea of a settled
purpose to rebel.]

Ver. 6.—And king Rehoboam consulted
with the old men [According to Bahr,‘ the
Opt 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,” &c. (cf. mpecBurépot,
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” (vers. 8, 13,
14) proves] that stood before [see on ch.
i. 2} Solomon his father [among them,
perhaps, were some of the “princes” of
ch. iv. 2 sqq.] while he yet lived, and
said, How do ye advise that I may answer
this people ?

Ver. 7.—And they spake unto him, say-
ing, 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 Ay of the people without pre-
judicing the authority entrusted to him by
God.’ But they do not propose that he
should become their servant, except for one
day, 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,” &c. 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 exceed-
ingly that his subjects, just as he had be-
gun to taste the sweets of royalty, should
presume to parley with him; and they say
in effect, “ You think that they are revers-
ing your relations, that they are making
you, their sovereign, their servant. Be it
so. Itis but for one day. Then they will
be your slaves for ever” ], and answer them
[t.e., favourably; grant their request; cf.
Psa. xxii. 22; Ixv. 6], and speak good
words to them, then will they be thy ser-
vantsfor ever. [‘‘ Thy servants,’’ in oppo-

 

sition to ‘fa servant” above; “for ever ”
in opposition to ‘‘ this day.’’]

Ver. 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 ” (Bahr)], and
consulted with the young men [see on ver.
1. “The very change argues weakness. . .
Green wood is ever shrinking ”’ (Hall)] that
were grown up with him [possibly his com-
panions in the harem], and which stood
before him [i.e., as his courtiers and coun-
sellors (cf. ver. 6). The old men were the
counsellors of Solomon; the young men
alone are spoken of as the ministers of
Rehoboam.

Ver. 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 (ver. 6). The A. V.
perhaps gives its force by the translation,
‘that. J.. may ianswer,)s We. 3. it... Aiuto
answer’’] may answer this people who
have spoken to me, saying, Make the yoke
which thy father did put upon us lighter ?

Ver. 10.—And the young men that were
grown up with him spake unto him,
saying, Thus shalt thou speak unto this

eople [There is a certain amount of con-
temptuousness in the expression (cf. St.
John vi. 49)] that spake unto thee [The
repetition, ‘‘ speak, spake,’’ is probably not
undesigned. Itsuggests theidea of retalia-
tion, 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 deter-
mination 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,
May, strictly, was thicker. The LXX. has
simply zayvrépa] 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.

Ver. 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 figura-cH. xir. 1—24.]

tive. It is quite possible that the levies of
Amorites, Hittites (ch. ix. 20), &c., 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 what-
ever to the animal, but to some instrument
of scourging—unless, indeed, the expression
is a mere figure” (Dict. Bib, iii. p. 1161).
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, alash. Probably it was in the pain
the whip caused that the resemblance lay
(Rey. ix. 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 egg-plant, 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. xxx.
20, OY xxiii, 27)" Bahr. |

Ver. 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.

Ver. 13.— And the king answered the
people [the omission of Jeroboam’s name,
though perhaps it cannot be pressed in
argument, is noticeable] roughly, and for-
sock the old men’s counsel that they gave
him.

Ver. 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 chas-
tised you with whips, but I will chastise
you with scorpions.

Ver. 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 accom-
plishment of His purpose, the partition of
the kingdom (ef. Exod.xiv, 4; Matt. xxv.
24). God makes the wrath of man to praise
Him] ,that [Heb. in order that] he might
perform his saying, which the Lord spake
py (Heb. in the hand of ; cf. ch. xiv, 18; 1. 25,
note] Ahijah the Shilonite [see on GH. Xt.
11] unto Jeroboam the son ef Nebat.

Ver. 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,

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

253

What portion have we in David? (Same
expression as 2 Sam.xx. 1. The words. in.
terpreted by this passage and 2 Sam. xix. 43
mean, ‘‘Since we have no kindness or fair.
ness 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 inherit-
ance in the son of Jesse [i.c., “his tribe ig
not ours; his interests are not ours.” Bahr
Sees in the expression “gon of Jesse” “an
allusion to David’s humbler descent,” but
surely without reason. It is simply a peri-
phrasis 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 ch. viii. 66 ; and cf. 2 Sam. xvili.
17; xix. 8; xx. 1), and prepare for war.”

Sak, which means primarily a “‘ tent,” has for

its secondary meaning, “habitation,” “home.”
This ery—the Marseillaise of Israel—prob-
ably had its origin at a time when the people
dwelt in tents, viz.,in the march through
the desert (see Josh. xxii. 4; Num. i. 52;
ix 18; xvi. 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),
8 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 ch. vill. 66}.

Ver. 17.—But as for the children of
Israel which dwelt in the cities of Judah
[t.e., ‘the Israelites proper or members of
other tribes, who happened to be settled
within the limits of the land of Judah”
(cf. ver. 23). A number of Simeonites were
(Rawlinson) certainly among them (Josh. xix.
1—9). The term ‘children of Israel”’ is
henceforward to be understood in its re-
stricted sense (see on ver. 1). It cannot
include the men of Judah], Rehoboam
reigned over them.

Ver. 18.— Then king Rehoboam sent
Adoram, who was over the tribute [Prob-
ably the same officer as the Adoniram of
ch. iv. 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 Sam. xx. 24). That there was a
relationship, and that the office had de-
scended from father to son, can hardly be
doubted, but whether two persons or three
are indicated it is impossible to say. It 1s
of course just possible, though hardly likely
that one and the same person (Ewald) can254

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[ou. x1z. 1—24,

 

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’ (Bihr). 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 coun-
sellors, 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 super-
intendent 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 Exod. viii. 26 shows.
And it is an obvious and ready and summary
way of despatching obnoxious persons (cf.
Exod. xvii. 4; 1 Sam. xxx. 6; 1 Kings xxi.
10). It is to this day a favourite method of
the Kast for testifying hatred and intoler-
ance], that he died, Therefore king Reho-
boam made speed [So the LXX., é¢Oacev.
The Hebrew literally means, as margin,
“ strengthened himself.” But the A. V. gives
the practical force of the word. He be-
stirred 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,

Ver. 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 ch. viii. 8)],

Ver. 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 vers. 3, 12 is retained
(see on ver. 3), then we must understand
the ‘‘all Israel” in ver. 1 of the representa-
tives of the different tribes, and here, of the
entire nation who had heard from its repre-
sentatives, on their return to their homes
(ver. 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 irre-
parable breach which they had made (ver.
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
ver. 1] over all Israel [This public and
formal consecration of Jeroboam completed
the secession of the northern tribes. Was
this secession sinful? Bahr, 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 Solo-
mon were groundless, naturally conclude
that it was altogether treasonable and un-
justifiable. But is this conclusion borne
out by the facts? We may readily admit
that the schism was not accomplished with-
out sin: we cannot but allow that Israel
acted with undue precipitation, and that
Rehoboam, who was ‘young and tender-
hearted,” 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
Kphraim”’ 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 resist-
ance, 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 law-
ful 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 (ver. 21),
The tribe of Benjamin, “the smallest of
the tribes of Israel” (1 Sam. ix, 21), “ littlecH. xu. 1—24.]

 

 

 

 

Benjamin ”’ (Psa. Ixviii. 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 viii. 20), just as Moab
and other portions of Solomon’s empire for
a considerable period formed part of the
new lungdom of Israel (2 Kings i. 1; iii,
4, 5).]

Ver. 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 sur-
prising 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 Benjainin 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 Sam. xix.17). The rising of Sheba the
Benjamite, again (ib., xx. 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 Ben-
jamin 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 (Josh. xviii. 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 comion, in fact
had ‘‘ riveted them together as by a cramp ”’
(Blunt, pp. 167, 174, who traces “a gradual
tendency of the ten tribes to become con-
federate under Ephraim,” and a growing
alliance and community of interests between
Judah and Benjamin); 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 prac-
tically in their hands), while adhesion to
Ephraim would not prevent the establish-
ment of another sanctuary further north.
The traditions of fifty years, consequently,
and the common interest in the capital,

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

   
   
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
 
  
 
   
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
   
  
   
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
  

255

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, how-
ever, that some portions of Benjamin, in-
cluding Bethel, Gilgal, and Jericho, were
incorporated in the northern kingdom
(Ewald)], an hundred and fourscore thou-
sand chosen men [the LXX. has éxardp
kai éikoo.=120,000, but the larger number
need create no astonishment. At the time
of David’s census, the men of Judah num-
bered—if the figures can be depended on
—500,000, while Abijah could muster some
18 years afterwards an army of 400,000
(2 Chron. xiii. 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 dis-
loyal. ]

Ver. 22.—But the word of God came unto
Shemaiah: [This part of the history is prob-
ably derived from the “book’’ which this
prophet wrote (2 Chron. xii. 15). When
Keil describes him as “a prophet who is not
mentioned again,’ he has surely overlooked
2 Chron, xii. 7, 8, where we find him pro-
phesying with reference to the army of
Shishak], the man of God [a common ex-
pression in the books of Kings. It rarely
occurs in the other Scriptures. This desig-
nation is not altogether synonymous with
‘‘prophet.” It is used, for example, of
angels (Judg. xiii. 6, 8), of Moses (Deut.
xxxlll. 1), and of David (2 Chron. vui. 14),
and would embrace any minister or servant
of God, while N'A) 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 Sam. x, 5—12; xix. 20;
Amos vii. 14], saying,

Ver. 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 ver. 17, where see
note], saying,

Ver. 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 king-THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[ou. x11. 1—-24.

 

dom] 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 werd of
the Lord, and returned [not ‘‘ because they
probably saw that a war with the numeri-
cally greater, and just now bitterly excited,
ten tribes would bring them into a worse
condition still” (Bahr), but because of the
‘word of the Lord.’ It was the remon-
strance 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 Chron. xi. 4, nadn yaw
‘‘ 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 im-
portant particulars. Rehoboam is repre-
sented as 16 years of age (Heb. 40), as
reigning 12 years (Heb. 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. Heis appointed by Solo-
mon 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

Abijah is born, when Rehoboam has beep
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, for-
tifies it, and gathers the tribe of Ephraim
round him. Here Abijah falls sick, and
the visit to the prophet, narrated in chap.
xiv., 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 vers. 5—24 of this chapter.

The great circumstantiality of this nar-
rative 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 laterdate. Its untrust-
worthiness 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
Heb.) text of chap. xi. The account of
Jeroboam’s marriage with the sister of the
queen, e.g., is manifestly a variation of the
history of Hadad (ch. xi. ver. 19; see also
ver. 22). Nor does it harmonize with the
preceding history of this chapter, as given
by the LXX,

 

 

his own wife in marriage.. Here his son

HOMILETICS.

Vers. 183—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 :n order to conquer for ever
(ver. 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 hourCH. x11. 1—24.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 257

$<

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 wag
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
bear. Rehoboam himself confessed to this (ver. 14). It is idle to say that their
demands betray a foregone conclusion to revolt. The contrary is distinctly implied
in verses 4, 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, excépt 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 zmmediate 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 wasthe victim of heaven-sent delusions ? Is itnot 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 per-
versity 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 (chap. xi. 83). 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. me was
probably because Naamah was what she was that Rehoboam eee 10 co
‘‘ The two worst men in my parish,” said a clergyman, “ are what thei mothers have
made them.” We could not expect much character, not to speak of Meee
Solomon’s mistresses, who were chosen for their charms, ahaa ee sed
amid the intrigues, and follies, and pettinesses of the harem, did ad ae 0 hea
mothers of kings. What knowledge of the world or of men, what honour, whe

common sense could we hope to find in one brought up under such influences 7

1

"ec1se! earl xpect as the result

The bearing of Rehoboam is precisely the bearing we should ae soeidtiea

ot the training of an Eastern harem. It appears, consequen y ; ped ye
justly regard his infatuation as judicial, nots much in the sense of being ins}

oe , ) ili

* ‘Réole générale, a laquelle du moms Je n’al guere VU d’exceptions, les hommes super veur's

sont tous les pls de leur mere.” —Michelet. ;
1 KINGS.258 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [ou. xit. 1—24.

 

 

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 charac-
ter, and see the workings of his mind. Observe—

I. His ENTIRE UNCONSCIOUSNESS OF DANGER. There were not wauting, to those
who could read the signs of the times, many indications of peril. It was a
“ sionificant 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 vers. 8, 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.

IL His VACILLATION AND IRRESOLUTION. Bishop Hall observes that his stipu-
lating for 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 1t was
‘‘impolitic to take time to consider,” and it may well be doubted whether this was
not reallv a false and dangerous move. Had he bluntly refused all concessions and
Jaid 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 erievances, he would have preserved his crown. But
this delay was dangerous. It set them a-thinking what they would do in ease of
arefusal. A Fabian policy has saved some states, no doubt; but how many has it
destroyed? And if, as has been suggested (on ver. 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.

IIL Hts prrpe AND opsTINAcy. 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 tor 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,”’ &c., we should have heard of
no further consultation. The pride of Solomon and the pretensions of Naamah

‘reappear in their son,

IV. His rotty. 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. Hrs INSOLENCE AND DEFIANCE. Had he wished to provoke a rebelliva, 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 ery 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—Reho-
boam’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) ThatcH. x11. 1—24.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 26

 

if a fool be brayed in a mortar with a
from him, (4) That the mother h
hands. (5) ‘That,

pestle, yet will not his foolishness depart
as the marring or the making of her child in her

“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 for ever.”

HOMILIES BY VARIOUS AUTHORS.

Vers. 1--5.—The Dead and the Living. ‘The king is dead; long live the king!”
Lhis 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 for ever” (ch. i. 31).

I, SoLomon Is DEAD. 1. His active form is no longer seen. (1) He “ slept with
his fathers” (ch. x1. 43). He has stiffened into a corpse. Perfectly passive now!
What amoral! 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
sunply to bury him—to put him out of sight. Much wisdom is buried alive in
state display. (8) Jeroboam may now return from Egypt. The protection of
Shishak is no longer needed. Human wrath has its limitations. Not so Divine
wrath (see Matt. x. 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!

Il. Bur we survives In Renosoam. This fact.is the ground of—l. 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 [srael.”” See the nation from Dan to Beersheba, under this
influence, streaming down to Shechem. 2. The nation’s swit to the claimant.
(1) In this vhey recognise the claim of Solomon’s representative to the ob tabe
(2\ Also that he may likewise oppress them as Solomon had done (see ch. iv. %, 22;
ix. 15). From Solomon’s oppressions they seek of Solomon, in Rehoboam, relief.
(3) How history verifies prophecy (see 1 Sam. vii. 10—18).

III. So SURVIVING, HIS INFLUENCE IS MODIFIED. l., 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 en 1 ee
Ammonitess. This fact is emphasised, according to the Hebrew style, by ae
stated and restated (ch. xiv. 21, 31). (2) His character is the resultant of | oy
influences of Solomon, of Naamah, and of those which also flowed into the ate
of his life during the apostasy of his father. He became the Se ie es
various moral forces. (3) The influence of Solomon in Rehoboam, ae
considerably modified. Parents are to a large extent responsible oa a 5 ri ae
own direct influence upon the character of their children, me a or ee
temporary influences i uiey Fyne cate oF tte an sanatict ee
ships have therefore to be formed. (4, ep : aN GLA siriaceesiaill
while he lived. They grew upon them by degrees, anc ay a b

: ; became so crystallized around the
system of vested interests. The w hole system fief) Now Solomon is dead
erson of the king that it was difficult to obtain relet. ( : gay
all this is Leeonad and the opportunity 1s given for the at oe eae
They are prompt to improve its (0) Jeroboam is not on Me adi OTe
1 not have been had Solomon lived, but 1s made the spo Ee
wotmals \ B hoboam confesses the force of these altered circumstances in listen
Se aae cr i taking time to deliberate upon the nature of his reply The
pies Greenish van 51 itak viect for Christian consideration ; present—
value of influences is a most profitable subject tor Uhr

posthumous (see 2 Peter i. 15).—M.260 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu. xu. 1—24.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ver. 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.

L Liirep MONARCHY 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 a
republic without a king. (2) But the king exists for the people. Where no people
are there can be no king. (3) Fora king, therefore, to use the people simply for
his own agerandisement and ignore their rights is preposterous (Jer. ii, 14). 2 Ié
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.

Il. Iris 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
pecple been saved the charge of building palaces for, and’ sustaining in state, seven
hundred princesses and three hundred concubines. (2) For what would be neces-
sary 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 rehef from
its excesses. They knew that it would not be to the credit of a great people to
pauperise their prince. 2. It gwes stability to his throne. (1) ‘* They will be thy
servants for ever.” 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 1s
witnessed in a 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 con-
stitutional monarch is the father of his people.

III. ADVOCATES 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 benevolent 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. (8) 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.

Vers. 12—15.—Infatuaticn. ‘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. LN 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 reserva-cH. x. 1—24.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 261

tion, but—2. Their reservati ;
phish haigtntera lei nies erchtgees tea ip eoney
relaxation. Had they not a right to demand this? Did the le Be ies
slaves of their kings ? (2) They did not ask to be released Ed a tee, tic es
service. They acknowledged the duty of sustaining the domitnnie band ; of ve
ee ae then, did he not hearken ? f é Pepe eae
. IN THE ANSWER HE GAVE THEM. 1. Respectir Ls fa : inistrati
(1) He owned that his father had ruled with oe é tee Wed ede ; ie
heavy. He put it even stronger than the complainants; that he a, ¥ chases a
them with whips.” (2) Might he not rather have softened it to than ? He could
have reminded them that Solomon had created their commerce; that their sot niee
had so enriched them that they might bear the taxes; that his wisdom had moda
the nation great and respected; that he had built their temple : that ey had
something for their taxes in great public works. (3) But he lacked, not onl th
wisdom of his father, but also the feelings of a good son. 2. Respecting his un
(i) 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 feild
dered more offensive by the rough and hard manner (ver. 18). (3) How gratuitous
was this insolence! What but infatuation could have prompted it? It is seen—
II]. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING THE ANSWER. 1. It was deliberately
gwen. (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 tlie
tyrant betrayed the fool. It gave the people time to confer and agree upon a
policy. 2. It was advisedly gwen. (1) He did not speak without counsel. He had
taken the advice of the wits with whom he had been brought up. (2) He had also
consulted the sages who had been schooled in the wisdom of Solomon, and he might
have acted upon it but did not. (8) He left God out of his counsels, though his
Shechinah was stillin the temple. 38. He trusted in his fortune. (1) He was the
son of Solomon. Probably the only son. We read of no other; had there been one
he would probably have been mentioned as a rival who would keep the nation
united. (Note: population is not increased by polygamy. Hosea iv. 10.)
Rehoboam, therefore, presumed upon the strength of his claim to the throne.
(2) Even the presence of Jeroboam at the head of the remonstrants did not shake
his confidence in his fortune. He could scarcely have been ignorant of the message
of God to his father, and the corresponding prophecy of Ahijah. But what are the
words of Jehovah to this son of Naamah the Ammonitess, whose national god was
Molech? (3) But the Providence he ignored is seen in the infatuation that ignored
it. The cause, the (92D) revolution, was from the Lord (ver. 15.) ‘‘ They that
lose the kingdom of heaven throw it away as Rehoboam did his, by their own wil-
fulness and folly”? (Matthew Henry). Miserable is the infatuation that imperils
the salvation of the soul.—M.

Vors. 16—20.—The Revolution. The unconciliatory, insulting, insane conduct
of Rehoboam in rejecting the Bill of Rights of the people of Israel provoked a
revolution in the state. This is recorded in the text, in which we learn that—

I. Iv COMMENCED WITH THE REJECTION OF THE KING. 1. This act was done
in haste. (1) By his hesitation at such a time, under such circumstances, to
listen to their grievances, the people saw that Rehoboam was a tyrant. They
accordingly availed themselves of the three days he took to consider his reply, to
concert their measures, and were therefore ready for action. (2) They soon “‘ saw
that the king hearkened not.” He left them in no doubt, for he took high ground
at once. And they were as prompt in their resolution. 2. It was done in anger.
(1) This is seen in the manner in which the leaders of the people mingle their
advice to their constituents with their answer to the king (ver. 16). (2) Also in the
promptness with which the people acted upon the advice. “So Israel departed

unto their tents.” 8. But their anger carried them too far. (1) Why ele
Woul

David in their resentment ? Had they no inheritance in the son of Jesse ?a SS ee ee a

262 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [on. xm. 1—24.

 

they have said so when David delivered them from the hand of Goliath? How
fitful is the passion of the multitude ! How soon are good men forgotten ! (2) In
rejecting David did they not forsake the Lord who gave them David and his seed
for ever by a covenant of salt? (2 Chron. xiii. 5—8.) (8) In rejecting Davia, in
whom was the promise of Messiah, did they not go far towards rejecting Christ ?
See Stephen’s argument, Acts vil. (4) Were they not impolitic in this ? In SO
rejecting David they alienated from their cause the great tribe of Judah. W rong:
is never truly politic. (5) In their hot haste they do not consult God, either by
urim or by prophet (Hosea viii. 4).

II. Iv WAS COMPLETED IN THE CROWNING OF JEROBOAM. 1. Between these acts
there was an interval. (1) While in their tents the Israelites were still open to
consider. They were as yet committed to no policy for the future. Time and re-
flection might have shown them that their anger had been carried too far. (2)
Wise counsel now might have brought before them the evils of a division in the
nation. Thus they would be weakened in the presence of the heathen. And
in case of differences with Judah difficulties might arise in respect to their religious
duties. For their temple was in the dominion of Judah, They may, there-
fore, be liable to temptations to irreligion, if not to idolatry. (8) While in their
tents they were likewise still open to negotiations. Reasonable concessions now
from Rehoboam might bring them back to their allegiance. 2. But Rehoboam’'s
folly hastened the sequel. (1) He sent among them ‘“‘ Adoram, who was over the
tribute.’ Adoram, from his office, was odious to them, for the taxes he had
collected were the very ground of their complaint. Thus the infatuation of the
king was as conspicuous in his choice of an ambassador as in that of his coun-
sellors. (2) The haste with which this was done aggravated the evil. It was done
while he was yet in Shechem, before his return to Jerusalem. If Adoram was
commissioned then to collect taxes, Rehoboam lost no time in producing his
scorpion. (3) Irritated as they were, this act roused their resentment to fury, and
‘all Israel stoned’? Adoram to death. 38. They now completed the revolution.
(1) Rehoboam, in terror of his life, mounted his chariot, and fled to Jerusalem. So
ignominiously ended his threatening words! (Prov. xi. 2; xvi. 18; xvi. 195 xvil.
12.) (2) Israel, now free from the embarrassment of the monarch’s presence pro-
ceeded at once to crown Jeroboam. (8) But in all this there is no consultation with
the Lord; yet to the letter are the predictions of Ahijah verified. There is a Pro-
vidence in human affairs. Prophecy makes this evident. Wicked men are, in
their very waywarduess, unconsciously made the instruments of that Providence in
bringing punishment upon themselves.—M.

Vers. 21—24.—The Message of Shemaiah. In the order of Providence the
words of the prophet Ahijah became so far translated into history, that ten of the
tribes of Israel had revolted from the son of Solomon and had made the son of
Nebat their king. Rehoboam, unwilling to lose so important a portion of his
kingdom, was now mustering a formidable army to reduce them to submission. At
this juncture the word of the Lord came to Shemaiah. Let us consider—

I. Tue messace. 1. It was the word of Jehovah. (1) So it is worthy of all
respect. Itis the word of Infinite Wisdom and Knowledge. It is the word of the
Supreme Arbiter. (2) God does not speak immediately to men upon ordinary
occasions. Indirectly He speaks to us evermore and in a million voices. (8)
Happy is that people among whom the voice ot God is heard. This was eminently
the happiness of Israel. It was a sad day in Israel when there was ‘‘ no open
vision” (1 Sam.in.1). 2. It came by the hand of Shemaiah. (1) God spake ‘‘in
divers manners.” By audible voice, as from Sinai; by urim, as in the temple; by
dream ; and by prophet, asin the present case. (2) Alijah was a man of God.
Such in general were the prophets. But sometimes it pleased God to use persons
of equivocal character ;—Balaam, Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, Caiaphas (John xi.
49—52). 3. It came to the whole community. (1) To Rehoboam. He was first
mentioned as the head. Also because he was the principal cause of the mischief
which he now sought to repair. (2) To Judah and Benjamin. These tribes wereCH. x11. 1—24.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 263

 

50 united as to be viewed as “one tribe,” and are unitedly called “Judah.” The
temple was actually within Benjamin’s boundary. (3) To the remnant of the
people. ‘These consisted of priests and Levites, and godly people out of all the
tribes who were unwilling to separate themselves from the house of David (2 Chron
xi. 13—16). 4. It commanded peace. (1) They were not to fight with their
brethren. The case must be extreme that can justify a civil war. “What miseries
must have ensued if 180,000 warriors of Judah had encountered a corresponding
army of Israel! (2) They were to submit to a revolution which was from the
Lord. Not that God was the author of it, but permitted to be brought about by the
king and his people for the punishment of their wickedness. ‘‘ What is brought
about in the course of God’s providence is considered and spoken of as done by
Him as a general would say that he drew the enemy into a snare, which he had
only laid in his way’’ (Julius Bate).

II. Irs nucrprion. 1. They hearkened to the word. (1) They recognized it
as the word of God. Shemaiah was known to be a “man of God.” His message
also agreed to that of Ahijah, the fulfilment ofa part of which pledged the ful fil-
ment of the remainder. (2) To resist now would be to fight against God. ‘This
would be a hopeless business. But is not this the attitude of every sinner? 2.
They returned to their houses. (1) Theremnant of Israel were naturally glad to be
spared the horrors of a war with their brethren. (2) So were the people of Judah
and Benjamin. People are generally averse to war unless stirred up to it by their
rulers. What aresponsibility rests with war-makers! (8) Rehoboam is powerless
without the people. He is now thoroughly cowed. The discipline was good for
him. This was seen in the next three years of his reign. It were well if all men
recognised God’s word when it comes to them. We have God’s word written in
wo of truth. Do we take it home to guide and control our conduct ?

Vers. 12—16.—The rending of the kingdom. The name of Rehoboam is re-
markable as seen in the light of the facts of his history. The ‘enlarger of the king-
dom ” becomes the chief instrument in its disruption. The one strong nation, the
throne of which he inherited from his father, is changed by his folly into two com-
paratively weak and distracted kingdoms, which maintain towards each other an
attitude of perpetual jealousy and strife. The revolt of the ten tribes was a calamity
from the ill effects of which the land never recovered. Both politically and re-
ligiously the unity of the chosen people was hopelessly broken, and the career of
each separate division became henceforth one of ever deepening corruption. The
northern kingdom was governed for two hundred and fifty years by a succession
of men who followed only too closely in the steps of ‘‘ Jeroboam, the son of Nebat,
who made Israel to sin.” Their reigns were little else than a story of crime and
bloodshed and confusion. And though the history of Judah was not quite so dark,
it tells very much the same tale. Tew of its kings were wholly free from the
prevalent wickedness. The efforts of the noblest of them, aided by all the moral
influence of a long line of inspired prophets, were powerless to arrest the down-
fall of the state; till at last, after three hundred and eighty years, it sunk into the
shame and misery of the Captivity. How can it be said of all this, that “ The
cause was from the Lord”? Look (1) at the human element, (2) at the Divine
element, in this transaction. It is full of meaning for every age.

I. Tue HUMAN ELEMENT. The rending of the kingdom was not a sudden event
that came without warning. As in all such cases, a variety of circumstances pre-
pared the way for it. There were slumbering sources of mischief, certain conditions
of thought and feeling, specially old jealousies between the tribes of Ephraim and
Judah, that made it inevitable. But having regard to the nearer occasions, note—
(1) How the seed of evil sown in one generation bears deadly fruit in the next.
Trace the calamity back to the time when Solomon’s heart first began to turn from
the Lord. The root of it lay in his idolatry, and in the oppressions into which his
luxury led him. That idolatry undermined the deepest foundation of the ae i
unity in its loyalty to Jehovah, the Great Invisible King; that tyranny violated the264 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu, xur. 1—24.

 

 

 

 

which is the strength of every nation, and kindled a
smouldering fire of discontent, which was sure, when oceasion served, to burst into
aflame. So true is it that the evil, as well as the good, men do “lives after them.”
Through the subtle relations that exist between man and man, generation and
generation, the possible influence of any form of wrong-doing can never be
measured. It spreads in widening circles. As in the line of individual history

every man reaps what he sows—

public sense of righteousness,

‘‘ Our deeds still travel with us from afar,
And what we have been makes us what we are”—

go in the line of succeeding generations. Germs of evil sown by the fathers spring
up among their children. There is a conservation of moral forces as of material.
Let a corrupting power be once set in motion, and, though hidden for awhile, it is
sure to appear again in some riper and more extended form. The nation retains
its visible unity under Solomon, but when the charm of his personal reign is over,
the disintegrating work that has been going on beneath the surface is made
manifest. (2) The danger there is in following the prompting of foolish
inexperience and headstrong self-will. Rehoboam was wise in taking counsel
of his advisers in this emergency. His folly lay in listening to those who flattered
his vanity, rather than those whose prudence was a safer guide; and in supposing
that, whether the discontent that urged the plea of oppression was reasonable or not,
heavier oppression would cure it. It is a familiar picture of human life that we
have here. ‘Days should speak, and multitude of years teach wisdom”
(Job xxxii. 7); but how often is the counsel of youthful incompetence followed
because itis more agreeable. There is a time to resist as well as to yield; but
experience shows that the pride that refuses all reasonable concession, and perhaps
adds insult to wrong, defeats its own end. To stoop is often to conquer. To
humble one’s self is the way to be exalted. Imperious self-will rushes blindly to its
ownruin. Kindly human sympathy and generous self-abandonment win honour
and power. “ He that would be great among you,” &c. (Matt. xx. 26, 27).

Il. Tux Drvins eLemenr. This is seen in two respects. (1) So far as these
events were the result of the wrong-doing of men, God ordains the laws by virtue
of which that result comes to pass. All sin is a detiance of the Divine, Authority.
But the sovereignty of God is proclaimed in the very disasters that follow it and
avenge it. Whatis the punishment of sin but an assertion, in a form that cannot
be avoided, of the authority against which it is a rebellion? We can no more
avert the penalty that treads on the heels of trangression than we can escape from
our own shadow, or change the course of nature, and that because we cannot get
beyond the reach of God. The law that governs it is backed by all the forces of
Omnipotence. It is but a phase of the Will that is “holy and just and good.”
Learn to look through all the wayward and uncertain forms of human action to
the majesty of that Eternal Righteousness that “ cannot be mocked,” but will
vindicate itself in unfailing sequences of reward and punishment. (2) Evil as
these events and doings may be, God works out through them His own all-wise
purposes. The principle involved in this may be profoundly mysterious to us, but
the fact is too manifest to be denied. Jeroboam may have been utterly wrong in
the spirit that moved him, taking advantage of tribal jealousy for the purposes of
his own ambition; and yet he did but fulfil the Divine decree expressed through
Ahijah the Shilonite (ch. xi. 29 seq.), and even through the prediction of the
patriarch Jacob, which gave to Joseph the ascendancy and declared that the seed
of Ephraim should ‘‘ become a multitude of nations.” Rehoboam’s high-handed
policy was without excuse, and yet he and his foolish counsellors were but ministers
of the Divine purpose, maintaining God’s choice of the house of David, and help-
ing to fultil the prophecy that the ‘* sceptre should not depart trom Judah until
Shiloh come.” All history is full of illustrations of the way in which God makes
the evil of the world, in itself essentially at variance with His will, to serve Him.
All streams of human folly and wrong, wandering and tortuous as they may be,cH. xu. 1—24.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 265

become tributary to the great river of His purpose, ‘“‘ He maketh the wrath of man
to praise Him.” The highest example is the sacrifice of Jesus, man’s iniquity
working out the world’s redemption. ‘“ Him, being delivered by the eeerainats
counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands.” &e. (Acts
li, 23). The final verification of this truth belongs to the time when, out of all the
sin and strife and sorrow of the ages, God shall bring forth the glorious triumph

of His gracious sovereignty, the “ gathering together into one of all things in
Christ.” —W.

Vers. 13, 14.—Rehoboam’s Folly. Such madness is scarcely credible in the
son of Solomon. These two kings present a remarkable contrast. Solomon at
tweuty years of age is the wisest man of his times, Rehoboam his gon, at forty, is
unfit to rule himself or his people. Wisdom is not by descent, but is the gift of
God. Describe the scene in the chapter: the visit of Rehoboam to Shechem,
probably with a view to conciliate the ten tribes; the complaint of the people; the
two councils of the king; the maddening effect of his reply. The study of small
and foolish men is advantageous, as well as the study of the great and wise, that by
their follies we may be warned. Rehoboam’s faults lie on the surface, as would be
natural in so- shallow a character as his. A careful study of the chapter reveals to
us the following.

I. REHOBOAM’S FEEBLENESS OF CHARACTER. We should expect of one who suc-
ceeded to the throne in the prime of his life some clear notions of the policy he
would pursue. Brought up in a court to which the rulers of other peoples came
(ch. x. 24), over which the wisest king of that age ruled, he was rich in natural
advantages. He could also have discovered for himself the condition of the people,
their causes of complaint, &c. Had he given himself to such thought he would
have been prepared for prompt and resolute action on his accession. Instead of
this he seems helpless; turns now to these and now to those for counsel, and has
not even enough wisdom to weigh the value of advice when it is given. ‘‘ Unstable
as water, thou shalt not excel,” is a law of far-reaching application. Amongst the
virtues we should inculcate in our children is that of sober self-reliance. It may be
fostered in the home with safety and advantage. Trust a child with something
which he is free to use or abuse, in order to test him, and develop in him this
grace. Probably Rehoboam had been brought up in the harem, and so had the
heart of a child, with the years of a man. All gifts must be exercised to increase
their value. ‘‘ A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways,” and an example
of this hes before us.

II. ReHoBoAM’s CONTEMPT OF EXPERIENCE. He consulted the old advisers of
Solomon, it is true, but clearly for the look of the thing only. Directly after
speaking with ‘the responsible ministers of the crown,” he turned to the courtiers,
who were far less able to advise in such a crisis. Job says, ‘‘ With the ancients
is wisdom; and in length of days understanding.” ‘This is not always true. A
man may be old without being wise, he may go through many experiences without
being experienced. Still, other things being equal, a long study of affairs gives
knowledge and discretion. It would clearly be so, with men chosen by the wise
Solomon. Besides, those who have already won their honours are more dis-
interested than those who are ambitiously seeking to win them; and those whose
reputations are high are more careful to guard themselves against folly than shoes
who have no reputation to lose. [ound on such principles the duties of eee
sion to authority, of reverence to age, &c., which are the essentials of a happy

aceful society.

ee gat iat RESORT y- THE FOOLISH. The answer of the young cH
showed their folly. That such a spirit should exist is a proof that in ie oe uous
of Solomon the people about him had sadly deteriorated. (1) Hearne : Fee 2
companions of Rehoboam, and knowing his haughty temper i nk toe raid
the top of his bent. (2) They were courtiers brought up amid ‘ ae da oe
splendid reign just ended, and knew little or nothing of the conc Wea oF ° oe
For these and other reasons they were of all others the most unht to giv— —— ee

266 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. (cn. x1. 1-24,

 

in this crisis. [Give examples from history of kings ruined by their favourites. ]
We should always suspect those who gratify our vanity, or seek to further our lower
pleasures. Show the evils which arise, especially to weak characters, from foolish
associates. ‘He that walketh with wise men shall be wise, but a companion of
fools shall be destroyed.” ‘‘Forsake the foolish, and live.” ‘‘ Blessed is he that
walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor
sitteth in the seat of the scornful.”

IV. ReEHOBOAMWS BOASTFULNESS OF HIS POWER. ‘“ My little finger shall be
thicker than my father’s loins.” A proverbial expression to denote that his power
was greater than his father’s. Such bragging is no sign of courage. At the first
outbreak of rebellion, this boaster ‘‘ made speed to get him up to his chariot, to flee
to Jerusalem.” <A strong character expresses itself not in great words, but in great
deeds. The boastful Peter fails, the silent John stands firm. The Pharisee is
rejected, the publican justified. ‘He that humbleth himself shall be exalted. and
he that exalteth himself shall be abased.”’

V. REHOBOAM’S ABUSE OF HIS AUTHORITY. ‘‘ My father made your yoke heavy,
and I will add to your yoke,” &. This was not the speech of one who felt himself
to be a shepherd of God’s flock, but of one who assumed despotic authority. This
was never permitted to a king of Israel, nor is it intended by God that any man
should thus rule. It would be an evil to the ruler himself as well as to his people.
Least of all is it to be tolerated in the Christian Church. The highest in ecclesias-
tical office are forbidden to be ‘‘ lords over God’s heritage,” but are to be ‘‘ examples
to the flock.” Christ said, ‘‘ The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them
- . - but ye shall not be so”’ (Luke xxii. 24—29).

VI. REHOBOAM'S NEGLECT OF PRAYER. How differently he began his reign from
his father! Solomon went first to God; Rehoboam went hither and thither for
counsel, but never turned to God at all. How often we act thus in our temporal
perplexities, in our theologica] difficulties, &&. How sadly we forget the words,
*‘ Tt any of you lack wisdom let him ask of God,” &e. (Jas. i. 5—8). Throw the lurid
light of this story on Proverbsi., and make personal application of the warning
given there.—A. R.

Ver. 16.—The Revolt. This was the song of the insurrection. It is the Marseil-
laise of Israelitish history. We heard it first after the revolt of Absalom (2 Sam.
xx. 1). It appears to have originated with ‘‘ Sheba, the son of Bichri, a Benjamite.”
The revolt described in our text was more serious, beginning as it did the ruin of
Solomon’s splendid kingdom. All such national events (the wars of the Roses, the
civil war of the sixteenth century, the revolution of 1688, the French Revolution of
the last century, &c.) are worthy of study. Moral causes lie at the root of them all,
and the hand of God is over them all. The moral and Divine are more clearly
revealed in Old Testament history ; hence in part its value. In tracing this great
revolution to its causes, we do not forget, though we do not dwell upon, two factors
to which our attention is called by Scripture—(1) the design of God, and (2) the
ambition of Jeroboam. We must remember, however, in regard to the former that
God expressly declared that He would base future events on the king’s obedience
or disobedience to His law. And as to the ambitious designs of Jeroboam, they
would all have been futile if (as God had foreseen) there had not been popular dis-
content, combined with princely folly. What, then, were the ultimate causes of
the event des¢éribed ?

I, TRIBAL JEALousY. This had always existed. Ephraim and Judah had
specially displayed it. The jealousy of Ephraim had asserted itself both against
Gideon and Jephthah (Judg. viii. 1; xii. 1). The pride of this tribe was fostered
by such facts as these : Joshua sprung from it, Samuel was born within its borders,
Saul was of Benjamin, hereditary with Joseph; its geographical position gave it
power, &e. Hence, till David’s time, the leadership of the nation was practically
in the hands of Ephraim. He reigned seven years over Judah before he could
obtain supremacy over the other tribes. He dealt wisely with those who belonged
to Ephraim, selecting some of them for special favour, &c. Solomon, however,CH. x11. 1—24.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

267

aggravated the discontent by his oppression towards the
Rehoboam had no easy task before him.
strength is impossible without national unity. Clans must lose their jealousies if
they would become a strong people. The severance of the rich from the poor the
hostility between capital and labour, the disaffection of ary section of the people
must be a source of weakness, a sign of decadence. 2. The Church’s power is
sapped by sectarian hostility. There may be diversity in modes of work and
worship, but amongst all Christians should be unity of spirit. “‘ There are diversities
of operations, but the same spirit.” ach tribe may march through the wilderness
with its own banner, but all must find their one centre in the Divine presence, and
seek their one Canaan as a land of rest. Isaiah foretells the day when “ Ephraim
shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Kphraim ”’ (ch. xi. 13).

I]. Heavy Taxation. It affected the people’s wealth, and still more painfully
their personal labour. A more foolish step than that which Rehoboam took could
scarcely be imagined. He sent to appease the people ‘‘ Adoram, who was over the
tribute ;” the very man who represented the oppression they resented! Qwem
Deus vult perdere, prius dementat. Show how extravagance, disregard of the
rights of others, unjust demands, carelessness of the interests of dependants, lead
to disaster—in homes, in business, in national and ecclesiastical affairs. Illustrate
this from history; the decline and fall of the Roman Empire; the dissolution of
the formerly vast dependencies of Spain, &e. Soif a Church demands too much,
as Rome does, she loses all. The intelligent men of Roman Catholic countries are
sceptics.

Ill. Reticious inpirFrerEncr. That this existed is evident from the ease with
which Solomon set up the worship of Ashtoreth, Mileom, and Chemosh; and from
the fact that Jeroboam, directly after the revolt, erected the calves at Bethel and
Dan. J.D. Michaelis and others have sought to justify the people in their re-
bellion, but there can be no doubt that so far as they were concerned the revolt was
criminal. Neither in this nor in any other act of man does higher causality affect
the morality of an act. They were anxious about the decrease of taxation, but not
about the removal of idolatry. To them it mattered little whether Jehovah were
worshipped or not. But it was to represent Him, to fulfil His purpose, to preserve
His truth, that the kingdom existed. Indifference to God is destructive of the
stability of human hopes, of the kingliness of human character, of the peace and
security of human kingdoms. Christ has come into the world to arouse it from
indifference, that all men may go out to greet Him as “ King of kings, and Lord of
lords.”’ If you lose the kingdom of heaven it is because, like Rehoboam, you throw
it away. The lost opportunity never came to him again. He was forbidden to try
to recover by force what he sacrificed by folly (ver. 24). Over him and over many
a man the lament may be heard, ‘“‘ Oh that thou hadst known, even thou, at least in
this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace, but now they are hid from
thine eyes.” —A. R.

he close of his reign, so that
All was ripe for revolt. 1. National

Vers. 1—20.—The accomplishment of the predicted judgment. I. Dancers
OFTEN COME DISGUISED. 1. It was a time of joyous expectation. Nothing be-
tokened the nearness of rebellion and disaster. All Israel had come to Shechem
to make him king. There was no dispute about the succession, and no unwil-
lingness to own the sway of the house of David. All was hopeful. Danger
may lurk in joy like a venomous insect in a flower. 2. The people s request was
reasonable. Rehoboam could shield himself under no plea of Divine right. David
was appointed to shepherd Israel, and the people had a right to protest against
their burdens. 38. Their demand seems to have been urged with moderation.
There was as yet no determination to rebel. The issue lay with ‘ed weal a was
to bear the stamp of his mind as well as theirs. There are moments t rat nue i
with a sudden demand to manifest the spirit that is in us and to make or mar we
future. Should the demand come to thee to-day, what mark would be left, what

work would be done?
II. A DANGER WISELY MET. 1. The importance of the juncture was felt and. . ' ee
= eee ee ee a a Beene

268 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cn. x11. 1—24,

 

owned. He took time for consideration.. A good decision is nothing the worse of
a calm review: a bad one needsit. 2. He sought counsel. We are helped by the
light of others’ judgment, but above all we need the direction of God. Aig
III. THE BEGINNING OF DISASTER. 1. A grave defect. Among all that is said of
these three days there is no mention of his inquiring of the Lord, or lifting up one
ery for guidance. There is pride and passion 1n us which only God can subdue:
these retained are worse than all our foes; they can only harm us through the
enemies we harbour within our breast. 2. The counsels of wisdom are rejected
(vers. 7, 8). 8. The counsels of folly accepted (vers. 8—11). He was seeking for
the reflection of his own proud, vengeful thought, and he now found it in the
advice cf those who were like-minded. What we need is not the strengthening of
our own judgment, but its correction by the utterance of love and righteousness
ruth.
any Fouiy’s Harvest. 1. The shame of rejection and desertion (ver. 16).
2. His last attempt to assert his authority defeated (ver. 18). 3. His wgno-
minious flight. He who might have won a kingdom has to flee for his life.
4. The separation of the ten tribes completed (vers. 19, 20). If Rehoboam had
fled from the evil which was in himself, he would not have required to flee from
his people. We give birth to the terrors which pursue us. There is but one flight
possible from loss and death—the flight from sin.—U.

Vers. 21—83. I. AN ERROR THAT COULD NOT BE REPAIRED (vers. 21—24). Reho-
boam had zeal and strength behind him in his attempt to bring back the tribes
by force. One hundred and eighty thousand men responded to his call; but all
were dispersed at the lifting up of God’s hand. The attempt was forbidden,
1. Because of the ties of kindred. These were forgotten by Rehoboam when he
threatened the people with a heavier yoke. Tyranny is possible only in the denial
of the brotherhood of man. It was forgotten now as he gathered his hosts together.
Wars are impossible in the recognition of the brotherhood of man. This is God’s
word to the nations, to England as to the rest: ‘“‘ Ye shall not... fight against
your brethren.” 2. Because the loss was of God. ‘This thing is from Me.”
These two thoughts assuage anger and beget repentance ; they who are against us
are our brethren, and the blow is from our Father’s hand. Our mistakes are per-
mitted, and we eat their bitter fruit in God’s righteous judgment. Keep the way
of love and lowly dependence on God. Livery other is full of mistake and irre-
parable loss.

I]. THE BLINDNESS OF WORLDLY POLICY (vers. 25—33). Judged from a merely
human standpoint, Jeroboam showed commendable foresight, and took effectual
precautions against a great and possible danger. Yet he did not look far enough
or high enough. The range of his vision did not embrace the mightiest of all
forces. It shut out God, and every step he took ensured the destruction of the
power he sought to guard. 1. His fear was unbelief. There did seem to bea
danger in the recourse of the tribes to Jerusalem, but he had God’s promise that
He would build him a sure house if he would do that which was right in God’s
sight (xi. 38). Do not our fears go right in the face of the promises of God ?
2. It was base forgetfulness of God’s mercy. The Lord had fulfilled part of what
He had said. The very circumstances in which the fear arose (the possession
of the kingdom) were thus its answer. Our fears not only deny God’s promises,
but also the testimony of the past. Unbelief and ingratitude are the first steps
in the path of sin (Rom. i. 21). 8. His defiance of God. When unbelief has shut
Him out of the heart, His commandments are lightly esteemed. ‘T’o suit the
exigencies of state, God’s ordinances were overturned, other holy places were set
up, the commandment against image-worship broken, the priesthood and the feast-
time changed. Jeroboam’s sin lives still in our statecraft, in the conduct of our
business, dc. God’s purpose regarding us and the world is nothing! His com-
mandments are the only things that with safety can be disregarded! 4. His mis-
directed ingenuity. He cleverly takes advantage (1) of the jealousy of the tribes.
Why should Jertsalem be the only holy place, or Levi the one servant of God ?OH. x1. 25—83.]

(2) He only repeats the sin, and quotes the words, of Aaron, and the fatl

EXx CA,

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

     
  
    
  
  

269

1ers (Exod.

(3) He uses places already consecrated, Bethel by Jacob’s vision and
altar, and Dan, the shrine of Micah’s image
for his own safety under the plea of care for
Misused ability cannot shield from God’s judgment.

(Judg. xviii. 30). (4) He hides zeal
the people’s convenience (ver. 28),

In every step he took he was

the more surely sealing his own doom, and ensuring the final extinction of hig

people.

** Be not deceived, God is not mocked.”—U.

EXPOSITION.

CHAPTER XIF. *25-—33,

THE ESTABLISHMENT 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 mea-
sures 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.

Ver. 25.—Then Jeroboam built [i.e., re-
built or fortified, NIA naturally has both
meanings] Shechem [see on ver. 1 and on ch.
xiv. 1] in Mount Ephraim [The Har-
Ephraim, or mountain district of Ephraim
(in Josh. xi. 16 called the ‘“‘ Mountain of
Israel ;” cf. Josh xvii. 15—18; Judg. iv. 5;
x. 1; 1 Sam. 1. 1), is ‘“‘ the central mass of
the hills of Palestine, nearly equidistant
from the northern and southern boundary
of the whole country” (Stanley, S. and P.,
p. 229), 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, Judg. vili. 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 forti-
fying 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
sight so obvious, as it lay beyond the Jor-
dan (Gen. xxxii. 22, 30; xxxiii. 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 com-
manding the fords of the Jordan would

 

 

secure Reuben, Gad, &¢., against invasion
from Judah. It is also not unlikely that
Jeroboam, who was the great castle builder of
that aye, had some fears of ‘“ hostile attacks
from the north and north-east” (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 resi-
dence and capital]; and went out from
thence [i.e., when he had secured one forti-
fied 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. ([Bihr says,
“There is no doubt that he built these
fortifications by tribute labour, like Solo-
mon.” 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 new-born
kingdom would also earnestly desire to pos-
sess a suitable capital. Thus their self:
interest and enthusiasm alike would obviate
the necessity for a conscription. |]

Ver. 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 attrae-ee

270

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

ee ne

fou. x11. 25—83.

 

tions of the temple, and the religious sys-
tem 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 Chron. xi. 13, 16),
while the speech of Abijah on Mount Zema-
raim (2 Chron. xiii. 11), proves that others
as well as Jeroboam were well aware that
the old religion and the new kingdom could
hardly co-exist. ]

Ver. 27.—If this people go up to do sacri-
fice [Heb. sacrifices] in the house of the Lord
at Jerusalem [as the law of Moses ordained
(Deut. xii. 11, 14; xvi. 6, 11)], then shall
the heart of this people turn again unto
their lord [The Syriac omits this word. The
LXX. has mpdc Kipioy cat xiprov abroy],
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 (ver. 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 Sam. xx. 20, 21; cfi.2Sam. iv. 7], and go
again [lit., turn again, same word as above]
to Rehoboam king of Judah.

Ver. 28.—Whereupon the king took
counsel [‘‘ With his counsellors, or the
heads of the nation who had helped him to
the throne” (Keil). Bahr 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 (vers.
6, 9), would summon others to advise him
as to this critical and momentous step.
Wordsworth refers to Isa. xxx. 1, and says
that “ Jeroboam is the image and pattern of
Machiavellian politicians.” ‘ Next to Ahi-
thophel, I do not find that Israel yielded a
craftier head than Jeroboam’s ” (Hall)], and
made two calves [Itis generally held that
these were in imitation of, or were suggested
by, the ‘“‘golden calf” of Aaron (Exod.
xxxil. 2), and the close resemblance of Jero-
boam’s words (below), in inaugurating this
new cultus, to Aarou’s have been thought to
prove it. But surely it has been overlooked
that Jeroboam could hardly be so short-
sighted and unwise as deliberately to rein-
troduce a worship which had provoked. the
‘* fierce wrath” (ver. 12) of God, and had

 

nearly resulted in the extermination of the
Jewish race. For of course neither Jero-
boam 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, &c., 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 irutation of
the forbidden cultus of the deser 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 his-
torians 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 wor-
ship. ‘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 mys-
terious 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 imita-
tions of the colossal cherubim of Solomon’s
temple, in which the ox or calf was prob-
ably the forma praecipua (ch. vi. 23).] of
gold [Hardly of solid gold. Possibly of
wood covered with gold plates, ¢.e., similar
to the cherubim (ch. vi. 23—28) ; probably
of molten brass (see ch. xiv. 9, and cf. Psa.
evi. 19), overlaid with gold ; such images, in
fact, as are described in Isa. xl. 19], and
said unto them, It is too much for you
[This translation, pace Keil, cannot be
niaintained. Nor can it be said that ‘ theCH. XII. 25—83.]

exact meaning of the original is doubtful ”
(Rawlinson), for a study of the passages

where this phrase, 023272) occurs (see, ed...

Deut. i. 6; 11.3; iii. 26; and ef. Gen. xlv.
28; Exod. ix. 28; 2 Sam. xxiy. 16;
1 Kings xix. 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 posi-
tion to the ainbition of the tribe of Judah,
and which is a standing testimony to your
own inferiority; henceforth, desist.” We
have an exact parallel in Ezek. xliv. 6;
where the Authorized Version renders, ‘‘ Let
it suffice you.” The LXX. supports this
view by rendering tkavdéuc0w dbpiv through-
out. Vulgate, nolite ultra ascendere, &¢e.]| 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 sanctu-
aries, but each was designed to represent
the same object—the one God of Israel.
The word is translated ‘gods’ in Exod.
xxxili. 1, 4, 8, 23,31; 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 (ch. ix. 18), the word
is unmistakably singular. “ Vhis ig thy
god,” &c. The words are not “exactly the
same as the people used when setting up
the golden calf” (Biihr). Jeroboam says,
‘* Behold,” &c.], 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, t)iat
Jeroboam, of set purpose, cited the ipsissis 1
verba of the Israelites in the desert (Exo.
xxx. 4). But a little reflection will show
that it is much more difficult to believe that
@ 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 ontrage, 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
foricrly in the desert, under the guidance
ot Aaron himself” (Seb. Schmidt, followed
by Keil, al.) unless both he and his people
alike—which is inconceivable—were igno-
rant of their nation’s history recorded in
Exod. xxxii. 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

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

    
 
   
    
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  

271

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 go emphatically reprobated,
unless he designed an open defiance of the
Most High, and wished to shock all the reli-
gious Instincts and convictions of his people.
It is much more natural, consequently, to
suppose, considering the very frequent recur-
rence, though sometimes in slightly different
shapes, of the formula “ the Lord thy God,
which brought thee out of the land of
Egypt ”» (Exod. xx. 2; xxix, 45, 46; Levit,
Kix. 36; xxiii. 43; xxv. 88; xxvi. 13, 45;
Num, xy. 41; xvi. 13; xx. 16; Deut. v.
6, 153 vi. 12» viii, 14 » ix. 26; Josh. xxiv.
6, 17; Judg. vi. 8; 1 Sam. viii. 8; x. 18;
1 Kings viii. 21, &.) that the correspon-
dence is accidental, the more so as Jero-
boam does not quote the exact words, and
that he has used a phrase which was con-
stantly 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, &c, (Deut. iv. 34), and
delivered them from a thra!dom with which,
perhaps, the tyranny of Rehoboam is in-
directly compared. Or if 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 De-
liverer of our race, Behold thy God, which
really brought thee up,” &c.]

Ver. 29.—And he set the one in Bethel, and
the other put hein Dan. [Two considera-
tions 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 makém, or holy place,
in the days of Abraham; was consecrated
by the visions and altar of Jacob (Gen.
RXV. 11-19%. xxxi5 13.0 xxxyv: fy 7, 1b),
and by the ark having been there (Judg.
xx. 26—28, Heb.; cf. Jos., Ant., v. 2. 10).
And though Dan (Josh. xix. 47; Judg.
Xvili. 29; xx. 1) can hardly have had as
sacred a character as the ‘‘house of God
and the gate of heaven” (Gen. xxvill. 17)
had, still it had its shrine and its schis-
matic priesthood. A grandson of Moses
(Judg. xviii. 13, true reading) had minis-
tered 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,ee ee oe ae... tee Ce eee kee

272

were less conveniently situated. A sanctuary
at Dan would save the northern tribes
many tedious journeys. It should be re-
marked that Bethel properly belonged to
Benjamin (Josh. xviii. 13, 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. Butthe narrative
seems to imply that their choice had been
made at an earlier period (ver. 21), and the
city would seem to have been long in the
possession of the house of Joseph (Judg. 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 pip, a sacred place merely
(Gen. xxviii. 11), and distinct from the
adjoining city of Luz (ver. 19).]

Ver. 30.—And this thing became a sin
(It was in itself sinful, for it both set at
nought the express prohibition of the De-
calogue (Exod. xx. 4), and also disregarded
the one sanctuary of God’s choice (Deut.
xii. 5). And it led to other sins, e.g., the
intrusion of a schismatic and irregular
priesthood, and the performance of un-
authorized rites, and to ‘‘ an ever-deepening
corruption of the national faith ” (iwald).
Cf. Hosea viii. 5; xili. 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”
(ch. xiv. 16; xv. 26, &c.) 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, ii. 264)]: for the people
went to worship before the one even unto
Dan. [The people frequented both sanctu-
aries; 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.’ <Ac-
cording to others, ‘the one” (TIN) refers
to the double INNO (‘the one,” ‘the
other”); cf. ver. 29. They would interpret,
that is, ‘‘ the people went to both, even to the
distant Dan” (Bahr, Thenius). Keil would
force the text and understand, ‘‘ the people,
even unto Dan,” 7.e., the people throughout
the whole kingdom. Similarly, Wordsworth.
Ewald understands ‘before the one” to
mean TIN2 7.e., ‘as one,’ sc.man. On the

whole it is better to take the words as they
stand, literally. Itis quite conceivable that,

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS,

 

fon. x11. 25—33.

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 wor-
shippers some time before Bethel was pre-
pared for that purpose. Jeroboam's otler-
ing in person at Bethel (ver. 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. Jt 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.’’]

Ver. 31.—And he made an house of high
places [See on ch, iii. 2, and ef. 2 Kings xvii.
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
xvii. 29, 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). ‘l'here
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
(Judg, xviii. 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. MSP ““from the ends,” 7.e.,. from
all classes, ex wniverso populo (Gesen.), and
not, as the writer explains presently, from
the tribe of Levi alone. Gen. xix. 4, Judg,
xvii. 2, Ezek. xxxiii. 2, prove this to be the
correct interpretation of the word. Rawlin-
son, who remarks that “Jeroboam could
have no motive for specially selecting per-
sons of low condition,” does not thereby
dispose of the A. V. rendering, for the
historian might mean that some of Jero-
boam’s priests were of the lowest stamp,
because he could find no others, or because
he was so little scrupulous as to tale them.
‘*Leaden priests are well fitted to goldenCH. XII. 25—83.]

THE FIRST BOOK oF KINGS.

 

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 Chron.
x1. 13). The statement of ver. 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 Scrip-
ture affords not the slightest warrant.]

Ver. 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 [1.e., the Feast of Tabernacles, which
was held on the 15th of the seventh month
(cf. ch. viii. 2). This was the great feast of
the year, and, as the feast of harvest or
ingatheving, the most joyous. See on ch.
vill. 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 (Levit. xxiii.
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 lateone. Some of the older commentators,
e.g., Vatab., think this time was chosen as the
anniversary of his accession, 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 innoyations’’ (Keil). The
day was retained, as Bahr points out, be-
cause, 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. aviBy. (Keil
contends that Sey means “and he sacri-
ficed,” but this translation is without pre-
cedent. Ver. 33, ‘‘and he went up to burn
incense,” is decisive as to the meaning.)
The altar was always raised. It was prob-
1 KINGs.

 

   
  
 
  
   
  
   
   
 
 
   
 
  
 
   
  
  
  
  
  
 
   
  
  
   
   
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
   
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
 

278

ably approached by a slope, as Exod. xx
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
lv. 147) that he was moved to officiate in
person by the precedent of the Egyptia’
kings, who exercised priestly functions: but
it 18 much more probable that he WAS
guided by the example of Solomon at the
dedication of the temple] upon fi.e., he
stood upon the ledge or platform (called in
the A. V. “compass,” Exod. xxvii. 5) in
the middle of the altar] the altar. So did
he in Bethel [i.c., 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 12, ‘‘so did he,” &c., we
should read 3. The LXX. seem to have
had this word before them—2zi 7} Puotacrn-
ploy 0 eoinaer ty BaijA. 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 Jero-
boam’s making, not of God's ordaining.
The use of 3D as a relative (="WN) 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”’ (ver. 31). Or it may
be acontemptuous designation of Jeroboam’g
irregular priests] which he had made.

Ver. 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. vill. 8. 5) seems unaware that this new
feast was kept at a different date from the
true T’east of Tabernacles, But these words
are decisive] of his own heart [The Cethib

has 732?!) by which Maurer and Keil under
stand saby (‘‘seorsum.” But qu.) But
the Keri 125) is every way to be preferred,

So LXX., amd xapdiac abvrov. Similarly,
Neh. vi. 8]; and ordained [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, &c. The context seems to
imply that it was not incense, or not
incense only, but the sacrifice, or sacrificial
Tee ee a ee ee it cee ei aaeeeesiee ide

274 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu. x11. 25—33.

 

 

ees . ides aging his new priests to
parts of the victim, that the king burned. | the idea of encouraging Hee

ess sit), And this meaning enter on their unauthorized functions with-
Bee on ch. xii. 3 (¥ 2): vy 2 16: outfear. The history, or even the traditions,
is justified by Lev. 1. 9,175 1 oe ah a of Nadab and Abihu (Lev. x.) and of Korah
Amos iv. 5, where the same word is used. | 344 his company (Num. xvi. 40), and the
It cannot be denied, however, that the threatenings of the law (Num. xvill. 7, 22,
word is generally used of incense, and it 18 | (e 9 Ghron. xxvi. 20), may well have made
very probable that both this and sacrifices them hesitate. To allay their fears the
were offered by Jeroboam on the same altar king undertakes to offer the first of the sacri-
(cf. ch, xi, 8). We may perhaps see M | goes, And that their fears of a Divine in-

Jeroboam’s ministering in person, not only | ¢ornosition were not groundless the sequel
the design to invest the new ordinance with shows.]

exceptional interest and splendour, but also

 

HOMILETICS.

Ver. 30.—The Sin of Jeroboam. What was this sin, of which, from this time
forward, the historian has somuch to say? Itis 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 xvii. 21-23) 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.

J. Ir WAS NOT THE SIN OF REBELLION. ‘There may have been sin in the way in
which the rupture with Judah was brought about (see 2 Chron. xii. 6, 7), though
that is by no means certain (notes on vers. 19, 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. Tor,in the
first place, dater kings could not be held responsible for Jeroboam’s conduct at the
time of the disruption, 2.e., they could not commit that sin of Jeroboam ; and,
secondly, the disruption itself was ordained of God (ch. xi. 81 sqq.; xu. 15;
2 Chron. xi. 4). Verse 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 ix. 8, 6). It was the Lord ‘‘raised up” (ch. xiv. 14) Baasha
(ch. xv. 28, 29), Zimri (ch. xvi. 12), Jehu (2 Kings ix. 6), and the rest.

II. Ir 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 (ch. xi. 4, 10), whereas Jeroboam never went
after Baal, or Ashtoreth, or Milcom. It is true the calves are once called ‘ other
gods”’ (ch. xiv. 9), but they are only so called in derision, and in ch. xvi. 81 the
sin of Jeroboam is expressly distinguished from the worship of other gods. It was
probably Jeroboam’s boast (see note on ver. 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. vill. 8. 4. And that the ealf-
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. Ir was NOT THE SIN OF IMAGE WorRsHIP. 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,”
&c. 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,”cH. XII. 25—83. ] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 275

0

 

or “horrors,” or “statues.” We entirely misconceive Jeroboam’s pur
discredit his sagacéty, if we think 4] } “chi Nees 4 ee ees se’

SC] Sagacky, unk that he had the worship of Apis or Mnevis or any
similar idolin 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. Iv was THE SIN OF HERESY. For “ heresy” in the original meaning of the
word simply implied an arbitrary selection of doctrines or practices—atpeorc =
choosiny—instead of dutifully accepting those which God has enjoined. This is
precisely what Jeroboam did. Instead of taking and handing down to his sue-
cessors, whole and undefiled, the * faith once delivered,” he presumed to modify it; to
adapt it, as he thought, to the new order of things, &. 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 (Deut. xii. 18, 14; xiv. 23). And this Divine choice had been recentlv 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,” &c. (Psa.
Ixxviil. 67—69; cf. Psa. cxxxii. 18, 14). At the dedication of this sanctuary
this choice had been publicly proclaimed (ch. viii. 10, 11 ; 2 Chron. vii. 2, 12, 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. ’o 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” (ch. xi. 82, 86). It was to be in the future,
as it had been in the past, the one place of incense and sacrifice. And that Jero-
boam knew it, his own thoughts (ch. xi. 26, 27) reveal to us. ‘If this people go
up to do saerifice 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 arbitrto
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 ser-
vice had been ordered beforehand, and though he had been warned against adding
aught to it or diminishing aught from it (Deut. iv. 2; xii. 82), yet he decided other-
wise. Perhaps he persuaded himself that he had good reasons for it; but all the
same he chose otherwise than God had chosen. Though Exod. xx. 4, &., forbade
the making of graven images, yet he ‘“‘made molten images ” (ch. xiv. 9). Though
the law decreed that the sons of Aaron alone should offer sacrifice and burn in-
sense, yet he determined to play the priest himself, and also ‘‘made him priests
of the lowest of the people.” Svc volo, sic jubeo, &c. |

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 “ a
fifteenth day of the seventh month ” (Levit. xxii. 34, 39). But this was not t e
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 ?

 

‘Tn religion
What dangerous error, but some sober brow
Will bless it and approve it with a text,
Hiding the grossness with fair ornament,”

It is not without reason that in the Litany
together, for the latter springs out of the
f the sayings of our Lord fcovra: oxiopara Kat

9

II. Ir was THE SIN OF SCHISM.
“heresy and schism” are coupled
former (Justin Martyr quotes as one 0276 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. fox. x1. 25—38.,

 

aiptoec (cf. 1 Cor xi. 18). Jeroboam’s arbitrary choice led to a division in the
Jewish Church. Let us briefly consider in what way the breagh in the national
unity, hitherto so close and conspicuous, was effected. ie

1. Lhe one centre of unity gave place to three centres of division. Hitherto,
three times a year (cf. ix. 25) all the males of Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, had
gathered round one altar. hither, ‘the tribes went up, the tribes of the Lord.”
Now, instead of going, even from Dan, the people went to worship before the
ealves “‘even unio Dan.” 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.:Lhe 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 accentu-
ated 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 (ch. vill. 41, 42), to
pray toward the house, found himself in the presence of riyal systems, each claim-
ing 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 osten-
tatiously followed by a feast of the eighth month, celebrated but a few miles distant.
It was the culminating proof of d.yo—orasia,

III. Tue stn or Koran (Num. xvi.) 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 (Judg. xvii. 30; 2 Kings
xvii. 16). But all the same God put His brand upon it. Three miracles
(1 Kings xiii.) were wrought as a testimony against it. The voices of the
prophets were raised to condemn it (Hosea, passim; Micah vi. 16, &c.) 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 clroose our doctrines at pleasure; if the
Scripture zs of private interpretation ; if we are at liberty each one to set up his own
dogmas against the quod semper, quod wbique, 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;CH. x11. 25—83.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 277

 

 

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 never-
theless 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 Churah the
inheritor of the principles of the Jewish; if that church is One and Catholic
and Apostolic; if the faith was once for all (azaé) delivered to the saints; if our
Lord Christ sent His apostles even as the Father had seat Him (John xX. 21)
if they in turn ‘‘ ordained elders in every city” (Titus i. 5; ef. 2 Tim. ii. 2), and by
laying on of hands (Acts xiil. 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.

HOMILIES BY VARIOUS AUTHORS.

Vers. 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 restive
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 (Judg. ix. 45).
The cost of this, including that of the palace there, appears to have been so dis-
agreeable, that Jeroboam, for his tranquillity, shifted his court to Penuel, on the
east of the Jordan. (8) Penuel now stood in need of improvements. It had
suffered at the hands of Gideon nearly three centuries before, when the tower was
destroyed (Judg. viii. 17). A second palace here was not likely to ease their bur-
dens. (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 es
(Deut. xvi. 16,17). They would then see that neither Shechem nor Bente nee
capitals, could compare with Jerusalem. (3) And he feared that a counter rey u-
tion must imperil his life, for Rehoboam would demand this as a condition of their
reconciliation. But the true cause of his despondency was that— _

Il. He HAD FoRGOTTEN To TRUST IN Gop. 1. Had heno asswrancem the words of
Ahijah? (1) Did not Ahijah give him ten pieces of the Le ae oe a
accompany the sign with assuring words ? (Chron. x1. 37.) Las no is pat

9 (9) Is it not, therefore, in the power of Jeroboam to
prophecy been fulfilled? (2) Is b, ane 38.) The fulfilment of
perpetuate his throne by faithfully serving God ? (Chron. x1. v0.
the former part of the prophecy surely

pledges the latter. (8) Ah, but this promise
is conditional! So are all God’s promises. If we comply not with the conditionsee ee ee

278 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [ou. x11. 25—383.

 

 

we shall infallibly forfeit the kingdom of heaven. 2. But he was moved by am-
bition rather 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 1s a throne :
yet without God is there no happiness here. ‘‘ What shallit profit a manif he gain
the whole world and lose his own soul ?”—M.

Ver. 28.—Jeroboam’s Calves. Unbelief is the root of all mischief. Had the
king of Israel believed God, he would have obeyed Flim; 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 INTENDED TO BE IMAGES OF THE Gop OF IsRAEL. 1. So he describes
them in the text. (1) ‘These are thy Klohim, 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. ‘Tus, indeed, was the effect, but that it

vas the design may well be doubted. (2) He further identifies the Elohim repre-
sented in them as having brought them up out of the land of Kgypt. This expres-
sion 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. (8) We must
not be misled by the words, ‘‘ Behold thy Elohim,” or ‘‘ These are 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 Gen. xli. 27; Dan. ii. 88; 1 Cor. x. 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 Exod. xxxii. 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. (8) But that he only intended it as an
emblem of the true God is placed very clearly before us in the words following
(Exod. xxxil. 5, 6), in which the feast celebrated before his calf is called a “feast of
Jehovah.’ 38. Yet this was idolatry. (1) Idolatry may consist of worshipping the
creature instead of the Creator. This the Romanist does when he worships the
water. (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. (8) Or it may consist in attempting to worship the true God
through unauthorised images (see Exod. xx. 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.

Il. Bur 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
(izek. i. 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 (ond). The single image at Bethel is

also called calves (0°32Y) 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 Bate’s ‘Critica Hebrea,”

under 5ay and 3173; 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 thatCH. x11, 25—33.| THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 279

 

of the man was constantly associated, foreshadowing the assumption of the manhood
into the Godhead by that blessed Person. (8) And the eagle, the emblem of air
stood for the Holy Spirit. (4) These, therefore, are called the cherubim. or
semulitudes of the Great Ones, from D3 Great Ones, and 3 like. 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 Judg. xvii. 5, xviii. 5). (2)
Michael was a worshipper of the true God, and so was Laban, who also used
teraphim (see Gen. xxxi. 19, 30, 87, 49). (8) Compare also 1 Sam. xix. 13;
Hizek, xxi. 21; Hosea i.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. Wow subtle is the spirit of idolatry! We cannot keep
too close to God’s Word.—M. ;

Vers. 283—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 itidolatry. 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 toits modes. (2) Its images were imitations of the cherubim.
Such also were the teraphim. And as God was said to dwell in, not ‘“ between”
(au 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 sisnificantly noted, ‘ which he had devised of his own heart ” (see Num. xv.
39). He was a forerunner of another character who has not hesitated to “ change
times and laws’ (Dan. vii. 25). 3. As to its ministers. (1) His priests were
Levites, where he could get them. In this he seems to have succeeded at Dan.
For the descendants of Jonathan, who was of the family of Aaron, appear to have
fallen in with his designs (see Judg. xviii. 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 dis cerned.

The wicked do not understand (Dan. xii. 10).
Il. 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 ape
but which, when conquered by the Danites, received the name of thei fat 1eY
(Judg. xvii. 29—31). This would be convenient to the people living’ 80 pall
from Jerusalem. (2) Besides, from its founding, this city was sacred to the s a8 up
of God through the medium of teraphim. This was about the time of « 2 18's
death when Phinehas ministered at the tabernacle at Shiloh (compare Judg. XX.
27,28). From these very teraphim, when they were 1 the house of Micah, po
gave responses to Jonathan ihe priest. (3) For the teraphim of Micah, whica
were carved blocks covered with svlver, Jeroboam substituted one of his carves
which was covered with gold ; otherwise there does not Ae to ee aa
material change in the worship there. So the prejudices of tl oak pee =
be shocked. 2 Bethel also was chosen with sagacity. (1) i Ee aes ss
southern part of the kingdom, to accommodate those who might otherwise §oad ee ee

280 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu. x1. 25—83.

 

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 (Gen. xxviil.
19, 20; xxxi. 13; xxxv.1, 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 Sam. vil. 16;
x. 3). (3) Here, accordingly, Jeroboam fixed his head-quarters, and built a
pretentious temple, or ‘‘ house of high places ” (ver. ety tere a

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
land you in perdition. Beware of imitations of Divine things. Keep rigidly to
the Word of God.—M.

Vers. 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 Jeru-
salem 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 heaven-
ward side, we see that his policy was at once shrewd and sinful.

I. THE SHREWDNESS OF JEROBOAM’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 recog-
nizing 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, &. 8. 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 Gen. xxxii.). No
doubt his design was to conciliate those who were proud of past history. 4. I¢
was @ bold attempt to deceive the devout. He pretended that it was the old worship
re-established ; 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. Hven 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.

I]. THE sINFULNESS OF JEROBOAM’S PoLicy. 1. It revealed his utter distrust of
God. See the promise that had been given him (ch. xi. 88): ‘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 professingCH. XII. 25—33. | THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 281

4

Christians consider religion inappropriate to business competition and to political
movements. In this they resemble the son of Nebat. 2. It violated #] x 4
mental law of the Decalogue. If the first command was not rata eee Lat
‘ an actually broken, the
second was, necessarily. Had these calves merely been the outward syinbols 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 thie 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, &c., 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 isnorant are with
equal certainty led to the violation of the first. 38. I¢ 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 tested
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 (vers. 81, &., ex
universo populo. (4) The national feast of tabernacles was changed from the
seventh month (Levit. xxi. 84) 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 (ch. xiv. 13) than to reign as
Jeroboam.—A. R. Fe

Vers. 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 fulfiling a Divine purpose. ‘ The thing was
from the Lord,’—the ordained penalty of Solomon’s transgression (ch. xi. 31, 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 tersple 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 ch. xiv. 7—16). This transaction
illustrates—

I. THE FATAL PERVERSITY OF A LAWLESS AMBITION. This was Jeroboam’s ruin.
God, by the prophet Ahijah, had promised to establish him iu the kingdom on
certain conditions (ch. xi. 88). 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; (8) 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 them-
selves, 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,’ &c. (Matt. iv. 8, 9), and his professed followers have too often fallen before
it

‘II. Tue ARTIFICE OF A WICKED PURPOSE. This is seen in the way in which Jero-
boam 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
‘“‘eolden calves’’ may have been intended as a memorial rather than a representa-
tion 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 pre-
tence of consulting their ease and convenience. “Tt is too much for you,” &. (8)ee ee oe, ee

282 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. (cu. xm. 1—10.

He took advantage of the sacred associations of Bethel and Dan, asif 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 hfe 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.
‘an angel of light.”

The most detestable of all vices is hypocrisy.

Satan is never so Satanic as when he wears the garb. of

More deadly

injury has been done to the cause of religion by its false friends than its bitterest

enemies could ever inflict.

TII. THE DISASTROUS EFFECTS OF WICKEDNESS IN HIGH PLACES.

Jeroboam’s

wicked policy perpetuated and multiphed 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.
and reprobate.

wind.” —W.

Such are the woes that fall on a land when its princes are corrupt
So true is it that ‘‘ they that sow to the wind shall reap the whirl-

EXPOSITION.

CHAPTER XIII. 1—10.

THE TESTIMONY OF GOD AGAINST THE
CALF worsHir.—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 ver. 82, ‘‘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 em-
bodies a tradition current in the time of
the compiler—-an account of certain circum-
stances of profound significance which
marked the inauguration of Jeroboam’s first
great feast—for the close connexion with
ch. xii. shows that it is ‘‘ the fifteenth day
of the eighth month ” that is here described.
The chapter divides itself into two sections,
the first (vers. 1—10) containing the public
testimony of the prophet of Judah against
the schismatic worship, the second (vers.
11—32) his subsequent perversion and his
tragical death.

Ver. 1.—And, behold, there came a man
of God [see on ch. xii. 22. The ‘man of
God” is throughout carefully distinguished
from the ‘ prophet.” Josephus calls the
former Jadon, probably the Grecized form
of Iddo, YY, which appears as 7) Ia’do,
in the Keri of 2 Chron. ix. 29. Iddo, how-
ever, notwithstanding his ‘‘ visions against

 

Jeroboam the son of Nebat” (2 Chron. ix.
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 his-
torian of the reign of Rehoboam (2 Chron.
xii. 5, 15)] out of Judah [whither, as a rule,
both priests and prophets would seem to
have retreated (2 Chron. xi. 14,16). It is
clear, however, that the migration of the
latter was not so general as that of the
former. In ver. 11 we find a prophet at
Bethel ; in ch, xiv. Ahijah is still at Shiloh,
and at a later day we find schools of the
prophets at Bethel, Jericho, &c. (2 Kings 11.
3, 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 be-
cause 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
vers. 2, 9, 17, 20, 32, &c. Similarly, 1 Sam.
ili. 21. The Dis not merely instrumental,
but, like the éy 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” (Jer. xx. 9)| the word of
the Lord unto Bethel [It is worth remem-
bering that the new sanctuary at Bethel
would probably be visible from the templeCH. x11. 1—10.]

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS,

    

283

 

 

 

(Porter, p. 219; Van de Velde, ii. 283), so that
this function was an act of open defiance}:
and Jeroboam stood by (Heb. upon. See
on ch. xii. 32, 33. Itis the same occasion }
the altar to burn incense [or to burn the
fat, &c., of the sacrifice. See on ch. xii. 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. ]

Ver. 2.—And he cried against the altar
in the word of the Lord, and said, 0 altar,
altar, thus saiththe Lord (‘This apostrophe
of the altar is very striking and significant.
It is asif the prophet disdained to notice
the royal but self-constituted priest; as if
it were useless to appeal to him; asif his
person was of little consequence compared
with the religious system he was inaugu-
rating, 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 re-
garded, as by many it is still, as a remark-
able instance of prophetic foresight. But
the tendency of late, even amongst orthodox
theologians, has been to doubt the authen-
ticity of these two words, on the ground
that it is unlike Scripture prophecy in
general to descend to such details, which
rather beiong to soothsaying than predic-
tion. 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 thatason
of the house of David would utterly destroy
the worship of calves. But it is alleged
that the latter prediction is quite in accord-
ance with Scripture usage, and the former
altogether contrarient thereto. The case of
Cyrus (Isa, xliv. 28; xlv. 1), it is true, is an
exception to the rule, unless 3 (which
means the sun) is, like Pharaoh and Hadad,
a name of office, a title of the Persian kings.
The instances of Isaac (Gen. xvii. 19) and
Solomon (1 Chron. xxii. 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 pre-
carious one—“ that where this narrative 1s
again referred to (2 Kings xxiii. 15—18) there
is no allusion to the fact that the man of God
had prophesied of Josiah by name” (Raw-
linson). On the whole, therefore, it seems
probable that the two words 1 WON

 

 

 

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 ch.
xll. 32] that burn incense upon thee, and
men’s bones [Heb. bones of man, i.e., human
bones. Nothing could more completely fore-
shadow 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 taber.
nacle (Num. xix. 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. xviii. 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 xxiii. 20, “At the ground of thig
judgment, as of the whole theocratic law,
lies the jus talionis” (Keil, 1846).]

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 con-
tempt. 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.

Ver. 3.—And he gave a sign [The Heb.
M5) rather signifies a portent (répac, mira-
culum, prodigium) than a sign, the proper
word for which is MiX. ‘The word occurs
repeatedly in the Pentateuch, where itis ren-
dered wonder, or miracle, by our translators
(Wordsworth). Signs had, of course, been
given before (Exod. iv. 80; vu. 9; 1 Sam.
xii. 17; &c.) but hardly in such immediate
attestation of a special message, From this
time forward such signs are not infrequent
(Isa. vii. 14; xxxvilil. 8; 2 Kings xix. 29).
They mark the decline of faith (Matt. xu.
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 ; W’S=quod. The A. ir
rendering hardly makes sense. Nor doesee

284

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

(ca. x11. 1—10.

 

it agree, as Rawlinson seems to think, with
the LXX., which reads rovro 76 phua 0
éi\dAdyoe ktpioc, &c.] 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,” &c. 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 bid-
ding” (see 1 Cor. xiv. 22)]; Behold, the
altar shall be rent and the ashes (strictly,
fat ashes. JW; properly, ‘‘fatness”’ (see
Judg. ix. 9; Psa. Ixiii. 5. aedrng, LXX.),
is the fat of the sacrifice, which was burnt
upon the altar, mixed with the ashes
that consumed it] that are upon it shail
be poured out. [The sign, a partial de-
struction of the altar, and the scattering
of the sacrifice, was admirably calculated
to presage its ultimate and final and igno-
minious overthrow. The idea favoured
by Stanley (‘‘Jewish Ch.” ii. 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 ix. 1; cf. ii. 14), does not seem to
take account of ver. 5.]

Ver. 4.--And it came to pass when king
Jeroboam [‘T'he 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
sion was given, but to seize and punish the
man who had dared thus to denounce and
thwart him. And we may imagine how ex-
tremely mortifying this interruption must
have been to him. It threatened the com-
plete frustration of his policy at the very
moment when it seemed certain of success]
from the altar [the ledge or platform, 7.e.,
where he stood. He did not leave it, but
shouted his commands to his servants],
saying, Lay hold on him, [‘‘ Arrest him,”
“Jet 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
Bahr). It waslike the “ withered hand ”’ of
the New Testament (Matt. xii. 10, &c.)
deprived of feeling and vital force, as the
next words show], sothat he could not pull
itinagain to him, [lt was not only power-
less 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
(Psa. ev. 14, 15).]

Ver. 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.

Ver. 6.—And the king [humbled and
alarmed by the judgement 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 Exod. xxxii. 11; 2
Kings xi. 4; 2 Chrom., xxxni 02 Prov:
xix. 6] of the Lord thy God [i.e., whose
messenger thou art. ‘‘Jeroboam, con-
science-stricken, does not dare to call Jeho-
vah 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,” 1s of con-
stant occurrence, especially when a ‘‘man
of God” is addressed; ef. ch. xvit. 12;
xviii. 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 pro-
phet 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 Ged besought
[lit., stroked the face of] the Lord, and
the king’s hand was restored him, and
became as it was before.

Ver. 7.—And the king said unto the man
of God, Come home with me, and refresh
thyself [with food, ablutions, &c. (Gen.
xvill. 4,5; xix. 2; Mark vii.3, &c.) We are
hardly justified in seeing in these words
(with Bahr 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. Jero-
boam could not possibly have done less,
after the signal service the man of God had
rendered him, than invite him to his palace.
Eastern courtesy alone (Gen. xviil. 4; xix.
23; xlili. 24, &c.) 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 Sam, xy. 30,cH. x1. 1—10.]

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

 

‘‘Ffonour 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 him-
self if it were accepted], and I will give
theea reward. [The services, especially of
seers and prophets, were invariably requited
in the Hast with presents, as are those of

285

Le

Cf. 1 Cor. v. 11,“ With such an one, no, not
to eat.” As Corn. a Lapide, “ Ut ipso facto
ostenderet, Bethelitas idololatras adeo esse
detestabiles, et a Deo quasi excommunicatos,
ut nullum fidelium cum tis cibi vel potus
communionem habere velit ”), nor turn again
by the same way that thou camest. [ihe

x

object of this command was not ‘‘ simply to

   
 
 
 
   
  
  
 
 
 
   
  

test the obedience of the prophet” ( Kaw-
linson), nor yet that no ove 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 (ver. 10) was reduced to ask,
‘What way wenthe?’? 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 com-
manding his return, he should have remem-
bered,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. ]

Judges, Kadis, Kaimakams, and other
officers at the present day (see ch. xiv. 3;
Gen. ZxiV. 93 ; xxxili, 11 ;' xliii. 11°: Num.
oa tr; apd tty V1. 18s xiie 16 <1
Sam. 1x. 7,8; xii.3; 2 Kings v.5,15; viii,
8, 9).]

Ver. 8.—And the man of God said unto
the king, If thou wilt give me half thine
house [cf. Num. xxi. 18, of which, how-
ever, there is hardly a reminiscence. Ob-
viously, 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.

Ver. 9.—For so was it charged [Heb. he,
sc. the Lord, charged me] me by [ Heb. in]
the word of the Lord, saying, Eat no bread,
nor drink water [Participation in food—the
‘“‘eating salt’”—is in the East a token of
friendship and affinity ; a sign of close com-
munion 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.

Ver. 10.—So he went another way, and
returned not by the way that he came to
Bethel.

 

HOMILETICS.

Vers. 2, 8, 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 un-
availing, 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 owe people rather
than of theirking. They should be mercifully, and therefore OSU eT ae
this calf-worship had not and could not have the sanction of the on a 1
Whether they would hear, or whether they would forbear, they BHOHIG Boe that
God had not left Himself without witness; they should know that at a
there had been a prophet amongst them. The breach should not be she oF 104p
due warning of its sinfulness and its consequences. For a testimony unto ee
the man of God addresses the dumb altar, the sign and centre of the nor sys et
and proclaims not only its overthrow but the destruction of Jeroboam’s house an

the defeat of all his schemes.
And as, under such circumstances, mere threats, of whatsoever character and byfe ee, ee

ee ee

286 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. fou. xu. 1—10.

 

whomsoever spoken, would have had but little weight without *‘ sions 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 aportent? (1 Sam.
xii. 18.) Ifthe 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 ofa 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 power-
less, 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 intEeRDIcT. The man of God was commissioned at the same time to
put the city and inhabitants of Bethel under aban. 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, ‘‘ Kat 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 Hast 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 under-
stand 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 bouse
would not tempt him to eatof 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 common-
wealth 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 itsCH. xr. 1-—10.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 287

heresies and schisms was distinetly foretold by St. Paul himself (1 Cor. xi. 19; Acts
xx. 29, 3)). 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 creat
scliism 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 ? (Matt. xvii. 17, 18; xxvii. 20.) Or
can the Church universal err? (Matt. xvi.18.) Is her “Quod semper, quod ubique,”’
&e., 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 ii. OF
ef. ch. i. 9—11; 1 Tim. vi. 3- 5 (“ From such withdraw thyself”); Rom. xvi. 17;
Matt. xvii. 17; 3 John 9,10; Gal. i. 8; ii. 11. The Christian verity is not less
dear to God than was the teaching of Moses. 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 abie to say, whatever the issue,
Liberavt 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
EXCOMMUNICATION. 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 ‘‘ par-
takers of other men’s sins” (1 Tim. vy. 22). When John 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 ee
(Rom. xii. 4, 5)—if knowingly administered to the “notorious evil-liver, is pe,
condoning of his sin ; it is equivalent to bidding him God speed (2 John mt
so it makes the Church “ partaker of his evil deeds. i ‘Therefore put away ae
among yourselves that wicked person’’ (1 Cor. v. 18). But our pte ee
rather to social than ecclesiastical interdict. And it must be distinctly unders 00¢
that the refusal to eat and drink with notorious and incorrigible evil-livers 1S a& a
of Christian duty (see 1 Cor. v. 9—11; 2 Thess. 11. 14, 15; eee A No de
are not permitted to know them and to treat them like other ee ; eae
St. John’s hurriedly leaving the bath because of the presence there o he etd
Cerinthus, is one for which the so-called tolerance of the age can Tee ;
contemptuous smile; but the age is often wiser In 1ts own ee cee fe et
His apostles. Only let us remember, if we must treat aa - 3 ae fee ai
licans, how Christ treated the penitent publicans (cf. Luke i rae aa Churol
us not shrink from discharging this painful duty both to our oe ry “1
and our God. Among the secondary lessons of our SOT ine Ler ri DBO
1. That right shall triumph in the long run. The schisma ae ACen? SI

288 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. fox. x1. 1—10.

 

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” (Matt. xv. 13). “If this work be of men, it will come
to nought”’ (Acts v. 38).

‘‘ Our little systems have their day,
They haye their day and cease to be.”

Magna est veritas, &. The Babel of sects cannot last for ever.

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” (Psa.
ev. 14,15). The stars shall fall from their courses before a hair of their heads
shall be injured. Cf. Dan. iii. 27; vi. 22; 2 Kings 1. 10, &. But it may be
objected, ‘The saints and messengers of God have often been brutally outraged
and murdered’’ (Heb. xi. 85—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 xiv. 22). It was when Stephen was martyred that he saw ‘‘ Jesus
standing”—1.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 xiv. 19) that he was
caught up into Paradise (2 Cor. xu. 4). Sic iter ad astra.

8. The wicked cannot dispense with the prayers of the saints. “ Entreat the
face of the Lord thy God and pray for me”’ (cf. Exod. ix. 28; Num. xii. 2, 13;
Acts viii. 24). How often has this history repeated itself; and what a foreshadow-
ing of the world to come! Here was one of the synagogue of Satan worshipping
at the prophet’s feet, &c. (Rev. iii. 9). Observe, too, it is the part of a man of God
to answer threats with prayers. ‘‘ They are mine adversaries, but I, prayer”
(Psa. cix. 4, Heb.; ef. Psa. xxxv. 18 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, ‘‘ Healmy body;”’ how few, ‘‘ Heal my soul, for I have
sinned against thee’ (Psa. xli. 4). The plague of head or hand extorts more cries
for mercy than the plague of the heart (ch. viii. 88).

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. 11. 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,” &. 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 1t 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 GodoH. x11. I—10.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

 

 

HOMILIES BY VARIOUS AUTHORS.
Vers. 1—8.—The Fire of Jehovah. Jero}

tabernacles at his principal temple in Betl
officiated in person as high priest.

90am went to inaugurate his feast of

1el, and to give effect to the ceremonies

m
L » 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 d: nounced
the altar in the words betore us, which cont

ain a very remarkable prophecy; and
he authenticated his message by a miraculous sign. (Compare Mark xvi. 20.) The
subject teaches—

fe THar GOD SEES THE END FROM THE BEGINNING. 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
umstincts of animals—storing of food, provisions for young. Moths deposit their
eggs upon leaves, not used by themselves ag food, but proper to sustain the larve.
(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 out-
lines of the world’s history pre-written there (see Gen. ix. 25—27 ; Dan. vii.). © (2)
Particular example here. (Compare this with 2 Kings xxiii. 15—20.) The factg
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 7s 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 356 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 Chron. xiii. 19.) (8) 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 Amon,
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 (Phil. iv. 8). They encourage prayer.

Il. Taat H&E WILL CONFRONT THE SINNER IN JUDGMENT. 1. The message to
Jeroboam was to this very effect. (1) He bore His testimony against the altar.
Jt 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 (ch. xi. 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. (8) 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, Gal. iv. 21—31. (2) Here Jeroboam, like all other leaders “
apostasy, was a forerunner of the Antichrist. As the religion of the yeh
sin” is a caricature of the religion of Christ, so was that. of Jeroboam a parody
upon the Mosaic. (8) Josiah was a type of Christ, the true eae Ce
Isa. vii. 14.) Warning and mercy come before destruction. Lhe army of Judah

: : “obec sh. xii. 24), and in the mission of the man
was stayed from crushing Jeroboam (c¢ , Sea ahida HO
of God there was mercy in the warning. Let the sinner be admonished noi to

refuse the gospel.—J. A. M.

‘edicted the confusion of
3, 4—6.—The Man of Sin. When the man of God prec : ,
oon of Jeroboam, and gave the sign that the altar at Bethel should

U
1 KINGS.ae eae Pk ee I a

290 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. (cm. xr. 1—10.

 

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.

T. JEROBOAM WAS A TYPICAL SINNER. 1. He transgressed God's law—(1) In
making images. The law forbad this (Exod. xx. 4,5). But he made two eolden
calves. Note: Images of God must be caricatures, and God will not be mocked,
solemuly or otherwise, with impunity. How many frightful caricatures of Deity
has the “man of sin” perpetrated! (2 Thess. il. 8—12.) (2) In multiplying altars.
Legal worship was limited to one altar ‘‘in the place which the Lord should
choose”? (Deut. xvi. 16). This was to keep before men the one only Mediator
(Jom xiv. 65 27 Tume ii. 5). Therefore other altars than that at Jerusalem were
‘altars unto sin” (Hos. viii. 11). (3) In creating priests. According to the law,
none but sons of Aaron had a Divine vocation to the priesthood (Exod. xxx. 7, 8;
9 Chron. xxvi. 18; Heb. v. 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 vmpu-
dently. (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 (Rev. 1. 8).
(3) The spirit of his religion was political. He would not have troubled himself
with it had he not political ends to serve (ch, xii. 26—29). And to carry out these
he dissembled : “It is too much for you to go to Jerusalem !”

Il. His poom 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, Paulikians, Hussites, Lutherans, and such-like men
“from Judah.” (2) But against this testimony he invoked the civil power under
his usurped control (ver. 4). The spirit of persecution was there. ‘The modern
Jeroboam carried it further (Dan. xii. 21; Rev. xiii. 7; xvi. 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. (8) The altar,
then, was cloven, and the ashes of the spurious sacrifices poured out as with con-
tempt. 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
Exod. x. 16,17; Num. xxi. 7; Matt. v. 28, 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. (8) 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
(vers. 83, 34; 2 Chron. xiii. 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 (Dan. vii. 10, 11 ; 2. Thess: 1. 8)., Note: Let
those come out of Babylon who would escape her plagues.—J. A. M.

Vers. 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 Thess. ii. 3). In contrast to him we have to
consider the ‘ man of God,” in which character this prophet who confronted Jero-
boam at Bethel, is described. The instructions under which he acted teach us how
a saint should behave amongst workers of iniquity.

I. Hz MUST HOLD NO FELLOWSHIP 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 (Gen. xlili. 82). The Jews
would not eat with the Samaritans (John iy. 9); and they were shocked to seecu. x11. 1—10.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 291

 

 

 

 

Jesus eating with publicans and sinners (Matt. ix. 11). For the same reason Chri
tlans were forbidden to eat with ungodly persons (1 Cor. v. 11; see ga Hoh ae
17; 2 Thess. iii. 6,14; 2 Tim. iii 5; Jas. iv.4; 2 John 10). (2) The law ai
listinction between clean and uncle tog fs ie ee law of
c 4S é and unclean meats set forth not only the duty of avoidine
fellowship with moral uncleanness, but also with those who are moraliy unclean :
for the unclean animals represented “sinners of the Gentiles”? while the alowant
stood for the holy people ”’ of Israel (Acts x. 14, 84, 35). (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 sacra-
mental, it may have expressed a covenant with the Evil One! Those wl
together were understood to stand to each other in a covenant relationship (Gen
XXX. 43 —46). (4) In this light the Christian Eucharist sets forth the dovenend
fellowship, that we have, first, with Christ, and secondly, with those who are in
such fellowship with Him (see, in this light, John vi. 583—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 Sam. xii. 8 ; Job xv. 84).
(2) The king’s intention ‘was to do honour to the man of God, according to a
constant custom in the East (see 1 Sam. ix. 7; 2 Kings v. 15). The word nny
here translatec “reward,” would have been better rendered “ gift,” as in many
other placesitis. 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 Gen. xiv. 23; xxiii. 13—16; 2 Kings v. 16).

_ I. His INTERCOURSE WITH THEM SHOULD BE BRIEF. 1. While serving God he
ws safe. (1) His very testimony for God commits him to a course of conduct con-
sistent with it. This element of moral strength is lost to those who hide their light
under a bushel. (2) He hasa right to claim God's help (Matt. x. 19, 26; xxviii. 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 (ver. 8). (8) 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 him-
self a sign (see Ezek. xii. 11; xxiv. 24; Zech. ii. 8, margin). 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 frem 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. (8) 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 back 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 righteous-
ness of another (Gen. iii. 24). Our way back to God is the ‘‘new and living way
aspened in the blood of Jesus.”—J. A, M.

10 ate

Vers. 1, 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 gor-
geous 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 neighbouring kingdom of Judah. In words of terrible———e i toa a eee aad

292 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu, xm. 1—I0,

 

invective he delivered the message of the Lord. Who was he ? Josephus (Ant.,
viii. 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 thig
NAMELESS PROPHET let us look at the following :

I. His messace. 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 confi-
dence 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, &. 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 (ver. 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 Num. xix. 16. For fulfilment of prophecy read
2 Kings xxiii. 15—20. 8. Its merciful design. In ch. xu. 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 couraGEe. 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
ery arose, *‘ O altar, altar, thus saith Jehovah,” &c., 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, &c., may be cited. Show how requisite courage
is now to genuine fidelity to conviction, amongst sceptical or sinful associations.

III. His crepentTiALs. <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
Levit. xvi. 8, 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 xvi. 20; Acts ii. 43. In-
dicate the nature of the credentials which the world may fairly demand of Chris-
tian men in the present day; and show how far we fail in giving these, and the
causes of our failure.

ITV. His sarery. 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 seryants 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;
Luiuer at Worms, &. 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 ver. 6 with Matt. v. 44.—A. R.cH. xm. 1—10.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 298

 

Ver. 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 (ch. xii. 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 forewarnine
of the disasters that should surely befall him. The scene, described here with 80
ral instruction.

much simplicity and dramatic force, is full of mo
ESSNESS OF A WICKED MAN IN THE

I In the person of the king we see THE HELPL
HANDS OF AN OFFENDED Gop. The physical associations and the mental conditions
here presented are alike suggestive of this. Itis 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,” &c. (Psa. xxxix. 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,” &c. (Psa. xxxiii. 10). | “If this counsel or this work be of man,” &e.
(Acts v. 83). 3. The king’s inability to pray for himself reminds us how God some-
times forsakes those who forsake Him, go 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,” &c. (J Sam. xxviii. 15). 4. His appeal to the prophet to inter-
cede 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 penal-
ties that God often inflicts on those who trifle with His authority and defy His
power. Such is the curse that falls upon “ presumptuous sin.”

If. The behaviour of the prophet presents A FINE EXAMPLE OF MORAL DIGNITY
AND CONSCIOUS STRENGTH. 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,”
&e. (Luke xii. 4, 5). ‘If God be for us,” &c. (Rom. viii. 31). (2) The mag-
nanimity of one who feels that he is called to witness for God among men. The
prophet will not take advantage of the king’s he!lpnessness; 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,” &c. (Luke
ix, 54, 56). (8) 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.

Vers. 1—10.—I. Tur PRETENSIONS OF ERROR DEEPEN ITS SHAME. The idolatrous
altar was being solemnly consecrated. The people’s eyes were dazzled with the splen-
dour 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 ee
the mark for God's rebuke: it simply lent emphasis to His condemnation. T ey
had come to consecrate, and had really come to attend upon God while He dese-
crated 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. Dhe agent ty
whom God’s glory was vindicated. The insignificance of the pose "oe :
stained man deepened their qs? - oF hath chosen the weak things of the

he things which are mighty.
wT Eee os IDOLATROUS WORSHIP. 1. The an be Sane ae
place will be made an abomination and horror. Sin’s judgment will in the enSOME 2 lO TE

294

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

eee ec aia

[cu. x1. 11—34.

 

sin’s destruction.
who have wrought vt.
worshippers burned upon it.
ment upon the sinful.

fixed, the avenger named.
end of iniquity.

2. The sin will be wiped out in the blood and shame of those
The priests will be offered upon the altar, the bones of itg
The world’s sin will be ended in God’s fiery judg-
3. Lhe certainty of God’s purpose.
between the prediction and the fulfilment, but all was arranged.

Centuries intervened
The time was

There is no uncertainty in God’s mind regarding the
The decree has been recorded, the time fixed, THE MAN named by
whom He will judge the world in righteousness.
The altar was rent andits ashes poured out.

4. The sign meanwhile given.
The wrath revealed from heaven now

is proof that all God’s purpose shall be fulfilled.

III. MAN’S INABILITY 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.

needed none to shield him.
humiliation.
intercession with Jehovah.

God protects all those who serve Him.
He turns from idol and altar and priests, and requests the proplet’s
4. His arm is restored at the prophet’s request, and

It was the emblem of his house and of his people; they were
withered in the attitude of rebellion against God.

He

3. Jeroboam’s

2. The prophet’s safety.

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 to-day.

LV. SEPARATION ESSENTIAL FOR TESTIMONY.

were alike refused.

Jeroboain’s hospitality and reward

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.
says our speech.

Unless there be separation our testimony is a sham.

Our life un-

If we will speak God’s word to the sinful, our attitude must

reveal their distance from God aud the peril in which they stand. If our own heart
be filled with holy fear it may pass from us to them.—J. U.

EXPOSITION.

CHAPTER XII. 11—84.

THE DISOBEDIENCE AND DEATH OF THE
MAN oF Gop.—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 Jero-
boam, and a solemn warning for all time
against any, the slightest, departure from
the commandments of God. The very un-
faithfulness of this accredited messenger
of the Most High, and the instant punish-
ment it provoked, became part of the Divine
protest against the new régime, against the
unfaithfulness of Israel; whilst the remark-
able manner in which these occurrences
were recalled to the nation’s memory in the
reign of Josiah (2 Kings xxiii. 17, 18) made
it impossible for the historian of the theo-
eracy to pass them over without notice,

 

Ver 11.—Now there dwelt an old prophet
[Heb. a certain (lit. one) old prophet. For
this use of TON (=rec) ef. 1 Kings xx. 13;
4] at Bethel [[t is at first somewhat
surprising to find one of the prophetic order
residing here, at the very seat and strong-
hold of the apostasy, especially after what
we read in 2 Chron. xi, 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 sup-
pose that a sense of duty had kept this
prophet at his post (see note on ver. 1). The
fact that he remained, not only in the king-
dom, but atits 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 cha-
racter. It is quite possible that strong poli-
tical 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

°
wis
asAroH. xii. 11—84.]

295

 

felt it difficult to withdraw from a false posi-
tion. Or, finally, he may have taken the side
of Jeroboam because of the greater honours
and rewards that prince had to bestow
(see on ver. 18). There is a striking simi-
larity 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 ac-
cordance with the Septuagint here” (Raw-
linson, 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, aud that the plural has been intro-
duced here because it is uniformly found in
the later narrative. ‘‘ His son” (133), as
the lectio ardua, is therefore to be retained.
The use of the singular indicates that one
of them was at first the principal speaker.
Perhaps one hastened home with ihe 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 ii.,
lii., iv., passim); not merely because ‘‘the
latter would scarcely have witnessed the gol-
den calf-worship” (Bahr), 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.]

Ver. 12.—And their father said unio
them, What way went he? [The question
shows that the old prophet throughly under-
stood 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. UXX. deceviovow. Similarly most of
the versions. A very slight change in the vowel
points 1871") for IN") would give this sense]
what way the man of God went which
came from Judah.

Ver. 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, covite que cotite, to bring
the man of God back.} So they saddled him
the ass: and he rode thereon.

Ver. 14.—And he went after the man of

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

ke

ae oe Se under an oak
<; .e., the well-known oak
Possibly there was but one, or one of creat
s1ze, In the neighbourhood—such trees ate
comparatively rare in Palestine. Possibly
also this tree became well known from these
events. Itis singular that in another place
(Gen. xxxv. 8) we read of ‘‘the oak” (ids)
of Bethel, whilst in Judg, iv. 5 we read of
the yee tree ” (W2F\) of Deborah, between
Ramah and Bethel.’ And it is not at all
improbable, seeing that in 1 Sam. x. 3 we
read of the terebinth (Vas) of Tabor—in
the A. V. rendered “plain of Tabor ”—
which Ewald (“ Hist. Israel,” iii. 21; iv. 31)
considers to be only a dialectie variation of
Deborah, and remembering the great age to
which these trees attain, that the same tree
1s referred to throughout. ‘The word here
used, it is true, is MON (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

iby of Bethel. Both names are derived

from the same root (PIN fortis. Cf. Amos
li. 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 instruc-
tions to remain so near a place (see note on
ver.16) from which he was to vanish speedily,
and, if possible, unperceived. In any case
the action betrays his fatigue and exhaus-
tion], and he said unto him, Art thou the
man of vod that camest from Judah? And
he said, I am.

Ver. 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 par-
take of food, he would thereby remove the
ban and so neutralize one part of his mis-
sion. |

Ver. 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. |

Ver, 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.

Ver. 18.—He said unto him, I am aee ee ee

296

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[ou. x11. 11-34,

 

prophet also as thou art; and an angel
(Bahr observes that “he does not venture
to say that Jehovah spake to him, but says
an angel did.” Is itnot more probable tbat
the angel was mentioned, partly for the
purpose of giving an air of circumstantiality
and reality to his story, and partly to convey
the idea of his having a superior authority
for his message? A communication through
a celestial messenger would seem to have
been regarded as a higher form of revelation
than a subjective communication to the mind
of the prophet. Cf. Acts vii. 53; Heb. ii. 2;
Luke i. 13, 29; Acts xxvii. 23, &c. Observe,
the prophet speaks presently of ‘‘ the word
of Jehovah’’] spake unto me by [Heb. in;
same expression as in ver. 17] the word of
the Lord, saying, Bring him back with thee
into thine house that he may eat [Heb. and
he shall eat) bread and drink water. But
he lied to him. [These last words are in-
serted parenthetically; hence there is no
“but” inthe Heb. The true character and
designs and motives of this ‘ old prophet ”
have long been a crux interpretum (see Hall,
Contempl., i. 151—3.) Some, including
Josephus and most Jewish commentators,
have supposed him to be altogether a false
and lying prophet, such as are found plenti-
fully later on in the history (ch. xxii. 6;
Jer. xxviii. 1); but against this is the fact
that he was undoubtedly the channel of a
Divine communication (ver. 21). The real
difficulty, no doubt, les 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 le 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 ch. xxii. 22, accomplished the purpose of
God, which was to make the man of God a
sign to the men of that generation. Cf.
Isa, Rk. os /lgek, xii. 62 xxiv. 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 will 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 in-
fluence 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. |

Ver. 19.—So ke went back with him,
and did eat bread in his house, and drank
water (cf. ver. 10].

Ver, 20.—And it came to pass, as they
sat at the table [cf. Ps. Ixxviii. 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.

Ver. 21.—And he cried [same word as in
ver. 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, Foras-
much as thou hast disobeyed the mouth of
the Lord, and hast not kept the command-
ment which the Lord thy God commanded
thee.

Ver. 22.—But camest back, and hast
eaten bread and drunk water in the place,
of the which the Lord did say to thee, Eat
no bread, and drink no water ; thy carcase
(rather corpse ; ‘‘ carcase’’ is now a term of
disparagement, of which, however, there is
no ideain 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 (Gen. xxiii. 4),
Jacob (Gen. xlvii. 29; xlix. 29—31), and
Joseph (Gen. 1. 25).

 

See also the words of
Barzillai (2 Sam. xix. 37; and comparecH. x11. 11—34.]

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

    

297

 

2 Sam. ii. 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.]
Ver. 23.—And it came to pas:;, 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 'N'S &'233 is also
twice used (vers. 20, 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 }?
(‘‘for him ’’) to x99 ("40.7 or’ for “the

prophet”). But the 2 is here indicative of
possession (the dative of the possessor), as
in 1 Sam. xiv. 16, ‘‘ the watchmen to,” 7.e.,
of, 1 Saul,” “and 7b. xvi, 18, ‘°a son to
Jesse” (cf. Gen. xiv. 18 Heb.; 1 Kings vy.
29 Heb. ; Ruth ii.3 Heb.) We must therefore
render ‘“*He (the old prophet, but this is
not absolutely certain; the ‘‘man of God”
may be understood) 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. ~

Ver. 24.—And when he was gone [Heb.
and he went], a lion (Lions were evi-
dently numerous in Palestine in former
days, though they are now extinct. This
is proved by the names of places, such
as Laish, Lebaoth, &c., and by the con-
stant reference to them in Scripture. They
had their lairs in the forests, one of which
existed near Bethel (2 Kings ii. 24), and
especially in the thickets of the Jordan
valley (Jer. xlix. 19; Zech. xi. 3)] met
(Heb. found. The primary meaning of
NID is, no doubt, ‘‘ found accidentally,”
‘“came upon” (eipsr, invenit), but it is
often used of finding after a search (1 Sam.
ix. 4, &.), and it should be remembered
that this is the word used in vers. 14, 28) him
by [in, as below] the way, and slew him:
and his carcase was cast in the way [road,

 

 

 

 

highway, ver. 25], and the ass stood [Heb
standing} by it, the lion also stood [stand-
ing} 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 punish-
ment was marked by extreme severity: the
more s0, as the prophet was cruelly de-
ceived, and that by a brother prophet, who
claimed to have received a subsequent reve-
lation, and whom, consequently, it appeared
to be a duty to obey. And when it is ob
served 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 in-
justice. As I have discussed the question
at some length elsewhere (Homil. Quart.,
vol. iv. pp. 214—221), it must suffice to
say here that the difficulty is at once re-
moved 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 com-
mission, 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
(ver. 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 pre-
tended 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 (Rawlin-
son); 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 hig
return that interdict lost much of its force,
His eating and drinking, small matters inee ee

298

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

par ce ae

[cu. x11. 11—84.

 

themselves, were full of significance. In-
deed, 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 that, instead of wit-
nessing 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 re-
member 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 neces-
sarily 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 Cor.
v. 5). Only because we forget that death
is the gate of life do we comp!3in of the
severity of his doom. And as to the lying
prophet who wrought all this mischief es-
caping 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 be 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 (vers, 26—382)
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 (ver. 26), and a con-
firmation of the prophecy against the altar
of Bethel (ver. 32).]

Ver. 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 chastise-
ments would befall those who had left God
their Maker and were worshipping sense-
less images’ (Theodoret.)]

Ver. 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 ver. 21] unto the word ([Heb.
‘mouth, as ain, wer, ly or the Lord :
therefore the Lord hath delivered him
unto the lion, which hath torn [Heb. as
marg., broken. The word ‘‘is very expres-
sive, for the lion kills with one blow”
(Thenius)] and slain him, according to the
word of the Lord, which he spake unto
him.

Ver. 27.—And he spake to his sons, say-
ing, Saddle me the ass. And they saddled
him.

Ver. 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 ver, 26] the ass.

Ver. 29.—And the prophet took up the
carcase of the man of God, and laid it upon
the ass [%.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: Isa. xiv. 19;
Jer. xxii. 19; and especially 2 Kings ix.
10.)

Ver. 30.—And he laid his carcase in his
own grave [Matt. xxvii. 60. This was a
mark of profound respect (Ruth i. 17; Gen.
xxiii. 6)] ; and they mourned over him, say-
ing, Alas, my brother, [A customary
formula in lamentation (Jer. xxii. 18). It
hardly implies that ‘he was mourned and
buried as a relative of the family ” (Bahr).
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).]

Ver. 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 inon. x1. 11—34.|

the sepulchre (Palestine, being of lime-
stone formation, has a large number of
caves. ‘hese, 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 (see Conder, pp. 85, 96, 118,
&c.) Inthe 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
xxill. 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 arrange-
ment (of loculi) obtained at this early period.
The bodies may have been in much closer
contact. See 2 Kings xiii. 21. The LXX.
adds here, ‘‘ That my bones may be saved
with his bones; ”’ an obvious gloss, founded
on 2 Kings xxiii. 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, i. p. 145.]

Ver. 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 multiphed. Rawlinson
gathers, “‘from the mention of the great
high place in 1 Kings 111. 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, how-
ever, 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 his-
torian has represented the prediction or
affirmation of the old prophet in the lan-
guage of his own time] which are in the
cities of Samaria. [Obviously, these exact
words caunot have been used by the prophet
of Bethel, for Samaria dates its existence
and name from the reign of Omri (1 Kings
xvi. 24). The compiler of the Kings pro-
bably found the term in the documents
which he used, or possibly, as already sug-
gested, translated the prophet’s meaning Into
the language of a later day] shall surely
come to pass.

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS,

 

 

    
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
  
  
   
   
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
  
 
   
 
   
 
  
  
    
 
   
   
 
   
 
  
   
 
  
 
  
  
 
   
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
   
 
 
   

299

ate

Ver. 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.,viii. 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 ch. xii. 11] of the people
priests of the high places : whosoever would
(Heb. pleased], he consecrated (Heb. filled
his hand, Inthe 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 un-
leavened bread, were put into the hands of
the candidates for the priesthood, and
waved before the Lord before they were
offered on the altar (Exod. xxix. 22—26;
Levit. vill. 25—28), To ‘fill the hand”
consequently became a synonym for con-
secration] 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” (Exod. xxix. 1, &c.), he
demanded one bullock and seven rams as
the offering on consecration (2 Chron.
xill. 9], and he became one of the priests
[Heb. and he became priests, &c. So the
Chaldee. LXX. kai éyévsro tepetc] of the high
places.

Ver. 34.—And this thing [Heb. ‘in this
thing :” 7293, Cf. 1 Chron. vu. 23; ix. 33]
became sin unto the house of Jeroboam,
even to cut it off, and to destroy it from off
the face of the earth [ch. xv. 29. The
forfeiture of the crown would bring in its
train, almost as a matter of course, the
destruction of his family (ch. xiv. 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. }ee

300 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [ou. xm. 11—84.

 

HOMILETICS.

Vers. 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, swirging 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 whis-
pered 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 am
adjoining city, might justly be used, ‘‘ All the city was moved, saying, Who is
this?”’ (Matt. xxi. 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 xxiii. 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 xii. 20; Acts ii. 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 cvents 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 con-
fronted their king as he was in the act of sacrificing, had denounced his inno-
vations, had foretold the overthrow of his policy and dynasty, and had then
wrought wonderful works in attestation of his mission. The strangers listen with
bteadily increasing wonderment. Had this man been “a murderer whom ven-
geance 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 way-
faring 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, &e. 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, andCH. x11. 11—84,] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 801

 

 

they would ask, what this messenger of the Most Hich
could have done between morning oe |
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
(ver. 26). Not improbably he proclaimed it again to the crowd which awaited his
return. ‘‘ fle 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’” (ver. 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 judg-
ment 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 cthers 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 frrther 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 cireumstances 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 dis-
tinctly reversed his corimission; 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 ery, ‘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 1 this visitation w ould
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 Gis cna mt
be long in discovering that these things were an allegory. As Br Gee at
says Lord Bacon, ‘‘ preceded letters, so parables were more le ae a
ments.” May we not add that acted parables were still more ancier an spc ; :

Taraui iking heads of the tallest poppies, belongs to the
ones. A Tarquin, striking off the ie A ates tan sas
beginnings of history. This idee ie age a oe Baw love was semen

hhemselves (Isa. xx. 83; Ezek. xxiv. 24; iis Rls Ory At
ae God” ‘eiorrenet was a parable, an object-lesson of the most impressive

this miracle-worker,
and evening to bring this terrible judgment802 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. fon. x1. 11—34.

 

kind as to the doom of the unfaithful people of God. In his end, men might see
a fore-shadowing 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 (ch.
vili. 48, 52, 66; xiv. 7; Levit. xxvi. 12; Deut. xxvi. 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? §o had they. Had God spoken to him? He had also spoken
to them, and moreover, had given them a charge not unlike his. [or 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,” &c. 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 ery which had been raised before
when Israel made its first golden calf (Exod. xxxu. 8). It is almost certain, there-
fore, 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
(Levit. xxvi.1; Deut. iv. 16, 25; v.8; xxvii. 15, &.) 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 revela-
tion 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 authori-
texive as that which this dead prophet had recentlyreceived. But of late a new teacher
had appeared amongst them, in the person of their king, who presumed to counter-
mand 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-
verting 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, ‘ Thow shalt.’ There was this difference between them, that the first
inculeated disobedience to but one command, whilst the second contravened a
whole system; but this very divergence would make the parallel all the more
impressive. ‘‘Tf,” 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, con-
firmed by many signs, and go after false gods,” &. 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 Cor. iv.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, whcse sin was
much greater, death and superadded infamy. We see this—cH. x11. 11—34.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 803

L; 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 erave.”
The rest were devoured of beasts and birds. (Cf. ch. xiv. 11 with ch. xiii. 28.)

2. In the case of his intrusive priests. If they escaped a violent death, their
remains experienced disgrace worse than death (ver. 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 ch. xiy. 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 Jer. lii.; Lam. passim ; Pss. Ixxiv., exxxvii.) The people to death, the land to
lions! (2 Kings xvu. 25.) Could the analogy be much closer ?

But indeed the analogy does not end there. De te fabula narratur. The Chris-
tian 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,” &c. ‘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 OLp PropHet. Observe—

1. It was the false prophet that was old. Age should bring wisdom (Job. xxxii.
7; ch. xii. 7), and piety. But see Homiletics, p. 225. The old king (ch. xi. 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 mes-
senger. 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. XXYV {. ae 4

3. The old prophet was in Bethel. ‘ Where Satan’s seat is” (Rev. ii. 3). But
God had not fixed the bounds of his habitation. What wonder If, like him who
‘pitched his tent toward Sodom” (Gen. xii. 12), he fell into temptation and sin %
The old prophet, in his way, has ‘‘lifted up his eyes and beheld the plain of Be
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 vwwo masters. Though ee oe up
molten images, a sanctuary, a priesthood, he raises no protest. ut ae ae
boam burns incense and sacrifices, he does not sanction the proceeding y iis
presence. But he compromises the matter by sending his sons. : pee ne
proboque, Deteriora sequor.” ‘He that wavereth is like a wave o ne aa ( Hee
with the wind and tossed” (James i. 6). The temporiser soon finds difficu i in as
path. Those who try to gain both worlds generally Cone lose meee ae a
conduct of ver. 18, he could not ree and after the prophecy of ver. 82,
he could expect no advancement trom the King. o

§. The old prophet stoops to lies. And ve ae Sead es ae
2 ee ia Bre ere chayacter andl qondaet were equally strange.

ixture of a man. s hee de ebe eats des
But, las! is 9 common thing 1 And mens ra or optus git 0

ant: 1 insi v1 iness, lig ce one
ee we ane eee Me eta for God’s ministers to fall into sin. _
not imply piety. Itis no new S God. It was his tongue, not the lion’s paw,

6. The old prophet slays a man of 4 i ee he i‘ Svachet'ia the inetrds

really slew a man more righteous and better304 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. fom. xu. 11—84,

 

ment of a murder (cf. John viii. 44). ‘‘ What shall be given unto thee, or what shall
be done unto thee, thou false tongue ?” (Ps. cxx. 3.) Let us take care lest we destroy
with our meat one for whom Christ died (Rom. xiv. 15). Let us remember—

‘‘ What guilt, what grief may be incurred
By one incautious, hasty word.”

Now let us turn to the Man or Gop. 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 unpre-
pared for such unblushing deceit. We should probably have done the same. Yet
we have had manifold warnings (Matt. vi. 15; xxiv. 11.; Acts xx. 29; 1 John
iv. 1; 1 Tim. iv. 1, &.) We have been taught that if ‘“‘an angel from heaven
preach any other gospel unto us,” it is at our peril we listen (Gal. 1.8). We have
been reminded that ‘‘ Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light” (2 Cor.
xi. 14).

2. oe man of God is decewed by les. It is a favourite device of the enemy.
He is the “ father of les” (John vi. 44). It was thus he deceived our first parents.
That weapon has answered so well that he plies it again and again (cf. 2 Cor. iv. 4;
2 hess. 1. 211),

38. 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, &c., does not
endure to the end. ‘* Let him that thinketh he standeth,” &c. ‘* Whosoever shall
keep the whole law and offend in one point he is guilty of all,” because he is guilty
of disobedience. ‘‘ Kvilis 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” (Matt. xxvii. 4).

5. The man of God hears his doom in silence. ‘*He was speechless.” ‘TI be-
came dumb and opened not my mouth, for it was thy doing.” ‘ Being convicted
by their own conscience ” (John viii. 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 Pet.iv.17).
The teacher shall receive the greater condemnation (James iii. 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 admoni-
tion 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 xxiii. 18).
His honourable funeral (cf. Isa. liii. 9; Matt. xxvii. 60) and the respect subse-
quently 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 »ro-
phet (ver. 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 sin-
ners” (Psa. xxvi. 9) is his ery. “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.”CH. x11. 11—84.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 305

rc rina ga
The deceived dies; the deceiver lives

lion which slew the comparatively innocent man of God would not touch the —
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. Pss, lea, Axxiit., &¢e.) ; what a proof of a life to come, where each shall receive
his just recompense of reward! o the Jew, suckled in a creed of temporal reward
&e., this history would present some anxiol :
our Prophet, Priest, and King ‘ brought lif

But how different their lot in life.

is problems, all of which are clear since
e and immortality to light.”

HOMILIES BY VARIOUS AUTHORS.

Vers. 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 (Isa. Revue i: Psa.
cxxv. 5). He had already tempted the man of God by means of the schismatic
king, and failed; his next work is to see what influenco 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 ig
seen—

I. IN cHoosInG HIS INSTRUMENTS. These were—l. “ 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 wou

Id 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 hospi-
tality 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 subser-
vient to those of the devil. Let your motives be pure and godly.

II. In ustne tHEem. 1. See the stratagem in Eden, repeated. (1) Had Satan
tempted Eve in his proper character he would have failed (1 Tim. x1. 14). So the
man of God was proof against the solicitations of the king whom he discerned to be
the ‘‘man of sin” ofhistime. (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. (8) 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. i(h) 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 =e refused a kings
1 KINGS.806 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. fom, xitr, 11—384.

 

will he withstand a prophet? (Jer. xxili. 18; Amos u. 11.) (8) The spirit of les
(ver. 18). Now is Satan transformed into an angel of light. Could ine 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 faticue and fasting (compare Matt. iv. 2—4). No example, save that of Jesus
may be followed implicitly—J. A. M.

Vers. 20—22.—The Voice of Reproof. No man of God will deliberately sin
against God (John viii. 44; 1 John iii. 9; v. 18). But the good are liable to be
surprised or deceived into transgression (Jamesi. 183—15; 1 John u. 1, 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. Hz SINNED AGAINST THE WoRD or JEnovaH. 1. This is evident wpon 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” (vers. 1, 2, 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 (ver. 9); to the old prophet (ver. 17). 2. But
could not God revoke or modify Hisword? (1) Certainly. He did so to Abraham
(see Gen. xxii. 11, 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 dis-
puting it that he was taken in the snare (vers. 18,19). 38. 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” (ver. 21). ‘The revoca-
tion came immediately from the mouth of the old prophet. Note: We are respon-
sible for the proper use of reason in religion. (2) Faith m the word of the Lord
must be implicit. The Bible is that word. The evidence that it is such is con-
clusive—external, internal, collateral. (8) 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.

Il. By THE WoRD oF JEHOVAH HE WAS REPROVED. 1. This came to the man
of God himself. (1) The reading of the text would lead us to couclude that it
eame to the old prophet. The words 32°’ WW here rendered, ‘‘ who brought him
back,” are in verse 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 (Gen. xxii. 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 demonstra
tion. 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 mischiefto which we have
been accessories will be discovered? 38. It was terribly severe. (1) He is doomed
to die. “Sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” We all die in conse-
quence of sin entailed. But here is an actual ‘‘sin unto death” (1 John v. 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 ver. 26; ch. xx.
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.cH. xr. 11—34.} THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 807

 

 

Vers. 283—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 abomina-
tions he was sent to denounce. For this he heard the Divine voice of reproof,
and went torth to suffer accordingly, as detailed in the text.

I, THE SEQUEL VERIFIED A REMARKABLE PROPHECY. 1. Review the prophecy.
(1) Ver. 22. He was, therefore, doomed to die away from his home; and,
presumably, by violence. (2) With what solemn feelings would he see his agg
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) Vers. 29, 30. He was met and slain by
a lon, and his corpse was east 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 Cor. ix. 27; 2 Cor. xiii.
6,6). (8) Judgment begins at the house of God, but falls more terribly upon the
wicked (1 Peter iv. 17, 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 FULFILMENT WAS ATTENDED BY REMARKABLE SIGNS. 1. Miracle con-
trolled the instincts of anvmals. (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 ws admire the Dwine 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 a in
the days of His flesh, dwelt among the wild beasts in the wilderness, and Jae
trolled the movements of fishes in the depths (Mark 1,13; Matt. xvi. a3 ae v.
4—7). This power over the instincts of the lion and ass is but a sample gt or
responding dominion over every department of nature. And the resources of this

: x justi ‘cy. 8. But what ts the mystical mean-
power are the resources of justice and mercy. 3. But a, eae
ang of the signs? (1) The death of the man of God was judgment, a is ie ‘

licity with the sin of Ephraim in eating and drinking in that polluted place.
a o last of the series of warnings to Jeroboam before the Hoan GoumneT of ae
house to destruction (see ver. 83). (2) The lion that inflicted the penal tee 40
symbol of Judah, of its OVA and eapecgy of Seta ih ae on ,
minated. Hence Messiah is described as the Judah ” (se

i “ious ah was to be a type. Messiah

Gen. xlix. 9,10; Rev. v. 5). Of this glorious Lion, oh PO ROE of Jadah

isits the sin of Ephraim in the apostasy of the son of Ne Pe ae pas
for complicity in Hts abominations (see Foe EO sane ne MUS eae
strike down the forms of ARORIARY 14. 15); but not of Judah ; for it is difficult to
the symbol of issachar (Gen. xlix. 1, 12), © better rendered, ‘‘and him shall
jaatity, the Tranation VeEE® sh Nea pod tho ea and the branches of the
the peoples ey pegs up ee, es pe ee of this judgment of God unen
choice vine.’ s the Nad 6s “Bdaghe,
the sin of Jeroboam, and then carried the areas’ aay Craua ue eee sieht
the son of Abijah, of the house ay eS hee of Ahi ah the Shilonite (ch. xv.
the house of Jeroboam, fulfilling the prop see du a aie EBs Ganenieneet
97—30). How manifold is the wisdom of Go P

J. A.M.308 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cH. xm. 11—384.

 

Vers. 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, there-
fore, 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 entail-
ments 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 1s 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 *judg-
ment 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, dis-
cerning 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
wrone-doing! (2) 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! (38) He“ mourned over him, saying, Alas,
my brother!” This exclamation (‘M8 ‘1) was the refrain of a lamentation (see
Jer. xxii. 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 Jer, xxx. 7 3\Hzek. vi, 11; Joela. 15; Amos v. 16, 17; Rev. xvii. 1O—19). With
the old prophet this was more than aconventional mourning. He mourned for him-
self before God. 2. His conduct also expressed faith. (1) He commanded his sons,
when he died, to lay his bones beside those of the man of God. He believed him
to be a man of God in reality, notwithstanding this single act of disobedience for
which he had suffered death. There are ‘‘sins unto death,” viz., of the body,
which do not involve the final death of the soul. He desired to be with him in
the resurrection. ‘The concern of the ancients respecting the disposition of their
bodies after death arose out of their faith in a resurrection (see Gen. 1. 24—26;
Exod. xiii. 19; Heb. xi. 22; see also 2 Kings xiii. 20, 21). (2) He gave as the
reason of his command the faith he had in the certainty of the prophecy of the
man of God (ver. 82). And in further testimony of his faith put an inscription on
the tomb (see 2 Kings xxiii. 17). He desired to be associated in death with the
denouncers of Jeroboam’s sin rather than with those involved in that sin. Nor
would he be identified in the judgment with perverters of true worship. (3) By
this faith his bones were spared when those of the priests and votaries of Jeroboam
were burnt upon the altar by Josiah (see 2 Kings xxii. 19). By a corresponding
faith shall we be saved from the judgments of the more illustrious Son of David
upon the man of sin of the mystical Babylon.

II. Bur JEROBOAM ENCOUNTERED THE EXTREMITY OF WRATH. 1. He disregarded
the goodness of God. (1) The conditional promises by the hand of Ahijah were
very gracious (ch. xi. 87—39). What a magnificent opportunity he had! But he
missed it. (2) What opportunities have we wasted? Who can estimate their
value? No opportunity of glorifying God should escape us. 2. He disregarded
his remonstrances. (1) The judgments upon Rehoboam were lessons to him.
The same God who in them visited the sins of Solomon had also set him upon the
throne of Israel, and would deal with him upon the same principles. But he
sinned against this admonition. (2) Then came the warning from the man of God
at the altar, That God was in this warning was left without doubt by the signs
(vers. 3—6). Thesestaggered him for a moment; but there was no true repentance,
(3) Then came the final warning in the death of the man of God for being impli-
cated, though by a deception, in his sin. This also was shown to be from God by
miraculous signs (ver. 64). But this also he disregarded (ver. 83). (4) Now,
therefore, the law of extremity must take its course. He and his house are devoted
to destruction (ver. 34). This last warning was written in letters of blood. God
gaye it to Him at the expense of His ownservant. And He warns us at the expenseCH. x11, 11—34.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 809

 

of His own Son; and if we finally reject Christ the extremity of eta
and we must encounter the extremity of wrath.—J. A. M. y of mercy 1s spurned,

Vers. 18, 19.—Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. The
miraculous element in this chapter is, with many, a reason for its rejection. The
same reason might lead us to reject the story of our Saviour’s life, and deny the
possibility of supernatural revelation. If miracles and signs ever occurred they
would be likely to do so at the time described in this chapter. Idolatrous practices
were being set up. Many who had been worshippers of Jehovah had been seduced.
Worldly policy, social influences, moral enervation, following on the extravagant
prosperity of Solomon’s reign, and an inherent tendency to sensuous worship, were
all combining to induce the people to put away all belief in Jehovah. Then, if
ever, He would fitly reveal His power, as He did at the later crisis when Elijah
faced the false prophets on Carmel. The effect on Jeroboam was nil, but the
godless had warning, and the secret worshippers of the Lord still left in Israel were
encouraged. ‘The story of the temptation and fall of this prophet, who at least
delivered one message with fidelity, is tragic and suggestive. After reading it we
have left with us the following thoughts:

I. THAT A STRONG TEMPTATION HAD BEEN RESISTED, Jeroboam had failed to
reach the prophet by violence, but resolved to overcome him by craft. Terrible as
had been the effect of Jehovah’s wrath (ver. 4), the king’s conscience was not
stirred. His heart was not touched, though his arm was withered. Hence he did
not ask the prophet to pray that his sin might be forgiven, but that his arm might
be restored. Immediately after, with a show of civility and gratitude, he invited
him to his house. Clearly this was not in order to honour the prophet, but to
weaken the effect of his message. The people had heard it, and had been moved
by it; but if they saw the messenger going down in seeming friendship with their
king, this would diminish, perhaps destroy, the effect of his words. Lest this
shculd happen, the prophet bad been forbidden to enter any house. As the repre-
sentative of Jehovah, he was to show that God would not dwell amongst the people.
Firmly, therefore, he rejected the invitation of the king, saying, “If thou wilt
give me half thine house, I will not go in with thee, neither will I eat bread nor
drink water in this place,’ &e. The temptation was resisted ; the victory won.
Give illustrations of similar moral conquests. A young man tempted to impurity
says, ‘‘ How can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?” Another sits
silent among the scorners, and cannot be induced to join or smile with them, &e.
There are times when we are specially able to resist : e.g., when we come fresh from
the influences of a Christian home ; when we are feeling the impression of an earnest
sermon; when we are made serious by the death of a dear friend. Under such
influences many obey the command, “ Resist the devil, and he will flee from you!”

Il. THAT A NEW TEMPTATION WAS SUCCESSFUL. (Read vers. 11—19.) (1) What
were the motives of this old prophet of Bethel? Probably he was not a false
prophet, though these existed; as tares amongst the wheat, as Judas among the
apostles. Nor must he be charged with the malignant wish to bring this man to
huis death. Picture him as one who knew his Lord’s will, but did it not. He had
been silent, instead of protesting against the impiety of Jeroboam, and now felt
rebuked by this daring stranger. To entertain him might reinstate him in his oe
good opinion, and in the eyes of the people. Hence he gives the invitation, eo
when it is resisted another sign of his moral decadence appears, and he tells a he
about receiving a message from the Lord. (2) How came this eee -
succeed? Not improbably there was some self-complacency in one who te i
resisted the king successfully, and a sense of false security which is te y if
resting under the terebinth instead of pressing on homewards. a serve aa
The conquest of one evil may only bring on the assault one Ler eee
sensuality is repressed, scepticism may arise and prevail. e some s lorg

ty -long flict we have to wage. If the
that it is not a momentary but a lite long cont A cross sin fails
Egyptians are drowned, the Amorites and Cee eu ee Put oka oe
to conquer us, but a subtle sin may lead us to bitter bondage.810 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [on. x1r. 11—34.

 

to our soul, “Take thine ease; ” but always, and everywhere, must listen to the
command, “ Watch, and pray, lest ye enter into temptation.” 2. Lingering near
scenes of temptation may imperil us fatally. Had the prophet not rested he might
not have been overtaken, but would have crossed the border line of the two king-
doms. As the moth flutters round the candle, so do some hover about sin. They
read of vices which they think they would never commit, and choose associates
unlike what they mean to be, and yet dare to pray, “ Lead us not into temptation.”
He who “‘standeth in the way of sinners,” as one half inclined to join them, may at
last ‘sit in the seat of the scorners,” as one who has united with them. “ Avoid
it, pass not by it,” &e. (Prov. iii. 15).

TIl. THAT A TRIVIAL ACT OF DISOBEDIENCE WAS A GREAT SIN. It seemed a
small offence to go home with a brother prophet; but observe that he was in no
doukt as to the will of God. He was not really deceived by that le about the
angel’s message. He knew that he was forbidden to enter any house, and that the
reason for that inhibition was weighty : he knew further that God would not
contradict Himself, or alter His command, yet his sensuous wish for food and rest
prevailed. An act may seem trifling, but the principle involved in it may be
momentous. So it wasin Eden. To eat the fruit, or to leave it untouched, might
appear a question of small consideration ; but man’s decision of it, ** brought death
into the world, and all our woe.” It is in trifles that we test the willingness ot our
children’s obedience. If they refuse to do an unimportant act because to do it
would be to disobey us, we are more satisfied with their sensitive loyalty than if
the act were notoriously evil. To sin for the sake of a passing pleasure is morally
worse than to sin for the sake of a kingdom, for the temptation is less.

TV. THAT A TRAGIC PUNISHMENT WAS INFLICTED. (Read vers. 23—25.) Note the
points which marked out this event as the result of God's displeasure, and not of
accident ; e.g., that it was foretold (vers. 21, 22), and that the lion did not kill the
ass, nor eat the dead body. Show how Jesus Christ used the judgments of God, as
recorded in the Old Testament, for purposes of moral and religious instruction. Sin
merits punishment. ‘ We are sure that the judgement of God is according to truth,
against them which commit such things,” &. (Rom. ii. 2—5). In the consciousness
of frequent disobedience let the prayer arise, ‘‘ God be merciful to me a sinner.”
—A. Rh.

Vers, 20—22.— The Disobedient Prophet. The ‘old prophet,” though here em-
ployed as the medium of a Divine message, had acted falsely towards lis “ brother”
(“he lied unto him,” ver. 18). The fact that he was content to remain in the land
under the rule of Jeroboam was against him. As the Levites had been supplanted by
a base priesthood, so the prophets in Israel would seem to be a degenerate race. It
must have aggravated the bitterness of the remorse the ‘‘man of God” felt, that
the prophet who had dealt so treacherously with him should be commissioned to
pronounce the Divine sentence on his transgression. His case seems altogether a
hard one. How shall we explain it? What lessons does it teach ?

I. THE INFLEXIBILITY OF A Diving command. The command had been given
clearly and positively (ver. 9), and He who gave it had in no way revoked it. The
reasons for it remained as they were. The man of God greatly erred in giving
more weight to the report of an angelic message delivered to another than to the
clear voice of “‘the word of the Lord” in his own soul. ‘ God is not a man, that he
should lie; nor the son of man, that he should repent” (Num. xxiii. 19), and His com-
mands can be abrogated only by others that are equally explicit and authoritative.

Il. Tue DANGER OF PARLEYING WITH THE TEMPTER. ‘The integrity of the man of
God was imperilled as soon as he began to listen to the persuasion that would lead
him astray. The first deliverances of conscience are generally right, and we run
great moral risk when we begin to question them. He who had resisted the allure-
ments of the king yields to those of the seeming prophet. Moral evil is always
most fascinating when it assumes a sacred disguise, and the false ‘‘ prophet ’’ is the
most plausible and dangerous of all tempters.

Ill. THE GUILT OF DISOBEDIENCE. ‘To obey is better than sacrifice,” &e.en, xm. 11—34.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 311

(1 Sam. xv. 22, 23). The spirit of disobedience is the root of all practical iniquit
By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners” (Rom. v. 19). A seer ae
trifling offenee may thus, especially under certain circumstances have an. eee
meaning, and entail fatal consequences out of all proportion to its patard te
It is on this principle, that every act of wilful wrong is a violation of an it ge
obedience, that St. James says, ‘* Whosoever shall keep the whole law
offend in one point, he is guilty of all” (James ii. 10).
LY; THE TEMPORAL PENALTIES THAT FOLLOW THE SIN EVEN OF GOOD MEN. The
“man of God” may have been at heart a true prophet, and may have received ix
another world the eternal reward of the true prophet; but his transgression involv j
lim in a violent death, and he was denied the privilege, so much desired by : a 2

spirit of

, and yet

Hebrew, of having his body laid in the “‘ sepulchre of his fathers.” Sin m Ly be
pardoned and yet punished. The temporal penalty may be inflicted thouch rine
mercy cancels the eternal. David’s sin is forgiven, but his child must die (2 Sam.
xu. 13, 14). Christ is ‘‘ the propitiation for our sins,’”’ and His blood “ cleanseth us
from all sin,” but He promises us no immunity from the ill effects, the shame and
loss and pain and sorrow in which our sin may in this world involve us.—W.

Vers. 11, 12.— The Tempter. I. Tut PRoPHET’s SIN AND DOoM. JTivil is never
wanting in emissaries. It finds them among the so-called followers of God as well
as inthe world. This was—l. a prophet. The possession of privileges does not
ensure salvation. Balaam took the wages of unrighteousness. ‘Man y will say to
me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name?” &c. Is
our own life on a level with the place God has given us? If not, we may be
among those whose influence and suggestions place stumbling-blocks in the
path of God’s children. 2. He dwelt at Bethel, without testifying against its
sin, and unmoved by fear of God’s judgment. How many who know God’s will
and have declared it to others remain in Bethel still! 8. Hisinstant resolve. The
very story of the prophet’s obedience led him to tempt the man of God. His own
religion was not like this, and this must therefore be either hypocrisy or delusion.
Had the king’s request not been made publicly it might have been acceded to.
There must be.a weak point somewhere, and he will try to findit. Lower life is
ever suspicious of a higher, and is anxious to prove that it is not higher. The
prophets in Bethel are ever on the watch to break the credit of the men of God
from Judah. Is thine the spirit of the learner or of the scorner? Does the nigher
life jadge thee and fill thee with desire to press upward, or only with angry sus-
picion and desire to show it is no better than thine own? ‘They who are of the
wicked prophet’s spirit still do his work.

Il. THe FALL OF THE MAN OF Gop, 1. How the tempter found him. Te sat,
weary and faint, resting under the shadow of the tree. The invitation to eat bread
had more power there than before in Bethel. ‘The tempter knows his opportunity.
In times of weakness and need we should hide ourselves in the joy and strengta of
God. 2. The weapons he uses. When an appeal to appetite fails, he professes his
oneness with him and uses falsehood. “I am a prophet also as thou art, and an
angel spake unto me,” &. To eat bread. in Bethel with a prophet did not seem
quite the same thing as eating with the idolatrous king; nor does fellowship with
those who profess to know God, but yet remain 1m communion with the world, seem
the same thing as fellowship with the world itself. It is thus that the testimony cf
the Church against idolatry and iniquity has so largely ceased. And then there 1s
Scripture for every concession. ‘ An angel spake unto me. . . but he lied unto
him.’ <A worldly Church ensnares where the world itself cannot. 3. Lhe cae
neglect. God was as near to him as He could be to his tempter, and he mighbhane
inquired of Him. But in the weakness of the flesh he desired to have it 50. I sible
is only one preservative from spiritual shipwreck—a sincere desire to know what
the Lord saith, and a determination to follow that only. i

III. Hispoom. (Vers. 20—22.) 1. liwas uttered as he sat at meat. Conviction
found him in his sin, and the food he had desired became as wormyvood and gall to
him. 2. It came from the lips of his seducer. We do not rise in the world’s estima-

CeTHE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. fou. xrv. 1—20,

812

 

tion through compliance with its desires. As God used the lying prophet so will
He use the men of the world for the humbling of those who yield before their
temptations. 8. The penalty. Death in the land where he had sinned. His
carcase, buried in Bethel, declared the truth his obedience should have impressed.
God will judge His unfaithful servants. If not glorified in their service, He will be
glorified in their punishment.—J. U.

Vers. 23—34.—Judgment and its result. I. MERcy DISPLAYED IN THE MIDST
OF JUDGMENT. The sin may have been forgiven though the chastisement fell.
1. His body was preserved from dishonour. The lion’s ferocity was bridled ; the
prophet’s body was neither eaten nor torn; he guarded the remains from the fowls
of the air and the beasts of the field. (1) Though God chastises His erring people,
He will not utterly cast them away. (2) The fiercest instruments of His vengeance
can go only so far as He permits them. 2. The message he had borne received
added weight by his punishment. In his humiliation God was exalted. The
circumstances showed that the blow was from the hand of God, and the question
was no doubt raised in many a heart, if the Lord has so punished His servant's
error, what will Israel’s judgment be? 3. He still preached in his grave. He
was buried near the altar, and over his tomb was graven the story of his mission
and his fate (2 Kings xxiii. 17). °

II. Tor PUNISHMENT OF UNFAITHFULNESS. When all has been said that can
be of the attendant mercy, the judgment still stands ont in terribleness. The
prophet still preached, but the cry came up from the dark pathway of death.
His place was not among the vessels of mercy, but among the vessels of wrath. If
we eat in idolatrous Bethel, even though it be in ignorance, God’s hand will find us.
He punishes now in spiritual leanness, and that again leads to deeper judgment ;
in the falling away of our children into indifference and worldliness and sin, and
will not God demand their blood at our hand? God will have perfect compliance
in regard to the conduct of His own worship ; He demands ‘‘a pure offering.”
Are we making His word our only law? Whose altar are we serving, Jehovah’s or
Jeroboam’s ?

IJJ. BeTHEL’s ANSWER TO Gop’s waRNInGs. 1. The prophet’s fear. (1) He
owned God’s servant. He cared for his body, mourned over him with the cry,
‘Alas my brother!’’ placed him in his own tomb and had his own bones laid beside
those of the man of God. (2) He lifted up again God’s testimony (ver. 82). The
beginning of a better thing in Bethel is ever after this fashion: the honouring God’s
servants, cleaving to them, and continuing their work. 2. The king's unconcern.
We are not told that he did anything worse than he had done before; he simply
“returned not from his evil way.” And this became sin to his house, to eut it off
and to destroy it, &c. To bring upon ourselves God’s judgments we need do no
more than turn a deaf ear to His warnings.—J. U,

EXPOSITION.

his firstborn. We can hardly regard this
as a part of the discipline designed to

CITAPTER XIV. 1—20.

 

THE DEATH OF JEROBOAM’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 (ch. xiii. 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

 

reform the king, and so ayert the schism,
for the narrative distinctly conveys the im-
pression 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 hadCH. xiv. 1—20.]

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 (ver. 14).
He too, like Solomon, has sown to the
wind and now reaps to the whirlwind, This
section is omitted in the Vat. LXX.

Ver. 1.—At that time [or about (3) that
time. The king is now settled at Tirzah
(ver. 17). In ch. xii. 25 we left him resid-
ing at Shechem. The time referred to is
that somewhat indefinite period mentioned
in ch. xiii. vers. 33, 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 situa-
tion, 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 in-
teresting 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 four-
teenth century, considers the place to be
untenable by any military force, because
stones might be rolled down upon the
houses, from either Ebal or Gerizim”’
(Conder, p.16. Cf. Judg. ix. 36). It is very
probable that this consideration suggested
the transfer, of which Ewald despaired of dis-
covering the cause (‘‘ Hist. Israel,” iv. 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 (ch. xi. 28), But
the name was not uncommon—it was borne
by a son of Rehoboam (ver. 31; compare
Ahijah, below), and inferences from names
must necessarily be precarious] the son of
Jeroboam fell sick. [The historian un-
doubtedly mears us to see the finger of God
in this sickness. This was one of the
penalties of disobedience (Deut. xxviii. 22,
58—61; Exod. xxiii. 25].

Ver. 2.—And Jeroboam said to his wife
[Conscious that his proceedings would merit
Ahijah’s reproof, he is afraid to go in per-
son. And his wife—if in this particular we
may trust the LXX., an Egyptian princess—
could be more readily disguised. The com-

THE FIRST BOCK OF XINGS.

 

    
  
 
   
  
 
 
 
 
  
   
    
  
  
  
   
 
 
  
   
   
 
 
  
   
   
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
   
 
  
 

813

 

mission was 00 delicate to be entrusted to
astranger. ‘‘None might know it but his
own bosom, and she that lay in it” (Bp.
Hall). Jeroboam evidenily suspected that
this sickness was punitive, and he would
not have others think go 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 (ver. 4)] thyself, that thou
[Observe the archaic form AS for AX,
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,
&c.| to be the wife of Jeroboam; and get
thee to Shiloh [the modern Seiliin. ‘* There
is no site in the country fixed with greater
certainty than that of Shiloh” (Conder,
p. 44. See Judg. xxi. 19). The identifica-
tion, 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 Josh. xvi. 5; xviii.
1—10; Judg. xviii. 31; xxi. 19; 1 Sam. iy.
38; Jer. xli. 5. Presuming that Tirzah is
to be identified with T'iasir (sce on ver. 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
ch. xi. 29. Shiloh was probably the birth-
place, as well as the residence, of Ahijah.
It was in the territory of Ephraim (Josh.
xvi. 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 king-
dom, not by his great age, but by the sup-
position 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 dothat], which told me
that I should be king [Heb. he snake of me
for king] over this people. [So that he
had already proved himself a true prophet,
and so far a prophet of good.]

Ver. 3.—And take with thee [Heb. in
thine hand] ten loaves [Ten would seem
to have been a usual number (1 Sam. xvii.
18). On the subject of gifts or fees to pro-
phets, judges, &c., see on ch. xii. 7), and
cracknels [or cakes, as marg. The original
word D4) (7/2) pupugit) means “ pricked,”

or “spotted.” It is the word translated214

»

 

‘“mouldy” in Josh. ix. 6, 12, where Ge-
sexing 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 eruse [i.e., leather bottle. PAPA Bakbuk,
is clearly an onomatopoetic word, suggested
by the bubbling noise of liquids in empty-
ing] of honey [Spices and other delicacies
were often given as presents, and honey

as a special product of the country (Exod.
iii. 8; Deut. viii. 8; 2 Sam. xvii. 29. The
honey sent by Jacob to Joseph was prob-
ably ‘‘honey of grapes’). The present
vas purposely a poor one, for the sake of
maintaining the deception; i.e., ib 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 ch. xu. 6, for a cure. But we
find the same peculiarity, which some would
explain by the fatalism of the Hast, in 2
Kings i. 2, and ch. viii. 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 judi-
cial, it would be useless to ask for healing.
The infatuation which insisted on a dis-
guise for the purpose of deceiving the pro-
phet, who nevertheless was believed to be
able to divine the issue of the sickness, is
very characteristic, and has had many
parallels since.

Ver. 4.—And Jeroboam’s wife did so, and
arose, and went to Shiloh, and came [prob-
ably 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 asin 1 Sam.iv.15. Cf. Gen. xxvii. 1.
In amaurosis the pupil is set, and does not
contract with the light. A vartial para-
lysis of the optic nerve is common in ex-
treme old age] by reason of his age. [Heb.
for hoariness, t.c. old age. ]

Ver. 5.—And theLord 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 con-

cerming ON, properly ‘‘to,”’ ad, has themean-
ing of de, after verbs of speaking. Cf. Gen.
xx. @; 2 Sami iv, 9} edie Few. kl, BB.
Gesenius remarks on the similar use of
ef¢ in the New Testament: Acts ii. 25;
Eph. v. 82] ; for he is sick: thus and thus
{cf. Judg, xviii. 4; 2 Sam. xi. 25. A} is a

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

fou. x1v. 1—20.

form of NNT] shalt thou say unto her,
for it shall be, when she comeih in, that
she shall feign herself to be another woman
(Heb. make herself strange).

Ver. 6. And it was so, when Ahijah
heard the sound [Heb. voice] of her feet
as she came in [M2 should strictly be
plural, in agreement with mya feet. It is
in the singular, probably because the writer
is thinking of the woman. But see Ewald,
317 a,’ dnd.ofi 1d Sdm.:iy; 15)! ab) (Heb. 77]
the door, that he said, Come in, thou wife
of Jeroboam; why feigrest thou thyself to
be another? [Heb. makest thysclf strange,
as in ver. 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,” &c.] I am
sent to thee with heavy [same word as in
ch. xii. 15; there translated rough] tidings,
(Heb. omits. For the construction see
Ewald, 284 ¢.]

Ver. 7.—Go, tell Jeroboam, Thus saith
the Lord God of Israel, Forasmuch as I
exalted thee from among the people [com-
pare a2 Samy mi .8.5 Psa, dxmpii. 05.4
Kings xvi. 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],

Ver. 8.—And rent [same word as in the
former prophecy of Ahijah, ch, xi. 30, 31]
the kingdom away from the house of David,
and gave it thee: and yet thou hast not
peen as my servant David [who had bccn
proposed to Jeroboam as his example, ch. x1.
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. ch. xi. 33, 383; xv. 5], to do that only
which was right in mine eyes;

Ver. 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 Sam. passim; 1
Kings xi. 5, 6), though neither had set up
an organized idolism and ‘‘ made Israel to
sin’’]: for thou hast gune and made thee
other gods [in defiance of the decalogue
(Exod. xx. 4). Jeroboam, no doubt, in-
sisted that his calves were not idols, but
cherubie symbols. But God does not recog-
nize 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, Exod. xxxil, 4, 8.
See also Exod: ‘xxxiy. 17; Deut. ix. 12;
Judg. xvii. 3, 4. The ‘other gods” and the
“molten images’ are but two names forcH. xIv. 1—20.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 815

 

 

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, &c.} behind thy back [This strong ex-
pression only occurs here and in Ezek.
xxii. 35. It forcibly expresses Jeroboam’s
uutemptuous disregard of God’s revealed
will, In Psa. 1. 17, Neh. ix. 26, we have
sumewhat similar phrases]:

Ver. 10.—Therefore, behold, I will bring
evil upon the house [The punishment fell
on the house (ch. xv. 29), not, however, to
the exclusion of the prime offender (2 Chron.
xiii. 20; cf. ch. xxi. 29). The reader will
observe that the judgments denounced
against Jeroboam’s sin, like all those of the
Old Testament, are temporal. The recom-
pense to come is completely ignored. These
severe retributions are calculated and pro-
portioned precisely as if there were no here-
after] of Joroboam, and will cut off from
Jeropoam 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.” (Itis found in 1 Sam.
Ray. 25 2 Kanes vii 12s) xxi. 215 and 2
Kings ix. 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
(ch. ii, 385) on this subject, and the same
applies to Palestine; 7.e., the men sit down
for this purpose, covered with their garments
(Judg: iii. 214; 1 Sam, xxiv. 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 (Deut. xxx.
36; 1 Kings xxi. 21; 2 Kings ix. 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
(so Keil, al.); others (2) bond and free
(Gesen, al.) ; others (3) precious and vile;
and others again (4) minors and those of age.
(So Bahr, ‘‘ All the male descendants, even
the minors, were threatened with destruc-
tion.”) On the whole perhaps (2) is pre-
ferable], and will take away the remnant
(Heb, ‘‘ exterminate after” (Gesen.) oF

 

“sweep after” (Keil). The first rendering
is the more literal. The “after” igs ex-
plained, not as Bahr (“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 Jero-
beam, as a man taketh away dung [cf. 2
Kings ix. 37; Job xx. 7; Jer. viii. 2; ix.
22; xvi. 4, This word expresses the loathing
and contcmpt with which they would be
treated], till it be all gone.

Ver. 11.—Him that dieth of Jeroboam
[Heb. to Jeroboam, i.e., belonging to, of tha
house of. ‘Of Jeroboam,” conveys the
idea of his seed. It is possible that his wife
shared in the general doom], in the city
shell the dogs eat; and him that dieth in
the field shall the fowls of the air [Heb,
heavens, as in Gen. i. 26 ; ii. 19; vii. 23, &e. |
eat (This was a terrible threat to a Jew—
that the dead body should fall a prey to
dogs and wild beasts. Cf. Psa. Ilxxix. 2;
Jer. vil. 33; xvi. 4; xxxiv. 20; Ezek. xxix.
5, &c. For himit had a factitious horror,
because of the threatening of Deut. xxviii,
260; cl. Rey. xix. 17,18. it was, . there-
fore, 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 Sam. xvii. 46; cf. ver.
44); hence the devotion of Rizpah (2 Sam,
xxl. 10), and the complaint of the Psalmist
(Psa. Ixxix. 2). Cf. Homer, Iliad i. 4, 5.

*€ Whose limbs, unburied on the naked shore,

Devyouring dogs and hungry vultures tore.”
Dogs, it is well known, are the scavengers of
KIiastern 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 (Psa, lix. 6, 14) in search of garbage.
Vultures and other birds of prey perivrm a
similar office in the open country (Job xxxix.
29, 30; Matt. xxiv. 28)]| : for the Lord hath
spoken it.

Ver. 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 }] shall
die. [This was “the sign that the Lord
hath spoken” (ch. xiii. 3). The death of
the child at the precice moment of the
return should serve as an earnest and fore-
taste of the doom just denounced. |

Ver, 13.—And all Israe} shall mourn for
him [no doubt he was heir to the throne]
and bury him [mentioned to heightea the
contrast. He should be the one exception
to the rule of ver. 11]: for he [Heb. this]
ouly of Jeroboam shall come to the grave,
becaise in him there is found (Heb. was316

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

fon. xv. 1—20.

 

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 travel-
ling to Jerusalem to keep the feasts, and
that he even removed obstructions in the
road” (Bahr)] toward the Lord God of
Israel in the house of Jeroboam.

Ver. 14.—Moreover [Heb. end] the Lord
shall raise him up a king over Israel, who
shall cut off the house of Jeroboam [for the
fulfilment, see ch. xy. 29] that day: but
what? even now. [Rawlinson only ex-
presses 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 in-
asmuch 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 ver. 13 7? is used of
Abijah, “ this one alone,” &c. Iassume that
it has the same import here, viz., ‘“‘ this one
to-day,” t.e., “this one dies or is cut off
to-day,”’O)}' being understood,as constantly,
adverbially, = hodie (see, e.g., Gen. iv. 14;
xxil, 14; 1 Kings ii. 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 to-day,
judgment is already begun,” 7.e. As to the
rest, for NMY I would read NAS, which has
practically the same sound, and for which,
consequently, MFi}) is sometimes substituted
by the transcriber, as in ch. i. 18, 20, and
understand ‘‘ And what wilt thou also do?”
z.e., What will become of thee also? It is
quite possible (ver. 11) that Jeroboam’s wife
perished in the wholesale destruction of his
house, as it is clear from the severe punish-
ment assigned to her (ver. 12) that she must
have shared in his sin. The readiness with
which she lent herself to this deceit (ver. 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. |

Ver, 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 [i1J?2 kavva, canna, cane} is shaken
{The construction is pregnant, viz., ‘‘ shall
smite Israel so that it shall be shaken as a
reed,” &c. (cf. Luke vii. 24). ‘* The image 1s
very striking, for [srael was '1cught so low
that every political influence Jvre it along ”
(Thenius)] in the water, and he shall root
up [same word as in Deut. xxix. 28; Jer.
xxiv. 6] Israel out of this good land, which
he gave to their fathers, and shall scatter
them beyond the river [i.e., the Kuphrates ;
see on ch. iv. 24. This is the tirst clear
prophecy of the captivity foreshadowed by
Moses (Deut. iv. 27; xxvill. 25, 36, 63, 64),
and by Solomon (ch. viii. 46—50). For
its fulfilment, see 2 Kings xvii.6; xviil.
11, &c.], because they have made their
groves [Heb. their Asherahs, i.e., images of
Astarte. The translation ‘ grove” after the
LXX. adooe, Vulg. lucus, is now abandoned,
It is clear some sort of idol is intended by
the term. This is evident from ver. 23,
where itis said the Asherahs (A.V. groves)
were built ‘‘under every green tree” (cf. 2
Kings xvii. 10); from ch. xv. 13 (where see
note); from 2 Kings xxii. 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,” &c, (ver.
25% 2 Chron, xxmil) WOR Raxiy, 3.4 en
also Judg, ii. 7; 1 Kings xvii. 19). They
were doubtless effigies of Ashtoreth, made
of wood (Deut. vii. 5; cf. 2 Kings xxiii. 6),
planted erect in the ground (Deut. xvi. 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: (Ch) xin. 226 Sve SOx oma 0222-2
Kings xvil. dy 27s taxied 7; Deut.siv. 425
XXX. 16,21 3 JSude.it.p1 Os) Poe, Ioxmevili :58.

Ver. 16.—And he shall [or, that he should]
give Israel up because of the sins of Jero-
boam, who did sin, and who made Israel
to sin. [These words became almost a for-
mula (ch. xv. 33, 34; xvi. 2,19, &c.)]

Ver. 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 Velde (Narrative, ii. 334, 335),
with Telluzah, or Talise, a place in the
mountains, six miles north of Shechem.
See Josh. xii. 24. Both these writers admit,
however, that if this is indeed Tirzah, ‘all
traces of royalty have disappcared.” ‘* With
the exception of a few sepulchral caves,CH. xiv. 1—20.]

THE FIRST BOOK oF KINGS.

317

 

subterranean granaries, wells, and old
hewn stones, nothing of ancient Tirzah
remains in Talise.’’ Conder recognizes the
name in the modern Teidsir—a Village near
Jezreel, in the Great Plain—which “ Con
tains 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” (‘ Tent-
work,’ p. 57). Scme of itg ‘* numerous
rock-cut sepulchres,” he thinks, may be the
tombs of the early kings of Israel. It wag
famed for its beauty (Cant. vi. 4), and for
this reason, perhaps, among others (see on
ver. 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 ver. 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. |]

Ver. 18.—And they buried him [see on
ver. 13] ; and all Israel mourned for him,
according to the word of the Lord, which
he spake by the hand [see on ch. ii. 25] of

 

 

a token of the righteous judement of God
that the same prophet who announced
Jeroboam’s exaltation predicted his fall.]

Ver. 19.—And the rest of the acts of
Jeroboam, how he warred [see ver. 30;
2 Chron. xii. 2], and how he reigned, be-
hold, 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. ]

Ver. 20.—And the days which Jeroboam
reigned were two and twenty years [Bihr
remarks that the exploits of this long reign
find no mention in Scripture; the historian
dwells exclusively on the sin, the conse-
quences 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 Chron. xxi. 18, 19)
or more suddenly (2 Sam. xii. 15), but which
certainly implies that he died ‘‘by the
visitation of God.” I have suggested else-
where (Homil. Quart. IV., p. 257) 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” (ver.
19) after this event. He may also have
steadily drooped to his grave], and Nadab

his servant Ahijah the prophet. [lt was | his son reigned in his stead,
HOMILETICS.

Vers. 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 (ver. 1) ’—the time of ch. xiii. 33.

The sickness of the child

distinctly connects itself with the father’s persistence in sin (see Deut. vii. 15;

Xxvili. 22, 61).

The hard and impenitent heart treasures to itself wrath (Rom. ii. 5).

= ee Nie a. eee”
Warnings (ch. xiii.) have been unheeded: it is now the time for judgment. ‘‘ If we

sin wilfully,’ &c. (Heb. x. 26, 27).

Deus habet 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.) 1
sickened, and died ; the impenitent father and the worthless brother lived.
sickness is no invariable proof of God’s displeasure.
lovest is sick” (John xi. 3; cf. Heb. xii. 6).

Observe—(1) The pious son
Then
‘* Behold, he whom thou

9

‘* 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 EAN BOR Le Aes
he 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,818 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. fou, xiv. 1—20.

 

«Tig 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 Lonefellow’s poem of “The Reaper and the Flowers.” (2) Sickness
spares none. ‘Neither his dignity as a price, 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,”
&c. (1 Peter v.10). (3) The sickness of his son, while it was a judgment on Jero-
beam, was a warning to Israel. “ A cloud and darkness ” to the one; it gave light
to the other (Exod, xiv. 20).

¢Tiot us be patient! These severe afflictions
Not from the ground arise,
But oftentimes celestial benedictions
Assume this dark disguise.”’

8. “ Get thee to Shiloh” (ver. 2). But Shiloh was not one of his sanctuaries.
Why not to Bethel? There were his priests and prophets (see on ch. xxi. 6)! Bat
Jeroboam only does what many more have done 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.

6¢¢ 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” (4b.) Whom he has never troubled since the
day when “he spake of him for king” (ch. xi. 81). ‘‘ Yet did not the chief butler
remember Joseph, but forgat him’”’ (Gen. xl. 81). The ministers of Christ may
well be content if they are sent for in times of sorrow and sickness. ‘ Lord,
trouble have they visited thee” (Isa. xxvi. 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 thow be not known to be the wife of Jeroboam”’ (ab.)
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 Sam. xv. 81). What an illustration does this
history afford of that saying of the Temanite, ‘He taketh the wise in their own
craftiness”’ (Job v. 18; 1 Cor. ii. 19).

6. “He shall tell thee what shall become of the child” (ver. 8). 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 néeded 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 andon. x1V.,1-—20.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 319

eng
superstition are very near of kin. Man cannot divest himself of all belief. Head
and heart wlike “abhor a vacuum,” Those who will not believe in one God shall
be the victims of strong delusions, and shall believe a lie (2 Thess. ii, 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. ‘l'he 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” (ver. 4). Yet “having his eyes open ” (Num. xxiv. 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” (ver. 6). Compare Ezek. xiv. 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,” &e.

9. “I exalted thee from among the people” (ver. 7). Tt was Jeroboam’s abuse
of the singular favours he had received, and his forgetfulness of Divine benefits,
that so much enhanced his sin. Cf. ch. xi. 9: 1 Sam. xv. 17 (“ W hen thou wast
little in thine own sight”);.2 Sam. xii. 8,9; Psa. Ixxiii, 10 (“ Took him from the
sheepfolds,” &c.); Luke xii. 48 (‘‘ Unto whomsoever much 1S given, &c.) ; 2b., X. 15
(‘‘ Exalted to heaven, thrust down to hell “ye It is well to remember the rock
whence we were hewn, and the hole of the pit whence we were digged (Isa. li. 1).

10. “* Other gods and molten images” (ver. 9). oe often disguise their ome
under specious names. “ Cherubic symbols” was perhaps Jeroboam eee a r
calves. He would not allow that they were images or idols. Josephus heey y
reproduces the language he held to his subjects : “I suppose, my ae nea xy
know that every place hath God in it,” &e. (Ant. vill. 8, 4). en io ae 2 ngs
as they really are. po Payne. oe things are not what they seem.

wre what they seem to the Omniscient. ioe
Saat, dP dae rent the inners away from the house of David,” &e. we the
contrast between this language and the discourse which Ahijah neti sg eae
once before. That meeting was full of promises; this message 18 i 0 | up re
ings. Then God declared that He would rend the kingdom ; here I e complains
that dd soin vain. Then He proposed David as Jeroboam’s
Se ei cad to rientipiice cap care here H uses the king of contemning
pattern—his name is Rear ee Aes eee a Sp ree ee Ao
that example. There He speaks of a H bea is Sandie a age
remnant of the house,” ‘‘as a man taketh away d ung. en oe Scene g
of God are without repentance.” It is Jeroboam’s sin 2 ac rae a
1 2 : use of Jeroboam, and will cut off,” &e. Compa

belly en . i aeten de Gee a So the very means which Jeroboam took
es ee oo its ‘thr “The engineer is hoist with his own
Series ae i ease ni aLied Got his Linear would have lasted. But
Pe yn Bey be en vith rotten su sports and leaning on these he
he must nceds prop it up himself, with ro pports,
brought it speedily to the ground. ty the child shall die” (ver. 12). For the

18. “ When thy feet enter into the city the ne ha cis dee CAE tho MONA
second time does a prophet give Jeroboam a8 GF Dec tain Rae fe PROM
sign was hardly less significant than the first. or He leet rae sir Sa 5

2 - child’s death. Her step on the threshold was 1e signal
ee oes On net ena cod ife.”’ r t only a foretaste, consequently, of the
US earea: ; Bee iousst canes a uae forth of the cause of that
doom awaiting the entire ; 8

destruction. ‘The sins of the father were visited upon the children.820 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. {cH. x1v. 1—20.

 

14. “ And all Israel shall mourn for him” (ver. 18). 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” (Jer. xxii. 10). For (1) he was taken away from the evil to come
(ver. 11). (2) He escaped the butchery of Baasha. And he escaped, too, the danger
of contamination and moral ruin. His hfe 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.”

“Tt 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
tocome. ‘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 im the house of Jeroboam is a miracle of Divine
grace ’’ (Henry).

15. “ For the Lord shall smite Israel” (ver. 15). For if Jeroboam had ‘‘ made
Israel to sin,” Israel had loved to have it so (ch. xu. 80). 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 rwer” (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” (Jer. v. 19).

17. ‘* And Jeroboam’s wife arose, and departed, and came to Tirzah” (ver. 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 Sam. xxi. 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 (ver. 11, Heb.), it is probable
that she had aided and abetied 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” (ver.18). In Tirzah the beautiful (Cant. vi. 4), great
lamentation was made over him. And indeed his seemed to be a case for tears.
The heir to the throne, he was hever 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 for evermore, 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 ” (Wisdom v, 4, 6, 15),CH. x1v. 1—-20.]

THE FIRST BOOK oF KINGS, 821

ee ee ee

HOMILIES By VARIOUS AUTHORS.

Vers. 1—3.—The Impenitent Seeker. The day of judement wil] come at the
end of the world, when the heavens and earth shall be burnt up (2 Thess,

il. 7—10; 2 Peter il. 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 srace,

had now entered into such a season. But of this he seems to have been doubtful,
Hence learn—

I. THAT THE SINNER MAY BE SURPRISED IN HIS SEASON OF JUDGMENTS. 1. That there
are such seasons is evident. (1) Witness the great deluge (Gen. vi. 11—13). Also
the rain of fire on the cities of the plain (Gen, xix, 13). The overthrow of nations.
Signal Visltatlons upon notorious sinners (Exod. ix. 13—15; 1 Sam. xxviii, 15—19),
(2) Such were presages of the awful judgment to come (Matt. xxiv. 8739; 2 Peter
ll. 4—6; Jude o—T; Rev. xviii. 4). 2. But ail afilictions are not such retributions.
(1) Some are entailed upon us through the fall, and alike affect the penitent and
impenitent (Gen. BL 16183 Jobuve 173 1. Cor, ix. 13). (2) Some come to us
through the wickedness and blundering of those around us. Many suffer, irrespec-
tive 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 Psa. xxii. 11; Col. i. 24). (5) Under all these we have a refuge
in God (Psa. ix. 9, 13; xlvi. 1), 3. These may be confounded, (1) Had Jeroboam
known that the mercy of God had reached its limit, and that the season of retribu-
tion 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 ging ?
Had he not before him the history of Saul? (1 Sam. xxviii. 15—19.) (8) Men still,
in our day, presume upon the mercy of God to their destruction. Eminently the
case with those who defer repentance. Learn further—
II. THAT A SINNER MAY SEEK THE LoRD T0 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 Sam. xii. 16, 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 salya-
tion of his soul. 2. When the spirit of the seeker is improper. (1) He did not,
indeed, seek his calves (compare 2 Kings i. 2). He rather sought Ahijah, because
the spirit of prophecy was with him (ver. 2). But he had no such faith in hig
calves. (2) Why, then, did he not renounce them? He had reasons of worldly
policy against this (see ch. xii. 26—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 Matt. xv. 14; 2 Thess. ii. 9—12; 1 Tim. iv. 1, 2). 8. 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 Sam. ix. 7,8). Hence such gifts are
called blessings (see Gen. xxxiii. 10, LL Jude id4153 1 Sam. xxv. 17; xxx. 26,
marg.; 2 Kings vy. 15). (2) Even Jacob would eat of his son’s venison before he
proceeded to bless him (see Gen. xxvil. 4, 19, 25, 81; see also 1 Kings xvu. 11).
(3) So are God’s blessings and sacrifices offered to Him commonly associated (see
Gen. will. 20-—22.-. ix, 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 gilt was small, What as a few
loaves, a few cakes, and a cruse of honey as a gift from a king! (Compare 2 Kings
v.53; vui. 9.) The meanness of his present was another reason why he would have
iS queen disguised. 4
Whine an argument for early piety is here! Surrender to Christ before you
1 KINGS, yi822 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu. xrv. 1—20.

 

 

 

 

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.

Vers. 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 i, 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 sepks piscuises. 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. (8) It ought to be displayed ; its influence
is elevating (Phil. ii. 15, 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 Matt. v. 14—16; Rev. i. 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-coutradictory, 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. Gop SEES THROUGH ALL pDiscursEsS. 1. Natwre itself teaches this. (1) He
that formed the eye, can He not see? (ixod. iv {02-297 be. ‘keirvy 9). 2) He
that formed the mind, can He not pereeive? (1 Chron. xxviii 9; Psa, vii 9; Prov.
xv. 11; Rev. ii. 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 instal-
ments {ulfilled 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 (ch. xi. 87). Now he sees through the
disguise of the queen and reads its motives. 8. This should be considered. (1)
How foolish ate disguises where God is concerned ! And where is God not con-
cerned? (2) Those who would deceive God only deceive themselves. (3) What
disclosures will the day of judgment make! (1 Cor. ii. 13; iv. 5.) Whata day
of trembling to the hypocrite!

III. Gop CAN OPEN THE EYES OF THE BLIND. 1. Literally. (1) Miracles upon
the sight were occasionally wrought in ancient times (Gen, xix.11; 2 Kings vi. 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 (ver. 4), yet he saw Jeroboam’s queen before she came into his presence, saw
through her disguises, and discerned the purpose of her visit. (8) 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 con-
science. (b) God gives it to believers, when He witnesses His pardon and their
adoption, to their spirits. (See Acts xxvi. 17, 18; Eph. i 18.) Have your eyes
oe opened ? cana God that Satan may never succeed in throwing his dust into
them.—J. A. M.

Vers. 7—11.—Hard Tidings. Such is the character given by the prophet to the
matter of the text (ver. 6). What we translate ‘ heavy tidings”’ is, in the Hebrew,
as in the margin, hard. The uses.of the word. (NWP) in, several places suggestCH. x1v. 1—20.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

823

nr

 

 

that it should be here taken as indicating retributive judgments merited by one
who had hardened his heart in sin. Observe—

I. PRIVILEGES INVOLVE RESPONSIBILITIES,
special gratitude. (1) Jeroboam was “ exalted from among the people.” He was
AM Ephrathite of Zereda,” an obscure place, mentioned once, and that only in
connection with his birth (ch. xi. 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 Deut.
Vi IV, a XVI 18, 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, filled the world with the fame of surpassing
wisdom! 2. The favoured are compared with their peers. (1) Jeroboam was a
compeer to David. Both were lifted from humble station—David from the sheep,
Jeroboam from the army (ch. xi. 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)

Thus—1. Special favour calls for

Jeroboam made “ other gods ; and” (or even) ‘‘moltenimages.” 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 theidolatry 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
od!
II. RESPONSIBILITIES ABUSED PROVOKE JUDGMENTS. Amongst these may be men-
tioned—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 ch. xi. 88). 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 ch. xii.) This respite
improved might have averted, and would have mitigated, the severity of the judg-
ments impending (compare ch. xxi. 29). 2. The knowledge that the day of ven-
geance has set in. (1) An admonition of such a day was implied in the oa
prophecy of Ahijah, in the judgments then denounced against the house of Ae
for the sin of Solomon (ch. xi. 30—38). (2) This admonition was declared explicrtly
in the message of the man of God from Judah, and solemnly impressed by the signs
attending and following (ch. xiii.) (8) Now Ahijah announces that these judges
are taking effect. But even now, had Jeroboam come to God im ee ee , re-
pentance, though his sin is “ unto death,” yet might he save his soul. i. f 1arc coy
to break a chain so riveted as that is by which he has bound himself. No ee
inced. the knell of doom sounds forth like the echoes of the closing door
ee Oe eae r 1 wrath begun. 8. The severity of
of Noah’s ark, which eae uenge fled yee ig ee s ivbietndoae te Henne
the sentence. (1) The honour of the house é au i oe
i arcases of members of this family are to be consumec y
PL oontte ie alt ire the swords of the wicked (compare Gen. xvi 1
bt. xi af 18—20). Whether by the sword of Baasha, or literally, after ve aR
Petia mene coy ij ; . xv. 29). ‘The doom
bag one io er ob se eas tage of that of the rs of this man of sin
se of Jeroboam g é
ee in 17,18). God knows the proud afar off, But He gives grace to the

humble.—J. A. M.324 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. (cu. xrv. 1—20,

 

 

 

 

Vers. 12—14.—The Reprobate’s Doom. In the queen of Jeroboam we see &
remarkable messenger. Jor she went as messenger from a king and returned as
messenger from a prophet. Her message 1n 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—

L Heavy ripincs REspectinc Asian. 1. As to the issue of his illness. (1)
‘The child shall die.” This is a direct answer to the question with which the
roval messenger was charged (ver. 3). Here was the withering of a limb of Jero-
boam’s family answering to the sign of the withering of his arm (see ch, xiii. 4).
(2) The king does not now ask for the restoration of the child as he had done for
the restoration of his arm (ch. xiil. 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. (8) 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. (i) “ When thy feet
enter into the city.” Livery 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 affec-
tion 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. 38. As to the circumstances attending. ‘ All
Israel shall mourn for him and bury him ;’’ but for him only of the royal family,
«“ bécause in him there is found some good thing towards the Lord God of Israel.”
Hence learn (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
is father. Christ dies for the sin of the world. But in His death is life to the
believer. (8) Still the good suffer for their eood. 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 toa wicked prince. Note: Weshould pray for
the preservation of virtuous and useful lives. Especially 80 when such are found
in seats of power and influence.

II. Huavy TIDINGS RESPECTING HIS suRVIvoRS. 1. They are devoted to extermi-
nation. (1) This as ageneral fact was already known. (2) Itisnow published with
additional circumstance. The agent that shall effect it is one who shall himself
mount the throne of Isreel. (3) This was fulfilled to the letter (see ch. xv. 2730).
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.

Vers. 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? [ven now!” was the half-involuntary expression
of the surprise of this new revelation. This utterance should, then, have stood at
the beginning of verse 15 rather than at the end of the verse preceding. The
connecting particle ‘ For,” with which verse 15 now opens, favours this view.
The new vision describes the then future calamities of Israel, together with their
provoking causes.

I. He was HENCEFORTH TO BE TROURLED IN HIS OWN LAND. He is there to
stagger and tremble under the stroke of God—l. “As a reed is shaken wm theCH. xiv. 1—20.] THE FIRST BOOK oF KINGS.

oi 825

 

water.” (1) The reed is a figure of frailt
of the Egyptians to support Hezekiah ag
bruised reed (2 Kings XV111. 21 ; Isa. xxxvi. 6; gee also Tuzek. xxxix. 6). Contrariwise
our Lord, asserting the stability and vigour of John Baptist, said that he was no

reed shaken with the wind” (Matt. xi. 7). In derision of the royalty of Teste
the solders put a reed in His hand for a sceptre (Matt. xxvii. 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 trowble

ana of people (see Psa. Ixix. 17; Rev. xvii. 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 one
vated by wars with their brethren of Judah. 2. As a reed shaken by the nd Higgs
This is not asserted, but implied, . Hee

rted, b since reeds shake in water when moved
by winds. And foreign influences had much to do with the troubles of Israel. tz

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—
Kigyptians, Syrians, and Assyrians. By these rough winds the troubles were
ageravated.

II. THEN TO BE SCATTERED IN THE LANDS OF STRANGERS.
Israel is foretold. (1) The settlement of the people in C
described in Scripture under the figure of the planting of a vine there (see Psa. lxiv.
iy? AEX. Sit. ker. il. 21; xi.17). (2) This is now to be reversed. ‘He shall root
up Israel out of this goud land which he gave to their fathers,’’ Suppose the vine
had feeling; what a painful process! 2. Also the region of their dispersion. (1)
‘*T will scatter them beyond the river,’ 2.é., the Euphrates, for thus, by emphasis,
this river is ever distinguished in Scripture (see Gen. xv. 18; compare Deut. xi. 24
with 1 Kings iv. 21 and Psa. Ixxii. 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 Isa. viii. 7). (8) How
literally was all this accomplished (see 2 Kings xv. 29 ; xvii, 6, 18).

Ili. THESE VISITATIONS WERE TO EXPRESS THE ANGER OF Gop. 1. First pro-
voked by their Canaanitish idoiatries. (1) These are represented here by “ their
groves.” The word Asherah (TW, 771WN) occurs thirty-nine times, and is every-
where translated groves, yet it may well be doubted whether this is its meaning.
For take the next occurrence after that in our text, viz., ver. 23 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 xxi. 7; xxiii. 6.) (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 Exod. xxxiv. 138; Deut. xvi. 21). (8) But for all this they fell into the snare
of worshipping together with the Baalm, or Bulls, and other Canaanitish idols
(Judg. ui. 7; vi. 25; 1 Kings xvii. 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.—
Jo. A, M.

y. Rabshakeh, in describing

the inability
alnst the Assyrians, compares them to a

1. A captivity of
anaan 1s frequently

Vers. 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— Ae

I. SoRROW TARNISHES HUMAN SPLENDOUR. 1. Survey this palace of Turzah.
(1) This is not the only palace of Jeroboam. Soon atter his promotion to a
crown of Israel we find him building a palace at Shechem. That commemorati
the event of his elevation ; for there those circumstances occurred which gave rise

to it (see ch. xii.) (2) But this palace did not long satisfy the royal ambition. We026 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. (cu. xv. 1—20.

 

find the king presently engaged in nuilding a second at Penuel, in the tribe of Gad,
eastward of Jordan (ch. xii. 25). Turose 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 Song vi. 4). From this it had its name (ISN), which signifies
pleasantness. Doubtless the palace was 1n keeping with the place, for it was pre-
ferred as the royal residence until its destruction by fire (ch. Xvi. 18), 2. Behold
in this paralise 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 cer-
tainly 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.

Il. Iv WAS RELIEFS AND AGGRAVATIONS. 1. The reliefs are the fruits of virtue.
(1) The public mourning svould 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 ver. 18). (8) 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 mes-
senger 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
sssue in the extermination of his house! (8) 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.

Vers. 19, 20.—The Review. The text reminds us—

I. THAT THE SEASON OF DEATH IS A TIME FOR REFLECTION. 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 1s 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 relics 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
ean forecast the moment? (e) Why should we defer the needtul preparation ?
9. When a monarch dies a nation thinks. (1) This is so under ordinary condi-
tions. 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 (Prov. xxii. 2). (2) But Jeroboam’s death was by the stroke of God
(2 Chron. xni. 20). Such a conspicuous judgment was fitting to the man of sin
(see Isa. xi. 4; 2 Thess. ii. 8; Rev. xix. 15). How alarmingly would such a death
speak to workers of iniquity! (8) The demise of Jeroboam opened the succession
to Nadab, who, without the genius of his father, followed in his imiquities. 3. But
the virtuous only are lamented. (1) Jeroboam was buried. He did come to the
sepulchre “with lis fathers.’ And he may have had the formality of a famoly
mourning. His household may have gone barefoot, wept, torn their clothes, smote
on their breasts, lay on the ground and fasted, as the custom was. (2) But there
was no national mourning. The public mourning for Moses and Aaron lasted
thirty days, that for Saul seven (Num. xx. 29; Deut. xxxiv. 8; 1 Sam. xxxi. 13}.cH. xIv. 1—20.]} THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 897

For Abijah, a pious prince of the house of Jeroboam, there was a national mourning
though he never came to the throne ; but for Jeroboam, after areign of twenty-two
years, no mourning! (Ver. 13.) (3) What a contrast—the apathy of the nation
now at the close of their experiment at king-making, to the enthusiasm at its
commencement (ch. xu. 20)! How seldom do revolutionists adequately consider
the end! They often anticipate a paradise and find a hell.

II. Taat we SHOULD, THEREFORE, SO LIVE THAT SUCH REFLECTIONS MAY PROVE
GRATEFUL. To this end our policy should be—1. Pure. (1) Such was not the
policy of Jeroboam. When his people became restive under his rule, and he feared
they would return to Rehoboam, instead of looking to God, he forsook Him and
made Israel to sin. (2) The policy of purity is the policy of faith. Faith in God—
in Christ—in truth. 2. Peaceable. (1) Peace is kin to purity (James iii. 17). God
made peace for Jeroboam before he had departed from Him (see ch. xii. 21—24).
So does He still undertake for His people (Prov. xvi. 7). (2) Wars are born of evil
lusts (James iv. 1). When Jeroboam forsook the Lord, then commenced an embyroil-
ment in hostilities from which he was never free. First with Rehoboam (ver. 80)
then with Abijah (2 Chron. xiii). 38. So shall we avoid disaster. (1) By pursuing
an opposite policy Jeroboam brought disaster upon himself. His body was smitten
by God. There is no evidence of any repentance to the saving of his soul. (2) He
brought disaster upon his family. The best of his sons died prematurely for his
sin. Two years later he perished himself. Still two years later and his race
became exterminated with violence. (8) He brought disaster upon his people.
Impatient of taxation under Rehoboam, they made him king, but got no relief,
having to build palaces and sustain wars. And by their complicity in his idolatry
they filled up the measure of their iniquity and incurred the anger of God, which
involved them in the miseries of foreign invasion and captivity. What profit is
there in a crown that is retained by the policy of sm? The whole world is dearly
purchased with the loss of the soul.—J. A. M.

Ver. 13.—Early Piety in an Unexpected Place. (A Sermon to Young People.)
Jeroboam had married in Egypt a princess named Ano. She was the elder sister
of Tahpenes, the wife of Shishak, king of Egypt. Their home had been gladdened
by the birth of a child, whom they brought with them on Jeroboam’s return to his
own tribe and country. This child, Abijah, on whom their affections and the
hopes of the people were fixed, was stricken by illness, and seemed likely to die.
Then the parents turned to the Lord in their trouble, for the calves at Betheland Dan,
they knew, were powerless to help them. [Note the frequency with which those who
in theory deny God, or in practice forget Him, seek His help in their time of fear and
grief.| They would not send to the temple at Jerusalem for several reasons; but
Jeroboam remembered the old prophet, Ahijah, who had spoken to him in the field
some years before (ch. xi. 29—31), and foretold that he should rule over the ten tribes
of Israel. Accordingly, Queen Ano secretly set out for Shiloh (the ancient sanc-
tuary), where, ina humble home, the prophet lived. She disguised herself as a
poor woman, and took a present such as a peasant would offer—ten loaves, two
rolls for the children of the prophet, a bunch of raisins, and a jar of honey.
Jeroboam hoped he might, by this deceit, get a word of hope about the dying boy,
for he knew that he could not expect comfort from Ahijah, because he had grievously
disobeyed his command. He feared, therefore, that if the man of God recognized
Ano he would rebuke this sin. The attempt was vam. The prophet, nearly blind
though he was, knew by revelation who was coming. Terrible were the words of
doom he uttered about the house of Jeroboam; and the only gleam of comtort for
the parents was that in Abijah “ there was found some good thing towards the
Lord God of Israel,” so that he should not have the curse of living to see and share
the woe and shame which were coming. Abijah gives us an example of piety
which is worthy of consideration, especially by the young. e i

I. ABISAH'S PIETY WAS EARLY. 1. Define piety. It is right disposition toward
God, resulting frorn the secret influence of God’s Holy Spirit. It reveals itself in
desires after what is good, and pure, and true; in resolutions to seek these; im328 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. fou. x1v. 1—20.

 

prayers, through which the heart pours out its love and longing towards God. This
should be more natural to us than to Abijah. He knew of God’s power, we know
of His love. He had heard of the Shekinah; we have heard of Jesus Christ, who
says, ‘‘ He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” Children ran to Jesus once,
and found rest and gladness in His love; why not now? 2. Describe early piety.
Show how it is cultivated, hindered, and revealed. Urge upon parents and
teachers the importance of expecting it. We overlook the “‘blade,”’ and then wonder
we do not see later ‘‘ the full corn in the ear.” If we accept the teaching of Jesus
Christ, it is evident that a child is naturally more likely than an adult to enter His
kingdom. ‘To be a child is a necessity ; to‘t become a child” is an arduous struggle,
and sometimes a sore humiliation. The door of mercy is so low that children can
most easily pass through it. Happy is the home which is adorned by the presence
of a child-disciple. There are those now estranged from God who may have a
fulfilment of the words, ‘‘ a little child shall lead them.”

II. ABIJAH’S PIETY WAS SINCERE. 1. Some good thing was 1x him—that is, in
his heart. It was not something put on and off, like a garment; but an abiding
principle, influencing the thoughts as well as the life. Nothing is more offensive
to God than pretended piety. The long-faced visage which never smiles, the cant
phrases which express what cannot really be honestly felt by a child, are hideous
to man and God. 2. This good thing was ‘ toward the Lord God of Israel.” It
reminds us of the phrase, ‘‘ repentance towards God, and faith in the Lord Jesus
Christ.” We may turn from sin to respectability, but that is not repentance
towards God. We may love to doright things because they please men, but this
is not piety towards God. ‘‘The Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on
the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart’ (1 Sam. xvi. 7).

IiI. ABIJAH’s PIETY WAS DISCERNIBLE. ‘It was fownd in him.” 1. God saw it.
He spoke of it to His servant Ahijah, as of something He rejoiced to find. God is
ever looking for what is good, in the world and in your heart. Though the world
is corrupt, and men have done abominable works, the Lord looks down from
heaver. to see if there are any that understand and seek God. See Psa. xiv. 1, 2.
Compare this with the Lord’s parables of the woman seeking the lost piece of
silver, and of the father going out to look for and meet the returning prodigal.
Not only your faults and sins, but your good wishes and holy thoughts and silent
prayers are recognized by God. 2. Man saw it. Ahijah did not proclaim his
piety—that would have been offensive, especially in a child—but it was “ found”
in him. He was so young that he could take no active part in the service of
God, and was unable publicly to oppose his father’s idolatry ; but his parents, and
the courtiers, and the servants must have been sometimes shamed by his earnest
eyes. A noiseless violet makes the hedgerow fragrant. It bewrays itself by its
sweetness.

IV. ABIsAH’S PIETY WAS UNEXPECTED. He belonged to the house of Jeroboam,
who made Israel to sin. His mother was probably still a heathen; his father was
ambitious, cruel, and irreligious, and, so far as we know, this Little boy alone, in all
the court, loved the ‘*God of Israel.” His piety was the more conspicuous on
this account, just as the stars are brightest when the sky is dark, and the cedars
are most beautiful when surrounding trees are leafless. Des:ribe the position of
children in a godless home, with irreligious companions, &e. Jven there it is not
impossible to love and serve the Lord.

ConcLusion. It seems at first sight, especially to children, a strange reward
that was given to Abijuh—to die young. But there were peculiar reasons for
this. He was delivered from a sinful world, a distracted country, and evil in-
fluences; nor did he ever see those dear to him murdered and dishonoured. He
was “‘ taken away from the evil to come.” If the veil were rent, and we could
see the heavenly home in its beauty and sinlessness, we should understand what
Paul meant when he said, “ To depart and to be with Christ is far better.” livery
parent whose child dies in the Lord may hear amidst his sobs the words of
Jesus, ‘Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such
is the kingdom of heaven.”CH. xIv. 1—20.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 899

i ee
* Little one, precious one,
Summoned away,
re life’s uprising sun
Dawned into day,
Gone from thy mother’s arms,
Gone to the Saviour’s breast,
Safe from life’s rude alarms,
Blissful thy rest.”

Vers. 17, 18.—The Dead Child. Following the order of events ag the
inthe Hebrew text rather than in the Septuagint, we regard tl
calamities that befell the house of Jeroboam, until it bee
Nadab (ch. xv. 29), as the penalty of his tr

 

 

 

ALR:
y appear
lis as the first of the
ame extinct on the death of

( ansgression in violating the religious
unity of the nation. So soon was he made to feel that he was in the grasp of a,

Power that could not be mocked or trifled with, and ag
him to rebel. The narrative is full of touching intere:
moral teaching. It illustrates—

I. THE TENDERNESS OF NATURAL AFFECTION EVEN IN A BAD MAN. We have no
reason to doubt that genuine parental feeling prompted both Jeroboam and his wife
in their appeal to the prophet. One cannot but sympathize with them in their
distress at the fatal sickness of their child. Human nature in its deepest decrada-
tion is not altogether lost to the touches of tender emotion. The thrill of parental
love may be found in hearts so debased and hardened that nothing else can move
them. The most ferocious savage will defend his own, and “ barbarous people” are
capable of ‘‘showing no little kindness” even to strangers (Acts xxviii.) But in
many cases there is no real moral worth in these affections and amenities. The
can scarcely be called ‘“‘ redeeming qualities.” Parental feeling is often little else
than an animal instinct. It may exist side by side with the most grovelling pas-
sions and the most complete moral obliquity. Jeroboam loved his child, and yet,
in proud self-will and impious defiance of the Divine authority, he could secure hig
own carnal ends at the cost of the utter spiritual degradation of the people.

IJ. THE BLINDNESS OF A SINFUL INFATUATION. The king flies in his distress to
the prophet whom he has long slighted and ignored. He sought no counsel from
him in the setting up of the golden calves at Dan and Bethel. But now, as if he
had himself fulfilled all the conditions of the Divine promise, he thinks to get from
the prophet a word to confirm his hope of a “sure house” (ch. xi. 38). Such is the
folly of human nature. When the shadow of adversity falls on men they try, with
something like a superstitious impulse, to get consolation from religious sources
which, in the time of their prosperity, they neglected and despised. But what could
Jeroboam expect from the oracle of aGod whom he sinned against so grievously but
‘‘heavy tidings ” respecting his child? He bids his wife “feign herself to be another
woman ;” but how could he dream that a prophet, who had power to read the
future, would not be able to penetrate the false disguise? Thus, when men’s hearts
are ‘“‘set in them to do evil” do they resort to vain subterfuges, and flatter them-
sclves with a delusive hope. ‘Thus do they often rush blindly on their own con-
demnation and ruin; provoking, and even antedating, the very calamities they have
so much cause to dread.

Ii]. THe cURSE OF SIN ON THE SACRED RELATIONSHIPS OF LIFE. Tt is terribly
expressive of the hatefulness, in God’s sight, of Jeroboam’s impiety that the very
flower and crown of his house should be thus stricken—the fairest and the best,
the one who seemed likely to justify his name Abijah (‘‘ Jehovah is my peta
—hbecause already in his young heart there was found “some good thing owas
the Lord God of Israel.” So is it often in the course of human history. ‘The evi
men do comes back to them, not only in divers forms of retribution, but often me
the ferm of penalties that pierce them in the tenderest part. oe ee oe ee
life are broken. Or they see their own moral deformity rete f mee Ww nS
they would fain shield from its bitter consequences. Or their ee eet, A a
withered at the root, and that which might have been, and re intenc ed to be, the
source of the purest earthly joy becomes the occasion of keenest sorrow.

ainst which it wags vain for
st, and has many points of830 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu. xrv. 1—20

 

 

 

TV. THE BLENDING OF AN ELEMENT OF MERCY WITH GopD’s SEVEREST JUDGMENTS.
We see here how the innocent suffer with the guilty. The iniquity of the fathers
ig visited upon the children (Exod. xx. 5). Yet to the child himself, in this instance,
it was a gracious visitation. (1) He was emphatically “taken from the evil to
come.” (2) His incipient piety was recognized and crowned by this translation to
a happier sphere. (8) It was his special privilege to die a natural and not a violent
death—-the only one of the house of Jeroboam who should “go to the grave in
peace.” Thus in the darkest Divine judgment there 1s a gleam of mercy. There 1s
‘Jioht in the cloud.” It has a “ silver lining.” he sufferings of innocent children,
and the fact that so large a proportion of the human race die in infancy, are dark
mysteries tous. But even here we see the dispensation of an all-wise Love, remem-
bering Him who said, “ Itis not the will of your Father in heaven that one of these
little ones should perish” (Matt. xvii. 14). ‘Suffer the little children to come unto
me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God” (Mark x. 14).—W.

Vers. 1—20.—A fliction and judgment. I. THe sTRICKEN KING. Abijah seems
to have been heir to the throne, and to have been alike the king’s and the people’s
hope. The father’s heart was touched: the king saw the dynasty threatened, to
establish which he had ventured so much. The voice of God, against which the
ear was closed, will be heard again in the quietness of the sick chamber, in the
silence of death. God follows us through deepening sorrows, if haply we may
turn ere we are overwhelmed by the waters of destruction.

Il. Tue RESORT FOR HELP. 1. His trouble drives him towards God. Itis
meant to do this. It is the touching of God’s hand that we may look up and live.

‘‘ Byes which the preacher could not school
By wayside graves are raised,
And lips ery, ‘ God be pitiful,’
Which ne’er said, ‘ God be praiséd,’”

9. He is drawn by the remembrance of past mercy. * Behold, there is Ahijah the
prophet, who told me that I should be king over this people.” The remembrances
of mercies are cords to draw back straying hearts to God. The thought of what God
has done makes a holy place for faith, and rears an altar whence may rise the
incense of accepted prayer. 3. His hope is defeated by his own deceit. ‘ Disguise
thyself, that thou be not known as the wife of Jeroboam.” He thought he might
find help without owning and yielding his sm. How many prayers are like Jero-
boam’s embassy! Men wish to find mercy and yet cling to their sinful hfe, and
imagine that because their wicked practices are kept behind their back they are not
there in God’s sight! 4. Gifts (ver. 8) could not make up the lack of a true,
penitent heart.

Ill. Tue Lorp’s Answer. 1. Disguise is impossible before God (vers. 5, 6).
We can conceal nothing from Him; and one word of His (‘* Come in, thou wife of
Jeroboam! ”) is enough to rend every veil of pretence from the soul and overwhelm
it with shame. We may now close the ears to the voice of accusing conscience,
but we go onward, as she went, to where the Judge will name us. 2. God’s name.
The Lord God of Israel.” Not only will the covering be torn from the sinner’s
eeu ae He) oa will e revealed. He is the mighty avenger of those who have

en seduced and sinned against. 8. Jeroboam’s ingratitude (vers. 7—9). He
was taken from among the people, and yet he had shown no anxiety to discharge
aright the duties of the high office committed to him. (1) Human patterns were

Fas my 4 .
despised (“ ‘Thou hast not been as my servant David’’). (2) God Himself was cast
erie his back. 4. The doom. (1) There was deepest dishonour for him. His
mera was 4 erthy own and removed as the vilest refuse. (2) There was destruction
or his people. For the impenitent and all who are led by them there is, and can
be, only utter and eternal ruin.

_IV. THE SHADOW OF FALLING JUDGMENT (vers. 17—20). 1. Abijah’s death. The
light of the home, the hope of the land, is taken. 2. Jeroboam’s death. “The Lord
struck him and he died” (2 Chron. xii. 20). The clear intellect and the strongcH. x1v. 21—31.]

 

 

hand are smitten and removed.

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 331

     
 

oe

—— es

Slowly but surely the word advances to its accom-

ishment. : ‘eno s rs of judg
plishment. Are there no shadows of judgment on thy path? Haveno words come

true that make thy heart tremble because of those other words

have also spoken ?—J. U.

which God’s lips

EXPOSITION.

CHAPTER XIV. 21—31.

THE REIGN oF REHOBOAM.—Ver. 21.—And
Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, reigned in
Judah. Rehoboam was forty [or twenty.
See on ch. xii. 1] and one years old
when he began to reign, and he reigned
(this reign is related at greater length in 2
Chron. xi., xii.] seventeen years (cf. ch.
xv. 1] in Jerusalem, the city which the
Lord did choose [cf. ch. xi. 86; Psa. lxxviii.
68; Neh. i. 9] cut of all the tribes of
Israel [cf. 2 Chron. vi. 6; 2 Kings xxi. 7]
to put his name there. The historian re-
minds us that Jerusalem was by God’s ap-
pointment 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 (Bahr). And his mother’s
name was Naamah (or, according to the
GXX., Naeman, See on ch. xi. 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 ch. i. 13, and ver.
31 below.]

Ver. 22.—And Judah did evilin the sight
of the Lord (not, however, before the jourth
year of Rehoboam’s reign. For the first
three years the nation remained steadfast in
the faith, and the kingdom was greatly
strengthened and consolidated. The defec-
tion commenced when Rehoboam began to
feel himself secure (2 Chron. xii. 1), It is to
be observed, however, that the historian says
“Judah” (not Rehoboam) “did evil,” &.
It is probable that a considerable section of
the people approved of the idolatrous prac-
tices 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 unfaithfulne:s},
and they provoked him to jealousy [Heb.
made him jealous. Same word, lxod.
xx. 5; xxxiv. 14; Num.v. 14. he words
of the covenant proclaimed the Lord a
“jealous God.” This is of course anthro-
pomorphic language. The nation was re-

garded as the bride of Jehovah, and God

 

 

is said to be made jealous, because idola-
try was unfaithfulness to Him. The wors
ship of Baal and Ashtoreth, it must be
remembered, involved unutterable immo-
ralities, hence the special fituess 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.

Ver. 23.—For they also [i.e., they as well
as the ten tribes] built them hich places
[t.e., houses of high places. See on ch. iii.
2 and xiii. 32] and images [Heb. pillars
or statues (MIAN) ; LXX., erijdac). These
were, no doubt, originally memorial pillars
or stones, erected to commemorate some
Divine manifestation, and with no thought
of idolatry (see Gen. xxxi. 13; xxxv. 14,
20; xxvill. 18). But the Canaanites erected
pillars, which were also statues or images, to
their god, Baal. Hence we read of the
“image ” (12819) of Baal (2 Kings ii. 2;
x. 26, 27 ; cf. xviii. 4; xxiii. 14) ; and hence
also we find such images frequently men-
tioned side by side with the so-called
“ oroves,” i.¢e., the ‘‘ Asherahs” (ver. 15;
Hixod, xxxly, 13:3. Deut. Wil. D> Xi, o. 2ve
21, &ec.) 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 pro-
ductive power. The gradial transition of
the memorial pillar into the Baal statue is
hinted at in Levit. xxvi. 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; seeon ver.15. This verse
proves conclusively that the translation
‘‘ orove”’ is @ mistaken one] on every high
hill, and under every green tree. [The
phrase is from the Pentateuch, Deut. xii. 2;
cf. Jer. ii, 20; iti. 6; Hosea iv. 13. ‘‘ Probably
the evil example of Maachah, his favourite
wife (2 Chron. xi, 20—22), whose idolatrous
tastes were displayed under Asa (2 Chron.
xv. 16), was not without » pernicious effect
on Rehoboam” (Wordsworth).] :

Ver. 24.—And there were also Sodomites
[(wIp, a collective noun == OW 71PO (ch, xv.
12) = consecrated persons or devotees, be-
cause they were set apart to the service of832

Astarte, the Dea Syria. It is clear from
Deut, xxiii. 18 (Heb.) that male prostitutes
are here spoken of, the name of the female
being nw. The former is described in
ver. 19 l.c. as a dog, the latter as a whore}
in the land (cf. ch. xv. 12. It is highly
probable that these infamous persons were of
Canaanite or Phoenician origin (this being a
Phoenician superstition, Movers, ‘ Phoniz.”
i. 671), but it is somewhat precarious to
found an assertion to that effect on these last
words (as Bihr)], and (Heb. omits and]
they did according to all the abominations
of the nations [see Levit. xvili., xx. ;
Deut. xviii. 9—12] which the Lord cast
out before the children of Israel. [‘‘ Here
we see a reason for God’s command, re-
quiring the extirpation of the Canaanites ”’
(Wordsworth). |

Ver. 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 Chron.
xii. 1). 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 (see
Homiletics, p. 335)|of King Rehoboam, that
Shishak king of Egypt [to whom Jeroboam
had fled (ch. xi. 26, 40)| came up against
Jerusalem. [This expedition is related
with somewhat more of detail in 2 Chron.
xii. 2—4. For Shishak, see ch. xi. 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 ver. 30). But as to this Scripture is
silent; and. moreover, if Jeroboam sum-
moned Shishak to his assistance, it 1s cer-
tain 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 in-
scriptions of the great temple at Karnak. The
basst 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 Aija-
lon (2° Chron. xi. 7—10), while many other
towns of Palestine, such as Gibeon, Taanach,
Shunem, Megiddo, &c., are identified with
more or less of probability. One feature in
the list is remarkable, viz., the number of
Levitical and Canaanite cities—cities of Israel

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

[cu. xiv. 21—81.

—which Shishak is said to have conquered.
The usual inference is that such cities, al-
though in Jeroboam’s dominions, had never-
theless held out against his rule—-the former
for religious reasons; the latter, perhaps, in
the effort to recover their independence. Mr.
Poole. however (Dict. Bib., art. ‘‘ Egypt’’ ),
accounts for the names on the supposition
that Shishak directed his forees against the
northern as well as the southern kingdom,
and certainly this seems to agree better with
thefacts. It islardly 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. |

Ver. 26. —And he took away the treasures
of the house of the Lord [The historian
omits to mention the interposition of She-
maiah (2 Chron. xii. 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 every-
thing (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. ch. x. 17] which Solomon
had made.

Ver. 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; ef. ch. ix. 28;
x. 22. ‘*‘He changed his father’s religion,
as his shields, from gold to brass’’ (Hall)],
and committed [Heb. appointed] them
unto the hands of the chief of the guard
[Heb. commanders of the runners (see on
ch. i. 38)], which kept the door of the
kine’s house. ([Cf. 2 Kings xi. 6. The
functions of the body-guard were very varied.
A primary duty was, obviously, to supply
sentinels and attendants for the palace. }

Ver. 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 _ en-
couraged, it is clear that he maintained the
temple worship with great pomp and cir-
cumstance. The state visits of the Sultan
to the Mosque may perhaps be best com-
pared 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 every-
thing were the same as before”], and
brought them back into the guard chamberCH. xIv. 21—31.]

 

[Heb. ‘* chamber of the runners.” Solomon’s
golden shields were kept “in the house of
the forest of Lebanon ” (ch, x, 17). hese
shields of brass were of so little value that
the guard chamber sufficed for their custody.

Ver. 29.—Now the rest of the acts of
Rehoboam, and ali thas he did, are they
now written in the book of the chronicles of
the kings of Judah? [See on ver. 19.]

Ver. 30. — And there was war (cf. 2
Chron. xii. 15, ‘“‘ wars.” Keil argues from
the prohibition of war by Shemaiah (ch,
xii. 23) that this must mean ‘* hostility,
enmity.” But mone 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.

Ver. 31.—And Rehoboam slept with his
fathers (‘he same formula as in ch. ii. 10;
x1. 43; xv. 8, 24, &e. 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 in-
terpreted of Sheol, but of the grave; see on
ch. il. 10] in the city of David. And his
mother’s name was Naamah, an Ammon-
itess. (Same words asinver. 21. The repe-
tition can hardly be, as Bahr, Wordsworth,
al., imagine, designed, in order to show that
the worship of Moloch was brought by her

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

   
   
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
   
   
  
 
 
  
  
 
   
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 

333
to Jerusalem (ch. xi. 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 ” (chy xiv. Heb.) who
turned away Solomon’s heart; and it ig
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 hig
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 ch. vi. 1.] And Abijam [elsewhere called
Abijah (2 Chron, xii. 16; xiii. 1), or 4 bijahu
(2 Chron, xiii. 21, Heb.) 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 Jan
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 Bahr and Rawlinson. But it
is as little probable that Abijam is the
original form of the name (Keil). The form
Abiyahu, the LXX. ’APi0%4, and the analogy
of Abiel (1 Sam. ix. 1) all make against
this idea. On the whole, it is more likely
that Abijam results from an error of trans-
cription, 7 and the final Q being easily con-
founded) his son reigned in his stead,

 

HOMILETICS.

Ver. 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 mira-

culum, 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 fore-
fathers 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 plun-

derer 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 " J queens

. ee : fore 38S al re rifled by Egyptian
but he has not been long dead before those same ene eh rifled by Egy;
princes, and Jerusalem is environed by the legions of Shishak.

   
  
 
 
 
 
 
   
    
  

£ ‘et that temple, the magnificence of which has been so short-lived, which
MRS ie “aolarleted 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 ae
accepted by Him. That house had had a greater glory and Se US eae: ae
gold and precious stones, for “the glory of the Lord had filled a ouse ° aa
Lord” (ch. viii. 11). Why, then, is 1t, we may well ask, as the men of tha834 THE. FIRST. BOOK.,.OF KINGS. [cu. xrv. 21—31.

 

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 wor-
shippers 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” (Kzra v. 8), was stripped bare and left a
wreck within a few years of its erection, on the supposition that a chance hap-
pened 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, ‘‘mazxtime 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 wmmediate cause of theinvasion 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 és 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 their
defenceless state suggested the idea of seizing them. Observe here—

I, THE RETRIBUTION OF SoLomon’s sin. 1. Of his greed und 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 (ch. xi. 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. v. 11. 1).

8. 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 re-taliation
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 iamiliarized 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
(ch, x1. 8), and so his realm would have escaped invasion. It is a kind of NemesisCH. xiv. 21—31.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

300

 

a :
for the wrong done to hig Egyptian consort that his harem was plundered by

7 ene 1) ee ; :
Es phe: alnene are those who connect Napoleon’s fall with the repudiation of
osephine. 1e ‘‘judge of the widow” (Psa. Ixviii. 5) is als

Jo | so the avenger of the
r 1 dis , 7] iii » eoeni:
injured and dishonoured wife (Heb. xiii, 4). Human laws seldom take cognizance

of these, the deepest of wrongs, but the ery of the heart-broken woman goes up
into the ears of One who has said, “ I will repay.” :

TL: THE PUNISHMENT OF REnoBoam’s FOLLY AND SIN.
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, F

Z. Of his pride. It was his pride had rejected all compromise, and had prated
ef scorpions, &e. It had been humbled once in the dismemberment of his realm.
It must be humbled again in the spoliation of his palaces. Tor observe, it
was when he “had strengthened himself” (2 Chron. xii. 1) that Shishak came to
eon his peerien Oa vi 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 vain-
glorious 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 Chron. lc.) Much
as his'father had done before him. “ What the old sing,” says the German pro-
verb, “the young chirp.” That is to say, he still worshipped Jehovah (ver. 28;
ef. ch. ix. 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
(ch. xi. 5), and he was probably too much afraid of another insurrection to
stamp out the abominations of vers. 23, 24.

Ill. THE RECOMPENSE OF IsRAEL’s IDOLATRIES. Though the chronicler informs
us that Rehoboam “ forsook the law and all Israel with him,” yet it seems prob-
able from vers, 22, 24, ‘* And Judah did evil,” &c., 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. Ver. 25 seems to connect the invasion directly
with the people’s sin. But for the high places and images. &c., 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 instru-
mentality of the Jewish people (Exod. vii.—xiv.) 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 crogsed 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 Exod,
xiv. and 1 Kings xiv. Israel, who then “saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea-
shore,” now feels the grip of Pharaoh at his throat, and the iron of Pharaoh in his
soul.

1. Of his obstinacy. For336 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. (Om. xiv, Qi.—8ts

 

HOMILIES BY VARIOUS AUTHORS.

Vers. 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 GROSSEST IDOLATRY. 1. He had multiplied
high places. (1) High places were not necessarily for idolatry. They were proper
to the worship of the true God is patriarchal times. (2) Even after God had
chosen Jerusalem to put His name there, the patriarchal use of high places was
upon special cecasions sanctioned by Him (see ch. xviii. 3 ). (8) 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 (nj2819) here translated “images” is elsewhere commonly rendered pillars
(see Gen. xxviii. 18; xxxi. 51; xxxv. 20; Exod. xxiv. 4; Isa. xix, LO)... Dt is.fex
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 Exod,
xxill. 24; 2 Kings x. 26, 27). Marginal readings bear this out (see Deut. vii. 5;
xvi. 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. 38. He had enshrined idols wm these. (1) The
Asherim (Ds) are here evidently misrendered « groves ;” for how could groves
be planted ‘‘under every green tree” ? (See Homily on vers. 15, 16, supra.)
(2) They were idols apparently in figure like goats. For Jeroboam “ ordained him
priests for the high places and for the Gevils (O"vY goats), and for the calves
which he had made” (2 Chron. xi. 15). Here we have no mention of Asherim ‘
of goats, however, we have mention. But when Josiah destroyed these things, there
is mention of the Asherah, but no mention of the goat (compare 2 Kings xxiii. 15).
The Asherah destroyed by Josiah appears, then, to be the goat which Jeroboam had
. Setup. (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 WwW to proceed, to bless). 4. His idolatry was attended with
shocking rites. (1) They were the very abominations for which the land had
spewed out the Canaanites as with abhorrence (see Levit. xviii. 28; xx. 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 xxiii. 7). How fruitful in inventions is the wickedness of
the heart! (Eccles. vii 29.)

II. FoR HIS DEGENERACY 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 : pplance for acceptable worship was there at hand.
The altars were there; the priesthood was there; the appointed assemblies, festival
and ferial, were there. (8 They sinned, therefore, ‘‘betore the face of the Lord,’
asin His very presence. Evtn 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.
4. He had a son of David for his king. (1) The mother of Rehoboam, indeed,
was an Ammonitess. This is empnatically (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 Milecom 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 1mCH. xiv. 21—31.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 837

wisdom and zeal for the God of Israel. The memories of his erandfatl
glorious. To this must be added the most material circumstance that ¢]
was with his house; for Messiah Himself was to be the Son of David.

things were not without their influence. For three years after the re
Jeroboam, Rehoboam governed Jud

throne (see 2 Chron. xi, LT). (4)

1er were
1e Covenant

(8) These
volution under
ah in the fear of God, and go established his
When, after this, Rehoboam “ forsook the
the Lord,” his subjects should have dissuaded him and, if necessary, re
But they went “with him” (2 Chron. xii, 2). Se
that they “‘ sinned above their fathers in proy

law of
sisted him.
(5) To such excesses did they go
oking the Lord to jealousy.”—J, A. M,

Vers. 25—31.—The Entailments of Sin. During the three first years of his

. . es . > aC = . s
reign in Judah, tehoboam 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. Trovustz. 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 (ch. xii, 2194), (2) But when they forsook the
Lord, they soon got to strife, which continued as long as the kings lived (ver. 80).
This strife was also handed down to their successors. (3) Thus sinners become
God’s instruments to punish one another. §o it is seen to this day in the conten-
tions and litigations of individuals. Me

n are slow to see the hand of God.
2. Shishak aggravated the muschief. (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 Chron. xii. 3). It would have been crushing had not Rehoboam and his
people, in their extremity, humbled themselves before God (2 Chron. xii. 7),
(3) But they still had to feel the smart of their sins.

I]. Forrerrure. 1. In war there és 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 hum, (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 com-
merce. (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! 8. 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 embroil-
ments. The entailments of sin pursue the spirit into the invisible world. Foneiture.
Frouble.—J. A. M.

Vers. 21—31.—Un faithfulness and its rebuke. I. JupaH’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 (ver. 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,

1 KINGS. Z3388 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. fou. xv. 1—24,

 

a

‘* the city which the Lord did choose,” &c., 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 Chron. xi. 17; xii. 1).

 

They had known and yet forsaken the better way.
unrestrained and daring than any that Israel had ever known (ver. 22).
Tivrors in worship become vices in life.

fruits (ver. 24).

(83) Their idolatry was more
oe es
The soul that is cut off

from the fountain of life must needs break out into corruption.

II. JUDAH’S CHASTISEMENT.
God’s indignation.

It inflicted deep humiliation and loudly prcclaimed
1. It was inflicted by an old and beaten foe.

Their temple

songs, celebrating the ancient triumph over ‘‘ Rahab,”’ must have deepened their

shame.
holy things.
faithless, worldly Church.

Egypt's triumph. 3. It left iis mark in enduring poverty (vers. 26—£8).

2. The holy city and the temple itself were spoiled.
We need not marvel that rationalism and infidelity are rampant in a
It is God’s way. Israel’s idolatry is punished by

God loathed their

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.

EXPOSITION.

CHAPTER XV. 1—24,

THE REIGNS or ABIJAM AND ASA, KINGS
OF JUDAH.

f The Reign of Abtjam.

Ver. 1.— Now in the eighteenth year
of king Jeroboam, the son of Nebat,
reigned Abijam [see note on ch. xiv.
31. It is implied in 2 Chron. xi. 20—22
that he was not the first-born among
Rehoboam’s twenty-eight sons, but the
eldest son of the favourite wife. As he left
behind him thirty-eight children (2 Chron.
xiil. 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 ”’ ({b., xii. 13)] over Judah.

Ver. 2.—Three years [The Alex. LXX.
says decade’, sixteen. The“ three years” are
not to be interpreted strictly. As he as-
cended 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”’ (Raw-
linson, and similarly Keil). He may haye
reigned all but three] reigned he in Jeru-
salem. And his mother’s name was Maa-
chah {in 2 Chron. xiii. 2 called Michaiah,
Heb. Michajahu. That the same person is
meant is proyed as well by the context as
by 2 Chron. xi. 21, where the name is
given as here. Keil (cf. Dict. Bib. ii. 162)
ascribes the discrepancy to an error of the
copyist; but the names are so unlike in the
original as to discountenance this assump-

 

tion. 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 Geshu-
rite princess who married David (2 Sam. iii.
3) assumed when she joined the Lord’s peo-
ple, 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
(Gen, xvii. 5,15; xxx. passim; xxxii. 28;
xl. 45 ; Exod, vi. 3, &e. Cf.2 Kings xxiii,
34; xxiv. 17; Hosea i. 4, 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 from the town
and district of that name near Geshur—
apart of Syria was called Syria Maachah
(1 Chron, xix. 6; cf. 2 Sam. x.6—8). In2
Sam. xx. 14, 15 we read of a district of
Beth Maachah—and it not improbably wit-
nessed 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 digni-
fied, 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 dove-
tails with the one suggested above. Itt

CH. XV. 1—24.]

 

THE FIRST BOOK oF KINGS.

   
  

339

 

 

 

would be quite in accordance with Jewish
usages and habits of thought that the y
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. Na includes all
female descendants, as ON (see ver. 10) all
ancestresses] of Abishalom. We can hardly
doubt that Absalom, the son of David is
meant here. We have (1) the express state-
ment of 2 Chron. xi, 21, “ Rehoboam loved
Maachah, the daughter of 4 bsalom,” &e. (2)
The fact that two of Rehoooam’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 Sam.
lil. 3). (4) The name is so uncommon—in
fact, it 1s dwa¥ Xey—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 but one daughter
whose name was Tamar (2 Sam. xiv. 27),
whereas Abijah’s mother is said to have
been the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah (2
Chron. xiil. 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 ex-
planation agrees the account of Josephus
(Anti vill. 10, 1).

Ver. 3.—And he walked in all the sins of
his father, which he had done before him
[sins, 7.e., from the theocratic standpoint.
See ch. xiv. 22, 25. It does not appear
that either Abijah or Rehoboam was a
vicious man, and from his pious language
on Mount Zemaraim (2 Chron. xiii. 10—12)
we should certainly have thought that Abijah
was & god-fearing prince. But ver. 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 per-
fect with the Lord and his God, as the heart
of David his father (the words used of
Solomon, ch. i. 4].

Ver. 4.—Nevertheless ['5 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 ch, il.
26; and of 2 Sam, xxi. 17; Job xviii. 5, 6;
Psa. cxxxii. 17] in Jerusalem, to set up
his son after him, and to establish Jeru-
salem [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 xiv. 10), of Baasha (ch. Xv1. 2),
of Ahab (2 Kings x. 11), &e. Abijab was

ame

 

 

 

the third prince of that line who had per-
mitted 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”
18, aS Rawlinson remarks, very ‘difficult to
account for on mere grounds of human
reason ’”’]:

Ver. 5. - Because [W®S, here causative for
N19. 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. (2Sam.ii.4. But this last clause
is not found in the LXX., and such a state-
ment 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.]

Ver. 6,—And there was war between
Rehoboam and Jeroboam all the days of
his life. [Practically identical with ch. xiv.
39, where see note. Thenius thinks the
insertion of the words were due to the care-
lessness of some copyist, and Bahr 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 (ver. 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 irom
ver. 7, but from 2 Chron. xiii. 3—20 also.

Ver. 7.—Now the rest of the acts of
Abijam and all that he did, are they not
written in the book of the chronicles [sce
note on ch. xiv. 29, The marginal refer-
ence to 2 Chron. xiii. 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.340

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[cu. xv. 1—24,

 

Ver. 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 ch. xiy. 31]: and Asa his son reigned
in his stead.

The Reign of Asa.
Ver. 9.—And in the twentieth year of

Jeroboam king of Israel reigned Asa
(Gesen. interprets the name to mean
‘“nhysician’’] over Judah. [This reign

is related at much greater length in 2 Chron.
xiv.—xvi. We are there told of the Ethio-
pian invasion, of the prophecies of Azariah
and Hanani, of the league with Syria, &e. |
Ver. 10.—And forty and one years reigned
he in Jerusalem [Corn. a Lapide points out
that Asa saw eight kings of Israel on the
throne, Jeroboam, Nadab, Baasha, Elah,
Zimri, Tibni, Omri, and Ahab], And his

mother’s for grandmother’s, as margin]
name was Maachah, the daughter of Abi-
shalom. [The same words as in ver. 2,

and the reference can hardly be to a differ-
ent person. Bahr indeed questions whether
OX 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, en-
joyed the dignity and position of Gebirah
(ver, 138; 2 Chron. xy. 16). Some would
read for Abishalom, Uriel of Gibeah ; others,
strengthened by the Michaiah of 2 Chron.
xiii. 2, think the historian mistaken in
mentioning the name of Abijam’s mother
(ver. 2; 2 Chron. xi. 21) as Maachah. The
difficulty by no means admits of a ready
solution, but perhaps the best explanation
is that the grandmother, Maachah, Reho-
boam’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 Maachah, of whose
influence and imperious temper we have
several indications; e.g., in the appoint-
ment of her son, though not the first-born,
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, .

Ver. 11.—And Asa did that which was
right in the eyes of the Lord, as did David
his father. [‘‘It is a wonder how Asa
should be good, of the seed of Abijam, of
the soil of Maachah ” (Hall). }

Ver, 12.—And he took away the Sodom-
ites [see on ch. xiv. 24, and Rom. i. 23—27.
It appears from ch. xxii. 46 that this abomi-
nation was not wholly suppressed] out of

the land, and removed all the idols roy;
from PPP volut. A term of contempt (see

 

Deut. xxix. 17, where it is coupled with
‘abominations ; ”’ Ezek. xxiii. 37); but whe-

ther the word is to be interpreted by 203 a

ball of dung, in which case these idols
(Det stercoret) would have a designation like

Beelzebfil (‘‘ the lord of dung”’), or with by

a heap of stones (Gen. xxxi. 46, 48), Dei
lapideti, is uncertain. Keil would translate
logs, Gesenius trunks, stocks, which from
being rolled might well bear this name]
that his fathers had made.

Ver, 13.—And also Maachah his mother,
even her he removed from being queen
(Rather, gueen-mother. Gebirah, as already
pointed out on ch, li. 19, answers to the
Sultana Valide. The Vulgate reads, Ne esset
princeps in sacris Priapi. Wordsworth re-
minds us of the position which the queen-
mother Atossa holds in the Persae (vers.
159—850). A queen consort is hardly pos-
sible ina polygamous household ;_ see Kitto,
iv. 177] because [ Heb. which, asin ver. 5] she

had made an idol (N$ 25!) from YOR terrutt,

signifies an object of fear, formido—not
pudendum, a thing of shame, as the Rabbis
and others have held, 7.e., a phallic image
(simulacrum obscoenum, Jerome), but hor-
rendum. The devout Jew could not but
regard such objects with horror] in a grove
[Heb. for (t.e., to serve as) an Asherah. See
note on ch. xiv. 15, 23. Asherah is not the
name of the goddess (= Astarte), as Words-
worth 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. Exod. xxxii. 20.
Here, as in ch, xvii. 3 (where see note), our
translators have been unable to adhere
strictly to the original ‘‘in the brook,” &e.,
from not knowing that bmp, 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 Wédy, or
valley. We read of another similar burning
in 2 Kings xxii, 4, 6; but in this case the
ashes were either carried to Bethel or cast
upon. the graves, to defile them. It isa fair
inference that on this latter occasion the
Kedron was dry. The valley, “ the fields of
the Kedron” (ver, 4 J.c.), is conveniently
placed for such a purpose. |

Ver. 14.—But the high places [evidently
such as are referred to in ch. iii, 7.e., un-
authorized shrines of Jehovah; cf. 2 Kings
xix, 4] were not taken away ([lit., de-CH. xv. 1-—24.]

 

 

parted not. Yet we read in 2 Chron. xiv,
3, that Asa, ‘‘ took away the high places (cf,
ver. 5). But it is clear, even from 2 Chron.
xv. 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 Gen. vil. 19; Exod. ix. 25, &.
Ci. ver. 32 ; 2 Kings xix. 35, and see below.
Asa probably aimed at removing all, and he
may have removed all out of the cities (2
Chron. xiv. 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 re-introduced. 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 trne—in
Palestine. Every traveller will remember
the Mukams which crown almost every hill.
The religion of the Fellahin, though nomi-
nally Mohammedan, is really, like that of
China, a worship of the dead. ‘‘ In almost
every village of the country a small build-
ing, surmounted by a whitewashed dome, is
observable, being the sacred chapel of the
place ; itis variously called Kubbeh, ‘‘dome,”
Mazor, ‘‘shrine,” or Muk4m, “station,”
the latter being a Hebrew word, used in the
Bible for the places of the Canaanites
(Deut. xii. 2)... . Just as in the time of
Moses, so now the position chosen for the
Mukém is generally conspicuous. . . . This
Mukaém represents the real religion of the
peasant’? (Conder, pp. 304 sqq.)]: never-
theless Asa’s heart was perfect with the
Lord all his days. [We have here a notable
instance of the Oriental exagzeration just
referred to. For the very same expression
is used by the chronicler (2 Chron. xv. 17),
who in the next chapter (ch. xvi. 7—12) tells
us of Asa’s unfaithfulness in his old age.]

Ver. 15.—And he brought in the things
which his father had dedicated [Heb. the
holy things of his father. These were prob-
ably the spoils Abijah had taken in his
war with Jeroboam (2 Chron. xii. 18)], and
the things which himself had dedicated
[These were probably the spoils of the
Ethiopians (2 Chron. xiv. 15; ef. xv. 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.

Ver. 16.—And there was war between
Asa and Baasha king of Israel all their days.
[This statement must be compared with 2
Chron. xiv. 1, 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 Chron. xv. 19, xvi. 1, that it

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

 

 

   
   
  
   
 
  
  
  
   
 
   
  
  
  
   
  
  
 
 
   
  
 
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
 
   
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
  

341

Sa ee

was not until the 36th year of Asa’s reion
that it first broke out. Bui these numbers
have clearly not escaped corruption (see note
there), as at the date last mentioned Baasha
must have been dead (cf. ver. 33 below),
It is probable that war is to be taken here,
as elsewhere (cf. xiv. 80), in the sense of
hostility, and in any case we have here
another instance of the hyperbolical habit
of the Eastern mind.]

Ver, 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 Chron, xiii. 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 (Josh. xviii.
25; Judg. xix. 13, 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 Chron. xvi. 1, &c.], that he might not
suffer any to go out (Heb. not to give any
going out, &c.] 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 asa menace to Jern-
salem (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 Asa at this time we know from
2 Chron. xv. 9. This was an exodus which
Baasha felt must be checked. Blunt
(‘- Coincidences,” pp. 176—8) has happily
shown from 2 Chron. xvi. 6, &c., 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. |

Ver. 18.—Then Asa took all the silver
and the gold that were left [LXX. ro
evoedév, 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 Chron. xiv. 1—6), and (2) the ‘‘ very
much spoil” they had taken from the
Ethiopians (ib., ver. 13). Compare ver. lo
above. But the historian has in mind the
depletion of the treasury by Shishak (ch.

xiv. 26). It is true there was nothing842

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[cu. xv. 1—24,

 

‘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 xvi. 8.
For this act of faithlessness he was reproved
by Hanani the seer (2 Chron. xvi. 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 ch.
xi. 23). Three kings of Damascus at least
bore this name, viz., this king, his son
(ch. xx. 1), and the son of Hazael (2 Kings
xiii. 24)], the son of Tabrimon [the name
means, Good is Rimmon, as to which deity
see note on 2 Kings v. 18], the son of
Hezion [by some identified with Rezin (ch.
xi. 23), but on insufficient grounds] king
of Syria, that dwelt at Damascus [‘‘ The
centre of the Aramaean power west of the
Euphrates” (Hwald)]|, saying,

Ver. 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 (ch. xi, 24), Its
friendship would naturally be sought by
Judah, as a counterpoise, perhaps, to the
alliance between Israel and Egypt (Kwald)]:
behold, I have sent unto thee a present
[elsewhere a bribe. Psa. xv. 53 xxvi. 10;
1 Sam. vil. 3] of silver and gold; come
and break [Heb. come, break now, 7 cohorta-
tive] thy league with Baasha king of Israel,
that he may depart from me. [Heb. go up
from upon me. |

Ver. 20.—So [Heb. and] Ben-hadad
hearkened unto king Asa, and sent the
captains [or princes ; same word as in ch.
axu. 31; cf. xx. 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
*dyun (which probably preserves the name),
a ‘‘ meadow of fountains,” afew miles north-
west of Dan. This hill would offer a com-
manding site for a stronghold, and traces are
found there ofa large and ancient city (Robin-
son, lu. p. 375; Dict. Bib., 1. p. 863], and
Dau, [nearthe northern extremity of Palestine
(ch, iv. 25; 1 Sam. iii, 20, &c.) Now cer-
tainly 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,” i. p. 320. Vande Velde, ii. 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
(Robinson, ili. p. 372; but see Stanley,
S. and P., p. 390, note 6; Thomson,i. p. 324.
Rawlinson argues from 2 Sam. xx. 14 that
there were originally two towns, but ver. 15
leads us to question the present text of ver.
14, Ver. 19 shows it to have been a place
of considerable importance. In 2 Chron.
xv. 4. it is called Abel Maim, “ the meadow
of the waters,” not only, it is probable, be-
cause of the lake, but of the huge marsh,
the Ard el Huleh, which drains into it (see
Stanley, U.c.) All these towns are in the
neighbourhood of Lake Huleh (Merom), and
all being in the extreme north, bore the
brunt of theinvasion. The name Maachah is
to be noticed in connection with ver. 2],
and all Cinneroth {in Num. xxxiv. 11;
Deut. 111. 17, Cinnereth; in the New Testa-
ment, Gennesaret.” ‘* The expression ‘all
Cinneroth’ is unusual, and may be com-
pared with ‘all Bithron,’ probably like
this, a district and not a town” (Grove, Dict.
Bib., i. p. 330). It is the district on the
western shore of the lake of Galilee, north of
Tiberias, which gave its name to the adjoin-
ing sheet of water. <A city Chinnereth, per-
haps the capital of the district, is mentioned

Josh. xix. 35], with [>v not uncommonly
has thismeaning. Cf. Gen. xxxii. 12 (Heb.);
‘¢the mother with the children ;”’ Exod. xxxv-
22, ‘‘men with women,’’] all the land of
Naphtali. [Not only were the fortresses of
Naphtalh just mentioned smitten by the
Syrians, but they laid waste all the surround-
ing district. ]

Ver, 21.—And it came to pass, when
Baasha heard thereof, that he left of
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. [Ch. xiv. 17. He retired to
his capital. It is not implied that he had
entertained the idea of dwelling at Ramah. ]

Ver. 22.—Then king Asa made a pro-
clamation [Heb. made all to hear] through-
out 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 1t is generally ‘‘ king Asa,” but never
‘““king Baasha”’] had builded; and king
Asa built with them Geba of BenjamincH. xv. 1—24.]

[Sometimes “ the Geba,” i.e., height; in
Josh. xvill. 24, Gaba; now Jeba, only 45!
north-east of Ramah. This was the northern
limit of the southern kingdom (2 Kings
xxill. 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 pre-
cipices some 800 feet high” (Conder, p.
254; cf. Dict. Bib., i. p. 658 and Porter, i.
p. 214). 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,
z.e., watch-tower (Gen. xxxi. 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 (Judg. xxi,
Pc il Wily O00) Kd 1---2),.and- the -seat
of Gedaliah’s government (Jer. xl. 6), cannot
be identified with certainty. It has been
conjectured that it is now represented by
the commanding eminence of Nebi Samwil
(Robinson, ii. p. 328; Van de Velde, ii. p.
53), but Stanley (S. and P., ii. p. 213—4) and
Grove (Dict. Bib., ii. p. 389) argue in favour
of Scopus, and ‘‘ the survey has done little
to throw light on this question ” (see Con-
der, pp. 257—9). It is to be hoped that the
‘‘ pit,’ or well, which Asa made (Jer. xli. 9),
probably ‘‘ to provide Mizpah with a plenti-

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

343

ful supply of water in case of a siege”
(Ewald), may yet be brought to light. .

Ver. 23.—And the rest of all the acts of
Asa, and all his might [see 2 Chron, xiy.,
xv.], and all that he did, and the cities
which he built [during the peace in the
earlier part of his reign (2 Chron. xiv. 5, 6)],
are they not written in the book of the
chronicles of the kings of Judah? Never-
theless (Heb. only. There was one exception
to his otherwise happy and prosperous reien]
in the time of his old age [see notes on ch.
i, 1; xi. 4. ‘Old age” means here, as
there, the end of life. Asa cannot well
have been more than fifty. It was in the
39th year of his reign (2 Chron. xvi. 12)
that this disease attacked him] he was
diseased in his feet, [It is generally sup-
posed that this disease was the gout. In
the Chronicles (J.c.) he is reproached for
seeking ‘‘not to the Lord but to the phy-
sicians.” We must remember what the art
of medicine at that day was like (see Kitto,
‘Daily Bib, Illus.,” iv. 195 sqq.), and that
the Jews regarded sickness and healing ag
alike the immediate acts of God.

Ver. 24.—And Asa slept with his fathers,
and was buried with his fathers [‘‘in his
own sepulchre which he had made for him-
self” (2 Chron. xvi. 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,

HOMILETICS.

Vers. 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.

been said, ‘‘ which has no history.”

‘‘ Happy is the nation,” it has

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. INTERNAL REFORMS.
First, What were Asa’s reforms?

Two questions present themselves for consideration here.
Secondly, In what way were they accomplished ?

1. His reforms were practically of two kinds: (a) Moral, and (0) 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.

the most shameful immoralities practised under the name of religion.

Then it was a choice between the one true religion and

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 con-

secrated impurity.

° ° : 66
(1) Uhe moral reformation is suggested to our minds by the words ‘‘ He took

away the Sodomites out of the land” (ver. 12). x ¢
: ‘¢Tt is a shame even to speak of those things

this one brief sentence reveal to us.

 

What an abyss of corruption does344 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [ou. xv. 1—24,

 

which” were “done of them in secret” (Eph. v.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
ip towards—

oi) i he 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 per-
mitted 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 Immanuel’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 Chron. xxxvi. 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 abcminations 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 Cor. i. 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,” &e.
The Gebirah, the first lady in the land, whose conduct would of course be an
example to all the women of his realm (Esther i. 17, 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 ehort to
deal with the queen-mother who had exercised go 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 hig
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 ch. i. 6; 1 Sam. iii. 18). These are thecH. xv. 1—24.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

—

545

 

“hand” and the “ eye,” which cause men to offend, and w
pluck out and cast from them (Matt. y. 29 sqq.)
Bqq-; cf. Matt. x. 37.

And the moral effect of this act, the public deposition of the queen-mother, can
hardly be over-estimated. 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 Chron.
xi. 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 half-way. He destroyed ‘with both hands earnestly ”
(Micah vi. 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 (Exod. xxxii, 20).

(3) He did what he could. It is no reproach to him that “the high places were
not removed” (ver. 14), for the chronicler (chs. xiv. 5; xv. 12, 13, 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 Cor. vi. 12). ‘* The fleetest horse cannot escape from its tail.”

(4) His reformation was followed by a restitution. It was not merely de-
structive, 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 Sam. xxiv. 24). He might have converted his spoil
into drinking vessels of pure gold (ch. x. 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 Chron. xv. 12 sqq.; ef. 2 Cor. vii. 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) guzetness (2 Chron, xiv. 1), “* The Lord gave him rest” (ver. 6)
—the effect of righteousness is quietness and assurance (Isa. xxxu. 17) ; (2) prosperity
(ver. 7), and (8) 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— a

II. ExTernaL tRousies. 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 Chron. xiv. 9), and secondly, the aggression of Baasha (1 Kings xv. 17). He may
have been tempted to think when that overwhelming host of swart pee ee
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 Bee Ue
and the wicked, between His faithful people and the calf-worshipping Israe ee
But observe : both these troubles were really blessings in disguise. Pe inane an
adversities may be either punitive or disciplinary. Solomon’s were of the ae
Asa’s of the latter class. For (1) when Asa had learned his own weakness, and learn

whither to look for help (2 Chron. xiv. 11)—lessons both of them of singular blessed-

hich they must cut off or
Hence the charge of Deut. xiii, 6346 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [on. xv. 1—24.

 

ness—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 (ib., xv. 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 (ver. 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 Chron. xvi. 7, 8), and that he was
chastised for the deed (ver. 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”’ (Gen. I. 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” (Psa. xxxiv. 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,” &c. (Levit. xxvi. 8). Psalm xx. 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 Chron. xiv. 11), of Azariah’s prophecy (2d., xv. 2 sqq.), of Judah’s praises
(vers. 12, 14, 15).

It has been remarked that in the history of the covenant people we may see
pourtrayed the trials, deliverances, &c., 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 alfection;” ‘‘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 (ch. xv. 23), will make us perfect
(1-Peter v. 10), and grant us ‘‘ quietness and assurance for ever.”’

Ver. 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,

* “Tn Gottes Segen ist alles gelegen.”cH. xv. 1—24.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS, 847

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 svithi the
commencement of the schism. And we may learn— ‘e F

I. THAT IT IS NOT TO BE WONDERED AT THAT HERESY SHOULD BE STRONG AND
AGGRESSIVE. Ten tribes worshipped the calves; only two were faithful to the Lord
Jeroboain’s novelties carried ‘all Israel” away after them. Even so “the churches
of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome have erred” (Art. xix.) 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 schis-
matical. 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. oy

II. THAT THERE MUST, NEVERTHELESS, BE NO FIGHTINGS AMONGST CHRISTIANS.
The armies of Judah were solemnly forbidden to attack those of Jeroboam (ch. xii.
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 king¢dom—
not that in the Chwrch—was ordained of God. A special messenger is entrusted with
a special revelation (ver. 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 (ch. xiv. 30; xv. 6, 16, &.; 2 Chron. xiii. 3), yet 1b 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” (ch. xiv. 80, note). Now may we not justly infer—what, indeed, 1s certain
on other grounds—that, whatever their heresies, there must be no hostilitves
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 xvii. 21; xiii. 835; cf 1 Cor.i. 11; mu. 18; Jamesiv. 1). For they are
“ brethren” (Matt. xxiii. 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 (Matt. xu. 48,
49; Rom. xvi. 13; Titusi.4; Philem. 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
(Eph. v. 30; Rom. xii. 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 un-
natural 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,” &c., 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 mismanage-
ment of those differences” (P. Henry). ‘‘Nous avons eu assez de polemique,
said a French ecclesiastic ; ‘il nous reste 4 avoir un peu direnique.

III. THAvT THERE MUST BE NO SACRIFICE OF TRUTH OR COMPROMISE OF PRINCIPLE
FOR THE SAKE OF CONCILIATING HERETICS. Asa, like Rehoboam, was only too glad348 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu. xv. 1—24,

 

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 soti-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 5
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, flat, and unprofit-
able. Only the infidel could ultimately gain by such a process. Our answer, then,
to the separatist must be this: ‘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, amicus Socrates, sed magis amica veritas.’

IV. THaT THERE MUST BE NO CALLING IN THE AID OF UNBELIEVERS AGAINS
SEPARATED BRETHREN. ‘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 ch. xiv. 25), from the
‘eyptian 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 (chs. xx., xxii.; 2 Kings v. 2; vi. 8, &.) 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, &. 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 Chris-
tians who think it right to make common cause with atheists, seculavists, &c.,
against their brethren, If the example of Asa (2 Chron. xvi. 7—9) is not decisive
against such a proceeding, surely that of Jehoshaphat (ib., xix. 2) and Amaziah
(¢b., xxv. 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 OBSTACLES MUST BE RAISED IN THE PATH OF REUNION. That this
should be done by the separatists need cause us no surprise. Baasha could not
afjord 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 Chris-
tians. 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 hiscH. xv. 1—24.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 349

 

 

 

 

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 be found, not in the propagation of error, but in the assertion
of some forgotten or neglected truth, which they have made their peculiwm, 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 ave
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, 1t 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 BARRIERS BETWEEN BRETHREN, WE SHOULD
STRENGTHEN OUR DEFENCES 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, whist these two fortresses commanded it
against foes. Against Baasha, if he would wage war against his kinsmen ; against
the Assyrian at a later date (Isa. x. 28, 29). And is there no Jesson for Christians
here? ‘Too often they are fighting amongst themselves about the ‘‘ infinitely little”
—about the date of Kaster, 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. v. 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 imprra,
thus have many empires fallen. ‘True, the Catholic Church cannot perish, but
national Churches have fallen again andagain. There has been some tall amongst
the Brahmins of sending a mission to England. And we may see in es in
Germany, a foreshadowing of what 1s in store for us here. : oe class which -
recently attained supreme political power 1s alienated meee ay a= ae
present forms.” Are the Church and the sects alike to ae ceuite np y, one
Or shall we lay aside our “ fratricidal dissensions, and com vine ae os a
of foes—Atheism, Agnosticism, Socialism, and the rest? Of one t ing ae s
sure, that as long as our ‘‘ unhappy divisions last we shall never win England,
much less the world, for Christ.350 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. lon. xv. 1—24,

 

HOMILIES BY VARIOUS AUTHORS.

Vers. 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
lneage of David (see 2 Chron. xii. 8). Within this limit it seems— ane

I. If WAS DETERMINED BY THE WILL OF THE REJGNING 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 Chron. x1. 18—21). (2) These were deliberately set aside
by the choice of the king. The reason given for that choice is arbitrary. Reho-
boam “loved Maachah, the daughter of Absalom, above all his wives,” and there-
fore he ‘made Abijah, the son of Maachah, the chief ruler among his brethren:
for he thought to make him king” (2 Chron. xi. 22, 28). (8) 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 Sam. ili, 2—5 ; xii. 13, 14), and
was preferred before his elder brethren upon the designation of his father (see
ch. i. 18, 82—85). 2. Abijam represented Rehoboam by walking in his sins.
(1) He recognized the God of Israel. This he did formally in his address to Jero-
boam before engaging him in battle (see 2 Chron. xiii. 4—12). So did Rehoboam
recognize the God of Israel (see 2 Chron. xii. 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. (8) Their mixed worship was like that of the
Samaritans of later times, who ‘‘ feared the Lord and served their own gods” (2 Kings
xvi. 82). If this was not worshipping other gods “before the Lord,” it was
worshipping them “‘ beside Him”? (see 2 Cor. vi. 16). Yet—

IJ. Tue cHoice oF REHOBOAM HAD THE DIvINE SANCTION (ver. 4). 1. Primogent-
ture, 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 represen'‘ative
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. (8) God had His own
reasons for confirming the election of Rehoboam, which, however, were different
from those which moved the king. 8. 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 modern
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 for-
given (see 2 Sam. xi. 138; Pss. xxii. 1—5; li.) God giveth lberally 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 Chiron: xi. 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 ap-
peared to have married a daughter of Absalom, who left no son (2 Chron, xiii. 2),
She bore the name of her grandmother, who was “ Maacah, the daughter of Talmai,
king of Geshur”’ (2 Sam. iii. 3). (2) Christ is the true lamp of David (see Psa.
exxxii. 17). For His sake the line of David must be preserved. (8) 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, andcH. xv. 1—24.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 851

 

 

 

the family of David had lost their

genealogies, Jesus came and became an expiatory
sacrifice for sin.—J. A. M.

Vers. 9—15.—Reformation. The moral condition of Judah was fe
came to the throne. The apostasy of Solomon had inaugurate
which was aggravated in the reigns following,
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 degeney
what was the condition of the world at large!
need for reformation.

I. OF THIS ASA BECAME THE SUBJECT AND SPECIMEN. Reformations have ever
been inaugurated by individuals who have embodied and exemplified their prin-
ciples. Witness Luther in Germany, Knox in Scotland, &e. 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 Phil,
li. 15: 1 Pet. u.11—15). (2) Todo right in the eyes of good men is a higher com-
mendation. 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! 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)
Davyid’s loyalty to God was sincere and fervent. What a warm spirit of piety
breathes in the Psalms! Are they not, even in our gospel age, a fine vehicle for
spiritual worship ? (8) 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 vithin 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 pee wicked 5 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 intluence
Asa developed well. (8) We must not ignore, but fully recognize, a es nae al
responsibility. ee, cannot be compared to a pair of scales which is mechani.
7 eights. |
oa ‘Or eke HE BECAME THE INSTRUMENT. This 18 God's order (1 John LO):
What he felt he tried to promote. 1. Beginning with his own house. (1) Fle re-
moved 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

arful when Asa
d a retrogression
so that for three cenerations the

acy,
There was, therefore, the greatest

sh

idolatry of his grandmother. ‘‘ She made an idol in a grove lee nyeat) f
glory for an Ashere. The word is used for terribleness or anges iC hee Tee
xlix. 16. Setting an image in the cloud of glory was Betn Ea ey a a
chariot of cherubim to be worshipped. (See Psa. 1. 38, where 1 Me. s used He ihe
cloud ot glory about Jehovah.) Asa demolished this POF glory, 086 ay wal
the Ashere, or idol, and probably threw the ashes into the Kec on a os on fet a
pare Deut. ix. 21; 2 Kings xxiii. 12; 2 Chron. xv. 16). (8) a HO peor
Sn ate ve ee Be ce ae ee fe nati
of EMRE eA ee f tl . 1 What rosperity can there be in any
(1) He removed the Sodomites out of t ap dae 8 SAP TOSR ORES eee
state where public immorality 1s tolerated by the magistrate a) Honeirey
idolatry with their altars and idols, in the country ani
ite Cat pages onsre Ds 3) (3) The high places used in the worse of lena
after the fashion of the patriarchs, he spared, For this he is but lightly censured;352 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. fou. xv. 1—24,

 

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 Chron. xiv.
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 Chron. xv. 11, 12). | Where the heart of God’s people is

loyal the treasuries of His house will be full—J. A. M.

Vers. 16—24.—The War Policy of Asa. ‘“‘ Forty and one years reigned he in
Jerusalem” (ver. 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 poley with Baasha was
not creditable.

I. Tur opsect was RIGHT. 1. The war was provoked by the enemy. (1)
Baasha was the aggressor (ver. 17). War is such a fearful evil that whoever pro-
vokes it is greatly culpable. (2) Therefore on Asa’s part it was defensive. If human
war is ever defensible it is when defensive. 2. It was provoked by impious inten-
tion. (1) Asa had set his heart upon the reformation of true religion, in which he
was blessed by God with peace and prosperity (2 Chron. xiv. 1—7). (2) The more
pious Ephrathites were attracted in great numbers to Jerusalem to join in the pure
worship of the temple; and the reformation was influencing the northern kingdom
(2 Chron. xv. 9). (3) Baasha now feared, as Jeroboam did when he set up his
calves (ch. xii. 26—28), that his people would return to the house of David. To pre-
vent this he proceeded to fortify the frontier town of Ramah (2 Chron. xvi. 1). (4)
This was to coerce the Ephrathites to transgress the law of God (see Deut. xii. 11;
xiv. 283—26; xvi. 2). To resist this persecution was as pious in Asa as the persecu-
tion was impious in Baasha.

II. THE MEANS WERE WRONG. 1. They were hwman, (1) Asadid not rely upon
the Lord. This was the less excusable since God had wrought such signal deliverance
for him from the vast multitude of the Ethiopians (see 2 Chron. xiv. 9—15). What
was the host of Baasha compared with that army ? (2) He did not even inquire of
the Lord. Had God sanctioned his recourse to Ben-hadad then had he been blame-
less. (8) Though in other particulars he had listened to the advice of Azariah, the
son of Oded, with blessed advantage, yet in this he had disregarded that advice (see
2 Chron. xv. 1,2). 2. They were unworthy. (1) What right had he to engage a
heathen to fight with his brethren? (2) What right had he to bribe a heathen to
break his covenant (N02 purification) with Baasha, in which the blood of sacrifice
had been sprinkled to express his purity of intention, as we now take the sacrament ?
What opinion could the heathen form of the religion of one who could offer a bribe
for such a purpose? (8) What right had he to take the treasure of the temple for
such a purpose ?

III. THE success WAS PARTIAL. 1. The end was answered. (1) The Syrians
attacked Israel in the north. The news of this drew Baasha away from Ramah
(vers. 20, 21). (2) This gave Asa the opportunity to demolish the fortifications in
progress so as to open the road Baasha sought to close. He also removed the
material so that the road might be kept open. (38) The material was useful to him
in building Geba of Benjamin and Mizpah. 2. But the price was too great. (1)
He missed an opportunity of spoiling the Syrians as he had spoiled the Ethiopians,
This factis revealed, though by what means Providence purposed to have brouchtit
about is not disclosed (2 Chron. xvi. 7). (2) The treasures of the temple and of the
palace were therefore needlessly alienated. (8) His brethren in “ Ijon, and Dan,
and Abel-beth-Maachah, and all Cinneroth,” or Gennesaret, ‘‘ with all the land of
Naphtali,” were exposed to the horrors of the Syrian invasion. The heart of Israel
would be alienated from Asa in consequence, and the reformation hindered. (4)
Asa’s own heart became hardened, else he would not have imprisoned Hanani, and
oppressed some of his people (who probably sympathized with the prophet). (5)
And he inherited the judgment of wars to the end of his days. Also a disease in
the feet, respecting which he sought to ‘‘ physicians rather than the Lord” (2 Chron.
xvi. 10, 12).CH. xv, 1—24.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS,

 

853
tape ear
Note: Asa’s blunders fol

lowed upon his prosperit FE iia .
of spiritualit Het relia; ua yFospe vs ‘ew abide this test. Loss
We sbicg (1. ae ous zeal accompanies the growling worldly prosperity of

 

ete 1 ho Beloved for the father’s sake.”

fae es en In a three years’ reign much might have been done.

ubles, the past its lessons of wisdom; but there was no ear to hear tl
one, and no heart to attempt redress of the other. 1. The secret of failure (1)
He was conient with things as he found them. It is not said that he introduced
any new idolatries : “ He walked in all the sins of his father, which he had inns
before him, The sin and responsibility of those who continue to walk in the
paths of sinful, though general and time-honoured, customs, and who do not for
sake the idolatries and iniquities of their fathers. (2) His love was not set i
God. The worship of Jehovah was stil] continued. Abijah had experienced the
signal mercy of God (2 Chron. xill.) His heart might have been won. but it ‘‘ was
not perfect with the Lord his God as the heart of David his father.” ‘There was no
thirsting after God, no delight in the sense of the favour which is life, and the
loving-kindness which is better than life. The love of God the only source of
work for God. 2. The sinful was also a troubled reign: “there was war,” &¢
and it was war with brethren. 3. The opportunity was soon ended: “he
reigned three years.” Opportunities abused may be soon removed. The life
which sin has marred death may swiftly seal.

II. A RIGHTEOUS LIFE AN UNDYING POWER WITH Gop. “For Dayid’s sake did
the Lord his God give him,” &. Our good does not die with us or with our cene-
ration. The memory of it dwells, and prevails, with God. 1. The sinful kine hag
a son to succeed him, and one whom God directs and blesses. 2. The city is pre-
served and the flood of evil driven back—‘to establish Jerusalem.” God’s
promises, our prayers, and our purposes are alike remembered. They bloom amid
our dust. Our love and loyalty to God will fall in blessing upon ages yet to come,

III. SIN LEAVES ITS STAIN ON THE FAIR RECORD OF A RIGHTEOUS LIFE. “ Save
only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.” God will not wink at or cloak our
iniquity. Is there any matter of which thou and all will hear when the books are
opened? If there be, is it not a call for humiliation and for prayer ?—J. U.

I. Tue story or A MISUSED
Israel

Vers. 9—24.—* Zeal without trust.” AN OPPORTUNITY RECOGNIZED AND USED,
The need of the time was manfully met. Brought up in an idolatrous home, he
nevertheless saw that this sin was sapping the foundation of the nation’s stability
and strength, and he set himself to root it out. 1. The land was cleansed from
jilthy abomination, from legalized, and even sanctified, sin (“ And he took away
the Sodomites,” &c.) The nation that legalizes sin will reap corruption and
shame: that which suppresses it by righteous enactment will pass up into pu~ty
and strength and truest glory. 2. He put down idolatry with unflinching fart2-
fulness. He ‘‘removed aut the idols which his father had made.» ‘And also
Maachah his mother, even her he removed from being queen,” &c. Neither
reverence for the dead not fear of the living was suffered to stand in the way of
his obedience to God. Itis easy to condemn sin in the abstract. It is hard to
stand face to face with him who is its servant and say, ‘‘ Thou art the man.” Is
our faithfulness after the pattern of Asa’s? 38. His failwre was one of ability, not
of will (ver. 14). We may not be able to accomplish all we desire, or that is
needful, but if our heart be “perfect with the Lord” all is well. 4. He did not
keep back the Lord’s portion. The “silver and gold and vessels,’ which his
father and he himself had vowed, were brought into the Lord’s house. His faith-
fulness was shown in what he gave as well as in what he condemned.

II. THERE MAY BE ZEAL FOR GOD WITHOUT PERFECT TRUST IN Gop. The man
of action is not always a man of prayer. 1. Baasha’s atiempt (see 2 Chron. xvi. 7,
&c.) The danger was great, but to the politician there seemed a way out of it.
He was not shut up to God's help, as in the invasion by the Ethiopian king, and
therefore God was not sought. (1) Forsaking the path of trust, he entered the
1 KINGS. aAB54 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [on. xv. 1—24,

 

crooked ways of worldly policy. He bribed Ben-hadad to break faith with Baasha.
How often is self-help stained with meanness and worighteousness ! (2) God does
not always forsake His people when they forsake Him. Asa's plan succeeded.
The fortress that was being built against him became two for bin, unbelief was
so blessed, what mercies might have crowned faith ! 2. The disease wh ich envi, it-
tered his latter days. ‘‘ Nevertheless in the time of his old age he was diseased in
his feet.”” Here, again, his faith was tried and found wanting. ‘In his disease
he sought not to the Lord but to the physicians ” (2 Chron. xvi. 12); and he found
no relief. There is a limit to God’s forbearance even with Hispeople. How much
is there of our weakness and trouble and distress over which the words are written,
‘* Ye have not, because ye ask not” !—J. U.

Ver. 14.—Religious sincerity. A beautiful flower often springs from the midst
of corruption. 'The more we realize the moral condition of Asa’s surroundings the
more we wonder at the grace which made him what he was. His father was
Abijam (or Abijah), the second king of Judah, of whom it is said, ms He walked in
all the sins of his father, which he had done before him.” His education appears
to have been entrusted to Maachah, his grandmother, a daughter of Absalom the
rebel, and herself a gross idolatress. The remembrance of these facts makes the state-
ment respecting this young prince the more surprising—‘ Asa did that which was
right.in the eyes of the Lord, as did David his father.” An independent spirit and
a resolute will must have been coupled with his piety. [Show from this the possi-
bility of triumphing over the most adverse circumstances by those who sincerely
seek to serve God.] It is not, however, to his manly resolution, to his vigour, or
to his political wisdom that our attention is specially called by the text, but to his
RELIGIOUS SINCERITY,

I. RELIGIOUS SINCERITY ASSERTS ITSELF IN REFORMING ZEAL (vers: Fo tals th
was only twenty years since the death of Solomon, yet irreligion and vice had
corrupted the nation. Evil spreads more rapidly than good in a fallen world.
The deadly fungus springs up in a night, the fruit-tree grows slowly to perfection.
A half-hearted or timid man would have been content to worship Jehovah himself,
and thus silently rebuke the idolatry of his people ; but Asa, being an earnest man,
could not content himself with any laissez faire principle. With a strong hand he
would put down evil wherever he could reach it. Oftenin God’s sight to leave evil
alone, unrebuked, and uncombated isto share the guilt of those who commit it.
It is the spirit of Cain, and not of Christ, that asks, “ Am I my brother’s keeper ? ”’
Asa’s reforming zeal contains lessons to rulers, to employers, to parents, indeed
to all who can mould the circumstances of others. See, therefore, how it made
itself felt. 1. Opportunities for sin were diminished. Ver. 12 implies that there
were those in Judah who made a traffic of vice. Corrupt themselves, they cor-
rupted others. There are places in Christian cities which should be swept away by
the strong hand of law. 2. incentives to sin were destroyed. The idol referred to
(in ver. 13) is literally “‘the horror.” The obscene rites connected with its cultus
will not bear investigation. Suffice it to say that this so-called worship provoked
to vice of the most hideous kinds. Against provocations and incentives to sin how
earnestly should parents guard their children, and masters and mistresses their
servants. Impure literature is in the forefront of these > not only that which offends
by its grossness, but that which secretly stains by its suggestions. 3. Influences
for sin were removed. Sometimes vice is made popular by leaders of fashion or of
policy. The unrighteousness of a clever man, the impurity of a leader in society
are woefully far-reaching in their effects, Maachah, the queen-mother, was one
of the most potent in Asa’s court, was his near relation, his early instructress ; yet,
with as much wisdom as courage, “he removed her from being queen,” and
destroyed her idol publicly and shamefully. It might be said that he was in-
debted to her, that she was aged and should be respected, or that she could not
live long, and might therefore be tolerated. Such pleas would not avail with a
man whose ‘heart was perfect with the Lord.” (Apply this.)

II. Rewigious sinceriry PROCLAIMS ITSELF BY CONFIDENCE IN Gop. This con.CH. XV. 25—xvi. 28.]} THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

On

oF
OO

 

fidence was at the he ?
Lie as aA a Gé . E . °
history of the king ee ee ea ee a ee er ehtctaie tal
Stor} g (give nron.), and see how his confi isplaved itself
1. He found rest in God in peril Mar a 3 idence displ Led itself,
at er ul. any adversaries would be raised }
Matlon which was ruthless in its rigour. Idolatr r1@s
Maachah, &c., would rebel: but As was 1 ae f ibid priests, the party led by
aachan, WC., WOl DEL Sa was not perturbed. God was his ref '
a ’ as his refuee an
strength. 2. He offered prayer to God in his difficulty. As an dt abbie, an
Piao _ Describe the incursion of the Ethiopian host, and this prayer of the
ing ord, 1t 1s rit : : zee
oF »1t is nothing with thee to help, whether with many, or with them
that have no power: help us, O Lord our God, for we rest 1 in tl
Fy coho ae , C d , lor we rest on thee, and in thy
spn, Re g ; apne HS multitude, A victory followed which was unique in
i ey Poe 5 Roop e- Bondnost Walts on prayer in every struggle with evil.
3 secrades nes PG ws people to God after their deliverance (see ver.
ov, and compare with it 2 Chron. xv.) He renewed the covenant, and afresh
dedicated all he possessed to the Lord. So he deserved the hich commendation.
Asa’s heart was perfect with the Lord all his days.” It remains yet to be
observed that—
> x
Tit. RELIGIOUS SINCERITY MAY BE ASSOCIATED WITH IMPERFECT SERVICE. He
failed to remove the high places. This Hezekiah and Josiah did. To leave them
was to provide a way of return to the idolatrous practices he had put down
Beware of leaving lesser sins unconquered, after victory has been attained over
grosser crimes.—A. R,

er

9y & refor-

EXPOSITION.

CHAPTER XV. 25—XVI. 28. wherewith he made Israel to sin. [T.e.
not the rebellion, bub the schism (chs. xii.

Tue reiens or Napa, Baasna, Enan, | 30; xiy, 16 ;.¢f., vers., 30,34; xvi..9, 13.19
ZIMRI, AND Omri, KINGS oF Israry.—After | &c.; see Homiletics, p. 274). All the succes.
bringing up the history of the kings of | Sors of Jeroboam, it is clear, either thought
Tidah. which bas engaged his pen since themselves compelled, by the exigencies of

E their position, to adhere to his ecclesiastical
- ¢ f ¢ 9 re al ashe z >SLastice
ch. xiv. 21, to the date of the death of Asa, policy, or found themselves more and more

our author goes back some forty years to | entangled in its toils. ]

record the contemporary history of the king- Ver. 27.—And Baasha the son of Ahijah
dom of Israel, with which the rest of this | [not the prophet of that name (ch. xiv. 2),
book, the last thirteen verses alone excepted, who was an Ephraimite, whereas this Ahijah
. ; 1 een bona f was], of the house of Issachar [This fact is
ne occupied. On the o ‘ PE ene one g perhaps mentioned to distinguish the father
these reigns are even noticed by the chroni- | of Baasha from the prophet. Or it may
eler, who only refers to the history of Israel, | owe its insertion to the insignificance of this
so far as it is inextricably connected with | tribe (Gen. xlix. 14, 15) up to this date.
the object of his work; in other words, so This change of dynasty, unlike the last, was

: lai Muetcnt in no way connected with tribal jealousies.
far as is necessary to explain or Ulustrate | Baasha owed his elevation to his own abili-

the reigns of the kings of Judah. ties or to his unscrupulous daring], con-
Ver. 25.—And Nadab [= lnberal] the son | spired (The word implies associates. There
of Jeroboam began to reign [Heb. reigned] | wasa plot formed fur Nadab’s assassination]
over Israel in the second year of Asa king | against him: and Baasha smote him at
of Judah, and reigned over Israel two years. | Gibbethon [= eminence. In the tribe of
[The reigns of these five kings of Israel are | Dan (Josh. xix. 44) and a Levitical city:
related with great brevity. It was not the | one of the four assigned to the Levites in
object of the author to chronicle secular the territory of that tribe (ib., xxi. 23). It
history—for this he refers us to “the books | has not been identified. Hvidently it was
of the days”—he is only concerned with | on the border of Philistia. Some would con-
the events of their reigns in so far as they | nect 1t with the modern Mejdcl, a little to
relate to the kingdom of God.] the north of Ascalon. The reader will ob-
Ver. 26.—And he did evil in the sight of | serve how large a number of the names of
the Lord, and walked in the way of his towns indicate their elevation. | The cities
father [Jeroboam begat all his sons, save of those days were set on a hey 1
one, ‘in his own likeness’, and in his sin dangerous to build in the plain}, whicTHE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[ou. xv. 25—av1. 28,

 

pelonged to the Philistines [Blunt sugzests
(* Coincidences,” p. 181) that it was because
the place had been deserted by the Leyites,
in the general exodus to Judah, that the
Philistines availed themselves of the oppor-
tunity to seize and fortify it. But the
divided and consequently weakened state
of the kingdom would of itself have encou-
raged them to throw off the yoke of Israel
(Mwald)]; for Nadab and all Israel laid
siege to Gibbethon.

Ver. 28.—Even in the third year of Asa
[We have here (as in ch. xvi. 8, 23) a con-
gpicuous 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 (ver. 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. [Prob-
ably Nadab had showed himself quite un-
equal to the task of govcruing, of which
scuding the army was in tiat age a principal
function (1 Sam. viii. 20). It is just pos-
sible 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
(ch. xi. 26).]

Ver. 29.—And it came to pass, when he
reigned, that he smote all the house of
Jeroboam; he left not to Jeroboam any
that breathed [Same expression in Josh. xi.
14; cf. Deut. xx. 16. Males and females
alike were destroyed; see ch. xiv. 11],
until he had destroyed him, according
unto the saying of the Lord, which he
spake by his servant Ahijah the Shilonite
[ch, xiv. 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 him-
self 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 Jero-
boam’s house survived, Gyrotius aptly cites,
with reference to these wholesale murders,
the saying, yymiwe¢ b¢ waréipa Kréivag, viotc
Karédwre| :

Ver. 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,
(Ci. ch. xvi. 2, 7, 18, 26, &e.]

 

 

Ver. 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 ?

Ver. 32.—And there was war between
Asa and Baasha king of Israel all their

days. [Verbatim as ver, 16, where see
note. Several commentators suggest that

this latter statement was copied from the
chronicles of Israel, and that of ver. 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. ]

Ver, 33.—In the third year of Asa king of
Judah began Baasha the son of Ahijah to
reign [Practically a repetition of ver. 28.
These iterations are thoroughly in accord
with Eastern usage (cf. vers. 26, 30, 34; ch.
xvi. 1, 7, &c.)] over all Israel in Tirzah,
twenty and four years.

Ver. 34.—And he did evil in the sight of
the Lord, and he walked in the way of Jero-
boam, and in his sin wherewith he made
Israel to sin,

CHAPTER XVI.

This division of chapters, immediately
after the commencement of the narrative
of the reign of Baasha, is somewhat unfor-
tunate, 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 Jero-
boam 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,
Abijah.

Ver. 1.—Then the word of the Lord came
to Jehu, the son of Hanani [Hanani is
mentioned in 2 Chron. xvi. 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 Chron. xix. 2 a resident in Jerusalem,
and protesting against the alliance between
Jehoshaphat, whose historian he became,
and whom, consequently, he must have sur-
vived (2 Chron. xx. 34), and Ahab. He is
mentioned in the verse last cited as ** madeto
ascend on the book of the kings of Israel”
(see Introduction, p, xii.) His prophetieCH. XV. 25--xv1. 28.]

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

  

857

 

career must have extended over at least
half a century] against Baasha, saying,

Ver. 2.—Forasmuch as I exalted thee out
ofthe dust [cf. ch, xiv.7 ; 2Sam.vii. 8; Psa.
Ixxvili. 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: ch.
1.35; 1 Sam. ix. 16; x.1; cf. Dan. ix. 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.
Fiven 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 vez,
one word] with their sins;

Ver. 3.—Behold, I will take away [Heb.
exterminate ; same word as in chs. xiv. 10
(where see note) ; xxi. 21 ; xxii. 47, &c.] 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. ch. xv. 29; xxi. 22, &c.]

Ver. 4.—Him that dieth of [Heb. to;
see note on ch. xiv, 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).]

Ver. 5.—Now the rest of the acts of
Baasha, and what he did, and his might
[as to which see ch. xv. 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, how-
ever, would interpret the word, both here
and in ch. xv. 23, of his energy and strength
in government. Better Bahr, 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?

Ver. 6.—So Baasha slept with his
fathers, and was buried in Tirzah (cf. ch. xv.
21, 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 ch. xiil. 14), is
also the name of the great valley (1 Sam.

 

 

 

Xv. 2,19; xxi. 9) near to Gibbethon, where
Baasha was proclaimed king.]

Ver. 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 ver. 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 Bihr hold that it is designed to
guard against a perversion of ver. a ey
made thee prince,” &c., 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 ver. 2, that Baasha was visited
by God for his various sins. It was no
chance that happened to him. The exci-
sion 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 [ver. 2;
note the coincidence with ch. xv. 30, in con-
nexion with the next words. Bahr explains
‘*the works of his hands” as idols, Dii
factitii, after Deut. iv. 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.

Ver. 8.—In the twenty and sixth year of
Asa, king of Judah, began Elah, son of
Baasha, to reign over Israel, two years (cf.
ch. xv. and see note on ch. xy. 28].

Ver. 9.—And his servant [Not only ‘‘sub-
ject,” as Rawlinson, but officer. ‘The same
word is used of Jeroboam; ch. xi. 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 descend-
ants of Joaathan (1 Chron. viii. 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

357 as in ch. ix. 19; x. 26. The violation
of the law of Deut. xvii. 16 brings its own
retribution], conspired against him [pre-
cisely as Elah’s father had ‘‘ conspired ”’ (ch.
xv. 27) against Nadab], as he was in Tirzah,
drinking himself drunk in the house of
Arza, steward of [Heb. which was over ; cf.
chs. iv. 6 ; xviii. 3; 2 Kings x.5; xvill. 37] his
house in Tirzah. (Several points present
themselves for notice here. First, the ex-358 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[cu. xv. 25—xvr. 28,

 

ample 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 Sam. xxiv. 6, 10;
xxvi. 9,16; 2 Sam.i. 14), nor isit accounted
a sin to grasp at che crown. (2) Zimri
only does what Baasha had done before
him. That prince was “hoist with his
own petard.” (3) Elah would seem to
haye been a dissolute and pusillanimous
prince. His place was clearly with his army
at Gibbethon ,(ver..,15.; ef), Josi;.. vil,
12. 4). And as clearly it was not in the
house of one of his subjects, even the in-
tendant of his palace. ‘*An Oriental
monarch . .. is precluded by etiquette
from accepting the hospitality of his sub-
jects > — Rawlinson, who further remarks
that the low tastes which we here find EKlah
indulging ‘‘ had probably been formed before
his father was exalted owt of the dust.” As
probably they were inherited. direct from
his father, Anyhow, they led to his destruc-
tion. Jt is. clear that Elah’s want. of
character, like Nadab’s, suggested the con-
spiracy of Zimri. (4) It is extremely prob-
able, though not absolutely certain, as
Bahr 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. ]

Ver. 10.—And Zimri went in (cf. Judge. ili.
20; 2 Sam. iv. 7] and smote him and killed
him, in the twenty and seventh year of
Asa king of Judah, and reigned in his
stead. (Cf. ch. xv. 28 and 2 Kingsxy. 23. It
is curious how it happened three times in
the history of Israel that ‘‘ the only. power-
ful prince in a new dynasty was its founder,
and after his son and successor reigned two
years, the power passed into other hands ”
(Hwald).]

The Reign of Zimri.

Ver. 11.—And it came to pass when he
began to reign, as soon as he sate on his
throne, that heslew all the house of Baasha
[see note on ch. xv. 29. The LXX. Vat.
omits the rest of this verse and the first
clause of ver. 12]: he left him not one that
pisseth against a wall [i.e., not a boy.
See ch. xiv. 10 note], neither of [Heb. and]

his kinsfolks [The Ssh is strictly the per-
son to whom (1) the right of redemption
(Levit. xxv. 26; Ruth, passim) and (2) the
duty of avenging blood (Num, xxxv. 19)
belonged. And this being the next-of-kin
(Ruth it. 12,13), the word came to mean
near relative, kinsman, as here; ef. Ruth ii.
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

 

ver. 16) that none of Baasha’s children, if
he had other children, had gone to the war],
nor of his friends. [(Aimri went a step
farther than Baasha had gone. He was not
content wila extirpating the royal family,
but put to death the pxriizans of the ho use,
all who would be likely to sympathize with
Klah or to resent his murder. }

Ver. 12.—Thus did Zinri destroy all the
house of Baasha, according to the word of
the Lord wiich he spake against Baasha, by
[Heb. in the hand of] Jehu the prophet
[Vers. 1, 7; cf. ch. xv. 29. The analogy is
now complete],

Ver. 13.—For bs corresponds with the
by of ver, 7 = propter; cf. chs. xiv. 5; xxi.
22] all the sins of Baasha, and the sins of
Elan his son, by which they sinned, and by
wiich they made Israel to sin, in provoking
the Lord Ged of Israel to anger [the for-
mula of ch. xv. 30, &c.] with their vanities,
[Lhe calves, not idols, are referred to here.
Gi. Deut, xxx, 21> ..0 Wor. vi 40) he
same idea is embodied in the word Beth-
aven; Hosea iv. 15; v. 8.]

Ver. 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 ?

Ver. 15.—In the twenty and seventh year
of Asa king of Judah did Zimrireign [The
same word elsewhere translated in A. V.
began to reign. It is really an aorist =
succeeded to the throne] seven days in Tir-
zah. And the people were encamped
[Heb. encamping] against Gibbethon, which
belonged to the Philistines. [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 con-
spirators during a siege of this place. But
when the narrative is examined, its proba-
bility 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 him-
self king, he discovered that he had domestie
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 ex-
perienced. 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 fainéant Klah from besiegingCH. xv. 25-—xv1. 28.]

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 Hah.)

Ver. 16.—And the people that were en-
camped heard say, Zimri hath conspired,
and hath also slain the king : wherefore all
Israel [obviously, all the army. Cf. ch.
xii, 1, 16, 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
eamp. It was the natural thing for them,
therefore, to turn to Omri. He had the
advantage of being in possession. The cap-
tain of the host stood next to the king
(2 Kings iv. 13; 2 Sam. v. 8; xix. 13; xx.
23), and twice stepped into his place (2
Kings ix. 5). This history has many paral-
lels in that of the Roman empire. ]

Ver. 17.—And Omri went up from Gib-
bethon [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 ver. 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 con-
spiracy to travel to Gibbethon and for the
march of the army.]

Ver. 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 [})1078 citadel, fortress, from
DIS alius fuit. So Gesen., Keil, Bahr, al.
The palace, no doubt, consisted of a string of
buildings (ch. vii. 2—9) of which this was
the highest and strongest part. Hiwald
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 1x,
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 (vol. iv. p. 36). But, as Bahr remarks,
there is nothing of this in the text, and
Zimri’s desperate act rather shows daring
and contempt of death than effeminacy or

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS; 8

 

 

 

 

 

859

sensuality. And 2 Kings xy. 25 (cf. Psa,
Cxxll. 7) seems to point to a stronchold
rather than a seraglio}] of the king's house,
and burnt the king’s house [probably the
palace which Jeroboam had built. Ewald
thinks it was this structure gave Tirzah its
reputation for beauty; Cant. vi. 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 vii. 107], and died. [This word
is intimately connected with the verse fol-
lowing. 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. Bahr re-
marks that of Elah and Zimri we learn
nothing, apart from the fact that they held
to the sin of Jeroboam, except how they
died.]

Ver, 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 sympa-
thies were with the irreligious party. Bahr
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 bap-
tized. 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 judg-
ment 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.]

Ver. 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, arid does not
add ‘‘and all that he did,” &c.], and his
treason that he wrceught [Heb. his con-
spiracy 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 the360 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

(cH. xv. 25—xvr. 28,

 

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.

Ver. 21.—Then were the people of Israel
divided into two parts: half of the people
followed [lit., was after. Same expression
2 Sam. ii. 10; cf. ch. i. 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 con-
jecture. It is to be considered that the
entire army was not encamped before Gib-
bethon. Nor are vers. 16,17 fatal to this
view, as Bahr 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 con-
tinue 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 im-
portance, or have had, somehow, a consider-
able following, resolved that Omri should
not wear it without a fierce contest], to
make him king [Omri had been already
made king, ¢.e., anointed, ver. 16]; and half
followed Omri.

Ver. 22.—But the people that followed
Omri prevailed against the people that fol-
lowed 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. viii. 12. § 5, he was
slain by the conqueror. The LXX, has here
@ curivus 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.

Ver. 23.—In the thirty and first year of
Asa king of Judah began Omri to reign over
Israel, twelve years [As Omri was pro-
claimed king in the twenty-seyenth and
died in the thirty-eighth year of Asa (cf.
vers. 15, 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 ver. 22, and read, ‘‘ And Omri reigned in
the thirty-first,” &c. But to this there are
two serious objections. First, that ver. 23,
as it now stands, only follows the usual for-
mula with which a new reign is announced
(cf. vers. 8, 15, 29); and, second, it is ex-
tremely doubtful whether any prose sentence
in the Hebrew ever begins as ver. 23 would
then do, ‘‘ Reigned Omri over Israel twelve
years.” Such a sentence would certainly be
quite alien to the wusus loquendi of our
author. We are therefore reduced to the
conclusion either (1) that the text here, as
in some other instances (ch. vi. 1; 2 Kings
1,17; of. iii. 1; xili.1, 10, &c.), has suffered
at the hands of a reviser, or (2) that the
numbers have been corrupted in transcrip-
tion; 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 vers. 10, 15, 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.

Ver. 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 (ver. 18) on Zimri’s death. But
the palace being burnt and the defences
perhaps weakened by the siege, he deter-
mined, rather than rebuild it, to founda
capital elsewhere] the hil! Samaria [{Heb.
Shomerén, called by Herod Sebaste, whence
its modern name Sebustich. In his selection
of Samaria for the seat of government,
Omri acted with singularjudgment. It has
been said that ‘‘Shechem is the natural
capital of Palestine,” and no doubtit enjoys
a commanding position and great advan-
tages, but Samaria has even superior recom-
mendations. 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 combina-
tion of strength, fertility, and beauty, that
the like is hardly to be found in Palestine ”
(vol. i. pp. 374, 375), nevertheless readily al-
lows its superiority to Tirzah, and remarks
on the strength of its position. ‘* Many
travellers have expressed a conviction thas
the spot was in most respects much pre-
ferable to the site of Jerusalem” (Kitto).
Ji is a large oval or oblong mound, with
a level surface, adapted for buildings,
with steep sides to make its position im-CH. XV. 25—xvr. 28.]

ee

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS,

   

361

 

pregnable, and surrounded by an amphi-
theatre of hills. ‘ Samaria is in a position
of great strength... and must before the in-
vention of gunpowder have been almost im-
pregnable. It stands some 400 feet above
the valley, the sides of the hill being steep
and terraced in every direction for cultiva-
tion, or perhaps for defensive purposes...
broad and open valleys stretch north and
south, and the hill is thus almost isolatec ~
Conder, p. 47, who adds, ‘*Strategical rea-
sons 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” (p. 49). Grove
(Dict. Bib. i11. 1099) speaks of ‘* the singular
beauty of the spot,” and Stanley (‘ Jewish
Church” ii. p. 284) 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 Jong as the
kingdom lasted] of Shemer for two talents
of silver [variously estimated at £500 and
£800. This purchase, obviously of the
freehold, 7.e., in perpetuity, was in contra-
vention of the law of Levit. xxv. 23. David
had bought the threshing-floor of Ornan, but
that was (1) from a Jebusite, and (2) for a
high religious purpose (2 Sam. xxiv. 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.
Pea, xlix,. 11). .The reluctance. of the
Israelite to part with his patrimony, even to
the king, is brought out very strikingly in
ch. xxi. Shemer, in selling his choice par-
cel of land for a capital, might well wish to
connect his name with it. The fact that

ww means watch-mountain (Gesen.), and

that we should have expected a name formed
from Shemer to take the form Shimrén—
Shomeroén 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 Chron. vil.
32, 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
words, was the form which wit assumed

 

amongst the Semitic races (as, indeed is the
case still, see Conder, p. 801), and the form
Shomerén 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
(OW) of the law (Ewald). The Greek
form of the name, Lapudpera, Would seem to
have been derived through the Chaldee

pw as found in Ezra iv. 10, 17. ]

Ver. 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 vi. 16 (‘the statutes of Omri,
&c.”) 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 iso-
lating the people of Israel from the services
of the house of the Lord at Jerusalem”
(Kitto).

Ver. 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.

Ver, 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 xx. 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 Inscrip-
tion as “the son of Omri” (Rawlinson,
“Hist. Illus. of O. T.,” pp. 111—12). Itis
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? [Vers. 26, 27 are an exact repeti-
tion, mutatis mutandis, of ch. xiii. 14; cf.
xy. 30. ]

Ver. 28.—So Omri slept with his fathers,
and was buried in Samaria [After the ex-
ample of earlier kings, he found a grave in
his capital city ; cf. chs. ii. 10; xi. 43; xv.
31: xvi. 16]: and Ahab his son reigned in
his stead.362 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.  [cu. xv. 25—xv1. 28.

 

HOMILETICS.

Ver. 29.—The Punishment of Jeroboam’s Sin. We have already considered the
true character of Jeroboam’s sin (pp. 274 sqq.) It now remains for us to observe,
first, the punishment which it provoked, and secondly, its workings in later genera-
tions. And its punishment was so great and so varied that it will of itself occupy
the rest of this homily. ee

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 RETRIBUTION WHICH BEFELL THE ROYAL HOUSE.

II. THE RETRIBUTION WHICH OVERTOOK THE PEOPLE AT LARGE.

I. And in considéring 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 (ch. xiv. 18).

3. Remorse and vexation. He could not fail to compare the two messages of
Ahijah (chs. xi. 81—839; xiv. 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 (ch. xiv. 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,
itis possible that this remorse was so poignant that it shortened his days; that it
was thus ‘‘the Lord struck him, and he died” (2 Chron. xiii. 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 aJew. 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 (ch. xvi. 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 andOH. XV. 25—xv1. 28.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 36%
ee
n kingdoms would supply many

 

 

 

 

children. The annals of Tur
illustrations of this deed.

0. 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 gon’s death, but steadily drooped to his grave. Some-
how his life was cut short. “The wicked shall be silent in darkness.”

Such, then, was the fourfold penalty which Jeroboam paid for his sin.
now consider the punishment which befell }
and ‘“‘ departed not”’ from his heresy. W

1. In the shortness of their reigns. Nadab, Elah, Ahaziah, all reioned 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 reien: 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 thiese 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 but-
chery 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 penaltics 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 compre-
hended under the words. The case of Naboth (ch. XX1.) was probably not the only one
of its kind. We may be sure, too, that when lah was drinking himselt avunk, in-
justice was being practised in his name. Incapacity—on the part of the kii g—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, aud Menahems.
What suffering a change ot dynasty involved on the people we may eae ae
2 Kings xy. 16. An -Hastern kingdom at the best was a despotism, at the worst a
ome war. The four years’ struggle between Omri oe pokes Cee
respective partisans, which was a war to the death (ch. Xvi. a cane Ae Bees
miseries on the country than civil war always does. Lands eS j; Bor a Ae
fired, women violated—these were some of its incidents. tt has ogi os ae

: iV acd te description of a battle. What shall be said of a battle
one can give any adequate description o Hilal ai aaigeiecsl aaa aude waa
lasting over four years? for in a country not so large as Yorkshu
mean unceasing conflict. bi a Gti, 4), (2) by Shishak, (3) by Syria, (4)

a suvaaon ()) By Abiyjah (2 Chron. xi. 4/,.(4) by eit Judah, Syria was the
Pee ea one ai eat EEE oh fe a 19 Bethel thi captured
lash of Israel. Observe that in the invasio : sh, Xu. a ; aes ne he ge
by the men of Judah, whilst in that of ch. xy. 20, a ee a gr
wis among the first to suffer. The priests of he a eign eae Bae a mene
ear tans ds at Bk ei ¢ aioe en Aaaee the land (ch. xx; 2 Kings
i 3] 3ut the bands of Syria wer ay’ OT OUe 4 ;

vi) And ie a ‘little maid” (2 Kings v. 2) was carried off to dishonour,

key and other Easter

Let ug
us successors, who “ walked in his way”
e may trace it—

‘‘ Many a childing mother then
And new-born baby died.”364 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.  [cu. xv. 25—xv1. 28.

 

What a picture of the horrors of war have we in 2 Kings viii. 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. H

4. Loss of territory. Israel was ‘‘cut short” (2 Kings x. 82). In 2 Kingsi. 1
(cf. ii, 5) Moab rebels. Syria, its great adversary, was once an appanage of Israel.
Now Israel is made a dependency of Assyria (2 Kings xv. 19, 20).

5. Famine. It was the Lord called for this (2 Kings viii. 1). It was one of His
‘sore judgments” (Ezek, xiv. 18, 21). And it would seem to have been almost
chronic in Israel (cf. chs. xvii. 1, 12; xvill. 2; 2 Kings iv. 88; vi. 25 sqq.; vii. ;
vill. 1). And the terrible straits to which the people were reduced thereby may be
inferred from 2 Kings vi. 25, 29; cf. Deut. xxviii. 56, 57. sah

6. Captivity. For the carrying away beyond Babylon into the cities of the
Medes was part of the reckoning for Jeroboam’s sin, and for the allied sin of
idolatry (ch. xiv. 15; 2 Kings xvii. 22, 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 faintidea, ‘*‘ 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
xxi. 13, and compare Herod. 11. 149, vi. 81, 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 suffer-
ings 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. ‘I'wo hundred and fifiy years after the schism, the seed sown by
Jeroboam was still reaped in cruelty and agony and blood.

Ver. 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 ; itis inwrought into their constitution. Asa 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 (eh. xiv. 3). Fortes
ercantur 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 Jero-
boam’s school, but they reproduced in their own persons the self-will, the impa-
tience 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” (ch. xv. 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, corre-
sponding with the depravation of religion. The very revolutions, which followed
one after another, are in themselves a proof of this. The chronic disaffection and
the periodical upheavings of society in the northern kingdom, especially when con-
trasted 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 kscame like a reed shaken in the
Wwater—so often rebelled against its sovereigns. Jeroboam had accustomed themCH. Xv. 25—xvi.28.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS, 865

 

to play fast and loose with the commandments of Heaven: w
made small account of their obligations to their earthly king ?

d. He taught Baasha, Zimri, and Omri to lift wp their hands a
Just as David’s religious veneration for the person of the
to make his throne and that of his successors the mor
rebellion (ch. xi. 26) afford an example of
were not Jikely to believe in the « divinity that doth hedge a kins.”
they scruple to grasp at the crown if it came within their reach? 1
more sacred than Rehoboam? Why should the son of Baasha. ;
respect than the son of Solomon ?

4. He taught his subjects, indirectly,

hat wonder if they

guinst the king.
‘Lord’s anointed ” tended

€ secure, so did Jeroboam’s
ageression to later ages, His subjects
Why should
Why was Nadab
gain, have more
ubject to hold life cheap. There had been two
changes of dynasty before Baasha had learned from him to attack the kine and to
exterminate his family, but both of these had been, so far as the royal terri 7 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 kind-
ness of God unto him?” (2 Sam. ix. 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 ” (ch. xv. 29; ef. Xvi. 11; 2 Kings x 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 (ch. xvi.
18, 24). It is clear to the most cursory reader that a daring impiety charac-
terizes the whole period from Jeroboam to Hoshea, and for this “the sin of Jero-
boam”’ is mainly responsible. That was the “ first step” which makes the rest of
the road easy.

). He entailed his sin wpon his successors. Ofecach 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 reflec-
tion will show that this, under the circumstances, was well-nigh an impossibility.
For Jeroboam had made the cealf-worship an integral part of the national life. Tt
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 acknow-
ledge 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 seeond
schism. No, it wasclear 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 ch. xiv. 15, we find the ‘‘ oroves ”
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 im-
possible, had not the deep descent to the calf-worship been traversed first. Pecatt
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 wp
*‘ the tabernacle of Moloch and the star of the god Remphan ” (Acts vii. 42, 43). If
men will not have God in their thoughts, He gives them over to a reprobate mind
Rom. i. 28).
3 7. We = 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 igno-
rance of law, or defiance of law, it is to Jeroboam’s sin the deed owed its perpetra-
tion. The law might well be forgotten which had been so completely ignored, And
the subject had been encouraged to violate it by his sovereign,866 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.  [cu. xv. 25—xvz. 28.

 

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.

MOMILIES BY VARIOUS AUTHORS.
Vers. 25—34.—The Seed of Hvil-doers. 1. 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 thig
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 Jeroboarn. 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 (ver. 84). 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” (Rom. ix. 8; see also the
reasoning, Rom. ix. 138—18). (2) Thus God can, out of the very stones, raise up
children to Abraham. Gentile believers in Christ are such (see Matt. iii. a
Gal. iti. 26, 29)... (8) In this sense all are not Israel who are of Israel. Descend-
ants of Abraham who follow not his true faith and good works are not his seed
(see John vui. 87, 40; Rom. ii. 28; ix. 7; Gal. vi. 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 Gen. iii. 15 ; John
vil. 44; 1 John ii. 8). So are the wicked, without exception, the seed of the
wicked.

Il. THE TRIUMPHING 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”
(ch. xiv. 20). But this was little more than half the term of Asa’s reign (ver. 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 (vers. 25, 28). (8) 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 vexationCH. XV. 25—xvi. 28.} THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 867

 

 

 

 

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. (8) How
difheult for men to learn that worldly ambition and vexation are sisters ; tl at
Sieeatt happiness is found only in the ways of God! Ge ee
I. THE END OF THE WICKE ESTRU Sol lsd Lanne 4 Ba
hia keen, Wiemien tet meee I This ws written im history,
: recorded in the his se 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) Tliste
examples are but samples of history at large—sacred, secular, 2. [tis also written
in prophecy. (1) We meet with it in the alternatives to the conditions of salvation
(2) Tins destruction follows the spirit into the invisible world, and is a “much
sorer punishment” than that which terminates in natural death. (3) The judg-
ments upon the wicked recorded in history are but figures of the more terrible doom
threatened in prophecy.—J. A. M. 7

Vers. 25—34.—God’s threatenings find ut last a complete fulfilment. I. Tun
LAST STEP IN A CAREER OF REBELLION AND FOLLY. Nadab micht 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 micht 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 ex-
planation of all that follows. Contempt of the claims of revelation, and rebellion
against God are but the revelation to men ofa 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 to-day as we did
not know before? ‘Then the guilt of their retention is greater than that of their
first commission. 8. 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 supement. 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 (ver. 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. xv. 883—xvi. 7.—Unrighteous Zeal. I. SMITERS OF THE SINFUL ARE NOT NECES-
SARILY RIGHTEOUS (ch. xv. 83, 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 (Rom. i. 1).
9. His evil life. ‘*He did evil in the sight of the Lord.” State reforms are mm-
possible 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. 8. His hurtful reign. He368 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. (cn. xv. 25—xvz 28;

 

‘‘ walked in the way of Jeroboam,” &e. He may have condemned Jeroboam’s sin
in regard to the calves, &.; 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. Gop’s messaGe To BAAsHa (ch. xvi. 1—7). 1. His exaltation was of God.
‘“* JT 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?” (Rom. i. 4.) 38. 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, ‘Tf we had only place or wealth, &., God would be served and men blessed.”
These have been given and what has been done? Has the vow been performed ?
4. Baashu's punishment worse than Jeroboam’s. ‘I will take away the posterity
of Baasha and the posterity of his house” (see ver. 11, ‘‘ Neither of his kindred nor
of his friends”). ‘The Divine justice is shown in the differing penalties of sin.—
Jer Ut

Vers. 1—7.—Jehw’s Prophecy. Jehu was a prophet and the son of a prophet. Of
his father Hanani we read in 2 Chron. xvi. 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 Chron. xix. 2; xx. 34). In
his prophecy here—

I. Ht RECITES THE CRIMES OF BAasHA. These were—1l. 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 bea king. (See ch. xi. BY»): 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. (8) To make God’s people to sin, not as by accident, but of set pur-
pose, is the highest crime. This Baasha did in upholding Jeroboam’s calves—the
‘““work”’ of men’s “‘hands” (ver. 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 Chron. xvi. iL),
3. That he thereby provoked the anger of the Lord against them. (1) This ex-
pressed itself in the incessant wars by which they were shaken “as a reed is shaken
in the water” (ch. xiv. 15), (2) This is laid at the door of Baasha. His house ig
implicated with him. Jehu, therefore, had a message also to his house (ver fy
4. And because he killed Jeroboam. (1) This, however, he did not, in person.
Jeroboam died on his bed (ch. xiv. 20). (2) But, in his house, he slew him (ch.
xv. 27—29). A man lives in his posterity; when his posterity are destroyed or
exterminated, he is extinct. (8) Perhaps the words ‘“ because he killed him” might
be fairly rendered ‘ because he killed z#,” viz., the house of Jeroboam. This any-

how is the meaning (see ch, xy. 27, 29). The notion that he killed Jehu is incon-CH. XV. 20-- xv1.28.]} THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS,
aan A Eh IRD a oS calg

sistent with the records of histor , which bring
days of Jehoshaphat. y , ring

Il. HE vUTrers THE JUDGMENTS OF THE Lorp. 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 ag male issue was to be destroyed. ie wa
to be utterly rooted out. o History repeats itself. (1) It does this because reanio
must provoke appropriate punishment. God recognizes the lex falionie--ove 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 ag 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
a 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 him 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.

369

a oer eae eee ee
Jehu upon the scene again in the

Vers. 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
ainongst them, ‘‘in whom was found some good thing towards the Lord God of
Israel” (see ch. xiv. 13). The judgment of God upon this wicked house is written
in the words before us. We have to reflect upon—

I. THE DEPRAVITY OF THE HOUSE OF Baasua. 1. The prophecy of Jehu came to
them as @ 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 (Gen. xvill. 23—82). See the effect
of the contrition of Ahab (ch. xxi. 27—29). How the judgment of the Lord upon
Nineveh was averted through their humiliation before God (Jonah iii.,iv.). (8) 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
(Cant. vi. 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
fora king! (8) 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 :mprove 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 iimgdom
of Christ. This was the spirit of Paul’s exhortations, even when such a monster as
Nero ruled the kingdoms of the world (see Rom. xiii. 1; 1 Tim.ii.1, 2; Tit. 1. 1;
also 1 Pet. ii. 13, 17).

IT. Tue ee OF THE JuDGMENTS OF Gop. 1. The wicked follow their
own devices. (1) Zimri had an ambition to reign. Such an ambition is not a
common. Few can ascend the throne of a kingdom. But there are tyrants on the
1 KINGS. a370 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.  [cu. xv. 25—xv1. 28.

 

 

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 xxi. 84). (8) 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! Ifmen 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 ix. 81). (8)
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 satished with an earthly
crown, or to pay its price.—J. A. M.

Vers. 8—20.—A Divine judgment and its instrument. I. THE supement. 1. It
was delayed in God's long-suffering. Baasha had reigned nearly twenty-four
years; Elah nearly two. The Lord is swift to bless but slow to strike. He has no
delight in a sinner’s death. Do we remember that God’s long-suffering to-day is
not forgetfulness or indifference, but the restraining of infinite love? 2. Lt came
upon him in his sin. The army was in the field, but he was not there. He was
deaf to the calls of duty and honour. He had lost his self-respect; he “was
drinking himself drunk in the house” of his chamberlain. And now in a moment
pleasure was swallowed up in terror, the misused life in death. The suddenness
of God’s judgments: “at such an hour as ye think not,” &. 38. Its extent. It was
not less than was predicted. His kindved and his friends were cut off and their
offspring (ver. 11). Every word was fulfilled. God’s threatenings are not exaggera-
tions meant to frighten us away from sin; they are descriptions. God's eye 1s
resting on the woe which is hid from us, and His words are those of perfect truth
and tenderest love.

Il. THe instrument. 1. Zimri was his servant. He had trusted and advanced
him. Again we notice how ingratitude and rebellion against God are repaid in
kind. If there be no love and truth toward God in us, let us not be surprised if we
find these wanting in others toward us. 2. Though his deed fulfilled God's word,
ét was not of God: ‘*he sinned in doing evii) the sight of the Lord;” it was
‘treason that he wrought.” That which punishes evil may itself be sin. God’s
shield was withdrawn from around the louse of Baasha, and an ambitious, cruel
heart was allowed to work its will upon them. It is no justification of our act that
the nation or persons against whom it is done were wicked and deserved their fate;
the question remains, Were we righteous in inflicting it ? 38. The scowrge was soon
broken and cast away. He reigned but seven days. In slaying the king he was
but ending his own life ; in entering the palace gained by blood, he was laying him-
self upon his funeral pyre. The cup we covet may be a cup of death. Take God’s
way, and bide God’s time: He will give that which is good.—J. U.

Vers. 15—22.—The Kingdom of Men. Though “the Most High ruleth in the
kingdom of men,” yet is He not responsible for the principles by which such
kingdoms are actuated. For these are in striking contrast to those which shall
obtain in the “‘kingdom of God.” In the kingdom of men as represented in the
specimen hefore us we encounter—

I. Forzy. 1. True religion is pure wisdom. (1) It is the ‘ wisdom of God”
revealed—outwardly, in His word—inwardly, by being written by His Spirit inCH. XV. 25—xvi. 28.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 871

the heart. (2) To encourage this is man’s highest wisdom. Godliness has promise
of this life—of that to come. 2. False religion is supreme folly. (1) Itisin some
respects even worse than no religion. It is more than a negation in respect to
truth; it is pertinacious antagonism to truth. (2) It is folly in relation to the
highest interests of man. It demoralizes in the proportion of its ascendancy. It
forfeits the heaven it professes to seek. It aggravates the hell it professes to avoid.
(3) It expresses itself in vanity. What more vain than the idols of the heathen ?
The very forms of those idols evince the monstrosity of folly. Witness a monkey
or an onion fora God; a fish with a man’s head ; asatyr; a eriffin ! (see Deut. xxxij.,
21; Isa. xli. 29.) 38. Of such folly was the kingdom of Israel flagrantly guilty.
(1) The calves with which they so deeply sinned were introduced by the kingcraft
of Jeroboam. (2) 'They are maintained by the kingcraft of all his successors, of
whatever dynasty. Even Zimri, who only reigned seven days, and in those days
was occupied in exterminating the house of Baasha, yet found time to pronounce
himself in their favour. (8) What a substitute for the Lord God of Israel who
brought them up out of the land of Egypt!

Il. RestLEssness. 1. Witnessed wm frequent dynastic changes. (1) The house
of Jeroboam lasted twenty-four years. ‘This gave place to that of Baasha, which
lasted twenty-six. Zimri wore the crown seven days. Then came a four years’
struggle for it between Omri and Tibni. At length “ Tibni died and Omri reigned,”
2. These changes represcnted strong passions. (1) There was the impatience of
the rule of the house of David which resulted in the revolution in favour of Jeroboam.
Yet so little did they benefit by the change, that when Baasha destroyed that house
they accepted, without a murmur, the rule of the regicide. (2) But when Zimri treated
the house of Baasha as Baasha had treated that of Jeroboam, they did not accept
the second regicide. They now evinced some sense of right and wrong ; but it was
a wayward sense. There was no inquiry after the will of God. The army set up
Omri, their general; but the civilians, apparently, chose Tibni. Here was a con-
fusion which lasted until the death of one competitor. 8. These commotions were
sanguinary. (1) The division of the nation into two kingdoms induced civil war.
(2) Civil war also attended the treason of Zimri. For the army was occupied with
the siege of Gibbethon when the news of this treason reached them, which deter-
mined them to raise the siege and invest Tirzah instead. The capture of Tirzah was
not unbloody. A desperate character like Zimri would not tamely yield, when,
rather than fall into the hands of Omri, he burnt the palace over his h ead and
perished in the flames. (3) The competition for the crown between Omri and Pibui
protracted the civil war four years. Omri is not said to have resigned until the thirty.
first year of Asa, whereas Zimri’s treason occurred in the twenty-seventh year of vat
upon which ie: oe by the army. (Compare vers. 15 and 23.) 1¢

iffer here is about four years.

fe cael Es fe ei oae er this head is idolatry. (1) We mentioned this
under the head of ‘‘ folly,” but it is not thereby removed from the category a
“crime.” Idolatry is the grossest and most direct insult to the living ae c (2)
Hence no crime isin Scripture more heavily denounced and more PBR DG Pie
to punishment. 2. Next comes the capital crime of murder. 0 Ss 1 seas
the highest affront to God, so is murder the greatest offence aan ena @. He
crown of Israel was deeply stained with the blood of murder—with nant ! ia
house of Jeroboam}; with that of the house of Baasha. (3) Suicide also disgracec
these violent times. And the note is significant that in his suicide Zimri oven

at in doing evil in the sight of the Lord, in walking in
“for his sins which he sinned in doing evil in the sig ake Israel to sin” (vers
the way of Jeroboam, and in his sin which he oe, ee pee
18,19). Note: Men with their own hands may punis a ae 8 Scale pi mbit

% a Oo ¢ ’ - .

What a contrast is the kingdom of God! fies POD PE ee, Se ree

and joy. Of this those have the earnest who in k

Melchisedec.—J. A. M.

 

 

Ia
Vers. 21—34.—Change without improvement. Ii Oneal 6 DERE Fe
Drvine Goopness. 1. His success against Zimri (vers. 16— 5).372 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.  [cu. xv. 25—xv1. 28.

aed

 

 

before him almost without a struggle. 2. Against Tibni. Israel was equally
divided, yet his life was preserved and the kingdom given to him. Men pass
up to place and means and influence through a pathway which, if it is only looked
back upon and considered, is full of power to touch the heart and bow it under
the will of God. Do we read the story of our past, and let it touch us with the tale
of God’s marvellous mercy ?

II. His six. 1. His hurdness of heart. Not only was he blind to God’s mercy.
He passed up unawed through the midst of the terriblest judgments and the most
marked fulfilment of God’s threatenings. Neither the goodness nor the severity of
God was allowed to touch him. 2. He “did worse than all that were before him.”
He was a man of energy and worldly wisdom. Both were bent to strengthen his
power. He went further than Jeroboam, who seduced Israel, for he seems to have
compelled them (see the mention of Omri’s statutes, Micah vi. 16) to sacrifice
before the calves. Great talents, if joimed to a selfish, hardened heart, only carry
men further away from God.

III. Hus sry’s rrurr (vers. 29—84). 1. In his son’s character and reign. (1)
“fe did evil in the sight of the Lord above all that were before him.” (2) It was
possible only to an Ahab to set Jezebel—the great enemy of God and His people—
upon the throne of Israel. (3) It was not enough to worship the calves of Bethel
and Dan. He must turn wholly away from the God of Israel and worship Baal.
9. In the people's contempt of Jehovah. Hiel’s act was done in the face of Israel,
yet it was not forbidden; its commission awakened no fear. The man was left
childless, yet judgments so harrowing and fulfilments of prophecy so marked had
no effect upon his own soul. The legislation that blots out God’s ordinances
delivers a people over to darkness and judgment.—J. U.

Vers. 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 us panaces. 1. “Sia years reigned he in Tirzah.” (1) This was once a
lovely palace. Beautiful for its situation like Jerusalem (Cant. vi. 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 Scrip-
ture are instructive. Things of minor importance must not be allowed to divert
attention from momentous things. 2. Sia years he reigned in Samaria. (1) The
origin of this new capital is here recorded (ver. 24). Seven hundred ponuds of
our money seems a small price for a hill considerable enough to be thie site for
the capital of a kingdom. (Compare 1 Chron, xxi. 25: 600 shekels of gold=
£1,095.) 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
of. 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.CH. Xvi. 29—34.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS, 3873

 

 

 

IToAt TAM ALTAR. 1. “778 waited m all the ways of Jeroboam.” (1) This
means ee he encouraged the worship of the calves, if not that he even appeared
ee = cee a xl. 33; il. Wig Cy. Ee means further that he

art Ey : rane state policy. He desired to keep his people from Jeru-
ie Bate os : repent of their revolution from the house of David. (3)
s has pportunities. 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 ch. xii, 28). (2) He bound them by statute to
worship the calves (compare Micah vi. 16). In this he went farther than Baasha
who had set about building Ramah to prevent the people from going to Jerusalem
(2 Chron. xvi. 1).

Ill. In wis 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 liis 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 1s 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” (ver. 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 violexce as a
judgment of the Lord upon their sin. (8) 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 xxi. 19). But are they
thus to escape the punishment of their own iniquity ? Surely there must be a
‘judgment to come!’”’—J. A. M.

EXPOSITION.

CHAPTER XVI. 29—34. this was one of the veritable turning-points
of Jewish history. One of the real ‘‘ decisive

Tar Reicn or Anas,—With the acces- | battles of the world’’—that between the
sion of Ahab a new main section of our | Lord and Baal—was then fought out. No
history begins—the section which has its | wonder that our historian felt constrained to
close in the destruction of the house of | chronicle at length the transactions of a
Omri by Jehu, as related in 2 Kings x. | reign so pregnant both with good and evil
And this reign is recorded at unusual length; | for the people of the Lord and for the faith
in fact, it occupies nearly all the remain- | with which they had been put in trust. In-
ing portion of this volume, whereas the | deed, the same guiding principle which led
reigns of preceding kings have in several in- | him to devote so many of his pages to the
stances been dismissed in a few verses. It | reign of Solomon, when the theocratic king-
owes this distinction to the ministry of the | dom was at its highest, impelled him to
great prophet Elijah by which it was marked, | linger over the reign of Ahab when religion
was at its lowest ebb. The secular his-
torian, too often like the sun-dial which

 

 

and, indeed, was profoundly influenced; but
this ministry, it must be remembered, was ne
necessitated by the critical circumstances of | ‘‘ counts no hours save those serene, ae
i ‘ ink il over i is country’s deca-
the time. It may be that “every age thinks | a veil over the time of his c y a
itself a crisis’ but no one can fail to see that | dence, or touches its misfortunes with &874

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[cx. xvi. 29—34,

 

 

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.

Ver. 29.—And in the thirty and eighth
year of Asa king of Judah [see notes on
ver. 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.

Ver. 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 ver. 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
ver. 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
forcign and shameful deities. ]

Ver. 31.—And it came to pass, as if it had
been a light thing for him [Heb. as marg.
was ita light thing ? Kwald (362 a) explains
this to mean ‘because it was.’? But it
seems better to understand, ‘‘ was it such a
hight thing . . . that he must needs also?”
&c.] 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,” Ge-
senius, who compares it with Agnes. It is
hardly the original of Isabella] the daughter
of Ethbaal [=‘‘ With Baal.” The Greek
form ?146PaXoe or Et0WBaroe, found in Jos.,
Ant, vill. 13.1; cf. Contr. Ap. i. 18, suggests
as its original bya JAN i.¢., “with him is
Baal.” In either case the name well be-
caine him, for, according to Menander (apud
Jos. l.c.), he was the priest of Astarte, who
gained for himself the throne of the Zido-
nians by the assassination of Pheles. He is
further said to have reigned thirty-two years,
aud to have lived sixty-eight years. He
would therefore be thirty-six years old at
the time of his accession. It does not ap-
pear 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] kivg 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. xx. 34) could
not fail to be a source of danger to Tyrel,
and went and served Baal [Heb. the Baal,
z.é., the lord or master; cf. 6 ctotoc. The
name appears among the Babylonians ag
Bel (Isa. xlvi. 1)—Greek Bidoc. Reference
has already been made to the frequent re-
currence 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 Hanni-
bal, Hasdrubal, &c. Baal was the supreme
male god of the Canaanitish races, as Ash-
toreth was their great female divinity. The
former was regarded, not only as the pos-
sessor, but as the generator, of all], and
worshipped him,

Ver. 32.—And he reared up an altar for
Baal in [Heb. omits in; ef. ch. xv. 15, &e.]
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 Kirfgs
ill. 2,.x. 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
if is probable that this image, which repre-
sented 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 x, 27).

Ver. 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 ch, xiv. 23]; and Ahab
did more to provoke the Lord God of Israel
to anger than all the kings of Israel that
were before him.

Ver. 34.—In his days did Hiel the Beth-
elite [Observe the form '2Nij N'2; and see
note on ch. i. 8. It is noticeable that it
was reserved fora man of Bethel to commit
this act of impiety. It was to such resulis
the worship of the calves contributed] buila
[i.e., rebuild, fortify, as in ch. xii. 25; ef. ch.
ix. 17. It isclear from Judg. iii. 13 andCH. XVI. 29—34.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 875

 

 

 

 

 

2 Sam. x. 5 that it had not been entirely | the whole, it seems to be implied that Hiel
uninhabited. But the Arab village was now | knew of the threatening of Jos] 3 nd
converted into a town with gates and bars] | treated it with defiance. It has feet ne
Jericho [We learn from Josh. xviii. 21 that gested that the rebuilding had really Been
Jericho then belonged to Benjamin. It had instigated by Ahab, and ton his oe ie
evidently passed, however, at this date into poses, hoping thereby to “secure to hinselé

the passage across the Jordan” (Keil), but

the possession of Israel. It has been guc-

sta: at +] ansferenc =
Rea mae ea took place in | the text affords but slight warrant for this
1e reign of Baashs awlins 1 jecture]: i i ] |
ae g a ae 1a Mines But it conjecture} : he laid the foundation thereof
would seem tha rom the very first, parts of | in Abiram his firstborn [7.e., at the cost of
Benjamin (notably Bethel, Josh. xviii. 13) be- | in the life of, Abiram], and set up the gates
longed to the northern kingdom. See Ewald, | thereof in his youngest son Segub, accord
és ne ai ] 92% 9 9 e . : oS » Ie ~-

Hist. Israel, lv. 2, 3. It is not quite clear | ing to the word of the Lord (Josh. vi. 26],
whether the rebuilding of Jericho is men- | which he spake by Joshua the son of Nun.
tioned ag a proof of the daring impiety of | [The exact fulfilment of the prophecy is
that age and of the utter contempt with mentioned, as showing that even in those

. a, . . 1 . ad
which the warnings of the law were treated, | dark and troublous times God did not leave
or as showing the ignorance and consequent | Himself without witness, and that law could
disregard of law which prevailed. But, on | never be violated with impunity. ]

 

HOMILIES BY VARIOUS AUTHORS.

Vers. 29—33; ch. xvii. 1.—Ahab represents the culminating point of the perversity
of the kingdom of Israel. At once more able and more profane than his pre-
decessors, he fostered to an unprecedented degree the corruption of morals,
private and public injustice, and idolatrous practices. Alhab, 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 wien the powers of darkness seem to be let loose, for the two
following reasons :

I. THE LETTING LOOSE OF EVIL BRINGS ITS OWN CONDEMNATION. 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 Enian. Whenever the army of God
seems on the verge of defeat, its Divine leader takes the direct command. Re-
flections like these may reinforce our courage in view of the giant evils of our
own day.—H. de P.

Vers. 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
simnificance, 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 «ven here:

T. THAT A FOOLISH CHOIC! MAY RESULT IN LASTING DISHONOUR. Ahab S marriage
was the cause of hisruin. Jezebel, his wife, was the daughter of Ethbaal, who had
been the high priest of Astarte, but was led by his ambition and BEC ae
to usurp his brother’s throne. Her parentage and her surroundings wou ave376 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. Jou. xvi. 29—34.

 

been a sufficient warning to a prudent king. But besides these Ahab had the
Divine law before him (Exod. xxxiv. 16), which distinctly forbade union with the
Canaanites. Such a marriage was unprecedented in the kincdom 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—l. How one wrong step leads to another.
This marriage to the establishment of idolatry. Indicate the nature of the false
religion setup. 2. How companionship influences character. The stronger moulding
the weaker. ‘A companion of fools shall be destroyed.” 8. How personal fascina-
tion may cause men to swerve from rectitude. Jezebel’s fascinating power was
regarded as witchery and became proverbial (Rey. 1. 20). 4. How young people
should be warned against unholy alliances. Marriage makes or mars character,
hope, and blessedness (2 Cor. vi. 14). ‘‘ Be ye not unequally yoked together with
unbelievers.”

Il. THAT EASY GOOD NATURE MAY PROVE THE SOURCE OF DEEP DEGRADATION. Ahab
was not destitute of good feelings and right impulses. Had he been firm instead of
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, &c., may have fatal issues. _

Ill. THAT BRILLIANT TALENTS WILL NOT COMPENSATE FOR MORAL WEAKNESS. This
king was gifted with military skill, with artistic taste, &e., but these could not 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; ¢.g., Napoleon I. Many men of genius have been ruined by drunken-
ness 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 thicf; the
viciousness of a leader of society does more injury than the licentiousness of an
ignorant peasant.

IV. THAT ARCHITECTURAL SPLENDOURS AND MILITARY VICTORIES ARE NOT PROOFS
OF NATIONAL PROSPERITY. 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. Hxtravagance and
luxuriousness are omens of ruin to a people. ‘‘The Decline and Fall” of the
Roman Empire is an abiding illusiration of this. Nor will successful wars give
stability toa kingdom. Ahab’s victories were great military achievements, but of
what avail to him and tohis house? ‘“ The throne must be established in righteous-
ness.”

V. THAT AMPLE POSSESSIONS 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 bas only hisriches, 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 xii. 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 REPENTANCE DOES NOT AVERT GOD’S PUNISHMENT OF SIN. Ahab
* nut 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 retyi-CH. XVI. 29—34.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 877

 

bution to his heart. God is our Judge, as well as our King. For the impenitent
shore 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 eallg
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.

Vers. 29—33.—Ahab’s wickedness. The evil genius of the son of Omri appeared—

I. In HIS WALKING IN THE SINS OF JEROBOAM. 1. In this, probably, he en-
couraged his father. ( He appears to have been associated with Omri in the
kingdom. | Omri reigned twelve years—viz., six in Tirzah. and six in Samaria;
bus his reign commenced “‘in the thirty-first year of Asa” (ver. 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 Ahab 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 vi. 16). So the note that ‘he sinned above all that were
before him ”’ is alike applied to the father and son (see verses 25, 80). 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 cowrse after his father’s death. (1) The sin of
Jeroboam was perpetuated in Israel down to the time of their captivity. The cap-
tivity seemed necessary to break its power over them. Judgment is the last re-
source of mercy. (2) The same reasons of state continued to influence the successive
rulers of the natin. Reasons of state are too often more potent than reasons of
piety and righteotsness. Else we had been spared the discredit of wicked wars,
wicked laws, wicked trading.

II. IN HIS MATRIMONIAL ALLIANCE WITH JezEBEL. Y. She was a pronownced
idolater. (1) She was a Zidonian, and for any Israelite to marry one of that
nation were a violation of the law of God (Exod. xxxiv. 11—16; Deut. vu. 3;
Josh. xxiii. 11—13). Fora 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 (aps), which may
be derived from t's, where? and oe a contraction of bys, Baal, thus: Where

is Baal? q.d., a seeker of Baal. Hence also her father’s name (Qpans), 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 (D'2D)), 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, an the ‘daughters of men,” or profane
descendants of Cain (Gen. vi. 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 (ch. xi. 1—18). (8) 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 (Eph. v. 82). 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 repre-
sents the Antichristian head (see 1 Cor. vi. 19, 16). Jezebel, accordingly, is viewed
in this lizht inthe imagery of the Apocalypse (see Rev. 11. 20). pe
TIl. IN HIS ENCOURAGEMENT GIVEN TO BAaL AND AsHERE. 1. To Baal. (1) To
this god he built a temple in Samaria. This was the more audacious since, Ce
laced in his capital, it seemed to vie with the temple of the Lord in the ee
of Judah. (2) To Baal also he reared an altar there. ee ge 3
service of priests and sacrifices. (3) Furthermore he himsel ie ea 2 ;
Thus he gave the influence of his position to the encouragement ot this idolatry.378 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. (cH. xvi. 29—384,

 

That influence was therefore also given to discourage the pure worship of the God
of Israel. 2. To Ashere. (1) This word is construed “ grove” in the text as else-
where. Buta little reflection will teach us that groves do not spring up in a day.
Beside, it is not here said that Ahab planted (Y)), but that he made (NWY) 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.

Ver. 34.—The Temerity of Hiel. In discussing this subject we have to
consid er—

I. “THs worD or tHE LorD wHIch Hx spake BY JOSHUA THE Son oF NuN.”
The record of this word is found in Josh. vi. 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 kindrec ”__(minynawi-b5) all her Jamilies—the word
is plural; families, viz., on her father’s and mother’s side, both were given to her
(Josh. vi. 28). 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 be 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. (6) 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. (ce) As Jericho fell at the seventh blast of the trumpet, so at the
sounding of the seventh Apocalyptic trumpet 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. It is thought the
inftermediate 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 Josh. vi. 17). The law of God also expresses
that devoted things must die (see Levit. xxvii. 29). (2) The curse, then, came to
keep up the testimony for God against sin; also to bea 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.

IJ. THe TemeRiTy or Hien To ENCOUNTER THIS MALEDICTION. 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 first-born Abiram

erished, This did not deter him. So when he set up the gates ‘“ his youngest son
Beoabe 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 suzgested. (a) He was a * Bethelite.”
may mean that he was born in Bethel. though this is not clear.
that he was wedded to the sin of T-~ohoam 3 for

 

This expression
It suggests rather
Bethel was the head-quarters of thatcH. xvi. 1—24,] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 879

ets

if oo calves. There he built an
2 al 1ere his priests concresated. a oy

in person, officiated as high priest. The service of the me a ea We ne
heart of Hiel as to prepare him to disregard the curse of Jehovah, | (b) Then ss
lived in the days of Ahab. These were days of fearful degeneracy. “Kor Al a
provoked the Lord by wickedness more than all that had been before him Hiel
might argue that if Ahab eould thus outrage the law of the God of Teal nd
survive, so might his own children SUIV meohena th

 

 

apostasy. There Jeroboam placed one of his
altar. There also he built a temple.

i : lve, 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 along time aco. 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 oie
God. But He that remembers mercy for ever also remembers justice and judgement
Let us not deceive ourselves. Let us pray God to bring our sins to our rememe
brance, that we may repent of them before Him, for with Him they are never for-
gotten till forgiven.—J. A. M.

EXPOSITION,

CHAPTER XVII. 1—24. for which this is not the place, two remarks
may be hazarded here, First, that the

ELIJAH AND THE GREAT pRoUGHT.—The | narrative is so sober, so circumstantial, so
picture which the historian has just drawn | full of touches which have every appear-
of the shameless idolatry and the gross de- | ance of having been painted from the life,
generacy of the earlier part of Ahab’s reign | that were it not for its supernatural element,
forms a fit prelude to an account of the | the most destructive critic would never have
ministry of the great prophet Elijah, which | thought of questioning its veracity. Secondly,
occupies this and several succeeding chap- | that if miracles are ever allowable or con-
ters; for the two stand together in the | ceivable, if there ever have been occasions
closest connexion. It was only the unpre- | in the history of our race when we might
cedented corruption of that age which | concede to the Necessary Being the liberty
necessitated such a mission, and a mission | which we ourselves possess, of varying the
armed with such credentials as his. It will | so-called order of nature, or of impressing
be obvious to the most cursory reader that | a visible purpose upon its forces, then
the narratives comprised in the remaining | assuredly the time at which we have now
portion of this book and the earlier patt of | arrived, the beginning of Ahab’s reign, was
2 Kings are of a very different character | such an ovcasion. It is quite true that no
from those which have so far been before us. | new revelation was then given to the world.
The ministry of Elijah and Elisha alike is | Neither Elijah nor Elisha, as Ewald hag
little more than a series of miracles. Of | observed, ‘originated anything essentially
their words comparatively few are recorded ; | new,” but the task assigned them was one
we hear of little but the signs and wonders | which needed supernatural support and
that they wrought. And on this ground— | attestation, no less than the promulgation
because it is miraculous—this portion of | of a new law or gospel. It was their work,
our history is summarily discarded by many | at the very darkest hour in the spiritual
recent writers, not as wholly unhistorical, | history of Israel, when a determined etfort
but as mythical ; as containing, indeed, was being made to stamp om me ae -
many germs of truth, and as having a basis God’s elect, when the nation C is : .
of fact, which, however, has been distorted | to be the depositary of a fe es as
into its present legendary shape by the | lapsing into hestbenistan.ane ae
credulity and fancy of a later age, or by utierable ee re e he es Y
the half-unconscious exaggeration of some | witness for God ae tz 7 n oe ae
poetico-prophetic writer, But without enter- God’s purposes of ae of % ae os
i sti iracles generally, | had been ripening from age to age, were no
ing upon the question of miracles g380

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[cH. xvi. 1—24.

 

now to be frustrated; if the one lamp
which cast a ray on the world’s thick dark-
ness was not to be utterly extinguished,
then, as far as we can see, God must send
special messengers, and arm them, in toke

of their mission and authority, with super-
human powers. The age demanded the
messenger; the messenger must have cre-
dentials ; 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,” iv. 63) to have wrought; that only
signs such as he was commissioned to show
would have sufficed, in that age, to counter-
act 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 Hlijah.”
“The profusion of God’s miraculous work-
ing in Klijah was due to the exorbitant
wickedaess of the rulers of Isracl at that
time, which required an extraordinary mani-
festation of God’s Divine power, in order to
recover His people from the ruin and misery
into which they had fallen” (Bishop Words-
worth),

The granteur of the character of Elijah,
however, has been universally recognized,
and not leact by those who have disputed
his miracles. Indeed, it may well be ques-
tioned 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
(cclus, xlviii.) 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 pro-

 

phetarum facile princeps; et si a Mose disces-
seris, nulli secundus,” ig 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 Testa-
ment no prophet is mentioned and extolled
so frequently as Klijah” (Bahr). 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 accomphsh in Jerusalem
(Luke ix. 31).

The chapter divides itself into four parts.
In ver. 1 we see Elijah standing before Ahab
and denouncing the drought: in vers, 2—7
we find him hiding in the Wady Cherith
and fed by the ‘‘ Orebim;” in vers. 8—19
he is resident at Zarephath, feeding the
widow and her house; in vers. 17—24 he
restores the widow’s son to life and health.

Ver. 1.—And Elijah [This name, which
appears both as 17?2N, and, less frequently,
riON, 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 character of his work (see espe-
cially ch. xviii. 89), that it is difficult to resist
the belief that it was assuined by him. This
is certainly more probable than that it was
due to the presvience of his parents. It may,
however, mark their piety and hopes, and
may have influenced the life of their son.
Cf. 1 Chron. iv. 10], the Tisnbite [So he is
called without any further designation in
ches. 17, 8 Kinesi.3, 6. we, The pre-
sumption is aliogether in favour of ‘2WN
being the name of nis birthplace. Cf. ch. xi.
29}, wao was of the inhabitants of Gilead
{Lhe interpretation of these words is much
disputed. The Heb, stands AWAD AWAD

“yt. It will be observed that ths firsé

and second words have the same radicals,
and it has been hence inferred that they
cannot mean ‘two entirely distinct things”
(Rawlinson, al.), and that either the Maso-
retic pointing must be set aside, when the
words would yield the meaning, ‘“ Elijah,
the Tishbite of Tishbe of Gilead,” or they
must be interpreted,‘ Mlijah, the stranger of
the strangers of Gilead.” But it is by no
means certain that the current interpreta-
tion is not the best. Such a play upon
words as it invoives is not at all uncom-
mon in Hebrew. The meaning would then
be that Elijah, who was, if not by birth, byCH. XVII. 1—24. |

domicile, of Tishbe, was one of the strangers

aie

— lv \Mis found in the sense of rdporxoc,

imquilinus, in Gen. xxiii. 4; Exod. xii. 45;
Levit. xxii. 10; xxv. 35, 47, &¢.—or immi-
grants 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 WT

written plene, as the word always is else-
where. It is alleged by Keil, Bihr, al.,
however, that the stat. constr. plur. may
well be an exception to the rule, and in sup-
port of this view it may be mentioned that

the cognate word, 1W}), is constantly found
in the constr. plural as ‘Ww (see Gesen.,

Thes. 635). It is clear, then, that the
usual interpretation is by ro means to be
lightly set aside. It is certainly preferable
to the rendering, ‘‘ Elijah the stranger,” &c.,

for we have no proof that ‘AWAN 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.,
0 é&k OecBorv, and of Josephus (Ant. viii.
13. 2), é&« mwoAEwWE OEcBuwrie rij}¢ Tadaadiridoe
xwoac. Noris 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. i. 2,
LXX.), which is often aileged as proving
that there was a Tishbe in Galilee, and from
which Gesenius, Bahr, Keil, &c., 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. iii. 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 vil. 52, for the
belief of the Jews), was trained for his work
in Gilead. It was, therefore, a rugged, un-
settled, half-civilized, trans-Jordanic region
gave to the world the greatest of its pro-
phets. In this respect he was like Moses
(Exod. iii. 1), and his antitype the Baptist
(Luke i. 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
uato Ahab [The abrupt way in which Elijah
appears upon the scene without a word of
introduction or explanation is certainly re-
markable. Ewald observes that ‘‘ his first
entry within the province of the history
seems almost as unique and inexplicable as
his final disappearance,” ‘ Elijah comesin

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

881

 

 

with a tempest, and goes out with a whirl.
wind ”’ (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 EKhjah 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, how-
ever, is thoroughly characteristic of the
man. He presently disappears just as
suddenly (ver. 5. Cf. xix.3; 2 Kings i. 8).
It was thought by some in that age that he
was borne hither and thither by the Spirit of
God (ch. xviii. 12), and men of a later time
caught this as one of his prominent charac-
teristics (Ecclus. xlviii. 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
(ihis 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 xxvii. 23). Cf.
ch. xviii. 15. The slaves of the East stood
before their masters. See note on ch. i. 28,
and cf.1 Sam. iii.1; Lukei. 19. Elijah claims
to speak in God’s name, and as His ambas-
sador], there shall not be dew nor rain
[Observe the order of the words. Dew is
perhaps put first as more essential to vege-
table life. Elijah only denounces a plague
already threatened in the law as the punish-
nent of idolatry (Deut. xi. 16, 17; xxviii.
23; Levit. xxvi, 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, &c., 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 chal-
lenges them toa trial of strength. It was
as if he had said, “* The God that answereth
by rain, let him be God.” On the fitness

   
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
   
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
   
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
     

a ee382

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

(ou. xvi. 1—24.

 

of this miracle, both as a sign and as a
punishment, see ‘* Homil. Quart.” v. 100, 101.
**To Kastern 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, ‘* Nist 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 v.
17, 28).]

Ver. 2.—And the word of the Lord came
unto him, saying (cf. ver. 8; ch. xvill. 1;
met 2/32 Kings i, 3],

Ver. 3.—Get thee hence, and turn thee
[for the construction (dat. commodi) cf.
Gen. xli. 2; xxli, 2; Cant. ii. 11] eastward
[This ke 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, in-
deed, holds that our text is decisive on
this point], and hide thyself (Heb. be hid,
z.é., 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. ver. 9;
ch. xviii. 1, &c. Not merely was his flight
necessary in order to escape persecution or
punishment—the search wiich Ahab insti-
tuted for him in part explains his disappear-
ance—but to avoid importunity. It would
have been morally impossible for him,
though a man of inflexible will (Bahr) 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 ch. xviii. 4—and the
ordeal would have been intolerable. And
ch. xix. 2 shows that the prophet’s na-
ture had its weaker side. Wordsworth
observes that Hlijah’s escapes and de-
partures 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 iv. 29;
John viii. 59; x. 39] by (Heb. in] the brook

(Heb. 9M}; i.e., watercourse, wady. This

word has two meanings. Its primary mean-
ing iS torrent ; its secondary and, from the

 

fact that the torrents of the Kast 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 5m). Cf. ch. xv.3] Cherith

‘The word means separation, a name which
may possibly indicate that it was extremely
secluded, or it may bave been a boundary
line of some sort. Tradition identifies the
brook Cherith with the Wédy-el-kelt, i.e.,
the great valley, west of the Jordan, which
debouches into the Ghor, balf a mile south
of Jericho, and Robinson and Porter pro-
nounce in its favour. Van de Velde (ii.
310, 311) suggests the Wédy Fasael, a
few miles to tuc north. But it is much
more probable that it is to be sought in
the region east of the Jordan, where,
indeed, Kusebius and Jerome place it.
It is extremely doubtful whether the
WaAdy-el-kelt, or any Cis-Jordanie ravine,
would atiord 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
Wady Alias, t.e., at no great distance from
*Abara (Conder, ‘‘'Tent-work,” p. 230), the
Jordan ford nearly opposite Bethshan, where,
indeed, an old tradition places it] that is
before [Nothing positive can be concluded
from 995 2. In Gen. xvi. ty. xxi oe
xxv. 18; Josh. xviii. 14, &., it means east-
ward. But this meaning is gathered froro
the contexi] 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 th-
couniy east of the Jordan, which is now
(1889) being organized. ]

Ver, 4.—And it shail 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, ver. 7] ; and I have
commanded (cf. ver. 9; Isa. v. 6; Amos
ix. 3, &c.] the ravens to feed thee there.
[Desp.te the general agreement of scholars
that by DAY we must understaud “ravens,”
I think probabiity favours the meaning
Orbites, t.e., inhabitants of Orbo. In sup-
port of the received rendering is the very
powerful consideration, that it is the inter-
pretation of all the versions (except the
Arabic) and of Josephus, who, beyond all
question, represented the belief current in
his own time (Ant, viii. 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 xiii. 24;CH. Xvir. 1—24,]

 

 

 

THE FIRST BOOK oF KINGS,

   

383

 

2 Kings ii. 24; Dan. vi. 22 ; 2 Peter ii, 16),
though never, it must be said, in go rational
and methodical away. Nor can it rightly
be contended that the words « I have com:
manded,” *M)¥, imply human agency, for
elsewhere we find the Almighty commanding
(same word) the serpent (Amos ix. 3) and
the clouds (Isa. v.6; Psa. xxviii. 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 hubitat was in the Wady Cherith,
brought, day by day, to their ‘nests ond
their young. For, not to insist on the
words, ib D'S AID, bringing to him (ver. 6),

the expressions ‘bread (or food, ond) and
flesh,” and ‘“‘morning and evening ”” oer.
tainly 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 em-
ploy birds of the air and those unclean
(Levit. xi. 15; Deut. xiv. 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 super-
natural will deny for a moment that the
Almighty could, had it seemed good to Him,
have sustained His prophet by the instru-
mentality 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 und 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 (Gen. xvi. 7). It
was an angel fed Elijah himself, a few years
later (1 Kings xix. 5,6). They were angels
who ministered to our blessed Lord after
His long fast (Matt. iv. 11). But God’s
‘‘chief means,” it is always to be remem-
bered, “‘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
(ch, xviii. 13). But it is still more signifi-

 

——— ee
cant that elsewhere in this nar
1S 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 else-
where. 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
OA, 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 jin Scripture.
The absence of all reference thereto is re-
markable, when we consider how constantly
the ministry of Elijah and its lessons (Luke
iv. 25, 26; ix. 54; James v. Ls Revi xi.
6) are referred to in the New Testament: but
when we observe what an admirable and un-
equalled illustration of God’s providential
eare this incident would have supplied to
some of our Lord’s discourses, and notably
to that of Luke xii. 22 sqq., this silence
becomes almost suspicious. 38. 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 render-
ing. 4. A very slight change in the vowel
points—D'3 7 instead of a y—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 know that
about this time some Arab tribes had deal-
ings with the Jews (2 Chron. xvii. 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 (27), Judg.
vii. 25), apparently east of the Jordan (Judg.

rative, which384

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[cuH. xvi. 1—24,

 

——

viii. 1), but in any case, at no great distance
from Bethabara (John i. 28). Now Beth-
abara has been identified, almost to a cer-
tainty (Conder, “ ‘l'ent-work,” pp. 229—282)
with the modern ’Abarah (i.e., passage or
ferry), “one of the main fords of the Jordan
just above the place where the Jalid 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 (see Dict. Bib.
ii. 464), that in the neighbourhood of Beisdn,
i.e., Bethshean, there was anciently a town
named Orbo, \37>Y—a word, it is to be
observed, which preserves the radicals of
a7\y transposed. We may safely assume

that these two places, Orbo and Oreb, were
identical; that the former was the repre-
sentative at a later day of the latter, or was
the shave which the name assumed when
bestowed on the hamlet, as distinct from the
rock. The inhabitants of this place would,

of course, be called DAY, just as the in-

habitants of Ziph were known as Ziphim
(1 Sam. xxvi. 1), or the men of Zidon as
Zidonim (1 Kings v. 6). We find, conse-
quently, 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 Hlijah’s native country of Gilead. And
with this acree 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 jini-
bus Arabum, Eliae dederunt alimenta. It
only remains for us to notice the perfect
naturalness and consistency of the narrative
thus interpreted, Hlhyjah 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 merey 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. ]

Ver. 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.

Ver. 6.—And the ravens brought [Heb.
bringing] him bread and Zesh in the morn-
ing 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 ad-
vanced above—that the D'1Y were not birds
but men—that no men would have ‘‘ come
recularly twice a'day, .. . thus giving them-
selves 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 enducd with super-
natural powers (cf. ch. xviii. 7, 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.

Ver. 7.—And it came to pass after a while,
(Heb. at the end of days. Not necessarily
post annum. The words no doubt have this
force elsewhere, Levit. xxv. 29; Judg. xi.
40 ev d0: 1 Oem, SKVil. Ts GG. ibis 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
years, out of the three and a half, at Zare-
phath. See on ch. xviii. 1] that the brook
dried up, because there had been no rain
in the land, [QWa, imber, signifies heavy
rain. The word used in ver. 1 is DID, rain
of any kind.]

Ver. 8.—And the word of the Lord came
unto him, saying,

Ver. 9.—Arise, get thee to Zarephath
[Cf. Obad. 20. ‘he name points to furnaces
or workshops for the refining of metals, Ps
liquavit. LXX. Saperra; cf. Luke iv. 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, ii. 397. Stanley (S. and P. p. 268)
shows how the memory of this visit still
lingers in the traditions of the neighbour-
hood], which belongeth to Zidon [Sidon iscH. XviI. 1—24.]

visible from a spot a quar
distant. ‘“The depeudence of Sarepta on
Sidon is indicated in the inscriptions of
Sennacherib, Where it is mentioned as be-
longing to Luliya, king of Sidon.” Rawlin-

ter of an hour

son], and dwell there: behold, I have com-
manded a widow woman thore to sustain
thee [In considering these words one
generally destitute condition of the wi ae
of the East should be borne In mind (Acts
Yee Pim wig: &¢c.) We gather from
Luke iv. 25, 26, that it wag for her sake as
well as his that the prophet was sent
thither. Matt. xv. 2198 tells of another

Syro-Phoenician woman.]

Ver. 10.—So he arose and went to 2are-
phath [It does not follow that his route lay
over the ‘* White Promontory,” or Ladder of
Tyre, the way our Lord took when He « de-
parted into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon ”
(Matt. xv. 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 Tyre}.
And when he came to the gate of the city
[the ruins of Surafend are still very con-
siderable (see 'Thomson,‘‘Land and Book,” i,
239) 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 re-
quests 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 promis-
ing 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. Bahr 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”
(Jer. xix. 1). That this was used for fetch-
ing water, we know from Isa. xxx. 14], that
I may drink.

Ver. 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 Hast.
‘* 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 water-skin” (Porter). It is clear
1 KINGS.

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

 

   
    
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
   
     
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
  
   
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
   
  
  
 
  
   
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
   
 
  
   
  
 
  
 
   
 

885

h t } = . .
s al ne Eee eop ey of Phoenicia had not
n 10 ry PY | mm 1 “
: ee y eee ee The fresh streams of
sebanon would retain their life-giving
power long after the scantier Springs of
Jan Laat a 1H } a } =
alestine had been dried up,”’ Stanley]
Ia g q+ her and aeie 14 .
1€ called to her, and ssig ing me, I prar
thee, a morscl of bread [1} ;

food will soon reveal to h

Dar
B}
Line request fox
i ; ef
1m Whether this is

the widow woman who is to sustain him)
Vt thin, hance [i ] ld . yn
im thine hand. [(Biéihr would understay d
here, ** (Give me a morsel of the br ad which

thou hast in thine hand ”’

7 —einen Bissen des
brodes

rod das du besitzest—and he hag the
DXX., Ywmdov dorov row ey TH xElot cov, to
Support him, But it is fatal to this view

(1) that the verb is 'np>—the Same as

already used in the request for water (ver,
10), and (2) that there is no article before
bread. ‘ V'he 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 posses-
sion” would probably have been expressed
by ‘‘ under thine hand,” as in 1 Sam. XX,
3, 4, 8, though “in the hand” is found in
Kecles, v. 13; Ezra vii. 25, in a somewhat
Similar sense, ]

Ver. 12,— And she said, As the Lord thy
God liveth [Bihr, Keil, al. conclude from
this formula that the woman was a wor-
shipper of the God of Israel. Bihr ig
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 iv. 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 note-
worthy 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 i. 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 con-
sideration that she may well have believed
in the Lord as well asin Baal. See note on
ch. v. 7. The Tyrians knew nothing of

monotheism], I have not a cake [1))))9, the
synonym of M3) (ver. 13), the smallest kind

of bread. It was baked in the ashes ; hence
2c386

the LXX. tyrpudiac. We gather from this
pitiful disclosure that the famine had
already extended to Phoenicia, as it
naturally would do, considering how de-
pendent that country was on Israel for its
breadstufis; see1 o‘conch. v. 9,11. Josephus
(Ant. viii. 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 [7D, probably connected with cadus,
cadeau, &e.; bucket, pail}, and a little oil in
a cruse: and, betold, I am gathering two
sticks [i.c., 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 ix.
Oe ea. SV. 0 .cAIOS1v, Se | Acconding
to Roberts, the word is constantly used for
‘few ” by the natives of India. This widow
was evidently reduced to the greatest ex-
tremities}, that I may go in and dress it
for me and my son [‘the LXX. has réxvote
here and in ver..15, and rd réxva in ver.
15. Bahr 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.” Butwe read Gen. xxxvill. 14, 19,
of “ garments of widowhood” (cf. Dent.
xxiv. 17), and ver. 10, ‘‘a widow woman,”
&e., almost implies that Elijah from the
first recognized her as such], that we may
eat it, and die.

Ver. 15.—And Elijah said unto her [This
looks at first hke a further test. But it is
pretty clear that the prophet now knew that
the widow of whom God had spoken was
hefore him], Fear not; go and do as thou
hast said [Heb. according to thy word]
but [Heb. only, however]: make me thereof
[ Heb. thence, z.c., 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 Bahr 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 (ver. 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.]

Ver. 14.—For thus saith the Lord God of
(srael [The words, ‘‘ God of Israel,” if any-
thing, favour the supposition that he was
speaking to one who was not of Israel. See
on ver. 1. There the words were addressed

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

fou. xvi. 1—24.

to one who was denying the God of Israel]
The barrel of meal shall not waste, neither
shall the cruse of oil fail, until the day
that the Lord sendeth {Heb. giveth. Tor
jh) see note on ch. vi. 19] rain upon the
earth. [Heb. on the face of the ground. Tike
expression ch. xviii. 1; Gen. 1. 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 FElijah’s part.
And it cannot be denied that the literal con-
struction of the words points to a ‘‘ super-
natural 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 neces-
saries of life should somehow be provided,
directly or indirectly, by God. Nor is
this view effectually negatived, as Bahr
contends, by Luke iv. 26; but, in view of
2 Kings, iy. 445. Math. xiv, 15-21. xv
32—88, it is extremely improbable. It ig
curious how many miracles of Elijah and
Klisha foreshadowed those of our blessed
Lord.

Ver. 15.—And she went and did according
to the saying of Elijah [the echo of ver.
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 (Bahr)], did eat many days.
[Heb. days, t.e., an indefinite period. See
note on ver. 7. The word does not refer
to the first baking (ver. 13), but it is to be
explained by the next verse.

Ver. 16.—And [Omit. This verse is ex-
plicative, not additional] the barrel of meal
wasted not, neither did the cruse of oil fail,
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.
(Matt. x. 41, 42). Stanley suggests that our
Lord, when He spoke of the ‘cup of cold
water,” may have had this incident in his
mind,

Ver. 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. Bahr is as firmly persuaded
that it does not. He justly remarks (1)
that the same expression occurs in Dan.
x. 17 (cf. 1 Kings x. 5) where it does not

imply death. (2) That as the text does notcH. xvi. 1—24.]

say, ‘‘and he died,” we must conclude that
it did not mean to say it. (3) Verses 18, 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: we cai rijy duynyv adeiva wai
dogat vexooy. To this it may be added that
ni.’) simply means breath, and that where
it is desired to convey the idea of life, addi-
tional words are used (as in Gen, ii. 7, ‘‘ the
breath of life; Gen. vii. 22, “the breath of
the spirit of life.” Cf. Job xxvii. 3, Prov. xx.
27 (where the intelligence or reason appears
to be meant), Eccles. iii. 21. It must be
confessed also that the statement, ‘his
sickness was so sore,” &c., 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 afiirming that
he was dead.

Ver. 18.—And she said unto Elijah, What
have I to do with thee [Heb. what to me
and thee. Same formula, Judg. xi. 12; 2
Sdm. xvi. 10; 2 Kings i. 13: Matt, viii.
29; Johbnii. 4. It means, ‘“* What is there
between us ?”’ or practically, ‘‘ What have I
done?” ‘‘Ts this the result of my association
with thee? Must such sorrow befal me
because thou art with me?” Bahr], 0 thou
man of God ? [This,woman, if a Pheenician,
was evidently familiar with the titles borne
by the Hebrew prophets (ch. xii. 22; xiii.
passim; Judg. xiii. 6, 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, &c., 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 5?!) or
remembrancer of God. Cf. Gen. xl. 14;
FEizek. xxi. 28; Jer. iv. 16] and to slay my
son? [Observe, she does not speak of him
as slain. |]

Ver. 19.—And he said unto her, Give me
thy son. And hetook him out of her bosom,
[the age of the child may hence be roughly
inferred] and carried him up into a loft [Heb.
moun the upperchamber. LXX. 70 vzrepwov.
Loft is most misleading. The upper room
‘““was often [rather, always] the best apart-
ment in an Eastern house” (Rawlinson).
It was sometimes the guest-chamber (Luke
xxii. 11, 12), and, from the uses to which it
was put, must have been large (Acts i. 13;
ix. 39; xx. 8; 2 Kingsi. 2). Thomson
(L. & B. i. 235) infers from the fact that
the widow’s house had an upper room, ‘‘that

 

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

   
   
   
 
 
 
 
   
  
  
 
 
   
  
  
    
  
  
 
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
   
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
   
  
 
  
 
 
 
   
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
   

387

the mode of building in Blijah’s time ana
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 have 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
WADY lit., made him to lie down, would be
used of a corpse. ]

Ver. 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 ?

Ver, 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 iv.
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 (Matt.
ix. 35; Luke vii. 14; John ix. 6, 7). But
surely the circumstances and the purpose
alike, in these latter cases, were entirely
different. The object of the touch, of anoint-
ing the eyes, &c., in these cases of healing,
appears to have been to awaken a sufficient
faith—without which ‘He could do no
miracle” (Matt. xii. 58)—in men whose
infirmities of blindness, deafness, &e., pre-
vented 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 super-
natural force to the natural human
agencies,’ Bahr] three times [Not only
in his prayer but also in this triple repeti-
tion do we recognize Elijah’s profound con-
viction 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 num-
ber and signature of the Godhead—‘“ die
eigentlich gottliche Zahl, die Signatur des
gottlichen Wesens” (Bahr, Symb, i. 143).
Hence it is, inter alia, that ‘‘ the calling
upon the name of Jehovah in the old388

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[cH. xvul. 1—24.

 

covenant *’—he might have added, ‘‘and
in the new;” cf. Mark xiv. 39, 41; 2 Cor.
xii, 8—‘‘ was a threefold act: Psa. lv. 17;
Dan. vi. 10,13; Num. vi. 24-26; Isa. vi. 3
(Biihr). The correspondence with 2 Cor. xil.
8 is very striking] and cried unto the Lord,
and said, O Lord my God, I pray Thee
[Heb. let this child’s soul come into

ats Pan ee ate dag ae
him [ Heb. wpon his inside; 2 is here, as else-

now |

J

|] again. [Though 3),

4

where, used for 2X

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 1s
‘‘ breath’ (Gesen., Thesaurus, s. v.), aud (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
(vol. i. p. 91, ed. 1838), showing the con-
trast between Elijah’s procedure and that
of our blessed Lord (Luke vii. 14; viii. 54;
John xi. 43), is worth citing here: ‘‘ Elie
ressuscite des morts, il est vrai; mais il est
obligé de se coucher plusieurs fois sur le
corps de l’enfant qu’il ressuscite ; il souffle,
il se rétrécit, il s’agite; on voit bien quwil
invoque une puissance étrangére; qu il
rappelle de ’empire de la mort une Ame qui
n’est pas soumise & sa voix, et qu’iln’est pas
lui-méme 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 4 ceux qui dorment d’un sommeil
éternel, et Yon sent bien qu‘il est le Dieu
des morts comme des vivants, jamais plus
tranquille que lorsqu’il opére les plus grandes
choses.’”]

Ver. 22.—And the Lord heard the voice
of Elijah; and the soul of the child came
into him again, and he revived [or 7ecovered.
Of, 2 Kanes 14.25 yu. Bt.

Ver. 23.— And Elijah took the child, and
brought him down out of the chamber into
the house [Probably the Moy was reached
by an outside staircase, and did not directly
communicate with the lower rooms. Crd.
Matt. xxiv. 17; Mark 11. 4; 2 Kings ix. 13]
and delivered him unto his mother: and
Elijah said, See, thy son liveth.

Ver. 24.—And the woman said to Elijah,
Now by this [Heb. this. Gesenius interprets
Mt NAY just now. Similarly Bahr, nunmehr]

I know that thou art a man of God [not
that she had doubted it before. See ver. 18.
In the face of what Elijah had done for her,
she could not doubt it. Ail 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 NN
from which Amittai (Jonah i. 1) is formed,
perhaps gave rise to the tradition that this
boy was afterwards known as the prophet
Jonah. Amittai was held to have been this
widow’s husband,

HOMILETICS.

Ver. 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.
great struggle is impending.
‘** does nothing in vain,”

We have but to see him, to hear him for one moment, to know that a
God, lke Nature, which is but a name for God,
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.
J]. THE Man.

1. He was a wild man (Gen. xvi. 12; Heb. a wild-ass man).
Abraham has been called an ‘Arab sheykh.”
Bedawy, if not by birth or tribe, by training and in character.

We have in Elijah a veritable
The rough sheep-

 

skin (ch. xix. 13), the shaggy hair (2 Kings i. 18), the marvellous bodily endurance
(ch. xviii. 46), the careful avoidance of the city, the flight into the desert (ch. xix. 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
(Matt. i. 1, 4). Itis 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,CH. XviI. 1—24.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 889

long-haired sheykh, who single-handed faced the hierar

gat : pe chy of Baal, and kne
fear, his were the asperities, the priv : knew no

nomadic life of a Gileadite. The Lokaeh On a ee bie primitive, semi,

1 HA Nh lbe ty pe an adversity 1ad moulded this man for
the crisis r great chancellors, it has been said, come to us from t
the desert has ever been the school of the createst prophets.
pasturages of Bashan were a meet nurse for a prophetic child.
cast ‘‘in the clay ground ” (see p. 142).

2. ile oe a man of like passions with ourselves (James v. 17). An “ earthen
vessel (2 Cor. iv. 7). ‘In all points tempted like as we are,” and not “without
sin” (Heb. i. 15). The Bible never pictures men as perfect. The phronema sarkos
remains even in the regenerate. i

iP Hrs Mrsston, Consider—1. Whence it was derived. He was not taught of
men (Gal. 1. 12, 17). He was louwrng Kai dyodpmarog, The God who separated him
from his mother’s womb called him by His grace (tbed. v. 15). He was an extra-
ordinary messenger for a great emergency. But observe; when God employs such
messengers, men whose mission is derived directly from on hich, 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 aright to ask of those who run without being
sent to show us asign. When the missionary Dr. Wolff told one of the Eustern
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. 4

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, vinit Moses.
‘* Man’s extremity is,” &. ‘* Israel was sore wounded when God sent them this
balm from Gilead’ (Henry). (2) When ordinary means were insufficient. There
were true priests in Jerusalem; 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 Jeroboain’s or Jehovah’s priests ; the very existence of the Church
was at stake. LElijah was summoned to the court; he was armed with ‘“‘ power to
shut heaven that it rained not in the days of his prophecy ” (Rev. xi. 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 pro-
stitution; from yielding themselves, body and soul, to the whoredoms and witch-
erafts 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.

Ill. His Messace. It was a denunciation of immediate drought, one of the
most terrible calamuties 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 land 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,” &c. (Deut.
viii.7). Anditis also described by the same writer as a land that ‘‘ drinketh water of
the rain of heaven ”’ (ibid. xi. 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 aterrible 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 sola.
fine and philosophic to speak of fear as an unworthy motive, but men ee w hat
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

he garret:
The rugged, un
he rugeed, unsettled
mM : } .
This champion was890 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. (cH. xvi. 1—24.

 

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. Judg. x. 14; Jer. xiv. 22). “Are there any
of the vanities of the heathen that can give rain?” And it was a puvishment this,
which penitence might avert. Moreover, it was the penalty foretold in the law
(Deut. xxviii. 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”
(Num, xxii. 18). Of himself, he could do nothing (zdzd. v. 83). 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 v. 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.”’ : ae

IV. His Ministry. From this initial message let us turn to his ministry as a
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 atriennium. 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 menno more. How lke to the
revelations of God to man. He ‘‘ keepeth silence (Psa. 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 onr sermons, full of sound and fury, leave not
a trace behind them. But the silent Ilias 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. Itis true they cannot
work wonders like Elijah; and it is also true that they are sent to “ preach the
Word,” to reprove, rebuke, exhort, &¢. ; 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 hfe. 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 asmeared and blotted page that some-
times 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 ananswer. That familiar paradox,
consequently, is full of truth and meaning, that, ‘tin 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 (see ‘‘ Guesses at Truth,” ii. pp. 146 seqq.) A French
ecclesiastic, the Abbé Mullois, has laid it dowh, as one of the canons of preaching,
that “to address men successfully, they must be loved much.” ‘Nothing influ-
ences 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, ever-present 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”). Itis BaxterCH. xvi1. 1—24.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 891

 

who speaks of clergymen who “ent the thr
k ut there are many who, without doing this,
it is well for us to remember th

oats of their sermons by their lives;
invalidate their words by their actions.
eae cnrayy ee ee at personal cha racter is the best preparation for the
pul} a, 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.
ems ck and fearless. On three occasions this court preacher took his
s hanc (c 1. XVU. 15 xvili, 2; xxi. 19). On one occasion he seems to have
quailed (ch. xix. 8), 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
Cod (len. i. Posy.

4. It was seemingly a failure. Tf others did not think so, he did. We know
that no work, really and truly done for God, can be wasted (Isa. lv. 11) ; but we are
often tempted to think itis. But it must be such work as will stand the trial by fire
(1 Cor. i. 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 (ch. xix. 0). 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—LKhjah’s, Jeremiah’s,
Ezekiel’s, our blessed Lord’s—were all failures from a worldly point of view.

Vers. 8—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 i. 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 Pet. ii. 8). And there, as he “prayed earnestly that 16
might not rain,” the word of the Lord came to him and burned in his bones (Jer.
xx. 9), and bore him into the presence of the king (Amos ui. 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 conse-
quently 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 (ch, xvi. 18), we may be sure he
would not be spared. Was it not because of lim indeed that the oe ot
attacked? Had his dwelling been with men, the messengers of Ahab woul¢
assuredly have found him and slain him (ch. xviii. 10). So it 1s a pie
pary, for the life of our souls, that we should flee into the desert. is at our 7392 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu. xvi. 1—24°

 

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 would have us leaveu 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 indig-
nation be overpast (Isa. xxvi. 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.”’

2. Solitude was necessary to his soul's health. It is remarkable how God's
elect messengers, each in his turn, have been sent ‘‘ apart into a desert place to rest
awhile” (Mark vi. 81). Moses must spend forty years in the great and terrible
wilderness; must spend forty days and forty nights in Horeb, the Mount of God.
Elijah himself only emerges from the Cherith to go to another hiding-place at
Yarephath, and from Zarephath he passes almost directly to the same wilderness
and the same mount where Moses was. The Baptist’s life was almost divided
between the desert and the prison. St. Paul must learn his gospel in Arabia. And
our Holy Lord, He must begin His ministry by a forty days’ fast, and from time to
time must seek a quiet place to rest and pray. All men who are much before the
world need their times of retirement. In the “loud stunning tide of human care
and crime” it is difficult to hear the whispers of God in the soul. Now the voices
of nature, such as men hear in solitude, are among the voices of God. Nature has
been called ‘‘ God’s great green book.”

‘¢ One impulse from a vernal wood
May teach you more of man,
Of moral evil and of good,
Than all the sages can.”’

‘There are two books,” says Sir Thomas Browne, ‘from whence [ collect my
divinity. Besides that written one of God, another of his servant nature, that
universal and public manuscript that ies expansed unto the eyes of all.” And is
not every tree, every leaf, in its way a mute witness for God and purity? It is
remarkable that the greatest crimes and brutalities are committed in those districts
of this country where men can have neither nature nor solitude—in the dens of
Liverpool, amid the cinder heaps of the Black Country, in the dingy pit villages of
Durham. It is only in quiet, under the silent stars, amid the purple heather, by
the murmuring brook, or in the inner chamber, that we can know ourselves and
our God. The ‘ Ancient Mariner’s”” conception of his ‘‘ wide, wide sea ’’—

‘So lonely ’twas, that God Himself
Scarce seeméd there to be,”’

fine though it is, contradicts the experience of the saints, who have found that it
is precisely the profoundest solitude that is instinct with His presence.

And now let us consider how God calls us all in turn to a brook Cherith. (1) He
calls us to separation from sin. The Church is a Cherith. Baptism is a “ water of
separation,” the token and pledge of our renunciation of world and flesu and devil,
of our admission into the family of God. While in the world, we may not be of it.
Our calling is to holiness (1 Pet. 1,15; 1 Thess. iv. 7; 2 Tim.i.9). We are to be
sacrifices (Rom. xii. 1), and the root idea both of holiness and of sacrifice is a sepa-
ration to God. (2) Sometimes He calis us to a chamber of sickness, sometimes to
the very ‘‘ valley of the shadow of death.” How often is bodily sickness for the
soul’s health! That vale of separation becomes a vale of blessing; the Cherith
leads to a Berachah (2 Chron. xx. 26; cf. Psa. lxxxiv. 6). What a school of theCH. xvi. 1—24.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 893

 

heart has that enforce ituc | ‘OV ‘lets
ae x ced solitude often proved! See Homiletics, p. 18. (8) Nor
must we forget here the Retreat—those opportunities for meditati
Be Peat pein pportunities for meditation and prayer
aappily revived amongst us of late years. The nar ] anita. Gat
Mong late years. 1e name may possibly be Romish, but
the thing is sensible and scriptural enough—a voluntary retirement foi shi rt
YY ny a T » j . * m « y S ; ( : a LX O .
ae from the ae that we may hear and thirk only of the things which make
- our peace. sav ‘il ae fee alias
ii a ce. ihe saying still holds good, ‘He goeth before you into Galilee ”—
a . Set et place it was (Matt. xxviii. 16)—‘ there shall ye see him.”
es returement was for the ultimate welfare of Israel. So long as he
ages, Gees ee the people would have looked to him as the author of
lelr calamities ¢ WC ay ‘] i ray were ‘
oe : A S oF wou d have cried to him to avert them. His disappearance
orded them leisure to examine themselves and face their sins, and left them
only God or Baal to cry to. It is sometimes well that the prophet should keep
oe re oe moras. It is not always that He stretches out his hands
all day long 1e disobedie: insavi : are
ret ae Ti es Poraeay and ee ing. Having spoken by Elijah to Ahab
srael, now He and His prophet must withdraw into the darkness, and the
drought must do its silent work. And there are times, too, when Christ’s ministers
must be silent. When the Gadarenes besought our Lord to depart out of their
coasts, He straightway took them at their word (Matt. vii. 84; ix. 1; ef ch. xxiii
Pa ee i & 3 : } - val ; . . . . me .
38, 3 ). The apostles were to shake off the dust of their feet against the city that
received them not, and to depart from it (Matt. x. 14), and they did so (Acts xiii.
51). When the Jews counted themselves unworthy of eternal life, Paul and
Barnabas turned to the Gentiles (Acts xiii. 46). When the churches of Asia fell
and repented not, their candlestick was removed out of its place (Rev. u. 5). Their
loss is our gain. ‘* These things were written for our admonition.”

 

Vers. 4—7.— The Food of the Saints. We havejust seen the prophet in his solitude.
Let us now consider the manner in which he was sustained there. His needs were
supplied in two ways, partly by natural, partly by supernatural means. No miracle
was wrought to give him water. He must make his home in the wady and drink
of the rivulet that flowed past his feet. It was there, and he must help himself to
it. But with his food it was quite different. He couldnot find that, and soit was
brought to him; it was provided him by God. For even if it was not laid at his
feet morning and evening by ravens—and we have seen reason to think that it was
not—even if it was furnished him by the villagers of Orbo, his tribesmen and friends,
or by the loyal and hospitable Arabs who roamed over the adjoining region, still it
was supplied by the ordering and special Providence of God. For it isas much a
supernatural work to control, by an unseen Power, the minds of men as the instincts
or habits of birds. If we gct rid of the ravens we do not get rid of the miracle.
It is clear, consequently, that he was sustained in part by natural, in part by
superhuman agency. Now our food, like his, is, though in a different way, natural
and supernatural. We use the terms in the popular sense, for who shall say that all
food is not supernatural. True, 1t comes to us by what we call “ natural processes,”
in whut we call the “‘ order of Nature ;” but it is obvious that the so-called ‘‘ laws
of Nature’ are only “statements of the observed course of Nature, or the uniform
results of known physical causes ending in some prime cause or causes not merely
physical” (Sir E. Beckett, * Origin of the Laws of Nature »), Nature only means
what is fixed, settled, uniform (Bp. Butler). But, using the words as they are
used in common parlance, part of our sustenance, the supply of our bodily wants 1s,
for the most part natural; and another part, the satisfaction of our spiritual
necessities, is for the most part supernatural. Our needs, that is to say, are
supplied something lke Elijah’s were. Let us trace the resemblance a little
more in detail, and let us see first how 1b holds good of our

I. Bopmy sustenance. We learn from this history—
1. That we must use the means within our reach. Not even for His elect
messenger, the greatest of the prophets, does God work an unnecessary cere
“Dieu n’agit pas par des volontés particulieres (Malebranche). No EES ot ae
could have supplied his drink just as easily as his daily bread, in an exti aordinary ¥ a ‘
but He would not. No; ina valley debouching into the Jordan was a stream, fed394 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [on. xvi. 1—24,

 

from some hidden source, such as the snows of Hermon. or springing from the roots
of the hills of Gilead, and the prophet must seek it, and take up his abode near it.
What do we learn from this but that God “will have our endeavours concur to our
preservation,” a truth somewhat roughly, but strikingly, put in the Puritan mot
d ordre, ** Trust in God, and keep your powder dry.” Itis nor pal kindness to do
for Elijah what he can do for himself. There are lands where daily bread is to be
had without care or labour; where a man has but to put forth his hand and take
the bread-tree fruit and eat and be satisfied, but that is said to be a doubtful boon.
It is found that the natives of those lands will not work, and their life, which should
be full of high endeavour, which should aim, if at nothing more, at * making two
blades of grass grow where only one grew before,’’ is wasted in basking in the
eternal sunshine. The primeval law, “In the sweat of thy brow thou shalt eat
bread,” though we oall it a curse, isreally a blessing. “ Six days shalt thou labour ”
is as much a Divine command as the command to rest on the seventh. It is God
decrees, ‘‘If any man will not work, neither shall he eat” (2 ‘Thess. lil. 10). The
imperious necessity to provide our daily bread is one of the springs which keeps
the world in motion: it is the salt which keeps our life from stagnation and
corruption. It isin vain we ery to Jupiter for help. God has given us fields and
seed. He gives us rain and sunshine; it is for our good that we should do the rest.

2. That then God will supply what ts lacking. When we have done our best
we may justly look to Him to give what we cannot get. And this He will do.
“Thy bread shall be given thee, and thy waters shall be sure’”’ (Isa. xxxiii. 16).
‘Never have I seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging their bread”
(Psa. xxxvil. 25). In the barren wilderness, He gave bread from heaven. ‘“ Inthe
days of famine, they shall be satisfied”’ (Psa. xxxvil. 19). What a commentary on
these words does this history furnish! Elijah had ‘called for a famine on the
land” (ch. xvii. 2; Luke iv. 25), and had ‘‘ broken the whole staff of bread ”’ (Psa.
ev. 16); but he himself had enough and to spare. God spreads for him “a table
in the wilderness’ (Psa. Ixxvii. 16), and almost ‘‘ in the presence of his enemies ”’
(Psa. xxii. 5). The stars shall fall from their courses, but he shall have enough.
It has been thought by some that the ravens brought him bread and flesh from
Ahab’s own table. It would have been so, had it been necessary. If he was
supplied with food by human instrumentality, it was none the less by God’s
command. And this is God’s ordinary way of hearing “ the prayer of the poor
destitute ;” he puts it into the hearts of others to help. ‘‘God works by means, and
the chief means is man” (Bossuet).

3. That God gives us our bread daily. Elijah only received a small supply of
food at once. Though he had no lack, he had no profusion. He had * daily
bread ”—for ‘‘ morning and evening are one day” (Gen. i.5)—and no more. Even
he must walk by faith and learn to “ take no thought for the morrow.” And daily
bread is all that is promised us ; all that we are taught to pray for (Matt. vi. 11).
And that, perhaps, because a day is a life in miniature; each day is rounded by
dawn and dusk, by sleep and darkness, into a perfect little life. Whether the birds
brought him food or not, he and they received it alike, roy éxtotoor adoroyv, the bread
of a day in its day. Thelesson of the manna (Exod. xvi. 20) is taught us again by
the brook Cherith.

4. That God guarantees us necessartes, not luxuries. Elijah’s fare was frugal.
“Water, bread, and flesh” (cf. Isa. xxxiii. 16). As a rule, He gives us food
‘exceeding abundantly above all that we can ask or think.” How prodigious is
the variety of our food, how lavish its supply! What rich provision has the
Kternal Goodness made for the gratification of our tastes. Fish, flesh, fowl, fruits,
—the list is endless. And of the flesh or fruits, again, how many genera, and in
the genera how many species, and in the species what countless varieties. Lavish
profusion marks His gifts. But all the same he covenants to give us less than the
fare of Cherith, even bread and water. ‘God gives order for competency, not for
wantonness” (Hall).

II. SprriruaL roop. But we are now to consider that “man dot): not live by
bread alone, but by every word,” &. (Deut. viii. 3; Matt. iv. 4). The saints haveCH. xvi. 1—24.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 895

meat to eat of which the world knows nothing (John iv. 34). Elijah had other food
than that which the ravens brought him. In giving “ daily bread,” God does not
forget man’s spiritual part, even if he forgets it in his prayer for bread. And God
supplies the soul’s needs by laws not unlike those which govern the supply of
material food.

_1. We must use the means of grace. The treasury of the Church contains an
abundant provision. ‘There are “ living waters,” there is “ super-substantial bread,”
there is word and sacrament, prayer and psalm. But we must come to the waters
and drink (John vii. 37; Rev. xxii. 17). Our faith needs something to feed upon
and it is in vain we ask for miracles, so long as we do not use means. If we want
to love God more, we must seek to know God, through His word and works, better,
If we want to be more like Christ, we must be more with Christ, in His word and
ordinances, for it is “association produces assimilation.” There is a tendency to
decry the means of grace. There is a religion which is wholly subjective, which
seeks its growth and expansion in everlasting self-introspection or mystical contem-
plation of the Divine perfections. But “‘ Thou shalt drink of the brook.” True, the
channel is nothing—Annus non ager, facit fructwm—but a channel. It is God
must fill it, but if God has dug it, it is presumption to discard it,

‘The means that Heaven yields must be embraced,
And not neglected ; else if Heaven would
And we will not, Heaven’s offers we refuse.”

2. If we are debarred from the means of grace, God will give grace without
means. Itis a blessed truth, gratia non ligatur mediis. We may not dispense
with them, but God can, and does. He did so in the oft-cited instance of the dying
thief. He was saved without sacraments, but St. Paul was not (Acts xxii. 16).
And how often have the saints and martyrs, cut off, amid fierce persecutions, from
the communion of the saints, found their deserts or their cells glorified by direct
communion with God. Matthew Henry quaintly says that ‘if we cannot go to the
house of the Lord, we can go to the Lord of the house.” The Church of England
proclaims that there may be a true Eucharist without the elements (wide The
Communion of the Sick, 8rd Rubric). But itis only when we are deprived of the
means that we can justly expect God to dispense with them. He has commanded
His ministers to feed His Church (Acts xx. 23; 1 Peter v. 2); He has given them
word and sacrament, bread and wine, wherewith to nourish it; but He is indepen-
dent both of means and ministers.

3. Supplies of grace are granted day by day. Our soul’s bread is a daily bread.
Every day we ask for forgiveness, for grace (Matt. vi. 11); and as our days, so our
strength shall be (Deut. xxxiii. 25). If we have not morning and evening prayer
in the Church, we may have it in the house. And morning and evening may be
sanctified by the Word of God and prayer, in private. Hach may find a Cherith in
the closet; each receive there his portion of meat in due season.

4. Grace is given without measure. God does not promise luxuries, oe
they are often hurtful. But there 1s no over-indulgence here. Tt is significant 10W
excess in wine is contrasted with being filled with the Spirit (Ephes. v. 18). One
cannot drink too deep of the living waters (John vu. 38). They are given freely
(Rev. xxii. 17).

Vers. 8—16.—The Furnace of Trial. The village of Zarephath appears to meee
borrowed its name from the furnace or furnaces created there for the smelting 0
metals. See note on ver. 9. A great lexicographer interprets the word to means
‘¢ workshop for the melting and refining of metals. zt that cing ae rs
scarcely less propriety have been bestowed upon 1f from tie cl Sune ae neaoniae
in this section. It was a veritable furnace for men; ap Aer ae an core g
both for the prophet and ieee Moe whe ” lodged. Burely: cies

r gC ! 7 fine it’’ (Job xxvui. 1). eh
‘ Oe se ee ror Etuau. In connexion with it he was subjected

to the following trials of his faith and courage—896 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu. xvir, 1—24,

 

1. He had to leave his hiding place. For months he had dwelt safely in the
deep, sequestered, peaceful wady. That he must hide there, and hide so long,
showed how great was the danger to which he was exposed. But now he is com-
manded to quit his asylum, to go forth into the world, to run the risk of recognition,
of betrayal, of death; and to do so, we cannot doubt, would cost him a struggle,
and put his faith in God to the proof.

2. He had to seek a home in Zidon. How those words would strike upon his
ears, “‘ Which belongeth unto Zidon”! Zidon was the capital of Kthbaai. The
father of Jezebel, his implacable enemy, held sway there. It was like going into the
lion’s den. His feeling would be something lke that of David’s men, “ Behold, we
be afraid here in Judah: how much more then if we come to Keilah” (1 Sam.
xxill, 8). Of all hiding places, that would seem to him to be the most to be dreaded.
How can he escape detection there? He might well have taken fright, as ata
later period, and have fled further into the desert. Or he might have petitioned,
like Lot (Gen. xix. 20), to be allowed to find some other refuge. But he did
neither. ‘‘He arose and went to Zarephath.” He was ‘strong in faith, giving
glory to God” (Rom. iv. 20). a

3. He had to be sustained by a widow woman. The position and circumstances
of the Eastern widow ure to be remembered here. The seclusion in which Oriental
women live makes its difficult for a widow to find a livelihood, even if there were
work for her to do, And we have only to consider what the position of widows
amongst ourselves would be, if there were no such things as investments, no
means of putting out money to usury (Deut. xxiii. 19). Hence the repeated
injunctions to remember the widow (iiid. xiv. 29; xvi. 11, 14; xxiv. 17, 19—21;
Job xxiv. 21; xxix. 13; Psa. exlvi. 9). Hence the special provision for widows in
the early Church (Acts vi, 1; 1 Tim. v. 4—9). The widow was an object for
charity, and needed sustenance. And now Elijah learns that by a widow he is to
be sheltered and sustained. And this widow a foreigner, probably an idolater—an
alien both in race and religion. Surely there was a trial both of his faith and of his
obedience here.

4. He finds the widow in the extremest poverty. He encounters her “ gathering
of sticks.’ That in itself was not an encouraging sign. Next he hears from her lips
that her cupboard is empty. She has not food for herself, much less for a stranger,
‘*A handful of meal,” a ‘‘little oil,” this is all her store. She who was to sustain
his life is herself ready to die. But he knows in whom he has believed. He
“argued not against Heaven’s will.” He did not ‘‘ bate a jot of heart or hope.”
** Make me a little cake first.”” He is assured that “ they shall not be ashamed in the
evil time, and in the days of famine they shall be satisfied’’ (Psa. xxxvii. 9). He
knows that ‘“‘ God will not suffer his word to fail, nor alter the thing that is gone
out of his lips” (Psa. Ixxxix. 84).

5. He is immured in her house for two years, Those two years were years of
banishment from his country and his work. Three years and a half had he to wait,
and most of the time in a strange land, ere his recal; cut off, ‘ not from life, yet
from usefulness, which is the end and comfort of life.’ Which of us would not have
been impatient, or, like the Baptist in his fortress-prison, tempted to think God had
forgotten us? And he knew that all this time his people were sufiering. We
think it strange if a servant of God is laid aside for a few months from his ministry.
But the greatest of the prophets was silenced, was buried alive, for the mystical
period of forty and two months, for “time and times and half a time” (Rev. xi.
2,8; xu. 6, 14). ‘When we cannot work for God we must sit stil} quietly for
him” (Henry). ‘They also serve who only stand and wait.”

6. His presence there is no protection ayainst sickness. Of the three inmates of the
cottage home, one sickens and droops to his grave. This sickness causes us no sur-
prise, but it did Elijah (ver. 20); and ihat because he lived under the dispensation
of temporal rewards. Sickness was then regarded as, and it often was, the scourge
of the Almighty (Deut. vii. 15; xxviii. 61; ef. 1 Cor. xi. 80). It was a trial, conse-
quently, of Eljah’s faith. It looked as if the hand of the Lord was gone out against
him, It seemed as if he was to be always the author of misfortune (‘‘ Hast thouCH. xviI. 1—24.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 397

 

 

 

 

 

’ ° °
also, ’ &.); as if the widow by whom he had been housed and who had ‘hi
him at the risk of her life, was to be requited with eruel pu ] ea
deed. But let us now see in Zarephath he ee oe”
er FURNACE OF TRIAL FOR THE WiDow. It was this in two wavs—
Frat nea a her last meal. Or, rather, he demands the
3 ake me a little cake first. Now consider her position. She ig
reduced to her last morsel. So sore is the famine that she and her so1 aioe
have eaten this meal together, are about to lie down and wait for death. The.
must have sullered hunger enough already; they must have dreaded the ee :
even unto death which awaited them. At this moment a strancor gu.
appears before her, and says he must eat first. It is true that he wears the asnec
o1 a prophet, and appeals to the Lord God of Israel, but prophets were olter
deceivers (chs. xiii 18; xxii. 12), and foreign gods could be expected to show her Kp
favour. And at home, her own flesh and blood, the son of her womb, stretches out
his skinny fingers, attenuated by famine, and cries for all she has to sive, More-
over, if this prophet could multiply food, as he professed to be able to do why
should he ask her for bread? Was it reasonable that she should part with her
last morsel on the strength of such a promise? ‘“ Charity begins at home.” “ Let
the children first be filled.” “Shall I take my bread and my water and give it to
one that I know not whence he is” (1 Sam. xxv. 11)? Thus she might justly have
argued. We could not have wondered had the ordeal been too great for her; had
she kept fast hold of her children’s bread and denied it to “ dogs.” But, ike that
other Syro-Phoenician woman (Matt. xv. 21 sqq.), her faith was equal to the test ;
she “went and did according to the saying of Elijah.’ And, therefore, of her
also it might justly be said, ‘I have uot found so great faith, no not in Israel.”

2. Her son falls sick and lies apparently lifeless. The tie between a mother and
an only son is, perhaps, the closest and tenderest of all blood relationships ; and it
has been remarked that it is peculiarly strong and sacred in the East. ‘The only
son of his mother and she was a widow” (Luke vii. 12): who does not feel the
pathos of these words? And the tie would be all the stronger in this case because
they had suffered together ; because he had been given back to her from the jaws
of death (ver. 12). Itis said by some that we value things in proportion to what
they have cost us, and on this principle they would explain the deep love of the
mother for her offspring. Goethe’s mother used to say that ‘she and her
Wolfgang had always clung to each other, because they had been young together ;’’
but to have hungered together, to have, hand in hand, looked Death in the face,
to have seen the spectre retreating, surely this communion in suffering, this
ovurdbea, this compassio, would beget a much profounder sympathy. And now
this boy, whose life had been miraculously preserved, is so sick that there is no
breath left in him. What could this fond and anxious mother think? Was the
prophet who had given them bread unable to defend them from sickness? Or was
this God’s recompense for her hospitality? She might have had hard thoughts
of God, or unworthy thoughts of the prophet. It 1s a wonder she held fast her
integrity. But she only thought hardly of herself. It must be, ‘she argued, a
judgment for her sin. The man of God had read her life; had brought her sin to
the remembrance of his Master (ver. 18). It never occurs to her, strong as was
the temptation, to arraign God's providence. But her faith and patience must have
been sorely tried. ae .

It now remains for us to consider how these assays of faith, which have
given to this Phoenician workshop its fame _and immortality, were if more
precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire’ (1 i eter
i. 7). Inthat workshop God Himself sat “as a refiner and purifier ot silver.”

It is said that when the crucible, the fining pot for silver (Prov. xvu. 8), 1s put
into the furnace, the chymist has a sure and ready test of its purity; a means of
knowivug when his long processes have accomplished their object. When he sees bs
face refiected in the giowing and untarnished metal, he knows that the purification
is complete. .

f It ae that Elijah and his hostess might learn to know God, might be trans-

f ai
1, ater They

oer

\y 1 i } r
1 SUCU iy

™ oT398 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cn. xvir. 1—24,

 

formed into the image of God, that they experienced this two years’ purgation in
the furnace. It was that the dross might be purely purged, and the tin taken
away (Isa. i. 25); that they might be changed into the image of their Creator
(Col. 1. LO 3-2 Gor ii: 18):

Now the historian does not record the results of this assay, except incidentally.
But we can clearly see that the faith of Kljah and the widow alike grew stroneer
by the exercise. How much Elijah gained; how the discipline told on his subse-
quent career; how the trying of his faith wrought patience (Jamesi. 8), we cannot
now discover. But we can see that it resulted in the widow’s conversion, or in
the confirmation of her faith, and in the glory and praise of God (ver. 24). And that
is not all. Its issues are in eternity. The cross was the forerunner of the crown

(James i. 12).
HOMILIES BY VARIOUS AUTHORS.

Ver. 1.—Elijah. In this sudden manner the Tishbite is introduced, upon which
Bishop Hall remarks, ‘‘ He comes in with a tempest who went out with a whirl-
wind.” And Lamartine says, ‘ Recalling his life and his terrible vengeance,
if seems as if this man had the thunder of the Lord for a soul, and that the
element in which he was borne to heaven was that in which he was brought
forth.” Let us consider—

I. His presence. 1. It ts awful in its vagueness. (1) It was of the in-
habitants of Gilead—‘‘ The hard, stony region,” south of the river Jabbok.
This was one ot the wildest parts of the Holy Land. The awful scenery of
that district harmonized well with the ruggedness of the spirit of this prophet.
John the Baptist first appeared in a wilderness. Out of a wilderness Jesus
came up when He entered upon His public ministry (Matt. iii. 1; Luke iv.
1, 14, 15). (2) He is distinguished as the Tishbite. Calmet says Tishbe was
a city beyond Jordan in the tribe of Gad, and in the land of Gilead. Gesenius,
from [telandi, mentions Tishbe as “a town of Napthali.’ Could there have
been two Tishbes; and were the words “Of the inhabitants of Gilead” added
to distinguish? (8) ‘*The Tishbite,” we incline to think, was a name of office
or commission. It designates Elijah as the Converter (‘AWN from IW to turn).
In this he resembled John the Baptist, whose commission also was to preach
repentiunce. (See Matt. xi. 18, 14; xvii. 12; Luke i. 17.) When Elijah comes
again “‘before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord,” it will
be in his character of Tishbite or Converter, viz., ‘to turn the heart of the fathers
to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers.” (See Matt. iv.
5,6). 2. It is awful also in its intensity. (1) His name (vm5y8) some interpret
to be, “‘ My God Jehovah is he,” others, ‘‘ God is my strength.” In either case it
reminds us of God, and God is the very centre of all reality. (2) Elijah brings us
into the very presence of God also by the manner in which he announces himself.
“As Jehovah liveth, before whom I stand.” In this way also the angel Gabriel
announced himself to Zacharias, and that too when he revealed the coming of the
Baptist. (See Luke i.19.) It is probable Elijah, like John the Baptist, also was a
priest, and the expression under review may intimate this. (Compare Deut. x. 8.)
About 940 years after this, Elijah, with Moses, in a remarkable manner stood, in
the presence of Jehovah, in the mount of transfiguration (Matt. xvii. 1—8).
(3) This declaration of the living God was appropriately timed. For the calves or
young bulls of Jeroboam, and the bulls and goats of Sidon established through the
influence of Jezebel, had so occupied public attention that He was forgotten.
Lamentable is the substitution of death for life!

His raira, 1. It is bold in its assertion. (1) “There shall be neither dew nor
rain.” The material elements which mechanically produce dew and rain were
worshipped by the Phoenicians, and now by the Israelites, while the God that
made them was forgotten. Is notthis the very error of modern atheistic physicists ?
They worship Baal, Ashtoreth, and Ashere under other names, and ridicule faith
.ud prayer. But Elijah asserts the living God as superior to natwre, who willcH. xvi. 1—24.] THE FIRST BOOK oF KINGS. 899

 

 

 

restrain both dew and rain ip hi
eae ee fo and: rain, and So make the gods to worship him. (See Deut.
Re ae er, Xlv. oe) (2) “There shall be neither dew nor rain these years.”
d rair s0r . i Ade ch sen
4. 3 1, according to the course of nature, may be withholden for days, for
weeks, ven, in rare cases, for months: but not for vear Wi 2
tongs \ 8; or years. When therefore for
three years and six months” the teors w 1 |
an ONS vn yoo Meteors were awanting, the phenomenon was
§ perne ae ' . ve qualification is no less remarkable—* But accordin
word. @) Unless divinely authorized to say this, such a declaration would be
mos pie seep inaus. And the inevitable failure of the prediction would cover the
pseudo-prophet with ridicule and confusion. (2) But Elijah was a genuine man.
Fis epee under the inspiration of Jehovah before whom he stood. Such inspiration
makes all the difference between presumption and faith. This is just the dis.
tinction made by James, who describes Elijah’s faith as (evepyounern) inwrought
persuasion of a righteous man (James vy. 16). Faith is the gift of God. 3. The
directness ts admirable. (1) This address is to Ahab. It comes not to him as a
hearsay, but with the hichest authenticity. The inspired messenger of God is
Es a = . a , . Nr . : : o :
above kings. (See Jer. i. 10.) (2) It is fearlessly delivered. The 1S
J en @ man is
conscious that he stands before Jehovah he may use great freedom of speech. The
courage of the lion is in the heart of faith. Elijah was a man of faith because he

was a man of prayer. It is an encouragement to our faith to know that “ Elias

c

was a man of like passions as we are” (James v. 17).—J. A. M.

g to my

Vers. 2—6.—Resources of Providence. When the heavens are shut up by the
word of the Lord, what will become of the prophet who declared that word? ~ Will
he not suffer from the drought in common with the sinners on whose account the
dew and rain are restrained? Will he not be exposed to the rage of an idolatrous
king and queen whose humbled gods cannot, in this crisis, vindicate themselves ?
Will not a demoralized populace resent their sufferings upon the man of God?
God knows all, and is equal to all, emergencies,

I. He HAS RESOURCES FOR THE PROTECTION OF HIS SERVANTS. 1. He could
defend Hlijah in_the midst of his enemies. (1) The power that had shut up
the heavens could surely do this. The elemental fire which now scorched the
earth, He could cause to fall upon the heads of any who would threaten his servant.
(See 2 Kings i. 10—15.) (2) Without recourse to violence, he could dispose
the hearts of men to respect His messenger, as afterwards He did. (See
chap. xvii.) But this was not now His way. 2. He has also places of
refuge for His servants. (1) If there be a valley secluded from human intrusion
God knows it. In the courses traversed by the brook Cherith Elijah may safely
hide. ‘These recesses lay ‘‘ eastward” from Samaria, where probably the prophet
had encountered the king; and eastward from the Jordan, for this is the import of
the phrase ‘‘ before Jordan.” Probably this seclusion was in his own wild district
of Gilead. (2) Ahab will not suspect that Elijah is here; for how could he possibly
subsist in such a desolate region. Water he might find in the streams of the moun-
tains; but where can he get bread from bald rocks in time of drought? (Matt.
xl. 5, 6.) 8. Into such asylums He can guide His saints. (1) ‘The word of the
Lord” came to Elijah. Christ is that Word (John i. 1—14). He was the Memra
of the Targums—that personal Word, who ‘‘appeared”’ to patriarchs and prophets.
(See Gen. xv. 1.; xxvin. 20.) He will be ever with his people guiding them into
safety. (2) “The word of the Lord came unto him saying,” or expressing His
wisdom in human vocables. To Elijah the direction was, ‘‘ Get thee hence,” &c.
To all He comes in the promises and precepts of holy Scripture. (3) Those who
believe and cbey God’s Word, as Elijah did, are in safe keeping. They need never
fear the combinations of wickedness against them. é

Il. HE HAS RESOURCES ALSO FOR THEIR SUPPORT. 1. Their water is sure.
‘Thou shalt drink of the brook.’ (1) There was refreshment for the body. The
stream of that brook continued to flow for a whole year. Such is supposed to be
the import of (0°) days, when there is nothing to limit it (as in ver. 7, marg. ;
see also ver. 15, marg.; Gen. iv. 3). (2) His soul meanwhile was refreshed, aS,
by faith, he realized the wells of salvation which flow from the Word of the Lord,400 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [ou. xvir. 1—24.

 

(See Psa. xlvi. 4; John iv. 14; vii. 87-39; Rev. xxii. 17.) 2. Their bread shall
be given. ‘‘I have commanded ravens to feed thee there. (1) What an unlikely
thing! Ravens were unclean creatures (Levit. xi. 15). They are insect-feeding,
earrion-eating birds, themselves fed by special providence of God. (See Job
XxXxvili. 41; Psa. cxlvii. 9.) (2) Yet God cowld do it; for the instincts of all
creatures are in His hands. He restrained hungry lions from harming Daniel;
instructed a fish how to behave to Jonah; and another to lift a piece of silver from
the bottom of a lake and then fasten upon a hook. ‘Is anything too hard for the
Lord?’”’ (83) But would He do it? Would He employ an unclean creature to
feed His servant? He might have His own reasons even for this. Elijah sustained
for three years and a half in the wilderness was a type of the Christian Church
nourished by the word of God for three and a half prophetic years (Rev. xii.
6, 14). Babylon the great, from whose face the Church had to fly, was the mystical
Jezebel, as the true Church was the mystical Elijah. But in this Church the
destruction of clean and unclean creatures had no place. (See Acts x. 15, 28;
xv. 7—11.) Might not this gospel have been foreshadowed in the manner in
which Elijah was fed? 38. But is it certain that ravens were employed? (1) He
might have been fed by Arabians? For the word (0°23) translated ‘ravens ”
also denotes Arabians. (See it so used in the singular, Isa. xiii. 80; Jer. iii. 2;
Neh. ii. 19; and in the plural as here, 2 Chron. xxi. 16: xxii.1.) And Gilead
bordered upon that tract of country more especially described in Scripture as
Arabia. (2) Or he might have been fed by merchants. For this word also desig-
nates merchants. (See Hizek. xxvii. 9,27.) If Israelitish merchants supplied the
prophet’s needs, then probably would they be of the seven thousand who scorned to
bow the knee to Baal (ch. xix. 18), and so would not discover his hiding place to
Ahab. (8) Or he might have been sustained by certain inhabitants of Oreb, a
rocky place beyond Jordan. (See Judg. vii. 22; Isa, x. 26.) This opinion is
favoured by Jerome, who says, ‘‘ The Orbim, inhabitants of a town on the confines
of the Arabs, gave nourishment to Elijah.” (See more in A. Clarke.) (4): Whether
by ravens, Arabians, merchants, or people of Oreb or Orbo, matters little; God can
spread a table in the wilderness. He can give us the bread of the day in the day
—‘* bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and flesh in the evening.” Neces-
sary things are sure; luxuries we may dispense with. The greatest luxury to the
wise and good is the feast upon the spiritual food which accompanies faithful
obedience to God (John iv. 32—84).—J. A, M.

Vers. 7—9.—The Widow of Zidon. Towards the close of Elijah’s year of
seclusion, to use the words of Dr. Macduff, ‘‘ the brook began to sing less cheerily ;
once a full rill or cascade, which, night by night, was wont to lull the prophet of
Israel to sleep, it becomes gradually attenuated into a silver thread. In a few days
it seems to trickle drop by drop from the barren rock, until, where pools of refresh-
ing water were before, there is nothing now left but sand and stones.” It is time
for the prophet to look to God for further direction; and in response to his prayer,
‘the word of the Lord came unto him, saying, Arise,” &c. How different are the
resources of the believer from those of the worldling! When the Cherith of the
worlding fails he has nothing further to look to, but when from the believer one
comfort is withdrawn another is at hand (Psa. xxxvii. 19). Let us meditate upon—

I, ‘HE COMMAND OF GOD TO THE wipow. 1. She is to sustain the prophet of
the Lord. (1) What an honour is this! For two years and a half to entertain the
man that ‘‘ stands before Jehovah,” at whose word the clouds are sealed or the
windows of heaven opened! (See ver. 1 and xviii. 41.) The man whose prayer was
to bring fire down upon the sacrifice on Carmel to the confusion of idolatry! (ch.
xvii. 88.) Who was to bring the same element down upon the soldiers of Ahaziah !
(2 Kings i. 10—12). Who was destined to ride alive into the heavens in a chariot
of fire! (2 Kings 1,11). Who was destined, many centuries later, to appear in
glory with Messiah on the mount of transfiguration! (Matt. xvii. 8). And who is
yet to come before the great day of judgment to gather back the children of Israel
from their dispersion! (Mal. iv. 5,6). (2) How could she hope for such distine-CH. Xv. 1—24.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 401

 

 

 

 

tion? A poor widow, so poor that she has no servant and. no fuel in her }
A widow with her son, both at the point of death! <A strancer SNA ae ore
Zidon too—the land of Baal—and the land of the wicked Fexzebelt Ge ce
TOV > . : . . ; : ee Ute Aa : ,
pe erp Pee ose Rooney things to pass. How little do we
rar leak Sse (1) toe ot ge concerning us! 2. But how is she to
a PE pie murmur at such a requisition. It might
9 d foohshly as a tyrant requiring brick where he had not supplied straw
Those who shrink from Church work because of fancied incompetence fall into this
See ce sis pe God. (2) It is enough that God has commanded
ands are promises. (See Exod. iii. 10—12; Judg. vi. 14.) See how the
meal and oil are multiplied in the hands of the widow. The more difficult
(humanly considered) the undertaking, the more gloriously will the excellency
of the power of God appear. (See 2 Cor. xii. 9.) Attempt great things for Bai.
Expect great things from God.
pth. foe REASONS OF THE COMMAND. 1. Hluyah needed succowr. (1) The brook
is dried up. Now is the time to test the prophet’s faith. But he is a man of
prayer, so is familiar with God. ‘Those who best know God have most confidence
in Him. Let us be much in prayer. (2) Then ‘the word of the Lord came,”
Man's extremity is God’s opportunity. In no strait let us despair of help while we
keep a single heart. God knows all things. He ean do whatever He will.
2. The woman needed succour. (1) She too had come to extremity—to the last
handful of meal. What a touching spectacle is that widow at the gate of Zarephath
gathering a few sticks to prepare the last meal for herself and her son! (2) Had
she not prayed? No doubt; and most sincerely. She was evidently a believer in
the God of Israel. Jehovah was not unknown in the land of that Hiram who
was ever a lover of David,” and so materially aided Solomon in building the
temple (1 Kings v.) (8) But then she was not an Israelite to whom ‘were the
promises.” So in addressing Elijah her words are, ‘‘ As the Lord thy God liveth.”
She believes in the “ living God,” but cannot presume to call Him her God. (See
Rom. ix. 4.) What right had a poor stranger of Zidon to lock for any special
consideration from the Lord? (4) ‘‘ He giveth grace unto the humble.” He that
reads the heart saw that she would believe if only she had a promise to authorize
her faith. He accordingly gave her the opportunity which she seized and im-
proved. (See Acts x. 1—6.) Let us act up to our light, and God will guide us into
all the truth. 3. But were there no widows im Israel? (1) Upon the best
authority we know that there were ‘‘ many,’ and as needy as this Zidonian. In
the severity of such a famine deaths from starvation were no rare occurrence.
(2) But the same authority informs us that there were none so worthy as this
widow of Sarepta (Levit. iv. 24—26). No widow in Israel would have received the
prophet as this widow received him. The moral is that if we would have special
favour of God we must have special faith to receive it. Let us ever be in that
attitude of whole-hearted consecration to God which will make us eligible for any
service he may be pleased to promote us to. To be permitted to do anything for
God is an unspeakable honour.—J. A. M.

@

Vers. 10—16.—The Barrel of Meal. In the East the people kept their corn in
earthen jars to protect it from insects which swarm in the heat of the sun. What
in our translation is called a ‘“‘ barrel” (3) was one of these vessels. The store in
this case was run low; there was but a “handful” left; yet this was so multiplied,
by the power of God that three persons found at least in 1 sufficient provision for
two and a half years. Let us inquire—

I. How 17s CONDITION BECAME KNOWN. 1. Elijah came to Zarephath in quest
of the widow. (1) Such were his instructions (vers. 8, 9). But was there only one
widow in this city of “ smelting furnaces” (comp. ch. vii. 14), this hive of oe
this centre of population? How, then, is he to discover the right one? (2) God
knows her, and that is enough for the prophet. The Word of the Lord who came
to him at Samaria and at Cherith will now guide him. (See Isa. xhi. 16.)
(3) Let us follow the light we have and God will give us more. So was Abraham's

9
1 KINGS. oe402 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [on. xvir. 1—24,

 

faithful servant guided to Rebecca (Gen. xxiv.) 2. He found her at the gate of
Be cue. (1) She was there on an errand of her own, viz., to gather a few dry
sticks to kindle a fire to cook her last meal in this world. (2 ») She was there also,.
though unknown to herself, on an errand from God. She was commanded to
sustain the prophet of Israel. (8) Yet these two errands harmonize. God uses
man’s purposes to work out His own. Man proposeth; God disposeth. 3. He
readily identified her. (1) He asked her for water, which, with admirable
promptitude, she went to fetch. This was the sign by which Abraham’s servant
identified Rebecca (Gen xxiv. 14). The cup of cold water has its promise of
reward (Matt. x. 42). (1) Then he asked for bread, which further request opened
the way for the whole truth, ‘‘ As the Lord thy God liveth, I have not a cake, but,”
&c. (ver. 12). From these words it is evident that she recognized Elijah, at least
as an Israelite, and probably as the prophet of Israel ; for he was a person of
pronounced individuality. His profusion of hair, probably, placed Elisha in such
contrast to him that Klisha was mocked as a ‘“ bald head.” (Comp. 2 Kings i. 8,

and ii. 238.)

II. How ITs RESOURCES WERE MAINTAINED. 1. By the miracle-working power
of God. (1) ‘‘The barrel of meal wasted not, neither did the cruse of oil fail,
according to the word of the Lord which he spake by Elijah.” This supplied not
only the guest but te widow and her son for two years and a half. As Bp. Hall
remarks, ‘‘ Never did corn or olive so increase in the growing as these did in the
using.” (2) This miracle was similar to that of the manna. The oil was used as
butter for the meal, and the taste of the manna was like fresh oil (Num. x1. 8).
Also to Christ’s miracles of the loaves. (8) The lessons are the same. The
miracles all teach that ‘‘man lives not by bread alone, but by the word of God.”
That this spiritual food is the gift of God. That it differs essentially from the
bread that perishes. Not only is it imperishable, but it multiplies in the using,
grows as it is dispensed. How delightful were the spiritual feasts of that two years
and a half in the widow’s dwelling! (See Rev. iii. 20.) 2. Through the faith of
the widow. (1) She was predisposed to believe. God saw this, else He had not
honoured her with His command to sustain his prophet. (See Luke iv. 24—26.) Let
us ever live in that moral fitness to be employed by God. (2) This disposition
was encouraged. She waited for something to justify her faith in God, and she
gotit: ‘‘ And Elijah said unto her, Fear not; go and do as thou hast said,” &e.
(vers. 18, 14). She knew that the word of fhe Lord was with Elijah And this
instruction to make first a little cake for the prophet was according to God’s order.
(See Num. xv. 20, 21.) (8) She proved the genuineness of her faith by her
works. “ She did according to the saying of Elijah.” By works faith is perfected.
And God justified the faith that justified him.—J. A. M.

Vers. 17, 18.—The Reproaches of Death. In verse 15 we read that the widow
and her household did eat of the multiplied meal “ days” (Q°13’), a term which is
by some Hebraists understood, when used without qualification, to denote a year.
So the phrase with which the text opens, ‘‘ And it came to pass after these things,’
imports that the miracle of raising the widow’s son occurred ‘‘after’’ Klijah had been
one year in her house. The “things” to which this miracle succeeded were the

earlier signs of the presence of God with the prophet, meanwhile the widow read
the bereavement her own way.

I. SHE SAW THE HAND OF Gop INIT. 1. She attributed it to Elijah. “ Art thou
come unto me, to slay my son.” (1) Not, however, under any notion of unkind-
ness to her in the heart of the prophet. For (a) had she not, and her son with her,
been saved from death by famine in connexion with his sojourn in her house ?
(0) The heavenly conversation they must have had during the year would preclude
buch an idea. (2) Yet here is the fact; and itis written for our learning. The
incidents in Scripture, given under Divine inspiration, are therefore to be very
particularly noted. They cannot be too carefully or too prayerfully studied. 2. She
attributed it to himas a “man of God.” (1) This was not, in her estimation, an
ordinary case of death. The circumstances surrounding it were all extraordinary.OH. Xvir. 1—24.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 403

 

 

 

(2) At least she saw that it was intended by God for some high purpose. She was

right. We should not be wrong so to regard ordinary providences. All God’s
purposes are high. All His providences are important. His providence is if
everything. Life therefore is no stale thing. °

= ay nae HIS REPROACHES IN If. ‘Art thou come to call my sin to m
fetes ot God eet inter ree ew oe ater, G) Whole

See TEA 4 endl tain de 43 An é a of sin, For all sin is, direc ly or indirectly,
aoa » and this 1s the gravest side of the offence (Psa. li. 4; Luke xy. 21),
(2) Death especially should remind us of God, before whose tribunal it conducts us,
oe a ey en us of sin, for it is its wages appointed by God. 2,

e remembrance, however, will affect us variously according to our moral state.

(1) Sin, in the first instance, is called to the remembrance of all that they may hate
it and forsake it. (2) To those who have endeavoured to do this, it is still called to
remembrance, that they may trust in Christ for forgiveness and salvation. (3) To
the justified it is called to remembrance that they may praise God for His mercy.
In this sense sin will be remembered even in heaven. (See Rev. v. 9; vii. 9, 17.)

Il]. SHE CONNECTED THESE REPROACHES WITH THE PRESENCE oF Exigan. ‘What
have I to do with thee, O thou man of God?” &. 1. Why did she do this? (1)
Prophets were sent usually to reprove, and denounce judgments. Hence the
coming of Samuel to Bethlehem inspired the magistrates and people with alarm.
(See 1 Sam. xvi. 4.) This bereavement, therefore, might suggest to the widow her
sin in general, or some particular sin, though not clearly defined to her as yet.
(2) Orit might have brought home to her some imperfection in the service of God
which she had not previously sufficiently considered. Had she adequately appre-
ciated the great privilege of having such a guest? (3) Was there not in this a con-
fession that she was unworthy of such an honour, and a desire implied that she
should be made worthy, lest otherwise his continued presence must become an
occasion of judgments? Was not the expression of Peter, with whom Jesus lodged,
of similar import when the divinity of the Master was brought vividly before him
by the miraculous draught of fishes, and he exclaimed, ‘‘ Depart from me, for I am
a sinful man, O Lord?” (Luke v.8). 2. Did she not here recognize a great truth?
(1) What sanctifications and consecrations Levites, and more especially sons of
Aaron, needed, who had to draw near to God; and kow perilous to them, even then,
were their approaches to that sacred presence! (Exod. xxviil. 48; Levit. vill. 85; xv.
81; xvi. 2,138; xxii. 9; Num. iv. 15; xvii. 13). (2) How clean should they be who
bear now the vessels of the Lord! How careful unsanctified persons should be not
to tamper with holy things! Witness the judgments upon Uzzah and Uzziah. (See
1 Sam. vi. 19; 2 Sam. vi. 7; 2 Chron. xxvi. 19, 20.) The sanctification now
required is moral, of which the ceremonial was the type. (8) All shall have to
appear in the very presence of the Judge. How shall we stand then? Let us now
prepare for that solemnity.—J. A. M.

Vers. 19—24.—The Sign of the Widow’s Son. Here is a touching scene—a poor
widow pressing to her bosom the corpse of her only child, while in the agony of her
bereaved soul, addressing Elijah, she says, ‘‘ What have I to do with thee, O thou
man of God? art thou come to call my sin to my remembrance, and to slay my
son?” Now note the words of the text: ‘‘ And he said unto her, Give me thy son,”
&c. In this history we have—

I. AN EXAMPLE OF THE POWER OF FAITH. Behold here—1. The spirit of faith.
(1) He had confidence in God before he prayed. This is evident from the manner
in which he asked the widow for the corpse. He did not tell her what he intended ;
but, on the other hand, neither did he express any hesitation as to the comfort she
might expect. (2) This confidence must have been divinely authorized, else it
would have been presumption which, instead of conciliating the favour, would have
awakened the displeasure of God. (3) This was what Elisha and the sons of the
prophets called ‘the Spirit of Elijah,” i.e., the Spirit of God abiding with him. (See
9 Kings ii. 9,15.) 2. The prayer of faith. (1) He recognized the hand of God in
the bereavement: “Hast thou also brought evil upon the widow with whom I404 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu. xvir. 1—-24.

 

sojourn by slaying her son?” He calls it * evil,” yet attributes it to God. Moral
evil God cannot perpetrate, but evil which comes 1n the form of affliction or punish-
ment is a very different thing. (See Job ii. 10; Isa. xlv. 7; Amos 111. 6; John ix. 1—3.)
(2) He entreated God to restore the child’s life. * He cried unto the Lord.” Here is
the ‘‘fervency” which characterizes “‘ effectual” prayer. (3) He entreated Him
confidi ely: O Lord my God.” This appealing to God in the possessive expresses
a lov iug trust in a Covenant-Friend. (See Levit. xxvi. 12; Jere xXx OB SD Cor: vi. 16s
Heb. xi. 16; Rev. xxi. 8.) (4) Hence his success. ‘ihe Lord heard the voice of
Elijah.’ He saw in Khjab those moral qualifications which make it fitting that
He should answer prayer. So the prophet was able to restore the child alive to his
mother. 3. But what example is this for us? (1) Elijah’s success in prayer was
not because he was a prophet. James replies to this objection when he assures us
that “ Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are.” For this is the ground
on which he proceeds to lay down the broad principle, viz., that ‘‘the effectual
fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much’”’ (James v. 16; see also Acts x
94). (2) Therefore we also may be moved by the Holy Ghost ; and we nvust be so
moved if we would pray effectually. True faith is “‘of the operation of God”
(Luther’s prayer for the recovery of Myconius instanced in Krummacher). (8) But
how may we know that we are so influenced ? God will make it plain as one of
the secrets of holy communion with Him (Psa. xxv. 14; John vu. 17; xv. 15).
When we are free from selfish desire, and above all things seek God’s glory, there
is little danger of being led astray. (4) The widow was no prophetess, but she also
was an example of faith. (See Heb. xi. 35.) Witness her recognition of God, and the
readiness with which she gave her son from her bosom at the prophet’s request.
Her faith was honoured as well as his.

Il. A PRopHETic sien. 1. So the widow interpreted it (ver. 24). (1) It authen-
ticated Elijah as a ‘man of God.” Not only that he was a good man, but that he
was a prophet of the Lord. (2) Consequently ‘ that the word of the Lord in his
mouth” was no sham. (Comp. ch. xxii.) Spurious prophets could not give miraculous
siens. 2. Such signs were parables. The question, then, is, what did this parable
teach? (1) Could it be a sign that the drought would be removed which had now
lasted two years, working fearful ravages, and must, if continued long, destroy the
nations visited? For the ‘‘ word of the Lord in the mouth of Elijah” did encourage
the hope that rain should come upon the earth (ver. 14). The coming of rain would
be a national resurrection. (2) Could it be a pledge of the resurrection of the dead
at the last day ? The gospel has thrown floods of illustration upon this subject, but
in old times it was obscure. This miracle taught the separate existence of the soul.
Also that the disembodied spirit may and shall be reunited to its organic companion.
(3) Why did Elijah stretch himself upon the child? He was a type of Christ. So
he made himself like the dead to foreshow that Christ by dying in our room should
give us life. This He does morally. Also physically, viz., i the resurrection of
the body. (Comp. 2 Kings iv. 84; John xi, 43—46; Acts xx. 10.) Is there any
correspondence between the ‘three times” mentioned in the text and the ‘‘ three
times” in which our Lord prayed for the removal of the cup of His suffering?
(Matt. xxvi. 44).—J. A. M.

Ver. 1.—The Messenger of Jehovah. Stanley is justified in describing Elijah as
‘‘ the erandest and most romantic character that Israel ever produced” (8. &. P.,
p. 828). He appears suddenly, and disappears miraculously. Hence imagination has
had scope. Some Rabbins believed that he was Phineas, the grandson of Aaron,
and others that he was an angel from heaven. The impression his ministry made
upon the mind of the people re-appeared again and again after the lapse of centuries.
When, for example, the miracles of our Lord aroused the wonder of the people,
many said, “It is Klas.” Such a character and work as were his deserve careful
study. Describe the social and religious condition of the kingdom of Israel after
Ahab’s aceession and marriage with the dauntiless, fanatical, idolatrous Jezebel.
Never was reformation more called for, and never were supernatural works more
necessary as the credentials of a Heaven-sent ambassador. Our text presents iorCH, XVII. 1—24.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS,

 

our consideration—I. sen ron mata. 6
oo. I. A messenger from a forsaken God, and Il., A message for an

ad MESSENGER FROM A FORSAKEN Gop. Ahab was congratulating himself on the
success of his policy. It had been greater than he could have expected. The old
faith and fervour of the people had died out so completel ada
maper the bold introduction of Baal and Ashtoreth. The Sidonians were linked
with the kingdom of Israel against Syria. Scarcely a protest had been heard
against these political and religious movements. Suddenly there appeared bef re
the king and queen, perhaps as they were enthroned in their ivory palace, Elijah
the Tishbite; rough in appearance, as he was bold in utterance. Above the ordinarv
height, of great physical strength, a girdle round his loins, and a sheepskin cloak
over his brawny shoulders, his long thick hair streaming down his back, he was
even 1n appearance a memorable man; and there was something very startling in
this his sudden dash into the royal presence, to thunder out his curse, and ‘the
rebuke which no doubt preceded it. His appearance may be compared to the flash
of lightning that for a moment makes everything which was before in darkness
vividly distinct. Some points are worthy of note. 1. V'he obscurity of his origin.
The Tishbite means the ‘ converter,” and would fitly describe his work. ‘The
endeavour to discover a town of such name in Palestine appears to have failed.
The phrase, ‘‘ from the residents of Gilead,” does not necessarily imply that he was
an Israelite. He may have been an Ishmaclite or a heathen by birth. It was
designed that obscurity should thus hang over his origin. To the people he would
seem to come all the more directly from God. The human element was over-
shadowed by the Divine. Show the mightiness of secret forces in nature, in thought,
and in the-kingdom of God. 2. The signs of his fitness. A rough man was needed
to do rough work. The settler in the backwoods wants the strong sharp axe to
effect a clearing, before more delicate implements are required. Elijah had his
constitutional strength and courage fostered by his surroundings. Gilead was a
wild, unsettled country compared with Ephraim and Judah. Instead of stately
palaces and flourishing towns, it boasted tent villages and mountain castles; and
desperate and frequent were the fights with surrounding freebooters. (See 1 Chron.
v. 10, 19—22. Compare with it ‘‘ Rob Roy,” chap. xix.) The Gileadites were to
Israel what the Highlanders, a century back, were to the Lowlands. Amid scenes
ef conflict, of loneliness, probably of poverty, this strong character was moulded.
Compare with Moses in Midian, with John the Baptist in the wilderness. God
gives each servant the right training for the service appointed for him both on earth
and in heaven. 8. Vhe secret of his strength. His name, Elijah, and his formula,
“as the Lord God of Israel liveth,” indicate it. An overpowering conviction that
Jehovah lived, that He was near, that He was the God of this people, and that He
would assert His supremacy over all false gods is implied in the verse. This is the
secret of spiritual strength in all ages. The disciples were weak when Jesus was
on the mount of transfiguration, strong when He returned ; they were despondent
after the crucifixion, exultant at Pentecost. The revelation of God’s presence and
power is what all Churches now need. 4. The completeness of his consecration.
‘‘ Before whom I stand.’ This he said, not with a sense of God’s nearness only,
nor ot His favour, but to express that he was the Lord’s consecrated servant,
through whom and by whom he might do what He willed. Standing is an attitude
of attention, expectancy, readiness. So 1D ancient Scripture servants are renee
sented as all standing looking towards the king, with loins girded, eyes intent, ready
to do his will. Note: We cannot stand before the Lord until we have knelt before
Him in penitence and humility and prayer. This Elijah had done in Gilead.

II. A MESSAGE FOR AN APOSTATE PEOPLE. ‘There shall not be rain nor aa
these years, but according to my word.” We assume here tne credibility u
miracles and content ourselves with indicating the suitability of this to its We a
1. This was revealed in prayer. Elijah had “ prayed earnestly that iy ad ‘ RO
rain” (James v.) He felt that such a chastisement would mage eS HET o ae
people, and turn their thoughts towards God, as it pe dic “e : Ais pes
the offspring of God’s Spuit. The human utterance was the echo 0

y that they were quiet406 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [oH. xvir. 1—24,

 

will. ‘The mystery of prayer is revealed (1 John v. 14, 16). 2. This was a response
to the challenge of Baal-worship. The productive powers of nature were adored
under the idolatrous symbol. Here they were shown to be dependent on the
unseen God. All natural laws are. They are the expressions of the Divine will.
It was in vain to cry, “O Baal, hear us!” 3. This man would affect all classes of
the people. They had shared the sin, and therefore must share the penalty. The
loftiest are not beyond God’s reach, the lowliest are not hidden from God’s notice.
The tiny garden of the peasant was cursed, as well as the splendid park of the king.
National sin brings national calamities. The message, not to some, but to all, is,
‘Repent, and beconverted.” 4. This was associated with estrangement from God.
It was to be ‘‘according to the word”’ of His servant. The change would be fore-
seen and foretold, not by the false priests, but by the praying prophet. The curse
came because of sin, as had been proclaimed by the law. (See Levit. xxvi. 19;
Deut. xi. 16; xxviii. 23.) It was removed on repentance (1 Kings xvii.) Listen
to the message God still sends to men, bidding them root owt idolatry fiom every
nation and from every heart. May the God of Israel, before whom they stand,
prosper all His messengers !—A. R.

Vers. 2—4.—Strange Provision in a Sad Necessity. The miracles associated
with the ministry of Ehjah and Elisha have led some to deny the historical
credibility of the Books of Iangs. It should be remembered that great miracles
were rendered necessary by a great and general apostasy. It was essential to the
survival of true faith that Jehovah should indicate His unseen sovereignty. In
Israel such attestation was more required than in Judah, where the sanctuary and
the priesthood, in the worst times, testified for God. This passage sets before us
T. Silent suffering. II. Divine deliverance. III. Restful retreat... Each of which
points we will consider.

I. SILENT SUFFERING is implied by all that we know of the prophet’s circum-
stances. ‘The famine he had foretold had come ; and he shared the privations of
the people. Others might have kindness shown them, but there was none for this
man. lJegarded as the cause of the calamity, he was an accursed outcast. Upon
such a temperament the steady persistent pressure of hunger and hatred would
tell severely. He would feel pity for others—for the poor dumb beasts, for the
innocent children—and would be tempted to ask, ‘* Was I right in praying for this,
and bringing this woe on the people ?”” Meantime he was himself suffering the
rigours of famine, and no chariot of fire came to bear him away from the desolated
land. Like Samson, it seemed as if he had shaken the house, and was bringing
destruction on himself as well as on the idolators. Yet not a word of complaint.
He was sustained by the conviction that he had done right, and that God would
see to the issues. Apply the teaching from this to oecasions on which men are
still called upon to do God’s will, to utter God’s truth, regardless of consequences.
Sometimes we are able to “‘ count the cost,”’ and then we should do so. But often
this is impossible. The love of Christ may constrain us to do, or to say, something
which will place us in unexpected difficulties. Jllustrate by Peter’s zeal, which
prompted him to step out of the boat upon the sea. He was terrified ata result he
had not taken into calculation; but he was perfectly safe, for he was going towards
Christ. Hxemplify by instances from ordinary life—e.g.,an assistant in business
refuses to tell a lie, or to act one, and loses his situation. A daughter confesses her
love to Christ, and finds her home a place of torment, &c. The one thing that can
support usin such circumstances is the humble, yet confident, conviction that we
have done what God willed, And often from those straits He delivers us in the
most unexpected way, before we ask Him, as He delivered Elijah.

II. Divine DELIvERANCE. 1. It was unexpected. No one would have imagined,
and some cannot now eredit the means adopted. The ravens have been a sore
offence to eritics. Discuss some of their theories—that they were merchants,
Arabians, &. The difficulties are not removed by the interpretations suggested,
nor do they seem warranted by the text. Had men brought food to the hidden
prophet, Ahab would soon have discovered his whereabouts; nor would they becH. xvi. 1—24.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 407

likely to bring v1 :
sely to bring food twice daily, when a store might have been conveved wit]
one risk. The supernatural is always startling hen iethoke oil gs with only
es rages \ se Who reject materialisir
it is not incredible. If God n . if diseas ee
otices a sparrow fall, and if dis
a 8 diseases obey Him, as
soldiers obey their general (M 7] i ‘di ) pee
ir general (Matt. vi. 8—10), this feeding by the rav 1g] l
, ) le ravens might we
be. God often uses strange instruments to effect His 3 - ee meat HAY
from Scripture and history. EK e ] ak 1. pcp nanee Oe! SxamaRie
en id history. ven the plans and the deeds of the wicked are wnder
ae ee - All things work His will. 2. Jt was revealed. ‘ The word of tl
ord came to him.” Fail Pash ~
ere ee it comes to us. Sometimes the inward impulse after prayer
impels us to take God’s way ; and sometimes all other paths are closed, and of tl
one left open Provid omen. Setanta ’ ea Be ot Pave ee eye
: . t * dence says, ‘‘ This is the way, walk in it.” Are we seeking to
cnow God's will < selves ? WwW acd : nee ye
cause Se . ‘gions cian d ere we concerned that our way should be His
» and wa n all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct
thy paths.

_ ‘RESTFUL RETREAT. Describe the wild ravine of the Kelt, which Robinson
and Stanley identify, with some probability, as the Cherith. The precipitous rocks
in places 500 feet high, tl rerns in t imes ae ee

bY f 0 gi, the caverns in the limestone, in one of which the prophet
hid, &e. Such a man needed quiet. He had it afforded to him again in Horeb
No great activity for God can be worthily sustained without much waiting
ae : oe O( eC ut much waiting on

im. In this retreat Ehjah had two sorts of provision. 1. Daily bread. It is
only that which we are taught to expect, and pray for. The daily reception of
blessing teaches us our constant dependence. The manna fell every morning, and

F : : ? : . es
could not be hoarded for the future. Daily strength, too, is given for daily duties.
2. Quiet communion. All nature would speak to Elijah of his God. The brook
would whisper of the water of life; the birds would celebrate the care of God, &e.
In the world around him, in secret converse with his own heart, and in earnest
prayer to the God of Israel, before whom he stood, Elijah would get refreshment

Z f Dp : ° . . a
and strength for coming conflict and conquest. Refer to the invalid, to the aged,
to the little children, as those to whom God gives a time of quiet, to prepare them
for the future service.

1. Hapect God’s deliverance whenever you are in the path of duty. 2. Be
content that God should work in His own way. 38. Seek to have a spirit of
contentment, and a heart that is “quiet from the fear of evil.”—A. Ki.

Ver. 16.—The Widow’s Cruse. Describe this incident in the life of Elijah. Show
some of the ADVANTAGES which arose from his visit to Zarephath; e.g., 1. [t was a
means of blessing to himself. He found a true worshipper of Jehovah even in
the coasts of Tyre, where, under the rule of Jezebel’s father, one was least to be
expected. This would strengthen his faith, and it would keep alive his hope that
his work in Israel would “not be in vain in the Lord.” We may sometimes
assure ourselves of the vitality of Christianity by witnessing its effects among the
heathen. A visit to the South Sea islands would prove a tonic to debilitated faith.
2. It was a means of blessing to the widow. Not only was she kept alive iu
famine for the prophet’s sake, but she. received spiritual blessing. Christ refers to
Elijah’s visit as a sign of the care God had, even under the old dispensation, for
the heathen peoples, where He left not Himself without witness. (Compare Luke
iv. 25.) Show that.as Elijah turned from Israel to Zidon, so the apostles turned to
the Gentiles (Acts xviii. 6). Learn from the story the following general lessons :—

I. Tuat GOD PROVIDES FOR-THE NECESSITIES OF His sERvaNts. In the famine He
had already made provision for Elijah at Cherith, and now that the supply there
had failed, other resources were opened. Not always in our way, but in some way,
He answers the prayer, ‘‘ Give us this day our daily bread.” He does not promise
luxuries or wealth, but our ‘“‘ bread shall be given to us, and our water shall. be
sure.” We are not to be anxious about our future, but are to remember that it is in
the hands of God. It is said of our food and raiment, that our ‘‘ heavenly father
knoweth that we have need of these things.’ When a child is at home he learns
his lessons, obeys the rules of his parents, &c., but he has no care about the food he
will want on the morrow. He never dreams but that it will be provided. Such
should be our spirit, whatever may be our powers of productive work. We are408 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu. xvir. 1—24,

 

diligently and earnestly to do whatsoever our hands find to do, feeling certain | that
‘they who seek the Lord shall not want any good thing.” The Israelites followed
the cloud, though it led them into the wilderness, with the conviction that God
was leading them; and when it was necessary He provided manna in proportion to
their wants. If God does not ignore our tempo ral necessities, He will certainly
not fail to supply our spiritual wants. In the Father’s house there is bread enough
and to spare. This we may prove on earth, but its highest fulfilment will be seen
in heaven, where the Lamb, who is in the midst of the throne, shall feed us.

II. THar Gop UsES WHAT MEN WOULD DesPise. With limitless resources, we
should have imagined that God would miraculously create what was required, dis-
regarding ‘‘the handful of meal” and the little oil left in a cruse. Not so, however.
There is no waste in the Divine economy. The breath of men, the exhalations
of plants, the refuse cast into the field, or into the sea, the rising mist, the falling
shower, are all accounted for, and have a purpose to fulfil, a work to do. There is
no physical force which becomes utterly extinct, though it passes from one form of
manifestation to another. Motion passes into heat, heat into electricity, &c., in an
endless cycle. The economy of force asserts itself everywhere under the rule of
God. This, which is proclaimed by science, is constantly illustrated in Scripture.
It is the same God who worketh all in all. If manna is given to the Israelites, it
ceases directly the people can eat of the corn of the country. The supernatural
rises out of the natural. The miraculous provision for Elijah was not a new
creation, but an increase of what already existed; and in the use of this there was
no prodigality or waste. Compare with Christ’s miracle of the feeding of the five
thousand. After showing that He had infinite resources, He said to His disciples,
‘Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost.” ane

III. THar GoD REVEALS OUR WAY STEP BY STEP. Picture Elijah sitting by the
brook Cherith, watching its waters becoming shallower day by day under the
drought. He knew not what he should do next, but he waited, and trusted, and
prayed; and when the brook was dried up, ‘‘ the word of the Lord came unto him,
saying, Arise, get thee to Zarephath,” &c. God does not reveal the future to us, but
draws across it an impenetrable, or at most a semi-transparent veil. We know not
with absolute certainty what a day may bring forth. The advantages of this are
evident—l. It saves us from sorrow and from sin. (1) From sorrow, because if
we foresaw all that we should have to endure, if we knew the day of our death, the
extent of our losses, &c., our burden would be greater than we could bear. ‘‘ Suffi-
cient unto the day is the evil thereof.” (2) From sin, because we should grow
absorbed in werldly occupations it we were certain life would be long; or become
despondent and spiritless in work if we knew it would be short. 2. It fosters in
us the graces of trust and prayer. If we know nothing of the future ourselves,
and cannot feel confident about our own plans, we are led to confide in Him who
foresees what is before us, and to ask Him in prayer for daily guidance and support.

IV. THaT GOD REWARDS OUR CONSECRATION OF WHAT WE RAVE TO Him. It was
a generous act towards a stranger, a pious act towards a servant of Jehovah, to
fetch for Elijah the water which was now so costly, and to be willing to share with
him what appeared to be her last meal. ‘There is that scattereth, and yet in-
creaseth.’’ Hven in temporal affairs this is true. Hoard seed in the springtime,
and you cannot be enriched; scatter it, and the harvest will come. Give to the
poor in the name of their Lord, and you will not fail of reward—either here or here-
after. We are to give, however, not for the sake of applause or recompense, but
“as unto the Lord,’ to whom we owe all that we have. This woman not only
gave to the prophet, but gave to him én the name of a prophet, and therefore
‘received a prophet’s reward” (Matt. x. 40—42). May He who commended the
widow when she gave her two mites so accept our gifts and services, and so approve
our motives, as at last to say, ‘‘ Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least
of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto me!” (Matt. xxv. 40.)—A. R.

Ver. 21.—Prayer for the Dead. The portrait of the widow of Zarephath is
remarkably natural. Her calmness in speaking of the trouble that was onlyCH. xvii. 1—24,] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 409

 

 

 

threatened (ver. 12), is ; : e :

18). She yea i: J Aiea a ae ce ee ee
ing of superstition with her faith. ¢ ey Ot J cu.there was & blend-
her sin, had it not been that aoe ca le aa God oe have overlooked
she confounded discipline with retribution The iio a heicey home ; and
barians at Melita. (Compare Acts Eatin 4.) Sire ae as Lepet eran of the bar-
xill. 2. the death of this child is to be explained on eee ale ty ae Ses
ei in the blindness of the man whom Jesus cured (John ix, 3), or - peas
: oe we eae which our Lord said, ‘* This sickness is not unto death, ist
or glory of God” (John xi. 4). Rembrandt has depicted the scene brouzht before
us in this chapter. In a roughly built upper room the dead child lies unon the
bed; Sa Cae rests upon bis breast, while the other has fallen heavily at his side

y ' ; o : ae . nok
Fa ee : ee ee * the vee of death. Elijah stands on the further side
oO e bed with his rugged, earnest face upturned towards heaven and his hands
clasped In an agony of supplication as he says, ‘‘O Lord my God, I pray thee let
this child’s soul come into him again!” his event was not intended to be
wondered at as a prodigy, nor was it merely to benefit the widow, but for all time
has spiritual significance. With this belief we see in it—

I. AN EMBLEM OF SPIRITUAL DEATH. The child had died suddenly, or Elijah
would have been told of his illness. His death was real, and was more than the
insensibility of Kutychus (Acts xx. 10). We say that a thing, susceptible of life
is dead when it cannot receive what is essential to its growth and eroleicrn cas
e.g., a tree is dead when it is no longer able to absorb the nutriment without
which it must fade, and ultimately fall. An animal is dead which can no longer
breath air or assimilate food. The mind is dead—as is that of an idiot—when it
receives no true mental impressions. The soul is dead which is insensible to
spiritual influence. As it is possible to have physical without mental life, so it is
possible to have mental withont spiritual life. ‘Spiritual death” is not a mere
figure of speech. It may be illustrated by the condition of this child. The food
provided for him was useless now, the tenderest words of his mother were un-
heeded, and the voice that so lately was musical with laughter was silent. Simi-
larly the spiritually dead are indifferent to God’s provision, unconscious of their
own possibilities, irresponsive to the Father’s voice. ‘‘ Except a man be born again
he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” ‘He that hath not the Son bath not life.”
‘* Dead in trespasses and sins.” ‘‘Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe
upon these slain that they may live.”

II. AN EXAMPLE OF INTERCESSORY PRAYER. A man of Elijah’s strong nature
would have strong affections, and we can imagine how intensely he had come to
love this child. On hearing of his death he could only say to the distracted mother,
‘Give me thy son,” and then carried him up to his own room, and evied to God in
an agony of prayer. 1. It was offered in solitude. Not even the mother was
there. Such intense crises in life must be met alone. Jesus Christ was wont tc
‘‘ depart into a solitary place” to pray. Understanding our needs He said, ‘‘ When
thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and shut to the door, and pray to thy Father
which seeth in secret.” ‘* Jacob was left alone” when he wrestled with the angel.
Compare Elijah’s miracle with that of the Lord, who, when He went into the room
where Jairus’ daughter lay dead, ‘‘ suffered no man to go in,” beyond those who
were one with Him in sympathy and prayer. 2. It was peculiarly definite. There
was one want in his heart, one cry on his lips. Our prayers too often are medita-
tions on the Divine attributes, or general confessions, and thanksgivings. If our
King asked ‘ What is thy petition?” we should sometimes be at a loss for an
answer. Pray for one grace, for one unbelieving friend, &. 3. It was intensely
earnest. Elijah could not be denied. His was not a speech, but a cry. He looked
for the awakening, and flung himself on the dead in an agony of earnestness as if
he would infuse his own warmth and life. The touch was similar to that of Peter,
when he took the cripple by the hand (Acts iil. 7)—not the cause of blessing, but
the medium of blessing. The Divine power works through the human agency.

IIL. AN EARNEST OF TRUE RESURRECTION. Elijah could not give life, but he could410 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. (cH. xvi. 1—24,

 

ask God for it. Nor can we arouse to new life by preaching, though God can do so
through preaching. Our words are only the media through which the Holy Spirit
works. ‘The Atlantic cable is useless except-as the message is flashed forth by mnys-
terious unseen power. This distinguishes the miracles of our Lord Jesus from
those of His servants. (Compare Luke vii. 14 with Acts 11. 12—16.) There is a
resurrection wherein saints shall be raised by the power of God to a lite of immor-
tality, the promise and pledge of which we have in the resurrection of Christ, who
is the “firstfruits of them that sleep.” There is also a spiritual resurrection, to
which Paul refers when he appeals to Christians as those ‘risen with Christ; and
of this, as well as of that, is there an illustration in our text. taised to newness of
life we, like the child Elijah prayed for, have to live for awhile in the old sphere.
The prophet gave the child to his mother. Jesus restored Lazarus to his sisters,
the young man at Nain to his mother, and the ruler's daughter to her parents; and
so to us, who have ‘‘ passed from death unto life,” He says, ‘‘ Return to thine own
house, and show how great things God hath dene for thee.” This miracle con-
strained the widow to accept as God’s truth the declaration of His servant (ver. 24).
How much more reason have we, who believe in the supernatural works of His
Son, to say, ‘‘ We know that thou art a,teacher come from God; for no man can do
these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him!’’—A. R.

Vers. 1—6.— Elijah the Tishbite. One of the noblest of the noble figures that
cross the stage of Old Testament history appears before us here. Few names have
such a halo of glorious associations surrounding them as that of Elijah. The
mystery of his origin, the grandeur of his mission, his physical and moral
characteristics, the peculiar nature of his miracles, his wonderful translation and
reappearance with Moses at the time of our Lord’s transfiguration, together with
the place that he occupies in the last utterances of inspired prophecy, and in the
anticipations of the Jewish people—all combine to invest the person of this great
prophet with a peculiar and romantic interest. This opening chapter in the story
of his prophetic ministry is full of instruction. Note—

I. His aBrurr APPEARANCE. There is nothing actually unique in this. Other
prophets of the age are introduced thus suddenly (Ahijah, Jehu, Shemaiah, &e.)
But considering the circumstances of the time it is remarkable. 1. It proclaims
God’s continued interest in, and sovereignty over, Israel as well. as Judah. The
revolt of the ten tribes had not broken the bond between Him and them, or
altered the fact of His supremacy. Nor had their religious defection nullified His
purpose of mercy. 2. It ts called forth by a dread moral crisis. The seed sown
by Jeroboam was fast developing its most deadly fruits. The Baal worship brought
in by Ahab and Jezebel was a far worse “abomination” than the worship of the
calves. A cruel persecution was raging, the prophets of the Lord were being slain,
and it seerned as if the true religion would perish out of the land. 38. [é was a reve-
lation of irresistible power. The worship of Baal was essentially the worship of
power; probably the productive power of nature. Here is the messenger of Him
“to whom all power belongeth,” that great unseen Power that can arrest the order
of nature, seal up the fountains of heaven, wither those resources of earth on which
the life alike of man and beast depends. "We are reminded of the various ways in
which God may see fit to fulfil His sovereign purposes. All powers, human and
material, are at His command. ‘ All things serve his might.” In the darkest
hour in the history of church or nation, let us believe that still ‘‘the Lord
reigneth.” Let us trust Him to “ plead his own cause,” and vindicate the claims
of truth and righteousness. 7

IJ. His peRsonAL pienity. It is the dignity of one who sustains a special
relation towards ‘‘the living God.” His name implies this: ‘“‘ Jehovah is my
God.” And this solemn asseveration, ‘‘As the Lord God of Israel liveth, before
whom I stand,” is suggestive of the dignity (1) ef personal fellowship ; (2) face to
face vision ; and (8) Divine proprietorship ; (4) consecrated servitude. One would
think the old Jewish tradition were true. It sounds like the voice of an angel.
But lofty as this ulterance is, majestic-as is the relation towards the Divine BeingCH. xvir. 1—24.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 411

 

 

 

 

 

which it indica i ‘igti
\ cates, it has its Christian counterpart. Think of St. Pauls w
( There stood by me this night the angel of God. whose I 1 he ———e
Acts xxvii. 23). This i ae eee ee
f : ; S 1s not an exclusive, ex i ionity Ty a
measure share it. And as no earthly a tate a . oe
i : x C any a Cc ay {7 r +
except so far as he recognizes a Divine element in it fills t arte ear
holy fear; so there i , . » Hus 16 as before God with
ay: S no work or office of common lif iw
. 7 . 1 e c y dU a E :
by this feeling. We stand there before God as His ee td ee
. ; Ss Cc ‘ 7 aT? : “
4 Me ee have all his saints.” oom ee ony Haile
A Is Cc : i i s
11S COURAGE. It is the courage of one who knows that God is with hi
that he is the messenger of the Divin ill, the instru ieee
eng e will, the instrument of a Divine purpose
the channel of Divine strencth. He boldly confronts Ahab, “not fo Seren
wrath of the king,” bearding the lion in his den BiGesh nek wi aera a
eK Ing - Does not mingle w
people, antedating their sufferings by spreading among them the evil tidings fe
goes straight to him who is the fountain-head of the mischief and can avert the
calamity by his repentance. Such is the brave spirit with which God fills ba
heroes. W hether in the defiance of danger, or the endurance of nig Hadi fi E 2
the sense of God—a Divine inspiration, Divine support—that has ever been the
spring of the noblest form of courage. ‘Greater is he that is in you.” &c. =
a Altes Ge okies ice arage. rreater 1s he that is in you,” &. * If
a us,” &. “ Be not afraid of their terror, but sanctify the Lord God in
for 1eart,” &e. This is the principle—the solemn fear of God taking possession
: fae mae out all other fear ; In the sense of the sovereignty of a Divine claim,
me a 1ing but the dread of being unfaithful to it. Now this brave spirit was
i : 1, - Ar
ie a on a breast of Elijah an at once. Such amoral phenomenon is not
ein; of an ae or a day. We may believe that it was developed in him
gg 15 a6 , :
e addally among the mountains of Gilead—a fitting scene for the nurture of such
a moral constitution as his. The fire burned within him as he mused on the
degradation of his country. ‘St. James speaks of the fervency of Elijah’s prayer:

He prayed earnestly that it might not rain,” &. (James v. 17). No doubt the
Rite ie of the rain was given as a “‘sign” in answer to his prayer; but after
all, may we not regard his prayer most as the means of preparing him to be the
Peoeuey and minister of this great “‘sign” ? Not that the order of nature was
Bees at the caprice of a poor, frail mortal; but that he, “a man of like passions
with us,” was able in the fervour of his faith and prayer to rise up and lay hold on
the strength of God, to read the purpose of God, reckoned worthy to become the
agent in the execution of that purpose. The historis incident is not so far removed
as it may seem to be from the range and level of our common life. Heaven gives
back its answer to supplant faith. As regards the fellowship of the human soul
with the mind and with the power of God, it must ever be true that ‘* the effectual
fervent prayer of the righteous man availeth much.”

IV. His EXTRAORDINARY PRESERVATION. A type of the providential care that
God will ever exercise over those who are faithful to Him in the path of duty and
of trial. Whether “ravens” or *‘ wandering Arabians were the instruments in his
preservation, 1t little signifies, so that we recognize the positive Divine inter-
position. And what is the supply of our daily wants but the fruit of a perpetual
Divine interposition? ‘Give us this day our daily bread.” Walk uprightly
before God, be true to Him in all the sacred responsibilities of lfe, and trust in
Him to provide (Matt. vi. 33).—W.

Ver. 16.—Entertaining a Stranger. We naturally ask why Elijah should have
been sent at this crisis to Zarephath. The fact that it lay so near to the birthplace
of Jezebel, and in the very home of the Baal worship, may have had something to
do with this. It might be a safer place of retreat for the prophet than it seemed
to be, for Ahab would scarcely. dream of following him there. But other reasons
are suggested by the use our Lord makes of this-incident (Luke iv. 25,26). The
prophet was not “accepted in his own country,” but found a confiding welcome
and generous hospitality at the hands of an alien. God rebuked the proud
unbelief of His own people by making this poor lone widow, in the midst of her
idolatrous associations, the instrument of His purposes. And thus that early age412 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. fou. xvir. 1—24.

 

had its foreshadowings of the grace that should hereafter be bestowed on the
Gentiles. The lessons of the narrative lie upon the surface.

I. Gop’s SURE GUARDIANSHIP OVER His seRVANTS. Elijah is perfectly safe
under the shield of Divine protection, as safe in the region of Sidon as he was by
the brook Cheiith. He who commanded the ravens to feed him can put it into the
heart and into the power of the Phoenician woman to do the same. When one
resort fails He can provide another. He causes one and another to fail that He
may show how boundless His resources are. There is absolutely no limit to the
possibilities of God's sustaining and protective power. “ He shall give his angels
charge concerning thee.” The angels of God are many and various. ‘There is
nothing which He cannot make to be the instrument of His purpose, the vehicle of
His power. And He causes them to wait in duteous ministry on those whom He
has called to high and holy service in His kingdom. God has a grand mission for
Elijah to accomplish in Israel and will take care that he shall be able to fulfil it.
‘* Man is immortal till his work be done.”

II. Tue Honour Gop puts ON THE LowLy. We see here not only the Divine
preservation of Elijah, but a special act of grace towards the woman of Zarephath.
It was a signal honour to have been thus singled out from the crowd for such a
Divine visitation, to be used as an important link in the chain of great public
events, to have her name handed down to future ages as the ‘‘ woman of Sarepta,”
whose glory it was to ‘“‘ entertain a prophet in the name of a prophet and receive a
prophet’s reward.’’ And in this there was not merely a providential arrangement
of outward circumstances, but a gracious influence exerted on her own soul; for
God lays His sovereign hand not only on the course of external events, but on the
secret springs of moral life. Her readiness to respond to the prophet’s appeal was
from Him. Poor and humble as she was His eye was upon her for good. ‘He
regarded the low estate of his handmaiden.” Thus has God often put distinction
upon those who might least have expected it. Let none think themselves beneath
His notice, or too insignificant to be made by Him the instrument of some high
and holy purpose. ‘‘'Though the Lord be high, yet hath he respect unto the
jowly’”’ (Psa. cxxxviil. 6),

‘* Tle hears the uncomplaining moan
Of those who sit and weep alone.”

The forlorn and desolate, if only they walk humbly and reverently before Him, are
the objects of His tenderest regard. He is nearer to them than He seems to be,
and often has surprising grace in store for them. The poor widow casts her two
mites unnoticed into the treasury, but He to whom the secrets of all hearts are
open clothes her with honour above all the rich pretentious people who only gave
what they so well could spare. The sinful woman, in self-forgetting devotion,
pours her rich ointment on the head of the incarnate Love; captious onlookers see
no glory in her deed, but a word from Him crowns it with an everlasting halo of
world-wide fame (Matt. xxvi. 13; Mark xii. 48, 44).

ITI, THE REWARD OF TRUSTFUL AND OBEDIENT FAITH. The poor widow ‘ showed
her faith by her works, and by works was her faith made perfect.” At the prophet’s
word she drew freely from her scanty store, and ‘‘the barrel of meal wasted not,
neither did the cruse of oil fail.” The reward of her faith came in the form of a
miracle similar to that of Christ’s multiplication of the loaves and fishes to feed the
hungry multitude. It surpasses our comprehension, but is not more wonderful
than the mysterious process that is ever going on in the building up of the tissue
of plants and of the animal frame. Shall not the Power that is perpetually chang-
ing the elements of earth and air and water into nourishing food for man and
beast be able to increase “the meal and the oil” as it pleases? The true life of
faith is one of “‘ patient continuance in well-doing,” coupled with calm dependence
on that ever-active power. Of the righteous God says, ‘‘ Bread shall be given him,”
&e. (Isa. xxxiii. 16), “In the day of famine they shall be satisfied’ (Psa. xxxvii.
19). Christ did not mock us whea He taught us to pray to our Father iu heaven,cu. xvi. 1—24.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

eo

413

ey

Tread faithfully the path of duty, and ** He
1e sower will both minister bread for your food, and
and increase the fruits of your righteousness ” (2 Cor, ix,

 

 

‘Give us this day our daily bread.”
that ministereth seed to tl
multiply your seed sown,
1u).—W.

Vers. 17—24.—Life from the Dead. The miracles wrought by Elijah or associated
with his name were tor the most part of the nature of severe judgments, and present
the person of the lowly prophet ina stern and terrible heht before us. But the two
miracles that mark the opening of his career were miracles of mercy, and show
that there was another side to his character, one that was tenderly sympathetic and
humane. Having at first brought hope and a new lease of life to the starving
mother and her child, he now lifts the dark shadow of death from off the desolated
home and turns its sorrow into joy. This narrative has a peculiarly pathetic
interest, and is suggestive of lessons that touch the deepest realities of huinan life.
It naturally divides itself into two parts, in which we see (1) the sadness of death
and (2) the joy of restoration.

I. THE SADNESS OF DEATH. That the child was really dead we cannot doubt.
“There was no breath left in him.” The gleam of hope in the poor widow’s
condition was suddenly beclouded, and a strange, yet not altogether unnatural,
revulsion of feeling took possession of her breast. Thus does an unexpected
calamity, especially perhaps when it takes the form of personal bereavement, often
work for a while a sad change in the attitude of the soul. 1. I¢ darkens the whole
horizon of ife—quenches the light of other joys. The abundance of meal and oil,
and the honour of the prophet’s presence are as nothing while the child lies dead
in the house. There are sorrows which seem utterly to blot out the sunshine of
one’s existence, and to be aggravated rather than relieved by the joys that accom-
pany them. 2. It creates resentment against the swpposed, or perhaps the real,
author of it. ‘* What have I to do with thee, O thou man of God?” ‘he prophet,
who had proved himself so beneficent a friend, is regarded as an enemy. 3. It is
a severe test of one’s faith in God. This woman, it may be, was in an inter-
mediate state of mind between blind devotion to the old idolatries and the full
acceptance of the faith of Israel. How rude a check did this event seem to give to
her progress into clearer hght! Thus is the faith of men often sorely tried by the
adversities of life. This is part of their Divine purpose. The ‘ fiery trial” seems
‘strange at first, but the meaning and reason of it are revealed afterwards.” Happy
they whose faith, in spite of the severe strain put upon it, holds fast to the living
God—too deeply rooted in the soul to be torn up by any sudden sweeping blast.
4. It awakens the sense of sin. ‘‘ Art thou come to me to bring my sin to remem-
brance?” It is significant that the thought of her own sin should be her first
thought. The calamity brought this to her remembrance because it ee to her
a sign of God’s remembrance of it. Learn that though particular ati ctions are
not always to be connected with any particular transgression as their cause (John
rx. “Di 3), yet all sorrow must be traced ultimately to its source in moral eval. | Tt
is a true instinct that leads us to think of our sins in times of adversity. Whenever
affliction comes to us it should produce tenderness of conscience and one on
prayer, ‘‘ Show me wherefore thou contendest with me,” in a ed # : ie
any secret wrong in peri that miner? this severe discipline we may haye

"ACE ight against it and cast it out. oe o aan
Sinie See ‘OF RESTORATION. ‘The behaviour of Elijah 1s HOR cb Pi ceas
of his deep human sympathy, and also of the intimacy of US LATECaTS oa ee
himself and God as a man of prayer and the instrument of t 1 = ae ae BY.
Having special regard to the nature and effect of this miracle of restora i ie

‘3 typi one fice stry of Christ. In Him the power o
that—1l. It is typical of the beneficent ministry of Chr iach dated acne ene
God came, as it never had before, into healing contact eee aa a eee
diseased and dying humanity. He took our nature upon - ie A 7 eee
effectually cure its infirmities and sicknesses. or a scat the healiie
from Him. He was the great health-restorer and life-giver; anc waster tea eee

inistri icipate s coming, so all true philanthropy
ministries of former ages had anticipated His 8)414 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. fon. xvi. 1—24,

 

 

since has caught its highest inspiration from the constraint of His love and the
force of His example. 2. It is prophetic of the future glorious resurrection. We
see here one of the many witnesses that gleam. out amid the obscurity of the olden
times to the truth that God would surely one day “ bring life and immortality to
light,” while it points us on to the time when, ‘‘ at the voice of the son of God, all
that are in their graves shall come forth.” ‘ Then shall be brought to pass the
saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory (Isa. xxv. 8; 1 Cor.
xv. 54). 8. It illustrates the joy of a soul that for the first time is made fully
conscious of the gracious presence and power of God. * Now by this I know that
thou art a man of God,” &c. There is a tone of deep satisfaction in these words.
It is the satisfaction that springs from the discovery of Divine truth and the vivid
sense of God. There is no satisfaction of which the soul of man is capable that
can be compared with this. ‘The end of all forms of Divine manifestation—
prophetic visitations, miracles, providences, &c.—is this. We reach the highest
joy possible to us upon earth when we can say with St. John, ‘‘ We know that the
Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him
that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his son Jesus Christ. This ig
the true God and eternal life’ (1 John iv. 20).—W.

Vers. 1—6.—Elijah’s Advent and Service. I. Tor Great Proraet. 1. His name:
Elyah, my God (is) Jehovah. It was asymbol of his spirit. It expressed his
judgment of Israel’s idolatry and the choice which with his soul’s whole strength
he had made of God. Light and fidelity are the only foundations of any true work
for God or man. 2. His origin. The words (‘ of the inhabitants,” &c.) seemed to
indicate that he belonged to none of the tribes of Israel. (1) His mission was
prophetic of that of the Gentiles. Israel, forsaking God, were to feel that God
was also forsaking them (Rom. x. 19). The very meanness of the origin of God’s
faithful ones lends power to their testimony. (2) It proved the infinitude of God’s
resources, Ahab and Jezebel might slay His prophets; they could not arrest the
progress of His work. From the most unthought-of quarter there arises a mightier
than all whose lives had been taken. The power of a devoted life to make the
world feel the impossibility of its prevailing in its contest with God. 8. His atti-
tude toward God. ‘* Before whom I stand.” He was the Lord’s servant. He
lived for Him. His eye rested on Him. The whole man stood girded for prompt,
unquestioning obedience. This is the spirit of all true service. Is God as real to
us? Do we thus stand before Him ?

IJ. His Messacu. 1. The judgment. It was that predicted from of old as the
chastisement of Israel’s idolatry (Deut. xi. 17). The land was to be consumed by
drought. The blessings which God withholds from the soul that forsakes Him
are imaged in those withheld from the land. There is “neither dew nor rain.”
The refreshment, the rich consolation, once imparted by the word or found in
prayer, are no longer known. The stimulating of loving zeal after what is nobler
and purer has ceased. 2. Through whom it fell: ‘According tomy word.” Those
who reject God will be judged by man. God will still confront them in their
fellows. God is magnified in His servants. The kingly power and priesthood of
believers in their relation to the world.

Til. His rermrement. 1. It served God. Ahab and Israel were left face to face
with Him. Man disappeared that the eye might rest on God alone. There are
times when He is best served by silence. Many words often undo the effect of the
homethrust dealt by a few. 2. It was his safety. He was shielded from Ahab’s
anger. We may be hid by affliction from the power of our great foe. Temptation
and danger may have been darkening the path that lay before us when God led us
aside and made us rest awhile with Him. 8. I¢ prepared him for after service.
He was taught God’s unfailing power and care. His wants were provided for
though no man knew of his dwelling place; and that by the most unhkely instru-
ments. He learned how fully he might trust God. He to whom God is thus
revealed will not fear the face of man.—U.CH. Xvil. 1—24.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 415

 

 

 

 

 

Vers. 7—16.—Diwine Our 3 ENDLESSN ,
Bt. Grillner tee deter i ue sees ae oF Gop’s RESOURCES. 1. The
that this wondrous provision might . ao eee :
ee te pus ee wis pene marvels. When means are
the failure; and He who gent to fae | ae - a ee °
fails only that the soul may be qnickened 1 fr : a eles fae ee ee
ee qnickened by a iresh revelation of God’s kindness.
sent to what seemed to be the most dangerous of all placcs—to the
territory of Jezebel’s father. And yet the very unlikelihood of his seeking shel! =
there increased his safety. God’s path can only be trod by faith but that faith ae
soon changed to praise. 8. He was sent to a most unlikely quarter The Acta
whom the Lord had chosen was a widow and one who possessed sufficient to
furnish only one more meal for herself and her child. But here again faith was to
break forth into praise. God's power is infinite, and the meanest as well as the
mightiest may be used to glorify Him. ‘ |
I]. THE REWARD OF OBEDIENT FaITH. 1. For Elijah. He went undoubtine: he
sought the city, and lo, at the gate (ver. 10) he met his hostess. Those who act
on God’s promises will meet with the revelation of His truth and eracionsness. 9

ae

3ut it was only

y" a sy ee eee fa
For = woman io 1i—16). It was her last meal. Love of her child and her
ry no a ao Tr s - c ry 7 :

. “aor must lave made it hard to obey, but the seed she sowed in faith
yielded a thousandfold. God’s call to sacrifice for His service, for honesty and
truth, is the path to plenty not to loss. 38, For both. The woman entered a
new world. The unseen was unveiled; she knew God. Elijah found in a heathen
land a home which God had sanctified. The communion of faith glorifies all human
relationship.— U.

Vers. 17—24.—Affliction and tts Fruits. I. Tue piscipnine or TRIAL, 1. It ta
no proof of God's anger. Sorrow darkens the homes of God’s beloved. This was
a home of faith and ministering love. Affliction is no more proof of wrath than is
the farmer’s ploughing of his field. To him, with his eye upon the future harvest,
if is only the needful preparation of the soil. And the great Husbandman, with
His eye upon the eternal glory, must open up a bed within the soul’s depths for
the seed of life. 2. God’s blow may be very heavy. Wer son, her only child, is
taken. God’s plough sinks deep that His work may be rightly done. The very
greatness of our anguish is a measure by which we may gauge the greatness of
the Lord’s purpose and of the love which will not suffer us to miss the blessing.

Il. Tur Fruits it yieups. 1. It reveals our need, She may have been conscious
daily of the goodness of God and yet been blind to the fact that she needed more
than she had yet received. God now awakens her (1) to the sense of her unworthi-
ness : “* What have I to do with thee?” (2) to the remembrance of her transgressions:
“ Art thou come to call my sins to remembrance ?”’ The darkness of trouble is the
shadow of guilt. There is discipline because there is need of salvation. Sins may
be pardoned, but God must open up a gulf between the soul and them. The time
of trouble is meant to be a time of heart-searching and of confession. 2. It sturs up
to prayer. Elijah’s heart was poured out in bold expostulation and earnest .entreaty
(vers, 20, 21). In the sharpness of our need our cry gains strength; we press, in
our urgency, into the Divine presence. These times open up a way to God by
which we find ready access ever after, 8. It leads to the vision of God’s glory.
‘And the Lord heard,” &c. (ver. 22). The prayer was followed by a revelation of
God’s power such as till then man had never seen: the dead was raised. “ Ask
and ye shall receive.” The soul that asks will see God’s salvation and be filled
with the light of the Divine glory. 4. It deepens trust. ‘* Now by this I know,”
&ec. (ver. 24). When man’s need meets God’s help, the soul is bound to Him by the

strongest ties.—U.

Vers. 1.—7.—First Preparation of Elijah for his great Mission. — After Elijah’s
first appearance before Ahab to announce to him the Divine visitation of sterility
and dearth which was to come upon the land as the chastisement of his sin, the pro-
phet was sent away into a solitary place to prepare himself for his great and solems416 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. fon. xvir. 1—24,

 

mission, which was to overthrow idolatry and vindicate the worship of the true
God. This work of preparation was divided into two great periods. 1. Ihe
preparation of the desert. 2. The lonely life of the prophet in the house of the
widow of Sarepta. , ;

The Desert was, from the time of Moses to the days of John the Baptisé, the
great school of the prophets. These men of God were trained for their work: 1.
By being brought face to face with their sacred mission in all its greatness, and
free from the prejudices and petty influences of human society. There they could
steadfastly contemplate the Divine ideal, undistracted by the rude realities of man’s
fallen condition. 2. There they were also cut off from all human aid, left to test
their own strength, or rather to prove their own utter weakness, and, overwhelmed
with the sense of it, to cast themselves wholly on Divine strength. Thus they
received directly from God, as did Ebjah, the supplies by which they lived, and
realized the conditions of absolute and immediate trust in Him. Coming forth from
this discipline of the desert, they were enabled to say with Paul, ‘‘ When I am
weak, then am I strong” (2 Cor. xii. 10). 3. This loving converse of the prophets
with their God brought them into closer fellowship, more intimate union, with Him.
Thus they came forth from the desert, like Moses from the Mount of Sinai, bearing
unconsciously upon them the reflection of His glory. As St. Paul says, ‘‘ We,
beholding as with open face the glory of the Lord as in a mirror, are changed into
the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord” (2 Cor.
iii. 18). Considerations like these have a fit application to the pastor, who ought
to be much in solitary communion with God, in order to be raised above the com-
promises of principle so common in society, and to get his whole nature permeated
with Divine strength. Every Christian soul has in like manner a prophet’s mission,
and ought therefore often to seek the desert solitude, in which the Invisible ig
brought near, and to frequent those sacred mountain tops of prayer, where the
disciple, like the Master, renews his strength (Luke y. 16).—E. de P.

Vers. 7—24.—Second Preparation of Elijah. Elijah passed through his second
phase of preparation under the humble roof of the widow of Sarepta. He is in the
right attitude for gaining a holy preparedness for his work, for he has placed
himself absolutely and directly under the guidance of God. When the word of God
comes to him, he is ready to arise and go whithersoever it bids. Thus was Christ
‘led of the Spirit” to commence His public ministry (Matt. iv. 1); and throughout
His whole course He recognized the same unfailing guidance. The purpose of
God in sending Elijah to the poor widow was to show him, before he entered on
the great conflict with idolatry, that he had at his disposal a Divine power which
nothing would be able to resist. Elijah was, so to speak, to prove his arms, far
from human observation, BY A PASSAGE OF DEEP PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. Hence
the double miracle of the barrel of meal and the cruse of oil always full. Hence,
yet more distinctly, that glorious miracle of the raising of the widow’s son by the
prophet. This miracle had no witnesses; nor must we marvel at this. God does
not perform miracles to fascinate onlookers; He does not make a spectacle of His
marvellous working. His glory is sufficiently magnified in the deliverance of a
humble believer, like the widow of Sarepta, and in the qualification of the prophet
for his mission. Jesus Christ refused to work any miracles for show, and the
sublimest manifestations of His power were reserved for humble hearts and lowly
dwellings. Elijah has learnt to know the strength of God which is in him; he has
proved it in the seeresy of his soul. He has a full assurance that it will be mani-
fested in him when he stands before Ahab, no less mightily than in the obscurity
of the widow’s house. ‘This intimate personal experience of the grace of God is of
incomparable value to His servants. If we would have Divine strength to use in
the great conflict with sin around us, we must prove its miraculous energy in our
private life. And let us remember also that our homes may be the scene of the
mightiest manifestations of the grace of God, and of the most signal providential
deliverances, if only our hearts be open to Him in humility and love, like the heart
of the widow of Sarepta.—E. de P.CH. xvitt. 1—46,]

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

   

417

a ae a ee
EXPOSITION.

CHAPTER XVIII. 1—4¢.

Eviyaqn’s RETURN AND THE ORDE

AL OF
Mount Carmet.—The preceding

chapter
having been exclusively occupied with the
fortunes of Elijah during his enforced ab-
Sence 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 under-
went 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 coun-
tries 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 de-
fiance 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 posses-
sion 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—suffer-
1 KINGS,

 

ings which the animated description of the
prophet Joel (ch. i.) 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’s
return, which our author now describes,
together with the striking results which fol-
lowed it. In the first fifteen verses, we have
the meeting of Elijah and Obadiah ; in vers.
16—20, the meeting of Elijah and Ahab ;
vers. 21—38 describe the ordeal of Mount
Carmel; vers. 39, 40, its immediate results;
while the remainder of the chapter depicts
Kilijal’s prayer for rain, the bursting of the
storm, and the return to Jezreel.

Ver. 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
ch. xvii. 1, 7.e., to the date of the announce-
ment of the drought, and this is the inter-
pretation of the Rabbins and some of the
moderns. But it is almost fatal to this view
that the duration of the drought is dis-
tinctly stated in the New Testament to have
been ‘‘ three years and six months” (Luke
iv. 25; James v.17). Itis every way better,
therefore, to connect the words with ch.
XVil. 7, t.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 willsend | Heb,
give} rain upon the earth. [Heb. on the face
of the ground. Cf. xvii. 14.]

Ver. 2.—And Elijah went to show him-
self unto Ahab. And [for Now. It would,
perhaps, have been better to begin a new
verse here, as this is the beginning of a
parenthesis, explanatory of the circum-
stances under which king and prophet met.
It was the famine led to Obadiah’s en-
countering 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 miti-
gated, as on a former oécasion (Gen. xl. 57);
by the importation of corn from Egypt. ]

Ver. 3.—And Ahab called [Rather, had
called. ‘‘ The verbs S87"), 73) &c. (vers.
3, 4, 5, 6), carry on a circumstantial

EK418

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

fou. xvi. 1—46.

 

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 ” (ver. 3), and
“from his youth” (ver. 12), it occurs too
frequently (1 Chron. 1ii. 21; vil. 3; vill. 38 ;
x. 16; 2 Chron. xvii.7 ; xxxiv. 12%‘ Ezra
vii. 9; Obad. i., &c.) 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 ch. iv. 6, and cf.
ch. xvi. 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
if 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 tirst]
feared [Heb. was fearing] the Lord greatly,

Ver. 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 other-
Wise unknown to us, norcan we referit 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 re-
prisals for the drought denounced by Elijah.
Ver. 13 almost implies that it had taken
place during his absence. We see here, con-
sequently, an additional reason for his
flight (cf. ch. xix. 2). These ‘‘ prophets ” are
the same as those elsewhere called the
‘“‘sons of the prophets, z.e., members of
the prophetic schools; cf. 2 Kings ii. 3, 5, 7,
&c. | that Obadiah took an hundred prophets
[This would lead us to suppose that the
great majority escaped. But see ver. 19 and
ch. xxii. 6. That we find so large a number
still in the land, notwithstanding the exodus
(2 Chron. xi. 16), and the steady growth of
impiety, shows that God had not left Him-
self without witnesses}, and hid them by
fifty (Keil would insert a second DWN
as do some MSS. (Gardiner), and as in
ver. 13. Such a word might easily be
omitted in transcription, it is true. But
“proclivi lectioni,” &c.] inacave [Heb. the
cave; but LXX. é& orndaiy. Similarly in
ver. 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 ex-
tremely tortuous” (Dic. Bib. i. p. 278); 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. Cf.
Josh. x, Us Jude. Vi, 221 Satie sects
Bzek. mm ; cebu xe B8. “Reobr ily
the division into two companies was partly
for the sake of security (see Gen. xxu. 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 Gen. xxxil. 8], and
fed them with bread [or, food] and water.)
[It is to be observed, as bearing on ch. xyli.
4—6, that these hundred prophets, though
preserved by the special providence of
God, were nevertheless maintained through
human agency and by natural means,

Ver. 5.—And Ahab said [had said] unto
Obadiah, Go into [Heb. in] the land, unto
all fountains [Heb. places of fountains. Cf.
with }'V1) from }Y, ND from WN &e.]
of water, and unto all brooks [wédics; see
on ch, xvi. 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 them-

selves. Hence this expedition in search
of fodder], that we lose not all the
beasts. [Marg. that we cut not ourselves

of from, &c. But this rendering, and
still more that of the text, misinterprets
the force of the Hiphil M43). The literal

translation is, ‘‘ That we miy not have to cut
of from (i.e., @ portion vi, 71) partitive,
as in ver. 13 below, °X'23!3). What Ahab
means is that, unless they soon find fodder,
they will have to slaughter a portion of
their animals. So Bahr, Und nicht von dem
Vich (einen Theil) umbringen miissen. Simi-
larly Keil.]

Ver. 6.—So they divided the land between
them to pass throughout it [‘' ‘his personal
inspection by the king and one of his chief
officers marks the extreme straits to which
the Israelites were now reduced” (Rawlin-
son). The difference, however, between an
iiastern and an Kuropean 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)]: AhabCH. xvii. 1—46.]

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

419

 

went one way by himself [Heb. alone.
Rawlinson says, “This does not mean
that either Ahab or Obadiah was un-
accompanied by a retinue,” but it may very
well mean that (7 Ab: solus ; LXX. pdvoc3
Bahr allein. Cf. ver. 22), if, indeed, it must
not necessarily mean it; and ver. 14
certainly implies that Obadiah at least was
unattended], and Obadiah went another
way by himself.

Ver. 7.—And as Obadiah was in the way,
behold, Elijah met him [Heb. to meet him):
and he knew [v.c., recognized. Same word,
Gen. xxvii, 23; xlil. 7, &c.] him, and fell on
his face, and said, Art thou that (Heb. this,
probably used adverbially (like hic) for here
=| my lord Elijah? [The humble
obeisance and the terms in which he ad-
dresses him alike show the profound rever-
ence 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.]

Ver. 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. |

Ver. 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?

Ver. 10.—As the Lord thy God liveth
[Obadiah uses precisely the same adjuration
as:the widow of Zarephath, ch. xvi. 12.
But then, though Jehovah was undoubtedly
his God, He was in a more special and in-
timate 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 “‘in-
ward 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 acces-
sible courts had been communicated with.
This search for Elijah shows that Ahab re-
garded 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 Hastern
mind}: and when they said, He is not
there (Heb. Not, and he, &c.]; he took an
oath [LXX. évémpnoe, which has been
thought by some to point to acts of ven-
geance. But more probably it 1s a clerical
error, perhaps for dpkise, OF évwpKoe. On
the frequency of oaths in that age see on
ch. i. 51] of the kingdom and nation, that
they found thee not.

Ver. 11.—-And now thou sayest, Go, tell thy

 

 

 

lord, Behold, Elijah is here. [Heb. Behold,
Elijah. Obadiah echoes the words of ver. 8.]

Ver. 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 slatec
Leora ona erally translated are

srall lift thee up upon where,” &e., are to
be explained by 2 Kings ii, 16, “lest the
Spirit of the Lord hath taken him up” (same
word) ‘‘and cast him upon some mountain,”
&e. Seb. Schmidt, Wordsworth, al. think
that such a transportation must have
already occurred in the history of EKhjah,
but the sudden, mysterious disappearance
and the long concealment of the prophet is
quite sufficient to account for Obadiah’s
fear. Compare Acts viii. 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 haye main-
tained him in his post had he known that
the steward of the palace had thwarted the
designs of his queen.]}

Ver. 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 Sebas-
tian of this Jewish Diocletian.”’]

Ver, 14.—And now thou sayest [=‘‘ This
is to be the reward of my devotion, 1s. 16:7 7a
Go, tell thy lord, Behold, Elijah is here:
and he shall slay me.

Ver. 15.--And Elijah said, As the Lord of
hosts liveth, before whom I stand (This
formula should be compared with that of
ch. xvii. 1. The repetition is suggestive a8420

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[cH. xvi. 1—46,

 

exhibiting the habit of the man. He was
the ready and patient slave of Jehovah.
The Msay is apparently introduced not so

much to ‘‘elevate the solemnity of the
oath” (Keil, Bahr)—for surely Elijah would
wish to make the affirmation of ch. xvi. 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 Oba-
diah knew that perfectly well, but because
it was thus better adapted for a believer.
In addressing Ahab it suited Elijah’s pur-
pose better to give prominence to the idea
that Jehovah was ‘‘the God of Israel”], I
will surely show myself unto him to-day.

Ver. 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.

Ver. 17.—And it came to pass, when
Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto
him, Art thou he [Rather, here: same
words as in ver. 7. ‘*Do I at last see
thee again? Hast thou ventured into my
presence?’”’] that troubleth Israel? [Heb.
thow troubler of Israel. For the word
(12)) see Gen. xxxiv. 30; Josh. vi. 18; vii.
203) Prov.) xi) 17+" 1 Sam. viv, 292) When
Rawlinson says that this charge of troubling
{srael 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 ig very doubtful whether
this thought was in Ahab’s mind.]

Ver. 18.—And he answered, I have not
troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father’s
house [[t 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 com-
pletely misjudged his man. And why the
prophet should sue for pardon, when he was
so clearly master of the situation, it is diffi-
cult 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 (‘lhe change from plural to sin-
cular 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, &e. (Bahr, al.)—or more prob-

 

ably 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,” &c. (Rawlinson). It is prob-
able that, though he put on a bold front, he
was from the first thoroughly cowed.

Ver. 19.—Now therefore send, and gather
to me all Israel [7.e., by representation, the
heads of the people, elders, &e. Cf. ch. viii.
2, 65; xii. 16,18; xvi. 16, 17} unto Mount
Carmel {Heb., as almost always, the Carmel,
7.é., the park, (Of, 1 Sam. xxy, 1 °5) it a
“the park of Palestine.” It is indebted for
this name to the luxuriant vegetation—* the
excellency of Carmel” (Isa. xxxv. 2)—which
clothes its southern slopes (Porter, p. 371;
Stanley, S. and P. pp. 352—54, and App. p.
14; Van de Velde, i. pp. 317, 318). Itis 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 his-
tory. Carmel is rather a ridge than a moun-
tain, 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 (1852), but it is
beyond dispute. Not only does the Arab
name which it bears—E1 Murahkah, “ the
Burning,” or * Sacrifice’’—afford striking
witness to the identity, but the situation
and surroundings adapt themselves with
such wonderful precision to the require-
ments of the narrative as to leave no reason-
able doubt in the mind. For (1) it is a sort
of natural platform, or pulpit, rrised 1000
feet above the adjoining plain, and therefore
well calculated to afford a view of t':e pro-
ceedings, 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”? (Van de Velde, i. pp.
322, 323). ‘The summit ... commands
the last view of the sea behind and the firstCH. xvi. 1—46.]

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 421

     

ad

 

 

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, &e.—would ac-
commodate a vast number of spectators
(ver. 21). (3) There is a spring of water
close at hand—less than 100 yards distant
—aid a spring which is said to flow even in
the driest seasons, which would supply the
water of which we read in vers. 4, 33-35.
Josephus (Ant. viii. 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 vers. 42—44.
It may be added that the place is still held
sacred by the Druses, and reyerenced by
“ Jews, Christians, Moslems, and Bedouin
as the site of these miracles of Elijah”
(Tbomson), The traveller, consequently,
cannot doubt for a moment, as he stands
on the table-land of Hl 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 and
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 iv. 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 out-
raged law of God. “No place could be con-
ceived more fitted by nature to be that
wondrous battle-field of truth” (Tristram in
Wordsworth)], and the prophets of Baal [so
called not because they were Weissager und
Verkiinder (Bihr) of the god, nor yet be-
cause they were teachers and emissaries of
his religion, but because of the prophetic
frenzy (ver. 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 ch. xiv. 15) four
hundred [Rawlinson remarks that ‘the
number 400 seems to have been one espe-
cially affected by Ahab.” He reminds us
that we find 400 prophets at the close of his
reign (1 Kings xxi. 6), and also remarks
on “the prevalence of the number 40 in
the religious systems of the Jews (Exod.

 

 

 

 

XXXVI. 24, 26; Deut. xxv, 3, &.)” But when
it 1s remembered that Baal’s prophets were
450, and the prophets of ch. xxii, 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 con-
clusion], 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 ch, ii. 7.]

Ver. 20.—So Ahab sent unto all the chil-
dren of Israel, and gathered the prophets
together unto Mount Carmel. ([‘‘ The per-
secuting king became a passive instrument
in the hand of the persecuted prophet”
(Stanley). His ready compliance with
Klijah’s request, notwithstanding the bitter
hatred of the man which he had just be-
trayed, is easily explained. It was not so
much that ‘‘he bowed before the spiritual
supremacy of the prophet, which impressed
him” (Bahr), as that he hoped, from his
reappearance, that he was now about to
speak the word (ch. xvii. 1) and give rain
upon the earth, and Ahab was willing to
take any measures which would conduce to
that result. It would take some days to
collect the representatives of the tribes. ]

Ver. 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], andsaid, How long haltye between
two opinions? [This is a faithful and feliei-
tous 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 ver. 26 of the
swaying, tottering dance of the Baal pro-
phets.] Ifthe 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 nota
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 ‘‘conyicted by their own
consciences,” and so were speechless (Matt.
RX; Lay.

Ver. 22.—Then said Elijah unto the
people, I, even I only, remain [Heb. J, 1 am
left alone. Cf. Gen. xxxil. 24; LXX. jeover-
raroc] a prophet of the Lord [Thenius492

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[cu. xvin. 1—46.

 

hence concludes that the “hundred pro-
phets” of whom we read in vers. 4, 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
ch. xix. 10 (where see note); and we know
that the schools of the prophets had not
ceased to exist (2 Kings ii. 3, 5, 7; cf. 1
Kings xxii. 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 the 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 com-
municating 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 thie
false God]; but Baal’s prophets are four
hundred and fifiy men. [It is clear, not
only from the silence of this verse and of
ver, 25, respecting them, but still more from
the fact thut they escaped in the general
slaughter (ver. 40), that the prophets of
Astarte were not present, and the natural
inference is that either Jezebel had for-
bidden 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
ver. 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. Itis 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-
tence. We must remember that all through
the triennium prayers and sacrifices had,
Ho doubt, been constantly offered with a
view to procure rain. We learn from
Menander (Jos., vili. 13. 2) that even in
Phoenicia supplication had been made for
rain by Ethbaal.

Ver. 23.—Let them therefore give us two
bullocks; and let them choose one bullock
for themselves, and cut it in pieces [same
word Iixod. xxix. 17; Levit. i. 6,12; Judg.
xx. 6], and lay it on wood [Heb. the woods},
and put no fire under [Heb. and fire they
shall not set to]: and I will dress [Heb.

tem RAG

make, WWY, like roy in the LXX., is con-
stantly used in a sacrificial sense = offer.
Ci. Exod. xxix, 36, 38, 41; Levit. ix. 7;
xv. 15; Judg. vi. 19, &e. This is to be re-
membered in interpreting our Lord’s roiro
moire, K.7.A. (Luke xxii. 19)] the other
bullock, and lay it on wood [the wood],

 

 

| and put no fire under [and fire I will not

set to]:

Ver. 24.—And call ye on the name of
your gods [As Elijah is still addressing the
people, not the prophets of Baal (see ver.
25), this change of person is significant.
Ye sorrowfully assumes that they have
taken Baal and Astarte for their gods], and
I will call on the name of the Lord: and the
God that answereth by fire, let him be God.
(Heb. he shall be the God,i.e., the true God
and their God. Cf. ver. 39. Not only was
a ‘sion from heaven” (Mark viii. 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
(Matt. xi1. 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 had already, acecrding to the
law, identified Himself with this token
(Levit. ix. 24; 1 Chron. xxi. 26; ‘2 Chron,
vil. 1). Indeed, this sign had a double fit-
ness as a test of the truereligion. 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
aid, Itis well spoken. [Heb. Good the word,
They accepted Llijah’s proposition, but whe-
ther 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, con-
sequently, 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 x. 22), occupied a separate position
on the hill top, between the king and the
people, and repeats his proposal to them.

Ver. 25.—And Elijah said unto the pro-
phets of Baal, Choose you one bullock for
yourselves, and dress [or offe?, as in ver.
23) it first; for ye are many (Heb. the
many. Hvery 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 thecH. xvrit. 1—46.]

 

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 423

   

 

lead. ‘‘Heis anxious that their inability
shall be fully mani fested before he shows
his own power” (- tawlinson). Whether the
idea Fis also present in his mind that
they ‘‘ could prepare their victim in a much
shorter time than he could prepare his”
(7b.) 1s 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.
ver. 24) shows that the ordeal was proposed
separate ly to the people and the prophets.1

Ver. 26.—-And they took the pullock
which was given them [Heb. which he (or
one) gave ; i.¢., they declined to choose], and
they dressed it, and called on the name of
Baal 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 ver. 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, bacchantic dance of the priests,
which was probably not unlike that of the
dancing dervishes or the Indian devil-wor-
shippers of our own time] upon [or near,
i.c., around] the altar which was made.
(Heb. he, that is, one made, Wy i impersonal.

But some MSS. and most versions read WY].

Ver. 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.c., in your estimation.
‘‘ Here is one of the few examples of irony
in Scripiure”’ (Wordsworth)] ; either he is
talking {ihe marg. he meditateth 1s prefer-
abie.. t..1.5am..1,. 16: Psa. cxlu.3. Butthe
word has both meanings (see 2 Kings ix.
11), fairly preserved in the LXX., adoXscyia
avt@ éo7t), or heis pursuing [Heb. for he
hath a withdrawal, t.e., for the purpose of
rare ing himself. Aeuphemism. Cf, Judg.

a24; 2 Sam. Xxly. Stanley attempts
- preserye the paronomasia, my, by
the translation, ‘‘ he has his head full” and
‘‘he has his stomach full’”’},or he isina
journey (the thrice Caeiied ‘> 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 Hast], and must be awaked.
Ver. 28.—And they cried aloud [Heb. in
great voice, as above. It was not that
aks took Elijah’s words aw sérieux, but his
acorn led them to redouble their efforts, if
only to testify theirfaith in their god. The

2
U-«

a5,

 

Saas cries of the Greek Easter (soe Port ter,

. 168; Conder, 176—178) in Jerusalem, the
sy ers of the pilgrims for the descent of
the holy fire, may help us to realize the
scene here described], and cut themselves
(ef. Deut. xiv. 1; Jer. xvi. 6; xli.5 ; mai 5]
aiter their manner [Keil quot from
Movers, Phoniz. i. pp. 682—83, a i scrip bss n
of the religious dances offered to the
Syria. ‘A discordant howling opens the
scene. Then they rush wildly about in
perfect confusion, with their ee 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

Dea

and groans,’ &c. In the ‘“ Contemporary
teview,” vol. xxvii. pp. 371 sqq., Bishop
Caldwell has graphically described the

devil-dances of Southern India—a descrip-
tion which may be read with profit in this
connexion. One sentence may be tran-
scribed 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.” Rawlin-
sou says this was also common among the
Carians and Phrygians}] with knives [Heb.
swords| and lancets [Heb. lances, spears.
The A. V.is misleading. Tho instruments
they used were weapons of heavy-armed
troops. For Outi), see Num. xxy, 7;
Judg. v. 8; Jer. xlvi. 4], till the blood
gushed out upon them. [Heb. until the
shedding of bloodupon 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 representa-
tives of the entire e people, it is still impos-
sible 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).]

Ver. 29.—And it came to pass, when mid-
day was past [llijah 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
igehie diac [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,
&e. I+ 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 called424

a “prophesying,” and the word, conse-
quently, may merely mean “they pursued
their calling,” ‘they cried and prayed,”
&c.| until the time of the offering (Keil
and Rawlinson would translate, “ until to-
wards the time,” &c. There is certainly
some indefiniteness in the words nipy? WY,
until [the hour] for placing, &c., but we
may well believe that their dances and
cries continued up to the moment of Elijah’s
prayer (ver. 36)] of the evening sacrifice
(Heb. the Minchah, i.e., the meat offering
or unbloody sacrifice. In Gen. iv. 3—6 the
word would appear to be used of any
offering; but at a later day it was re-
stricted to bloodless offerings, and was
opposed to M3}. Cf. Psa. xl. 7; Jer. xvii. 26.
Directions as to the offering of the Minchah
are given, Exod. xxix. 38—41; Num.
XXvili. 3—8. The evening sacrifice was
probably offered then, as it certainly was
at a later day, at the ninth hour. Cf. Acts
Wi. 1; x. 3, 30, and see Jos., Ant. xiv. 4, 3.
Wordsworth thinks 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 [asin ver. 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 theidols, Stand back ; I will now
make ready my offering.”

Ver. 30.—And Elijah said unto all the
people {He has now done with the priests.
They have had their opportunity ; his turn
is come}j, Come near unto me. [Hitherto
they had gathered round the altar of Baal,
and some, it may be, had joined their prayers
to those of the priests (ver. 24). In ver. 21,
he ‘‘drew near”—same word—to them.
Now they must stand round the altar he
is about to build. He will have ‘eye-
witnesses 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 wor-
ship at Jerusalem an impossibility, Anyhow
we can hardly be mistaken in holding that
this was one of the “altars” (ch. xix. 10)
* thrown down” by command of Ahab or
Jezebel. Hlijah’s repairing it was an act

 

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

fou. xvi. 1—46.

of profound significance. It showed him
as the restorer of the law and the true
religion. |

Ver. 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 (Exod. xxiv. 4; xxviii.
21), and to their fathers’ entrance into the
promised land (Josh. iv. 3, 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 prac-
tical 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” (ch. xii,
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 [Gen. xxxii. 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 Bahr 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”? (Gen. xxxv. 2,10 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|

Ver. 32.—And with the stones [the twelve
he had chosen out of the ruins. Cf. Exod.
xx. 25] he built an altar in the name of the
Lord [not “ by the command of Jehovah ”’
(Bahr), but rather as the minister and for the
service of Jehovah, or, as Keil, “ by the
anthority and for the glory of Jehovah.”
Nor is it certain that “ he called, as he built
it, on the name of Jehovah, and so dedi-
cated it to His service” (Rawl.) See Gen.
Ril @; kik 4. xx. 20: xxxv. 7): and He
made a trench [or channel, 2 Kings xviii. 17;
Isa, WS AekeM. Be! Bizek, xxi. 4a; he
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.” Butapart from the fact that na

must refer to capacity rather than super-
ficial extent, one does not measure aCH. xvii. 1—46.]

 

 

 

trench, as Biihr observes, by the ground
which it covers, but by its depth. He
would follow Gesenius in unde:standing
that the trench was so deep as to hold two
seahs of seed; i.e., as deep as the grain
measure contuining two seahs. The MND
was the third of an ephah. Cf. Jos., Ant. a
4. 5, and the cara rpia of Matt. xiii, 33.]
Ver. 33.—And he put the wocd in order,
and cut the bullock in pieces, and laid him
on the wood [liawlinson says ‘* He obeyed,
that is, all the injunctions of the law with
respect to the offering of a burnt sacrifice
(see Levit. 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,
Gen. xxil. 9, where the same word JY 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” (Levit.
i, 8), and Hlijah’s ministrations, couse-
quently, 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 p:ace,
priests were not to be had, all having !ong
since left the kingdom. In the second place,
the higher commission of the prophet em-
braced within itself the authority for all
necessary priestly acts. Cf. 1 Sam. xvi. 2.
Elijah acted, as Grotius well observes, jure
prophetico, minoribus legibus exsolutus, ut
majores servaret},and said, Fill four barrels
[Heb. OD. Cf. ch. xvi. 12. It designates
the ordinary water-pitcher, generally carried
then, as now, by women: Gen. xxiv. 14—20;
Judg. vii. 16; Eccles. xii. 6) with water,
and pour it on the burnt Sacrifice, and on
the wood. [The water, as already remarked,
was duubtless brought from the adjoining
spring (though it is clear from ver. 40
that the Kishon was not dry, and Thomson
thinks that its sources, and particularly the
fountain ef Saadiech, furnished the supply).
“In such springs the water remains always
cool, under the shade of a vaulted roof, and
with no hot atmosphere to evaporate 1t.
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 s0 profusely
over the altar” (Van de Velde, 1. p. 325).]
Ver, 34.—And he said, Do it the second
time. And they did it the second time.

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 425

(Heb. Repeat, and they repeated.)
said, Do it the third time. :
the third time.

Ver. 35.—And the water ran round
[Heb. the waters went round] avout the
altar, and he filled the trench also i.e.
the trench, which was only partially filled
with the water of the twelve 0°73, henow
filled to the brim] with water. [‘Ihe object
of these repeated drenchiugs of the victim
and altar was to exclude all suspicion of
fraud. It would almost scem 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 tradi-
tion (found in Ephrem Syrus, and Chrysos-
tom) that the Baal prophets had concealed
a man for that purpose beneath their altar,
but that he had died from suffocation
(Stanley). Bahr, however, seesin these 3 x 4
vessels of water a symbolical act. Thesig-
nificance of this combination, he says, is
unmistakable (cf. “* Symbolik” i. pp. 150,
169, 198, 205), 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 (Deut. xxvill. 12, 23).
But all this is extremely precarious, and
the more so as the pitchers may have been
filled any number of times belore the trench
was full.]

Ver. 36.—And it came to pass at the
time of the offering of the evening sacrifice
[see note on ver. 29] ,that Elijah the prophet
(this designation of Elijah is unusual, Cf.
Mal. iv. 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, [saac, and
Israel [Two things are to be noticed here:
first, that this formula had only once before
been used, aud 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, &c. Secondly, that the
aviation ‘* Israel”? is made de-ignedly (cf.
ver. 31), not only to proclaim the Lord as
the “God of Israel” (cf. ch. xvii. 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

And he
And they did it
[See note on ch. xvii. 21.]

 

 

| clearly borrowed from the next verse}, let
| it be known this: day that thou art God in426

_ THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[cH. xvuir. 1—46.

 

Israel [according to ver. 24, “ the God that
answereth by fire, &c.], and that I am thy
servant, and that I have done all these
things according tothy word. [LXX. da
ai. Not only the earlier proceedings of the
day, but the three years’ drought, &c, Keil
would include the miracle about to be per-
formed, 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 ch. xvil. 2, 3, 8,
16, 24, and ch. xviii. 1, all of which mention
the ‘‘ word of the Lord.’’]

Ver. 37.—Hear me, O Lord [Jehovah],
hear me for answer me; same word as in
vers. 24, 26, and 29], that this people
may know that thou art the Lord God
[Rather, ‘‘ that thou, Jehovah, art the God.”
Same expression as in ver, 24, “let him be
the God ”}, and that thou hast turned
their heart back again. (Cf. Mal. iv. 5, 6:
“ He (‘‘ Elijah the prophet’’) shall turn the
heart of the fathers,’ &c. He speaks as if
the miracle were already wrought (cf. John
xi. 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. |

Ver. 38.—Then the fire of the Lord
(Jehovah. Not lightning, but supernatural
heht and heat emanating from God Him-
gel Cf, Levit...ax: 245 1, Chron, xxi. 263
2 Chron. vii. 1; Heb. xil. 29] fell, and con-
sumed [Heb. ate wp, devoured] the burnt
sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones [in
calcem redigit, Cler.], and the dust [Bahr
translates die Hrde, and understands this to
be the earth with which the altar of twelve
stones had been packed. Similarly Rawlin-
son. But it is very doubtful whether NEY
pulvis, could be used in this sense. It may
mean dry earth, but this altar had been
deluged with water], and licked up [and is
clearly onomatopoetic, like our lick ; Germ.
lecken; Gr. XEixw, &e. It expresses well
the action of tongues of flame] the water
that was in the trench,

Ver. 39.—And when all the people saw it,
they fell on their faces [As in Levit. ix. 24;
2 Chron. vii. 3; cf. Num. xxii. 31; Josh. v.
14; Rev. xi. 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 ver, 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 him-
self into a war-cry, ‘Eli-Jah-hu. ”]

Ver. 40.—And Elijah said unto them,

 

Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of
them escape. ([Elijah’s promptitude is ex-
tremely 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) ] Kishen [‘ Tortuous,” now called
Nahr el Mukatta, the ‘‘ river of slaughter.”
See Thomson, L. and B. li. pp. 140, 141;
Porter,pp.883—4; Dict. Bib. ii.p.45. It flows
directly under Carmel], and slewthem there.
[Obviously, he merely superintended the
slaughter. That he slew thein 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 ex-
plains: ‘‘they slew the prophets at Elijah’s
instigation.” It is almost certain, from
their resorting to the Kishon for this pur-
pose, 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. Judg. v. 21) would
carry their corpses down to the sea. Ithas
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 (p. 90) 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 insti-
tuting this wholesale slaughter in the nour
of his triumph has been repeatedly arraigned
and denounced, but most unjustly. Accord-
ing to some, it was an act of gross fana-
ticism and cruelty ; others have seen it ina
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 (Exod. xxi, 24, &c.); on the
ground, that is to say, that the men who
had instigated Jezebel in her attempted ex-
termination of the prophetie 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 theirCH, Xvii1. 1—46,]

 

 

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 Elijah’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 (Deut. xxvii. 26; Gal. iii. 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 occa-
sions (Exod. xxii. 20; Deut. xili.; xvii.
2—7), on the Jewish people, it was a duty
they were to perform, however distressing
and harrowing it might be (Deut. xiii. 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 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 protec-
tion 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 (Num. xxv. 11),
upon any gross breach of the Divine law
eommitted in his presence, was not his only
warranty; he held a comunission, 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

course,

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

 

427

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
truereligion. It is necessary, therefore, for
those who challenge his conduct in this
respect, who call him sanguinary, vindictive,
&c., to settle their account with the law
which he obeyed, and, indeed, with Him
who has approved this deed, and has fore-
warned us that He too will act in like man-
ner (Luke xix. 27). For this terrible retri-
bution 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 trans-
action. 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 bave distinctly re-
ceived Divine commendation (Exod. xxxii,
25-28: Num. xxv. 7-13; 2 Kings i. B
sqq.) It is true that the spirit of Elias
was not the spirit of Christianity (Luke
ix. 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,” &c. Itis
perhaps worth remarking here that there ig
nothing in this history half so dreadful as
might be seen on a thousand battle-fields—
and those not battle-fields 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 (Deut. xiii. 10; xvii. 5). But
surely it is easy to see why, in this particu-
lar, the law was not kept. It was simply
that the exigency of the occasion did not428 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[cu. xvi. 1—46,

 

permit of its being kept. It was because
the 450 traitors to God and their coun-
try 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.

Ver. 41.—And Elijah said unto Ahab, Get
thee up [It is clear from the word MY that
the king had gone down with the crowd to
the Kishon. Curiosity had perhaps im-
pelled 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 wit-
nessed. There is now, he suggests, no
further cause for anxiety or alarm. The
people being repentant (vers. 39, 40), and
the men who have brought a curse on the
land being cut off, the drought can now be
abated (cf. 2 Sam. xxi. 1, 6,14). The next
words assign the reason why he should eat
and drink. Itis 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
(ver. 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—|\l9N: cf. hum, anonomatopoetic 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. ver. 45). The words may refer to the
rise of the wind which so often precedes a
storm, but it is more probable that Khijah
speaks of signs and intimations understood
only by himself. This was the ‘ word” of
eh. xvii. 1.]

Ver. 42.—So0 Ahab went up to eat and to
drink, And Elijah went up to the top
[Heb. head] of Carmel [It is clear from
ver. 43 that this was not the actual summit,

 

nor can it have been, as Biihr supposes,
the ontermost promontory towards the sea,
unless he means the foot or slope of that
ridge or promontory, for from this 85 the
sea was not visible. It also appears from

the mby of ver. 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 iv. 34,
35, of Klisha’s prostration upon the dead
child. But if Elijah ‘stretched himself
fullleneth ” upon the earth, as the Hasterns
constantly do in prayer (see Thomson, i.
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. ]

Ver. 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 ch.
Xvli. 24], Go up now, look toward [Heb.
the way of] the sea. [Itis a striking con-
firmation of the theory which identifies
Lil 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 north-west 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. Conder:
‘“The peak is a semi-isolated knoll with a
cliff some forty feet high, looking south-
east. . . . 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,” &c.] And he went up,
and looked, and said, There is nothing.
And he said, Go again seven times. (Cf.
Josh. vi. 15—20; 2 Kings v. 14; Matt.
Xvill, 21; Psa. cxix. 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 (ver. 1). This earnest
prayer for rain under these circumstances
suggests that the former prayer ‘that it
might not rain” (James v.17) had also been
inspired of God. But it is worth consider-
ing whether Elijah’s attitude was not one
of reverent and assured expectation, asOH. xvi. 1—46.]

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 mur-
mur. |

Ver. 44.—And it came to pass at the
seventh time, that he said, Behold, there
ariseth a little cloud out of the sea, like
a man’s hand, [5 lit., palm, hollow of
hand. Cf. Luke xii. 54, ‘‘ When ye see the
cloud (Gr. rijv vedédny) arise out of the
west, straightway ye say, There cometh a
shower; and so it is.” ‘“ Still in autumn
the little cloud comes up like a man’s hand
and swells till huge thunder pillars are
piled black and high above the mountains ”’
(Conder). But it is not in Palestine alone
that a little cloud on the horizon is fre-
quently the harbinger of rain}. And he
said, Go up [see note on ver. 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 kl
Murahkah to the plain, and it is quite
conceivable that the royal chariot may
have conveyed Ahab to the platean of
sacrifice and have waited for him there],
that the rain stop thee not. [After heavy
rain (0%) the Kishon, which ‘‘ collects the
whole drainage of this large basin” (Con-
der), the Great Plain, soon becomes an im-
passable swamp (Judg. v. 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” (Thom-
son, L. and B. ii. p. 218).]

Ver. 45.—And it came to pass in the
meanwhile [Heb. unto thus and unto thus,
i.c., till now and then (cf. Exod. Vit. 16>
Josh. xvii. 14). Gesen., Bahr, al. support the
rendering of the A. V. Ewald, Keil, al.
unJerstand “ 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
ery of the boy from his mountain watch
had hardly been uttered when the storm
broke upon the plain” (Stanley). ‘* The

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS,

 

 

 

 

 

 

429

storm” [over ‘the dark slatc-coloured ridge
fico s 7 * a

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 enouch, and acecom-
panied with gusts of wind, thunder, and
io , )

lightning.”] And Ahab rode, and went to
Jezreel,

Ver. 46.—And the hand of the Lord was
on Elijah [Same expression 2 Kings iii. 15;
Hizek.1. 33. i, 14;  vili, 1; xxxii. 99: cf.
also Exod. ix. 3; Judg. ii.15; Ruth i. 13;
Acts xi. 21; xiii. 11. Some of the com-
mentators understand the words of Divine
guidance, some of asupernatural strengthen-
ing. There is no need to exclude either in-
terpretation, An impulse from on high
impelled him to “ gird up his loins” and
go with the king; a strength not his own
sustained him whilst ‘‘he ran,” &c. The
distance across the plain to Jezreel is about
fourteen miles; the royal chariot would
drive furiously, and whatever fleetness and
endurance the prophet had acquired in the
wilds of Gilead, it seems hardly likely that,
after the fatigues and excitement of that
day, he would have been able, without the
hand of the Lord upon him, to keep ahead
of the chariot horses], and he girded up
his loins [i.e., gathered round his waist the
abba, or ‘‘mantle’—the NAS (cf. ch. xix,
13, 19; 2 Kings iis 18, 14) was s0-called
from its ample size—which would otherwise
have impeded his movements, Probably
this, apart from the girdle, was his sole gar-
ment. (See Dict. Bib. vol. ii. p. 232)], and
ran before Ahab (‘Thomson (vol. i. p. 227)
mentions an interesting illustration of this
incident which he witnessed. ‘The fore-
runners of Mohammed Ali Pasha ‘“ kept
just ahead of the horses, no matter how
furiously they were ridden, and in order to
run with the greatest ease they not only
girded their loins very tightly, but also
tucked up their loose garments under the
girdle.” But such a spectacle is of common
occurrence inthe East. Kitto remarks tiat
the Shatirs of Persia keep pace with ease
with their masters’ horses. They also are
tightly girded. His object was appare tly
twofold. First, to honour the sovereign

whom he had that day humbled in the
presence of his subjects, ‘he great pro-
phet, by assuming the lowly office of a

foot-man, or forerunner (see note on ch. is
5), would give due reverence to the Lord’s
anointed, like Samuel on a somewhat similar
occasion (1 Sam. xv. 30, 31). Secondly, he
may have hoped by his presence near the
king and court to strevgthen any good
resolves which the former might have
made, and to further the work of reiorma-450 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [om. xvi. 1—46.

 

tion which he could not but hope the pro- | side the walls. It was impossible to. say
ceedings of that day would inaugurate. | what Jezebel, in her transports of rage,
That this tribute of respect would be grateful | might do, After such a day, too, any pro-
to Ahab, who hitherto had only regarded | phet would shrink from familiar contact
Elijah as an adversary, it is impossible to | with men and from the strife of tongues]
doubt. And that Elijah believed he had | of Jezreel. [Ahab had a palace here (ch.
struck a death-blow to the foreign super- | xxi. 1). But Samaria was still the capital,
stitions fostered by the court, and especially | and so remained till the captivity (ch. xxii,
by the queen, is equally certain. It is not | 37; 2 Kings xvs18, J4: xvi. 5, 6). The
clear, as Bahr assumes, that his servant | selection of Jezreel as a royal residence is
accompanied him on the road. He may | easily accounted for. It stands on ‘a knoll
have rejoined him later on in the day or | 500 feet high” (Conder), overlooking both
night] to the entrance (Heb. until thow | the plain of Esdraelon and the valley of
comest to. The Arab aversion, which Elijah | Jezreel. In fact, it is the finest situation
is supposed to have shared, to entering | in the “Great Plain.” Hence perhaps its
cities, has often been remarked. But there | name ‘the sowing-place of God.’ See
were other and deeper reasons why he should | Stanley, 8. and P. pp. 336 syq.; Porter, p.
not adventure himself within the city. | 353; Dict. Bib. vol. i.p.1080; Vande Velde,
Probably the same guiding hand which led | vol. ii. p. 870.]

him to Jezreel impelled him to lodge out-

 

HOMILETICS.

Vers. 3, 4.—The Governor of Ahab’s House. There are few things in these
books of Scripture more surprising and suggestive than the position of Obadiah in
the palace of Ahab. Consider—

I. Tae ace. We have seen that during this reign (ch. xvi. 30, 33 ; xxi. 25), and
especially in the capital city of Samaria (ch. xvi. 82), the wickedness of Israel had
reached its zenith. Irom the accession of Jeroboam, and the schism which followed
it, the northern kingdom had steadily gone from bad to worse, till its apostasy and
impiety culminated under the malign influences of Ahab and Jezebel. Their joint
reign marks a new departure in the religious history of the ten tribes. Hitherto
men had worshipped the God of their fathers, though in an irregular and un-
authorized way, and idolatry, though not unknown, had not been open and un-
blushing. Now, however, the whole nation, with but few exceptions, abandoned
itself to the licentious worship of Phoenician gods, and the ancestral religion was
proscribed, its altars were overthrown, and a determined effort. was made to stamp
out its prophets and professors,

Ij. Tue puace. We should expect, consequently—whait Elijah really believed to
be the case (ch. xix. 10)—that to find a pious man we must search the land as with
a lantern. We should expect to find some Abdiels, “ faithful among the faithless
found,” but we should look for them away from the haunts of men, in “ caves and
dens of the earth,” in the brook Cherith, or the cottage of Zarephath, or
wandering about ‘‘in sheepskins and goatskins,” &c. (Heb. xi. 87, 28). But we
should hardly hope to find them in the cities of Israel, in the broad hight of day, in
conspicuous positions, and least of all should we look for them in Samaria, where
Satan’s seat was, the fortress and citadel of Baal. .

Or if we were so sanguine, notwithstanding the godlessness of the times and the
genius of the place, as to count on some saints in Samaria, we should never betake
ourselves to the great men (Jer. v, 5); weshould goin search of piety in the cottages
of the poor. We should never dream of finding any followers of the Lord occupying
an exalted station, living under the shadow of the palace, or in close contact with the
determined and unscrupulous queen.

Iil. His postrion. But if we were assured that even in Ahab’s palace, under the
fame roof with Jezebel, a devout and steadfast servant of Jehovah was to be found,
we should certainly have expected to find him in some insignificant servitor, some
poor retainer of the place. ‘That any high official, that a minister of state could re-
tain his piety in that cesspool of corruption, that hotbed of idolatry and immorality,
and at the very time that Jezebel was cutting off the Lord’s prophets, would seemCH. XVIII. 1—46. THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 431

era ceemtnenae ie ay
to us altogether out of the question. “ What communion,” we should ask, “hath licht
with darkness ? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? ” _
IV. His prety. Yetwe find that Obadiah, the intendant
the trusted and faithful minister of Ahab, the ‘third ruler in the kingdom.” « feared
the Lord greatly” (ver. 3), and, though surrounded by Baal-worshippers, never
bowed the knee to Baal; though risking his life by his devotion to Jehovah, yet
served Him truly, and succoured His prophets.
We have a parallel to this, and a still more striking instance of piety under the
most adverse and discouraging circumstances in the New Testament. We have
something like it, indeed, in the case of Daniel and the three Hebrew children :
something approaching it in the case of Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward
(Luke viii. 3) ; but we find a still closer analogue in the saints of Cesar’s household
Phil. iv. 22).
When we remember that the saints of Rome were the talk, the admiration, the
patterns of the early Christian Churches “ throuchout the whole world ” (Rom. 1. 8);
that among the saints of Rome, those of the palace or of the barracks (Phil. i. 13)
attached to Cesar’s palace on the Palatine, were conspicuous, at least (ch. iv. 22) for
their charity, for the crowning Christian grace of ¢iadeddia, the stamp and seal royal
of the saints (John xiii. 85; 1 John iv. 20) ; when we remember, too, that this was in
Rome, at that period the very worst eity in the world, the resort—their own writers
being witness—of all the knaves and charlatans and libertines of the empire ; that
this was in the year a.p. 63, when the palace of the Cxsars was occupied by Nero,
of all those born of women perhaps the meanest, basest, most infamous, most prof-
hgate; that this Nero was murderer of brother, murderer of mother, of wife, of
paramour; persecutor and butcher of the Christians, sworn foe of goodness and
purity in every shape, patron and abettor of every kind of abomination, according to
some the ‘‘ Beast” of the Apocalypse; when we consider that under his roof, in the
pandemonium which he had created around him, saints were found, meek followers
of the unspotted Christ, we cannot but be impressed with the fact that the wisdom
of God has preserved for our encoura gement two conspicuous ins ves aa eee
the Old Dispensation, one under the New—of fervent piety hving and poate in
a palace under the most adverse circumstances, amid the overflowings of ungodliness.
And these facts may suggest the following lessons: _ . a ee
1. “ Let every man, wherein he is called, there abide with God ( Cor. vil. 20;
24). The temptation to desert our post, because of the ditheulties, prune Lene
eutions it affords, is peculiarly strong, because it presents itself eee
a religious duty. We think we shall “ one day fall by the eee Slay 0 a
xxvii. 1). We fear the temptation may be too strong for Us, a ¥ ar ve
fancy, only for our safety, in flight. But we forget ath ey ee ee Se o
of God;’’ that we have been placed where we are by Him, ant a ee es ee
His work. We forget also that His “ grace is sufficient”’ for us ; tha with every
ke a way to escape (1 Cor. x. 13); that He will not suffer us
ae ag 7 On ake : ike oP 1 that flight under such cireum-
to be meee above that ee ae Hanes Fee eee ie A he gt
stances must be mere cowardice and faithless ae ne eae.
hermits and the religious of a past age to leave the wo! “ ne mee sian
‘icked, for this was to take the salt out of the earth, and to pave ACY apt .
Mo aed who alone can inert ae shut eee noe SNE:
it is simply leaving it to the devil to do his wors ‘ eee aes ee
ixcept these abide in the ship, how can it be saved! (é is ALA HENGE ae
lines to bide our une under abusbel ls pechanee de ast of tena
1 extinguish it. padiah was called by t Oa eee
ee The post must have been one of apron tee ea
ial and imminent perl. We see from vers. 10, 14 the kind of man he had to
oo a id hea? from day to day, he carried his lite in ae nae au 3 ea) m:
’ eo Uae Ry . q] i. ie consicderec
desert the state of life into which it nae eee Sta, i fecal ete
that he was there for some good Pues ae ae ee ee cae
ee ee a ee aed ee daira he wrought for Israel (Gen. xlv. 7, 8),
ruler of Pharaoh’s house, e >

 

 

of the palace of Samaria,432 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. {cu. xvii. 1—46,

 

Anyhow, he waited and endured, and at length the opportunity came. When
Jezebel would exterminate the Lord’s prophets, then the steward of the palace
understood why he had been placed in that perilous and responsible position. It
was that he might save much people alive (Gen. l. 20). Then he did what, perhaps,
only he could have done—took a hundred of the Lord's prophets, hid them in two
caves, and fed them with bread and water.

2. The saints make the best servants. It is scarcely less strange to find Ahab
employing Obadiah than to find Obadiah serving under Ahab. Some have seen
herein a proof of the king’s tolerance, but it is much more like a proof of his saga-
city. Whetber he knew of Obadiah’s faith may be uncertain, but we may be sure
that he had proved his fidelity. It was because Obadiah was ‘ faithful in all his
house ” that he was retained in this position. It was not to Ahab’s interest to have
a Baal-worshipper at the head of his retainers. Bad men do not care to be served
by their kind. They pay piety and probity the compliment—such as it is—of en-
couraging it in their dependants and children. They find, as Potiplar did, as
Darius did, that the God-fearing bring a blessing with them (Gen. XXxix. 5). For
if there is no special benediction of their basket and store, of their fruit and fold
(Deut. xxviii. 4, 5), yet they are guarded against peculation and waste (Luke xvi. 1).
How many, like Ahab, have found that those who share their sins or pleasures
cannot be entrusted with their goods; that if they would have faithful servants,
they must have God-fearing ones. (See Krummacher, i. secs. 145—149.)

3. It is only the power of God could keep men holy in Ahab’s or Nero’s palace.
Coleridge has somewhere said that there are two classes of Christian evidences—
Christianity and Christendom; the system in itself, its pure morality, its bene-
ficent teachings, and its results, its conquests, and achievements in the world. For
it is altogether beyond the power of human nature to work the moral changes which
Christianity has wrought either to convert men or to preserve them from falling.
That a man who is notorious in his neighbourhood, the talk and terror of the
country side, a chartered libertine, an dme damnée, or even like St. Paul, a per-
secutor and injurious; or like Augustine, or John Newton; that such an one should
be suddenly stopped, transformed, ennobled, should preach the faith which he once
persecuted—this is very difficult to account for on human grounds. And that men
with every temptation to sin, everything to lose and nothing to gain by godliness,
worldly interest, pride, passion, shame, everything combining against religion—
that these should, nevertheless, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, live soberly,
righteously, and godly (Titus 1.12) im the Sodom around them—this is no less a
miracle of Divine grace. The influences that preserved an Obadiah, a St. Paul, a
Pudens, and Linus, and Claudia (2 Tim. iv. 21) must have been from above. We
know only too well what human nature, unassisted by grace, is capable of. We
know it tends inevitably, not to bear a rich crop of virtues, but, like the cereals, to
degenerate, to run to seed. In Socrates and Seneca—“ half-inspired heathens ”—
we see it at its best, and yet how wide the gulf between Nero’s preceptorand the saints
of Nero’s household. When we see our nature, planted in a hotbed of grossness
and profligacy, nevertheless yield the ‘‘ peaceable fruits of righteousness,” then we
know that the hand of the great Husbandman must, if silently and unseen, yet
assuredly, have been at work.

4, If religion held its own in Ahab’s or in Nero’s court, tf will hold tts own and
win its way anywhere. How can we ever despair of our religion so long as we
have such proots that it is the ‘‘ power of God unto salvation”? Society, both in
dingland and on the continent of Hurope, may be very godless; it may be chang-
ing for the worse; we may be preparing for an outbreak of Communism, Nibilism,
Materialism, Atheism; the masses in our large towns may be very brutal and
besotted and animal, may be utterly estranged from religion in every shape; but,
Whatever England is like, and whatever Europe is like, its state is nothing like so
desperate as was that of Rome under Nero. The savages to whom we send our
missionaries, again, no doubt they are debased, sensual, apathetic, or even hostile
to our religion ; but are they really worse, is their case more hopeless, than that of
Ahab’s or Nero’s subjects? And if the days of persecution are not ended; if inCH. xvitr. 1—46, | THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 433

 

 

China, and Melanesia, and Turkey the sword is still whetted against the Christ;
ean we find among them all a more truculent persecutor fais Je b ] eed
savage and unprincipled inquisitor than Ticellinus But we ant i eet nacERaE
our sufferings are anything like theirs. No longer Fife the prophet ae Wate ae
tridges; no longer are they clad i <j ea: Pee ee Cte ee
Bes ; g e they clad in the skins of wild beasts, or dipped into cauldrc
of pitch; no longer do we hear the sanguinary cry Chyigtiqncs ad leoies “aN
yet, despite those terrible mockings and scourgings, those agonies in tha wiient
ee ere oavan selena, ta Samaria and in Rome alike, held
ht ear a Petal sanc true-hearted confessors would neither be
I into bowing the knee to Baal. In Italy, the blood of the
Tee os was the seed of the Church; neither Nero, nor Decius, nor Diocletian
eaetice a8 dae ae meats Ce ae baptized host, and now it is matter of
p to find itself Christian.

5. [f men could be saints in Ahab’s and Nero’s palace, they may be saints any-
where. How constantly do men plead the adverse circumstances in which nes
are placed as a reason why they cannot serve God. Sometimes it is a godless street
or wicked hamlet ; sometimes it is an irreligious household or infidel workshop Or
their trade is such, their employers or associates are such, that they cannot live a
godly lite. But the example of Obadiah, the example of those saints of the Practo-
rium, convicts them of untruth and of cowardice. They cannot have greater
temptations or fiercer persecutions than befell those Roman Christians. If they
proved steadfast, and lived in sweetness and purity, which of us cannot do the
same wherever we may be placed ?

6. The saints of Ahab’s and Nero’s courts shall rise up in judgment with this
generation, and shall condemnit. In a wicked city, in an impure court, through
fire and blood, they kept the faith. Christianity is now established in the land.
Kings are its nursing fathers. Its holy rites are celebrated freely and openly. Yet
how many dishonour or deny it! how many are ashamed of their religion! With
what shame will they meet the brave confessors of the past! They will need no
condemnation from their Judge (Matt. xii. 41; John v. 45),

Vers. 17—20.—The King andhis Master. For three and a half years king and
prophet have not met (Lukeiv. 25). For three and a half years, forty and two
months, twelve hundred and sixty days (Rev. xi. 2, 8; xii. 6; xii. 5; Dan. vii. 25), the
mystical period of persecution and blasphemy, the plague of drought has afflicted
the land. But now the time—God’s “ fulness of time ””—has arrived for its removal.
The time to favour Israel is come, and king and prophet meet again. It was an
anxious moment for each of them. It was a critical moment in the history of the
Church. Let us mark their words; let us observe how they bear themselves; we
shall surely learn something from their carriage and discourse.

I. The king goes to meet the prophet. Elijah would seem to have waited in
the place where Obadiah left lim until Ahab appeared. He is not going to take
the place of a suppliant. Subject though he is, he is Ahab’s superior. He has a
commission higher and nobler than the king’s. It is his task to reprove the king;
hence, in a manner, he summons him before him. The proud monarch who has
scoured all lands in search of him must now humble himself to go before the
prophet. ‘‘ Behold Elijah.”

Il. Ahab fears to meet Elijah. Itis true he is the first to speak, and accuses
the prophet of troubling the land; but we may well believe that, despite his brave
words when Jezebel was at his side, and the cheap courage he manifested when he
had the court and the priests of Baal at his back, he must have looked forward to
this meeting with something like dismay. He had good cause for misgivings and
fears. First, he was to encounter a true prophet, and one vested with supernatural
powers. Of one thinghe could have no doubt, as to the ‘* sure word of prophecy’ ie
Elijah’s lips. No less than the Sareptan, he had proved that the word of the Lord
in Elijah’s lips was truth (ch. xvii. 24). ‘He spake and it was done.” He had
denounced a drought, and it had come to pass, a drought beyond all precedent, a
drought which still cursed the country, and was at that moment taxing its resources

1 KINGS,434 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [on. xvi. 1—46,

 

 

 

(ver.5) And of another thing Ahab must have been equally certain, that this drought
was no chance which had happened him. The coincidence between the word and
the event negatived that idea. He must see in it the finger of God; he must
recognize in the prophet the power of God. But (2) the man for whom he had
been searching over hill and dale, in town and hamlet, in his own and in adjoining
lands, now proposes a meeting. Clearly, then, he is not afraid. He almost compels
an interview—‘ I will<sh«w myself unto bim to-day.” (8) Even if Ahab ascribed
his power to magic or witcheralt, still men tremble in the presence of a soreerer.
We cannot wonder, therefore, if his courage almost failed him, and if he looked
forward to the meeting with something like dread. But he remembers his imperious
consort; he thinks how full of threatening and fury he himself has been, and he
feels he must put on a bold front ; he must carry himself proudly ; he must tax the
prophet with wrong-doing. And so, when at last they meet, the king is the first
to speak. ‘Art thou here ?” he cries, almost frightened at the sound of his own
voice. ‘Art thou here, thou troubler of Israel ?’? Words have often served to con-
ceal men’s thoughts, often been a veil to hide their abject fears.

Now. we have heard words like these, we have read of them in other mouths
than Ahab’s. It is a common charge against the prophets and people of God.
The saints are always in the wrong. Itis always they who “‘ turn the world up-
side down” (Acts xvii. 6, 8); always they who “do exceedingly trouble our city”
(ib., xvi. 20). Our Lord was accused of sedition. The first Christians were called
‘enemies of the human race.” All manner of evil is said against them falsely.
Abab only speaks “ after his kind.””. He saw that Eljah had been instrumental
in bringing down the drought and the terrible famine which accompanied it. He
never pauses to ask what moved Elijah to call for a drought; what caused Ehjah’s
God to send it. Uhe herald is accused as the cause of the war. ‘There is nothing
new under the sun.’”’ The same charge is made, and with the same unreason and
perversity at the present day. The lamb must have fouled the stream, whichever
way it flows. If the Baptist comes neither eating nor drinking, they say, ‘“‘ He
hath a devil.” If the Son of man comes eating and drinking, they say, ‘‘ Behold
a gluttonous man and a winebibber.” If we pipe, they will not dance: it we
mourn, they will not lament (Matt. xi. 16 sqq.)

Ill. Hlijah denounces the king to his face. ‘*I have not troubled Israel, but
thou,” &e. ‘The righteous are bold asa lion.” There is no trace of fear in these
words. The truth has nothing to fear. And the truth it was then, and is now,
that the trouble and suffering of the world spring out of sin, out of forgetting and
forsaking God. If men will leave Him out of their thoughts and lives, their
sorrows cannot but be multiplied (Psa. xvi. 4). It is like leaving the sun out of
our solar sytem—the world would revert to primeval chaos. The French revolu-
tion shows the result of the negation of God. Communism and Nihilism do
the same. ‘There is no peace to the wicked.” But not only do they “ pierce
themselves through with many sorrows,” but they trouble Jsrae¢ (Eph. vi. 16),
the peaceful people of God. But for them this world would be a Paradise. It
is they who make wretched homes and broken hearts. It is they who neces-
sitate our armies, our police, our gaols, our poor rates. It is they who some-
times make us wonder, with some of the ancients, whether this earth is not
really a place of punishment, But for them, and the confusion and misery
they cause, men would never ask ‘‘whether life is worth living ;”’ still less con-
clude that ‘‘ the greatest good is never to have been born into the world, and the
next to die out of it as soon as possible.” We are entitled, therefore, like Elijah,
to denounce the godless and the vicious as the enemies of society, as conspirators
against the world’s peace and prosperity. ‘‘The only common disturber of men,
families, cities, kingdoms, worlds, is sin.” Itis one of the arguments for our holy
religion that, sincerely practised, it ensures “‘ the greatest possible happiness of the
greatest possible number.” It is the brand of Atheism that it brings trouble,
uncleanness, selfishness, suffering, at its heels.

LV. The king endures the upbraiding of the prophet. To Elyjah’s ‘*Thou art
the man,” he makes no reply. He is taxed with the ruin of his country, and isCH. Xvi. i—46.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 435

 

 

speechless. His courage has 7 ij
ek ge has soon evaporated. He who would accuse Elijah cannot
defenc a - Though anointed king, he is weak and helpless (2 Sam. iii. 39)
and owns his subje is ay low on alatuck ee
| S Sub] ct his superior. How soon have they changed places! Ahab
1as been hunting for the prophet’s life, has | ring @ ae
Mu ae I e, has been vowing vengeance upon him if
a H ound him, and he trembles before him. And this because
ne. a mt him a coward. He knows in his inmost heart that Elijah
as a a the truth ; that Godis on his side; and he is afraid of him, just as Saul
Be i y = ‘ . . . . . Si y ’
em ei a though he was, was afraid of the stripling David. And men are
i afraic an ai 1 r . . j : 7 i &
oa ee flees ee God. They regard him ‘with almost a superstitious
ad. S 1t 1s fanaticism they fear; but sometimes it is the holiness
which condemns their sinfulness (Luke v. 8).
V. The king ob e prophet’ 41}

; Z Pee the prophet’s commands. Elijah might be king from the
commands he issues. Send and gather to me’—observe “to me ”—* all
Israel unto Mount Carmel, and the prophets of Baal,’ &. Did Ahab know why
they were wanted ? Did Elijah then tell him of the ordeal by fire? Itis extremely
improbable. It is probable that, though Ahab hoped for rain, still he anticipated
no good to his or Jezebel’s prophets from this meeting. He would have disobeyed
this command if he dared. But he has found his master, and it is in the uncouth
untutored Gileadite. We are reminded of Herod and John, of Ambrose and
Theodosius, of Savonarola and Lorenzo de’ Medicis, of Mary of Scots and John
Knox, At Elijah’s bidding, his posts go throughout the land. The prophet has

an a s The 2 fi
had a triumph already. ‘Truth and the consciousness of right, and the power of
God’s presence, have proved greater than sceptre and crown.

Vers. 21—40.—Israels Conversion. It has been remarked elsewhere that in
the history of the Israelitish people we may see pourtrayed the trials and expe-
riences of a Christian soul.

And not only is that true of this history as a whole, but it also holds good of
various periods of that history, of various crises in the nation’s life. It holds good
of that great crisis recorded in this chapter. For from the conversion of Israel on
the day of Carmel, we may gather some lessons as to the true doctrine of conver-
sion, the conversion of a man from sin to righteousness, from the power,of Satan
unto God. From the turning of their heart back again (ver. 37), we may learn
something as to the change to be wrought in our own. Let us consider, theretore—
1. What it was. 2. How it was accomplished. 3. What were its results.

I. WHatit was. Jt was—

1. A change of mind. It was a perdvowa, a change of thought and view. Of
course ij was more than this, but this it was pre-eminently and primarily. On
that day of the Lord’s power (Psa. ex. 8) the views of king and people were altered.
The king and court—and Ahab was not without his ministers and courtiers to
witness the ordeal—had many of them believed in Baal, and served him. It is true
some had wavered (ver. 21) between Baal and Jehovah ; but the people as a whole
had held Baal to be Lord and God, prince of nature, source of lite, not to the
exclusion of Jehovah, but along with Him. The first thing for them to learn,
consequently, was that an “ idol is nothing in the world ;” that Baal was no more
than a log (ch. xv. 12), a senseless stock, powerless for good or evil. It is clear
that Elijah’s first object was to demonstrate before this great convocation on
Carmel the absolute impotence and nothingness of their idol deities. He had
been proving for three years past and more that Baal had no dominion over the
clouds; that he could not discharge that primary function of a God, viz., to contro]
he course of nature, and give his votaries rain from heaven and fruitful seasons
(Levit. xxvi. 4; Deut. xiv 17; 1,Sam. xi. 17; 1 Kings vill. 36; Psa. Ixvii. 9; Jer.
v. 24: Joel ii, 23; Amos iv. 7; Acts xiv. 17), And now he offers to prove that
Baal has as little power over the fire, that recognized emblem and property of God
(Gen. iii. 24; Exod. xix. 18; Levit. 1x. 24; Deut. iv. 86); only known to men,
according to an ancient tradition, because it had been stolen from heaven. He
will also prove that the Lord whom he serves can give both fire and rain; and by
these facts he will gain their understandings, the assent of their minds to the436 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. (cu. xvi. 1—46.

 

conclusion that the Lord alone is God. This was his first task, his main object.
And this is the first step towards the conversion of a soul—that it should ** know
the only true God and Jesus Christ,” &e. At the basis of conversion lies the know-
ledge of God and of self. There is a knowledge which ‘ bloweth up; ” while
“ charity buildeth up” (1 Cor. viii. 1). ‘There is also a yvaorg which is life eternal.
He is the converted man who can say, ‘* We have known and believed the love
that God hath to us” (1 John iv. 16). It was a favourite saying of St. Theresa
that if men really knew God, they could not help loving and serving Him.
By nature they do not know Him; they have false and unworthy ideas of Him;
they think Him to be altogether such an one as themselves (Psa. 1. 21), because the
devil, the ‘‘slanderer ” (cva80d0c), who is not only the ‘‘accuser of the brethren”
before God (Rey. xii. 10; Job i. 9), but also the accuser of God before the brethren
(Gen. ill. 5), poisons their minds against God, t ‘aduces and misrepresents Him, so
that the opening of the eyes (Acts ix. 18; xvi. 14; xxvi. 18; Luke xxiv. 45; Eph.
i. 18), the enlightening of the mind, the shining of the glorious gospel of Christ
in the darkened heart (2 Cor. iv. 4, 6)—this is the beginning of our conversion.
A conversion which rests, not on knowledge, but emotion, cannot be real and
lasting.

2. A change of affection. Believing Baal to be God, they had yielded him their
homage, their service. The heart, for the most part (Rom. vil. passim), goes with
the understanding. If the latter be firmly persuaded, the former is enlisted. ‘* As
he thinketh in his heart, so is he” (Prov. xxui. 7). Those who regarded Baal as
their helper and benefactor could not help reverencing and loving him (ch. xix. 18;
ef. Job xxxi. 27). But when they learnt his impotence ; when they saw that they
had been deceived (Acts vill. 9) ; when it was forced upon them that these things
were dumb idols, lying vanities, and that the Lord alone had made t&¥em, sustained
them, blessed them, then there was a strong revulsion of feeling; their heart was
turned back again; their affections went forth to Him whom they had slighted
and wronged. And so it is in our conversion. It is not a purely intellectual
process ; it stirs the lowest depths of the heart. When a man realizes that God
is not hate, but love; that he is a Father, not a hard master; that the devil has
deceived him and enslaved him, while promising him liberty; that the world has
cheated him, and its pleasures have mocked him, it would be strange indeed if this
apocalypse did not affect the whole man; if the knowledge did not lead at once to
loathing and love; loathing for the enemy who has played us so false and slandered
our gracious Father; love for Him who first loved us, and sealed His love by pain
and sacrifice. And with the new-born love there will be compunction; grief that
we have grieved the Eternal Love. ‘This is what we call repentance. It is a part
of the peravota.

3. A change of conduct. If the head does not always carry the heart with it,
the heart always controls and governs the man. It is the mainspring of our
nature. The heart is the helm that turns the ship ‘‘ whithersoever the governor
listeth ” (James in, 4). We have no record, indeed, of any permanent change in the
religious life of Israel, and it has been too readily assumed that all the congregation
that witnessed the descent of the fire, and confessed their belief in Jehovah,
straightway lapsed into paganism. But it is clear that, for a time at least, there
was a change in their conduct. The readiness with which they slew the priests of
Baal shows it. Indeed, without this there would have been no conversion at all.
For that word, though constantly used in a purely conventional and non-natural
sense—to express, 1n fact, a mystical change in the man, a peculiar conscious tran~
sition which the heart is supposed to experience—vreally describes a change in the
lite and conduct (Acts xv. 3; Luke xxii. 323 Matt. xvii. 3; James v. 19). The
secret inner change the Scripture always calls ‘‘ repentance” (Matt. ix. 138; Luke
xv. 7; Acts xx. 21; Rom. 1.4; Heb. vi. 6, &.) Conversion is the outward and
visible change resulting from the former, and corresponding with it. Hence
St. Peter’s words, ‘* Repent and be converted” (Acts ili. 19). This conversion
of Israel was not an emotion, an experience, an ecstasy, but a change from Baal-
worship to Jehovah-worslip ; from impurity and devilry (Deut. xxxii. 17; 1 Cor.CH. xvi11. 1—46.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 437

 

 

 

 

nee i SEES ae ; 1b was a turning ‘from idols to serve the living and true

Il. How WAS THIS CONVERSION BROUGHT ABOUT ?

_ 1. By the ministry of a prophet. The appeal of Elijah (ver. 21) had some
influence; the works he wrought—he was a prophet of deed—had much more
He was God’s messenger to turn the disobedient to the wisdom of the just
(Luke i. 17). We are reminded here of the place which the ministry of the
word occupies in the New Dispensation. ‘How shall they hear without a
preacher 2?” weV'S preach unto you that ye should turn from these vauities,”
&c. (Acts xiv. 15). No one says that a preacher is indispensable, but no one
can deny that he is God’s ordinary instrument for the conversion of men
(ie Care t:) 18; 21).

2. By the chastening of God. The drought and the famine prepared their
stubborn hearts for Elijah’s appeal, and disposed them to decision. At another
time he might have addressed Israel in vain. And sorrow and pain, privation
and bereavement are still not unfrequently found to dispose the rebellious mind
to hear the message of God. ‘‘ When thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabi-
tants of the world will learn righteousness ” (Isa. xxvi. 9; cf. ver. 16).

3. By the terrors of the Lord. It is the “ still small voice” wins most for God ;
but the wind and earthquake and fire have their preparation work to do. The law
preceded the gospel, and even the gospel has its stern threatenings. Apostolic
preaching did not overlook the terror of the Lord (2 Cor. v.11). We can hardly
doubt that fear played some part in the conversion. As on a former occasion, the
giving of the law (Exod. xx. 18), so at this solemn vindication of the law, ‘‘ the
people were afraid by reason of the fire” (Deut. v. 5). Why, then, should we call
that common which God hath cleansed? Why discard an instrument which God
has sanctioned ?

4. By a supernatural token. For the fire was the turning-point in this conver-
sion. It was at the awful “ sign from heaven,” this evidence of a Divine Presence,
that the great cry arose, ‘‘ The Lord, He is the God.” The bones were dry until the
breath came into them. And may not this remind us that there is a supernatural
element in our conversion too? Man cannot change himself. Only by the power
of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit which descended in fire (Acts 11. 3; Matt. i. 11), can
the eyes be opened, the heart softened, repentance wrought, or true and lasting
conversion to God be accomplished. This is the dispensation of the Spirit. It is
His to convince of sin (John xvi. 8), to testify of Christ (John xv. 26), to renew the
heart (Titus iii. 5), to give peace and joy (Gal. v. 22).

5. After prayer to God. Not only the prayer of vers. 36, 37, offered before the
restored altar of God (ver. 30) ; Elijah had prayed for many years. The discipline
of drought was an answer to his prayer. Nor can we think that he was alone in
his petitions. The seven thousand would assuredly pray for the regeneration of their
country. The triumph of Carmel is the answer to those cries of God’s elect (Luke
xviii. 7). And prayer is still one of the instruments of our conversion. It is signii-
cant how prayer is mentioned in connection with the example of Elias, and with
conversion in James v. 17—20. Nor is the mention of prayer in connection with
St. Paul’s conversion less instructive (Acts ix. 11). It is one step the soul takes
towards God; and by persevering in prayer the goal is reached, for “‘ Every one
that asketh, receiveth” (Matt. vil. 8). Whosoever shall call on the name of the
Lord shall be saved (Acts ii. 21). A prayer of half a dozen words once sufficed for
justification (Luke xviii. 14).
Di It was Vie result of : sudden decision. ‘‘ How long halt ye?” &e. He will
have them make up their minds one way or the cther. It is better to be cold than
lukewarm (Rev. iii. 16). We cannot serve two masters. How many conversions
are deferred because men will not look facts in the face! That is all the preacher

asks of them. ‘‘If there is a God, then serve Him. If there is a judgment, ae
prepare for it.” Decision of character is necessary to oe Brent ae ay me aS
prodigal says, “ I will arise,” the first step has been taken. And “lt ls only

first step that costs.”438 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. fou. xvur. 1—46.

 

TIT. WHAT WERE ITS RESULTS? It is well to ask this question, for some forget
that conversion is not the end, but the beginning. It is the entrance on the life of
reconciliation and obedience ; it is the door to sanefification and perfection. This
conversion was (1) evidenced by—

1. Obedience. The law enjoined that the false prophet should be put to death
(Deut. xii. 1—11). The sin of seducing the Lord’s people was so heinous that zt
merited a capital punishment. It has been objected against Elijah that, in the
massacre of these 400 men, he displayed a sanguinary and revengeful spirit. But
it would have been strange if he, the restorer of the law, had ignored one of its
provisions. We should have suspected this conversion had the false prophets been
spared. ‘This sacrifice was no less pleasing to God than that other.” For the true
convert sets himself to do God’s will. Whatever grace and favour God may have
showed him cannot release him from the discharge of duty. He must still ‘“ keep
the commandments” if he would enter into life (Matt. xix. 17). Obedience is the
touchstone of conversion (Luke vi. 46; John xiv. 21).

2. Watchfulness. No doubt one reason why the false prophets were put out of
the way was that they might no longer be able to tempt God’s people. The convert
will be careful to avoid all occasions of sin; he will cut off the right hand that
sauses him to offend. He will keep himself that the wicked one touch him not
(1 John y. 18). If strong drink has been his snare, he will abstain; whatever his
besetting sin, he will put it away. But (2) it was followed by—

3. Blessing. ‘After the conversion came the rain, and a renewal of prosperity
and plenty (James v. 18). Not until the people had turned to Him with all their
hearts, could He “ be jealous for his land, and pity his people” (Joel ii. 12, 18).
The drought, the punishment of apostasy, was removed on their repentance. Once
more the thirsty land drank in the grateful showers; once more a plentiful rain
refreshed God’s inheritance, and the land brought forth its increase (James v. 18)—
a picture this of the blessings which attend the reconciled soul. ‘ Rivers of living
waters.” ‘* The water of life freely.” ‘The fruit of the Spirit.” ‘ The peaceable
fruits of righteousness.”

 

Vers. 41—45.—Effectual Fervent Prayer. Itis pre-eminently in the matter of
prayer that Kljah is proposed to us as an example in the New Testament. From
the long list of Hebrew saints and worthies he has been selected by St. James (v.
17, 18) to prove and illustrate the proposition that ‘tthe prayer of a righteous man
availeth much in its working” (ver. 16, Revised Version). His prayers for drought
are not mentioned by our historian, but his prayer for raim may not unreasonably
be supposed to be referred to in the account of vers. 42—45. Let us notice its more
prominent features.

1. [t was the prayer of a righteous man. ‘The prayers of unrighteous men are

sometimes heard (Luke xvii. 14; 2 Chron. xxxiii. 19), but only their prayers for
grace and pardon. The intercessions of the wicked for others are of no avail, any
more than the prayers of the impenitent for themselves. ‘‘If I regard imiquity in my
heart, the Lord will not hear me” (Psa. Ixvi. 18). Common sense teaches that God is
not likely to grant the requests of impenitent rebels. ‘‘'T'o the wicked God saith,
What hast thou to do”’ with intercession? ‘‘ Get thee to the prophets of thy father,”
&e. (2 Kings i. 13). ‘Go and ery unto the gods which ye have chosen” (Judg. x.
14). But “he will fulfil the desire of them that fear him” (Psa. exlv. 19).
2. It was the prayer of aman of like passions with us. We are not to think that
Elias stood on a pedestal apart from the rest of his kind. He is not pictured to us,
as are the heroes of so many biographies, as perfect. We are not sure that that
great ‘“‘day of Carmel” passed without sin. We are quite sure that he betrayed
tear and unbelief in his flight, impatience and discontent in the desert. Yet his
prayers availed much. Let us, therefore, though compassed about with infirmity,
and stained with many sins of ignorance and imperfection, come boldly to the
throne of grace.

3. [twas fervent. ‘* He prayed with prayer” (zpoccevy}) tpoonvéaro), says St. James.
His attitude reveals its fervency—it was that of complete self-abstraction, of intenseoH. XvitI. 1—46.] THE FIRST.BOOK OF KINGS. 439

 

 

 

inward entreaty. We must seek ‘with all the heart” (Psa. exix. 2° Jer. xxiv. 7)
Seeking early (Prov. i. 28; vii. 17; Psa. Ixiii. 1; xxviii. 34 5 Isa. xvi. 9) oak Bok
mean seeking in. youth, but seeking eagerly, intently. Compare the expression
rising up early,” &c. (Jer. vii. 18; xxv. 8, 4; xxvi. 5; xxxv. 15, &.) Some oe
has said that there are not many persons who really and truly pray half a dozen
times in their lives. We offer up formal or lukewarm petitions, and then marvel
that we recelve no answers. Prayer must be ixrerye (Luke xxii. 44). It is not that
God As hard to persuade ; it is that He will have us mean what we say. ‘There is
no difficulty with Him. We are straitened in ourselves. :

4, It was persevering. He was not daunted by the laconic “nothing” (Heb,
not aught) of his servant. ‘Go again seven times.” It is not enough to pray} we
must “pray and not faint” (Luke xviii. 1; Eph. vi. 18; Col. iv. 2). We must
“ diligently seek him” (Heb. xi. 6). St. Paul besougit the Lord thrice (2 Cor. xii.
8), after the example, it is probable, of our Blessed Lord (Matt. xxvi. 44). Compare
the example of Abraham (Gen. xviii. 23 sqq.) Daniel prayed three times a day
(Dan. vi. 10). The “seven times” of Elijah means that he will pray until the
covenant God hears his petitions (cf. Levit. iv. 6,17; viii. 11; xiv. 16).

5. It was touching God's kingdom. This is the proper subject for our prayers
(Matt. vi. 833). We may have doubts whether some of the blessings we would fain
crave are good for us, but we always ask ‘‘ according to his will” when we pray,
‘Thy kingdom come.” Our prayers for rain or fine weather are often selfish.
Elijah only desired the drought, only supplicated for rain, as a means of influencing
Israel and advancing God’s work. It is partly the selfishness of our prayers which has
led men to question the efficacy of all prayer. If men want to have their own way
with the elements, or to make God’s power further their private ends, is it strange
if He declines to hear them? If we are to “ obtain our petitions,” we must ‘ ask
those things that please him.”

6. It was believing. He never doubts the promise of ch. xviii. 1. He has already
announced the rain to Ahab, before he prays for it. Similarly our Lord gave
thanks at the crave of Lazarus: ‘I thank thee that thou hast heard me ” (John xi.
41), just as if the dead man had already come to life again. We must ask in faith
(James i. 6,7; Matt. xxi. 21, 22; Mark ix. 23). No wonder if God does not hear
the petitions of the man who doubts whether God is, or is the rewarder of those
who seek Him. Before we pray we should at least be clear that there is One who
hears and can help us. Unbelief makes Goda liar.

7, It was hwmble. ‘* Cast himself down upon the earth.” What self-abasement
before God! And he was heard in that he feared (Heb. v. 7). God has respect unto
the lowly, and giveth grace to the humble (James ivi 6% I Peter v.53; Psasixs 12;
eel).

8. Ms was in the Holy Ghost (Jude 20). This prayer was first inspired. Elijah
would never presume to ask either for drought or rain, unless the prayer had been
put into his heart. As he mused in the wilds of Gilead over the apostasy of Israel,
and vexed his righteous soul with the news of the Baal-worship, he felt constrained
to ery to God, as we find His saints constantly doing, to awake, to make bare His
arm, to vindicate His outraged honour. And what could he pray for, except that
God would enforce the penalties He had Himself denounced? His prayer for drought
is the outcome of his zeal for God’s law, with which God had Himself inspired him.
And we, too, are promised supernatural help and guidance in our prayers (hom. vul.
26, 27; Jude 20).

a Wy ek uch, It opened the windows of heaven. ‘There was a great
yain.” It gave life to those who were sitting in the shadow of death. ‘‘ The earth
brought forth her fruit.” The desolate land became as Eden. Man and beast

nk and lived.
ape lt Weatled immediately. While he was yet speaking, God eee Geary
94), If that word is ever true, Bis dat qui cvlo eh ile a oan lias
Indeed, the answer almost anticipated the prayer (ch, xvill. 1, 41). God 1s

ready to give than we to pray.440 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. {ou. xvirr. 1—46,

 

HOMILIES BY VARIOUS AUTHORS.

Vers. 1—6.—The Cry for Life. For three years and six months the heavens
were as brass. Throughout the summers the sun glared and flamed in a cloudless
sky, and the temperature, even at night, never sank to the dew-point.
Throughout the winters, if the temperature reached that point, the elements
were so boisterous that no dew could settle upon the herbage, and the winds
carried the aqueous vapour away to other lands. In the absence of dew and
rain, vegetation, excepting only that near rivers or fringing streams fed from
the deepest springs, was scorched and blasted. The mortality, therefore, amongst
animals was frightful, and men suffered incredible things. The agony of distress
had now risen to such a pitch that throughout the land there was one earnest,
plaintive cry for life.

I. SOME CRIED FOR LIFE TO NATURE. 1. Such was the case with Ahab. (1) He
had worshipped Baal, the fire of nature. But Baal was now punishing his votaries.
Such is the manner in which the ‘‘ god of this world” repays his dupes. (2) Yet
did not Ahab repent of his folly. For, instead of seeking the living God, who was
proving Himself the superior of Baal, he divides the land between himself and the
governor of his house, to search for herbage. (8) Note also the heartlessness of the
idolater. He is more concerned for his stwd than for his people. ‘‘ Peradventure
we may find grass to save the horses and mules alive, that we lose not all the
beasts.’ 2. He was a specimen of a class (1) His queen was of the same way of
thinking. She had been brought up to worship Baal. She had a masculine temper
and swayed the mind of her husband. (2) The courtiers and the majority of the
nation, who thought more of court fashion than of the holy service of Jehovah,
bowed the knee to Baal.

I]. OTHERS CRIED FOR LIFE TO Gop. 1. Of this number was Elijah. (1) He
recognized God as above nature, when he announced that there would be a depar-
ture from the ordinary course of nature in the withholding of dew and rain for suc-
cessive years. Still he recognizes this when he shows himself to Ahab, believing
that God would now give rain (ch. xvii. 1; xviii. 1,2). (2) He recognized God as
above nature before these assurances, for he received them in answer to faithful
prayer (see James v. 17,18). This is not mentioned in the history, but implied in
his character asa man of God. Note: Aman of God isa man of prayer. 2. Obadiah
also was of this number. (1) He ‘feared the Lord greatly.” This arose from the
strength of his faith. We cannot fear that in which we do not believe. (2) His
faith was fruitful in good works. He screened one hundred of the Lord’s prophets
from the violence of Jezebel, and sustained them. ‘Bread and water,’ like ‘* daily
bread ” in the Lord’s prayer, is an expression for things needful for the body. And
in thus sheltering and nourishing the servants of God, Obadiah hazarded not only
the loss of his situation, but also of his head. (8) One who feared the Lord greatly
after this fashion would pray to Him. Piety would move him to it. Patriotism
also would move him at this juncture. 8. There were many more who cried to
God. (1) There were the ‘prophets of the Lord” preserved by Obadiah, and
doubtless others also who escaped the vigilance of Jezebel. These would cry to
God for life. (2) And if there were so many prophets, or sons of the prophets,
there would be a considerable number of devout persons in Israel notwithstanding
the abounding apostasy (see ch. xix. 18). There is a great deal of goodness where
men little expect to find it.

God is the source of life, not only to the body, but also to the soul. Let us seek to
Him for life.—J. A. M.

Vers. 7—16.—-The Servant of the Lord. Such is the meaning of Obadiah’s
name; and so truly descriptive of his character is it that we may take him as a
typical servant of God.

I, He FEARED THE LorD FROMHISyouTH. 1. Piety is not natural. (1) On the
contrary, we inherit a depraved heart (Gen. v.8; Psa. li.5; Rom. v. 12; Eph,CH. XVIII. 1--46.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 441

 

ul. 8). (2) And this depravity i / :

(8) Life is only tolerable chee Ge eee eae oo) if ee Hi ag),
ceacaieGod.) ‘Ta these x 8 4 ating es of the “‘ gospel of the
ae ies oy ee He aera seems good in unconyerted
illuminations, restraints, and ee Ce “| jh are directly the subjects of its
are indirectly specially mies : Peat Sols e in ei ei i or Xu. 7). (2) Some
Being children of godly parents. (3) These ae et a erNeD Ones
PER hdiio salvation. (lite ad S@ Oppor unities, if duly improved, will
ey us ll. 14). 38. Those who fear God from their
pare great advantages. (1) They have not given evil habits soa their
ate into rigidity. ‘lime is ne ssarv Ties in © seater eerie et consoli-
repetition. The hard ayseian of Pe eee ee the ae he a.
sinners very difficult. Therefore, how few are s a ti ee Se
, m ; ’ uch conversions )} ars Talv
(2) They have a splendid opportunity of founding a strong Precis of ee
When the habit of resisting temptation is formed, it becomes more and more
natural and easy to resist. Hence, like Obadi eet eth ee

ar | e, like Oba iah, who ‘*‘ feared the Lord from h
youth,” they will come to fear Him “ greatly.” 7

II. He FEARED THE Lorp ereatLy. See the manifestation of this in his—1

Respect for the ambassador of God. (1) He “knew Elijah.” Pro! , ha
ale i jah.” Probably he had
been present when the prophet warned the king that his fire-god would be made
to punish his votaries in the absence of dew and rain (ch. xvii. Ly The godly
having eee aiby pe the ministers of God, are quick to recognize them. (2) He
fell on his face before him.” This was the form of a most respectful salutation
He honoured in him that God whose ambassador he was. Obadiah feared the
Lord too greatly to give to any creature the homage due to God alone. (8) He
addressed him reverently, “My lord Hlijah.” And he spoke of himself agi thy
[Soret aaa wpe epee ” a aa ; paseaie note how Kiijah transferred the
yore é » Go tell thy tora, ehold, Elijah is here.” 2. Kindness to the
servants of God. (1) Through the sin of Jeroboam the priests and Levites went
into Judah (see 2 Chron. xi. 18, 14). To supply their lack in Ephraim, prophets’
colleges were established. The students in these colleges were called “ sons of the
eS. ere ee ae Oe (2) These, together with their Iasters, or
S, probably the o jects of Jezebel’s resentment when Elijah could
not be found. They are called prophets of the Lord” (ver. 13; compare ch.
xxii. 85, 38, 41). (8) At the time of that persecution Obadiah sheltered and fed
one hundred of these. This he did at the hazard of his life. Because he feared
the Lord greatly, he feared not the wrath of the king (compare Heb. xi. 23, 27).
3. Faith in the power of God. (1) He believed that Jehovah might raise a wind
that could carry Elijah away from the power of Ahab. He doubtless knew that
Enoch had been translated into the heavens, and may have known of examples of
translations from one locality to another, not recorded in the earlier Scriptures
(compare 2 Kings 11. 11—16 ; Ezek. iii. 14; Acts viii. 89). (2) A being who could
do such wonders, and whose power was now terribly manifest in the drought, was
greatly to be feared (see Matt. x. 28; Luke xii. 5). (8) But while God is of all
enemies the most formidable, He is an Almighty Friend.

III. He FAITHFULLY SERVED HIS KING. 1. God-fearing men make good citizens.
(1) Wicked as Ahab was, he preferred Obadiah to the courtiers of Jezebel in thse
high office of chamberlain. (2) This isnot a solitary case. Joseph over the house
of Pharaoh. Daniel in the house of the kings of Babylon. Christians were in the
household even of Nero. (3) The qualities of a servant of the Lord—truth,
e those sought after for places of trust. “ Godliness is profit-

honour, diligence—ar
DO ea as Gee Bist ces ap uh SA ag ad
able unto all things” (1 Tim. iv. 8; Isa. lvi. 14). 2. God preserves them wn ther
faithfulness. (1) Service n a licentious court Obadiah would not have chosen.

But he is in it and maintains his integrity. They that fear the Lord need not go
out of the world. (2) They havea testimony forGod. (3) They have opportunities
of serving the servants of the Lord. ae

Let us not murmur at our providential lot. God can change it if He see fit.
If He does not change it, then He has a purpose in it which we should endeavour

to fulfil._J. A. M.442, THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cH. xvitr. 1—46.

 

Vers. 17, 18.— The Troubler. Elijah, who during the terrible drought was con-
cealed, now, at the word of the Lord, came forth to show himself to Ahab, as God
was about to give rairi. What a meeting! One of the worst of kings with one
of the noblest of prophets. What confrontings will there be in the great day of
judgment! Here each charges the other with being the troubler of Israel.
Observe, then—

I. THAT THE WICKED SEEK TO MALIGN THE GOOD. 1. Ahab accused Elijah. (1)
He assumed that all the horrors of the famine were the work of the prophet, and
therefore sought to slay him. How many precious lives, in all ages, have been
sacrificed to the theories of tyrants. (2) This persecutor was terribly in earnest,
He sought the prophet in Israel. Then in neighbouring kingdoms. He even took
an oath of the kingdoms that they did not shelter him. It were well for the world
if men were as earnest in good as they are in evil. (8) But God can hide His
servants from the fury of their adversaries. In the solitudes of Cherith. In the
stir of Zarephath. (4) Now Ahab accuses the prophet to his face. But see how
his courage cools in the presence of the man of God. He frames his accusation
mildly in the form of a question, “‘ Art thou he that troubleth Israel?” Conscience
makes tyrants tremble. 2. He found a pretext. (1) Theorists can easily find pre-
texts for tyranny. Ahab seized upon Elijah’s words (ch. xvii. 1), and drew his
own inference. (2) As these words were verified to the letter, the tyrant saw, or
affected to see, his theory confirmed. This kind of reasoning is very common.
(8) Why did he not accuse God? Elijah acted as the servant of God. He feared
to do this in form, though he did it in fact (see Prov. xiv. 81; Matt. x. 40—42;
xxv. 40, &c.; Acts v. 39; 1x. 1—15; Heb. vi. 10). 3. Hehad a'motive. (1) Why
did not Ahab accuse himself? His conscience no doubt did this for him. (2) But
he could not afford publicly to bear the odium of having brought the miseries of
the famine upon his people. (8) Therefore he shifts the responsibility on to the
shoulders of the prophet. How essentially does the spirit of the lie enter into
all sin!

II. TRUTH COMES HOME IN DUE TIME. 1. Goodness will be vindicated. (1) It
may suffer long under the reproaches of hars. This is permitted because God is
long-suffering. He makes the trial a blessing to ‘‘ those who are exercised thereby.”
(2) But God is jealous for His servants. Therefore the triumphing of the wicked
is but for a season. If the vindication takes not place in this world it certainly
willin the next. (8) Elijah had his opportunity. He repudiated the imputation of
Ahab. Good men are true patriots. ‘The trial on Carmel settled the question. 2.
Sin will be shamed. (1) Let it only be brought home, and it will cover the sinner
with confusion. (2) ‘Thou and thy father’s house ” have troubled Israel ‘in that
ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord.” Complicity in the sin of
Jeroboam is specified here. This sin was a breach of the first and second com-
mandments of the decalogue. It was also a forsaking of the Levitical law, which
prescribed ceremonies that were but parodied in Ephraim. This offence was carried
to its height in the statutes of the house of Ahab which were those of Omri (see
Micah vi. 16). . (8) “And thow hast followed Baalim.” This was a sin introduced
by Ahab himself, no doubt prompted by Jezebel. The way of error is from bad to
worse.

Sin is the troubler of humanity. It invaded the tranquillity of Eden and broke
it up. It brought down judgments of God upon individuals and communities.
Upon Cain. Upon the antediluvians. Upon the cities of the plain. Upon Israel.
It has provoked wars, in whose wake came pestilences and famines. It troubles
the abyss of hell.—J. A. M.

Vers. 19—21.—Christ or Belial? Tere is a curious phenomenon. A monarch,
who had searched all kingdoms for a prophet that he might reek anger upon
his life, now sought out and confronted by that prophet, and submitting to his
orders to call an assembly of the nation! How God can turn about the hearts of
princes! Conspicuous in this vast concourse are the idolatrous priests with gnash-
ing teeth. Hljah stands alone undaunted, a witness for Jehovah, and, appealingCH. xvi. 1—46,] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS, 443

 

 

 

 

to the multitude, he accuses them of unworth
services,

I. WHY HESITATE IN SEEKING HAPPINESS? 1. No joys can compare with the
heavenly. (1) There are, indeed, sad professors of the true religion. (a) Some are
constitutionally melancholy. This is'a disease which certainly is not aggravated
by the sense of the favour of God. (6) Some have false views of religion. They
caricature it into a sepulchral thing. They do it injustice. (c) But the case most
common is that sad professors do not experience what they profess. They halt
between Jehovah and Baal—between Christ and Belial. In fashion. In friend-
ships. In pursuits. So conscience stings them sore. (2) When religion is true
there is the best reason for joy. (a) It brings emancipation from the slavery of
sin. (b) Deliverance from the tyranny of Satan. (c) Adoption into the family of
God. (d) Heirship to everlasting life. The true heir has the title-deeds of his in-
heritance in his heart (Eph. i. 18, 14; 2 Cor. v. 4, 5). Thus does he antedate
the very bliss of heaven (Luke xvii. 21; Eph. i. 3). 2. If sinners be not sad,
the more shame. (1) For sin degrades the man below the brute. As far below
as the powers of a man are superior. The degradation of a devil would be im-
possible to a brute. If a man can be transformed into a compound of swine and
devil and not be sad, this is the climax of depravity. (2) Sin is perfidy to infinite
love. Such ingratitude can only be reconciled with the absence of sadness upon
the ground of the most shameful perversity. (3) The sinner is befooled by
Satan. In his reflective moods he must loathe himself; but Satan whirls him
away from his reflections into some mad dance, and drowns the voice of his con-
science in some boisterous laugh. So the fool still befooled exults in his folly.
O shame !

IJ. WHY HESITATE IN SEEKING SALVATION? 1. Life is the determining period.
(1) Itis the seed-time for the reaping in eternity. The yield then will be accord-
ing to the sowing now. In quality: ‘After its kind.” Also in quantity, (2)
Therefore the young have a splendid opportunity. They have time im their
favour. ‘‘How long shall ye?” 2. Procrastination is precarious work,
(1) “ How long (NDD) hop ye ?’’—this word denotes the passing over from one
place to another—‘‘ between two opinions.” It is used scornfully of the awkward
leaping of the priests of Baal, in ver. 26. As the squirrel hopping from branch
to branch may miss its footing and fall, so may the halting sinner hop into ruin.
(2) Consider the uncertainty of life. Read the gravestones. How enormous is
the mortality amongst the young! Unroof hell! (3) Consider the solemnities
of eternity. The freshness and vividness of memory in the disembodied state.
What a preparation for the day of judgment! ;

III. For INDECISION THERE IS NO DEFENCE. ‘The people answered him not a
word.” But there are motives to evil when there are no good reasons, Such a:
1. Conjugal inflwence. (1) Ahab’s heart was estranged from God by: pre reeaon
of Jezebel. His predecessors suffered from the same cause. N cine 80 f oes
(2) Beware of contracting ungodly matrimonial alliances. vemem E t : ae
in Samaria. The same God still ‘‘ ruleth in the kingdom of eee } oie i ae
of favour. (1) Idolatry was favoured at court. | The priests of plang eas a ; oH
Jezebel’s table.” Mean-spirited Israelites sought court favour ae eae ge :
the favour of God. (3) True worshippers were persecuted. i 1 ee 0 ae
himself at Cherith and Zarephath. The sons of the prophets hac to hic ane :

res of Obadiah, To keep a whole skin many hesitated. W ill you encounter the
en , neer of an old companion? 38. The force of example.
frown of God to escape the sneer of an old companio eee
: jE € sas the prophet of the Lord. He had w ith him a 1andful o
(1) Elijah stood alone as proj fe Thetes tpyiehaaseieed
pO eadieh Ves ue ape hie forth ie Carmel in their
Obadiah had issued from their caves, they Cid no} Stan lb ctr eprom
official character. (2) The pronounced idolaters arbre ea ata Saree
were the prophets of Baal four hundred, and eee ae spre dan ee
and fifty, with a proportionate following. (3), ae i. were with the
These were the majority. The power and influence o Ss we

moderate people who would fain keep good terms with God and the devil. The

y hesitation between irreconcilabledtd THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu. xvi. 1—46.

 

halters are still the majority. How few amongst the multitude of the wicked
have resolved in heart and soul that they will go to the devil! It is time you made
up your mind one way or the other. How long halt ye ?—J. A. M.

Vers. 22—24.—The Test of Fire. Elijah had appealed to the people on their
inconsistency in hesitating between services so widely different and so utterly
irreconcilable as those of Jehovah and Baal. He got no response. ‘The people
answered him not a word.” Then he proposed the test of fire to determine which
was worthy. The conclusiveness of such an appeal could not be challenged; so
the people with one voice answered, ‘‘ It is well spoken.”

I. THE TEST WAS UNEXCEPTIONABLE. 1. For Baal was the fire-god. (1) His

name designates him as the lord or ruler. It comes from the verb (72) to own
or possess, to be master of. But the sun, from its splendour and central position,
accounted the visible lord in the material heavens, was their Baal. Sanchoniathon
says the Phoenicians thought the sun to be the only lord of heaven, calling him
Beelsamen, which in their language is lord of heaven. In “ Beelsamen” we at

once recognize the Hebrew OY bya. (2) Baal was the fire or body of the sun,

rather than its light. So in 2 Kings xxiii. 5 we find Baal (202) distinguished from
(winw) the solar light. (See Parkhurst under Wdv’.) Parkhurst points out that
the Runic or Islandic Baat signifies fire, the Saxon Bar, and BArL-Fryr, a bwrning
pile, a pyre, a bonfire. Probably our bonfire is simply a corruption of Bael-fyr.
(3) The image of this idol was a bull. This animal was by the ancients regarded
as the emblem of fire. The similitude seems to have been in its red colour, in the
curled hair upon its forehead giving the idea of flame, in the horns budding from
its head suggesting the darting of rays of light from the sun. In Tobit @. 5) we
read of “the heifer called Baal.” We have the name of this god still preserved in
our English bwil. 2. The controversy was whether Baal was independent of
Jehovah. (1) His worshippers claimed this for him. (2) Elijah maintained the
opposite. And with cogent reason, for during three years and six months Jehovah
made Baal punish his votaries. (8) Now the prophet proposes the further test of
a sudden miracle. If Baal be god, if he be independent of Jehovah, let him come
down and consume the sacrifice offered to him. If he cannot, then why should he
be worshipped? If Jehovah can send fire on his sacrifice, then is He manifestly
Lord of Baal, and should be so acknowledged. (4) That suitable acknowledgment
of God which such a miracle demands, implhes—(a) Recognition of His almighty
providence and lordship over the material and moral universe. (6) The engage-
ment of all our powers in His worship and service.

II. So WAS THE MANNER OF THE TEST. 1. The prophets of Baal had precedence.
(1) Not because Baal was entitled to it, for that would be a concession of the
argument, but because they were many. Elijah stood alone the prophet of the
Lord, while the idolatrous prophets were 850 men. (2) They were to provide the
sacrifices. ‘They were wealthy. Elijah was poor. They could not object to the
test when the sacrifices were of their own selection. 2. The experiment was to be
fair. (1) Not only might the priests of Baal choose their bullock, cut it in pieces
after their approved method, lay it on the wood of the altar; but they must “ put
no fire under.” Else where would be the proof of the ability of Baal? Under
some heathen altars holes were dug in which fire was concealed, which communi-
cating with the altar set the wood on fire to make the simple people believe that the
sacrifice was consumed by miraculous fire. This Elijah would not permit.
(2) Ordinarily the sacrifices offered to Baal were offered in fire ; and sometimes
human sacrifices were so offered. ‘They built the high places of Baal to burn
their sons with fire, for burnt offerings” (Jer. xix. 5). The Phoenician Baal seems
to have been identical with the Ammonite Molech. ‘They built the high places
of Baal which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their
daughters to pass through the fire to Wolech” (Jer. xxxii. 85). (3) Ashtaroth also
were virtually the same as ‘‘Baalim,’’ under which plural term are included
diversified Baals, as Baal Peor, &c.; and so in ver. 25 the prophets of Baal are©

CH. Xvii1. 1—46,| THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS, 445

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

said to have (D¢nDN) “gods,” in the plural. (4) These had their various imaces
in some of which the man and bull came into union. The Assyrian man-bull 2
conspicuous in the Nineveh marbles, is probably one of these. ;

Let us bless God for our Christianity. It is pure light. Compared with it other
systems are dark with ignorance, superstition, and error. It is supreme benevo-
lence. Happy is its contrast to the characteristic cruelties of idolatry.—J. A. M,

Vers. 25—29.—The Failure. When the appeal of Elijah to the people had
gained their applause, he had the prophets of Baal at his command. The test
he had proposed was so fair that they could not reasonably object to it, and the voice
of the people rendered it impossible for them to evade the trial. The prophet of
the Lord accordingly pressed the matter home upon his adversaries in the words
of the text. They were obliged to proceed to the trial which ended in their
discomfiture.

I. THEIR PRAYER WAS EARNEST, 1, They began early. (1) Everything seems to
have been in readiness soon after daybreak; so that almost as soon as their Apollo
looked out of the eyelids of the morning the cry arose, ‘‘O Baal, hear us!” (2)
Worshippers of Jehovah should not be less zealous. The early morning was
chosen by His devoted servants (see Gen. xix. 27; xxii. 3; Exod, xxiv. 4; Jobi. 5;
Psa. v. 3; lix. 16; Ixxxviii. 13; Mark i. 35). Such exercises will be a noble
preparation for the day. 2. They persisted. (1) They continued their supplica-
tions until noon. As the sun rolled upwards in the heavens their hopes rose. As
it neared the zenith they felt it was now or never, and 850 voices in full chorus
eried, “O Baal, hear us!” (2) Even when the noon point was turned and their god
was sinking in the west, still they urged their suit, adding to their entreaties
frantic gestures and mingling their own blood with their sacrifice. (3) Idolatry
is essentially cruel, and in this contrasts strongly with the service of Jehovah (see
Levit. xix. 28; Deut. xiv.1). The cruel penances of Rome are kindred to those
of Baal’s servants. ‘The devil is a murderer.” Of bodies. Of souls. (4) Per-
sistency should mark the servants of God. Jacob wrestled all night with the
angel at Penuel, and at daybreak prevailed. The parable of the importunate
widow was given to impress this lesson. We should ask wntil we receive. (5)
How blessedly has persistency been rewarded! Ministers have seen this; parents;
Sunday-school teachers; tract distributors.

I]. Bur ir was misprrecrep. 1. Their god was contemptible. (1) He was
destitute of the attributes they ascribed to him. The sun, though a glorious body,
is but matter. It has no more intelligence than a flint. How the intellects ag
well as the eyes of men are dazzled with splendour! (2) How different is the true
God! He is a Spirit—invisible—omniscient—omnipresent—omnipotent—holy—
just—good. He claims, and should receive, the homage of all our faculties. 2.
‘Their worship, therefore, was ridiculous. (1) So Elijah thought when he stung

them with mockery. ‘He is a god!” (S17 pbs 3) he is a supreme god!
Here is a fine stroke of irony. This weapon of rhetoric was used by our Lord—
“ Art thou a master in Israel and knowest not these things?” (2) “He is talking.”
He is so stunned with the thunder of his own voice and with the voices of his
associates in the pantheon that he cannot hear the ordinary voices of mortals.
Therefore ‘‘cry aloud.” Or “he is (n'w) meditating” (margin)—in a brown study,
in a reverie—and must be roused. (8) ‘Or he is pursuing,” or “ hath a pursuit.”
He is so engaged with some other matter that he cannot hear your feeble voice.
What sort of god is yours? (4) ‘Or he isina journey ”—so far away that yo
prayer will be useless unless you can cry aloud. (5) “Or peradventure he sleepeth
and must be awaked.” You must first raise a clamour about his ears to arouse
him, or you pray in vain. How doubtful must be the success of a? yore set
to such a god! 3. Ridicule was righteously applied. (1) It should never ie
substituted for reason, as too often it is. It is a favourite weapon with sceptics
who are at a loss for an argument. (2) But where reason is wasted upon stupidity
then it is fitting. Elijah was silent from sunrise till noon, when the experiment
had a fair trial and failed. ‘Then he rallied the idolaters with a ridicule that was446 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu. xvi. 1—46.

full of argument. (3) When evening set in they gave up the contest in despair.
There is an evening coming in which all contests with Jehovah shall so terminate.

—J. A.M.

Vers. 30—35.—The Preparation. As the time of the evening sacrifice approached,
Tilijah left the priests of Baal prophesying in despair. Satan, if permitted, could
have brought fire down (see Job i. 12,16; Rev. xiii, 13, 14); but God restrained
Sim. The people were now convinced that Baal was not able to hear his priests ;
s0 they drew round Hlijah, and observed the order in which he proceeded with hig
preparation.

I. HE REPAIRED THE ALTAR OF THE LorpD. 1. Then there had been an altar of
the Lord on Carmel. (1) Some great man, as Abraham or Samuel, had built an
altar there. Its relics remained a memorial of the piety of earlier times. Influence
for good or evil is posthumous. (2) This mount was, in consequence, reputed as
holy. Perhaps this determined Elijah in his choice. Holy places were formerly
more important than they are under this spiritual dispensation (see Mal. i. 11;
John iv. 20—24; 1 Tim. ii. 8). 2. But this altar had been “ broken down.” (1)
Not only had it fallen into decay, but it had suffered from the hand of violence.
Probably this was one of the sad evidences of the wicked zeal of Jezebel. It was
significant of the apostasy of the times (see ch. xix. 14; Rom. xi. 2, 3). Idolatry
was in favour at court; courtiers therefore favoured it; so did the multitude who
followed the fashions. (2) Such influences still are potent. Idolatrous fashions
in dress. In furniture. Evenin religion. 8. Hlijah would not use the altar wsed
by the priests of Baal. (1) The service of Jehovah must be pure. It must not be
contaminated by the remotest connection with idolatrous abominations. Let us
search our hearts (see 2 Cor. vi. 15—18). (2) In repairing the disused altar of
Jehovah, Elijah showed that his was no new religion, but that of the fathers of the
nation. So he significantly rebuked the apostasy. 4. Twelve stones were employed
on the reparrs. (1) This was “ according to the number of the sons of Jacob, unto
whom the word of the Lord came, saying, Israel shall be thy name.” This was
done to show that, though ten of the tribes had separated from the house of David,
still, in worship there should be no division (see Gen. xxxii. 28; Exod. xxiy. 4;
Josh. iv. 5, 20). (2) ‘The twelve stones being for the twelve tribes were the
mystical body of Him who was their sacrifice and altar both, or who offered His
own body, and suffered in it, and who was promised to be accepted in the name

(Os) Israel, i.e. WY) pleasing to, right with, or wpright before (Oss) the Lord”
(see Matt. iii. 17). But (8) It was also prophetic of the healing of all schisms
in the mystical body of Christ in the happy time to come (see Ezek. xxxvii. ol, 22).
(4) All this the prophet did ‘in the name of the Lord” (ver. 32). By His direction ;
therefore with notable significance. For His glory. And since God so expressly
authorized such a deviation from the Levitical law, does it not indicate that that
law had its principal value in its typical teaching, and that when the antitypes
came it should pass away? (See Col. ii. 22; Heb. viii. 13.)

I]. Hm PREPARED THE SACRIFICE. 1. “He put the wood in order.” (1) Why
did he not dispense with the wood? ‘The celestial fire certainly did not need it,
for it fell upon the sacrifice before it touched the wood, and was so fervent that
nothing could stand before it. Stones and dust could no more resist it than wood.
Had the wood been intended for fuel, would the prophet have overflowed it with water?
(2) The order was usual in sacrifices. It was observed for typical purposes. The
holocaust was a type of Christ, our Sacrifice, who, when consumed in the holy fires
of the Godhead on the altar of Calvary, was laid on. the wood of the Cross, 2. He
poured water upon the sacrifice. (1) He poured it in great quantity and with
much deliberation, for in preparing the altar he dug a trench to receive the over-
flow (vers. 82—35). The water probably came from a deep well-spring in the
mountain side rather than from the Kishon, The Mediterranean seems ozt of
the question. Josephus states the well to have been the source (Ant. viii, 138),
(2) [t was conveyed in four barrels, and these were filled and emptied three times,
thus making twelve. Here again we meet with the number of the tribes of Israel.CH. xvi. 1—46,]

 

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 447
LL a

The order, viZ., in sets of four three times repeated, was that of the st i

high priest’s breastplate, upon which were engraven the names of the trib e a
Could this sign be intended to show that a plentiful rain would shortly snide ig
all Israel? And further, that it should come through the repentance ofthe rahe
for whose sin it had been withhoiden? That it should come throuch ‘he Sanh
of the people from the altar of Baal to that of Jehovah? Tf'so. then iin ds ee
the gospel also is preached to us. We too must be saved from spiritual droucht

and death through repentance towards God and faith in Christ.—J. A. ]

 

dro. ht

Vers. 86—40.—The Triwmph. While Elijah completed his preparations for
offering up his sacrifice, the prophets of Baal, who had failed to vindicate their
religion, were hoping that the servant of Jehovah likewise might fail, It was
matter of history that Jehovah had answered by fire. (See Gen. iv. 5: Levit. ix. ve
Judg. vi. 21; 1 Chron. xxi. 26.) About a century before this that fire came from
heaven which was still kept burning upon the altar at Jerusalem (2 Chron. vii. 1)
But Carmel is not Jerusalem; and Jehovah has not promised to record His isthe
here. And, should Elijah fail, then would they fall upon him and destroy him
Yet, on the other hand, he is an extraordinary servant of Jehovah; his word con.
cerning the rain and dew has come true: so may his confidence respect
answer of fire be honoured. Such thoughts flashed through their minds
moment has arrived; the preparations are complete. Now observe—

I. THE prayer. 1. It is offered at the time of the evening sacrifice. (1) The
stated evening sacrifice is now on the temple altar. Elijah holds communion with
that altar. He, too, though on Carmel, is a true worshipper of the God of David.
There are differences in religious worship sanctioned by God which must not be
accounted schism. Protestant Nonconformists are not necessarily schismaties,
(2) It is the “hour of prayer.” Prayer should ascend with the sacrifice ; Christ
should be in all our supplications. The hour of prayer was the “ninth hour”’
(Acts ii. 1), that hour in which Jesus “ cried with a loud voice, and yielded up his
spirit” (Matt. xxvii. 50). So in submission must we yield up our spirits with his
in prayer to God. 2. It pleads for the honour of God. (1) It reminds Him of
His covenant. ‘‘ Jehovah Elohim of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel.” With these
patriarchs He had established His covenant. They knew nothing of Baal’s cove-
nants. (2) “Let it be known this day that thon art God in Israel.” Let those
who will not acknowledge Thee be confounded. (See Josh. ii. 11.) Let those who
repent be reconciled to ‘Thy favour. (8) ‘‘ Let it be known this day in Israel that
I am thy servant, and that I have done all these things at thy word.” Else to
have so acted would have been the height of presumption. But with the authority
of God mistrust would have been presumption. We are bound to believe the
promises of God. 3. It swes for mercy to the penitent. (1) “Hear me, O Jehovah,
hear me, that this people may know that thou art Jehovah Elohim;” that Thou
art the self-existent, covenant-keeping God, (2) “And that thou hast turned their
heart back again.” ‘The blessings of the covenant are conditioned upon faith.
Without repentance there is no true faith. (3) How few are the words of this
prayer! No vain repetitions. How wide the contrast with the clamour of Baal’s
priests! :

II, Tue response. 1. Then the fire of the Lord fell. (1) There was no mis-
take about it. It was indeed the “fire of Jehovah”—miraculous fire ; for it worked
downwards, contrary to the ordinary operation of fire, which works upwards. The
sacrifice was soon consumed. Then the wood. The water was licked up. The
very stones and dust were vitrified and volatilized. (2) The destruction of bk
altar pointed to the pleasure of God that patriarchal high places should be removed,
and that all Israel should henceforth worship at the Levitical altar of the temple at
Jerusalem. ‘This is the last instance on record in which God accepted a sacrifice
offered on a patriarchal altar. (3) But where now is Baal? Is en pa
fire which was worshipped as a god completely in the hands of Jehovah < _ a the
demonstration was irresistible. (1) ‘‘When all the people saw it they fell as
their faces.” Here was an act of reverence towards God. It was the sign also o

ing this
>; but the448 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu. xvi. 1—46,

 

their renunciation of Baal. (2) This confession in symbol was accompanied by a
corresponding confession in words. ‘ And they said, Jehovah, he is the Elohim :
Jehovah, he is the Elohim.” Words are signs of a fuller expression. (8) But
words must be followed up by deeds. The prophets of Baal have now to be
sacrificed. The law required this. (See Deut. xii. 1—I1l.) They were accordingly
slaughtered by the brook Kishon. Thus was returned upon their heads the
slaughter of the prophets of the Lord. (See vers. 4, 13.) (4) The retribution was
complete. Some are of opinion, because the ‘prophets of Baal only are men-
tioned, that the 400 prophets of Ashere were absent and escaped. But this does not
follow, for the prophets of Ashere might be included under the designation ‘prophets
of Baal,” as Saul’s sons are included in his name. (See 1 Sam. xxx1, 8—13;
2 Sam. xxi. 13.) The prophets of Ashere certainly were present. (See vers. 19, 20;
also ch. xix. 1.) Let us confess the Lord. In signs: observing His sacraments
and ordinances of worship public and private. In words: confessing Him before
men upon all fitting occasions. In deeds: bringing forth the fruits of good living,
and sacrificing the idolatries that would lead us astray.—J. A. M.

Vers. 41—46. The Sound of Rain. The fire has fallen upon the sacrifice of
Elijah. The people are convinced, renounce Baal, confess Jehovah supreme, and
evince their sincerity by slaying the idolatrous priests. Now there is ‘‘ a sound of
abundance of rain.”’

I. THIS WAS THE SOUND OF SALVATION. 1. Rain was salvation to the nation.
(1) Three years and six months of drought brought it to the point of extinction.
The heavens were brazen; the earth was scorched. The people were blackened
with excessive heat, and worn with want. Their numbers were thinned by death;
survivors moved like skeletons on the edges of their graves. (2) To such the sound
of rain is tidings of life. Let it come, and soon, in such a climate as Palestine,
vegetation will burst into verdure. There will be ‘‘seed for the sower and bread
tor the eater.” 2. It was a sign of spiritual blessings. (1) The kingdom of nature

yas constituted to furnish apt similes of the kingdom of grace. The blooming of
the desert after rain is a familiar figure of spiritual revival. (See Isa. xxxv.; lv.
10—138.) (2) The descent of rain is a figure of the descent of the Holy Spirit upon
the receptive soul (Isa. xxxul. 15). Water, a purifier, refresher, vitalizer, fittingly
sets forth His energies; and as these are active, so in baptism the element should
come wyon the person as rain upon the passive earth. (See Acts ii. 3, 4, 17, 32;
x. 44—48.) 38. Revivals have their premonitions. (1) The sound comes before
the rain. It is heard in the branches of trees, and in the waves of seas and lakes.
So is a coming revival discerned in the Church by emotion under the word,
interest in religious services public and private, and increased evangelistic activity.
(2) This is first heard by the spiritual. Elijah was the first to hear the sound of
the coming rain. It begins in the higher heavens before it reaches the earth.
Those who are muchin prayer have the sensitive ear to hear “ afar off.” (Compare
2 Peter i. 9.)

Il. THE CONDITIONS HAD BEEN FULFILLED. 1, Sin was repented. (1) The
people saw the impoteace of Baal. He could not answer for himself. They were
now convinced of their folly in submitting to such a delusion. So it must be with
every sinner whose eyes are opened. (2) They destroyed the authors of their
delusion, They slew the prophets of Baal. Not one escaped. So in the most
complete manner must our evil lusts be slain. No power must be left to them to
lure us from the truth again. 2. Christ was accepted. (1) Elijah must show
himself to Ahab as a condition of rain (ver.1). Ahab so far accepted him as to
submit to his directions. But Elijah was a type of Christ, without whose revelation
of Himself to us we can have no spiritual grace. (See ch. xvii. 1.) (2) Elijah

was a type of Christ in his person. His name Gis and yds) is ‘*My God
Jehovah,” or, ‘‘ Whose God is he,” expresses the union of God and man in Christ.
(3) He was a type of Christ also in his office. All prophets were types of the One
Great Prophet. Elijah, who was remarkable amongst the number, eminently so.
(4) He, too, united with his office of prophet the functions of the priest. HeOH. XVIII. 1—46,] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 449

offered up th ri . i
as their ac So ee a ee sis ae neers accepted Jehovah
vena: 1. wise accept God in Christ. In toke f
their communion with Jehovah t] : 7 oe
¢ ley appear to have feasted on the sacy
With the burnt offering there were doubtless peace offerings, for these were usual
accompaniments, upon which the worshippers feasted. ‘Chis was the eating and
ng eee - which Elijah moved Ahab (ver. 42), (5) Elijah also was a is of
i i na ee While Ahab and his people were partaking
peace- offerings, jah went up to the top of Carmel, and cast himself down
upon the earth, and put his face between his knees.” He bowed reverently in
prayer with his head towards the ground—an attitude still observed in the Hast
So Christ, in the heights, makes intercession for us. 3. The blessing coibie
(1) While Elijah interceded he sent his servant to look for the signs of the Gothia
biessing. In this parable, in which the prophet is still the type of Christ. hig
servant stands for the Chwrch, whose duty it is to look for the fruits of the
Redeemer’s pleadings. Are we thus looking? (2) The servant went, and went
again and again before he witnessed any sign, in which the lesson to us is that
while Christ pleads we must never be discouraged, but “ hope to the end.” (3)
At the seventh time the promise appeared in a cloud as of a man’s hand risine out
of the sea, which was to be followed by others in rapid succession until the heavens
were “‘ black with clouds and wind,” and the thirsty earth was visited with copious
showers of refreshing rain. This was prophetic of that seventh time, or ‘fulness of
time,” when the hand of God shall act in the sea, or among all nations, and raise
hat “‘ plentiful shower ” which shall refresh His weary inheritance (Psa. lxviii. a);
Meanwhile Elijah sent his servant to Ahab, saying, ‘* Harness the horses, and get
thee down, that the rain stop thee not.” (4) Now the parable is changed. Ahab,
the king of Israel, after the destruction of the prophets of Baal, riding as in
trinmph, and attended by the blessings of heaven, is the type of Christ. So Elijah
runs before him in the spirit and power of God. The Baptist accordingly came
‘in the spirit and power of Elias,” as the forerunner of Christ, in His first advent,
to establish His spiritual kingdom. But Elias, im person, will be His harbinger
when He comes again, in the fulness of His blessing, to establish a visible and

everlasting kingdom (Mal. iv. 5).—J. A. M.

ifices,

Vers. 7—16.—Obadiah. It is a proof of the extremity of distress to which the
land had been reduced by famine that the king himself with one of his highest
officers, the governor of his household, should have gone forth on this expedition in
search of water and pasturage. "Ahe reverence the person of EKhjah inspired is seen
in the behaviour of Obadiah towards him when they met. The brief notice we have
of this man is highly instructive.

I. His ripetiry. His name, Obadiah, “ servant of Jehovah,” is suggestive of
the strength of his religious character. And it was probably no vain boast that he
had always sustained it (ver. 12). It may seem strange that so good a man should
have been willing to remain in the service of such a king, and of a state so
demoralized and disorganized by the spirit of idolatry. But note—1, Lelizious
jidelity wins respect even from those whose own life is most at variance with it.
Ahab must have known that his servant remained true to the God of his fathers,
aud lis being continued in such a post was a testimony to his moral and practical
worth. Like Joseph in the court of Pharaoh, and Daniel in Babylon, *‘ the Spirit
of God was in him,” and the king could find none more worthy of his trust. ‘The
fear of God is after all one of the highest qualifications for the secular businesses
and responsibilities of life, and ‘‘ when a man’s ways please the Lord he maketh
even his enemies to be at peace with him” (Prov. xvi. 7). 2. It is often a noble
thing to stand at the post of duty, however uncongental the moral atmosphere may
be. We have no reason to believe that Obadiah retained his position by any kind
of moral laxity. He did not violate his conscience in maintaining his secular
allegiance. Naaman the Syrian, in the zeal of his new devotion to the God of
Israel, asked a dispensation of forgiveness if he should bow with his master in the
house of Rimmon (2 Kings y. 18), but we have no evidence even of such a com-
1 KINGS, 2GABO THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. fou. xvi. 1—46.

 

promise as this in the case of Obadiah, There are times when religious principle
itself dictates that men should refuse to relinquish positions of peculiar danger and
difficulty ; but when fidelity to an earthly master 1s absolutely incompatible with
fidelity to God, an upright spit will not long hesitate. 9. God moy have some
great purpose jor His servant wm such a case to Sulfil. Obadiah smission may
ave been to mitigate as far as possible the horrors of the famine, to save as he did
the lives of the sons of the prophets (ver. 13); to exert, perhaps, some kind of
restraining influence over the conduct of the king. At all events the presence of
such a man in one of the high places of the land would be a standing proof that
God had not utterly abandoned His people. livery situation in life has its grand
opportunities; when there is no possible way of turning it to good account we
may well forsake it.

Ii. Hrs rear. ‘ What have I sinned?” &c. Faithful as Obadiah was, there
was an element of timidity in his nature. He shrank from the risk the commission
of the prophet imposed on him. His timidity has two aspects. 1. So far as at
meant distrust of Ahab it was natural. He knew only too well his capricious and
despotic temper, and could not rely either on his justice or his clemency. “The
tender mercics of the wicked are cruel’ (Prov. x1. 10). “Tet me not fall into the
hands of man,” &c. (2 Sam. xxiv. 14). 2. So far as it meant distrust of Elijah
or of the protective providence of God tt was wrong. Could he think that the
prophet would abuse his confilence, or that God would be unmindful of him, ana
after allowing him, for no fault of his own, to be involved in danger, would leave
him to his fate? This shows weakness, and was unworthy of the character he
bore. The best of men have their seasons of weakness, and fail sometimes under
the pressure of unwonted circumstances to maintain the very virtues for which they
are most distinenished. The meek-spirited Moses is impetuous; the saintly David
falls a prey to grovelling passion; the brave Peter proves a coward.

Ill. THE TRIUMPH OF HIS FIDELITY OVER HIS FEAR. ‘The solemn asseveration of
Elijah (ver. 15) rouses the braver spirit in him, and he responds to the call and
goes to meet Ahab. When there is true nobility of character in a man, a word, a
flash of light upon the realities of the situation, will often be enough to move him
to put forth all his strength and shake off the spell of meaner feeling that may for a
while have fallen upon him.—W. |

Ver. 21.—A solemn alternative. It must have been by special Divine direction
that Elijah was moved thus to put the relative claims of God and of Baal toa
public test. The command to gather the priests and people together on Carmel
was one that Ahab, defiant as he was, dared not resist. We may suppose these
words to have been uttered just before the crisis of the tragedy, when the people
were waiting in breathless silence and suspense upon the issue. Nothing is more
impressive than a pause like this before some expected catastrophe. The prophet
improves it by making one brief pointed appeal to the judgment and conscience of
the people. ‘‘ How long?” &e. His voice of stern, yet sorrowful, rebuke must have
struck deep intomany hearts; but “they answered him not a word.’’ “ Halting be-
tween two opinions ” was probably a true description of the mental condition of the
creat mass of the people. Some, no doubt, were blind devotees of the reigning
idolatry ; others consented to its rites, and practised them through fear of the penalty
of resistance, or in hope of some form of secular reward. But the greater part of
them were just in this state of moral hesitancy, leaning sometimes to one side and
sometimes to the other, swayed by the influences that happened to be strongest
upon them at the time. It was the fatal defect of their national character, the sad
heritage of earlier days—the ‘“‘ forty years’ provocation in the wilderness.” What
have we here but a true picture of religious indecision ? Learn from the prophet’s
remonstrance—

I. THE RESPONSIBILITY OF EVERY MAN AS REGARDS HIS OWN RELIGIOUS OPINIONS.
That the people are rebuked for “halting between two” implies their power and
obligation to decide. ‘‘ Opinions,” mental judgments, convictions (marg. “ thoughts”),
these are the root from which the fruits of allreligious feeling and action grow. HereCH. Xvi1I, 1—46.] THE FIRST BOOK oF KINGS. 45]

lies the secret guiding and formative power of a man’s life. “ As a man think th j
his heart, so is he.” It is thought that inspires affection, m lds ] ko eae ie)
een athe Bee 1, ow ds character, guides the
: oes conduct, rules the man. We cannot vy ell exaggerate the importance
of the relation thought bears to the highest interests of our beince But toe ar
thees ‘ thoughts” of ours determined ? Every man’s religious ideas and beliaty,
Say some, are determined for him by a thousand influences over which he has no
control—by early education, by the books that fall in his way, by human associa-
tions, native temperament, conformation of brain, &e. There is & measure of truth
in this that we dare not ignore. ‘These things have a great deal to do with the matter
and the fact should modify our judgment of the mental position of others in relation
to religious truth, and teach us to watch carefully the bearing on ourselves of such
influences. Many of us owe our Christian beliefs far more than we imagine to the
force of favouring circumstances. We may well thank God that it is so; for as we
mourn to think how many things there are that tend to distort the truth and hide
1t from man’s eyes, So we rejoice that there should be go many channels through
which the Light of Life may find its way into the soul. But however this may be
God holds every one of us under obligation to think for himself, judge for himself,
believe for himself; to use with uprightness of spirit all the means within his reach
for the formation of right opinions, to welcome and follow the light that shines from
heaven upon his way.
i Il. Tar fe OF A PRACTICAL CARRYING OUT OF ONE’S OWN HONEST CONVICTIONS.

If the Lord be God, follow him.” The startling “sign” that was about to be
given them was intended to decide this grave alternative. ‘‘ The God that answereth
by fire, let him be God.” It was great condescension in Jehovah to suffer His
claims to be thus put in seeming competition with those of Baal. But the prophet
would have the decision of the people to spring from real conviction, and that con-
viction to be based on sufficient proof. And then letit be a practical decision—
final, conclusive, manifest. Let there be an end to all this miserable vacillation,
this shameful subserviency to the leading of Ahab and Jezebel and the Baal priest-
hood, this dark dishonour done to the God of Israel by the multiplication all over
the land of heathen groves and altars. Alltrue religious thoughts and opinions have
reference to a true life. They are hollow and worthless unless consummated in
this. ‘Faith without works is dead being alone” (James ii.17). A heavy con-
demnation rests on those who “ profess that they know God, but in works deny him”
(Titusi. 16). It is a fatal inconsistency to believe ina God and yet not ‘*‘ follow Him.”
Have you true religious ideas and convictions? Translate your thinking into
life.

Ifl. THE URGENCY OF THE NEED FOR THIS PRACTICAL DECISION. “ Howlong?”
&c. We may suppose that the prophet was not only impressed with the tardiness
of that generation in declaring once for all for the service of Jehovah, but with the
memory of the weary provocation of the past, When will Israel be true and stead-
fast in her allegiance toher God and King? Itis in every respect unreasonable, un-
manly, and infinitely perilous to allow the question of your religious position to
remain uusettled.—W.

Ver, 21.—Religious Indecision. Describe the gathering of the people upon Mount
Carmel: the suffering they had endured from the long-continued drought; the
eager expectancy of the secret worshippers of Jehovah, and the reappearance of
Elijah the prophet; the general readiness to obey thesummons to witness a decisive
contest, &e. The descent into national idolatry had been gradual. One step had
made the next easy, and sometimes inevitable, till now the chosen nation was In
the deepest degradation. Of this many of them were scarcely conscious. They So
followed the example set by the court without remonstrance and Se
The opportunity for consideration had come at last. Elijah abruptly are w, a
self into the current of national life—like a gigantic rock in the stream, which canno
itself be stirred, but whose presence must makeitself felt, and may divert the stream
into another channel.’ The test he proposed to the people was obviously bia a
deed, it appeared to give every advantage to the worshippers of Baal. It was no

SF Ns in ct SOT ar452 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [on. xvi. 1—46.

 

 

fire but rain that the thirsty land required ; but had hesaid, “The God that answereth
by rain, let him be God,” Baal’s priests might argue that it was not water but fire
that their God could rule. Elijah would fight the idol on his own chosen ground.
Show how often advantage seems to be given to God’s adversaries, as if they were
allowed to make out the best cause they could, yet all to no effect. The wisdom of
the world was left to the Church’s foes. The people were not asked to do what was
rrational, but were to have evidence, and this evidence was to be adapted to their
ensuous character. Religion appeals to a man as toa rational being. ‘The sin
with which Elijah charged the people on Carmel was 7¢ligious indecision, which we
now consider.

I. Tur CoNDITION OF INDECISION. 1. It implies some enlightenment on religious
subjects. Many heathen exist even in a Christian land. Living under the shadow
of our sanctuaries, they are profoundly ignorant of God, of His claims, and of His
gospel. They are not halting “between two opinions,” for they have no opinion
about a relicious life, but are decided in their godlessness. Such was not the
condition of Israel, nor of their modern representatives. There is no want of in-
tellectual knowledge of scriptural truth complained of here. 2. It implies contra-
diction between theory and practice. The Israelites would not have denied the
Divine interpositions of the past, and many would have admitted that the temple at
Jerusalem was originally the true place for worship, &c. Like some in Crete, in Paul’s
days, “they profess that they know God, but in works they deny him.” 38. It implies
dissatisfaction with present condition. ‘They were like men longing for something
which they have not yet resolved to seek. So at Athens, some who heard Paul felt
that his words were so wise and weighty that they exclaimed, ‘‘ We will hear thee
again of this matter.’ They were moved by transient feeling, like Felix (Acts
xxiv. 25) and Agrippa (Acts xxvi. 28). To all such comes this protest against
vacillation.

Il. THE CAUSES OF INDECISION. 1. Want of thoughtful consideration. Many
speculate about religion who have never yet cried, “‘ What must I do to be saved ?”
A busy life diverts them from earnest thought, their powers being absorbed in
worldly affairs. Ora frivolous habit of mind may prove their bane. 2. Deficiency
of personal courage. It would require courage under Jezebel’s rule to become
worshippers of Jehovah. Give instances of the difficulties which beset earnest men
in modern life, the necessity sometimes arising for true heroism on the part of
those who would follow Christ. 3. Tendency to procrastination. To-day is devoted
to that which is evident to the senses, to-morrow to that which concerns the soul.
Examples:

Ill. THE CONSEQUENCES OF INDECISION. 1. Increase of difficulties. Evil habits
erow in strength. The simple spray of ivy can be gathered by a child’s hand, but
after the growth of years, though it is killing the tree, you cannot tear it off. A
worldly man who is now impervious to good never meant to be what he is, but he
expected that when the stress of making his position was over he would have time
and inclination to attend to affairs of the soul. Imperceptibly God seems to have
‘‘oiven him over to a reprobate mind, because he did not choose to retain God in
his knowledge.” 2. Loss of opportunity. Tiven if it were easier to decide for God
next year, it would be madness to delay. ‘‘ Boast not thyself of to-morrow,” &c.
Read the parable of the Rich Fool—Luke xii. 38. Irreparable ruin. If God’s op-

portunity is lost, it will not be re-created after death. See how Christ spoke of

Capernaum, of Chorazin, and of Jerusalem. ‘‘ But now they are hid from thine

eyes.” ‘‘ He that is filthy, let him be filthy still.” In face of such penalties press

home the question on the undecided, ‘‘ How long halt ye between two opinions ?”
TT)

rks Ue

Ver. 44.—Elijah’s Prayer for Rain. The wonders which accompanied the ministry
of Elijah were not meaningless prodigies. ‘Those who question the wisdom of
miracles should remember that the condition of those for whom they were intended
rendered them necessary. Sensuous men must learn through their senses, and
worshippers of material force maist be met by physical displays of power. We doCH. XviiI. 1—46.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 453

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

not try to instruct a child by an essay, or to convince a savace by a syllogism
God could speak directly to the devout patriarchs; but when the worshippers of
Baal were to know that there was a living God, they saw the fire from heasen. ee
heard the bursting of a storm alter years of drought. Idolatry had just been swept
away by a whirlwind of popular execration. The time had therefore come for the
curse to be removed. Elijah with a premonition of the distant rain bade kine and
people eat of the sacrificial feast, while he went up the mountain to pray. Six
times his servant ascended the loftiest peak of Carmel, and came back to say that
there was no sign of change; but the seventh time, gazing over the blue expanse
of the Mediterranean, he saw a cloud tiny as a man’s hand, which was the pledge
of answered prayer, for soon the heavens were “ black with clouds,” and over the
thirsty land there was “a great rain.” In dealing with events of Old Testament
history, we must guard ourselves against giving a fanciful interpretation which can-
not be reasonably justified; but we must not forget, on the other hand, that such
incidents reveal great principles which run through the whole economy of God, in
the moral as well as in the physical world.

I. THE SPIRITUAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BLESSING souGHT. The New Testament
justifies us in regarding the rain which Elijah prayed for as a type of the Holy
Spirit, without whom our hearts are barren, and the moral world is dead. See, for
instance, how boldly the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews evolves from the
tabernacle what those who constructed it little imagined. Take as another example
the allusion which Paul makes to the rock in the wilderness, in which he says em-
phatically, ‘‘ That rock was Christ.” Recall passages in which the descent of the Spirit
is likened to the falling of rain and the distilling of dew. Points of analogy: the
grounds on which the heavenly blessing is withheld; the misery that follows its
absence ; the preparation and prayer for its coming ; the subsequent fertility of the
barren land, &. The sins of our age are not unlike those of Elijah’s time, though
they are less gross in form. The enervating luxuries of civilization, the indiffer-
ence of many to the decline of religion, the deification of force and of lust, are
examples. ‘There has been a forsaking of the Lord on the part of His people, and
hence this barrenness of good, in spite of all our toil; because there is a withhold-
ing of the gracious influences of the Divine Spirit. May He ‘come down as rain
upon the mown grass, and as showers that water the earth.”

Il. THE SPIRITUAL PREPARATION FOR THE BLESSING PROMISED. 1. Self-forget-
fulness. Elijah was personally provided for, and would lack nothing. His heart
bled, however, for the suffering people. For them he prayed. We want more of
such soul-burdening on the part of parents and pastors. 2. Reformation. By the
execution of the false prophets, Elijah had done all that in him lay to put away
evil. Sins are obstacles in the way of descending blessings. We cannot win the
Holy Spirit by good conduct, but we may hinder His work by oursin. Sinisa bar
across the sluice-gates of benediction, and must be removed or broken before the
dry channel can be flooded. 38. Prayer. Itis in the Epistle of James that we are
told that Elijah’s prayers brought both the drought and the rainfall. The fact
that the prophet heard the sound of abundance of rain stimulated his supplication,
and did not prevent it. He did not argue that God would send the storm whether
he prayed or not, but believed that the reception of blessing was inseparably con-
nected with the offering of prayer. Similarly the Holy Spirit was promised to the
disciples, but they met to pray till He came. “Ask, and you shall receive. ars
Watchfulness. Elijah was so sure of God’s fidelity and goodness that he sent his
servant seven times to look for the faintest sign of rain. We need watchfulness for
the following reasons: (1) The answer to prayer does not eipaets, cna hemo
how we expect it. H.g., we ask for holiuess, and God sends an illness, in age
our murmuring closes our heart against the very blessing that is open nearing ae
Or we pray for spirituality, and have the possibility of 1t presenter. te Wa Hie
unexpected joy, which too often makes us more worldly than gra ont ‘ i :
treat God for the salvation of our child; and because we do not Weep we): al
recognize the sign and pledge of the Holy Spirit's work : ee an eRe eT
tioning and simple prayer. (2) T he answer to prayer may be Long delayed, J454 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. (cu. xvi. 1—46.

 

was not discouraged even by the sixth repetition of the despairing phrase, “There is
nothing.” Yet on that very day his one earnest ery had instantaneously brought
down fire from heaven, How often like the Psalmist we say, ‘‘ Hath God forgotten
to be gracious?” ‘“ Wait on the Lord, wait patiently for him.” (3) Phe answer
to prayer may begin in what seems trifling. A eloud the size of a man’s hand,
hardly describable on the horizon, was enough to transfer Ely ah’s prayer into praise.
Little in itself, it was the beginning of a glorious blessing. The baptism of the
Holy Spirit will not suddenly fill the world with worshippers ; but it will be seen,
perhaps, in the turning to God of one lad, who shall prove the Elijah of his age; or
in the new light given to one who has long been under the shadow of doubt; or in
some holy resolve, some noble thought that shall presage blessing to the world.
Slight and insignificant as it may seem, gratefully welcome it, and still hope, and
wait, and pray, till He ‘“‘ come and rain righteousness upon us. —A. Rh.

Vers. 21—40.—The God that answereth by fire. 1. Isparw’s sin (ver. 21).
1. Its nature: indecision, a want of whole-hearted devotion ; ‘* How long halt
ye?” &c.. They tried to combine both worships, bowing before Jehovah in secret,
and publicly before Baal in the assemblies commanded by the court. There are
two who contend to-day for our devotion and service—the world and God (1 John
ii. 15). The world has its rewards and demands; God has His. 2. Its folly.
Both cannot be served. What we build in obedience to one we cast down in
obedience to the other. “Ifthe Lord be God, follow him,” &c. 3. The necessity
for its abandonment. The messenger sent to announce blessing (ver. 1) must
first convince of sin and secure its removal. The blessings of God stand at the
door, but they can enter only as our sins are cast out.

Il. THe CHALLENGE (vers. 22—24). 1. A false test rejected. Baal seemed
triumphant. Elijah stood alone, the prophets of Baal were many, and yet the cause
had still to be decided. The pretensions of a faith are not established by numbering
its adherents and weighing their influence. Truth has often stood alone, and may
stand alone again. 2. The true test proposed. Baal’s claims and Jehovah’s are
put to the proof. There is wrath against the land; which willremove the cause of
it ? By which will the sin offering laid upon the altar be accepted and the iniquity
be removed? That test which alone met Israel’s need could alone prove Israel’s
God. 8. The true test accepted. ‘‘ And all the people answered and said, It 1s well
spoken.” Israel’s answer will yet be the ery of all nations, The heart of the world
will yet acknowledge the true God’s work. :

III. Tue peciston (vers. 25—89). 1. Baal tried and found wanting. (1) The
first choice was given to the priests of Baal. The world has had time enough to
prove the truth of its pretensions, and to show whether it can meet man’s need.
The sacrifice has long lain uponits altar. (2) The earnestness of the false prophets.
The failure is not due to lack of effort on the part of the world’s votaries. There
is no path which has not been trod to find whether the world has aught to satisfy
the cry of man’s soul; there is no sacrifice it has called for that has been withheld.
(3) Their perseverance. Midday, the hour of the sun’s might, was past, yet still
they cried and cut themselves, &. The boundless faith and unwearied efforts of
the world’s worshippers. (4) The failure. The sacrifice lay unconsumed upon the
altar, lay still there hastening to corruption, when the darkness fell and the priests
lay weltering in their blood. 2. God tried and proved. (1) God’s altar built in
the face of the world’s discomfiture (vers. 29, 80). It was reared about the time of
the evening sacrifice. ‘In the fulness of the times.’ ‘* After that in the wisdom
of God the werld by wisdom knew not God, it pleased,” &c. (1 Cor. i. 21). The
vanity of the world’s way was proved ere Christ was manifested. (2) The altar
was cone on which God had been served before (‘‘ He repaired the altar of the Lord
which was broken down’’). What was lost in the first is restored in the second
Adam. ‘The accepted sacrifice must be offered upon a perfect manhood. (8) God
proved to the uttermost (83—385). There is nothing where that sacrifice is set which
the fire of God will not kindle-and change into the glory into which that sacrifice
itself is lifted, (4) The answer. The fire fell; the accepted sacrifice went up inCH. XVIII. 1—46.} THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 455

 

living flame which kinc i

g fils <indle pod

Bnei tien ae d all things round it—wood, stones, dust, water. We
ne Own way without receiving an answer which will hft fr
the heart’s depths the ery, “The Lord, he is God.” ans

LV. THE JUDGMENT OF
: DGME} THE FALSE PROPHETS. The mani 1 ;
is the hour of sin’s overthrow.—J. U. RHSOPHIE O8, pgs ea

Vers. 41—46.— The return in¢
PerPats e return of blessing. I. ELIJAH’sS ASSURANCE oF Gov’s MERCY
tere 18 a sound of abundance of rain,” but it was only as yet a sound in the
= ) 4 ge a yas yet a Le
prophet's ear. does Lee ground of the assurance. (1) God had promised (ver, 1)
He would therefore fulfil His word. (2) The preliminary work which He had
i ; r ‘ ; ) LL € lat
sent ee ig do was accomplished. The people’s heart was turned. Their sin
ae eres aay png curse would surely, then, be also removed. We build a
ul miechtier trus ocd’ Sis hi »
F Nort on on od’s consistency, ‘He that spared not his own son,’
ae fi) aa ae Le made of at. He said unto Ahab,” and through him to all
S 4 ; O- AS " » . = in : 3 .

Tae’, “evthee up, «xc, The work of the believer is to comfort God’s people,

and strengthen their expectation of good.
. His PREVAILING W i ,

a - Eeey AILING win, Con. 1. Uhe assurance of God's mercy does not
exclude prayer. Ahab went up to eat and drink,” but “ Ejijah went up to the
top of Carmel.” The worldling may expect good and know nothing of supplication ;
not so with the man of God. Expectation is but encouragement to prayer. The
desire that the blessing might come at once and cause the seed of faith to spring up
in the people s hearts, made earnest prayer more necessary to Elijah than the re-
freshment which his body craved. 2. The utter lowliness of the true worshipper.

‘ i ° a . . F ;

‘* He cast himself down upon the earth.” His face was hid. The man who stands
nearest God is the lowliest of all God’s worshippers. 38. His umportunity. He did
not cease till his prayer was granted. Again and again was the servant sent till the
small cloud was seen. |

Ij1. His ATTEMPT TO PREVAIL WITH MAN. 1. His message to Ahab (* Prepare,”
&c.) showed his care for the king. He was a foe to the sin, but not to the man.
2. He honoured him. He ‘ran before Ahab to the entrance of Jezreel.” The
mighty prophet became the erring king’s servant. The ministers of God must seek

é fe * ° . . .
to win the sinful as well as to smite their sin. Hatred and contempt will neither
a
advance God’s cause nor man’s well-being.—J. U.

Vers. 1—46.— Elijah and the Prophets of Baal. Elijah is now prepared for his
work. He who had sent him into the desert now commands him to enter into
open conflict with idolatry. God makes His will known to him in two ways.

I. By AN INWARD IMPULSE.

Ii. THroucH His MEETING WITH THE YouNG OBapDIAN, the protector of the
prophets, and the faithful servant of God in the midst of the impure court of Ahab.
Let it be ours to seek such a twofold assurance of the will of God. Let us not rest
satisfied with an inward impulse, lest we be led astray by an illusive mysticism ; let
us watch also the indications of Providence. The wisdom that cometh down from
above is not a blind leading; it can give a reasonable explanation of its motives.
It learns to read the will of God at once in the book of the heart and in that of
Providence. In his decisive interview with Ahab, Elijah shows us how we are to
contend with the idolatry which is always at the root of every doctrine hostile to
God. 1. The first element of strength is his manly and indomitable courage. ‘To
the king’s insolent question, ‘‘ Art thou he that troubleth Israel ?’’ he replies, ‘‘ I
have not troubled Israel, but thou and thy father’s house, in that ye have forsaken the
commandments of the Lord, and thou hast followed Baalim” (ver. 18). He only will be
victorious in the battle for theright who does not fear to denounce, without flinching,
the sin of his people, and to say, like John the Baptist to the mighty ones, whether
in the realm of society or of science, “It is not lawful for thee (Matt. xiv.)
Wherever sin is, the witness for truth and righteousness must first strike home to
the conscience before attempting to convince the mind. 2. Everything in the
language of Elijah breathes a full asswrance of victory. He knows that he has on
his side that strength of God which he has proved. To believe that we shall beTHE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cou. x1x. I—21.

456

 

victorious is already to have half won the battle. 3. Ehjah’s irresistible weapon 18
prayer. ‘’ Hear me, O Lord, hear me ; that this people may know that thou art
the Lord God, and that thou hast turned their heart back again (ver. 8 ). If we
now look away from Elijah himself to the plan he proposed to pursue in his warfare
against idolatry, we shall see that no better is possible for us to-day. He does not
multiply arguments in dealing with his adversaries; he meets them on the common
ground of experience. He gives practical rather than theoretical demonstration of
the power of God. Here are the priests of Baal assembled on Mount Carmel. On
their side are the people, the favour of the king, the confidence of the public.
Elijah stands alone, and yet he feels he is not alone, for God is with him. The
heaven, closed for long months against the fertilizing rain, in punishment of the
perverseness of Israel, seems a vault of iron and brass. Will it ever melt again,
and spread life in soft reviving showers over the land? In vain Ahab has sent his
servants up and down throughout the country ; the water springs have all failed.
The one question in all hearts is, What intercession may avail to draw down the rain
once more from heaven? Elijah offers a challenge full of bitter irony to the priests
of Baal. May he not lawfully do so, as the messenger of Him of whom it is said
that ‘‘He shall laugh at the mighty ones who exalt themselves against him re
(Psa. ii. 4.) In vain the priests cry, and leap, and cut themselves with stones, in
their savage rites ; there comes no answering voice from their deaf and dumb idol.
But at the prayer of Elijah the heavens re-open, and his God reveals Himself in the
glory of His power. Champions of the true God, the God of the gospel, defend it,
as Elijah did, against the insolent idolatry of materialism, or of the pantheism
which sets up an idol as monstrous as the Baal of old. Be bold, like Khijah, in
showing the idolaters how deeply they have fallen, Believe in the victory of your
cause ; use the invincible weapon of prayer; and to those who have vainly sought
the living water in the broken cisterns of earth (Jer. 11. 13), show the heavens
opened and the gracious rain descending upon all broken hearts, and bringing the
blessings of a full redemption. Give to our generation this conclusive practical
evidence. Meet the positivism of the infidel with the positivism of the Christian.
This is the surest means of casting down the idol into the dust, without having
recourse to that exterminating sword which the prophet of the old covenant was
commanded to draw upon the idolatrous priests. We live under another dispensa-
tion, and ours is that sword of the Spirit which only wounds to heal.—LE. de P.

EXPOSITION.

CHAPTER XIX. 1--21. unwilling, account of the sacrifices, of the
descent of the heavenly fire, of the cries it
wrung from the people, &c., 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
Cor. iv. 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.

Ver. 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 oD

ELIJAH’S FLIGHT. THE THEOPHANY OF
HorEB AND THE CALLING oF ELisHa.—We
zan 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 proceed-
ings to his imperious and headstrong con-
sort, 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 eye-witness, and that her husband, to

 

the greatness and completeness of Elijah’s
Victory ; that his unprejudiced, and indeed

 

would be usual enough. As that word ig
omitted in some MSS. and versions, it isCH. xIx, 1—21.]

 

 

 

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

457

 

possible it has been inserted by a tran-
scriber, mechanically, from the WDD MN

preceding} all the prophets, [sc., of Baal,
all who were present] with the sword.

Ver. 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, Buhr assumes
that this message had Ahab’s sanction ; Les
that he must have known of it and was too
weak to prevent it. Butitis 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
“Tf thou art Eliou and I Jezebel’’], So let

the gods [As DTN is here found with a
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
Hilijah and of Israel. The LXX., however,
has 6 @edc], do to me, and more also [Heb.
and so let them add. See on ch. ii. 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 Jeph-
thah, the vow of Saul, the vow of Hanni-
bal.” Rawlinson remarks that this oath
was ‘‘ familiar in the mouths of kings about
this time ”’ (1 Kings xx.10; 2 Kings vi. 381).
But it was a standing formula in Israel at
all times. See Ruth i. 17; 1 Sam. iii. 17;
&c.|,if I make not thy life as the life of
one of them by to-morrow about this time.
[‘‘ That queen consort, it seems, was, in
effect, queen regent”? (Henry), What in.
duced 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 exposi-
tors (see, e.g., Hall, vol. ii. p. 396) have
seen in the act a proof of her blind infatua-
tion, 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, Babr, and Words-
worth, 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 suffi-
ciently 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 un-
relenting. 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. |

Ver. 3.—And when he saw that |Heb.
and he saw and arose, &c. But the LXX,
has cai p08, and the Vulgate timuit,
and it is to be observed that this meaning,
‘‘and he feared,” can be extracted from this
word 81") without any change of radicals, for
the full form &" is occasionally abbreviated
into NJ); see 1 Sam. xviii. 12; xxi, 13; 2
Kings xvii. 28. A few MSS. have here
SV) and it certainly suits the context
better. Bahr, 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., Gen. iii. 10;
xv. 1; xviii.15.) Both he and Keil further-
more object to this interpretation that it is
contrary to actual fact, neither of them
being willing to allow that Elijah was
afraid. Bahr says it is inconceivable that
the man who had that day faced alone king
and priestsand 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 carry on his
work of reformation, and by the absence of
any intimation (like that of ch. xviii. 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. vers.
4, 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
(ch. xvii. 2, 8; Xviil. 1). No doubt other
emotions besides that of fear were struggling458

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

fou. xrx. 1—21,

 

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 (ch. xviii. 37), and the great shout of
ver. 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
tne 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”’ (ver. 4)],
he arose, and went for his life [Keil is
compelled, by his refusal to allow that Hhjah
was actuated by fear, to render these words,
“went to commit his soul to God in the
solitude of the desert.” But the meaning
is settled for us by the like expression in
2 Kings vii. 7; nor does Jer. xliv. 7 lend
any support to Keil’s view. Gesenius com-
pares rpéxew wepi Puyijc. Od. ix. 423. The
A. V. exactly represents the meaning], and
came to Beer-sheba [(Gen. xxi. 315; xxvi.
33. The southern boundary of Palestine
(Josh. xy. 28; 2 Sam. xxiv. 7; Judg. xx.1;
1 Chron. xxi. 2, &c.), allotted to the tribe
of Simeon (Josh. xix. 2), which tribe, we
gather from this passage (see also 2 Chron.
xix. 4), was now absorbed in the southern
kingdom. (See note on ch. xi. 31.) Words-
worth suggests that ‘‘ perhaps he resorted
to Beer-sheba in order to strengthen his
faith with the recollection of the patriarchs
who had dwelt there,’ &c. 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 Jezree!*—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. zaWapiov), 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 Jezcbel,
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 itis by no means certain
that this prince, considering his close alliance
with Ahab (ch. xxii. 4; cf. xviii. 10,; 2 Kings
vil. 18; 2 Chron. xviii. 1), would have
sheltered the prophet. Indeed, it is remark-
able, as Blunt has well pointed out (Coincid.

 

pp. 183, 184), that the prophet never took re-
fuge 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 Jehosuaphat. When he
does come in haste to Beer-sheba, ‘it is
after a manner which bespeaks his relue-
tance to set foot within that territory, even
more than if he had evaded it altogether.”
The :eason partly was, no doubt, as Words-
worth says, that his mission was to idola-
trous 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 re-
member 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 xv. 38).]

Ver. 4—But he himself went a day’s
journey into the wilderness [Cf. Gen. xxi.
14, 21; Jer. ix. 2; Rev. xii. 6. Beer-sheba
stands on the fringe of the desert of Ht-V'ih.
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 (ch. xviii. 36); that to
him as to Moses there was granted an
apparition of fire; we now find him re-
jected as Moses had been before him (Acts
vil. 25, 35). How natural that, like Moses,
he should flee into the land of Midian, to
the place where God had spoken with Moseg
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

ch. xiii. 11] juniper tree [The on, here
found with a feminine numeral (Keri,CH. xIx. 1—21.]

 

 

 

 

 

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

    

459

 

mascrline), in ver. 5 witha masculine, ig
not the juniper, but the plant now known
to the Arabs as retem, 1.€., 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
selected, and men sit down and sleep in
order to be protected against wind and
sun’ (Robinson, Pal. vol. i. p. 203). It does
not, however, afford a complete protection
(Thomson, L. and B. vol. ii. pp. 436, 487).
Kvery traveller remarks on its abundance in
the desert ; it gave a name, hithmah, to one
of the stations of the Israelites (Num. xxxiii.
18. Cf. Stanley, 8. and P. pp. 20, 79). Its
roots are still used by the Bedouin, for the
manufacture of charcoal (cf. Psa. cxx. 4,
“coals of rethem’’), 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, Num.
xi. 15; Exod. xxxii. 82] ; and said, It is
enough [or, Let it be enough. LXX. travod-
ofw. See note on ch. xii. 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] ; tor 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 banish-
ment 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. ]

Ver. 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. ny
this ; *‘ behold here,” siehe da, Gesen.}, an
angel {[Heb. messenger ; the same word as in
ver. 2, but explained in ver. 7 to be a
messenger of God. Of. Gen. xvi. 9; xxi.
17} touched [Heb. touching] him, and said
unto him, Ariseand 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 (ver. 4)
was largely the result of physical weakness. ]

Ver. 6.—And he looked, and, behold, there
was a cake [same word as in ch. xvi. 13]
baken on the coals [Heb. a cake of stones, or
coals. LXX. éycpupiac. The thin, flat bread
of the East, especially among the nomadic
desert tribes, is constantly baked in a rude

camping are

 

 

 

Oven, constructed in the sand or goil. 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-
cimericius panis], and a cruse of water at
his head [i.c., the place of hishead. Marg,
bolster. The word is almost used as a
preposition. Cf. 1 Sam. xix. 13; xxvi. TPs
And he did eat and drink, and laid him
down again, (Heb. returned and laid down.]

Ver. 7.—And the angel of the Lord came
again the second time, and touched him
[1.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. Ore odd) ad oot % 656c and the
Vulgate grandis enim tibi restat via, which
Bihr 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.]

Ver. 8.—And he arose, and did eat and
drink, and went in the strength of that
meat forty days and forty nights (Cf.
Hixod. xxiv. 18; xxxiv. 28; Deut. ix. 9, 25;
Jonah ii.4; Matt. iv. 2; Acts i. 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 ’’ (Deut. ix. 9),
or to the forty years during which Israel
Was sustained in this same desert with
‘fangels’ food” (Psa. Ixxvili. 25). It is
noteworthy how both Moses and Ehas
were precursors of our Lord in a forty
days’ fast. ‘‘The three great fasters 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 Beersheba some 130 miles.
‘“There are eleven days’ journey from
Horeb, by the way of Mount Seir to Kadesh
Barnea” (Deut. i. 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 ]uuto Hored the mount
of God. [See note on ch. viii. 9. It is just
possible that Horeb was already known as
‘“the mount of God’’ at the time God ap-
peared to Moses there—the whole of the
Sinaitic peninsula was’ sacred in the eyes
of the Egyptiaus; but it is more probable
that this designation is used in Exod. ii. 1£60

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[cH. xrx. 1—21,

 

proleptically, and that it was bestowed on
the Mount of the Law because of the
special revelation of the Godhead there
(Exod. iii. 6; xix. 8, 11, 18; Deut. i. 6;
ELS: Ve 2 Ge.) ]

Ver. 9.—And he came thither unto a cave
(Heb. the cave. LXX. 76 orn\awy. Many
commentators identify this with ‘‘the clift
of the rock’? where Moses was concealed
while the Lord “ passed by” (Hixod. xxxui.
22), and the use of the same word, DAY

in ver. 11 certainly favours this view. But
is it clear that the clift (19/2) jisswre) was &
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 dcsert,
though at some distance from Horcb, bears
at this day the name of Magharah, or cave.
But there is a “narrow grot’’ pointed out
by tradition as the abode of Elijah, on the
side of Jebel Musa. ‘‘ 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 aman’s body, which does not agree with

ver. 13], and lodged io means strictly to
pass the night. it is possibly connected
radically with 1599] there; and, behold, the
word of the Lord came to him [Not ‘in
vision as he slept” (Rawlinson). He could
not “goforth” in his sleep. That he was
to go forth ‘“‘on the morrow” is equally
unlikely see ver. 11, note], and he said
unto him, What doest thou here, Elijah ?
[Many writers, Bahr 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 (vers. 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 ver. 14 (where see
note), certainly betrays, not only irritation
and despair, but a “carnal zeal which
would gladly have called down the ven-

 

geance 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 Clericus, “ Quast Deus diceret nihil esse
Eliae negotit in solitudine, sed potius in locis
habitatis, ut illic homines ad veri Det cultum
adduceret.”)

Ver. 10.—And he said, I have been very
jealous (Cf. Num. xxv. 11, which the pro-
phct may have had in his mind. But the
jealousy of Phinehas was in harmony with
that of God (ver. 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 deities ; cf. 2 Kings
xxl. 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 memo-
ries of the covenant all around him],
thrown down thine altars [cf. ch. xviii. 30,
note. Itis 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 ch. xviii. 18 escaped, of which we can-
not be certain, others did not]; and I, even
I only, am left [See note on ch. xviii. 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 (ver. 18)]; and
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. Bahr, as before, is very
positive that there is no complaint or mur-
muring 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.CH. XIX. 1—21.]

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

461

 

 

 

 

 

 

Paul speaks of him as pleading with God
against Israel (tvrvyyave TO Oey) Kara Tov
Iopa7X. Rom. xi. 2), and certainly repre-
sents the yonuariopdc he received as a cor-
rection. And the idea which this verse,
taken in connexion with the prophet’s flight
(ver. 3) and his prayer (ver. 4), leaves on
the unbiassed mind certainly is that in his
zeal for God he resented not only the grow-
ing 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 trath, 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. ]

Ver. 11.—And he said, Go forth [The
LXX. inserts aispwyv, which, however, is
destitute of authority, and was probably
inserted from Exod. xxxiv. 2, to explain the
difficulty which the prophet’s apparent dis-
recard of this command creates], and stand
upon the mount before the Lord. And,
pehold, the Lord passed by [Heb. passeth
by. Only used here and in Exod. xxxii.
22; .xxxiv. 6 of the Divine Being. The
beatific vision must be transient, An abid-
ing presence, a j{2W, was more than man
could bear. So Bahr. As Elijah does not
seem to have gone forth from the cave until
he heard the still small voice (ver. 13), some
would take the participle XA which is prob-
ably employed as more graphic, as a future,
i.¢,, “the Lord will pass by,” and this is the
‘interpretation of the LXX.; tov mapeXev-
osrat kvo.c’ Kai (dod myevpa péya. «.7.X. The
effect of this re-arrangement 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,” &c., and not as
a statement of what happened. That state-
ment would then begin with the next words,
“And a great and strong wind,” &. But
in that case we might have expected “ For
behold,” &c., or the “ And behold” would
have come before ‘a great and strong
wind,’ &¢e. It is also to be considered—and
this seems to me decisive—that the words
“rent,” “break,” &c., are also participles,
which it would be unnatural to divorce from
the participle preceding], and a great and
strong wind [Such as was not uncommon
in that region. The approach to Sinai from
the west is known as Nukb-Hdwy, ‘the

 

 

 

pass of the winds.” Elsewhere we find the
Wady-el-Burk, or ‘valley of lightning,”
These phenomena—the tempest, tire, &c.—
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 b2fore éne
Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind
(Heb. not in the wind Jehovah): and after
the wind an earthquake [Once before
(ixod. xix. 18) an earthquake accompanied
the descent of God upon the same moun-
tain. The desert of Sinai, with the exe p-
tion of the Hammam Pharoun and other
hot springs, affords no traces of volcanic
action. ‘* Kverywhere there are signs of the
action of water, nowhere of fire” (Stanley).
But Wy properly means (compare rauschen,
rush) a crashing noise (Job xxxix, 24; Isa,
ix. 4), and the mysterious sounds of Jebel
Musa have often been remarked (see Stan-
ley, S..and P. pp. 138, 14)]; but the Lord
was not in the earthquake:

Ver. 12.—And after the earthquake a
fire [For the association of tempest, earth-
quake, fire, &c.,as punishments of God, see
isa, Xxx. 6,,amds Psa. ZViil heen SaHaner
may well signify lightning (Job i. 16; Exod,
ix. 23). For a vivid description of a
thunderstorm at Sinai, see Stewart’s ‘‘ Tent
aud 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 stil! small
voice. [Heb. a voice of gentle silence.
>I an onomatopoetic word, is allied to our
word dumb. Very similar expression Job
iv. 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 act. 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, over-
powers and enchains him. He is to learn
hence, first, that the Lord is a God ‘‘ mer-
ciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abun-
dant in goodness and truth” (Mxod. xxxiv.
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., ver.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 simi-462

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[oH. xix. 1—21.

 

larity between this theophany and that
which Moses saw in the same place, or at
no great distance from it, must not be over-
looked, for this constitutes another link
between Jaw-giver and law-restorer. The
proclamation of Exod. xxxiv. 3, 7 1s the
best exponent of the parable of vers. 11, 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. ver. 17).]

Ver. 13.—And it was so, when Elijah
heard it, that he wrapped his face in his
mantle [Like Moses, Exod. iii. 6; cf,
eel, Ab; Xsxiy, 3o°> 2 Cor, J, 13°, isa.
vi. 1, 2. This mantle (see note on ch.
xvill. 46) was probably a sheepskin. The
LXX. calls it pydwrn (cf. Heb. xi. 37). In
Zech, xiii. 4 we find that the prophets wore
a mantle of hair), and went out, and stood
[Same words asin ver. 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 tem-
pest 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 ver, 11 even
then. Does not this point to a rebellious
and unsubdued heart? Is it not a confirma-
tion of the view taken above, that he fled to
Horeb, full of bitter disappointment and
murmuring against God; and that the pur-
pose 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 voiceunto
him [The expression is different from that
of ver.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 ver. 12], and said, What doest
thou here, Elijah? [As in ver. 9.]

Ver. 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 ver.
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 signi-
ficance? It is probable that he only par-
tially understood its meaning, and it cer-
tainly 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 speak-
ing, ashe had spoken before, querulously and
almost defiantly, he now, catching his inspi-
ration 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 misgivying 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
wiil; 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.]

Ver. 15.—And the Lord said unto him,
Go, return on thy way (Heb. to thy way,
asin Gen. xix. 2; xxx. 2; Num. xxiv. 25,
&c.] to the wilderness of Damascus [The
construct case with 1 local. K-il refers to
Deut. iv. 41; Josh. xii. 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, ch. xx.—or possibly a sphere for work,
—he would be near Hazael—in the rugged
desert which stretches south and east of the
Syrian capital. (See Stanley, ‘“‘ Sinai and
Palestine,” p. 410; Porter’s “ Five Years in
Damascus,” vol. ii. p. 254sqq.) Here, too, the
prophet would be at no great distance from
his own country. See on ch. xvii. 3]: andCH. XIx. 1—21.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

   

463

ENE ad rpiceisiinmrei ee

when thou comest, anoint [Heb. and thou
shalt come and anoimt. UXX. rai nee Kai
xpicsc. ‘Lhe A. V. increases the difficulty.
In the Hebrew the time of the anointing ig
indefinite. This commission has long bidcat
@ crux imterpretum. 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 Sam. xvi. 2, 13), but all that we gather
from Scripture is, that he was called in an
indirect way, and certainly not anointe |, by
Hilisha (2 Kings viii. 12—15). Jehu was
certainly anointed, but it was neither by
Elisha nor Elijah (2 Kings ix. 1, 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 Judg. ix.
8, Isa. lxi. 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 remarkabie 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 (Exod.
xxix. 6). Hence it was (Bahr) that vessels
(Exod, xxx. 26 sqq.), and even stones (Gen.
XXvili, 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 viii., ix. It
has also been objected to this charge (Raw-
@inson) that it is no ‘‘explanation or appli-
cation 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. No doubt there are additional par-
ticulars—the vision dealt only with prin-
ciples, the charge descends to details 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 ven-
geance, by fire and sword, but by meekness
and gentleness, through the reason and the
concience, is proclaimed. Hazael and Jehu,
each was God’s instrument to punish ; each
was like the sweeping storm or the devour-

 

SaaS

ing 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 islisha, the sword of his mouth (ef. Isa

Rly Ss Been ger ina sl Blea
constrain men to hide their faces and
humble themselves before God] Hazael [t}1e
seer of God. This name, viewed in con-
nection with Elijah’s vision of

noticeable] to be king over Syria:

Ver. 16.—And Jehu [Jehovah is he. The
name was as appropriate as Elijah’s] the
son [i.e., descendant, probably graud-on
(2 Kings ix, 2,14). Nimshi may have been
@ person of more importance than Jehoshia-
phat) 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 if.
Jezebel’s triumph is not to endure]: and
Elisha [My God is salvation. . This name,
borne 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, Avel-meholah,
‘“‘the meadow of the dance”? (cf. ch. iv. 12s
Judg. vii. 22), a town in the Jordan valley,
at no great distance from Beth-shean,
almost implies that he was hitherto un-
known 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 roem, [So far from
Elijah’s work being fruitless, or from the
prophetic order being extinguished, provi-
sion is now made for his successor. ]

Ver. 17.—And it shall come to pass, that
him that escapeth the sword of Hazael
[See 2Kinos' yi, T2085 x: “Soe i. 3, oe
shall Jehu slay (2 Kings ix. 24—383; x.
passim. Of, Isa, lxvi. 16]: and him that
escapeth from the sword of Jehu shall
Elisha slay. [Elijah might reasonably in-
terpret the commission to “anoint’’ Hazael,
&c., 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”
(Isa. ii. 4; 2 Thess. i. 8; Hosea vi. 5).
Not only are vers. 16, 17 an interpretation,
in some sort, of the vision, but they are an
answer to Elijah’s complaint (vers. 10, 14).
The ‘children of Israel’’ who had forsaken
the covenant should be punished by Hazael
(cf. 2 Kings viii. 12, ‘I know what thou
wilt do unto the children of Israel,” and
ef ch. x. 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

God, is464

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

were extinct and he was left alone is opposed
the ordination of a suecessor, and the men-
“ion of the ‘‘seyen thousand ”’ in ver. 18.]

Ver. 18.—Yet I have left me [So St. Paul,
Rom, xi. 4, karéAvwoyv; but the DLXX.
(xaradetsrc) and all the versions translate
the word as future, as in the margin, I will
leavt, and so the } convyersive seems to re-
qur'e. See Gesen., Gram, § 124—26] seven
thyusand [not so much a round as a sym-
bo lical number—‘‘ the éxdoyy of the godly ”’
/Keil). “The remnant according to the
election of grace”? (Rom. xi. 5). It is like
the 144,000 and the 12,000 of Rev. vii. 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 nrouth which hath not kissed
him. [We gather from Job xxxi. 26, 27
that it was customary to kiss the hand to
the idol, or object of worship, and from
Hosea xiii. 2to kiss the imageitself. Most
of the commentators adduce Cicero in Ver-
rem iv. 48, where he speaks of the statue of
Hercules at Agrigentum, the lips and chin of
which were a lttle worn by the kisses of
devotees. |

Ver. 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
(ft was in the winter, consequently (Proy.
xx. 4. See Conder, p.328), ‘“ Hlisha 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—
Wy like jugum, is used as a measure of
land in 1 Sam. xiv. 14, Isa. v. 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 ;”’ ef. ver.
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 arablé land of nearly all vil-
lages is cultivated in common; then that
Arab farmers delight to work togetber,
partly for mutual. protection, and. partly
from their love of gossip,” &c. Thomson,
L. and B. i, 208]; and Elijah passed by

 

 

him [Heb. to him. The idea that he may
have ‘ crossed the stream of the Jorden”
(Rawlinson) is extremely imyrobable. The
current is strong, and it 1s not everywhere
fordable, especially in winter], and cast his

mantle upon him. [Heb. to him WON. But
LXX. é7 atréy. Already, it would seem, the
rough hairy mantle had come to be reeog-
nized as the garb of a prophet (cf. Zech.
xill. 4). ** The prophct’s cloak was a sien of
the prophet’s vocation” (Keil). To cast the
cloak to or upon Elisha was therefore an
appropriate and significant way of desig-
nating him to the prophetic office. “ When
Kilijah went to heaven Elisha had the mantle
entire” 2 Kings 11. 13 (Henry). The Ger-
mans use the word mantel-kind of an adopted
child. }

Ver. 20.—And he left the oxen [As, being
the last in the line, he could do, without stop-
ping the others. It is probable too that,
Kilisha 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 coun-
try 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 run-
ning 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. Forth-
with, as soon as he realized his call, ‘* he left
the oxen and ran after” hisnewmaster, True,
he asks permission—and why should he not ?
for “‘ grace is no enemy to gvod 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 ke had begged to be allowed to
stay and bury his mother and father (St.
Luke ix. 59—61) it might have been other-
wise. But he suggests nothing of the kind.
He says: ‘* One kiss, one farewell, and then
I will follow thee.” It is a complete mis-
take, consequently, to interpret Elijah’s
words to mean, ‘‘ Go, return to thy plough-
ing, for why shouldst thou quit it? ‘
Thou canst remain as thou art” (Rawlin-
son). Their true meaning, as evidenced by
the sequel (ver. 21), clearly was, ‘Go back
and kiss them ; why shouldst thou not? ForCH. xix. 1—21.]

what have I done to thee ?
thee to follow me.
thee to repudiate
blood.’’]

Ver. 21.--And he returnea back from him
[Wordsworth is not Warranted in affirmine
that Elisha ‘“ did not go back and kiss,” &e.
The text rather implies that he did], and
took a yoke [Heb. the yoke. Cf. ver. 19]
of oxen, and slew them [Heb. sacrificed ;
LXX. évce. But the word, though gene-
rally restricted to sacrificial acts, primarily
means ‘“‘to slay” simply, as here, and in
Gen. xxxi. 54; 1 Sam. xxviii. 24; 2 Chron.
Xvlli. 2; Ezek. xxxix. 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, &. The
plough of the East is extremely rude and
slender, but the yoke, shaft, &c., would

Thave summoned
: :

But I have not required
thine own flesh and

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

   
 
 
 
  
   
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
   
   
   
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 

465

of timber may have had something to do
with this application of the « instrument
of the oxen ;” but it is much more import-
ant to see it ina symbolical act, expressive
of Elisha’s entire renunciation of his secular
calling. He would henceforth need them
no longer. Cf, 1 Sam. vi. 14; 2 Sam. xxiy,
22], and gave unto the people ! Not only the
Servants or peasants who had been plough-
ing with him, but possibly his neighbours
and friends. This was a farewell, not a
religious feast. Of. Luke v. 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. {%.e., became his attendant, as Joshua
had been the minister of Moses (Exod. xxiv,
13; Josh. i. 1), and as Gehazi subsequently
became servant to him. See 2 Kings iii, 11;
‘‘ Elisha ... which poured water on the

hands of Elijah; ” and cf. Acts xiii. 5.}

 

afford a fair supply of wood. The scarcity

HOMILETICS.

God and the Man of God. This chapter lends itself more readily to textual than
to topical treatment.

Ver. 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 holi-
ness, had brought down fire from heaven? Or if Elijah brought it, was there no
thought of Him who sent it? But itis an every-day experience that men will
think of anything, talk of anything but their Maker. They do not “like to retain
God in their thoughts”? (Rom. i. 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 (ch. xviii. 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 acts of the Lord; how
doubly blessed when the believing husband wins and saves the unbelieving wife
(1 Cor. vii. 14, 16). Then marriage is a sacrament indeed.

“And... how he had slain all the prophets,” &c. 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
vharity to hold his peace. That was “a time to keep silence.”’

Ver. 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 a woman’s, no
wickedness like hers. They never do things by halves.

‘‘ Men differ at most as heaven and earth, 3
But women, best and worst, as heaven and hell.”

This woman will not be persuaded though one rose from the dead (Luke xvi. 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 itsauthor. ‘* Adam
1 KINGS. 2H466 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. fou. xix. 1—21,

 

was not deceived, but the woman being deceived. was in the transgression” (1 Tim,
uu. 14). ;

“The gods do so,” &e. 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 herno harm.” ‘They had not been able
to save their own prophets. Cf. Judg. vi. ol.

“Tf 1 make not thy life,” &e. 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” (Num. xxii. 18). ‘‘The king’s heart is in the
Hand of the Lord... he turneth it whithersoever he will” (Prov. xxi. 1). “ He
taketh the wise in their own craftiness” (1 Cor. iii. 19), and turns the counsel of an
Ahithophel into foolishness (2 Sam. xv. 31). The wrath of man is made to praise
Him (Psa. Ixxvi. 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).

Ver. 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 morn-
ing becomes the coward of the evening. We may well exclaim here, Quantwm
mutatus ab illo ! well ask, ‘Lord, whatis man?” Some have called man a demi-
god; 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.” Heis distineuished 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?” (Neh. vi. 11.) ‘‘ How are the mighty fallen!” 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 he
wish to be rid of his life because he feared to lose it?”’ (Hall.) Yesterday strong
in faith, fearing neither man nor devil; to-day 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
ery 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 Cor. xii. 7.) And thisis Elijah, the re-
storer 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-v. 18). ‘‘I have seen an end of
all perfection.’”? Here is humanity at its best, and how poor and weak itis. 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 toall:
Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurled,
The glory, jest, and riddle of the world.”

Ver. 5.— Behold, an angel towched him.” Sothathe was watched and enarded,
even while he slept. Hisimpatience and faithlessness have not diminished the loving
care and tenderness of God. ‘‘ He knoweth our frame.’ His very sleep was or-
dained 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 Matt. iv. 11; Luke xxii. 43; Acts: xxvii. 23 ;. v.
19; xii. 8. ‘‘ Are they not all ministering spirits?” (Heb. i. 14.) ‘‘ No wilderness is
too solitary for the attendance of those blessed spirits.” ‘* While he slept, his break-
fast is made ready for him by those spiritual hands.”’CH. x1x. 1—21.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS,

 

*‘ How oft do they their silv

To come to saccour us that succour want f

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?”

er bowers leave

Ver. 6.—“ A cake baken on the coals,” &e. Not only was the prophet protected,
he was provided for by the angel. What a commentary on that verse, ‘“‘ He civeth
it to his beloved while they sleep”? (Psa. exxvii. 2, Heb.) And does not God sive us
all food in like manner? While the farmer sleeps, the seed springs and grows
up, he knoweth not how (Mark iv. 27). Our Keeper neither slumbers nor sleeps
(Psa. exxi. 4). Observe also how God prepares a table in the wilderness. Tt is not
the first time He has given angels’ food in the desert (Psa. Ixxvili. 25; Neh. ix. 21;
Deut. vii. 16).

Ver. 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 (Judg. vi. 21;
Ezek. ii..2; iii. 24; Luke vii. 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 ig
for man to use them. It is presumption to expect God to dispense with them
because He can do so.

Ver. 8.—* Went in the strength of that meat,” &e. Ibis very noticeable how many
miraculous feedings we have in Holy Scripture. Not only does the New Testa ment
record a feeding, now of five thousand with five loaves, now of four thousand with
seven loaves (Matt. xv. 9; 10); not only is one or other of these mentioned by all
four evangelists (Matt. xiv. 17; Mark vi. 38; Luke ix. 13; John v1.9; Matt. xv. 36 ;
Mark viii. 6); but the Old Testament, in addition to such narratives as those of
1 Kings xvii. 14 sqq.; 2 Kings iv. I—6, 42 sqq., tells of a miraculous supply of food
which extended over forty years (Exod. xvi. 14—35; Deut. viii. 3, 4, 16). Ts not all
this to teach us that man doth not live by bread alone ? (Deut. viii. 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 vi. 32 sqq.) We too on
journeying to Horeb, the mount of God. The home of our souls is the Miia, tenes
myrrh and the hill of frankincense” (Cant. iv. 6). And the journey. 38 too ok
for us. Without Divine aid, without soul food, we shall “faint by the way. a
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 vi. 55). cased

Ver. 9.—“ Vhe word of the Lord came to him.” Though he had not nae ay a
a favour, for he had acted without that word when he Hed. True, he flec to as
desert, so far as we can see, that he might hear what God ae Eee oe
him, but he had no right to presume that He who had not spo en at a Py ee
speak at Sinai. But God never deals with us as we deserve, or as we dea yi Ee
aibehice ‘Tf thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, O ae we a yey kee
exxx. 8.) “If they break my statues... then will i visit their ots ae

yer s loving-kindness will I not utterly take fro
ok pa eae aioe y eltod hast piayed the harlot with many lovers;
Cae: en Lord” (Jer. iii. 1). If the word did not come to
yet return again to me, saith the Lord” ( a - . Godtuiat ike Gir Eee
us when we stray, how could we be reclaime

ohn vi. 44). : :
eT What ee thow here, Elijah?” Tt - es oe eee are ae

still etre iase Ny Eis ‘Holy Gisela ‘never heard this question in oe
' rgan usec ;
seit Cokle , savas when we stood in the way of sinners, or sat in the seat of the468 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu. xrx. 1—21.

 

 

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.

Ver. 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 mv zeal for the Lord” (2 Kings x. 16) ; ‘‘ but Jehu took no heed to walk in
the law of the Lord God of Israel,” &c. (vers. 29, 81). Saul’s ‘‘zeal for the children
of Israel and Judah” (2 Sam. xxi. 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 Churech’”’
(Phil. iii. 6; ef. Acts xxvi. 9,11). We can understand the cynical warning. Surtout,
point de zéle, 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 xix. 1), is
not the spirit of our Lord or His Chureh (Luke ix. 55, 56). There was not im-
probably 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? (Rom. xi. 2.) It
is true, he begins, “They have rejected thee,” but he ends, “They have rejected
me” (1 Sam. viii. 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 ix. 88).

Ver. 11.—“‘ Stand ... before the Lord.” Only thus can we know ourselves, and
self-knowledge must be our first aim. ‘‘ H caelo descendit, yy@0 ceavrdy.” **In thy
light shall we see light.” We compaye ourselves with pigmies when we compare
ourselves with others (2 Cor. x. 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 xlil. 5, 6). ‘“‘ Beholding the glory
of the Lord, we are changed into the same image” (2 Cor. iu. 18).

Ver. 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 (Rom. vii. 38).
Christ draws men unto Him by the sweet attraction of His cross (John xu. 82).
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 smali voice of the child at Bethlehem ” (Stanley). This parable may be com-
pared 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 hymu—

“Yet He found me: I beheld Him
Bleeding on the curséd tree ;
Heard Him pray, ‘ Forgive them, Father ;?
And my wistful heart said faintly,
‘Some of self, and some of Thee.’

6‘ Day by day His tender mercy
Healing, helping, full and free;
Sweet and strong, and, ah! so patient,
Brought me lower, whilst I whispered,
‘Less of self, and more of Thee.’

6 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.’ ”CH. xix. 1—21.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 469

 

 

€ 66 .
ae a a Fe 1 he fae a Praia
all.” Besides, no man can ‘see His te a ae ee The b wale
vision is too much for our poor mortality, too mucl { ths ae ig
vi. 2). Itisin mercy that God is veiled from Sue te a BONNETS GiB
‘ en nad, ae Ww. ihe seeing God as He
: Seige times of restitution (Matt. v. 8; Heb. xii. 14; Rev.i.7; xxii. 4;

Ver. 14.—* T have been very fea ” raed :
same words in reply. But oo ae Te question, and precisely the

: oe : § Was hot tne same. The man and the manner
were alike changed (cf. 1 Sam. x. 6). He has heard the “ still small voice,” ¢
it has hushed his own. How true it is, “ Ttris ot the w Re ete ae
and spirit in which we say them, gi es tl Z th “ ke Nene ies ae eee

Ver. 15.— Go, return.” This j God’ ne : ee an G PETA Once:
bees st Whine Mae as eae F ue : answer to the question, ** What doest thou
het ae. SSS ps ee Thou hast a work to do elsewhere.
Ee Goh can e od ceased to watch over and care for His Church.

u 5 OL 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 iailure? Who has not had to complain of a gain-
eg tle? How many have been induced to desert their posts ?

ub allure unless he is a failure himself. Our work is to
Witness, whether men will hear or whether they will forbear. It they torbear, 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 soul
has no time for self-torture. Its eye is fixed on others. There isa 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.

Ver. 18.—“ Yet have I left me seven thousand.” ‘There is always a remnant
(ftom. xi. 4, 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.
(Rev. vii. 4). The prophets have been too much given to pessimist views. ‘* God's
faithful ones are often his hidden ones” (Psa. Ixxxiii. 3).

He was afraid to look upon God

*¢ 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 conti-
dent were not there ; thirdly, to find that thousands of whose salvation he had
always despaired were there after all. ;

Ver. 19.—“‘ Found Elisha ... ploughing.” God never calls an idle man. “If
ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your
trust the true riches ?”’ (Luke xvi. 11.) The man who will not plough by reason of
the cold (Prov. xx. 4), if he put his hand to the gospel plough, will presently look
back (Luke ix. 62), and go not to the work (Acts xv. 38). The apostles were called
from their ships, their nets, the receipt of custom, &c., none from the market-place or
the street corners. They only exchanged one department of God’s work for another,
for “the man who makes two blades of grass grow where only one grew beiore is470 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. fou. xrx. 1—21.

a fellow-worker with God.” Zaborare est orare. “ An honest calling in the world
dces not at all put us out of the way of our heavenly calling.” ‘In all labour is
profit.” es

Ver. 20.—* He left the owen.” No service without sacrifice. Sometimes it is only
ships and nets (Mark i. 20), sometimes it is houses and lands, father and mother,
wife and child (Matt. xix. 29).

“Go back again.” Why should he not kiss his father and mother? ‘ For God
commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother,” and it is not for the greatest of
the prophets to make the commandment of God of none effect (Matt. xv. 4—6).
Religion developes and intensifies the domestic affections. Ties of flesh become
stronger and closer when cemented and consecrated by grace. It would be strange
if the religion of love made husband or wile, parent or child, love each other
less.

Ver. 21.—“ Took a oe of oxen and slew them.” He has done with earthly
pursuits. He burns his ships behind him. It would be well for the Church of
Christ if her ministers acted in like manner. The temptat ion to eke out a scanty
income by trade, especially among missionaries, must be great; but a man cannot
be half a cler reyman, and must not be entangled with the affairs of this life. Some of
the Swiss pas tors have become ‘hotel- keepers, but if they have been the gainers,
religion Wad not. Of all masters, religion and business are the two which can
least be served together.

HOMILIES BY VARIOUS AUTHORS.

Vers. 1—8.— Elijah’s Prayer for Death. How erratic have been the movements
of this prophet! Our‘first introduction to him is at the court of Ahab, whence, as
soon as he utters his prophecy, he is away to Clerith in the east, among the wilds
of Gilead. Next we find him in the:north, at-Zarephath of Zidon. Then he meets
Siren probably in the plain of ‘Msdraelon, whence he passes over to Carmel:in
the west. From Carmel he runs before Ahab’s horses to the ‘entrance of Jezreel.
The uext day finds him on his way to Beersheba in the extreme south of Judah.
The day following he is pushing his way into the wilderness of Sinai, where we
mow find ‘him under ‘a shrub, requesting for himself that he may die. Let us
consider—

J. THE OCCASION OF THIS PRAYER. 1. Jezebel had threatened his life. (1) Ahab
had reported to his queen what Eljah had done at Carmel, and in particular
recounted how he had slain:all the prophets. In this statement we notice two
capital faults. “He did not recount what Jehovah had done; he did not properly
distinguish the “ prophets 4 ae as idolatrous and false. The gospei may ‘be
variously preached. (2) Instead of reflecting and repenting, Jezebel was filled with
resentment, and resolved upon the destruction of Elijah. Miracles will not do more
than reason with a corrupt and prejudiced heart. (See Luke xvi. 31; John xii. 10,
11.) (8) She accordingly sent-messengers to Elijah with an oath, declaring that
within tw enty-four hours she would revenge upon his life the slaughter of her
priests. Wickedness 1s not always politic: by-giving'him this notice she eave him
an opportunity to escape. 2. To save his life he fled. (1) Was this wrong? Some
have blamed him for it because he did not first ascertain the will of God. Had he
no voice of God in'the instinct-of self-preservation? “Had he no voice of God in
the providence which apprised him of his peril? Would he not have tempted the
Lord his God to have waited for another-voice? Had he remained and forfeited
his life, would he not have been ‘to‘blame? God gives us cur reason, and if we
follow its light, together with that of an upright conscience, we shall:do well. (2)
But who can say that Elijah had no direction from the word of the Lord?
Certainly there was a plan for his journey recognized :by the angel with which he
was familiar (see ver. 7). ‘The distance from Beersheba ‘to Horeb was about 150
miles. (8) Inhis fight he came ‘first to Beersheba, where he was under ‘the :pro-
tection of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, who feared the Lord. There:he left hiscH. xIx. 1—21.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 471

‘servant in safety, and micht h
: . Le ge ave abode himself in safety had he not acted under
re Promprngs Or inspiration to proceed alone into the wilderness. (3) Al
God he asks to die. (1) The Hebrew phrase is, ‘‘ He requested for jis life th wes
1 7 r , : 1 ; pee ay
oe die. a is life in death to the righteous. (2) ** It is enough.” Mike is
e language of disappointn : i eh ee tie
sin a Re He looked for better fruit of his ministry than he
‘ ght, surely this demonstration on Carmel will extineuish idolatry:
but he finds Jezebel swearing against his life. and rently 3 aout a
gas oa gag t , and apparently in a position to earry
si 1e¥ paspose. Now, oa take away my life; for I am not better than my
athers. am no more useful here than they hay ] lige
er 1ave been who are gone hence
me join them. 5 Vite as
Il. THE ANSWERS GIVE , ;
a GIy EN TOIT, 1. They come in the form of physical refresh-
Lia - (1) Ebja 1S prayer was evidently uttered under the influence of physical
exhaustion and discomfort. His sitting under the ‘‘juniper” is mentioned, not to
suggest that he derived comfort from an ample shade, but rather to show how little
i he could find. The word (ON7) is construed as in the text by the Hebrews
2 : ‘ = . . i - . / t . ae
ea and the Vulgate ; yet it is rather the genista (broom), a shrub with
7 va 7 7 2 * , 7 Bi f (Lt.
yellow flowers which grows in the desert, and which has its name (from On to
and) nee the toughness or tenacity of its twigs, which were used for withes. Not
only was he wayworn with his journey and exposure to the sun, but faint also for
~4 )) 1 = ‘
want of food and drink. (2) The answer came to his prayer, therefore, in the bless-
ing of refreshing sleep. Out of this also he was seasonably aroused by an Angel to
find a cake on the coals (as bread is sometimes baked in the East) and a eruse
of water at his bolster. God knows our frame, pities us, and makes due allowance
for our frailties. When we find our spirits in a morbid state let us look to our
health. Hygiene may come, even to the soul, as an angel of God. 2. They came
to him wm spiritual blessing. (1) The refreshment which Elijah received was
supernatural in its source. The bread and water came to him with the word and

touch of the Angel-Jehovah (71n) “xon). This was no common angel, but one of
the Persons of the Godhead. (2) It was supernatural also in its effects (ver. 8).
In these he is brought intimately into association with Moses and Jesus. (Compare
Hixod. xxxiv. 28; Deut. ix. 9,18; Matt. iv. 2.) It is also noteworthy how these
three appear in glory together on the holy mount. (See Luke is. 80, 31.) The
spiritual life we derive from God's word is set forth in the mystery of the manna
which for forty years nourished the people of God in this wilderness. It is also set
forth in that new life of Jesus in which after His resurrection He appeared to His
disciples during forty days. (See Rom. vi. 11; Gal. 1. 20.)—J. A. M.

Vers. 9—18.— Elijah at Horeb. Elijah went in the strength of the refreshmens
he had received from the Angel-Jehovah a forty days’ journey to Horeb, He was
now on holy ground. It was the “mount of God” on which Moses had seen the
Angel-Jehovah in the bush, and was within sight of Sinai, memorable for the giving
of the law. On Horeb he lodges in a cave, perhaps the very recess from which
Moses witnessed the Shechinah (see Exod. xxxii. 22), and here becomes the subject
of Divine communications and revelations. Consider now—

I. Hrs 1nvercession aGainst Isrann. 1. Observe the occasion. (1) The question
came to him by the word of the Lord, ‘‘ What doest thou here, Elijah ?” In answer
to this he urged what Paul calls his “intercession against Israel’? (Rom. xi. 2, 8).
Wherever we are it behoves us to ask ourselves what business we have here.
Everywhere our first business is to glorify God. (2) This question is thought to
suggest that Elijah might have been more profitably employed elsewhere. But did
he not come here after receiving supernatural strength from God Himself expressly
for this journey? (See vers. 7,8.) (8) Rather must-we not look upon his journey
in the light of a parable, showing how God abandons those who refuse to be
reformed? (Compare Jer. ix. 2.) In this. view we can see how Elijah acted in
‘faith’? in this journey; for Paul seems to allude to him in Hebrews x1. 38.
2. The matter of the accusation. (1) The view now given harmonizes with this,
the substance of which is the prophet’s great jealousy for the Lord God of hosts,
whose honour had been outraged by the apostasy of the children of Israel. Here472 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [ou. xix. 1—21.

 

is no confession of that unworthy timidity with which Elijah has been, we think,
too hastily charged. Nor had he any rebuke from God for such supposed dastardh-
ness, which doubtless he would have received had he deserved it. He is here
because he cannot abide in the land of Israel, where Jehovah was commonly
insulted. (2) He recounts the particulars of his grief. ‘‘ For the children of Israel
have forsaken thy covenant”—have substituted false Elohim for Thee; “ thrown
down thine altars ”—attempted to abolish Thy worship; ‘‘ slain thy prophets with
the sword ”’—to provide against any revival of the pure religion of their fathers ;
‘and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my lie to take it away.’ _ Of what
use, then, could he be to such a people ? (See Hosea iv. 17.) (8) The motive of this
intercession to God against Israel is not personal revenge, but zeal for Jehovah.
And though we are beund, as Christians, to love our enemies, that does not say
that we are to love the enemies of God. There is a spurious charity in high favour
which the Scriptures do not sanction. (See 2 Chron. xix. 2; Psa, cxix. 19; exxxix.
21; Luke xiv. 26.) Beware of that charity which has complicity with sin, (4) The
repetition of the answer when a second time the question was put evinces the deep
sincerity of the prophet’s soul.

Il. THE ANSWER OF GOD unTo HIM. 1. This was first given in symbol. (1) To
witness the vision he was caused to stand on the mount before the Lord. Probably
this was the place where Moses stood on a similar occasion (see Exod. xix. 9, 16).
We should have the Rock of Ages for our foundation when we witness visions of
God. All shall witness them in the judgment of the great day. (2) Terrible signs
immediately followed upon the passing by of Jehovah. (a) First, “a great and
strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord.”
Here was a sign of wrath upon the rulers and people, through invasion. (Compare
Jer. iv. 11—13; Ezek. vi. 2; Amos iv. 1). (0) ‘‘ And after the wind an earthquake.”
This is a sign of revolution, whether in things civil, ecclesiastical, or both. (Compare
Psa. Ixvii. 8; Rev. vi. 12; xvi. 18). (c) “And after the earthquake a fire.” This
is the symbol of jwdgments more immediately from God (see Deut. iv. 24; Psa.
xvii. 12—14; Ixvi. 12; Jer. xlvili. 45). (8) But the Lord was in none of these.
Judgments are a strange work to Him. They are necessary to the order of His
government, but not congenial to His nature. ‘‘ He delighteth in mercy.’ So the
Lord was in the ‘still small voice”’ which followed. The gentle voice of the gospel
follows the law which came with the uproar of the elements, and God is in it. So
Elijah wrapped his face in his mantle. (Compare Exod. iii. 6; Isa. vi. 2.) 2. I¢
was afterwards expounded in words. (1) Elijah, the intercessor against Israel,
and therefore the impersonation of anger against sin, was to return to Israel by way
of Damascus, where he was to “anoint Hazael to be king over Syria.” In Hazael
now we must look for the “‘strong wind” that was to come up and make havoc
upon the mountains and rocks of Israel. (Compare 2 Kings viii. 12, 13; x. 82, 393
xi. 8.) (2) “Jehu the son of Nimshi’’ was Elijah to “anoint to be king over
Israel.’’ Here was the instrument of the “earthquake” of revolution. (See 2
Kings ix. 1—3.) Not only did Jehu bring a signal destruction upon the whole
house of Ahab; he brought down judgment also upon the worshippers of Baal
(2 Kings x. 28), (8) “Elisha the son of Shaphat” was this impersonation of
righteous anger to “ anoint to be prophet” in his room. Here is God’s instrument
of ‘‘fire.” His words are to be swords of flame. So “it shall come to pass that
him that escapeth from the sword of Hazael shall Jehu slay; and him that escapeth
from the sword of Jehu shall Elisha slay.” No sinner can escape the fire of God’s
word. (4) But the “still small voice” of the gospel of mercy has its triumphs.
‘** Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel,” &. God has His faithful “ hidden
ones ” (Psa. Ixxxiii. 3). No wonder Elijah should cover his face with reverent
gratitude at the discovery of that sealed company in whose midst was JEHOVAH-
SHamMMAn! (Hzek. xlvili. 85; Rev. vii. 13—17.)—J. A. M.

 

Vers. 19—21.—The Call of Elisha. After the visions of Horeb, and in pur-
suance of the commission there received, Elijah returned from the wilderness and
re-entered the land of Israel. Whether he went round by Damascus, and ‘in hisCe, AIT. 1 =], x
1x L.] TLE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 473

 

 

 

course anointed Hazael to be kine over Svri
before he ascended the throne of genes eee Samuel had anointed David long
for the fulfilment of his instructioy acl, we are not informed. It is not necessary
at S Instructions (ver. 15) to suppose the pin eee
Me edie dc tines which thas iccue 7a. ppose that he did so; for prophets
17.) The reason is that thei Ry Leeper (See Jer. i. 10; Ezek. xliii. 3: Rom iv
Len yee er “lr predictions are sur Fy nn ere eee
the same principle a true fait] Pp. 1ons are sure to be accomplished; and upon
oy pet alth in the promises of God is said to ] ‘ I
or subsistence of ‘things hoped for” (Heb. xi. 1), It j sald to be the
provision for the anointing of Jehu: Elis/ ), 0 18 certain that Elisha made
Bes ki ei ees 8 Ol « ; Lélisha also informed Hazael that he s
e king over Syria (see 2 Kings viii. 13: ix. 1—3 po eee: tbat; be should
hand of Elijah. 5 - 18; 1x. 1—3). The call of Elisha was by the
I. THE cauy or E
. LISHA WAS FROM Go 4
x vOD D. in: .
(1) The prophet’s mantle was the symbol ten Peer lash
Hi dnindalor eomocued of | his office. It seems to have been the
xiii. 5; Isa. xx. 2: Matt ef 4) | ee hairy material (see 2 Kings i. 8; Zech
‘ Sa. XX. 25 ¢ . d : na P be. wee 5 = 5 4 e
cardinals with the pallium—a cloak ae ae perhaps, the popes invest their
oe pi : c boy y (6 fh
Elijah thrown upon Elisha was the sien faa oe of mpel i) oe mantle of
servant first, and eventually to be ea achecoe "Tl Soe ON eres tes DORMS
act . a = , 1 L Ord) E °
fully into the possession of Elisha when his “ ne mantle, accordingly, came
(2 Kings ii. 38 13). (8) Tl a a when D1s master’’ was ‘‘ taken from his head ”’
58 ll. a, . -(o le “spirit ‘lijah ” 6 iia
essential to a prophet is the Foes ee eas apee Elisha.’ So
Pee a 95 9 prophets themselves are calle
spirits. False prophets alsc Soe Tae s are called
als SO ar allie 6a ped as 99 3 E i 5
(see ch. xxii. 22, 23; gid xiv. 32 a a lv Tone ee eee
: : : ° ° a m J TO 7997.
Pivetion. (1): After : liv. 1,2). 2. Hlyah acted under Dine
ctLON. er he had asked for self ni ie. G
a had ask for himself that he might die, God expressly
c . i him to anoint Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel-Meholah” to be
prophet in his room” (ver. 16). The tr ee ‘A abe fee
ot | ver. c ue minister is God’s gift. (2) God]
paenaat Wiis . (2) God kney
Hess qualities of iuhsha. The manner in which he received heel he him io
eatiue man. God's order is, first ‘‘ grace,” then ‘‘apostleship ” (see Rom. i 5)
: : ra ‘ yee s e = Stee 5 . 7 ve ° - .
see persons deceive themselves who, being destitute of godliness, affect apostle-
oe (see Psa. 1 16). Nor can apostleship abide where grace is forfeited (Acts
a a hs a found Elisha, not in the schools of the prophets, but ploughing
1e held. 1e spirit of pr 3 1 06 ti ‘natiiutiaians
anal I t of prophecy will not be tied down to human institutions,
1owever venerable and respectable.
Il. THE RESPONSE {LIS
. ab ONSE OF ELISHA WAS TO Gop. 1. He accordingly renounced the
world. (1) He had something to sacrifice. The ‘“‘ twelve yoke of oxen” indicate
ae. = oe ge. fe ee es : bia
Hee all The glimpse we get of his home is sufficient to discover comfort and
lappiness. Everybody has something to give up for God. (2) At the call of God
he gave up all. Instantly he “left the oxen and ran after Elijah.” There should
be no hesitation in entering upon the service of God. Elisha did not go home to
ask but to take leave of his parents. For the authority of God is above that of
parents. His proposal to return to his home was not a pretext for delay, else he
would have merited the censure of our Lord (see Luke v. 29; ix. 61,62) The
completeness of his renunciation of the world was expressed in his sacrificing the
oxen together with the gear. Ministers, in particular, should be free from the
entanglements of this life (see Matt. x. 9, 10; 1 Cor. ix. 14; 2 Tim. ii. 4). 2. He
followed Elijah. (1) He had something to encounter. The life of a prophet was
not without its privations and discomforts. And in following Elijah, whose life was
threatened with an oath by Jezebel, he would expose himself to her malignity. The
offence of the cross has not ceased. (2) He encountered all cheerfully. Elijah

‘substance”

responded tc his request to let him kiss his father and mother before following him,
saying, “Go, return ; for what have I done to thee?” ‘This answer was intended
all, so that

to throw upon Elisha the consideration of all that was involved in his ¢
his choice might be intelligent and free. He was not long in countivg the cost.
God had predisposed his heart (see Psa. cx. 3). Soon we find him pcuring water
upon the hands of Elijah—lovingly serving the servant of his Lord (2 Kings ili. 11).

Observe: 1. Elisha, though evidently a great man at Abel-Meholah, could
handle the plough. There is no disgrace in honest labour. It is even honourable.
2, While in pursuit of his business he was called of God. Business will not be
honest if it prevent us from hearing God’s voica. 8. He returned to kiss his father474 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [ GH-=eix. Sk

 

and mother and make a farewell feast with his household before following Elijah.
Natural affection and social endearments, within proper limits, are respected by
religion. 4. Elisha’s parents do not seem to have hindered him. Lhose parents
incur fearful responsibilities who, under worldly influences, hinder their sons from
responding to a call cf God to enter His ministry.—J. A. M.

Vers. 1—18.—The Desponding Prophet. A marvellous change has come over
Elijah. It is difficult to imagine a more complete contrast than is presented by his
moral attitude in this and the previous chapters. He who just before has so boldly
confronted the proud king, and defied the priests of Baal, standing without fear
before his flaming altar, and sternly carrying out the judgment of God on the cor-
rupters of His people, is now filled with dismay, and flies from the post of duty and
of danger. So unstable are the grandest forms of human virtue, and so weak are the
noblest of men when God is pleased for a while to leave them to themselves. Con-
sider (1) The prophet’s state of mind. (2) The way in which God deals with him.

I. Tue PROPHET’S STATE OF MIND. It is one of deep despondency. Fear of the
queen’s revenge is not enough of itself to explain it. There is disappointment at
the apparent result of the events of the previous day, weariness of lite, disgust at
the condition of the land, a sense of powerlessness before the difficulties of his
position, perhaps doubt-as to the wisdom of what he has done. He speaks and
acts as a dispirited, broken-hearted man. Note some of the manifest causes of this
despondency. We can never thoroughly understand the feelings of a man unless
we take into account the sources and occasions of them, and try to put ourselves in
his place. 1. Physical exhaustion. His bodily frame was worn and weary. His
animal spirits had had a great strain upon them, and now suffered a corresponding
relapse. Unwonted exertion of strength was followed by unwonted weakness. The
relation that exists between the state of the body and the state of the mind is very
mysterious, but very real. The elation or depression of our religious feeling depends
far more on mere physical conditions than we often imagine. A diseased body will
often cause a dark cloud to come over the spirit’s firmament; much that is morbid
in the religious thoughts and emotions of good men needs to be dealt with by the
physician of the body rather than of the soul. 2. Loneliness. He was without
the companionship and sympathy of those who -would share his labours and perils.
“T, even I only, am left, and they seek my life to destroy it.” Itis asingle-handed
conflict in which he is involved. ‘There-are none to stand by him, none whom he
can trust. Such isolation is the severest possible test of fidelity. As the rock never
appears more majestic than when seen standing alone, with the ocean billows
rolling round it, so with one who is ‘faithful found -among the faithless,” cut off
from all natural and human supports, isolated in a surrounding sea of indifference
or iniquity. (Think of Pawl: “ At my first answer no man stood with me, but all
forsook me,” 2 Tim. iv. 16; above all the Christ. ‘“‘I have trodden the winepress
alone, and of the people there was none with me,’’ Isaiah Ixii. 8.) Supernatural
help -will often come for special emergencies, and will make the soulsubhimely inde-
pendent of external aid; but itis hard to carry on a long,-patient conflict with difh-
culties alone. 8. Want of.swecess. His ministry seems all in vain. His words
are but as the dreams of the false prophets. Thesolemn testimony given on Carmel
has passed away without effecting any real change in the condition of things. The
fire that consumed his sacrifice has gone out. Righteous-vengeance has been in-
flicted on the idolatrous prophets,and ‘the Kishon hasswept away their blood. The
drought has done its work, and the rain has returned upon the land. And now all
seems to be zoing on just asit was before. Ahab and Jezelel are as hostile-and
treacherous and ‘full of eruel hate as ever ;-and:asfor the people, there isno hind of
security for their constancy to:their. recent vows. Surely he is living his sad life in
rain! ‘That dreariest of all thoughts to.a man of: highand holy purpose—that his
labour is utterly fruitless—sweeps like a withering wind through his soul, and he
wishes he were dead. ‘‘O Lord, take away my life, for Iam no-better than my
fathers.” 4. The sense.of having forsaken the post of responsibility. It may
have been a natural impulse that moved him to ‘fly for his life,” but no wonderCH. XIx. 1—21.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 4T5

 

his despondency deepened as he lost himself in the solitudes of the wild ,
was the inward disquietude which will always be the lty of Sere sr
weakly or wilfully deserted the path of duty. When poet re a es hee ae
a false position, they must expect the shadow of some morhid condition of dling i
fall ere eke spirits. When the hands of those who ought to be busy about oh
ee ie nee? hearts ss left a prey to all sorts of evil influences,
1S yivy 1S one of the main secrets of religious health. ‘What is our erand
business in this world but just to battle against the weaknesses of our own nature
and the force of adverse circumstances? And when the difticulties of our position
ae re about us, then is the time to cast ourselves most fearlessly on the
I ee au Pack will enable us to overcome them and listen to the voice that says,
taithfu unto death, and I will give thee the erown of life.”

II. Gop’s way or DEALING WITH HIM. ‘Taking a general view of the Divine method
we see that each successive step is wisely adapted to the prophet’s need. 1.
Physical refreshment. An angel is sent with food for the nourishment of his ex-
hausted frame ; not to talk with him, not by remonstrance or persuasion to chase
away his morbid feelings, but to feed him, “The disease of the mind js to be cured
by first removing the weakness of the body, which was one of its causes. Ti isa
suggestive incident. Our physical nature is as truly an object of Divine thought and
care as the spiritual. God will not fail to supply the meaner wants of His children.
‘The beneficent ministries of His providence are ever auxiliary to the higher purposes
of His grace. 2. A significant revelation of the Divine presence and power. The
remarkable phenomena described in the eleventh and twelfth verses on doubt had
a symbolic meaning. The wind, the earthquake, and the fire were emblems of the
conspicuous and extraordinary manner in which Elijah probably expected the work
of God to be carried on. The “still small voice” that followed taught him that
God’s chosen way of working was rather one that is calm and noiseless. The
stirring events that had recently taken place were only preparatory to the silent but
mightier energy of His spirit working through the voice of the prophet. We are
apt to over-estimate the power of that which ‘cometh with observation.” Why
should the wind, and the fire, and the earthquake be God’s only instruments? Is
He not equally in the gently-dawning light, the soft-whispering breeze, the silent,
secret forces of nature? Your path of usefulness may be obscure, your influence
unobserved, its issues slowly developed. But be not disheartened. Remember the
** still small voice ” breathing in the ear of the prophet at the mouth of the cave
when the tumult was over, and learn that it is by a feeble instrument and a quiet,
patient process that God will accomplish His grandest work in the moral sphere.
This is the method of the world’s Redeemer. ‘‘ He shall not cry nor lift up, nor
cause his voice to be heard in the streets, &. (Isa. xl. 2,3, 4). 8. Words of rebuke
and encouragement. ‘* What doest thou here, Elijah?” ‘*Go, return on thy way.”
‘“ Yet have I left me seven thousand in Israel,” &. Thus does God reprove him
for the faithlessness that lay at the root of his despondency. If the veil that hid
the secret life of Israel could at that hour have been uplifted, he would have seen
how little real reason there was for it. Seven thousand living witnesses might have
eome forth from their obscurity to show that his work was not in vain, We little
‘know what God is doing beneath the surface, at the secret heart of society, when
appearances seem most unfavourable. Let us be true to ourselves and to Him,
doing faithfully the work He has given us to do in storm or in calm, and leave it to
Him to bring about the glorious issue. ‘‘‘ Be ye ‘therefore steadfast, immovable,

&c. (1 Cor. xv. 58).—W.

Ver. 19—21.—The Call of Elisha. It was by an express Divine command that
Elijah summoned ‘Elisha to the prophetic office (ver. 16). And yet we may a
a purely human element in this. He did it by the impulse of eee fee eh
Stern, rugged, self-reliant as he was, he needed sympathy and p pirgainepind Se e
yearned for the society of a kindred spirit. He could not bear to live alone. W i ver
he had any previous personal knowledge of Elisha we know eee ce = ae
that, totally different as the two men were, he found in hima faithful friend anREE aeeriereswmrenroes

476 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [oH. xix. 1—21,

 

servant. And scanty as the materials of the narrative may be, there is enough to
show how deep and tender an affection existed between them. Note in reference
to this call—

I. THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE Divine cHoice. No indication is given as to why
Elisha particularly should have been called to this office. So it has generally been
in the case of those who, in the olden times, were raised up to occupy distinguished
positions in the development of the Divine plan. (Abraham, Moses, Saul, David,
&c.) So was it in Christ’s choice of the inner circle of His disciples; as when to the
sons of Zebedee mending their nets, and to Matthew at the receipt of custom, He
said, ‘Follow me.” But the elections of God are never arbitrary and capricious.
He chooses whom He will to be the instruments of His purpose, ‘‘ taking one of a
city and two of a family ” as it pleases Him (Jer. iii. 14). But there is always some
deep and sufficient reason for this, though we may not be able to trace it. Lvery
man who has done any great work for God in the world has been more or less
deeply impressed with this sense of a special Divine call and commission. And it
has given a dignity to his bearing and strength and courage to his spirit that
nothing else could give. Every true Christian finds highest inspiration in the
thought that God has singled him out from the crowd and summoned him to the
service of a consecrated life. ‘ Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and
ordained you,” &c. (John xv. 16).

II. THE SACRED PERSONAL RELATION IT ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THE PROPHET AND
HIS SERVANT. Jlijah’s throwing his ‘‘mantle” upon him as he passed by was a
symbolic act indicative of this. It was the sign of their common prophetic voca-
tion, the seal and bond of the new relation existing betweenthem. It betokened—
(1) some kind of adoption to sonship. ‘My Father, my Father” (2 Kings un. 12).
(2) A transference of the responsibility of the prophetic work. (8) The imparta-
tion of the same spirit, even the ‘double portion”’ of the first-born (2 Kings 11.
9, 10). We see here something dimly typical of the relation Christ sustained
towards His chosen apostles. ‘As thou hast sent me into the world, even so also
have I sent them,” &e. (John xvii. 18, 19). Some such relation subsisted between
Paul and his ‘‘ dearly beloved son” Timothy. ‘‘Asason with the father he hath
served with me in the gospel” (Phil. i. 22). ‘‘ Wherefore I put thee in remem-
brance,” &. ‘Hold fast the form of sound words,” &c, (2 Tim. i. 6, 18). The
thought becomes proverbial when we speak of the ‘‘mantle” of a great leader
falling upon his successors. One of the chief ends of a noble life is answered when
others take up the work that it left unfinished, and catch the spirit of its example ;
nothing more sacred than the spiritual bond thus established.

III. Tork COMPLETENESS OF ELISHA’S SELF-SURRENDER. Natural feeling for a
moment throws an obstacle in the way. ‘‘ Let me, I pray thee, kiss my fatherand
my mother.” It was a hard task for him at once to loosen himself from family
ties, and relinquish the comforts of what was probably a prosperous pastoral life,
and cast in his lot with the wandering prophet. Eljah’s answer seems to disown
the exercise of any undue constraint upon him, and simply leaves him free to choose.
But the loyalty of his spirit to the Divine authority soon settles the alternative,
and after an act expressive of his entire abandonment of the associations of his
former life, ‘‘ he arose and went after Elijah and ministered unto him.” We are
reminded of the way in which Christ called on men to surrender their all and
follow Him (Luke ix. 57—62). Fidelity to Him demands complete self-sacrifice.
The strongest fascinations, and even the dearest ties of earth, will give way to the
realized sovereignty of His claims. ‘‘ He that loveth father or mother more than
me is not worthy of me” (Matt. x. 87).—W.

Ver. 4.—The Causes of Despondency. Human character is more complex than
many imagine. Its elements are so diverse, and sometimes so contradictory, that
only God ean fairly judge it. The biographies of Scripture and the subtieties of our
own hearts combine to enforce the lesson, “Judge not, that ye be not judged.”
We should have placed in the foremost rank the disciple who first acknowledged
the divinity of our Lord, and we should have cast him out of the Church who deniedCH. xIx. 1—21.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 477

 

ey

his Lord with oaths and curses; yet both the one and the other
of the same character. Never was contradiction more complete than in Elijah
One day he leads a whole nation in penitence, the next he flees to save his life, as
one who has thrown up all hope of Jehovah’s cause. None but the pitiful and
patient Father-God would have judged him aright; nor was Elijah the last to say
“Thy gentleness hath made me great.” We are reminded that it is difficult to
judge ourselves as well as others. On Carmel, Khjah might have thought himself
invincible, and in Horeb an unmitigated coward, but he was neither. Varieties of
mood must not be too much considered. They do not afford a fair index to
character. We are not infidels because we pass through a phase of doubt, we are
not reprobates because we are deeply conscious of sin, norare we Christians because
We enjoy a religious service. A sad and frequent experience of religious life, that
of despondency, is set before us here, and we will seek to discover its causes.

I. Reaction AFTER EXCITEMENT. Great natures are peculiarly subject to this,
The impulse which impels to a noble act has arebound proportioned to its intensity,
Peter and John the Baptist stand beside Elijah as exemplars of this fact. From it
arises the special peril of revivalistic services. Excitement has its place and power
in the advance of Christ’s kingdom, but we must not substitute spasmodic feeling
for steady growth. a

If. EXHAUSTION OF PHYSICAL AND NERVOUS ENERGY. E.ven the gigantic strength
of Elijah underwent a terrible strain on Carmel. Anxiety, enthusiasm, burning
zeal, exultation combined to agitate him, and these were doubtless preceded by
many days and nights of passionate, agonizing prayer. God’s provision for the
prophet—the sleep that came over him, as over a tired child, the food prepared by
angel hands—prove that this was recoenized.

Show the mutual dependence of body and mind. Neither the equable tempera-
ment of some Christians nor the excitability of others is due always to the
presence or absence of Divine grace. Good food, fresh air, and change of scene
would do more than religious exercises to restore tone to some who are despondent.
The neglect of sanitary laws is a sin. There was far-reaching wisdom in Paul’s
declaration, ‘‘ I keep the body under.”

III. ABsENCE oF sympatHy. ‘I am left alone.” “TI only am left.’ Such was
the burden of Elijah’s cry. This is a special source of despondency to missionaries
surrounded by the heathen. It affects also multitudes who are not so literally alone.

hey may have many Christians around them, but in their special work, in their
peculiar difficulty, they can find none to help, or even to understand them. ‘Alone
in a crowd” is a true description of many a disciple of Christ, who is thinking his
own thoughts and fighting his own foes. Show from this the wisdom of the provision
God has made in Church fellowship. Point out the causes which tend to make such
communion unreal or unhelpful. Urge the cultivation of sympathy with young
disciples, with obscure workers, &e.

IV. InF.urnce of poust. The confidence of the prophet on Carmel had broken
down. Jezebel had not been cowed by the sudden revulsion of popular feeling.
She doubted its permanence, and at all events resolved that she would not lose heart,
so Ahab and his courtiers were reassured when she swore to have revenge on Elijah.
The prophet thought now that he had been too sanguine—that the onc eee had
come and gone without effect. Doubt paralyzed him. Doubt of God S will ingness to
forgive plunges the penitent into despondency. He would scarcely vent e secretl}
into a erowd to touch the hem of Christ's garment. Doubt of God’s readiness to
hear and answer prayer keeps the Christian from the light of His countenance, &¢.

VY. INVISIBILITY OF ANTAGONISTS. Elijah could face his visible foes on Carmel
without quailing—indeed, he dared to taunt them at the risk of being ee to i
but against this vague feeling of despair he could not hold his own. i ora . es
are the hardest to fight. He who can grapple with what is tang! y ER eS
fails when called on to ‘“‘ wrestle not with flesh and blood, but with Bee ies,
and powers, and the rulers of the darkness of this world.” Some would rat an run
the risk of being condemned hereafter, as wicked and slothful servants, than . 1ave
the certainty of being sneered at now as those who are “ righteous overmuch.

were the outcome478 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS: [cu. xrx. 1--21.

Se

 

VI. Enrorcep nactivity. Elijah’s opportunity for vigorous action seemed over.
He was cast in upon his own thoughts. Few could bear it less patiently than he.
The man who can dare and do anything finds it specially hard to wait and to
suffer. Similar temptation to despondency comes.to those who are laid aside by
illness, or removed from a happy sphere of service. But thatis the time to wait on
the Lord, and so ‘‘ renew our strength.”

Concuusion. In all howrs of despondency remember that He who knew the
agony of Gethsemane and Calvary pities us, and feels for us. ‘“ We have not.a
High Priest who cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities,” &c.—A. R.

Ver. 9.—A Question from God for the consideration of Man. Elijah was fleeing
from peril and from work, but he could not flee from God. The Father seeth in
secret. No man is out of His sight, no feeling eludes His vigilance (Psalm cxxxix.)
Christ knew the plans of His foes (Matt. xii. 25). He understood. the unexpressed
wants of the sinful (Matt. ix. 2). He heard the secret. conversations of His followers
(Mark ix. 33), and lovingly answered their unspoken questions (John xvi. 19).
In this story God’s pity is as conspicuous as His knowledge. Refreshed by. the
provision given by unseen hands, Elijah went to Horeb, a place sacred in its asso-
ciations and lonely in its grandeur. There, hidden in a cave from the wrath of
Jezebel, the voice of Jehovah reached him, saying, ‘“‘ What doest thou here,
Filijah ?”

I. THE QUESTION CAME TO A PROPHET IN HIS HOUR OF DESPAIR. This Divine inter-
position on his behalf teaches us the means God uses to bring us out from our
despondency. The prophet was delivered from his depression by learning the
following lessons: 1. That God was near. Whatever the sin that needs pardon,
the weakness that wants conquering, the doubt that wants unravelling, there is no
fear of the issue if we can consciously bring it to God. Elijah was saved. because
he dared tell Jehovah all that was in his heart. Moses sometimes was compelled
to leave his work to the elders, that he might speak to God face to face. The
disciples ‘“‘went and told Jesus” their grief and their triumph, Aye, and the
Master Himself nerved Himself for work and for suffering by prayer—on the
mountain orin the garden. Satan says, Give up prayer till your difficulties are
removed. Christ says, ‘‘ Come unto me, all ye that labour, and are heavy laden, and
I will give yourest.” 2. That success was assured. Elijah thought he stood alone.
but the Lord ssid, “Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel,” &. Success was
not where the prophet had looked for it. The crowds on Carmel had not been radically
changed, but the secret worshippers of God had been strengthened by his heroism.
So in the Lord’s ministry, the nucleus of the Church was not found in the ap-
plauding multitudes on Olivet, but in the few faithful ones in the garden of Geth-
semane. Our work may be greater than we think. No word or work for Christ
fails of its reward. ‘ For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and
returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud,
that it may give seed to the sower and bread to the eater : so shall my word be that
goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall aecom-
plish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.” 8.
That work was warting (ver. 15). Elijah was not to remain in the cave, any more
than the disciples were to dwell on the mount of transfiguration. For his own
sake and for the good of others he was to be up and doing. If you would be saved
from brooding, despondency, and doubt, throw yourselves into the work of God.
Do with all your might what your hands find to do: and your service will restore
tone to your mind, and bring hope to your heart, and prepare you to hear the ‘ Well
done, good and faithful servant,”

if. THIS QUESTION CAME TO A MAN IN-A FALSE POSITION, “ What doest thou here,
Elijah 2” The inquiry should pursue others who have fled to caves in which they
would fain hide themselves from responsibility. 1. It comes to the impenitent, in
the cave of concealment. They say, “ Doth God know?” He sees the secret sin.
He knows the iniquity of that which society applauds, and the day is coming when
excuses shall be stripped off, and. wickedness. discovered Before that terrible day,cw. xix. 1—21.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS, 47g

 

when “the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed,”
God. 2. It comes to the penitent in the cave of
says, ‘‘ Come now, and let us reason together.” 38. It comes to the indolent in the
cave of sloth. Years of profession unrelieved by a single act of service or sacti-
fice call for repentance. 4. I¢ comes to the sorrowful in the ‘s
“Lift up the hands which hang down,” &c.
of the horrible pit, and “put a
God.”

Conctusion. The Lord speaks to all. “ To-day if ye will hear his voice,
harden not your hearts.”—A. R.

come to the feet of a pardoning
despondency. To all such God

cave of murmuring
“y ~~ ~ . .

Suffer your Redeemer to bring you out
new song into your mouth, even praise unto our

Vers. 12.—The still small Voice. Describe the stupendous scenes amidst which
ljah stood. A wind came shrieking up the mountain ravines, unseen yet instinct
with secret force ; an eartiiquake made the solid ground heave and reel ; fire glared
from heaven, like that which had fallen on the sacrifice at Carmel, or on a subse-
quent occasion consumed the captains and soldiers of Ahaziah. Amidst this war
of the elements the prophet was unmoved by fear ; indeed, probably a wild exultation
filled his heart as he saw this stormy reflection in nature of the conflict within him.
(Compare Shakespeare’s splendid description of King Lear in the storm.) The
uproar in nature was succeeded by a solemn calm; and as Elijah waited for the
next marvellous display of Divine power, ‘‘a still small voice” broke the silence,
and the prophet knew that it was the voice of God. He who till now had been
undaunted and unmoved, now reverently covered his face with his mantle, and
bowed in humble worship in the felt presence of Him before whom angels veil their
faces. ‘'his strange and weird experience evidently had reference to the work
which Elijah had attempted, and. over which he was now so despondent. When
he learnt that the Lord was not im the wind, the earthquake, or the fire, he re-
flected that permanent religious reformation might not result from the material
signs of Divine power, displayed in the withholding of the rain, the raising of the
dead, or the fall of fire on Carmel, but from the more quiet testimony of his own
devout life, and from the fidelity of the “seven thousand who had not bowed the
knee to Baal.” In effect, the message to him and to us was this: ‘‘ Not by might,
nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord.” Weare taught, in the first place—
I. THe SPIRITUAL WEAKNESS OF WHAT SEEMS micuTy. ‘The Lord was not in
the wind, .... in the earthquake, .... in the fire.” Let us exemplify this
truth—l. By the experience of Elijah. He had done many mighty works, but
the people were startled rather than reformed. No radical and abiding change
had been effected. ‘The wind” may represent the drought, both in its coming and
in its ceasing ; ‘‘the earthquake,” the raising of the child from the dead ; and “the
fire,” the answer to prayer on Carmel. It was not these wonders which could
change the heart of the people, but “ the still small voice” speaking within for
God. 2. By the miracles of judgment. Take the plagues of Eeypt as specimens.
Marvellous enough they were, but in the result “ Pharaoh’s heart was Reser
3. By the penalties of the law. Show from the history of Israel, and from the
comments made on it in the Epistles, the powerlessness of the law to put away sin.
The fear of punishment may check the outward manifestation on As but in ak
does not conquer innate sinfulness. If a child does not love his a as Bove
however stringently enforced, will make him happy. It was not ee 3 Bap tes
but Jesus Christ, who was the world’s Redeemer 4. By the en? of me i ee
Illness, the dread of death, a startling bereavement, a renee ere) ae ss Be
not convert men, unless through them or after them ‘‘the sti ane : us . SC
Men may be driven to alarm, to murmuring, to ane per vee ° ae ee
their hearts are still rebellious under the influence of trouble. It is ng a ste : ;
but the voice of Jesus in the storm, saying, “ It is I,” that brings rest. to those who
os. STRENGTH OF WHAT SEEMS FEEBLE. The aa en a
an could hear, was more Divine and more mighty than a ijah

oe e. There was all the difference between God’s power and God's

had witnessed befor

 

ET ae ene oe

ences tinpesicratcnnneenpnperscecneaenpetacacncne cai pa dtepataeaant tion tosemetets480 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. {cH. xIx. 1—21,

—— ee

 

presence. ‘The Lord was not in the fire,” but His was the still small voice; con-
cerning which we observe—1. It follows on preparation. Elijah had heard so
much, had been so startled into keen listening for the wonderful, that he did not
fail to hear this. So the miracles which had not converted the people had made
them ready for Elisha and the school of the prophets. Similariy John preceded
Jesus. It is thus in personal experience. The earthquake did not convert the
jailer at Philippi, but it aroused him to ask, ‘“‘ What must I do to be saved ?”
Trouble does not save a man, but it may make him ready to listen to the words of
life. Scme must lose all before they find all in God. 2. Itreminds of secret forces.
The most mighty are silent in nature and in grace; e.g., gravitation is far more
tremendous than voleanic agency. 38. It typifies the influence of the Holy Spirit.
“ He shall convince the world of righteousness,” ke. How secretly He melts the
heart to repentance, faith, and obedience, and changes the whole current of affec-
tion and thought. 4. It whispers of the love of Christ. He forced none into His
kingdom, but won all His subjects man by man. Not His reproaches, but His look
of love, broke the heart of Peter into penitence, after the denial. Paul’s inspiration
was found not in applause or success, but in this--that he could ever say, ‘‘'The love
of Christ constraineth me.”

Conciusion. Wait for no resistless influences, for no startling events; but listen
to the ‘still small voice” which speaks within, testifying of your deep necessity
and Christ’s glorious redemption.—A. R.

Vers. 1—8.—The Prophet’s Despair. I. ELiJAw’s WEAKNESS. 1. His disappoint-
ment. With the hand of the Lord upon him he had come to Jezreel (ch. xviii. 46).
Was if not because a further success for God awaited him there? Could Carmel’s
wonders and the mercy of Godin the rain now flooding the earth be resisted ?
Jezebel’s message, displaying only determined and increased hostility, rudely dispels
the dream. The blighting of the long-expected fruit of prayer and waiting and
mightiest effortis worse to bear than all the hardships which went before. . Other
trials may depress, but under this the spirit is utterly broken. 2. His flight. He
shows no trust in Him who was mightier than Jezebel. He flees to the south of
Judah. Even there it does not seem to him that he is in safety, and he goes a day’s
journey into the wilderness; but neither at Jezreel nor at Beersheba does he seek
direction from the Lord. The overthrow of hope is also the overthrow of faith.
Ceasing to hope in God we cease to wait on God. 8. His prayer. (1) Its incon-
sistency. He had fied for his life, and now he prays God that he may die. We
are not fittest for heaven when we are most tired of earth. We must ‘‘ enter his
gates” —the gates of the city that hath foundations—“ with praise,” not with com-
plaints and accusations. (2) [ts unbelief. God’s work is abandoncd as impossible ;
nothing remains for Him but to take back the life of His defeated servant! Many
a noble heart besides has lifted up the same cry of despair. The noblest of man-
kind are nothing when once the fire of trust is quenched in the soul. ‘The just
shall live by faith;” when faith dies, every good and noble thing dies with it.

II. How Gop BINDS UP THE BROKEN-HEARTED. 1. He gives rest. ‘‘He lay and
slept.” Even in the desert to which we flee unbidden, God gives shelter and rest.
‘For so,he giveth his beloved sleep.” 2. He imparts strength for the onward
way to where light will break upon the darkness and a new mission will be given.
Hlijah is fed once and again with angel food, and in the strength of it goes “ forty
days and forty nights unto Horeb, the mount of God.” We are revived with tender
heavenly ministrations : we see His goodness in the land of the living, and pass
onward to the place where we shall meet with Him and hear His voice.—J. U

Vers. 9—18.—Elijah at Horeb. I. How Gop pDEALs WITH THE DESPATRING. 1,
Elyah’s mistake. Because Jezebel’s enmity remained unsubdued the struggle was
at once given over as hopeless; ‘‘and he came thither unto a cave, and lodged
there.” The same mistake is made by those who labour on with unexpectant
toil, whose wrestling with God is given up, whose feeble thought and listless tones
proclaim their hopelessness: by those who have laid down the work to whichCH. x1x. 1—21,] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 481

 

 

 

God ieias facet breathiors in retirement or in other spheres, teachers. &c.—
hos lave ceased to strive against their own sin. 2. God's remedy (1)

The heart issearched. ‘“ What doest thow here, Elijah?” A prophet in the desert ?

r o . :
ere her res with the light of the knowledge of God, a companion of
1es and solitude; and death and sin crying to be visited wit]
rebuke of God, and hearts faintine { c is light and nea et eres
( g tor lack of His light and consolations? Was t

for this God endowed and called thee? A word for those who have left the fos
yard : for those who have not yet entered ; for the worldly and the sinful. To a
this voice 1S preparation for entering the path of life and of service “TH en
heard there is no possibility of either. (2) Unbelief is unveiled When God’s v i
is heard, and the reasons for the wilderness flight are named. it is seen that Tule
been shut out of sight. He mentions his own zeal, and Israel’s sin but of God
there is nothing said. It is unbelief alone which can kill prayer and  s
hopeful toil. It was only when Peter ceased to gaze on Jesus that the stormy
waves engulfed him. If we are in the wilderness, forgetfulness of God
there.

it, Lae PATH OF DELIVERANCE FORTHE HOPELESS. 1. The vision of God. Elijah’s
thoughts of God’s way were corrected. (1) God was not in the whirlwind, or the
earthquake, or the fire. What had failed to turn Israel and subdue Jezebel was not
what was really God’s power unto salvation, but what Elijah erroneously conceived
to be this. We despair because certain methods, influences, arguments fail: but
they can only fail because God is not in them. (2) God was in the still small voice
that awoke within the heart. The power which now held and searched the prophet’s
own soul was the manifestation of what was power for the souls of others, 2. The
recognition of ourselves as only part of the manifold agency of God. Other hands
as well as his were to carry on the work of judgment and of mercy (vers. 15—17)
To feel our brotherhood with the servants of God fills ug with joy and power. 3.
Phe assurance that God never works in vain (ver. 18). The results may be hid
from us, but they are known to Him.—J. U,

le stormy
has set us

 

Vers. 19—21.—The Prophet’s Call. I. Tue cat tosrrvicr. 1. Where it found
him—in the field engaged in laborious, careful toil. The Master chooses servants
for higher trusts who have been faithful in lower. 2. How it came. The mantle cast
upon him was a sign of adoption. It wasa call to share the prophet’s home and
love. Elijah was to find a son in the newly-called servant of God, and Elisha a
father in the great prophet of Israel. We pass into God’s service through union
with His people.

If. INDECISION REBUKED (ver. 20). 1. Therequest. He “ran after Elijah,” yet
with entreaty for permission to go back and kiss father and mother. The new ties
and the old were both binding him, and the vain attempt was made to comply
with both. God’s call must from the first have the mastery. The seeming severity
which we are called upon to exercise will yield fruits of joy. God, fully chosen,
will be fully known; and the breaking of lower ties may preach the claims of God
to those we love best. 2. The answer. ‘Go back again, for what have I done to
thee?” The gift neglected is taken away. As we value it and sacrifice for it, in
that measure is it giventous. ‘Treat God’s grace as nothing, and to youit becomes
nothing.

III. Tue cHotce mapE. 1. The past was broken with. His own yoke of oxen
were slain, the instruments of his toil consumed. 2. It was done with glad-
mess. Hemade a feast for thepeople. 3. He took the place which God meanwhile
assigned him. ‘Then he arose, and went after Elijah, and ministered unto him,”
Humble, loving companionship with God’s people is preparation for taking up their
work.—J. U.

Vers. 4-21. Return of Elijah to the Desert. Itis well for us to recognize that
the great servants of God are men like ourselves, that they were formed of the same
clay, and that they share our infirmities. Elijah had no time to magnify himself
after his triumph on Mount Carmel. It was at this very moment God allowed him
1 KINGS. 21482 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. fou. xx. 1—43.

 

 

to pass through the most terrible mental conflict. Led into the bare and arid
solitudes of Horeb, he fell into a state of depression bordering on despair, and,
throwing himself down under a juniper tree in the wilderness, he cried, Ta) Lord,
now take away my life!’ (Ver. 4.) A spiritual crisis like this comes in the life of
most men of God, and may be explained by two reasons. ue There is a spiritual
necessity forit. The man of God who has gained the first great victory is apt to
think that it is decisive and final, and that he may now cease to fight. And behold,
the evil that was vanquished yesterday lifts up its head again, and the conflict
has to be begun anew. “I have been very jealous for the Lord God of hosts ; for
the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant ”’ (ver. LO}. 2, This painful crisis
is permitted by God, who will not have His servants uplifted in their own eyes, even
by the most splendid triumphs of the cause which it is their honour to maintain.
This is the explanation of the mysterious thorn in the flesh with which St. Paul
was buffeted (2 Cor. xii. 7). This is-the cause of the momentary despondency of
John the Baptist, which prompted that utterance of a faltering faith, ‘‘ Art thou
he that should come?” (Matt. xi. 8.) To the same source we may trace the
aneuish of Luther in the Wartburg. He who is pleased thus to exercise the soul of
His children is Himself their only efficient Comforter. God raises His downcast
servant Elijah by means of a glorious vision. The Lord is not in the wind, not in
the earthquake; these are but the symbols of His awful majesty. He is in the still
small voice, which whispers the name afterwards to be proclaimed to the whole
world by the beloved disciple, and written in letters of blood upon the cross: “ God
is love” (1 John iv.16). Let us not forget, however, that if God is not in the stormy
wind and earthquake, these manifestations of His severity necessarily preceded
¢the manifestation of that love which is His true essence. It was needful that the
reed which had presumed to lift up itself against God should be bent, that the hard
heart, like the stone, should be broken in order that the still small voice might gain
an entrance to it. Repentance must come before the deliverance and joy of pardon,
It is by this path through the desert that God leads every soul of man ; it was thus
that He led His servant Elijah. His overwhelming anguish of soul was like the
whirlwind which prepared the way for the soft whisper of heavenly peace. ‘This
desert of spiritual desolation is to be made to blossom like the rose under the re-
viving breath of the Lord (Isa. xxxv.1). Elijah comes forth from it with renewed
strength and courage, after the wholesome discipline of humiliation, a witness to us
of the truth of the Divine assurance uttered by the lips of Christ Himself: ‘‘ Blessed
are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted” (Matt. v. 4).—H. de P.

EXPOSITION.

 

CHAPTER XX. 1—48.

THE INVASIONS 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 ch. xix., and
which is resumed with ch. xxi.—the inser-
tion of this twentieth chapter in this place
is apparently due to the compiler of these
records, who seems to haye adopted this
arrangement as the more chronological. It
is not absolutely certain, however, that we

 

original compiler, as the Vatican LXX.,
which sometimes appears to represent an
older and purer text, places ch. xx. after
ch. xxi., thereby concluding the history of
Elijah—so far as it was comprehended is
the reign of Ahab—before entering on the
subject of the Syrian wars. Ilt is not im-
probable, consequently. that this latter was
the original order; and it is quite certain
that the account of Elijah’s ministry, of
which ch. xxi. forms a part, is of a piece with
ch. xix., and by the same hand, and is by
a different hand from the author, or authors,
of chaps. xx. and xxii. Ch. xxi. 1 also
supplies a reason why that chapter should
follow ch. xx. There seems, moreover. to

owe this disposition of his materials to the | be a close connexion between ch. xxii. andCH. xx. 1—43.]

 

the denunciation of ch. xx. 42. But the

present arrangement evidently dates from
very early times.

Ver. 1.—And Ben-hadad [See on chs. xi.
i4-amd xv. 18, The LXxX, uniformly spells
the name Ader (vide ”Adeo). The form TIN
is found in ch. xi. 17, and 4 and “are fre.
quently interchanged; cf. Gen. xxv. 15.
Xxxvi. 39 with 1 Chron. i. 30, 46. We learn
from ver. 34 that this prince was the son of
a Syrian king who had conquered some of
the cities of Israel, but we cannot neverthe-
less be certain that he was the son of that
Ben-hadad (ch. xv. 18) who invaded Israel
in the reign of Baasha (Ewald). See on
ver. 34.] the king of Syria gathered all his
host [See note on ch. x. 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 (ch. x. 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 king-
doms,” &¢e. (Rawlinson. See ‘‘ Records of the
Past,” vol. xii. p.20)], and horses, and cha-
riots [Heb. horse and chariot; cf. ver. 21
and chs. 1: 5; x..26; xvi. 9, &c. Both are
collective nouns. We see here the fruit and
retribution of Solomon's irreligious policy
(ch. x. 29 and Homiletics, p. 216). “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 ex-
pedition 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 mes-
sages, as if Ahab or Israel must have given
him dire offence. But Ben-hadad was
clearly a vain and overbearing and tyran-
nical prince, and the only crime of Israel
may have been that it was independent of
him, or had refused to do him homage. ]

Ver. 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 xvii. 18, 27)]
the city, and said unto him, Thus saith
Ben-hadad,

Ver. 3.—Thy silver and thy gold is mine
[Heb. mine it is]; thy wives also and thy
children [Nothing reveals Ben-hadad’s object

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

 

483

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 Sam. xvi.
21, 22; note on ch. ii. 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. Bihr 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,” &c.; (2) the fact that Ben-
hadad obviously meant insult and plunder;
and (3) the language of ver. 7, where see
note],are mine, (Heb. mine are they. Raw-
linson 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, cireum-
stances which the historian, with the cha-
racteristic 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 ver. 2 is that
the messengers were sent on the first ap-
proach of the army, or rather at the be-
ginning of the siege. |

Ver. 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 pusil-
lanimous acquiescence in these disgraceful
terms, &c. But it is not absolutely clear
that he ever meant to surrender either wives
or children to the invader, All that is cer-
tain 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 (ver. 6)
a measure which involved much less indig-
nity 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 enter-
tained in 1861 by Jacob esh Shellabi, then
sheykh of the Samaritans, who repeatedly
used words very similar to these. ‘‘ ThisTHE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[cu. xx. 1—43.

 

house is yours,” he would say; never mean-
ing, however, that he should be taken at his
word. |

Ver. 5.
and said, Thus s
Alihough {Heb.
the grammarians, this is merely the Hebrew
equival nt of the 6re recitantis. But the
OS °D 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 thes, say-
ing, 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.”]

Ver. 6.—Yet I will send my servants unto
thee to-morrow about this time [This pro-
posal 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 whatso-
ever they thought fit to sieze” (Words-
worth)], and they shall search thine house,
and the houses of thy servants; and it
shall be, that whatsoever is pleasant in
[Heb. the destre of ] thine eyes [The LXxX.
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 offen-
sive 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 plea-
sure, 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. ]

Ver. 7.—Then the king of Israel called
all the elders of the land [Bihr remarks
that this expression, compared with ‘ the
elders of the city” (ch. xxi. 8, &c.), sug-
gests either that these nobles, asthe highest

officials, had their residences at the court, or
upon the ep pEongly of Ben-hadad had be-
taken themselves thither with their treasures.
tawlinson builds on this slender basis the
conclusion that the council of elders which,
he says, belonged to the undivided kingdom,

And the messengers came again,
Beaks h Ben-hadad, saying
According to some of

 

 

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 nM} expresses
either hatred or contempt. Cf. ch. xxii.
27; Luke xxi. 2, 18, &c.] seeketh mis-
chief [the purport of Ahab’s address is
not, ‘* Ben-hadad is not satisfied with
my treasures; he wants yours also”’ (Bahr),
for there is no reference whatsoever to their
property, but, ‘‘See how he is determined
on our ruin. Nothing short of our de-
struction will suffice him. He is bent on
provoking an encounter, that he may
plunder the city at pleasure.” The s2lient
word is the MY]: for he sent unto me for

my wives, and for my children [LXX. zepi
ray viev poy. This shows clearly that “ the
most eminent young men ” cannot be meant
in ver. 3], and for my silver, and for my
gold: and I denied him not, [What these
words mean depends on what ver. 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 with-
out a struggle. ]

Ver. 8.—And all the elders and all the
people (not only, #.e., the inhabitants of
Samaria (Keil), but also those who had fled
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., thow shalt not con-

sent. by is the equivalent of pn}, ne, and xb
of od, non. Cf. Amos v. 5, and Ewald 350 a.]

Ver. 9.—Wherefore [Heb. and] he said
unto the messengers of Ben-hadad, Tell
my lord the king [He still employs the
same obsequious language as in ver. 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 (ver. 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 RawlinsoncH. xx. 1—43.]

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 485

 

imagines] word again. [Not the “word re-
lated in the next verse” (Rawlinson), but the
message just recorded. ]

Ver, 10.—And Ben-hadad sent unto him,
and said [These words would be quite
euperfluous, if the oaths of which we now
hear were the ‘‘ word” of ver. 9], The gods
do so unto me, and more also [see notes on
ch. il. 23; xix. 2], if the dust of Samaria
shall suffice for handfuls [The meaning of
poy pugilli, ts fixed by Isa. xl. 12, and
Ezek. xii. 19} for all the people that follow
me. ([Heb. that are in my feet. Same ex-
pression Judg. iv. 1C; v.15; 1 Sam. xxv.
27; 2 Sam. xv. 17, &, This thoroughly
Oriental piece of bluster and boasting, which
was intended, no doubt, to strike terror into
taoe hearts of king and people, has been
variously interpreted, but the meaning
appears to be sufficiently clear. Ben-hadad
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. vii. 226), but 2 Sam.
xvii. 13 is still more apposite, ]

Ver. 11.—And the king of Israel answered
and said, Tell him, Let not him that
girdeth on his harness boast himself as he
that putteth it off.. [This proverb consists
of fowr words in the Hebrew. The commen-
tators cite the Latin, Ne triumphum canas
ante victoriam, but proverbs to the same
effect are found in most languages.

Ver. 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 (Levit. xxiil.
34, 42). Such booths, it is said, are still
erected on military expeditions in the East],
that he said unto his servants, Set your-
selves in array [Heb. 19'W one short, de-

cisive word. His indignation and astonish-
ment were too great for more. We might
perhaps render “ Form.” Ci. 1 Sam. xi. 11;
Josh. viii. 2,13; Jobi. 17; Ezek. xxiii, 24.
It cannot mean oicodounoare yapaca (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.

Ver. 13.—And, behold, there came a pro-
phet (Heb. one prophet. Cf. ch. xin. 11.
According to Jewish writers, this was
Micaiah, son of Imlah, but ch. xxu., 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. Bihr says that
he was “least of all suited for such a
message,’ but not if he had learned the
lesson of ch. xix. 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 thegross corruption of the
age, for the persecution of the prophets, &c.?
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 ch,
xix. 17; xxii.31; 2 Kings x. 32), and further-
more that by his brutal tyranny and des-
potic demands, he had himself merited a
chastisement. The city, too, may have been
delivered for the sake of the seven thousand
(ch, xix: 183.2) Kings six, 347° Cf. Gen
xvill. 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. vers. 13, 28; ch. xviii. 39;
2 Kings xix. 22 sqq.), and so as an instru-
ment 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. ver. 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. |
Ver. 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 (Psa. xx. 1, 5, 7, &c.)], Even
by the young men [or servants—)) has
both meanings, corresponding with zai¢
(cf. Gen. xxxviil. 2; 2 Kings v. 20; viii. 4]
of the princes of the provinces. [The local
governors (cf. chs. iv. 7; x. 15), on the
approach of Ben hadad, had apparently fied
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” (Bihr), the body-guard of the
various governors (2 Sam. xviii. 15) (Von
Gerlach), may be doubtful; but when Bahr
says that Ahab would not have consented
to appoint weak boys to lead the van, at
least without remonstrance, ho must have
forgotten that all the ordinary means at

  
 
  
 
 
  
   
  
  
 
  
   
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
   
   
 
  
 
 
   
  
 
 
 
 
   
  
 
 
 
    
 
   
  
  
 
 
   
 
   
 
   
  
   
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
   
 
 

Se See

arene EN NS ES EES Se SUR el486

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
Green a) Cox, de, Zig: 29)... nd
this consideration makes against the sup-
position that the attacking body was com-
posed 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., tuy
band of young men shall make the attack. ]

Ver. 15.—Then he numbered [or reviewed
(cf. Num. i. 44 sqq.; 11. 39 —43)] the young
men of the princes of the provinces, and
they were two hundred and thirty-two [cf.
Pron: kV, skies (Sas ka xil, 16°. Deut.
xxxli. 80, &. LXX. dvaxdora rpraxorra.
Theodoret remarks that by this Land—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 ch. xix. 18, literally. And
the context (cf. ver. 19) shows that this
was the number of fighting men. But this
small army can hardly fail to create sur-
prise, especially if we compare it with the
statistics cf the soldiery of an earlier age
(2 Sam. xxiv. 9; 1 Chron..xxi. 5; 2 Chron.
xi. 3; xiv. 8). It is true this was not
strictly an army, but a garrison for the de-
fence 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 (ch. xix. 18),’’ Bahr.]

Ver. 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” (Bahr).
But it seems at least equally probable that
the noon hour was selected either in obe-
dience to the unrecorded directions of the
prophet, or as being a time for rest and
sleep, as it still isin 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
vhe monarchs of that age (cf. ch. xvi. 9;
Prov. xxxi. 4; Dan. vy. 1 sqq.; Esther i. 10;

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

 

[ou. xx. 1—43.

vii, 2; Hab. ii. 5). It can hardly have
been to ‘“‘mark his utter contempt of the
foe,” Rawlinson, who compares Belshazzar’s
feast (Dan. v. 1—4) when besieged by Cyrus.
But Ben-hadad was the besieger. We are
rather reminded of Alexander's carouse at
Babylon. ]

Ver. 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, &c., 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 diffi-
culty, which is removed by translating
nowy as pluperfect], and they told him, say-
ing, There are men come out of Samaria.
[Heb. men went forth, &e.]

Ver. 18.—-And he said, Whether they be
come out for peace [v.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 nights of am-
bassadors, 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.]

Ver. 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. }

Ver. 20.—And they slew every one his
man [The LXX., which differs here con-
siderably from the Hebrew, inserts at this
point cat ésdevrsowoev Exacroe Toy ao’
av’rov. Ewald thinks the Hebrew text
ought to be made to correspond, and would
read WN WN JY" 7.e., each repeatedly
killed his man, asin 1 Sam. xiv. 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 peut. ‘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 47,040 Greeks at Arbela” (Raw-
linson). The very size of such -hosts,
especially where the command is divided
and where the generals are drunk or in-
capable, contributes to their defeat]; and
Israel pursued them: and Ben-hadad thecH. xx. 1—43.]

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.]

Ver. 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. kai iiaBe, and
captured| the horses and chariots [t.e., the
cavalry and chariotry ; cf. ver. 1], and slew
the Syrians with a great slaughter. ([Heb.
in Syria a great, &.]}

Ver. 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 Sam. xi. 1), viz.,
when the rainy season was past. Several
late wars, notably those of our own armies
in Africa and Afghanistan, have been con-
siderably influenced by the seasons. And
the wars of ancient times were almost
universally summer raids. ‘Sustained in-
vasions, lasting over the winter, are not
found until the time of Shalmaneser”
(2 Kings xvii. 5; xviii. 9, 10, Rawlinson)]
the king of Syria will come [Heb. cometh]
up against thee.

Ver. 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, &e,
(see 2 Kings xviii. 33—35; xix. 12, 13).
Keil accounts for this beliei—that the gods
of Israel were mountain divinities, by the
consideration th 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” (Movers, Phoen. i. 667 sqq-)
But it is enough to remember that Samaria
was a hilly district, and that the courtiers
must find some excuse for the defeat]; there-
fore they were stronger than we; but (Heb.

pois) often well rendered but not in this
: by the LXX: od py dé adda] 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

instance)

 

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

487

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 ch. xvi. 24, note. Moreover, the
Israelites would lose the advantage of a
strong position and the cover of their forti-
fications if they could be induced to meet
them in the “great plain,’ or on any
similar battle-field.]

Ver. 24.—And do this thing. Take the
kings away, every man out of his place,
and put captains [Same word as in ch. x.
15, where see notejin theirrooms. [Not so
much because (Bahr) the kings only fought
through compulsion, for they appear to
have been in complete accord with Ben-
hadad (vers. 1, 12, 16), as because of their
incapacity and divided interests and plans.
The captains would presumably be selected
because of their valour, military skill, &c. ;
the kings would owe their command to the
accident of birth, &c. Moreover, an army
with thirty-three leaders could not have
the necessary solidarity. Bahr 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-hadad’s advisers when
they said, ‘‘ put captains in their rooms.”
Tf the auxiliaries were withdrawn, what were
the thirty-two captains to command ?]

Ver, 25.—And number thee an army, like
the army that thou hast lost [Heb. that is
fallen from thee, not as marg., that was fallen.
For the form NN!) see Ewald, 264 b)], 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
50.
Ver. 26.—And it came to pass at the
return of the year, that Ben-hadad num-
pered the Syrians [Heb. Syria], and went
up to Aphek [As the word signifies ‘‘ for-
tress,” 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
Bihr identify it with the Aphek hard by
Shunem (1 Sam. xxix. 1; cf. xxv. 4), and
therefore in the plain of Esdraelon, while
Gesenius and Grove—the latter because of
its connection with WDi] the plain, a
word applied, kar’ tEoynv, to the plain in the
tribe of Reuben (Deut. iii. 10; iv. 43; Josh.
xiii. 9, 16, 17, 21, &c.)—would see in 1t the
Aphek east of the Jordan, the Apheca of
Eusebius, and perhaps the place mentioned
9 Kings xiii. 17 (where, however, see note).
This trans-Jordanic Aphek is now repre-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sented by the village of ik, six miles east488

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

(cu. xx. 1—48,

 

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.]

Ver. 27. And the children of Israel were
numbered [lit., nwmbered themselves. Hith-
pael], and were all present (Rather, and

were provided with food, by =to nourish.
The Alex. LXX. inserts cai dwouKnOnoar.
Vulgate acceptis cibartis. Marg. were vic-
tualled. This word of itself suggests that
they were at a distance from their capital
or other city], and wentagainst them [Heb.
to meet them|; and the children of Israel
pitched before them like two little flocks
| wn strictly means separated. Itis rightly
translated ‘little flocks” (not ‘‘ flocks,”
Rawlinson), 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., dvo roiuma
aiyéy. Ewald thinks the “two flocks”
points to an auxiliary force 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 ”’
(Bahr)] ; but the Syrians filled the country.
[The whole plain swarmed with their legions
in striking contrast to the two insignificant
bodies of Israelites. ]

Ver. 28.—And there came a man of God
[Whether this is the same person as the
‘‘ prophet ”’ of vers. 13, 22,is not quite clear.
The difference in the designation (see on
ch. xiii. 1 and p. 303) would lead us to sup-
pose that a different messenger was meant.
It is true the Hebrew has the article
“the man of God” (LXX.6 d&Opwroe Tov

Geo), but DONA WS (see Indg. xiii. 6;
Deut. xxxiii. 1) is often hardly distinguish-
able from the samo 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 God 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 ver. 13), that this deliverance
was wrought. But it was also that neigh-
bouring nations might learn His power, and
that His name might be magnified among
the heathen. ]

Ver. 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 (Josh. vi. 15) may
have influenced their leaders; or the num-
ber seven, properly the mark and signature
of the covenant, may have come to be
regarded superstitiously—in fact, as a lucky
number (cf. Isa: Ixv. 11; Esther iii. 7]:
and the children of Israel slew of the
Syrians an hundred thousand footmen in
one day. [This prodigious slaughter may
well create surprise. That two compara-
tively small companies should be able,
physically, to slay, with the rude weapons
of that age, 100,000 warriors, fighting for
their lives, seems hardly credible. It ig
probable, therefore, that the numbers here,
as elsewhere, have been exaggerated in the
course of transcription. Another explana-
tion of the ditficulty has, indeed, been sug-
gested by Bahr, viz., that 13°) may signify
here, as it undoubtedly does elsewhere,
‘“‘ defeated,” ‘put to flight” (see Gen. xiv.
5; 1 Sam. xii. 4, &c.) And the Hebrew
at first sight seems to favour this idea, for
it may be rendered literally, they smote
Syria, a hundred thousand, &e. The 100,600
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 disper-
sion, that the historian speaks. ]

Ver. 30.—But the rest [Plainly those not
slain. 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,
t.e., the city wall] fell upon twenty and
seven thousand of the men that were left.
[The Hebrew implies that these were prac-

tically all who survived the battle. py nian

is the word translated above, ‘‘ the rest.”
We have here surely an exaggeration, even
more obvious than that of ver. 39. For even
if we suppose an earthquake, it is difficult
to believe that the walls of a place likeCH. xx. 1—43,]

 

THE FIRST BOOK oF KINGS,

    

489
ee ae ee

 

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 earth-
quake ‘ threw down the wall where they
were most thickly crowded upon it:” but
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 vil-
lage 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 igs exerted. ]
And Ben-hadad fled, and came into (Heb.
to| the city [i.e., Aphek. Rawlinson in-
terprets 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 came 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 ch. xxii. 25. This cannot
mean ‘‘from chamber to chamber,” as
marg. It is to be observed that 174M alone
signifies properly an inner chamber. See
Gen. xhii. 30; Judg. xvi. 9,12. Rawlinson
thinks that a secret chamber may be meant

‘‘a, chamber in the wall, or one beneath
the floor of another.’’]

Ver. 31.—And his servants [Possibly the
very same men who (ver. 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 con-
temporary pagan sovereigns]: let us, I
pray thee, put sackcloth on our loins [in

token of humiliation and contrition, py

is identical, radically, with odkkoc, saccus,
and our sack], and ropes upon our heads
[t.e., round our necks. ‘To show how com-
pletely they were at Ahab’s mercy. Bahr
shows that this custom still exists in China,
but the well-known story of the citizens of
Calais, after its siege by Edward III., sup-
plies a closer illustration] ,and go out[Heb.
go| to the king of Israel [It would appear
from the language of ver. 33 as if Ahab’s
army was now besieging the place. He
himself may haye kept at a safe distance

 

 

ey

from It}: peradventure he wil] Save thy
life. [LXX. our lives, rac Wuyae Tea.)

Ver. 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
vers. 6, 10. The tables are indeed turned. ]
And he said, Is he yet alive? he is my
brother.

Ver. 33.—Now the men did diligently
observe whether anything would come
from him, and did hastily catch it (Heb.
and the men augured—wn) divinavit. Cf.
Gen. xliv. 15 ; Levit. xix. 26; 2 Kings xyii.
Li. LXX. owvicavro. Vulgate acceperunt
pro omine—and hasted and made him declare
whether from him, the meaning of which ig
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 som) which is dak
hey. The Talmud, however, interprets it to
mean, declare, confirm ; in the Kal conjuga-
tion and the Hiphil would therefore mean,
made him declare. The LXX. and Vulgate,
however, have understood it otherwise,
taking pon as the equivalent of {20 rapuit.
The former has dvedé~avro rbv Aoyov ix Tov
orouatoc abrov, and the latter rapuerunt
verbum ex ore ejus. They would seem also
to have read instead of 137191719 1233
(Ewald). The law of dakheel (see Layard,
N. and B. pp. 317—3819), by which Rawlin-
son 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 Gen. xli, 43), and of reconcilia-
tion and concord (cf. 2 Kings x. 15).]

Ver. 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, &c. We can-
not be quite certain that the cities here re-
ferred to are those enumerated in ch, xy,490

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

fou. xx. 1—43.

 

90, 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 forget-
fulness of the history of Israel, might use
the word ‘‘father’’ improperly, or even in
the sense of “ predecessor.” We know that
AS had a very extended signification. Keil
and Bihr, however, think that we have a
reference to some war in the reign of Omri
(cf. ch. xvi. 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 exist-
ence] ; and thou shalt make streets [NisN
lit., whatever is without; hence streets,
spaces, quarters] for thee in Damascus, as
my father made in Samaria. [I'he com-
mentators are agreed that a permission to
establish bazaars or quarters, in which the
Hebrews might live and trade, is here con-
ceded]. Then said Ahab [These words are
rightly suppled by our translators. The
meaning would have been quite clear had
the Hebrews been familar 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.

Ver. 35.—And a certain man [Heb. one
man; ef. ch. xiii. 11, note] of the sons of
the prophets [Here mentioned for the first
time, though the prophetie schools prob-
ably owed their existence, certainly their
development, to Samuel. The ‘37 933 are
of course not the children, but the pupils of
the prophets. For this use of ‘ son,” cf,
1 Sam. xx. 31 (‘‘a son of death’); 2 Sam.
miss Deut: xxv, - 25 Matt. ‘xmas 15:
ines ay. 303 Hgra i. 1s “John xvii:
12, and Amos vii. 14. Gesenius refers
to the Greek tarpér viol, pnrépwy vioi, &e.,
and says that among the Persians ‘the
disciples of the Magi are called, ‘‘ Sons of
Magi.”” The word, again, does not neces-
sarily imply youth. That they were some-
times married men appears from 2 Kings
vi. 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 Sam. x. 12)] said
unto his neighbour [or companion. Another
prophet is implied. It was because this
‘‘neighbour’”’ was a prophet that his dis-
regard of the word of the Lord was so sinful,
and received such severe punishment], in
the word of the Lord [see on ch. xiii. 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, 7.e., bruised
and wounded, is not quite clear. For itis
obyious that he might have sustained his
part, told his story, and obtained a judg-
ment 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 impelious reasons.
Besides, it was ‘in the word of the Lord”
that these wounds were sought and received.
It is quite clear, therefore, that 1t cannot
have been merely to give him a claim to an
audience with the king (iwald)—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 (ch.
xxii. 11), for of that he says nothing, or
for any similar reason. The wounding, we
may be quite sure, and the tragical cireum-
stances connected therewith, are essential
parts of the parable this prophet had to act,
of the lesson he had to teach. Now 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 im-
pulses had ignored the will and counsel of
God (see on ver. 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 ex-
pense 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 (ver. 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 re-
pugnant 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 hig sin—diedCH. xx. 1—43.]

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 im-
pression it made. Indeed, it is hardly
possible to conceive a way in which the duty
of unquestioning obedience could be more
emphatical\’ 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,

Ver. 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 de-
parted from him, a [Heb. the] lion found
him [same word as in ch. xili. 24, where see
note], and slew him. [lor the same sin
as that of ‘‘ the man of God (ch. xii. 21, 26),
viz., disobedience (Deut. xxxii. 24; Jer. v. 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. ]

Ver. 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.)

Ver. 38.—So the prophet departed, and
waited for the king by the way, and dis-
guised himself with ashes upon his face.
(Rather, a bandage upon his eyes. TAN
there can be no doubt, denotes some sort of
covering (LXX. rehapwy), and is probably the

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

 
  
  
 
 
   
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
  
 
   
   
   
  
 
   
  
 
   
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
   

491

equivalent of DY. Ashes cannot be put}

on the eyes, and even on the head would ba
but a poor disguise. This bandage was at
the same time in keeping with the prophet’s
role as @ wounded man, and an effective
means of concealment. It would almost
seem as if this prophet was personally
known to the king. ]

Ver. 39.—And as the king passed by, he
cried unto the king [in his capacity of
supreme judge; see on ch. iii. 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 [1D; ef. ch. xxii,
43; Exod. iii. 3; xxxii. 8. But Ewald, al.
would read, ID prince or captain (properly
WW), 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 con-
siderable 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. |

Ver, 40.—And as thy servant was busy
(Heb. doing. The LXX. zepieBdr\ébaro oO
OvvA6e cov, andthe Vulgate dum ego turbatus
huc illucque me verterem, have led some
critics to urge the substitution of 135 turn-
ing, or MYW looking, for NWY doing, in the
text. Butno alteration is needed] here and
there for hither and thither—the 7 is
generally local—as in Josh. vill. 20, But
sometimes it is merely demonstrative, ‘* here
and there,” asin Gen. xxi. 29, Dan. xii. 5,
and so it may be understood here (Ge-
senius)], he was gone [Heb. he is not]. And
the king of Israel said unto him, So shall
thy judgment be; thyself hast decided it.
fCie2 Sam. x11. 7/4 Ahab has himself
pronounced that his judgment is Just, and.
what it shall be.]

Ver. 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 the492

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[cu. xx. 1—48,

 

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. |

Ver, 42.—And he said unto him, Thus
saith the Lord, Because thou hast let go
(Heb. sent away ; same word as in ver. 34.
Ibis is an indirect proof that those were
the words of Ahab] out of thy hand [Heb.
out of hand—same idiom in 1 Sam. xxvi.
23—1i.¢., power, possession. Cf. Gen, xxxil.
12; Exod, xviii. 9; Num. xxxv. 25] a man
whom I appointed to utter destruction
(Heb. a man of my devoting. Cf. Isa. xxxiv.
5.; Zech. xiv. 11. It is the word used of the
Canaanites.and their cities, Deut. ii. 34); vii.
2; Josh. vill. 26; x. 28; and it gave a name
to the city Hormah, Num. xxi. 3; xiv. 45.
Ben-hadad, therefore, was doomed of God],
therefore thy life shall go for [Heb. be in-
stead of | his life, and thy people for his
people. [By thelex talionis. It was prob-
ably because of this denunciation (cf. ch.
xxil. 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 ch. xxii. 9, 26. For the fulfilment of
this prediction see ch, xxii. It has seemed
to some writers as if Ahab were here very
hardly dealt with for merely gratifying a
generous impulse, and dealing magnani-
mously with a conquered foe. Indeed,
there are commentators who see in his
release of the cruel and insolent tyrant a
‘‘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 (ver. 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 (ch. xxii. 5, 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 (vers. 21, 31), and who had contributed
nothing to these great and unhoped-for
victories, nevertheless arrogated to himself
their fruits, and thereby ignored and dis-
honoured God. Secondly, if he had go
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 ver. 6 should nave 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 punish-
ments, not only to wicked, subjects but to
ageressive 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 (Josh. x. 26;
Judg. vii. 25; 1 Sam. xv. 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 Agag, of
Adoni-bezek, 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. ]
Ver. 43.—And the king of Israel went to
his house heavy and displeased [Heb.
sullen and angry; same words ch, xxi. 4],
and came to Samaria. [The order of this
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.]

 

HOMILETICS.

Vers. 1—-48.—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.

Iwo considerations must, however, be borne in mind here.

First, that the pre-

Sent age, unlike the Mosaic, is not a dispensation of temporal rewards and punish-
ments. 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

oiten as not he escapes scathless. The Jewish economy, however, had absolutelycu. xx. 1—43.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 493

 

 

 

 

2 a 3 ® ce: .
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
tooth. It preached an ever-present Deity, the true King of the country. visitine
every transgression and disobedience with its just recompense of reward (Heb. ii, 2),
And so long as that economy was practised in its integrity, so long, either throuch
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. Weno longer look for
temporal judgments because we are taught to wait for the judgment-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 op-
pressor 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 ex-
ceeding 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 (Col. iii. 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 maiter of fact they do, receive their reckoning here.
It surety 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 ia blood for the spoliation of Denmark? Have not the
United States suffered for their overweening pride and greed and reckless specula-
tion? 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 unrecom-
pensed, as the history of Rome, of Russia, of Turkey, of England shows. We ae
warranted in looking, consequently, for the punishment of aggressive nations anc

rrannical kings in this present age.

a ans chapter Be atta two invasions of the territory of iemael, and ae a
cessive defeats of the invaders. In the invasions we see the pues 0 s Ai
and of Ahab; in the defeats the punishment of Syria ape eae a * aM
inquire, in the first place, what each had done to prov oke and deserve his resy
chastisement. a
Oe That these were punishments hardly heeds pron haere oer
any land be overrun with a horde of barbarians, such oh ne = Bee aed suffering ?
federates, the Hittite chieftains, were, without widespreac Oa pe nae tan Saag,
We know what invasion means In modern times, a ee “ld ee 1 the Orient, we
some approach to humanity, but whatit erie see me, dered in the
are quite unable to realize. It is idle to aay 1a Be ‘f es suffered dnving the
end. Who shall picture to us what the thousan

a494 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu. xx. 1—43.

 

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” (Joel ii. 8). 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 weil 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 (ch. xv. 20) had wasted the territory of
Dan. 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 isim-
possible 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, conse-
quently, 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 Samaria, 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,” &. (ch. xvi. 82), 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 rebukeand blasphemy. The iron must have
entered into his soul as he found himself utterly without resources, at the mercy
of one who showed ro 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 ithe 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 ix. 81), 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 vy the joy and triumph of victory. But the victory was not one
which could afford unmixed satisfaction, either to king or people. It was net 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 (ch. xv. 18, 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’”’ (ch. x. 29) now over-
run the great plain and stream into the valleys of Samaria. The Syrians owed theCH. xx. 1—43.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 495

 

 

ae tee to mn aa ps the service (vers. 1, 25) to the disobedience of the Lord’s
0. thedwo and-thirty subject princes had once been the vassals f Sol
mon (ch. iv. 21). We now turn to— eee

II. THE DEFEATS. If this prodigious host was really called together to chastic
the idolatries of Israel, it seems strane ane Seer ehastise

Ba » 1U 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 ; it
dispersion the punishment of Ben-hadad’s. * Well may God plague Pee as
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 judg.
ment upon the gods of Egypt (Exod. xii. 12). It was to altars, hecatombs. in-
cantations that Balak looked for help (Num. xxii., xxiii.) It was the michty gods
of Israel that the Philistines feared (1 Sam. iv. 7,8). And we know how Goliath
(2b., ch. xvii. 45) and Sennacherib alike (Isa. xxxvii. 23) defied the living God
And when we see Ben-hadad swearing by his gods (ver. 10), when we find his
courtiers accounting for their first defeat by the belief that the gods of their adver-
saries were gods of the hills only, we perceive at once that this war was regarded
on Syria's and Israel’s part alike (ver. 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 (Isa. xxxvil. 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
{srael. We have instances in Judg. iii.; iv. 8, 22; vi. 1; ef. vii. 25; 2 Chron. xxxii,
21; Isa. x. 5—12, 24 sqq.; xiv. 4 sqq.; Obad. x. 28. When king or army
exceeded their commission, when they trampled on the foe, they straightway pro-
voked the vengeance which they were employed to minister. It would have been
strange if such overbearing brutality as Ben-hadad’s (vers. 3, 6, 10) had gone un-
reproved.

3. Overweening pride. He was so intoxicated with the greatness of his army,
with the praises of his courtiers and allies, that he thinks, Nebuchadnezzar-like, that
neither God nor man can withstand him. His haughtiness comes out very clearly
in his messages (vers. 8, 6), in his scorn of his adversaries (vers. 16—18), in the
passionate outburst with which he receives Ahab’s reply (ver. 10). ‘‘ The proud
Syrian would have taken it in foul scorn to be denied, though he had sent for all
the heads of Israel.’’ And pride provokes a fall (Prov. xvi. 18 ; xxix. 23; cf. 2 Chron.
xXxxii. 26; Isa. xvi. 6,7; Obad. iv.) The highest mountain-tops draw down on
themselves the artillery of the skies. Pride stands first on the list of the “seven
deadly sins,” because self-worship is the most hateful form of idolatry, the most
obnoxious to the Majesty of Heaven.

4, Drunkenness. Like another invader, he transgressed by wine (Hab. i1. 5; cf.
Dan v. 2, 23). His revels in the thick of the siege reveal to us the man. It would
have been, in Jewish eyes especially, a glaring injustice if such a man, while em-
ployed to chastise the sins of others, had escaped all chastisement himself. And
his two-and-thirty confederates were like him. They had aided and encouraged
him; they drank with him (ver. 16), and they fell with him (ver. 24).

It only remains for us now to observe how exact and exemplary was the punish-
ment which overtook king and princes and the entire army—for the army, no
doubt, had shared the views and vices of its commanders. The defeat of the entire
host was not occasioned by the sin of its leader alone, any more than the invasion
was provoked by the sin of Ahab alone. In the day that God visited the sin of
Ben-hadad, He visited also the sin of Syria. In the first place, the drunkenness of
the leaders brought its own retribution. It involved the demoralization of the
soldiery. With such besotted and incapable heads, they were unprepared for
attack, and fell an easy prey to the vigorous onslaught of the 232 youths. The
size of the host, again, contributed to make the disaster all the greater. And what
but pride and cruelty had dictated the assembling of such an enormous array,

merely to crush a neighbour kingdom ? And their pride was further humbled by£96 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [ou. xx. 1—48.

 

the circumstances of their defeat. It was to their eternal disgrace that a handful
of men, of boys rather, unused to war, foemen quite unworthy of their steel, had
routed and dispersed them; that their innumerable army had melted away before
‘two little flocks of kids.” What a contrast to the proud boasting of ver. 10! Even
the manner of Ben-hadad’s escape, his hurried, ignominious flight on the first horse
that offered ; his cowering abjectly in a corner of an inner chamber, this helped to
sink him to a lower pitch of shame. The cavalry that was to accomplish such great
things; he is thankful for one of its stray horses to bear him away from the field
of slaughter. The walls of Aphek, again, avenged his threats against the walls of
Samaria. And the kings who had flattered him and encouraged his cruel projects,
they too received a meet recompense, not only in the defeat, but in their summary
degradation from their commands; while the courtiers who suggested the second
expedition expiated their folly by the miseries and indignities which they suffered.
It was a pitiful end of a campaign begun with so much of bluster and fury, and
threatening; that procession of wretched and terrified men, with “ sackcloth on
their loins, and ropes on their heads.” Nor did the losses of Syria end with the
battle or the earthquake ; the king voluntarily cedes a part of the territory which
his father had won by his valour from Israel, and returns to his capital with a deci-
mated army, a tarnished fame, and a restricted realm. His gluttonous desire for
pillage, his forcing a quarrel upon Israel, his defiance of the Almighty, have been
punished by the forfeiture of all he holds most dear. ;

It has more than once been remarked that the history of Israel has its lessons for
the individual soul. But it also speaks to nations and kings. This chapter pro-
claims that neither any people nor its rulers can forget God with impunity; that
disregard of His laws 1s sure to bring down His judgments; that the purgatory of
nations is in this life present; that, while the individual awaits a judgment to come,
the community is judged now, by sword, and famine, and pestilence ; by invasion
and defeat; by loss of fame and territory; by bad harvests and crippled trade.
Corporate bodies and communities may “ have no conscience,” but they will prove
sooner or later, as Assyria and Babylon, as Medes and Persians, as Greeks and
Romans, as Russia and Turkey, as France and Germany have proved, that * verily
there is a reward for the righteous; verily there is a God that judgeth in the earth”
(Psa. lviii. 11).

But this history has other lessons than those which concern nations and kings.
Some of these we may glean as we pass along.

Ver. 1.— All his host . . . thirty and two kings . . . horses and chariots.” It
has been remarked that it is not easy to account for this expedition. Was it that
Ahab had refused to do fealty? or had he offered some personal affront to the Syrian
king? Nay, may we not find explanation enough in the fact that Ben-hadad,
having an enormous host at his command, must find something for it to do ? Large
standing armies are constantly the cause of war. Preparations for war in the
interest of peace (si vis pacem, &e.) are so manifestly paradoxical that who can
wonder if war, and not peace, is the result? Let iiurope beware of its bloated
armaments. It is natural for statesmen to wish to have something to show for the
cost of their maintenance.

Ver. 3.— Thy silver... is mine.” A conspicuous instance this of that law of
old time—

‘‘ the simple plan
That they should take who have the power,
And they should keep who can.”

But is our modern warfare so very different in principle ? Why may kings remove
} Pee y May king

landmarks any more than peasants? Why may a Ben-hadad, an Alexander, a
Napoleon ery, ‘‘ Your lands or your life,” without reproach, and yet the footpad who
plays at the same game on the highway is hanged for it ? Why should what is
plain ‘stealing’ in private life be called “conveying” or ‘ annexing” when
practised on a larger scale?

Ver. 4.—“ I am thine.” “Wisely doth Ahab, asa reed in a tempest, stoop toCH. xx, 1—43,] THE FIRST BOOK oF KINGS.

é 497

this viclent charce.” « °

who knew what the “ nie in Seed uctee owe Powered to capitulate.” Besides,
ce ce, MPD elteet ? | Et aitooth worde eotild' do ne

good, rough ones would certainly do
of it, and so inherit the earth.
Ver. 9.—‘* This thing I may not do.”

much harm. The meek always have the best

“Dp a sian hie i
setter die than live in discrace.” cav
the Greek proverb. T cI ' Samaria was j at Ese oe eee
etal | eg te the king of VamMarila’ was in a’ similar strait to those four
Roun See. oo 1ew years later, in another siege, lay at the gate of the city
? “a r 2 ] 1 “ik 4 Bes e 3 of ye
(2 Kings Vil. 4). He could but die in any case, and he might perchance live if he
stood on his defence. Even a worm wil } 4

: 1 turn when trod upon. We sh think
seorn of Ahab, had he not made a stand for his life and wis and Heo ae

\ er, oo I'he gods do so to me,” &e. How often has the swearer to eat hig
words. ‘The hero does; he never talks of what he will do. ‘Victory is to be
achieved, not to be sworn.” This vulgar fashion of ealling upon God to do oneself
some hurt thus appears to be of great antiquity. But it always proceeds from those
who have very little belief in God at all. The profane swearer is practically an
infidel, so far as the gods he invokes are concerned. An Italian workman wag
once reproved in a Roman studio for the oaths which he swore by the sacred name
of Gesu. ‘* Oh,” said he boldly, “I’m not afraid of Him at all.” Then; lowerine his
voice to a whisper, he added, ‘*I’ll tell you what I’m afraid of: it ig His blessed
mother.” He never swore by the Deity he believed in.

Ver. 12.— Set yourselves in array” (Heb. 1°). The command was prompt
and decided enough. But observe, he himself went on drinking (ver. 16). This
helps to explain his defeat. He was a man of words only. The successful generals
—1it 1s a trite saying—are those who say “Come,” not ‘ Go.”

Ver. 13.—‘ There came a prophet.” Oaltitudo! For years past the prophets
have been proscribed, hunted, harried to death. Yet in his darkest hour, when
other refuge fails him, Ahab finds a prophet at his side. God bears no grudges,
It is sufficient to give us a claim upon His help that we are helpless (Psa. Ixviii. 5;
Hosea xiv. 8). He ‘ comforteth” (2.€., strengtheneth, con fortis) “those that
are cast down” (2 Cor. vii. 6). “Who can wonder enough at this unweariable
mercy of God? After the fire and rain, fetched miraculously from heaven, Ahab
had promised much, performed nothing, yet God will again bless and solicit him
with victory ; one of those prophets whom he persecuted shall comfort his dejection
with the news of deliverance and triumph.” This act of grace should have proved
that the Lord was God, and that the prophet was His messenger. It is not in man
to act thus.

‘“* Thou shalt know that I am the Lord.” ‘Not for thy righteousness or the
uprightness of thine heart dost thou go in to possess their land, but for the wicked-
ness of these nations,” &e. (Deut. ix. 4, 5). The drought, the fire, the ereat rain,
none of these had convinced the king and queen. Will deliverance from the jaws
of death move them? Will they believe in a God of battles? Will they recognize
His finger in a superhuman victory ?

Ver, 15.—“ The young men. . . were two hundred and thirty-two.” ‘“ Not by
might nor by power” (Zech. iv. 6). God’s host is ever a little tlock (cf. Judg. vii.
2—7 ; 2 Chron. xx. 12; 1 Cor. 1. 27—29). The “‘ weak things” were chosen then,
as subsequently, ‘‘ that no flesh should glory in his presence.” God never departs
from that rule. The ‘carpenter's son,” the ‘‘ fishermen,” the “‘ unlearned and
ignorant men’? —it is the same principle underlies His choice in every case. _ a

Ver 16.—“ Drinking himself drunk ... he and the kings.” Of strong drink if
may justly be said, ‘‘ Many strong men have been slain by her” (Prov. vil. 20).
“Tt is not for kings to drink wine ” (2d., xxxi. 4). Noris itfor warriors. Alexander,
conqueror of the world, was conquered by wine. Our great generals of ae
times have been abstainers. The march to Coomassie, to Candahar was effected
without the aid of intoxicants. The Russian soldiers in the Crimea were drugged
with vodka, but it did not prevent their defeat. |

Ver. 18.—“ Take them alive.” ‘Security is the certain usher of destruction.
We have never so much cause to fear as when we fear nothing ”’ (cf. Dan. y. 1, 30;
Luke xvii. 27; 1 Thess. v. 3). ;

1 KINGS ¥498 TIITE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cH. xx. 1—43.

 

Ver. 20.—* They slew every one his man.” It is thus the world must be won
for Christ. Mohammed had two fixed ideas: first, to make converts; second, to
make his converts soldiers. And every Christian is a soldier of the Cross, enlisted
at his baptism into the Church militant. By personal, individual effort are
Churches built up and believers added to the Lord. So it was in the first days.
‘‘ Andrew findeth his own brother Simon.” ‘‘ Plilip findeth Nathanael ’”’ (John i.
41—45). :

Ver. 23.— Their gods are gods of the hills.” It is no uncommon thing to find
men laying the blame of their misfortune on God. We smile at those poor pagans
who beat their wooden gods with sticks, or those Ttalian villagers who, a few weeks
ago (Sept., 1881), threw the image of their patron saint into a well, and set upon their
parish priest, because their prayers for rain remained unanswered ; but the same
thing, slightly varied in shape, is often done amongst ourselves. Bad luck”’ is
held responsible for many of the failures for which we have only ourselves to
thank. That ‘everybody is against him ” is often the ery of the man who has no
enemy but himself. The idle scoundrel who has wife and children generally
accuses them of being the causes of his misfortunes; if he has no such scapegoats,
he will lay the blame on God’s providence. He never remembers that he himself
was “ drinking himself drunk” at the hour for action. i

Ver. 22.—“ Go strengthen thyself.” Though God had delivered him once and
would deliver him again (ver. 28), yet Ahab must consult for his own safety. While
trusting in God, he must keep his powder dry. The same prophet who has an-
nounced deliverance by a band of youths, wholly inadequate to cope with the
Syrians, now bids him look well to the defences of the country. Aide-toi et Dieu
taidera; this is the purport of his message.

Ver 29.—“ Seven days.” Compare the ‘‘ seven thousand” of ver. 15, and Josh.
vi. 4,15, 16. He hath commanded His covenant for ever (Psa. iii. 9; ef. 1 Chron.
xvi, 15; Psa. Ixxxix. 28, 84). By this act, Israel (1) showed that they remembered
the works of the Lord, His wonders of old time; and (2) they reminded Him of His
holy covenant (Luke i. 72—T74).

Ver. 30.—“ A wall fell,” &. (Cf. Acts xxviii. 4; Hab. ii. 11). ‘ A’dead wall in
Aphek shall revenge God on the rest that remained.” Where they sought shelter
and thought themselves secure, they found death (cf. Amos v. 19; ix. 8; Psa.
exxxix. 7—-10; Luke xix. 40).

Ver. 31.—‘‘ The kings of Israel are merciful kings.” Wow true is that of the
true King of Israel. He is the very fount of mercy (Exod. xxxiv. 7; Num. xiv. 18;
Pss. xxv. 10; c. 5; cil. 17; exxx. 7). We often picture Him as “‘ less merciful than
His image in aman.” But let us do Him this dishonour no more. It is ‘“‘ His
property always to have mercy.” Is He lessclement thanan Ahab? Is His heart
less tender to penitent rebels? ** Behold now, we know that the King of Heaven,
the God of Israel, is a merciful God ; let us put sackcloth upon our loins, and strew
ashes upon our heads, and go meet the Lord God of Israel, that he may save our
souls,”’

Ver. 34.—“T will send thee away,” &c. On another occasion such conduct as
this was commanded (2 Kings vi. 22, 28). Why, then, was it sinfulnow ? Precisely
because it was not commanded; because God intended the opposite (ver. 42). It
was not clemency, it was culpable weakness to send this overbearing despot, whe
had already cost Israel so dear, to send him to hig home, there to renew his plots
against the people of God. As well might the magistrate compassionate the burglar,
or the garotter, and instead of shutting him up in prison, send him into the streets,
to be the plague of society. The king, like the magistrate, is trustee for the com-
monwealth. He has no right to gratify his benevolent instincts at the expense of
the community. Still less right had the theocratic king, the representative of
Heaven, to liberate, ex mero arbitrio, a tyrant whom God had manifestly given
into hishands. ‘‘ Charity cannot excuse disobedience.” He had proved Ben-hadad
twice, yet he asks for no material guarantees. He neither consults nor remembers
his deliverer.

Ver, 40.—* Thyself hast decided it.” So shallowr judgment be. -“ Out of thineCH. xx, 1—43,] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS, 499

9 2 ° A
teri cnaid an rth many will stand self-condemned, condemned
Weganaie ae tees Des eae y the sentences they have passed upon others,
q ay he xacted from others, &e,

er, 23.— Heavy and displeased.” Cf. Pgs. xvi. 4: Xxx. 10
the head that wears a crown.” Life out of God brings only disapy
inost magnificent of kings found it vanity and vexation of spint. The things of
earth cannot satisfy the soul of man, the soul made for God. History has preserved
for us a striking testimony to this truth in the confession of Abdalrahman
caliph of Spain. ‘“T have now reigned,” he wrote, “fifty years in victory or peace;
beloved by my subjects, dreaded by my enemies, and respected by my allies,
Riches and honours, power and pleasures, have waited on my call, nor does any
earthly blessing appear to have been wanting to my felicity. In this situation T
have numbered the days of pure and genuine happiness which have fallen to my

lot haat amount to fourteen! Oman, place not thy confidence in this present
world,”

““ Uneasy lies
appointment. The

HOMILIES BY VARIOUS AUTHORS.

Vers. 1—11.—The Spirit of War. In human histories so much is made of
brilliant uniforms, scientific discipline, skilful manceuvres, exploits, surprises, and
successes, that readers are carried away with ‘the pomp and circumstance” of so-
called ‘‘glorious war.” In the text we have the other side; and we are reminded
of the appeal of James: ‘‘From whence come wars and fightings among you?
Come they not hence, even of your own lusts that war in your members ?” (James
iv. 1.) Conspicuous amongst these is—

I. THE sPrriT or war. We see this—l. In Ben-hadad’s message (ver. 8). (1)
We do not understand this to be a demand from Ahab for the actual surrender to
Ben-hadad of his ‘silver’? and “ gold,” ‘‘ wives” and ‘‘ children.” Else it would
be difficult to see any material difference between this first message and that which
followed (ver. 6). (2) The meaning seems to be that Ben-hadad would hold Ahab
as his vassal, so that Ahab should retain his wealth, wives, and children only by the
sufferance and generosity of his superior. He would have the king of Israel
reduced to the condition of the ‘‘ thirty and two kings” who, with their subjects
and fortunes, appear to have been at his service (compare ver. 12 with ver. 24). 2.
In his confident boasting. (1) He boasts of the vastness of his army. “‘ All the
people that follow me.” The Hebrew is given in the margin, “at my feet,” sug-
gesting subjection and submission. (2) Of the certainty and ease with which such
an army may carry victory. ‘The gods do so to me and more also if the dust of
Samaria shall suffice for handfuls for all the people that follow me.” They need
not be content with handfuls of dust when they can fill their hands with the most
valuable things in Samaria. (8) This was the boasting which Ahab rebuked by the
use of what had probably been a proverbial expression: ‘‘ Let not him that girdeth
on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off.” This caution might be
profitably considered by those who are engaged in spiritual conflicts: “Be not
high-minded, but fear.” kes

Il. Tue spirit of rnsustice. This we see—1. In Ben-hadad's requisitions. (1)
In those of his first message right is outraged. ‘“ Thy silver and gold are mine.
Taking this demand in the sense of Ahab’s coming under villenage to ee
the claim was iniquitous. Man has rights of property and freedom, we 1, sare
they are forfeited to law by crime, should ever be held most sacred. : ae ge
of slavery is horrible. (2) The second message went even a oe
open robbery. Robbery not only of the monarch, but of his su bee an
starving wretch who steals a loaf of bread may be convicted as a felon; but a

ate Jers kine :—a Napoleon—is glorified as a hero! But how will
warrior who plunders kingdoms—a Nay g oy Tan Riana eh a
these weigh together in the balances of the ee : ee eee
appeal. (1) Justice is not named. How often 7s justice name500 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [crs xx.:1—43,

 

it has no place! The Syrian king was more outspoken than many modern war-
makers. (2) Mercy is quite out of the question. Yet in. modern. times wars
acainst savages have been trumpeted as beniguities, because of the civilization
which, it is presumed, will follow 1m their wake | (3) Ben-hadad did not live in
these favoured times, so the one principle to. which he appeals is might. “ He has
the men,” and he will have ‘“‘ the money too!” In this he has had too many
suecessors in the kingdoms of civilization. (4) Not only must the covetousness
of the king be gratified; so also must the host ‘‘at his:feet; ?.and since the ‘‘ dust
of Samaria” will not satisfy them, Samaria must be sacked and pillaged. One
injustice begets another.

a. Tip SPIRIT OF CRUELTY. This appears—l. In the provocations. (1) Observe
the * putting” of Ben-hadad’s requisitions. No attempt 1s made to spare the
feelines of Ahab, but, on the contrary, the language 1s studiously framed to lacerate.
‘“Whatsoever is pleasant in thine eyes”—note, not what is pleasant in the
eyes of the spoilers—“ they shall put it in their hand and take it away. (2)
Witness also the peremptoriness. ‘¢To-morrow about this time.” 2. In the
struggles. (1) Men are in conflict. This is not a strife of elements without
feeling, which is terrible enough. but of flesh and blood and nerves with exquisite
sensibilities, with susceptibilities of acute pain and suffering (2) The combatants
are armed. That they may put each other to torture they are provided with
swords, spears, arrows ; and in these days of civilization, with fire-arms of various
kinds. Elephants, camels, horses, and. other animals are pressed into the dreadtul
service. (3) Survey the battle-field after the strife. Men and animals dead and
dying, mingled; gaping wounds; mangled limbs, sickening horrors! What
pictures of cruelty are here! (4) Reflect upon the homes plunged into grief
and poverty entailed*through the loss of bread-winners; and add the sequel of
pestilences and famines. Surely we should pray for the advent of that peace-
ful reign of righteousness which. is promised in the Scriptures of. prophecy.—
Ju As M.

Vers. 12—21.— The hand of God. The notable answer of the king of Israel to
the insolent king of Syria, ‘‘ Let not him that girdeth on the harness boast himself
as he that putteth it off,” came to Ben-hadad when he was drinking wine with the
thirty and two kings that followed him. He at once gave orders to his servants
to set themselves in battle array. While the enormous host which ‘filled the
country” (see vers. 25, 27) disposed itself to. attack the city, the men of Israel,
who were but a handful, naturally trembled for the issue. At this juncture God
interposed in the manner reijated here, and thereby asserted the general truths,
v1Z.—

I. THAT GOD RULES IN THE DESTINIES OF MEN. 1. Here He showed His hand.
(1) He sent a prophet. Jarchi says it was Micaiah, the son of Imlah, while others
think it was Elijah in disguise; but it is useless to speculate on this point. We
are more concerned with the purport of His message, which. was to promise victory
to Israel, and to indicate how that victory should be organized, so that in the issue
Jehovah might be acknowledged. (2) The hand of God was seen not only in the
prophet’s foreknowledge of events, but also in the wisdom of the adjustments by
which they were to be brought about. For the victory was organized according to
instructions of the prophet, purporting’also to be from the Lord. Who but the
Lord could have foreseen that at noon Ben-hadad and his-kings would be so drunken
as to be unfit and indisposed to take their posts of command? Who else could
have foreseen that Ben-hadad would have been so foolish as to order the sortie to
be taken alive? For thereby the Syrians were put to a disadvantage, which
enabled the *‘ young men of the princes of the provinces’’ and those who followed
them to slay ‘‘every one his man,” and throw the invading host into confusion.
(8) The power of God also was evident when the disparity of numbers is considered.
An army of seven thousand Israelites could never, without supernatural aid, have
demoralized and routed the formidable hosts of Syria.. (4) And that God was in
this victory could not be reasonably doubted, since this was not an extraordinaryCH. XxX. 1—43. | THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 501

 

 

 

event by it: ‘ies of's
by itself, but one of a series of such events ; therefore it could not have been an

accident. It was preceded hree years i
p by three years of drought which began and ended

according to the “word” of Elijah, with the miracle on Carmel. 3. B
showing His hand He evinced that He ts ever workin 1) Wl PONE ah ee
ordinary, men are disposed to see in the tur 1 i, oi ee i.
ordinary events foree upon their emia enae Ge oe
os upon vhelr consideration the fact of a superior agency
behind these causes. {2) This truth is the more evident when the ordinary are
ake saon By tse extraordinary. Thus God ordered the battle. He appointed
the general, disposed the attack which was to assure the victory, and timed every-
mag ada ce ‘gp sie eg as to bring about the promised result. (3)
‘tthe! Te is ed Sate difference between things ordinary and extra-
; question of proportions. For natural causes are all
second causes, and would have no existence but for the First Cause. A miracle is
but the wnuswal action of the First Cause upon the second causes; but in the usual
action. God is none the less present and necessary to the result.
IJ. Taat HE RULES IN RIGHTEOUSNESS AND Mercy. 1. He humbles the proud
im righteousness. (1) Defeat in any case is humiliation, To Ben-hadad after his
confident boasting 1t was eminently so. He would remember the lesson, ‘* Let
not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off.” Let
us observe it. (2) The manner was an aggravation of the defeat. It was
accomplished by two hundred and thirty-two “young men of the princes of the
provinces,” who are by some thought to have been a militia raised by provincial
magistrates, and by others, with perhaps better reason—for the number seems too
small to answer the former description—the attendants of such of those princes as
were then in Samaria. It was intensely humiliating that a company of such
combatants should rout a formidable army. God makes the weak confound the
mighty. (38) Ben-hadad would be mortified to think how his overweening confi-
dence, together with his drunkenness, had directly contributed to his humiliation.
He was too drunk to appear at the head of his army, but not too drunk to find his
way to the cavalry to facilitate his flight. ‘‘ There is but one step from the sublime
to the ludicrous!” 2. He shows long-suffering in mercy. (1) The judgment upon
Ben-hadad was mercy to Ahab. It delivered him from the hand of a cruel
oppressor. It gave him another warning and space for repentance. (2) Did Ahab
deserve this? Certainly not, while he submitted to be led by Jezebel, and that
notwithstanding his experience of the drought and the miracle on Carmel. God
is long-suffering in mercy. (3) But there were “ seven thousand in Israel, all the
knees which had not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed
him.” Jarchi would identify these with the ‘‘ seven thousand’ mentioned in verse
15. Probably some of that seven thousand went to compose this, and for their
sakes it may have been that God had so signally interposed. Let us never lose
sight of God. Let us discern His hand in nature, providence, grace. Let us
never provoke His justice by pride, by rebellion. Let us respect His long-sufler-
ing by repentance. Let us throw ourselves upon His mercy for salvation, for help.

—J. A.M.

Vers. 22—39.—Wisdom in Counsel. Noman is so wise that it may not be to
his advantaze to consider advice; but in listening to advice we may be led astray.
There are two classes of advisers, viz., those who are influenced by the “ wisdom
of this world,” and those who are influenced by the “ wisdom from above.” Of
both we have examples in the text.

I. THE WISDOM OF THIS WORLD IS A WISDOM OF EXPEDIENCY. 1. It 18 not
destitute of sagacity. (1) It has its maxims of prudence. (2) Ben-hadad’s
counsellors would not have him underrate his enemy. The army they advise him
to raise for the invasion of Israel must not be inferior to that which had been
lately vanquished (ver. 25). Let us not underrate our spiritual foes. _ (8) meal
would they have him underrate the quality of his soldiers. They do not admit
that his army was fairly beaten, but speak of ‘the army that thou pee ae A
“that jell from thee.” In this also they were right, for if God had not helpe502 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu. xx. 1—48.

 

Israel the Syrians would not have been routed. In all our spiritual conflicts let us
fight under the banner of Jehovah. (2) It has its lesyons of experience. (a) Den-
hadad’s counsellors lay emphasis here—‘‘ And do this thing, Take the kings away,
every man out of his place.” Why remove the kings? Because in the last war
they were ‘‘drinking themselves drunk” when they should have been at their
posts, and the army, without officers, became confused and demoralized. Trust
not the kings again (see Pss. cxvili. 9; cxlvi. 8). (6) ‘‘ Put captains in their
rooms.” Let the army be commanded by men of ability and experience. Pageants
are of no use in times of exigency. 2. But tis sugacity is mingled with fully.
(1) Because the motives of the wicked are vicious. (a) In his former war Ben-
hadad’s impulse was pride. The insolence of his demands evidenced this (vers.
8,6). But what wisdom is there in pride? (6) Though mortified by defeat, that
pride remained, and was now moved by the spirit of revenge: ‘* Surely we shall be
stronger than they.” But what wisdom is there in resentment? (c) Beyond these
base feelings the desire for plunder seems to have moved the Syrian. But where
is the wisdom in a king becoming a common robber? (2) Because they put them-
selves into conflict with the Almighty. (a) The Syrians formed an unworthy
idea of the Elohim of Israel when they localized and limited Him to the hills,
Palestine is a hilly country, and its cities and high places were generally on hills;
and probably in the hill country of Samaria the cavalry and chariots of Syria were
of little service. (See Psa. xv. 1; xxiv. 8; Ixxxvii.1; cxxi.1.) (6) In the proposal
to give Israel battle in the plains the Syrians now set Jehovah at defiance.

II. THE WISDOM FROM ABOVE IS THE WISDOM OF TRUTH. 1. It is far-reaching.
(1) God sees the end from the beginning. We should therefore seek His counsel
and guidance. (2) He forewarns His people. He sent His prophet to the king of
Israel to inform him that the king of Syria would come up against him at the
return of the year. He forewarns us of the things of eternity. 2. It is prudent.
(1) The prophet advised Ahab to prepare for the event. ‘“‘ Go, strengthen thyself,
and mark, and see what thou doest.’”? We should ever deport ourselves as in the
presence ofspivitual foes. (2) God helps those who help themselves. 38. Jt is wn
erring. (1) Events foreshown by God will surely come to pass. (2) According to
the advice of the prophet, ‘‘at the return of the year,” viz., ‘‘at the time when
kings go forth to battle’ (see 2 Sam. xi. 1; 1 Chron. xx. 1), probably answering to
our March, which has its name from Mars, the god of war, Ben-hadad “ went up
to Aphek to fight against Israel.” There were several cities of this name: one in
the tribe of Asher (Josh. xix. 80); another in Judah (1 Sam. iv. 1); a third in
Syria (2 Kings xiii. 17). The last is probably that referred to here. 4. Jé is
profitable. (1) This follows from its other qualities. The guidance which is
“prudent,” “far-reaching,” and ‘unerring” must be “profitable.” (2) But
further, those who follow that guidance so commend themselves to God that He
directly interposes in their behalf. There was a faithful “seven thousand” in
Israel (ch. xix. 18). (8) If in conflict with those who prefer a worldly policy, they
not only have God on their side, but they have Him with them against their
enemy. (4) God helped Ahab against Ben-hadad, not that Ahab deserved it, but
that Ben-hadad had to be punished (ver. 28. See also Ezek. xxxvi 22). The
“two little flocks of kids’’ could not have slain in one day ‘‘ one hundred thousand
men” unless God had helped them. The hand of God also was in the falling of
that wall by which ‘‘ seven and twenty thousand”’ perished.

Let us faithfully pursue the policy of right. Let us never permit the expediency
of a moment to swerve us from this. Truth abides.—J. A. M.

Vers. 80—43.—False Mercy. The first army with which Ben-hadad invaded
Israel was defeated with “ great slaughter,” and the king saved himself by flight.
The defeat of the second was even more complete, when 127,000 men were de-
stroyed and the king had to surrender at discretion. But Ahab, for his false mercy
in sparing the life of Ben-hadad, brought judgment upon himself and upon his
people.

J. Mercy Is FALSE WHEN IT OPPOSES THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF Gop. i. ThatcH. xx. 1—43.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 503

 

rightecusness d Se aaah

sebisidhierble Wil Harta ly (aie pehecrs e : ae 1 (p a a
Their time also in this lite i , . 4) a ged ne (Psa, ix. 17). . (2)
the judgment of God. hey Cee eee ae ae : ree ae ss hy
given, if Misimproved, acoravates the sini of th ir deatl Ce oy ee Spy eenno
existence under such conditions, theretiee ee ao ee probationary

0 dea lh i . s a doubtful merey. (8) It is als

es age aoe contemporaries, because the influence of the wicked F
half Hair dace 9 (Psa fee hey, pa judgment that they do “not live out
too strongly ieadew ad: ; ee A ) 1e oe between good and evil cannot be

ae ae > good must have no fellowship with the wicked. I
eternity their separation is complete (Matt. xxv. 46; foe doy Thawalke
perfect the separation here, the i : f ] ‘ a, eg Pea a
Pima s ore be tell a ore 0 : 1eaven upon earth will the good enjoy;

1ell upon earth, the wicked. 2. Ben-hadad was obnoxious to that
doom. (1) He was guilty of the highest crimes against humanity. In his offensive
wars he was not only a public robber, but also a wholesale murderer. But murder
- Seal is held to be a capital crime (see Gen. ix. 5; Exod. xxi. 12, 14; Levit, xxiv
Ree on ek : ; tev. xiii. 10). -(2) He was guilty likewise of the highest
s against God. e was not only a gross idolater, but also a blasphemer of
Jehovah. He localized and limited Him as “ Elohim of the hills” and defied Him
in the plains. But such blasphemy also was punishable with death (Levit. xxiv
1i—16). (8) He committed all these offences in the land of Israel where they were
capital crimes, and the God of Israel delivered him into the han 1 of Ahab that he
might suffer the penalty. 38. But Ahab L he 2%" ike 8 7] pandemic
God. (1) But is there no ne for ie hitent 2) eel lite ee oe Z
ance there is Aeleshactioueritent to sual od the ene he ner pet te eee
Be eri West Fe the ier feck me on the contrary, in it evil is condemned.
( L perfection of repentance since therein only can we be effec-
tually delivered from sin. Repentance must be genuine. (2) Ben-hadad’s repent-
ance was not genuine. His servants “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.’”’ (Sir John Froissart relates that the inhabit-
ants of Calais acted in a similar manner when they surrendered their city to
Edward III. in 1346). All this was intensely mortifying to Ben-hadad, whose tone
was so different when he thought himself in the position of a dictator (see vers. 3—6).
The haughtiest in prosperity are often the meanest ix adversity. (3) But here is
no show of repentance towards God. He confesses that he deserves to be hanged
for invading the Jand, but not a word about his blasphemy against the Elohim of
Israel. Yet Ahab granted him his life.

II. THOSE WHO SHOW SUCH MERCY ENCOUNTER THE JUDGMENT OF Gop. 1. Because
thereby they encourage evil (1) If sin be committed with impunity it will soon
lose its character. Men are naturally inclined to sin, and are restrained chiefly by
fear of its penalties. If these are remitted, offences against the law of God will
come to be justified. (2) The estimate of goodness would consequently be lowered,
for we judge of qualities by contrasts. Heaven is seen in its strongest light as the
antithesis of hell. Remove from sin its sinfulness, and goodness will be distorted
into weakness or folly. (3) Such confounding of right and wrong must be fatal
to all law and order, and tend to inaugurate the wildest confusion and the deepest
misery. All this flows from the principle of false or indiscriminate mercy. 2. Hence
Ahab was held to be an accomplice with Ben-hadad. (1) He had an unworthy
sympathy with this blaspheming monarch. “Is he yet alive? He is my brother.”
“ Brother king, though not brother Israelite. Ahab valued himself more on his
royalty than on hisreligion ”” (Henry). Would Ben-hadad have called Ahab his brother
had he been victorious? (2) ‘He caused him to come up into the chariot.” This
was a sign of cordial friendsbip (see 2 Kings x. 15, 16). ‘The friendship of the
world is enmity against God.” 5o instead of imposing terms, he accepted those
proposed by Ben-hadad (ver. 34). (8) ‘‘So he made a covenant with him and sent
him away.” The form of these covenants was to cut a sacrifice in twain, and the
persons entering into the compact walked between the pieces and were sprinkled,
together with the articles of agreement, with the blood, to express that if they504 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu. xx. 1—48,

 

failed to fulfil their pledge God might treat them as the sacrifice had been treated.
8. Ahab wm consequence was doomed to die. (1) This was signified to him by
another prophet. He is by the Jews supposed to have been Micaiah, and with
some reason perhaps (compare ch. xxii. 8). (2) This prophet, after the example
of Nathan (2 Sam. xi.), made Ahab pronounce his own sentence (vers. 37—42). In
the doom of the prophet who, for disobedience to the word of the Lord in not smit-
ing his fellow, was destroyed by the lion, Ahab could also read his doom for not
obeying the word of the Lord when he should have smitten Ben-hadad to death (vers.
35, 86). (8) The prophecy came true. Ahab was slain fighting against the Syrians
to recover Ramoth in Gilead (ch. xxii. 35). And by the hands of the Syrians, under
Hazael, the children of Israel suffered severely (see 2 Kings vii. 12; x. 82, 88). (4)
In anticipation of these things Ahab ‘“‘went to his house heavy and displeased.”’
Heavy at the tidings and displeased with the prophet. It would have been more
to his advantage had he gone to the house of God in contrition for the sins of hig
wicked life.—J. A. M.

Vers, 1—21.—Veiled Mercies. I. Anan’s EXTREMITY (vers. 1—11). God’s goodness
to the froward is shown by His bringing them into circumstances where they may
prove and know Him. The clouds they ‘‘so much dread are big with mercy.” i.
The land is overrun and the capital besieged. The fruit of sin is difficulty and dis-
aster. The land and the life which will not acknowledge God will know at last what
it is to be bereft of His protecting care and the ministrations of His goodness. These
are the eternal portion only of those whom they raise and bless. 2. His degrada-
tion (vers. 2—4). In his own city he has to listen and assent to the terms that rob
him at one stroke of all that is dearest and best. The foe has no mercy, and Ahab
neither strength nor dignity. Those who forsake God, and shut themselves out
from the experience of His truth and mercy, will prove the vanity of every other
trust. 38. His helplessness (vers. 5—11). (1) Compliance with Ben-hadad’s first
demands does not save him from further degradation. Those who rely only on the
world’s compassion lean on a reed which will break and pierce them. (2) Ahab’s
defiance (ver. 11) was an appeal to chance. He had no clear confidence that
Ben-hadad’s threatenings would come to nothing. Forgetfulness of God is weakness
for the battle of life, and darkness amid its dangers, Are we remembering Him ?
Are we stirring ourselves up to lay hold on God ?

II. Gop’s HELP (vers. 12—21). 1. Its compassionateness. The help came un-
sought, and when, indeed, there was no thought of seeking it. How often has He
thus prevented us with the blessings of His goodness! 2. Its timeliness. The
final attack was about to be made (ver. 12). The progress of the siege had no
doubt alarmed Ahab, and led to negotiation. Now it needed but one more effort
and the Syrian hosts would be surging through the streets of Samaria. Within the
city there was only a terrible fear, or dull, defiant despair. But now, as the blow
is about to fall, the shield of God sweeps in between. The Lord knows His time
to help, and, by helping, to reveal Himself and bind us to Him. 3. Its fulness.
(1) Israel is glorified. The weakest part of the army achieves the victory. (2)
Ahab is honoured (ver 14). The victory is gained under the leadership of the man
whom God might have righteously destroyed. (8) The triumph is complete
(vers. 20, 21), Ben-hadad a fugitive, and his army a prey. The glory of God is
manifested most of allin Hismercy. We cannot contemplate our deliverance from
danger and the fulness of our triumph in Christ without feeling upon our soul the
recreative touch of the hand of God.—J. U.

Vers, 22-443,—Resisted Mercy. I. Gop muttreLirs His BENEFITS TO THE SINFUL
(vers. 22—80). Ahab makes no public acknowledgment of God’s mercy, nor, so far
as appears, has it been suffered to change in any way his attitude towards Jehovah;
yet God crowns him with loving-kindnesses. 1. Delivered JSrom one danger, he ts
warned of another. ‘ Go, strengthen thyself, and see what thou dost,” &c. The
enemy, baffled for the time, willreturn again. The intimation was a call not only to
prepare his hosts and strengthen his cities, but, beyond all else, to seek His face whoCH.-XxX.-1— 438
xo], 43,] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS, 508

 

 

 

 

 

had delivered hi
ed him already
i already, and was al iver hi
dangers that we may strengthen gost : ee er him again. We are warned of
vaster love in the offered strensth, 2. Wh oo eo warning, and
ver.-28): ‘The«most necat tn. 4. When the danger comes heis assured of succes
“4 a 2 = Qiu preparation had bee cl : 2 } SUCCESS
God. But God again seeks him. Mark t] ied ere
Bi Pie Lord fights for him. “Invain Aid on ee Oe OE
wm. In vain did the Svrians el had ~~
vemrodel (Meir army” ‘In vain did thes.c- pyrians change their ground and
eas 6h Ta racl. They ae saat See with their myriads the two small
. . v e J ox 5 P ; es
walls of the city into which they eee oS the swords of Israel, and the very
hand is so marked in His ae eaeke ee y, ot their destruction. God’s
Pe endvihieny danse 1e Sin ul cannot fail to see the wondrous
sa eeM ine Elia 1 : y bring us face to face with ‘the depths of
riches” of His mercy, 4. The purpose of tl ‘VW depths of the
aed Fel ti vavedet: © ve mercy. Ye shall know that I
is the revelation of God a
soul AD ikeleacinessiof. God may } od, me . meant to be the birth-hour of the
uness B ay be mentioned wit ai eee
been barren of result unless it has broucht us ade Cee

. . ~ GAR a S ) 2nc0 » } vr. a
Divine Love has blessed us in vain unless it hi %b ee
rx, as become the light of the Lord’g

Il. How THe ME

* + a! UR y
deeper Ss A@Scariation- Upealini. Siew leeatl ns Pee ee
ak avons more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the
nd Sidon in the day of
judgment than for Chorazin and B hoa ae
oY ethsaida, which gs t] :
Christ, and yet r ; , saw the goodness of God in
1d yet repented not. 1. The mere Ee
; C 2 4 be ercy was frustrated by prayerles
Though warned of tl ; Ee a ae
8 é 1e danger, he does not w r fs ;
mer, § with lowly confessioi
worthiness implore God’s direction and help. There oe pt a ne
ground that it may receive the blessing as the seed of joy aad life hia , eae
thanklessness. When the blessing came it might still laaaca a4 “yh Ce ie
benefits with which God had loaded him might have bowed cae ic rely oa n .
. . . : . wie 3 j c 21K f=
oe of his multiplied iniquities and long impious rebellion. The ea

od leads us to repenté 7 y in ‘or | a

pesos 0 repentance only as we pass in before the Lord through the gates of
praise. 38. By blindness to the indications of God’s will. The multitude slain in
the ks the falling of the wall upon those who escaped, the onontepins of
every defence ti cj ‘e of is
ant ee oy an the head and centre of the whole evil, was reached,

g : maa iat God purposed to make an end for the time of the Syrian

ower, and giv ee a ios be
P vipa oe a Tall oe erance to Israel. The fruit of the victory was blighted

y Ahi olindness and folly. ‘To co-operate with God in working out our own
salvation, we must read and faithfully fulfil His purpose. 4. By vanity and worldly
con ae enjoys for a brief moment the power which God has given, becomes

1e bene ae and brother of the man whom the Lord had doomed, and makes a
= oc... him. The trust which God had desired should wholly rest upon

imself he reposes in his foe. The hour of prosperity, which should be our
covenant-time with God, is too often made the occasion for worldly alliances,
which lead us to forget Him and all we owe to Him.

Ill. Mercy FRUSTRATED BEARS FRUIT IN JUDGMENT (vers. 85—43). 1. The
message came through swift and stern judgment. Disobedience meant death
(vers. 85, 36). The Divine threatenings come to us through terrible judgments.
2. Ahab was self-condemned. The voice of conscience is on God's side. ‘If our
heart condemn us,” &c. 8. His own life should answer for the life he spared.
Letting go God’s enemy, and keeping back his hand from God’s righteous though
terrible work, he destroyed himself. No cross, no crown. The awful price which
a soul must pay for present ease and pleasure: ‘He that loveth his life shall lose it,”
4. The shadow of God’s wrath swallows up the worldling’s peace (ver. 43); and it

falls ever deeper till the end come.—U.

 

Ver. 40.—The Neglected Opportunity. Ben-hadad IT. was seeking his revenge for
a, defeat inflicted on him the preceding year by the Israelitish army, led by a band
of 232 young noblemen. He had disciplined his army, and re-officered it, no
longer allowing money or family influence to supersede military skill. Lvery-
thing that organization could accomplish or superstition dictate (ver. 23) had been
done, but all proved in vain ; for the contest was not simply between Ben-hadad and506 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu. xx. 1—48.

 

Ahab, but between the heathen and the living God who had been blasphemonsly
challenged. Describe Ben-hadad’s successful appeal to Ahab afterjthe defeat. Why
was it not commendable (as it was, for example, after the siege of Calais) to spare
the vanquished? Because the motive was not pity, but policy; and the eriuunal
allowed to escape had avowedly fought as Jehovah's foe. It is sometimes “ expe-
dient that one man should die for the people.” Ben-hadad’s death would have
been the salvation of Ahab, who in the next war fell mortally wounded ; it would
have ensured a lasting peace, as this was the campaign of the Syrian king, rather
than of the Syrian people; and it would have seriously shaken the confidence of
the heathen in their gods. The king let his prisoner go to his own undoing. It
was this sin which was now rebuked. Picture Ahab returning from the field
flushed with victory. He is accosted by a man who has been sitting wounded and
dusty beside the road. He is a disguised prophet, probably Micaiah, acting a
parable. Says he, in effect: ‘I have come from the battle. In the hour of
victory, the captain, whom I acknowledge I was bound to obey, gave me in charge
a prisoner of note, saying that if he escaped my life should auswer for it. I admit
that I failed, though not designedly; but while thy servant was busy here and
there he was gone. Ought I to suffer for that slight negligence?” And when
Ahab answered, ‘* Yes,” the disguise was flung off, and the daring prophet appeared,
saying, ‘In pronouncing my doom, thou hast pronounced thine own.” [Read
vers. 42 and 48.] ‘The prophet set before the king a picture of his neglect of
opportunity which is worthy of our study. We observe—

J. THAT OPPORTUNITY IS GIVEN OF Gop. “There is a time for every purpose
under heaven.” HExamples: (1) Im the operations of nature. There is a suit-
able time for the gathering of fruit. It may not come when you wish it or expect
it; but neglected then, the fruit is spoiled. A farmer may in the spring be ‘ busy
here and there” with other things, and so neglect to sow his seed. The oppor-
tunity does not recur. (2) In the cultwation of mind. The indolent schoolboy
never gets again the leisure and opportunity for study; and if he did, his capacity
for acquiring knowledge has decreased. Contrast the flexibility of mind of the lad
with that of the man in middle life. (8) In the acquisition of material good.
Energy, promptitude, and diligence displayed at a critical moment make a man
a millionaire. “There is a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood,
leads on to fortune,” &c. (4) In the consecration of life. No father is content
with the physical beauty of his child if mentally he is dead—an idiot; nor is our
heavenly Father satisfied to see mental vigour accompanied by spiritual death.
He looks for a change, which is a passing from death unto life, and for this He gives
opportunity. Observe, secondly—

Il. THAT OPPORTUNITY IS GRANTED To ALL. If you would discover this, (1)
Consider your outward circumstances, The helpfulness of a Christian home;
inherited tendencies ; direct religious teaching; exemplars of holy life; recog-
nition of God at the family altar; services frequented from childhood. If these
leave you unblessed, they leave you under heavier condemnation. Soon the home
may be broken up, and the encouragements to good may vanish, and with
unavailing regret you will say, ‘As thy servant was busy here and there, they
were gone.” (2) Consider your inward condition. There are seasons when it is
easier to avail ourselves of religious advantages. Youth is such a season, for then
impulses are generous, susceptibilities are tender, affections free. Under the
influence of bereavement or personal illness religious convictions are experienced.
In and through these the Holy Spirit works. Such a time may be like the
morning twilight which brightens into day, or like the evening twilight that
deepens into night. Beware of letting convictions slip!

III. THaT OPPORTUNITY IS NEGLECTED BY MANY. ‘Two eauses of this may be
suggested: (1) The pressure of business. The man on the battle-field was busy
enough, but he failed to remember his special charge. Nothing he did was wrong
in itself, but it became a wrong when it led to the neglect of obvious duty: and if

his life was sacrificed because of that neglect, the advantage gained by other

activity was of no value, Apply this, and show the difficulty in the way ofCH. xxi. 1—29,]

 

meditation and prayer, created b
(2) The effect of Srwolity.
sense.

Fach day comes to such an one, saying,

; = : v 5
something for you to think o
message comes in vain, until the las

is at hand! The work is left undone;

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

y the multitudinous claims upon our activ

Some people are ‘1
; are *‘ busy here and there”
You never know where to find them.

their information is incomplete; their work
thoroughness; and their whole life is frittered aw

507

 

ity.
busy in another
Their character is indeterminate :
1S wanting in persistence and
ay, they scarcely know how.

: pee Bt han Sh
i ‘ Here is something for you to do for God,
or your spiritual good ;” and, havi ivered its
be oy ; 7 g : , having delivered its
message, the day falls back into the darkness of night. u

Again and again the

t day approaches, then vanishes, and eternity
and over the lost opportunity he e:
eet - pportunity he can only
pay, ‘* While tly servant was busy here and there, it was : :
ConcLusion.—l. Apply to Christians who are

cone.”
neglecting work for God. 2.

Apply to the careless who are neglecting decision for God.—A. BR.

EXPOSITION.

CHAPTER XXT.—1—929.

Tse story or NasotH. THE poom oF
AuAB’s HOUSE. Hts penitence.—Ver. 1.—
And it came to pass after these things
(I'hese words are omitted in the Vat. LXX.,
which, as before remarked, transposes chs.
xx. and xxi. See introductory note, ch. xx.],
that Naboth [‘‘ lruit,” ‘* produce” (Gesen).
Wordsworth sees in him a type of Christ,
east out of the vineyard (Matt. xxi. 89) and
slain] the Jezreclite [The Alex. LXX. here,
and throughout the chapter, reads 6 “Icpa-
niirng. Josephus (Ant. viii. 13. 8) says
that Naboth was of illustrious family]
had a vineyard, which was in Jezreel
[See note on ch. xviii. 46], hard by the
palace [LXX. threshing-floor. Stanley
(Dict. Bib. vol, ii. p. 454), arguing from this
word, would reject the Hebrew text of this
narrative, which places both the vineyard
and the plot of ground (2 Kings ix. 25, 26)
in Jezreel, and would'locate the vineyard
on the hill of Samaria, in the‘‘ void place”
of ch. xxii. 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. ]

Ver. 2.—And Ahab spake unto Naboth, say-
ing, Give me thy vineyard {The prediction
of Samuel (1 Sam. viii. 14) is being realized],
that I may have it for a garden of herbs [as
mr Deut. xi. 10> Prov. xv. 17), beeause it
is near unto [Heb. beside] my house: and
I will give thee for it a better vineyard
than it: or [Heb. omits o7],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 siiver, the price of it. See
note on ch, xx. 39. Whatever Ahab’s moral

 

weakness, he was certainly a prince of some
enterprize. Ch. xxii. 39 speaks of the
‘‘elties ” which he built. And the palace of
Jezreel would seem to have been crected by
him. This vineyard was to be one of his
improvements. ]

Ver. 3.—And Naboth said to Ahab, The
Lord forbid it me [Heb. lar be it to me

Jrom 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 9s violating
the law of Moses (Levit. xxv. 23 sqq.;
Num. xxxvi. 7 sqq.) We have instances of
the sale of land to the king in 2 Sam. xxiv.
24—but that was by a Jebusite—and in ch.
xvi, 24], that I should give the inherit-
ance of my fathers unto thee. ([‘ ‘Lhe
preservation of the nny was for every
covenant-keeping Israelite a matter not
merely of piety towards his family and his
tribe, ... but a religious duty’’ (Bahr).
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. ]

Ver. 4.—And Ahab came into his house
(At Samaria, as we gather from vers. 18, 14,
16, &c.] heavy and displeased [Heb. sullen
and angry ; same words as in ch. xx. 43.
Ewald thinks that we have here a clear re-
ference to that passage] because of the
word which Naboth the Jezreelite had
spoken to him: for [Heb. and] he had
said, I wiil 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 MD is used with

this meaning in Esther i.6 Ezek. xxiii.608

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

fou. xxr. 1—29,

 

41, and elsewhere. But ‘“‘his bed” seems
rather to point to his private chamber ; see
on ver. 5}, and turned away his face [The
Vulgate adds ad parietem, Cf. 2 Kings xx. 2;
from which place it may have been uncon-
sciously 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 (ver. 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 con-
clusive, and gave way to childish grief.

Ver. 5.—But Jezebel his wife came to
him, and said unto him, Why is thy spirit
so sad [same word as in ver. 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 in-
quire the reason. ]

Ver. 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 vine-
yard 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’sreasons
were nothing to him, and he had hardly
given them a second thought. |

Ver. 7.—And Jezebel his wife said unto
him, Dost thou now govern [Heb. make;
LXX. aig Baoréa] the kingdom of
Israel ? [There is no question expressed in
the Hebrew which stands, “ Zhow now
makest the kingdom over Israel.’? The com-
mentators 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 interpre-
tation appears to be preferable. ‘ Do thou
now play the king. Make thy power
felt. Give me the requisite authority. I
will,” &c.] Arise, and eat bread [or food],
and let thine heart be merry [Heb. good;
same words 1 Sam. xxv. 36] : I [This word
is emphatic. ‘If thow wilt do thy part, I
will do mine.”’] will give thee [no need to
buy it] the vineyard of Naboth the
Jezreelite,

Ver, 8.—So she wrote letters [Heb. writ-
ings | in Ahab’s name, and sealed them with
his seal [he use.of the seal, for the pur-

 

pose.of authentication, is of great antiquity.
Some of the Kgyplian signets are more than
4,000 years old. Their use in the age of the
patriarchs is attested by Gen. xxxvili. 18
and xli. 42; their importance is proved by
the text, by Esther iii. 10; viii. 2, 8, 10
(ch Pea le 128) 2. Dan, i eliie elem
xxzn. 10; of; Haw. a1. 98, ce. 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
Kast, or upon a piece of clay (Job xxxviii.
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 pre-
sumption that he was privy to her designs
(Bair), but of this we cannot be absolutely
certain], and sent the letters unto the
elders [see Deut. xvi. 18] and to the nobles
[same word Neh. i. 16; iv. 13; Eedles,
x. 17] that were in his city, dwelling [or
inhabitants, aS in ver, 11] with Naboth.

Ver. 9.—And she wrote in the letters,
saying, Proclaim a fast [lhe object of this
ordiiance was to give the impression that
the city was labouring under, or threatened
with, a curse, because of some undiscovered
sin (2 Sam. xxi. 1; Josh. ax 11+) Dent.
xxl. 9), which must be removed or averted
by public humiliation. Cf. Jocl i. 14; ii.
12; 1 Sam. vil.6; 2 Chron. xx. 3)], and set
Naboth on high among the neople. [Heb.
at the head of the people. Keil, al. interpret,
‘bring him into the court of justice, as
defendant before allthe people.” And cer-
tainly 12°Y/17 here, andin the next verse—
where it is used of the witnesses (ef. ver,
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 (Joel ii. 15), Naboth was assigned the
most distinguished place. The reason for
this is obvious, viz., to give a colour of im-
partiality to the proceedings. As Grotius,
Ne odio damnasse credereniur, quem ipst
honoraverunt. It would also accord with
the popular idea of retributive justice that
N.voth should be denounced in the very
hour of his triumph and_ exaltation.
Josephus, however, says that it was be-
cause of his high birth that this position
Was assigned him.]

Ver, 10.—And sei two men [according to
the provisions of the law (Deut. xvii. 6, 73
xix. 0; Num. xxxy. 30). ‘‘ Even Jezebel bears
witness to the Pentateuch” (Wordsworth).
Josephus speaks of three witnesses], sons of
Belial [t.e., worthless men. This use of
the word “son” (cf. Psa. lxxxix. 22, “son
of wickedness’”’), which is one of the com-CH, XxXI. 129]

 

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

   
 

509

 

 

monest idioms of the East, throws some light
on the expression “sous of the prophets ”
(see ch. xx. 35, note; cf. Deut. xiii, 13 ; Matt.
xxv1. 60)], before him [confronting him)

to bear witness against him, saying, Thou
didst bluspheme [Heb. bless ; ef. Job-i. 5,
ie 4 bs: LAX, evhoynos. The Lexico-
eraphers 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 biaspheme, 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
Exod. xxii. 28. To curse the king was
practically to curse Him whose vicegerent
he was (cf. Matt. xxiii, 18—22). Hence
such cursing is called blasphemy and was
punishable with death (Deut. xiii. 11; xvii.
Dy 2 Same, xvi. 93. xix.,.21; and see on
ch. il. 43, 44)]. And then carry him out
[i.e., out of the city (cf. Levit. xxiv. 14;
Acts vil. 58; Luke iv. 29; Heb. xiii. 12),
*“ Locus lupidationis erat extra urbem, omnes
enim civitates muris cinctae paritatem habent
ad castra Israelis” (Babyl. Sanh.)], and
stone him [the legal punishment for blas-
plemy (Levit. xxiv. 16)], that he may die.
(The terrible power accorded to ‘‘two or
three witnesses,’ of denouncing a.man te
death, accounts for the prominence given
to the sin of bearing false witness (Exod.
mea 16), xxi. 1;.Deut,: xix..16); It.found
a, mention in the Decalogue. |

Ver. 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 [heir ready compliance
shows not merely the ‘‘ deep moral degrada-
tion 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 in-
famous command into writing shows the
character of the woman.|

Ver. 12.—They proclaimed a fast, and
set Naboth on high among the people.

Ver. 13.—And there came in [Heb. came.
The assembly was probably held al fresco.

From the word VIDS, A. Y. yesterday, but

 

 

strictly, yesternight, Stanley snggests that
the trial took place by night. But the wordis
oiten used in the wider sense of **vesterday”?
(Gesenius)] two men, children of Belial,
and sat before him: and the men of Belial
witnessed against him, even'againss Nab oth,
in: the presence of the people [‘ihe whole
congregation was interested in a charge of
blasphemy. If unpunished, the euilt rested
on the congregation. Hence the provision
of Deut. xxiv. 14. By the imposition of
hands they testified that the euilt of the
blasphemer thenceforth rested upon his own
head], saying, Naboth did blaspheme God
and. the king. Then. they carricd 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 ix. 26
that the children of Naboth, who other-
wise might have laid claim to their patri«
mony, were put to death at the same time,
and probably in the same way; cf. Josh,
vil. 24, 25; Num. xvi, 27. This was the
rule of the Hast (Dan. vi. 24), The prin-
ciple of visiting the sins of the parents
upon the children seems to have been
carried to an excess, as we find Joash
(2. Kings xiv. 6) instituting a more merciful
rule. ]

Ver. 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 ver. 19 that the
corpses both of Naboth and his children
were left to be devoured of dogs. }

Ver. 15.—And it came to pass, when
Jezedel heard that Naboth was stoned, and
was dead, that Jezebel said to Ahab, Arise,
take possession [or inherit, succeed to ; same
word Gen. xxi. 10; Deut. 11. 24; Jer. xlix. 1.
The possessions of a person executed for
treason were tpso 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 cheremto the Lord (Deut.
xiil, 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 maticious
triumph in these words. ‘He refused,
simple fool, tc 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.

Ver. 16.—And it came to pass, when Aha)
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,” &¢.J
to go down [The “Great Plain, on the510

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[cm. xxr, 1—29,

 

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 ix,
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 ix. 26) on the day after
the murder. |

Ver. 17— And the word of the Lord came
to Elijah the Tishbite, saying [As in ch.
Ryn LS < “Kv. 1,

Ver. 18.—Arise, go down [Bahr hence
concludes that Elijah was at this time in a
mountain district. But wherever he might
be, this word would probably be used of a
journey to the plain of Esdraelon] to meet
(‘‘ The word used 1 Sam. xvii. 48 of David
going out to meet Goliath” (Stanley). But
the same word is used (ib., ch. xvii. 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 isin 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
Tilijah found Ahab—strode into his presence
—in the vineyard; not that he was there
already when the royal chariot entered it
(Stanley).]

Ver. 19.—And thou shalt speak unto him,
saying, Thus saith the Lord, Hast thou
killed (Fi $13, 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 ch. xx. 13, 14], In the
place where dogs [LXX. ai tec kai ot Kivec]
licked the blood of Naboth shall dogs lick
thy blood [according to the lex talionis, as
in ch, xx, 42],even thine. [Heb. even thou.
The LXX. adds, “And the harlots shall
bathe in thy blood.” For the construction
gee Gesen., Gram. § 119. 8; and ef, Gen.
xxvil. 34; Prov. xxiii, 15; Psa. ix. 7.
Thenius contends that there is a -contra-
diction hetween this ver. and ch. xxii. 38
(together with 2 Kings ix. 25) which is
absolutely insuperable. But as Bahr ob-

 

 

serves, ‘‘ 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 execu-
tion. 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” (ver. 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 (ch. xx.
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.
ch. xxii, 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
other 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}.

Ver. 20.—And Ahab said to Elijah, Hast
thou found me [Not mcvrely, ‘‘ Hast thou
found me out? hast thou surprised me in
the very act?” though this meaning is notte
be excluded, but also, ‘‘ Has thy vengeance
overtaken me ?”’ SND is used in this sense

DSam, xxi. 17; Isa. x:10+ Psa. xxiy 9
Ahab is so conseience-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 Ehjah had ever been
opposed to him and thwarting him, but he
does not dream (Von Gerlach, in Bahr) of
justifying himself by ascribing Elijah’s in-
tervention to personal hatred towards him-
self. The sequel shows that he was
thoroughly conscious of wrong-doing.] And
he answered, I have found thee: because
[not because Tam 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 wasCH, XXI, 1—29,]

 

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS,

511

 

boone to accomplish his will. Whether
‘the prachice ot men selling themselves
into slavery (Rawlinson) existed in that
age may peraaps be doubted. We have the
same thought in 2 Kings xviit 17, and Rom.
vu. 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, &c. 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 bim
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.]

Ver. 21.—Behold, I will bring evil upon
thee, and wili take away thy posterity
{[Heb. exterminate after thee. See note on
ch. xiv. 10. Ahab knew well the meaning
of these words. He had before him the
examples of Baasha and Zimrij, and will
cut off from Ahab [Heb. to Ahivb} him that
pisseth against the wall, and him that is
shut up and left in Israel[see onch. xiy. 10].

Ver. 22. —And will make thine house like
the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat
[ef. ch. xv. 29], and like the house of
Baasha the son of Ahijah [ch. xvi. 3, 11],

C,
OU, as else-

for bss used in the sense of
where] the provocation wherewith thou
hast provoked me to anger {ch. xiv. 9;
xvl. 7, &c.], and made Israel to sin.

Ver. 23.—And of Jezebel [Heb.to Jezebel.
LXX. ry 'IeZaBeX. But we cannot be sure
that she also received a message of doom

from Elijah, as 4 like Oss after verbs of
speaking sometimes has the meaning of,
concerning. Cf, Gen. xx. 13; Psa. ii, 3;
Judg. ix. 54; 2 Kings xix. 32. Moreover,
if the denunciation had been direct, it
would have run, ‘‘ The dogs shall eat thee,”
&c. See also ver. 27] also spake the Lord
[Probably at the same time. Certainly by
the same prophet (2 Kings ix. 36). Blijah’s
words to Ahab appear to be only partially
recorded (ib., ver. 26)], saying, The dogs
shall eat Jezebel [see on ch. xiv. 11] by the

wall (on same word as Syn, is used of the
strength and defences of a town, sc. its forti-

 

 

fications, and especially of the ditch or
moat before them. Cf, 2 Sam. xx. 15. The
LXX. render by MPOTEXiG[LA OF mepireryoc,
the V ulgate by antemurale. “There is alwayg
in Oriental towns a space outside the walls
which lies uncultivated and which is natu-
rally used for the deposit of refuse of every
kind. Here the dogs prowl, and the kites
and vultures find many a feast” (Rawlin-
son). In 2 Sam. xxi. 12 we find the bodieg
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 calledin the Arabian Nichts “the
mounds ” (Stanley)jofJezreel. {Retribution
should overtake her near the scene of her
latest crime (2 Kings ix. 36). By this the
just judgment of God would be made the
more conspicuous.

Ver, 24.—Him that dieth of Ahab in the
city the dogs shall eas; and him that dieth
in the fields shall the fowls of the air eat.
[See on ch. xiv. 11; xvi. 4. Stanley, for-
getting that the phrase is almost a formula,
thinks that “the larve yultures which in
Kastern climes are always wheeling aloft
under the clear blue sky doubtless suggested
the expression to the prophet.” ‘* The hori-
zon 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.’

Ver. 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 ver. 20], whom Jezebel his wife
stirred up [or as Marg., incised, instigated
and urged to sin. Cf, Deut. xiu. 7 Heb. ;
Job xxxvi, 18],

Ver. 26.—And he did very abominably in
following idols [Heb. to go after the idols.
For the last word see on ch. xv. 12], accord-
ing to all things as did the Amorites. [leb.
the Amorite—the word is always singular—
here put as a nomen generale for the sevcn
nations of Canaan.’ Cf. Gen. xy. 16;.2
Kings xxi. 11; Exek. xvi. 3; Amos ii. 9, 10.
Strictly the term Amorite, t.e., Highlander,
is in contrast with Canaanite, %.e., dwellers
in the lowlands ; see Num, xiii. 29; Josh.
vy. 1. But the word is used interchangeably
with Canaanite (cf. Deut. i. 44 with Num.
xiv. 45, and Judg. i. 10 with Gen. Sil. Oy,
Hittites (Judg. 1. 10 with Gen. xxiii. 2, 3,
10), Hivites (Gen. xlvili. 22 with Gen. xxxtv.
2), and Jebusites (Josh. x. 5, 6, with Josh,
xvii. 63, &c.) The ethnical and geographi-
cal ideas of the Jews were never very pre-
cise. The idolatries of the seven nations
had lingered, as we might expect, amongst
the Zidonians, whence they were re-intro-
duced into the kingdom of Samaria—one
fruit of disobedience to the command of512

Deut. vii. 1—5, &c.}, whom the Lord cast
out before the children of Israel [Deut. u.
34; 311, 8, we]

Ver. 27.—And it came to pass, when
Ahab heard those [Hcb. these] words [vers.
21—24, and others not recorded], that he
rent his clothes [cf. 2 Sam. xiii. 19; Jobi.
BO. i, Ie fer axxvi. 24, ke.], ahd put
sackcloth upon his flesh [ch. xx. 31; 2
Mince wo ao: Joel i, Sei] "Sams xxi, 10}
Heb.], and fasted, and lay [t.e., slept] in
sackcloth, and went softly. [All these were
sions of coutrition and humiliation (ver. 29).
The ‘“ going softly’’—Josephus says he went
barefoot—is especially characteristic of the
subdued and chastened mind. ]

Ver. 28.—And the word of the Lord came
to Elijah the Tishbite, saying, [lt is not
clear that this mitigation of the sentence
was announced to Ahab],

Ver. 29.— 8eest thou how Ahab humbleth
himself before me? [‘lhe repentance, if it was
not profound, or enduring, was nevertheless,

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

[cu. xxx. 1—29.

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;” Isa. xhi. 3;
Matt. xu. 20.] Because he humbleth him-
self before me, I will not bring the evil
[There is a manifest reference to ver. 21,
where the same words are used] in his days;
but in his son’s days [There is no injustice
bere—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 beer
spared (izek xviii. 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 [ver. 19] upon his
house [ver. 22].

 

HOMILETICS,

Vers. 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
shametul 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 1s 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 (eh xo, ae,
or in a chamber ceiled with cedar, and painted with vermilion (Jer. xxii. 14),
@ 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. WecH. XxI. 1—29,] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 513

 

 

 

 

 

hear his pitiful, almost childish,
so much covets, and we straig]
face. We hear her almost ¢

complaint, that he cannot have the vineyard he
itway see a look of something like scorn upon her
ontemptuous rejoinder, ‘‘ Art thou, then, so helpless
so utterly without resources, as to lie here aud 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,
Lam not. Arise, and eat bread. Banish dull care and give thyself up to feasting,
I will give thee the vineyard of this wretched peasant.” 2

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.
are now writing at her command. She it is who dictates the word
the writings with the king’s seal. The seribe’s hand may well
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 a villace 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 tind out and explate 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 aud 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 kuown 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. Ina 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 tuat his neighbours play upon him. It can-
not 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 prepa-
rations 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 £ then die, when life is so sweet! Is there ne
power to rescue me out of the jaws of the lion? Has God forgotten me ? or wi
He look on it and require it?” (2 Chron. xxiv. 22.) It is true EEO es
nothing of any such thoughts, of any prayers, appeals, a eae ea
but the history, it must be remembered, is but an outline, and that oe e ae
left for us to fillup. And we cannot doubt that Naboth had some suc 2 thot a

sse. But whatever they were, they were speedily brought to a close. : 168
as these. Bu : sie.” Time for reflection would mean time for repent-
king’s business required haste. rae mselves of their abbas; they lay them
ance. The witnesses speedily divest themselves of th a ; : ne ts
Pa re tet 0F the ead ae i wee ee ae faa Ba Bae follows
first blow he quivers from head to foot with a great thro} I os a ee
fast upon blow; he sinks senseless ; the bigs SO ed ere ae Gaeta ae ee
life is crushed out of him, and Naboth S name an ae
Pia ape those on the glory os on Per tae ee ated Asad. There were five

But ib 18 NOW pr yhe re hott ef king, the queen, the elders, the witnesses. Let
Ve i: eae Be tac conisbensde wough in very different ways, to this
us see Dow ead

21h
1 KINGS.

The scribes
s, who stamps
tremble as he pens514 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. fou. xxr. 1—29,

 

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 if, 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 50. No ; but is nos 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. lirst, 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 for ever” (Levit. xxv. 23); 1t laid
down that every child of Israel should ‘cleave to the inheritance of the tribe of his
fathers” (Num. xxxvi. 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 lim
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 (ch. xvi 24), he would
have kept his life. But he could not. He ‘ did not fear loss, but sin.” It wasa
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 Decalcgue.

.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 ofthe close
connexion between our faith and our practice. ‘This crime had its beginning, its
fons et origo, in idolatry. It was because Abab 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 command-
ment 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 case, insomuch as he was the guardian
of law and was acquainted with its provisions (Deut. xvi. 18). Of all men, he
should have been the last to defy or disregard it. Butit is only when we consider that
when his subject, to whom he should have been an exatnple, 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—itis only when we consider this that we realize
its true character. His was a sin against light and knowledge; a sin against his
helper and benefactor (ch. xx. 18, 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 iguorant-of her intentions, still thecH. xxI. 1—29.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 516

~

 

 

we eee. He ie Sige the fruits: of her crime makes him a partaker in her
common ‘saying that the “receiver is as bad as the thief.’ And he
ny ea eae ‘Jezebel could not give this vineyard with dry hands.”

. ) 2979977175 5 1 ‘ . re
Seine ie Peas of oe Grease BB Ahab’s guilt was, it was altogether

I ) or his wile. 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 commiani| ments. 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 say-
ing ‘“‘Sinrple fool! thou hast stood outfor the law; thou shalt have a surfeit of it this
time.” Itis 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. Wemay 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
fhe 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 (Exod. xxii. 2,
6; Deut. xvi. 19), they wrested judgment and condemned the innocent (Deut xxvu.
19, 25), and so they share with Jezebel the guilt of the murder. It is idle to plead
the constraint pvt 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 com-
plaisance, the queen might have been baffled. One might reasonably expect elders
—the* judges and officers ” of the land (Deut. xvi. 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. Load-
ing 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, 1t.
“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 dread-
fulday 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 Ope ou ane oe
must dic, and if so it must be Naboth. And so he died, and they bore the stain.o

blood upon their souls. ,
5. The perjury of the win
perjury. It was much more th
they had to cast the first stone—to ta
without this they were guilty of murder, for it was upon

esses. It is hardly correct to describe their sin a
an that. It was actual murder also. As witnesses,
ke the principal part.in the execution. Even
their testimony that516 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu. xx1. 1—29,

 

 

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 thev the ‘* Lord’s
anointed.” And they were but instruments in the hand of others. The elders were
the hand ; the queen was the head. Fh

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 (uéprvc), 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 xx. 14,15). 2. The tribunals were equally corrupt. The Sanhe-
drim was the counterpart of the elders ; the council of Jerusalem of that of Jezreel
(Matt. xxvi. 59; Acts vi. 12). 8. The princes of this world oceasioned the death of
Naboth; the princes of this world took counsel against the Christ (Acts iv. 26, 27),
and crucified the Lord of glory (1 Cor. ii. 8). 4. The charge was the same in every
case, viz., blasphemy (Matt. xxvi. 65; Acts vi. 13). The variation is extremely
slight: ‘*God and the king” in one case; “‘ against Moses and God”’ in another
(Acts vi. 11). 5. The charge was made in eacl: instance by men who were con-
spicuously law-breakers (John xvii. 19; Acts vii. 53), and it was made in the name
of law (John xix. 7; Acts. vi. 14). 6. The means used to compass the death were
alike in every case, viz., false witness (Matt. xxvi. 59, 60; Acts vi. 11,18). 7.
Each of these three martyrs suffered without the gate (Acts vil. 58: Heb. xui. 12).
Like Naboth, Stephen was stoned ; like Naboth, our Lord would have been stoned
if the Jews had had the power (John xvii. 81), and if the counsel of God had not
willed otherwise (Acts iv. 28). 8. There is indeed one difference, and that is sne-
gestive. The martyrs of our religion prayed for their murderers (Luke xxiii. 34;
Acts vii. 60); the martyrs of Judaism could only ery, ‘‘ The Lord look on it and
require it” (2 Chron. xxiv. 22). The blood of the covenant speaks better things
than the blood of Naboth.

Vers. 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 recom-
pense, 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 xxi. 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”
(Psp. iin 1),

It would have been strange, therefore, if such a red-handed, cold-blooéed 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
mea]; 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 ofCH. xxr. 1—29.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 617

 

 

 

 

 

 

Israel who will by no means cle
the law, stands forth to av
of law-breakers.

“ Arise, take possession of the vineyard of Naboth, which he refused to give thee
for money, for Naboth is not alive, bus dead.’ Did the king stop to ask how tliis
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 some-
thing of it, if not all. _Even if he thouelt it prudent to ask no questions, still he
would remember the significant promise of ver. 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 Aoi
passed 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 hut
guesses the king’s errand. It causes them no surprise when the chariot and itg
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 ig
against the evildoer, and shall render to every man according to his works (Prov.
mxiv. 12; Matt. xvi. 27; 2 Tim. iv. 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 ”

(ch. xviii. 8, 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 1. 16); whether he was
hiding among foreigners as he had done before. And now he is amongst tl

ar the Builty. And so Elijah, the great restor
suilt é great restorer of
enge the death of Naboth, the law-keeper, at the hands

hem again,
And Jehu and Bidkar at least (2 Kings ix. 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 hitn a death as cruel and shameful as Naboth s Is re-
served; that, king though he is, he shall come to the dogs at the last. git yg :
they presently learn that for his children, born in the purple ae eae y
nurtured, there remains a reckoning; that their blood must be shed, them oc ies
torn of beasts, like those cf 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 ie de
spoken in the broad day, before king and retinue, by a prophet aoe ie 1

never fallen to the ground. The kingis fownd out; he is taken red-han a le
blossoms of his sin. Yesterday the crime, to-day the sentence. a e my cos
the feelings of that group standing in the vineyard with those oe t ie ee a
who saw Robespierre standing under the guillotine to which, 1e Pt tan ai Df

many hundreds of Frenchmen. — ‘“‘ Aye, Robespierre, he a 4 i ie a
imagine how they stood for a while transfixed to the spot; 10W, Wee ieee
hurled his words at the king, he strode away on ae East i re

xt hing not done in a corner, and 1t c pt secret. A:
Banned to Samaria the townsman in the street, the peasant in the field,518 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [{ou. xx1, 1—2Q.

perceive that something untoward has happened. The news.of Elijah’s reappear:
ance 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”

(Prov. xv. 8); God doth know, and there 7s knowledge in the Most High

(Psa. lextii: 11;: of: Psa. xt:4):

9. “Verily there is a reward for the righteous; verily he isa God that judgeth
in theearth’’ (Psa. lviii. 11). “ Thou beholdest mischief and spite, to requite it
with thy hand ”’ (Psa. x. 14).

8. * Be sure your:sin will find: you‘out”’ (Num. xxxu.. 23).

4, ‘* Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished ” (Prov.
xi. 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” (Mal.
iii. 5).

6. ‘“ Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed” (Gen. ix. 6).

7. ‘Life for life, eye for eye, tooth, for tooth, hand or hand, foot for foot, burn-
ing for burning, wound. for wound, stripe for stripe” (Iixod. xxi, 28—25). ‘‘ God
loves to punish by retaliation ’”’ (Mall).

Vers. 28, 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—

J, Auap’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 sen-
tence of vers. 19—22 was pronounced against him; it was for the varied and
accuniulated sins of a reign of twenty years. Among these were—

1. The sin of schism. He. continued the calf-worship (ch. xvi. 81). He kept
“the statutes of Omri.” Despite the warnings of prophets and of luistory, he
maintained the shrines, sacrifices, priests, of Bethel and Dan.

2. The sin of his marriage. ‘* Wass alight thing to walk in the way of Jero-
boam that he must take to wife Jezebel” (ch. xv. 81 Heb.), in direct violation of
the law (Deut. vil. 1—8), in disregard of the example of Solomon? To place such
@ woman, danghter of such a: house, on the throne of Israel was to insult the true
religion, and to court its overthrow.

d. The sin of idolatry. (Ch. xvi. 82.) Samaria had its house of Baal, its altar
for Baal. He did very abominably in following idols (ch. xxi. 26).

4. The sin of tmpurity. This was involved, as we have already remarked,in
the idolatry of that. age. ‘‘ Ahab made an Asherah” (ch. xvi. 82). Indeed, it is
to the impurities of Canaanitish worship that the words just cited (ver. 26) refer.
The abominations of the Amorites are not to be named amonest 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 Sam. iii.
13). 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 wherewitli he
provoked the Lord (ch. xx. 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 Nabothand his sons.. For with this crime Ahab is charged.

“Hast thou killed?” ‘I have seen yesterday the blood of Naboth.. . and I willCH. XxI. 1—29.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 519

 

requite thee” (2 Kings ix. 26). Perhaps he flattered himself th sj
Jezebel’s door. If so, he is soon ict i at that sin lay at

Such was Ahab’s sevenfold sin. Consider—

I]. Ivs ageravarions. 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
uit he might know that the Lord He was God (Deut, iv. 85, 36; cf. 1 Kings xviii.
39). Did ever king hear the voice of God as he had done ?

3. He had been miraculously helped and delivered. Cf. 2 Chron. xxvi. 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 (ch. xx. 13, 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 sm, to murder and oppression. He, the executor and
guardian of law, connives at the murder of a law-abiding subject. Let us now
consider—

Ill. Hrs nerentance. 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 <ces his hands, his feet, his face
guawed 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 Jero-
boam,” “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 ” (ch. xxi. 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 bed-
chamber, 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 char. his
melancholy, no physicians can minister to that mind diseased. H 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 a
eruel and persistent enemy; 1s there no forgiveness for him ° He wall make te
effort. He too will “ gird sackcloth on his loins, and put a rope on Me head, an
go to the great king of Israel. He rises from his couch a aagder ane a wiser, aR
He rends his kingly robes and casts them from him ; he AaSEAS the garmen 9
humiliation, he fasts, he prays, he goes softly. : i is ese Pash PODURED was
neither profound nor enduring (ch. XXIL. 8, 26), but it Wale uns a my edly Aa Sy

1. Sincere while it lasted. Itis a mistake to call it the shadow, ol a reper ar e.
There was real contrition— not only tear of punishment, but MBO ey ae MBE:
We may be sure that, like a former king of Israel, his ery was, ave §

ins -d” (2 Sam. xii. 18).

against the Lord” (2 5am. 3 ol
* Open and public. His queen, his courtiers, saw the sackgloth, Jared, ie
ached voice, the downcast eye, and knew what 1t meant (ver. 29). See “ays
how Alhab ? 7 &e implies that it was notorlous. The crime was known of all men,

> °9
: ‘iation must be the same. |
e sorrow and humiliation é |
eS Marked by restitution. The Scripture does not say so, but it does not need520 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. (cn. xxx. 1—29.

;
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

, A “penitent thief” has always restored the

as there was a lie in his right hand.
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 ?” &c., 18
now hushed into tenderness. ‘‘ Seest thou,” it says, “seest thou how Ahab
humbleth himself before me? Because,” &c. (ver. 29). Ahab receives—

TV. Parpon. And this pardon, it is to be observed, was—

1. Instant. The rebellion had lasted for years. The forgiveness follows on the
heclsof repentance. While he was speaking God heard. Cf. Dan. x. 12.

2. Free and full. If Ahab’s repentance, that is to say, bad 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 euilt of innocent
blood, no doubt, could only be purged by the blood of him that shed it (Num. xxxv.
38), and it is to be remembered that Jezebel was never ineluded 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.” ‘his provision is always understood, if
not expressed.

4.7 ‘ited. When Ahab turned like a dog to his vomit, then the sword
which liad been sheathed awhile leapt again from its scabbard, and he was suddenly
destroyed, and that without remedy.

HOMILIES BY VARIOUS AUTHORS.

Vers. 1—4,—Covetousness. Amongst the arguments used by Samuel to dis-
courage 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 ABSTRACT, IS NoT covETousNESS. 1. It ts the principle of
exchanges. (1) If personshad 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 ” (Prov. xxxi. 16). (2) All commerce is founded upon the desire to make
exchanges. 2. But commerce is fruitful in blessings. (1) There are evils con-
nected with trading, viz., where dishonest practices come into it. But these are in-
trusions; and they are denounced as “illegitimate ” and ‘‘uncommercial.” (2)
Genuine commerce gives profitable employment to thought and labour. (8) It
brings the countries and peoples of the wide world into correspondence. Thereby
‘4 enlarges our knowledge of those countries, their peoples and products, and other-
wise stimulates science. (4) It encourages philanthropy. Jelief 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. (2) There is also the positive desire to be Clirist-like. This
can scarcely be too vehement. (8) Ahab does not seem to have signalized himself
in either of these directions.

II, ILLICIT DESIRE IS COVETOUSNESS. 1. We should not desire what God has
forbidden. (1) Herein Ahab was wrong in desiring the vineyard of Naboth. Itpe oe

        
  
  
    
    
   
   
  
  
   
   
  
    
     
 
  
 
 
   
 
 
 
   
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
   
   
 
   
  
  
 
   

CH. XxI. 1—29.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 621

ol

 

was the ‘inheritance of his fathers,” transmitted in the family of Naboth, from the
days of Joshua, and it would have been unlawful for him to part with it (Levit. XXVWy
40 ;, Num. xxxvi.7). (2) Ahab was wrong in tempting Naboth to trancress the
commandment of the Lord. He should never have encouraged a desire, the erati-
fication of which would involve such a consequence. (3) 1t was a pious act in
N aboth, who, doubtless in things lawful would be pleased to gratify the king, to have
indignantly refused to gratify him here. “ The Lord forbid it me that I should
give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee.” He had his tenure from the Lord.
He looked upon his earthly inheritance as a pledge of a heavenly. 2. U'his rule
requires the study of God's word. (1) It is of the utmost moment to us to be ac-
quainted with the will of God. This he has revealed in the Seriptures. (2) In
cases of transgression we cannot plead ignorance when we have the Bible in our
hands. Neither can we shift now our responsibility on to our teachers. (3) Dowe
make proper use of our Bibles? Do we stwdy them? Do we read them prayer-
fully? We must not sell the moral inheritance we have received from the past.
Iif. INoRDINATE DESIRE Is covETouSNESS. Some things are lawful without
limit. Such are the direct claimsof God. (1) Thelove of God. We may love Him
with all our heart. We cannot love Him too much, or too much desire His love.
(2) The service of God. This, indeed, is another form of love; for love expresses
itself in service (John xiv. 15, 23; Rom. xiii. 10; Gal. v. 14; 1 John v.38). (8) The
knowledge of God. To love and serve God perfectly we must have a perfect know-
ledge of Tim according to our capacity. We cannot too ardently desire this
knowledge. (4) If Ahab had loved, served, and known God with perfect desire, he
would have found such satisfaction as to have rendered it impossible for him to have
sulked as he did because he could not obtain Naboth’s vineyard. When God is
absent there is a restless void ; nothing can satisfy an unholy spirit. 2. Other things
are lawful in measure. (1) Otherwise they would interfere with the direct claims
of God. The creature must not be put into competition with the Creator. ‘Thou
shalt have none other gods bestde me.’’ (2) Desire for sensible and temporal things
must not displace the desire for things spiritual and eternal. To love the inferior
preferably to the superior is to deprave the affections. (3) Tt would have been
lawful for Ahab to have purchased a lease of the vineyard of Naboth at a fair price,
leaving it in the power of Naboth to have redeemed it; and for it to revert to

9

Naboth or his heirs in the jubilee (Levit. xxv. 28—28). But this desire to possess it,
even under these conditions, could not be justified if a refusal should lead him to go
home “heavy and displeased” and sicken with chagrin. Ahab’s discontent brought
its own punishment. He was a king, yet discontented. Discontent is a disease of

the soul rather than of the circumstances.—J. A. M.

Vers. 5—14.—A Sinful Nation. Time was when the Hebrew nation was great and
respected, “‘a praise in the earth ” for kings wise and honourable, for magistrates
; , ’ . y = .
upright and noble, and for a people faithful and true. But how completely is all
this changed! A more pitiable picture of national depravity could scarcely be drawn
oO
c -e we have—
than that presented in the text. Here we hay ie
to AN bpocenee PALACE. 1. The king 1s utterly unprincipled. (1) See him
‘heavy and displeased,” sick with rage and chagrin, lying in bed in a sulk, his
ne | isi nd what for? What dreadful calamity has
face turned away, refusing to eat. And what for‘ Se eh
befallen him? — Simply that he could not have the vineyard of Na . 1 for a
Barden of herbs! (2) But, to make things worse, he could not have : ee e
ay th t : it. x 3). Nabotl too much
" "eS ’s law (see Levit. xxv. 23). Naboth hac
ducing Naboth to transgress God's law ( % sanee Gay coh aaetie
5 for field. Ahab was really sulking against God! (0 é
ee ee is subjects to be law-abiding when he
ino is this! How could he expect his subjects to aw-abiding whe
ee ke it thus to heart that in ad-
is ex 9 What a royal soul to take it thus to hes é
wed them this example ‘ é yal s ue be ee ya
Ben to his kingdom he cannot have this vineyard! 2. [vs eee ke a ae
‘ - 7 e a og i
oan. (1) Such is the style in which she is described by Jehu (2 ae were
Sh ? ‘ms never to have failed in any incident of her life to justify this descrip oe
’ Cc ‘oe 3 + tiny
9) Now she promises to give Abab the vineyard of Naboth. Thus she Cn
Fe tanec, tead of pointing out to him, as she should have done, his jolly.
his evil humour, instea Pp gTHE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS: [cu xxi. L-=-29.

on
bo
oe)

 

(8) She will accomplish this by an act of cruel and treacherous despotism scarcely to.
be paralleled in history (vers. 8—10). She makes her pliant husband her accom-
plice, using, with his consent, his seal of state, as probably she had done hetore when
she destroyed the prophets of the Lord (ch, xviii. 4), to give authority to the missive
of death. She engaged in this business all the more readily because Naboth appears
to have been one of the ‘seven thousand ”’ who would not bend to Baal.

Il. AN uxscrupULOoUS maGistRacy. 1. Their servility is horrible. (1) Not a
voice of any noble or elder in Jezreel is raised in protest against the order from the
palace to have Naboth murdered. With eyes wide open— for the sons of Belialare not
found for them ; they have themselves to procure these wretches—they proceed to
give effect to the dreadful tragedy. (2) What motive can influence:them? They
are afraid of Jezebel. They knewher power over Ahab, and they knew the. cruelty
and vindictiveness of her nature was nerved by more than masculine resoluticn,
(8) But where was their fear of God? 2. Jt as aggravated by ircachery. (1)
Naboth was:one of their number. Is not.this suggested in the words, ‘ the elders
and nobles that were in the city, dwelling with Naboth” ? Thenis there no voice
of neighbourly friendship to speak for Naboth? No,voiceis raised. (2) Ifone voice
found courage surely others would take courage, and it might be found in the
sequel that the sense of justice would be represented by such numbers and influence
that even Jezebel might hesitate to reek vengeance upon them. But not a voice
was raised. 38. Uhe treachery is aggravated by hypocrisy. (1) The tragedy
opens with a fast. This is proclaimed ostensibly to avert from the nation the
judgments of God supposed to have been provoked by the crimes of Naboth. How
much more filting bad it been proclaimed to avert the judgment provoked by the
erimes of Naboth’s murderers! (2) The accusation is, ‘‘Thou didst blaspheme God
and the King” (bn) OMS 373), which by some is rendered, ‘t Thou hast blessed
the false gods and Molech.” Parkhurst says, ‘‘ The Lexicons have absurdly, and
coutrary to the authority of the ancient versions, given to this verb (]14) the sense
of cursing in the six following passages: 1 Kings xxi. 10, 18; Job i, 5, 11; 11. 5, 9.
As to the two first, the LXX. render 712 in both cases by evAoyew, and so the Vulgate
by bendico, to bless. And though Jezebel was herself an abominable idolatress,
yet, as the Jaw of Mases still continued in force, she seems to have been wicked
enough to have destroyed Naboth upon the false accusation of blessing the heathen
Aleim and Molech, which subjected him to death by Deut. xii. 6; xvii. 2—7.” (8)
What abominable cruelties have been perpetrated under the name of religion !

III. A DEMORALIZED PEOPLE. 1. Sons of Belial. are at hand. (1) There seems to
have been no difficulty in procuring men so. lost to truth and mercy that they will
readily swear away the life of a good citizen. Nor is this. to be wondered. at
when the whole magistracy are sons of Belial, no better than those they suborned.
Jezebel saw no difficulty in procuring such. The nobles and elders of Jezreel
found none. (2) The sons of Belial no doubt were paid for their services. The
‘consideration’? is not mentioned. What will not some men stoop to for gain!
What will they hazard in eternity! And for what a trifle! 2. No voice is raised
for justice. (1) Naboth has no hearing in his defence. The sentence given, hg
is hurried away to be stoned to death. (2) His family are sacrificed along with
him (see 2 Kings ix. 26). This was on the.principle that the family of Achan had
to suffer with him (Josh. vii. 24). But how different are the cases! (8) Unless
the family of Naboth had perished with him, the vineyard would not have fallen
to the crown. This would be an objection. to Jezebel hiring sons of Belial to
assassinate Naboth, for Naboth’s heirs would still have to be disposed of. Melan-
choly is the condition of the nation in which right is sacrificed to might. “Sin is a
reproach to any people.’’—J. A. M.

Vers. 15—24.—Dwine Inquisition. Ahab lost no time in reaping the fruit of
Jezebel’s wickedness. The nextday, after the murder of Naboth and his family,
we find him taking possession of the coveted vineyard (see 2 Kings ix. 26). But
in all this dark business there was an invisible Spectator, whose presence does not
seem to have been sufficiently taken into the.account,.CH. XXI. I—29.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 528

I. Gop Is AN OMNISCIENT OBSERVER. 1. He inspects all human actions. (1) He
was present in the palace looking upon the king of Israel as he sulked and sickened
upon his bed. His eye algo was full upon Jezebel as she proposed her ready cure
for the monarch’s chagrin. “Thou God seest me.” (2) He was present in that
court of justice when the honest Naboth was “set on high among the people.” He
witnessed the sons‘of Belial ag they swore away the lives of a worthy family. He
looked into the faces of the “ nobles” and “elders” of Jezreel who suborned these
perjurers. ‘‘ Thou God seest me,” (3) He was a spectator at the place of execu-
tion. He saw the steadiness of Naboth’s step, and noted well the bearing of his
sons as they came forth to sutfer for righteousness. And the swelling of every
muscle of those who hurled the stones was measured by His piercing vision. ‘“‘Thou
God seest me.” 2. He surveys all human motives. (1) He clearly discerned the
abominable hypocrisy of Jezebel’s ‘fast.’ It was proclaimed ostensibly to avert from
the nation Divine judgments provoked by the alleged blasphemy or idolatry of
Naboth. The vineyard of Naboth had more to do with it than his crime. Itis “a new
thing in the earth” to-see Jezebel jealous for the honour of Jehovah ! (2) He knew
why the sons of Belial publicly perjured themselves, and accurately estimated the
price for which they sold the lives of honourable citizens. He also estimated the
cowardly fear of Jezebel’s wrath, rather than encounter which the magistrates
earried out her wicked instructions. “ Nobles” and ‘“ elders” they were accounted
by men; perjurers, murderers, and dastards they were accounted by God. (8) He
nicely weighed the motive which nerved the muscle of every man who lifted a
stone against the life of Naboth. If any were misled by the hypocrisy of the
authorities, and thought they ‘‘did God service’”’ when they cast the stones, their
sincerity was recognized; and those who were not deceived were also known. 3.
Nothing is forgotten before Him, (1) As He sees the end from the beginning so
does He see the beginning from the end. (2) Let us never forget that God never
can forget. Jivery action of our lives is: present with Him—so every word—so
every thought and intent of the heart. Therefore

If. Gop Is A surremMe Jupcy. 1. He makes sin bitter to the sinner, (1) The
acquisiiion of the vineyard, the murders notwithstanding, was at fir.t so pleasing
to Ahab that it cured his sickness, and he “rose up to go down to the vineyard
of Naboth the Jezreelite, to take possession of it.” And this is often the first effect
of the gratification of covetousness. (2) But how transient is the unworthy satis-
faction! It is soon succeeded by a season of reflection. The sudden apparition of
Elijah upon the scene filled Ahab with alarm, His conscience now brought his
guilt home, and before Elijah uttered a word, the king exclaimed, ‘“ Hast thou
found me, O mineenemy ?”’ This was the language of mingled hatred and fear (see
Gal. iv. 16). The presence of the good.is a silent and effective rebuke to the wicked.
(8) The enormity of Abab’s guilt was brought home to him by the questions, Hast
thou killed, and also taken possession?” He has killed, for by taking possession
he sanctions the means by which his title is made out (see Job xxxi. 39, Jer. sil.
18, 14; Hab.ii.12). (4) God’s Holy Spirit still, by means of the word of prophecy,
if not by the lips of living prophets, carries guilt to the consciences of sinners, om
fills them with remorseful shame. 2. He conveys judgments in f/1s prov Hie 7 -
read this priaciple in the denunciations uttered by Elijah, eons an < bd
the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth shall dogs ick thy ay rf
thine.” This was fulfilled (see ch. xxii. 33). But how ‘in the place ? tow} : oth
suffered near Jezreel. Jezreel is, generally, called Samaria, being eal ; -
of the “cities of Samaria” (see ch, xiii, 82). Soin verse 18, the a ° : : ie
is said to be in Samaria. The passage 1s more clearly thus translate: ce $6 Reaay He
: o Eli: » Tishbi o, Arise, go down to meet Ahab
word of Jehovah came te Elijah the Tishbite, saying, Aj Te dé. Nab otiere Mame

is gone down to take possession of 16." (4) L amuy . aoe
ae tae was a rapriaah for the family of Naboth a. Est pen
2. Kings ix. 26). All was to the letter accomplished teh a nay att Lb aidiibens
Jezebel. The “cursed woman TS signally nesishi rs: ate aie ae ee
was as signally accomplished (see 2 Kings 1x. aint524 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cH. xx1. 1—29,

 

the judgments of Providence is not limited to sacred history. Orestes recognized
it when he said to A‘gisthus—

‘‘Go where thou slew’st my father,
That in the selfsame place thou too may’st die.”

Tt may be rend in every full and accurate history. 8. He will finally Judge the
world. (1) For Naboth and his family have yet to be vindicated. Providence has
vindicated their reputation; but they have to be vindicated in person also. To this
end all parties concerned in their murder will have to stand face to face, with their
hearts exposed tothe clear light and sensible presence of Omniscient Justice. What
defence can the sons of Belial then set up? The magistrates? Jezebel? Ahab ?
(2) What a day of vindications will that be to all the righteous! What a day of
confusion to all the wicked! Iiverything will be righteously adjusted in that final
sentence (Matt. xxv. 384, 41, 46).—J. A. M.

Vers. 25—29.—Ahab’s Repentance. After the terrible sentence pronounced by
Elijah upon Ahab for his enormities follows this account of his repentance. The
record teaches

I, THAT THERE IS REPENTANCE FOR THE VILEST. 1. Ahab answered this descrip-
tton. (1) He “wrought wickedness.” So have we all. But his was evil of no
common order. ‘‘He did very abominably in following idols, according to all
things as did the Amorites, whom the Lord cast out before the children of Israel.”
(See Gen. xv. 16; 2 Kingsxxi. 11.) (2) He wrought this wickedness ‘in the sight
of the Lord,” as the Amorites did not, for they had not the religious privileges of
an Israelite. Ahab in particular had signal proofs of the presence of God. The
shutting and opening of the heavens, to wit, together with the miracle on Carmel.
Where much is given much is required. (8) He had ‘ sold himself” to work this
wickedness. (See Rom. vii. 14.) He was slave to Jezebel—slave to Satan. He
drudged hard in his serfdom, (4) None of his predecessors had gone so far wrong.
‘There was none like unto Ahab” (see ch. xvi. 83). Jeroboam had ‘‘ made Israel
to sin,” and Omni, at the instigation of Ahab, made ‘statutes ” to confirm that sin.
(See Micah vi. 16.) Ahab went further, and established the worship of Baal, with
its attendant abominations of Ashere. (See ch. xvi. 29—83.) (5) He was in the
worst company. He had married a “cursed woman,” and submitted to be led by
her into the extremes of wickedness. ‘* Whom Jezebel his wife stirred up.” Under
her instigation he consented to a wholesale massacre of the sons of the prophets ;

 

and now she makes him her accomplice in the murder of Naboth, with itg
attendant atrocities. 2. Yet Ahab took God’s message to heart. (1) He believed
the terrible sentence, as he had good reason to do, for it came by the hand of
Elijah. In all his former experience he had found that the word of the Lord in
Elijah’s mouth was truth. (2) Now, with his death vividly before him, and the
fearful doom of his house—all the fruit of his crimes—these crimes live up again,
and pass in formidable order before his eyes. (See Psa. 1. 21.) Conspicuous
amongst the spectres that would move before him would be those of the newly
murdered Naboth with his children. (8) This ghastly phantasmagoria would be
to him a premonition of the solemnities of the final judgment in which the
thousands injured, whether in body or soul, by his bad conduct and influence,
would cry to God's justice for vengeance upon the royal culprit. 8. He hwmbled
himself accordingly. (1) Before Jehovah. He “rent his clothes” in token of
deep grief. (See Gen. xxxvii. 84; Job i.20; Ezra ix. 3.) “He put sackcloth upon
his flesh, and fasted, and lay in sackcloth, and went softly.” Here were all the
signs of deep contrition before God. They were symbols of the prayer of the heart
for mercy. (2) Before men. To put on sackcloth he laid aside those robes of
state in which he had prided himself. Instead of moving with his former kinely
tramp he now ‘went softly.” (Compare Isa. xxxviil. 15.) He moved with the
timid step of a culprit. (8) Who will say his repentance was not genuine? God
did not say so. He afterwards, indeed, professed to ‘‘hate” a faithful servant of
God (ch, xxii. 8). But what does this prove ? Sunply that he afterwards relapsedCH. XxI, 1—29,] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 525

 

into sin. And it admonishes us not to
perseverance, but, by the help o
and trembling.”
Il. THavT THERE Is mx
| TERCY FOR THE PENITENT. 1. God observed the repent
of Ahab. (1) He observed it before had its firs ate oat,
ere: reman had. He saw its first motions in the depth

of his heart. He saw the prodigal ‘while yet a great way off” (Luk 20),
(2) Doubtless He gracious] urag a erieauk ie Cea

pute g sty encouraged these motions go that they ripened into
con ession. And does not the goodness of God still lead men to repentance eve
a gee 2. He called the attention of Hlijah to tt. (1) To the prophet as
ee et ae Ahab humbleth himself before me Dhis was an

ag nt to the man of God. His labour was not in vain. Ahab required

some moral courage to humble himself before Jehovah in the presence of Jezebel
(2) God in His goodness directs His servants to those who are penitent that they
may minister words of encouragement to them. Ananias was sent to Saul
(Actsix. 11). 38. He extended His mercy to the suppliant. (1) ‘Because he
humbleth himself before me, I will not bring the evil in his days: but in his gon’s
days will I bring the evil upon his house.” The mercy is not a reversal of the
mischief, neither was the repentance. The mischief is done, and cannot be reversed.
Early piety is therefore earnestly to be desired that the mischief of an evil life may
be avoided. (2) It was a substantial benefit nevertheless. (a) To Ahab personally.
It was something to be spared the pain of witnessing the judgments of God upon
Kis wicked house; but, what is still more considerable, this mercy contained a
promise respecting the world to conie; for, and especially in prophecy, things
visible are signs or portents of things spiritual. (b) It was also a benefit to his
nation. Jor after this, probably, came the war with Ben-hadad, in which God
interposed in a very remarkable manner on behalf of His people. In the Septua-
gint, which translation was made from much older copies of the Hebrew Bible than
any now extant, this chapter and that here before it change places; and the order
in the Septuagint is also followed by Josephus. (8) This fact is very important,
for it shows also where the backsliding of Ahab commenced. It was evidently in
the false mercy which he showed to Ben-hadad. After this relapse God forsook
him and handed him over to evil spirits and lying prophets, who wrought his ruin.
** He that endureth to the end shall be saved.”—J. A. M.

: presume upon any dogma of infallible final
God, to “ work out our own salvation with fear

Vers. 1—24.—The Progress of Sin. This chapter describes one of the blackest
crimes which ever blotted the page of history. The description is so graphic that
we seem eye-witnesses of the tragedy, and so suggestive that we can understand the
motives and feelings of the principal actors. Naboth has been blamed sometimes
for refusing what appeared a reasonabie request—that he would sell a piece of land
to his rightful king at a fair price. It is evident, however, that he was not only
acting within his right, but that he could not have assented to the proposal] without
breaking the.Divine law given by Moses. The paternal inheritance might only be
sold in extreme poverty, and then on the condition that it might be redeeined at any
time ; and, if not previously redeemed by purchase, it reverted to the original owner
at the year of jubilee (Levit. xxv. 13—28). With Naboth it was not the dictate of
ehurlishiness, but of conscience, to refuse the proposal of the king. Nor was Ahab’s
guilt the less because the crime was suggested by Jezebel. _ He might be deficient
in nerve and inventiveness, but he was not in iniquity. Let us trace him in this
his hideous downfall, that none of us may be “ hardened by the deceitfulness of
sin.” Our subject is the-Procress oF Sin. We see here

I. PossessIons LEADING TO CovETOUSNESS. His stately palace and park at
Jezrecl did not content him. With greedy eye he looked on this tiny plot of free-
hold. and resolved to have it. It is not in the power of material possessions to
satisfy man. The rich man must be richer still; the large kingdom must extend
itself yet further; the great business must crush the small competitors, ke. How
often this leads to wrongs wrought on the poorer and weaker! ‘‘The love of
money is the root of all evil.” ‘ Take heed and beware of covetousness, for a
man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of things that he possesseth.

 

 

neni Ly EN RRR SM TR SA deb526 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [ou. xxx. 1—29,

 

II. CovETOUSNESS LEADING To prsconTENT. “He laid himself down upon his
bed, and turned away his face, and would eat no bread.” Disappointed of that
which he coveted he could find no pleasure in that which he already possessed.
Show how easily a discontented habit of mind may be formed, and how it embitters
everything. Thankfulness, gladness, and hope are strangled by this serpent sm.
The necessity of watching against the rise of this in our children.

III. DiscoNTENT LEADING TO EVIL COUNSEL (ver. 7). Ahab was just in the
right condition to welcome anything bad. On an ordinary occasion he might
have repelled this hideous suggestion. Satan watches Ins opportunity. His
temptations are adapted to our age, our'social position, our mood of mind. What
would fail to-day may succeed to-morrow. What the youth would spurn the old
man may welcome, &. ‘‘ Watch and pray, lest ye enter into temptation.” It is
an evil thing to have a bad counsellor always near you. Let that thought guard
us against unholy associates. - 1

IV, Evi CoUNSEL LEADING To Lirs (ver. 10). The fast was a hypocritical device
to prepare the minds of the people for the death of Naboth. Its appomtment pre-
supposed that there was a grivvous offence committed by some one, which the
community was to mourn. ‘Their suspicions would be ready to fasten on any man
who was suddenly and boldly accused by two independent witnesses. ‘The scheme
was as subtle as it was sinful. Give examples of the use of deceit and lies in
modern life for the purpose of making money, advancing social interests, &e.
Show the sinfulness of this.

V. Lizs LEADING TO MURDER (ver. 13). Not only was Naboth Isilled, but his
children also (2 Kings ix. 26). Hence the property would revert to the king. It
was a cold-blooded murder. Few worse are recorded in history. Seldom is this
most heinous crime committed until the way has been paved for it, as hee, bv
lesser sins. Jixemplify this.

VI. MURDER LEADING TO RETRIBUTION. Read Elijah’s bold and terrible denun-
ciation of the crime on the very soil of the coveted vineyard (vers. 20—24),
Retribution may linger long, but it comes at last. In the light of many a startling
discovery we read the words, ‘‘ Be sure your sin will find you out.”

ConcLusion.—“‘ Cleanse thou me from secret faults: keep back thy servant also
from presumptuous sins,’ &c.—A. R.

Vers. 27—29.—Partial Penitence. Such was the effect of Elijah’s message
delivered in the vineyard of Naboth. The fearless courage of the prophet had
again asserted itself, and once more the king qnailed before his terrible words of
denunciation. The subject is the more worthy of study because the deceitfulness
of the human heart is here laid bare by “the searcher of hearts.” If we under-
stand Ahab, we shall better understand ourselves.

I, Tur DECEITFUL NATURE OF AHAB’S HUMILIATION. We shall show that there
was a mixture of the good and evil, of the true and false. 1. I¢ originated in @
true message. No phantom of his own brain, no utterance of a false prophet
misled Ahab; but the declaration of a man who, as he knew by experience, spoke
truly, and spoke for God. He dared not refuse credence to the message, but that
his heart was unchanged was shown in his continued hatred to the messenger
(1 Kings xviii, 17; xxi. 20). In all ages the word of God has been “as a fire,” and
as a “hammer” (Jer. xxili. 29). ‘Give examples. The Ninevites, the Jews at
Pentecost, &. It has ‘pleased God, by the foolishness of preaching, to save them
that believe.” 2, It asserted itself in fasting and tears. These would be natural
signs of distress. In themselves they were no evidence of sincerity. It is easier
to put on the outward than to experience the inward. There is always danger of
letting the visible supersede the invisible, though it is only of value as the honest
expression of conviction. Leaves and blossoms may be tied around a dead branch,
but that does not make it live. (The perils of Ritualism.) Even under the Old
Dispensation this was understood. Samuel said, “To obey is better than sacrifice,”
&e. David exclaimed, ‘Thou desirest not sacrifice,” &c. (Psa. li. 16, 17; see also
Micah vi. 8; Isa. i. 11). -Compare the words of our Lord, ‘“* Moreover when yeCH, XxI. 1—29,] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 527
vn

 

 

fast, be not as the 1
¢ Yypocr :

t ’ 1 : ypocrites, of a sad countenance; for they disficure their faces
1at they may appear unto men to fast.” 8. It consisted in i hse ty tela
Ahab was thoroughly alarmed, but imacinati TO le) Oe TUT TT
eae re nh armed, but Imagination rather than conscience was at work
ithin him. He did not forsake his j ’ + aay, :

lis idols, nor give up Naboth’s vj
: aboth’s vineyard .
abandon his self-confidence, § c 73 P yy a tee
S . wee next chapter, which narr iF
: ° Seas c ; arrates his dealings witl
a4 5 7 a 7 + 1 : 3 YL’ 1
gee Ky idently there was no change of heart or of life; nor had his
© ) ~ ; « c ©
eeling any abiding influence. He was like those who are alarmed at the thought
of hell, not at the thouglit of sin. They shrink fr ishrr eA aes
Tk Yt I MOUS sin. ey shrink trom punishment, but not from
gu 7 pes es. The drunkard weeping maudlir tears over his poverty; the
ry = 2 ar . = * ?
oe es coe ey thrown out of employment; the sinner who believes himself
o-be at the point of death, &e. True repentance makes us feel and act differently
towards sin and towards God. ?
aan ata: NOTICE OF AHAB’S HUMILIATION. 1. It did not escape the Divine
search, C od looks down from heaven to see if there were any that do good. He
rejoices to find not the evil that must be punished, but the feeble germs of cood
a / ia — tg 7 = Do” ; “Lo 5
that may be encouraged. (Compare Psa. xiv. 2.) Even such a sinner as Abab
(ver. 25) was not disregarded when he showed the faintest siens of repent:
God would foster them lovingly, as He foster gi eet st deter
d toster them lovingly, as He fosters the seed sown in the warm earth
. ; a Og CC = i Hes 2 y ~4 a hey ; are E
The prodigal is seen “‘when yet a great way off.” Even the first besinnings of
righteousness were commended by our Lord: “ Jesus, beholding him, loved him,”
4 ae i a ica , c 3 ’
Ge. 2. It led to the mitigation of the Divine punishment. Ahab’s feeling was
real as far as it went. The postponement of punisliment was to give o xportunity
. _ . > . t
for more genuine repentance. Had that revealed itself, the judgment would have
been averted. Compare this with our Lord’s washing the feet of Judas, though He
IAG styaxy C17 p ; i. oy | ee i ig
knew he was about to betray Him. ‘The goodness of God leadeth to repentance.”
See how ready God is to meet those who may return to Him (Acts ii. 88; Joel ii.
12—14), [Norz.—We ought to notice and encourage what is right even in those
who are not what they should be, commending it whenever it is possible.] 3. I¢
failed to win a reversal of the Divine gudgment. A temporary repentance may
be followed by a temporary reprieve; but final salvation must be preceded by true
repentance. If the heart is not turned from sin, it cannot be turned from hell.
* Godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation, not to be repented of; but the
sorrow of this world worketh death.” Not only must evil be expelled, but good
must enter; for if the heart is left ‘‘empty, swept, and garnished” by self-reforma-
tion, the evil spirits will return. Good must supersede evil; Christ must supplant
gin; the Holy Spirit must conquer the evil spirit. (Compare Acts xi, 17, 18.)
A partial penitence gained reprieve, and much more will a thorough repentance
gain justification. As Trapp says, “If the leaves of repentance be so medicinal,
much more the fruit.” —A. I.

present

Vers. 1—4.—First Steps in the Path of Crime. I. Unsripizp pestre, 1. The
spirit in which Ahab came. He came down to Jezreel not to present a thank-
offering to God for recent deliverance, nor to inquire what might be done to meet the
wishes or improve the condition of the people. Had he come thus, patlis of useful.
ness would have opened up before him, and, instead of the dark memory of guilt,
he would bave left behind him blessing and praise. God and man were alike shut
out, and self was set up as that which alone was to be regarded and served, Such a
spirit not only stands open to temptation - it invites it. Right aims shut out is half
Satan’s victory. 2. How the temptation presented vtself. He was about to make
improvements upon the palace, and his eye fell on Naboth’'s vineyard. ‘This made
into a garden of herbs would secure greater privacy and allow other improvements
to be carried out. As he looked only upon his own things the advantages of the
acquisition were magnified, the fire of desire was kindled and fanned into even
fiercer flame. A selfish spirit is ready to be set on fire by the slightest spark of
evil suggestion. There was much in God’s recent goodness, much also in the
necessities of Israel, to raise Ahab above so small a care. The spirit of selfish dis-
content, which ‘‘ never is, but always to be, blest,” makes thankfulness and service
alike impossible. If it rule us we are already set in the way of sin. From the528 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [eu. xx. 1—29.

 

spot on which we stand a hundred dark paths branch out—envies, jealousies, false-
hood, dishonest dealing, mean lying artifices, thefts, murders. When tempted to
set the heart on what we have not, let us come back into the midst of the good
which God has given, and say that if He see it to be best for us, that will be given
too. 8. How the object was pursued. All restraints were cast aside. Ahab’s olier
(ver. 2) seems at first sight most generous. Dut it shut out of sight (1) the ties
which bound Naboth to his inheritance, and (2) the duty he owed to God. The
Israelite could not alienate his lot even when pressed by direst necessity. It might
be parted with for a time, but it returned again to its rightful owners at the year
of jubilee. Ahab’s offer was a temptation to Naboth to think lightly of God’s
arrangements and to despise his birthright.

Il. Misprrecrep ancer. ‘‘ Ahab came into his house heavy and displeased,”
not with himself, but with Naboth. His anger was not against his sin, but against
the man who had rebuked it, He might bave stood and said, ‘‘I have sinned, I
have abused my position. I have been caring for my own good, and not for theirs
over whom God has set me.’’? But be took the side of his sin against the truth.
He that struck at that struck him. When God meets us as He then met Ahab, we
must either return humbled and penitent into the right way, or withstand Him and
pass into deeper darkness.—U.

Vers. 5—14.—Sin’s friendships, and what they lead to, I. Tue sINFUL FIND
MANY HELPERS. Ahab seems to have done all that he was able or cared to do.
He had tempted Naboth and failed, and the matter seemed to have come to an
end. But where Ahab stops, Satan’s servants meet him and carry on the work.
Jezebel prevails on him to tell the story, and the elders of Jezreel and its sons
of Belial are ready to do their part also, to give him his desire and steep his soul in
crime. ‘The man who is casting away means and character and health and
eternal life will find friends to take the part of his worse against his better self,
and agents enough to aid him in accomplishing his sinful will. It is vain to think
of arresting a career of vice merely by change of place. Satan has his servants
everywhere.

IJ. THE MISUSE OF INFLUENCE. There is much that may be admired in Jezebel’s
conduct. However false she was to others, she was true to her own. With tender-
ness, which lends a peculiar grace to astrong, regal nature like hers, she approaches
the moody monarch. Under the warm sunshine of loving sympathy the bands
which bind the burden to his soul melt away. It is laid down and exposed to view.
But however good the impulses which incite the wicked to action, their feet take
to the paths of sin. 1. Her sympathy becomes fierce chanipionship of wrong.
There is love for Ahab, but no consideration for Naboth, and no regard to the voice
of justice and of God. How much human love to-day is after the pattern of
Jezebel’s—narrow, selfish, unjust! The home is everything; the world outside
has no claims, sometimes not even rights! Others are regarded with pleasure as
they favour those we love; with aversion and hatred so soon as they oppose them,
or even stand in their way. Homes are meant to be training schools for God’s sons
and daughters, where they may learn to be patient, forbearing, less exacting, able
to make allowances for difference of disposition and of judgment, and so pass out
able to do a brother’s, sister’s part in the great world around them. But Jezebel’s
affection frustrates God’s plan and arms the hone against the world it was meant
to serve. 2. She goads him on to greater sin. She blames him not for setting his
heart so upon a trifle, but for letting the matter rest where it did. She reminds
him of his might and Naboth’s weakness: ‘‘ Dost thou now govern?” &c. How
often does the sympathy of the wicked daringly recommend what the heart had
feared to think, and this too with reproaches of weakness, of wrongs and slights left
unavenged! Instead of quenching the fire of hate, they fan it into fiercer flame.
3. She bears him onward into crime (vers. 7—10). Ahab’s very weakness would
have prevented him shedding Naboth’s blood, but her subtle brain and indomitable
will supply what is needful to steep his soul in guilt. How many dark stains have
been in this very way fixed upon the page of history! How much genius and
talent have thus served, and are serving now, the devil’s purpose !CH. XxI, I—29.] THE FIRST BOOK. OF KINGS. 529

 

 

Ill. Tae rvin wroven .
relieve the baseness of ihe side ind oe sis oe oe ee
by misguided affection to avense a ae Sa Phey were not impelled
ignorance. They were behind the SebuGe aaa 1ey could not even plead
the deepest dye—murder done under ae ee ee ae i eee

God. The nt : > guise ai tor the offended majes
et eo the grandest opportunities of shielding Ge

PES Ss ugh places. They had only to sav thev co
themselves to such a deed. But these do ie stained aiite the a ean ait
eee te in this very way. Is there no ‘dite ae
: M18 we e written? Are there no men and no causes frow A
not because that in themselve; 7 “Vy ; Mae eee oe
not in favour, and it will not ven nana ee oe ia ee pa, Pee
their influence in favour of a ood cause when it is safe to Deai tvs ‘ rm a ihe
looked for in vain when it sorely need deniits eae Wao Yah De

\ ; y needs to be befriended? There may be no er
wrought now in this land such as was then done in Israel: but should the ¢; vite
these are th rho will d ipw Adz NOUEY Here VLE NU GTS)
: 1€ men who will do as the elders and nobles did then. The spirit is the
same, and in the like circumstances it will bear the same fruit,—U.

Vers. 15-—29.—Gurtt and Mercy. I. To ENJOY THE FRUITS OF SIN IS TO TAKE
oe Hast thou killed?”’ &. Itis not said that Ahab knew of the plot. The
ph Te i be a aid not. Jezebel wrote to the elders, and to her the tidings

e sent that the deed was done. But if Ahab did not know before, he knew after.
Knowing how it had been procured he nevertheless received it,and heard as hestood
there the word of the Lord: “* Hast thou killed, and also taken possession?” ‘There
are men, for example, who could not pass their days in the vile drink traffic. They
could not sleep at night for thought of the wives and mothers and children whose
misery had pleaded in God’s sight against them and their work. The thought of the
souls they had helped to lead down into the eternal darkness would terrify them.
Bt they can pocket the gains of that very trade; they can receive the higher rent
which their property secures because it is let to the sellers of drink, and live in
quietness, and sit at the Lord’s table, and die in good esteem, and go forth to meet—
what? the same judgment as the publican! Your reputable merchant may not lie
and cheat; but if the young men that serve behind his counters do so, and if he
knowingly pockets the gains of such baseness, he is equally guilty in God’s sight.
To take the fruit of falsehood and oppression and wrong is to stain our souls with
their guilt. ‘‘'Thus saith the Lord, In the place where dogs licked the blood of
Naboth shall dogs lick thy blood, even thine.” ‘* Behold I will bring evil upon
thee,” &c. (vers. 21—24).

I]. WHAT IT MEANS WHEN A MAN FINDS THE TRUTH HATEFUL. Ahab’s question,
‘Hast thou found me?” &c., was a self-revelation. There were many to whom
Elijah’s presence would have been like that of an angel of God ; but to Ahab it is as
the shadow of death. And the explanation was, ‘‘ Because thou hast sold thyself ta
work evil in the sight of the Lord.” It is only to death that the truth is a savour
of death. He was sin’s bondman. For the gratification of evil desire he had sold
himself to work Satan’s will, and now in his attitude to God’s servant he was own-
ing Satan still as master. It is easy to listen with approval, and with pleasure even,
when other men’s sins are dealt with; but when our own are touched—when we
are met with our feet standing in Naboth’s vineyard, what is our attitude toward
the truth? Isit anger or submission? Whom do we own as master, Satan or
God ?

IIL Tur ricnes or Gop’s mercy (vers. 25—29). 1. The greatness of Ahat’s
sin. He had outstripped all who had gone before him, great as their sins had been ;
“ but there was none like unto Ahab,” &. 2. The inadequacy of his repentance.
It was no doubt sincere, but it did not go far enough. It was fear of judgment, not
loathing of sin. 8. The fulness of the Divine compassion. Verses 25 and 26 might
well have been a prelude to the record of full and speedy vengeance, and especially
so in view of the unsatisfactory nature of his sorrow. But it is the introduction to
the story of mercy. All that sin—sin of deepest dye—will not prevent God runnmg

1 KINGS. a”530 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. fou. xx1. 1—29,

 

forth to meet Ahab so soon as he begins to turn to Him, That sorrow, shallow
though it was, God had marked and accepted. ‘ Seest thou how Ahab?” &e. God
is not a stern, relentless Judge. Father’s heart has never yearned over child as
God's over us.—U.

Ver. 20.—Naboth’s Vineyard. The robbery and murder of Naboth form one of
the darkest episodes in the story of Ahab’s life. We see that idolatry and perse-
eution were not the only crimes into which Jezebel seduced him. Indeed, such
iniquities never stand alone. They would naturally be the parents of many more.
He was probably guilty of many such acts of cruel wrong during his wicked career.
This is related to show how completely he had ‘‘sold himself to work evil in the
sight of the Lord.” Let us think of (1) hissin, (2) his punishment, (3) his remorse.

I. His stn. It had many elements of moral wrong in if, and is not to be
characterized by any one particular designation. 1. Avarice. Large and rich as
his royal domain was, he envied Naboth the possession of his little vineyard. 2,
Oppression. It was a wicked abuse of power. ‘‘ Might” to him was “right.”
8. Impiety. Ahab must have known that he was tempting Naboth to the violation
of an express Divine command (Num. xxxvi. 7). 4. Abject moral weakness. This
is seen in his childish petulance (ver. 4) and in his mean subserviency to the
imperious will of Jezebel. 5. Base hypocrisy, in subjecting the injured man to the
decision of a mock tribunal. Crimes hke this generally present various phases of
evil thought and feeling; and when they attempt to cover themselves with a false
veil of rectitude, it only tends to deepen immeasurably our sense of their iniquity.

II. His punisument. The prophet was assuming his true function in pronouncing
this swift judgment on the cruel wrong that had been committed. His calling was
to proclaim and enforce the laws of eternal righteousness, to vindicate the oppressed,
to rebuke injustice, and that not least, but rather most of all, when it sat enthroned
on the seats of authority and power. Note respecting this punishment. 1. Jés
certainty. Ahab could not really be surprised that his ‘‘enemy had found” him,
for that ‘‘ enemy ’”’ was but the instrument of a God to whom “‘ all things arenaked
and opened.” ‘‘ The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the
good,” and the transgressor can never escape His righteous judgment. ‘‘ Be sure
your sin will find you out” (Num. xxxii. 23). 2. Its correspondence with the
crime. ‘‘In the place where the dogs licked the blood of Naboth,’’ &c. (ver. 19).
The principle involved in this has often been a marked feature of the Divine retyri-
butions. ‘‘ Whatsoever a man soweth,” é&c. (Gal. vi. 7, 8). ‘‘ They have sown the
wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind” (Hosea vi. 7). 8. Its delay. The sen-
tence was fully executed only in the person of his son Joram (2 Kings ix. 25, 26);
but this in no way alters the character or lessens the terribleness of it as a punish-
ment upon him. LEspecially when we remember what an instalment of the full
penalty was given in the violence of his own death (ch. xxii. 84—87). ‘ Because
sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, theretore the heart of the
sons of men is fully set in them to do evil” (Hecles. viii. 11). But when, space
being thus given them for repentance, they abuse it, they do but “‘treasare up
wrath for themselves against the day of wrath,” and, falling under the righteous
vengeance of God, they do not escape ‘ till they have paid the uttermost farthing.”
Thus did Ahab inherit the woe pronounced on him who thinks to secure any good
for himself by iniquity and blood (Hab. ii, 12), Ill-gotten gain always brings with
it a curse.

III. His remorse (ver. 27). It can scarcely be called repentance. It may have
been sincere enough so far as it went, and for this reason God delayed the threatened
punishment; but it was wanting in the elements of a true repentance. It was the
compunction of a guilty conscience, but not the sacred agony of a renewed heart.
It sprang from sudden alarm at the inevitable consequences of his sin, but not from
a true hatred of the sin itself. It soon passed away, and left him still more a slave
to the evil to which he had “ sold himself” than he was before. ‘ For godly sorrow
worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world
worketh death” (2 Cor. vii. 10).—W.GE S30; 1—53.]

 

 

 

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

531

 

EXPOSITION,

CHAPTER XXII. 1—53,

THE EXPEDITION oF AHAB AND JEHosHA-
PHAT AGAINST Ramoru-GinEap. THE DEATH
or Anas. THE REIGNS or JEHOSHAPHAT
AND AHAZIAH.

Ver. 1.—And they continued [rather,
rested. Heb. sate, dwelt. Cf. Judg. v. 17.
The LXX. has éxaéuce, sing.| three years
without war (The Hebrew explains the
**rested ”—there was notwar, &e. 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 re-
suméd from ch. xx. 34—438. Rawlinson
conjectures that it was during this period
that the Assyrian invasion, under Shal-
maneser II., took place. The Black Obe-
lisk tells us that Ahab of Jezrceel 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 com-
mon danger might well compel a cessation
of hostilities} between Syria and Israel.

Ver. 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
‘*soing down ’’] to the king of Israel. [or
aught that appears, this was the first time
that the monarchs of the sister kingdoms
had met, exccpt in battle, since the disrup-
tion, 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 Chron. xviii. 1, 2).
It is probable that it was the growing power
of Syria had led to this affinity and alliance. ]

Ver. 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 ch.
xxi. 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 (ch, xx. 34), and which he appears to
bave shamelessly broken, except by the help
of Jehoshaphat, whose military organiza-

 

 

tion at this time must have been great, and,
indeed, complete (2 Chron. xvii. 10—19),
It is in favour of this view that Ahab enter-
tained 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 wag
this generous reception ‘‘ persuaded” Je-
hoshaphat to join in the war], Know ye
that Ramoth in Gilead [Generally, as
below (vers. 4, 6, &c.), “ Ramoth-Gilead,”
1.€., Of Gilead. See note on ch. iv. 13,
This “great frontier fortress was, in the
hands of Syria, even. after many reverses,
a constant menace against Israel’’ (Stanley)]
is ours [7.e., it was one of the cities which
Ben-hadad had promised to restore (ch.
xx, 34). This shows that, as we might
expect from a man of Ben-hadad’s over-
bearing yet pusillanimous character, he
had not kept good faith. Though so longa
time had elapsed, it was still in his hands],
and we be still [TWN is onomatopoetic,
hike our “hush.’’ Marg, rightly, silent from
taking it. The word conveys very expres-
sively 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 ch.
xx. 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. }

Ver. 4.—And he said unto Jehoshaphat,
Wilt thou go with me to battle to Ramoth-
Gilead? {[Itis 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 Chron. zix. 2.] And
Jehoshaphat said to the king of israel, lam
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 (ch.
xx. 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 en-582

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[cm. xxm. 1—53.

 

trenched, was but forty miles distant from
Jerusalem. Bihr holds that horses are
specially mentioned ‘‘ because they formed
an essential part of the military power”
(Peas xxxim. 16, 175° Provexki.' 31)! Tbeas
true that in a campaign against the Syrians
they would be especially useful (see on cn.
xx. 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.” |

Ver. 5.—And Jehoshaphat said unto the
king of Israel, Inquire, I pray thee, at
(This word is redundant] the word of the
Lord to-day. [O)D 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 recuest agrees
well with what we learn elsewhere as to
Jehoshaphat’s piety (2 Chron. xvii. 4—9;
xix. 5—7, &c.) 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.]}

 

Ver. 6.—Then the king of Israel gathered
the prophets [Called by Micaiah ‘ his
prophets’”’ (ver. 22), and ‘‘ thy prophets ”
(yer. 23)] together, about four hundred
men [From the number (cf. ch. xvid. 19)
it has been concluded that these were “ the
prophets of the groves,’’ t.e., of Astarte,
who escaped the massacre of the Baal
prophets (ch. xviii. 40). Others haye sup-
posed 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 (vers.
11, 12, 24). Moreover (83) Ahab would
hardly have insulted Jehoshaphat by bring-
ing 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 ver. 7, where Jehoshaphat asks for a
“prophet of the Lord;” and (2), from ver.
20 sqq., where Micaiah disclaims them, and
is fuund 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 intc the priestly
office. It need cause us no surprise to find
these priests here described as ‘‘ prophets ”
(ci. Jer. xxil. 13; Hizek. xiii. 1), and as
cJaiming prophetic gifts, for the priests of

 

Baal bore the same name (ch. xviii. 19, 22,
&c.), and apparently pretended to similar
powers. ‘*No ancient people considered
any cultus complete without a class of men
through whom the god might be ques-
tioned’ (Bahr). 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 [‘J7% 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 dis-
satisfied with this answer is unexplained;
but when we remember how careful the
true prophet was to speak in the name of
Jehovah (chs. xiv. 7; xvil.1, 143 xx. 13, 14,
28), we can hardly doubt that it was their
mention of “ Adonai” occasioned his mis-

givings. The chronicler gives the word «us
Iilohim] shall deliver it {LXX. ddode

dwoe, shall surely give it] into the hand of
the king.

Ver. 7.—And Jehoshaphat said, Is there
not here a prophet of the Lord (Heb.
Jehovah] besides [7.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 in-
quire of him ?

Ver. 8.—And the king of Israel said unto
Jehoshaphat, There is yet one man [Of. ch.
Xvill. 22], Micaiah (The name (= Who is
like Jehovah ?) is as appropriate to the man
who bore it as Elijah’s name was to him
(ch. xvii. 15 cf. xvii. 39). But itis 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, N21’), by whom we may inquire of

he Lord [Ahab evidently had wished Je-
hoshaphat to understand that the prophets
already consulted were prophets of Jehos
vah, as no doubt they claimed to be. One
of them bore a name in which the sacred
Jah formed a part}: but I hate pms (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 ver,
26, and compare Matt. xiv. 3), because of hig
reproofs or unwelcome predictions. Josee
phus, and Jewish writers generally, iden-
tify Micaiah with the nameless prophet ofeH. XxiI.1—53.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

533

 

ch. xxi. 42) ; for he doth not prophesy good
concerning me, but evil. ['I'he chronicler

adds wpb ; v.€., persistently, through-
out his whole career. Ahab insinuates that
Micaiah is actuated by personal dislike,
The commentators refer to Homer. Il. LV,
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 projndiced
against him. Perhaps he suspected that
there might be a very different reason for
Micaial’s sinister predictions. ]

Ver. 9.—Then the king of Israel called
an officer [Heb. one ewnuch. So the LXX.,
evvol'yov eva. So that Samuel’s forebodings
have been realized (1 Sam. viii. 15, marg.)
Probably, like Ebed Melech, the Ethiopian
(Jer. xxxvill. 7), he wasa foreigner ; possibly
@ prisoner of war (Herod. iii. 49; vi. 32).
Deut. xxiii. 1 suggests that even such a
king as Ahab would hardly inflict this
humiliation upon an Israelite. From 1
Chron. xxvili. 1, Heb., 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 viii. 6; ix. 32;
eee el. xy 19s Wer. xxix: 2; xxxiv:. 19>
it, 25, &c. Cf. Gen. xxxvil. 36)], and
said, Hasten hither Micaiah the son of
Imlah.

Ver. 10.—And the king of Israel and
Jehoshaphat the king of Judah sat each
on his throne [{‘‘ Oriental kings had port-
able thrones, which they took with them
upon their journeys” (Herod. vii. 212.
Layard, ‘‘Nineveh and Babylon,” p. 150)
tawlinson], having put on their robes
[As a council of state was to be held, the
kings put on their official vestments. ohaPP!
simply means ‘‘ coverings,” ‘‘ clothes,”’ but
that the special royal dress is here intended
is clear, as Bahr observes, from Levit.
xxi. 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 ch. xxi, 1. The
“floor” implies not only a vacant space,
but on exalted position. Ordinarily, 16
would not be enclosed within the city
walls, nor does it appear that this floor was]
in the entrance {Lhe Hebrew has no prepo-

 

 

 

|

 

sition ; simply AND which would be more
correctly rendered “ at the entrance.” The
town gate was the great place of concourse
(2 Kings yii. 1). Here, too, justice was dis-
pensed. See Ruth iv. 1; 2 Sam. xv. 2%
xix. 8; Pss. lxix. 12; exxvii. 5 ; Deut. xxi,
19; Gen. xix. 1; xxiii. 10; Amos vy, 19. 15,
&c.| of the gate of Samaria; and all the
prophets prophesied before them. (They
continucd their prophesyings even whilst
Micah was being summoned. Or the refer.
ence may be to the prophesyings of ver, 6.

Ver. 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 Chron. vii. 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 (Deut. xxxill. 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 Sam. ii. 1,10; 2 Sam.
xxii.:.3; Pss, lxxxix. 24; xcii. 10; Dan.
vii. 21; viii. 8, &c.), but. it was identified
in a peculiar manner with the powerful
tribe of Ephraim ; in other words, with the
kingdom of Israel. This symbolical act
was not necessarily an imitation of the
action of Ahijah (ch. xi. 80). Such acted
parables were not uncommon among the
prophets (2 Kings xiii. 15; Isa. xx.2; Jer.
xiii. 1; xix. 10; xxxii. 9 sqq.; Ezek. iv.,
v. ; Acts xxi. 11)] : and he said, Thus saith
the Lord (Heb. Jehovah. He now uses the
sacred name; no doubt because of Jehosha-
phat’s demand, ver. 7], With these shalt
thou push {the word of Deut. xxxii. 17]
the Syrians, until thou have consumed
them.

Ver. 12.—And all the prophets prophe-
sied [Heb. were prophcsying] 80, saying,534

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

fou. xxi. 1—58,

 

Go up to Ramoth-Gilead, and prosper
{a Hebraism for “thou wilt prosper.”
Gesenius, Gram. § 127. 2, cites parallels
in Gen, xlii, 18; Prov, xx. 13; Psa. xxxvu.
97; Job xxii. 21; Isa. vili, 9; xxix. 9, and
remiuds us that in the Latin divide et
impera we have the same idiom]: for the
Lord [all speak in His name now, hoping
thus to satisfy the king of Judah] shall
deliver it into the king’s hand,

Ver. 13.—And the messenger that was
gone [or went] to call Micaiah, spake unto
him, siying, 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 in-
structions to seek to conciliate Micaiah. In
any case he thinks it well to tell him of
the unanimity of the prophets. His testi-
mony, 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 geod. [Heb. speak good.]

Ver. 14.—And Micaiah said, As the Lord
fiveth, what the Lord saith unto me, that
will I speak. [We are forcibly reminded of
the answer of Balaam, Num. xxii. 18, 38.
And we may see not only in the suggestion
of this messenger, but also in Abab’s belief
(ver. 8), that Micaiah could prophesy at
pleasure, a striking correspondence with
the ideas of Balak (ib. v.6,17). 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.]

Ver. 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 ver.
6. There is an apparent studicd 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 ver. 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 propricty
in this. The question was insincere; the
reply was ironical (cf. ch. xviii. 27), Ahab
is answered ‘‘according to the multitude
of his idols” (Ezek. xiv. 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 (Isa. xxx. 10). ]

Ver. 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 mani-
festly 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 letter, will
be adverse to him.]

Ver. 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 ard originality of this
vision a proof of the historicai 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 lizekiel”
(Stanley)], I saw all Israel scattered upon
the hills, as sneep that have not a shep-
herd: and the Lord said, These have no

aster: let them return every man to his
house in peace. [The last words are illus-
trated by the command of ver. 31 ; compare
ver. 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 con-
stantly represented under the figure of
shepherd and sheep, and notably by Moses
himself, who had used these very words,
‘sheep without a shepherd” (Naw. xxvii.
173 ct, Psa izxvin. (O71. dea xiv. 26" der.
xxl. 1,2; Ezek. xxxiv. passim. It°is ob-
servable that Micaiah’s vision, like Zede-
kiah’s parable, borrows the language of the
Pentateuch. Coincidences of this remote
character are the most powerful proofs that
the Pentateuch was then written. ]

Ver. 18.—And the king of Israel said
unto Jehoshaphat, Did I not tell thee that
he would [Heb. say to thee, He will, &e.]
prophesy no good concerning me but evil?
(It is clear that Ahab had understood per-
fectly the purport of Micaiah’s words. HeOH. xx. 1—53.]

now appeals to them as a proof of the
latter’s malice.]

Ver. 19.—And he said, Hear thou [in
2 Chron, xvi. 18, Hear ye] therefore [The
LXX. has ody ovrwe, whence it would almost

appear that they had the text }> XS before

them (Bahr). But 1D 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,” &c.] 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 (Iixod. xxxiv. 5), Elijah, or St. Ste-
phen. He here declares what he may haye
seen in dream or trance. (Cf. Rev. i. 10;
iv. 2; Isa. vi. 1; Ezek.i.1.) It was a real
but inner vision (Keil). In its interpreta-
tion the caution of Peter Martyr is carefully
to be borne in mind; Omnia haee dicuntur
avOpwroralec|] 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
simply 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, not-
withstanding that these are called “the
host of heaven” in Deut. iv. 19, xvii. 3, is
clear from the next words. ‘The expression
is to be explained by Gen. xxxii. 1, 2]

te

standing by him [\)2)); for the meaning, see
Gen. xvii. 8] on his right hand and on
his left. [The resemblance of this vision
to that of Isaiah (ch. vi. 1—8) must not be
overlooked. ]

Ver. 20.—And the Lord said, Who shall
persuade {Same word in Exod. xxu. 16,
ere do, xiv. 1D) xXy1..0;,FLoy. L LO;
&c.; in all of which instances it is trans-
lated ‘‘cntice.” Compare with this ques-
tion that of Isa. vi. 8.] Ahab, that he may
go up and fall 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
(lieb. swying] onthat manner. [Bahr again
quotes from Peter Martyr: * Trnuit varios
providentiae Dei modos, quibus decreta sua
ad exitwn perducit, and adds that in this
vision ‘inner and spiritual processes are
regarded as real phenomena, nay, even as
persons.’’]

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS,

 

535

Ver, 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 gene-
rally adopted (Thenius, Keil, Bihr) 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 Sam. x. 6, 10; xix. 20, 23).
The 82) is the M173 WN (Hosea, ix. 7)”

Bahr. This power is here personified], and
stood before the Lord, and said, I [emphatic
in the Hebrew] will persuade [or entice]
him.

Ver. 29.—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. Zech.
xiii, 2; 1 John iv. 6] in the mouth of all
his prophets. [His prophets, not God’s,
Cf. 2 Kings iii, 13.] And he said, Thou
shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go
forth, and do so.

Ver. 23.—Now therefore, behold, the
Lord hath puta lying spirit in the mouth
of all these thy [Cf. 6 oixkoc vpudy, Matt.
Xxlil. 88] prophets [This statement, espe-
cially to those who have taken the narra-
tive literally, and who have seen in “ the
spirit” either one of the angels of God, or
Satan himself, has presented almost in-
superable 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 pos-
sible, more directly expressed in Ezek. xiv.
9: “If the prophet be deceived . . . I the
Lord have deceived that prophet.” Cf.
Jer. xx. 7; 1 Sam. xvi. 15. But this diffi-
culty vanishes if we remember that this is
anthropopathie 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” (Ezek. xiv. 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 pun-
ished by sin. ‘‘God proves His holiness
most of all by this, that He punishes evil
by evil, and destroys it by itself” (Bahr).
Abab 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, ver. 18] hath
spoken [t.c., decreed] evil concerning thee,

Ver. 24.—But Zedekiah the son of Che-536

naanah [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 (ver. 11), he
now feels specially aggrieved at Micuiah’s
blunt assertion, that he and the rest have
been possessed by a spirit of lies] went
near, and smcte 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 pro-
phetic powers. Apparently this gross in-
dignity elicited no protest or word of dis-
pleasure from either of the kings. Micaiah,
like Elijah, was left alone], on the cheek
fel, Hop: xvi, LU: diam. i, 30% Joke: vi:
29; and above all Matt. xxvi. 67; Luke
xxil. 64; Acts xxiti. 2. Herein Micaiah
had ‘the fellowship of sufferings’’ (Phil.
ii. 10) with our blessed Lord. Raw-
linson thinks that his hands would be
bound, but this is extremely improbable.
In that case Ahab could hardly have asked
him to prophesy (ver. 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 ch. xiii. 12; 2 Kings iii.
8; Job xxxvilil. 24] went [Heb. passed,
crossed, \2U] the Spirit of the Lord [These
words are important, as showing that the
speaker had not identified “the spirit ” of
ver. 21 with the evil spirit: Job. i. 6 sqq.]
from me to speak unto thee? [lt is pretty
clear from these words, in connexion with
ver. 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-
ance to a taunting and passionate specch,
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 (ver. 19) the secret counsels
ot Heaven. Tell us, then, which way, &c,
Ver. 25.—And Micaiah said, Be2zold, 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,”
&c, With this may be compared our Lord’s
words, Matt. xxvi. 64. He also manifests
our Lord’s spirit (1 Peter ii. 22 sqq.) ‘‘as if
the Great Example had already appeared
before him” (Biahr)] in that day when thou
shalt go into an inner chamber [see note on
ch, xx. 30] to hide thyself. [When was

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

[on. xx11. 1—53.

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.

Ver. 26.—And the king of Israel said,
Take (Sing. Zake thou. This command
was probably addressed to the eunuch men-
tioned in ver. 9] Micaiah, and carry him
back [Heb. make him return. This shows
clearly that he had come from prison] unto
Amon the governor [VW chief; same word
in chs. iv. 2; xi. 24; xvi. 9;:Gen. xxxvii.
36; xl. 9,22; -&c. ‘The ‘‘ chief ofthecity”
is also mentioned 2 Kings xxiii. 8; ef.
Neh. xi. 9] of the city [who would
naturally have charge of the town prison.
Probably the prison was in his house. Cf.
Gen, xl. 3; Jer. xxxvil. 20], and to Joash
the king’s son. [Thenius supposes that
this prince had been cutrusted to Amon for
his military education, and refers to 2 Kings
x. 1. But in that case he would hardiy
have been mentioned as associated with him
in the charge of so important a prisoner,
Whoever Joash was, he was @ 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 expres-
sion as here), Jer. xxxviii. 6; cf. xxxvi. 26,
Some have seen in this designation a name
of office, and Bahr thinks that ‘‘ Joash was
not probably a son of Ahab, but a prinee
of the blood.” But when we remember
what a number of sons Ahab had (2 Kings
x. 1), no valid reason can be assigned why
Joash should not have been cone of them.
He may have been billeted upon Amon, and
yet associated with him in the government
of the city.]

Ver. 27.—And say [Heb. thou shalt say],
Thus saith the king, Put this fellow in the
prison [Heb. house of the prison. Banr
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 punish-
ment was to be in the shape of prison diet,
It is probable that it was owing to the pre-
sence of Jehoshaphat that Micaiah escaped
with no severer sentence], and feed him

with bread of affliction [or oppression, yn?
pressit ; ef. Exod. ui. 9; Num: xxii. 25 ; 2
Kings vi. 32], and with water of affliction
[Josephus (Ant. viii, 15. 4) relates that
after Micaiah’s prediction the king was inCH. xx. 1—53,]

 

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS,

537

 

 

great suspense and fear, until Zedekiah
fee ot him, in order to show
the man of God di ess to avenge an injury as
é d did (ch. xiii. 4), and therefore
no true prophet. _ this may be an “ empty
Rabbinical tradition” (Bihr), but we ma:
: ’ ay
be sure that Ahab did not hear Micaiah’s
words unmoved. He had had such con-
vineing proofs of the foresight :nd powers
of the Lord’s prophets that he 1... » well have
trembled, even as he put on a bold font,
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 misgiv-
ings. He would have them think he had no
fears.

Ver. 28.—And Micaiah said, If thou re-
turn at all in peace, the Lord hath not
spoken by me. And he saii, Hearken, 0
people [Rather, O nations. Audite, populi
omnes, Vulgate. He appeals, so to speak,
to the world], every one of you. [It isa
curious circumstance that these same words
are found at the beginning of the prophecy
of Micah (ch.i. 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 anda
half after Micaiah ; about a century before
the Book of Kings was given to the world.

Ver. 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
many misgivings. But itis 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 ver. 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 impu-
tation 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 con-

 

 

 

tempt, and it would be difficult for him to
swim alone against the current. It is prob-
able, 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 hig
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 con-
ceived a personal affection for Ahab; but
2 Chron. xix. 2 affords but slender ground
for this conclusion. ]

Ver. 30.—And the king of Israel said
unto Jehoshaphat [At Ramoth-Gilead, on
the eve of the battle], I will disguise myself
[same word ch. xx. 38] and enter [The
margin,‘ when he was to disguise himself,”
&c., 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. Gen. xvil. 10; Exod. xx. 8; Isa. xiv,
31; and see Ewald, 328 c. ‘“ The infini-
tive absolute is the plainest and sim-
plest form of the voluntative for excla-
mations’? (Bahr). It agrees well with
the excitement under which Ahab was
doubtless labouring] into the battle. [It
is not necessary to suppose with Ewald,
Rawlinson, al., that he had heard of Ben-
hadad’s command to his captains (ver. 31).
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. Itis enough to remem-
ber that Micaiah’s words, ‘‘these have no
master,’ could not fail to awaken some
alarm in his bosom, especially when con-
nected with the prophecy of ch. xx. 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 Sam. viii. 20), and without ex-
posing 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 Sam. i. 10), in his
royal robes. He hopes by his disguise to
escape all danger]: but put thouon thyrobes
[LXX.: roy iparipdy pov. ‘My robes.”
‘¢We can neither imagine Ahab’s asking
nor Jehoshaphat’s consenting to such a pro-
cedure. Jehoshaphat had his own royal
robes with him, as appears from ver. 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. Itis clear, however, that

Ahab then had other work on his hands,538

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

[cH. xx. 1-—53.

 

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 (ver. 31),
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 wad MAS] 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
amore private capacity ?] And the king of
Israel diszuised himself, and went into the
battle.

Ver. 31.—But the king of Syria com-
manded [rather, Rae commanded. These
words are of the nature of a parenthesis.
‘Now the king,” &. M$ is so rendered in
2 Chron. xviii: 30] his thirty and two
captains [mentioned in ch. xx. 24. It does
not follow, however (Wordsworth), that
these very men had been spared by Abab]
that had rule over his chariots [Heb.
chariotry. Another indication tbat the
chariots were regarded as the most import-
ant arm of the Syrian service], saying,
Fight neither with small nor great, save

only with the king of Israel. (‘This
Bicitanieh translated into Western ideas,
means, ‘‘ Direct your weapons against the
king.” What Ahab had done to provoke
such resentment is not quite clear. Raw-
linson 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 him-
self to have suffered.” But it isimpossible
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 subse-
quently 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 ch. xx.
34. Itis also possible that he hoped that
the death of Ahab would terminate the war
(Bahr). ]

Ver. 32.—And it came to pass when the
captains of the chariots saw Jehoshaphat,

that they said, Surely [JN, not only
(Bahr, Keil), but certainly ; cf. Gen.

xliv. 28; Judges iii. 24; 2 Kings xxiv.
3] it (Heb. he) is the king of Israel.
And they turned aside [Cf. ch. xx. 39,
same word. ‘The Hebrew inserts Wy,

 

The chronicler reads 13D) they surrounded
instead of 41D) ; and the LXX. has

éxukAwoev 1n 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 in-
structions] ; and Jehoshaphat cried out.
[This ery has been very variously inter-
preted. According to some, it was his own
name that he ejaculated, which is possible,
if the command of ver. 31 was known in the
alliel army. According to others, it was
the battle-ery of Judah, which, it ig 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 Chron. xviii. 31, ‘‘ And the Lord
helped him, and God moved them to depart
from bim,”’ inter prets, clamavit ad Diminum.
That it was a ery for Divine help is the most
probable, because itis almost an instinct,
especially with a pious soullike Jehoshaphat,
to ery to God in the moment of danger.
That he had doubts as to whether the course
he was pursuing was piensa to God, would
make him all the more ready to cry aloud
for mercy the moment he found himself in
peril. Butit 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. }

Ver. 33.—And it came to pass, when the
cap-ains of the chariots perceived [in what
way we are not told. But Ahab would be
known to some of them, ch. xx. 31] that it
was not the king of Israel, that they turned
back from pursuing him.

Ver. 34.—And a certain man [Heb. a
man. It was natural for some of the Rab-
bins 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, t.e., with no inten-
tion of shooting Ahab: not knowing what
he was doing. That this is the meaning is
clear from the use of the words in 2 Sam.
xv. 11], and smote the king of Israel be-
tween 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 hag
the support of Gesenius and others, is a
mistaken one. ‘In the joints” we can un-
derstand, but ‘between the joints and the
coat of mail, ”’ gives no sense. It is obvious
that D'Payqy like paw following, must

signify some portion of the armour, and the

him,OH. XXII. 1—53.]

meaning of the verb PAT, adhaesit, leads
us to conclude that “the hanging skirt of
parallel metal plates—hence the plural ’?—
(Bahr) is intended. The coat of mail only
covered the breast and ribs. To this
a fringe of movable plates of steel wag
attached or fastened, hence called D°PlAt.
So Luther, 4Zwischen den Panzer und Hen.
gel. One is reminded here of the Parthian
arrow which wrung from Julian the Apos-
tate the dying confession, ‘*Thou hast
conquered, O Galilean,” (Cf. Psa. ‘Vii. £3,
14}: wherefore he said unto the driver of
his chariot, Turn thine hand [or, accord-
ing 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 ix,
23. The meaning is “turn round ” | and carry
me out of the host: for Iam wounded,
[Heb. made sick. The king probably felt
his wound to be mortal, as a wound in such
a part, the abdomen (cf. 2 Sam. ii, 23; iii.
27; xx. 10), would be. Vulgate, graviter
vulneratus sum. How far an arrow in suck
a place could penetrate, we may gather from
2 Kings ix. 24; cf. Job xvi. 13. And he
was seemingly anxious that the army should
not knowit, lest they should be discouraged.
They would soon discover it if he remained
with the host; he can fight no longer; his
wound needs attention; hence this com-
mand. It is quite possible that the cha-
rioteer, 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. ]

Ver. 35.—And the battle increased [Heb.
went up. Marg. ascended. The tide of
warfare rose higher and higher, Both Keil
and Bahr think that the image is taken
from a swelling river, and cite Isa. viii. 7.
The object of this verse is to explain how it
was that the king’s request was not com-
pled with] that day: and the king was
stayed up in his chariot [{Heb. mude to
stand. LXX. wy tornxwe. He was sup-
ported in his chariot by some of his ser-
vants, and maintained in an erect posture.
Chariots were destitute of seats. Accord-
ing 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. M2),
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

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

 

    
 
 
  
  
  
   
 
 
  
  
  
   
   
   
    
 
  
   
  
   
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
   
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
   
 
 
 
 
   
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
   
  
 
   
 
  

539

 

some have been led, though without suffi-
cient warrant, to conclude that Ahab left
the field, had his 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 other-
wise have sunk down to the bottom of the
chariot, had to be ‘‘stayed up in the pre-
sence of the Syrians,” his circumstance
may also account for the fact that be died
at even, Had it been possible to remove
him and staunch his wounds, he might
have lingered for some time. Ag it was, he
bled to death. It igs not clear, therefore,
that “his death was kingly” (Kitto), or
that we must concede to Ahab ‘the credit
of right princely fortitude on this oceasion ”
(tuwlinson). He would have lett the host
could he have done so. It was his ser-
vants propped up the dying man in hig
chariot, to encourage the army. What a pic-
ture 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, &e.], 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. kéddzrov,
the hollow part, or “well.” The same word
is used of the concave part of the altar] of
the chariot.

Ver. 36.—And there went a proclamation
throughout the host [Heb. And the shout-
ing passed over in the camp. Gesenius will
have it that 37 must mean a “ joyful
ery,’ and would see the cause of joy in the

essation of hostilities and the permission

to return home] about the going down of
the sun [According to the chronicler (ch,
xvii. 34), it was at sunset that the king
died. It seems natural, tlicrefore, to con-
nect 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. Dut “they had no
master’’], saying, Every man to his city,
and every man to his own country [or
land].

Ver. 37.—So the king died [The LXX.
makes this to be a part of the proclamation,
Ecaorog élg THY . « . yiv Ore TébYyKEY O
Bacirszbc, which involves a very slight
change in the Hebrew text, 720M nD
instead of 72197 Nid") and gives a better
sense. It has already been stated that
the king died. Such repetitions however are
common in Hebrew, and this reading has540

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

fou. xxi. 1—53,

 

almost the look of an emendation] and
was broucht [Heb. came. The A. V. 1s
against the grammar. As ‘‘ came” world
be a strange word to use of a dead man,
it is highly probable that instead of N12")
we should read I8}2°) with the LXX. kai
#rOov] to Samaria; and they buried the
king in Samaria [‘‘ with his father,” ch,
xvi, 28].

Ver. 88.—And one washed the chariot
in for at ; Heb. by] the pool of Samaria.
[Nearly all Eastern cities had their tanks
or pools, often outside the city gate. Jeru-
salem has several of these, and we read of
one at Hebron (2 Sam. xiv. 12) and Gibeon
(ib. ii. 18). Cf. Cant. vii. 4. The Hebrew
word 33 is preserved in the modern Ara-
bic Birkeh]; and the dogs [The LXX. has
the swine and the dogs. The mention of
swine is hard!y likely to have been omitted,
had it formed part of the original text]
licked up his blood [cf. ch. xxi. 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 dis-
crepancy between the statement of the text,
and that of ch. xxi. 19], and they washed
his armour [So the Chaldaic and the
Syriac. But this translation is now aban-
doned, (1) because it is contrary to the
usage of the language to make Nj? the
object; and (2) because that word occurs
in the Old Testament only in the sense of
harlots (Bahr). The true meaning is that
given by the LXX., cai ai ropvat tdovsayro.
V1 does not require any object such as
“ chariot,” or ‘corpse,’ for it is found in
the sense of bathe (iutrans.) in Exod. ii.
Bb Num. xix.7 £9s Ruth® w1eSt "2 Kings
vy. 10. Bahr reminds us that harlots are
elsewhere associated with dogs (Deut. xxiii.
19; Rev. xxii. 15). This fact is mentioned
as a proof of the just judgment of God.
Fiven if these harlots were not prostitutes
devoted to the service of the Phoenician
deities, whose culius 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 talionis. ‘‘ He which is filthy, let him
be filthy still’’]; according unto the word
of the Lord which he spake [the reference
is to ch. ‘xxi; 19),

Ver. 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 ch, x1.;
and cf. Amos ili. 15; Psa. xlv. 8; Cant. vii.
5. Iiawlinson cites several passages from
Greck and Latin authors to prove that

 

ivory was anciently applied, not only to
furniture, but to the coors and walls of
houses], and all the cities that he built
[Rrobahly Jezreel was one, but we have no
informatio eoencerning them. ‘The faet
that he aid build cities, however, is one
proof of Ahab’s enterprize. Ee was not
weak in all particulars], are they not writ-
ten in the book of the curonicles of the
king's of Israel?

Ver. 40.—So Ahab slept witn his fathers;
and Ahaziah [‘* Whom Jehovah upholds.”
The name suggests that, notwithstandivg
his idolatries, Ahab cannot have completely
abandoned the worship of the Lord] his
son reigned in his stead.

Reign of Jehoshaphat.

Ver. 41.—And Jehoshaphat [‘‘ 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 ch.
xv. 24, where the accession of Jehoshaphat
was mentioned. His reign, which is here
described in the briefest possible way, occu-
pics four chapters (xvil.—xx.) of 2 Caron. ]

Ver. 42.—Jehoshaphat was thirty and
five years old when he began 10 reign;
and he reigned twenty and five years in

erusalem. And his mother’s name was
Azubah the daughter of Shilhi,

Ver. 43.—And he walked in all the ways
of Asa his father | Apart trom 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 ene-
mics]; 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. de-
purted not, as in ch. xv. 14; 2 Chron. xv.
17; 2 Kings xi. 4; Heb.; xiv..4, Heb. But
see 2 Chron. xvii, 6. The discrepancy is
the exact parallel of that between 1 Kings
xv. 14 and 2 Chron, xiv. 3; or between
this latter passage and 2 Chron. xv. 17.
And the explanation is the same, viz., that
an effort was made to remove the high
places, which was partially, and only par-
tially, successful] ; for the people offered
and burnt incense yet in the high places
job. CH. Tks wide

Ver. 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 forOH. XXII, 1—53,]

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS,

   

541

 

 

 

 

 

seventy years, from the date of their sepa-
ration 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 under-
standing (2 Chron. xviii, 1). It is hardl
likely (Bihr) that the peace wag th i

: ‘ é e€ e result
of the union of the two families. From the
analogy of ib. xix. 2; xx, 37; cf. 1 Kings
xvi. 31; 2 Kings iii. 14, we should conclude
that the marriage at any rate was ill-ad-
vised and displeasing to God. Bahr 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.]

Ver. 45.—Now the rest of the acts of
Jehoshaphat, and his might [as in ch.
xv. 23, xvi. 27, &c. It is noticeable that this
word is not used of Ahab, notwithstanding
his wars and victories] that he showed [see
2 Kings i. 9 sqq.; 2 Chron. xvii. 12 sqq.
His judicial reforms are hardly referred to
here], and how he warred: [ib. chs. xviii.,
xx.], are they not written in the book of
he chronicles of the kings of Judah ?

Ver. 46.—And the remnant of the Sodom-
ites, which remained in the days of his
father Asa [It appears hence that Asa’s
removal of the religious prostitutes (ch.
xv. 12), like that of the high places, had
been but partial], he took [Heb. extermi-
nated) out of the land.

Ver. 47.—There was then no king in
Edom: a deputy (2%), same word as in ch.
iv. 7. It is implied that this officer was ap-
pointed 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 (ch. ix, 26), That
country would seem to have regained its
independence very soon after Solomon’s
death (ch. xi. 14), but would also appear
from the text, and from 2 Kings viii. 20,
22, to have been again made subject to
Judah, probably by Jehoshaphat himselt ;
see 2 Chron. xvii. 10, 11.]

Ver. 48.—Jehoshaphat made [The Chethib
has "WY ten, obviously a clerical error for
mwy made] ships of Tharshish [see note
on ch. x. 22] to go to Ophir [In 2 Chron.
xx. 36, Tharshish is read for Ophir. Words-
worth holds that two separate fleets are in-
tended, but this is most improbable] for
gold [Evidently the great prosperity of
his reign had suggested to him the idea of
emulating Solomon’s nayal 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,

Ver. 49.—Then said Ahaziah the gon of
Ahab-unto Jehoshaphat, Let my servants
go with thy servants in the ships, But
Jehoshaphat would not. [But we are told
In 2 Chron, xx. 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 pro-
posed 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 accus-
tomed 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 pro-
phecy of Eliezer, and the evidently judicial
disaster which had befallen the fleet already
built.)

Ver. 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 siead (2
Ciron. xxi. ]

Lieign of Ahaziah.

Ver. 51.—Ahaziah the son of Ahab began
to reign over Israel in Samaria the seven-
teenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah,
and reigned two years over Israel. [Parts
of two years; 2 Kings iii.1; and ef. i. 17
and vill. 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 chronolozical notices
appear to have undergone a revision which
has sometimes resulted in confusion. ]

Ver. 52.—And he did evil in the sight of
the Lord, and walked in the way of his
father (ch. xvi. 30—33; cf. 2 Kings in,
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.

Ver. 53.—For he served Baal, and wor-542 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cn. xxi. 1—58.

 

shipped him, and provoked to anger [or | made by accident. These verses are closely
vexed| the Lord God of Israel, according to | connected with 2 Kings ch. i. The division
all that his father had done. [The ter- | here obscures the connexion between the
mination of this book at this point could | sin of Ahaziah and the judgments which it
hardly be more arbitrary if it had been | provoked,]

HOMILETICS.
Vers. 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 con-
tains 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 (ch. xxi. 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 enfeeblea by years of self-indulgence and submission to a stronger will
than his own; thanks to the evil genius (ch. xxi. 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 ii. 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 Dord’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 pro-
scription 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 isa mistaken view. No doubt he and his infamous consort had by far theCH. 3x1. 1—53.]. THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGs, 543

 

largest share in all the four, and ther
by far the severer punishment. But
which the king supported, just as th
introduced, so had they

efore they received, as we shall see presently,
just as the people worshipped at the shrines
ey practised the abominations which he had
approved his policy towards Ben-hadad—see the words of
ch. xix. 42, “thy people for his people”’—and the guilt of innocent blood, as we
know (Num. xxxy. 33:

! 25, Went, maxis 7 2 dan XxL) 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
8lns of schism, of idolatry, of unfaithful

ness 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 latier is what we commonly eall 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.
I, By what instruments these punishments were inflicted. III. In what way the
a
were signalized as the chastisements of sin,

I. In considering the ivriuEeNcrs 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’
he had dealt so magnanimously with a prostrate foe, after he liad treated an inso-
lent invader with unexampled generosity, and after a solemn covenant had been
made betwixt them, it rankled in his soul that a Syrian garrison, in spite of all em-
bassies and remonstrances, should hold the Jewish fortress of Ramoth-Gilead and
thus offer a standing menace to Israel and Judah alike,
him that the conduct of Ben-hadad was |
had forgottén 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 pplnecte
as he had deserved; he would perhaps think that it only served him right for He
weakness and sin. We see, however, that he is paid back in his own com, that the
measure he has meted to God is ree auied fo him again. The sin of three years

ore gave the first impulse to war and death.
pane lies of Be ke prophets. It 18 hardly likely that Al ab ORO eneaeed
in this war but for the unanimous verdict of the four hundred prophets In Jas i of
We see in Micaial’s vision that a ‘lying spirit” was the principal means opp Oy
to procure his fall (ver. 22). But what were these prophets, and how ame they 0
prophesy thus? One thing is certain, that they Miele 208 PERRIS Gt Ns ay ah aD
Baa eenrob nate of ihe on ar ite qoueane Tl hism or the idolatry, as the
came throuch them a means of his destruction. 1e sel . jab GGG Be. ONE
case may be, is bearing its bitter fruit. He has sown e lies, he re Bs Son ae
Beer erties Sor miinieons s herein ee Bete
his death by the impostors 1e had cheris iy Bee Pee Sep
REP AS ear eee aie i ni

yey sow re Ppa 9 ia ae that they took their cue from a aa
eco) bin ins 1 ? They saw that the king had already
prophesied what they knew would p ease ia eet pe eae ae
made up his mind—for his resolution was ane NaS ARG A Aa
4, 5), and they thought it wisest. to swim we te Ri rs Pay then tae
yy eo ae ee at Pie ae ae ‘honestly mistook the vox populi
not how, to prophesy as they did; it may y.

s breast that, after

But did it never occur to
out the counterpart of his own? He too544 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [ou. xxi1. 1—53.

 

for the vor Dei, but probably the working of their minds was this: “The king
wishes it. Jehoshaphat assents to it. The people are set upon 1b. We should be
going against common sense and our own interests to resist ihe

And so the king was a second time paid in his own coin. Those martial pre-
phecies had been minted in his own brain, He wished for lies and he had them. His
own passions and pride were reflected, were echoed, in the voices of his four hundred
soothsayers. It is the case of which both sacred and profane history supply so many
examples, Homo vult decipt et decipiatur. It is thus God deals with deceivers still.
He leaves them to be deceived, to be the prey of their own disordered fancies. It
is notorious how men find in the Bible what they wish to find there; how all un-
suspectingly they read their own meanings into the words of Scripture: how they
interpret its injunctions by the rule of their own inclinations. ‘‘ He fceleth on
ashes ; a deceived heart hath turned him aside that he cannot deliver his soul, nor
say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?” (Isa. xliv. 20). ‘* Ephraim is joined unte

idols: lethim alone” (Hosea iv. 17).

3. The silence of the Lord’s prophets. Why wasit, we cannot help asking here,
why was it that there were no true prophets present, at this crisis in the history of
Israel, to step forth and warn the king against this undertaking ? Why were the
four hundred deceivers left to have their own way ? We see here the fruit of perse-
cution, the recompense of those fierce dragonnades which Jezebel had maintained
against the prophetic order. Of the men who might have interposed to prevent
this disastrous expedition, some were dead, others were banished; king and queen
had wickedly silenced them. They now reap the fruit of those repressive measures.
Their curses come home to roost. Elijah might have saved king and country, but
he is hiding from the wrath of Jezebel, or is withdrawn by God from the arena of
history. Micaiah the son of Imlah foresaw the end, but Ahab had imprisoned
him, and could not brook to take his advice, and had persuaded himself that his
admonitions were the outcome of personal enmity. It is true this prophet was not
silent, but plainly foretold defeat and death; but Ahab was in a manner bound not
to regard his warnings. He had told Jehoshaphat it would be so. It would look
like cowardice to be influenced by his vaticinations. And so he is left to the prophets
of his choice: no hand is raised to stop him: he goes straight into the jaws of death,
the victim of his own folly and cruelty and sin.

Il. The InstruMENTs of retribution were—

1. The king whom Ahab had wickedly spared. We have already seen in what
the sin of sparing the tyrant Ben-hadad consisted (p. 492). It is now for us to
observe that this foolish and impious deed brought its own peculiar Nemesis. It was
Ben-hadad himself who said, ‘* Fight neither with small nor great, but with the
king of Israel only.” Ahab’s ill-advised clemency procures his own destruction.
With base natures, it only needs that we should put them under obligations
which they cannot possibly discharge, in order to provoke their bitter enmity.
But it is much more material to observe here that in Ben-hadad’s conduct we may
see a parable of the cruelrevenge which a cherished sin will often take on those who
have once conquered and then trifled with 1t. The devil that was cast out returns
bringing with him seven other devils more wicked than himself (Matt. xu. 45). We
are constantly as tender to the sins which tyrannized over us as was Ahab to Ben-
hadad. Instead of slaying them—hewing them in pieces before the Lord—we leave
the roots of bitterness in the heart’s soil, and they spring up and trouble us. It is
like that peasant of whom we have all read, who found a viper in the field, benuinbed
with the winter’s cold, and put the venomous beast into his bosom to warm it back
into life. The first use it made of its restored power was to wound and destroy its
benefactor. How dearly have we often paid for our pleasant vices !

2. The Syrians who were once subjects of Israel. It is well to remember here
that these enemies who gave Ahab his death-wound at Ramoth were once under
the heel of Israel (2 Sam. vui. 6). Now we see their relations reversed. Syria has
now become the standing oppressor of the chosen people. We have already pointed
out some-of the steps which led to this result. The sin of Solomon (see p. 223) and
the unfaithfulness of Asa alike were iactors in the change. But the most influentialCH. xxi. 1—53.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

or

 

reason was the godlessness of Ahab. But three

1ts power was completely brok ] i L

rae God chr cer ne kena Tn ous tng tat ie Tot
ad gotten him the victor ; iu Ais own might

2 a meee How fitting that these same Syrians should be the

3. An unknown, wnconscious are +
shot ‘‘in simplicity,” without ae ae Pa Pe ae fee Sen
It was an unseen Hand that guided that chance shaft to its aoa ‘ TE ma ae:
“the arrow of the Lord’s vengeance.” (Cf. 2 Kings xii 17.) It Ris ld b ae a
instructive could we know the thoughts of that unhappy king as ith th carb
his side, and the blood draining from his wound, and forming : Asics On va
the well of the chariot, he was stayed up those wretched weary hours until the sun-
bet against the Syrians. Surely he knew at last that “the Lord was Goc » 6]
Xvi. 39.; XX. 13, 23). His ery would now be, ** Thou hast found me 0 my Gana
He would think, it may be, of Elijah’s and Micaiah’s prophecies : We Beg
of Naboth’s bleeding and mangled corpse; he would think, above all, that his sin
eae ound BUD On; me that Jehovah had conquered. He had fought all his life

al, but 1f was in vain; he had been kicking against the pricks; he had been
wrestling not with flesh and blood, but with an Invisible, Irresistible Omnipotent
God, and now he is thrown, cast down never to rise again.

Ill. It now only remains for us to consider the crzcumsrances of Ahab’s death.
These were of so portentous and exceptional a character as to mark it—

1. Asa direct visitation of God. The army, that day defeated, the contingent
of Judah, the citizens of Samaria, the subjects of both kingdoms, could not think
that a mere chance had happened to Ahab when they remembered (1) That this
death had been distinctly foretold. Not once or twice, but three times had a pro-
phetic voice foreshadowed for him a sudden and shameful end (ch. xx. 42; xxi. 19;
xxii. 17, 28). Moreover, Micaiah, the last of these monitors, had staked his reputation
as God’s prophet on the fulfilment of his prediction of disaster. And his oracle had
not been spoken in secret; he had appealed to the entire assembly gathered round
the two kings—and the flower of Israel and Judah alike were there—and even to
neighbouring nations (ver. 28, Heb.), to be witnesses of his words, and those words
were fresh in their memories. (2) How the king met his death. For it was of
course known to the army that Ahab had disguised himself, whilst Jehoshaphat had
put on his robes. After the sinister prophecy of Micaiah, we may be sure that the
allied armies would watch, with the gravest anxiety, for the issue. They would per-
ceive that the king himself was not without his fears; they would wonder whether
his disguise would procure his escape. And when at the end of the day they learnt
that Jehoshaphat who had been arrayed like a king, and who on that account had
been exposed to imminent peril, had escaped unhurt, whilst their king, wo had never
been recognized, had been pierced by a chance arrow between the joints of his
harness and mortally wounded, was there one but would see the finger of Godin
this death ? Surely if the Psalmist’s words were then written, they would occur to
their minds, “‘ Whither shall I go from thy spirit, and whither shall I flee from
thy presence? ” &c. (Psa. exxxix. 9—12), or that other Psalm, ‘ God shall shoot at
them with a swift arrow; suddenly shall they be wounded” (Psa. lxiv. 7), and the
result would be that all men would fear and declare the work of God (70. ver.9), and
confess that this was His doing. The fugitives who stole away in the dark and black
night to their homes, like sheep without a shepherd, would have learnt one lesson
at least that day, viz., that there was “a God that judgeth in the earth.

2. As God’s appropriate recompense for the sins of that age. We have already
seen how this history puts its stamp of reprobation on (1) the calf-worship, inasmuch
as by the prophets of the calves the king was beguiled into this enterprize. But
the sin of Jeroboam was not the special sin of Ahab’s reign. On the contrary, the
calf-worship was rather overshadowed and eclipsed by the frightful idolatyes, mignon
had so much greater fascination for the evil heart of unbeliet. It was the Eee
teristic of that reign that the unclean rites of Baal and Astarte, SE Once
the Amorites, were re-established in theland. We see in Ahab’s death (2) the requita

1 KINGS. oa

years ago Syria lay at his mercy ;546 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu. xxi. 1—53.

 

of his share in that sin (ch. xvi. 31, 82). The idolatry which had desolated the church
was avenged by a horde of idolaters ravaging the land and slaying the arch-idolater
in battle. There is arough lea talionis here. (Cf. Jer. v.19.) If they would have
idolatry they should taste the tender mercies of idolaters. On that field were the
predictions of Moses (Deut. xxviii. 25), Samuel (1 Sam, xii. 25), and Solomon
(1 Kings vii. 38) fulfilled.

(3) But a recompense still more exact and conspicuous attended the impurities
which Ahab had practised under the name of religion. He had filled the land with
prostitutes. What a proof of the just judgment of God it was that these infamous
persons added dishonour to his death! He had maintained them through life: he
should be associated with them in his end. The harlots bathed in the pool that
was reddened with his blood (vers. 88, Heb.)

(4) Nor was the connexion of Ahab’s death with the sin of releasing Ben-hadad
any less conspicuous. What meant that strange malignant command, ‘‘ Fight...
only with the king of Israel ?”? Was it not that the Syrian king, on whom Ahab
would not execute vengeance, had become, in the counsels of God, an instrument of
vengeance, a minister to execute wrath, against the anointed of the Lord? “ Thy
life shall go for his life ’—it was thus that every religious mind would interpret so
singular and, considering the circumstances (chap. xx.), So otherwise inexplicable a
word of command. It was as if Ben-hadad had proclaimed that his mission primarily
was to settle the long arrearages of justice with that wicked Ahab.

(5) How the murder of Naboth was avenged that shameful day, it is hardly neces-
sary to point out. There was a strict retaliation—wound for wound, stripe for
stripe, blood for blood, dishonour for dishonour. There were many, besides Jehu
and Bidkar, who would recall the fierce threatening of the Tishbite (ch. xxi. 19) ;
many, besides priests and prophets, would remember the axiom of their law, “blood
defileth the land,” &c. (Num. xxxv. 88), or would think on that day of the so-
called “‘ precept of Noah,” ‘“‘ Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood
be shed” (Gen. ix. 6). The elders of Jezreel, yes, and Jezebel herself, understood
that Naboth’s blood had eried from the ground, and that the ery had come up into
the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. It was His foot that was dipped in the blood of
His enemies (Psa. Ixviii. 28).

And this ignominious death—in what sharp contrast it stands with the indolent,
kaxurious, sensual life! ‘‘ The ivory house that he made,” what an irony we may
see in those words! ‘Shalt thou reign, because thou closest thyself in cedar. ...
He shall be buried with the burial of an ass,” &c. (Jer. xxii. 15,19). The cities
he built, the victories he won, how poor and empty do these exploits seem as we
stand by the pool of Samaria, and see the livid, blood-stained corpse dragged from
the chariot! The Latin poet asks what all his pleasures, travels, knowledge, can
avail a man who has to die after all; but the question presents itself with tenfold
force when life’s fitful fever is followed by such a sleep, by such a dream, as Ahab’s.
“Tt had been good for that man if he had not been born ” (Matt. xxvi. 24).

And the death of Ahab was followed by the dispersion of his army. When the
proclamation rang through the host, “Every man to his country,” and when the
serried ranks precipitately broke up, and horseman and footman fled for his life,
then the share of Israel in the sins of Ahab and Jezebel was in part expiated.
‘There was not a man but knew why “ the children of Israel could not stand before
their enemies.” ‘There is an accursed thing in the midst of thee, O Israel.”
(Josh. vil. 12,13). Baal had troubled them, had made of the heights of Ramoth a
very valley of Achor.

HOMILIES BY VARIOUS AUTHORS.

Vers. 1—8.—Bad Company. According to the order of the chapters in the LXX.,
‘whichis probably the original or true order, chapter xx. should immediately precede
this Then, after the history of the war between Ahab and Ben-hadad, this chapter
opens naturally: “‘ And they continued three years without war between Syria andCH. xx. 1—53.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 547

 

 

 

Israel.” In the third year of this peace Jehosh
visit arose serious events, which are admonito
company of the wicked.

I. BaD CoMPANY COMPROMISES CHARACTER. 1. Itimjures morals. (1) The earlier
career of Jehoshaphat was faultless. He is highly commended for his faithfulness
to God and zeal against idolatry (2 Chron. xvii. 1—6). (2) His first fault was
sanctioning the marriage of his son Jehoram with Athaliah the daughter of Ahab
(2 Kings vii. 18, 26). (8) This led the way to the further fault of that friendly
visit to Ahab mentioned here, for which he was rebuked by ‘Jehu the son of
Hanani the seer’’ (2 Chron. xix. 2). (4) Yet once again we find him falling into
a similar snare. He agreed with Ahaziah the son of Ahab, a wicked scion of a
wicked house, jointly to equip a fleet at the port of Ezion-Geber, on the Red Sea, to
sail to Ophir for gold. In this also he incurred the anger of the Lord and suffered
the loss of his fleet (ver. 48; 2 Chron. xx. 30—37). Note: A fault is like a seed,
fruitful “ after its kind.” A fault once committed prepares the way for a repetition.
2. It damages reputation. (1) Reputation is character as estimated by men,
This estimate may or may not be just; for men may judge wrongly through
ignorance of circumstances which would put a new complexion upon conduct,
Therefore judgments should be charitable, and not too hastily formed. (2) sub
it is a maxim among men, generally true, that “you may know a man by his
friends.” Friendships involve sympathies. It had been better for Jehoshaphat’s
reputation had he never made affinity with the wicked house of Ahab. (3) | This
principle will apply to books. Hence the kindred maxim, “ You may see ®
man in his library.” It is bad enough when the newspaper shuts up the Bible ; it
is worse when the Bible is neglected through preference for sensational fictitious
literature. 3. It impairs wnfluence. (1) This follows. Character is influence.
Reputation is influence. Advice will be readily received from eam Bae
which coming from an artificial character would be spurned, “) i “ ee
for good or evil is moral influence ! See the evil exemplified in srac oo _
and Jezebel. See the good in Judah under Jehoshaphat. Lessons: € ieee
character be true. Jealously guard your reputation. ‘Look to these for the sake o

influence. At _
aL Pan COMPANY COMPROMISES HAPPINESS. Because—1. Happiness is oe
character. (1) This truth is abundantly illustrated in eee aa roe Se
are furnished in the text. Secular history teaches this truth. : : ory mae mee
evinces it. (2) Yet is it difficult so to convince individuals 0 this as to lee ,

; : holly into the blessed service of God.
to abandon sin and throw their energies wholly in a ee
Happiness is ca a ee eaters ae one
cannot be reconciled with the friendship 0: Te eet ea states
. ae 7 long in the company of Akab before his
as grieved in it. (1) Jehoshaphat was not ss atic abe THLE Asn: nate
ear was offended by horrible words. pe ae deh ot 4 Sa ee
Micaiah, the faithful prophet of the Lord. Sie 5; Zech. ii. 8.) (2) Why does
fat aes at ie aes ares Netnd REO good odtiguita i me, but evil.”

jab hate Micaiah ? ‘* For h ! a 5 apn es not
ehiack he does not falsify the truth of God a oe eke eee acsea:

lay the devil to please me, as these four hundr eddo! Note: a a A E,
hes Sat (3) Such sentiments were distressing to the feelings of e Lay
aie Hi ulsi f his righteous soul he gave expression (but too oo Se the
To the revulsion o 8 ” - Phe conversation of such as are in
remonstrance, ‘‘ Let not ete co = roportion to their pureness. 3. It leads
sympathy with evil will offend the Bees oe noche widladiast Mabie.” (a2 En
the most wary into trouble. For the ae pice aA ciety Lie eared ee eb ye ye
ee ee a ae mb still and take it not out of the hand of
ee ae eaiden ble ity in the tribe of Gad on the other side
iheking of Syria?” It was a.consicera It was one of the cities which Ben-hadad,
Jordan, and one of the cities of ee d to restore (see ch. xx. 84). The cause of
by the letter of his orem Tih, Tales to Jehoshaphat, Ahab said, * Wilt thou
Israel was obviously just. (2) th-Gilead >” To which, carried away with the
go with me to battle at Ramoth-Guea

aphat visited Ahab; and from this
ry to us that we should avoid the548 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. [cu. xx. 1—63.

obvious justice of the cause, Jehoshaphat responded, ‘‘ I am as thou art, my people
as thy people, my horses as thy horses.” ‘Tis was too strong a compliment to
Ahab and his people, and the response was too ready. We may not champion
every just cause. It may be wrong to champion a good cause in wicked company.
(3) Bethinking himself, as a godly man should do, ‘ Jehoshaphat said unto the
king of Israel, Inquire, I pray thee, at the word of the Lord.” A good man seeks
to take God with him, and so long as he abides in this holy company he is safe.
But let him beware that he benot persuaded by the wicked to forsake it. (4) Ahab
was equal to the occasion. He had four hundred prophets ready with one mouth
to pronounce for the war, and that, too, in the name of the Lord. ‘This hireling
company, however, did not satisfy Jehoshaphat, yet he fell into their snare. He
should have availed himself of the opportunity to withdraw given him in the
prophecy of Mieaiah; but, under the spell of Ahab‘s evil influence, he went to the
battle and got into trouble. There is no safety in the company of the wicked. 4,
It provokes judgments of God. (1) The good partake in the plagues of their wicked
associates. Jehoshaphat barely escaped, through the mercy of God, with his lite;
and he suffered the loss of many of his people (see Rev. xvii. 4). The fly that keeps
aloof is not entangled in the spider’s web. (2) The good incur Divine judgments
for their own sin. Thesin of friendship with the enemies of God, Tle sin such
friendship must infallibly occasion. Such was the experience of Jehoshaphat (see
2 Chron. xix. 2). Such will be yours. Avoid it.—J. A. M.

Vers. 9—14.—The False and the True. There would be no counterfeit coin if
there were no sterling; so neither would there be false prophets if there were no
true. Because there are both, their qualities have to be tested, that we may refuse
the spurious and value the genuine (see Jer. xxii. 38). ‘T'o this end let us consider—

I. Tests WHICH MAY NOT BE TRUSTED. 1. The test of profession. (1) Ahab’s
prophets ‘ prophesied.” That is to say (a) They used modes usual with prophets
to procure information from Heaven. These were sacrifice, prayer, music (see
1 Sam. x. 5, 6; 2 Kings iii. 15), and, when time permitted, fasting. (0) They used
modes usual with prophets to communicate the information when received.
“* Zedekiah, the son of Chenaanah, made him horns of iron: and he said, Thus
saith the Lord, With these shalt thou push the Syrians, until thou have consumed
them ”’ (cf. Jer. xxvii. 2; xxviii. 13), The ‘ horn” was the symbol of a king (see
Dan. vii. 24; Rev. xvii.12). These were “two,” torepresent Ahab and Jehoshaphat,
Israel and Judah. They were of ‘‘iron”’ to express strength (see Dan. 11. 40). The
prophecy was that, aided by Jehoshaphat, Ahab should push the Syrians to destruc-
tion. (2) They prophesied ‘‘in the name of the Lord.’ Some think because their
number corresponded to that of the prophets of Ashere (ch. xvii. 19) these were
the same, having escaped when the prophets of Baal were slain at the brook Kishon
(ch. xvii. 40). If so, then their profession on this occasion was designed to deceive
Jehoshaphat (see Jer. xxiii. 80). (8) Anyhow there was profession enough, but it
was hollow, and proved conclusively that profession must not be taken as a test of
truth. 2. The test of numbers. (1) Here were ‘four hundred” who prophesied
professedly in the name of the Lord. Against this number Micaiah the son of
Imlah stands alone; yet the truth of God is with him against the multitude.
‘* Truth is not always to be determined by the poll. It is not numbers, but weight,
that must carry it in the council of prophets” (Bishop Hall). (2) This instance
does not stand alone. The majority was in the wrong against Noah. Elijah was
in the minority on Carmel, but he was right. Jesus had the whole Jewish Church
against Him, though He was Truth itself. 8. The test of wnanimity. (1) The
four hundred were united against Micaiah. Sometimes there is unanimity of this
kind against a common object, where otherwise there is little agreement. Herod
and Pilate made friends in opposition to Jesus. (2) But these prophets were agreed
among themselves. They all seem to have followed the leadership of Zedekiah.
“And all the prophets prophesied so, saying, Go up to Ramoth-Gilead, and
prosper: for the Lord shall deliver.it into the king’s hand.” 4. How does this
aryument bear upon the authority of the Church? (1) It is pleaded that theOH. XxII. 1—53.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS,

 

549
Chureh, which is practi
ureh, which 1s practically understood to be the clerey in co atl thori
to bind the conscience in matters of faith, T a adv alia ts tac
atters of laith. ‘The arguments relied upon to sustain

this view are generally base Slee AY
(On the oie hand dhe doting a anata ah ey au emcee
ave Tetisod aa thao aye Ute VAureh 1s questioned, and the claims
ae Aes oe ene for their purpose, since by them Akab’s prophets might
Il. Tests WHICH MAY BE TRUST

Miah bahon Se ae eee Lhe witnesses should be honest. (1)
of the king, and they said “bat they nee es et eyes ae Pp OneS”
nna th dan ae ee ce 3 Me 7 ay uld gra 1 ys lum. heir testimony,
Pat ogee te P ee 2) I leala 1,/0n the contrary, had nothing to gain,
VEL g se, 1n taking his course. He knew the temper of the kine He
was importuned by the kine’s messenver to coneur with the le ie Nes ae
had already suffered for his faithf ae TP Pa aged ee rcp tetB,) Tio
aa oe oS ve or us faithfulness, for he seems to have been brought from
Be ein ee EY whose prison he had probably lain for three years. By
quvering Auab Ae might now obtain release, but by taking an opposite course he
could only expect to go back to jail. Probabilities also were against him, for in the
ae hwo battles, Ahab, without the aid of Jehoshaphat, worsted the Seritia.
Shonld the a of Tra now + retam in poe what may Miia expeot?
Peru: eee crs nad a Was ublertug the truth of God could account
ee ewe ae : He ae € neountering all this. And only upon this ground
ee he Pu a any ay our from God. Suspicion, therefore, as to the honesty of
An Is out or the question. (4) But can it be pleaded that the honesty of the
ecclesiastics who framed the decrees of councils is beyond suspicion? In decrecing
the infallibility of the bishop of Rome, e.g., were they disinterested, when they knew
how pleasing to him would be the reputation of such an attribute, and when they
knew what patronage and power to injure were vestedin hishands? 2. Th ey should
have miraculous authentication. (1) It is easy to say, “Thus saith the Lord,”
but not so easy to evince it. The four hundred could say it, but they could show
no miracle to prove that they spoke from God. (2) It was otherwise with Micaiah.
For, with the Jews, we presume he was that prophet who ‘“ prophesied evil con-
cerning Ahab,” and authenticated his message by the sign of the lion destroying
his fellow for disobedience (cf. ver. 8 with ch, xx. 35—43), (3) Clergy in council
may claim Divine authority for their decrees, but unless they can verify their claim
by adequate signs they presume when they impose. 3. Their testimony should be
aqreeable to the word of God. (1) “ Micaiah said, As the Lord liveth, what the
Lord saith unto me, that will I speak.” The one question for us in these days is
this: Is the testimony agreeable to the Bible? This we know by infallible proofs
to be the word of God. “‘ But,’ it is objected, ‘‘the Bible needs authoritative in-
terpretation, and who is to interpret but the Church?” To which we may answer,
And the Church still more needs authoritative interpretation, and who is to inter-
pret but the Bible? The authority of the Bible is admitted ; that of the Church is
in question. (2) The right of private judgment must be maintained. For the
exercise of this right we shall every one of us give account of himself unto God.
That ill-defined thing, the Church, cannot release us from this obligation. We

cannot put our judgment and conscience into commission.—J. A. M.

Vers. 15—23.—Micaiah’s Prophecy. Itis evident from the text and from ver. 8
that this was not the first time Ahab and Micaiah had met. The Jews suppose,
apparently with reason, that Micaiah was that prophet who, when Ahab sent
Ben-hadad away with a covenant, said to the king of Israel, ‘‘ Thus saith the Lord:
Because thou hast let go out of thine hand a man whom JI appointed to utter
destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people”

“(see ch. xx. 85—48). In considering the prophecy of Micaiah now before us, we
notice—

' J. THAT IT IS PREFACED WITH A SALLY OF IRONY. 1. He answers the king in the
words of his prophets. (1) Cf. vers. 6,12, 15. (2) These words are equivocal.
‘The Lord shall deliver it into the hand of the king.” Whatking? ‘ The king’’
may mean either Ahab or Ben-hadad. What? This is not clear; for the word550 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. fou. xxi. 1—5a

 

 

“it” is supplied. Is it Ramoth-Gilead or something else that is to be delivered
into the hand of the king (of Israel) ? or is it the king of Israel or something else
to be delivered into the hand of the king (of Syria) ? What kind of prophecy is this?
(3) The utterance of these prophets resembles those of the heathen oracles, the
following appropriate samples of which are given by A. Clarke: ® ie Delphie
oracle spoke thus of Croesus, which he understood to his own destruction: Croesus,
Hulym penetrans, magnam subvertet opum vem ;? which is to S2Y, If you march
against Cyrus, he will overthrow you, or ‘you will overthrow him. He trusted in
the latter, the former took place. He was deluded, yet the oracle maintained its
credit. So in the following: ‘ Aio te, Hacida, Romanos vincere posse. Ibis
redibis nunquam win bello peribis:’ Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, understood by this
that he should conquer the Romans, against whom he was making war ; but the
oracle could be thus translated: ‘ The Romans shall overcome thee.’ He trusted in
the former. made unsuccessful war, and was overcome ; and yet the juggling priest
saved his credit. The latter line is capable of two opposite meanings: ‘ Thou shalt
go, thou shalt return, thou shalt never perish in war,’ or, ‘ Thou shalt go, thou shalt
never return, thou shalt perish in war.’” 2. But he repeats those words with
significant expression. (1) The bare repetition, with proper emphasis, of the equi-
vocal words of the false prophets would be a fine stroke of irony. But when to
emphasis were added tone, gesture, play of feature, the irony would become very
keen. (2) This sarcasm of Micaiah is worthy to compare with that of Elijah (see
ch. xviii. 2a), oO and prosper. . This assurance of thy prophets is vague enough
to encourage the confidence of a simpleton! 38. God uses terrible rhetoric mm His
wrath. (1) Irony and sarcasm are fitting weapons to be wielded against those who
have neither conscience nor reason (see Proy. xxvi. 8—5). Ahab was a man of this
class. Witness the logic of his hatred (ver. 8). He felt the sting (ver. 16). (2)
These weapons are formidable in the hands of the Almighty (see Psa. un. 4, 5;
xxxvii. 13; Prov. i. 24—32 ; Eccles. xi. 9; Mal. 1. 17 andiii.1; Rom. 1. 1—9).

Il. TuHat IT COMPARES FAVOURABLY WITH THAT OF HIS COMPETITORS. 1. Jés
burden is the reverse of equivocal. (1) There is in sacred prophecy a double sense,
but the sound is certain. Itis not a dubiousness but a manifoldness of meaning, @
development, an evolution, such as we find in a seed that opens first into the blade,
then into the ear, and eventually into the full corn in the ear. (2) This prophecy
of Micaiah gave a distinct answer to the question of Ahab (ver. 13). The advice
was to forbear. These ‘“‘sheep.”” The sheep is not a creature fitted for battle.
They have ‘‘no shepherd.” Their king, deserted by the Spirit of God, has not the
qualities of a shepherd. Therefore “Let them return every man to his house in
peace.” (3) But the advice contains a prophecy. It is to this effect: their king
who ought to be their shepherd, shall fall at Ramoth-Gilead, and his people shall
be like sheep, ‘scattered upon the mountains” by the power of the enemy (compare
Zech. xiii. 7). 2 The vision shows that all worlds are under Divine control.
(1) ‘“‘I saw the Lord sitting on his throne.” Here was a comparison with the scene
before him, described ver. 10. Ahab and Jehoshaphat are enthroned as kings on
the earth; but there is a King in the heavensimmeasurably above them: (2) “And
all the host of heaven standing by him on the right hand and on the left.” The
host of heaven stood while Jehovah sat. They awaited His commands. Those on
His ‘‘ right hand” probably to render services of benevolence ; those on His ‘‘ left,”
services of judgment. (3) Then comes in another kind of agency (vers. 20 —28).
This scene is analogous to that described in the Book of Job (see Job i. 6; ii. 7).
Things in heaven, things in earth, things under the earth, all serve the purposes of
Divine Providence (see Job xii.16; 2 Thess. 11. 11,12; Rev. xx. 7,8). (4) The way-
wardness of Ahab showed how fully he was under the control of the spirit of false-
hood. This is seen in his senseless resentment against Micaiah. Turning to
Jehoshaphat, he said, ‘‘ Did I not tell thee that he would prophesy no good eon-
cerning me, but evil?”’ as if Micaiah’s own utterances could control the providence
of God. Then turning to his officers he had Micaiah marched back to the prison
where Ahab knew he could find him (cf. ver. 8 with vers. 26, 27). Let us give due
heed to the more sure word of prophecy.—J. A. M.CH. XxII, 1~ -53.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 551

 

 

 

Vers. 24—29.—The Argument of Wickedness. The Bible is a book of texts
because it is a book of types. It does not profess to give full histories, but refers to
public records for these (see Josh. x. 13; 2 Sam. i. 18; 1 Kings xi. 41; 1 Chron. ix. 1).
Ynspiration selects from histories typical or representative incidents to bring out the
principles of the grace and truth of God. In the scene before us we have types of
wickedness in Zedekiah and Ahab, the one ecclesiastical, the other civil, which
may be profitably studied in the arguments they use contending with Micaiah, the
representative of the truth of God. These arguments are—

I. RAGE AGAINST THE TRUTH. The reason is obvious, viz., because the truth is
the worst that can be said of the wicked. 1. It is the worst that can be said of
their character. (1) It shows up their selfishness, The one object of Ahab was
that “good” might be prophesied for him. 'To gain this he sold himself to his
four hundred liars. These liars, to gain the patronage of Ahab, sold their con-
sciences. Because Ahab could not gain flattery from Micaiah, he hated him. (2)
It shows up their folly. For what was the selfishness of Ahab but self-deception?
Lhe patronage of liars could not convert falsehood into truth, neither could the
persecution of a true man convert truth into falsehood. 4edekiah, in deceiving
Ahab, deceived his own soul. All sin is folly. (8) It evinces their pe ee
for it proves them to be the dupes and serfs of infernal spirits. Can degradation
go lower? 2. It is the worst that can be said of their doom. (1) The wicked are
to be destroyod in tyme. Ahab in particular was to fall at Ramoth-Gilead. From
that battle he was “ not to return in peace.” Zedekiah was to “ go into an inner
chamber to hide himself,” as Ben-hadad had done (ch. xx. 80), and there to meet
his fate. While to the righteous death is an entrance to glory, it eine we Hy
terrors’’ to the wicked (see 1 Cor. xv. 0d—d7). The sting is here: (2) The wae ce
are to be destroyed in eternity. The alarm with which the ancients recei a a
dictions of maltreatment to their corpses arose from their sppreneen vi ¥
presaged a posthumous retribution upon the soul. The dogs lic ing ee ve
Ahab would suggest that devils would not only be the instigators but a so t
: is rul ] stimate the horrors of damnation? The
instruments of his ruin. (8) Who cane te yaa coy ih a
truth will prove to be the worst that can be said of the lost. Is it wonc erful, then,

icked s uth? 38. They are therefore constrained to
that the wicked should abhor the tru y i Pana aie

( risy. (1) For their own sakes they have to play the hypocrite. ey, conceal
en A and affect generosity, conscious that were their base fou tunes

ea rate ; 7 a5 2CO1 ious. They hide their folly an
to come honestly to the day, they would become oaeue a le eae wiped
affect wisdom lest they should suffer contempt. (2) Or 1¢e ea x 2 e ae

are hypocrites. Were they to be honestly known to eac A other, Bp
ee ae be at an end; in fact, society would be impossible. There are no
Paandships on ppl NT OF VIOLENCE. 1. The logic of the wicked 18 weak. bt)
eats Eee inacious: ‘* Which way went the Spirit of the Lord from
PegeisAabss specced. was Bigg ee i Pha Mivaiah had not conceded, that he
Seep nD eee UNO ee a Viena 1d larod him, on the contrary, to have
ever had the Spirit of the Lord. Micaiah haddec an Padboal alec leuied
: ‘“‘ snirit ” of a very different description. Ze é a
heen influences by. ae 7] hat Micaiah had the Spirit of the Lord. (2)
genet le ehouid/ haya disproved, Hetuit 7 t t ll lies to please him. He found four
Ahab wanted a prophet of the God of truth to te Pae pe ta baer ee ae
hundred to tell him hes, professedly 1D: the Pane: a ae ten oa
Spa ROD AP Tice Tt i eey Wadall What donner a tllere lane?
Yet the truth was what he apated ra ne clear Foreel of folly? (See Prov.
(3) What sinner is there in our GAY th of the wicked is tyranny. (1) The

ii. 19; 1 Cor. ii. 19.) 2, The streng bh St Start at aaaag,
sue : s in his fist (ver. 24). ‘‘ Which way?” | : He
reason of Zedekiah was in Nees! Mee bay te cone oF our hun¢ re
the cheek? The coward us d ae ed wee in reserve. So was Jesus insulted
ecclesiastics about him, na ne a Pectoctht confessors. False prophets have
Geo ath FEV iP tp 89) 0 pete Micajah did not return the blow, but referred
ever been the worst enemies O hati Sa other than carnal weapons. (2) The reason
per eeD a Lis ‘bribes dit anaes, Micajah could not be cajoled as the four
of Ahab was552 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. fou. xxm. 1—58.

 

hundred were, therefore ‘ the king of Israel said, Take Micaiah, carry him back unto
Amon the governor of the city, and to Joash the king’s son, and say, ‘hus saith the
king, put this fellow in prison, and feed him with bread of affliction, and with water
of affliction, until I come in peace.” (8) But truth is not vanquished thus. How
confident was Ahab that he should “‘come in peace”! And this is that Ahab who
three or four years before so sagaciously said to Ben-hadad, “ Let not him that
girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off.”” Persistency in sin does
not sharpen men’s wits. Time vindicates truth. To this vindicator Micaiah called the
attention of the people (ver. 29). (4) But where was Jehoshaphat ? He was silent
when he should have spoken for the prophet of God. See the influence of bad
company. ‘So the king of Israel, and Jehoshaphat the king of Judah went up to
Ramoth-Gilead.” Alas, Jehoshaphat!—J. A. M.

Vers. 830—88. Lessons of the Battle. After disposing of Micaiah by sending him
to prison with hard fare as the reward of his faithfulness, Ahab and Jehoshaphat
gathered their forces and set out together to fight for the recovery of Ramoth-Gilead.
The events of the day show—

I. THAT PROPHECY MAY TEND TO ITS OWN FULFILMENT. 1. Micaiah’s words in-
fluenced Ahab’s conduct. (1) Though Ahab had imprisoned the prophet he could
not shake off the influence of his prophecy. So with a view to obviating its effect he
proposed to disguise himself. He speaks of himself in the third person (ver. 30),
thus (wannn), ‘‘ He will [strip] disguise himself ””—a form of speech, perhaps, con-
sidered suitable to an action in which he was to appear as athirdperson. ‘lo com-
plete the deception, if we follow the LXX., he induced Jehoshaphat to puton his
(Ahab’s) robes. (a) Note the subtlety of the wicked. Ahab’s proposal to Jehoshaphat
was ostensibly to give him the post of honour in commanding the army. This, too,
may have suggested the use of the third person in speaking of himself. Ahab’s real
purpose was to divert from himself the fury of the battle; and probably he hoped
Jehoshaphat might be slain. In that case his son-in-law would succeed to the throne
of Judah, and he might be able so to manage him as to serve his own purposes. (0)
In all this we see the danger of bad company. We see it likewise in the sad fact
that Jehoshaphat should become a party to a contrivance to falsify the word of God!
(2) But how useless are disguises when the providence of Omniscience is concerned !
Ahab might hide himself from the Syrians, but he could not hide himself from
God. Neither could he hide himself from angels and devils, who are instruments
of Divine Providence, ever influencing men, and even natural laws, or forces of
nature. Note: No disguise will avail to evade the scrutiny and retributions of the
judgment-day. (8) Yet by his disguise Ahab, unwittingly, helped the prophecy.
‘The king of Syria commanded his thirty and two captains that had rule over his
chariots, saying, Fight neither with small nor great, save only with the king of
Israel.” Suppose Ahab had been in Jehoshaphat’s place, and had fallen into the
hands of the captains, what would have become of the words of Eljah? (See ch.
xxi. 19.) But as things worked out these words became literally true. 2. They also
enfluenced the conduct of the Syrians. (1) The Syrians would be aware of the
prophecy of Micaiah dooming Ahab to fall at Ramoth-Gilead. For in a country
about the size of North Wales, Samaria being distant from Ramoth-Gilead only
thirty miles, the news of this public meeting of kings and contest of prophets could
not be asecret. Ahab would facilitate the publication of the encouragement he
had from the four hundred, to strike terror into the Syrians ; but where the news
of his encouragement went the words of Micaiah also would travel. (2) Probably
this intelligence determined the Syrians to “ fight only against the king of Israel,”
In which they would have the God of Israel with them, the formidableness of whose
hostility they had experienced in the last two battles (compare 2 Chron. xxxv. 21,
22). To this Jehoshaphat probably was indebted for the sparing of his life, for
‘God moved the Syrians to depart from him” (see 2 Chron. xviti. 31). And prob-
ably they were influenced by it to agree to the proclamation to disband, when the
death of Ahab became known (ef. vers. 17, 36). 8. Note a remarkable illustra-
tion of this principle in the zeal of Jehu in exterminating the house of Ahab (seeCH: XXII. 1—53.]

—

2 Kings ix. 25, 2Oighe 10! Wy Gag

THE FIRST BOOK oF KINGS.

“hastening the coming of

II. THAT NEVER
the case of Ahab.
hands,
with a covenant ?

Prov. 13 32.)

De

was seen in the sequel.

flict.

being derived from

7

licked up the blood tl

Would he show Ahab how
But God had other means than the capt

‘A man drew a bow at a venture (m
Israel between the joints and harness,”
God euided the arrow
He guided the pebble from the
armour is proof against the shafts

, a kind or species.
blood were permitted to enter tl

the day of G

1 the king leaned.

of Divine vengeance.

The prophecies of Elijah and M
The one speaks of the doe
> . oO
other of Ahab falling at“ R
that there should be no conflict here ?
midst (Heb. bosom) of the chariot
the charioteer,” on whicl
rather, ‘‘And the driver washed hims
licked his blood” ¢.e., the blood of Al:
‘‘And the things they washed.”

amoth-Gilead.”’

Those who are ‘looking for,” are tl
od” (see 2 Peter iii. 12)
THELESS THE HAND OF GoD Is IN IT.

iri
. I'he purpose of Ben-hadad
is not recorded.

  
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
   
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 

lereby

.
/

1. This was evident in
uw » Should Ahab have fallen into }
Would he return Ahab’s compliment of releasing him
he ought to have treated him ? (2)
ains of Ben-hadad to accomplish His purpose.
arg. “In his simplicity”) and smote the kine of
A simpleton brings down aking! (See
to the opening in the joints of the armour. as
sling of David into the frontais of Goliath. —

118

No

(8) The hand of God also
ecies icaiah seem to be in con-
S ucking the blood of Ahab at *“ Samaria, ;”

the

Who but God could go order events
‘The blood ran out of the wound into the
;”’ perhaps more correctly, ‘‘into the bosom of
‘“And one washed the chariot;” or
elf in the pool of Samaria, and the dogs
ab which fell from the bosom of the driver.
Tor mypy denotes the several kinds of things,
Before the person and things defiled with
1 city, they were to be washed; and the dogs
1at fell from the driver’s bosom, and off
to be washed (see Psa. lxviii. 23),

the things, as they lay

(4) But were not the words of Elijah ‘In the

place where the dogs licked the blood of Naboth”’ (viz., Jezreel) “shall dogs lick thy
| But in the context there, the vineyard of Naboth is said to be
in Samaria (see ch. xxi. 18, 19), because Jezreel, like Bethel, was one of the “ cities

blood, even thine ” ?

of Samaria” (see ch. xiii. 32).

In the very vineyard of Naboth did the blood of

Ahab flow from the veins of his son (see 2 Kings ix. 25, 26). The providence that

accomplished is no 1]

ess admirable than the omniscience that predicted. 2.
was also evident im the case of Jehoshaphat.

This

(1) Micaiah did not say that the

king of Judah should fall at Ramoth-Gilead ; but his prophecy did intimate that he
would be of little use to the army. ‘The word (p‘34s) in ver. 17 rendered ‘“‘ master”

is plural, and evidently associates Jehoshaphat with Ahab.

When Ahab was

wounded to death and Jehoshaphat had fled for his life, the people had “no
masters,” so the proclamation soon followed which determined ‘‘ every man to his

house in peace.”

(2) Jehoshaphat’s danger lay in his being assimilated to Ahab.

He should never have said, “I am as thou art” (ver. 4), then would he not have
been persuaded to don Ahab’s robes. By the influence of his company Jehoshaphat
was becoming morally like him, and therefore was in danger of sharing his miser-
(3) To avoid this danger he had to become himself

able fate (see Prov. xii. 20). ‘he hi é
‘He cried out” [to Jehovah] (see 2 Chron, xviii. 51); and thus was dis-

again.

covered to the captains, who would expect to hear Ahab cry rather to Baal.

The

hand of God was evident in his deliverance ; and this he might read as a parable
assuring him that his future safety must lie in his renouncing evil companions and
returning to the piety of his earlier years.—J. A. M.

Vers. 89, 40, 51—53.—Survival.

After the account of Ahab’s death and burial,

and of the manner in which the dogs of Samaria fulfilled the prophecy of Elijah,

the earlier verses of our text follow.
the archives of the nation for an account of the ‘‘ rest of the acts

In the first of these the reader is referred to

” and works of

‘hich inspirati y sre specially directed. In
this monarch, viz., those to which inspiration was not here sy y

the second, the succession of Ahaziah is mentioned.

With these verses, because of

the unity of the subject, we associate the three verses referring to the reign of

Ahaziali, with which the chapter closes.
I. T'uat AHAB SURVIVED IN AHAZIAH, — L
slept with his fathers; and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead.” In law, a

Taking the latter first in order, we see—
1. This was legally true.

(1) ‘* So Ahab554 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. (cH. xx11, 1—53.

 

man is said to ‘live in his heirs.” He is never legally dead while he has an
heir, There is a good reason for this. Ahaziah would never have mounted
the throne of Israel unless his father had been there before him. He reigned
in the posthumous influence of Ahab. His representative. (2) When a man. is
what is called ‘the architect of his own fortune,” he is said to have had “no
father.’ But in this language the fact is ignored that, under Providence, this
“ architect ” is indebted to his ancestry for his existence, for his faculties, and for
the circumstances which he may have seized and moulded into this ‘‘fortune.” 2,
It was also morally true. (1) In Ahaziah the vices of Ahab were reproduced.
* Te did evil in the sight of the Lord, and walked in the way of his father.” The
bad example of his father wrought its influence into his character, and thus Ahab
survived in Ahaziah. (2) The record descends to particulars. ‘‘ He walked in the
way of his father, and in the way of his mother.” Here not only is Jezebel repro-
duced in Ahaziah, but Ahab’s sin in marrying Jezebel also survives. ‘‘And in the
way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin.” Here is not only the
posthumous influence of Jeroboam, but also of the sin of Ahab in perpetuating it.
‘‘ For he served Baal, and worshipped him.” The establishment of this Canaanitish
abomination was due to Ahab and Jezebel, and they infamously survive in its per-
petuation. (8) Note (a) A Church is not the more true for being established. Here
were two State Churches which were, in the Biblical sense, atheistic. (6) For con-
current endowment, whatever may be said for its expediency, there can be no moral
defence. 8. But there was no necessity for this. (1) Legal representation is an
accident over which we have no control. It is a notable truth that men have influ-
ences in spite of themselves, and that these also are posthumous. (2) But moral
representation is in a different category. Ahaziah might have reigned in Ahab’s
stead without imitating his vices. ‘‘Jehoram the son of Ahab,” e.g., ‘“‘ wrought
evil in the sight of the Lord; but noét like his father, and like his mother; for he
put away the image of Baal that his father had made” (2 Kings in..2). (8) Ahaziah
should have been admonished by the history of the judgments of God upon the
house of Jeroboam. He should have taken the warning given in the judgments of
God on the sins of his father. His guilt, therefore, was upon his own head, and he
suffered accordingly. He reigned two years. God makes short work with .some
sinners. His death was provoked by his perversity (see 2 Kings i. 8, 4). We see
further —

II. THat AHAB SURVIVES IN HISTORY. 1. He swrvived in secular history. . His
acts and works were written in the chronicles of his nation. (1) Amongst these
were mentioned ‘all the cities that he built.” Perhaps this building of cities
simply meant the construction of fortifications for their defence. Whether they
reflected credit or discredit upon his memory we cannot pronounce. A man may
doa great deal of work to very little profit. (2) The chronicles mentioned. ‘‘ the
ivory house which he made.” This palace had its description probably from the
quantity of that valuable substance used in its ornamentation. But this doves not
seem to have been to his honour. <A kingdom impoverished. through famines,
wars, and idolatries was in no position to bear the cost. of such a piece of
luxurious and selfish vanity. Amos accordingly denounces this work of pride
(Amos iii. 15). (38) The survival of Ahab in secular history was a consequence of
his social position. ‘The masons and carpenters, whose skill brought the works of
Ahab to perfection, had no mention there. Social statws is a talent from God, for
the right use of which men are accountable. 2..He survives in sacred history.
(1) The sacred history consisis of selections from the secular under the guiding
influence of Divine inspiration, with a view to illustrating the principles of the
providence, truth, and grace of God. To illustrate such principles is the noblest
end of writing. So of reading. What quantities of trash, in which the claims of
God are ignored, is both written and read! (2) In these selections the notices of
the wicked are generally brief. Perhaps no wicked man has a larger share of the
sacred writings occupied with his acts than Ahab. Such acts are not agreeable to
the Spirit of God. But in the hands of inspiration they are made an influence for
good, They are recorded, apparently, because of their relation to the actions ofCH. XxI1. 1—53.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 055

 

 

 

 

ns ecceltpmalll

prophets and good men. They are-made to serve as a‘dark background to show
up to admiration virtuous qualities, and to be made themselves odious in the
contrast. The principles of the wicked should only be studied to be shunned. Qo
God ‘brings good out of evil. (3) The sacred records have survived the secul
‘The book of the chronicles of the kings of Isr
sacred records have come down to our times.
thirty centuries, Ahab survives. But for these his name would not be known.
Note (a) the Providence which has preserved the Scriptures evinces their Divine
authenticity. (b) Things are permanent as they stand related to the everlasting
God. (c) The posthumous influence points to the immortality of man.—J. A. M._

oY.
ael” has long since perished. The
In these, after a lapse of nearly

Vers. 41—50.—Jehoshaphat. These words give a summary of the life of this
king of Judah, and faithfully record, as the Scriptures do to admiration, the good
and the bad, as these will be considered in the judgment of the great day.
Consider—

I. THE PRAISE OF JEHOSHAPHAT. 1. He came of a good stock. (1) He was “of
the house and lineage of David.” The traditions of that house were in many
respects a glorious inheritance. David was a ‘man after God’s own heart.” Th
no instance was he found inclining to idolatry. (2) He was the son of Asa. Of
his mother we have this significant mention: ‘*And his mother’s name was
Azubah, the daughter of Shilhi. And he walked in the ways of Asa his father, and
departed not from it, doing that which was right in the sight of the Lord.” This
suggests the healthiness of his mother’s moral influence. The reference here to
Asa, too, is highly honourable. (3) The blessing of pious parents is inestimable.
It works beneficially in example, in precept, in solicitude. This last is most
effectual in prayer to God. Those who are favoured with godly parents should
praise God evermore. Wicked children of pious parents are doubly culpable.
2. He improved his advantages. (1) He “ walked in the ways of Asa his father.’
These were ways of righteousness. Let the children of godly parents now ask
themselves whether they walk in the good ways of their ancestors. (2) He
*“turned not aside from it.” He showed no favour to idolatry. The note which
follows is no impeachment of the truth of this statement: ‘ Nevertheless the high
places were not taken away ; for the people offered and burnt incense yet in the
high places.” ‘The high places that Jehoshaphat spared were those in which the
true God was worshipped in accordance with the usage of patriarchal times
(see 2 Chron. xxxiii. 17). (8) He went farther than Asa in the work of reforma-
tion :—‘“‘The remnant of the Sodomites which remained in the days of Asa his
father he took out of the land.” The parallel place to this in the Chronicles is :
* And his heart was lifted up in the ways of the Lord : moreover he took away -
hich places and the groves (DW) out of Judah” (2 Chron. ee ee a) eee
removing the Sodomites we understand that he demolished t 1eir ee o
Asherim, their instruments of pollution. When the nests are ae - eve
fly. 38. This was to his praise. (1) Others, similarly ot aile ve ey a a
good use of their advantages. Jehoram, his own son, may be et 2
contrast to him. Several of his ancestors had ee rll:
godly ways of their father David. Men will be justified e me en
of such comparisons in the last great day (see Sd 3 1 ee : ee
him with prosperity (2 Chron. xvi. 4, 5). He a an ee ee Cis salen
ee ok dee ast) sat ae Aiea ae m Edom: a deputy was
to him. The note here, tha 1ere was th ng a ee

: nT s fleet at Ezion-Geber, was desigued. to
king,” which prefaces the account of his garieraagti es) oc:

plain how Jehoshaphat was able to have a fleet at a port i re
are Bui ms), iz because he ee in Edom which was
22s gue aber al eet aes to have been connected with

. THE BLAME OF JEHOSHAPHAT. ss rs a7 ts igi
rhe bie ” which he made “ with the king - erie ee
menced with—1. The marriage of his al ns dousideatl Ahab and Jezebel; to be
phat, and with his consent, took Athaliah, the g556 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. fou. xxi. 1—53.

 

his wife. Jehoshaphat’s heart was lifted up with the abundance of his ‘“‘riches and
honour,” and ‘‘ joined affinity with Ahab” (see 2 Chron. xvii. 1). He became too
great to be content with an humble match for his son, and sacrificed godliness to
grandeur. He has many imitators in this. (2) Unequal yoking has ever been
prolific in mischief. Athaliah inherited the evil spirit of both her parents, and she
led away the heart of Jehoram from God to his ruin. The object of this marriage
was to build wp the house of Jehoshaphat, but it well-nigh proved its ruin (see
2 Chron. xxi. 10, 11). God is the builder of families (see 2 Sam. vil. di, 27;
1 Kings i. 24; xi. 88; Psa. cxxvil. 1). 2. Hrs friendship with Ahab. (1) This
evil grew out of the marriage. The peace between Israel and Judah, which in the
abstract was a benefit, was probably a condition of the marriage. But the friend-
ship between Jehoshaphat and Ahab which followed, was too intimate for the good
of the king of Judah’s soul, (2) Evils beget evils. This friendship led to Jehosha-
phat helping Ahab in his war against Syria, and had nearly cost Jehoshaphat his life.
It also sullied lis reputation, for he was persuaded into it by Ahab against the voice
of Micaiah. ‘This friendship exposed Jehoshaphat to the reproof of the prophet
Jehu (2 Chron. xix. 2). 3. His friendship with Ahaziah. (1) This son of Ahab
was no more a companion fit for Jehoshaphat than Ahab. For Ahaziah ‘walked in
the way of his father, and in the way of his mother, and in the way of Jeroboam
the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin: for he served Baal and worshipped him,
and provoked to anger the Lord God of Israel, according to all that his father had
done.” (2) Yet Jehoshaphat formed a trade alliance with Ahaziah. They jointly
fitted outa fleet at the port of Ezion-Geber, on the Red Sea, to sail to Ophir for
gold. But for this God rebuked him, and ‘‘the ships were broken” in the port (see
2 Chron. xx. 38s—d7). Let no money consideration, no gold of Ophir, induce
godly young men to enter into trade partnerships with the ungodly. (8) This
judgment of God had a salutary effect upon Jehoshaphat. For when Ahaziah
would renew the attempt at Ezion-Geber, Jehoshaphat declined (ver. 49). Let us
be careful never to repeat a blunder.—J. A. M.

Vers. 1—28.—Crime brings its own punishment. I. THE WICKED RUSH UPON
DESTRUCTION. 1. Ahib provokes the war in which hé himself will perish. The
peace which had lasted so long might have continued. Every day it was pro-
longed was a day placed between him and death; and yet with his own hand he
brings to an end the period of grace. How often are the calamities of the wicked
invoked by themselves, and are the fruit of their ownrashness! 2. It came as the
prompting of the deepest wisdom. Jehoshaphat’s presence afforded the oppor-
tunity of forming a league to which success seemed certain. The selfish cun-
ning of the sinful becomes a snare to them. 8. He closes his ear against God’s
deterring counsel. (1) When asked to inquire of God, he brings those only who
will speak the things that accord with his own determination. The false prophets
are called, but not the true. (2) When compelled to bring Micaiah from the prison
(see ver. 26, “carry him back unto Amon,” &¢.), he endeavours to prevent Jehosha-
phat being moved by his words. Micaiah is his enemy, therefore a prophecy of good
is not to be expected from him. (8) When warned he will not be hindered, but
defies God, who would save him, by insulting and persecuting His servant (ver. 27).

II. THE FALSE propHeTs. 1. They bind the cords which are leading a sinful
soul to death. The word which they profess to speak for God is a word which it
pleases the king to hear. Itis the echo of his own desires (ver. 6). There are
those who by voice and pen proclaim a new gospel. It is no longer suught to lead
up the world to God and thus reconcile it to Him. It is boldly declared that the
reconciliation is already effected. God has come down to it. There is no anger
and no threatening and no terrible shadow of judgment. There is nothing but
goodness and love. They are the false prophets of to-day, and these do for the men
of their generation what those did for Ahab. 2. Their blasphemy. Whena prophet
of Jehovah was asked for (ver. 7), they who have hitherto spoken only of Adonai do
not scruple to take the name of the Highest into their lips (vers. 11, 12). We do
not escape the false prophets when we appeal from their speech concerning theCH. Xx11, 1—53.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 567

enntisimacidean

God tur
ae _ ae ae the word of the Lord. They meet us there
72 ex to rest upon the plainest rds ; 3 :
Hell is a superstiti Pp words ; they are explained away
erstitious dream, and th lisci y:
, he cross of the disciples of Christ a mere ficur
of speech, with no hard, stern reality behind it. 3. 77 ao Oth ee
falsehood (vers. 21-28), Thee vents, 8. They are possessed by a spirit of
oeccere ‘ : Y position 18 more a punishment of past sin than
’ ee transgression. They speak with honesty of a sort, but it is out of thei
ieart’s darkness. ‘e willi : =
= darkness. They were willing to be deceived, and they have been deceived
| hey did not wish to know God as He is, and they have been left with the vod f
their own imagination. In which school are we. th: a
ees a are we, that of the false prophets, or of
ne true? 4. They smite the true servants of God. Z iah’s
alone La nia © 80 8 of God. edekiah’s blow preceded the
ee Ea nothing but his own soul’s distance from God. It was
C 7 cA
ae. provoked by zeal for his own honour. He who had been moved by
zeal tor God’s honour would have stood in silent awe of that terrible b ‘tal
“ade ot : lat terrible but certain
judgment which the man was braving
Ill. THE TRUE SERVAN is 4
oa pe oe ANT OF Gop. 1. In a corrupt court his is no welcome
presence (ver. 8). The distance between Ahab and God was reflected in that which
separated him from the speaker of God’s word. Continued faithfulness, if it may
not win, must be repelled and hated. “ Woe unto you when all men speak well of
. a 7 my > vy 7: ; j
you; for so,” &e. 2. The necessity laid on him to declare the whole counsel of God
{* A 14). He cannot turn to the right hand or the left; the world’s wealth cannot
a bean, its power and cruelty cannot terrify him. What king or people desire
to hear, or courtly prophets or current creeds have said, weighs nothing with him
‘ : : Lathe . Y : ; 2 . = ‘
He cannot speak in God’s name aught save what God has said. 3. His MESSAGE.
Ee speaks first in easily discerned irony (vers. 15, 16). It was an intimation to the
king that he desired to hear no prophecy that would run counter to his inclinations.
Then, when he is solemnly appealed to, a picture is presented (ver. 17) of the
smitten, shepherdless people, which might well have touched even Ahab’s heart.
Next king and people are led up to the throne of God. The servant and his words
are forgotten in the revelation of his Master. Even the false prophet’s utterances
are turned to account; they and the reliance which the king is placing on them
are part fulfilment of the Divine vengeance. There was deeper tenderness and
truer love for Ahab in that one breast than in all the four hundred. 4. The great-
ness of all trwe service for God. There is a glory about that despised, persecuted
man before which that of both kings pales. It is a glory which nothing can tear
from the loyal heart, and which shines the brighter amid the world’s darkening
hate. It is a glory which may be our own.—U.

Vers. 29—40.—The Certainty of God's Threatenings. I. AHAB’S ATTEMPT TO
ELUDE THE DIVINE VENGEANCE. 1. His apprehension of coming evil. If Micaiah’s
words were nct the words of God, why should he take precautions? His heart
gives the lie to his own unbelief; the words cling to him. The bold refusal to listen
to God’s word is no assurance that the soul will not afterwards be shaken by a
fearful looking for of judgment. 2, His wngenerousness (ver. 30). “I will dis-
guise myself; but put thou on thy robes.” The effect of the counsel was
necessarily to concentrate the enemy’s attention upon Jehoshaphat. Sin not only
makes a man a coward, it robs him of nobleness. 38. The immediate effect of
Ahab’s stratagem. TBen-hadad’s arrangements for the capture or slaughter of
Ahab were rendered of no avail. The captains could not find the man they
sought. A momentary success often attends the plans of those who endeavour
to flee from God. 4. The chance shot. The success of Ahab’s device only
served to make. the blow come more plainly from the hand of God. Ben-hadad’s
purpose could be baffled, but not His. There is no escape from God.

IL Tue FULFILMENT oF Gop’s worp. 1. He fell at Ramoth-Gilead (ver. 20).
2. “Israel was scattered upon the hills,” and the command was given to return
(vers. 17, 86). 3. The dogs licked Ahab’s blood (ch. xxi. 19), not in Jezreel, indeed,
because the judgment then pronounced was that of the overthrow of the dynasty.
This was delayed on account of Ahab’s repentance, and happened, as predicted,
“in his son’s days” (ch. xxi. 29). But the personal part of the prediction, “The dogsB58 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. fcu. xxi1, 1—53.

 

shall lick thy blood, even thine,” was not revoked. There are prophecies both of
evil and of good, within the range of which we set ourselves. God’s words are
touching us, and will likewise be literally fulfilled.—U.

Vers. 41—53.—Two Life Stories. I. Junosuaruat’s. 1. He prolonged the good
influence of his father’s reign. Judah’s thought was still kept under the light of
truth, and its life more fully led into the ways of God: he completed his father’s
reforms (ver. 46). The continuance of God’s work anywhere Is as important as
the origination of it. 2. He was consistent. ‘‘ He turned not aside from it.” He
did not merely begin well; over his whole reign there rested the Divine approval;
he did “that which was right in the eyes of the Lord.” The life which is ever
sinning, repenting, forgetting, achieves nothing. It is like a plant uprooted and
planted again, to be again uprooted, &c., and which, even should its life be pre-
served, will never bear fruit. It is ike “a backsliding heifer,” and with such a life
the great Husbandman’s work cannot be carried on. 3. There was fai/wre as well
as success in his career. ‘‘ Nevertheless the high places were not taken away.”
He had endeavoured to remove them (2 Chron. xvii. 6). But ‘‘ the people offered
and burnt incense yet in the high places.” The mightiest efforts in the great war-
fare with darkness leave something for other hands to do, and must till He come
who alone can perfect all things. 4. He sought to be at peace with his brethren
(ver. 44). He went further in this, indeed, than he ought to have done (2 Chron.
xix. 2), but the desire for peace was laudable. 5. He humbled himself under God's
rebuke (compare vers. 48, 49 with 2 Chron. xx. 85—87). At first he had been be-
suiled into fellowship with the idolatrous king of Israel without reflecting upon the
danger which lay in it for himself and his people. But when God had manifested
His displeasure, nothing could make him renew the confederacy. The judgment
might mistake, but the heart was loyal to God.

II. Anazian’s. 1. A sinful life. ‘ He didevil in the sight of the Lord.” With
such a life there was no possibility sf blessing for his people. The roots of his use-
fulness were destroyed. To do, we must first of all become. Our work cannot rise
above the level of our life. 2. A disastrous policy (vers. 52, 53). He continued
the work of Israel’s destruction. The departure made by Jeroboam and perfected
by Ahab and Jezebel, he accepted in its full rejection of Jehovah. He did not go
beyond them, he simply did ‘‘ according to all that his father had done,” but in
doing this his sin was of the deepest dye. His father had been judged, but God
was still braved, and Israel was led still nearer to destruction. We may only con-
tinue what others have begun; but if we pay no heed tc the proofs of God’s anger,
and take no thought of the inevitable results of the poliey we pursue, our persistence
may be one of the deepest crimes against God and man.—U.

 

Ver. 34.—The Pierced Armour. This occurred during the third campaign of
Ben-hadad against Israel. Micaiah had forewarned Ahab against the danger he
incurred, and was cast into prison for his pains. The warning was, however, taken
sufficiently to heart to induce the king to disguise himself. Describe the expedient
adopted, and its remarkable failure. Ahab was in many respects a typical sinner,
He was an idolater, a persecutor, impenitent, though sometimes touched; and in
the plenitude of power he fell. We see here—

I. A MAN ARMED AGAINST Gop. True he was fighting against the Syrians, but as
he girded on his armour he remembered and defied the words of the prophet.
His ominous prophecy should not be fulfilled, he would yet come back safe and
victorious to put Micaiah to death, and with this determination he put Jehoshaphat
in command, and clad himself with proof armour. In spirit, therefore, he was
fighting not only against the hosts of Syria, but against the word of God. Hence
let us depict one who is armed against God. Reverse the description St. Paul gives
(Eph, vi.) of one armed by God. The impenitent sinner represented by Ahab
defends himself. 1. By false hopes (Deut. xxix. 19, 20). These constitute hig
‘‘ helmet,” which wards off true thoughts of self and sin. He blindly trusts in
Divine mercy, while sin is unrepented, forgetting that ‘a God all mercy is a GodCH. XXII. 1—53.] THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 55

 

unjust” (Young). “There is none other name given under heave
may be saved,” &c. ‘* How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation?”
2. By a hardened heart. This is his ‘ breastplate.” A man impenitent is a man
lost. Some are “ past feeling,” their consciences are “seared as with a hot iron,”
and God gives them over to their “ hardness of heart,” and to an ‘‘impenitent
mind.” ‘Who has hardened himself against God, and prospered?” We may
become ‘“‘hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.” 3. By defiant words. There is a
tongue which isset on fire of hell. Adduce examples. Ahab defied Micaiah. 4,
By an unbelieving mind. The king questioned the truth of the prophet’s message.
He had more confidence in his own past success and in his military skill than in
the declaration of a man who knew something of God butnothing of war. Unbelief
ever prevents the inflowing of Divine goodness. Jesus ‘could do no mighty works
because of their unbelief.” 5. By a dumb spirit. No asking for pardon, no ery
for mercy rose from Ahab’s heart, or it would not have proved too late; for the
Lord is “ not willing that any should perish.”

Il. A MAN STRICKEN BY Gop. The chance arrow of the Syrian archer fulfilled
the Divine purpose. 1. By the arrow of conviction. God's word is sharp and
powerful, and pierces even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and is a
discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (1) I¢ may be shot unwittingly,
as the archer drew at a venture not knowing what he might hit. Let our words
for God be pointed, and be winged by faith, and He will see that they hit the mark,
(2) It may touch the one vulnerable spot. That arrow pierced “ between the joints
of armour” otherwise proof. So David’s stone would have fallen powerless on the
greaves or the breastplate of the giant of Gath. God, who knows our hearts, tries
every avenue. Through our reason, through our affections, through our conscience,
His word seeks to find its way. 2. By the arrow of yudgment, (1) It was foretold
(ver. 28). Ahab ran the risk. So do they who continue in sin after hearing of ‘a
certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour
the adversaries.’ (2) It was imevitable. All disguise and precaution were un-
availing. The justice of God sooner or later reaches the right man. (8) It was
terrible. The weak, sensuous man, whose promise had sometimes been so fair,
fell in a moment from kingship, from life, and from hope. “ He that being
reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without often
remedy.”—A. R.

n whereby weCHAPTER I.
THEME
The Chamber of Sickness .. 2°
Adonijah’s History and its Lessons ..
Adonijah and the Lord’s Anointed ..
The Jewish Prophet: an Example to
the Christian Pastor
The Benedictus of the Old Testament,
and the Benedictus of the New ..
The Two Triumphal Entries oe
The Sin of Ambition Ss oe
Moral Ruin in a Religious Home ..
The Dethronement of the False by the
Enthronement of the True ee

CHAPTER ILI.
A Jewish Deathbed Jie

ee
Hikon Basiliké .... os oe
‘‘Show thyselfa man”  .. oe
A Royal Father’s Last Words ee
A Charge from a Dying King ee
The Brothers de Ze o°
The Degraded High Priest .. oe
The Death of Joab 7 ee
The End of the Transgressor oe
Retributions Be es 2°

CHAPTER III.

The Grace and Place of Love oe

God’s Gifts and Solomon’s Choice ..
The Prayer of Solomon and its Fulfil-

ment .. ae a af
A Wise Prayer .-- aie =
Waiting for God’s Voice; a Sermon

for Children
The Reverent Prayer ote a Royal

Petitioner wie

1 KINGS.

TO

THE FIRST BOOK OF KING

HOMILETICAL INDEX

 

 

 

ele pe
{| THEME
PAGE | The Wisdom of Solomon’s Choice ..
12 | Solomon’s Judgment a Foreshadowing
3 of the Judgment to come a
15 | ‘Let it be es mine nor thine,
but divideit”’ .. es
16 i
CHAPTER IY.
i wees Servants of Solomon oe te
a The Twelve Prefects and the Twelve
90 Apostles ae iia o
4 The Golden Age .. a aie
99 Ualasts greatest, wisest, meanest of
mankind ” ee a we
A Prosperous Reign es
9° The Voice of Nature spe: ia ing for God
é
A CHAPTER V.
33 | Tyreand Israel—a Lesson on Personal
24 Influence a ee oe
39 | Sure Foundations o° ee
49 | The Temple a oe eo
43 | The Building of the Temple oe
47 | Lessons from the Conduct of a
48 Heathen Prince Bi oe
CHAPTER VI.
58 | Christianity built on the Foundations
54 | of Judaism as .
| The Ark of the Covenant of the Hard
56 | The Purposes of the Temple Ne
56 | Building in Silence tp 2
| The Mystery of the Cherubim os
57 | “The house: which King Solomon
| built for the Lord” ea Ps
59 ' The Glorious House of the Lorde.

20

 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
   
  
 
 
   
   
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
   
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
   
  
 
 
     

111
115
116
118
119562 HOMILETICAL INDEX.

 

 

THEME PAGE THEME PAGE
CHAPTER VII. The Divine Chastisements .. oe 245
The Pillars of Brass i .. 136 | The Call to Jeroboam oe 245
The Molten Sea and the Brazen The Successful Man me -. 246
luavers of * .. 139 | The Judgments of God on Judah and
The Clay Ground in the Circuit of the Israel from the Death of Solomon to
tarda * % PT dip the Time of Ahab ks ee 247
Jachin and Boaz .. oe ee 148
CHAPTER XII.
CHAPTER VUI. Judicial Infatuation -. ee 256
The Dedication of the Temple and its The Dead and the Living .. ee 259
Teaching -é i. -- 161 | Israel’s Magna Charta oe ee 260
The Silence and the Darkness .. 164 | Infatuation ci ee eo 200
The Holy of Holies and the Heaven The Revolution .. oe oe 2GL
of Heavens e < -- 165 | The Message of Shemaiah .. es OS
The Prayer of Dedication .. -» 167 | The Rending of the Kingdom Se. oe
The Feast on the Sacrifices e» 169 | Rehoboam’s Folly ie we | 20D
The Ark of the Covenant .. G71) The Revolt a ue -- 266
The Presence of the Lord in the House The Accomplishment of the Predicted
of the Lord y. 48 ost aye Judgment at a8 oe eer
The Glory-Cloud ... pi ee 173 | The Sin of Jeroboam oe ee 274
The Unfulfilled Purposes of Life .. 175 | Jeroboam’s Despondency .. oe er
The Prayer of Dedication .. ee 176 | Jeroboam’s Calves ee we dO
The Praying King % ee OLZ7»| \ Jeroboam’s Sim 2. ee 279, 280
The Consecration of the Temple .. 179 | The Golden Calves ee ee 281
The Stranger’s Interestin the Temple 180
Occasions for Prayer o oe) LOH CHAPTRER Xin:
A Royal Benediction be eo 182 Protest and Excommunication ee 285
: The Fire of Jehovah 43 ee 209
CHAPTER IX. The Man of Sin .. on so 209
The Second Appearance to Solomon. 186 | The Man of God .. ee os ag)
The Renewed Covenant .. e- 188 | The Nameless Prophet a ie JON
The Two Altars of Judaism es 196 | The King confronted by the Prophet 293
Solomon’s Worship ee ee 200 | The Man of God and the People of God 300
The Two Prophets cs es 30D
CHAPTER X. The Old Serpent again : es oUD
The Queen of Sheba i. 205, 209 | The Voice of Reproof oe e- 306
The Queen of the South .. .. 208 | The Visitation of Judgment pe SUE
The Decline and Fall of Solomon .. 216 | The Law of Extremity 2 -- 308
Lead us not into Temptation, &. .. 309
CHAPTER XI. The Disobedient Prophet .. os BLO
The Sin of Solomon i as aac tae Pempier ee “. ao
The Fall of a King ve .. 29g | Judgment and its Result ., ee 312
The Anger of God a eet ey
Solomon’s Sin < bie eR eeS CHAPTER XIV.
The Downfall of Solomon .. es 229 | Abijah and Ahijah ie oe LT,
Solomon's Fall ... sh -- »230 | The Impenitent Seeker e. ee oon
The Punishment of Solomon’s Sin .. 238 Spiritual Vision .. a e- 322
Premonitions of Wrath .. --. 441 | Hard Tidings en sre o. 322
Jeroboam . oe e- 242 | The Reprobate’s Doom As eo. 324
The Message of Ahijah .. ee 243 | The Future of Israel oe e- 324
Solomon’s End 4. ee ee 244 | Death and Mourning we es , ovoTHEME

Lhe Review a ae
Early Piety in an Unexpected Place
The Dead Child

Affliction and Judgment ,, by
The Invasion of Shishak ,, aa
The Sin of Judah aa a6
The Entailments of Sih a. ea

Unfaithfulness and its Rebuke

ee
CHAPTER Xy.

The Reign of Asa oe e°
Church and Dissent ea aa
The Succession of Abijam an
Reformation ae ee we
The War Policy of Asa a2 as
‘* Beloved for the father’s sake ” ae
** Zeal without trust” aa ee
Religious Sincerity oe ee

CHAPTER XV. Ver. 25—XYVI.

The Punishment of Jeroboam’s Sin..
The Working of Jeroboam’s Sin
The Seed of Evil-doers as
God’s Threatenings find at last a

Complete Fulfilment oe oe
Unrighteous Zeal °
Jehu’s Prophecy ..
The House of Baasha aa ee
A Divine Judgment and its Instrument
The Kingdom of Men

ee

® eo

20 ao

eo eo

Change without Improvement

Omri’s Reign ds a a
Moral Ruin through Moral Weakness
Ahab’s Wickedness a as
The Temerity of Hiel oe ee

CHAPTER XVII.

The Mission and Ministry of Elijah ..

The Solitary Place a de
The Food of the Saints ae oe
The Furnace of Trial oe ais
Miya... ss es Pic
Resources of Providence .. oe
The Widow of Zidon as oe
The Barrel of Meal os oe
The Reproaches of Death .. a
The Sign of the Widow’s Son a
The Messenger of Jehovah .. a
Strange Provision in a Sad Necessity
The Widow’s Cruse 7 ae

Prayer for the Dead oe o°

HOMILETICAL, INDEX.
a enn
Si ea le

Oo Yo

~] ~j

Oo
o>
H& bo

eo
o>

Qo
o>
Oo

Go

 

Go. Co

©

Qo

ROO:

©

bo

wo
NUNN N THA

2 (C5
“1 C1

ee)

 

 

 

THEME
Elijah the Tishbite
Entertaining a Stranger
Life from the Dead a
Elijah’s Advent and Service
Divine Care wf ee
Affliction and its Fruits...
First Preparation of Kljah
Great Mission .. af
Second Preparation of Klijah

CHAPTER XVIII.

The Governor of Ahab’s House

The King and his Master

Israel’s Conversion ee
Kiffectual Fervent Prayer ..
The Cry for Life ee
The Servant of the Lord . Z
Lhe Troubler Ae oe
Christ or Belial? ., oe
The Test of Fire ., ee
The Failure me oe
The Preparation .. eo
The Triumph aie oe
Lhe Sound of Rain ae
Obadiah .. gt ee
A Solemn Alternative oe
religious Indecision a

Tilijah’s Prayer for Rain ..

The God that angwereth by Fire

The Return of Blessing ..

Elijah and the Prophets of Baal

CHAPTER XIX.

God and the Man of God .,
Elijah’s Prayer for Death ..

Ehjah at Horeb .. ee
The Call of Elisha es

The Desponding Prophet ..
The Causes of Despondency

A Question from God for the Con-

sideration of Man oe
The Still Small Voice ee
The Prophet’s Despair ve
HKlijah at Horeb .. oo
The Prophet’s Call LE

Return of Elijah to the Desert

CHAPTER XX.

The Purgatory of Nations and Kings

The Spirit of War ea

PAGE

410
411
413
414
415
415

--
Jo WT

H Go OF WwW
SG Ge

Pee RP Pe Pe
He Pe oR BIS
> Oe WD WO

cD

He ee He DR ER
oO an

Hy BRA }
Or Or OF Or HR BH Re BE
CO

~
XO F- dN

>
Or Or

HS

465
470
471

2, 475

474
476

478
479
480
480
481
481

492
499564 HOMILETICAL INDEX.

 

 

THEME PAGE THEME PAGE
The Hand of God oe es 500 | Sin’sFriendships,andwhattheyleadto 528
Wisdom in Counsel sie ee 501 | Guilt and Mercy .. oe es 1020
False Mercy le ee ee: 502 | Naboth’s Vineyard ee ee 030
Veiled Mercies .« wp ee 504
Resisted Mercy oe eo ee 504 CHAPTER XXII.
The Neglected Opportunity ws >» b0b
The Death of Ahab and the Defeat of
Es Israel .. ois a se 642
CHAPTER XX1. Bad Company .. ee ee 546
The Martyrdom of Naboth.. ee Dl2'1) The Palseand the Troe. .. ee 048
Divine Retaliation es ee 516 | Micaiah’s Prophecy ee ee 549
Divine Relentings e° ew 518 | The Argument of Wickedness es) Ool
Covetousness ae os ee 520 | Lessons of the Battle ve ee 502
A Sinful Nation .e ee ee O2L | Survival oe ee es 553
Divine Inquisition me ew 522 | Jehoshaphat a a ee 595
Ahab’s Repentance “se eo. 524 | Crime brings its own Punishment .. 556
The Progress of Sin ee ee 525 | The Certainty of God’s Threatenings 557
Partial Penitence .. we e- 526 | Two Life Stories .. ee ee 558
First Steps in the Path of Crime ee 52% 1; The Pierced Armour ae Pleas|
:
)
|
|4 < = .

Seal aes , se : Hi an Gj
PEM paris aoe 20) Fates TESS EP B epee eae
2 = Yay Fee ES Ss,

a ETE LY

*

Pier)

LONE a rietewnd

oe
ot

yettere

al orton Ste
ee

reer

Seve
where peri ek

errr recssurs!D

Peet erer error trys

es
ois

ss hc beprs

Se a

i
a
5

wre
Seer

ee
wie

ish
Pe
Ledeen
Drs

yf

me ptapirnla 4

prt Peder ape ae