Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

Solomon's Adversaries and Death.

B.-CHAPTER XI. 14-43.

14 And the Lord [Jehovah] stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad' the 15 Edomite: he was of the king's seed in Edom. For it came to pass, when David was in [with, . e. at war with] Edom, and Joab the captain of the host was gone up 16 to bury the slain, after he had smitten every male in Edom; (for six months did Joab remain there with all Israel [i. e., the host until he had cut off every male in 17 Edom) that Hadad fled, he and certain Edomites of his father's servants 18 with him, to go into Egypt: Hadad being yet a little child. And they arose out of Midian, and came to Paran: and they took men with them out of Paran, and they came to Egypt, unto Pharaoh king of Egypt; which gave him a house, and 19 appointed him victuals, and gave him land. And Hadad found great favor in the sight of Pharaoh, so that he gave him to wife the sister of his own wife, the 20 sister of Tahpenes the queen. And the sister of Tahpenes bare him Genubath his son, whom Tahpenes weaned in Pharaoh's house: and Genubath was in Pha21 raoh's household among the sons of Pharaoh. And when Hadad heard in Egypt that David slept with his fathers, and that Joab the captain of the host was dead, Hadad said to Pharaoh, Let me depart, that I may go to mine own country. 22 Then Pharaoh said unto him, But what hast thou lacked with me, that, behold, thou seekest to go to thine own country? And he answered, Nothing: howbeit, let me go in any wise.

23 And God stirred him up another adversary, Rezon the son of Eliadah, which 24 fled from his lord Hadadezer king of Zobah: and he gathered men unto him, and became captain over a band, when David slew them of Zobah: and they went to 25 Damascus, and dwelt therein, and reigned in Damascus. And he was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon, beside the mischief that Hadad did: and he abhorred Israel, and reigned over Syria.

6

26 And Jeroboam the son of Nebat, an Ephrathite of Zereda, Solomon's servant, whose mother's name was Zeruah, a widow woman, even he lifted up his hand 27 against the king. And this was the cause that he lifted up his hand against the king: Solomon built Millo, and repaired the breaches of the city of David his 28 father. And the man Jeroboam was a mighty man of valor: and Solomon seeing the young man that he was industrious, he made him ruler over all the charge 29 of the house of Joseph. And it came to pass at that time when Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, that the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found him in the way; and he had clad himself with a new garment; and they two were alone in the 30 field and Ahijah caught the new garment that was on him, and rent it in 31 twelve pieces: and he said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten pieces: for thus saith the Lord [Jehovah], the God of Israel, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the 32 hand of Solomon, and will give ten tribes to thee: (but he shall have one tribe for my servant David's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake, the city which I have 33 chosen out of all the tribes of Israel:) because that they have forsaken me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians,' Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom 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 34 and my judgments, as did David his father. Howbeit, I will not take the whole kingdom 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 command35 ments and my statutes: but I will take the kingdom out of his son's hand, and 36 will give it unto thee, even ten tribes. And unto his son will I give one tribe, that David my servant may have a light alway before me in Jerusalem, the city 37 which I have chosen me to put my name there. And I will take thee, and thou shalt reign according to all that thy soul desireth, and shalt be king over Israel. 38 And it shall be, if thou wilt hearken unto all that I command thee, and wilt

8

walk in my ways, and do that is right in my sight, to keep my statutes and my commandments, as David my servant did; that I will be with thee, and build 39 thee a sure house, as I built for David,' and will give Israel unto thee. And I 40 will for this afflict the seed of David, but not forever. Solomon sought therefore" to kill Jeroboam. And Jeroboam arose, and fled into Egypt, unto Shishak king of Egypt, and was in Egypt until the death of Solomon.

41

And the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are 42 they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon? And the time that Solo43 mon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was forty years. And Solomon slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David his father: and Rehoboam his son reigned in his stead.

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

1 Ver. 14.—[This name is variously written in the printed Heb. text 77 and 77; in some MSS. and in the Sy.. it is uniformly written. The Sept. has 'Adep, and the Vulg. Hadad. The Chald, follows the variations of the Hebrew. After the mention of his name the Vat. Sept. subjoins a summary of vers. 23-25, omitted in their place.

2 Ver. 15.— Instead of the Sept., Syr., and Arab. read

(when David had slain the Edomites), which

Maurer and Thenius consider right. But according to 1 Chron. xx. 5; Gen. xiv. 9 [add Num. xx. 18], the reading of the text is not to be peremptorily rejected.

Ver. 17.-[The Sept., in curious contradiction to vers. 15, 16, has here "all the Edomites," &c.

4 Ver. 25-[The Vat. Sept. here resumes the course of the Heb. narrative, but gives quite a different sense: "this is the evil which Hadad did : he abhorred Israel and reigned in Edom." On the true rendering of the verse see Exeg. Com. In regard to the last word, three MSS., followed by the Sept., Syr., and Arab., have DN for DN: but, as pointed out in the Exeg. Com., the true reading must necessarily be that of the text. Our author in his translation, in opposition to his own exegesis, follows the Sept.

Ver. 29.-[he Sept. renders or replaces the last clause by "and he took him aside from the way."
Ver. 32.-The Sept. has duo oктра-two tribes. So also ver. 86.

7 Ver. 88.—[Instead of the peculiar form 7 many MSS. read

8 Ver. 33.-[The Sept. has evidently understood in

[ocr errors]

.

the final as a pronominal suffix, and so translate "their king, the stumbling-block of the children of Ammon." Throughout this verse the Sept. puts the verbs in the singular as having Solomon for their nominative.

Ver. 38.-[The Vat. Sept. omits the clause "and will give Israel unto thee."

10 Ver. 40.

[ocr errors]

but Solomon sought. The word "therefore" of the ancient version is not necesand connects the attempt of Solomon quite too distinctly with the communication of Ahijah, which may have been known to him (see Exeg. Com.) or may not. The true connection of ver. 40 is with ver. 26, vers. 27-89 being parenthetical.-F. G.]

sary,

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL.

Ver. 14. And the Lord stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, &c. It is clear and beyond dispute that the whole section, from vers. 14-40, which treats of the different adversaries that God raised up against Solomon, is intimately connected with the immediately preceding account of his fall, and of the impending and threatened division of the kingdom. The latter was not to occur till after Solomon's death; but the presages of it were already appearing. The peace of the kingdom hitherto undisturbed was endangered from that time on, both by internal and by external adversaries. The two external ones, Hadad and Rezon, had, indeed, always been foes to Israel and Solomon, but they had never ventured to show their animosity in open deed, inasmuch as the kingdom had become powerful and respected under Solomon. But Solomon, in permitting the idolatrous worship, gave great disBatisfaction to all the faithful servants of Jehovah, and with his own hands he shook the foundations of the kingdom. Other measures also, more or less connected with the former, caused him to lose, more and more, the esteem and confidence of his subjects; and then the long pent-up hatred of his old foes began to show itself more; their courage grew, and though they did not proceed to formal attack or to open rebellion (of which our narrative says nothing) Solomon had occasion to fear them more

than ever before; the tranquillity and peace of his kingdom was endangered, and the time of prosperity past. Every one will admit that this is what the author meant to convey. But recent criticism reckons him a "later worker-up of Deuteronomy," and accuses him of a shifting of the historical facts. According to Ewald (Gesch. Isr. III. s. 274-281), uproar and rebellion did not first break out towards the end of Solomon's reign, but immediately after the death of David and of his formidable army-chief, Joab, in the beginning of the reign of the young and inexperienced king, both in the south (Edom) and in the north (Syria), as depicted by Solomon himself in the second Psalm With the divine courage and the admoni tion supported by prophetic assurance, which this Psalm expresses, together with wonderful firmness of spirit, Solomon met the storm of rebellion, and deprived his foes of their chief weapon of attack by his alliance with Egypt. Against the northern insurgents he himself marched, and stormed Hamath. Thus were the ragings of the people stilled, and in a brief space he became master of the situation. This view has been reiterated in several books (cf. for instance Eisenlohr, das Volk Isr. II. s. 47 and 57; Duncker, Gesch. des Alt. I. s. 387), and has been accepted as a matter of course; although there are the strongest reasons for rejecting it. (a) Our historical book says repeatedly how, and that the kingdom of Solomon became

here named

[ocr errors]

established (chap. ii. 12 and 46), without making | father-in-law, but his predecessor. His consort is the remotest allusion to rebellion having broken out in the lands David had conquered, and being the Queen-mother's usual put down by Solomon; yet this would especially appellation (chap. xv. 13; 2 Chron. xv. 16); but it have tended to establish his throne and increase does not always necessarily mean that; and con the esteem in which he was held. Even in the sequently we are not obliged to accept Hitzig's chapter we are considering, no mention is made of and Thenius' reading of i, i. e., the elder. actual rebellion, but only of adversaries; therefore to say there were certainly such, is not writing The weaning of a child (ver. 20) usually took place history, but making history. (b) The rebellion of the second or third year (2 Macc. vii. 27), and was whole nations which, like Edom, lived far off, could observed as a family feast (Gen. xxi. 8). Genubath have been put down only by force of arms, and was thus adopted among the royal children, and not by "reproof" or "strength of mind;" but the brought up with them (Winer, R.- W.-B., I. s. 657). history says nothing of Solomon's marching into Hadad's petition (ver. 21) was not so much because Edom. He went indeed to Hamath, but not to he had now no longer any fear for his life, but beconquer it, only to "fortify" it (pin cf. 2 Chron. cause he, as a royal prince, hoped to ascend the xi. 11, 12; xxvi. 9), as the short notice stands in throne, and free his land from the Israelitish yoke; 2 Chron. viii. 3, in the middle of the details of the this was the only reason why he is named an addifferent city-buildings. In fact we do not hear versary. Pharaoh's question, ver. 22, contains the of a single warlike enterprise of Solomon's; he counsel to remain where he was, where he was was, as his name denotes, the king of peace, the well off, rather than undertake a dangerous and man of rest," in distinction from David, the man uncertain enterprise. This advice of his near relaof war (1 Chron. xxii. 9); and his reign was dis- tive was well meant, and did not spring from the tinguished by works of peace (building, commerce, policy of seeking to acquire or keep Solomon's intellectual culture), above that of all other kings. friendship. Hadad, however, remained firm in his (c) The 2d Psalm does not contain a history, and resolve; we are not told of his actual departure, our narrative cannot be completed, much less con- but it is to be understood; so that the Sept. additradicted or corrected by it. It is a mere unproven tion, καὶ ἀνέστρεψεν Αδερ εἰς τὴν γῆν αὐτοῦ, consid hypothesis that this psalm was composed by Solo- ered as original by Thenius, is unnecessary. It mon, and that the rebellion alluded to in it took appears from chap. ix. 26 sq.; x. 11, that Hadad place during his reign, not in the last years of it, was not able to carry out his plans at once, but but in the first. What is here said of Hadad and the fire smouldered under the ashes, and threatRezon certainly occurred at an earlier period, but ened to break out as soon as Solomon began to be is repeated, "because its influence only began to less respected. Ewald continues Hadad's history be felt in the latter part of Solomon's reign, and further. He says the Egyptian king received him should have guarded him from over-security from in so friendly a manner, "evidently intending to the beginning" (Keil). make use of him in the future against the growing power of Israel." Genubath must have "acted an important part in Asia, later, or he would otherwise not have been named at all." When the feeling of the Egyptian court changed towards Israel's kings, "an evasive answer was returned to the Idumæan prince; he would "not be detained, however, but fled secretly to his ancestral mountains, was there acknowledged by many of his people as king, and caused Solomon much perplexity, though he was never completely victorious." Every one who can read may see that there is not a single word of all this in the text, and yet Eisenlohr has blindly followed the writer (l. c., s. 58). Cf. also on chap. xxii. 48.

Vers. 14-22. Hadad, the Edomite. He is called Ahad [the English version does not distinguish] in ver. 17. A Hadad is mentioned among the Edomite kings as early as Gen. xxxvi. 35; who evidently belonged to an earlier period. It is quite uncertain whether our Hadad was the grandson of the last king of Edom, whom 1 Chron. i. 50 wrongly calls Hadad instead of Hadar (Gen. xxxvi. 39) (Ewald, Thenius). Details of his former for tunes are no doubt designed to show how firmly he clung to his native land, and therefore how much more he was to be dreaded. For David's war with the Edomites cf. 2 Sam. viii. 13 sq. "The slain, whom Joab came out to bury, cannot be the Israelites who fell in the battle of the valley of salt, but those killed on the invasion of the country by the Edomites, and who lay yet unburied. After performing this act Joab defeated the Edomites in the valley of salt, and dwelt six months in Edom, till he had extirpated all the males (i. e., all those capable of bearing arms that fell into his hands, and especially those of royal blood ") (Keil). Mi dian, ver. 18, cannot certainly be the town Madian mentioned by Arabian geographers, bu. a district; it is not very well defined, but it must have been between Edom and the desert, south-west of Palestine, Paran (Num. xiii. 3, 27; x. 12); the road from Egypt still leads across the latter, through Aila to Mecca. The people whom the followers of Hadad took from Paran with them, were to lead the way across the desert. The Pharaoh who entertained the fugitives with such friendliness, and aot only supported Hadad himself, but gave land to those with him, could scarcely be Solomon's

[ocr errors]

Vers. 23-25. And God stirred him up. Rezon . . . the son of Eliadah, &c. Ver. 23. 2 Sam. viii. 3 sq. mentions that David smote Hadadezer, king of Zobah, in Syria, whereupon Rezon forsook his master, gathered together an army from the remains of the Syrian host, and proceeded later to Damascus, settled there, and usurped the chief power. This may have occurred in David's time, or in the beginning of Solomon's reign. It is nowhere said that he rebelled on Solomon's accession, and was conquered by him, and there is nothing to show "that he was at least twenty or thirty years older than Solomon " (Ewald). It is not impossible that he survived Solomon, for had he died sooner it could not be, as in ver. 25, that "he was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon." He did not undertake any enterprise against the powerful king, but as he had always entertained hostile feelings to him, he now became a more dangerous and open

enemy, as the power and fame of Solomon were v. 13, who worked alternately. It is not, theredeclining. The words are fore, necessary to suppose that the "house of Joseph," i. e., the Ephraimites (Josh. xvii. 17) were rebellion under Sheba (2 Sam. xx.). But the obliged to work at Millo, as a punishment for their Ephraimites, who had an old and irrepressible jealousy of Judah, submitted very reluctantly tc labor in the king's citadel and the royal city of Judah; their compulsory work increased their dislike to hatred, so that it was easy to fan the flame of insurrection among them.

[ocr errors]

difficult, but can be translated only as many old
translators give them, and among the recent ones,
De Wette, Gesenius, Kefl, Philippson; and "be-
side the mischief that Hadad (did)." is as
in ver. 1 and Ex. i. 14. We are not told what the
mischief that Hadad did really was; the writer
only means that Rezon's enmity was added to that
of Hadad. This view, which suits the context,
relieves the following sentence of all difficulty:
"and he (Rezon) abhorred Israel, and reigned over
Syria." Whilst Hadad agitated the south, Rezon
rebelled from Solomon in the north, and took the
supreme power. The Sept. translates as if it
read instead of and instead of
ΟΝ: Αὕτη ἡκακία ἣν ἐποίησεν 'Αθάρ. καὶ . . .
¿Baoíževoe ¿v yý 'Edúμ, i. e., this is the mischief
which Hadad did; he abhorred Israel and was
king in Edom. Thenius asserts that this was the
original text. But in this case the whole sen-
tence could not be here, where the question is
about the second adversary, Rezon, but should
have followed ver. 22. It is incomparably less
probable that it was there passed over by the
oversight of a copyist (Thenius), and inserted
here, than that the Sept. misunderstood the
, &c., and translated wrongly as it so often
does, and was then obliged to change to DN
because it did not suit Hadad. The Sept. has
arbitrarily mixed the two accounts of the adver-
saries together (it puts vers. 23 and 24 into ver.
14), so that we should be very foolish to follow it
in this case. Ewald translates, "as for the mis-
chief which Hadad did, he was hostile to Israel
and reigned over Edom;" but then the sentence
should be back of ver. 22 and not here. It is not
right to change DN into DIN, because the two
foregoing verses absolutely require that Rezon
should be considered as subject to
PP. Cf.
Keil on the place.

Ver. 29. And it came to pass at that time, i. e., not at the time Jeroboam made the insurrection, but-taken with ver. 28-the time when he entered upon the office of superintendent over all the Ephraimite levy; therefore, before he lifted his hand against the king, and proceeded to acts, but still he was brooding over insurrection. The notion that vers. 29-39 is a section taken from another source and inserted here (Thenius) is, to say the least, unnecessary; it contains an explanatory and needful account, which is closely connected with ver. 28. Jeroboam's banishment from Jerusalem was probably the occasion for preparations of rebellion. The prophet Ahijah was of the same tribe as Jeroboam, for Shiloh was in the tribe of Ephraim, north of Bethel, south of Lebonah (Jud. xxi. 19), and was the seat of the tabernacle from Joshua to Eli (Josh. xviii. 1; 1 Sam. xxi. 3). They no doubt knew each other well. The Sept. adds to the words in the way (for explanation): kai anéσrηoev avròv έk Tÿç óðov.

Vers. 30-39. Ahijah caught the new garment. (for) is "probably similar to the Arabian burnou; a large square piece of cloth, thrown over the shoulders and almost cov ering the whole person in the daytime, and used at night for a coverlet" (Keil). Hess wrongly Jeroboam had on;" and Ewald thinks it was his "new mantle which imagines it to have been a "new and splendid official uniform." It was the prophet's own cloak, as ver. 30 plainly says. The Vers. 26, 27. Jeroboam the son of Nebat. prophet himself explains the meaning of this symHadad and Rezon were dangerous "adversaries" bolic act. Le Clerc says that the repetition of the to Solomon, but Jeroboam, though a subject and word new shows that the prophet did what he did, servant of Solomon, lifted up his hand against the non temere. Thenius thinks the new garment deking, i. e., he actually rebelled. His personal cir- noted the young and powerful kingdom; but both cumstances are given more at length because of these explanations are strained. A new garment his vastly greater importance. Zereda is not Zar- is one that is whole and complete, integer, without than, as Keil thinks (chap. vii. 46); the latter is a rent or hole; the kingdom was hitherto withnot in Ephraim; but Zereda is Zerira in the moun-out split or division, but was now to be torn tains of Ephraim (cf. Thenius on chap. xii. 2). The and divided. y is usually applied to tearing second half of ver. 27 says, like chap. ix. 15: "to build Millo and the walls of Jerusalem;" there is, the garments in sign of mourning (Gen. xxxvii. 29; xliv. 13; 2 Sam. xiii. 21; 2 Kings xviii. 37), therefore, no question here of stopping in the city of David" (Luther), but of the closing, of inward rending. Now when the prophet up of a ravine (Vulgate, vorago) in the city, which tore the cloak into twelve pieces, and gave Jeroboam only ten pieces instead of eleven, we must was done by walls. By is meant the once of course infer that neither Benjamin nor Judah very deep ravine of what was subsequently the alone was meant here, or in ver. 13, by "one Tyropoon, which separated Zion from Moriah and tribe," but both together (cf. chap. xii. 20 and 21; Ophel. This ravine became part of the interior of 2 Chron. xi. 3; xii. 23). Little Benjamin, over the city through these walls, and was made inac- against Judali, came scarcely into consideration; cessible to enemies (Thenius). The words, he and as, besides, the capital of the kingdom (Jerumade him ruler over all the charge of the house of Jo- salem) lay on the borders of both tribes, they seph, are not in contradiction with chap. ix. 22; might very well be reckoned as one. If, as Keil says, the number ten represents the total sum here, in distinction to the one part (all Israel fell away from the house of David, only a single por tion remained to it), the prophet would have torn

66

a gap

for slave-levy is not spoken of here (2-D), but that of the Israelites (D) chap.

which was the case with Solomon. For his age at his accession see on chap. xiv. 21.

HISTORICAL AND ETHICAL.

off only one small piece. For ver. 32 see above on vers. 12, 13; and for ver. 33 see on vers. 5-8. The plural in ver. 33 is remarkable (all translations, except the Chaldee, have the singular, which we expect here); perhaps it only means our vague word "one;" it is plain, however, that Israelites 1. The appearance of the various adversaries of had already abandoned themselves to the licensed Solomon seems to have been a special act of divine heathen worship. In the words in ver. 36, that retributive justice; God is named as the direct David may have a light always before me, "light" agent. He is said not only to have permitted is not a symbol of prosperity (Keil), and 7 cer- them, but to have "stirred them up," called them tainly does not mean breaking forth afresh (Hit- to it. The word 'P means, as here, the stirzig), but it means simply the continuance of his ring up of enemies and rebels, also of deliverers, race, as in chap. xv. 4; 2 Kings viii. 19; 2 Chron. helpers, prophets (Jud. ii. 18; Deut. xviii. 15, 18; xxi. 7. As a house (dwelling) is dark (uninhabit-1 Sam. ii. 35; Ezek. xxxiv. 23; Jer. xxix. 15), able) without a light, so also is a house (family, where there is no allusion to mere permission. race) without posterity; this is why we speak of is not indeed the absolutely Holy One who exthe dying out of a race, at the present day, as its cites hatred, enmity, and revenge in one man toextinction. The same expression, ver. 37: and wards another, for he tempts no man to evil thou shalt reign according to all, &c., is used in 2 (Jam. i. 13); but the Almighty Ruler of the world Sam. iii. 21, about David; it does not mean pro can use the hatred that He sees in the hearts of lubitu tuo imperabis Israelitis (Dathe), but, thou sinful men, to fulfil, without their knowledge or shalt have the dominion thou now strivest for, &c., wish, the purposes of His retributive justice and &c. Ver. 38. Jeroboam's dominion then was con- the chastisements of His love; and in so far, the nected with the condition upon which all dominion stirring up is no passive permission, but the act of

in Israel was based.

It

God. Thus Nathan announces to David, after his Vers. 40-42. Solomon sought therefore to grievous sin, this word of the Lord, "behold I will kill Jeroboam. The immediate connection of raise up evil against thee out of thine own house" these words with Alijah's address can scarcely | (2 Sam. xii. 11), and David himself says of Shimei mean otherwise than this: that Solomon heard of who was cursing him, "so let him curse, because it, and sought to get Jeroboam out of the way by the Lord hath said unto him" (2 Sam. xvi. 10, 11). some means. Jeroboam could but know of this. The Assyrian is, without knowing it, the rod of and he lifted up his hand against the king, i. e., he His anger in the hand of Jehovah (Isai. x. 1, 5), proceeded to actual rebellion (vers. 26, 27). But and Solomon's adversaries also served for instrunot succeeding, he fled to Egypt. The king then ments of divine justice. This expression of stirreigning was not, of course, Solomon's father-in-ring up shows clearly that the appearance of the law, nor Sesostris, as older commentators think, but adversaries did not take place, as recent commenwas probably Seconchis or Sesonchusis, the first tators say, in the beginning of Solomon's reign, for king of the twenty-second dynasty (cf. Winer, R.- up to that time Solomon had given no occasion for W.-B. 8. v. Sishak). The reception he gave Jero- any act of retribution or discipline. Though he did boam shows his feeling towards Solomon. Chap. not lose his throne through them, during his lifexiv. 21 sq. speaks of his open hostility to the king- time; yet it was very humiliating to him, whose power and splendor had been a spectacle to the world, and whose wisdom people of all nations had come to hear (chap. iv. 14; x. 24), to be obliged to fear these men, who were far inferior to him, and whom he had once despised.

dom of Judah.

Ver. 43. Solomon slept with his fathers, at about sixty years of age, as he very early succeeded to the throne (chap. iii. 7). Josephus thinks he was eighty or even ninety-four years old, but this is quite wrong, and was caused, probably, by confusion of the ciphers. All copies and translations give forty. Our author gives, in a general way, the "book of the acts of Solomon," as the original source of his history; but 2 Chron. ix. 29 names, with more exactness, the "book (77) of Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboam." But it does not follow that these three writings are only extracts from one historical one (Bertheau), but it certainly does appear that each one wrote down his own experience. When Solomon fell away, and Ahijah appeared, Nathan must have been dead. Cf. the Introduction, § 2. Rehoboam was not a son of the first and real consort of Solomon, the Egyptian princess (chap. iii. 1; ix. 24; vii. 8), but the son of the Naamah the Ammonitess (chap. xiv. 21, 31). He appears to have been the only living son, as no children, especially sons, of Solomon are named (though he had so many wives), except the two daughters mentioned, chap. iv. 11 and 15; and no brothers disputed the succession of Rehoboam,

rially the destiny of Israel, the third opponent of 2. While Hadad and Rezon did not affect mateSolomon was of vastly greater significance. Jeroboam does not disappear, like them, without leaving a trace in the history of the kingdom. His entrance on the scene was felt profoundly for centuries; the breach and partition of the kingdom take place with and through him; a partition which was no temporary one, but lasted about three hundred years, and ended with the dissolution of the kingdom. In this respect he is one of the most important of the characters in the history of Israel. Witsius, in reference to his whole career says (Decaphylon, p. 307): vir sagax, inquietus et dominandi avidus atque ab ineunte ætate iis eruditus artibus, quibus ingenia ad magnæ fortunæ cultum incitantur. Here where he is first mentioned the question properly arises, how it came to pass that he lifted up his hand against the King. The text certainly says nothing explicit about it, but gives some distinct clues. It says, first of all, he was an Ephraimite, thus being a member of the largest, most powerful, and warlike tribe, that had always vied with Judah for pre-eminence; and that,

« PoprzedniaDalej »