Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

Syria. This Rezin had been a commander under Hadadrezer, that king of Zobah whom David overthrew. It seems that he had drawn off the force under his command, and directed it to the pursuit of his own ambitious projects. At first he led with his men that wild life of predatory warfare, of which there are so many examples in the Bible history of ancient times; but he gradually acquired a settled power over a portion of Syria, and ultimately established a kingdom, of which Damascus was the capital; and this, of course, he could not do but at some loss and disadvantage to Solomon, especially by interrupting the communications with Tadmor.

From this person Hadad and his adherents experienced a good reception; obtained assistance in establishing themselves in another and neighbouring portion of Syria. And when Rezin died, Hadad (by what means or on what grounds we know not) obtained possession of his dominions also, thus becoming the virtual founder of that important kingdom of Damascene-Syria in which, in future years, the Hebrew nation often found a persevering and formidable opponent. Hadad was for his kingly qualities so much honoured by his successors, that his name became a very common one among them, if, indeed, it were not made an official one, like that of Pharaoh in Egypt. The histories of Hadad and Rezin, and the parts which they took, severally or conjointly, in the foundation of the kingdom of Damascene-Syria, is involved in much obscurity and doubt, amidst which the account which has been now given seems the best that can be gathered from the circumstances on record.

Whether Solomon ultimately repented of his offences, and was reconciled to God, is a question which is involved in some doubt. If he did repent, it is a matter of surprise that there is not the least intimation of so interesting and important a circumstance, either in the books of Kings and Chronicles, or in Josephus. That also none of the punishments of his crime were averted has been used as an argument against his repentance; but to this we are not disposed to allow much weight, for if the repentance of David for his acts of adultery and murder did not avert the punishments denounced against him, how much less might we expect it to do so in the case of idolatry—which was, in fact, treason against the king Jehovah -a public crime committed by a person whose example, both from his high station and his character for wisdom, was calculated to have the most dangerous effect,-while that station and character rendered it pre-eminently his duty to set the contrary example of fidelity to the Great King. We therefore conclude that, whatever benefit repentance might have brought to his own soul, we are not to suppose that it would have averted the public punishment of a public crime. If a man commits a murder and repents, his repentance creates the hope of future benefit to his own soul: but, in this world, his punishment from the law is the same as if he had not repented.

Nevertheless, it has been charitably concluded that Solomon did repent; and this conclusion is founded on the book of Ecclesiastes, which is supposed to have been written after that repentance. Yet whoever looks at that book dispassionately will see little to support that conclusion. There appears to us nothing in those views of life and of the dispensations of Providence which it contains, which might not have occurred to his sagacious mind before as well as after his offence. All the experience to which he therein refers, we know to have been obtainable by him before his fall; while it is equally true that the book itself contains not the slightest allusion to his offence, or even to idolatry in general, although that "vanity of vanities" is the one to which he must have been the most acutely sensible, had he been in the supposed state of repentance when that book was written. The result is, that this appears to be a question on which we have no evidence on either side, and on which it is therefore best not to form any opinion.

Solomon died in the year 990 B.C., after he had reigned forty years and lived about sixty. With all his glory he was but little lamented by his subjects, for reasons which will now be obvious to the reader. Indeed, a great part of the nation may appear to have regarded his death with a secret satisfaction, on account of the prospect which it offered of a release from the heavy imposts which the king had found it necessary to inflict for the support of his costly

establishments. The more the splendour of Solomon's reign is considered, the more its illusive and insubstantial character will appear, whether we inquire for its effect upon the real welfare of the nation, or even upon the permanent grandeur of the crown. Its utter disproportion to the permanent means and resources of the state is strikingly and sufficiently evinced by the fact that, so far from any of his successors supporting or restoring the magnificence of his court, the quantities of gold which he had lavished upon his various works and utensils gradually disappeared to the last fragment, and served but as a treasure on which succeeding kings drew until it was entirely exhausted.

Of the children of Solomon history has only preserved the name of one son, Rehoboam, his destined successor, and one daughter named Taphath.* Rehoboam was the son of an Ammonitish mother, and being born the year before his father's accession to the throne, was of course upwards of forty years of age when that father died.

The effects of the arbitrary policy and inordinate expense which had prevailed in the court of Solomon during the last years of his reign, began to appear as soon as his death was announced. The rulers of the tribes assembled at the city of Shechem, in the tribe of Ephraim, which tribe, it will be remembered, was always disposed to regard with strong jealousy the superiority of Judah. Here they wished to enter into a new stipulation with the heir to the throne-a precaution which had been neglected under the excitement and extraordinary circumstances which attended the accession of Solomon. If Rehoboam had been wise, the place which had been chosen for this congress, and the presence of Jeroboam,-who had hastened from Egypt when he heard of Solomon's death, and took a prominent part in the present matter,—were circumstances which, among others, might have apprised him that the occasion was one of no ordinary moment, and required the most careful and skilful management. Rehoboam was not equal to this crisis; for when the rulers demanded, as the condition of their submission, that he should abrogate a portion of the burdens which his father had imposed upon them, he failed to discern what might be gained by a ready and cheerful concession, and required three days on which to deliberate on their demand. In this time he decided to reject the counsel of the older and more prudent counsellors, who enforced the necessity of compliance with this demand, and chose rather to adopt the advice of the young and headstrong courtiers-warm advocates of the royal prerogative,-who exhorted him to overawe the remonstrants by his majesty, and to drive them back like yelping dogs to their kennels. Accordingly when the three days had expired, his fatal and foolish answer was, that his little finger should be heavier upon the nation than his father's loins; and that whereas his father had only chastised them with whips, he would chastise them with scorpions. Nothing could more clearly than this answer evince the unfitness of Rehoboam for the crisis which had now occurred, and his utter ignorance of the spirit which was in Israel; while it at the same time indicates the arbitrary notions of the royal prerogative which he found occasion to imbibe during the later years of his father's reign.

On receiving this answer ten of the tribes instantly renounced their allegiance to the house of David, and chose Jeroboam for their king. Two of the tribes, Judah and Benjamin, alone adhered to Rehoboam,-Judah had the good reason that the family of David was of their tribe; and both these tribes were advantaged by the presence of the metropolis on their respective borders, and had necessarily derived peculiar benefits from that profuse expenditure of the late king of which the other tribes had cause to complain.

Thus was the great and powerful empire which David had erected, and which Solomon had ruled, already divided into two very unequal parts. Jeroboam had ten of the tribes, and his dominion extended over the tributary nations eastward, towards the Euphrates; while Rehoboam only retained the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, which are henceforth, from their strict identity of interest, to be regarded as one tribe, under the name of Judah. To this division belonged also the subject territories of Philistia and Edom. But notwithstanding the more than equal figure which this kingdom makes in the further history of the Hebrew

* 1 Kings iv. 11.

nation, it may be well to bear in mind that what is henceforth to be called the kingdom of Judah, ruled by the house of David, formed not above a fourth part of the dominions of Solomon.

[ocr errors]

Rehoboam was not disposed to submit quietly to this proceeding. At first, affecting to suppose that his authority over the ten tribes would still be recognised, he sent, at the usual season, the officer who was over the tribute" to collect the taxes which had been exacted in the last years of his father's reign. But the people rose, and testified their indignation and defiance by stoning this obnoxious personage to death. On this Rehoboam resolved to attempt to reduce the revolted tribes to his obedience by force of arms, and collected a large army for that purpose. But when the prophet Shemaiah announced to him the Lord's command to relinquish this enterprise, he manifested some sense of his true position by disbanding his army. This, it must be allowed, was a signal example of submission, and may intimate that when thus reminded of it he became sensible of the propriety of the requisition. No definite treaty of peace was, however, concluded, and the frontiers of the two kingdoms continued to present an hostile aspect.

SUPPLEMENTARY

() INAUGURATION OF KINGS, p. 503.-We may be spared the necessity for much incidental explanation by introducing the following from Jahn's Archæologia Biblica' :

"By the anointing of the Jewish kings we are to understand the same as their inauguration; inasmuch as anointing was the principal ceremony on such an occasion.*

"We are informed however by the Scriptures that unction, as a sign of investiture with the royal authority, was bestowed only upon the two first kings who ruled the Hebrews, namely Saul and David; and subsequently upon Solomon and Joash, who ascended the throne under such circumstances that there was danger of their right to the succession being forcibly disputed. That the ceremony of anointing should be repeated in every instance of succession to the throne, was probably not considered necessary, as the unction which the first one who held the sceptre in any particular line of princes had received might be supposed to suffice for the succeeding incumbents in the same descent.

In the kingdom of Israel, those who were inducted into the royal office appear to have been inaugurated with additional ceremonies. The private anointings performed by the prophets were only prophetic symbols or intimations that the persons who were thus anointed should eventually govern the kingdom. Without the consent, however, of the rulers of the nation, (of the public legislative assembly,)

[blocks in formation]

NOTES.

they communicated no legal right to the crown; no more than the prophecies of dissentions and civil wars could justify tumult and rebellion.*

"The ceremonies mentioned in the Bible, which were customary at the inauguration of kings, were as follow:·

66

[ocr errors]

I. The king, surrounded with soldiers, was conducted into some public place, (in the later ages into the temple) and was there anointed by the high-priest with the sacred oil. No mention is made in the Scriptures of anointing the kings of Israel, when that kingdom was separated from the kingdom of Judah; which arose from the rulers of the former not having any of the sacred oil in their possession. We see in this ceremony the ground of the epithet anointed, which is applied to kings; and a reason also (the Hebrew kings being virtually vicegerents of Jehovah, and appointed by his authority) why they were denominated the anointed of, that is, by the Lord. ther the king was girded with a sword at the time of his accession to the throne is not certain; although by some it is supposed to be alluded to in the forty-fifth Psalm," and we know the customs of the East make girding with the sword of state a principal if not the sole act of inauguration.

Whe

"II. It appears from 2 Sam. i. 10; Ps. xlv. 6; and Ezek. xxi. 26, that a sceptre was presented to the monarch at his inauguration and that a diadem was placed upon his head.

1 Kings xi. 29-40; xii. 20; 2 Kings viii. 11-14.

1 Kings i. 32-34; 2 Kings xi. 12-20; 2 Chron. xxiii. 1-21; comp. Deut. xvii. 18.

1 Sam. xxiv. 6-10; xxvi. 9, 11, 16, 23; 2 Sam. xxiii. 1; Ps. ii. 2; lxxxix. 38; Habak. iii. 13, etc. 4 A

66

III. The covenant, which defined and fixed the principles on which the government was to be conducted, and likewise the laws of Moses, were presented to him; and he took an oath that he would rule in accordance with the covenant and the Mosaic law.* The principal men in the kingdom, the princes, elders, etc., promised obedience on their part, and as a pledge of their determination to perform what they had promised, they kissed, it appears, either the feet or the knees of the person inaugurated.+

"IV. After the ceremonies were completed, the new monarch was conducted into the city with great pomp, amid the acclamations and applauses of the people, and the cries of “Long live the King" accompanied with music and songs of joy. Sacrifices were offered up, and were intended probably, as a confirmation of the oath which had been taken. In the later ages these sacrifices were converted into feasts. There are allusions in many passages of Scripture to the public entrance into cities which took place at the time of the coronation, and to the rejoicings and acclamations on that occasion.§

"V. Finally, the king takes his seat upon the throne and receives the congratulations of the assembled people.||

"At the accession of Saul to the monarchy, when there was neither diadem, throne nor sceptre, many of these ceremonies were necessarily omitted. Most of them were also omitted in the case of conquest, when the conqueror himself, without consulting the people or the principal men, designated the king for the nation he had subdued, merely gave him another name in token of his new dignity, exacted the oath of fidelity, and signalised the event by a feast."

(2) USE OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF WOOD, p. 524.-The following passage from Sir J. G. Wilkinson's curious and valuable work on the Ancient Egyptians contains information not obtainable from any other source; and although Palestine possessed many native woods which Egypt had not, much of it must be equally applicable to the former country, particularly the statement with reference to the use of rare foreign woods, which were so extensively imported into Palestine in the time of Solomon:⚫ 1 Sam. x. 25; 2 Sam. v. 3; 1 Chron. xi. 3; 2 Kings xi. 12; 2 Chron. xxiii. 1-21.

+ Ps. ii. 12.

1 Kings i. 11. 19, 24, 34, 39, 40; 2 Kings xi. 12, 19; 2 Chron. xxiii. 11; compare Matt. xxi. 1—11; John. xii. 3.

§ Psalm xlvii. 2-9; lxxxiii. 1, 2; xevii. 1; xcix. 1. Kings i. 36, 48; compare 2 Kings ix. 13; xi. 19.

2 Kings xxiii. 34; xxiv. 17; 2 Chron. xxxvi 4.

[ocr errors]

Egypt produced little wood; and, with the exception of the date and doum palms, the sycamore, tamarisk, and acacias, few trees of native growth afforded timber either for building or for ornamental purposes.

"Of the date-palm, the trunk served for beams, either entire or split in half; of the geréet, or branches, were (and are) made wicker baskets, bedsteads, coops, and ceilings of rooms, answering every purpose for which laths, or other thin wood-work might be required. The wood of the doum-palm being much more compact and solid than that of the date-tree, was found to answer as well for rafts and other purposes connected with water as for beams and rafters.

46

For coffins, boxes, tables, doors, and other objects, which required large and thick planks, for idols and wooden statues, the sycamore was principally employed......The tamarisk was preferred for the handles of tools, wooden hoes, and other things requiring a hard and compact wood; and of the acacia were made the planks and masts of boats, the handles of offensive weapons of war, and various articles of furniture. Besides the sont or Acacia (Mimosa) Nilotica, other acacias which grew in Egypt were also adapted to various purposes; and some instances are met with of the wood of the eqleeq. or balanites Egyptiaca, and of different desert trees having been used by the Egyptian carpenters. For ornamental purposes, and sometimes even for coffins, doors, and boxes, foreign woods were employed. Deal and cedar were imported from Syria, and part of the contributions exacted from the conquered tribes of Ethiopia and Asia consisted in ebony, and other rare woods, which were annually brought by the chiefs deputed to present their country's tribute to the Egyptian monarchs.

[ocr errors]

'Boxes, tables, chairs, sofas, and other pieces of furniture, were frequently made of ebony, inlaid with ivory, sycamore, and acacia were veneered with thin layers, or ornamented with carved devices, of rare wood, applied, or let into them; and a fondness for this display suggested to the Egyptians the art of painting common boards, to imitate foreign varieties, so generally adopted at the present day.

"The colours were usually applied on a thin coating of stucco, laid smoothly upon the previously prepared wood, and the various knots and grains painted upon this ground indicated the quality of the wood they intended to courterfeit."*

Ancient Egyptians,' Vol. ii. 177, 178; vol. iii. 167-9.

[merged small][merged small][graphic][subsumed][merged small]

THE period which occupies the remaining chapters of the present book "has been hitherto considered as the Gordian knot of Sacred Chronology; the intricacy of which all the chronologers have complained of, but none have been able to unravel. The difficulty of harmonising the reigns of the kings of Judah and Israel together has principally arisen; 1. from the discordance in some of the correspondences in the years of their respective reigns, with the direct lengths of those reigns; and, 2. from not critically determining the duration of the two interregnums, or vacancies, in the succession of the latter kings, so as to make them correspond with the former throughout."*

Hales, vol. ii. p. 372.

« PoprzedniaDalej »