364 



THE POPULAR EDUCATOR. 



should lead to entitle them to the actual sovereignty of the 

 Messiah. 



When a king was first given to Israel, it was clearly understood 

 that he should be under the tutelage of prophets, who should 

 communicate to him the will of the King of kings, in whose name 

 and in whose stoad he wore the crown. This tutelage was exer- 

 cised by the prophets in a way that was not likely to be accept- 

 able to princes, especially to princes who preferred to reign in 

 their own names to the name of the ultimate King of Israel ; and 

 we find early instances of dire conllict between the spiritual and 

 temporal powers confl cts which went to the extent of deposi- 

 tion on the one side, and of sanguinary persecution on the other. 

 For a time, however, Saul was king, in spite of the murmurs 

 of those who objected to the elevation of an equal ; and in 

 his successful wars with the Philistines and the Amalokites 

 justified the choice which had appointed him king. His valour 

 and personal prowess, seconded by the gallant efforts of his 

 sons, especially of Jonathan, won for him a renown which no 

 amount of subsequent misfortune could extinguish. Even in the 

 wrong he did by not obeying the express commands of the 

 prophet who had anointed him king, he was credited with an 

 amount of generosity that went far in the people's sight to 

 excuse him, while as a leader and prince he enlisted their entire 

 sympathies. The disobedience of which Saul was guilty in the 

 matter of Agag was but one of many instances in which, while he 

 showed himself a man of whom an army of Philistines might have 

 been proud, he showed incontestably that ho was not fit for the 

 post of vice-regent for Jehovah. For these acts of unfaithful- 

 ness Saul was deposed, though he was allowed to die the death of 

 a warrior instead of falling into the hands of his enemies, and 

 the kingdom was given to another. Judged by any other than 

 the highest standard, Saul would have been considered guilty of 

 at least venial offences in what he had done, and there was a 

 certain something about him which, in spite of his brutality, 

 made him admired of his subjects a soldierly feeling which has 

 been portrayed in the well-known Hebrew melodies of Lord 

 Byron 



" Warriors and chiefs, should the shaft or the sword 



Pierce me while leading the hosts of the Lord ; 



Heed not the corse, though a king's, in your path ; 



Bury your steel in the bosoms of Gath." 



The kingship which was taken from Saul was conferred upon 

 David, of the tribe of Judah, in spite of an opposition mani- 

 fested by the northern tribes in favour of Ishbosheth, a younger 

 son of Saul. The splendour of David's reign, his success in 

 war, and the faithfulness with which he accomplished his 

 mission to destroy the heathen who hemmed in the chosen 

 people, and set them examples which they were too prone to 

 follow, are matters well known to all who are familiar with the 

 Bible narrative. During the reigns of David and of Solomon, 

 tho feeling of dissension between the northern and southern 

 tribes which had shown itself at Saul's election, and again at 

 his death, did not express itself in any national way. The re- 

 bellions against David were encouraged and fed by it, and the 

 fact of its existence was vouched for in several independent ways, 

 but not nationally. On the death of Solomon, however, this dis- 

 sension took an active form. The expenses of Solomon's govern- 

 ment had pressed sore on the people, who complained that the 

 wealth of the nation was centered in one city, that the general 

 welfare was neglected for the sake of Jerusalem, and that the 

 king cared little what happened to other borders of his kingdom 

 so long as the borders of Judah and Benjamin were respected. 

 This feeling was so far from being wisely dealt with by Eeho- 

 boam, Solomon's son and successor, that he openly declared his 

 intention of governing yet more severely than his father had 

 done, of chastising with scorpions instead of whips, and of 

 holding himself accountable to no one, but to his own will only. 

 In vain did Jeroboam, as representative of the northern tribes, 

 request redress of grievances ; the king refused to believe in tho 

 extent of the disaffection towards him, and dismissed the 

 remonstrants at the same time that he sent out collectors to 

 gather in his taxes. The tax-gatherer in this as in other cases 

 proved to be the solvent for loyalty ; the ten tribes in the north 

 of Palestine revolted from the house of David, asking, " What 

 part have we in Jesse ? ' ' and crying, " To your tents, O Israel." 

 From this moment began not only a disunion, but a hostility, 

 that proved the death-wound of the Israelitish power. A king 

 reigned in Jerusalem over the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, 



and was called the King of Judah, while " the son of Nebat " 

 made Israel to sin in the country north of Judah, and established 

 in his capital of Samaria, and in all the high places, an idola- 

 trous worship of the gods of the surrounding nations. He was 

 called the King of Israel. 



Between the two kingdoms the most bitter rivalry prevailed 

 a rivalry which was perpetuated down to the time of our Lord 

 himself, when it might have been thought that the common 

 subjection to a common enemy the Roman -would have wiped 

 out the enmity anciently existing between them. This enmity 

 showed itself in wars, in secret machinations of each against 

 the other's interest, and in a dissension which ultimately proved 

 the downfall of both the divided kingdoms. Instead of com- 

 bining, as a chosen people should have done, against the assault 

 of foes not only to themselves, but to the God who was their 

 ancient Lord, they strove which should be the greater, and alike 

 disregarded the warning voices which that God sent from time 

 to time to admonish them of the evil of their ways. Israel from 

 the first seemed to think that revolt from the King of Judah 

 involved also revolt from the God of Judah, and accordingly 

 instituted a worship of images and of the god Baal, which form 

 so many denunciations in the prophetical writings. A con- 

 tinuous line of princes who defied as it were the God of their 

 fathers, and a line hardly so continuous, of prophets who testified 

 to the wrath of God against the children of disobedience this 

 is the sight presented to the student of Israelitish history 

 during many decades of years. Intrigue, rebellion, murder 

 these were the concomitants of the royalty of Israel, and the 

 outcome of the religion which the people picked up from the sur- 

 rounding nations. Under Jeroboam Israel was made to sin, 

 and under his successors continued to do so, now more, now 

 less ; now excelling in wickedness as under Ahab and Jezebel, 

 and Jehoram ; now appearing to strive for a while, as under 

 Jehu, to enter in at the strait gate. The faithfulness of 

 Elijah and of Elisha in testifying to the God of Israel was 

 exhibited in vain before them ; in vain were wonderful miracles 

 wrought by Elisha in their sight ; in vain were the national 

 enemies driven back from the land by the direct interpo- 

 sition of the Almighty. Given over to "do evil in the sight 

 of the Lord," king and people no more regarded the law of 

 their God than their forefathers had done when the Divine 

 presence was daily with them. They early forsook the temple 

 of Jerusalem, and so severed the one common link that bound 

 them to Judah. On Mount Gerizim they built a rival temple to 

 that of Solomon, and used it as occasion served for the honour of 

 Jehovah or of Moloch. Occasionally, but rarely, there was peace 

 between Israel and Judah. Alliances were broken as soon as 

 made, by the spirit of jealousy which animated either people, 

 and by the want of real community of interest. Sometimes the 

 two states combined to resist the encroachments of a Syrian 

 king or a Ninevite ruler, and learned in adversity to remember 

 Him who had wrought such wonderful things in their behalf. 

 But secret disagreement, if not open hostility, was the chronic 

 relation between the brother kingdoms ; and when the measure 

 of Israel's sin was full, and Shalmaneser smote Israel with tho 

 sword and took away the people captives beyond the Euphrates, 

 Judah stood aloof, and witnessed the overthrow of his brother 

 with calmness if not with satisfaction. The children of Israel 

 were scattered abroad, Assyrian colonists were thrust into 

 their pleasant places, and tho throne of Samaria was held as 

 tributary to that of Assyria by a lieutenant of the foreign king. 

 In the year B.C. 719 the kingdom of Israel was thus destroyed, 

 and was never reconstructed. 



The kingdom of Judah survived, a small but compact state 

 a sort of Belgium owing its existence, humanly speaking, to 

 the jealousy of the great kings of surrounding nations, who 

 could not annex it without exciting wars which for many reasons 

 they could not afford. At the same time its advantageous geo- 

 graphical position, its good seaboard, and its great natural 

 strength, made it a most desirable place to have and to hold. 

 It was clear that its annexation must come sooner or later, 

 being dependent only upon the balance of power abroad 

 being destroyed by the overthrow of one of the great empires 

 and the domination of another. Judah was to learn, as Israel 

 had learned, that it is not in princes that trust must be placed : 

 Was yet to learn has yet to learn that until she can choose as 

 her king, not Saul, not David, not Solomon, nor another, but 

 Him whose royal authority she renounced these many centuries 



