Studies in Old Testament History

Fifth Study.

The coronation of Saul (B. C. 1095) marks an epoch in the history of Israel. From that point, for five hundred years, the chosen people were under the rule of kings.

I. THE CAUSES LEADING TO THE MONARCHY. The kingdom was not an accidental nor a sudden event. There had been a gradual preparation for it through all the period of the judges.

1. Note the tendency toward settled government. In the time of Gideon the people desired him to become a king (Judg. 8. 22, 23). His son attempted to make himself a king, but failed (Judg. 9). We find judges setting up a semi-royal state, and making marriages for their children outside of their tribe (Judg. 12. 9, 13, 14). Judges associating their sons with themselves (Judg. 10. 4; 1 Sam. 8. 1, 2). All these show a monarchical trend in the time.

2. Another cause was the consolidation of the surrounding nations. In the days of the conquest there were few kings in the lands neighboring Palestine. We read of "lords" and "elders," but no kings, among the Philistines, the Moabites, the Ammonites, and the Phenicians (Judg. 3. 3; 1 Sam. 5. 8; Num. 22. 7). But a wave of revolution swept over all those lands, as about the same time over Greece; and very soon we find that every nation around Israel had its king (1 Sam. 21. 10; 11. 1; 22. 3; 2 Sam. 5. 11). The movement of Israel toward monarchy was in accordance with this spirit.

3. There was a danger of invasion, which impelled the Israelites to seek for a stronger government (1 Sam. 12. 12). They felt themselves weak, while other nations were organized for conquest, and desired a king for leader in war.

4. Then, too, the rule of Samuel led the Israelites to desire a better organization of the government. For twenty years they had enjoyed the benefit of a wise, strong, and steady rule. They felt unwilling to risk the dangers of tribal dissension after the death of Samuel, and therefore they sought for a king.

5. But underlying all was the worldly ambition of the people. They were not willing to remain the people of God, and work out a peculiar destiny. They wished to be like the nations around, to establish a secular state, to conquer an empire for themselves (1 Sam. 8. 5-20). It was this worldly spirit, whose results Samuel saw, which made him unwilling to accede to the wish of the Israelites. But the very things against which he warned them (1 Sam. 8. 11-18) were just what they desired.

II. THE CHARACTER OF THE ISRAELITE KINGDOM. When men change their plans God changes his. He desired Israel to remain a republic, and not to enter into worldly relations and aims. When, however, the Israelites were determined, God gave them a king (1 Sam. 8. 22); but his rule was not to be like that of the nations around Israel. We ascertain the divine ideal of a kingdom for his chosen people:

1. It was a theocratic kingdom. That is, it recognized God as the supreme ruler, and the king as his representative, to rule in accordance with his will, and not by his own right. Only as people and king conformed to this principle could the true aims of the kingdom be accomplished (1 Sam. 12. 13-15). And if the king should deviate from this order, he should lose his throne. Disobedience to the divine will caused the kingdom to pass from the family of Saul to that of David (1 Sam. 13. 13, 14; 15. 26).

2. It was a constitutional kingdom. The rights of the people were carefully guaranteed, and there was a written constitution (1 Sam. 10. 25). Nearly all the Oriental countries have always been governed by absolute monarchs; but Israel was an exception to this rule. The people could demand their rights from Rehoboam (1 Kings 12. 3, 4). Ahab could not take away nor even buy Naboth's vineyard against its owner's will (1 Kings 21. 1-3). No doubt the rights of the people were often violated; but the violation was contrary to the spirit of the monarchy.

3. It was regulated by the prophets. The order of prophets had a regular standing in the Israelite state. The prophet was a check upon the power of the king, as a representative both of God's will and the people's rights. He spoke not only of his own opinions, but by the authority of God. Notice instances of the boldness of prophets in rebuking kings (1 Sam. 15. 16-23; 2 Sam. 12. 1-7; 1 Kings 13. 1-6; 17. 1; 22. 7-17). The order of prophets was like the House of Commons, between the king and the people.

III. THE REIGN OF SAUL. (B. C. 1095-1055.) 1. This may be divided into two parts: 1.) a period of prosperity, during which Saul ruled well, and freed Israel from its oppressors on every side (1 Sam. 14. 47, 48); 2.) then a period of decline, in which Saul's kingdom seems to be falling in pieces, and only preserved by the prowess and ability of David. After David's exile the Philistines again overran Israel, and Saul's reign ended in defeat and death.

2. We observe that Saul's reign was a failure, and left the tribes in worse condition than it found them. 1.) He failed in uniting the tribes; for tribal jealousies continued (1 Sam. 10. 27), and at the close of his reign broke out anew in the establishment of rival thrones (2 Sam. 2. 4, 8, 9). 2.) He failed in making friends. He alienated Samuel, and with him the order of prophets (1 Sam. 15. 35); he alienated David, the ablest young man of his age, and the rising hope of Israel, and drove him into exile (1 Sam. 21. 10); he alienated the entire order of the priests, and caused many of them to be massacred (1 Sam. 22. 18). 3.) He failed to advance religion; left the tabernacle in ruins; left the ark in seclusion; broke up the service; and drove the priests whom he did not murder into exile (1 Sam. 22. 20-23). 4.) He failed to liberate Israel; at his death the yoke of the Philistines was more severe than ever before (1 Sam. 31. 1-7). The most charitable view of Saul was that he was insane during the latter years of his life. The cause of his failure was a desire to reign as an absolute monarch, and an unwillingness to submit to the constitution of the realm.

IV. THE REIGN OF DAVID. (B. C. 1055-1015.) This was a brilliant period; for it was led by a great man, in nearly every respect the greatest after Moses in Israelite history.

1. Notice the condition of Israel at his accession. This will throw into relief the greatness of his character and his achievements.

1.) It was a subject people; under Philistine yoke; its warriors slain; many of its cities deserted; David himself probably at first tributary to the King of Gath.

2.) It was a disorganized people. The tribes were divided; national unity was lost; and two thrones were set up, one at Hebron, the other at Mahanaim (2 Sam. 2. 4-9).

3.) It was a people without religion. The tabernacle was gone; the ark was in neglect; there was no altar and no sacrifice; the priests had been slain.

We can scarcely imagine Israel at a lower ebb than when David was called to the throne.

2. We ascertain David's achievements; the results of his reign. 1.) He united the tribes. At first crowned king by Judah only, later he was made king over all the tribes, by the desire of all (2 Sam. 5. 1-5). During his reign we find but little trace of the old feud between Ephraim and Judah, though it was not dead, and destined yet to rend the kingdom asunder.

2.) He subjugated the land. The conquest of Palestine, left incomplete by Joshua, and delayed for three hundred years, was finished at last by David in the capture of Jebus or Jerusalem (2 Sam. 5. 6, 7), in the overthrow of the Philistines (2 Sam. 5. 17-25), and in the final capture of their capital city (1 Chron. 18. 1). At last Israel was possessor of its own land.

3.) He organized the government. He established a capital (2 Sam. 5. 9). He built a palace (2 Sam. 5. 11). Notice that the builders were from Tyre, showing that the Israelites were not advanced in the arts. He established a system of government, with officers in the court and throughout the realm (1 Chron. 27. 25-34). Contrast all this with Saul, who ruled from his tent, like a Bedouin sheik.

4.) He established an army. There was a royal body-guard, probably of foreigners, like that of many European kings in modern times (2 Sam. 8. 18; 15. 18). There was a band of heroes, like Arthur's Round Table (2 Sam. 23. 8-39). There was "the host," the available military force, divided into twelve divisions, one on duty each month (1 Chron. 27. 1-15).

5.) He established religion. No sooner was David on the throne than he brought the ark out of its hiding-place, and gave it a new home in his capital (1 Chron. 16. 1). The priesthood was organized, and divided into courses for the service of the tabernacle (1 Chron. 23. 27-32; 24. 1-19). He wrote many psalms, and caused others to be written, for the worship of God. Two prophets stood by his throne (1 Chron. 29. 29), and two high-priests stood by the altar (1 Chron. 24. 3). This organization and uplifting of the public worship had a great effect upon the kingdom.

6.) He conquered all the surrounding nations. These wars were largely forced upon David by the jealousy of the neighboring kingdoms. In turn his armies conquered and annexed to his dominions the land of the Philistines (1 Chron. 18. 1), Moab (2 Sam. 8. 2), Syria, even to the great river Euphrates (2 Sam. 8. 3-6); Edom (2 Sam. 8. 14), Ammon, and the country east of Palestine (2 Sam. 10. 1-14; 12. 26-31). The empire of David thus extended from the frontier of Egypt to the Euphrates River, fulfilling the promise of Josh 1. 4. It was at least six times the area of the twelve tribes.

7.) We may add that he reigned as a theocratic king. He realized more than any other monarch the divine ideal of a ruler, and so was "the man after God's own heart" (1 Sam. 13. 14); if not altogether in personal character, yet in the principles of his government. He respected the rights of his subjects, had a sympathy for all people, obeyed the voice of the prophets, and sought the interests of God's cause.[G]

Sixth Study.

The reign of Solomon (B. C. 1015-975) may be regarded as the culminating period in the history of Israel. But, strictly speaking, the latter part of David's reign and only the former part of Solomon's constitute "the golden age of Israel;" for Solomon's later years manifested a decline, which after his death rapidly grew to a fall.

I. THE REIGN OF SOLOMON.

1. His claim to the throne. He was one of the youngest of David's sons, the second child of Bath-sheba, born during the culmination of David's reign (1 Chron. 22. 7-9). He obtained the throne by the decree of David, by the choice of God, as the one among David's children best fitted to reign (1 Chron. 28. 5, 6). The principle of primogeniture, or the special right of the eldest son, was not fixed in those times.

2. His accession was marked by the execution of three men, Adonijah (1 Kings 2. 24, 25), Joab (1 Kings 2. 28-34), and Shimei (1 Kings 2. 36-46). Two of these had conspired against him, and the third was the last survivor of the house of Saul, and a possible rival for the throne. Their death was dictated by policy, and probably by justice. His throne would not be secure while these men lived.

3. His empire embraced all the lands from the Red Sea to the Euphrates, and from the Mediterranean to the Syrian desert, except Phenicia, which was isolated by the Lebanon Mountains. 1.) Besides Palestine he ruled over Edom, Moab, Ammon, Syria (here referring to the district having Damascus as its capital), Zobah, and Hamath. 2.) On the Gulf of Akaba, Ezion-geber was his southern port (1 Kings 9. 26); on the Mediterranean, Gaza (Azzah) was his limit; in the extreme north, Tiphsah, by the Euphrates (1 Kings 4. 24); in the desert, Tadmor, afterward Palmyra (1 Kings 9. 18).

4. His foreign relations were extensive, for the first and only time in the history of Israel. 1.) His earliest treaty was with Tyre (Phenicia), whose king had been his father's friend (1 Kings 5. 1). What this alliance brought to Solomon (1 Kings 5. 6-10; 2 Chron. 2. 3-14). 2.) His relations with Egypt; in commerce (1 Kings 10. 28, 29); in marriage, a bold departure from Israelite customs (1 Kings 3. 1). Probably Psalm 45 was written upon this event. 3.) With Arabia, the land bordering on the southern end of the Red Sea (1 Kings 10. 1-10, 14, 15). 4.) With India, which is probably referred to in 1 Kings 9. 26-28. 5.) With Spain, probably meant in 1 Kings 10. 22.

5. His buildings. 1.) Of these the greatest, the most costly, and the most famous was the temple (1 Kings 6. 1). With this building notice: (a) The courts and open square, with an inner court inside for the priests only (2 Chron 4. 9). (b) The porch (2 Chron 3. 4). (c) The holy place (2 Chron. 3. 8; 1 Kings 6. 17). (d) The holy of holies (1 Kings 6. 19, 20). (e) The chambers for the priests (1 Kings 6. 5, 6). 2.) His own palace, situated south of the temple precincts, in the district called Ophel. Its name derived from its columned entrance (1 Kings 7. 1, 2). 3.) His fortified cities (1 Kings 9. 17-19). 4.) His aqueducts, some of which may still be seen (Eccl. 2. 4-6). No King of Israel ever built so many public works as did Solomon.

6. But all was not bright in the reign of Solomon. We must notice also his sins, for they wrought great results of evil in the after years. 1.) That which led to all his other sins was foreign marriages (1 Kings 11. 1-4). These were the natural and inevitable result of his foreign relations, and were probably effected for political reasons as well as to add to the splendor of his court. 2.) His toleration of idolatry, perhaps actual participation in it (1 Kings 11. 5-8). We cannot over-estimate the harm of Solomon's influence in this direction. At once it allied him with the lower and evil elements in the nation, and lost to him the sympathy of all the earnest souls.[H] 3.) Another of Solomon's sins, not named in Scripture, but referred to in many legends of the East, was his devotion to magical arts. He appears in Oriental traditions as the great master of forces in the invisible world, engaging in practices forbidden by the law of Moses (Lev. 19. 31; Deut. 18. 10, 11).

II. GENERAL ASPECTS OF ISRAEL IN THE REIGN OF SOLOMON.

1. It was a period of peace. For sixty years there were no wars. This gave opportunity for development, for wealth, and for culture.

2. It was a period of strong government. The age of individual and tribal energy was ended, and now all the life of the nation was gathered around the throne. All the tribes were held under one strong hand; tribal lines were ignored in the government of the empire (1 Kings 4. 7-19); every department was organized.

3. It was a period of wide empire. It was Israel's opportunity for power in the East; for the old Chaldean empire had broken up, the new Assyrian empire had not arisen, and Egypt was passing through a change of rulers and was weak. For one generation Israel held the supremacy in the Oriental world.

4. It was a period of abundant wealth. (1 Kings 3. 12, 13; 4. 20; 10. 23, 27.) The sources of this wealth were: 1.) The conquests of David, who had plundered many nations and left his accumulated riches to Solomon (1 Chron. 22. 14-16). 2.) The tribute of the subject kingdoms, doubtless heavy (1 Kings 10. 25). 3.) Commerce with foreign countries, Egypt, Arabia, Tarshish, and Ophir, in ancient times was not carried on by private enterprise, but by the government. The trade of the East from Egypt and Tyre passed through Solomon's dominions, enriching the land. 4.) There were also taxes laid upon the people (1 Kings 4. 7; 12. 4). 5.) The erection of public buildings must have enriched many private citizens and made money plenty.

5. It was a period of literary activity. The books written during this epoch were Samuel, Psalms (in part), Proverbs (in part), and perhaps Ecclesiastes and Solomon's Song. Not all the writings of Solomon have been preserved (1 Kings 4. 32, 33).

III. DANGERS OF THE PERIOD. There was an Arabian tradition that in Solomon's staff, on which he leaned, there was a worm secretly gnawing it asunder. So there were elements of destruction under all the splendor of Solomon's throne.

1. The absolute power of the king. David had maintained the theocratic constitution of the state; Solomon set it aside and ruled with absolute power in all departments. He assumed priestly functions (1 Kings 8. 22, 54, 64); he abolished tribal boundaries in his administration (1 Kings 4. 7-19); he ignored both priests and prophets, and concentrated all rule in his own person.

2. The formal character of the worship. There was a magnificent temple and a gorgeous ritual, but none of the warmth and personal devotion which characterized the worship of David. The fervor of the Davidic psalms is wanting in the literature of Solomon's age.

3. Luxury and corruption of morals. These are the inevitable results of abundant riches and worldly association. We do not need the warnings in Prov. 2. 16-19; 5. 3-6, etc., to know that a flood of immorality swept over Jerusalem and Israel.

4. The burden of taxation. With a splendid court, an immense harem, and a wealthy nobility came high prices and high taxes; the rich growing richer rapidly, the poor becoming poorer. The events of the next reign show how heavy and unendurable these burdens grew.

5. Heathen customs. With the foreign peoples came the toleration of idolatry, its encouragement, and all the abominations connected with it. Jeroboam could not have established his new religion (1 Kings 12. 28) if Solomon had not already patronized idol-worship.

6. Underlying all was the old tribal jealousy of Ephraim and Judah, fostered by an able leader (1 Kings 11. 26), ready to break out in due time, and to destroy the empire.

After all, it is uncertain whether the reign of Solomon was a golden or only a gilded age.

Seventh Study.

The splendors of Solomon's reign passed away even more suddenly than they arose. In less than a year after his death his empire was broken up, and two quarreling principalities were all that was left of Israel.

I. Let us ascertain the CAUSES OF THE DIVISION OF ISRAEL. These were:

1. The oppressive government of Solomon. (1 Kings 12. 3, 4.) How far the complaints of the people were just, and to what degree they were the pretexts of an ambitious demagogue, we have no means of knowing. But it is evident that the government of Solomon, with its court, its palaces, its buildings, and its splendor, must have borne heavily upon the people. Probably, also, the luxury of living among the upper classes, so suddenly introduced, led to financial crises and stringency of money, for which the government was held responsible by the discontented people.

2. The opposition of the prophets. (1 Kings 11. 11-13, 29-33.) It is a suggestive fact that the prophets were opposed to Solomon and friendly to Jeroboam. Their reason was a strong resentment to the foreign alliances, foreign customs, and especially to the foreign idolatries which Solomon introduced.

3. Foreign intrigues, especially in Egypt. The old kingdoms were not friendly to this Israelite empire, which loomed up so suddenly, and threatened to conquer all the East. Solomon's attempt to win the favor of Egypt by a royal marriage (1 Kings 3. 1) was a failure, for two enemies of Solomon, driven out of his dominions, found refuge in Egypt, were admitted to the court, married relatives of the king, and stirred up conspiracies against Solomon's throne (1 Kings 11. 14-22, 40). Another center of conspiracy was Damascus, where Rezon kept up a semi-independent relation to Solomon's empire (1 Kings 11. 23-25).

4. Tribal jealousy; the old sore broken out again. Notice that Jeroboam belonged to the haughty tribe of Ephraim (1 Kings 11. 26), always envious of Judah, and restless under the throne of David. The kingdom of the ten tribes was established mainly through the influence of this tribe.

5. The ambition of Jeroboam was another force in the disruption. It was unfortunate for Solomon's kingdom that the ablest young man of that time in Israel, a wily political leader and an unscrupulous partisan, belonged to the tribe of Ephraim, and from his environment was an enemy of the then existing government. The fact that he was sent for from Egypt to the assembly at Shechem showed collusion and preparation of the scheme (1 Kings 12. 2, 3).

6. But even all these causes might have been insufficient but for the folly of Rehoboam (1 Kings 12. 13, 14). If David had been on the throne that day an empire might have been saved. But Rehoboam, brought up in the purple, was without sympathy with the people, tried to act the part of a tyrant, and lost his ancestral realm (1 Kings 12. 16).

II. THE RESULTS OF THE DIVISION. These were partly political, partly religious, and were neither of unmixed good nor unmixed evil.

1. The political results were: 1.) The entire disruption of Solomon's empire. Five kingdoms took the place of one; Syria on the north, Israel in the center, Judah west of the Dead Sea, Moab east of the Dead Sea, and Edom on the extreme south. Moab was nominally subject to Israel, and Edom to Judah; but only strong kings, like Ahab in Israel and Jehoshaphat in Judah, could exact the tribute (2 Kings 3. 4; 1 Kings 22. 47). 2.) With the loss of empire came rivalry, and consequent weakness. For fifty years Israel and Judah were at war, and spent their strength in civil strife, while Syria was growing powerful, and afar in the north-east Assyria was threatening. 3.) As a natural result came at last foreign domination. Both Israel and Judah fell under the power of other nations, and were swept into captivity as the final result of the disruption wrought by Jeroboam.

2. The religious results of the division were more favorable. They were: 1.) Preservation of the true religion. A great empire would inevitably have been the spiritual ruin of Israel, for it must have been worldly, secular, and, in the end, idolatrous. The disruption broke off relation with the world, put an end to schemes of secular empire, and placed Israel and Judah once more alone among their mountains. In this sense the event was from the Lord, who had higher and more enduring purposes than an earthly empire (1 Kings 12. 15-24). 2.) Protection of the true religion. Israel on the north stood as a "buffer," warding off the world from Judah on the south. It was neither wholly idolatrous nor wholly religious, but was a debatable land for centuries. It fell at last, but it saved Judah; and in Judah was the unconscious hope of the world. 3.) Concentration of the true religion. The departure of Israel from the true faith led to the gathering of the priests, Levites and worshiping element of the people in Judah (2 Chron. 11. 13-16). Thus the Jewish kingdom was far more devoted to Jehovah than it might otherwise have been.

III. THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL. From the division the name Israel was applied to the northern kingdom and Judah to the southern. We notice the general aspects of Israel during its history, from B. C. 975 to 721.

1. Its extent. It embraced all the territory of the twelve tribes except Judah and a part of Benjamin (1 Kings 12. 19-21), held a nominal supremacy over Moab east of the Dead Sea, and embraced about 9,375 square miles, while Judah included only 3,435. Israel was about equal in area to Massachusetts and Rhode Island together.

2. Its capital was at first Shechem, in the center of the land (1 Kings 12. 25); then, during several reigns, at Tirzah (1 Kings 15. 33; 16. 23); then at Samaria (1 Kings 16. 24), where it remained until the end of the kingdom. That city after a time gave its name to the kingdom (1 Kings 21. 1), and after the fall of the kingdom to the province in the center of Palestine (John 4. 3, 4).

3. Its religion. 1.) Very soon after the institution of the new kingdom Jeroboam established a national religion, the worship of the calves (1 Kings 12. 26-33). This was not a new form of worship, but had been maintained in Israel ever since the Exodus (Exod. 32. 1-4). In character it was a modified idolatry, half-way between the pure religion and the abominations of the heathen. 2.) Ahab and his house introduced the Phenician worship of Baal, an idolatry of the most abominable and immoral sort (1 Kings 16. 30-33), but it never gained control in Israel, and was doubtless one cause of the revolution which placed another family on the throne. 3.) Through the history of Israel there remained a remnant of worshipers of Jehovah, who were watched over by a noble array of prophets, and though often persecuted remained faithful (1 Kings 19. 14, 18).

4. Its rulers. During two hundred and fifty years Israel was governed by nineteen kings, with intervals of anarchy. Five houses in turn held sway, each established by a usurper, generally a soldier, and each dynasty ending in a murder.

1.) The House of Jeroboam (B. C. 974 to 953), with two kings, followed by a general massacre of Jeroboam's family (1 Kings 15. 29, 30).

2.) The House of Baasha (B. C. 953-929), two kings, followed by a civil war (1 Kings 16. 16-22).

3.) The House of Omri (B. C. 929-884), four kings, of whom Omri and Ahab were the most powerful. This was the age of the prophet Elijah and the great struggle between the worship of Jehovah and of Baal (1 Kings 18. 4-21).

4.) The House of Jehu (B. C. 884-772), five kings, under whom were great changes of fortune. The reign of Jehoahaz saw Israel reduced to a mere province of Syria (2 Kings 13. 1-9). His son Joash threw off the Syrian yoke, and his son, Jeroboam II., raised Israel almost to its condition of empire in the days of Solomon (2 Kings 14. 23-29). His reign is called "the Indian summer of Israel."

5.) The House of Menahem (B. C. 772-759), two reigns. Israel had by this time fallen under the power of Assyria, now dominant over the East, and its history is the story of kings rising and falling in rapid succession, with long intervals of anarchy. From the fall of this dynasty there was only the semblance of a state until the final destruction of Samaria, B. C. 721.

5. Its foreign relations. During the period of the Israelite kingdom we see lands struggling for the dominion of the East. The history of Israel is interwoven with that of Syria and Assyria, which may now be read from the monuments.

1.) There was a Period of Division (B. C. 975-929). During the reign of the houses of Jeroboam and Baasha there were constant wars between Israel, Syria, and Judah; and as a result all were kept weak, and "a balance of power" was maintained.

2.) Then followed a Period of Alliance (B. C. 929-884)—that is, between Israel and Judah, during the sway of the House of Omri. The two lands were in friendly relations, and the two thrones were connected by marriages. As a result both Israel and Judah were strong, Moab and Edom were kept under control, and Syria was held in check.

3.) Next came the Period of Syrian Ascendency (B. C. 884-840). During the first two reigns of the House of Jehu Syria rose to great power tinder Hazael, and overran both Israel and Judah. At one time Israel was in danger of utter destruction, but was preserved. Near the close of these periods the dying prophecy of Elisha was uttered (2 Kings 13. 14-25).

4.) The Period of Israelite Ascendency (B. C. 840-772). Israel under Jeroboam II. took its turn of power, and for a brief period was again dominant to the Euphrates, as in the days of Solomon.

5.) The Period of Assyrian Ascendency (B. C. 772-721). But its glory soon faded away before that of Assyria, which was now rapidly becoming the empire of the East. Its rise meant the fall of Israel; and under the unfortunate Hoshea Samaria was taken, what was left of the ten tribes were carried captive, and the kingdom of Israel was extinguished (2 Kings 17. 1-6).

IV. THE FATE OF THE TEN TRIBES. There has been much idle discussion over this subject and some absurd claims set up; for example, that the Anglo-Saxon race are descended from the ten lost tribes—a statement opposed to all history, to ethnology, and to every evidence of language.

1. After their deposition nearly all the Israelites, having lost their national religion and having no bond of union, mingled with the Gentiles around them and lost their identity, just as hundreds of other races have done. The only bond which will keep a nation long alive is that of religion.

2. Some remained in Palestine, others returned thither and formed the nucleus of the Samaritan people, a race of mingled origin (2 Kings 17. 24-29).

3. Some of those who remained in the East retained their religion, or were revived in it, and later became a part of the Jews of the dispersion; though "the dispersion" was mainly Jewish, and not Israelite.

4. A few families united with the Jews returned with them to Palestine after the exile, yet retained their tribal relationship; for example, Anna (Luke 2. 36).

Eighth Study.

I. GENERAL ASPECTS OF THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH.

1. Its territory. It embraced the mountain portion of the tribe of Judah, from the Dead Sea to the Philistine plain; a part of Benjamin, in which tribe the larger part of Jerusalem stood; and also a part of Dan (2 Chron. 11. 10). Simeon was nominally within its border, but was practically given up to the Arabians of the desert; Edom was tributary, though often in rebellion, and finally independent (1 Kings 22. 47; 2 Kings 8. 20); Philistia was outside of its boundary. Its extent was about 3,435 square miles, about half the area of Massachusetts.

2. Its government was a monarchy, with but one family on the throne, the line of David, in direct succession, with the exception of Athaliah's usurpation (2 Kings 11. 1-3), through nineteen reigns.

3. Its religion. Through all the history we find two forms of worship strongly opposed to each other, yet both rooted in the nation. 1.) The worship of Jehovah through the temple, the priesthood, and the prophets. 2.) But side by side with this pure religion was the worship of idols upon "high places," probably begun as a form of worshiping Jehovah, but degenerating into gross and immoral idolatry. There was a struggle going on constantly between these two elements in the state, the spiritual and the material. Notwithstanding the efforts of reforming kings like Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah, the general tendency was downward.

II. THE DURATION OF THE KINGDOM. The kingdom lasted from B. C. 975 to 587—more than one hundred and thirty years longer than Israel. Reasons for its endurance may have been:

1. Its retired situation: hemmed in by mountains and deserts; at a distance from the ordinary lines of travel; not in the direct path of conquest from any other nation. Judah had few foreign wars as compared with Israel.

2. The unity of its people. They were not ten tribes loosely connected, but one tribe, with a passionate love of their nation and a pride in their blood.

3. Its concentration at Jerusalem. Through all its history there was but one capital, where the palace of the king and the temple of the Lord were standing together.

4. The reverence for the House of David also kept the people together. There was no change in dynasty, and the loyalty of the people grew stronger through the generations toward the family on the throne. There being no usurpers, the throne was permanent until destroyed by foreign power.

5. The purity of its religion tended to keep the nation united, and to keep it in existence. No bond of self-interest or of blood will hold a people together as strongly as the tie of religion. Judah's strength was in the measure of her service of God, and when she renounced Jehovah her doom came speedily.

III. PERIODS IN THE HISTORY. Though Judah was not without political contact with other nations, yet its history is the record of internal events rather than external relations. We may divide its history into four epochs:

1. The first decline and revival. (B. C. 975-889.) 1.) The reigns of Rehoboam and Abijah marked a decline indicated by the Egyptian invasion and the growth of idolatry. 2.) The reign of Asa and Jehoshaphat showed a revival in reformation, progress, and power. Under Jehoshaphat Judah was at the height of prosperity. This was the time of peace with Israel, and of strength at home and abroad (2 Chron. 17. 5; 20. 30).

2. The second decline and revival. (B. C. 889-682.) 1.) For nearly two hundred years after the death of Jehoshaphat the course of Judah was downward. Edom was lost under Jehoram (2 Chron. 21. 8); the Baalite idolatry was introduced by the usurping queen, Athaliah (2 Kings 11. 18); the land was again and again invaded under Joash and Amaziah, and Jerusalem itself was taken and plundered. 2.) But a great reformation was wrought under Hezekiah, who was the best and wisest of the kings of Judah, and the kingdom again rose to power, even daring to throw off the Assyrian yoke and defy the anger of the mightiest king then on the earth. At this time came the great event of the destruction of the Assyrian host (2 Kings 19. 30).

3. The third decline and revival. (B. C. 682-610.) 1.) The reforms of Hezekiah were short lived, for his son Manasseh was both the longest in reigning and the wickedest of the kings, and his late repentance did not stay the tide of corruption which he had let loose (2 Kings 21. 10-17; 2 Chron. 33. 1-18). The wickedness of Manasseh's reign was the great moral cause of the kingdom's destruction, for from it no reform afterward could lift the mass of the people. 2.) Josiah, the young reformer, attempted the task, but his efforts, though earnest, were only measurably successful, and after his untimely death the kingdom hastened to its fall (2 Kings 23. 29).

4. The final decline and fall. (B. C. 610-587.) 1.) The political cause of the destruction of the kingdom was the rise of Babylon. The old Assyrian empire went down about 625 B. C., and a struggle followed between Babylon and Egypt for the supremacy. Judah took the side of Egypt, which proved to be the losing side. 2.) After several chastisements and repeated rebellions Jerusalem was finally destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, and the kingdom of Judah was extinguished, B. C. 587.