Israel

ISRAEL

Who prevails with God, a name given to Jacob, after having wrestled with the Angel-Jehovah at Penuel. Gen 32:1,2,28,30 Hos 12:3 . See JACOB. By the name Israel is sometimes understood all the posterity of Israel, the seed of Jacob, 1Co 10:18 ; sometimes all true believers, his spiritual seed, 1Ch 9:6 ; and sometimes the kingdom of Israel, or the ten tribes, as distinct from the kingdom of Judah.

Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary

Israel

Israel was the nation to which Gods promises had been given. Generally the idea of privilege is associated with the use of the word, just as Israel was originally the name of special privilege given by God to Jacob, the great ancestor of the race (Gen 32:28; Gen 35:10). It differs from both Hebrew and Jew, the former standing, at least in NT times, for Jews of purely national sympathies who spoke the Hebrew or Aramaic dialect (Act 6:1); the latter, a term originally applied to all who belonged to the province of Judah, and, after the Babylonian captivity, to all of the ancient race wherever located. Israel, on the other hand, is pre-eminently the people of privilege, the people who had been chosen by God and received His covenant. Thus frequently a Jewish orator addressed the people as men of Israel (Act 2:22; Act 3:12; Act 4:8; Act 4:10; Act 5:35; Act 13:16 etc.).

In the Acts of the Apostles we find the word used historically with reference to the ancestors of the Jews of apostolic times and also applied to these Jews themselves. The past history of Israel as Gods chosen people is referred to in the speeches contained in the Book of Acts, e.g. by St. Stephen (Act 7:23; Act 7:37; Act 7:42), and by St. Paul (Act 13:17; Act 28:20). It is usually assumed or suggested in the Acts that the Jews of the time, to whom the gospel was being preached, are the Israel of the day, the people for whom God had a special favour and who might expect special blessings (Act 5:31; Act 13:23).

But the refusal of the message of the apostles by many of those who by birth were Jews led to a change in the use of the term, which gives us what we may call the metaphorical or spiritual significance of the word. The Apostle Pauls contention with the legalistic Jews of his day led him to draw a distinction between the actual historical Israel and the true Israel of God. He speaks on the one hand of Israel after the flesh (1Co 10:18), or of those who belong to the stock of Israel (Php 3:5), and on the other hand of a commonwealth of Israel (Eph 2:12), from which many, even Jews by birth, are aliens, and into which the Ephesians have been admitted (v. 13), and also of the Israel of God (Gal 6:18). By this commonwealth of Israel or Israel of God the Apostle means a true spiritual Israel, practically equivalent to all the faithful. It might be defined as the whole number of the elect who have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ, or, in other words, the Holy Catholic Church.

This true Israel does not by any means coincide with the nation or the stock of Abraham. They are not all Israel which are of Israel (Rom 9:6), i.e. by racial descent. Branches may be broken off from the olive tree of Gods privileged people and wild olive branches may be grafted into the tree (Rom 11:17-21). Sometimes it is difficult to determine the exact application of the term in different passages in the Pauline Epistles. Thus the sentence, All Israel shall be saved (Rom 11:26), refers not to the true or spiritual Israel in the sense of an elect people, as has been held by various commentators, e.g. Augustine, Theodoret, Luther, Calvin, and others, nor to an elect remnant, as is held by Bengel and Olshansen. The Apostle is speaking of the actual nation of Israel as a whole, and contrasting it with the fullness of the Gentiles. It is his belief that, when the fullness of the Gentiles is come in, Israel as a nation will also turn to God by confessing Christ. The phrase all Israel does not necessarily apply to every member of the race, nor does the passage teach anything as to the fate of the individuals who at the Apostles day or since then have composed the nation (cf. Meyer, Kommentar, p. 520; Denney in Expositors Greek Testament , Rom., p. 683; H. Olshausen, Rom., p. 373; Calvin, Rom., p. 330).

Just as the ancient historical Israel was the recipient of special privileges and stood in a particular relation to God, so the spiritual Israel of apostolic times is the bearer of special privileges and stands to God in a unique relationship. Ancient Israel had the oracles of God (Rom 3:2). They had the sign of circumcision. To them, St. Paul declares, pertained the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came (Rom 9:4-5). The great essential features of these privileges are transferred to the spiritual Israel, the believing Church which has been grafted into the true olive tree. They have the adoption, they are sons of God (Rom 8:15-17). They have the glory both present and future (Rom 8:18). They are partakers of the new covenant which has been ratified by the death of Jesus Christ (1Co 11:25).

The analogy between the first and the second covenant is fully worked out by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, who dwells upon the ritual and ceremonial aspect of ancient Israels relationship to God, and shows the higher fulfilment of that relationship under the new covenant, where there is direct personal access to God. Here the human priesthood of the sons of Aaron and the sacrifices of bulls and goats are superseded by a Divine Mediator who offered Himself a sacrifice once for all (Heb 7:27; Heb 10:10). The Mediator of the new covenant has entered not into an earthly temple but into heaven itself, there to make continual intercession for His people (Heb 7:25). The writer further emphasizes the superiority of the new covenant relationship of the spiritual Israel as being a fulfilment of the prophecy of Jer 31:31-34, which presupposes that the old covenant had proved ineffective (Heb 8:7). The Law is no longer to be written on tables of stone, but in the mind and the heart (Heb 8:10).

In the Book of Revelation ancient Israel is referred to historically in connexion with Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel (Rev 2:14). On the other hand, the symbolic or metaphorical use of the term applied to the spiritual Israel is found in connexion with the sealing of the servants of God which takes place according to the tribes of the children of Israel (Rev 7:4), and also in the description of the New Jerusalem, where the names of the twelve tribes are engraven on the twelve gates (Rev 21:12). The author of the Apocalypse, following the usage of St. Paul and the example of St. Peter (Rev 1:1) and St. James (Jam 1:1), applies the passage Rev 7:1-8, regarding the sealing of the tribes taken from a Jewish source, to the true spiritual Israel, who are to be kept secure in the day of the worlds overthrow. It is the same class which is referred to in Rev 7:9-17 who appear in heaven clothed in white robes and with palms in their hands (cf. J. Moffatt in Expositors Greek Testament , Revelation, 1910, p. 395f.).

For the history and religion of Israel in apostolic times see articles Pharisees, Herod.

Literature.-Josephus, Ant., Bellum Judaicum (Josephus) ; H. Ewald, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, Gttingen, 1864-66; E. Schrer, GJV [Note: JV Geschichte des jdischen Volkes (Schrer).] 4, Leipzig, 1901-11; C. von Weizscker, Apostolic Age, Eng. translation , 1894-95. The following Commentaries on the relevant passages may be cited: on Romans: Calvin (1844), Olshausen (1866), Meyer (1872), Denney (Expositors Greek Testament , 1900), Sanday-Headlam (International Critical Commentary , 1902); on Hebrews: A. B. Davidson (1882), Westcott (1889). See also the articles Israel, History of, in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) , Israel, Israelite in Dict. of Christ and the Gospels , Israel in Encyclopaedia Biblica , and Hebrew Religion in Encyclopaedia Britannica .

W. F. Boyd.

Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church

Israel

(Hebrew: yisrl, he that striveth with God)

The name given to Jacob after wrestling with the Angel (Genesis 32). His descendants called themselves “Sons of Israel” (Be-ne Yis-ra-el), and spoke of their nation as “Israel.” Their neighbors called them “Hebrews” (Ibh-ri), which name they accordingly adopted when speaking about themselves to others not of their nation (Genesis 39; Exodus 1; 1 Kings 4).

Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary

Israel

[not izrcel] (Heb. Yisrael’, ; Sept. and N.T. ), the name of the founder of the Jewish nation, and of the nation itself, specially of the kingdom comprising the ten northern tribes after the schism.

The name was originally conferred by the angel-Jehovah upon Jacob after the memorable prayer-struggle at Peniel (Gen 32:28); and the reason there assigned is that the patriarch as a prince had power () With God and man, and prevailed (comp. Gen 25:10; Hos 12:4). The etymology is therefore clearly from the root , with the frequent adjunct , God. The verb itself occurs nowhere else than in the above passages, where it evidently means to strive or contend as in battle; but derivatives are found, e.g. , a princess, and hence applied to Abraham’s wife in exchange for her former name Sarai. The signification thus appears to be that of a successful wrestler with God, a sense with which all the lexicographers substantially coincide; e.g. Gesenius (Heb. Lex. s.v., and Thesaur. p. 1338), pugmator, i.e. miles Dei; Winer (Heb. Lex. p. 1026), luctator, i.e. pugnator Dei; Furst (Heb, Worterb. s. r.), Gott-Beherrscher.

1. JACOB, whose history will be found under that name. Although, as applied to Jacob personally, Israel is an honorable or poetical appellation, it is the common prose name of his descendants, while, on the contrary, the title Jacob is given to them only in poetry in the latter division of Isaiah (after the 39th chapter), many instances occur of the two names used side by side, to subserve the parallelism of Hebrew poetry, as in Gen 41:8; Gen 41:14; Gen 41:20-21; Gen 42:24; Gen 43:1; Gen 43:22; Gen 43:28, etc.; so, indeed, in Gen 14:1. The modern Jews, at least in the East, are fond of being named Israeli in preference to Yahudi, as more honorable. SEE JACOB.

2. The ISRAELITES, i.e. the whole people of Israel, the twelve tribes; often called the children of Israel (Jos 3:17; Jos 7:25; Jdg 8:27; Jer 3:21); and the house of Israel (Exo 16:31; Exo 40:38); so also in Israel (1Sa 9:9); and land of Israel, i.e. Palestine (1Sa 13:19; 2Ki 6:23). Sometimes the whole people is represented as one person: Israel is my son (Exo 4:22; Num 20:14; Isa 41:8; Isa 42:24; Isa 43:1; Isa 43:15; Isa 44:1; Isa 44:5). Israel is sometimes put emphatically for the true Israelites, the faithful, those distinguished for piety and virtue, and worthy of the name (Psa 73:1; Isa 45:17; Isa 49:3; Joh 1:47; Rom 9:6; Rom 11:26). Israelites was the usual name of the twelve tribes, from their leaving Egypt until- after the death of Saul. But in consequence of the dissensions between the ten tribes and Judah from the death of Saul onward, these ten tribes, among whom Ephraim took the lead, arrogated to themselves this honorable name of the whole nation (2Sa 2:9-10; 2Sa 2:17; 2Sa 2:28; 2Sa 3:10; 2Sa 3:17; 2Sa 19:40-43; 1Ki 12:1); and on their separation, after the death of Solomon, into an independent kingdom, founded by Jeroboam, this name was adopted for the kingdom, so that thenceforth the kings of the ten tribes were called kings of Israel, and the descendants of David, who ruled over Judah and Benjamin, were called kings of Judah. So in the prophets of that period Judah and Israel are put in opposition (Hos 4:15; Hos 5:3; Hos 5:5; Hos 6:10; Hos 7:1; Hos 8:2-3; Hos 8:6; Hos 8:8; Hos 9:1; Hos 9:7; Amo 1:1; Amo 2:6; Amo 3:14; Mic 1:5; Isa 5:7). Yet the kingdom of Judah could still be reckoned as a part of Israel, as in Isa 8:14, the two kingdoms are called the two houses of Israel; and hence, after the destruction of the kingdom of Israel at Samaria, the name Israel began again to be applied to the whole surviving people. SEE HEBREW: Israelite, etc.

3. It is used in a narrower sense, excluding Judah, in 1Sa 11:8. It is so used in the famous cry of the rebels against David (2Sa 20:1) and against his grandson (1Ki 12:16). Thenceforth it was assumed and accepted as the name of the northern kingdom, in which the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, Levi, Dan, and Simeon had no share. SEE ISRAEL, KINGDOM OF.

4. After the Babylonian captivity, the returned exiles although they were mainly of the kingdom of Judah, resumed the name Israel as the designation of their nation, but as individuals they are almost always described as Jews in the Apocrypha arid N.T. Instances occur in the books of Chronicles of the application of the name Israel to Judah (e.g. 2Ch 11:3; 2Ch 12:6), and in Esther of the name Jews to the whole people. The name Israel is also used to denote laymen as distinguished from priests, Levites, and other ministers (Ezr 6:16; Ezr 9:1; Ezr 10:25; Neh 11:3, etc.). Smith. The twelve tribes of Israel ever formed the ideal representation of the whole stock (1Ki 18:30-31; Ezr 6:17; Jer 31:1, etc.). Hence also in the New Test. Israel is applied (as in No. 2 above) to the true people of God, whether of Jewish or Gentile origin (Rom 9:6; Gal 6:16. etc.), being, in fact, comprehensive of the entire Church of the redeemed. SEE JEWS SEE ISRAEL, KINGDOM OF.

The name Israel (q.v.), which at first had been the national designation of the twelve tribes collectively (Exo 3:16, etc.), was, on the division of the monarchy, applied to the northern kingdom (a usage, however, not strictly observed, as in 2Ch 12:6) in contradistinction to the other portion, which was termed the kingdom of Judah. This limitation of the name Israel to certain tribes, at the head of which was that of Ephraim, which, accordingly, in some of the prophetical writings, as e.g. Isa 17:13; Hos 4:17, gives its own name to the northern kingdom, is discernible even at so early a period as the commencement of the reign of Saul, and affords evidence of the existence of some of the causes which eventually led to the schism of the nation. It indicated the existence of a rivalry, which needed only time and favorable circumstances to ripen into the revolt witnessed after the death of Solomon.

I. Causes of the Division. The prophet Abijah, who had been commissioned to announce to Jeroboam, the Ephraimite, the transference to him of the greater part of the kingdom of Solomon, declared it to be the punishment of disobedience to the divine law, and particularly of the idolatry so largely promoted by Solomon (1Ki 11:31-35). But while this revolt from the house of David is to be thus viewed in its directly penal character, or as a divine retribution, this does not preclude an inquiry into those sacred causes, political and otherwise, to which this very important revolution in Israelitish history is clearly referable. Such an inquiry, indeed, will make it evident how human passions and jealousies were made subservient to the divine purpose.

Prophecy had early assigned a pre-eminent place to two of the sons of Jacob-Judah and Joseph-as the founders of tribes. In the blessing pronounced upon his sons by the dying patriarch, Joseph had the birthright conferred upon him, and was promised in his son Ephraim a numerous progeny; while to Judah promise was made, among other blessings, of rule or dominion over his brethren- thy father’s children shall bow-down before thee (Gen 48:19; Gen 48:22; Gen 49:8; Gen 49:26; comp. 1Ch 5:1-2).

These blessings were repeated and enlarged in the blessing of Moses (Deu 33:7; Deu 33:17). The pre-eminence thus prophetically assigned to these two tribes received a partial verification in the fact that at the exodus their numbers were nearly equal, and far in excess of those of the other tribes; and further, as became their position, they were the first who obtained their territories, which were also assigned them in the very center of the land. It is unnecessary to advert to the various other circumstances which contributed to the growth and aggrandizement of these two tribes, and which, from the position these were thus enabled to acquire above the rest, naturally led to their becoming heads of parties, and, as such, the objects of mutual rivalry and contention. The Ephraimites, indeed, from the very first, gave unmistakable tokens of an exceedingly haughty temper, and preferred most arrogant claims over the other tribes as regards questions of peace and war. This may be seen in their representation to Gideon of the tribe of Manasseh (Jdg 8:1), and in their conduct towards Jephthah (Jdg 12:1). Now if this overbearing people resented in the case of tribes so inconsiderable as that of Manasseh what they regarded as a slight, it is easy to conceive how they must have eyed the proceedings of the tribe of Judah, which was more especially their rival. Hence it was, that while on the first establishment of the monarchy in the person of Saul, of the tribe of Benjamin, the Ephraimites, with the other northern tribes with whom they were associated, silently acquiesced, they refused for seven years to submit to his successor of the tribe of Judah (2Sa 2:9-11), and even after their submission they showed a disposition on any favorable opportunity to raise the cry of revolt: To your tents, O Israel (2Sa 20:1).

It was this early, long-continued, and deep-rooted feeling, strengthened and embittered by the schism, though not concurring with it, that gave point to the language in which Isaiah predicted the blessed times of Messiah: The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, and the adversaries of Judah shall be cut off; Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim (Isa 11:13). Indeed, for more than 400 years, from the time that Joshua was the leader of the Israelitish hosts, Ephraim, with the dependent tribes of Manasseh and Benjamin, may be said to have exercised undisputed pre-eminence till the accession of David. Accordingly it is not surprising that such a people would not readily submit to an arrangement which, though declared to be of divine appointment, should place them in a subordinate condition, as when God refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim, but chose the tribe of Judah, even the Mount Zion which he loved (Psa 78:67-68). SEE EPHRAIM.

There were thus, indeed, two powerful elements tending to break up the national unity. In addition to the long-continued and growing jealousy on the part of the Ephraimites to the tribe of Judah, another cause of dissatisfaction to the dynasty of David in particular was the arrangement just referred to, which consisted in the removal of the civil, and more particularly the ecclesiastical government, to Jerusalem. The Mosaic ordinances were in themselves exceedingly onerous, and this must have been more especially felt by such as were resident at a distance from the sanctuary, as it entailed upon them long journeys, not only when attending the stated festivals, but also on numerous other occasions prescribed in the law. This must have been felt as a special grievance by the Ephraimites, owing to the fact that the national sanctuary had been for a very long period at Shiloh, within their own territory and therefore its transference elsewhere, it is easy to discern, would not be readily acquiesced in by a people who had proved themselves in other respects so jealous of their rights, and not easily persuaded that this was not rather a political expedient on the part of the rival tribe, than as a matter of divine choice (1Ki 14:21). Nor is it to be overlooked, in connection with this subject, that other provisions of the theocratic economy relative to the annual festivals would be taken advantage of by those in whom there existed already a spirit of dissatisfaction. Even within o6 limited a locality as Palestine, there must have been inequalities of climate, which must have considerably affected the seasons, more particularly the vintage and harvest, with which the feasts may in some measure have interfered, and in so far may have been productive of discontent between the northern and southern residents. That there were inconveniences in both the respects now mentioned would indeed appear from the appeal made by Jeroboam to his new subjects, when, for reasons of state policy, and in order to perpetuate the schism by making it religious as well as political, he would dissuade them from attendance on the feasts in Judah: It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem (1Ki 12:28); and from the fact that he postponed for a whole month the celebration of the feast of tabernacles (1Ki 12:32), a change to which it is believed he was induced, or in the adoption of which he was at least greatly aided, by the circumstance of the harvest being considerably later in the northern than in the southern districts (Pict. Bible, note on 1Ki 12:32).

Again, the burdensome exactions in the form of service and tribute imposed on his subjects by Solomon for his extensive buildings, and the maintenance of his splendid and luxurious court, must have still further deepened this disaffection, which originated in one or other of the causes already referred to. It may indeed be assumed that this grievance was of a character which appealed to the malcontents more directly than any other; and that these burdens, required especially for the beautifying of the capital, must have been exceedingly disagreeable to the inhabitants of the provinces, who did not in any way participate in the glories in support of which such onerous charges were required. The burdens thus imposed were indeed expressly stated to be the chief ground of complaint by the representatives of Israel headed by Jeroboam, who, on the occasion of the coronation at Shechem, waited on the son of Solomon with a view to obtain redress (1Ki 12:4). The long smoldering dissatisfaction could no longer be repressed, and a mitigation of their burdens was imperiously demanded by the people. For this end Jeroboam had been summoned, at the death of Solomon, from Egypt, whose presence must have had a marked influence on the issue, although it may be a question whether Jeroboam should not be regarded rather as an instrument called forth by the occasion than as himself the instigator of the revolt. With this agrees the intimation made to him from the Lord many years before by Ahijah the Shilonite. The very choice of Shechem, within the territories of Ephraim, as the coronation place of Rehoboam, may have had for its object the repression of the rebellious spirit in the northern tribes by means of so grand and imposing a ceremony.

However this may have been, or in whatever degree the causes specified may have severally operated in producing the revolt, the breach now made was never healed, God himself expressly forbidding all attempts on the part of Rehoboam and his counselors to subjugate the revolted provinces with the intimation, This thing is from me (1Ki 12:24). The subsequent history of the two kingdoms was productive, with but slight exceptions, of further estrangement.

II. Extent and Resources of the Kingdom of Israel. The area of Palestine, even at its utmost extent under Solomon, was very circumscribed. In its geographical relations it certainly bore no comparison whatever to the other great empires of antiquity, nor indeed was there any proportion between its size and the mighty influences which have emanated from its soil. Making allowance for the territories on the shore of the Mediterranean in the possession of the Phoenicians, the area of Palestine did not much exceed 13,000 square miles. This limited extent, it might be shown, however, did the present subject call for it, rendered that land more suitable for the purposes of the theocracy than if it were of a far larger area. What precise extent of territories was embraced in the kingdom of Israel cannot be very easily determined, but it may be safely estimated as more than double that of the southern kingdom, or, according to a more exact ratio, as 9 to 4. Nor is it easy to specify with exactness the several tribes which composed the respective kingdoms. In the announcement made by Ahijah to Jeroboam, he is assured often tribes, while only one is reserved for the house of David; but this must be taken only in a general sense, and is to be interpreted by 1Ki 12:23 (compare 1Ki 12:21); for it would appear that Simeon, part of Dan, and the greater part of Benjamin, owing doubtless to the fact that Jerusalem itself was situated within that tribe, formed portion of the kingdom of Judah (Ewald, Geschichte, 3:409).

It is to be noticed, however, that Judah was the only independent tribe, and therefore it might be spoken of as the one which constituted the kingdom of the house of David. The ten tribes nominally assigned to Israel were probably Joseph (=Ephraim and Manasseh), Issachar, Zebulun, Asher, Naphtali, Benjamin, Dan, Simeon, Gad, and Reuben, Levi being intentionally omitted; the ten actually embraced in it seem to have been Ephraim, Manasseh (East and West), Issachar, Zebulon, Asher, Naphtali, Gad, Reuben, and (in part) Dan. With. respect to the conquests of David, Moab appears to have been attached to the kingdom of Israel (2Ki 3:4); as much of Syria as remained subject to Solomon (see 1Ki 11:24) would probably be claimed by his successor in the northern kingdom; and Ammon, though connected with Rehoboam as his mother’s native land (2Ch 12:13), and though afterwards tributary to Judah (2Ch 27:5), was at one time allied (2Ch 20:1), we know not how closely or how early, with Moab. The seacoast between Accho and Japho remained in the possession of Israel.

With regard to population, again, the data are even more defective than with respect to territorial extent. According to the uncompleted census taken in the reign of David, about forty years previous to the schism of the kingdom, the fighting men in Israel numbered 800,000, and in Judah 500,000 (2Sa 24:9); but in 1Ch 21:5-6, the numbers are differently stated at 1,100,000 and 470,000 respectively, with the intimation that Levi and Benjamin were not included (comp. 1Ch 27:24). As bearing more directly on this point, Rehoboam raised an army of 180,000 men out of Judah and Benjamin to fight against Jeroboam (1Ki 12:21); and again, Abijah, the son of Rehoboam, with 400,000 men, made war on Jeroboam at the head of an army of 800,000 (2Ch 13:3). According to the general laws observable in such cases, these numbers may be said to represent an aggregate population of from five and a half to six millions, of which about one third, or two millions, may be fairly assigned to the kingdom of Judah at the time of the separation.

Shechem was the first capital of the new kingdom (1Ki 12:25), venerable for its traditions, and beautiful in its situation. Subsequently Tirzah, whose loveliness had fixed the wandering gaze of Solomon (Son 6:4), became the royal residence, if not the capital of Jeroboam (1Ki 14:17) and of his successors (1Ki 15:33; 1Ki 16:8; 1Ki 16:17; 1Ki 16:23). After the murder of Jeroboam’s son, indeed, Baasha seems to have intended to fix his capital at Ramah, as a convenient place for annoying the king of Judah, whom he looked on as his only dangerous enemy; but he was forced to renounce this plan (1Ki 4:17; 1Ki 4:21). Samaria, uniting in itself the qualities of beauty and fertility, and a commanding position, was chosen by Omri (1Ki 16:24), and remained the capital of the kingdom until it had given the last proof of its strength by sustaining for three years the onset of the hosts of Assyria. Jezreel was probably only a royal residence of some of the Israelitish kings. It may have been in awe of the ancient holiness of Shiloh that Jeroboam forbore to pollute the secluded site of the tabernacle with the golden calves. He chose for the religious capitals of his kingdom Dan, the old home of northern schism, and Bethel, a Benjamite city not far from Shiloh, and marked out by history and situation as the rival of Jerusalem.

III. Political and Religious Relations of the Kingdom of Israel. But whilst, in extent of territory and of population, and it might be shown also in various other respects, the resources of the northern kingdom were at the very least double those of its southern rival, the latter embraced elements of strength which were entirely lacking in the other. There was first the geographical position of the kingdom of Israel, which exposed its northern frontier to invasions on the part of Syria and the Assyrian hosts. But more than this, or any exposure to attack from without, were the dangers to be apprehended from the polity on which the kingdom was founded. Jeroboam’s public sanction of idolatry, and his other interferences with fundamental principles of the Mosaic law, more especially in the matter of the priesthood, at once alienated from his government all who were well affected to that economy, and who were not ready to subordinate their religion to any political considerations. Of such there were not a few within the territories of the new kingdom. The Levites m particular fled the kingdom, abandoning their property and possessions: and so did many others besides; such as set their hearts to seek the Lord God of Israel came to Jerusalem, to sacrifice unto the Lord God of their fathers. So they strengthened the kingdom of Judah (2Ch 11:13-17). Not only was one great source of strength thus at once dried up, but the strongly conservating principles of the law were violently shocked, and the kingdom more than ever exposed to the encroachments of the heathenism which extended along its frontier.

One element of weakness in the kingdom of Israel was the number of tribes of which it was composed, more especially after they had renounced those principles of the Mosaic law which, while preserving the individuality of the tribes, served to bind them together as one people. Among other circumstances unfavorable to unity was the want of a capital in which all had a common interest, and with which they were connected by some common tie. This want was by no means compensated by the religious establishments at Bethel and Dan. But it is in respect to theocratic and religious relations that the weakness of the kingdom of Israel specially appears. Any sanction which the usurpation of Jeroboam may have derived at first from the announcement made to him by the prophet Ahijah, and afterwards from the charge given to Rehoboam and the men of Judah not to fight against Israel, because the thing was from the Lord (1Ki 12:23), must have been completely taken away by the denunciations of the prophet out of Judah against the altar at Bethel (1Ki 13:1-10), and the subsequent announcements of Ahijah himself to Jeroboam, who failed to fulfill the conditions on which the kingdom was given him (1Ki 14:7-16). The setting up of the worship of the calves, in which may be traced the influence of Jeroboam’s residence in Egypt, and the consecrating of priests who could have no moral weight with their fellow-subjects, and were chosen only for their subservience to the royal will, were measures by no means calculated to consolidate a power from which the divine sanction had been expressly withdrawn. On the contrary, they led, and very speedily, to the alienation of many who might at the outset have silently acquiesced in the revolution, even if they had not fully approved of it. The large migration which ensued into Judah of all who were favorable to the former institutions must still further have aggravated the evil, as all vigorous opposition would thenceforth cease to the downward and destructive tendency of the anti-theocratic policy. The natural result of the course appears in the fact that the step taken by Jeroboam was never retraced by any of his successors, one after another following the example thus set to them, so that Jeroboam is emphatically and frequently characterized in Scripture as the man who made Israel to sin, while his successors are described as following in the sin of Jeroboam.

Further, as the calves of Jeroboam are referable to Egypt, so the worship of Baal, which was introduced by Ahab, the seventh of the Israelitish kings, had its origin in the Tyrian alliance formed by that monarch through his marriage with Jezebel, daughter of Ethbaal, king of Sidon. Hitherto the national religion was ostensibly the worship of Jehovah under the representation of the calves; but under this new reign every attempt was made to extirpate this worship entirely by the destruction of God’s prophets and the subversion of his altars. It was to meet this new phase of things that the strenuous agency of Elijah, Elisha, and their associates was directed, and assumed a quite peculiar form of prophetic ministration, though still the success was but partial and temporary. SEE ELIJAH and SEE ELISHA.

IV. Decay and Dissolution of the Kingdom of Israel. The kingdom of Israel developed no new power. It was but a portion of David’s kingdom deprived of many elements of strength. Its frontier was as open and as widely extended as before, but it wanted a capital for the seat of organized power. Its territory was as fertile and as tempting to the spoiler, but its people were less united and patriotic. A corrupt religion poisoned the source of national life. While less reverence attended on a new and unconsecrated king, and-less respect was felt for an aristocracy reduced by the retirement of the Levites, the army which David found hard to control rose up unchecked in the exercise of its willful strength; and thus eight houses, each ushered in by a revolution, occupied the throne in quick succession, Tyre ceased to be an ally when the alliance was no longer profitable to the merchant city. Moab and Ammon yielded tribute only while under compulsion. A powerful neighbor, Damascus, sat armed at the gate of Israel; and beyond Damascus might be discerned the rising strength of the first great monarchy of the world.

The history of the kingdom of Israel is therefore the history of its decay and dissolution. In no true sense did it manifest a principle of progress, save only in swerving more and more completely from the course marked out by Providence and revelation for the seed of Abraham; and yet the history is interesting as showing how, notwithstanding the ever-widening breach between the two great branches of the one community, the divine purposes concerning. them were accomplished. That a polity constituted as was that of the northern kingdom contained in it potent elements of decay must be self-evident, even were the fact less clearly marked on every page of its history.

There is reason to believe that Jeroboam carried back with him into Israel the good will, if not the substantial assistance of Shishak, and this will account for his escaping the storm from Egypt which swept over Rehoboam in his fifth year (2Ch 12:2-9). During that first period Israel was far from quiet within. Although the ten tribes collectively had decided in favor of Jeroboam, great numbers of individuals remained attached to the family of David and to the worship at Jerusalem, and in the three first years of Rehoboam migrated into Judah (2Ch 11:16-17). Perhaps it was not until this process commenced that Jeroboam was worked up to the desperate measure of erecting rival sanctuaries with visible idols (1Ki 12:27); a measure which met the usual ill-success of profane state-craft, and aggravated the evil which he feared. Jeroboam had not sufficient force of character in himself to make a lasting impression on his people. A king, but not a founder of a dynasty, he aimed at nothing beyond securing his present elevation. Without any ambition to share in the commerce of Tyre, or to compete with the growing power of Damascus, or even to complete the humiliation of the helpless monarch whom he had deprived of half a kingdom, Jeroboam acted entirely on a defensive policy. He attempted to give his subjects a center which they wanted for their political allegiance, in Shechem or in Tirzah.

He sought to change merely so much of their ritual as was inconsistent with his authority over them. But, as soon as the golden calves were set up, the priests, and Levites, and many religious Israelites (2Ch 11:16) left their country, and the disastrous emigration was not effectually checked even by the attempt of Baasha to build a fortress (2Ch 16:6) at Ramah. A new priesthood was introduced (1Ki 12:31) absolutely dependent on the king (Amo 7:13); not forming, asunder the Mosaic law, a landed aristocracy, not respected by the people, and unable either to withstand the oppression or to strengthen the weakness of a king. A priesthood created and a ritual devised for secular purposes had no hold whatever on the conscience of the people. To meet their spiritual cravings a succession of prophets was raised up, great in their poverty, their purity, their austerity, their self-dependence, their moral influence, but imperfectly organized-a rod to correct and check the civil government, not, as they might have been under happier circumstances, a staff to support it. The army soon learned its power to dictate to the isolated monarch and disunited people. Although Jeroboam, the founder of the kingdom, himself reigned nearly twenty-two years, yet his son and successor Nadab was violently cut off after a brief reign of less than two years, and with him the whole house of Jeroboam.

Thus speedily closed the first dynasty, and it was but a type of those which followed. Eight houses, each ushered in by a revolution, occupied the throne in rapid succession, the army being frequently the prime movers in these transactions. Thus Baasha, in the midst of the army at Gibbethon, slew Nadab, the son of Jeroboam; and, again, Zimri, a captain of chariots, slew Elah, the son and successor of Baasha, and reigned only seven days, during which time, however, he smote ail the posterity and kindred of his predecessor, and ended his own days by suicide (1Ki 16:18). Omri, the captain of the host, was chosen to punish the usurper Zimri, and after a civil war of four years he prevailed over his other rival Tibni, the choice of half the people. Omri, the sixth in order of the Israelitish-kings, founded a more lasting dynasty, for it endured for forty-five years, he having been succeeded by his son Ahab, of whom it is recorded that he did more to provoke the Lord God of Israel to anger than all the kings of Israel that were before him (1Ki 16:33); and he, again, by his son Ahaziah, who, after a reign of less than two years, died from the effects of a fall, and, leaving no son, was succeeded by his brother Jehoram, who reigned twelve years, until slain by Jehu, the captain of the army at Ramoth-Gilead, who also executed the total destruction of the family of Ahab, which perished like those of Jeroboam and of Baasha (2Ki 9:9).

Meanwhile the relations between the rival kingdoms were, as might be expected, of a very unfriendly character. There was war between Rehoboam and Jeroboam all their days (1Ki 14:30); so also between Asa and Baasha (1Ki 15:14; 1Ki 15:32). The first mention of peace was that made by Jehoshaphat with Ahab (1Ki 22:44), and which was continued between their two successors. The princes of Omri’s house cultivated an alliance with the contemporary kings of Judah. which was cemented by the marriage of Jehoram and Athaliah, and marked by the community of names among the royal children. Ahab’s Tyrian alliance strengthened him with the counsels of the masculine mind of Jezebel, but brought him no further support.

The kingdom of Israel suffered also from foreign enemies. In the reign of Omri the Syrians had made themselves masters of a portion of the land of Israel (1Ki 20:33), and had proceeded so far as to erect streets for themselves in Samaria, which had just been made the capital. Further- incursions were checked by Ahab, who concluded a peace with the Syrians which lasted three years (1Ki 22:1), until that king, in league with Jehoshaphat, king of Judah. attempted to wrest Ramoth-Gilead out of their hands, an act which cost him his life. The death of Ahab was followed by the revolt of the Moabites (2Ki 1:4), who were again, however, subjugated by Jehoram, in league with Jehoshaphat. Again the Syrians renewed their inroads on the kingdom of Israel, and even besieged Samaria, but fled through panic. In the reign of Jehu the Lord began to cut Israel short: and Hazael smote them in all the coasts of Israel (2Ki 10:32). Their troubles from that quarter increased still further during the following reign, when the Syrians reduced them to the utmost extremities (2Ki 13:7). To this more prosperous days succeeded, with a reverse to Judah, whose king presumptuously declared war against Israel.

Under Jeroboam II, who reigned forty-two years, the affairs of the northern kingdom revived. He restored the coast of Israel, from the entering of Hamath unto the sea of the plain; he recovered Damascus, and Hamath, which belonged to Judah, for Israel (2Ki 14:25; 2Ki 14:28). Damascus was by this time probably weakened by the advance of the power of Assyria. This period of prosperity was followed by another of a totally different character. Jeroboam’s son and successor Zachariah, the last of the dynasty of Jehu, was assassinated, after a reign of six months, by Shallum, who, after a reign of only one month, was slain by Menahem, whose own son and successor Pekahiah was’ in turn murdered by Pekah, one of his captains, who was himself smitten by Hoshea. In the days of Menahem, and afterwards of Pekah, the Assyrians are seen extending their power over Israel; first under Pul, to whom Menahem paid a tribute of threescore talents of silver, that his hand might be with him to confirm the kingdom hi his hand (2Ki 15:19). Now the Assyrians are found pushing their conquests in every direction; at one time, in the reign of Pekah, leading away into captivity a’ part of the inhabitants of Israel (2Ki 15:29), and again coming to the assistance of Ahaz, king of Judah, then besieged in Jerusalem by the Israelites, in conjunction with the Syrians, who had somehow recovered their former ascendency. SEE SYRIA.

This interposition led to the destruction of Damascus, and in the succeeding weak reign of Hoshea, who had formed some secret alliance with Egypt which was offensive to the Assyrian monarch, to the destruction of Samaria, after a three-years’ siege, by Shalmaneser, and the removal of its inhabitants to Assyria; and thus terminated the kingdom of Israel, after an existence of 253 years. Some gleanings of the ten tribes yet remained in the land after so many years of religious decline, moral debasement, national degradation, anarchy, bloodshed, and deportation. Even these were gathered up by the conqueror and carried to Assyria, never again, as a distinct people, to occupy their portion of that goodly and pleasant land which their forefathers won under Joshua from the heathen. (See Ewald, Einleitung in die Geschichte des Volkes Israel, and Geschichte des Volkes Israel bis Christus, Gtting. 1851; also Witsii. , de decent tribubus Israel, in his AEgyptica, p. 303 sq.; J. G. Klaiber, Hist. regni Ephraim., Stuttg. 1833.)

V. Chronological Difficulties of the Reigns as compared with those of Judah. These will mostly appear by a similar inspection of the annexed table, where the numbers given in the columns headed nominal are those contained in the express words of Scripture. These and other less obvious discrepancies will be found explained under the titles of the respective kings in this Cyclopedia, but it may be well here to recapitulate the most prominent of them together.

1. The length of Jeroboam’s reign is stated in 1Ki 14:20 to have been twenty-two years, which appear to have been reckoned from the same point as Rehoboam’s (i.e. in Nisan); whereas they were only current, since Rehoboam’s accession took place somewhat prior to that of Jeroboam. This is confirmed by the fact that the reigns of Rehoboam (seventeen years, 1Ki 14:21), and Abijah (three years, 1Ki 15:2) were but twenty years; and Nadab succeeded Jeroboam in Asa’s second year (1Ki 15:25). In like manner Nadab’s two nominal years (1Ki 15:25) are current, or, in reality, little over one year; for Baasha succeeded him in Asa’s third year (1Ki 15:28; 1Ki 15:33). So, again, Baasha’s twenty-four years of reign (1Ki 15:33) must be reduced, for purposes of continuous reckoning, to twenty-three; for Elah succeeded him in Asa’s twenty-sixth year (1Ki 16:8). Once more, Elah’s two years (1Ki 16:8) must be computed as but one full year, for Zimri slew and succeeded him in Asa’s twenty-seventh year (1Ki 16:10; 1Ki 16:15). The cause of this surplusage in these reigns appears to be that at some point during the reign of Jeroboam the beginning of the calendar for the regnal years of the Israelitish reign was changed (see 1Ki 12:32-33) from the spring (the Hebrew sacred year) to the fall (their older and secular year), so that they overlap those of the kings of Judah by more than half a year. The reigns of the line of Judah must therefore be taken as the standard, and the parallel line of Israel adjusted by it. (The numbers thirty- five and thirty-six in 2Ch 15:19; 2Ch 16:1, are evidently a transcriber’s error for twenty-five and twenty-six; see 1Ki 16:3). 2. Omri’s reign is stated-in 1Ki 16:23 to have lasted twelve years, beginning, not, as the text seems to indicate, in Asa’s thirty-first year, but in his twenty-seventh (for Zimri reigned but seven days), since Ahab succeeded him in Asa’s thirty-eighth (1Ki 16:29), making these really but eleven full years, computed as above. The thirty-first of Asa is meant as the date of Omri’s sole or undisputed reign on the death of his rival Tibni, after four years of contest. His six years of reign in Tirzah (same verse) are dated from this latter point, and are mentioned in opposition to his removal of his capital at the end of this last time to Samaria (1Ki 16:24), where, accordingly, he reigned one full or two current years, still computed as above. This last-named fact is again the key to the discrepancy in the length of his successor Ahab’s reign, which is set down in 1Ki 16:29 as twenty-two years in Samaria; for they date from the change of capital to that place (Ahab having probably been at that time appointed viceroy), being in reality only a small fraction more than twenty years. This appears from the combination of the residue of Asa’s reign (41 38-3; comp. also 1Ki 22:41) and the seventeenth of Jehoshaphat, when Ahaziah succeeded Ahab (1Ki 22:51). Ahaziah’s two years (same verse) are to be computed as current, or one full year, on the same principle as above.

The other difficulties relate to minute textual discrepancies, not important to the chronology; some of them involve the supposition of interregna. They will all be found fully discussed under the names of the respective kings to whose reigns they belong. For a complete vindication and adjustment of all the textual numbers (save two or three universally admitted to be corrupt) by means of actual tabular construction,’ see the Meth. Quart. Review, Oct. 1856. SEE JUDAH, KINGDOM OF.

The chronology of the kings has been minutely investigated by Usher, Chronologia Sacra (in his Works, 12:95-144); by Lightfoot, Order of the Texts of the O.T. (in Works, 1, 77-130); by Hales, New Analysis of Chronology, 2, 372-447; by Clinton. Fasti Hellenici, 3, Append. 5; by H. Browne, Ordo Saeclorum, chap. 4; and by Wolff, in the Studien u. Krit. (1858, 4.) SEE CHRONOLOGY.

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Israel

the name conferred on Jacob after the great prayer-struggle at Peniel (Gen. 32:28), because “as a prince he had power with God and prevailed.” (See JACOB) This is the common name given to Jacob’s descendants. The whole people of the twelve tribes are called “Israelites,” the “children of Israel” (Josh. 3:17; 7:25; Judg. 8:27; Jer. 3:21), and the “house of Israel” (Ex. 16:31; 40:38).

This name Israel is sometimes used emphatically for the true Israel (Ps. 73:1: Isa. 45:17; 49:3; John 1:47; Rom. 9:6; 11:26).

After the death of Saul the ten tribes arrogated to themselves this name, as if they were the whole nation (2 Sam. 2:9, 10, 17, 28; 3:10, 17; 19:40-43), and the kings of the ten tribes were called “kings of Israel,” while the kings of the two tribes were called “kings of Judah.”

After the Exile the name Israel was assumed as designating the entire nation.

Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary

Israel

(“soldier of” or “contender with God”.)

1. The name given by the angel of Jehovah to Jacob, after by wrestling he had prevailed and won the blessing (Gen 32:26-28), “for thou hast contended with God and with men, and hast prevailed” (Hos 12:4). Sarah and Sur mean also “to be a prince”. KJV combines both meanings: “as a prince hast thou power with God and with men,” etc.

2. The name of the nation, including the whole 12 tribes.

3. The northern kingdom, including the majority of the whole nation, namely, ten tribes; or else all except Judah, Benjamin, Levi, Dan, and Simeon (1Sa 11:8; 2Sa 20:1; 1Ki 12:16). In 1Ki 11:13; 1Ki 11:31-32 Jeroboam was appointed by God to have ten tribes, Solomon’s seed one; but two were left for David’s line when Ahijah gave ten out of the 12 pieces of his garment to Jeroboam. The numbers therefore must be understood in a symbolical rather than in a strictly arithmetical sense. Ten expresses completeness and totality in contrast with one, “the tribe of Judah only” (1Ki 12:20); but “Benjamin” is included also (1 Kings 21; 2Ch 11:3; 2Ch 11:23). Levi was not counted in the political classification, it mainly joined Judah. Ephraim and Manasseh were counted as two.

Judah included also Simeon, which was so far S. and surrounded by Judah’s territory (Jos 19:1-9) that it could not have well formed part of the northern kingdom. Moreover several cities of Dan were included in “Judah,” namely, Ziklag, which Achish gave David, Zorea, and Ajalon (2Ch 11:10; 2Ch 28:18). These counterbalanced the loss to Judah of the northern part of Benjamin, including Bethel, Ramah, and Jericho, which fell to “Israel” (1Ki 12:29; 1Ki 15:17; 1Ki 15:21; 1Ki 16:34). Thus only nine tribes, and not all these, wholly remained to the northern kingdom. The sea coast was in the hands of Israel from Accho to Japho, S. of this the Philistines held the coast. It is estimated Judah’s extent was somewhat less than Northumberland, Durham, and Westmoreland; Israel’s as large as Yorkshire, Lancashire, and Cumberland; and Israel’s population in 957 B.C. 3,500,000 (2Ch 13:3).

The division was appointed by God as the chastisement of the house of David for the idolatries imported by Solomon’s wives. The spreading of the contagion to the whole mass of the people was thus mercifully guarded against. Jeroboam’s continued tenure of the throne was made dependent on his loyalty to God. Rehoboam’s attempt to reduce the revolting tribes was divinely forbidden. Jeroboam recognized the general obligation of the law while, he violated its details. (See JEROBOAM.) His innovation was in the place of worship (Bethel and Dan instead of Jerusalem), and in the persons by whom it was to be performed (priests taken from the masses instead of from Levi), also in the time of the feast of tabernacles (the eighth instead of the seventh month). In the symbols, the calves, he followed Aaron’s pattern at Sinai, which he himself had been familiarized to in Egypt; at the same time recognizing the reality of God’s deliverance of Israel out of Egypt in saying like Aaron, “Behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of Egypt,” (1Ki 12:28; Exo 32:4; Exo 32:8).

His own miraculous punishment (1 Kings 13), the death of his son, the overthrow of the three royal dynasties, Jeroboam’s, Baasha’s, and Ahab’s; as foretold by the prophets (Isaiah 8, Isaiah 9, Isaiah 28; Hosea; and Amos), the permanent removal of Israel by Assyria, all attested God’s abhorrence of idolatry. The wise design of God in appointing the separation between Israel and Judah appears in its effect on Judah. It became her political interest to adhere to the Mosaic law. This was the ground of confidence to Abijah in battle with Jeroboam (2Ch 13:9-11). The Levites being cast out of office by Jeroboam left their suburbs and came to Judah. Rehoboam’s chastisement for forsaking God’s law, Judah also making high places, images, and groves (2Ki 14:22-23; 2Ch 12:1, etc.), had a salutary effect on Ass and Jehoshaphat in succession.

Excepting the period of apostasy resulting in the first instance from Jehoshaphat’s unfortunate alliance with Ahab’s family, a majority of Judah’s kings were observers of the law, whereas there was not one king faithful to Jehovah in Israel’s line of kings. Shechem, the original place of meeting of the nation under Joshua (Jos 24:1), was the first capital (1Ki 12:25); then Tirzah, famed for its loveliness (Son 6:4; 1Ki 14:17; 1Ki 15:33; 1Ki 16:8; 1Ki 16:17; 1Ki 16:23). Omri chose Samaria for its beauty, fertility, and commanding position (24); after a three years’ siege it fell before the Assyrian king. Jezreel was the residence of some kings. Shiloh in Ephraim was the original seat of the sanctuary (Jdg 21:19; Jos 18:1) before it was removed to Jerusalem. The removal was a source of jealousy to Ephraim, to obviate which the Maschil (instruction) of Asaph (Psalm 78) was written (see Psa 78:60; Psa 78:67-69).

Jealousy and pride, which were old failings of Ephraim, the leading tribe of the N. (Jdg 8:1; Jdg 8:12), were the real moving causes of the revolt from Judah, the heavy taxation was the ostensible cause. Joshua and Caleb represented Ephraim and Judah respectively in the wilderness, and Joshua took the lead in Canaan. It galled Ephraim now to be made subordinate. Hence flowed the readiness with which they hearkened to Absalom and their jealousy of Judah at David’s restoration (2Sa 19:41-43) and their revolting at the call of Sheba (2Sa 20:1). The idolatry of Solomon alienated the godly; his despotic grandeur at the cost of the people diminished his general popularity (1Ki 11:14-40). The moment that God withdrew the influence that, restrained the spirit of disunion, the disruption took place. Jeroboam adopted the calf idolatry for state policy, but it eventuated in state ruin.

God made Israel’s sin her punishment. Degradation of morality followed apostasy in religion and debasement of the priesthood. God’s national code of laws, still in force, and the established idolatry were in perpetual conflict. The springs of national life were thereby poisoned. Eight houses occupied the throne, revolution ushering in each successively. The kingdom’s duration was 254 years, from 975 to 721 B.C. Israel’s doom acted in some degree as a salutary warning to Judah, so that for more than a century (133 1/2 years) subsequently its national existence survived. The prophets, extraordinarily raised up, were the only salt in Israel to counteract her desperate corruption: Ahijah, Elijah, Micaiah, Elisha, and Jonah, the earliest of the prophets who were writers of Holy Scripture. In the time of this last prophet God gave one last long season of prosperity, the long reign of Jeroboam II, if haply His goodness would lead the nation to repentance.

This day of grace being neglected, judgment only remained. Revolts of Edom, Moab, and Ammon, the assaults of Syria under Benhadad dud Hazael, and finally Assyria, executed God’s wrath against the apostate people. Pul, Tiglath Pileser, Shalmaneser, Sargon, and Esarhaddon were the instruments (2 Kings 15-17; Ezr 4:2; Ezr 4:10; Isa 20:1). Ahijah first foretold to Jeroboam at the beginning of the kingdom, “Jehovah shall root up Israel and scatter them beyond the river” (1Ki 14:15; Amo 5:27). (This table [omitted] is not available in the current version of the product.) This kingdom was sometimes also designated “Ephraim” from its leading tribe (Isa 17:3; Hos 4:17), as the southern kingdom “Judah” was so designated from the prominent tribe. Under Messiah in the last days Ephraim shall be joined to Judah; “the envy of Ephraim shall depart, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim” (Isa 11:13; Eze 37:16-22). Eze 37:4.

After the return from Babylon the nation was called “Israel,” the people “Jews,” by which designation they are called in Esther. The ideal name for the twelve tribes regarded as one whole even after the division (1Ki 18:30-31). The spiritual Israel, the church of the redeemed (Rom 9:6; Gal 6:16). What became of the scattered people is hard to discover. Many joined Judah, as Anna of Asher is found in Luk 2:36. The majority were “scattered abroad” with the Jews, as James addresses “the twelve tribes.” The Jews in Bokhara told Jos. Wolff “when the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul, king of Assyria, and Tiglath Pileser, they were carried away … even the Reubenites, Gadites, and half Manasseh, to Halah (now Balkh) and Habor (now Samarcand) and Hara (now Bokhara), and to the river Gozan (the Ammos, Jehron, or Oxus).

They were expelled by the Tahagatay, the people of Genghis Khan; then they settled in Sabr Awar and Nishapoor (except some who went to China), in Khorassan. Centuries afterward most returned to Bokhara, Samarcand, and Balkh. Timoor Koorekan (Tamerlane) gave them many privileges. The Jews of Bokhara said that many of Naphtali wander on the Aral mountains, and that the Kafir Secahpoosh on the Hindu Koosh or Indian Caucasus are their brethren.” The Afghans style themselves the Bani Israel, “the sons of Israel,” and by universal tradition among themselves claim descent from Saul, or Malik Twalut, through Afghana, son of Jeremiah, Saul’s second son. When Bakht-u-nasr (Nebuchadnezzar) took Israel into captivity, the tribe of Afghana, on account of their clinging to the Jewish religion, were driven into the mountains about Herat, whence they spread into the Cabool valley along the right bank of the Indus to the borders of Scinde and Beloochistan.

Subsequently, they fell into idolatry, and then Mohamedanism. But they have a tradition that the Kyber hills were inhabited until recently by Jews. Similarly, the Santhals on the W. frontier of lower Bengal derive themselves from the Horites who were driven out of mount Seir by the Edomites. Their traditions point to the Punjab, the land of the five rivers, as the home of their race. They say their fathers worshipped God alone before entering the Himalayan region; but when in danger of perishing on those snowy heights they followed the direction whence the sun rose daily, and were guided safe; so they hold a feast every five years to the sun god, and also worship devils. They alone of the Hindu races have negro features, and the lightheartedness and also the improvidence of the race of Ham. God will yet restore Israel; He alone can discriminate them among the Gentiles.

“Ye shall be gathered one by one, O ye children of Israel … In that day the great trumpet shall be blown, and they shall come which were ready to perish … and the outcasts … and shall worship the Lord in the holy mount at Jerusalem” (Isa 27:13). Jer 3:14-18; “I will take you one of a city and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion.” The rabbis ordain that when one builds a new house he should leave part unfinished “in memory of the desolation” (zeker lachorchan); and when a marriage takes place the bridegroom ends the ceremony by trampling the glass to pieces out of which he has drunk. Yet still they look for the restoration promised in Deu 30:1-6; Isa 11:10-16. David Levi infers from Isaiah:

(1) God’s coming vengeance on Israel’s foes;

(2) especially on Edom, i.e. Rome;

(3) Israel’s restoration;

(4) that of the ten tribes;

(5) like the deliverance from Egypt (but exceeding it in the greatness of God’s interposition: Jer 23:5-8);

(6) not to be prevented by the Jewish sinners who shall be cut off;

(7) not until after a long time;

(8) the shekinah and spirit of prophecy will return (Eze 11:23; Eze 43:2);

(9) the apostatized from the nation will be restored to it;

(10) a king of David’s line and name will reign (Eze 34:23-24);

(11) they will never go into captivity again (see for the permanence and full bliss of their restoration Isa 35:12; Isa 54:7-11);

(12) the nations will generally acknowledge one God and desire to know His law (Isa 2:3; Isa 60:3; Isa 66:23; Zec 8:21-23; Zec 14:16-19);

(13) peace will prevail (Isa 2:4; Zec 9:10);

(14) a resurrection of those prominent for piety or wickedness (Dan 12:2).

See Isaiah 11; Isa 9:8-10; Isa 42:13-16; Isa 61:1-8, where “the desolations of many generations” cannot be merely the 70 years’ captivity. After abiding many days without king, priest, sacrifice, altar, ephod, and teraphim, Israel shall seek the Lord their God and David their king (Hos 3:4-5). The blessing to all nations through Israel will fulfill the original promises to Adam (Gen 3:15) and Abraham (Gen 22:18; Rom 11:25-26, etc.). Providential preparations for their restoration are already patent: the waning of Turkish power; the Holy Land unoccupied in a great measure and open to their return; their mercantile character, to the exclusion of agriculture, causing their not taking root in any other land, and connecting them with such mercantile peoples as the English and Americans, who may help in their recovering their own land (Isa 60:9; Isa 66:19-20); their avoidance of intermarriage with Christians.

The Israelites when converted will be the best gospel preachers to the world (Zec 8:13; Zec 8:23; Mic 5:7), for they are dispersed everywhere, familiar with the language and manners of all lands, and holding constant correspondence with one another (compare the type, Act 2:11); and as during their alienation they have been unimpeachable, because hostile, witnesses of the divine origin of the Messianic prophecies to which Christianity appeals, so when converted from hostility they would be resistless preachers of those truths which they had rejected (Rom 11:15).

Our age is that of the 42 months during which the court without the temple is given unto the Gentiles, and they tread under foot the holy city (Rev 11:2-3), and God scatters the power of the holy people (Dan 12:7; Luk 21:24). At its close Israel’s times begin. The 1,260 years may date from A.D. 754, when Pepin granted temporal dominion to the popes; this would bring its close to 2014. The event alone will clear all (Dan 7:25; Dan 8:14; Dan 12:11-12; Rev 12:6; Rev 12:14; Lev 26:14, etc.). (Graves, Pentateuch, closing lecture).

Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary

ISRAEL

God promised Abraham that he would make from him a nation, that he would give that nation the land of Canaan as a homeland, and that through it blessing would come to people worldwide (Gen 12:1-3; Gen 13:14-17; Gen 15:18-21; Gen 22:17-18). The nation became known as Israel, after Abrahams grandson (originally named Jacob) whose twelve sons were the fathers of the twelve tribes of Israel (Gen 32:28; Gen 35:22-26; Gen 49:1; Gen 49:28; 1Ch 1:34; 1Ch 2:1-2; see JACOB).

Beginnings of Israels national life

When circumstances in Egypt were more favourable than in Canaan, Jacob and his family (about seventy people) moved to Egypt to live (18th century BC; Gen 46:26-27). When, after more than four hundred years in Egypt, they had multiplied till they could truly be called a nation, God used Moses to lead them out of Egypt, with the aim of bringing them into Canaan (about 1280 BC; Exo 12:40-41). Three months after leaving Egypt they arrived at Mt Sinai, where they remained for the next year. During that time Moses organized them as a national community, taught them the ways of God and officiated in a covenant ceremony that bound them to God as his people (Exo 19:1-6; Exo 24:3-8; Num 10:11-12; see COVENANT; LAW).

In spite of promising to obey God, the people rebelled against him, with the result that he kept them from entering Canaan for forty years. During those years most of the adult population died, and a new generation eventually entered Canaan under the leadership of Joshua (about 1240 BC; Num 14:32-34; Jos 1:1-5; Heb 3:16-17).

Establishing the nation in Canaan

Israel conquered not only Canaan (i.e. the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea) but also the land east of Jordan. This combined area was then divided between the twelve tribes, nine and a half tribes settling in Canaan, the other two and a half tribes in the area east of Jordan (Jos 13:7-8). (For the tribal divisions of the land see TRIBES.)

God instructed the Israelites to wipe out the Canaanites and remove all trace of their religion, but they failed to do so. As a result the Canaanite people left in the land were a source of trouble to Israel, and the Canaanite gods were the cause of Israels falling into idolatry (Jdg 2:1-3; see BAAL). When the people of Israel turned away from God, God used enemies to punish them; when they turned back to God and cried to him for mercy, he raised up deliverers (called judges) from among them to overthrow the enemy and lead the people back to himself (Jdg 2:11-19).

There was little unity in Israel during this period. Each tribe looked after its own affairs without much concern for the others (Jdg 21:25). The one leader who brought some measure of unity to Israel was the godly man Samuel. The people asked that Samuel appoint a king to succeed him, believing this would help give the nation stability. Samuel opposed this, pointing out that devotion to God was the source of national stability. When it became clear that the people would not listen to him, he allowed them to have their king (1050 BC; 1Sa 8:4-9).

The early Israelite kingdom

Israels first king, Saul, though a good soldier, was a failure as a national and spiritual leader. He was followed by David, who became probably Israels greatest king.

David conquered Jerusalem (which till then had been held by the Canaanites), and set about making it the political and religious centre of the nation (1003 BC; 2Sa 5:1-10). (For the significance of Jerusalem in Israels history see JERUSALEM.) David expanded Israelite rule to the Euphrates River in the north, over Ammonite and Moabite territory to the east, over Philistine territory to the west, and to the Red Sea and Egypt in the south (2Sa 8:1-4; 2Sa 8:11-14).

Solomon, who succeeded his father David as king, devoted himself to developing and beautifying Jerusalem, so that his national capital might be a place of incomparable splendour. But he was a hard ruler. The people hated his forced labour programs and heavy taxation schemes, and as soon as he died they took the opportunity to revolt. Only the kings tribe, Judah, along with neighbouring Benjamin, supported the Davidic king. The remaining tribes broke away, appointing as their king Jeroboam, a leader from the tribe of Ephraim (930 BC; 1Ki 11:11-13; 1Ki 11:29-32; 1Ki 12:20).

From that time on, the nation was divided into two, a northern kingdom and a southern kingdom. The northern kingdom, which consisted of ten tribes, still called itself Israel (though it was sometimes called Ephraim, after its leading tribe). The southern kingdom, which consisted of two tribes, was called Judah. (For details of the southern kingdom and its history see JUDAH, TRIBE AND KINGDOM.)

Northern part of a divided kingdom

Jeroboam made Shechem the capital of the northern kingdom (1Ki 12:25). (The capital was later moved to Tirzah, and later still to Samaria, where it remained till the end of the kingdom; 1Ki 15:21; 1Ki 15:33; 1Ki 16:23-24.) Jerusalem remained the capital of the southern kingdom, and kings of the Davidic dynasty continued to rule there (1Ki 12:17; 1Ki 12:21; 1Ki 22:41-42).

Jerusalem was also the location of the temple. Therefore, to prevent northerners from defecting to the south, Jeroboam built shrines at Dan on his northern border and Bethel on his southern border, complete with his own order of priests, sacrifices and festivals. Jeroboams religious system combined Canaanite and Israelite practices, and led to a moral and religious decay that would result in Gods destruction of the kingdom (1Ki 12:26-33; 1Ki 16:19; 1Ki 16:26; 2Ki 17:7-18).

Soon Israel was troubled by a kind of false religion that was even more serious than that which Jeroboam had introduced. This was the Baalism of Phoenicia that the Israelite king Ahab and his Phoenician wife Jezebel tried to establish as Israels official religion (1Ki 16:29-34).

To resist Jezebels Baalism, God raised up the prophets Elijah and Elisha. They helped to preserve the faithful minority of believers in Israel and so prevent Israels ancient religion from being lost for ever. Part of Israels punishment for its acceptance of Jezebels Baalism was a series of destructive invasions by Syria that lasted many years (1Ki 19:13-18; 2Ki 8:12-13; 2Ki 10:32-33; 2Ki 13:3-8). (For a map showing Israels position in relation to the major nations that became involved in its history see BIBLE.)

When the Syrian oppression of Israel was finally removed, Israel enjoyed a time of renewed growth and prosperity, particularly during the reign of Jeroboam II (793-752 BC; 2Ki 14:23-25). The prosperity, however, resulted in much corruption, injustice, immorality and religious decay, and soon the prophets Amos and Hosea were announcing Gods judgment on the sinful nation (Amo 7:8-11). The judgment came when Assyria conquered the northern kingdom and took the people into captivity in Assyria (722 BC; 2Ki 17:5-6). This marked the end of the northern kingdom. Nineteen Israelite kings had ruled over it, and these had been spread over nine dynasties.

The Assyrians then resettled people from other territories of their empire into parts of the former northern kingdom, mainly the central region around Samaria. These people intermarried with Israelites left in the land, and combined their own religions with Israels. From these people there developed a race, of mixed blood and mixed religion, known as the Samaritans. True Israelites despised them (2Ki 17:24-33; see SAMARIA).

Meanwhile the kingdom of Judah to the south struggled to maintain its independence. Eventually it was conquered by Babylon, who, in a series of attacks, took the Judeans captive to Babylon and destroyed Jerusalem (587 BC; 2Ki 25:1-12). Throughout the years of captivity in Babylon, the southerners retained their national and religious identity. Not so the northerners, who became widely scattered and were absorbed into the peoples among whom they lived.

The rebuilt nation

In 539 BC Persia conquered Babylon and allowed all captive peoples to return to their homelands. Many of the Judeans returned to Palestine and, under the leadership of the governor Zerubbabel and the high priest Joshua, began to rebuild the nation. The reconstructed temple was completed in 516 BC (Ezr 1:1-4; Ezr 5:1-2; Ezr 6:14-15).

Although back in their land, the people were still under the rule of Persia. They were at least united, for there was no longer a distinction between northerners and southerners. The restored nation could be called either Israel or Judah, because it was the true continuation of the ancient Israel, even though it consisted mainly of Judeans. Israelites therefore became known as Jews, the name Jew being short for Judean (see JEW).

After the early enthusiasm, spiritual life in the new nation soon declined. In an attempt to improve matters, the priest and teacher Ezra came to Jerusalem in 458 BC, with authority from the Persian government to reform the people (Ezr 7:1-10). But his efforts brought little success, and only when Nehemiah joined him thirteen years later was there any great change in Jerusalem. The Persian rulers had appointed Nehemiah governor of Jerusalem, and he and Ezra worked together to bring about wide-sweeping reforms (Neh 2:1-8; Neh 8:1-4; Neh 8:8; Neh 9:1-3).

Over the years that followed, a number of developments arose out of these reforms. They included the construction of buildings for worship and teaching called synagogues, the growth of a class of teachers of the law called scribes, and the establishment of a council to judge Jewish affairs called the Sanhedrin (see SYNAGOGUE; SCRIBES; SANHEDRIN).

The Greek and Roman periods

When the Greek conqueror Alexander the Great spread his power across the region (334-331 BC), Israel fell under Greek rule. Alexanders empire soon split into several sectors, Israel at first falling within the Egyptian sector, but later within the Syrian sector (198 BC).

By this time Greek customs and ideas were having some influence on the Jewish way of life, and this created divisions among the Jews. Some opposed this Greek influence and others encouraged it. Here we see the beginnings of the parties of the Pharisees and the Sadducees (see PHARISEES; SADDUCEES).

When fighting broke out in Jerusalem between these two Jewish factions, the Greek ruler in Syria showed his hatred of the Jews by trying to destroy them and their religion. The Jews fought back fiercely, regaining control of their temple in 165 BC, and eventually regaining full political independence in 143 BC. After 460 years under Babylon, Persia, and then Greece, the Jews were free again. (For further details of the events outlined above see GREECE.)

Though free from foreign domination, the Jews continued to fight among themselves. This so weakened the nation that it was unable to withstand the spreading power of Rome (who had succeeded Greece as the leading power of the region). In 63 BC Jewish independence came to an end. The politics of the region continued in confusion till 37 BC, when Herod, a part-Jew, was appointed king over the Jews, though still under the overall control of Rome. Some time after Herods death, Judea came under direct Roman rule, with Roman governors in charge (AD 6). (For details see HEROD.)

Among the Jews were anti-Roman extremists called Zealots, who were constantly looking for opportunities to fight against Rome. Finally, about AD 66, open rebellion broke out. The result was conquest by Rome and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, thereby bringing Israels national life to an end. (For details see ROME; ZEALOT.) Not until recent times (AD 1948) did Israel become a nation again.

Spiritual Israel

Although all the physical descendants of Jacob were Gods chosen people Israel in the physical and national sense, not all were Gods people in the inward and spiritual sense. Only those who turned from their sins and trusted in the saving mercy of God could be called the true Israel, the true people of God. This was so in Old Testament as well as New Testament times (Isa 1:4-20; Rom 2:28-29; Rom 9:6-8; Gal 6:16).

Yet even these, the true people of God, did not experience the full blessings that God intended for his people. Gods purposes for Israel found their perfect fulfilment in the Messiah, Jesus (see MESSIAH). The nation Israel was Abrahams natural offspring (Joh 8:37); the few faithful believers in Israel (often called the remnant) were his spiritual offspring (Rom 9:6-7; Gal 3:29); but the Messiah himself was the perfect offspring, the one in whom all Gods purposes for Israel were fulfilled and through whom people of all nations are blessed (Gal 3:16; cf. Gen 12:1-3).

When people through faith are in Christ, they become Abrahams offspring through Christ and inherit Gods promises through Christ. This is so regardless of their nationality (Gal 3:14; Gal 3:29; Eph 3:6). The true people of God includes all who have faith in him, not just those who belong to Israel. Like Abraham they are saved by faith, and therefore are spiritually his true descendants (Rom 4:11-12; Rom 4:16; Gal 3:26-29; Gal 4:26-28; Gal 6:16; 1Pe 1:1; 1Pe 2:9).

Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary

Israel

ISRAEL

I. History

1. Sources.The sources of Jewish political and religious history are the OT, the so-called Apocryphal writings, the works of Josephus, the Assyrian and Egyptian inscriptions, allusions in Greek and Roman historians, and the Mishna and Talmud.

Modern criticism has demonstrated that many of these sources were composed by weaving together previously existing documents. Before using any of these sources except the inscriptions, therefore, it is necessary to state the results of critical investigation and to estimate its effect upon the historical trustworthiness of the narratives. Genesis. Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua (the Hexateuch) are the product of one long literary process. Four different documents, each the work of a school of writers, have been laid under tribute to compose it. These documents are quoted so literally that they can still be separated with practical certainty one from another. The documents are the Jahwistic (J [Note: Jahwist.] ), composed in Judah by J [Note: Jahwist.] 1 before b.c. 800, perhaps in the reign of Jehoshaphat, though fragments of older poems are quoted, and supplemented a little later by J [Note: Jahwist.] 2; the Elohistic (E [Note: Elohist.] ). composed in the Northern Kingdom by E [Note: Elohist.] 1 about b.c. 750 and expanded somewhat later by E [Note: Elohist.] 2; the Deuteronomic code (D [Note: Deuteronomist.] ), composed by D [Note: Deuteronomist.] 1 about b.c. 650, to which D [Note: Deuteronomist.] 2 prefixed a second preface about ninety years later; the Code of Holiness, compiled by P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] 1 about b.c. 500 or a little earlier, the priestly Book of Origins written by P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] 2 about b.c 450, and various supplementary priestly notes added by various writers at later times. It should be noted that D [Note: Deuteronomist.] 2 added various notes throughout the Hexateuch.

The dates here assigned to these documents are those given by the Graf-Wellhausen school, to which the majority of scholars in all countries now belong. The Ewald-Dillmann school, represented by Strack and Kittel, still hold that P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] is older than D [Note: Deuteronomist.] . For details see Hexateuch.

Jdg 1:1-36 and 2Sa 1:1-27 and 2Kings were also compiled by one literary process. The compiler was a follower of D [Note: Deuteronomist.] , who wrote probably about 600. The work received a supplement by a kindred writer about 560. The sources from which the editor drew were, for Judges, Samuel, and the first two chapters of Kings,the J [Note: Jahwist.] and E [Note: Elohist.] documents in Jdg 5:1-31 a poem composed about b.c. 1100 is utilized. The editor interpolated his own comments and at times his own editorial framework, but the sources may still be distinguished from these and from each other. A few additions have been made by a still later hand, but these are readily separated. In 1Ki 3:1-28; 1Ki 4:1-34; 1Ki 5:1-18; 1Ki 6:1-38; 1Ki 7:1-51; 1Ki 8:1-66; 1Ki 9:1-28; 1Ki 10:1-29; 1Ki 11:1-43 a chronicle of the reign of Solomon and an old Temple record have been drawn upon, but they are interwoven with glosses and later legendary material. In the synchronous history (1Ki 12:1-33 -2Ki 17:1-41) the principal sources are the Book of the Chronicle of the Kings of Israel and the Book of the Chronicle of the Kings of Judah, though various other writings have been drawn upon for the narratives of Elijah and Elisha. The concluding portion (2Ki 18:1-37; 2Ki 19:1-37; 2Ki 20:1-21; 2Ki 21:1-26; 2Ki 22:1-20; 2Ki 23:1-37; 2Ki 24:1-20; 2Ki 25:1-30) is dependent also upon the Judan Chronicle. In all parts of Kings the Deuteronomic editor allows himself large liberties. For details see artt. on the Books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings.

Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah are all the result of a late literary movement, and came into existence about b.c. 300. They were composed under the influence of the Levitical law. The history was re-told in Chronicles, in order to furnish the faithful with an expurgated edition of the history of Israel. The chief sources of the Chronicler were the earlier canonical books which are now found in our Bibles. Where he differs from these he is of doubtful authority. See Chronicles. A memoir of Ezra and one of Nehemiah were laid under contribution in the books which respectively bear these names. Apart from these quotations, the Chronicler composed freely as his point of view guided his imagination. See Ezra and Nehemiah [Books of].

Of the remaining historical books 1 Maccabees is a first-rate historical authority, having been composed by an author contemporary with the events described. The other apocryphal works contain much legendary material.

Josephus is for the earlier history dependent almost exclusively upon the OT. Here his narrative has no independent value. For the events in which he was an actor he is a writer of the first importance. In the non-Israelitish sources Israel is mentioned only incidentally, but the information thus given is of primary importance. The Mishna and Talmud are compilations of traditions containing in some cases an historical kernel, but valuable for the light they throw upon Jewish life in the early Christian centuries.

2. Historical value of the earlier books.If the oldest source in the Pentateuch dates from the 9th cent., the question as to the value of the narratives concerning the patriarchal period is forced upon us. Can the accounts of that time be relied upon as history? The answer of most scholars of the present day is that in part they can, though in a different way from that which was formerly in vogue. Winckler, it is true, would dissolve these narratives into solar and astral myths, but the majority of scholars, while making allowance for legendary and mythical elements, are confident that important outlines of tribal history are revealed in the early books of the Bible.

The tenth chapter of Genesis contains a genealogical table in which nations are personified as men. Thus the sons of Ham were Cush (Nubia), Mizraim (Egypt), Put (East Africa?), and Canaan. The sons of Shem were Elam, Assyria, Mesopotamia, Lud (a land of unknown situation, not Lydia), and Aram (the Aramans). If countries and peoples are here personified as men, the same may be the case elsewhere: and in Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Esau, and the twelve sons of Jacob, we may be dealing not with individuals but with tribes. The marriages of individuals may represent the alliances or union of tribes. Viewed in this way, these narratives disclose to us the formation of the Israelitish nation.

The traditions may, however, be classified in two ways: (1) as to origin, and (2) as to content. (For the classification as to origin see Paton, AJTh [Note: JTh American Journal of Theology.] viii. [1904], 658 ff.)

1. (a) Some traditions, such as those concerning kinship with non-Palestinian tribes, the deliverance from Egypt, and concerning Moses, were brought into Palestine from the desert. (b) Others, such as the traditions of Abrahams connexion with various shrines, and the stories of Jacob and his sons, were developed in the land of Canaan, (c) Still others were learned from the Canaanites. Thus we learn from an inscription of Thothmes iii. about b.c. 1500 that Jacob-el was a place-name in Palestine. (See W. M. Mller, Asien und Europa, 162.) Israel, as will appear later, was a name of a part of the tribes before they entered Canaan. In Genesis, Jacob and Israel are identified, probably because Israel had settled in the Jacob country. The latter name must have been learned from the Canaanites. Similarly, in the inscription of Thothmes Joseph-el is a place-name. Genesis (Gen 48:9 ff.) tells how Joseph was divided into two tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh. Probably the latter are Israelitish, and are so called because they settled in the Joseph country. Lot or Luten (Egyp. Ruten) is an old name of Palestine or of a part of it. In Genesis, Moab and Ammon are said to be the children of Lot, probably because they settled in the country of Luten. In most cases where a tradition has blended two elements, one of these was learned from the Canaanites. (d) Finally, a fourth set of traditions were derived from Babylonia. This is clearly the case with the Creation and Deluge narratives, parallels to which have been found in Babylonian and Assyrian literature. (See KIB [Note: IB Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek.] vi.)

2. Classified according to their content, we have: (a) narratives which embody the history and movements of tribes. (b) Narratives which reflect the traditions of the various shrines of Israel. The stories of Abraham at Bethel, Shechem, Hebron, and Beersheba come under this head. (c) Legendary and mythical survivals. Many of these have an tiological purpose; they explain the origin of some custom or the cause of some physical phenomenon. Thus Gen 18:1-33; Gen 19:1-38the destruction of Sodom and the other cities of the plainis a story which grew up to account for the Dead Sea, which, we now know, was produced by very different causes. Similarly Gen 22:1-24 is a story designed to account for the fact that the Israelites sacrificed a lamb instead of the firstborn. (d) Other narratives are devoted to cosmogony and primeval history. This classification is worked out in detail in Peters Early Hebrew Story. It is clear that in writing a history of the origin of Israel we must regard the patriarchal narratives as relating largely to tribes rather than individuals, and must use them with discrimination.

3. Historical meaning of the patriarchal narratives.Parts of the account of Abraham are local traditions of shrines, but the story of Abrahams migration is the narrative of the westward movement of a tribe or group of tribes from which the Hebrews were descended. Isaac is a shadowy figure confined mostly to the south, and possibly represents a south Palestinian clan, which was afterwards absorbed by the Israelites. Jacob-Israel (Jacob, as shown above, is of Canaanitish origin; Israel was the name of the confederated clans) represents the nation Israel itself. Israel is called an Araman (Deu 26:5), and the account of the marriage of Jacob (Gen 29:1-35; Gen 30:1-43; Gen 31:1-55) shows that Israel was kindred to the Aramans. We can now trace in the cuneiform literature the appearance and westward migration of the Aramans, and we know that they begin to be mentioned in the Euphrates valley about b.c. 1300, and were moving westward for a little more than a century (see Paton, Syria and Palestine, 103 ff.). The Israelites were a part of this Araman migration.

The sons of Jacob are divided into four groups. SixReuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulunare said to be the sons of Leah. Leah probably means wild cow (Delitzsch, Prolegomena, 80; W. R. Smith, Kinship2, 254). This apparently means that these tribes were of near kin, and possessed as a common totem the wild cow or bovine antelope. The tribes of Manasseh, Ephraim, and Benjamin traced their descent from Rachel. Rachel means ewe, and these tribes, though kindred to the other six, possessed a different totem. Judah was, in the period before the conquest, a far smaller tribe than afterwards, for, as will appear later, many Palestinian clans were absorbed into Judah. Benjamin is said to have been the youngest son of Jacob, born in Palestine a long time after the others. The name Benjamin means sons of the south, or southerners: the Benjamites are probably the southerners of the tribe of Ephraim, and were gradually separated from that tribe after the conquest of Canaan. Four sons of JacobDan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asherare said to be the sons of concubines. This less honourable birth probably means that they joined the confederacy later than the other tribes. Since the tribe of Asher can be traced in the el-Amarna tablets in the region of their subsequent habitat (cf. Barton, Semitic Origins, 248 ff.), this tribe probably joined the confederacy after the conquest of Palestine. Perhaps the same is true of the other three.

4. The beginnings of Israel.The original Israel, then, probably consisted of the eight tribesReuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Manasseh, and Ephraim, though perhaps the Rachel tribes did not join the confederacy until they had escaped from Egypt (see 6). These tribes, along with the other Abrahamidthe Edomites, Ammonites, and Moabitesmoved westward from the Euphrates along the eastern border of Palestine. The Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites gained a foothold in the territories afterwards occupied by them. The Israelites appear to have been compelled to move on to the less fertile steppe to the south, between Beersheba and Egypt, roaming at times as far as Sinai. Budde (Rel. of Isr. to the Exile, 6) regards the Khabiri, who in the el-Amarna tablets lay siege to Jerusalem, as Hebrews who made an incursion into Palestine, c [Note: circa, about.] . b.c. 1400. Though many scholars deny that they were Hebrews, perhaps they were.

5. The Egyptian bondage.From the time of the first Egyptian dynasty (c [Note: circa, about.] . b.c. 3000), the Egyptians had been penetrating into the Sinaitic Peninsula on account of the mines in the Wadi Maghara (cf. Breasted, Hist. of Egypt, 48). In course of time Egypt dominated the whole region, and on this account it was called Musru, Egypt being Musru or Misraim (cf. Winckler, Hibbert Jour. ii. 571 ff., and KAT [Note: Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament.] 3 144ff.). Because of this, Winckler holds (KAT [Note: Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament.] 3 212 ff.) that there is no historical foundation for the narrative of the Egyptian oppression of the Hebrews and their exodus from that country; all this, he contends, arose from a later misunderstanding of the name Musru. But, as Budde (Rel. of Isr. to the Exile, ch. i.) has pointed out, the firm and constant tradition of the Egyptian bondage, running as it does through all four of the Pentateuchal documents and forming the background of all Israels religious and prophetic consciousness, must have some historical content. We know from the Egyptian monuments that at different times Bedu from Asia entered the country on account of its fertility. The famous Hyksos kings and their people found access to the land of the Nile in this way. Probability, accordingly, strengthens the tradition that Hebrews so entered Egypt. Exo 1:11 states that they were compelled to aid in building the cities of Pithom and Raamses. Excavations have shown that these cities were founded by Rameses ii. (b.c. 12921225; cf. Hogarth, Authority and Archology, 55). It has been customary, therefore, to regard Rameses as the Pharaoh of the oppression, and Menephtah (Meren-ptah, 12251215) as the Pharaoh of the Exodus. This view has in recent years met with an unexpected difficulty. In 1896 a stele was discovered in Egypt on which an inscription of Menephtah, dated in his fifth year, mentions the Israelites as already in Palestine or the desert to the south of it, and as defeated there, (cf. Breasted, Anc. Records of Egypt, iii. 256 ff.). This inscription celebrates a campaign which Menephtah made into Palestine in his third year (cf. Breasted, op. cit. 272). On the surface, this inscription, which contains by far the oldest mention of Israel yet discovered in any literature, and the only mention in Egyptian, seems to favour Wincklers view. The subject cannot, however, be dismissed in so light a manner. The persistent historical tradition which colours all Hebrew religious thought must have, one would think, some historical foundation. The main thread of it must be true, but in details, such as the reference to Pithom and Raamses, the tradition may be mistaken. Traditions attach themselves to different men, why not to different cities? Perhaps, as several scholars have suggested, another solution is more probable, that not all of the Hebrews went to Egypt. Wildeboer (Jahvedienst en Volksreligie Israel, 15) and Budde (op. cit. 10) hold that it was the so-called Joseph tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh, that settled for a time in Egypt, and that Moses led forth. This receives some support from the fact that the E [Note: Elohist.] document, which originated among the Ephraimites, is the first one that remembers that the name Jahweh was, until the Exodus, unknown to them (cf. Exo 3:14).

Probably we shall not go far astray, if we suppose that the Leah tribes were roaming the steppe to the south of Palestine where Menephtah defeated them, while the Rachel tribes, enticed into Egypt by the opportunity to obtain an easier livelihood, became entangled in trouble there, from which Moses emancipated them, perhaps in the reign of Menephtah himself.

6. The Exodus.The J [Note: Jahwist.] , E [Note: Elohist.] , and P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] documents agree in their main picture of the Exodus, although J [Note: Jahwist.] differs from the other two in holding that the worship of Jahweh was known at an earlier time. Moses, they tell us, fled from Egypt and took refuge in Midian with Jethro, a Kenite priest (cf. Jdg 1:16). Here, according to E [Note: Elohist.] and P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] , at Horeb or Sinai, Jahwehs holy mount, Moses first learned to worship Jahweh, who, he believed, sent him to deliver from Egypt his oppressed brethren. After various plagues (J [Note: Jahwist.] gives them as seven; E [Note: Elohist.] , five; and P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] ; six) Moses led them out, and by Divine aid they escaped across the Red Sea. J [Note: Jahwist.] makes this escape the result of Jahwehs control of natural means (Exo 14:21). Moses then led them to Sinai, where, according to both J [Note: Jahwist.] and E [Note: Elohist.] , they entered into a solemn covenant with Jahweh to serve Him as their God. According to E [Note: Elohist.] (Exo 18:12 ff.), it was Jethro, the Kenite or Midianite priest, who initiated them into the rite and mediated the covenant. After this the Rachel tribes probably allied themselves more closely to the Leah tribes, and, through the aid of Moses, gradually led them to adopt the worship of Jahweh. Religion was at this period purely an affair of ritual and material success, and since clans had escaped from Egypt through the name of Jahweh, others would more readily adopt His worship also. Perhaps it was during this period that the Rachel tribes first became a real part of the Israelite confederation.

7. The Wilderness wandering.For some time the habitat of Israel, as thus constituted, was the region between Sinai on the south and Kadesh,a spring some fifty miles south of Beersheba,on the north. At Kadesh the fountain was sacred, and at Sinai there was a sacred mountain. Moses became during this period the sheik of the united tribes. Because of his preeminence in the knowledge of Jahweh he acquired this paramount influence in all their counsels. In the traditions this period is called the Wandering in the Wilderness, and it is said to have continued forty years. The expression forty years is, however, used by D [Note: Deuteronomist.] and his followers in a vague way for an indefinite period of time. In this case it is probably rather over than under the actual amount.

The region in which Israel now roamed was anything but fertile, and the people naturally turned their eyes to more promising pasture lands. This they did with the more confidence, because Jahweh, their new God, had just delivered a portion of them from Egypt in an extraordinary manner. Naturally they desired the most fertile land in the region, Palestine. Finding themselves for some reason unable to move directly upon it from the south (Num 13:1-33; Num 14:1-45), perhaps because the hostile Amalekites interposed, they made a circuit to the eastward. According to the traditions, their detour extended around the territories of Edom and Moab, so that they came upon the territory north of the Arnon, where an Amorlte kingdom had previously been established, over which, in the city of Heshbon, Sihon ruled. See Amorites.

8. The trans-Jordanic conquest.The account of the conquest of the kingdom of Sihon is given by E [Note: Elohist.] with a few additions from J [Note: Jahwist.] in Num 21:1-35. No details are given, but it appears that in the battles Israel was victorious. We learn from the P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] document in Num 32:1-42 that the conquered cities of this region were divided between the tribes of Reuben and Gad. Perhaps it was at this time that the tribe of Gad came into the confederacy. At least they appear in real history here for the first time. The genealogies represent Gad as the son of a slave-girl. This, as already noted, probably means that the tribe joined the nation at a comparatively late period. Probably the Gadites came in from the desert at this period, and in union with the Reubenites won this territory, which extended from the Arnon to a point a little north of Heshbon. It is usually supposed that the territory of Reuben lay to the south of that of Gad, extending from the Arnon to Elealeh, north of Heshbon; but in reality each took certain cities in such a way that their territory interpenetrated (Num 32:34). Thus the Gadites had Dibon, Ataroth, and Aroer to the south, Jazer north of Heshbon, and Bethnimrah and Beth-baran in the Jordan valley; while the Reubenites had Baal-meon, Nebo, Heshbon, and Elealeh, which lay between these. Probably the country to the north was not conquered until later. It is true that D [Note: Deuteronomist.] claims that Og, the king of Bashan, was conquered at this time, but it is probable that the conquest of Bashan by a part of the tribe of Manasseh was a backward movement from the west after the conquest of Palestine was accomplished. During this period Moses died, and Joshua became the leader of the nation.

9. Crossing the Jordan.The conquests of the tribe of Gad brought the Hebrews into the Jordan valley, but the swiftly flowing river with its banks of clay formed an insuperable obstacle to these primitive folk. The traditions tell of a miraculous stoppage of the waters. The Arabic historian Nuwairi tells of a land-slide of one of the clay hills that border the Jordan, which afforded an opportunity to the Arabs to complete a military bridge. The account of this was published with translation in the PEFSt [Note: Quarterly Statement of the same.] , 1895, p. 253 ff. The J [Note: Jahwist.] writer would see in such an event, as he did in the action of the winds upon the waters of the Red Sea, the hand of Jahweh. The accounts of it in which the priests and the ark figure are of later origin. These stories explained the origin of a circle of sacred stones called Gilgal, which lay on the west of the Jordan, by the supposition that the priests had taken these stones from the bed of the river at the time of the crossing.

10. The conquest of Canaan.The first point of attack after crossing the Jordan was Jericho. In Jos 6:1-27 J [Note: Jahwist.] s account and E [Note: Elohist.] s account of the taking of Jericho are woven together (cf. the Oxford Hexateuch, or SBOT [Note: BOT Sacred Books of Old Testament.] , ad. loc.). According to the J [Note: Jahwist.] account, the Israelites marched around the city once a day for six days. As they made no attack, the besieged were thrown off their guard, so that, when on the seventh day the Israelites made an attack at the end of their marching, they easily captured the town. As to the subsequent course of the conquest, the sources differ widely. The D [Note: Deuteronomist.] and P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] strata of the book of Joshua, which form the main portion of it, represent Joshua as gaining possession of the country in two great battles, and as dividing it up among the tribes by lot. The J [Note: Jahwist.] account of the conquest, however, which has been preserved in Jdg 1:1-36 and Jos 8:1-35; Jos 9:1-27; Jos 10:1-43; Jos 13:1; Jos 13:7 a, Jos 13:13; Jos 15:14-19; Jos 15:63; Jos 16:1-3; Jos 16:10; Jos 17:11-18; Jos 19:47, while it represents Joshua as the leader of the Rachel tribes and as winning a decisive victory near Gibeon, declares that the tribes went up to win their territory singly, and that in the end their conquest was only partial. This representation is much older than the other, and is much more in accord with the subsequent course of events and with historical probability.

According to J [Note: Jahwist.] , there seem to have been at least three lines of attack: (1) that which Joshua led up the valley from Jericho to Ai and Bethel, from which the territories afterwards occupied by Ephraim and Benjamin were secured. (2) A movement on the part of the tribe of Judah followed by the Simeonites, south-westward from Jericho into the hill-country about Bethlehem and Hebron. (3) Lastly, there was the movement of the northern tribes into the hill-country which borders the great plain of Jezreel. J [Note: Jahwist.] in Jos 11:1; Jos 11:4-9 tells us that in a great battle by the Waters of Merom (wh. see) Joshua won for the Israelites a victory over four petty kings of the north, which gave the Israelites their foothold there. In the course of these struggles a disaster befell the tribes of Simeon and Levi in an attempt to take Shechem, which practically annihilated Levi, and greatly weakened Simeon (cf. Gen 34:1-31). This disaster was thought to be a Divine punishment for reprehensible conduct (Gen 49:5-7). J [Note: Jahwist.] distinctly states (Jdg 1:1-36) that the conquest was not complete, but that two lines of fortresses, remaining in the possession of the Canaanites, cut the Israelitish territory into three sections. One of these consisted of Dor, Megiddo. Taanach, Ibleam, and Beth-shean, and gave the Canaanites control of the great plain of Jezreel. while, holding as they did Jerusalem, Aijalon, Har-heres (Beth-shemesh), and Gezer, they cut the tribe of Judah off from their northern kinsfolk. J [Note: Jahwist.] further tells us distinctly that not all the Canaanites were driven out, but that the Canaanites and the Hebrews lived together. Later, he says, Israel made slaves of the Canaanites. This latter statement is perhaps true for those Canaanites who held out in these fortresses, but reasons will be given later for believing that by intermarriage a gradual fusion between Canaanites and Israelites took place.

Reasons have been adduced ( 3) for believing that the tribe of Asher had been in the country from about b.c. 1400. (The conquest probably occurred about 1200.) Probably they allied themselves with the other tribes when the latter entered Canaan. At what time the tribes of Naphtali and Dan joined the Hebrew federation we have no means of knowing. J [Note: Jahwist.] tells us (Jdg 1:34-35) that the Danites struggled for a foothold in the Shephlah, where they obtained out an insecure footing. As they afterwards migrated from here (Jdg 17:1-13; Jdg 18:1-31), and as a place in this region was called the Camp of Dan (Jdg 13:25; Jdg 18:12), probably their hold was very insecure. We learn from Jdg 15:1-20 that they possessed the town of Zorah, where Samson was afterwards born.

11. Period of the Judges.During this period, which extended from about 1200 to about 1020 b.c., Israel became naturalized in the land, and amalgamated with the Canaanites. The chronology of the period as given in the Book of Judges is certainly too long. The Deuteronomic editor, who is responsible for this chronology, probably reckoned forty years as the equivalent of a generation, and 1Ki 6:1 gives us the key to his scheme. He made the time from the Exodus to the founding of the Temple twelve generations (cf. Moore, Judges in ICC [Note: CC International Critical Commentary.] , p. xxxviii.). The so-called Minor JudgesTola, Jair, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon (Jdg 10:1-5; Jdg 12:8-15)were not included in the editors chronology. The statements concerning them were added by a later hand. As three of their names appear elsewhere as clan names (cf. Gen 46:13-14, Num 26:23; Num 26:26, Deu 3:14), and as another is a city (Jos 21:30), scholars are agreed that these were not real judges, but that they owe their existence to the mistake of a late writer. Similarly, Shamgar (Jdg 3:31) was not a real judge. His name appears where it does because some late writer mistakenly inferred that the reference to Shamgar (probably a Hittite chief) in Jdg 5:6 was an allusion to an earlier judge (cf. Moore, JAOS [Note: AOS Journ. of the Amer. Oriental Society.] xix. 159 ff.). Some doubt attaches also to Othniel, who is elsewhere a younger brother of a Caleb,the Calebites, a branch of the Edomite clan of the Kenaz (cf. Jdg 1:13 with Gen 36:11; Gen 36:15; Gen 36:42), which had settled in Southern Judah. This doubt is increased by the fact that the whole of the narrative of the invasion of Cushan-rishathaim, king of Mesopotamia, is the work of the editor, R [Note: Redactor.] D [Note: Deuteronomist.] , and also by the fact that no king of Mesopotamia who could have made such an invasion is known to have existed at this time. Furthermore, had such a king invaded Israel, his power would have been felt in the north and not in Judah. If there is any historical kernel in this narrative, probably it was the Edomites who were the perpetrators of the invasion, and their name has become corrupted (cf. Paton, Syr. and Pal. 161). It is difficult, then, to see how Othniel should have been a deliverer, as he seems to have belonged to a kindred clan, but the whole matter may have been confused by oral transmission. Perhaps the narrative is a distorted reminiscence of the settlement in Southern Judah of the Edomitic clans of Caleb and Othniel.

The real judges were Ehud, Deborah, Gideon, Jephthah, Eli, and Samuel. Samson was a kind of giant-hero, but he always fought single-handed; he was no leader and organizer of men, and it is difficult to see how he can justly be called a judge. The age was a period of great tribal restlessness. Others were trying to do what the Israelites had done, and gain a foothold in Palestine. Wave after wave of attempted invasion broke over the land. Each coming from a different direction affected a different part of it, and in the part affected a patriot would arouse the Hebrews of the vicinity and expel the invader. The influence thus acquired, and the position which the wealth derived from the spoil of war gave him, made such a person the sheik of his district for the time being. Thus the judges were in reality great tribal chieftains. They owed their office to personal prowess. Because of their character their countrymen brought to them their causes to adjust, and they had no authority except public opinion whereby to enforce their decisions.

Deborah and Barak delivered Israel, not from invaders, but from a monarch whom up to that time the Hebrews had been unable to overcome. It is probable that this power was Hittite (cf. Moore, JAOS [Note: AOS Journ. of the Amer. Oriental Society.] , xix. 158 ff.). This episode, which should probably be dated about 1150, marks the conclusion of the conquest of Northern Palestine.

There were four real invasions from outside during the period of the judges: that of the Moabites, which called Ehud into prominence; that of the Midianites, which gave Gideon his opportunity; that of the Ammonites, from whom Jephthah delivered Gilead; and that of the Philistines, against whom Samson, Eli, Samuel, and Saul struggled, but who were not overcome until the reign of David. The first of these invasions affected the territories of Reuben and Gad on the east, and of Benjamin on the west, of the Jordan. It probably occurred early in the period. The second invasion affected the country of Ephraim and Manasseh, and probably occurred about the middle of the period. Gideons son Abimelech endeavoured to establish a petty kingdom in Shechem after Gideon had run his successful career, but the attempt at kingship was premature (cf. Jdg 9:1-57). The Ammonite invasion affected only Gilead, while the Philistine invasion was later, more prolonged, and affected all of Central Palestine. These people came into Palestine from the outside (cf. Philistines), pushed the inhabitants of the Maritime Plain back upon the Israelites, made many attempts to conquer the hill-country, and by the end of the reign of Saul held the greater part of the Plain of Jezreel.

The struggles with these invaders gradually called into existence a national consciousness in Israel. It is clear from the song of Deborah that when that poem was written there was no sense of national unity. A dim sense of kinship held the tribes together, but this kinship brought to Deborahs standard only those who had some tribal interest in the struggle. The Reubenites did not respond to the appeal (Jdg 5:16), while the tribe of Judah is not mentioned at all.

At the end of the period, the kingship of Saul, who responded to a call to help Jabesh, a Gileadite city, against a second in vasion of Ammonites, is the expression of a developing national consciousness.

At some time during this period a part of the Danites moved to the foot of Mount Hermon, to the city which was henceforth to be called Dan (Jdg 17:1-13; Jdg 18:1-31). During these years the process of amalgamation between the Israelites and the tribes previously inhabiting the land went steadily forward. Perhaps it occurred in the tribe of Judah on a larger scale than elsewhere. At all events, we can trace it there more clearly. The stories of Judahs marriages in Gen 38:1-30 really represent the union of Shnaites and Tamarites with the tribe. The union of the Kenazites and Calebites with Judah has already been noted. The Kenites also united with them (Jdg 1:16), as did also the Jerahmeelites (cf. 1Sa 30:29 with 1Ch 2:9). What went on in Judah occurred to some extent in all the tribes, though probably Judah excelled in this. Perhaps it was a larger admixture of foreign blood that gave Judah its sense of aloofness from the rest of Israel. Certain it is. however, that the great increase in strength which Israel experienced between the time of Deborah and the time of David cannot be accounted for on the basis of natural increase. There were elements in the religion of the Israelites which, notwithstanding the absorption of culture from the Canaanites, enabled Israel to absorb in turn the Canaanites themselves. The religious and ethical aspects of the period will be considered in connexion with the religion.

12. Reign of Saul.There are two accounts of how Saul became king. The older of these (1Sa 9:1; 1Sa 10:16; 1Sa 10:27 b, 1Sa 11:1; 1Sa 11:15) tells how Saul was led to Samuel in seeking some lost asses, how Samuel anointed him to be king, and how about a month after that the men of Jabesh-gilead, whom the Ammonites were besieging, sent out messengers earnestly imploring aid. Saul, by means of a gory symbolism consonant with the habits of his age, summoned the Israelites to follow him to war. They responded, and by means of the army thus raised he delivered the distressed city. As a result of this Saul was proclaimed king, apparently by acclamation. The later account (which consists of the parts of 1Sa 8:1-22; 1Sa 9:1-27; 1Sa 10:1-27; 1Sa 11:1-15; 1Sa 12:1-25 not enumerated above) presents a picture which is so unnatural that it cannot be historical. Saul gained his kingdom, then, because of his success as a military leader. Probably at first his sovereignty was acknowledged only by the Rachel tribes and Gilead.

The Philistines, upon hearing that Israel had a king, naturally endeavoured to crush him. Soon after his accession, therefore, Saul was compelled to repel an invasion, by which the Philistines had penetrated to Michmash, within ten miles of his capital. Their camp was separated from Sauls by the deep gorge of Michmash. Owing to the daring and valour of Jonathan, a victory was gained for Israel which gave Saul for a time freedom from these enemies (cf. 1Sa 13:1-23; 1Sa 14:1-52). Saul occupied this respite in an expedition against Israels old-time enemies the Amalekites. Our account of this (1Sa 15:1-35) comes from the later (E [Note: Elohist.] ) source, and gives us, by way of explaining Sauls later insanity, the statement that he did not destroy the accursed Amalekites with all their belongings, but presumed to take some booty from them.

Soon, however, Saul was compelled once more to take up arms against the Philistines, whom he fought with varying fortunes until they slew him in battle on Mount Gilboa. During the later years of Sauls life fits of insanity came upon him with increasing frequency. These were interpreted by his contemporaries to mean that Jahweh had abandoned him; thus his followers were gradually estranged from him. A large part of the space devoted to his reign by the sacred writers is occupied with the relations between Saul and the youthful David. These narratives are purely personal. The only light which they throw upon the political history of the period is that they make it clear that Sauls hold upon the tribe of Judah was not a very firm one.

How long the reign of Saul continued we have no means of knowing. The Books of Samuel contain no statement concerning it. Many scholars believe that the editor of Samuel purposely omitted it because he regarded David as the legitimate religious successor of Samuel, and viewed Saul consequently as a usurper. Saul must have ruled for some yearsten or fifteen, probablyand his kingdom included not only the territory from the Plain of Jezreel to Jerusalem, with a less firm hold upon Judah, but the trans-Jordanic Gileadites. The latter were so loyal to him that his son, when Judah seceded, abandoned his home in Gibeon, and made Mahanaim his capital. What attitude the tribes to the north of Jezreel took towards Saul we do not know.

13. Reign of David.Before Sauls death David had attached the men of Judah so firmly to himself, and had exhibited such qualities of leadership, that, when Saul fell at Gilboa, David made himself king of Judah, his capital being Hebron. As Jonathan, the crown prince, had fallen in battle, Abner, Sauls faithful general, made Ish-baal (called in Samuel Ish-bosheth) king, removing his residence to Mahanaim. For seven and a half years civil war dragged itself along. Then Joab by treacherous murder removed Abner (2Sa 3:27 ff.), assassins disposed of the weak Ish-baal, and Israel and Judah were soon united again under one monarch, David. We are not to understand from 2Sa 5:1-25 that the elders of Israel all came immediately in one body to make David king. Probably they came one by one at intervals of time. There were many tribal jealousies and ambitions deterring some of them from such a course, but the times demanded a united kingdom, and as there was no one but David who gave promise of establishing such a monarchy, they ultimately yielded to the logic of events.

David soon devoted himself to the consolidation of his territory. Just at the northern edge of the tribe of Judah, commanding the highway from north to south, stood the ancient fortress of Jerusalem. It had never been in the possession of the Israelites. The Jebusites, who had held it since Israels entrance into Canaan, fondly believed that its position rendered it impregnable. This city David captured, and with the insight of genius made it his capital (2Sa 5:4 ff.). This choice was a wise one in every way. Had he continued to dwell in Hebron, both Benjaminwhich had in the previous reign been the royal tribeand Ephraimwhich never easily yielded precedence to any other clanwould have regarded him as a Judan rather than a national leader. Jerusalem was to the Israelites a new city. It not only had no associations with the tribal differences of the past, but, lying as it did on the borderland of two tribes, was neutral territory. Moreover, the natural facilities of its situation easily made it an almost impregnable fortress. David accordingly rebuilt the Jebusite stronghold and took up his residence in it, and from this time onward it became the city of David.

The Philistines, ever jealous of the rising power of Israel, soon attacked David in his new capital, but he gained such a victory over them (2Sa 5:18 ff.) that in the future he seems to have been able to seek them out city by city and subdue them at his leisure (2Sa 8:1 ff.). Having crushed the Philistines, David turned his attention to the trans-Jordanic lands. He attacked Moab, and after his victory treated the conquered with the greatest barbarity (2Sa 8:2). He was, however, the child of his age. All wars were cruel, and the Assyrians could teach even David lessons in cruelty. Edom was also conquered (2Sa 8:13-14). Ammon needlessly provoked a war with David, and after a long slege their capital Rabbah, on the distant border of the desert, succumbed (10, 11). The petty Araman State of Zobah was drawn into the war, and was compelled to pay tribute (2Sa 8:3 ff.). Damascus, whose inhabitants, as kinsfolk of the people of Zobah, tried to aid the latter, was finally made a tributary State also (2Sa 8:5 ff.), so that within a few years David built up a considerable empire. This territory he did not attempt to organize in a political way, but, according to the universal Oriental custom of his time, he ruled it through tributary native princes. Toi, king of Hamath, and Hiram, king of Tyre, sent embassies to welcome David into the brotherhood of kings. Thus Israel became united, and gained a recognized position among the nations.

This success was possible because at the moment Assyria and Egypt were both weak. In the former country the period of weakness which followed the reign of the great Tiglath-pileser i. was at its height, while in the latter land the 21st dynasty, with its dual line of rulers at Thebes and Tanis, rendered the country powerless through internal dissensions.

David upon his removal to Jerusalem organized his court upon a more extensive scale than Saul had ever done, and, according to Oriental custom, increased his harem. The early Semite was often predisposed to sexual weakness, and David exhibited the frequent bent of his race. His sin with Bathsheba, and subsequent treachery to her husband Uriah, need not be re-told. Davids fondness for his son Absalom and his lax treatment of him produced more dire political consequences. Absalom led a rebellion which drove the king from Jerusalem and nearly cost him his throne. David on this occasion, like Ish-baal before him, took refuge at Mahanaim, the east Jordanic hinterland. Here Davids conduct towards the rebellious son was such that, but for the fact that the relentless Joab disregarded the express commands of his royal master and put Absalom to death after his army had been defeated, it is doubtful whether Absalom would not have triumphed in the end. A smaller revolt grew out of this, but the reduction of Abel near Dan in the north finally restored Davids authority throughout the land.

During the reign of David, though we do not know in what part of it, two misfortunes befell the country. The first of these was a famine for three successive years (2Sa 21:1-22). The means taken to win back the favour of Jahweh, which it was supposed Israel had forfeited, so that He should give rain again, is an eloquent commentary on the barbarous nature of the age and the primitive character of its religious conceptions. The other event was a plague, which followed an attempt of David to take a census (ch. 24), and which the Israelites accordingly believed Jahweh had sent to punish the king for presumptuously introducing such an innovation.

The last days of David were rendered unquiet by the attempt of his son Adonijah to seize the crown (1Ki 1:1-53). Having, however, fixed the succession upon Solomon, the son of Bathsheba, David is said to have left to him as an inheritance the duty of taking vengeance upon Joab and Shimei (1Ki 2:1 ff.).

To the reign of David subsequent generations looked as the golden age of Israel. Never again did the boundaries of a united Israelitish empire extend so far. These boundaries, magnified a little by fond imagination, became the ideal limits of the Promised Land. David himself, idealized by later ages, became the prototype of the Messiah. The reign of David is said to have lasted forty years. It probably extended from about b.c. 1017 to 977.

14. Reign of Solomon.Probably upon the accession of Solomon, certainly during his reign, two of the tributary States, Edom and Damascus, gained their independence (1Ki 11:14-25). The remainder of the empire of David was held by Solomon until his death. Up to the time of Solomon the Israelites had been a simple rural people untouched by the splendour or the culture of the world outside. Simple shepherds and vinedressers, they knew nothing of the splendours of Tyre or Babylon or Egypt, and had never possessed wealth enough to enjoy such splendours had they known them. David had risen from the people, and to his death remained a simple man of his race. Solomon, born in the purple, determined to bring his kingdom into line with the great powers of the world. He accordingly consummated a marriage with the daughter of Pharaoh, probably one of the Pharaohs of the Tanite branch of the 21st dynasty. This marriage brought him into touch with the old civilization of Egypt. In order to equip his capital with public buildings suitable to the estate of such an empire, Solomon hired Phnician architects, and constructed a palace for himself, one for the daughter of Pharaoh, and a Temple of such magnificence as the rustic Israelites had never seen. Later generations have overlaid the accounts of these, especially of the Temple, with many glosses, increasing the impression of their grandeur (cf. Temple), but there is no doubt that in the way of luxury they far surpassed anything previously known in Israel. The whole pile was approached through a hypostyle hall built on Egyptian models, called the house of the forest of Lebanon, while into the Temple brazen work and brazen instruments were introduced, in flagrant violation of Israelitish traditions. Even a brazen altar of burnt-offering was substituted for the traditional altar of stone. Ornaments of palm trees and cherubim such as adorned the temple of Melkart at Tyre decorated not only the interior of the Temple, but the brazen instruments as well. These religious innovations were looked upon with disfavour by many of Solomons contemporaries (cf. 1Ki 12:28 b), and the buildings, although the boast of a later age, were regarded with mingled feelings by those who were compelled to pay the taxes by which they were erected.

Not only in buildings but also in his whole establishment did Solomon depart from the simple ways of his father. He not only married the daughters of many of the petty Palestinian kings who were his tributaries, but filled his harem with numerous other beauties besides. Probably the statement that he had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1Ki 11:3) is the exaggeration of a later writer, but, allowing for this, his harem must have been very numerous. His method of living was of course in accord with the magnificent buildings which he had erected. To support this splendour the old system of taxation was inadequate, and a new method had to be devised. The whole country was divided into twelve districts, each of which was placed under the charge of a tax-gatherer, and compelled to furnish for the kings house the provision for one month in each year (1Ki 4:7-18). It is noteworthy that in this division economic conditions rather than tribal territories were followed. Not only were the tribes unequal in numbers, but the territory of certain sections was much more productive than that of others. Solomons tax-collectors were placed in the most fertile sections of the land. Solomon is also said to have departed from the simple ways of his father by introducing horses and chariots for his use. The ass is the animal of the simple Palestinian. The ancient Hebrew always looked askance at a horse. It was an emblem of pride and luxury. In his eyes it was the instrument of war, not of peace. The introduction of this luxury further estranged many of Solomons non-Judan subjects. His wealth was increased by his commerce with South Arabia. He established a fleet of trading vessels on the Red Sea, manned with Phnician sailors (1Ki 9:26 ff.).

Early in his reign Solomon obtained a reputation for wisdom. Wisdom to the early Hebrew did not mean philosophy, but practical insight into human nature and skill in the management of people (cf. 1Ki 3:16-28). It was this skill that enabled him to hold his kingdom intact in spite of his many innovations. It was this skill that in the later traditions made Solomon, for the Israelite, the typical wise man. Although we cannot longer ascribe to him either the Book of Proverbs or the Book of Ecclesiastes, his reputation for wisdom was no doubt deserved.

Solomons reign is said to have continued forty years (1Ki 11:42). If this be so. b.c. 977937 is probably the period covered. Towards the close of Solomons reign the tribe of Ephraim, which in the time of the Judges could hardly bear to allow another tribe to take precedence of it, Became restless. Its leader was Jeroboam, a young Ephraimite officer to whom Solomon had entrusted the administration of the affairs of the Joseph tribes (1Ki 11:28). His plans for rebelling involved the fortification of his native city Zeredah. which called Solomons attention to his plot, and he fled accordingly to Egypt, where he found refuge. In the latter country the 21st dynasty, with which Solomon had intermarried, had passed away, and the Libyan Shishak (Sheshonk), the founder of the 22nd dynasty, had ascended the throne in b.c. 945. He ruled a united Egypt, and entertained ambitions to renew Egypts Asiatic empire. Shishak accordingly welcomed Jeroboam and offered him asylum, but was not prepared while Solomon lived to give him an army with which to attack his master.

15. Division of the kingdom.Upon the death of Solomon, his son Rehoboam seems to have been proclaimed king in Judah without opposition, but as some doubt concerning the loyalty of the other tribes, of which Ephraim was leader, seems to have existed, Rehoboam went to Shechem to be anointed as king at their ancient shrine (1Ki 12:1 ff.). Jeroboam, having been informed in his Egyptian retreat of the progress of affairs, returned to Shechem and prompted the elders of the tribes assembled there to exact from Rehoboam a promise that in case they accepted him as monarch he would relieve them of the heavy taxation which his father had imposed upon them. After considering the matter three days, Rehoboam rejected the advice of the older and wiser counsellors, and gave such an answer as one bred to the doctrine of the Divine right of kings would naturally give. The substance of his reply was: My little finger shall be thicker than my fathers loins. As the result of this answer all the tribes except Judah and a portion of Benjamin refused to acknowledge the descendant of David, and made Jeroboam their king. Judah remained faithful to the heir of her old hero, and, because Jerusalem was on the border of Benjamin, the Judan kings were able to retain a strip of the land of that tribe varying from time to time in width from four to eight miles. All else was lost to the Davidic dynasty.

The chief forces which produced this disruption were economic, but they were not the only forces. Religious conservatism also did its share. Solomon had in many ways contravened the religious customs of his nation. His brazen altar and brazen utensils for the Temple were not orthodox. Although he made no attempt to centralize the worship at his Temple (which was in reality his royal chapel), his disregard of sacred ritual had its effect, and Jeroboam made an appeal to religious conservatism when he said, Behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. Since we know the history only through the work of a propagandist of a later type of religion, the attitude of Jeroboam has long been misunderstood. He was not a religious innovator, but a religious conservative.

When the kingdom was divided, the tributary States of course gained their independence, and Israels empire was at an end. The days of her political glory had been less than a century, and her empire passed away never to return. The nation, divided and its parts often warring with one another, could not easily become again a power of importance.

16. From Jeroboam to Ahab (937875).After the division of the kingdom, the southern portion, consisting chiefly of the tribe of Judah, was known as the kingdom of Judah, while the northern division was known as the kingdom of Israel. Judah remained loyal to the Davidic dynasty as long as she maintained her independence, but in Israel frequent changes of dynasty occurred. Only one family furnished more than four monarchs, some only two, while several failed to transmit the throne at all. The kings during the first period were:

Israel.Judah.

Jeroboam i937915.Rehoboam937920.

Nadab915913.Abijam920917.

Baasha913889.Asa917876.

Elah889887.Jehoshaphat876.

Zimridays.

Omri887875.

Few of the details of the reign of Jeroboam have come down to us. He fortified Shechem (1Ki 12:25), but Tirzah (which Klostermann regards as the same as Zeredah) was also a residence (1Ki 14:17). Jeroboam extended his royal patronage to two sanctuaries, Dan and Bethel, the one at the northern and the other at the southern extremity of his territory. Naturally there were hostile relations between him and Judah as long as Jeroboam lived. No details of this hostility have come down to us. If we had only the Biblical records before us, we should suppose that Jeroboam was aided in this war by Shishak of Egypt, for we are told how he invaded Judah (1Ki 14:25) and compelled Rehoboam to pay a tribute which stripped the Temple of much of its golden treasure and ornamentation. It appears from the Egyptian inscriptions, however, that Shishaks campaign was directed against both the Hebrew kingdoms alike. His army marched northward to the latitude of the Sea of Galilee, captured the towns of Megiddo, Taanach, and Shunem in the plain of Jezreel, the town of Bethshean at the junction of Jezreel with the Jordan valley, and invaded the East-Jordanic country as far as Mahanaim. Many towns in Judah were captured also. (Cf. Breasteds Hist. of Egypt, 530.) How deep the enmity between Israel and Judah had become may be inferred from the fact that this attack of the Egyptian monarch did not drive them to peace.

Shishaks campaign seems to have been a mere plundering raid. It established no permanent Asiatic empire for Egypt. After this attack, Rehoboam, according to the Chronicler, strengthened the fortifications of his kingdom (2Ch 11:5-11). According to this passage, his territory extended to Mareshah (Tell Sandehannah) and Gath (Tell es-Safi?) in the Shephlah, and southward as far as Hebron. No mention is made of any town north of Jerusalem or in the Jordan valley.

The hostile relations between the two kingdoms were perpetuated after the death of Rehoboam, during the short reign of Abijam. In the early part of the reign of Asa, while Nadab was on the throne of Israel, active hostilities ceased sufficiently to allow the king of Israel to besiege the Philistine city of Gibbethon, a town in the northern part of the Maritime Plain opposite the middle portion of the Israelitish territory. The Israelitish monarch felt strong enough to endeavour to extend his dominions by compelling these ancient enemies of his race to submit once more. During the siege of this town, Baasha, an ambitious man of the tribe of Issachar, conspired against Nadab, accomplished his assassination, and had himself proclaimed king in his stead (1Ki 15:27-29). Thus the dynasty of Jeroboam came to an end in the second generation.

Baasha upon his accession determined to push more vigorously the war with Judah. Entering into an alliance with Benhadad i. of Damascus, he proceeded to fortify Ramah, five miles north of Jerusalem, as a base of operations against Judah. Asa in this crisis collected all the treasure that he could, sent it to Benhadad, and bought him off, persuading him to break his alliance with Israel and to enter into one with Judah. Benhadad thereupon attacked some of the towns in north-eastern Galilee, and Baasha was compelled to desist from his Judan campaign and defend his own borders. Asa took this opportunity to fortify Geba, about eight miles north-east of Jerusalem, and Mizpeh, five miles to the north-west of it (1Ki 15:16-22). The only other important event of Asas reign known to us consisted of the erection by Asas mother of an ashrah made in a disgustingly realistic form, which so shocked the sense of the time that Asa was compelled to remove it (1Ki 15:13). Cf., for fuller discussion, below, II. 1 (3).

During the reign of Elah an attempt was made once more to capture Gibbethon. The siege was being prosecuted by an able general named Omri, while the weak king was enjoying himself at Tirzah, which had been the royal residence since the days of Jeroboam. While the king was in a drunken brawl he was killed by Zimri, the commander of his chariots, who was then himself proclaimed king. Omri, however, upon hearing of this, hastened from Gibbethon to Tirzah, overthrew and slew Zimri, and himself became king. Thus once more did the dynasty change. Omri proved one of the ablest rulers the Northern Kingdom ever had. The Bible tells us little of him, but the information we derive from outside sources enables us to place him in proper perspective. His fame spread to Assyria, where, even after his dynasty had been overthrown, he was thought to be the ancestor of Israelitish kings (cf. KIB [Note: IB Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek.] i. 151). Omri, perceiving the splendid military possibilities of the hill of Samaria, chose that for his capital, fortified it, and made it one of his residences, thus introducing to history a name destined in succeeding generations to play an important part. He appears to have made a peaceful alliance with Damascus, so that war between the two kingdoms ceased. He also formed an alliance with the king of Tyre, taking Jezebel, the daughter of the Tyrian king Ethbaal, as a wife for his son Ahab. We also learn from the Moabite Stone that Omri conquered Moab, compelling the Moabites to pay tribute. According to the Bible, this tribute was paid in wool (2Ki 3:4). Scanty as our information is, it furnishes evidence that both in military and in civil affairs Omri must be counted as the ablest ruler of the Northern Kingdom. Of the nature of the relations between Israel and Judah during his reign we have no hint. Probably, however, peace prevailed, since we find the next two kings of these kingdoms in alliance.

17. From Ahab to Jeroboam II. (875781).

The monarchs of this period were as follows:

Israel.Judah.

Ahab875853.Jehoshaphat876851.

Ahaziah853851.Jehoram851843.

Joram851842.Ahaziah843842.

Jehu842814.Athaliah842836.

Jehoahaz814797.Joash836796.

Jehoash797781.Amaziah796782.

Azariah (Uzziah)782.

With the reign of Ahab we come upon a new period in Israels history. Economic and religious forces which had been slowly developing for centuries now matured for action and made the period one of remarkable activity. Movements began which were destined in their far-off consummation to differentiate the religion of Israel from the other religions of the world.

The new queen Jezebel was a Tyrian princess. According to the custom of the time, she was permitted to raise shrines for her native deities, Melkart and Ashtart of Tyre. These gods were kindred to Jahweh and the Canaanite Baals in that all had sprung from the same antique Semitic conceptions of divinity; but they differed in that Tyre had become through commerce one of the wealthiest cities of the world, and its wealth had made its cult more ornate than the simpler cults of rural Canaan, and much more ornate than the Jahweh cult of the desert. The idleness which wealth creates, too, had tended to heighten in a disgusting way the sexual aspects of the Semitic cult as practised at Tyre. These aspects were in primitive times comparatively innocent, and in the Jahweh cult were still so (cf. Barton, Semitic Origins, 300). Jezebel seems to have persuaded her husband also to disregard what the Israelites, in whom the spirit of individual and tribal feeling still survived, considered to be their rights. There was a royal residence in the city of Jezreel. Near this a certain Naboth owned a vineyard, which the royal pair desired. As he refused to part with it on any terms, the only way for them to obtain it was to have him put to death on the false charge of having cursed God and the king. This Jezebel did, and then Ahab seized his property. Hebrew polity made no provision for the forcible taking of property by the Government even if the equivalent in money were paid, and this high-handed procedure brought from the wilds of Gilead a champion of Jahweh and of popular rights against the king and the foreign godsin the person of Elijah the Tishbite. It was not that Naboth had been put to death on false testimony, but that his property had been taken, that was in the eyes of Elijah the greater sin. This infringement of old Hebrew privilege he connected with the worship of the foreign deity, and in his long contest with Ahab and Jezebel he began that prophetic movement which centuries after for economic, religious, and, later, for ethical reasons produced Judaism.

On the political side we know that Ahab made an alliance with Jehoshaphat of Judah, which secured peace between the two kingdoms for a considerable time. Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat, married Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel (1Ki 22:44, 2Ki 8:26). Ahab rebuilt and fortified Jericho (1Ki 16:34). The first part of his reign seems to have been prosperous, but about the middle of it the Moabites, according to the Moabite Stone, gained their independence. In b.c. 854 Ahab was one of a confederacy of twelve kings, who were headed by Benhadad ii. of Damascus, and who fought Shalmaneser ii. at Karkar on the Orontes (KIB [Note: IB Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek.] i. 173 ff.). Although Shalmaneser claims a victory, it is clear that the allies practically defeated him. He may have taken some spoil as he claims, but he made no further progress into Palestine at that time. In the next year we find that Benhadad had invaded the trans-Jordanic territory and had seized Ramoth-gilead. Ahab, in endeavouring to regain it, had the assistance of the Judan king, but was wounded in battle and lost his life. When Ahab died, therefore, the Moabites and Aramans had divided his East-Jordanic lands between them. Of the brief reign of his son Ahaziah we know nothing.

Meantime, in Judah, Jehoshaphat had had a prosperous reign, although the Biblical writers tell us little of it. He had made Edom tributary to him (1Ki 22:47), and had re-established a Hebrew fleet upon the Red Sea (1Ki 22:48). Jehoram (or Joram), who succeeded to the throne of Israel in Jehoshaphats last year, leaving the Aramans in possession of Ramoth-gilead for a time, endeavoured, with the aid of Jehoshaphat and his tributary king of Edom, to re-subjugate Moab (2Ki 3:1-27). They made the attack from the south, marching to it around the Dead Sea. The armies were accompanied by the prophet Elisha, who had succeeded to the work of Elijah, although he was not a man of Elijahs sturdy mould. After a march on which they nearly died of thirst, they overran Moab, besieged and nearly captured its capital. In his distress the king of Moab sacrificed his eldest son to Chemosh, the Moabite god. The sacrifice was performed on the city wall in sight of both armies, and produced such opposite effects on the superstitious minds of the besieged and the besiegers that the siege was raised and the conquest of Moab abandoned.

The chief event of the reign of Jehoram of Judah, Jehoshaphats successor, was the loss of Edom, which regained its independence (2Ki 8:20 ff.). His son Ahaziah, the son of Athaliah, and a nephew of Jehoram, the reigning king of Israel, went to aid his uncle in the siege of Ramoth-gilead, which was still in possession of the king of Damascus. Joram was wounded in battle, and the two monarchs returned to the royal residence at Jezreel while the wound was healing. Meantime the prophetic circles, in which the traditions of the simple worship of Jahweh were cherished, determined to overthrow the hated house of Ahab. Elisha encouraged Jehu, a military officer employed in the siege of Ramoth-gilead, to return to Jezreel and slay the king. This he did, killing not only the king of Israel, but also the king of Judah, and exterminating Jezehel and all her offspring. This done, Jehu started for Samaria. On the way he was joined by Jonadab, son of Rechab, who had founded a kind of order of zealots for the preservation of the simpler forms of Jahweh worship. Accompanied by Jonadah, he went to Samaria, called a solemn feast in honour of Baal, and when the worshippers were assembled, massacred them all. Thus barbarous and unethical were the Jahweh reformers of this period (cf. 2Ki 9:1-37; 2Ki 10:1-36). In the very year that Jehu thus gained the throne, Shalmaneser ii. again marched into the West. This time apparently no powerful alliance was formed against him. Damascus and Israel were at war; resistance to the Assyrian seemed hopeless, and Jehu hastened to render submission and pay a tribute. In consequence of this Jehu is pictured on the black obelisk of Shalmaneser in the British Museum in the undignified attitude of kissing the Assyrian monarchs foot. Beyond this not too glorious revolution and this inglorious submission, the reign of Jehu, though long, accomplished nothing.

In Judah, when Ahaziah was put to death, Athaliah, the daughter of Jezehel, saw that her opportunity was slipping away. A queen-mother counted for something; she had held that position but for a year, and now it was gone. Athaliah inherited the spirit and the ruthlessness of Jezebel. Accordingly she seized the reins of government and put to death, as she thought, all the royal seed that could in any way dispute her sway. Thus it happened that a daughter of Jezebel sat on the throne of David. Here no doubt she exercised her preferences for the richer and more repulsive cult of Melkart, but in Judah there had developed as yet no strong opposition to such innovations. In this early period the religious interest is in the Northern Kingdom. What there was no prophet to do, priests, however, accomplished. One little prince, Joash, had been rescued when the slaughter of the princes occurred, and after he had been concealed six years, under the guidance of Jehoiada, the priest, he was proclaimed king, and Athaliah was assassinated (2Ki 11:1-21). Joash enjoyed a long reign of forty years, during the early part of which he was under the guidance of the priests. During his reign money for the repair of the Temple was raised in a very natural way, but in a way not sanctioned by the later Levitical Code (cf. 2Ki 12:4-16).

Meantime, in Israel, Jehu had passed away, and his son Jehoahaz had succeeded him. At the beginning of his reign Jehoahaz, like his predecessors, was unsuccessful in his efforts against Damascus, but Hazael, who now occupied the Araman throne, was a less able man than his predecessors, and Jehoahaz ultimately defeated him (2Ki 13:2-5). This was the beginning of an era of prosperity for Israel which was continued over into the next period.

Hazael, as he was losing strength in the East, sought to increase his prestige in the West. After a successful campaign in the Maritime Plain, he moved against Jerusalem. Joash was no warrior, and hastened to buy off the Araman with a heavy tribute (2Ki 12:17 ff.). Whether it was this that disaffected the subjects of Joash we do not know, but he was assassinated by a conspiracy (2Ki 12:20), which placed his son Amaziah on the throne.

Meantime Jehoahaz of Israel had been succeeded by his son Jehoash, who followed up his fathers victory over the Aramans, defeating them three separate times, and regaining all Israels East-Jordanic territory (2Ki 13:25). Amaziah, the Judan king, when once established in power, executed the assassins of his father, and then set out to build up his kingdom. Edom seemed the natural direction in which Judah could expand; he accordingly attacked, defeated, and occupied a part at least of that country. He then sent a challenge to Jehoash of Israel, which that king at first treated with contempt. The challenge, however, produced war, Israel seems to have been the invader after all, for the battle was fought at Beth-shemesh. Judah was defeated so completely that Jehoash went up and took Jerusalem without serious opposition, and broke down four hundred cubits of its wall, from the corner gate to the gate of Ephraim. Later, Amaziah, learning that a conspiracy had formed against him, fled to Lachish, which seems to have belonged to Judah. The conspirators pursued him thither, slew him, and made his young son Azariah, or Uzziah, king.

18. From Jeroboam II. to the fall of Samaria (781, 722).The chronology of this period is as follows:

Israel.Judah.

Jeroboam ii781740Azariah (Uzziah)782737

Zechariah6 monthsJotham737735

Shallum740737Ahaz735725

Menahem737735Hezekiah725696

Pekahiah2 months

Pekah735733.

Hoshea733722.

Towards the end of the period treated in the preceding paragraph, Israels enemies on every side had grown weaker. An Assyrian king, Adadnirari iii., had made an expedition into the West in 797, on which he claims to have received tribute not only from Tyre and Sidon, but also from the land of Omri as the Assyrians still called the kingdom of Israel, but after this for more than half a century Assyria was too weak to disturb the Hebrews. The Aramans under Hazael had also lost their power to disturb the Israelites. Egypt under the 22nd dynasty became unable, after the one expedition of Shishak, to interfere in Asiatic affairs. Accordingly the kingdoms of Israel and Judah under the two able kings, Jeroboam and Uzziah, entered upon an era of unprecedented prosperity. Between them these monarchs restored the territory over which they ruled, almost to the limits of the Davidic boundaries. Jeroboam in his long reign extended the boundaries of Israel northward to Hamath and Damascus, perhaps including in his empire Damascus itself (2Ki 14:28), while Uzziah, if the Chronicler is to be followed (2Ch 26:1-23), extended his boundaries southward to the Red Sea, and reduced the Philistine cities once more to the position of tributaries. With outposts in all these directions, and the Red Sea open to commerce, a vigorous and profitable trade sprang up in this long era of peace. Freed from the necessity of continual warfare, the spirit of the nation gave itself with tremendous enthusiasm to the acquisition of material advantages. Neither earthquake nor tempest could dampen their ardour by misfortune. Wealth increased greatly, and palaces which to the simple Israelites seemed vast were reared on every hand. Every document of the time speaks of the erection of buildings or palaces. Wealth and leisure created a literary epoch, as a result of which, about 750, the E [Note: Elohist.] document was composed. Wealth, however, was not evenly distributed. The palaces were for a comparatively small minority. The poor, while they saw prosperity increasing around them, were daily becoming poorer. The economic conditions of the reign of Ahab, which had called forth the denunciations of Elijah, not only existed now in an exaggerated form, but were daily becoming worse. A moneyed class, distinct from the old shepherd and agricultural class, had been evolved. Capitalists then, as now, desired interest for their money. Lending it to the poor husbandman, they naturally felt justified in seizing his land if he was unable to repay. This social condition appeared to the conservative worshippers of Jahweh as in the highest degree obnoxious. Jahweh had never been the God of a commercial people. For one of His worshippers to exact usury from another was regarded as an offence against Him; to take from one of His faithful ones land given him by Jahweh in payment for debt, however just the debt, was in Jahwehs eyes unpardonable oppression of the poor.

These social conditions, thus viewed, called forth a new set of prophets,men of a higher moral and spiritual order than any known before in Semitic history. Two of these, Amos and Hosea, belong altogether to this period, while Isaiah began his prophetic work when two-thirds of it had passed. Amos (wh. see), the earliest of them, came forward about 755 to denounce the social injustices of the Northern Kingdom and to pronounce Jahwehs doom on the whole circle of sinful nations which surrounded Israel. One-sided as his economic point of view was, his ethical standard was the loftiest and purest, and his conception of Jahweh as the God who ruled all nations carried mens thoughts into a clearer atmosphere. Amos simply denounced, but Hosea (wh. see), who came a little later, and put forward a view of Jahweh no less ethical, proclaimed Jahweh as a God of redeeming love. It is clear from the work of these prophets that the cults of Jahweh and Baal had in the lapse of time become mingled. Jahweh had long been conceived as a Baal. Hosea proclaims again the nomadic Jahweh, austere, simple, and moral, as compared with the deteriorated cults now practised by His followers.

It is clear, therefore, that the same forces were at work that appeared in the time of Ahab and Elijah, only now the foreign religious element was not so clearly foreign in the eyes of the people at large, and the economic conditions were more aggravated.

Amos and Hosea were country prophets, whose sympathies were naturally with the poorer classes of the people, but Isaiah, the city prophet, is no less strenuous than they in his denunciations of mans inhumanity to man. Towards the end of this long period of outward prosperity and social and religious ferment, a change occurred in Assyria. Pul, or Tiglathpileser iii., as he now called himself, seized the throne (b.c. 745), subsequently proving himself, both as a general and as a statesman, one of the worlds great men. This monarch was, however, occupied until the year 742 in reducing the East to his sceptre. When he turned his attention to the West, the siege of Arpad occupied him for two years, so that before he interfered in Palestinian affairs Jeroboam ii. had passed away.

The chronology of the Northern Kingdom after the death of Jeroboam ii. is very confused. Many of the statements of the present Biblical text are manifestly incorrect. The statement of it given above is a conjectural reconstruction resting partly on the Assyrian evidence.

After Zechariah, the son of Jeroboam, had reigned but six months, a conspiracy removed him and placed Shallum on the throne. With Zechariah the house of Jehu disappeared.

Uzziah, who in his old age had become a leper, and had associated his son Jotham with him on the throne, appears to have taken a leading part in the organization of a coalition of nineteen States, including Carchemish, Hamath, and Damascus, to oppose the westward progress of Tiglath-pileser. Before the Assyrian monarch made his appearance again in the West, another revolution in Samaria had removed Shallum and placed Menahem on Israels throne. The Assyrian, who apparently came in 737 (Esarhaddon mutilated the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser so that our data are incomplete), seems to have marched southward along the Maritime Plain as though to attack Uzziah himself. Upon his approach Menahem deserted the confederacy and hastened to pay his tribute to Assyria. Whether it was this defection or whether it was a battle that compelled Uzziah to pay tribute we do not know, but Tiglath-pileser records him among his tribute payers (KIB [Note: IB Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek.] ii. 20). Uzziah died in that year. The short, independent reign of Jotham seems to have been uneventful. Menahem died about 735; his son Pekahiah was soon removed by a revolution, and Pekah became king in Samaria (2Ki 15:22-27). In Judah, Jotham was succeeded in the same year by his youthful son Ahaz. Pekah and Rezin, who now sat on the throne of Damascus, desired to form a new confederacy to throw off Assyrias yoke. Into this they attempted to draw Ahaz, and when he declined to engage in the hopeless enterprise they threatened to make war jointly on Judah, depose Ahaz, and place a certain Tabeel on the throne of Judah. Upon the receipt of this news, consternation reigned in Jerusalem, but both king and people were reassured by the prophet Isaiah (Is 7). Isaiahs hopes were well founded, for in the next year (134) Tiglath-pileser returned to the West, took Damascus after a considerable siege (a town which his predecessors had at various times for more than a hundred years tried in vain to capture), made it an Assyrian colony, put Pekah the king of Israel to death (KIB [Note: IB Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek.] ii. 33), carried captive to Assyria the principal inhabitants of the territory north of the Plain of Jezreel (2Ki 15:29 ff.), made Hoshea king of a reduced territory, and imposed upon him a heavy tribute. Ahaz, upon the approach of Tiglath-pileser, had renewed his allegiance; and after the capture of Damascus he went thither to do obeisance in person to the Assyrian monarch. Thus the whole of Israel passed irrevocably into Assyrias power. At Damascus, Ahaz saw an altar the form of which pleased him. He accordingly had a pattern of it brought to Jerusalem, and one like it constructed there. The brazen altar which Solomon had erected before the Temple was removed to one side and reserved for the kings own use. The new altar, established in its place, became the altar of ordinary priestly services.

One would suppose that the Northern Kingdom had now received such a chastisement that further revolt would not be thought of, and apparently it was not, so long as Tiglath-pileser lived. That monarch passed away, however, in 727; and soon afterwards Hoshea, encouraged by the king of a country to the south, withheld his tribute. The Biblical text calls this king So, king of Egypt (2Ki 17:4), and it has been customary to identify him with Shabaka, the first king of the 25th dynasty. It now appears, however, that either he was a king of the Musri to the south of Palestine, or was some petty ruler of the Egyptian Delta, otherwise unknown, for Shabaka did not gain the throne of Egypt till b.c. 712 (cf. Breasted, Hist. of Egypt, 549 and 601). The folly of Hosheas course was soon apparent. Shalmaneser iv., who had succeeded Tiglath-pileser, sent an army which overran all the territory left to Hoshea, cut off his supplies, and then shut him up in Samaria in a memorable siege. The military genius of Omri had selected the site wisely, but with the country in ruins it is a marvel that Samaria resisted for three years. While the siege dragged on its weary length, Shalmaneser died, and Sargon ii. gained the Assyrian throne. Perhaps the generals who were prosecuting the siege did not know of the change till Samaria had fallen, but Sargon counts the reduction of Samaria as one of the achievements of his first year. When Samaria fell, Sargon deported 27,290 (cf. KIB [Note: IB Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek.] il. 55) of the inhabitants of the region, including no doubt the more wealthy and influential citizens, princes, priests, etc., to cities which he had recently captured in the far East, and brought to Samaria people from Cuthah and Sippar in Babylonia, and from Hamath in Syria, to mingle with the mass of Hebrew population which he had left behind (2Ki 17:24). The Israelitish monarchy he abolished.

The foreigners who were introduced into Samaria at this time worshipped at first their own gods, but when lions attacked them, they petitioned to have a priest of Jahweh to teach them the worship of the God of the land. Sargon granted their request, and sent back a captive priest. In due time these foreigners intermarried with the Israelites who had been left, the cults of their gods were merged in the Jahweh cult, and they became the Samaritans. Those who seek for the ten lost tribes should remember that they were never lost by captivity. Only the merest percentage of them were wrenched from their land. They were lost by becoming the substratum of later populations, and a handful still survives in the Samaritans (wh. see).

19. Hezekiah and Isaiah.The fall of Samaria made doleful reverberations in Jerusalem. The date of the accession of Hezekiah is not quite certain, but it probably occurred before the fall of Samaria. Throughout his reign the prophet Isaiah was one of his chief advisers, and for the most part he ruled in accord with the prophetic ideals. About the time of his accession, and apparently before the fall of Samaria, another prophet, Micah, began to prophesy in the town of Moresheth (Maresha) in the Sbephlah on the Philistine border. His burden was consonant with that of the three great literary prophets who had preceded him.

Judah escaped when Samaria fell, because she maintained that submissive attitude to Assyria which she had assumed when Uzziah paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser. This attitude secured her peace for some years to come, though it was not an easy attitude to maintain. On Judahs western border the petty kingdoms of Philistia were always plotting to throw off the Assyrian yoke, and endeavouring to secure the co-operation of Hezekiah. Such co-operation, however, Isaiah steadily opposed. In the year 711 Ashdod succeeded in beading a coalition which she hoped would gain her freedom, but Sargon sent an army which soon brought her to terms (Isa 20:1). The course of political events went on smoothly therefore until after the death of Sargon in 705; then, as so often happened in Oriental countries, many subject lands endeavoured to gain their independence before the new monarch could consolidate his power. Hezekiah was tempted now, not by the Philistines only, but also by Merodach-haladan (Marduk-apal-iddin), a Babylonian king whom Sargon had early in his reign driven from Babylon and who now sought the opportunity to return (2Ki 20:12 ff., Isa 39:1 ff.). In this new coalition the Egyptians also, now under the stronger control of the 25th dynasty, had a part. Although Isaiah still consistently opposed the move, Hezekiah nevertheless yielded. In the city of Ekron there was one petty king faithful to Sennacherib. Him his subjects deposed, threw into fetters, and delivered to Hezekiah, who cast him into a dungeon (cf. KIB [Note: IB Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek.] ii. 93). This was a direct act of rebellion, which Sennacherib was sure to avenge. Affairs in the East delayed the blow, but in 701 it finally fed. Sennacherib marched into the West, defeated the allies at Eltekeh, besieged and took Ekron, impaled many of the rebellious inhabitants, and invaded Judah. Forty-six of the smaller towns were captured, and Jerusalem itself was invested. Its inhabitants were of course panic-stricken, but Isaiah came forward, declaring Jerusalem to be the home of Jahweh, and, as such, inviolable in His eyes (Isa 31:4). Hezekiah, meantime recognizing that his rebellion had been a grievous error, sent to Lachish, Sennacheribs headquarters, and offered to pay indemnity and tribute. Meantime Sennacherib had sent his main army on to inflict punishment upon Egypt, the strongest member of the alliance against him. On the border of Egypt his army was attacked with bubonic plague (such seems to be the meaning of 2Ki 19:35 combined with Herod. ii. 141), which rendered further operations impossible; he accordingly accepted Hezekiahs terms, raised the siege of Jerusalem, and withdrew to Assyria.

This event had a profound influence on Israels religious history. In the time of David and Solomon, Jerusalem was a new town to the Israelites, and a town without religious associations. The real home of Jahweh was on Mount Sinai, but the land contained scores of shrines more dear to Him than Jerusalem, because He bad longer dwelt in them. Solomons innovations had tended to increase this feeling, and although the lapse of three hundred years had given Jerusalem an important place among the shrines, especially as the capital of the kingdom of Judah, nothing had occurred until now to make men think that it was the home of Jahweh par excellence. Now He had palpably abandoned the shrines of the Northern Kingdom, and by this victory, vindicating as it did the word of His prophet, He had shown that He had chosen Jerusalem as His permanent abode. Thus this event Introduced Jerusalem to that place in the reverence and affection of the Hebrews which has made it the Holy City of three great religions.

According to 2Ki 18:4 (R [Note: Redactor.] D [Note: Deuteronomist.] ), Hezekiah attempted to abolish the country shrines and centralize the worship in Jerusalem. Some have doubted this statement, and others have thought that it is confirmed by an older document quoted in 2Ki 18:22. It seems in accord with historical probability that, prompted by Isaiah, Hezekiah should in his closing years have made such an effort. Hosea had seen, a generation before, that the worship of Jahweh could never be socially pure till separated from the elements which he believed had been introduced from the cult of Baal, and now that Isaiah had become convinced that Jerusalem had been Divinely proved to be Jahwehs special abode, it is certainly within the realm of probability that he prompted the king to do away with all other demoralizing shrines. If Jahweh could have only one temple and that under prophetic control, His cult would be for ever differentiated from that of the Baals. What time could be more opportune for such a movement than the beginning of the 7th cent., when first the captivity of the Northern Kingdom, and then the reduction of the territory of Judah to narrow limits by Sennacherib, left at a minimum the number of shrines to be destroyed?

20. Manasseh and Amon.From the time of Amos to the accession of Manasseh the prophetic vision had made steady progress, and the elevation of the religion of Jahweh and of the recognized standard of morals had gone steadily forward, but in the long reign of Manasseh (696641) a strong reaction occurred. It is difficult to account for this reaction unless some attempt to destroy the village shrines had been made by Hezekiah, but if this he presupposed, all that occurred is natural. The superstitious prejudices of the village people had been outraged. They clamoured for liberty to worship at the village shrines consecrated by the usage of unknown antiquity, and the king, when Isaiah was gone, had no real motive for resisting them. Then, too, the period seems to have been a time of distress, Manasseh seems to have quietly remained in vassalage to Assyria, so that the armies of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, which four times marched along the coast and accomplished the reduction of Egypt during his reign, did not disturb Judah, though she may have been compelled to contribute to their support. Perhaps there was civil war in Jerusalem, for we are told that Manasseh shed much innocent blood (2Ki 21:16). At all events, whether on account of war, or famine, or unjust rule, his reign was a time of distress, and Judah sought escape from her trouble, not through prophetic reform, but by the revival of half-heathenish, outworn forms of worship. Jahweh was worshipped as Melek, or king, and to Him in this capacity child sacrifice, which had been prevalent among the Semites in early days, was revived. The Ammonites called their god Melek (Molech [wh. see]), and human sacrifice was still practised at times by Judahs heathen neighbours, especially by the Phnicians. The prophets accordingly combated this form of worship as displeasing to Jahweh, and tried to persuade their countrymen that it was a foreign cult.

This turn of affairs drove those who cherished the Ideals of Isaiah into retirement, where, being able to do nothing else for the cause they loved, one of them, about 650, drew up the legal code of Deuteronomy as the expression of the conditions which the prophetic experience had found to be necessary to the realization of their ideal.

The brief reign of Amon was but a continuation of the reign of his father.

21. Josiah and the Deuteronomic Reform.Of the early part of the reign of Josiah, who ascended the throne as a boy of eight, we know little. Probably the customs which the previous reign had established were continued. In his thirteenth year, Jeremiah, a young priest from Anathoth, came forward as a prophet. In the next year the great Assyrian king Ashurbanipal died, and Assyria, whose power had been shattered by a great rebellion twenty years before, rapidly sank to her end. In Josiahs eighteenth year repairs on the Temple were undertaken at the kings command. During the progress of these, it was reported to him that in making the repairs they had found the copy of a code purporting to be the Law of Moses. When this was read to the king he was filled with consternation, since the current cult violated it in almost every particular. To test the genuineness of the Law it was submitted to an old prophetess, Huldah, who, since it agreed with her conceptions of the ideal religion of Jahweh, declared it to be the genuine Law of Moses (2Ki 22:1-20). Upon this Josiah set himself to adjust the religious worship and institutions of his kingdom to this standard, and to a great reform, which swept away from Judah all shrines except the Temple in Jerusalem, all pillars as representatives of deity, and all ashrahs, together with all immorality practised under the guise of religion (2Ki 23:1-37). Modern criticism has clearly demonstrated that the Law which came into operation at this time was the Law of Deuteronomy.

This reform cost a long struggle. People who had all their lives regarded certain spots as places where Jahweh revealed Himself, and who knew that their ancestors for centuries had done the same, did not tamely yield to the new order. All the authority of the king and all the strength of the prophetic order were needed to carry it through, and the struggle continued for a generation. It was this reform, however, that began the creation of the Jew. But for it, he would not still be a distinct figure in the world.

This struggle for a better religion went on successfully for some years, when the little Judan State was overtaken by a sad misfortune.

Assyria was tottering to its fall. Babylon, which had regained its independence upon the death of Ashurbanipal, in 625, was rapidly growing in power. Egypt, which under the 26th dynasty now possessed once more a line of native kings, had a monarch, Necho ii., ambitious to re-establish for her an Asiatic empire. In 609 or 608 Necho marched an army into Asia and moved northward along the Maritime Plain. Josiah, probably because he determined to claim sovereignty over all the territory formerly occupied by Israel, marched northward with an army, fought Necho at the ancient battlefield of Megiddo, and met with defeat and death (2Ki 23:29 ff.). A greater calamity could scarcely have befallen the party of religious reform. Not only was their king fallen, but their hope of a prosperous Judan kingdom, faithful to Jahwehs new Law, was rudely dashed to the ground.

22. Last Days of the Kingdom.When the news of the defeat at Megiddo reached Jerusalem, the leaders of the people there placed Jehoahaz, a son of Josiah, on the throne. Necho meantime proceeded northward, taking possession of the country, and established his headquarters at Riblah in the territory of Hamath. Thither he summoned Jehoahaz, threw him into bonds, sent him to Egpyt as a prisoner, and made his brother Eliakim king, imposing a heavy tribute upon the country (2Ki 23:31-34). Eliakim upon his accession took the name of Jehoiakim (2Ki 23:34). Judah thus became tributary to Egypt. Jehoiakim proved to be a man of quite different religious interests from his father, as the Book of Jeremiah makes clear.

Events in Western Asia were changing rapidly, and within a few years they gave Jehoiakim a new master. The new Babylonian power was pushing westward to secure as much of the Euphrates valley and of the West as possible. Assyria had fallen at the hands of Indo-European hordes in the year 606. Necho was ambitious to follow up his previous success and to check the growth of the Babylonian power. Accordingly in 604 he entered Asia again and marched to the Euphrates. Here he was met by Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian crown prince, and so crushingly defeated that he fled rapidly homeward, Nebuchadnezzar following closely upon his heels (Jer 46:1-28). Thus perished Nechos dreams of Asiatic empire, and thus Judah passed into vassalage to Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar, on the border of Egypt, ready to invade and conquer it, was informed of the death of his father in Babylon, and hastened home to secure his crown.

So important in the history of his people did Jeremiah consider this crisis, that at this time he first began to put the substance of his prophecies in writing, that they might have wider and more permanent influence (Jer 36:1-32). Nebuchadnezzar appears not to have been able to establish order in Western Asia all at once, so distracted was the country. He established his headquarters at Riblah, and for several years sent out bands of soldiers whither they were most needed. Jehoiakim, thinking to take advantage of the unsettled state, withheld his tribute, and some of these bands, composed of men of neighbouring tribes, were sent against him (2Ki 24:1 ff.). Jehoiakim continued obstinate, however, and Nebuchadnezzar finally, in 598, sent a large army. Before it arrived Jehoiakim was no more, and his young son Jehoiachin was occupying his throne. Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem, which after three months was compelled to capitulate, whereupon the Babylonian took ten thousand of the most prominent men, princes, warriors, priests, and craftsmen, and transported them to Babylonia. Another son of Josiah, who now took the name of Zedekiah, was placed upon the throne, subject of course to a heavy Babylonian tribute. Jehoiachin, a youth of twenty, was taken prisoner to Babylon, to languish in prison for many years.

It was now to be seen whether Judah would repeat the history of the Northern Kingdom or whether her king would have wisdom to remain faithful to Babylon. Jeremiah, as he had done for years, steadily proclaimed that Judahs sole safety lay in fidelity to Babylon; such was the will of Jahweh. There was in Jerusalem, however, a strong party who advocated an alliance with Egypt as a means of securing freedom from Babylon. The king himself was weak and unwise. Finally, in 588, when Hophra, filled with ambitions for an Asiatic empire, ascended the Egyptian throne, he made such promises of aid to Judah that the standard of revolt was raised. Jeremiah, one of the greatest religious teachers that ever lived, did not, like Isaiah a century before, proclaim Jerusalem inviolate. He had seen further into the heart of religion, and now declared that Jahweh would abandon Jerusalem, and establish an inner covenant of the heart with all who were faithful. His younger contemporary, Ezekiel, a young priest who had been carried to Babylonia in 598, and had in 593 become a prophet there, was also teaching a similarly high conception of religion, and with Jeremiah, preparing the faith of the people to survive the approaching shock. In 587 the Babylonian army appeared and the siege of Jerusalem began. The tedious suffering of its weary months may be traced in the Book of Jeremiah. Early in 586, Hophra marched an army into Palestine, and Nebuchadnezzar was obliged to raise the siege to send his full force against the Egyptian. Jerusalem was then wild with joy, thinking deliverance had come. Jeremiah and his party were laughed to scorn. But Hophra was soon defeated, the siege of Jerusalem renewed and pressed to completion. In August the city surrendered, its wall was broken down, its glorious Temple destroyed, another large body of captives transported to Babylonia, and Zedekiah after being blinded was taken there too (2Ki 25:1-30). Thus Jerusalem suffered the fate of Samaria. Providentially, however, before Jerusalem fell, the work of the prophets had so taken root, and such reforms had been instituted, that the future of spiritual religion was assured. Those who had been deported were again the more prominent citizens. The poorer people and the peasantry were not disturbed. Gedaliah was made governor of Juda, and, because Jerusalem was desolate, Mizpeh, five miles to the northwest, was made the capital. Gedaliah had been in office but two months when he was assassinated, and this event so terrified some friends of Jeremiah, who had been permitted with the prophet to remain in Palestine, that they took Jeremiah, contrary to his advice, and fled to Egypt (2Ki 25:25 ff. and Jer 41:1-18; Jer 42:1-22; Jer 43:1-13).

23. The Exile.Counting women and children, perhaps fifty thousand Jews had been transported to Babylonia in the two deportations of Nebuchadnezzar. These, with the exception of a few political leaders, were settled in colonies, in which they were permitted to have houses of their own, visit one another freely, and engage in business (Jer 29:5 ff.). Ezekiel gives us the picture of one of these at Tel-abib (Eze 3:15; Eze 8:1; Eze 20:1 ff; Eze 24:18 etc.), by the river Chebar (a canal near Nippur; cf. Bab. [Note: Babylonian.] Ex. of Univ. of Pa., Cun. Texts, ix. 28), in which the Palestinian organization of elders was perpetuated. In such communities the Jews settled down in Babylonia. The poorer ones in Palestine kept up as best they could the old religion, in an ignorant and superstitious way (cf. Jer 41:5 ff.), while the priests and the more intelligent of the religious devotees transported to Babylon cherished the laws of the past, and fondly framed ideals for a future which they were confident would come. Such an one was Ezekiel, who lived and wrote among the captives till about b.c. 570. After the destruction of the city he elaborated a new religious polity for the nation, hoping that it would form the basis of Israels organization when the time for the re-construction of the State came. Some years later another writer (P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] ) wrote the Holiness Code gathering up the traditions of the past, and shaping them with a view to a future religious ideal. Meantime many of the practically minded Jews had engaged in business in Babylonia and were acquiring wealth.

Thus time passed on, Nebuchadnezzar died, and his weak successors were rapidly following one another, when in the East a new political figure appeared. Cyrus, a petty king of Anshan, a small district of Elam, had conquered Persia, then Media and the Indo-Europan hordes called in the inscriptions Manda, and was pushing his arms westward to the subjugation of Crsus of Lydia. At this juncture one of the worlds great poets and prophets appeared among the captives, and in most eloquent and poetic strain taught them that Cyrus was the instrument of Jahweh, the God of heaven, that he was conquering for Jahweh and for them, and that it was Jahwehs will that they should return to rebuild Jerusalem and the desolations of Judah. The name of this prophet is lost, but his work now forms chs. 4045 of the Book of Isaiah. The hope of this poet in Cyrus was justified, for in 538 Cyrus captured Babylon, overturning the Chaidan empire, and reversed the policy of transportation which Assyrians and Babylonians alike had pursued from the time of Tiglath-plieser iii. Cyrus himself tells in a cuneiform inscription (KIB [Note: IB Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek.] iii2. 121ff. that he permitted captive peoples to return to their lands and rebuild their temples. This gave the Jews the opportunity for which the Second Isaiah (so-called) had hoped. The prophets faith in his own people was not so well justified. It was years before any considerable number of the captives made use of their newly acquired liberty (see 24). They were interested in their religion, but they had learned to practise it outside of Palestine without sacrificial ritual, and the opportunities in Babylonia for wealth and trade were too good to be abandoned for the sterile soil of the land of their fathers. Here, accordingly, they continued to live for fifteen hundred years. They frequently sent money contributions to their brethren in Jerusalem; and occasionally a few of them returned thither. After a time they chose Exiliarchs, or Princes of the Captivity. Schools of Jewish learning developed here. In due time the Babylonian Talmud was compiled in these schools. These communities thus survived the vicissitudes of Persian, Macedonian, Parthian, Sassanian, and Arabian rule, continuing to have their Exiliarchs till the 11th cent. a.d., when the oppressions to which they were subjected led them gradually to migrate (cf. JE [Note: Jewish Encyclopedia.] v. 288291).

24. Reconstruction of the Jewish State.We have been accustomed to suppose, on the authority of the Book of Ezra, that when Cyrus issued his permission to exiled peoples to return and rehabilitate their shrines and their States, a large number at once went back. Recent investigation has, however, discredited this view. Haggai and Zechariah twenty years later know of no such return, and probably it did not take place. Twenty years later we find Zerubbabel, a grandson of the unfortunate king Jehoiachin, present in Jerusalem as governor, and a high priest named Joshua in charge of the worship. The altar of Jahweh had been rebuilt on the old site, but Jerusalem and the Temple were still in ruins. The tolerance of the Persians is shown in allowing the Jews a governor of their own royal family. He, with a small retinue, had no doubt returned from Babylonia, but we have no evidence that others had come back.

The Jewish population which had been left behind in Palestine, equally with those in Babylonia, expected at some time the re-construction of the Jewish institutions. A prolonged famine led Haggai in the second year of Darius i. (b.c. 519) to persuade the people that Jahweh withheld rain because He was displeased that the Temple was not yet rebuilt. Another prophet, Zechariah. took up the same burden, and under their leadership and inspiration the Temple was rebuilt by b.c. 516 on the lines of the old wall. Contributions to aid this enterprise had been received from their brethren in Babylonia. The first six years of the reign of Darius were troublous times. The reign of the false Bardiya had made nations suspect that the government of Persia was weak, and it became necessary for Darius to reconquer his empire, as many of the subject nations took the opportunity to rebel. It is probable that Zerubbabel represents such a movement. Scholars now have no doubt that Zechariah regarded Zerubbabel as the Messiah, and expected him to be crowned and to reign jointly with the high priest Joshua. Such is the meaning which underlies the text of Zec 3:1-10 (cf. H. P. Smith, OT Hist. 357 ff.). How these expectations were thwarted we can only guess. We know with what a strong arm the great Darius put down revolutions elsewhere, and certain it is that Jewish hopes for independence were not at this time realized.

Our knowledge of the next eighty years, till the arrival of Nehemiah, is derived from Is 5666, large parts of which appear to come from this period, and from the anonymous prophet called Malachi, who, perhaps, wrote shortly before Nehemiahs return. The tone of these writings is one of depression and anarchy, both in civil and in religious affairs. Zerubbabel had been succeeded by a foreign governor (Mal 1:8), who probably had little sympathy with Jewish ideals. The Nabatans had pushed the Edomites out of their old territory, and the latter had occupied southern Juda almost as far as Hebron. These migrations caused unrest and suffering in Judah. The Samaritans, who had apparently spread to the valley of Aijalon, held many of the approaches to the city. The Jewish colony occupied but a small territory about Jerusalem, and in their distress some, as in the days of Manasseh, were seeking relief in the revival of long-discarded superstitious rites (Isa 65:11). There were nevertheless some souls of noble faith whose utterances we still cherish among the treasures of our Scriptures. Thus passed the reigns of Darius and Xerxes. Somewhere, whether in Babylonia or Palestine we cannot tell, the priestly Grundschriftthe main body of the Priestly documentwas compiled by P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] 2 during this period, about b.c. 450.

Such was the state of affairs when in b.c. 444, Nehemiah, the noble young Jewish cup-bearer of Artaxerxes i., arrived in Jerusalem with a commission from the king to rebuild the walls. The energy with which Nehemiah devoted himself to the erection of the walls, the opposition which he encountered from the surrounding tribes, especially from the Samaritans, who wished to share in the religious privileges of the Temple, but whom his narrow conceptions excluded, and the success which attended his labours, are forcibly depicted in Neh 1:1-11; Neh 2:1-20; Neh 3:1-32; Neh 4:1-23; Neh 5:1-19; Neh 6:1-19; Neh 7:1-73. Before the summer of 444 was over, Jerusalem had a wall as well as a Temple. Nehemiah remained for some years as governor, and then returned to Persia. He came back a second time to the governorship in b.c. 432, and continued in the office for a length of time which we cannot now trace. Perhaps it was until his death, but we do not know when this occurred. During Nehemiahs administration he persuaded the Jews to do away with all foreign marriages; with, it is stated, the aid of Ezra the scribe, he introduced the Pentateuch, so constructed that the Levitical law was its heart and core, and bound the people to observe its provisions (Neh 8:9); and he completely separated the true Jews from the Samaritans (Neh 13:28 ff.), thus thoroughly organizing the Jewish community in civil and religious affairs. Nehemiah completed what Ezekiel had begun. The whole Levitical ritual was at this time established. The menial offices of the Temple were assigned to Levites, to whom also was committed the singing. This organization a hundred years later was so thoroughly fixed that the Chronicler could attribute it to David. Probably it was at the time of Nehemiah that the first book of the Psalter (Psa 3:1-8; Psa 4:1-8; Psa 5:1-12; Psa 6:1-10; Psa 7:1-17; Psa 8:1-9; Psa 9:1-20; Psa 10:1-18; Psa 11:1-7; Psa 12:1-8; Psa 13:1-6; Psa 14:1-7; Psa 15:1-5; Psa 16:1-11; Psa 17:1-15; Psa 18:1-50; Psa 19:1-14; Psa 20:1-9; Psa 21:1-13; Psa 22:1-31; Psa 23:1-6; Psa 24:1-10; Psa 25:1-22; Psa 26:1-12; Psa 27:1-14; Psa 28:1-9; Psa 29:1-11; Psa 30:1-12; Psa 31:1-24; Psa 32:1-11; Psa 33:1-22; Psa 34:1-22; Psa 35:1-28; Psa 36:1-12; Psa 37:1-40; Psa 38:1-22; Psa 39:1-13; Psa 40:1-17; Psa 41:1-13) was compiled. When Nehemiah died, the Jewish State was not only reconstructed, but was transformed into the Jewish Church.

25. Late Persian and Early Greek Periods.After the time of Nehemiah our sources fail us for a considerable period. Only one other glimpse of the Jewish colony do they afford us before the fall of the Persian empire, and this glimpse is a somewhat confused one. Josephus (Ant. XI. vii. 1) tells us that the Persian general Bagoas, whom he calls Bagoses, entered the Temple, and oppressed the Jews seven years, because the high priest John murdered his brother Joshua, a friend of Bagoas, for whom the latter had promised to obtain the high priesthood. Perhaps there was more underlying this than appears upon the surface. Many have supposed, at least, that the action of Bagoas was the result of an attempt on the part of the Jews to regain their independence.

Josephus (Ant. XI. viii. 3 f.) also tells a tale of the fidelity of the nigh priest Jaddua to Darius iii., while Alexander the Great was besieging Tyre. Alexander summoned the Jews to aid him, so the story runs, but on the ground of loyalty they refused. Alexander, after the surrender of Gaza, marched personally to Jerusalem to take vengeance upon it. At his approach the Jews, clad in white, marched out to Scopus. The high priest, wearing his glorious robes of office, led the assemblage, and Alexander seeing them forgot his wrath and saluted the high priest graciously. This story is no doubt mere legend. Arrian, for example, declares that the rest of Palestine had submitted before the siege of Gaza. Jerusalem was to Alexander simply one Syrian town. It was out of his route, and probably was never visited by him. The one element or truth in the tale is that the high priest was the head of the Jewish community.

During the wars that followed the death of Alexander, Juda must often have suffered. In the struggles between the generals, the armies of Antigonus and Demetrius were at various times in this region. In 312 a great battle was fought near Gaza, and the Jews must have had their share of the hardship and uncertainty which in the shock of empires during those years tried mens souls. Palestine finally fell however, to the lot of Ptolemy Lagi, who had secured Egypt, and for a century was subject to the Ptolemaic line. Seleucus regarded it as rightfully his, but on account of the help Ptolemy had given him when his fortunes were at a low ebb, he did nothing more than enter a verbal protest, though Sulpicius Severus says (Sacr. Hist. ii. 17) that he exacted 300 talents in tribute from him. The age was a period of migration, and the Jews felt the Impulse along with others. During this century large settlements were made by them in Egypt, and probably elsewhere (see Dispersion). In 220 Antiochus the Great gained Palestine for Syria, but in 219 it reverted to Egypt again. Finally, in b.c. 199, he permanently attached it to Syria, and its fortunes were never subject to the Ptolemys again.

The chief connexion with the suzerain power during this period was through the payment of taxes. At one period the Egyptian king became dissatisfied with the high priests management of the finances and committed them to the care of one Joseph, son of Tobias, who with his sons led for a generation or two spectacular careers (cf. Ant. XII. iv.). At times tribute had to be paid both to Syria and to Egypt.

During this period the head of the Jewish community was the high priest, assisted by a Sanhedrin or council. The religious life of the community can only be inferred from the literature. An intense devotion to the Law was begotten in the minds of the Jewish people, as is shown by such psalms as the 119th. But the life of the community was a varied one. The Wisdom literature was cultivated, and many a passionate psalm attests that a deep religious life superior to all formalism was springing up (cf. e.g. Psa 51:1-19).

26. The Maccaban Revolt.For many years the Hellenic civilization, radiating from the many cities founded by the Macedonians, found no welcome among the little Jewish community in Jerusalem. Gradually, however, it penetrated even there, and under the Syrians certain high priests adopted Greek names, and, to court the favour of the Syrian kings, cultivated Hellenic practices. In Jerusalem, where there was a Syrian garrison, Greek culture became popular, gymnasia were established, and men went so far as to attempt to remove artificially the signs of circumcision. The country towns were more conservative, but possibly even here the movement would have made its way had not Antiochus iv. determined to force upon the Jews both Greek culture and religion. One curious feature of this period consists in the fact that a high priest, Onias iii., deposed by Syrian intervention, went to Egypt and established at Leontopolis in the name of Heliopolis a temple to Jahweh, which existed there for a hundred years.

In b.c. 168, Antiochus commanded altars to Zeus to be erected throughout the land, and especially in the Temple at Jerusalem. He also directed swine to be offered in sacrifice upon them. The fear of Syrian arms secured wide-spread obedience to this decree. In the little town of Modin, however, an old priest. Mattathias, struck down the officiating priest and raised the standard of revolt. The faithful soon rallied to his standard, and he made his son Judas captain over them. Unexpected victories speedily followed, and the successful Judas was surnamed Makkab, the hammer. Mattathias died before the end of the first year, but the struggle was continued by his sons. At the end of three years the Syrians had been driven from the Temple, though they still held the fortress which overlooked it. Accordingly, in December 165, three years after the Temple had been defiled, a great feast was held for its dedication. Up to this time Judas had been aided by the Chasdm, or piousa set of religious devotees whose ideal was ceremonial puritanism. This party would have been satisfied to rest in what had already been achieved, but Judas and his brethren aimed at political Independence. Although it estranged the Chasdm, Judas, with varying fortunes, maintained the struggle till b.c. 161. Antiochus iv. died, the forces of the young Antiochus v. were defeated, a great victory was won over Nicanor, whom Demetrius i., the next king of Syria, sent to Juda. This victory was long celebrated in a yearly festival. Judas himself fell before the end of the year 161 in a battle with the force which Demetrius sent to avenge the death of Nicanor.

The direction of the Jewish cause then fell to Jonathan, one of the brothers of Judas, who for nearly twenty years was the leader (161143). At the beginning of this period the Maccaban fortunes were at their lowest ebb. At first Jonathan thought of taking refuge with the Nabatans, but here he was treacherously treated and his brother John was slain. He himself, with a considerable force, was caught near the Jordan by the Syrians, and escaped only by swimming the river to the western side. Here Jonathan maintained himself for some years as an outlaw in the wilderness of Juda. After many unsuccessful efforts to capture him, the Syrians finally (b.c. 153) entered into a treaty with him whereby he was permitted to live at Michmash as a kind of licensed free-booter. Here, like David in his outlaw days, he ruled over such as came to him. A little later Alexander Balas appeared in the field as a contestant for the Syrian crown. This proved a great help to the Maccaban cause, as both parties were willing to bid high for the support of Jonathan. Jonathan for a time adhered to the cause of Alexander, who killed Demetrius i. and secured the crown. But although Alexander had driven Demetrius i. from the field, he was left but a short time in undisputed possession of the Syrian throne. Demetrius ii. appeared, and bid high for Jewish favour. He recognized Jonathan as high priest, and exempted the Jews from various taxes. This angered the adherents of Alexander, one of whom lured Jonathan to Ptolemais for a conference and treacherously put him to death. Another brother, Simon (143135), then assumed the leadership. The star of Alexander Balas went down, and Demetrius ii. made a treaty which once more recognized the independence of the Jews. This event created the wildest joy. Never since Uzziah had paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser iii. in b.c. 737, unless it was for a few years in the reign of Josiah, had the Jews been politically free. It seemed like a new birth of the nation, and it stimulated the national genius and devotion in all directions. Many psalms were written at this period, and the whole civil and religious polity of the nation were reorganized. Simon was made both political head of the nation and high priest, and it was ordained that these offices should continue in his house for ever, or until a faithful prophet should arise (1Ma 14:41 ff.). Simon spent his energies in the following years in organizing his government and consolidating his territory. He was successful in taking possession of Gezer, where he built a large castle, recently excavated; also Joppa, which he made his port, and on the other side of the country, Jericho. At the latter place he was assassinated in b.c. 135 by his son-in-law, who hoped to seize the government.

27. The Hasmonan Dynasty.The chronology follows:

John Hyrcanus i135105

Aristobulus i105104

Alexander Jannus10479

Alexandra7969

John Hyrcanus ii}6963

Aristobulus ii

During the early years of Hyrcanus i. the vigorous Antiochus vii. (Sidetes), who had gained the Syrian crown, pressed him so hard that the struggle for independence not only had to be renewed, but seemed for a time to waver in the balance. Weaker hands, however, soon came into possession of the Syrian sceptre; and Hyrcanus, his independence secure, set about consolidating the power of Juda. He conquered the Edomites, who had centuries before been pushed up into southern Judah, and compelled them to accept Judaism. Later he conquered Samaria and lower Galilee, treating the latter country as he had treated Iduma (cf. Jos. [Note: Josephus.] Ant. XIII. x. 2). During the reign of Hyrcanus the Pharisees and Sadducees began to emerge into well-defined and opposing parties. The former were developed out of the Chasdm of the earlier time. They desired separation and exclusion from foreigners in order that they might devote themselves to the keeping of the Law. The Sadducees, on the other hand, consisted largely of the old priestly families. whose wealth and position prevented them from either the narrowness or the devotion of the Pharisees. Hyrcanus threw in his lot with the latter.

Aristobulus i., upon his accession, assumed the title of king (Ant. XIII. xi. 1)a step which still further estranged the Pharisees. He was a man of cruel and suspicious disposition, who imprisoned his brother and treated his subjects roughly. He conquered and Judaized in the one year of his reign upper Galilee, by which it is supposed Itura is meant.

Upon his death his widow, Alexandra, released her brother-in-law, Alexander Jannus, from prison and offered him her hand and the throne, both of which he accepted. In his long and chequered reign he not only put down rebellion on the part of his turbulent subjects, but conquered and Judaized the old Israelitish territory across the Jordan, so that under him the little Jewish community had spread, by conquest and forcible conversion, from the narrow limits of the days of Nehemiah to practically the limits of the territory of ancient Israel. Thus the foundations of the NT distribution of Palestinian Jews were laid by the Hasmonans. During the whole of the reign of Alexander the opposition of the Pharisees to the dynasty and its policy was exceedingly bitter. As his end approached, Alexander committed the government to Alexandra, advising her to make her peace with the Pharisees (Ant. XIII. xv. 5). This she did, and for the next ten years the internal affairs of the kingdom were more pacific. Alexandra made her son, John Hyrcanus ii., high priest. Upon her death she left the civil authority to Aristobulus ii., the younger of her two sons (Ant. XIII. xvi. 1). This division of the two offices, which had been united from Simon to Alexandra, proved a fatal mistake. Each brother desired the office of the other, and a civil war followed. This dragged itself on for several years. Aristobulus was more popular with the soldiery, and in a short time had defeated Hyrcanus and assumed the high priesthood. The contemplative Hyrcanus would probably have been quietly relegated to private life had not an extraordinary man, Antipater, an Iduman, appeared. He attached himself to Hyrcanus, and persuaded the latter to flee to Haretath iii. (Aretas), king of the Nabatans, who upon the promise that the cities which Alexander Jannus had taken should be restored to him, furnished an army for the prosecution of the civil war. The advantage seems to have been with Hyrcanus, when in the year 65, Scaurus, the representative of the Roman general Pompey, appeared in Damascus, and both brothers appealed to him. The interference of Scaurus gave Aristohulus some advantage, but settled nothing, so that when, in 6463, Pompey himself appeared, both brothers sent him rich gifts and appealed to him. Pompey postponed decision until he should reach Jerusalem. Meantime he set out upon an expedition against the Nabatans, taking both Aristobulus and Hyrcanus with him.

In the progress of this expedition Aristobulus deserted and fled, first to Alexandrium and then to Jerusalem. Pompey, hearing of this, proceeded at once to Jerusalem. When he approached it, Aristobulus first promised to capitulate, and then, at the instigation of his soldiers, shut the gates against him. Pompey invested the city, which, after a terrible siege of three months, capitulated (Ant. XIV. iv. 14). With the fall of Jerusalem. In Oct. 63, the Jews for ever lost their independence, and the dream of empire which had been awakened by the success of Simon eighty years before was dispelled.

28. Roman Rule before Herod.The history of the Jews for the next few years reflects the vicissitudes of the tangled politics of the city of Rome. From b.c. 6348 Palestine was under the personal power of Pompey. That general had re-established Hyrcanus ii. in power as high priest, but stripped him of most of the territory won since the days of Simon, and made him subject to his personal representative, Scaurus. In the years that followed, Hyrcanus came more and more under the influence of Antipater, his self-appointed adviser. Antipater was found to be a man of such ability that the Romans committed to him the finances of Juda, and on more than one occasion entrusted delicate missions to him, but Hyrcanus was in name the ruler of the land. How the Pharisees felt during this period we learn from the poems called The Psalter of Solomon. The loss of independence had led them to cherish with renewed fervour the hopes of a Messianic kingdom.

After the defeat and death of Pompey in 48, Antipater and Hyrcanus were able to render Julius Csar material aid at Alexandria, thus winning his favour. Antipater, who had of course been the chief instrument in this, was made a Roman citizen by Csar, and also procurator of Juda. Many privileges of which Pompey had deprived them were restored to the Jews. The old powers of the Sanhedrin were revived; the religious customs of the Jews were guaranteed, not only in Juda, but in Alexandria and elsewhere, and their taxes were remitted in the Sabbatical years (Ant. XIV. ix. 35). Antipater proceeded to build up the fortunes of his family, making his son Phasaelus governor of Jerusalem, and Herod governor of Galilee. Herod proved an able administrator, but narrowly escaped condemnation by the Sanhedrin for presuming to exercise the power of life and death without its consent.

In b.c. 44 Lucius Cassius went to Syria to raise funds for the conspirators. Antipater made no resistance, but sought to show how useful his family could be. He set his sons to raise the 700 talents imposed on the Jews, and Herod was so successful in raising the part assigned to him that he was made general of the forces, both land and maritime, of Cle-Syria.

The withdrawal of Cassius from Syria was followed by the murder of Antipater, after which Hyrcanus came under the power of Herod and Phasaelus. When Cassius and Brutus were defeated at Philippi (b.c. 42), Antony moved on to the eastward to secure Syria. Although many Jews complained bitterly of the sons of Antipater, he made them tetrarchs with full political power, leaving to Hyrcanus only the high priesthood.

While Antony was in Egypt, Antigonus, a son of Aristobulus ii., gained the aid of the Parthians, who sent a force which captured Jerusalem (b.c. 40), and made Antigonus both king and high priest. In the progress of events which thus culminated Phasaelus had committed suicide. Hyrcanus was taken to Babylon and had his ears cut off, that he might never be high priest again. Herod, in view of these events, made a most remarkable winter journey to Rome, where he besought Augustus and Antony to make Aristohulus. a grandson of Hyrcanus ii., king. These Roman statesmen, however, preferred to commit the government to one whose ability had already been proved; they accordingly made Herod king and he returned to win his kingdom. Naturally Herod could do little until Antony, who was leading an expedition against the Parthians, could allow him troops with which to fight, but with aid so furnished he finally expelled Antigonus and became king of the Jews in fact as well as in name in b.c. 37.

29. Herod and his successors.The reign of Herod (wh. see) was marked at first by a period of difficulty. His master, Antony, was the slave of the Egyptian Cleopatra, and Herod had not only the ordinary difficulty of a ruler of the Jews to contend with, but the caprices of Cleopatra as well. After the battle of Actium he won the favour of Augustus, who became the master of the whole Roman world, and a period of prosperity set in. Herod had a passion for building, and knew how to squeeze money out of his subjects for his purposes. He therefore built many cities, adorning them with the beauties of Greek architecture. He also built many temples. His rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem is, perhaps, the best known of these undertakings, but it is only one of many. The taxes necessary for his various enterprises fell heavily upon his subjects, and rendered them wretched and restless. His domestic life was tragic, though his own disposition was the cause of this. During his reign Hellenism made new inroads into Juda, and Pharisaism became consolidated in the celebrated schools of Hillel and Shammai.

When Herod died (b.c. 4), Augustus divided his dominions among his sons, Archelaus receiving Juda and Samaria; Antipas, Galilee and Pera; and Philip, Itura and Trachonitis. Antipas held his territory till a.d. 39, and was the ruler of Galilee in the time of Christ, but Archelaus proved such a had ruler that in a.d. 6 Augustus removed him, banishing him to Gaul (Jos. [Note: Josephus.] BJ II. vii. 3). Juda was then placed under procurators as a part of the province of Syria. The fifth of these procurators was Pontius Pilate, under whom Christ was crucified.

Once more (a.d. 4144) all the dominions of Herod were united under Herod Agrippa i., a grandson of Herod the Great. Agrippa was a friend of the Emperor Caligula, who gave him this position, but his rule was brief. Upon his death the country passed once more under direct Roman rule through procurators.

30. Last political struggles.From the time that Pompey conquered Jerusalem many Jews had entertained hopes of national independence. Some thought that the tables might be turned, and Jerusalem might replace Rome as the mistress of the world. Gradually these feelings pervaded most of the population, and became more intense. Finally, in a.d. 66, they took shape in open rebellion. The Roman general Vespasian was sent to put down the revolution, and had reduced Galilee and the outlying cities of Juda when he heard of the death of Nero, and withdrew to Egypt to await events. During 69 Vespasian was fighting for the empire, which he finally won; but the Jews, instead of strengthening themselves for the coming conflict, were consuming one another by civil war. Finally, in a.d. 70, Titus appeared before Jerusalem with a Roman army, and after one of the most terrible sieges in its history, which Josephus fully describes (BJ V. ii. ff.), it was once more devastated. The Temple was ruined, its sacred furniture taken to Rome, where the candlestick may still be seen carved on the Arch of Titus, the wall of the city broken down, and the whole site laid waste. The services of the Jewish Temple then ceased for ever.

The tenth Roman legion was left in charge of the spot, and camped here for many years. A small garrison of the Jews who had captured the fortress of Masada, on the shore of the Dead Sea, held out for three years longer, but was finally captured (Jos. [Note: Josephus.] BJ VII. viii.).

After this terrible calamity the Jews were politically quiet for many years. The Sanhedrin removed from Jerusalem to Jabneh (Jamnia), a town in the Philistine plain south of Joppa, where in later years its sessions became famous for the discussions of Rabbi Akiba and others concerning Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs and other interesting questions.

In a.d. 116, under the Emperor Trajan, Jews in Cyprus and the East-Mediterranean lands raised a revolt, but it accomplished nothing. Hadrian, a ruler of just and tolerant spirit, is said to have granted permission for the rebuilding of the Temple, when the slanders of the Samaritans led him to revoke it. Such an event tended to foster national resentment. In 132 a new Jewish leader, called Bar Cochba, or Son of the Star, appeared and led a new and stubborn revolution. This precipitated a bloody war. After the defeat of the main force a body of troops fortified themselves at Bether (mod. Bittir), where they held out till 133. Hadrian was so exasperated that he determined to erase the name of Jerusalem from the map. A Roman colony, called lia Capitolina, was accordingly founded on the site of Jerusalem, from which all Jews were banished, and a temple to Jupiter was erected on the site of the Temple of Jahweh.

This revolt was the last expression of Israels national aspirations. In the centuries which have elapsed since, the Jew has been scattered in many countries. Often persecuted, he has in persecution cherished Messianic expectations. He has maintained his national identity without land or national government, content to stand as the representative of a religious idea once embodied in a glorious national life.

II. Religion

1. The pre-Jahwistic religion of Israel.The history of the religion of Israel is the history of the religion of Jahweh. The religion of Jahweh was, however, introduced at a definite time in Israels history, and His religion as practised by the Hebrews contains many features which are identical with those of other Semitic religions. Several of these can be proved to have had their origin in very primitive conditions common to all the Semites, from which the Israelites had in a good degree emerged before the worship of Jahweh was introduced. It will aid to clearness of thought to note at the beginning what those features were which the Hebrews brought to the religion of Jahweh from their common Semitic inheritance.

(1) In this early religion totemism prevailed. In Comparative Religion the term totemism denotes the idea that a natural objectusually an animalis kindred in blood to the worshipper. Such animals are held in great veneration; often they are regarded as specially related to the god of the tribe, and are then worshipped as the representatives of the deity. Traces of such a conception among the ancestors of the Israelites are found in the fact that the name Leah means wild cow; Rachel, ewe; Simeon, a kind of wolf or hyna; Caleb, a dog. Confirmation of this view is found in the food taboos of the Israelites. Certain animals were clean, and others unclean. The latter class was in early times indistinguishable from holy animals (Smith, RS [Note: S Religion of the Semites.] 425 ff.). For further proof of totemism, see Barton, Semitic Origins, 34 ff., and the references there given.

(2) Another conception common to the primitive Hamite and Semite was the idea that deity manifests itself especially in the processes of reproduction, and that therefore the organs of reproduction are especially sacred. That this was true of these people generally is abundantly proved (cf. Barton, ch. iii.). One direct evidence that it survived in Israel is the fact that when in early times one swore by Jahweh he put his hand under the thigh (Gen 24:2), as one now puts it on the Bible.

(3) The pillar (mazzbah) was a sacred symbol in the worship of Jahweh down to the reform of Josiah (cf. Gen 28:22, Hos 3:4, Deu 7:5, 2Ki 23:14). This object was not peculiar to the Israelites, but is found in all Semitic countries. The pillar was at first a representation of a phallus (cf. Barton, 102), and no doubt, as such, came to be the symbol of deity. The Egyptian obelisks are but more conventionally fashioned pillars.

With the pillar must be placed the ashrah. This object was among the Hebrews at times a wooden post, but usually consisted of more than one. There is some reason for supposing that the ashrah was not complete until there was carved in it a rude doorway, symbolic of the physical doorway of life, in which a figure of a goddess stood (cf. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, p. 165 ff., Plates 17, 18, 29, 80, 83; also 1Ki 15:13). If this be true, the pillar and the ashrah together represented at every sanctuary the male and female organs of reproduction (cf. Whatham, Amer. Jour. of Rel. Psychology, i. 25 ff.). Ashrahs stood by the altar of Jahweh down to the Deuteronomic reform (2Ki 23:6). These symbols, then, were survivals from the pre-Jahwistic religion of Israel, and their existence proves that the conception of deity of which they are the expression formed a part of that early religion also. Cf. artt. Asherah, Pillar.

(4) Circumcision also is an institution which the Hebrews had inherited from their Semitic ancestry. It can no longer be regarded as a peculiarly Hebrew institution, for it was practised by both Hamites and Semites (Barton, 98117), and is pictured on an Egyptian monument earlier than the 1st dynasty (Bull. de cor. hellnique, 1892, p. 307 ff., and pl. 1). Circumcision, like many other religious institutions, underwent different interpretations at different periods; but its origin is clearly connected with that naive conception of the close connexion of the reproductive organs with the Divine which characterized all the people of the Hamito-Semitic race (cf. Whatham, Origin of Circumcision, l.c. i. 301 ff.). The practice of circumcision among the Israelites is another proof that their conception of deity was in early times closely connected with animal fertility.

(5) From the pre-Jahwistic period came also the idea that spirits or numina dwelt in certain natural objects, such as trees, stones, and springs. This conception belonged to the primitive Semites, by whom it was held in common with primitive peoples generally (cf. RS [Note: S Religion of the Semites.] 2 132, 167183, 185195; Sem. Or. 82 ff., 8797). Sacred trees existed in many parts of Palestine. There was Abrahams oak of Mamre near Hebron (Gen 13:18; Gen 18:1), at Shechem stood another (Jos 24:26), at Ophrah another (Jdg 6:11; Jdg 6:19), and at many other places they were found, and indeed they are still found in Palestine at the present day (cf. Curtiss, Prim. Sem. Rel. To-day, 91 ff.; Barton, A Years Wanderings in Bible Lands, 162, 163, and Biblical World, xxiv. 170, 174).

Wells were also sacred. The fountain at Kadesh was called En-mishpat (Gen 14:7), or the spring of judgment, no doubt because oracular decisions were obtained there. The well of Lahai-roi (Gen 16:14) had a story to account for its sacredness, as had also the wells at Beersheba (Gen 21:29), which were evidently sacred. En-rogel (modern Jobs Well) was so sacred that Adonijah held a sacrifice by it (1Ki 1:9 ff.), while Solomon was anointed at Gihon (modern Virgins Fountain) for the same reason.

A sacred circle of stones called Gilgal existed on the west of the Jordan (Jos 4:19 ff.). This sacred stone-circle, like many which exist still on the east of the Jordan (cf. Barton, A Years Wanderings, 143, and Biblical World, xxiv. 177), was no doubt of pre-historic origin. In the pre-Jahwistic religion, then, such numina were worshipped by the Hebrews.

(6) Another feature of this early religion was sacrifice. In later times sacrifice was regarded mainly as a gift of food to the deity (cf. Psa 50:1-23), and probably in early times this idea entered into it. The late W. R. Smith thought that the chief feature of primitive sacrifice was communion, i.e. that a commensal feast, in which the god and the worshipper partook of the same food, and their kinship was consequently renewed, was its chief feature (RS [Note: S Religion of the Semites.] 2, vi.xi.). Whether this was its sole feature or not, there can be no doubt that the sacrificial feast formed an important part of primitive sacrifice, and of sacrifice among the early Hebrews (cf. Exo 24:11). Curtiss believes that the originally significant element in sacrifice was the bursting forth of the blood,that this rather than the feast constituted it a sacrifice (Prim. Sem. Rel. To-day, 216228), while Whatham (l.c. ii. 38) holds that human sacrifice, at least, originated in impersonating the death of the earth-goddesss son, i.e. the death of vegetation. Whatever the meanings attached to it (and in the long developments of pre-historic time they may have been many), sacrifice both of human beings and of animals was practised by the primitive Semites, and was perpetuated by the Hebrews into the OT period. Traces of human sacrifice were found by Mr. Macalister during the excavation at Gezer (cf. PEFSt [Note: Quarterly Statement of the same.] , 1903, pp. 33 ff., 121, 306 ff.). The story of the sacrifice of Isaac (Gen 22:1-24) is in reality an attempt to justify the discontinuance of the sacrifice of the human firstborn, and to substitute a ram for it. It is really the story of Isaacs deliverance, not of his sacrifice. Its presence in the OT proves that in early times the Israelites, in common with other Semites, practised human sacrifice.

(7) Probably the ban (chrem), by which even before a battle all the population of the enemies country and their effects were devoted to destruction as a solemn obligation to Jahweh, is another survival from primitive times. Many examples of it are found in the OT (cf. Num 21:2, Jos 6:17, 1Sa 15:3 ff.). It seems to have been the custom of the Moabites, for Mesha says (Moabite Stone, l. 11 f.): I killed all the people of the citya pleasing spectacle to Chemosh. So barbarous a custom was no doubt primitive.

(8) Another custom perpetuated by the Israelites from pre-Jahwistic times was the law of blood revenge, by which it became a religious duty, when one was injured, to inflict a like injury, and if the blood of ones kinsman was shed, to shed the blood of those who had committed the deed. This idea not only meets us frequently in the OT (Gn 4:14ff., 23ff., Exo 21:23 ff.), but is also found often in the Code of Hammurabi, b.c. 2100 ( 127, 195197, 200, 202, 210, 219, 229, 230, 231), and among the Arabs to-day (cf. e.g. Zwemer, Arabia. 155, 265). It is clearly one of the religious points of view which have come out of the primitive Semitic past.

(9) The Passover, or spring leaping festival, so called, perhaps, because the young were then gambolling about, is another institution which as is now generally recognized, the Israelites brought with them from their remote Semitic past (cf. RS [Note: S Religion of the Semites.] 2 406ff., 464; Sem. Or. 108 ff.: Kautzsch, in Hastings DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] , Ext. Vol. 621 ff.: Schmidt, Prophet of Nazareth, 62). It is one of the survivals of the early Semitic worship of deity as the giver of animal life and, like the pillar and ashrah, is an evidence of the sacred nature of reproduction among the ancestors of the Hebrews. It underwent in later times a different interpretation at their hands (cf. Exo 12:1-51), but it is certain that that explanation does not account for its origin.

(10) It is probable that an autumn festival, which in primitive Semitic times was connected with the date harvest, and in the OT period was known as the Feast of Tabernacles, was brought by the Israelites into Jahweh-worship from their primitive life. This is not so universally recognized as in the case of the Passover, but has been practically proved by Barton (Sem. Or. 111115). In connexion with this festival probably in primitive times the wailing for Tammuz occurred, and all those ceremonies which celebrated the death and resurrection of vegetation. This wailing was in the late Hebrew ritual interpreted as mourning for sin on the Day of Atonement (cf. RS [Note: S Religion of the Semites.] 2 411: Sem. Or. 289 ff.). Similarly after the settlement in Canaan it was regarded as the feast of the grape harvest instead of the date harvest.

(11) We can hardly say that the Hebrews were believers in polytheism before the covenant with Jahweh, but certainly they were not monotheists. Probably each tribe had its god. One of these, the god of the tribe Gad, has survived in the OT with a specialized function (cf. Isa 65:11). These tribal deities received the special homage of their respective clans, but no doubt when men wandered into the region of other local numina they propitiated these also. Such a condition, where tribes worship one deity but recognize the reality of other deities, is called by some scholars henotheism.

2. The covenant with Jahweh.The historical circumstances under which Jahweh became the God of Israel have been sketched above (I. 6).

(1) Those circumstances certainly suggest that Jahweh was the god of the Kenites before He was the God of Israel.

This view, first suggested by Ghillany also independently by Tiele, more fully urged by Stade, fully worked out by Budde, is now accepted by Guthe, Wildeboer. H. P. Smith, Barton, and W. R. Harper. The reasons for it are: (a) Of the three documents which narrate the Exodus, E [Note: Elohist.] and P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] tell of the introduction of the name Jahweh as a new name. In early religion a new name usually means a new deity E [Note: Elohist.] , on whom Pisdependent in this part of the narrative, was an Ephraimite and preserved the traditions current among the Joseph tribes. (b) The account of the institution of the covenant (Exo 18:12 ff.) makes it clear that Jethro, the Kenite priest, offers the sacrifice. He really initiates the Hebrews into the worship of Jahweh. This is confirmed by the underlying thought of all the documents that it was in this Midianite or Kenite country (the Kenites were a branch of the Midianites) that Moses first learned of Jahweh. (c) For centuries after this Sinai was regarded as the home of Jahweh. From here He marched forth to give victory to His people (Jdg 5:4 ff., Deu 33:2, Hab 3:1, Psa 68:4). Elijah also made a pilgrimage to Sinai to seek Jahweh in His home (1Ki 19:1-21). (d) The Kenites during several succeeding centuries were the champions of the pure worship of Jahweh. Jael killed Sisera (Jdg 5:24 ff.). The Rechabites, who from Jehu to Jeremiah (2Ki 10:15, Jer 35:1-19) championed Jahweh, were Kenites (1Ch 2:55). (e) Some of the Kenites joined Israel in her migrations (Num 10:29 ff.), mingling with Israel both in the north (Jdg 5:24) and in the south (Jdg 1:16); some of them remained on the southern border of Judah. where they maintained a separate existence till the time of Saul (1Sa 15:6), and were finally, in the days of David, incorporated into the tribe of Judah (1Sa 30:26 ff., 1Sa 29:1-11 ff.). (f) it is this absorption of the Kenites by Judah which, if Jahweh were a Kenite deity, explains why the J [Note: Jahwist.] document, written in Judah, regards the knowledge of the name Jahweh as immemorial (Gen 4:26). The perpetual separateness of Judah from the other tribes tended to perpetuate this in spite of contrary currents from other quarters. We are therefore justified in holding that Jahweh was the god of the Kenites, that some of the Hebrew tribes entangled in Egypt were ready to abandon their old gods for one that could deliver them, and thus He became their God. The objections to this view urged by Kautzsch (loc. cit. 626 ff.) really do not touch the nerve of the argument. The words God of thy fathers on which he lays so much stress are written from a later point of view, and that point of view is quite as well justified by the Kenite hypothesis (for the Kenites were absorbed by Judah) as by the supposition that Jahweh was the god of one of the Israelitish clans.

(2) What conception the Hebrews of the time of Moses held of Jahweh we can in broad outline define. Evidently they conceived Him to be a god of war. The needs of the oppressed tribes demanded a warrior. The people are said to have sung, after their deliverance, Jahweh is a man of war. A book of old poems was called The Book of the Wars of Jahweh (Num 21:14), and Jahweh of hosts (or armies) was afterwards one of His most constant names. There can be little doubt that this conception of Jahweh as a war-god had developed among the Kenites, and that it had large influence in drawing the Hebrews into His worship.

There is reason also to believe that, as Jahweh had long been worshipped around Mount Sinai, where severe thunder-storms occur (cf. Agnes Smith Lewis, Expos. Times, June 1906, p. 394), He had come to be regarded as a god who manifested Himself especially in the phenomena of storms. He is usually represented as coming in a thunder-storm (Psa 18:1-50, Eze 1:1-28, Hab 3:1-19, Isa 19:1, Job 38:1-41), and the regular name for thunder was the voice of Jahweh (Psa 29:3 ff., Job 37:4). He is also said to have led His people in a cloud (Exo 13:1-22; Exo 14:1-31), to have appeared on Mount Sinai and in the Temple in a cloud (Exo 19:1-25, 1Ki 8:10-11); and in the middle books of the Pentateuch the cloud is used more than forty times as the symbol of Jahwehs presence. Probably, then, the Israelites received Him from the Kenites as a god of war who manifested Himself in the storm-cloud and uttered His terrible voice in thunder.

These conceptions, however, did not exhaust their thought of Him. The Israelites were Semites, and they thought of Him as a god of life. Had this not been so, circumcision would not have been His sign, the pillar and ashrah would not have been symbolic instruments in His worship, the firstborn would not have been offered to Him in sacrifice, and the genitals would not have been the part of the body specially sacred to Him. Barton has shown that Jahweh is an evolution out of that primitive Semitic conception which made plant and animal fertility especially reveal deity (op. cit. ch. vii.). These conceptions, too, the Hebrews in the time of Moses held of Jahweh.

(3) The name Jahweh, explained in Exo 3:14 as I am that I am or I will be that which I will be, was long thought to justify the view that at the time of Moses the Israelites regarded Jahweh as the self-existent or uncreated One. It has now been generally recognized, however, that this is only a later Hebrew explanation of a name the original meaning of which had been forgotten.

In an attempt to recover the lost original, many and various theories have been put forward. For a resum of these, see Barton (op. cit. 283, 284). Scholars are by no means agreed as to the meaning of the name. There are almost as many theories of its etymology as there are different scholars. Barton has correctly seen that the name probably had some reference to Jahweh as the God of life,the God whose reward is the fruit of the womb (Psa 127:3), but he failed, then, to see that the etymology should be sought not in Hebrew but in Arabic. The Kenites were an Arabian tribe, and Jahweh was no doubt an Arabian epithet. Probably it is connected with the root hawa, to love passionately used in some forms especially of sexual desire. If this meaning were understood by Hebrews at the time of Moses, it was lost as soon as the Israelites began to speak a Canaanitish dialect.

(4) It is probable that the covenant between Jahweh and Israel involved at the time no more than that they would become His worshippers in return for deliverance, victory, and protection. In becoming His worshippers, however, it was necessary to have a knowledge of His ritual, i.e. how to worship Him. Our oldest document J [Note: Jahwist.] gives a list of ten commands or words (Exo 34:1-35), which its author regarded as the basis of the covenant. As this Decalogue of J [Note: Jahwist.] stands, it would form a convenient summary of ritual law for a nomadic people to carry in the memory.

Some features of it cannot, however, be as old as Moses, for the feast of unleavened bread is, as Wellhausen and others have demonstrated, an agricultural festival, which grew up after the settlement in Canaan. It was, however, merged with the Passover, and its name has probably been substituted for the Passover by some editor. The Feasts of Weeks and of Ingathering were also agricultural festivals, but, as pointed out in the preceding section, the latter goes back to a nomadic date festival. The observance of the Sabbath probably goes back, as Toy has shown (JBL [Note: BL Journ. of Biblical Literature.] xviii. 190 ff.), to an old taboo. With very little alteration, therefore, the Decalogue of J [Note: Jahwist.] suits all the wilderness conditions.

We may suppose that the summary of ritual which Moses taught the Israelites as the basis of the covenant with Jahweh was somewhat as follows:

1. Thou shalt worship no other god.

2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.

3. The feast of the Passover thou shalt keep.

4. The firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb.

5. None shall appear before me empty.

6. On the seventh day thou shalt rest.

7. Thou shalt observe the feast [of the date harvest].

8. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread, neither shall the sacrifice of the Passover be left until the morning.

9. The firstlings of thy flocks thou shalt bring unto Jahweh thy god.

10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mothers milk.

These commands are in part conjectural, but as they are obtained from J [Note: Jahwist.] by omitting the agricultural and later elements, they are probably approximately right.

(5) It will be noticed that the second command is not a prohibition of idols, but only of expensive idols. Kautzsch (loc. cit. 629) thinks that the number of references to the bodily presence of Jahweh (cf. e.g. Exo 33:23) may indicate that some idol of Him existed in Sinai. This is quite possible, since the Decalogue, as J [Note: Jahwist.] understood it in the 9th cent., did not prohibit such images.

(6) Jahwehs symbol at this time was the sacred ark. As the Egyptians and Babylonians had similar structures for carrying their gods (cf. Wilkinson, Ancient Egyptians, iii. 289; Isaiah in SBOT [Note: BOT Sacred Books of Old Testament.] , 78), it is probable that the ark was a kind of movable sanctuary for a nomadic people. A late tradition (1Ki 8:9; 1Ki 8:21) says that it contained the Ten Commandments written on stone. The later versions of the Commandments differ so radically that it is not probable that an authoritative copy from such early date was preserved. Scholars suppose therefore that the ark contained an aerolite or some such symbol of Jahweh. Centuries afterwards, when it was carried into the camp of the Philistines, it was thought that Jahweh Himself had come into the camp (1Sa 4:1-22).

In the J [Note: Jahwist.] document the ark plays a small part, while in the E [Note: Elohist.] document it is much more prominent. J [Note: Jahwist.] apparently thought much more of Sinai as the home of Jahweh. This probably came about from the fact that after the settlement the ark was in the possession of the Joseph tribes and became their shrine.

(7) According to the oldest sources, there seems to have been no priesthood at this time except that of Moses himself. J [Note: Jahwist.] tells us that when the covenant was ratified, Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and seventy elders of Israel went up into Jahwehs mountain, but only Moses was permitted to come before Him (Exo 24:1-2; Exo 24:9-11), while E [Note: Elohist.] tells us of a tent of meeting which Moses used to pitch at a distance from the camp, and to which he would go to consult Jahweh (Exo 33:7-11), and then return. In this tent Joshua, Moses minister, abode all the time (Exo 33:11). It is clear that neither of these writers had any conception of the choice of the tribe of Levi for the priesthood. Indeed E [Note: Elohist.] makes no mention of the tribe of Levi anywhere. Moses was in his view apparently of one of the Joseph tribes, and how the term Levite for priest originated he does not tell us. In Jdg 17:7 he tells us of a Levite who belonged to the tribe of Judah (cf. SBOT [Note: BOT Sacred Books of Old Testament.] , ad loc.), so that here Levite cannot have a tribal signification. J [Note: Jahwist.] tells us of a tribe of Levi to which a calamity happened (Gen 34:1-31; Gen 49:5-7), and he tells us also (Exo 32:26-28) of a number of men who in a crisis attached (lewied) themselves to Moses for the preservation of the religion of Jahweh, and were, perhaps, accordingly called Levites. Many scholars think that the later priesthood was developed out of this band, and that its identification with the unfortunate clan of Levi is due to a later confusion of the names. In the present state of our knowledge, this is, perhaps, the most probable view. (For the great variety of opinion among scholars, cf. art. Levi in JE [Note: Jewish Encyclopedia.] vii. 21.) The priesthood is probably a development later than Moses.

3. The pre-Prophetic religion in Canaan.(1) The conquest of Canaan strengthened the faith of the Israelitish tribes in Jahweh as the god of war. Their success strengthened the hold of Jahweh upon them. A Semitic people upon entering a new land always felt it necessary to propitiate the god of the land. As this was the case as late as the 8th cent. (2Ki 17:24-34), it would be all the more true at the beginning of the 12th. At first, therefore, they must have mingled the worship of the Baals with the worship of Jahweh. As we have seen, the conquest did not occur all at once; there must have been many conflicts, which kept the tribes in constant dependence upon Jahweh (cf. Jdg 5:23). These conflicts continued to the time of Saul and David, and constituted a life and death struggle. When, under David, Israel emerged victorious, Jahweh was more than ever the god of armies. These vicissitudes tended to eliminate the worship of the tribal deities. Little by little Jahweh came to be regarded as the god of the land,as a Baal,and as such took possession in their thought of the principal Canaanitish shrines.

(2) Gradually the Canaanitish conceptions connected with these shrines were transferred to Jahweh. This fusion was easily possible because of the kinship of Jahweh and the Baals. Both had sprung from the same primitive conceptions. Both were regarded as gods of animal fertility. To both the same symbols of fertility were sacred. The main difference was that the Baals were the gods of clans which had longer resided in a fertile land (cf. Sem. Or. 297 ff.). By this fusion the somewhat meagre and simple ritual of Jahweh was enriched. By the time of Gideon the term Baal (lord) was applied to Jahweh, as Jerub-baal, Gideons real name, proves. Ish-baal and Meri-baal, sons of Saul, and Beeliada, a son of David, bear names which prove the same thing.

(3) During this period it was not thought wrong to make images of Jahweh. Gideon made an ephod-idol at Ophrah (Jdg 8:27), Micah made an image to Jahweh (Jdg 17:3 ff.), and it is probable that similar images existed elsewhere. Sometimes these were in the form of bullocks as were those which Jeroboam set up at Bethel and Dan. These latter symbolized Jahweh as the generator of life, and the god of pastoral wealth. Household numina called teraphim were also worshipped. Images of these were also made, sometimes large enough to be passed off for a man (1Sa 19:13 ff.).

(4) In the whole of this period it was thought that Jahweh existed in the form of a man. He might appear and talk with a person, indistinguishable from a human being, until the moment of His departure (cf. Gen 18:2 ff., Jdg 6:11 ff; Jdg 13:3 ff.). Sometimes, as in the last two passages cited, it was the angel of Jahweh that appeared, but at the period when these narratives were written, the conception of the difference between Jahweh and His angel was not fully developed. So the face (presence) of Jahweh (Exo 33:1-23) is a reference to the person of Jahweh. It indicates that He was conceived as having a bodily form When the J [Note: Jahwist.] document was written, the Prophetic period was already dawning. As we are indebted to that document for most of these anthropomorphic representations of Jahweh, we may be sure that this conception prevailed throughout the pre-Prophetic period.

(5) The only literature which has come to us from this pre-Prophetic time consists of a few poemsthe Song of Deborah (Jdg 5:1-31), Davids Lament over Saul and Jonathan (2Sa 1:1-27), and a few fragments elsewhere (e.g. Num 21:1-35 and Jos 10:12). No one now thinks of attributing the Psalms in the form in which we have them to David, or the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes to Solomon. The literature of this period, then, is, so far as we know it, secular in character. The people were religious, but the religion existed as a help to secular life. It consisted largely of inherited customs, of half-superstitious beliefs, while the main interest of all was centred in physical prosperity. Certain practices were regarded as wrong,as offences against Jahweh (e.g. the crime of Jdg 19:1-30 and Davids sin [2Sa 11:1-27]), but the ethical content of the religion was of a very rudimentary character. Stealing (cf. Jdg 18:1-31), deceit (Gen 27:1-46), and treachery (Jdg 3:15 ff; Jdg 5:24; Jdg 5:27) were not only condoned but at times even glorified.

(6) Before the time of Solomon a traveller in Palestine would have found no elaborate temple or structure devoted to religion. Instead, in every village he would have found an open-air high place, marked by pillars and ashrahs,high places such as have recently been excavated at Gezer and Megiddo and found at Petra. In connexion with these there were often sacred caves and other accessories of primitive worship. In some, as at Gezer and Jerusalem, serpent-worship was practised, and brazen serpents as well as the living animal were kept (cf. PEFSt [Note: Quarterly Statement of the same.] , 1903, p. 222; 2Ki 18:4). Probably at most of them, as at Gezer, some form of Ashtart, the mother-goddess, was also worshipped (cf. PEFSt [Note: Quarterly Statement of the same.] , 1903, p. 228). As time went on, an occasional shrine had a building. The first of these which we can trace was at Shiloh (1Sa 1:1-28; 1Sa 2:1-36; 1Sa 3:1-21); it had at least two rooms and doors. Solomon then erected the splendid Temple at Jerusalem on Phnician models, departing, as has been pointed out (I. 14), from older Hebrew practice in many ways. Perhaps Jeroboam erected temples at Bethel and at Dan (cf. 1Ki 12:31, Amo 7:13), but for the most part these shrines were of the simplest nature and without buildings. A wealthy citizen might in this period have a private temple in connexion with his residence (Jdg 17:1-13).

(7) The priesthood in this period was not confined to any tribe. There seems to have been a feeling that it was better to have a levi for priest (whatever that may have meant; cf. Jdg 17:10), but Micah, an Ephraimite, made his son a priest (Jdg 17:5); Samuel, a member of one of the Joseph tribes, acted as priest (1Sa 9:12 ff.); and David made his sons priests (2Sa 8:18 RVm [Note: Revised Version margin.] ). According to J [Note: Jahwist.] (cf. Jdg 18:30), Jonathan, a grandson of Moses, started life as an impecunious resident of Bethlehem in Judah; in seeking his fortune he became a priest in the private shrine of Micah, the Ephraimite; then at the instigation of the Danites he robbed that shrine and fled with them to the north, becoming the founder of a line of priests in the temple of Dan. Even if his descent from Moses should not be credited, the story gives evidence of the kind of irregularity in the priesthood which was still conceivable when the J [Note: Jahwist.] document was composed. So far as Jerusalem was concerned, David improved this chaotic condition by regulating the priesthood.

(8) The festivals at this period were of a simple, joyous character. They were held in the interest of the worshipper. A picture of one has been preserved in 1Sa 1:1-28; 1Sa 2:1-36. The priests killed the sacrifice, pouring out the blood no doubt to Jahweh, and then the flesh was cooked. While it was cooking, the priest obtained his portion by a kind of chance (cf. 1Sa 2:13 ff.), after which the victim was consumed by the worshippers in a joyous festival. This festival was the appropriate time to pray for children, and it is probable that considerable licence accompanied it (cf. Sem. Or. 287 ff.). The feast described occurred annually, but there were lesser feasts at the time of the new moons and on other occasions, which were probably observed in the same simple way (cf. 1Sa 20:5 ff.). In addition to the sacrifices at such feasts (cf. 1Sa 9:22 ff.), it is clear that on extraordinary occasions human sacrifice was in this period still practised. The story of Jephthahs daughter, whether historical in all its features or not, proves that such sacrifices were regarded as possible. It is probable that 1Ki 16:34 is proof that children were still sacrificed when important structures were set up. The language of this passage has been greatly illuminated by the discoveries at Gezer (cf. above, 1 (6)).

(9) A glimpse into the household worship of the time we obtain from the teraphim. These seem to have been household deities, similar to those found in Babylonia (Eze 21:21) and among the Aramans (Gen 31:19). Of their use we know little. They seem to have been employed for divination (Zec 10:2), and they were sometimes made in human form (1Sa 19:16). Throughout this period they were a recognized element in the worship (cf. Jdg 18:20, Hos 3:4). Whether these gods formed the centre of the home worship or not we cannot tell. They were evidently a crude survival from an earlier time, and with religious progress they disappeared.

In addition to the features of the religion of the pre-Prophetic period which have been enumerated, it must be remembered that the fundamental institutions of the pre-Jahwistic religion of Israel, enumerated in 1, continued through this period also.

(10) Another religious phenomenon of the pre-Prophetic period consisted in the development of a class of seers or prophets, who are to be carefully distinguished from the great moral and literary prophets of the next period. The prophets of this period were closely akin to the seers and fortune-tellers who are common the world over. They had their parallel in other Semitic countries, e.g. Phnicia and Assyria. In the time of Saul there was a class of ecstatic prophets in Israel who used music to aid their prophetic excitement, who uttered themselves when possessed by an uncontrollable frenzy, and who went about in hands (cf. 1Sa 10:9-13; 1Sa 19:23-24).

These prophets have their analogue in a youth at Gebal in Phnicia, of whom the Egyptian Wenamon makes report about b.c. 1100. This youth was seized by the spirit of the gods and thrown into a frenzy, and then uttered prophecies which moved a king (cf. AJSL xxi. 105). This type of prophecy was therefore in this period widely spread over the country even beyond the bounds of Israel. The eons of the prophets referred to so often in the OT were simply guilds of these men organized for mutual help. Music helped to bring on the frenzy, and it was more contagious when a number were together.

Samuel was not sharply distinguished from the sons of the prophets, although he was evidently a man of a higher order, believed by the people to possess superior gifts. He was called a seer (1Sa 9:9), and was believed to be able to direct people in finding lost property, and not to be above taking a fee for it (1Sa 9:7). Somewhat parallel to such a seer is the one mentioned by Ashurbanipal (G. Smith, Assurbanipal, 119 ff.).

These men were held in high esteem, and obtained their living by telling people what they wished to know. Their oracles were mostly about the future, but often no doubt they told a man whether this or that action was in accord with the will of Jahweh, or of the god whom they represented. Baal as well as Jahweh had his prophets (1Ki 18:19). Such men were necessary adjuncts of a court, for a king had often to engage in hazardous enterprises of State. We find accordingly that Ahab kept four hundred of them about him (1Ki 22:6). David and other kings had probably done the same. No doubt Nathan and Gad, whom later writers mention in connexion with David, were really men of this character, who are in the narratives pictured like the nobler prophets of later time.

These prophets by profession possessed no higher ethical tendencies than the other men of their time. Their sustenance was dependent on the pleasure of their royal master, if they were connected with the court, and usually they gave such oracles as were desired. (For fuller account, see Batten, The Hebrew Prophet, 2772.) The institution was held in high regard. When the ecstatic frenzy came upon a man and his higher nerve centres were by the excitement inhibited from action, he was, as such men usually are among savage and primitive people (cf. Davenport, Primitive Traits in Religious Revivals, ch. i. vi.), thought to be under the possession of a supernatural spirit. He was accordingly listened to most carefully, and his utterances were supposed to reveal the Divine will. It is significant that the Hebrews used the same word for prophet and for lunatic. The institution was capable nevertheless of high possibilities. If those came forward exercising its gifts who were animated by high ethical purpose and possessed a great spiritual message, the regard in which this institution was held assured them of a hearing.

4. Religion in the Prophetic period.The period which we call Prophetic extends from Elijah to the great prophet of the Exile, the so-called Second Isaiah. It was in this period that, thanks to the labours of the great school of prophetic reformers, the religion of Israel became ethical and spiritual. They gave it this content, and by the new Interpretation which they put on the covenant with Jahweh which Moses and Jethro had mediated, forced it upon the nation. In this they were aided by the misfortunes and sufferings incident to the interference of Assyria and Babylon in Hebrew affairs. In one important respect the prophets in this noble succession changed the method of prophetic utterance. With one exception, they discarded the method of ecstatic utterance, and spoke as the result of prophetic vision. Just what they mean by vision we may not say, but we may be sure that intelligence and imagination had their part in it. It led to the perception of a noble ideal, and gave the beholder a holy passion to realize it.

(1) Elijah. The prophetic work began with Elijah. The main points of his career (1Ki 17:1-24; 1Ki 18:1-46; 1Ki 19:1-21) have already been touched upon above (I. 17). His significance lies in the act that in the name of Jahweh he championed the poor against the rich. That his conception of Jahweh was narrow,that he regarded Him as a god of the nomadic type,that he opposed a foreign cult, are all incidental. Any enthusiastic member of a prophetic guild might have done any one of these three things. The significance of the work of Elijah lies in the fact that it marks the dawn of ethical purity and social justice in Jahwehs religion. The method of Elijah, too, was an ethical method. He delivered his message, and relied upon its weight for the results.

(2) The Jahwist (J [Note: Jahwist.] writer). In the same century, perhaps contemporary with Elijah, the first of the J [Note: Jahwist.] writers was composing his matchless prose narratives in Judah. He was pervaded by the prophetic spirit in its incipient form. He traces the creation of man to Jahweh, and is interested in the descent of the nations from a primitive pair. He tells the stories of the patriarchs to illustrate the power of Jahweh, but the purely religious motive is not often present. He represents the patriarchs as on friendly terms with the Canaanites about them, which indicates that he is not conscious that the religion of Jahweh is hostile to other faiths. His conception of the basis of Jahwehs covenant with Israel is, as pointed out above ( 2 (4)), ten commands of a purely ritual nature. The tone of his stories is sombre. Clothing and child-hearing came in consequence of sin. The first agriculturist was the first murderer. The inventors of metal instruments and of music were especially wicked men. The civilization of Babylonia attempted such astounding structures, that, as Jahweh looked down from heaven, He found He could prevent men from reaching heaven only by confounding their language. To the Jahwist civilization meant sin, pain, and trouble. He had no hopeful outlook. His type of faith was nomadic indeed. He represents the starting-point from which the prophetic movement went forward.

(3) Elisha hardly deserves to be reckoned in this great succession. He was the very head of professeional prophecy. When absent from the band of associates he found it necessary to call a minstrel to work up his ecstasy before he could prophesy (2Ki 3:15). It was he, too, who prompted Jehu, one of the bloodiest of usurpers and reformers, to undertake the purification of Israel from the taint of foreign religion; and when it was accomplished Israel was not one whit more ethical or spiritual than before. Elisha is usually counted as Elijahs successor, but he belongs to a different class. The nobler religion of Israel owes him nothing.

(4) Amos, the first prophet to commit his message to writing, came, like Elijah, with a magnificent messagea message indeed which is to that of Elijah like noon to dawn. Amos announces for the first time the faith of a practical monotheist. Such a faith had been implicit in the Jahwist, when he traced the existence of all mankind to Jahwehs act, but in Amos it is explicit. Jahweh brought not only the Israelites from Egypt, but the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Aramans from Kir (Amo 9:7), and He will likewise judge the Philistines, Damascus, Moab, Edom, and all nations (chs. 1, 2). Jahweh, too, Amos proclaims as an ethical God. Ethics, not ritual, was the basis of the covenant at Sinai (Amo 5:21-25). Justice is to roll down as waters and righteousness as a perennial stream before Jahweh will be satisfied. In this spirit Amos championed in the name of Jahweh the cause of the oppressed poor, and rebuked the social impurities connected with religion, pronouncing upon the unethical the doom of Jahweh.

(5) The Elohist. Perhaps contemporary with Amos was the first E [Note: Elohist.] writer. He was a man of true prophetic spirit. Like J [Note: Jahwist.] , he recorded many of the traditions of ancient times, but he tells them with a more hopeful outlook. He has a high regard for a prophet, and represents Abraham as one (Gen 20:7). He represents a higher conception of God than J [Note: Jahwist.] . J [Note: Jahwist.] s anthropomorphism has disappeared. God is never seen in human form in E [Note: Elohist.] s narratives, but reveals Himself in dreams. The ethical character of E [Note: Elohist.] s conception of religion appears, however, in his conception of the basis of the covenant which Moses made between Israel and Jahweh. The basis of this is a Decalogue in which the ritualistic is reduced to a minimum (Exo 20:1-26 without the additions of R [Note: Redactor.] n), and which contains the fundamental elements of morality, and a code of laws (Exo 20:24 to Exo 23:19) embodying the principles of equity that were necessary for the life of a simple agricultural community. In giving expression to this conception, the Elohist placed himself in line with the great ethical prophets, and did much towards the differentiation of the religion of Israel from the nature cults about it. In his opening to the Decalogue (Exo 20:3) he shows that his monotheism was somewhat insecure, but his ethical conception of Jahwehs relation to Israel helped to put religion on a spiritual basis.

(6) Hoseas main contribution to religious theory was the thought that God is lovenot the crass sexual love of the early Semite, but the self-sacrificing love of an affectionate father or a devoted husband, who would suffer to reclaim the fallen. Not less stern than Amos in his conception of ethical standards, Hosea is less occupied with proclaiming doom. He seeks by the love of Jahweh to allure Israel and win her back. Amos devoted himself mainly to checking the oppression of the poor, Hosea largely to the establishment of social purity. It became clear to him that this could not be accomplished so long as the primitive orgies of sexual freedom which were enacted in the name of religion in all the high places were permitted to continue. These he believed were no part of the real religion of Jahweh; they had come into it from the cult of Baal and Astarte. He accordingly denounced this impurity as the worship of another god,as conjugal infidelity to Jahweh, and prohibited the application to Jahweh in the future of the appellation Baal, or lord (Hos 2:16). Thus, as in the time of Elijah the struggle for justice linked itself with opposition to a foreign cult, so now the struggle for justice and purity led to opposition to Baal. The cult was not so foreign as the prophets supposed. It was native, as we have seen, to Jahweh as well as to the clans of Canaan which were now a part of Israel, but the idea that it was foreign helped the prophets to fight it. The fight was taken up by Hoseas successors and pushed to success. The recovery of the high place at Gezer, with all its crass and revolting symbolism. helps us to understand the weight of deadening sensualism against which the prophets contended.

Hosea. like Amos was a monotheist. His conception of Jahweh was, however, not perfect. He thought of Him as caring especially for Israel. Though He ruled other nations, Hosea believed He controlled them mainly for the sake of Israel.

(7) Isaiah continued the work of Amos and Hosea. He proclaimed Jahweh as the All-powerful, who fills heaven and earth,the Holy One, who proves His sanctity by His justice. For forty years, in many crises and under varying figures, Isaiah set forth this doctrine. Man is in Jahwehs hands as clay in the hands of the potter. The powerful Assyrian is but the rod by which Jahweh in His wrath is chastising Israel; when His will is accomplished, the rod will he broken and thrown away (Isa 10:5 ff.). Isaiahs monotheism, though lofty, had the same defect as Hoseas. In upholding this conception of God, Isaiah denounced the social sins which had called out the opposition of Amos and Hosea. So great is Jahwehs desire for justice, that Isaiah believed that He would one day raise up a prince great in all the qualities of a princely conqueror, who should be a Wonderful-counsellor, a god of a warrior, a father of booty, but a prince of peace (Isa 9:6). At another time he saw a vision of a kingdom of complete justice which an offshoot of the Davidic dynasty should found (Is 11). These visions show how, in Isaiahs conception, the Holy One would organize human society. In addition to his work in keeping alive these lofty ideas, Isaiah, as was pointed out above (I. 19), gave practical direction to the development of Israels religion. His doctrine of the inviolability of Jerusalem took effect in later times, and had much to do with the development of Judaism. He is probably responsible also for that attempt to suppress the high places which afterwards found legal expression in Deuteronomy. The significance of this will, however, he pointed out in considering that law. In Micah, a younger contemporary of Isaiah, the spirit and message of Amos reappear.

(8) The Deuteronomist. in the development of the Prophetic period, follows Isaiah. Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah had proclaimed an ethical monotheism. They had denounced ritual as without place in the religion of Jahweh. The message had been enforced by the awful calamity which had overtaken the Northern Kingdom; it had in consequence of Isaiahs friendship with Hezekiah, moulded policies of State. Under Manasseh, however, it became painfully evident that it was to take more than moral means to eliminate impure ritual from the religion of Jahweh. No part of the world, not even the Hebrews, was ready for a religion without ritual. Isaiah, probably, had seen this in his old age. The Deuteronomist at all events saw it. Ritual should be retained, but it should be brought within manageable limits. The high places should be eliminated, the cult centralized in Jerusalemthe place which Isaiahs teaching and the signal defeat of Sennacherib had so clearly proved to be Jahwehs special dwelling-place. From this all sodomites and sacred harlots were to be excluded, as well as all symbols, such as the pillar and ashrah, which were specially significant of the odious social practices. To accomplish this, the code of the Elohist was rewritten in such a way that this conception of the sanctuary stood in the forefront, and other parts were made to conform to it. Into the whole code a more humanitarian tone towards the poor was introduced. It was thus made to express in legal form the burden of the best social teaching. Although the Deuteronomist did not advance the great ideas of spiritual religion to higher levels, he did by the compromise of this code help those ideas to influence practical life.

(9) Jeremiah, perhaps the greatest of the prophets, made great advances in the conception of spiritual religion. There was in all his work an undertone of passionate love,a heart-throb,like that of Hosea. The greatest significance of his teaching is not, however, his tenderness. He saw that Jahweh is independent of temple or place. An inviolable Jerusalem He did not need. What Jahweh desires is that man shall break up the fallow ground of his disposition, that he shall circumcise his heart (Jer 4:3 ff.). Religion is a matter not of a temple, but of a soul. Jeremiah, too, was the first to declare that the idols of the heathen are mere vanities. Others had ignored them, he exhibits them in their true nothingness (Jer 10:8, Jer 14:22). Another great truth which Jeremiah was the first to grasp was that the heathen as well as the Hebrew might come to Jahweh and be welcome (Jer 16:19). Not only did Jeremiah proclaim universality and ideality in religion, but he shook himself free from the old Semitic conception of solidarity which had prevailed before him. No lofty morality could prevail until every one was responsible for his own acts and for those only; and this is the standard proclaimed by Jeremiah (Jer 31:29-30). No prophet reached a loftier flight.

(10) Ezekiel occupies a peculiar position in the Prophetic development. He stands, on one side in the succession of prophets, and, on the other, is the father of Judaism. As one of the prophetic succession, his chief work lay in the recognition and elaboration of the idea of individualism. No prophet is so impressed as he with the fact that God deals with each soul individually (Eze 18:1-32). This thought leads Ezekiel to place a very great value upon the individual. The salvation of the individual becomes his special care. He even thinks of the Messiah as primarily a shepherd,a pastor,one whose chief care will be to accomplish the salvation of individuals. He addresses the rulers of Israel as shepherds. Cornill, who calls attention to this phase of his work (Prophets of Israel, 115 ff.). calls him the father of pastoral theology. Ezekiel was, however more truly the successor of the Deuteronomist than of Jeremiah. Like the former, he endeavoured to adapt prophetic conceptions to Israelitish institutions. Isaiahs conception of Jerusalem as the home of Jahweh he fully shared, and in the closing chapters of his book he utters his ideal for the rehabilitation of Hebrew institutions about Jerusalem as a centre. Some of these conceptions were unpractical, but others took deep root, and made Ezekiel the father of Judaism.

(11) The Second Isaiah was the last of Israels really great prophets. His conception of Jahweh as the creator of the universe, as the ruler of the world and the maker of history, is clearer than that of any of his predecessors. The great Cyrus, who was conquering so successfully as the Second Isaiah wrote was only Jahwehs creature. Cyrus might think otherwise, but Jahweh and His prophet knew the truth. Even Hosea never expressed the tenderness of Jahweh towards His people with greater beauty than did this prophet. His conception of Jahweh, too, is more symmetrical than that of the 8th century prophets. If in him, as in them, Jahweh seems to care chiefly for Israel, it is so only in appearance. He has shown in his great poem on the Suffering Servant (Isa 52:13 to Isa 53:12) that in his view Israel was made the chosen people not through favouritism, or to puff up her self-esteem, but because Jahweh had for her a great mission. That mission was nothing less than to bring the nations of the world to Jahweh. The path of this service was the path of suffering, but it was to accomplish the salvation of the world. Jahweh, then, loved the world. He had chosen Israel and given her her tragic experience that she through this might become a missionary to the nations and bring them all to Jahweh. It does not detract from the prophets great conception, that the mission which he conceived for his people was never fulfilled till the coming of the ideal Israelite, Jesus Christ.

This prophetic conception of God and religion, which thus developed from Elijah to the Second Isaiah, is unique in the worlds history. Only once has this teaching been surpassed. Jesus of Nazareth, who perfected this conception of God and made it capable of being universally received, alone has gone beyond it. It was the teaching of these prophets that redeemed the religion of Israel from the level of other Semitic religions. It is this that has made the religion of Jahweh the inspiration of the world as the religion of the one true God. This prophetic teaching is quite unaccounted for by its environment. Nothing like it has been produced without its aid in any portion of the Semitic world, or among any other people. It is in the prophetic teaching and the influences which flowed from it that we find proof of the truth of the words: Men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit (2Pe 1:21).

5. From the Exile to the Maccabees.(1) It is clear from the sketch given above (I. 24), that in the rehabilitation of the Jewish communities in Palestine the whole sentiment of the organizers centred in the ritual. If there were prophets, such as Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, they uttered their prophetic visions to persuade the people to make sacrifices to restore and maintain the sacred ceremonies. It thus happened that the whole movement in the early days after the Exile was pervaded more by the priestly than by the prophetic spirit. The Priestly document with its supplements (for the analysis cf. Carpenter and Harford-Battersbys Hexateuch) was the heart of the whole movement. The religious life of the Judan community did not become consistent until it was organized upon this basis, and after this organization it went forward confidently. The author of the Priestly document (P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] 2) was the successor of Ezekiel, as Ezekiel had been the successor of the Deuteronomist. As Ezekiel took more interest in the organization of the ritual than did D [Note: Deuteronomist.] , so P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] 2s interest greatly exceeded Ezekiels. The prophetic movement had given P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] 2 his pure monotheism. From it he had received a faith in an All-powerful, Holy Creator and Ruler of the universe. The nearness and warmth of God, as the prophets had conceived Him, escaped P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] 2, but with such elements of the prophetic conception as he could grasp he set himself to the organization of the ritual.

The ritual which had come down to him from his priestly ancestry he had received as the will of God. We can see that it had its birth in Semitic heathenism, but he could not. In reality this ritual bound him to earth by the strands of many a half-superstitious custom, but in his thought it had all come from heaven. If this were so, the problem to his mind was to find the connexion of all this with the will of the God of the universe. To express the vital connexion which he thought he found, he re-wrote the history of the creation of the world and of the fortunes of the chosen people down to the settlement in Canaan, in such a way as to make it appear that circumcision had been enjoined on Abraham at the very beginning of revelation (Gen 17:1-27), and that the basis of the covenant at Sinai was neither the Book of the Covenant (Exo 20:24 to Exo 23:19), nor the code of Deuteronomy, but the whole Levitical ritual. This ritual, as he conceived it, had been profoundly influenced by Ezekiel. The menial work of the sanctuary was no longer to be performed, as in pre-exilic days, by foreign slaves. The descendants of those priests who had officiated in shrines other than Jerusalem were to be assigned to these services (cf. Eze 44:8-14). Thus an order of Levites as a menial class was created. If this ritual was the basis of the covenant at Sinai, it could not have been ignored in the Wilderness Wandering. There must have been a movable sanctuary. Solomons Temple was the model shrine to Ezekiel and the priests, but Solomons Temple must (so suppose P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] 2 and his successors) have been patterned upon a previous nomadic shrine; hence the account of the Tabernacle was placed in their history. Among the newly created class of Levites there were many who had descended from men who had officiated as priests at Hebron, Gezer, Kadesh, Ashtaroth, and many other ancient shrines. P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] 2 and his followers accounted for this fact by supposing that Joshua had given the tribe of Levi cities in all parts of the land (Jos 21:1-45; cf. Barton, Levitical Cities of Israel in the Light of the Excavation at Gezer, Biblical World, xxiv. 167 ff.).

This conception was accepted as the real account of the history only when the Priestly document had been skilfully combined with the older writings in our Pentateuch in such a way that these priestly institutions seemed to be the heart of the whole and to overshadow all else. Then apparently all opposition vanished, and priestly enthusiasm and prophetic fervour were joined by popular co-operation in establishing this ritual as the one right method of serving the Living God. This enthusiasm was in part the result of a distorted reading of history, but all uncritical readers so distort the history to the present hour. By the time of Nehemiah this view of the history was fully accepted, and by the time of the Chronicler, a century later, it had distorted the history of the Israelites in Canaan, to correspond with the priestly picture, as appears to this day in the Books of Chronicles.

This priestly triumph was in a way a retrogression from prophetic ideals. Some of the prophets, as Jeremiah, had taught a religion free and spiritual, capable of becoming universal. The priestly conception, however noble its monotheism, was so harnessed to outworn ritual that it could appeal only in a limited degree to men of other races. Nevertheless this ritual had its place. In the centuries which followed, when the soul of the Hebrew was tried almost beyond endurance, and no cheering voice of prophet was heard, it was due to this objective ritual, as something for which to live, and strive, and fight, that he survived to do his work in the world. With the adoption of the Priestly Code Judaism was born.

(2) The effects of the priestly ritual were not, however, so deadening as one might suppose. Various causes prevented it from stifling the deeper religious life. The teachings of the prophets were cherished, and many of them had taught that religion is a matter of the heart and not a ceremonial. During the long exile the devout Jew had learned how to live a really religious life without the help of Temple ritual. Many of the faithful were in Babylonia, and were still compelled to do without the Temple sacrifices and prayers. Then the Law itself did not contain sacrifices for many sins. The old customs adapted in Lev 4:1-35; Lev 5:1-19; Lev 6:1-30; Lev 16:1-34 provided sacrifices for only very few of the sins of life. The sincere heart was compelled still to live its life with God in large measure independently of the ritual. The Pentateuch also contains many noble and inspiring precepts on moral and spiritual matters. There were those, too, who paid little attention to the ceremonies of the Temple, although most supported it as a matter of duty. All these causes combined to prevent the Law from at once stereotyping the religious life. This period became accordingly the creative period in Judaism.

The first of these important creations was the Psalter, the hymn-book of the Second Temple. This greatest of the worlds collections of sacred song was a gradual growth. Book I. (Psa 3:1-8; Psa 4:1-8; Psa 5:1-12; Psa 6:1-10; Psa 7:1-17; Psa 8:1-9; Psa 9:1-20; Psa 10:1-18; Psa 11:1-7; Psa 12:1-8; Psa 13:1-6; Psa 14:1-7; Psa 15:1-5; Psa 16:1-11; Psa 17:1-15; Psa 18:1-50; Psa 19:1-14; Psa 20:1-9; Psa 21:1-13; Psa 22:1-31; Psa 23:1-6; Psa 24:1-10; Psa 25:1-22; Psa 26:1-12; Psa 27:1-14; Psa 28:1-9; Psa 29:1-11; Psa 30:1-12; Psa 31:1-24; Psa 32:1-11; Psa 33:1-22; Psa 34:1-22; Psa 35:1-28; Psa 36:1-12; Psa 37:1-40; Psa 38:1-22; Psa 39:1-13; Psa 40:1-17; Psa 41:1-13) came into existence probably in the time of Nehemiah. The other collections were gradually made at different times, the whole not being completed till the Maccaban age (cf. art. Psalms). In compiling it some earlier hymns were probably utilized, but they were so re-edited that critics cannot clearly date them. Into this collection there went every variety of religious expression. The breathings of anger against enemies mingle with tender aspirations after communion with God. One psalm, the 50th, treats sacrifice sarcastically, while many express a devotion to the Law which is extremely touching. One (Psa 51:1-19) expresses the most advanced and psychologically correct conception of the nature of sin and forgiveness that is found anywhere in the OT. A Judaism capable of producing such a book was noble indeed. To live up to the highest expressions of this the first-fruits of creative Judaism is to be a pure Christian.

(3) There was, however, in this period a class of sages who lived apart from the life of the Temple, untouched by the ceremonies of the priest or the aspirations of the prophet. They treated religious problems from that practical common-sense point of view which the Hebrews called wisdom. The books produced by this class had a profound religious influence. The attitude of these men left them free for the greatest play of individuality. Their books are, therefore, written from various standpoints, and present widely divergent points of view.

The oldest of these, the Book of Job, discusses, in some of the noblest poetry ever written, the problem of suffering, or the mystery of life. The author treats his theme with absolute freedom of thought, untrammelled by the priestly conceptions of the Law. In his conclusion, however, he is profoundly religious. He demonstrates at once the function and the limits of reason in the religious life,its function to keep theology in touch with reality, and its inability to fathom lifes mystery. Job does not find satisfaction till he receives the vision of God, and becomes willing, through appreciation of the Divine Personality, to trust even though his problems are unsolved (cf. Peake, Problem of Suffering in OT, 100 ff.).

The Book of Proverbs contains the sayings of sages of the practical, everyday sort. Their view of life is expediential. Wisdom is good because it pays, and the fear (worship) of Jahweh is the beginning of wisdom. Sometimes, as in ch. 8, they rise to noble poetry in the praise of wisdom, but for the most part they pursue the humdrum pathway of everyday expediency. Their point of view is the opposite of that of the impassioned Psalmists, but is not inconsistent with formal faithfulness in the observance of the Law.

Ecclesiastes is the work of a man who has almost lost faith, and who has quite lost that enthusiasm for life which the perception of a noble meaning in it gives. He is not altogether able to throw off completely his childhoods beliefs, but they have ceased to be for him a solution of lifes mystery, and he has scant patience with those who, in like case with himself, continue to volubly profess their devotion because it is the orthodox thing to do. He insists upon bringing all things to the test of reality.

Sirach is a collection of aphorisms which continues the work of the Book of Proverbs.

(4) The religious life thus far described was that which flourished in Palestine. During this period, however, the Jews had been scattering over the world (cf. Dispersion). These scattered communities had no idea of being anything but Jews. They had their synagogues in which the Law was read, and, like the Captivity in Babylonia, they maintained as much of their religious life as they could away from the Temple. As often as possible they went to Jerusalem at the time of some great feast, and took part in its sacrificial worship. Contact with the heathen world, however, broadened the vision of these Jews. They saw that many Gentiles were noble men. Probably too here and there one of the nobler Gentiles was attracted by the lofty religion of the Jew. At all events there sprang up among the Diaspora a desire to win the heathen world to Judaism. The translation of the Bible into Greek, which was begun in the 3rd cent., was demanded not only for the use of the Greek-speaking Jews, but as an instrument in the hands of those who would fulfil the missionary conception of the Second Isaiah and win the world to Jahweh. Towards the end of this period a missionary literature began to be written. One portion of this, the Sibylline Oracles, the oldest part of which dates perhaps from the Maccaban age, represented the Sibyl, who was so popular in the Grco-Roman world, as recounting in Greek hexameters the history of the chosen people. The Book of Jonah dates from this period, and is a part of this literature, though probably written in Palestine. Its author satirizes the nation as a whole for her unwillingness, after all her chastisements, either to go on the mission to which Jahweh would send her, or to rejoice that He showed mercy to any but herself.

6. The reign of legalism.With the beginning of the Hasmonan dynasty (John Hyrcanus i.), the creative period of Judaism was over, and the leaders, gathering up the heritage of the past, were crystallizing it into permanent form. This did not come about all at once, and its beginnings go back into the preceding period. The writers of the Priestly Law were the real intellectual ancestors of those Chasdm, or enthusiasts for the Law, out of whom the Maccabees sprang. Until after the Maccaban struggle, however, the religious life was too varied, and the genius of the nation too creative, for the priestly conceptions to master everybody. The struggle of the Maccabees for the life of the Jewish religion greatly strengthened the Chasdm, who early in the Hasmonan rule developed into the Pharisees. More numerous than the Sadducees, and possessing among the country people a much greater reputation for piety, they soon became the dominant party in Palestine. Some, as the Essenes (wh. see), might split off from them, but they were too insignificant to shatter the Pharisees influence. The aim of the Pharisees was to apply the Law to all the details of daily life. Some of its provisions were Indefinite. It called on the Hebrew not to work on the Sabbath, but some work was necessary, if man would live. They endeavoured to define, therefore, what was and what was not work within the meaning of the Pentateuch. Similarly they dealt with other laws. These definitions were not for some centuries committed to writing. Thus there grew up an Oral Law side by side with the Written Law, and in due time the Pharisees regarded this as of Divine authority also. Thus their energies fastened the grip of external observance upon the religious life. The epoch was not creative. They dared not create anything. Everything was given out either as an interpretation of the Law, or as the interpretation of some predecessor. There was development and growth, of course, but this was accomplished, not by creating the new, but by interpreting the old. In the Rabbinic schools, which were developed in the reign of Herod, this system fully unfolded itself, and became the archetype of orthodox Judaism to the present day.

In the Rabbinic schools the method of teaching was by repetition. The sayings or interpretations of famous Rabbis were stated by the master and repeated again and again till they were remembered. Not originality but memory was the praiseworthy quality in a student. Thus when, centuries later, the Oral Law was committed to writing, it was called Mishna, or Repetition.

In the synagogue (wh. see), where the people worshipped on the Sabbath, and where the children were taught, the inner religious life was fostered, but synagogues gradually became centres for the propagation of Pharisaism.

Beginning with the Maccaban struggles, a new class of literature, the Apocalyplic, was called into existence. Prophecy was completely dead. No one had the creative genius to unfold in his own name the Divine purposes. For some centuries those who had a message for their contemporaries in persecution presented it as a vision which some ancient worthy, Enoch, Daniel, Baruch, or Ezra, had seen. The apocalyptists were only in a secondary sense creative. They moulded the utterances of the prophets and traditional material borrowed from Babylonia, so as to make them express the hopes which they would teach. No fewer than seven of these works were attributed to Enoch, and six to Baruch; one was ascribed to Moses, one to Isaiah, while each of the twelve sons of Jacob had his Testament, and Solomon a Psalter.

In this literature the national consciousness of Judaism, in conflict first with Syria and then with Rome, finds expression. The hopes for the long-delayed kingdom of which the prophets had spoken are portrayed. As one sees that kingdom fade (or brighten) from the earthly empire of the early apocalypses to the heavenly kingdom of some of the later ones, one follows the eschatological conceptions which were at this time being born in Judaism. The apocalyptic hopes were quite consistent with the Law; they pointed forward to that time when the faithful should have ability to serve God completely, and to the reward for all that they had suffered here.

The great idea of God expressed by the Priestly document pervaded and still pervades Judaism. The Divine unity and majesty were and are its watchwords. These as well as its Pharisaic ritual have been embodied in Talmud and Midrash, and transmitted to modern times. Judaism during the Christian centuries has had its history, its development, and its heresies. It has produced independent thinkers like Maimonides and Spinoza. In modern life the Reformed Jew is casting off the forms of Pharisaism, but through the lapse of all the centuries Judaism, as shaped by the Pharisees and held by their successors, has been the orthodox religion of that race which traces its lineage to Israel.

George A. Barton.

Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible

Israel

-Or more properly, as it is rendered, Ishrael, the name given to Jacob by the Lord himself, on his wrestling with God in prayer and prevailing. (See Gen 32:21-28) from Sharah, to subdue or govern; and El, God. The whole people of God are frequently in Scripture called by this name. (Exo 3:6-7. So again, Exo 6:6-7) But what endears this name yet infinitely more is, that the Lord Jesus himself, as the glorious Head of his church and people, including both Jew and Gentile, calls himself by this name; and JEHOVAH doth the same by Christ. (See Isa 49:1-6 and Isa 44:1-5) And hence the whole church of the Lord Jesus are called Israelites. (Rom 9:4) and the Lord Jesus, when speaking of his sheep under one view, saith, that they shall be brought into “one fold under one shepherd.” (Joh 10:16)

Fuente: The Poor Mans Concordance and Dictionary to the Sacred Scriptures

Israel

izra-el. See JACOB.

Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Israel

Israel is the sacred and divinely bestowed name of the patriarch Jacob, and is explained to mean, ‘A prince with God.’ Although, as applied to Jacob personally, it is an honorable or poetical appellation, it is the common prose name of his descendants; while, on the contrary, the title Jacob is given to them only in poetry.

The separation of the Hebrew nation into two parts, of which one was to embrace ten of the tribes, and be distinctively named Israel, had its origin in the early power and ambition of the tribe of Ephraim. The rivalry of Ephraim and Judah began almost from the first conquest of the land; nor is it insignificant, that as Caleb belonged to the tribe of Judah, so did Joshua to that of Ephraim. From the very beginning Judah learned to act by itself; but the central position of Ephraim, with its fruitful and ample soil, and the long-continued authority of Joshua, must have taught most of the tribes west of the Jordan to look up to Ephraim as their head; and a still more important superiority was conferred on the same tribe by the fixed dwelling of the ark at Shiloh for so many generations (Joshua 18, etc.). Judah could boast of Hebron, Machpelah, Bethlehem, names of traditional sanctity; yet so could Ephraim point to Shechem, the ancient abode of Jacob; and while Judah, being on the frontier, was more exposed to the attack of the powerful Philistines, Ephraim had to fear only those Canaanites from within who were not subdued or conciliated. The haughty behavior of the Ephraimites towards Gideon, a man of Manasseh (Jdg 8:1), sufficiently indicates the pretensions they made. Still fiercer language towards Jephthah the Gileadite (Jdg 12:1) was retorted by less gentleness than Gideon had shown; and a bloody civil war was the result, in which their pride met with a severe punishment. This may in part explain their quiet submission, not only to the priestly rule of Eli and his sons, who had their center of authority at Shiloh, but to Samuel, whose administration issued from three towns of Benjamin. Of course his prophetical character and personal excellence eminently contributed to this result; and it may seem that Ephraim, as well as all Israel besides, became habituated to the predominance of Benjamin, so that no serious resistance was made to the supremacy of Saul. At his death a new schism took place through their jealousy of Judah; yet in a few years’ time, by the splendor of David’s victories, and afterwards by Solomon’s peaceful power, a permanent national union might seem to have been effected. But the laws of inheritance in Israel, excellent as they were for preventing permanent alienation of landed property, and the degradation of the Hebrew poor into prdial slaves, necessarily impeded the perfect fusion of the tribes, by discouraging intermarriage, and hindering the union of distant estates in the same hands. Hence, when the sway of Solomon began to be felt as a tyranny, the old jealousies of the tribes revived, and Jeroboam, an Ephraimite (1Ki 11:26), being suspected of treason, fled to Shishak, king of Egypt. The death of Solomon was followed by a defection often of the tribes, which established the separation of Israel from Judah (B.C. 975).

This was the most important event which had befallen the Hebrew nation since their conquest of Canaan. The chief territory and population were now with Jeroboam, but the religious sanction, the legitimate descent, lay with the rival monarch. From the political danger of allowing the ten tribes to go up to the sanctuary of Jerusalem, the princes of Israel, as it were in self-defense, set up a sanctuary of their own; and the intimacy of Jeroboam with the king of Egypt may have determined his preference for the form of idolatry (the calves) which he established at Dan and Bethel. In whatever else his successors differed, they one and all agreed in upholding this worship, which, once established, appeared essential to their national unity. Nevertheless it is generally understood to have been a worship of Jehovah, though under unlawful and degrading forms. Worse by far was the worship of Baal, which came in under one monarch only, Ahab, and was destroyed after his son was slain, by Jehu. A secondary result of the revolution was the ejection of the tribe of Levi from their lands and cities in Israel; at least, such as remained were spiritually degraded by the compliances required, and could no longer offer any resistance to the kingly power by aid of their sacred character. When the priestly tribe had thus lost independence, it lost also the power to assist the crown. The succession of Jeroboam’s family was hallowed by no religious blessing; and when his son was murdered, no Jehoiada was found to rally his supporters and ultimately avenge his cause. The example of successful usurpation was so often followed by the captains of the armies, that the kings in Israel present to us an irregular series of dynasties, with several short and tumultuous reigns. This was one cause of disorder and weakness to Israel, and hindered it from swallowing up Judah: another was found in the relations of Israel towards foreign powers, which will presently be dwelt upon.

With regard to chronology, the following scheme agrees with Winer in its total range, but has minor changes by a single unit in some of the kings:

Kings of JudahB.C.Kings of IsraelDynasties of Israel

Rehoboam972JeroboamFirst

Abijah957

Asa955

954Nadab

952BaashaSecond

929Elah

928Zimri, Omri,Third

917AhabFourth

Jehoshaphat914

897Ahaziah

896Jehoram

Jehoram889

Ahaziah885

Queen Athaliah884JehuFifth

Jehoash878

855Jehoahaz

840Jehoash

Amaziah838

824Jeroboam II

Uzziah809

772Zachariah

771Shallum, MenahemSixth

760Pekahiah

758PekahSeventh

Jotham757

Ahaz741

729HoseaEighth

Hezekiah726

721Samaria captured

Jeroboam originally fixed on Shechem as the center of his monarchy, and fortified it; moved perhaps not only by its natural suitability, but by the remembrances of Jacob which clove to it, and by the auspicious fact that here first Israel had decided for him against Rehoboam. But the natural delightfulness of Tirzah (Son 6:4) led him, perhaps late in his reign, to erect a palace there (1Ki 14:17). After the murder of Jeroboam’s son, Baasha seems to have intended to fix his capital at Ramah, as a convenient place for annoying the king of Judah, whom he looked on as his only dangerous enemy; but when forced to renounce this plan (1Ki 15:17; 1Ki 15:21), he acquiesced in Tirzah, which continued to be the chief city of Israel, until Omri, who, since the palace at Tirzah had been burned during the civil war (1Ki 16:18), built Samaria, with the ambition not uncommon in the founder of a new dynasty (1Ki 16:24). Samaria continued to the end of the monarchy to be the center of administration; and its strength appears to have justified Omri’s choice. For details, see Samaria; also Tirzah and Shechem.

There is reason to believe that Jeroboam carried back with him, into Israel the good will, if not the substantial assistance, of Shishak; and this will account for his escaping the storm from Egypt which swept over Rehoboam in his fifth year. During that first period Israel was far from quiet within. Although the ten tribes collectively had decided in favor of Jeroboam, great numbers of individuals remained attached to the family of David and to the worship at Jerusalem, and in the first three years of Rehoboam migrated into Judah (2Ch 11:16-17). Perhaps it was not until this process commenced, that Jeroboam was worked up to the desperate measure of erecting rival sanctuaries with visible idols (1Ki 12:27): a measure which met the usual ill-success of profane state-craft, and aggravated the evil which he feared. It set him at war with the whole order of priests and Levites, whose expulsion or subjugation, we may be certain, was not effected without convulsing his whole kingdom, and so occupying him as to free Rehoboam from any real danger, although no peace was made. The king of Judah improved the time by immense efforts in fortifying his territory (2Ch 11:5-11); and, although Shishak soon after carried off the most valuable spoil, no great or definite impression could be made by Jeroboam. Israel having so far taken the place of heathen nations, and being already perhaps even in alliance with Egypt, at an early periodwe know not how soonsought and obtained the friendship of the kings of Damascus. A sense of the great advantage derivable from such a union seems to have led Ahab afterwards to behave with mildness and conciliation towards Benhadad, at a time when it could have been least expected (1Ki 20:31-34). From that transaction we learn that Benhadad I had made in Damascus ‘streets for Omri,’ and Omri for Benhadad in Samaria. This, no doubt, implied that ‘a quarter’ was assigned for Syrian merchants in Samaria, which was probably fortified like the ‘camp of the Tyrians’ in Memphis, or the English factory at Calcutta; and in it, of course, Syrian worship would be tolerated. Against such intercourse the prophets, as might be expected, entered their protest (1Ki 20:35-43); but it was in many ways too profitable to be renounced. In the reign of Baasha, Asa king of Judah, sensible of the dangerous advantage gained by his rival through the friendship of the Syrians, determined to buy them off at any price [see also under JUDAH]; and by sacrificing ‘the treasures of the house of the Lord and the treasures of the king’s house’ (1Ki 15:18), induced Benhadad I to break his league with Baasha and to ravage all the northern district of Israel. This drew off the Israelitish monarch, and enabled Asa to destroy the fortifications of Ramah, which would have stopped the course of his trade (1Ki 15:17), perhaps that with the sea-coast and with Tyre. Such was the beginning of the war between Israel and Syria, on which the safety of Judah at that time depended. Cordial union was not again restored between the two northern states until the days of Rezin king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, when Damascus must have already felt the rising power of Nineveh. The renewed alliance instantly proved so disastrous to Judah, which was reduced to the most extreme straits (Isa 7:2; 2Ki 15:37; 2Ch 28:5-6), as may seem to justify at least the policy of Asa’s proceeding. Although it was impossible for a prophet to approve of it (2Ch 16:7), we may only so much the more infer that Judah was already brought into most pressing difficulties, and that the general course of the war, in spite of occasional reverses, was decidedly and increasingly favorable to Israel.

The wars of Syria and Israel were carried on chiefly under three reigns, those of Benhadad II, Hazael, and Benhadad III, the two first monarchs being generally prosperous, especially Hazael, the last being as decidedly unsuccessful. Although these results may have depended in part on personal qualities, there is high probability that the feebleness displayed by the Syrians against Jehoash and his son Jeroboam was occasioned by the pressure of the advancing empire of Nineveh.

Asa adhered, through the whole of his long reign, to the policy of encouraging hostility between the two northern kingdoms; and the first Benhadad had such a career of success that his son found himself in a condition to hope for an entire conquest of Israel. His formidable invasions wrought an entire change in the mind of Jehoshaphat (1Ki 22:44), who saw that if Israel was swallowed up by Syria, there would be no safety for Judah. We may conjecture that this consideration determined him to unite the two royal families; for no common cause would have induced so religious a king to select for his son’s wife Athaliah the daughter of Jezebel. The age of Ahaziah, who was sprung from this marriage, forces us to place it as early as B.C. 912, which is the third year of Jehoshaphat and sixth of Ahab. Late in his reign Jehoshaphat threw himself most cordially (1Ki 22:4) into the defense of Ahab, and by so doing probably saved Israel from a foreign yoke. Another mark of the low state into which both kingdoms were falling, is, that after Ahab’s death the Moabites refused their usual tribute to Israel, and (as far as can be made out from the ambiguous words of 2Ki 3:27), the united force of the two kingdoms failed of doing more than irritate them. Soon after, in the reign of Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat, the Edomites followed the example, and established their independence. This event possibly engaged the whole force of Judah, and hindered it from succoring Samaria during the cruel siege which it sustained from Benhadad II, in the reign of Jehoram son of Ahab. The declining years and health of the king of Syria gave a short respite to Israel; but, in B.C. 885, Hazael, by defeating the united Hebrew armies, commenced the career of conquest and harassing invasion by which he ‘made Israel like the dust by threshing.’ Even under Jehu he subdued the trans-Jordanic tribes (2Ki 10:32). Afterwards, since he took the town of Gath (2Ki 12:17) and prepared to attack Jerusaleman attack which Jehoash king of Judah averted only by strictly following Asa’s precedentit is manifest that all the passes and chief forts of the country west of the Jordan must have been in his hand. Indeed, as he is said ‘to have left to Jehoahaz only fifty horsemen, ten chariots, and ten thousand footmen,’ it would seem that Israel was strictly a conquered province, in which Hazael dictated (as the English to the native rajahs of India) what military force should be kept up. From this thralldom Israel was delivered by some unexplained agency. We are told merely that ‘Jehovah gave to Israel a saviour, so that they went out from under the hand of the Syrians; and the children of Israel dwelt in their tents as beforetime,’ 2Ki 13:5. It is allowable to conjecture that the (apparently unknown) deliverer was the Assyrian monarchy, which, assaulting Hazael towards the end of the reign of Jehoahaz, entirely drew away the Syrian armies. That it was some urgent, powerful, and continued pressure, considering the great strength which the empire of Damascus had attained, seems clear from the sudden weakness of Syria through the reigns of Jehoash and Jeroboam II, the former of whom thrice defeated Benhadad III and ‘recovered the cities of Israel;’ the latter not only regained the full territory of the ten tribes, but made himself master (for a time at least) of Damascus and Hamath. How entirely the friendship of Israel and Judah had been caused and cemented by their common fear of Syria, is proved by the fact that no sooner is the power of Damascus broken than new war breaks out between the two kingdoms, which ended in the plunder of Jerusalem by Jehoash, who also broke down its walls and carried off hostages; after which there is no more alliance between Judah and Israel. The empire of Damascus seems to have been entirely dissolved under the son of Hazael, and no mention is made of its kings for eighty years or more. When Pekah, son of Remaliah, reigned in Samaria, Rezin, as king of Damascus, made a last but ineffectual effort for its independence.

The same Assyrian power which had doubtless so seriously shaken, and perhaps temporarily overturned, the kingdom of Damascus, was soon to be felt by Israel. Menahem was invaded by Pul (the first sovereign of Nineveh whose name we know), and was made tributary. His successor, Tiglath-pileser, in the reign of Pekah, son of Remaliah, carried captive the eastern and northern tribes of Israel (i.e. perhaps all their chief men as hostages?), and soon after slew Rezin, the ally of Pekah, and subdued Damascus. The following emperor, Shalmanezer, besieged and captured Samaria, and terminated the kingdom of Israel, B.C. 721.

This branch of the Hebrew monarchy suffered far greater and more rapid reverses than the other. From the accession of Jeroboam to the middle of Baasha’s reign it probably increased in power, it then waned with the growth of the Damascene Empire; it struggled hard against it under Ahab and Jehoram, but sank lower and lower; it was dismembered under Jehu, and made subject under Jehoahaz. From B.C. 940 to B.C. 850is, as nearly as can be ascertained, the period of depression; and from B.C. 914 to B.C. 830 that of friendship or alliance with Judah. But after (about) B.C. 850 Syria began to decline, and Israel soon shot out rapidly; so that Joash and his son Jeroboam appear, of all Hebrew monarchs, to come next to David and Solomon. How long this burst of prosperity lasted does not distinctly appear; but it would seem that entire dominion over the ten tribes was held until Pekah received the first blow from the Assyrian conqueror.

Besides that which was a source of weakness to Israel from the beginning, viz., the schism of the crown with the whole ecclesiastical body, other causes may be discerned which made the ten tribes less powerful, in comparison with the two, than might have been expected. The marriage of Ahab to Jezebel brought with it no political advantages at all commensurate with the direct moral mischief, to say nothing of the spiritual evil; and the reaction against the worship of Baal was a most ruinous atonement for the sin. To suppress the monstrous iniquity, Jehu not only put to death Ahab’s wife, grandson, and seventy sons, but murdered first the king of Judah himself, and next forty-two youthful and innocent princes of his house; while, strange to tell, the daughter of Jezebel gained by his deed the throne of Judah, and perpetrated a new massacre. The horror of such crimes must have fallen heavily on Jehu, and have caused a widespread disaffection among his own subjects. Add to this, that the Phoenicians must have deeply resented his proceedings; so that we get a very sufficient clue to the prostration of Israel under the foot of Hazael during the reign of Jehu and his son.

Another and more abiding cause of political debility in the ten tribes was found in the imperfect consolidation of the inhabitants into a single nation. Since those who lived east of the Jordan retained, to a great extent at least, their pastoral habits, their union with the rest could never have been very firm; and when a king was neither strong independently of them, nor had good hereditary pretensions, they were not likely to contribute much to his power. After their conquest of the Hagarenes and the depression of the Moabites and Ammonites by David, they had free room to spread eastward; and many of their chief men may have become wealthy in flocks and herds (like Machir the son of Ammiel, of Lodebar, and Barzillai the Gileadite, 2Sa 17:27), over whom the authority of the Israelitish crown would naturally be precarious; while west of the Jordan the agrarian law of Moses made it difficult or impossible for a landed nobility to form itself, which could be formidable to the royal authority. That the Arab spirit of freedom was rooted in the eastern tribes, may perhaps be inferred from the case of the Rechabites, who would neither live in houses nor plant vines; undoubtedly like some of the Nabatheans, lest, by becoming settled and agricultural, they should be enslaved. Yet the need of imposing this law on his descendants would not have been felt by Jonadab, had not an opposite tendency been risingthat of agricultural settlement.

Although the priests and Levites nearly disappeared out of Israel, prophets were perhaps even more numerous and active there than in Judah; and Ahijah, whose prediction first endangered Jeroboam (1Ki 11:29-40), lived in honor at Shiloh to his dying day (1Ki 14:2). Obadiah alone saved one hundred prophets of Jehovah from the rage of Jezebel (1Ki 18:13). Possibly their extra-social character freed them from the restraint imposed on priests and Levites; and while they felt less bound to the formal rites of the Law, the kings of Israel were also less jealous of them.

Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature

Israel

[Is’rael]

Name given to Jacob after ‘a man’ had wrestled with him, to whom he clung when he was by him crippled. It signifies ‘a prince of God:’ and it was said, “as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.” It thus indicated the way of blessing with regard to the nation in which God’s government in the earth was to be established. The twelve sons of Jacob became the heads of the twelve tribes, and they and their descendants were called the children of Israel, or simply Israel. At the division of the kingdom, the ten tribes were called ‘Israel,’ and the two tribes ‘Judah,’ though this distinction is not at all times rigidly adhered to: thus the princes and kings of Judah are called princes of Israel, and kings of Israel. 2Ch 12:5-6; 2Ch 21:2; 2Ch 28:19. So those who returned from exile, though they were in the main of the two tribes, are called people of Israel, or Israel. In the prophets also, though the ten tribes are not called Judah, the two tribes are at times called Israel. The ten tribes in the prophets are often spoken of as EPHRAIM, which was the chief of the ten. Though Israel was reckoned as ten tribes, it is most probable that the portion of Simeon, being situated on the extreme south, was united to Judah, as well as the territory of Dan in the S.W., though the people of Simeon may have scattered themselves among the other tribes, and those of Dan have gone north and joined their tribe there.

THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL commenced when Jeroboam was made king, to whom it was promised that his house should be established if he followed the Lord. He, on the contrary, to prevent the people going to Jerusalem, immediately set up the golden calves at Dan and at Bethel. The kingdom was given up to idolatry, and a series of judgements followed. Baasha murdered Jeroboam’s son and successor; and his own son and successor was slain by Zimri; Zimri was killed by Omri, and after a civil war of four years with Tibni, Omri became king and reigned with his successors forty-five years, ending with Jehoram the son of Ahab. He and the survivors of the house of Ahab were slain by Jehu directly or indirectly, and Jehu began the 5th dynasty, B.C. 884. He and his successors reigned, with varying judgements upon them, for a hundred and twelve years. Zachariah was the last, being the fourth successor of Jehu, as God had said, 2Ki 15:12: he reigned only six months and was murdered by Shallum. During another fifty years the kingdom was spared: but there was no repentance. About B.C. 740 the two and a half tribes east of the Jordan were carried into captivity, and Israel became tributary to Assyria. Hoshea murdered Pekah, and after nine years of anarchy succeeded to the throne. He revolted against Assyria, trusting to Egypt; but Samaria was taken, and Israel carried into captivity. Thus ended the kingdom of Israel, B.C. 721. From about B.C. 784 to 725 Hosea was God’s prophet in Israel. He solemnly pleaded with them, protesting against their evil ways, and was ever ready to help them to turn to God, though his efforts were, alas, in vain. 2Ki 17:13-18; Hos 13:16; Hos 14:1-9.

Israel when carried away were placed in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan (in the neighbourhood of the river Khabour, an affluent of the river Euphrates), and in the cities of the Medes. As far as is known they never returned, though doubtless individuals found their way back in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, and in the four hundred years that followed before the Lord appeared. Jews from those districts were present on the day of Pentecost; but as a body they are still commonly regarded as ‘the Lost Tribes.’ God knows where to find them when His set time of blessing arrives. The twelve tribes surely exist, and remnants of them will again come into the land. Eze 48:1-29; Mat 19:28; Act 26:7; Jam 1:1; Rev 7:5-8.

The ten tribes will be dealt with differently from the two, who were in the land when the Lord was presented to them, and who rejected Him, and demanded His crucifixion. The ten tribes will, by a mighty hand and with fury poured out, be brought into the wilderness, and there God will plead with them, cause them to pass under the rod, and bring them into the bond of the covenant; but the rebels will be purged out. Eze 20:31-38. The question as to the wounds in the hands of the Lord, which He received in the house of His ‘friends’ is connected with Judah, who will be judged when in the land, and only one third of them after being refined, will be owned as God’s people. Zec 13:6-9. When God thus purges and restores a remnant of all the tribes, and brings them into full blessing in the land, the name of ISRAEL will embrace them all as it did at the first, and God will be their God for evermore. Eze 37:1-28.

Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary

Israel

H3478 H3479 H3481 G2474

1. A name given to Jacob

Gen 32:24-32; 2Ki 17:34; Hos 12:3-4

2. A name of the Christ in prophecy

Isa 49:3

3. A name given to the descendants of Jacob, a nation

– Called Israelites and Hebrews

Gen 43:32; Exo 1:15; Exo 9:7; Exo 10:3; Exo 21:2; Lev 23:42; Jos 13:6; 1Sa 4:6; 1Sa 13:3; 1Sa 13:19; 1Sa 14:11; 1Sa 14:21; Phi 3:5

– Tribes of Israel were named after the sons of Jacob:

b In lists usually the names of Levi and Joseph, two sons of Jacob, do not appear. The descendants of Levi were consecrated to the rites of religion, and the two sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh, were adopted by Jacob in Joseph’s stead

Gen 48:5; Jos 14:4 Jos 14:4Asher, 2; Jos 14:4Benjamin, 2; Jos 14:4Dan, 2; Jos 14:4Ephraim, 2; Jos 14:4Gad, 2; Jos 14:4Issachar, 2; Jos 14:4Judah, 2; Jos 14:4Manasseh, 2; Jos 14:4Naphtali, 2; Reubenites; ReubenitesSimeon, 2; ReubenitesZebulun, 2

– Names of, seen in John’s vision, on the gates of the New Jerusalem

Rev 21:12

– Prophecies concerning:

b General references

Gen 15:5; Gen 15:13; Gen 25:23; Gen 26:4; Gen 27:28-29; Gen 27:40; Gen 48:19; Gen 49; Deu 33

b Of the multitude of

Gen 13:16; Gen 15:5; Gen 22:17; Gen 26:4; Gen 28:14

b Of their captivity in Egypt

Gen 15:13-14; Act 7:6-7

– Divided into families, each of which had a chief

Num 25:14; Num 26; Num 36:1; Jos 7:14; 1Ch 4

– Number of:

b Who went into Egypt

Gen 46:8-27; Exo 1:5; Deu 10:22; Act 7:14

b At the time of the exodus

Exo 12:37-38; Gen 47:27; Exo 1:7-20; Psa 105:24; Act 7:17

b Fit for military service:

b When they left Egypt

Exo 12:37

b At Sinai, by tribes

Num 1:1-50

b After the plague

Num 26

b When David numbered

2Sa 24:1-9; 1Ch 21:5-6; 1Ch 27:23-24

b After the captivity

Ezr 2:64; Neh 7:66-67

b In John’s apocalyptic vision

Rev 7:1-8

– History of, prior to the judges:

b Dwelt in Goshen

Gen 46:28-34; Gen 47:4-10; Gen 47:27-28

b Dwelt in Egypt four hundred and thirty years

Exo 12:40-41; Gen 15:13; Act 7:6; Gal 3:17

b Were enslaved and oppressed by the Egyptians

Exo 1; Exo 5; Act 7:18-21

b Their groaning heard of God

Exo 2:23-25

b Moses commissioned as deliverer

Exo 3:2-22; Exo 4:1-17

b The land of Egypt plagued on their account

Egypt

b Exempt from the plagues

Exo 8:22-23; Exo 9:4-6; Exo 9:26; Exo 10:23; Exo 11:7; Exo 12:13

b Children were spared when the firstborn of the Egyptians were slain

Exo 12:13; Exo 12:23

b Instituted the Passover

Exo 12:1-28

b Borrowed jewels from the Egyptians

Exo 11:2-3; Exo 12:35-36; Psa 105:37

b Urged by the Egyptians to depart

Exo 12:31-39

b Journey from Rameses to Succoth

Exo 12:37-39

b Made the journey by night

Exo 12:42

b The day of their deliverance to be a memorial

Exo 12:42; Exo 13:3-16

b Led of God

Exo 13:18; Exo 13:21-22

b Providentially cared for

b General references

Deu 8:3-4; Deu 29:5-6; Deu 34:7; Neh 9:21; Psa 105:37 Manna; Cloud, Pillar of

b Journey from Succoth to Etham

Exo 13:20

b Journey to Pi-Hahiroth

Exo 14:2; Num 33:5-7

b Pursued by the Egyptians

Exo 14:5-31

b Pass through the Red Sea

Exo 14:19-22; Deu 11:4; Psa 78; Psa 105; Psa 136

b Order of march

Num 2

b Journey to Marah

Exo 15:23; Num 33:8

b Murmur on account of the bitter water

Exo 15:23-25

b Water of, sweetened

Exo 15:25

b Journey to Elim

Exo 15:27; Num 33:9

b Itinerary

Num 33

b Murmured for food

Exo 16:2-3

b Provided with manna and quails

Exo 16:4-36

b Murmured for want of water at Rephidim

Exo 17:2-7

b Water miraculously supplied from the rock at Meribah

Exo 17:5-7

b Defeat the Amalekites

Exo 17:13; Deu 25:17-18

b Arrive at Sinai

Exo 19:1; Num 33:15

b At the suggestion of Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, they organize a system of government

Exo 18:25; Deu 1:9-17

b The message of God to them, requiring that they shall be obedient to His commandments, and as a reward they would be to Him a holy nation, and their reply

Exo 19:3-8

b Sanctify themselves for receiving the law

Exo 19:10-15

b The law delivered to

Exo 20; Exo 24:1-4; Exo 25; Lev 1; Lev 27; Deu 5; Deu 15

b The people receive it and covenant obedience to it

Exo 24:3; Exo 24:7

b Idolatry of

Exo 32; Deu 9:17-21

b The anger of the Lord in consequence

Exo 32:9-14

b Moses’ indignation; breaks the tables of stone; enters the camp; commands the Levites; three thousand slain

Exo 32:19-35

b Visited by a plague

Exo 32:35

b Obduracy of

Exo 33:3; Exo 34:9; Deu 9:12-29

b God withdraws His presence

Exo 33:1-3

b The mourning of, when God refused to lead them

Exo 33:4-10

b Tables renewed

Exo 34

b Pattern for the tabernacle and the appurtenances, and forms of worship to be observed

Exo 25

b Gifts consecrated for the creation of the tabernacle

Exo 35; Exo 36:1-7; Num 7

b The erection of the tabernacle; the manufacture of the appurtenances, including the garments of the priests; and their sanctification

Exo 36:8-38; Exo 37

b First sacrifice offered by, under the law

Lev 8:14-36; Lev 9:8-24

b Second Passover observed

Num 9:1-5

b March out of the wilderness

Num 10:11-36

b Itinerary

Num 33

b Order of camp and march

Num 2

b Arrive at the border of Canaan

Num 12:16

b Send twelve spies to view the land

Num 13; Num 32:8; Deu 1:22; Deu 1:25; Jos 14:7

b Return with a majority and minority report

Num 13:26-33; Num 14:6-10

b Murmuring over the report

Num 14:1-5

b The judgment of God upon them in consequence of their unbelief and murmuring

Num 14:13-39

b Reaction, and their purpose to enter the land; are defeated by the Amalekites

Num 14:40-45; Deu 1:41-45

b Abide at Kadesh

Deu 1:46

b Return to the wilderness, where they remain thirty-eight years, and all die except Joshua and Caleb

Num 14:20-39

b Rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram

Num 16:1-40; Deu 11:6

b Murmur against Moses and Aaron; are plagued; fourteen thousand seven hundred die; plague stayed

Num 16:41-50

b Murmur for want of water in Meribah; the rock is smitten

Num 20:1-13

b Are refused passage through the country of Edom

Num 20:14-21

b The death of Aaron

Num 20:22; Num 20:29; Num 33:38-39; Deu 10:6

b Defeat the Canaanites

Num 21:1-3

b Are scourged with serpents

Num 21:4-9

b Defeat the Amorites

Num 21:21-32; Deu 2:24-35

b Defeat the king of Baasha

Num 21:33-35; Deu 3:1-17

b Arrive in the plains of Moab, at the fords of the Jordan

Num 22:1; Num 33:48-49

b Commit idolatry with the people of Moab

Num 25:1-5

b Visited by a plague in consequence; twenty-four thousand die

Num 25:6-15; Num 26:1

b The people numbered for the allotment of the land

Num 26

b The daughters of Zelophehad sue for an inheritance

Num 27:1-11; Jos 17:3-6

b Conquest of the Midianites

Num 31

b Nations dread

Deu 2:25

b Renew the covenant

Deu 29

b Moses dies, and the people mourn

Deu 34:1-12

b Joshua appointed leader

b General references

Num 27:18-23; Deu 31:23 Joshua

b All who were numbered at Sinai perished in the wilderness except Caleb and Joshua

Num 26:63; Num 26:65; Deu 2:14-16

b Piety of those who entered Canaan

Jos 23:8; Jdg 2:7-10; Jer 2:2-3

b Men chosen to allot the lands of Canaan among the tribes and families

Num 34:17-29

b Remove from Shittim to Jordan

Jos 3:1

b Cross Jordan

Jos 4

b Circumcision observed and Passover celebrated

Jos 5:1-15

b Jericho taken

Jos 6

b Ai taken

Joh 7

b Make a league with the Gibeonites

Jos 9

b Defeat the five Amoritish kings

Jos 10

b Conquest of the land

Jos 21:43-45; Jud 1:1

b The land allotted

Joh 15

b Two and one-half tribes return from the west side of the Jordan; erect a memorial to signify the unity of the tribes; the memorial misunderstood; the controversy which followed; its amicable adjustment

Jos 22

b Joshua’s exhortation immediately before his death

Jos 23

b Covenant renewed, death of Joshua

Jos 24; Jdg 2:8-9

b Religious fidelity during the life of Joshua

Jos 24:31; Jdg 2:7

– Under the judges:

b Public affairs administered four hundred and fifty years by the judges

Jdg 2:16-19; Act 13:20

b The original inhabitants not fully expelled

Jdg 1:27-36; Jdg 3:1-7

b Reproved by an angel for not casting out the original inhabitants

Jdg 2:1-5

b People turn to idolatry

Jdg 2:10-23

b Delivered for their idolatry to the king of Mesopotamia during eight years; their repentance and deliverance

Jdg 3:8-11

b Renew their idolatry, and are put under tribute to the king of Moab during eighteen years; repent and are delivered by Ehud; eighty years of peace follow

Jud 3:12-30

b Shamgar resists a foray of the Philistines and delivers Israel

Jdg 3:31

b People again do evil and are put under bonds for twenty years to the king of Syria

Jdg 4:1-3

b Delivered by Deborah, a prophetess, and judged

Jud 1:4-5

b Seven years of bondage to the Midianites; delivered by Gideon

b General references

Jud 1:6-7; Jud 8:1-28 Gideon

b Return to idolatry

Jdg 8:33-34

b Abimelech foments an inter-tribal war

Jud 1:9

b Judged by Tola twenty-three years

Jdg 10:1-2

b Judged by Jair twenty-two years

Jdg 10:3-4

b People backslide, and are given over to the Philistines for chastisement eighteen years; repent and turn to the Lord; delivered by Jephthah

Jdg 10:6-18; Jud 1:11

b Ephraimites go to war against other tribes; defeated by Jephthah

Jdg 12:1-7

b Judged by Ibzan seven years

Jdg 12:8-10

b Judged by Elon ten years

Jdg 12:11-12

b Judged by Abdon eight years

Jdg 12:13-15

b Backslide again and are chastised by the Philistines forty years

Jdg 13:1

b Judged by Samson twenty years

Jud 1:13-16

b Scandal of the Bethlehemite’s concubine, and the consequent war between the Benjamites and the other tribes

Jud 1:19-21

b Judged by Eli forty years

1Sa 1

b Smitten by the Philistines at Ebenezer

1Sa 4:1-2; 1Sa 4:10-11

b Demand a king

1Sa 8:5-20; Hos 13:10

– Under the kings before the separation into two kingdoms:

b Saul anointed king

1Sa 10; 1Sa 11:12-15; 1Sa 12:13

b Ammonites invade Israel, are defeated

1Sa 11:1-15

b Philistines smitten

1Sa 14

b Amalekites defeated

1Sa 15

b David anointed king

1Sa 16:11-13

b Goliath slain

1Sa 17

b Israel defeated by the Philistines, and Saul and his sons slain

b General references

1Sa 31:1-13 Saul

b David defeats the Amalekites

1Sa 30; 2Sa 1:1

b David made king

2Sa 2:4; 2Sa 2:11

b Ish-Bosheth made king

2Sa 2:8-10

b The conflict between the two political factions

2Sa 2:12-32; 2Sa 3:1

b David made king over all Israel

2Sa 5:1-5

b Conquests of David

2Sa 8

b Absalom’s rebellion

2Sa 15 David

b Solomon anointed king

1Ki 1:32-40

b Temple built

1Ki 6

b Solomon’s palace built

1Ki 7

b Solomon’s death

1Ki 11:41-43 Solomon

– The revolt of the ten tribes:

b Foreshadowing circumstances indicating the separation:

b Disagreement after Saul’s death

2Sa 2; 1Ch 12:23-40; 1Ch 13:1-14

b Lukewarmness of the ten tribes, and zeal of Judah for David in Absalom’s rebellion

2Sa 19:41-43

b The rebellion of Sheba

2Sa 20

b The two factions are distinguished as Israel and Judah during David’s reign

2Sa 21:2

b Providential

Zec 11:14

b Revolt consummated under Rehoboam, son and successor of Solomon

1Ki 12

4. The name of the ten tribes that revolted from the house of David

– Called Jacob

Hos 12:2

– List of the kings of Israel, and the period of time in which they reigned:

b Jeroboam, twenty-two years

Jeroboam, 1

b Nadab, about two years

Nadab, 2

b Baasha, twenty-four years

Baasha

b Elah, two years

Elah, 5

b Zimri, seven days

Zimri, 2

b Omri, twelve years

Omri, 1

b Ahab, twenty-two years

Ahab, 1

b Ahaziah, two years

Ahaziah, 2

b Jehoram, twelve years

Jehoram, 2

b Jehu, twenty-eight years

Jehu, 2

b Jehoahaz, seventeen years

Jehoahaz, 1

b Jehoash, sixteen years

Jehoash, 1

b Jeroboam II, forty-one years

Jeroboam, 2

b Zachariah, six months

Zachariah, 1

b Shallum, one month

Shallum, 1

b Menahem, ten years

Menahem

b Pekahiah, two years

Pekahiah

b Pekah, twenty years

Pekah

b Hoshea, nine years

Hoshea, 3

– History of:

b War continued between the two kingdoms all the days:

b Of Rehoboam and Jeroboam

1Ki 14:30

b Between Jeroboam and Abijam

1Ki 15:7

b Between Baasha and Asa

1Ki 15:16; 1Ki 15:32

b Famine prevails in the reign of Ahab

1Ki 18:1-6

b Israel, called Samaria, invaded by, but defeats Ben-Hadad, king of Syria

1Ki 20

b Moab rebels

2Ki 1:1; 2Ki 3

b Army of Syria invades Israel, but peacefully withdraws through the tact of the prophet Elisha

2Ki 6:8-23

b Samaria besieged

2Ki 6:24-33; 2Ki 7

b City of Samaria taken, and the people carried to Assyria

2Ki 17

b The land repeopled

2Ki 17:24

b The remnant that remained after the able-bodied were carried into captivity affiliated with the kingdom of Judah

2Ch 30:18-26; 2Ch 34:6; 2Ch 35:18

– Prophecies concerning:

b Of captivity, famine, and judgments

1Ki 14:15-16; 1Ki 17:1; 1Ki 20:13-28; 2Ki 7:1-2; 2Ki 7:17; 2Ki 8:1; Isa 7:8; Isa 8:4-7; Isa 9:8-21; Isa 17:3-11; Isa 28:1-8; Hos 1:1-9; Hos 2:1-13; Hos 4; Hos 8; Hos 11:5-6; Hos 12:7-14; Hos 13; Amo 2:6-16; Amo 3

b Of Restoration

Hos 2:14-23; Hos 11:9-11; Hos 13:13-14; Hos 14:89

b Of the reunion of the ten tribes and Judah

Jer 3:18; Eze 37:16-22

5. Judah

– The nation composed of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, ruled by the descendants of David

Isa 11:12-13; Jer 4:3

– Called Judah

Judah

– Called Jews

Jews

b In the historical books of the Kings and the Chronicles, the nation is called Judah, but in the prophecies it is frequently referred to as Israel

Isa 8:14; Isa 49:7

– List of rulers and the periods of time over which they reigned:

b Rehoboam, seventeen years

Rehoboam

b Abijah, or Abijam, three years

Abijah; Abijam

b Asa, forty-one years

Asa, 1

b Jehoshaphat, twenty-five years

Jehoshaphat, 3

b Jehoram, eight years

Jehoram, 1

b Ahaziah, one year. (Athaliah’s usurpation, six years)

Ahaziah, 1

b Athaliah’s usurpation, six years

Athaliah, 1

b Joash, or Jehoash, forty years

Joash, 5;

Jehoash, 2

b Amaziah, twenty-nine years

Amaziah, 2

b Uzziah, or Azariah, fifty-two years

Uzziah, 1;

Azariah, 12

b Jotham, sixteen years

Jotham, 2

b Ahaz, sixteen years

Ahaz, 1

b Hezekiah, twenty-nine years

Hezekiah, 1

b Manasseh, fifty-five years

Manasseh, 4

b Amon, two years

Amon, 2

b Josiah, thirty-one years

Josiah, 1

b Jehoahaz, Josiah’s son, three months

Jehoahaz, 3

b Jehoiakim, Josiah’s son, eleven years

Jehoiakim

b Jehoiachin, or Jeconiah, Jehoiakim’s son, three months

Jehoiachin; Jeconiah

b Zedekiah, or Mattaniah, Josiah’s son, eleven years

Zedekiah, 1;

Mattaniah, 1

– History of Judah:

b Rehoboam succeeds Solomon. In consequence of his arbitrary policy ten tribes rebel

1Ki 12

b Other circumstances of his reign

1Ki 14:21-31; 2Ch 10

b Death of Rehoboam

1Ki 14:31

b Abijam’s wicked reign

1Ki 15:1-8; 2Ch 13

b Asa’s good reign

1Ki 15:9-24; 2Ch 14

b Asa makes a league with Ben-Hadad, king of Syria, to make war against Israel

1Ki 15:16-24

b Jehoshaphat succeeds Asa

1Ki 15:24; 2Ch 17; 2Ch 21:1

b Jehoshaphat joins Ahab against the king of Syria

b General references

1Ki 22 Jehoshaphat

b Jehoram, called Joram, reigns in the stead of his father, Jehoshaphat

2Ki 8:16-24; 2Ch 21

b Edom revolts

2Ki 8:20-22

b Ahaziah:

b Called Azariah

b Called Jehoahaz

2Ch 21:17; 2Ch 25:23

b Succeeds Jehoram

2Ki 8:24-29; 2Ch 22:1-12

b Slain by Jehu

2Ki 9:27-29; 2Ch 22:8-9

b Athaliah, his mother, succeeds him

2Ki 11:1-16; 2Ch 22:10-12; 2Ch 23:1-15

b Jehoash, called Joash, succeeds Athaliah

2Ki 11:21; 2Ki 12:1-21; 2Ch 24

b The temple repaired

2Ki 12

b Amaziah reigns, and Judah is invaded by the king of Israel; Jerusalem is taken and the sacred things of the temple carried away

2Ki 14:1-20; 2Ch 25

b Azariah, called Uzziah, succeeds him

2Ki 14:21-22; 2Ki 15:1-7; 2Ch 26

b Jotham succeeds Uzziah

2Ki 15:7; 2Ki 15:32-38; 2Ch 27:1-9

b Rezin, king of Syria, invades Judah

2Ki 15:37

b Jotham is succeeded by Ahaz

2Ki 16:1; 2Ch 28

b Judah is invaded by kings of Samaria and Syria; Ahaz hires the king of Assyria to make war on the king of Syria

2Ki 16:5-9

b Ahaz changes the fashion of the altar in the temple

2Ki 16:10-18

b Hezekiah succeeds Ahaz

2Ki 16:19-20; 2Ch 29

b His good reign

2Ki 18:1-8

b He revolts from the sovereignty of the king of Assyria

2Ki 18:7

b King of Assyria invades Judah, and blasphemes the God of Judah; his army overthrown

2Ki 18:9-37; 2Ki 19

b Hezekiah’s sickness and miraculous restoration

2Ki 20

b Succeeded by Manasseh

2Ki 20:21; 2Ch 33:1-20

b Manasseh’s wicked reign

2Ki 21:1-18

b Amon succeeds Manasseh on the throne

2Ki 21:18-26; 2Ch 33:20-25

b Josiah succeeds Amon; the temple is repaired; the book of the law recovered; religious revival follows; and the king dies

2Ki 22; 2Ki 23:1-30; 2Ch 34

b Josiah is succeeded by Jehoahaz, who reigned three months, was dethroned by the king of Egypt, and the land put under tribute

2Ki 23:30-35; 2Ch 36:1-3

b Jehoiakim is elevated to the throne; becomes tributary to Nebuchadnezzar for three years; rebels; is conquered and carried to Babylon

2Ki 24:1-6; 2Ch 36:4-8

b Jehoiachin is made king; suffers invasion and is carried to Babylon

2Ki 24:8-16; 2Ch 36:9-10

b Zedekiah is made king by Nebuchadnezzar; rebels; Nebuchadnezzar invades Judah, takes Jerusalem, and carries the people to Babylon, despoiling the temple

2Ki 24:17-20; 2Ki 25; 2Ch 36:11-21

b The poorest of the people were left to occupy the country, and were joined by fragments of the army of Judah, the dispersed Israelites in other lands, and the King’s daughters

2Ki 25:12; 2Ki 25:22-23; Jer 39:10; Jer 40:7-12; Jer 52:16

b Gedaliah appointed governor over Judah

2Ki 25:22

b His administration favorable to the people

2Ki 25:23-24; Jer 40:7-12

b Conspired against and slain by Ishmael

2Ki 25:25; Jer 40:13-16; Jer 41:1-3

b Ishmael seeks to betray the people to the Ammonites

Jer 41:1-18

b The people, in fear, take refuge in Egypt

2Ki 25:26; Jer 41:14-18; Jer 42:13-18

– Captivity of Judah:

b Great wickedness the cause of their adversity

Eze 5; Eze 16; Eze 23:22-44

b Dwell in Babylon

Dan 5:13; Dan 6:13; Jer 52:28-30

b Dwell by the river Chebor

Eze 1:1; Eze 10:15

b Patriotism of

Psa 137:1-9

b Plotted against, by Haman

Est 3:1-15

b Are saved by Esther

Est 4

b Cyrus decrees their restoration

2Ch 36:22-23; Ezr 1:1-4

b Cyrus directs the rebuilding of the temple, and the restoration of the vessels which had been carried to Babylon

2Ch 36:23; Ezr 1:3-11

b Proclamation renewed by Darius and Artaxerxes

Ezr 6:1-14

b Ezra returns with seventeen hundred and fifty-four of the captivity to Jerusalem

Ezr 2

b Temple rebuilt and dedicated

Ezr 3

b Artaxerxes issues proclamation to restore the temple service

Ezr 7

b Priests and Levites authorized to return

Ezr 8

b Corruptions among the returned captives; their reform

Ezr 9

b Nehemiah is commissioned to lead the remainder of the captivity, forty-nine thousand nine hundred and forty-two, back to Canaan

Neh 2; Neh 7:5-67; Psa 85:1-13; Psa 87:1-7; Psa 107; Psa 126:1-6

b Wall of Jerusalem rebuilt and dedicated

Neh 2; Neh 12

b The law read and expounded

Neh 8

b Solemn feast is kept; priests are purified; and the covenant sealed

Neh 8

b One-tenth of the people, to be determined by lot, volunteer to dwell in Jerusalem, and the remaining nine parts dwell in other cities

Neh 11

b Catalogue of the priests and Levites who came up with Zerubbabel

Neh 12

b Nehemiah reforms various abuses

Neh 13

b Expect a messiah

Luk 3:15

b Many accept Jesus as the Christ

Joh 2:23; Joh 10:42; Joh 11:45; Joh 12:11; Act 21:20

b Reject Jesus

Jesus, The Christ, Rejected

b Rejected of God

Mat 21:43; Luk 20:16

– Prophecies concerning Judah

b Of their rejection of the messiah

Isa 8:14-15; Isa 49:5; Isa 49:7; Isa 52:14; Isa 53:1-3; Zec 11; Zec 13:1-9; Mat 21:33; Mat 22:1

b Of war and other judgments

Deu 28:49-57; 2Ki 20:17-18; 2Ki 21:12-15; 2Ki 22:16-17; 2Ki 23:26-27; Isa 1:1-24; Isa 3; Isa 4:1; Isa 5; Isa 6:9-13; Isa 7:17-25; Isa 8:14-22; Isa 9; Isa 10:12; Isa 22:1-14; Isa 28:14-22; Isa 29:1-10; Isa 30:1-17; Isa 31:1-3; Isa 32:9-14; Jer 1:11-16; Jer 4:5-31; Jer 6; Jer 7:8-34; Jer 8; Jer 9:9-26; Jer 10:17-22; Jer 11:9-23; Jer 13:9-27; Jer 14:14-18; Jer 15:1-14; Jer 16; Jer 17:1-4; Jer 18:15-17; Jer 19:1-15; Jer 20:5; Jer 21:4-7; Jer 22:24-30; Jer 25:8-38; Jer 28; Jer 34; Jer 37; Jer 38:1-3; Jer 42:13-22; Jer 43; Lam 5:6; Eze 4; Eze 11:7-12; Eze 12; Eze 15; Eze 19:1-14; Eze 22:13-22; Eze 23:22-35; Eze 24; Eze 33:21-29; Dan 9:26-27; Joe 2:1-17; Amo 2:4-5; Mic 2:10; Mic 3:1-12; Mic 4:8-10; Hab 1:6-11; Zep 1; Zec 11; Zec 14:1-3; Mal 4:1; Mat 21:33-34; Mat 23:35-38; Mat 24:2; Mat 24:14-42; Mar 13:1-13; Luk 13:34-35; Luk 19:43-44; Luk 21:5-25; Luk 23:28-31; Rev 1:7

b Dispersion of

Isa 24:1; Jer 9:16; Hos 9:17; Joe 3:6; Joe 3:20; Amo 9:9; Eze 4:13; Eze 5:10; Eze 5:12; Eze 20:23; Eze 36:19; Dan 9:7; Joh 7:35; Act 2:5

b Of blessing and restoration

Isa 1:25-27; Isa 2:1-5; Isa 4:2-6; Isa 11:11-13; Isa 25:1-12; Isa 26:1-2; Isa 26:12-19; Isa 27:13; Isa 29:18-24; Isa 30:18-26; Isa 32:15-20; Isa 33:13-24; Isa 35:1-10; Isa 37:31-32; Isa 40:2; Isa 40:9; Isa 41:27; Isa 44; Isa 49:13-23; Isa 51; Isa 52:1-12; Isa 60; Isa 61:4-9; Isa 62:1-12; Isa 66:5-22; Jer 3:14-18; Jer 4:3-18; Jer 12:14-16; Jer 23:3; Jer 24:1-7; Jer 29:1-14; Jer 30:3-22; Jer 32:36-44; Jer 33; Jer 44:28; Eze 14:22-23; Eze 16:60-63; Eze 20:40-41; Eze 36:1-38; Eze 37:12; Eze 37:21; Dan 11:30-45; Dan 12:1; Joe 3; Amo 9:9-15; Oba 1:17-21; Mic 2:12-13; Mic 5:3; Zep 2:7; Zec 1:14-21; Zec 2:1-13; Zec 8; Zec 10:5-12; Zec 12:1-14; Zec 13:1-9; Zec 14:3-21; Mal 3:4; Rom 11; 2Co 3:16; Rev 7:5

Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible

Israel

Israel (z’ra-el), the prince that prevails with God. 1. The name given to Jacob after his wrestling with the angel at Peniel. Gen 32:28; Hos 12:4. It became the national name of the twelve tribes collectively. They are so called in Exo 3:16 and afterward. It is used in a narrower sense, excluding Judah, in 1Sa 11:8; 2Sa 20:1; 1Ki 12:16. Thenceforth it was assumed and accepted as the name of the northern kingdom. After the Babylonian captivity, the returned exiles resumed the name Israel as the designation of their nation. The name Israel is also used to denote laymen, as distinguished from priests, Levites, and other ministers. Ezr 6:16; Ezr 9:1; Ezr 10:25; Neh 11:3, etc. See Jews.

Fuente: People’s Dictionary of the Bible

Israel

Is’rael. (the prince that prevails with God).

1. The name given, Gen 32:28, to Jacob after his wrestling with the angel, Hos 12:4, at Peniel. Gesenius interprets Israel as “soldier of God”.

2. It became the national name of the twelve tribes collectively. They are so called in Exo 3:16 and afterward.

3. It is used in a narrower sense, excluding Judah, in 1Sa 11:8; 2Sa 20:1; 1Ki 12:16. Thenceforth, it was assumed and accepted as the name of the northern kingdom.

4. After the Babylonian captivity, the returned exiles resumed the name Israel as the designation of their nation. The name Israel is also used to denote lay-men, as distinguished from priests, Levites and other ministers. Ezr 6:16; Ezr 9:1; Ezr 10:25; Neh 11:3; etc.

Fuente: Smith’s Bible Dictionary

Israel

a prince of God, or prevailing, or wrestling with God. This is the name which the angel gave Jacob, after having wrestled with him all night at Mahanaim, or Peniel, Gen 32:1-2; Gen 32:28-30; Hos 12:4. By the name of Israel is sometimes understood the person of Jacob, sometimes the whole people of Israel, the whole race of Jacob; sometimes the kingdom of Israel, or ten tribes, distinct from the kingdom of Judah; and finally, the spiritual Israel, the true church of God.

Fuente: Biblical and Theological Dictionary

Israel

Gen 32:28 (c) In that this is a new name given to Jacob, it is a type of the new relationship of the believer when he trusts CHRIST and becomes a Christian. Israel has been used as a type of the church because they were under the Blood of the Passover Lamb, they had a High Priest, they were separate from the nations, and they confessed that they were pilgrims looking for a city with foundations.

Some types which represent Israel in various aspects:

Adulterers, Hos 7:4 (a)

Bride, Isa 62:5 (a)

Brood, Luk 13:34 (b)

Cake not turned, Hos 7:8 (a)

Caldron, Eze 11:3 (a)

Calves of the stall, Mal 4:2 (a)

Cedar Trees, Num 24:6 (b)

Chickens, Mat 23:37 (a)

Dust, Gen 13:16 (a)

Fig Tree, Mat 24:32 (b)

Great Lion, Num 23:24 (b)

Heifer (backsliding). Hos 4:16 (a)

Jonah, Jon 1:17 (c)

Lign aloes, Num 24:6 (a)

Olive tree, Rom 11:17 (b)

Sand, Gen 22:17 (a)

Seething pot, Jer 1:13 (a)

Sheep of His hand, Psa 95:7 (a)

Sheep of His pasture, Psa 100:3 (a)

Silly dove, Hos 7:11 (a).

Spring of water, Isa 58:11 (a)

Stars, Gen 22:17 (a)

Trees, Psa 104:16 (b)

Unicorn, Num 24:8 (a)

Vine, Eze 15:6 (a)

Virgin, 2Ki 19:21 (b)

Watered garden, Isa 58:11 (a)

Fuente: Wilson’s Dictionary of Bible Types