Israel

VIEW:43 DATA:01-04-2020

who prevails with God
Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary


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 Judæan 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 Aramæans). 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 Abraham’s 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. Müller, 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 ætiological purpose; they explain the origin of some custom or the cause of some physical phenomenon. Thus Gen_18:1-33; Gen_19:1-38—the destruction of Sodom and the other cities of the plain—is 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 Abraham’s 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 Aramæan (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 Aramæans. We can now trace in the cuneiform literature the appearance and westward migration of the Aramæans, 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 Aramæan migration.
The sons of Jacob are divided into four groups. Six—Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun—are 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 Jacob—Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher—are 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 tribes—Reuben, 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 Abrahamidæ—the Edomites, Ammonites, and Moabites—moved 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 Israel’s 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. 1292–1225; cf. Hogarth, Authority and Archæology, 55). It has been customary, therefore, to regard Rameses as the Pharaoh of the oppression, and Menephtah (Meren-ptah, 1225–1215) 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 Winckler’s 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, Jahweh’s 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 Jahweh’s 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 Shephçlah, 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 Judges’—Tola, Jair, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon (Jdg_10:1-5; Jdg_12:8-15)—were not included in the editor’s 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. Gideon’s 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 Deborah’s 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 Judah’s 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 Saul’s 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 Israel’s 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 Saul’s 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 Saul’s 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 Saul’s 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 years—ten or fifteen, probably—and 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 Saul’s 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, Saul’s 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 Israel’s 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 Benjamin—which had in the previous reign been the royal tribe—and Ephraim—which never easily yielded precedence to any other clan—would have regarded him as a Judæan 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 Aramæan 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. David’s 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 David’s 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 David’s 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 Phœnician 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 Solomon’s 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 king’s 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. Solomon’s 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 Solomon’s non-Judæan subjects. His wealth was increased by his commerce with South Arabia. He established a fleet of trading vessels on the Red Sea, manned with Phœnician 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.
Solomon’s reign is said to have continued forty years (1Ki_11:42). If this be so. b.c. 977–937 is probably the period covered. Towards the close of Solomon’s 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 Solomon’s 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 Egypt’s 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 father’s 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 Judæan 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 Israel’s 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 (937–875).—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 i
937–915.
Rehoboam
937–920.
Nadab
915–913.
Abijam
920–917.
Baasha
913–889.
Asa
917–876.
Elah
889–887.
Jehoshaphat
876–.
Zimri
days.
Omri
887–875.
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 Shishak’s 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. Breasted’s 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.
Shishak’s 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 Shephçlah, 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 Judæan 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 Asa’s reign known to us consisted of the erection by Asa’s mother of an ashçrah 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. (875–781).—
The monarchs of this period were as follows:—
Israel.
Judah.
Ahab
875–853.
Jehoshaphat
876–851.
Ahaziah
853–851.
Jehoram
851–843.
Joram
851–842.
Ahaziah
843–842.
Jehu
842–814.
Athaliah
842–836.
Jehoahaz
814–797.
Joash
836–796.
Jehoash
797–781.
Amaziah
796–782.


Azariah (Uzziah)
782–.
With the reign of Ahab we come upon a new period in Israel’s 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 gods—in 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 Judæan king, but was wounded in battle and lost his life. When Ahab died, therefore, the Moabites and Aramæans 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 Jehoshaphat’s last year, leaving the Aramæans 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 Elijah’s 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, Jehoshaphat’s 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 extermina
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909

("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).
Fausset's Bible Dictionary
By Andrew Robert Fausset, co-Author of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's 1888.

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.
Smith's Bible Dictionary
By Dr. William Smith.Published in 1863

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.
Biblical and Theological Dictionary by Richard Watson
PRINTER 1849.

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 Abraham’s 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 Israel’s 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 Israel’s 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
Israel’s first king, Saul, though a good soldier, was a failure as a national and spiritual leader. He was followed by David, who became probably Israel’s 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 Israel’s 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 king’s 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. Jeroboam’s religious system combined Canaanite and Israelite practices, and led to a moral and religious decay that would result in God’s 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 Israel’s official religion (1Ki_16:29-34).
To resist Jezebel’s Baalism, God raised up the prophets Elijah and Elisha. They helped to preserve the faithful minority of believers in Israel and so prevent Israel’s ancient religion from being lost for ever. Part of Israel’s punishment for its acceptance of Jezebel’s 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 Israel’s 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 God’s 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 Israel’s. 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. Alexander’s 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 Herod’s 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 Israel’s 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 God’s chosen people Israel in the physical and national sense, not all were God’s 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. God’s purposes for Israel found their perfect fulfilment in the Messiah, Jesus (see MESSIAH). The nation Israel was Abraham’s 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 God’s 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 Abraham’s offspring through Christ and inherit God’s 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).
Bridgeway Bible Dictionary by Don Fleming
PRINTER 1990.

iz?rā̇-el. See JACOB.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.

Is?rael 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 pr?dial 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 Judah
B.C.
Kings of Israel
Dynasties of Israel
Rehoboam
972
Jeroboam
First
Abijah
957
 
 
Asa
955
 
 
 
954
Nadab
 
 
952
Baasha
Second
 
929
Elah
 
 
928
Zimri, Omri,
Third
 
917
Ahab
Fourth
Jehoshaphat
914
 
 
 
897
Ahaziah
 
 
896
Jehoram
 
Jehoram
889
 
 
Ahaziah
885
 
 
Queen Athaliah
884
Jehu
Fifth
Jehoash
878
 
 
 
855
Jehoahaz
 
 
840
Jehoash
 
Amaziah
838
 
 
 
824
Jeroboam II
 
Uzziah
809
 
 
 
772
Zachariah
 
 
771
Shallum, Menahem
Sixth
 
760
Pekahiah
 
 
758
Pekah
Seventh
Jotham
757
 
 
Ahaz
741
 
 
 
729
Hosea
Eighth
Hezekiah
726
 
 
 
721
Samaria 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 period?we know not how soon?sought 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 Jerusalem?an attack which Jehoash king of Judah averted only by strictly following Asa's precedent?it 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 rising?that 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.
The Popular Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature
by John Kitto.

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)
Wilson's Dictionary of Bible Types
press 1957.

Israel
[not izrcel] (Heb. Yisrael', יַשְׂרָאֵל; Sept. and N.T. Ι᾿σραήλ), 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 (שָׂרַית) With God and man, and prevailed” (comp. Gen_25:10; Hos_12:4). The etymology is therefore clearly from the root שָׂרָה, with the frequent adjunct אֵל, 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. שָׂרָה, 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, Götting. 1851; also Witsii. Δεκάφυλον, 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.

CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores