Page images
PDF
EPUB

on a false report that his grandmother had been a captive in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, Alexander resented so highly, that his wrath was scarcely appeased by the blood of six thousand Israelites, whom he slew in his rage.1

Certain exterior advantages-or rather the absence of certain bodily imperfections-seem also to have been regarded as essential to the possessor of the throne. We have seen, in the case of Saul, that his eminent stature materially contributed to his nomination and acceptance; and in the account of the appointment of David to the throne, the beauty of his person is emphatically indicated. The Scripture itself, as we have already seen, is far from sanctioning this class of ideas; and some of the most eminent men of ancient times were subject to infirmities: Moses had a stammering tongue; Jacob was lame; Isaac was blind; yet they were not the less chiefs of the chosen race, and men honoured of God.

Looking to the position which the Hebrew king occupied, it was of course impossible for him to possess the power of introducing any new object or mode of religious worship. The kings of other nations performed the functions of priests on great occasions; but although more than one Hebrew king evinced a disposition to assume this power, it was entirely unlawful, except the king were of the family of Aaron, as was the case with the Maccabæan or Asmonæan sovereigns, who, therefore, rightfully discharged the functions of the priesthood.

So far from being allowed to make any alteration in the religious worship of the people, the king was required, as the servant and minister of the Lord, to be watchful in all respects over its conservation, and to repress all tendency to change. He was to be the champion of the law against the encroachments of idolatry, and he was deeply responsible for any neglect of this high and solemn duty. He was required to be himself most strict in his observance of the law; and that he might be well acquainted with it, he was required to make a transcript of the authentic copy in the possession of the priests,

1 JOSEPHUS, Antiq. xiii. 13, 5. See also De Bell. Jud. i. 4. 3.

and to read therein all the days1 of his life, that he might learn to fear Jehovah his God, to keep all the words of the law, that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren;' that is, that he should be no arbitrary despot, whose only law is his own pleasure.

That his heart might not be lifted up in kingly pride, it was further directed, that he should eschew the pernicious luxury to which oriental monarchs have in all ages been prone. An effectual check upon this was provided, and at the same time a powerful motive to oppressive exactions upon his subjects. was taken away by the interdiction of the accumulation of large treasures; neither was he to adopt that usual accompaniment of eastern state—a numerous haram. Besides the other and obvious disadvantages of such establishments, many of the women in such cases are always foreigners; and it was to be feared that the servant of God might be led to regard idolatry with favour through their influence. This actually happened in the case of Solomon.

Furthermore, as the object of preserving the Israelites as a separate people in Canaan was incompatible with views of extended empire, the king was forbidden to maintain large bodies of cavalry, which were in that age chiefly used in such undertakings. In fact, to strike at the root of the danger, the breeding and possession of horses may be said to have been discouraged. This could be no great hardship in Palestine, the mountainous character of which, together with the difficult 1 It has been questioned whether the king was to copy the whole of the law entire, or only the abstract of it given in the book of Deuteronomy. The latter is the sense given in the Septuagint and the Vulgate, as well as by some Jewish commentators of authority; but the prevailing opinion among the Rabbis, and, we think, among Christian writers, is in favour of the whole law being understood. In SCHICKARD's learned work, De Jure Reg. Hebræorum, theor. v. p. 9 et seq., ample details may be found from the Rabbinical writers, as to what was understood to be the manner in which this royal copy of the law was to be made, the characters, the pages, the lines, the dimensions, the divisions, the material of the volume, its covering, the preparation of the ink, the inscription of the name of Jehovah, the copying of the poetry contained in these sacred books, and various other

matters.

passes which continually occur, renders, even to this day, the horse of less use and value there than in the neighbouring countries.

It will be seen that some of those wise regulations were more or less neglected by many of the kings; and it will also be seen that this neglect brought down upon themselves and their people, the very dangers and evils which they were designed to avert.1

It is especially worthy of note here, that the words in which the Israelites demand a king are identical with those used in the prophetic picture in Deut. xvii. 14: 'When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me? Every change in events, however sudden and unexpected humanly speaking, was foreseen and provided for of God.

It is said that, immediately after Saul's election, 'Samuel told the people the manner of the kingdom.' The word translated 'manner' signifies 'law;' and Samuel's discourse appears to have been a definite explanation of the place which the earthly monarchy held in relation to the theocracy,—the precise duties which the king owed to the heavenly King on the one hand, and to the people on the other. It will be observed that it is not 'the law of the king' which was explained, but 'the law of the kingdom,' or rather of 'the monarchy.' In the Septuagint version the word is rendered 'statute' (dixaíopa), and in the Vulgate 'law.' Josephus takes a different view of it. He represents Samuel's document as a prophetical statement of the evils that would result from kingly rule, and a protest against its establishment. The high probability is, that it was as Dr Kitto has represented it. Samuel wrote it in a book, and deposited it where the sacred books were then kept'before the Lord.' No such book has come down to us. In all

1 On the subject of this day's Reading, the following works have been looked into, and may be consulted with advantage by the reader : SCHICKARD, Jus Regium Hebræorum e tenebris Rabbinicis erutum, Leipzig 1674; JAHN, Biblische Archæologie, Wien 1805; PASTORET, Legislation des Hebreux, Paris 1817; SALVADOR, Histoire des Institutions de Moise et du Peuple Hebreux, Paris 1828; HULLMANN, Staatsverfassung der Israeliten, Leipzig 1834.

likelihood, it was just an expanded and authoritative comment on Deut. xvii. 15-20.

Thirty-first Week—Third Day.

THE KING AROUSED.—I SAMUEL XI. 1-8.

In the choice of representatives for our own senate, it is remarkable that, in the majority of cases, the impulse of popular excitement, as manifested by the show of hands at the nomination, is not in accordance with the result of the election. We need not therefore be surprised to learn, that, notwithstanding the enthusiasm with which the appearance of Saul had been hailed, there was so wide-spread a dissatisfaction at his appointment, that he was suffered to withdraw to his own house, and almost to return into private life. This had been the case, but that a few kindly-disposed and faithful men attached themselves to his person, and remained with him; and these he seems to have been able to maintain, by means of the 'presents' which some of the people brought in testimony of their homage and respect. But a very considerable proportion of the people—a large minority, if not a majority—said, 'How shall this man save us?' And they despised him, and brought him no presents. The source of their discontent it is not difficult to trace to the obscurity of the person on whom the crown had fallen, with the absence of tried character and experience, which they thought themselves entitled to look for in an elected king; and something of it may have been due to the sheepish and unregal deportment of Saul in hiding himself' among the stuff,' instead of meeting with manly dignity the call of God and the people.

It is emphatically remarked, that Saul 'held his peace.' That was kingly. He was content to bide his time. He knew that the state of affairs around must soon afford him an opportunity of acquiring the personal consideration he yet lacked; and he felt that any show of resentment and bald assertion of his authority till then, would only expose him to derision.

The opportunity he must have greatly desired was very soon afforded. The Ammonites on the east of the Jordan began to move. That people had ere this recovered the effects of the terrible overthrow they sustained in the time of Jephthah; and feeling their own strength, and beholding the apparent weakness of Israel, they judged the time to be favourable for the sharp avengement of that never-forgotten blow, and for the recovery of those territories east of the Jordan which they still regarded as rightfully their own, notwithstanding the ability with which, first by arguments and next by blows, Jephthah had of old disposed of their claim.

They appeared suddenly in great force before the town of Jabesh-gilead. The inhabitants were in no condition to make any effectual resistance, and therefore offered to surrender on terms. This the Ammonite king, whose name was Nahash, refused on any other conditions than that he should put out all their right eyes-not only that he might thereby disqualify them for the use of arms, but, avowedly, that the fact might remain as a brand of infamy upon the whole nation. Appalled by this barbarous stipulation, yet not seeing how to resist, they begged and obtained a truce of a week, at the expiry of which they would accept of these hard terms, unless some relief in the meantime arrived. Some surprise has been felt that he who breathed nothing but disgrace and ruin against the Israelites, should have yielded to the people of Jabesh even this short respite, and have thus subjected himself to the risks of delay. But here we may avail ourselves of the probably accurate information of the Jewish historian,1 that the besieged had already sent to implore the assistance of the two and a half tribes beyond the Jordan, and that none had dared to stir a hand for their relief. So, there being little likelihood that the ten tribes west of the river, who were at a still greater distance, and less immediately affected than the nearer tribes, could bring any aid in so short a time, Nahash might in that confidence, and as a further manifestation of his scorn, the more easily grant the beleaguered citizens the respite they

1 JOSEPHUS, Antiq. vi. 5.

« PreviousContinue »