Three Kings of Israel

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1065, 1 September 1930, Page 14

Three Kings of Israel

SAUL, DAVID AND SOLOMON

Their Reigns and Works

The “Inquiring Layman,” in “John o’ London's Weekly,” summarises some chapters hearing on Hebrew history from Professor Breasted’s book, “Ancient Times: A History of the Early World.” He writes: Hebrew Origins We shall pass over the several hundred thousand years of primitive life and slow progress during which the earliest prehistoric men of Europe reached and passed beyond the stage of savagry. it was between 5,000 B.C. and 3,000 B.C. that man made tho transition from barbarism to civilisation. The oldest civilisation that we know of is that of Egypt and Mesopotamia. As we are only concerned with the history of the Hebrew race we must pass over too the centuries during which Egypt, Babylonia, and Assyria flourished and we come to, say, 1,500 B.C. It is now we begin to hear of the Hebrews for the first time. Other tribes, whose names we find in the Biblical story, the Ammonites, the Moabites, etc., had already been attracted to Palestine and immense tribal movements were in progress. “The Hebrews were all originally men of the Arabian desert, wandering with their their flocks and herds and slowly drifting over into their final home in Palestine. For two centuries (about 1,400 to 1,200 8.C.) their movement from the desert into Palestine continued. Another group of their tribes had been slaves ill Egypt, where they had suffered much hardship under a cruel Pharoali. They were successfully led out of Egypt by their heroic leader Moses, a great national hero whose achievements they never forgot. On entering Palestine the Hebrews found the Canaanites already dwelling there in flourishing towns protected by massive walls. The Hebrews were able to capture only the weaker Canaanite towns. As the rough Hebrew shepherds looked across the highlands of North Palestine they beheld their kindred scattered over far-stretching hill tops, with the frowning walls of many a Canaanite stronghold rising between them.”

find Saul, the first King, a very mun- £ dane King, suffering from jealousy and 1 a growing mania, trying to combat J the Philistines. He had successes, - and he had defeats, but vexations that t began to cloud his mind with a deep t melancholy, or mania. “An evil j spirit from the Lord troubled him.” * David now comes into the picture. It j. matters little wether the version of , David’s first introduction to Saul as < a skilful harp player, which led to his . being brought to the little court to ( soothe the King’s morbid melancholy ] is true, or the other version which , tells that Saul first heard of David as \ “a mighty man of valour and a man of j war.” At any rate, the moving drama of David’s amazing life begins in earnest. Saul sends him to battle against the Philistines and he had great successes, and he became a poimlar hero among the soldiers. Saul, for the moment, is pleased, and marks his aproval by giving his daughter Michal to David in marriage. But Saul becomes morbid, his mood changes, his jealousy and mania overcome him. His darkened mind saw nothing but conspiracy, dangerous ambition, coming danger for himself. He sees David becoming a hero; he must be checked, humiliated, brought low. He must be got out of the way. Saul now incites his son Jonathan, and all ills servants, that they should kill David. Jonathan reasoned with his jealous father and pleaded for reconciliation. David is invited to the King’s house to play again on the harp. The terrible scene that followed Is told in the Old Testament. As David played “the evil spirit was upon Saul as he sat in his house with his javelin in his hand.” Fury or mad frenzy seized the King and “Saul sought to smite David even to the wall with the javelin.” His aim was not true, or David avoided the weapon, which stuck in the wall and quivered there. We need not go on with the rest of the story; it is familiar to all. Saul made further efforts to slay his son- . in-law, but David fled the country and while Saul thirsted for his blood David takes refuge in the Judaean hills. “And everyone that was in distress, and everyone that w-as in debt, and everyone that was discontented gathered themselves unto him; and he became captain over them.” (I. Sam., xxii., 2.) “He lived on plunder and throve on warfare.” Finally he went over to the Philistines and becomes a vassal of the King of Gath. Meanwhile the Philistines are not overcome, and in the end Saul met utter defeat and death upon Mount Gilboa. David's Character The implacable enmity of King Saul now silenced in death, the main obstacle to David’s return to his own people is removed. “For eight or ten years he steered a tortuous course with masterful diplomacy. He flattered his friends, he bribed his enemies, and dexterously used them all to further his ambitions. There were accidental murders and timely assassinations. Abner fell in a blood feud. Ishbaal (heir to the throne) lost his head by treachery. David buried them both with tears. At the end of the decade he emerged from the mire of bloodshed and sordidness, smiling, triumphant, and what is most astonishing, with the goodwill of all parties behind him.” As the King of Israel he now determines to free his eoun- : try from Philistine domination; they had had a crushing defeat at the ! hands of Egypt. Rid of the Philistine menace, King David turned his atten- ■ tion to aggressive warfare. ; The life of David has two sides to i it —his personal life and his political i life. He was a great warrior and a i great organiser, a strong man and a ' supreme ruler who commanded the ' loyalty and affection of his “mighty i men.” He welded the various tribes - into one kingdom and “established a dynasty which was expected to eni dure for ever.” He made Jerusalem i his capital, and he laid the founda- > tion of the Israelite empire. : His personal character is another i thing. Those were frankly barbaric 1 times. David was no paragon of vir- ; tue, no “man after God’3 own heart” - as regards piety and righteousness, s only in the sense that he was a strong - man and a vigorous administrator—a ! man after the heart of Y’ahveh, the - Hebrew tribal war god. His crimes - were many, and the Old Testament never tjeats David’s sins lightly. The > outraged moral sense of the people • was expressed through Nathan the > Prophet. No doubt he acted in true ! Oriental fashion when he marked “the p fresh increase of his power by ini creasing his harem.” The greatest : blemish on his character was his in- ; trigue with Bathsheba, the wife of [ one of his own officers; to conceal i his guilt and to take Bathsheba into his own household, the offended hus--1 band was ordered to be put “in the J forefront of the hottest battle” to ensure his death. His misdeeds and ' moral decay made the later days of J David's life a long and tragic story. s King Solomon Solomon, his son by Bathsheba, , reigned in hi 3 stead. He begins his reign in true Oriental fashion by re- , moving possible rivals. Much blood , had to be shed. Plis elder, half- - brother is executed. Joab, one of David’s “mighty men,” is slain on the steps of the altar. Of Bathsheba it is truly enough said, “little she recked of trailing her robes in blood-stained tracks if the path she followed only j led to her end,” and Bathsheba’s in-. fluence on her son Solomon was not ! the best. He was a wasteful and , oppressive monarch, and “with the reign of Solomon the brief glory of , the Hebrews ends.” The kingdom 1 was split into two parts before it was ’ a century old. Thanks to Solomon. ; Of Solomon legends there is no end; • they form a vast mythology showing l how his greatness haunted the imagin- . ation of Eastern peoples. The extent i of his harem does not imply moral . reproach, for those were the days of ’ polygamy. His “wisdom” was not - of that order inculcated by great re- : ligious teachers and prophets; his > “wisdom” does not represent piety, the . fear or love of any Divine Being. These l virtues were not a predominating - feature in the life of Solomon. He . was tho worldliest if also the wisest i of men, a man of superior wisdom, . of sure discernment and quick judgment. sagacity, and an able judge. . Another writer has summed it up: - “He sought his own glory far more , than his people’s good. He had prei ferred low aims to high, and could . not fail to be conscious thereof. He - had not made Israel a thoroughly con- , solidated nation. He had talked wis- : dom and practised folly. He had through selfishness failed to take ad- > vantage of the precious gifts and grand

These rude and semi-barbarous tribes wander with their flocks and herds into tho land of the Canaanites who possessed a civilisation 1,500 years old, with comfortable houses, government, industries, trade, writing and religion—“a civilisation which the rude Hebrew shepherds were soon adopting; for they could not avoid intercourse with the • unsubdued Canaanite towns, as trade and business threw them together. This mingling with the Canaanites produced the most profound changes in the life of the Hebrews. Most of them left their tents and began to build houses like those of the Canaanites; they put off the rough sheepskin they had worn in the desert, and they, put on fine Canaanite raiment of gaily-coloured woven wool. After a time, in appearance, occupation, and manner of life the Hebrews were not to be distinguished from the Canaanites among whom they now lived. In short, they had adopted Canaanite civilisation, just as newlyarrived immigrants among us soon adopt our clothing and our ways. Indeed, as the Hebrews intermarried with the Canaanites, they received enough Hittite blood to acquire the Hittite type of face. “These changes did not proceed everywhere at the same rate. The Hebrews in the less fertile South were more attached to the old desert life, so that many would uot give up the tent and the old freedom of the desert. The wandering life of the nomad shepherd on the Judaean hills could still be seen from the walls of Jerusalem. Here, then, were two differiug modes of life among the Hebrews: in the fertile North of Palestine we find the settled life of the town and its outlying fields; in tho South, on the other hand, the wandering life of the nomad still went on. For centuries this difference formed an important cause of discord among the Hebrews.” About this time, then, tho Hebrews enter history. According to Jewish tradition Abraham was, of course, the founder of the Jewish nation. At the present time British archaeologists are busy digging at Ur, “the City of Abraham,” in the hope of discovering relics of the Patriarch’s life there (perhaps 1,800 8.C.). Just as little is known, however, of an historical Abraham as of the Mosea reputed to have led a handful of nomad and adventurous people out of Egypt to their destiny in new lands; and that is nothing. It is with recorded history we have to deal. The Hebrews make headway. At this time the land of Canaan was experiencing troublous times, for the Philistines, a Mediterranean people, had come on the scene, migrating from the island of Crete to the south-west corner of Palestine. With these Philistines the Hebrews began a long struggle for the coveted “promised laud.” These Philistines were a civilised and warlike nation, and we find the Hebrews, under their local leaders, or judges, as they were called, at war with them. But the judges found it hard to unite the scattered tribes into a solid nation. The last of the judges was Samuel; in his time there had been a succession of failure and disasters, and near the end of his rule the people refused to obey his voice; they said: “We will have a King to rule over us; that we also may be like all the nations; and that our King may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.” The Three Kings And so we come to what may be regarded as historical events in the lives of the three Kings, Saul, David, and Solomon. Saul was a popular leader, and succeeded in gaining for himself the office of King. He was a Southerner who still loved the old uomad customs; he had no fixed abode, and dwelt in a tent. The story of these three Kings does not differ from the story of most other Kings. Not one of them was “a man after God’s own heart” in the true religious sense. The story of Saul is an unhappy, pathetic story, even the prophets were bitterly hostile; that of King David, the stormy story of a very ambitious worldly man; with King Solomon it is difficult to disentangle fact from legend. It is clear that anyone who would try to extract plain authentic history from the Old Testament historical books must separate the narrative of secular events from the later imported religious and literary elements, and the kind of sanctity associated with it as the Bible. As the late W. L. Courtney says: “Directly this embargo is removed the whole aspect of affairs is changed, nor is the result so dreadful as some simple religious minds suppose.” It is only then indeed that we realise its true nature and the inestimably great book it is. At the point we have reached wg

opportunities tor usefulness which Jehovah had granted to him. It is not surprising, therefore, that both in Kings and Chronicles, when his death i 3 recorded, he should, notwithstanding all the glory he had gained, receive no word of commendation. All that is said is that ‘he slept with his fathers and was buried in the city of David, his father.’ ”

Such were the three Kings of Israel; not one of them notable for moral greatness, noble thoughts, nor high aims. Not after Solomon’s death, when the Hebrew nation was rent in two (Israel, the Northern Kingdom, and Judah, the Southern), did any great ruler of moral stature rise. “The tale of wars, of religious conflicts, of usurpations, assassinations, and of fratricidal murders to secure the throne goes on for three centuries. It is a tale frankly barbaric. Israel wars with Judah and the neighbouring States; forms alliance first with one and then with the other. The power of Armean Syria burns like a baleful star over the affairs of the Hebrews; and then there rises behind it the great and growing power of the last Assyrian Empire.”